Liberal imperialism and political Islam: Ben White takes on Martin Bright

Apologetically imperial: Liberals, political Islam, and a war of terror

By Ben White

Long before Nick Cohen ruminated on “What’s Left?” and Martin Amis imagined the sexual frustration of millions of Muslim men, even as the ink dried on opinion pages in the “liberal” New York Times, Guardian and Independent urging on the slaughter in Iraq, those on the left still committed to resisting imperialism were already ably despatching the accusations of “appeasing Islamofascism”. It is not my intention to repeat those thorough demolitions here.

However, an interview earlier this month in the Guardian with the New Statesman‘s political editor Martin Bright afforded excellent insight into how leading “liberal” writers have justified (to us and themselves) their support for the reactionary policies of the “war on terror”.1 Bright is a more recent addition to the imperial left club, having risen to prominence through his long-running investigation into what he called the British Foreign Office’s “love affair with radical Islam”, an interest that has fed a documentary, numerous articles, and a think tank policy paper.

The interviewer gives Bright space to vent, principally towards those on the “liberal left” who have the temerity to accuse him of Islamophobia: “There is a tendency on the British left to believe that the ‘wretched of the earth’ have some sort of moral superiority to us in the West. That same tendency also associates anyone who opposes American or British so-called imperialism with the wretched of the earth.”

Twice, Bright refers to “the wretched of the earth”, an expression made famous by seminal anti-colonial writer Frantz Fanon in his book of the same name. Bright is not alone; Christopher Hitchens elaborated on this point in a book review in City Journal, claiming that “[many liberals] cannot shake their subliminal identification of the Muslim religion with the wretched of the earth.”2 Fanon is an unlikely ally, and to borrow from his theories deeply ironic (unintentionally). Fanon’s fiery prose, like other classic anti-colonial texts by Aimé Césaire, Sartre and Albert Memmi, still rings true today as a denunciation of the liberals’ approval of colonial violence and horrified moralising towards any resistance.3

More than forty years before the Time magazine specials on “Sunni jihadists” and a “Shia crescent”, Fanon sarcastically wrote that: “Colonialism will attempt to rally the African peoples by uncovering the existence of ‘spiritual’ rivalries … references are made to Arab imperialism, and the cultural imperialism of Islam is denounced.”

It is not, as Bright supposes, that anti-imperial leftists attribute intrinsic moral superiority to “the wretched of the earth”, but rather that they defend the right of the colonised to resist colonialism; the occupied, occupation; the wretched, those who seek to maintain in perpetuity their wretchedness.

Continue reading

Channel 4 rejects ‘Islamophobia’ claims

Undercover Mosque

The Channel 4 deputy head of news and current affairs, Kevin Sutcliffe, today dismissed accusations of Islamophobia in the broadcaster’s programming, stating that it would remain “fearless” in its coverage.

Mr Sutcliffe, one of five panelists involved at a sometimes heated session at the MediaGuardian Edinburgh international television festival about the portrayal of Islam in the media, said critics would be “hard pressed to point to Islamophobia” in Channel 4’s programming.

“We have a rounded view and approach to this issue … we are quite fearless about what we want to say and when we want to say it,” he added. In response to the Crown Prosecution Service criticism that the controversial Dispatches documentary Undercover Mosque had “distorted” the views of those filmed, Mr Sutcliffe said it was a “phoney argument”.

Inayat Bunglawala, assistant secretary-general of the Muslim Council of Britain, agreed that following events such as 9/11 and the bombings in Madrid and London it was “inevitable” there would be an “increased scrutiny of Muslim organisations and mosques”.

However, he said that he was “entitled to ask if it is fair”. He then stated that Muslims and Islam “does not have a level playing field in the media in this country”. Mr Bunglawala expressed concern over “authored documentaries” in which “journalists have an axe to grind”. He cited a Panorama documentary by John Ware as an example.

Maryam Namazie, spokesperson of the Council of ex-Muslims of Britain, strongly disagreed, arguing that the UK media was too soft in its coverage of Islam. “Media doesn’t cover the realities of Islam at all, it is very soft,” she said. She added that the political Islamist movement in Britain and Europe had engineered a “victim status”, whereby criticism of Islam was being equated to racism against Muslims. “Criticising a belief is not racism, it is not the case that that Muslims are being vilified,” Ms Namazie said.

Guardian, 24 August 2007


If there’s one thing that illustrates the problem with the attitudes to Islam to be found in liberal media circles, it’s the fact that a sectarian lunatic like Namazie who represents nothing and nobody is given a platform at an event like this, as if she had something serious to contribute to the debate.

See also Inayat Bunglawala’s post at Comment is Free, 24 August 2007 

Essential misreading

“It is a neocon myth that the left in Britain has compromised its principles in its opposition to the war on terror. On the contrary, for the left or genuine liberals not to have made common cause with Muslims in opposition to military aggression and lawlessness, or defended the Muslim community against racism and Islamophobic attacks, would have been the real betrayal of progressive principles, including that of solidarity with the powerless.”

Seumas Milne replies to Andrew Anthony: Comment is Free, 20 August 2007

‘Preachers of hate’ must be exposed – by fiddling the evidence, apparently

Joan SmithPredictably, Joan Smith joins in the defence of Channel 4’s discredited “Undercover Mosque” documentary:

“The Channel’s real offence, I suspect, lies in drawing attention to the idiocy of government ministers who have a history of accepting self-appointed ‘community leaders’ as representatives of millions of law-abiding Muslims who do not go to mosques; even worse, they have failed to inquire closely enough into the kind of Islam which is being preached and promoted there.”

Independent, 14 August 2007

See also Steve Hewlett in the Guardian, 13 August 2007 and the Organ Grinder, 13 August 2007

The West Midlands Police and Crown Prosecution Service, who accused the programme makers of distorting the evidence, did so on the basis of having examined 56 hours of film footage, so you might have thought they’d be rather better placed to make a judgement on the issue of distortion than the above commentators, who of course have seen only the carefully edited snippets included in the original programme. But never let an objective evaluation of the evidence get in the way of a bit of anti-Muslim bigotry, eh? So much for “Enlightenment values”.

For an alternative view, see Media Workers Against the War, 10 August 2007

Andrew Anthony rallies to defence of ‘Undercover Mosque’

Channel 4’s documentary “Undercover Mosque” was great investigative journalism, claims Andrew Anthony.

Observer, 12 August 2007

For earlier coverage of Andrew Anthony see here and here.

And over at the Daily Telegraph, “Undercover Mosque” also receives the backing of Charles Moore, who complains that “the West Midlands police and the Crown Prosecution Service decide that the target of their wrath should be not people who want to undermine this country, but some journalists who want to expose them”.

The radical Islamic group that acts as ‘conveyor belt’ for terror – Independent

Shiv Malik continues the witch-hunt against Hizb ut-Tahrir. Although he comes down against a ban, the main thrust of his article is to provide a justification for it.

Independent on Sunday, 7 August 2005

Predictably, the authority quoted for the “conveyor belt” claim is US right-winger Zeyno Baran. As we have pointed out before with regard Ms Baran, she is associated with such reliable institutions as
National Review Online and The Counterterrorism Blog

See Yusuf Smith’s comments at Indigo Jo Blogs, 7 August 2005

Lib Dem MP defends right to incite hatred

NF Islam Out of BritainAttacking Asghar Bukhari’s criticism of the decision to award Salman Rushdie a knighthood, Liberal Democrat MP and leading National Secular Society member Evan Harris writes:

“I will not tolerate the persistent demands, led by Muslim activists, for special protection for religious views. People should be allowed to attack religious ideas in ways which adherents may find offensive – whether by criticism, lampoon or even insult. I organised the Parliamentary campaign that last year voted down – by a margin of one – a Government plan to outlaw the incitement of religious hatred.”

National Secular Society website, 3 August 2007

So it’s not just just criticising, lampooning or insulting a religion that Harris defends but also the right to incite hatred against it. Little wonder, then, that his actions over the Racial and Religious Hatred Bill were applauded by the far Right, against whom the Bill was aimed. As one National Front activist wrote in appreciation of Harris’s efforts:

“Evan Harris is not a perfect MP but nevertheless he has spoken out on a number of important issues where others have remained silent. For instance he has campaigned against special religious education for minorities. He has opposed the hijab and was one of the few to criticise it in public. Harris is a defender of freedom of expression…. The government is attempting to legislate against ‘religious hatred’. All patriots must oppose this proposed law which could be used against us. You will find that Harris will be one of the most articulate spokesmen against this law.”

In his NSS piece Harris writes that he finds the ideology of the far Right loathsome and that he should be “entitled to incite hatred of Nazis”. Unfortunately, he also defends the right of Nazis to incite hatred of Muslims.

Ignorant nonsense

“On June 30 I flew out of Glasgow airport approximately nine hours before the suicide bombing attempt…. Like most people, I was pleased to be able to watch a story of potential atrocity pass into one of black humour and farce, allowing us to depict the Islamist threat as no match for a Glaswegian baggage-handler, and to joke about the perpetrators as the first people to drive to Paisley in expectation of a rendezvous with 72 virgins.

“However, what has fairly ripped my knitting in the weeks since has been the concerted efforts to give religion an alibi for the whole undertaking, depicting it as merely misused by extremists and clinging to the idea that faith itself is a virtue, all the while ignoring the very simple equation that no belief in an afterlife equals no suicide bombers.”

Christopher Brookmyre in the Guardian, 1 August 2007

Which rather overlooks the use of suicide bombings by emphatically non-religious organisations like the LTTE and PKK, not to mention the detailed research of Robert Pape, who has stated unequivocally: “the facts are that since 1980, of suicide terrorist attacks from around the world over half have been secular. What over 95% of suicide attacks around the world [are about] is not religion, but a specific strategic purpose – to compel modern democracies to withdraw military forces from the territory that the terrorists view as their homeland or prize greatly”.

But when did mere facts ever have any effect on the belief-system of dogmatic rationalists like Christopher Brookmyre?

Jasper Gerard finds evidence of ‘Muslim separateness’

“A British Airways plane was delayed after three of Sheikh Badr Bin Khalifa al-Thani’s most valuable wives refused to sit next to male passengers. Which was out of character for the Qatari royals, really. You see, earlier they had graciously consented to make their accommodations with decadent western ways – while shopping in the designer boutiques of Milan. A trivial story, highlighting an un-trivial trend: the move towards Muslim separateness.”

Jasper Gerard in the Observer, 29 July 2007

So, farewell then, David T

Over at Comment is Free yesterday, Madeleine Bunting posted a reasoned response to Martin Bright and David T of Harry’s Place over their attacks on an earlier piece she had published on CiF. She wrote:

“I simply cannot see the point of a witch-hunt against anyone who has ever read Qutb or Mawdudi. This is McCarthyism of the worst kind. We might as well hound out of British politics anyone who has read Lenin. The kind of scenario David T paints of an entryist Islamism trying to establish a ‘perfect Islamic state’ is a fantasyland and I can’t understand why a serious journalist such as Martin Bright endorses it.”

David T then proceeded to post his own “reasoned response” to Bunting, which concluded: “you, Madeleine Bunting, are an absolute disgrace. Your participation in this debate has been entirely malign. You seem to see your role as being to cover up for, and whitewash, political extremists and bigots of the worst sort. You should be ashamed of yourself.”

Then, when the CiF moderators deleted this, David T started bleating about censorship. (And this from a man whose website repeatedly blocks links from Islamophobia Watch, with the result that we have to redirect them via tinylink.com.)

Eventually CiF editor Georgina Henry was forced to step in and close the thread down because of the repeated posting of “abusive attacks on the original author” – no doubt by the same right-wing bigots who frequent the comments section at Harry’s Place.

And now David T has announced that he will no longer be blogging at CiF. He objects to the fact that CiF allows Azzam Tamimi of the British Muslim Initiative and Taji Mustafa of Hizb ut-Tahrir to post there but not far-right white racists like Nick Griffin or David Duke: “Islamists and jihadists are part of the ‘big debate’, but other fascists are not.”

Well, I imagine most CiF readers will be breathing a sigh of relief. David T will now be free to wallow in his own hatred of liberals and the Left at Harry’s Place, along with his co-thinkers drawn from the racist right who enthusiastically back him up with their vile anti-Muslim rants. Frankly, they deserve each other.