under|progress

Q-News: Blaming foreign policy is a cop-out

From the latest edition of Q-News (scroll down a little):

"There are some ideological liberals in our community who take to the pulpit to argue that American, British and Canadian foreign policy is responsible for creating the fertile grounds for violent extremists to germinate. The argument is lame and they know it. It is true that Western foreign policy is often driven by greed and ignorance and in most cases it results in death and destruction to countless innocent people, many of them in the Muslim world. But to conclude that foreign policy is wholly responsible for terrorism and suicide bombings is hogwash. The people who are advancing this argument are trying to save their own skin.

"Blaming Western foreign policy for fomenting extremism is precisely the argument that Ayman Al-Zawahiri and his new sidekick, American convert Adam Yahiye Gadahn a.k.a. ‘Azzam the American’ want us to advance to justify their vision of a ‘New Jihad World Order.’ When we buy in we end up advancing the goals of this fringe group of loud and obnoxious Muslim men and women who are hell-bent on heralding The End."

But you read that argument here first folks. And blaming "ideological liberals" is also a cop-out.

Alientation: not uniquely 'Muslim'

(Updated.)

Here's a point which needs to be made and understood: When commentators, Muslim 'leaders' and politicians talk about 'Muslim alienation', they need to show more appreciation that many of the reasons for 'alienation' are not 'Islamised' beyond all proportion. This is especially true of the spokesmen from the MCB et al.

Many issues that are involved in alienation of Muslims, which means mainly Pakistani/Kashmiri, Bangladeshi and Somali boys, are no different to the causes that alienate people who will be categorised as white and working-class. (Of course white working class people can also become Muslim -- I've known some that have -- but our categories cross over between race and religion political and social reasons.)

White working-class boys and girls also grow up on 'ghettoes', are maginalised, the subject of ridicule and mockery in popular (liberal) culture, are 'unassimilated' and not particularly 'integrated' into so-called 'mainstream British society'. They can also become the target of extremists who threaten the good aspects of Britain. They do not always, if at all, share in the history and vision of Britain imagined by either liberal intellgentsia (cosmpolitan, rootless, urban, multicultural) or right-wing nativists (rural, warm beer, cricket, cycling spinsters, the spires of Oxford). They are, more often than not and when it is politically convenient, disdained by both.

One of the main causes of alienation and marginalisation from the mainstream, for both "Muslim" and white youngsters, is most certainly socioeconomic. (I would argue, for better or for worse, it is also the outcome of a breakdown in social authorities; the Church and other religious authorities, politicians and ideologies and now even scientists, the high-priests of the modern age, have little respect, relevance or trust anymore.) Depending on where they live, both Muslim ethnic groups and whites will suffer from a lack of access to good schooling and healthcare; under-investment in their local area, leading to difficulty in finding work; and poor social mobility. This affects people across all racial, religious and ethnic boundaries. It is not a 'Muslim' problem, per se. More that these problems affect, amongst a whole swathe of people, those who also happen to be Muslims or of Muslim origin (since, unless you ask people, you must assume they are nominally Muslim first and foremost -- unless the data collected sets some level of being 'devout' or 'pious', we have no way of knowing). Conversely, there is a small, but significant, and largely well-integrated, Muslim middle-class which will include people whose parents forged successful business after their arrival to Britain in the 1970s and 1980s; who parents were relatively well-off on their arrival; or who are converts from the white middle-classes. I would surmise from anecdotal evidence and experiences, that they are more likely to set the 'Muslim agenda', whether it be conservative, integrationist, liberal, segregationist or extremist. And, interestingly, in my experiences anyway, the same Muslim middle-classes have little interest in associating themselves with the 'riff-raff' from the lower social groups who are also Muslims, or 'chavlims' if you will (consider, for example, ethnic, tribal and caste distinctions amongst Pakistanis). None of this means there isn't bigotry, racial or religious discrimination (including bile aimed specificially towards Muslims or Muslim peoples), or, as liberal Britain likes to delude itself into thinking, these are battles that have been won.

Yet few, if any, politicians and pundits look at these socioeconomic issues affecting white working-classes. Partly, it is to do with 'political correctness' and bad government policies. Faisal Bodi actually raised a good point in his criticism of multiculturalism about groups receiving funding without a care for what these groups should owe wider society and so foster cooperation. Peter Oborne suggests that some in the Labour Party are now looking at these issues, but they have decided to play politics with them to bolster their traditional vote, rather then address the actual problems. But it is also politically convenient at the moment, as well as good copy for journalists, to concentrate on the 'Muslim problem', since, especially for dishonest politicians, it diverts attention from more pressing concerns: whether it be the claim that more children now live in poverty than before Labour came to power; the sale of everything in Britain without a second thought for the long-term consequences (the NHS, an institution even the Tories didn't dare dismantle, is clearly going down that path under neo-Labour); or the systematic de-education of our next generation (with half still failing to master basic English and mathematics), all of which have an impact on communities across Britain, white, Muslim, black, Pakistani, Bangladeshi etc. All that and more, together with the complicty of this government in a legally dubious invasion which has cost tens of thousands of lives, and over a hundred British soldiers (not forgetting people like Ken Bigley), in a country which never threatened Britain, makes for convenient positioning of the debate on multiculturalism as a 'Muslim problem' (which would be one worth having, were it not driven by odious tabloids and populist politicians).

There are a couple of book reviews (1, 2) at Deenport covering a similar topic.

More on Mirza Tahir Hussain

Tony Blair spoke publically for the first time yesterday on the situation of Mirza Tahir Hussain, a British citizen who has spent have his life in on death row in Pakistan for a crime he didn't commit. His execution date will conicide with a visit to the country by Prince Charles. It is looking increasingly likely that Musharraf will use Hussain's life for his own political purposes; he doesn't want to be seen bowing to British pressure. He is all too keen to forget, for a moment, that this whole event is another sad and sick chapter in Pakistani "justice", and that even one of the judges on the panel that convicted Hussain said it was a sham prosecution case. No Orientalists to blame here...

Update: The Graun reports that Pakistan has been warned the royal visit will be scrapped if the execution goes ahead.

Update 2: BBC reports stay of execution of two months.

Neo-Labour's assault on universities

Neo-Labour's attempt to turn universities into an arm of the security services is both racist and an assault on the one place where you should be able to air views, no matter how controversial. They're asking lecturers to 'spy' on "Asian-looking" students (were Richard Reid or Jermaine Lindsay "Asian-looking"?) who might be involved in terrorist activities and keep a watch out for 'extremist' speakers. If you've been to university in Britain it is quite clear that there are some Muslims with, let's say, 'controversial' views beyond the usual limits of controversy. But this is university, and as a friend remarks after watching university students (of any stripe) marching, protesting and sloganeering: "At university, everyone is right." In other words, students are always convinced of the certainity of their beliefs, but eventually they grow up.

Rather than stamp out dissenting views, I would rather Muslims or others challenge them in a debate -- this is university we're talking about afterall. The funny thing is that all the Hizb al-Tahrir and al-Muhajiroun members (the organisations were officialy banned) I came across at university were convinced of the correctness of their beliefs on 'intellectual' grounds. Few individuals ever challenged them on that basis, and banning them or stamping their views out merely convinced them they were right. Besides, the very idea of spying on certain people because of the way they look or what they might believe is counter-productive.

I wish I could share AC Grayling's optimism that all the government was doing was asking universities to report to the police any serious activities that may lead to harm.

Debates Tony doesn't want

Tony says he wants a debate. But here's something he doesn't want to debate. Or this. Or this. Or...

Secular Tunisian fanatics force women to strip

From the BBC:

"The Tunisian authorities have launched a campaign against the Islamic veil worn by some women to cover their hair [...] Police are applying with renewed vigour a decree dating back to 1981 which prohibits women from wearing Islamic headscarves in public places [...] In recent days, senior officials have hit out at what they describe as sectarian dress worn by people who use religion to hide political aims. [...] Human rights groups describe the move as unconstitutional [...] Police in Tunisia have been stopping women on the streets and asking them to remove their headscarves and sign pledges that they will not go back to wearing them."

I suppose when fanatical state-worshipping Jacobin terrorists from France are your inspiration, what can you expect?

And who is the Francofascist fanatic in charge of Tunisia? Zine El Abidine Ali, who says:

"[The] headscarf as a sectarian form of dress which had come into Tunisia uninvited."

Here's a picture of Mr. El-Abidine Ali. And here's a Wikipedia entry about the clothing he has on in that picture. Please draw your own conclusions.

French genocide against Algerians

The French, who refuse to apologise for their genocide against the Algerians, play politics with the Turkish refusal to recognise crimes against Armenians. The French, who preach to their Arab and African underclass about free speech, not only appear to be criminalising denying an historical event (and thus violating a principle of free speech), also engage in a systematic attempt to write out Arab and African blood that was spilt to free France during World War II.

Will these two-face tartuffes apologise (that is say "sorry") for their merciless slaughter of the people of Setif, in which thousands were murdered and raped, all on the day Germany surrendered?

"Muslim ghettoes"

Whether or not David Cameron, who has been doing his best impression of a Chimera, was thinking of "Muslim ghettoes" in his recent conference speech when he mentioned 'cohesion', this is what London's Evening Standard has picked up on. This is what they ran with, both as a headline on their front page (to your left) and in their reporting (the headline also appeared on the front of the free recycling paper they give out across London marked Standard Lite):

"David Cameron today vowed to break up Muslim ghettos in Britain's cities [...] The Tory leader said Islamic schools should in future admit a quarter of their pupils from other faiths. And he said that housing estates should be planned to avoid creating isolated communities."

I've had a read through the speech. Here is the relevant part (parapgraphs collapsed):

"The Cantle Report into the riots in our northern cities in 2001 talked about many communities living "parallel lives." Communities where people from different ethnic origins never meet, never talk, never go into each others' homes. Ultimately, it is an emotional connection that binds a country together. Sympathy for people you don't even know, and who may be very different to you. It is by contact that we overcome our differences - and realise that though our origins and our cultures may vary, we all share common values. The most basic contact comes from talking to each other. So we must make sure that new immigrants learn to speak English. And one of the most important ways we make connections with people is at school. So let me face head-on the question of faith schools. I know that people feel strongly about this issue.So do I. I support faith schools. Many parents want to send their children to them, and trust their judgment. All faiths want them. And let us say, clearly, that Islam is one of the great religions of the world, and that British Muslims make a fantastic contribution to our country. Today, a new generation of Muslim schools is emerging. If these schools are to be British state schools, they must be part of our society, not separate from it. The Cantle Report recommended that faith schools admit a proportion of pupils from other faiths. Only this week the Church of England said it would implement this recommendation in all new church schools it creates admitting a quarter of pupils from non-Anglican backgrounds. That is a great example of what I mean by social responsibility. The Church deciding to take responsibility for community cohesion. Society - not the state. I believe the time has come for other faith groups to show similar social responsibility. And if we are to bring our society together, then schools - all schools must teach children that wherever they come from, if they are British citizens, they are inheritors of a British birthright."

Cameron doesn't mention "Muslim ghettoes", but does talk about the Cantle Report into the riots in the summer of 2001, between gangs of Asian and white youths, and the police. Maybe he was thinking about (only?) Muslims when he talked about "parallel lives"? (Osama Saeed does not have a high opinion of him when it comes to his views on Muslims.) It is not clear from his words that he was thinking this, and all he seems to have done is repeat what the Cantle Report concluded, couched in the usually Conservative rhetoric about responsibility and society. Of more concern is the patronising, almost hypocritical, tone he adopts with regards to 'community integration'. Afterall, I doubt he'll be asking suburbanites to decamp from their middle class, leafy, ghettoes and let their children play with kids from council estates. And I doubt he's going to tell private schools to take on a certain percentage of children from deprived areas and so aid 'community cohesion' (not that I disagree with asking all state-funded schools to open their doors a little wider). And I wonder how many friends from lower down the class ladder a blue-blooded Old Etonian has? In any case, I do not see any animosity expressed by Cameron towards Muslims, per se. His speech was standard party conference verbal ornamentation.

What is of more concern is the Evening Standard's spin and coverage when it comes to any story involving the word 'Muslim'. They've obviously extrapolated something about "Muslim ghettoes" from Cameron's words. But we shouldn't be surprised. Don't forget this is the same rag that tried to smear a perfectly respectable west London bookshop run by Muslims, claiming it sold literature encouraging terrorism. The Standard published a picture of their shop together with their telephone number; after which the shop owners began receiving abusive calls and personal threats. Alas, no Champions of Free Speech came to their rescue or stood for their right to say what they want (even if they never actually said what they were accused of). The snivelling cowards at the Standard also engaged in a cheap hatchet job on Tariq Ramadan. The animosity towards Muslims of the current editorial staff at the Evening Standard is clear enough.

Incidentally, I'm sure David Cameron will be making an appearance on the Dhummies website for calling Islam a "great religion".

Policy, profiling, poverty

I do not wish to indulge in speculation about the people arrested and subsequently charged over the plot to blow up airliners over the Atlantic, nor on more recent arrests in South London (as well as the ongoing trial of the seven men accused of plotting to blow up targets around Britain). The evidence is being gathered and they haven't even reached a trial yet. Unless people have forgotten, one of the fundamental norms of the English legal system is that people are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. What's more, the accused have rights too (like the right to a fair trial); that is what separates the rule of law from mob justice and trial by media. Or trial by politicians. (And isn't it funny how the very things that make Britain a good place to live, are the very protections certain self-proclaimed defenders of Western Civilisation wish to ignore or, worse still, to discard altogether? Not funny? Maybe it's just my odd sense of humour then...)

Instead, I want to look at the causal explanations some have provided as to why Muslims who grew up in Britain would actually want to commit such acts of violence, classified as 'terrorism'. Of course, murder and violence are an unfortunate part of life in many cities in Britain; and we do have ask if television, music and cinema glorifies violence rather than educates its audience about its degrading effects on communities. But such acts of violence, which have already happened, invoke the religion of the perpetrators. Criminals do not ordinarily claim to kill people for some 'higher purpose'. And when they have done, they have been considered 'mentally ill'. Maybe some are mentally ill. But I don't think that alone is a sufficient explanation, simply because the people involved in such terrorism do not have a history of such illnesses.

Islam and democracy: a review of Iqbal and Gülen

In this month's edition of Renaissance, the monthly English-language journal of Lahore's Al-Mawrid institute, Muzaffar K. Awan has a review of the democratic ideas of Muhammad Iqbal and the modern Turkish thinker Fethullah Gülen. Of Iqbal's view of democracy, Awan says:

"Iqbal [...] did not like the idea of importing the Western democratic system and transplanting it as such in the Islamic world because of its extreme secular stance. He still suggested in his writings that there was no alternative to democracy in the Muslim World. Iqbal observed that if the foundations of democracy were to rest upon spiritual and moral values, it would be the best political system for the world. He wrote in the "The New Era" July 28th, 1917 issue: "Democracy was born in Europe from economic renaissance that took place in most of its societies. But democracy in the Islamic context is not to be developed from the idea of economic advancement alone; it is also a spiritual principle that comes from the fact that every individual is a source of power whose potentialities are to be developed through virtue and character."

Gülen argues that democracy, whilst not perfect, is the best option available for political arrangements since it allows people to govern themselves; this he bases on the Qur'anic principle of individuals and societies being responsible for their own fate:

"As Islam holds individuals and societies responsible for their own fate, people must be responsible for governing themselves. The Qur’an addresses society with such phrases as: “O people!” and “O believers!” The duties entrusted to modern democratic system are those that Islam refers to society and classifies, in order of importance, as “absolutely necessary, relatively necessary, and commendable to carry out.” People cooperate with one another in sharing these duties and establishing the essential foundations necessary to perform them. The government is composed of all of these foundations. Thus, Islam recommends a government based on a social contract. People elect the administrators, and establish a council to debate issues. Also, the society as a whole participates in auditing the administration."

And on the subject of Al-Mawrid, the editor of its Urdu journal Ishraq, Manzoorul Hassan, has been shot in what the newspaper suggests was attempted murder (free registration required). This says something about Pakistani Islam and its violent undercurrent. Al-Mawrid has taken positions on Islamic law in Pakistan which can be described as 'liberal' (that is not confined to the paradigms of traditional authorities), although if you read the works of Al-Mawrid's founder, Javed Ahmad Ghamidi, they're quite conservative. Eteraz and Haroon have more on this.

Update: Haroon has a more detailed discussion in "The Jihad for Democracy".