Letter by Muslim MPs and organisations
The Guardian reports:
Leading UK Muslims have united to tell Tony Blair that his foreign policy in Iraq and on Israel offers “ammunition to extremists” and puts British lives “at increased risk”.An open letter signed by three of the four Muslim MPs, three of the four peers, and 38 organisations including the Muslim Council of Britain and the Muslim Association of Britain, was greeted with dismay in Downing Street. It has courted the MCB and several of the signatories, such as key Labour MPs Sadiq Khan (Tooting) and Shahid Malik (Dewsbury), whom it believes can shape Muslim opinion.
————————
The letter
As British Muslims we urge you to do more to fight against all those who target civilians with violence, whenever and wherever that happens. It is our view that current British government policy risks putting civilians at increased risk both in the UK and abroad.
To combat terror the government has focused extensively on domestic legislation. While some of this will have an impact, the government must not ignore the role of its foreign policy.
The debacle of Iraq and the failure to do more to secure an immediate end to the attacks on civilians in the Middle East not only increases the risk to ordinary people in that region, it is also ammunition to extremists who threaten us all.
Attacking civilians is never justified. This message is a global one. We urge the prime minister to redouble his efforts to tackle terror and extremism and change our foreign policy to show the world that we value the lives of civilians wherever they live and whatever their religion. Such a move would make us all safer.
———————
The article goes on to say:
The signatories insisted they condemned those who planned the alleged attacks. Mr Khan told the Guardian that Mr Blair’s reluctance to criticise Israel over the Lebanon attacks meant the pool of people from which terrorists found their recruits was increasing.
He said: “We simply cannot ignore the fact that our country’s foreign policy is being used by charismatic [figures] to tell British Muslims that their country hates them. Current policy on the Middle East is seen by almost everyone I speak to as unfair and unjust. Such a sense of injustice plays into the hands of extremists.”
Mr Malik said British foreign policy encourages the view in the Muslim community “where you forget about right and wrong, where you think two wrongs equals a right … those events are diminishing my ability to put forward arguments against extremism”.
….
On the BBC’s World at One Shiraz Mihir, a former member of the hardline Hizb ut-Tahrir group, said: “The mosques are not able to offer any effective leadership. At a time when there is a polarising debate about Muslim identity and how young British Muslims fit into the wider British society, there is a vacuum which is being filled by radicals and extremists.”
That is pure blackmail. These “moderate” Muslims should be seen as a fifth column, pure and simple.
You didn’t get Christians threatening terrorism when Nato was bombing Serbia. You don’t get Jews murdering their fellow citizens when some jihadi, backed by the BBC and the Foreign Office, blows himself up in a Pizza Parlour.
All Muslims have the right to vote and express their
“grievances” that way. Not that British Muslims have any real grievances.
The government should wipe its arse on this letter. Anything less is Chamberlain style appeasement.
Ah lovely, a threat.
Nice timing, lads.
Wrong religion, but talk about “chutzpah”.
“As British Muslims we urge you to do more to fight against all those who target civilians with violence, whenever and wherever that happens.”
Um, that’s going to be quite a list, isn’t it? We’re going to need a lot more soldiers then. Or have I got the wrong end of the stick again?
British foreign policy must be based on what’s best for Britain. I personally was not in favour of invading Iraq for no other reason than that I couldn’t see the point of it. As to the Israel/Lebanon conflict, it’s about time that the rest of you go this into your heads. The United Kingdom has no influence on Israeli policy whatsoever. This country lost any credibility with Israelis years ago. All the protests that are held here serve only to harden Israeli opinions.
Policy here must never be dictated by a minority, I don’t care which one it is, and that includes my own.
Slightly off topic but George Bush is treating the issue with his usual level of intelligence and understanding….
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4785065.stm
Right. Do as we say or you will be killed. Welcome to moderate Islam.
I think that Bunglawala and co relish this situation, it is like their dark wet dream come true.
All these letters are rubbish. To me this letter sounds like a black mail. Why they cant simply condemned the killing and plotting bombs. What they had done by issuing this letter, its sound like to me, oh we feel bad but it’s not our fault it’s a fault of your own policy and thinking.
Urging Muslims to “fight against any one who is targeting innocents and killing civilians” any where in world. I would like to suggest one point which I guess would help in your cause if you really serious about it, then go out ask your entire Muslims leader to issue a Fatwa against terrorist’s organization. I guess its hard right? Reason is because some people well leaders of your community think they are not terrorist they freedom fighters?
I don’t know how you people or leaders differentiate between freedom fighters and terrorists. If you know little about Freedom Fighters then you shouldn’t be comparing all the terrorists with freedom fighters.
I would call Freedom Fighters defensive. Freedom fighters always fights inside of his country, they are citizen of their own country. Freedom fighters won’t destroy a whole country and kill innocents. Freedom fighter does not shield his face from the world.
Terrorists are offensive. They attack foreign targets in hopes of spreading their message or achieving a goal. A terrorist is a coward who covers his face from outsiders, fearing the response to his actions. Terrorist uses violent force against defenseless civilians. They do this in the belief that doing so will demoralize their enemy and make other civilians turn on their government.
If you read news paper you will find out the mostly people who are attacking in Kashmir, Afghanistan, Chechnya and in IRAQ are outsiders. They are not the citizen of these countries, that’s reason people call them terrorists. It’s like an outsider is trying to invade your country.
I can name few places where you should urged your people and ask your leaders to issue Fatwa against terrorist organization and urged people not to show support organization who is involved in kill of innocents and civilians, Kashmir, Chechnya, Iraq, Afghanistan and in Africa.
Show some maturity and Act leaders of your community and condemned the killings and bombing civilians place with out putting your own political agenda on first place at least for once.
It’s Just My Opinion. Any One Agree?
So, further down the line, will we have to change our whole society to accomodate a bunch of thugs and their not so moderate ‘leaders’? What are the odds on demands for sharia and the killing of apostates (remember, the ‘moderate’ Sacranie calling for Rushdie’s head a few years ago?) being allied with oh-so-sincere and moderate letters urging the home secretary to implement their agenda or ‘face the consequences’ of unrest?
Thugs, fascists and hooligans.
The leader of the plot seems to have been a chap from Birmingham who was arrested in Pakistan. This rum fellow fled the country four years ago after his uncle was stabbed to death (police in Biirmingham was to interview him about the incident but as you can see he has been in hiding and quite busy it would apprear). Pakistani intelligence have interrogated him and it led directly to the urgency of the arrests.
You might imagine that it would be a matter of some concern to the head of the central Birmingham mosque, that a Muslim in his city appears to be at the centre of a planned attack to kill thousands of men women and children. You might imagine he would seek to reassure the people of Birmingham and his co-religionists that this has nothing to do with Islam and that he unequivocally condemns any such action. This is what Dr Muhammad Naseem actually said:
“…it poses the question whether the arrests are part of a political objective, by using Muslims as a target, using the perception of terrorism to usurp all our civil liberties and get more and more control while moving towards a totalitarian state.”
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-2309167,00.html
People like Muhhamad Naseem are repellent, thuggish, ddeply craven and mendacious, not to say arrogant individuals. Their level of denial shades into what appears to be active sympathy for the criminal extremists.
With leaders like this, Muslims in this country are burdened with blockheads. The arrogance, the mendacity, the threats, the sheer blockheaded bully boy hooliganism of the mentality, is actually quite impressive.
The actual level of extremist terrorism is frightening and horrifying. But most British people understand that not all Muslims are to be implicated as they are innocent. After all, collective guilt and collective punishments are the hallmarks of these fascists. But what aggravates it is the arrogance of people like Dr Muhammad Naseem and others, with their stupidity and denial. We are in a deep situation here. They are making things worse.
Hmmm…..
I don’t like the concept of foreign policy “endangering us”, I must admit.
Lots of people get angry about foreign policy, and domestic policy, all the time, but the vast majority of them don’t go and blow themselves or anyone else up over it. There is a particular type of person (and I believe they exist to some extent in all races, ethnicities and religions) who will use any excuse to inflict the violence that exists inside them on other people, and it may be foreign policy that triggers them, but if it wasn’t that it would be something else.
Most people are not like that. If you want to criticise the government’s actions, do it on the basis of the government’s actions, not on the basis that the government has to tiptoe round for fear of offending a tiny minority of psychopaths.
If you think a fatwa will sort it out you don’t understand the situation very well.
For example, here is a very detailed and authoritative fatwa from an authoritative Muslim jurist. (It is very long; Eteraz has a summary.) Here is another fatwa issued in the wake of last year’s bombings by 500 Muslim scholars.
Yet, not even Muslims know about these fatwas. Or even care about them.
What can’t be denied is that the extremists use “foreign policy” as a vehicle to spew their violence. Yes, I agree, they will always find something to justify their violence. But it is a fact that this is what galvinizes them. What Muslims have to do (and the government cannot do anything about this) is to say that responding to what they perceive to be unfair policies does not come through these acts of violence. Mosques, scholars etc. are totally useless here because such acts of violence are not ordinarily preached at mosques.
What is required is for Muslims to speak up. Forget ‘communitiy leaders’. How many Muslims know who Iqbal Sacraine even is? Not a lot, I assure you. Individuals will have to speak against extremism should they hear it or hear justifications for such violence. This is where groups like MPAC could be useful (i.e. asking Muslims to engage in the civil/democractic process), if only they would stop seeing everything as a Zionist conspiracy.
Expect the British National Party or Combat 18 to submit a similar ‘open letter’ to 10 Downing Street warning that, while *of course* they deplore attacks on Muslims, if it does not alter its domestic policy of letting their representatives dictate government policy, they will find themselves at ‘increased risk’ from an increasingly angered non-Muslim majority.
The argument that UK foreign policy is wrong might be valid. Blackmail (the letter to parliament) is not the response. Victim mentality believes no one else is interested in the same aims internationally—sustainable peace in the Middle East. That insular feeling not being part of a larger ‘British’ community is counterproductive. The organizations that endorsed the letter should work on building political coalitions to influence a political issue foreign policy. I’m not a Muslim- have no desire to be one, but I can see where I might have a common cause with some Muslims on some things.
Arguments about Foreign Policy, is understandable but again you can’t bomb your own place and kill innocents because you not agreed of policies of your own government. For example I am sure loads of young’s people have arguments with their parents and not agreed with their parent’s rules and regulations about home, but they don’t bomb their own house and kill their own parents? Do they?
Same rule apply with country policy, when government make policies they made by taking whole picture in their mind including domestic and security issues and internal threat. If these young generation Muslims are not agreed with policies then should show their protest in peace full manner, try to integrate with society and choose their true representative in elections. No one can justify killing of innocents on the name of government policies. These acts of terrorism make much harder for government to change any policies.
It’s not hard to understand.
I think this letter is unfortunate to be honest. It’ll just make everyone think all Muslims are into blackmailing people otherwise they’ll blow themselves up.
Thabet has made some excellent points which I completely agree with. And to think young Muslims aren’t worried about the same issues is naive. For example see this thread.
On a related point, over the last week I’ve had an epiphany and am putting together a brilliant narrative that encapsulates everything to do with British terrorism. Now I just need to sit down and write the damn thesis.
Blair and his minions have conspired to murder innocent civilians in Afghanistan and Iraq, and now condone and arm those who are currently murdering civilians in Lebanon. So try telling disaffected Muslim youth recruited into jihadi cults that its not okay to kill civilians! This letter is stating a fact, not issuing an ultimatum. And it is not an attempt to justify or condone any actual or alleged terror acts.
Even from where I’m standing, which is non-violent ultra-liberal Muslim land, I cannot discern the moral difference between 7/7 on the one hand and British foreign policy on the other, except that perhaps more innocent civilians have died as a result of the latter. Of course, they’re just sand niggers and Pakis, lives that always seem to be worth so much less than those who died in London.
Tony looks like a terrorist, terrorists look like Tony. Pig becomes man, man becomes pig, in the end no one can tell the difference.
I was in the park with my 13 year old autistic son today, and I had to listen to a drunken teenager shouting from a tree he had climbed, ‘Shoot the nigger!’ We were in the middle of a Black and Asian neighbourhood. That’s the kind of empty-headed, simian scum currently allowed to roam free in Britain. What’s their excuse?
Wasalaam
TMA
Sunny,
Perhaps they should have written a letter stating that Britian’s foreign policy is a miserable failure and hasnt made good on its promises and on top of all that pyschos use it to justify their pyschosis.
I thought the Iraq adventure was supposed to make everything ok? I thought democracy, freedom and homosexuality was supposed to be on the march in the Middle East? Where does Pakistan fit into all this? Ah nevermind.
Yakoub/Julaybib,
Do you know the story of the grear Sahabah Julaybib? Its amazing.
I doubt Blair takes much pleasure in the fact that innocent people have been killed in these mistaken wars.
Takfiris on the other hand…
Thabet,
For real. Most Muslims dont need a fatwa to tell then that terrorism is haram. Those Muslims that dont will make takfir of any Muslim who has. I mean if they can excommunicate the Saudi Ulema, who cares who semi literate Pakistani Imam has to say?
There appears to be so much disbelief about how such ‘nice’, ‘helpful’ and ‘pious’ men who cared about their families and their ‘community’ could such a thing. What many ppl have not registered is that it is quite possible to have such a profile but have completely different feelings (antagonism/disdain/blame/alienation/retaliatory prejudice) for the people who are not from that tribe/community (in this case the ‘Muslim nation’). Infact youngsters who are more sensitive to political events, have an unhealthy sense of ‘Muslimness’ in relation to ‘every one else’ are ideal candidates to be brainwashed and given twisted theological justification for terrorism.
We are reaching a critical point in this ‘long war’. Just as these terrorism acts ‘vindicate’ Bush’s policy in the eyes of many in the west, the injustice done in Palestine, Lebanon and elsewhere instill a tension among ordinary Muslims about what their exact take on the situation should be.
Hardline orthodox Muslims may have very out of sync (with modernity) views on co-ed schools, mtv, homosexuality, banking system etc etc. but these things are not the driving Muslims to acts of violence. The violence from all sides is mainly due to the sense of seige and last ditch effort against an unimplacable enemy (a growing militant Islam as perceived by USA and a vicious ‘colonial’ force fueled by the christian and zionist right as perceived by the Islamists). In this situation, it is critical to kill off hardened terrorists, try to resolve key political issues (guarantee final resolution of states of Palestine and Israel), and make sure that stupid rhetoric(antisemitism/ pointless anti americanism/ bigotry against Muslims) is not fueling the already raging fires.
I’ve updated the article with a video that I thought was quite relevant.
Brilliant vid. This link;
http://www.comedycentral.com/sitewide/media_player/search.jhtml
takes you to the archive stuff. Saves relying on YouTube.
The vid’s fantastic, but I’m completely missing the relevance to today’s leading muslim’s letter to Blair telling him to do what the terrorists demand.
And again, does anyone really think they want him to start going after “all those who target civilians with violence, whenever and wherever that happens”?
How does that work? Obviously, you can send the Queen’s Own Royal Lager Louts in to beat the bejesus out of Hamas and Hisbollah by that criteria, and I rather suspect they want to send Tommy into Israel too.
Then what? They do seem to have harped on rather about Iraq, so presumably in order to de-radicalise our muslim youth we must attack the US, quite a lot of the EU, and of course ourselves.
It’s not really any sort of demand that our government can do anything but laugh in the face of, is it?
[...] The letter by Muslim MPs to Downing St in which they have charged Western foreign policy as ‘anti-Muslim’ and therefore the sole factor in the creation Muslim terrorism is an example of this failure. This is the antithesis of wisdom because the subtext of such a statement suggests that Muslims are unable to blame the agencies that allow terrorism to grow in the midst of Islam. It is also self-defeating because the statement implies that Muslims are in alignment with terrorism and on and on we go. [...]
I think the element of surprise has worn thin now even with the most naive Britons, that when foreign policy leads to DEATH by the hundreds of thousands, some people might be pissed off and may be willing to do ANYTHING to persuade us to change. A million people marching in London had no effect. I don’t think all this needs to be spelt out in a letter, the bombs kind of tell us that anyway - no mater how much the politicians may want to convince us there is no link.
Somehow these MPs reckon that although death and destruction in the hundreds of thousands; or the tens of thousands of people in the scores of refugee camps waiting to go home (albeit a bit impatient now), really don’t make a difference to the ’shoulder to shoulder with neo-conservatism, American religious extremism and Zionism’ policy - a letter might just do the trick! Good one boys.
i’m with the guy who called it blackmail. while im not wont to judge the intentions of the muslim mp’s and the org supporting this, my issue is that it *looks* like blackmail. media sophistication among muslims is clearly just as bad in england as in the u.s. what i dont understand is why they can’t issue two separate press releases on two separate days? it’s like blogging. shit goes down one day, write about that; don’t go back and start talking about shit from another day - save it for tomorrow.
as to the rest, i’m with thabet, muslims themselves don’t know, or care, about the fatwas. at the most, what they want is to not be called names. yet they are in the difficult situation that if they don’t take command of their communities, others will (who will do such things which only make people dislike muslims more). so, the question is this: how does a decent muslim, with a career, a family, only some money, and only some friends, bring his ‘moderation’ to bear on his community?
i don’t know about you guys but in the us, many muslims have successfully negotiated an answer to this question in their communities. part of it may have to do with the fact that the muslim communities here are arising C0-EXTENSIVELY with the mosques while in England both the communities and their insular members have been around forever, and its the ideas which are now being *injected.*
im curious as to people’s thoughts that perhaps the ‘next-generation’ muslim activist needs to stop being muslim and just be asian.
i was talking to thabet and trying to find out that if i moved to london, which muslim group would i affiliate with. i got the sense that i’d have no choice but to be with the sufis. i then wondered why would i even seek to connect with anyone on the basis of my religion, when, isn’t it the case that the british ‘classification’ is racial: whites, blacks, asians? in that sense, i see something like pickled politics, which to me is race based rather than religion, a better solution. anyway, im not really trying to solve the british problems, because we have our own set of problems, namely, how to bridge, if at all, the gap between immigrant arabs, immigrant south asians, and native-black muslim populations.
i gave some thought to this idea a while back and I am not sure if the results yielded I subscribe to any longer. still, i’d appreciate some feedback (assuming you aren’t bored to death).
http://eteraz.wordpress.com/2006/02/28/washing-some-american-muslim-dirty-laundry/
Eteraz wrote: “so, the question is this: how does a decent muslim, with a career, a family, only some money, and only some friends, bring his ‘moderation’ to bear on his community?”
At maximum volume. You’re managing it, keep encouraging others.
Who voted for these “community leaders” anyway? By what right do they speak for “the Muslim community”? Is there a Muslim community?
Much as I dislike Islam, even I am not so stupid as to think that all Muslims speak with one voice - that of a mad Mullah.
It is unfashionable to talk about patriotism, loyalty to one’s country. Echoes of the BNP, etc. But the nation state at its best (albeit an imperfect best) treats citizens - at least in theory - as equals. These “communities” perpetuate hierarchical systems that are out of the ark. Why lefties like them I can’t understand.
“Community” - a dirty word. It is the individual that matters.
How do the Muslims believe that this politics of blackmail work in a open society. Are the democratic states now to be guided by the policies of a active, militant verbal minority.
Is this the new political lexicon: Should the govt.policies not be acceptable you change them otherwise we will intimidate so that you have to change.
Will someone please explain this dichotomy If I am aguest in some one’s home can and should I demand that the homeowner live by my rules. Please help explain this viewpoint, then I will understand why European and world governements need to adopt undemocratic values
Unfortunately people still believes that, they can use violence and black mailing method to change the foreign policies of UK.
My only question is why should UK change its policy? Policies as I said in my earlier post are based on domestic situation rather than external situations.
People here on this thread said that Young British Muslims are angered about foreign policies of this country, that’s why they are doing all sort of terrorist acts or supporting terrorism.
Like for example some people on thread said Airline plot, is all because of government policies about Lebanon and Israel war. Well as far as I can see and read it about suspects and Airline Plot its clearly shows that, these terrorist were planning about bombing the airlines in mid air and kill innocents as many as they can, since last 6-7 months and Israel war has been only started few weeks ago right?
So how, they will justify this. Even when Spain changed its foreign policies after Madrid Train attack, it didn’t changed the terrorist thinking they planned another attack on spain, luckily Spain secret agency and police unfolded it on time and saved many life’s.
So saying changing policies will change these terrorist minding and make UK society safer and secure is rubbish in my opinion.
I’m really tired of pointless false dichotomy arguments over the causes of terrorism. Ideology vs policy is as sterile as the old nature vs nurture argument that one-track brain morons have kept alive for 30 years. There is a pre-existing problem in middle east ideology and some of our (the UK I mean)actions or responses may have exacerbated rather than soothed the problem.
As regards the letter I think it is very very bad PR to produce it now. It sounds like good cop/bad cop. It is irrelevant if policy has aggrieved these individuals (though they seem unusually receptive to offence). We shouldn’t make policy on the basis of threats of violence. What is the difference between this argument and Enoch Powells famous rivers of blood speech– that would make an excellent footnote to this letter.
Pickled Politics is a microcosm of the world. Look what happens here. Everybody wants to apportion blame, ‘Your lot did this in blah’, ‘Oh yeah, and look what your lot did in blah’. It’s neverending. Technology and blogging actually give the man (or woman) on the net the opportunity to mould governmental policies in a way unheard of 10 years ago.
I assume that the majority of us just want the fighting to stop, and the concilliation to begin. Well this is how it’s done. We all start commenting on the sites of those we consider our ‘enemies’, also those of our ‘friends’. And what we say is something like this:
‘The inability, and lack of willingness on both sides of this dispute has led to to the death of our compatriots, fear in our communities, and hatred on both sides. Let us stop blaming each other, and sit down and see how we can go forward together. Let us try to dispense with ideologies that have brought us to this sorry state, and strive for a better life for our countries.’
Idealistic, yes, but let’s try idealism for a change. If we can do this as ‘ordinary people’, we could start a groundswell of public opinion which will force governments forward, and I think will be far more effective than an afternoon waving inflamatory banners and shouting invective at each other.
I hope you all realise that this is a catchall policy and not directed at any one particular conflict.
The situation is very simple. There are young men, unwilling or unable to commit to civilian life, perhaps fearful of the role of a new father, perhaps of what they will become if they carry on down taking drugs. Add a dash of idealism, a side order of macho swagger, and a big hero complex.
That’s the traditional recruiting grounds for the British Army.
But British society in general is not providing any plausible route where they can join that army and feel a hero rather than a traitor, or at best morally compromised. I’d challenge anyone to name one book, film, advert or song that celebrates or glamorises a person who made that choice.
So, like a footballer who gets jeered when they try out for their local side, they go join some other team. If that requires believing a certain story about the world, that is about as irrelevant as the colour of the shirt a footballer would be required to wear. If it requires taking orders from some rich guy on the Afghan border, that is as irrelevant as the source of wealth of the club chairman.
The point is the wages paid, and the roar of the crowd.
The part of the letter that struck me was at the end, where Tony Blair is urged to “change our foreign policy to show the world that we value the lives of civilians wherever they live and whatever their religion”.
The clear implication is that current foreign policy shows the world that the UK does *not* value the lives of civilians in some countries and of a particular religion. Can the signatories really believe this, regardless of what some other misguided UK muslims may believe? And if so, what could the Government do to change this perception?
The letter was naive and lacked savvy. They are rubbish at both politics and PR. And to think there are MPs amongst them
If only they’d looked around the blogs, they would have anticipated the response from the likes of Kim Howell.
Having said that the issues are and will remain important. They will not go away.
What I would have recommended is call on some influential academics from around the globe and established a think tank - to analyse this exact issue and reported on it on a regular basis along with opinion polling. And I would have said they would have got their point across much better.
Lets not forget that previous enquiry in the 7/7 bombing itself had already warned about the risk of increased radicalisation; as had the intelligence services prior to the invasion of Iraq.
Truth will out. And it is widely understood and recognised within the United Kingdom. But I don’t think anyone really wants to hear it from the muslims themselves. No sir.
After reading comments, I still didn’t understand why few people are so blinded that they believe, what ever is happening is a fault of government and its foreign policy. I believe in democracy and we are very fortunate that we are living in one of most democratic state in world. Democracy gives a right to every one to express their feelings and anger, raise their voice. Democracy give every one chance to elect and form a government and their representative, whom they think will and can work towards the betterment of society and help them to feel secure.
But the main point in democracy is how majority treats minority, how powerfully people treats power less people. So far I know UK does treat monitory very well, we had given every right to them, they are first class citizen of this country ( we don’t treat them as a second class citizen).
If we look to some countries (especially Islamic countries) and see how people get treated in their democracy specially minorities I am sure people will be shocked to know about it. Most of British Muslim are saying that they are not happy with the policies of government, ok fair enough but you don’t bomb the whole country because you not happy with few elected members of parliaments and their decision. Did Christians or any other religion other than Muslim bomb the places because of their own country policies? (By the way I am not Christian and got no plan to convert in to Christianity)
At this point what we need is proper debate about this issue, government should do bit more to help these young Muslims to understand how our policies works. We should bring some really intellectual and scholars who understand a lot more about Holy Quran ( not the one who comes in Sharia TV, they bloody don’t agree with each other statements) to tell these people, what Quran says, and help the government to let these people know about UK governments policies and issues.
They must understand it is not possible for any government in the world to make happy every one happy at same time. Because it’s democratic government so they go according to simple rule, majority wins.
Muslims leaders should come forward and give proper statements and assure these young and vulnerable people, that government and normal public of this country is with them, they are not isolated and neglected. We need proper Muslims scholars (not moderate or extremists Muslims) to do this job. To make this country, more safe and secure.
Winrock, government policy is a part of what we the people want. How its derived is a part of the electoral/consultation process. It is entirely correct to put your view forward to say that the longstanding policies being played out in ME, needs a major update.
And it is appropriate for groups to put that forward. To silence that view is counter-productive. The test should simply be - and its something you could try at home - is to ask the question of your family, friends and colleagues. Do you think that we are doing the right thing in the Middle East? And do you think the Prime Minister is able to deliver the best results for our country?
I’d be interested in what results you get.
Wheres the blackmailing bit??? Im slightly off the ball as its sunday, someone help me.
I don’t get the fuss
They seem to have made a perfectly valid point that british foreign policy aggravates segments of the british population and drives them to extremists.
>> They seem to have made a perfectly valid point that british foreign policy aggravates segments of the british population and drives them to extremists.
So if we aggravate Israelis, we might get Jewish suicide bombers. If we upset the Argentinians, we could get catholic suicide bombers. Hells bells! What are we going to do. You can’t win, can you!!
And I understand that British people being allowed to drink alcohol, wear revealing clothes, and the tolerance of open homosexuality also aggravate “segments of the british population”. So is there a difference between the aggravation caused by foreign policy and the aggravation caused by having to live among the kuffar?
Or, given that foreign policy will inevitably “aggravate” someone, is aggravating muslims quantitatively different from aggravating those of other beliefs?
Muslims “aggravate” easily?
Yes!?
Again yes. Im not sure what point you’re making, unless you believe theres been a sudden cluster in psychopaths roaming the nation there has to be some ‘driving cause’ to make these men turn to extremism. If ‘aggravated enough’ (a broad term i accept) most people (pacifists aside) would say there was some ‘consequence’ imminent. If the Argentian jews sat in Buenos Aires and started ‘aggravating’ the gringos in Britain, would the British just shrug their shoulders??
Obviously yes, being allowed to live your life as you wish but getting militant because you want to deny others the same privilege is far less justifiable than saying the way your government is behaving in a certain part of the world is getting you cross.
Alright allow me to skew that a little to make my point, they’re politicians they said the actions of the government is detrimental to their constituents, it aggravates them. Their opinions aren’t quantitively different from MPs who say the level of immigration to this country is alienating their constituents and making them more liable to turn to extremists, that they’re could be ’social consequences’ if the white people weren’t listened to.
Now i might be mistaken, those consequences may well be interpretive dance and cultural fairs, but the inference i’ve always drawn is that people may go apeshit if you don’t stop aggravating them. The threat in that context is made in a finger wagging kind of way.
In this case those Muslims who wrote the letter have accepted that there are people willing to blow themselves up and have tried to articulate the casual factors for that, and they’re critizised for it!
The threat of widespread civil disorder is far more menacing to me than accepting that a minority of extremists exist and trying to cut off their oxygen by finding out what makes them tick.
As do the elderly.
One makes allowances for the elderly.
To accept the notion that muslims aggravate easily is to accept a re-write history.
I’ve long held the view that foreign policy comes in 50-year chunks; and the middle east is going through their 2nd chunk, and if Bush et al get their way there is another 50-year chunk heading their way.
As Ken Livingstone pointed out this has been going on for 80 years. I would say it takes a lot to aggravate people - as it does to pacify them.
Sort out the middle east and lets move on.
Hold on a second, some might say we are sorting it out once and for all. No - no they are not they are again skewing the outcome to deal with a much longer term issue and that is global domination. The middle east is the battle ground - but the war is economic. Whoever controls the world’s most valuable assets will actually rule.
Some of us, actually most of us, Britons prefer to follow the notion of justice and fair treatment. Is this happening in the ME? It is not.
Forget this idea that you can silence a group of people because they are the wrong colour or the wrong ethnic group - and in this case the wrong religious group. It still leaves us to deal with the reality on the ground. Muslim lands actually have most of the oil.
Do not fool yourself that it is anything to do with values.
>> Muslim lands actually have most of the oil.
I understand, according to various sources, that the world’s second largest oil reserves are in either Canada or Russia.
In which case perhaps global powers will play their games over there. And offer respite to the Middle East.
But somehow I doubt it.
BTW - have a look at the central Asian lands to see if the argument holds.
Do not fool yourself that it is anything to do with values.
It has everything to do with values. Western Governments would much rather give their hard earned money to a friendly democracy that spent it on looking after its people, just like Norway does.
Instead it buys oil from oppressive regimes that have learnt how to use TV as a properganda tool, buy arms (which we cannot help ourselves but sell to them), rattle thier sabers at their neighbours and openly mock the concepts of free speech, equal rights and democracy, calling it colonism and oppression.
It leaves a dirty taste in the mouth when you consider the pact we made with the devil to buy Saudi oil.
Oil creates a terrible clash of values.
TFI
TFI - go book ourself a copy of Lawrence of Arabia and see for yourself (courtesy David Lean) what its been all about.
White people have now got it into their heads that they can now do anything to anybody and suffer no consequences and that their innocent lives in the west are worth more than other less innocent lives in the east. That way lies madness because the media still refuses to acknowledge that other people might have a different view to their world perspective. Let me be quite clear about this. I oppose British foreign policy (as regards to Iraq and Lebanon etc) because it is wrong and evil, irrespective of the fact that the said policy is the product of a democratically elected government. Lest we forget, The Third Reich and the holocaust of the Jews was the product of a democratically elected government and not so long ago in this country people took to the streets and rioted to bring about the end of a thing called the Poll Tax, another sad social experiment brought about by another democratically elected government.
No white people shouldn’t be talking about blackmail (which is a ironic when you think about it), they should be thinking about bribes. The black community in general and the Muslim community in particular have to ask themselves this simple question. What price are we willing to pay for the abandonment of our conscience? Is life in the west worth turning a blind eye to death in the east? Is a injustice in Beirut or Palestine worth the price of a four bed roomed house, a great career and a flash car? If the answer is yes then the Muslim community must put up and shut up and let the white man get on with it. But if the answer is NO, then we must rise and fight and bring this injustice to an end. In this there is no middle road. We can’t have our cake and eat it!
For the last couple of days I’ve witnessed a succession of white people wringing their hands about the “Muslim problem”. Did anyone see the Richard and Judy Show on Thursday? Scary stuff! It is a double standard on huge proportions being perpetuated by a government too arrogant to care and a media too scared to resist (note some of the ill-informed posts on this forum) but because it is not being seriously challenged and articulated by anyone within the black community, it is left to hotheads with bombs strapped to their backs to do the talking and redress the balance, the balance of madness. White people have gone mad with the power of their own self importance. It is up to us all to show them a better way but first we must challenge their rhetoric.
May I express my displeasure at the joint statement put out by “representatives” of the moslem community.
Their intention may have been to play to an angry young constituency within their own community — one prong in a two-prong strategy to steer people away from violence. But what they have achieved in my eyes is to legitimise the option of indiscriminate violence at home to influence policy abroad and to increase a vague idea among the rest of us of an enemy within that has stronger loyalties to a global and loose religion-based identity than it has to the place in which it lives.
It is deeply divisive. And the timing of it is appalling. We’ve just foiled, it increasingly seems, a particularly bloody terrorist assault. So what does the community from which these Jihad chav came from do? Try to counter the disturbing and still unfolding news with its own spin that plays up the foreign policy angle?
What, were they disappointed that the plot failed?
Foreign foreign policy in action:
“Bush ‘helped Israeli attack on Lebanon’
Dan Glaister in Los Angeles
Monday August 14, 2006
The Guardian”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,,1844021,00.html
It seems it was all part of the plan.
And to think Blair may have been duped into delivering his ‘Arc of Extremism’ speech.
John C - are British Muslims, some of whom are white - British or not? If they are, they should use the democratic process, denied to them in Muslim countries, to influence government policy. If they are not British, or if they put loyalty to other Muslims first, they should get the flip out of this country - we don’t want them.
Okay, I think it may be helpful for me to add my own 5 cents at this point, for the benefit of Kulvinder and others who may be having trouble grasping what all the fuss is about. On this occasion, hopefully Sunny will not mind me temporarily climbing back into the treehouse here in Springfield despite the fact that I am obviously spending most of my time in the counterpart clubhouse across the river in Shelbyville, if you know what I mean.
The point isn’t really what the Muslim MPs & organisations said. It’s the timing, the perceived tone, and the broader context of the letter’s contents.
It is absolutely correct that current Western (read: American & British) foreign policies risk inadvertantly encouraging further home-grown terrorist attacks. In this regard, the letter from those MPs & organisations wasn’t a threat, but a prediction.
However, where the Muslims concerned slipped up is by adding the caveat that the British government should therefore consider altering its foreign policy in order to mitigate the risk of future jihadi attacks here.
The problem here is that British politics and foreign policies should not, cannot, and will not be influenced or dictated by the threat of terrorist elements in the country. It’s not the grievances (actual or perceived) on the part of ‘aggravated’ British Muslim elements which is the primary problem — it’s the methods they wish to use in order to facilitate political and military change.
The Muslim MPs and organisations would have been better served if they had directed their ire towards the wannabe jihadist elements in the UK instead. Now, they are possibly doing this already (I have no idea), but something like an open letter warning “the enemy within” of the social and legal consequences of attempting terrorist attacks would have been more appropriate and a far more legitimate target for their efforts.
Therefore, their main message should be “It doesn’t matter how much you disagree with what the US and the UK are currently doing to Muslims overseas — nothing whatsoever justifies attempting mass murder of ordinary American and British citizens, and we will enforce the legal consequences x, y, and z if - indeed, when - we find out exactly whom amongst you is involved in all this and exactly what you are planning.”
They need to take — and to be explicitly seen to be taking — the side of the peaceloving British population as a whole, not just British Muslims (and they should not be using the airline bombing plot as an ill-timed opportunity to target the Government’s foreign policies), rather than inadvertantly promoting themselves as groups making possible excuses for the wannabe jihadists and their armchair supporters.
John C makes my point for me. He says nothing about the details of injustice, or what the alternatives to it are. I rather doubt they are things he remotely understands, or cares about enough to study with the goal of understanding as opposed to self-validation.
What he focuses on is the rejection, on the four bedroomed house, the flash car. Those are things he that he sees as morally compromised, as signs of the soft civilian sheep, not the manly Warrior. They are Temptation, and the fact that they are on offer is proof they must be turned down.
The last time working class people from the suburbs of Northern towns went on a great crusade for excitement, adventure, dignity, with the goal of making the world a better place by the application of religious moral virtue backed up by explosives, Britain ended up with an Empire.
This is no different, and will no doubt end similarly badly.
Sunny,
=>”As British Muslims we urge you to do more to fight against all those who target civilians with violence,”
A quick friendly note: It may be a good idea to alter the formatting of the above extract from the letter at the top of this page and ensure that the text is also in red italics, otherwise it looks like these words are actually your own and on behalf of Pickled Politics, rather than quoted from the Muslim groups’ letter. There is a risk of people stumbling across PP and not checking out the Guardian link misinterpreting the matter.
“im curious as to people’s thoughts that perhaps the ‘next-generation’ muslim activist needs to stop being muslim and just be asian.”
Eteraz - one step further - or several steps further - the next generation activists need to ‘not stop’ being muslim or asian or whatever the hell they may be - e.g. Polish and Jewish - but be ‘human’ on top of everything else.
Yeah?
sonia - we tried that during the enlightenment. the result was “scientific racism”, which declared that jews were “subhuman” and we all know what that led to. fact is, if people want to discriminate, they’re gonna. nowadays, the worst thing has moved on from being “racism” and has turned into “warmongering” and “occupation”. guess who will be the bad guys?
plus ca change…
b’shalom
bananabrain
Sonia, I think that everyone must put their ‘human’ identity before all else for the simple reason that the rest is totally arbitrary - ‘race’, religion, nationality et al. If we have an unerring commitment to humanistic principles, a better perspective will be thrown on the conflicts around us.
Over the weekend, Fred Halliday had a superb article on the ME crisis that dealt with the fundamental universalist principles that might save us all.
http://www.opendemocracy.net/globalization/arendt_deutscher_3813.jsp
From the article:
What Isaac Deutscher and Hannah Arendt noted contains truths that the contemporary middle east, and the world, sorely need. Their relevance is to much more than the Arab-Israeli question; it applies in principle to any of the numerous other national or inter-ethnic conflicts across the world where local rhetoric and partisan solidarity from outsiders have reinforced each other in a dance of death, as if one side were angels and the other devils – Cyprus, ex-Yugoslavia, Nagorno-Karabakh, Sri Lanka, Northern Ireland. In regard to the middle east, Muslims and Arabs across the world identify with the Palestinians (or, more recently, Hizbollah) on ethnic, religious and communitarian lines; Jews do the same, in support of Israel. Even many of those Jews who oppose the policies of the state of Israel speak as Jews (”not in my name”).
There is an enormous historical regression involved here. It involves seeing membership of a particular community, or claims of affinity, ethnicity or religious association with others, as conveying particular rights (or particular moral clarity) on those making such claims. In purely rational terms, this is nonsense: the crimes of the Israelis in wantonly destroying Lebanon’s infrastructure, and the crimes of Hizbollah and Hamas in killing civilians and placing the lives and security of their peoples recklessly at risk, do not require particularist denunciation. They are crimes on the basis of universal principles – of law, decency, humanity – and should be identified as such.
I particularly like this paragraph and feel that many on PP should make a particular note of it and shut up.
(In this regard, ethnic and religious diasporas are among the last people who can offer rational explanation or moral compass in regard to such events. Recently, when interviewed by a BBC panel set up to consider accusations of bias in regard to the Arab-Israeli dispute, I was given a list of the British-based groups the panel had consulted – Muslim and Arab on one side, Jewish and Zionist on the other. My recommendation to the panel was to ignore completely what any of them said and to question whether they should have any standing in the matter.)
I’m with Jai on this one. He said exactly what I wanted to - that the letter was badly judged and will backfire. In fact it gives more ammunition to those people who think Muslims are an alien column living in this country. A very sad state of affairs, but then I’ve been arguing for years that the leadership of Muslims, Sikhs and Hindus is a joke.
victimhood is a state of mind and a poweful propaganda weapon bananabrain. but it loses its potency and credibility over time.
Israel is occupying land in the west bank and lebanon that belongs to other people. it has also used disproportionate force in lebanon.
if that makes me and other europeans anti-semite then so be it.
>Israel is occupying land in the west bank and lebanon that belongs to other people. it has also used disproportionate force in lebanon.
Yes I agree. Banabrain may agree too.
>if that makes me and other europeans anti-semite then so be it.
You are jumping the gun here, methinks. Who’s actually called you an antisemite or even intimated that you might be one here? This is the false note that sets off more argument and dispute. Needlessly.
‘This is the false note’ should be “This is the one false note in an otherwise utterly correct post”
back to the topic in hand: this letter stinks.
the facts that it is signed by 3 MPs pisses me off
bananabrain - “sonia - we tried that during the enlightenment. the result was “scientific racism”, which declared that jews were “subhuman””
well obviously isn’t that proof that it wasn’t respecting one another as humans! clearly we ‘didn’t’ try it successfully enough. {and the enlightenment wasn’t particularly enlightening - a meta-narrative from someone’s rather superior perspective.}
as mirax says ( well put!) -
“Sonia, I think that everyone must put their ‘human’ identity before all else for the simple reason that the rest is totally arbitrary - ‘race’, religion, nationality et al. If we have an unerring commitment to humanistic principles, a better perspective will be thrown on the conflicts around us.”
“..that the leadership of Muslims, Sikhs and Hindus is a joke”
i wouldn’t even consider it ‘leadership’ - starting up some tin-pot ha’penny organization that may be meant to represent Muslims, Sikhs and Hindus hardly equates to actually ‘leading’ them. Why in any case would ‘they’ want leadership per se. ..
I know the media seems to think so ( and probably a lot of people who’re easily ‘led’ but hey.._)
So you saying foreign policy of this country should be shaped in part, or in whole, under the threat of terrorist activity if we do not have a foreign policy with which the terrorists happen to agree. Well polcies made by taking whole picture means by taking the whole population into account, not just few people who wants polices to be made to benifit them. Right?
At no 35 I made concrete suggestions about changing the situation not only in the Middle East, but all over the world. No one picked it up at all. All you’ve all done is bang on apportioning blame (Israel as usual) and saying nothing constructive at all.
The only ‘constructive’ thing anyone ever says is Israel should make all the concessions. How constructive to you think that is? Do any of you know any 20th century history? Have you heard of the Treaty of Versailles after the 1st World War, and how the humiliation of Germany led to the rise of Hitler and the 2nd World War? Peace treaties have to be 2 handed, and no side will ever be 100 per cent satisfied with what they get. But if they get peace they 100 per of what their citizens deserve.
Frankly, though you’re all talking about peace, I think you’re just a load of warmongers!
If you lot are the future, I’m truly glad that I’m almost the past.
In any case, surely the whole population wants no terrorist activities, not just ‘the muslims’. the problem here is clearly that the ‘Muslim’ MP’s have taken this on - as opposed to all MP’s telling Blair what’s wrong with his government, and thereby agreeing that it is a ‘Muslim’ problem. whatever a ‘Muslim’ problem is.. i don’t know - but effectively, this sort of thing ‘boxes’ people in even further.
Chairwoman i have now scrolled above to read your post in no. 35 - and you have a very very good point.
–
I think you would like someone i’ve befriended lately - his name is Daniel and you can find his blog here
– he’s someone i respect for being able to do just that.
What is amazing is their seemingly complete lack of critical self awareness - they don’t stop to think of how their words effectively place them on the sides of the terrorists as far as exculpating and apologising for this egregious link made between political process and psychopathic murderousness. This is a real tragedy. It also makes me wonder how much of it is simply the case that they are stupid, unable to see clearly, and how much is actually motivated by an adherence to the terrorist bully boy fascist mentality. In the case of people like Dr Muhammad Naseem of Birmingham Central Mosque, it is difficult to tell where the line between sentience and mental disease begins and ends.
With people like Bunglawala, I think they are straight up fascists, bully boys and extremists, playing the terrorism for all it’s worth.
Some of this comes close to sedition and places them totally against the British people, and I find some of their attitudes obscene. And this is tragic, for the average Muslim paying his mortgage and simply living his life and struggling like the rest of us. You might imagine that given the need to create understanding between Muslims and the rest of Britain, they might temper their rhetoric, but given that they have not, you can only imagine that the true bully boy extremist nature of them arises, or they are simply reckless and recklessly arrogant.
The contributions of Refresh to this thread show how deeply this mentality is entrenched even amongst seemingly articulate and intelligent Muslims. Intellectual decrepitude, myopia, denial, denial, more denial, open assension to fascist ideology.
Excellent post Jai (number 58) — that should be posted as a headline article and read by everyone.
The letter didn’t say it (britain) should be ‘dictated’ to by people blowing themselves up, rather it pointed out the obvious fact the driving factor for those turning to extremisn is government policy.
As it is ive never understood the ‘we shall never backdown’ school of politics, putting your head down and ignoring the fact your own poeple are so disenfranchised with you that they’re willing to blow themselves up is if nothing else a fairly obvious indication the democratic process has gone very very wrong somewhere.
Yeah using the alleged airline bombing plot as an ill timed and rather cynical opportunity to make political capital is only the work of those at the margins of politics. After all im sure a Home Secretary who knew of this plot beforehand and the impending raids would never try to make comments on the need to curb liberty then sit back and smugly say ‘told you so’ after the raids.
Kulvinder,
=>”The letter didn’t say it (britain) should be ‘dictated’ to by people blowing themselves up,”
I never said that either. I was referring to the fact that the jihadis wish to use this method, and the fact that there is no way the British Government would (or should) give in to these demands if such methods are being used to make their alleged grievances heard.
=>”your own poeple are so disenfranchised with you that they’re willing to blow themselves up…..”
The individuals/groups concerned do not regard themselves as “our own people” in terms of their fellow British citizens, irrespective of what is currently happening with regards to Iraq etc. From their perspective, their “own” people are their co-religionists here and across the world, first and foremost.
=>”…..is if nothing else a fairly obvious indication the democratic process has gone very very wrong somewhere.”
Not necessarily. It also indicates that the people concerned are quite possibly unwilling to use the proper “democratic channels” if they think a blunter “quick & dirty” route is more effective. Perhaps they also lack the political and legal knowledge, intellectual clarity and social skills to be able to know how to achieve their aims through normal peaceful means.
In either case, this still doesn’t excuse suicide bombings against civilian targets and mass murder in general. Not on a general “humanitaritan ethics” level, and certainly not with regards to Islam’s prescribed guidelines for warfare (at least the official version).
=>”Yeah using the alleged airline bombing plot as an ill timed and rather cynical opportunity to make political capital is only the work of those at the margins of politics.”
Irrelevant. If the people concerned are convinced that they are doing God’s work and have divine sanction for their “struggle”, then their motivations and actions have to be morally pristine and beyond reproach, along with being within the constraints of their religion’s teachings on the matter. Otherwise the entire basis for their “war” being “holy” is without foundation. I’m sure you know what the word “paakhandi” means. Either the jihadis are hypocrites or there is indeed something fundamentally wrong with their religion’s teachings in this issue (the latter is a separate argument and not appropriate for this thread).
One has to maintain the moral high ground irrespective of what one’s perceived opponent does or what depths one perceives the other party to be resorting to. Certainly if you are going to bring God into the equation.
Zussy & Sunny,
=>”Excellent post Jai (number 58) — that should be posted as a headline article and read by everyone.”
=>”I’m with Jai on this one. He said exactly what I wanted to”
Many thanks to both of you for your responses. Sunny, if you want to use post #58 as a new ‘headline article’ or would like to add it to the existing article at the top of this page, you have my permission to do so if it will be helpful. (Obviously the first paragraph involving the Simpsons analogy should be removed !).
Interesting comments. Like Kulvinder, I didn’t see the blackmail. But I can see how and why it can be interpreted that way if we make certain assumptions about the writers’ motives.
In no way is it justifying or supporting terrorism. At worst it is taking advantage of terrorism to promote an agenda of global human rights.
If we are accusing them of blackmail because of the timing, tone and context (as Jai suggests) this is a positive kind of emotional sensitivity of how perceptions work on our part, but also a kind of loss of intellectual clarity on what is being communicated.
People writing open letters should learn how unwilling people are to be self-critical when they feel under attack. Campaigners for human rights must learn to remain silent if their social identities mean that whatever humane message they have will be stigmatised by people who do not like the group affiliation of the person saying it.
Personally, such sensitivity to people’s perceptions would mean I wouldn’t preach human rights to Muslim radicals as I’d be routinely accused of being a collaborator. I also wouldn’t preach human rights to non-Muslims without being accused of fifth columnist treachery. But, I think as Jai suggests, keep learning how to do it without giving excuses for people to become defensive.
I also like Chairwoman’s suggestion (#35), and I’m glad she puts it forward. If it were in an open letter from “moderate” Muslims, it might be seen as giving in to terrorism.
Kulvinder, Arif
I don’t think you appreciate the damage done by this letter.
Arif - I hope that no=-one who took what I hope was a global view would be seen as giving in to terrorism. The whole point of my idea is euphamistic. It harks back to the sixties when we wanted ‘world peace’.
Zussy, do you want to show any supporting material to back up your claim?
Truth is quite the opposite. No denial here. Not about the terrorists nor about foreign policy.
I am interested to see a response to this as I was thinking I was saying pretty much what Jai had said.
For all, this topic has now become a target for giyus.org, so expect a long and tedious thread.
Arif,
I think the Muslim MPs and groups concerned should basically have been doing both simultaneously — bringing the risk of further terrorist attacks (as a result of current foreign policy) to the Government’s attention if they think the latter genuinely aren’t listening enough, and (more pertinently) explicitly, loudly, and unequivocally condemning the jihadis within the British Muslim community.
The two courses of action are not necessarily mutually exclusive, but at this point in time (certainly so soon after the airline bomb plot discovery) their primary focus should be on addressing the extremist elements within their community. Indeed, if they really are “community leaders” (emphasis on the “leaders”), then right now their energies should be mainly focused towards identifying actual-and-potential terrorists, bringing them to justice in conjunction with the security services and the British legal system, and rooting out the nefarious third-parties encouraging & supporting such behaviour. Simply blaming Western foreign policy is oversimplifying the issue and isn’t good enough.
The bottom line is that a) contradicting Islamic tenets with regards to warfare whilst allegedly claiming to act in the name of Islam and b) directly targetting Western citizens for terrorist attacks should both be forcefully condemned outright by the Muslim MPs & groups, not just in the vein of pointless platitudes but in an open statement aimed directly at the wannabe jihadis within British society. If any threats should be made by them at this point in time, they should be aimed at the terrorists, not (indirectly and accidentally — yes I know that the letter wasn’t actually a threat, as I said before) towards the British Government.
I don’t know how much difference a bunch of us bouncing around opinions on the internet is going to make in the grand scheme of things, but God I hope someone notices all this and acts on it (positively).
I see where Arif and Kulvinder are coming from, but as El Cid says, you don’t appreciate how the letter will be received.
We seem to be living in two parallel worlds here. One the one hand you have people who think Muslims are out to kill everyone and such terrorism should be dealt the harshest measures, with no mercy.
On the other hand you have people who keep blaming foreign policy for all the problems (and it is clear the seeds were sown way before Afghanistan/Iraq) and don’t want to engage with others.
Both these groups lack self-critical analysis, not just Muslim leaders. But either way, we need a middle ground where people can appreciate the problem and go about dealing with them.
The problem with such letters is that it only panders to the audience that is receptive to it. It preaches to the converted and will make the other side be even more suspicious. It is nothing intelligent and it does nothing to further better relations between these parallel groups.
Jai - Am just working on some articles for AIM so I’ll look at this a bit later today.
Chairwoman - I do appreciate your idealistic response. But to be honest I think it was a bit wishy-washy. What about concrete solutions?
Don’t take this the wrong way but in a previous thread you said you thought all Muslims were anti-semitic and wouldn’t have a problem is Jews were sent to another holocaust. I find it difficult to comprehend how you can engage in a solution if you hold such mass generalisations about Muslims.
The way I work is this. You have to put together a bunch of like minded people who want peace and re-conciliation. At this stage there is no point engaging with the disaffected or the extremists. Once you put the core group together you can engage in dialogue and do things that illustrate what can be achieved. Basically doing good things within a control group to show they can be done, and then use that as a basis to expand activity and bring in the more fringe elements.
Sunny - yes I did say that, but I also said we should put aside the past, stop apportioning blame and go from here. That means having the courage to take a step forward with people with whom you have a joint antipathy. There’s no point in negotiating with the like minded, the people one has to make agreements with are those you haven’t sat down with.
Wishy-washy? Yeah why not? The wishy-washy are unlikely to strap on the explosives, and more likely to want a quiet life.
Jai, what you ask for is something which might have a similar effect on Muslims as this letter has had on non-Muslims. If leaders put out the kind of one-sided message against jihadis you suggest, without being equally forthright against UK foreign policy would (at best) just be seen as sell-outs - covering up massive human rights abuses and scapegoating people who commit smaller ones.
Like Sunny says, there is a lack of middle ground. Or there seems to be one. This open letter was clumsily inching towards precisely the kind of middle ground I think we would like - human rights for all. But it is perceived to come from a sinister direction. I am sure if Tony Blair were to say “ethical foreign policy” in some of his speeches about winning Muslim hearts and minds, he would be ridiculed and rejected too by the people who should be most eager to build such a policy with him.
Is it stupidity to ignore who and in what context someone says they want human rights and simply engage with them to achieve their goals - or is it a straw worth clutching?
Chairwoman, I don’t think that what you suggest is wishy-washy. Saying we should talk to people who you are supposed to hate as your political enemy can be quite courageous. Actually talking to them can attract a lot more venom. So wanting a quiet life might not go hand in hand with making such agreements in the beginning. But hopefully can bring us all quieter lives in the end.
If leaders put out the kind of one-sided message against jihadis you suggest, without being equally forthright against UK foreign policy would (at best) just be seen as sell-out
There you go again.. making no distinction between govt and citizens… tying indiscriminate murder with foreign policy… and setting yourself apart from your neighbours.. maybe we have a lot less in common than i imagined.. think about it…
El Cid, I may tie things together in ways you do not like. And this may make you feel you have little in common with me.
I thought I was discussing with Jai how people (mis-)read messages and when they feel defensive and ascribe hidden agendas to anyone who doesn’t share the right kind of goodie v baddie view of the world.
It might not interest you that Muslims can also be defensive in that way, but recognising this helps me sympathise with non-Muslims who feel the same way. Otherwise couldn’t I argue that you are making a distinction between UK civilians and civilians in other countries, holding Governments to lower standards of behaviour to terrorist groups and so on etc, just because I can decide to read it into what you wrote without you having said anything of the sort.
the right kind of goodie and baddie view of the world… what about just plain old them and us… after all, marriages of convenience seem pretty fashionable at the mo.. we have for example, the extreme left cosying up with highly respectable followers of a deeply conservative if manifestly peaceful religion but also with its most vicious and fascistic elements… it will be a sad day indeed when battle lines are drawn up so that people like me are also forced to make choices…
Given that the occassion for the letter was a large scale terrorist plot, a ‘one-sided message against jihadis’ seems appropriate to me. And I’m not sure how that would be ’scapegoating people who commit smaller (human rights abuses).
‘Is it stupidity to ignore who and in what context someone says they want human rights and simply engage with them to achieve their goals’
I think it would be, if not stupid at least unwise, to ignore the context and origin of such a call before helping them to achieve ‘their’ goals. I would at least ask if the signatories have a significant record of universalism when it comes to human rights, or if ‘whenever and wherever’ is window dressing for a more selective and partisan agenda.
If the government were to respond to the call ‘to fight against all those who target civilians with violence, whenever and wherever that happens’ by starting with, say, Sudan I very much doubt if the letter writers would applaud.
In fact that ‘whenever and wherever’ seems less all encompassing the more I think about it. After all, who is most notably targetting civilians at the moment? The jihadis in Iraq of course, but we’re already fighting them. The Taliban of course, ditto. Numerous terrorist groups, but I’m sure the government is doing its best to fight them.
Do the signatories really think relations with British moslems would be helped by the government taking action against the Janjaweed or The Lord’s Resistence Army, or the various Sri Lankan groups?
So who could they possibly have in mind?
Arif - sometimes this site makes me despair, whenever I read an open minded reasonable post, such as yours, there’s someone out there who wants to rubbish it.
If this is a microcosm of the world, we’re all in for a very difficult time.
In a previous thread you said you thought all Muslims were anti-semitic and wouldn’t have a problem is Jews were sent to another holocaust. I find it difficult to comprehend how you can engage in a solution if you hold such mass generalisations about Muslims.
The Chairwoman appreciates that the only way for people to move on and find consensus is for them to overcome her fears and prejudices and try to engage with each other, and she makes no exception for herself.
I agree with Arif that that is brave, and I do not understand why Sunny thinks that it is wishy-washy.
Arif,
=>”what you ask for is something which might have a similar effect on Muslims as this letter has had on non-Muslims.”
Firstly, I agree completely with Don’s main points in post #94.
Secondly, as I mentioned before, it would have been more appropriate and certainly wiser for them to have done both simultaneously — approaching the Government with their concerns and simultaneously issuing a very strongly worded statement condemning the terrorists and warning them of the dire social & legal consequences of their actions.
Thirdly, again it’s a matter of timing. Right now, the greater “weighting” should have been given to condemnation of the terrorists on their part.
Forthly, if one is going to suggest that any course of action is potentially pointless and perhaps even counterproductive, then the act of giving that letter to the Government is as pointless as you suggest any similar action aimed at “the enemy within” would be. In either case, if it’s just a matter of “making a statement” on a point of principle, even if the recipients are unlikely to take much heed, then I still don’t think publicly condemning the jihadis would have been a wrong step if they had similar motivations for approaching the Government.
Arif,
=>”what you ask for is something which might have a similar effect on Muslims as this letter has had on non-Muslims.”
Firstly, I agree completely with Don’s points in post #94.
Secondly, as I mentioned before, there is no reason why they could not have done both simultaneously — ie. making their concerns known to the Government whilst simultaneously issuing a very strongly worded condemnation of the terrorists and warning them of the dire social & legal consequences of their actions.
Thirdly, at this point in time it would have been more appropriate, more sensitive (emotionally and politically) and certainly wiser to have given greater “weighting” to forcefully condemning the terrorists.
Fourthly, if it is felt that such a move would be pointless and even counterproductive, and that the recipients would not take heed of the concerns raised, then perhaps such a statement should still have been issued as a point of principle. If the Government is deemed unlikely to take much notice of the letter they’ve just been handed, then the same logic applies to any statement targetting the terrorists/extremists. If you really want to make your concerns and objections known then you should do it anyway, even if you think the other party isn’t necessarily going to listen.
If the British Muslim “leaders” really have the courage of their convictions and really deserve the position of authority they claim to have, then they should have the backbone