The slide into a bizarre world of believing conspiracy theories and voicing openly toxic and bigoted views took place slowly over the last decade whilst many of us were not able to fathom how quickly and extensively social media had taken charge of our lives. As the Founder and previous Director of Tell MAMA, which supports victims of anti-Muslim hate, the world that I know of today, as someone reaching his fifties, is virtually unrecognisable to the one in which I worked just a decade ago and where there was real hope that levels of racism, prejudice and intolerance were finally on a downward slope.

Today’s world is also a far cry from that in which I grew up. As a refugee from Amin’s Uganda in 1972, and having fled a second time from Africa in 1983 because of military instability in Kenya, I suffered at first hand the openly racist abuse meted out to Asians and African-Caribbean communities in Kent where I was schooled. Throughout the ’80s and ’90s, that open racism existed, flourished and led to the murder of young black men such as Stephen Lawrence. Such open hatred impacted on many young men and women from BME communities, though the economic boom of that period helped to also temper some of the racist anger and bigotry. Anti-racism work, equality marches and work-based equal opportunity schemes seem to have turned the tide against division that many of us assumed would mean a country more at ease with its diversity.

Whilst the UK is in a far better place than the ’80s, the reality is that, as a country, we have slid backwards towards openly aggressive far-right marches rallying thousands of people, national political instability and a rising sense of mistrust which is acutely felt between BME communities and the two main parties. This, mixed with a recent economic crisis, has created the perfect storm for social insecurity and it is this insecurity that some have played upon in fomenting divisive and openly hostile views toward groups of people in our society. It is also within this environment of insecurity that people have sought comfort within narratives of division that blame others and which provide a sense of meaning to them, however twisted that may be.

For such individuals, conspiracy theories become reality since the world around them is unstable and frightening. Grasping onto something almost tangible, that explains the complexity of life in a simplistic fashion, fills the void that many of us currently feel in an increasingly frightening world. This is why, for example, conspiracy merchants who peddle views of an ‘Islamic takeover’ or of hordes of Muslims outbreeding other communities, manage to find a receptive audience. With less money in people’s pockets, communities aggressively vying for resources in austerity, and a sense of confusion as to where we are heading as a nation, you can see how easy it is for people to believe that there are hidden factors at play. The culprits, in their opinion, are more than likely Muslims, Jews or migrants.

Both Muslims and Jews have felt a sharp rise in hostility towards them and hate crime figures show such a rise over the last five years. Much of this is due to hate online and, furthermore, since 2012, when I founded Tell MAMA, it was clear to me that social media companies would not remove hateful and criminal material, nor would they take down far-right, neo-Nazi or Islamist extremist accounts. Their business model was based on getting traction for their technological revolutions through more accounts opening up. In doing so, they helped create the fog and smoke of disinformation and gave an amplified voice to extremist groups masquerading as ‘free speech’ martyrs. These companies, whilst levelling the playing field for more voices to be heard, also exposed people to views and opinions that would have been marginalised for a reason. Yet their platforms also legitimised toxic views by placing those views into a worldwide market of ideas where extremist groups were better equipped to promote them.

Let me explain. Marginalised, divisive and racist groups by their very nature had to be far more energetic and driven to try to win supporters. Before the advent of social media these people had to host events, print leaflets and remain active at a street level. That all took time and money and, to make it worse, they also looked pretty scary. However, such groups were always driven; they had to be to survive.

Now post their divisive messages on social media with a ‘friendly face’, remove the racist insignia and blame migrants, Muslims and foreigners, and strangely there was a more receptive audience as people’s fears and insecurities rose over the last decade. Additionally, as many of us played catch-up to try to challenge extremist and divisive views, these individuals and groups already had a head start since they were naturally driven and could see the power of the new platforms. It was a toxic, heady mix that was to have a severe impact on our society, as we are now seeing today.

This is why we must mobilise and defend the social values we enjoy in our country, and which are under threat. It is not just those, as this paper has highlighted, who try and divide local communities, who we must challenge; it is also those beyond our shores, who support extremist groups and seek to destabilise our democracy by fomenting instability, whom we must remain vigilant against. If we take our eye off the ball in these crucial years, it is not only our values which may change – it could be our very understanding of reality. Now that truly is frightening.

Social media, including Facebook, must proactively block content inciting hatred and prevent online campaigns which target minorities, such as those undertaken in Myanmar, the United Nations human rights chief said on Wednesday.

Zeid Ra’ad al-Hussein, U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights, was speaking after U.N. experts accused Myanmar generals of “genocidal intent” and said Facebook had allowed its platform to be used to incite violence against Rohingya.

Facebook said on Monday it was removing several Myanmar military officials from the social media website and an Instagram account to prevent the spread of “hate and misinformation” after reviewing the content.

Zeid, whose spokesman said he has met with major tech companies in Silicon Valley, including Facebook and Google, in recent months, was speaking to a news conference before his four-year term ends on Aug. 31.

Zeid said he didn’t feel Facebook took the issue seriously at first but that the company’s attitude began to change after Yanghee Lee, U.N. special rapporteur on human rights in Myanmar, told a Geneva press conference in March that Facebook was being used in the country to spread hate speech.

“But it shouldn’t be because the press or the human rights community highlights the problem for them then suddenly to respond. They should be aware of it ahead of time,” he said.

“So I don’t think they should wait until the crisis begins. They should be thinking proactively about what steps they will take to mitigate that,” he added.

Facebook said on Monday that while it was too slow to act in the case of Myanmar, it was now making progress, with better technology to identify hate speech and improved reporting tools.

However, Zeid said there was a danger that social media could be over-regulated in a way that breaches human rights law including the right to freedom of expression.

Tech giants should “keep the broadest space available and open to the exercise of freedom of expression”, relying on international human rights law for regulation, he said.

U.S. President Donald Trump on Tuesday accused Google’s search engine of promoting negative news articles and hiding “fair media” coverage of him, vowing to address the situation without providing evidence or giving details of action he might take.

Trump’s attack against the Alphabet Inc. unit follows a string of grievances against technology companies, including Twitter Inc and Facebook, which he has accused of silencing conservative voices.

Facebook said it had deleted hundreds of offensive posts since a law banning online hate speech came into force in Germany at the start of the year that foresees fines of up to 50 million euros (51.53 million pounds) for failure to comply.

The social network received 1,704 complaints under the law, known in Germany as NetzDG, and removed 262 posts between January and June, Richard Allan, Facebook’s vice president for global policy solutions said in a blog.

“Hate speech is not allowed on Facebook,” Allan said, adding that the network had removed posts that attacked people who were vulnerable for reasons including ethnicity, nationality, religion or sexual orientation.

Complaints covered a range of alleged offences under Germany’s criminal code, including insult, defamation, incitement to hatred and incitement to crime, the report said. Of the posts that were blocked, the largest number was for insult.

Facebook is less popular in Germany than other European countries, with only around two in five internet users logging on each month, according to researchers eMarketer.

That’s in part due to collective memories of hate-filled propaganda that date back to Germany’s 20th century history of Nazi and Communist rule that don’t always sit well with Facebook’s broad view on freedom of speech.

Chief Executive Mark Zuckerberg faced criticism in Germany after saying in a recent interview that Facebook should not delete statements denying that the Holocaust happened – a crime in Germany. He later clarified his remarks.

Facebook has a dedicated team of 65 staff handling complaints under the NetzDG, Allan said, adding that this could be adjusted in line with the number of complaints.

From January to June, Facebook removed a total of around 2.5 million posts that violated its own community standards designed to prevent abusive behaviour on the platform.

“We have taken a very careful look at the German law,” Allan wrote in his blog, which was published in German.

“That’s why we are convinced that the overwhelming majority of content considered hate speech in Germany, would be removed if it were examined to see whether it violates our community standards.”

A lawmaker for Chancellor Angela Merkel’s ruling Christian Democratic Union (CDU), Tankred Schipanski, said the NetzDG law – which requires social platforms to remove offensive posts within 24 hours – was doing the job for which it was intended.

($1 = 0.8579 euros)

In recent years, there’s been a significant rise in homophobic hate crime in the UK. According to the latest figures in fact, one in four members of the LGBTQI community have been victim to hate crime as a result of their sexual orientation.

As with any form of hate crime, the emotional, psychological and physical effects of such harassment are harrowing. However, homophobic attitudes do not simply manifest themselves in verbally and physically abusive attacks by strangers on the street.

They are of course the end of the line of a spectrum of homophobic views which are evident in the discriminatory behaviour and social attitudes of non-LGBTQI peers. And as documented by the NHS, homophobic discrimination and bullying can (and does) lead to poor mental health amongst members of the LGBTQI community. This can include depression and even suicidal thoughts.

Gay or Muslim: An invented dichotomy

It’s exactly these social attitudes which we need to address within the Muslim community. As a “straight” Muslim, I’m calling on the Muslim community to tackle the last “unspoken taboo”: faith and sexuality.

You see, as soon as the words “gay”, “LGBT”, “lesbian” or “homosexual” enter into the conversation, many Muslims will sit up in a certain panicked gaze. For the created dichotomy of Muslim or gay is the “norm” in many circles. They may shout: “You can’t be Muslim and gay!” and feel this is totally appropriate and “correct”. For such people, if you are gay then you are “not Muslim”. Now, I’m not discussing the intricate details of fiqh, Islamic law, history and Qur’anic interpretation in regards to sexual identity (I’m not a scholar and in-depth unbiased scholarship is in fact already lacking in this issue). Instead, I’m highlighting the harmful social attitudes prevalent within the Muslim community and the way that LGBTQI Muslims are in most cases denied the right to “mainstream” community life. In explicit terms, the LGBTQI community at large is denied the right to simply stand as Muslim and gay.

Whether or not you see homosexuality as “haram” (sinful), let’s just acknowledge the fact that you do not often see the same exclusionary and judgemental behaviour towards Muslims who drink, gamble or commit adultery. Such takfiri judgement (declaring someone to be non-Muslim) seems to be almost exclusively reserved for people who are deemed “too different” and who engage in beliefs and practices far from the “normalised” notion of what “Islam” is and what is “compatible” with such “Islam” (note that there is no one “Islam” – Islam is diverse in scholarly tradition and history). This is exactly the same kind of takfiri behaviour we see in relation to Muslims outside the Sunni majority within certain circles and with certain individuals.

Within many Muslim circles, there is little/no room for basic tolerance of the LGBTQI community as Muslim. This does therefore not extend to acceptance (and logically neither agreement) of belief in regards to how they practice their faith and accept/live their sexuality.

Excluded: Little room for queer tolerance

What am I basing this on? Well this is not simply a reflection of a range of social experiences both within LGBTQI friendly and “mainstream” circles I have witnessed and lived but also the self-profession of non-queer Muslims themselves.

Back in 2016 for example, a survey undertaken for a Channel 4 documentary found that half of all British Muslims believe that homosexuality should be illegal. Even more shocking than this disregard for diversity of opinion and practice is the fact that almost 50% of participants also stated that they did not believe it was acceptable for a member of the LGBTQI community to work as a teacher.

It has of course been noted that similar views would also be expressed from members of other (orthodox traditions) and whilst that is undoubtedly true, I have also witnessed for myself the range of LGBTQI friendly spaces within the Christian and Jewish communities. Yet there are sadly few such examples within the British or global Muslim community. Social attitudes which demonise members of the LGBTQI community are prevalent in many Muslim circles.

Organisations such as Imaan – Europe’s largest organisation working to support LGBTQI Muslims – make up a very small body of organisations who work to tackle the issues faced by the LGBTQI Muslim community and offer a safe space of tolerance and belonging. Imaan for example is not generally welcomed within the wider Muslim community and that’s the major indicative point here of the reality faced by the Muslim LGBTQI community.

Dishonour: Denial to death

The issues at hand and consequence are real, complex and wide-ranging for the victims. They include the denial of basic freedoms/rights and extend to explicit abuse, ranging from stigma and taboo – with the takfiri notions of “he/she is not Muslim” – to even violent attacks.

Not only are many denied the right to acceptance – or at least a sense of tolerance or diversity – but also the right to join a community, to pray in congregation, to be loved, accepted and even enjoin in the right to family and to life.

Sons and daughters who bravely “come out” to their families or who are “exposed”, instead of acceptance and love (even more so tolerance) face family rejection. They are often simply disowned with many facing verbal or physical abuse. They may even pushed into marriage and at worst become victims of an honour killing as Peter Tatchell of The Peter Tatchell Foundation explains:

 “…LGBT Muslims are some of the most victimised people in Britain today. While not all Muslims are homophobic, a disproportionate number LGBT Muslims are pushed out of their homes by their families, ostracised by their communities and banned from worshipping at their mosque… We had reported to us a case of a gay Muslim man from the Midlands who was lured back to Pakistan on the pretext of a family reunion. When he got there he was hacked to death for being gay.”

We can clearly see that there is a real problem here ranging with non-tolerance at the very bottom of the scale, to violent murder at the very far end.

Moving forward: Critical literary engagement

There are two issues at hand first. Firstly, no matter your beliefs, such abhorrent violent behaviour is morally repugnant. Everyone has the right to practice their faith, to live safely and to be free from abuse.

Secondly, the other issue which has so far been ignored by a large segment of the Muslim community is that of accepting sexual diversity – not merely condemning street-based attacks and even murder. Given how crucial sexuality is to human identity and one’s emotional and psychological wellbeing, we need to actively engage in discourse on sexual diversity – examining the Qur’an and hadith and Islamic history.

In a previous interview with Islamic feminist and scholar Dr Amina Wadud, Dr Wadud informed me about her latest piece of key research on sexual diversity in Islam and why such work is so crucial:

“I believe that certain things are outdated and we need to figure out how to address them succinctly and not to defer to past – even intellectual – engagements as if the matter is closed… We have growing diversities in our community and… whenever I describe the research project I always say sexual diversity and human dignity… I want to bring the conversation to hopefully a more nuanced way and just make it possible for us to open up to have some genuine conversations.”

Having genuine conversations is such a seemingly small yet massive step for our community. This indeed is exactly the kind of work we need and I for one welcome such scholarship, discussion and engagement.

Indeed, the time has come. Enough is enough. We cannot ignore the needs of our brothers and sisters of faith within the LGBTQI community. It’s time we stepped out into the open and spoke about this crucial issue. Sexuality should not be a taboo. It’s a reality. I therefore call on faith leaders to welcome Muslims of all backgrounds – regardless of sexual identity, gender, ethnicity, age or religious “sect” – into their mosque. Allah Almighty is the Creator and Allah is our judge, not us.

To start with, I recommend the training provided by Faith and Belief Forum. For non-faith leaders, I advise getting to know the people who are so often stigmatised and hear about their experiences, their realities and their needs. By simply standing with them, we can start to break this outdated, closeted, ill-informed taboo.

By Elizabeth Arif-Fear, Founder of Voice of Salam

This briefing paper is another in the series of publications that fall into the Islamophobia and Anti-Muslim prejudice themes which Faith Matters is developing. This briefing paper looks at the individuals who were behind the recent YouTube production of the ‘Innocence of Muslims’ trailer, their motivations and their connections. The briefing paper looks at the network of individuals who are involved in anti-Islamic and anti-Muslim activities and let us not forget that the Innocence of Muslims YouTube publication lead to demonstrations that ended in the deaths of individuals in other countries.

This paper looks at Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, Steven Klein, Joseph Nasralla Abdelmasih and Morris Sadek. All are linked through their virulent anti-Islam beliefs, but all are very different characters. We at Faith Matters believe that it is important to identify these men. We hope that this paper shines a light on those who thought that creating divisions was a way of shaping future Muslim and Christian relations. Not only were their actions deeply morally offensive and factually wrong, their desire to create tensions should be a wake-up call to all those who believe in co-existence and mutual understanding. Unless people of good will do not stand up and shape our future relationships, those who seek division are not far behind.