In general agreement, but I want to analyze the whys and processes of failure. (I also think the Butt article did well to address the necessary dread theology question head-on, but did so in an overgeneralizing manner that smelled of "now trying to appear good to the authorities" and thus easily, and unfortunately, dismissable as sell out.)

On the main point is this: insofar as one can generalize (dangerous I admit), Muslims, in the West or East, are passive, in terms of public action, on EVERYTHING, the good and the bad. They don't show to ANYTHING, or at least hadnt been showing. The prevailing attitude has been "lay low and out of the way till [whatever it is] blows over". (Partly that also explains the Palestinian refugee origins).

About 10-20 years ago, all that changed *somewhat*.

In the West or at least the US, the activists awoke, and to some extent they got people to intermittently show up (including writing large checks for organized efforts and also to employ the activists!), and did so by appealing to the one thing everyone felt common simmering anger about: self-righteous victimhood. That was the ticket, the fuel. That got people out with signs, cash, and slogans.

Now if that is the fuel, and it assuredly is, there is not likely to be many cases of the people so motivated to show up to, of all things, an effort to denounce their own, especially when those to be denounced are actually ones showing up and doing something (criminal and counterproductive to be sure, but they make more noise otherwise than the entire offended community does about those things that make them feel victimized.)

This is even harder to overcome especially when the denunciation is demanded by those who usually are the bigots who usually don't listen even when denunciations of Muslim terrornauts by Muslims do happen.

Thus, the catch-22 -- in order to get the chronic no-shows to actually make the effort, one still has to appeal to the mindset that one is asking them to denounce (self-righteous anger).

Unless political maturity reaches step two -- realistic assessment of advancing one's image and power through coordinated effort. Not there yet in Europe at least.

Something I mentioned in a previous thread is that the likes of the Muslim Council of Britain are simply not going to change tack. The "extremist Islamist narrative" isn't too dissimilar from their own- they are in fact heavily linked to Islamist politics in South Asia. Turkeys don't vote for Christmas.

As for "not in my name" protests- simply isn't going to happen on a significant or relevant scale. British Jews aren't expected to go on marches to protest Israel's actions and nor should they. The Hindu Gujuratis didn't go on a march to protest the pogroms of a few years back.

My own personal view is that they're a bad idea. You are in effect enabling the view that British Muslims can in some way control or prevent attacks and that all they need to do is protest, which only opens the doors to the likes of the BNP and the more rabid elements of the press to say that British Muslims are in fact responsible on some kind of telepathic level, and it's just their own Islamofacism which prevented them in the past. The PR bonus points would be weighed down by the the implication of collective responsibilty and all that stems from that.

As for "not in my name" protests- simply isn't going to happen on a significant or relevant scale. British Jews aren't expected to go on marches to protest Israel's actions and nor should they. The Hindu Gujuratis didn't go on a march to protest the pogroms of a few years back.

And what the bloody fuck does that have to do with the case of terror bombings in the UK itself?

Such marches are an internal signal to own community - fuck the other elements, it's for the community's own bloody balance internally. BNP elements will be what they are, regardless. Continually pissing your pants about enabling them does fuck all about anything.

"It's for the community's own bloody balance internally"

This sounds awfully metaphysical. Could you elaborate at all? It sounds like more one community, one Ummah nonsense which is the plague of any discussion on British Muslims, and is exactly why I don't think marches would be helpful, relevant or practical.

As for pissing in my pants about the BNP- well, I don't, but then I don't live near their target areas. I do worry about the mainstream commentators who reinforce the notion of collective responsibility and guilt which does make life more difficult for ordinary Muslim folk and can overspill into verbal and physical abuse.

Metaphysical, it's fucking practical mate.

While yes, there isn't "one" Muslim community in any real sense in the UK - there is an Indo-Pak-Bangla one(s), which while not having given rise to these particular morons, needs to help kick out the people who want to piss in their own bathwater.

Signal to the "community" (communities if you want to be pedantic since the radicals think in terms of community in the singular, however deluded they may be) that bloody well time to stop wallowing in whinging on victimhood and communicate clearly - not in wishy washy "oh religion of peace whank whank whank" rot.

Bloody well was useful in Morocco, for example, for internal consumption.

Sure, I renounce terrorism, absolutely. But I don't renounce the right to make violence in legitimate self-defense of Muslims or Islam.

Agree completely on this victimhood crap. Muslims living in Western countries who care about what those countries do in Muslim countries should get organized and vote as a bloc to effect changes.

The only difference between Muslims and the Western Xians is Power. There is no moral superiority on either side. Islam is not a religion of peace, but neither is it a religion of war. The West is neither good nor evil. It has power and uses that power to advance its own agenda, usually couched in ridiculous, high-falutin' Kiplingspeak. As today is July 4th, it is only necessary to read some of the American commentators to see this.

Muslims need to attain power in order to effect change. Economic, military and social power, the latter in the form of votes.

jr786, how will Muslims getting power help them stop islamic terrorism in the UK? And what do you mean getting power? More MPs, or the prime ministership?

That's the bloody point, JR and the other reaction are precisely why the Muslim communities are in fact losing traction.

Unlike the linked arties, they are continuing the same mistaken "oh woe is us" reaction. It's useless bollocks as the takfiri lunatics do not have addressable concerns. (And while I have no love of the exagerations with respect to Dar Fur, it is grotesque the silence in certain quarters, and the obsession with the usually marginal Western impact over other issues).

Frandroid: It's not the job of the Muslims to stop Muslim terrorism in the UK, that's a job for the police. Muslims have denounced terrorism repeatedly - how many fatwas have been issued on this subject? If a person wants to participate in terrorism he will do so no matter what the rest of the Muslims say.
Yes, I meant more MPs. I don't live in England but no Muslim that I know is happy with the war in Iraq, for example. British Muslims who oppose the war should vote for candidates who also oppose it and who wish to get England out of there. Same thing with Afghanistan. I think that sometimes it is necessary to think as a Muslim first, not all the time, but sometimes.

How that can be construed as 'woe is us' is beyond me. Some Muslims still believe that what happens to the Muslim community at large is a concern to all of us, in which case they should get involved politically in order to have an effect on policies that Muslims. Essentially, what Matthew said:

Unless political maturity reaches step two -- realistic assessment of advancing one's image and power through coordinated effort.

To get there, we have to have unity. Our image is not helped by the takfiri jihadi, who in any case are more dangerous to Muslims than anyone else, but neither is it necessarily damaged by aggressively standing up for the Muslims. There is an almost infinite range of responses between behaving like a sheep and becoming a terrorist.

Lounsbury, if the "other comment" was aimed at me then I'm genuinely mystified. I'm pointing out that the kind of action that you're advocating is unlikely given the current community groups which operate under the muslim banner. A protest here or there makes no difference to the takfiris.

Where I have displayed "owe is us", I don't know. In fact I have been disputing the existence of "us". Where I have even mentioned the concerns of takfiri lunatics, I have no idea. For the record I don't even consider myself to be a Muslim in any real sense and I feel a shared Muslim identity to the same extent I feel a part of a brown haired identity.

JR

No it bloody well IS the fucking job of Muslims to help bloody stop terror in UK by fellow Muslims.

Namby Pamby, "oh it's the police jobbie mate" is fucking bullshit. The "community" not helping the police bloody well contributes to the problem.

In the Maghreb, to use again an example I am quite familiar with as an alternative, much of the takfiri circles have been broken by the neighbourhoods turning people in.

Unity, unity is fucking excuse. Bloody fools like you bloody well contribute to the kind of "oh it's the authorities who are the problem" discourse, and a vicious cycle.

Give me a break. I'm waiting to hear one of the murtadi you are forever quoting and holding up as exemplars to the Muslims to stand up and tell the English to turn in one of their own Muslim killers from Afghanistan or Iraq. Oh wait, I'm being a victim, right?

The biggest lie is to say that the average Muslim actually knows anything about the movements of these people, that they just conceal and hide the truth from the authorities. That's bullshit. Right now I have a question for every Muslim who reads this site. Have any of you ever been approached by jihadi? Have you ever sat and talked to salafi? Do you really think they are that fucking stupid to make themselves so easily known? But yet you want to blame the Muslims community for its failure to inform fast enough.

Unity, unity is fucking excuse.

No, it is not, it is our duty as Muslims, and it is complete disrespect to the religion of the Prophet (saw) to say something like that.

L, http://www.guardian.co.uk/terrorism/story/0,,1952281,00.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6165194.stm

You can add the likes of Omar Sheikh, Richard Reid and Dhiren Barot to that list of terrorists not coming from "the communities".

No, it is not, it is our duty as Muslims, and it is complete disrespect to the religion of the Prophet (saw) to say something like that.

If that means turning a blind eye to someone you know is possibly a threat, then that's total rubbish. I have and DO meet people all the time who exhibit worrying tendencies and draw me into discussions about jihad etc. I'm sorry to burst your bubble but I believe some of that stupid enough to expose their inclinations to a discerning eye. As a passionate Muslim, you must appreciate the difficulty of stifling the burning embers of your zeal especially when surrounded by offensive Western decadence...

Meph:

Several points. If you think that anything I've said indicates that I'm a passionate Muslim, or burning with zeal, then we really are doomed.

BTW, I once asked a man how he could tell if someone was zealous. He said to look for the ones who kept their right foot arched under their buttock during the entire khutbah.

I live in Brazil, a country that would need a Puritan reformation before it could even start becoming less decadent. I like it just fine.

The question to me is not about informing on your neighbors. Yes, for the umpteenth millionth fucking time it is right and proper to denounce terrorism in any and every way.

Where I disagree with most of the posters on this site is in the following. Whether we like it or not, since 9/11 Muslim has become a de facto political identity and short of someone becoming an open, up-front murtad we are stuck with the implications and burdens associated with that identity. Personally, I'm not interested in growing a prayer welt on my forehead, but I am very much interested in seeing Muslims develop a unified political movement in the West. That means that minus the lunatic takfiri jihadi fringe, I'm not willing to automatically slam the door on more religious, or zealous, Muslims.

Observing certain spiritual courtesies does not make someone a mujahid.

JR: Unity of the muslim community? How about unity of the british public, inclusive of muslims? Unity is a lie powermongers use to harness collective power. Diversity is where it's at, within every community, including the umma. Respect for diversity of culture, respect for diversity of opinion, respect for diversity of rights AND responsibilities.

I mean, put two people together, they won't agree on everything. So what's unity then? Unity is a stupid concept. Unity is a codeword for uniformity. It's a fascist word hidden under a feel-good coating. I don't want unity, I want myself living as an individual in society.

"Respect for diversity of culture, respect for diversity of opinion, respect for diversity of rights AND responsibilities."

But not for diverse health care options in Canada.

Back to main topic.....

JR

Give me a break. I'm waiting to hear one of the murtadi you are forever quoting and holding up as exemplars to the Muslims to stand up and tell the English to turn in one of their own Muslim killers from Afghanistan or Iraq. Oh wait, I'm being a victim, right?

No, a hypocrite and a fool at best, if not a liar.

The biggest lie is to say that the average Muslim actually knows anything about the movements of these people, that they just conceal and hide the truth from the authorities. That's bullshit. Right now I have a question for every Muslim who reads this site. Have any of you ever been approached by jihadi? Have you ever sat and talked to salafi? Do you really think they are that fucking stupid to make themselves so easily known? But yet you want to blame the Muslims community for its failure to inform fast enough.

Bollocks.

Like Meph I meet and talk to people who display worrying tendencies, who clearly display when they think they have a sympathetic ear, thinking that says "takfir."

Further, your excuse making and whinging on in, yes, "oh the poor oppressed Muslims" fashion is precisely the sort of enabling that helps allow the fish to swim in the pond.

Unity, unity is fucking excuse.

No, it is not, it is our duty as Muslims, and it is complete disrespect to the religion of the Prophet (saw) to say something like that.

Ala rasek.

It's a disrespect to pretend one owes a duty to murderers over the rest of the community. You are part of the problem.

Your thinking will in the end, if not stopped, lead to Andalous bis. And you will deserve it with this line of thinking for what host should trust traitors?

Actually the above comment I made is unreasonable. Too pressed to write something more reasonable, so I shall merely ask JR to hold off for the moment as I regret it.

Bah, dissenting Aqoul contributor here:

JR makes a very good point, I don't know any terroroid. And if I knew a terroroid wanabe, I'd happily turn him in, and enjoy the pain of that subhuman thing.

Frankly, it's a bit of a pain in the ass that one has to state it again and again (putting aside that JR is a regular here, so I would have assumed we're rather acquainted with his views). Having to show/prove you disagree with the terroroids/don't beat your girlfriend/don't steal/are not irrational/not a zealot is a pain in the ass that I resent on a very personal level. It's holding Muslims to a double standard, and what makes it personal is all the hurdles in day to day relationships when you see people's reactions once they understand you're Arab/Muslim (not to mention the rest of the crap that comes with work/authorities/you name it).

Now JR, I disagree with you on the bloc vote. First I'm an individual. I don't vote what others tell me to, I deeply dislike others telling me to behave otherwise than as a strictly independent individual. Then, you and I might have very different opinions on what's good for Muslims. Last, bloc vote is the best way to lose big time. You don't have influence on the side you give your vote to, because they knows they'll have it, and you don't have influence on the other side, because they know they won't.

Back to our topic per se. I also agree with our Lounsbury on that Muslims need to denounce terrorism for their own internal consumption. I'm not sure there's a real disagreement between L. and JR here or if you guys are both talking past each other. The denounciation shouldn't be for external consumption, non Muslims should hold me by the same standards they do for themselves. Or they can go fuck themselves. But the message needs to be clear among Muslims, even among the biggest morons Muslims could produce, that the terroroids are our (Muslims’) enemies, fucking traitors who give excuses every time one is needed to do more damage to Muslims, and they should be treated as such, traitors.

And then, I won’t restate what Matthew has put so well.

JR,

"But I don't renounce the right to make violence in legitimate self-defense of Muslims or Islam."

What would be self-defense of Islam? I can understand self-defense of Muslims. The UK government starts putting all Muslims in jail. That's harming Muslims. You start a guerilla against the government that puts Muslims in jail en masse.

What is it to attack Islam though? Is it blasphemous drawings in a newspaper? Is it saying bad things about Islam or insulting Mohammed? If someone does that, would there be a case for making violence in legitimate self-defense of Islam?

"No, it is not, it is our duty as Muslims, and it is complete disrespect to the religion of the Prophet (saw) to say something like that."

Why should Loun care about respecting the religion of the Prophet (saw)? If someone disrespects the religion of the Prophet (saw), what's the most serious punishment that may be inflicted?

Would like to point out a further complication of matters: Immigrant communities in Europe are often overcriminalized and targeted/harassed by police, and as such have less desire to work together with authorities on any particular matter. Don't snitch, and that.

Baal Shem ra:

If someone disrespects the religion of the Prophet (saw), what's the most serious punishment that may be inflicted?

I regret that comment; it was a lack of adab on my part at the very moment I was accusing Lounsbury of the same thing. I sincerely apologize for it and formally beg his pardon. The Prophet said that the best among us were the ones with the best manners. This is our religion and his legacy to us for the best that we should be. It matters for that reason. He was right to call me hypocrite.

Shaheen: I can't do the individual versus collective routine here. My point is simply that I really believe that Muslims would be better served NOW, in these days and in certain places, by voting collectively. Yes, right now I believe it is necessary to 'prioritize' Muslim identity.

For what I really hope is the last time I repeat: The people who make these terrorist attacks have, by their very actions, ceased to be Muslim. Whatever they are, they are not of us. They have brought more damage to us than anyone. (85:10)

JR,

My point is simply that I really believe that Muslims would be better served NOW, in these days and in certain places, by voting collectively.

prioritizing Muslim identity or not, bloc vote doesn't serve Muslims's interests, anywhere, period. A bloc vote is like no vote. That was my point.

The guerrilla must move amongst the people as a fish swims in the sea. - Mao

First, glad to see you're not dead, C. Second, congratulations on posting a halfway interesting topic. We reached something of a nadir with the cats-in-kaffiyehs thing.

Second, you raise a point that I've been bitching about for years. Islamic terrorism is a Muslim problem. It will only be solved by Muslims. Full stop.

I waver between amusement and outrage watching the antics of many Muslims, especially in Europe. While many "activists" among them are quick to take offense at real or imagined slights against "the Muslim community" or "Islam," they are equally quick to disavow the very concept of a community when it comes time to take responsibility rather than offense.

The fact is, Mao, for once, was dead spot on. Muslim terrorists swim in the sea of the Muslim community. Whether through intimidation or latent sympathy, Muslim terrorists rely on the silence and tacit support of those around them.

Stopping terrorism is not just a matter of ringing up the police to report your friends and neighbors, though that's certainly part of it. More importantly, it's creating a political environment within the community that says that terrorism and violence just won't be tolerated.

Sure, I renounce terrorism, absolutely. But I don't renounce the right to make violence in legitimate self-defense of Muslims or Islam.

This is exactly the kind of thing I'm talking about. Yes, indeed, one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter, how unspeakably coy. Osama bin Laden would completely agree with your statement.

The truly comedic, albeit darkly comedic, aspect to all this is that Islamic terrorism -- for all the attempts to justify it by alleged Western provocations -- primarily kills Muslims. The occasional kafir gets caught in the crossfire but virtually all the death and destruction is intramural. In Iraq, for example, Muslim casualties from terrorism are about a hundred times that of Westerners.

Indeed, Muslims in the Muslim world have a decent grasp of this concept, unlike may of their European cousins. Iraqis know that as much as they dislike foreign troops, what follows is likely to be much, much worse before it gets any better. People in North Africa, like the unrewarded Mr. Faiz, know that Islamic terrorism is something that happens to the Muslim community and that only the community can put a stop to it.

I'm afraid, however, that Islamic terrorism in the Muslim world is a bit like the Mafia. Lots of people know something about it but most people prefer to look the other way because they and their family will get whacked if they don't. But European Muslims haven't got that excuse. And that makes their waffling and disavowal of responsibility as inexplicable as it is contemptible.

About Mr. Faiz, interview here (in French).

Anonymous, if you're talking about verbal condemnation then British Muslims have been doing that for a long time. Yet no matter what they say the same demand of "why don't they condemn terror" comes up. Just like you're doing now. That's why I think it's merely a rhetorical stick to beat them with.

As for "Muslim terrorists swim in the sea of the Muslim community". If you're talking about the UK then no, they don't. There's a couple of links further above which have already pointed that out.

"While many "activists" among them are quick to take offense at real or imagined slights against "the Muslim community" or "Islam," they are equally quick to disavow the very concept of a community when it comes time to take responsibility rather than offense."

Activists who take offense at real or imagined slights against the community don't disavow the concept of a community. They rigidly stick to it as it's their lifeblood, and will blame everything on external forces, whether foreign policy, racism, the police etc.. Those activists who are trying to break the stranglehold of the professional whingers don't take offense at everything, are prepared to enter rational discussion and have a nuanced take on the concept of a community. It's easy when you don't look on Muslims as one amorphous blob.

Sure, I renounce terrorism, absolutely. But I don't renounce the right to make violence in legitimate self-defense of Muslims or Islam.

This is exactly the kind of thing I'm talking about. Yes, indeed, one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter, how unspeakably coy. Osama bin Laden would completely agree with your statement.

Coy? Let me be blunt. I support both Hamas and Hezbollah against the Zionist occupation of Palestine. Clear enough? Further, I support the insurgency directed against the British and American military occupation of Iraq. I do not support any action against civilians. You have a difficulty with this on some moral or ethical basis? Or are Muslims de facto terrorists whatever their motivations or targets? Am I to infer from your statement that no Muslim can ever be a freedom fighter?

Osama bin Laden would completely agree with your statement

Anonymous likes his Muslims the old-fashioned, panni-wallah-wog kind, the kind that manfully steps out in front of Jezail rifles or Israeli and American tanks and goes to his Gawd without fighting back. Here, I'm expected to make the customary protestation about Obl. Well, George Bush, Tony Blair, the Likud party and what's left of Sharon agree with everything you have just said, no doubt. One man's political bed-fellow is just another's piss-drinking son of a circus whore, I guess.

Iraqis know that as much as they dislike foreign troops, what follows is likely to be much, much worse before it gets any better

Brandy and soda, Gunga Din. Bloody wogs should be on their knees thanking us for destroying the social and cultural fabric of their country, creating millions of refugees and creating the conditions for bloody anarchy. And they have the nerve to blame us!? More Muslim victimology is what it is. Pass the port.

I'm afraid, however, that Islamic terrorism in the Muslim world is a bit like the Mafia. Lots of people know something about it but most people prefer to look the other way because they and their family will get whacked if they don't. But European Muslims haven't got that excuse. And that makes their waffling and disavowal of responsibility as inexplicable as it is contemptible.

Truly sublime. In fact, it's just Lounsbury minus the wankers, piss offs and fucks. BTW, unless I'm mistaken, there's no such thing as Islamic terrorism. Enlighten me, mudarris.

I'm afraid, however, that Islamic terrorism in the Muslim world is a bit like the Mafia. Lots of people know something about it but most people prefer to look the other way because they and their family will get whacked if they don't.

I can't personally say that is my experience. Most people I come across are either apathetic, naive or slightly even sympathetic but it is never an obvious fear of finding your horse's head on the pillow after grassing someone up...something more akin to freezing on the pavement and doing nothing as a mugger pins an old woman to the ground and snatches her handbag.

I'm not really sure what we're discussing anymore however, jr786, you have a lousy attitude and seem to be afflicted by a paranoid hysteria that seems to belie your intellect (yes that is meant to sound patronising.

Shaheen JR makes a very good point, I don't know any terroroid. And if I knew a terroroid wanabe, I'd happily turn him in, and enjoy the pain of that subhuman thing.

Again, I think that is down to your personal experience/circumstances/inclination. In addition, being on the receiving end of any persecution in a post 9/11 world is clearly unfair - if you are a Shaheen or equivalent - but I don't quite understand the outcry when Asian/Arab looking men are searched at airports etc. It pisses me off when they do it, but I can hardly criticise what is logically the most sound conclusion, that your chances of being a threat are higher if you are Muslim/Occidental than if you were a strawberry blonde American grad student. I blame those who sadly set the precedent...

jr786, you have a lousy attitude and seem to be afflicted by a paranoid hysteria that seems to belie your intellect (yes that is meant to sound patronising

I'd like to see an example of my 'paranoid hysteria'. As for my lousy attitude - today is Friday and I'm watching my manners, with some exceptions, of course. Say it to me tomorrow and I'll have a more creative response for you.

prioritizing Muslim identity or not, bloc vote doesn't serve Muslims's interests, anywhere, period. A bloc vote is like no vote. That was my point.

Shaheen, the specific Muslim interest that matters to me is the war being waged against Muslims in Palestine, Iraq and Afghanistan. By voting as a bloc I meant that it could make a difference if Muslim voters in Britain, for example, voted for candidates according to their position on Britain participating in these wars. Bloc voting, even for negative reason, is a legitimate form of political protest. There is a sizable Muslim minority in Britain. If they don't vote together on something that concerns all Muslims (granted, my opinion) how else can they make a difference? That's not a rhetorical question, btw; I'd really like to hear an alternative.

Yeah, I am still alive.

As for JR - mate I believe you are missing my point, but I have not had the time or energy to speak to it clearly either. No worries on this hypocrite and ranting angle, I was coming off badly.

Have to catch a flight....

Just to throw trouble in many directions, some points --

Muslim bloc voting. Bloc voting as a strategy has its ups and downs; I mostly agree it tends to backfire. It all boils down to the main issue, which is participation itself. Participation in voting, participation in campaigning, participation in donating, participation in public debate and entertainment, all or most of that is necessary for effective representation, and it is still in infancy everywhere.

Morocco's "not in our name" turnout. I dont think it's comparable. The Moroccan community was the victim of the attacks. They were on home turf. Remember the sincere anti-Zarqawi demonstrations in Jordan that seemed to freak out Zarqawi personally? Now there are Jordanians involved here in the UK case but you wont see Jordanians demonstrating much. They werent the victim group here and the demonstrations idea in this case is for the benefit of "appeasing" those seen as the bigoted enemy.

And while I agree with the importance of doing such a public display of disowning, I do feel that a) condemnations of the attack are indeed authoritatively made and are simply underplayed, b) doing so can foment the idea of collective guilt (though not doing so makes it worse).

Sympathy for the takfir. Even I, a non-Muslim whiteguy American, have sensed over the years a) a soaring increase in turning to ostenatious traditional exclusionist religiosity among Muslims (confirmed by Muslims and non-Muslim Arabs), and b) a sense that force is the only answer for justice for various Muslim communities and region. Combining a and b, gets you to the hardcores, whom I havent met personally (or at least they havent disclosed themselves), not being in the community but there is a sense that there is a measure of sympathy for even the terrorist violence and I suspect far far more operative is the feeling that a) those in the West demanding public denunciation
are merely looking for an excuse to debase us. And why dont they clean up their own act first; they're the one with greaer power and responsibility? b) those terrorists may be terrorists, but their OUR terrorists, and at least they manage to frustrate and anger the arrogant enemy far more than we do just complaining around the dinnner table with endless cousins.

No one's who thinks that way is going to turnout for what appears a public penitence over crimes they didnt commit. Even if they were otherwise habituated to performing that or any kind of public activism.

OTOH, it is important to acknowledge that a) random terrorist violence against Westerners and Israelis and even Jews generally has a measure of support and, far more important, a far greater measure of "we dont approve but understand" type of sympathy, b) sympathy for /exclusivist/supremacist religion is on the rise among Muslims, and c) there are elements in history and holy writ that need to be addressed in order to inhibit or reverse those tendencies, and to channel the energies towards more effectve, more just, and more participatory approaches.

A few points:

I'm quite on JR and Abu Dolman's side of the argument here, minus the religious rhetoric bits and the bloc vote question.

JR, re bloc vote, you must make sure the candidates you don't like don't make it to run in elections in the first place. Bloc votes come too late in the political process and efforts to court that vote are perceived as a waste by candidates (see Israel, US, France, etc.). See Matthew's comment, he put it well.

I'd insist more on the "denouncement of terrorism for internal consumption" (1) than on "Muslims must fight for their interests" (2). There's more awareness on (2) among Muslims than on (1) imo. There's a huge discrepancy between the will of Muslims to have their interests better protected and their ineffective or counterproductive methods, as a result of a near complete political immaturity. So, (2) is already there, next step: increase maturity. (1) is part of increasing maturity.

Meph,

glad we can discuss without shooting each other (I'm sincere, not making a smart-behind comment). I disagree with your comment about who's to blame for the profiling.

If we're talking about avoiding threats, profiling Muslims because of some deadly threat is irrational. Statistically, bigger threats exist. And within this specific category of threats, psychos of all backgrounds are to consider.

Now if the decision makers think there's some good reason to single out Muslims as producing more dangerous psychos targetting them, and if they actually aim at bringing that level of psychopathy to an average, it would be good that they undertake some rational analysis of the causes and implement measures/policies matching that objective. Unfortunately the truth is, profiling simply reflects a state of real or perceived war(s) between (allow me the gross shortcut) "Muslims and Westerners" (tough luck for us who sympathize with/are both).

Whoever brought us to this state may be the ones to blame, but this is really irrelevant, blame games don't solve problems.

Some thoughts about bloc voting from someone who studies the area.

Bloc voting can be effective if either
(1) the bloc makes up enough of a majority to give one candidate a very good chance at winning. I'd estimate at least 25% of his/her support.

or

(2) the bloc is significant enough to swing the election, willing to switch candidates and there are no other more significant blocs on a given issue operating in the election.

Three problems with bloc voting:
1. The bloc must agree to a specific narrow issue, and must put all its other concerns aside (or agree on them) - this is virtually impossible for a large disperate community - in the Muslim case, does everyone agree about Iraq? What about security measures at home? What about tax rates? Environmental laws? Health care reform? Other foreign policy issues? Social spending? Schooling issues? etc.

2. The bloc needs to be located in influential ridings or be particularly large (ie French Canadians 20-25% of the pop.). Even if you manage to elect a handful of representatives who rely on the bloc, they might have little impact on government policy unless they are in the winning party and are key members.

In the two significant countries involved in the Iraq war, the US and Britain, Muslim bloc voting is unlikely to be significant enough to affect major foreign policy decisions. This is particularly the case in the US, where current foreign policy is overwhelmingly driven by the average white suburban voter, probably from the Mid-West & bible belts.

3. The bloc cannot have preconceived views on social issues that drive its voting. The Jewish community in the US in WWII were unable to get the US to intervene in the Holocaust. One of the reasons was Jews always voted liberal (Democrat) on social issues. The Democrats had no need to deal with the issue, because they knew Jews were not about to go vote for Republicans.

Of course, there's also the fact that historically no one has ever intervened to stop a genocide unless there are other security issues at stake - ie Vietnam in Cambodia.

I believe Muslim voters, being recent immigrants in most Western countries would have the same problem. They would be unlikely to vote with the more conservative parties, and hence are locked-in to their voting patterns - although there is the complication that many are religious, and hence drawn to the right on religious and social-behaviour issues.

As a combined response to Shaheen and Matthew, and to summarize my own position:

Let's say that all the adult Muslims in England got together to denounce terrorism done in the name of Islam by fellow Muslims. Further, let's say that the best way to eradicate terrorists is to shun them, to expel from the Muslim community. This is what was asked of the Muslims, I believe, both in the quoted articles and in Lounsbury's comments on them. But doesn't all that assume that there actually is a Muslim community than can and should act collectively for, or in this case, against something?

Yeah, I would like to see such a march or demonstration of Muslims acting and thinking as Muslims concerned with something that affects us all. But before everybody went home I'd ask them to think about other things that could be done with all this collective feeling and unified sentiment, things in England and outside of it.

So yes, I would support this kind of 'coming together', not just for its statement and collective action against the takfiri jihadi but also for its potential in terms of creating social actions aimed at the betterment of the Muslims. I concede that bloc voting may not be the best course but that just begs the question of a better alternative.

The article states:

Diverting attention away from the problems within Muslim communities and blaming others - especially the west - is always more popular than the difficult task of self-scrutiny.

If he's talking about England, I agree. I absolutely support Muslim responsibility and action. But again, in order to do this there must be 'loyalty' to the notion of 'Muslim' community. Yet every time the Muslims try to do this there is some negative reaction, the accusation of "exclusionary, traditional, Muslims". In other words: "Act like a cohesive community but don't be too religous". I think that the bar is set too high sometimes. In any case, that quote would be ridiculously simplistic if one were talking about Gaza or Kashmir, no?

Self-scrutiny is incumbent on any thinking person: it is the first step on the greater jihad. Putting things like that is an intelligent way of reminding people that our tradition demands well-intentioned thought and action.

Who says British Muslims don't bloc vote? They predominantly vote Labour.

Dan:
Regarding two of the three problems you list:

1) Agreement on a specific issue at least seems possible enough. My understanding is that the Muslim vote in Virginia state in the US had a great deal to due with defeating the incumbent. The specific issue in that national-level election was the war in Iraq. The Muslim Students Association was very active in that state and others that have a (relatively) large Muslim population. I don't know that 'everybody' agreed on Iraq but I bet it was close.

2) Location. Again, I follow the trends in the US since it is that country leading the way in the issues that concern me, Palestine and Iraq. Michigan and Ohio are critical states for control of one of the Houses of the government. Near uniform Muslim voting there can make a difference given the now near equal status of everything else.

With those states and at least one other, if the MSA is accurate, the majority in government could change.

Everything depends on Muslims believing that there are certain supra-ethnic or national questions that concern them as Muslims. The template for that is already included in the religion, it just needs some cloth to be laid out on; an inelegant metaphor but accurate nonetheless. Palestine, for example, was not a specifically Muslim issue at the time of the first intifada, I know that from experience, but it is now.

I'd like to ask your opinion on the potential effects of Muslims coming together on anti-terrorism - can that be used as a springboard for other community driven issues? Has something like that happened before, where one issue led to a sense of collective identity, and is there a model for its occurrence?

I agree that we are far away from making any real difference in the policy decisions of America, Canada and the UK but until recently there wasn't much to work with.

So Asim Siddiqui doesn't like it when Muslims blame terrorism on foreign policy because he they ignore the problem of the "terrorist mindset." Instead, he suggests that we should blame the "terrorist mindset" and forget about foreign policy. That sounds like the solution to me. Why does everybody insist on blaming it on either foreign policy or the "terrorist mindset" (whatever that means, but I'll say: a belief in indiscriminate political violence)? The issue is a bit more complicated. It's true that violence against civilians would not occur unless people believed it to be justified; but it is also true that many people would not be moved to such acts in the first place if they did not have their (very legitimate) list of political grievances. Which of the two you decide to blame everything on says a bit more about your political attitudes than about reality. In truth, people have always rationalized violence against civilians, whether conducted by renegade groups or state armies. I don't see the entire world collectively renouncing violence any time soon (nor do I think that the people who suggest that the "terrorist mindset" be eliminated actually believe the world should take these steps), so I put my weight behind the second argument.

Jr., you're an excellent example of the attitude I'm talking about. Let's dissect your position.

I support both Hamas and Hezbollah against the Zionist occupation of Palestine.

Hamas largely made its name using suicide bombers against civilian targets.

I support the insurgency directed against the British and American military occupation of Iraq.

Fair enough. It follows, however, that you consider the current Iraqi government illegitimate. As I'm sure you are aware, the current government is quite keen to have the Americans and British stay on. I'm sure you are also aware that the Americans and British are, and have been, quite keen to leave.

I do not support any action against civilians.

Whoops. Hamas got famous blowing up civilians. The Iraqi "insurgency" kills something like 100 times more Iraqis than British or American troops. Indeed, the "insurgency" killed 150 thoroughly ordinary Iraqis in one attack just this last weekend.

How does one rationalize these inconsistencies? When people try at all, it's usually through often laughable hair-splitting, e.g., Israeli civilians, including women, children and members of the Labour party, aren't really civilians at all because Israel has universal military conscription. Even better is the actions ala carte approach. "Well, I don't support the Hamas suicide attack on the restaurant but I do support the Hamas suicide attack on the check point."

But in real life, you can't do that. You support groups and individuals, not actions. You can't give money to Hamas and earmark it for children's camping trips.

Jr's attitude also carries a disturbing implication that Muslims blowing up Muslims is somehow preferable to infidels blowing up Muslims. The number of casualties caused by American and British forces in Iraq is minuscule compared to the number of casualties caused by the "insurgency." The number of civilian casualties in Iraq caused by the "insurgency" exceeds the civilian casualties caused by American and British forces on the order of 1000 to 1. If you're upset about the British and American military occupation of Iraq, you, logically, ought to be 1000 times more pissed off at the Iraqi "insurgency." Are you?

For what I really hope is the last time I repeat: The people who make these terrorist attacks have, by their very actions, ceased to be Muslim. Whatever they are, they are not of us. They have brought more damage to us than anyone. (85:10)

I completely agree. But this is, as discussed, at odds with some of your other opinions.

First, have you not heard of Finsbury Park mosque?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4639074.stm

Second, it's not just about turning in your neighbor who's got a bomb lab in his garage, it's about creating a set of social norms that rejects terrorism. Otherwise, would-be terrorists view themselves as latter-day Muslim Robin Hoods, swashbuckling rogues with the tacit support of the people they defend rather than violent un-Islamic nutters.

Unity, unity is fucking excuse.

No, it is not, it is our duty as Muslims, and it is complete disrespect to the religion of the Prophet (saw) to say something like that.

But you can't have it both ways. Are you your brother's keeper or aren't you? You cannot claim responsibility defending the Ummah in Iraq but disavow any responsibility for Muslims in your own community.

Jr's contradictory attitude -- which is shared by many Muslims -- creates a political and social climate where terrorism can flourish. It converts heinous terrorist acts into errors of enthusiasm. "Well, you guys really went a bit too far blowing up that bus, but jihadists will be jihadists, I suppose."

hm, Muslim Association of Britain, how do they compare to MCB? Of which I am not a fan.

Anonymous, Ordinarily I would just tell you to join your ancestors in jehannum. As far as dissecting my position, you can dissect my Muslim cock when I'm dead, kafir, in order to understand how and why I piss on the likes of this nonsense when I see it. In the meantime:

Hamas largely made its name using suicide bombers against civilian targets.

I don't see a point here. I already denounced the killing of civilians. Shall we tally up how many Palestinians, Iraqis, Lebanese Muslim and Afghani civilians are dead from Western homicide bombs? Hypocrite.

I'm sure you are also aware that the Americans and British are, and have been, quite keen to leave.

Ma'asalaama.

. The Iraqi "insurgency" kills something like 100 times more Iraqis than British or American troops

The takfiri do this, and I hope they go to hell for it. I support the Iraqi nationalists and the takbiri jihadi. One letter, big difference. The Muslims ask 'lima katabta 'alayna al-qital' Why do You make us fight? The Hezbollah fought like the Companions of the Prophet (Saw) in Lebanon against the Zionist war machine but did you support them in their struggle? Or must the Muslims renounce all violence and accept what you want? Look in your own mirror once in a while.

"Well, I don't support the Hamas suicide attack on the restaurant but I do support the Hamas suicide attack on the check point."

Wallahi, we agree! Join me in insisting that Hamas be given the same weapons as the Israelis and we could have a real fight. Palestine is not London, kafir. Have you even been there? Have you ever watched a man wash the body of his only son, 14, killed by the Zionists? Or do only the Jews bleed? Lecture somebody else. Besides, has anyone ever calculated how many of these attacks are actually motivated by revenge and not religion or politics? Anyone who knows Palestine will understand what I mean.

. Otherwise, would-be terrorists view themselves as latter-day Muslim Robin Hoods, swashbuckling rogues with the tacit support of the people they defend rather than violent un-Islamic nutters

This is just nonsense. Don't prattle in front of people who know better than you. Terrorism is a tactic for people who have nothing left to fight with. How many Afghans have been killed from bombs dropped from 10,000 meters? This is the courageous Western way to fight, eh? Collateral damage and, as Bushwog Khalizad said, 'unfortunate'. BTW, how come the American soldiers families get 200,000 dollars when they get killed but Iraqis and Afghans only get 2,000 in diyaa? Muslim blood always comes cheap.

Are you your brother's keeper or aren't you? You cannot claim responsibility defending the Ummah in Iraq but disavow any responsibility for Muslims in your own community.

The question shows complete ignorance of Islam; the answer is no, by the way.

I'd like to see an example of my 'paranoid hysteria'.

Anonymous, Ordinarily I would just tell you to join your ancestors in jehannum. As far as dissecting my position, you can dissect my Muslim cock when I'm dead, kafir, in order to understand how and why I piss on the likes of this nonsense when I see it.

I rest my case...

Meph: This isn't about me or my attitude, hence you don't have a case. I say things for people who can't say them so well in English. People like you and Anon don't like those things because you are used to the bow and scrape kind of Muslims. Fuck them and fuck you.

Fair play's a jewel, or so I've heard. The same week that nobody was killed in London, 300 civilians were killed in Afghanistan and more Lebanese were killed by leftover Israeli cluster bombs (at least 30 to date), not counting the usual scores, hundreds of Iraqi. World reaction?

Here's a rather good article on Huff, via PP. On Butt and all this.

jr786,

I don't quite understand why you resort to slurs and religionist language.

So you're pissed off. BFD - we all are. Calling people "cockuckers" & "kafir" won't really get you anywhere.

If you haven't noticed, the people here tend to be PRO-Muslim in the sense that we strongly criticize the racist attitudes towards Muslims in the West. However, that doesn't preclude us from viewing EVERYone, incl. Muslims/Arabs, with a critical eye as well. And we tend to find Muslim-based politics in the West ... well, counterproductive and harming at worst and "wanting" at best.

So don't blame us here for the fact that mainstream media doesn't treat the suffering of Palestinians, Iraqis, Kashmiris, Afghans, etc. in a fair matter. Write a letter to the BBC.

--MSK*

MSK:

I didn't call anyone a you-said-it, but instead made an approximation of some colorful invective I have heard elsewhere. I did call Anonymous a kafir. In the future I will refer to him as Lord Curzon sahib any time he resorts to his smarmy, condescending tone, which is to say always.

And we tend to find Muslim-based politics in the West ... well, counterproductive and harming at worst and "wanting" at best.

Couldn't agree more and hope very much to help change that politics into something more effective.

JR,

you'd do your case a favor if you changed your tone. Yes, the package counts, sometimes to the point of throwing the content without looking into it if it's ugly.

Well, now. Well.
The MCB remind me of my local DC Ward 5 politicos from when I lived in the capital of The Greatest Nation on Earth. Except substitute 'black' for 'Muslim.' I had some friends in the neighborhood who'd been politically active in local politics for years so I got to meet our longest standing councilman. And he was an imbecile who could do nothing more than go on about right-wing Rightist conspiracies and how he read the Washington Times to track them. His entire claim to fame was that as a young man he was in ML King's entourage, which is deserving of respect. But all he did on the council is whinge about The Man while singularly failing to do anything about the crime or crappy services or shitty neighborhood infrastructure that actual black people in DC actually lived in (as did whiteys like me who were in the same 'hood). Or about the fact that wealthy, white Ward 1 had hella better services.
Also, the Western fear of Islamic terrorism reminds me quite a lot of DC suburban fear of Black crime. The nice middle class people either felt this fear or rejected it as racist (or did the first but tried to do the second). But the truth was that there was very, very little black-on-white crime. There was lots of black-on-black crime, and it was simple prudence to exercise caution around groups of young men on the street. If anything, I may have been a tad safer than the black people in my neighborhood because of the perception that there would be more trouble attacking me.
Er, I've drifted a long way from the Mid-East here...
If I can go back to the UK for a moment, perhaps before there would be some gestalt among Muslims that terrorism attacks are just not done the gestalt in the whole UK needs to shift a bit. If officials go to Condition Mauve or whatever every time some guy drops a Molotov on himself while driving, it just reinforces the idea that terrorists are celebs, are 'doing something,' are big men somehow. There is plenty of psychopathology of people who want to go out in a blaze of glory, and the takfiri provide a splendid template for these folks. It wouldn't surprise me if more pathological non-Muslim Brits converted to Islam simply so they could then apply this template to themselves. As JR says, they may not be true Muslims but, well, 'no true Scotsmen' anyone?
The best weapon against these lads, I still feel, is unrelenting, brutal ridicule. Make it so dreadfully naff to blow yourself up that people would be too embarrassed to do it. It is also a very British weapon. And security measures should be taken in as low-key a manner as possible. I'm not quite sure how one encourages spontaneous ridicule, but it's got to be easier than changing the gestalt of a 'Muslim community' that doesn't necessarily exist in a meaningful way anyway.

Former Sunni Insurgents Now Freedom Fighters
Former Islamic Army Militants Patrol Amiriya Alongside U.S. Troops

Anonymous alert!!!: Pig flies, man bites dog, cow jumps over moon and the 'one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.'

I expect an immediate denunciation of the unspeakably coy and contemptible American policy in Iraq.

Story with absolutely priceless pictures at:

http://www.iraqslogger.com/index.php/post/3561

JR, although he does patronize you, I'm not sure what your animosity is towards Anonymous. You may not agree with what he has to say, you may find his point of view too insular, but he is neither ignorant nor stupid nor some kind of neo-colonialist flag carrier for the White Man's Burden. And the story you refer to is simply counterinsurgency being done in a normal rather than ideologically driven way. Doubtless these insurgents and the US military have figured out that they share certain interests in common, such as reducing the amount of random violence on civilians in that district. Doubtlessly if the US military does not leave after things have quieted down, these 'freedom fighters' will start fighting the US again. Doubtlessly the US military knows this. To me it is a rare triumph of pragmatism by both sides in a singularly unpragmatic conflict.
The only thing truly objectionable is the inane "freedom fighters" tag that the US gov't sticks on them and that fools no one. I think "neighborhood watch" or even "citizen's militia" would be just as positive without the idiotic doublespeak baggage, but then, guess what, the guys doing marketing for the US admin are assholes. Film at 11.

Another interesting question is whether these fighters will remain outside the scope of the Iraqi government or whether some accomodation would be possible in which they became local police or the equivalent. Or whether the US could actually do something useful like mediating such an outcome. I am not holding my breath.

Shaheen: I don't agree. If fine words, eloquence and reasoned discourse mattered then there would have been a Palestinian state a long time ago. Who was more reasoned and scholarly than Said, who writes more movingly than Mahmoud Darwish? There was not Palestine then and there will not be Palestine next year. The only thing that matters is political power. Somewhere someone pointed out how many people marched in the streets to protest the invasion of Iraq. But it happened anyway, didn't it? And continues to happen.

Since the original story was about correct Muslim behaviour in light of terrorism, I would ask what is the best Muslim voice in the pursuit of political power? Best meaning the most effective for achieving agreed upon goals that matter to Muslims in general. Excluding the whinging, victim voice, the candidates are 1) the obsequious voice, that of the Muslim Council and favored by all non-Muslims; 2) The almost completely secularized one, the occasional Friday mosque crowd, the one that wants to ignore what happens to Muslims elsewhere; 3) The intellectual one, the source of endless policy papers and editorials in the secular Arab press, the one that likes Muslims but not Islam; 4) the Islamist one, defiant and off-putting and 5) the apostate, defiant, off-putting and even more tedious than the Islamists.

Both you and MSK find fault with religious references when Muslims discuss matters that effect Muslims. Ok, how do you prefer these things be discussed?

Antiquated Tory: The first paragraph of your story reads like Gaza, only there it was Hamas that really did provide services to the poor while Fatah robbed them blind. Hezbollah also provided services in south Lebanon. Thus the ambivalence that some people have towards certain organizations that the West throws the terrorist blanket over.
Again, I don't know England very well but peaceful protest and attempts to influence policy through political means are both appropriate and legitimate forms of action. Can the Muslims at least do that? Some people will always do senseless violence, whatever the good intentions of the great majority of the group. Look at the behaviour of the American soldiers in Iraq. Some of them are on trial for murder of civilians, the Americans have paid lots of money in compensation to Iraqis for wrongful death. We all know that the Americans don't condone or advocate the killing of civilians and that these soldiers don't represent the majority so we don't complain the lack of protest and public demonstrations of remorse.

Why should the rules be different for British Muslims? That they are is beyond a doubt, but why exactly?

I did call Anonymous a kafir. In the future I will refer to him as Lord Curzon sahib any time he resorts to his smarmy, condescending tone, which is to say always.

Jr, your attitude is that of a petulant six-year-old. Is it any wonder you get patronized?

I am interested in injecting a note of clear-eyed rationality in these discussions, not validating you as a person. If you want to engage in emotional wanking to make yourself feel better, condescension and mockery is the least you can expect.

You are angry because I am deflating your sense of self-righteous victimhood by forcing you to confront the fact that "Muslim on Muslim" violence and oppression does thousands of times more damage to Muslims than anything done by the West. Your attitude, which is all too common, is indeed a major cause of the problems facing the Muslim world.

Parenthetically, your attempts to invoke the British as an insulting archetype of colonial mastery is extremely wide of the mark. While in hindsight, the British made many colossal blunders, the British empire managed to blend enlightened ethics and realpolitik in a manner unprecedented in human history. It may be fashionable to sneer at the British empire's paternalism but everyone -- even you -- is a product of their times. To quote Newton, if you have seen farther than others, it is because you have stood on the shoulders of giants. The Muslim world is incredibly fortunate that it was largely the British who stepped into the power vacuum left by the collapse of the Ottoman Empire rather than, say, the Belgians.

Diverting attention away from the problems within Muslim communities and blaming others - especially the west - is always more popular than the difficult task of self-scrutiny.

Remember this quote from the original article. It's been the key thread throughout this entire discussion.

Fair play's a jewel, or so I've heard. The same week that nobody was killed in London, 300 civilians were killed in Afghanistan . . .

http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/07/10/news/afghan.php

If you're upset at the western "war against Muslims," once again, you must be about to have a stroke over the Muslim war against Muslims. Afghanistan under the Taliban was a complete embarrassment to the entire civilized world, Muslim and Western alike. I completely agree that having Western troops in Afghanistan is a travesty -- there ought to be troops from Islamic countries in there cleaning up the mess. But while I completely regret their necessity, I make no apologies for having Western troops in Afghanistan attempting, however ineffectually, to save the country from the warlords and the Taliban. It's an act of charity, not of war.

The fact is that there is a pretty weak case for Muslim victimology. While Muslims happily stack up claims of Western perfidy in Afghantistan, Iraq, Palestine and Lebanon, they rarely place Western efforts in places like Kosovo, Darfur, Kurdistan and Somalia on the other side of the balance.

The unpleasant facts are that Muslims kill and oppress far more Muslims than Westerners ever have. But rather than engage in some self-scrutiny and accept this unfortunate truth it's far more emotionally satisfying to blame the West for whatever goes wrong in the Muslim world.

Further, I support the insurgency directed against the British and American military occupation of Iraq.

-
-
-

Some people will always do senseless violence, whatever the good intentions of the great majority of the group. Look at the behaviour of the American soldiers in Iraq. Some of them are on trial for murder of civilians, the Americans have paid lots of money in compensation to Iraqis for wrongful death. We all know that the Americans don't condone or advocate the killing of civilians . . .

Here we have another example of irrational victimology in Jr’s own words. Jr supports the insurgency directed against the Americans in Iraq. But the democratically elected Iraqi government is quite keen for the Americans to stay for the present. Jr also agrees that the Americans don’t condone or advocate the killing of civilians so he recognizes that American efforts are directed at the elements trying to overthrow that democratically elected government. What exactly, is it about the insurgency that he supports then? Is he in favor of overthrowing the elected government and replacing it with an Iranian-dominated theocracy? Or is it just emotionally satisfying to stride about, manfully beating one’s chest in self-righteous outrage at imaginary insults to the Ummah? Cold-blooded rationality may not be nearly as much fun as indulging in temper tantrums but it’s far more likely to take you to the places you want to go.

Like it or not, believe it or not, jr, your attitude is indeed the water that fills the sea in which Islamic terrorists swim. You are, at present, part of the problem, not part of the solution.

The best weapon against these lads, I still feel, is unrelenting, brutal ridicule. Make it so dreadfully naff to blow yourself up that people would be too embarrassed to do it.

There in one, AT.

The Muslim world is incredibly fortunate that it was largely the British who stepped into the power vacuum left by the collapse of the Ottoman Empire rather than, say, the Belgians.

Now you're making it too easy on yourself. Belgians are simply French minus the culture, and their colonial legacy was Congo-Zaïre and Rwanda, so not a very sporting comparison.

But the question is interesting. Have British colonies fared better than, say, French ones? I would instinctively go with a yes, but with the Sudan, Palestine and Iraq in mind (if we stay with the Arab world), there's clearly some room for doubt. Thoughts?

With regard to Iraq, I agree with Anon about the questionable aims of the insurgency, but please don't bring in the Iraqi government as a sign of the will of the people, or as a democratically elected government opposing a shi'a theocracy. Neither of you should be so naive. I'm sure MSK would love to elaborate.

The only thing that matters is political power.

And political power JR is not unidimensional. Diplomacy and PR are part of it. If Said didn't change the world by himself, it certainly isn't because his activism was ineffective. It's because there haven't been enough of him yet in his and other dimensions that make political power.

Both you and MSK find fault with religious references when Muslims discuss matters that effect Muslims. Ok, how do you prefer these things be discussed?

Adapted to the audience to whom you want to convey a message.

Well, interesting conversation. Pity I am spending so much time in the air of late.

Regarding the British-French comparison, well to be purely analytical one has to be sure to compare like to like. That is, some countries had, have and perhaps always will have weaker potential to be stable, and wealthy than others given resource potential and locations.

But there we go back to what prompted this comment. Misplaced whinging victimhood.

I am not in agreement with Anon with respect to all of his commentary and analysis - frankly foreign troops in Afghanistan are probably a bad idea overall, regardless of religion. Clan societies don't like such very much. A page from the old Empire manual and buying off reasonable warlords to create peace without atrocities and grotesque Talebanesque abuses is the best Afghanistan can hope for. Pity they themselves went off the rails as they could have moderated, and imposed a reasonable, rational, balanced form of Islamism.

Instead they demonstrated rigid theocratic thinking.

But there is the point - much of the Islamic world is ill, and much of those ills (including in Iraq) stem from purely internal illnesses that have nothing to do with Western intervention (although I grant readily that Western support and intervention in the Middle East has a great tendency to do more harm than good, not always).

Addressing those ills means (i) stop hiding behind the Evil Crusaders Intervention rhetoric (oddly the neo-Mamlouks like Mubarek are most expert in this) which is merely sad xenophobia dressed up in theologically correct rhetoric, (ii) engage in self criticism, including balancing focus between outside and inside wrongs.

Now, as for JR's last comment:
Shaheen: I don't agree. If fine words, eloquence and reasoned discourse mattered then there would have been a Palestinian state a long time ago. Who was more reasoned and scholarly than Said, who writes more movingly than Mahmoud Darwish?

No, eloquence and reasoned discourse married up to competent political action matter. The Palestinians have been singularly incompetent in matters political, and their judgment collectively to date suffers from exactly what you demonstrate. Finger pointing and excuse making rather than a solid sit-down and say, where are we going wrong (not that, to avoid your inevitable misreading, their own mistakes alone explain their position presently or in the past, but only a fool can deny they have pissed away opportunities to change the equation).

Somewhere someone pointed out how many people marched in the streets to protest the invasion of Iraq. But it happened anyway, didn't it? And continues to happen.

Yes, and many protestors were from varied background. Sometimes one wins, sometimes one doesn't.

Building a sharp political strategy helps, and that includes intelligently following up as there is not an opportunity - would be more so if certain brothers were not blowing up things in their homelands.

Since the original story was about correct Muslim behaviour in light of terrorism, I would ask what is the best Muslim voice in the pursuit of political power?

Where?

In the Western democracies, the lesson of the Jewish community suggests Communitarianism first is the wrong way to go. Allying up with like minded groups, not by religion but by other interests (domestic politics), and then moving once you build political capital to more specific interests.

Best meaning the most effective for achieving agreed upon goals that matter to Muslims in general. Excluding the whinging, victim voice, the candidates are 1) the obsequious voice, that of the Muslim Council and favored by all non-Muslims; 2) The almost completely secularized one, the occasional Friday mosque crowd, the one that wants to ignore what happens to Muslims elsewhere; 3) The intellectual one, the source of endless policy papers and editorials in the secular Arab press, the one that likes Muslims but not Islam; 4) the Islamist one, defiant and off-putting and 5) the apostate, defiant, off-putting and even more tedious than the Islamists.

Well, that's your summary.

I find it tendentious, but I suppose it highlights your conception of political power and engagement.

Both you and MSK find fault with religious references when Muslims discuss matters that effect Muslims. Ok, how do you prefer these things be discussed?

As Shaheen put it, in a mixed audience, it is generally more effective not to use language that makes you sound excessively partisan. That is not a Muslim rule, it's a rule of good rhetoric and communication.

Antiquated Tory: The first paragraph of your story reads like Gaza, only there it was Hamas that really did provide services to the poor while Fatah robbed them blind. Hezbollah also provided services in south Lebanon. Thus the ambivalence that some people have towards certain organizations that the West throws the terrorist blanket over.

On this point I share an ambivalence. Hamas and Hezbullah have perfectly reasonable people in them - the core reason in the end for condemning uncategorically Hamas' use of bombers against civilian populations is that in the end it sets a bad example for the entire community and while self-gratifying in striking back, is Pyrrhic in its results.

Again, I don't know England very well but peaceful protest and attempts to influence policy through political means are both appropriate and legitimate forms of action. Can the Muslims at least do that?

Of course, don't be an idiot. No one had another point of view.

But what the criticisms have been have been on whinging victimhood and a lack of critical reflexion. Oh we didn't win, West is Evil, Doesn't Listen to Us.... Instead of "what may we have done wrong, did we along the image/voice of the protest to get hijacked by radicals who undermined the message getting through, are we speaking in a way in which the message will get through or are we engaging in self-pleasuring ineffective blithering on..."

And of course these are not merely issues for Muslims, they arise - if you reflect carefully - for all interest groups in moving their view forward. All. The successful ones, keeping like to like and starting from a disfavoured starting point, are those that master those lessons.

Some people will always do senseless violence, whatever the good intentions of the great majority of the group.

Yes, and the Muslim community in Great Britain must, for its own internal health, self-police against the loonies, in terms of on its own actively addressing the Finsbury Mosques and preachers, instead of as has often been the case being excuse makers (as in, No I don't care for Finsbury, but [victimhood discourse]). Else, it will rightly be seen as an unreliable part of the body politic and will not have influence to match its numbers.

For own interests of the Community, that must be done - or emigrate to be quite frank.

Look at the behaviour of the American soldiers in Iraq. Some of them are on trial for murder of civilians, the Americans have paid lots of money in compensation to Iraqis for wrongful death. We all know that the Americans don't condone or advocate the killing of civilians and that these soldiers don't represent the majority so we don't complain the lack of protest and public demonstrations of remorse.

But indeed this makes the point, American reaction to Abu Ghraib, to Gauntanamo, etc above all official reaction has left strong doubts to the sincerity, to the genuineness, and reflects poorly on both the American public and the American government. No double standard mate, the US here has behaved disgracefully, and as one looks at the absolute plunge in American popularity globally, a loss of relative influence (or higher costs to achieve influence), one sees rather directly the lesson.

For one's own good, one attacks these problems. Sure, Americans can point to Al Qaeda as having driven their reaction, to the ongoing threat from the Salafiste Takfirine loons (real enough both), but how convincing has that been?

Why should the rules be different for British Muslims? That they are is beyond a doubt, but why exactly?

The rules are not different at all, it is merely your myopia and your total buy in to your victimhood discourse that blinds you to that.

A further thought, before getting to real work.

A grave error that goes in in Western Muslim political discourse is the use of implicit threat against the host body politic. That will always fail to have real results as intended.

I am thinking here of the entire line that goes, "Well, yes we condemn terror by X, Y or Z [e.g. the domestic bombers] but you know the reason for this is [Problem Z in Country Y] which makes our youth angry, etc. etc., and if FP was changed...."

This sort of argumentation, even if it has a foundation (and as the two articles highlight, the entrepreneurs of Victimhood & Violence always seem to find new causes and rationals regardless) is a loser. There is an implied threat there - the implications behind the statement are "We can not restrain ourselves if you do not change, we are a threat."

Looking again to the Jewish example, which while not perfect, holds lessons. Jews won political influence in their Western host countries / homelands by aligning their interests and investing in building up domestic political alliances.

The Anarchist strains with implied threats won nothing.

(And of course all this is abstracted away from the various different communities within the Muslim community in UK, etc. - and also yes, focused on the Community rather than outside discrimination which does exist, etc. etc.)

Klaus,

Don't get me started on Iraq ... bah.

At this point, there is a Sunni insurgency split between Al-Qa'idah in Mesopotamia (AQM?) and Islamist/secularist groups. Both fight the occupation troops (to an extent) and since AQM is also stirring up communalist violence and trying to impose their worldview onto the local population, it is now increasingly attacked by the other groups.

Then you have Muqtada's Mahdi Army and SIIC's (ex-SCIRI) Badr Brigades. And THEN you have a myriad of local forces.

ALL of them spend more time & energy on the inter-Iraqi fighting than on fighting the occupation troops. And most of them are, at this point, close to degeneration into local/regional we-control-our-home-turf militias, many involved in criminal activity. That goes particularly for Basra. The recent ICG reports are quite telling, even if their recommendations always read like Kumbaya lyrics.

Btw, I just wrote a short comment on the oil law situation "Iraq's Oil - Legislation vs. Reality" (http://www.niqash.org/content.php?contentTypeID=171&id=1919) I couldn't really rant as the site has to be balanced & PC-ish 'cause of its donors.

Do feel free to start a new post/thread on that ...

--MSK*

PS: I don't have anything to add to this thread. We've been saying again & again that style & form matter. JR's way mirrors that of the Ayano-Manji-ites. Nuff said.

An interesting conversation but I also have to work. In August, I will be presenting a paper, in my reasoned, scholarly voice, on some of the themes raised here.

Emergent Muslim political identity in the West is of great personal interest, obviously, and much of the commentary here reflects the current tension between the secularists and religionists in Muslim political discourse. I don't hide the fact that my own sympathies are with the Muslim Brotherhood but that does not make me a fanatic any more than it makes secularists completely unfeeling towards Muslims in general, the typical accusation of the more religious.

I don't engage in victimology. In fact, I could set out dozens of verses indicating that such thinking is actually incompatible with being a Muslim. I would think this to be obvious to anyone even casually familiar with Islam. On the other hand, pointing out the plight of Muslims is often the only way of mobilizing them to do something about a particular situation. If anyone actually listened to what the Islamists say, they would see the truth of this statement. Again, I am interested in the 'prioritization' of Muslim identity for the purpose of bettering the condition of Muslims in terms of their social welfare. This is my intention.

Finally, MSK writes:

. JR's way mirrors that of the Ayano-Manji-ites. Nuff said.

Well, brother: lakum deenakum waliya deen. It would be well to remember, however, that the ayano-manji-ites are interviewed in the studios of the BBC, the ones on the other side of the mirror were interviewed in the cellars of the Mugamma.

Didn't know you still had that gig. I checked out of Iraq about a year ago, in the sense of closely following its politics. Watching something circling the sink hole gets tedious after a while. I still read American Footprints and Arablinks, but only casually. I don't know how much you're emotionally attached to the situation, but I'm glad I'm not at all. Only in that vague I-feel-bad-for-China way.

Resistance movements turning to crime to fund their operations is classic. I understand that's what the kidnappings are mostly about.

Mind you, following Bush admin logic has become entertaining, especially now they're backed into a corner.

In response to MSK.

A question on the Niqash piece:

MSK -- The opponents of the Iraqi oil law in its current form [include] the very well organized Southern Oil Workers' Union. The latter contains within its ranks the vast majority of Iraqi oil workers outside the Kurdistan Region.

When you say "very well organized", what does that mean? And what are the goals & alliances of the leadership? If they're only interested in union issues, a well-kept workplace and decent pay, fine, but the state of Iraq today somehow makes me doubt it...

Join me in insisting that Hamas be given the same weapons as the Israelis and we could have a real fight.

As much as I disagree with Anon, here's a comment by JR where I think we border on victimology.

Yes, the IDF is screwing Arabs, and Palestinians in particular. Yes, Abbas by all means is a corrupt Petain-style collaborator. Yes, I think someone whose country is helping in screwing my community lecturing me in a holier than thou style stinks. Can we move on now?

Hamas' military tactics hurt Muslim or Arab interests, period. Suicide bombers should have no sympathy, whatever primitive satisfaction they could bring, they don't make Muslims or Arabs closer to realizing any kind of interest, au contraire. And just like anything that hurts those interests, if you really support Muslim or Arab interests, then you should be uncompromising in willing to completely wipe out whatever stands in their way. Hamas' stupid military tactics, terroroids and other (well intentioned, if one considers them to be so) morons included. That should be clear to everyone among us. E-ve-ry-one.

And here's where we're into victimology: we're using our own weakness as an excuse. Our weakness is the first crime that we, more than anyone else, are commiting against ourselves. It not an excuse we should be pitying ourselves about. It's a fucking crime we're commiting against ourselves, and that others exploit it is natural human behavior, we should get that across our thick skulls.

So we're begging to be given weapons to have a real fight. Or more generally, we're begging to have our rights respected. You know what? Move your flocking behind, do some neurone crunching and go get them.

And before you start whining about rulers and and other apathetic sections of the population, tell me what *you* as an individual have done that might further your cause.

Being a PR moron by the way, even at your small individual scale, doesn't help.

I don't engage in victimology.

Actually, by your posts, you do rather extensively. The usual excuse making, the usual blindness and the usual.

Let's take the "give us the same weapons as the Israelis" type comment.

That's not going to happen, everyone knows that.

So one has to look at alternatives.

Yeah, the suicide bombers against civilian targets are an alternative. A failing one that loses Palestinians influence, does not genuinely help or change their situation. It is primitive, undisciplined reaction, one that has helped the Israelis more than it has hurt them in any way.

At no point have I ever defended suicide bombers. The first comment I made on this thread was that I denounced terrorism but retain the right of Muslims to defend themselves, the reference point being Srebenica, which is what happens to Muslims when they do not have the capacity to do so.

As far as the rest of what you said, I don't give a fuck what you think about anything, frankly. Over the past 25 years, I've heard it all before and even said much of it myself; whatever novelty in what's been said by anyone here is lost on me. For the rest, it's as I told MSK.

I support Hamas without agreeing with everything it does. What's criminal is to suggest that what Hamas has done has hurt the interests of Palestinians when the fact is that the emergence of Hamas is itself an indication that everything else has failed.

JR,

I give up. When it comes to understanding nuances, your brain has the sophistication of a lolipop's mechanism.

Mate, the suicide bomber item was an illustration; I have to agree with Shaheen.

Ah Shaheen, I hate being always right...

Shaheen,

I agree almost completely with your post. The only thing I take issue with is this.

Yes, I think someone whose country is helping in screwing my community lecturing me in a holier than thou style stinks.

First, I believe comments in an Internet forum like Aqoul should be judged on their merits rather than their source. That's why, in the few fora I visit, I make it a point to post anonymously and reveal as few personal details as possible. I doubt, for example, if you know which country I'm from. Why should you, as it's not relevant?

What you call a "holier than thou style," I call vigorous debate. If an idea or position is stupid or irrational, I think it ought to be pointed out. While I try not to attack Jr -- or anyone -- on a personal basis, I am not really concerned about damaging someone's self-esteem on an anonymous blog. Rather, I think it almost salutory if some anonymous poster's point leaves you red-faced and sputtering. If the point is valid, you've learned something. If, after further analysis, you ultimately conclude that the point is invalid, your position is that much more consistent and developed. You benefit either way and with no loss of face in the real world.

I am thinking here of the entire line that goes, "Well, yes we condemn terror by X, Y or Z [e.g. the domestic bombers] but you know the reason for this is [Problem Z in Country Y] which makes our youth angry, etc. etc., and if FP was changed...."

This sort of argumentation, even if it has a foundation (and as the two articles highlight, the entrepreneurs of Victimhood & Violence always seem to find new causes and rationals regardless) is a loser. There is an implied threat there - the implications behind the statement are "We can not restrain ourselves if you do not change, we are a threat."

Very excellent point, C. It puts into words something that's always really bothered me. It is entirely too close to the classic (at least in bad mafia movies) protection racket argument. "I'm a non-violent man myself but you'd better give us what we want otherwise Tiny, here, won't be able to restrain himself and might break all your merchandise/kneecaps."

Looking again to the Jewish example, which while not perfect, holds lessons. Jews won political influence in their Western host countries / homelands by aligning their interests and investing in building up domestic political alliances.

Another excellent point. Jews have prospered, especially in North America, by emphasizing their similarities, rather than their differences.

Being a PR moron by the way, even at your small individual scale, doesn't help.

Very true, Shaheen. This is probably the one thing I find most frustrating about Muslim activists. The vast majority of them are completely tone-deaf PR wise.

Jr, do you want to know exactly why the Israelis have run circles around the Palestinians? It's not because of guns or bombs or any of that stuff. It's because the Israelis, even when they were still only Jews, hired the best PR flacks in the business and worked to a plan. They lobby and they spin and they schmooze and they are always on message. Muslims need to take a page from their book.

Jews won sympathy and political capital from the Holocaust, they were generally despised in Europe before that. Is my perception.

Indeed. And all of Israeli and pro-Israeli lobbyist spending on PR hasn't kept their image from slipping and slipping badly in the last 25 years.
I would say however that the comparison between the Mafia and terrorist groups does not hold. Terrorist groups are not purely criminal. While I do not like terrorism I recognize it as a weapon in the tactical toolkit, and if it is used in a well thought out, effective way to attain a clear goal I have to at least nod to necessity. All's fair, etc.

Jews won sympathy and political capital from the Holocaust, they were generally despised in Europe before that. Is my perception.

It is true that Jews won great sympathy after the Holocaust. Not only that, but many a very great many people who had been largely indifferent were aghast to see the lengths to which anti-semitism could be taken.

But while Jews were deeply despised by some, they were not generally despised before the Holocaust. On the contrary, they were often leaders in business, the sciences and the arts -- even, on occasion, in politics.

Indeed. And all of Israeli and pro-Israeli lobbyist spending on PR hasn't kept their image from slipping and slipping badly in the last 25 years.

An odd comment. Israel has been the undisputed military master of the middle east for the last 30 years. They have cynically -- and sometimes brutally -- administered the West Bank and Gaza, engaged in assassination, collective punishment and various punitive military actions which inevitably destroy civilian lives and property. Let me suggest that, absent Israel's excellent PR machine, Israel's international image would be infinitely worse. The fact that they have been able to retain any international sympathy at all despite some of their appalling behavior is a testament to the efficiency of their PR efforts.

I would say however that the comparison between the Mafia and terrorist groups does not hold. Terrorist groups are not purely criminal. While I do not like terrorism I recognize it as a weapon in the tactical toolkit, and if it is used in a well thought out, effective way to attain a clear goal I have to at least nod to necessity. All's fair, etc.

Well, I didn't really mean to compare Islamic terrorism to the mafia. I only meant to suggest that C's point brought into focus what bothered me about the argument.

Having said that, there can indeed be a great deal of overlap between traditional mafia techniques and terrorist techniques. Indeed, the mafia has traditionally employed "terrorism" albeit for economic ends. It's not surprising, really. Wanting to keep, say, a local translator from cooperating with the enemy is functionally the same as wanting to keep a local business person from cooperating with the police.

I also think that its far too easy for violence and intimidation to become a way of life rather than a means to an end. The mafia itself has its roots in resisting foreign occupiers. The various rebel groups in, for example, Columbia, have long since lost whatever patina of political rectitude they once had and have become purely a business proposition.

Anony, this one's for you:
I also think that its far too easy for violence and intimidation to become a way of life rather than a means to an end. The mafia itself has its roots in resisting foreign occupiers. The various rebel groups in, for example, Columbia, have long since lost whatever patina of political rectitude they once had and have become purely a business proposition.

That I think is very true.

On your point about Jews, Israel, PR etc: Though Jews were not generally despised immediately before the Holocaust, they were in a slow process of being less despised. Certainly there was enough dislike of Jews still around for Hitler to use. And my grandfather had to put his Army uniform up in his shop window so the Klan wouldn't throw rocks through it--and the Klan didn't only include the mostly German farmers from the sticks, it included some of the wealthiest families in town, too. Still, my Grandfather considered them almost quaint compared to the Russians.
That's a bit afield from the ME, my apologies. You're right that the Israeli PR machine saves them from being completely loathed, but it has help from a general sense of responsibility for having crapped on the Jews for a couple millenium up to the Holocaust and the fact that Christians also read the same holy book in which the loss of Israel is a tragedy. By the rivers of Zion and all that.

and the fact that Christians also read the same holy book in which the loss of Israel is a tragedy.

Quite correct. And you can bet their PR machine never lets them forget it. Indeed, in the U.S., Israeli PR flacks play fundamentalist Christians like violins. The Moral Majority types who, in the not-too-distant past, would have been a reliable source of anti-semitism, have become some of Israel's staunchest supporters. If that's not a triumph of image making, I don't know what is!

I appreciate your point about the complexity and contradictory nature of anti-semitism, by the way. Not surprising, I suppose, given its inherent irrationality. Was there anti-semitism in England? Yes, but there was also Benjamin Disraeli. Was the anti-semitism in the U.S.? Sure, but there was also Louis Brandeis.

As you say, it's a bit far afield, but I think anti-semitism was far more virulent in Eastern Europe in the 19th and 20th centuries than it was in Western Europe and North America. In fact, anti-semitism continued largely unabated in the USSR and its satelites even after WWII. But we digress . . .

We digress because this is more interesting.

they were not generally despised before the Holocaust. On the contrary, they were often leaders in business, the sciences and the arts -- even, on occasion, in politics.

Anon, I don't agree there. While not scorned like Romas, it was a very general sense that Jews were loyal to themselves first and foremost, reclusive, their successes only testament to their deviousness and greed. I find that sentiment remarkably often when reading pre-WWII literature. In fact, I can't fault people for disliking Jews at the time, because that's what most did. Many tacitly agreed with Hitler before the Kristallnacht, in which he finally went too far for good taste.

Also, the only pro-Israeli PR that I am aware of are holocaust documentaries and films, and tv pictures of Arab fanatics screaming for the destruction of Israel, making the application of the Nazi enemy image to Arabs all too easy. In short, Arabs like Hamas have provided the best PR Israel could ever wish for. MEMRI has it all too easy. But that was the point all along.

Also, regarding the Christian-Zionists, that has everything to do with hating Muslims and nothing to do with loving the Jews. I rather see it as the US far right using Israel as an anti-Muslim tool they actually care little about.

"Also, the only pro-Israeli PR that I am aware of are holocaust documentaries and films, and tv pictures of Arab fanatics screaming for the destruction of Israel, making the application of the Nazi enemy image to Arabs all too easy. In short, Arabs like Hamas have provided the best PR Israel could ever wish for. MEMRI has it all too easy. But that was the point all along."

All true but for organiz