The only 'proper' Muslim is a non-political one

Last week Hazel Blears has announced that the government would fund a "Theology board" for Muslims in the UK. In an interview with Radio 4, she said lots of nice - and true - things about Islam: that it is peaceful, that it is a religion of compassion, and then Kaboom! She claimed that this board will allow for a "proper interpretation" of Islam. I felt like I was stuck in the blurry screen waves of a bad 1970's sitcom which was transporting us back to the Middle Ages, to a time when the Government dictated to the public what is and isn't proper in religion. And this was indeed, about as funny as aforementioned sitcom.

The government has stated that it is doing its best to tackle Islamists who are the source of extremism. According to the government, Islamists are all without exception terribly violent and bloodthirsty. Islamists are apparently the cause of the world's problems - earthquakes in China, climate change, food shortages, the fuel crisis and poverty and malnutrition to name but a few. The only good Islamist is an ex-Islamist. The government has then used this premise to go on to define its entire policy about Muslims in the UK around the issue of security, ignoring issues of economics, society, education and deprivation.

The term 'Islamist' was once applied to anyone who used Islam as a political ideology. Muslims who do not have a political ideology of any sort are okay and need not be worried about being infected by Islamism. But the problem is that the term 'Islamism' has now been stretched to mean any Muslim who is political.

Blears insinuates that Muslims who are not politically active are the preferred kind of Muslim. She said in a speech to the Policy Exchange: "The fact remains that most British Muslims, like the wider community, are not politically active, do not sit on committees, and do not attend seminars and meetings. They are working hard, bringing up families, planning their holidays, and going about their business." Jack Straw was also quite clear about this two years ago: you can't be a Muslim woman in niqab and visit your MP to engage in the political process.

So if you are a poor confused brainwashed Muslim who cannot tell the difference between someone who is peddling violence and someone who is rocking their head with Britolerant chanting, then the government is going to help you decide your opinions, don't you worry, poor little Muslim.

The stance of the government takes the handful of criminals who have engaged in violent activity and states that this is a perverted interpretation of Islam, and needs to be exposed as such. Tony Blair said in a discussion with young Muslims "we have to accept that this is therefore a Muslim problem, and a problem with Islam." I reject this utterly.

This is a criminal issue, which needs to be exposed and rejected as such. The criminals are invoking the mantle of Islam as protection. The only way to get rid of them is for everyone together - including Muslims and the government - to isolate those horrible violent activities as outside the philosophy of Islam. There is no need for a 'proper' interpretation of Islam, because these activities are not to do with Islam. Rooting the problem falsely within Islam has created a hostile and prejudiced environment where the criminal activities cannot be properly attacked. The government doesn't like to hear this being said, but this is the only sensible right-minded way forward.

The recent refusal of ministers to attend IslamExpo is a case in point. Irrespective of their opinion of the organisers, it was a chance to engage with forty thousand Muslims who want to create and settle into a comfortable peaceful British Islam. It smacks of an increasing confusion on the part of the government who are now not only failing to engage with Muslims, but are actively disengaging with those Muslims who are working to a positive peaceful agenda. Blears is playing a dangerous and - in my opinion - futile game which can only backfire as it will leave the vast majority of peaceful Muslims feeling resentful at being singled out for undemocratic dictatorship of their religious views, something with which the government has no business.

My government - the one that I dutifully pay my taxes to, the one that I actively engage with through support and through criticism as part of my duties as subject and citizen, the one that I cast my vote for (or against), the one that I have represented abroad on official business, the one that I support through my labour resources and contribution to the economy - this government tells me that I cannot be a Muslim and engage in politics. Government you have failed to understand that it is I, and millions of others who engage in political activity, that have put you into a position of power. And this statement refers not just to the Labour party, but to any party in power, so Conservatives take note too. Your holding of the reins of power is at the behest of those who vote you in.

If our government makes a statement that a Muslim with a 'proper interpretation' of Islam is one that does not engage in political activity then our government does not have a 'proper interpretation' of its role and authority.

I wrote a piece a year ago stating "Five Things I love About Being a British Muslim Woman." In it I emphasised the importance as a Muslim of contributing to the nation that you are part of, and that part of being a contributing member is to be proud of what is good in that nation and to offer positive criticism to make the country a better place.

I continue to be committed to the people of Britain and to making our country a flourishing, forward-looking nation. In return the government has made a mockery of Muslims like me who want to engage in the political process by the rules of democracy, shared values and freedom of speech that the government claims underpin our shared vision of society. And the government is also making a mockery of the claims of democracy and freedom of speech by illegitimately excluding from political participation those whose opinions the government does not like. The government needs instead to think clearly for itself and avoid pandering to any which old voice which is popular in fear-mongering circles for their actions are undermining both the positive goals of social cohesion as well as the political process.

Blears said that "You can't win political arguments with the leaders of groups... who believe in the destruction of the very democratic process of debate and deliberation". By excluding the Muslim opinions that the government doesn't want to engage with through the devious method of saying that being a political Muslim is unpalatable, it is the government itself who is destroying the democratic process of debate.

Making the Mayoral Elections count

The elections on the 1st of May will determine not only the Mayor of London, but also the members of the London Assembly. The London Assembly is an elected body of 25 members, part of the Greater London Authority, that scrutinises the activities of the Mayor of London and has the power, with a two-thirds majority, to amend the Mayor's annual budget. So along with making an informed decision about who you want to vote in as Mayor, it's just as important to pick the right candidate for the London Assembly from your particular constituency, as they will also have a direct influence on London.

There are nine candidates standing for mayor, but Boris Johnson and Ken Livingstone are without doubt the two leading contenders. As with a lot of politics these days, it seems to be a battle on personality. My worry about BJ is that he is capturing voter interest simply because he is Not-Ken. Whilst some little fringe elements are off talking about his views on Palestine or Iraq, I think as Londoners, we need to ask ourselves questions about BJ, and about Ken and the other candidates about what can they really DO for our city.

On the ultra-macro level do they have the vision to create a world-leading city that celebrates the multicultural and diverse nature of the city? Do they have the wherewithal to position us as a global player as power shifts slowly from the West to China and India? Do they lead on environmental issues which affect us on the global level, but also in our own day to day experiences of living in this city? On the realities of day to day, how will they make life better? What services will they offer, introduce and change? Really important, and I think seriously overlooked by even leading journalists, is the candidate capable of working with the system and making change? Can they actually deliver on the blurb they spout? On closer analysis, do they have the skills and commitment?

Alas, I share the view with many that the choice before us is very poor. But if we don't vote, then we are simply casting a vote for whoever ends up being elected. Anyone who says that not voting is not supporting the system is so utterly wrong. Not voting is actually totally supporting the system. So in order to make a choice, here are some interesting facts I found:

Commitment to exercising the duties of an elected official:
- Boris Johnson MP has only voted in 48% of Parliamentary votes
This is very low, and doesn't appear to have any excuse. A very half-hearted approach to exercising public responsibility - doesn't show respect or commitment to the people who elected him

Leading the fight against racism and gender discrimination by example?
- "Black people have lower IQs", a statement published under his watch as the editor of The Spectator
- "The chicks in the GQ expenses department – and if you can't call them chicks, then what the hell, I ask you, is the point of writing for GQ." (Life in the Fast Lane p57)
Whether you take the words at face-value, or buy into Boris' excuse that they are 'ironic', it certainly shows a strong lack of respect. If nothing else, in an age of soundbites, a leader has to show common-sense and political sensitivity in ensuring their words do not fuel hatred or encourage discrimination.

A sympathy and understanding for fighting inequality and poverty:
- 'We seem to have forgotten that societies need rich people, even sickeningly rich people, and not just to provide jobs for those who clean swimming pools and resurface tennis courts'

Respect and neighbourliness
- 'There seems no reason to behave respectfully towards that little old woman coming out of the Post Office if you feel that she belongs to a culture that is alien from your own' (Lend Me Your Ears p207).
Nice to see a leader advocating a breakdown of respect, especially towards the elderly. Surely good manners is something our city and its leaders should aspire to?

Respect for Muslims
- After the July bombings he said 'Islam is the problem' and "Having given due warning, we would dispatch an American-built ground-assault helicopter and blow the place to bits. Then we would send in bulldozers to scrape over the remains, and we would do the same to all the other houses in the area thought to have been the temporary or permanent addresses of the suicide bombers and their families"
Not much respect going on for people, faith, and most importantly for democratic process here. Whatever you make of the bombings, surely our leaders should respect the law?

Finally, I thought you might like this little piece of irony. Boris claims he is not in fact Islamophobic, and bases this claim on the fact that his great-grandfather knew the Qur'an off-by-heart. (which is like saying black or Asian people cannot be racist, it simply doesn't follow). His ancestor was a minister in the Turkish government after the caliphate fell and "when the British occupied Constantinople for four years at the end of the first world war, he collaborated with them". Nice.

Happy voting.

******************************************************
A bit of background on the process:

How the Mayor is elected in this year's scenario of more than 3 candidates:
Voters cast a vote for their First Choice candidate and have the option of casting another vote for their Second Choice candidate. Any candidate who receives more than 50% of First Choice votes will be declared the winner. If no candidate gets more than 50% of First Choice votes, the top two candidates with the most First Choice votes go through to the second round. The remaining candidates are eliminated but the second choice votes on their ballot papers will be counted. The candidate with the highest total of First and Second Choice votes is elected.

Some blurb about how the London Assembly is elected:
The London Assembly is made up of 25 members: 14 Constituency Members who represent different areas in London and 11 London-wide Members who represent the city as a whole
The First Past the Post system is used to elect the Constituency Assembly Members - the candidate with the most votes in each constituency is elected. A form of proportional representation is used to elect the London-wide Assembly Members. Votes across London are added together regardless of constituency boundaries.