Doing the terrorists’ work for them
Last week the head of MI5, Jonathan Evans, warned that Britain faced an increased threat from al-Qaida-inspired terrorism and is now home to at least 2,000 people who pose a direct threat to the country’s security. At which point the Muslim Council of Britain’s stick-foot-in-mouth department promptly sprung into action and they accused him of ‘creating tensions’. Somehow I don’t think the public are going to buy that narrative.
But then the MCB doesn’t care how silly it looks, because its head Dr Abdul Bari turned up in the Telegraph a few days later to say: “[Salman Rushdie] caused a huge amount of distress and discordance with his book, it should have been pulped.”
But what about books sold in Muslims bookshops that incite hatred?
The bookshops are independent businesses. We can’t just go in and tell them what to sell … I will see what books they keep, if they have one book which looks like it is inciting hatred, do they have counter books on the same shelf?
David from Mediawatchwatch says: “Fair enough. Pity he cannot see the contradiction.” Indeed.
Anyway, while the headlines focused on the grooming of terrorists, they missed this bit out.
As for the media, its duty, he informed an audience of editors, is to avoid using any words the colonel’s operation would like it to use. “Anything which enables it to claim to be representative of Islam; anything that gives a spurious legitimacy to its twisting of theology will only play into its hands,” he said. “So we’ve got to be sure that what is said neither explicitly nor implicitly makes this easier for them.” Although he did not, regrettably, favour us with any authorised euphemisms, Evans left journalists in no doubt that the use of terms such as Islamist, extreme Islamist, Islamic terrorist, radical Islamist and jihadist is not only officially deprecated, it has evidently joined the ever growing list of activities which Do the Terrorists’ Work for Them.
And this is where the MCB, the head of MI5 and I would agree completely. However, I bet you lots of money, that most of those constantly using the statistics cited above by Evans will conveniently ignore that piece of advice.
| Post to del.icio.us |
Filed in: Civil liberties, Religion
First comment on the Catherine Bennet piece is by – IIRC – an Indian lady, who is worth quoting in full:
Seems reasonable to me.
So what euphemisims should we be using?
Terrorists who think they are Islamists/jihadis?
Terrorists endorsing the al-Qaeda concept?
Faith-based terrorists? (Dawkins preferred term, lumping them with Timothy McVeigh, but still perhaps doing their work for them.)
I wonder how different the world would have been today if, instead of treating al-Qaeda as “enemy combatants”, Mr. Bush had treated them like criminal suspects, hunted them down and put them on trial, rather then trying to bomb the country that sheltered them
The same leftists and Guardianistas who are busy making apologies for Al-Queda would…still be making apologies for Al-Queda. In fact, more so. Leftists haven’t met an enemy of the West yet that they haven’t fawned over.
Arundhati Roy:
“[Roy] tends to joke with her friends about how in “all the battles that we fight, if the people that we are supporting end up winning, we will be the first ones to be hanged from the nearest tree. The Maoists, the Islamic movement in Kashmir. Sometimes you are fighting on the side of people who have no space for you in their imagination. But that’s okay.
Nick Cohen had it spot on (as almost always):
Yet the masochism – ‘Kill us, we deserve it!’ – the subliminal dislike of democracy and the willingness to turn al-Qaeda into the armed wing of every fashionable campaign from sustainable tourism to the anti-war movement will in the end disgrace the liberals by making them ridiculous.
Quite a few people here are the exact people Cohen is talking about.
Douglas, 1#: Yep me too, I’ve long argued we should call them criminals not terrorists. We’re pumping their ego’s big time by our use of language…
Mr. Bush had treated them like criminal suspects, hunted them down and put them on trial.
How would that be remotely legally or diplomatically possible? You can hunt somone down, or you can try them: that is a choice, the definitions of those two verbs contradict each other.
Leftists haven’t met an enemy of the West yet that they haven’t fawned over.
On the other hand, that’s wrong. For any given idea, someone will pop up on TV arguing the other side – there is always a counter-argument to any proposition, and the format of TV programs generally require it to be dug up and aired. Thing is, it is almost always different people each time, not some generic cartoon leftist.
What you do get is people who will, vaguely, agree with any argument phrased in a certain way, presented with a certain attitude. If they honestly considered the whole set of things they vaguely agreed with, they would spot the contradictions.
Consequently, that group of people is defined by the fact that they simply don’t, or can’t, think in that way: the correct name for them is not ‘leftist’, but ‘idiot’.
Faith-based terrorists? (Dawkins preferred term, lumping them with Timothy McVeigh, but still perhaps doing their work for them.)
Why is this line about McVeigh constantly repeated? There is no good evidence whatsoever that what McVeigh done was in any way motivated by his Roman Catholic faith. A faith by all reports that he didn’t practice at the time.
It is true that, amongst other things, what happened to the Branch Davidians motivated McVeighs hatred of what he saw as the stifling of freedom by federal government, and that they were a religion based group. However that hardly qualifies McVeigh as a “faith-based terrorist”.
Heng, you may be right, I can’t see inside his head, any more than you can.
It is a problem with Dawkins’ term that it appears to make a judgement about whether somebody else is a true believer. This should be avoided, it is doing their work for them, again.
And I would guess that a person’s faith has always something to do with their actions, but rarely everything to do with them.
“Anything which enables it to claim to be representative of Islam”
this is silly…how can you possibly avoid calling the 7/11 bombers Islamic terrorists? extreme Islamists, or radical Islamist.
Frankly the interpretation of his words is bizarre. Surely he is saying that you must indeed differentiate the terrorists to be unrepresentative radical and extremist. What on earth is to be gained by using euphemism?
Perhaps it does, but what we know of the narrative of the lead up to McVeigh’s acts: anger at Ruby Ridge, anger at Waco, the Turner Diaries, allegedly (in his own interviews) distrust of the government developed from what he was asked to do in the Gulf War such as killing prisoners, paints him as an Alex Jones type of character. There really is no leeway to really push religion into that. It is pure groundless speculation.
I’ve even heard Dawkins types use him as an example of Christian fundamentalist “Bible Belt” terrorism. This is nonsensical. As I said he was an apparently non-practicing Roman Catholic and was given the last rites by a priest at his execution. It just seems like people scrabble around for a Christian fundamentalist counterfoil for Islamist terrorism and settle on him for erroneous reasons, seemingly only because he was born and lived in “Jesusland” as the joke calls it. Nobody does this in relation to David Copeland.
That was (or definitely should have been) the original intention, but the problem — at least in the case of Bin Laden and his “inner circle” — was that the Taliban refused to hand them over after 9/11 despite being requested to do so. Hence the subsequent invasion of Afghanistan.
Some of them are clearly psychopaths too, and should therefore be identified first and foremost as psychiatric cases. This will also reduce the “ego pumping” Leon has mentioned.
Hell, even that 23-year-old who worked at WHSmiths at Heathrow — the so-called “Lyrical Terrorist” — and has just been found guilty of supporting terrorism (although not literally engaging in it herself) is clearly mentally disturbed and leaning towards a psychopathic mindset, if you actually read the depraved nonsense she’s been writing. Especially the stuff about beheadings — “saw the knife back and forth, you’ll hit the windpipe but just keep going” (or words to that effect).
I think the point is to remove any religious terminology in order to a) reduce any inferences of religious legitimacy for their actions, and b) to decouple their ideology & behaviour from Islam, in order to emphasise that the faith does not condone it. The latter also prevents other Muslims from being tarred with the same brush by virtue of their common religious affiliation.
>>The same leftists and Guardianistas who are busy making apologies for Al-Queda would…still be making apologies for Al-Queda. In fact, more so. Leftists haven’t met an enemy of the West yet that they haven’t fawned over.
Yawn.
If they say they are inspired by islam, quote islam to justify what they do, and behave in ways that islam supports, what do we call them except islamist?
There’s been some sort of incident at Hackney Wick Bus Station, 8 fire engines, huge plumes of smoke. Nobody has said it’s terrorism. Watch this space.
“As for the media, its duty, he informed an audience of editors…”
So the head of MI5 thinks it’s acceptable to give instructions to editors about their “duty”, does he?
I’m with Roger. These terrorists represent a minority tendency within Islam, certainly, and I don’t know anyone who claims otherwise. But it’s a tendency that does exist, and the numbers aren’t negligible. Their ideology, moreover, derives from the Wahabbi branch of Islam which is the state religion of Saudi Arabia. To take an equal and opposite example, Christian pacifists claim that their understanding of Christ’s teaching demands complete non-violence. Most Christians are not pacifists, but would anyone suggest that those who are are not real Christians?
Many people don’t like the fact that Islam admits of the interpretation which the Islamists give it. They prefer to pretend that Islamists pervert the “true” message. It’s easier and more politically convenient that way. But who is to say? Mohammed himself led armies in battle. There is a plausibility about the jihadist claims that enables them to believe honestly that they are doing the will of God.
As for “doing the terrorists work for them”: if the terrorists are accurately described as Islamists or jihadists, then they should be so described. Journalists should be in the business of telling the truth, not toeing some officially-approved line. And certainly not at the behest of the head of MI5.
i thought it was an explosion at a warehouse Chairwoman?
“doing the terrorists’ work for them”
Not comfortable with that description. Terrorists are out to bring down western civilisation and plunge their own people back into the dark ages. Their work is therefore to inspire fear
The MCB’s comments is actually doing the opposite and making the terrorist cause look foolish
So to be fair, they’re actually doing MI5’s work for them
That’s what I’ve heard. I work a little way from there, there’s no hint it was ‘terrorism’ as far as I can tell.
Link
“At which point the Muslim Council of Britain’s stick-foot-in-mouth department promptly sprung into action and they accused him of ‘creating tensions’.”
Sunny you could not acknowledge anything which the MCB says as acceptable to you.
I think his comments do precisely what the MCB says they would do. Did you see the tabloid headlines?
You either have to be blind or have a blind-spot.
As for what Bari said regarding Rushdie (and I suspect he said much more than the one line you picked up from that Telegraph piece), he said nothing inaccurate. It did cause ‘discordance’ and ‘huge amount of distress’.
‘it should have been pulped’, perhaps. But it wasn’t. End of story.
Sometimes I despair, just when I think there is progress being made on PP, you swing right back. I don’t wish to impugn your integrity, but it does make me feel you have different constituencies you need to keep on side – the progressives on the one side, and then DavidT and his HP-wing.
W.r.t. the post title – Well, someone has to do the terrorists work for them! You know what a bunch of lazy bastards they are!
So Sunny, let me get this straight: are you saying the the statement Mr. MI5 made will not cause any tensions?
I dunno about you, but I’m feeling a bit of tension yarr.
or is it my rumbling tummy instead?
Does anyone else think Bari wears a wig?
“As for what Bari said regarding Rushdie (and I suspect he said much more than the one line you picked up from that Telegraph piece), he said nothing inaccurate. It did cause ‘discordance’ and ‘huge amount of distress’.
‘it should have been pulped’, perhaps. But it wasn’t. End of story.”
Refresh a progressive does not seek to censor.
“Sometimes I despair, just when I think there is progress being made on PP, you swing right back. I don’t wish to impugn your integrity, but it does make me feel you have different constituencies you need to keep on side – the progressives on the one side, and then DavidT and his HP-wing.”
What do you expect of PP?
“So Sunny, let me get this straight: are you saying the the statement Mr. MI5 made will not cause any tensions?
I dunno about you, but I’m feeling a bit of tension yarr.”
Why should it – its good for the whole media circus. Blogs included.
>>Does anyone else think Bari wears a wig?
I was saying this just yesterday. I’m sure he does.
‘It did cause ‘discordance’ and ‘huge amount of distress’.
The novel itself or the manipulation of it by those who had almost certainly never read it?
Don, fair point. There was a significant amount of that on both sides.
I remember the evening well – when he was up for an award. I hadn’t heard of Salman Rushdie until then. And I was pleased for him and felt it was good that asians were breaking through into mainstream publishing. And before my very eyes it turned into we must give him the award to tell these protesters where to get off. This was well before anybody burnt any books.
And then evil of all evils a copy or two gets burnt – and it became Kristalnacht.
‘a copy or two gets burnt’
Yeah, plus quite a few bombs in bookshops, assasination attempts on translators and publishers(one successful), and widespread rioting and arson.
Not exactly lit-crit. Of course, you are right that certain areas of the media had a unnuanced response to that. I was fairly unnuanced myself: you don’t get to put out a contract on someone who writes a book you don’t like. Nor sanction the killing and maiming of people who happen to have been browsing in a shop which stocked it.
I don’t see a moral equivilence between that and writing a partisan article. I’m sure you weren’t implying that.
But maybe should have been pulped? I’m suprised at you.
Don, I think I was very careful not to deal with what followed. I was responding specifically to the run up to the whole thing – the escalation. Two-sided.
Unnuanced is a nice way of putting it.
I was never concerned about the book. I was much more troubled by the political football it became.
As for the book itself and pulping, I could not care less. The fact that some people would have preferred it was, is their view. As I said it wasn’t and that’s the end to it.
It stood more chance of being pulped had there been no response – considering it was unreadable.
A political football partly created by the MCB head-honchos.
‘ I was responding specifically to the run up to the whole thing – the escalation’
Fair enough. I was considering methodology over chronology. Unreadable? I really hoped we didn’thave to get into literary merit. Would you let your wife or maid read it?
You couldn’t care less about a book being pulped because a pressure group exhorted violence? I must have mis-read that.
Chronology.
Unreadable to me. Many others too I heard. My wife? Well she can’t stand faux intellectuals. All the same she rules this roost. She dictates what’s read in this house. And I suspect she is on the verge of banning PP. Both she and I couldn’t stand that Jerry Springer musical. Her reading material is probably more likely to be Maeve Binchy, Ann Rule, Margaret Atwood and her Bible.
Maid? Well anyone who has one is an enemy of my class.
“You couldn’t care less about a book being pulped because a pressure group exhorted violence? I must have mis-read that.”
Don, the fact that the book ended up on shelves as ‘badges of honour’ meant nothing to me. So we end up in that now familar territory – with us/against us – I am with neither.
Ignorance and responding to provocations did no one any good. And that I am afraid exists and existed on both sides.
Censorship is a concept that applies not just to the government, it applies also to the diverse religious groups.
Muslims, Hindus, Christians, people of any religion on earth, have no right to clamor of ban on books. Only people who are afraid of ideas and do not have logic on their side clamor for ban.
Asking for ban on Salman Rushidie or for that matter any other author, smacks of an obsolete mindset.
But censorship of opinions just because they are made from a religous perspective are equaly as abhorrent in my opinion. So if Dr. Bari believes that the books should have been pulped, is he not expressing his point of view? Were the books pulped? No? Well, there you go.
Sunny, still waiting on a response to my question in #19: Let me get this straight: are you saying the the statement Mr. MI5 made will not cause any tensions?
Random Guy,
So, if one is against censorship, one must support the right of censorious folk to advocate it? Your probably right, but it seems counterintuitive to me!
ow douglas, my head is hurting after reading that last post!
I suspect that the issue becomes a wider one of democratic ‘ideals’ such as free speech etc. It is definitely counter-intuitive but it highlights the hypocrisy of selectively choosing who to give free speech to – or how to shape free speech, as well as the hypocrisy of people who clamour for free speech in order to try and restrict debate. So both sides in general, come off looking like idiots.
Well, a quid pro quo would be for the censorious to say:
“I believe with all my heart and soul that x should be censored, but I will fight to the death for your right to say it shouldn’t.”
Now that would be a level, if unlikely, playing field.
I agree that extreme positions just make the extremists look daft.
His hair just doesn’t look right does it? A question is why? What’s he got to hide, eh, EH?!
clearly it’s business as usual for the MCB. abdul bari even seems to be able to claim that muslims will be on the receiving end of nazi-style book-burnings when, in fact, the people wanting to burn [rushdie's] books are themselves – or the MCB, at any rate. this is a magnificent leap in deluded illogic and doublespeak.
i don’t remember any “nuremberg laws” being passed to make it impossible for muslims to marry non-muslims – except by people like the MCB.
i don’t remember any laws being passed to make muslims separate themselves from the rest of society – oh no, wait, that’s the MCB’s job again.
i don’t remember muslim-owned businesses having their shop windows broken and daubed.
i don’t remember muslims trying to leave the country because of all the “oppression” and being prevented from doing so. in fact, muslims from places like afghanistan, iraq, somalia and so forth seem keen to enjoy the benefits of UK society.
i don’t remember any laws being passed in nazi germany criminalising discrimination against people of different faiths and ethnicities. that happened here, though.
in short, who the fecking feck does this syrup-wearing, boat-sailing fecker think he is? way to make muslims look like idiots, mate.
b’shalom
bananabrain
Sunny, still waiting on a response to my question in #19: Let me get this straight: are you saying the the statement Mr. MI5 made will not cause any tensions?
Random Guy: The job of the intelligence services is to be clear about what is going on. If that is the extent of the problem then why shouldn’t we be informed of that threat? Sure it will cause more tension but would you rather everything be suppressed if it causes tension? And would that also apply to…. Muslim groups saying “uncomfortable things”?
Secondly, I’d like to think the fact that people are trying to blow us up in London is likely to cause more tension than talking about them. The latter would not exist without the former.
Sunny, I agree with your statement about the job of the intelligence services. A more cynical person would suggest that any good intelligence service needs to justify its activity by constantly emphasising a certain threat. Us lesser mortals will never have the big picture.
I would rather that nothing was suppressed, that MI5 would tell us exactly what and where the threats were so we could help them. I would also like them to disclose all the bullshit they are currently pulling off in different parts of the world in the name of freedom and democracy: which dictators they are propping up, which innocent people will suffer as a result, how many illegal arms deals are they currently involved in, how many sovereign countries they are spying on….you know, just in general how much they are fucking up the world – if they are – in the name of this country. That would be a good start, but would it ever happen?
Instead, we have a selective statement that will be used to justify the next wave of restrictions in civil liberties (that somehow are only ever applied to muslims), justify more media hysteria against muslims and Islam (and assholes to say “Islam is not a race, so let us be more racist please”), and allow for heightened surveillance on everyone – surveillance which will be used in ways we probably will not approve of. Last but not least it will encourage foreign policy in the middle east for more oil and gas resources.
Banana Brain, well put together post. I am of the opinion that we cannot compare the horrible treatment of Jews (and poles, gypsies, gays and all other non-aryan conformant people) in the Second World War to the muslim experience today. I think that since everyone knows such behaviour is barbaric, different methods need to be found to stimulate hate. In today’s world of mass media hysteria and apathy, its a perfect climate. I think that comparing this country’s muslim population perception by non-muslims, there is now a tendency among a large number of people to view them with the same hate and disregard as Jews wre shown in the run-up to the Second World War (I would know, I have seen/received the threats).
Also, I think comparing human suffering is disgusting. What the Jewish people underwent was horrible and barbaric. By the same token, the Palestinian people are undergoing horrible and barbaric treatment at the moment. I do not give a flying feck about any auxiliary arguments you feel like placing around their situation. It is clear that some of the children of the people who suffered so much in the Second World War have no qualms about mass opression, abuse and of a population (don’t worry, I have spoken to people in the IDF and know how they justify it). And let us not get into the hundreds of thousands of muslims who have died with direct or indirect Western intervention in the last 10 years. Is this not a holocaust for them? Losing homes, family, forced into sex work, no real life. I wonder, Banana Brain, if you have any outrage for their sakes.
Bananabrain,
Should he not point out some of the issues of concern to him and the muslim community?
Who would you have speak up for muslims? Anyone?
If there are tensions and there are reports of increased alienation, do you see the govt. speaking up? Do you see a growing band of bananabrains doing it?
Clearly not. I would rather someone spoke out. And regularly or we end up speakwalking ™ into the scenario you deride above.
Sunny, I don’t think that the MI5 or anyone else putting out warnings is the issue. Its the whole environment which allows the tabloids to make highly inflammatory claims such as Schoolboy Sucicide Bombers and the like. How do you think children are likely to be treated in the playground?
Why don’t you do a piece on tabloid-terror(tm) headlines? I am sure could do one a month.
Bananabrain,
Read this
http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/pete_tobias/2007/11/undesirables_debate.html
@random guy:
i’m talking about muslims and london, as a londoner. can’t i do that without someone mentioning israel and palestine? would you make the same point if i wasn’t jewish? can i not object to something without having the middle east thrown in my face? i mean, seriously, i’m someone who really wants muslims to make it work; but that is going to involve them actually making an effort to get on with the rest of the world. and, yes, i know, lots of them do, it’s only a minority that don’t, all that. i’m just saying that recognising that there’s a significant problem *after the fact* (ie islamist terrorist acts) shouldn’t be as controversial as everyone seems to think.
@refresh:
someone with fewer shady links to bangladeshi political thuggery and knows the difference between nazi germany and UK 2007. that surely isn’t too much to ask. i’ll let the syrup slide.
er… yes. all the time.
er… yes. look at alif-aleph, for example, or radio salaam-shalom, or the three faiths forum. unfortunately people like that aren’t loud, offensive and controversial, so they don’t get that much publicity.
as for the CiF article, what is your point exactly? i don’t have a great deal of time for pete tobias, he comes straight out of the secular-but-jewish-enough-to-buy-bagels-and-be-paranoid Box-O-Intellectuals that seem to be the only jews in the media apart from mad mel phillips (who, as you know, is not exactly my favourite philosopher) and jonathan freedland. either way, it was the discussion that i thought was more interesting and i’ll select a few of the comments i thought made sense and describe more or less where i’m coming from:
“i’m guessing here, but perhaps they would have asked precisely that [i.e. if muslims are good for london] if young Hindus or young Jews had recently blown themselves up on London tube trains. Or am I missing the point here?”
“Muslims are good for London. Political Islam isn’t. Third world cultural practices imported here also aren’t good for London.”
“Frankly, it seems to me that Londoners are highly secular but tolerant lot. They don’t like faith schools or the religiosity of the Wahabi/ Deobandi fanatics but they are willing to admit that muslims do contribute to the city.”
“When certain Irish factions were taking delight in blowing-up parts of London and elsewhere, did the Evening Standard run a survey on the benefits of Catholicism for London?” – to which i would tend to add, they weren’t going on about how much they were doing it for catholicism and how catholicism was being oppressed world-wide.
i am old enough to remember IRA bombing and old enough for people i knew to get caught in the bombs. it was very different from what the islamists are up to.
b’shalom
bananabrain
Well there has been an increase in attacks against Muslims (and Asians in general) post-9/11 and post-7/7, along with other instances of racial abuse and discrimination. Anecdotally I’ve occasionally mentioned this myself here on PP, although I believe there have also been some official surveys confirming the fact.
There’s also been a marked increase in Muslims leaving the UK for the Middle East (Gulf States etc) due to the noticeable wind-change in attitudes towards Muslims here in the UK during the past few years. I think it was even covered by some news-related programmes on the BBC a little while ago.
However, it is correct to say that such individuals are not being prevented from leaving the country.
Random Guy,
A true cynic – me for instance – would think that your comment:
was far too lenient on this government.
A true cynic would suggest that ratcheting up State Power over the individual, maybe with a 56 day rule, or using Terrorist Threat Levels as a way of keeping the public compliant is actually a larger project, and Muslims are merely the wedge issue that allows the State to increase it’s control over all of us.
I am not a libertarian, but I do wonder whether we are walking into a dark future, what with ID cards, DNA databases for all, and the rest of it.
The blessed Terry Pratchett once described the City Watch preferred policing option as citizens, during their leisure time, sitting quietly around a table, at home, preferably with their empty hands visible.
I am firmly of the view that the nutters that want to blow us up should be caught and dealt with. That is not what I seem to be seeing, if you see what I mean.
Perhaps this is more noticeable to the British Muslim population since they obviously have to bear the brunt of it, along with non-Muslim Asians (ie. the rest of us) who also get caught in the crossfire due to the conflation that occurs and the inability — and frequently blatant unwillingness — of people to differentiate between us; however, in mainstream British society, culture and the media, recent times have resulted in a slide towards the antipathy and hostility towards Muslims which some other commenters here have been referring to, whether we’re talking about the “macro” level or on a more day-to-day basis in terms of personal observations and experiences.
Many people have simply replaced the word “P*ki” with “Muslim” in their own minds and attitudes. To paraphrase what one of our American cousins (Camille) recently said during a different debate on Sepia Mutiny, people with an agenda of hatred are often just looking for an opportunity to perpetuate this agenda.
We’re certainly not at the gas chambers stage yet, but I know enough about global history and I’ve seen enough negative behaviour in the UK in recent years and during my lifetime in general to know that, human nature unfortunately being the way it is, there can be a gradual, creeping slide towards increasingly extreme behaviour if enough people are perceived to implicitly support it (or would be unwilling to take any definitive action to oppose it, apart from just “making appropriate noises” or even staying completely silent) and/or if they can find enough plausible-sounding reasons to rationalise, justify and excuse it. Do not be naive about all this.
Of course, the original trigger behind the hostility (aside from the cases of the rapid NF/BNP types) was the series of Islamist terrorist attacks in the West during the past decade, and it’s definitely been exacerbated by the perceived sympathy for such actions amongst some sections of the Muslim population over here. Generally speaking, British Muslims and the Asian population as a whole were actually doing pretty well prior to 9/11, in terms of the social progress we’d all been making here and the level of goodwill towards all of us. I also bet you that a lot of the hysteria about hijabs, niqabs etc would not have been so pronounced if “the jihad” had never occurred, and that there would be a greater degree of tolerance and accomodation about such things.
However, unfortunately everything is giving ammunition to those who have an agenda of hatred and, to less malevolent but still ignorant and intellectually lazy types, is feeding the more negative aspects of human psychology.
So I think the concerns that have been raised about attitudes towards Muslims beginning to disturbingly mirror attitudes towards European Jews pre-WW2 are justified. It’s not anywhere near at that level yet, but God knows what will happen if there is either another really major terrorist attack or a series of such atrocities. One definitely shouldn’t be paranoid, but at the same time it is worrying to consider the potential backlash and the measures that it would subsequently be deemed necessary to implement if these responses are deemed necessarily, justifiable, and with sufficient support amongst the majority population.
Remember that pre-WW2, Germany was regarded as being the most advanced and culturally civilised country in Europe. And although modern-day Brits are, on the whole, unusually fair-minded and sensible people (certainly compared to vast swathes of the rest of the world), they are not necessarily saints either, and will not necessarily react in a saintly way if matters continue to deteriorate.
Thank you for your considered response. Can you tell us what the three organisations are saying and doing in this area? Also what they are doing to get the message across?
Post #49 was for Bananabrain.
On a lateral note, as a fan of Nusrat Fateh Ali Khan I’ve been considering that it’s a tremendous tragedy that such music (and the philosophy behind it) isn’t promoted more forcefully here in the UK. It could do a huge amount to facilitate a more positive image of (and attitude towards) British Muslims — since so many white Brits actually don’t know very much about subcontinental history or the complexities of Asian culture — along with counteracting the “Wahabbism”/radicalisation amongst younger Muslims here.
Jai,
When you said:
I thought I was going to deny it. And yet on reflection, it seems quite worryingly accurate. As bananabrain has already breached the Godwin rule, perhaps I’d be allowed to say this before I get shot down? German propoganda was probably based on a little truth and huge lies. We are seeing a similar thing here. A little truth, huge lies. And a populace that is deliberately fed that diet. That is no different from Germany in the 30’s, where other failures were supressed, in order that the favoured béte noir could be the aim of the arguement in order to win ‘hearts and minds’. For evil reasons.
The only way out of this is for Muslims to take the commanding heights of condemnation of the wee murderous shites that pollute their religion. That I am not seeing.
It is completely ridiculous for any Muslim to see an advocate, for which read apologist, as their favoured method of communicating with the rest of us. They have to get off their backsides and do better than this, otherwise you are right. It will all end in horror.
Douglas, we have had months and months of looking for the apologists. It got to the point where everyone who opposed the war was an apologist. Blair operated on the principle that everyone else was wrong except him.
Now how do you cleave the ordinary public away from the anti-war brigade? The apologists. You prepare the population for the inevitable. The long war. How else could you operate the agenda?
With regards “It is completely ridiculous for any Muslim to see an advocate, for which read apologist, as their favoured method of communicating with the rest of us.” , don’t fall into the trap of us and them. We will all lose.
Painting organisations into apologists seemed necessary, and there are plenty of willing hands to do that as we saw for many many months here and of course HP.
“They have to get off their backsides and do better than this, otherwise you are right. It will all end in horror.”
I can only imagine someone else will be determining who shall be allowed to air the concerns of muslims.
In the end there is only one principle that will count – what is said and not always who says it.
On that count I am waiting for Bananabrain to let us know what the three organisations he referred to are saying and doing.
Refresh,
I am, for my sins, part of what you’d see as Jai’s majority. Except, I am not.
Last time I looked in the mirror, you could describe myself as white. Very ugly white, right enough. Last time I thought about this issue, I thought Blair was wrong. Last time I thought about it, I thought anyone that thought Blair was a complete utter idiot probably had it right.
You have an issue with my analysis?
Refresh @ 53,
I am getting myself into a twist here. I think you know I am on your side, and against folk that think violence is any sort of answer?
Personally I was all for it. Nothing like a good war to cull down on the number of young unemployed males in this country. That and a really really cold winter to reduce the number of homeless and the old that cannot afford the heating bills.
Obvilously I’m joking which is in keeping with the ridiculous agreement that this thread seems to have with Baki’s analysis of the policitical simularities between Britain today and Germany in the 30s.
TFI
I know what you are say Douglas
.
What?
Sorry Don, typo.
I know what you are saying, Douglas
.
Instead, we have a selective statement that will be used to justify the next wave of restrictions in civil liberties (that somehow are only ever applied to muslims),
I agree with you Random Guy, and I think this is one of my biggest concerns. However, the duplicity on behalf or orgs like MCB make it very difficult for people to take them seriously, and thus stand up for Muslims when needed.
If I only knew Muslims through hearing MCB pronouncements I wouldn’t have a favourable view either.
Sunny,
Is that not the problem? The, admittedly, few Muslims I know these days, are not the politicised ignoramouses of popular culture. The women I used to know did not think that their culture was without issues, particularily in relation to chosing a partner.
The men I knew did not subscribe to the MCB agenda, in fact they didn’t even know they existed.
Not to say they didn’t have ‘traditional’ values. Values I’d perhaps have shared up until I had a grown up daughter of my own, when you tend to see the other side of the equation.
Refresh,
On a more happy note, where I’d disagree with Jai is on what ordinary folk, folk like me for instance, actually think.
We do not see all Muslims as suicide bombers, largely, ’cause we know the occasional Muslim, and think that the Muslims we know are unlikely to want to blow us all up.
We are able to spot a, sadly, politicised media for the self serving fools that they actually are. A question for you. Is Melanie Philips a rich person because she failed to underestimate her audience? No, I would argue that she spotted a market gap and filled her boots with it. Still and all, she did not make a ripple in the pool of what John Junior described as the ‘good folk of Auchtermuchty’. They have never heard of her, nor her bloody book. If they think anything at all about the issues that we address here, it is probably from first principles, whether the, one, Muslim they know is an OK person or a complete idiot. that is what judgements are made of, sad to say.
That’s what it’s like out here in the sticks. Frankly, I do not know whether you guys are lucky living in the Big Wen, or whether you are so up yourselves that you can’t see the wood for trees.
What I do admittedly see is a lot of politically engaged folk. And that is right healthy, so it is.
Imagine for a second that Evans, MCB and even Melanie Phillips are really trying to express their ideals for a better society where no-one oppresses anyone else, and are just so sensitive about particular kinds of oppression being treated too lightly that they find it hard to understand (what they see as) the oversensitivity of others….
That’s how I see them. I wish it were easier for them to treat others the way they wish to be treated, but maybe that would be political suicide or and sell fewer papers.
Banana Brain @ 45:
Apologies if you took the Israel/Palestine issue personally. It was not intended to be taken this way.
In the context of your “perception of Muslims as a Londoner” you stated that you knew “what the Islamists are up to”. Can you elaborate? Are you calling Bari an Islamist? To me, the Islamist issue is a completely seperate debate and leads down the well-trodden “Foreign Policy or Political Islam” is the problem route (and we had a wonderful end to that here)
So the question is actually one of how specific you are about your particular beef with Muslims as a Londoner. You seem to be worried about culture and terrorism as well. Is it acceptable for you to have a problem with muslims in general as a Londoner and political Islam as well? If I am reading you correctly, you also take issue with the way Islam is practised in London? So are you one of the people who feels like dictating to Muslims about how they should practice their religion?
Undeniably, the ‘problems’ you refer to are related to the climate of hate and fear perpetuated against muslims since 2001 (would you have brought this up before then?). You can’t have this debate without referring to very strained community relations. And this is where the global impact of T.W.A.T is being felt locally.
In that case, is it not acceptable for me to have issues with MI5 making generalisations about my community in the name of domestic (and foreign) policy?
I do not believe I am making unrelated statements here, and I am certainly not trying to start a flame war. All these issues are actually related, unless you are referring to something else which is more specific (What the Islamists are up to in London perhaps?).
Douglas, thanks for your replies
Sunny, agreed that the MCB does not do itself any favours but as a political platform it is doing what any political body does – looking out for its own. So that is why you get the statements which appear one sided. And unfortunate as it may be, Muslims in general have a very reduced political platform, especially in terms of media exposure in the mainstream, and also in terms of having opinions which are at odds with the Government’s view of what Muslim organisations should be like.
hmm. i think what people fail to understand about nazi germany is about how all-pervasive the anti-semitism was. if you got your windows broken, don’t bother complaining to the police, don’t bother with insurance, you were just screwed. if you got discriminated against at work, forget it. here, muslims have a whole raft of legal and societal protections that simply weren’t available to us. no matter how daft a case (e.g. shabina begum and her jilbab) you can always find someone to fight your corner.
well, if i see some evidence, i may revise my views, but this all sounds a bit anecdotal to me.
precisely – rather than blaming the whole thing on imperialism and iraq.
as jews, we are not unaware of this. this is why the fact that it is fundamentalist muslims that are responsible for much of the anti-semitism in the UK is so a) terrible and b) self-defeatingly ironic.
and yet jews are still being accused of being paranoid. there’s a damsight more evidence that people are out to get us than that they’re out to get muslims.
probably not niqabs, but certainly hijabs would not have been so utterly and negatively misconstrued.
@refresh:
you’re better off finding out from them direct:
http://www.aauk.org/
http://www.salaamshalom.org.uk/
http://www.sternberg-foundation.co.uk/
i couldn’t agree more. qawwali for everyone!
@douglas clark:
godwin’s law, eh? never heard that one before. well, i guess it’s right – except that it wasn’t me that produced the reductio ad hitlerum, but abdul bari.
except that in germany, the jewish community and its representatives had done ABSOLUTELY NOTHING – the charges against them were 100% trumped up. there was no jewish omar bakri. no jewish abu hamza. no jewish finsbury park mosque. no jewish 9/11 or 7/7. their offence was, “scientifically”, to be subhuman. here, 13% of muslims think suicide bombing can apparently be OK in some cases – and of course, we all know which cases those are.
precisely.
@random guy:
i’m not saying anything specific. i’ve talked to enough islamists to know what they’re about. their aim is well known, well-publicised and as stated – whether via pizza hut, al-ghurabaa, the saudis or whoever. i know they all want different things, but that just means we need different tactics to counter them. and, yes, as far as bari is concerned, he is linked to islamist parties in bangladesh – i believe there are people here who are happy to back that up.
i don’t have a problem with muslims in general, except when they start making excuses for murderers and would-be murderers. i do have a problem with political islam, because a) it is religiously incorrect and b) it wants to murder me, my family and virtually everyone i know.
yes, i am. i say they need to read their bloody sources, learn what the religion actually teaches and come to an understanding with the modern world. if that’s “dictating”, then fair enough. just as presumably, you would “dictate” that my religion ought not to involve oppressing the palestinians. which it doesn’t, although many idiots of my faith seem to believe it does. i’ll damsure dictate to them, too.
i wouldn’t say that. i’d refer you to douglas’s earlier point about the city watch of ankh-morpork. it is their job to treat the rest of us with suspicion and paranoia, just as it is the job of the press to treat everything with scepticism, analysis and second-guessing.
b’shalom
bananabrain
hmmm, okay then.
Dr Abdul BAri is the head of East London mosque, an org that has repeatedly invited over HT supporters from Bangladesh who have insulted Hindus and other Muslims in the past. Delwar Hossain I think it was.
And I’m supposed to take seriously his claim that he wants social cohesion? If the top Hindu people constantly brought over Narendra Modi, wouldn’t Muslims complain?
yeah – and those guys don’t wear bad syrups, either.
b’shalom
bananabrain