open Democracy News Analysis - europe & islam - Comments

Kanishk Tharoor on "Islam, Europe, and history: across the frontiers"

Kanishk Tharoor — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 19:15:32 +0100

A few unrelated notes:

- In the 18th century a Hindu student in the north of Bengal, for instance, read Plato and Aristotle, and was taught to think of them as "Persian" thinkers. That may seem outlandish, but how different is it from a Norwegian in Bergen reading Plato and Aristotle and thinking of them as part of a "Western" tradition? These are, in many respects, equal claims of tradition and "ownership".

- Jack Goody's Theft of History is essential reading, even for those who are inclined to disagree with it.

- I do have a bit of problem with Martin's assertion here:

It is true that this claim would be hard to maintain if it was made simply in the name of farmers from Mirpur settled in Bradford, or from Sylhet settled in Brick Lane. But it isn't: it is made by Muslims, speaking as Muslims, as small shareholders in the great civilisational and religious enterprise of Islam. As Muslims, Mirpuris and Sylhetis, Moroccans and Anatolians can all hold their heads higher. They are, after all, distant heirs of what Claudio Lange described like this: "in the 11th century, Islamic civilisation, together with the Byzantine, Chinese and Indian civilisations, established the First World of the time, while Western Europe embodied the Third."

It goes without saying that "Islam" cannot be hermetically be sealed off from Europe, and that Islam (and further back: the cultures of the Levant and Mesopotamia, the socio-political organisation of steppe nomads, the mathematics of India, etc.) all made "Europe" whatever it is today. But I find this passage deeply troubling. I have heard Islamists in Europe and elsewhere spout the same kind of rhetoric, evoking a Golden Age now lost (or more insidiously shattered by others), and recalling a moment when "Islam" stood in a position of power over the "West". Why should we trade in petty power relations? Why should we revel in the silly divisions of modern geopolitics (First/Thirld World), projecting them crudely on to the past? In doing so, we remain beholden to the understanding of history we're trying to reform.

Furthermore, the pan-Islamist argument precisely wants to level these distinctions between Mirpuris and Sylhetis, and see the vast landscape of Muslims in Europe as simply Muslims, stripped of their other associations. This is a real problem within the piece. Is European identity an intellectual, high-cultural commodity? Must "Europeanness", as Martin construes it, really spring from the shared contribution to some mythical "European mind" (what on earth is that?)?

One of the great injustices of the European project is its presumptuousness. If the hill-people of the Carpathians, the nomadic Sami, the descendants of Cossacks, etc. are all without question "European", why can't Mirpuris and Sylhetis be "European" as well qua Mirpuris and Sylhetis (and not simply as Muslims)? After all, much of modern Europe (inextricable, one presumes, from this fanciful "European mind") was built on the subjugation and labour of Mirpuris and Sylhetis. Does that give them no stake? Do they need a Sylheti Voltaire to be European (then please have a serious read of 19th century Bengali thought)? If we are to believe Martin, they can only find refuge in a European identity through appealing to the "Golden Age" of Islam. That seems to me a travesty of space and time, and deeply disrespectful to the innate complexity of history. Martin's piece in its own way is very much "proxy politics."

The truth, I'd hazard, is that an intellectual understanding European identity will always be aspirational and incomplete. It would be a desperate shame if, in trying to incorporate Islam into this murky notion of Europeanness (a worthy endeavour, I agree), we make the same simplistic, a-historical missteps that are legion in the making of bristling, triumphant "civilisational" identities.

Haseeb on "Islam(s) and politics: post-traumatic states in Algeria"

Haseeb — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 19:15:11 +0100

An excellent detail about islam and politics.

We cannot continue are politics until and unless we adopt the method of islam.

And as we adopt it there will me peace in the country.

Simon Icke on "The end of postmodernism: the “new atheists” and democracy"

Simon Icke — Tue, 05 May 2009 11:33:34 +0100

Jesus Christ is Alive! I used to be an atheist but realised I had no real purpose in life and nothing that the world offered could fill that spiritual vacuum I felt inside. One day realising that everything the world offered was empty and only of fleeting interest. I humbled myself and repented and invited Jesus into my life. At the moment I said the believer’s prayer I knew that Jesus was alive as I experienced the power and love of his Holy Spirit. That was in 1979 nothing since then has convinced me otherwise than that was the best decision I ever made in my life to become a born again Christian and know the love, joy and power of God's Holy Spirit. I found a living faith that I didn't deserve. It was by God's Grace alone that saved a wretch like me.

I pray than one day when you stop following the fools Dawkins, Graylind & co that you to will find Jesus Christ to be your Lord and Saviour. I am certain that Jesus Christ is alive. I have witnessed many instances where I have seen God's power at work including the miraculous healing of my brother Danny when he was diagnosed with an inoperable brain tumour and given only weeks to live. That also was in 1979. My brother was miraculously healed by the power of prayer. He is still alive and well 30 years later. The bottom line is that I have lived a life without God and found it to be empty. But I have had the humility to believe in Jesus Christ as the messiah, the saviour of the world and found it to be true. Every time I pray I feel his presence and his amazing love. All the money and power in this world cannot compare than having a personal faith in Jesus Christ.

I hope one day that all you who persecute and ridicule Christians will one day have a Saul experience and be touched by the power of the Holy Spirit on your own road to Damascus (see the book of Acts) and realise how wrong you have been and start to follow Jesus rather than the false empty wisdom of today's aggressive, arrogant atheist and who are laughing all the way to the bank as the many fools are eager to buy their books. When people stop believing in God they don't believe in nothing they believe in anything and anyone. 50 years from now Dawkins will be forgotten. 2000 years have past, since Jesus walked this earth his ministry only lasted three years, he lived a humble life and made no money from his followers, he did no wrong or hurt anyone one but the atheist and the religious people shouted crucify as they were frightened by his message that challenged everything they believed and valued. He was a threat to their cosy world. 2000 years later he is still a threat that's why we now have Christianphobia in the UK today which is lead by several regular Guardian writers and some of the atheistic fools on Cif ( Comment is Free the Guardian discussion blog) can't get enough of the new trendy atheistic thoughts nor their Christian bashing. Dawkins and Grayling and others are the new aggressive bullies on the block, they have no tolerance, no humility, no love and they write with unbelievable arrogance. Humility is a quality that you won't find in any of their writing. They have convinced themselves there is no God yet they make their living hating God, especially the Christian God. Maybe deep down they are frightened that they are totally wrong and that Jesus is the way , the truth and the life.

The one thing we are all sure of is death, even for world leaders, the rich and famous kings or fools. Everything they own will mean nothing, neither will fame in this world be worth anything. They will leave this life as they entered it, NAKED. When that day comes they will be judged by God like everyone else. They won't be feeling so smug when God says to them sorry I don't know you. I cannot find your name in the book of life. Eternal life promised to all believers of Jesus Christ as their Lord and Saviour. I pray that one day you will find Him before you die. It wasn't just Saul who had a Damascus Road experience but more recently the great writer and professor C S Lewis. Who wrote he must of been one of the most reluctant converts to Christianity. He went from being an atheist to becoming a born again Christian. Which led to his great books , like the Screwtape letters, the Narnia series, The Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe etc. and so many more. All of his writing was enriched by his new found faith in Jesus Christ. It was his faith that inspired him to write with such wisdom that people in their millions and of all ages still enjoy today. I doubt the same will be said for Richard Dawkins even a few years after his death.

Seek and you will find, knock and the door will be opened, ask and you will be answered. And by God's grace you will be saved.

One last thought, I cannot see the wind but I know its power, I don't know where it comes from or where it goes. But I am absolutely certain it is there. Just as I remain as certain that Jesus Christ is who he claimed to be. I feel His love and power and know he is with me every day.

We need to stand and be counted as Christians and answer the new trendy atheism that is sweeping the UK and led by the likes of Richard Dawkins and AC Grayling and many others. There is nothing more powerful than your personal testimony and focusing on Jesus Christ and the need to become a Christian to be saved. I recommend a book I have just read titled The Wild Gospel by Alison. Morgan, an Anglican minister living in the UK. It has inspired me and given me the clarity to stand up for my faith as above, in the face of the Christianphobia , and aggressive atheism we are now experiencing in the UK.. I recommend you buy this book and share it with other Christians it is an inspirational book for these times.

Be bold, be strong Christian brothers and sisters and be soldiers of the cross. We have the victory in Jesus Christ’s resurrection power. Go into the world and tell people the good news of the Gospel. The Holy Spirit will give you the wisdom and words that you need.

L.W. on "Anatolian Muslimhood: humanising capitalism? "

L.W. — Thu, 30 Apr 2009 22:37:29 +0100

That movement is a Trojan horse. Accept Turkey in the Eu and you will turn Europe into a fundamentally correct province of a revived Ottoman - Persian Empire financially profiting with a democratic economic stimulus while successfully taking away clothing , free speech and equality of the sexes. lol

Dennis Nottebaum on "Is Rasmussen the right man?"

Dennis Nottebaum — Thu, 23 Apr 2009 08:08:46 +0100

Thanks, this has been changed.

Not logged in on "Is Rasmussen the right man?"

Not logged in — Wed, 22 Apr 2009 18:33:32 +0100

"Moreover, Rasmussen's minority government has long relied on toleration of the right-wing Folkeparti, a group that has repeatedly used racist, anti-Muslim rhetoric."

The correct name of the party is "Dansk Folkeparti" or "Danish People's Party". Shortening it to "Folkeparti" (which simply translates to "People's Party") makes no sense, since there is another party relatively far out on the left called "Socialistisk Folkeparti" as well, so it wouldn't be clear whether "Folkeparti" refers to a far-right or far-left party.

JulianS on "Is Rasmussen the right man?"

JulianS — Wed, 22 Apr 2009 16:23:56 +0100

Is this article about the acceptability of Rasmussen to Turkey ? Or about the role of Turkey in the EU and or NATO ? Or about the degree to which Erdogan is a reflection of Turkey ? Of course all three, but it is least persuasive about the last question and therefore hardly at all nuanced about Turkish politics in relation to the first two questions.

The strategic utility of Turkey to NATO on the one hand and to the EU on the other hand is hardly news. Whilst the cast of characters on both sides of the Straits has indeed changed since 1945, and the particular ideological antinomies have transformed, the basic geo-political arguments have remained fairly undisturbed. Indeed there is a persisting continuity to the 'Eastern question'if one's point of departure is "what should be done with the sick man/Turkey ?" So far, so familiar and Nottebaum repeats the well-known plot with some new characters.

As in earlier times though what is almost wholly missing or which is studiously ignored is the complex internal politics of Turkey or the broader Balkan-Anatolian-Levantine region (and beyond). Thus, by way of brief example, the chicanery of Erdogan is neither a barometer of changing Turkish attitudes to Europe nor an accurate reflection of popular Turkish sentiment to the cartoon issue. Simlarly I think it quite mistaken to conflate, as Nottebaum does, - "And
Ankara's elites are hesitant to perform any further pro-European reforms as
long as European governments - especially Germany and France - continue to undermine the perspective of full membership" - the positions of the Ankara elite with the maneouverings of Erdogan and the higher echelons of the AKP. Although I wouldn't use by choice the term "elite", it remains the case that there are huge intra-elite battles which such a conclusion simply ignores. No serious commentator could survey the Ergenoken circus without akcnowledging the high-stakes of the intra-'elite' battles ravaging Turkey.

Earlier Nottebaum observes that "The political costs of the accession process are
starting to outweigh the gains that Turkey aspired to." This is a remarkable claim for its complete neglect of the possible protection afforded to virtually every sector of Turkish society of a meaningful compliance with the Copenhagen criteria. The political cost of failure to join the EU will not be borne by Erdogan and the AKP, it will not even be borne by the army, but it is being borne today and everyday by trade unionists, journalists, university students and professors, workers, national 'minorities', women's groups, environmental groups, and so on. The tune that Erdogan and the AKP played regarding the deisrability of Turkey's accession to the EU is no longer of interest to him let alone of political utility. Erdogan is playing with the EU, and he'll play with NATO to the extent that he can, for reasons of domestic politcal advantage and manipulation in Turkey.

It behoves commentators of the Turkey-EU/Turkey-NATO relationship to at least acknowledge the decisive significance of internal Turkish politicsto regional geo-politics. It behoves such commentators to finally ditch the default assumption that membership of the EU (or even NATO) is an unalloyed benefit, an objective virtue and of unqualified interest to Turkey. That is not how it is seen in Turkey and the wider region.

JulianS

Luc Jacobs on "Is Rasmussen the right man?"

Luc Jacobs — Mon, 20 Apr 2009 22:57:07 +0100

Having followed this confrontation with great interest, I was shocked to read "After the cartoons were published in Denmark several
ambassadors from Muslim countries tried to enter into dialogue with Rasmussen
on how to defuse the situation. The Danish Prime Minister arrogantly snubbed
them. While insisting on free speech as a vital component of civil liberties in
his country, he nevertheless failed to acknowledge the need to communicate this
principle or to engage in dialogue over what had occurred."

This appears pure lies! Those muslim ambassadors snubbed the Danish PM by an utter lack of understanding for the constitutional rules in democratic states. They insisted that a PM should apologise for a free and perfectly legal opinion.

What we see in Durban II is the logical consequence: muslims states trying to render EVERY criticism of Islam and of any behavior base don Islam illegal. They want to impose censorship on large scale.

michaelcalder on "The Left and Hamas"

michaelcalder — Tue, 17 Mar 2009 15:39:04 +0000

Applause.

Clear skies!

Steve Radford on "The Left and Hamas"

Steve Radford — Tue, 17 Mar 2009 01:27:54 +0000

Normal
0

Ms Rosa-Rosso (Red Rose; what a great name - is it real?) does herself
and her readers a disservice with this poorly thought-out and sloppily
researched article.

The European "Left" is not a homogenous or monolithic bloc whose
policies, actions and thought-processes can be summed up in a few sentences or
paragraphs. Some of the alleged actions of supposed leftists (eg. the alleged participation of Die Linke in a pro-Israeli demonstration in Germany) might
well bring harsh criticism from other leftists - and Die LInke is, in any case, a coalition which includes people fro a wide variety of political ideologies and traditions. Attacking the ideological and
political weakness and vaccilation of some European leftists (though I suspect
she includes Social Democrats under this heading) is very often justifiable,
but Ms Rosa-Rosso makes many sweeping allegations against the Left in general
with fairly flimsy supporting evidence.

In many years of regular contact with leftist writers and activists I can
honestly say I have never heard any of them talking about the "Invisible
Hand" - this phrase is only ever heard from the pro-capitalist right
wing (which in the UK includes the Labour Party).

The difficulty which the left has with Hamas is (as I have pointed out on a related discussion) that it is essentially a Clerical Fascist political party. It is also, to a large extent, a deliberate creation of the Israeli state which has promoted it and used it to undermine and divide the secular Palestinian liberation movements for reasons which those familar with the issue will understand very well.

Israel does not seek a negotiated peace with the Palestinians, it seeks victory. Therefore Israel has manipulated a situation whereby a substantial part of the Palestinians are led (or ruled), either by corrupt and compromised puppets (as on the West Bank under the discredited rump of Fatah), or by religious parties who use the same delusional and biblical language as religious zionists (which of course alienates them from secular supporters in Europe).

Hamas is an elected leadership and therefopre must be recognmised and dealt with, but it is not a leadership with which progressive or leftist groups (all secular) can comfortably ally with or support. Solidarity with the people (inmates) of Gaza is one thing, but how can leftists solidarise with a political party who would repress and crush (with the utmost violence) everything they stand for? Allying with the forces of the Islamist Revolution in Iran cost the left dearly (and cost many of them their lives - remember the televised confession and political retraction, almost certainly extracted by threats and torture, by the Tudeh Party Secretary before he was executed).

Ms Rosa-Rosso is quite right to castigate much of the left (especially the Labour and Trade Union Movement) for its miserably inadequate response to racist mass-murder and long-term injustice in Palestine, but she has gone way off the mark with her flawed, and frankly incoherent, analysis in this article. Digging up examples of racist language from the archives of the Belgian CP might be interesting from a historical point of view but it does not say much about current attitudes towards Palestine. I don't know what kind of "leftists" this author mixes with but it is difficult to believe that she has talked to a wide range of people from across the genuine European Left (a term which does not include those who describe themselves, usually erroneously, as "Centre-Left" - who are often economically neo-liberal as well as pro-zionist). Her frequent (and apparently approving) quotes from Gilad Atzmon also undermine her credibility as this commentator has been drifting off in some strange directions and has been denounced by some of the UK's leading leftist anti-zionists for his anti-semitic rants.

Let's discuss the European Left's response to Hamas with a bit more thoughtfulness than this article brings to bear.

Steve Radford.

r.augman on "The Left and Hamas"

r.augman — Fri, 13 Mar 2009 19:24:03 +0000

Abu,

You're conflating two things, an emancipatory project with a genocidal one. Have you read Hamas' charter? Did you notice that they cite from The Protocols of the Elders of Zion? Did you notice the referenes to "vanquishing the jews"? Their insistence that it is every Muslims' responsibility to kill jews? Did you conveniently skip over those parts, or do you think their genocidal agitation is legitimate?

Abu Rashid on "The Left and Hamas"

Abu Rashid — Fri, 13 Mar 2009 00:35:59 +0000

r.augman,

Hamas' desire to destroy Israel and it's war against the Jews, both
proclaimed in the group's own charter, combined with their continued
targeting of Israeli civilians with rockets

-----

I'm sure if Eskimoes had mass illegally immigrated into Palestine in the earlier part of the 20th. century instead of Jews, then Eskimoes would be the ones listed in Hamas' charter, not Jews. Although you and others would like to try and invalidate the Palestinians legitimate struggle to remove the Zionist occupation from their land, by slipping it into the "anti-Semitic" bag, in reality it's got nothing to do with it at all.

r.augman on "The Left and Hamas"

r.augman — Thu, 12 Mar 2009 20:57:27 +0000

You're mixing things up when you say that "support for the people of Gaza (does) not (exist) at the political level," simply because we don't support Hamas and Hezbollah. These groups represent no political solution for the palestinians, but rather continued war and misery.

Yes, Hamas was elected. So what? Do you ascribe to Bush's definition of "democracy"? Hamas' desire to destroy Israel and it's war against the Jews, both proclaimed in the group's own charter, combined with their continued targeting of Israeli civilians with rockets, has only meant the deterioration of material situation and the social standing internationally of Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank.

There is absolutely no problem with people chanting in Arabic or any language they choose. The content is what's at stake. And when demonstrators chant, "Hamas, Hamas, Jews to the Gas" (as they did in Amsterdam at a "pro-Palestine" demo, or "Die, Die Israel!" as they do often in Germany, then these agitators for anti-Jewish violence are absolute enemies of the Left.

Your attempt to make this out to be an issue over religion is wrong. There are tons of religious people involved in social movements (liberation theology in latin america, Christian peace activists in the U.S., Jewish progressive groups, Muslim feminists, etc.). The issue is about politics not religion.

Additionally you make the typical mistake of seeing the left as being anti-imperialist. It isn't. It is silent about Iranian or Syrian imperial interests to take just two examples.

The Left is disempowered and your call to line up with anyone who "opposes imperialism" is just a desperate attempt at feeling important in face of a dire political and social situation. But lining up with reactionaries who seek emancipation for religion, but not emancipation for people, is absolutely the wrong direction.

If you think Hamas rockets targeting civilians help to liberate the Palestinians, you are deluding yourself. It only intensifies the military conflict that has already taken enough Palestinian lives. Hamas is only putting Gazans at more risk by its cynical lobbing of rockets at Israelis.

And the constant quoting of an Israeli (Gilad Atzmon) doesn't make your case any stronger. Yeah, he supports Hamas' imperial and genocidal interests in "liberating the land." What's at stake is the liberation of people, not that of religion or land.

Also, the small faction of the Left party that joined the demo against Hamas terror did not do so out of "fear of being associated with terrorism." They do it out of political principle. Of objecting to a form of violence against civilians which has no political aim other than maintaining the political power of Hamas, and the only result of destroying Gazans chances of improving their situation.

You want to fight the misuse of the terrorism category. Fight the green scare in the U.S., where the state is locking people up who destroyed nothing other than construction sites for suburban housing development projects and the like, and harmed no people.

And finally you end by telling us to support "the resistance" as if the world is a black and white picture between good and evil, as if "resistance" is a homogenous thing. Please expect more intelligence out of your readers than that.

michaelcalder on "The Left and Hamas"

michaelcalder — Thu, 12 Mar 2009 11:08:11 +0000

The problem with much of the Left is that so much of its dogmatic base is as irrational, as faith-based, and as tribal, as the religions which most of the early Left instinctively shrank from.

The problem with Islamist movements, as much as Leftist movements (and Rightist ones, for that matter) is their demand for adherence to, compliance with, and respect of, their dogmatic beliefs without the slightest element of a rational basis.

This is the reason why so many people ignore politics; they instinctively devine that the politicians are talking so much bullfeathers with no connection to reality, and so discount everything they hear and, so far as is possible, carry on their lives without bothering to interact with the political world. As long, of course, as there is food on their plates and the latest reality show on the television. (Panem et circenses, anyone?)

As an apolitical secularist, i can only applaud them. I only wish they would go further in ignoring their politicians, and follow the lead of the Rochdale pioneers, and the thousands of Frenchmen who to this day run their local co-operatives, and build mutualist municipalities separate from the corporate or nation state; so long as they do not dogmatically follow all the prescriptions of Proudhon. Pragmatism, and maybe even a little syndicalism, perhaps.

As for respect, no.

I accept anyone's right to believe, and express in words, pictures, and other representations (but not necessarily in action) anything they wish.

That acceptance is not even conditional on reciprocation, but I refuse to respect anyone who does not fully reciprocate, and I refuse to respect the irrational.

Clear skies!

Abu Rashid on "The Left and Hamas"

Abu Rashid — Thu, 12 Mar 2009 01:22:50 +0000

You might be amongst a minority for now Nadine, but your position is a natural one that will continue to gain ground amongst the Left.

The disdain amongst Letists for Islamist movements is a consequence of the fact most of the anti-Imperialist movements in the Muslim world were once socialist/communist/anarchist. They lost ground to the Islamic ideology and this is probably what causes a lot of the resentment.

But as you say, they need to recognise that this is the choice of the peoples they are claiming to support, in their resistance. So they should respect that choice and work with it.