You know you're an Islamophobe when...

I've been sent a link to an article by a Tom Gallagher at Open Democracy about the attack on Glasgow Airport and the Scottish Muslim and Nationalist reaction to it.

A universal sense of shock was followed by vigorous official efforts to build bridges to the country's approximately 60,000 Muslims. A week later, on 7 July, the cream of Scotland's establishment gathered in George Square in Glasgow's heart to offer them protection and reassurance. The institutions represented included the ruling Scottish National Party (SNP), the police, the Church of Scotland, the trade unions, and the vocal anti-war movement ...

Muslims at the 1,500-strong rally mixed freely with the representatives of political and lobbying groups who made up the bulk of the crowd. The central spot was reserved for Osama Saeed, an articulate young Muslim activist (and former SNP candidate) whose intensity and fluency have made him a sought-after guide to the mood and concerns of Scotland's Muslims since the airport attack.

Gallagher goes on to say that anything I've said however, could be subject to taqiyya. This is a word I first came across at Harry's Place a couple of years ago when I was engaged with someone in the comments section, only to be accused of this. I had to go and look the word up.

So Muslims are now in a lose-lose situation. Say the wrong thing (or something that can be uncharitably construed) and get pilloried. Say the right thing and get accused of lying.

Speaking of Harry's Place, David Taub has had a "By jove, I think he's got it!" moment. Commenting on Inayat Bunglawala's CiF article about the likely formation of a future caliphate based on democratic principles and human rights (as any Islamic state worth the name should), he's realised Inayat B is not a fascist.

I wrote a similar piece a couple of years ago in the Guardian, for which T labelled me a "clerical fascist" for saying that in future years, based on democratic reform and economic advancement, the Muslim world may unite just as Europe has. Taub now says this is probably best described as religious conservatism rather than fascism. He is constrained by his own boxes, because looking at the state of the Muslim world at the moment, I'd just call it serious progress.

Comments

[Sohaib]

Apparently Harry's Place blocks links coming from your blog.

But I got it to display just by clicking in the address bar and pressing Enter, so it would just access the site afresh.

Pretty pathetic of HP. They do it to Islamophobia Watch too.

[Sohaib]

There's really no point arguing with someone who commits himself to not trusting you. This applies on the level of collective discourse as much as it does to an individual confrontation.

[raashid]

It's true, when Muslims say things that confirm an Islamophobe's prejudices they say "take them Islamists at their own word". When Muslims say things that don't fit in with their prejudices they say "but can we really believe a bunch of lying Ay-rabs?".

[Osama]

Thought it would be worth posting something from John Palubiski who regular readers may remember from the comments section here.

I banned him a while back for repeatedly lying, the most comical example of which was to cite "many reliable history sources" showing that the Prophet (pbuh) drank wine. Upon pressing, it turned out that these sources were actually a "first rate wine guide". Anyway, here's his take on me, posted at HP:

Osama is islamist to the point of mental illness.

There isn't any point in asking him to denounce the atrocities, because any denunciation would be motivated by utilitarian concerns instead of being prompted by moral revulsion...something a healthy mind would immediately and instinctively feel.

For heavan's sakes, he's still prattling on about the "oppression" of banning hijabs at soccer meets.

Golden oldies.

Osama's Sindh Hindu/Buddhist ancestors were brutally enslaved cenutries ago by invading Arab armies.

"Saeed" is to a South Asian what "Williams" or "Clay" are to an African American, or "Martinez" to a modern, full-blood Mayan.

It is his assigned slave name.

The poor fellow, thus, clings to his Islamic identity for dear life because that's all he's got left.

His origins and real identity a blank white-wash like the austere ceilings of a waha-mosques.

Imagine the angst, imagine being deprived of the continunity and time-frame reference points that identity and origins provide?

Pathetic.

[thabet]

An American blogger once asked me if Harry's Place was affiliated with the BNP!

The Comment is free blogger Daniel Davies (aka dsquared) came up with "Little Green Soccer Balls" to describe HP; seems apt if you read the comments and consider their tactics of banning people they disagree with and blocking links from bloggers they dislike.

FYI:
Tom Gallagher is a professor of of ethnic conflict and peace, who is "an authority on religion as a source of conflict in modern Europe".

[joe90]

I make it a personal rule never to mention these neo-nazi sewers by name, unless absolutely necessary.

I also never visit them unless asked to by people I know and respect - I then have to go for a bath afterwards when I'm done.

[Osama]

I saw Nick Cohen on Littlejohn's documentary this week bemoaning, rightly, that people emailed him after his articles saying that he only had those opinions because he's Jewish. Imagine they emailed him to tell him he was a liar because of his faith. Play the ball, not the man.

[johnmellor77]

You don't really help yourself though, do you Osama?

http://www.osamasaeed.org/osama/2007/03/the_terrorism_m.html#comment-65351826

Is there another Osama Saeed, spokesman for the MAB, that's been in all the papers since April 4?

And you still claim resist and defy mean co-operate! Why should people take what you say at face value?

[Martin Sullivan]

Harry's Place also blocks from Islamophobia Watch. The way round it, we've found, is to redirect links via http://tinylink.com

[David T]

Dear Osama

I have read your article in the Guardian on the Caliphate.

Can you tell me whether your vision of an ideal Caliphate would meet the internationally recognised human rights standards of the European Convention of Human Rights?

In particular, would it:

- hold at that that the evidence of men and women had equal weight in a court of law.
- grant all citizens full democratic rights which are absolutely equal: not "separate but equal".
- open all official posts, including the Caliphate itself, to women and non-muslims.
- grant women legal protection from, and not made subject to, formal or substantive discrimination.
- not interfere with the right to privacy: and in particular permit women to associate with non-related men unchaperoned, and permit women to veil themselves, or not to veil themselves, as they choose.
- permit members of all religions the freedom to change their religions, and to proselytize, and not subject them to punishment for doing so; either on the grounds that they were apostates or on the basis that they were committing a form of treason or sedition?

Would it generally permit citizens the right to choose the laws which govern them, restricted only by such internationally recognised human rights norms as those embodied in the European Convention?

I would like to understand better the nature of the Sharia and the Caliphate which you regard as the ideal form of government.

In the post linked to in this comment, I have been arguing that there is no reason that a Sharia-governed Caliphate could not meet all these norms. I say this, because I believe that religious texts are not set in stone, and that what matters is what people believe them to mandate.

It would therefore be helpful to know whether your understanding of an ideal Caliphate and Sharia - one which you would support and work to create - would have these characteristics.

I am looking forward to a fruitful discussion of these issues.

[JDsg]

Gallagher goes on to say that anything I've said however, could be subject to taqiyya.

Welcome to the club. I've been accused of taqiyya several times. Say something they like and you're telling the truth; say something they dislike and it's taqiyya.

[Thersites]

Nick Cohen objected to people saying that he only had those opinions because he's Jewish because he isn't jewish, actually.

How is a caliphate based on "democratic principles and human rights" going to differ from any other state "democratic principles and human rights"? Or are we to take it that the UK and other EU countries are actually caliphates without knowing?

[joe90]

Can you tell me whether your vision of an ideal Caliphate would meet the internationally recognised human rights standards of the European Convention of Human Rights?

- and -

Would it generally permit citizens the right to choose the laws which govern them, restricted only by such internationally recognised human rights norms as those embodied in the European Convention?

- since when has the US or Israel bothered their arse about the UN and international law and order - does the US or Israel currently meet any of these standards?

Israel alone has over 130 outstanding UN Resolutions to its name - and the US government, just for instance, has passed a law that allows itself to invade Holland if an American citizen is put on trial in the Hague.

There is also the small matter of the recent 'unprovked aggression' against Iraq by the US and UK - the worst crime that it is possible to commit.

Still
lets stick to discussing non-existent future hypotheticals - in contrast to dealing with real crimes, our crimes, committed by real mass-murderers by real modern day Hitlers such as Bush and Blair.

The EU?
That's the organisation which claims to be democratic etc - but is currently involved in boycotting Occupied Palestinians for voting for whom they pleased in recent elections.

Also, the EU supplies the 'Jewish state' of Israel with all sorts of help - is the EU anti-democratic and anti-UN without knowing it?

I've got my own ideas about an ideal state and future utopia - if anybody fancy's being bored to death, I'll tell them all about it.

I love it when neo-nazis start drooling over stuff that doesn't exist, such as Iraqi WMD - it's the only stuff they know anything about.

[joe90]

If this caliphate was to exist and was to be based on
democratic principles and human rights
then it would be a damned sight freer and more just that the UK, the US, Israel and the EU all put together.

Then of course,
silly me - I actually look at what these henious organisations above actually get up to in the real world, rather than just believing the words that comes out of their spokespersons' mouths or just bovinely taking in their awful inane propaganda about their mission to sponsor and strengthen democracy and freedom throughtout the world etc etc puke puke...

[Greg Potemkin]

Someone help me out here - isn't taqiyya a Shi'a thing? Wasn't the use of it designed to allow Shi'as to dissemulate only in order to avoid persecution as a minority faith in the wider islamic world?

Incidentally, if anyone is interested in a Catholic perspective on when and how deceit is justified, he might want to read this explanation:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10195b.htm

[Thersites]

"If this caliphate was to exist and was to be based on
democratic principles and human rights
then it would be a damned sight freer and more just that the UK, the US, Israel and the EU all put together."
Well, Joe90, the questions remain, can a caliphate, a society based on islamic principles- such as the belief that humans are slaves of god, that men are "superior" to women, that muslims are the best of mankind, for a few examples- be based on democratic principles as well and can such an organisation- which claims that divine rights, as revealed in the quran, supercede human rights as defined by humans, or it stops being islamic- be based on human rights according to any but very specifically islamic definitions of human rights?

[Osama]

John Mellor, at that time you asked me a question and you wanted an answer on behalf of MAB. I stated I could not speak on behalf of MAB on it, but answered your point in a personal capacity. I can't speak on behalf of the org to every troll that visits my personal website. Frankly, the internal workings of MAB are none of your business, and I also can't understand what kind of point you're trying to make, or how you think I in any way I benefited from telling you this.

David T, (this is what I posted on your blog) the ECHR is something I can sign up to, and is an excellent basis for moving forward. I'm not sure why you've assumed fascist tendencies for years, but I'm someone born and brought up in this country, and I love and am grateful for the freedoms we enjoy. In fact I campaign for these freedoms to be safeguarded from those who would take them away.

If someone wanted to live in a tinpot dictatorship in the Muslim world, they don't need to aspire to it - they just need to move to Saudi Arabia as it stands.

I would like to see reform and advancement in the Muslim world. I've skimmed through Ian Bremmer's recent book the J Curve, and plan to go through it in depth soon. The basic point is that open societies are the ones that are most stable and therefore most successful. This is the basis for success.

Where I think things often get confused is between secularisation and democratisation. The former is not a precondition for the latter. To insist on clearing Islam from the Muslim world would be a pointless and ultimately futile exercise. Much better to point to the democratic elements within the faith and accentuate them.

That this vision is a million miles off in the Muslim world is a cause for great sadness. It seems like a pointless debate given the backwardness the region in mired in. But then there is always hope that things can change rapidly.

Greg, you are right, it is a shia concept. I don't know how widely it is used, but displays yet again the ignorance of those Islamophobes using the word.

[johnmellor77]

"Well I'm not spokesman for MAB any longer" is a pretty clear statement and one that is miles away from your claim to be answering a question in a personal capacity.

Don't know about taqiyya but you don't half talk a lot of shite.

[Osama]

My goodness, you really are quite a bitter man :s

[David T]

Osama

David T, (this is what I posted on your blog) the ECHR is something I can sign up to, and is an excellent basis for moving forward.

I think you misunderstand the question I'm asking you. Or perhaps I misunderstand your answer.

What I am asking is whether your vision of an ideal Caliphate would meet the conditions that I have set out above.

When you say "moving forward", do you mean that we should "move forward" to an end point: i.e. a state which has all the characteristics which I have set out above?

Or, when you talk about your vision of an ideal Caliphate, do you have some other end point in mind?

If the state which I have described above does not conform with your vision of an ideal Caliphate, can you tell me what your ideal Caliphate would look like? In what way would it be materially different from the state I have described above?

[David T]

Where I think things often get confused is between secularisation and democratisation. The former is not a precondition for the latter. To insist on clearing Islam from the Muslim world would be a pointless and ultimately futile exercise. Much better to point to the democratic elements within the faith and accentuate them.

I understand that.

You appreciate, however, that there are political theorists who have posited a state premised upon what they take to be the requirements of Islam and Sharia. The state which those jurists have envisioned would not meet the tests which I have described in my first post on this thread.

However, what I am asking about is your ideal vision of a state governed by Islamic principles: that is, a state which you would like to see created.

In short: do you think that the democratic elements within Islam can be accentuated so that they meet all of the tests which I have set out above, and in a way which does not limit or undermine the characteristics which I have described above?

To avoid confusion, my answer to that question is: yes.

What is yours?

[Osama]

David, I think I've been quite clear on this. The answer is indeed, yes.

[johnmellor77]

Resorting to insults already?

[David T]

Thank you Osama.

Can I ask three questions, in that case.

In what way are you a supporter of anything other than liberal democracy?

Secondly, why don't you pitch an article to the Guardian, or simply do a post on your website, which explains that by a Caliphate, what you mean is a liberal democracy, which has all the features that we have been discussing?

Thirdly, it would be useful to hear your critiques of those political groupings with which you must be in profound ideological conflict, which do not aspire to create or maintain a liberal democratic state. I am thinking, not only of groups like Hizbollah and Hamas, and those who have made their opposition to liberal democracy in Iraq very clear, but of parties like the Socialist Workers' Party and the Communist Party of Britain, who are active in the Stop the War Coalition.

We may find that, instead of being in apparent conflict on these issues, we are in fact in very deep agreement.

[Osama]

1. I'm a supporter of the kind of open society we both live in. There's a history of how Western Europe arrived at this destination involving the Enlightenment etc. The process in the Islamic world will probably not be along the same lines, will be based on faith, but the end result should be an open society nonetheless albeit with God more central to things than He is in Europe.

2. You don't seem to like my previous article on the Caliphate! I did make it quite clear about the rights based issue in it. In any case, I've got a million priorities when it comes to my spare time political and writing life than talking about this pie in the sky stuff, and I'm probably not the best and most knowledgeable person on the issue. My original piece two years ago in the Guardian was in direct response to comments made by Charles Clarke and Tony Blair about it. I won't go into details on how my previous stuff got into the Guardian a couple of years ago, but have no idea how I would go about that now anyway (maybe you could advise!). Nonetheless I am planning on writing something in the not too distant future about freedom within Islam. Just doing a bit more research.

3. I know a little bit to varying degrees about the organisations you've mentioned. Not enough to write with any authority on any of them. I would suggest though a little bit more knowledge and dialogue would go along way on all fronts. A couple of days ago you were thinking I was a fascist.

In the Middle East too, I do not think it is these groups which are holding back this process. None of them are even in power. At worst we could say that they would be as bad as the current regimes. What is needed though is public understanding of what an open society would entail. The key thing is not to conduct a witch hunt against specific people and groups, but to talk about how the societies themselves can be shifted and empowered. And that's not an easy one - hence my reluctance to talk about it in too much depth. What's the solution?