From Reuters, with thanks to Skeetstreet:
LONDON, British Muslims feel victimized by the "war on terrorism" and community relations have worsened since the Sept 11 2001 attacks on the United States, lawmakers said in a report on Wednesday.The report comes a day after Prime Minister Tony Blair called an election in which the parties will fight hard for Muslim votes. "Muslims in Britain are more likely than other groups to feel they are suffering as a result of the response to international terrorism," said a report by parliament's Home Affairs Select Committee.
Many of Britain's 1.8 million Muslims say they feel stigmatised by anti-terrorism laws and complain of a rise in the number of police security checks carried out on them as Britons fear an attack by radical Islamists.
The committee concluded that community relations in Britain had deteriorated since 2001, largely a result of measures introduced to combat the threat of global terrorism.
It called for Muslims to be more involved in policy making. "The government needs to bring together its support for community cohesion with its anti-terrorist strategy and needs to ensure the Muslim community are fully involved in developing the next steps in tackling terrorism," said chairman John Denham.
OK, but in over three years since 9/11 they haven't shown, in Britain or the US, a tremendous eagerness to get involved in "tackling terrorism." Is the problem really that the government has been leaving them out of such efforts?
In a move likely to provoke anger among Muslims, the government said on Tuesday it would ditch plans to outlaw incitement to hatred on religious grounds, having run out of parliamentary time before the May 5 election.The laws would have extended laws that protect people on the basis of colour, race, gender or ethnic origin. Britain is not alone in facing rising tensions with Muslims. ...
Just scroll up (or is it down) 4/5" to the story :- UK: Muslims' fury as Pope 'compared to Prophet'
Their own actions and words stigmatise them.
It is unfortunate that they feel stigmatized. "Granny Weatherwax" wrote that they bring that upon themselves by their actions and words, a sentiment with which I fully concur.
From which group are the suicide bombers? Methodists, Buddhists? No Muslims. Who is your face constantly demanding concessions and accommodation for the sake of their religion? Hindus, Presbyterians? No, the answer is still Muslims. Which group holds non-believers in disdain and sees them as "filthy polluters" and ritually unclean? Once again: Muslims.
If Muslims wish not to feel "stigmatized", they should consider making efforts to tone down their own behaviors and to assimilate into the mainstream. They should consider removing the religious chip from their should that is both annoying and provocative. Of course if they do this they won't be Muslims for its always been the nature of Islam to act this manner.
As well as feeling stigmatised, Muslims often seem to feel enraged, furious and so forth. Must be tiring - nothing that pint of beer and a bacon sandwich wouldn't put right.
Certainly not all Muslims are terrorists, but how many of them have donated money, no questions asked, to "charities" that funnel money to terrorists? Quite a few it seems, but some of what has been disclosed about some of the outlawed organizations.
Oh boo hoo hoo!
Some of us actually feel TERRORIZED, and believe us that's a whole lot worse.
And we're not blowing in our hankies over it either!
They've got a nerve.
"an election in which the parties will fight hard for Muslim votes."
This is the problem. Politicians will abandon their Infidel constituents, abandon the very idea of the West, in order to be elected. That is why regarding with equanimity Muslims who "choose to work within the system" -- i.e., to gain more power in order to prevent the most sensible and minimal measures of self-defense (in security measures, immigration laws, foreign policy) being taken. If there were 30 million Muslims in this country, instead of a few million, could the United States act to prevent Muslim countries such as Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons? Could we put limits on Muslim immigration? On the power of Saudi Arabia to fund mosques and madrasas? It would not take much for this country to be lost -- or for any Western country.
That is why one needs to hasten to educate a sufficient number of Infidels, in the government, the armed services, and the general population, so they cannot be fooled. Not by John Esposito. Not by Karen Armstrong. Not by Tariq Ramadan. Not by CAIR. Not by anyone.
It's a race. The prize is our continued existence as Infidels, with all that that means for art, literature, music, the pursuit of science, freedom of conscience, the autonomy of the individual.
Possibly worth winning?
Boo hoo I feel soooo sorry for them poor Mooselimbs.
.They remind me of the Scarecrows song in the Wizard of Oz.
I agree but the right is going about it the wrong way, but "attacking" and denigrating the left, and advancing their own theocratic religious agenda's.
John Esposito is bought and paid for,, Tariq Ramadan is a taqiyyist, there is no discussion with the likes of these. The Karen Armstrongs are misguided, and can be talked to I'm sure, but it's hard to get someone to listen when one's motivations and sales pitch are indistinquishable from the muslims.
I'm an "Islamophobic" social liberal, a secularist, but the same concerns and considerations and fears that make me an Islamophobe also put me at odds with self styled neo cons, conservatives and fundamentalists of all stripes.
The phrase "Islamic fundamentalism" is redundant.
Islam is fundamentalist, Islam is Shari'a. If one isn't Shari'a, then one is not Islamic.
I've read Karen Armstrong's book The Battle for God, she is guilty of ignorance, and in that regard has that in common with most of the non Muslim (and even Muslim) world.
The ideological divide of left and right is artificial, and strangely over time, those who were once considered "left" like the populists of the midwest have BEEN moved to the right, by puppet masters like Grover Norquist and Karl Rove, and now support people and ideas that are inimical and diametrically opposed to their own self interest.
And the strings pulled by the puppet masters are identical to the wellsprings of Islamic motivation: the patriarchy, aka family values, male dominance, female submission, anti homosexual.
As a secularist I could care less about questions of theology, scripture, eschatology, the name and nature of god (or allah). I care only about civil rights, liberty, freedom and equality of treatment and opportunity.
Fact is that from that point of view. The Fundamentalist of all stripes are indistinguishable. I know that Robert takes exception, but I listen to the right wing, their demands, their fear and anger and honestly see no substantial difference twixt them and Shari'a.
Here is the common ground of Hitler, Stalin, Islam and the Right Wing (including Right Wing atheists).
Patriarchial
Denoted by strict heirarchial and proper social roles for women.
Anti woman (manifest in anti abortion and the submissive social role of women).
Criminalization of Homosexuals.
Limitations of freedom, speech, social and civil liberties and opportunities for marginalized and taboo classes (e.g. self validating independent women and homosexuals).
I've also listened to the left wing, and think that I understand them as well.
The Right has absolutely no understanding, or even the slightest notion of the mentality or motivations of those they consider to be "left", because the consider them both inferior and a threat.
He who perceives himself as the superior, sees no need to waste his time digging into the psyche or motivations of the inferior.
The Roman Patrician completely ignored and took for granted the slaves and women, whom they believed to be inferior, and only reacted when they stood up and demanded their share and fair and equal treatment.
The same thing happened in America between Whites and Blacks. The whites did not, and still do not, consider the blacks as worthy, and spent no time understanding them, but the blacks for the sake of survival studied in depth the white man, so he could survive by moving around and manipulating him.
Men haven't a real clue about women, because they perceive themselves as superior, on the other hand women study men and the needs, behaviors and how to manipulate men constitute a large part of female to female conversation.
Islamics consider themselves superior, and as a consequence they see no need to study kafirs, no need to understand kafirs. Not until they felt humilated and inferior (as a consequence of their own failed culture - ideology) did they start studying the kafir's ways and mind, so they could manipulate the kafir. Which is what CAIR, the AMC, MAS, etc do.
They use the Judeo Christian culture against the west, a form of Ju Jitsu. They employ our guilt and laws against us, but give no ground on their part.
If you listen to Arab/Muslim voices (the street Arab as interviewed on the likes of Mosaic-Link Tv.org). There is no conciliation, no compromise, nothing but demands and threats, and they are not embarassed and cannot be made to feel guilty.
This arrogant attitude of self righteous superiority and self pity is not limited to Muslims though, it is a loud cry heard in this land from the so called "right".
However, the American right, unlike the Arabs, is so entrenched in it's self righteous superiority that it still sees no need to understand those whom it considers a threat, a threat that they themselves by their smug intransigence created.
Until 9-11, only a handful of people, like Robert Spencer, had any notion of Islam, and I will say to a man and woman none of the Jihad Watchers did either. In fact most still don't, as they don't bother to read (except blogs and forums and voices from the choir). How many Jihad Watchers have bought and read ibn Warraq's books, for instance?
Have they read the highly critical(of the Saudis) Battle for Saudi Arabia by As'ad Abukhalil? I doubt it, but it is full of meat. Have they read scathing critiques of the counter productive policies of the administration? I doubt it.
Have they read the scholarly, informative but dry The Shi'is of Iraq, by Yitzak Nakash? I doubt it, but too bad for it gives tremendous insight into the mentality and history of that dominant Iraqi element, and from it one comes to understand the internal dymanics and players of Iraq today.
Americans are lazy, right wingers are intellectually lazy (and they saw in Dubya a mirror and what they saw comforted and validated them).
Left wingers for their part are too idealistic, not realistic and all too many of them have been infected by Marxists.
Conservatives, aka right wingers,are intolerably smug, self righteous and believe they are superior (their way or the hiway). Qualities they have in common with muslims, and qualities which are easily challenged and thus threatened, which evokes fear and fear evokes reaction and reactionaries are the easiest people in the world to manipulate (a fact which Lenin knew so well and voiced in his dictum of Indirect Reversal) and which an astute parent or person knows and uses in the form of reverse psychology.
Reactionaries are their own worst enemies.
My point in this long winded diatribe. There are two culture wars going on, America is fighting an internal culture war fueled by the forces of reaction from the fearful, and at the same time the most dangerous ideological culture war it has fought, both from without and within (against a hegemonistic ideology called Islam).
A house divided against itself cannot stand.
You can't fight a war on two fronts.
The right has chosen (and it is a choice) to fight a two front culture war and the house is divided.
There is unfortunately an end times mentality in Christianity (and Islam), many seek Armeggdon, and they even believe they can push it up, and bring it on. Hmmm bring 'em on, where have I heard that before? Muslims believe the end times will come when their Allah decides and no one knows the will of Allah, too many Christians believe that their god needs a helping hand and can push up the "timetable", and Orthodox Jews are of the same mind, and all have a Sampson mindset, ready to bring down the temple around them. If they can't have it their way, they'll destroy themselves in the process- a Dr Strangelove complex.
For all of our sakes, I suggest that you and the rest of the right, step back and reassess the landscape. Instead of putting the Tariq Ramadans, Armstrongs and Esposito's in the same pot, as if they were a single minded enemy. Sift and sort, and understand their motives and mindset, and deal with them accordingly.
Karen Armstrong is not a Tariq Ramadan, but I do understand her sentiments, and how she arrived at her conclusions in the Battle for God, and for that I have to blame the fundamentalist and self righteous Christian.
It behooves us to stop and listen and understand the left, more importantly it behooves us to underdstand ourselves. To look within and gather wool out of our own bellybuttons.
Hugh, you dump Karen Armstrong in the same bucket with Ramadan and Esposito. I don't know if you read her Battle for God, if not then you should, it's actually pretty good. A lot of truths and truisms, though one can dispute some of her assessments.
For instance "there are two wars being fought in the Middle East,one is the Arab Israeli war, the other is within such individual countries as Israel and Egypt" (and of course the increasingly brutal war in Lebanon).
Conclusion: America is divided, a serious weakness, and divided it will only weaken (though the neo cons think fundamentalism will lead to unity, it has actually produced the opposite results). Hurling epithets, condemning and demonizing your own kind and potential allies is self destructive and counterproductive, but apparently orgiastic. The defense against the Jihad needs every ally that we can muster, but attacking misguided people, altruist's, liberals, is not only self defeating, but a way to create enemies and strengthen the Muslims
Think about it, most of America, including the "left" is ignorant of Islam, but when they are viciously and constantly attacked to whose side will they gravitate? The side to which they are ignorant and do not perceive as a threat, and in fact perceive as an ally.
The antisemite supports the Islamist because he believes the enemy of my enemy is my friend.When the "right" attacks the left (and the right is spleenal and can't help it) they drive the left into the Islamist camp.
A one armed man in a sword fight with a two armed man has lost the battle before it begins.
A one armed warrior facing two or three opponents has no chance at all.
"Hugh, you dump Karen Armstrong in the same bucket with Ramadan and Esposito."--from a posting above.
They are not identical. She is much dumber than either. Much more incoherent, to others and to herself. Don't like Christianity, hostile to Israel (with all that that implies) and her specialty is symmetry, symmetry, symmetry -- "they all do it" -- but her heart belongs not to Daddy (certainly not) but to Islam. Currently flogging the idea (see The Guardian, April 6) that fear or dislike directed at Islam is, of course, just the new antisemitism (this is quite a leap, and requires a lot of chutzpah coming from Muslims and their apologists). Her crocodile tears over the treatment of Jews in Western Christendom flow equally with her real tears for poor misunderstood Islam. She is a comical figure.
Ramadan is sinister, cunning, and knows exactly what he is doing. When he meets those who know something (i.e., not Scott Appleby) he changes his pitch, becomes vaguer, gives in a bit more. His temporary job in Geneva lapsed. The jig is up for him in France and in Switzerland. He was hoping to make it to America and start is Da'wa "dialogue" all over again. Too late.
Esposito is a man on the make. A lean, mean jogger. Plucked from Worcest, Massachusetts and Holy-Cross obscurity, he got in while the getting was good. Set up, to his great delight, with Arab money (a rich Lebanese contractor) to head, at strategically-placed Georgetown, a "Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding." A little empire, with emphasis on the Muslim and virtual indifference to the Christian -- and especially to the real, persecuted Christians all over the Muslim world, about which, as he jogs along, Esposito does not think overmuch. Lots of "edited" books on Islam. Supposed studies of Islam that never mention Jihad, and that pooh-pooh the Islamic "threat" -- you know, "myth or reality" and guess what side Esposito comes down on? Also a great one for picture-books: better apologetics through ravishing illustrationis of mosques, and a nice illustration of turbaned illuminati at the Court of Haroun al-Raschid, that sort of thing. Transparent, but it works.
No, each is different. But just as one might refer en passant to "Noam Chomsky, William Kunstler, and Ramsey Clark" quite legitmately, thoguht the first is far more intelligent and sinisteer than the latter two, but each can be analyzed, each explained -- well, it is not as the results of their individual pathologies do not end up, in the end, at the same place. Same with Ramadan, Esposito, and Armstrong.
I don't believe a word she has written has any value. And I have never felt the need to go on a Spiritual Search, and don't intend to start now.