[Published in CounterPunch, May 11]
The new mayor of London has been asserting from every podium
available that he is the mayor of all of London to ensure they do not imagine
he merely represents some kebab corner in Hounslow or other Outer London hub where
many of his fellow Pakistanis live.
That is the least of his problems, for he wears all the
distinguishing identity marks with some confidence. In the ceremonial position
of mayor, however, he is being made to hold forth on ‘Islamic terrorism’.
Worse, he is playing ball, as they knew he would.
“One of the things that’s important to me as a Londoner is
making sure my family, people I care about, are safe. But clearly, being
someone who is a Muslim brings with it experiences that I can use in relation
to dealing with extremists and those who want to blow us up. And so it’s really
important that I use my experiences to defeat radicalization and extremism.
What I think the election showed was that actually there is no clash of
civilization between Islam and the West. I am the West, I am a Londoner, I’m
British, I’m of Islamic faith, Asian origin, Pakistan heritage, so whether it’s
[ISIS] or these others who want to destroy our way of life and talk about the
West, they’re talking about me. What better antidote to the hatred they spew
than someone like me being in this position?”
Mr. Khan believes that by virtue of being Muslim you become
an expert on extremism and an electoral victory in one small part of the world is
enough to shake the terrorism fortress. He is mouthing the clichés they love to
hear.
That is the reason even Donald Trump says he will lift his
ban on Muslims for him: “There will always be exceptions”, adding, “I think
[his election] is a very good thing, and I hope he does a very good job … If he
does a good job and frankly if he does a great job, that would be a terrific
thing.”
But
the mayor is not biting:
“This isn't just about me - it's about my friends,
my family and everyone who comes from a background similar to mine, anywhere in
the world…Donald Trump's ignorant view of Islam could make both our countries
less safe - it risks alienating mainstream Muslims around the world and plays
in to the hands of the extremists. Donald Trump and those around him think that
western liberal values are incompatible with mainstream Islam - London has
proved him wrong."
It is good that Khan made his position clear (this was
before the TIME interview), but then Trump is considered a political buffoon
and fair game. Khan would be circumspect before the supremacists in his own
backyard. Somebody has to break it to him that not only his opponents but his
supporters too tag him with the M word. They believe they have saved him, not
themselves, from his main opponent the Conservative Zac Goldsmith who ran a vicious
bigoted campaign. They are patting their backs by concluding that this choice
proves there is no place for racism in London.
 |
| Sadiq Khan taking on Zac Goldsmith |
It is not as simple as that. Congratulating Khan, Jemima,
Zac Goldsmith’s sister, did not fail to mention that he would be, “A great
example to young Muslims.” Some say it is a blow to the ISIS. Echoing the
western prototype, Yasmin Alibhai-Brown
wrote:
“A Khan victory would also demolish the extremists’
anti-western narrative. If a Muslim can be elected by millions of voters of all
backgrounds to take charge of the world’s greatest city, how would the jihadis
– how could they – carry on believing
and arguing that we Muslims have no future in Europe, or that westerners hate us?
This victory could do more to combat radicalisation than any number of
government strategies – most of which are in any case unjust and
counterproductive.”
The extremists’ reaction is 1) to assert supremacy 2) to
take revenge. The first is a fantastical and fascistic idea, as upheld
primarily by the ISIS. With the other category, where terrorism is a social
phenomenon, the future of Muslims in Europe inspires them little. It is the
future of and for their homelands they fight for, however faulty their methods.
Ms. Alibhai-Brown’s analysis spins the good vs. bad Muslim
by attributing Sadiq Khan’s victory to westerners’ love as opposed to hate. Perhaps
unintentionally, she also conveys that all that potentially radicalised people
need is a lollipop from the aforementioned loving westerner to the good Muslim.
The hyperbolic response to Khan from the liberal is perhaps precisely because
it is a ceremonial post and a little symbolism costs nothing and hurts nobody.
Sadiq Khan chose to attend a Holocaust memorial event on his
first official outing because it is, “So important to reflect, remember and
educate about the 6 million Jewish lives lost in the Holocaust.” Indeed, Holocaust
deniers contradicted him. But it is the anti-Islamism that he will have to deal
with: “The cult followers of Muhammad have killed 270 million people in 1,400
years.”
Even with the
diversity he
brings along and stands for, including his background as son of a bus driver
and seamstress who shared a little home with seven siblings or his voting for
gay rights, his biography as written by them carries one buzzword: Muslim. The
subtext is that they have legitimised him despite it.
 |
| Being a good role model |
The counter-query, “When will a non-Muslim get a position in
a Muslim country?” itself reveals that such positions in the public imagination
are perceived as handouts. Multiculturalism cannot exist in a theocratic state.
And Britain –
despite
the new Catholic Tony Blair reportedly praying to god when deciding whether
or not to send British troops into Iraq – is still not quite there.
However, in Sharia-compliant Pakistan a Hindu did become
Chief Justice. And westerners, including those from human rights organisations,
are quasi mayors and sheriffs of the lands they hope to reform.
Sadiq Khan is mimicking this module by using successful
Muslims as role models so that “when somebody comes along and tries to
brainwash them (the youth) with a sort of nihilistic view of life and say the
way to get success in this world and the hereafter is to get a Kalashnikov and
go to commit — in inverted commas — jihad is to say, ‘you know what? That’s not
true’.”
It is rather uplifting to know that way beyond the call of
duty the mayor of London has plans not only for the city but the hereafter of
his co-religionists. Sadiq Khan has been nicely coopted and saved from a
pyrrhic victory.
