UK Muslim's letter to Tony Blair

[Tahliil]

A government that don’t look the root causes and doesn’t dig deeper…I think is a government led by a warlord (Cato or Caydiid or Cabdullahi Yusuf or Shati gudud or Yalahow or worse could be a government led by simple minded moronic persons whose whole view of root causes evolve “it’s either my way or the highwayâ€â€¦that you can’t find in a democracy. One of the many reasons why there are all these strong institutions around the government is to ask questions, to examine policy and make policy considering all the angles. This here I don’t think is a dictatorship where you can detain people and ask no questions. The council has the right to ask questions and dig deeper if the government falls sleep on the wheel. I think the council’s unheeded rhetoric would have brought change if the government had opened its ears (its one ear big enough) and listened to them.

 

The councils are voicing their opinions and bringing solutions to the table. It’s the government who’s supposed to listen to these leaders and implement their proposed solutions, not to toss them away and disregard their views as though they have no stake in the defense of the homeland. But the good news that almost everyone is missing here is the fact that the government itself is already hailing them council leaders, in their photo-up opportunities, as very close partners in the fight against terror, saying that they are getting a tremendous support from the Muslim leaders and Imams.... Am I missing something here? Gaal dil gartiisana sii…I think the cheap phrases used here to diminish the current wave of Muslim outrage against all the atrocities in the world is unwarranted

[AYOUB]

Originally posted by NGONGE:

Still, from a political point of view (if nothing else) the Muslim Council needs to be seen and heard when condemning these acts of terrorism and advising Muslims in the UK to distance themselves from them. From a religious point of view (and this is really the point I’ve been trying to make all along), one needs to understand how the Muslim Council (and you) view terrorism. If it’s viewed as being wrong, forbidden and Haram then would you not consider it the responsibility of the Muslim Council to reiterate this fact at every opportunity? After all, you, I and every Muslim that is frothing at the mouth at the treatment of Muslims all over the world do follow the news and are bound to read OPEN LETTERS that the Muslim Council writes to Mr Bush and Mr Blair. Would it not be the duty of these so-called Community Leaders to remind us of how wrong terrorism is? Surely terrorism erodes on our faith and dealing with it is of more importance than the tired argument of cause and effect!

 

(as you can see, I’m going from the starting point that terrorism is wrong here).

C'on bro, how many times have you heard Mr. Sachrani (sp?) utter the words "killing a single innocent life = killing the whole humanity"?. In fact, I never hear Mr. Sachrani & co talking to the media without speaking against the harming of innocent lives or being asked to reiterate their already-heard condemnations. Sometimes I feel they should hold their horses a bit longer cause how many times have British police cried wolf?

 

Like you said, this is not the first time Mr. Blair foreign policy has been linked with discontent in Muslim public either. If such opinions are seen as excusing violence by some among us, why would someone in the important position of gentleman below come up with this:

 

Mr Blair should recognise his errors and go

By Rodric Braithwaite

 

Published: August 2 2006 19:27 | Last updated: August 2 2006 19:27

 

Aspectre is stalking British television, a frayed and waxy zombie straight from Madame Tussaud’s. This one, unusually, seems to live and breathe. Perhaps it comes from the Central Intelligence Agency’s box of technical tricks, programmed to spout the language of the White House in an artificial English accent.

 

There is another possible explanation. Perhaps what we see on television is the real Tony Blair, the man who believes that he and his friend alone have the key to the horrifying problems of the Middle East. At first he argued against a ceasefire in Lebanon. Then, after another Israeli airstrike killed dozens of Lebanese women and children, he finally admitted, in California – reluctantly, grudgingly and with a host of preconditions – that military force alone would not do the trick, and now seems to have told his people to look for something better.

 

 

The catastrophe in Lebanon is the latest act of a tragedy rooted in European anti-Semitism and in the expulsion of an Arab people from their ancestral home. Both sides claim the right to self-defence. Neither hesitates to use force to pursue aims it regards as legitimate. No single event is the proximate cause of the current mayhem – neither the Israeli onslaught on Lebanon, nor the Hizbollah rockets, nor the Israeli assassination of Palestinian leaders, nor the suicide bombings. The causes go back in almost infinite regression. In the desperate pursuit of short-term tactical gain, both sides lose sight of their own long-term interests.

 

The Israelis remember the Holocaust and the repeated calls from within the Muslim world for the elimination of their state, and they react strongly to real or perceived threats to their existence. Whether their government’s methods can achieve their ends is for them to judge. A liberal Israeli columnist has argued that “in Israel and Lebanon, the blood is being spilled, the horror is intensifying, the price is rising and it is all for naught†– a reminder that Israel remains a sophisticated and in many ways an attractive democracy.

 

But whatever our sympathy for Israel’s dilemma, Mr Blair’s prime responsibility is to defend the interests of his own country. This he has signally failed to do. Stiff in opinions, but often in the wrong, he has manipulated public opinion, sent our soldiers into distant lands for ill-conceived purposes, misused the intelligence agencies to serve his ends and reduced the Foreign Office to a demoralised cipher because it keeps reminding him of inconvenient facts. He keeps the dog, but he barely notices if it barks or not. He prefers to construct his “foreign policy†out of self-righteous soundbites and expensive foreign travel.

 

Mr Blair has done more damage to British interests in the Middle East than Anthony Eden, who led the UK to disaster in Suez 50 years ago. In the past 100 years – to take the highlights – we have bombed and occupied Egypt and Iraq, put down an Arab uprising in Palestine and overthrown governments in Iran, Iraq and the Gulf. We can no longer do these things on our own, so we do them with the Americans. Mr Blair’s total identification with the White House has destroyed his influence in Washington, Europe and the Middle East itself: who bothers with the monkey if he can go straight to the organ-grinder?

 

Mr Blair has seriously damaged UK domestic politics, too. His prevarication over a ceasefire confirms to many of our Muslim fellow citizens that Britain is engaged in a secular war against the Arab world and by extension, against the Muslim world. He has thus made it harder to achieve what should be a goal of policy for any British government – to build a tolerant multi-ethnic society within our own islands. And though he chooses not to admit it, he has made us more vulnerable to terrorist attacks. These are not achievements of which a British prime minister should be proud.

 

But in spite of the disasters he has wreaked abroad, in spite of the growing scandal and incoherence of his performance at home, Mr Blair is still a consummate politician. How else can one explain the failure of his party to do the decent thing and get rid of him? Why else does it still appear as though he alone controls the timing and circumstances of his departure? One day we may feel sorry for Mr Blair for the damage he has done to his place in history and to himself. But that moment is not yet. For now, he should no longer attempt to stand upon the order of his going, but go. At once.

 

 

Sir Rodric Braithwaite, UK ambassador to Moscow 1988-92 and then foreign policy adviser to John Major and chairman of the Joint Intelligence Committee, is author of Moscow 1941 (Profile, 2006)

http://www.ft.com

[STOIC]

Negative psychological intimidations like the western foreign policies seek to manipulate a Muslims emotional vulnerability. This is why we are seeing an act of terrorism by the Muslims. I personally do believe there is a connection between the British/American foreign policies and current situation of terrorism in the west. I do agree that the cruelty of the western countries is as visible as the act of Muslims terrorism. But there is a line to be drawn in the civility of ones actions. It is the civility that oils the human machine of interactions. What terrorism does is burn the bridge that could have been used by the Muslims to bridge the differences or the resentment of the western folks.

 

 

Like a parent who conceals the faults of their children, the Muslim leaders do weaken their positive role if they don’t calibrate their grievances with the reality of their followers. We as a Muslims should avoid handing down our responsibilities. Can the Muslim organizations transform the terrifying ideologies that some in our communities have? It is a fallacy to say that they can’t. What is the use of their leadership if they can’t control the people they represent? The time bomb of acknowledging our responsibilities may be ticking silently for now, but I wonder when we would speed it to wake up to the reality of the actions of our communities.I am honestly confused with the whole Muslims versus Westerns, and Israel versus the Arabs war.

[xiinfaniin]

Originally posted by STOIC:

I am honestly confused with the whole Muslims versus Westerns, and Israel versus the Arabs war.

^^Brother Stoic, you shouldn’t be confused about it at all! As simplistic as it may sound, terror is the price Western Powers pay for their hegemony. One could genuinely argue about the Islamicity (for a lack of better word) of Islamic resistance throughout the world. But have no elusions about it, good brother, resistance will continue, and it should, as long the West ignores and dismisses the root causes that create desperation and breed terrorism. Just last week our TVs delivered the massacre of Qana to our living rooms and we all witnessed how terrorizing that was. If you think the guilt of the wicked is clear and raw, you are mistaken. Hezbollah is responsible, says Bush. Blair agrees. We are living in such a world whose moral disparity is unbridgeable indeed. So there you have it yaa Stoic.

[NGONGE]

Ayuub,

I have no idea why you decided to post that article. To criticise Muslim reactions is NOT to support Bush (and Blair’s) policies. They way you’re conducting this argument seems to be in the style of Mr Bush’s ‘you’re either with us or against us’ statement. My opposition is and always has been with the Muslim reaction and lack of direction when it comes to these events. I have indeed the leader of the Muslim Council dismiss terrorism (very ambiguously might I add) and then reserve the bulk of his comments to criticising foreign policy! It takes away from the actual argument and renders his criticism of terrorism insincere (or so that’s how it appears to me).

 

You needn’t go far to see an example of the attitude of the Muslim Council. Just read Xiin’s reply above. It’s totally duplicitous (unwittingly of course) and, as ever, deals with the wrong problem.

 

The issue here is not about the actions of super powers that are here today and gone tomorrow. The issue is about the preservation of the faith and those parts of the faith that we hold sacred. Apart from a few twisted hot heads, when one speaks to almost any Muslims today they all agree that terrorism and the killing of innocent lives is not an Islamic act. Many would even take us back in history and recite speeches that Muslim leaders used too give to their armies before they embarked on new battles. Speeches about not harming the old, children, animals, trees and females! Many would quote verses from the Quran and say “la taziro wazirat, etcâ€. A very large number would argue that the principle of ‘the ends justifying the means’ as being not an Islamic view to hold! Yet, when it comes to the current issues of terrorism we let our hearts rule our heads (which is understandable but unacceptable) and reluctantly (almost petulantly) condemn such acts!

 

I am uneasy about the whole attitude we have towards this issue and can not understand how it is that most people can’t see the danger of ignoring the threat these terrorists (for lack of a better word) pose to our faith and the way it’s being shaped. Besides, if Islamic rules change according to events and popular sentiments, what is it exactly that makes Islam (the faith) different from secular ideologies?

 

It is quite understandable that we would root for our Muslim brothers in this ‘war’. I can even understand how some people felt slightly vindicated (maybe even satisfied) when the events of the eleventh of September took place. I can also sympathise with the perverse satisfaction some Muslims derive from the American failure in Iraq and Afghanistan (perverse because it blocks out the suffering of our Muslim brothers/sisters in that land and is only happy with American failure). However, all these are affairs of the heart and the mind (most definitely) should reject those that allow their hearts to dictate their actions.

 

To explain the folly of this whole thing, let me retell a joke I read years ago. Be warned that it’s slightly vulgar though.

 

The story is about a young boy who walks into a brothel clutching a dead frog in his hand. He goes to the Madam and asks her to supply him with her filthiest and most disease ridden prostitute! The Madam is shocked at the request and the boy’s tender age. She refuses. But the boy produces a bundle of dollars and repeats his request. The greedy Madam weakens and tries to pacify him by offering him one of her youngest and cleanest whores. The boy refuses and insists that he wants the worst woman she has! He produces an extra wad of dollars and the Madam gives in. The boy is introduced to the filthy prostitute and goes with her to a private room (still clutching his dead frog). Ten minutes later, he emerges looking content and with a devious smile on his face. As he prepares to walk out of the establishment, the curious Madam stops him and asks him why did he insist on having the filthiest whore and why is he clutching a dead frog!

 

The boy, with tears welling in his eyes and shivers running through his body replies:

 

“ I wanted to sleep with your filthiest girl so that I can contract her diseases and then go home and sleep with the maid, who in turn will catch them from me. Later, when my father gets home, he’ll sneak into the maid’s room and have his way with her. He too will catch the infections. Later, he’ll sleep with mother and she’ll catch the disease! The next day, when nobody is in the house and mother allows the postman (her lover) into her bedroom, he’ll sleep with her and catch her diseases and HOPEFULLY die. Because he’s the evil man that killed my frogâ€.

 

Hope you got the moral of the story, saaxib.

[Castro]

Originally posted by NGONGE:

Hope you got the moral of the story, saaxib.

Protect your pet frog from evil postmen?

[xiinfaniin]

LOL@Castro.

 

In NGONGE’s mind, it supposed to convey more than that.

[Rahima]

Protect your pet frog from evil postmen?

[Castro]

Xiinow, I think you're right about the deeper meaning of the allegory. It's not just about the unlawful killing of a frog. The major themes that jump at me when I think about it are betrayal, injustice and revenge. Furthermore, are you wondering, like I am, just who is who in this story? Perhaps good Ngonge could help match the real players to the ones in the story.

 

1- The Young boy

2- The frog

3- The Madam

4- Diseased prostitute

5- Healthy prostitute

6- The maid

7- The father

8- The mother

9- Il postino

 

a- Americans

b- Israelis

c- Lebanese

d- Iranians

e- Palestinians

f- Other Arabs

g- Other Muslims

h- Hizbullah

i- Rest of the world (UN)

[NGONGE]

Heh@ Castro

I did say it was a joke.

 

Still, the players could be any you want to place in those positions. The only innocent parties here were the child and the frog. The frog for being an innocent animal that got trampled on through no fault of his and the child for unlawfully and through no fault of his losing his frog. One can’t even blame the child for the disastrous way in which he decided to carry out his revenge. He’s a kid after all and knows no better. All he wanted to do was to hurt the person that killed his frog and caused him all that anguish. To his childish mind, the end justified the means. That his mother, father, the maid and the postman were going to suffer by these actions were of no consequence (in fact, they might even deserve it for their other sins). But the biggest tragedy in this story is how this child has lost his innocence and committed all those crimes and sins in the process of carrying out his revenge. What’s worse, he caught the same disease that was to kill his enemy!

 

Now how do you convince that child that what he did was WRONG? Surely he’ll only argue back that he achieved his goal and that all those people deserved what they got. Had they not indulged in fornication (and killed his frog in the process) he would not have had to resort to such drastic actions! Even then, some might be rooting for the child and agreeing with his logic. But aren’t children supposed to be innocent and pure? Should we accept such acts from children? Should we squabble over the actions of the adults and forget about dealing with the greater tragedy (that of the child losing its innocence and soul)?

 

Now, compare this story to the topic on hand (whilst pardoning the extreme vulgarity of course). What is the greater problem? The loss and erodent on our Islamic principles or the foreign policies of transient super powers? I’m arguing that it’s not the latter but rather the first. For if we carried on arguing about the latter and lowering the pole at every turn, we will soon lose sight of what it is where were fighting for in the first place. I’m arguing that we can’t see the wood for the trees right now and that if our main priority was not about preserving the principles of our faith (even if it makes us look like sell outs to some hot heads) then, in time, we shall not have a faith to protect (not in its intended form at any rate).

 

I’m not really sure if the message has been received. I hope it has or I’ll be forced to tell another story.

[Castro]

^ There's still much to be discussed in this story without having to tell another. For example, the psychology of innocence (of the young boy) is very complex. Specifically, if the postman had been repeatedly engaging in illicit (and damaging) activity with the young boy's mother and the child had to witness the very real effects this had on his family (constant fighting, lack of loving atmosphere, betrayal, distrust, etc..), he may grow to believe that the world works this way and that the use of violence (sex here) is the normal, nay preferred, way of doing business. And as if to add insult to grave injury, his frog is brutally murdered by none other than his mommy's fornicating boyfriend (possibly using a guided missile). The child could easily grow up to be hateful, merciless and understand that violence begets violence, or in his case, deadly sex begets deadly sex. So while his behavior may not be morally acceptable on any scale, it is certainly understandable, if not entirely expected. The child's behavior is part and parcel of the violent, unjust and immoral surroundings he ingests daily.

 

So on one hand, it's important to teach the child proper values but it's just as important to create an environment for this child where he must not live in an unjust environment and suffer any more inequities than is absolutely unavoidable.

 

So think of this letter from UK Muslims to Tony Blair as one that is written to the postman in your story.

[Khalaf]

Originally posted by NGONGE:

Now, compare this story to the topic on hand (whilst pardoning the extreme vulgarity of course). What is the greater problem? The loss and erodent on our Islamic principles or the foreign policies of transient super powers? I’m arguing that it’s not the latter but rather the first. For if we carried on arguing about the latter and lowering the pole at every turn, we will soon lose sight of what it is where were fighting for in the first place. I’m arguing that we can’t see the wood for the trees right now and

that if our main priority was not about preserving the principles of our faith (even if it makes us look like sell outs to some hot heads) then, in time, we shall not have a faith to protect (not in its intended form at any rate).

[/QB]

Remember that old saying when it said mecca was to be invaded by a large army and to this an arab nomad replied: The Ka'aba has its Guardian, and He will look after it. But I am the guardian of these camels so where are my camels?"

 

Thus Islam has its Protector...Allah Most Great and Allah shall preseve Islam that is a promise. We should not worry about protecting Islam or persevering it. This so called terrorism is an excuse to make those visable Muslims the brothers with the beards and sisters with Hijabs difficult to observe their religion! Muslims do not commit terrorism. 9/11 3/11, 7/7 was not committed by anyone who believes in Islam...that is not possible! Islam condems the killings of innocents-women, children, elderly ect. It was done by the enemies of Islam.

 

This is said...the resistance against oppressors is rightouse...and there should be no compromise...either the Muslims are free to enforce the Laws of Allah...or the struggle continues.

 

ps: interesting story...got anymore

 

the boy is not innocent since he clearly plotted his scheme...if compared to the list then the boy is Israel with the evil plotting!

[NGONGE]

^^^^Heh. I love the simplicity of that argument and would easily agree to it had I not given it a bit more thought. How does Allah preserve Islam? Is it done directly or through his slaves (you and I)? It’s a complicated issue and can not be dismissed with the sweet words of Allah protecting Islam (that’s the ultimate of course but think of how that is done a little, saaxib).

 

Castro, yes I thought of that and I understand that the circumstances is what cause the reactions. I’ve conceded that point already. However, in my own mental scale, I don’t see that as great a problem as what terrorism does to the faith itself. Muslims (and Muslim lands) have gone through worse problems in the recent and distant past. At one point, it was not just Iraq that was occupied but ALL Muslim lands. However, at the time and the great blessing that we had was the lack of mass communication. It shielded most Muslims from crazy ideas of indiscriminate revenge back then. However, today, things are not the same. Today we are being sold new ideas of revenge, vengeance and war as being part of our faith. Those that know reject these (attractive) ideas. But how many bother to know? At times, I think it quite ironic that we resist calls for reform from immoral westerners but at the same time are being forced (unawares) to let down our guard and ‘reform’ anyway (through anger, helplessness and confusion). Trust you me, if you give these ideas a little more thought you shall see that the business of cause and effect pales into nothingness in comparison. I’d go as far as call it offensive in its unwitting duplicity.

[Khalaf]

Originally posted by NGONGE:

^^^^Heh. I love the simplicity of that argument and would easily agree to it had I not given it a bit more thought. How does Allah preserve Islam? Is it done directly or through his slaves (you and I)? It’s a complicated issue and can not be dismissed with the sweet words of Allah protecting Islam (that’s the ultimate of course but think of how that is done a little, saaxib).

 

Its that simple Islam will be preserved by Allah…your earlier comment sounded to me that if we-the Muslims don’t do this or that….then our religion will be lost….that “terrorism†will harm the faiths Image. It does not and it will not! Everything….all that is happening is happening by the Will of Allah. Maybe we see it has not good at the moment….but much good will come from it….Allah will establish this religion….if we fail the obligations to establish Islam then we will be replaced by a group of Muslims that will.

 

 

There is a clear crusade against the Muslims…..and to me you sound like an apologetic Muslim. So do tell me what is to be done by the Muslims in these critical times both in the west and at the Muslim countries? Shukran if you can answer.

[NGONGE]

Simple Islam will indeed be preserved by Allah. But is it not our duty too to help preserve it? Why then are we ordered to enjoin good and forbid evil? Shouldn’t we just leave it all and say Allah will preserve the faith?

 

What can Muslims do and not do is an entire topic that needs time and lots of thinking. It’s late saaxib and I can’t do that subject justice if I wrote a line or two in reply. Having said that, it’ll still be an opinion and not an exact or solid plan.