Amplify’d from www.digitaljournal.com

Opinion: Lady Warsi, Islamophobia and 'social acceptability'

Tory MP Baroness Warsi has set tongues wagging in Britain by saying that Islamophobia has “passed the dinner-table test” and is seen by many as normal and uncontroversial. Her speech was provocative, which is precisely why she was right to deliver it. Sayeeda Hussain Warsi was born to Pakistani parents who emigrated from Bewal, Gujar Khan, Pakistan to England and is now a Baroness, life peer, MP, Minister without Portfolio and current co-chairperson of the Conservative Party. She is also the first Muslim woman to serve in a British cabinet. Her remarks were given during a speech at Leicester University on Thursday in which she attacked what she considers to be growing religious intolerance in Britain, especially towards Muslims. After declaring that describing Muslims as being either "moderate" or "extremist can lead to misunderstanding and intolerance, she promised that she would use her influence to fight a "battle against bigotry." Examples she gave to illustrate her point included; “In the school, the kids say: 'The family next door are Muslim but they’re not too bad’. And in the road, as a woman walks past wearing a burka, the passers-by think: 'That woman’s either oppressed or is making a political statement’.” She also said - as she has often said in the past - that terrorist offences committed by a small number of Muslims should not be used to condemn all who follow Islam, and on the subject of religion as a whole she considered that ""the patronising, superficial way faith is discussed in certain quarters, including the media" for making Britain a less tolerant place for believers." The result was of course predictable. The Telegraph said that her speech was "selfish and wrong", arguing that of course there are moderate and extremist Muslims and that if she can criticize terrorists then why shouldn't the rest of British society be able to do so without being called racist? The Guardian finds that she should not have put so much emphasis on Islam at the expense of racism in general, and it too insists that it is unrealistic to claim that Muslims cannot be divided into moderates and extremists. The same kind of thing can be read in many papers, with comment and opinion raising questions about her suitability to talk about such matters given her privileged background and her sweeping generalities about Islamophobia being socially accepted. But although her speech was by no means perfect, she was quite right to make it because the criticisms (and I have one or two myself) are opening up like Russian Dolls to reveal other issues, issues that should be discussed, and in my view the most central of them involves separating Religious dogma from personal beliefs and faith. Although attacking Islam for actions carried out in its name is legitimate, using the pretext of Islam to criticize Muslims as a whole is not, just as criticizing Christianity or the bible is not a legitimate reason to attack Catholics or Jews as a whole. And this means that although attacks on Christianity as a faith by Muslims are not perceived to be menacing by many Westerners (as long as it is peaceful) Muslims must accept that others may criticise Islam or Mohamed without being called racist or without a Fatwa being taken out. Neither side can have it both ways. The difference is important because as soon as the lines become blurred racism sharpens its focus. People have the right in a free society to hold opinions on religions without having proselytism to contend with or accusing demands such as "Have you read the Koran?" or "Have you read the Bible?" shoved down their throats. I haven't read either since I was a boy and have no intention of doing so, but that doesn't stop me criticizing Islamic terrorism or the Pope and nor shall it. Religious bigotry exists and I am not going to fall into the trap of having to justify that position. Yes it is wrong that the Catholic Church abuses the guilt it instills in people, yes it is wrong to bestow the kind of power it does on priests that led to a worldwide pedophilia scandal, and it is appalling that the Vatican is one of the biggest stock market investors in the world whilst its flock are poor. But it is equally wrong to deny girls and women an education and jobs in some Muslim countries, just as it is wrong to kill people for blasphemy or hang homosexuals or bomb civilians for apostasy. These things need to be said and it is not being racist to say them. What is racist is to criticize Muslims for "taking our jobs" as is the case in Europe and to blame them for rising crime rates whilst at the same time refusing to employ them thus condemning them to relatively poor living standards. It is also racist to force Christians of foreign origin out of Baghdad and attack them. It is racist to accuse any religious or ethnic group of people as a whole of any supposed collective wrongdoing or antisocial behavior. The challenge here is to know how to draw the fine line between criticizing the excesses of religion without stigmatizing all of its followers, because that is the tipping point which leads to racist attitudes. Read more at www.digitaljournal.com

 

See this Amp at http://amplify.com/u/bndx9