open Democracy News Analysis - democracy & terror - Comments

Not logged in on "Terrorism: in search of the definite article"

Not logged in — Thu, 26 Jun 2008 20:15:36 +0100

Just one question: who's "we"?

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.

Anthony Barnett on "From the shadows: Spain’s election lessons"

Anthony Barnett — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 22:32:27 +0000

Fascinating account. From afar, it seems to me that there is an air of incompetence about Zapatero, not just a matter of personality but due also to the lack of socialist purpose thanks to the fact that this tradition is so hollowed out. If the Spanish right learns from Britain it will "decontaminate" itself by embracing the social reforms that are driven by the modernisation of contemporary consumerism. This may be more difficult thanks to the Catholic Church. It is not incompatible with neo-liberal economics, although this is going to have a hard time with the US recession.... What I find most interesting is the national question. What Britain needed (it is probably in the past tense now) was a party that argued for a democratic union, which positively insisted on the need for the countries to have their own executive voice (including England) as the means to combining together. Spain was always idealised as the country that got this right with a constitution that permitted and to this extent was built on the real autonomy of its member nations (not a 'devolved' permission from an overweening centre). But the national question in Spain too seems to play out in terms of Spain v. Catalonia or the Basques. Is that right? What was wrong with Zapatero's attempt to talk with ETA on condition it stopped the 'armed struggle'?

KVB Tharoor on "From the shadows: Spain’s election lessons"

KVB Tharoor — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 12:05:16 +0000

Fine piece again, Ivan. Tangential to your analysis, but I was wondering what kind of effect Kosovo has had on relations between the PSOE and Catalan nationalists... how long a shadow can the Balkans cast on Spanish politics?

jim willmot on "Secularism confronts Islam"

jim willmot — Fri, 22 Feb 2008 09:41:37 +0000

Of course, Christianity isn't much better. Check out evilbible.com. While the war in Afganistan is a total mess (the West armed everyone in the region), I feel for the women who must wear burkas, submit to the sexual desires of older, bigoted men, and are not allowed to be educated. Where is the outrage in the Muslim community for this type of behavior? Magical thinking is silly people...treat people as you would want to be treated...it is as simple as that...no need for priests, mullahs, right reverends, etc. The religion industries of the world must be exposed for the fraud that it is. It is the perfect scam...they have never had to deliver on their promises. I just hope Muslims can find new ways to escape the veil (as many Christians have)...without feeling they are losing their culture/identity and more importantly, without losing their lives.

irine52 on "Secularism confronts Islam"

irine52 — Thu, 14 Feb 2008 19:30:48 +0000

Religion and religious customs cannot be used to govern a country. In every country there must be a law separating church and state. Religion in general is too controversial, 'religious truths' are too questionable because they cannot be proven.
Religion, any religion, is to be practised in private. Religion cannot be part of public life and government.
The first country to separate church (religion) and state was Mongolia/China about 1500 years ago. While Europe and the Arab countries have a long history of wars in the name of religion, killing in the name of 'God' (what/whose God), Mongolia/China has had no religious wars, actually, Buddhism appears to be the most peaceful religion, seeking only harmony and tolerance.

KVB Tharoor on "Europe’s Afghan test "

KVB Tharoor — Wed, 23 Jan 2008 17:07:16 +0000

In the last year, Karzai has frequently called for negotiations with elements of the Taliban, recognising that they're not simply a monolithic militant group, but an assemblage of factions, even to some extent a social movement. Yet, Washington has been reluctant to sanction this. Would negotiation with the Taliban in some way compromise American positions of non-engagement elsewhere (for e.g. with Hamas)?

Missing in this strategy is any mention of Pakistan. Is that because the author thinks the turmoil in Afghanistan's neighbour is somehow unlinked to Afghanistan's own problems? Or is it because EU foreign policy is toothless regarding the influence it can exert in Pakistan?

richard on "The resurgence of the neo-Taliban"

richard — Sun, 16 Dec 2007 20:36:34 +0000

British troops in Afghanistan are being killed and injured in a useless attempt to stop farmers there from growing opium. In effect, we are asking the farmers to starve, or at least to plunge themselves and their families into deep poverty, by refraining from planting opium. The chances of success are not high, and the leaders of the army there are giving signals that confirm this. At the same time, the incidence of cancer in Africa is rising according to a recent report in the BMJ, and people there are dying of cancer without having access to morphine or heroin. Two problems, one solution: instead of burning the Afghan opium crops, we could purchase it from the farmers, process it, and make it available in Africa. A think tank, the Senlis Council, http://www.senliscouncil.net/modules/Opium licensing are proposing poppy licensing. This will decriminalise poppy growing, and allow UN agencies to buy up the whole crop and turn it into medicine. I have asked the Ministry of Defence why they will not consider this as an option. The Government is concerned about diversion of the purchased opium from government agencies to the black market. This is seen as a meaningful objection by NuLabour ministers, despite the fact that at the moment 100% of the trafficked crop finds its way onto the black market. Government complains that the Afghan Government does not have the necessary resources, institutional capacity and control mechanisms in place to ensure that they are the sole purchaser of opiate raw materials. This begs the question of what tiny fraction of the cost of military action would be needed. They are spending £270 million over three years in support of the Afghan government’s National Drug Control Strategy (NDCS). The “War on Drugs” has been waged for many years, at huge cost in money, lives and suffering, and there is little or no evidence that the drug traffickers are losing. The Government should also be reminded that the drug trade is one of the main sources of revenue for terrorists. The Government no longer uses the phrase “War on Terror”, but there is still a power struggle to be won, and cutting the source of revenue for terrorists is surely an option worth considering. A change of policy from prohibition to legitimisation and humanitarian application would surely be seen as a statesmanlike choice. We should be pressing for this solution.

ai_1 on "Europe and terrorism: the wrong path"

ai_1 — Sat, 10 Nov 2007 19:13:55 +0000

On which other kinds of terrorism should we focus? From Methodists? Stamp collectors? It is clear that at his juncture of time there is a problem with Islam-inspired terrorism. Of course, discrimination should be illegal (and in much of EU it is), we should discourage alienation and let all Europeans, regardless of their religion (if any), skin pigmentation, gender, sexual orientation, ..., feel as full partners in the European project. We should also expect from them to behave the way full partners do and respect the rights of other partners and values (like, for example, free speech) which we hold dear. But discrimination is often in the eye of the beholder -- and, as a motivating factor, perception of discrimination is just as bad as discrimination. Take the story opening this article. The author, driving at night at a rough part of Stockholm, is stopped by a police car and questioned about electronic equipment at the back of his car. Being (apparently) non-Muslim, he takes it as legitimate police activity (yet, amazingly, suffieciently remarkable to include in the article). Had he been Muslim, he could have taken it as an evidence of discrimination. Once we establish a language of non-discrimination, rather than putting at the centre a language of universal rights and obligations, we operate ultimately not to realities but to perceptions of discrimination. And this will not alleviate the reality of alienation or the threat of terrorism.

sean.fox on "Europe and terrorism: the wrong path"

sean.fox — Thu, 08 Nov 2007 13:59:17 +0000

The answer would be easier if all kinds of terrorism were treated equally. If the EU and national governments did more to stop the daily insults to many Muslims. -------------------------------- I agree with much of the article but am gravely concerned about the paragraph above. Is the author equating terrorism with insults and suggesting there is some kind of moral equivalence. I believe that freedom of speech is a fundamental freedom, including the freedom to insult or mock religions. I can accept restrictions on abuse based on gender, race, age, or disability because these are all attributes not under our control. Religion, like political affiliation, is a choice and I absolutely oppose any attempt to make me respect others views in these areas, or to refrain from insulting or mocking them if I choose. They can do likewise to me, so long as, for both of us, violence or the threat of violence, is entirely absent. Just to be absolutely clear I mean physical violence, not insults, jokes, mockery, or vigorous debate.

m.jamil on "Secularism confronts Islam"

m.jamil — Tue, 30 Oct 2007 21:01:23 +0000

while oliver roy's analysis is as poignant as ever, the point about culture should be reassessed. all religion is part of culture, no religious thought or ideology exists outside of cultural specific identities, inclusive of ethno-linguistic nuances. in this case, and i speak as a euro-muslim academic, issues are clouded by religious rhetoric and psychological transferences. being muslim becomes an identity associated with ethnicity, as in the uk where pakis is a derogatory term applied to muslims from the indian subcontinent, whether they are bengali or pushtun, or karnatic, yet non-muslims from the subcontinent, are not identified as a religious minority, merely as a racial one. in france, north african berbers who may be francophone and not arab speakers, although still muslim, are saddled with an "arab identity" that axiomatically confuses religious and ethnic identity. political islam, to use roy's approach, has failed, but a politicized islam remains to represent an symbolic identity with which to rationalize reactions to racism and neo-colonial conditions. in reality we need to be re-reading franz fanon "wretched of the earth" to recognize the symptoms of mental illness induced by colonialist racism and oppression, and the shame and anger that turns inward in the face of such overwhelming power. the other side of the coin is cathartic, that is, lashing out violently against all the manifestations of the oppressor with no care for one's own life. such reactions are to be found within eta and the basque struggle for autonomy against horrific spanish oppression. the black anger that poured onto streets of the usa, and will do so again, is just such a manifestation of cathartic violence against internal colonialism. perhaps we could begin to analyze the african/arab minorities in france and the largely indo-pak minorities in the uk as conditions of internal colonialism. to conclude, we need to stop speaking in the misleading rhetoric of religion, which is no more than one symbolic condition of individual and collective identities, far less important that the overall labeling and oppressing of the other within any society, and the resulting problems of self-esteem and desire for cathartic reactions, most often violence is the most effective and necessary vehicle for release that can lead to emotional-psychological healing. although change in the structure of the dominant oppressive collective majority is equally necessary to facilitate social healing. this is true whether the issues are race of poverty, or both.

Rudi Dierick on "Secularism confronts Islam"

Rudi Dierick — Mon, 29 Oct 2007 00:04:41 +0000

He is even still stuck with multiculturalism (MC) as a model, and mixing up the 'multi-ethnic' and 'multi-religious' reality (the demographic or sociological observation of current social reality), with the normative definition of MC. he also did miss the recent criticism of MC because it erodes democratic emancipation. He also missed the emergence of interculturalism.

Rudi Dierick on "Secularism confronts Islam"

Rudi Dierick — Sun, 28 Oct 2007 23:59:50 +0000

According to me, there is issue at all in the articulation of religious identity within the public sphere! This has been done, and is being done by hundreds of religions, and millions of people. The real issue lies in those interpretations of certain religions -be it intolerant Hindus that want to burn, destroy or al teast close every non-Hindu place of worship, or orthodox Jews that refuse any respect for others, or arch-conservative muslims stcking with the literal interpretations of Koran and with sharia- that fundamentally refuse the universal human rights. The common conflicts are about eual rights for men and women, the religiuos rights for all (especially the right to leave a religion), and the acceptance of the separation of church and state. That's the real issue, and the articulation trough symbols is just the 'xternal visible signs' of those conflicting values.

kerrywinn on "Secularism confronts Islam"

kerrywinn — Sun, 28 Oct 2007 22:07:13 +0000

Read the book to understand that it does condone the murder of infidels. The Bible has no such context, in spite of the fact it is full of violence. What the poster claims regarding Mohammed is fact, not fiction, regardless of Muslim apologists claim. When you lose your culture, your sense of right and wrong, you lose everything. Know your friends well, keep them close; know your enemies better to defeat them.

severnjmc on "Secularism confronts Islam"

severnjmc — Sun, 28 Oct 2007 19:46:23 +0000

I don't feel this should be removed - he (I assume it is a he) seems to have dug a satisfyingly deep hole for himself with his rather nasty prurient obsession with sex. What fascinates me is how he comes to read a publication like O.D. and, sadly, how little it seems to have done to broaden his mind.