http://www.masud.co.uk/
The Language of Islamophobia
Jeremy Henzell-Thomas
Chair, FAIR
Paper presented at the “Exploring Islamophobia” Conference jointly
organised by FAIR (Forum Against Islamophobia and Racism), City
Circle, and Ar-Rum at The University of Westminster School of Law,
London, on 29 September 2001.
Bismillah
ar-Rahman ar-Rahim
There is
a proverb “The pen is mightier than the sword”
which expresses well the idea of the power, if not the sacredness,
of the word, and perhaps there was an echo of this idea in
President Bush’s recent statement that the “war against terrorism”
had begun with a “stroke of the pen.” There was a television
programme recently about the ten hardest men in Britain, and I
assumed it was going to be another of those offerings glorifying
brute strength or glamourising vicious gangsters. Well yes, there
were some tough nuts in there, pretty well all of them hard men in
television serials, but the hardest ones were judged to be not
those who used their fists but those who used words, and rated top
of this class, the prizefighter, was Jeremy Paxman, the presenter
of Newsnight on BBC2.
So we
understand the immense power of words. But with that power comes a
truly awesome responsibility. In speaking of the language of
Islamophobia, it would be a very simple matter to give examples
over the last two weeks of the abuse of that power, what William
Dalrymple castigates in a recent article in The Independent
as the “ludicrously unbalanced, inaccurate and one-sided” images
of Islam perpetrated by what he calls the “scribes of the new
racism” even in our quality broadsheets. This is not, of course, a
new phenomenon. In 1997 The Runnymede Report had described
Islamophobia as marked by “brazen hostility, bordering on
contempt, for the most cherished principles of Islamic life and
thought, reaching an apoplexy of hate in the modern Western media
who represent Islam as intolerant of diversity, monolithic and
war-mongering.” As Dalrymple says, “such prejudices against
Muslims – and the spread of idiotic stereotypes of Muslim
behaviour and beliefs – have been developing at a frightening rate
in the last decade” and “Anti-Muslim racism now seems in many ways
to be replacing anti-Semitism as the principal Western expression
of bigotry against “the other”.
What is so
much more encouraging is the fact that politicians and writers of
this quality, insight, intelligence and humanity are increasingly
speaking out against this pernicious, corrosive and virulent form
of bigotry and it would be a simple matter too to refer to a great
many articles I have seen like Dalrymple’s which are truly
civilised and humane and do not bandy about words like
“civilisation” and “humanity” as mere rhetorical incantations or
militant banners to promote the poisonous and ignorant doctrine of
the clash of civilisations.
Let Western
civilisation always hold fast to one of its founding principles in
the Platonic vision which places reason and dialogue above
rhetoric and emotional manipulation. And all those voices in
political life and the media who have upheld this vision deserve
our profound thanks, for what they are writing and saying is
completely in accordance with the universal spirit of Islam and
the many sayings of the Prophet (saws) which teach us to use words
as well as actions in such a way that we become, in his words, “a
refuge for humankind, their lives and their properties.” – a
refuge for all of humankind, not for any single
group or vested interest. Said the Prophet, “The true Muslim
does not defame or abuse others” and “the perfect Muslim is he
from whose tongue and hands mankind is safe.”
Now, I’ve
said that it would be a very simple matter to give examples of
Islamophobic language, but I want to go deeper than simply dredge
up old clichés. We’ve all heard again and again the tired old
clichés which stigmatise the whole of Islam as fundamentalist,
ideological, monolithic, static, unidimensional, implacably
opposed to modernity, incapable of integration or assimilation,
impervious to new ideas, retrogressive, retrograde, backward,
archaic, primaeval, medieval, uncivilised, hostile, violent,
terrorist, alien, fanatical, barbaric, militant, oppressive,
harsh, threatening, confrontational, extremist, authoritarian,
totalitarian, patriarchal, misogynist, negatively exotic, and bent
on imposing on the whole world a rigid theocratic system of
government which would radically overturn every principle of
freedom and liberal democracy cherished by the Western world. I
have to say that I don’t know a single Muslim who embodies even
one of these characteristics, and I have Muslim friends and
colleagues in all walks of life and from many cultures all over
the globe.
There is
one possible exception, and that is the first one, the most
overused of all: “fundamentalist”. If this means certain
fundamental beliefs such as belief in a supremely merciful God and
in a divine purpose for mankind and all creation; belief that only
God can dispense infinite justice although we must strive to
embody some measure of justice and the other divine attributes in
the conduct of our own lives; belief in a fair and inclusive
society which balances rights and responsibilities, which values
all people equally irrespective of their race, gender and
religion, and which gives equality of opportunity to all men,
women and children to realize their God-given potential; and
belief in freedom from tyranny and oppression – well then, yes, I
am a fundamentalist, and my fundamental beliefs will be shared by
many people of all faiths.
But if to
be a fundamentalist is to engage in any kind of cruelty in the
name of any doctrine or ideology, whether religious or secular,
including the murder of innocent people either by terrorists or
governments, wherever they may be, then I am most certainly not a
fundamentalist.
This
defamatory list is a very obvious manifestation of what Francis
Bacon, one of the founders of Western empiricism and modern
science, called the “Idols of the Mind”, those crippling
conditioned beliefs and prejudices which prevent us from learning
by critical enquiry, observation and experience, and those who
perpetrate them would do well to return to some of the hallowed
principles of objectivity which supposedly underpin Western
civilisation.
But there
is a deeper dimension to these prejudices. Behind them is the
demonisation of what is perceived to be a dark and dangerous
manifestation of the “other”, the singling out of the most extreme
position which can be imagined as somehow representative of the
totality of Islam, as if there is one absolutely monolithic,
cohesive and uniform Muslim mindset, a kind of immutable,
undifferentiated abstraction. In view of the extraordinary size
and diversity of the Islamic world, this fantasy about a
monolithic and aggressive Islam is not merely the outcome of
ignorance. It goes deeper than that. It is quite simply a
psychological phenomenon, a pathological state. The very vehemence
of the language with its absurdly simplified polarisation of
reality into competing and mutually exclusive positions is itself
symptomatic of deeply unconscious projections. That is what is so
intractable about this pathology. The people who think like this
are deeply unconscious of their own psychic processes, or, even
more dangerously, they are people who are intentionally exploiting
this tendency in the human being to dichotomise, to split reality
into polar opposites, to see only black or white, and hence to
foster division and confrontation.
In addition
to the obvious stigmatisation of Islam through unanalysed clichés
stereotypes and labels, we have to contend with grotesquely naïve
and childish misrepresentations of what Muslims believe and how
they behave, including articles by eminent university dons printed
in tabloid newspapers which show an ignorance and intolerance
of Islam as profound as that shown in much more lightweight
material. That is what is extraordinary about Islamophobic
ranting. We can find the same kind of hyperbole, distortions,
inaccuracies and unsubstantiated generalisations coming from
intellectuals and from the liberal establishment (though with
longer words) as we do from empty-headed commentators whose only
claim to having their comments on Islam published is that they are
(or were) talk-show hosts.
Recent
examples in national newspapers in the wake of the atrocities
include such utter nonsense as the claim that “the Christian
concept of forgiveness is absent in Islam”, or that “the concepts
of debate and individual freedom are alien in Moslem cultures”, or
that Islam is, uniquely, a “religion that sanctions all forms of
violence”, or that the Taliban “desire to return Afghanistan to
the mores of Arabia in the time of the Prophet”, or that Islamic
law permits a Muslim man to divorce his wife immediately by
sending a text message saying “I divorce you”, or that only Islam
sanctions “suicide as a path to Paradise”, or, indeed, that the
fanatical Muslim hordes are “already there in their thousands. And
they are not going to respect weaknesses any more than Lenin did.”
And let us
not forget the Internet as a source of Islamophobic utterances. If
you have the stomach to trawl through and sift out some of the
most obnoxious material you are likely to find on the planet, much
of it written by native-speakers of English whose cultural
illiteracy is only matched by their inability to construct an
intelligible sentence in the English language, you may, if you are
lucky, turn up sites which are capable of coherent syntax, if not
coherent thought.
For
instance, you might find the one set up by an organisation
which supports, in its own words, “liberal-democratic pluralism
and modernism as opposed to fundamentalism” and which maintains
that “Islam was spread by the sword and has been maintained by the
sword throughout its history” and that “the myth of Islamic
tolerance was largely invented by Jews and Western freethinkers as
a stick to beat the Catholic Church”, or that there is “no way
that Islam can ever be made compatible with pluralism, free
speech, critical thought and democracy”. If you disagree with
this, then, according to these people, you are, of course, an
“apologist”.
I was
shocked to read the headline of a broadsheet on Wednesday which
proclaimed “No refuge for Islamic Terrorists”. Did this newspaper
proclaim that there would be no refuge for Christian Mass
Murderers after the massacre of Muslims in Bosnia? Thank you, Mr.
Blair, for your statement on Thursday that the atrocities in
America were not the work of “Muslim terrorists” but of
“terrorists”. On the same front page there is an article about the
execution of Islamic “militants” in China, several dozen Muslim
men who had been fed alcohol with their last meal and then,
stupefied by drink, driven to their deaths on an open lorry past
laughing crowds. But is there any leading article or other comment
which demands sanctions against China for such gross and barbaric
abuses of human rights? Is there likely to be in the current
climate which rewards Chinese and Russian support for an
international coalition by turning a blind eye to the inevitable
increase in the oppression of their own Muslim minorities? Will
the Italian Prime Minister stand by his statement that human
rights are one of the reasons why, in his view, the West is
superior to Islam? Will he announce that the West is superior to
China and superior to all those regimes, including those supported
by Western powers, which abuse human rights? Will he speak out
against those Italian cardinals whose anti-Muslim
statements have reinforced xenophobia in Italy and therefore
threaten to undermine the rights and freedoms of Muslims?
On
Thursday, the first thing I heard in the morning was a discussion
about different types of terrorism, and the extraordinary
suggestion that the real threat is not so much “ordinary”
terrorism as terrorism motivated by “doctrine” and “ideology” (no
rewards for guessing here which “doctrine” is referred to) as if
we are supposed to believe that it is only the “others” who have
any kind of belief-system.
And behind
this is also the entrenched view that it is religion which must
take the blame for so much violence in the world. In other words,
the “doctrine” which feeds the worst kind of terrorism is
necessarily religious doctrine. This unquestioned association
between religion and war has been wheeled out time and time again
in the media with almost no attempt to question it. Having heard
this for the umpteenth time last week, I looked into it, and
discovered some interesting facts. About 250 million people have
been killed in the ten worst wars, massacres and atrocities in the
history of the world. Of these, only 2% were killed in religiously
motivated conflicts, in this case the Thirty Years War in Europe,
which figures as number 10 in the list, and even then this 2% is
based on what many scholars believe to be a grossly exaggerated
death toll. The vast majority of deaths were the result of secular
wars and exterminations, largely based on atheistic doctrines and
ideologies. It is truly extraordinary how facts can be ignored in
the need to confirm and strengthen cherished illusions.
I clearly
haven’t the time today to unpick every example of Islamophobic
discourse. This is an ongoing struggle being undertaken
systematically and with increasing effectiveness and influence by
the Media and Popular Culture Watch Project which is one of the
major initiatives of FAIR.
But what I
can do is draw your attention to some of the underlying
characteristics of the way that political and social power
abuse, dominance and inequality are enacted in the kind of
discourse of which Islamophobia is currently a prime example. We
need to understand the characteristics of such discourse, wherever
it appears; we need to rigorously unpick and expose its
deficiencies with the best analytical tools, to bring to light and
make conscious its manipulations, because although we can of
course do our own shouting in response to it, it is through the
light of knowledge and understanding that we can most effectively
counter it. And as the Prophet made it very clear, the “ignorant
theologian” is equally damaging to Islam as the “ill-tempered
scholar” or the “tyrannical leader.”
Now there
is already an established academic tradition of unpicking such
discourse in what is called Critical Discourse Analysis or CDA
developed by such influential discourse analysts as Teun van Dijk,
Professor of Discourse Studies at the University of Amsterdam.
According
to Van Dijk, “much of racism is ‘learned’ by text and talk”.
CDA upholds
that power relations are discursive, that is, that discourse is an
instrument of ideology and is a means of perpetuating social and
political inequality. Discourse analysis which unpicks the way
such language works therefore has great explanatory power and is
also a form of social action, because the discourse itself
constitutes the society and the culture from which it emerges. I
am reminded here of the words of the Prophet, who said: “Anyone of
you who sees wrong, let him undo it with his hand; and if he
cannot, then let him speak against it with his tongue, and if he
cannot do this either, then let him abhor it with his heart, and
this is the least of faith.” Critical Discourse Analysis, as a
form of social action, is both undoing with the hand and speaking
with the tongue.
There is an
excellent survey of CDA by van Dijk with an exhaustive
bibliography which is easily accessible on the following website (www.hum.uva.nl/~teun/cda.htm).
This article contains a rigorous exposure of the way discourse
promotes and sustains racism, by promoting prejudiced social
representations shared by dominant groups (usually white,
European) and based on ideologies of superiority and difference.
This is done by analysing some fragments of a book misleadingly
entitled The End of Racism by Dinesh D’Souza (1995), a book
which embodies many of the dominant Eurocentric supremacist
ideologies in the USA, and which specifically targets one minority
group in the USA: African Americans. This book is one of the main
documents of conservative ideology in the US and has had
considerable influence on the debates on affirmative action,
welfare, multiculturalism, and immigration, and on the formulation
of policy to restrict the rights of minority groups and
immigrants.
I emphasise
here that the discursive moves and ploys used in this book are the
same moves and ploys that are used in all such discourse,
including Islamophobia, and I hasten to add that we should also be
very clear that the same tools of analysis need equally to be
brought to bear on “Westophobic” discourse and all forms of
discourse which seek to foment strife, division, hatred and
confrontation. If I make a strong case against Islamophobia today,
this does not mean that I do not value the strengths of Western
civilisation.
Here
are some of these discursive moves and ploys, as identified in van
Dijk’s analysis of just a few fragments of D’Souza’s book. I’ll
point up as far as I can the way in which these ploys are also
used in Islamophobic discourse, but I hope you will make your own
connections too.
Denial, mitigation,
euphemization, and explaining away
By denying, mitigating,
euphemising or explaining away your own defects you make them
invisible or harmless. A characteristic ploy here is to
generalise or universalise them or make them seem natural.
Thus, we are told that racism is “a rational and scientific
response” to primitive peoples and was in any case “widespread
among other peoples”. Thus, racism is an ‘all too human’
characteristic of ethnocentricism. It is simply ‘caring for one’s
own’. In this way, generalisation is made to appear as
explanation. Van Dijk claims that this is “one of the most common
moves of ideological legitimation: abuse of power is not a
self-serving, negative characteristic of dominant groups” but is
innate, “genetically pre-programmed” and “biologically
inevitable”, so there is nothing we can do about it.
“The Greeks
were ethnocentric, they showed a preference for their own. Such
tribalism they would have regarded as natural, and indeed we now
know that it is universal.” (533)
Notice the
use of positive-sounding words like “human”, “natural” and
“universal” to give respectability, even nobility, to tribalism.
And how often have we been told in recent days how “natural”
revenge is, and how “universal” and “humane” are the principles
enshrined in the self-image of the West and supported by the whole
“international community”, whatever that is.
Mitigation
and denial is also accomplished through the use of euphemisms,
that is the substitution of mild, polite, saccharine, evasive
or roundabout words for more direct and honest ones. We have
become more familiar with this ploy, and the related one of
omission of key words, through the honesty and integrity of
those journalists who are trying to use words to tell the truth.
Here are
some familiar examples, with thanks to Brian Whitaker,
among others:
targeted
killing (assassination/murder by death squads/extra-judicial
killing/execution)
collateral
damage (civilian casualties)
killed in
crossfire (shot by soldiers or snipers)
respond
(attack)
settler
(illegal settler)
areas
(communities/neighbourhoods) – the implication here is that people
who live in “areas” are less civilised than those who live in
communities or neighbourhoods.
suburbs
(illegal settlements)
the
international community (the West?)
a divided
city (a city with 99.8% Arabs)
disputed
territory (illegally occupied territory)
provocative
act (criminal act according to international law)
There is a
novel justification for euphemisms which I have recently heard
from journalists. Apparently, column inches dictate that shorter
terms have to be used to save space. “Settler” is only two
syllables, whereas “illegal settler” is five, so the use of
“settler” saves space. If so, why are the long words
“neighbourhoods” and “communities” used to describe where the
in-group lives, whereas “areas” is used for the out-group? Why,
indeed, are the six syllables of “Islamic Terrorists” used in a
headline on Thursday when space would have been saved by using
only the three syllables of “Terrorists”?
And why is
the mouthful “international community” used in cases where it
clearly refers to “The West”?
Another
well-known argumentative ploy is to invoke ignorance.
“It is
impossible to answer the question of how much racism exists in the
United States because nobody knows how to measure racism and no
unit exists for calibrating such measurements.” (276)
Notice the
use of academic jargon, and the appeal to scientific
credibility. This is a clever ploy because, in a culture
mesmerised by the supposed omniscience of scientists, most people
dare not question “lack of scientific evidence”. By the same
token, we can pretend to ignore the existence of all manner of
self-evident and awkward truths, including the very existence of
Islamophobia, under the banner of scientific respectability.
Positive
Self-Presentation
Self-glorification
is one of the most obvious and characteristic way to promote a
positive self-image, and D’Souza’s book is full of glowing
admiration for Western culture and accomplishments.
“What
distinguished Western colonialism was neither occupation nor
brutality but a countervailing philosophy of rights that is unique
in human history” (354) – and by the way, colonialism is also
legitimated in terms of scientific curiosity.
We are
entitled to say in response to this that the supposedly unique
philosophy of rights so selflessly propagated by Western
colonialism was in fact prefigured and surpassed in the first
truly pluralistic society established by the Prophet in 7th
century Medinah, a vision which nurtured those splendid
multicultural and multi-faith civilisations in Islamic Spain,
Sicily, the Levant, and in the Mughul and Ottoman Empires.
“Abolition
[of slavery] constitutes one of the greatest moral achievements of
Western civilisation” (112) – notice here this extraordinary
reversal used to enhance the positive characteristics of
European civilisation, which sits oddly with the justification and
mitigation of racism as a natural and all too human inclination.
We are all
familiar now with the vocabulary of self-glorification, first in
the recent debates about multiculturalism which have included
explicit assertions of the superiority of the supposedly
mono-cultural virtues of “Englishness”, and more recently in
reactions to the atrocities in America, which have included
insistent repetition of words like “civilised”,
“freedom”, “humanity” and of “good” versus “evil”. And on
Thursday, we heard the Italian Prime Minister explicitly ascribe
“superiority” and “supremacy” to the West over Islam. It has been
encouraging to see that there is not a single political leader who
has supported his completely out-of-tune remarks, and it was good
to hear British government ministers, including David Blunkett and
Claire Short, repudiate them yesterday as “offensive, inaccurate
and unhelpful”. But it has raised a new discussion in the media
about the differences between Islam and the West and once again
all kinds of colourful figures are wheeled out to give their
opinions on Islam. I heard one such figure on the Today programme
yesterday, having flippantly admitted that he knew very little
either about women or Islam, proclaim that the main difference
between Islam and the West was the fact that women in Islam were 3rd
class citizens. The implication was quite clear: the West is
superior to Islam for this reason. Notice the appeal to the moral
high ground in this kind of self-referential and
self-congratulatory superiority.
To bring
some light into this discussion, I recommend a look at the website
of the Australian Psychological Society, particularly the section
on Language, Social Representations and the media (www.aps.psychsociety.com.au/member/racism/sec3.html) which
makes a very clear statement of the way in which “the media are
cultural products central to the construction of social realities
and to communication between groups and across cultures… Media
coverage of group differences, and often group conflicts, tend to
highlight and exaggerate, oversimplify and caricaturise such
differences”. A classic study from 1961 of this phenomenon is on
cross-national images of the ‘enemy’ which showed that the
cold-war images US citizens had of Russia were virtually
identical, or the ‘mirror image’ of the views that the Russians
had of the US.
The same
source makes an important statement about “political correctness”.
It can be anticipated that some commentators will suggest that the
reluctance of other political leaders to endorse the Italian Prime
Minister’s remarks is merely a matter of “political correctness”.
It is important to realise that “while genuine political
correctness can be a strong force in encouraging more humane
reasonable and human behaviour, it is invariably represented by
opponents as undermining free speech in the service of minority
group interests… Dismissals of genuine and effective anti-racism
initiatives as ‘merely’ politically correct thus legitimises
racial intolerance…”.
Derogation and
Demonisation of the Others
Now, van Dijk pointedly
remarks that “it is only one step from an assertion of national or
cultural pride and self-glorification to feelings of superiority,
derogation and finally the marginalisation and exclusion of the
Others”. And indeed, I would add not only marginalisation and
exclusion, but ultimately persecution and genocide. We can go
directly here to Islamophobic discourse without referring to van
Dijk’s analysis.
A classic
example is the shaping by Serbian orientalists of a “stereotypical
image of Muslims as alien, inferior and threatening” which “helped
to create a condition of virtual paranoia among the Serbs”2.
As I have said, this is a pathological condition, and its
pathology is absolutely transparent in its good vs. evil, “us and
them” language. And language which uses the rhetoric of “either
you’re with us or against us” partakes of the same psychically
fragmented condition. It has been extraordinary to see the hatred
which has been aroused by those who have refused to submit to this
oppressive, self-righteous and divided mentality and have been
courageous and clear-thinking enough to say so. Tony Benn is an
example, and the furore he caused on Newsnight on Thursday night,
while always retaining his own dignity, could not even be
contained by the No. 1 hard man, Jeremy Paxman.
As is true
of virtually all of the people of Europe, including the English,
today’s Bosnian Muslims are an amalgam of various ethnic origins.
Yet what the Serbs did was to differentiate and isolate the Muslim
community “by creating “a straw-man Islam and Muslim stereotype”
and “setting and emphasising cultural markers” which focused on
Islam and the Muslims as alien, culturally and morally inferior,
threatening and, of course, exotic, but in a perverse, negative
way. The Serbs applied the label “Islamic fundamentalist” freely
to all Muslims, who were seen as reflections of the “darkness of
the past”. They claimed that “in Islamic teaching, no woman has a
soul”; that “the tone of the Qur’an is openly authoritarian,
uncompromising and menacing”; that the reading of the traditional
tales in A Thousand and One Nights predisposed Muslims (in
their words gave “subliminal direction” to the Muslims) to torture
and kill Christians; that the destruction of places of worship
belonging to other faiths is an obligation on all Muslims; that
the “banning of tourism and sports” in Islam inevitably led to
“xenophobia” and “segregation”, and so on.
It is quite
clear that these Serbian orientalists, “ by bending scholarship
and blending it with political rhetoric… defined Islam and the
local Muslim community in such a way as to contribute
significantly to… making genocide acceptable”. And what allowed
them to play such a role? It was “the extensive media exposure
they enjoyed in Serbia”, as much as “their participation in
official propaganda campaigns abroad”.
At this
point, I will not trouble to examine the profusion of derogatory
statements which have been made against Islam and Muslims not
only in the last two weeks, but over the last ten years. I will
only point to the evidence of how the distorted analysis of Islam
by the Serbs, played out in the media, made the transition from
pseudo-scholarly anlaysis to advocacy of violence and ultimately
to genocide. Such is the outcome of words used without truth or
responsibility. To see so many stereotypes in the Western press so
similar to those invented by the Serbs is quite chilling.
Other
discursive structures, strategies and moves I can only touch on
these here. They include:
-
The rhetoric of repetition, emphatic hyperbole (exaggeration),
ridicule, metaphor, association and blaming the victim.
-
Repetition:
An American politician referred to the attack on America as an
attack on the “civilised world”, “civilised countries” and
“civilised peoples”, all in one sentence.
-
Hyperbole:
A common one is that Muslims want to rule the world (warnings
like this are regularly broadcast in national newspapers in
Germany by Dr. Peter Frisch, head of the Bundesamt fur
Verfassungsschutz (Federal Office for the Pretection of the
Constitution).
-
Ridicule:
“Islam Week brought us the wonders of mosques and Mecca… taking
in – ho, ho, ho! – a Muslim football team….” (Julie Birchill,
Guardian Weekend, 18 August, 2001)
-
Metaphor:
“While the history of other religions is one of moving forward
out of oppressive darkness and into tolerance, Islam is doing it
the other way around.” (Birchill, op. cit.). Notice here the
characteristic “darkness” metaphor, one of those favoured by the
Serbs.
-
Association:
(referring to Jools Holland’s Rhythms of Islam in the BBC’s
Islam UK Week): “Mind you, I did briefly start to feel sorry
for them here: any espousal of one’s cause by the terminally
naff Holland must surely kill its cred stone dead.” (Birchill,
op. cit.)
-
Blaming the Victim:
even in such atrocious acts as those committed in Molln and
Solingen where Turkish people were burnt alive (Europe’s
Islamophobia by Sameera Mian in Muslim News, 28 November,
1997).
The
well-known argumentative ploy of casual reference to “scholarly”
studies so as to give weight and authority to fallacious
arguments.
The use of
presuppositions and premises which are taken to be held by
everybody: “We all know that….”, “The reality is….”, “The truth
is….”,
The
familiar disclaimer of the apparent concession: “Of course there
is some prejudice, but….”
The number
game of comparative statistics – always used in favour of the
dominant group.
After this
focused linguistic analysis, I would like to finish by affirming
the wider spiritual perspective which must inform this
discussion. Years ago, when I was lecturing in Psycholinguistics
at the University of Edinburgh, I had a strong academic interest
in the relationship between language and mind, language and
attitude, and language and prejudice, but it is only in recent
years in my engagement with the faith, knowledge and civilisation
of Islam that I have begun to understand how vital it is to
understand the nature of language from a spiritual perspective and
how sacred is that trust borne by all of us who use language to
inform, educate, influence and persuade others.
And to use
words like “spiritual” and “sacred” in relation to the use of
language is simply another way of saying that to use language
wisely and well is the mark of the fully human being.
The Greeks
also understood well the responsibility imposed on mankind by the
gift of language and the fierce debates about the role of rhetoric
were most notably expressed and distilled in Plato’s affirmation
that philosophical dialectic (that is the testing process of
critical enquiry through discussion) is utterly distinct from and
immeasurably superior to rhetoric, which, if not firmly
subordinated to knowledge and reason, is roundly condemned as
nakedly exploitative emotional manipulation.
It is this
legacy which has ultimately ensured that “in the contemporary
usage of all modern European languages… the word rhetorical is
unfailingly pejorative [i.e. disparaging, negative]. It implies “
dissembling, manipulative abuse of linguistic resources for
self-serving ends, usually in the political context…”1
How often have we heard in recent weeks from intelligent
commentators of the dangers of “cranking up” the rhetoric and the
need to “tone it down” in the interests of reason, restraint and
proportionality. And, sad to say, how often have we heard too a
new version of Orwellian Newspeak which admits only one version of
reality, only one interpretation of events, and which discredits
all alternative perspectives as evidence of complicity with
terrorists.
And let
us not forget the use and abuse of images as well as words in our
increasingly visual culture. By “language” I mean both the verbal
and the visual vocabulary and syntax. We are entitled to ask what
on earth is implied by the juxtaposition of a picture of Muslim
women praying next to an article entitled “Cradles of
Fanaticism”. This speaks for itself. The intention is very
clear. In this equation, to pray is to be fanatical. Elementary
logic tells me that this must mean that all people from all
religious traditions who pray are fanatics. This is the kind of
shameful material I would have used when as a teacher of English I
taught young people how to recognise the way they were manipulated
by propaganda in the media. I wanted them to gain the essential
critical thinking skills, as well as the qualities of empathy,
tolerance and respect for diversity, which are presumably valued
by civilised, humane and freedom-loving peoples.
But it is
important to realise that from an Islamic perspective language is
not just a tool of critical enquiry, rational debate and
discussion which advances human knowledge, important as this is,
but is a divine gift to mankind, a mark of his special status in
the divine order.
The Qur’an
says that God “imparted unto Adam the names of all things” (2:31).
On one level this can be interpreted as the capacity for
conceptual thought which is empowered through the definition and
distinction inherent in naming, a capacity not shared even by the
angels, who are commanded to prostrate themselves before Adam in
recognition of his status as Khalïfah, or vicegerent, a
term denoting man’s stewardship of the earth as a consequence of
his being made in the image of God.
In another
sense, the names are the letters from which all words are
constructed (notice how we name the letters – we say alif,
ba, alpha, beta, and so on). The proportioned script of Arabic
lettering has the remarkable property that the shapes of all the
other letters are generated in strict geometric proportionality by
the alif (or more correctly from the dot, which defines the length
and surface area of the alif). This is what gives Arabic
calligraphy its sublime visual harmony. Alif is the first letter,
the upright stroke, symbolic of our erect, Adamic, human nature
orientated vertically towards remembrance of our divine origin.
We have
heard much in recent days from politicians, military strategists,
commentators and the general public about the need for a
“proportional response”. Everyone with humanity feels this
instinctively, because it part of the innate disposition (fitra)
of the human being who is created, as the Qur’an says, “in due
measure and proportion”. But proportionality in Islam is not just
a quantitative and material matter, a question of deployment of
forces. It is a qualitative matter, a defining marker of human
character and spirituality, which in its primordial condition is
in a state of balance and equilibrium.
So the
“names” are not simply tools for logical thinking, for making fine
distinctions. From an Islamic perspective, letters and words are
the very substance of the created universe, emanating from the
Divine Word which is the origin of all creation and in which all
concepts find unity and reconciliation. It is therefore a sacred
trust to use words which are fair, fitting, balanced, equitable
and just, words which are in “due measure and proportion.”
In this
conception of language, the letter is not an inanimate component
of an abstract concept, but is a living entity, and the words
which are formed from these letters, the phrases, clauses,
sentences and paragraphs have the power to diminish or enhance our
humanity. The word is in fact a deed, an act in itself, which
carries the same responsibility as that taken in doing and acting.
We have the expression “in word and in deed” and this encapsulates
this wisdom, this convergence between speech and action.
“Art thou
not aware how God sets forth the parable of the good word? [It is]
like a good tree, firmly rooted, [reaching out] with its branches
towards the sky, yielding its fruit at all times by its
Sustainer’s leave. And [thus it is that] God propounds parables
unit men, so that they might bethink themselves [of the truth].
And the parable of the corrupt word is that of a corrupt tree,
torn up [from its roots] onto the face of the earth, wholly unable
to endure.” (Qur’an 14:24-26).
Correctives
must always be applied to what is out of balance. Islamophobia is
a reality and it needs to be corrected, not by using the word
itself as a label to stifle just criticism, not by defensive
hostility, and not by shouting louder, but by knowledge, by
reason, by detailed work, and above all by the example of our own
humanity.
Jeremy
Henzell-Thomas
Bath
28
September 2001
Dr Jeremy Henzell-Thomas
is Chair of the Forum Against Islamophobia and Racism (FAIR) and
the Executive Director of the Book Foundation. He has worked in
education for many years, having taught at primary, secondary and
tertiary levels, both in the U.K. and overseas. Most recently he
has held a lectureship in Applied Linguistics at the University of
Edinburgh and the post of Director of Studies at an UK independent
school.
1. Robert
Wardy, Chapter on Rhetoric (page 465) in Greek Thought: A Guide
to Classical Knowledge, edited by Jacques Brunschwig
and Geoffrey E.R. Lloyd. The Belknap Press of Harvard University
Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 2000.
2. Norman
Cigar, The Role of Serbian Orientalists in Justification of
Genocide Against Muslims of the Balkans, Islamic Quarterly:
Review of Islamic Culture, Vol. XXXVIII, No. 3, 1994.