Time for Muslims to cry freedom

Extract from my speech to the MAB and UKIM Scottish conference held on 5-6 August in Glasgow.

It’s been a tough year for the Muslim community. But when is any particular twelve months not tough for Muslims?

The good news is that the mendacity of the Blair era is at an end. There are new administrations in Westminster and Holyrood, a chance for a fresh start.

Tony Blair believed that the focus had to be kept on the Muslim community in order to divert attention from his foreign policy. The calls for Muslims to do more couldn’t be substantiated – as much as we’d love to be heroes we cannot do more - and thus descended to attacks on our beliefs and practices. We had regular initiatives from his government such as asking Muslim parents to spy on their children, for teachers to spy on their pupils, and government ministers telling their Muslim constituents to wear clothes that would make the minister feel more ‘comfortable’.

What was forgotten was the idea in our society that you can do as you please, as long as you do not bring harm to others. These principles have been all too easily forgotten in recent times. It led us to the remarkable situation where Muslims were having to dole out lessons to the government about liberalism.

But it is these notions of freedom which should be guiding lights for Muslims in the times ahead. And these liberties are not disconnected from the terror threat we face.

It is the lack of legitimate political space in the Muslim world that has driven people to crazy acts of violence. Democracy if it is about anything is about hope. Take it away, and you get what we’ve now got.

One of the many strange taunts against the Muslim community is that if we don’t like the curbs on liberties in this country, and if we like Islam so much, then why don’t we go and live in Saudi Arabia. It’s time we separated ourselves in the minds of the public from regimes like the Saudis, the Egyptians and the Syrians.

Many Muslims actually live in this country today because of the repressiveness of the these regimes. We need the Muslim world to go back to the founding principles of Islam. We don’t need lessons in democracy, we invented democracy. Ideas such as picking leaders on merit rather than birthright, accountability of those leaders, consultation, freedom of conscience, these were all facets of Islamic civilisation 1400 years ago.

Islam spread because it smashed tyranny. It didn’t replace one set of repression with another. Societies were opened up, and back then this was the revolutionary idea. La ikraha fid-deen, there is no compulsion in religion. Somewhere along the line, this all got lost. And now, still, if we look around the world, it is the open societies that are the strong ones.

Dictatorships are by their nature unstable. But worse, they stifle speech, and therefore they stifle creativity. Societies that are not creative, not innovative, cannot be successful. The Muslim world was once at the cutting edge of science, maths, astronomy and inventions. The Muslim world was at its strongest when it was at its most open.

The vision that has to be set out is of an open Middle East, moving forward economically, socially and in education. In a decade or two, given the rich talents, history, and natural resources in the area, there is no reason that it cannot be as major a powerhouse globally as the EU, US and China.

And it’s this vision that Muslims in the West are uniquely placed to help realise. In all the West’s attempts in recent years to modernise the Muslim world, they have ignored their greatest assets – the Muslims that were born and bred in their countries. We understand the psychology of the Muslim world, we obviously understand the West. If anyone can bridge East and West, and help avoid the clash of civilisations, it is us.

So we lay down this offer to Gordon Brown and to Alex Salmond. Reform in the Muslim world isn’t just right for our security, it’s right for the people of those regions. We’re ready to do whatever we can to help achieve this.

What we need though is single standards, not double standards. To lead by example, not hypocrisy. Global interests, not self-interest. Ideas, not war.

Comments

[AJ]

"It is the lack of legitimate political space in the Muslim world that has driven people to crazy acts of violence"

So now its our fault that were getting attacked, by doing things to prevent the attacks occurring?

Always someone elses fault.

[Thersites]

Well, democracy is a Greek word dating back over a thousand years before Mohammed. Democracy is all about the rule of the people by the people. It has nothing at all to do with hope or "picking leaders on merit". Furthermore,islam did not permit consultation except among a very few muslims only and if it permitted freedom of conscience it was only because the conscience cannot be seen and controlled while lack of compulsion in religion applied only to a very few religions and only if their followers were willing to acquiesce in a subject status. The best that can be said for early islamic civilisation was that it replaced ones which were even worse.

[joe90]

Exactly how long did this 'ancient Greek democracy last' and when was the next time it managed to raise its ugly head again Thersites, if its so innate to Europeans and no-one else?

At the time of the emergence of Islam. (c.750 BCE) Thersites, how many European democracies were there?

Regarding cultures or religions as superior or inferior on supposed merits, is anti-democratic and last practiced by the likes of the Nazis.

Europe has also managed to produce fascism, nazism and soviet communism.

Europe has also have spawned, and currently maintains, private corporate totalitarian regimes with the legal rights of eternal entities not accorded to humans.

[Thucydides]

excellent speech.

It took Islam to give Europe its renaissance and it will take Islam to give it a second wind.

[Infidel & Kafir Watch]

If democracy is the best then why is it scared of Islam and what Islam has to offer. Why is the west so determined to destroy Islam if they knew democracy is ever lasting. If this was the case then the west would view Islam as Hinduism (no threat).

Let the future speak for it self...

[Sunny]

Aahhh, so much hot air here, I don't know where to start.

"What was forgotten was the idea in our society that you can do as you please, as long as you do not bring harm to others."

YEah, great point. Except there are Muslims who want to harm others. Why not say something about tackling them?

"It is the lack of legitimate political space in the Muslim world that has driven people to crazy acts of violence."

Really? Somehow, these people don't seem to be saying they want to engage within the political system. You don't think it has anything to do with Al-Qaeda's murderous ideology and propaganda?

"We don’t need lessons in democracy, we invented democracy."

Really? Who's we? And when did this happen? I could quite easily say the Indians invented it way before even the west did. I mean, are we comparing? Sure, democracy isn't a western invention, but such statements are silly.

Osama, you can do better than this. This is all hot air mate, I'm sorry. If I wanted to spend time fisking it, I could rip it apart. You've talked a lot about how Muslims in Scotland can play a greater role in the country... fine. But instead of playing the easy victim role all the time, it would be good to hear you also advocating how this could happen. In other words, what you can do for them rather than the other way round.

[George Carty]

The history of the rise of Rome shows that republican governments are superior to both despotic monarchies and direct democracies.

Republics are superior to despotisms because despotic regimes are often so fragile that a single battlefield defeat was enough to bring them down. (Also, despotisms often cripple their own armies out of fear of coups.) Note that when the Roman Empire fell, it was to tiny bands of barbarians that the Republic would have eaten for breakfast!

Direct democracy is disadvantaged by the fact that it doesn't scale well. It only really works for city-states. Ancient Greece could not unify itself because the city-states had so few citizens each that a single battle (Leuctra for example) could change the entire balance of power. Macedon (a semi-barbaric state on the fringes of Greek civilization) was able to establish a somewhat stronger control, but ultimately only Rome (which had the manpower of all of Italy at its disposal) was able to thoroughly dominate it.

The only other republic that Rome ever had to face was Carthage - and look how difficult it was for Rome to beat them!

[Thersites]

Well, Joe, What makes you think democracy is "innate to Europeans and no-one else"? Mr Saeed seemed to think that islam "invented democracy". As the word- and the thing- had been around long before the invention of islam he is obviously mistaken, as I pointed out. What makes you think islam "emerged" about 750 BCE? The generally accepted theory is that it began about 600 CE, over a thousand years later.
"Regarding cultures or religions as superior or inferior on supposed merits, is anti-democratic and last practiced by the likes of the Nazis." Do you really mean that? Presumably you regard the Nazis as inferior - or perhaps superior; after all, you do think democracy has an "ugly head"- to other cultures because of what you suppose to be the merits of one culture or another. Indeed, if you think that we can't regard cultures or religions as superior or inferior because of their merits, what reasons do you have for regarding them as superior or inferior- your prejudices perhaps?- or do you regard every culture- including fascism, nazism, soviet communism and private corporate totalitarian regimes with the legal rights of eternal entities not accorded to humans- as equally good?
What makes you think the Nazis were the last to do that too? Apart from anyone else, Mr Saeed above lists the merits that he supposes islam has, which presumably are why he is still a muslim.

You're mistaken in saying "It took Islam to give Europe its renaissance", Thucydides; after all, islam would have had to have a renaissance first for that to happen. However, there's a certain irony in that one of the most important triggers for the renaissance and the enlightenment was the influence of mutazalite philosphers. Unfortunately, while they influenced European theology and philosophy and especially interpretations of Aristotle and Plato, they were declared innovators and blasphemers and suppressed in the islamic world while the asharites- who rejected cause-and-effect, the basis of modern thought, especially science- held complete sway. The chance for an islamic renaissance and enlightement was there a few centuries earlier but it was lost.

[Tom Gallagher]

Dear Osama and Sohaib,
For the sake of brevity, I will share my comments with you in one post.

I have no objection to family members being active in politics; one thinks of the Gracchi brothers fighters against tyranny in ancient Rome. But there is an obligation to show that your effort is not 'a family affair', especially if you come from a community where clan politics, based on the badri system, is rife.

I am afraid you fail that test. How? By failing to adopt an open attitude to others in your own community like the able young academic Amanullah de Sondy who brings distinction to Scottish Muslims and whose scholarship I think will enable him to be a beacon of light that will assist the reconciliation of Muslims with peoples of other faiths and none.

But 'reconciliation' is just not a word that features in your repertoire. I am described as 'a waste of space' because i write 'pathetic articles'. I won't mention again the extraordinary claims made about my alleged conduct at the 7 July rally which you spoke at. You even manage to find evidence that convinces you I am a racist - the fact that I make a positive reference to the Scottish philosopher David Hume. In the eyes of Osama the most important thing about Hume is that he once made a derogatory comment about the intelligence of humans with black skins. Accordingly, not only is he a racist but any one who favourable quotes him is one too. There is no higher service you can do for the SNP than tell Alex Salmond, on no account to ever favorably quote david Hume. Indeed, perhaps a bill should be tabled in the scottish parliament to demolish the statue of Hume in a prominent Edinburgh throughfare forthwith.

I take the post from 'Sunny' to be from Sunny Hurndall whose Pickled Politics blog is a model forum valuing toleration and free debate. It sets standards which we should all aim for, myself included.Sunny asks you, Osama to lighten up and not to depict the Muslim position in such manichean terms. In your recent speech, you ask when has there not been a year when Muslims have not been in the eye of the storm (I paraphrase). You depict Muslims everywhere as under siege. The culprits are oppressive regimes and (although you say it sotto voce), their Western sponsors. I search in vain for unambiguous condemnations of forces which would impose far more devastating tyrannies, based on a politicised version of Islam. Nor do i find any acknowledgment that Muslims in Britain (sorry to use that heretical word) are in fact more free and more economically contented than Muslims in most other Muslim majority countries, certainly in the Middle Eat. You idealised the Middle East in the way that Ras tafarians used to paint a fantastic image of Ethiopia, a promised land of unlimited possibilities. But this dream world is immediately shattered by looking at the UN Human development statistics fro much of the region. How on earth can such a region be on the verge of an economic renaissance or any othe kind?

'Joe 90' a supporter of at least some of your views juxtaposes quotes from me with others from my university colleague, Prof Paul Rogers. He is suggesting that we disagree about how the disaster of the Iraq war has occurred and who is responsible. Actually, we don't disagree about this, but we do disagree about other things, quite major ones. However, that does not prevent us having an open and constructive relationship based on mutual tolerance. it is this commitment to open spaces, pluralist debate and respect for other positions that I find painfully lacking in so much of Osama Saeed's public declarations...and that of Sohaib his brother (extraordinary this because he is in charge of an ambitious exhibition at Edinburgh's Central Mosque which is meant to present an attractive face of islam to the visitors of the city during its festival month).

Radical islamic views are legitimate ones as long as they are not linked with vilence (and I place on record the fact that so far I find no evidence of this in your case). But i find it disturbing Osama that you are a rising force in the Scottish National party where your all-too-evident belief that Muslims should act in concert around group objectives goes unchallenged. My criticisms have been forceful even strident. I have softer tones in my repertoire of engagement but I thought it necessary to speak out about why I think your kind of discourse, insisting on a spurious unity while being intolerant of others, does little good for the Muslim community and even less good for the cause of scottish independence. I don't think this strategy will enable you to deliver huge bundles of Muslim votes to the SNP. There are a lot of sophisticated Muslims in and around gasgow and ttheir numbers increase each day. But the toleration the SNP shows for the positions of yours which i have alluded to above suggests that you both are made for one another. the SNP is like the old Kirk session, self-righteous and often bordering on intolerance. Just as you will not sweep the Muslim community, neither will it lead the people on a dance towards independence even with Mr Alex Salmond enjoying record approval ratings in the polls. On such a vital issue, people whatever their religion will only give their full confidence to leaders and parties who are not exploiting them. Already, the SNP shows a readiness to exploit fears and divisions in order to achieve what it believes will be liberation. I think it will enjoy no more success in this regard than you are destined to enjoy among scottish Muslims.

[raashid]

I actually agree that democracy is a purely European idea. I mean, in the entire history of human civilization, has anyone but Europeans ever completely independently created a democracy? I don't think there has ever been one.

[Osama]

AJ, what on earth are you talking about? Where were you blamed for anything here?

Sunny, every debate cannot be reduced to your favourite subjects of either tackling prejudice and who the government talks to. On the topic at hand, I suggest you are out of your depth. The Al-Qaeda form of terrorism is something that has been germinating for many decades. I think it's undoubtedly the case that if the Muslim world were full of open societies that allowed democratic dissent in the last half century at least, the phenomenon of Bin Laden and Co would not have arisen.

Tom, it's good form not to mix debates between threads on blogs. To be blunt, you are being oppositional for the sake of it (and it's very easy to gain publicity for attacks on others, our media lends itself to that kind of thing). Your interpretation of the Hume remarks are case in point. I make a strong case for the opening up to democracy of societies in the Muslim world, and you home in on one comment about Blair. Fair enough, that's up to you. But let's not pretend you're engaging in weighty arguments.

You think Kriss Donald's killers are part of the global terror threat we face. The comments on my family are also nearly as amusing - as if we all inherited titles in the House of Lords or something. If others want to be active, and there are a great many people active in the Muslim community, then we live in a free country - get off your backside and do it. Nobody is stopping you.

You criticise Muslims for organising themselves, but do not explain why we have less right to do that than other faith groups. But then you want us to take collective responsibility for terror. Then you criticise Muslims for engaging in the political process as individuals. Make your mind up.

[joe90]

Thersites says of themselves -
Come on, Joey, my boy, where did I claim to be "civilised, enlightened, rational and progressive"? You're indulging in fantasies yet again here.
You know you're an Islamophobe when - Posted by: Thersites | 25 July 2007 at 04:18 PM

c.750 BCE
- this was a typo by me, I meant c.750 CE as is pretty obvious. So is the date, so what - only out by about 150 years isn't so bad.

...or do you regard every culture- including fascism, nazism, soviet communism and private corporate totalitarian regimes with the legal rights of eternal entities not accorded to humans- as equally good?
- I keep saying this, but none of these are cultures, merely systems of controlling people - a methodology for crushing democracy and human diversity. I would describe them as 'anti-cultures' and 'anti-democracies', if anything, in the same way I would describe much of western journalism as 'anti-journalism' (after John Pilger).

Of course, Thersites is required to use Nazi practice and ideology in order to justify denegrating other Peoples religion, race or ethnic origin and just what I would expect given Thersites claims about themselves which live down to expectation.

As for inferior and superior 'cultures',
I stand by Martin Luther King - we are all different but equal. Diversity is democracy.
In a democracy you are allowed to practice whatever faith or creed you believe in, free from harrassment, racism or interference. Only racists, bigots and anti-democratic xenophobes like Thersites think there is something uncivilised about Islam, one of the great religions of the world.

By Thersites reckoning there are such things as inferior sub-humans and untermensch. However, all this backwardness Thersites applies to their target victims, they are actually guilty of themeselves. They even claim an inheritance from the European Enlightenment as well (presumably just because they happen to be European - so were the Nazis, so what?) and yet even deny they are civilised enlightened rational or progressive at the same time.

If democracy is so innately European Thersites - when and where was it first practised, by whom and for how long?

How many years later did democracy eventually rear its ugly head again and where?

European Nazism - European Fascism - European Soviet Communism - European private corporate totalitarian regimes - European Imperialism - European Racism -
- All these ugly phenomena are European and occured and are concurrent with the Age of Enlightenment and the growth of democratic universal egalitarian society - So,
How do you account for all these ugly manifestations if Europeans and European ways are so innately superior Thersites?

[joe90]

My apologies Mr Gallagher for taking your name in vain. I am sorry if I caused any offence to you - it was just meant to be some light-hearted blog fun. Nothing more. But that's me done.

Isn't it amazing how times change!

During the lifetime of the Soviet Empire, which western academic ever blamed Eastern Europeans, or their religion, for the Soviet Dictatorships they had to endure and live under?

But yet ,when it comes to the present-day American Empire and its dictatorships then the existence of these US dictarorships becomes the fault of the powerless civilain population under them, and the religion they follow !!!!

Of course,
trying to sort out whether it is American dictatorships and American war crimes which for are the cause of terrorism - or if its religion, seems to be an issue quite beyond the scholarship of Mr Gallagher to resolve.

Mr Gallagher seems to consider western war crimes to be a much lesser crime than terrorism, I believe. This is the standard of academic scholarship and intellectual truth and honesty that even Prof Alan Dershowitz would be proud to endorse.

Mr Gallagher comments are well-honed flannel. He engages in nothing substantial whatsoever.
He separates and spaces out topics, mentioning with much approval the legitimacy of public politics and the hustings in one place, then mentions them somewhere else, but this time it seems he considers it illegitimate esepcially for Osama to practice it. The same with other topics such as - family involvement in politics - 'Scotland Against Terrorism' was a political rally but there seems to be something not quite right with it - etc etc

Mr Gallagher says -
I search in vain for unambiguous condemnations of forces which would impose far more devastating tyrannies, based on a politicised version of Islam.
- he doesn't seem to know about the West's history, and ongoing policy, of crushing and destroying democracies in West Asia. It isn't the local populations who hate local democracy, it's the West. Why does Mr Gallagher continue to deny this most important of all facts! Give the victims of western crimes the blame!

There are scarier things than American dictatorships or unprovoked American aggression!
Iraqi WMD maybe?
This news will come as a big relief to all those tens of millions of West Asians whose life we make a total misery.
Yes, there are scarier things in the world than being subjected to US 'unprovoked aggression', illegal military occupation and vast and continuing bloodbaths.

You'll search in vain for unambigious condemnations of western war crimes by Mr Gallagher, crimes such as 'unprovoked aggression' of which there is none greater - but Mr Gallagher considers that there are forces which would impose far more devasting tyrranies
This is a piece of crude propaganda if there ever was one!

Mind you, if Mr Gallagher did start holding the British and US governments to account for their henious war crimes and vast bloodbaths against innocent defenceless folk, the newspaper and magazine space would soon dry up and he'd have to start working for a living again as an obscure academic.

As for family political dynasties -
- Mr Gallagher need only have mentioned the British House of Lords in this respect, or even the British Queen, head of the Church of England the British military (currently engaged in illegal military occupations resulting from 'unprovoked aggression'). Why go to all the trouble of bringing up the Gracchi from the distant Roman Republic, I don't know.

Far more importantly however -
And it’s this vision that Muslims in the West are uniquely placed to help realise. In all the West’s attempts in recent years to modernise the Muslim world, they have ignored their greatest assets – the Muslims that were born and bred in their countries. We understand the psychology of the Muslim world, we obviously understand the West. If anyone can bridge East and West, and help avoid the clash of civilisations, it is us.

I think its a brilliant initiative Osama -a kind of ISM - A kind of Prof Edward W. Said for democracy promotion in American dictatorships and who are better placed than European Muslims especially British and Scottish Muslim folk!

[Thersites]

Joey, you really must use a little logic. I do not claim to be "civilised, enlightened, rational and progressive". Nor do I claim not to be "civilised, enlightened, rational and progressive". I don't think it's relevant to the argument whether I am and i don't think you are capable of determining whether anyone is anyway.

For example, how do you distinguish between "cultures" and "methods of controlling people" except by what you consider their merits- something "last practiced by the likes of the Nazis" you (mistakenly) believe? Do you really believe that cultures do not control people? Do you think that- for example- the instructions to kill people whose sexual behaviour is deemed immoral in some cultures doesn't control the behaviour of those people and the beahviour of the people whoi are entitled or believe they ought to be entitled- to kill them? Do you think that someone who believes that god requires them to pray several times a day isn't going to be controlled in their behaviour by that belief? Isn't a religion that teaches that its followers are "the best of mankind", that followers of some religions should be given the choice of conversion or death, that the followers of other religions should be expected to pay protection money and accept an inferior status "a methodology for crushing democracy and human diversity"? If not, why not?
"In a democracy you are allowed to practice whatever faith or creed you believe in, free from harrassment, racism or interference."
Merely following one religion involves denigrating every other religion- it means saying that every other religion isn't true or- at best- not completely true. Equally, you are not allowed to practise some aspects of a faith in a democracy- you cannot practise human sdacrifice or suttee or to stone adulterers to death or burn heretics at the stake, no matter how important these practises may be to your faith. Certainly, there are uncivilised aspects to islam- torturing people to death, for example, is not civilised behaviour and the quran recommends it. You forgot to mention another imprtant aspect- not following any belief you choose not to follow. This isn't actually an aspect of democracy, in fact, but of an open society. An obvious example is socrates who was democratically condemned to death and executed for blasphemy. Democracy alone is not enough.
Where did Martin Luther King say "We are different but equal?" As he was opposing a society which claimed that people should be treated as "separate but equal", it looks as though he was on the wrong side, if you're correct in your interpretation.

"By Thersites reckoning there are such things as inferior sub-humans and untermensch. "
You really must stop telling lies, Joey. Where have I said anything of the sort? As your next sentence "However, all this backwardness Thersites applies to their target victims, they are actually guilty of themeselves. They even claim an inheritance from the European Enlightenment as well (presumably just because they happen to be European - so were the Nazis, so what?) and yet even deny they are civilised enlightened rational or progressive at the same time." is nonsense, even by your standards, it looks as if you have forgotten to take your medication. Or you've taken a double dose perhaps.

"If democracy is so innately European Thersites - when and where was it first practised, by whom and for how long?
How many years later did democracy eventually rear its ugly head again and where?" It was- as far as we know- first practised in parts of Greece about 2500 years ago. There were a great many aspects that would look odd to us now- women were excluded from politics, for example; it was a direct participatory democracy- policies were decided by popular votes; nevertheless, it was government of the people by the people and the first step on a journey that we are still on. There were democratic elements in other societies- the Romans might be ruled by the Senate, but the Tribunes of the People had to be consulted and had rights of veto. The German tribes that took over the Roman Empire also had democratic elements; there were gatherings of delegates from the people to discuss policy and taxation. Quite a few of the peasants' revolts in the middle ages aspired to create a democracy. The tradition continued and wherever there was a representative government the tendency was to expand those involved in selecting it until the whole population was involved. You still haven't said why you think democracy has an "ugly head", Joey- indeed, given that you disapprove elsewhere of what you call 'anti-democracies', if you think democracy is ugly and you don't like 'anti-democracies', just what system of government would you favour- theocracy, perhaps?

"European Nazism - European Fascism - European Soviet Communism - European private corporate totalitarian regimes - European Imperialism - European Racism -
- All these ugly phenomena are European and occured and are concurrent with the Age of Enlightenment and the growth of democratic universal egalitarian society -"
Are you saying there was no Japanese or Indian or arab fascism, Joey? Much of the Soviet Union was in Asia, which also produced Chinese, Cambodian and Vietnamese Communism. Are there no "private corporate totalitarian regimes" (you wouldn't mind giving a few examples, would you?) outside Europe? You have heard of- say- the Chinese Empire, the ottoman empire, the mongol empire, the aztec empire, have you? Why do these forms of imperialism not damn the continents they originated in? You are aware, I take it, of the attitudes of many arabs to blacks, of Indians to other Indians, of Chinese to non-Chiunese, of Japanese to non-Japanese? Why do these entirely randomly chosen forms or racism fail to enrage you? In short, Joey, what makes you think there is something uniquely bad about European manifestations of these vices compared with other cultures or methodologies for crushing democracy and human diversity ?
" So,
How do you account for all these ugly manifestations if Europeans and European ways are so innately superior Thersites?"
Where have I said Europeans and European ways are innately superior, Joey? I'd favour democracy wherever it was invented for the reasons put forward in Karl Popper's The Open Society and its Enemies.

[joe90]

Lenin's Tomb
In Channel 4 and the 'Bad' Orient
Friday, August 10, 2007

In a typically brilliant post, LT notes the conclusions into one study of how the British news media reports British Islam, thus -

1) Muslims are a threat to security;
2) Muslims are a threat to 'British' values;
3) Muslims possess inherent cultural differences that create community tensions;
4) Muslims are increasingly assertive in national politics.

Number 4 sounds familiar!

[Sunny]

Sunny, every debate cannot be reduced to your favourite subjects of either tackling prejudice and who the government talks to. On the topic at hand, I suggest you are out of your depth.

Heh, that is a terribly lame way to avoid answering my points. No one has doubted that if democracy existed in Muslim countries for the last 50 years then maybe OBL and his crew may not have arisen. Maybe, maybe not. But then Pakistan, Turkey, Indonesia and Malaysia have all had some form of democracy, if not continuously (for Pakistan and Turkey). Meanwhile the country with the world's second largest Muslim population, India, has been a rough democracy for 50 years.

So may I suggest that you're out of your depth by trying to preach to me without actually thinking about history. What you mean of course is that the Arab States themselves have not had democracy, rather than 'Muslim states'.

Next time, just answer the question rather than obfuscate the issue with ill-informed retorts.

[Sohaib]

What's really pathetic, Tom, is that you can't make any coherent point in person, though I took 10 minutes or so out to speak to you while I should have been looking after our speaker, whom you didn't stay to hear. How dare you judge me with regard to my openness to dialogue and respect for different views. You know nothing. Not that I need to prove anything to you, but my engagement in interfaith relations in Edinburgh is well known.

If De Sondy is so brilliant, he will be known and supported. The fact is, he's not, so he won't. But good luck to him. What do you want us to do, hold his hand and bring him on TV?

[joe90]

Thereshites says -
I do not claim to be "civilised, enlightened, rational and progressive". Nor do I claim not to be "civilised, enlightened, rational and progressive".
- so enlighten me then, what are you and am I wrong?

For example, how do you distinguish between "cultures" and "methods of controlling people" except by what you consider their merits- something "last practiced by the likes of the Nazis" you (mistakenly) believe? Do you really believe that cultures do not control people?
- achingly funny!
Spoken like a true apologist for western racist regimes like nazism and fascism and soviet communism. Anything and everything is 'cultural' - so heavily armed gangs of thugs carrying out pogroms and genocide are cultures are they?
Thereshites, how do you manage with a moral code that considers moral repression and discrimination as normal civilised behaviour and is just part of normal civilised behaviour, and is merely 'cultural' to you, rather than a moral outrage?

According to Thershites, being forced to live in the Nazi Warsaw Ghetto or the Czarish Pale is the equal to normal life in a civilised society. From what I know, you'll find most people under these regimes didn't consider themselves terribly enlightened or civilsed by the whole experience - or have I got it wrong about people living under European dictatorships, and you know something about this kind of morality the rest of us don't?

Exactly what is 'cultural' about a gang of thugs in charge of government intitutions, destroying anybody or anything that gets in their way?

Thereshites, please give me evidence from people who lived under (and live under) these types of repressive regimes who considered them decent civilised societies to live in, and what they considered as valid decent human societies with a life-affirming culture ?

Democracy -
Exactly Thereshites, ancient Athenian 'democracy' existed thousands of years ago, for a very short space of time, in a very small place, where women, slaves and men under 25 couldn't vote etc etc - democracy was buried and forgotten until very very recently, thousands of years later - hardly innately European as you claim.

Are you saying there was no Japanese or Indian or arab fascism, Joey?
- just to use your utterly laughable childish standards of debate Thereshites, where did I say they weren't?

Thereshites asks finally -
Where have I said Europeans and European ways are innately superior, Joey?
Well, here you do -
Posted by: Thersites | 08 August 2007 at 06:08 PM
The best that can be said for early islamic civilisation was that it replaced ones which were even worse.

According to Thereshites, the west is superior (a valid inference) but Thereshites is so superior themselves they can't seem to remember what they are claiming or even arguing about.

As we all know, the West is responsible for genocides and massacres the world over and is responsible for some henious ideologies and support for violently repressive criminal regimes - but these monolithic inhuman western regimes and their supporters cannot be held to account for their crimes, however, according to Thereshites, as they are valid human cultures.
And I thought that we civilsed people in the UK carried out 'unprovoked aggression' against Iraq in order to get rid of evil Saddam Hitler as well - but according to Thereshites, Saddam's rule was the pinnacle of human moral and cultural enlightenmnet!

I'd favour democracy wherever it was invented for the reasons put forward in Karl Popper's The Open Society and its Enemies.
?

[George Carty]

If democracy is the best then why is it scared of Islam and what Islam has to offer. Why is the west so determined to destroy Islam if they knew democracy is ever lasting.

When politicians say Western democracy is the "best" they mean that it is best at delivering a high material standard of living. They do not necessarily think that it is "best" in a Darwinian sense.

Proponents of the "Eurabia" hypothesis would argue that Western culture is inferior to Islamic culture Darwinistically (although they would say it in quite this way), because they believe that Western secularism leads inevitably to sub-replacement birth rates.

[Osama]

Sunny, like I said, out of your depth. I can't understand why you need to intervene with nitpicking. Do you agree that democratisation in the Muslim world would be a good thing or not?

The fact that some sort of democracy has existed in Pakistan et al does not make a jot of difference to the growth of Al-Qaeda, and it's a rather childish thing to claim that it would. The roots lie in countries without it, and the fact that they look in at the Muslim world in the wider sense.

I'm shaking my head at the inescapable feeling you also want to be oppositional for the sake of it. I'm comforted that you look all the sillier for it.

[Thersites]

What I am or am not is irrelevant, Joey, and you are wrong anyway.

In the meantime, why not answer these questions: "For example, how do you distinguish between "cultures" and "methods of controlling people" except by what you consider their merits- something "last practiced by the likes of the Nazis" you (mistakenly) believe? Do you really believe that cultures do not control people?"
Of course anything and everything is cultural: A culture is a shared, learned, symbolic system of values, beliefs and attitudes that shapes and influences perception and behavior -- an abstract "mental blueprint" or "mental code." Of course "heavily armed gangs of thugs carrying out pogroms and genocide are cultures"- or aspects of cultures- just as killing by torture alleged homosexuals, adulterers, apostates or polytheists are aspects of other cultures. What a culture is, which is what a culture does and is completely separate to morality.

You show your usual ignorance in claiming that "ancient Athenian 'democracy' existed thousands of years ago, for a very short space of time, in a very small place". Ancient Greek democracy several hundred years and it influenced all later philosophy and democratic movements profoundly, both directly and indirectly.
I did not say that democracy was "innately European" either; I pointed out that democracy existed a thousand years before Mr Saeed claimed it was invented by islam. I notice that Mr Saeed has made no attempt to explain how islam could combine the ppolitical equality of democracy democracy and the superiority claimed for muslims over all others in the quran.

"Are you saying there was no Japanese or Indian or arab fascism, Joey?
- just to use your utterly laughable childish standards of debate Thereshites, where did I say they weren't?"

Here, you forgetful little chap, here: "European Nazism - European Fascism - European Soviet Communism - European private corporate totalitarian regimes - European Imperialism - European Racism -
- All these ugly phenomena are European..."
Again, Joey, are you denyiong that there was no Fascism - Soviet Communism - private corporate totalitarian regimes - Imperialism - Racism - except of European origin?

"Where have I said Europeans and European ways are innately superior, Joey?
Well, here you do -
Posted by: Thersites | 08 August 2007 at 06:08 PM
The best that can be said for early islamic civilisation was that it replaced ones which were even worse."
Just when it seems impossible, you say something that shows you to be even more ignorant and stupid than I'd thought you, Joey, my boy. Some of the civilisations replaced by early islamic civilisations were European christian civilisations, as anyone but an ignoramus would know. Islamic states forced nonmuslims to accept second-class staus and pay protection money if they were people of the book and to convert or die if they were polytheists; christian states killed anyone who did not follow exactly the right variety of christianity. Muslim states preserved books; christian states destroyed books that didn't agree with the state-supported version of christianity and scraped away ancient classics to reuse the vellum to write incomprehensible and semi-literate theological ravings. In short, Joey, European cultures were among those even worse than the islamic civilisation that replaced them.

"As we all know, the West is responsible for genocides and massacres the world over and is responsible for some henious ideologies and support for violently repressive criminal regimes - but these monolithic inhuman western regimes and their supporters cannot be held to account for their crimes, however, according to Thereshites, as they are valid human cultures."
Every human culture is- by definition- a valid human culture. It may not be pleasant to live in or worth preserving, but it is still a valid human culture. However, you are wrong in your claim that there are "monolithic inhuman western regimes". The invasion of Iraq took place despite many citizens of the countries involved opposing it and it looks like ending because- as with Vietnam- the people concerned do not think it important enough to justify the cost and will not accept the genocidal techniques that would enable a quick victory. In short, it is the comparative humaneness and divisions within the countries concerned that will end the war. Furthermore it is not only "the west" that has engaged in massacres and genocides; however, other regimes have never had any problems with carrying them out because of opposition from public opinion. Public opinion in "the west" may not have prevented those crimes, but it has stopped them being completely carried out. What we need now is ways to stop personal vanity and folly enabling leaders to act as Messrs Bush and Blair did and to bring an effective penalty if they try to.

"And I thought that we civilsed people in the UK carried out 'unprovoked aggression' against Iraq in order to get rid of evil Saddam Hitler as well..." Well, Joey, I'm not at all surprised someone as stupid as you thought that; however, I can't see where you got the idea that "according to Thereshites, Saddam's rule was the pinnacle of human moral and cultural enlightenmnet!" It is characteristic of you that rather than dealing with any of the questions actually raised you tell irrelevant lies about your opponents. I can only say that I am glad not to live in the kind of culture you seem to like.

"I'd favour democracy wherever it was invented for the reasons put forward in Karl Popper's The Open Society and its Enemies.
?"
!

[Sunny]

Do you agree that democratisation in the Muslim world would be a good thing or not?

That goes without question. But you didn't address my points earlier, including your assertion that "we invented democracy".

You also say:
The fact that some sort of democracy has existed in Pakistan et al does not make a jot of difference to the growth of Al-Qaeda

which you contradicted in your last post by saying:

I think it's undoubtedly the case that if the Muslim world were full of open societies that allowed democratic dissent in the last half century at least, the phenomenon of Bin Laden and Co would not have arisen.

I don't think I'm the one looking silly here.

It would help if you just answered my points rather than resorting to ad hominem attacks.

[Galileo Galilei]

It seems this Tom ‘Taqqiyah’ Gallagher chap is quite obsessed with Osama:

http://www.prospect-magazine.co.uk/article_details.php?&id=9746

Osama maybe its finally time to listen to Tom ‘Taqqiyah’ Gallagher; in other words just become politically passive, give up defending infringement of your rights, disengage from political discourse, do not voice dissent to any government policies.

There is nothing wrong with being a good second class British subject after all is there?

I can not believe that one of the few articulate British Muslim (ok Scottish) is being subject to a smear campaign. Osama actively engages with the political system and gives British Muslims a fair and representative voice yet he is faulted for his efforts.

As soon as this Gallagher chap introduced this obscure ‘Taqqiyah’ concept into the debate it stopped being debate. It stopped being discourse and became Gallagher accusing all Muslims of being untrustworthy and habitual liars through the device of this ‘Taqqiyah’ concept.

Discourse cannot be made with people like this and I would not waste your time trying. He champions debate and discourse yet he kills them with the introduction of his ‘Taqqiyah’ charges before debate and discourse can even begin. I guess it’s true what the Quran says about hypocrites……

Sunny says:

Meanwhile the country with the world's second largest Muslim population, India, has been a rough democracy for 50 years.

I am surprised that someone who abhors communal politics (A view I agree with) is parroting an outdated statistic that is normally used by Hindu fundamentalists to undermine the basis for the foundation of Pakistan.

Pakistan has since the late 1990’s had the second largest Muslim population in the world:

http://www.zackvision.com/weblog/2003/02/muslim-population.html

[Tom Gallagher]

Dear Sohaib,
When I first read your message, I thought, here is someone who is compelled to feel outraged by anyone who takes a contrary position to his . What is the point in trying to engage in dialogue ?

That's actually what i tried to do when it was pointed out to me that you were in the audience at a discussion taking place in st John's Episcopolian Church in Edinburgh last saturday.

When I came over, you did not appear to be busy or preoccupied, nor did i know that you were chairing the next discussion. But of course it does no harm to misrepresent someone whom you have no wish build civilized relations with.

That much was clear to me after the meeting. I was content to allow you to do most of the talking. In our conversation, you spoke up for a politicised vision of Islam, insisted that the virtues of democracy were to be found on your side, claimed that they were lacking among those British Sufis who had set up an organization to represent their outlook, and stated that I was a dunce because i believed there were clerics in Islam.

Since we were in a church, one in fact dedicated to the cause of peace, i felt it inappropriate to have an argument. I replied in general terms which you took to be incoherence, and I acknowledged that my knowledge of Islam had its limits.

I was left with one main conclusion reinforced by your subsequent message and that of your brother to the incomparable Sunny of Pickled politics. With your scornful and intransignent attitude and discourse you have fitted in rather well to Scotland, that is to the political Scotland of confrontational attitudes and partisan positions. Because yours is essentially a politicised cause with a religious facade.
Thankfully, the religious world in Scotland has cleaned its act up after centuries of adopting exclusive positions and waging sectarian attacks on rivals, so your brand of denunciatory faith is distinctly old-fashioned.

I draw much consolation from the fact that the young Muslims you are seeking to conscript into your movement are likely to show you far less a patience than the politicians who indulge you and your brother Saeed and patronise your initiatives. A form of Islam challenging secularism, promoting international identities, and encouraging adherents not to stray far from the islamic fold, has the potential to strike a chord in scotland, not a large one but a resonant one nonetheless. But to carry conviction, it must be based on positive goals that are not exclusive to one sect, and it needs to be animated by hate and not rage.

After leaving you, I found myself at the Edinburgh Book festival nearby where i bought Ed Husain's The Islamist. I am just about to board a train where i will read the book. What I know about the memnbers of hizb ut-Tahrir whose cause he espoused is that they have the same superiority complex as you which insists that the ideology of Islamism is the wave of the future. But i obtain solace in the fact that although politicians like Alex Salmond and Nicola Sturgeon may be ready to make opportunist alliances with you, most young Muslims animated by a sense of faith, will see the militancy and intransigence that you espouse as having no place in their lives.

[Osama]

Tom, it is amusing to hear you question the sincerity of someone's willingness to dialogue when you think they could be lying simply because they happen to be Muslim.

Nevertheless, thanks for telling us what (you think) we believe (again). If it were true, you wouldn't need to keep telling us. We're also more than capable of articulating ourselves, thank you.

You've taken a position in haste, and you very apparently need to keep justifying it to yourself.

As for you Sunny, one failing democracy in Pakistan does not make the Muslim world "full of democracies". Move along.

Galileo, thanks for your comments.