Event Reviews

Review of the panel debate on Multiculturalism – held in the UK Houses of Parliament (Thurs 9th May 2013)

The Houses of Parliament

By Abdullah al Andalusi

Last night, I attended a prestigious panel debate organised by The Prisma Multicultural Newspaper, at the House of Commons (UK Parliament); the theme of the debate was advertised as being highly controversial, discussing the topic “Multiculturalism in the UK: Has it any future?”


Introducing the subject, the Chair made clear the reason for the debate was the British Prime Minister David Cameron’s infamous  speech in Munich in 2011, where he claimed Multiculturalism in the UK had failed. The invited panellists included the British MP Jeremy Corbyn, Mónica del Pilar Uribe (Editor in chief of Prisma), Zita Holbourne (Trade Union activist and writer), Claudio Chipana Gutiérrez (Peruvian philosopher and coordinator in the Latin American Recognition Campaign (LARC) in London) and Nigel Pocock (Social scientist and theologian), and Mike Jempson (Author, journalist).

 photo 1-1

What followed from the panellists was a series of defiant yet monotone speeches denouncing David Cameron’s claim, and what can only be described as verbally back slapping each other in congratulations at the success of Multiculturalism in the UK, and the diversity of race that exists in UK society. Strangely, there was noticeably no one on the panel that opposed multiculturalism.

However all was not as it seemed.


I soon realised that the event was one where the panellists and the organisers had merely intended to affirm the success of (their understanding of) multiculturalism against the criticism from the centre-right wing i.e. the UK Conservative Party. I, without malice aforethought, then rocked the boat by challenging their concept of multiculturalism head on by showing that it is not a particular school of thought within Liberalism that should be criticised, but Liberalism itself. The hidden reality of multiculturalism in the West is that it is not actually multicultural, but actually suppresses cultures. My attempt to make people think ‘out of the box’ caused major consternation amongst the panel and throughout the audience, and I became the ‘controversial one’.


I gave my speech, asking what multiculturalism really means. I explained that culture is a common language of exchange and interaction between people. To facilitate this exchange, each culture possesses its own set of values, perspectives, traditions, worldviews and beliefs. These values, traditions and beliefs inform the actions, judgments and practices of the adherents of that culture.


Liberalism, the ruling ideology of Western countries, possesses its own values, perspectives and worldview. It does not tolerate any aspects of a culture which contradicts those values. We hear Liberal intolerance to other cultures all the time, but it is euphemistically referred to as ‘human rights issues’ regardless of whether or not that culture has its own understanding of human rights e.g. recently German courts wanted to ban Muslim circumcision under the guise of protecting ‘human rights’, the Niqab ban in France was to, strangely, protect the ‘human rights’ of Muslim women who may have been forced to wear them etc.


Consequently, Liberalism only tolerates superficial differences, like different languages (as long as the individual understands the official language), cuisine and clothing (although it does limit ‘religious’ clothing in many Western countries), and spiritual beliefs (as long as those beliefs are not political, or morally judgmental).

photo 2-1


Liberalism does not tolerate any aspect of a culture which goes against its values, practices and worldview. We find that the legal and political aspects of different cultures are suppressed and condemned in Liberal regimes (e.g. as ‘extremism’), leaving only the stump of a culture’s purely non-morally significant spiritual beliefs (e.g. the existence of God and prayer etc). Muslims and Christians are arrested for preaching that same sex intercourse is immoral, prayers are banned from council meetings, Christian adoption charities are forced into closure if they adopt according to their religious conscience, Christian counsellors are forced to give counselling to same sex couples or face dismissal, and Muslims who embrace and express some of the political aspects of their belief, have been arrested and sentenced for possessing ‘extremist views’ or literature – despite them not engaging or calling for violence.


I stated that I do not believe in persecuting people for their sexual tastes (all humans have tastes or temptations that a society or religion may deem immoral or illegal), but I also do not believe in persecuting people for wanting to live according to their moral or religious conscience if they do not coerce others or use violence.


Multiculturalism under Liberalism is not actually multicultural. In reality it merely permits a society where race, clothes, food and language are diverse – but not culture. Plurality of differences amongst people is something that predates Liberalism in the UK. The UK has had different races (English, Welsh and Scots), languages, clothes and different food for hundreds of years, even before Liberalism came into being. In reality, Liberal Multiculturalism is just a ‘visa’ to allow new races, foods, languages and clothes to add to the pre-existing collection; true multiculturalism has been eluded.

photo 4


I opined the Islamic alternative, a true multicultural system that was historically tried and tested, that saw Jews, Christians, Zoroastrians and Hindus live according to their own practices and laws, and not face persecution for living by their conscience. In the Islamic system, the state is based upon Islam, but accepts differing cultural and religious groups to rule according to their own court systems and legal frameworks. Of course, if one of them transgressed against a member from another community, the matter would be resolved according to the negotiated terms agreed at the time the group was incorporated into the Islamic state. The UK state could learn from this historically successful method.


My speech was successful in irking some members of the audience and the panel. I felt like I disrupted their party, and this was evidenced by a large number of questions and rebuttals being heatedly posed towards me. Of course, I love such criticism, as it allows me to clarify misconceptions, and expand into more depth on my points.


A member of the audience put forward to me that religious conscience contradicts human rights (this reminded me of my previous debate on Human rights vs religious conscience). He argued that conscience is not more important than sexual preference or race, which he argued, people can’t choose.


The MP Jeremy Corbyn, who sounded slightly indignant at my comments, then added that pluralism can only truly come from a value-neutral secular state under secular law, and that he even advocates the de-establishment of the Church of England from the British state. He then said that we do not need a religious position on values or laws, since human rights for humans are self-evident


I responded that conscience is more important than race or sexual preference, since one’s conscience cannot be changed either. If I believe in God, I can’t choose not to believe in him – I require evidence. If the evidence does not exist, my beliefs cannot change. The only choice you have is whether you act according to your conscience or not, or whether you admit to yourself what your conscience tell you is true or right. In essence, the only choice you have, is whether to be a hypocrite or not. But is that what Liberalism wants? People forced into being hypocrites because they will get persecuted for choosing their conscience? Furthermore, I posed to the audience, how can we define humans according to the superficial aspects of merely their skin colour or tastes? Surely it is one’s worldview, belief and perspective that truly and profoundly defines the character and personality of a person? I received no response.


To the MP, I merely explained that the so-called neutral values of Secular countries are based on values that aren’t so neutral, nor so secular. Most Western countries legal systems are based upon religious concepts such as equality, free will and a specific moral critiera towards human activities, that informs the legal system.


According to materialism, humans are not equal; we all have different strengths, intelligences, shapes, abilities and genetic fitness. The concept of equality came from the Judeo-Christian concept that humans are all equal in the eyes of God. Secondly, the concept of free will (and moral accountability) came from the religious concept of the soul that resides inside humans, that acts as a agent, making decisions and rendering humans accountable for their actions (rather than a mechanistic cause-effect process that materialism would posit). Lastly, the moral criteria used by a state are not neutral! It has to have some kind of criteria. In Western countries this moral criteria is a mix between old Christian legacy morals, and the new Secular Humanist paradigm. For this reason, actions are judged by material harm, yet their remains a legal prohibition on incest (from Christianity) in UK law, even if the couple used protection, or agreed to get an abortion (to prevent possible genetic deformities). According to a materialistic basis, there should be no reason a couple couldn’t engage in incest if they used anti-conception protection (see the answer of the Atheist speaker, Professor Lawrence Krauss to this question during a debate).


As for human rights being self-evident, I simply gave the MP and the audience some examples where they were not so self-evident. If humans deserve the human right to be free, merely for being human, then why imprison criminals? Have they ceased being human? No of course not. Rational sense would argue that people should be given what they deserve – being human in of itself does not give anyone an entitlement without qualification.


I cited the ‘human right’ to freedom of ownership, yet drew people’s attention to the fact that due to the exercise of this right, 1% of the world’s population, own 40% of the worlds assets (and 50% of the worlds population own 1% of the worlds assets!). Surely justice must step in and restrict that human right.


What about the right to choose who one marries? We see law is coming into effect in the UK to allow same-sex marriage, but why does UK law make polygamy illegal even if it is consensual?


It would seem that human rights are not so self-evident after all. And after I had completed my response, the MP conceded the point, without looking like he was conceding – a true politician, but still noticeable.

photo 2-1


The questions and attempted refutations to my position continued, and allowed me to go into some exquisite rational points about the human reality, and their misunderstanding of it.


At the end of the debate, I believe I had demonstrated that multiculturalism is a noble and enlightened idea, but not one that Liberalism can live up to, or implement. Inevitably, the intolerance and totalitarian nature of Liberalism will dictate what people can do or not do amongst their communities while living in a Liberal country – irrespective of whether or not they agree with Liberalism. Islam on the other hand, has had a history of convivencia (lit. living together) with people of different creeds and cultures, being allowed to live under their own beliefs and values, without interference or coercion from Muslims.All in all, a very lively debate. Although I probably was viewed as gate crashing the party by some of the panellists and audience, it was heart warming to be thanked by members of the audience who remarked that I gave them much food for thought.

I’m told  Prisma will be editing the video and uploading it onto the net soon – MDI will post it on our website when it is available.

7 replies »

  1. Abdullah,

    Liberalism is not tolerant to the point of allowing any culture to practice any idea or custom they may adhere to especially if it violates the Law, obviously we must practice our culture in the confines of secular law. I mean just imagine it, some primitive cultures sacrifice virgins to imaginary gods, should we allow each sub-culture operating in society to practice those customs that violate human rights? Essentially we would be living in chaos. What about cultures that refuse to “negotiate” or have “peace talks” or even “dialogue” with other cultures? How would they co-exist together? That kind of tribal warfare is rather common. Is that suppose to make Liberalism intolerant, because we have sound restrictions based on human rights?

    Because if it does, then Islam must also be intolerant for the same reasons. Under Islam, Jews and Christians are prohibited to preach to their faiths and convert Muslims. So even though you claim they supposedly have their own courts and system of law, they still must adhere to the Law of the Islamic State in the same way all the cultures in the West must do the same. Also in Islam it is legitimate for an Islamic State to invade those non-Islamic nations that prohibit the preaching of Islam. Can you co-exist with two internally contradictory cultures? One side of society says: “We don’t allow Islam to be preached”, another side which says: “We are commanded to invade them! Islam must be preached!” Obviously this is incompatible. These are mutually exclusive propositions and cannot co-exist. So yes Liberalism accommodates multiculturalism in a restricted sense based on what we deem as human rights.

    You said the concept of human rights is founded in a Judeo-Christian concept of God creating all mankind equal and providing free will. Yet this is merely cherry picking, some Jews and Christians taught this pre-enlightenment and some Jews and Christians had no problem with slavery and other inequalities. Some Jews and Christians taught a God given and endowed free will other Jews, Christians and even Muslims taught predestination in the deterministic sense.

    Further more you showed no relationship for example between those responsible for the abolition of slavery and belief in a Judeo-Christian God making humans equal and giving them free will. It’s quite clear the vote ratifying the abolition of slavery was not unanimous and many of the MP’s were bought off by Lincoln. Money talks louder than God.

    Liberalism is innately intolerant against those who oppose human rights as defined by the Liberal World View. So is Islam. The question is: who got it right?

    The other question is just how “multicultural” is the supposed Islamic state. What does Islam say about the way Atheists (if they are a sub-culture living under Islam) performing abortions? Will your state be o.k. with letting us live by our own system of Law in this case?

    Oh but wait, there is no unanimous consensus as to whether the Islamic state even allows for the so called groups outside “the People of the Book” to exist! So pagans, hindus, buddhists and atheists certainly don’t fair well, Muslims cannot agree on the content of who qualifies as a Dhimmi.

    Muslims and Hindus together living under Islam as the paradigm of multiculturalism? Was this before or after they were massacred year after year? Who says the Muslim rulers you appealed to were the template for Sharia and not those Muslim invaders who massacred the Hindus? What exactly is the paradigm for Sharia Law Abdullah? Are we going to appeal to heretical Caliphates who refused to emulate the Salaf like in Spain and then disregard such classic texts like the Pact of Umar? Very convenient my friend.

    Next time inform your audience you are only conveying a particular version of the Islamic State, one hardly shared by Muslims throughout history. If you want to appeal to history, appeal to all of history, not just the parts that you cherry pick for your agenda.

    I look forward to the day you don’t abuse your audience with sophistry and educate them further on the reality behind your claims.

    • The actions which the soldiers of the secular society are also a threat to rights of human beings . The right to live their own lives without secularist people throwing bombs at them . The problems of the ”’islamic’ world is that they do not follow islam .
      It seems that Islam is just a name in this age we are living in .
      As for your belief that islam forces religion upon non muslim states well I gues you did not read the quran right? Otherwise you would read that there is no compulsion in religion .
      In islam life is a test and nobody died for our sins. One only goes into paradise by the Grace of Allah , nobody else besides Allah knows if he or she will enter it so it is up to us to do as much good as we can . We have very good reasons to believe that we do not live just once. Allah created the night and day (darkness is a creation) , and also did he create death and life (yes death is also a creation ) . Our way of life is not teaching us that every individual is the center of the universe .

      Assuredly the creation of the heavens and the earth is a greater (matter) than the creation of men: Yet most men understand not(40:57)

      Has there [not] come upon man a period of time when he was not a thing [even] mentioned? (76:01)

      Indeed, We created man from a sperm-drop mixture that We may try him; and We made him HEARING and seeing. (76:02)

      [An angel] said, “Thus [it will be]; your Lord says, ‘It is easy for Me, for I created you before, while you were nothing.’ (19:09)

      Derek , brother in humanity . Know your place in creation (guided evolution) and be humble. We have very good reasons to believe in afterlife and this life is a test . Everything will revert back to nothingness except for Allah the only originator of the heavens and the earth . salam aleikom

      • Abdel Aziz.

        Thank you for your attempt at Dawah

        But I am not addressing your personal interpretation of the Quran. You are entitled to interpret any text how you wish, as am I (at least in free societies)

        For example my interpretation of “no compulsion in religion” neither refers to leaving or joining the religion, nor both, it’s not referring to duress or force but rather within the prescribed activities inside the religion itself, things like prayer etc are not compulsory.

        Otherwise the verse would have quite clearly said: “There is no compulsion in accepting religion”.or “There is no compulsion in becoming a Muslim”. Yet obviously that was not the intent from a purely exegetical level.

        Of course my reading and your reading are entirely irrelevant at this point.

        What we are discussing is how those States which implemented Sharia Law interpreted the Quran and Sunnah to establish Sharia and whether they were doing so accurately and by Orthodox Islamic Standards or whether they were distorters, innovators and heretics according to Islam.

        The problem with the Islamic world (at least the fundamentalist minority which is massive btw, and also states that have elements of Sharia), is that they do follow Islam and rather far to strictly.

        As for the West,and the liberal secular countries therein, I would agree with many of the criticisms of foreign policy.

        Take care

        • your society in which you feel to be free is not that free at all . If in your view freedom is to do whatever you like perhaps you should think about real freedom . I am not saying people in ‘muslim” countries do not do weird stuff but at least if sharia was implemented they would think 200 times before doing the act . Depression has many victims in the western FREE society . People grow up abused by their alcohol drinking oarents . There was some link between drinking alcohol and child abuse . Also depression in the sense that people do not always achieve the project in their minds resulting in depression . What about the young girls , feeling ugly because of the models which are being praised on television . What does a product like cheese have to do with a naked women in advertising? What about porn? Is that healthy? At least if sharia was implemented these issues would be dealt with. Not political sharia but islamic sharia . A law where the leader must follow islam he does not have any choice. What about the B.S. in your free society concerning nature? All those countries laughing at your so called free society programms to be aware of nature and climatechange . In islam we(mankind) are made vicegerents on earth that means (in islam0 we have a responsability not western philosophy of capitalism . Do you realize how many victims your free society is creating in the world? For example the mobile phones ,, where does the matter come from to produce it? AFRICA for example ,.Havent they suffered enough? In quran Allah describes a stage of embryology in which we look like a alaq(leech like substance ) , Allah did not say to behave like a leech , to suck the blood of africans and remaing to suck their blood untill they die .Free society? yes in your mind perhaps not in reality . A question to you . Why is it that atheists are trying to hijack science? besides the irrational belief that the Creator does not exists , why do they use science for their belief? Islam is consistent , when it says that Allah is the Originator of the heavens and the earth , that means He created it out of nothing which you atheists can not do and also that creation has a beginning. There used to be a group of people who worshipped the sun believing it to be eternal . Atheists many times hold on to thos eternity in creation (or in your minds popping into existence by chance ) the beehive cells shaped hexagon shaped because of efficiency is also by chance , and the precission after the expansion , not one second but much smaller also chance. can you explain to me why atheists believe to be rational beings? Arent atheists just arrogant emotional beings , chemical reactions happened by chance?

Leave a Reply to Derek Adams (@AnswerinAbraham) Cancel reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s