I approve of the large Muslim prayer meeting held in Trafalgar Square on Monday. But I would not want such a thing to happen more than once a year. I do not agree with Nick Timothy that it was an ‘act of domination’. But I am glad that his comments have caused a debate: we should be thinking about these things without fear of censure.
We should admit that public religion is problematic and ponder why. Timothy says that Muslim prayers should be confined to mosques: ‘They are not welcome in our public places and shared institutions.’
The Prime Minister responded with indignation: various religions are allowed to stage celebrations in Trafalgar Square, so why should Muslims be treated with suspicion? But Timothy has a point: some such events are more cultural than religious – he mentions a St. Patrick’s Day celebration as something that one need not object to. Some religious events do have a political edge.
We should give British Muslims the benefit of the doubt
It might help if we widened the debate beyond Islam. Any religious event is problematic if it has a political dimension. There was surely an urge for ‘domination’ in Tommy Robinson’s ‘Unite the Kingdom’ rally last year and his follow-up carol service. And what if the Pope visited and held a mass rally in central London? Surely many of us would sniff a desire for cultural domination.
I happen to think that public religion should be tolerated, even encouraged – but with due care. I would like to see more public displays of Britain’s main religious tradition – liberal Christianity, whether overseen by the established Church or not. And I am happy enough for other religions to get their day in the sun as well – within certain limits.
But Islam is a special case, some will say: it has a deep-seated desire to be more than just one minority among others; it has a deep animosity to the idea of a secular state and this is expressed in its public events. As Timothy put it, ‘the domination of public places’, as seen in this week’s Trafalgar Square iftar, ‘is straight from the Islamist playbook.’
My approach to this is nuanced. We should be aware that Islam is historically inclined to denigrate the separation of religion and politics and that, therefore, there is a history of tension between Islam and liberal values. But we should give British Muslims the benefit of the doubt; we should assume that they are developing a new approach. We should assume that, by virtue of choosing to be in this country, they value the British tradition of political liberalism. We should assume that, by virtue of choosing to be here rather than in a Muslim-majority country, they are quietly renouncing the old theocratic understanding of their faith.
That is naïve, you may say. Not necessarily. I use the word ‘assume’ in a strong sense: to mean that we should require this of them.
Comments