That ‘uncle tom’ jibe again


by Sunny
31st May, 2007 at 10:48 am    

Last week the Euston Manifesto group held a debate titled ‘Terror and Liberalism’ at the Houses of Parliament. Among those participating where Reem Maghribi of Sharq Magazineand Imran Ahmad, author of ‘Unimagined: a Muslim boy meets the West’ and board member of British Muslims for Secular Democracy.

In the subsequent debate on Harry’s Place, some commenters accused Imran Ahmad of being an ‘Uncle Tom’. Yes, it’s getting quite typical for some on the left who can’t stand it when a brown person does not fall for their agenda.

Anyway, Imran wrote a forceful reply in the comments [hat tip: Sid] and we publish that here with his consent. It’s worth reading.

********************

When I agreed to participate in the Euston Manifesto discussion, and subsequently posted on this board, I had no idea what I was getting into. Let me set the record straight on some things.

There is no way that I could ever be construed as pro-Zionist.

I have great anger towards the state of Israel for the many atrocities it has committed, including last summer’s hideous one-sided destruction of Lebanon and the endless and on-going dehumanisation and oppression of the Palestinians – which, of course, creates the very suicide bombers that Israel protests about and uses as justification for its actions.

On the other hand … if I was to be accused of a crime of which I was actually innocent, and had to undergo the necessary justice process (investigation and possible trial) leading to the establishment of my innocence, and this event had to take place in any Middle Eastern country – where would I choose it to be? I would choose Israel, because that is the only country in the whole extended region (Africa to China) where there is any concept of due process and human rights/dignity and ‘innocent until proven guilty’ and any chance of a remotely fair trial for anyone who is not a member of the social elite.

So I don’t have a simple black-and-white view on Israel.

If I could undo history and shape it so that Israel was never created in the callous and inhuman way that it was, involving the dispossession of the Palestinian people, I would do so. I would also undo the Partition of India, and the horse-trading of Arabia to the Al-Saud tribe, and the colonisation and fragmentation of Ireland …

We do not have the luxury of un-doing history, so we have to move forward. In principle, everyone wants peace, but too many people want revenge first, and then peace. You don’ t have to be a genius to understand that this is a closed loop.

The Palestinians will never get their old lands back by a military defeat of Israel – that will never happen. Israel has a nuclear arsenal capable of obliterating the entire region and would doubtless do so if faced with an actual (implausible) military defeat.

I am a pragmatist. We all need to be pragmatists and move on. I would like to see a world in which the future of today’s young Palestinians and young Israelis is not skewered by the crimes of the past. That means two neighbouring states living in peace, security and prosperity, with open trade and free movement of people and no requirement for terrorism or military action by either side. This isn’t going to happen at all unless the dehumanisation stops and is replaced by mutual respect.

Now you will call me a naïve idealist and that is fine, but there will be no break in the existing cycle – of terrorism and military action and more terrorism – unless this kind of change takes place. And that means people of good intent being wiling to sit together and behave with mutual respect. Hence I am happy to work with the Euston Manifesto, because I see nothing in their aims with which I violently disagree.

I think I’ve established that I’m not a Zionist, but I see nothing constructive in the blanket demonisation of Israel. I also recognise that Israel is not a singular unified entity – it is almost schizophrenic in its struggle to define its own identity.

On the issue of ‘Islamist terrorism’, there are people today who are naïve enough to see the world in a simple polarised way (‘the West against Islam’) and from this perspective it makes sense to them to blow-up civilians in London, ‘because of Iraq, Palestine, Kashmir, Chechnya, Bosnia etc’. I make no apology for stating that we have to deal with this crass simplification at a long term strategic level, and in the meantime have to deal with the terrorist threat at a heavy-handed tactical level, with no patience for those who propagate or sympathise with this nonsense.

I can understand why some people in the Islamic world might think this way – because they don’t know the West and they don’t understand its complexity and broad spectrum of attitudes. They are shown the Abu Ghraib pictures and the ‘British abuse’ photos (no-one told tells them they are fake) and they hear about American soldiers indiscriminately shooting any nearby Iraqis (because their best buddy just got blown into pieces by a soul-dead suicide bomber) and they hear about Bosnia and Chechnya and it becomes compellingly obvious to them that ‘the West’ is engaged in a ‘war against Islam’.

But those brought up in the UK have no excuse for such simplistic thinking. They should understand that the situation is not so simple (fortunately) – the West is largely secular and driven by economic, security and even humanitarian concerns, but not by theological ones. We have to re-educate these people in the long term, but in the short term we need to be quite abrupt with them.

If some Muslims are inconvenienced in the early hours because of intelligence received about them, I regret that, but our top priority must be to prevent another terrorist outrage. That would be the worst thing that could happen for every community in Britain, but most especially the Muslim communities. The security service and police have no choice but to act when intelligence is received – they cannot err on the side of not hurting Muslim feelings. The fact that some suspects are released without charge is our reassurance that the system is working (in ‘Islamic’ countries, they would just fabricate or extract-by-torture the necessary evidence).

Too many Muslims are making the mistake of identifying themselves tribally with terrorist suspects, because of common religion and/or ethnicity, rather than with the mainstream population. This is the tribal trap, a common human instinct.

Those Muslims who believe that the police and security service would invest huge amounts of resources, money and time to harass a few Muslims purely out of simple racism, should relocate themselves to any of the ‘Muslim’ countries, where they can enjoy the very fine policing and justice processes available there.

My hatred for Omar Bakri, for example, could not be greater and I would gladly pummel him to death myself, but this would take some doing, as he is very obese (fed by my own taxes). This deeply emotional position of mine is not determined by any mindless, mendacious Islamophobic tabloid newspaper, but what I witnessed with my own eyes and ears. I saw a television interview of him in Beirut (conducted in English, so no western conspiracy there).

He described the 7/7 bombers as ‘martyrs’, (I’m still calm), but when he was asked, ‘What about that devout Muslim girl who was killed in the bombings’, he replied dismissively, ‘Oh, her family should receive blood money [to make up for it]’. At this point, he blew my fuse with his callous, bigoted and mediaeval attitude to the murder of someone’s daughter, someone’s sister. If the British Government would kindly grant me a temporary permit (à la 00), I will gladly kill him on our behalf.

On America, I have great feelings of affection and warmth for that country and those of its people that I have encountered, in general. I lived there for five years and really enjoyed and appreciated it. However, in my book I mention both my awe of America and my extreme disquiet about some of its foreign policy choices in the past.

I abhor the actions and attitudes of the Cheney Administration, which has destroyed the standing of that great nation in the eyes of all reasonable people the world over. (I anxiously await the new Administration and pray that the Cheney regime does not further brutally destabilise the world with its self-righteous, callous and utterly incompetent sledgehammer strategies).

On the issue of my book, my publisher would be pretty useless if s/he did not write nice blurb on the jacket, but s/he has actually understated how funny and insightful it really is. But you can get some more opinions here: www.unimagined.co.uk

So, what am I then? An anti-Semitic racist? A Zionist puppet? A neo-con Uncle Tom? A terrorist apologist? An Islamic fascist?

Or someone trying to cut through the emotion and hysteria and try to make some progress in an extremely complex world.

Anyway, a thousand years from now, everything will look completely different and nothing like any of us expect.


              Post to del.icio.us


Filed in: Current affairs,Middle East






162 Comments below   |  

Reactions: Twitter, blogs
  1. From The Cabin at The Euston Manifesto Blog

    [...] of the participants in the recent EM Parliamentary debate on “Terror and Liberalism” defends himself against an accusation of his being an “Uncle Tom”. Filed under United Kingdom, [...]




  1. Random Guy — on 31st May, 2007 at 12:33 pm  

    This article is very enlightening and informative with a very westernised muslim expressing a reasonable and well thought out argument, it must be noted that statements such as

    “We all need to be pragmatists and move on”

    are very easy to take in the relative comfort of the West.

    Why is “moving on” being pragmatic? I disagree.

    IMO, we all have to be pragmatic and hit the brakes on the stuff that is killing our planet. On the lies and spin that have destroyed a country and killed millions. How about being pragmatic about that?

    I am also curious as to how well traveled this gentleman is in the ‘region’ of China and Africa to make his blanket statements. Or did he read loads of western papers during his 5 year stint in the US???

    Although this article is a good one, I am afraid that I find it hopelessly biased.

  2. Chairwoman — on 31st May, 2007 at 12:51 pm  

    Poor Imran, he writes a well thought out, pragmatic and enlightened article, and the first person on our site to comment on it displays the same old prejudices.

    The world turns, and time moves on. We must move with it, for we can’t stand still, and regression seems to be the only alternative offered by too many.

  3. Random Guy — on 31st May, 2007 at 1:09 pm  

    @Chairwoman: just goes to show that winning “hearts and minds” takes more than a well written article. And also, for my benefit seeing as how you are so enlightened, please list the old prejudices that I so clearly displayed in my post.

  4. TheFriendlyInfidel — on 31st May, 2007 at 1:47 pm  

    Imran Ahmad has my vote.

    TFI

  5. Chairwoman — on 31st May, 2007 at 2:10 pm  

    ‘We all need to be pragmatists and move on”

    are very easy to take in the relative comfort of the West.’

    ‘ Or did he read loads of western papers during his 5 year stint in the US???’

    There are two of them, Random (may I call you Random?). The implication being that the ME can’t become pragmatic, being the first, and that reading American papers can seriously brain-wash your health, being the second.

    I read the New York Times online every day, and have done for about 5 years coincidentally, and I have been astonished how opposed to US government policy it (and the Washington Post and LA Times for that matter),is.

  6. Random Guy — on 31st May, 2007 at 2:49 pm  

    @Chairwoman:

    “The ME can’t become pragmatic”.

    Well, it all depends on your definition of pragmatic, doesn’t it? What is pragmatic for one party is not pragmatic for the other. Is this not obvious?

    About American papers, I think it is a bit unreasonable to say that they “brain-wash” people. I certainly did not make such a remark. I do think that if you saturate yourself with the views of one side of a debate that you lose objectivity. For all the NYT’s objections against the war, does not change the fact that its reporting is completely aligned to the U.S. POV (unsurprsingly). It also gives some legitimacy to the concept of free speech while murder is carried out elsewhere.

    I don’t mean to sound unreasonable, brash or harsh (and I realise that I do), but this article – while a good step to take – is not convincing to me. I agree with a lot of it, but it has major flaws in its understanding of events (IMO of course). It oversimplifies and whitewashes very complex attitudes, and proposes very soft solutions to horriblly complicated situations. It is also no surprise that all these solutions cater to the “roll over and take it” school of thinking. Maybe that is why other people will find it so popular.

    Oh, and call me Random if it makes you feel happy :)

  7. Muzumdar — on 31st May, 2007 at 4:33 pm  

    ‘this article – while a good step to take – is not convincing to me.’

    Absolutely. And what’s more is the fact that he is saying nothing new whatsoever.

    I think what probably irks Muslims, as well as the “roll over and take it” attitude, is the name of his group: ‘British Muslims for Secular Democracy.’

    The problem is one of definition and ideology. Blair/Bush keep banging on about bringing ‘secular democracy’ to the ME, but all they have delivered is mass death and a few puppet governments.

    Blair and Bush’s persistence in applying the words ‘secular democracy’ to a place like Iraq, when all that Iraq is is a basket case, has effectively bastardised the words’ meaning, more so in the minds’ of Muslims. So when they see a Muslim speaking under the banner of ‘secular democracy’, they get suspicious.

    Add to this the plain fact that Islam, as a political system, is anything but secular or democratic it’s no surprise that Muslims perceive this man as an ‘Uncle Tom’.

  8. Anas — on 31st May, 2007 at 5:26 pm  

    On the other hand … if I was to be accused of a crime of which I was actually innocent, and had to undergo the necessary justice process (investigation and possible trial) leading to the establishment of my innocence, and this event had to take place in any Middle Eastern country – where would I choose it to be? I would choose Israel, because that is the only country in the whole extended region (Africa to China) where there is any concept of due process and human rights/dignity and ‘innocent until proven guilty’ and any chance of a remotely fair trial for anyone who is not a member of the social elite.

    LOL, the innocent until proven guilty bit does that apply to all the ‘extra-judicial killings’ Israel carries out (with the usual added ‘collateral damage’? And the concept of due process and human rights/dignity in Israel? Maybe if you’re not a Palestinian.

    We do not have the luxury of un-doing history, so we have to move forward. In principle, everyone wants peace, but too many people want revenge first, and then peace. You don’ t have to be a genius to understand that this is a closed loop.
    The Palestinians will never get their old lands back by a military defeat of Israel – that will never happen. Israel has a nuclear arsenal capable of obliterating the entire region and would doubtless do so if faced with an actual (implausible) military defeat.
    I am a pragmatist. We all need to be pragmatists and move on. I would like to see a world in which the future of today’s young Palestinians and young Israelis is not skewered by the crimes of the past. That means two neighbouring states living in peace, security and prosperity, with open trade and free movement of people and no requirement for terrorism or military action by either side. This isn’t going to happen at all unless the dehumanisation stops and is replaced by mutual respect.
    Now you will call me a naïve idealist and that is fine, but there will be no break in the existing cycle – of terrorism and military action and more terrorism – unless this kind of change takes place. And that means people of good intent being wiling to sit together and behave with mutual respect. Hence I am happy to work with the Euston Manifesto, because I see nothing in their aims with which I violently disagree.
    I think I’ve established that I’m not a Zionist, but I see nothing constructive in the blanket demonisation of Israel. I also recognise that Israel is not a singular unified entity – it is almost schizophrenic in its struggle to define its own identity.

    Straw man. The fact remains that there cannot be peace without an end to occupation (the removal of illegal settlements), viable statehood, and ultimately justice for the Palestinians under the terms of international law — there is no moving on from that, and neither should the Palestinians be expected to ‘pragmatically’ do otherwise. This is what many pro-Israelis try and gloss over by painting Palestinians and pro-Palestinian activists as driven by an overwhelming lust to destroy and defeat Israel for good and that they can’t see past their need to see Israelis driven into the sea, framing things in a particular misleading way.

    If some Muslims are inconvenienced in the early hours because of intelligence received about them, I regret that, but our top priority must be to prevent another terrorist outrage.

    Or if some Muslims are shot, or taken to Guantanamo bay or taken by extradition abroad to be tortured, or the concept of “innocent until proven guilty” that Imran was so fond of doesn’t apply to terror suspects…it’s all good, right? Oh yeah, we should stop whining and just put up, cause it’s so much worse in Muslim countries.

    Too many Muslims are making the mistake of identifying themselves tribally with terrorist suspects, because of common religion and/or ethnicity, rather than with the mainstream population. This is the tribal trap, a common human instinct.

    No, too many of them are making the mistake of identifying themselves with Iraqis, Palestinians, Kasmiris, the Lebanese that were being bombed to fuck last year.

    Those Muslims who believe that the police and security service would invest huge amounts of resources, money and time to harass a few Muslims purely out of simple racism, should relocate themselves to any of the ‘Muslim’ countries, where they can enjoy the very fine policing and justice processes available there.

    i.e., if you don’t like it, leave

    So, what am I then? An anti-Semitic racist? A Zionist puppet? A neo-con Uncle Tom? A terrorist apologist? An Islamic fascist

    Don’t know about those, but I can think of a few other terms.

    Anyway, a thousand years from now, everything will look completely different and nothing like any of us expect.

    it doesn’t matter about a thousand years mate, cause you know what WE’LL ALL BE DEAD BY THEN. Now is what matters. The bloody disaster of US/British foreign policy is what matters to me. There are no many assumptions in Imran’s piece that make my skin crawl, but the biggest insult I could make is that Imran’s certainly in good company with that slimy Euston Manifesto/Harry’s Place crowd..and yeah, Uncle Tom sounds about right.

  9. Muzumdar — on 31st May, 2007 at 5:37 pm  

    Anas

    You are a funny guy. It always amuses me when people of Pakistani origin blabber like babies about Israel.

    Pakistan is the Muslim version of Israel. Created by the imperialist British and propped up by the imperialist US.

    Ever stopped to consider the millions upon millions of Sikhs and Hindus that were slaughtered by Muslims to make way for Pakistan? Ever thought about giving back their houses to them? Do you want to give me back my grandfather’s house in Lahore? No? didn’t think so.

    So why should Israel make any concessions to the Palestinians? At least the Israelis haven’t butchered all the Palestinians within Israel (they still make up 20% of the population). Of course this is unlike the Pakistanis, who have slaughtered millions of non-Muslims to such an extent that their number is around 0.1%.

    Of course this doesn’t bother you because you apply double standards. On the one hand you want the Pals to be given their land back, but on the other, you are unwilling to give back Lahore and all the canal colonies you stole from Sikh and Hindus.

    Cry me river.

  10. sid — on 31st May, 2007 at 5:44 pm  

    Muzumdar nam rekhechen, kintu bangla bolte paren?

  11. Ms_Xtreme — on 31st May, 2007 at 6:01 pm  

    Oh Me Gosh. Those two ^ have gone off the deep end. Fun to watch.

    Anyways, Imran Ahmed did a great job with his response to all the speculation. I have only one concern, isn’t he contradicting himself when he says:

    That means two neighbouring states living in peace, security and prosperity, with open trade and free movement of people and no requirement for terrorism or military action by either side. This isn’t going to happen at all unless the dehumanisation stops and is replaced by mutual respect.

    And then..

    and in the meantime have to deal with the terrorist threat at a heavy-handed tactical level, with no patience for those who propagate or sympathise with this nonsense.

    So you want them to break the cycle of terrorism, military action, terrorism – but then you want to deal with the current terrorists with a “heavy-hand?” Am I just not getting it?

    The Palestinians will never get their old lands back by a military defeat of Israel

    Oh bloody hell. Palestinians NEVER DID have that land. That land was given to the Israelies (by accounts of several religious scriptures). I have to laugh at anyone who ever argues that the Palestinians are trying to save the home they were given. BS.

    Now you will call me a naïve idealist and that is fine, but there will be no break in the existing cycle – of terrorism and military action and more terrorism – unless this kind of change takes place. And that means people of good intent being wiling to sit together and behave with mutual respect.

    AAAAAmen to that my brother. Good luck with that.

  12. ZinZin — on 31st May, 2007 at 6:51 pm  

    Anas you disagree fine. But calling him an uncle Tom is unacceptable or do yo think that individuals who by an accident of birth happen to be the same race have to have the same opinions? Likewise religion?

    MrAhmad response was well constructed and should be something for peaceniks and peacemakers to build on.

  13. Roger — on 31st May, 2007 at 7:21 pm  

    ” What is pragmatic for one party is not pragmatic for the other. Is this not obvious? ”
    No. What is pragmatic is both parties directly involved recognising that neither party can get all it wants and settling for what it can get. I fear that in Israel/Palestine neither side- nor the other parties indirectly involved- can be pragmatic and that the only pragmatic solution is not to recognise that fact and the probable consequences of it.

  14. TheFriendlyInfidel — on 31st May, 2007 at 7:25 pm  

    Muzumdar, the thing about double standards is knowing when you do it. For instance I may tell my nephews not to steal, but then I download movies from the internet.

    The problem with the truly faithful is that they can never tell that they are doing so, mostly because they believe they hold the absolute truth and we are the enlightened.

    If they ever have any doubts ever, they need only go and talk to other believers about it to have their confidence restored.

    Sometimes its funny, you can laugh at it … but these days these muppets throw their weight around to much.

    Anas is as it says on the tin, an Anas.

    TFI

  15. Muzumdar — on 31st May, 2007 at 7:53 pm  

    TheFriendlyInfidel

    I think it has got beyond a joke when imbeciles like Anas – ie Palestinians and their supporters, who range from Bengali peasants to high profile Westerners – are given a platform to shove their illogical, ill-conceived and hypocritical rubbish all over our media.

    Muslims are also fed rather pathetic propaganda regarding the ‘plight’ of the Palestinians; but this is no surprise. In Israel, Muslim leaders found a perfect scapegoat for their pathetic governance and have perpetuated a myth – that simpletons like Anas fall for every time – that Israel is the bane of the Muslim world. In reality, Israel is not responsible for the gangsters and loonies who run Islamdom. Every people deserves the leaders it gets.

    Of course, as I have said before, this obsession with Israel on the part of the West is simply veiled anti-semitism. Edward W Said, a Palestinian no-less, claimed that when the West was secularised what resulted was a very Christian secularism, and one thing that remained from the old order was anti-semitism. This manifests itself in an unnatural obsession with the state of Israel and its so-called barbarity – how barbaric of the Israelis to offer the Palestinians statehood on four separate occasions. How barbaric to give them representation in parliament. Contrast this to the Jews who were butchered or booted out of Arab lands in 1948.

    It is no wonder Anas has gone silent.

  16. Chairwoman — on 31st May, 2007 at 8:16 pm  

    Don’t worry, he’ll be back.

    I’m staying out of this now it’s turned into an I/P dialogue.

  17. sid — on 31st May, 2007 at 8:35 pm  

    who range from Bengali peasants to high profile Westerners

    get the self-loathing there. and where do you figure yourself in your post-colonial hierarchy, troll?

  18. Muzumdar — on 31st May, 2007 at 8:40 pm  

    Chairwoman

    This isn’t just an I/P dialogue. My aim was to draw a historical parallel that was relevant to Anas’ post and his attitude re: Israel.

    Simply put: Sikhs and Hindus who were mercilessly driven from their homes to make way for a Muslim state have not embarked on a campaign to reclaim their land, homes and property through violent agitation, suicide bombing or bithcing for 60 years. They have got on with life.

    Surely, you must have an opinion on the historical parallel, no?

  19. Muzumdar — on 31st May, 2007 at 8:49 pm  

    sidney

    ‘get the self-loathing there. and where do you figure yourself in your post-colonial hierarchy, troll?’

    Calling me a troll is easy. Challenging my argument is slightly more difficult, which is why you chose the former.

    No self-loathing here.

    The postcolonial hierarchy is almost identical to the colonial one. In India there is an upper-caste nepotistic capitalist oligarchy who run the country and are happy to have a proletariat living in poverty (during colonial times, they were the sub-proletariat ruled by upper-class capitalist British people).

    Pakistan is run by a combination of the Punjabi mafia, the military and some crack-head mullahs.

    Where do I figure myself in this vortex of shame? I think I’ve said enough on PP in the past to clarify my political position.

  20. http://modernityblog.blogspot.com/ — on 31st May, 2007 at 9:06 pm  

    as a HP “regular” I would like to apologise to Imran Ahmad, the thread at HP discussing those issues was sidetracked by a SWP member who insisted in whitewashing the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem’s collaboration with the Nazis during WW2, a number of us made an effort to correct this distorted view of history, but the whole thread sadly went to bits

    I think Imran Ahmad should have a guest post at Harry’s Place as he clearly has an intelligent outlook on life, and an interesting point of view.

  21. Vikrant — on 31st May, 2007 at 9:08 pm  

    Muzumdar,

    Ever stopped to consider the millions upon millions of Sikhs and Hindus that were slaughtered by Muslims to make way for Pakistan?

    Just like your Khalli chums were butchering Hindus to make way for Kahlistan not so many years ago…

    Anyways I’d have to grant it that you have a point, even if you are being a bit hypocritical. I have Sindhi relations in my extended family who were kicked out of Sukkur during partition. The refugees of partition both Hindu and Sikh have moved on with their lives even though Sindhi Hindus were left without a land to call their own. India doesnt have an equivalent of Mujahir community!

  22. Muzumdar — on 31st May, 2007 at 9:20 pm  

    Vikrant

    I really can’t be bothered to dismantle you (again) in another argument about Khalistan. All I will say, as I have done in the past on PP, is that I disassociate myself entirely from the 1980s struggle for Khalistan. Killing innocent Hindus is something that I abhor.

    ‘I’d have to grant it that you have a point’

    Of course I have a point. They shameful hypocrisy of the Muslim Ummah is all too apparent and quite sickening, especially if you happen to be a Sikh or Hindu from the sub-continent.

    It is Muslim hypocrisy that makes me sympathise with the BJP’s call to tear down all the Mosques on the sub-continent, annihilate Pakistan and send all Muslims back to the Arabia, where they belong.

  23. . — on 31st May, 2007 at 9:20 pm  

    I was going to say, I thought the very last place someone would be accused of being an uncle tom was on HP, where the apologism for last year’s brutal attack on Lebanon was over abundant.

  24. Vikrant — on 31st May, 2007 at 9:42 pm  

    Muzu,

    I can assure you that the BJP doesnt endorse annihilation of Pakistan, tearing down of mosques or ethnic cleansing of Muslims from India, given that they have 5-6 Muslims MPs themselves.

    Genocidal wetdreams are best left to your kind.

  25. Vikrant — on 31st May, 2007 at 9:43 pm  

    BJP if anything are anti-minoritist policies of Congress and Commies.

  26. Vikrant — on 31st May, 2007 at 9:44 pm  

    BJP if anything are against the vote-bank minoritist policies of Congress and Commies.

  27. Muzumdar — on 31st May, 2007 at 9:55 pm  

    Vikrant, of course the BJP seldom openly talk of these things but go to their political rallies and they will talk of not tolerating ‘traitors’, which essentially translates to Muslims, on the subcontinent.

    The destruction of Pakistan was always official policy until recently.

    Who mentioned genocide? I say deport them to their ideological, spiritual and political home: Arabia.

  28. Jagdeep — on 31st May, 2007 at 10:04 pm  

    Off Topic (sorry)

    But I’ve just been reading a remarkable, disturbing and truthful essay in Prospect Magazine by Shiv Malik about the time he spent in Beeston whilst researching the lives of the 7/7 bombers. I just want to say that it’s essential reading, so have a look. It actually made me feel quite sad, amongst other things.

    My brother the bomber

  29. Jagdeep — on 31st May, 2007 at 10:12 pm  

    Actually having just read Imran’s post, the article in Prospect is very relevant to the thread, so read it.

  30. Jagdeep — on 31st May, 2007 at 10:14 pm  

    Genocidal wetdreams are best left to your kind.

    And Modi, RSS, VHP, Gujarati kerosene salesmen, etc etc etc

    But anyway, that is off topic.

  31. Ramiie — on 31st May, 2007 at 10:20 pm  

    Imran wrote:

    “If I could undo history and shape it so that Israel was never created in the callous and inhuman way that it was, involving the dispossession of the Palestinian people, I would do so. I would also undo the Partition of India, and the horse-trading of Arabia to the Al-Saud tribe, and the colonisation and fragmentation of Ireland …”

    But of course, Africa, the most hideously exploited and degraded continent on the planet, would stay as it is..not even worth a mention by Imran.

  32. Rumbold — on 31st May, 2007 at 10:22 pm  

    Muzumdar, the Muslims have been in India longer than the Sikhs.

  33. Muzumdar — on 31st May, 2007 at 10:30 pm  

    Rumbold

    The Jews have been in Arabia longer than the Muslims and have spiritual, political and ideological ties to the region. Muslims on the subcontinent, by their own admission, are foreigners. Jinnah: “Our religion is different, our culture is different…bla bla bla”.

    Jagdeep

    Why did it make you feel sad? It is a piece of tripe. Here are some gems from it:

    Siddiqe Khan: “How did we ever conquer lands in the past if we were to obey this law…”

    So he is an anti-Western-imperialist fighting to re-enact Islamic imperialism. Like I said: Muslim hypocrisy.

    ‘and instead asked him whether he thought 7/7 was halal (permitted) or haram (forbidden) in Islam…he replied. “No comment.”… How many thousands of young British Muslims are similarly conflicted?’

    Oh, the poor poor Muslims, what a tough life.

    ‘At the heart of this tragedy is a conflict between the first and subsequent generations of British Pakistanis—with many young people using Islamism as a kind of liberation theology to assert their right to choose how to live.’

    No, it’s essentially about Islamic imperialism, hence Siddique’s comment above.

    ‘It is a conflict between tradition and individuality, culture and religion, tribalism and universalism, passivity and action.’

    Yawn.

  34. Jagdeep — on 31st May, 2007 at 10:35 pm  

    Muzumdar, why are you so trigger happy? It made me feel sad because of the human wreckage and horror, not because of the self-justification of those in denial. Go and take a cold shower for goodness sake.

  35. Rumbold — on 31st May, 2007 at 10:39 pm  

    Muzumdar;

    “Muslims on the subcontinent, by their own admission, are foreigners.”

    I am sure that a few think that they are. Many however, consider themselves to be as Indian as the rest, and would bridle at the suggestion that they should be sent ‘back’ to Arabia. Most Muslims in India are either descendents of the native Aryans, or else of Persian, central Asian or Afghan heritage. The Turks/Arabs never really settled in India.

    Does the President of India consider himself to be a foreigner? I think not.

  36. Rumbold — on 31st May, 2007 at 10:40 pm  

    *Aryans/Dravidians*

  37. raz — on 31st May, 2007 at 11:04 pm  

    Muzumdar = Naxal1849

  38. Vikrant — on 31st May, 2007 at 11:15 pm  

    i doesnt take a rocket scientist to guess that… raz.

  39. Refresh — on 1st June, 2007 at 12:19 am  

    My God, what’s happened to PP?

    Who is this Muzumdar? I do hope he sticks around, certainly knows how to party.

    I rather have Naxal1849.

  40. Refresh — on 1st June, 2007 at 12:21 am  

    Muzumdar, how many millions died in the partition?

  41. Refresh — on 1st June, 2007 at 12:59 am  

    Sunny, back to the topic. Given that I no longer accept posts and comments on face value, I took a look at that thread on HP. Had to go quite a way down to see the reference to uncle tom.

    And I have to say I am amazed that our Imran Ahmed, ‘IT executive, turned humourist’ felt that there was anything there that needed a robust response.

    So my feeling is Mr Ahmed has chosen to stir up a something in a tea-cup to get some publicity; and stupidly you’ve provided it.

    What the heck, this might as well be you as Davina Macoll and Mr Ahmed with a book to sell.

    Rather pathetic, don’t you think.

  42. TheFriendlyInfidel — on 1st June, 2007 at 1:03 am  

    Ah Refresh, I see your point now … he is just like AHA! and that Islamist author, just out for a quick buck.

    We had best ignore anything he has to say then.

    Now, lets get back to placing the world problems at the door of the Great Satan and complaining about injustice at the hand of our tyranical and despositic government.

    TFI

  43. sid — on 1st June, 2007 at 1:05 am  

    What is it about Imran Ahmad’s lucid, logical and inclusive post that drives trolls and narcisists mad and brings internecine communalism of the saddest kind?

  44. Refresh — on 1st June, 2007 at 1:18 am  

    TFI, don’t be silly.

    He can write what he wants and sell it. But the way Sunny has presented it is as if there is some major event ie being called uncle tom in one post. And Imran decides he needs to respond, as widely as possible.

    Sunny should give his readers credit.

    It would have been better to have offered Imran Ahmed space as a guest – that would have been more honest.

    I am partly annoyed, because I followed Sunny’s links and they are generic, in the sense that they don’t specifically back up anything in the post.

    Perhaps its a way of generating a bit of controversy, whilst drawing in past-friends of PP like Islamophobia-watch and Lenin. Is it to help increase the site hit rate?

    Pathetic.

  45. sid — on 1st June, 2007 at 1:23 am  

    Refresh, apart from second guessing Sunny’s motives for world domination, don’t you think there is anything of any worth in the sentiments put forward by Imran Ahmad? Imran was asked for his consent for posting his comment, which is in any case, a fully formed article.

  46. Refresh — on 1st June, 2007 at 1:32 am  

    Sid, I don’t mind the article and debating it. But setting the scene as Sunny has is not fair on the reader.

  47. limpia — on 1st June, 2007 at 2:11 am  

    Mazumdar- thanks for the reminders and reeducation in such a straightforward manner- sock it to em

  48. Random Guy — on 1st June, 2007 at 8:43 am  

    @Muzumdar: “Pakistan is the Muslim version of Israel”

    You have to be kidding me. Still, thanks for the fresh approach on the whole ME. Also, I applaud your attempts at contrasting ‘anti-western imperialism’ with non-existent muslim imperialism as if such a thing actually exists. It was amusing for a little while.

  49. Refresh — on 1st June, 2007 at 9:54 am  

    By the way Imran Ahmad has no concept of what being pragmatic means.

    The first half of his post, as an analysis, is not bad.

    The second half is one of despair. Hence the rationalisations and ‘pragmatism’.

  50. Eremos — on 1st June, 2007 at 10:52 am  

    Errr Muzumdar how exactly is “Pakistan is the Muslim version of Israel”?

    Granted that your family lost their property in Lahore. My family lost our businesses and property in Calcutta; while not quite the Bengali peasants you refer to we are a merchant family from Sylhet. The key point here is that Partition caused an actual displacement of Hindus, Muslims and Sikhs during Partition. The formation of Israel was ethnic cleansing, or put another way the confiscation of property and land. It is a state that exists in defiance of countless UN regulations. India, Pakistan and Bangladesh are three sovereign states.

    That said, Israel is here to stay. Muslims, in particular Arab Muslims, because really this is an issue of race and not religion, should work to find a mutually acceptable solution. Israel, conversely, needs to give up the dream of restoration of Israel to the “Biblical borders” i.e. Sinai, parts of Egypt, Jordan, parts of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, parts of Iraq, Lebanon, Syria, parts of Turkey and Cyprus. Last summer’s decimation of Lebanon was nothing more than pushing forward the boundaries, and had nothing to do with the two missing soldiers.

  51. Muzumdar — on 1st June, 2007 at 11:26 am  

    Eremos

    ‘Errr Muzumdar how exactly is “Pakistan is the Muslim version of Israel”?’

    You asked, so here goes.

    Pakistan: created in 1947 as a Muslim state; created by ethnically cleansing Sikhs and Hindus from its lands; created by the British imperialists; propped up by the USA for its own agenda.

    Israel: created in 1948 as a Jewish State; created through a combination of theft and legal land acquisition; created by the British imperialists; propped up by the USA for its own agenda.

    Differences: Israel has been largely tolerant of its minorities, to the extent of having representation in parliament. Pakistan has butchered its minorities.

    Israel has offered statehood to the people it displaced. Pakistan has not.

    ‘The key point here is that Partition caused an actual displacement of Hindus, Muslims and Sikhs during Partition.’

    Tell me, how is that any different from the Palestinians who were displaced and how is it any different from the Jews in the Arab world who were displaced/butchered?

    ‘The formation of Israel was ethnic cleansing, or put another way the confiscation of property and land.’

    Absolutely. As was the case with the creation of Pakistan; Sikhs and Hindus were cleansed from Pakistan and their property and land confiscated. Why can’t you see the similarities?

    ‘It is a state that exists in defiance of countless UN regulations.’

    So now we are on about the UN? OK, let’s go down that road. By international law, the whole of Kashmir belongs to India. Didn’t like that one? OK, how about this one: was West Pakistan’s foray into East Pakistan, which resulted in the biggest mass rape in recorded human history, not against international law? Does the fact that Pakistan butchered more Muslims in one year (1971) than Israel has in sixty not say something to you? Wake up.

    ‘India, Pakistan and Bangladesh are three sovereign states.’

    So is Israel.

    I hope you now understand the similarity between Israel and Pakistan. If you still find yourself scratching your head, read this: http://www.ciaonet.org/olj/sa/sa_99kup01.html

  52. Vikrant — on 1st June, 2007 at 11:27 am  

    Eremos you are obviously discounting the brutal ethnic cleansing of Hindus and Sikhs from entire West Pakistan. In 1947 Hindus and Sikhs made up about 17% of West Pakistani population, today in pakistan they number only around 1-2%. Only parts of India from where Muslims were cleansed has to be Punjab.

    I think on the eastern front population exchanges were largely peaceful and out of free will.

  53. queeeg — on 1st June, 2007 at 11:44 am  

    Muzumdar

    I love you logic

    You complain about

    “Sikhs and Hindus who were mercilessly driven from their homes to make way for a Muslim state”

    Then suggest
    “It is Muslim hypocrisy that makes me sympathise with the BJP’s call to tear down all the Mosques on the sub-continent, annihilate Pakistan and send all Muslims back to the Arabia, where they belong”

    Itleast it good to hear that you are not in favour of genocide

  54. Muzumdar — on 1st June, 2007 at 11:54 am  

    queeeg

    You misunderstand. I am not complaining about the fact that “Sikhs and Hindus were mercilessly driven from their homes to make way for a Muslim state”.

    The time for complaining is long gone and what would be the point?

    I am simply drawing a parallel that the Ummah consistently turn a blind eye to – evidenced on this thread no less – while adopting a most distasteful hypocritical stance.

  55. Eremos — on 1st June, 2007 at 12:12 pm  

    Muzumdar, thanks for your interpretation. I’m sorry that you find it necessary to reply in a rather condescending manner. You don’t have to agree with my comments, just like I certainly don’t agree with your’s. A mutual debate was what I was after, but I fear that this will be my last comment on this particular article. Enjoy arguing yourself into a rhetorical cul-de-sac.

    I agree with your comments about how Pakistan and Israel were created by imperialists for their own benefit, but that is where I diverge from your position.

    The comment about displacement is why you get muddled. Pakistan and India displaced people of different religions into each other’s countries. So Muslims predominantly located / stayed in East and West Pakistan, whilst Hindus and Sikhs moved to India. Whilst I don’t want to brush past the massive slaughter of Hindus, Muslims and Sikhs the fact that the migrants had a country to go to is what I’m trying to highlight.

    The difference between Pakistan and Israel is that the creation of the former allowed non-Muslims to stay on (as many families I know did in Sylhet, Dhaka, Chittagong, Karachi, Lahore and Islamabad have) or move to India. The latter displaced the original inhabitants of the stolen land to refugee camps. Not quite the same is it?

    The reason that I can’t see the similarities to the same degree as you, is because the displacement caused by the formation of Israel resulted in Palestinian refugees. The constriction of Pakistan resulted in displacement to another country. A refugee camp is not the same as country, is it? If you want to talk about Biharis, now that is a different matter.

    Israel offered no such solution because it created a Jewish state for Jews. Surely you are familiar with the Law of Return? It’s a racist law that allows people of questionable Jewish lineage to claim land that was stolen from Palestinians.

    Israel did not create statehood for the people that it displaced. It refuses to recognize the refugee situation through word play. Israeli nationality is not synonymous with citizenship. So an Arab born in Israel, who has lived in Palestine for generations, is not considered to be “Israeli”. They will have “Arab” written on their ID card. Although many Arabs want to be listed as “Palestinian”, they cannot do so because Israel does not recognize Palestine. A Ukrainian Jew who decides to move to Israel will automatically be given a “Jewish” and therefore Israeli nationality. What other country issues ID cards based on race? I don’t see this happening in Pakistan?

    Whilst a few minorities have been placed in token Israeli parliamentary positions, the overwhelming majority suffer a degree of degradation designed to frustrate them so that they leave. I would disagree with your comment about Pakistan not giving rights to its minorities. In Karachi I know for a fact that a block of parliamentary seats are always reserved for a number of prominent Hindu families. Can you say that the same happens in Israel?

    Yes, Pakistan has committed massive atrocities. In my own family and circles of friends we lost many during the 1971 Holocaust. But your comparison to Israel is not really an argument. The total number of people killed by the construction of Israel, and I’m including the terrorists activities of the Stern Gang, Irgun and Haganah, as well as the ongoing massacres by the IDF, will equal if not exceed that of Pakistani genocide. I don’t need to be lectured on this point.

    Thanks for the great reference to Kashmir, and showing your true colours. I find it rather sad that you think that this piece of childish goading is supposed to elicit an “outraged Muslim” response. Please don’t pander to lame stereotypes, I didn’t do so with your arguments Without trying to sound glib or blasé, I don’t care about Kashmir. Just because I am a Sylheti Muslim, it doesn’t mean that I’m automatically concerned about the “brothers in Kashmir”.. In fact, I have to agree with my Kashmiri friends when they say “a plague on both your houses” to India and Pakistan.

    So the Occupied Territories constitute a sovereign Israel?

    Oh, and the URL doesn’t work.

    Have fun.

  56. sid — on 1st June, 2007 at 12:13 pm  

    Muzumdar moshai

    You might want to work these Savitri Devi’s Esoteric Nazism and the Hindutva ideology into your thesis as well. Check out these references:

    wiki: Savitri Devi

    An online archive

    With such beauties as A Warning to the Hindus (1939)

    Enjoy!

  57. Shoque — on 1st June, 2007 at 12:27 pm  

    Eremos over one million Bengalis were slaughtered in the 1971 genocide. No matter what way you cut it, Israel has not killed as many innocents as the state of Pakistan did. As for Pakistan being analgous to the state of Israel, it is quite a good comparison. Bangladesh has managed to retain a high proportion of non Muslims because it is innoculated to the disease of Muslim nationalism because of the struggle for Bengali identity, although that is being put at risk. Pakistan on the other hand has very few minorities as a percentage of population compared to Bangladesh of India.

  58. Vikrant — on 1st June, 2007 at 12:51 pm  

    Eremous,

    While you are right that Hindus were allowed to stay in East Pakistan, same wasnt the case with West Pakistan. They were ethnically cleansed, full stop. Infact Lahore i think had a Sikh-Hindu majority.

  59. Muzumdar — on 1st June, 2007 at 1:44 pm  

    Eremos

    You Bengalis crack me up. You really haven’t got a clue have you.

    ‘The difference between Pakistan and Israel is that the creation of the former allowed non-Muslims to stay on’

    Is this some sort of sick joke? This comment alone shows what kind of dream world you live in.

    ‘The latter displaced the original inhabitants of the stolen land to refugee camps. Not quite the same is it?’

    Of course you fail to mention the fact that the UN, your favourite organisation when it suits you, offered the Pals a state in 1948. Ironically, the perimeters of that state are exactly what the Palestinian leadership claim they want today. Sod’s law.

    ‘The reason that I can’t see the similarities to the same degree as you, is because the displacement caused by the formation of Israel resulted in Palestinian refugees.’

    Once again, you omit the fact that there were huge refugee camps post partition in Punjab. The key difference is that the Pals sat there living on Western handouts calling for the destruction of Israel while Sikhs and Hindus got on with their lives and prospered. (Granted, the Pals were used as political pawns by the surrounding Arab nations but that’s hardly my problem).

    ‘The constriction of Pakistan resulted in displacement to another country.’

    Like I said, the Pals were offered a state. Not my problem that their leaders were too thick to accept it.

    ‘Israel offered no such solution because it created a Jewish state for Jews. Surely you are familiar with the Law of Return? It’s a racist law that allows people of questionable Jewish lineage to claim land that was stolen from Palestinians.’

    The law of return? Yeah, hardly ‘racist’ though. It lets black Jews (from Sudan and Ethiopia) come and settle along with white Jews from Brooklyn. Please don’t talk of stolen land, because the creation of Pakistan was one big theft.

    The rest of your posts exhibits the typical and mind numbingly boring Muslim obsession with Israel. It’s not enough that you stole land from Sikhs and Hindus, butchered them to do so and continue to discriminate against what’s left of them, you actually have the audacity to lecture Israel on the same. How sad.

  60. queeeg — on 1st June, 2007 at 1:54 pm  

    When all the Hindu were enthically cleansed full stop from Pakistan, how did the forget to get rid of Rana Bhagwandas familiy. Someone mustn’t have been doing their job correctly

  61. Eremos — on 1st June, 2007 at 2:16 pm  

    I didn’t want to reply again to our mind numbingly tedious comments , but here goes…

    Can you come out and state on the record what your background is? You seem to have a problem with the fact that I don’t fit your small minded peasant stereotype of Bengalis.

    You think that I stole land? My family can trace their origins to the same land for 15 generations, before we even became Muslim. Where are you from, and what race / religion are you that allows you to judge others?

    ME: ‘The difference between Pakistan and Israel is that the creation of the former allowed non-Muslims to stay on’

    YOU: “Is this some sort of sick joke? This comment alone shows what kind of dream world you live in.”
    My families’ best friends and business associates are Hindu. What evidence do you have? Or was that a rhetorical question? Have you been to India, Pakistan or Bangladesh? Or do you sit in London lamenting about your lost Lahori house?

    Again I must question the way that you twist things. Since when have I been a poster child for the UN? I mention them once and you go off on a rambling tirade. I thought that I was supposed to be the Muslim here? 

    The difference between Punjabi and Palestinian refugee camps is huge. The temporal nature of the former can’t compare with the latter. You know that but still use a truncated point to make your lame point. Bravo!

    “Like I said, the Pals were offered a state. Not my problem that their leaders were too thick to accept it.”

    Not unlike how the Pakistanis took your Lahori house? They told you that Pakistan was coming, but you didn’t listen. Or where “too thick to accept it” to use your parlance?

    Thank you for your description of Falashas and Ashkenazis. If you knew anything about contemporary Israeli politics you would know that this argument shots you in the foot. Your comment about the Ethiopian and US Jews actually supports my argument that Israel is racist. The Falashas are treated as second class citizens in Israel, due to their non- Ashkenazi roots, their adherence to Torah rather than Talmud, and so on. Can you see if you can turn this argument somehow into your Pakistan-stole-my-house lament?

    Have to leave you and your half baked arguments there now, as I have work to do. See not all us Muslims are living off the state.

  62. Svevo — on 1st June, 2007 at 2:44 pm  

    It’s not enough that you stole land from Sikhs and Hindus, butchered them to do so and continue to discriminate against what’s left of them, you actually have the audacity to lecture Israel on the same. How sad.

    What he is saying is that Muslims from Pakistan and other places who bleat about Israel whilst themselves being the beneficiaries of a religious nationalism that involved mass ethnic cleansing and apporpriation of land are hypocrites, and people are sick and tired of their screaming blue murder and demonisation of Israel when they have such dark pasts and present society’s themselves. Its a very strong point no matter what you think of the rest of mazumdars style of argument. The racism, fundamentalism, nationalism within Islam and Muslim societies is massive and dangerous and needs to be addressed immediately.

  63. Vikrant — on 1st June, 2007 at 2:48 pm  

    Someone mustn’t have been doing their job correctly

    Evidently… a group that numbered 17% in 1947 now makes up only 1% of Pakistani population. By any standards its called an ethnic cleansing.

  64. Svevo — on 1st June, 2007 at 2:49 pm  

    The difference between Punjabi and Palestinian refugee camps is huge. The temporal nature of the former can’t compare with the latter. You know that but still use a truncated point to make your lame point. Bravo!

    The temporary nature of the Punjabi refugees after partition was because they got on with their lives and didnt sit and wait for the destruction of Pakistan unlike Muslims who are obsessed like a psychopath with Israel and destroying Israel and use the Palestinian refugees as their continual bleeding wound for their own victimhood and divert from the fact that they are wallowing in racism, oppression, backwardness themselves. The Jewish refugees who were ethnically cleansed from other middle eastern countries (almost one million) got on with life too. Muslims need a Satan in the world to blame for all their woes and failings and racisms and oppressions and violence. Israel is that satan. Other people are sick and tired of this stupid and pathetic narrative of muslim victimhood in the face of the violence and reality of contemporary Muslim society and the Islamic world. Not only in Muslim majority countries, but the racism, fundamentalism, oppression and uicide bombing levels of hatred that emerge from Muslim communities living in the prosperous and free West, like the 7/7 bombers and others too.

  65. Svevo — on 1st June, 2007 at 2:53 pm  

    Where Israel is also used as an excuse for Muslim failure, racism, violence, social employment and academic backwardness, suicide bombing and terrorism in the UK too. People are sick and tired of these lies, this narrative, the idea that Israel causes all that is wrong with Muslims in the UK, and that innocent people will be blown up because of their stupid, pathetic, self pitying obsession with Israel. Muslims need to address the causes of the racism, terrorism, violence, oppression, fundamentalism that leads to them killing and harming innocent non Muslims around the world and in Great Britain.

  66. queeeg — on 1st June, 2007 at 3:12 pm  

    In pre-partition India, Muslim made up 30% of the population now this has gone down to 13%

    Was this because of genocide. NO

  67. queeeg — on 1st June, 2007 at 3:27 pm  

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partition_of_India

    Based on 1951 Census of displaced persons, 7,226,000 Muslims went to Pakistan from India while 7,249,000 Hindus and Sikhs moved to India from Pakistan immediately after partition

    Looks like roughly equal number of people on both side suffered from ‘ethnic cleansing’

  68. Refresh — on 1st June, 2007 at 3:43 pm  

    queeeg, stop sniping with facts!

  69. sid — on 1st June, 2007 at 3:47 pm  

    That’s not what happened according to “1947 Earth”. According to the film, lots of good looking Sikh and Parsee families left Lahore and lots of impudent, hairy Muslims butchered people in trains. Now stick to the fucking facts.

  70. queeeg — on 1st June, 2007 at 4:19 pm  

    I don’t no which make me feel more hurt

    Being accused of sniping
    or being accused of talking facts

  71. Katy — on 1st June, 2007 at 4:27 pm  

    Anyone want to come to the pub? I know it’s early, but let’s face it – we aren’t getting much done here…

  72. Chairwoman — on 1st June, 2007 at 4:28 pm  

    “Israel, conversely, needs to give up the dream of restoration of Israel to the “Biblical borders” i.e. Sinai, parts of Egypt, Jordan, parts of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, parts of Iraq, Lebanon, Syria, parts of Turkey and Cyprus.”

    Excuse me, but when were parts of Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Iraq, Lebanon, Syria, Turkey and Cyprus ever within the Biblical Border of Israel. Part of Jordan was. But the others?

    Do you actually know where Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Turkey (Turkey!) and Cyprus are in relation to Israel?

    Please don’t bother to answer.

  73. Chairwoman — on 1st June, 2007 at 4:29 pm  

    Now back to watching Midsomer Murders.

  74. Anas — on 1st June, 2007 at 4:32 pm  

    You are a funny guy. It always amuses me when people of Pakistani origin blabber like babies about Israel.

    What’s my origin gotta do with it? I’m a British citizen, a citizen of the West, I have a right to “blabber” about bad things my government supports ideologically, diplomatically or militarilly, like for example the Saudi regime, or the various sundry other totalitarian regime we’re also friends with. Now Israel is important to many Muslims because it is emblematic of Western imperialistic attitudes towards the Muslim world — though that is IMHO short sighted, the issue is Western imperialism period. It’s like how apartheid in South African became a powerful symbol of black consciousness in the last century.

    Pakistan is the Muslim version of Israel. Created by the imperialist British and propped up by the imperialist US.
    Ever stopped to consider the millions upon millions of Sikhs and Hindus that were slaughtered by Muslims to make way for Pakistan? Ever thought about giving back their houses to them? Do you want to give me back my grandfather’s house in Lahore? No? didn’t think so.
    So why should Israel make any concessions to the Palestinians? At least the Israelis haven’t butchered all the Palestinians within Israel (they still make up 20% of the population). Of course this is unlike the Pakistanis, who have slaughtered millions of non-Muslims to such an extent that their number is around 0.1%.
    Of course this doesn’t bother you because you apply double standards. On the one hand you want the Pals to be given their land back, but on the other, you are unwilling to give back Lahore and all the canal colonies you stole from Sikh and Hindus.
    Cry me river.

    Look, Israel is according to international law illegally occupying the state of Palestine. Whether I agree with the set up of Israel or not is neither here nor there. Israel was indeed formed through the ethnic cleansing of largely Arab areas, but it exists as a reality and it’s not going to go anywhere — similarly with the creation of Pakistan, which also involved ethnic cleansing and the murder of millions of people on both sides. The existence of Israel is not the major issue here: the issue is, as I said, the post 67 illegal occupation against international law and a practically global consensus, Muslim/non-Muslim, that an end to this occupation and Palestinian statehood is the only just solution — unlike say the nutty Khalistan idea which only a few dozen fundamentalist Sikhs are bothered about. As it stands the Palestinians have no state of their own, and very little prospect of a gaining one — and what is currently going on constitutes a humanitarian disaster. Forget about the rights and wrongs of it, the only real chance of peace in the Middle East, something you should be bothered about because it affects us all, is through viable statehood for the Palestinians. Sure maybe the creation of Pakistan was a historical wrong, but realistically, there’s very little that you can do about it.

    how barbaric of the Israelis to offer the Palestinians statehood on four separate occasions.

    That’s a joke, to my knowledge the Israelis have never offered the Palestinians a feasible basis for statehood. In fact as Chomsky shows in the Fateful Triangle, the Israelis have consistently pursued a rejectionist position as regards to Palestinian statehood. Ever heard of the Allon plan?

  75. Random Guy — on 1st June, 2007 at 4:33 pm  

    In all the comparisons being made between Pakistan and Israel, 2 important facts are being omitted:-

    1. My limited knowledge of the partition indicates that both sides carried out massacres and evictions. Pointing the finger at one does not make a good argument.

    2. The situation is continuing today in Israel. In Pakistan/India it is not. This is the situation that must be dealt with.
    Also, the prevailing political circumstances of the respective regions at the time were so different as to make any comparisons laughable (i.e. comparing Post-WW2 Europe to Pakistan).

    I see very little point in Muzumdar’s comments apart from derailing the OT.

    @Svevo: “Muslims need to address the causes of the racism, terrorism, violence, oppression, fundamentalism that leads to them killing and harming innocent non Muslims around the world and in Great Britain”

    What the hell are you smoking? Get a godamn opinion that you didn’t read from some right wing bulls**t paper.

  76. queeeg — on 1st June, 2007 at 4:45 pm  

    Why is no-one showing any sympathy for my suffering

    Has no-one else ever faced the indignaty of being accused of sniping

    Im trying to pull myself together and show strenght. I need learn to move on like Muzumdar has done.

  77. Vikrant — on 1st June, 2007 at 5:13 pm  

    In pre-partition India, Muslim made up 30% of the population now this has gone down to 13%

    Playing with facts are we? The number you quote was for undivided India which obviously included Pakistan. While Hindus-Sikhs comprised 17% of population in what is now Pakistan.

  78. Vikrant — on 1st June, 2007 at 5:18 pm  

    Anyone want to come to the pub? I know it’s early, but let’s face it – we aren’t getting much done here…

    Hey Katy, i’m in Hendon… Sure i can come to the pub… but the only prob is i’m over 3 monhs short of 18! Hope you dont mind :P

  79. Vikrant — on 1st June, 2007 at 5:22 pm  

    Looks like roughly equal number of people on both side suffered from ‘ethnic cleansing’

    Out of 9-10 million Hindu-Sikhs in Pakistan 8 million came to India and about 0.7 million were killed.

    Out of 50 million Muslims in Indian Union 7.5 went to Pakistan.

    You cant compare quantitatively the two migrations without taking into account their relative percentage and circumstances of displacement.

  80. Muzumdar — on 1st June, 2007 at 5:34 pm  

    Random Guy

    You are 100% correct when you say you have ‘limited knowledge’. In fact, I’d go further than that and say that you are whistling dixy out of your arse.

    ‘indicates that both sides carried out massacres and evictions. Pointing the finger at one does not make a good argument.’

    Same with Israel. One million Jews living in Arab lands were butchered or displaced in 1948. Also, what you are essentially saying is: pointing the finger at Israel is OK, but pointing the finger at Pakistan is wrong. Lame.

    In addition is the plain hard fact that Muslims were the only group who wanted Pakistan in the first place. Surely you can’t blame Sikhs and Hindus for that.

    ‘The situation is continuing today in Israel. In Pakistan/India it is not. This is the situation that must be dealt with.’

    So now you, along with the Ummah, wish to whitewash the fact that millions of Sikhs and Hindus were slaughtered because it happened a long time ago?

    Nobody is talking bout ‘dealing’ with anything. The people posting on this site with any intelligence are simply pointing out the gross hypocrisy of, as another poster aptly put it, ‘Muslims benefiting from religious nationalism and ethnic cleansing’ and then bitching about it when it happens to their folk.

    ‘the prevailing political circumstances of the respective regions at the time were so different as to make any comparisons laughable (i.e. comparing Post-WW2 Europe to Pakistan).’

    Newsflash: Israel isn’t in Europe. You weren’t kidding when you said you had limited knowledge.

    As for the ‘prevailing political circumstances of the respective regions’, the comparisons have been dealt with and nobody has been able to successfully rebut the argument.

  81. Muzumdar — on 1st June, 2007 at 5:40 pm  

    Eremos

    ‘My families’ best friends and business associates are Hindu.’

    Well that makes genocide alright then. I went out with a fit Pakistani girl once. What does this prove? Nothing.

    RE: Refuge camps – Svevo has ripped your argument to pieces so there is no need for me to make further comment on that one.

    ‘Not unlike how the Pakistanis took your Lahori house? They told you that Pakistan was coming, but you didn’t listen. Or where “too thick to accept it” to use your parlance?’

    I know logic isn’t your strong point but this really is poor, even from you. Can you not see the difference between being offered statehood as a recompense for displacement and simply being told ‘you are not Muslim, piss off or we will murder you.’?

  82. Muzumdar — on 1st June, 2007 at 5:43 pm  

    queeeg

    When all the Palestinians were ethnically cleansed ‘full stop’ from Israel, how did they forget to get rid of novelist Emile Habibi, actors Mohammad Bakri and Yousef Sweid, actress Hiam Abbass, politicians Azmi Bishara and Ahmad Tibi, Lt. Col. Amos Yarkoni, football players Salim Tuama, Walid Badir, Abbas Suan and Rifaat Turk.

    Someone mustn’t have been doing their job correctly.

  83. Refresh — on 1st June, 2007 at 6:24 pm  

    Katy, take Vikrant with you.

  84. queeeg — on 1st June, 2007 at 6:50 pm  

    Vikrant, probably best to keep talk about genocide to a minimum on your date with Katy or it might ruin the atmosphere

  85. Eremos — on 1st June, 2007 at 7:06 pm  

    Chairwoman please see below for discussion of Greater Israel or Biblical Borders.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_of_Israel
    http://www.geocities.com/alabasters_archive/jewish_history_1.html

    Muzumdar, as lame as your arguments get I keep replying! You are making my Friday by stopping to stupidity. The difference between your fit Pakistani girl (Lahori was she, eh?) and my family friends is that I am proving to you that both in Pakistan, and is now Bangladesh that my family have extensive links with Hindus which extends for several generations. You cannot seem to fathom that Muslims can and do get on with Hindus and other minority people in these countries. This is not to say that a genocide did not happen, but I’m willing to move on and not lament about what happened. This fact alone makes me different to the Muslims you go on about i.e. how they can’t deal with anything, they keep whingeing, etc, etc.

    Yes you’re right Pakistan and Bangladesh are far from perfect. Yes they oppress many minorities, and I do hope that they can sort out these issues which seem systemic to their countries. In no way am I an apologist for the behaviour of Muslim countries and their leaders.

    Also while I’m at it, I’d like to say that I am not in favour of the destruction of Israel. You seem to imply that as a Muslim I can’t accept Israel. I’m a British Muslim, what Israel does and doesn’t do is not my problem. I’m in favour of all people having a homeland, and being treated with respect.

    If you looked beyond some of your inherent prejudices you might find that we have much in common.

    Oh yeah, and you didn’t answer my question about your background.

  86. Vikrant — on 1st June, 2007 at 7:40 pm  

    Eremos,

    Muzu is a Kahlistani-Communist Sikh AFAIK.

  87. Eremos — on 1st June, 2007 at 8:10 pm  

    Thanks for that Vikrant. It all makes sense now. I’ll excuse his lame arguments then.

  88. Refresh — on 1st June, 2007 at 8:12 pm  

    queeg

    Its best you leave too.

  89. Refresh — on 1st June, 2007 at 8:13 pm  

    Eremos,

    Muzumdar clearly has issue. I am not sure you can help him.

  90. Chairwoman — on 1st June, 2007 at 8:37 pm  

    Eremos – The Wikipedia entry tells you where Jews lived rather than what was a Jewish state. Judging by this I assume that in a few hundred years people will be saying that Leeds and Bradford were part of ancient Pakistan.

    As for your second link, that’s written by one person with an axe to grind.

    Even the most fanatically religious don’t lay claim to more than ‘Judea and Samaria’.

  91. Vikrant — on 1st June, 2007 at 8:41 pm  

    Chairwoman at any rate i think Irgun and Stern gang dreamed of a jewish state that stretched from Egypt to Babylon.

  92. Muzumdar — on 1st June, 2007 at 8:58 pm  

    Eremos

    ‘that I am proving to you that both in Pakistan, and is now Bangladesh that my family have extensive links with Hindus which extends for several generations’

    I’m sorry? So you know one Hindu family in the whole of Bangladesh and you think that proves something? Try not to use personal experiences to make sweeping generalisations, it makes you look dumb.

    ‘You cannot seem to fathom that Muslims can and do get on with Hindus and other minority people in these countries.’

    I never said that and that was never my point.

    ‘This is not to say that a genocide did not happen’

    Finally, we are getting somewhere. So you confess to the ethnic cleansing of Sikhs and Hindus by your co-religionists to make way for a Muslim state. Well done.

    ‘I’m willing to move on and not lament about what happened.’

    Well, this is my point: you clearly haven’t moved on because you are still harping on about Israel, crying rivers for the Pals. Why don’t you ‘move on’?

  93. Refresh — on 1st June, 2007 at 9:16 pm  

    Now that you’ve got our attention Muzumdar, tell us all how we move on?

    Step by step please. I’ll sneer where its deserved, but otherwise I will certainly read with interest and openness like of which you could not expect given your crashing entrance.

  94. Eremos — on 1st June, 2007 at 10:00 pm  

    Chairwoman I expected more from your response. Please read the entire Wikipedia article. Also you can’t disclaim someone because they don’t agree with your viewpoint. The Leeds and Bradford comment doesn’t do you justice.

    It’s not the most “fanatically religious” that claim the biblical borders. You know as well as I do that a man-made, not Messiah delivered Israel is unkosher. That’s why the “fanatically religious” never supported the construction of Israel. Please don’t mislead readers here about the Judaic religion and Zionist politics. Organisations like Neturei Karta are doing their best to separate the two.

    Olmert and Sharon have been stated in the Jewish and non-Jewish press about pushing for the restoration of these borders. As Vikrant states the Irgun and Stern Gang wanted this. People of Sharon’s ilk are the remnants of these terrorist organisations. I do hope that we can move on from this to some kind of constructive solution for both sides.

    Muzumdar, please read what I write and not what you think I write. My family has links with many Hindu families across Pakistan and Bangladesh, who have been part of our community for generations. I’m not talking about a single Hindu family. Is this clear enough for you? I’m not using personal experiences to make “sweeping generalizations”, but rather make a specific point. Please up your game. If you want me to spell this out in even simpler words I’m happy to do so.

    If you want to move away from Israel, because you don’t know what you are talking abouts, and talk about the sub-continent I’m happy to do so. You want to talk about ethnic cleansing? The Partition was not bloodless on the east. Many Muslims butchered Hindus. This is true, but what is brushed under the carpet is the fact that many rural areas were under the control of Hindu zamindars.

    Entire villages were slaughtered without anyone stopping them. Can you accept this happened? Can you accept that blood was shed on all sides, in a tragedy of unbelievable proportions? For Partition to happen the British knew that there would be bloodshed, but Churchill specifically told Mountbatten to be involved minimally. This is why we had communal riots. There is a massive disparity between the “official” numbers and what the people on the ground report.

    Your problem with Muslims seems to be with the fact that you want Kalistan. The truth is that you are the Kurd of the sub-continent, a people without a land. Even if Muslims did not get Pakistan you still would not have Kalistan. I do think there should have been a Kalistan at the time of Partition, but this just did not fit in with the agenda. Perhaps, it is you who should “move on”?

  95. Muzumdar — on 1st June, 2007 at 10:05 pm  

    Refresh

    If the Ummah truly wants to ‘move on’ re: Israel/Palestine, this is what needs to be done, step by step.

    1. End all rhetoric calling for the destruction of the state of Israel – it makes you look hypocritical and stupid.

    2. Instead of using the money the west pours into Palestine to buy RPGs, missiles and AK47s, use the money to build an infrastructure and create a market where people can trade and set up shop.

    3. Instead of getting constipated about places like Jerusalem – a place that has nothing to do with Islam except one story about Mohamed riding a winged mule into heaven from there – let it go. Sikhs had to let Lahore go, it was painful but we aren’t bitching about it 60 years on.

    4. Give up the Gaza strip. If you really want a state, it must be in one block. And in any case, Gaza is a dump.

    5. Drop the Islamic superiority complex and the victim complex. People get shat on all over the world all the time. You’re not special.

    Good luck.

  96. Rumbold — on 1st June, 2007 at 10:31 pm  

    Vikrant:

    “Sure i can come to the pub… but the only prob is i’m over 3 monhs short of 18! ”

    You do know what country you are in right?

  97. Vikrant — on 1st June, 2007 at 10:56 pm  

    ya I know and i was getting into pubs when I was 15… No big deal :P .

  98. Vikrant — on 1st June, 2007 at 10:59 pm  

    I do think there should have been a Kalistan at the time of Partition, but this just did not fit in with the agenda. Perhaps, it is you who should “move on”?

    In a land where 45% population would be non-Sikh. Most Sikhs do have their own land in the sub-continent. Its called India.

  99. Refresh — on 1st June, 2007 at 11:41 pm  

    Just to be clear – I wasn’t thinking of just the ‘ummah’ moving on. I said ‘we’, which means all of us including you. Do you want to elaborate in the broader sense?

  100. Refresh — on 2nd June, 2007 at 1:02 am  

    By the way – others are claiming that you are the infamous Naxal. And that you are a Khalistani Communist and an ethnic Sikh. Is that correct?

    It would be wrong to presume to know what you are and what drives you. So might as well have it from the horse’s mouth.

  101. Chairwoman — on 2nd June, 2007 at 11:37 am  

    Muzumdar – Refresh has never called for the destruction of the State of Israel. Trust me, I’m Jewish :-)

    I agree wholeheartedly with your points 1 and 2.

    As for 3, ho-hum, it’s a difficult one. Although I personally agree with you, I wouldn’t want to see Jerusalem as the sticking point in a peace agreement. I don’t know what the answer is, quite frankly. The Western Wall is the virtually the only ‘Holy Place’ we have left, and I think there is no way we should be asked to give it up. By the way, can you think of any other religious group who would allow a house of worship from another faith (the Dome of the Rock) to remain perched on top of their Holy of Holies?.

    As for the ‘victim’ complex, I think a basic mistake has been made here. There certainly is a general distrust of Muslims at the moment in the UK brought about by inflamatory remarks made by some preachers, and of course, 7/7 and 21/7. That doesn’t mean that the Muslim-in-the-street is being prejudiced against for being a Muslim. I don’t think that people aren’t getting jobs, for example, because of their faith. I am sure that people are going to give me examples where this has happened. I am sure that some exist. But I am sticking my neck out and speaking generally. Katy has several close Muslim friends, and they all have good jobs.

    And let’s face it, the indigenous Brit en masse doesn’t actually like or trust any of us very much, Muslim, Jew, Sikh, Hindu, Jain, Black or Brown, or any combination of any of the above, we may be tolerated, and as individuals, even liked.

    But I don’t think many tears would be shed if we all departed these shores, en masse, tomorrow.

  102. Tahir — on 2nd June, 2007 at 11:46 am  

    Of all the comments that hurt me most is probably the Uncle Tom jibe – being Uncle Tom isn’t about having a diversity of opinions – it’s using and selling ‘race’ to push certain arguments. OK white folks do this all the time but we can’t accuse them of being Uncle Tom. but when black folks do it we can. It’s a question of personal preference but I would HATE to be called Uncle Tom – really cringes me.

    Yes Mammi and No Mammie to white people and white establishments is terrible, and thrives on the divide-and-rule tactics the empire practiced.

  103. Chairwoman — on 2nd June, 2007 at 11:50 am  

    Good for you Tahir. On the button.

  104. Muzumdar — on 2nd June, 2007 at 12:17 pm  

    Chairwoman

    ‘I don’t know what the answer is, quite frankly…By the way, can you think of any other religious group who would allow a house of worship from another faith (the Dome of the Rock) to remain perched on top of their Holy of Holies?.’

    Well, this is another thing that irks me. Muslims have the audacity to claim that they are hard done by when it comes to Israel yet fail to recollect that they actually built a Mosque on top of a Jewish Temple. What kind of people do that?

    But then, this is nothing new; when they captured Constantinople they turned the great Cathedral into a Mosque. Oh, and when the Islamic imperialists came to the sub-continent they also built Mosques on top of Hindu mandirs.

    The solution for me is quite simple: the IDF should destroy Al Aqsa and drive the Pals out. Just as Sikhs and Hindus were driven from Pakistan in 1947. It’s the only way I’m afraid.

    When I talk of victim complex, I refer mainly to internaitonal disputes.

  105. Muzumdar — on 2nd June, 2007 at 12:24 pm  

    Refresh

    ‘By the way – others are claiming that you are the infamous Naxal. And that you are a Khalistani Communist and an ethnic Sikh. Is that correct?’

    As I have said before, on deep reflection, all political labels are pointless.

    You can label me a Socialist-Khalistani-Sikh but then I am also a non-Jewish Zionist. Where does that leave my socialism when all the socialists I know are anti-Israel? Also, how does calling me a Sikh fit in with non-economic aspects of socialism? And how does labelling me a Khalistani fit in with my antipathy towards the 1980s separatists?

    Labels are pointless. It’s best to stick to debating things on an issue by issue basis.

  106. Vikrant — on 2nd June, 2007 at 12:33 pm  

    Non-Jewish Zionist == Sycophant.

    What is it with Hindu-Sikh nationalists and Zionists. They dont give a rat’s ass for your causes. I used to be pretty sympathetic to Zionists (thanks to all that Leon Uris i read in my early teens), but my personal experience with them has sort of put me off.

  107. Chairwoman — on 2nd June, 2007 at 12:47 pm  

    Vikrant – Possibly because the MSM doesn’t have the obsession with the sub-continent that it does with Israel.

    Hindu-Sikh nationalists just don’t get the publicity and little is known generally about what happened after Lord Louis last saluted the Union flag in India. Perhaps if you were all considered to be world ruling, media controlling 12 foot lizards there’d be more in the MSM.

    Most people aren’t even aware of the terrible massacres that took place in what used to be called East Pakistan in 1971. And that’s within the living memory of all Picklers or their Picklish Parents.

  108. Katy — on 2nd June, 2007 at 12:58 pm  

    Non-Jewish Zionist == Sycophant.

    What? Sorry. But what? Sycophant to whom, exactly? The Secret World Banking Zionist Conspiracy?

  109. Muzumdar — on 2nd June, 2007 at 1:22 pm  

    Vikrant

    With all due respect, and you aren’t due much, what are you on about?

    How does appreciating an ideology make one a sycophant? Do you know what a sycophant is? Never mind, you are young and have many years to learn.

    ‘What is it with Hindu-Sikh nationalists and Zionists. They dont give a rat’s ass for your causes.’

    I don’t know what a ‘Hindu-Sikh nationalist’ is.

    I appreciate Zionism because of its success, past and present. Herzl took a dishevelled people and turned them into a nation against all the odds. In 60 years he did what Hindu nationalists had failed to do for 900 years: create a state.

    Not only this, he ensured that the Jews avoided disappearing completely from the planet (through assimilation/conversion etc); Zionism gave Jews a sense of pride and purpose.

    As someone from a Sikh background, this is particularly important. We are similar in numbers to Jews and assimilation, amongst other things, is destroying the very fabric of Sikh society.

    To create a Sikh State based on the Zionist model is our only option for honourable survival.

  110. sid — on 2nd June, 2007 at 1:37 pm  

    Muzumdar babu,

    Some labels do work just as in some truth is contained in most stereotypes. I mean it’s immediately apparent from your posts that your “pro-Zionist” language is a smokescreen to hide behind. It is so obviously flavoured by the unfortunate baggage of Sikh anti-Muslim antipathy (Asian supporters of the BNP are invariably Sikh), informed by the marriage with a misreading of Hindutva ideology (some of which is noble, most of which is utter crap), and peppered with the common-as-you-like North Indian derision for Bangalis, which is almost ejaculatory in reflex for some folk.

    In other words, you’re doing nothing but aping age-old Indian communalist prejudices. The only difference is that you’ve wrapped it in a patina of English sensibilities which you use to disguise some pretty awful prejudices. You’re a well educated embodiment of a number of crass stereotypes.

    I would very much like this thread to return to the constructive ideas of Imran Ahmad (original post) rather than turn into another free counseling session for you. But unfortunately, you’ve probably pressed too many buttons of too many people here for that to happen anytime soon.

  111. Anas — on 2nd June, 2007 at 1:41 pm  

    Hey why was my last post deleted? :(

  112. Refresh — on 2nd June, 2007 at 1:42 pm  

    Muzumdar

    Your last post is far more interesting, than your lets not use labels response (#105), and is very important in that you are being honest.

    Problem is you appear to be wedded to national socialism – which sadly has already been tried in the 30s, in Europe.

    You hitching a ride with Zionism is of considerable concern.

    Your solution on the one hand is to drive people out of their lands to create a new homeland, on the other you are asking people to be ‘considerate’ and move on.

    What you have advocated is that Khalistan can only be created by driving muslims out of Pakistan Punjab and Hindu Punjab.

    I am sure, nay, absolutely certain Katy, Chairwoman and the vast majority of commenters here would have no truck with your politics.

  113. Anas — on 2nd June, 2007 at 1:46 pm  

    Sorry it wasn’t deleted. Please delete that last post.

  114. Anas — on 2nd June, 2007 at 1:52 pm  

    What is it with Hindu-Sikh nationalists and Zionists.

    Weren’t Hindu nationalists big fans of the Nazis at one point?

  115. Refresh — on 2nd June, 2007 at 1:54 pm  

    correction:

    What you have advocated is that Khalistan can only be created by driving muslims out of Pakistan Punjab and Indian Punjab.

  116. Anas — on 2nd June, 2007 at 1:54 pm  

    But calling him an uncle Tom is unacceptable or do yo think that individuals who by an accident of birth happen to be the same race have to have the same opinions? Likewise religion?

    Maybe you have a point there ZZ, but at the same time Mr Ahmad isn’t just standing as an individual here but as a board member of “British Muslims for secular democracy”

  117. Anas — on 2nd June, 2007 at 1:59 pm  

    I would very much like this thread to return to the constructive ideas of Imran Ahmad (original post) rather than turn into another free counseling session for you.

    LOL, nice one sid.

  118. sid — on 2nd June, 2007 at 2:00 pm  

    Anas, I support British Muslims for secular democracy, with or without the air quotes ;-)

    Why do you think I’m an uncle tom?

  119. Anas — on 2nd June, 2007 at 2:10 pm  

    I don’t think you’re an uncle Tom, sid, and frankly I don’t really know much about British Muslims for a secular democracy with or without the quotation marks. But my point was with regard to what ZZ said, and it was that Imran as a board member of MFSD was representing a certain group of Muslims and so wasn’t just standing as an individual. Which meant I was justified (to an extent) in taking his Muslim background into consideration when analysing his post and calling him an uncleTomji (which was based on what he wrote rather than membership of any organisation).

  120. ZinZin — on 2nd June, 2007 at 2:15 pm  

    Anas
    Is he an Uncle Tom because he rejects this Ummah nonsense ? Rejects the Caliphate? yet your main influence is Noam Chomsky a left-wing libertarian Jew.

    Anas how do you live with those contradictions?

  121. Kismet Hardy — on 2nd June, 2007 at 2:27 pm  

    Uncle tom didn’t want to go to a field to pick cotton and preferred to stay indoors and serve his white master. I don’t think he knew much about ummah to reject it. I liked Huckleberry Finn. He took his slave on a raft

  122. sid — on 2nd June, 2007 at 2:30 pm  

    Back to front as usual, Anas. Why not look at it this way: If those ideas are being made by an individual as an advertisement for the MFSD, then the MFSD must be worth looking into based on those ideas, rather than the individual. Not sure why you insist a person speaking as a spokesman for MFSD makes him an uncle tomji. Play the ball, not the man.

  123. Chairwoman — on 2nd June, 2007 at 2:31 pm  

    Kismet, If I remember correctly, he wasn’t Huck’s slave, but a slave Huck took up with.

    *sings ‘Old Man River’ quietly to the dog.

  124. Muzumdar — on 2nd June, 2007 at 3:24 pm  

    sid

    Pop psychology never was your strong point.

    ‘flavoured by the unfortunate baggage of Sikh anti-Muslim antipathy’

    Indeed, and when Muslims talk of Israel it is invariably informed by the unfortunate baggage of Muslim anti-Semitic antipathy. Naturally. Nothing to do with anything else.

    ‘Asian supporters of the BNP are invariably Sikh’

    Well, I never have, and never will, support the BNP (or the Tories for that matter).

    ‘ to disguise some pretty awful prejudices’

    I haven’t disguised anything Sidney. All my prejudices are open for all to see on this thread.

  125. Muzumdar — on 2nd June, 2007 at 3:29 pm  

    Refresh

    What I have ‘advocated’ on this thread is that Muslims look at their own barbaric pasts and presents before getting constipated about Israel.

    Anas

    ‘Weren’t Hindu nationalists big fans of the Nazis at one point?’

    Yes, almost as big as Hajj Amin Al-Husseni.

    Anyway, if you lot want to talk about this non-issue of being called an uncle tom by some 14 year old champagne Islamist on some website, go ahead. I bid you adieu.

  126. Vikrant — on 2nd June, 2007 at 3:40 pm  

    Weren’t Hindu nationalists big fans of the Nazis at one point?

    No they werent. Savitri Devi is often used by Commnists to paint Hindu nationalists as facists and Nazis. She was a lone nut. Hedgewar and Savarkar were pro-Zionists AFIAIK. BJP were the ones to advocate start diplomatic ties with Israel, which India did in 1991.

    Congress government for years due to its Muslim-vote-bank politics refused to recognise Israeli nation.

  127. Vikrant — on 2nd June, 2007 at 3:41 pm  

    What? Sorry. But what? Sycophant to whom, exactly? The Secret World Banking Zionist Conspiracy?

    I’m talking in Indian nationalist context.

  128. Rumbold — on 2nd June, 2007 at 3:45 pm  

    Some Indians were great fans of fascism, and even volunteered to fight in order to turn their country into a outpost of Japan, which at that time was murdering tens of millions in China. See Chandra Bose et all.

  129. Vikrant — on 2nd June, 2007 at 4:07 pm  

    Bose want a Hindu nationalist. He was a commie.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forward_Bloc

  130. Rumbold — on 2nd June, 2007 at 4:10 pm  

    I did not mean to attack Hinud nationalists per se; I was making the point that some Indians joined the fascist side in order to get the British out of India so that the Japanese could come in and work millions of them to death.

  131. Vikrant — on 2nd June, 2007 at 4:56 pm  

    dont ever point that to a Bengali…

  132. Refresh — on 2nd June, 2007 at 7:02 pm  

    Mazumdar

    I wish life could be as simple as we hope it to be.
    You wanting to paint muslims in a particular light is all very well (you’ve joined a queue), but its equally valid for that to be challenged and then to explore your ethos.

    From your own words, you’ve identified yourself in sympathy with neo-nazi ideology, without realising it.

    Never mind, all our lives weave peculiar paths.

    Back to what I expected to be a lively debate. Having defined how you would want muslims to be – can we now have the steps others should be taking. Think big.

    By the way, I have been thinking long and hard about what you have said, and I am not sure whether you are Sikh at all. And if you are not Naxal, then you should say so. It would be grossly unfair for him to be labelled for your stance.

  133. Jai — on 2nd June, 2007 at 7:15 pm  

    Refresh,

    =>”By the way, I have been thinking long and hard about what you have said, and I am not sure whether you are Sikh at all.”

    There is such a concept as someone being descended from individuals who believed in & practised Sikhism, but not necessarily being a Sikh themselves in terms of believing in & practising the faith’s core humanitarian ideals. Many aspects of Mazumdar’s conduct towards other commenters on this blog lend credence to the probability that he falls into this category, even though he is actually correct about some matters (and very wrong about some others).

    A term which has arisen in recent times is “cultural Sikh”. This probably applies here, like it does to those idiots back in Punjab who were recently threatening extreme violence towards the controversial Dera due to their “rage”; they claimed to be acting as Sikhs, with the intention of defending Sikhism and Guru Gobind Singh, yet their anger, reaction and claims of justification for violence were all in complete contradiction of the most basic Sikh ideals and principles.

    Such things happen worldwide across many cultures and religions, and have occurred for centuries. Unfortunately, Sikhs are no different in this matter.

    And before anyone accuses me of having some kind of anti-Sikh/Hindutva agenda, let me mention (for the benefit of new arrivals on PP) that I am a Sikh myself.

  134. Refresh — on 2nd June, 2007 at 7:22 pm  

    Thanks Jai, I think we understand each other.

    Its rather a shame that we all now have to declare our ethnic, cultural and religous background for the crowds.

  135. Muzumdar — on 2nd June, 2007 at 7:33 pm  

    Refresh

    ‘From your own words, you’ve identified yourself in sympathy with neo-nazi ideology, without realising it’

    Wrong. How many neo-Nazi Zionists do you know? None.

    However, I know what you are trying to get at, and you tried it before with your reference to National Socialism.

    Without wanting to bore our by now huge audience, I’d say I identify with post-Enlightenment German Romantic Nationalism (Fichte et al). The unintentional result of that school of thought was, unfortunately, National Socialism.

    ‘can we now have the steps others should be taking. Think big. ‘

    If you want me to play this little game, and I don’t mind playing at all, you’ll have to be more specific. Who are these ‘others’ you talk of?

    ‘I have been thinking long and hard about what you have said’

    Yeah, right.

    ‘I am not sure whether you are Sikh at all’

    I am as ‘Sikh’ as Jinnah was ‘Muslim’ and Herzl ‘Jewish’ (although I do not drink or smoke like the above-mentioned).

    You know full well that I am who you think I am.

    Now, would you do me the courtesy of telling me your religious affiliation, political stance, bra size and star sign. Thanks, 1849.

  136. Refresh — on 2nd June, 2007 at 8:14 pm  

    Muzumdar,

    Of course I am playing with you.

    I am sure you are not a neo-Nazi Zionist. You’re just hitching a ride.

    I just want to get back to the steps people should take.

    Which people am I referring to? None in particular. You take your pick. I said think big. You could start with largest population perhaps. Perhaps, stick with those you’ve already mentioned in one form or another. Or the list below:

    1. Israelis
    2. Sikhs
    3. Hindus
    4. Jews
    5. Bhuddists
    6. Christians
    7. Indians
    8. Pakistanis
    9. Americans
    10. British
    11. Europeans
    12. East Europeans
    12. Russians
    13. Chinese

    “You know full well that I am who you think I am.”

    Better to have you in the tent as they say, along with all the other waifs and strays.

    I think I am going to get to like you. Might be hard work, but I am patient.

    Sidenote to Sunny: Please do not ban Mazumdar. [And can we have Amir back please].

  137. Muzumdar — on 2nd June, 2007 at 8:27 pm  

    Refresh

    Before we continue, please state your religious affiliation, political stance etc etc…

  138. Refresh — on 2nd June, 2007 at 8:34 pm  

    “Before we continue, please state your religious affiliation, political stance etc etc…”

    For what reason? If there is a good reason then I will happily answer it.

    In fact I would be delighted to tell you – for the right reasons.

  139. Muzumdar — on 2nd June, 2007 at 8:38 pm  

    For two reasons.

    1. You asked me a series of questions and I happily answered them all. It would be nice of you to return the favour.

    2. I want to know who I am talking to.

  140. Refresh — on 2nd June, 2007 at 8:44 pm  

    Muzumdar

    Since I am warming to you. And those are good enough reasons.

    “Now, would you do me the courtesy of telling me your religious affiliation, political stance, bra size and star sign. Thanks, 1849.”

    I don’t wear a bra – its a mark of western hegemony (TFI – take note).

    Star sign – don’t believe in them, its superstition. Rational thought is more my game.

    Political stance – anti-imperialist, anti-fascist, socialist.

    Religious affilition – Islam (now don’t go all tabloid, thinking I know all there is to know about him and his kind – plenty have been down that path, I’ll have you know).

  141. Muzumdar — on 2nd June, 2007 at 8:51 pm  

    Thank you.

    Now, let us begin.

    First thing first, don’t use sentences like this:

    ‘Of course I am playing with you.’ and ‘I think I am going to get to like you. Might be hard work, but I am patient.’

    It makes you sound like a paedophile.

    Let’s go by your list. I spoke of ‘moving on’.

    With regard to your list, what aspect of each people you have mentioned are you referring to when you ask me to outline the steps they should take?

    For example, Europeans. What, in your opinion, are they ‘moving on’ from? Tell me that, and I’ll try to tell you how they can do it.

  142. Refresh — on 2nd June, 2007 at 8:56 pm  

    “First thing first, don’t use sentences like this:

    ‘Of course I am playing with you.’ and ‘I think I am going to get to like you. Might be hard work, but I am patient.’

    It makes you sound like a paedophile.”

    Hadn’t thought of that. I take it you are above the age of consent? For debate at least.

    On the list, you have the floor. Its you who insists on people moving on. I am not sure I can help.

  143. Muzumdar — on 2nd June, 2007 at 9:39 pm  

    Let’s be clear about one thing; I gave my guidelines for the Ummah in post #95 during the course of a very specific conversation about Israel/Palestine.

    If you want help for your homework re: your list, then you will have to be more specific.

  144. Refresh — on 2nd June, 2007 at 10:52 pm  

    Muzumdar,

    I think you should continue with what you started. You will have, no doubt, guidelines for other people too. You should publish them. Here and now.

    Otherwise it leaves the audience clueless how they should change for the better.

    And if its in the context of a specific conversation, then limit it to the parties affected, for now.

    You can always come back to the rest later.

  145. Chairwoman — on 2nd June, 2007 at 11:19 pm  

    “Sidenote to Sunny: Please do not ban Mazumdar. [And can we have Amir back please].”

    As usual I’m with Refresh (@136)on this one :-)

  146. Refresh — on 2nd June, 2007 at 11:27 pm  

    Chairwoman,

    For a while I had considered Muzumdar was the ‘turbanned flatmate’ Amir had always blamed for his night of madness.

    Nevertheless, I do miss him. Brought some vigour to proceedings.

    Those were the days.

    BTW, I hope you are keeping well.

  147. Chairwoman — on 2nd June, 2007 at 11:33 pm  

    Thank you, my friend, I could be worse. I am waiting to be admitted to hospital for approximately 6 weeks, so that I won’t be as much of a chair woman as I am now.

    How are you and the Refreshlets?

  148. Refresh — on 2nd June, 2007 at 11:47 pm  

    Hope the wait doesn’t go on much longer.

    I am pretty good – too busy with projects to know what to tackle next. Having said that its good fun.

    As for the Refreshlets, I’m missing them. See less of them these days, we had to put them off for a month or so as we had the roofers with scaffolding surrounding Refresh Castle. It’ll pick up again.

    Do you have plans for when you are less of a chair woman?

    I am interested to know, I may need help with some of my projects.

  149. Chairwoman — on 2nd June, 2007 at 11:55 pm  

    I just want to be useful again. I’ve always been busy, and the enforced idleness has been difficult. Luckily, I’m an only child, so have always been able to amuse myself, but amusing myself day after day has started to pall to say the least.

    We’re going to have some work done here, a loft conversion, and possibly re-arrangement of the downstairs. We need to see how mobile I am first.

    But yes, I would be really interested to hear about your projects.

  150. Vikrant — on 3rd June, 2007 at 12:01 am  

    Sidenote to Sunny: Please do not ban Mazumdar. [And can we have Amir back please].

    Sunny may be on a vacation to Amsterdam but Muzu mught just be pushing his luck…

    Anyways our mutual suspicions and communal mentalities are really unnecessary here. On streets of Britain we’re all Pakis anyway. Just tis evening i got called a “f***ing Paki” on a street where i used to live for over 6 yrs.

  151. Refresh — on 3rd June, 2007 at 12:03 am  

    Good stuff. Will be in touch off-line.

    Just watching Tommy on 2. Didn’t think I’d like it too much, but its good. Have always liked the Who, but was put off by Pinball Wizard – I think it was because of Elton John stutting in those ridiculous DMs and glasses.

  152. Vikrant — on 3rd June, 2007 at 12:03 am  

    Thank you, my friend, I could be worse. I am waiting to be admitted to hospital for approximately 6 weeks, so that I won’t be as much of a chair woman as I am now.

    I must say Chairwoman, you should have accepted JFF’s offer to set u up with docs in Mumbai.

  153. Vikrant — on 3rd June, 2007 at 12:04 am  

    Thank you, my friend, I could be worse. I am waiting to be admitted to hospital for approximately 6 weeks, so that I won’t be as much of a chair woman as I am now.

    I must say Chairwoman, you should have accepted JFF’s offer to set u up an appointment with docs in Mumbai.

  154. Vikrant — on 3rd June, 2007 at 12:05 am  

    Anyways Katy i demand my weekend open-thread. I really need an outlet today.

  155. Refresh — on 3rd June, 2007 at 12:10 am  

    Vikrant, I am so saddened to hear that.

  156. Chairwoman — on 3rd June, 2007 at 12:18 am  

    Vikrant – Katy’s gone out. I didn’t accept JFF’s offer because it’s not a surgical problem, and I’ve been told to avoid hot climates and anywhere where mosquitos are prevalent. Also, bizarrely, it’s such an unglamorous branch of medicine that there are very few specialists.

    Refresh – Yes I am also watching Tommy and not enjoying it very much. I’m not even watching Law and Order tonight, as I’ve seen them all before. The Chairman used to do some work for a musical equipment hire company that had Elton’s boots from Tommy over their front door. At the time, they were bigger than Katy.

  157. Refresh — on 3rd June, 2007 at 12:24 am  

    I’d never seen it. Heard the music. I guess we’re coming up to the Elton John sequence. I’ll have to look away.

    Hard to imagine boots bigger than Katy (err explain to her if she reads it the wrong way).

  158. sid — on 3rd June, 2007 at 1:44 am  

    I think Sunny’s way too trigger happy with the ban button. Muzumdar, I think you’re posts are invaluable even if I do get pissed off by them. And yeah, I miss Amer too.

  159. Refresh — on 3rd June, 2007 at 11:03 am  

    To be honest Sid, you would have to sympathise with Sunny if he was to ban Muzumdar.

    He is not Amer.

    Its not often I’ve invited people I know to cast an eye on a PP commenter, but this reincarnation of Naxal seems to be attracting universal revulsion.

    The common response is, ‘we can do without communalists like him’. And the other one – ‘you’re wasting your time with fascists’.

    But there is something about Muzumdar. Invaluable entertainment.

    I am still not convinced he is what he says he is. He rejects the Khalistanis of 1980′s; and now has found an alternative model – Zionism. And goes about the laborious work of fitting facts around a policy.

    We’ve all seen it before.

  160. limpia — on 3rd June, 2007 at 1:29 pm  

    wow- u havent found any logic to his words?

  161. Refresh — on 3rd June, 2007 at 4:55 pm  

    Limpia – short answer is I’ve given up looking; and moved into counselling mode.

    What do you make of it?

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Pickled Politics © Copyright 2005 - 2010. All rights reserved. Terms and conditions.
With the help of PHP and Wordpress.