Tommy Robinson’s Hand of Friendship to the Muslim Community

It has been an interesting week for those, like us, who have concerns about aspects of sharia law.  Tommy Robinson and Kevin Carroll both resigned from their positions as co-leaders of the anti-sharia pressure group, the English Defence League.  What is remarkable is that their message has not changed.  They still talk about opposing extremism and they still favour a multicultural, multi-racial, democratic society.  What has changed is that those who were previously deaf to this message are now actually hearing what they say.

Of course, some will expose their own political biases by arguing that their message has not changed for other reasons.  They will argue that they are still far right extremists bent on demonising Muslims.  However, this was something that they never were in the first place.  This was a caricature, albeit one that was reinforced by those small numbers who had infiltrated the EDL to deliberately cause conflict.  This caricature was created to stereotype them and prevent the very discussions and debates that now appear to have started.

There will be other people who will argue that the Quilliam Foundation is this or that, that they are not really what they claim to be, etc.  When it comes down it such speculation is not really relevant at this stage.  What is important is that a debate has now started, Muslims and non-Muslims are talking together to try to actually solve real social problems.  Whether people are genuine or not will emerge naturally during the course of the discussions and people can make their judgements then.  A process has now started and that is positive so long as people are not demonised and excluded from the debate.

The current situation is akin to people with different opinions coming together in parliaments or at the United Nations where they discuss their differences as well as what they have in common.  When states do this it is called diplomacy.  You don’t work with your friends to mitigate and end conflicts, disagreements, and misunderstandings, you work with people who you have previously not seen eye to eye with.  Mr Robinson and Mr Carroll have offered the hand of friendship to the Muslims of the Quilliam Foundation and the Muslims of the Quilliam Foundation have accepted that hand.  That is a huge step, and represents not an end but a potentially very positive beginning.

I am also keen to work with Muslims and engage in public discussion in order to help create a society of tolerance and mutual understanding.  The International Civil Liberties Alliance (ICLA) spent a week in late September at the OSCE Human Dimension Implementation Meeting in Warsaw working towards this end.  Our main focus was about definitions as these are often the source of misunderstanding and conflict.  Unfortunately we had a very hard time getting through to many OSCE delegates even though a big part of the OSCE remit is conflict prevention.  Perhaps preconceptions about us have led to negative stereotypes in much the same way as they did with Mr Robinson and Mr Carroll!

A particular concern about definitions related to a new OSCE publication entitled Guidelines for Educators on Countering Intolerance and Discrimination against Muslims: Addressing Islamophobia through Education.  While I acknowledge that it is extremely important to counter intolerance and discrimination against Muslims, I have very grave concerns about the use of term “Islamophobia”.  Indeed this term is routinely used to demonise and stereotype anyone who has any concern about any aspect of sharia.  As such it is actually a barrier dialogue and mutual understanding.

ICLA is not alone with regard to its concerns about the term “Islamophobia” there is an article at the Huffington Post website entitled How Muslims Created Islamophobia and one at the Clarion Project website entitled Moderate Muslims Oppose ‘Islamophobia’ Tactic that express concerns too.

At the OSCE, we argued that if the term was to be used it should be properly defined so that it could only be used to address actual intolerance and discrimination against Muslims rather than as a tool to demonise people with genuine concerns.  Unfortunately there was great resistance to our position and our concerns were casually brushed aside.  We can only speculate about the reasons for this treatment because we do not know for sure the agendas that may lay behind the production of this publication.

ICLA had expressed an interest in being involved when this booklet was been developed.  However we were informed that these meetings were for “experts” only and we were effectively excluded.  The fact that these “experts” did not seem to understand what they meant by Islamophobia, even though they wrote a book about it that would influence the teaching of the next generation, brings into question, in my opinion, the nature of their “expertise”.

Our discussions at an OSCE side event organised by ODIHR about these matters can be found HERE where a transcript of the meeting can be found.  We leave it to the reader to decide whether the booklet is really as positive a document as its authors claim it to be.  We believe that it is likely to do more harm than good.  If we had been involved in the production of the booklet, and an unambiguous and politically neutral definition of Islamophobia arrived at, then we would have been able to recommend the booklet and do our bit to ensure that cases of actual intolerance and discrimination against Muslim are addressed.

I certainly hope that the outreach work that Mr Robinson and Mr Carroll are now doing with the Muslim community in the United Kingdom will help address some of the concerns that I mention above.  I hope that it will facilitate genuine dialogue between groups like ICLA, who have genuine concerns about aspects of sharia, and Muslim groups.  I hope that there can be an open and honest debate about all concerns and that parties, including governments and their agents, do not resort to stereotyping any of the parties involved in the discussions.  We are at the beginning of a potentially important period of discussion and dialogue, but only if governments, the press, and powerful lobbies get fully on board and stop being part of the problem.

Chris Knowles