Khadija Khan on Religion-Based Identity Politics

Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2024/08/05

Khadija Khan is a Pakistani journalist and broadcaster based in the UK. She is an editor at Canadian Magazine A Further Inquiry and a co-host of A Further Inquiry podcast. She advocates for women’s rights and denounces the idea of Islamic feminism. She is an ardent advocate for secularism, free speech, and universal human rights. She criticises the use of blasphemy laws as a tool to crack down on dissent and supports freedom of and from religion. She stresses the need for freedom of speech to counter extremist ideologies.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: How did you get started?

Khadija Khan: I started my career as a journalist in Pakistan. When I was in Pakistan, my boundaries were very much restricted. I was not able to write about women’s rights or violations of women’s rights in Islam or religion.

Still, I tried to address these issues or write about them from a different perspective, making it seem like a cultural issue. I framed it as a cultural phenomenon where women are oppressed and not given their rightful place in society. When I was a practicing Muslim in Pakistan, I did not suffer much. Thankfully, I had a wonderful mother who protected me and my sisters. She didn’t let anyone oppress us or impose any religious attire, traditions, or rituals on us. I am not a victim of forced marriage or FGM. I was coerced into wearing the hijab for a very short time, but my mother stood up for me and said defiantly that her girls would not wear the hijab.

That’s the reason I never had to suffer in a very religious or conservative society. I want to examine religious traditions and rituals from the perspective of a journalist who approaches the subject with reasoning, not personal experiences or anecdotes, to criticize certain beliefs. This is what I have observed in the scriptures and in religiously influenced societies. I have seen how women suffer because of these things. For me, it was about not getting involved in any kind of politics within the ex-Muslim community or the activist community.

I stand in solidarity with those who defiantly denounce religion. I know it’s a huge thing. Being an ex-Muslim is a huge thing. Publicly, it’s even bigger. It’s not easy for people to just denounce Islam and then live a normal life. They face a tremendous amount of challenges in their lives. It’s very brave and courageous. So I stand in solidarity with them unconditionally.

What’s going on within that community, I just don’t want to get involved in that. For me, we are talking about certain beliefs. I don’t care if they are religious or cultural beliefs. They are misogynistic and discriminatory. These beliefs are inherently misogynistic. We need to have honest and open discussions on these issues, setting aside all differences and reservations. 

Jacobsen: In a political context in the United Kingdom, how are these religious beliefs, these sorts of theological ideologies, used as political coinage or currency?

Khan: In Britain, the situation is that minorities are very much influenced by their culture and religious beliefs. In modern-day Britain, religion plays a huge role within those ethnic minorities. People have adopted a narrative that validates their religious identity so much that they have set aside all their other identities and affiliations. It’s all about religion. In certain cases, they want to assert those values in a society that is not very religious.

We have a secular society. There are Christian people, Jewish people, Muslim people, Hindu people, people from all backgrounds. But as a society, we are not religious. It’s not a very conservative society. So, if we talk about Muslim communities, we see that some sections of those communities want to assert their values.

They want to assert those religious beliefs and religious identity in the public sphere, in the political sphere, which is antithetical to British values and secular democratic values, where people don’t bring too much religion into their political and social life. They practice their religion. We have religious freedom in the UK. Nobody is restricting our ways to manifest our beliefs. We can adhere to a belief and practice that belief freely.

The law protects our right to practice our religion freely. However, I see a growing tendency within those ethnic minorities to become more religious, wearing their religion on their sleeves all the time. They think that this makes them more pious, people who hold high moral ground, and very much family-oriented. So, there is an element of supremacy that I see, looking down on the rest of society, thinking they are not good enough.

“Our women are more modest. Our men are better when it comes to family values.” They are very much committed. I find this growing trend, unfortunately, very disturbing because it is coming from a certain community, and it is creating a division between that community and the rest of society. I find the religious identity, as we have witnessed during the recent election campaign, has become a tool to politicize that whole religious identity and bring it into politics, promoting the narrative that religious identity is the only important thing.

People have less inspiration to be affiliated or associated with the rest of society. For them, their religious identity is everything, and that is creating division. We don’t see certain parts of the community getting in touch with the rest of society. They are living in a separate world with separate values, and I find it very disturbing and concerning. Nobody is saying that you need to be less religious or more religious here in the UK.

You are all free to exercise your right to be a religious person or not. But when you bring your religious identity and put it at the forefront of everything you do and how you see people, how you see your fellow citizens, and how you interact with them, then, of course, that will create more polarization and division. This will lead the whole society in a direction where there is less cohesion and more polarization. 

Jacobsen: Do you think individuals who, regardless of ethnic minority status, use Islam as a political identity are different from others who use identity politics in terms of its totalizing effect? Because what I’m gathering from what you’re saying, it’s pervasive in the way they engage with society and the political system, rather than being more individual view-oriented. They are taking this on as a collective move, either to be insular or to see themselves as superior in terms of their values, contrary to British democratic representation, where you note about the immodesty of women, for instance, from their point of view. 

Khan: Identity politics has been a huge part of our history. There was a time when minorities needed a narrative that would bring them together and inspire each other to be at the forefront of human rights and civil rights struggles.

So, identity politics itself is not a bad thing, but in the context of the recent identity politics that has become pervasive around the world. It has become toxic and divisive. People are more interested or inclined to separate themselves from each other and assert their own identity and beliefs as absolute truth. To me, it’s creating a situation where people are less inclined to find common ground among them and are more prone to find differences.

In the name of respecting differences, they are isolating themselves from other groups or communities in society. Religious identity has become a very toxic brand of politics. We see that whenever people bring religion into politics; it’s never about inclusivity or cohesiveness. It’s always about a certain group, a certain section of society, asserting superiority in one way or another.

The same is happening with Muslim communities. When they bring their religious identity into politics and the social sphere, it is perilous in my opinion because they are using religion as a tool to politicize and undermine democratic values. These are hard-earned freedoms that we have in the West. As a result, liberals in the West have become very apologetic for the values they fought for and earned after fighting battles.

Now, because certain communities, in the name of victimhood, are pushing this narrative of religious identity, they are somehow accepting it as a norm. In the recent election campaign in the UK, it was so toxic that literally Muslim clerics were endorsing independent candidates. There was lots of heckling. Politicians were heckled by so-called pro-Palestine protesters for not parroting their narrative.

The democratic process was literally undermined by these acts. To my utter surprise, there was very little noise about this. People seemed to try to ignore it or brush it aside, thinking it’s okay if a certain community is doing it.

We see that Labour MPs were subjected to bullying and intimidation in the name of religious grievances. People were justifying their appalling attitudes by saying that they were victimized only because these MPs were not parroting their views. They felt justified in bullying or intimidating others. Although they were not explicitly saying it, the impression was that they felt justified in whatever they were doing.

People were not criticizing it, and there was a pin-drop silence on this matter. As a result, politicians suffered, and democratic values were undermined. Right after the election victory was announced, we saw Labour MPs coming on social media or British media talking about how they were intimidated and heckled. But still, they were not willing to name those responsible.

They were so reluctant to name people, saying that it was mainly done by men or women from the Muslim community who called themselves pro-Palestine protesters or whatever. This reluctance is undermining the democratic process in the West. As a result, we see that other nefarious elements are gaining momentum. This polarization and narrative have been very effective, suggesting that Muslims are doing whatever they want in Western societies.

And nobody’s holding them accountable for this conduct. We see the rise of the far right. We see people with appalling views gaining strength and becoming emboldened.

So, as a whole, this identity politics has brought out the worst in society, I would say, out of British society during the past election campaign. It is alarming, the level of religious influence, involvement, or intervention in politics. 

Jacobsen: There are a few things that raise questions for me. One, it’s talked about more now, probably in the last maybe 10 to 15 years, the idea and notion of victimhood, victimization, and victim identity. According to Home Office statistics, the two biggest categories of hate crime reports in terms of offenses are against Jewish and Muslim individuals. How do we appropriately, in a political context, distinguish individuals being subjected to hate crimes, from the use of collective victimhood as an identity or political currency? In other words, how do we ensure that being victimized by hate crimes doesn’t prevent these groups from being subject to any criticism?

Khan: I find it interesting that whenever we talk about certain problematic issues within a community. People are very quick to jump to the conclusion that discussing these issues may encourage nefarious elements to provoke a negative response toward that particular community. We must have a clear understanding that any idea can be criticized, whether it is a religious idea or a philosophical idea. No idea is above scrutiny. However, human dignity cannot be compromised.

When individuals are subjected to hateful conduct, whether they are Jewish or Muslim, it should be condemned unequivocally. There should be no ifs and buts. However, when people feel offended merely because their beliefs are scrutinized, that is disingenuous. We need to call this out.

We need to say it unequivocally: criticizing ideas is one of the pillars of modern Western civilization. This is why we live in a modern world where human rights are respected and preserved, and we value free speech and freedom of religion, including freedom from religion. I find it disingenuous when people say that criticizing certain attitudes or beliefs can be conflated with criticizing or demonizing human beings. Here in the UK, anti-Muslim bigotry and antisemitism both exist, and they should be condemned and tackled.

However, criticizing religious ideas should never be conflated with dehumanizing people. There is a clear distinction between these two things. It is a dishonest attempt to conflate them. From my personal experience, sometimes when I’m speaking on the issue of criticizing religious beliefs, I feel my voice is being suppressed. I’ve been given the impression that I am being too harsh on religious beliefs. It’s surprising to me that we live in a free world where we value free speech, but when we talk about Islam or certain aspects of Islam that are discriminatory or misogynistic, suddenly we are reminded that we cannot do that because it offends the community. Of course, nobody wants to offend. I have certain ideas; I’m a secularist. Right?

People say very strange, weird, and absurd things about secularism. They conflate secularism with dictatorship, and then they say secularism is the same when it comes to the atrocities committed in theocratic states. They argue that states that denounce religion, therefore, are destined for secularism to be doomed.

So, I don’t take offense. I try to reason with people, and when I see that I cannot reason with them on this issue, I don’t mind it. That’s fine. It’s their view. It’s alright.

But somehow, talking about Islam can land you in a situation where you are criticized, snubbed, and suppressed because certain people may find it offensive. The distinction between criticizing ideas and dehumanizing people is very clear. It’s a very disingenuous effort to conflate them, and it’s been happening for some time. Now, literally whenever you talk about religion, it is deemed as talking about Muslims. I try my best.

I always try my best to maintain that distinction no matter how much I am criticized or accused of being Islamophobic. I always say, “I’m not saying what you are accusing me of. What I’m saying is this.” But as I said, the tragedy is that the liberals in the West have become so politically correct that they don’t want you to talk about it because, for them, it’s a known issue. “Why are you criticizing a certain community or a certain belief?” The thing is, Islam is a religion that seeks to control people’s political life, social life, each and every moment of their life.

And people’s lives are affected. People suffer, especially vulnerable sections of those communities such as women, LGBTQ people, and young children. They suffer. For us, it’s crucial to talk about these things. Here, we see that Western people earned these freedoms and liberties by defying religious persecution, by defying religious tyranny, by pushing religion into the personal sphere, away from politics, away from social interactions.

But when it comes to people from within the Muslim community, whether they have denounced religion or they are practicing Muslims, when they speak, their voices are muzzled. They are snubbed. Their voices are suppressed because nobody wants to hear what they have to say because it’s a known issue for the liberals. I call it the soft bigotry of low expectations that people from the Muslim community, especially women from the community.

They are expected to live under such oppression no matter how they feel, no matter how much they suffer. It’s not concerning at all for these people. I find it disturbing that when, as a woman from a Muslim background, I say that Islam doesn’t give women any rights, people literally look at me and say, “No, this is not true.”

But with regards to the use of victimhood as a shield, yes, it’s important to differentiate this from individual acts of hate. 

Jacobsen: You’ve related some of your personal experiences. So maybe, we can focus on the thing that’s related to that, which is sort of perennial, at least within our lifetimes. The notion that any criticism of Islam as a body of ideas and practices becomes racist. The idea is that you are somehow making a bigoted statement about Arab ethnics as a group or as an identity when you’re merely criticizing the Quran or the Hadiths or certain practices around Islam. What’s your experience in the United Kingdom context around the use of this, either naively by some out of ignorance or cynically by others as a political tool?

Khan: The victim narrative that has been put forward by certain, I would say, self-proclaimed community leaders from the Muslim community here in the West has been effective in controlling the political narrative when it comes to minorities. Minorities are portrayed as being victimized, suppressed, or oppressed in one way or another. They are not given the absolute freedom to assert their religious beliefs, and any criticism of any shade of Islam is considered bigotry against people and, therefore, should not be given any credence, and so on.

This victim narrative has not only created lots of differences or divisions in Western society but also has been effective in brainwashing people in the Muslim communities, especially the Muslim youth, who have been the biggest victims of this brainwashing. They have been brought up with the narrative that they are victims. No matter what they do, they can never break the glass ceiling.

They can never be seen as equal. They can never be treated as equal. These are grievance-mongering narratives that have been put forward. But the tragedy is that now this victim narrative has become a resistance narrative, and that’s a shift that is even more harmful and alarming. People who used to think that they have been victims now see themselves as resisting.

They have become the ultimate embodiment of resistance against Western atrocities or Western tyranny in their views. Now they are resisting and proudly taking up this supposed fight. In my opinion, there is no such fight going on. But in their minds, they are fighting against Western tyranny aimed at eliminating Islam or Muslims or discriminating against the Muslim community. So now they have glorified this whole victim narrative and justified, in their view, that because they have been victimized for such a long time, their resistance, in whatever way it is manifested, is justified.

It is becoming more toxic, divisive, and polarized. They don’t see any objection to their beliefs because the accusation of being a bigot or a racist has been so strong and effective that people literally don’t want to be seen as racists or bigots. Therefore, they avoid criticizing religion, in this case, Islam, and they want to ignore what is going on.

They want to get along, saying, “It’s okay. Fine. I’m not saying anything. I don’t want to say anything about it. I’m fine with everything.” They have become complacent in this situation. So are we going to make any progress, or is this way of thinking leading us to any direction which is progressive or can be called the era of enlightenment? We have witnessed an era of enlightenment here in the West.

But are we going forward or regressing? We are regressing. We are going back to that point where people will accuse you of being bigoted or racist, and you will be silenced right away. You will be deprived of your livelihood. You will be thrown out of your company.

You will be condemned, ultimately, as not being a good person because nobody wants to be associated with someone who is accused of being racist or a bigot. So while we acknowledge that hateful acts have been committed against individuals by individuals, we need to be honest about the criticism of a set of beliefs. In this case, it is Islam, a religious set of beliefs. We need to criticize this. We need to talk about it because we have certain very divisive and toxic attitudes that are pervasive, not only within the Muslim community but also affecting society as a whole.

So when you’re not talking about the problems, you can never find a solution. In a pluralistic society such as Britain or any other Western society, which is diverse and very multicultural, we need to talk about these issues to sort them out. When you ignore these issues, they will simmer underneath the surface. They are not going to go away.

You cannot wish away these problems. They are going to stay. The problems we see regarding extremism or radicalization and the use of religion as a tool to brainwash people have become common phenomena in the West. People don’t bother to talk about it anymore, if I’m not wrong.

This is what my observation is: there are certain schools which have been reported by national organizations here in the UK, such as the National Secular Society and Humanists UK. They have been talking about certain madrasas and religious seminaries where toxic ideas are being promoted or taught to children. But the reaction is, I would say, that there is no reaction at all. There is no response to those concerns.

Nobody’s talking about this. The media is least interested in addressing these issues. There are still primary schools that impose hijab on children. I tell you my own experience: I saw a child sitting in a pram wearing a hijab here in the UK. It’s a very common sight to see children wearing hijab in the UK, but nobody wants to talk about it.

There was a time when people used to talk about these issues in the media, but not anymore. Nobody seems interested. For them, it’s, “This is their issue. They live or die. We don’t want to get involved in it.” This is the result of the very progressive use of accusations that you can be labeled as a racist or a bigot anytime, and right away you are silenced. You have nothing more to say. So it doesn’t mean that we need to stop talking about it. We need to talk about it even more.

We need to discuss these things even more. We need to raise people’s consciousness to bring them to the table to talk about these things. It’s not okay to say, “I don’t want to be seen as racist.” One person or one organization accusing you of racism doesn’t make you a racist, doesn’t make you a bigot.

It’s more of a tragedy when you see injustices taking place in front of you in plain sight and you turn a blind eye. That is the worst thing. That is the worst thing you can feel guilty of, in my view, rather than the fear of being called racist. 

Jacobsen: We should note that it only took a few decades or even a couple of decades to get here because, if I recall correctly, I don’t remember any writing or video interviews with the cast of Monty Python when they put up “The Life of Brian,” spoofing the followers of Christ. They didn’t have any claims of being racist. They didn’t have any claims of being anti-white, even though most Christians at that time were white.

So that’s a thing that’s happening particularly with regards to this specific religious ideology. At least, I’m seeing that more than with others. The real harm is probably the problem of the tale of “The Boy Who Cried Wolf” coming to life. When a real racist comes around, people will be skeptical rather than truly activated, and that delay can cause harm in the medium term.

And maybe, there’s a sort of following of some of our thoughts here too, where this dichotomous thinking that we have, where individuals such as yourself who are openly arguing for maintaining strong, liberal, secular democratic values, are being seen as somehow nationalist because your argument is, “These are British values; therefore, we should maintain them.”

But “nationalist” as a term, they’re meaning it as ultranationalist or far-right or something like this. I’m sure you’ve gotten emails like this. 

Khan: Yes. 

Jacobsen: So, this dichotomous thinking might not be necessarily new but fueled more with a little bit of nitro due to the Internet and social media. As any analysis goes on those platforms, people typically enter informational quagmires or ponds. They don’t get into another area or stream to get any new information.

It’s a small percent of people who will read different sides and get different perspectives when they’re on those platforms. What do you make of that charge of being ultranationalist or far-right when you’re arguing for pretty traditional enlightened values of liberal secular democracy? 

Khan: It’s a mistake to conflate secularism with ultranationalism. Ultranationalism is an extreme form of nationalism in which a country or people assert their identity and their traditional values. They have been following, embracing, or espousing these values for a long time.

This assertion is against the rest of society, the other minorities who are a part of the social fabric. Ultranationalism is an entirely different thing. When we talk about secularism, it is based on human faculties such as logic, empathy, reason, and moral intuition. We believe that human beings are born with this morality. What is good, what is wrong, how you can live with your fellow human beings, how you can make society a better place for everyone regardless of their beliefs, identifications, or any form of identity.

People are seen as people, all people. I don’t think there is any absolutism in secularism because, in my view, secularism is always evolving. The form of secularism we witnessed 50 years ago and what we have at the moment is entirely different. It’s more progressive and inclusive.

It’s more of a glue that binds people together in my view. This is what we observe here in the UK. When I talk about secular values as British values, why do I say so? These values of secularism have been espoused by a large number of British people here in our society, and people regardless of their beliefs, sexuality, or points of view, are willing to coexist with others. The attitude and atmosphere are welcoming to people from all around the world here in the UK, and they find commonalities here. That’s the beauty of secularism. So I don’t think that secularism and ultranationalism can ever be one and the same thing. It’s not. Secularism is about embracing humanity, the humane values that see people as equal regardless of their religious beliefs.

In fact, if you look at the current political scenario around the world, the societies that espouse secular values are more inclusive in terms of religious freedom than those societies where all laws, traditions, and rituals are based on religious beliefs. Here in the UK, constitutionally, there is nothing of this sort that makes it a secular nation. However, people are very strongly affiliated with this sense of society, and that makes it more inclusive and diverse, in my opinion. So people who try to conflate these two things are, as I told you earlier, demonizing secularism, whereas it has nothing to do with secular values. Why do I call them British values?

Because British values are values of free speech, freedom of religion, and freedom from religion. They are values of tolerance of opposing opinions. These are the values that people have espoused and embraced, and they are ingrained in this society. So why not appreciate this society for espousing these values? I know that many people say, “Oh, these are universal values.”

These are humane values, which are very much universal. But not all people or societies embrace these values. More than half of the world, we see, is highly influenced by religious beliefs, especially in Muslim-majority countries. That part of the world is entirely different in terms of protecting or preserving human rights. They see human beings as objects created to serve a god.

That’s it. This is the aim of their life as individuals. There is no sense of individuality in those societies. So when I call secular values British values, it doesn’t mean that I’m endorsing or condoning any ultranationalistic attitudes or views. I am appreciating the society and admitting the reality that, yes, this society is tolerant.

Yes, this society is diverse. Yes, here, people like me who are persecuted around the world in theocratic states find freedom, liberty, equal rights, and dignity. So why should I not give credit to this society and to these people who are at the forefront of this fight to preserve human rights and women’s rights? It’s evolving.

It’s all evolving. That is another difference between nationalism and secularism. Nationalism is very rigid. It’s never changing. It’s a rigid traditional thing that says, “Yes, this is what we were, and this is what we are going to be.” However, secularism is always evolving. It’s embracing. It’s making society an inclusive place. That is the reason.

People ask me what secularism is, where it comes from, and how I got inspired by these thoughts. My response is always, “If you want me to give you a list of names of philosophers who have been secular in their approaches and opinions, I’m not going to do that.” I’m going to tell you straight that I believe secularism is the natural state when it comes to bringing people together. It is the only natural state when you say all people are equal regardless of their belief. When I was in school back in Pakistan, which is a highly conservative and religiously influenced society, where every moment is dictated by religion, in that society, when I was a child, I used to go to school. I would see my friends from the Christian and Hindu communities subjected to mistreatment and discrimination. I would feel bad. That question would come to my mind: why not remove Islam from this designated place in the country and make it like any other religion, treating everyone equally? Why am I treated any better than my friends? Only because I was born into this religion, and this religion is a state religion here in Pakistan. So when I look back at that girl, that schoolgirl, I feel that was the first realization of what secularism is.

I believe that it’s a very natural and obvious human instinct to have a society where people are not privileged based on their beliefs. They are equal regardless of everything, their beliefs, their sexuality, their opinions. This is how I see that these two things are poles apart. They do not resemble each other in any way.

Jacobsen: In the last several decades, in a post-colonial period, a lot of the criticism of Israel and the occupied Palestinian territories has come from Human Rights Watch, the UN, and other international organizations, noting human rights abuses on both sides, with a ledger of more human rights abuses on the Israeli side.

Yet on October 7, we saw a mass act of murder and violence against Israeli civilians by Palestinians who were members of Hamas. There are people who can be ‘useful idiots,’ but for causes they don’t necessarily know anything about to any significant degree. So how does this religious-based identity politics play into the hands of even terrorist groups through activism in Western countries, when they’re not necessarily supporting Palestinian civilians where they think they are, but in fact, the rhetoric is that they are in fact supporting Hamas or a terrorist organization that committed the atrocity?

Khan: I want to be honest in my response to this question. Every single Muslim child is indoctrinated with certain beliefs, which are very disturbing and discriminatory against Jewish people. Certain religious beliefs are toxic, and children are indoctrinated and brainwashed into hating Jewish people.

I was also told the same things in my religious seminary and in my madrassa, that these people are cursed. You ought to hate them for the sake of God. As a child, I had this question that, in Pakistan, there are no Jewish people. Last time I checked, there was only one Jewish person in Pakistan, if he’s still living there or if he has left. So there was no chance for me to get into contact or interact with any Jewish person. All I knew was that they are the ultimate evil people. There is nothing good about these people.

Because my mom was a Sufi Muslim, and Sufi Muslims are very much into humanity, I find them very close to humanism. My mom was very much into this idea that you don’t hate people, don’t discriminate against people based on their belief; all people are equal. So for me, when I listened to this rhetoric about Jewish people, there were so many questions in my mind.

I went back home and discussed it with my mom. My mom was quiet. Then she said to me, “Listen to me. You don’t have to hate anybody. Okay? This is not your job. You were not created for this. God created you to spread love. Right? So when you look at people, don’t look at the identity they may wear. You need to look at them as human beings, not at the markers of identity.” This is what I learned from my mother, and that was the thing that always remained with me. Unfortunately, it’s not the case for many Muslims who are born and raised in Muslim households, and they are brought up with this mentality, this toxicity.

In Palestine, children are taught similar rhetoric and religious hatred against Jewish people. I’m not saying that there are no issues to be addressed. It’s a very complicated issue. People try to make it all about a piece of land. It is not. It’s way more complicated than that. People literally hate Jewish people. They don’t want them to be in that place. They want to eliminate, annihilate the state of Israel because they believe that God has cursed them and they can never have their homeland. These beliefs are held by many mainstream Muslims around the world.

So, when this atrocity happened on October 7th, it was atrocious and inhumane. Then we saw people celebrating that atrocity. I could never forget that night when I was looking at social media and listening to people shouting in glee. It was so traumatic and inhumane.

How can you justify violence in any way? That was the question in my mind. If you think that what is happening with the Palestinian people is violence and has no justification, how can you justify the violence against people on the other side? They are as innocent as the people in Palestine. Innocent people should not be categorized according to their nationalities. Hamas uses this rhetoric to indoctrinate and poison the minds of young people and children. It is a part of religion that some do not want to hear, but it is the truth.

There are certain hadiths which are deemed credible. If you don’t acknowledge that there are some hadiths considered less trustworthy, you must still recognize there are hadiths certified as credible. One such credible hadith is very anti-Semitic and anti-Jewish, believed by a majority of Muslims.

This rhetoric has played a huge part in turning religious grievances into identity politics. Whatever we are witnessing now in the West—the rhetoric and hatred—nobody wants to talk about the future. Everybody focuses on the past, whether it’s 20, 30, 50, or 70 years ago.

Atrocities happen in conflicts. The thing we need to focus on is how to make it better for everyone. I’m afraid this religious rhetoric has been a tool in the hands of terrorists. It’s similar to when people left Western countries and joined ISIS in Syria and Iraq, becoming part of a caliphate established by extremists. Many still dream of such a caliphate, not just in Syria and Iraq. When you talk about religious radicalization, it leads to that path where a caliphate might be established again. This toxic narrative is still used by those who push these agendas.

Now, you see Muslims persecuted in China, Sudan, and other parts of the world. Nobody protests for their rights or raises their voices for them. It’s all about one place and one people. The rhetoric is so toxic I can’t stand it. When they talk about 70 years of victimization, there are reasons why Hamas managed to control Palestinian society. There was an election in 2005 that never happened again. They persecuted their own opponents after they assumed power in Palestine. People don’t want to talk about those things: how women were treated under Hamas rule, how LGBTQ people were treated, how they treated their own people.

It is all about religious radicalization and religious fundamentalism, similar to what we now see in Afghanistan. What is happening in Afghanistan? It is a religious theocratic state established there. Everything is about religion, whether it is about the Quran or Hadith. They have managed to establish a society where they derive their principles from religious scriptures.

It’s not just about the Quran. It’s everything in the religion that has been incorporated into one set of beliefs. This is the end product when religious radicalization resides in the corridors of power.

Religious extremism in power leads to a similar kind of toxic religious identity that we witness in the West. We are still witnessing it in Western societies where people bring this Islamic identity. I’ve been wary of identity politics when it comes from a religious perspective. We need to talk about it and criticize it more and more because it’s not benign.

It’s bringing toxic attitudes and behaviors that need to be called out, criticized, and scrutinized. They need to be rejected by mainstream society. There is no place for this kind of identity politics. If someone from the Christian community did this, people would quickly reject that person based on their beliefs. This happened in Scotland. A Scottish politician brought her religious beliefs into politics and was rejected altogether. There were no ifs or buts. It was a clear rejection: you don’t represent the majority of society, so you are rejected. That was the final word. But when it comes to Islam, people start making excuses for the extreme aspects of Islam. 

So, the name of that Christian politician in Scotland is Kate Forbes. She brought her religious beliefs into politics, and people literally withdrew their support. She was contesting for SNP leadership. This shows how critical people are when it comes to other religious beliefs. But when it comes to Islam, they become complacent. That is mind-boggling. It’s hard to wrap your head around this one thing. 

Jacobsen: What have been effective bridges to build with individuals who reject that? You gave an example of someone using it and then getting rejected. Are you only noticing this temperament in Muslim communities who have a voting base that does not reject individuals using Islam as political currency? 

Khan: It’s becoming more typical, especially for politicians in the West, to whip up religious sentiments to win over Muslims and support from the Muslim community. People in the Muslim community who support a secular democratic system in the West have not been given due attention. Their voices are muzzled, they have been criticized unfairly, and they have been pushed aside.

People who are very radical in their views, appearance, and conservatism have been treated as the spokespersons of the Muslim community. We saw what happened during the past British election campaign when politicians wanted support from the Muslim community. They would appeal to the most conservative and radical points of view within that community. We saw how Angela Rayner, the deputy leader of the party, was present at a meeting composed solely of Muslim men. She promised that her party would recognize the state of Palestine if they supported her.

To me, as a woman from the Muslim community or as a dissident, I was shocked. First, she is a woman, then she is a British politician from a party that espouses liberal values. Did it not occur to her why there were no women in that gathering? Why were there only men, and why did she feel the need to address the grievances of that male-only meeting? For me, it was a shocking moment, but this is the truth. Whenever politicians or western authorities want to talk about anything, they find the most conservative elements within the Muslim community and appoint them as leaders or encourage them to be the spokespersons.

Then those people use religion as a tool to coerce the whole community into compliance. Efforts to build bridges with dissenters from within the community have been very few, or maybe I haven’t seen any. When liberal or democratic Muslims have been asked to come forward and talk about the issues facing Muslims as a community, the same problems that anyone else faces in a society, they have similar problems: not getting jobs, not having enough housing. There are issues related to some traditional or religious rituals and cultural matters.

What matters is who is being presented as a community leader or supposed spokesperson to talk about these issues. We did not hear a single so-called community leader from the Muslim community talking about the real issues Muslims or the Muslim youth are facing. It was all about Palestine.

It was all about religion. People were emotionally blackmailed into voting and supporting certain Muslim candidates who turned the whole thing into a political theater, making it all about religious loyalty. You have to express your loyalty by supporting these candidates. On the other side, we see politicians having conversations and meetings with these people, trying to appease them and be politically correct.

I don’t see them having any interest in solving the issues the Muslim community is facing. They seem interested only in appeasing certain individuals who will then speak on behalf of the whole community. Efforts to build bridges with those who are liberal in their views, espouse secular democratic values, love Britain, and contribute constructively to society are lacking.

I hope they come to the realization that they need to make bridges with these people, not with the clerics or conservative and radical individuals. I hope they come to this realization. People get caught up in this faux ethic of using an abstraction categorized as a group, replacing individual opinions and individual sacrifice. There is no sacrifice when it’s done on behalf of a collective while immersing oneself in that. It’s much different from traditional civil society organizations for various human rights causes. The people caught in the crossfire are typically the most vulnerable within those populations, as in any population.

The people most subject to forms of violence are women. Misrepresentation and lack of representation typically affect women. When you have this wasteful political activism, what happens to women in this context? Do they get caught in the crossfire of this religious identity politics? Women from the Muslim community, in the current political scenario, have been thrown under the bus—not only by politicians but by their own community members who were candidates, especially independent candidates in recent elections. It was awful to see Muslims pushing religious identity into politics and contesting as independent candidates, holding male-only meetings with hardly any women present.

There was a reported case during the election campaign in Birmingham when a candidate was caught on camera in a podcast making fun of certain situations that women will be subjected to in the afterlife, such as women being in the majority in hell, which is a religious belief for Muslims. It is a hadith that women will be in the majority in hell.

The way women from the Muslim community were treated during the last election campaign. It is a testament. Women have always been thrown under the bus in a bid to appease the conservative men, conservative Muslim men. I just told you about an independent Muslim candidate who was maing fun of the situation where women will be in hell in a majority. This is a religious belief. Many Muslims believe it, because it is a saying of prophet. He was mentioning and making fun of it. His buddies on the podcast. They were making fun of domestic violence. It was tragic to see that these men. 

They felt emboldened, encouraged to talk about these kind of things so overtly, publicly without having any fear of repercussions, consequence, criticism. For them, it was so normal because, somehow, this has been normalized in British society. That do not talk about their so-called internal matters, do not discuss those issues, do not criticize those issues, because that may offend the men of the community. So, the effort have been made in terms of building bridges with people. These people are mainly conservative, very radical, extreme people who claim to be the gatekeeper of the community, who claim to be the spokesperson of the community.

I think these politicians should realize the perils of adopting this policy of appeasement in the face of this toxic religious identity politics. The so-called community leaders have long mnopolized political discourse, painting themselves as representative of all British Muslims. All the while disregarding the concerns of the rights of women and other people in the Muslim community.

Jacobsen: Thank you for the opportunity and your time, Khadija.

License & Copyright

In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. ©Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012-Present. Unauthorized use or duplication of material without express permission from Scott Douglas Jacobsen strictly prohibited, excerpts and links must use full credit to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with direction to the original content.