Having worked with faith communities for well over a decade now,
there are strengths within all faith groups and there are, it has to be
noted, some structural weaknesses within them. The de-centralised nature
of advocacy and faith leadership within Sikh, Hindu and Muslim
communities means that localism has been a strong part of faith
leadership and to some degree, local communities are able to relate to,
engage with and fully understand their local faith leaders. Such
localism no doubt resonates beyond these faith communities and into
political policies and it provides a degree of variance and flexibility
to the variety of voices that speak for and advocate on issues related
to these faiths.
Yet, whilst these localised networks may have
worked well in the by-gone pre-digital age, (before the Internet and
twenty-four hour news networks), they are unable to develop a coherent
voice on issues that are some of the most pressing in the global
political arena today. For example, one of the charges that are levelled
at Muslim communities has been, 'who speaks for Muslim communities?'
Others have stated that 'Muslims do not speak out when terrorism is
undertaken in their name.' This latter charge, it must be noted, usually
comes from those who seek to blame Muslim communities as a whole, which
in itself is ludicrous as though a British Muslim in Manchester is
responsible for the actions of a group like Isis. There are others who
also make the latter charge, who truly believe that Muslims do not speak
out enough, yet, blissfully unaware that what has developed are a
coterie of 'go to people' with comments on Muslim communities, with
little or no community traction or theological understanding of Islam.
Which
brings us back to the core thrust of this piece. One of the strengths
of communities is when they have some form of authority figure who can
speak out, with the backing of members of that community. Whilst the
impact of messaging from such a figure may have to compete with others
in a digital age where comments and blog pieces usually create a haze
around what is relevant or truthful, it can nonetheless be a voice of
reason with some gravitas and relevance.
For example, the Chief
Rabbi - Ephraim Mervis, is a great example of how a leadership role can
help to shape opinion and inform people. The Chief Rabbi's comments
and thoughts on anti-Semitism after the recent Gaza crisis hammered
home the fears within Jewish communities about anti-Semitism and the
spike that the Community Security Trust
had reported. What Muslim communities lack, is some form of religious
authority who can also speak from an informed position which is fed into
by various Muslim communities. On issues of anti-Muslim bigotry, for
example, a counter-part within Muslim communities to Ephraim Mervis
would help to get the message across that anti-Muslim bigotry, like
other forms of hate and intolerance, is unacceptable in our society.
The
last time that a Muslim equivalent was talked about, was during the
time of the late Dr Zaki Badawi. Those discussions seemed to fall away
after his death and need to be rekindled at a time of difficult
pressures on British Muslim communities when national and international
events are projected onto all British Muslims by virtue of their
co-religionists. It is time that a Chief Imam or Grand Mufti be
appointed from within Muslim communities who can also undertake similar
duties to the Chief Rabbi and this has also been raised by Parliamentarians.
Eric Ollerenshaw MP recently made the case and re-iterated the need for
a Grand Mufti for Great Britain, citing the example of the Grand Mufti
of Bosnia.
As long as Muslim communities do not have the
equivalent to a Chief Rabbi, sadly, there will be a space in the social
sphere which will be filled by those who are less interested in the
welfare of Muslim communities, and more interested in making a name for
themselves. Now is the time to grab this challenge with both hands.
No comments:
Post a Comment