Tuesday, 22 December 2015

Do We Need a ‘Safe Space’ from Donald Trump? - The New York Times

Fresh from just now posting about the thankless task of liberal (aka "moderate") Muslims critiquing Islam, I come across this interesting article by Kenan Malik. 
Malik looks into the issue of why the left so often supports radical Islam. For example, attempts by the Islamic Society at the University of London to shut down a talk by secular humanist, ex-Muslim Maryam Namazie. Scandalously, this was supported by feminists and the LGBT communities at the UL. 
These groups would be the first to be suppressed and killed if the likes of the Islamic Society had their way. 
Malik makes the point that liberal Muslim critics, attempting to reform Islam, are often ridiculed and shut down (hence "Sisyphus"), not just by Muslims, but by the western left as well. The would-be reformers are labelled "porch monkeys" and "native informants", or worse. They are attacked and reviled. Little wonder, then, that they're so few in number. 
So, good on you, Mustafa and Kenan. Brave voices.
Quoting Kenan Malik:
All this reveals the odd relationship that many on the left have with Islam. They view all Muslims as helpless victims, and regard any criticism of Islam as a form of bigotry. A columnist for The Guardian, David Shariatmadari, called the attempt at Warwick to muzzle Ms. Namazie "reasonable" because "we don't want to have any part in the further stigmatisation of Islam." Some academics disdainfully dismiss liberal Muslim critics of Islam as "native informants" — defined by one academic as "insiders" who "air the dirty laundry of Muslim communities."
Malik is one of those rare beasts: a real leftie (he used to be a member of the Socialist Workers Party), who stands four square behind freedom of speech, even if it offends, and for the right to criticise Islam. The doctrine of Islam, not the people who follow it, aka Muslims.