More from Maajid Nawaz’s book Radical.
From Chapter 9, “12,000 Muslims Screaming ‘Khilafah‘!” He’s talking about how HT was able to have so much success at Newham college, having won election to all the Student Union posts.
We disguised our political demands behind religion and multiculturalism, and deliberately labeled any objection to our demands as racism. [p 69]
That sums it up right there, doesn’t it. That explains why so much of the left still falls all over itself sucking up to Islamism: it’s because it thinks the only alternative is racism, or at the very least being accused of racism. Maajid goes on to spell that out too.
Even worse, we did this to the very generation who had been socialist sympathizers in their youth, people sympathetic to charges of racism, who like [the student affairs manager] Dave Gomer were now in middle-career management posts. It is no wonder then that the authorities were unprepared to deal with politicized religion as ideological agitation; they felt racist if they tried to stop us. [p 69]
And the cynical shits used that.
The default liberal position was to embrace the movement as part of multicultural sensitivity: to tell people to stop practicing their faith was imperialism in nineties clothing, a colonial hangover bordering on racism. Instead, we were embraced as a new generation of anti-colonial politicized youth. [p 70]
And still are, and still are. As Maajid of course is very well aware.
“anti-colonial”
Except for that whole global caliphate thing. But other than that, yeah, totally anti-colonial.
I have to say that with the notable exception of this, and a few other blogs, I am quite disillusioned with mainstream activism (not that your blog is mainstream, but you see what I mean!)
I’m disillusioned with mainstream feminism for failing to confront the veiling of women.
I’m disillusioned with the animal rights movement for failing to confront the ritual slaughter of animals.
I’m disillusioned with the left because in general it supports patriarchal theocracy.
What do these three have in common? It seems that you can justify any awful practice (and not be challenged) as long as it’s a ‘sincerely held religious belief’. There are lots of innocuous practices in many religions, but these aren’t three of them.
It’s interesting that now that we have redefined FGM as a cultural rather than a religious practice, the mainstream left feel it’s ok to challenge it… (Though their view still seems tentative at best, as they look nervously over their shoulders).
Why, amongst all human philosophical systems, does religion hold this invulnerable position?
:@2: apparently at some point this idea got embedded in a lot of people’s minds that “We have to respect people’s deeply held beliefs”. I really don’t know where that came from but it’s done an awful lot of damage. I read Ophelia because she does such an excellent job of articulating why no, actually, we do not have to respect deeply held beliefs when those beliefs are wrong and harmful.
hmm, well, religion isn’t JUST a philosophical system (depending on your definition of religion?).
one of the things that holds their philosophies together is the unsupported truth claims, i think.
also, the widely held notion that religion is vital for civilization to exist.
Why, amongst all human philosophical systems, does religion hold this invulnerable position?
I think it’s hangover from the European wars of religion (i.e Catholics v. Protestants). The peace only came when authorities agreed to disagree with their subjects, and the nobility of giving a pass to “deeply held/sincere religious beliefs” was constructed (at least for fellow Christians; other religious groups share in the bonhomie only sporadically).
Sarah, there’s more to it than respect for awful religious practices. Belief trumps awfulness only when the victims are women or girls. Or animals. Same thing in their minds no doubt. Those creatures belonging to the household, y’know. The not-people.
To get a sense of the attitude when a group emerges into peopledom, consider the left’s contempt for gay-bashing on religious grounds. Which is as it should be. I’m just trying to point up the lack of similar urgency when the targets are female.
Sarah @#2:
I am ‘religious’ if my life is ordered by some manual of proscribed behaviour, like the Bible or the Koran. That is, if I have submerged myself into a ‘community’ so far that my life is not my own, but theirs. Inevitably, this means acceptance and conformity: ‘if you want to belong, you had better behave as you should; as we do.’
There are plenty of activists out there who oppose cruel halal slaughter practices, FGM and the rest of it. As for the ‘mainstream left’: it accommodated itself for years with communist dictatorships, so what’s so new if it beds itself down with Islamic fascists?
Think for yourself, and act as your own woman. You will always find soulmates.
It’s interesting that now that we have redefined FGM as a cultural rather than a religious practice, the mainstream left feel it’s ok to challenge it… (Though their view still seems tentative at best, as they look nervously over their shoulders).
I’ve always thought the distinction between ‘religious’ and ‘cultural’ is bullshit unless we are talking about secular societies.
It’s like separating ‘law ‘ from culture, or ‘economics’ from culture, or ‘art’ from culture.
Culture is an umbrella term for a huge number of social phenomena.
Or otherwise vulnerable or helpless. Circumcising infant boys comes into this category I would have thought. Along with “discipline” of children generally.