Monty Python Quote

My favourite line from Monty Python and the Meaning of Life. Taken from a sketch set in a public school assembly (though admittedly it’s John Cleese’s delivery that makes it so great):

Now two boys have been found rubbing linseed oil into the school cormorant. Now some of you may feel that the cormorant does not play an important part in the life of the school, but I would remind you that it was presented to us by the corporation of the Town of Sudbury to commemorate Empire Day, when we try to remember the names of all those from the Sudbury area who so gallantly gave their lives to keep China British.

Dostoevsky’s The Idiot

Reflecting about that moment afterwards, now in a condition of health, he often told himself: that after all, those gleams and lightning flashes of higher self perception and self-awareness and consequently of ‘higher existence’ were nothing but an illness, a violation of the normal condition, and, if that were so, then it was not higher existence at all, but, on the contrary, must be reckoned among the very lowest. And yet he reached, at last, an exceedingly paradoxical conclusion: ‘What does it matter if it’s an illness, then?’ he decided, at last,’ what does it matter that it’s an abnormal tension, if the result itself, if the moment of sensation, recalled and examined in a condition of health, turns out to be the highest degree of harmony and beauty, yields a hitherto unheard of and undreamed of sense of completeness, proportion, reconciliation and an ecstatic, prayerful fusion with the highest synthesis of life’, of that he could be in no doubt, nor could he allow any doubts.

Sufi Quotations

In your despairing you are a free man; but in your coveting, you are a slave.
Ibn Ata Allah Iskandari

Whoever does not draw near to God as a result of the caresses of love is shackled to Him with the chains of misfortune.
Ibn Ata Allah Iskandari

If you want a glory that does not vanish, then do not glory in a glory that vanishes.
Ibn Ata Allah Iskandari

The best knowledge is the one accompanied by fear.
Ibn Ata Allah Iskandari

The proof of the sun is the sun (himself) : if thou require the proof, do not avert thy face from him.
Rumi, the Mathnavi

What is Love? Perfect thirst. So let me explain the Water of Life.
Rumi

WHO IS SHE?!?!?!

WHO IS SHE?!?!?!
The Morality of Melanie

On the 6th of October the Jewish Chronicle published an article by Melanie Phillips entitled ‘The Tories’ disproportionate response‘ in which she strongly censured shadow foreign minister William Hague and indeed the whole Conservative party for having taken on an apparently anti-Israeli stance with regard to the recent Lebanese war; in fact she went so far as to accuse the Tories of “[riding] the tiger of anti-Israel prejudice”.

Melanie, in case you’re fortunate enough not to know, is a well-known columnist for the Daily Mail; therefore as you’d expect her writings reflect a rightwing and deeply reactionary world-view –- and like a few other contemporary reactionaries she started off her journalistic career as a paid-up liberal. She’s a noted critic of multiculturalism, specifically of what she sees as the appeasement of certain minorities especially Muslims (she calls London “the epicentre of Islamic militancy in Europe”); but also uses her newspaper column and weblog to fulminate on a whole range of other personal bugbears including political correctness, anti-Semitism and the government’s policy failures on education, all supposedly manifestations of the declining moral standards of Great Britain.

With that in mind I’ve gone through the trouble of actually going through some of the points Melanie makes in her Jewish Chronicle article, comparing them with the reports made by two human rights agencies detailing Israel’s actions during the Lebanese conflict — based on research conducted on the ground — in order to see what I could ascertain about her own personal system of morality. I’m singling Melanie out because despite the utterly absurd things she says not everyone dismisses her as a crank – which is extraordinarily worrying. What’s more her abhorrent views on the recent Lebanon conflict, outlandish as they are, aren’t merely confined to a small lunatic fringe in society but are close to the mainstream – even more worrying.

Secret Memo backs Iraq/Afghanistan as cause of terror

More backing from officaldom for the FP hypothesis from the The Sunday Telegraph:

Tony Blair’s claim that there is no link between Britain’s foreign policy and terrorist attacks in this country is blown apart by a secret cabinet memo revealed today.

A classified paper written by senior Downing Street officials says that everything Britain does overseas for the next decade must have the ultimate aim of reducing “terror activity, especially that in or directed against the UK”.

The memo, circulated in recent weeks to ministers and security chiefs and seen by The Sunday Telegraph, outlines an extraordinary “wish list” of how the Government would like world troublespots to look in 10 years’ time. It also signals a drive to reduce Britain’s military commitments around the globe.

It admits that, in an ideal world, “the Muslim would not perceive the UK and its foreign policies as hostile” – effectively accepting the argument that Britain’s military action in Iraq and Afghanistan has served as a recruiting sergeant for Islamist terrorist groups. Publicly, Mr Blair has resisted this line fiercely. During his final speech as leader to Labour’s annual conference last month, he described such claims as “enemy propaganda”.

His cabinet allies have supported his position. Earlier this year, John Reid, the Home Secretary, said: “I think it is a dreadful misjudgment if we believe the foreign policy of this country should be shaped in part, or in whole, under the threat of terrorist activity, if we do not have a foreign policy with which the terrorists happen to agree.”

But the memo leaves no doubt that all foreign policy must be driven by the goal of thwarting terrorism in Britain. It demands a “significant reduction in the number and intensity of the regional conflicts that fuel terror activity”.

 

Hits the nail on the head

From an article in today’s Guardian on the failure of Islamic studies in colleges and universities to meet the demands of British society (Islamic studies ‘letting down’ multicultural needs):

The report, entitled Time for Change: Report on the Future of the Study of Islam and Muslims in Universities and Colleges in Multicultural Britain, was written by Abd al-Fattah El-Awaisi and Malory Nye.

Prof El-Awaisi said: “The call for a new agenda is timely and necessary to prevent the misguided and narrow interpretation of Islam which is the source of so many problems in our multicultural society.

“It is only through multicultural education we can work to eliminate extremism and fundamentalism.”

The report found most British non-Muslims do not “get” Islam and do not understand what makes Muslims “tick”.

“Many British communities, including British Muslims, have failed to understand each other and have failed to engage effectively in multicultural Britain,” it states.

“There is mutual incomprehension and this can only be addressed by education.”

The report claims Muslim schools and colleges run by Muslims for Muslims is not the answer.

“Multiculturalism is not about separatism, ghettoisation or Balkanisation; it is instead recognition of diversity, the need for common ground, mutual respect and cultural engagement,” it states.

Articles like these tend to suggest that in the midst of all the hysteria and the loud indignant voices denouncing Muslims and their practices as alien and foreign on one side, and those of Muslim groups (not many I might add) resolute in their determination to separate themselves from the rest of society on the other, the real solution towards a healthier society lies in eradicating mutual misunderstanding and confusion through more and better education.

Some people might find this idea scary and a little unpalatable because it implies that the onus shouldn’t be exclusively on Muslims to adapt to the rest of society, but that non-Muslims might have to make an effort to try and understand Islam and Muslims — and accept that Islam is now undoubtedly a part of British life. Ultimately the calls to banish multiculturalism are a little premature.

We are now in the position where we have to create and foster new cultural values and norms, ones that reflect the current ethnic, religious, and cultural composition of the country, that recognise the realities of contemporary Britain, rather than indulge in dreamy hyperbole about times past. And yes, this means that many in the Muslim community  have to accept that they have to adapt themselves to aspects of the majority culture; though this shouldn’t be enforced. 

To quote Ted Cantle’s Community Cohesion report:

“In such a climate, there has been little attempt to develop clear values which focus on what it means to be a citizen of a modern multiracial Britain and many still look backwards to some supposedly halcyon days of a monocultural society, or alternatively look to their country of origin for some form of identity.“

Eid Mubarak

Eid Mubarak everyone.

And a happy diwali too!

The 1990 Trust

I feel vindicated by the results of the recent 1990 trust survey (report date October 16th) of Muslims (which used a sample population of 1,213).  It can be found at /www.blink.org.uk/docs/muslim_survey_report_screen.pdf

For a start they make for heartening reading in light of some other polls that have attempted to quantify British Muslim opinion (quoted in my FP essay) and which have suggested that something like 20% of Muslims supported the 7/7 attacks; indeed in this poll “only 1.9% of Muslims believe that it is justifiable to commit acts of terrorism against civilians in the UK. An overwhelming majority – 96% stated emphatically that acts of terrorism against civilians was unjustifiable”.

The report explains that the previous results may have came about through some sections of the media’s having “conflated Muslim respondents answering positively to the question of whether they have sympathy ‘with the feelings and motives of those who carried out the attacks’ … with the violence itself“.  Adding that: “to understand the motive behind an action cannot be equated with violence itself, and the media have a responsibility to create a clear demarcation.” The report clearly criticises the sensational tone and bias of many previous reports on Muslim related issues.

The results also support my arguments about foreign policy and the issue of the Ummah. The report writers argue that UK foreign policy “plays a central role in shaping Muslims’ engagements in the British political arena,” adding that “[o]ne of the main areas of tension, and potential causes of ‘radicalisation’ seems to be the UK’s foreign policy“. Well, Duh!

The report also found that “just 1.6% of Muslims feel that their views on foreign policy are represented by the UK government,” and that “91.4% disagree with Government on its foreign policy.” It seems that the overwhelming majority of Muslims also decry the influence of the US on British foreign policy: “93% of respondents felt that UK foreign policy was influenced too much by the US Government.“

Other questions focused on Israel/Palestine with Palestine “seen as having an affect on the outlook of Muslims in the UK with just under 80% of Muslims polled seeing the current situation in Palestine a cause for radicalization in the UK,” and with “92.5% of respondents [feeling] that Israel is a terrorist state“.

The report describes the concept of Ummah as positing the existence of “a global family of Muslims … [t]ranscending national boundaries. Suffering by Muslims in Iraq, Palestine, Somalia, Bangladesh or wherever, is felt deeply by those elsewhere.” According to the report “89% of [British] Muslims say that they feel included in the global concept of ‘Ummah’” and “[a]s a result of the belief in ‘Ummah’ 91% of Muslims feel that their feelings towards the treatment of Muslims in other parts of the world are affected by this bond.”

Interestingly enough, the poll also finds that 77% of Muslims who demonstrated against the War in Iraq/Afghanistan would demonstrate against “British forces attacking Venezuela and/or North Korea“, which tends to suggest that Muslim criticism at foreign policy is more principled than previously thought.Of course FP should not be regarded as the sole cause of terrorism, nor should the interplay of other factors (e.g., social alienation) be discounted. But even though FP does not radicalize ALL Muslims, it’s extremely likely that it plays a central and overriding role in radicalizing those who are radicalized.

From the Guardian yesterday http://www.guardian.co.uk/terrorism/story/0,,1925698,00.html :

Britain has become the main target for a resurgent al-Qaida, which has successfully regrouped and now presents a greater threat than ever before, according to counter-terrorist officials. They have revised their views about the strength of the network abroad, and the methods terrorists are able to use in the UK.Intelligence chiefs with access to the most comprehensive and up to date information have told the Guardian that al-Qaida has substantially recovered its organisation in Pakistan, despite a four-year military campaign to seek out and kill its leaders. In that time, the organisation has become much more coherent, with a strong core and a regular supply of volunteers.

More worrying, officials say, is evidence of new techniques that would-be terrorists within the UK have adopted. The structure of individual al-Qaida-inspired groups is much more like the old Provisional IRA cells, with self-contained units comprising a lead organiser/planner, a quartermaster in charge of weapons and explosives acquisition and training, and several volunteers.

Officials describe these groups as “multi-tasking” – involved in fraud and fundraising and courier work as well as planning attacks. “There is a hierarchy within each cell with a very tightly run command and control,” said one counter-terrorism source.

Many suspects appear to be aware they are under surveillance and have taken to having important conversations outside – in parks and other public spaces – similar to the tactics used by PIRA leaders during the Troubles.

Intelligence experts fear the UK is a target as never before, with extremists intent on carrying out a huge spectacular, on the scale of the US atrocities in 2001.

“They viewed 7/7 as just the beginning,” said one senior source. “Al-Qaida sees the UK as a massive opportunity to cause loss of life and embarrassment to the authorities.” A second source agreed: “Britain is sitting at the receiving end of an al-Qaida campaign.”

Britain is an easier target, they have concluded, because of its traditional links with Pakistan which is visited by tens of thousands of people each year. Intelligence agencies have found it very difficult to penetrate the camps there.

Previously, security chiefs described the UK terrorist threat as comprising small groups which shared the same basic jihadi philosophy but lacked structure and were largely self-taught. Now, intelligence suggests a much more hierarchical system, with a far greater degree of organisation and inter-linkage, and sophisticated methods of recruitment, training and planning attacks.

However, core al-Qaida figures in Pakistan and their emissaries to Europe are still happy to delegate initiatives to different cells. The cells, intelligence shows, have different approaches – some might discuss a method of attack before talking about a target, while others discuss a potential target first.

Potential new recruits are carefully selected and targeted – mainly Muslim men in their late teens and early 20s – with recruiters often shunning the more obvious recruiting grounds of mosques and Islamic bookshops.

These young men are then put through a psychologically compelling indoctrination of weekend and evening briefings which start with legitimate religious lectures and prayer, but move gradually to more radical teachings and political discussions about the position of Islam in relation to the western world.

“It’s all about building up these recruits to consider themselves as Muslim ‘patriots’ and encouraging them to make the leap and ask themselves ‘This is how the west treats Muslims, what are we going to do about it?’” said one source.

The next stage often involves technical instruction in bomb-making, and during this phase, the recruiters do their best to engender a sense of brotherhood and bonding, sometimes putting recruits through bizarre initiation rites, such as staying out all night in remote areas in bad weather to prove their macho credentials and that they will not let their comrades down.

From this, the cells will move into latter-stage preparations, making martyrdom videos and shaving all their body hair off in readiness for an imminent suicide attack.

Even though the police and M15 have disrupted terror plots and groups influenced by al-Qaida, they describe the networks as very resilient.

They say there is a frightening number of young men willing to step up and replace those who have been arrested or gone to ground.

“It’s like the old game of Space Invaders,” said one senior counter-terrorism source. “When you clear one screen of potential attackers, another simply appears to take its place.”

Thoughts on Integration

What we in the UK have to realise is that — at least in a free, secular, liberal democracy – integration is a two way process, and that for it to be a successful process, it has to be largely organic. Any official attempts to impose it from above can only have a limited success (if any) if there is little willingness on the part of those to be integrated. In short, as much as the tabloids and government officials may want it, the message to British Muslims emphatically cannot be the threat that they must integrate, or else!

At the end of the day, integration is not something that can be enforced or dictated.

And as obvious as it may seem, a general climate of hostility directed towards Muslims, in which every instance of Islamic reticence towards integration, or each alleged failing of the Muslim community is endlessly hyped up, magnified and often misrepresented in the media, and in which an extremist and atypical minority of Muslims is regularly given the opportunity to set the agenda for all Muslims (hello Abu Izzadeen! hello Anjum Choudhary!) isn’t exactly going to encourage them to want to integrate.

It’s strange, given that only 1% of Muslim women wear the veil (according to Dr Haifaa Jawad of Birmingham University), that the ‘defiance’ of this tiny percentage in the face of calls (no pun intended) to remove these physical obstacles to assimilation has become the rallying cry for white-integrationists; indeed has become a sort of overall symbol for the entire Muslim community’s refusal to integrate. Surely, by giving these women and their unconventional lifestyle decisions — along with several other potentially divisive issues — an undue and unwarranted prominence in the media, in the midst of a cultural climate in which Muslims (rightfully) feel intimidated and demonised, we’re in serious risk of alienating the majority of Muslims who do accept that they need to reach out into the wider community, and who feel themselves unrecognised?

It’s not hard to understand that the motivations of government officials and media tabloids in spawning this recent spate of ugly stories are less about facilitating greater integration than pandering to the irrational prejudices and hatreds (and facist tendencies) of large segments of the white non-Muslim population. It is after all an exceptionally quick and easy way to sell papers and in the case of government ministers to win political support and direct attention away from a murderous and inept British foreign policy — especially morally perverse at a time when the biggest moral scandal should be the extreme likelihood that 650, 000 Iraqis have died since the onset of the Invasion of Iraq, many hundreds of thousands of these at the hands of allied forces.

Indeed as if to demonstrate that the stress on integration is at least partially spurious, we’re never told by the permanently hysterical gutter media why the existence, and modest success, of the BNP doesn’t show just as great an unwillingness to integrate on the part of the white population as the Muslim, or why well-documented concerns about insitutional racism in the police force and other bodies don’t similarly present a monumental barrier to integration. Or even why it’s acceptable for blacks and asians (especially anyone who looks like a Muslim) to suffer disproportionately more racial abuse and discrimination than the white inhabitants of these isles — and why this isn’t far more of a hinderance towards integration than a facial veil worn by a tiny percentage of Muslim women.

This last instance of media double standards is commonly evidenced by the frenzied reception accorded to racism against whites, or discrimination against Christianity compared with the far more virulent form directed against ethnic minorities, or against Islam in particular. Why did the recent proposals for extra screening and security checks for ‘Muslim-looking’ plane passengers provoke little more than sagely nodding heads and murmurs of assent from the very same commentators now given to frothing at the mouth at the idea that BA (partially for they say reasons of safety) would dare to proscribe a Christian member of staff from wearing a crucifix necklace, while allowing the hijab, or turban?

One example suffices to indicate how worrying things have got. Last Friday at 6pm, an imam was physically assaulted by a white male who’d entered a Glaswegian Mosque, the Dawal-ul-Islam centre. The imam was taken to a nearby hospital but was later discharged. Two things concern me about this story. Firstly, the muted reception it was given is especially unsettling when you consider the thunderous wrath and fury that would inevitably accompany the story of a Christian priest’s being assaulted in a church by someone who looked like a Muslim — not taking into account the reprisals that would take place aganist Muslims — and the serious questions it would raise about the separatist attitude of Muslims in this country. Secondly, this kind of incident is an entirely predictable corollary of the current scapgoating of the Muslim community, and these attacks are likely to become more common the more it progresses.

Then there’s the ideological attack on multiculturalism, not just in terms of a series of specific wrongheaded policy initiatives (something which would be eminently justified) but as a philosophy in itself, on the idea that other cultural traditions in this country might just deserve a modicum of respect or understanding. Multiculturalism’s various alleged excesses have apparently deprived it of any legitimacy and it is commonly argued that multiculturalism is antithetical to a policy of intergration in the country. It’s not understood how an underlying cultural basis of mutual respect and mutual recognition between Muslims and non-Muslims might not be a precondition of successful integration — since this would suggest that calls towards integration shouldn’t just focus on the Muslim community. .