Yasmin Alibhai-Brown wrote an opinion piece in the Independent yesterday (available here if you care to pay the fee) demanding to know why Muslims did not join demonstrations like the Day for Darfur last Sunday:
Where is the shrill outrage when Muslims kill and ethnically cleanse other Muslims from their meagre homes? Why is the anti-African racism of the Arab Sudanese government and militia not damned by Muslims? Where are the perpetually appalled Muslims today?
Oh, they are otherwise engaged, denouncing Pope Benedict's speech in Germany ... The livid crowd from London to Pakistan who extracted the apology care nothing about the torture by Muslim governments of their own dissidents, and remain blissfully indifferent to the maltreatment of Christians, Bahais, Jews, Hindus and Buddhists in Islamic countries. They cannot bear to accept that, although our war has intensified sectarian hatreds, the abominable killings of civilians are carried out by Shias and Sunnis in the name of their own-brand Allah.
Now comes the greatest test of their selective morality, the genocide in Darfur. And htey have already failed the test, dishonourably and conspicuously, by withholding condemnation of the most systematic and planned annihilation of a Muslim population in the 21st century.
As it happens, I was on the Darfur march on Sunday, and it just so happens that Inayat Bunglawala is one of a list of regular Comment is Free columnists to support the Day for Darfur (see here and here). Among other prominent Muslims to support it was Shaikh Ibrahim Mogra, as can be seen on the front page of the Day for Darfur website. I don't think there has ever been a big demonstration by Muslims against a specific tyrannical régime in a Muslim country, but the level of discontent with some of them (on various grounds) is well-known to anyone who has spent much time with Muslims.
Yasmin refers to the "livid crowd from London to Pakistan", as if the crowd in London was significant. It wasn't: it was a gang of the usual suspects offending Catholic worshippers coming out of Mass - nothing more than that. We've all seen the banners and some of us have no doubt have had a laugh over the demonstrators' poor English, but despite the protestations from some Muslim leaders, there has been no actual demonstration against the Pope's speech in London except for that by al-Muhajiroun's remnants. (And how large, and how spontaneous, were the demonstrations in the variosu Muslim countries?)
As for why Muslims don't join demonstrations for western military intervention, it might be considered that some of them are thinking of the results of the last few major western military interventions: the first Gulf War, which led to more than a decade of sanctions against Iraq, and then Afghanistan and now Iraq. There may also be the issue of some Muslims having a misguided affection for the Sudanese government because it was one of a few countries to attempt to establish Shari'a some years ago, but while I'm sure no Muslim is indifferent to the fact of a group of Muslims being massacred, by other Muslims or anyone else, neither do they want to see the disasters of Afghanistan and Iraq exported to a third country.
And besides which, the Global Day for Darfur was not that well-publicised anyway. It was not actually on the BBC News website, for example, until the morning of the demonstrations themselves; I found out about it through blogs, and not everybody, by any means, knows about blogs. Of course, a large percentage of those on the demo were in fact Muslims, but most of these were from Darfur itself. Was any serious attempt made to advertise the event to Muslims? If not, the community can't be blamed for not taking part.
It must also be noted that big demonstrations normally take place against a specific action.
An absence of anything happening does not normally stir people onto the streets, so Yasmin's comparisons are not quite valid.
I want to know why anytime there s a problem in the world, muslums respond with vilence. If the koran taches pease love and happiness then why do people blow themselves and other up in the name of islam. Based on what I see Islam is a religion that teaches people to hate and become terrorits, there is no peace to islamic belivers.
How reasonable do you think the suggestion would be that al-Muhajiroun and its successors are "verbal terrorists" who seek to incite Islamophobia in order to drive British Muslims into their arms, much as Ariel Sharon deliberately provoked the Palestinians in order to be elected on an "anti-terrorist" ticket?
George is right, much of the Al-Qaedists terror approach seems to be one of stoking hatred against Muslims, presumably so they can then pass themselves off as the only defenders of the Muslims when we inevitably face a backlash.
The 9/11 attacks were not, as is commonly stated in the West done because they believe the US would flee from the Mid East in fear, but rather because they knew it would exact a huge retribution from the US.
Similarly, Zarqawi's massacres against Shia in Iraq were designed to provoke a Sunni-Shia cycle of revenge and force the Sunnis to side with his takfiri band. Similarly we now see the same stoking of tension with Catholicism, when in reality the the Catholic Church is almost irrelevant in Christendom and even an object of ridicule in the West.
Indeed, the term "terrorists" for "irregular combatants who deliberately kill civilians" is unfortunate, as it obscures the fact that many such attacks are not about intimidation, but about provocation.
Darfur has been ignored for too long. The reason is, in my opinion, that neither the perpetrators nor the victims are white.
I sent the following E-Mail to Yasmin on that day, before I read your own reply....
_______________________
Yasmin,
Assalaamo Aleikum, A Chara,
I am curious as to what Muslim organisations you want to condemn the Darfur atrocities, and why.
There were Muslims at Downing Street yesterday, quoting Muhammad and urging help for the innocents of Darfur. The MCB has been calling for some form of internationalised action on the Darfur Crisis for years. Note their "prayer for Darfur" ( http://www.mcb.org.uk/downloads/darfurprayer.pdf ). Likewise the MAB has been calling for aid and action in Darfur for at least four years, a call usually ignored by folks such as yourself.
Globally, both Tantawi and Qaradawi (Probably the worlds two most Pre-eminent Sunni Muftis) have issued fatwas against the oppressive regime, and have urged aid and support for the people of Darfur. This was more difficult for Tantawi, considering he is a government employee, and Egypt tends to wait for their Puppet masters to lead the way before they follow. Qaradawi even went there to try and do something about (but, clearly, failed - Though I do not recall the Pope rushing off to Rwanda).
Charity wise, Muslim Aid, Islamic Relief and Small kindness are all working in Darfur, alongside the more widely reported MSF and Oxfam.
People wise, the recent Anti-War Protest March, which - as with all anti-war marches - had a disproportionately large Muslim attendance, also made explicit references of condemnation concerning the Sudanese Government. Indeed, there seems to be more Muslim protest over Darfur than Christian protest over Rwanda. Should Muslims be held to a different level of Protest weight, or something?
What do you want Muslims to do, and which Muslims do you want to do it?
I have a better reason. Most of us Muslims dont like what is happening in Sudan, but we see it being used as a tool by some groups who dont like Muslims or Islam as a way to bash both Islam and Muslims.
Since when have the far right Christian groups in the USA been so interested in Muslim victims of genocide? Yet they have been some of the loudest voices about the violence in Sudan.
For me I dont want to jump onto a train that our enemies have hijacked. What is happening in Sudan is horrible, and it is just as bad that these people have jumped on this issue as a way to push forward their own agenda.
Yusuf - As you well know Muslim groups from the MCB and MAC managed to get far more people protesting against the Danish cartoons without the help of the national media. So I don't exactly buy your argument that it wasn't well publicised.
As for being sceptical of western intervention - sure. But a big protest might also be aimed at the Arab govts who are sitting on their hands while people in Darfur die.
Instead of subscribing to the Independent to read their articles online, you're probabily better off subscribing to factiva.com where you can read any article from nearly any publication, so that includes all the Independent articles.
I'm with Abu Sinan on this. Why no Muslims they ask? Probably because the protests over Darfur are by those who are committing similar crimes in Palestine and Iraq. Nobody is fooled by crocadile tears from the zionists and their poodles. These are the same people who dropped over a million cluster bombs in southern Lebanon after a ceasefire agreement was reached. Why arent they raging against the dozens of other conflicts in Africa? Congo anyone? I didnt see them in streets for Rwanda either.
Any excuse to get into oil rich Sudan. Nice try Alibhai-Brown, but you hypocrites are going to have to try harder.
Irn: the thing with the Independent is that most of its well-known columnists have dumped it over the years, I suspect largely as a result of its Portfolio policy. People want to have their opinions heard and referenced easily, not have them hidden behind a subscription wall. Their main op-ed writers are Alibhai-Brown (a well-known anti-religious liberal whiner), Johann Hari (ditto, and his articles are reproduced on his own website anyway), Robert Fisk (not always the most reliable, in my opinion), Bruce Anderson (who?) and Dominic Lawson (who commissioned "Will Cummins" when he was Sunday Telegraph editor). Their circulation is the smallest of all the ex-broadsheets.
"Probably because the protests over Darfur are by those who are committing similar crimes in Palestine and Iraq. "
Hardly similar crimes: hundreds in Palestine, or thousands in Iraq, from everyone engaged, tens of thousands in Darfur and millions over the years in Sudan as a whole, including government-induced famine.
"These are the same people who dropped over a million cluster bombs"
http://www.aljazeera.com/me.asp?service_ID=12037 says about 100,000 according to the U.N. As far as I know, there weren't any Israeli air force pilots at the demonstartion. What's your evidence for their presence?
Dont play games Thersites, you're not going to whitewash the heavy zionist presence behind the false concern for Darfur. Perhaps you would have more credibility if you were out in the streets for all the other conflicts raging across the African continent. But hey, weapons have to be sold, profits have to be made, deceptions have to be sold, and crocodile tears shed...
Also find out what a cluster bomblet is.
Who is playing rhetorical games, Dr M? The fact remains, you could put another zero on the end of the casualties in both Lebanon and Palestine and you'd come close to the figures for Dafur. Two zeros for the whole of Sudan. The crocodile tears come from people who regard nonmuslims killed by muslims as trivial and whine about dead muslims when they are killed by nonmuslims but regard one load of muslims killing another bunch of muslims as no business of anyone else. I shed no tears- crocodile or otherwise- for any of the dead. If one bunch of foreigners want to kill another bunch of foreigners and it has no direct impact on anyone else, it's very regrettable but I don't think intervention would make much difference there and wouldn't benefit us either, so leave them to it.
You spoke about "millions of cluster bombs" above.I assumed that you were merely overstating the nimber of bomblets. Now, it seems, you mean actual bombs- which would be a much smaller number. Even with bomblets, given a low delayed or failed detonation rate of 20% and assuming only half were known, 100,000 would suggest well under a million.
Thersites you have no clue what you're babbling about. Darfur isnt about Muslim vs. non-Muslim. If you're going to argue about an issue atleast get the basics down before making a fool out of yourself. I find it interesting that guys like you have little interest in other conflicts in Africa. You dont seem at all concerned that zionists who are engaged in their own ethnic clensing have such a love for Darfur. So when is the rally for the Congo? You're the one trivializing the participation of these criminals which says a lot about you. Oh, you're all shedding crocadile tears alright, by the bucket full.
Where did I say Darfur is " about Muslim vs. non-Muslim"? I merely pointed out that the deaths- two to three hundred thousand, mostly muslims- are more than a hundred times more than Israel killed in Lebanon. However, given the choice between associating with zionists and hypocrites or trying to persuade the UN to do something about it, you prefer to be fussy about the company you keep.
Do we have gibberish translator for thersites? I can see why you're so desperate to avoid the hypocrisy of those engaged in ethnic clensing who point to other cases of it to get the heat of their backs. Dont play games with me you shallow little opportunist. Simple question, why are you soooo interested in Darfur, and not in the Congo or any other hotspot in Africa?
You might find it useful to read mails before you try to answer them. I said "I shed no tears- crocodile or otherwise- for any of the dead." I 'm not very bothered about the dead of Darfur, the Congo or Palestine or Lebanon. What I would like to know, however, is: why are you
concerned about the few thousand dead muslims in Lebanon and Palestine and unconcerned about the few hundred thousand muslims dead in Dafur?
The whole Darfur "genocide" is just a Jewish, zionist distraction from the Palestinian holocaust.
"The whole Darfur "genocide" is just a Jewish, zionist distraction from the Palestinian holocaust."
Do you mean that "Jewish zionists" killed a couple of hundred thousand people in Darfur and framed the Sudanese government and its allies of the crime to distract attention from "the Palestinian holocaust"?
Or did they persuade the people to die "to distract attention from the sudanese holocaust"? Or did they persuade the people to commit suicide "to distract attention from the sudanese holocaust"? Or did they con the Sudanese government and its allies into killing them "to distract attention from the sudanese holocaust"? Or is the decision of the Sudanese government and its allies to kill a few hundred thousand people no business of the rest of the world and everyone else should mind their own business- except for the "Palestinian holocaust", of course?
Finally, if there is a Palestinian holocaust, why does Palestine have one of the highest rates of population increase in the world?
http://austrolabe.com/2006/09/28/why-we-shouldnt-support-intervention-in-darfur/
if there is a Palestinian holocaust, why does Palestine have one of the highest rates of population increase in the world?
Very good question. Considering the Zionists rule the world, they aren't too good at this genocide business.
Isn't it possible to address the question of why Muslims kill other Muslims in such large numbers without indulging in "whataboutery"?
Religion aside, there is a racial aspect here. If the perpetrators of the genocide were white, the Left would be up in arms about it. If the victims were white, the right wing BNP types would be up in arms about it. But neither are white, so it drops off the radar.
Religion aside, there is a racial aspect here. If the perpetrators of the genocide were white, the Left would be up in arms about it. If the victims were white, the right wing BNP types would be up in arms about it. But neither are white, so it drops off the radar.
It clearly hasn't dropped off the radar.
Anyway aren't you engaging in the same type of Leftist "blame the white man" thinking with this "thesis".
Shamil - not at all, I'm the last person to do that. I'm just drawing attention to double standards, on the part of the left and the right, both Muslim and non-Muslim.
And actually Darfur has dropped off the radar. Or, more accurately, it was never on it.
Just look at the coverage of the "war" in Lebanon - tiny numbers of casualties compared with Darfur, on which the Muslim and Lefty communities are all but silent.
I see thersites that you havent yet learned to connect the dots or ask real questions. You my deluded friend continue to excel in thee art of distraction and diversion. My opposition is to those elements of the "We really love them Darfurians" who are actively engaged in mass murder in Palestine for the last 60 years. Ofcourse you know this already but will play dumb nonetheless.
Palestinians have a high birth rate FYI, so you can put that wishfull thinking of yours to rest. pRickler, you in particular are atransparent idiot and BNP scum. You zionist flotscam arent fooling anyone with your false pretensions. Got any tears for the people of the Congo, hypocrites? Didnt think so.