The Politics of Recession

Written by Karima Hamdan

Last week the President of the World Bank, Robert Zoellick, gave his own stark assessment of our current worldwide financial prospects when he said the global economy is “one shock away” from a crisis in food supplies and prices. It isn’t just third world nations who are continuing to feel the squeeze: this last fortnight has seen Portugal becoming the latest European nation to require a multi-billion Euro bailout and the economy of Spain is perilously close to meltdown. In the midst of this, China, the world’s second largest economy, is gestating its own inflation and debt time bomb that threatens to scupper any chance of a global recovery. At home, the NHS is facing a Tory-style slash and burn revamp, unemployment is at an all-time high and the gap between rich and poor is widening into a gulf. With crises abounding, it is good to know that as a society we focus in on the really important issues to debate and discuss: whether or not a relatively small group of women covering the lower half of their faces represents the end of western society as we know it.

These are indeed the days of recession politics, where the clever politicians know that if they cannot provide economic security and stability to their populace, then at least they can provide the next best thing: a highly visible scapegoat upon which everything, rationally or irrationally, can blamed.

France’s niqab ban came into force last week, with the Republic excusing this draconian measure as both aiding the emancipation of women as well as protecting French culture. Both of these excuses are patently false. The vast majority of niqab-wearing women not only wear it of their own volition but also with steely resolve, deep-rooted conviction and the sort of quiet bravery that many an invertebrate politician would do well to emulate. If Sarkozy were so concerned with female emancipation he should perhaps do something about the 18,000 women in France’s commercial sex trade, the vast majority of whom have been the victims of sex traffickers.

As far as French culture goes, it is truly unimaginable that fewer than a thousand niqab-wearing women somehow signal the demise of the Republic. The truth be told, France has joined the rest of the world in selling up its culture for a Deluxe Royale with fries. It may be of interest to know that the country that gave the world Michelin stars, haute cuisine, and more smelly cheeses than one could poke a large bin bag at, is the second largest global market for McDonalds fast food (or rather restauration rapide). As well as the large arthrosclerotic place that ‘MacDo’ has found in the French heart, it is interesting to note that when one wanders down the winding streets of many a French town, it is not ‘burqa’-clad women that ones sees, but rather young men with their trousers teetering precariously around their lower hips, wearing baseball caps and looking more like they belong in South Central LA rather than Aix-en-Provence. One wonders whether they will be meted out their own law forcing integration into the Republic. Will their caps and low-slung jeans be forcibly replaced by berets, strings of onions and striped shirts? Of course, it is not Muslims which threaten the Republic’s image and culture, but rather the forces of globalisation, coupled with Sarkozy’s domestic market reforms that replaced lazy French Sundays awaiting the appearance of the rôti de boeuf from the oven with 24/7 US-style shopping malls filled with faceless multinational chains. The hard truth of the matter is that the new law banning the niqab has more to do with the surge in popularity of the far right than any real concerns about women’s emancipation or the preservation of French culture.

The only ‘upside’ of this recent flurry of interest in the niqab is that it keeps employed the small demographic of individuals who would otherwise be joining the world’s lengthening dole cues but for the global media’s insistence on obsessing about Muslims. They are of course those talking heads often irresponsibly labelled by journalists as ‘Islamic experts’ when, in reality, they are little more than self-appointed, media-junkie narcissists.

When one of these Muslim-related media conniptions erupts, whether the topic is niqab, forced marriages, halal meat or poppy burning (and the list goes on) one often sees them jostling for position across various media outlets, attempting to get the greatest coverage of their uninformed opinions in the widest range of content providers. Whether it is an opinion piece in the Guardian’s Comment is Free section, or an interview with BBC News 24 or even merely being quoted in the Telegraph, they scramble over each other in their race towards the limelight.

This particular media feeding frenzy saw relative newcomer, Mona El-Tahawy, snaffle a great deal more than 15 minutes of fame as she burbled incongruously about oppressive Arab regimes whilst simultaneously calling for a draconian worldwide ban on the niqab.

Andrew Gilligan, writing in the Telegraph, contented himself with quoting Haras Rafiq of the now defunct Sufi Muslim Council who has reinvented himself as the director of another pointless ‘think tank’, Centri. Gilligan completely misrepresented a rather uncontroversial statement that has been on the MCB website for the last five years, clarifying the Islamic nature of the niqab. So tenuous were the allegations Gilligan made about this ‘chilling statement’ that he didn’t even include a link in his article, lest someone read the actual statement and realise how little Gilligan has learnt since the whole David Kelly affair when he – now, how can I say this politely? – overstated David Kelly’s statements in his reportage. Suffice it to say that Haras Rafiq was more than happy to tag along for the ride, never once questioning Gilligan’s assertions. Whilst Rafiq lapped up the opportunity to tell everyone about his opinions, we were never once told what qualified him to be interviewed as some sort of expert whose view actually means something.

However, by far and away the most ludicrous example of a talking head with no brain attached to it was the interview of Taj Hargey on David Frost’s Al-Jazeera programme.

The simple fact is that Taj Hargey has absolutely no credibility in the eyes of British Muslims. The only reason people even watch his interviews is down to the same perversity of mind that causes some people to peer into the toilet bowl, with a mixture of fascination and revulsion, after a particularly vigorous movement. It was a stomach-churning performance on such an epic scale that one could barely keep one’s eyes off the screen.

Hargey stated that hadith should not be used for the basis of any Islamic rulings. He went on and on about the niqab being a ‘tribal rag’ and the Muslim women who wear it were not being honest about why they did. Even more bizarrely, he then launched into a tirade about how he was going to hold a celebration in order to “burn a burqa” in order to give Muslims “a taste of their own medicine”. The terminology he used was interesting. He appeared to be positioning himself outside of Islam in order to collectively punish Muslims. Some may say that his denial of hadith would also place him outside of the fold of Islam, but that is a different subject altogether.

It is pertinent to remember that Hargey is the theological advisor and trustee of BMSD (British Muslims for Secular Democracy), yet another tedious “Muslim organisation” filled with narcissistic characters who use Islam as a catapult to launch their own vainglorious careers. Whilst BMSD is happy to use Hargey’s deluded ravings as the central strut for their Islamic opinions, it is also desperate to promote itself as a legitimate Muslim group working for the betterment of the community. To this end, one often sees its members elbowing their way onto joint platforms with mainstream Muslim groups, despite having their very own Pastor Terry Jones character in the form of Taj Hargey. BMSD should be ostracised as the pariah it is, rather than allowing it to gain legitimacy via association with other more mainstream Muslim organisations or personalities.

Interestingly, whilst all the controversy about banning the niqab in France was blazing across the news outlets, in London’s Soho, two gay men were thrown out of a pub when their kissing disgusted the landlord. Suffice it to say that there was widespread public hysteria, with a kiss-in protest staged at the pub, Facebook groups organised, Twitter trends tweeting, flash mobs mobilised and an official complaint made to the police. No one seems to have remarked on the contrast between the entirely supportive response these men have received and, at best, the very guarded support given to women wearing the niqab. For homosexuals, their behaviour is an absolute right: not only should it be accepted but it should also be celebrated. For women wearing the niqab, their actions are grudgingly tolerated as a necessary evil if we are to live in a liberal democracy, with even most Muslim commentators hastening to add that they ‘personally disagree’ with the niqab and can understand the furore surrounding it.

By all accounts, it will be several more years before we see an end to the politics of recession which has politicians looking for scapegoats rather than solutions for today’s woes. As the media machines capitalise on this, they will use some from within our own ranks to lend credibility to their unfair criticisms of Islam. These quislings should be seen for what they are: divisive figures whose only desire is to further their own agendas. As well as gravitating towards the media, they cosy up to more mainstream Muslim organisations in order to appear as though they have some sort of mandate from the community they claim to represent. They should not be allowed to do this.

Less common in the media are mainstream Muslim commentators who have a more legitimate right to appear publicly as representatives because they broadly represent the community’s views and in some cases are democratically elected officials. The trap that they should be wary of falling into is capitulating to the uncomfortable sensation when an “awkward issue” from within Islam is focused on and dissected under the harsh media spotlight. Without careful preparation and dexterity, this invariably leads to stumbling apologies about certain aspects of Islam that don’t sit easily with libertarian ideals of a secular society. Instead, a middle route course should be followed, where the conversation is hauled back away from brinkmanship histrionics towards the reality on the ground, which is that Muslims are the imperfect followers of the perfect religion of Islam, and that we are at our best – both for ourselves and for the society we live in – not when we jettison parts of our religion, but when we try to follow the example of the perfect man, our beloved Prophet Muhammad (sallallahu alayhi wasallam).