The racism behind integration

50 comments from readers

EU22
22 May 2008 at 12:22

What are you saying?

No mention of how non-Muslims are treated within the Islamic world - this would be contrary to the wounded image.

Moral superiority - interesting - because the things that people complain about - like honour killing - and the persecution of apostates and the general treatment of women - the wider Muslim world - chooses to ignore.

And that you would take a quote from a Malaysian - a country that confiscates Christian bibles at their airports - and like Saudi Arabia is contemplating the introduction of restricting Muslim women's travel - Muslim women of Malaysia - truly Asia - may have to seek written permission from their husbands, fathers and brothers to travel outside of Truly Asia.

So convenient though when you are an Islam man and all the Muslim women accept their glass half full status as women - and therefore your superiority over them.

What we are saying loud and clear if that is your 'superior morality' THEN YOU CAN KEEP IT !!

Sharif
22 May 2008 at 17:19

Sardar sahib,

As a paki, I condemn racism and also Islomophobia you are talking about. But discussing it in New Statesman, you have the wrong audience. The problem with Muslims is that they do not accept any change. My is not with Europeans, but with Muslims. I cannot drink in the presence of another Muslim, or at least in the presence of another paki. I cannot dare eat non halal meat. I have been called many names, the one that hurts most is that I am not a Muslim and will go to hell. OK these are only words. When I visited some relatives in Walthemstov a few years ago, I went to drink bear in a pub. It is an area full of Pakistanis and someone saw me and came up to me asked where I come from. When the answer was not satisfactory to him, he called other youngsters, all probably born and bred in London and they remained not far from the pub and stared at e. I was so scared that i did not leave the pub until a policeman passed by , who helped me go back home. I do not endorse racism by the whites, but how about showing some flexibility. Let your daughters go out alone in the evenings. Let them choose their partners. Such parents who dare do that are called Beisharam ( Men who have no shame and honor).

And Muslims do not by and large, mix with others. And those few souls who do practice the following method: You invite them to your place for dinner and serve them halal food and no alcohol. If they invite you, which is rare enough, you make clear that you do not eat non halal food. Flexibility? Zero. Europeans should change? you say. change yourself. Start eating halal food ban the alcohol, stop the night clubs where men and women meet. Wait i made a mistake; Muslim men can have fun with these infidel women, only our women should not. You see, either you change or we become radicals. O my dear.

Iftikhar
22 May 2008 at 17:53

Salaam

A Paki is some one who does not belong to Pakistani community. He suffers from Identity Crises. He finds himself cut of from his cultural roots and is unable to enjoy the beauty of his literature and poetry.

A Paki is also not even welcomed by the host society. He is just like an economic slave serving his master.

davidbshine
22 May 2008 at 19:14

This is the biggest piece of BS I've ever read. We here in the West have accepted seperation of Church and State and do not base all of our laws around Juedo-Christian code. (Yes one can make the argument that stealing and murder are in the ten commandments, but that argument is too weak). If Muslims do not like the laws or codes in western countries they have every right to remain in their home countries. If they do remain in a western country they may face economic discrimination because they may not have the economic skills needed to survive. Staying also mean they will face ideas they find repugnat.

Riaz Ahmad
22 May 2008 at 19:34

Mr. Sardar, Europeans do not need to discredit muslims, the later excell in this art themselves. Politically, they are too willing and ready to sell their grandmother for a few Dollars, Egypt and Jordan are prime examples. For the last 400 years, Islamic world has become an intellectual grave yard. Muslims are culturally at home with corruption and injustice. I am sorry for the gruesome picture, pretty hard to swollow, but one cannot hide from reality. Instead of blaming Europeans, who no doubt are guilty, examine the deeds of muslims first.

radius
23 May 2008 at 09:29

If Danish cartoons, Ayaan Hirsi Ali and the Pope do not represent the "systematic hatred of Muslims, designed to demonise communities" (which they obviously don't) then why on earth list these things?

You then go on to develop this curious 'argument' by referring to "a framework" that IS systematic. What is this 'framework', and where might we observe its design and mechanism? Is it a media thing, something in the air, some sort of supernatural phenomenon? Seems "the Dutch Hirsi Ali" (a woman threatened with murder for daring to be open about the fact she lost her faith) is part of this malevolent framework too - and that you see her hate-inspiring apostasy as itself intimately connected with "systematic hatred". That worries me (it should worry everyone else who does not accept the absurdity of supernatural revelation into their lives) especially when it comes from a Muslim so well 'integrated' into liberal-media-world.

terryuno
23 May 2008 at 12:47

This article is a load of toad. In the West we are free to question all beliefs. If these beliefs have any merit they will survive. Should we exclude islam from this process because it upsets people.

Sharif
23 May 2008 at 13:28

Iftikhar, What you say confirms my viewpoint that flexibility is not part of Muslims; either you follow blindly or we condemn you as infidel. Make note Sardar sahib

niazi
23 May 2008 at 14:08

Very interesting article, although there are some dubious points made.

Sharif: what a get line to begin your confused state of mind:

"As a paki, I condemn racism and also Islomophobia you are talking about".

I dont know how exactly you are so comfortable using the term Paki, and then in the same line you talk about condeming racism and Islamophobia!

Incase you're wondering the vast bulk of British Pakistanis dont care too much about your boozing and non-halal meat eating ways.

Sharif
23 May 2008 at 15:09

Niazi: you say a vast majority foes not care my drinking, Please pass this message to those living in London East 17. Not to mention many more getting angry. have you wondered why this is done in hiding by most of the Pakistanis?

terryuno
23 May 2008 at 15:55

What about the racism of islam, thinking it is perfect and superior to the west

terryuno
23 May 2008 at 16:26

Ah "racism" the "fascist left" favourite word. Call your opponent names and stifle any debate. To hell with truth and reason.

It's worked well for dictators and despots over many centuries so why stop now.

niazi
23 May 2008 at 17:01

Sharif: I live in E7. Plenty of Pakistanis drink I know that. And I agree that its hyprocritical for the community to ostracise you but don't make a big deal out of it.

Plenty of Muslims i know feel left out in their work environments because they don't drink and socialise in pubs. Most of them get on with it.

terryuno: to be honest your statements are full of emotion there is no serious debating quality in them. You should refer to the BNP website to indulge in your prejudices further.

Sharif
23 May 2008 at 18:08

Niazi: your ton to terryunc is not polite. Why is it that if anybody makes comment which is not praising islam or muslims, Muslims use arrogant words. It is not necessary. Only those with week arguments convert to such tactics. Why is that Muslim writers are incapable of criticizing their own? They should be addressing issues such as why they are so far behind other minority groups such as the Chinese / Hindus when it comes to education and social mobility ...

The actions of many Muslim communities are succeeding in ostracizing the others and perpetually bleating about victimization and not getting on with their lives like everyone else, and allowing extremism and intolerance to fester within their ranks. If you do not drink has problems, but nobody calls you infidels or bound for hell, or worst still avoid talking to you. That is what Muslims do.

terryuno
23 May 2008 at 18:44

Niazi

I'm making the serious point, that what is true and what is not true is important. The only way the world will advance is by believing in what is provable.

Superstition and fairy tales (religion) will only hold back human progress.

You proved my point about the fascist left though by smearing unbelievers with the BNP.

niazi
23 May 2008 at 20:38

Sharif:

Let me breakdown what you're suffering from. For you it's a simple case of identity crisis, you should accept this. It's you that is grappling with these issues with difficulty NOT the Muslim community.

1) I didn't use arrogant views, I responded to the arrogant generalisations you read about in the rabble rousing tabloids like the Sun. Newspapers that so readily pigeonhole an entire community of Muslims and Pakistanis into one category, which you have done in this entire commentary page without a thought about its implications in the overall community.

2) If you look more reasonably with what is going on in Muslim countries it's exactly what you're banging on about "Muslim writers are incapable of criticizing their own". They do criticize their own. Infact a good proportion of the decay in jails and interrogation chambers for this very criticism.

3) We don't harp on about victimisation or harbour extremism as is so vividly portrayed in the press. There are issues and yes there is alot of ground work to be done but most of us get on with things and these problems are not unique to just Muslims. The black community has lots of problems, not so long ago the Irish had difficulties assimilating into English society.

4) Other minorities: a closer look would suggest that the Chinese and "Hindu" (you probably mean Indian community) come from urban literate backgrounds. The vast majority of Pakistanis come from Mirpur/Jhelum district of Pakistan, with low levels of education and a very rural outlook to life. This has continued into the biradari system, inter-marriages have kept the Mirpuri community relatively closed off to other values and cultural norms. By the way a good proportion of Chinese people come from Hong Kong, which until recently was not considered apart of mainland China. Again generalizations don't help.

5) Like I said before you need to get over your drink fascination...it doesn’t bother most Muslims. We are just like any other group of people in this country trying to get by, whether you drink or not is irrelevant, and from an Islamic point of view it's your liberty.

radius
23 May 2008 at 23:44

People like the Pope and Ayaan Hirsi Ali have "designed" the "systematic hatred of Muslims" in order to "demonise communities". As a result of all this conspiratorial designing it is "not surprising" that many get so "angry" that they want to kill Ayaan Hirsi Ali. In some cases so "not surprisingly" angry as to pin a death threat to the chest of a film director, "not surprisingly" plot to kill the terrible, hateful cartoonists, and "not surprisingly" start up a cartoon body-count.

This may be poorly written twaddle, but it's irresponsible twaddle. A man's humanity is often a fragile thing.

SAS
23 May 2008 at 23:47

This is a good article. I think it is rather sad, but the reality is that intolerance towards Muslims exists, if only as an important part of what is otherwise a far greater and more insidious problem of intolerance and antipathy against a slew of potentially vulnerable groups - homesexuals, Jews, black, gypsies etc etc.

With respect to the assimilation/integration argument, I think the discourse is deeply flawed in at least two major respects.

First, given that Muslims, and indeed other groups of people such as gypsies, gays etc etc are severely discriminated against in most walks of life in virtually every European state to some extent or the other, it is rather far fetched to speak of integration. The biggest obstacle to integration comes from discrimination, whether a social phenomenon or officially sanctioned policy.

The second is that the whole notion of assimilation runs entirely contrary to the concept of minority rights. If people from a certain ethnic/religious community are expected, implicitly or otherwise, to eschew their disctinct identity, then that implies sleepwalking towards totalitarianism. The kind of homogenity artificially imposed on the various groups in the former USSR. A idea that goes completely against the whole concept of minority rights. Indeed the whole concept of minority rights is that minorities have the right NOT to assimilate - to maintain their own identity while contributing to society at large.

Why anyone in their right mind would expect Europe to tear up one of its most cherished values in the name of breeding a false sense of homogenity should be beyond the realm of understanding of anyone who understands the concept of minority rights.

Sharif
24 May 2008 at 10:58

Niazi: 'You state :Let me breakdown what you're suffering from. For you it's a simple case of identity crisis,'

I am glad I have come across you, uncle Doctor! I am not suffering. For your information I do not even live in GB. So you see i do not face these problems. I understand your views if if we know how badly these 'whites' treat you; you feel you are cut off and nobody respects your being a Pakistani or a Muslim. You should not give up. It is their country and you should learn to live with them; be flexible. Tell them you do not drink but enjoy their way of life, this freedom to wear Hijab or eat pork or halal. and your rights to claim to be equal to them. Living in ghettos, where women are put behind four walls and marrying cousins must stop. It will work out fine and if you really think you cannot do that, then it is better to migrate to a Muslim country. Go back to Jhelum or Mirpur. That is where I come from too. If I have problems, i will solve them, I do not need help from somebody who is an outsider himself.

iffat
24 May 2008 at 11:12

Salaam Mr Sardar,

Thank you so much for your relentless efforts to try and bring to light the racism and discrimination in our society. For anyone doubting your perception of Muslims in the UK I suggest they read your book "Desperately Seeking Paradise".

I think some of the above comments negelect to see is the connection between demonization of Muslim in the media, work, schools, in art, in politics etc. That what we are talking about is INSTITUTIONALISED islamophobia and racism (perhaps I should add bigotry too).

Some of the British-Pakistanis are correct in pointing out some of the faults in our communities but I would not generalise based on ones personal experinces. Ive been to areas in Britain where you will not get approached by Pakistani's or Asians because of how you are dressed or drinking. To stereotype certain communities based on ones own negative experinces does not do the discission of integration or islamophobia any favours and it only gives more fuel to the burning fires of the BNP.

We have a serious problem of Islamophobia in Europe. I live in Norway and once used the UK as an example of integration and multiculturalism but after being back home for a short trip I felt that the attitudes had changed dramatically. It is serious to displace a whole community based on their religious affiliation.

As a second-generation British Im shocked to hear that more and more ethnic minorities who are perhaps 2nd, 3rd generation do feel at home any longer in the UK. They are treated as "the enemy within".

The kind of atitudes we should be working to avoid are the kinds voiced by David B. Shire above:

"If Muslims do not like the laws or codes in western countries they have every right to remain in their home countries. If they do remain in a western country they may face economic discrimination because they may not have the economic skills needed to survive. Staying also mean they will face ideas they find repugnat".

Not only are his views discriminatory they are devoid of historical context. May I remind Mr Shire of the British Empires brutal colonization of India (and Middle East and parts of Africa); the murder of hundreds and thousands all in the name of modernity and the Crown. And may Mr Shire also be reminded of the fact that the British did not disregard their English customs but instead maintained their culture and religion while abroad. They also imported English wives who roamed around in India wearing frilly frocks in scorching 40 degrees while they carried parasoles and had an Indian servant at their beck and call. Their children were not taught Hindi but went to English schools. The English segregated themselves. Maybe I should also add that the Britain profited highly from their brutal slave labour from India. The Indian continent was responsible for over 30% of the world production during industialisation. With these historical facts in place I suggest that Mr shire and his supporters stake another long hard look at their racist views.

With all these facts in lace is it so suprising that ethnic minorities who live in Britain choose to keep their cultural and religious heritage? They have afterall learnt this from the European colonisers have they not?

Sharif
24 May 2008 at 19:22

iffat: It is interesting to see you comparing prejudices against minorities here in GB with colonialism. Those were the days, when the powerful looted and colonized the undefended Muslims also conquered a lot. In fact Muslims are proud to say that they conquered Spain and were at the doors of Vienna. Right? But this era is gone, we did not come in UK as conquerers, if we had we would also be dictating the terms. We came to do the inferior jobs and were, and still are, ready to accept any bad treatment and remain here. In fact we like it so much that we marry our kids back home, so that they can also join the party. I read somewhere in Europe a guy was imprisoned but the government offered him release if he left the country and went back to Pakistan. Need I tell you what he decided? Yes he preferred jail to going back to live a life of honor, without these Brits making fun at them. O god, it can't be as bad here. I must add that I believe that all the immigrants should be treated well and on equal footing.

iffat
25 May 2008 at 10:49

Sharif I totally agree with you that "back home" or for that matter in some of Middle Eastern and Asian countries there are serious human rights abuses. But we have to remember very few of them have democratically elected governments. We have to look at history to learn why they are in the situation they are in: colonialism, Western foreign policies, slicing and dicing of Kashmir between India and Pakistan, CIA, placement of dictators to terrorise their people but also to fullfill the dreams of the Western superpowers; selling of weaons to dictators (Saddam and Halabjja), countries in Africa......... The list is long... Nagasaki, Hiroshima......).

Lets take Iraq as an example. If anyone knows about the true history of Iraq then they will know that it had: equality between the sexes in the work place; free education for all; eradicated illiteracy; free medical treatment; mothers were given maternity leave with pay; there was no secterial violence. The country could have been one of the most prosperous countries in the Middle East but already in 1990 it was crushed by sanctions and war (US and UK using Iraq to fight the war against Iran and also the Gulf war). 100000s of children died and after the bloody lying War on Terror millions of Iraqi families were displaced over a million dead and the country in disarray. My friend is having to pay $5800 for his Uncles heart operation. An operation which previously would have been free. This mess. This hell in the Middle East (lets throw Afghanistan, Kashmir, Palestine-Israel in too) is due to Western foreign policies.

We have not come to Europe as conqureres. Instead we have entered without slaughtering or uprooting a whole country. we are more humane than when the European colonizers entered our countries. You mentioned the Muslims in Spain - Have you read the history? I suggest that anyone interested return to the text books and compare the bloody European history and then compare it to Middle Eastern and Asian history and then tell me which nations have been responsible for some of the worst crimes against humanity...... According to my calculations the Western world comes up trumps!

I would rather live in Europe - Its my home. Its where I was born and brought up. But that does not mean that I should close my eyes and ears to the lies we are being feed about integration, War on Terror, multiculturalism eyc. As a European citizen with the freedom of speech and my civic duties in place I see it as my responsibility to put this discussion into context. and not allow my mind to be seeped with the medias and politicians anti-immigration and anti-muslim propaganda. In the UK we have started to go back in time - it reminds me of the years of Enoch Powell and Maggie Thatcher. A sad state of affairs. To criticise is not to be anti-british -let us not confuse the two - Its to ask us to be better than we are and to hold our politicans personally responsible for their policies.

Suggested reading;

Why they dont hate us by Mark Levine

Tolerance by Arun Kundani

War on Truth by Nafeez Ahmed

Syech Siti Jenar
25 May 2008 at 13:26

The truth is that Europe and the West is more Islamic than Muslim countries. Where else are the poor, the sick, the weak, the minorities taken care of by the State?

Muslims living in the West should not worry about un-halal meat and alcohol. If you must drink alcohol, just pray to Allah that the alcohol turns into halal water before it touches your lips. Allah is almighty, it is easier for Allah to turn whiskey into water than it is for you to lift your finger.

Muslims must have faith and relax. The Qur'an can only be read when the reader has the appropriate light, which is a living and loving heart. Without a loving heart the Qur'an is used and abused by the likes of Geerta Wilders and the Muslims in his film.

Warm salaams to all,

Syech Siti Jenar, Jawa, Indonesia

Steffan
25 May 2008 at 14:12

I normally like Zia, but I’m pretty appalled by this article. Sure there are anti-muslim bigots on the margins, but to equate works like Fitna with the maintenance of core identity of European countries is totally disingenuous. He fails to provide a single example of left-wing islamophobia, other than to note our commitment to feminism and secularism. Unless you consider all moral positions to be equally valid, then everyone considers themselves morally superior to someone or some other value system. If muslims are challenging our value system – which of course they have a perfect right to – then it’s to be expected that non-muslims will challenge theirs in return. To then describe this return serve as islamophobia is just another example of freely exercising the right to criticise the west – from foreign policy, to personal sexual proclivities – whilst insisting on immunity from scrutiny for your own values. I had thought Zia opposed this hypocrisy but clearly I was wrong.

Sure, there is some anti-muslim bigotry, but muslims are not the only group of non-western origin. Just how many confrontations of similar voracity are there between secular left-wingers and with Hindus, Sikhs and British afro-carribeans? Virtually none. Why is this?

To be left wing means that as well as wanting economic equality you believe the feminism is essentially correct; that homosexuality and homosexuals should be accepted (not just ‘tolerated’); there should be a separation of religion and politics and religion and the state; inter-racial, inter-cultural and inter-religious relationships are essentially a good thing; staunch opposition to all forms of racism, including Jew-hatred; human rights should be universally applicable, rather than something limited to white men and women only; and that people should have a commitment to genuine internationalism, instead of just your clan within it.

Having discussed these issues with hundreds of mainstream non-violent muslims, and studied opinion polls of the views of British muslims, I very reluctantly concluded that most British muslims disagree with most of these principles – to put it in its most mealy-mouthed terms. Whilst we should always stand again anti-muslim bigotry, we shouldn’t delude ourselves into believing that anything other than a secularised islam is compatible with the type of society left-wingers should want to see realised

Sharif
25 May 2008 at 16:24

Iffat: you are missing the main point. You go on about the atrocities of colonialism and neu colonialism. But it is easy to put the blame on others. Suddenly we are not talking about GB, but Islam and 'others'. That is wrong. There were other countries being conquered. India is one such example. It was attacked since the time immaterial, starting from Alexander the great to Moghuls and then British. Now they are independent. Does India have a chip on its shoulder? No. They have had Muslim Presidents, Sikh PM. Can you imagine a hindu or a Christian s President of Saudi, Iraq or Pakistan? No. Blaming on others is like this example I heard. If Uncle sam asked you to jump from 10th floor building, would follow his advice? If the answer is yes, then it is the guy who jumps who is at fault and not uncle youknowwho. I do not support the attack on Iraq, but the picture of Iraq you paint is more like a fairy tale. Saddam was the most ruthless dictator in Muslim world. Full stop. Many Muslims say: I was born in GB. What does that mean? Hindus and Muslims who were forced to leave their homes after partition were living there for thousand of years. Jews lived in Germany for over a thousand years and were butchered by Nazis and others were forced to leave. There were so many, the UN decided to give them a separate home, Israel. Do not forget those Jews changed after the holocaust and started mixing with the host communities; now they are integrated without leaving their faith. And they could not go any other country, as there was no jewish country in existence at the time. Born in GB, great, but if it gets very hot, people look at your origins and call you know what. And the might one day say: send them back to any of the Muslim countries, since they defend Muslim countries, even when these countries have evil regimes. I am not supporting the existence of Israel, although I think we have to accept them now, since, as you say, majority were born there. Right? There is wind of change, smell it and try to be flexible and try to mix with host communities. We want equality, but accept their open society and freedom. There are not many who want us out, but if you smell the breeze, there are signs that are not positive. Say, I am British, this is my country and the one my parents came from. You can criticize some aspects of politics, but not condemn it outright. Unless you want to go back to the lands of pure. There won't be many takers, since the ones back home want to join the show in GB. Right? I will not continue with this debate, unless some constructive ideas are put forward by you or somebody else.

SunKid
25 May 2008 at 16:39

“Sharif I totally agree with you that "back home" or for that matter in some of Middle Eastern and Asian countries there are serious human rights abuses. But we have to remember very few of them have democratically elected governments. We have to look at history to learn why they are in the situation they are in: colonialism, Western foreign policies, slicing and dicing of Kashmir between India and Pakistan, CIA, ”

This kind of attitude is so typical among Middle Easterners an many of my fellow Asians, I am Indian American. When anything goes wrong blame the west, colonialism, the CIA etc, anyone except themselves. There is zero introspection on the internal problems of society, just a morbid obsession with figuring ways to blame the other to avoid humiliation.

“Lets take Iraq as an example. If anyone knows about the true history of Iraq then they will know that it had: equality between the sexes in the work place; free education for all; eradicated illiteracy; free medical treatment; mothers were given maternity leave with pay; there was no secterial violence. The country could have been one of the most prosperous countries in the Middle East but already in 1990 it was crushed by sanctions and war (US and UK using Iraq to fight the war against Iran and also the Gulf war).”

This sounds completely delusional. Iraq almost sounds like a paradise in this given scenario. The reality, however, in the tribal world of Iraq is that one ethnoreligious group, namely Sunni Arabs dominated the economic resources of the country at the expense of everyone else. Not to mention the massive repression of Saddam's regime.

Also Iraq declared war upon Iran (and later Kuwait) due to the maniac ambitions of Saddam not because of the West, the CIA, or anyone else (albeit during the Iran-Iraq war the West did provide aid later during that war ).

“We have not come to Europe as conqureres. Instead we have entered without slaughtering or uprooting a whole country. we are more humane than when the European colonizers entered our countries.”

How could someone desperately seeking a better life conquer anything? It is a question of ability not intent.

“According to my calculations the Western world comes up trumps!”

Please explain your basis for such a broad conclusion.

“I would rather live in Europe - Its my home. Its where I was born and brought up. But that does not mean that I should close my eyes and ears to the lies we are being feed about integration, War on Terror, multiculturalism eyc. As a European citizen with the freedom of speech and my civic duties in place I see it as my responsibility to put this discussion into context. and not allow my mind to be seeped with the medias and politicians anti-immigration and anti-muslim propaganda.”

In other words everything said about us are lies and everything we are accused of is someone elses fault.

iffat
25 May 2008 at 17:57

You are missing the point!

This is not about lying or not facing up to the faults within the homelands of our parents its about PUTTING THINGS INTO CONTEXT. Western governments have abused their power to put into position leaders who will benefit their interests - not the interests of the local population.

Lets take Iraq for example - of course there were atrocities, of course there were human rights abuses BUT we must not look at the Iraqi society as being only backward the way the media has portrayed it as ( I suggest one read Iraqi Women - Untold stories from the 1948 to the Present by Nadje Sadig Al-Ali, for more informaton). Iraq was more than just Saddah Hussein. When I hear my friends wishing the return of the days of Saddam because of the brutal reality of the War on Terror where there is a lack of medicine, petrol (imagine having to line up for fuel in one of the countries with the largest oil reserves in the world?), electricity, water...... Then it makes me cringe.

How did the UK become so successful? Or USA for that matter? lets take a look at history and then we will have lots to learn. These countries have faults: there is hunger, poverty, discrimination, suicide, murder, abuse of women, extremist groups and there are conflicts but generaly its functioning and a majority have faith in the judical system. But USA would never have been what it is today without its imperalist history and the sweat and blood of the slaves shipped from Africa.

When I say that the Western world has a more bloody history and is responsible for the worst human atrocities then like I said previously all we have to do is look at history:

- World War 1 + 2

-Murder of 6 mill jews: Europeans (remember many innocent Jews were refused entry into UK and other European countries)

-Crusaders

-Imperialism + Colonialism

-Nagasaki

-Hiroshima

-Vietnam war

-Genocide in Bosnia where west did not lift a finger

-Afghanistan

-Iraq war 1 and 2

...................

The list is long.................... I suggest a trip to the library....

What Im searching for is a balanced view - that we do not look at these issues devoid of their political and historical context its only then we can prevent future mistakes..

Amy
25 May 2008 at 17:58

If being a secular feminist - that is believing in the separation of church and state and that women should be treated equally to men - makes me Islamaphobic then so be it.

In denouncing the centre-left, the secular feminists, Sardar appears to be allying himself with the real bigots and racists of the West. By this i mean the 'Daily Mail readers' who share many of the 'traditional family values' of Islam where women are imprisoned in the home, slaves to their husbands and sons - stripped of any level of autonomy over their own lives.

The treatment of women by male muslims in the Islamic world is completely morally indefensible. As is the treatment of women in the west by the (often religious) right who aim to roll back the acievements of feminism.

Is it any wonder that on the left feminists are secular or that secularists are feminists? If believing in equality and therefore being opposed to anybody who claims to be of a higher worth because of their belief in God makes somebody Islamaphobic then Sardar has got it wrong. It is the conservatives and the Muslims who need to change.

iffat
25 May 2008 at 21:55

"By this i mean the 'Daily Mail readers' who share many of the 'traditional family values' of Islam where women are imprisoned in the home, slaves to their husbands and sons - stripped of any level of autonomy over their own lives"

Amy is this not an extreme generalisation? May I ask what studies or research are you refering to, to support your claim that Muslim "women are imprisoned in the home, slaves to their husbands and sons - stripped of any level of autonomy over their own lives"?

I am a Muslim woman. I have many Muslim male and female friends of all ages and various backgrounds. I must say that only two of my female friends have controlling husband.

Supression of women is not an issue of culture or religion. People who are an atheist can be just as violent as a believer. The issue at hand is that the suppression of women is a universal problem.

radius
25 May 2008 at 22:27

iffat, the world is bigger than your social circle. Are you saying that the imprisonment of women in the home is not in fact institutionalised in several Muslim countries, including Saudi Arabia, the home of Islam? That a Saudi or Yemeni or Aghani woman can, in fact, leave the home without the permission or even presence of a male relative? Is it the case that the Qur'an does NOT state that men are above and in charge of women, and instruct men to beat their wives if they rebel against their will?

You are right, suppression of women is a universal problem. But it is made so much worse when it is institutionalized in an old book that cannot be questioned.

SunKid
26 May 2008 at 10:19

“Western governments have abused their power to put into position leaders who will benefit their interests - not the interests of the local population.”

Did the West put into power Gaddafhi in Libya, Assad in Syria, or Hussein in Iraq? The west may have supported particular regimes in the Middle East and Asia but the only universal thing among all these states are the presence of dictatorial strongmen who represent their clan/tribe/race etc. and themselves at the expense of everyone else.

“Lets take Iraq for example - of course there were atrocities, of course there were human rights abuses BUT we must not look at the Iraqi society as being only backward the way the media has portrayed it as ( I suggest one read Iraqi Women - Untold stories from the 1948 to the Present by Nadje Sadig Al-Ali, for more informaton).”

There may be cosmopolitan people in Iraq, however, the vast majority of people, even large sections of the educated still live in the village tribal mindset.

“Iraq was more than just Saddah Hussein.”

The man had near Stalinesque control of Iraq and complete control of when and how Iraq would wage war. That pretty much shows how divested Iraq was from Saddam.

“When I hear my friends wishing the return of the days of Saddam because of the brutal reality of the War on Terror where there is a lack of medicine, petrol (imagine having to line up for fuel in one of the countries with the largest oil reserves in the world?), electricity, water...... Then it makes me cringe.”

That depends, who are your friends? I am sure many who benefited from the old system are sorely missing it. I am also sure that if you are a Kurd living in northern Iraq that suffered under Saddam's rule you are now glad that he is gone.

“But USA would never have been what it is today without its imperalist history and the sweat and blood of the slaves shipped from Africa.”

Actually the portions of the US that had slavery (the south) were and are still significantly backward compared to the non-slave portions. Slavery was a break on development not a cause of it.

“When I say that the Western world has a more bloody history and is responsible for the worst human atrocities then like I said previously all we have to do is look at history”

Your argument reduces a blood history to a purely numbers game. I am sure more Iraqis died during the Iran-Iraq war then when Hualgu Khan invaded. That does not imply that Hualgu's invasion was somehow less bloody than the Iran-Iraq war (It also ignores the fact that there were less people in Iraq in th 12th century than the 1980s). Context is important. When the Americans invaded Afghanistan recently at least they make an attempt to avoid civilian casulties. Groups like the Taliban and Northern Alliance frequently engage in systemic rape, murder, and looting of the areas they take. Still seems these guys live in the 12th centruy .

Amy
26 May 2008 at 11:47

Iffat i agree with you completely that the supression of women is a universal problem. However to deny the link between religion, culture and the supression of women does not exist is frankly ridiculous.

Perhaps as (i assume) a middle class educated muslim woman you feel emancipated. But please do not deny the terrible oppression and hardship of many Islamic women who face poverty, female genital mutilation, forced childhood marriages and the persecution of sharia law.

If you are happy to deny these facts then that is your choice. Let us just be grateful for the feminist and human rights charities who will not ignore the injustice faced by many women, and in this case Islamic women.

Sharif
26 May 2008 at 14:23

Iffat: So you are a girl, obsessed with atrocities of ‚infidel’ west against Muslims. Now let us see. Let me tell you a story of one girl, nearer you, Bradford. Shazia Qayum, 27, was one such victim. When she was 15, she was taken out of her Manchester school by her parents because she refused to marry a cousin in Pakistan. Despite being kept prisoner at home for more than a year, no one came looking for her. "Day after day, I sat in my room praying for someone to find me," she recalls. "I was convinced my school or the authorities would start asking questions but, to my knowledge, no one bothered." She is one of hundreds of young girls in UK. No one knows the exact number of British women who are forced marry against their will, but a recent Home Office paper revealed that in 2006 in Bradford alone, 250 girls aged 13 to 16 were taken off their school rolls because they did not return from a visit abroad.

Nobody denies the wrong doings of USA and other colonialist powers, but at least you and others including non Muslims protest against such things. When Islam spread, it spread with a sword. They attacked any country, which was weak enough. Need I tell you how and where they went? Before the assault, Mohammad is reported to have told his follower fighters: If we fight hard, we will conquer their lands, their properties and their women. According to Bokhari, the property was confiscated, men killed, children forced to embrace Islam and their women, yes Iffat Behn, their women were used to satisfy the sexual lust of Muslim men. Without marriage. Stop; just think what I am telling you. Captive women raped for Islam. One of the men asked Mohammad: What if there is a child. Would he be Haram? The prophet replied: It is all in God’s hand, if he wishes nothing will happen. This is called colonize at its worst. Some of these infidel women were taken to be used as domestic workers. But men used them for sexual purposes also. Even Mohammad did that. One of his wives went to see her father. As it turned out he was not at home and she came back earlier. She found the door locked and Mohammad having sex with the maid. She started crying and went to Aisha to complain. Later he promised not to repeat this practice again. God bless his soul and those women who let themselves just to be able to live.

If you are born in a country and have its citizenship you must not say that you are Muslim first and British or American afterwards. You are citizen first and then Muslim. When Henrys Kissinger, (who is Jewish) US Foreign Minister in 70’s tried to make peace with Israel and Egypt and Jordan, he had US interests at heart first. Otherwise, you are a traitor and must live somewhere in a Muslim country. I know you wouldn’t. Most of immigrants running away to non-Muslim countries, are Muslims. That gives you to think. I am one of them. But I have changed to become a citizen first and anything else afterwards. Yes, I have become an atheist, but you don’t have to go that far.

Colum McCaffery
26 May 2008 at 16:07

Unfortunately it’s often necessary to establish some credentials before contributing to this debate. Ok, here goes: I’m a 58 year-old Irish socialist who is thoroughly enjoying the arrival of large numbers of immigrants here. They contribute to an established process of opening up what was a relatively closed society.

If all cultures, religions, races etc. had progressive or at least benign values and practices, it would be grand. They don’t and when they don’t, good people (Yes, “good”!) are obliged to challenge and argue.

I could waffle on here about relativism and different notions of equality but let’s be clear: what’s really exercising me about Islam in Ireland is that I don’t want to have to go over old ground. A degree of gender equality is still quite new here and, for example, I don’t want a return to little Irish citizens covering their heads because of bizarre views about modesty or to see again places of worship where women are separated from men. Tolerance is much improved here and, for example, I don’t want again to have to get stroppy in defence of gay friends. Blasphemy is no longer a censoring power here and God has told me that She has a sense of humour and wants me to make fun of priests and prophets.

In short, the public face of Islam often looks very like 1950s Irish Catholicism. Most Catholics no longer hold such views and I’m sure most Muslims no longer hold such views either. However, there are people who would like a return to what was essentially an oppressive society. They can expect to be opposed by disrespectful jokes and arguments.

shakeybooty
27 May 2008 at 05:26

Colum its nice you can speak for muslims. Most of the stuff you said, isn't really relevant to the debate anyway. But I'd think you wouldn't understand terms like modesty, respect; there not political they have nothing to do with politics, but as socialist I'd doubt you realize a difference. Differences in values are fine, but again its not important to you. Your selfish, arrogant, irrational, and unimportant. Values are not part of the debate. If it were you would be the last person to comment.

shakeybooty
27 May 2008 at 05:28

Same comment for the jackass above Colum, Sharif

iffat
27 May 2008 at 09:06

Sharif would you please state the sources of your allegations about the prophet Muhammed and the spreading of Islam? I read Karen Armstrongs book on Islam and the life of the prophet Muhammed. I must say that she never mentioned anything about the prophet being a giggalo or sex crazed.

When I read a book or an article in a magazine I always do research on the author just to find out where this person is coming from..... Maybe Sharif you should do the same. Find out who wrote the history you are refering to.......

As mentioned earlier Amy the abuse of women is a universal problem. We can see that in almost any country and more often than not men will use religious texts or their interpretation of religious texts to supress women.

Yes their are human-rights abuses. Yes there is the suppression of women in Saudia Arabia where women can not drive, can not walk around freely. I am not denying that this exists but what I react strongly to is the extreme generalisations by people whose understanding of a religion is based on the titilising news coverage of the Western media. A media which has been working hand in hand with their goverments to promote the War on Terror. A war based on lies lies lies. There was no intelligence. There was no weapons of mass destruction. The weapons of mass destruction was/is the USA and UK and their media support. And they have successfully managed to poison the mind of a majority of their population and hold them in a constant state of paralyzed fear.

Yes I continue to claim that atrocities by our European countries: slave trade, colonialism, looting, killing etc has had a profound effect on the future of countries in the Middle East and Asia. All the russian rullet played and still played by the powerful western countries has left these countries in dissary.

The global debt crisis is one example. As Noreen Hertz puts it "Countries that can't afford to provide basic health care, education or shelter to their people have to use their pitiful resources, including, in many cases all their aid flows to repay debts typically racked up by authoritarian, unelected regiems long since gone. Children in Africa die every single day because their govt. are spending more on debt servicing than on health and education". When Yemen voted against UN resolution 678 which authorized the first Gulf war, the US commented "This will be the moste expensive no vote you have ever cast". A $70mill US aid project for Yemen was immediately cancelled. This despite the fact Yemen was/is one of the most highly indebted poor countries and that the life expectancy is only 46. Not suprisingly there were anti-american demos in 1991 and US embassy attacked (Hertz in I.O.U p.41).

I say READ, SEARCH and LOOK AT HISTORY.

If we just bog ourselves down in Islam this and islam that we will not see the bigger picture. There are power plays, politics, poverty, injustices. corruption and certain countries which are benefiting. The hell in Iraq and Afghanistan is a good example. It was interesting how the US military managed to gaurd the oil fields but not the museum in Bagdad which contained 1000s of years of history.

The war on Afghanistan was not about fighting terror or smoking Osama out. Afghanistan is located in a prime position for the transportation of the vast amounts of cheap oil & gas from the Caspian Basin. If you all take the time to read the Washington Post or even better "The War on Truth" by Nafeez Ahmed or Naomi Kliens "Shock Doctrine" maybe we would not have to continue bantering on about islam but look at the bigger picture.

Other books which I suggest reading is the new report based on a Gallup World Polls questionares in 35 "Muslim" countries. The book is called "WHO SPEAKS FOR ISLAM? WHAT A BILLION MUSLIMS REALLY THINK" by Esposito and Maogahed. It will crush all those racist and preconceived ideas one has on the suppression of women in the name of Islam and that the "western way" is the right way.

And people. I am more interested in fact. Not fiction.

Sharif
27 May 2008 at 09:40

Iffat: It is interesting, if anything does not suit you, then it is not authentic Islam. You have to read many books. Bokhari who was an expert in Islam wrote this anecdotes. He lived a hundred year after the death of Mohammed. You say you are interested in facts and not fiction. What you are saying is you are only interested in those things that suit you and will not accept anything that might be derogatory. Do you know Muhammad had called somebody his son and later he liked his wife so much, that the son had to divorce to enable him to marry . It is written in Quran. If you now ask where, which sura, i would say, if you do not know your quran that well, do not discuss it with others.

anSiarach
27 May 2008 at 10:08

Even by Sardars standards this is a fabulously idiotic and ironically prejudiced article.

niazi
27 May 2008 at 15:11

Iffat: Dont worry too much about Sharif, he has a chip on his shoulder and wants to drink lots of alcohol without being harassed in E17.

Sharif: For the record I am not from Mirpur. And your beloved Kissinger has a very bad record of human rights. Most secularists such as Hitchens think very poorly of him.

Sharif
27 May 2008 at 15:51

Niazi: Look, you should read carefully before answering any post; i told you I do not live in UK. I visited UK a few years ago and had the audacity to drink in a Muslim locality. I am glad they did not get me. Chip on my shoulder? It is sophisticated and educated people are polite to each other, even they have different opinion. Good luck. I forgive you, I know you are Muslim an muslims do not take kindly to criticism. If you knew where I am, you might get me k.... No, i think you are only happy to annoy the non believers.

niazi
27 May 2008 at 16:17

Sharif: Your drivel and pseudo-intellectualism (masquerading as enlightened thinking) has got the better of me. My apologies for not subscribing to Paki/Muslim-bashing.

Like the most of us I don't care too much about the Sharifs in this world it's the prejudices they spout that needs to be tackled.

Colum McCaffery
27 May 2008 at 16:45

The meaning of the Koran or the Bibles, what Muhammed said or what Jesus said are topics for believers and for those working in disciplines which address these matters. However, in an open democracy a quotation from a holy book - whether its meaning is agreed or not - carries no special weight in argument.

radius
27 May 2008 at 19:41

shakeybooty's comment to a post which criticised conservative Islam is depressing. Not just the mindless abuse, but the "its nice you can speak for muslims" bit.

iffat
28 May 2008 at 15:25

Would prefer not to be psychoanalyzed Sharif - Prefer to stick to the discussion at hand.

Like I said we should be critical to what we read. We must search our sources and see what is coloured by reason and whats pure scaremongering.

gajahmerah
28 May 2008 at 16:42

I think Germany's 'Leitkultur' and Holland's 'Verzuiling' are completely different concepts! The idea behind 'verzuiling' is that different groups (liberals, socialists, protestants, catholics, etc.) have their own seperate social infrastructure: media, clubs, churches, political parties, etc. Although the divisions are no longer as strict as they were, the concept still exists in the Netherlands.

In a sense muslims in Holland are a separate group, as they have their own public broadcaster, football clubs, mosques and schools. In that way, they are model dutchmen.

I think anti-muslim sentiment is fuelled by the fact that some Muslims refuse to play by the rules, namely: violence. It is perfectly fine in Holland for an imam to damn homosexuals to hell and to claim dutch society is deeply corrupt. Conservative christian preachers do so every sunday, too.

It's often said that Britain has no tradition of political extremism. On the other hand Holland has a very very long tradition of politicial extremism, but within a democratic system. Dutch "tollerance" is based on the idea that you can do whatever you want as long as you don't harm others. Now this theory is not pure, and there are serious discussions about such issues as mandatory vaccinations and insurance (to which some christians object), abortion or female circumcision (which some muslims insist is their right)...

But to say 'verzuiling' is hidden language for 'anti-Islam' indicates that the author hasn't the faintest clue about the concept.

Sam
28 May 2008 at 17:07

Sharif: Thank you for your intelligent and insightful comments, much more interesting to read than the actual article!

Sharif
28 May 2008 at 18:04

Thanks Sam. Iffat: you state Like I said we should be critical to what we read. We must search our sources and see what is colored by reason and whats pure scare-mongering. I agree. But it should apply to you as well. I am willing to be corrected. But all I said before is documented by many scholars. (Muslims). Religion is like cherry picking, you pick what you like and do not admit that other texts exist. But my reference to Quran was not refuted by you. Faith makes people blind. I have become an atheist,, who is willing to-learn; may be I discuss these things that somebody can reinvent my beliefs. You have people like niazi and you, who make fun of me. Making fun that i drink. Look around most of the Muslim countries are considered the most corrupt, they kill each other, they steal, rape, you you name it but Niazi is only worried and making fun of me because I sip beer or sip wine occasionally. Good bye. I will not participate on this thread.

aflatoon
29 May 2008 at 05:54

i am simply amused by the comments n their hollowness.islamophobia is a reality of modern europe n the infection is catching in usa also.if we blame areligion in in its totality n dont find any goodness in it,there must be something wrong with the commentator's psyche.if u want to eat haram or drink do so.no body can stop u.it is yr personal choice.but to blame the society for making u uncomfortable in your haramkari seems a bit slanderous.

sardar saheb has pointed to certain bitter realities prevailing in present europe.integration n assimilation are two different sspects of dealing with the other.xenophobia , or islamophobia u may call it by any name,but the fact is they dont want any thing outside their accepted tenets.this is not enlightnment nor a feature of liberal mind n thinkig..only what one thinks is universal is a very dangerous attitude.this is the root of all conflicts.there is no universal in culture or in ways of life.get rid of the superority comlex n let others also live the way way they think proper.coercion or force leads to so many unimaginable problems. aflatoon india

jhimmi
16 June 2008 at 16:44

Europhobia is "nourished by a mixture of misogyny and fanatical theocratism".

I think there is good reason for the spread of Islamophobia in Europe. It has less to do with the attacks of 11 September 2001 and 7 July 2005, and more to do with the fact that Muslims now violently and intolerantly challenge the notions sovereignity and Western values.

Jhimmi, a noted dhimmi, wrote recently that Islamophobia is a European backlash to Muslim attempts to impose their hegemony over the Western world.