Thoughts of the average Moh Bloggs

A life without meaning is no life at all

2008-02-15T17:12:00.000-08:00

Bridgend is a sleepy little place in South Wales, I've passed through it once many many moons ago, it struck me like the rest of the small towns in Wales a place without any real purpose. This small town is now the centre of what is one of the UK's largest suicide patterns with 16 apparent suicides amongst young people in the last year alone.

The latest victims are two cousins who were found dead within hours of each other, Nathaniel Pritchard, 15, died in hospital after "harming himself" and Kelly Stephenson, 20, was found hanged while on holiday in Kent. The Police are not linking the current deaths to the pattern in Bridgend at the moment, but I think there is something more sinister at work here.

Suicide is a problem in Western societies and although the national statistics office will draw a fancy graph to show the rates falling over the last few years, it does not hide the problems young people face growing up in Britain today. To be young and "free" is not easy, it after all means you have nothing holding you back to becoming what you want to become. If you want fame, fortune or just that pretty blonde girl that lives next door all you have to do as Nixon once wrote is "Seize the moment". The problem with this little sunny paradise Western society creates for it's young, is that what if you are unable to get what you want despite all your trying then what?

The worst thing you can be is a loser, a geek, a bum or whatever the hip young call it these days it's worse than being dead for sure. The materialistic image conscious society in which we live makes it impossible for today's young to be anonymous and just go through life. You are either in with the crowd or you are on the sidelines watching. The kind of pressures put on the youth can quite easily lead to a sense of being worthless and not fitting in, I mean people get an ulcer worrying over a spot on their face.

Even if you somehow manage to cope with the ridicule of not fitting in you could be subjected to something only secular British society could conjure up, The Happy Slap. Something that is used as entertainment and involves slapping a random passer by or some poor kid from your school and videoing it on your mobile phone. Said video is then posted onto the internet for the humiliation to be watched by millions of people. This "craze" has gone as far as leading to deaths of innocent people.

A life without purpose is a life never fulfilled, a life never fulfilled is a life not worth living I wonder how many times thoughts like these must cross the minds of normal people on the street everyday especially when life is not looking good. Having no direction in life but to satisfy your latest desire wether that be for clothes, women, cars or Man Utd's quest for the title draws a fine line between sanity and despair. I still remember an old work colleague virtually in tears on a Friday afternoon because her house mates were away for the weekend, and she would be "home alone" for two whole days. It is this kind of simple example that highlights the hidden misery secular values produce, when a persons solitude isn't seen as an opportunity for self reflection but a condemnation of social status, no one want's to be a Johnny No Mates do they.

Even for those who do get what they want life is still miserable, just look at Britney she's now the kind of fruit cake even Mr. Kippling would be proud of. For someone who had it all fame, a wholesome squeaky clean American life and a moralistic stance on issues such as pre-martial sex it has all gone horribly wrong. Life's tough at the top, mainly because once you're at the top you quickly realise there is nothing there.

It is no surprise then that the Prozac generation of the 80's and 90's are now moving onto to harder drugs to hide away their misery. Drug abuse and especially that of Cocaine is on the rise in the UK from students to City workers and Celebs they all seem to be snorting the stuff, anything to mask the misery of life. For other more simpler folk they would rather just get "off their face" on a Friday night and sleep with a woman / man they barely know and tell their mates of the conquest the morning after.

If to this you add all the other woes of living with secularism such as debt, gambling, alcoholism , relationship problems , and the likes is it little wonder that some people will try to take the easy way out?.

After all "Suicide Is Painless" - as the theme tune to 80's TV show M.A.S.H. said.

New aged liberal intolerance

2008-02-11T13:48:00.000-08:00

Just like Kryptonite to Superman, there are some things British society just can't stand. In the last week one of these seems to be Islam - and I say this having considered the gravity of that statement very carefully.

Ever since the comments from the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr. Rowen Williams, regarding the possible use of some aspects of Sharia law for Muslims in the areas of marriage and the like, there has been a frenzy of anti-muslim sentiments. These have been expressed by the media (both written and visual) and by the average person on the street. The very idea of Muslims using Islam to solve their own problems has been lost in the noise about how supposedly backward Sharia is, conjuring up scenes of hand chopping and public floggings in the streets of Britain.

Someone could argue that it's just a matter of the wider society not understanding what Dr. Williams said and that this combined with a lack of knowledge of Islam will produce a reaction such as the one we have seen. Others will argue that it is just the anti-Islamic media using this to their advantage. As is typical of the world today no one will see the woods for the trees, appearing on Channel 4's evening news program, Trevor Phillips (the former head of the Commission for Racial Equality) and a man who was at one time charged with brining communities together commented (and I paraphrase here) "We need to get this in context, we are not talking about stonings in the streets".

This comment is key to the whole issue, there are some aspects of Islam that Mr. Phillips and wider society will not tolerate. The very fact he made the above statement creates a negative image of the Sharia, not in the form Dr. Williams spoke of but in a more general
sense.

Sharia and Islam is the taboo of the 21st Century the world fears, Talibanisation of scoieties where mullah's with big beards hold the reigns of power. A notion of someone using anything other than what the West says is the way to live as a basis of judgement is seen as an act of treason against the rise of global values. It is no longer a matter of waiting for the next terror attack to slander the name of Islam - it is open season on Islam and the Muslims.

The climate in the UK at the moment is conducive of criticising Islam in any manner that is thought plausible. This is what lies at the heart of the media frenzy.

It hasn't always been like this is not to say that Islam was never attacked in the past. I still remember the day after the Oklahoma bombings in the US. One of the leading tabloids had a photo of a blood drenched baby being carried by a firefighter, the headline quite simply read: "In the Name of Allah". The fact that Timothy McVeigh was not Muslim and he did the bombings in the name of something else was totally lost. However, back then an excuse was needed to attack Islam, some kind of attack, bombing etc. used to denigrate a religion - now no such excuses are needed.

So what has changed between then and now? Indeed between two years ago and now?

The climate is now conducive to demonise Islam at every given opportunity. The Muslim community has been vilified and dehumanized to the extent that no one thinks twice about saying a bad word about Islam. Remember it is no longer about the terrorists, the killers or murderers. The message is no longer distance yourself from violence (which we all do), it is more about distancing yourself from Islam full stop.

Some of the Muslim reaction has done just this, by not being able to withstand the media attack some have come out and said that what Rowen Williams has said is incorrect and that Muslims live in Britain and therefore don't need Sharia. To these people it is the only position they know how to take - a defensive one. Nonetheless, these are the very people that use Sharia in their lives. No one would imagine or even accept that a British style marriage ceremony can replace the Islamic Nikkah or the same for divorce. It is also these very people who take advantage of halal mortgages for their financial transactions. So why the contradiction? Simply because they are unable to fully comprehend what is happening, there is a sense of hiding away and letting the latest media frenzy blowing over before coming out of the closet again.

This kind of approach shows what kind of inferiority complex constant questions can have on a community nationwide. There is never a thought of questioning the questioner. The alternative to the Sharia that has been so harshly attacked is Liberalism - the champion of the western elite and quite possibly the destroyer of civility, if not civilisation in the Western world. Something is very clear with this attack on Islam, Sharia, Political Islam, Mullahs, Niqabs and so forth have more to do with the Muslim world than they do with the UK. The idea of changing Islam and removing those aspects of Islam that seems to get everyone hot under the collar is not one to create harmonious communities in the UK, it is more about creating an acceptable face of Islam that can then be taken to the Muslim world. The acceptance of a "modified" version of Islam in the West will give it an intellectual credibility that will make it irresistible to the memorized intelligentsia of the Muslim world. The very core ideas of Islam will be debated in public, they will be tried judged and changed without consultation of the Muslims.

One thing is for sure British society is becoming increasingly intolerant of the Muslim community this together with the other social ills of youth crime and the yob culture are more detrimental to Muslims and Non-Muslims than a Muslim getting his divorce in a Sharia court will ever be.

Democracy more about Power than the People

2007-12-30T10:51:00.000-08:00

Democracy by some is seen as the one stop fix for all the ills of the developing world. It is in the poorest regions of the world which have been exploited for years by mis-management that the "free" choice of the people is pushed the most, by the media and the political elite of the developed world.

In the modern world a counties intellect and acceptance into the mainstream of the "global village" is measured on how democratic it is (so we are told), in reality many other factors play a role but that's a discussion for another time. Economic benefits are offered and based on democratic reforms in a particular nation.

The average man in Africa or South East Asia is convinced by the shining lights of "choosing" their political leader and thus they think their destiny. This is the Brand Democracy that the world is exposed to , it's about choice , freedom and a method to exert your will. As the mantra for democracy goes "Power for the people by the people" and so on. In the modern age of 24/7 wall to wall media coverage of even the remotest part of the world, Brand Democracy is pumped out around the globe.

Brand Democracy creates the perception that it's very core is about the people from the richest person right down to the poorest in a society, everyman and woman has a fair and equal choice. However upon closer examination of the implementation of democratic principles and ideas in the real world shows that democracy is more about power than it is the people.

Before I go onto quantify the above statement it is important to understand the reasons for the existence of a political system in layman's terms at least. From my simplistic understanding of the world I would say a political system in essence is their to manage the affairs of it's subjects in a manner which fulfills their basic needs of life, the ruler being ultimately accountable for doing this. The system providing the mechanisms to hold the ruler to his obligations of leadership and ultimately having the power to remove him.

Now to examine Brand Democracy in the modern world. Two very recent examples of exactly the kind of places where Brand Democracy's advocates say that it can perform it's magic shows it falling well short of it's hype.

The first is Pakistan. A country where politics is the life blood of the people, where news events are followed like celebrities are in the Western world, an ideal place to sell Brand Democracy. With elections looming (or they were) the pro-democracy parties were in full flow spouting the mantra of free and fair elections and even food, clothing and shelter, telling the powerless they would have power etc.

The death of the leading candidate for Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto following an attack on the car in which she was travelling, lead to wide spread rioting and disorder. Left without a leader the Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP) engaged in a selection process for their next Chairman. The result of which is more akin to a monarchy than any semblance of free choice, even though the process is an internal party matter the fact that the late Benazir stipulated who should rule the party after her is not the marketing spiel of Brand Democracy, yet Benazir was seen as the champion of the brand in Pakistan.

The choice of Chairperson for the PPP according to the will of Benazir was Asif Ali Zidari her husband who has passed on the position to his son Bilawal Bhutto Zidari, who is only 19 years old and has no previous experience. The fact that he has spent most of his life outside of Pakistan and seems unable to speak Urdu just makes the choice all the more puzzling. That is before you take into account what really lies at the heart of a 'democratic' struggle , Power. The Bhutto's don't want to give up their reigns of power something which has dogged the politics of Pakistan for decades. So democracy in Pakistan is about power and not the people, Nawaz Sharif, Musharraf and Benazir (and now the new leadership) have something in common their relentless pursuit to get and stay in power.

The second example is that of Kenya. I am not as clued up on the politics of Kenya as that of Pakistan but if you take it as any other African country you can assume it will have it's fair share of power hungry politicians. Kenya has just held elections and I watched the results unfold on Al-Jazzera with one party accusing the other of rigging the votes. The official announcement of the results was delayed after the election commissioner left the platform claiming the results were a little confusing. What transpired after verged on the farcical, members of the opposition party the Orange Democratic Movement (ODM) stormed in claiming they had evidence of vote rigging and that the election commissioner himself had changed the results of the election. The election commissioner then announced the results from a locked room with a few journalists there to take the news to the media. The winner Mwai Kibaki of the ruling party left the opposition leader Raila Odinga accusing him of flooding the election commission with his cronies. What followed was the inevitable rioting of the opposition supporters (a carbon copy of Pakistan) scores of people dead, and for what the power of rule.

Democracy is not about serving the people , it's about securing your interests whether you be an individual like Kibaki, a family like the Bhuttos or a nation like America and Britain. The spin of Brand Democracy will tell us that it's all about the choice but what it will fail to tell the people of Pakistan and Kenya is that more important then choice is the accountability of the people you select. The rulers thrust on people by vote rigging, foreign intervention, family based rule or a mixture of the three are never held accountable for their actions, and before someone says the developing world needs true democracy the farcical situation of Kenya and Pakistan can be seen in both America and Britain two bastions of democracy. For Kenya and the accusations of cronies filling the election commission read George Bushes first election where his brother Jed had to effectively bail him out of and get him into power. For Pakistan read Tony Blair and Gordon Brown doing a deal for the next leadership of their party years before being elected.

So my point, well it's simple Brand Democracy cares nothing about the people and all about the power, in the Western world the kick backs are from the likes of Haliburton etc in places like Pakistan the corrupt politicains of the world such as Zidari feed off the positions power brings to them. As for choice democracy isn't the only system in the world that allows free choice of a ruler, but it's the only that that gives the ruler free reign when selected.

The Phony Politics of Pakistan

2007-12-28T16:27:00.000-08:00

The events of the last 36 hours in Pakistan should have shown us all something , beyond the death of Benazir Bhutto and above the billowing black smoke as Pakistan burns in rage there should have been an epiphany (a sudden insight into the reality) for the people and press Pakistan. It was a moment in History where you would hope a people would collectively stop, look and think about the situation they are in.

However the media on mass have refused to question the very status quo that has allowed Benazir to be killed in almost broad daylight in front of scores of people. Rather as is the nature of Pakistani’s there is nothing more they love than a good old conspiracy theory, so theories of who and why someone would have Benazir killed have been doing the rounds on channels such as GEO and the like.

The Musharraf government as is the case with so much of Pakistani politics have now began a PR campaign to attempt and absolve themselves of any blame for Benazir’s death, it is always about who’s fault it is in Pakistan. The PPP have of course come out and screamed foul saying they smell a cover up.

The opposition parties in attempts to score political points have appeared solemn faced and jumped on band wagon of boycotting elections which are now very unlikely to take place.

The PPP with it’s activists going on the rampage across Pakistan have done little to calm the situation. In fact Babar Awan a Senator and senior member of the PPP appearing on Geo News’ Capital Talk show said the death of Benazir wasn’t that of a “Lawaris” (a person with no family or heritage) and that it would not be forgotten and that justice would be sought immediately. Unfortunately as Benazir found out so clearly and as the burning of Pakistan demonstrates so vividly political scores in Pakistan are settled down the barrel of a gun and not through dialogue.
What does all this create? A quagmire for the people and politics of Pakistan a cycle of killings, political accusations, cover up’s and interference from foreign powers in choosing, appointing and ultimately removing political leaders.

As for the epiphany it is clear the feudal, family based, violent politics of Pakistan will never work. The attempts to please foreign powers with policies which ultimately harm the country will never work. The election (whether fair or not) of parties (and I mean all of them) and politicians who strive for their own political ends and not for the people of Pakistan will never work.

As for the legacy of Benazir and the politics of Pakistan, it will not make pretty reading for future generations. Shakespeare wrote “No legacy is so rich as honesty” , this is a measure neither Benazir nor the other politicians will ever claim to have met.

David Cameron's Ramadhan Sacrifice

2007-09-25T03:44:00.000-07:00

I was made aware of the following article in The People where the leader of the opposition has had to give up "Conference Room H" so that Muslim members or those that work in the Houses of Parliament can pray during the month of Ramadhan.

Of course I am sure that it is not as worse a picture as the People paint it as such, and obviously no issue has been made out of it or there would be a Daily Mail campaign by now.

However, what is disappointing to hear is the reaction of the "angered secretaries in the next-door office" proclaiming:

"We work on a lot of confidential material and we don't know who will be going in there."

Surely no matter who works within the confines of the Houses of Parliament, be they Muslim or not, they have all been correctly vetted and passed in terms of security. Therefore no matter if there is a group of Tories holding clandestine secret meetings or a group of Muslims praying they should pose no more of a secutiry risk than one another! If it was good enough for a few Tories then it must be good enough for a few Muslims!

Everyone Knows Invading Iraq Was About Oil!

2007-09-20T03:36:00.000-07:00

According to the about to be published memoirs of Alan Greenspan, the former head of the US Federal Reserve, has admitted that going into Iraq was largely about oil:

"I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil."

Not exactly earth shattering news is it? Indeed, the response has been met by an equal shrug of the shoulders from most. Such is the apathy surrounding modern politics and the decision to invade Iraq that if a poll was conducted today whereby the ordinary person was asked the reason why there was an invasion most would probably answer with one word. Oil.

The original claims from both UK's Prime Minister at the time, Tony Blair, and the US President, George Bush, was that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction.

Bush in his address as the troops began their attack said:

"And our mission is clear, to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction, to end Saddam Hussein's support for terrorism, and to free the Iraqi people."

Blair himself told the Houses of Commons that

"[The September Dossier] concludes that Iraq has chemical and biological weapons, that Saddam has continued to produce them, that he has existing and active military plans for the use of chemical and biological weapons, which could be activated within 45 minutes"

The fact that these weapons have never been found, let alone having the capabilties of reaching the UK shores within 45minutes, is itself damning but more importantly become almost accepted as an undeniable truth amongst the masses.

The added criteria that Saddam Hussein was bad man and that he need to be removed on humanitarian grounds was also emotive. Most people would agree that Saddam was a despicable individual, but it was up to the people of Iraq to remove him. Most would also agree that those that sought his removal were complicit in his ascension to the role of Iraq's leader. The fact is that there are several despotic rulers around the world, yet most are allowed to continue their reigns of terror was also not lost on the vast majority. Indeed, it only adds to the weightier claims made by Greenspan.

Despite the denials the fact that the proposed Iraqi Oil Law will allow:

Two-thirds of Iraq's oil fields to be developed by private oil corporations.

Place governing decisions over oil in a new body known as the Iraqi Federal Oil and Gas Council, which may include foreign oil companies

more or less means that Iraq's oil could be controlled by US and UK influences.

The sad fact is that Greenspan says nothing that we do not know already.

"Belated" Ramadhan Kareem

2007-09-15T03:30:00.000-07:00

The updates on Moh Bloggs may have been pretty non-existent of late, but that does not stop us wishing Ramadhan Kareem/Mubarak (in true Moh Bloggs style, better late than never we guess) to our band of loyal devoted readers.

This holy month can mean so many things to so many Muslims, but what is undeniable is that Ramadhan is a fantastic opportunity for Muslims to take stock and reflect and perhaps become stronger and better Muslims in the process.

There is a hadith I once came across, which is quite apt:

The Holy Prophet (peace be upon him) has said: "It (Ramadhan) is the month, whose beginning is mercy, its middle, forgiveness and its end, emancipation from the fire (of hell)"
Source: Bihar al-Anwar, Vol.: 93, Pg.: 342

Hopefully we shall have plenty of Ramadhan musings to post in the next few weeks inshallah.

Dick Cheney Predicted The Future!

2007-08-23T02:19:00.000-07:00

Doing the rounds on blogosphere and further afield is a video of Dick Cheney, who in 1994 said invading Iraq would be disastrous or words to that effect:

"If we'd gone to Baghdad we would have been all alone. There wouldn't have been anybody else with us. There would have been a U.S. occupation of Iraq. None of the Arab forces that were willing to fight with us in Kuwait were willing to invade Iraq.

Once you got to Iraq and took it over, took down Saddam Hussein's government, then what are you going to put in its place? That's a very volatile part of the world, and if you take down the central government of Iraq, you could very easily end up seeing pieces of Iraq fly off: part of it, the Syrians would like to have to the west, part of it — eastern Iraq — the Iranians would like to claim, they fought over it for eight years. In the north you've got the Kurds, and if the Kurds spin loose and join with the Kurds in Turkey, then you threaten the territorial integrity of Turkey.

It's a quagmire if you go that far and try to take over Iraq.

The other thing was casualties. Everyone was impressed with the fact we were able to do our job with as few casualties as we had. But for the 146 Americans killed in action, and for their families — it wasn't a cheap war. And the question for the president, in terms of whether or not we went on to Baghdad, took additional casualties in an effort to get Saddam Hussein, was how many additional dead Americans is Saddam worth? Our judgment was, not very many, and I think we got it right."

Irrespective on why his motivations changed within a decade or whether he benefited from his supposed conflict of interest with Haliburton and the rebuilding of Iraq, the US invasion of Iraq has turned into exactly the quagmire that was envisaged by Cheney and his cohorts.

Why we must act now and save our society

2007-08-20T07:08:00.000-07:00

Something below that I sent to the Guardian letters section (Feb 2007), it never got published mainly because it was a bit too long, my own fault.

"Damn you all to Hell" is the cry from Charlton Heston at the end of the 1968 film Planet of the Apes. Tired, bruised and ultimately broken, Heston's character has just realised that it wasn't the apes to blame for the destruction of Earth, but actually the Humans. In perceiving a threat and blaming an enemy for something that his own kind had done, British society today is going much in the same direction. One that future generations will be damning us to hell for - not for the things we did, but for the things we didn't.

Whilst the country is gripped by a rising sense of fear that it is drowning in it's own societal ills, the debate and spotlight is placed on wars abroad and a perceived ideological threat at home. Incidents such as the shootings in London will for a time create a discussion point but rarely a healthy debate as to the future of the society in which we live. It is clear there are deep-rooted problems in modern life, which are creating a younger generation obsessed with guns, gang culture and the pursuit of a super ASBO.

The thing that will destroy British society is not an "evil ideology" as Blair keeps telling us, but British society itself. The refusal to accept that there is something wrong in the way modern society operates and thinks and lives will lead us all to doom. Just as the 2001 re-make of the Heston classic was heavy on style and image, it offered very little in the way of substance. Likewise, Capitalism is all very pretty but scratch beneath the surface and it displays the fruits of a failed society as in Britain.

The idea that depravation in inner-city areas leads to a sense of isolation and ultimately to criminality in our youth falls down upon closer examination. With most of the population of the third world living in deprived and hopeless conditions, problems such as those found in the UK are not prevalent there.

The behaviour of a society is based on core intrinsic values, which are indoctrinated to them from a young age. The fact that a child in somewhere like Afghanistan will at the age of ten collect pieces of waste paper all day on his donkey cart, and then sell them to the re-cycling plant for £1.50, which he will then give to his parents for the upkeep of the house, is unthinkable in a materialistic society such as the UK where the answers to lifes problem aren't found at the bottom of pile of waste paper but at the barrel of a gun.

Furthermore, a recent Unicef report stated the UK is the worst place in the developed world to raise children shouldn't be taken lightly. The government's screams of "not me guv" - with a smoke screen of old statistics put up to try and reject the findings - will not make the truth go away.

In the months to come there may be promises of government funding for more local grassroots projects in our inner cities but this isn't the solution to the problems of today. We must have an open debate as to why this is happening, why young men in one of the richest societies in the world, afforded all the opportunities of free education and self betterment, reject this to live a life of excess and broken dreams. It's not just boredom , lack of love and poverty that produces these men but it's also traits such as greed, selfishness and immorality, traits all too prevalent in the Capitalist societies of today.

The six elapsed years of the 21st century have been in the most part, filled with the pursuit of an ideology threatening our "way of life" (as Tony Blair likes to call it), yet in those years the ills of the ideology at home has manifested itself in the Soham Murders, the rise in youth crime, the introduction - and the quite speedy uptake - of ASBOs, years wasted, a generation lost and still no way out.

The saying goes "adversity introduces a man to himself" so I guess it's time to wake up to the real Britain because what we have been introduced to paints an ugly picture of what we have become. As for the evil of the ideology abroad, there is much Britain as a society could learn from the countries we invade and "liberate" because in adversity the man can be quite proud of what he sees.

It wouldn't be surprising if future generations look at the degraded societies in which they live and damned us all to Hell - maybe it would be a better place than what we helped create.

Time To Stop These Double Standards!

2007-08-01T12:12:00.000-07:00

Muslims in the UK are often accused of not doing more to integrate into the wider society that they live in. However, sometimes, the wider society I feel does not do more in bridging the gap between the disillusionment felt by many Muslims from a varying array of strands in society. If the inequality continues to be perpetuated by the wider society at large then the gap that already exists will continue to prevail.

Yesterday a former British National Party (BNP) candidate, Robert Cottage, was jailed for two-and-a-half years. His crime was that he had stockpiled a hoard of chemicals, which according to initial Police reports were "the largest haul of chemicals of its kind discovered in someone's home in the country". It was also alleged during the trial that he wanted to kill the then Prime Minister, Tony Blair.

Of course Cottage's barrister argued that they would not be used to maim or kill but instead be used as some sort of "thunder flash style bangers" and the judge was too readily to give him the benefit of the doubt, summing up:

"It is important to understand that Cottage’s intention was that if he ever had to use the thunder flashes it was only for the purpose of deterrents."

However, contrast this to some of the sentences handed out to high profile cases involving Muslims in recent years:

Andrew Rowe was JAILED FOR 15 YEARS (later commuted to 10 years) for having "details of how to fire mortar bombs and secret codes to facilitate terror attacks."

Or the four Bradford university students sentenced this week for upto three years because they had been "possessing material for terrorist purposes."

Or the protagonists behind the 2004 Financial buildings plot who were all sentenced to more than 15 years in prison even though "the group had no funding, vehicles, or access to bomb-making equipment" at the time of their arrest.

Even holding a placard is deemed more dangerous than the actual hoarding of chemicals after "Mizanur Rahman, 24, Umran Javed, 27, and Abdul Muhid, 24, were each jailed for six years for soliciting to murder after telling a crowd to bomb the UK".

In this day and age you can even get banged up, deported, your name sullied and your career in ruins just because you passed on a sim card to a relative!

Robert Cottage should be grateful that his faith is of a persuasion other than Islam and that he was granted trial by jury - for if the authorities had their way, Muslim offenders would just be locked up and the keys thrown away. Such hypocrisy will not go unnoticed. Parity cannot be achieved on an unequal footing, no matter how hard they stamp their feet!

It's a Rat race from the Cradle to the Grave

2007-07-17T16:06:00.000-07:00

Watching BBC Breakfast today I came across something that really made me think about the way in which modern society operates. Discussing parenting a couple and their young child were in the studio, the mother raving about how good the child aged about 5 was at his language skills etc. A proud parent you would think and rightly so.

However what later emerged was the discussion of parenting and that the mother had a full-time job as did the father and this case study was justification for working mothers to continue working and have a career. The fact that the child in his all too pristine school uniform was maybe ahead of his peers in terms of numeracy and literacy, proved that working mothers are able to raise well balanced children just like any mother staying at home. The discussion then moved onto comparing the 21st century situation of working mothers and fathers to that in the 1950's where mothers would "stay" at home and look after the "home". The point being made that in the 50's most mothers were most likely too busy with housework to spend quality time with their children etc and that it was no better a situation than what we have today.

The young family in question was quite obviously middle class , most likely sending their son to a top of the range school and having all the means to provide the best education for the child in order for him to leap frog his peers in terms of educational standard. However is this how society should judge it's future by the understanding language and numbers?

Having children is a conscious decision people (well most people) make, and this means like any other decision in life it has to dealt with seriousness and care. Although in a career focused world like the one in which most children in the UK are born, the child has to immediately compete for attention with the careers of it's parents. Being the father of a 2 year old myself I know for a FACT that my daughter would prefer that I stayed at home with her than go to work, not because I can teach her A's from her B's but because children crave love and attention. I am not in any way saying that anyone should shun the obligations of providing materially for their children. However when the prevalent culture is to shun the love and attention the child craves for the sake of fulfilling personal dreams of "success" and "career" then there is something wrong with societies perception of priorities in life.

Herein lies the fundamental problem with society from the cradle to the grave it's one big rat race, a race most don't comprehend and no one wins. The competitive nature of human beings sometimes manifests itself in the worst ways where children are concerned. The constant need to compare your child with someone else's even to the point of how much food they eat and at what age they were fully potty trained is so common I find it disturbing.

Everyone must have heard of the middle class mums in suburban London who will do anything to get their children into the nursery / kinder garden / school of choice, who will go to pick up their kids in a SUV because it's the "in" thing. Not any old SUV but the most desirable one , you know the Land Rover or X5 eco-hating-gas-guzzling-make-you-look-rich kind. These mainly young women married to rich footballers or something of that ilk stand at the school gates with their £5000 Prada handbags "competing" with the other Mums, and what is the subject of the competition? that's it their Kids. The little people who just want to go home and watch the Simpsons, which is quite ironically a metaphor for dysfunctional families in America.

Before the little darlings know what has hit them they are in primary school then off to piano lessons and by the age of 12 they must have an appreciation of Shupan only Shupan could have had. If you are not Prada wearing then swap Shupan for Football, Karate whatever and you have the same situation a kid made the centre of some freak show devised by adults to hide their own lack of self worth.

The point is why is there a fascination with competing kids? It is all too correct that children must be brought up in the best manner; with the best characteristics and given the best start in life. But when we equate all this to material and academic success is it little wonder either children turn into grown adults detached from life and lost in a race to fulfill some half-baked pipe dream of a career, or conversely, at some stage lost a "who had the best handwriting" competition at school and then were forever shunned and ended up in some "hoodie" wearing gang who think its fun to mug old ladies for a laugh.

Wouldn't it be better if rather than building competitiveness in Children we built basic ideas such as respect, honour , dignity and humility? Surely this would make them better contributors to society when they grow up. They might not be the best A, B,C'ers in the class but if they knew that the aim of their life was not to achieve for themselves but to better the societies in which they live maybe there could be a ray of hope for future generations.

As Muslims the situation is no different it seems sometimes Muslims are worse at these competitions that anyone else. However the competitiveness should only be in good deeds.

Muslims DIS-United?

2007-07-13T02:10:00.000-07:00

Since the failed terrorist attacks earlier this month the Muslim community has once again come under the most intense scrutiny.

There is no surprise that any reputable Muslim organisation or individual has sought to condemn these actions, which have ranged from such diverse groups as MPAC, the MCB, the BMF and Hizb ut-Tahrir. There has even been public shows of condemnations in the forms of anti-terror rallies and mini conferences to deal with the issues facing the Islamic community in Britain today.

In spite of these condemnations, the role of Muslims in Britain and in particular their supposed role in these acts of terrorism continue to be a prominent point of discussion in the media and other circles. The media has been awash of Muslims groups coming under attack from an array of ex-jihadists, who are very much flavour of the month. Even mainstream organisations such as the MCB have been openly attacked on their role, first from the likes of Hasan Butt and then from the likes of MPAC.

In light of such intense debate, Muslims are being actively encouraged to turn on one another. Take the following quote for example:

"If anyone has any idea that they will find some sanctuary or a place to hide after such activities then he has it absolutely wrong, they will be hunted out."

Notwithstanding the admirable sentiments of that quote, that it was said by Dr Mohammed Akbah Ali, chairman of the Liverpool Mosque and Islamic Institute is equally troubling. It was spoken at a press conference held in the next street to where a house was raided in connection to the subsequent arrests that were made.

The fact that this had been said whislt those in question have yet to be charged speaks volumes about the inability of community leaders to address the issues at hand. He could have waited until legal proceedings had reached the appropriate stage which merited such a quote. If he felt that they could not as a community wait, then he could have tempered his statement by not only reminding the world at large of Islam's position on such events but also the wider society's responsibilties (and so-called British values) including the rights to a fair trial and the presumption that an individual is innocent until proven guilty.

Furthermore, the rhetoric he uses, so similar of that in the aftermath of 7/7 about how extremism has no place in community or the wider society at large, is now almost past its sell by date. What he fails to mention is how this will be achieved? We are no more closer to that answer than we were two years ago. What is more worrying is that these so-called leaders continue to play the ostrich and bury their heads in the sand hoping the problem will just go away. There seems to be no idea of how to conceptually mould the Muslim generation that follows us. There seems no idea how we instill them values of how to steadfastly hold onto their beliefs whislt at the same time adhere to the legal framework of the society they live in. There seems no idea of how to meet the arguments and obstaces these Muslims face in their reasoning or grappling of faith and how it can comfortably sit within the life they lead. If mosques and those elders that purport to be custodians cannot actually come out with viable soultions then they will only have served to damage those they seek to protect!

Then that are such initiaves as Muslims United that seems to fall into the same old trap of paying lip service to such incidents. We have been here before. We have seen such statements prior to 7/7 and after.

Muslims United lists several well known organisations joining the bandwagon. Nonetheless, their grandiose claims that they represent everyday Muslims - the Muslim common man - doesn't really hold up to the litmus test. This half-hearted gesture does nothing but show the community for what it is, disunited and unable to respond to the issues at hand. If the organisers wanted to show a united front in trying to aboslve the community from blame then they should have got more just a plethora of organisations that most mainstream Muslims will have trouble recognising or identifying with.

AND THEREIN LIES THE PROBLEM!

For no matter who the oragnisation is or the amount of organisations there are, the Muslim community that matters still feels that they are unable to identify with them. A recent poll conducted by Populus found only 7% of British muslims felt that the Muslim Council of Britain - perhaps the most well know of the main stream groups - represented their views. The second biggest response with 25% was "Don't know" and the first - with a gigantic 52% - was "None".
Yet, this has always been the case, Muslim have continaully suggested that they fail to identify with these groups, with a number of polls suggesting so. (You can see a snippet of British Muslim's opinions here or here). Even within the aftermath of 7/7, polls were suggesting that "the Muslim community in Britain lacks a single, unifying voice at both an institutional and an individual level." It is only a matter of a year ago when the same questions were levelled in a Channel Four documentary.

The Government itself has muddied the waters by actively courting a number of such groups in a bid to liase with the Muslim community at large. Their links with the MCB have been often well known to many:

"The MCB was officially founded in November 1997, shortly after Tony Blair came to power, and has had a close relationship with the Labour government ever since ... It remains particularly influential within the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, which has a little-known outreach department which works with Britain's Muslims. The FCO pamphlet Muslims in Britain is essentially an MCB publication and the official ministerial celebration of the Muslim festival of Eid is organised jointly with the MCB."

The ineffectivemenss of the MCB has lead the British government to entertain other groups in a bid to have a genuine influence over the Muslim majoirty, even going as far as pushing the Sufi Muslim Council and Haras Rafiq into the mainstream.

Is it hardly surprising then with such a number of groups and with such influence as the the unofficial backing of the British Government and the inability to present a consensus view is leaving the majority of Muslims confused and floundering! Unfortuantely, we are own worst enemies, for we actively indulge in the divide and conquer tactics that seek to segregate people from each other and which only ever serve the interests of the State and never the best interests of the people!

What did Live Earth Actually Achieve?

2007-07-10T13:47:00.000-07:00

For those that missed it, Live Earth, was broadcast this past weekend and for those that have been completely under the radar of late, let me just quickly surmise for those not in the know, that Live Earth was a series of worldwide concerts organised by Save Our Selves and somehow fronted by Al Gore, intended to raise awareness about climate change and encourage people to live more environmentally friendly lifestyles.

It seems that once again the common man is at fault and needs to get its act together if they are to save Mother Nature. Those that were organising such a crusade and those performing in it must be exempt? Call me cynical but isn't organising a series of concerts on such a grand scale going to have an adverse effect? Isn't it a rather large price to pay just to raise the awareness of such an issue?

I am not the only one to see through this hypocrisy!

As the one unimpressed website put it:

"And what exactly did we learn between sets? That we should switch to energy-efficient lightbulbs? That we should check tire pressure to save gasoline? That we should unplug chargers when they're not charging?"

John Buckley of Carbonfootprint.com exclaimed that the carbon footprint including the artists' and spectators' travel and energy consumption was probably at least 31,500 tonnes and that "we would have to plant 100,000 trees to offset the effect of Live Earth."

GreenPeace also criticised the event calling it it just a PR excercise and were in particular incensed with the decision to allow DaimlerChrysler to sponsor the event, claiming that "average level of carbon dioxide emissions from DaimlerChrysler's fleet was 186 grams per kilometre — well above the automobile industry's own commitment to cut emissions to 140 grams a kilometre."

The artists themselves were not above criticism, after all they were the ones on stage patronising millions of viewers on how they should be greener, a classic case of "do as i say, not do as i do". Most artistes came in by private jet, and their private lives are awash with examples of how they contribute to the destruction of the environment by owning a fleet of cars and a haven of high range houses!

Furthermore, has the sad state of politics got so desperate that any cause or issue that needs to be highlighted only needs to put on a series of concerts to raise awareness? Live Aid and the Free Nelson Madela Concerts in the 1980s were the blueprint. However, in this day of cynicism do these concerts really achieve their goal. Everyone knew that the world had failed Africa in the light of Live Aid, that the situation was just as worse 20 years on when Live 8 reared its ugly head. Likewise, everyone knows the planet is being ripped apart, but what will be done afterwards when people go back to their humdrum lives?

Well, now we know! They voted with their trash, the concerts are estimated to have generated more than 1000 tons of garbage from those attending! Oh and no one watched it either according to early reports!

For more hypocritical Live Earth bashing click here, and here, and here, and here and HERE

Who called the thought Police?

2007-07-08T12:50:00.000-07:00

"Winston wondered how far this falsification would go. Given the inexorable nature of the Party’s project, sooner or later, they would declare that two and two are five and if he, Winston questioned it he would probably be a lunatic and 'in a minority of one.".

These are the words of Winston Smith the fictional character in George Orwell's novel Nineteen Eighty-Four , in the book Winston is a clerk in the Ministry of Truth, his job to rewrite historical documents to fit the current party line. Winston writing the above in his diary ponders on how far the party, which in essence represents "the state" would go to rewrite the truth to fit it's own purpose, to you and me this means propaganda, to shape the views of people in a deliberate manner for a pre-conceived end.

Propaganda was something Gordon Brown in his first public outing as the new Prime Minister talked about on the BBC's Sunday AM show (Sunday 1/7/2007). Interviewed by an almost apologetic Andrew Marr when asked if he (Brown) thought there was a direct link between Iraq and London he commented

" The terrorist threat we're dealing with is about a long term and sustained attack on the values that we represent...... And that's why the cultural effort, almost similar to what happened during the Cold War in the nineteen forties, fifties and sixties when we had to mount a propaganda effort, if you like, to explain to people that our values represented the best of commitments to individual dignity, to liberty and to human life being taken seriously. And I think that's what we are going to have to talk about in the next few years"

This statement sums up the message Brown and sectors of the government have been giving since the failed attacks in London and Glasgow, the script reads "It's about them hating our way of life, they think our women are slags, they want to kill anyone that doesn't believe in their way of life", and this line has been spun out in a manner that would make the spin doctors of the early Blair years green with envy.

The discussion of values and ideas hasn't been limited to government circles with Channel 4 News, BBC Newsnight amongst those discussing these points too. A picture is now being painted about a cultural war between the West and the ideas of an evil ideology, an ideology which will rest at nothing to destroy the very fabric of modern western society, that calls for Shariah and the Caliphate in the Muslim world, and a people motivated by nothing but a hatred for the "freedoms" of the West.

A few days after the attacks BBC's Newsnight pitted Shiv Malik against Inayat Bunglawala of the MCB. One would think in this current climate the discussion would centre around the events in London and Glasgow and possible causes. However Shiv Malik's agenda was something different and the questioning centred around Suicide bombings; killings of British Soldiers in Iraq and the MCB's support of Hamas; none of which are relevant to the discussion about motivation for the attacks. This tone has been carried throughout the last week, condemnation is not enough the only thing will do as Brown made so clear is acceptance of Western values and acknowledgment of the fantasy that there is something intrinsically wrong with Islam which is in need of reform.

In the same week as the incidents in London and Glasgow , 2 US Marines where charged with the murder of the 3 Iraqi civilians in Iskandariyah, Iraq. This brings the total number charged with murder to 20 . In Afghanistan the number of civilians killed by air raids was over 100 from just two incidents. The link between the incidents in Iraq and the UK is obvious and clear.

However as Winston understood the propaganda machine is not concerned with the truth but a twisted version of it, that fulfils it's long term goals. Winston would be the first to understand that the British government is no longer trying to get a point of view across but twisting falsehood into truth, and furthermore showing the truth as something only a lunatic fringe could ascribe to.

Winston concludes his diary entry with a definition of freedom - "Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows".

This is being able to articulate the truth without fear, this is not a feeling Muslims are used to in the current climate. As for what Brown calls individual dignity from the eyes of a Muslim it is in fact intellectual slavery to the Brown line.

Over the past week raised voices of condemnation have been shouted down as irrelevant and meaningless to the debate about ideas and values. It is in times like this that the responsibility to understand and articulate the truth is most paramount. A defensive stance of mere condemnation will just bring a sense of justified accusation, an attempt to highlight the peaceful nature of the individual aspects of Islam will hand intellectual victory to those who malign political Islam. Only real effort from the community to support the truth and ideas of Islam such as Caliphate and the right to question foreign policy will aid the cause of Muslims in Britain.

As for Winston his actions failed to follow his ideals and he eventually towed the government line and buried the truth under his own cowardice and self interest, one just hopes that this analogy won't apply to the Muslims communities up and down the country.

Blair the Dove of Peace Doomed to Failure?

2007-06-29T04:05:00.000-07:00

It has not taken long for the outgoing British Prime minister to quickly resurface on the world stage in the guise of a peace envoy for the Middle East

Blair's supporters certainly have voiced his credentials for the suitability for the job. Most will point out his role in the 'successful' Northern Ireland peace process. Yet, let us not forget that any deal that was brokered had to include the IRA, a paramilitary "terrorist" organization, to satisfy all parties. Will Blair afford the same privilege to "terrorist" organizations in the Middle East like Hamas? It seems unlikely. Others will point to his standpoints over Kosovo and Sierra Leone.

The Blair spin machine has already gone into overdrive, with The Sun even going as far as proclaiming him a prophet no less!

"But for Iraq it is entirely possible that Tony Blair could have won a fourth term in power. But prophets are rarely honoured in their own land."

It is not beyond the realms of fantasy that once he has officially announced his conversion to Catholicsm he can ask Pope Benedict to start the process immediately for the beatification of Saint Tony. I jest!

His appointment has already ruffled a few feathers and one wonders if the choice of Blair is not to antagonize Muslims further having been a principal component in the so called "War on Terror" and the subsequent invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, issues which have polarized the Muslim communities further. The ongoing conflict in Iraq will continue to mark his reign as peace envoy and hang over him just as it did when he was British Prime Minister. 153 dead British soldiers, over 3,500 Americans and between 200,000 and a 1 million Iraqis (the accepted figure being 650,000). Blair isn't just covered in blood, he's drowning in it!

Furthermore, it has been conveniently forgotten that the first seeds of discontent on his long road to abdication were sown over his fiasco last summer in handling the Lebanon Crisis; after his own party and cabinet questioned his support for the Israeli attack on the Lebanon.

Blair, if you recall, also blocked a UN call for a ceasefire. He did this, knowingly and deliberately, so that he could give the Israelis some precious time to continue to bomb Southern Lebanon from the air. This was also the man that allowed Israel to be armed with weapons knowing that they would continue to be used against Lebanese Civilians!

And the same man is asked to become a Middle East Peace Envoy!?

Scratch a bit further underneath the surface and you will find that even in diplomatic circles, the ones which Blair hopes to occupy in the very near future, once criticized his foreign policies as divisive. The diplomats, including former ambassadors to Baghdad and Tel Aviv, urged Blair to "regain a say in US foreign policy over the Middle East as a matter of the highest urgency".

In spite of all these shortcomings will Blair have as much success and impact in the role as any other envoy appointed to try to solve the Middle East conundrum. Take his own Middle East envoy in the last decade, Lord Michael Levy, who most people have heard little of and his accomplishments in relation to the Middle East. A former pop music mogul and major fund raiser for Jewish and Israeli causes, he is more well known for his role in the "Cash for Honours Scandal" than any progress made in the Middle East!

Moreover, what exactly does Blair's new role involve?

In a statement from the group it was revealed he would spend significant time in the region "working with the parties and others to help create viable and lasting government institutions representing all Palestinians, a robust economy, and a climate of law and order for the Palestinian people".

However, before the printer ink was even dry on that particular statement, the Americans were outlining how they saw Tony performing his Middle Eastern role. "He will be charged with shoring up Palestinian institutions, but not with trying to nail down a peace deal between Israelis and Palestinians because Condoleezza Rice, the secretary of state, is handling that job herself," administration officials said a day later!

When will we ever learn from history? Statesmen have often courted accolades even though the myriad of truth often suggest they are wholly unsuitable. Henry Kissinger was awarded the 1973 Nobel Peace Prize for helping to establish a ceasefire and U.S. withdrawal from Vietnam, even though the US were still actively in conflict with Vietnam and secretly bombing Vietnam's next door neighbour, Cambodia, a decision later revealed to be instigated by Kissinger himself.

Likewise, former US President, Jimmy Carter, was seen as an advocate for trying to advance democracy and human rights, earning himself the Nobel Peace Prize in 2002. Yet, this is the same person that saw nothing wrong in making an agreement with Baby Doc Duvalier to not accept the asylum claims of Haitian refugees or the same man that initiated a joint U.S.-Thai operation in 1979 which, for ten years, propped up the notorious Khmer Rouge under the banner of anti-Communism!

Men of so-called peace that promote peace are often war mongering generals intent on destabilizing regions. Whilst the unsuitability of Blair has rightly been called into question, it does not matter in the grand scheme of things, for any Middle East envoy is doomed to failure if they continue to fight their own battles and not of those they seek to serve and protect.

Who Am I?

2007-06-29T02:42:00.000-07:00

This is something I have been meaning to do for a while but never got round to it. There is always something better and more important to do. Life seems to live you rather than the other way around.

Work, rest and play - with or without the Chocolate bar - the globalised world doesn't want your mind to stop, so many things to do, places to be and people to see.

As a Muslim man living in the UK it's all too easy to just to let time drift by; dreams of career success; of the detached home with the nice BMW outside and the wife in her best silk Hijab greeting you as you come home at three (no more 9 to 5's here); having picked the kids up from Islamic school; their Tajweed is magnificent and all is good with the world.

The things with dreams is they stop you living the "Now" and you live for your dreams. You forget who you are and you will become anyone you need to be to get to who you want to be. People, including Muslims have forgotten to how to appreciate the things life gives you - you know the small things like being able walk down the street and smell the fresh air (which is mostly filled with CO2 from the nearest SUV caught in the next traffic jam, caused by the ill timed road works of the local council, motivated by the need to "expend" the budget in time for the next budget so they can ask for more money!) and having the ability to think about the world in which we live.

The question rarely asked is what do "I" really think and when "I" do think, are the thoughts even mine?