Main Edition
US
FR
Lee Anderson was recently suspended by the Conservative Party (JUSTIN TALLIS/AFP via Getty Images)
Sometime during the late 20th century, the Irish Republican movement decided to align itself with the Palestinian cause in an attempt to build — as they saw it — a kind of global anti-colonial alliance. In response, the Loyalist movement started to fly Israeli flags over Belfast’s Lower Shankill and, in recent months, have been quick to draw parallels between Hamas and the IRA.
During highly sectarian Celtic-Rangers football matches, Palestinian and Israeli flags are regularly seen in the stands. I would wager very few of these people have been to either Ramallah or Tel Aviv. I bet they know next to nothing about Islam or Judaism or care about them very much; they just want to co-opt someone else’s conflict and make it a part of their own. And viewing the politics of the Middle East through the lens of The Troubles is a recipe for confusion. As if the politics of Northern Ireland weren’t difficult enough, to see it refracted through another fiercely complicated rivalry thousands of miles away is just crazy. You hijack all the emotion and contribute nothing towards understanding.
The current unrelenting back and forth about Islamophobia between the Labour and Conservative parties represents something depressingly similar. The Tories know that the Left has a structural weakness when it comes to antisemitism. Jeremy Corbyn’s friendship with Hamas and all the “from the river to the sea” raging on the streets mark a horrendous blind spot, where those who pride themselves as anti-racists also align themselves with one of the most racist ideologies in history. The Left fires back, tit for tat, accusing the Tories of Islamophobia, but also rightly pointing out that much of the Right’s anxiety about immigration is cast as a suspicion of Islam and of being replaced by some threatening Other. If you squint, this is what you see: the Tories as Team Israel, and Labour as Team Palestine. It’s about as insightful as an Old Firm derby. A plague on both their houses.
Part of the problem is that modern secular politics wants to reframe all religious and historical differences as divisions over race. Thus, anxieties over the presence of Islamic fundamentalists on our streets are too often cast as a form of racism. Of course, there may well be racism at play in how some people describe Muslims of Middle Eastern origin — but, in and of itself, pushing back against those who wish to promote a radical form of Islam, sometimes intimidating those who think differently, is not a question of race but of ideology, or indeed theology. Race is not always the foundational moral category.
Consider the recent case of Lee Anderson. The MP for Ashfield has been suspended by the Tories for saying that “Islamists” had “got control” of London and its Mayor, Sadiq Khan. The script in response, carefully written by Tory spin doctors, is not to answer questions about whether this was Islamophobic but simply to admit that it was wrong. “We agree it was wrong,” said Nick Ferrari, interviewing minister Michael Tomlinson yesterday morning. “But why was it wrong?” The following exchange was highly instructive. “Nick, it was wrong,” replied Tomlinson. Ferrari quickly interjected: “Why was it wrong?” Tomlinson wouldn’t answer; he just repeated himself. In the end, after several attempts to ask the same question, Ferrari cut him off. All seemed to agree it was wrong — but why?
Khan himself tried to explain. It was a trope, he said. Now, we all know the trope about Jews controlling the world and being puppet-masters — that is an old and familiar one. But I must admit I hadn’t come across that same trope about Islamists, or even Muslims, controlling the world. So I had a little rummage around the internet, but couldn’t actually find anything. The familiar tropes are that Muslims are inherently violent, oppressive to women, intolerant, medieval and so on. Perhaps “Muslims are taking over” is a kind of trope, but nonetheless, I couldn’t help thinking that Kahn was himself just borrowing a trope well known to Jews and just applying it to Muslims. So, back to Ferrari’s question: what was wrong with it?
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeI was thinking this was quite an impressive article by Giles Fraser, with plenty of insight into the current ‘battle of tropes’ (if i may call it that) between antisemitism on the left and islamophobia on the right. But then, he finished with this:
Really? Since when? Isn’t that what the Church of England and the leaders of other religions are meant to do? Coming from a churchman, quite astonishing in its implied failure of moral leadership from his own sphere. And, why would we expect moral leadership from politicians, of all people? What could possibly qualify them in such matters? What life experience, what training?
His premise that there needs to be a “…space in which we can discuss some of the most difficult issues of our day without dripping poison into the wound…” is perfectly sound but since the nature of political life in the UK is set up as an adversarial activity, political parties would be the last entities to appeal to for guidance on how to conduct a more forthright while civilised debate.
“And, why would we expect moral leadership from politicians, of all people? ”
What’s the alternative? Politicians are in positions of leadership (making our laws etc.) and it would be nice if they modelled moral leadership rather than immoral leadership. We get drowned in examples of immoral behaviour every time we pick up a newspaper or turn on the TV, so can we not expect our leaders to try to uphold high standards of behaviour. If you’re trusted by the community with a leadership position, it’s because we expect (or hope) that you will act & speak with integrity, based on a strong sense of knowing what’s right.
Totally agree. I absolutely expect moral leadership from our politicians. In fact, immoral political leadership would be a disaster for constituents. I don’t expect them to be infallible, but they should try to lead a moral life.
Sounds like the triumph of hope over experience
Don’t be naive, today’s political leaders can only carefully crawl through the minefield of political correctness. The situation reminds me of an old Soviet joke:
A crowd is standing in a puddle of manure, everyone is up to their ears in manure. Suddenly someone shouts “How long!” and everyone around is hissing “Hush, hush… You will raise a wave and we will all drown”
There’s a distinction to be drawn between ‘being moral’ in themselves and their legislative programme and setting themselves up as ‘moral leaders’, which is pertinent to my point. I suspect you’re conflating the two.
Moral leaders in effect are defining ‘what is moral’ i.e. what is right and good. Politicians who try to do that should be treated with the utmost suspicion; it’s the modus operandi of dictators.
Fully agree with most of that. I was shocked (but not surprised) by the use of the reason for the castigation of Lee Anderson: “what he said was wrong'” is an example of your second paragraph. The obvious lack of any idea why ‘it was wrong’ speaks to a view that they can – and are right to – just define the difference. That was the aspect which I found most disturbing in the response, rather than it just having no intellectual coherence.
As for being moral in themselves, I have long since given up expecting that of them (accepting there are probably some exceptions).
“Moral leaders in effect are defining ‘what is moral’ i.e. what is right and good.”
Steve, I’m not sure if you’re British, but I think the British Parliament is, or soon will be, debating and creating laws about abortion and voluntary assisted dying. In those debates I’m sure they will be trying to define ‘what is right and good’, and create laws accordingly. Their leadership on the issues will influence others, thus I call them moral leaders.
Yes i’m British; but no, i disagree with your claim that in debating legislation on such matters as abortion and voluntary assisted dying our politicians will be seeking to define ‘what is right and good’. What they’ll be doing is seeking to pass legislation with the intention of defining the (often competing) rights of individuals, interest groups and the state. In reality, that’s all they can, or should, be doing. Trying to set a moral exemplar is casting a hostage to fortune; legislation changes over time as with the very issues you’ve cited, whereas ‘what is right and good’ really should not be subject to the winds of change.
I’m sure – on reflection – you might agree with that.
Perhaps I haven’t reflected long enough, but I still disagree. In Western Australia we recently had parliamentary debates on those topics (we now have VAD and very liberal abortion laws) and I can assure you the MPs were debating what is morally right and good. And I do think what is considered, or interpreted as, right and good does change – in my lifetime we have decided that capital punishment was morally wrong/unjust and same-sex marriage is morally right/just.
Australia is, for the most part, progressive, liberal, and open to change. My family lives there but I’m, unfortunately, not able to. I wish that I could because I believe it’s, now, the most quality of life place to live.
That, along with Russell Hamilton’s reply is the nub of the problem.
For the last thousand years or so ‘we’, in Britain, have had, for better or for worse, a central moral philosophy from which to draw our notions of right and wrong, to guide us and frame our laws. That underpinning framework is being challenged, like never before, not only by ‘outsiders ’ with ‘different’ cultural and moral values ( with some, all be it a tiny, if disproportionate fraction, happy, and willing, to enforce that through violence and intimidation), but also a very real loss of faith, both practical and religious, in the ‘moral direction’ from the country’s leaders, and opinion formers, that will shape the country of the future. It stands to reason, that if increasing numbers of political, and leadership, positions are filled with people who have been brought up with a different notion of what is ‘moral’, backed up by an ever larger community of ‘faithful’ adherents, with a strong guiding moral compass, then they will colour, and possibly/probably favour, that philosophy over one that has, seemingly increasingly, lost its relevance.
Please remember there are violent and intimidating people in all cultural groups, and I cite the EDL. White British nationalists. Let’s be honest.
Picking on minorities and generalising is part of the problem as people believe the propaganda. There are too many minority groups being misrepresented at present.
The difference is that no-one takes the EDL seriously, but politicians are deferential to minority groups.
We had the same here in the US. BLM thugs were treated like noble civil rights protesters from Selma, Alabama, while January 6 rioters were locked up for years without trial. There are double standards at work here. This is the fallout of woke ideology where crimes are tolerated or penalized based on who commits them.
Rubbish. The January 6 rioters weren’t locked up for years without trial. And they were hardly just “rioters”.
What are you talking about? People who were merely there are still in jail without trial.
The problem is that Islamists get a free pass from the so-called ‘progressives’ and left wingers who view them as an oppressed minority. Seemingly, being ‘oppressed’ means you are entitled to commit all manner of crimes including murder and child sexual exploitation.
A basic Christian belief has long been a given for the indigenous people of these Islands and came to represent decency, honesty and respectability and therefore a must for any would be politician. Dump the recognised standards and keep moving the goalposts and you get what you see.
Whilst I agree with the lack of any form of real leadership we get these days that moral leadership from politicians is way too much to hope for, they should at least protect free speech and set a better example of how to have a meaningful discourse on difficult subjects. All we get is this sort of nonsense with the promise from Labour of even more “hate speech” laws.
Giles not so very neatly sidestepping the complete lack of moral leadership (and the colour of their personal politics) shown by the Church in their readiness to collude in the latest loophole dug up by immigration lawyers (who know all the tricks) by presiding over the conversion of followers of Islam to Christianity.
I totally agree.
Except I don’t want moral guidance from a church that speaks in outdated language that I can’t comprehend, and uses supernatural concepts I just do not believe in, relate to, nor find in any way helpful to deal with the complexities of modern life in the UK.
We’re losing our congregations in the C of E because the church message is not relevant…even if you can understand it! And being told you’re a sinner, and that faith is an insurance policy to heaven, isn’t an empowering message for action and compassion in this life.
If Islamaphobia is on the right and anti-Semitism is on the left I guess I must be on the right though I’ve certainly never thought of myself in that way. I think that division is way off, actually. Liberals certainly aren’t anti-Semitic, so it’s just extremists on both sides that you’re talking about.
It all depends on who you barrack for – as in Old Firm derbies, so in politics. People will excuse or ignore entirely odious and vile opinions, as long those opinions ooze from people who barrack for the right team. Politics is a back-pass to the goalkeeper, you boo when they do it; you shut up when you do it.
I think part of the difficulty many in the intelligentsia face when attempting to grapple with what role, if any, Islam ought to play in our public life is that they have, at a deep and primordial level, bought into the notion that all religions essentially are the same, the old saw being that they are different paths up the same mountain, and that any apparent differences are just that–apparent. But religions are constellations of ideas, and the contents of those ideas matter.
There is a certain reflexive irreligiosity among a large segment of our population, even among those who profess to be religious, that I can best illustrate with an anecdote (so take it with as much salt as you believe it warrants). Some years ago, I was taking part in a class on Islamic history, which has long been an interest of mine. During a small-group discussion, I was casually asked by another member whether I believed that Muhammad was a prophet. Being a Christian, I promptly and firmly said no. Everyone at the table was shocked. Given the milieu, I can say with some confidence that they were also Christians, but the fact that I denied Muhammad’s prophethood was very startling to them. Now, I acknowledged that the Muslims as a group believe him to have been a prophet, but his teachings run counter to the teachings of my own religion, so I could not consider him a prophet. I doubt the other people in the discussion, all reasonably well-educated and intelligent, had ever considered that point. I think out of an indoctrinated sense of obligatory tolerance, they had simply assumed that Muhammad could be as much a divinely inspired religious figure as Christ, or Buddha, or Zoroaster, or Mani, or anyone else you might name. Thus, in a spirit of well-meaning charitability, they had betrayed their own religions, albeit unknowingly.
To invert Chesterton, when one attempts to believe in everything, one believes in nothing.
Interesting story. You committed secular sacrilege in the midst of the vacuously tolerant. Did they treat you any differently thereafter?
Not that I noticed.
The problem with Islam is that the Islam assumes that it should be the official state religion and that being a citizen requires being Moslem. The small group of Moslems in every Non-Moslem nation believes itself the legitimate government of the country. Islam grew by military conquest. After taking over a country they would reduce all non-Moslems to the status of oppressed aliens in their own country. They had to pay special taxes to avoid persecution. All one had to do to gain citizenship was to convert and change religion. Backsliding was punished by death. Within a few generations everyone does not secure in their religion usually converted to avoid extra taxes. The Children of these lip service Moslems became sincere Moslems and within a few generations the nation was all Moslem. Moslems do not know how to behave in nations where they are a minority group. They try to start a holy war to take over the state. Problems with Moslem minorities include Female genital mutilation and honor killing. Assimilated Moslem women are often killed by their relatives an act in violation of western law. This is an attempt to impose Islamic custom on the west. Moslems also go in for suicide by cop in an attempt to go to Paradice.
Christianity did the same centuries ago. The question is how can Islam be made to grow up as Christianity eventually did without it taking centuries?
Christianity grew down.
By the end of the 19th century it had become to be seen in Britain as being no more than social improvement. Whatever else is in its message and theology could not be believed by most in the age of science and democracy.
In the 19th century, the Christian scriptures were subjected to literary and historical criticism that would be impermissible in other religions.
Christian missionaries working in Egypt and Arabia only ever made a handful of converts. Conversely, centuries before, the ancient religion of Persia was supplanted by Islam.
Britain was once successfully integrated into Christendom. This continued even after Henry VIII’s break with the Papacy. With the passing of the Equality Act 2010 the UK officially ceased to be a Christian country. The house was swept of its ornaments fashioned by Christianity and garnished with multiculturalism. Now the Church of England is flotsam and jetsam on a tide of another ‘faith’.
With the passing of the Equality Act 2010 the UK officially ceased to be a Christian country
.
Your historical mistake
Good post but I would just point out that biblical scholars began to subject the bible to literary and historical criticism as early as the 16th century.
Democritus had figured out that things were made of atoms in the fifth century B.C., but his insight did not become a common legacy right away. Even today there’s a discouragingly large set of people you’d think should know better who find every word they read in The Guardian (or hear on the BBC) resonant with truth. There’s physical inertia… and then there’s cultural inertia.
“The World is Flat!” Mainstream media, 1620
Title of a best selling book early 2000s, by NYT journalist by Thomas Friedman. US businessmen loved it. It meant that you could assume was that India would become like Texas; that vFrance would become like Germany; and the Chinese would become like the US. Total and utter BS: a major cause for Trump’s election 2016.
Not possible. Christianity and Islam are totally different, and in essence, incompatible.
Agreed. Not that it prevents the islamist faithful from trying to force us into submisson. Worrisome indeed (although a blessing) is the apparent inability to be insightful into how their behaviour is perceived by those they’re attempting to co-opt.
So you see no similarity between the crusades and the inquisitions centuries ago and how Islam still behaves today?
You are being naive . The Crusades were essentially to retrieve the holy land from the Muslim invaders Read the holy books and ask yourself the difference between Muhammed and Jesus as role models .
Your equate the two religions by alluding to wars and the Spanish Inquisition but take no account of what they actually teach .
…very little. Jerusalem was a Jewish City before it was Christian…and a Christian one after that, for many centuries…and the holiest places of both faiths are there.
The Crusades were the first Western Counter-Offensive against an Islamic Jihad which had destroyed the ancient and united civilization of the whole Mediterranean (Europe, North Africa and the Near East)…
…which by the C7th AD was either Roman/Byzantine or run by various post-Roman Kingdoms…much influenced by their predecessors, whom they had often served as mercenaries…
…and which was absolutely and overwhelmingly Christian in the tradition of Constantine the Great, who had converted the whole Roman Empire three hundred years earlier.
Furthermore, the Roman/Byzantine Empire had been fighting back against the Islamic Jihad for centuries before the Western Christians got organised and motivated enough to join the struggle…by which time, places like Spain and Sicily had already fallen…
…and of course that Islamic Jihad to conquer the whole of Europe and obliterate it’s Christan faith and civilization continued unabated until King Jan Sobieski “The Fat” of Poland led his Winged Hussars down the Kahlenberg and struck the Ottoman Turkish Jihadis of Kara Mustafa like the Hammer of God, before the Gates of Vienna, and in 1683…
…and finally checked the ambitions of Sultan Mehmed IV, the Ottoman Turkish Sultan…who claimed to be the Caliph of all of Islam…directly in line from the Prophet himself…and not just entitled, but required to conquer the whole world…and bring it to “Islam”…
…which means “Submission”…
They are not enraged because we “oppressed” them (then or now)…but because they have so far failed to destroy us..!
The Crusades were a reaction to the Moors taking over Spain and southern France. But why are you drawing upon old historical examples to justify present-day problems? Just because our distant ancestors may have been medieval warmongers doesn’t mean we have to tolerate such behaviors today.
The Crusades were a perfectly understandable and defensible answer to the Arab (and later Turkic) conquests and the resulting problems about pilgrimage to the Holy Land
Christianity didn’t grow like Islam. Read “The Rise Of Christianity” by Rodney Stark for more info.
Also, Crusades happened because of 400 years of attack of Muslims against the Christendom. Read Thomas F. Madden, the specialist historian on this.
On “not all Muslims being militant”, listen to Prof. John Azumah on Urbana. Of course they are not all militants, but all linked in a chain with the aim of bringing the world to Islam, with different methods.
Azumah identifies five faces of Islam as: “the missional face (the face that seeks to convert the world to Islam), the mystical face (the face that focuses more on spiritual things), the ideological or political face (the face that seeks to occupy the public sphere by implementing sharia or Islamic law), the militant face …
He identifies five faces of Islam as: “the missional fac
I think what you have written holds the key to the fear referred to in the article – it is the fear of the attempt to convert all non-Muslims to Islam. That mission to convert and take control seems to be getting stronger in the West, unless those in positions of power do something to quash it soon, the conflict will come and be very unpleasant.
I have a visceral feeling of repugnance whenever I see a woman in a Hijab. I think how can you willingly surrender to male dominance like that, because that’s what wearing it means.
Judeo Christianity generally tolerates and respects other faiths. Islam is completely intolerant.
There is no solution in the Middle East and imposing our Western liberal values is a waste of time. It is a fight to the death and given the demography of the area, the annihilation of Judaism is historically inevitable.
I’m an atheist so have no dog in the fight but surely the fact that one religion was founded by a milquetoast liberal who could barely bring himself to take his own side in an argument while the other was founded by a warrior who happily beheaded the infidel makes a difference to the tenor of the two religions. To say ‘Christianity did the same centuries ago’, suggesting that the only difference between the two religions is that one reformed itself while the other so far hasn’t, strikes me as being overly optimistic. It’s like having tamed a horse you assume you can also tame a zebra.
The fundamental difference between Christianity and Islam is that the latter arose as a religion of nomads who considered raids, slavery, robberies and conquests to be a normal way of life.
And deceit and betrayal. Google the Battle of the Trench in which the Muslims’ prophet betrayed his Jewish allies, the Banu Qurayza, and read about “taqiyya” too.
Absolutely right! It is essential to have some knowledge of, and insight into, the development of Islam over the centuries – and to understand the intolerance, hatred, and violence which has accompanied such development, almost at every turn. Of basic importance is Mohammed’s timeless pronouncement that he was/is God’s final prophet on earth and that therefore the “Recitations” (Quran) are literally the last word from the almighty, there will be no more! With this understanding, the holy texts are rendered unchangeable and unreformable, as well as unerringly correct — in the minds of the faithful. There can be no Muslim reformation.
Scary stuff.
Add “hudna” to this list
While talking to a (very nice) Muslim chap the other day it occurred to me that one of the fundamental differences between Christianity & Islam was that the former eschews hatred while the latter has it built in to the doctrine; that’s not to say that atrocities cannot be committed by Christians, but their is no excuse for it in the teachings of Christ. Whilst The Church may have been complicit in violence in the past, it has never held up once subjected to any sort of scrutiny.
According to the account of the life of the muslim prophet that I read, he was no warrior. He’d crank up the troops and then watch the mayhem, blood and gore from a safe distance. All say and no do.
Sounds like Trump.
Are you sure? The only President in recent history who did not start a war?
To be fair Jesus didn’t put Christianity into its military expansionist phase – that was 3-400 years on when they got leary and finally adopted by Rome as the main religion . Something similar happened in Islam – sure the prophet Mohammed was a fighter but later caliphates and rulers – often Turkic or Mongol did the heavy lifting in military terms.
Well said. I’m also an atheist so happy to hear another nonreligious voice here.
I agree broadly with your description of the difference in nature of the two religions. However, you DO have a dog in this fight as under a theocracy which is both illiberal and undemocratic, you would have no right to be an atheist.
Before the Enlightenment when scientific thought was given greater weight than religious doctrine, this was the case in the West too.
Our biggest problems stem from giving respect and tolerance to those who would give us neither.
Of course you have a dog in the fight. You swim in western Christian waters, especially”bialy if you are secularist.
Christianity grew from the bottom up and often amongst the dispossessed in an Empire that often persecuted it with great brutality…Christians really were thrown to the Lions in the Arena for Centuries.
However that Empire did come to see important truths in it and it became the State Religion under Constantine the Great in the C4th. But there were then centuries of debate between Church and State about if even violence in self defence was allowed…
… Leading to the “Just War” concept, outwith most of our notions of “International Law” flow…unsurprising, as most of those were devised by explicitly Christian States in the context of their Theology, and the Morality and Law it made over fifteen hundred years.
As to the Crusades, Jerusalem was a Jewish City first, and a Christian one afterwards…with the Holiest Places of both faiths there to this day. It was a counter-offensive…against claims that Jerusalem was as important to Islam as Mecca and Medina, which it is not.
Quite possible, in fact, that the Al Aqsa Mosque was “talked up” for just that reason, to put a theological gloss on a blatant act of triumphalist aggression.
Islam came last, was the religion of successful desert warlords who conducted a Jihad for a thousand years to impose their new faith on the whole world, but have not as yet won it. But it’s history of relentless war to impose itself on all of us…is as different as it is possible to imagine from the exclusive nature of Judaism or the pacifism hardwired into Christianity.
You are confusing Christian states with their Faith…they are not the same…
…although in Islam, they are, or aspire to be. Which is exactly the problem…
Not quite comparable but makes the point effectively!
The simple answer is, it cannot. It took centuries of evolution of christianity, but the heart of christianity concerned sacrifice and doing good. Even though the RC church distorted that, eventually it won through and the Reformation occurred. But Islam’s reformation has never occurred and never can as long as it is regarded as blasphemy punishable by death to not accept every word of Mohammed’s sayings in Koran and Hadiths. So long as this is the case I cannot see how Islam can change. Pakistan seems to me to epitomise Islam better than anywhere else.
Clamp down on radical mullahs and on what is being taught in mosques. This is exactly what Gulf monarchies are doing.
How about stopping all Muslim immigration until we have achieved a high level of social integration without ghettos and radicalized 2nd generation jihadists egged on by woke leftists
It would be a good start, but would surely meet with powerful opposition from various quarters.
The gulf monarchies finance our mosques . They clamp down on opposition to themselves but not otherwise on Islamic teachings opposed to infidels (us)
…Christianity grew from the bottom up as a religion of dispossessed…was savagely persecuted by the Roman Empire (people were really thrown to the lions in the arena!)…and when Constantine the Great finally saw an important set of truths in it in the C4th AD, that opened a centuries long debate between the Church and Secular Rulers about if violence was acceptable EVEN IN SELF DEFENCE…
…ultimately resulting in the “Just War” Doctrine, which embedded a set of Christian ideas about seeking to avoid or limit conflict, which subsequently shaped the emergence of concepts like “Universal Human Rights” and “International Law”…there is pretty much a straight line from Christian Morality and “Just War”…
…through various treaties underwritten by the Papacy in the medieval age…to the Peace of Westphalia, and those that followed in the C17th/C18th…to the Congress of Vienna, and the “Concert of Europe” in the C19th…
…right through to the Versailles Treaty, the League of Nations…and finally after a second terrible war, the emergence of the UN and ideas like “War Crimes” and an “International Criminal Court”.
A religion created by successful desert warlords to justify an effort to tconquer the whole world as they then knew it…which is divided in perpetuity between the “Dar al-Islam” (The “House of Peace” run only by Muslims along Qu’ranic principles, with non-Muslims permanently treated as second class citizens)…and the “Dar al-Harb” (The “House of War”…not Muslim, and there to be conquered and brought to “Islam”, or “submission)…
…could not be much further from the Christian concepts which underpin the current international order…if it was designed to be…
…which actually, it WAS designed to be…as various would be Caliphs and their adherents keep on reminding us, mostly by violence.
There is no parallel to be drawn.
The best way to make it feckless is to emasculate it by having it run by women and fem men, but that makes it weak and emotional.
Giles, you we’re looking for a trope, voilà.
Not a trope, but happened in the past and to this day. Try to keep up
This is full of ridiculous generalisations. Not helpful.
Are you by any chance making a generalisation? 🙂
What you say consists of one generalisation, and is not helpful.
Disagree. What is ridiculous is the affording to such importance to a belief system which is founded on blind obedience and fear. To call antipathy towards Islam, when we have ample evidence of its barbarism towards those who dare to oppose it, a phobia is ridiculous. A phobia is a fear of an entity to the point of avoidance, to the extent that it interferes with daily life.. How easy is it to avoid the extreme manifestations of islam, here in the UK or in the media?
Lee Anderson is courageous to declare his belief. I hope he has good security.
Yes, the problem with what Lee Anderson had to say was that it was untrue. Kahn is obviously not controlled by Islamists many of the measures he has introduced are woke rather than Islamist. The problem is that woke ideology is Islamist enabling even though woke is very far from being Islamist. Lee Anderson does not hold an official position in the party and like any other MP should be entitled to make nonsensical claims that upset people without being suspended. The party simply has to point out the obvious fact that Kahn is not controlled by Islamists.
However, his words will be used by Labour and others to tar the Tories with Islamophobia so the Conservatives have suspended him to try to creat a fire wall. Unfortunately, the threat of violent Islamists in our midst’s doesn’t get the attention it deserves as any acceptance of such a position gets reframed as Islamophobic. A fear of radical violent believers in Islam is perfectly rational. It doesn’t mean you have to fear every Muslim despite the underlying elements of ideology in Islam that you have highlighted. Unfortunately, emphasis on the fact that many Muslims pose no threat stifles attempts to address the threat represented by those who do.
“Lee Anderson does not hold an official position in the party and like any other MP should be entitled to make nonsensical claims that upset people without being suspended.”
For the most part I agree, however there are some topics where, as you point out, the need for proper discussion is so pressing that making nonsensical claims is so prejudicial to the common good that the should not be just allowed to pass. However just suspending him without first giving him the opportunity to justify his comments with evidence is wrong.
He didn’t simply say that Khan was controlled by Islamists but that both Khan and Starmer were. I think Anderson had a way out that would have clarified, something like: “what I said was technically incorrect – clearly not all of the actions of either Khan or Starmer are dictated by Islamists. To that extent I apologise. However, in the sense that both men are very heavily influenced by Islamists my remark stands and I do not apologise for it. Khan has great influence over the Met police and must take responsibility for the Islamist tone present in most of the weekend marches/‘protests’- the Jihadi chants, ISIL flags, and the fear created for Jews. He is also responsible saying nothing in defence of Israel since October 7, as we have also seen from the Islamist MCB, to which Khan has been closely associated in his career. As for Starmer, he is clearly hugely influenced by the Islamist tone of several of his MPs and by his wish to retain the Muslim vote.”
Something like that could have enabled Sunak not to suspend the whip and would have enabled the Party to put Starmer on the backfoot.
No issues with any of that. My issue is why Anderson is not saying it for himself, thereby allowing the debate to start rather than the whole thing turning into a nebulous discussion on “Islamophobia”.
Starmer is absolutely terrified his MPs are going to run amok before the election and he won’t be able to control them. After the election he most definitely won’t be able to control them. The sooner it is plain to see what today’s Labour party has really become – ie see the real wolf shrouded in the sheep’s clothes of “Social Justice” the better.
Having seen the Muslims in action during the recent protests, maybe some phobia, or concern if you prefer, is in order. I doubt the grooming gang would have been glossed over if it was anything but Muslims.
New polling shows Tories harbour twice the national average of those who present themselves as anti Islam. Anti Islam, not anti Islamist warrior whatever.
I am not a Tory …
I am anti-Islam because governments and police treat its excesses as would an ineffectual parent its toddler’s tantrums. The result is that the child may well grow up to be a thug. We can see how failure to contain what are, at best, Islam’s temper tantrums, at worst a real and present danger to safety and democracy of ALL UK citizenry endangers the safety of us all.
A lot of woke ideology comes from people whose very belief systems are antithetical to Western values. Hamas supporters have used the language of woke to justify the atrocities taking place today against the Jews.
There are individuals and groups within lots of religions that believe they should be universal. What is the Catholic church but an all-encompassing one? What is the Orthodox church but the only legitimate one? Why do Jehovah’s witnesses come and knock on my door? Why do Mormons baptise the dead posthumously?
Did Islam spread via conquest? Indisputably. Did Christianity? Absolutely. It might have started off as a cult among the dispossessed but it became the state religion of the most powerful empire in the world in 312 and spread at the tip of a spear for 1,500 years thereafter. The process of disentangling church and state didn’t even begin until the enlightenment. And there was plenty of persecution of religious minorities (and majorities) in the interim.
Does Islam have a hegemonic strand? Of course – just as christianity did and does. But, the Ottoman empire was officially multi-faith for centuries and its successor, modern turkey, is (officially at least) as secular as France.
Must not ‘other’ people but it’s ok to call Tommy Robinson a ‘horrible little man’ because that means Fraser can support the bombing of Gaza without being accused of ‘Islamophobia’ .
Likewise he supports mass immigration of Muslims to the UK , even offering a fake conversion service to get British passports for those who need them . Not to do so would be to ‘other’ others .
He knows there is a wicked ideology he calls Islamism , but in his own mind that has nothing to do with Muslims in this country , especially those coming here as illegal migrants , How does he know the ones he converts aren’t islamists scamming him ? That’s not his problem , he doesn’t do windows into people’s souls . That might result in ‘othering’ them . But in Gaza it’s safe to assume islamists are everywhere , and therefore mass slaughter through bombing is justified.
Mass immigration? Well there’s a phrase that can increase hatred of minorities. The word illegal is another such word.
It is not illegal to seek asylum and the majority of asylum seekers are legally entitled to be here.
The Tories have whipped up ignorance and hatred with their boats narrative.
Let’s have an honest and brave debate about the extremes of Islamic doctrine. Not sure which political party has the guts and intelligence though.
The church can’t do it.
Most Muslems are peace-loving and grateful to be here. Let’s remember that.
‘Honest and brave debate’ The church which actually has about 30 bishops as of right in the House of Lords opposes from their unmerited perch there any attempt to dampen down the swamping of our country with Muslims and other migrants causing serious social and economic problems , as well as the grooming and gang rape of thousands of teenage girls .
No I won’t admit Muslims are peace loving . They want everyone to submit to Islamic teaching and only then there will be peace . That’s what they believe qua Muslims . But don’t take my word for it . Read the articles by Ayaan Hirsi Ali , some of them in Unherd , who actually grew up in Somalia , and understands the threat posed by Islam in the west . She has even become a Christian . Could do worse than get her in as Archbishop of Canterbury
Grateful to be here but unwilling to integrate.
Oooo! Does GF “support the bombing of Gaza”? I don’t believe so. Rather, he supports the right of Israel to defend itself from those who openly, violently and brutally seek its destruction.
And has declared that it will behead, burn alive, dismember, rape to death people in Israel whenever it’s given the chance until they are wiped out, whilst prosecuting such barbarism against its own people as its doing at present. A Hamas leader has after all proudly declared, from his comfortable quarters in Qatar, that Gazans “want to be martyrs.”
The issue is always ‘radical’ Islam, we’re told. Even though the so-called ‘Islamists’ are just following the instructions of their Prophet to subjugate unbelievers,
So much delusion from our elites. Maybe it’s because so many of them have forsaken Christianity, leading them to assume that everyone shares their limp-wristed secularism.
Islam is a heresy. Muhammed is a false prophet. Stating these facts is not cruel or oppressive; it is simply supporting the pillars of our civilisation.
I’m a follower of Jesus and so agree that Islam has got it wrong, but the way you have expressed it feels judgemental and unhelpful. Far better surely to point out what we might both see as the negative effects of Islamic beliefs on society but offer the positive aspects of following Jesus as a wonderful alternative.
Or neither.
There is some confusion within the article. The author is concerned that government spin is avoiding the question of whether Lee Anderson’s comments were Islamophobic. But this assumes that Islamophobia is itself an objective measure, rather than just another trope, a smear used to close down any debate. It would perhaps be helpful if the factual basis of the comments could be aired and evaluated objectively. But that isn’t allowed to happen. It’s suppressed at best by (expected or actual) accusations of Islamophobia, at worst by threats of physical violence.
I think the smear of Islamophobia to shut down uncomfortable debate is 100% what is happening here. However, I would also add that there are those who live in the Middle East, that would point out that Pakistan is part of India therefore Asia and not the Middle East and they would also argue that Britain’s problem with Islam is really a problem with people of Pakistani heritage. When you look at Rochdale, I cannot disagree.
It could also be argued that when people use the accusations of antisemitism to deflect criticism of Israel’s government, it was only a matter of time before Muslims would do the same. If it’s good for the goose….
islam has a long history of hatred for the Jews who rejected its prophet, and his cult-like religion hard-wired that Jew-hatred into itself.But why on earth are you conflating antisemitism and Israel’s defence of itself (remember Hamas is hiding in tunnels while its people are left above ground, without safe shelter, to bear the brunt of Israeli attacks, and has threatened to repeat Oct 7th attacks until Jews are wiped out).
I am a Zionist Jew who doesn’t hesitate to criticise the Israeli government. What do you think might happen to a Gazan who did that and rightly blamed Hamas for the hell unleashed upon Gazans as a result of its barbarism?
A phobia is a mental illness. The mentally ill are not morally or intellectually deficient.
This is the confusion. If a ‘phobia’ is really a political ‘illness’, the cure is political. The muddled categories are medical conditions becoming part of the cynical realities of universal suffrage democracy.
What is radical? Radicalism had an honourable tradition in Britain. Who defines what is radical Islam? A non-believer? Christianity is radical. God has cast down the mighty from their seats.
As the UK has no influence over the Gazan war, what is the purpose of the large pro-Palestinian protests in London and the smaller ones elsewhere? What can the MP for Brighton Pavilion do about it?
If the procedural contortions in the Commons over the SNP’s opposition day vote was the result of fear of the Other, who created the Other?
As the Good Book says, the sower shall be the reaper. The effects of multiculturalism and mass immigration have now finally reached the ones who wanted it. If the Labour Party has courted the immigrant vote, they now find what their constituents actually want.
I half-agree, but phobias are fears to the point of avoidance which interfere with daily life. islam’s influence in the UK cannot be avoided. It’s like a hungry baby which cannot be satisfied by its food, albeit potentially more dangerous.
As for the ridiculous Gaza vote, it was little more than ignorant virtue signalling. Any MP who neither realised nor cared about that is deluded or desperate for the muslim vote
Lee Anderson did go too far with his comments, specifically by saying that Islamists have got control of London and Khan. That was silly and offensive. But at the core of his comments was a truth which needs discussing, i.e. that radical Islam is a real threat.
The daft Islamophobia bun-fight going on at the moment completely obscures that important question by making it seem like any criticism of Islam is Islamophobia. Which is ridiculous in the same way as it would be to say that any criticism of the way Netanyahu’s government is behaving is anti-semitic.
Therefore, the Tories do right to resist saying Anderson’s comments were Islamophobic: if they do, an opportunity to finally address Islamism and the threat it poses to society will have been completely strangled. Sunak needs to stand firm and ignore the squealing (which Labour, like an overgrown hysterical kid, excels at).
This kind of “never have a nuanced discussion about actual problems when you can whack each other with clubs” tells us several things:
(a) that politicians have completely lost touch with the public they are meant to be serving,
(b) that the political mood is far too heated-up and polarised to be able to discuss much of anything (and the likes of Lee Anderson and Suella Braverman are making the situation far worse), and
(c) that the shouting and throwing around of the word Islamophobia also conceals a fear of picking up and discussing the issue of Islamism. Maybe because these extremists are not afraid to use violence and threats of violence (including towards MPs) to achieve their aims and no one really knows what to do to get it under control.
So, while Islamists might not have “got control of London”, they are still having a significant effect on the way politics is being done (or not done) in the UK – and that is something absolutely unacceptable.
“no one really knows what to do to get it under control.”
The first step has to be admitting there is a problem, then understanding the true nature of the problem. The way Anderson and all parties are behaving, including the MSM, are doing nothing to move us along the path to making anything better. All it will do is push people towards the far right who have no difficulties raising the problem and proposing seemingly attractive, but totally impractical solutions.
“If you squint, this is what you see: the Tories as Team Israel, and Labour as Team Palestine.”
You would have to squint to the point of closing your eyes to think this of the current Labour leadership.
You’re quite right when it comes to the leadership, Rev Giles is right when it comes to the rank and file. A problem for Sir Keir
Hang on, Starmer does not seem anti-Semitic, but Corbyn certainly is, and a lot of his ex lieutenants are still in place.
Never expected that Nick Ferrari would impress me like that. “But why is it wrong ?” – the killer question the Tories cannot or will not answer.
Tories and Labour – they’re as bad as each other here. Morally cowed and following the lobbying and bullying of minority special interest groups.
But back to the question. Lee Anderson wasn’t “wrong” in the first place. In a free country, you must be able to freely express opinions. Lee Anderson gave his opinion. Quite clearly no more than an opinion. It’s up to me if I choose to be upset about it. The idea of trying to prevent or legislated against hurt feelings is absurd.
And Giles is wrong. I don’t see this so-called “Islamophobia”. It’s not that people are necessarily scared of change. It’s just that they don’t want it at the scale and speed it’s been forced on to them. A democracy should reflect the will of the vast majority.
Anderson may have been ‘wrong’ in the sense of inaccurate. If so, the interviewee should have explained why. ‘Wrong’ in the sense of immoral doesn’t come into it.
it’s just that they don’t want it at the scale and speed it’s been forced on to them.
indeed-but neither do they want a substantial proportion of “it” either ! So scale,speed and substance-pretty much a full house I would argue.
Every Englishman and woman knows that Sadiq Khan is not English. Every English man and woman knows there will never be another English mayor of London. Every English man and woman knows that London is no longer an English city. As with transgenderism the establishment will keep lying to the last breath. Whether this is more a case of self-hatred or stupidity I cannot fathom.
Questioning Sadiq Khan’s Englishness is not a discussion we should be having, it’s offensive and unnecessary. If he describes himself as English, then he has every right to do that.
The real question is whether he is doing his job well or not.
‘If he describes himself as…’ sounds dangerously close to self-ID. Surely it’s a matter of fact rather than perception as to whether SK is English? Since he was born in Tooting and has lived in England all his life, I don’t think there’s room for doubt.
English or British?
Both
And Anthony’s comment sounded dangerously like limiting Englishness to a certain ethnic background, which is a discussion that quite frankly we can do without. Identities are complex things, especially when your background involves several cultures. There is certainly an element of self ID to it. How far that self ID should be allowed to go is what we see in the transgender debate. But that has nothing to do with Khan’s identity.
I guess he sees himself as not ethnically English, since gmhe banned photos of white people as not representing London.
A very fraught and interesting discussion indeed. I assure you, as a Londoner with a wide range of friends, that people of South Asian stock also use and understand the term ‘English’ very largely as an ethnonym. Not exclusively, mind you, but for the most part English is a way of saying white Anglo-Saxon Christian. As it has been for 1000 years or more.
I’m not sure how Mr Khan would define himself in private and when hes not being polemical but I suspect he would be more comfortable with British Asian or Londoner than ‘English’. That’s certainly what he’s called himself in the past.
Having said that, Mayor Khan’s brother, ‘Sid Khan’, is an interesting one. As true a cockney as they come these days. He runs Earlsfield boxing gym in Tooting.
We’re all misbegotten bastards of Empire navigating the wreckage as best we can in London these days.
The Muslim Brotherhood’s 10 year plan famously declared that it will encourage the West to destroy itself “by its own miserable hand.” Seems to me that they’re still at it.
If he describes himself as a woman, then he has every right to do that.
But no right to expect, or force, others to accept it..
So … a white Christian English citizen of Pakistan with an English name living in Islamabad would be accepted as a ‘Punjabi’ (the principal ethnicity of that city) by the ethnic Pakistanis there? I think not! The question you pose is relevant. Your criticism of Roe’s post as “offensive and unnecessary” is not.
I suppose it might depend on which cricket team he supported.
He may be British but not English
Limey! Coming on a bit strong aren’t we?
Obviously, because “English” is an ethnicity. Just look at the ONS ethnic categories. The word may have been subverted in the language, but that’s really no different at its core from saying “man” and “woman” are social constructs. A Pakistani is not English the same as a man is not a woman. It’s not a bad thing. It’s just a fact.
How long do you have to have lived in this country to become ethnically English? I think I might be ok as my surname is Middle English or alternatively Old French.
How about the descendants of the Norman invaders who conquered our country in 1066. Have they become English yet? If not that rules out a lot of the current aristocracy in our country. How about our beloved Royal Family and their descendants? Are they still German or more accurately Hannoverian or have they somehow become English?
Is is not possible for a descendant of the Windrush generation or the people who fled Uganda 50 years ago to ever become English?
You have to feel sorry for anyone who wants to describe themselves as American.There really aren’t any of them as they were all immigrants apart from the indigenous population.
IIRC if you are a naturalised Brit – you are just that – British. What you make of yourself afterwards is which cricket team, etc (again.)
This is a list of very pertinent questions, the answers are political as much as they are ‘taxonomical’.
In the English context, Edward Gibbon understood ethnicity to mean shared ‘descent, language. religion and custom’. We can assume he derived this from Herodotus in book 8 of the Histories who listed the same concepts together.
I would imagine that this still forms the central basis of the common man’s understanding of Ethnicity. Our governing Class, however, adhere to the Weberian model of ethnicity, künstlich or the ‘imagined community’, the ‘fictive kinships’ and ‘invented traditions’ which make all shared understandings the more or less cynical concoctions of artists and statesmen.. As ever we are all left talking art crossed purposes. The modern Babel is conceptual as well as linguistic.
As to your (oft repeated elsewhere) point about the perceived illegitimacy of William I and our current Royal Family it is not quite right. William claimed legitimate descent through Emma of Normandy, wife of King Ethelred II. The ‘English’ line was later emphatically reasserted by the coronation of Henry II who was a direct descendant of King Alfred.
Similarly the Hanoverian claim. George I was the Great Grandson of James VI & I who was a lineal descendant of Alfred and the Saxon Kings through Queen Matilda.
The model of ethnicity we use in our constitution and community is a political decision but it is interesting to note that according to the mathematician and Genetecist Adam Rutherford “almost every Briton” is “descended between 21 and 24 generations from Edward III” Perhaps the old traditions knew something our academics didn’t!
What’s wrong with it? Other than it being entirely false?
Why is it wrong? It’s a lie. It doesn’t resemble the truth. It is the opposite of reality.
Has the Brexit saga made us so insensible to reality and truth that we simply don’t expect politicians to speak the truth and instead debate the metaphysical merit and epistemology of their lies?
If you want to answer why it is a particularly undesirable lie rather than the tolerable lies we get all day every day from the leadership and the press it’s because it seeks to demonise an entire cohort of normal people based a prejudiced falsehood. It is a lie that will have a negative impact on the lives of millions.
Aside from the fact that it is literally wrong that’s what’s wrong with it.
Did Islamophobia increase in the Tory party after David Amess was slaughtered in his office?
It was,blamed on the internet.
Wonder whether the fried chicken shop riot can be blamed on the internet too…
Yes ALL Islamic terrorists have to be self-radicalising , from the internet , and work alone .
The most telling part of the article:
There are plenty of people who seek advantage by blurring the edges of categories. The categories of man and woman – blurred. The categories of party politics – blurred. The acceptable lifestyle of celebrities – blurred. The nature of God(s) – blurred. The definition of freedom fighters – blurred. The definition of victim groups – blurred. I am sure that other examples spring to mind.
Sometimes the ‘blurring’ is deliberate to promote the destruction of order and the creation of some imagined new order. All of it driven by the flawed belief that ‘the ends justify the means’. This is a pernicious lie – and is fiercely critical of anyone who dares draw attention to the consequences.
“And viewing the politics of the Middle East through the lens of The Troubles is a recipe for confusion.” The IRA and hamas are the same in that they have huge international sympathy support. Who are the supporters? … what motivates them? … could it be totalitarian land-grab political ideologies … maybe masquerading as religions? … what does their histories reveal? Anyway, there is NO confusion about the similarities being resisted.
“the fear seems to be real. After all, wasn’t that precisely the reason the Speaker of the House of Commons gave for accepting the Labour Party’s amendment during the recent Gaza debate — that Labour MPs feared intimidation if they did not back the call for an immediate ceasefire?”
The suffix -phobia is massively over used these days but literally it means fear of. Being afraid of something that does not exist or cannot really hurt you is irrational. Being afraid of something that can and does hurt / kill you is entirely justified and sensible.
Was the fear expressed by the speaker real? If so what he did was the height of cowardice, or was it just an excuse to help Starmer out of a bind – in which case it is even worse. Either way the fear needs to be confronted openly to determine if it is rational or not and if it is rational to do something about the real threat beneath it.
A good article which boils down to one very simple point:
“concern about radical Islam is real and we have to find a decent and intelligent way of speaking about it.”
#no debate does far more harm than good and is never the right answer.
During the American Civil War most people in Britain supported one side or the other. They would declare: I am for the North, or, I am for the South.
Whether that support was the result of a ‘nuanced debate’ or greater understanding than is possessed by Rangers and Celtic supporters about the Gaza war is doubtful.
After a more than a century of compulsory education and nearly a century of universal suffrage democracy nothing has improved. There is not enough curiosity to have a nuanced debate, anymore than there is about whether films about Napoleon are accurate.
I fear the hour in this land is much later than the Rector of Kew dare admit and the wounds in the the body politic much deeper than bromides of this sort can palliate.
It is all deeply sad but was so predictable.
The inimitable old Heresiarch C. Hitchens saw it coming this in his speech to university of Toronto in 2006:
“…And up go the placards, and up go the yells and the howls and the screams, “Behead those” — this is in London, this is Toronto, this is in New York, it’s right in our midst now — “Behead those who cartoon Islam!” Do they get arrested for hate speech? No. Might I get in trouble for saying what I’ve just said about the Prophet Muhammad? Yes, I might. Where are your priorities, ladies and gentlemen? You’re giving away what is most precious in your own society, and you’re giving it away without a fight, and you’re even praising the people who want to deny you the right to resist it. Shame on you, while you do this. Make the best use of the time you’ve got left. This is really serious.”
No, I suspect it stems from the perennial tendency of the thinking classes to appear to explore moral issues while actually seeking refuge in the comforting mists of nuance and subtlety.
I am guilty of religious hatred. I am passionately Islamophobic. I hate everything about Islam. So there. Guardian/BBC people use Islamophobia, the word itself, in order to silence people like me. ‘There is no rational reason to fear Islam’ they say. Apart, that is, from Muslims terrorising everyone in central London every week while chanting hateful slogans? Apart from threatening teachers with death because those teachers are following the curriculum? Apart from threatening our MPs to the extent they change the HoC procedures? Apart from bringing their disgusting methods of killing animals to our previously humane country? Apart from blowing up civilian aircraft? Apart from flying planes into tall buildings? Apart from committing terrorist attacks all over the world? Apart from murdering teenagers at pop concerts? Apart from being responsible for over 98% of terrorist acts? Apart from grooming under-age girls for illegal sex on a huge scale while the police are too terrified to act for fear of the “Islamophobia” label? Apart from the widespread genital mutilation on young girls? Apart from the subjugation of women? Apart from the whole idea of male supremacy? Apart from allowing old men to marry seven year old girls? Need I go on?
Fear of Muslims and Islam is, on the basis of the above, entirely rational.
We only need to look at how religious minorities fare in Pakistan to see the truth in all its hideous glory. Their blasphemy laws are routinely abused and used to persecute. A few years ago a couple of brave politicians were murdered for daring to seek to repeal the blasphemy law, one of them was called Salmaan Taseer. Following the arrest of the murderer and mob of countless thousands took to the streets hailing the killer a hero.
This is the mindset the likes of Starmer, the BBC, Sunak et al seek to protect. We should all be extremely concerned.
Superb prompt to an adult conversation. Thank you, Giles.
We have to clean up political language in the UK. All political parties have got sucked into pc-speak-things that can be/cannot be said in polite society. Religion has been merged into race. We are expected to be “nice”-that’s T.May’s contribution. Theft,greed, lying, blaspheming, speaking ill of others-these are dwarfed by “racism”. Abortion, lust, same-sex attraction, , off-the-peg divorce are fine- euthanasia is being worked on.
This has to be ditched, completely. People must be able to say what they think, without being slurred, that they are “racist”, “phobic” etc. We could start by ourselves calling out people like Sadiq Khan , Keir Starmer who take us for idiots, and use language to confuse, not to clarify.
Islamophobia, eh? How about giving us your thoughts on Christphobia, Giles? You’re sharing today’s page with a guy who writes about “Christian nationalism” as if it’s a real thing and not just the latest media invention meant to smear voters they don’t like.
If Christophobia means the same as Fear of the Lord the Church of England could do with rather a bit more of the stuff.
How can I express my dislike of Buddhism without being Bhuddistophobic ? Am I free to express my dislike of a religious cult ? Like Christianity ?
So why should Islam be given immunity from being openly disliked ?
No, Islam has immunity, because there is no word “Bhuddistophobic”, no word “Christianityphobic”, no word “Judaismphobic”, but the word “Islamophobic” exists.
However, to give an answer as to why such a word exists is to admit that you are a racist. This is scary.
By the way, the author touches only lightly on the question of why negative attitudes towards Islamic fundamentalists are a form of racism. For those who find this strange, I recommend checking out the “Cultural racism” Wiki article. After reading it, you will understand why not only Islamophobia, but also the attitude of Manchester United fans towards Chelsea fans is rabid racism and, in general, football should be banned so that we all love each other.
The word replaced linguisticism, nationalism, cultureism, etc and has no semantc value whatsoever
Yes!!!
The MPs including mine can keep their own views to themselves!! They are paid for by the voting masses to represent the UK masses of the UK. The UK masses want a CEASEFIRE at once, they want sanctions on the Zionist Apartheid Israel state. The masses in the UK do not want aid sent to Israel it has no mandate to send aid in the form of bombs missiles guns etc to murder innoncent children and women!! The masses do not want to be like our government and the HOL murderers, complicit in the GAZA genocide and the WEST BANK genocide. WE the masses do not want to be collaborators to the Zionist jewish Apartheid Israel state!! FACT!! DEMOCRACY there is none in the UK, Human Rights we are complicit in breaking every International law on human rights by sending aid to Israel and not putting sanctions on this foul Zionist country!! Our media our TV stations are also complicit by their biased lies and un truths that they speak each day!! Imagine locking up all our 650 MPS and our 850 un-elected parasites in the HOL. So today what can we do to make their lives more miserable living in a sealed prison?? Well Monday we will turn of the WATER, Tuesday we will turn off the Electricity, Wednesday we will stop all medication being delivered, Friday we stop all Sainsbury’s Morrisons food deliveries. Saturday all education for any children in the homes ceased.SUNDAY all women and children will be placed in the gardens and missiles at random will be sent along with long range bombardment with 150mm DU illegal shells along with phosphorus shells, hopefully not too many will be killed or maimed!! Radical Islam you biased government and Media the people demonstrating are doing so because they cannot believe what foul and un chrisitian our government can be, anyone supporting Israel are SCUM complicit murderers NO DEFENCE!! Islam, Christian, Catholic, what ever religion Murder and Genocide has no place in the world. The Israel Zionist Jews are doing what the Nazis did in 1939-45 they are no different from Hitler and his SS armies.
Who told you to say all that? Someone waving a Palastinian flag in your face? I am one of the ‘Deplorables’ and YOU do not speak for me on any matter or subject.
What a load of hysterical rubbish. I support Israel’s right to defend itself and to rid the middle east of the Hamas parasites. They are doing this via a legitimate war, not your laughable accusation of ‘genocide’ which you lot love to repeat as though repeating it often makes it true. I might be ‘scum’ in your distorted viewpoint but there are a lot more people out there who agree with me. So don’t presume to speak as some kind of representative of the people because a] you are a nonentity and b] you don’t have a mandate to speak on behalf of the people.
If you’re not Islamophobic you’re not very informed
After Oct 7th, Islamophobia is not a thing, given the reaction of large numbers of people in UK.
A phobia is an irrational fear or dislike. There is nothing irrational about disliking the Muslims, accompanied by assorted useful idiots, who take to Britain’s streets en-mass shouting genocidal slogans.
The usual tactic of handwaving this away whilst muttering darky about the ‘far-right’ (whatever the hell that actually means) is not going to work anymore. Blathering about ‘both sides’ is also not going to work; it’s not Jews making Muslims unsafe in British streets.
To use an appropriate expression, the djinn is out of the bottle & it isn’t going back. It’s no longer possible to keep pushing how this plays out into the future. So, we are heading somewhere very dark & maybe its best we just get it over with. No, I’m not sure what “it” will look like but the status quo is unsustainable. SW1 will do absolutely nothing to fix this, but they will indeed make it worse. When this blows up, it will be at street level.
Perfectly true. The word “Islamophobia” is a mere propaganda term, invariably effective in shutting down any and all criticism of that religion.
The first ever disappointing article from you, Giles. Cowardly. And you know it.
‘But concern about radical Islam is real and we have to find a decent and intelligent way of speaking about it.’
WHY do we pay enormous amounts of tax towards things like anti terror police, the gchq police, the prolific Internet police, the hate speech police, the five eyes police, the mi5 & mi6 police etc. etc. etc. If they can’t deal with ‘radical islam’? That was the point of all the war on terror police was it not? To combat radical Islam?
Either they are out of control or they are not. If radical Islam is out of control in this country then all these police are failing and I’d like a tax refund on the ridiculous sum of money we’ve just had to pay hmrc.
From a freedom of speech perspective Mr Anderson should be free to speak without getting lynched. It might help if he has evidence to back up his claim though.
“The familiar tropes are that Muslims are inherently violent, oppressive to women, intolerant, medieval and so on.” sorry, which one of those is a trope?
Why do the columns of Giles Fraser, “Vicar of St Anne’s, Kew,” so rarely grapple with the realities of religious belief? Muslims believe facts about the world (the existence of Allah, the means of living in peace with him, etc.) which are very much in contradiction to facts that Christians believe about the world (Christ was the Son of God, his death and resurrection saved us, etc.) and to facts that atheists believe (nothing occupies the transcendental realm, there is no afterlife, etc.). These are the actual grounds of dispute that eventually play themselves out on the streets… Gaza marches are the phenotype, but the content of the Koran is the genotype.
Yet no one wants to discuss the actual thing we are fighting over – because everyone wants to believe that ‘all religions are the same’ or that ‘values’ of religions can be in alignment even if their underlying theological claims differ. But this is not true.
What this means is that the Rev. Fraser is (as usual) asking and answering the wrong question. The question he asks is whether Lee Anders is Islamophobic. The question he should be asking is what does Islam (and hence Islamophobia) consist of, and is it right or wrong? But actually grappling with the varieties of religious experience is beyond the ability of our chattering classes… even (perhaps especially) the ordained Anglicans.
I think it’s in part because the chattering classes don’t take religion seriously , even if they happen to be nominally Christian . And the Rev Giles must know there aren’t many passionate CofE believers . Even the Bishops are all busy demonstrating how woke they are , which they conflate with Christianity . This isn’t hard to do as Jesus was a bit of a hippy .
So they don’t see members of a religious faith as a threat . They assume all these Muslims coming over are in need of help and should be mothered , not othered . This kind of secular humanism is their religion . The Christian iconography is for dressing up .
That’s because the Rev Fraser has been a well-known progressive in the CofE for decades now. He holds to most of the current secular orthodox pieties at odds with traditional Christianity, while still being ‘anti-woke’ enough to get a reading here.
The conflation of islamophobia with racism needs to be more frequently and thoroughly called out. I’ll admit to a bit of a phobia about the spread of islam but it’s because I quite like the culture I was brought up in (peace be upon it) and believe it to have been superior. To call that racism is beneath pathetic. Here’s to “culturism”.
It’s impossible to have “a bit of a phobia” about anything. Phobias can be crippling and life-limiting. Islamist supporters chose the word because they knew it would be adopted unquestioningly. And it is yet more evidence of how wrong use of words can damage.
A phobia is an ‘irrational’ fear. Is it irrational to be fearful of Islamism in the UK (or in the world more generally), given how Islamist terrorists have shaped the way we, for example, travel by air (turning up hours before departure to undergo detailed security checks); worry about our children attending city-centre concerts; crossing central London bridges mindful of vehicles careering into us, or machete wiedling thugs; enjoying a night out in central London restaurants; use of the underground and other public transport systems; etc. ? I’d agree there’s nothing ‘irrational’ given the clear evidence of decades of Islamist terrorist events on our streets. Most of us don’t worry about Jewish terrorists; or Hindu terrorists; or Sikh terrorists.
I’m uninterested in how Islamophobia Lee Anderson may be. I’m very sorry that the words for which he has been censured are NOT Islamophobic. His words we’re clumsy but he expressed a perfectly valid opinion; whether accurate or not it was certainly not inciting disorder or decrying any spiritual beliefs.
What he achieved, however, was to highlight how ‘the establishment’ has bought the lie that Muslims are the most appallingly treated and disparaged group in UK. Quite simply, it’s not true. Antisemitism is FAR more rife, led by islamists and the extremes of both right and, currently, particularly the left. I suggest, though, that the worst current -ism or -phobia is against middle-class, white, Anglo Saxon, straight, older than 40 or 50s. Wow! I’m such a poor, suffering victim! Boo hoo!
Muslems did take over though, conquering
most of Eastern Europe, Persia, India ( twice), Central Asia, the entire Middle East, Spain, Portugal and Sicily, Russia, for 200 years, Indonesia, Malaysia, North Africa and much of Sub Saharan and Central Africa.
“Our mainstream political parties are supposed to offer moral leadership.”
What about the Church of England providing some moral leadership? It has so diluted its identity and corrupted its moral integrity by denigrating it’s parent culture and heritage, and bending the knee to alien, hostile religions and politics, that it is of little positive relevance to the lives of the ordinary people who should be filling its pews every Sunday. UK politicians long ago lost their moral authority. However, clumsy his comments, Anderson has the moral courage to speak what most ‘ordinary’ people (the ‘Little People’, ‘The Deplorables’, ‘The Gammons’) think.
The MP for Ashfield has been suspended by the Tories for saying that “Islamists” had “got control” of London and its Mayor, Sadiq Khan. –> At the risk of sounding repetitive, I’ll ask the question – is he wrong? Because that’s the central issue. Not whether some phobia or ism was committed, because the bar to either of those manufactured social offenses is ridiculously low. Terms like that serve no purpose other than to stifle debate and to paint the other person as an illegitimate participant in the discourse. It’s a cheap and weak strategy, albeit an often effective one.
The uttering of malicious truths has fallen out of favor. These statements may be unkind or impolite, but they are also true. Islamists are the people that anyone covets having next door. Why is that? Because we’ve seen how they act. It’s wildly at odds with a pluralistic society that believes in individual rights and the rule of law. This manufactured “Islamophobia” is the actual trope, a pre-emptive accusation meant to deflect attention from the fact that the radicals in the midst really do mean us harm.
I don’t think he is. My own (Muslim) MP sent me the “wrong” letter when I asked him to speak out in parliament against the massacre of October 7th – one full of links to sites which proved how much he condemned, not the hideous massacre, but Israel’s response to the lowlives who used their own children and civilians as human shields while they hid safely in the tunnels, and had thrreatened to repeat the massacre until all Jews in Israel were wiped out. I didn’t vote for him. He should be kicked out for not representing the interests of ALL his constituents.
Add, Libya supported the Provos. Btw, Islamophobia, does not exist. It was a term mad up by an extreme islamist, and happily used by the moral cowards of our time. Talk about ‘Submission’. Where is the Hinduphobia, or the Buddhistphobia? How strange that members of a religion that punishes apostacy, and blasphemy by death, that still resents 12th century attempts to recover the Greco Roman Christian Middle East, conquered by force in the 7th century, should possibly be be feared in the UK. Anti semitism was the name proposed in about 1835 by Wilhelm Narr, a German Socialist, to oppose wat he saw as the Jewish domination of socialist thought. It has been used since then justify the murder of European and Russian Jews. There is no equivalence between these two terms. Was Greece Islamophobic in fighting the Ottoman Empire? Do get real .
Anderson could be a deep plant. He voted for Corbyn at least twice. And he’s now put Khan’s projected majority up by more than 100k. That damage is partly self inflicted by Tories unable to find a place to put themselves, of course.
And Lee’s not done. While he backs off the more actionable expressions, he keeps digging a deeper hole for exclusionist opinion. There’s no Islamist or pro-Palestinian ‘mob.’ Recent Gaza demonstrations have been peaceful, exceptionally so given the circumstances.
While some fussed over lenient policing of them, in fact only a token police presence would have been required, unlike the provision which has to be made for Tommy Robinson and his friends.
So, the principal problem we need to find a way to talk about is those whose exclusionary sentiments can be evoked and manipulated so easily. One would like to believe with the Resolution Foundation that inclusion is the only viable politics in Britain, but religious and ethical teachings alone no longer seem an adequate bulwark against the Hobbesian alternative. We need to help each other develop more adequate means to cope with anxieties that arise from uncertainty compounded by limited experience of Others.
Tommy Robinson was the first person to bring to general public attention the Muslim grooming gangs . The police hate him because they were happily ignoring these guys . When the police arrested him the other day ,one of the burly senior officers who had him in their grip pepper sprayed him , just for fun . These coppers are the ones who should be in prison .
Tommy Robinson’s marches were under attack from Hope not hate and Muslims in defence of the grooming gangs . The police were there to support the opposition .
‘While some fussed over lenient policing of them, in fact only a token police presence would have been required’
I take it your an expert in policing. There were many more protesters in the pro Palestinian march than turned up to support the EDL.
Everyone has the right to speak and protest.
. ‘We need to help each other develop more adequate means to cope with anxieties that arise from uncertainty compounded by limited experience of Others.’
Sounds like bullsh*t American therapy speak. I think most British people can cope just fine actually, our history of holding peaceful protests speaks for itself. I’m sorry you get anxious and can’t cope with meeting others. Try not to project your inadequacy onto the entire British population.
If the comment had instead been that it was “big business” (or similar) that “got control” of Mr. Khan, the focus would have been on whether or not the allegation was plausible or baseless, based on the available evidence. Clearly in this case, more is being made of it.
So the question seems to really be was it “wrong” to say that Islamists “got control” over the mayor because there is no evidence to support that notion or is it to be considered “wrong” because it’s considered inappropriate to make such an allegation against anyone, regardless of the facts? Many could agree with the first argument, nobody should accept the second.
What’s an ‘old firm derby’?
If’s a Scottish soccer match between two local sects of Christianity and nothing much to do with soccer.
You would have to have your eyes shut and ears closed since the 9th century not to fear Islam
I am puzzled by the term Islamophobia recently used by Sadiq Khan when it seem that most of the hate is coming from Islamists, evidenced by the terrorism in the West in the last 20 years and recently in the intimidation experienced by Labour MPs and referred to by the Speaker of the House. Isn’t therefore Khan’s hypocrisy depraved and shouldn’t he be apologising for Muslim extremism?
Isn’t the use of the term Islamophobia, homophobia etc mostly a verbal trick to enable you to characterise your opponents as irrational and full of hate when actually it is you that has the problem.And the case of Islam which has for centuries been an enemy of the West is it surprising that it should be treated with some caution and suspicion, something then wrongly described as Islamophobia.
Personally, I feel that what we should be focusing on here is not the rights and wrongs of what one notoriously outspoken conservative MP has said, but rather with the very concept of “Islamophobia” itself.
When we, as a society, have decided to protect a particular group from discrimination, it has been on the basis of an innate characteristic. For example their race, or sex, or sexuality, or if they have a disability. Things which one cannot change about oneself, even if one so desired.
Islam is not an innate characteristic. It is a belief system. Muslims are not a race of people, they are a group of believers in a particular creed.
Which other belief system is protected from criticism or interrogation? In England we have an established state church, with its bishops sitting in our legislature’s upper chamber and its supreme governor as our head of state, and yet we are all free to criticise and interrogate it, and them, as much as we wish. Indeed it is something of national hobby.
Before others draw parallels with anti-semitism, I would simply point out that Jews are not in fact protected because of their religion, but rather because they are a race of people.
If we are to accept that “Islamophobia” is a thing, then why not “Fascistophobia”, “Socialistophobia”, “Flat-Earthophobia”, or all the other religious-phobias that other posters have pointed out.
If an opposition MP had said Andy Street is in thrall to Fascists, would there be an outcry in the national press, or would everybody simply roll their eyes and go about their business?
We must be able to challenge, criticise and debate others’ beliefs if we are to remain a free democratic country, no matter how dearly they hold them.
Well said!
He isn’t
Giles Fraser depends on the convenient but tendentious distinction between Muslims and islamists . All Muslims tend to be literalists . but so-called Islamists are more prepared to enact the literal meaning of the religious texts and go to heaven as martyrs , indeed welcome that prospect .
He says Islamism is a problem in the UK , not Islam . But it’s only a theoretical problem because you must take incomers at their word so as to avoid ‘othering them’ and he won’t ’make windows into men’s souls ‘
He is quoting the very high status Good Queen Bess but he really comes across as Pontius Pilate washing his hands of the issue , so he can continue love bombing Muslim immigrants while supporting the bomb bombing of their co-religionists in Gaza .
– I’m unhappy with this text.
.
The Left fires back, t*t for tat, accusing the Tories of Islamophobia, but also rightly pointing out that much of the Right’s anxiety about immigration is cast as a suspicion of Islam and of being replaced by some threatening Other. If you squint, this is what you see: the Tories as Team Israel, and Labour as Team Palestine. It’s about as insightful as an Old Firm derby. A plague on both their houses.
.
– Horribly short-sighted explanation.
.
Perhaps it has something to do with Anderson stirring up a fear of the Other? There was little sensitivity or nuance in his comments.
.
– It sounds like we are in a school for noble – maidens, and, mind you, we are talking about Muslims, a model of sensitivity and empathy.
Can we not encourage the use of that absurd term for at best it is a very deceitful concept coined by the Muslim Brotherhood.
Please can we see an article on how minorities fare in Pakistan when they fall foul of their blasphemy laws (that protect only the majority faith) often through no fault of their own? Included could be an account of how these laws are routinely abused by those who seek to settle scores, how many poor and vulnerable people end up on death row or rotting for years in a cell? An article about how a Christian community there was attacked by a mob in August last year after two of its members were accused of blasphemy would be pertinent as would reference to how the courageous politician Salmaan Taseer was murdered for daring to seek to repeal these horrific laws and his murderer hailed by a mob of tens of thousands as a hero?
It is just that I feel there needs to an urgent educational campaign launched in this country before it is too late. Pakistan could be providing a useful window onto the potential future of this country and a reality that our children and grandchildren may one day have to face.
Yes there is much to fear in Islam.
Anderson is obviously an Islamophobe, a racist and, most of all, a complete moron.
He’ll be gone as an MP this year and we can all forget he ever existed.
“Islamophobia. A word created by fascists, & used by cowards, to manipulate morons.” Sam Harris
Woke leftists are the reason Islamism is on the rise. In their absolute wanton hatred of all pillars of western civilisation they embrace the very creed that will actually do them to death.
Western liberals dance around the whole subject of Islam pretending that there is an actual difference between Islam and islamism. There isn’t. Islam is a political religion. There is no such thing as separation of church and state in Muslim countries. Turkey was the only one, and they needed a hard core army to enforce the separation but that didn’t last long. Its a brutal religion and the sooner we call a spade a spade and call a halt on all .Islam.immigration which is undermining social.cohesion. The western worlds days are numbered because of its naivety and ignorance of the truth of islamist intentions.
I would point out that the country with the largest Muslim populace, Indonesia, has little history of Jihad. Neither do the 100 million Indian Muslims. This is an Arab cultural problem, not about religion. The Arabs could be Amish and they would still be beheading infidels who refuse to use a horse and buggy.
A very interesting subject but I fear Malay Islam is so idiosyncratic that it should be considered in isolation.
Historically Malay Islam has has an inherited syncretic bond with the underlying Hindu and Buddhist traditions which preceded it. Islam came late to the Malay archipelago and had to interact with firmly established religious customs. Almost all abstract nouns in Malay are inherited from Sanskrit, not Arabic. The word for ‘religion’ itself, Agama is a Sanskrit word. When Islam did arrive it came via traders and teachers from the mystically inflected tradition of the Hadramaut rather than Cairo or Baghdad. Malay scholars traditionally went to the Hadramaut to study Islam, not Al Azhar in Cairo.
Saudi funded Wahabbism and Salafism are spreading, however, and even stimulating a violent emulative reponse in native strands of Sufism. It is a very sad thing to see the decline and progressive extirpation of gentle customary Malay Islam which is going on across the East Indies.
The only thing that I have against Muslims is that they take religion seriously, just as the UK was growing out of it.
Islamophobia – a recently invented weasel word designed to shut down any criticism of Islam, the conduct of Muslims and mass immigration of Muslims into the UK.
T he word may be new but the attitude has been around for years. It’s about being allowed to be a racist again, towards brown people. Not all of them – those days have gone – but at least you can still hate some of them, eh? If you haven’t encountered it well done you for not mixing in the same dodgy circles that I have!
There are things whereof we dare not speak
And things few dare say
We are all hostages now
Hostages to fortune and to “furious intent”
“There is a fault – do not adjust your set”
In which Giles Fraser continues his journey into stupid.
We start by suggesting that antisemitism on the left and islamophobia on the right are mirror images of one another and then we wonder why we cannot make sense of the world.
Whatever you may think about the relative acuity of these problems, it is really important that their nature and the cultural response to them is very, very different.
If you don’t believe me, ask yourself this, how many muslims have been thrown out of the Conservative party for islamophobia? None – obviously. How many Jews have been thrown out of the Labour party for antisemitism? Answer: hundreds.
These are different phenomena. Pretending that they are the same because they have some superficial symmetries is stupid and will lead you to stupid conclusions.
As to the idea that no-one can say what precisely was the matter with Lee Anderson’s comments. WTF? The Tory PR machine couldn’t answer that question because they didn’t want to admit that the answer was that it’s straight up racist.
If Giles Fraser is struggling to see why, saying that a muslim mayor and the city he leads is under the control of his co-religionists is to suggest that he is answerable to someone other than his electorate. That is a controversial claim but it wouldn’t be racist if there were evidence that is was true.
In reality, there isn’t the slightest shred of evidence for that claim. Which leaves us wondering why you would make it. The reason is because you think that the public thinks “islamists” and their agenda are scary and that by making this claim, you will make people less likely to vote for Khan.
The statement is a smear because it isn’t true. It’s a racist smear because its effectiveness lies in the political use of existing racial prejudice. It is an appeal to the public to act upon racist attitudes (attitudes which 30p and his mates are also involved in fostering)
It wasn’t wrong, what they meant was it wasn’t correct. There is a difference.
I’m no fan of Mayor Khan (reluctantly however since I did vote for him originally) but it’s incorrect that the Muslim’s have infiltrated him or his policies. It’s far more the “liberal woke” who have infiltrated City Hall and that’s the real worry for London and Londoners.
I don’t think Mr Anderson was Islamophobic in as much as there’s a valid criticism of the culture of Islam (in the same way there are valid criticisms of almost all religious cultures) but I do think he was just incorrect in what he thinks is happening.
Why do we not talk about Khufar-phobia, when “Islamophobia” – the creation of the Muslim Council – has become a favourite tool of both Islamists and middle class Labourites to gain dominance over any who dare resist their advance?
Khufar-phobia is real, and charts it’s advance in the litany over decades of dead and mutilated at the hands of Islamists offended by the presence of non-Muslims in Britain and wherever they colonise in the world. It must be called out and discussed openly. Otherwise, the victim-blaming of the indigenous population will never end.