Some comments in today's press

The Independent carries commentary by Kishwer Falkner, a Liberal Democract peer:

When religious and cultural difference is added and reinforced through very tight family structures where integration into the wider British community is rare, then mainstream values do not easily transfer across.

[...]

The Muslim community must move beyond condemnation and fear of victimisation. If we are to tackle extremism in our midst, we need to answer some difficult questions? Should segregation, and its isolation from the mainstream be tolerated under the guise of multiculturalism? How far should the secular state and its bedrock of shared values be stretched to accommodate religious pluralism, when religion is twisted by extremists on all sides? In an open society, where is the fine line between tolerance and cohesion?

I used to think along the same lines, until I looked long and hard into what is generally glossed over as "mainstream values" or the Our Way Of Life rhetoric of politicians. I wonder what are "mainstream values" (can we find them jotted down in a helpful pamphlet, perhaps?) and how many people have these "mainstream values"? Muslims in the UK are certainly marginalised and under-achieving. They are for any number of reasons, like "socio-economic issues" that Falkner notes, but also because of their own doing in various instances. However, I wonder what specific "mainstream values" have they failed to integrate that is the cause of their undoing in Falkner's eyes (who, incidentally, was born and raised in Pakistan)? And do other "groups" also suffer from the same problem or is it only Muslims? These sets of queries and their possible answers underline my problem with "integration" (or "assimilation"). It is better to ask and suggest Muslims (or other 'marginalised' groups) participate actively in aspects of society: in education, in law, in business, in the sciences and the arts, in producing exciting and imaginative literature, etc. This way the whole process becomes a two-way affair, with the Muslim both contributing something and taking something (hopefully meaningful and useful in both instances) from his/her society. This way they may feel that they 'own' something of the society around them, that they have a stake in its well-being. Calls for "integration" seem to assume there is some perfect model of "mainstream society" embodied in some "mainstream values" that everyone must conform to and that one must shed whatever other traditions form part of their identity (i.e. you cannot be "British" and "Muslim" or "American" and "Muslim" or whatever). But is there such a model of "mainstream society" and what would this say about "tolerance"?

The Sun, a vile, nasty and quite pathetic rag, has launched a rather disgusting and stupid attack on Tariq Ramadan, the professor of Islamic studies at Fribourg. I am not linking to this atrocious newspaper, but you can surf there if you wish. Ramadan is definitely a 'controversial' figure, amongst some liberal secularists and traditional and Salafi Muslims, in his ambitious project to help foster an 'European Islam' or an Islam that is lived in Europe. I've discussed him briefly on a number of occassions (I have no neccessary positive or negative opinion about him to offer, in case you're wondering). The Scum (a popular name for this "newspaper" amongst its critics) argues that because the US and France ban him from entering their borders, the UK too should ban him from 'preaching' to Muslims (academics don't often tend to claim they're preaching, but in the current context stick Muslim and preacher together and a Sun-stastic syllogism will give you "terrorist"). Ths must be the same US administration that told us about the WMDs and Iraq and Saddam and al-Qa'ida, all in the same breath? As for his ban from France, as far as I am aware, he was denied entry for between late 1995 and mid-1996 on grounds that he was linked to certain Algerian groups, something that was later revoked as a case of mistaken identity. Why don't The Scum tell us that? And what's worse than all of this in the eyes of 'Britain's biggest tabloid'? Of course, that the British taxpayer is footing the bill for his visit. Perhaps Rebekah Wade would care to tell us what the adventure in Iraq is costing the British taxpayer (an adventure, incidentally, The Scum supported)? Updated: Ramadan appeared on Channel 4 News last night and, as one would expect, rejected claims that he was linked to 'extremist' groups. Yusuf Smith has a more detailed post on Ramadan.

Comments

[AlHamdullilah]

The problem with you, thabet, is that you use all your intelligence, of which you have some but not enough, to rationalize and fit every event and word to your ideologicial beliefs.

Your kind of thinking, much replicated almost programmatically throughout the Muslim world, is what is implicitly supporting and encouraging terrorist activity. You mildly condone killing in one breath, and in the next rationalize the killing as a natural reaction of an oppressed minority.

What continues to amuse the West is your groups continued focus of energy focused at blaming the West for all your failings and actions, instead of focusing on cleaning your own house first.

You actually hold the key to solving all your problems, but you simply won't reach for the door.

If the West bothers you, move back to your home country or your ancestors home country.
That's the honorable thing to do.
If the West gives you a free oppty to improve your lot in life, then join us in the multi-cultural effort.
But don't sit here in the middle and jab us in the back with your little spears, all the while sipping coffee in the freedom obtained and secured by our culture.

Oh, wrt to your friend Ramadan, here is a post, http://www.danielpipes.org/article/2043, you may want to refute, line by line. It will take a while... the guy has ammassed alot of evidence against Tarik.
Oh, I know, like the Sun, facts are no longer facts if they are ones not aligned with Thabets perception of reality.

[thabet]

"You mildly condone killing in one breath, and in the next rationalize the killing as a natural reaction of an oppressed minority."

If you can point to one sentence I have condoned such acts, then I will happily withdraw that statement.

"What continues to amuse the West..."

Who made you a representative of "the West"? I've worked with Americans and French, as well, of course, Englishmen, Scots and Norwegians (easy to do in my line of work). I am happy to report that there is no one entity called "the West". A graduate of College de France is probably different in his outlook ("ideology") to a farmer from mid-west US. There are many "Western" cultures, just as there are many "Islamic" cultures.

Maybe what I say amuses you? In that case at least you're being entertained rather than bored.

In any case, perhaps you can tell me in a single instance where I have blamed the ubiquitous "West" for crimes comitted by Muslims. In fact, in the case of the woman in Pakistan who was raped by a "tribal court" I explicitly said:

"This [incident of rape] has nothing to do with Orientalist misrepresentations, The West, sectarian issues, or whatever else we usually point to in order to explain some anomaly that passes off as 'Islam'. This was ordered and carried out by people who, no doubt, view themselves as sincere Muslims..."

Again, if I have blamed "the West" for any crimes comitted by Muslims, please point these out. I am happy to admit my mistakes or correct you.

"If the West bothers you, move back to your home country or your ancestors home country."

I have no idea where I said "the West" bothers me. Again, I will simply ask for a statement where I said "the West" bothers me or I have blamed "the West" for any crimes done by Muslims, so I am able to admit my mistakes or explain what I said.

"Oh, wrt to your friend Ramadan, here is a post, http://www.danielpipes.org/article/2043"

Thank you. But Ramadan is not "my friend". I have met him once in and seen him speak twice. Unless he is a very good liar, there was nothing he said that suggested what _The Sun_, or whoever, have accused him of. In one lecture I saw him give, he was asking students, Muslim students, to take up reading the classics of English literature, philosophy and science and make them 'their own'. He himself was proud to say he had read the greats of French literature. This sounds like a 'crazy Islamist' to you?

As for Daniel Pipes' "evidence" he links to some newspaper and magazine stories and points out Ramadan's family history. The French have no problem with him entering their country, and nor do the British. Pointing out that his grandfather was Hassan al-Banna does nothing for me; lots of present day "Westerners" have family relations that had this or that view that would not be acceptable today (like Bush).

In any case, I am more interested in what Ramadan has written or said in public, rather than what Pipes (hardly an "objective" source) has decided is good enough for his collection (we can all speculate what others might be doing in "private"; what good would that do?). Scott Martens, not a Muslim and so not labouring under my "perceptions of reality" of "ideology", examines Pipes' claims in detail.

As for Pipes' "scholarship" and use of "facts", these were dealt a blow -- for me -- when I got hold of some of his writings (and I am someone who reads classical and contemporary Orientalist writings on Islam). He is no different to some Muslims I meet; everyone not like him is a potential 'enemy'. Maybe this is part of your "ideology"? I don't know and frankly am not interested in persuading you otherwise. And there are better critics of Ramadan you may want to look up, some of which examine his Arabic writings/sayings.

"Oh, I know, like the Sun, facts are no longer facts if they are ones not aligned with Thabets [sic] perception of reality."

I don't know what your point here is, or the ealier one about "ideology". Either we all have an "ideology" or we all don't. Unless you're an old-fashioned Marxist who thinks "ideology" is some sort of mask on reality, or a traditional conservative, who labours under the delusion that only others have "ideologies", I am not sure what you have achieved in telling me I have an "ideology". We all have "preceptions of reality" shaped by so many factors. So what exactly is your point?