She Speaks We Hear

Bringing women's voices together, unaltered, unadulterated


1 Comment

Can Brexit save us from Europe’s far-right?

As the Prime minister intends to press his Brexit bill through Commons in three days it finally seems like we’re getting ‘Brexit done’, imminently or in the next seven years, can the 2019 general election that is being called a landslide victory for the Tories, bring us together? Never in my living memory has the UK been so politically polarised since it has been since the 2016 EU referendum result. 

I look across to our neighbours in Europe, to ask, is it only us? Turns out we’re not alone, in fact in the UK we’re actually doing better. Much of Western Europe has been blighted with the rise of far-right nationalist parties which have been steadily gaining support over the last five years or so gaining seats in Parliament.

“The uncomfortable truth is, targeting minorities has been the main way for far-right parties to find their way back into positions of power across Europe.”

In October 2019 in Germany, the anti-immigration party AfD (Alternative for Deutschland) won 24% of the vote in a regional election in the East of Germany, beating Angela Merkel’s party Central Democratic Party by 1%. The new populist party only formed in 2014 and their election campaign was swarmed with Nazi slogans and anti-Semitic rhetoric. As well as this an attack on a synagogue in Halle which killed two people was carried out by a 27-year old who cited far-right motives.

In Spain, the third largest party is now Vox, which is described as an anti-immigration and anti-Islam party. It also formed in 2014 and has doubled its seats to 54 out of 350 in the recent Spanish elections. 

In Austria the Freedom Party is the only far-right party in Europe that is actually in a position of power, with the leading People’s Party forming a coalition. Recently a deputy mayor from the Freedom Party had to resign over an extremely racist poem he wrote comparing migrants to rats.

In France, Marine Le Pen’s National Rally party (formerly National Front) won more seats than President Emmanuel Macron’s centrist En Marche in the European Elections back in May. As well as this, France’s secular and anti-Muslim policies affect the already marginalised Muslim communities there. Only recently a Muslim mother was verbally abused by a far-right politician and told to remove her headscarf on a school trip to the Regional Assembly. The hijab is banned in schools and government offices, and now a law is being proposed to ban parents from wearing religious symbols on school trips. 

The ongoing refugee crisis gained attention across Europe and was used by nationalist and far-right parties as a means to stoke fear and divisions. The resultant increase in xenophobic rhetoric across Europe helped the far-right nationalist parties in their cause. The uncomfortable truth is, targeting minorities has been the main way for far-right parties to find their way back into positions of power across Europe. Using propaganda like that breaking point poster and focussing on immigration, election campaigns have been fought and won. Not to mention Facebook campaigns targeting voters, but that’s a whole different story.

In a study carried out in 2018 by Cambridge university, almost half of Leave voters (47%) believed the government was deliberately “hiding the truth” about how many immigrants live in the country, compared to 14% of Remain voters. Almost a third said yes when asked if they believed “Muslim immigration to this country is part of a bigger plan to make Muslims a majority of this country’s population”. Some Leave campaigners utilised anti-immigrant and anti-Muslim sentiments in the run up to the EU referendum in 2016 to gain popularity, resulting in misconceptions and negative attitudes towards Muslims and immigrants.

Looking across the pond, similar problems can be found in America, where populist president Donald Trump is championed and supported not only by nationalistic Americans and fascists but those that are fed up of the status quo. The USA is a great example of how far-right politicians can become popular in a short space of time, and even take up positions in government.

This fear and hatred of immigrants has consequences beyond far-right nationalist parties and politics. A recent investigation by ITV found that there has been an 145 % increase in recorded racist attacks, physical and verbal on NHS staff. Many doctors of ethnic backgrounds have been sidelined by patients as they’ve requested white doctors. Racism is alive and kicking in the UK in 2019, and instead of getting better it seems to be getting worse.

The small but significant wins by fringe parties across Europe should be a push to mainstream political parties everywhere, to sort themselves out and realise that there are parts of the electorate who are totally disenfranchised. There is a risk, in response to this, that mainstream political parties may lurch to the far ends of the political spectrum, instead however they need to address the real issues causing people to be sympathetic to populist narratives. The drivers of disenfranchisement are multi-faceted, however usually stem from issues of unemployment, rise in crime and poverty leading to inevitable anger and frustration. In the UK, austerity has meant cuts in education, NHS and policing, the three things we need to keep our population functioning in a civilised manner. When funding is cut for these essential services, society suffers.

The blame game is much easier to play when you can blame others. Immigrants, refugees, Eastern Europeans and Muslims are all targets when our own government has let us down. Instead of acknowledging austerity and the politicians who backed and imposed these policies some of the British electorate prefer to pin the blame on Europe, and leaving it has somehow become the solution to the end of all their woes. Never has an election result showed this as much as the election on 12 December 2019 with the Conservatives breaking the red wall, and winning seats in Labour heartlands; towns where poverty sores and unemployment is high.

The Brexit Party made a significant victory in the European Elections in May 2019 by winning a whopping twenty-nine seats, followed by the Liberal Democrats winning sixteen.The Brexit party was only a few months old and beat the Conservative Party by winning over 20% of the votes. The party represents nationalism, anti-immigration and of course anti-Europe sentiment as well as a distaste for ‘the establishment’. Thus the 2019 general election was a Brexit election.

Nigel Farage despite standing as an MP and failing seven times is still a household name, and central to the UK leaving the EU. The Brexit party were annihilated in the recent general election mainly because they stepped aside in many Leave constituencies to let the Conservatives win the Leave vote instead of losing votes to them or to the Labour party. Boris Johnson also played a blinder by repeating the word ‘Brexit’ continuously in his campaign making sure he could get that Brexit party vote. President Trump also got involved by suggesting Boris and Nigel form an alliance. And they unofficially did, creating the most right-wing Tory party that we’ve seen in a while. So much so that the Conservative party’s own MPs including former deputy PM Lord Heseltine defected because of the direction of the party. 

Boris Johnson’s party certainly won the racist vote what with figures like Tommy Robinson, ex leader of the English Defence League endorsing him. Just a few weeks ago the leader of the now defunct Britain First, ex-convict Paul Golding announced he has joined the Conservative party. He said in a statement he wants to ‘help solidify Boris Johnson‘s control on the leadership, so we can achieve Brexit and hopefully cut immigration and confront radical Islam.’ It is also reported that a top aide close to the Prime Minister has said that the UK will have a ‘Special Relationship’ with Viktor Orban’s far-right Hungary after Brexit. Despite the fact that the Hungarian Prime Minister is known for his anti-Semitic and anti-Muslim sentiments and rhetoric.

You just have to look at Twitter to see that all outwardly racist and anti-Muslim tweets usually come from someone who supports Brexit or Trump in their bio. The obvious correlation between the two is not fiction. Not all Brexiters are racists of course but many racists are Brexiters and that’s a fact that is hard to deny.

Whether votes for far-right parties came from a disillusioned electorate that are unhappy with the traditional mainstream political parties or whether its coming from a place of fear and hatred of the ‘other’, more than likely a combination of both, the political landscape across Europe has changed. 

Despite endorsements from some notorious far-right individuals, the British government has rejected them and therefore is still relatively centre-right compared to some key European countries. Perhaps leaving the EU won’t be so bad for the UK after all. If it means European far-right politicians will have less of a say on laws in the UK then surely that can only be a positive thing.

Maybe this is the only silver lining when it comes to Brexit?

By Sharmeen Ziauddin

She is passionate about politics and faith and you can find her tweeting about these things @britpakgirl.

Disclaimer: the opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the original author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the website.

Image credit:  Stefan Rousseau/PA Wire


Leave a comment

‘Su-Shi’ and interfaith dialogue with Anne Dijk and Arjen Buitelaar

su-shi-arjen-anne

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.

  1. 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.

  1. 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.

  1. 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.

  1. 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…”

  1. 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.

  1. 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.

  1. 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.

  1. 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.