Pickled Politics

  • Family

    • Clairwil
    • Daily Rhino
    • Leon Green
    • Sajini W
    • Sid's blog
    • Sonia Afroz
    • Sunny on CIF
  • Comrades

    • Aqoul
    • Big Sticks, Small Carrots
    • Blairwatch
    • Bloggerheads
    • Blood & Treasure
    • Butterflies & Wheels
    • Catalyst magazine
    • Chicken Yoghurt
    • Clive Davis
    • Daily Mail Watch
    • Dave Hill
    • Derek Wall
    • Dr StrangeLove
    • Europhobia
    • Faith in Society
    • Feministing
    • Harry's Place
    • Indigo Jo
    • Liberal England
    • Liberal Review
    • Matt Murrell
    • MediaWatchWatch
    • Ministry of Truth
    • Natalie Bennett
    • New Humanist Editor
    • New Statesman blogs
    • open Democracy
    • Robert Sharp
    • Rupa Huq
    • Septicisle
    • Shiraz Socialist
    • Shuggy's Blog
    • Stumbling and Mumbling
    • Tasneem Khalil
    • The Other India
    • Tim Worstall
    • UK Polling Report
  • In-laws

    • Desi Pundit
    • Incurable Hippie
    • Isheeta
    • Neha Viswanathan
    • Power of Choice
    • Real man's fraternity
    • Route 79
    • Sakshi Juneja
    • Sepia Mutiny
    • Smalltown Scribbles
    • Sonia Faleiro
    • Turban Head
    • Ultrabrown

  • Site Meter

    Technorati: graph / links

    London bombings and Iraq War

    by Sunny on 11th April, 2006 at 2:59 pm    

    Moving on to a different genre, Milan Rai has also just published a book titled ‘7/7: The London Bombings and the Iraq War’, out now on Pluto Press.

    Milan Rai founded the British branch of Voices in the Wilderness and co-founded the anti-war group ARROW, a London-based direct action and anti-war information group, and its successor organisation, Justice Not Vengeance. His two previous books are War Plan Iraq: 10 Reasons Against War with Iraq, Regime Unchanged and Chomsky’s Politics. In 1993 he was awarded the Frank Cousins Peace Award for Research by the Transport and General Workers’ Union.

    I admit, I’d never heard of Milan Rai before, but Rachel recommends it. And as yet he hasn’t been slagged off by another upcoming writer in a cheap bid for publicity.
    Also on Amazon.

    Print this page and comments   |     |   Add to del.icio.us   |   Share on Facebook   |   Filed in: Media, The World, Civil liberties

    14 Comments below   |  

    1. soru — on 11th April, 2006 at 5:28 pm  

      From the blurb:
      ‘In July 2005, al-Qaeda struck in the heart of London.’

      is any of it based on better research than that?

    2. Sid Singh — on 11th April, 2006 at 5:33 pm  

      What do you want? Blood?

    3. leon — on 11th April, 2006 at 5:48 pm  

      Well, some actual evidence couldn’t hurt…

    4. bikhair — on 11th April, 2006 at 7:50 pm  

      Sid Singh,

      I think what Soru meant to say was whether it was infact Al Qaeda who executed the attack not whether it happened.

    5. Don — on 11th April, 2006 at 8:43 pm  

      Soru is right. Sloppiness like that bodes ill.

    6. Siddhartha Sinatra — on 11th April, 2006 at 9:10 pm  

      Yes isn’t it incredible how soru managed to glean the entire research effort of the book from a single sentence on the blurb.

    7. Don — on 11th April, 2006 at 10:10 pm  

      Are you being prickly for a bet?

    8. soru — on 11th April, 2006 at 10:15 pm  

      blurbs can be misleading, but worthless books do get published, and the first one to hit the shops on a given topic is a good candidate for skepticism. Try rereading some of the books published about 9/11 in early 2002 now - half of them seem as if they come from a conversation with a literary agent: ‘hey, you know that 90% complete, but unsellable, draft you have on the topic of modern art? I have an idea…’

      Which is why I asked the question.

    9. Sunny — on 12th April, 2006 at 12:17 am  

      Well, until the recent report that indicated Al-Qaeda had nothing to do with the London bombings, I guess that above was the assumption pretty much everyone made.

    10. Siddhartha Sinatra — on 12th April, 2006 at 1:03 am  

      Soru, you’re right. Some of the books on 9/11 that are continue to be published still read like a transcription of a conversation between a literary agent and a hack.

      But there are good ones too. There is nothing to suggest that this one will be worthless. It might simply put forth solidly researched balanced editorial. Why the need to hamstring this one before you’ve even read it?

    11. Siddhartha Sinatra — on 12th April, 2006 at 1:17 am  

      Yeah Sunny, no al-Qaeda link and strongly influened by the Iraq War was the pronouncement of that report on 7/7 on the 7/7 bombers. Much to the chagrin of the Blairite Pro-War Non-Stoppers. To them M Siddique Khan and Co were a long-term slow-release dyed-in-the-wool al-Qaeda operative cell. And the Iraq War could not possibly have, even remotely, never in a month of sundays, had anything but nothing, absolutely fuck-all to do with it. OK?

    12. Sunny — on 12th April, 2006 at 1:27 am  

      Sid - I left you a comment on your blog… can you please email me. don’t even read your own blog… sheesh!

    13. Siddhartha Sinatra — on 12th April, 2006 at 8:17 am  

      Yes, I’m bad, I’m bad, you know it.

    14. Shiraz Maher — on 21st April, 2006 at 12:13 am  

      Islam and technology - Is Islam anti-technology?

      Living in a material world

      One confusion which arises amongst some people is that how, on the one hand democracy, capitalism and the policies of the west are kufr and yet we still use their technologies such as the internet, mobile phones and cars. Is this not haram? Additionally, some condemn the Khilafah as being regressive or anti-technological. Former US assistant secretary of state, James Rubin said in an interview “Muslim resentment of the West will evaporate when they are free and fed”, he continued,“… Do you really want to live in Bin Laden Land, a Stone Age Islamic caliphate with no rights, no economy and no future? I am confident the answer will be no.” Is James Rubin right, or does Islam have something to say on the ‘technological revolution?’

      There is a difference between haDarah (civilisation) and madaniyyah (material progress). Material objects arising from the haDarah are specific to a civilisation and define a particular outlook towards life. Hence a statue such as those being worshipped by the Quraysh, or in contemporary times such as those being worshipped by Hindu’s, epitomise something which represents a particular ideological viewpoint. To make use of these objects which represent a foreign haDarah to the Islamic one is haram as it contradicts the Islamic outlook on life.

      However, madaniyyah is not specific to any civilisation and is universal. Material aspects arising from science and its advancement or from industry and its evolution are not specific to any particular civilisation or ideology. Consequently mobile phones, laptops and the internet all stem from scientific enquiry which is universal to man and not limited to the west alone. Hence it is wrong to equate technology or science as something which may be ‘western’ or ‘kufr.’

      This distinction should be very clear and at the forefront of our minds. Whilst we may adopt from the western madaniyyah those things which arise from science, industry etc. we must never adopt from her haDarah.

      Hence using a car to go and buy a computer is allowed whilst bringing home a statue of an idol to adorn pride of place on your mantelpiece is not. In the first instance a computer does not represent any particular ideological outlook or view whilst in the later example a statue typifies shirk – something which runs totally counter to the Islamic ‘aqeedah.

      A final point worth reflecting on is that, madaniyyah alone is no adequate benchmark by which to assess any civilisation. Each and every civilisation can expect to make material progress over time. Consequently penicillin could have just as easily been discovered in China or Nigeria or Bahrain as it was in the west. Unfortunately some Muslims have become smitten with the western madaniyyah and have consequently condemned Islam as being ‘backward’ or anti-technological. Clearly this is not the case and Islam does not oppose technology or industry as such. When we examine the western civilisation we must pull back from examining her madaniyyah and instead, assess the intellectual basis of her civilisation; capitalism, secularism and freedom.


    Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

    Pickled Politics © Copyright 2005 - 2007. All rights reserved. Terms and conditions.
    With the help of PHP and Wordpress.