Multiculturalism, Terror and Shariah

In their attempts to move the discussion away from the foreign policy role in terror, the government have returned to the theme of multiculturalism.

The position of the pro-war elements on this is strange. On one hand they tell us that there is a global evil ideology we must confront in a violent way, but on the other they say that the terror threat is the result of the failed policy of multiculturalism at home. The two positions cannot sit with each other. Surely if the Al-Qaeda strand of thinking is global, then whatever we did at home does not matter? Did terrorists breed in Afghanistan because of the Taliban's position on multiculturalism?

The government's argument

The argument of the government goes roughly as follows. Asians have lived parallel lives in this country for too many years, and because of this segregation, they care nothing at all for white people and are thus quite willing to blow them up on public transport.

This is simply not true. For one, Al-Qaeda have regard for nobody's lives, and white people should not take it personally. US, UK, and Australian targets have been hit in Muslim countries, resulting in the deaths of many hundreds of their co-religionists. For Al-Qaeda, there are no rules to the game. They kill, and it doesn't matter about your creed or colour in pursuit of their goals.

The second count on which it's not true is that it bears no resemblance to the bombers we know about to date. Richard Reid the shoebomber was a white convert. The July bombers all spoke English. One was a teaching assistant, one worked in his father's fish-and-chip shop, one was married to a white Englishwoman, and one was known to have gone on wild drinking binges (thus passing Jon Snow's integration test).

Despite the facts, the government's latest attempt to keep the narrative about terror where they want it has again succeeded. Ruth Kelly, Communities Secretary, has been at the head of the latest charge against the Muslim community. After calling for the debate on multiculturalism, she has since said that all "extremist" and "isolationist" Islamic schools should be "shut down". Schools shouldn't be "trying to change British society" (wonder what her Catholic friends make of that). The government has benefited from the similar peddled myth of extremist imams foaming at the mouth from pulpits across the country.

Liberals give-in on multiculturalism

Pro-war Rod Liddle commented in his Sunday Times column about how supposedly liberal left-leaning figures like Kelly and the head of the CRE had so suddenly become right-wing on the multiculturalism issue:

When an ICM poll of Britain’s Muslims in February this year revealed that some 40% (that is, about 800,000 people) wished to see Islamic law introduced in parts of Britain, the chairman of the Commission for Racial Equality responded by saying that they should therefore pack their bags and clear off. Sir Trevor Phillips’s exact words were these: “If you want to have laws decided in another way, you have to live somewhere else.”

My guess is this: if such a statement had been made by a member of the Tory party’s Monday Club in 1984 — or, for that matter, 1994 — he would have been excoriated and quite probably would have been kicked out of the party. “If you don’t like it here then go somewhere else” was once considered the apogee of “racism”. People who did not like it here were exhorted to exert their political muscle and change the status quo.

Similarly, Kelly, in her address to the commission that I mentioned earlier, said the following: “There are white Britons who do not feel comfortable with change. They see shops and restaurants in their town centres changing. They see their neighbourhoods becoming more diverse.”

Quite remarkable stuff, really. And motivated, I suppose, by the Labour party’s unhappy experiences in Barking and Dagenham, where the indigenous white working class voted en masse for the British National party at the last council elections. Margaret Hodge, Frank Field and Anne Cryer had earlier warned that resentment was growing swiftly within Labour’s traditional, but neglected, inner-city and white-flight blue-collar vote. But can you imagine it being uttered by anyone to the left of Ron Atkinson, the former television football pundit, 10 or even five years ago? It has the faint whiff of Enoch Powell about it.

The reason that many areas have concentrated Muslim populations is due to the dual influence of push-and-pull factors. Push, in terms of plush places like Kensington were slightly out of the economic reach of immigrants. Pull, in terms of what Liddle says is perfectly understandable from the white population - to be with people they have much in common with. When Brits go abroad, this is what they do. What Muslim immigrants didn't do here though, was throw anyone out. The phenomenon of "white flight" is all too little talked about. When ethnics move into the neighbourhood, the natives get on the move.

The call for Shariah in Britain

Liddle also spoke of shariah. The call for this has been a godsend for those who love bashing Muslims, even if it was only one "Muslim leader" that did so last week. On this, Shahid Malik has received a kicking from a rabbi for his aping of Trevor Phillips in telling Muslims to "go and live in Saudi" if they want shariah:

SHAHID MALIK MP has given an energetic response to Lord Ahmed’s charge that he — Malik — is doing the BNP’s work for them by telling Muslims who want to live under sharia law to “go and live somewhere where they have it” (News Review, last week).

Other minorities — including many Jews — would feel uncomfortable at Malik’s suggestion. Britain is our home. Why leave it? All legal systems evolve. If sharia or halacha (Jewish law) have something to contribute to British law then let the debate begin. That, surely, is what civilised societies do.

Rabbi Brian Fox
Menorah Synagogue
South Manchester

This call for shariah needs to be framed in terms of what exactly Muslims are asking for. The Guardian found even more Muslims than the Telegraph wanting it - 61%. However, Liddle and others wouldn't care to quote it because that poll actually defined what the respondents meant by shariah - civil matters like divorce, inheritance and custody. No one is calling for beheadings or stonings. Shariah already exists in many forms in this country. I am married under shariah, there are halal bank accounts, and meat is slaughtered according to Islamic law. It's nothing to panic about.

I would though strongly urge the calls for shariah enshrined in legislation to stop. They are only damaging the community and providing ammunition against us. The priority surely has to be making friends of the 53% of Britons who see Islam as a "threat". These calls for shariah do not help. If you want want your inheritance to be divided according to Islam, get a Will. If you want to safeguard yourself in event of a divorce, get a prenup. None of this will be enshrined in legislation any time soon, and it doesn't need to be. If some other area of legislation will benefit from change, then join with similar thinking non-Muslims in arguing its merits on a policy-by-policy basis.

Civil War from Bradford to Brick Lane

I would also point Muslims to an article by the historian Niall Ferguson in the Sunday Telegraph. He ponders what would have happened if the plot to hijack transatlantic airliners from Heathrow Airport was real and had succeeded. He says the country would have been ripped apart. The unity shown in the US behind George Bush following 9/11 would not have been matched here. Tony Blair's position would have become totally untenable.

Ferguson adds that on the streets however there would be "civil war" with "violent confrontation from Bradford to Brick Lane". It's a frightening prospect that doesn't seem altogether unlikely given the recent polls and the mobs of passengers objecting to flying with Muslims. The terror threat needs to be neutralised, but if the worst was to happen, we must as a country be ready to respond in the right way. The hate must stop.

Comments

[Abu Musa]

G O V E R N M E N T P O L I C Y:
NO SHARI’AH LAW IN BRITAIN
NO SHARI’AH LAW IN THE MUSLIM WORLD EITHER

MP Ruth Kelly attacked the concept of Shari’ah Law after it was suggested by members of the Muslim Community to be used in personal matters after ‘consultations’ about tackling ‘extremism’ – she stated the government was opposed to any form of law contrary to British civil law. Kelly said the government would not allow any other form of law - such as Islamic Shari’ah law for family use - "We are not going down that route. We don't think that's compatible with Britain being a tolerant, diverse society that welcomes people of different faiths."

Not surprisingly this attitude is not limited to Ruth Kelly, this anti-Islamic policy is part of Tony Blair’s policy. However though it may be understandable why Shari’ah Law may not be wanted by many in the UK - Government Policy goes a bit further than this.

Not only is it a policy to prevent Muslim in the UK from using Shari’ah Law all be it for personal use – for example, Marriage, Divorce, Inheritance… But it is also a policy to stop Shari’ah Law in the Muslim World as a whole.

Tony Blair after the 7/7 attacks on London, in his speech on the morning of Saturday 16th July 2005 stated what Britain must confront - “What we are confronting here is an evil ideology”. Blair went on to say: “This is the battle that must be won, a battle not just about the terrorist methods but their views. Not just their barbaric acts, but their barbaric ideas. Not only what they do but what they think and the thinking they would impose on others.”

So if ‘terrorist methods’ and it’s ‘barbaric acts’ are not the main issue then what views, (barbaric) ideas, and thinking does he have a problem with? Blair didn’t take long to get to the key points - “They demand the elimination of Israel; the withdrawal of all Westerners from Muslim countries, irrespective of the wishes of people and government; the establishment of effectively Taliban States and Shari’ah law in the Arab world en route to one Caliphate of all Muslim nations.”

1. Israel

The question of Israel has always been debated, even before its creation when Britain colonised the Muslim World and handed over colonised-Palestine to the Zionists (something Britain prefers not to go into). Jack Straw himself admitted in 2002 during an interview with the New Statesman that "A lot of the problems that we are having to deal with now - I have to deal with now - are a consequence of our colonial past." Mentioning the issue of Palestine, Straw stated "The Balfour declaration and the contradictory assurances which were being given to Palestinians in private at the same time as they were being given to the Israelis - again, an interesting history for us, but not an honourable one". The issues did not only affect Palestine, regarding the Indian Sub-Continent Straw said "India-Pakistan - we made some quite serious mistakes… We were complacent with what happened in Kashmir, the boundaries weren't published until two days after independence”. As for Iraq he said "the odd lines for Iraq's borders were drawn by Brits".

In effect Straw blamed most territorial problems on the illogical borders created by colonial powers.

Downing Street response to Mr Straw's remarks was that he made "a sensible statement of history".
2. Withdrawl from the Muslim World

Why is the withdrawal of Westerners (troops) from the Muslim World such a big request? Blair conveniently ignored the issue of troops, actual western soldiers being on Muslim soil as opposed to people in general. Britain tries to portray an image of a country that is no longer a colonial power. If this is the case why is there a need for western troops or as far as Blair’s remit goes British troops on Muslim territories… Isn’t this a bit dubious considering Britain’s colonialist past and it’s former Foreign Secretary’s admissions about that era?

Blair then had the audacity to cite some ‘spin’ that western troops are expected to leave “irrespective of the wishes of people and government”. Firstly the presence of non-Muslim Troops - subjugating, occupying, interfering on Muslim Soil is not permitted according to Islam, the majority of Sunni Orthodox Muslims will tell you this. Secondly a simple poll of the Muslim Populations will show Muslims say “no we don’t want western troops in our countries”. Thirdly what ‘governments’ is Blair on about??? Saudi? Kuwait? Oman? Egypt? Pakistan? Hardly ‘democracies’ are they Tony? It will only take a little look at various sensible statements of history to reveal who set up these ‘governments’ and who props them up.

3. Shari’ah law and one Caliphate of all Muslim nations

Blair mentions “Taliban States and Shari’ah Law”, effectively attempting to demonise Islam and Shari’ah Law by using the term Taliban States knowing fully well the amount of negative propaganda the media spewed out about the Taliban.

This is Blair’s attempt at telling the Muslim World what they can or cannot have as a system of government. Not only did Britain colonise the Muslim World and spearheaded the collapse of the last seat of the Caliphate, Blair is now proposing to tell Muslims what they should ‘think’ and bomb them into ‘democracy’ while unilaterally ruling out the establishment of an Islamic Caliphate.

Who is the real dictator? You would think Muslims were telling Blair what to do in his country, but on the contrary it’s Blair telling Muslims what to do in their countries! Frankly it’s none of Blair’s business what course the Muslims decide, neither is it up to him to bomb them into democracy, or to decide what is a good interpretation of Islam and what isn’t. Blair is not our Shaykh ul-Islam.

If there is any doubt about the how Blair’s policy should be viewed Charles Clarke clarified it in his 2005 speech to the Heritage Foundation in America: “There can be no negotiation about the re-creation of the Caliphate; there can be no negotiation about the imposition of Shari’ah law”

Conclusion

It is ironic how the Government would have Muslims believe that it is not in a “War against Islam” when it is against the very Shari’ah Law that Islam stands for. Neither allowing Muslims in the UK to use it in personal matters, nor in the Muslim World, as it actively sending British Troops into the Muslim World alongside US Troops to prevent any establishment of Shari’ah Law in Iraq and Afghanistan… interfering in Muslim Affairs with talk of a ‘new Middle-East’ with no Shari’ah Law and the choice of either having ‘Democracy’ shoved down our throats or being subjected Democro-Bombing.

By Abu Musa.

[Sunny]

Wow, Sunny agrees with Osama shock!

[Sunny]

Btw, another point:
For one, Al-Qaeda have regard for nobody's lives, and white people should not take it personally. US, UK, and Australian targets have been hit in Muslim countries, resulting in the deaths of many hundreds of their co-religionists. For Al-Qaeda, there are no rules to the game. They kill, and it doesn't matter about your creed or colour in pursuit of their goals.

This is something I've been saying from day one. However it's different from your previous assertions that Al-Qaeda did care about Muslim lives and their bombs were targeted only at western interests or people.

Now maybe you can also start acknowleding all the people who are being killed in Iraq by other Muslim suicide bombers.

[raashid]

I'd have to disagree with the notion of civil war in the UK. Perhaps, large scale reprisals directed at our community in the form of arson, vandalism and vigilante or simple thug attacks on Muslims may well happen possibly even with the tacit approval of the police, but it would be an exaggeration to call it a civil war. For a start Muslims number only 2% of the population, with little organisation or unity and have and have no access to weaponry to put up any sort of a fight with the wider populace. Ethnic cleansing is a more likely scenario for us to have to face.

[Osama]

Sunny, I've said before you'd be surprised how much we agree on.

I've never said that Al-Qaeda care about Muslim lives. What I have said is that the bombings they have carried out in Muslim countries have been targeted at Western interests, with Muslims being seen as collateral damage. The reason I have brought this up is due to right-wingers insistence that Muslim countries are just as much targets as Western ones. It's just not quite the case from a political perspective (important for solving the problem), but is from death figures perspective. More here,

Raashid, I tend to agree with your viewpoint that it wouldn't be civil war in that sense, but try to stay optimistic that it wouldn't reach the point of ethnic cleansing. It underscores the need for Muslims to explain themselves properly, engage more, and make more friends.

[Shavez]

If you don't have multiculturalism, you have one culture - monoculturalism. It's up to those arguing for it to explain exactly what that would mean, never mind how it would protect us from terror attacks.

[Sunny]

Sunny, I've said before you'd be surprised how much we agree on.

I think we agree on that we want the best for Muslims... but we have different views on how to get there. Your blind spot with regards to racist ultra-lefties like Lenin who you think actually care is disappointing, but then we can't have everything.

It's just not quite the case from a political perspective (important for solving the problem), but is from death figures perspective

It's not the case currently because these fighters need to recruit from those countries. But assuming they win, like they did in Afghanistan, who suffers the most then? Local Muslims do. You're thinking is short term in that if western elements were to move out of those countries, everything would be hunky dory.

Except, given the Al-Qaeda lot don't really care about Muslim lives either (or at least Muslims who don't agree with their extremely conservative views and they'll then view as having become kufr), peace and prosperity will never come to these countries unless the Al-Qaeda base and their ideology of using violence for political aims is de-legitimised. So the local Muslims, if not being terrorised by American bombs, will be terrorised by local "moral squads" enforced by them.

If you want choice for them to be able to not live under western imposed puppet govts, then you have to give them the choice not live under Taliban style mob-rule dictatorships too.

[James O]

The only reason Al-Quada and similar groups possess a base of support and recruitment is because of Western involvement and interference in the Muslim world.
The anti-war movement is founded on the basis that Muslims in Afghanistan and Iraq - and non-Muslims populations elsewhere in the world such as Haiti - have the right to choose their own form of government. At the moment they are prevented from doing so by Western occupation, and it's a convenient bogeyman to assert that the only alternative is 'Al-Quada' government. Specifically in Iraq the main thrust of the resistance is nationalist and aimed at the occupiers. The elements similar to Al-Quada are a marginal fringe, and have come into conflict witht eh main Iraqi resistance for targeting civilians and fighting a sectarian anti-Shia campaign.

[Bridget Dunne]

Hi Osama

We at the July 7th Truth Campaign have launched a petition calling on the Government to Release the Evidence that conclusively proves the findings of the narrative.

To date, no evidence exists in the public domain that would stand in a court of law to convict the 4 accused.

John Reid has announced to Parliament that the narrative is incorrect, namely the train time from Luton, a fact that the J7 campagn had researched and brought to the public's attention.

We invite you to sign the petition and distribute widely, thanks.

http://www.petitiononline.com/j7truth/petition.html

[lenin]

Your blind spot with regards to racist ultra-lefties like Lenin who you think actually care is disappointing

I don't mind being called an 'ultra-leftie', whatever that is, but why am I a 'racist'? What have I ever said or done to invite that claim? I'm not complaining, merely seriously perplexed. And what makes you think I don't care? Do you think I expend acres of verbiage on such matters out of sheer indifference? Are you sure this isn't sour grapes over a spat we had on another blog some months back, Sunny?

[Sunny]

The only reason Al-Quada and similar groups possess a base of support and recruitment is because of Western involvement and interference in the Muslim world.

Which is of course complete rubbish, since they can also grow out of local politicking. The Taliban were massively helped by the ISI, who also funded to help the proxy war in Kashmir become a major conflict instead of the localised one it was.
And this analysis also neglects to mention that many of these groups came out of resistance to local dictatorships. Saddam Hussain may have been helped by the west but he wasn't their creation.

And this is no way justifies the western intervention there because I do see it as a form of neo-imperialism, but I know enough about religious fanaticism to know it's always there and doesn't need western interference to spark it off. Hindu chauvanism in India is a great example of this.

Are you sure this isn't sour grapes over a spat we had on another blog some months back

Sour grapes? Errr no. Although that conversation did highlight something very illuminating to me. Seeing the recent discourse over Lebanon has also brought to the fore-front, in my mind anyway, the patronising and racist nature of the far left in this country.
I'll put you out of your misery soon enough with a proper explanation.

[James O]

I was talking about Al-Quada, not the Taliban; the first is a small conspiratorial group (or groups) the second a mass organisation based on tribal and religious loyalties, although their notion of an 'islamic state'is similar. Not all Islamist groups are the same; in Iraq and Sudan different Islamists are fighting on different sides. Fusing them all together is convenient for you but doesn't explain why and under what circumstances they come to power.

Check out the opinion polls in both the Muslim world and Christian latin america for their sympathy with the 9/11 attacks. Of course - as is obvious from reading my post - I didn't claim groups of this kind originated in the West, but that continued Western Imperialism gave them a base of popular support they would otherwise lack. Hamas and Hizbollah (although neither should be compared to Al-Quada) both receive the support of the majority of Palestinian and Lebanese because they defend their countries against israeli occupation. On the opposite side, the far-right Islamist groups in Iraq lack support because they have attempted to fight a Sunni-Shia war rather than oppose the occupation, in contrast to the mainstream resistance groups.

'And this analysis also neglects to mention that many of these groups came out of resistance to local dictatorships'

Most dictatorships in the region have been installed and supported by the West, as all except Syria and Iran now are. I included this in my reference to western involvement; unless of course you believe it's the fault of the Arab and Muslim peoples that the West has helped their dictators stay in power.

'I know enough about religious fanaticism to know it's always there and doesn't need western interference to spark it off'

Again, I wasn't refering to general religious fanaticism - and until this post neither were you; the subject was specifically Al-Quada and other groups which target Western countries or interests. At the same time, it's obvious that popular support for a reactionary group (such as the brief popularity of the Taliban when they defeated the warlords) derives from the material circumstances in the Mideast, and not some vague nebulous cultural background.

'I'll put you out of your misery soon enough with a proper explanation.'

That's good to know, Because leaving random and unsubstantiated slurs like this is both pretty cheap and very cowardly.

[Osama]

Sunny, it rather a bold claim you've made against lenin. I've read his stuff for quite a while now and I've never come across a whiff of racism.

I suspect though that it's nothing personal against lenin himself, but your ire is aimed at his comrades on the left. Maybe your 'leftist' thinking is more along the lines of your minority friends at HP. I look forward to your contrived efforts to pin racism on lenin and co.

Regarding your other point, Al-Qaeda will never take over a nation state. Afghanistan was unique circumstance where all national institutions had collapsed after decades of war and destruction. It's not going to happen in Jordan, Egypt, Iraq, Turkey or anywhere else through bombing. Regarding the form of Islam they promote, this Khawarijite thinking has existed since the beginning of Islam. It's still at the fringes.

[Sunny]

First, James O

I was talking about Al-Quada, not the Taliban; the first is a small conspiratorial group (or groups) the second a mass organisation based on tribal and religious loyalties, although their notion of an 'islamic state'is similar

I think you're muddling yourself up. Al-Qaeda is more an ideology and a loose network of groups than specific people. So they may include some parts of the Taliban, while others from the Taliban were quite suspicious of the Arabs.

I'm conflating them deliberately, because there was significant overlap in their aims (theocratic state), methods and ideology. Other than geographic differences, if you can tell me more I'd be willing to take your point.

that continued Western Imperialism gave them a base of popular support they would otherwise lack.
I didn't disagree with that.

both receive the support of the majority of Palestinian and Lebanese because they defend their countries against israeli occupation.

That is too simplistic an analysis, and missed why Syria and Egypt have deliberately kept the Lebanese state weak while arming Lebanon for their own purpose. See this article:
http://www.opendemocracy.net/conflict-middle_east_politics/europe_left_3815.jsp
particularly, from 'The Progressive case'. But I suspect you'll continue to ignore that and go along with your simplistic analysis.

It's the same argument that is used in India - that the RSS and Shiv Sena are powerful because they provide local humanitarian support. But it misses their general politicking.

unless of course you believe it's the fault of the Arab and Muslim peoples that the West has helped their dictators stay in power.

I believe that there are Muslims in the west who complain, and there are groups in the Middle East who complain, but also believe that the vast majority of Imams in ME and the people are happy with the status quo. Otherwise the imams would be taking out regular fatwas against their rulers - but they're not.

the subject was specifically Al-Quada and other groups which target Western countries or interests.
.... who grow out of a climate of general religious fanaticism due to specific political events. Humans are generally predictable.

Osama:
I look forward to your contrived efforts to pin racism on lenin and co.
By all means. I'm always open to people disagreeing with me.

Afghanistan was unique circumstance where all national institutions had collapsed after decades of war and destruction.

So does this mean you want to those 'western installed dictators' to remain or go? Or what about the House of Saud? The Afghanistan situation wasn't exactly unique, it is happening in Somalia now. Maybe it'll happen in Eretria after. And the religious parties are hankering to bring down Musharraf in Pakistan. The Muslim Brotherhood parties are itching to take over Egypt.

Your answer seems to betray some sort of confusion here. The only think stopping an Al-Qaeda driven party taking over from one of the ME states is that they have strong dictatorships in place. Sometimes supported by the US (Egypt, Jordan) and sometimes with the support of the local Imams (Syria, Saudi Arabia).

Do you want those dictatorships to remain or go? Or do you want some sort of a democracy there? Or a Khalifah?

[joe90]

Humans are generally predictable

Really? That really is news - care to make any predictions about the future then?

Al Quieda grew out of CIA support - and I always thought they were a bunch of loonies as well, the CIA I mean, not Al Quaeda.

The reason people resort to violence is because they aren't being heard, or they are being deliberately suppressed -

It wasn't too long ago that the big threat we faced in the West, from the Middle East (no apolgies for having to use terminology here - but I have to use something people will recognise) was all this radical Arab nationlism, when Nasser became a Hitler figure.

As for Imams and everybody is delighted and happy in the Middle East, how do you know?
- that fact that US puppet dictatorships and all their squalid apparatus of oppression is required to stop people expressing an opinion means that people there aren't happy!

Different excuse today but still the same old propaganda rubbish!

The fact that Palstinians, for instance, vote and support Hamas is because their religion is the only thing they have left that hasn't been stolen, occupied, deliberately destroyed, vandalised, put in prison, exiled, executed etc etc -
- the only other thing they have left is their own bodies!

[DrM]

Any doubt that Sunny is an charlatan have been put to rest with his smear of Lenin. I'm not a fan of far left politics but the man is no racist.

[James O]

'I think you're muddling yourself up'

On the contrary, you opened your first post by deliberately confusing the two groups. Aside from their obvious difference in organisation, the Taliban is all-Afghan, and draws on mass tribal and ethnic loyalties whereas Al-Quada and similar groups recruit individuals from across the entire Muslim world, and from countries run by Western-supported dictators.

'that the RSS and Shiv Sena are powerful because they provide local humanitarian support'

No, you've entirely ignored my argument here, which is becoming a consistant feature of your postings. Hamas and Hizbollah's support does not derive purely from their social welfare services but from the fact they are the most effective defenders of their country. Hizbollah 87% support during the most recent war indicates that, and included Christians and Sunni whom did not benefit from their humanitarian services: this was the argument I made and you've failed to produce any evidence to contradict it. The Hindu far right havce not been defending their countries from foreign occupation but launching attacks on Indian Muslims. That you compare neo-fascist movement like the RSS with broad-based movements like Hizbollah, whom work with the Lebanese CP, shows how warped and ignorant your anaylsis is.

'I believe that there are Muslims in the west who complain, and there are groups in the Middle East who complain'

So, Muslims who raise questions about the western support for the dictatorial regimes are 'complaining'. This is the authentic voice of colonial condescencion and racism.

'also believe that the vast majority of Imams in ME and the people are happy with the status quo'

There is of course, no evidence given to support this, and much to the contrary such as the recent anti-war and anti-Mubarak protests by a resurgent Egyptian left. I doubt any Muslim living in the mideast would agree with you; presumably you'd just tell him to stop complaining, eh?

'Otherwise the imams would be taking out regular fatwas against their rulers'

Living under dictatorships tend to inhibit their freedom of speech. However, this underlines the point I make below that, given only a minority of Imans support opposition it necessarily follows that opposition groups emerge due to political conditions rather than nebulous 'religious fanaticism.'

'who grow out of a climate of general religious fanaticism due to specific political events'

This is a deeply confused argument. Anti-western groups do not grow out a climate of religious fanatacism weed-like; they grow directly from the circumstances of Western occupation and supporting dictators across the region. the West has a long history of collaborating with reactionary Islamist groups and states, most recently in Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan and Bosnia. There's no given that Islamism is anti-western. That interpretation of Islam by Al-Quada and other groups is derived directly from political conditions, especially when remembered that a large number of the 9/11 were Saudis whom, if their cause was purely religious, should have had no issue with their own government, whereas of course their issue was that the Saudi regime has been and remains a western puppet state.

[Osama]

Your answer seems to betray some sort of confusion here.

No, by lumping Al-Qaeda, Taliban and the Muslim Brotherhood together, truly you are the one confused.

[joe90]

James O,
you are a joy to read!

PS
I notice Osama has published a new photo of himself at the top of the shop - I never realised he was so handsome!

[Sunny]

Oh for gods sake, why am I engaging even with imbeciles. Osama - my points were to you, not James or Joe. Would help if if you answered the questions I put to you.

To however quickly deal with James:
On the contrary, you opened your first post by deliberately confusing the two groups.
No I didn't. I'm perfectly aware of their differences. I'm pointing out their similarities. They have differences and they have similarities. Improve your english.

The Hindu far right havce not been defending their countries from foreign occupation but launching attacks on Indian Muslims.

This perfectly explains why you're so ignorant. Try reading what the RSS/VHP crew put out before insulting my intelligence with such drivel.

That you compare neo-fascist movement like the RSS with broad-based movements like Hizbollah, whom work with the Lebanese CP, shows how warped and ignorant your anaylsis is.

Again - your stupidity and ignorance knows no bounds either. In case you are not aware, the RSS is also a broad based movement (called the Sangh Parivar) which includes religious arms (the VHP), politcs (the BJP), students groups andcharity groups. This is why I hate debating with imbeciles. They waste your time.

This is a deeply confused argument. Anti-western groups do not grow out a climate of religious fanatacism weed-like;

No it's not. I said the political movements draw support from religious fanatics. Most political movements against imperialism are not religious in nature. In India the Hindus and Muslims and Sikhs collaborated against the British. It's only later on when religious fanatics joined the bandwagon, that the anti-British struggle took on a decidely religious tone as Hindu revivalist movements became anti-imperialistic and some even grew into the RSS/BJP/VHP triumvirate.

If you're going to try and come back to me, please learn more history than simply fitting events into your narrow anti-imperialist analysis.

[thabet]

the West has a long history of collaborating with reactionary Islamist groups and states
Saudi Arabia is not an 'Islamist' state. If the word 'Islamist' is to have any meaning it must be limited to those that either believe Islam is a political party; or those groups who weld a modern conception of politics and political space (i.e. party politics, elections, constitutions, etc.) with "Islam" (e.g. Islamic law). This latter definition would make 99% of Muslims "Islamists" so the word itself is might become meaningless. More strictly, Islamists are those whose vision of an Islamic state is the modern-nation state ruled through the use of Islamic law, whereas this centralising feature of the modern state can come into ideological conflict with the more traditional view of Islam's legal structures.

Saudi Arabia is not even a theocracy, but a monarchy, where the religious classes are subordinate to the political authorities. The only theocracy I can see in operation today is Iran; and even Khomeini's 'rule by jurists' is a novel, modern, concept which is disputed by Ithna Ashari Shi'is (e.g. Sistani does not accept this doctrine).

Al-Quada and other groups is derived directly from political conditions
Although political conditions, which do involve foreign policies of the US and UK, do allow "al-Qaeda" to "breed" (as it were), I am unvoncined that the removal of such foreign interference and political problems would remove such ideas from amongst Muslims. Afghanistan, where the "liberators" turned on each other, is a good example of this. As much as many Muslims might not like to admit it, Nasr, al-Saud, Saddam, al-Assad et al. are products of their own culture; "the West" can only deal with people who are already there.

[joe90]

The Saudi state is a fraudulent American puppet regime and has about as much to do with any real religion as George Bush has to do with real democracy ie not much.

The only reason these two religious fundamentalist regimes are in power is because of they both represent corporate interests - and if by religion you mean the one true religion of the west, whose temple is Wall Street then yes, both the House of Fraud and George Bush are fundamentalist worshippers of greed and money.

And the only reason people are using their religion as a vehicle for their politics is because their political organisations are sytematically destroyed by the western powers and their puppet regimes in the west.

First, the threat to the west was the pesky old radical nationalism exemplified by the then Hitler of his day, the great Nasser

So, radical nationalism had to be smashed and now the people in the 'East' use different ways to express their political views, and one of the ways is through religious organisations.

The quintessential example of this ongoing process is the Palestinian People who have nothing left except their own bodies to use as bomb delivery systems and their religion - there is nothing left to them that the west hasn't illegally deprived them of.

As usual blame the victims!

And don't call me an imbicile mr overwrought and emotional - you hate debating with imbiciles, I know the feeling!

[joe90]

thabet mate,
there is the theocracy of the US, don't forget that fundamentalist Christian state !

I gather George Bush still isn't the leagl President because he added the words 'so help me god' onto to the oath of office he swore to in public - that is unconstitutional and makes his presidency null and void, again!

[Sunny]

First, the threat to the west was the pesky old radical nationalism exemplified by the then Hitler of his day, the great Nasser

So, radical nationalism had to be smashed a

I know! Pesky Hitler with his pesky radical nationalism! If only he'd destroyed the American state then you idiotic SWPers would be so happy.

This is why I don't like debating with people like you Joe. Pseudo-intellectuals who try and reduce everything to a global class war or anti-American sentiment.

In case you weren't aware, probably because us brownies weren't so important then, where was a time during the Cold War when Pakistan was closely allied with the USA and India with the Soviet Union. The Pakistan mullahs are less friendly towards the US now but at the time they were quite happy with the attention so they could direct their diatribe towards the "godless" state of India and its alliance with the Soviet Union. I wonder what you would have made of the state of affairs then.

Now of course it's convenient that all this anti-American sentiment is only a result of American action and nothing to do with the fact these elements existed before, sometimes helped and funded by the States.

Sheesh.

[joe90]

Sorry mr sunny delight,

but is there something you're trying to tell me, apart from the fact you have no arguments to counter mine ?

'Anti-American sentiment' - that is PC for 'I have no arguments to refute yours, so I'll just accuse you of something that doesn't really exist, or can't be defined'

Shoosh!