Follow the leader
Why does Ruth Gledhill call Bari ‘leader of Britain’s Muslims’? Why would anyone (apart from aspiring MCB aparatchiks at least) call him that? Britain’s Muslims don’t have a leader, as I imagine most of them would agree. Britain’s Christians (for instance) don’t have a leader, so why say Britain’s Muslims do? In fact why even talk about ‘leaders’ at all? Think of who else liked to bandy about the word – there was the dear Duce, and the dear Führer – but anyone else? It’s not really a very exact term, so why use it? (Because it’s not an exact term. Yes I know, but that’s what I’m complaining of.) We don’t even call heads of state ‘leader of X’s Ys’ – we call them presidents or prime ministers or juntas, as the case may be.
I’m tempted to think it’s sinister and infantilizing, but when I grab my elbow and tell myself to think more carefully, I have to conclude that it’s just an artifact of the excess deference that was paid to the MCB for a long time. The head of the MCB has to be called something, and since everyone seemed to think the MCB was in some way representative (even though it wasn’t), it doubtless seemed to make sense to call him (it always is a man, of course; one of many strikes against the ‘representative’ delusion) ‘the leader.’ But the whole idea has been getting a second look lately, so let’s pull our socks up and not flatter the head of the MCB any more.
Britain’s Christians – or at least the Anglicans, the overwhelming majotity of British Christians – do have a leader, in the far from inspiring figure of Rowan Williams, Archbishop of Canterbury. The problem is that writers like Ruth Gledhill try to impose a similar hierarchy onto Muslims, when there isn’t one. The MCB have been only too happy to go along with the illusion.
I thought of the Archbishop, but he’s really not ‘the leader of Britain’s Christians’ – which would be the right equivalent of being ‘the leader of Britain’s Muslims.’ (Are you sure it’s even true that Anglicans are the overwhelming majority of British Christians?)
And anyway, does he get called ‘the leader’ much? Doesn’t he get called the Archbishop? I think people like Gledhill don’t think Christians have leaders in that way. (Is there a Christian Council of Britain? If there is, does anyone give a fuck what it thinks?) Yet they think Muslims do. Why is that? Excessive deference to the MCB is (still), I assume, part of the reason – but then the deference itself needs explaining. Any way you look at it it seems infantilizing.
Of course, technically, the ‘dear’ old Queen (An End To Monarchy Be Upon Her) is the titular head of the Church of Angle-land, but she doesn’t exactly give many religious pronouncements…
so I’d have to say that yes, the Archbishop of Cant(sic) is usually regarded as the “leader” of the Anglicans, but then as an alternative you’ve got Cardinal Cormac Murphy O’Conman (also sic. in fact, VERY sic) who is most definitely, officially “top Tim” (derogatory weegie-ism used entirely deliberately), but only, again, in Angle-land. The moderator of the CoS would undoubtedly want to chip in with an opinion, while the Wee Frees would inevitably disagree with anyone you proposed as ecumenical “leader” on principle…etc,etc
:-)
Let’s face it, these religionists are a schismatic lot, aren’t they? So it’s understandable (if not acceptable) that some hack like Gledhill is going to make lazy assumptions that reward those who shout loudest…sounds a lot like a primary school, doesn’t it?
;-)
Andy I would remind you if you republican chaps had your way that God awful Thatcher woman would probably have been our president back in the 80s! long live our gracious Queen I say.
OB: “Doesn’t he get called the Archbishop?” – its worse than that – old beardy is called ‘your grace’. This is often accompanied by the sound of throwing up. And why do you grab your elbow when you need to think? Very strange.
Richard, in the absence of the monarchy, it is unlikely that Thatcher would have wanted to be president, as we would likely adopt the Irish model of having president as a ceremonial head of state with little real power – somehow I don’t thank that was Thatcher’s thing.
Anyway, I think that even Mrs T as head of state would be better than the chinless wonder who is next in line at the moment.
The Charles who thinks that homeopathy is valid, the Charles who denigrates science and promotes irrationality, the Charles who pretends to be a champion of the environment and then spends every week-end blasting any living thing that happens to fly by (and it appears with the boy Harry’s recent adventures in slaughtering Hen Harriers, that he has taught his son to do the same), the Charles who is a close friend of Saudi dictators, the Charles who wants us to be ruled by a religion (any religion, he’s not fussy) and wishes that we could all live in the 1950’s, the Charles who stated at the time of his first marriage that he wasn’t going to be the first prince of Wales who did not have a mistress. That Charles? Yes, Richard, maybe you have a point, he seems ok.
OB: “Are you sure it’s even true that Anglicans are the overwhelming majority of British Christians?”
Out of interest I had a quick look for some figures. In 1995, apparently, the Anglican church had 26.7m adherents, the RCs 5.6m, and other denominations 5.3m. Don’t know how they got the figures (and not all that interested, to be honest) but it sounds reasonable to me. From here – http://www.vexen.co.uk/UK/religion.html#Sunday%20Attendance
Dear David Cameron is officially known as ‘the leader of Her Majesty’s opposition’ I believe…
Thanks for the figures Mick. I was thinking that perhaps Catholics, non-Anglican prods and non-churchgoing xians might add up to something approaching half – but apparently not. (Unless the stats have changed a lot since ’95, or the source didn’t count nonchurchgoers, or both.)
Now leader of the opposition is a legitimate use of the word. It is official, and the people being led have signed up to being led in that way. ‘Britain’s Muslims’ have not [all] signed up to being ‘led’ by Bari – to put it mildly. Sloppy journalists shouldn’t impose leaders on us in that way.
The Tearfund Survey – in 2007 revealed 53% identifying themselves as Christian compared to 71.6% in the 2001 UK Census. Only 7% of people in the UK are actually practicing Christians.
Also,
The United Kingdom has a large and growing atheist and agnostic population with 13,626,000 (23.2% of the UK population) either claiming no religion or not answering the question on religion at the 2001 census.
Re: The Supreme Governor of the Church of England
Even though the monarch’s authority over the Church of England is not strong, its position is still very relevant to the church and is mostly observed in a symbolic capacity. The Supreme Governor’s prerogative to appoint high-ranking members of the church remains in the hands of the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom who makes the appointments based on church leaders’ advice.