Social cohesion – excluding Muslims

[Ibtisam]

Several UK newspapers on Sunday and Monday published alarmist stories based upon a new report entitled Islam on Campus by the Centre for Social Cohesion and a YouGov poll also commissioned by the CfSC. The website of the CfSC explains its purpose as trying to generate: "new thinking that can help bring Britain's ethnic and religious communities closer together while strengthening British traditions of openness, tolerance and democracy."

 

The headlines included "A third of Muslim students back killings (Sunday Times), One third of British Muslim students say it's acceptable to kill for Islam" (London Evening Standard) and "Killing for religion is justified, say third of Muslim students" (Sunday Telegraph).

 

Clear enough?

 

Now I have blogged previously on Cif about my misgivings concerning the "findings" of several agenda-driven outfits falsely posing as thinktanks. And this particular case has proved to be no different. A look at the YouGov poll revealed that a far more ambiguous question was actually posed to the Muslim students who took part in the survey. The question was:

 

Is it ever justifiable to kill in the name of religion?

 

The responses were as follows:

 

Yes in order to preserve and promote that religion (4%)

Yes but only if that religion is under attack (28%)

No it is never justifiable (53%)

Not sure (15%)

 

Are the results really that surprising given that "Yes, but only if that religion is under attack" can bear so many different meanings?

 

The director of the Centre for Social Cohesion is an excitable chap called Douglas Murray. He wrote a book a couple of years back called Neoconservatism: Why We Need It. More pertinent to this blog, he has publicly expressed views about Muslims that give us a better idea of what he understands by "social cohesion".

 

In a February 2006 speech entitled What Are We To Do About Islam? delivered at the Pim Fortuyn Memorial Conference in The Hague, Murray asked:

 

"Why is it that time and again the liberal west is crumpling before the violence, intimidation and thuggery of Islam?"

 

Ah, those liberals, eh? So what did Murray propose to do then?

 

"I promised to propose some of the solutions to this problem ..."

 

Oh good, so let's hear your number one option.

 

"All immigration into Europe from Muslim countries must stop."

 

Now we're getting somewhere! Are all black people to be excluded too, or would advocating that position more obviously contravene our racial discrimination laws? Yes, I think it might, so perhaps it is best to stick to Muslims. Anything else you have in mind?

 

"Conditions for Muslims in Europe must be made harder across the board: Europe must look like a less attractive proposition."

 

A prophet! You appear to have anticipated Martin Amis's outburst.

 

And of course it should go without saying that Muslims in Europe who for any reason take part in, plot, assist or condone violence against the west (not just the country they happen to have found sanctuary in, but any country in the west or western troops) must be forcibly deported back to their place of origin.

 

But of course. And what about those Muslims who are born in Europe and have European citizenship but are convicted of terror-related acts, should we treat them like other criminals or can we be a little bit more stern?

 

"Where a person was born in the west, they should be deported to the country of origin of their parent or grandparent."

 

Mr Murray, you appear to have planned for everything! A solution for every eventuality. Almost a final solution one might say! How about those Muslims who are overseas though. Can't we do something about them too?

 

"Abroad we must continue our work at taking the war to the terrorists. We are winning that war, and we should extend that war."

 

Yes, social cohesion, you say. You know I think I understand just exactly what you mean.

 

here Inayat Bunglawala

[RedSea]

Nicely put.

 

The west is far fetched from ever understanding Islam or Muslims. They just think anyone who associates with Islam can make up his/her own opinion eh.

[SayidSomal]

Ibti - I remember reading one of the articles mentioned in there yesterday and thinking 'where do they get this?' and 'what questions did they ask' and in this articles I read, they had words like 'Almost third' "nearly half".

 

I belief what doesn't kill you, only makes you stronger!! - hence now i know what their way of thinking is and where they are going with this, i'll be sure counteract.

[Ibtisam]

Sayid.

 

What I wonder, is how is it possible to know that firstly the people who answered the online survey were 'Muslim' at all? Anyone can pretend to be 'Muslims' and give answers intentionally harmful to the Islamic image.

 

Secondly as you mentioned the report was full of 'Almost third' "nearly half" but when you read the percentages, it does not add up. For example 28% is not a 'third'. A third, (and I hate maths) is 33.33% Therefore 28% is closer to 25% than to a 'third', so maybe a “about a quarter” :confused:

 

Even if we were to assume the survey is accurately collected, and we ignore the extraggerated percentage, even so it will be nothing more than the wish list of so many Muslim students so it cannot be used as a proof of intention, like this centre tries to do.

 

The joke is ''The Centre for Social Cohesion (CfSC) ...was founded in 2007 by Civitas to promote 'new thinking' that can help bring Britain's ethnic and religious communities closer together while strengthening British traditions of openness, tolerance and democracy.'' What a joke, it is Islamophobe's joint favourite "think-tank" (together with Policy Exchange).

 

Red Sea: Well, "they" don't think that" it is the reality.

[SayidSomal]

We'll have to counteract this, instead of knee jerk reactions (which might have it uses of clarifying something) but actually never solves the problems as the damage has already been done.

 

We need to expose this so called "think thank" for what it is instead of what it claims to be. In my opinion the way to do that is by tuning out well executed relentless propaganda that ensures anything that comes of that organisation is relegated to bin, without a question.

 

Now the question is do we have the means to do that, we might not have as many newspapers, but we certainly can buy few columns a month and publish few researches in one of those widely read liberal journals.

[Ibtisam]

Sayid;

The truth is, the propaganda research and publication this centre makes is repeated and published extensively as a sources of reference by tabloid newspapers and Islamphobias. Reaching the mainstream none-Muslims who read such sources. Publishing in liberal (or journals in general) does not reach the same masses or those who are most ignorant about Islam in general. Most people who read journals are not stupi*d and would see the irony in Douglas Murray accusing others of extremism [anyone who has seen this him on Question Time (he is always on there) has probably seen that he is a very disturbed dude] You can bet your bottom dollar that the tabloids or any newspaper will pick up these research and feed them to the mainstream masses.

 

Also I’m surprised you are focused on this centre, which is only the latest addition to a long line of organisations that have had an 'irony by-pass' and shocking “research” to make a name for itself. Although their research does much damage it is not any different to the fabricated stories published every day in the tabloids.

 

The real damage is that these organisation support and advise people like the mayors office. I don’t know if your remember Munira Mirza who is the London mayor's cultural advisor, and she happens to be part of the Policy Exchange and a supporter of this centre. Therefore people like the mayor are being advised by so called Muslims who are in bed with the likes of Murray. It is very disturbing and moving them from public positions is much easier than trying to take on the media/ tabloids and all these centres with their bogus research.

 

In any case to take them on and look credible, you would need to fund our own researches and publications which can stand up to scrutiny, you cannot just scream false and not produced anything. We as the Muslims do not have the resources to fund and carry out such research. It is time consuming, requires lots of work, effort and time and institution, we are not very dedicated as Muslims, and under resourced.. I don’t think the damage that the media and bogus research has done to Islam and Muslims in general is reversible, however we can try and influence future publications and give the media a hard time, so that publishing lies will bury them under investigations and extensive paper work. (i.e. media campaigns) In addition Muslims will have to infiltrate and work in these institutions pushing a positive image.

[SayidSomal]

moving them from public positions is much easier than trying to take on the media/ tabloids and all these centres with their bogus research.

Agree, it is easier and do able today, (scrabs on stick it note and puts it in the IN tray of to do things)

 

 

the Muslims do not have the resources to fund and carry out such research. It is time consuming, requires lots of work, effort and time and institution, we are not very dedicated as Muslims, and under resourced.. I don’t think the damage that the media and bogus research has done to Islam and Muslims in general is reversible

Disagree Ibti- You seem to have very good ideas and also you see to be dedicated realist but you are also let down by your pessimism . Have bit more optimism sister.

 

Nothing is Impossible

[Abtigiis]

^War ninkan yaa inaga qabta oo ilaahay yaqaan! Where is the admin. Adeerayaal bari aroortii ama af-muslin ama mid gaalaad aad mid uun idin ku imaado. This guy should be banned.

 

Qabaa'ilo yaan wax laga sheeginna waynu leenahay diintii in wax laga sheegana tolerance baynu u aragnaa! How do you reconcile these two.

[Ibtisam]

^^^in english baal. Niyahow I did not get the second part!

 

Sayiid waan kuun soo nooqon. Need to coffee first.

[Abtigiis]

Ibti- I thought you mastered this damn language. For someone of your caliber, how does it take so long to speak from the nose her mother-tongue. Now, I am starting to suspect if you are related to NGONGE or if you are from the far east.

 

I digress as usual. What I was saying if this Sayid-XXX dude needs to be banned. How come we think tribes shouldn't be insulted but allow the religion to be demeaned by few crazy guys in the payroll of the churches.

[SayidSomal]

Originally posted by Abtigiis &Tolka:

^War ninkan yaa inaga qabta oo ilaahay yaqaan! Where is the admin. Adeerayaal bari aroortii ama af-muslin ama mid gaalaad aad mid uun idin ku imaado. This guy should be banned.

 

Qabaa'ilo yaan wax laga sheeginna waynu leenahay diintii in wax laga sheegana tolerance baynu u aragnaa! How do you reconcile these two.

:confused: :confused:

In the words of my Somali Icon - "in your next post be clear or be killed" Sayid M Abdulle Hassan. (obviously paraphrased)

[Abtigiis]

Waryaa sayidka noo daa! I can only regard you as Sayid-Shaydaan! No way you can be Sayid-Somali.

 

Edit- Like Soofe who refused to live with HIV/AIDS, I refuse to live with unbeliver Somali.

[Ibtisam]

^^Wait I think you jumped too soon! Why does Sayid need to be banned?? Sayid, erm WHEN did he insult religion or demeaned it, and why do you think he is on payroll of the churches. And why are you calling him an unbeliever :eek: What is wrong with you??? :eek:

 

Explain baal waaxad aragtey. Me and him was discussing how improve the Islamic image. I don't know what you are reading and where :confused:

 

P.s. If he insulted Islam, trust I would be the first to cast the first stone.

[SayidSomal]

:mad: who are you refering to as unbelieving somali?

 

on very serious note, be mindful of what you write next, walaal.

 

Alxamdullilaah' I am 100% muslim, and hope to die as such.

 

Now What are you on? and what had made you to make these allegations

[SayidSomal]

Ibti- Do you know this guy?

 

or what he is talking about?