open Democracy News Analysis - Scotland’s nationalist-Muslim embrace, Tom Gallagher - Comments

Ken W on "Scotland’s nationalist-Muslim embrace"

Ken W — Fri, 18 Apr 2008 19:41:53 +0100

A few points Mr Gallagher.

You state:
'Nobody wondered aloud about the religious dimensions of the violent ideology that had evidently motivated the would-be massacre. Indeed, Scotland's health minister and SNP deputy leader Nicola Sturgeon was explicit that "Islam is a religion of peace".'

Firstly, nobody wondered aloud as to why this had happened because we knew that already. As the Tory Ken Clarke had long before pointed out in the Commons, the folly of the Iraq war itself would clearly lead to Britain being targeted by terrorists.

You castigate Nicola Sturgeon for stating that 'Islam is a religion of peace' doubtless on the grounds that you think this to be false statement.
As the Candidate for Mayor of London: Boris Johnston likewise a Tory, has just recently used exactly that same phrase, perhaps you should expand your critique of the SNP to the Conservative party and their own 'muslim embrace'?

On Osama Saeed, you state that he is '...an unapologetic advocate of the hardline Islamism espoused by the organisation whose Scottish branch he heads, the Muslim Association of Britain (MAB). He has enthusiastically defended the idea of a global Islamic state and urged Muslims not to cooperate with the police....'

I dont know what you think 'hardline Islamism' is, but this is all rather disingenuous. Mr Saeed in his Guardian article does not espouse nor even mention a 'Global Islamic state' at all, but talks of ' ...bringing down trade barriers and free flow of people across Muslim states'. I am sorry that you find this rather mild idea to be somehow threatening.
As to your further statement that he '....urged Muslims not to cooperate with the police' Mr Saeed was talking about perceived harrasment of the muslim community in Dundee specificaly by the 'Special Branch Community Contact Unit'. He indeed replied to these accusations:

“I’ve been asked if I disavow the statements attributed to me in the Dundee Courier. The fact is that the word ‘non-co- operation’ did not pass from my lips, and the newspaper itself could not produce a quote from me backing their spurious story up.

“I’m sad to hear that Tayside Police have jumped on this bandwagon.

“They know that we don’t back non-co-operation. We had a meeting with them yesterday (Monday) afternoon where we laid out a number of proposals for them to better their relations with the Muslim community.

“The meeting happened because relations between Muslims and Tayside Police have been deteriorating due to the activities of the Special Branch Community Contact Unit.
“This unit, unique in Scotland, has amongst other things, been turning up and questioning young people at their homes because they happen to be Muslim,” he added."

Urging Muslims '…not to cooperate with the police’ ? Not quite the same as urging them not to accept harassment by one particular agency - An agency that Detective chief superintendent Colin McCashey of Tayside Police perhaps rather ironically stated had been '...created to establish good relations between police and ethnic communities ...'

Your attempted smearing of this one individual however is as nothing when compared with the following:
' ...a younger generation of campaigners, who helped organise the assembly in the city's main square just days after co-religionists almost succeeded in destroying the city's airport, are now making the running.'

Here you attempt to conflate the young Muslims of Scotland who attended a rally for the cause of 'Scotland United Against Terror' with those very individuals who participated in the terrorist bombing itself: individuals moreover, who were not even from Scotland.
At this point, I'm afraid the point of your rhetoric becomes rather clear. You wish to smear the muslim community of Scotland as a 'fifth column' for Islamic terrorism with the SNP as handmaiden to the dark side. This leaves an unpleasant taste in the mouth - even for someone very unmuslim who was in fact born and raised as a protestant Scot.

Now, there are indeed some aspects of Muslim 'culture' I myself dislike, but there again, I feel the same way about some aspects of Catholic and Protestant 'culture'. Scotland has now grown up as a polity unlikely to be dominated by religious sects and factions. We will not become a Muslim State, nor Catholic, nor indeed return to the Calvinist authoritarian theocracy exemplified by our own Mullah Knox whose bearded statue in appropriate Afghan type cap glowers over so much of our history. Nor I hope, will we ever be convinced, whatever the differences between us, that the likes of your polemic will succeed in creating an atmosphere fear and suspicion over our country.

Orwellian_Logic on "Scotland’s nationalist-Muslim embrace"

Orwellian_Logic — Wed, 15 Aug 2007 16:58:50 +0100

Having read all of the comments so far I have found some to be interesting and some to say the least worrying. Having left Scotland at the age of 24 as a rather conservative young man. Through the next thirteen years I found myself moving from right, to left, to centre and now slightly right of centre. I also do not affiliate with any political party as politicians think only for their own interests under a masquerade, of those of it's voters. Living, as a very nationalistic Scotsman in London for the last thirteen years I have watched at the complete and utter mess our politicians have made of the UK along with the Law lords and their domineering human rights laws. Not only that, I have watched while Ken Livingstone, the London mayor, has pushed further down his own crusade of instilling Multiculturism as the norm, I have also watched, Dundee's own loved one, George Galloway join in destroying British culture. One thing I found while living in London is the similarities between the English, the Scots, the Welsh and the Irish. While many of you in Scotland will no doubt shout never at the previous comment, especially to the English being like the Scots, all I can state is that it takes one to live amongst people of other nationalities to know them. I'm not going to go into a history lesson now but many of you will agree that the rally of Scots to fight against the english and vice versa was all done by the Clan Leaders and Lords respectably. Scots were controlled and manipulated by their lords along with the English and had they all lived together without the presence of the aristocracy to subjugate them I'm no doubt certain that a relative friendly existence would have occured. What has this all got to do with the original post I hear many of you ask? It has a lot to do with Tom Gallagher's post. I am about to warn you in Scotland that while you may think that there are many Scottish Muslims who united together in solidarity with their Scottish, Christian brethren because of the Glasgow Airport bombing there are many Scottish Muslims who follow the path of fundamentalism and the creation of a muslim state who will in the near future want Sharia Law in Scotland as what is now happening in parts of England. What do you think, when the 6,000 or so muslims currently residing in Scotland turn into the hundreds of thousands in the future through marriages, births, immigration and asylum seekers, will want? If any of you have understood Islam then you will realise that it sees itself as the only true religion on this planet. What will that mean when they become the majority, or strong enough to demand rule and impose an Islamic state in Scotland, to the Christians, the Hindus, the Sikhs, the Buddhists, the Taoists, Hare Krishnas, Pagans and Atheists? There is no place for Kafir's in Islam. However, what makes me laugh at this whole affair is the left wingers such as the Galloways, the Livingstones and in Scotland, the Alex Salmond's who push forward for multicultarism, offering Britain as a place of unparalleled freedoms, democracies and freedoms of speech, are unfortunately ignorant to the fact that these freedoms they hold dear,something our forefathers fought for throughout the last millenium, will have no place in an Islamic state under Fundamentalist Sharia Law. You will also read that many of the Islamic fundamentalists currently residing in the UK, currently planning mainland attacks or wanted abroad for crimes, came here stating they wanted to live in a democracy, and wanted to embrace Britain's freedom's of speech. Yet it is these fundamentalists who recruit young muslims to destroy the freedoms they so desired upon trying for asylum upon arrival here. It was those same very people who called for the beheading of Rushdie, his publishers and more recently the newspaper editors around Europe for the "Allah" cartoons. It was those very people who agreed with 9/11, 7/7, and the recent car bombings in London and Glasgow. Their ideas on democracy and freedom of speech are vastly differenty from those upon their asylum success. One has only to look at areas of England to see how Muslims have begun to turn cities into ghettos. How long before parts of Glasgow follow along the same route? Those of you, no doubt, who are denying the dangers we face as free thinkers will be the first to suffer when you realise you no longer have a voice as those whom you have embraced, welcomed, showed respect to and fought for will be the first to silence you. How many leaders of the numerous Muslim Associations spread throughout the UK have ever come forward to denounce the terrorist activities that have been happening at home and abroad? We are constantly told that Islam is a peaceful faith yet I haven't seen much apologising for atrocities happening. "Dee Pierson" stated that she did not see Christians around the world rushing to condemn the atrocities in Serbia. However we did see our Christian leaders condemn the violence no doubt along with many people here who didn't have the same means as the leaders to express their concerns, but voiced in the local pub over a beer or in the workplace. Yet how many Muslim leaders here condemn the atrocities and suicide bombers in Iraq, Palestine and Afghanistan who are not only killing Christians but Muslims alike on a daily basis? Dee, you will never be the brother or the sister to a Muslim for the simple reason that you are not a Muslim. It is, as I presume, your Liberalism, Christianity and respect for other cultures that you feel the way you do. Yet do you think that Islam feels the same way as you do? I do agree with "Global Intifada" that Terrorism in Britain has traditionally been a weapon fuelled by British foreign policy. Iraq and Afghanistan are wars that should never have been fought for everyone knows it was about Oil and not about the ridiculous reasons Blair later gave over Regime Change(Illegal in any means for going to War with another Country). However Muslims unlike "free thinking" Christians tend to rally to the defence of other Muslims regardless of reasons for conflict because Allah tells them to. They act almost like ants or bees rallying to the defence of their Queen. Britishness amongst Muslims goes out the window and any attack on Muslims they see as a personal attack upon them even though they are no where near the conflict or understand the reasons for fighting other than the "Relentless West's Christian attack upon Islam". This in itself goes to show the dangers of Islamic Fundamentalism and this philosophy can only be compared to that of far Right Wing Extremism such as the Ku Klux Klan or the Black Panthers prevalent in North American Society. This is not a nationalistic, xenophobic rant about the dangers of people of different cultures to ourselves. It is not a BNP or a National Front call to arms to destroy people of different colours. It is a wake up call to all of you about a RELIGION, not a people, that is trying to convert the World to it's beliefs with no respect whatsoever for religions and cultures that have been on this planet long, long before it's birth. Our biggest danger is not Global Warming but Islamic fundamentalism and I hate to say it but without Islam it would not exist. Western Civilisation through democracy has co-existed with religion but not made it it's ruler and therefore has advanced as a Civilisation. Islam unfortunately is still living in the 7th Century, very much a tribal society, denouncing the West that ironically gives it it's means of communication, through it's scientific and electronic advancements with which to spread it's fundamentalism with. Multiculturalism involving ISLAM will never work for the simple reason that eventually this minority culture will want to take over as the dominant culture of the land. In England, thanks to our politicians and Law Lords this is already starting to happen. It is the people like Osama Saeed who through gaining seats of power in Political Parties will slowly, but surely, push for laws to be made regarding Muslims and Islam in Scotland. Islam will peacefully take over it's host society unlike it's Mr Hyde, called fundamentalism, through acts of terrorism.

robert browne on "Scotland’s nationalist-Muslim embrace"

robert browne — Tue, 14 Aug 2007 13:19:19 +0100

Although Professor Gallagher was in this instance talking specifically about the SNP and Islamist support, he has also managed to highlight the dangers of a second issue, that of political leaders of any description attempting to garner support through religious issues. SNP and Islamism. Mr. Saeed’s involvement in the SNP must be seen within the context of his position within the Muslim Association of Britain, The Muslim Brotherhood’s avatar in the UK. As Sheikh Al-Qaradhawi has said: ”The (islamic) conquest of Rome means that Islam will return to Europe. I think that this conquest would not be by the sword or armies, but by preaching and ideology. Europe will see that it suffers from materialistic culture, and will seek an alternative, it will seek a way out, it will seek a lifeboat. It will find no lifesaver but the message of Islam the message of the muezzin who gives it religion but does not deny it this world, brings it to Heaven, but does not uproot it from Earth. Allah willing, Islam will return to Europe and the Europeans will convert to Islam.” Saeed’s political aspirations therefore can’t be seen as limited to Scottish independence but a greater goal - the resurrection and expansion of the caliphate. To achieve this through the democratic process is perfectly acceptable as long as we all realize that the object of this exercise is for The Koran and The Sunnah to become our Constitution and Bill of Rights. As Quardawi himself has said, in the UK this is probably about 70 to 100 years in the future, but useful work is being applied by Islamist politicians like Mr Saeed in the UK of benefit to the Ummah elsewhere in the world. With that in mind it is easy to see how policies such the break up of the UK, withdrawal from NATO, closing Faslane, the ending of US munitions flights to Israel and the creation of state funded Muslim schools would appeal to someone with an Islamist agenda. Whilst there is little doubt that Mr. Salmond’s belief in such policies are an end in themselves, Mr. Saeed’s are a means to an end. As The Muslim Brotherhood’s own charter says, the members should strive to achieve political power: “By putting political programs for Islamising government in different countries and establishing these programs through the convenient ways which do not conflict with Islam.” The dangers of faith based voting. In the case above, this requires mobilizing ‘the muslim vote’ and that is where Mr. Saeed steps in. It is a tactic the SNP have used in the past albeit with a different religious identity. In conjunction with The Scottish Sun they attempted to secure the catholic vote (and newspaper purchasing power) in the west of Scotland by raising the act of succession (and the attendant ban on the possibility of a catholic monarch) as an issue. The Sun came out in support of the SNP while simultaneously producing pro-Celtic and anti-Rangers stories in their attempt to secure circulation. This pact was thankfully short lived. Sometime in the 1980s the UK stopped voting along ideological lines and began electing managers. Should the SNP carry on the track of religious based support they could trigger a reaction from those who regard themselves as ‘other’. Voting based on class was bad enough: religion however has a capacity to trigger irrational behaviour on a grand scale. The belief system that lies underneath protestantism is not that far beneath the surface (and currently only shows face at derby matches) but I suspect it is dormant, not dead. The last Orange Order march I saw in Edinburgh consisted of about 50 people. I don’t want to see it become 50,000 again and playing with faith based voting could bring that about. We would do well to remember law of unintended consequences. Gallagher is correct that Islamist involvement with the SNP is worthy of discussion. Mr. Saeed’s response which included referring to Prof Gallagher as “a drunk”, “a vagrant” and repeating the untruth that Gallagher had been “arrested by the police” did Mr Saeed no favours. After all, The Prophet did say:" Whoever believes in Allah and the Last Day should talk what is good or keep quiet, and whoever believes in Allah and the Last Day should not hurt (or insult) his neighbour." Voting along religious lines is insane. It turns democracy into tribalism. More importantly once started, it may not stop where you want it to. The ugliness of this tribal/religious mix is only surpassed its stupidity and surrealism: anyone who thinks the Israeli Palestinian issue has nothing to do with Scottish sectarianism would do well to remember recent Old Firm matches where Scottish protestants, themselves descended from 7th century Irish immigrants sung songs about how wonderful a Dutch prince was whilst waving Israeli flags at a bunch of Scottish catholics descendants of 19th century Irish immigrants themselves waving Palestinian flags whilst singing songs about a German Pope (who lives in Italy). You couldn’t make this stuff up. Finally, in anticipation of the Islamist McCarthyism Mr. Saeed is so prone to: “No Mr. Saeed, I am not now, nor have I ever been a member of the Islamophobe Party. I just don’t trust politicians, especially those who think they are doing God’s work. That makes me a Theocraphobe and proud of it. However Mr. Saeed, are you now, or have you ever been a member of Al-Ikhwan?”

cesche on "Scotland’s nationalist-Muslim embrace"

cesche — Wed, 01 Aug 2007 00:28:59 +0100

Dear Tom Gallagher, It is a pity that you deny what you in fact promulgate in your initial text. You say the SNP "have no positive vision that can enable them to transform the national arena in which they operate". But this is what you fail to provide, instead becoming an excuse for the Scottish Labour Party to justify its profound failure. Salmond's attempt (along with Brown) to avoid demonising Islam is a vast improvement on the strategic panic attacks of Blair and the dreaded John Reid. The election of a non-Labour government in Scotland is turning things around for the first time in 50 years. I am no great fan of the SNP, though I have respect for Salmond (which you clearly do not). That is fair enough....but your analysis (by failing to take critically the SNP as a real alternative that needs to improve, instead simply charging it with complicity and opportunism) implies the continued dominance of the Labour Party in Scotland, and that is the very future that I would oppose with all my energy. The Scottish Labour Party is absolutely, morally corrupt - like any party after 50 years of unchallenged power. It has lost its most talented members to Westminster and is left with the sad cold leftovers of the likes of McLeish or McConnell. In west central Scotland and in cities such as Dundee, the Labout Party was, until the last election, little short of a mafia. This is known by anyone who has touched these rotten boroughs in the past. It is the remarkable silence about Islam or terrorism of people like the cowering McConnell that you should be commenting on... before you talk about Salmond. By not mentioning them, you appear to side with their timourous wee opinions....that the Scottish First Minister should keep his or her trap shut and concentrate on the things Westminster finds pleasing. A reasoned critique of Salmond is to be applauded but not if it seeks simply to restore the broken Scottish Labour party to power. That is the tricky line that those promoting the uniion have to tread. As a sceptic, you have to convince me through a justification that begins with a measured but absolute critique of the 50 wasted years of Labour Party rule in Scotland - years that produced little or no argument for the continuation of the union. Only once the corruption of the Labour party is acknowledged and agreed, could we begin to talk. The fact that you seem to have a real interest in the future of Scotland and the British Isles makes me hope that we could do this. You come across in your last post as a thinking person, not a Labour Party hack, of which there are far too many in the Scottish press. But until you recognise, along with other critical thinking circles, that the Scottish Labour Party needs a Kinnock or Cameron moment in which it completely reforges itself in the fire of its previous errors, then I will continue to question the need to listen to your arguments. Whether the SNP is the answer is a question is something over the long term that I doubt . A renewed Scottish Labour Party (even a renewed right of centre Scottish Conservative Party) would be a real challenge to the SNP - and one I would welcome. But while deals are made in Westminster that determine the outcome of negotiations in Holyrood (viz. the Liberal Democrats and the stupidity of Nicol Stephen's statements about a coalition with the SNP), then nothing can seriously touch the SNP's clear and positive vision of a Scottish polity unencumbered by Westminster local politics. Once that simple possibility is realised, I imagine Scottish politics and the SNP would fracture into different factions. I am increasingly of the opinion that Scotland needs to break the United Kingdom. This would reduce the pernicious influence of not "so mangy" British foreign policy (Iraq, Afghanistan etc.) and possibly permit the island of Ireland to reconsider its allegiances. In Scotland, new policies and parties could then emerge and debate. This has all been made possible by the SNP victory. Imagine if McConnell had won the last election - just imagine and weep. Any continued pro-union hegemony by the Labour Party doesn't stands up in comparison wih Salmond's assumption of power. So, let's start by agreeing that Westminster parties should cease to compete in Holyrood elections, for the sake of the democratic legislature - then we can have a real debate about what a Scottish polity could be...

Mike Small on "Scotland’s nationalist-Muslim embrace"

Mike Small — Thu, 26 Jul 2007 15:27:26 +0100

This was a disgraceful article attacking a leaders efforts to maintain calm in a volatile situation. "I wrote an undeniably polemical article about Scotland's nationalists because I was weary of the supine attitude of the Scottish media towards the party since its narrow but decisive electoral victory in May." This is beyond hilarious given the vitriol that was poured over the SNP during the campaign including one newspaper which published the SNP logo as a noose on polling day! I believe (readers will correct me if Im wrong) but the SNP are the only ruling party in Europe to be elected without the backing of a single media outlet in their own country. If some of the media are (relatively) positive about the SNP now it is because they are clearly light years ahead of Labours ancient deposed rotten borough administration now languishing amidst self-denial and internal recriminations. Open Democracy Deserves Better than Tom Gallagher.

admin on "Scotland’s nationalist-Muslim embrace"

admin — Wed, 25 Jul 2007 18:38:38 +0100

Reply from Tom Gallagher

My heart was bound to sink a little when I read from "Cesche" that "There is a need for the editors to examine the position of the writer...". Nothing I have so far written about Scotland's first minister, Alex Salmond, and his Scottish National Party (SNP) is as damaging to the image of contemporary nationalism in Scotland than this invitation for openDemocracy to call in the thought police.

I wrote an undeniably polemical article about Scotland's nationalists because I was weary of the supine attitude of the Scottish media towards the party since its narrow but decisive electoral victory in May. I was also concerned about the SNP's all-too-British attitude to certain important ethno-religious issues. In my view Alex Salmond is ready to take down from the shelf failed Whitehall policies for trying to accommodate Muslim minorities which undermine integrationist forces within the Muslim community in Scotland and instead assist the rise of a politicised version of the faith.

If the Scottish media stays silent, then it is an even bigger pity that no disquiet, or alternative policies, have emanated from within the SNP itself. Nobody inside the party seems to be interested in "the nuanced debate about Islam" that "Cesche" says is necessary. Instead, on this issue as with a lot of others, the voters are expected to comply with whatever the party comes up with and not talk back - talking back being a cardinal sin in the Scotland of small-minded authoritarians who continue to proliferate in many walks of life.

The trouble is if unquiet spirits like me don't occasionally rock the boat, all the signs are that an SNP-led Scotland, whether inside or outside the UK, will be a very narrow and conformist place: politicians drawn from a shrinking pool of politically engaged people will expect acquiescence and they will fiercely resist exposing policies to popular or civic scrutiny.

The SNP is now an Alex Salmond fan-club and sections of the media are in danger of going the same way. The much-vaunted civic nationalism of the SNP is in retreat, as politics in Scotland starts to acquire a disturbing edge. Without self-examination or a willingness to occasionally give dissonant voices a hearing (even from a "nutty professor" as at least one SNP supporter was keen to dub me on the Scotsman's website on 24 July), the party's vaulting ambitions will either fail to be realised or else will only be achieved at terrible, and probably unnecessary, cost.

I have voted for the SNP on at least six occasions and regrettably see the British state as very hard to fix. I would embrace independence and perhaps even campaign for it as actively as I did for a Scottish parliament between 1987 and 1997 if I thought that a qualitatively better form of government would result. Watching the SNP in action in 2007, I don't believe the chances of this are very high. The party displays too many of the delusional features of political movements which know what they are against but have no positive vision that can enable them to transform the national arena in which they operate.

Too much is at stake for me to keep my views to myself, however inconvenient they are to some ears. If that means being dubbed a purveyor of "dumb British imperialism" so be it. There are other forms of imperialism much worse than that produced by the mangy British lion and whose true potential for causing harm in the world has not been fully realised.

The Scots used to have greater awareness than now of how global forces operated thanks to some degree because of their role in this imperialist enterprise. It meant there were both powerful critiques of imperialism offered as well as passionately-held alternatives. What I see from the SNP now is a party operating at the level of soundbites and clichés, in which an agile leader is trying to position itself in a world of gathering violence and instability in an essentially opportunistic way.

It doesn't mean Alex Salmond is "handmaiden of terrorism" as Cesche assumes I claimed (I did not), but that he is someone whose approach to major international issues that impinge on Scotland is too simplistic for the fate of an entire nation to be placed in his hands.

cesche on "Scotland’s nationalist-Muslim embrace"

cesche — Sun, 22 Jul 2007 21:25:00 +0100

It is sad to see a site that previously was dedicated to a basically emancipatory discourse giving publicity to such primitive views of nation states, religions and nationalisms. To attack Salmond as a handmaiden of terrorism, which basically this article tries to do, is Daily Mail journalism at its worst. see quote below "Alex Salmond may never have worn a uniform, but he is projecting himself to religious minorities previously loyal to the Labour party - not just Muslims but the much larger Catholic one mainly drawn from past waves of Irish immigrants - as Scotland's answer to Colonel Gamal Abdel Nasser of Egypt or the Irish leader Michael Collins, who both struck out against an overmighty Britain in the last century with impressive effect." This is dumb British imperialism in which all who charge the British state (rather than its temporary givernments) with failings are "beyond the pale". There is a need for the editors to examine the position of the writer if they are not going to lose readers like me, who are interested in a more nuanced debate about Islam, and about Scotland's future in or out of Britain. The British state has no God-given right to exist nor does the old empire need to be defended in this way. The question is what "good" or "appropriate" way could the British state behave to justify the support of its own and the world's citizens. This dumb imperial rhetoric in which the British state is always defended and all questions about its historic legacy or its current activities quietly silenced in the name of unity is not what I want to read about here. If you keep this up you will lose another reader (and ex-donor).

Royal Prince Amjid on "Scotland’s nationalist-Muslim embrace"

Royal Prince Amjid — Sun, 22 Jul 2007 15:03:04 +0100

"Let there be light". Some interesting remarks Tom has made regarding Muslims' in Scotland and Scotland's new political party. It is only a matter of time when we shall see which party really represents the true voice of the Muslim community in Scotland. Lets not forget that there are other apolitical, professional organisations and individuals who are able to make significant balanced comments pertaining to the Muslim community. For example, the Institute of Asian Professionals - http://www.iapscotland.org Many 'players' have attempted to hijack the debate on terrorism in Britain. Surely, we should have an open debate and respect other learned opinions. To date the Muslim community in Scotland has witnessed much political rethoric and seems to be tired of being patronised by our so called leaders. After all, loyalties have to be earned, just like respect! A ticking time bomb!! Prince Amjid ------------------------------- www.royal-prince.co.uk

global.intifada on "Scotland’s nationalist-Muslim embrace"

global.intifada — Wed, 18 Jul 2007 21:27:11 +0100

Gallagher's use of the term co-religionists is deeply disturbing. It seems to suggest that there is little to separate a Muslim who embraces terrorism and the vast mass of ordinary Muslims who reject terrorism and who marched in their tens of thousands in the UK against an illegal and terroristic war. His use of the term 'bomb-carrying doctor further sheds light on Gallagher's mindset and right-wing politics wrapped in the psuedo-democratic robes offered to him by OPEN DEMOCRACY. Maybe we should adopt Gallagher's categories and condemn all middle-class, catholic sympathising lawers as co-warmongers. Again, maybe we should ensure that all white doctors be tarred with the brush of Shipman's murders. Many of us on the left rejected the sham 'just war' arguments put out by the right and the Labour Party leadership to justify slaughtering hundreds if not thousands of innocent Croats, Serbs and Kosovans, Christian, Muslim or other. Bombs we argued would not stop the ethnic cleansing, and indeed, when they rained down, the ethnic cleansing by the Serbs grew disproportionately. And intervention has not brought stability nor healed the ethnic divisions. If anything, the war has concretised these divisions, as they are now policed by the West rigorously. Gallagher is being disingenous and playing dangerous games. Terrorism in Britain has traditionally been a weapon fuelled by British foreign policy, whether this is in Ireland, Afghanistan or Iraq. Israeli aggression and land theft backed to the hilt by the US, created many thousands of Palestinian fighters, many of whom use terrorism as a weapon of last resort. It is not those such as Alex Salmond, the Muslim Association of Britain (who remember marched arm in arm with peace activists of all religious denominations) or those such as the anti-war movement that are creating division in British society. Their views and positive activities against war, have helped draw together sections of society under one banner, against the Blairs, Browns and Bushes of this world whose answer to any threat to their own strategic and economic interests, is to launch thousands of bombs and send in the troops and slaughter hundreds of thousands of innocents, thereby creating the next generation of terrorists. Gallagher has assured himself a place within the priviliged domain occupied by the likes of 'liberal' luminaries such as Cristopher Hitchens, Nick Cohen and David Arronovitch. Well deserved indeed.

willow28 on "Scotland’s nationalist-Muslim embrace"

willow28 — Sat, 14 Jul 2007 10:14:50 +0100

Quote:

Scotland receives considerably more in state subsidies than much of England. It is not beyond reason that Scottish policies, such as the decision to absolve Northern Irish students from tuition-fees at Scottish universities which English ones must nevertheless still pay, could result in a coherent campaign in which Scotland is told to exit via the door marked "Britain" and not come back. Salmond would relish such an outcome,and some believe he is trying to provoke it by upsetting English sensibilities. A separate Scotland could turn out to be a modern, efficient state that harnesses the energies of its people, including those achievers who previously had to go abroad to make their mark in the world; or it could be a kind of leftist London authority on a larger canvas, committed to redistributionist policies and a neutralist foreign policy garnished with fashionably right-on rhetoric in the hope that a durable patriotic consensus would emerge.

When in doubt - revert to Daily Mail style jingoism!

suziq on "Scotland’s nationalist-Muslim embrace"

suziq — Thu, 12 Jul 2007 00:54:07 +0100

It's perfectly fine to protect and welcome law-abiding individuals of any ethnicity, etc. It would be wise too, however, to be sure we are clear and educated on the nature of reigning ideologies, including Islam. A great place to start would be sites like the following: The Truth About Islam http://islamwatchers.blogspot.com

deepierson on "Scotland’s nationalist-Muslim embrace"

deepierson — Thu, 12 Jul 2007 00:32:04 +0100

I am very uncomfortable with the tone of this article. Little press is given when Muslim leaders speak out against terrorism, so everyone seems to think it is an "established fact" that such acts have not been/ are not being condemned by the vast majority of Muslims. I am reminded of the death of some 8000 Muslims in Kosovo, an event that we seem to have forgotten. This was done primarily at the hands of Orthodox Christians - 85% of Serbians belong to the Serbian Orthodox Church and the government of Serbia proclaims that this Christian church is fundamental to the values and culture of that nation. I do not recall Christians (as Christians) around the world rushing to condemn Serbians (as Chrisitans) for the many atrocities committed by Serbian Christians. No doubt such protests were raised, but they didn't make many headlines. More to the point, I do not recall many Christians (myself among them) feeling the need to apologize for the acts of these abberant "believers" or crying out about the lack of protest by other Christians. Why are we holding Muslims to a higher standard? Is it because the loss of Christian or Jewish life is so much more valuable. Let's look at the log in our own eye, before we bother with the splinter in our Muslim brother or sister's. Dee Pierson

Scotland’s nationalist-Muslim embrace, Tom Gallagher

Grace Davies — Thu, 09 Aug 2007 09:00:09 +0100

The terrorist attack that narrowly failed to inflict mass slaughter at Glasgow airport on 30 June 2007 has had a singular impact on Scotland's public life. A universal sense of shock was followed by vigorous official efforts to build bridges to the country's approximately 60,000 Muslims. A week later, on 7 July, the cream of Scotland's establishment gathered in George Square in Glasgow's heart to offer them protection and reassurance. The institutions represented included the ruling Scottish National Party (SNP), the police, the Church of Scotland, the trade unions, and the vocal anti-war movement. Nobody wondered aloud about the religious dimensions of the violent ideology that had evidently motivated the would-be massacre. Indeed, Scotland's health minister and SNP deputy leader Nicola Sturgeon was explicit that "Islam is a religion of peace".

Read the rest of this post...