There's just a hint of 'drawing up the ladder' to that attitude, though - isn't there?

One man's radical is another's free voice: should Western, secular governments really sit in judgement about others' opinions regarding religion or foreign domestic politics? You'd argue not, surely. If they did, you'd be back in repressionsville.

So your government is in trouble for not slapping the Muslim loonies - but it would be in as much, if not more, trouble for encouraging les autres in Israel, wouldn't it?

You can never... ever... please a moderate unless you choose to tread the same path. Is that what you're saying?

The very voices that are being heard from the liberal Arab World are there because the UK gave them a home when they needed it. What's to differentiate a liberal in trouble at home from a radical in trouble at home, when 'at home' suppresses free thought and speech?

Alex, ditto.

Plus, those are not really "liberals", they're people who took the superficial appearance of liberals, or became more Catholic than the Pope.

UK's multiculturalism, rational immigration policies, and freedom are good. Don't take my word for it, try France. That the pseudo-liberals are losing some battles to the radicals is because they were unable to address important issues in their communities and left them in the hands of the lunatics. Suppressing the latter beyond normal criminal activities would certainly not help. Being more competitive than them would.

Dear Alex & Shaheen,

Laissez-faire immigration policy & multiculturalism turned out to have been wrong. Look at Holland, look at Germany.

Immigration without state-organized integration into the Western, liberal, secular (as far as the state and public space is concerned) society creates a plethora of parallel societies, many of which tend to be more traditionalist than those in their countries of origin.

I, quite frankly, was appalled that those demonstrators in London of last summer who wielded "The next 7/7 is coming" and "All critics of Islam must be beheaded" weren't tried and kicked out of the country.

No society, however liberal, is an "anything goes" one. Free speech - yes, but no incitement to hate or war or racism or communalism.

And as for "judging foreign domestic politics" - we do it all the time, governments do it all the time, and if we hold that there are universal values & mores ... then we should, no?

--MSK*

MSK --

Immigration without state-organized integration into the Western, liberal, secular (as far as the state and public space is concerned) society creates a plethora of parallel societies, many of which tend to be more traditionalist than those in their countries of origin.

Man, you Euros really think state-run cultures are important, which may also explain why modern irreligious societies still have state churches.

Most German immigrants to the US didn't become the Amish; not even most Mennonite German immigrants.

Personally I suspect that laissez-faire and immigration hasn't never been mixed much in Europe. Laissez-faire means no subsidized housing or benefits if unemployed, and ease at opening and retaining profits of businesses, and dismissing employees at will.

Most of these troubles seems to be the unfortunate intersection of the normal problem of large scale immigration among different cultures with foreign policy confrontations in the origin-lands of the immigrants.

In the US ghettoization and alientation persists for the oldest of Americans with the least religious differences, African-Americans. The causes are not hard to discern, historic racism and start-out disadvantages, welfare-statism, and obvious physical differences that make the differences easy to identify. I think the same elements apply.

In the US ghettoization and alientation persists for the oldest of Americans with the least religious differences, African-Americans.

Uh, you're forgetting someone. (Though they're ghettoized and alienated as well).

MSK,

this last comment of yours is so full of the usual Euro empty rhetoric about immigrations and minorities. Empty because based in nothing realistic or fact-based, just rhetoric.

Laissez-faire immigration policy & multiculturalism turned out to have been wrong. Look at Holland, look at Germany.

First, I don't know a single case of laissez-faire immigration policy. If you know one, enlighten me. Any of the immigration waves that happened in Europe was driven by economic needs, including the massive post-war waves of unskilled immigrants from Turkey/NA/South Asia.

In fact, beyond a few token asylum numbers, immigration policies have even run counter economic needs because of unnecessary restrictions in some places (e.g. France). The UK, which is the case we've been talking about, have recently aligned its policies to Canada's and Australia's. Any less is irrational, unless cultural sclerosis becomes an objective that's more important than economic growth. In which case you'd end up looking more like MENA than like a prosperous Western country.

Second, no country in continental Europe actively embraced multiculturalism. If I missed an official policy of this kind, enlighten me. There was a space for indivual freedom, and cultures expressed themselves within those spaces. Unless you want to supress individual expressions you associate with a given culture, you have no take on people maintaining their traditions.

So concretely, what are you proposing here?

I, quite frankly, was appalled that those demonstrators in London of last summer who wielded "The next 7/7 is coming" and "All critics of Islam must be beheaded" weren't tried and kicked out of the country.

Some people in London definitely deserve to be run over by a truck. But here I guess our disagreement would be a classical one about limits (or not) of free speech.

Whatever is our different view on this, suppressing ideas is not going to make them disappear. You know MENA, and you know how Big Brothers do not prevent people from having ideas of their own. You want to fight those ideas? Be more competitive on that market.

No society, however liberal, is an "anything goes" one. Free speech - yes, but no incitement to hate or war or racism or communalism.

Ah, the communalism bogey. So what is it you're proposing? Passing laws or campaigning against people using networks and befriending others from their own communities? Forget the utopian world where a white guy will hire a paki of slightly higher skills over someone else he was introduced to through long established networks. Forget about the one where a paki in need will not be looking in his community to find help when he's going to move, find a job, need a favor, etc., and look out of his accessible networks to find a white guy instead. Because in the end of the day, that's what communalism is about, community based networks. Forget about the utopian (?) concept of herdish societies with monolithic interests, all societies have competing interests and networks within themselves. So concretely, you want to draw them along something different than ethnic lines? More power to you, but it takes time and I don't see the point.

"In the US ghettoization and alientation persists for the oldest of Americans with the least religious differences, African-Americans."

Uh, you're forgetting someone. (Though they're ghettoized and alienated as well).

I didn't forget those. It's just that they actually deserved what they got:

KIDDING!

Perhaps a better example, yes. American Indians were segregated by forced racism, welfare-statism, and physical appearance.

But with a great man like Abe Lincoln at the helm, official centralized management of their safe assimilation was assured (from Third State of the Union, 1863 or 4):

The measures provided at your last session for the removal of certain Indian tribes have been carried into effect. Sundry treaties have been negotiated, which will in due time be submitted for the constitutional action of the Senate. They contain stipulations for extinguishing the possessory rights of the Indians to large and valuable tracts of lands. It is hoped that the effect of these treaties will result in the establishment of permanent friendly relations with such of these tribes as have been brought into frequent and bloody collision with our outlying settlements and emigrants. Sound policy and our imperative duty to these wards of the Government demand our anxious and constant attention to their material well-being, to their progress in the arts of civilization, and, above all, to that moral training which under the blessing of Divine Providence will confer upon them the elevated and sanctifying influences, the hopes and consolations, of the Christian faith. I suggested in my last annual message the propriety of remodeling our Indian system. Subsequent events have satisfied me of its necessity. The details set forth in the report of the Secretary evince the urgent need for immediate legislative action.

I don't know a single case of laissez-faire immigration policy

relatively speaking is what I believe MSK meant. The main policy problem are nutty preachers, most notably Hizb ut-Tahrir, who do a great job at radicalizing youth.

no time to join the debate now, but in response to various posts above, let it briefly be noted that

(1) not all euros feel like MSK,

(2) i can think of at least one european country where for many years, though less and less now, virtually the entire political class actively campaigned for something they literally called 'multiculturalism', by which was meant that everyone could do their cultural/religious thing and should even have some state support for it. did it succeed? well, partly. did it fail? same answer. sweden today has ghettoization and all that, but it seems no worse than elsewhere. (briefly, i think it was sound doctrine, but that it was subverted by nanny state policies, even if they brought some good too, and also by the sheer difficulty of imposing it on a society that has been 100% homogenous for a thousand years -- at least in its own self-perception.)

(3) hizb ut-tahrir is, from what i understand, a problem in denmark and perhaps germany and the other big european nations (who b/c of size get to deal with all the lunatic fringes). not so in most others, like in sweden where they are so far virtually unheard of -- why, i don't know, but hamdulillah all the same.

he main policy problem are nutty preachers

This is a whole different problem that's totally disconnected from immigration policies or multiculturalism. Heck, have you ever thought that those nuts are, in a Western context, the exact equivalent of the nutty xenophobes, just with different looks?

The problem of nutty preachers having a good share of Western mosques is because they're the most active in organizing them. France, where you have had a significant 3 generations of Muslims already is an interesting case. Today still, imams are imported material. Folks who do not understand the basic issues that affect the native Muslim communities that are now a majority (as opposed to "first generation" immigrants), don't understand the basic strings that pull their host societies, are totally in desync with their environment, both Muslim and non-Muslim, yet act as community leaders.

My libertarian reflex would be to say this is Muslims' problem, if they don't want to be kept back by those, let them move their arse or suffer the consequences. Pragmatically though, it seems this went beyond being a Muslim problem, and Muslims are obviously not taking care of it. So as much as I dislike the idea, fact is the state that authorizes a mosque to exist, should do it on the condition that they have a state sponsored native preacher. So far, this doesn't happen.

The ones who bark in the streets can keep doing so, but chances are they won't have any significant effect if the above is implemented. If you can prove any link to crime for those, you have my full support for a Texas/lethal injection trip package.

the state that authorizes a mosque to exist, should do it on the condition that they have a state sponsored native preacher

Let me rephrase this. Since this became a problem for many, beyond Muslims, there's no reason why the state wouldn't be used as a tool to promote/market native, more acceptable, preachers. Whether imported cro-magnons should be outlawed or not outside normal criminal activities is debatable.

the main policy problem are nutty preachers

This is a whole different problem that's totally disconnected from immigration policies or multiculturalism.

true, but I gather the nutty preachers were what the "liberals" were complaining about in the UK in the first place.

Heck, have you ever thought that those nuts are, in a Western context, the exact equivalent of the nutty xenophobes, just with different looks?

many many times.

So as much as I dislike the idea, fact is the state that authorizes a mosque to exist, should do it on the condition that they have a state sponsored native preacher.

There has a bit of noise about a university-based imam education in places, akin to Christian theologians. I think it would be quite an improvement.

If you can prove any link to crime for those, you have my full support for a Texas/lethal injection trip package.

no, it's the other way around, if one goes for chronological causality. Usually boys form gangs, run around doing shit, then see the light of God and the error of their ways, and how they were corrupted by the decadent western societies, and turn into good muslims. But they are radicalised through and through, and it doesn't look like an improvement to me. More like a transformation and hardening of hate through religion.

S: So as much as I dislike the idea, fact is the state that authorizes a mosque to exist, should do it on the condition that they have a state sponsored native preacher.

K: There has a bit of noise about a university-based imam education in places, akin to Christian theologians. I think it would be quite an improvement.

Isn't there something like that by now in the Netherlands? I met a guy who was helping design their "Christian Theology" course like six years ago, so they should have gotten somewhere by now.

S: So as much as I dislike the idea, fact is the state that authorizes a mosque to exist, should do it on the condition that they have a state sponsored native preacher.

K: There has a bit of noise about a university-based imam education in places, akin to Christian theologians. I think it would be quite an improvement.

Isn't there something like that by now in the Netherlands? I met a guy who was helping design their "Christian Theology" course like six years ago, so they should have gotten somewhere by now.

In the UAE all the Friday sermons are controlled by the government. See here:

Muslims Can Suggest Friday Sermon Topic

I haven't heard any complaints about this situation - ok the press wouldn't dare touch it - but even among blogs and word of mouth, the state issued khutbas don't seem to be an issue. No one really seems to mind.

Any imam in the UAE that deviated from the official khutbas and started preaching jihad and associated extremist hellfire would be sacked, probably jailed, and certainly deported if they weren't local (which most aren't).

This is what Britain needs to do. Appoint some body (such as the Muslim Council) to supervise Friday sermons. Insist that all imams have some kind of license issued by the Muslim Council. The Council may not be perfect/100% representative of muslims in Britain, but they won't dare to approve jihadi rantings in the current climate.

now to purge the newspapers of xenophobia.

Actually, where do people here stand on the legality of racism? Am of two minds myself.

"Actually, where do people here stand on the legality of racism? Am of two minds myself."

Well, first tell us your opinion on the legality of multiple personality disorder?

Ah, yes. State-approved and licensed clergy in the West.

Well at least WE are not in the 17th century anymore.

Oh, wait....

Surprise, surprise, I'm with Matt re state approved clergy, with the reserve expressed above about not being totally closed to the idea of using the state as a tool to promote the "The Right Clergy".

SD, this is where I state that liberals are not so liberal when it comes to Muslims. For some reason, many Western "liberals" wouldn't mind applying the liberticidal rules of Muslim-majority countries to Western Muslims. Or is it that we want to sack, jail (and even torture if we're so fond of MENA ways) only those we deem to be extremists, in which case the folks from the British National Party should be concerned too?

No, Shaheen, all traditional freedoms, the US Constitution, the Declarations of the Right of Man, and all charters of liberty must melt away at the first report of the approach of the Scary Misogynist Fuse-Lighting Cartoon-Hating Scraggly-Bearded Guy Who Incites the {Primitive?} Mob Into Irrational Frenzy and his superpowered sidekick, Over-Draped Muhajjabah.

Actually, where do people here stand on the legality of racism?

Free speech -- if the most unpopular and moronic views aren't protected, then what's the use of it? Well, I'd make an exception for cases where it comes along with a serious threat of violence to a person or institution, or slanders an individual, etc. But the crime there isn't the racism, rather that it is being used for threats or harassment, same way other opinions could be used that way. As an example, it should certainly be legal to promote white supremacy and deny the Holocaust, and to demonstrate and write articles about it -- but not to gang up on an old Jewish lady in the supermarket and shout it at her. Free speech, common sense.

In general, I'm not at all happy about the developments in Europe (esp. in an EU context) where the criminalization of Holocaust denial and other extreme views is being promoted.

Hogan is quite right, making racism "illegal" guts the very point of freedom of speech. Threats of violence (in which we should consider those that are playing veiled) is another matter.

As for SD's comment supra re State sermons
I haven't heard any complaints about this situation - ok the press wouldn't dare touch it - but even among blogs and word of mouth, the state issued khutbas don't seem to be an issue. No one really seems to mind.

I'm afraid you simply don't travel in the right circles.

State sermons are bitterly resented in many quarters - largely conservative - and elsewhere in the Arab world have tended to discredit the Imams over time.

Any imam in the UAE that deviated from the official khutbas and started preaching jihad and associated extremist hellfire would be sacked, probably jailed, and certainly deported if they weren't local (which most aren't).

So it goes on the internet and via bootleg cassettes, rather than in the mosque, in open.

This is what Britain needs to do. Appoint some body (such as the Muslim Council) to supervise Friday sermons. Insist that all imams have some kind of license issued by the Muslim Council. The Council may not be perfect/100% representative of muslims in Britain, but they won't dare to approve jihadi rantings in the current climate.

That is a staggeringly stupid and bad idea. It's not only utter bollocks, but will have no effect but to drive the extremists underground.

Better to have good surveillance and penetrate the extremists (while clamping down on open incitations to violence) than have a doomed effort like that.

" a state sponsored native preacher"

Like the state-controlled Catholic Church in China? Not a good idea.

Preachers are just people standing up and talking to an audience, like teachers or night-club comedians. They come under the same laws: no incitement to race hatred, religious hatred or violence. No stirring up of riots.

The only problem (admittedly a big one) is that they are using a foreign language.

As for the idea of using the Muslim Council as a thought police, they are a highly dubious organisation which seems to have links with the Muslim Brotherhood.

Its sad really. This proves that the British government is more liberal in its attitudes than those so-called Arab liberals living in the West who claim to support democracy but at the same time butterssing the nations and states they came from.

I agree that establishing state Muslim councils, or whatever to call them, is a bad idea. It doesn't seem to work in the Middle East, where the governments can at least claim to be Muslim, and I can't see it working in the West. A (very) light version of this was tried in France, but I haven't heard much positive come out of it -- from what I read, mostly factional dispute for control over the council, with the result that the state now effectively backs some Muslim groups, and not others, for no good reason. If someone knows the situation there, please tell.

However, organizing Muslim theological education programs at universities etc, same as the Christian ones, in those countries where that exist, I do think is a good idea. First, because it is simply equal treatment; second, because it means theologically empowering those Muslims who know the country, its culture and the particular needs of Muslims living there, from their own experience, unlike the import Imams that some will otherwise rely on. The point is not so much to make local Islamic authorities more liberal in their interpretation of Islam, but to help Islam become a fully indigenous faith to the country. That's step one in any integration process.

Well, citing Sharq al awsat - I suppose the local press officers from the Egyptian or Saudi embassies weren't available to Adel Darwish...

Alle,

the CFCM is neither a failure nor a success. On the positive side, it's the first such institution in France where some attempt at Muslim representativity is seriously experimented.

Now if you know French environment, jacobinism, its militant not-so-liberal secularism and rampant islamophobia, then just achieving that in itself is worth taking your hat off. So before I talk about the shortcomings, it must be kept in mind that this was supposed to be a first step, an imperfect one yet supposed to evolve, and it's the whole controversy around it that really halted any progress.

On the shortcomings side, many points.

First, the imported imams issue. The way this council was elected was based on the area of mosques, which favored an overwhelmingly conservative, mainly foreign or immigrant (understand: without grasp of local mechanisms) representation. Many in the Muslim population complained about not feeling represented there.

Second, the UOIF, close to the Muslim Brotherhood, won the elections. This provoked a huge controversy.

Third, as a compromise to this controversy, French authorities named Dalil Boubaker, an algerian-imported (understand again: without grasp of local mechanisms), MENA style state professional ass-kisser who neither conservatives nor liberals like, ya3ni a sa3soo3 with zero credibility, at its head.

Fourth, the mere creation by the state of this council was a blasphemy to the jacobinists, the secularo-fascists and the islamophobes, who'd rather not see the state approach constructively any Muslim issue even with a pole. It was a blasphemy for a huge part of French Muslims too out of primitive anti-sarkozism (Sarkozy was the initiator - and good or bad, coming from Sarkozy, most French Muslims will whine hysterically and obsessively, without proposing anything constructive evidently).

Once Sarkozy gave up any hope of gaining a French Muslim constituency, the council lost any momentum. And, I know this will be a huge surprise to you, French Muslims have done nothing to replace it or improve it.

Thanks, that's a very helpful summary. This is pretty interesting, actually.

This summary could have been developed into an entry of its own..

Regarding racism, I'm basically with the liberty lovers here, also because there have been (IMO) some bad cases of using anti-racism laws to slap down political opponents. The European Council of Human Rights wotzit has been awful, really. Then again, it's historically understandable, particularly post-WWII, since Europe has a long tradition of pogrom this or scapegoat that.

Nevertheless. The main problem with Muslim immigrants to Europe is the entire identity clash at play, and emotions are riding high at the moment. The actual crime, unemployment and racism is to be expected in the first couple of generations of immigrants before everybody settles down. However, with an islamophobic White Europe and a clear trend of Muslims seeking identity in Islam, I really believe this is the game to watch.

Hence, a state-sponsored imam education would do two things:

1. Annoy islamophobes, by singling out Islam for special treatment, in comparison with other non-Xian religions
2. Improve mosques
3. Solidify Islam as the main aspect of Muslim identity

Possibly, 3 could be the entirely opposite, could also be a state's reverse-midas touch, given the rebel aspect of Islamist revival in a Western European context.

Personally if I were religious (and I somewhat am) I would find the state attempting to appoint the heads of my religion, or claiming the right to control their education, incredibly offensive. Particularly, if the state was composed of members of another religion. Particularly if the head of that state was already the official head of another religion.

However, laws against preaching hatred and violence, that makes sense to me, especially since there is plenty of evidence that people are acting on the preaching, so it is not simply a matter of free speech but is akin to 'shouting theatre in a crowded fire,' or vise-versa.