There was nothing particularly surprising about the reactions of some on the liberal left to Tony Blair’s post-7/7 denunciation of the ‘evil ideology’ of Islamic fundamentalism. To paraphrase one of the prime minister’s less illustrious predecessors, they would prefer Mr Blair to condemn a little less and understand a little more.
This reaction, however, reveals a fundamental misunderstanding not only of the nature of the threat which Britain faces but also a willingness to compromise the essential values for which the left supposedly stands.
In the current debate regarding the interlinked questions of the west’s alleged culpability and how we respond to the challenge of extreme Islamism, it is vital that the progressive left makes its position clear and unequivocal. A failure to do so would be a betrayal not only of our values, but also of the vast majority of Muslims in Britain for whom the violent and theocratic creed of radical Islamism is abhorrent.
The reason why some on the left have failed to correctly identify the true character of Islamic fundamentalism is, of course, not difficult to discern. For them, opposition to the foreign policies of the United States and western governments is all-consuming – and there are few in the world who are more hostile to them than radical Islamism. But the principle of ‘my enemy’s enemy’ – aside, in our view, from being frequently misguided about the west’s foreign policies – has driven some on the left to excuse and consort with individuals, organisations and an ideology which has nothing at all to do with those principles – equality, liberty and tolerance – which animate progressive thinking.
We need to be clear that Islamic fundamentalism is not a movement seeking to right perceived injustices in the developing world with which those who hold to liberal democratic values can seek compromise or understanding. Rather, it uses these injustices to further an agenda that is clear: to re-establish the caliphate, an Islamic state governed by sharia law that would stretch across all formerly Muslim lands, taking in Spain, Morocco, north Africa, Albania, Turkey, Saudi Arabia and the Middle East, as well as Pakistan, Indonesia and the Philippines. Its targets are thus not simply the west but especially those countries – such as Indonesia, the Philippines and Turkey – that have struggled over the last two decades to move towards democracy, the rule of law and respect for human rights.
There is, we know, a precedent for the attitude towards Islamic fundamentalism that some on the left appear to be adopting. During the 1930s, elements of the non-Communist left in Britain – Sidney and Beatrice Webb, for example – continued to praise Soviet Russia even as the true character of the Stalinist regime was becoming apparent. They were driven to do so, in part, because of a belief that shared enemies – from fascism to the Tory press and laissez-faire capitalism – made allies out of them.
During the cold war, too, some on the British democratic left appeared ambivalent about the Soviet Union – even as it crushed the freedoms of the peoples of Eastern Europe – because to condemn it, they felt, would put them in alliance with the United States and their Conservative political enemies at home. This was a moral and political blunder of epic proportions, tarnishing the credentials of the left as guardians of freedom and democracy.
The ambivalence towards Islamic fundamentalists on the part of some who claim membership of the left (see Pilgim) is, then, a case of history repeating itself. That the Stop the War Coalition should have allowed the Muslim Association of Britain to be a partner organisation is disgraceful, given the MAB’s support for sharia law (with its disregard for women’s and gay rights), its belief that Muslims who renounce their faith should be put to death, and its calls for the state of Israel to be abolished.
While we do not expect much better from the Stop the War Coalition, given its domination by the Socialist Workers party, others should know better. Ken Livingstone’s credibility as a spokesman for the rights of minorities and women, and his condemnation of terrorism in London, are severely undermined for so long as he continues to defend his decision last year to invite the radical Islamic cleric, Yusuf al-Qaradawi, to speak at a Greater London Authority event. On his website, al-Qaradawi advocates the killing of ‘perverted’ homosexuals, defends husbands who beats their wives and questions the innocence of rape victims. Al-Qaradawi is, furthermore, an out-and-out antisemite: defending not only the murder of Israeli civilians in suicide bombings but also looking forward to the day of judgement when ‘Muslims will fight the Jews and kill them’. Would the mayor be happy to host an American white supremacist who advocated the murder of African Americans?
Ken is not alone and perhaps it is unfair to single him out. However, his stance must never become the mainstream in terms of progressive opinion. The values of the left – including uncompromising opposition to the terrorising of innocent civilians – are for all places at all times, or they are nothing.