Islamists’ ‘devotion to social justice’
The Guardian pulls our chain again.
In recent weeks an unnecessary schism has been created between government and British Islamists…Taken together these incidents reinforce concerns that British Islamists are uniquely held out for political attack, and illustrate the power of key anti-Islamist lobbying groups.
Why is it assumed to be wrong for a particular political group to be ‘uniquely held out for political attack’? It is perfectly possible for a particular political group to be uniquely wrong and bad and harmful, so why would it be inherently wrong to single out such a group for special attention and opprobrium? In other words, why shouldn’t British Islamists be ‘uniquely held out for political attack’?
Well because they are such nice idealistic social activists, according to Lambert and Githens-Mazer.
While British Islamists are as diverse as British socialists, the interviews do reveal important unifying characteristics, most notably a devotion to social justice and a concern for community needs over individual or corporate ambitions. British Islamists are typified by a sense of moral obligation to confront injustice, and they strive, in their own ways, to try to make the world a better place. These are messages which have more power than ever in modern Britain.
That makes me want to hit Lambert and Githens-Mazer violently over the head. A devotion to social justice nothing; a devotion to social justice is not compatible with a devotion to ferocious segregation of women, gender inequality, and homophobia.
Our interviews with British Islamists have demonstrated a sense of an Islamic imperative that is strikingly similar to Tony Benn’s interpretation of Jesus’ call to active citizenship on behalf of the politically oppressed….[M]ainstream British Islamist organisations, like the Muslim Council of Britain, the Muslim Association of Britain, the British Muslim Initiative, Islamic Forum Europe and many more, do not represent the entirety of British Muslim opinion, any more than Methodists represent all of Protestantism.
Active citizenship on behalf of the politically oppressed? On behalf of the politically oppressed? Including women? Gays? Jews? Apostates? Non-Muslims? Unbelievers? Atheists? Not that I know of. Do correct me if I’m wrong, but to the best of my knowledge ‘mainstream’ Islamist organizations do not oppose the political oppression of any of those groups. And then of course the idea that the MAB is ‘mainstream’ is a horrifying joke – but this is Overton window stuff: throw in the MAB so that the inclusion of the MCB will seem reasonable in comparison.
Anyway – yet again – the Guardian covers itself in ordure. They don’t give Fred Phelps a platform, why do they give one to this kind of thing?
Unfortunately for the authors of the Guardian piece, Robert Lambert and Jonathan Githens-Mazer, the car they are trying to flog is a rustbucket with faulty steering. They say early on: “According to the Oxford Dictionary of Islam, ‘Islamist’ describes an Islamic political or social activist…”
The ODI may well say that, but to the ordinary citizen in the street, ‘Islamist’ means fanatical suicide bomber. Sorry boys, but that is the way language works and evolves.
Dotted around the world are various remnants and descendants of the once proud communist movement founded by Karl Marx, easily one of the best minds to date. Except that communism = Stalinism as far as the masses out there are concerned. No way out for it.
“Islamism” desperately needs the attention of a team of PR consultants drawn from the world’s best, a makeover and rebadging, a philosophic overhaul, and probably a 100% turnover of its membership and support ranks.
That should do it.
Which is true- do I have awesome predictive gifts, or is Islamism completely banal? I searched for the Guardian’s model Islamist- Daud Abdullah- and he does the things one would expect him to; addresses rallies with gorgeous George, hoarsely shouts for people- Jews, sellers of armaments to Israel- to suffer violent punishments, asks for support for Hamas, sports a beard. Islamists should attempt to confound our expectations- have Islamists teddy-bear picnics, dress garishly, wear I heart man-on-man love badges.
As far as I understand it, whatever the OD of Islam (and who put that together?) says, ‘Islamist’ means a proponent of political Islam, i.e. theocracy. As far as I know that’s not even controversial, it’s just what the word means: Islamism=political Islam and vice versa. It doesn’t necessarily mean bomber or suicide bomber – but ‘Islamic political or social activist’ is deceptive at best.
Of course Islamists are committed to devoted to social justice – their version of social justice, which when played out to its logical and most severe conclusion ends up beating girls for hanging out with unrelated males as we’ve seen in Pakistan. I’m sure the Taliban thought they were meeting out social justice.
Which of course gets back to Austin Dacey’s point about not privatizing terms like “social justice” away – they’re contestable concepts, and obscene versions of “social justice” as propagated by the religious right (whether Islamic, Christian, Hindu, or whatever) sneak their way in through the back door.
The right question isn’t whether or not Islamists are devoted to “social justice;” everyone in politics is devoted to their own version of social justice. It’s what peoplemean when they talk about social justice. What most people on the left ought to be doing is pointing out that Islamist conceptions of “social justice” are irrational and oppressive.
The biggest wrong these reporters make is that they assume “social justice” means what they think it means. It’s like the unthinking stance in some quarters that “faith” is automatically good regardless of the contents. So it’s entirely appropriate – indeed mandatory if we’re talking about liberal democratic politics – that Islamist conceptions of “social justice” are held out for political attack.
Quite; that’s what I meant by saying what sj is not compatible with.
I’m not sure Lambert and Githens-Mazer think ‘social justice’ means what they think it means though – I suspect they do know it means something different, and they’re being tricksy. I have no idea who they are – should find out.
Yesterday, I forgot my justifications for not buying a Guardian, and purchased one.
I’ll remember not to part with any money again, as I don’t wish to pay even tiny sums to a Paper happy to host articles fawning over evil Islamists.
Probably the Nazis imagined they were bringing ‘social justice’ to Germany.
Here is a good piece on Lambert and Githens-Mazer:
http://www.hurryupharry.org/2009/04/01/blears-was-right-lambert-is-wrong/
I have no idea what is meant by
“social justice” in this context, even though theorising about social justice is supposed to be something I know something about. It’s a difficult topic at the best of times, even when dealing only with thinkers in the broad tradition of Western liberalism: Rawls’s social justice might be Nozick’s social injustice, and vice versa.
I’m not comforted to hear that UK Islamists are committed to something that the authors see as “social justice” but might seem like quite the opposite to me, if I even knew what it actually was that they’re talking about.
[…] encountered them before. Lambert is a former cop; he headed the Muslim Contact Unit in the Metropolitan Police; he did lots […]