The Left and Radical Islam

Ian Leslie

What cowardly and pathetic bunch. Well done for calling them out.

Rhoda Klapp

Peter Oborne?

Anyway, when are you going to acknowledge the fascist tendency among your mates, trying to shut down Cohen rather than getting to grips with his arguments? It's not bloody mystifying, it's par for the course.

Martin Bright

It doesn't matter what I write, does it Rhoda? Are you a piece of software designed to critise whatever I say?

Tilak

The Left and Islam have long been allies in Sunder's India. Indeed the communists only remain in power in their two regional strongholds because of Muslim votes though the latter now appears ready to jettison them. But the poor Left did everything to appease, including allowing threats to the life of the exiled Bangladeshi author, Taslima Nasreen and then expelling her unceremoniously. If British journalism hadn't been so cheerfully parochial they would have known that the Left and Islam usually bed together with alacrity as do the intelligence services of the Anglo-Americans. All of a piece, really!

pregethwr

You don't address SUnder's argument here Martin which is that they have been doing the things Nick criticises them for not doing. He gives a very long list of examples. Should Nick at least retrect his comments about the fabians doing nothing?

burma toad

I found MacIntyre's signature especially baffling and unpleasant. James - you need to get some decent stories yourself before you slag off fellow hacks in print.

seb

Dyed-in-the wool fascists. Cohen's books are on sale in Waterstones. I don't recall seeing much on the shelves by his opponents. Have they nothing to say or are they such piss-poor writers that, whereas Cohen can find publishers and attract a following with the cogency of his ideas and the high quality of his prose, this pack of low-life merely has to do with being jealous? And are they planning any book-burning ceremonies in the near future? Shouting down one's opponents is the quintessence of nazi-ism.

andre

The old polarities of left and right and centre are no more. I think the next politial struggle is between those who enjoy the idea of altering society by legislation - social engineering as Blair called it and those who say no - I want to do my own thing and be left alone.

Rhoda Klapp

Martin, I've taken it upon myself to try and help you with your internal struggle. You are not wrong in this case in terms of your being on the right (correct) side of the story, but in expecting anything else of the dodgy crew who are trying to justify their precarious position.

You are probably wrong on the subsidised art thing, except the old enterprise allowance which I believe you mentioned favourably. But right or wrong, you gotta come on here and defend the position.

You are of course wrong if you believe that defending bits of the rump of the Labour party when they have betrayed your principles and their own is justifiable, but I'm not your conscience.

Ditch 'em, be independent, fight for the principles. I'd say for the right, but that would convey something which might be misinterpreted.

RW

Martin, are these hyper-esoteric issues of obscure leftwing alliances and squabbles really supposed to be of interest, or indeed comprehensibility, to the majority of your readers here at the Spectator?

Rhoda, Martin seems not to have appreciated your beautifully composed faux-poignant elegy on his behalf on the Coffeehousers' Wall, and has instead become a little waspish.

Spurned by his fellow Lefties as an apostate, ignored by the Centre and ridiculed by the Right, the poor fellow has lost his political homeland and wanders in the wilderness with nowhere to lay his head at night.

I can only advise, Martin, that the thing to do is go back humbly to your erstwhile comrades; apologise roundly, reassure them that you are still a True Believer at heart, and hope to be rehabilitated eventually. You may have to suffer a Gulag or two.

On a more practical note, can't someone get rid of this nutter and install a rightwinger with some sense to him? I'd suggest Jeremy Clarkson. Not nearly as dim as he sounds (see his excellent BBC programme on Isambard Kingdom Brunel a while back). The only problem might be the massive fee negotiations.

Sunder Katwala

Dear Martin

Thanks for posting on this. But I find the idea that I am bullying Nick odd and laughable. Nick dishes out a lot of bruising polemic: he has a talent for it. In this case, accusing everybody in general and the Fabians in particular of condoning and appeasing fascism. (Damning if true). Service was returned with some facts and questions.

The letter is an exercise in free speech, not censorship. The answer to bad speech is more speech. Nick put an argument in the newspaper; we said it was nonsense. He claimed there was no engagement between the liberal-left and liberal Muslims who we are betraying: we wrote together to say and show that he was wrong.

Indeed, the letter says: "We make a comradely call on Nick Cohen to stop shouting, to rejoin the conversation, engage with the work going on across the liberal-left and to become part of the solution".

Can we agree that there is also a liberal democratic principle of media accountability, which The Observer champions? It is perfectly appropriate to challenge what is said in a newspaper, either by arguing a counter-view through writing letters and writing in other spaces, or by challenging the factual basis of a claim made.

If I am (falsely) accused of betraying democratic principles, I wish to defend our legitimacy in the public square.

I have held out an olive branch to Nick. He has kept digging (blog for blog). Having said that he wrote from a position of "contempt" for the Fabians because he believes we are "up the arse of those who want us dead". This bears no resemblance to anything we have said or done on the topic of Islam and Britishness.

I am not saying Nick should stop writing about the issue. I do think he should get out more. I do point out that he doesn't seem to be interested in giving voice to those who have not previously been extremists. Ex-extremists can do valuable work, but that should not be the only credential. The person Nick quotes criticising us spent several years as an extremist activist (not disclosed) and has never tried to have any contact with the Fabians.

I have no disagreement on Jamaat-i-Islami. This is a nifty piece of goalpost shifting by Nick: the question was whether he could defend the charge that we appease fascism. (Hell, I signed the Euston manifesto: I am not sure you went quite so far). I specifically praised the Bright Policy Exchange pamphlet, pointing out that I would not lump it all together with the PE work which has serious credibility issues following Newsnight's report. I have met Ed Husain since this broke out, having platformed him before.

Elf

Well said, Martin. I thought openDemocracy was all for free speach? And could you try to blog a bit more often?

Vern

Nick gives plenty of examples in his writings of supposed leftists sharing stages with various zealots/racists/anti-semites/gay-bashers and adopting the three wise monkey stance. As for the organisations listed in that letter- I'd never heard of any of them, so to claim that an alliance with this totally obscure and irrelevant group disproves a long list of other sins is moot to say the least

Alexandrovich

"We make a comradely call on Nick Cohen to stop shouting, to rejoin the conversation, engage with the work going on across the liberal-left and to become part of the solution".

Sounds like Stalin c.1937.

Martin Bright

Just a quick response to Sunder (but we should probably take the conversation elsewhere). I didn't sign the Euston Manifesto because I didn't agree with it. But I fought for it to be published in the New Statesman because it was a crucially important intervention. That's what free speech is about, promoting the free flow of ideas.

On a separate but connected point, if you agree with me about the pernicious influence of Jamaat-i-Islami, don't sign letters with its supporters. Or rather, do if you want, I wouldn't want deny you the freedom to look silly.

darsan

the pol.correct liberals are for free speech but to those certified as acceptable by them. -darsan

Matthew

It is funny that Nick and his friends are allowed to make vitriolic attacks on anyone they please, often on the flimiest of evidence (usually attacking views they once held or supporting views they once despised - see Nick Cohen's famous 'Why It Is Right To Be Anti-American'(http://www.newstatesman.com/200201140006) for the former, and praise for Anthony Browne for the latter (http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23519435-details/Our+new+man+in+town+to+fight+political+correctness/article.do)) and yet when someone calls them on their facts suddenly it's 'bullying' and - utterly bizarrely - an attack on 'free speech'.

Derek Pasquill

"Dilwar Hussein also appears to be genuine in his desire to reform the Islamic Foundation."

I am not so sure about Dilwar Hussein - his anthology of the writings of various Muslim scholars and leaders (Qutb, Qaradawi, al-Banna) - Islam: the Way of Revival, on my desk in August 2005, did little to reduce my concerns about the Islamic Foundation, and the FCO's policy of mainstreaming political Islam at the expense of moderate views.

The Islamic Foundation's website continues to carry the FCO's endorsement:

"The Islamic Foundation, established in 1973 in the city of Leicester, is a major centre for education, training, research and publication. The Foundation seeks to build bridges between Muslims and others, while promoting the highest standards of academic research and publications”

Foreign and Commonwealth Office Brochure, Muslims in Britain, 2002.

Steve

Way to ignore everything in the letter and then resort to playground whingeing about bullying, Martin. Nick specifically accused the Fabian Society of something and they responded, putting the stuff he'd made up about them right. Where is exactly is the 'bullying' here? Should Nick be allowed to get away with making stuff up about his 'political opponents'?

M Bright writes: 'if you agree with me about the pernicious influence of Jamaat-i-Islami, don't sign letters with its supporters'. But he also writes: 'Dilwar Hussein also appears to be genuine in his desire to reform the Islamic Foundation.'

Matrin since you're making money from a company that also employs Taki, an antisemite and racist, I'm not quite sure where you're going with this one in any case.

matthew

Taki, an anti-semite and racist?

David Ossitt

matthew.

Taki, an anti-semite and racist?

I am a bit confused; are you saying he is or he isn't.

I have always found his points of view most interesting; except when he goes on about his successes as a lothario.

hadrian

Although at first sight you'd think the Left and Fanatical Islam would have little in common- their views on social mores would appear indeed to be diametrically opposite- but at a deeper level they share a comfortable ideological bed. Both are dedicated totaltarian statists, believing in crude political power and terror to wield their influence and impose their will. God forbid they should ever succed but if they did the Left'd soon find just who were the masters.

Dilwar

Martin,

I hope we can talk about this more in person, but some quick remarks for now.

Among many other things…please don’t make my department sound sinister by calling it a ‘front’ for something. It is a department of the Islamic Foundation and proudly so. The Foundation was not established to “promote the views” of any political party, authoritarian or otherwise. It is an academic body that conducts research, publishes books and promotes education. Yes, it publishes books by Mawdudi, but it also publishes books by scholars of other Islamic traditions – some of our most popular books are by al-Ghazali, the famous Sufi mystic.

British Muslims have been on a journey of growth and development over the last 30 years. Our ideas have changed organically over the decades. But even over the last few years my views have evolved considerably; 9/11 and 7/7 have genuinely challenged us all. The elders in my community wanted to ban The Satanic Verses 20 years ago. I (and most second generation Muslims like me) am a strong advocate of free speech and don’t think books, cartoons, plays should be banned.

So, while I may disagree with Mawdudi’s views, I don't want to say his books should not be published. Are his views dangerous? Well, were the views of Marx and Nietzsche dangerous? Did they find their usage in conflict and warfare?

I do think that things need to change and reform, but I want that change process to be conducted in respectful and dignified terms. But the change needs to touch wide sectors of the Muslim communities not just, so called ‘islamists’. What people so often, naively, ignore is that some of the very people that are held up as ‘cuddly and safe’ Muslims have real issues with gender equality, liberalism, human rights, bar a very small liberal fringe. So the challenge is a serious one, and half truths, singling out whipping boys may get us some cheap thrills, but it wont solve the problem. The real divide is not between Muslim and non-Muslims, or between different strands of Islam, but between people that follow enlightened values and those that hold misogynistic, undemocratic values.

I’m serious about progressive (Islamic) thought. You can see some of my comment articles here: http://www.policyresearch.org.uk/publications_comment.php

Three months ago we organised a seminar, essentially arguing for Muslims to embrace secularity (http://www.policyresearch.org.uk/events/bmsecularstate.php).

But we do this, not by clambering for headlines or shouting at people, as some Muslim reformers, but with humility and respect, trying hard to carry our fellow travellers with us.

I’m happy to talk to you further about what else we are doing to foster change. Please let us get on with it.

seb

Where are the tea-sipping vicars clamouring for approval and a societal embrace and inclusion because they, unlike wilder members of their church, are prepared to 'tolerate' the vast majority of people who are not practising Christians? Could it be that the penny has dropped, that believers in Western secular societies understand a partition that must exist between private belief and public life? How many decades or centuries will have passed before all believers of all faiths appreciate that, in the interests of ending pointless strife, the faithful need to accept that they are not entitled to special treament in a democratic society, merely to the right to participate?

Nicholas Storey

This is out of place maybe - but is there a reason that there is no comment box on Portillo's article on Iraq today 27.03.09? Such stuff cannot be permitted to stand uncontroverted.

Derek Pasquill

Mentioning serious thinkers such as Marx and Nietzsche in proximity to Maududi begs a few questions, and what does 'Please let us get on with it,' mean exactly, when the Islamic Foundation does so much through its publishing arm to foster community disintegration?

Martin Bright

I've always thought this subject deserved a blog all of its own. Over to you Mr Forsyth. I dare you.

Alf Tupper

I'll slag the left on those many occasions when it's deserved, but here surely is an example of astute thinking and sound judgment to be appreciated regardless of political hue?

What an insipid and pointless site this would be anyway, if it was made up entirely of voices propounding views guaranteed always to echo our own.

andrew oldham

Mr Bright
You will find that Sunder has answered your critisms without insult. You and your mate revert to name calling.