Harry’s Place » A Single Step

The above post at Harry's Place is by the infamous Shiraz Maher (this is the guy who says he got involved in Islamism after 9/11 and changed his mind after the London bombings in 2005, which should raise a few eyebrows in my opinion), claiming that there is "encouraging news" coming from India in the wake of the Bombay massacres, namely that Indian Muslim leaders are refusing to allow Muslims killed while perpetrating the attacks to be given funerals, or buried in Muslim cemeteries in India (see BBC report). The report quotes Ibrahim Tai, president of the Indian Muslim Council, as saying:

"They are not Muslims as they have not followed our religion which teaches us to live in peace.

"If the government does not respect our demands we will take up extreme steps. We do not want the bodies of people who have committed an act of terrorism to be buried in our cemeteries.

"These terrorists are a black spot on our religion, we will very sternly protest the burial of these terrorists in our cemetery," he said.

Misha Glenny, a noted author of books on the underworld, suggests that the Bombay-Karachi mafia known as "D-Company" may have been involved in last week's attacks, as they were in earlier bombings. The "kingpin" is a guy called Dawood Ibrahim, who controls a syndicate based out of Karachi, who organised the 1993 bombings in response to communal riots the year before, which killed 900 people, two thirds of them Muslims, and a number of his associates were killed or had property damaged. Then, he bribed Indian port officials; the same looks to be the case here:

So, it seems a lot of Muslims disagree with me and Umar over the perceived need to condemn the recent terrorist attacks in Bombay. Amad at Muslim matters was one of the first Muslims to actually publish a notice of condemnation; others have stated that we should condemn attacks like it because it is wrong according to Islam, not because we are afraid of censure from non-Muslims. On the latter point, I partly agree, and I do not criticise anyone who actually does condemn it as a Muslim. My point was not that we should condone it or make excuses for it. My point was that we should hold our heads up high as Muslims, and refuse any demand to condemn which appears to contain an assumption of collective guilt, or which appears to be an attempt to put words in our mouths. More to the point, we should not issue condemnations simply to prove our innocence when we had no role in the incident nor any connection to it.

American-Muslims Should Not Condemn the Mumbai Attacks « Umar Lee

A list of reasons why American Muslims should not fall over themselves to condemn the terrorist attacks in Bombay (I refuse to use the name Mumbai; although it is correct in two of the three local languages, this blog is in English, not Marathi or Gujarati, and I refuse to honour a Hindu nationalist renaming), and I think much the same applies to other western Muslims:

As Muslims in America we are not exactly relevant to the situation. Not only are we geographically and culturally distant we are also not a part of any conflict raging in India and we are not in a position to influence any party. Does anyone believe Indian mujahedeen, the Congress Party or the BJP is waiting to see what American-Muslims think before they make their next move? This makes our condemnation little more than rhetorical nonsense that is made only to please the ears of the media and Muslim-haters.

As of now, there are very few facts available as to what happened. Any condemnation made today is one that is made with minimal information.

Condemning these acts plays into the trap set by those hostile to Islam in that it reinforces the notion that all Muslims become guilty if a few do something bad and therefore the entire community has to apologize for the actions of the few.

Remember that Muslim leaders have condemned every major terrorists attack for years, and still Muslims face accusations that we do not condemn it enough, or loud enough, otherwise they would have stopped. The reality is that we do not have the power to stop terrorists attacking and that we are innocent of what they do, and so we should treat the demands of haters with the contempt they, and their demands, deserve.

Will there be no end to the repetitions of the myth that faith schools are the cause of the problems in Northern Ireland? A professor called David Canter has published a study, based on interviews with 49 convicted terrorists in India, has supposedly established that "spiritual belief and attachment to a particular social group provided the two most important pathways into the world of terror". The prof also claims that there was "no doubt" that religious segregation led to terrorism in Northern Ireland.

A study based on 49 terrorists in India alone is hardly representative, is it? Many terrorists in India are Marxists, such as the Naxalites, and if we look just outside India we find the Tamil Tigers, who are not religious at all (although their ethnic base is a predominantly Hindu population) yet have been known to engage in suicide bombings. One presumes that many of Canter's terrorists were Kashmiris; surely the political situation in Kashmir is what actually made the difference for these people between having a spiritual belief and a group attachment and being terrorists. The Northern Ireland situation was caused by the British settling Scottish Protestants in the region and, later, the establishment of a mini-state for them to dominate, and religious segregation has, by all accounts, got worse as the Troubles have wound down. I do hope no public money was wasted on this pointless study.

Meanwhile, in the Guardian's letters today, Cristina Odone on the positive effects of Muslim schools on girls:

As I discovered in the course of researching In Bad Faith, published by the Centre for Policy Studies, faith schools in the state sector sharply increase the chances that low-income Muslim parents keep their daughters in schools. They would otherwise withdraw their girls, once they reach puberty, from what they regard as the dangerous playground culture of sex and violence found in secular state schools. The number of Muslim girls from faith state schools who go on to higher education is more than twice that of Muslim girls from secular schools.

Critics who accuse Muslim schools of breeding terrorists should ask themselves whether it is better to keep these schools within the state system, where they must adhere to the national curriculum, undergo regular Ofsted inspections and obey a range of government regulations; or lock them out, which frees them from any accountability to the state.

The Guardian today published a lengthy article about an MI5 report they had obtained (which was restricted), which stated that there was no real profile which could indicate what sort of young Muslim would get involved in terrorism. One important factor, though, was that a strong religious commitment meant one was less, rather than more, likely to get involved:

• The majority are British nationals and the remainder, with a few exceptions, are here legally. Around half were born in the UK, with others migrating here later in life. Some of these fled traumatic experiences and oppressive regimes and claimed UK asylum, but more came to Britain to study or for family or economic reasons and became radicalised many years after arriving.

• Far from being religious zealots, a large number of those involved in terrorism do not practise their faith regularly. Many lack religious literacy and could actually be regarded as religious novices. Very few have been brought up in strongly religious households, and there is a higher than average proportion of converts. Some are involved in drug-taking, drinking alcohol and visiting prostitutes. MI5 says there is evidence that a well-established religious identity actually protects against violent radicalisation.

The report also found that many of those involved had criminal backgrounds, and that the groups they involved themselves did not mind recruiting criminals:

"We have noticed that terrorist groups are remarkably tolerant of individuals with serious criminal histories. This is the case even when those individuals continue to be involved in very serious non-terrorist crimes, including drug-trafficking, assault and even rape".

Status of terrorism experts questioned (Education Guardian)

The Education Guardian casts doubt on the number of so-called terrorism experts who have gained prominence since 9/11, some of whom (like Evan Kohlmann) have been called to give evidence for the prosecution in terrorism cases, who have appeared out of nowhere, whose qualifications do not add up to much, whose independence is questionable due to associations with "rightwing or pro-Zionist organisations" (the four names they mention speak for themselves in that regard), and some of whom make false claims about their links to the intelligence services:

As with many trends, this one started in the US with academics - such as Dr Reuven Paz, director of the Project for the Research of Islamist Movements and the Interdisciplinary Centre in Herzliya, Israel; Dr Matthew Levitt, member of the International Centre for Political Violence and Terrorism Research; and Rita Katz, co-founder of the Search for International Terrorist Entities Institute - giving expert testimony. And where the US leads, the UK invariably follows. Last year, Evan Kohlman, a veteran of several US terror prosecutions, gave expert evidence that helped to convict Mohammed Atif Siddique, a British-born Muslim, for internet-related terrorism offences.

But just how expert is expert? Doubts have been cast both in the US and the UK about Kohlman's credentials. "He appears to have risen almost without trace," says David Miller, professor of sociology at Strathclyde University, who is compiling a Spinwatch database of "terrorologists". "With no expertise beyond an undergraduate law degree and an internship at a dubious think-tank, he has become a consultant to the US department of defence, the department of justice, the FBI, the Crown Prosecution Service, and Scotland Yard's SO-15 Counter Terrorism Command." Yet this is only half the problem. "The real issue is one of independence: many of the expert witnesses to have appeared for the prosecution have been associated with rightwing or pro-Zionist organisations. Under these circumstances, how can the expertise not be in some way contaminated?"

The last couple of weeks there has been a controversy over a new book being co-written by Hassan Butt, former al-Muhajiroun activist and self-proclaimed terrorist fixer and fundraiser, and the British writer and "journalist" Shiv Malik. The two were hoping to tell the world about Butt's exploits in Pakistan after the 9/11 atrocities; the police had other ideas, and demanded that Malik hand over the unfinished manuscript. Nick Cohen hailed the two as "persecuted peacemakers" in this article for the Observer the Sunday before last. Some of us, however, are not so convinced by Butt's turn-around.

Last week the Royal United Services Institute, "the leading forum in the UK for national and international Defence and Security" founded by the Duke of Wellington, published a report from a panel which included, according to this report in the Sunday Times, Field Marshal the Lord Inge, Lord Salisbury, former Tory leader in the House of Lords, General Sir Rupert Smith and Gwyn Prins, historian at the London School of Economics. The report, according to the BBC, "is based on the findings of former military chiefs, diplomats, analysts and academics". Joseph Harker, in the Guardian yesterday, called these people "ranting old colonels" with an outlook which resembles "Alf Garnett with a degree" (Alf Garnett is the character on whom Archie Bunker was based). To begin with, we should deal with an aspect of the Sunday Times's coverage of the report.

This morning they were talking on Today about the woman who called herself the "Lyrical Terrorist", who wrote ghoulish poems about slicing people's heads off and was convicted of possessing material "likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism" last month. The conviction has caused an outcry, with some, like Matthew Parris, alleging that she was prosecuted for "thought crime".

For myself, I suspect that the reason there has been an outcry over Samina Malik, to the extent that serious talk is now being made, and not just in civil libertarian circles, of rewriting the laws under which she was convicted, is simply that Samina Malik, unlike those previously convicted for such offences without any evidence of actual terrorist activity, is a woman. She may or may not be an aspiring terrorist, but what she has been, like anyone else who downloads such material over the internet, is pretty naive and stupid.

Last night, Shiraz Maher, a friend of Ed Husain's who was also a member of Hizb-ut-Tahrir in England (much more recently), fronted a BBC Panorama documentary entitled "How I Became a Muslim Extremist". He made a lame attempt to demonstrate a link between the party and terrorism, but his lack of evidence for such a link was obvious. Towards the end, he brought on Ed Husain, alleging that his mobile number and family's address was posted on the internet and that there had been a smear campaign against them. The BBC have also published a statement from HT on their website.

Some guy has just been convicted of sending letter bombs (also here) to various companies which were involved in security and surveillance, and to the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Authority (DVLA), citing an "overbearing and over-intrusive surveillance society" as his motive. The guy is 27, from Cambridge, and a primary school teacher, and the five of his seven bombs which went off injured eight people between them. He's to be sentenced tomorrow; it'll be interesting to see if he gets as long a sentence as Muslims convicted for possessing terrorist-related material recently.

Anyway, the victims of the bombs were mostly office workers, and mostly women, which suggests that those who opened them were post-room workers. I've worked in a mail room for a medium-sized company in Croydon which published law textbooks, and this is how it is in most of them: letters anyone sends to some corporate big shot will pass through by the post room staff and the secretary or PA first. They, not the managing director, will get the bomb in their face. Postroom work isn't that highly paid either; people work there because they need to, not because they want to. I hope the judge takes this into account tomorrow.

I just managed to watch a clip of the recent Osama bin Laden video on YouTube, and saw for myself what this blogger points out: that the video is frozen shortly before the 2-minute point, and all references to current events occur after that, including for example the comment about President al-Maliki of Iraq. The inference, some might say, is that the video is a forgery and was recorded before the invasion of Iraq, with another track dubbed over the frozen part.

This version is incomplete and apparently taken from Arabic TV, but it demonstrates the point amply. (HT: Haroon R.)

This afternoon, with the family car to myself as my parents have gone to Crete for a holiday, I took a ride to the coast to visit a friend of mine who owns one of my favourite London restaurants, who has now branched out and runs a fish and chip shop and restaurant by the seaside. Somehow we got to talking about the recent incident in which extremists of some kind bombed Yazidi villages near Mosul in Iraq. His attitudes disturbed me somewhat; it seems that there are still a lot of Muslims willing to condone actions like this which kill innocent people in large numbers.

BBC NEWS | Scotland | Glasgow and West | Glasgow Airport attack man dies

Inna lillahi wa inna ilayhi raji'oon.

A piece of information which won't be given too much prominence in tomorrow's news I suspect, but it's in this report: the man who burned himself to death trying to bomb Glasgow airport was actually not a medical doctor, but an engineer with a PhD in design and technology.

Today's Daily Mail carried a letter from Qasim Omar, a former Test cricketer, which mentioned that he had been attacked recently, with stones thrown at him by youths in the street, apparently in response to the terrorist attacks in Glasgow and London. He appealed to the Muslims in the UK not to undertake acts of terrorism because it would give the religion a bad name, and informed us that he was a British citizen and had pledged his total loyalty to the UK. (The same letters page also carried a letter from a half-Libyan, half-English woman who said she had also been attacked in response to terrorism, even though she was personally against it, and was giving up on the UK because of the disgusting behaviour of its people.)

This was the front page of today's Daily Express, or Daily Spew as I call it here, about an idiotic demonstration by a few women in "burkhas" against the sentencing of a group of idiots who shouted slogans like "bomb Denmark" during a demonstration outside the Danish embassy against the Jyllands Posten cartoons last year. There is a reference to the women "swarming", which is a huge exaggeration. It was a pretty small demo, as you can probably imagine.

However, what "hospitality" are they talking about? It's highly likely that the women in the picture are not immigrants or refugees but third-generation British Asians who are angry that their husbands or other relatives are being sent to jail just for shouting a stupid slogan. I don't believe that an immigrant would behave like this unless he or she had a very good reason to hate this country.

As for me, I thought the slogans highly offensive and can understand them receiving some punishment, but six years - even taking into account early release - is way too harsh just for shouting a slogan. Does anyone else see the irony in the fact that, during a time when the UK has seen its money and soldiers' lives wasted in the Blair government's craven servitude to the USA, laws are being passed restricting free speech in ways which, if Congress was even stupid enough to consider them, would be struck down as unconstitutional in the USA?

The past couple of days the London BBC radio station has had features on possible candidates for the next London mayoral election. Yesterday, on Eddie Nestor and Kath Melandri's drive-time show, the candidate was Gary Bushell, a columnist for various tabloid papers who was originally a socialist and moved in a much more libertarian direction, and now belongs to the "English Democrats", an anti-EU party which supports an English parliament. Now, something I noticed from the 2004 election was that at least one far right candidate was talking about things he could not deliver as mayor - such as immigration. Gary Bushell, yesterday evening, was moaning about Londoners' tax money going up north and to Scotland, which is obviously unjust and has to stop according to him, but it's not something he can deliver. Where income tax money goes is decided by Parliament, not by the Greater London Authority.

The familiar call has gone out, in response to the recent London and Glasgow bomb attempts, for Muslims to somehow organise "not in my/our name" marches in order to condemn terrorism: for example, this article on Comment is Free by Asim Siddiqui, whose biography still says he is the chair of the City Circle even though Yahya Birt has been in that position for some time, and this letter in the Times (last one the page) by Dr Shaaz Mahboob (one of apparently two members of "British Muslims for Secular Democracy", along with Ghayasuddin Siddiqui of the so-called Muslim Parliament).

Oh British Muslims! « Umar Lee

As I'm sure everyone has noticed by now, there have been three attempts to set off car bombs in public areas in the UK, two in London and one at the airport in Glasgow. The bombs were different to anything previously seen, with smaller amounts of explosives relying on gas and petrol to cause destruction. One of the devices in London was so obvious that it was spotted by a drunk; the attempt on Glasgow was botched, with the vehicle failing to ram the doors at the terminal. This might lead some to suggest that the ideas came from the spate of fires at sites where there were oxyacetylene cylinders, resulting in considerable local disruption as roads and railways are closed (including one of two main London to Kent railways and the six-lane highway past New Malden and Kingston). However, reports today indicate that some of those arrested have been medical doctors, of all things, from Arabic and Kurdish-speaking regions. (More: Muslim Matters, Tariq Nelson, Just Another Angry Black Muslim Woman?, Warrior Princess.)