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.

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.

Hah! I got you. Arif contradicting himself, caught in action. Woohoo!

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.

=>”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.”

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 up”, 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 “elders”, 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 ground”, 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.

=>”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.”

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.

=>”They need to understand that these terror plots/attacks aren’t just attacks on civilians but attacks on Islam as well.”

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.

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.

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)

of course you can disagree, that’s your business

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.

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.

“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

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?’)

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.

Disgusting and completely counter-productive – anyone will say anything under torture. Look what the Knights Templar admitted to back in the day.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/jihad-jack-walks-free/2006/08/18/1155408007803.html

” 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

“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?

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 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.