The letter was counterproductive
The point isn’t really what the Muslim MPs & organisations said in the letter to the PM recently. 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.
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.
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.
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 and sheer guts to stand up for what is right and face any potential psychological (indeed, possibly physical) consequences their actions would elicit from the extremists.
———————–
This was a guest post.
It is also worth noting subsequent letters by MP Shahid Malik and now Abdul Bari.
| Post to del.icio.us |
Filed in: Current affairs,Muslim,Organisations
Beautifully said.
As a Muslim i found the letter (or the timing at least) to be ill-advised and personally frustrating as I knew, even without reading it, that some people would see it as a threat of some kind. (Not that I actually think it was). Aspects of Foreign policy does need changing, not because of the threat of terrorism but because in parts it is unjust and on occasion hypocritical. However, I don’t feel I can raise this anymore as people will just see me as another moaning Muslim who should leave if he doesn’t like it here.
As for stressing the legal consequences that potential terrorists face, I think what is even more relevant, as a Muslim, is that these acts (like 7/7) are simply NOT ALLOWED in Islam. Every Muslim I know has the same opinion (I’m sure there are Muslims who think differently, its just that I’ve never met them). I don’t believe these Muslim groups are stressing this enough. How certain people can think that they are defending Muslims by doing things that are completely Un-Islamic is beyond me and I think more needs to be done to make this clear to Muslims and non-Muslims.
One last thing, Blair, on the anniversary of 7/7, claimed that Muslims needed to do more to make it clear that we had no reason to have any grievances against his or Bush’s actions. This just made me despair of him even more. What he should have said was that any grievances Muslims may have, justified or not, should only ever be expressed in a way that is within the law. The fact that he didn’t made it seem to me that he was using 7/7 as a way of suppressing any opposition to his policies.
Well put.
Interesting the Govt. in private seems to be saying Bush’s foreign policy is ‘crap’.
You know all those times you say to yourself ‘I shall write a stern letter’ and never do?
Good.
Now start doing that with knee-jerk emails and texts and your girlfriend might not leave you for George
I know it’s a crap analogy but his name was George
#3 was in response to the header.
But also agree with Han.
The tragedy will be that the media pressure silencing muslims (as Han alludes to), cannot possibly help in the well-meaning effort to include muslims into democratic politics.
That said – muslims must persist in the political life of Britain.
Refresh
With all due respect to you sir, your main source of ire in this ‘tragedy’ should be directed to those fundamentalists who have tarnished the name of Muslims by threatening to, and actually blowing up people in the name of their ideology. That is the main source of your invidious position within society, and like it or not, anything that comes with a tint of a ‘demand’ in the atmosphere of their causing will be looked at extremely cynically. You must direct your ire to them in the first instance, not to ‘the media’ or the illusion of a prejudiced society.
Jagdeep, I think you are much mistaken. You are suggesting all muslims lives are now to be dedicated to undoing the harm done, and then not challenge all else that flows from it. Forget it.
My ire goes in many directions. And so it shall remain.
For How Long Must We Tolerate Mass Murder, punk stylee
http://www.hiljaiset.sci.fi/punknet/popgro_e.htm
Jagdeep
I agree that we should focus more of our ire on those Muslims that carry out and support terror acts, but what good is that if the media never reports it. We’re constantly under pressure to denounce terrorism but when we do its hardly ever reported. The media only want to cover those Muslims that help demonise the rest of us (the amount of coverage that Omar Bakri use to get was beyond frustrating, especially as he represented a miniscule amount of Muslims).
This demonisation means that those of us that want to express our grievances within the law risk being lumped in with the radicals. To suggest that the media has no responsibility for our ‘invidious position’ is simply wrong.
I’m with Han (#9) too. Hell, even even get idiots coming on here telling us to denounce terrorism more, as if we we’re in league together, or as if those idiots care.
My issue is not with denouncing terrorism generally. My issue is more with taking on extreme and crazy groups like Hizb ut Tahrir or Al-Ghuraaba that these guys don’t do enough.
Han makes some very good points. And of course Jai is entirely correct when he says that the letter writers’ error was in even hinting that the government should ‘consider altering its foreign policy in order to mitigate the risk of future jihadi attacks here.’
A policy should be changed if it is wrong, not because a particular group is angry.
To make an analogy, some time ago Sunny and I disageed in detail and at length over an animal rights issue. At no point would it have occured to either of us that the rights and wrongs of that issue were affected by the terrorist tactics of animal rights extremists. We argued the ethical and practical aspects, I’m sure Sunny would have laughed to scorn the idea that his case was somehow strengthened by an (objectively true) reference to growing violence in that quarter.
I agree with most comments, would also like to add: no matter how many times Muslims denounce terrorism, there is still going to be some ‘racial profiling’ strategy with most (white) Brits finding it ‘logical’ and ‘efficient’- and keeping everybody accountable for the actions of extremists works well in repressing and effectively silencing dissenting voices – we must resist this and articulate genuine concerns with issues of jsutice both here and abroad.
Instead of more repressive measures, we’d be better served in formulating convincing alternatives to both fundamentalist and state violence, that do not include violence, or any sort of regression to ‘tradition’ – this is what is for me most pressing now: to find and generate new ways, new rhetorics and practices for justice that unite people in their common quest for justice, equality and the good life – rather than repressing extremists we’d be better off providing alternative political ways for young people who may be alienated and demonised and who are preyed upon by crazed fundmentalists
The public or media aspect will then be not an ongoing apology or defence or generally having to account for being different, but a more creative effort to publicise and publicly pursue the goals of justice and equality – well, that’s my manifesto at least!
Jai – great piece. I especially agree with your para
“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.”
It is that obvious – Why could not the signatories have seen this ? I think part of the problem is that in a 24 hour media age, the need to fill space dumbs down debate. Plus the people doing the signing mayu all say they are ‘too busy to think’ – Which is why much of the time, it seems that ordinary members of the public are much better informed and calmer about these issues than the hysterical media.
Good post Han – you’ve put it very well.
i stick by what someone else pointed out in the earlier thread, very insightfully – that the letter was pure “rivers of blood”. let us not forget that even if iraq, afghanistan, etc had never happened and israel, G!D forbid, had been destroyed, those grievances would soon be replaced with other ones. these nutters think spain – spain! – is occupied muslim land. in fact, look at the contrast with enoch powell – he knew he was signing his political death warrant, unlike the blatantly opportunistic aims of the signatories of the letter, who are seeking to profit from the zeitgeist.
b’shalom
bananabrain
My sincere thanks to Sunny for posting my views as a new article, and of course my thanks to the rest of you too for your thoughts so far.
AsifB,
=>â€It is that obvious – Why could not the signatories have seen this ?â€
During the last few years there are two things I have observed over and over again on the part of Muslim community leaders and representatives, along with some quarters of the general Muslim population here:
1. Lack of objectivity.
2. Insufficient/erroneous understanding of human psychology.
There is just a continuous and ongoing series of blunders, misunderstandings, and incomprehension about why many external parties react to them in certain ways. It all comes down to lack of intellectual clarity and (most importantly) lack of effective communication on all sides.
(Unfortunately, those jihadis who have no intention of achieving a genuinely positive resolution at all but want to manipulate the rest of the world, and the West in particular, into some kind of all-out “clash with Islam†know exactly which buttons to push and, most of the time, how to manipulate matters to their advantage. In this respect, their understanding of human nature is very good indeed. Too good. However, notable exceptions would be the bombings in Jordan and Al-Zarqawi going so far that he ended up alienating everyone around him and wound up dead as a result).
*****************************************************************
With regards to constantly dragging Iraq etc into any arguments about home-grown terrorists, I think many of the Muslim leaders concerned seem to be similarly dropping the ball about what they are doing wrong and why they make matters even worse whenever they mention the various grievances they (and/or “aggravated†members of the Muslim population) may have :
If you mention it a handful of times, or if someone asks you about “causes†directly (as people tend to do in these situations if they’re trying to figure out why the hell certain other people are acting in a certain way), then that’s fine and third-parties will understand that you’re just trying to place matters into a broader context by explaining the motivations involved.
However, if you keep on doing it, repeatedly and frequently, then from the perspective of other people it ceases to be an explanation and becomes a justification and an excuse. Indeed, it’s also interpreted as excessive “sympathy†towards the terrorists, which leads to suspicions about one’s “true†loyalties and motivations. Which, of course, is exactly what is happening right now.
Han,
=>â€I think what is even more relevant, as a Muslim, is that these acts (like 7/7) are simply NOT ALLOWED in Islam. Every Muslim I know has the same opinion (I’m sure there are Muslims who think differently, its just that I’ve never met them). I don’t believe these Muslim groups are stressing this enough. How certain people can think that they are defending Muslims by doing things that are completely Un-Islamic is beyond me and I think more needs to be done to make this clear to Muslims and non-Muslims.â€
I’ve been discussing exactly this point with Arif & Don on the original “Letter†thread (http://www.pickledpolitics.com/archives/701#comments ). Please take a look at post #136 where I stress the need for Muslim religious leaders (imams etc) to become much more vocally and actively involved. As the jihadis’ behaviour is based on religion (or at least their interpretation of it), this issue needs a religion-based solution.
(When everyone has some spare time, please also take a look at my posts to Arif #128 & 132 on the previous thread if you have not already done so, as there is a substantial overlap with many of the comments you have made here. We can then continue discussion of any the points I raised there on this thread instead. Apologies for the length of those posts, but as this is a complex issue some of Arif’s points did require a thorough response).
Jai,
Superb article. I agree with you on everything.
Jai,
I personally have come across a fair few religious leaders who have made it clear from an Islamic viewpoint the sinful nature of these terror attacks (I’ve also seen a number of fatwas on the net confirming this, with the relevant texts). Unfortunately, their views are simply not newsworthy (even though its seems to me to be the majority viewpoint).
The likes of MPAC get a lot of airplay, but for me their spokesman comes across as far too equivocal in his condemnation of terror plots and attacks. People like him need to make it more clear that these plots and attacks are unIslamic, not just for the wider non Muslim society but for impressionable young Muslims as well.
Either the media needs to give more coverage to those Muslim leaders who have got the right message or the so-called Muslim spokesmen who currently get all the attention need to buck up their ideas.
Sonia
Thanks, as a first time poster on PP its nice to get a positive response.
Yeah, nice article Jai
Maybe my language would have been a lot more aggressive than:
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.
But I broadly agree with what you said.
Glad Amir likes it too.
A good article Jai.
As a white British centrist liberal (hows that for a broad label) can I add that everytime MPAC or MAB or even the MCB get air time they actively add to a perception that political Muslims (as opposed to muslims in mainstream parties) voice everything with seemingly an ‘or else!’ either stated or implied.
There is something in the way that many spokespersons for Muslim organisations express themselves that genuinely makes your average non Muslim Brit on edge. I suspect that the worst offender is the MPAC spokesperson.
thanks
Refresh
The MAIN SOURCE of your ire should be towards those extremists who tarnish your name and have placed Muslims in the invidious position you are in. The secondary source of your ire should be those inept and idiotic ‘leaders’ who make demands for sharia law and Muslim holidays as a response to this extremism. and are so cakchanded and stupid, that they send letters ‘demanding’ that the threat of murderous fascist terrorism should decide foreign policy.
You can direct your ire in other places as much as you like, but as long as you do not realise that the MAIN SOURCE of your invidious position are those fascists (and I use the word advisedly) who wish to kill thousands of people in the name of your religion, and instead sulk belligerently because people protest about that menacing fascism, you are not going to truly face up to what is emananting from within your community.
The primary tragedy is not that Muslims who protest whatever you wish to protest are being tarnished with the brush of the extremists, the primary tragedy is that those extremists wish to kill as many people as they can on trains planes and buses. The secondary tragedy after that is that it fucks up our society and will destroy inter-communal relationships, sow distrust, fear, hatreds and lead to a corresponding growth in fascism and racist behaviour amongst the majority community. The tertiary tragedy is that there are people around who do not realise this, and live in a state of profound denial, and believe any attempt to make them see this, is an unfair assault on all Muslims.
On the one hand, I felt I had to defend the letter because I saw it as generally well-intentioned, even though it resounded rather too loudly of an agenda that whispered, ‘If only those daft old Imams would just teach our younger brothers and sisters how to instigate a leafleting campaign’ (ie. MPACUK). However, it is surely worth pointing out that when a government’s policy is so henious, and its response to criticism from whatever quarter so impervious, that something nasty is bound to jump back at them.
But rather than criticising jihadi-cultists, who think MCB/MAB are all a pile of poo anyway, the original letter should have done two things different, in my view. One, it should have foreseen the potential criticisms, and dealt with them; and second, it should have sought a much wider signatury, and perhaps then a consensus on its contents which would have united Muslims with other groups outraged by Blair’s support for Israel.
It seems the letter only provided an excuse for the usual suspects and some to vomit on Muslims all the more. Okay, I’m a dumbo when it comes to politics. If I stood for election, I’d get one vote, and if I headed up MCB, I’d be sent to coventry on day one.
But surely my national organisation should do better at promoting a positive image of Islam, even in the face of media nastiness and a government intent on using us as an excuse and a diversion from its own sins? This letter seems to trail a long list of PR failures…
Wasalaam
TMA
Jagdeep,
“The tertiary tragedy is that there are people around who do not realise this, and live in a state of profound denial, and believe any attempt to make them see this, is an unfair assault on all Muslims.”
I have to agree with everything you said up till this point. For many people as have been demonstrated here by some posteres, this has turned into an assualt on all Muslims. This just isnt about Muslim terrorist but about immigration (which in and of itself is an oppurtunistic point considering that many of these terrorist are British) and how Muslim women dress, faith schools, arranged marriages, and any other issue you can attack all Muslims with. What do those aforementioned issues have to do with people intent on killing any and everybody? Not much. But they do have everything to do more or less with all Muslims.
The debate then turns away from Muslim terrorists but Muslim people as most would all fall into those other categories.
Those Muslim extremist (though I hate to use the term) dont care or will not be affected by those social issues but the other Muslims, the rest of the Muslims certainly will. If you disagree that Muslim politicians shouldnt use these events to push seperate agendas- holidays and Sharia etc., then neither should anyone else.
Jagdeep,
I should also mentioned that I have no problems with putting the smack down on these terrorist. I just prefer to Saudi/Egyptian way. How politically incorrect.
Han,
Re: Muslim religious leaders
If what you say is correct, then a couple of suggestions would be as follows:
1. Massively increase the profile of these imams/scholars in the public eye. As I said previously (particularly on the other thread), because this is a religiously-based problem, the religious leaders need to be at the forefront of efforts to counteract the extremists/jihadists and they really need to take control of the issue.
2. Therefore, they need to be the ones interviewed on television at least as much as (possibly even more than) Muslim MPs, “community leaders/representatives†etc. They should be the primary source of reference for mainstream British news programmes (Newsnight etc), and this is especially important in any debates facing off to Hut/Anjem Choudhary-types.
3. Whenever any Muslim MP or organisation-based spokesman participates in a studio-based interview, there should be at least one Imam sitting next to him in order to qualify the religious issues.
4. The points above apply to all the major British terrestrial news channels along with Sky News, BBC 24, and so on.
5. The online fatwas you have mentioned should be reproduced in full-page articles in as many major national newspapers in the UK as possible. This will be expensive, but if funding is collected from mosques, Muslim organisations, wealthy benefactors, and so on, there should hopefully be enough to meet any costs. It’s not as though mosques have a shortage of money, especially the larger ones. Similarly, suitable imams/scholars should be interviewed by the major newspapers in order to clarify the “real†Islamic view on terrorism, suicide missions, and attacks on civilians.
The aim is to reach the maximum possible audience, especially amongst the target British Muslim community. This will not only inform the wider population of the steps that are being taken by Muslims to address the problem, it also sends the message loud and clear to current jihadists and those who are considering being sympathetic towards them.
Han,
You raise a lot of valid points. I frequently see commenters asking why muslims don’t condemn terrorism and the response detailing very clear and detailed fatwas, which apparently sincere and open minded non-moslems are totally unaware of. Much like the wide-spread anti-terror, pro-London demos in moslem countries post 7/7.
Maybe because a fatwa takes about half an hour to read, a vicious banner takes less than a second.
Yakoub,
=>”However, it is surely worth pointing out that when a government’s policy is so henious, and its response to criticism from whatever quarter so impervious, that something nasty is bound to jump back at them.”
Irrespective of the government’s policy (heinous or otherwise), any response should be within the bounds of Islamic guidelines for warfare. The official version states that this does not permit attacks against civilians. Therefore, on this basis, people claiming to be acting in the name of Islam should not contravene Islamic principles, regardless of the provocation. To do so is pure hypocrisy. In fact, this is worse than any “secular” government or organisation involved in supposedly nefarious behaviour.
Once you involve God in the equation, the stakes are much higher, and correspondingly a far higher standard of conduct is expected. Regardless of whatever one’s opponent may be perceived to be doing.
=>”But surely my national organisation should do better at promoting a positive image of Islam,”
The aim should be to promote an accurate image of Islam. Anything else is propaganda, regardless of whether it is positive or negative.
=>”a government intent on using us as an excuse and a diversion from its own sins?”
Exactly the same allegation applies to the Islamic extremists and terrorists, both here and globally.
El Cid
Glad Amir likes it too.
So am I! It makes a pleasant change from my usual whining (and/or sexual perversions).
“I should also mentioned that I have no problems with putting the smack down on these terrorist. I just prefer to Saudi/Egyptian way. How politically incorrect. ”
How wicked and stupid, actually.
You think that torturing people until they confess is a good way to deal with problems. It degrades the torturers, the tortured and everyone in the society that permits it. It makes a bigger gap between the people tortured, those that sympathise with them and everyone else. Because they have been vilely treated they feel justified in behaving just as vilely. It probably increases the number of people willing to engage and provide support- passive or active- for such activities.
Roger,
Bikhair is cool with people being treated vilely, as long as there is a scriptural justification.
Don,
Stop being a fembot. Who is talking about people being treated vilely? People who are commited to killing innocent people should be killed. I was mainly speaking about the method of the punishment. They shouldnt have the oppurtunity to languish in prison or safe from harsh treatment.
Don,
“Bikhair is cool with people being treated vilely, as long as there is a scriptural justification.”
Not people but these people. Yes, the scripture does give the Muslim leaders the perogative to protect the public and if that means you have to kill these people, curtail their actions and treat them harshly then that is a price that should be paid. Security is very important.
Muslims tell you to kill people?!
My dad’s a fucking liar
Jai,
I agree with all your points but how is this meant to be achieved? It all seems to be in the hands of the media and who they choose to have on their programmes. The amount of times I saw Anjum Chowdhury on Newsnight was depressing. They wouldn’t give that amount of airplay to someone like Nick Griffin, so why do they give it to the Muslim equivalent?
I think more pressure needs to be put on the Muslim groups that already get media attention (MCB MPAC etc) to put forward those scholars/Imams that have the right Islamic message. They need to understand that these terror plots/attacks aren’t just attacks on civilians but attacks on Islam as well. These groups have a duty to defend Islam (which they’re completely failing to do) by making it clear that Islam does not permit these acts.
Don,
“Maybe because a fatwa takes about half an hour to read, a vicious banner takes less than a second.” Exactly.
‘Who is talking about people being treated vilely?’
Roger was.
I simply concurred with his definition of you as wicked and stupid. But no news there.
I have no idea what a fembot is.
Roger,
Who the hell is talking about torture? I certainly wasnt.
“Because they have been vilely treated they feel justified in behaving just as vilely.”
The moment these people accept their ideology as being correct they are vile. When they act upon their ignorance they have no right to their life or safety.
“It probably increases the number of people willing to engage and provide support- passive or active- for such activities.”
Their religion, untainted by this kind of evil, offers them all sorts of recourse to their anger. Their is prayer, fasting, an increased level of worship, study, etc.
What is a fembot?
You have it the wrong way round; not “if that means you have to kill these people, curtail their actions and treat them harshly”, but, arrest people, torture them into confessing to crimes they may or may not have committed and then to kill them. If they don’t know who committed an alleged crime they’ll just pick up anyone and do it. Confessions obtained under torture aren’t reliable. Nor are names given under torture. It is also counerproductive.
Don,
A fembot is a female robot.
Overtaken in the discussion:
Are you seriously saying, BaT, that you don’t know that the Egyptian and Saudi security services are infamous for their enthusiasm for torture as a means of interrogation and/or punishment?
‘Who the hell is talking about torture? I certainly wasn’t.’
Liar.
‘A fembot is a female robot. ‘
And how is that relevant?
‘…if that means you have to kill these people…’
But with you, ‘these people’ covers a hell of a lot of ground, doesn’t it?
>>>One, it should have foreseen the potential criticisms, and dealt with them;
Yes.
>>> and second, it should have sought a much wider signatury,
I assume you mean non-muslim organisations or individuals who have similar foreign policy concerns? Ok.
>>>and perhaps then a consensus on its contents which would have united Muslims with other groups outraged by Blair’s support for Israel
Then it becomes not a ‘muslim’ letter but an anti-Israel letter, no? To be delivered at any time and not tied to the alleged bomb plot?
Don,
Had you read everything I wrote concerning this topic you wouldnt ask such a question as: But with you, ‘these people’ covers a hell of a lot of ground, doesn’t it?
I am sure most people here know exactly who I am talking about but with a hysterical menstrating jerk like youself, I suppose I have to plan for your confusion.
>> It all seems to be in the hands of the media and who they choose to have on their programmes. The amount of times I saw Anjum Chowdhury on Newsnight was depressing. They wouldn’t give that amount of airplay to someone like Nick Griffin, so why do they give it to the Muslim equivalent?
Good question. I used to think that it was due to ignorance and perhaps laziness. Maybe even the quaint idea of providing ‘balance’ by inviting two maniacs from the opposite, extreme ends of the spectrum to slug it out. Also because the more objectionable types are more organised and more accessible to the media. I am also inclined to think that there’s a kind of racism and cynicism at play – like why bother about the subtleties or diversity of muslim thought?
‘ a hysterical menstrating jerk like youself’
Positively Wildean.
Oops, I forgot. For you, Wilde would have been a candidate for a short rope and a long drop, no?
Fembot? Menstrating (sic)?
You might find this wierd but my masculinity isn’t tied up with fantasies of the torture and bloody deaths of those who fall below my precious moral standards.
It is amazing how much self-hate your language reveals Bikki! The constant put down of women. Poor thing, to be that which you despise so.
mirax,
I dont put down women, I put down men who behave like women and see it as some kind of social progression. Doubt it! Perhaps my language is harsh, but being a woman on these blogs its hard to be heard, appreciated and hopefully feared if you dont take such eccentric positions. Atleast I am right and not just obnoxious and distasteful.
Besides, Don isnt innocent. He has come at me crazy on many occasions. An example: Bikhair is cool with people being treated vilely, as long as there is a scriptural justification.
‘I put down men who behave like women’
Well, let me just fix my hair and sashay over to my sweet little pink keyboard.
‘ hopefully feared ‘ Uh huh.
‘ At least I am right and not just obnoxious and distasteful.’ Two out of three.
‘Don isn’t innocent.’ You got that right.
Y’know I’ve concluded that Rohin is right and it is just not worthwhile engaging with you directly, although I reserve the right to point out to newcomers, who might be fooled, that underneath that clownish exterior there lurks a heart of solid dirt. So shall we make this our last direct discourse and I shall explain exactly why I ‘come at you crazy’?
When we first met, many moons ago, I took you for a bigoted, self-righteous, hypocritical, vindictive and compassionless harpy using your religion as a mask for a bitter resentment at the world around you. I believe I said more or less as much. For a while I even took you for a parody.
As the months passed I actually took the time to engage with you, looked up the references you gave, acknowledged sane points and on occasion even defended you. I felt that you were perhaps moving towards a recognition that our common humanity meant something.
Then I realised that I was right the first time. That you would happily see the helpless suffer and die to feed your monstrously bloated self-righteousness, that you have a blank and arid waste where others have compassion and empathy, that you have so smothered whatever shreds of human feeling you had that you are incapable of comprehending the horrors you advocate.
That’s why I ‘come at you cazy’, that’s why I loathe you.
Sorry, too girly for you?
1: I dont put down women,
2: I put down men who behave like women and see it as some kind of social progression.
Er, part 2 gives the lie to part 1.
To emulate women is NOT social progression? What then? The converse? Regression?
I don’t think that Don targets you specifically. Also you have laid yourself open to the ridicule by stint of the various indefensible positions you have adopted. Repeatedly. Kudos on the consistency, but make up your mind: Principle or popularity?
I’d just like to say that I am always right and anyone that disagrees with me is a girl.
Am I getting the hang of this?
I seem to have missed something here, what’s going on?
Don is being argumentative of course.
>>I don’t think that Don targets you specifically.
Um I take that back! I didn’t realise that you took Bikki this seriously, Don. I did, right at the very beginning but got wise to her intransigence pretty quickly. Such a pity, you sense her potential – she is intelligent and articulate.
group hug everyone. you’re messing with my fluff
Jagdeep, I am grateful for your advice. Thanks for taking the time.
Foreign policy should not be changed due to terrorism, but due to principles.
The Sufi Muslim Council have no such principles.
Visit http://sufimuslimcouncil.blogspot.com for further details
Wow, the Sufis must be having an impact – why else such an elaborate smear attempt? How can we be sure that you are not the dreaded neo-cons, when you don’t have the grace to identify yourself?
Jai – you say that the message that terror attacks are unislamic should be made.
surely the message that should be made are that terror attacks are wrong full stop. it is wrong because any reasonable thinking person surely thinks it to be wrong. it worries me that things have to be shown as wrong because a religon says so.
in a community centre near me is a local authority/police poster that attempts to persuade people to talk to the police by use of quotes from the Koran.
I find this sort of thing utterly bizzare.
otter breath,
A very good point.
Slightly off topic (…all apologies to Jai), but I would like to congratulate Bikhair on her spirited defence of manliness.
Manliness (for better or for worse) seeks and welcomes drama, prefers times of war, conflict, and risk, and brings change or restores order at crucial moments. Manly men in their assertiveness raise issues, bring them to the fore, and make them public and political – as for example, the manliness of the women’s movement.
This creates problems for a society such as ours that likes to think of itself as ‘gender neutral,’ egalitarian, and sensitive. The problem is: manliness is not sensitive. Today, we mainly cope with it by politely changing the subject. The very word is deemed quaint and pre-historic.
And yet, the complex range of behaviour that ‘manliness’ characterizes persists. It is still mostly men who embody it. The Greeks used the term thumos to denote the bristling, spirited element shared by human beings and animals that makes them fight back when threatened. It causes dogs to defend their turf; it makes human beings stand up for their kin, their religion, their country, their principles. It is still men who are far more likely than women to run for political office, start companies, file for patents, and blow things up. Men continue to tell most of the jokes and write the vast majority of editorials and letters to editors.
Modern philosophy, on the other hand, has been engaged in making wimps out of men. Hobbes, for example, ignored the higher forms of heroic and philosophical manliness: He reduced it to a simple aggressive drive that leads to a ‘war of all against all.’ It had to be broken, not accommodated, by handing over power and rights to an absolute sovereign. In place of the heroic, but rationally controlled, conception of manliness offered us by the ancients, modern thinkers give us a pallid, cautious, risk-averse bourgeois manliness.
I, for one, am an admirer of Plato & Aristotle’s conception of ethical manliness based on courage, tying manliness to protectiveness and reason. Manly men (and women) are the guardians of Plato’s Republic; they are the noble gentlemen in Aristotle’s polis. I urge men, and especially women, to understand and accept manliness, and to give it honest and honourable employment.
Amir
Wow, Mirax, for once in my lifetime, I disagree with you!
I’m feeling a lot of negativity in the room tonight, people. Perhaps I should start doing a mid-week purging thread as well.
Jai, that was an excellent post.
…are far more likely than women to run for political office, start companies, file for patents, and blow things up.
Excellent.
Don… it’s the truth.
Manliness is Janus-faced.
Amir, I’m glad you are back. Entertaining if nothing else.
Can you see us going to war with a country for its manliness?
Refresh,
Although we disagree on many, many things, I do nonetheless have a soft-spot for your inquisitiveness and openness to new ideas, evidence, and arguments. I am slightly disturbed by your embrace of George Galloway, but this will, in time, change.
I also think that your mind is ripe for a swing to the ‘right’ of the political pendulum (which, at the moment, is radically misrepresented and underrepresented by the BBC, Channel 4, and ITV). Hopefully, we can both benefit from this mutual exchange?
Your question:
‘Can you see us going to war with a country for its manliness?’
This is funny… I have to hand it to you! But there is, nonetheless, a serious question buried beneath the irony. I think that war, i.e. politically-organized armed conflict, is part of human nature; recent observations have even confirmed the existence of something very like it among chimpanzees. Therefore it is almost certainly going to be with us as long as humanity itself lasts.
Amir
There’s no point picking on our little pillow (the hindi/urdu translation of taqiyyah), and there is little point taking her too seriously. I think sometimes I see a method in her madness, and sometimes I agree. Either way, there is no point making a big deal out of it.
Jai – it was my pleasure. You made the points I wanted to, better.
Sunny,
…and there is little point taking her too seriously
Why not? I am rather more suspicious of those who do yearn to be taken seriously. Truth comes in many shapes and sizes, styles and guises; humour or no humour. Bikhair’s yearning for my manliness is very understandable indeed. And it is shared by many women – I can assure you.
…sorry Jai.
Oi Amir, your cocky brat! I would take your paean to Manliness a lot more seriously if it wasn’t lifted wholesale from a publisher’s blurb to Harvey C Mansfield’s universally derided book, Manliness.
http://www.powells.com/cgi-bin/biblio?inkey=62-0300106645-0
Don’t try to screw around with us women, capisce?
Man Overboard,
Manliness from a female perspective, Martha Nussbaum’s.
https://ssl.tnr.com/p/docsub.mhtml?i=20060626&s=nussbaum062606
Or how one man’s trope turned out to be another woman’s execrated folly…
I think I win on the manliness stake because I like to make my lady feel special and non-dirty by pulling out her tampon string with my teeth
It was only a matter of time before Amir came to my defense. Sunny also defends me. Considering that they both represent two opposites of the political and social spectrum, I think that proves how moderate and in the middle I really am.
Take that Don, Roger, and Mirax.
Just read #57 about the British Sufi Council – scary allegations.
Sunny, do you know much more?
I see that this thread has gone quite wildly off-topic in my absence…..Although some humour in these troubled times is of course always appreciated (as anyone familiar with my regular “badmaashi” on Sepia Mutiny would confirm).
My thanks to everyone once again for your kind words about my article. As mentioned before, I would also request you to take some time out to read my posts # 128, 132, and 136 on the original “Letter” thread if you are interested in getting the full picture about my views and suggestions regarding this issue.
*******************************************************
Otter Breath,
=>”Jai – you say that the message that terror attacks are unislamic should be made. surely the message that should be made are that terror attacks are wrong full stop. it is wrong because any reasonable thinking person surely thinks it to be wrong. it worries me that things have to be shown as wrong because a religon says so.”
You’re right, but the problem is that the jihadis (and their supporters) don’t care what “reasonable-thinking non-Muslims” believe about the issue, because they will interpret such views as “man-made” and “artificial”. From their perspective, such moral conclusions have no credibility because they do not have their roots/origin directly in Islam. The only “objective truth” that they give a damn about is that which is derived from Islam, because their religion is the ultimate source of reference and guidance for them.
That’s why I suggested that, as their actions are motivated by their religion (or at least their understanding of it), the solution also has to be derived from their religion.
Anything from a secular or “universal humanitarian” perspective will be ignored and dismissed.
Jai
Perhaps if I could ammend one of your sentences:
“because their religion is the ultimate source of reference and guidance for them.”
to
because their INTERPRETATION of their religion is the ultimate source of reference and guidance for them.
Refresh,
Thanks for that modification — you’re absolutely correct.
Great to have you around jai! I agree with a lot of what you are saying but I do feel that your prescription is highly idealistic and very, very difficult for the current lot of UK muslim ‘reps’ to even grasp, let alone implement. Just take a look at the video of this rep.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zh6q02J6dJk
And his article on CiF,
http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/azzam_tamimi/2006/08/i_bet_you_it_will_turn_to_be_a.html
Mirax,
I think the CiF article is very different – he does not trust the intelligence agencies esp. the Pakistani ones. And I don’t either.
Things are a bit crazy as you know – we’ve had plenty of lies since 9/11.
Only time will tell.
Don’t have the time to look at your first link.
Amir
“I am slightly disturbed by your embrace of George Galloway, but this will, in time, change. ”
He’s manly, don’t you think?
“I also think that your mind is ripe for a swing to the ‘right’ of the political pendulum”
I might like your airy fairy ways, but it doesn’t mean I agree.
There is more chance of there being a break down of the Democrat/Republican hold on power, Israel a settled part of a truly middle east trading union and Bush, Blair, Saddam sharing adjacent cells. In Cuba of course.
Firstly, Leaders such as those representing MCB and the MPs, Muslim need to realise that they do NOT represent the views of moderate Muslims who are not their members. Secondly, As far as the letter to the parliment is concerned, by shifting the blame to foreign policy is blatant justification of the violence by their co-relgionists. Thirdly, these Islamic organisations need to look into their backyards as during the last few terror incidents and alerts, recent converts to Islam have been found involved such as Richard Reid, Germaine Lindsay and the guy implicated in the August 10th terror alert. Their propagation is somehow exposing individuals to extremist and radical ideas.
Some of my recent letters:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,59-2316019,00.html
http://comment.independent.co.uk/letters/article1219693.ece
i agree with that –
“Firstly, Leaders such as those representing MCB and the MPs, Muslim need to realise that they do NOT represent the views of moderate Muslims who are not their members.”
does anyone know who’s actually a member of the MCB?
Yes Refresh has a very pertinent point. everyone seems to conveniently forget Pakistan’s government is a military dictorship ( ho ho that’ll explain how Bush manages to be so chummy with them..) I’m not going to comment on the ‘links’ to people here who got arrested etc. But generally it would be extremely naive to imagine that the govt. in Pakistan aren’t using this ‘War on Terror’ to clamp down on dissidents and pass them of as ‘terror suspects’. We know that’s been done in the USA – activists in San Francisco were stopped from demonstrating through the use of terrorism legislation – why do we imagine it wouldn’t be happening in Pakistan?
Hah – just to amuse myself i had a look to see how the CIA Factbook classifies Pakistan.
” A Federal Republic”
and then you can scroll down and they’ve stuck a little note re: ‘military takeover’
ho ho
https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/pk.html
re Pakistan.
An australian terror suspect- another convert!- was released today due to the irregularity of his treatment in Pakistan by both the Pakistanis and the AFP (Aus federal police). There are plans to retry him but this is what comes out of shortcircuiting due process.
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/jihad-jack-walks-free/2006/08/18/1155408007803.html
TORTURE!!
Disgusting and completely counter-productive – anyone will say anything under torture. Look what the Knights Templar admitted to back in the day.
Dr Shaz
I can’t understand where you are coming from:
“Its time for British Muslims to either take some responsibility for the actions of their co-religionists and stand up to extremism or put up with a changing Britain.”
No way should law abiding people of any faith take responsibility for someone else’s crime. This line also lends support to Bin Laden’s view that ordinary Americans are directly responsible for what Bush has been doing – because some may have voted for him.
As all citizens we have a duty to counter threats to our security. But no way should anyone be brow-beaten into guilt.
Read your letters – and so would also say, profiling chavs and hoodies is also another piece of stupidity from a government that governs through spin. And a dwindling number are falling for it.
My thought is that you should wait and see what the outcome of the latest alleged threat is. And I suspect, or at least like to think that before long the clamour for Independent Public Enquiry will be unavoidable.
And all right-thinking people would prefer that the threat was non-existent in acualite, even though it may mean embarrassment to some highly placed people.
of course everyone knows the foreign policy is crap – and that everyone thinks so ( in govt.) in private but are worried about their careers.
in any case if the government wanted to change its policy it would, it’s hardly going to say now ‘oh yes let’s change the policy’. the letter has backfired in my opinion, because now for those of us who may be working to change the policies – anyone who doesn’t can simply chant ‘ oh but we don’t negotiate with terrorist’ we don’t change things for them. our shitty policy is staying the way it is just to make a point’
wonderful.
{Yah whatever. that’s why biometrics are coming in the the EU – because of the ‘threat of terrorism’. but i thought we weren’t supposed to respond to the threat and change our policies?’)
exactly Refresh –
“No way should law abiding people of any faith take responsibility for someone else’s crime. This line also lends support to Bin Laden’s view that ordinary Americans are directly responsible for what Bush has been doing – because some may have voted for him.”
yep, exactly the same sort of things the terrorists said
# 87
Sonia did you read the link? There was no alllegation of torture in Jihad Jack’s case; just the absence of lawyer, as was his right.
Mirax,
I am the guy who wrote the blurb for ‘Manliness’ – or at least a similar version to the one on Powell’s (they get recycled, chopped-down & regurgitated in truncated form). I am fortunate enough to have met Professor Mansfield in person. I read and digested his book a long time before its official release.
In any case… a ‘blurb’ is just an assemblage of sound-bites that get cherry-picked from the book itself. The job of writing one is given to young scallywags like me, who’re trying to prove their worth in salt.
Incidentally, if anyone has any advice on becoming a full-time writer/journalist, please… I’m all-ears. Sunny, Mr. Sedgemore…?
I’d be most grateful.
mirax ‘did you read the link’ – why would you think i didn’t? {because i automatically didn’t have the same ‘interpretation as you?
yes i did read the link, and of course the article didn’t mention ‘torture’ explicitly – ho ho- i inferred it to be possible from this extract: ( highlights are my own)
“The appeal court judges ruled that interview inadmissible because Thomas had not answered questions voluntarily.
Justices Chris Maxwell, Frank Vincent and Peter Buchanan said the concept of a voluntary confession was a “deeply entrenched legal principle,” that had to exist in evidence for it to be admissible in a court.
They said Thomas was repeatedly told by his Pakistani interrogators, who had control of him, and by Australian agents, that his fate would be determined by the extent of his cooperation.
of course you can disagree, that’s your business
Refresh & Sonia,
Having read through Dr Mahboob’s letters, I think what he said was just a slightly inaccurate choice of words. I get the impression that he basically means Muslims in general should take charge of sorting out the jihadi/extremist problem within their community, ie. “putting one’s own house in order”.
This interpretation of his comments makes sense when read in the broader context of the rest of his letters and, of course, his post #82.
Han,
=>â€I agree with all your points but how is this meant to be achieved? It all seems to be in the hands of the media and who they choose to have on their programmes.â€
I’m not quite sure how the “system†works – Sunny is undoubtedly in a much better position than me with regards to explaining how people end up on these programmes and how changing the situation could potentially be achieved.
=>â€They need to understand that these terror plots/attacks aren’t just attacks on civilians but attacks on Islam as well.â€
Correct. What some people, especially the deliberate & accidental apologists who seem to consistently attempt to turn the tables by blaming absolutely everyone except the jihadis, are conveniently ignoring is the fact that at this point in time, nobody is doing more to defile Islam – and wreck its credibility in the eyes of the rest of the world – than the jihadis who commit atrocities in its name whilst hypocritically contravening the principles of the very religion they claim to be defending. The jihadis themselves are the biggest enemies within the Ummah and, indeed, the greatest enemies of Islam.
Mirax,
=>â€I do feel that your prescription is highly idealistic and very, very difficult for the current lot of UK muslim ‘reps’ to even grasp, let alone implement.â€
Well, that is the basic problem isn’t it, as I mentioned back in post # 17.
I think that the ‘reps’ need to essentially “step their game upâ€, or get out of the way in order to make room for people who aren’t so incompetent and hampered by their own egos, agendas, and cognitive dissonance.
Either way, it would be extremely constructive for “ordinary†Muslims to take greater control of dealing with this problem regardless of what the ‘reps’ are doing – the situation would benefit tremendously from a mass, grassroots movement to counteract the jihadis/extremists and really take back control of Islam (in terms of what is being done in the religion’s name). Assuming, of course, that regular British Muslims could become sufficiently organised on a national scale in order to collaborate effectively with each other, rather than just leaving this in the hands of “eldersâ€, so-called reps etc.
Are my suggestions too idealistic ? Well, perhaps – but that doesn’t mean people shouldn’t try anyway. Idealism should certainly be tempered with pragmatism, but at some point one needs to draw the line at excessive cynicism and “Devil’s Advocate†behaviour. One needs to aim high if one’s cause is just and one’s motivations are sincere.
What’s required are much more dynamic, proactive, and clear-thinking individuals. I’m certainly impressed by Shahid Malik’s recent efforts (and, incidentally, he’s rapidly issued an explanation of his own reasons for signing ‘that’ letter), so this entire problem needs more people like him taking leadership positions, more involvement by ordinary Muslims “on the groundâ€, and definitely more imams/scholars involved, in both the public and the private spheres (especially the former).
Nothing is impossible in life – you just need the right people for the job, motivated by the “right†reasons, and working towards the “right†goal.
After all that (talking about the previous thread on this letter) , I agree with Jai and a lot of other people here that UK foreign policy should be criticised on moral grounds, not because it is ineffective at winning hearts and minds. The letter-writers do confuse the two.
I also think that any letter to potential terrorists should also try to avoid confusing the message that terrorism is morally wrong, with a message that it would have negative social and legal consequences for perpetrators.
On another issue brought up above, I also think we should argue against torture because it is wrong, not because it is ineffective at getting useful information.
If being humane is treated as a matter of calculation rather than principle, it would equally justify inhumane means being used to achieve whatever good causes other people imagine.
I’ll admit that consequences are relevant to moral reasoning, and I can sympathise with consequentialist moral thinking by people driven by fear and anger – but I think even a consequentialist would accept that avoiding a society where people feel free to act on fear and anger is a good reason to prefer the golden rule of treating others the way we would wish to be treated.
Anyone notice that I have also been drawn into justifying the golden rule by reference to its effectiveness rather than principle? Can I wriggle out of it by saying that the argument also draws attention to how consequentialism fails in its own terms? Hopefully no one reads this far anyway.
Another reason why I shouldn’t pontificate on blogs.
Hopefully no one reads this far anyway
Hah! I got you. Arif contradicting himself, caught in action. Woohoo!
#93
Sonia as it turns out, you are right- the man was assaulted by ISI and threatened (with castration, and sexual assault of his wife) by a US interrogator. The AFP admits that its case was compromised even before trial. UK police would do well to be wary of ISI/US ‘techniques’ if they want to secure convictions in a UK court.
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/terrorism-conviction-quashed/2006/08/18/1155408025244.html
But I do prefer to wait for confirmation of these facts – which was not in the first article- than to over-read a few sentences.
My problem is that the more Muslims follow the government line and ‘own’ the problem, the more that all Muslims will be held responsible for this – let us remember that it is alleged – plot, when it is a political problem to be solved by political means. Yet, the government would have us believe that suddenly all these things are happening without reference to foreign policy, which is clearly absurd.
Asking Muslims to carry the can is a convenient exercise in denial about government foreign policy. Government has been warned about the consequences of aggressive foreign policies time and again. That’s the reason why I feel Muslims should not play the government card. They should disassociate themselves from it completely.
I personally felt sick at the sight of so-called Muslim ‘leaders’ springing up like they had a spring up their arse or something, and playing up to the hype. If these feel that they have to account for the crimes of others then firstly, they speak on their own behalf and not mine. Secondly, we should have more honesty from them. We’ve had hysteria after fearmongering after spin from the government, and it’s time to set the record straight and tell people the truth even if they don’t want to hear it. So the letter was a good one and it needed to be made. Changing our foreign policy is a priority not because it is a threat, but because it’s the right thing to do.