Wha? Me? A terrorist?
Gerard Batten, a member of European Parliament representing London for the right-wing U.K. Independence Party, wants Muslims to sign a declaration rejecting violence.
In a foreword to the Proposed Charter of Muslim Understanding, first drafted in 2006, Batten writes:
“The Charter allows Muslims from all strands of belief to make it plain that they reject those extremist interpretations of their religious texts that promote or excuse violence and brings Islam into conflict with the modern world. It affirms that they want to enjoy the freedoms of the West and live as law-abiding and peace-loving people.”
Batten told the Guardian on Tuesday he could not see why “any reasonable, normal person” would object to signing it.
I can think of a few reasons…
Asking Muslims to formally commit to respecting other “religions, civilizations, cultures and traditions” not-so-subtly implies that the world’s 1.6 billion followers of Islam don’t already do so. Muslims are not homogenous, and Islam is not monolithic or hierarchical. Assuming the need for a charter assumes the worst, that Islamist terrorists represent the views of all people who just so happen to be Muslim.
The charter’s language and raison d’être reinforces and lends credibility to the notion that Islam is synonymous with violence. It’s not, just as Mormon ≠ polygamist, homosexual ≠ pedophile and Arab ≠ terrorist. Asking people to sign charters affirming that misguided stereotypes about them are false gives weight to harmful assumptions that they’re true in the first place.
The Charter of Muslim Understanding is condescending, othering and patriarchal. If Muslims are asked to sign it, UKIP members should be asked to sign a declaration affirming they’re not Islamophobic bigots. Fair is fair.
Let me know what you think of the charter by commenting below.