IN THE SHADOW OF THE SWORD
On The Limits of Tolerance: Islam, Islamism and the Pusillanimity
of Liberal Left
I owe a great deal to ‘Why I am not a Muslim,’ by Ibn Warraq in the writing of this essay. It is a courageous erudite and lucid book and I recommend to anyone interested in the issues raised here.
I.The stupidest speech I have heard in recent years, and the bar is not high, came from a Liberal Democrat activist speaking at one of their spring conferences. The gist of her speech was a disdain for the concept of tolerance. ‘I don’t want” she opined from the rostrum, “to live in a society that merely tolerates difference I want to live in a society that openly embraces diversity. Tolerance simply isn’t good enough!” This is the sound of the ideology of multiculturalism finally gone mad. A hysterical cry of a hitherto unknown phenomenon, fanaticism masquerading as liberalism.
Leaving aside for a moment how this brave new world would police any perceived failure to embrace diversity, let us pause for a moment to inspect the virtue that is being decried here, tolerance. Tolerance represents the essential element that allows multi-cultural and heterogeneously complex societies to function. In practice it means that I may loath your politics, dislike your activities, take issue with your religious views but understand that in a free and open society you enjoy the right to hold those religious belief, engage in any practices you choose within the law and campaign for any political cause you choose. I tolerate[1] these things on the understanding that I enjoy these same freedoms.
Toleration of this kind is always being tested and placed under severe strain, the passion for free speech turning out to be one of the weaker human passions; free speech being all very good and well until your own most cherished values come under assault and forensic scrutiny. The censor in all of us is never very far from the surface. Consequently genuinely free, open and tolerant societies are a relative rarity on the planet, chiefly confined to Western Europe, the Anglosphere and parts of Latin America. India being an extremely notable exception, a country fighting to keep open free speech and democracy alive in the face of attacks from Hindu and Muslim religious fanatics.
Indeed historically one of the greatest enemies of free speech[2] has been religion, in Europe this hostility emanated from Christianity. However from the 18th century onward the decline of religion and the rise of secular values represented the necessary condition for the scientific revolution of the preceding two centuries, which spread across the continent with varying degrees of success; rationalism, humanism and tolerance began to establish firm footholds. Only in Catholic Spain and South Eastern Europe, where Islam held sway, did society still operate under the old rules of theocratic predominance.[3]
By the 19th Century, in Britain in particular, tolerance began to be seen as a virtue, heresy, agnosticism and atheism no longer penalized but tolerated. (Apostasy had long since ceased to be been seen as something requiring the intervention of church or state). I would contend that these developments marked considerable progress in the conduct of human affairs.
Now religion in seeking to make a comeback, though this time it is Islam that is seeking special status in western society, seeking to set fresh boundaries on debate and free speech. Moreover since the Rushdie affair this attempt to redraw the boundaries is being made under the threat of violence. For some Muslims free speech ends when it comes to criticism of Islam, or even academic enquiry into the nature of their faith.
II.
In his book The End of Faith Sam Harris makes the one statement that you are never supposed to make, he names the elephant in the room. There is, he states, a problem with Islam.[4]
Now it is of course essential to make clear, as Harris does, that millions upon millions of Muslims throughout the world go about their business, leading industrious and productive lives, contributing fully to the societies in which they live, obeying the local man made laws and living at peace with their neighbours. In Britain alone the contribution of the South Asian Community, in many areas predominantly Muslim, is striking. From cuisine to popular culture these communities have added greatly to British life. Indeed given the proportionately higher degree of educational attainment amongst this community they have already contributed more than most and promise to contribute much more. The important, indeed central point here is that they have however contributed in this way in spite of Islam not as a consequence of their faith.
Put at its simplest Muslims can really only be active citizens practising tolerance and living in peace with adherents of other faiths if they ignore great swathes of Islamic religious doctrine. You do not necessarily become a good citizen by being a weak Muslim, but it is a prerequisite.
It is worth pointing out that Christianity presented similar problems for European society from the time it was adopted as the state religion of the Roman Empire until the 18th Century in this country and the Protestant states of the north, and the 19th and 20th Centuries in the Catholic South. Though some countries like Ireland and Spain continued to be governed by semi theocracies until the middle years of the last century. Indeed pockets of Christian fundamentalism still cause problems around the globe. Again the key point being that the establishment of free and open societies only becomes possible when citizens put aside religious dogma that is when they start to take religion less seriously.
However there is a more particular problem with Islam. For all the great many crimes committed in the name of Christianity these crimes were committed despite Christian doctrine, it required complex theological gymnastics to undertake the Crusades or set in train the inquisition in the face of turn the other cheek, and love thy enemy as thyself.[5] Sure the Old Testament is riddled with passages praising violence and cruelty, however Jesus himself was not noted for advocating violence. Not so Mohammed.
Take the risible claim that Islam is ‘the religion of peace.’ I defy anyone to study the life of Mohammed or read the Quran to rationally come to this conclusion. To illustrate this let me quote a significant source, the Ayatollah Khomeini: -
“Those who know nothing of Islam pretend that Islam counsels against war. Those who say this are witless. Islam says kill all the unbelievers just as they would kill you…Islam says: Kill them [the unbelievers] put them to the sword and scatter [their armies]…Islam says: whatever good there is exists thanks to the sword and in the shadow of the sword! People cannot be made to be obedient except with the sword! The sword is the key to Paradise which can be opened only for holy warriors,”[6]
Say what you like about the Ayatollah, nobody could accuse him of not knowing his Quran. Fundamentalists are called so for a reason, they believe in adhering to the fundamentals of their religion, to the core beliefs which must be literally accepted and adhered to. The Quran is the word of God and must be heeded in all respects. Who is closer to the truth of Islam the soft spoken Imam from a middle class suburb of London describing Islam as a religion of peace in a local multi faith forum or the Muslim Clerics in Sudan, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan or the Yemen? When the young Muslims in East London or Birmingham who, having been fed the religion of peace line, go on to read and absorb the Quran will they not begin to feel somewhat misled by their elders? In short, the Islamist fighters in Syria and Iraq are not ‘hijacking Islam,’ they are seeking to restore it.
III.Any reader familiar with the issues I am addressing will be surprised that I have not yet used the term ‘political correctness.’ I have not done so for two reasons firstly I believe it has been overused and is now worn out. It is now little more than a term of abuse.[7] At a most basic level it describes an attitude to language that requires a sensitivity to its use, it demands a form of politeness. Some of those who rail against it do so because it seeks to restrain their ability to use abusive language towards women, people of colour and minorities. Underneath the mask of those who bemoan ‘political correctness’ you will more often than not find the bully.
Secondly I believe that at another level political correctness is often used to describe something different, something that is in fact much a lot more sinister,- a mix of cultural relativism and an over sensitivity to the feelings and beliefs of others. It is an ideology that seeks to curb free speech and open debate. I have chosen to describe this as liberal appeasement (LA). Liberal Appeasement takes a variety of forms from an over-sensitivity to Islamic sensibilities, to Islamaphilia, a desire to present Islam in the most flattering light, even at the cost of re-writing history, or conducting acts of profound intellectual dishonesty. This latter phenomenon has been exposed, with great humour by Douglas Murray in his Kindle book of the same name. It is an ideology of abject surrender and censorship, seen most starkly during the Danish cartoons affair.
Some of this appeasement is born out of a genuine desire not to offend, a much larger proportion however comes out of abject fear. What makes this fear all the more sinister and pernicious is the almost universal denial that it exists at all. Liberal comedians, news readers, social commentators, politicians, actors, journalists will all claim to be motivated by sensitivity not fear.[8] Occasionally however the curtain is pulled back and someone such as the impressionist Rory Bremner or the artist Grayson Perry break the spell and admit, as Perry did, that he declined from criticising Islam “as I didn’t want my throat cut.”
As any recovering alcoholic will tell you the first step in recovery is admitting you have a problem and we have a very severe problem respecting Islam and the sooner we own up to it the sooner we can begin to address it. Another essential step is for the West to regain confidence in its values, from free speech, open enquiry, and a belief in equality for all regardless of race, religion, gender or sexual orientation. It requires an end to the endless apologising and the squalid morass of cultural relativism. We need to boldly state that a society that espouses such values is superior to ones that do not. That societies in which stoning women for adultery, compelling women to wear a sack on their heads and remain indoors unless a man is prepared to accompany them and that sentences gay men, or people of no religion to death are inferior to our own and that these practices are barbaric.
We also need to start drawing firm lines to protect free speech, this is going to require courage. In practical terms it means the next time an exhibition, a play, a book or film is threatened by Islamic, or indeed any other religiously inspired mobs or by medieval fatwas we must mobilize to defend it and be prepared to bring the full force of the law on those who threaten violence. It also means being consistent, it is as improper in a free society to imprison somebody for burning a poppy as it is for someone defiling the Quran. Most important of all we must state boldly that nobody enjoys the right not to be offended.
We must restore tolerance to its rightful place in an open democracy, which also means clearing up the various confusions around that much overused word respect. Tolerance demands that citizens hold the right to believe in what they will and to freely practice those beliefs, within the law and on the understanding that such practices will not interfere with the rights of others; it makes no demand that those beliefs themselves be accorded respect.
Thus I believe in what I choose to call libertarian socialism, beliefs strongly influenced by anarchist theory, I enjoy no right that you should respect my beliefs, that these beliefs be free from open debate and enquiry and I enjoy no right of redress should you choose to insult these beliefs. Thus the former political editor of the New Statesman Mehdi Hasan, admits to believing Muhammad flew to heaven on a winged horse. He is of course free to believe this just as I am free to say that it is complete tosh.[9] Good manners may restrain the way in which I criticize such beliefs, but it should be the only constraint.
Other steps would also help, not least the disestablishment of the Church of England, so that no religion receives preferential treatment over others. We also need to urgently address what is taught in so called ‘faith schools.’ I would cheerfully abolish them altogether, but understand the social tensions this might cause. In the meantime all public funding should be removed. As I have said before if parents want to fill their children’s heads with superstitious nonsense that, to a degree, is their affair. The rest of us should not be expected to pay for it.
IV.
The liberal secular values bequeathed to us by the enlightenment are under threat as never before; at the United Nations several attempts have been made to provide privileged status to Islam, (invariably cloaked under demands that all religions be similarly protected), and to enshrine the ‘crime’ of blasphemy in international law. Here in the UK you have to be blind not to be aware of the growing demand for censorship to protect religious sensibilities. Whilst free speech is increasingly portrayed as a luxury that only serves the interests of the existing ‘privileged groups,’ i.e. read white middle class liberals. These arguments must be challenged head on. I fight for these values because I believe in them, though as it happens the best protection for religious faith in a multi-faith society is a strong secular culture.
Standing up to Islamic fascists is going to take courage, anything worth fighting for invariably does. But surely, at the risk of being accused of hyperbole, it is better to die on one’s feet than live on one’s knees.
1] ‘To allow the existence, presence, practice, or act of without prohibition or hindrance; permit.’ The Online Dictionary
[2] I am aware here that I am conflating tolerance and free speech, this does not feel problematic to me since a tolerant society that censors free speech seem to me to be an oxymoron.
[3] I pass over the risible claims of Islamic apologists seeking to portray the lands of the caliphate as beacons of tolerance and enlightenment, places were all three monotheisms co-existed in harmonious tranquillity. True Christianity and Judaism were allowed to function in the Caliphate, but only on the understanding that Christians and Jews must accept the status of second class citizens. That Christianity had an even worse record respecting religious minorities is neither here nor there but a silly game of ‘whataboutary.’
[4] The End of Faith, Sam Harris, The Free Press 2005, see particularly Chapter 4 p108 The Problem with Islam. By writing this Chapter Harris of course condemns himself to eternal damnation, whilst in this life condemned to reside forever in the domain of the Islamophobes, a surprisingly crowded place. Thus here he can rub shoulders with the likes of Polly Toynbee, Ayan Hirsi Ali and Professor Richard Dawkins.
[5] Now there are problems with this doctrines themselves but it is outside my remit here to address them.
[6] Quoted in ‘Why I am not a Muslim,’ by Ibn Warraq
[7] The best description and analysis of the ‘political correctness’ phenomenon can be found in On Offence: The Politics Of Indignation, by Richard King
[8] Amidst all the cowardice and insincerity one constantly witnesses acts of profound intellectual dishonesty. Thus Penny Laurie, contributing editor of the left wing New Statesman defends the enforced segregation of woman when Muslims demand it, see http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/dec/22/this-isnt-feminism-its-islamophobia One can only imagine her reaction should such segregation be demanded by, for example, a Christian fundamentalist sect.
[9] And, rightly or not, it does colour my view of Mr Hassan, I take him less seriously as a consequence.
Say what you like about the Ayatollah, nobody could accuse him of not knowing his Quran. Fundamentalists are called so for a reason, they believe in adhering to the fundamentals of their religion, to the core beliefs which must be literally accepted and adhered to. The Quran is the word of God and must be heeded in all respects. Who is closer to the truth of Islam the soft spoken Imam from a middle class suburb of London describing Islam as a religion of peace in a local multi faith forum or the Muslim Clerics in Sudan, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan or the Yemen? When the young Muslims in East London or Birmingham who, having been fed the religion of peace line, go on to read and absorb the Quran will they not begin to feel somewhat misled by their elders? In short, the Islamist fighters in Syria and Iraq are not ‘hijacking Islam,’ they are seeking to restore it.
III.Any reader familiar with the issues I am addressing will be surprised that I have not yet used the term ‘political correctness.’ I have not done so for two reasons firstly I believe it has been overused and is now worn out. It is now little more than a term of abuse.[7] At a most basic level it describes an attitude to language that requires a sensitivity to its use, it demands a form of politeness. Some of those who rail against it do so because it seeks to restrain their ability to use abusive language towards women, people of colour and minorities. Underneath the mask of those who bemoan ‘political correctness’ you will more often than not find the bully.
Secondly I believe that at another level political correctness is often used to describe something different, something that is in fact much a lot more sinister,- a mix of cultural relativism and an over sensitivity to the feelings and beliefs of others. It is an ideology that seeks to curb free speech and open debate. I have chosen to describe this as liberal appeasement (LA). Liberal Appeasement takes a variety of forms from an over-sensitivity to Islamic sensibilities, to Islamaphilia, a desire to present Islam in the most flattering light, even at the cost of re-writing history, or conducting acts of profound intellectual dishonesty. This latter phenomenon has been exposed, with great humour by Douglas Murray in his Kindle book of the same name. It is an ideology of abject surrender and censorship, seen most starkly during the Danish cartoons affair.
Some of this appeasement is born out of a genuine desire not to offend, a much larger proportion however comes out of abject fear. What makes this fear all the more sinister and pernicious is the almost universal denial that it exists at all. Liberal comedians, news readers, social commentators, politicians, actors, journalists will all claim to be motivated by sensitivity not fear.[8] Occasionally however the curtain is pulled back and someone such as the impressionist Rory Bremner or the artist Grayson Perry break the spell and admit, as Perry did, that he declined from criticising Islam “as I didn’t want my throat cut.”
As any recovering alcoholic will tell you the first step in recovery is admitting you have a problem and we have a very severe problem respecting Islam and the sooner we own up to it the sooner we can begin to address it. Another essential step is for the West to regain confidence in its values, from free speech, open enquiry, and a belief in equality for all regardless of race, religion, gender or sexual orientation. It requires an end to the endless apologising and the squalid morass of cultural relativism. We need to boldly state that a society that espouses such values is superior to ones that do not. That societies in which stoning women for adultery, compelling women to wear a sack on their heads and remain indoors unless a man is prepared to accompany them and that sentences gay men, or people of no religion to death are inferior to our own and that these practices are barbaric.
We also need to start drawing firm lines to protect free speech, this is going to require courage. In practical terms it means the next time an exhibition, a play, a book or film is threatened by Islamic, or indeed any other religiously inspired mobs or by medieval fatwas we must mobilize to defend it and be prepared to bring the full force of the law on those who threaten violence. It also means being consistent, it is as improper in a free society to imprison somebody for burning a poppy as it is for someone defiling the Quran. Most important of all we must state boldly that nobody enjoys the right not to be offended.
We must restore tolerance to its rightful place in an open democracy, which also means clearing up the various confusions around that much overused word respect. Tolerance demands that citizens hold the right to believe in what they will and to freely practice those beliefs, within the law and on the understanding that such practices will not interfere with the rights of others; it makes no demand that those beliefs themselves be accorded respect.
Thus I believe in what I choose to call libertarian socialism, beliefs strongly influenced by anarchist theory, I enjoy no right that you should respect my beliefs, that these beliefs be free from open debate and enquiry and I enjoy no right of redress should you choose to insult these beliefs. Thus the former political editor of the New Statesman Mehdi Hasan, admits to believing Muhammad flew to heaven on a winged horse. He is of course free to believe this just as I am free to say that it is complete tosh.[9] Good manners may restrain the way in which I criticize such beliefs, but it should be the only constraint.
Other steps would also help, not least the disestablishment of the Church of England, so that no religion receives preferential treatment over others. We also need to urgently address what is taught in so called ‘faith schools.’ I would cheerfully abolish them altogether, but understand the social tensions this might cause. In the meantime all public funding should be removed. As I have said before if parents want to fill their children’s heads with superstitious nonsense that, to a degree, is their affair. The rest of us should not be expected to pay for it.
IV.
The liberal secular values bequeathed to us by the enlightenment are under threat as never before; at the United Nations several attempts have been made to provide privileged status to Islam, (invariably cloaked under demands that all religions be similarly protected), and to enshrine the ‘crime’ of blasphemy in international law. Here in the UK you have to be blind not to be aware of the growing demand for censorship to protect religious sensibilities. Whilst free speech is increasingly portrayed as a luxury that only serves the interests of the existing ‘privileged groups,’ i.e. read white middle class liberals. These arguments must be challenged head on. I fight for these values because I believe in them, though as it happens the best protection for religious faith in a multi-faith society is a strong secular culture.
Standing up to Islamic fascists is going to take courage, anything worth fighting for invariably does. But surely, at the risk of being accused of hyperbole, it is better to die on one’s feet than live on one’s knees.
1] ‘To allow the existence, presence, practice, or act of without prohibition or hindrance; permit.’ The Online Dictionary
[2] I am aware here that I am conflating tolerance and free speech, this does not feel problematic to me since a tolerant society that censors free speech seem to me to be an oxymoron.
[3] I pass over the risible claims of Islamic apologists seeking to portray the lands of the caliphate as beacons of tolerance and enlightenment, places were all three monotheisms co-existed in harmonious tranquillity. True Christianity and Judaism were allowed to function in the Caliphate, but only on the understanding that Christians and Jews must accept the status of second class citizens. That Christianity had an even worse record respecting religious minorities is neither here nor there but a silly game of ‘whataboutary.’
[4] The End of Faith, Sam Harris, The Free Press 2005, see particularly Chapter 4 p108 The Problem with Islam. By writing this Chapter Harris of course condemns himself to eternal damnation, whilst in this life condemned to reside forever in the domain of the Islamophobes, a surprisingly crowded place. Thus here he can rub shoulders with the likes of Polly Toynbee, Ayan Hirsi Ali and Professor Richard Dawkins.
[5] Now there are problems with this doctrines themselves but it is outside my remit here to address them.
[6] Quoted in ‘Why I am not a Muslim,’ by Ibn Warraq
[7] The best description and analysis of the ‘political correctness’ phenomenon can be found in On Offence: The Politics Of Indignation, by Richard King
[8] Amidst all the cowardice and insincerity one constantly witnesses acts of profound intellectual dishonesty. Thus Penny Laurie, contributing editor of the left wing New Statesman defends the enforced segregation of woman when Muslims demand it, see http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/dec/22/this-isnt-feminism-its-islamophobia One can only imagine her reaction should such segregation be demanded by, for example, a Christian fundamentalist sect.
[9] And, rightly or not, it does colour my view of Mr Hassan, I take him less seriously as a consequence.
