‘Muslims for Britain’


by Sunny
6th July, 2007 at 12:57 am    

A media campaign titled ‘Not in Our Name’, is going to be launched across the UK with adverts in newspapers emphasising: “the Muslim community’s rejection of any attempts to link any such criminal attacks to the teachings of Islam”.
The campaign has received support from Conservative Muslim Forum, Islamic Relief, the Islamic Society of Britain and Muslim Doctors and Dentists Association among others. It’s a nice gesture and they have a website headlined Muslims for Britain.

Meanwhile, the Muslim Council of Britain has scheduled a conference for tomorrow to “discuss our combined response to combat terrorist threats”. Only two years after 7/7. I look forward to thoughts from Inayat Bunglawala that go past blaming the war in Iraq for everything.

Three men were convicted today for promoting Al-Qaeda on the web and inciting terrorism.


              Post to del.icio.us


Filed in: Media,Religion






129 Comments below   |  

Reactions: Twitter, blogs
  1. University Update - Iraq - ‘Muslims for Britain’

    [...] House Link to Article iraq ‘Muslims for Britain’ » Posted at Pickled Politics on Thursday, July [...]




  1. TheIrie — on 6th July, 2007 at 8:20 am  

    It looks like the “Muslim community” is learning how to run effective media campaigns – a necessary evil in a world dominated by the public relations industry, so good for them. I thought this clip was interesting – Inayat Bungawala versus Asghar Bukhari. I wonder what Sunny et al think of Bukhari’s points here, specifically, whilst stating that Foreign Policy is a root problem (which I, as a non-Muslim have to agree with), the mosque leaders are guilty of failing to educate young Muslims in democracy and community participation etc. I though this was a pretty constructive comment.

  2. TheIrie — on 6th July, 2007 at 8:43 am  

    Dude, where’s my comment?

  3. Rebecca — on 6th July, 2007 at 10:33 am  

    Hello Sunny!

    speaking of Mr. Bungalawa and media campaigns…

    watch this Al Jazeera coverage of the failed Bomb Attacks:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R7M3t5UVkGg
    It goes on and on about the imminent backlash that Muslims have to fear… not really about terrorism.

    So a Media Campaign would be most welcome. But what do Muslims United propose, apart from stating “Not in Our Name”?

    This:
    Phase III
    “fight the diseases of Islamophobia and racism that are a cancer in our society”

    Why not fight the cancer of islamic extremism, the victimhood mentality, the prevalence of conspiracy theories or the muslim moral superiority complexe?

  4. Refresh — on 6th July, 2007 at 10:42 am  

    Sunny, I think you are struggling with your memory.

    At the time of 7/7 and after much deliberation with a broad spectrum of muslim representation, the government did not implement the vast majority of the recommendations. Most if not all of them valid and in line with a ‘strategy’ of community cohesion. I seem to recall you have commented on this in the past.

    The one that stuck out like a sore thumb was the one tackling islamophobia especially online.

    So is it any surprise that communities might end up with a siege mentality?

    We of course understand why Tony Blair needed to blame muslims. A master at deception in his own cause – but not one for the country.

    I would like to see the Labour Party membership coming out joining those demonstrations saying, ‘err Not in My Name Either’.

    By the way there were some not in my name demos before – but Al Maj demos make for better headline and a bigger stick for the media and Blair.

    So now we have an opportunity to make Blair history.

    Speaking to someone who seemed to make a lot of sense to me – over the last few days. If we are at war, and we are, we invaded and are occupying Iraq, then why is anybody surprised that there people coming over in retaliation?

    And is it any surprise, we are defending ourselves against such attacks?

    In the end Sunny, you can’t keep saying its nothing to do with Iraq. That would be dishonest.

  5. Refresh — on 6th July, 2007 at 10:43 am  

    Listen Rebecca – ah forget it!

  6. Sajid Huq — on 6th July, 2007 at 11:39 am  

    I have something here that might be worth checking out.
    http://www.addafication.com

  7. ZinZin — on 6th July, 2007 at 11:52 am  

    There is a muslim doctors and dentist association? They must be feeling a little sheepish given recent events.

    Shame they played the islamophobia card is no one really gives a damn about muslims. Even muslims themselves don’t buy into the islamophobia myth. Put that in your pipe and smoke it, refresh.

    Foreign policy causes terrorism? Refresh where have you been the past week? Hassan Butt has told us that this is not true. Its the theology stupid.

  8. Refresh — on 6th July, 2007 at 12:45 pm  

    ZinZin, read carefully what I say.

    “Even muslims themselves don’t buy into the islamophobia myth.”

    It doesn’t exist? Its a myth? Racism is a myth? Anti-semitism is a myth?

    “Foreign policy causes terrorism? Refresh where have you been the past week? Hassan Butt has told us that this is not true. Its the theology stupid.”

    What did I actually say about Iraq? I suggest you read it again. We are at war with Iraq.

    Theology? By that do you mean religion?

    Hassan Butt – he can say whatever he likes. He was a spokesperson for al Maj and now a spokesperson for the anti Maj. I didn’t understand what the hell he was talking about. He was on telly before and he will be on telly hereafter.

    He should be on trial for recruitment and whatever else he may have done which tainted his faith. If he cheered because he’d got a propaganda victory because people thought it was Blair’s policies alone, then he is of no substance.

    The vast majority of people can differentiate – Hassan Butt should be on trial, Blair should be on trial. One for incitement and the other for war crimes.

    Its not one or the other. Plague on both their houses.

    And on yours of course.

  9. zahed — on 6th July, 2007 at 12:49 pm  

    Speaking to someone who seemed to make a lot of sense to me – over the last few days. If we are at war, and we are, we invaded and are occupying Iraq, then why is anybody surprised that there people coming over in retaliation? And is it any surprise, we are defending ourselves against such attacks?

    So what should be in response? I’m still waiting for someone to say *explicitly* that if we don’t want terrorism in Britain, we should change British foreign policy.

    Curiously, no one ever does that because it sounds like, well… a threat. Hard to influence people that way, especially the majority of citizens who hate the Iraq mess and want a way out but don’t want to appear to capitulate to terrorism.

    The more more terrorism and foreign policy are conflated, the more we’ll have this circular argument and the more things will never change. Give people a way out by condemning foreign policy on its own injustices. Condemn terrorism by its inherent injustice. And put the freakin’ Grand Canyon in between them.

  10. ZinZin — on 6th July, 2007 at 1:16 pm  

    Refresh stop playing on liberal guilt and open your eyes.
    Butt and the BJN were in existence long before Iraq and Afghanistan.

    We are not at war with Iraq.

    Iraq is at war with itself.

    When did Blair ever blame Muslims?

    Refresh your argument is irrational and is nothing more than an outburst of incoherent rage.

  11. ZinZin — on 6th July, 2007 at 1:17 pm  

    The more more terrorism and foreign policy are conflated, the more we’ll have this circular argument and the more things will never change. Give people a way out by condemning foreign policy on its own injustices. Condemn terrorism by its inherent injustice. And put the freakin’ Grand Canyon in between them.

    Agreed

  12. Random Guy — on 6th July, 2007 at 2:04 pm  

    ZinZin said: “We are not at war with Iraq. Iraq is at war with itself.”

    Please tell me you are not serious. The conditions in Iraq today are a DIRECT result of the crime that the US and UK perpetrated 5 years ago. The primary responsibility is, and ever will be from here on in, on their heads for what happens next in that region. All the children, the women, the elderly, the men, the infrastructure for crissakes, all of it murdered for black gold and politics. Don’t try and redirect any blame until you put this sentiment before any statement you make.

    @Zahed: The requirement for terrorism and foreign piolicy to be related is vital for the invading western powers when they are performing military operations abroad and also vital for that foreign policy link to be played down when things happen domestically that raise these questions. It is a matter for the pure politics of controlling public opinion. An expert panel sits on this in the government with very smart people who know what needs to be said and how to say it. I wholeheartedly agree with you about seperating the two on the basis of injustices, but I doubt it will happen because even if one side does that, the government never will. Why? Well, look to Woodrow Wilson and his theory of the “Elite” leading the stupid. It’s because they will never accept what they are doing abroad as wrong. Rather, as a neccesity that the Chosen Ones must perform.

    Wrt the OT, I welcome the idea of an organised public response by muslims. This is necessary simply from the fact that it will provide an alternative view of muslims from the one normally bandied about in the mass media. At the very least, a number of people will once again see that the majority of pious muslims here are also opposed to the slaughter of innocents, wherever that may be.

  13. Refresh — on 6th July, 2007 at 2:22 pm  

    ZinZin,

    Rage, irrational? Not me matey.

    Read and digest Zahed and Random Guy.

  14. Refresh — on 6th July, 2007 at 2:25 pm  

    “We are not at war with Iraq.”

    I think you will find we are.

    “Iraq is at war with itself.”
    That’s an interesting one.

    “When did Blair ever blame Muslims?”
    When it became clear that muslims views on the war and the wider public was as one.

  15. zahed — on 6th July, 2007 at 2:34 pm  

    The requirement for terrorism and foreign piolicy to be related is vital for the invading western powers when they are performing military operations abroad and also vital for that foreign policy link to be played down when things happen domestically that raise these questions. It is a matter for the pure politics of controlling public opinion.

    I agree with this and I would take it a step further… when citizens (especially Muslim ones) start saying that terrorism is blowback for foreign policy, those in government who conflated the two in the first place know that it suits their purposes as well. It “proves” the government’s point that “if we don’t get them there, they’ll get us here” (even if everything is twisted around in reality).

    The public fear of terrorism (promoted by the government) will not be soothed with more fear of terrorism (as argued by the blowback proponents). The answer is not to buy the government’s logic, but to maintain a principled alternative.

    I have to note that this “serves you right” approach to terrorism is far less prevalent in the US, partially because of fear of the government, but also because this approach has never caught on with Muslims (or war opponents) there. Instead, the torture, civil liberties, direct and indirect deaths, exacerbating of sectarian tensions, failure to deliver security, sabre-rattling with Iran, etc, etc, have all worked to erode the Bush administration’s arguments. For the first time in years, there is a sense of real momentum in ending this fiasco.

    And none of it has to do with conflating foreign policy with terrorism.

  16. Sunny — on 6th July, 2007 at 2:36 pm  

    Zahed, that is one of the best points ever made on PP here. Brilliant.

  17. Refresh — on 6th July, 2007 at 2:38 pm  

    Spot on Zahed.

    Finally we have a real honest debate.

  18. TheFriendlyInfidel — on 6th July, 2007 at 2:46 pm  

    Inayat on the Moral Maze getting quite a hard time …

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/religion/moralmaze.shtml

    TFI

  19. Leon — on 6th July, 2007 at 2:46 pm  

    If you think terrorism and foreign policy (and not necessarily ours either) aren’t linked (and yes there are more ways to this than simple cause and effect) you should read books like Confessions of an Economic Hitman or Terrorism Inc…

  20. Refresh — on 6th July, 2007 at 2:55 pm  

    TFI ad hominem attacks on Inayat and gloating are irrelevant.

  21. Twining or Black in Blue — on 6th July, 2007 at 3:01 pm  

    Refresh, Anti-Semitism is a myth? Racism is a myth? There are still some radical Muslims that say the Holocaust never occurred. How is that myth?

    And racism, it’s not a myth. Try telling that to the deceased Stephen Lawrence. Racism is not a myth, institutional or otherwise, it is real. We are in a state where Black and Asian “token’s” who are pretty incompetent are being rolled out in numbers to say actually there is no issue. Academic racists are using these people to bat off intelligent Black people. It’s a joke. The truth is some Black people are being used and some allow themselves to be used.

    Following Macpherson most public sector organisations have been in denial over racism claims. These people, managers, are playing games with us. They will not tolerate intelligent Black and Asian people. Ask Ali Dizaie. He couldn’t be Black/Asian, intelligent and mouthy? To get on, one has to toe the party line. Plenty of Black and Asian Officer’s get on in this way, but they sell out.

  22. Twining or Black in Blue — on 6th July, 2007 at 3:05 pm  

    Terrorism has much to do both with the interpretation of faith, (individual), as it has to do with those in power who mave have been economical with the truth about Foreign policy. There is no concept for fundamentalists about being a part of any adopted identity. They remain firmly within their theological belief of supremacy. Anyway I have a new blogsite!

  23. TheIrie — on 6th July, 2007 at 3:14 pm  

    I think Asghar Bukhari has the best line on this, which is that Foreign Policy does cause a legitimate grievance – not just for Muslims, for all human beings who recognise that people in Iraq and else where are also human beings – but that this grievance must be channeled into democratic outlets. Zahed’s point is well and good, but to pretend that there is no link between foreign policy and terrorism is denial of an empirically discernible fact. The ideology behind terrorism wouldn’t be attractive to even the small minority of people it is attractive to, if it weren’t for the reality of our brothers and sisters suffering and dying all over the world. There is no point in going after people who say that. The question is what tactic to we employ to combat terrorism, and the answer is educate people how to participate in democracy.

  24. Refresh — on 6th July, 2007 at 3:23 pm  

    Twining
    “Refresh, Anti-Semitism is a myth? Racism is a myth? There are still some radical Muslims that say the Holocaust never occurred. How is that myth?”

    I agree they are not myths. That was my point. Islamaphobia is not a myth. Tell that to ZinZin.

    “radical Muslims that say the Holocaust never occurred”
    are wrong.

    Thelrie,

    “Zahed’s point is well and good, but to pretend that there is no link between foreign policy and terrorism is denial of an empirically discernible fact.”

    Unless I have misunderstood Zahed, what he is saying is that the issues need to be divided and each dealt with through principles.

    And Asghar’s right – Foreign Policy is an affront to us all.

  25. zahed — on 6th July, 2007 at 3:24 pm  

    I’m not pretending there isn’t a link. There is most certainly one.

    But it’s a complete non sequitor. It’s an ineffective argument in changing foreign policy. Few people will accept challenging an injustice with the threat of another injustice. This argument has failed to create any momentum in changing foreign policy in the four years since the Iraq invasion began.

    I would argue, in fact, that the argument helps the government perpetuate it.

  26. Refresh — on 6th July, 2007 at 3:26 pm  

    TFI – listened to the Moral Maze. Good debate. Inayat did well. As did Shiv Malik, Lord Aldardyce was rational.

    Melanie Phillips came across as underhand and a literalist.

  27. TheIrie — on 6th July, 2007 at 3:36 pm  

    Zahed – yes, I do agree with that, though I don’t know what you mean by “Few people will accept challenging an injustice with the threat of another injustice”.

  28. zahed — on 6th July, 2007 at 3:39 pm  

    Zahed – yes, I do agree with that, though I don’t know what you mean by “Few people will accept challenging an injustice with the threat of another injustice”.

    Challenging the injustice of foreign policy (Iraq/Palestine) by threatening that an injustice (terrorism) will occur to you.

  29. Refresh — on 6th July, 2007 at 3:45 pm  

    Twining, I should have said:

    ““radical Muslims that say the Holocaust never occurred” are wrong but they didn’t do it.

  30. sonia — on 6th July, 2007 at 3:48 pm  

    yes i think zahed makes some really good points in no. 16

  31. soru — on 6th July, 2007 at 4:19 pm  

    ‘And Asghar’s right – Foreign Policy is an affront to us all.’

    Certainly, everyone is affronted by ‘foreign policy’. Sort of like ‘everyone needs love’.

    But just different people are attracted to different people, different people are affronted by different things. Some people like redheads, some people blondes, some people like men, some people like to cuddle, some like the kink.

    The idea that al qaeda Iraq, who appear to be the ones behind this latest thing, are affronted by the same things that motivate home-grown terrorists, Respect activists, Shi’a militia, Hamas, Hizbollah, Fatah, the Taliban, ETA, Guardian leader writers, US militia types, Tamil tigers, Kurds, Chomsky, Israeli settlers, Anne Coulter, Tory MPs, or Harold Pinter, is clearly one thing: bloody stupid.

    Coming up with a foreign policy that wins the approval of all of those is not a very realistic goal.

  32. Bijna — on 6th July, 2007 at 4:23 pm  

    > radical Muslims that say the Holocaust
    > never occurred” are wrong but they didn’t do it.

    It was Mohammad Amin al-Husayni, Mufti of Jerusalem,
    who conviced Hitler that it was beter to gas the Jews
    instead of deporting them to Israel.

    http://www.fantompowa.net/Flame/yugoslavia_collaboration.htm
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amin_al-Husayni

  33. Refresh — on 6th July, 2007 at 4:34 pm  

    Bijna – that is the ultimate connection. You’ve hit the jackpot!!!

  34. Twining or Black in Blue — on 6th July, 2007 at 4:48 pm  

    Refresh according to Bijna it was Mohammad Amin al-Husayni who convinces Hitler to gas the Jews instead of deporting them. Forgive me, but it read like you were saying some things are myths. Like I am really lost now.

    Then you say that they didn’t do it. OK the current radicals may not have been around then and they did not have an active part in the Holocaust. This follows but why do some Islamists deny the Holocaust now.

    Islamaphobia does exist, but some people will not look within either. But so does Anti Westernism, (my term) Anti Hinduism, etc. Let’s be about right, radicals cannot see beyond “their” perception of their own. As long as one-faith sings it’s superiority then there will always be losers. In theological terms, this means, other faiths.

    Just because people follow Islam, this does not mean that they cannot ACCEPT the existence of other faiths, but sadly, this seems to be the case with radicals. Hence a cause of terrorism. British Islam or it’s interpretation must moderate unless the Muslim world wishes to close it’s eyes to everyone outside of it.

  35. ZinZin — on 6th July, 2007 at 5:43 pm  

    it doesn’t exist? Its a myth? Racism is a myth? Anti-semitism is a myth?

    Thats irrational and incoherent rage, refresh. The debates moved on from foreign policy causes terrorism, I suuggest you do the same.

    A plague on my house; just for disagreeing with you? Thats plain nasty.

    Iraq is on the verge of civil war and although the US as the occupying power has responsibility for Iraq. Perhaps you should put some blame on all those death squads be they sunni/shia.

  36. Jai — on 6th July, 2007 at 6:04 pm  

    “Even muslims themselves don’t buy into the islamophobia myth.” “It doesn’t exist? Its a myth?”

    These days it’s evolved into “Asianophobia”. The rest of us have been dragged into this ungodly cesspool too, thanks to the activities of our homegrown jihadists and extremists during the past few years. Wonderful.

    Of course, it doesn’t help when mainstream British newspapers say things like “the current terrorist threat within the UK is coming from the Asian community. Only certain sections of that community, of course, but an angry young Asian is still more likely to be an Islamist terrorist then an elderly white grandmother”.

    The problem ain’t just a “Muslim thing” any more, buddy. We’re all being blamed for this now, one way or another.

    We are at war with Iraq.

    Not quite. We’re at war with the insurgents and “foreign terrorists” in Iraq. We stopped being at war with Iraq itself when Saddam Hussein’s government was overthrown.

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

    Brilliant points by Zahed, by the way. I agree with Sunny’s post #17; Zahed’s comments have been a more concise and eloquent way of saying what I’ve been trying to say myself all along.

  37. ZinZin — on 6th July, 2007 at 6:24 pm  

    Jai
    My understanding is that Muslim is a code word for paki. That is why I say that islamophobia is exaggerated, it only exists in the minds of muslim community leaders looking to create a siege mentality. No one gives a damn about muslims.

    Give those community leaders their due they have recalssified a religion as a race.

  38. Don — on 6th July, 2007 at 6:25 pm  

    Just caught up with this thread. I agree that Zahed has made a very important point and put it clearly and forcefully. Any policy, foreign or domestic, should be opposed if it is unethical and harmful. It being wrong is reason enough.

    To draw an analogy (which will no doubt be picked apart by someone), if neighbour A is selling heroin to kids and neighbour B declared his anger and determination to put a stop to it then I would wholeheartedly support him. But if his chosen method was to abduct and murder A’s children then my energies would be directed towards B. A would be put on the back burner, as it were.

  39. Usman — on 6th July, 2007 at 6:35 pm  

    “Not quite. We’re at war with the insurgents and “foreign terrorists” in Iraq. We stopped being at war with Iraq itself when Saddam Hussein’s government was overthrown.”
    Jai this is so funny, would you say the British and American troops there are foreign to Iraq? So who are the foreign fighters and insurgents really? It’s these kind of lies the politicians use to pacify their own masses, seems to have worked a treat with you. Do you ever look beyond what you see and hear on the media?

  40. Twining or Black in Blue — on 6th July, 2007 at 6:47 pm  

    With respect Usman why are you firing rounds at Jai. Is he an easy target? Just read what he has written. There is now an offence, it’s called being Asian or looking it. De Menezes fell foul of it. Usman, where do you think this offence came from? De Menezes would not have occurred had it not been for terrorism. He is a victim of terrorism.

    It’s radicals, Asian radicals that have caused this negative inflamation of Asian peoples. And let’s be about right. I don’t see any Indian terrorists involved in Global acts of terrorism here or in the USA.
    At this moment in time this is about the radicalisation process within Islam, isn’t it? Or do you wish simply to close your eyes because others don’t exist?

  41. bikhair aka taqiyyah — on 6th July, 2007 at 8:08 pm  

    Refresh,

    Islamophobia, whatever it means and whatever the consequences of it is, and racism do in fact exist. However it is so excuse for anything.

  42. Mirpuriguy — on 6th July, 2007 at 10:55 pm  

    Another pointless gesture, this is a gestur just to satisfy the government and non-muslims.

    I personally as a Muslim do not feel I have to apologise for anything especially for nutters who go around bombing. These people are just crazy. Every community has these.

    Currently the British Media is obsessed with finding a few nutty muslims and then giving them space in there paper to promot there extreme views.

    If anything the British Media should apologise for the bullshit coverage that they provide on Muslim Issues. The British government should apologise for introducing the nutters into this country back in the 80′s and 90′s who were then given freedom to spread there extreme views in the muslim communities.

    The government should also apologise for the ‘fear’ environment that they have created through over exaggerating the ‘terror’ issue. Remember part of the terror that is being visited on this country is in the mind of people.

    We do have a problem with a small minority but they can be dealt by the police without the media and government creating a hyped up situation everytime we have a terror alert.

  43. Bijna — on 6th July, 2007 at 11:20 pm  

    I have behead-o-phobia, so I regularly check whether my head is still in place.

  44. Muhamad — on 6th July, 2007 at 11:43 pm  

    “vahiguru ki khalsa, vahiguru ki Kabir (Bedi)”

    I’m sorry bhaisabho aur behno but “the teaching of Islam” is as contradictory and inconsistent as the teaching of Nietzsche.

    Still, I’s wanna biggitup for the edgeucated Muslims for makin an effort.

  45. Refresh — on 7th July, 2007 at 1:45 am  

    ZinZin, ‘plague on your house’ is a pretty standard english term. Its not personal and its not nasty. I am sorry you saw it like that.

    Soru, I was a bit loose with my terminology. We need a foreign policy which is based on principles and not on economic and political expediency. I had not anticipated a deep discussion on how that should be developed – but then I should not be surprised. This is Pickled Politics after all.

    I go with Don’s point “Any policy, foreign or domestic, should be opposed if it is unethical and harmful. It being wrong is reason enough.” And the rest of his post #39. I am not one for trying to balance everyone’s demands.

    ZinZin, “it doesn’t exist? Its a myth? Racism is a myth? Anti-semitism is a myth?

    Thats irrational and incoherent rage, refresh.”

    Does Islamaphobia exist? You say its a myth. You also say my expressing an opposing view to you is incoherent rage. You are wrong.

    “it only exists in the minds of muslim community leaders looking to create a siege mentality.” – not so. I suggest you look at the Runnymede Trust Report “Islamophobia: A Challenge For Us All” published 1997. That is 10 years ago.

    Twining, I think there is some confusion here. I was responding to ZinZin’s assertion that Islamophobia was a myth. I disagreed with him.

    As for Bijna, I am not aware of anyone accusing muslims of instigating the holocaust.

    Bikhair, I agree. I had not suggested otherwise.

  46. Refresh — on 7th July, 2007 at 1:56 am  

    I think Zahed has put forward a proposition which I think most of us can actually sign up to.

    I am more than happy with it. For me everything else is a distraction.

  47. Usman — on 7th July, 2007 at 2:31 am  

    Rather than give my view on things I’ll ask some questions instead, anybody feel free to give your views

    1) For all those that are implying that Islam/Muslims/theology is responsible for terrorism, could you provide some evidence for this? This sound like a slogan without a reality.

    2) What are the driving factors that decide foreign policy or should I say what defines the vital interests that foreign policy serves to seek?

    3) Is it really possible to change those vital interests via democratic means? Even though the UN vetoed the decision to going to war in Iraq?

  48. ZinZin — on 7th July, 2007 at 12:04 pm  

    Refresh I am not going to cover old ground over Islamophobia.

    Read this and lets put it to bed.

    http://www.kenanmalik.com/essays/islamophobia_prospect.html

    Next time you disagree with me try to stay calm :)

  49. Katy Newton — on 7th July, 2007 at 12:59 pm  

    For all those that are implying that Islam/Muslims/theology is responsible for terrorism, could you provide some evidence for this? This sound like a slogan without a reality

    I am not an Islamic scholar and so it is difficult for me to answer that. I don’t believe that most Muslims follow the sort of Islam that authorises that sort of behaviour. But I find it hard to believe that you couldn’t, if you tried, put together bits and pieces of Scripture that did make it look as if Islam authorised that. You can do the same thing with Judaism and with Christianity and no doubt with every other religion on the planet. It doesn’t make it right, but it can be done, I’m afraid.

  50. Usman — on 7th July, 2007 at 3:37 pm  

    Katy Newton
    Thanks for your comment
    I appreciate what you’re saying and maybe you are correct, unfortunately there is no evidence to prove this claim. My concern and frustration is that accusations are made from the top and by the time they get to the bottom they are taken as fact by the ignorant and manipulated minds of some.

    If there is to be a debate on the cause of terrorism, or what it is that Muslims must change if Islam is the route cause or even remotely is influencing terrorism than it should be based on more credible information and not assumptions. Would you agree?

  51. Refresh — on 7th July, 2007 at 4:50 pm  

    ZinZin,

    No need to cover old ground. Its only on select sites where Islamophobia is rejected as a concept because its an inconvenient reality.

    I am more inclined to go by a lengthy study than a polemic.

    You’d be better off trying to split the issues and address them individually than conflating it into something you can only end up dismissing.

  52. j0nz — on 7th July, 2007 at 5:02 pm  

    Is Islamophobia a myth?

    Why on earth would people be afraid of Islam?! How silly and baseless!!

    Take out all the misogyny, barbaric punishments, intolerance and killing in the name of it’s own aggranisement and you have a lovely religion!

    Same can pretty much be said for the Old Testament! (but hardly anyone adheres to that nowadays)

    Bring on the Richard Dawkins school of thought.

  53. ZinZin — on 7th July, 2007 at 5:20 pm  

    Refresh I reject it because it is baseless in reality, when Jagdeeps uncle was verbally abused in the street post 7/7/05 was that Islamophobia or racism? Islam is not a race. I can not tell the difference between a muslim/sikh/hindu, just as I can’t tell the difference between a catholic/protestant.

    It exist in your head only no one is out to get you.

    Islamophobia became common currency in 2001/02 that Runnymeade report was published in 1997. For goodness sake apart from Runnymeade researchers, I doubt if any white people knew of its existence. Its an ideological construct used by the likes of the MCB to gain power and influence.

    It worked for a while but you can fool some of the people some of the time, but you can’t fool all of the people all of the time. It even fooled me for a while.

  54. Jai — on 7th July, 2007 at 5:26 pm  

    Jai this is so funny, would you say the British and American troops there are foreign to Iraq? So who are the foreign fighters and insurgents really? It’s these kind of lies the politicians use to pacify their own masses, seems to have worked a treat with you. Do you ever look beyond what you see and hear on the media?

    …..None of which has any relevance to my previous comment, simply stating that we are not actually at war with the state of Iraq (anymore), namely its civilian population and its recently-elected legitimate government.

    So save the insinuations and ad hominem attacks for someone else, Usman.

    Is he an easy target? Just read what he has written.

    Thanks for the defence in my absence, Twining. Much appreciated. Although, ironically, I think that anyone who assumes I’m an “easy target” is gravely mistaken and would be in for a very nasty shock indeed.

  55. j0nz — on 7th July, 2007 at 6:06 pm  

    Yar. The endemic “islamohobia” that pervades our society! Except of course the British are remarkably tolerant, shown to be more tolerant than pretty much the rest of the Western world! And yet Muslims here are the most “radicalised” . Go figure.

    The reality is of course that JEWS are SIX times more likely to be attacked than Muslims. And the highest concentration of these attacks… are in Muslim areas!

    Toodle pip!

    Usman, try google for question no. 1. I won’t quote the verses as it makes people very angry (against me, not the verses).

  56. Twining or Black in Blue — on 7th July, 2007 at 6:51 pm  

    Usman in relation to your question 1, what is the faith of the terrorists? Is this not enough evidence that somehow there is a link between terrorism and Islam? Surely Islam and Muslim people must take some responsibility here?

    Usman you are a pretty cute cookie for raising some oblivious questions but I don’t see Indian or Sikh terrorists operating in the West, do you? Jai, no problems. Fair is fair, but what was happening in your absence was not fair.

  57. Usman — on 8th July, 2007 at 3:37 am  

    Jai
    “…..None of which has any relevance to my previous comment, simply stating that we are not actually at war with the state of Iraq (anymore), namely its civilian population and its recently-elected legitimate government.”

    Legitimate? Are you serious? In a land that is occupied by foreign forces, who then provide a platform for some sham elections, is it not obvious that the one to come into power will be one who best serves the interest of their colonial master, and the Iraqis should be pleased I suppose because they get a choice of which puppet they have to rule over them.

    “not actually at war with the state of Iraq (anymore), namely its civilian population”

    That’s true, not at war with Sadam anymore. Civilian population? 600,000 civilian deaths collateral damage maybe? The people trying to kill the occupiers are foreigners and insurgents? Then why don’t they leave? Maybe because it’s all a pack of lies used to fool their populations and keep them mislead to justify their continued occupation, and if they did leave the puppet they erected would surely crumble soon after as they have no support from the locals in reality.

    “I think that anyone who assumes I’m an “easy target” is gravely mistaken and would be in for a very nasty shock indeed.”

    No doubt jai, im sure your very intelligent, more reason you should not be fooled so easily by what the media tells you as fact when they have such a terrible track record of deceit, (WMD’s and sexed up dosier, it wasn’t that long ago jai surely your memory is not that bad). No disrespect jai, this isn’t some kind of competition or trying to pick an argument with you for the sake of it, due respect to you for holding your views but when I disagree with you I will present my case to why I disagree.

    J0nz

    “Usman, try google for question no. 1. I won’t quote the verses as it makes people very angry (against me, not the verses).”
    This is not an answer to my question J0nz,

    Twining
    Usman in relation to your question 1, what is the faith of the terrorists? Is this not enough evidence that somehow there is a link between terrorism and Islam? Surely Islam and Muslim people must take some responsibility here?
    Really twining, why? What evidence is there to support this theory. These are empty slogans with no reality this is not evidence.

  58. douglas clark — on 8th July, 2007 at 9:37 am  

    Usman,

    Is asking the folk what they think, wrong?

  59. Derius — on 8th July, 2007 at 11:51 am  

    Usman,

    Katy Newton is correct. No-one has argued on this link that orthodox Islam justifies violence, but some of us believe (me being one of them) that a non contextual and literal reading can be used to do so.

    If you really want a list of Qur’anic quotes that are used by the jihadists to recruit members, then I can provide it. But I fail to see what this would achieve, as I don’t believe for one moment that you aren’t aware of those verses either. I also don’t fancy being banned from this website, which is probably what would hapen if I went along with your request.

  60. Chris Stiles — on 8th July, 2007 at 12:47 pm  

    Katy Newton is correct. No-one has argued on this link that orthodox Islam justifies violence, but some of us believe (me being one of them) that a non contextual and literal reading can be used to do so.

    And non-contextual and literal readings are more likely to be used because the original writings have not been subjected to Higher Criticism in the same way that the Tanakh etc. have been.

  61. Jai — on 8th July, 2007 at 2:21 pm  

    Usman,

    In a land that is occupied by foreign forces, who then provide a platform for some sham elections, is it not obvious that the one to come into power will be one who best serves the interest of their colonial master, and the Iraqis should be pleased I suppose because they get a choice of which puppet they have to rule over them.

    So who you would you prefer to “rule over them” ? The leader of one of the Shia/Sunni militias that are currently fighting each other and killing so many Iraqi non-combatants in the process ? Or one of the insurgents claiming allegiance to Al-Qaeda ?

    Civilian population? 600,000 civilian deaths collateral damage maybe?

    I’d be interested in seeing your evidence that the majority of these deaths are being directly caused by Western forces. There’s no denying the fact that large numbers of civilian fatalities have indeed occurred due to Western military actions, but the bulk of the estimated 600,000 figure is a result of Muslims killing other Muslims there.

    The people trying to kill the occupiers are foreigners and insurgents? Then why don’t they leave? Maybe because it’s all a pack of lies used to fool their populations and keep them mislead to justify their continued occupation, and if they did leave the puppet they erected would surely crumble soon after as they have no support from the locals in reality.

    It’s clear where your own sympathies lie. Interesting.

    more reason you should not be fooled so easily by what the media tells you as fact when they have such a terrible track record of deceit, (WMD’s and sexed up dosier

    Firstly, you have no idea what I actually think about these matters, so you are in no position to say whether I’ve been “fooled” about anything.

    Secondly, perhaps you should “look beyond what you see and hear” from the ranting mullahs and ignorant, excitable armchair jihadis you’ve been hanging around with. Or at least watch less Al-Jazeera.

    If you want to make wild assumptions and start pointing fingers at others, two can play that game, janaab. Especially when a great deal of what you say sounds like “empty slogans” too.

    as I don’t believe for one moment that you aren’t aware of those verses either.

    I agree with Derius. Don’t play mind-games.

  62. Jai — on 8th July, 2007 at 2:34 pm  

    this isn’t some kind of competition or trying to pick an argument with you for the sake of it,

    Likewise, Usman. Just to make things clear.

  63. Refresh — on 8th July, 2007 at 4:08 pm  

    Couple of links worth reading:

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,2121389,00.html

    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/matthew_parris/article2039719.ece

    Courtesy of Chavette who made the link between the two on CiF thread (first link).

  64. Twining or Black in Blue — on 8th July, 2007 at 4:59 pm  

    Usman, “Surely Islam and Muslim people must take some responsibility here? Really twining, why? What evidence is there to support this theory. These are empty slogans with no reality this is not evidence.”

    This is not a theory, and you will not provide evidence of something that is new. Yours is a poor arguement Usman. This terrorism is global and related to faith.

    What you flout as empty slogans are actually a reality and a part of a failure to integrate. What is Jihad about? Who are infidels? Are these not Islamic terms? Consistently you fail to provide a reasoned reponse. It is easy to ask searching question but not so easy to accept reality. You consistently test people.

  65. Anas — on 8th July, 2007 at 5:14 pm  

    It was Mohammad Amin al-Husayni, Mufti of Jerusalem,
    who conviced Hitler that it was beter to gas the Jews
    instead of deporting them to Israel.

    LOL, that’s a novel historical theory!

  66. Usman — on 8th July, 2007 at 5:55 pm  

    Derius
    The Claim is this. Islam = terrorism and this is the reason for the bombing is London and in Glasgow. I want to know what is the evidence for this? And yet no one is able to provide anything in response.

    There is no evidence, as for those who claim that terrorists are Muslims therefore Islam = terrorism, would someone accept the same logic as Blair and Bush are Christians and the atrocities of these two men were done in the name of Christianity? Its ridiculous.

    Fine, someone could list some verses, but can someone find verses to prove the above theory, that in London and Glasgow these were done because Islam is inherently linked to terrorism?

    Jai
    I would prefer them to choose for them selves without any interference from the US&UK how and who rules over them
    “Secondly, perhaps you should “look beyond what you see and hear” from the ranting mullahs and ignorant, excitable armchair jihadis you’ve been hanging around with. Or at least watch less Al-Jazeera.”
    This is also problematic, anybody who criticise Western foreign policy or advocate the political tenets of Islam are labelled Islamists, armchair jihadis and so on and so forth.
    You are in no position to say who I’ve been hanging around with or what my views are on things, Right back at you Jai

  67. Katy Newton — on 8th July, 2007 at 6:08 pm  

    Not as novel as you think, Anas:

    The Mufti’s knowledge about the Holocaust while living in Nazi Germany has been debated with the Mufti himself denying any such knowledge after the war. Testimony presented at the Nuremberg trials, however, accused the Mufti of not only having knowledge about the holocaust but of also actively encouraging the initiation of extermination programs against European Jews. Adolf Eichmann’s deputy Dieter Wisliceny testified during his war crimes trial in 1946 that … “The Mufti was one of the initiators of the systematic extermination of European Jewry and had been a collaborator and adviser of Eichmann and Himmler in the execution of this plan… He was one of Eichmann’s best friends and had constantly incited him to accelerate the extermination measures. I heard him say, accompanied by Eichmann, he had visited incognito the gas chambers of Auschwitz.”

  68. Katy Newton — on 8th July, 2007 at 6:08 pm  

    Sorry, that’s from Wikipedia.

  69. Katy Newton — on 8th July, 2007 at 6:09 pm  

    And from his own memoirs:

    In his memoirs after the war, Husayni noted that “Our fundamental condition for cooperating with Germany was a free hand to eradicate every last Jew from Palestine and the Arab world. I asked Hitler for an explicit undertaking to allow us to solve the Jewish problem in a manner befitting our national and racial aspirations and according to the scientific methods innovated by Germany in the handling of its Jews. The answer I got was: ‘The Jews are yours.’”

  70. Twining or Black in Blue — on 8th July, 2007 at 6:32 pm  

    Dear Usman, How many people are challenging you? You must ask yourself why? Not all these people can be wrong? Is it possible you are wrong? I don’t discount all that you are saying, but most of what you say is flawed i feel? Are you ready to accept others views? Are you ready to accept others? This is not theory as you mention. What other evidence other than the reality of the terrorist acts do you wish people to put forward. If the West have lied over WMD then history will hold those responsible to account. But is the West professing Conversion? Are Hindu’s, Sikhs, other faiths professing any form of conversion. One can’t convert. It simply is impossible to do it in a heartfelt fashion. You are what you are born, however you flower it up, if you have no choice in converting to be accepted. That is Dharma Usman. Superiority theory is what you appear to be professing. Is there equality in what you profess? This is not about tolerating. THE QUESTION IS CAN YOU ACCEPT OTHER FAITHS OR DO WE SIMPLY NOT EXIST?

  71. Refresh — on 8th July, 2007 at 6:58 pm  

    Katy,

    I am not sure you should rely so much on on Wikipedia.

    You should also read what has been disputed on that entry.

    What dismays me how some people relish the thought that the facts as presented might be true.

  72. Jai — on 8th July, 2007 at 6:59 pm  

    would someone accept the same logic as Blair and Bush are Christians and the atrocities of these two men were done in the name of Christianity?

    The Old Testament in particular is full of all kinds of dubious activities. So the answer is actually “Yes”.

    This is also problematic, anybody who criticise Western foreign policy or advocate the political tenets of Islam are labelled Islamists, armchair jihadis and so on and so forth.
    You are in no position to say who I’ve been hanging around with or what my views are on things, Right back at you Jai

    The whole point behind my analogy just went right over your head, didn’t it Usman ? ;)

    Let me copy & paste the essential sentence again for your benefit, since it appears to need re-iterating:

    “If you want to make wild assumptions and start pointing fingers at others, two can play that game, janaab.”

  73. Refresh — on 8th July, 2007 at 6:59 pm  

    Also I get the impression that until now that is not how you had seen it.

  74. Muzumdar — on 8th July, 2007 at 7:00 pm  

    Usman

    I just have one question for you: do you think that the Taleban were following ‘true’ Sunni Orthodox Islam and would you consider their rule as more or less Islamic?

    Yes or no will suffice.

  75. Twining or Black in Blue — on 8th July, 2007 at 7:03 pm  

    Usman, Pulling out now, will leave civil chaos, utter chaos. An another evil dictator will emerge or groups of infighting will continue. Is this healthy for world peace? This will be like Vietnam or even Afghanistan with the Russians. How can that be best for Iraqi stability?

    Saddam Hussain exterminated some of his own people. he arranged for his son in laws to be murdered. This cannot be allowed. This goes against Human Rights. Murders in the name of faith are inexcusable. And some radicals here sit in their cosy offices, some in hiding, are given top jobs, and as long as their families are OK, they will toe the party line like tokens.

    Others will remain overtly radical. It’s both that are problematic. These murders by Saddam’s regime were not even in self-defence. They were cold-blooded killings. Are you saying it was acceptable for Saddam to do this?

  76. Katy Newton — on 8th July, 2007 at 7:04 pm  

    Refresh, I don’t rely on Wikipedia for stuff that I haven’t also looked at elsewhere. I have read quite widely on the build-up to World War II and I am quite satisfied that that testimony was in fact given at the Nuremberg Trials. It’s a matter of record. Whether or not it is true is of course a matter of dispute. Personally, I don’t believe that a close friend of Eichmann’s living in Berlin during WWII wouldn’t at least have known about what was going on, and I think that the Mufti’s own memoirs make that clear. My point was that it is not, as Anas, suggests, a “novel theory” to suggest that the Mufti was implicated in the final solution.

  77. Twining or Black in Blue — on 8th July, 2007 at 7:06 pm  

    I have to say also Usman, people like you, play the race card when it suits, and you make the lives of anti racist practitioners in the police service hell, because you confuse those that do not understand.

  78. Katy Newton — on 8th July, 2007 at 7:06 pm  

    What dismays me how some people relish the thought that the facts as presented might be true.

    I don’t relish anything to do with WWII.

  79. Twining or Black in Blue — on 8th July, 2007 at 7:07 pm  

    You confuse those in power to accept your agenda, and the real work of anti racism remains undone.

  80. Jai — on 8th July, 2007 at 7:09 pm  

    Saddam Hussein technically was’t even Muslim. I’m surprised that our insurgent-supporting, jihadi-sympathising friends aren’t celebrating the fact that their oppressed Muslim brethren in Iraq have been liberated from the brutal rule of a non-Muslim tyrant.

  81. Don — on 8th July, 2007 at 7:19 pm  

    Usman,

    ‘The Claim is this. Islam = terrorism ‘. I’ve followed this thread fairly closely and I’m pretty sure no-one has made that claim. They claim is rather that the terrorists with whom we are dealing have consistently claimed to be inspired by, acting in accordance with, and furthering the aims of their version of Islam.

    The claim, as you frame it, would be crass, superficial and utterly unhelpful. The actual claim really does need to be addressed.

    ‘… as for those who claim that terrorists are Muslims therefore Islam = terrorism…’

    You are quite right, such a claim is a ludicrous parody of logic, but no-one made it. We’re overloaded with armchair psychologists confidently asserting why someone moves from political dissent to a determination to murder and maim the very people among whom they daily move and have their being.

    My own guess is that it takes – among other things – faith. Faith in something I am sure you would not recognise as Islam, but which they do. Religion, particularly in its perverse supremacist form, is a prodigious begetter of homicidal certainty.

  82. Chairwoman — on 8th July, 2007 at 7:25 pm  

    The Mufti of Jerusalem’s virulent antisemitism and complicity in plans to exterminate Jews reflects only on him and his opinions and ambitions.

    Surely if criticising Zionism is not being antisemitic, then criticising the Mufti for being a racist toad is not being anti-Islamic.

  83. Refresh — on 8th July, 2007 at 7:38 pm  

    Katy

    “I don’t relish anything to do with WWII.”

    I didn’t include you in this.

  84. Twining or Black in Blue — on 8th July, 2007 at 7:45 pm  

    Thank you Don. There are certain radicals that profess Islam promtes Jihad against the West and views of infidels also as non believers. It is this interpetation that I have real concerns with. it is real, otherwise we would not have Glasgow.

    On it’s own Islam as a whole is not promoting terrorism but some Islamists are, and these are our terrorists. Forgive me for thinking this, but these people in short are racists also.

    I don’t equate the whole of Islam with terrorism, what I am suggesting is that Islam must own this internal discourse and condemn these terrorists or of course, condone them.

  85. Refresh — on 8th July, 2007 at 8:12 pm  

    Usman – its clear that what Katy said above the different faiths is correct.

    Don, clarifies it.

    We should not get distracted from what Zahed has said above and we should pursue it vigorously.

  86. Refresh — on 8th July, 2007 at 8:18 pm  

    Usman – its clear what Katy said above about the different faiths is correct.

    Don, clarifies it.

    We should not get distracted from what Zahed has said above and we should pursue it vigorously.

    There are fools who have us beleive that they can justify their outrageous actions through narrow readings of their holy books. And give Katy credit, she says this of not only Islam, but Judaism, Christianity. And by extension, it should take care of most known faiths.

    Equally there are some powerful states who can justify their outrageous actions on the basis of national interests – for which I read economic and political expediency.

    So are we ready to move onto the next stage of this discussion?

  87. Refresh — on 8th July, 2007 at 8:26 pm  

    Chairwoman, not being too well read on the Mufti – I was much more concerned about Bijna’s contribution which is an ocean apart.

  88. Jai — on 8th July, 2007 at 8:33 pm  

    You are in no position to say…..what my views are on things, Right back at you Jai

    That’s a ridiculous remark. Usman, you’ve been stating your “views on things” loud & clear throughout this thread. All the rest of us are doing is responding to them.

    Perhaps you should clarify your age, in order to place your manner and conduct into their proper context. I’m sure I’m not the only person here who’s begun to suspect you may be considerably younger than many other commenters on this blog, including myself. We can then adjust our own stance towards you accordingly, if necessary.

  89. Refresh — on 8th July, 2007 at 8:46 pm  

    Actually, having looked at what ‘his memoirs’ say – I’ve not come across his memoirs at all – rather what someone else says his memoirs say.

    I saw earlier in the article that it was at Eichmann’s trial, in Israel, where that testimony Katy refers to appears. Which itself is disputed, and it comes from only one source.

    The Mufti was not charged, and as it seems odd that as a ‘best friend’ of Eichmann he had only met him 8 times – presumably over a decade.

    What I am opposed to is unprincipled alliances based on the pathetic little concept of ‘enemy of my enemy is my friend’. The Mufti would have known from 1917 that the zionists were coming for Jerusalem. And of course they were.

    Its not clear if he was anti-semitic or anti-zionist.

    I would have welcomed the refugees myself, my alliance would have been with the refugees that should have been streaming out of continental Europe.

    I can say with absolute certainty, my faith tells me that is exactly the right thing to do.

  90. Katy Newton — on 8th July, 2007 at 9:04 pm  

    Refresh, I have very little sympathy with you when you do this. The Grand Mufti’s antisemitism is a matter of fact and record. I understand your urge to defend Islam but not to the extent of closing your eyes to what was actually happening.

  91. Katy Newton — on 8th July, 2007 at 9:04 pm  

    the zionists were coming for Jerusalem

    They were buying land, Refresh, not invading it!

  92. Clairwil — on 8th July, 2007 at 9:07 pm  

    On a happier note the ‘Scotland Against Terror’ rally went very well yesterday. In fact I think it’s the only demo I’ve ever been at where the police got a round of applause!

    More here

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/glasgow_and_west/6279416.stm

  93. Katy Newton — on 8th July, 2007 at 9:11 pm  

    I’ve not come across his memoirs at all – rather what someone else says his memoirs say.

    And your first assumption is that it must not be true? That the person who quoted them is deliberately lying to make him look like an antisemite? I really do wonder about you sometimes. And FYI: the Grand Mufti lived in Germany during the Second World War. His correspondence with high-ranking Germans including Hitler on the subject of ethnic cleansing of Jews in Palestine AND in Europe is a matter of record too. And I was taught at school that you go to the records before you accuse other people of lying about them or of twisting them. I can’t help it if you haven’t read this stuff for yourself.

  94. Katy Newton — on 8th July, 2007 at 9:15 pm  

    I am genuinely disgusted that when you are confronted with the fact – and it is a fact – that the Grand Mufti at BEST applauded Hitler’s methods of extermination of Jews in Germany and wanted permission to apply them to Jews in Palestine when Hitler expanded his empire towards the Middle East – your reaction is “oh he might have been antiZionist not antisemitic”. Well, that’s a great comfort to me. Thank goodness it was because of Israel that he wanted to see Jews wiped off the face of the earth.

  95. bikhair — on 8th July, 2007 at 9:45 pm  

    Katy Newton,

    Yeah but listening to so many people today and specifically because of contemporary politics you would think that the Holocaust woudlnt have happened if it wasnt for old Mufti. Who is doing a disservice to whom?

  96. Katy Newton — on 8th July, 2007 at 10:00 pm  

    The Grand Mufti of Jerusalem supported the ethnic cleansing of Jews in Europe – who in the vast majority of cases wouldn’t have dreamed of giving up their comfortable, integrated lives to go and struggle in Israel – and Refresh’s answer to that is “Oh perhaps he was an antizionist not an antisemite IF any of these pesky documents you’ve pointed me to are correct” and Bikhair’s answer is “oh look at you libelling the poor old Mufti”.

    I despair. Seriously. I really despair. I understand the Grand Mufti being threatened by the thought of Jews coming to Israel, but if you think that justifies his support of the ethnic cleansing of Jews who were nowhere near Israel then you’ve got a screw loose.

  97. Katy Newton — on 8th July, 2007 at 10:02 pm  

    Is that what Muslims think? That because of Jews emigrating to Israel – with the permission of the British, who were in charge of it under international law at the time – it is acceptably “antizionist” to call for and support the ethnic cleansing of Jews who are nowhere near Israel and have no desire to go?

  98. Chairwoman — on 8th July, 2007 at 10:12 pm  

    bikhair – I thought more of you than that.

    The Mufti wanted to kill Jews in the Middle East, and was in favour of them being killed in Europe.

    I think there’d be a lot of people on this site who’d be outraged if anybody had similar sympathy for the policies of Ariel Sharon.

  99. Katy Newton — on 8th July, 2007 at 10:16 pm  

    This site scares the shit out of me. I can’t believe the level of denial I see here sometimes. I am constantly accused of defending the indefensible, of blind support for Israel or Jews or whatever – and yet the same people who accuse me of that demonstrate that very thing themselves day in and day out. Are you seriously unable to recognise a man who called for the ethnic cleansing of Jews throughout the world as an antisemite? What’s wrong with you, Refresh?

  100. Chairwoman — on 8th July, 2007 at 10:18 pm  

    There’s an almost overwhelming desire for Jews here to say that everything done by the Israeli Government is bad, but I don’t see our Muslim friends brooking any criticism of their leaders, even when they’ve been dead longer than most of you have been alive.

  101. Refresh — on 8th July, 2007 at 10:27 pm  

    Oh my goodness. What has happened here?

  102. Muzumdar — on 8th July, 2007 at 10:36 pm  

    This site scares the shit out of me.

    It is a typical liberal site.

    On the one hand, you have so called ‘moderate’ Muslims excusing genocide left, right and centre (whether this is the Mufti against Jews or Islamic Imperialists against other kuffran), and on the other hand you have someone like Sunny imploring you to support Hamas.

    Quite disturbing indeed.

    Anti-Semitism and anti-Catholicism are the last two excusable prejudices in the West.

  103. Don — on 8th July, 2007 at 10:37 pm  

    You were inappropriately flippant?

  104. Muzumdar — on 8th July, 2007 at 10:47 pm  

    And in any case, all this Muslim wallowing about Israel is pointless; Allah is a staunch Zionist himself:

    ‘Then Allah said to the Israelites: ‘Dwell in this land of Israel.” – 17:104

    Muslim Palestinians should take note and move on.

  105. Rumbold — on 8th July, 2007 at 10:52 pm  

    Katy:

    The Grand Mufti was clearly an anti-Semite. He was the sort of individual that applauded the Final Solution. However, I would be wary of giving him too much ‘credit’ for his role in it. Nuremberg evidence is always slightly dodgy, because it is basically accounts from a bunch of mass murderers trying to save their own necks. I am sure that he would have loved to have been involved in it; just not sure that Hitler and chums would have allowed an Arab much say. I do not think that they needed any help either.

    A thoroughly repulsive man though, and you are right to castigate those who try and excuse his anti-Semitism.

  106. Refresh — on 8th July, 2007 at 10:53 pm  

    Katy, Katy, Katy, that is not so.

    Your disgust is misplaced, and not helpful. I could have felt the same by the fact that no one challenged Bijna. If she was not challenged, then were being lined up to accept the next step which was to say without the muslims there would have been no holocaust? A step too far I think. And give it another hundred years of revisionism (or in internet time, another year) and we would have converted Hitler to Islam. (I dare not do a google search for that possibility).

    I was frustrated by it, not disgusted. There is so much bile presented as fact that we are becoming immune to it, and no one takes responsibility to correct untruths, misunderstandings and so on.

    On the question of the role of the mufti, and it seems half the world through association (which is really where Bijna was going), I am no longer surprised at what people are capable of. And it may not have come across but I do try to look behind the ‘facts’ to understand or get confirmation for what is presented.

    I fully agree its no comfort to you and believe me its definitely no comfort to me.

    ““oh he might have been antiZionist not antisemitic”. ” I actually said that it is not clear. And it is not. I did try to read the disputed facts as presented on Wiki.

    I think its fair to attack him for his alliance, and it is equally right to understand his motivation.

    Questions of record are important – and if there is only one person giving testimony in someone else’s trial and a third party is implicated should we accept that as a matter of record?

    I am also aware that a great deal hinges on issues such as these, for propagandists. On both sides.

    I will repeat again I didn’t see direct quotes from his memoirs. I would happily accept that assertion if you can point me to them. The Wiki article does not (unless of course I’ve missed them).

    I do not accuse you of lying. I question the Wiki article or at least seek corroboration.

    What is not acceptable to me is Bijna’s assertion.

    Lets look at it again:

    “Mufti of Jerusalem,
    who conviced Hitler that it was beter to gas the Jews
    instead of deporting them to Israel.”

    Does the Wiki article support that?

    Was Hitler planning to deport them to Israel, which obviously didn’t exist?

    And going back to the question of the mufti’s memoirs, earlier in the article he denies complicity, and is not charged at Nuremberg. It seems peculiar then that he should have shot himself in the foot by ‘confessing’ in his memoirs. This is what alerted me to the ‘value’ of the article in the first place.

    I am justified in my response. I went by the details presented in the article and then I raised the question of uncorroborated evidence (which I think the article itself goes onto confirm – or was that in the ‘dispute’ section?).

    What would have been better all round is that Bijna should have been challenged – but she was not. He/She is known to post highly spun, highly inflammatory material.

    Is it not better also to pin down the facts in the first place?

  107. Katy Newton — on 8th July, 2007 at 11:01 pm  

    I have nothing further to say on this. I am sick of the way antisemitism is spun and excused and defended on this board. I repeat, Refresh, that the Grand Mufti called for the extermination of all Jews whether in Israel or not and regardless of his motivation that is antisemitism not antizionism. I can’t help it if you haven’t read up on it and if you are so paranoid that you can’t accept a direct quote from his memoirs.

    Perhaps you should go to one of those Muslim Brotherhood-run bookshops that I keep hearing about in the East End. They probably have his memoirs sitting between “Mein Kampf” and “The Protocols of the Elders of Zion”.

  108. Katy Newton — on 8th July, 2007 at 11:02 pm  

    And my original point was simply that it was not a “novel theory”, as Anas sarcastically put it, that the Grand Mufti was involved in the Final Solution. But then he, like you, is incapable of coping with any sort of criticism of any Muslim whether living or dead no matter how despicably prejudiced they might have been.

  109. Katy Newton — on 8th July, 2007 at 11:08 pm  

    You don’t think that this is a direct quote, then?

    In his memoirs after the war, Husayni noted that “Our fundamental condition for cooperating with Germany was a free hand to eradicate every last Jew from Palestine and the Arab world. I asked Hitler for an explicit undertaking to allow us to solve the Jewish problem in a manner befitting our national and racial aspirations and according to the scientific methods innovated by Germany in the handling of its Jews. The answer I got was: ‘The Jews are yours.’”

  110. Katy Newton — on 8th July, 2007 at 11:09 pm  

    to solve the Jewish problem in a manner befitting our national and racial aspirations and according to the scientific methods innovated by Germany in the handling of its Jews.

    Great bloke.

    Really deserves your support.

    What a gent.

    In no way an antisemite.

    I apologise for any offence I may have caused to his descendants by suggesting that his desire to “solve the Jewish problem according to the scientific methods innovated by Germany” might in some way be described as antisemitic.

  111. Katy Newton — on 8th July, 2007 at 11:15 pm  

    Nuremberg evidence is always slightly dodgy, because it is basically accounts from a bunch of mass murderers trying to save their own necks.

    I know that. I was only trying to point out that what Bijna said didn’t come out of thin air. I didn’t expect Refresh to turn this into another “oh you Jews are always crying antisemitism” thing because frankly I didn’t think anyone would seriously dispute that the Grand Mufti was antisemitic. What with him, you know, calling for all Jews to be slaughtered and getting in touch with Hitler because Hitler was slaughtering the Jews and the Grand Mufti thought it was a jolly good idea.

  112. ZinZin — on 8th July, 2007 at 11:19 pm  

    What’s wrong with you, Refresh?

    That one hell of an open ended question. Where do I begin?

    He is always crying Islamophobia?

  113. Random Guy — on 8th July, 2007 at 11:20 pm  

    Katy, if that is what the Mufti said, then it was inexcusable. Can I ask why you are putting so much emphasis on his comments in this thread? What does it have to do with the OT? I take your point, even agree with it. But is it not true that the great founding father of Israel, David Ben-Gurion, and a host of other jews there at the time, were just as despicable in their thoughts and aims towards the Palestinians???

  114. Muzumdar — on 8th July, 2007 at 11:23 pm  

    The Mufti wasn’t really anti-Semitic Refresh, just like the Crusaders didn’t really kill anyone, they just went door to door with a Bible in one hand and holy water in the other…and no Muslims really died in Srebrenica, it was all faked by camera men from Al Jazeera…and all this 600,000 dead in Iraq, it’s all a conspiracy by the Zionist controlled media….

    This blog is a cesspool of Islamic supremacy, Islamic anti-Semitism, anti-Westernism, anti-Kuffranism.

    And the sad thing is, someone born into the Sikh faith, and who should really know better, is giving these people a platform. Very sad.

  115. Usman — on 8th July, 2007 at 11:27 pm  

    Twining
    Its irrelevant how many people are challenging me, the majority opinion is not always the right opinion. If the majority are wrong just because they feel they are right doesn’t mean they are correct. This is why I have asked for evidence and still nothing credible has been put forward other than opinions, I’m sorry but observing an act of violence in isolation without anything else except that the perpetrator appears to be of a certain faith doesn’t automatically conclude that its the “faith” that is the problem.

    “THE QUESTION IS CAN YOU ACCEPT OTHER FAITHS OR DO WE SIMPLY NOT EXIST?”

    I don’t see the link with my comments and the above statement, my sincere apologies if I appear to come across as such. I’ve not said anything against other faiths, if people have other faiths then good for them. I’m not a raceist, or a “faithist” if there is such a thing

    saddam was an idiot, he should have never been supported by the british government. I disagree that the withdrawal of coalition forces will result in chaos, but then we always disagree, lets agree to disagree.

    Jai
    “The Old Testament in particular is full of all kinds of dubious activities. So the answer is actually “Yes”.

    So the Iraq and Afghan war were done because of Christianity?

    “That’s a ridiculous remark. Usman, you’ve been stating your “views on things” loud & clear throughout this thread. All the rest of us are doing is responding to them.”

    And its even more ridiculous for you to make such a comment in the first place as you have been making your views known throughout the thread also.

  116. Katy Newton — on 8th July, 2007 at 11:27 pm  

    Random Guy,

    Refresh and I are having a discussion about the Grand Mufti of Israel. For once I am not going to be sidetracked into how the Jews are asking for it because we’re all so loathsome. If you don’t like the fact that I challenged Refresh on his utterly untenable attempt to make the Grand Mufti an antizionist (as if that would justify calling for the slaughter of Jews worldwide) then don’t read the discussion. Okay?

  117. Katy Newton — on 8th July, 2007 at 11:40 pm  

    Whahey! We’re trapped in Pointless Thread Hell. I don’t know why I bother.

    Me: “Calling for the slaughter of all Jews is antisemitic you know.”

    Refresh: “Oh no it’s antizionist. Possibly. I don’t know. I need to go and read about it.”

    Random Guy: “Oh but Katy Jews are all horrible anyway you know.”

    Mazumdar: “Sunny is a Nazi in Sikh’s clothing!”

    Will someone please close this fucking thread now? Cheers.

  118. Chairwoman — on 8th July, 2007 at 11:41 pm  

    In the Israeli declaration of independence, he stressed that the new nation would “uphold the full social and political equality of all its citizens, without distinction of race, creed or sex”.

    The quotation above, Random Guy, is from Wikipaedia’s entry on David Ben Gurion.

    I don’t see much about killing Muslims there.

    But perhaps I’m missing something.

  119. Clairwil — on 8th July, 2007 at 11:43 pm  

    Look I’m no expert on this Mufti character but I think it is pretty much beyond doubt to me that he was an anti-Semite.

    Firstly he was willing to put aside the fact that the Nazis regarded Arabs as an inferior race in order to cosy up to them against the Jews. To be able to swallow a grotesque insult like that against your own people suggests that he must have held Jews in pretty low regard to find the Nazis more acceptable.

    Secondly he rejected both the the proposal that Palestine should be divided into separate Arab and Jewish lands in 1937. He also rejected a subsequent plan which would have restricted further Jewish immigration after a five year period and ensured a permanent Arab majority. Disagreeing with these plans does not make him an anti-Semite, however refusal to even use them as a point for negotiation points to hatred of Jews blinding him to political reality. Let’s remember we are talking about a well-educated man and a politician capable of pragmatism. Despite being against British involvement in Palestine he co-operated with them on several occasions in an effort to prevent the establishment of a Jewish homeland.

    Couple the above with his support for the Nazis and remember that Britain objected to his prosecution to avoid damaging relations with Egypt where he was granted asylum after the war.

    No-one on this thread is arguing that he was responsible for the Holocaust or that it wouldn’t have happened without him. However he was clearly an enthusiastic supporter of the Nazis and thus anti-Semitic. Frankly the only nice thing I can say about him is that from his pictures he appears quite stylish.

    I’m tired of people discussing whether or not this or that person knew about the Holocaust. The minute the Nazis verbalised their ‘master race’ crap they crossed a line as did anyone who offered them their support for whatever reason. The BNP support the re-nationalisation of the railways as do I. If I were to announce that I’m voting for them on that basis but I’m not a racist I’d rightly be denounced. I don’t doubt that many people were shocked at how far the Nazis took their ideas but the fact that they gave them any support at all is damning.

    I’m also at a loss as to why some commentators here are so squeamish about sticking the boot into the Mufti. That he was an anti-Semite tells us nothing about Islam or Muslims. There were many Muslims who, at great personal risk sheltered Jews during WW2. For example Muslim Albania was the only country in Europe with more more Jews post-holocaust than before WW2.

    Some Muslims are anti-Semites, some aren’t. Failure to condemn anti-Semitism just contributes to the idea that they are all Jew haters.

  120. Clairwil — on 8th July, 2007 at 11:47 pm  

    ‘I think it is pretty much beyond doubt to me that he was an anti-Semite.’

    Should read

    ‘It is pretty much beyond doubt to me that he was an anti-Semite

    Sorry.

  121. Katy Newton — on 8th July, 2007 at 11:48 pm  

    Frankly the only nice thing I can say about him is that from his pictures he appears quite stylish.

    Yes, I noticed that. Nice line of hats.

  122. Refresh — on 8th July, 2007 at 11:55 pm  

    Katy, you are grossly unfair.

    If his memoirs are readily available, they don’t seem to be referenced.

    If he did say that then he is no muslim.

    I do want to discuss this further, without Sunny shutting it down or hopefully you leaving the thread.

  123. Sunny — on 8th July, 2007 at 11:59 pm  

    Wtf? How did we get into this Grand Mufti dude in this thread? As much as his quotes show he’s a blatant anti-semite, I don’t know why he keeps being brought up in threads as if the Mufti was like a big influence on Hitler.

    And what the hell does that got to do with this thread anyway?

    Is anti-semitism a myth? No. Is Islamophobia a myth? No. Is anti-Catholicism a myth? I don’t know because I don’t see enough of it.

    Can we discuss something constructively now?

    And Muzumdar – please, fuck off. And you Usman. I don’t want bigoted chumps on my blog.

  124. Clairwil — on 9th July, 2007 at 12:03 am  

    ‘Is anti-Catholicism a myth? I don’t know because I don’t see enough of it.’

    Oh belive me it isn’t, though it’s not as bad as it used to be.

  125. Katy Newton — on 9th July, 2007 at 12:08 am  

    If he did say that then he is no muslim.

    That’s what I mean! I have never, ever said that most Muslims are antisemitic and I have never thought that it was part of Islam to be antisemitic!

    His memoirs, by the way, are quoted in a number of different sites both Muslim and non-Muslim, but I can’t find where they are kept. I assume that they are kept in a museum or university somewhere, possibly in Cairo as that’s where he lived after WWII. I’m obviously only looking at sites in English, though.

  126. Katy Newton — on 9th July, 2007 at 12:11 am  

    I don’t know why he keeps being brought up in threads as if the Mufti was like a big influence on Hitler.

    Because there is a certain kind of person who wants Muslims to be blamed for everything. I am not that person. There is an argument that the Grand Mufti was an instigator as opposed to an active supporter of the Final Solution but that wasn’t really my point. I was just pointing out (sigh) that what Bijna said was in fact based on evidence of record and not just picked out of thin air.

    I deeply regret opening this up, but I really wasn’t expecting that anyone would say the Grand Mufti wasn’t an antisemite. I was making a throwaway point. I didn’t think that anyone thought he wasn’t.

  127. Sunny — on 9th July, 2007 at 12:14 am  

    I deeply regret opening this up, but I really wasn’t expecting that anyone would say the Grand Mufti wasn’t an antisemite. I was making a throwaway point. I didn’t think that anyone thought he wasn’t.

    I don’t think there’s any doubts Refresh dances around points without making them despite wanting clear condemnations from other people. He frustrates me too but I think such arguments are deeply futile.

    As for Bijna, he/she is a bigot too, who comes here with a clear agenda (like Old Pickler) to demonise all Muslims. Most of the time, his/her rubbish is deleted.

  128. Katy Newton — on 9th July, 2007 at 12:17 am  

    I like Refresh.

    I am bemused.

    This has not been a terribly straightforward day generally, I must say.

    *goes to bed before anything else happens*

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.