Panorama on "mainstream" Muslim organisations

[Zhukov]

Last night's discussion of mainstream Muslim organisations has proven quite controversial. In the programme the secretary general of the MCB (Muslim Council of Britain), an organisation courted by Tony Blair as representative of "moderate" Muslims, justified attendance of a memorial ceremony for Ahmed Yassin, the spiritual leader of Hamas, an organisation that has organised and carried out numerous suicide bombings targetting Israeli civilians. He also justified his non-attendance of Holocaust Memorial Day. The MCB was the only "mainstream" religious organisation to not attend the ceremony.

In my view this situation is preposterous. Tony Blair and mainstream Britain is setting up the MCB as a body they can work with and allowing them to represent themselves as representatives of moderate Muslim opinion. Indeed, the secretary general, Sir Iqbal Sacranie, has decided he represents mainstream Muslim opinion: "It seems that to qualify as so-called moderates, Muslims are required to remain silent about Israeli crimes in Palestine, otherwise they are automatically labeled as extremists." This was his response to the negative depiction of him in the programme where he gave a vague condemnation of suicide bombings of "innocent" people, whether Jews or Arabs. I personally do not regard this as a condemnation of Palestinian suicide bombings of Israeli civilians, especially when you consider that Islamist terrorists regularly state that Israeli civilians are part of a military state and therefore not innocent in their eyes.

Mainstream society and mainstream Muslims must be careful in who are accepted as responsible leaders. Muslims deserve a clear and consistent leadership who can unreservedly detach themselves from fundamentalist justifications and suicide bombings, whether in London or Lod.

[commentator]

Let's not be mealy mouthed.Like every other group muslims get he leadership they deserve. If they get anti Jewish apologists for jihadism it is because that is what they deserve, anti jewish jidadism essentially being part of mainstream Isalmic culture.

[Justin]

Programme was an attack on Islam and an interrogation of muslims by fundamentalist liberalism.I'm sure watching fundamantalist muslims would conclude things are coming together nicely..

[Worldbystorm]

Sir Iqbal Sacranie has interesting form regarding the Rushdie "Satanic Verses" controversy.

[TheBear]

Last night's discussion of mainstream Muslim organisations has proven quite controversial. In the programme the secretary general of the MCB (Muslim Council of Britain), an organisation courted by Tony Blair as representative of "moderate" Muslims, justified attendance of a memorial ceremony for Ahmed Yassin, the spiritual leader of Hamas, an organisation that has organised and carried out numerous suicide bombings targetting Israeli civilians. He also justified his non-attendance of Holocaust Memorial Day. The MCB was the only "mainstream" religious organisation to not attend the ceremony.

In my view this situation is preposterous. Tony Blair and mainstream Britain is setting up the MCB as a body they can work with and allowing them to represent themselves as representatives of moderate Muslim opinion. Indeed, the secretary general, Sir Iqbal Sacranie, has decided he represents mainstream Muslim opinion: "It seems that to qualify as so-called moderates, Muslims are required to remain silent about Israeli crimes in Palestine, otherwise they are automatically labeled as extremists." This was his response to the negative depiction of him in the programme where he gave a vague condemnation of suicide bombings of "innocent" people, whether Jews or Arabs. I personally do not regard this as a condemnation of Palestinian suicide bombings of Israeli civilians, especially when you consider that Islamist terrorists regularly state that Israeli civilians are part of a military state and therefore not innocent in their eyes.

Mainstream society and mainstream Muslims must be careful in who are accepted as responsible leaders. Muslims deserve a clear and consistent leadership who can unreservedly detach themselves from fundamentalist justifications and suicide bombings, whether in London or Lod.

Zhukov, how did you decide which iterations of the word mainstream you put in inverted commas and which you didn't? Surely such (seemingly) arbitrary differentiations serves to perpetuate and exacerbate the differences within society? Or do you not care about that, so long as 'our side' maintain the upper hand?

Also, Islamist isn't really a word.

[Robespierre]

Actually islamist is a word pick up any specialist text dealing with political islam and you will find it there. The debate on these fora tends to be very reactionary and extremely ill informed so I’ll be brief as you can’t make a silk purse from a sows ear.

a) Most mainstream muslim opinion from the Middle East, Maghreb and Maghral regions are anti-zionist. Elements of these are also anti-jewish but they are a minority and are in the main among the minority who belief in a principle call jahilliya that was developed in the 20th C by Mawdudi and Qutb. This means that is your right to practise the real jihad – submitting yourself to the will of Allah and working for the common good of your community – is impacted by apostates from outside your community you must fight to defend this by having an external jihad against the infidels. It is a matter of epistemological theory. It can however by compared to American ideals of defending the freedom to be “free” which can mean an absurd foreign policy and array of underhand terrorist activities by the CIA etc.
b) Hamas engage in indefensible acts against Israeli nationals but are an immense political regime. They offer a huge range of social services to Palestinians who see Fatah and the Al aqsa brigade as the exploitative corrupt warlords they are. Hamas help out the Palestinians that Muslims see as the only victims in the area as the “Zionist entity” is illegal.

It is not as simple or as straightforward as you make out. It is very easy to accept the editorial line you are presented with because it saves you the bother of going off and checking facts or understanding any possible root causes for cultural conflict. Like it or not you are falling into the “us or them” fox news point of view if you fail to let a critical eye dwindle on the reasons behind the Hamas or Hizbol’ah’s from being in existence. If they weren’t needed they wouldn’t be there. Leave aside the terrorism and look at the structure of the power in the conflict, the capabilities of the opposing sides, the levels at which either party can affect the environment of the conflict and then decide whether or not terrorism is logical for them in their environment. Logic and moral right are not mutually antagonistic but they can be.

[TheBear]

Actually islamist is a word pick up any specialist text dealing with political islam and you will find it there.

I didn't say it wasn't a word; I said it wasn't really a word. It is a constructed term, designed to send across a particular message. The fact that it's used in political debate does not refute the argument that it has been recently made up. It is a term which occupies the same realm as 'collateral damage', 'surgical strike' and 'regime change'.

[sackville]

Actually islamist is a word pick up any specialist text dealing with political islam and you will find it there.

I didn't say it wasn't a word; I said it wasn't really a word. It is a constructed term, designed to send across a particular message. The fact that it's used in political debate does not refute the argument that it has been recently made up. It is a term which occupies the same realm as 'collateral damage', 'surgical strike' and 'regime change'.

If there's a common misnomer here it's fundamentalist which was coined by foreign journalists during the Iranian revolution to describe the theocratic movement they witnessed there . It is now used by the usual reality deniers to distinguish between the Islam they do like ( or think they do )from the Islam they don't like ( or think they don't) as if they’re really different.

In truth Islam ,as spelt out in the Koran, Hadith and Sharia isn't compatible with modernity and will remain so unless it undergoes a reformation . The multi billion dollar question is of course -, will it - or even more importantly can it ?

[Robespierre]

Not strictly true as the Ulama are able to evolve the canon of thought and derive more sympathic interpretations. Sufi'ism is an example. The Shia practised in Syria is radically different to the twelver cult in Iran. Valayat-i-faqih in Iran is a major step its inconclastic elements are deeply unislamic and contrary to the verses of the qur'an - Chapt XIII, Verses 16-21.

[wizzard]

Not strictly true as the Ulama are able to evolve the canon of thought and derive more sympathic interpretations. Sufi'ism is an example. The Shia practised in Syria is radically different to the twelver cult in Iran. Valayat-i-faqih in Iran is a major step its inconclastic elements are deeply unislamic and contrary to the verses of the qur'an - Chapt XIII, Verses 16-21.

no matter how its apologists try to refute it though , it all still amounts to an Islamic theocracy. -