I joined Labour in 1998 as an act of protest against Islamist extremism. I remain a member of the Labour party because I believe in social justice, secular democracy, the welfare state, human rights and gender equality. I like to think Labour still believes in these values. And most importantly, we are prepared to defend them at difficult moments. Especially when standing up for these values risks offending large ethnic and religious minorities in today’s Britain. But will we? And is it racist to do so, as some sections of the left would suggest?

Minority immigrant communities do not, and cannot, remain ‘immigrants’ forever. With education, opportunities and generational change, minorities become full citizens, integrated into the socio-political fabric of a nation. But there are factors and forces that can hinder this process: literalist religion, racism, enforced cultural differences and self-appointed community leaders who purposefully set out to portray their communities as perennial victims. But what mitigates all this and ensures a nuanced sense of belonging, based on common ideals or shared values?

Some causes of social exclusion and resentment can be tackled by throwing money at the problem, ie high unemployment among Asian Muslims or poor housing. But even with the best housing and full employment we will have a social underbelly which discriminates against women, condemns gay people, rejects a secular state, opposes liberal democracy, maintains a separatist existence, wants its own laws and ultimately a state within a state unless we find shared values that can unite us. We’re not there yet, but the signs are ominous. Unless these trends are challenged and corrected, we risk further ghettoisation of Muslim communities, particularly in northern cities – Labour constituencies.

I was born and raised in London’s East End. My local library had a memorial to Clement Attlee – my father canvassed for Peter Shore MP, predecessor to Oona King. In my teenage years, I ventured into extremist Hizb ut-Tahrir but soon afterwards I returned home to Labour. I am not a convert to liberal democracy – I was born into it. So mine is not the zeal of a convert, out of tune with mainstream Muslims as some suggest. But what is this ‘Muslim mainstream’?

Throughout the 1980s, Britain’s ‘Muslim leadership’ came into being as a result of the Salman Rushdie crisis. Iran and Saudi Arabia funded initiatives that are now rooted within Muslim communal discourse: adversarial, anti-west, conservative and religiously rigid. Men who came to prominence under the Conservatives by supporting calls for Rushdie’s death were knighted by New Labour, or made into peers.

Worse, rather than see Muslims as citizens who – like everybody else – should seek representation through parliament, Labour consolidated the powerbase of male-dominated, Islamism-influenced organisations such as the Muslim Council of Britain (MCB) which were created under the Tories. The MCB is yet to confirm that Islamist ideology, among other factors, leads to terrorism. Their stance has been to constantly blame foreign policy, without taking responsibility for the ideology their affiliates advocate. Thankfully, Hazel Blears has courageously ended the ‘take-us-to-your-leader’ model of politics and sought to engage as broadly as possible. This, of course, has its risks, too, especially when the terms of engagement are unclear.

Britain is at a critical juncture. Our present liberal paralysis – the fear of being labelled racist by seeming to offend minorities – in addressing the values-based debate must end. By maintaining a different standard for minorities, we do these communities a disservice. And that, in fact, is racist. That somehow Asian and African communities deserve less access, opportunities and educational ambitions than white English speakers should motivate us to challenge cultures in our midst that prevent the full growth of women, gay people, dissidents and others. It is racist to turn a blind eye to widespread injustice inside certain communities with the mantra of ‘it’s their culture’. How is it possible for an Asian woman to live in Birmingham for three decades and not speak English, thereby remain unemployed and disconnected from wider society? Why is it wrong among Asian elders for an Asian woman to want to marry a white man?

I still believe that it is Labour that is best suited to advance the case for integration and belonging. But will it? Too often Labour’s silence on these issues has allowed the far right to monopolise this crucial debate. Without greater candour, we will give up ground to our political enemies. Labour needs to step up and challenge the right by offering a more inclusive and sympathetic approach to immigrants and Muslims – and by beginning to debate these often difficult issues.

To help this process, I helped launch Quilliam – a counter-extremism thinktank – into the Muslim and wider ideas space last year. Privately, many prominent Muslims have confessed that secularism and liberal democracy provide the best political model in a multi-faith, multi-ethnic society. But publicly they dare not say this for fear of losing their radicalised flock. Quilliam’s aims are to challenge the Muslim status quo, expose the knavish tricks of Islamists and will continue to be. We want to see a British Muslim community free from double talk, at home in and with liberal values.

To get there, Muslims who follow a politicised, intolerant version of their religion – Islamists – need to be distinguished from ordinary British Muslims. Most normal Muslims have no objections to democracy, a secular state, human rights or gender equality. But Islamists do. And it is this small minority that requires challenging from mainstream Muslims and wider society. The tough, sensitive questions need to be asked.

First, most Muslims in Britain are here because of a secular state which protects individuals’ freedoms, and yet Islamist groups despise secularism. The church expelled Jews for centuries from England, and would not have tolerated mosques or vibrant Muslim communities. Secularism made such tolerance possible. Where is the harm in maintaining a religiously-neutral political space? Islamists reject secularism because they want to see a state governed by their version of Islam. Muslims in Bangladesh, Pakistan and Indonesia have rejected Islamist parties at the polls recently – why should we strengthen Islamist groups in Britain?

Second, those of us who believe in the importance of human rights cannot continue to engage and endorse organisations that want to create a state in which adulterers are stoned to death, fornicators are flogged and thieves’ arms are amputated. And what of gay rights?

Third, democracy means more than mere elections. It also means people are sovereign and they are lawmakers. Islamists reject this and believe that only clerics should be allowed to pass or amend laws. Muslim scholars have traditionally warned against this mode of religious fascism, but Islamists remain hell bent on what they call ‘hakimiyyah’ or God’s rule. The progressives on the left need to unite with ordinary Muslims who also oppose this rigidity.

Fourth, we must uphold the principle that women are equal to men regardless of their culture or religion. The cultural relativism that allows for marital rape, domestic violence, unequal inheritance, discriminatory laws in court and much else undermines Muslim women. Can progressives really work in alliance with ‘Muslim groups’ to prevent terrorism, while upholding daily terror in the lives of millions of Muslim women? Or is it that western lives and western women are more valuable?

The challenges ahead of us are great. And yet there is hope. A young generation of western Muslims are pioneering a new path. But we can’t do it alone.