Why is the government promoting political Islam?

Posted in PaulHampton's blog on ,

A Home Office task force set up after the 7/7 bombings published a report recently, which is quite scary.

The task force was composed of assorted clerics, political Islamists and so-called community leaders, and not surprisingly they’ve come to a modus vivendi with the government

The report, Preventing Extremism Together, contains a concoction of proposals that will strengthen the hand of reactionaries within Muslim communities in return for them policing these communities on behalf of the British state.

One proposal is that Islam should play a bigger role in school’s national curriculum – for example through religious education, Islamic studies, Arabic lessons to facilitate teaching of the Quran etc.

Another idea is “co-locating” community centres in mosques, giving clerics tremendous control over all Muslims, whether religious or not.

I think the recommendations are likely to promote segregation and help strengthen “moderate”, “non-violent” strands of fundamentalism. They do nothing to tackle the real issues of poverty and racism faced by Muslims – like the Asda managers in Wakefield who asked Asian workers to produce their passports just weeks after 7/7. The report is principally about extending the tentacles of the British state. We shouldn’t be afraid to say so.

The report is at http://communities.homeoffice.gov.uk/raceandfaith/reports_pubs/publicat…

Comments

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Tue, 03/01/2006 - 18:22

They do this because its poart and parcel of the whole multi-culti trip. You have to promote someone to make it look good. You have to have someone to consult. You have in this view to promote the illusion amongst this sections fo the populace (non capital-owning) that there is apoint in opting in and something to opt in to. All of that comrades analysed in the 1970's as the first race relations legislation was being introduced. You have to cream off or create a gravy train for the middleclass elements and isolate the working class or lumpen elements so that they can be dealt with by the police and criminal justice system.

The other thing is that there has to be a transmission belt and means of communication which this sets up. Basically Labour are scared of what would happen if they tried to talk generally to the population maybe especially in this case. Let alone go in for a battle of ideas or even just a fairly healthy discussion. They also have illusion in the nature of the culture they seek to isolate or emasculate. And people like know quantities and known leaders or figureheads. But like everything else this is apolitical question and not just something that can be dealt with bureaucratically or by giving it aspin.

There are other reasons but I've run out of time. See you later.

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Thu, 12/01/2006 - 14:10

The other side of this (see other comment for the "mechanics" of the situation interms of governemnt communications with minority groups) is the way the governemtn sees itself as needing to positon not only itself but the key interest groups. Talking to libral muslims would be all very well (and very welcome to anyone of any remotely progressive shade of opinion - the criticisms of the Islamic fundamanetalists by the liberal muslems is scarcely less fundamental than our own in some ways). however what good would that do. the governemnt is not worried about the moderate, liberal moslems committing criminal acts of indiscriminate terror. It is not particulalryl worried that this group could be dragged allong behind the fundamanetalists in pusuit of communal conflict. Basically they want t way to discuss and to lock into discussion those section amongst the polpulace who might potentially be dragged along behind the jihadist fundamentalists. And also they want totalk to the representatives who might be key to communicating indirectly withthe youth and in preventing the youth form being drawn behind the jihadists. I agree that this is not our way of doing things. From their perspective and indeed objectively there is some or qwuite alot of sense to it. the problem is that they then get left with a whole lot of proposeals from an unrepresentative minority of a minority which is basically at 100% loggerheads with our traditions of freedom of thought, freedom of speech and freedom of worship - oh yeah and potentially freedom of life. You'll have gathered by now I'm not exact;ly soft on this question. For our side we need to ask why the Marxists never made an analysis of Islam. If you look at Hegel's philosophy of history you will see that he was able to analyse what was progressive, indeed revolutionary about Chrisitanity and totdraw this up tohe Middle ages towards the close of the Germanic period. He wasn;t able to naalyse the decline of the slave societies and the passage to feudalism nor the role of Islam or other religions. We need such an analysis and some of us are now working on this. Before one can have aproper analysis of the fundamentalists and jihadists one must have aproper and fundamanetal analysis of the regions itself and ots strengths and weaknesses.

I'm not sure what the alternative is to what the government is doing. I think open but sensitive discussion about religion, the state of the world and western society and the alternaive (socialism in case you wondered). also the role of fundamantalism in the middle east and its role in realtion tothe the working class and the poor and in realtion to anti-zionism and other pseudo-radical distractions from the questions of life and liberation and of the development of society. Most moslems seem peaceful thoughful people who have their own preoccupations much the same as the rest of us. They want freedom of religion and are prepared to accept the same for others. The liberal moslems seem to want an end tothe more reactionary pratcices agains t women. Keuy tothis is that most moslems reject the lunatic expansionist/imperialist ideas of the past. Islam is after all a lilitant proselytising religion which sees non-believers as inferior - unlike our Christian tradition which see everyone as potentially Equal. you don;t need to be abeliever to understand or appreciate this. If people want aheads on fight then they can go for that simply by starting aslanging match - and it will turn the heat up although how much is hard to say. socialists have been ableto argue effectively onthe basis of what actually helps in practice - religous bigotry or discudssing the ewayus fo improving living standards, housing education, health provision. Oh well, time to see whatls on the other channel. There are a whole lot of harshthings that could truly be said of any religion - whether that is the way to foster unity, consencensus, peace, progress is uncertain. On the other hand most people know that if you go looking for trouble it will come to you. Mind you like alot of people I am utterly p**sed off at the though of aminority of bigots being able to make suggestions in all seriousneess about our society and our traditions. And again much of their religion is religious or racial hatred opr tantamount to it and socialists abhor that whateever the origin.

This website uses cookies, you can find out more and set your preferences here.
By continuing to use this website, you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms & Conditions.