Honestly, I can’t figure it out why UK nonmuslims treat UK muslims so badly.
Nonmuslims in general treat muslims badly and I am tempted to write similar articles about most nonmuslim majority countries; but this article will focus on the UK.
This article is a sequel to these two previous articles on nonmuslims mistreating muslims and their comment sections.
I can think of no better example of this phenomenon than the story of Tania Joya, a Bengali UK muslim mother of four who recently divorced one of the highest ranking living leaders of Daesh, assuming he is still alive:
Tania Joya now lives in the US, works for an NGO, and engages in dialogue with Islamists in an attempt to de-radicalize Islamists. She is a great force for love, light and good in the world. She says she is afraid of being attacked if she ever visits England again, and sadly she is right to fear this.
She was raised by British muslim bengali working class parents. Her parents appear to be very hard working, living a very challenging life. They appear to have been denied education at posh elite snobbish Bengali schools, which I believe might be the best in the world. They also appear to have been denied the opportunity to be educated in Arabic, the Koran, Hadiths and Sira. Co-host interviewer Ali Rizvi described her parents as a type of moderate hippy muslims. As an aside Ali Rizvi–who is of Pakistani Deshi heritage–is one of the wisest, most sophisticated, intelligent, and well rounded people I have ever heard. When then seventeen year old Tania was seduced by Islamists in 2001, her parents lacked the knowledge of Islam, Bengali culture, and wisdom to understand and help her. They were powerless when 17 year old Tania wagged her finger at them quoting the Koranic passages they were in violation of and when Tania started wearing very conservative muslim clothing that her parents didn’t understand. Tania painfully recalls the way the Bengali community failed her. The Bangladesh and Bengal Tania saw were hardly models of wisdom, openness, freedom, pluralism, respect for all countries/cultures/religions, competence and success that Tania felt she could respect, emulate or associate herself with. (This deserves an article by itself.)
Tania also felt betrayed by nonmuslim English people. She describes not having been exposed to classical Voltaire enlightenment liberal values (perhaps such as freedom, equality, the absence of racism and bigotry) at school or by nonmuslim English society. I am not completely sure what she means by this. But I think perhaps she means that English schools and non muslim English no longer teach traditional English values and now teach post modernism. Or that good and bad, right and wrong are unreal social constructions, that we should never judge others . . . unless we do these things in politically correct ways subject to Orwellian post modernist mind control. And to believe in irrational nonsensical concepts such as hegemony, imperialism, colonialism, oppression, exploitation etc. Tania only learned about classical liberalism when she moved to the US. This was a major factor in how Islamists were able to brainwash and seduce her in 2001.
She and her American husband John were both 19 when they met. John was born in an extremely conservative American Greek Orthodox family and was a very serious devout spiritual Christian as a child. John converted to Islam at the age of 17, learned Arabic, the Koran, the Hadiths and Sura in Syria at the age of 17. John like Tania sympathized with Salafi Jihadis by the time the two met. They married almost immediately. John quickly became one of the greatest Koranic, Hadith, Sura and Arabic theologians in the world, despite knowing nothing about Islam and Arabic when John was 17. John appears to have been extremely intelligent, religious, spiritual and loving. His intelligence was probably in the top one tenth of 1% of all humans. Despite being so young, John was hired by Qatar to assist Qatar with theological writing. John appears to have played a major role in creating ISIS, and inspiring many to join ISIS. John was one of the leaders of Daesh’s public relations arm and theological arm. ISIS’s ability to inspire and attract the world’s brightest, most religious people is extraordinary.
Sadly few nonmuslims secular leaders appear to be be similarly intelligent. 🙁 While there are spiritual nonmuslims who are highly intelligent, the vast majority of them avoid secular politics.
The reason I am emphasizing this point is because the world’s 6 billion nonmuslims consistently under estimate Islamists and are continually manipulated and outplayed by Islamists.
In much the way the nonmuslim English people have failed Tania, they have similarly failed large numbers of English muslims. UK nonmuslims have so far failed Quillium, one of the most important and respected muslim groups in the world. Quillium’s CEO Haras Rafiq has explained how the UK has supported Islamists since 1979. Conservatively over 10,000 UK national Islamists have traveled all over the world to attack muslims since 1979. [My estimate is tens of thousands of UK citizen Islamists] Including attacking muslims in Afghanistan 1979-1989, Kashmir 1988-2018, Palestine, Iraq [2003-2008 and again 2013-2017], Syria, Libya, Tunisia, Algeria, Mali, Nigeria, Somalia, Yemen, Philippines and too many other countries to mention. The UK government, Tories, Labor, Liberal Democrats and nonmuslim English civil society should apologize to the rest of the world and to UK muslims for their large role in facilitating this.
English empire supported Islamists against muslims for centuries. I have discussed my thoughts on the many harms committed by English empire in two previous Brown Pundit articles. To quickly summarize and over simplify English empire has long used orientalist semiology , structuralism, post modernism to deconstruct and delegitimize colonial civilizations, history, culture and religions in an attempt to mis-categorize local hierarchies of competence, capacity, merit, tradition and greatness as exploitative, oppressive, imperialist, colonial, hegemonic, racist, bigoted, classist, primitive, backward, savage and evil. Turning local against local in a divide and conquer policy and colonizing the local mind to encourage inferiority complexes to damage local self confidence. Perhaps this has motivated English empire to use Islamists against muslims and to a lesser degree nonmuslims for centuries. This said, nonmuslim English people alive today are in no way guilty of the crimes of their grandparents and for this reason I would much rather focus on post 1979 UK policy.
Many of the UK citizen Islamists after fighting Jihad abroad have returned home. This has led to widespread crimes and intimidation by Islamists against UK muslims. Much of the responsibility for this can only be blamed on UK nonmuslims.
Tania has been viciously slandered and attacked by the nonmuslim English media establishment in dozens of articles. Here is one example. Here is another. Pierce Morgan, who I would argue has a long history of supporting Islamists against muslims while simultaneously being an anti muslim bigot viciously attacked her while interviewing her (can’t find the original clip, maybe because Pierce Morgan doesn’t come across well):
Tania Joya has done more over the past month to defang ISIS and Islamism more generally than Pierce Morgan has in his entire life.
I have seen previous interviews where Pierce Morgan snidely, pretentiously, condescendingly, and contemptuously asked questions about the Iraqi Army before 2008; implying the Iraqi Army was incompetent with the subtle inference that Islamists (Al Qaeda in this case) were better than the Iraqi Army. Pierce Morgan never apologized for this when the Iraqi Army decisively won in 2008. Yet Pierce Morgan was back to this despicable behavior in 2014, implying that ISIS was better than the Iraqi Army. And again didn’t apologize when the Iraqi Army decisively defeated ISIS in 2016. Pierce Morgan dishonored the more than 35,000 brave Iraqi martyrs who have died for their country fighting Al Qaeda, Daesh and other Islamists. Pierce Morgan has similarly in interviews talked down about the Afghan Army, implicitly inferring that the Taliban, Daesh and Deep State proxies fighting them were better than the Afghan Army. The Afghan Army has been locked in a stalemate with Islamists for over a decade and cannot defeat Islamists without international help. But neither are they incompetent or cowardly or losing. Pierce Morgan dishonored the more than than 50,000 brave Afghan National Security Forces martyrs who have sacrificed their lives for their country.
Although I haven’t seen Pierce Morgan do this, many other nonmuslim English commentators have similarly contemptuously squinted their noses and talked down about Libyans muslims fighting Daesh and Al Qaeda, Tunisian muslims fighting Daesh and Al Qaeda, Nigerian muslims fighting Daesh, Somalians muslims fighting Al Qaeda, Free Syrian Army muslims and Kurdish muslims fighting Daesh and Al Qaeda, Yemenese muslims fighting Al Qaeda and Daesh, the Palestinian National Security Forces fighting Islamists, any muslim anywhere resisting Islamists. Any muslim who disagrees with Islamists is invariably accused by many non muslim English people of being an “islamaphobe”, racist, loser, unnecessarily “provoking” Islamists, or secretly pro Mossad. And for the life of me I can’t figure out why.
Could one reason the UK national media establishment is attacking Tania be because she is making public the UK’s dirty laundry? I honestly don’t know.
Could one of the reasons nonmuslims call minority and liberal muslims “Islamaphobes” be an attempt to deconstruct, delegitimise, divide and conquer muslims? Sadly some rich powerful Arab Salafi forces are perfectly happy to collaborate with nonmuslims in this project since they also are not fond of liberal and minority muslims; and to be perfectly blunt . . . they believe their nonmuslims allies aren’t intelligent enough to be a threat to Salafism. This has long been the case.
Recently Iran’s Supreme Leader and unelected dictator Sayyed Khamenei, may peace be upon him, and his followers have gotten into the act of allying with nonmuslims (UK nonmuslims in particular) to attack UK muslims. Sayyed Khamenei, may peace be upon him, is opposed by the large majority of the world’s 150 million twelvers including almost all of the 30 Marjas (leaders of twelverism). This video cleverly collaborates with UK nonmuslims to attacks any Shiite [with an emphasis on UK linked Shiites] who dares be critical of Sayyed Khamenei, may peace be upon him, as an Islamaphobe:
Note the muslim leaders being attacked are mainstream Shiites closely linked to the Najaf Marjeya, Quom Marjeya and the Shiite leadership in India (Uttar Pradesh), Pakistan, Afghanistan and Azerbaijan. Yes they are probably allies with Indian PM Modi, the Afghan government, the Azerbaijani government, Iraqi government; but so what?
How to persuade nonmuslims to stop calling good muslims Islamaphobes? I honestly don’t know.
Shouldn’t any nonmuslim who is pro muslim support authentic leaders of the global ummah [muslim community]? An example of such a leader would be Maajid Nawaz:
UK muslims have little freedom of art, music, dance, poetry, speech, thought, intuition or feeling. I think this is why many UK muslims–I believe–didn’t share their actual opinions in a recent national UK opinion survey:
For example 52% of UK muslims said they believed homosexuality should be illegal. Large percentages of UK muslims expressed their support of many other extreme sentiments on jews, polygamy and many other issues. Note that in many cases young UK muslims were as extreme or more extreme than elder UK muslims.
I believe this poll is fake. UK muslims were virtually signaling; saying what the they believed Islamists wanted them to say for fear politically incorrect answers could result in Islamists attacking them. As we all know many or most non muslim English people tacitly and quietly condone islamist attacks against UK muslims as part of a general anti muslim bigotry. Not openly but wink, wink, nod, nod. Muslims who complain about Islamist threats against them are laughed at or called racist by UK police. Non UK muslims generally blame the UK muslim victims of Islamist crime for “provoking” Islamists.
To be clear, I believe that the polling company conducted the poll in good faith and that UK muslims have extreme positions. But I don’t for one moment believe UK muslim positions are this extreme in reality. The fact that young UK muslims claim extreme positions is a give away. Young UK muslims are more afraid of Islamists and post modernists than their elders and have internalized virtue signaling more than older generations.
Tania Joya’s experience suggests that most UK nonmuslims aren’t mature enough or ready for a real discussion of Islamism, Islam, and the role of UK nonmuslims in supporting Islamists who harm UK muslims. Without understanding there can be no adjustment, no policy, no progress, no solution. And most UK nonmuslims clearly lack understanding. The only way to get understanding is a real conversation about Islam and Islamism which most UK nonmuslims are too emotional to have.
Islamists believe that they are loving and helping the world. Islamists believe they are helping all humans. Islamists believe that they are implementing God’s will on earth, where God’s will is defined, interpreted and enforced by them. Islamists believe that Jihad and taking over global society is an act of love. A majority of Islamists want to very slowly take over global society over a long period of time through mostly nonviolent, legal and civil society means. A large minority of Islamists want to conquer and rule the world. Maajid Nawaz has estimated that about 100 million Islamists want to conquer and rule the world. About 300 million Islamists want to nonviolently very slowly take over global society. About a quarter of the world’s muslims–400 million–are Islamist. Three quarters are not Islamists. Before Maajid Nawaz made these estimates, I uncannily calculated the exact same numbers as Maajid Nawaz.
Many Islamists are highly spiritual, loving people who have touched mystical experience. They believe that the infinitude of the transcendent is indescribably greater than all the pleasures of this temporary material temporal world.
I strongly disagree with Islamists, but Islamists cannot be stopped without understanding Islamists. Islamists may not know that mystical experience and God can be touched in many other ways. If Islamists develop even a 1% doubt that they are completely following the will of God, they will introspect and be open to new possibilities. This is the purpose of dialogue with Islamists.
When muslims around the world have freedom of art, music, dance, poetry, speech, thought, intuition and feeling; dialogue will take place and extremism will die.
30 thoughts on “Why do English nonmuslims treat English muslims so badly?”
she also criticizes british muslims in the interview.
Canadian muslims fought hard to ban Shariah in Canada in 1990s. Canadian muslims won. Indian muslims have fought hard to retain their love, light, liberality and Bharatiya customization of Islam. Jinnah and Indian muslims stood up to Gandhi when Gandhi played with Wahabbis in the early 1920s. While Pakistani Islam and Bangladeshi Islam have become considerably more conservative and Islamist since 1947; Indian Islam remains the golden jewel and greatest hope in the Ummah. As long as Bharatiya Islam stands self confident and strong, the Islamists can never win outside India.
Sadly English Islam has been body slammed since 1979 and badly shell shocked. While English muslims have lost many battles against Islamist Islam, the war is not lost yet. It is long past time for English nonmuslims to stop backing Islamists against UK muslims. English nonmuslims, please switch sides and support your English muslims. The love and light of UK muslims “WILL” win if you stand by them. UK muslims are your brothers and sisters.
Razib Khan, Tania Joya is a victim of UK Islamists who seduced and brainwashed her. I differentiate between UK Islamists and UK muslims. Tania Joya also expressed her deep disillusion with the morality, values and intra-conflict between Deshis (Bengalis, Indians, Pakistanis). Tania Joya’s critique of Bengalis and Deshis has some merit.
Kabir, the reason I now use “Islamist” is that some have accused me of being sectarian in the past. Plus it gets tiring to keep listing 15 threads of Islam I respect and listing each of the extremist forms of Islam I respectfully disagree with. Islamist is non sectarian short form for extremist interpretations of Islam that believe in taking over global society in long run. I also define any extremist muslim that engages in the mass slaughter of minority muslims and moderate/liberal/reform/secular/atheist Sunnis as “Islamist.”
And yes I consider atheist muslims to be authentic legitimate muslims much the way atheist Sanathana Dharmis have been a deeply respected current within Sanathana Dharma for over 10,000 years. And much the way atheist Christians, atheist Jews, atheist Parsis, atheist Taoists, atheist Confucians, atheist Shintos have been respected currents within their own faith communities for thousands of years.
Unless atheist muslims are as accepted and as respected as other muslims; minority muslims cannot be respected. Without respecting atheist muslims, how can moderate muslims be respected? Liberal muslims? Reform muslims? Secular muslims? In the long run respecting and honoring atheist muslims will greatly strengthen and enrich Islam. I believe respecting atheist muslims will strengthen and enhance the faith of the muslim ummah more generally and accelerate the love, light, values and spiritual progress of all muslims. But then, what do I know. 🙂
You can consider “atheist Muslims” as Muslims if you wish. That is your right. But the Islamic view is that unless one considers Allah to be the one and only God and Muhammad (peace be upon him) to be his Prophet, one is not a Muslim. The Kalima (Declaration of Faith) very clearly states: “There is no God but Allah and Muhammad is his Prophet”. This is the definition of Islam. Even the Sufis you admire so much are clear that Allah is the only God. But I’m not arguing in favor of ex-communicating anyone from Islam. Only Allah knows what is in one’s heart and anyone who believes in Islam believes that they will answer to Allah on the Day of Judgement. They don’t have to answer to me in this life.
There is a difference between atheism and agnosticism by the way. Atheists disbelieve in God while agnostics say that there is no way of knowing.
The ability to accommodate atheists into the fold is one of the big differences between Hinduism and the monotheistic religions. Belief in one God is the fundamental of Christianity, Judaism and Islam. The differences between these three are that Christians believe in Christ as their savior, while the other two religions don’t. Muslims believe Muhammad (pbuh) came to correct Christianity and Judaism. Jews and Christians obviously don’t believe this.
Words have meanings and can’t be used so loosely that they cease to make sense. “Atheist Muslim” is a contradiction in terms (as is “Secular Muslim”–Secularism and Islam don’t go together). But don’t take my word for it, talk to an Islamic scholar.
Should have added these two videos to the article:
start at 22:36
start at 37:34.
The UK for many years had a huge problem with Pakistani muslim men molesting and raping many thousands of 11-17 year old caucasian girls. This was widely known by police, politicians, social services, local communities. And they did “NOTHING” to stop it. If anything they de facto condoned and abetted it.
Let me start by acknowledging that the Pakistani muslim men were racist, sectarian and sexist. There is zero excuse for what they did. They should all be severely punished, including in some cases life in prison.
Having said this, much of the blame for this has to be placed on English nonmuslims. For far, far too long they have tacitly abetted widespread honor violence and intimidation against young female UK muslims; widespread extremely invasive types of FGM, widespread beating of muslim wives, and widespread islamist crime against UK muslims. Quillium has done a lot of research about islamist violence against UK muslims . . . which the UK police have been negligent to stop.
I think this deliberate policy encouraged Pakistani muslim men to abuse vast numbers of young caucasion underage girls. When UK nonmuslims purposely chose not to stop this; Pakistani muslim men were encouraged to molest and rape even more caucasion underage girls over many years. Because of this when this pattern was finally publicly revealed it made headlines all over the world. And now the reputation of English muslims has been soiled all over the world. Plus there is a major anti muslim backlash because of it. I don’t buy the argument that this was benign neglect. Could this be deliberate neglect for the purpose of massively discrediting English muslims in the long run? Or is this too conspiratorial?
Note how in the first video UK nonmuslims get very angry when a UK muslim man says that minorities can be racist. Note further how angry UK nonmuslims get when the UK muslim man says that people do not stop crimes committed by UK muslims for fear of being called racist. The anger reaches a crescendo when the UK muslim man starts talking about the grooming gang scandal, suggesting that the actual problem might be much larger than what has been reported so far.
Why this much anger? Is it because subconsciously they know that their own bigotry towards english muslims is being called out and their conscience is bothering them?
The second video reminded me UK muslims are not the only victims of these bigoted English policies. Black English people have also been deeply harmed by similar policies. A former London police chief seems to concede that crime against minorities is much higher because police don’t want to be called racist.
I was deeply moved by Trevor Philips'(one of the leaders of the UK’s efforts at diversity since 1997) incredible remorse, self introspection and self transformation:
From Wikipedia, here is partial description of Trevor’s bio (one of the most accomplished careers in England):
“Phillips became head of the Commission for Racial Equality in 2003, and on its abolition in 2006 was appointed full-time chairman of its successor, the EHRC (initially called the Commission for Equality and Human Rights), which had a broader remit of combating discrimination and promoting equality across other grounds (age, disability, gender, race, religion and belief, sexual orientation and gender reassignment). The EHRC also had the role of promoting and defending human rights, and secured recognition as the national human rights institution for England and Wales (alongside separate commissions in Northern Ireland and Scotland). Phillips’ tenure as EHRC chairman (which at his request became a part-time position in 2009) has at times been controversial.”
Here is the report on Pakistani muslim men grooming gangs by one of the largest and most influential muslim groups headquartered in the UK, Quilliam:
Notice how muslims in the UK seem to have been among the few in the UK interested in stopping Pakistani muslim men from raping under age minor caucasion girls; because they want to remove a black stain from their community as quickly as possible. Nonmuslims get angry when UK muslims bring it up, though. If this isn’t sectarian anti muslim bigotry; then I don’t know what is.
Nonmuslims need to stop accusing UK muslims of being islamaphobes, bigots and racists. If we can’t help, we can be quiet.
Even very conservative and maybe Islamist Dawah Man condemns the grooming scandal. It is nonmuslim English people who have a problem condemning and taking action. Why? I think because of anti muslim bigotry.
I “DON’T” support Dawah Man, even though we agree on grooming gangs. To find out more about him see the very wise and brilliantly smart muslimish atheist comedian Veedu Vitz:
In the last few days the Pakistani muslim community has continued to lead the charge against the grooming scandal, in this case Maajid Nawaz:
Quillium has been leading research into this issue (the UK government is missing in action). By some estimates 2/3 or more of all rapes of under age caucasion girls in England over the past two decades have been by Pakistani muslim men. Many muslims who have lead the charge in dealing with this; keep mentioning how much nonmuslims have tried to stop them. Good muslims are frequently called Islamaphobic, racist, bigoted by nonmuslims.
One thing I didn’t think about until this video was that these girls were mostly lower middle class caucasion girls. If these girls were middle class society would have protected them much more.
Maajid emphasized the Islamist religious aspect to this. In other words economically better off muslim Pakistani men (who are not traditionally conservative muslims because they are engaging in haram activities) went after economically poor caucasion females on purpose. Maybe because they were Kuffer?
The growing underclass of caucasions is a major long term challenge in Europe and North America. Minorities, ethnics, immigrants need to take a leadership role in helping poor and lower middle class caucasions, or the consequences for all of us will be dire.
Bharata, would you agree that in the UK good muslims have been doing a much better job than nonmuslims in resisting Islamism and in fighting crime committed by bad muslims? Would you agree with me that English nonmuslims should be ashamed of themselves?
The peace Imam (Imam Tawhidi) was visiting the UK a week ago. He suffered many death threats in the UK, the land of the not free, where people–muslims particularly–don’t have freedom.
For example in the day before this interview the peace Imam turned down 22 Uber requests (to drive him around the UK). Imam Tawhidi turned down every name that appears “muslim” for fear of assassination.
About 17 minutes into this video the commentators discuss the way minority and liberal muslims are called “native informants” by nonmuslims and oppressed by nonmuslims:
“native informants” are a real thing. Not sure what the context was and not really interested in watching a long video. But there are definitely people of color who subscribe to the agenda of those in power and are willing to sell out their own people. That’s what “native informant” means to me.
Kabir, could you elaborate?
Do you mean this in the context of the British Raj pre 1947? If so, I don’t agree. Many Indians wanted the British to only gradually leave on a conditions basis (based on the growth of capacity of pan-Indian institutions). One reason was they were terrified of possible sectarian violence if the English left too abruptly. As it turned out these Indians–and there were lots of them–had legitimate concerns and had the right to hold these views. Although of course we can strongly disagree with them if we wish. Some of these Indian people reported miscreants who were planning attacks against the Indian Civil Service, Indian Army, Indian Police, Indian Judicial system or elected Indian provincial governments:
I think these Indians had the right to do this. The correct way to advance the cause of independence was through legitimate institutions such as the Congress Party or Muslim League–not by attacking British Indian institutions in my opinion.
Another example would be brave soldiers in the British Indian Army during WWII. Many Hindus (and Muslims and Sikhs and Buddhists and Christians) joined the Indian Army in large numbers because they felt an obligation to stop the Ashura Hitler from abusing German Indology and the knowledge of Sanathana Dharma for immoral negative purposes. They were 100% right to do this and the world owes them and the Indian (South Asian) people an enormous debt for saving the world from Hitler and Tojo.
Neither of these people in my opinion should be called “native informants”.
Do you mean “native informants” in the context of Palestinians who live in Gaza or the West Bank? I think this is what you might mean.
If so, Hamas (Palestinian branch of the Salafi and soft Islamist Ikhwan) threw lots of partisan supporters of Mustafa Barghouti and Fatah from rooftops, calling them “native informants”. I am sure you condemn this as much as I do, the Goldstone Report did and the UN does.
Am I correct that you mean this in the Palestinian context? If so, can give specific instances of what you mean by “native informants” in the Palestinian (or any other) context?
One possible interpretation of your comment would be a Palestinian resident of the West Bank or Gaza who reports to the Israelis in lieu of the Palestinian Authority (PA). Perhaps you believe that a Palestinian should report to the PA and let the PA report to the Israelis if they deem appropriate? I am trying to understand and correctly characterize your position so please correct me.
Examples would be those American Muslims who supported the US’s illegal invasion of Iraq. Those American Muslims who work for the CIA and help attacks on their own people. Muslims who help white people hurt other Muslims. Muslims who help militant Hindus demonize Muslims. Those are what I would call “native informants”.
But it has an actual meaning in Anthropology.
Kabir, most American Iraqi muslims (there were more than 300,000 in 2003) supported the Iraqi resistance against Saddam in 2003. So did most UK Iraqi muslims. So did most of the 5 million expatriot Iraqis who did not live in Iraq in 2003.
Iraq has been in a civil war since 1979, although the civil war might now be in the process of ending.
Surely Iraqis in 2003 had the right to support the more than 100,000 Iraqi troops (in organized military formations) fighting for the Iraqi resistance against Saddam Hussein in March 2003. From their point of view, they were trying to solicit as much international help as they could (including from Iran, the US and 15 other countries). And by April 2003 they succeeded in ruling most of Iraq. Their power was solidified under international law by numerous unanimous or near UN Security Council resolutions passed in 2003 and 2003, including:
Note that the entire world recognized the legitimacy of the Iraqi Governing Council on August 14, 2003. Not just minority muslims (Kurds, Shiites, Sufis.)
The vast majority of Iraqis inside Iraq and outside Iraq supported the Iraqi Governing Council in August 2003. Didn’t they have the right to do so?
Saddam Hussein was a terrible Shiite and Kurdish killer. You must understand the degree of anger Shiites and Kurds around the world (not just Iraqi ones) felt towards Saddam Hussein. They were acting out of anger at Saddam. How can they be “native informants”?
The Iraqis who provided the US with WMD “intelligence” later proudly claimed responsibility for manipulating the incredibly dumb Americans. Chalabi and Muqtada al Sadr pulled it off with the help of Iran. This is what is meant by “curveball.” These weren’t pro American people. They were the opposite. Muqtada laughed derisively about Americans in early 2003, saying the way Allah works is mysterious.
Perhaps the best way to understand what happened is that Iraq had been in a deeply complex multi-sided civil war for decades before 2003. A war that was also a regional war and an international war. A group of countries led by the US changed the nature of their involvement in the ongoing civil, regional and international war in March 2003 . . . without any understanding of what was happening or why. The major Iraqi sectarian Sunni militias were always more focused on fighting the anti Saddam Iraqi forces than on the coalition forces and most of the coalition forces were clueless about the civil war that played out in front of them.
The bottom line is that “W” went into Iraq without sanction from the UN. Colin Powell lied to the UN and the American people at large about Saddam having “weapons of mass destruction”. I’m not defending Saddam (so I’m not going to read your lengthy comment about how evil he was), but he was not responsible for 9/11. He had not attacked America. I was in high school outside DC at the time. We protested the Iraq War. I don’t have the energy to re-litigate this with you right now. Saddam was evil but he held that country together. Many scholars have argued that the US entry and then exit from Iraq laid the preconditions for ISIS. Google their arguments. The US did not even understand that Iraq was a Shia-majority country being ruled by a Sunni dictator. Now, they don’t get why Shia Iran has so much influence there….
The point is that Iraq was W’s war of choice. Bin Laden was in Afghanistan and he was responsible for 9/11. That war had (some) justification. Going into Iraq in 2003 had no justification. Going into Libya under Obama had no justification–Libya is a disaster zone now. I’m sorry, but these neoliberal wars are wrong. And the Muslims who supported them were on the wrong side of history, acting as “uncle toms” and “native informants”.
IRAQ was a disaster
Arab spring was a disaster
Forcing the abdication of the Reza Shah senior was a disaster.
Western meddling in the Muslim world has generally been a disaster..
Removing Mossadegh in 1952 was a disaster. He was democratically elected by the people of Iran. But he wanted to nationalize the oil….
The “Muslim world” is generally screwed. But it is up to the people of the “Muslim world” to fix their issues. The US should not play world cop.
Kabir, obviously “W” knew almost nothing about a great many things. This isn’t about “W”.
I can’t help myself and will share a story. Right before the March 19, 2003 series of events . . . W met three Iraqi resistance leaders. They had a very spirited discussion with each other in front of W. W had the usual deer in the headlights look–having great difficulty following the discussion. One of the Iraqi resistance leaders asked W if he knew the difference between Sunnis and Shiites. W looked even more confused and perplexed. They tried to explain to W. W’s response was some variation of . . . you mean there are two of you.
Colin Powell did not knowingly lie. He had intelligence from Iraqi sources (which Juan Cole has called an Iranian intelligence operation to infiltrate the US intelligence community and manipulate the US).
Kabir, I still don’t understand how you can call Iraqis “native informants”. In what alternative universe can this possibly be true?
Any Iraqi who joined the Iraqi Army in 2003 can’t be called a “native informant”. They were serving Iraqi institutions near unanimously endorsed by every country on earth. They had the full power and weight of international law on their side.
For that matter the Multinational Forces were unanimously created by the UN on October 16, 2003, to serve at the pleasure of the UN and the Iraqi Government:
I am not debating US policy in March, 2003 . . . which was very stupid. My point is that patriotic Iraqis should not be called “native informants” by non Iraqis who don’t know much about Iraq.
Libya was endorsed by the UN, Arab League, Turkey and EU. You might not like it; but it had the full force of international law and legitimacy. The UK, France and Arab League began the war over President Obama’s strong objections. Yes you can call “it” a disaster if you wish. But the Arab League, Europeans, Canadians and Turks were willing to act alone without US help. They received precious little US help. To explain Libya would require an article. To over simplify, the many countries in the coalition (Tunisia, Jordan, Egypt, France, UK, Turkey, Italy, Germany, US, KSA, Qatar, UAE, Morocco, too many others to mention) and the many different Libyan factions did not coordinate well together. Different units in the Libyan security forces were trained by different countries according to different standards and military doctrines. As a result the Libyan security forces were not inter-operable with each other. Al Qaeda and ISIS conquered most of Libya for a while. But Libyans have fought back and liberated most of their country.
You don’t appreciate the extent to which Iranians, Iraqis, Hezbollah, Lebanese, Palestinians and Arabs hated Qaddafi.
Qaddafi is believed to have murdered:
Musa al Sadr was a mystical liberal Marja of the type that I admire and respect. Still much remembered among Iraqi, Iranian, Lebanese, Pakistani and Indian twelvers.
In general I think we need to acknowledge the large role played by Salafi extremist Islamist organizations in the carnage throughout the middle east over generations. This is the main reason Arabs keep asking non Arabs for help.
Zachary Latif, we agree. Jimmy Carter should not have organized the coup against the Shah in 1979 in collaboration with Khomeini (who Jimmy Carter thought was his friend).
I think the Arab Spring has worked in some parts of the Arab world, such as Tunisia. The dictators had to fall eventually. Muslim reform has to happen. These historical events were driving events independent of the Arab Spring.
Arabs have their own agency and their own power. Non Arabs are not responsible for over 95% of the challenges of Arabs. Arabs also have the right to make friends with non Arabs (whether the USSR, China, India, Japan, South Korea, Europe, America, Israel, Iran, Pakistan, Turkey) at their own discretion and accept any assistance they want from them any way they want to receive said assistance. To call this “meddling” is to patronize and condescend Arabs. Arabs are not children or pets.
This said, there is no excuse for non Arabs being very stupid. And non Arabs have continuously been very stupid. There is no excuse for being serially very stupid and being manipulated by every Arab opportunist.
The Iraqis are not “native informants”. Native informants are those Muslims in America who were helping drive the American policy or agreeing with it–that policy that is destroying the Muslim world. I have no problem with Iraqis acting in what they see as Iraq’s interests.
Look Saddam wasn’t nice. Neither was Qadaffi. But they held those countries together. Going into a country without a plan for knowing when the mission is over and how to get out is stupid.
Bottom line is the US has no business trying to “fix” the Muslim world. Nor does any other non-Muslim country. Libyans need to fix Libya. Iraqis need to fix Iraq. We should all tend our own gardens.
Islamists are a problem but they are a problem for the Muslim world. Every other country should just protect their borders, which is why Homeland Security exists.
Kabir, thanks for clarifying that you don’t consider Iraqis to be native informants. Would you extend this to Iraqi Americans? I respect many Iraqi Americans and I consider them to be honorable good people doing what they thought was right. Some of them were lobbying the US Congress to supply the new Iraqi Army with weapons and training from 2003 to the present. Some still are. I think they have the right to do this.
Many non Iraqi muslim Americans supported what they saw as nascent Iraqi institutions and Iraqi freedom. They were well intentioned.
The war in Iraq was probably more popular and legitimate among American muslims than American nonmuslims after 2003. In 2003 the war was briefly supported by more than 70% of all Americans and I suspect was more popular among nonmuslims than muslims. However after 2003, the war was seen as a UNSC endorsed mission to support the Iraqi Government and Iraqi Army–which were unpopular among the American public. The American muslim community then split with many conservative Sunni Americans opposing assistance to the Iraqi Government and many minority and liberal muslims supporting assistance to the Iraqi Government.
You have every right to criticize American (or any country’s) policies that harm the ummah or muslims world.
“Look Saddam wasn’t nice. Neither was Qadaffi. But they held those countries together. Going into a country without a plan for knowing when the mission is over and how to get out is stupid.”
Libyans believe that they can’t fix Libyans on their own. Not just the Libyan lobbyists in Ankara, Ottawa, DC, Europe, Cairo, Tunis, Amman, Riyadh, Qatar, Dubai, Beijing, Moscow, New Delhi, Tokyo, Berlin, Madrid, Rome, Brussels, Canberra etc. But most Libyans who live in Libya. Most Libyans are asking for and demanding substantial large scale international assistance–they don’t much care which countries helps them.
Personally I think the international community should have done a lot more to help Libyans since 2011 and should do a lot more now. But I am in a minority. President Trump is very reluctant to help and most world leaders are little better.
This is an area of disagreement between us.
Libyans insist that since their primary enemies since early 2012 have been Daesh and Al Qaeda–and since Daesh AQ are global organizations–that Libyans can’t defend themselves without massive international help. Libyans further believe that the world has an obligation to help Libyans since Libyans are serving every human being on the planet by resisting Al Qaeda and Daesh. I have heard many instances were Libyans insist that if Americans were willing to take help from France, Spain, Netherlands 1775-1783–Libyans have the right to request and receive assistance now.
I recognize that you disagree with most Libyans regarding this and respect your point of view. The world shouldn’t give Libyans everything Libyans ask for. Sometimes we as humans inadvertently harm the ones we try to help.
To bring this back to the big macro question; what should the world’s 6 billion nonmuslims do regarding the Islamic civil war?
My view is that the nonmuslim world should both support dialogue with extremists and participate in dialogue with extremists. The nonmuslim world should also help muslims protect those who engage in dialogue. The nonmuslim world should do what it can to help muslims exercise freedom of art, thought, intuition and feeling. I know my views are controversial and recognize that I might be completely wrong. 🙂
Mossadegh was deeply unpopular and hated by the Iranian people in 1953. He was widely seen as an atheist post modernist communist Soviet quizzling and traitor. I am not saying the Iranian people were right or the Iranian people were wrong; but this was the perception.
Both Mossadegh and the Shah were maneuvering against each other. Both were imperfect and flawed. Mossadegh removed the Shah–which was illegal. But maybe Mossadegh felt he had no choice because the Shah was about to remove Mossadegh (which would also have been illegal). [Of course it is also possible that the Soviets removed the Shah and Mossadegh was helpless to stop the Soviets.]
Mossadegh’s action was deeply unpopular and illegitimate inside Iran. The Quom Marjeya (all the Marjas–spiritual leaders of the twelver Shiites–in Quom) lead by Kashani decided to overthrow Mossadegh and bring the Shah back. Kashani’s young apprentice Khomeini was instrumental in pulling this off.
Kashani (in large part through the young Khomeini) assembled a coalition of the Iranian Armed Forces, Iranian business community, Iranian peasant farmers, Mi-6 and the CIA to help him.
I think Khomeini was bad news back in 1953 and that the CIA was stupid and gullible to support him. For this I blame the CIA. Sadly large parts of the US establishment supported Khomeini 1953-1979. This was very stupid and wrong. The US supported Khomeini in both the 1953 and 1979 coups. The Iranian people have suffered greatly because of this.
Vilayat-e Faqih is an abomination. Khomeini declared himself the first perfect human since 874 AD:
Khomeini declared that he had full temporal and spiritual powers and rights over every human being on earth.
It is possible that Khomeini had some advanced meditation/samadhi mystical experiences. But he was not a great spiritual master on the scale of Mohammad pbuh, Fatimah, the twelve Imams, sixer lineage, or the great Sufi masters . . . in my opinion.
Supporting Khomeini was one of the two worst mistake in Carter’s life. Carter use to exchange many letters with his friend Khomeini before Carter was elected President in 1976.
I would like to see President Carter publicly cry and sincerely apologize to the Iranian people, the American people and the world for the terrible damage he did supporting Khomeini over many years. President Carter never has. This is to his great shame and disgrace. I say this as one who personally likes, admires and respects President Carter.
Saudi and Iran are both very messed up countries, but if you force me to pick one, I’d pick Iran. Women are educated in Iran. Women can drive in Iran. Iranians are very cultured people. Saudis–not so much.
Sadly, Sunni Pakistan is firmly in the Saudi camp. Nothing I can do about it though.
“Saudi and Iran are both very messed up countries, but if you force me to pick one, I’d pick Iran. Women are educated in Iran. Women can drive in Iran. Iranians are very cultured people. Saudis–not so much.
Sadly, Sunni Pakistan is firmly in the Saudi camp. Nothing I can do about it though.”
I 200% endorse your comment, as you can guess. Bharata, Kabir is much better than you think he is.
Iran is light years ahead of Saudi. I haven’t been to Saudi but Iran is a surprisingly advanced and cohesive country
“Many scholars have argued that the US entry and then exit from Iraq laid the preconditions for ISIS. Google their arguments.”
Can you elaborate?
Al Qaeda comes in direct lineage of muslims since 632 AD. Some of them (not Umar who was freaked out by some of the crazies “following” him) were in the mob that tried to kill Fatimah, Ali, Hassan and Hussein; and burn their house. Their lineage continues through Muawiyah, Yazid, Abd al-Malik ibn Marwan and Al Walid.
In 2011, there was a dispute over who should succeed Osama Bin Laden as head of Al Qaeda. Those who followed Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi are called Daesh and those who followed Zawahiri are still called Al Qaeda.
To blame nonmuslims or Kurds or Shiites, or Persians, or Iraqi Sunni Arabs loyal to GoI; for Daesh is absurd. Many people do it, but it is absurd. Why do you call them “scholars”?
Yes the new Iraqi establishment that has ruled Iraq since 2003 is deeply flawed and imperfect. They have at times been sectarian and bigoted towards Iraqi Sunni Arabs and non Iraqi Sunni Arabs. They are human beings after all, trying to do right but imperfect in execution. But in no way at all does that justify people supporting Al Qaeda or Daesh.
How can any human being justify supporting Al Qaeda or Daesh because the Iraqi government is mean to them? That makes no sense. Al Qaeda and Daesh seek to establish a caliphate that rules the whole world. Al Qaeda and Daesh don’t regard Shiites, Sufis and Kurds as real muslims.
Kabir, I don’t think you realize how incendiary this line of propaganda is. Since 2003 many Iraqis have been saying that non Iraqi Sunni Arabs (and their Iraqi Sunni Arab quisling collaborater “native informants”) support Al Qaeda. I think that this propaganda is greatly exaggerated, although there is something to this. When you (Kabir) somehow imply that the Iraqi government is responsible for the rise of Daesh you are also implicitly implying that Iraqi Sunni Arabs support Daesh and are responsible for Daesh. I think this smear is deeply unfair and wrong. Most Iraqi Sunni Arabs hate Daesh, oppose Daesh and are not responsible for Daesh.
The implication that America is responsible for Daesh suggests that the US support for the Iraqi Government is responsible for Daesh which implies that the Iraqi government is responsible for Daesh.
When Iraqis say that America backs Al Qaeda and Daesh; that is because many Iraqis believe that the Iraqi resistance since 2003 was created and supported by America in collaboration with Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Lebanon, UAE, Qatar, Pakistan etc. in an attempt to mass murder Iraqis, kill the Iraqi Government, kill the Iraqi Army. Many Iraqi Army soldiers have believed this since 2003 and still believe it. Is this what you mean by:
“Many scholars have argued that the US entry and then exit from Iraq laid the preconditions for ISIS. Google their arguments.”?
If so, then please ignore all my comments above. Since so many Iraqis believe this; this is a legitimate argument and I won’t debate the point.
Iraqi Shia have taken revenge on Iraqi Sunnis because of Saddam (aided and abetted by Shia Iran). Iran’s foreign policy is deeply messed up. This had some influence on the creation of ISIS.
This is not “propaganda”. This is fact. Again, Google is your friend. Western scholars (non-Muslim) have also made these arguments based on their own research.
In any case, when a foreign power comes in and destroys an existing government (however bad that existing government is), there will be some unintended consequences. That’s all I’m saying.
Kabir I agree with your comments. But the point is greatly exaggerated by post modernist western scholars (many of which I have debated).
Somehow attacks against nonmuslims are “terrorism” but attacks on muslims are “sectarian” and somehow less bad. Muslims who try to protect themselves from Islamists and terrorists are called “sectarian” by western academics. This has gone way too far.
The truth isn’t nearly as extreme. This isn’t an arguement against you Kabir. But an argument against Western snobbish, pretentious, condescending, patronizing academics.
This paper gives me nightmares of my anthropology courses in college.
“Anthropology is still studied and taught with a clear demarcation of the globe between centers and peripheries. ”
There was a Chinese PhD anthropology student (from UC Berkeley) who disagreed with the idea of centers and periphery since sometimes the periphery were more powerful than the center. The older Anthropology professors and the Americans PhD students couldn’t even understand what he was saying.
Am I correct that “native informant” in this case means locals who provide data to an external anthropologist intellectual researcher versus a local who analyzes the local environment using the anthropologist prism lens as a intellectual in his/her own right?
I tried to explain to some Anthropology professors and PhD students that the ethnocentric lens they were talking about (and critiquing) was actually their entire academic anthropology profession world view . . . influenced as it was by post modernism and marxism. They didn’t agree. And I wasn’t able to explain to them my prism or alternative prisms for understanding the world in a way they could understand.
Slapstik, can you review this paper? This gets to the heart of what I am short hand calling the post modernist mind set. Maybe I should summarize this paper in a full article.
One of the main ways nonmuslims try to deconstruct, delegitimise, divide and conquer muslims is by calling minority and liberal muslims “Islamaphobes”. Sadly some rich powerful Arab Salafi forces are perfectly happy to collaborate with nonmuslims in this project since they also are not fond of liberal and minority muslims; and to be perfectly blunt . . . they believe their nonmuslims allies aren’t intelligent enough to be a threat to Salafism. This has long been the case.
Very recently Sayyed Khamenei, may peace be upon him, and his followers have started allying with nonmuslims to attack fellow muslims. Sayed Khamenei, may peace be upon him, is opposed by the large majority of the world’s 150 million twelvers including almost all of the 30 Marjas (leaders of twelverism). Here they are attacking any Shiite who dares be critical of Khamenei as an Islamaphobe in collaboration with nonmuslims:
Note these are mainstream Shiites being attacked closely linked to the Najaf Marjeya, Quom Marjey and the Shiite leadership in India (UP), Pakistan, Afghanistan and Azerbaijan. Yes they are probably allies with Indian PM Modi, the Afghan government, the Azerbaijani government, Iraqi government; but so what?
How to persuade nonmuslims to stop calling muslims Islamophobes? I don’t know.
Can’t nonmuslim who are pro muslim support authentic leaders of the global ummah (muslim community). An example of such a leader would be Maajid Nawaz:
Comments are closed.