Don’t bring religion into the equation
This is a guest post by Sarah, who blogs at same difference.
These are questions which have bothered every Muslim in England ever since September 11th, 2001. Why is there so much racism towards Muslims in Britain? Why does Islam have such a bad name in Britain?
The answer to these questions is that Islam has a bad name in Britain because of people like Alexandra DeGale, or Alex from BB9, as she will be better remembered.
She came on national television. She drank, she smoked, she wore short skirts. In her Big Brother profile, she described herself as a non-practising Muslim.
The difference between her and Mohammed, another non-practising Muslim BB9 contestant, who openly admitted to eating pork on launch night, is that she has terrible double standards.
On Tuesday night, Alex had a very long and very personal argument with Mohammed. Why? Because he decided to cross-dress on his birthday, then tell Big Brother that Alex made him feel uncomfortable when she didn’t participate. Alex heard the question, due to a technical fault in the Diary Room.
She then took Mohammed to ‘B-Block,’ better known as the non-luxury bedroom, and informed him that he was a Muslim man, and she was supposed to be able to look up to him. It was bad enough, she said, that they both came on national TV and drank and smoked, but by cross-dressing, he was a disgrace to Islam, and Islam has a bad enough name in Britain already. All this while I tried very hard not to punch the screen!
I have been, and will be, a Muslim all my life. I would not dream of eating pork, or cross-dressing, on national TV or anywhere else! But nor would I dream of accusing any Muslim who wished to do either of those things, on national TV or anywhere else, of being a disgrace to the religion!
My problems with Alexandra? Surely, being a convert from Christianity, and a non-practising one at that, she is the last person who has any right to accuse a person who has been a Muslim for 24 years of being a disgrace to his religion! On national TV of all places! If she wants to preach Islam, she should be a hijab-wearing, five-time- praying Mulyani- not a drinking, smoking, swearing, shouting, intimidating Big Brother contestant! If anyone is a disgrace to Islam, in my mind, that person is Alexandra. If you ask me, she has given our religion a far worse reputation in front of the British public than Mohammed ever will.
Last I checked, people went on Big Brother for a summer of fun. Sure, throw in some harmless bickering. That’s not avoidable. But this is Big Brother- not a mosque, temple, church or synagogue. As Mohammed put it to Alexandra- don’t bring religion into the equation!
On Wednesday, Alexandra was removed from the Big Brother house for unacceptable behaviour. All I can say to this- with pun intended- is thank God!
I completely disagree with you.
Your argument is similar to those who seek to hold all black people responsible for knife crime.
Intelligent people are able to understand that we are all individuals and should be treated as such. They do not blame white people whenever there is a share dealing scam or drunken violence, they blame the individuals.
It is the unintelligent that seek to blame a group because of the conduct of an individual.
What a load of cobblers. Where to start? This one will do:
If she wants to preach Islam, she should be a hijab-wearing, five-time- praying Mulyani- not a drinking, smoking, swearing, shouting, intimidating Big Brother contestant! If anyone is a disgrace to Islam, in my mind, that person is Alexandra. If you ask me, she has given our religion a far worse reputation in front of the British public than Mohammed ever will.
I know nothing of these BB characters you write about. But if your complaint that neither of them have no right to “preach” about Islam, whose authority do you have to then tell us that only a certain type of Muslim, who adopts particular symbols (’hijab-wearing’) can?
Are you not guilty attempting to lay down the same subjective standards that you’re accusing “Alexandra” and “Mohammed” of?
And since when was skirt-wearing and smoking anti-Islamic? There are plenty of cross dressing lady boys in Istanbul, who have said the Shahada and like a bit of cock, who will take issue with that ignorant statement.
good point sid, i thought this was a most bizarre post, don’t bring religion into it and then talk about what an ‘embarrassment’ to islam someone is. i’ll tell you what an embarrassment to Islam is if you all want to listen - but then again, many of you have heard me on this before. And it tends to be along the lines of what is generally an “embarrassment” to all of humanity - abuse of human rights. Of course i would use a stronger word than ‘embarrassment’ but then us Muslims are very concerned with appearance are we not!
and Big Brother is surely meant to be a microcosm of society. if religion matters, then it shouldn’t be taboo on BB. ANd yes we should talk about religion.
meant to be a microcosm of society
It is? We’re screwed.
Good Lord, what tripe, woman.
This is an example of the problem with new media, in my humblest of opinions.
Sarah,
Being in, I suspect, the minority who have only ever caught Big Brother whilst channel hopping, I am in no way competent to comment. But that’s never stopped me before!
Can someone ‘just declare’ that they’re a Muslim? I suppose they can, at least as far as the media is concerned. Would it make my life easier if I declared myself a non practicing Christian? There are folk out there that think it would. It would however be completely meaningless. I’d be able to do whatever I wanted - oh, I don’t know, covet my neighbours handmaiden or something - and just say “hey, it’s OK, I’m a non practicing Christian”.
It is, in other words, a completely information free self definition. It reminds me of the famous quote by St Augustine:
This post makes me feel so sad, the assumptions - cleary sincerely held - behind it.
- Why is there so much racism to Muslims in Britain?
Really? Who says so other than Bob Pitt? More than against Jews? More than against Africans or West Indians? More than against Poles? If Islam is to be treated as a race, then wasn’t 7/7 the ultimate racist attack?
- Why does Islam have such a bad name in Britain?
Until 9/11 I can’t recall Islam even being on the radar of most British people, or at least any more so than Hinduism or Judaism - other minority faiths. It would have been frankly astounding if it did not come under the spotlight after that and the series of subsequent plots, which surely can’t ALL have been engineered by Mossad/MI5. Combine this with what are viewed by the majority of Britons as sometimes unacceptable views on women, gays, and the like, and its hardly surprising that islam - as represented by self-styled spokespeople, gobby students, poets and hairdressers - should become unpopular.
To crown it all however, self-pity is a deeply unattractive characteristic. This combination of grievence and superiority is bound to make anyone unpopular, from the playground upwards.
Everyone is philosophising too much. I think her point is simple: don’t judge others, especially when you’re in no position to, and especially not on national television.
I think her point about Alexandra, whoever she is, not being practising is to show her up for casting the first stone when she is not free of sin. Not to say that someone ‘practising’ has a right to judge either, but I think she just wanted to emphasise that she had huge double standards and was just using religion to cloak her homophobia.
thanks i’ll bear that in mind next time I feel I am in no position to judge or when I’m on national television. Otherwise, this article still makes no sense.
Great retorts Sid!
Thank you Ala. You have understood my point exactly.
Only one it would seem…
Sarah:
People got confused because of this:
Rumbold:
Not so much confused as bewildered.
“Why is there so much racism towards Muslims in Britain?”
Hmmm, I think I’ll pass on that one because it is glaringly obvious why. Oh, and also, I don’t want to get caught up in yet another pointless merry-go-round discussion with anyone else here about it. We all have our points of view and there is no absolute (well, actually there is - but thats another matter), only relativity.
Rather than dissecting Sarah’s arguments paragraph-by-paragraph, I think a lot of you are actually missing the point here, and that is this - people declaring themselves muslims when they are not practicing what muslims are supposed to (and lets leave that interpretation as flexible a la “5 pillars”) and then getting media attention whereby the media defines them as muslims (and the public is not inquisitive or knowledgeable to dispute this), is a major factor in the whole Islamaphobia discourse.
Neither of the two contestants on BB should be considered muslim in any way whatsoever save from the fact that they have had some affiliation with Islam in the past. If you want to call yourself a muslim, you need to practice the main aspects of Islam - with sincerity. If you do not wish to do so, make up some BS term for yourself like “moderate” or “lapsed”. “Non-practising” is not good enough. This will make it much easier for the rest of us in the current xenophobic and ignorant atmosphere perpetuated by most forms of media.
“Im a non-practising muslim” isnt that a contradicition in terms??
Its like me saying I have long hair but I cut it really short!!! Or im an alcoholic but I dont drink!
Aren’t we missing the point here? Alexa is an accountant, who got kicked out of BB after threatening to kill the rest of the housemates.
Why is anyone taking anything she says seriously?
I, for one, don’t know who this Alex character is or what she’s done but having been privvy to volleys of self-pitying wails from Muslims who feel as if they’re being victimised over and above any other minorities in this country, I am gettin sick of it.
Change the flippin’ record.
Jeez.
Nav - if you don’t know who Alex is, or in what context this was written in, your comment is pretty ill informed.
It is unfortunate that you have been subjected to ’self pitying wails from muslims’..so are you sick of the person who wrote the article or Alex who you know nothing about? or was this just a general rant against the self pitying muslims?
Sofia:
General rant against the Muslims.
glad you got it out of your system…you could also go down to hyde park…
Muslims who feel as if they’re being victimised over and above any other minorities in this country, I am gettin sick of it.
But Muslims are being victimised over and above any other minorities in this country.
Sofia:
I might just.
Anas:
So do black people.
And Jews.
And gays.
And Hindus.
But I don’t see them complaining about their lot nearly as much… in my opinion the whole thing is very dangerous.
When you start to play the victim card you effectively legitimise any resistance to perceived oppression and give credence to and justification for acts of terror at the extreme polar, for example.
At least that’s the case in my humble opinion.
And Anas: where’s your proof?
Nav - maybe you should separate those who have legitimate reasons for being alarmed versus your attention seekers…don’t lump everyone in the same basket
If you’re looking for stats maybe try Runnymede trust as well as other orgs that have done plenty of research
Maybe question what type of prejudice and the reasons why instead of jumping on a bandwagon.
Sofia:
Here’s some research that I pulled up of my own:
A third of black men in this country have their DNA recorded on national databases even though many have never actually been convicted of a crime.
If they were Muslim men then you’d sure as hell have been told about that statistic.
Blaming your woes now on ‘Islamaphobia’ is a cop-out pure and simple.
Anas has no proof…Muslims have nothing to complain, atleast no more than any other minority in the UK. They are under the spotlight for obvious reasons, just as Black people were in the 60s and 70s because of the theatrics of the Black Power movement.
So, stop winging and get those radical beardies to calm down and stop trying to convert everyone. Then there will be no bother.
Hermes123:
Harsh but fair… like a good School Matron.
I like me a powerful, older woman, I do
#29: - and all those who were stopped on the streets had chips on their shoulders I recall. I didn’t learn tho’ whether the chip itself was unjustified, or merely is size.
#30:So When the BNP switched from being ‘racist’ and signalled overtures to non-muslim ‘pakis’ as they’d all been known, your sort was doubtless what they had in mind.
You know, there are better places to find the answers to these questions than in one of the most superficial, banal, trashy programmes on TV. I can’t think of a worst programme on TV than Big Brother, I honestly can’t.
And I don’t believe anyone is perplexed as to wonder why Muslims have a relatively bad name in Britain, or for that matter in Europe. Hint: it is not because some Muslims describe themselves as a non-practising, cross-dress, eat pork, drink alcohol or engage in double-standard trivialities.
Is this meant as a polemical parody of Alexandra DeGale?
But Muslims are being victimised over and above any other minorities in this country.
Reports suggests that Jews are four times more likely to get attacked because of their religion
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1537128/Jews-far-more-likely-to-be-victims-of-faith-hatred-than-Muslims.html
But this isn’t a competition, so let’s not go there any further, please.
You should take a leaf or two out of Sid’s book
But, after all that, I f**** hated that Alexandra. That’s how we, the saddos who watched it, all feel!
Indrak:
Stop going off on tangents because you’re not capable of arguing the point at hand.
Oh, and Anas: marvin just pwned your ass…
According to the Epsom Guardian, local Muslims have never heard of Alex before now!
http://www.epsomguardian.co.uk/news/topstories/display.var.2361868.0.croydon_mosque_never_heard_of_muslim_alex.php
#35:
I can but shan’t if you fail to attend with what’s already written.
Indrak:
Smokes and mirrors… stick to the topic.
So it comes down to stats..and yes there are plenty of muslims out there with chips on their shoulders as are there black, brown, gay, etc etc…I do think the article above went off on a tangent, but I still think some of the comments above are unjustified.
Sofia:
How so?
If you feel some of the above comments are unjustified then can you please justify your stance?
Or is that too much to ask these days?
as islam isn’t a race, i presume that the “racism towards muslims” is directed towards the fact that the muslims in question are brown and black, which of course means it’s not about islam at all. if, on the other hand, you mean islamophobia, or prejudice against islam or something which is specifically about the religion, then people are hardly short of reasons, whether bigoted or reasonable, are they? either way, some complete pillock on a tv show about the intellectual equivalent of pond-life ought in the normal course of things to hardly be seen as representative, but if they actually start seeming so then surely that is illustrative of some sort of problem, isn’t it? the fact remains, however, that even without this sorry excuse for a human being there would still be an issue we would need to address.
what rubbish. it is because of attitudes like that that foolish people have allowed virtually the entire world of islamic education to be outsourced to saudi fundamentalists for the last twenty years at least. it is precisely because of attitudes like that that mainstream orthodox rabbis kowtow to the narrow attitudes displayed in the ultra-orthodox yeshiva world. it is precisely because of attitudes like that that you have to be “tough on crime” and have things like a “war on drugs”. all this is is a *complete* abandonment of personal responsibility. if you don’t like it, *take it back*!!!
this alexandra person is nothing more than a butt for laughter. you might as well put her in the stocks. the *real* disgraces to islam are those bigots and fools who think that they can bully and threaten everyone else into going along with them.
b’shalom
bananabrain
Has anyone actually pointed the finger at this woman for her behaviour and then attributed it to her being Muslim or having been Muslim etc. or is this just another example of paranoia amongst the Muslim community?
Has anyone actually pointed the finger at this woman for her behaviour and then attributed it to her being Muslim or having been Muslim
That would be ‘racist’ according to the persecution complex laden Musulmans.
Despite the fact that Muslims aren’t a race.
Mark:
Oh? They’re not?
According to the learned author of the above article… they are… you learn something new every day!
Oh? They’re not?
According to the learned author of the above article… they are… you learn something new every day!
When it suits the Mohammedans, they play the race card.
But Muslims are being victimised over and above any other minorities in this country.
Reports suggests that Jews are four times more likely to get attacked because of their religion
I’ll have to look into that. However, there’s no way you can tell me that there is any comparison with any other minority group to the constant level of demonisation of Muslims in the media, the internet, and politics since 9/11, Iraq, and 7/7.
constant level of demonisation
What about the constant demonisation of non-Muslims, pagans, Jews, Christians, women etc etc in the Qu’ran and Ahadiths?
You willing to censor your books?
When it suits the Mohammedans, they play the race card.
That’s only because when it suits the BNP, they play the Mohammedan card.
And there has already been at least one “high minded” commenter on this blog who let slip that they thought Muslims were against the 42 days en-bloc.
Ignorance is a two-way street in these matters.
That’s only because when it suits the BNP, they play the Mohammedan card.
So now Muslims define themselves in accordance to BNP ideology?
Ignorance indeed.
6- Don. we are!
“And I don’t believe anyone is perplexed as to wonder why Muslims have a relatively bad name in Britain, or for that matter in Europe. Hint: it is not because some Muslims describe themselves as a non-practising, cross-dress, eat pork, drink alcohol or engage in double-standard trivialities.”
yeah. i guess its difficult for people to be critical of what they were brought up with, seems specially so when they think they’re in a minority and have to defend their ‘culture’. Critising the negatives of religion was much easier in Kuwait - more or less everyone was well aware of the extremes ( ha we were next to SAUDI - so We were DOUBLY! aware) and you wouldn’t get into the same ‘pickle’ one gets into here if you say the same things.
er… yes. that’s what sarah, the author of this piece, seems to be doing. on the other hand her finger-pointing actually seems to take the form of self-criticism and that can only be a good thing, up until the point where she completely draws the wrong conclusion that the only people who are representative of “muslims” are Big Beardy/Shrill Hijabi Types, an indication of how browbeaten the muslim community has been by the saudis over the years.
anas, you quite simply can’t possibly pretend that that is an impartial point. this is your perception. i have another one. i might even concede that the “demonisation” of muslims is worse in the *mainstream* (as opposed to islamo-trot) media, but the actual attacks, verbal, physical and terrorist, are far more likely to happen to us - that’s what the stats say. ask yourself this - how much is the “security levy” at a muslim school? how much does the average muslim school have to spend on guards, cameras and fences? have a look here at the actual figures:
http://www.thejc.com/Home.aspx?ParentId=m11&AId=60228&ATypeId=1&secid=11&prev=true
hasmonean secondary school, which is five minutes walk from my house, has to spend £90k a year on security. that includes a security levy of £105 for every single child. ask yourself, anas, which is a better indicator of demonisation; the way you feel or the tangible costs of the threats we face. is it not scandalous that we should have to protect ourselves like this in a supposedly free and just society?
b’shalom
bananabrain
anyway if we want to blame someone for the bad image Islam has (with Muslims) if no one else - worldwide! - I would recommend we blame a) the Mullahs b) the Quran teachers “hujurs” parents send their little kids to, especially south asian parents.
ne of the very good things about growing up in the Middle East is i was never subjected to one of these Hujurs because I was thought arabic as a second language in school.
What with Mullahs doing the PR and Public Affairs, Is Anyone Really Surprised if a good impression is not given? No of course not. If you live in a Muslim Majority Country you can safely despise Mullahs without feeling ’self-hating’ - whereas here, too many people seem to think Mullahs somehow represent something and their interest. WRONG!
“one of the very good things”
So now Muslims define themselves in accordance to BNP ideology?
huh?
Muslims are blamed as the race problem de jure by your friends in the BNP, because you don’t have the moral or intellectual courage to say that Muslims are predominantly non-white.
8. Douglas, yep as you say.
Yeah perhaps we are philosophising too much - but this is Pickled Politics, not Big Brother! Surely one should realise this is where we LOVE talking about religion and other yummy controversial topics. If people want zero level of interesting discussion, tune in to BB instead
( god knows why people do, its so Bl**dy boring).
sid
I opined that Muslims are not a race. You retorted that because the BNP are racist and they don’t like Muslims, that makes Muslims a race.
Can you not see the idiocy of your argument?
Mark
You can’t have it both ways. And try and understand the point I’m making here:
Muslims are not a race. But Muslims like to behave and regard themselves as one. The writer of this article, for one.
The reason primarily being that the large majority of Muslim immigration to this country came from Southasia. And Southasians are a race.
By the same token, the BNP which is a political party which defines it’s ideology based on nothing other than the white race, and which regards Muslims as *the* race problem.
Muslims are not a race. But Muslims like to behave and regard themselves as one.
Looks like you’re the ones who want it both ways.
Why do you keep bringing in the BNP? They are irrelevant to how Muslims define themsleves.
Why do you keep bringing in the BNP? They are irrelevant to how Muslims define themsleves.
Because their articulation of the anti-Muslim stance is more “developed”, for want of a better word, than the average antipathy towards Muslims as such.
Because their articulation of the anti-Muslim stance is more “developed”, for want of a better word, than the average antipathy towards Muslims as such.
So what? Nobody even listens to them (judging by their dismal support at elections) and they are seldom given a platform.
You are using their anti-Muslim/Islam stance to define yourself. That is rather pathetic.
You are using their anti-Muslim/Islam stance to define yourself. That is rather pathetic.
*sigh*
No I don’t personally define myself by a bunch of ignorant knuckle draggers.
Do you think it’s right to say you’re using “Muslims” to define your hatred of the “other”?
No I don’t personally define myself by a bunch of ignorant knuckle draggers.
Then why are you continually using their ideology to excuse the fact that Muslims are defined as a ‘race’ in the thread starter?
Do you think it’s right to say you’re using “Muslims” to define your hatred of the “other”?
Not really. All I have said on the matter is that Muslims are not a race and shouldn’t be referred to as such.
You are the one bringing in the BNP, theories of ‘the other’ etc in order to prop up some sort of persecution complex.
It’s pretty cringing actually.
You are the one bringing in the BNP, theories of ‘the other’ etc in order to prop up some sort of persecution complex.
Tell me where I propped up a persecution complex and I won’t call you a silly cunt.
Then why are you continually using their ideology to excuse the fact that Muslims are defined as a ‘race’ in the thread starter?
If you’ve read this thread, then you’ll see my comment way up at the top which debunks the “thread starter”.
If you want to discuss the fuzzy line because the self-perception of Muslims as a race *in this country* and the use of racist material to demonise Muslims then you’re going to be use a lot more nuance and intelligence than you seem capable of, judging from your antagonistic thrusts in this exchange so far.
sid,
i’m not entirely clear on why you seem to have decided that this chap mark is a bnp-ite. perhaps i’m missing something.
b’shalom
bananabrain
yeah, that was a mistake.
I *should* have opened with:
“That’s only because when it suits certain people, they play the Mohammedan card.”
Tell me where I propped up a persecution complex
By bringing in the BNP, accusing me of belonging to it and then, having realised the stupidity of your assertion, downgrading your accusation to my dislike of ‘the other’, at the mere sight of me criticising Islam/Muslims.
Without any consideration of whether or not I might be ‘other’ myself.
If you’ve read this thread, then you’ll see my comment way up at the top which debunks the “thread starter”.
Give yourself pat on the back sid.
the use of racist material to demonise Muslims
Give me one example, just one.
i’m not entirely clear on why you seem to have decided that this chap mark is a bnp-ite.
The reflex reaction of Muslims who feel that their world view is redundant is to cry ‘racist/BNP/Mossad/Zionist/Israel/America etc’.
Give me one example, just one.
I get BNP literature pushed through my letter box all the time. It’s almost exclusively anti-Muslim bilge. Perhaps stragglers from Barking and Dagenham, I dunno.
The reflex reaction of Muslims who feel that their world view is redundant is to cry ‘racist/BNP/Mossad/Zionist/Israel/America etc’.
I’m sorry if I mistook you for a BNP clodhopper. But having your read your arguments I am willing to remove BNP from that epithet but just retain clodhopper.
I get BNP literature pushed through my letter box all the time. It’s almost exclusively anti-Muslim bilge.
But you yourself have ‘debunked’ the theory that Muslims are a race. Hence, this is not racist.
Examples please.
But you yourself have ‘debunked’ the theory that Muslims are a race. Hence, this is not racist.
I have but the BNP clearly hasn’t.
But you yourself said:
Because their [the BNP's] articulation of the anti-Muslim stance is more “developed”
I agree. They know that they are not riding on the racist ticket anymore, hence Nick Griffin’s victory in a court of law stipulating that his views were not racist because Muslims aren’t a race.
Given that, they know what they are doing.
So your theory that they are simply being ‘racist’ towards Muslims is ‘debunked’ by your own assertion (above).
It’s interesting how the BNP can now use all the anti-Muslim techniques at their disposal in the same way as they and their precursors used anti-Asian and anti-Black prejudice in the past, and know that they are targetting swathes of non-white people. However, their techniques can be defended by people like Mark as being “not racist”. Quite a loophole.
I’m not defending anyone, simply pointing out the facts, as supported by a court of law and yourself.
oh, come on, you two, this is rapidly turning into a nit-picking tangent from the actual issue.
b’shalom
bananabrain
I agree with Sid, the BNP does protect itself against accusations of racism by using codewords for non-whites, such as “immigrant” and “Muslim”. And using codewords for white, such as “Christian”, “British identity”, and so forth.
And I also agree with Mark - if I understood him correctly - that just because the BNP follows that narrative, that we should necessarily follow it ourselves. People here do talk about Muslims as brown race - just look at Sunny’s “Browns should switch to Tories” with the rationale that it unfairly targets Muslims.
Sarah,
I very much liked your post about Sheriff Chaw and his partner Fatou Singateh. I tried to comment on your blog, but there doesn’t seem to be a way of registering. Anyway, perhaps you should cross post it here?
people are hung up on ‘race’ because its considered wrong to be racist. but replace “race” with “group” and there you go. its ok to be ‘groupist’ in society…
Ravi
But mark is patently wrong. Muslims see themselves as a “race” but not because of the BNP. In the broadest terms of self-perception of Muslim identity:
If you were to say “Muslim!” to a Saudi he would think “Arab!”
If you were to say “Muslim!” to an Iranian he would think “Persian!”
If you were to say “Muslim!” to a Southasian he would think “Pakistani/Bangladeshi/Mauritian!”
This happens, and has happened historically, irrespective of the BNP!
If anything, it is the BNP who benefit from this contradiction. It is they who see Muslims as a race because they don’t see the world by anything else. They can continue to ply their heinous racist activities against “Muslims” whilst benefitting from the protection of the definition the term. In some ways, they’re not as stupid as they look.
many ‘groups’ of people dont like other ‘groups’ of people..that much should be obvious throughout history! there are different things that bind ‘groups’ together and are used towards a ‘group construct’ - race is certainly one of them but not the only dimension.
and of course the construct of groups is so often in ‘competition’ to another ‘group’ that it all starts getting very unpleasant for individuals.
SO let us coin the term ‘groupist’ and be done with?
It doesn’t really matter about what has happened historically sid. As your post demonstrates, the plain and indisputable fact of the matter is that Muslims are made up of many different races.
Also problmeatic for you is that if you define Muslims as a race, then Muslims themselves are racist for not allowing beleivers to marry out of the ‘race’.
Hence you are no different to the BNP.
It doesn’t really matter about what has happened historically sid. As your post demonstrates, the plain and indisputable fact of the matter is that Muslims are made up of many different races.
No one is disputing that Mark. But identity is more complex than race alone. A person does not self-indetify in racial terms. It is only outsiders, particularly those with a political agenda, who do that.
I notice that you have skipped over the second paragraphe of my last post, why so? Truth hurts I guess.
But identity is more complex than race alone. A person does not self-indetify in racial terms. It is only outsiders, particularly those with a political agenda, who do that.
Thanks for proving my point.
bananabrain
#51: you are mistaken if you count what you say/cite as objective - ..as though the amount the US spends on ’security’ or ‘defense’ is a causal consequence of ‘threat’.
Same for you or anyone who is satisfied with quoting crime statistics pertaining to groups of differing demographics, let alone magnitudes.
#64:
you’re not missing something, y’re adding it.
Such that it suits Mark and his ilk, who then asserts:
“The reflex reaction of Muslims who feel that their world view is redundant is to cry ‘racist/BNP/Mossad/Zionist/Israel/America etc’.”
The bnp is an excellent example for it shows the transmutation of hatred predicated on race to a [thus-far, and in relative terms] more credible variant. If there is any case at all it should be predicated on religion or rather idealism per se, though empirically speaking, all of 3 these judeo-christian types have a good deal to answer for.
Why don’t you, Mark and others of that ilk ponder on the fact that racism became discredited not because it was ‘unpleasant’, but because it’s irrational -
Do you get that?
That’s a rhetorical question: reactionaries, being not as intelligent as they like to think, still require a vessel for their hostility.
Another good reason for citing the bnp is that their change was overt to coincide with a nascently exploitable hostility from other non-whites.
That is as unsurprising as it is disgusting, for as discrimination towards groups has attenuated, many of their members happily occupy reactionary positions in exchange.
So muslims who formerly suffered hostility in common with non-whites now have it from more than one direction.
Many already came from reactionary backgrounds, so it’s obvious that the tendancy to reteat into the religion has grown.
Let alone the international dynamics, leading to a resonant condition.
Sorry for not framing this in terms of black and white.
Sonia, is groupist not just another word for communalist? And whatever happened to the ummah in Sids’ description?
In any event, I have no idea what a race is. And I doubt very much anyone here does either. Without accepting some pretty iffy ideas from the Nazis, at least.
SO let us coin the term ‘groupist’ and be done with?
‘Bigot’ works, for the kind of person who wilfully goes around believing impossible things as an act of hostility.
It fits nicely those people who are more than merely ignorant, prejudiced, or biased, but not actively a thug, terrorist or fascist.
And it is neutral as to what exactly they are bigoted about. It is perfectly possible to spot when someone is being a bigot against some group, even when that group is not something that is naturally morally neutral or apolitical, say islamists instead of muslims or browns.
@indrak:
are you talking about the united states or the united synagogue? the difference between the two is that there is a multi-billion-pound defence industry and hundreds of thousands of jobs that depend on one, whereas the other is nothing but a hassle and a cause of stress and considerable inconvenience. it’s not about crime statistics, it’s about the physical and emotional cost of the protection that the authorities say we need and that they’re not able to give us - and there i am speaking from empirical experience. nobody is making any money out of our security worries and i can assure you that we certainly resent having to pay for it and spend time on it. do you think i actually want to stand outside the synagogue on a security rota rather than be inside praying? we’re already paying over the odds for where we live, what we eat and everything else, why the hell are we being forced to do something that as citizens and taxpayers we have every right to expect the state to take care of? this never used to happen - it has only started since 9/11 and the realisation that instead of the lunatic fringes of the right wing who have, by and large, ceased to be a threat for us, we are now forced to worry about a small minority of the muslim population that have been so radicalised that we have had to turn our schools and places of worship into fortresses. the worst thing is that they don’t even have to do anything aggressive - it is enough for someone to stand opposite a school with a video camera.
and what precisely do you mean by that?
b’shalom
bananabrain
How funny, I thought this trail had stalled at 38. I come back and it’s in the eighties.
Anas -
“Reports suggests that Jews are four times more likely to get attacked because of their religion…”
“I’ll have to look into that. However, there’s no way you can tell me that there is any comparison with any other minority group to the constant level of demonisation of Muslims in the media, the internet, and politics since 9/11, Iraq, and 7/7.”
- I think your attachment to grievance makes me sadder than young Sarah. How much more of a “comparison” would you like than getting your teeth kicked in?
You talk as if 9/11 and 7/7 were human rights festivals or something - they were acts of mass murder perpetrated in the name of Islam. There have been many subsequent plots, so it is hardly surprising that our sensationalist media should seize on Muslim extremism and go with the odd dodgy story. But equally programmes like Undercover Mosque not only demonstrate the problems we have in the UK, but the lengths the authorities will go to stifle proper reporting.
So there’s lots of talk about Muslim extremism because it’s a “good story” - look at us waffling on here. But it doesn’t mean we’re out to get you - on the contrary, it’s the Jews that are getting gotten, and innocents of all stripes on tubes and busses and aeroplanes.
#87:
I both maintain what I wrote logically,
and readily concede wrt what you say;
..I detest calls made by a certain type for others to publicly disavow ‘terrorism’ or ant-semitism when the call is actually an admonishment to bolster reactionism,
yet I wld suggest, say, some liaising whereby people undertook partaking in others’ patrols - if only symbollicly - I’d consider it myself if I lived near..
As for the 2nd part, I added it at the end and allowed subjectivism to enter, yet again stand by it: empirically, these creeds proclaiming the word of god have coincided with a lot of trouble.
this is precisely the sort of thing i would like to start suggesting; it would flow naturally from, say, twinning initiatives….?
b’shalom
bananabrain
#90:
well,this is new to me so ..:
I’m anti-religion, and wld’v esuggested sikh gurdwaras to start with, but they seem to be following suite in stridently going backwards and were always direly administered at best [tho did help the miners in north, and in theory wld be ideal, that's their raison d'etre].
What about an Ahmedi mosque? - they’ve always had to contend with similar.
Otherwise, at an individual level. But as I think, the issue of the palstinians looms ever more..
What about non-Muslim minorities in Muslim countries? Many of them are having a genuinely having a tough time (e.g. Copts in Egypt, Suriani and Armenians in Turkey, Chaldeans in Iraq). What Muslims allegedly suffer here pales into insignificance compared to those minority communities. At least you’ve got whole industries here to protect your rights and ensure political correctness.
And Cover Drive knocks it out of the park: I’d love to see the reply to that one…
Practice what you preach and all that.
A group containing me of about the same size and generality as ‘Muslims’ would also contain Mugabe, the Russian generals who destroyed Chechnya, and for that matter Hitler.
I don’t feel particularly obligated to identify with or apologise for any of those. I don’t see you can make any sensible kind of political or moral argument about a group that big and diverse.
What about non-Muslim minorities in Muslim countries? Many of them are having a genuinely having a tough time (e.g. Copts in Egypt, Suriani and Armenians in Turkey, Chaldeans in Iraq). What Muslims allegedly suffer here pales into insignificance compared to those minority communities. At least you’ve got whole industries here to protect your rights and ensure political correctness.
I absolutely agree that the level of human rights abuses being committed in Muslim countries against minorities simply do not compare in scale and level of atrocity to that here in the West. However, Muslims being dragged into Belmarsh on 42 days, for example, are not the Muslims raping and murdering minorities in, say Bangladesh.
One set of anathema does not override another. You might also want to address the contradiction of asking Muslims to stop thinking in GroupThink and then accuse them of abuses as a Group.
Sid, how many Muslims have been dragged to Belmarsh for 42 days? You talk as if it’s a daily happening.
I suppose the likes of Sarah and Anas already think it is.
At the end of the day, it’s about balance isn’t it.
And on a more serious note Sid, you are quite right about group think. With respect to much of the debate around this issue, often NOTHING appears to be relative.
Forty-two days judicated detention grows into the equivalent of Guantanamo or the gas chamber to a Bradford jihadi who then feels justified in plotting to blow some poor blighter’s legs off on a number 73.
Communal violence on the Indian sub-continent claimed (and continues to claim) thousands of lives, which is presumably one of the reasons why the parents and grandparents of today’s radicals found the UK attractive and why, on the whole, they tend to hold less extreme positions than their off-spring. So why then has it emerged - and it is a form of communal violence - in Britain? Shouldn’t the parents and grandparents, the mosques and schools, be saying - hold on, let’s put this in proportion…? Let’s not forget our history…?
Yaar, this post is something else… titling the post “Don’t bring religion into the equation”, and then injecting your own bizarre equation based on religion.
Douglas clark: Thanks a .lot! I already suggested to Sunny that it should be cross posted to LC, but he doesn’t think it’s a blog post for some reason! To comment, you need to register with wordpress.
#
You talk as if 9/11 and 7/7 were human rights festivals or something - they were acts of mass murder perpetrated in the name of Islam. There have been many subsequent plots, so it is hardly surprising that our sensationalist media should seize on Muslim extremism and go with the odd dodgy story. But equally programmes like Undercover Mosque not only demonstrate the problems we have in the UK, but the lengths the authorities will go to stifle proper reporting.
So there’s lots of talk about Muslim extremism because it’s a “good story” - look at us waffling on here. But it doesn’t mean we’re out to get you - on the contrary, it’s the Jews that are getting gotten, and innocents of all stripes on tubes and busses and aeroplanes.
Perpetrated by whom in the name of Islam? When Israel commits murder and collective punishment against civilians in the name of a Jewish state does that make every Jew responsible and therefore make attacks against them justifiable? Dubya claims he had a special hotline to God when he invaded Iraq, does that make all Christians liable for the hundreds of thousands killed there? No. But apparently when a few dozen out of 1 billion Muslims commit acts of carnage, the environment of hostility, prejudice and stereotyping among mainstream commentators against Muslims in general becomes completely understandable and a proper reaction. I mean it’s not just a “perception” — some of the stuff the likes of Littlejohn and Philips get away with regarding Muslims — painting them as some kind of traitorous fifth column preparing to swamp the civilised West and establish a Khalifat — is pretty close to the paranoid anti-Semitism race hate of 19th Century Europe. And yet somehow this hysteria against Muslims is just a “good story”, in an environment where innocent Muslims are vulnerable to retaliatory attacks, .e.g., http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article2246685.ece is acceptable, because apparently there are no Muslim innocents?
And what about non-Muslim minorities in Muslim countries? Muslims in the UK, most of whom are of South Asian origin, are now responsible for the treatment of Christians in Iraq, Turkey and Egypt (Turkey is of course secular, and Egypt like Saudi Arabia is a major major British/Western ally so maybe all the Harry’s Place scum infecting the place should shift their FP priorities a bit if they’re so worried about the human rights records in those countries)? WTF? This thread is getting murkier and murkier.
Ala:
“I think her point about Alexandra, whoever she is, not being practising is to show her up for casting the first stone when she is not free of sin.”
Not ‘free of sin’?????
“Everyone is philosophising too much.”
It’s not about ‘philosophising’, it’s about pointing out what is not making sense, though you somehow see Sarah’s “point”, but then again, your own comment that I quoted above makes no sense either.
“I think her point is simple: don’t judge others, especially when you’re in no position to, and especially not on national television.”
What is the criteria for judging who is in the position, please?
Communal violence on the Indian sub-continent claimed (and continues to claim) thousands of lives, which is presumably one of the reasons why the parents and grandparents of today’s radicals found the UK attractive and why, on the whole, they tend to hold less extreme positions than their off-spring. So why then has it emerged - and it is a form of communal violence - in Britain? Shouldn’t the parents and grandparents, the mosques and schools, be saying - hold on, let’s put this in proportion…?
Unitalian, your comments, as usual, pregnant with innuendo and ignorant non-sequiturs continues to inject the thread with the blog equivalent of passive violence. What examples of communal violence have you seen in Britian that comes close to the Hindu-Muslim violence that led to the destruction of the Babri Mosque? Or the million or so deaths that surrounded the events of the Partition in 1947? Or the utter carnage of the violence of anti-Muslim riots that broke out in Gujarat in 2002 resulting the untried deaths of a thousand Muslim peasants?
Sid,
I didn’t read it that way at all.
I read it that folk that had come here from the sub-continent were only too happy to get away from that sort of thing. And that, on the whole that first generation had been happy to live here peacefully. Or at least within the law.
What Unitalian appears to be saying is that second and maybe third generation immigrants or citizens or whatever we call them are not constrained by the experiences of their parents or grandparents and seem more radicalised and willing to use violence. That would appear to me to be indisputable. Clearly 7/7 and even 9/11 are small beer in comparison to what has gone on elsewhere, but is it not a legitimate concern to ask why?
I am a lot less sanguine than he is about 42 days, but there you go.
douglas, I think you’re point is sound and is deserving a blog discussion all of it’s own. Why do the progeny of particular immigrant groups resort to violence which their previous generation forbears recoiled from? I blame the parents myself.
But here the phrase *communal violence* was used. I don’t see violent scenes of mob wars spilling out between Hindus and Muslims on the streets of Leicester. Is this another Amis Caveat I’ve missed?
Sid,
Heh!
Right back at you mate:
——————————————————–
‘Course your right about the lack of communal violence.
For which I am truly grateful.
I’d ask you to at least read what Amis had to say. There is, it seems to me, to be a lot of sense in amongst the anger. You may disagree, but it is a basis for debate.
I’m copying what I said a while ago on the other thread only ’cause I think it is as relevant here:
His essential criticism is that Islam has been hijacked by backward folk, like Mohhamed Qutb, and that that is the brand of Islam that has the advertising spend - Saudi money - behind it. I think that that deserves debate. It is equalled by the Christian Right in America who outspend normal Christians over there in order to lobby their, equally backward position.
Take care.
Anas - you can’t have it both ways - Muslims one moment, South Asians the next.
Douglas/ Sid - yes, that’s what I meant.
Sid - Well thank heavens we don’t have that level of violence, but the principal remains the same. 7/7 was an example. Had they been successful, the subsequent plots would have upped the numbers. I resent your insinuation that I am insinuating something… well, racist. The fact is that members of a specific community are targeting members of another community violently because of what they are. One cannot compare it to Northern Ireland, for example, which was a traditional war over land. Why not call it what it is - by failing to do so aren’t we doomed to repeat the same mistakes? We should make the current state of affairs an ending, not a beginning.
Well thank heavens we don’t have that level of violence, but the principal remains the same. 7/7 was an example. Had they been successful, the subsequent plots would have upped the numbers. I resent your insinuation that I am insinuating something… well, racist.
I don’t think you have a clue what “communalism” means because the terrorist attacks of 9/11, 7/7 or Madrid are as far as you can get from the definition of that term. The violence in Ireland was communal in nature but when the IRA started detonating bombs in London, that term no longer applies. Unless this is ignorance or just wilfull obtuseness on your part, I’m afraid you’re going to stick to my outright statement that you’re insinuating something…well, racist.
Douglas
‘What Unitalian appears to be saying is that second and maybe third generation immigrants or citizens or whatever we call them are not constrained by the experiences of their parents or grandparents and seem more radicalised and willing to use violence. That would appear to me to be indisputable.’
I not afraid to say, and am thankful that it is disputable in its entirety. These are lot of people who you loosely cast as potentially violent.
The vast majority are trying to get on with their lives. The biggest mistake for the 1st generation immigrants has been that they didn’t understand or appreciate their self-worth and as a consequence did not participate politically early enough. And political parties saw them as mere cannon fodder and only at election time.
If they had been politically conscious then I believe we would have had a much more mature political outlook by now.
I don’t want to be too harsh on them either, for they too were just trying to make a living like the rest of the country (and world).
How would you define communal then Sid?
My mistake re Ireland however - I agree that is communal. I was thinking about it only in terms of the British mainland.
I’m glad that I did not watch BB
How would you define communal then Sid?
It kind of has to have more than a room-full of people who know about it in advance, or participate as it happens. Probably a village-worth, as a minimum. Some of the stuff that happened, pretty much unplanned, at IRA funerals would qualify, as would some of the killings in the early years before the IRA adopted terrorism as an explicit strategy (partly as an perceived alternative to disorganised communal violence).
Can you clarify whether you just don’t know what the word means, or you are explicitly saying that the implications of using that word are true, there were communities of thousands or more actively involved in the 7/7 attacks?
Communal seems to be a word used to mean all sorts of different things! when people in india talk about ‘communal violence’ i thought it was a weird way to refer to what they reallly meant. i mean if you heard the term communal sex, you wouldn’t think, ah that’s sex between people of different ‘communities’ would you? you’d think it meant group sex or something. communal violence to me only suggests violence that a group of people are participating in..! nothing about who is doing what for what reason. perhaps they should call it ‘groupist’ violence. i really think my terminology should be used, it would make things so much clearer
Refresh,
Perhaps I took it too far, but it seems to me to be the case that at least some second and third generation Muslims do have more radical views than their parents or grandparents. Whenever I see photographs of Hizb ut-Tahrir members I am always struck that the vast majority appear to be under thirty. Perhaps you would argue that Hib ut-Tahir are not radical but they certainly seem to me to be.
Of course I agree that the vast majority of Muslims just want to get on with their own lives, and that media demonisation is wrong.
communal violence
i think the correct form is *communalist*.
well communalist still doesn’t express that either. And it is usually only used in that context in South Asia.
and always has a negative context! Communalism - the noun - as far as i’m concerned - from which the adjective communalist is derived, has more of a positive connotation. well for me anyway. wikipedia puts it well - “Communalism describes a broad range of social movements and social theories which are in some way centered upon the community.” as wiki also cleverly points out - Communalism(SOuth Asia) has a different edge. clearly its down to how people understand communities in the indian subcontinent.
“Communalism is used in South Asia to denote attempts to promote primarily religious stereotypes between groups of people identified as different communities and to stimulate violence between those groups. The sense given to this word in South Asia is represented by the word sectarianism outside South Asia.”
so there we go.
now we can start referring to ’sectarian violence’. communalist violence just sounds WEIRD and wrong - but perhaps it’s right after all- linking the “belonging to community’ with the violence - perhaps is a sensible linkage to promote.
105 - douglas, Amen to that verse!
Only the righteous ones can judge, and those who do not follow the righteous way… that is the “hijab-wearing, five-time- praying Mulyani- not a drinking, smoking, swearing, shouting” edicts… are not in a position to judge others.
Of course, you and your secularist ways, will no doubt ask who decides who are the righteous. But can you imagine a world where people followed their own conscience and not blindly follow everything their conservative and bigoted religious leaders tell them to do or to think - or be damn in hell, or judge others because they choose to lead their own lives according to their own paths, without being called bad Muslims or whatnot? Scary.
well communalist still doesn’t express that either. And it is usually only used in that context in South Asia.
Well grammatically you can’t have communal violence in the same token that you can’t have communalist toilets.
Of course, you and your secularist ways, will no doubt ask who decides who are the righteous.
oooh “secualarist” used as a slur. That’s told her.
desi makes good points.
anway, if you dont want to judge people, fine, then why write a post singling one person out? is that not judging? and a contestant on BB for goodness sakes..!
all our opinions are judgements. its enforcing it onto them thats a problem.
Communal violence - violence between communities.
I don’t think numbers have anything to do with definition. If members of one community attack members of another community because of their identity, that is a form of communal violence in my book. Killing 55 people is a pretty violent thing to do and as I said, many others would have been killed had the plots succeeded.
Also of course, to a lesser extent (in terms of violence, if not scale) the riots in Bradford and Oldham would also be examples.
So that’s my definition, but I’m not a dictionary
i mean if you heard the term communal sex, you wouldn’t think, ah that’s sex between people of different ‘communities’ would you?
That’s because it doesn’t mean that.
‘Communal’ in front of violence just means violence that all or most of a community is involved in together. It’s still communal violence if, like a medieval witch-burning, it involves someone who would ordinarily be considered part of the community.
Communal sex, communal worship, communal discussion all use the word the same way.
I suppose a ‘Communalist’ is perhaps somone who actively promotes or advocates that kind of stuff as a deliberate political theory. More likely it’s just the same word with ‘ist’ on the end to sound more posh.
Unitalian
If members of one community attack members of another community because of their identity, that is a form of communal violence in my book. Killing 55 people is a pretty violent thing to do and as I said, many others would have been killed had the plots succeeded.
1. By suggesting that you are saying that the 4 Extremists bombers did so as *representatives* of *their* community.
2. That the black, brown, muslim people who died as a result of the indiscriminate violence of the attack belonged to the target community.
Now try and unpack your logic and tell us who you regard as consensual members are of this terrorist communty are. (Judging from your earlier entries I hav a pretty good guess who you mean, but I’ll let you use your own rope).
And who are you identifying as the target community?
@indrak:
i would be very interested in jewish-sikh collaboration, but actually that is practically harder than it looks in london, as the jews tend to live in the north and the sikhs out west. besides, i think it’s more important to have muslims involved, although i would think that a muslim-sikh collaboration would be incredibly valuable.
most jews don’t know enough about the ahmadiyya to know what they’re dealing with and how that might affect their dealings with other types of muslims. personally, i have always found them to be kind of annoyingly in your face about their founder to the extend that would be bound to get on jewish groups’ tits. with that said, there are places where it has worked.
actually, you’d be surprised; I/P tends to not be the issue until it becomes the “elephant in the room”, but by then you should know each other well enough to start talking about it without yelling. the thing is to build the friendship first and deal with the difficult issues later.
@ anas:
i realise this may be difficult for you, but just forget about I/P for a second. BRITISH jews are threatened by BRITISH muslims and, unless you are completely kidding yourself, it is *not* always just about I/P. sometimes it is, of course, but the jihadis are *abundantly* clear that they have a problem with jews wherever they are and did, moreover, before 9/11, iraq or even the end of the oslo process. moreover, israeli diplomats in the UK have far more security available to them than jewish citizens. i’m not even concerned about the 1,000,000,000 muslims in the world. i’m concerned about the 13% of 2,000,000 *british* muslims who think it is justified to kill jews, who are not separated from me by a border. of this, even if 1% of that 13% are genuinely interested in attacking jews and don’t really care about I/P other than as a shibboleth, that is still 2,600 citizens of this country who just have to get in a car. the point here should be that it is a scandal that we should be forced to have ram-proof gates, barbed wire and bag searches at SCHOOLS against these lunatics. i was in belfast a month or so ago and the thing that struck me most was how much the fortified police stations resembled jewish schools.
and your solution - blame it on western foreign policy? the same old blackmail: “if you do as we say, we won’t feel we need to be violent extremists”.
b’shalom
bananabrain
Like I said Sid, I’m not a dictionary. You’re good at asking questions, why don’t you answer one for a change - who do YOU think the bombers, and the other 2000 people supposedly actively engaged in plotting acts of terrorism - were and are targeting?
You’re good at asking questions, why don’t you answer one for a change - who do YOU think the bombers, and the other 2000 people supposedly actively engaged in plotting acts of terrorism - were and are targeting?
Oh I’m sure if I were to answer “White Christians” to your question I would tick all your checkboxes? I guess they like you think all Tube travellers are White Christians just as you clearly suppose all Brown Muslims are Terrorist sympathiser if not wholesale advocates.
Sid:
You’re fighting a losing battle.
Just quit answering your own questions and let others have a say- you’re just Straw-Man-ing now… nobody here has said that they accuse all Muslims of being sympathisers of violence against non-Muslims!
Nav, if you want to define and clear up Unitalian’s particular defintion of “communal” in terms of the 7/7 attacks, then knock yourself out.
Telling me to stop asking questions because *you’ve* run out of arguments is extraordinarily feeble. Strawman to strawman.
Sid:
It’s incredibly difficult to argue with someone who’s so clearly wrong so yet stubbornly insistent that they’re right and nigh on impossible to illustrate to them just how blindly erroneous their v