Bradford Muslim

Clement's Gate to establish an Islamic Centre

2010-11-21T05:33:00.000-08:00

There are many Muslim organisations that have been formed to helped serve the needs of Muslims and others across the city. Many of these organisations are ethnically and culturally bound. There is however a need for a space for second generation Muslims who remain attached to their culture of origin but who are also looking for a space where they can bring their British or local identities to the fore. These people have gained something from being raised here and they feel comfortable with this aspect of their identities. Because of the lack of recognition of this aspect of our identities, many of us feel that there should be a place for us to visit – to call our centre – where we can be ourselves, Muslims within a local Bradford context.

We are seeking therefore to establish an Islamic centre that will meet our needs and the needs of those who are like us or who share our concerns and have similar needs. This will be an Islamic centre in the American mould – one which is inclusive and inviting to the whole of the community that supports it, and is modelled on the Spanish example of al Madrasa – a retreat. It will be a place to relax, meditate, enjoy ourselves, learn and help others. It will be a place that people can visit after a hard week at work. Or a place that people can visit with their families knowing that everyone will be welcomed and that there will be something for everyone to do.

It will be architecturally unique, combining the best of local architecture with Islamic design. It will be a building that will add to the local landscape and a place that can just be visited for its beauty. It will be green, employing the best of technological advancement to make it as energy efficient as possible. But ultimately it will be a place for us to remember why we are here and in a way that doesn’t make us feel that we have to leave behind our local identities. If you would like to help with this, then please get in touch with us at www.clementsgate.org.uk

Wandering Lonely in a Crowd

2010-11-15T14:35:00.000-08:00

Salams,

I'd like to draw your attention to the publication of a collection of my writings over the years. The book covers the themes of integration, radicalisation, liberalism, multiculturalism and community cohesion. There is more information about the book here:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Wandering-Lonely-Crowd-Reflections-Condition/dp/1847740243/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1289860716&sr=8-1

On the EDL visit

2010-08-25T15:49:00.000-07:00

I have been disinclined to post on the EDL visit, their arguments are superficial and they want to provoke. The council and the local newspaper the Telegraph and Argus are to be applauded for their leadership in uniting the city against the proposed EDL march, the police should be applauded for the professionalism in how they have approached this issue and the Home Secretary is to be applauded for the ban on the march which was a serious risk to public disorder. A static protest will be much easier to police.

However, there remains some potential for disorder on Saturday and the following is my two penny's worth.

There are three events taking place in Bradford at separate venues:

1. The EDL protest against the Islamification of Britain
2. The UAF protest against the EDL
3. A celebration of diversity

My view is that all public events in the city centre should be avoided on Saturday. The police will do their best to keep the protagonists apart, but there is a possibility that at some point there could be some confrontation. If this is the case then the less people in town, the better. If anyone is seen in the vicinity of such violence then they run the risk of being arrested themselves. It is not our responsibility to act as heroes, rather it is the responsibility of the police to serve and protect everyone on the day. Not ours.

The UAF and the EDL are protesting on Saturday but many of you will remember that the majority of people arrested and jailed after the 2001 riots were young South Asian men. This is because after starting the trouble in 2001 the racists and the anti-racists left to leave the young South Asian men to riot for the rest of the day and many of them served time in jail, we all know about the controversy of the disproportionate nature of the sentences. It could be possible that on Saturday the EDL and the UAF after having jointly ignited something on Saturday afternoon all go home to watch Match of the Day while some young South Asian men will spend their first night in jail, in Ramadan. So the best thing to do is stay away. I'd also be extremely careful about rumours flying around before the event and on the day itself. Rumours are the oxygen for trouble on days like Saturday, so it's best we don't provide any oxygen for trouble on the day. Make sure you question what you are told and don't pass on what could be false or exaggerated information.

There is no point after the event for parents to say that my son only threw one stone. The best thing for most parents to do on Saturday afternoon is to make sure their sons are not in the town centre.

It is the job of the police to defend the city. That is their responsibility by law. If you want to do something about Islamophobia or anti-Muslim prejudice then protesting against the EDL is a waste of time. Challenge the anti-Muslim discourses, some of which come out of Bradford. If you want to know how to do this, then get in touch with me through this blog. Read the rest of this blog, through which I have been challenging anti-Muslim discourses for about five years. Get involved, become aware, understand your situation better. Become political, but in a serious and effective way. Protesting on Saturday will not help counter the argument. And as for those who wish to celebrate diversity in Bradford. I think that Bradford celebrates diversity every single day when thousands of people travel in to work and just get on with their lives in a mutually helpful and constructive manner.

May God keep Bradford peaceful and safe on Saturday.

Regenerating the Heart of Bradford - Part Three

2010-08-09T05:20:00.000-07:00

Bradford as I have stated previously is at an important point in its architectural development. We are about to rebuild parts of the city that will stay with us for a few decades at least. I for one see no point in building another mini-Meadowhall. Why have cotton when you can have silk? Bradford needs to strike out. Be different. Be confidant about itself. Ignore the naysayers, most of whom hide behind anonymity and multiple allegiances.

It can do this through building something in the city centre that is unmissable. That if people are coming up north, then they must visit, because it has to be seen. Not avoided at all costs. The Spice project (in the style of the Eden project but about spices) as mentioned previously, perhaps in the Odeon, could be one such project to add to the National Media Museum and Bronte Country. Moving some of the Eastern collections from the National Museums could be another. The V and A's Islamic art gallery is outstanding and led Simon Jenkins to ask whether the Ardabil carpet is the most beautiful object in London. The V and A is not ashamed of Islam, the British Museum is not ashamed of Islam, the Science Museum is not ashamed of Islam, but it seems that we are ashamed here. Or perhaps that our shame prevents us from stepping up to celebrate what could be if we collectively allowed it.

And then we need to consider what our main square will become as it stands empty today. A bland, modernist repeat of consumer-lite. Please, someone with power and vision step forward and change the direction of travel.

Beauty. Any decent city has some aspect of beauty. Bradford has more than its fair share. People raise their eyebrows when I mention this. But it clearly does, Bradford on a sunny day looks spectacular with mid-afternoon sun striking the yellow sandstone across the city. Concrete is less reflective of the glories of the sun. Bradford needs to see this beauty first and then be willing to build more. Here, I dare to point to two mosque constructions in Bradford. The first in Westgate and second in Horton Grange. Both are beautiful and add strikingly to the city, but they were both made in the last few years, not a hundred years ago. And not by graduates with urban planning degrees, but by people who used to work in the mills and still love this city. That is, that the people who built them had enough appreciation of beauty to make it a reality with their own hands and pockets. So Bradford has to first of all see the beauty that lies within it and then imagine it for its own future.

Any great city is about planning which includes the consideration of the eyeline from different vantage points in the city. This is where my despair with the current planners becomes more acute. The new bus shelter opposite City Hall hides City Hall, obscures it from view, as if it doesn't matter whether you can see it. The Impressions gallery was built a few years ago and as you reach the end of Thornton road it cuts out City Hall again from your view. It's unfair to compare Bradford to Istanbul but one thing about great cities like Istanbul is that the architects and planners would always consider the view and perspective of the individual as they walked around the city and its buildings. This is what makes them beautiful. At present, you can head down from Jacob's Well towards the Westfield site and there is a really nice view between St George's Hall and Britannia House up towards the Cathedral. Building the Westfield site will obscure this and hide the Cathedral.

I would like to suggest intead that the Westfield site is built up as a two storey market square that uses sandstone, combines Victorian Bradford style architecture with some Islamic themes such as arches and covings (think Cordoba and Grenada). If some planners in the past had the poor judgement to knock down the Swan Arcade, then why can we not have the good judgement to build something similar? The square would surround a small park with fountains and trees. Prince Charles could be approached to ask if his School for Traditional Arts could help Westfield with the design. This doesn't sound as strange as it seems, the Mughal Gardens in Lister Park have been universally acknowledged as a wonderful addition. Local businesses and the larger national chains could be approached if they want to be a part of something unique. Mixing Asian businesses with larger national chains would help cohesion in the district. I have alway found it strange that the same council that inspired community cohesion as policy wishes to institutionalise economic segregation through the World Mile concept. Why not bring the succesful businesses into one place? If Westfield agreed to this then they would help build something truly remarkable.

Beauty. Culture. Cohesion. Enterprise. These should be the characteristics of whatever arises out of the city centre. Whatever it is, it will help define the future of the city.

Regenerating the Heart of Bradford - Part Two

2010-06-30T10:02:00.000-07:00

The New Labour years have come and gone and many cities across the North have been regenerated. Leeds, Manchester and Sheffield all have new city centres. Bradford city centre however remains at a halfway point. Many of the buildings have been knocked down to make room for a new beginning. Westfield has the contract for the shopping centre in the middle of the city but it has been unable to secure the requisite number of shops to start building the shopping centre. The regional development agency which led the regeneration of the city will be closed. And so the city stands at a crossroads, one that will have a major impact on its future.
What kind of shopping centre will be eventually built? As I stated previously if there is nothing different in our shopping centre except that it is a smaller version of other shopping centres in the region then why would customers from outside the city wish to travel to Bradford in order to buy some goods. Ultimately, Bradford will have to offer something else which will attract outsiders to the city. This something different will stand Bradford out as a visiting experience in the North. It will have to compete with the other economies.

This something could be a Westfield project with a difference. Westfield could speak to local businesses such as Mumtaz or Bombay Stores for examples and build a smaller scale shopping centre, perhaps one story, which blends between Western and Asian businesses. Or how about trying to convince Westfield of changing its design? To incorporate the Park and the multicultural design elements in a general way? The Park concept could be extended to cover the current building site and a new design could be adopted which could incorporate the open space, green ethos and multicultural experience aspect. This would be genuinely different and if there was a good level of quality established in terms of the shopping experience then it would be unique across the whole of the North. It would also challenge the current direction of parts of the city centre economy: pound shops and betting shops. Somebody could travel in from outside, park up, walk in to Next, through a park to a Mumtaz, have their lunch and then buy some fusion wear from a rebranded Asian textiles company.

Bradford has seen some really good ideas come and go. The Spice Project which had the backing of the Eden project and the attempts to transfer some of the Eastern collection from the national museums in London to a site in Bradford are both examples of good cultural anchors which if established would with the National Media Museum, the Alhambra and the Bronte Museum make Bradford an excellent place to visit. We just need some people who at this very important time when things are not yet complete who are ready and big enough to have the courage to put something genuinely exciting in the heart of Bradford.

Has Israel violated international law again?

2010-05-31T03:51:00.000-07:00

International law, including for example the Geneva Conventions, is humanity's way of coming to some form of agreement as to how we treat each other.

Has Israel violated international law again? Well, from the BBC's coverage, we don't know. All we have had this morning is Israeli military spokespersons and foreign office personnel. No representation from the peace protestors or the Palestinian side, which is outrageous. I rang the BBC to ask why they haven't allowed a counter-argument to the Israeli defence which they surely must do according to BBC guidelines but they had no answer. This needs an investigation. The BBC can't continue like this. And at some point if we are to have peace in the Middle East which remains a priority and urgent, then we need the upholding of international law.

MuslimView

2010-05-09T02:32:00.001-07:00

Salams,

I am writing over at www.muslimview.co.uk at present, please have a look,

Atif

Bradford should vote for Bradford

2010-04-07T14:46:00.000-07:00

How much choice does the election present to us here in Bradford? I think that we face important choices, not between political parties as it is being played out on the national stage, but rather between strong leaders and weak leaders for our city. We have a variety of candidates that are either seeking election or are seeking to be elected. And I do think that these elections are a time for us to exercise some form of political influence, through questioning the candidates and then through voting but I'd like to make the following points:

1. It is up to the parties to select Muslim candidates because they want their parties to reflect the electorate not for the voters to vote for them because they are Muslims, and we all know that any succesful Muslim candidate has to deal with the burden of representation which means that it becomes very difficult to speak on other issues. For all the talent in the community, we have very few political heavyweights. Instead, we should be seeking to mainstream Muslim candidates and support those non-Muslim candidates that support our concerns. It shouldn't be about voting for Muslim candidates. Some people will vote for Mohammad Riaz for example in Bradford East (who is standing for the Tories) because he is a Muslim. He is however most likely to come in third and is in the twilight of his career. The contest in Bradford East is between Terry Rooney and David Ward. It is upto local Muslims to ask each of these candidates on their past record and their current position on a variety of issues. I can't understand how some people think that they will increase their political influence by supporting a candidate that will come in third.

2. What are our concerns? Is there a Muslim vote? I can't see how there can be a Muslim vote unless one has to choose between a very strong candidate (on Muslim-related issues) and a very poor candidate, however, most voters have to choose between two candidates which have positive and negative aspects. For example, one will be good on foreign policy (seeking to uphold international law), another poor; one will be good on civil liberties, the other weak; one could be good on education and international aid, again the other could be weak. So it depends on the candidates and where they stand against a check list on Muslim concerns. What are Muslim concerns? Well, I've heard Muslims argue for more and less taxation, for more and less cuts, so we clearly don't have an economic standpoint. But I suppose if there were several issues that needed highlighting then these could include:

a) upholding rule of law
b) upholding international law
c) mainstreaming Muslim concerns in the delivery of public services

Apart from these, the rest seem to have nothing that could be Muslim-specific about them: education, welfare, international aid. And even then the three points that I've mentioned above are not Islam-specific, but are more about equality before the state which is a concern at present. The contest in Bradford West is between Marsha Singh and Zahid Iqbal. Both candidates should be approached to ask them about how they view the above issues and then people should vote accordingly.

3. Finally, Muslims should vote for Bradford in Bradford. We have a selection of candidates to choose from in five seats. We could quite easily end up with five poor candidates which will mean that Bradford will be relegated to the netherland of political life for another five years. Instead, we need some strong candidates and therefore I would like to suggest that we shouldn't vote according to political affiliation - if we did so, we would get a mix of good and bad candidates, rather we should vote for the strongest candidate in each constituency such that on May the 6th, we'll have five strong MPs selected for parliament irrespective of party affiliation.

Douglas Murray said what?

2010-02-03T14:35:00.000-08:00

Douglas Murray, a regular on the BBC, was invited on to Question Time last week. One of the questions was:

'Was David Cameron's 'Broken Society' claim in the wake of the Edlington case a sign of blatant electioneering?'

This is about the case of two young children who had subjected two other young children to an extremely violent attack. Douglas Murray gave the following response:

'I think the swift answer to the question is of course he is electioneering that is his job this year and we have got to be very careful as a public not to fall for the kind of procedural issues which the government and the press very often make these things into. Will the report be leaked? Will it come out? Will it not? That's actually not the issue and as so often we're being shunted into a cul-de-sac when there is a much bigger issue. We're not just a broken society, we're a society in Britain that has been assaulted for decades now. We've been assaulted in our sense apart from anything else of who we are, what we are, whether we have a right to be as a nation, we've been subjected to decades of intense immigration which has brought many benefits and many negatives... many benefits and many negatives. But one of the other things it has done is to assault Britain and the British people as an identity. If you look back four or five decades now what was it that Britain was signified by, what was it that epitomised Britian? It was institutions, the monarchy, parliament, the armed forces, all of these things have been assaulted and brought down one by one in recent years by government after government and elite after elite. What we see now in this society which is just starting to wake up to this fact is a government and others who are saying 'We have pulled it down, can anyone help us put it back together?' and what they will realise is what every small c not big C conservative realises which is that it is a lot easier to pull things down than it is to build them up. This is going to take a long time, it isn't about one press release, it isn't even going to be about one term of a conservative government, and it certainly isn't going to be about tinkering round the edges. We are going to need a revolutionary government to sort this out and there are none on the horizon'.

In an ideal world David Dimbleby would have then asked Douglas Murray 'Didn't you say in your speech in 2006 on Islam in Europe that Islam is an opportunistic infection in Europe? Why did you call it opportunistic?'

What kind of religion?

2009-11-27T14:59:00.001-08:00

Large parts of the third generation are finding religion in a way that few predicted. Some have attempted to explain it all away as something foreign and dangerous. I have understood it as something familiar, once one gets behind the veneer of difference. Is it strange that spiritual discipline should be attractive to those who were raised in the same North that welcomed Methodism? Is marching for social justice so foreign in a place that gave rise to the labour movement? Is believing in more than the material really that problematic in ‘Wuthering Heights’ country? Behind the veneer of difference, therefore, is a familiarity that can become obvious to those who lend a listening ear to the souls that are discovering their religious selves.

Religion is here, not arriving from outside, but developing from within our own local traditions. But what kind of religion is it? I am struck by the Muslim capitalist spirit that is present in Bradford. It is a religious spirit that bases itself on moral chauvinism, prides itself on the show of external symbols of religiosity and is linked closely with a capitalist spirit that seeks to exhibit the trophies of success to all those who are also engaged in this game of mutual rivalry. They have become religious and financially successful. But how moral is this position on religion? Is this why the moral voice in the community is seldom heard and why many very wrong things continue to be tolerated in the name of a chauvinism that pretends that God does not see everything?

There is another way of being religious that is also emerging. It is value-driven. Shami Chakrabarti came to Bradford recently and she is admired by many in the Muslim community. She has spoken out on issues even though she is not from amongst us. Are our convictions like her’s or are they driven dare I ask by a selfish individualism or perhaps even a selfish communitarianism? As the Sufis say, people wrapped up in themselves make small packages.

There is another kind of religion that is becoming evident: it is one of integrity, dignity and service to others; it seeks the Divine Mercy while also recognising that it is perpetually under the scrutiny of the Divine Gaze. Religion is about worship, contemplation, prayer and remembrance. It is also about our relations with each other: family, friends, colleagues, neighbours and fellow city-dwellers. Does the Prophetic tradition on relationality – as this is how it could be described – encourage us to give or to take from others? The encouragement is to give to everyone, and continuously, because the consequence of possession (of time, wealth and health) is generosity, for those who understand the true nature of things. Hence, as the moral energy is gathered, so it should be distributed, if we are minded so. Wordsworth said, ‘Blessed are they who in the main, this faith even now do entertain’. It is time that we began to feel this.

Another big mistake by pursue

2009-11-23T14:44:00.000-08:00

Yesterday, Greater Manchester Police released Shaykh Asif Hussain Farooqui after he had been arrested on counter-terrorism related offences the week before. Four others who were arrested at the same time have been charged. The police have been in their words investigating this case for the last fifteen months.

There is a lot of anger in the community about the arrest of the respected Sufi Shaykh. Years ago, when there was no prevent, and hardly any linkages between the community and the police - this kind of mistake could have been explained away. Today, when prevent is anywhere and everywhere, and there are hundreds of police officers employed to know about the community, how the police could have arrested the Shaykh is totally beyond me. That they spent fifteen months investigating this and then released him within seven days after searching his house just beggars belief. It confirms one of my greatest worries - that is there is too much focus including from the Muslim community on prevent and not enough on pursue.

From the policing perspective, the damage to the credibility of British counter-terrorism is immense. Some mistakes are just too big, and this is one of them. How are we supposed to take the pursue strand seriously? Let it be remembered that this is the same force that arrested the Pakistani students earlier this year.

Our problem as a community is that we react. Instead, we should be proactive and organised. We need to know:

Which officer was responsible for the decision to arrest the Shaykh. He has some serious explaining to do, on the very specific question of the arrest of the Shaykh himself - why was it necessary?

Who trains and has trained the counter-terrorism unit in North West (CTU NW)?

Which Muslims were responsible for advising on this arrest, if any?

How many Muslims do GMP or CTU NW employ or have in scrutiny positions?

If we wish to ensure that mistakes like this do not happen again, then we need to ask questions of those who are employed by us to protect us. Also worryingly, if the police are still arresting innocent good people then are they also missing the potential criminals?

Four Stages of Prevent

2009-11-01T03:24:00.000-08:00

The Guardian's recent reporting of examples of bad practice in the implementation of prevent are currently being investigated by the Home Office. Before I write about what I consider to be the core problems at present, I'd like to provide some context.

There are four stages in the development of the prevent strategy as it is currently in place.

The first stage was pre-prevent, if you like. If we take 9/11 as the beginning (this could be disputed, because there was some activity in this area in the 90s), then there was a period which I find most astonishing upto July 7 2005 in which there was no prevent. There was a leaked memo from Andrew Turnbull, the Cabinet Secretary of the time, to John Gieve, the Permanent Secretary at the Home Office at the time, in 2004 which gave indications of what prevent could look like in its embryonic stages.

The second stage began after the bombings in July 7 2005. This included the forming of seven working groups of Muslims that were called to advise the government in different areas including regeneration, youth, education, mosques, extremism, women and security and policing. Many recommendations were presented to government and some of them were taken up. The government was criticised for not taking up more of the recommendations, the response was that many of the recommendations could not be taken up by government because it remained for the community itself to take them up. A couple of succesful projects took off during this period including Radical Middle Way which was aiming to support the counter-radicalisation argument in the community.

The third stage was a response to the second stage. The problem with the second stage was that it involved activities at the national stage and there was not enough devolution of the prevent strategy to the local level, There needed to be productive partnerships at the local level for the prevent strategy to work thoroughly. Councils with large Muslim populations were therefore chosen and given small amounts of money in the first trial year to examine how this process would play out. The problem was that many councils were distant from their local Muslim communities and their youth, sometimes due to exclusion and sometimes due to history. The government decided to roll out a three year programme of funding for Muslim community groups to work together with the local councils on the prevent agenda.

This led on to the fourth stage. The police had a counter-terrorism remit which focused on the second strand of the contest strategy: the pursue strand which was about actually apprehending people who were about to commit terrorist attacks. It was about this time when counter-terrorism was refashioned with local counter-terrorism units and the Office for Security and Counter-Terrorism at the Home Office being constituted (I'm still not sure whether this was not an elobarate form of musical chairs). The fourth stage of prevent involved the funding of prevent strands specifically in police forces, sometimes aligned with the neighbourhood policing agenda. This was announced by government at the time.

There are several problems with prevent at present. But perhaps before I proceed I should state my position on prevent as a whole. Is prevent necessary, that is, if Britain has a counter-terrorism strategy, then should it have a prevent aspect to this strategy which is specifically about positive linkages with the Muslim community? I think it should, indeed, it must. Otherwise contest is left to senior CT officials who tend to be Home Counties, Oxbridge and clueless. There needs to be a corrective element which adds to the strategy and comes from the Muslim community itself, at least in principle. I don't know if there remains a major terrorist threat to this country, but if there is, then the CT prevent strand must be Muslim-focused and inclusive. This is how most effective policy responses to social problems work.

About the problems. First of all, it is not clear to me whether the walls between the community aspect and the policing aspect are Chinese enough. If they are not, then this is a major problem. The cases referred to by the Guardian indicate that there are problems in this area. The key problem being that funding is being provided to community organisations who are then leant on to provide information for pursue.

Secondly, there is this whole problem of ensuring the the whole community is represented in the prevent strategy to reflect the diversity of the community. This mixes the objectives of prevent and dilutes the effectiveness of the strategy, as is happening in several projects. The only justification that I can think of for prevent money from a state perspective is if it leads to actually making Britian safer, but this requires some strong-mindedness from the officials. For example, a non-practising Muslim with hardly any activist history will simply not have any effect on deradicalisation of extremists, but a practising one can. But the government and officials are too worried of the Daily Mail factor and so instead are more willing to fund meaningless projects which help no-one except those that are funded. Here. the government should I think call Paul Dacre in and explain what this strategy is about, what they are doing and why and then ask for some slack from the Daily Mail in the interests of the security of the country.

The third problem is recognising the difference between community cohesion and prevent. One positive aspect of prevent has been that it has helped community cohesion in one way - there are many succesful projects - by linking up Muslim communities that were previously excluded from police services and local councils to those same bodies, by force. This has been attritional and many have resisted, but it has brought more co-operation and therefore more cohesion where it matters most, between officialdom and the local communities. Others (in the South) that previously had good relations were upset by stigma associated with prevent but the honesty of their convictions can be tested by looking to see how they have involved and employed Muslims throughout the rest of their organisations.

The fourth problem is Muslim involvement itself. This has been a big failure and the fact that there is this current attrition between the OSCT and the community and the fact that many Muslims have simply not cared enough about the recent reporting are indications of the distance that remains between officialdom and serious leadership in the community. This is a disaster and I can only put it down to cowardice on the part of officialdom - to take on characters who would have given them a hard time, but for a good purpose. Something to do with comfort zones? Does this explain why so many clearly dodgy characters are hanging around the prevent agenda?

The Tories have stated that they will keep with Contest but review Prevent. The DCLG select committee is also reviewing prevent. Is the community itself at a different place now than where it was five years ago? Is prevent as important now as it was then? Is something else required now? Could streamlining prevent (making it fit for purpose), ringfencing police involvement in prevent and mainstreaming Muslim community participation and involvement in public services a surer way to make this country safer?

J'Accuse le BBC

2009-10-20T01:26:00.000-07:00

Nick Griffin, if you haven't noticed already, is due to appear on this week's BBC's flagship political programme 'Question Time'. There is much concern and commentary across the media about this as a key moment in the growing acceptability of the BNP. It is their moment of arrival. The first point that I'd make is that the narrative of the steady upward climb of the far-right is (like the fear of the Muslim take-over) exaggerated and complicated. Many places have seen the rise and fall of the BNP vote already. Other places are still experiencing a rise, but for different reasons - mostly to do with the fracturing of the Labour vote. The BNP tends not to be as succesful in Tory areas and this may be due to 'a class thing' - ex Tory voters tend to vote Lib Dem or UKIP, whereas ex Labour voters tend to vote BNP.

This issue to me is more about the BBC than it is about Nick Griffin, and it is more about the content than it is about personalities. Many commentators have noted a shift in BNP rhetoric over the years to focus on anti-Muslim arguments - the same arguments that we are all familiar with. He will no doubt refer to them on the programme. The problem for me is that it is not the case as far as anti-Muslim prejudice is concerned that Nick Griffin is the prejudiced one, and all the rest are not prejudiced. Rather, sadly, it is the case that the opinions that Nick Griffin would wish to put forward are indeed shared by many in the 'respectable political establishment' especially when it comes to Muslims. The accumulative result is that there may appear in fact to be some truth in what Nick Griffin is saying, because as in Venn diagrams there is too much overlap with 'mainstream politicians'. It will be in these moments when the nation will collectively gulp as they recognise that they are in agreement with the leader of the BNP. (J'Accuse le BBC). The anti-Muslim narrative will begin to assume an air of truth.

Let's look at the people that have been reported as being approached to attend this Thursday: Richard Littlejohn, Douglas Murray and Michael Gove. Unfortunately in relation to some of their views on Muslim communities, there is much overlap between these individuals in their opinions. Hence the opportunism of the BNP.

Even of those that have been selected: Sayeeda Warsi and Jack Bhai, there is still unfortunately some overlap. I still haven't got to the bottom of Jack Bhai's comments on the niqab when Minister after Minister followed Jack's lead to lay in to the Muslim community and off their own personal portfolio. That was just wierd. One day we'll find out. Sayeeda Warsi has to engage in the politics of compensation in which she has to celebrate her success as a leading Muslim politician and compensate for it at the same time by saying the kind of things that could be agreeable to a BNP voter.

I blame the BBC. If the boundaries of acceptability have been widened, and content has been added to the narrative, then the appearance of Nick Griffin on the BBC is not one huge leap for freedom, but rather another small step in the direction of support for anti-Muslim prejudice by the nation's broadcaster.

Those who follow this blog will know that I have been chasing the BBC on its continued inclusion of Melanie Phillips on the Moral Maze as a panellist even on Muslim related issues when many Muslims have had to put themselves in a position of vulnerability to someone who has called for the use of torture in the war of terror and that the problem with the British government's policy on counter-terrorism is that they are not taming Muslims like we used to do in the Raj (I'll leave it for you to put two and two together).

The BBC's flagship religious discussion programme is called 'the Big Questions' and has recently invited Douglas Murray as a panellist on Islam and Muslims when he has said in the past that 'Islam is an opportunistic infection in Europe' (why is he calling us opportunistic?). Again, there is overlap between people who have been given prime-time space to make their anti-Muslim comments and some of the things that Nick Griffin says.

I used to think that the BBC was left-wing and pro-minorities. This is until I heard Greg Dyke as CEO describe it as 'hideously white' and then began to come across people in public life as former BBC employees: Rod Liddle and Anthony Browne are two examples of people who have had very influential positions in the BBC and also hold extreme views on Muslims and multiculturalism. This has made me wonder. Perhaps the BBC is not the airy-fairy, nicey-daisy organisation that some make it out to be. Perhaps its active encouragement of the anti-Muslim position over the years is just the simple context for this next step to be taken this week.

Which returns me to my title: I accuse the BBC of neglect and the systematic devaluation of its Muslim community.

If I was in the BBC in the months after 11 September 2001 and I had a position of responsibility, I would have immediately called in three lieutenants and said: 'Right, we need Muslim journalists, Muslim producers, Muslim editors and Muslim writers - and I don't want people who know nothing about the community - we need to know what's going on, what they're thinking etc. Bring them in'. Instead, as many people who keep an eye on the BBC know, there has been very little inclusion but plenty of objectification of this over-represented minority. Even til today, while the anti-Muslim voice gains ground. I can give examples here, one is the recent radio 4 programme on Muslim identity by Kenan Malik which was really poor and boring. (Some will point to the appointment of Aqeel Ahmed as head of commissioning for religious broadcasting at the BBC as a counter-argument - all that this does is put the burden of representation on to one individual who has to champion and compensate at the same time within the above kind of environment. The BBC would be on much stronger ground if it can bring ten practising Muslims who are succesful and achieving producers/writers/journalists to the fore).

I don't have a problem with freedom of speech, I think Nick Griffin, Melanie Phillips and others do have a right to their freedom of speech, but, crucially, so do we. Sorry, so did we, during the Bush years.

And this brings me to the final point. It was Emile Zola who wrote the famous riposte 'J'Accuse' against the French state for the false imprisonment of a Jewish army officer Alfred Dreyfus for treason. This cultural moment in French anti-semitism became known as the Dreyfus Affair. Some cultural commentators have in their more inspired moments contrasted the similarities and differences between the Dreyfus affair and the Rushdie affair. To me, the key difference seems to be that the Dreyfus affair was about the false imprisonment of an innocent Jew which then lead to a fairer treatment of Jews as a whole. The Dreyfus affair disrupted the anti-Jewish narrative. The Rushdie affair is about the fatwa but it was also slanted against the differentiated community rather than for it as in the Dreyfus affair. The Rushdie affair compounded the anti-Muslim narrative. The BBC played an important role in the Rushdie affair (I have studied this matter for my PhD). It helped then to increase the distance between communities. That was in 1989. Today, twenty years on and amazingly despite the Bush years (the volume and the intensity), the BBC - despite the odd exceptions - stands at a place in relation to the Muslim community which is discriminatory and prejudicial.

There is an alternative narrative - there is nothing inevitable about the anti-Muslim argument - there is another way to talk about what is happening in our cities, but it will require the BBC to find the tolerance, the courage and the will to find those ten Muslims that I referred to earlier.

And my question for Nick Griffin on the day?

How many colours in the rainbow?

Regenerating the Heart of Bradford

2009-10-14T16:38:00.000-07:00

Visitors from outside of town when driving through Bradford may have noticed a huge hole in the centre of the city. This is because several buildings were knocked down a few years ago to make way for a new shopping centre which is to be built by Westfield - a leading construction company in this area. Bradford is basically looking to develop a mini-shopping centre like Meadowhall just outside Sheffield or Trafford Centre just outside Manchester, only smaller. There have been difficulties getting enough tenants for the centre and the recession managed to slow things down before they had got started. I would like to call for something completely different.

If we want to revive Bradford's city centre, then we have to ask why would anyone want to shop in Bradford when they can shop online, go to White Rose shopping centre in Leeds, or Leeds city centre itself (with Harvey Nichols etc.), or Meadowhall or Trafford Centre, or Manchester city centre which has come on leaps and bounds as well. Most people that I have spoken to have said that if they want to go shopping then they will visit one of these areas, not a lesser version in Bradford and I can't see how having a couple of the usual tenants (BHS, M and S) would attract a greater proportion of shopping public that is now more mobile and that has the ability to shop from home.

If we want Bradford city centre to work then we have to sell it as an experience, a multicultural experience - in fact, this is why many people from outside of Bradford come to Bradford - to 'have a curry'. Bradford on the street looks very different to what it did in the nineties. Great Horton road, Leeds road, White Abbey road... these roads are alive and one could argue that Bradford has become the eating out capital of the North overtaking Wilmslow road in Manchester of yesteryear. Clothing outlets like Atique Textiles and Bombay Stores have also developed and attract many visitors from outside.

This is where the regeneration chiefs need to make their presence felt - they need to bring these and individual parts of Bradford's economic life into one whole that is greater than the sum of its parts. The way to do this is to change the design of the city centre - as is already currently being planned but bring everything into one place: a park at the heart that is surrounded by the leading high street stores, the best Asian restaurants and fast food joints and the best Asian clothing outlets -who knows there may even be some intercultural fusion in this kind of set up so Bombay Stores could start selling goods that are Eastern and Western at the same time. That would be genuinely exciting. I know that the creative flair exists in Bradford to do this, it just needs some creative and decisive leadership from the regeneration wallahs so that they can begin to see a vision in which a family may decide to spend a Saturday afternoon in Bradford where they can pop in to Next and BHS but also stroll through a park to Mumtaz's for lunch before buying some ethnic Westernwear from Bombay Stores on their way home. This could make Bradford stand out from the crowd and draw in numerous customers from outside of the city.

Can the Geneva Conventions become our Hilful Fudul?

2009-03-23T13:32:00.000-07:00

The talk, as Contest 2 is released tomorrow, has been of 'Shared Values'. I am going to desist from engaging in some polemic but will ask the one question, can the Office for Security and Counter-terrorism release the names of the stakeholders whom it consulted with in order to ensure that its strategy is fit for purpose?

I've been thinking about the episode of the Hilful Fudul from the Prophetic Seerah. This was the time prior to Prophethood in which the Prophet had agreed to be a part of an agreement with various tribes and leaders which was a pact against lawlessness and for the upholding of justice especially for the weak and oppressed. The Prophet said during his Prophethood that if the Hilful Fudul were to occur again then he would have taken part in it again. This statement is used by some scholars as evidence for Muslim enagagement in beneficial pacts with non-Muslims.

Can the Geneva Conventions - which were put together in order to regulate war-time behaviour - become the Hilful Fudul of our time? Can Muslim states, organisations and individuals sign up to the principles of the Geneva Convention because they protect the weak and the oppressed? And thereafter, can we call for the upholding of the Geneva Conventions? And if so, would this make the world a safer and securer place for all of us? I don't know, these questions are asked here for the scholars to consider.

Five Questions for the Israelis

2009-01-02T12:19:00.001-08:00

Five questions for the Israelis:

1. What is the position in international law and Jewish law on a state firing a missile at a police station knowing that fifty policemen will be killed without knowing the opinions of any of those policeman?

2. What is the position in international law and Jewish law on a state firing a missile into a house in which women and children are sleeping? That is, why is the daughter of a Hamas leader as guilty as her father? How many innocent people can be killed before the act is declared forbidden?

3. Is there a difference in opinion (say between reformist and Orthodox positions) in the legitimacy of these acts within Rabbinical law?

4. What position does Ehud Barak hold?

5. Could Israelis point to credible and important Rabbinical figures that hold to the opinion that the taking of all innocent life is forbidden and therefore the bombing of Gaza and the economic embargo are forbidden by Jewish law?

And one question for everyone else:

1. Why don't you ask the same questions of the Israelis as you ask us? Are they more moral or so totally amoral that it is pointless to even begin a question on the point of morality? Is Israel the one country to which international law concerning human rights do not apply?

This situation is deeply troubling because it is an argument against the upholding of rights. Might is right. 'You see this fist. This is my moral authority'. This is exactly why we are where we are. Israel is a militarised and demoralised state. Its leaders can only assume the posture of a conviction politician when they are killing people, especially just before an election. Two ways to respond are to pursue these matters in international law and increase the pressure for clear, unequivocal moral stances on the sacredness of the rights of Palestinians as human beings like the rest of us.

Remember Saturday 27 December 2008

2008-12-29T14:32:00.000-08:00

We must not let Saturday pass. Israel crossed a line on that day and it must be held to account for it. At least fifty civilians have been killed and there must be some justice for them. They can not be forgotten in this pathetic, endless search for peace in the Middle East. Ehud Barak has some questions to answer, as do the Rabbis who justify this kind of action. Two aphorisms come to mind. The first is the line at the beginning of Schindler's List: 'Whoever saves a life, it is as if he has saved the whole of humanity'. And the second is from a Rabbi I heard at an interfaith conference about twenty years ago who said that the Golden Rule of Judaic law is 'deal with others as you would expect to be dealt with yourself'. I asked him then if this meant that Israelis were not living up to the teachings of their faith and he agreed. Come on Rabbis, speak out.

Even if the others were wearing uniform, I cannot but notice the resemblance between sending a missile into a police station in which fifty policemen are instantly killed (were they all supporters of Hamas? Can one be a supporter of Hamas and disagree with their policies? Does being a supporter of Hamas mean that you can be killed? Does this logic sound familiar?) and the suicide bombers in Iraq who kill Iraqis training to be policemen. This is indiscriminate slaughter and approximately 200 were killed on Saturday and Ehud Barak has some questions to answer.

Is Ehud Barak a war criminal?

2008-12-28T13:08:00.000-08:00

It is shameful that the British government can't find the moral fortitude to condemn a massacre.

I am not too clued up on international law but here are some questions for experts in international law and war crimes:

a) what is the position in international law on a government firing missiles into civilian areas if the action has not been sanctioned by the United Nations?

b) what is the position in international law on a government that fires missiles into civilian areas and this results in the deaths of civilians including women and children?

c) what is the position in international law on the defence minister, in this case Ehud Barak, who has spent months preparing this attack and then argues for its commission?

It would be useful to get on record all the buildings destroyed in yesterday's attack and the names and occupations of all those killed.

These are some questions that come to mind and I hope that there is justice available within international law for the innocents who were murdered yesterday.

There has been an ongoing debate within the Muslim community about the permissibility of suicide bombing within Israel. Scholars like Shaykh Qaradawi amongst others have stated that it is permissible and people like myself and others have questioned this ruling because there does not seem to be any clear shariah justification for the exception that has been made for actions carried out within Israel. And this is why I have asked questions of the British Board of Deputies in my previous post. It is time for the Board of Deputies to provide answers to the questions around moral and religious justification for assassinations and massacres according to Hebrew law. I cannot imagine how yesterday's actions could be permitted. One analyst has suggested that for every 1 Israeli death from the rockets there have been 150 Palestinian deaths in the last three years. I am against comparing deaths in this manner but this figure does give the lie to the Israeli spin on this being some kind of revenge for rocket attacks. It is about the peace process, the forthcoming Israeli elections and the new American administration. And this is why it is all the more shameful for Israel because it carried out this massacre. We look to senior Rabbis in this country to offer some moral leadership.

'You see this fist...'

2008-12-27T07:39:00.000-08:00

'You see this fist. This is my moral authority'. This is Harold Pinter on American hegemony in his speech of 2005 upon receiving the Nobel Prize in literature. Hearing today that Israel has assassinated about 200 people without a judge, a jury or a case for the prosecution for any of the individuals involved, I call for the condemnation of the massacre of Palestinians in Gaza who have already been subject to another form of collective punishment, the blockade. One rule for one, one rule for all. It is astonishing and totally unacceptable that this is being described as the beginning, as if it is somehow not enough - that we can tolerate it and tolerate more - and can perhaps be explained again by Pinter when describing the US in the same speech:

'It never happened. Nothing ever happened. Even while it was happening it wasn't happening. It didn't matter. It was of no interest. The crimes of the United States have been systematic, constant, vicious, remorseless, but very few people have actually talked about them. You have to hand it to America. It has exercised a quite clinical manipulation of power worldwide while masquerading as a force for universal good. It's a brilliant, even witty, highly successful act of hypnosis'.

It is time for the Board of Deputies to make a statement on its moral view on the using of airplanes to launch missiles into civilian areas. Is this allowed? Is it morally justifiable to kill seven Palestinians in order to kill one Palestinian?

A suggested response to the Moral Maze

2008-12-20T05:06:00.001-08:00

I've put the following together as a response to the Moral Maze's letter in response to our initial complaint (see earlier posts). I'd appreciate any advice on this and if you would like to add your name to this letter that I will send them in early January then please e-mail me on bradfordmuslimatyahoodotcouk.

Dear Moral Maze,

Thank you for your response to our complaint about the appearance of Melanie Phillips and Kenan Malik on the Moral Maze. We raised the point with you that Melanie Phillips has called for the ‘taming’ of Muslims and that therefore we regarded your continued patronage of her as a panellist as unacceptable in that you are allowing her the privilege of state-sanctioned power. We also raised the point of Kenan Malik’s recent involvement in the Moral Maze. It saddens us that the first Asian that you have chosen as a panellist on the Moral Maze is someone who publicly asserts that anti-Muslim prejudice is severely exaggerated.

In your response, you stated:

a) That you have only covered Muslims and Islam on three occasions in the last two years.

b) That the programme achieves balance through the invitation of Muslims as witnesses.

c) That Melanie Phillips’s views were not broadcast by the BBC

We wish to take you to task on these three aspects of your response.

First of all, you have stated that the Moral Maze has only covered Muslims and Islam on three occasions in the last two years. You mention the Archbishop of Canterbury’s speech on the Sharia, the government’s approach to language in counter-terrorism and the counter-terrorism approach in general as three themes that have been covered. But this is the central ‘conceit’ of your programme and the fundamental moment in which you are discriminatory in the most powerful of ways against us. These moments are times of national debate and conversation: the debate is heated and serious and has huge consequences for everyone including us Muslims as the objects of this discussion. At this moment, you stage a debate in which you have empowered one person who holds extreme perspectives in this debate to act as a regular panellist – inquisitor – of us who have to represent ourselves, and can only represent ourselves, as witnesses. The closest analogy is the court, and because of the way you have set up the debate, we can only appear on one side of it. The side which is guilty or not guilty. The inquisitor is someone who has publicly stated that the problem is with our religion itself and that we should be ‘tamed’. You state in your response:

And in doing so, you miss the above point. You have set up a panel which is unfair and discriminatory towards us. We feel it strongly and are telling you that it is the case.

Secondly, while remaining on this first point. You have mentioned three occasions in the last couple of years in which you have directly discussed Islam and Muslims. But some of us remember that you have also discussed the legitimacy of torture at the end of the last season in which Melanie Phillips argued for the legality of torture as part of the war on terror. You have not included this programme in your list. It was around this time that Melanie Phillips called for the ‘taming’ of Muslims.

You have also only gone back to the beginning of 2007. We feel that it would be more appropriate to go back to 2001 and count the number of programmes that discuss Islam and Muslims and then the number of times that Melanie Phillips has participated in these programmes. We also feel that it would be more appropriate for an independent person to analyse the topics, indeed, we think it would be most appropriate for an independent person to conduct a discursive analysis on all of your programmes that have discussed Islam and Muslims since 2001 as this would provide the most objective and fair analysis of the data. We are willing to recommend some academics to you whom we regard as fair.

Combined, we are suggesting that the number of times that you have discussed us would be more than you suggest, and even if proven otherwise, the act of representation that is ‘The Moral Maze’ is not a matter to be belittled.

Finally, you state in brackets that Melanie Phillips did not broadcast her remark on ‘taming’ Muslims on the BBC. We remind you that the BBC cancelled ‘Kilroy’ because of Kilroy-Silk’s comments made about Arabs that were published elsewhere. So we do not hold to this point and wonder what BBC editorial policy is on this?

To conclude, we do not accept your points. We still regard your programme as discriminatory towards us, in fact your choice of Kenan Malik seems to confirm this. We certainly feel that your programme is unfair. But in the first instance, we wish to provide you with the opportunity to make the programme fairer than it is at present.

In summary:

We do not believe that your programme is balanced as a whole because of the power difference between the panellist and the witness.

We do not believe that you have accounted for the frequency of your coverage of matters that affect us directly as a community in the most transparent of ways.

We seek to call in an independent academic to study the programme since 2001.

We ask you to change the structure of the programme in order to make it fairer in its treatment of us.

We look forward to hearing from you,

The Moral Maze's response on Melanie Phillips

2008-12-13T06:27:00.000-08:00

This is the response from the Moral Maze on the complaint that was previously sent by some of us to them about the inclusion of Melanie Phillips and now Kenan Malik as a panellist:

"Thank you for your letter about the Moral Maze and I'm sorry that you feel unhappy about the series. I too feel that the best way to answer your concerns is to look at the editorial decision making process behind the series.

The conceit of the programme (broadcast live 25 times a year) is that the panellists are NOT objective about the subjects of the week. They are chosen because they come with clear positions, passionately held. However, balance is achieved over the 43 minutes of each programme and over the run of a series because of the differing views of the panellists and of course the conflicting views of the witnesses. In addition, Michael Buerk, as chairman, is allowed to take the panellists to task if he believes they are over-stepping the mark. You may passionately disagree with Melanie Phillips's or Kenan Malik's views, and indeed the views of any of our panellists, but they are entitled to hold them and express them, just as you are free to object to them. (I notice that the quotes of Melanie Philips that you cite were not broadcast on the Moral Maze).

It is indeed true that at the moment we do not have a Muslim panellist on the programme, but that is not unfair, nor does it amount to discrimination against Muslims because when we do discuss subjects that affect Muslims in Britain, we have Muslim witnesses. It would be wrong for the programme not to discuss a subject unless we have a member of the panel who has direct experience of the issue. I feel your argument over representation might have had more merit if the Moral Maze did, as you say, "spend a considerable amount of time discussing Muslims in Britain" but going back nearly 2 years to the beginning of 2007 the Moral Maze has discussed subjects which touch on this issue only 3 times in a total of 55 programmes. For your records those editions were: 13/2/08 after the Archbishop of Canterbury's speech on Sharia Law, 6/2/08 on new Home Office guidelines for civil servants and police advising them not to use phrases such as "Islamist extremism" or "jihadi-fundamentalist" and on 4/7/07 after the Glasgow Airport bombing on how far is it morally right to engage with those who plan and carry out atrocities in an effort to understand their causes".

I'll be posting up a preliminary response that I am putting together in a few days. Any advice would be most appreciated: bradfordmuslimatyahoodotcodotuk.

Religion and the public sector duty

2008-12-06T12:38:00.001-08:00

Calling all bloggers! There is a piece of legislation which I would hazard to suggest is more important in its implication to the Muslim community than any counter-terrorism bill. This is because counter-terrorism law affects in the main a few individuals - and though I do not wish to denigrate the seriousness of any flouting of basic human rights such as the right to a fair trial etc. I don't think that a comparison against this forthcoming bill would find that counter-terrorism legislation is more deserving of attention.

I am of course referring to the Equality Bill which was announced in the Queen's Speech this week. This Bill follows on from the equalities review and the discrimination law review. The intent of this Bill is to declutter the law - that is to simplify all equality legislation and hence make it easier and hopefully more effective for public sector organisations to meet their equality duties.

I should provide some brief history: The Race Relations Amendment Act 2000 moved race relations law in the direction of tacking institutional discrimination. That is, what is it about public sector organisations like Councils or the Police that prevents them from providing a good enough service to ethnic minorities in employment practice and service delivery? The DDA 2005 and the Equality Act 2006 made similar improvements to disability law and law in relation to gender. Three further 'strands' began to request for inclusion as public sector duties - that is that tax-funded organisations should show how they are dealing institutionally with these strands: sexual orientation, age and religion.

The Equality Bill is about extending the public sector duty from race, gender and disability to include religion, sexual orientation and age. However, there has been a real behind-the-scenes debate about whether the public sector duty should include religion at all. The main campaigners for the extention of the duty to include religion have been from the Muslim community because they have suggested that there has been a distinct deficit that Muslims have experienced because of their religion. Including religion in the public sector duty is therefore very important if discrimination against Muslims is to be prevented and more importantly if there is to be a form of public and legal accountability on discrimination against Muslims. In fact, the prevent strand of the government's counter-terrorism strategy would be rendered useless in one moment if there was to be no accountability on discrimination against Muslims. In fact, it would be plain stupid. A massive campaign to win hearts and minds through symbolic, community development type projects while simultaneously permitting any form of service delivery or employment discrimination across all public sector organisations. How's that for joined-up government? (Could all members of the Young Muslims Advisory Group and Muslim Womens Advisory Group raise this issue at their next meeting?)

At this moment in time, religion is still being considered as a strand for the public sector duty. This means that if somebody were to be stigmatised at work because of his/her faith, then they could under this duty hold the organisation to account. Examples include all those instances when somebody has discriminated against you because of your faith in the past. I can quote a few in relation to myself. However, the Equality and Human Rights Commission that is charged to protect our rights has shown that it is wavering on this issue and I have some serious concerns:

a) the Commission has paid for some research to be extended to be conducted on 'Religion and faith in employment, education and services' by Marie Macey, Alan Carling and Sheila Furness from Bradford university. Who is Marie Macey? Well, her publications include: ''Class, Gender and Religious Influences on Changing Patterns of Pakistani Muslim Male Violence in Bradford". Would the Commission have funded a researcher to examine the case for race as a public sector duty if they had previously written on 'class, gender and racial influences on changing patterns on African-Caribbean male violence'? There are no Muslim academics in this country.

b) the Commission and the Government Equalities Office (which is the govt department that funds the Commission) have organised a conference on the implications of the public sector duty for the civil service. Guess who is giving the speech on respecting religion in public service delivery. Try three names and then click here to find the answer.

c) The joke is most definately on us. But it's not over yet. The Commission is funding a series of conferences on religion and human rights, especially 'what happens when rights appear to conflict and what sort of accommodation for religious practice is acceptable in the workplace'. Which organisation has been funded to organise these conferences? Click here for more information. And who is the only person with a Muslim sounding name speaking at these conferences? Maryam Namazie of the Council of Ex-Muslims.

The Bill is due to go through the Lords and Lord Lester is one of the main architects of the Bill. One of the main problems that we face in the Lords is that we are under-represented in it. Lord Lester said in the House of Lords on 26 June 2008 that 'All the strands, as we now call them, of discrimination are very well represented in this House'. As a campaigner, I do not hold this to be true. Here is an example of an unequal debate. There are hardly any equivalent Muslim voices in the House of Lords. We are under-represented and this means that as a community we are unable to defend ourselves as equals which we most certainly can. Please, keep an eye on this bill and get in touch with anyone you know in the House of Commons and the House of Lords to make them aware of the religion section of the equality bill and to work to ensure that the religion section is not diluted. Also, please ask the Equality and Human Rights Commission about what it is doing in relation to discrimination against Muslims.

On the new American President

2008-11-11T14:43:00.000-08:00

Thank you, America.

Some of us have been writing against American policies for quite a while now and in the process of doing so have been accused of being anti-American. I have always insisted that I am not anti-American and have referred to my various sources of religious inspiration and guidance that are American in origin. Much of what is happening within 'Western Islam' is American in origin: intellectually, culturally and spiritually. It was always a strand of the American experience that people like myself have argued against. That strand has now been consigned to the dustbin of history. I hope that history will be fair in its judgement on Cheney, Rumsfeld and co. 'You fool me once...'

America has reasserted its greatness through the election of Barack Obama to its Presidency. It's been a long time since I have felt inspired by political events - politics or news has in the main meant bad news. But this week, politics became good news, for several reasons. I am still considering the importance of this election and wondering whether there has been any singular more important political event in my lifetime, and I cannot think of one. So let's work through this.

First of all, though he may not read this, thank you to Barack Obama for daring to dream. This is good news for dreamers. I have - I can now proudly say - been accused of being a dreamer on many occasions - the Pakistani insult is 'Shaykh Chilli'. But Obama brings good news to the dreamers. He began as a dreamer and it is really eye-opening to watch his early speeches again after this election. His rawness, his sheer 'audacity of hope' - this was clearly a man who had seen something of the future in his imagination and decided that he was going 'to get there'. There are very few dreamers around today, let's hope that this victory will inspire some more.

Secondly, thank you to the democratic party for choosing Obama as your presidential candidate. The party could always have said that the country would not vote for an African-American to be President, but they didn't. This has been Labour's great failure on race equality. It has not believed that it could convince its own electorate to take race equality seriously. That is why they shied away from it in their second term and that is why they have little to show for it after ten years. The argument goes that it is the white working classes who will reject Labour if they appoint senior, serious ethnic candidates. This is why the Democratic party is to be applauded and thanked. It did not bow down before a milder form of racism.

Thirdly, thank you to the American people who voted in a clear majority for an African-American. The great danger for Obama was not McCain but not-Obama. Obama is to be congratulated here for articulating a vision that was beyond-race and the American people are to be congratulated for choosing a man who comes from one of their ethnic minorities as President.

It is difficult to state at this moment how much will change but which mean-spirited soul will deny that this election is one giant step forward in making the world a fairer place?

And then to Grant Park. Here is an account I've received from an associate who was there on the day:

'The atmosphere at Grant Park was a mixture of excitement and anticipation. I think everyone knew that this could be one of those days that would go down in history as a turning point. However, I think people were not entirely convinced or couldn’t believe that this was actually happening until Obama won Pennsylvania and his electoral vote was more then 270. The crowd at Grant Park can be drastically contrasted to McCain’s crowd in Arizona when he was giving his final speech. Nine or ten jumbo train TVs were set up all around Grant Park and they were all showing CNN. McCain supporters all looked like upper class, elite, conservative 'Caucasian' families. CNN showed the crowd at Grant Park and even the CNN commentator recognized the diversity of the Grant Park crowd. It was one of those few moments in history where all races, religions and cultures, regardless of status or income, came together for a common purpose. I mean, it’s not everyday that you see different nationalities, Muslims, foreigners, Hispanics, African Americans from the south suburbs and Caucasian’s from Wrigleyville, all in ONE location! I would say a good percentage of the population were young, between 18-29 years old. I even saw French tourists holding signs that they love Obama! A few of my friends had tickets to enter Grant Park and some of them came out before Obama even began to talk because they felt too crowded. There were people literally inches away from you. I was outside Grant Park with about 150,000 other people. We could hear Obama’s echo when he was talking. Reporters were everywhere asking people their opinions. A few of us got interviewed as well! After Obama’s speech, everyone was heading back walking on Michigan Avenue and it honestly reminded me of the Muslim pilgrimage. I would never say the experience is similar, but just seeing a diverse crowd walk together peacefully gave me that image. I’ve been to protests and demonstrations before, but nothing in this magnitude'.

Spike Lee in an interview after the election said that everything will now be BB or AB: Before Barack or After Barack. I thought that this was Spike being his hyperbolic self, until I read Mathew D'Ancona (the most astute conservative commentator) this weekend who said pretty much said the same thing, but in relation to British politics. That if before last week, the uber-fugure in British politics was Tony Blair and we could only tell who you were and where you stood in relation to him (so Cameron calls himself 'the hier to Blair'), well today, now, people like Cameron, Gordon Brown, Sarkozy etc. will all need to define themselves against, in line with or behind Barack Obama.

And if this is not about his personality, then it is about his message. And one final, important aspect of his victory. The use of the internet. The media - the print media, the US television networks - was weaker in its influence in the most important election on this planet. The internet - websites, Facebook, youtube, e-mailing - has allowed the masses to bypass media gatekeepers. It has made the marketplace of ideas more equal and in doing so has given power to the individual. This election in its result and in the way that it has been won is one great leap for mankind.

Letter of Complaint to the Moral Maze

2008-10-11T14:26:00.000-07:00

This is the letter to be sent to the producer of the Moral Maze. Please read it and if you would like to add your name then e-mail me at bradfordmuslimatyahoodotcodotuk with your name and city of residence such as 'Tony Cameron, London'. I will collect the names til Saturday 18 October after which I will send the letter.

Dear sir/madam,

We are writing to you about Melanie Phillips’ appearances as a panellist on Radio 4’s The Moral Maze. We believe that the decision to continue with Ms. Phillips as a panellist seriously undermines the credibility and authority of the programme. This is for several reasons which we will explain.

Ms. Phillips, it would be fair to say, is a controversial figure in the British media. This in itself is not problematic. What is problematic and damaging for the programme is if a panellist crosses the line of acceptability by pushing a range of discriminatory viewpoints. We would suggest that Ms. Phillips has done this recently in two ways which seriously undermines the integrity of The Moral Maze.

Our first concern relating to Ms. Phillips’ appearances centres on her disagreement with the British government’s counter-terrorism strategy which holds that the problem is with an ideological and distorted form of Islam, not Islam itself. Ms. Phillips wrote in The Daily Mail on 8 July of this year that

“[t]he Government believes that Islamic radicalism can be countered by teaching authentic Islam to Muslims. But since Islamic radicalism is based upon those very authentic religious precepts, this will undoubtedly have the effect of radicalising people who otherwise would never have thought in this way”.

This quotation, and its simple and lucid message, is in explicit contradiction to the following correction to an article written by Ms. Phillips for The Observer newspaper, dated May 26 2006:

“The extract below may have given the impression that Ms Phillips's book connects all British Muslims to a campaign of violence, whereas she stresses that the vast majority are peaceful and law-abiding. She also draws a distinction between Islam, which should be respected, and Islamism, which, she believes, is the use of that religion for violent ends”.

To put it simply, Ms. Phillips now believes that the problem is with authentic Islam itself.

Secondly, Ms. Phillips in the article on 8 July 2008 stated: “The reason so many older British Muslims are traditionally moderate is that they were brought up in the Asian subcontinent under a tamed form of Islam…” It is wild animals that are tamed or domesticated. This opinion is not only untrue, but also deeply offensive.

Our contention is that while it is perfectly acceptable for Ms. Phillips (or anyone else who shares such extreme and unpalatable views) to appear as a witness on The Moral Maze, it undermines the credibility of the programme when she appears as a panellist. Not only is it totally disenfranchising to Muslims like myself, it is actually unfair to a range of debates, some of which focus acutely on Islam, Muslims, multiculturalism and integration. This is especially true given that The Moral Maze does not have a Muslim panellist, has never had a Muslim panellist, and now includes an Asian panellist who has publicly stated that Islamophobia is a myth (Prospect Magazine, February 2005). We fund your programme through the license fee, but because of the way you have decided to structure your programme in content and design, we unfairly receive the returns of your work because of our faith.

How can a programme which spends a considerable amount of time discussing Muslims in Britain continue like this with one panelist who believes that Muslims should be tamed, another that Islamophobia is a myth and no actual Muslim representation? We contend that the way in which the programme is set up is unfair, offensive and discriminatory towards Muslims. What is your response?

Yours sincerely,

Andy Disgruntled, Tunbridge Wells;

cc:

Mark Damazer, Controller, Radio 4.

Roger Bolton, Feedback, Radio 4.

More on Mel P, the Moral Maze and the BBC

2008-10-04T00:42:00.000-07:00

I recently asked the BBC under a freedom of information request about the number of times Melanie Phillips has been on the Moral Maze since 2001, how many times she has spoken about Muslims and Islam and how much she has been paid to do so? I asked this question because I could not believe that the BBC - a tax-funded organisation - was paying someone who believes that Muslims should be tamed as 'we did in the Raj' and that the problem with Muslims is to do with Islam itself, not some ideological version of Islam.

She appears on 'The Moral Maze' which is one of BBC radio 4's main programmes tackling the critical issues of the week. Responding to the major moral dilemmas of the day, the programme invites numerous witnesses - usually people directly involved in the debate - to answer questions from a series of panellists. Melanie Phillips is one of these panellists. This puts her into a tax-funded position of authority and because many of the debates and programmes since 2001 have been about Muslims, she has been placed in a position of authority in these debates by the BBC. But Muslims are tax payers too. Muslims have never appeared (as far as I know) on the Moral Maze as panellists but we have appeared as witnesses, numerous times. So in this court of public opinion, the BBC has decided to set up a situation in which we are regularly judged upon but can never take part in (be integrated into) the judgement making. This is while the BBC has run presumably thousands of stories over the years about 'the lack of integration of Muslims', alas, if only they could see the beam in their own collective eye. I will return to this cultural beam later.

Muslims are tax payers too, and the BBC in its wisdom has refused to answer my questions on how many times she has appeared, has spoken in a position of authority on Islam and Muslims and how much she has been paid. The Daily Mail - for which Melanie Philips writes - recently complained about Alistair Campbell being paid by the BBC, insiders estimate that he has been paid £50,000 by the BBC over the last two years. Well, since the BBC won't tell me how much Melanie Phillips has been paid over the last seven years, I am going to guess. I guess that a nationally syndicated journalist appearing as a panellist on a flagship programme for radio 4 at peak times for about an hour is paid about £1,000 per programme. There are approximately forty Moral Mazes per year, so that's £40,000 per year. This is then multiplied by seven so that's £280,000 since 2001 from tax payer's money. It's a guess, so it could be more than this and it could be less than this. I believe though that this guess is wrong and that we have the right to know since she she publicly calls for taming people like me, changing the way I practise my religion and the legitimacy of torture. I call for a collective complaint against the Moral Maze by Muslims of all professions and persuasions. It is not acceptable that the BBC uses tax payer's money to put someone into a position of authority like this. Those who would like to be a part of this, please get in touch with me. Many Muslims I know get very upset by stories that they hear about torture carried out by US forces such as the alleged torture of Aafia Siddiqui, well, Melanie Phillips argues that it is legitimate as she has recently done on the Moral Maze.

As if to make matters worse and to prove the point, radio 4's Moral Maze decided to invite an Asian person on as a panellist: Kenan Malik, who has recently started. Kenan Malik is only really involved in one debate in this country and that is the 'race and multiculturalism' debate. He also has a healthy interest in Muslims, though is not far as as I am aware a Muslim. In fact, his involvement in this debate includes a programme for Channel 4 (a channel which was created to make cultural space for Britian's minorities!) on - wait for it - 'the Islamophobia myth'. Kenan Malik wrote this week for the Guardian in which he suggested that Muslims should put up with the pain of being offended. This is the multicultural addition to the Moral Maze, a brilliant example of the assimilationist ethic at work.

Anyway, in this article, Malik refers to numerous examples of self-censorship at work. What surprised me, and I suppose didn't surprise me, was the number of instances of anti-Muslim representation in culture - which if one treats culture as some form of organism shows that anti-Muslim representation is alive and well, whether it is open or not. Is this important? Of course it is. Is someone seriously suggesting that culture and violence are not related?

Anyway, back to the complaint. If you would like to contribute to a letter to the BBC Trust and the Department of Culture, Media and Sport which funds the BBC against the Moral Maze then please get in touch with me. The Moral Maze has no credibility in Muslim eyes and it is time for it to change.

You should also keep in mind that another section of the BBC is at present being investigated for anti-Muslim bias by Stephen Whittle. I would suggest that anti-Muslim bias is not solely located within one department. The Moral Maze and radio 4 may retort that there are no middle class Muslims who are capable enough to take part in these debates. The Guardian has proved this to be a lie through its Comment is Free pages which have allowed many Muslims to enter into debates which affect them and argue their corner in fair terms. The Guardian, though it is not tax-funded, is fairer than the BBC in this regard. I am sure that if the BBC tries hard enough, may be even trains a few people, it will find that there are people out there who can step into these positions. This is after all the great lie in the freedom of speech debate. Freedom of speech without the power and ability to get your point across is of no use to anyone. Kenan Malik may complain of a lack of free speech, but it is he who occupies a position of power in a debate that affects others.

Rumi on fasting

2008-09-28T04:23:00.000-07:00

I found this poem by Rumi on fasting, it has helped me reflect on Ramadan now that it is almost over:

There's hidden sweetness in the stomach's emptiness.
We are lutes, no more, no less.

If the soundboxes stuffed full of anything, no music.
If the brain and belly are burning clean with fasting,
every moment a new song comes out of the fire.
The fog clears, and new energy makes you run
up the steps in front of you.
Be emptier and cry like reed instruments cry.

Emptier, write secrets with the reed pen.
When you're full of food and drink,
Satan sits where your spirit should,
an ugly metal statue in place of the Kaaba.
When you fast, good habits gather
like friends who want to help.
Fasting is Solomon's ring.

Don't give into some illusion and lose your power,
but even if you have, if you've lost all will and control,
they come back when you fast,
like soldiers appearing out of the ground,
pennants flying above them.

A table descends to your tents, Jesus' table.
Expect to see it, when you fast,
this table spread with other food,
better than the broth of cabbages.

Goodbye Anne and Hello Marsha

2008-08-31T04:56:00.001-07:00

Anne Cryer announced last week that she would step down as an MP at the next general election. I have been watching her pronouncements far too closely to take seriously the claim that she has acted with integrity in her relations with the Muslim community. I hope some researcher will look into the relationship between her pronouncements and Home Office announcements and into some of the details surrounding her local Labour party set-up. I am sorry that she was not scrutinised enough for her claims. Examples include her support for Philip Balmforth, her recommendation for the need to learn English after the 2001 riots (!) and her public call for support from British Imams for her campaigns (I rang her office to offer support after gaining the agreement of two leading scholars but she never pursued it). She was more interested in generating anti-Muslim headlines than actually helping solve the problems that she highlighted. Her approach was one of turning towards the law rather than community development, and that is why the problems that she focused on remain.

And 'Hello Marsha Singh!' who is still here and could be here for another five years. What has he done for Bradford West? How has he lead the part of the city that suffers from some of the most deprivation? What does it say about the Labour party here that it gave us Marsha Singh? As I have mentioned before, he didn't even attend for the majority of the Home Affairs Select Committee enquiries into 'Terrorism and Community Relations'. Please local Labour party, apologise to us for devaluing us in this way, choose someone else to stand at the next election.

Mel P: Is it Islam or Islamism?

2008-07-25T15:23:00.000-07:00

This is Melanie Phillips on the government's approach to the Muslim community on extremism in the Daily Mail (July 8, 2008):

'The problem, however, is that it doesn’t understand what Muslim extremism is. Believing that Islamic terrorism is motivated by an ideology which has ‘hijacked’ and distorted Islam, it will not acknowledge the extremism within mainstream Islam itself.

The reason so many older British Muslims are traditionally moderate is that they were brought up in the Asian subcontinent under a tamed form of Islam, deriving from centuries of colonial rule, which glossed over much of the teaching of the religion.

The Government believes that Islamic radicalism can be countered by teaching authentic Islam to Muslims. But since Islamic radicalism is based upon those very authentic religious precepts, this will undoubtedly have the effect of radicalising people who otherwise would never have thought in this way'.

And this is Melanie Phillips with Asghar Bukhari on Sky News when her book was launched. And just to make it absolutely clear, this is a correction to an article by Melanie Phillips from the Observer (May 28, 2006):

'The extract below may have given the impression that Ms Phillips's book connects all British Muslims to a campaign of violence, whereas she stresses that the vast majority are peaceful and law-abiding. She also draws a distinction between Islam, which should be respected, and Islamism, which, she believes, is the use of that religion for violent ends'.

So which is it?

Mel P on the Moral Maze

2008-07-21T14:49:00.000-07:00

I blame Douglas Murray. He shouldn't have called us opportunists. I was reading Melanie Phillips' article on 'Sleepwalking into Islamisation' in which she has asserted that the problem with the government's counter-extremism approach is that it does not recognise that the problem is with Islam itself. You can read the article here. She states that :

"The reason so many older British Muslims are traditionally moderate is that they were brought up in the Asian subcontinent under a tamed form of Islam, deriving from centuries of colonial rule, which glossed over much of the teaching of the religion".

This is appalling. The Daily Mail, as a private organisation, is free to employ her services. However, she also appears on the Moral Maze for radio 4. So I have sent the following questions to the BBC and await a reply:

How much are members of the Moral Maze team paid for each of their appearances on the Moral Maze?

How many times has the Moral Maze covered Islam and/or Muslims as the main topic since September 2001?

How many times has Melanie Phillips appeared on the Moral Maze as a member of the Moral Maze team since September 2001?

How many times has Melanie Phillips appeared on the Moral Maze (as a member of the Moral Maze team) when the main topic of discussion has been Islam and/or Muslims since September 2001?

Douglas Murray on opportunism

2008-07-19T14:15:00.000-07:00

The recent Dispatches investigation into the level of anti-Muslim prejudice in British society is a reminder, if the Daily Mail needed one, that journalists should be careful about the stories they use to peddle prejudice. The danger is that some of these stories may not even be true and then people will cease to believe what they read in the tabloids. And what will we do then, turn to wikipedia for the latest correction?

The Daily Mail has splashed with several stories this year which have been followed by other papers as well which have turned out to be either untrue or heavily exaggerated. This includes the 'hundreds of forced marriages' story, the 'Muslim no-go area' story and another story that I might have made up when nobody was looking.

Douglas Murray turned up on the Islam channel last week to defend the anti-Muslim position. The programme was chaired by Anas Altakriti. Peter Oborne, who presented the Dispatches programme, and a Muslim journalist, who worked on the progamme, debated with the Murray. I am only recording it here for posterity's sake because some important points were raised, including about Murray himself.

First of all, Murray made his statement that he is of course against any violence against Muslims and would be upset if any of his writings would have encouraged such tendencies. Then he said, however, that he agreed with Trevor Kavanagh, the former political editor of the Sun, who said that the only reason the Sun went with numerous untrue stories about Muslims was that it was only Muslims and not any other religious or ethnic minority that were intent on terrorism.

Murray was countered here by the Muslim journalist who reminded him that the majority of the anti-Muslim stories about Muslims were not about terrorism but about Muslim culture - the hijab, Muslim schools, family life, religiosity etc. If the focus on Muslims was specifically to do with terrorism, then this could form the basis of a defendable position. But as the Cardiff university study on media reporting since 9/11 has found, this is not the case (this issue is examined in detail in the study). This is about the pathologisation of one group of people.

Next point. The Dispatches programme asserted that what was being said about Muslims could not be said about anyone else. The Murray refused this and asked for examples. The Muslim journalist in a moment of inspiration which must have come from the heavens reminded him that he himself had described Islam as 'an opportunistic infection'. The Murray initially refused to accept that he could have said anything so unacceptable. But was then reminded that he had said this in his speech to the Pim Fortuyn Memorial Conference in February 2006, a speech which is still publicly available. The Murray then, astonishingly, defended his statement. Theorists of culture and prejudice, and amateur ones like myself, can quite clearly see that we are living through a time in which the culture of one community is being singled out for particular denigration. Douglas Murray is a part of this. He is influential on the right. One hopes that the right will reconsider their association with someone like this. Why is he calling us opportunistic?

Educating Muslim children

2008-04-26T16:24:00.000-07:00

Why are Muslim schools oversubscribed? Why is there a demand for them from so many Muslim parents? People who are against Muslim schools have to first of all answer these questions especially within the context of a choice-dominated public sector agenda. The anti-Muslim argument is that Muslim schools are a form of protectionism that harm community cohesion. This led to the rather absurd suggestion after the riots of 2001 that Muslim schools were the cause of the problem (most of the rioters were from local comprehensives). Well, protectionism is as much a part of Muslim schools as it is a part of Christian or Jewish schools. The Muslim case is that Muslim schools are necessary because Muslim children feel confidant within them and they grow up therefore as confident citizens ready to participate in society.

But I have not been convinced by the argument for Muslim schools and remain doubtful as to whether we should invest so much of our energy into building more schools. Muslim schools, the good ones, tend to be normal primary schools or secondaries but with Quran classes, an assembly and an admissions policy. Well, the admissions policy is is effectively de facto in place for many state-run schools anyway, so that leaves assemblies and Quran classes. This leads me on to madressas. Many children, if not the majority of Muslim children, spend most of their time in a state run school and then between one and three hours every evening in a madressa. This has become the norm for education in the Muslim community. But education is one of the areas in which we are weakest. The results show that though a sizeable proportion are doing well, the majority are underperforming. Are these two issues related? This is controversial because many people from the education sector suggest that the madressas are the cause for Muslim underachievement. This is a part of the parents blaming the teachers and the teachers blaming the parents culture. The madressas also need to face some hard truths. How many children return to the mosque after 11? The majority disappear, though they spent in the main two hours every day for five days a week for four years there. And how much of this teaching equipped them for the identity issues that they will face as teenagers within a modern British culture? I think there needs to be a serious re-think here about the madressa system.

But back to the question of Muslim schools themselves. Those who advocate against Muslim schools still have to deal with the fear that Muslim parents have against some non-Muslim teachers. This is not unfounded. I have been shouted at, told to leave my parents (twice) and insulted whilst receiving my education. During the Rushdie affair, I was told that one non-Muslim from an educational establishment was overheard in a conversation saying: ‘Why can’t we just take these kids away from their parents?’ Quite. Anti-Muslim prejudice amongst teachers is well-known. This is why the recent suggestion by the National Union of Teachers to incorporate Muslim instruction into normal schooling hours is such a positive suggestion. If Muslims could get onto the school governing boards and acquire senior positions in school management (such that ownership is shared) then incorporating instruction (i.e. something resembling the madressa) into normal schooling hours sounds like a fantastic idea. The madressa model may need to be changed in order to do this, but it may help Muslim achievement in two ways. Firstly, Muslim identity becomes part of the norm (not separated off) and secondly the children will have more time to be children i.e. to play. Muslim schools at the most cater for a few hundred children but Muslim demographics mean that we need to provide educational solutions for the thousands. This suggestion by the NUT seems to offer a far more practical solution.

Counter-productive counter-terrorism

2008-04-22T15:29:00.000-07:00

Speak to your brother with respect, care and love,

And he might listen,

Tell him how bad he is, and how great you are,

Well, then,

Don’t be surprised if he walks away

Stronger in his belief

Than he was before.

Speak about your brother to others,

About how bad he is…

And you expect him to change?

When he finds out

That you have been speaking about him

To others, the saint that he is…

Or that you want him to be.

Remember, he is your brother,

Not a saint.

Does Bradford need a mayor?

2008-04-17T11:32:00.000-07:00

Or Bradford's political future - part two

A question to ask here is what kind of change is required in Bradford for it to move on some of the major issues that we face: namely education and employment. This is where changes to local government are relevant. One of the options being presented to local government is to change the decision making structure. At present, Bradford has 90 councillors and the executive is made up of councillors from the leading party (which in this case is the Conservative party because it is in coalition with the Liberal Democrats – Labour has the most councillors in Bradford but not enough to command a majority) and the Council Leader is appointed by the lead party. The nature of Bradford as a metropolitan district has meant that it has proverbially hung in the balance between the rural and suburban Tories and the inner-city Labour party. Local elections occur every year and so the political structure is forever fragile. This remains the case today. What this means is that the politics of the city is too fraught for there to be any major movement on some of the central issues. With employment a serious concern and a rising youth population, this means that without leadership we could end up meandering into a troubled place.

The options being presented by DCLG are either to keep the present structure or to move towards a mayoral model like in London. Bradford currently has a mayor but this is a symbolic role. The new set-up would make the mayor directly elected for a 4 year term. The next question is what are the big issues or the political issues for a place like Bradford? Is there any real difference in local policies between the Tories, Liberal Democrats and Labour? With the convergence towards centrist politics on a national stage on many local democracy issues, I would hazard a guess that locally party politics is less important than at the national stage. Nevertheless, this does not mean that Bradford is not a political place. I think the one major political issue that could emerge in a direct mayoral election is the issue of multiculturalism. I can’t see potential mayors arguing over the size of adult services (that’s social services for adults) but I can see mayoral candidates arguing over the issue of multiculturalism (the US presidential election and the London mayoral elections are examples of this). It’s possible that a far right candidate could emerge and perhaps it would be useful to have an open debate about it but there certainly could be an opportunity for the far right to make its case. There would need to be some unity candidates that offered a vision for a united and prosperous city. I can see the beginnings of such a language emerging at present across the parties (excluding Anne Cryer). So this is something that needs to be considered.

Also, a question needs to be asked about whether a mayoral candidate or candidates are actually available in Bradford? Can the Muslim community offer a candidate? Can the political parties offer candidates? If the candidates are not available, then is it any good to pursue a system which will rely on strong candidates?

Finally, people who decry Muslim representation point to the effectiveness of the biraderi system in getting people in to councillor positions. It is certainly possible that the biraderi system could be used to help elect councillors within a mayoral system but there is another way of single-handedly wiping out their effectiveness: if councillors were elected towards a Bradford assembly through proportional representation system as in London, then the Biraderis would be much weakened. It’s much easier to organise for 2,000 votes in one ward than it is for 50,000 across the district. So if Bradford is to face the major political challenges that lie on its doorstep, then it may have to consider changing its political system.

Bradford's political future - part one

2008-04-15T14:48:00.000-07:00

Local democracy is undergoing considerable change at present. Labour have set out their case through ‘Strong and Prosperous Communities’. This shift in emphasis is a move away from centralisation. When Labour came into power, they decided that in order to achieve on the major deliverable agendas, they required strong government. This meant more power for 10 Downing Street and less for the respective departments. Targets were set across health and education in order to encourage improvement in public service delivery. However, much of this delivery has been dependent upon the performance of local organisations like councils and health trusts and an integral part of this local set-up has been the role of the councillor who is supposed to provide local leadership and scrutiny.

Bradford has about 90 councillors, and about 20 of them are Muslims. This is interesting in that Muslims have achieved more representation through direct democracy than through the council structure itself. However, there have been and obviously are several major criticisms of the councillors. Some are currently accused of postal vote fraud. But the bigger crime to me is their lack of involvement in the city itself whether in the form of leadership or scrutiny. This has meant that in the absence of a credible local Muslim leadership, there has emerged a vacuum which has allowed many unsavoury things to pass. What this has practically meant is that some of us have taken on the role of ex-officio councillors, though no-one knows this and neither do we. We have informed people about public policies, directed them about how they can improve their civic involvement and called for scrutiny where necessary. This is because the current system isn’t working.

The government recognised that this was an important issue and so set up a Councillors Commission which reported back to the DCLG a few months ago. I’ve been trying to encourage others to consider taking up the role of councillor in Bradford but most have been reluctant. This is because they have doubts about how the system runs at present and also because they are unsure of which party to join.

Funding and the Muslim third sector - part two

2008-04-12T01:44:00.000-07:00

Now here comes the Preventing Extremism funding. The government has just announced that the Preventing Extremism fund is to be increased to 70 million over the next three years and this means an increase of up to threefold. There are two contradictory problems that face us here. The first is that as interventions go, this intervention of 70 million into the Muslim voluntary sector over the next three years is a massive intervention – and we should definitely be monitoring it. It is a deliberate act of intervention into the collective Muslim will.

The first point to recognise is that Muslims are not the only ones who are seeking this money. Organisations such as Inter Faith Forums are also seeking this money and unfortunately not everyone who seeks this money is doing so with benevolent motives, as I have found out. This whole process needs to be monitored from the Muslim community perspective.

The second point is that the money is tainted. The experience of some projects already funded suggests as such. Even if one has good ideas and they are well-implemented and achieve some of their objectives, the fact that the money comes from the government’s counter-terrorism budget damages the credibility of the project and those associated with it.

The third point is that the money and power of government can sometimes be demanding. If the project being funded cannot withstand the dictates of government for fear of loss of funding or simply a lack of independent spirit then it can be forced to accept aspects to its project which may damage the project or its delivery – this is especially since the civil servants working on this seem to be fresh and therefore quite ignorant of the consequences of their strategies. Again, there are examples of this.

All of which returns us to the fact that remains which is that many groups will be selected for funding through this funding stream. The alternative would be to mainstream concerns on Muslim disadvantage within the major departments.

Instead, my considered suggestions are:

a) to monitor the projects being selected and delivered

This can be done by finding out which officer at your government office is responsible for this and then which officer at your local council is responsible for this and asking questions of them. If the answers are not forthcoming, you can consider the use of freedom of information requests.

b) to consider applying while remaining independent

I would suggest focusing on Imam training in cultural literacy, volunteering as sadaqah and mentoring of youth at risk of offending.

It is probably useful to have some critical tension between points a and b.

But perhaps with all of this funding, we return to the subject of one of my previous posts. Muslims are not short of money, alhamdulillah. There is no reason why we cannot adopt a stance of financial independence on at least some of our core concerns. We could then at least make sure that we are not dependent upon funding from government for what are important projects, and decide to take on partnership working with government on a project by project basis.

Funding and the Muslim third sector - part one

2008-04-09T14:39:00.000-07:00

There used to be a time when people used to do things for free. I remember it well. Sacrifices were made, spirits were high and we did things because we believed it was the right thing to do and needed to be done. Today, this is no longer the case. Today, much of it is about funding, and how sad it is that it is about funding.

I was involved in what can be loosely termed ‘Islamic work’ from the late eighties through to the late nineties, after which I took some time out to complete a thesis on Muslim identity politics and reconsider my own Islamic ‘alignment’. When I returned to the Islamic scene, one of the first things that I noticed in the change in culture was that there was a new word doing the rounds: funding. Everyone was interested in one thing: funding. When I suggested an idea, people would ask: ‘Do you think when we could get funding for it?’ or say ‘That’s a good idea, should be able to get some funding for it’. I began to become quite frustrated with this attitude, because the key question of Islamic organisations was not whether they were fit for purpose, rather it was: are they fit for funding?

This change is obviously related to the policy context. The early nineties were a time when there wasn’t much finding about and by the late nineties New Labour policies had begun to impact on government departments and resource distribution. European funding streams were in full flow at about this time as well.

New Labour has two basic approaches to social problems which can be summed up as ‘what works’ and ‘if there’s a problem, throw money at it’. New Labour has done so in health, education, employment etc. through various initiatives aimed to improve conditions in many urban areas sometimes through concentrated efforts such as health or education action zones and sometimes through general policies that are implemented through local councils or strategic partnerships such as neighbourhood renewal. This has meant that there has been millions of pounds ploughed into many cities and Bradford has benefited also. Trident, Regen 2000, Manningham SRB, Royds – there are various initiatives which were undertaken as part of regeneration projects. Many of the people who were previously involved in Islamic work or thereabouts became involved in such initiatives and the results have been mixed. Some projects have yielded strong results, others have floundered, while others have squandered public money.

There has always been one key structural problem in the delivery of this ‘throw money at it’ agenda – whether it was about Sure Start, education initiatives, regeneration initiatives and even community cohesion and this was about leadership. The assumption was that the money was enough to solve the problem, but these problems required more: they required leadership, good analysis and partnership working. However, many of these initiatives that were required to involve local communities would usually be led by outsiders – people who had the cvs to match the person specification required to lead such a project – the local community was unable to provide such candidates because they had simply not had the experience, sometimes for reasons of cultural exclusion. It would take a couple of years for the management to get a good handle on the problem and then a year or two more to get some partnership working with the community by which time it was time to assess the project or in some cases to close it down. Progress on some key deprivation-related issues has therefore been slow. The problem with all of the funding up to this point (and up to a point) was that the Muslim community never really got a handle on it, it has been a case of many opportunities lost.

Forced data on forced marriage

2008-04-06T06:25:00.000-07:00

There's been a bit of debate about forced marriages in Bradford recently. Hold on to your hats.

The government is consulting on various aspects of the Forced Marriage Act at present. The Daily Mail reported on 11 March that more than 3,000 Asian children were missing from school and 'forced into Asian marriages' (sic). The article states the following:

'The study followed revelations last week that 33 girls were missing from schools in Bradford despite extensive efforts to locate them, amid fears that they were pressured into marriages abroad'.

This follows on a from a previous Daily Mail article which reported on Kevin Brennan's (who is Children's Minister) presentation to the Home Affairs Select Committee which is currently running an enquiry into Domestic Violence. Last week, representatives from Bradford Council and Education Bradford were asked to appear before the committee. They explained to the committee that the figures if broken down by ethnicity and gender meant that that there are major concerns about the numbers supplied by the Children's Minister. The uncorrected transcript (you have to scroll down) makes for fascinating reading. The committee heard that of the 33 pupils mentioned, there were no secondary school Asian girls and one secondary school Asian boy on the missing register. There is now an investigation underway into how information that supports prejudice against a community has made its way into the media. Philip Balmforth, the police's support worker, is currently being investigated by West Yorkshire Police. Previously, there have been suggestions that there are between 170 and 400 cases of forced marriage per year in Bradford. Though the Home Affairs Select Committee heard that there has actually been one a year for the last three years. My only question is (apart from what the heck is going on?), whatever strategy the government adopts, how useful will it be without the community on board?

Liberalism and conservatism part two

2008-04-04T12:38:00.001-07:00

This brings me to an argument that is going on within the community at present about how the community should reach out from its centre. If, as I am suggesting, there is a moral conservatism at the core of religious self-discovery, then a challenge emerges as to how to take that argument out to others. Public advocacy of moral conservatism is not the easiest way to make friends and influence people, and so, many have decided to liberalise in order to reach out to others while remaining true to their core message. The media makes much of this struggle. And no doubt it has been successful. The question is what to do next? Does winning numbers make it right - within the current context of the culture war? Do we need to be careful against unnecessary chauvinism?

Most of those who have become religious have done so through a morally conservative critique of the society around them. This has in many cases been tempered by an approach that feels uncomfortable with isolationism and righteousness. Simultaneously, Muslims have sought to engage with wider society, but this has meant reaching out beyond their ‘home constituencies’.

Thos who are attempting to engage are attempting to do so to a liberal recipient. This is because much of the critique comes from liberalism. So they are responding to the critique by engaging with it, this involves a liberalising of their own approach in order to meet others at some halfway point, but those with a conservative constitution find such manners of engagement difficult, paradoxical even. And this is the paradox that we face today: the transition from protest to engagement is occurring simultaneously through a liberalising mechanism. That many groups are seeking to engage, to break out of the rhetoric of the last ten years or so, but to do so requires a fundamental shift in approach which if acceptable sometimes has consequences and associations which cause discomfort. An example is Yusuf Islam who has recently released a new album which attempts to widen his reach but he has done through the use of musical instruments. Another example is Sami Yusuf. I think it can be avoided in many areas, but I don’t see how it can be avoided in its totality. Some who seek to block the whole strategy of engagement can only seem to think of such paradoxes.

I don’t know the answer to this, except that it has to be taken in a case-by-case scenario. We should recognise the difficulties as a necessary part of this transition, and assess the nature of each attempt at engagement. We should consider how such shifts in strategy change who we are and what we are about, specifically, how such changes affect our stance towards the Divine Command and wider society. That is, why are we Muslim and what does that mean today?

Liberalism and conservatism part one

2008-04-02T15:31:00.000-07:00

Are Muslims essentially liberal or conservative? This question strikes at the heart of the some of the debates within the community at present. It is about our relation to wider society and our understanding of our own morality. At the outset, it should be made clear that British society is not monolithically liberal and Muslim culture is not monolithically conservative. But nevertheless, the debate rages.

So let’s begin with a few definitions. By liberal I wish to refer to two aspects of this liberalism – one is the appeal to individual rights as law and the second is liberalism as permissive culture, of course, the two are connected, in that it would have been difficult to have achieved some form of permissive culture without an appeal to the rights of the individual. Muslims don’t have much of a problem with rights of the individual under law as they employ such rhetoric or even the law itself in the war on terror. In fact, an appeal to certain foundational aspects of liberalism has formed the cornerstone of the Muslim and wider critique of the war on terror – the right to be free from the state, the right to travel and associate freely, the right to be free from abuse and torture etc. Permissive culture has been facilitated by ‘freedom from state interference’ arguments as well and this is where I think the first relation between liberalism and conservatism emerges.

A question could be asked, why is it that the second generation Muslim youth in Britain decided to take on religious identities while they were living in a permissive culture? Can it all be put down to international politics and ideology? Was ideology a sufficient motivator to be able to make people withdraw from a permissive society which has offered them all sorts of enjoyment and pleasure? Many media commentators and screenplay writers think so, and I think it is a failure of the imagination that they have failed to realise why so many went religious and so profoundly. It has to be deeper than that, and the answers come from a deep engagement with the core questions of life, meaning, spirituality and religion. Many Muslims observed the ‘hedonistic’ lifestyle around them and wondered why they should similar engage in such endeavours. Indeed, truth be told, many have taken part in such lifestyles for many years and then turned religious – some of the leaders even. That is, many of them have considered hedonistic lifestyles and decided that they wished to adopt a morally conservative approach to life instead. An intellectualised explanation of this can be accessed in the first hundred pages of Alasdair MacIntyre’s ‘After Virtue’. Their conservatism is therefore oppositionally related to the permissive culture around them.

This conservativsm does not mean that they do not wish to take up the language of identity rights or individual rights, this has been very successfully achieved over the last decade or so. However, there is a tension in the relation towards permissive culture. Here I want to introduce a second problem. Permissive culture is easily understood by most readers, however, this does not mean that the culture within which we live is totally permissive, it is only selectively permissive, and very selectively at that. In fact, there are very few absolute libertarians about, most people hold to several strands of discipline in their lives and these are associated with their class positioning and life ambitions (for example around public service, health and education – again to do with notions of individualism). This is about the relation between morality, class and culture and as any student of British society knows, Britain is a very complicated place in this regard. Britain is not a society with one culture and one major disciplinary regime, it is society of many cultures and many regimes, mostly well-disciplined. So practicing Muslims may for example withhold in disagreement from certain aspects of British society – say drinking – but may also agree and argue for discipline around other aspects of British society – say pursuing education or the importance of reading and writing. The differences between what could be called Muslim conservatism and British permissivism are therefore not as stark and widespread as some anti-Muslim Iagos would like to suggest. Nevertheless, areas of difference do remain and they will need to be negotiated.

Foot in the sink and cultural convention

2008-03-28T14:37:00.001-07:00

Anyone with a moderate disposition please look away now. Many of us have been faced with the rather embarrassing situation of placing one’s foot in the sink at a public toilet in order to complete ablutions before prayer. I usually get looks: ‘What’s he doing with his foot in the sink?’ The cause for discomfort is that something is out of its place. Our feet should be in our socks, in our shoes, not in the sink. But this has made me think about cultural convention. Also in public toilets, one can find urinals. I have always found urinals unpleasant and the social convention around walking up to a urinal and then revealing the most intimate part of the body to others very uncomfortable. But others treat this as a norm and walk away as if nothing strange happened, and that is because according to cultural convention, nothing strange did happen. But don’t put your foot in the sink, that’s just ‘wrong’.

Call to Muslim bloggers

2008-03-24T03:43:00.001-07:00

This is a call to Muslim bloggers and all Muslim internet types to do some more journalism. We need more more journalism and less comment. The war of positioning that has been on-going for the last few years has meant that many of us have written, rightly so, on the various matters and issues around the debates (I will be posting on these issues). Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Ed Hussain and Anjum Chowdhury amongst others provide a plethora of debate about how Muslims should respond to the various issues that face us today and we should rightly be enagaged in these debates, whether it is about the niqab, or terrorism, or Muslim schools etc. However, what has happened simultaneously is that there has been less and less journalism. Journalism is the documentation of recent history whether this is about arrests. politics, funding decisions, reports etc. Though some of this is being covered in the blogosphere, there are still many issues and events that are going completely unnoticed. This is especially important because narratives are built upon events - or reported events - it is therefore very important for us politically to ensure that all that is happening on the ground is sent out into the public sphere. As you are all aware, parts of the media are very selective about what is reported. Whether this is about the Charity Commission investigating an important mosque in Bradford, or deaths in custody in Armley jail, or attacks on Muslims in the streets, or the nature of government spending on counter-terrorism (neighbourhood policing versus community development), or the many, many other things that should all be followed and monitored as a matter of justice, in the absence of any effective news journalism from the main national Muslim media outlets, it remains the job of the bloggers to inform the rest of us in straight, evidential detail as to what exactly is going on in the rest of the country.

More deaths in Leeds prison

2008-03-23T15:16:00.001-07:00

There have been two more deaths in custody at Leeds prison. This is after a report was published by the Independent Monitoring Board into conditions at the prison. Kassa Osebu was awaiting trial for the murder of his wife and he was found dead in October last year and this last week, Masuillah Hafesjee, a convicted sex offender, was found dead as well. David Hanson is Minister with responsibility for prisons at the Ministry of Justice.

A tale of two mosques

2008-03-20T14:12:00.000-07:00

I have spent a considerable amount of time hesitating about whether to post on this topic but recent events have suggested that it is no longer a matter which should be left undisclosed. At the heart of the debate on the future of the Muslim community in Bradford and in Britain is the issue of the role of the mosque. Most mosques have committees which organise and manage their affairs and Imams are brought in to conduct the rituals and sermons. As such, the Imam is usually under the jurisdiction of the committee. This takes me back to a post I wrote on the nature of leadership in Muslim culture in which I identified four characteristics: the Imam, the Mufti, the Amir and the Wali. It is certainly the case that there are some individuals who are able to combine all four roles within their expansive personalities but these individuals remain as exceptions. Instead, usually there is some informal division of labour within the community. The Amir tends to be a councillor or a secretary of the committee, the Imam may be the Mufti as well (but may not be), and the Wali is the man who stands next to the radiator. What we are looking for in these turbulent times is leadership: spiritual leadership (how to take us beyond the dunya – the temporary – towards the Eternal) and political leadership (how to respond to the various issues that Muslims face in Bradford). There are many aspects to this and many shades in between. I would like to term a certain form of leadership moral leadership. This is about spiritual and political leadership – it is about how one responds to the justification of terrorism, or how one responds to violence against Muslim women by Muslim men, or how one responds to benefit fraud, or how one responds to the way some young Muslim men treat others in the streets of Bradford – this is all about moral leadership which is political in that it is in the world but it is lead by a spiritual vision that approaches the world with a clear understanding of what counts and what does not. The mosques should really be the places – the sources – of moral leadership. But they are not. Practically speaking, they fulfil, at most, the function of teaching the rules of the religion and even this is something which I would say is failing – I will post on the madressa system as it is operating in Bradford later. What is required is clear direction, moral courage and honesty. But many Muslims seek all of these things from elsewhere, either from the internet, books or elsewhere...

This brings me on to the tale of two mosques in Bradford. On one side of Bradford, in Bradford 3, is Madani Mosque which recently won Islam channel’s mosque competition to seek the best mosque in the country. On the other side of the city, in Bradford 8, is Hanfia mosque. Madani Mosque’s strength is the involvement of its second generation in the management of the mosque itself. They have access for women, have organised many events for the youth and have active outreach programmes into the wider community. Hanfia mosque was heading in the same direction until they unceremoniously released their Imam from his duties. This is a mosque in the heart of a community that has suffered two riots. This particular Imam has secured the confidence and enthusiasm of hundreds of young men from the area. He has helped guide many of them towards becoming model citizens. But the committee asked him to leave. A complaint was made against the mosque. The committee has since been disbanded and a new committee formed which is now investigating the matter (this is changing week by week) and I understand that the Charity Commission is now involved. It may be that all those accused are innocent but my question here is how is it that institutions which are paid for by the community and from which we expect some kind of leadership around the many serious problems that we have is able to continue without any call for accountability? This is where if we wish to improve things, then we need to begin to ask questions of those bodies that are there to serve us.

Islam in the English vernacular

2008-02-28T12:47:00.000-08:00

One of the challanges facing Muslims in Britain is language. How to find a natural language for engagement? Some have turned to identity politics, but a new type of language is emerging. Two examples include the writings of Umar Abdallah of the Nawawi Foundation (which can be found here) and the thoughts of Abdal Hakim Murad for radio 4's 'Thought for the Day' slot (which can be found here).

Anne Cryer, triangulation and the moral argument

2008-02-27T14:53:00.000-08:00

What is the effect of the Anne Cryer approach to Muslim community development? Let me refer to something which in political circles is called 'triangulation' which describes a politician adopting the argument of his or her opponents, say for example, Tony Blair on privatisation. Not exactly the same thing, but the effect of Anne Cryer talking about forced marriage is that those people within the community who would wish to take up such issues feel either disempowered or outmaneouvred from doing so (very few people are willing to share a platform with Cryer).

The one situation in which this approach has not worked is counter-terrorism. Projects like the 'Radical Middle Way' have allowed the Muslim community to claim the moral argument for themselves in the name of Islam and for Muslims. However, many Muslim community development issues like forced marriage, youth crime or community cohesion - which require the community to make the moral stand and then work according to it - are not championed by the Muslim community precisely because the Anne Cryer approach dominates. The state in such circumstances achieves little and adopts harsher and harsher regimes - I suppose a form of bilateral radicalisation, but in the policy area of community development. I think the community is faced with a real problem here. We need to work on several issues which affect our community though there are many people who are simultaneously willing either to pathologise us or to politically triangulate us. This should in and of itself not prevent us from stepping forward in the ways that we see fit for our own development as a community.

One could suggest that in such politicised times, it is very difficult to adopt a moral stance that points the finger back at the community. I can only suggest that we should proceed with courage and caution.

Why is there only one Bob Lambert?

2008-02-15T14:48:00.000-08:00

Whenever I talk to friends from London about the police, one name has come up again and again. I have to say that I was surprised that so many spoke so fondly and with confidance about a man from the Special Branch. He is, of course, Bob Lambert. Known to many in activist circles as a person who understands what he's dealing with. Unfortunately, there is only one Bob Lambert. The Muslim Contact Unit exists only in London and as far as i understand there is no equivalent in West Yorkshire or Manchester where two new counter terrorist units have been recently formed (six years after September 11?). This could explain why five men were arrested through early morning raids and then released two years later after Appeal. The war based on suspicion and surmise continues.

The judgement is damning of counter-terrorism and i cannot understand why this has happened. It is either a deliberate form of psychological warfare or a very bad mistake. It confirms my view that there are probably very few (practising and activist) Muslims involved in the pursue strand - this is probably because we are not to be trusted, which if true, is unfair as well as being pragmatically a bad idea. How many Muslims work for Special Branch? Or for the counter-terrorist units? You need some insider knowledge to be able to help distinguish between some young lads and serious criminals. Is there a large discrepancy between the type and kinds of Muslims employed in the prevent and pursue strands? Does this explain the mistakes? Does this situation make us safer or more at risk?

Labour and racism

2008-02-11T04:12:00.000-08:00

Phil Woolas, who has form on anti-Muslim comments, and is currently the Minister for the Environment (!) has spoken about inbreeding within the Muslim community. I am not going to get in to the details of this issue as there is a kernel of truth to this statement as there is with all prejudice otherwise it would just not work. What i am going to question is why when this issue has been around for so long does the Environment minister decide to speak on it during the middle of a crisis which in the public mind is about the social self-segregation of Muslims (through the incorporation of the shariah). It seems that the racist trope moved from culture to biology (so Steven Jones speaks on this morning's Today programme) and shame on Labour for manning the ship during this time and doing nothing about it. It is totally unbelievable that the media is acting in this way and indicative of a much greater problem that lies amongst them. They do not employ any Muslims as equals. And so they know not of what they write about. Somebody do a survey of the broadcast media and the press and ask how many non-assimilated Muslims they employ. Six and a half years after September 11.

A second related point is that this is about colonialism within the postmodern setting. What peole like Anne Cryer do is take a moral argument, refuse permission for the Muslim community to do something about it (we are not in denial as she knows, we need some kind of offical empowerment which she works to deny), and then castigate the community for its immorality. Many of us have been following this for years and have tried to communicate with Cryer and her team but to no avail, she prefers going to the media and i ask you, in the six years since she has campaigned against forced marriage, how much progress has there been? How much has the community changed? What has has she achieved by constantly attacking the community? Instead, it has lead to further and further reification. To such an extent that the government is now considering changing the law which will allow third parties to inform the authorites on cases against the consent of the individuals involved if they view them to be invloved in a forced marriage. The government is now consulting on this. What is interesting and perhaps worrying for anyone who philosophically follows this issue will be that the state is considering to take the right to act against the consent of the individual whereas the bottom line on libertarian-communitarian debates has always been the consent of the individual. Will teachers make these decisions based upon their lay knowledge of Muslims: shariah, jihad, inbreeding, self-segregation, honour killings? Judges are already incorporating discriminatory notions of culture into their judgements - i wish somebody would do so some work on this - and they are supposed to have brilliant minds, so how will the rest of us deal with the anti-Muslim prejudice that pervades so much of our culture when we make our judgements?

On the Archbishop of Canterbury's comments

2008-02-08T13:18:00.000-08:00

The following are my thoughts on the Archbishop's comments on the incorporation of certain aspects of shariah into English law.

1. First if all, let it be acknowledged that as public figures go, Rowan Williams is one of the most admirable people around. The immediate attempt to denigrate him personally is not only demeaning to the British nation as a whole, it is vulgar and pathetic. For example, the Daily Mail is currently running a poll on who poses a greater threat to British society: Abu Hamza or the Archbishop? And according to the Daily Mail readers, the Archbishop is twice the threat of Abu Hamza. Other comments about his personality betray the massive dumbing down that the tabloids and their helpers are responsible for. Rowan Williams has got to be one of the most intelligent, thoughtful and decent human beings to walk this island. Shame on the tabloids for the depths to which they are willing to take this country. This matter is complicated and they have refused to engage with complexity, either because they don't want to or they cannot. Let people remember George Carey's comments when the bombing of Afghanistan began a few years ago: 'Sometimes, there are moral difficulties...' Rowan Williams is liked by every Muslim that i have spoken to, and i have been following his speeches for a while and i may not agree with everything he says but i admire his humanism and intellectual reach.

2. Secondly, this moral panic is obviously about a psychological fear that Muslims may somehow, nay inevitably, take over. This is blatant nonsense and is merely pandering to prejudice. As anyone remotely familiar with the Muslim community will tell you, organisation and leadership are not our strong points. The fear is for atheists that religion is on the up, and for others, that Muslims are on the march. For those who are familiar with the debate, they should rest assured that there is incredible legal and academic scrutiny of this issue and it is unlikely that anything will be permitted which could be regarded as outrageous. It is interesting to note that the lawyers who were interviewed after the speech yesterday all spoke in agreement with the Archbishop. This is becuase they recognise through their work that there is a genuine conundrum here which requires careful consideration.

3. The issue is about cultural diversity and the state and the interface between the two. At a philosophical and practical level, it is virtually impossible (ask Goodhart, he tried) to argue against the recognition of at least some form of cultural diversity (e.g. in health, education and now law) and for those who wish to hold an absolutist line, may i suggest that they begin with forcing their model onto counter-terrorism? (Has the penny dropped yet?) The issue is about where to draw the line, and this should be negotiated through inclusion and reasonableness on both sides, because we are all citizens of the same state.

4. So it is about British society and the faith question, but this is also about Anglicanism and its future especially its relation to the Muslim community in Britian. Here I want to characterise two approaches of inter-faith towards Muslims: Christian humanism and Rowan Williams is an example of such and Christian identity politics and Michael Nazir-Ali is an example of such. (On a side note, some people are at present comparing Nazir-Ali favourably to Williams, this can more accurately be done through comparing their interventions: Nazir-Ali made a public statement or perhaps allegation - about Islamists creating no-go areas in Britian - which he has been unable to back up evidentially and Williams has written a thoughtful piece). Rowan Williams is considerate of the Muslim faith, realises that there wouldn't be so many people taking it seriously unless there was something in it for them and has hence approached the topic with humanity and empathy. Nazir-Ali has been rushing to the media on several occasions making various allegations about what may happen in the future if nobody takes the Islamic threat seriously enough, claims that Muslims exaggerate their victimhood while constantly reminding us of Christians victims of Muslim violence and states that Britian is not proud enough of its Christian identity. This is classic identity politics material. Which way for the Church? The humanism of Rowan Williams or the identity politics of Michael Nazir-Ali. I know which one I prefer, the clue is that his voice sounds much better on the radio.

A penultimate note on Christian hospitality. Nazir-Ali asks us to ditch multiculturalism. i.e. disregard cultural diversity (see note above on counter-terrorism) and replace it with Christian hospitality. Well, if you want to read Christian identity politics as Christian hospitality then try the comments posted on some of the newspaper websites. There is enough in these posts for the Church to consider the extent of prejudice held against Muslims by Christians. What is the source of this prejudice?

A final word on the personal attack on the Archbishop. It is disgraceful and demeaning to the British character. Please stop this, understand the complexity of the matter, refrain from vulgarity in mind and characterisation, and applaud the best that our nation has to offer the world.

British law for British footballers

2008-02-08T00:24:00.000-08:00

The Archbishop of Canterbury has called for the consideration of the inclusion of certain aspects of shariah into English law. This has given the tabloid editors a day off. If anyone asks you about this, tell them to read the speech by the Archbishop which can be found here. The matter is more complicated. I'll post more later.

Seminar on Radicalisation

2007-11-09T14:54:00.000-08:00

Why are some young Muslim men being radicalised? Is multiculturalism the cause for this? The argument goes, and it originates from

France

, that Britain faces a terrorist problem because it allowed too much space to its Muslim communities. It joins between the terrorism and the multiculturalism debates. People like myself have spent much of the past few years trying to separate out the two debates, primarily because we believe that joining between them does not honestly describe what is exactly going on.

Multiculturalism, where it is a problem, is about a lack of confidence and capacity. Terrorism is about politics. Some have attempted to reduce terrorism to issues of culture, but this can not explain the three major attacks that we have experienced in

Britain

: the July 7 bombings, the July 21 attempts and the Glasgow attempt. The first was mainly a group of Pakistani young men, the second was group of new migrants and the third was a group of doctors. It’s very difficult to theorise from these experiences but because the question is so urgent, it is important to understand the provenance of such motives.

We have on the occasion of the launch of a new book on ‘Islam in the European Union’ edited by Kasturi Sen and Yunus Samad (of Bradford University) invited two leading experts from the national debate to discuss this matter: Rachel Briggs from Demos (click here to access the 'Bringing it Home' report) and Yahya Birt from City Circle. Yahya will be speaking about the theories of radicalisation that are offered and Rachel will be discussing the policy options that are available to government.

There are questions for Muslims and non-Muslims around these issues. For Muslims, it is important that we are not in denial about this very serious problem and also that we have a very good understanding of it. It is a problem that originates from within our community and that affects us as well. If we can understand radicalisation, then we can also help deradicalise those that are moved by events which are beyond our control. For the wider community, I think it is important to disentangle the debate on radicalisation from anti-Muslim prejudice. There is certainly one strand of argument that encourages this relation and not only is this a false description of events and people, it is also unhelpful. We look forward to meeting you on Monday.

Monday 12 Nov 2007

Refreshments: 4.30pm

Seminar: 5pm – 7pm

Title: Radicalisation and Multiculturalism

Location: John Stanley Bell Lecture Theatre, Richmond Building, University of Bradford

Speakers Yunas Samad (University of Bradford), Rachel Briggs (Demos), Yahya Birt (City Circle)

Please confirm your attendance with Yunus Samad at a.y.samad@bradford.ac.uk or on 234804

An Open Letter to Martin Amis

2007-10-11T16:18:00.000-07:00

Dear Martin,

I am writing to you about a matter of great concern to myself. It has been brought to my attention that in an interview for the Sunday Times entitled 'The Voice of Experience' published last year (September 9 2006) you stated the following:

“What can we do to raise the price of them doing this? There’s a definite urge – don’t you have it? – to say, ‘The Muslim community will have to suffer until it gets its house in order.’ What sort of suffering? Not letting them travel. Deportation – further down the road. Curtailing of freedoms. Strip-searching people who look like they’re from the Middle East or from Pakistan… Discriminatory stuff, until it hurts the whole community and they start getting tough with their children. They hate us for letting our children have sex and take drugs – well, they’ve got to stop their children killing people. It’s a huge dereliction on their part. I suppose they justify it on the grounds that they have suffered from state terrorism in the past, but I don’t think that’s wholly irrational. It’s their own past they’re pissed off about; their great decline. It’s also masculinity, isn’t it?”

I am Muslim, and as such, you are calling for the curtailing of my freedom, deportation, suffering etc. I would like to seek clarification on this quote from yourself. Have you been misquoted?

Atif Imtiaz

Developing patience and gratitude

2007-09-15T02:24:00.000-07:00

Alhamdulillah, by the Grace of Allah, there are many circles of fiqh in Bradford. There can be little progress without a respect for the Law , that is, the Divine Command. And it is a part of our deen that we submit our bodies and egos to the prescriptions that Allah has placed upon us. We wish to add to this by providing a class as an introduction to the inner sciences – to the adab of the heart and we wish to do this through the works of one of this ummah’s greatest scholars: Imam Ghazali.

Imam Abu Hamid al Ghazali (d. 1111) is regarded as one of the greatest figures in Islamic scholarship. This is for several reasons and one of them is his book ‘Ihya Ulum ud-Din’ (the revival of the religious sciences). He wrote this book as a way of bringing life back to the practice of the deen. The book is divided into four quarters, and the first book of the first quarter is the book on knowledge in which he explicitly states the importance of keeping the heart alive through seeking knowledge and practicing the religion.

We will be providing classes in one of the books from the last quarter of the Ihya, the book on ‘Sabr and Shukr’ – the book on patience and gratitude. Shaykh Saad will be reading from the text and providing explanations where necessary. There are few circles in the Ihya in Britain as a whole. We invite you to attend to share in this great knowledge and reflect upon our condition.

Reviewing the Prevent Agenda

2007-07-08T04:26:00.000-07:00

How much progress has there been in the government's preventing extremism strategy (the hearts and minds strand of its counter-terrorism strategy) since last year?

The government departments that deal with counter-terrorism are the Home Office and the Department of Communities and Local Governement. The Home Office deals with the pursue strand and the DCLG deals with the prevent strand. I have written previously on what the government needs to do in this area and I would concur with those counter-terrorism experts that have suggested that one of the key planks of this strategy has to be 'draining the swamp'

This is where I think the government has over the last twelve to eighteen months really lost some ground. I feel and it certainly seems to be the case from people that I speak to that instead of draining the swamp, government actions have functioned to feed the swamp. A large part of this turn has come as a result of the government's response to the criticisms of their counter-terrorism strategy by journalists like John Ware and Martin Bright working for Panorama and the Observer respectively (Bright now writes for the New Statesman). Their argument has been that the government was in error when it tried to work with Islamist orgnisations or Islamist-inspired organisations like the MCB. Excerpts from interviews with MCB representatives were provided as evidence. This was followed last year by the creation of the Sufi Muslim Council and Ruth Kelly as the Minister responsible for this portfolio spoke at the launch. Ed Hussain's book 'The Islamist' has also suggested that the root cause of terrorism and hence responsibility lies with Islamist organisations. The main culprits are the Islamic Society of Britian, the Muslim Association of Britain and Hizb ut Tehrir according to him. Bright wrote recently that the government's preventing extremism strategy was 'sophisticated', alas, I think it is not sophisticated enough.

Word has got out that Tony McNulty, Minister responsible for Counter-Terrorism at the Home Office, held a meeting in which radicalisation was discussed and that Martin Bright, Shiv Malik (Bright junior) and Nick Cohen (? - he who still supports the Iraq war) were invited. Cohen recently wrote a piece for the Observer which is a good summary of his ignorance of the topic. Why senior civil servants who hold responsibility on such important matters decided to invite Cohen to such a meeting beggars belief and brings into question the competence and sincerity of their approach.

I wish to agree with the positive note that has been sounded about the government's approach to the attempted terrorist attacks of last week, but I wish to raise a large red flag about the preventing extremism strategy which is seriously floundering at present.

Perhaps the excuse is that this was a period of political instablity with no clear direction as everyone watched Blair's tortuously slow dance off the stage (there were no calls for 'encore') but nevertheless:

1. The 'Shared Futures' report: the report seems to be a revision of Cantle and an improvement, but Labour's journey from MacPherson through Cantle to Singh is a strange one. The composition of the commission raised some concerns. Two of the three Muslim members were Labour supporters (and the Tories may perhaps ask whether Labour was/is politicising the prevent agenda) but not representatives of faith organisations. Ramesh Kallidai represented Hindus on the commission. Kallidai's inclusion has been commented upon in the media (a response to the allegations is here). This commission was set up to deal with Muslim-related issues as one of its core concerns, indeed, it was announced after the July 7 bombings hence its composition was all the more perplexing. This point is perhaps not as important as others but it does raise some concerns.

2. Ruth Kelly attending the lauch of the Sufi Muslim Council was a big mistake. Practically the only succesful project post PET formation is the radical middle way. Even this project has struggled to maintian its credibility in the face of fierce criticism. But it has neverthless contributed to the preventing agenda. Its key argument was that scholars should be brought in to take on the legal justifications for terrorism.

TRANSLATION ALERT: Will people please stop referring to this as a theological problem? It is not a problem of aqeedah (theology) which only becomes an issue in relation to takfir. It is a problem of fiqh (law and legal justification) on the murder of innocent civilians. So will those so-called experts please stop referring to it as a theological problem - you are only revealing the extent of your expertise.

Now, where was I, yes, the radical middle way approach suggested that the scholars of traditional Islam should be brought in to counter the terrorist argument. This argument was taken up and developed into support for the Sufi Muslim Council. And this is a good example of how a good idea can be acted upon in a counter-productive way (this has happened repeatedly with the prevent strand and suggests that some of the senior civil servants don't understand the issues that they are dealing with). The problem with the Sufi Muslim Council and the government's immediate endorsement of it was that everyone saw it for what it was and still do and this has damaged the credibility of the prevent agenda enormously.

3. The third mistake is the attempt to mix the integration and terrorism arguments (Bright urges 'a sophisticated strategy that will help foster a progressive British Islam' - in my view this could lead to more radicalisation). We now have three sets amongst others of criminals: the July 7 bombers, the July 21 bombers and last week's bombers. Each bombing (or attempted bombing) has brought with it some rush towards theorisation. Initially Mipuri culture, Shiv Malik's recent thesis on marriage and frustration (I am so glad he is wrong) and now something to do with the NHS (moving from the terrorists are absent/hidden to the terrorists have authority over you). All of these are wrong and can't explain what takes people over the edge - and the answer to that question is simple, terrorists want to take revenge for the murders of others. The key thing to do is to drain the swamp.

But the preventing strand has not drained the swamp in the last year. It has instead fed the swamp.

One final point about the spinning. The spinning on this agenda is quite clear and it is also clear that the spinning is aimed for two audiences: the Muslim community and the white working classes (the only problem is that both communities read messages intended for the other community). This explains the spinning of the Shared Futures report and many other incidences. The Labour government does not wish to appear too friendly towards the Muslim community so it spins itself away from such outcomes. There is a lot to examine here but the spinning is not working either. There needs to be a serious review of the preventing extremism strand.

Leadership, Muslim style

2007-06-08T13:28:00.000-07:00

If I was to be asked to consider leadership in Muslim society, I would refer to four roles for leadership: the Imam, the Faqih, the Wali and the Amir.

The Imam leads the prayer in the mosque.

The Faqih or Scholar is the source for legal rulings, he or she understands the shariah and the context.

The Wali or Saint is the spiritual and moral guide for the community, reminding them that eternity is always more important.

The Amir or Leader is the political leader of the community and would represent the community in its various affairs to the wider society.

The search for heroes, which is so much a part of the Western cultural canon-context, amongst Muslims means that we sometimes seek individuals that fulfil all four roles. It may the case, as I think it is, that there are some incredible and unique individuals that we look towards who combine these four roles within their expansive personalities. However, it is also the case that these individuals are rare. In reality, most individuals combine a couple or perhaps three of these qualities.

So, one person may be a faqih and an Imam, but not an Amir.

Or another, could be an Imam and an Amir, but not a Faqih.

Or another, could be a Wali and an Amir, but not a Faqih.

Or another could be a Wali and a Faqih, but not an Amir.

Or four people could fulfil each of these four roles for a community centred around a mosque.

The problem here is who decides, because sometimes a Faqih may be called upon to be an Amir in moments of crisis, and this may not be suitable, or an Amir may decide to act as a Faqih and this may not be suitable as well. Who should decide? The individual himself or the community?

The greater problem is that we seek someone who is a Wali, Faqih, Imam and Amir, and there may be some individuals out there who can fulfil this role, but unfortunately, I don't think there are enough to go round for the whole British Muslim community. The rest will have to deal with a division of labour.

Muslim Deaths in Custody

2007-05-24T15:08:00.000-07:00

On 21 March 200o, Zahid Mubarek was attacked by Robert Stewart with whom he had been made to share a cell at Feltham Young Offender's Institution. David Blunkett, then Home Secretary, announced a public enquiry into the murder of Zahid Mubarek on 29 April 2004.

Shahid Aziz, a married father of two, was murdered by Peter McCann in Armley jail on 2nd April 2004.

Then Jacob Raynor, also known as Muhammad Raynor, was found hanging with a ligature around his neck on 31st August 2005 at Armley jail. He had been placed in isolation for three days after a fight with the guards.

You can contact the minister responsible for prisons here.

Local Politics

2007-04-22T11:49:00.002-07:00

I wanted to raise several points about local politics:

First of all, what is the role of the councillor? Is it worthy of notice? I think that if we consider some of the key areas of concern for Muslims as educational underachievement, youth crime, ‘community cohesion’ etc. then it is quite clear that in order to make an impact on these issues one needs some kind of local focus. For example, one can ask national government to put in league tables so that improvements can be measured, but to actually make those improvements, it requires a closer level of scrutiny at the local level. This is where the local councillor comes in. It seems to me that one function that the local councillor should fulfil is scrutiny, in an institutionalised, professional and preferably depoliticised kind of way whether this be in relation to quality of service provision or distribution of resources. So I think it is important to have at least five to ten councillors to whom one could look for some kind of competent leadership at the local level. I don’t know if it is the case at present or not.

Secondly, one aspect that emerges from our current concerns around engagement is how much can we progress the local agenda without participating in local politics. Many of us have historically avoided the local political parties because of the kinds of people inside them, this looks like it could be changing but I could provide a whole series of cross-party examples of people who really should never have been councillors. I think that there is a limit to how much one can affect the local agenda without engaging with the local political process, and that limit severely damages the prospect of success. For the reasons stated in the previous point, some public scrutiny is required.

Thirdly, people could suggest that if we are to engage in the political process, then which party should we choose? I think this question is a lot easier to answer than it used to be. Nowadays, there are less differences between the parties and the differences at a local level tend to focus more around personalities rather than ideologies. The structure of the political parties also suggests that they are presently functioning as quasi-public sector type organisations, which means that they are just another function of local (but state-funded) society that requires dialoguing with. The choice of party could depend on ward and company.

Fourthly, we have to consider the changing policy agenda which is moving so much more towards the local. The role of the councillor within this transformation will become more relevant and the department for communities and local government has recently set up a councillors commission to look into the issues. Bradfordians will be pleased to note that Margaret Eaton is on the commission.

What all this is suggesting is that we need to think about the kinds of candidates that are councillors at present. And no, I have no intention of becoming a councillor, the Monster Raving Loony Party does not as far as I know have a Bradford branch.

Preventing Extremism: A Four Step Guide to Inclusion

2007-03-25T13:56:00.000-07:00

It seems that with civil servants working at local, regional and national levels, people have been unable to figure out an inclusive way to deal with preventing extremism.

Well, here's a four step guide:

November 2006: Project launched, chief executives of respective councils should have returned to thier cities after being briefed by Ruth Kelly on the the new fund and appointed an appropriate person (open-minded and with good people skills) to take charge of the project.

December 2006: Person X spends one month mapping the Muslim voluntary sector in the community and sends out introductory letters to all relevant persons, identifying those that would be most interested and suited to dealing with the issue.

January - February 2007: Person X visits the individuals and organisations and explains what preventing extremism is about and then asks for suggestions as to possible projects.

March 2007: Project proposals are finalised and sent back to government.

The Fear of the Take-Over

2007-03-24T04:35:00.000-07:00

In a strange way, my previous three posts are interconnected.

I initially wrote about gatekeeping against the inclusion of Muslims, then put up an attempt at a poem from about a year ago and have described the current local preventing extremism situation which seems to repeat the mistakes or deliberate exclusions of yesteryear.

Somebody asked me recently why I felt there was resistance amongst some gatekeepers towards the inclusion of Muslims. There are various reasons for this, one of these I am sorry to say is anti-Muslim discrimination and if I was to be generous then I would suggest that this fear is down to the local demographics: Muslims form the largest minority in Bradford, and so attempts are made at regular intervals and from different angles to reduce the impact that this may have (including the rather ridiculous notion of there being no Muslim community - well, as we now know, there are no Muslims in Bradford). This is part of my explanation at our continuing collective failure on matters that affect the whole of Bradford, whether this be educational underachievement, community cohesion, youth crime and public participation.

Jim Greenhalf, one of the journalists for the local newspaper, has recently written on this. He notices this fear that people have of some future Muslim take-over, this was raised when i conducted my research in Bradford in the late nineties. It seems to remain with us. But he rubbishes it by describing the internal dynamics of the Muslim community. It is one community, yes (which exists and does not exist in the same moment - those who see the community like this are prejudiced in my view), and yet it is internally differentiated and it is not likely to take over in the next three years. Jim Greenhalf recognises this and in so doing recognises the contribution and humanity of the community that he is describing. It is a departure from the stance of those who seek to continue exclusion.

This is my fourth post now on the inclusion of Muslims in Bradford. For those reading this, it should be clear, we have a problem here, five years after Ouseley and Cantle.

Preventing Extremism Strategy Going Pear-Shaped

2007-03-18T14:23:00.000-07:00

Ruth Kelly, the Minister for Communities and Local Government, has written in today's Observer about the latest aspect of the government's preventing extremism strategy.

This involves a £5 million fund to be distributed through local councils to work on preventing extremism. The projects will start rolling from 1 April according to this guidance document. However, the word on the ground is that there has hardly been any consultation or involvement of Muslim communities in this. A £5 million investment into community activities is no small intervention and a lack of transparency in this process has caused huge concern. This whole process mitigates against the purported aims of the whole prevent strand, which is beginning to mirror the protect strand of counter terrorism: the tactics damaging the strategy. It is also in contradiction to what Ruth Kelly has said on numerous occasions, which I list below. For the purposes of completion, I include a couple of references from the guidance notes.

Speech by Ruth Kelly MP at the launch of the Sufi Muslim Council held in the House of Commons on 19 July 2006.

Forging close links with Muslim communities and other faith groups is a key part of my new role as the Secretary of State responsible for Communities and Local Government. To make sure the Department is engaging effectively, I am keen to ensure that we work with a broad range of Muslim communities in the UK…

My sense is that what many people want is to feel that they have some control over what matters to them – their local area and local public services. People want their voice to be heard and to feel that they are respected by government and others.

This means forging links, developing common interests and taking part in cross-community forums and activities. I know that your Council is beginning to work with other faith groups, and with organisations outside of Muslim communities. This sharing of ideas and building a sense of common purpose in improving the society we all live in is vital. It will lead to us all seeing the many benefits of diversity…

Of course there is still much to do. That is why, among other things it is crucial for the Government to work with individuals and organisations across Muslim communities to build up a better understanding and wider knowledge of the traditions of your faith. And it is critical that we understand the issues that Muslim communities face, and put actions in place to address these challenges.

Speech by Communities Secretary Ruth Kelly to Muslim organisations on working together to tackle extremism. Held at Local Government House, London, on 11 October 2006.

There is no doubt that in this current climate anything that touches on the integration of Muslim communities raises complex issues and will provoke passionate debate. But I am certain, as well, that trying to sweep disagreements under the carpet will ultimately be more dangerous than discussing them openly…

So I do not come here to say that tackling extremists is your problem as Muslims alone. This is a shared problem. It is a shared battle for the kind of society we want to be and the values that we all hold dear.

But I do say that without you fully on side we will fail. Your voice is more powerful than mine. And your actions can be more effective. As Gordon Brown said yesterday,

“Unless moderates can establish themselves at the centre of their communities and faith, extremists could grow in strength and influence”.

So I promise we will increase our commitment to work in partnership with you and communities throughout Britain who show through their words and actions that are determined to take on the extremists and defend values that the vast majority of us share…

Speech by Ruth Kelly MP at the British Muslim Forum consultation event held in Birmingham on 26 February 2007.

Central Government shouldn’t try to provide all the answers. It can’t.

Insteand, Government needs to engage with communities, enabling them to build their own resilience to the extremists’ messages.

It’s about local leaders who understand the tensions and the problems in their communities taking action themselves.

So your contribution is absolutely vital.

I welcome the grassroots work that is already being done here in Birmingham, and that it already making a difference…

I’m proud that the Government has supported all these (sic) projects.

But they have worked because the local community here in the West Midlands has displayed real leadership. Because your voice is more powerful than mine. And because your actions can be more effective.

And it’s this kind of work that the Government wants to continue to support.

That’s why last month I launched a £5m fund to help local authorities work with their local communities to counter violent extremism.

I look forward to the many projects that this funding will support in future, here in the West Midlands and elsewhere.

Preventing Violent Extremism Pathfinder Fund

Guidance Note for Government Offices and Local Authorities in England

It is essential that local authorities involve local partners, particularly the police, and local communities in developing their programmes...

To deliver these objectives requires concerted action in partnership across central Government, local government, the police and the security services, the Third Sector and, vitally, local communities themselves...

Programmes will be developed in partnership with other agencies locally – including the police, third sector and local Muslim (and perhaps other faith) organisations. Local authorities will want to consider whether they need to develop a more detailed understanding of the range of local Muslim and other organisations and key individuals with whom they can work.

There are no Muslims in Bradford

2007-02-17T09:21:00.000-08:00

Or Muslims and Representation

There are no Muslims in Bradford
Well, to some at least
For them, there are only Asians
There were only Asians.

For others, there are some Muslims in Bradford
But only Muslim thugs
Or Muslim criminals
Or Muslim extremists
But otherwise, there are no Muslims in Bradford.

There are no Muslims in Bradford
But there are Sunnis, and Shia,
Deobandis and Barelvis
Oppressed Muslim women
And angry young Muslim men
But there are no Muslims in Bradford.

There are no Muslims in Bradford
Except where it doesn’t matter
A symbolic role a plenty
Muslims mayors by the dozen.

There are no Muslims in Bradford
Can’t see them anywhere
Except on the streets.

There are no Muslims in Bradford
But there are mosques
And there is halal meat
But there are no Muslims in Bradford.

There are no Muslims in Bradford
Unless it suddenly becomes tense
Then there are Muslims in Bradford
And they are the problem.

We cannot trust them
Don’t know what they’re like
Don’t know what they’ll do
Don’t give them any real power
Even in 2007.

But we can talk to you about them
Even if they don’t exist
Except as a problem
Talk to us, because we know.

There are no Muslims in Bradford
And whatever you do
Don’t talk to them
They might take over
They might convince you
To join them
Even though they’re not here.

The moral legitimacy of gate-keeping in a democratic society

2007-02-12T11:35:00.000-08:00

Well, first of all, I am not an idealist. I recognise that in any democratic society with millions of citizens, it is impossible for all citizens to be heavily engaged in government policy. There may even be a chapter in a political philosophy book about the optimum levels required for democratic participation. However, there can be cases in which gate-keeping moves from being a logistical necessity to something slightly more dubious.

In an ideal world, or as it is presented, gatekeepers are objective, they have no financial interests, no political points to make and hold no prejudices. But in the real world, gatekeepers tend to be politically motivated, prejudicial and/or financially compromised. There are two types of gatekeepers: enablers and blockers. The enablers will seek to facilitate progress and work while blockers will be more than willing to explain why ‘you need to be cautious about this’.

I would like to focus in on the policy question of integration and Muslims. In relation to the issue of integrating practising Muslims (since this is the problem as presented), there are at least four types of gate-keepers in my experience: the Anglican church, anti-racists, non-Muslim South Asians and non-practising Muslims. In order for somebody like me to get to the actual decision maker on issues which affect Muslims, I have had to get past one or two or three or (if it’s that kind of week) all four of these type of gatekeepers. I can usually get past them if I engage in some kind of self-flagellation (with thanks to a friend who pointed this out to me).

There tends to be gate-keepers inside and outside of organisations (statutory and otherwise) and they gain their credibility from their office, knowledge or connections. Getting a decent idea to decision makers means getting past the gate-keepers and their objections which tend to be constructed prejudices. On the integration of Muslims, you will find, as I have, that where decent Muslims are linked in to the community cohesion plan, there is some progress. Where they are kept outside and managed from a distance (because of fears and mistrust), there is little progress. It’s been four years since community cohesion became policy, somebody needs to audit what has been done so far. Or not done so far. For example, in Bradford, community cohesion was sent to the local strategic partnership Bradford Vision which employed a director for about three years on this topic. She has since left and the post no longer exists. Those who were involved in this process need to be asked some hard questions. I don’t know how Muslims were ever consulted or involved as she came and went.

Polling the prejudiced

2007-01-29T14:48:00.000-08:00

Shock! Horror!

There is new poll out on Muslims. Researchers approached 327,547 Muslims who live in London and 3 who live in Luton to ask them about life in Britain and the ongoing war on shampoo.

They found:

3% said their cats preferred Whiskers.

97% said they didn't have cats.

58% agreed that it's grim up north.

40% said that they had more in common with the Irish than the Italians.

43% said they'd vote Italian.

10% said they read the Daily Mail.

38% said they only look at the pictures.

3% said they lie when asked questions over the phone.

84% said that Tony Blair would be remembered for his speeches.

39% said that Gordon Brown would make a great football manager.

98% said they had never heard of the Big Sister programme.

67% said they felt that they had more in common with those who advocated peace.

33% said they voted Labour at the last election.

22% said that David Cameron was a really great film star but couldn't remember his last film.

100% said that they didn't trust polls on Muslims conducted since 9/11.

Where have all the tolerant people gone?

2007-01-27T02:53:00.000-08:00

Sometimes, in everyday life, I meet some very nice and open-minded people. Sometimes, I don't, and in moments of measured concern, I wonder 'Where have all the tolerant people gone?'

Abroad? Millions of them. The Institute of Public Policy Research, a key left of field and government supporting think tank, published a decent report on this. The BBC has also published its research on Brits abroad, the case studies for each continent/area make for very interesting reading. Yahya Birt discussed this in relation to a book that discusses the Muslim presence in Britian and the Guardian's magazine interviews some of those that have left. I blame Channel 4.

Thieving from Baghdad

2007-01-22T11:49:00.000-08:00

I've been looking for a report like this for a while now. Self-explanatory.

Alf Garnett is not the only racist

2007-01-21T07:18:00.000-08:00

‘Is this racism?’ This is a question that has been oft-repeated over the past week. It is asked because in the questioner’s mind, there is only one kind of racism: Alf Garnett’s. That is, blatant, up front, no holds barred racism. But as most people on the receiving end know, Alf Garnett is not the only racist in the land.

So let us now, with thanks to Celebrity Big Brother, introduce a second prototype of racism: Jade Goody’s. This is not about the individual as much as it is about what it represents within our culture which is obsessed with language and symbolism. That is, this is not racism as the racist individual – Alf Garnett – but racism as culture.

The racism that has been shown on the TV screens for the last week or so is the racism that is present in British society today. It is a generalised, less-directed, more cultural form of racism that views others as unclean, threatening and different in a dislikeable sort of way. But this view towards difference is not unfamiliar to many. I have been surprised how the scenes from the TV programme have brought back childhood memories of racism amongst friends. It has certainly touched a raw nerve.

The worrying aspect is that Jade Goody is 25 years old, she was 15 when New Labour came in to power. As such, she is a product of New Labour’s Britain. So are the other two who joined in the racist bullying with her. And I cannot think of any time since the launch of the MacPherson report that racism has been so extensively discussed in British society. And so the detour through Ouseley and Cantle has led us to where we are today, back at square one. (The commentators who have come out to defend racism or apologise through idiocy are the same commentators such as Rod Liddle and Carol Sarler who have made much of the cultural difference argument in these past few years.)

So as Tony Blair examines his legacy over a decade of policy, one thing he can consider is the lack of progress in anti-racism that has been shown up so clearly this week.

Saddam and the deep depravity of Western foreign policy

2006-12-30T04:49:00.000-08:00

The execution of Saddam Hussein today brings to a close a period in recent Middle Eastern history that requires the highest and most stringent form of downright condemnation.

It begins in the eighties. Iran had turned Islamic. And so the West decided to support Saddam, even though they knew that he was the ruthless dictator as he has been described today in numerous obituaries. They sold many weapons to him during this period including chemical weapons which he used against the Iranians first and then the Kurds later (if you check the press of 1988, there was hardly any coverage - the death of thousands becomes important according to political utility). Approximately 1 million people died in the Iran-Iraq war.

After the failure of his war against Iran, he looked to Kuwait and April Glaspie - the American ambassador at the time - arguably gave him the green light with the infamous 'we have no opinion on border disputes' line. He invaded Kuwait and the US led a liberation of Kuwait funded by the Saudis.

Then began the sanctions which have lead to the death of about half a million people which continued through the nineties. These sanctions were only lifted after the invasion of Iraq itself in 2003. This was the third time Baghdad was bombed by the US in twelve years.

Today Saddam is dead. But he was not the last dictator in the Middle East. Today's obituaries mention his crimes. There are many others whom the West continues to deal with who use torture, for example, of the most extreme and despicable sort.

The West failed the people of Iraq because it sought their wealth. They are owed something more than an apology. Arms were sold in order to keep disgusting industries alive. This again continues, and here we can see within the infrastructure of non-failed states how they work their systems: arms industries, foreign policies, governance and warfare. All of which has lead to the transfer of wealth and the destruction of a country, all in pursuit of a man who was made in their own image, only more crude and a few favours short of a friendship.

I was in sixth form during the first Gulf war and nobody cared. Jokes were made about the 'mother of all battles' and people continued with their lives, not realising that part of their success was dependent upon the murder of others. I was at university when the sanctions were in place and again no one cared. Many in my generation have grown up with the Western treatment of the Iraqi people as a major concern. More are aware today. Saddam has gone, but will this deep depravity that calls itself progress and civilisation continue?

Racists in uniforms, march on

2006-12-20T15:13:00.000-08:00

A story was leaked to the media today about one of the men involved in the murder of PC Beshinevsky escaping from Britian through wearing the niqab. 'Today' covered it, 'Sky News' covered it (it was a quiet sports day) and 'Newsnight' discussed it just now, except that 'Newsnight' is wondering whether this is a fabrication. So:

Who leaked this story? 'Today' should know.

How credible is it?

And what is going to happen to those who have been wronged by racists in uniforms?

The war on terror marches on. And the state wishes to continuously expand its powers to control against a trerrorist threat. But these powers are handed over to anyone who applies to join those services that function in these areas, including racists. So what checks are in place?

I think we should pursue Cardiff airport and its security personnel and find out who these two D/C 3022 and D/C 3933 are, and we should demand an investigation into their behaviour and their previous record. I also think it's time we had one place that we can complain to when someone is so appallingly treated in the name of the terrorism act.

Meanwhile, in case you have forgotten, the 'war on shampoo' continues. Except that the mastermind of the plot bigger then 9/11 has just had his anti-terrorism charges dropped. So we will wait for the outcome of this ongoing investigation, but it is not looking good. The head of the MI5 resigned on the same day as the charges were dropped. The chaos at the airports due to the security measures is said to have cost BAA 100 million and many families had their summer holidays ruined.

And still no news on the largest haul of chemical components found at a house in this country. A case of some shampoos being more dangerous than others?

Counter-terrorism will only be effective and viable if it is credible and fair.

We watch and wait.

More injustice in the name of the 'war on terror'

2006-12-19T10:25:00.000-08:00

People are constantly being harrassed at airports. Here is another example. We need to figure out a way of controlling against racists in uniforms.

A little mistake

2006-12-11T14:53:00.000-08:00

Sometimes, it is in the little mistakes that the bigger disasters are revealed.

Tony Blair gave his speech on multiculturalism on Friday, a kind of rowing back from the throw away remarks of Trevor and ilk. The speech was an improvement on LA, but still some way to go.

Anyway, Newsnight covered this. Kirsty Wark hosted a discussion between Tariq Ramadan and Ann Cryer - a rather odd concoction. The little mistake was Kirsty's reference to British society as a 'host society' while discussing people like me, second generation British Muslims. Tariq picked up on it, and said that she was wrong to have referred within this context to British society as a host society. Her immediate response should have been an apology, instead we got more of Ann Cryer. Our parents may have been guests, but in what way are most of my generation 'guests' to this 'host' society (a strange kind of hosting if you ask me)? This little mistake highlighted the problem is its prejudicial core.

Kirsty Wark is the cultured one on Newnight, she occasionally hosts Newsnight Review and has also presented various arts related programmes - a thoughtful liberal, and I mean this with sincerity. Yet, even she, even Kirsty Wark, inadvertendly uses 'host society' while referring to me and my friends. And here lies the problem.

Tuning out

2006-10-07T04:19:00.000-07:00

There are four media cycles at least concerning Muslims:

the war on terror as exemplified by the recent Heathrow story

the oppression of Muslim women as exemplified by the recent Misbah/Molly story

the integration question as exemplified by the parallel communitites argument

the freedom question as exemplified by the Danish cartoons story

There are over a billion Muslims all over the world in many different countries. Everyday the news wires of each news agency such as Reuters or Associated Press pick thousands of different stories from across the world. But what makes one small incident in Cairo or Nelson make it to the front page of a newspaper or become the first item of the nightly news programme? The editorial decisions are based upon judgements on what 'is news at this moment in time'.

Within the context of invasions, terrorist attacks and the maturing of a second generational Muslim presence within the West, the Muslim story has climbed to the top of the list. The four media cycles are how individual stories are made sense of and made available to 'the masses'. Everyday, there are probably numerous stories for each of the four themes. However, the public would become bored with a story on Muslims everyday on each theme. So just as political scandals go through yearly cycles (it's not that the journalists find out once every year, it's that they decide to tell everyone else once every year), so Muslim stories are going through approximately monthly or bi-monthly cycles with a big story almost every three months. Anything much more than this would lead to boredom or hysteria.

This is why we all need to calm down. Muslims need to unplug from the mainstream media and recognise the media cycles for what they are. There could be countless other media cycles but this is how the media or major sections of it decide to construct the present picture. The argument that we would be missing out on news is weak, because how much of the above, for example the Misbah story or now Jack Straw's views would have been news without the media's intervention. The internet provides countless alternatives. At present, there is no end in sight to this perpetual media harassment, there are enough Muslims in enough situations throughout the world who can jump and down at the slightest provocation to keep this harassment possible for a long time to come yet. (Just as a quick example, when Sky News was trying to make a story of the Pope's comments, they had pictures of Muslims around the world demonstrating, but for anyone who looked carefully enough, they were fairly feeble demonstrations with some involving not more than forty people with the usual one person leading the sloganeering).

Instead we should focus our efforts on making friendships with non-Muslims from across society.

Finally, just to underline the seriousness of this deceit: rocket launchers, chemicals and a nuclear biological suit were found at a house in Nelson. Two men have been arrested and charged under the Explosives Subtstance Act 1883 (not any of the Terrorism Acts). This apparently is not worthy of being an important story.

I just want Allah.

2006-10-02T12:18:00.000-07:00

Where is Allah in all of this?

What do you mean?

Everyone prays and fasts, but where is Allah in all of this? Has it become a ritual?

Are you judging people?

No, I’m just asking, all this talk of following the rules, but what is it all for? Aren’t we missing the point?

What do you mean?

Well, Allah says: ‘Pray so that you may remember Me’.

And?

Have we lost sight of it, has it become a community thing, an identity thing or a ritual thing or something?

Are you sure you’re not judging people?

I suppose I am. I want to hear someone talk of Allah Himself. People talk of jannah and jahannam and the sunnah but what of Allah Himself?

I don’t get what you mean…

I mean, we’re missing the point. I just want Allah.

If you seek Allah, a good place to start would be here.

A new contributor

2006-09-29T12:07:00.000-07:00

Kawthar, a Bradfordian sixth-former, has sent the following in:

The news can sometimes be quite grim, so it's always nice to hear of a story that shows how much power a few people can have.

This week the Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez recommended the book 'Hegemony or Survival' in his UN speech. And masha'Allah it shot up on Amazon bestsellers list from its 160,722nd position straight to number one. Alhamdulillah now more people will read this book.

Another incident that made me smile was the case of Richard Butler who wanted to hold to his garden. Though he could have taken things further and sold square metres of his land for £1 each to dozens of different people all around the world...

Closer to home, a few years ago some boys at Belle Vue Boys' School set up a petition that they ought to be allowed to read the Friday prayer at the mosque. It is a state school where more than 95% of the children are Asian-Muslim. Masha Allah the school conceded and now the whole school finishes at lunch time on Fridays just so the boys don't miss their compulsory Jumah prayer. Alhamdulillah.

What more can Muslims do?

2006-09-11T12:20:00.001-07:00

As we come to five years after 9/11, many commentators are questioning the so-called 'war on terror'. A quick glance at today's newspapers reveals the disquiet about this seemingly all-pervasive, never-ending war. I will leave the interrogation of the war on terror to others (and there has been plenty of it today, thank God) , except to say that it is quite clear that Bush and Blair have made decisions that have killed many. many more than al Qaida. This simple fact requires more than a moment's reflection.

What more can Muslims do about this evil ideology of Islamofascism or Islamic terrorism or this arc of extremism or whatever.

There are two things that Muslims can do:

Report anyone to the police whom they know is about to engage in a terrorist act. The MCB published a booklet encouraging this in 2004, this was accompanied by a press release.

Remove any moral ambiguity on this matter through publicising fatwas and inviting credible scholars to speak to Muslim communities across Britian.

Apart from these actions, I cannot see how the Muslim community holds any responsibility for terrorist attacks. Meaning, that if I was asked, 'how does one regulate against four young men in some corner of society deciding between themselves that they wish to exact revenge for British foreign policy?', then my answer would not reach beyond the above-mentioned points.

As a tragic-comic alternative, a classic and fairly feeble attempt to move beyond this position towards confusing terrorist attacks with Islam itself was provided by Martin Amis, no less, in yesterday's Observer.

The Art of Engagement

2006-09-04T13:11:00.000-07:00

Well, I’ve just been watching Islam channel. A show called ‘Politics and Media’ on which they’ve invited a chief superintendent. They lined up callers to ask questions and after twenty minutes I had to switch off and rush to this keyboard.

It’s happened before and with ministers visiting Muslim communities at present, no doubt, it will happen again. It seems that Muslims can’t seem to ask proper questions: there is a major problem with conversation. Primarily this is because we are culturally illiterate, we don’t understand the norms of everyday culture here and so act as bulls in china shops, destroying every opportunity for persuasion or discussion when presented.

So, here is my twenty-seven step guide to the art of engagement.

Don’t give speeches. If you really want to be a speaker, practice in front of the mirror. That way, you’ll be speaking to a receptive audience.

Try to cover everything in two or three sentences at the most.

Keep your sentences short.

Leave ‘the bang’ of your questioning to the last sentence, preferably the last word.

Try to leave some space to the imagination of your audience. They are not ten year old children.

Try not to tell everyone about the time when you were waiting at a bus stop/met a friend at a service station/got pulled over by the police…

Smile.

If you want to make jokes, make sure they’re funny. Check with friends if you are not sure. (Again, do not break the three sentence rule). If you are the only person who laughs at your own jokes, even in large gatherings, then don’t try to be funny.

Practice asking your question, at least a couple of times.

Try not to give the person being questioned a way out by overstating your case or by getting your facts wrong.

Avoid hyperbole.

If you are going to use facts, check them first.

If you are going to use an idiom (such as ‘pot calling the kettle black’ or ‘the grass seems greener on the other side’), check it first (books can be bought on idioms).

Try to offer reasonable options that the questioned can consider, otherwise how will there be any improvement?

Speak to the questioned, not the audience.

If you feel great at the end of asking the question, ask yourself why?

Hand over the mike after it has been wrenched out of your hands.

If possible, and this comes with great difficulty, try to understate.

Try to follow up on a previous question, especially if it has not been answered. Preferably, begin with ‘I’d like to follow up on the previous question which I don’t think you answered…’

Don’t point fingers or make matters personal.

If you’re going to try and sound intellectual or academic, make sure you use the right words. For example, don’t use ‘scientology’ when you mean ‘scientific methodology’.

Don’t think that yours is the most important question, even if it is.

Don’t defend the September 11 attacks, and worse, don’t sound like you’re defending the September 11 attacks.

Don’t make a point about the lack of funding, especially if your organisation is one of the few to have received a grant.

Don’t assume that we must hear your opinion just because you have one.

Try not to use this opportunity to have a go at someone else in the audience.

Don’t think that by following any of the above, that you have somehow compromised your politics. In fact, it is the opposite. The most politically effective questions are those that are evidence-based, clear, concise and incisive. Can we please have more of them?

If after all this, the politician or policeman or whoever dodges your question, confuses, lies, or goes off on an irrelevant tangent, then don’t worry: if you’ve noticed it, so has everybody else. Remember that he is paid professionally to answer or not answer questions, and that he has probably already answered (or not answered) your question many times before. If you are unhappy with the performance of the questioned, then write to them to express your unhappiness, ask the question again and ask for a written response.

The Lebanon

2006-07-29T08:16:00.000-07:00

'Schindler's List' begins with:

Whoever saves one life,
Saves the world entire.

A year on

2006-07-03T10:59:00.000-07:00

Almost everyday a bomb explodes in Iraq, and sometimes 30 people are killed, and sometimes 60.

Almost a year ago, four bombs were set off across London's transport system and more than fifty people were killed in what were later described by the lead bomber as revenge attacks for the invasion of Iraq.

There are few objectives higher within Islamic law than the protection of human life. And if anything has improved since last year, it is that there is greater moral clarity on this matter.

The ‘Imams’ roadshow’, as it has unfortunately become to be known, has lead to some scholars asking why they have not been invited to speak. This request seems strange to me, as they speak every week and have done so since September 11, from the mimbar. Nobody has prevented any of these scholars from answering what must be one of the most serious moral questions their congregations face, the right to take life. They can still do so, because they believe it to be right and important. That is, they believe it to be an important part of upholding the Divine Command.

In the aftermath of the terrorist attacks however, there was an attempt to link the terrorism issue to the integration discussion. That is, that the terrorists attacks were due to a failed multiculturalist policy. Those with an explicit (or sometimes implicit) anti-Muslim agenda have attempted to link the two. The problem is with religious identity, they say, and the manner to deal with it is through assimilation. This argument gathered steam last summer. Even today, writers like Melanie Phillips and Michael Gove are still advocating such extreme positions. Worryingly, Michael Gove is part of David Cameron’s kitchen cabinet. Many of us have spent most of last year trying to point out that terrorism is related to politics and integration to liberalism as law and culture.

Simultaneously, the 'progressive' movement has caused some concern within Muslim circles, people have pointed to the compromises that the progressives are advocating. But this disregard for the law is repeated by those who adopt morally ambivalent stances towards the killing of innocents. This is exactly why the reformist argument fails. Abdul Hakim Murad pointed this out in his booklet ‘Understanding the Four Madhabs’ about a decade ago. Aftab Malik has also published a wonderful book on this matter and it deserves to be read by everybody concerned by these issues. Anarchy can only be defeated through a respect for the law, especially when it is against our nafs.

Victimhood or victimisation?

2006-07-02T11:56:00.000-07:00

A young man is woken up in the middle of the night. He hears noises from downstairs, he runs downstairs. And he is shot.

A young man is sent to jail for a ninety day sentence. He is put in the same cell as a violent racist. The night before he is due to leave, he is battered to death.

Two innocent men on the receiving end of institutionalised injustice. After much hand-wringing, no one has been charged or suspended for both crimes.

Somewhere else, a nation that is supposed to be free is collectively and comprehensively punished for the crime of a few. The world watches.

Where is justice in all of this?

And yet, there are so many other incidences that many of us never hear about.

Multiculturalism and mangoes

2006-06-18T05:26:00.000-07:00

The mango season is upon us again and the enterprising Pakistanis of Bradford will be flying in tons of the sweetest and most delicious of fruits from Karachi and Lahore for the next few weeks. Yet, so many English people have yet to discover this open secret. It's an open secret because there have now appeared piles of mango boxes across many Bradford groceries. Many non-multicultural cities miss out on this wonderful fruit. So, five mangoes for about three pounds. Hurry, only a few weeks left.

Mistah Kurtz, he dead.

2006-06-17T14:31:00.000-07:00

Apocalypse Now: As Captain Willard approaches Colonel Kurtz's compound deep in the Cambodian jungle, he walks past heads on poles. The civilised man - the third generation West Point-trained soldier - turned leader of the savages. Heads on poles.

And so, the whole world has seen the head of Zarqawi just as we did with the sons of Saddam Hussein. Proof that even the postmodern can achieve some level of barbarism.

Release of two men

2006-06-09T16:31:00.000-07:00

The two men arrested last week in Forest Gate have been released without charge in the last few hours. This is very good news. Primarily because innocent men are now free but also because the police had the strength to own up to a mistake. This should increase Muslim confidance in the police after what appears to have been a very big and awful mistake.

No doubt people will call for culpable persons to accept responsibility here. I am not so concerned with the individuals concerned. My concerns centre on the system. Several serious questions have been raised by this raid (not for the first time) and checks need to be introduced and the quality of the game (to use the Prime Minister's metaphor) needs to be raised. These questions are:

i) who are the experts that distinguish between some young lads mouthing off before they watch a football match and a definite terrorist threat? What is their knowledge and experience in this area? Do they have a conflict of interest?

ii) what are the exact circumstances of the shooting? What needs to be changed in raid procedure to prevent another disaster?

iii) who controls spin exercises in the press? What recourse do innocent men have now (like these two) against the lies printed against them over the weekend?

iv) are early morning raids necessary? Is it possible to think up more intelligent ways of apprehending suspects?

v) who is holding this whole anti-terrorist operation to account?

The figures on raids speak for themselves. They do not help the cause. The problem with the raid that happened last Friday is that it severely damages trust especially in the core constituency that needs to be kept on side. From my experience, it is quite clear that Muslims are fully willing to co-operate with the police either on moral grounds or because they realise that it is in their best self-interest. However, such co-operation is predicated upon sound, trustworthy and robust anti-terrorist operations that lead to convictions on terrorism-related offences.

More on these raids

2006-06-07T12:52:00.000-07:00

When the Prime Minister was arguing for 90 days detention, for which our local MP Marsha Singh voted, one of his arguments was that the judges would keep a very close eye on police procedure. That is, that they would not allow detention up to 90 days without being provided with strong arguments by the police. Well, we have a test case in front of us. The law says that the two brothers arrested last Friday in East London can be held for up to 14 days after repeated petitioning of a judge. The first such petition was applied for today and the judge granted it. But we already know that this particular case is looking flimsy. So, let's see how the judge scrutinises the police's request over the next few days.

Questions on anti-terrorism policing

2006-06-04T04:44:00.000-07:00

The raid on Friday morning which led to the shooting of a young man has again brought to the fore certain central questions on anti-terrorism policing. These include:

i) the quality of the intelligence or expertise that the police and security services are relying on. First of all, I don't know why they're called 'intelligence' services when they are in fact gathering information. And how does one gather 'intelligence'? Instead, the should be called information services. Anyway, I do worry about the quality of information that is being handed over to police and I also worry about the kind of person who evaluates this. Having now met a few experts in the academic world and thereabouts, I would like to ask who are the actual 'experts' making the judgements on the inside? There needs to be an audit of their capability. At the least, sending in 250 officers to arrest a young 23 year old should raise some eyebrows on the inside? Were 78 police officers not enough to arrest one 23 year old man? It does bring the whole thing into disrepute.

ii) there is an obvious question mark over the use of fire arms which is new to British police practice i.e. it's not very British. Now that someone has been shot again after the anger of last year's shooting at Stockwell tube station, are procedures going to remain the same or will the services consider a change? If this man proves to be innocent, then that means that on both occasions, innocent people have been shot. Does this mean that capital punishment has now been re-introduced to British law, except through the back door?

iii) we now have the dishonourable spectacle of the face-saving spinning exercise (including through the News of the World!). Time will tell about the exact circumstances but are there any procedures in place to protect against prejudicing the outcome of any future trial and against spinning in general as happened after Stockwell when the British public was fed a whole series of incredible lies?

iv) there is something really frightening and disgusting about the violence of the early morning raid against innocent people. How many houses have been raided since 2001? What happens after the raid? What happens if the whole house has been turned upside down? What happens if the family of the accused is present in the house? What happens if after everything the 'intelligence' was stupid? What recourse do the innocent have?

v) who assesses some of the claims that come out of anti-terrorism policing? When the police say that three plots have been foiled in the last six months, what do they mean? Which expert verifies that this is in fact the case? It's time for some answers.

vi) in short, to borrow a phrase from the Home Secretary, after the catalogue of errors since 2001 including the alleged ricin plot, the alleged Mancheter United plot, the shooting of Jean Charles, the shooting on Friday morning, and worst, the failure to prevent last year's bombings, is British anti-terrorism policing 'fit for purpose'?

Liberalism, the Enlightenment and rationality

2006-04-08T14:42:00.000-07:00

There is a common thread that runs through lay discussions. It goes something like this: the Enlightenment taught man to think for himself by championing rationality. Our society is the beneficiary of such an intellectual hinterland and as such we are all free to think as we please. This is what distinguishes us from others, less modern and less civilised. The assumption is that the lay person is a rational being. Instead, I would wish to suggest that rationality cannot be assumed, instead it remains a possibility for most.

About the Enlightenment itself, there is a discussion about the constitution of the Enlightenment and I would like to refer readers to two downloads available from the internet. The first is a recent discussion between two philosophers about the Enlightenment and the second is a lengthy but brilliant lecture on the same topic.

Now, post-religion, the social sciences took on the mantle of explaining and prescribing for human thought and behaviour. Consequently, the social sciences have developed from their earlier theorising through experimentation and discipline expansion towards what they have become today: a great monolith of academic application and study from anthropology through sociology to psychology and all that lies between and across.

Can a century’s worth or more of the social sciences add anything to the lay understanding of rationality as described above. Let us return to the basic postulate: ‘I am free to think’ (this has implications for freedom as freedom understood today is dependent upon rationality). I would suggest that there are three ways at least in which such understandings of rationality are circumscribed.

First of all, let us consider psychoanalysis. It may have been the case that Freud was incorrect in certain aspects of his theory – but his suggestion of the interplay between the id, ego and superego through defence mechanisms and the role of the unconscious in general are profound limitations on rationality (for more information read the collected works of Sigmund Freud, all 23 volumes – just joking, Anna Freud’s ‘The Ego and the Mechanisms of Defense’ should suffice). Rationality here can be rationalisation – what one person considers to be a free thought may in fact be a consequence of some tension between his id, ego and superego. The role of the emotions, their origins and the unconscious all exert some influence upon our freedom ‘to think independently’.

Secondly, as studies in the psychology of reasoning have found, common forms of reasoning in everyday life are flawed (see ‘Psychology of Reasoning’ by Wason and Johnson-Laird and ‘Judgement under Uncertainty’ by Kahneman, Slovic and Tversky). A web log is not really the place to begin a lesson on such topics but by way of example judgements under uncertainty consider heuristics as a form of psychological reasoning – a shorthand for logic. In the case of risk, exaggerated risks such as travelling by airplane cause more fear and anxiety than walking near a river – this is the heuristic of availability – people reason according to the information that is available to them. Johnson-Laird and Wason examine more structural aspects of the psychology of reasoning and they suggest that our manner of everyday reasoning is in many ways illogical.

Thirdly, the sociology of knowledge which continues on from the psychology of reasoning considers the structure of meaning that is available to lay persons, their context within the intellectual landscape and their relevance. Here, one could consider the work of Serge Moscovici, Karl Mannheim (who considered power as well) and Peter Berger and Thomas Luckmann. Essentially, terms have meaning within their cultural histories – progress means something within the context of modernity or identity means something within the context of postmodernity. As such, key terms that become part of everyday language and through which we make sense of our lives and relations to each other are heavily laden with weight of the history of culture (hence Raymond Williams’ ‘Keywords’). Our reasoning is therefore heavily circumscribed by the languages that are available to us and if the standard of education is poor, then the capacity for personal freedom is limited further.

For all these three reasons, lay rationality is limited. This does not mean that it is not possible. Rationality can become possible if one is trained to deal with one’s ego (recognise its games for example), understand the different forms of logic and reasoning and understand etymology and cultural history. If one can succeed in learning these three knowledges and skills, then one can begin to walk the path to freedom.

Liberalism and racism

2006-04-02T09:27:00.000-07:00

Liberalism is presented as the answer to us Muslims. If we become liberal, then we may become acceptable. There are, however, several reasons why some of us have held back from adopting liberalism or attempting to help form some kind of liberal Islam.

First of all, there is the connection between liberalism and imperialism. Enlightenment thinking was not conducted in a vacuum. It was conducted within the context of empire-building and helped provide the intellectual infrastructure for imperialism and its consequences. So there is a historical context. As such liberalism can not be disassociated from its economic context: capitalism. That is, that individual freedom was advocated alongside empire, as it is being advocated today. It was Marxism that challenged this dishonesty.

Secondly, it is quite clear that forms of anti-Muslim prejudice are being framed within liberal discourse. That is that liberalism is being used for example by the British National Party to re-articulate its racist case except that it now goes something like this: ‘We should not tolerate Muslims because they are not liberal enough’.

Thirdly, and perhaps most importantly for Muslims of South Asian descent, liberalism is not enough to prevent racism. Take the indices of discrimination and disadvantage across education and employment. There has been slow progress in the last ten years and for some strange reason advocating for one’s rights simply doesn’t work. Instead, people get fidgety and annoyed as if some rule of social etiquette has been broken. So asking liberals to be liberal is not acceptable by social convention.

These are three reasons why liberalism remains unappealing.

There is a fourth. Liberalism in its present garb states that people are allowed to change their religion because they should not be confined by ‘accidents of birth’ however they are not allowed to change their nationality. That is, if a Tunisian decided that he wanted to become British then he is not allowed to. Racism increases at any hint of the borders being loosened, and this racism is usually (today) couched in liberal terms about their ways of life and their lack of involvement or citizenship.

Islam, Muslims and liberalism

2006-03-04T00:26:00.000-08:00

I would like to distinguish between:

liberalism as a conception of state and society that prioritises Enlightenment rationalism and the individuated extra-contextual subject - let's call this 'tough liberalism'.

liberalism as a mutual agreement between differing groups on the manner of relation.

liberalism as expressed through identity politics which inscribes certain liberal ideals into everyday discourse - let's call this 'undercover liberalism'.

humanism as a form of everyday interaction - treating others with an absence of righteousness etc.

'Tough liberalism' though expressed in harsh and strong terms is in fact weak, it has a shelf life of about ten or twenty years within the present context and can only really be articulated in a superficial and contentious manner, i.e. that it does not stand well to scrutiny (e.g. the absolutist stance on freedom of speech, the notion of the abstract individual etc).

Liberalism as a mutual agreement is however emerging in British cities (and I am sure in European cities) simply because it has to by force of circumstance and time (modus vivendi etc.) though this process is being resisted by 'tough liberals'.

Liberalism as identity politics is being taken up by Muslims and is beginning to affect the interpretation of Islam as 'undercover liberalism' steals in Enlightenment notions through the adoption of identity politics in everyday discourse ('everyone is an individual', 'I am free to think what i want', 'it's my right' etc).

And finally to humanism which I believe is possible through the practice of the religion itself as Ibn Ata'illah says 'The tear of the sinner is more beloved to God than the arrogance of the righteous man' - the nurturing of an Islamic humanism can therefore become possible after a serious, personal engagement with the Most Merciful - but this is only a by-product, the aim
itself is to unite the reed with the reed bed because that is in accordance with the nature of things, as they are.

So I would suggest liberalism is problematic in its various guises, some open, some less so. But tolerance is nevertheless possible within an Islamic humanism and can best be termed 'adab' (and is hence not foreign at all). In fact, since it is genuine religion it is not only possible, it is necessary.

(For more on adab, read 'The Way to Sufi Chivalry' by Al Hussayn al Sulami).

The freedom of the lower self

2006-02-25T01:45:00.000-08:00

There is a certain type of liberal, Enlightenment liberal, who believes in foundational Enlightenment values as inherited from Rousseau and Voltaire amongst others. A problem here is, as in the evolution discussion, a category mistake is made. More is demanded of liberalism than it can deliver. This is because liberalism is and has always been an agreement over relations, it has described the size of the container that separates and connects us within liberal, democratic society. It has never suggested as a matter of clear enunciation what the container should actually contain. This means that there remains a great nothingness at the heart of the Enlightenment liberal's life and so some believe in science (atheists), some in new age mysticism and others in watered down versions of traditional religion. Some even believe in political parties.

A good question could be, as with the honour killings debate described below, when does attribution of blame become reasonable against an Enlightenment liberal way of life? How much does the incessant pushing of absolutist (and absurdist) notions of freedom affect or lead to the kinds of crime described below? What kind of culture does such foundational norms produce? Is liberalism, as understood in some of its guises, itself culpable?

This brings me on to my second point. How self-assured is the Enlightenment liberal? How much doubt - self-doubt - can they actually take? Is righteousness the sole prerogative of the believer? I write this because I have found that when I have challenged liberals profoundly, they have found it difficult to take, psychologically. There was some serious tension generated. I think this is because there is some self-recognition that beyond the finger pointing and posturing of the Enlightenment liberal, there is a real nothingness in which sits a sad, old, miserable man - not sure what he's doing here or where he's going. He knows that Camus was right, but just doesn't have his guts so the best that he can muster is to enjoy the ride, and then this becomes 'our way of life'. There is, happily, a way out. Liberalism can be recognised as an agreement on relations, and since we now live in a globalised world, a mutal agreement on relations, and liberals can appreciate the offerings of the Enlightenment without having to form them into some kind of public hollow ideology.

Immoral times

2006-02-03T10:53:00.000-08:00

Most of us are fairly emotionally resilient to the world around us but the events of the past few weeks have been troubling. I want to make a point of them because I think this requires reflection.

A man found an abducted girl screaming, three men were held over the abduction of a young child, a man was jailed for travelling repeatedly to Africa for sex tourism, two brothers were found guilty of killing their step-grandmother, babysitters were jailed for the rape of a baby and a woman is alleged to have fed her partner to pigs after she had killed him.

It is against Islamic manners to speak of the forbidden. I wish to remind us here of these crimes because we tend to forget them as each day passes. Collectively, these crimes say something about our moral condition. May Allah protect us and take us towards sincerity and purity of heart.

Muslims and Jews

2006-01-28T02:31:00.000-08:00

I've been meaning to write something about the relation between Muslims and Jews for a long time, especially as it is presented as a problem in the popular media. Israel is of course an important aspect of this relationship, but I would like to focus here on two other issues only as a way of introduction. Needless to say, there is much more to be said on this topic but hopefully the following links should be able to provide some initial signposting on this topic.

I am surprised when meeting young Jews about how little they know about Moses Maimonides. He is regarded as amongst the greatest of Jewish scholars, if not the greatest. He wrote in Arabic, studied at Fez and was the physician of Salahuddin al Ayyubi, no less. His life indicates that the relation between Muslims and Jews is not as simple as sometimes portrayed.

On the Holocaust, Masood Cajee has just a written a short and wonderful article which I think provides a clear moral position on the Holocaust.

It is Zygmunt Bauman who has stated one of the clearest arguments againnst the horrors of the Holocaust. But he has related the severity of its crime to modernity. Yet, this point is not rehearsed as we remember how it became possible for the first time in history to engage in a scale of murder which was previously unimaginable. Modernity with its notion of identity and difference (through nationalism) and through the application of its developing technological know-how made the Holocaust possible. Modernity should share the blame.

Channel 4 and Muslims

2006-01-08T07:56:00.000-08:00

Channel 4 was granted its licence in order that it may ‘contain a suitable proportion of matter calculated to appeal to tastes and interests not generally catered for by Channel 3 (ITV)’ and that it may encourage ‘innovation and experiment in the form and content of those programmes’. Its original purpose was to provide broadcasting space to those parts of Britain which had been overlooked by the main broadcasters. Those aspects of British life which were not reflected in the Bill, Eastenders and Casualty were to be given a space on this corner of the British televisual world. Asians and African-Caribbeans therefore did well at Channel 4, people like Farrukh Dhondy and Darcus Howe. There were however over the years two experiences or forms of consciousness which were developing and finding themselves in British urban culture: the gay community and Muslim identity. The gay community starting ‘coming out’ in the national public sphere towards the end of the eighties and in the early nineties (the strange paradox is that this was during Thatcherite Britain) with famous entertainers and other public figures openly stating their sexuality. It was also at this time that ‘key moments’ in British television history naturalized the acceptance of the gay community into the public sphere (such as in Eastenders and Brookside). The gay community had opted for a cultural form of identity assertion during this period and it succeeded to a certain extent. Part of its success was the space that Channel 4 gave to the representation and explanation of gay culture in its schedule.

The Muslim experience is different. Starting from an oppositional stand-point (the Rushdie affair), the Muslim community opted for a legal form of identity assertion – the search for parity in discrimination law, the search for legal recognition – eve though these attempts towards legal inclusion were causing Muslims to become through culture (i.e. more comments pieces were written against Muslim assertion as a result of such campaigns) more excluded. Channel 4 has played an important part in this. It has for most of the nineties occupied a space of accusatory distance from the Muslim community, with programmes like ‘The Tottenham Ayatollah’ firmly etched in British Muslim memory. Channel 4’s ‘Islam week’ in 2001 followed the BBC2 ‘Islam awareness week’ of the same year. It is shame that though it was within Channel 4’s remit, that it was BBC2 that took the courageous first step. Channel 4’s ‘Islam week’ was heavily undermined however by its programme on the MCB which caused the whole week to be surrounded by controversy in Muslim eyes even if they had a programme on Texan convert Muslims (which slightly overstated the case).

The problem is that there has been a fascinating British urban development: the emergence of a religious culture and identity in the heart of postmodern culture. An exciting place to be, with characters and experiences, difficulties and stresses, all missed by the national broadcasters. Attempts to understand and portray have included film versions of Hanif Kureishi’s ‘My Son, the Fanatic’ and Zadie Smith’s ‘White Teeth’. Kureishi reveals his own distance by his writing which captured almost nothing of what is happening and why. And the televising of Zadie Smith’s ‘White Teeth’ is a lesson for all media students into the differences between print and television. The book had some depth to the Muslim activist, not quite all the way there, but she had certainly got to grips with some of the issues. And the television version sensationalized by adding scenes of Malcolm X-Spike Lee like regimentalism – just to add to the stereotype. Thus, Channel 4 as a broadcaster has missed a piece of British social history. As it happens, this history is not only interesting, it is also relevant and important. Why? Because two key political discussions of the time are ‘terrorism’ and ‘community cohesion’ (as constructed) – both relate to this urban phenomena around us but we can only understand and relate to it through Smith and Ali’s ‘Brick Lane’ (as Ian McEwan said, approximately, 'It’s great that Ali is writing this novel because it helps us understand more about what’s going on around us').

All is not lost, though, because Channel 4 is trying to get over its anxieties. It has recently commissioned ‘Shariah TV’ and the recent ‘Hidden Civilisation’ series contained some truly excellent programmes (again with the occasional overstatement) and had a measure of depth which cannot be matched by anything before. Okay, I’m exaggerating. There were two decent series in 1989/1990: ‘Cities of Islam’ and ‘Sufism: Heart of Islam’, but that was over a decade ago and I can barely remember them.

What the heck is going on?

2005-12-27T15:57:00.000-08:00

If ever you've wondered about the various structures that lie above us (in a political-bureacratic sense), well, here we go:

Local authorities are responsible for local government, on issues like traffic and the environment, or the youth and social services. A full list of Bradford's officers is available.

Councillors are elected according to political party and in each ward. A city is divided into many wards. A full list of current councillors is provided. The councillors sit on various committees through which they monitor and check local governance. There is also a local chamber in which matters of importance can be debated.

Bradford city centre is currently undergoing massive regeneration, the company responsible is the Bradford urban regeneration company.

Education Bradford is responsible for overseeing educational standards in Bradford's schools. It is currently being run by Serco, a private firm, because Bradford's educational services were rendered to the private sector about five years ago. Serco is half way through a ten year contract.

Bradford NHS is divided into primary care trusts, district care trusts and hospital trusts.

Bradford Vision is the local strategic partnership, set up to help improve the delivery of local services. It includes neighbourhood renewal in its portfolio. The council, the NHS, the police and regional representatives sit on its board.

The government office for Yorkshire and Humber is the national government's regional outlay, delivering on its policies and programmes. That is, that government directives come through the government office.

The regional assembly for Yorkshire and Humber is the voice for the region.

Yorkshire Forward is the regional development agency and drives the regeneration (especially economic) of the region.

In terms of national government, there is the Department of Health (NHS), the Department of Education and the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister which manages many of the social concerns such as cohesion, renewal and inclusion.

In terms of the Home Office, it is divided into various sections of which two are particularly relevant: communities and security.

There are three MPs in the House of Commons that are elected according to areas of Bradford (Bradford West, Bradford South etc.)

Then, there's Europe...

'Honour Killings'

2005-12-15T06:54:00.000-08:00

The crime of honour killings has been documented and described for a few years now. The depiction is an example of the name encompassing the explanation such as ‘Islamic terrorists’ – which is popularly interpreted as: ‘they are terrorists because they are Muslims’. ‘Honour killings’ as such is interpreted as: ‘they kill to preserve their honour’. I have always found this explanation not quite satisfactory. Though honour is undoubtedly involved as families kill as a response to disgrace – I have thought that possession as opposed to honour helps explain such actions better.

The theory here would be that male members of the family hold on to female members as possessions. The act of possession has consequences for life choices and behaviours. Choosing an alternative marriage partner or having a boyfriend contravenes the rule of possession. As such, the act of killing is an attempt to re-claim a possession that the murderer is in danger of losing.

I want to relate this theory to an important Guardian article from this weekend by Katharine Viner which summarises some research that she conducted along with others into the murder of women (mostly) by their spouses between December 2003 and December 2004. They found that up to 120 people are killed by their partners each year and the researchers said: “The thread that runs through this… is the man's sense of ownership of the woman, and his control over the continuation or cessation of the relationship.” That is, that these are also crimes of possession. As a relationship unravels, the ex-boyfriend kills the former girlfriend: “If I can’t have her, nobody else can”.

This returns me to ‘honour killings’ and what I regard as the construction of lay prejudice. What differentiates ‘honour killings’ from those that were investigated by Viner and others is that families and relatives are involved in honour killings as opposed to spouses (do spouses kill in order to maintain their face in front of their friends?). This could be due to the differential nature of possession across cultures, the Western form being more individualistic and relationship-focused, the Eastern form being more family-focused. As such, the depiction of honour killings is, I would suggest, a form of prejudice as these kinds of killings receive massive media focus whereas as Viner writes of the cases that she investigated: ‘few are reported in the national press’.

This should be of concern because as I listen carefully to conversations in Bradford, it seems clear to me that there is at present an active process which involves the attempted construction of prejudice through lay theories that denigrates others while ignoring the very similar crimes (and perhaps more frequent) that are occurring within British society. It is also important because ‘honour killings’ fit so easily and frequently into lists of negative attributes when others are mentioned. Finally, it is important because it highlights the differences in trajectory from crime to media story. It is my concern that it is a discursive prejudice that determines the outcome.

The 'Hu' Track

2005-12-07T15:02:00.000-08:00

The 'Hu' track is music from the heavens. It is available from Deenport in the mp3 files section.

Pursuing equality

2005-11-12T14:19:00.000-08:00

The race agenda progresses slowly under Tory patronage. Labour when coming into power in 1997 sought immediately to advance the race agenda through highlighting the Stephen Lawrence case and the consequent MacPherson report which focused on institutional racism within the police. There was published almost immediately thereafter a Parekh report which was put together by a strong panel of academics, policywonks and media commentators. It was rubbished on publication by the likes of the Daily Mail because it contained one or two points that perhaps pushed the envelope. Both of these reports however were in pursuit of advancing the race agenda. Then came the Ouseley report. This was commissioned by Bradford Council after some financial irregularities were highlighted in the local Racial Equality Council – though there is much more to this story. Ouseley was brought in as a former Commission for Racial Equality head and he put together at the head of a comparatively weaker committee a report which was ready by April 2001, but which was then published immediately after the riots. Its conclusion as popularly remembered is that the fault lies with certain overly religious communities that do not wish to integrate.

The report had some impact at the time and Cantle proceeded on behalf of the government to develop an analysis that focused around ‘community cohesion’ (see the Cantle report). The race agenda was turned on its head, the problem was not institutional racism but certain obstinate communities. A unit on ‘community cohesion’ was set up in the Home Office only to be disbanded a short while later. A new ‘faith and cohesion’ unit has now been set up which combines the ‘community cohesion’ (religion as bad) and ‘faith communities’ (religion as good) units. Only recently, the Home Office has reverted to its previous institutional racism perspective as it seeks to document and monitor the various developments across the public services.

This shift in policy was made against a comparison with France. The opponents of multiculturalism would point across the channel to a model which they suggested was more succesful in integrating its minorities. This was through a fom of secularism that solely recognised the atomised, indivisible citizen. The inadequacies of a system which claims to ignore race and religion because it can only recognise the merits of the individual have now been exposed. Now, neither multiculturalism nor hard-line secularism seem to work.

Marsha voted for 90 days

2005-11-10T15:00:00.000-08:00

One of the questions that I get repeatedly asked is: 'Why do you think these young men chose radicalisation?'

The reason why young men turn away from the political process is because people like Marsha Singh who are supposed to represent a sizeable Muslim community vote for the 90 days detention period. A political concern remains unrepresented because our MP doesn't have the gravitas to say 'Mais non' to the whip. It is the politics of the 'Yes men'. If the political system does not represent the political consiousness of its constituencies, then that consiousness will simply go elsewhere.

Also, one notes that more than ten ex-ministers voted against the 90 days period whereas many of the future candidates for senior ministerial positions voted for the 90 days such as David Lammy, Yvette Cooper, David Milliband, Ed Milliband, Jim Murphy, Ed Balls etc. How can we be expected to take the democratic process seriously in light of the strength of the party machinery? On a matter as important as the 90 days limit, it makes a mockery of our system which celebrates the freedom of conscience.

Marsha on 'internment-lite'

2005-11-08T03:07:00.000-08:00

Our MP, Marsha Singh, is about to vote tomorrow on the government suggestion that they require up to 90 days to hold terrorist suspects. Hopefuly, he will not abstain. His supporters suggest that he accepts and champions Muslim concerns in parliament.

Since this 'war on terror' began, only a small fraction of those arrested have been charged. Nearly everyone I speak to has either been directly affected or knows someone who has been directly affected: stop and search, being held for questioning at airports etc. This suggested increase in detention time means that if 650 innocent people are detained over the next four years, then there is the possibility that they could be detained for three months each. Since certain crimes carry punishments of two months in jail, it could soon be possible that an innocent Muslim could be held in detention for longer than a guilty criminal. The fig leaf that we have been offered is that a judge will monitor the process on a weekly basis. This is 'internment-lite'.

Our friends, the torturers

2005-10-27T15:49:00.000-07:00

Craig Murray, former British ambassador to Uzbekistan, writes in the Independent about the importance of making a strong stand aginst those who use torture. Unfortunately, our government continues to adopt a morally ambivalent approach to this issue.

Education: national curriculum or natural curriculum?

2005-10-15T05:31:00.000-07:00

There seems to be deep seated confusion in society over the purposes of education and what constitutes a good education. Although we may not agree how it should be done, almost everyone agrees that self-respect and respect for others should be a result of having been educated. Martin Luther King warned us that: ‘The function of education is to teach one to think intensively and critically. But education which stops with efficiency may prove the greatest menace to society. The most dangerous criminal may be the man gifted with reason, but with no morals’. Howard Gardner in his book Intelligence Reframed: Multiple Intelligences for the 21st Century goes even further by nominating ‘species humility’ as the virtue to cultivate man in the twenty-first century. In any case, thinking out how to live is a more fundamental and urgent use of man’s intellect than discovering facts. A philosopher named Jonathan Glover, of the University of London, says that teaching young people to think rationally and critically can make them less susceptible to false ideologies, propaganda and political manipulation. His research into atrocities committed by dictators and despots suggests that those communities that have succeeding in resisting dictatorship and cruelty are those that nurture what he calls “the benign rebel” in their children. He says: “You can never be sure what will happen to any country in 20 years’ time; 20 years ago, many people went for their holidays in Yugoslavia.” (see Guardian, 13^th October 1999). Children, we are told by educational policy makers, should be problem solvers, creative thinkers and morally sophisticated. But what kind of pedagogy makes such learning possible? And how does one nurture a ‘benign rebel’?

The goal of education, according to Bertrand Russell, is to “give a sense of the value of things” and help to create “wise citizens” encouraging a combination of citizenship with individual creativeness; ipso facto, we must regard “a child as a gardener regards a young tree, as something with a certain intrinsic nature, which will develop into an admirable form, given proper soil and air and light” —such was the “humanistic conception” of Russell. That is, the idea that education is not merely filling an empty vessel, but allowing something to grow in its own way. Charlotte Mason recognized three critical ingredients of a complete education when she said: “Education is an atmosphere, a discipline, and a life.” For her the idea that vivifies this is that “Education is a science of relations”. According to Mortimer J. Adler, “The aim of education is to cultivate the individual’s capacities for mental growth and moral development; to help him acquire the intellectual and moral virtues requisite for a good human life.”

But how does one teach moral character and relations? The answer is that manners are not taught, they are caught. And according to the philosopher Paul Feyeraband it is dependent on “accidents such as parental affection, some kind of stability, friendship, and a delicate balance between self-confidence and a concern for others.” Guy Claxton in his book Wise Up also suggests that the best thinkers were never taught so, but that they were given room to think.

The method of education of Socrates, the Greek philosopher, was called the elenchus; his idea was to open a space for learning through getting rid of junk that can clutter up the mind and prevent it from clear and fresh thinking. In his explanation of the characteristics of Socratic teaching Peter Abbs explains that ‘education is an activity of mind, a particular emotional and critical orientation towards experience’. Such a effort requires a pedagogy that combines children’s cognitive as well as emotional development. Something, I believe cannot take place in a modern classroom setting alone.

Education in many minds today however, has become synonymous with ‘training’, or, at least, a species of it. Training in what? We have ‘potty training’, ‘dog training’ ‘training for the army’. Education, on the other hand, in its traditional sense, is about opening up of the mind, transcending detail and skill (for any particular occupation); or, in the words of Peter Abbs ‘educing, releasing, then liberating’. It is no coincidence that the word school comes from the Greek word schole which means both leisure and discussion. Also, the word academy derives from Akademus—the man who owned the garden in which Plato and his disciples discussed philosophy. Looking at these terms vis-à-vis their original meanings provides them with a resonance lacking nowadays.

Schools today however, are more like political institutions with identified public functions. Hence, due to reasons of protection and control, I believe, they are stifling children’s ability to critically think, express opinion and pursue the tricky business of ‘self-management’. One of the reasons for this is that the overly prescriptive nature of curricula precludes such things from happening in a classroom effectively; as activities, discussions and children’s responses are provisional in such learning and not steered by the teacher. Over-specialization within curricula can have profound narrowing effects on children’s ability and capacity to converse, think laterally and originally. It is presumably for this reason that Einstein said: “Education is what remains after one has forgotten everything he learned in school.” Theodore Zeldin in his book Conversation laments the decline in recent years of children’s capacity to converse and bears some of the responsibility on over-specialized curricula as well as a fixation with stage-age learning. That is, assuming that children are at a certain stage in their learning rigidly and lumping them into single age groups. Mortimer J. Adler states: “Because man is viewed as having only an animal career and not a human destiny, interest and adjustment have taken the place of discipline and cultivation”.

Education is most assuredly a tool for social change and a means by which people can perceive, interpret, criticise and finally transform the world about them. Such education, as mentioned above, is a different kind of quest to today, where market achievement is the yard-stick for success, and I believe there is need for us to re-look at our perceptions of cleverness or achievement. Anyway, my point is that parents are the main educators of their children; and, by having children they oblige themselves to become educated in doing so effectively. That is, it is their duty to make their children good citizens—not the teachers’ or molvis’. Parenting comprises all the tasks involved in raising a child to an independent adult.

Abrar ul Haq

Some suggested reading:

The Unschooled Mind: How Children Think and How Schools Should Teach by Howard Gardner

The Educational Imperative: Defence of Socratic and Aesthetic Learning by Peter Abbs

Conversation by Theodore Zeldin

More money than sense

2005-09-27T14:49:00.000-07:00

An important difference between the American Muslim community and the British Muslim community is its class profile: the American Muslim community has a much larger middle class sector. Another important difference is that the American Muslim community has allowed for the emergence of an indigenous leadership, something which has yet to happen in Britain and something which I will return to at a later date. I wish to focus here on the current economic conditions of the British Muslim community and specifically here in Bradford. Though there are areas in Bradford which suffer under some of the worst poverty conditions in the country, it is nevertheless also true that there is developing a middle class sector within the Bradford Muslim community and more generally that there is a lot more wealth around than there used to be. There are several reasons for this. First of all, the money flow to ‘back home’ has slowed down. Whereas before many were building huge mansions in Pakistan, now people have decided to invest their wealth here. Secondly, many of the sons and daughters of the first generation have entered the professions and this has also led to increased wealth within sectors of the community. Thirdly, the house prices have risen markedly, so whereas somebody who may have owned three houses before for 25K each, now they may be looking at houses worth much more. Fourthly, the regeneration money that has been sent into deprived areas has begun to find its way to those in need and this has helped increase wealth. Combining these factors, one begins to see a picture emerge in which some sections of the community have witnessed increased wealth.

I should state that I have a conflict of interest here, I help manage an arts and crafts shop in Bradford. The Germans make a distinction between Kulturwissenschaften and Naturwissenschaften. The latter are the natural sciences and the former are the cultural sciences. I am somebody who has spent most of my adult life interested in the cultural sciences. Immigrants, by the sheer fact of their being migrants, tend to be interested in those subjects that further the intention of migration: worldly gain – or put it more simply, how to make more money. That is why the immigrant mentality finds the Kulturwissenschaften irrelevant, unless of course, there is money in it. But the study of history, or the history of ideas, or literature, or languages, or urban sociology, or the philosophy of science; or the study of calligraphy and illumination; or even studying to become a religious scholar – all of these are regarded as largely irrelevant as career options. This is not the case amongst the second generation though and we are slowly witnessing the emergence of a cultural sector within the Muslim community. This returns me to my main point, that though there has been a marked increase in wealth in sections of the Muslim community, this has not been accompanied by an increase in sense. As such, the Muslim economy focuses around perishing matters as opposed to those areas that could support the development of our nascent community. We are a new community facing new challenges and we have many needs, some urgent. We need Imams on decent salaries so that we can attract the best candidates and keep them. We need researchers and intellectuals who are able to deal with the issues that we presently face. We need to get a grip on the changing nature and dynamics of the community. We need to develop an arts sector that though not necessary nevertheless adds hugely to quality of life. Some of these could be funded by public bodies but many of them can not, and the Muslim community needs to take a hold of its own future by channelling the vast amounts of wealth that are within its reach towards the kind of areas in life that require some kind of support. Normally, this is called philanthropy and we need a lot more of it. Economies are based upon values.

Spiritual Tree

2005-09-23T12:54:00.000-07:00

Muslims have formed a significant presence in Britain since the ninety-sixties onwards and their cultural development and assertion has lead to the emergence of a number of religious and political organisations. The aesthetic sense of the British Muslim community however remains underdeveloped. The Guardian’s art correspondent Jonathon Glancey commented as such in his article ‘The ideal dome show’ (17 June 2002) which appeared as part of the newspaper’s week-long coverage of Muslim Britain. Casting his eye over the variety of mosques that have appeared on the British landscape since the sixties, he lamented the lack of artistic achievement that has characterized Muslim presences in many other parts of the world. This is partly because the language that is dominant at present reflects a political mobilization that has formed the core of the British Muslim experience. This has impeded a holistic and open development of a culture that remains apprehensive in its relations with others. Part of this is due to a lack of self-confidence and part of it is also due to a sheer bewilderment as to the manner of engagement.

The process, however, is dialogic and I wish to disentangle the contentious issue of the public celebration of religion. The local community, either within the public sector or on the ground on the streets of Bradford, has found the assertion of religion difficult to understand. This is partially because religion itself is generally a private matter in British social life. The negative evaluation of Islam and Muslim identity has however resulted in the public assertion of Muslim identity as is common in most identity politics movements. This defiance has the additional effect of compounding an antagonistic relationship and simultaneously eliciting an immediate recognition of negative Muslim associations such as Muslim terrorists and Muslim thuggery. All of this means that the languages of engagement and interaction become increasingly unavailable towards community cohesion.

This is where the language of art can help. Art itself is an expression of what is within and it can, within our local context, become a source of self-confidence and out-reach. Burckhardt’s ‘Fez, City of Islam’ exceptional account of the city of Fez in Morocco and the relationship between its urbanism and art reveals the intrinsic part of art in Islamic life. It is this potential for beauty that we wish to acquire and spread. The prohibition of depictions of life has meant that the visual Islamic arts have concentrated on calligraphy and illumination, and the result has been, as exemplified by the interior of the Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem, that less is more. We have set up an organization called ‘Spiritual Tree’ that seeks to encourage the teaching and practice of traditional Islamic arts. Towards this end, we organized an eight week course over summer in calligraphy and illumination. The pictures below are from an exhibition of the teachers’ and the students’ work. If you are interested, and would like further information, then please send an e-mail to info@spiritualtree.org.uk.

Efdaluddin Kilic, a master calligrapher from Istanbul, is providing an introduction to the science of calligraphy. Mahmud Manning, a master illuminator, is seated on the right.

An exhibition of the teachers' work completed during their stay in Bradford. This exhibition will remain open to viewing for one more week at Cartwright Hall in Lister Park in Bradford.

An exhibition of the students' work in calligraphy and illumination.

Close-ups of examples of calligraphy and illumination by various students.

Labour and Muslims

2005-09-22T15:44:00.000-07:00

The Labour party conference is approaching and it is as good a time as any for Labour to assess its relationship with the Muslim community. The Labour party was the natural political home for the Muslim community for most of the last three decades and for good reasons. The Muslim community was generally in agreement with Labour on social justice and the anti-racism agenda. But this relationship is now unravelling, and though the Iraq war was a major historical turning point, there are much deeper reasons for this development.

Historically, it was Labour that pioneered the incorporation of ethnic minorities into the political process. The other parties followed suit but their rate of incorporation was and remains slower. However, there was a slant to this incorporation and this involved the securing of the ‘Muslim vote’ through biraderi (kinship) networks. This has been examined by Muslim journalists such as Faisal Bodi and Navid Akhtar but the relationship remains as strong as ever. This manner of involvement with the Muslim community meant that the party took on candidates and a process that required it to turn a blind eye to the quality of the candidates and the consequences on the community itself. Ann Cryer’s regular outbursts are perhaps an example of one such MP attempting to deal with the hypocrisy of the process through which she herself is elected. But others are less vocal, though no less problematic. Marsha Singh MP, our local MP, sat on the Home Affairs Committee during the last parliament. One of the subjects under study was ‘Terrorism and Community Relations’ (ref. Home Affairs Select Committee Report on Terrorism and Community Relations). He attended three out of seven hearings of oral evidence. He asked no questions. Other problems with this manner of involvement have included the language that is employed by the councillors that are elected. At public events which I have attended, councillors have approached me while speaking in Punjabi, while they remain part of a party whose ex-Home Secretary called for the speaking of English at home. Or examine the Daily Jang on any day and see how councillors and MP court the community through a culturally-other paradigm. It is a shame that the Tories and the Liberals have followed a similar kind of strategy. There is much focus on religious institutions and their relation to English language engagement, perhaps it is also time to examine local political institutions and their relation to English language engagement especially if their reach can at times match the power of religious institutions.

This kind of engagement/management/containment had serious consequences for the younger generation. Political activity became a part of public life for the second generation as they reached maturity (for various well-documented reasons), however, their examination of the then political set-up encouraged them to find manners of political expression outside of the already existing structures. Many of the youth organisations became prominent during this period. So, in every city, there were two areas of political activity – one within the local and national system (the councillors, the gatekeepers, the bureaucrats) and one without. Crucially, there was a qualitative (moral and intellectual) difference between the kinds of people in each segment. This important difference was and remains disastrous for the community. This point was brought home to me at a recent event in which there were both groups present. Generally speaking, the Islamic activists, when they were talking to each other, were sharp, articulate and conversing in English. The Labour activists, when they were talking to each other, were speaking in Punjabi. The problem is that the Labour activists were the ones who had access to power, locally and nationally. The interesting development post Iraq is that many of the Islamic activists have entered the political arena – for Respect and the Liberals – but Labour has not been able to capture them. Instead, inside Labour, many of the old-style Labour people are at present trying to regain some ground through government (locally and nationally) but they have little relevance on the terrorism issue – it is precisely their kind of politics that has sent people away from active models of citizenship – that is, Labour Muslims and the party’s patronage of them is a major part of the problem. It is time for the party to re-consider its approach.