Islam in Britain: Debunking Myths and Navigating Modernity
It seems that there are clearly quite a few myths that need to be debunked in relation to understanding the position and role of Islam in Britain today. I think it is clear to me that what is happening more and more is that there is a liberal progressive view that sees Islam as encroaching on fundamental British values, such as free speech, freedom to dress, and freedom to speak out against other issues or faiths in a way that is purposely directed without fear of retribution in the way that freedom is understood. Somehow, Muslims do not abide by this because their laws, their rules, are seen as alien or unethical. There is also the sense that there is a particular type of characteristic attributed to Muslims in terms of Sharia courts and Sharia zones that are taking hold, and that alternative legal systems are becoming the new norm. This is, of course, completely false and misunderstood. There is also the misunderstanding of issues, things such as the Muslim Brotherhood and the idea of a global Muslim umma that needs to be the norm and that all Muslims should reach that goal. This is also a myth, and one that continues to be promoted today in Europe and different circles as a way to bring about a much more dynamic sense that Muslims are outsiders, others, or even dangerous, and therefore need to be curbed, pushed back, or even eliminated.
If we think about this at the local, national, and global levels, locally poor Muslims in poor areas are surrounded by obsolescence, decay, and structural disadvantage, and are living next to poor white people who face the same conditions but have been told that their problems are because of minorities and Muslims who are immediately around them and somehow taking over. Their own spatial dislocation and exclusionary discourse become internalised as a result of their experiences in those local settings. At the national level, we have significant problems when we think about multiculturalism, national identity, what is Englishness, and what constitutes Britishness. Disillusionment with ethno-national identities is dangerous in the context of globalisation, and this is taking hold among a certain sector of society that relies on ideas of nationalism. This is also connected to religious identity, where religious politics and nationalism have become a problem at the meso level and globally.
Get Prof. Tahir Abbas’s stories in your inbox
Join Medium for free to get updates from this writer.
At the macro level, there is a much wider global phenomenon in relation to the ways in which Islam is seen as a problem for Western values more broadly, and tech feudalism has taken the mantle here, with global power in the hands of media conglomerates essentially advancing this notion. There is a sense of a cadre of global wealthy elites who want to push this narrative in order to protect against deeper questioning of the workings of nation states in Western spaces on their own terms. It is easier to talk about an external enemy and an internal enemy, as this diverts attention away from what is happening inside, namely the breakdown of the welfare state, neoliberalism in relation to policy and delivery, and wealth becoming concentrated among fewer and fewer people as it increasingly trickles upwards. Because these patterns are intensifying, more and more people are being drawn into the various tornadoes created by these movements in the local, national, and global spaces in which they are being operationalised. This is what we are dealing with. This is what we have been dealing with for thirty years, ever since the end of the Cold War, and it continues to take hold in today’s world.
The second main problem is that while we have these important and necessary understandings of the situation regarding how Muslims are externally viewed by various structures of society and discourse, there is also an internal view, and this is also problematic. This is why we have two problematics clashing with each other. Muslims are very diverse. There is not one school of thought that dominates. There are many, and there are many fractures, deviations, and distortions in some cases. If we think about the essential principles of all religions, they should be about peace, coexistence, forgiveness, fairness, humility, and progressive values that are aligned with the preservation of nature, societies, and communities in inclusive ways. What is happening in some contexts is the opposite, and this occurs because various cultural values have predominated. Practices that are historical, and that relate to ideas of nation and belonging inculcated through colonial processes, also shape people’s sense of self and psychology.
When people become minorities, these practices can become a way of holding on to ideals seen as important to preserve in absolute terms. This can lead to a sense that their existence is separate and exclusive. While this is not the case for most people, and while many people see opportunities for evolution, bridge building, coexistence, and alignment, for some it reinforces very regressive understandings of their religion. This creates a sense of self and other in highly exceptional terms. It is therefore true that some individuals believe their existence is sufficiently special, distinct, and unique to warrant separation from everyone else, even though this would not necessarily be inappropriate according to much of the legal precedent governing Muslim conduct as a minority within a majority society. Some of this is also very much a response to Islamophobia, exclusion, and racism. Many adopt the view that if they are not wanted, then a certain exclusivity is acceptable because their religion is perceived as pure and perfect. This reinforcing conundrum produces parallel lives as a form of response.
Some of this is activated by external forces such as exclusion, racism, and Islamophobia. Some of it is maintained because of people’s starting points, which in most cases could be modified and moderated but lack the necessary opportunity. As a result, people look inwards. This then creates further divisions within the wider sphere of how global capitalism functions, which aligns precisely with how these systems benefit, as mentioned earlier in relation to the external framework. And thus the circle is complete — and we have a fundamental clash of problematics.
