:bism: (In the Name of God, the Most Beneficent, the Most Merciful)
Hi.
So, yesterday, I finally had a chance to watch the video. And I thought I'd answer the questions you've posed here now that I've had time to watch the video.
Didn't you find it embarrassing in any way?
I didn't find it embarrassing. While I don't think that any of the Muslim panelists brought any new points which we could take home, I did think they discussed the issues that they found concerning then, and I liked the fact that they emphasized that we as Muslims needed to become comfortable with our own identity.
That said, I think it is a huge characterization of the event to call it a "debate" as it was not a debate by any stretch of the imagination. When I imagine a debate, I imagine people taking opposing viewpoints and taking turns to present their sides - for or against.
Simply as a neutral observer, the event seemed more like a discussion panel and not a debate. So, I'm unsure why this specific organization called iERA felt the need to characterize it as a "debate." Even from Peter Hatchell, since I watched the video to the end, I didn't get the impression that he was any true voice of dissent, though his trying to question the panel at one point did lead to heated answers from Muslim panelists.
Where are all the intelligent Muslim debaters?
I don't think that's a fair question. This event was, from my understanding, not a "debate" and I think calling the event so is a misnomer on the part of the organization that arranged the event. A better question would be, "Where is the debate?"
Why do we so often see Muslims in debates changing the subject, refusing to answer questions, refusing to listen to other points of view and utterly incapable of presenting a coherent or consistent case?
To be fair, I don't think they changed the subject so much as they wanted to get back to the main topic, which I presume all panelists understood was, "Is Islam a solution or cause of the extremism?"
Also, I wanted to note that the panel's discussion took place in October 2015, and so I went to Wikipedia and went through the list of all terrorist attacks in 2015; while none stood out as prominently as the attacks to be followed in California and Paris which were after October 2015, I'd have to say that I do remember there being the most heightened concerns in that year as the issue of
Daesh was one that really was of great security concern. So, I mined some stories of U.K. in that time period before October 2015 and found the following:
British Muslim girls had traveled to Syria in February 2015 and were believed
married in July 2015 and U.K. papers carried stories of youth being arrested for intending to travel to Syria -
some in which males intended to do so and others in which
females had intended to do so - but failed. So, as I imagine, the media must have been having a field day of anti-Muslim stories for which both
The Sun and
The Daily Mail are already famous for doing so and other major news networks were also carrying these stories as they were the highlight of the latest tragic news in
Daesh's ability to radicalize youth and probably hysteria about the loyalty of British Muslims to U.K.
Against the backdrop of these things, Peter Tatchell, though I do not doubt well-intentioned, made the
mistake of questioning the panel. And
yes, it was a mistake, I stress again, because the discussion topic was focused on whether Islam was a solution to the extremism they were seeing then in the community or not. And questioning then instead the panel as to their beliefs on specific topics in
shariah (Islamic law) was inappropriate, because that was not the topic of discussion nor relevant - though I do understand that back then probably the majority of the British non-Muslim public were becoming increasingly concerned about whether Muslims somehow want to impose
Daesh's version of
shariah (Islamic law) on them should they somehow ever come into power. However, again, the line of questioning was inappropriate because I imagine Muslims then were already feeling under fire from all sides, and for then Peter Tatchell, to be insensitive to that, and question the panel (even with good intentions) was inappropriate.
As to Hamza Tzortzis making the accusation of "bullying", you forget that Peter Hatchell questioned Hamza as to a set of things he'd mined from Google and YouTube which were from Hamza Tzortzis himself and I could already see Hamza was uncomfortable being questioned about what he'd said and then Peter then moved on subsequently to questioning the panel as well. So, I think Hamza was talking about how Muslims were feeling probably not because Peter himself was a bully but this line of questioning felt like bullying to the panel who were not there to have their "Britishness" questioned due to their "Muslimness." That said, I don't think Peter was intending to interrogate them so much as have the Muslim panelists issue clarification on specifics of beliefs that were probably of then great concern to the British non-Muslim public. However, even being sensitive to that desire, I don't think I can give Peter a pass on this unmerited lack of questioning.
So, while I don't think Peter intended to bully the panel, I think his line of questioning was inappropriate against the backdrop that I've just painted existed for them with anti-Muslim hysteria on the rise and a question mark hanging over the loyalty of British Muslim citizens.
I understand that Peter has all these years, as he says, felt persecuted from Islamists who've given him death threats; however, if we're being honest, let's not imagine that death threats are exclusive to only him for being a prominent non-Muslim. Many Muslims too receive death threats for not being "Muslim" enough, and I imagine that the Muslim panelists have not escaped these types of threats from either the non-Muslim anti-Muslim brigade made in the image of EDL or BNP or the self-righteous Muslims who somehow imagine that they have a right to judge others on the scale of "Muslimness."
Peter Tatchell was the only speaker in the discussion who was in touch with reality. He faced the Muslim panellists alone and still got accused of "bullying" despite being outnumbered. It was a truly pathetic display.
I'm unsure how you can say Peter Tatchell was "in touch with reality." Honestly, from your point of view, what remark makes you to say he was "in touch with reality"? Is it because he wanted to question the panel? Is it because he supports Palestine? Is it because he gives
Tell Mama organization money and his support? No one said Peter Tatchell was not a nice man; even I think he is a nice man.
However, his desiring to question the panel cannot be characterized as being "in touch with reality." For the record, I think Peter is probably a good man because I absolutely give him credit for the work that he's done to fight anti-Muslim bigotry and Islamophobia that he'd enumerated towards the near end of the video. However, I don't think his line of questioning was appropriate in a time when Muslims were already feeling threatened from the negative press coverage, governmental scrutiny, and increasing outrage from the public as to
Daesh's antics and desiring to put Muslims on trial as to their faith.
Also, I have to say that Peter Tatchell is definitely not "in touch with reality" as to one important point: Secularism
is a worldview. And one of the remarkable things I've had to watch in secular societies is how nonsensical positions always get a pass. For example, gay marriage had not been legalized for the longest time in the United States, until July 2015, that is, even though U.S. is a secular society and has a doctrine specifying "separation of church and state," because of religious bent of the public and not because the country had any real "secular reasons" to ban gay marriage. Transsexuals are struggling to attain legal rights in the U.S. even though U.S. is a secular society because of the religious bent of the public. Polygamy is banned in the U.S. because of the religious bent of the public in the U.S.
Also, discussions of banning articles of clothing like Britain was at one point considering in terms of
niqab and Angela Merkel is saying now she'll do, is unjustifiable in truly secular societies with values of "freedom" until we take into consideration that secularism has also militant and radical strains. And I'm sorry to say that secularism doesn't get a free pass as to any moral high ground because it doesn't have it and has never had it. I'd also say that in addition to the religious bent of the majority which somehow "secularism" always takes into the consideration as well as the despotic way in which secularism has been marketed for a long time has been witnessing us getting involved in undeclared wars in the Middle East like the Iraq War and now Syria, all under the ambiguous and dubious catchphrase "War on Terror." I'm seriously starting to get sick of people marketing themselves whether it's right-wing politicians who are apparently "Christian" but not Christ-like and then Islamists who say they are "muhajideen" when they are just terrorists hungering for political hegemony but without any of the
ihsan (excellence) in character and actions expected of Muslims; literally, just as we would read a label before buying a product, we need now more than ever to be wary of intelligent but meaningless labels and disingenuous clever self-marketing ploys.
Also, I came away with another thing from watching this discussion. In the U.S., for the longest time, liberals now realize that they threw around terms like "racist," "Islamophobe," "homophobe" as a way to perhaps shut down certain types of discussion but its currency seems to have expired from overuse and wrong usage. Similarly, I think now the term "Islamist" and "extremist" is about to lose its currency in U.K. because of its overuse and wrong usage.
So, in terms of sentiments, I agree with you - this "debate" which was not a true debate was uncharacteristically depressing for all those reasons I've enumerated; and I'd love to see what you think also.
Wishing you the best, as always, and yes, peace too,
hubris on your part, muffin,