Harder lines in Londonistan

[waz]

Honestly, I think it would be constructive if you could take out some time and try and populate the thread with your own experience in dealing with this issue, do try.

I'll be back on later as I have a few things to do. Hopefully by then there will be more input for us to build upon.

 

[Donatello]

The British administration has plenty of blame to shoulder indeed, letting people like Anjem role about freely without even taking a serious look at the actual material he was dealing with in his speeches, this wasn't a bloke who was criticizing British policies in the middle east or Britain's part in the WOT, this is a guy who was advocating full scale insurgency since he considered the British parliamentary system itself as illegitimate.

British legal system is one of the most mature in the world. A large part of the world derives it's Legal systems from there. However, over the years, they have increased their tolerance through bs 'freedom of speech' rules, which they count under the fundamental human rights. Each citizen is guaranteed that, and as long as the cleric/extremist you mention, doesn't really go and kill someone, there is not much their legal system can do, because you yourself gave him that freedom, in hindsight at least. Therefore, if they want to deal with this menace, they need to continue the intelligence monitoring of such individuals/centers etc but also give powers to the local law enforcers to arrest and detain them for questioning. If they would have done this earlier, those hundreds of jihadis who left for Syria could have been stopped and prosecuted. The problem is really complex, therefore. If they try to pass and implement any laws now, it would be regarded as a violation of the fundamental rights and there would be a back lash etc, which MPs don't want since a large number of them are funded and supported by Muslim groups. Muslims form a formidable community in Britain, and they are very well embedded socially and financially. Take a clue from this, the famous British boxer Amir Khan, is a well to do Muslim in Bolton, a city riddled with such extremists. He supports fundraising for Islamic Relief ( what they really do with that money, no body knows) and he gives out free meals/iftar at the local mosques where there are more homeless whites coming in than British Desis themselves.

 

[Dillinger]

British legal system is one of the most mature in the world. A large part of the world derives it's Legal systems from there. However, over the years, they have increased their tolerance through bs 'freedom of speech' rules, which they count under the fundamental human rights. Each citizen is guaranteed that, and as long as the cleric/extremist you mention, doesn't really go and kill someone, there is not much their legal system can do, because you yourself gave him that freedom, in hindsight at least. Therefore, if they want to deal with this menace, they need to continue the intelligence monitoring of such individuals/centers etc but also give powers to the local law enforcers to arrest and detain them for questioning. If they would have done this earlier, those hundreds of jihadis who left for Syria could have been stopped and prosecuted. The problem is really complex, therefore. If they try to pass and implement any laws now, it would be regarded as a violation of the fundamental rights and there would be a back lash etc, which MPs don't want since a large number of them are funded and supported by Muslim groups. Muslims form a formidable community in Britain, and they are very well embedded socially and financially. Take a clue from this, the famous British boxer Amir Khan, is a well to do Muslim in Bolton, a city riddled with such extremists. He supports fundraising for Islamic Relief ( what they really do with that money, no body knows) and he gives out free meals/iftar at the local mosques where there are more homeless whites coming in than British Desis themselves.

There is that, once the ideals of freedom of expression and speech have been embedded into the society they cannot be removed or curbed.

On the other hand, I do not think this is an issue which revolves around the said ideals or notions. This is the result of the administration inability to come up with a political solution to accommodate enough moderate voices in positions of actual authority who can counter such radicalization, the agents of said radicalization and can provide alternative structures and schemes for the integration of the Muslim populace.

 

[Umair Nawaz]

Selective....very selective & like most articles by Khaled Ahmed extremely misleading too !

Europol Report: All Terrorists are Muslims...Except the 99.6% that Aren't | loonwatch.com

All Terrorists are Muslims...Except the 94% that Aren't | loonwatch.com

no wonder he is now writing for the indian news website

 

[Armstrong]

He's talking of radicalization specifically in the UK, not about terrorist but of intolerance and the likes of Anjem (although he doesn't mention the fellow directly).

He's not talking about terrorism, or even specific terrorist organisations.

Did you read the specific article Buttsy!!

Bhai Sahib, the second half of my post was about 'radicalization' - If they're less likely to justify killings of civilians....in fact much less likely than how could they be called 'radicalized' or is simply having a difference of opinion just because it may or may not stem from 'religion' considered seeds of radicalism !

Bro there are a lot of issues with the Muslim society....a lot but this radicalization thing is, in all honesty, blown vastly out of proportion !

Do you want another Stat ?

The author contends that the bulk of the Muslims residing in the UK are Pakistanis & that they in some perverse ways reflect the internal radicalization about Pakistanis !

Yet in the report titled : THE BIRTHPLACE OF THE ARAB SPRING: VALUES AND PERCEPTIONS OF THE TUNISIAN PUBLIC IN A COMPARATIVE PERSPECTIVE - DECEMBER 15, 2013

To the questions :

(1) Non-Muslims [Non-Christians (for Christian respondents)] should be prohibited to practice their religion in (STUDY SITE COUNTRY)

Only 4% of the Pakistanis agreed to this which is considerably lower than any other Muslim country in the sample size & less than 1/6th of the Turks agreeing to this !

(2) The followers of other religions should not have the same rights as mine.

Only 10% of Pakistanis agreed to this which is again considerably lower than any other Muslim country in the sample size including pluralistic & secular countries like Tunisia, Turkiye & Lebanon.

(3) Approval of attacks on US civilians working for US companies in Islamic countries.

Only 1% of Pakistanis agreed to this which is much.....much lower than any other country's response in the survey !

The point I'm trying to make over here is that if :

(a) Rand Corporation after extensively studying this is saying that there is no immediate threat of American Muslims being radicalized & that the threat from home-grown terrorism has been blown vastly out of proportion !

(b) Only a miniscule fraction of terrorist attacks can be linked with Islam & Muslims otherwise what else does radicalization means if not shoving your beliefs down another's throat & reacting violently if you're stopped from doing this or even inspite of this ?

(c) Pakistani Muslims - the largest Muslim Community in the UK (as per the author) - display no signs of radicalization !

(d) Muslims in those countries & in other countries are displaying a markedly lower tendency of justifying violence against civilians than any other religious or non religious group !

Then how in heaven's name does one conclude that they're radicalized ?

We maybe socially conservative but that does not equal radicalism otherwise every Hindu, Jew or Christian who practices his or her faith maybe dubbed conservative because he has a list of social dos & don'ts !

@waz and @Oscar seem to find some merit in the article while @Chak Bamu and @Armstrong tend to find some faults

@waz Bhai will come around to my point of view - Hes a Kashmiri....apnii biradariii ko samjhanaa aataa haiii !

Whereas @Oscar is in a habit of contradicting everything I write & this has been increasing ever since I've walked away with more ladies in front of him than hes ever had the chance to talk too - Inferiority Complex !

And @Chak Bamu Bhai tou abbb hamein lift hii nahin karvateiii - Mod aka bareiii loggg bunnn gaiii abbb !

Khair jokes aside - There are a lot of faults with the Muslim societies & a lot of soul-searching is going on with internal contradictions popping up & people trying to reconcile their beliefs with modernity - Something that doesn't always end on a cordial note !

However the author takes an issue - a valid issues & then goes about extracting endless extrapolations from it most of which can be contradicting with quantitative facts & not just opinions - This kind of yellow journalism makes a mockery out of the underlying issue & becomes self-evident if one reads a few dozen of the author's previous articles as I have !

There is 'journalism' & then there is having a fixed idea of where the problem lies or who is in the wrong or what needs to be changed & the twisting & turning logic to arrive at that 'voila' conclusion in every other article that one writes !

 

[Chak Bamu]

@Dillinger , @Armstrong has done such a good job, that I can not really expand on what he has already said.

I will point in some other directions.

First, The author in reality does complain about purported link between radicalization & conservatism. What the author is saying is that radicalization is masquerading as conservatism and is growing - as shown by the report regarding Birmingham schools. In Urdu, we say "Maroon Ghutna, Phootay Ankh"; I'm sure this exact saying is in Hindi as well (since Urdu and Hindi are sisters). He is viewing a report from his very biased POV from Lahore! This is essentially what I said in my earlier post. He is not about drawing conclusions, but about complaining.

Second, UK has welcomed every radical and nutjob from around the world in guise of political asylum. This not only gives certain leverage to UK in international matters by being in a position to use said trouble-makers (like Altaf eg.), but also prepares a sort of atmosphere where these people can cause trouble. As much as I disagree with the article writer (for obvious crossed intentions), I have to agree that UK does throw up people like Anjem Chaudhry (?) and organizations like Hizb-ut-Tahrir. It is no co-incidence that England figures in many conspiracy theories. This is what happens when UK policy-makers in their wish to stay relevant tolerate poisonous weeds.

Now I shall come to the meatier issues.

Third, notice that there are three entities he is really discussing in guise of griping about Birmingham School Report - 1. UK (already discussed above), 2. Muslims, 3. Pakistan.

Muslims are no doubt in a difficult position. In the last 250 years, a lot has changed. The way Muslims viewed the world stayed essentially constant from about the Umayyad period - 700s, down to 1800s. The collapse that was unquestioningly obvious by 1850s caused great confusion and soul-searching among various levels of Muslim society all around the world. In a sense Muslims still have not come to grips with the Modern world essentially for a lack of suitable and widely applicable paradigm.

Each section of Muslim society had its own medicine.

Maulana Hussain Ahmad Madni of Deoband (aligned with Congress) said that what befell Muslims was a result of abandoning Quran.

More progressive thinkers had a different take. For example Iqbal addressed this when he said that Islam should be re-interpreted in light of Modern conditions without loosing its essence.

Revolutionaries like Ataturk wanted to kick Islam out of public life in Muslim countries.

Those who were enamoured with Marxist thought came up with either an abandonment of religion altogether, or some version of Socialist Islam.

All the while the general public in Muslim world has been subjected to push-pull-tear of all these approaches for more than a century. They try to make the best of the situation in the midst of general decay and degradation of Muslim society.

When outsiders look at Muslims in general, they can hardly make any sense. What they see is generally what they wish to see in line with their prejudices. This happens because much of the world looks at Muslim world with trepidation and suspicion. People like the article author simply take advantage of this and 'sell' their wares. "Muslims trying to destroy social fabric of society" sounds far more interesting and sale-able than "Muslims trying to get on with their lives as well as they can".

Let me come up with an analogy here: A Jewish boy from any of the Anglophone countries goes to Israel, gets drafted into IDF, and ends up shooting a few. How is this materially & factually different from a Muslim young man running away for Jihad? Both persons are essentially doing the same thing. The difference lies in the fact that for good or bad, Zionists have been successful in creating a nation-state and violence precipitated by a nation-state is somehow more acceptable than violence precipitated by non-state actors.

It is my firm belief that there is a need for order and organization in Muslim discourse (in discussion & actions). There is a need for some sort of supra-national (is this the right term?) entity that influences violent interactions in and from the Muslim world in such a way that it becomes possible to voice concerns of Muslim people in general. Some people may call it Khilafat, some may call it OIC on steroids, but whatever it is, there needs to be some entity that checks the unruly and violent behavior in name of Islam. There needs to be someone who can devise a mechanism to settle disputes. There is a serious need for someone to specify how Muslims should live in peace as minorities and as majorities in different nation-states. Someone needs to spell out how Muslims must deal with Sectarianism, Ethnic-nationalism, Poverty, abysmal HDI indicators, and other such problems.

That someone can only be an assembly / parliament / Shura of Muslim statesmen who can tackle serious issues head-on. The Muslim world, not just the Muslim countries, is craving for some sort of order, some modern paradigm to emerge. It must. But non-Muslim world does not trust Muslim world to allow even beginnings of such a process. Just look at so many Islamist projects that were brutally uprooted: Algeria 1990, Egypt 2013, etc...

There is great deal of flexibility within Islamic tradition, and many Muslims use it in their daily lives. If someone cares to note, most Muslims are integrated into Modern life without loosing their religion. There are some who are dis-satisfied enough to cause trouble. But everyone knows that Muslim world needs to improve itself and there is universal agreement here. The only trouble is that nobody can come up with the right prescription.

The Third entity that the author discusses, without saying much at all but by implying a lot, is Pakistan. All that is going on in the wider world gets twisted, magnified, reduced, blown per a typical Pakistani context. For many years there has been a tussle between liberals and conservatives within Pakistan that has caused much havoc. The author clearly identifies himself as a 'liberal-moderate' and leaves no doubt about his world-view. It is but one of the many POVs hustling for attention and relevance.

Conclusion:

Unless there is some way for Muslims to engage the rest of the world via an institutional mechanism, we shall keep hearing of radicalizations, Jihadism, conspiracies, inadequacies because internal contradictions will continue to persist.

Dialog, intellectual engagement, and a will to find solutions is the only way to solve problems. This requires leadership, and The West is loathe to allow it to emerge.

@Oscar , @Aeronaut , @FaujHistorian , @Secur , @Slav Defence , @Kaan , @Aether

 

[livingdead]

did not read the whole thing but if this is about 'trojan horse' operation, police is already investigating.
Its not radicalization but calling white girls sluts is what I find very annoying.

 

[Armstrong]

did not read the whole thing but if this is about 'trojan horse' operation, police is already investigating.
Its not radicalization but calling white girls sluts is what I find very annoying.

People actually say that ?

Despicable behavior !

 

[VCheng]

Unless there is some mechanism for Muslims to engage the rest of the world via an institutional mechanism, we shall keep hearing of radicalizations, Jihadism, conspiracies, inadequacies. Dialog, intellectual engagement, and a will to find solutions is the only way to solve problems. This requires leadership, and The West is loathe to allow it to emerge.

Why blame the West for the failures within Muslim countries to create their own leadership? The faults lie within, not in the West.

 

[Chak Bamu]

Why blame the West for the failures within Muslim countries to create their own leadership? The faults lie within, not in the West.

Just look at how FIS was denied government. Algerian army acted as an instrument of 'The West'. I still remember the role France played in all this.

You can read Dr. John L. Esposito for confirmation of my views. In any case, this is how I see it. People will agree or disagree because I have left a lot unsaid. I need not convince you.

did not read the whole thing but if this is about 'trojan horse' operation, police is already investigating.
Its not radicalization but calling white girls sluts is what I find very annoying.

Its not about that, but could have some bearing.

 

[VCheng]

Just look at how FIS was denied government. Algerian army acted as an instrument of 'The West'. I still remember the role France played in all this.

You can read Dr. John L. Esposito for confirmation of my views. In any case, this is how I see it. People will agree or disagree because I have left a lot unsaid. I need not convince you.

Those are all fair points. But surely hundreds upon hundreds of millions of Muslims who live in their own countries should be able to develop at least something that works for them in decades upon decades. At the very least!

 

[Chak Bamu]

Those are all fair points. But surely hundreds upon hundreds of millions of Muslims who live in their own countries should be able to develop at least something that works for them in decades upon decades. At the very least!

They are trying buddy.

The problem is that Islamists tend to be better organized in general. The population of most Muslim countries is generally conservative, unlike vociferous and loud English-or-French-speaking liberals. This results in better election performances by Islamists and/or their allies.

Most often, though Islamists are focused on elections, not on ways to solve specific problems. If allowed to rule, they could be evaluated on their performance, but I do not know if this has ever happened in a complete election cycle - yet.

All the 'Western' media outlets focus, promote, and prop liberal/secular type political parties and politicians. This is my observation and an indication of which way the 'Western' world wishes elections to go. But unless people actually exercise their choices and find out the results, we can not begin to address some of the very entrenched problems.

Pakistan has mixed but better than average experience in the Muslim world. Still we have so much obfuscation and support for military rule. There are so many Muslim countries, generally Arab, where the notion of representative government does not exist.

In a sense, this is our problem and we have to find solutions, but 'Western' world wishes for it to be on their terms and according to their preferences. That ain't cool.

 

[livingdead]

People actually say that ?

Despicable behavior !

lolz.. quite a lot of desi people think like that..... in their mind we are culturally superior because we are civilzed. We wear proper dress.. we respect elders .. our girls and boys dont drink.. etc etc.
Anyway, I was referring to a sting operation in which a school governor was heard saying similar things.

There is a bigger investigation going on about trojan horse plot which was about infiltration of radical islamists into 3 to 5 birmigham schools. School administrators deny the charges. google it.

 

[SarthakGanguly]

Selective....very selective & like most articles by Khaled Ahmed extremely misleading too !

Europol Report: All Terrorists are Muslims...Except the 99.6% that Aren't | loonwatch.com

All Terrorists are Muslims...Except the 94% that Aren't | loonwatch.com

Brother you misread the article. This is not about Muslims as terrorists or something but Muslims being radicalized. A radical Muslim need not be a terrorist.

To elaborate - A terrorist (from any background) is actually hardly a part of society, being a fringe minority. A substantial radical minority (or God forbid majority) is a part of society and hence more detrimental to the social well being.

People actually say that ?

Despicable behavior !

Trust me lala, this is true. There are BBC documentaries on this - about a young mixed origin woman investigating Birmingham and Lutton.

did not read the whole thing but if this is about 'trojan horse' operation, police is already investigating.
Its not radicalization but calling white girls sluts is what I find very annoying.

At the end of the day, it actually hurts, it really really hurts.

 

[Armstrong]

Brother you misread the article. This is not about Muslims as terrorists or something but Muslims being radicalized. A radical Muslim need not be a terrorist.

To elaborate - A terrorist (from any background) is actually hardly a part of society, being a fringe minority. A substantial radical minority (or God forbid majority) is a part of society and hence more detrimental to the social well being.

No I read it alright....Dilly Baba asked me the same question !

My contention was explained in the subsequent post that by any barometer of 'radicalism' thereby Muslims are well below any one else on that threshold; we might be socially conservative but then again since when did social conservatism equal radicalism ! Because if it did theres hardly any country on the face of the Earth that can't be called at least partly radicalized as you've got people from all religions who have social dos & don'ts, you've got secular humanists who are atheistic or agnostic who some times come across as being radical in proselytizing their views where any contrary opinion is everything from moronic to radicalized & they & they alone know what the 'way forward' is - Sound strikingly like radicalism and then lastly you've got nationalist in every single country who've justified more violence than their secular tags may be comfortable with !