This week, Akeela Ahmed, (Founder of SheSpeaksWeHear and chair of the UK government’s Anti-Muslim Hatred Working Group) arranged for a group of 20 Muslim women to visit Pirbright Army Training Centre. This incredible opportunity proved to be a real eye-opener in terms of forming a better understanding of the Armed Forces’ values, moral principles and ethos. The visit gave me plenty of food for thought, especially regarding what it means to be a British Muslim and our place in wider society.
Read on to understand more about this trip and some of my reflections from this important visit.
Driving up to the gates of Pirbright Army Training Centre initially felt intimidating, but this all changed when we were greeted with a warm welcome by senior members of the armed forces, and offered tea and biscuits. If there’s one thing that brings British people of all persuasions together, it’s the universal love of a good cuppa and a biccie.
Photo credit: Akeela Ahmed
Diversity and representation is crucial.
It is evident that the job of the British Army is to protect all the citizens of the UK. And, as the UK becomes increasingly diverse, so must the makeup of traditional institutions including the armed forces.
The British Armed Forces currently has around 10% women, which is still below the government’s target of 15%. There are currently around 450 Muslims serving in the regular armed forces.
Photo credit: Akeela Ahmed
Throughout the day, it became apparent that the army is extremely accommodating when it comes to faith. Padres are Christian ministers whose job it is to guide soldiers of all faiths and those without faith, with humanistic principles. In addition, there are also Armed Forces Chaplains available for soldiers of other specific faiths, including Buddhist, Hindu, Muslim, Jewish and Sikh.
Additionally, prayer rooms are available, as well as halal food on-site. The dress code can also be aligned with Islamic principles; Muslim men can wear a full beard, and for women, hijab can be incorporated within the uniform.
Universal human values and moral standards.
My personal highlight of the day was a presentation by Padre Nigel Kinsella, talking about the values and moral principles of the British Army. In particular, the military uses the mnemonic CDRILS, which stands for: Courage, Discipline, Respect for Others, Integrity, Loyalty, and Selfless Commitment. It’s pretty clear to me that these values are universal human values, that align to principles at the heart of Islam.
The British Army has a duty to protect all UK citizens.
As Muslims, one of the biggest threats comes from radicalisation, especially given that the majority of the victims of terrorist attacks have been other Muslims. Radicalisation is one of the biggest problems in the world today, and it affects all of us. It seems to me that the British Army is there to provide protection against all threats that are affecting UK citizens, and that of course, includes the Muslim community.
It’s clear that the job of the army is to do the things that other people are not willing to do. This does not simply mean reacting to real-world events. It also means providing humanitarian aid, disaster recovery and providing assistance in the event of a large-scale emergency.
We will not be divided.
Islam is by no means a pacifist faith. As Muslims, we have a loyalty to the country we were born into and live in. In addition, the rhetoric of the far-right, including that of Katie Hopkins and Tommy Robinson, seeks to divide us. Major General Duncan Capps, Muslim Champion for the Armed Forces was unequivocal in disassociating this dangerous rhetoric from the values of the UK armed forces. Any form of racism or discrimination is taken extremely seriously.
Robinson, in particular has used the army to push forward his anti-Muslim ideology. The army has absolutely denounced Robinson’s attempts to hijack their cause and have signalled a zero-tolerance approach against all forms of extremism.
The Army needs to do more to champion diversitytoconnect with young British Muslims.
My perceptions of the British Army are very different after this visit. I now have a better understanding of what the British Army does and how it affects me as a British citizen. As someone with a background in digital marketing, I feel the army needs to be doing a lot more to get their message across. There’s definitely an information gap and more needs to be done to engage with people of different backgrounds.
A couple of years ago, the British Army released a new campaign video entitled “Keeping My Faith – This is Belonging”. The ad featured a Muslim soldier praying, overlooked by other troops. In my mind, this is little to do with so-called PC-culture, and actually pretty reflective of the army’s ethos of inclusion. The military is one of the few institutions that doesn’t care about your background, your upbringing, your lack of an education or what you have been through. For many recruits, it offers a second chance at success or redemption.
Although the focus on on recruitment, the objective should be to change the perception of the armed forces. It may take a generation for there to be more Muslims serving, but that journey begins with changing hearts and minds. Certainly, it’s not something that will change overnight, but undertaking initiatives for different communities to get to know each other better is a great first step.
Disclaimer: the opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the original author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the website.
Today I want to talk about the Labour MP for Slough, Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi. Because he deserves all the praise he has got, and more. It’s not often a Sikh man stands up on behalf of Muslim women. Hell, it’s not often anyone stands up for Muslim women.
Tan Dhesi MP
“I was so blown away by Tanmanjeet because he spoke with conviction and sincerity.”
I want to thank Mr Dhesi because he’s done something that not many MP’s have done. He’s done something that Muslim MP’s have not done, and that is to hold Boris Johnson accountable. And whether you might think this wasn’t the time or the place, I think it was perfect because it’s sending a message to not only Boris but to the whole country. There is no room for racism or anti-muslim rhetoric in Britain in 2019 and it will not be tolerated. It will not be tolerated by MPs and it will not be tolerated by minorities.
The reason why I was so blown away by Tanmanjeet is because he spoke with conviction and sincerity. He genuinely cares about religious minorities and Muslim women especially. The ridiculing of certain Islamic attire that a very small number of women within the Muslim community wear, is so damaging because these are the women that are already portrayed as being ‘oppressed’.
The ‘oppressed Muslim woman’ narrative is so prevalent that instead of trying to understand these women Boris Johnson thought it’s acceptable to liken them to bank robbers and letterboxes, and perpetuate this stereotype further. (I’m not going to link to THAT Telegraph article but that’s basically what he called women in niqab.) And yes I know he was writing about defending our choice to wear what we want but if you ridicule and belittle the same people whose choices you’re defending then your point becomes insignificant.
The fact that this MP is a Sikh, warms my heart. I have the utmost respect for anybody that stands up for an already marginalised section of society. Mr Dhesi’s call felt like a call for solidarity, a call for unity which is just what we need in this time of division.
With recent tension between Indians and Pakistanis because of Indian Prime Minister Mr Modi’s brutal action in Kashmir, it seems like a slight division has been born amongst these communities in the UK. Occasionally in the past there has been a bit of tension from time to time but generally the South Asian communities live harmoniously in the UK and have done so since the 60’s.
Growing up, for us Asians, any other brown person was seen as a friend and someone to cling on to. Somebody who would understand your culture, pressures and restrictions the way your white peers wouldn’t. Religion didn’t play a part, we were all in the same bracket as ‘the other’.
Religion is playing a bigger part in South Asian communities in recent years where religious symbols are more common place like a Sikh turban or a Muslim women’s hijab or a Hindu’s forehead marking. This has made our communities more distinguishable from each other but we sometimes forget that all brown people are immigrants or children/grandchildren of immigrants. If we can’t stand up for each other’s values than who will? The combined communities of India, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka in the UK have far more in common with each other than what drives them apart. There’s always safety in numbers and the South-Asian community should be able to look to each other for support despite what might be going on in our homelands thousands of miles away.
And when it comes to Britain, the combined voting power of Asian communities is phenomenal. It would serve the Conservative party well to attempt to eradicate racism from their party and launch an investigation into Islamophobia like Sajid Javaid promised on national television not so long ago. In a bid to appease right wing voters and the far right, Boris seems to have forgotten about all the ethnic minority voters he’s angered in the process. A price he might have to pay sooner than he thinks.
By Sharmeen Ziauddin
She is passionate about politics and faith and you can find her tweeting about these things @britpakgirl.
This post has been modified and originally appeared on Britpakgirl.com
Disclaimer: the opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the original author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the website.
Deviating slightly from our usual posts, we wanted to share with our readers an interview between Anne Dijk, a female Sunni scholar based in the Netherlands and Arjen Buitelaar, a male Shia scholar also from the Netherlands. They were interviewed by Arek Miernik who is from Poland, and the interview has been translated to English. You can read more about their backgrounds at the end of this post.
What is the idea behind Su-Shi and how did it come about as your project?
Arjen Since the outbreak of the ‘Arab Spring’ we notice heightened and more open tensions between the different Islamic creeds, mainly Sunnites and Shiites, and the voices of the extremes on both sides become louder. Of course this is a development that has been going on for several decades by now, and the extremes on both sides kind of hijack the voice of the common and good willing majority of Muslims. We see both sides recruit people to war zones in countries they have never been to, and tensions, incomprehension and impotency grow. This kind of reached a peak when Mosul was conquered by ISIL forces. It was that moment that Anne Dijk participated in a radio talk on the differences and similarities between Sunnites and Shiites, and she emphasized that the differences weren’t that big (more on jurisprudential level), but in practice it often seemed impossible to get the groups together even for something simple like an iftar. I then decided to approach her, because it was the bitter truth and despite the talks (and efforts) from authoritative scholars that we share so many commonalities, that we are brothers and sisters or even each other’s souls, and that we should work together, we see that communities simply don’t do that and we wanted to change that.
Anne The idea behind su-shi is that we want to bring together Sunni, Shia and all possible creeds within Islam, together, on an equal basis, to meet on a personal level. We don’t want to ‘create’ one single creed, or try to undermine the differences, which exist. We want to strengthen the ummah by informing about the differences and also speak out against stereotypes and prejudices that cause harm to both groups.
Often, the stereotypes of arguments against the opposite groups are based on prejudices, which often only hold for the extremes, and not for the mass-mainstream. Getting to really know each other, in a safe place, where genuine interest and curiosity for the other, is hardly happening. Talks on internet fora very often result in harsh language and conversations that get hijacked by extremes. That’s why we focus on small get-togethers, to really give a platform for personal meetings, based on proper (academic) information.
How do you create a “safe” and neutral space during your meetings and events? Considering the deep level of division and animosity that these differences can cause, exacerbated by current political events in the Middle East, how do you make sure that these divisive attitudes don’t make their way into your meetings?
Anne During the 1,5 year of preparation, before we went online, formal and open, we discussed this issue elaborately. How can we create a safe and neutral space? Of course we can never guarantee anything, but we made clear ‘houserules’. A few elements therein are, are that dialogue is the goal, not debate. Trying to convince the other of your own truth is not allowed either, sincere and open questions are. Tafkir is not allowed; anyone who considers him/herself Muslim deserves within sushi that we treat him/her as such. Per activity we try to make a ‘risk management’ – for example: we held a iftar last ramadan – what to do with the adhan? (su of shi time?) and what to do with the prayer? We try to prevent any kind if discussion of such issues: how? We talk about them openly and elaborate on potential differences. For example, we elaborated en public on the different times of braking the fast, and that the dates were presented for everyone who wanted to brake the fast at that moment (Sunnis) and that we would do one adhan at the shi time. Later, the prayer was open for everyone – everyone must feel free to be able to pray together, but if someone wanted to pray later, that was also fine.
Arjen I agree with Anne’s answer; these are good examples in practice. Within the core group we have a dozen different ethnic and sectarian backgrounds, so you can imagine we have lively talks on possible difficulties when organizing an event. I’d also like to emphasize that one of our core rules is to support respectful dialogue and denounce debate, which, in effect, could be focused on individual monologues only while dialogue forces to open up and listen to the other. It are these house rules that ensure the safe space individuals find themselves in. Added to that, it is important to note that we work with what we call an ‘oil spill formula’, by which we mean that every visitor is personally invited by someone he/she already knows within the ‘Su-Shi Community’. This way we ensure that people feel more secure to open up and say what is on their hearts. Another way we make sure people find themselves in a safe environment is that we do not use traditional set ups with podia for the speakers and people sitting on chairs for a few hours. Depending on the size of the group we either meet up at someone’s home and start with chit chat and dinner. Or like our last Iftar we met up in a ‘youth club’/lounge setting, having some armchairs, couches and tables to sit on, providing a more relaxed atmosphere and automatically ‘compelling’ people to mix up.
The idea of meeting ‘the other sect’ in this environment presupposes that participants already have a certain degree of openness to it. Did you have any reactions so far from those sectors among both communities which prefer to maintain division and hostility?
Arjen Yes we did, though this was outnumbered by massive support messages. A certain degree of openness is definitely needed, simply because within the extremes of religions and ideologies people and or communities build virtual walls around them that make it impossible to reach out to. When people consider the other to be the devil, or inspired by the devil, or a hypocrite of some sort, and subsequently consider his words to be deceiving, how could one ever be willing to listen to it?
And this is kind of the scope of the hostile messages we received. Some extreme Salafists and Quranists who did not and will not acknowledge the existence of other creeds to be Islamic, and who attempted to defame some of our members on a personal level simply because there’s not much to argument about the content of our stance.
Because it is our policy to engage in dialogue and approach everything positively, instead of bogging down in endless debates, we do not react on that. Instead, these two negative approaches have given us plenty of points to further elaborate and communicate through the positive platform we’ve created.
In your experience what are the main or most common reasons that the extreme sectors of each sect give as justification for their enmity towards the other sect? How much of it is theological, how much historical/political and how often is it perhaps rooted, or strengthened, by people’s personal experiences?
Arjen This is a fairly difficult question that needs some elaboration. It is most interesting that the extreme sectors from all creeds base themselves on core sources, just as much as mainstream creeds do. Sometimes even the exact same texts, yet interpreted differently. The narrower the boundaries of a sect become, the more stress they will put on their absolute authority to explain the meaning of texts and not to stray from the ‘right path’ by looking at explanations by authorities from outside their group’s ‘enclave’. The ‘other’ is literally demonized, and by defining ‘in-group’ and ‘out-group’ in terms of ‘right’ and ‘wrong’, ‘Light’ and ‘Dark’, and ‘divine’ and ‘satanic’ the justification easily becomes ‘theological’. It remains the question, however, whether the origins of the justification were theological by nature, or rather inspired by political motives. The same goes for stances on ‘historical truths’. These are based on the same kind of source texts that have alternatives that are consciously neglected, and have shortcomings. Subsequently these become indisputable dogma’s due to their absolute character, and are proposed as ‘real Islam’, yet are nothing more than fallacies. Used to manipulate and monopolize the conversation and hijack individual thought.
The main tradition that is used to justify sectarianism is that the prophet Muhammad ص would have said that Islam will be divided in 73 sects of which just one will enter paradise. This (weak tradition) is used to intensify the fear of individuals and groups to be amongst the dwellers of hell, causing people to know more about the ‘wrongs’ of the other than the ‘goods’ of themselves. With regards to other religions, Islam actually has the same opinion about truth as it has about herself. Christianity will be divided in 72 sects and Judaism in 71, both also have one rightly guided group. For Muslims it doesn’t seem to be their business to define which groups from other religions is the rightly guided one, as long as they do not interfere in Muslim matters. But as one reaction by a self-proclaimed institute wonderfully articulated their view on Islamic sectarianism: “the battle for influence over the Muslims continues…”
Yours is clearly grassroots, bottom-up project. Do you think that the established Muslim leadership like traditional ulama etc. are falling short in building intra-religious bridges among Muslims at the top-down level?
Arjen The answer to this question has multiple layers; it would be too easy to say that they do or do not. In my opinion there are many efforts being made by the established Muslim leadership to build bridges, but their (and this is not reserved to Muslims or religious communities) focus is mainly on people from the top segments, not on community level. In the past decade alone we have seen the Amman Message, which is a great document that Su-Shi uses as well in our argumentation, and the Marrakesh Declaration, which apparently has been improved over a longer period since the 1990s and in its recent update specifically gained attention for its focus on minority groups such as the Yazidis and Christians who suffer much in the Middle East as we speak. Other attempts are being made as well, such as the annual Ghadeer Khumm Festival in Najaf, which I personally attended in 2013, and where leaders from different religious communities spoke. Including more subordinated sects such as the Druze community. All these attempts are very valuable and should be cherished.
At the same time, we see that these innumerably valuable official declarations are not lived after in practice. In real life they remain theoretical documents, that are sometimes not even lived after by important leader figures who endorsed them at first. Or that important religious leaders make statements that, unintended, lead to deeper sectarian rifts.
In parts of the Middle East region tensions are so high since the beginning of this millennium, that it is, of course, very hard to maintain these statements. Leaders can communicate with each other and make agreements at top level, but when blood is shed at ground level people will rather follow a leader that speaks their mind.
The main reason why these declarations hardly have an effect on ground level, however, is that most Islamic – and in fact Abrahamic – faiths are exclusivistic is in nature. When ground level believers hear from their leaders that they should respect and embrace believers from other faiths and sects, and at the same time read in their jurisprudences that those people from other faiths and sects are intrinsically ‘impure’ (najis) because of their ‘infidelity’ or being born to ‘infidel’ parents, than that is at least confusing. In practice, among migrant communities in the West, this means we see, for example, how certain Shiite groups try to find escapes from the statement by the highest authorities that ‘Sunnis are not our brothers and sisters, but our souls’, and try to explain how this still means Sunnis are not on the guided path. And vice versa we see the tremendous influence of Wahhabism which too, albeit being an extreme side faction, affects mainstream Sunnism as well by planting its poisonous seeds of hatred towards others. There is no other way to break this way of thinking, that is imported along with or even strengthened through immigration, down but by starting to work on this from a grassroots, bottom-up project. A project in which the participants themselves can add to the thinking process, and can themselves speak out for peace and cooperation instead of having to depend for that on top level leadership.
Anne It’s indeed a bottom up approach that we have, and that’s for many reasons. 1. We want to grow slowly in order to build real trust based on personal connection in stead of theoretical words only. And 2. To put into practise what those ‘top down’ approaches have tried to formulate but failed to implement.
On a practical note, how do you fund your activities? The reason I’m asking is that as we know, with funding from established Muslim organisations often come agendas and expectations that might potentially jeopardise independence of a project or try to influence a project in a particular direction.
Anne We are up till now completely independent; meaning we don’t get any subsidies from any organisation from any denomination. We are very happy with our team; we all have a broad network so up till now we found free locations; the speakers were all unpaid and the food was covered by our volunteers alhamdulillah. But since we are a Foundation since this year, we are open for donations from individuals. Being independent and self-sustained makes you stronger. Maybe you grow slower, but inshaAllah the project can run longer. Being truly honest to your own values is the most important thing.
Arjen Before Su-Shi had become an organization and was still an idea, I have once organized an event in the Su-Shi spirit that we did receive donations for. From that I can confirm what you mentioned: there are donators that demand their agendas and expectations and try to influence what you do. This is very simple for me though; I reject such donators. Whenever the autonomy of a project or of our organization as a whole is in jeopardy, it isn’t worth what you gain. So when we think out a project, donators can support that of course, but not lay any conditions on us.
Arjen, you are Shia and Anne, you are Sunni. What are the rough percentages in terms of sects among all people involved your project and those attending your events?
Arjen It’s difficult to speak in percentages. Few of our participants have a very homogenous background themselves, however some do. And the same then goes for who they invite through our ‘oil spill’ method. Overall, however, I think that people from a Sunni and Shiite background make up the majority -both close to the half- of participants of our events.
Anne We must also admit that we try to work towards a fair share as well. Meaning: we very consciously have 50% of the board Sunni, 50% of the board shi’i and one ‘neutral’ board member. In this way we direct towards an almost equal percentage of participants as well. Over all, most of our participants would consider themselves Sunni of Shia, we had a few Quranist participants and people with an Allevi background that are enthusiastic as well.
What would be your personal message to people absolutely refusing to engage with the “other sect”, based in their conviction of the other sect’s “heresy” and their conviction that there is no “right” Islam outside their own school of thought?
Anne Allahu Alem. I would ask them so sincerely contemplate on this statement of “Allahu ‘Alem” and with this, try to focus on tazkiyya an-nafs, the cleansing of the soul. How can you, as an individual, be so sure? For me, in essence, ‘Allahu ‘Alem’ means absolute humbleness towards The Truth. Only God knows, that means, that we as human beings, per definition don’t.
Arjen I would like to emphasize that no layperson nor scholar is infallible, and that no matter what you personally believe, we do not all share the same beliefs and convictions. Nonetheless, we do live together, in a space that is becoming smaller and smaller. That brings tensions, but we are not animals. As humans we can use our reason to ‘defend’ our intellectual territories, we shouldn’t be so afraid of the other, and rather listen to each other. Dialogue is not about convincing one another, it is more about becoming stronger in your own convictions, but with respect for the other’s convictions in his or her own space.
***
Anne Dijk has a background in Religious Studies and a Master in Islamic Studies, specialised in Islamic Jurisprudence (Sunni). Fascinated by the transformations of the schools of law (madhahab) and the internal discussions, she found out that there is a deep ethical essence within the jurisprudence that differences of opinions (ikhtilaf) were deeply respected in history. In the hardened debate within Muslim communities nowadays, about ‘what is really Islamic’, she missed this ethical attitude. As Director of Fahm Institute she works on diverse ways to more understanding (fahm) of Islam. She is de co-founder of Su-Shi Intrafaith Dialogue, because she believes that world peace should start within yourself.
Arjen Buitelaar has a background in History and a Master in Religious Studies. From his Master’s thesis till now, he is conducting research of the Shi’ite communities in the Netherlands, at the moment primarily focusing on the role of rituals and symbolism in the shaping of (group) identity. Due to the increasing tensions between Sunnis and Shi’is since the start of the so called Arab Spring, he found it necessary to start with the Su-Shi Intrafaith Dialogue initiative to create better understanding between different Islamic creeds.
Arek Miernik has a background in English literature, is an Al-Mahdi Institute graduate, and leading figure of the wider Muslim community in Poland. Though primarily involved with the Polish Shi’i community, he doesn’t confine himself to it and is a heard voice in opinionated media on the wider Muslim community and its status in society. He is the heart behind the Strefa Islam blog, where this interview was originally published in Polish.
Disclaimer: the opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the original author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the website. The above interview was conducted by another organisation and not SSWH but has been reproduced with the permission.
Last night I forced myself to look at this image. Over and over again. It was uncomfortable, sickening and terrifying. But as I sat up in bed, in the dark, with Imaan asleep next to me, I forced myself to stare at it.
I had scrolled past the image earlier in the day. I was afraid to read what accomponied the picture. I wanted to be in denial. Wanted to shroud myself in ignorance. Because if you don’t know, you don’t feel.
But this is reality. Reality for Muslim women across the globe. Women who bear the brunt and consequences of war, terrorism, Islamaphobia.
Muslim women who are thought to be so oppressed that they cannot exercise their own freedom of choice. Even if a woman is screaming THIS IS MY CHOICE, the world responds ‘you are so oppressed you think this is what you want…let us liberate you’
Let us liberate you with our guns on a crowded beach. Let us enforce this rule upon you. Make you strip in front of the world. In front of your crying, terrified children. All because you choose to cover up.
We do not understand why you do it, nor do we approve.
So remove your clothing.
Stripped of humanity
Stripped of compassion
Stripped of dignity
Isolated. Degraded. Humiliated.
Bravo France. The very women you want to integrate into your society are the ones you are now criminalising and marginalising.
Bravo. Bravo
by Sabbiyah Pervez
Sabbiyah Pervez, is a journalist and an advocate for social change, you can read more about her work at http://sabbiyah.co.uk and follow her on Twitter @sabbiyah
Disclaimer: the opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the original author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the website.
In the 1670’s, my maternal grandfather’s family arrived in London from Holland, having come to Amsterdam as refugees fleeing the inquisition in Spain. I am still asked which of my parents or grandparents immigrated to the UK (they were all born in the East End or Leeds!).
18 years ago, in my first Religious Studies Seminar at University, I was told I would burn in hell. Perhaps even worse was the time I met a chap who felt sorry for me, the only thing he knew about the Jews was Auschwitz. Neither of them had ever met Jews, unsurprising when we are a community of 270,000, the majority of whom are in Barnet. But this kind of casual, sociable anti-Semitism continues at dinner parties, and in Universities, often rooted in ancient tropes around Christ, child killers, money, big noses and so on.
Since meeting my husband (who wears a kippah/skull cap) I have experienced a new kind of anti-Semitism. Cans thrown out of white vans, Hitler salutes when walking past pubs watching football matches. Like Hijabis, religious Jewish men are more easily identifiable as Jewish and so receive the brunt of street violence.
And more recently there is Twitter… I have been called a child abuser (presumably because of circumcision though this wasn’t clarified) and of course child killer (probably because of the Gaza wars but possibly again playing on ancient anti-Semitic tropes and blood libels).
Islamaphobia and anti-Semitism also comfortably come together. The following were just a sample of responses to a smiling photo of Rabbi Laura Janner Klausner and the new Mayor Sadiq Khan:
Screenshot of anti-Semitic and Islamophobic tweets
We know that anti-Semitic incidents in the UK and across Europe rise at times of conflict in Israel-Palestine, and that what happens there affects both our communities here.
Six years ago, attending an Islamaphobia and anti-Semitism conference, I was struck that at no point did we discuss our own communities’ problems with each other. We need to be able to put our hands up and say ‘the Jewish community has a problem with Islamaphobia’ and that ‘the Muslim community has a problem with anti-Semitism’. We have to be honest about this and try to challenge it where we can.
Believe it or not, it’s unusual for me to be talking about anti-Semitism. It isn’t a part of my Jewish identity or practice. Jews are often the first to deny the reality of anti-Semitism, and I do believe that majority of it is down to ignorance and lack of encounter.
But even with many Jews still uncomfortable to acknowledge the reality of anti-Semitism, there is now a sense that things have spiralled out of control to a place of discomfort. Particularly when it is the echelons of power from which it is being heard, and not just outside the pub. Until the last few months most Jews felt the government would protect them and that any prejudice faced was not institutional. There is now growing discomfort about what (hopefully a small minority of) politicians are saying.
I don’t believe this is true for just Jews. Muslim friends are spat at on trains and battered by the media. Gay friends are on the receiving end of violent attacks. Disabled friends tell me that they used to be attacked as ‘spas’s’ and now they are beaten up and called ‘scroungers’. It seems casual violence and hatred has become a far more common experience in 21st Century Britain than we would like to think. How do we address all of this?
Simply put we must all challenge what and when we can. We must be up standers and not bystanders, for whoever is attacked and abused. Intellectual debate and disagreement is one thing. Hating one another over that difference is another.
I believe our education system has a huge role to play here. Faith schools, whether you love them or hate them, are not going anywhere. They bring with them potential problems of separating communities from one another. This can be tackled through linking and relationship building, not as one-off events but continual long term connections between schools. So much more is needed.
Religious studies have in the last decade received less and less investment. This is heart-breaking. It has been written off by many schools, but could sit at the heart of curricula. It needs to be about encounter, dialogue, and enabling students to hear different opinions while being encouraged to express their own views without feeling threatened by other’s differences.
We need to find what we have in common as a society, but we also have to create a generation that is comfortable with differences – we aren’t all the same and this is a great thing! For us to become a nation that embraces those who arrive on our shore and makes them a part of our story.
Britain needs to not only find its own story, but to show that it is proud of its beautiful diversity, and willing to be a society that embraces debate, difference, and diversity as a wonderful human trait, as celebrated by the Torah, New Testament, Quran and the Talmud.
This is an edited speech that was given by Rabbi Debbie Young-Somers, at a Christian Muslim Forum event, the House of Lords on 16 May 2016.
Rabbi Debbie Young-Somers is the Community Educator at the Movement for Reform Judaism. She has a degree in Comparative Religion from Lancaster University and is a Buber Fellow from Paideia Centre for Jewish Studies Stockholm. She has been actively engaged in Interfaith Dialogue since her teens and currently teaches World Religions and Encounter at Leo Baeck College, as well as contributing to the interfaith training of Christian clergy at Queens Ecumenical College Birmingham. She spent 4 years as part of the Rabbinic Team at West London Synagogue before taking up her current post. She is a writer and regular radio broadcaster on Pause for Thought and BBC London. She is married to an active member of the Orthodox Sephardi community and has just returned from her second maternity leave. You can follow her @Rabbi_Debbie
Disclaimer: the opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the original author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the website.
