 |
   |
|
In this mailing:
Who Is to Blame for "Islamophopia" in the UK?
by Mudar Zahran
February 24, 2014 at 5:00 am
  Be the first of your
friends to like this.
If you look at the London Tube
Bombing of 7/7; the Madrid Train Bombing; two attacks on the World Trade
Center; the murders of Lee Rigby, Theo Van Gogh, Daniel Pearl, Nick Berg,
Ilan Halimi, and countless other attack and threats, how can we honestly
expect people not to be "Islamophobic"? It would appear we
have no one to blame but ourselves.
If we Muslims are actually opposed to
these Islamist hate preachers, why are we failing to take a unanimous public
stance against them, to disown and isolate them from our community?
After the murder of British soldier Lee Rigby by Islamic extremists in
London last May, The
Guardian reported a surge in the number of anti-Muslim offenses.Also, last May, a poll by the British research firm, YouGov, showed that nearly two-thirds of Britons believe there will be a "clash of civilizations" between British Muslims and white Britons, and 34% believe that Muslims pose a serious threat to democracy. As a Muslim living in the UK, I wonder, who is to blame for the increase in anti-Muslim feelings in the U.K.? Or is the problem "Islamophopia"? If one dispassionately examines facts, it seems possible that if "Islamophopia" exists in the U.K., then perhaps we Muslims are to blame for it. For a start, let us look at the murder of soldier Lee Rigby, who was butchered in Woolwich, near his army barracks, on May 22, 2013 by two British Muslim converts. The murderers, Michael Adebolajo and Michael Adebowale were both 29 and born to Christian families. Both are reported by the Daily Mail to have been inspired by the British Muslim cleric Anjem Choudary. Therefore, can we Muslims blame the British public if they fear for their young men and women, and would prefer them not to associate with us and possibly become Islamically radicalized? Anjem Choudary -- the Muslim cleric who "inspired" Rigby's murderers -- has a lavish history of inciting Islamic fundamentalism and hatred against Britain. He refused, for example, to condemn the July 7, 2005 London bombings and even spoke favorably about the "black flag of Sharia flying over Downing Street [the Prime Ministers' office] by 2020". In an interview on April 11, 2013 Choudhry said, "As Muslims, we reject democracy, we reject secularism, and freedom, and human rights. We reject all of the things that you espouse as being ideals ... There is nothing called a republic in Islam. When we talk about the sharia, we are talking about only the sharia. We are talking about rejecting the U.N., the IMF, and the World Bank." So, why then, if Choudhry and other Islamist fundamentalists so oppose the British values of democracy and human rights, do they choose to stay in the UK? No one is keeping them here against their will. Also, if we Muslims in the UK disagree with what Choudhry and his like-minded associates are saying, why do we never speak out against it? If we are actually opposed these Islamist hate preachers, why are we failing to take a unanimous public stance to disown and isolate them from our community? The non-Muslims must be also asking themselves the same questions, and logically assuming from our silence that we agree. The Islamists' damage to the British society does not stop with the hatred they spread, but also extends to exporting terrorism to the rest of the world. For example, Abu Hamzah Al-Masri, who is now facing terrorism charges in the US after being extradited from the UK, turned a local London mosque into a recruiting ground for Islamic radicals. In the 1990s, Abu Hamzah's followers included the 9/11 conspirator Zacarias Moussaoui and failed "shoe bomber" Richard Reid, both now serving life sentences in the U.S. As a sidebar, on May 28, 2009, three of Abu Hamza's sons and his stepson were sentenced to imprisonment by a British court for a two-year fraud involving stolen cars. And in July 2010, another of Abu Hamza's sons was sentenced to twelve months prison after pleading guilty to one count of violent disorder at anti-Israel protests in January 2009. In 2012, another one of Abu Hamza's sons was convicted of armed robbery and illegal possession of a firearm with intent to commit an offense. A phobia, by definition, is an irrational fear: a fear of something that is not real -- such as being afraid that there are snakes in the next room. But if you look at the London tube bombings; the death threats against a British schoolteacher whose kindergartners innocently decided to name a teddy bear Mohammed; the recent the murder and attempted decapitation of Lee Rigby, not to mention events abroad, such as two attacks on the World Trade Center, the Madrid train bombings the attempted attacks by the Underwear Bomber, the Shoe Bomber, the Times Square Bomber; the murders of Theo van Gogh, Ilan Halimi, Nick Berg, Daniel Pearl; Jews in Toulouse, Mumbai and Buenos Aires; the victims of US Army Major Nidal Hassan; assaults on Kurt Westergaard, and Lars Hedegaard, and the threats to Salman Rushdie, Geert Wilders and Ayaan Hirsi Ali, among other episodes -- these events are all too real, so how can we Muslims in the UK honestly expect people not to be "Islamophobic"? How can we blame the British society for being ill-disposed when some of their Islamic "leaders" are breeding both terrorists and criminals? There also seems to be a pattern now of Muslim men "grooming" white underage non-Muslim girls into sex rings. For example: in May 2012, nine Muslim men were convicted of being part of a child sexual exploitation ring involving vulnerable white girls. Eight of the men were of British Pakistani origin and one was an Afghan; all Muslims.
Further, in June 2013, seven Muslim men from Oxford were found guilty of grooming underage white girls, aged between 11 and 15, into a sadistic sex ring. Commenting on the case, Dr. Taj Hargey, the Muslim cleric of the Oxford Islamic Congregation, said, "[R]ace and religion were linked to the recent spate of grooming rings in which Muslim men have targeted under-age white girls." He added that, "Imams promote grooming rings' by encouraging followers to think white women deserve to be 'punished'". Dr. Hargey also noted that, "all the men [involved in the Oxford sex ring] -- though of different nationalities -- were Muslim and they deliberately targeted vulnerable white girls, whom they appeared to regard as easy meat." Dr. Hargey added that pretending this is not a problem of the Islamic community is "ideological denial." So, how can we Muslims blame the British public for fearing for their underage girls when Muslim men keep getting arrested and convicted for grooming white girls into sex rings? As a Muslim living in the UK, I have come to believe that we Muslims are the main source of "Islamophopia" -- by the evil and disturbing acts of some Muslims, and above all by the silence of the majority regarding those acts. It would appear we have no one to blame but ourselves.
Related Topics: United
Kingdom | Mudar Zahran
Iran: More "Court Proceedings" for Loghman Moradi
by Shadi Paveh
February 24, 2014 at 4:30 am
Be the first of your
friends to like this.
If the Iranian regime were to execute
the Moradi cousins, the Kurds would make heroes out of them; and the Iranian
regime does not like Kurdish heroes.
According to a report received by the International Committee Against
Executions (ICAE), Loghman Moradi was taken by authorities from his cell in
Rajai-Shahr prison yesterday in the early morning for "court
proceedings," raising alarm that he was about to be executed.Before taking him to court, guards by the names of Saeed Ghafferi, Reza Youseffi and Mohsen Mansouri began viciously beating the prisoner, according to the report. Moradi, bloodied and hurt, was then was then taken to Branch 74 of the Criminal Court. There, he was briefed by the judge on the possibility of a retrial, and was asked if he needed a court appointed lawyer; to which Moradi replied that he will provide them with the name of an attorney of his own. He was returned in a bloody state to his cell shortly after his appearance before the court, but is safe for now. As noted by activist Banafsheh Zand, the Moradi cousins are Kurds, with have a massive base of supporters who would never sit by and just let them be executed. If the Iranian regime were to execute the Moradi cousins, the Kurds would make heroes out of them; and the Iranian regime does not like Kurdish heroes.
Related Topics: Iran
| Shadi
Paveh
On the Border of Freedom: Ukraine and Venezuela
by Shoshana Bryen
February 24, 2014 at 4:00 am
Be the first of your
friends to like this.
The Roman, Byzantine, Ottoman,
British and Austro-Hungarian Empires are gone -- but Putin believes the
Russian one can re-emerge. The West cannot allow it.
In a thoughtful piece on conservative
internationalism last year, Professor Henry R. Nau postulated that
"American foreign policy should seek to increase the number of regimes
that are democratic, not just to preserve global stability or defend national
borders. But it would seek to do so primarily on the borders of countries
where freedom already exists, not in areas such as the Middle East (Iraq) or
southwest Asia (Afghanistan)."The map is clear and so is the metaphor. Neighboring countries, whether on the line of Western Europe/Central Europe, or Central and South America/Mexico/United States, or the "Asian Tigers," share trade and media. They share history, culture and language even across artificial borders; East and West Germany were both Germany. It should not have been a surprise that the fall of communism came from Central Europe rather than Central Asia and that the two spheres developed differently over the past 20-odd years. Israel, at the eastern end of the Mediterranean Sea, shares trade and politics to its West; Lebanon, in the same geographical space, shares to its East, with all that implies for the differences in their political development stemming from European liberalism or Middle Eastern religious retrogression. Attempting to insert democracy, or democratic norms in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan or even Egypt is tilling not only in rocky soil, but in a desert -- metaphorical and physical. Maybe Tunisia and Morocco's physical proximity and shared historical (including colonial) and trade ties made them among the more stable players in the "Arab Spring." Ukraine, then, is crucial. It sits precisely on the East/West divide, and even internally is divided east and west between primarily Ukrainian-speakers and Russian-speakers. Vladimir Putin fervently believes he needs to recapture it because a) it is part of the Russian homeland; b) it would restore a large Slavic population to Russia to mitigate the effects of Slavic decline and Muslim rise in population -- as part of a larger Russian effort to present itself as the "protector of Slavs" wherever they reside and whatever citizenship they hold; and c) as he said the breakup of the USSR constituted "the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the 20th century" in his eyes. Syria is important, Sochi was important, but Empire is the prize.
With elections apparently to be held in May, this is where the United States and Europe can do what they have always done best – be there: broadcast real news all the time; use social media at every level; show pictures; elevate the conversation; be firm about the requirements for international election monitors, voting registration and security at the polls and after; stand behind the people; keep the spotlight on. This is a fight for the futures -- theirs, Europe's, ours -- and essential to America's long-term security as much as in the days we sent Patton and his army to fight. There is the danger of more violence – including from the nationalists – but unlike the no-good-guys violence in Syria or Iraq, violence in Ukraine is being perpetrated mainly by people on "their" side against people mostly on "our side."
* * *
Venezuela sits on a different border with freedom. Central and South
America and Mexico have worked hard over the decades to find democratic,
free-market solutions to old junta-based military governments, communist
insurgencies, and drug cartels. According to Freedom
House, all of the countries rank either as "free" or
"partly free," except for Cuba, with notable movement of countries
from the "partly free" to "free" category over the past
20 years. Venezuela, long labeled "partly free," is falling rapidly
backwards. The once-elected, twice-inaugurated government of Hugo Chavez was
redistributionist in its economic nature, thug-like in its treatment of
dissent, and it cheated in elections. But that is nothing compared to the
government of Nicolas Maduro, a bus driver with no experience in anything, it
seems, except political repression. When Chavez's redistributionist
schemes failed to provide Venezuelans with physical security, basic services,
and toilet paper, the Maduro government blamed "speculators,"
"Americans" (specifically President Obama)
and hinted widely at a Jewish conspiracy.The increasing protest and increasing violence were inevitable; the dispatch of armed government troops to shoot their fellow citizens was not. The government sent paratroopers to San Cristobal, where the Mayor is from the opposition. Pro-government vigilantes on motorbikes have attacked protestors, and at least eight people have been killed. The government calls the dead "terrorists," and said the government was taking "special measures" to restore order. Mayor Vergara said the government killed peaceful protestors and cut off vital services from much of the city. A 22-year-old college student and local beauty queen was killed by a sniper during a demonstration in Caracas; Leopoldo Lopez, a Harvard-trained economist and opposition leader who has been leading the protests, has been arrested; and CNN reporters have been thrown out. But major new demonstrations have been called for the next several days – and there are fabulous pictures of what appear to be tens of thousands of Venezuelan citizens marching peacefully in protest in Caracas Sunday. Now, having discovered that blaming the United States has not pacified the people he is currently shooting, Maduro now wants a meeting with President Obama. So far, the President has been admirably firm in his denunciation of government-sponsored violence. But the point has come at which he has to not only denounce the government, but offer moral support to the protestors. He will have to plant the United States on the side of those who want their voices heard, whether they are insisting on better economic strategies or simply insisting on the right to be heard. It will not be enough to be against government-sponsored violence – the United States will have to say what it stands for. In both Ukraine and in Venezuela, there is no choice for freedom-loving people other than to be for the people in their protest against their governments: To be for the people on the borders of freedom.
Related Topics: Russia, Venezuela
| Shoshana Bryen
|
||||||||||||||
|
To subscribe to the this mailing list, go to http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/list_subscribe.php |
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment