LOL :)

What next ??

Anyone wanna start a business venture in India...Buerger King Hindu. Or how about McVHP.

Laughter besides, this is sad. Marginalisation and racial segregation seems to be the new fad in western societies.

From the CSM article Abhi links to:

All immigrants who want British citizenship must remain in the country five years and then pass a language test and a short quiz on British culture that could include questions on everything from the Magna Carta to what to do if you spill someone's drink in a pub.

Wait, what do you do if you spill someone's drink in a pub?

There's also an interesting piece on British multiculturalism by Hanif Kureishi in today's Guardian (I'm working on a post on it for tomorrow...)

Thanks for this Abhi, very interesting. Your rightly point out the dichotomy - my first instinct is to vehemently condemn this, but there has been a positive in the form of providing employment. They didn't really have to call it Buerger King Muslim, non-Muslim customers are alienated and revenue is lost.

I too have been calling for more comparisons to be made between US immigration policy and the current British policy. There has been some televised debate asking questions such as "Should Britain instigate a US-style citizenship test? Should immigrants have to learn British history and pledge their allegiance to the flag?"

Not sure that would achieve all that much, but I'm up for it. I did that British citizenship test a while ago and I didn't fare that well! (Amardeep - Hanif Kureishi is frequently a complete moron, but he sometimes talks sense. I'll wait for your post!)

All sizeable immigrant groups have a deep sense of community - they help each other out. It's a positive and it's natural. New to a country, you turn to those who understand you. But since the mass post-colonial influx, the groups have parted ways.

At one extreme the black community felt much more able to integrate with white Brits, most probably as they already knew the language and came from small countries where British rule had Anglicised the way of life. Much of the Chinese community in the UK are very insular and self-sufficient - you could say they're not integrated at all and many can't speak English. Yet their youth, our generation, has not fallen foul of the trap of feeling like an alien in their own country. A lot has to do with schooling (see below).

The Pakistani community, whilst disparate and varied, has on the whole had a tougher time integrating. They found many things jarring with their religion and for whatever reason, 2nd gen Pakistani youths often don't fit in.

The simplified version of London from the CSM is somewhat inaccurate in my mind; I think London has generally managed to avoid a great deal of ghettoisation. But there have been many occasions where I have had to bite my tongue in order to prevent criticising a new concession due to the climate preventing constructive debate.

I sense things will get much worse - due to Tony Blair's mindless devotion to faith schooling. He positively encourages schools of only one religion. The link above is an example of a school which did its utmost to please Muslim groups and students, worked with the local mosque and yet lost a case to the Hizb-ut-Tahrir-backed Shabina Begum. It was trying to be a secular school. This is the school I went to and as you can see, it has a proud Christian background. However all students' religions (or lack thereof) were respected and I grew up with a mixed group of friends and no desires to bomb anyone.

Family friends will always tend to be mono-cultural, the onus is on SCHOOLS to prevent children growing up only socialising with people who think like they do.

"So let me understand this. It mimics the atmosphere of the U.S. by essentially being a segregated establishment? I’m torn."

Let me try to sew you back together, Abhi.

The article says it mimics the atmosphere of the U.S. fast-food joints.

In other words, it looks like them and has a similar vibe.

I think this is a great idea for people who have dietary restrictions. I'm sure the muslims welcome a completely halal food joint. I'm sure the jews similarly appreciate their all kosher joints and I, as a strict vegetarian, certainly appreciate the many pure veg restaurants in India or the Indian Macdonald's that have separate sections for their veg and non-veg products.

By the way Arzan, in India, Macdonald's does not serve beef burgers but has a variety of "desi" style McAloo burgers and the like. And of course mutton burgers for the non-veggies.

I think this halal burger joint is an idea who's time has come.

I do not like the title very much but if fast food joints were more diverse with their menus catering to different religious sensibilities ( in areas of ethnic diversity), then perhaps we wouldn't have a BK Muslims cropping up.

It took threat of law suits and public disapproval for Mc to put in salads and calorie-deficient food options on its menu. Since this is what it takes for fast food joints to take notice, perhaps we should all lobby for our preferences and maybe some of them will show on menus in a couple of years.

The article says it mimics the atmosphere of the U.S. fast-food joints.

In other words, it looks like them and has a similar vibe.

Yes, I know what it meant, please give me more credit than that. Your example of McDonald's in India isn't a good comparison. It's not called McDonald's Hindu is it?

Dave was also kind enough to point me to a related article in today’s Christian Science Monitor about the growing objections in Britain to the concept of a multicultural society (where you let immigrant populations just do their own thing)

Noticeable is a complete lack of reference in these articles that have appeared since the suicide-bombings, when questioning the British multicultural model, to the one million Indians in Britain whose RELATIVE success in integrating into British society and flourishing contrasts with some other communities - no Hindu or Sikh leaders interviewed, no reference to the history and lives of Indians - silence - as though they are invisible.

At times like this I wonder why. I think it may complicate the simple binaries and assumptions people have on all sides of the arguments to see a rich and vibrant religious and cultural identity that can integrate into British society and that despite rough waters, discrimination, occasional bursts of backwardness, gets on with life without complaining too much.

Its kinda like Mecca Cola which is apparently very popular in France.
I guess an entrepreneur saw an opportunity for halaal food and capitalized on it by starting a new fast food chain which offers halaal food.
I do take issue with the reference to 'North Africa' and 'Muslim' in the name as its exclusionary.

arguments to see a rich and vibrant religious

I meant rich in terms of cultural richness - not in the vulgar material sense - although a few millionaires are nothing to be ashamed of.

That's my whole point. They didn't need to put 'Muslim' in the title and exclude everyone else. They could've just had a fast food joint with halal food.

On a side note, I would not eat halal meat before I moved to where I am in London now. But there is only one place here where I can buy haram meat. Nandos, McD's, BK - they're all halal. I can't believe that the same companies in France haven't converted (hoho) as well, in the Muslim areas at the least.

Suggesting that there is a separatist impulse within SOME members of the Muslim community can lead to generalisation that obscures as much as it illuminates in terms of individual experience. But I can say that in the cities and towns I know, there is a turning inwards and away from wider society in a significant number of Pakistani communities - and I have to word this carefully because it can easily play into the hands and rhetoric of bigots who want to beat up on Muslims - but I have to be honest now and call it as I see it - everything changed after 7/7 and it is happening - ghettoes are growing - and it is not healthy.

I would not eat halal meat before I moved to where I am in London now.

Why not ?

Agree with Bongbreaker,
Though the idea is welcome, they need not put 'muslim' word in their name. Could've just marketed it as any other halaal fastfood joint. Why be exclusionist? Even frm business POV doesn't make sense. No matter how good the food they serve, non-Muslims will simply dare not enter it, for the fear of being identified with 'terrorist Muslims'. A perfect recipe for segregation.

Punjabi Boy,
I am not surprised. After every such major incident, ghettoes are a reality. I recall, after th 92-93 riots in India, many people left - were actually 'forced' to - selling their houses in mixed localities at dirt cheap prices, and then relocated to 'safer' areas. And it swung both ways. Quite a few Hindus too did the same.

Al Mujahid,
Mecca Cola is available in Kashmir too. And as this old article points out, they had planned to launch it in Gujarat. Can only tremble in fear, if they decide to launch it now, in the post-Godhra scenario.

Suhail Kazi

This ghetto thing has been happening for years - it is not just due to the current situation with the suicide bombers - it has been noticeable for at least a decade.

Why not ?

I have worked on a farm and seen a cow take a long time to die after having its throat cut. The heart continues to pump and it thrashes around. I've seen a cow killed the 'English' way as well and, to me, it seemed far more humane. I guess I shouldn't really be eating any meat having seen inside an abbatoir, but I'm weak and addicted.

There are some interesting articles on it:

The BBC - Halal and Kosher Must End

The Guardian - The slaugherhouse rules

It got me thinking about a lot of oddities about halal meat in the UK, I know an abbatoir that just play a tape of namaaz on auto-repeat as the blessing. But I think I'm gaining a reputation for going off-topic so I'll stop there.

When I said that 'everything changed after 7/7' I meant that the restraints on honest debate have to be removed - before nobody really talked about these things for fear of offending and upsetting and so it was kind of ignored - but that cant carry on now - since these Leeds suicide bombers everything has changed we have to be honest and state some home truths and not be shy of upsetting people - there is a real problem here - it is almost as if every community has accepted the terms of the British model - the liberal, secular, democratic, integrationist model - there are bumps and incidents but they are minor and dont distract from the main philosophy - nobody opposes the British consensus - all at least start integrating and accept how this society is settled, White, Black, Indian, Chinese, Jewish - except, sadly, for a significant section of the Muslim community, and some of their leaders too.

So that is what I meant when I said everything changed after 7/7 - meaning we cannot deny this is not happening and hold back from discussing it any more - even though it may upset some people, who do not fit in with the broad brush strokes we use in our discussions of the issues.

Actually, in India you will find "Jain Food" restaurants as well as "Vaishnava Bhojan" etc, that conform to the dietary restrictions of these sects as well as others.

That such a thing is sprouting up in France I think is a good idea. Just because a religious diaspora lands on foreign soil does not mean that they have to adopt all of the habits of the majority.

So they called it "muslim", big deal. Now muslims know where to go when they want a halal burger and some social life with other muslims. And now I know where to go to find those hot Morroccan hunks the next time I go to Paris!

It's all good!

Crown Fried Chicken? Kabab King? Bukhara? Ethnic ghettoes always have their own knock off fastfood places.

1) It's just a burger place. I understand the broader trend the post is pointing to, but it seems a little odd to use this to do it. The French ban on headscarves probably will contribute more to the Al Qaeda recruitment efforts there than this burger place (although social networks are important).

2. Moreover, it's a burger place that you can eat at if you keep halal. Isn't part of the problem that people feel alienated? And one way to not feel alienated might be to be able to enjoy the same types of institutions without having to sacrifice your beliefs?

It seems (at the surface at least) to be pretty clear that the U.S. admits immigrants who are more likely to succeed and assimilate than Europe does.

What is this statement based on?

PB,
Agreed. My comment was just a ref'ce to a recent event (even redundant, you can say).

So that is what I meant when I said everything changed after 7/7 - meaning we cannot deny this is not happening and hold back from discussing it any more - even though it may upset some people, who do not fit in with the broad brush strokes we use in our discussions of the issues.

Couldn't agree more on this.

What is this statement based on?

Just my personal observation.

First, it's based on my experience as a University grad student. Almost every legal immigrant I come in contact with is very well educated and out to get their piece of the pie (and therefore less likely to turn militant). I realize I am getting a skewed perspective but I pointed out in the post that I am ignorant about the specifics of U.S. immigration policy.

Second, the U.S. never had an overseas Empire. For the last 50 years or so we have been able to make guidelines for who we let in (often conservative ones). We like high tech workers and doctors and scientists. My mom was born in Uganda. She was given a British passport when colonial rule ended. The UK somewhat opened its doors to all economic classes, even those that weren't well supported enough that they were guaranteed to make it in the new world.

Like I said, I would like to read something about a comparison of immigration policies so I have a better perspective on it.

even though it may upset some people, who do not fit in with the broad brush strokes we use in our discussions of the issues.

PB, do you really see this happening? I don't. I couldn't agree more that what we need is frank, open and constructive debate without the fear that someone will fly off the hook and say you are defiling 1400 years of tradition...for example. It's still the Sun and the Mail saying one thing and the Guardian saying another. I don't see much real debate about the things that bother me and other regular people.

Bongi

Well, have you had a frank debate on these issues without somebody's blood boiling? This is about the only place I have. Some of the message boards where British Asians hang out - forget about it - talk about some people being in an absolute state of denial.

The thing is, there really are some Muslim Bashers out there who will use any opportunity to have a dig and that is what makes the shutters go up - but I have talked to some Pakistani friends of mine and friends and friends of friends - and there is some serious denial going on out there.

It's a positive development on many terms. 28 new jobs in an unprivileged neighborhood. Cheap food - the commoditization should make for a cheaper product. Improved environment for kids - they have kiddies' play areas . sense of ownership - Buerger is French slang for 2nd gen or something like that. Thinking out loud. There's 28 employees + 28 dependents (at 1 per employees) = 56 people directly affected by BKM. Each of them likely supports half a local vendor. Net = 56 *1.5 = 84 people. That's under 1% of population in a high density neighborhood - but a healthy number. So opening this one BKM reduces sense of disenfranchisement among 84 people within the particular neighborhood. Wonder if Nasscom factors this when building a case for outsourcing. Are we there yet?

Too true PB. I started a post off on AiM - I thought I worded it pretty well and really didn't say anything inflammatory. One of the main points I wanted to convey was that one of the reasons that nothing has been done about fundamentalists in Britain is that they are more popular than we are lead to believe - and the politicians know this. I repeated that it's still a tiny minority of Muslims but my goodness did the sh*t fly. I can track it down if you like. I have been accused of Islamaphobia and worse.

Denial is the exact word I used, but they denied there was any denial.

This is the brick wall that I don't see coming down.

Some Canadian university campuses that have close to zero hate crimes/problems have student organisations making students aware of Islamaphobia - in other countries.
I know it's for a 'good cause' but how does that help when the problem isnt rampant on these campuses? Really, the biggest membership is primarily enjoyed by MSA anyway ( Muslim Students Association).
But when I voiced this, just suggesting that my tuition fees used by SAC et al could go towards problems that are a big-ger source of concern at our campus , I was looked upon as someone bordering on being Islamaphobic ( hence providing more fodder for their campaign-who knows maybe they use my example somewhere too now ). I think I should have calmed them by explaining two of my best friends are muslims huh.And yes one is Paki.

Bongi

I can imagine the kind of response you got.

It is denial and it is delusion as well - conspiracy theorising and extreme anti-Semitism - really deeply embedded prejudices and paranoia.

You have to keep telling people to wake up though otherwise nothing will change. Some people just do not want to face up to the fact that there is a deeply fascistic and extreme right wing menace in our society - and it does not come from 'white racists' - it has arisen inside them and is targetting everyone. They just cannot face up to this fact - blame it on Zionists, America, anyone but to look inside and diagnose the malignant melanoma within.

Vidushi

I am beginning to believe that some of the concept of 'Islamophobia' is actually part of the problem - an attempt to assert an Islamist agenda and stifle internal and external criticism.

Take a look at this article - in fact everyone read this article, written by a British-Muslim journalist and writer called Kenan Malik.

The Islamophobia Myth

What is being created here is a culture of victimhood in which 'Islamophobia' has become one-stop cause of the myriad of problems facing Muslims.

Some also point the finger at cultural practices within some Muslim communities. 'By and large', the journalist Yasmin Alibhai Brown acknowledges, 'the lowest achieving communities in this country are Muslim. When you talk to people about why this is happening the one reason they give you, the only reason they give you, is Islamophobia.' It's not an argument that Alibhai Brown accepts. 'It is not Islamophobia that makes parents take 14 year old bright girls out of school to marry illiterate men, and the girl has again to bring up the next generation who will again be denied not just education but the value of education.'

There is clearly prejudice and fear of Islam in this country. Muslims do get harassed and attacked because of their faith. At the same time the degree of hatred and discrimination is being exaggerated to suit particular political agendas, stoking up resentment and creating a victim culture.

The likelihood of such a frank, open debate is, however, not very high. 'Islamophobia' has become not just a description of anti-Muslim prejudice but also a prescription for what may or may not be said about Islam.

This was published about six months ago. It is even more important to read and consider now, especially in the British context.

Some Canadian university campuses that have close to zero hate crimes/problems have student organisations making students aware of Islamaphobia - in other countries.

I know it's for a 'good cause' but how does that help when the problem isnt rampant on these campuses? Really, the biggest membership is primarily enjoyed by MSA anyway ( Muslim Students Association). How islamaphobic can this campus get then? Besides, how does it help to spread awareness about people being islamaphobic when these campus students are more open about ethnicity and religious sentiments. consider this:An Arab students association at one of the local university campuses, invited a panel of speakers to express their (pro-) Palestinian opinion. the flyers distributed for the talk spoke of jewish hands being tainted by blood of palestinian muslims.
No we didn't have any retaliation except letters sent to the campus newspaper protesting the language used. As you can see, it is very peaceful in these places.

But when I voiced this, just suggesting that my tuition fees used by SAC et al could go towards problems that are a big-ger source of concern at our campus , I was looked upon as someone bordering on being Islamaphobic ( hence providing more fodder for their campaign-who knows maybe they use my example somewhere too now ). Some Muslims do tend to take the islamaphobia notion too far.

I think I should have calmed them by explaining two of my best friends are muslims huh.And yes one is Paki.

sorry about the dual posts :S something went wrong.

PB : thanks for the link. I'm glad someone is voicing what is going on in my head.

Interesting read PB. Although he tea leafed my exact phrase about frank and honest debate! Haven't heard of the chap. It's very relevant in the current climate. I like the way he compared things to when the Tories were in - and also mentioned Behzti which I have written a fair amount about, to give a different angle. Yasmin Alibhai Brown pisses me right off, although I realise that's nothing to do with anything.

I'm sure Irshad Manji has been linked to before on here, but she's written some very good articles recently, addressing the denial and how all condemnations of the bombings were suffixed by justifications.

And since when have I been christened Bongi?!

Does Irshad Manji have much cred, though? I won't deny she's identified some real issues, but I find her to be such a media opportunist, and I find she belittles and simplifies dissenting streams in Islamic thought even as she claims to be putting them forward to the public.

And I don't think she successfully walks the line between sensitively criticising the guardians of her own faith, and inviting hostile attacks on adherents of that same faith. From her website: "My question for non-Muslims is equally basic: Will you succumb to the intimidation of being called "racists," or will you finally challenge us Muslims to take responsibility for our role in what ails Islam?"

Does this kind of statement really help open up dialogue between Muslims and non-Muslims, and equally importantly, could it really help Muslim dissenters? It seems to me to conveniently feed that stream of opinion which seeks to deny that racism and Islamophobia even exist, while conveniently putting all the blame back on Muslims for refusing to *get* Western culture, however this may be defined.

the problem i have with a term like 'islamophobic' is that islam is a diverse set of ideas. hell yeah i'm phobic about a lot of islamic ideas! i really don't like bug-eyed bearded muslims who glare at my gf in public places because they don't want to see her in shorts marring their appreciation of the sunset. my small oregon has a bunch of loonie converts, and with their big red beards and pasty ass complexions set off on their faux arabic dress they make me pretty islamophobic (these aren't sufis, one of the dudes was bitching about his friend was detained because he worked for a saudi 'charity'). i used to tell my christian evangelical friends that i hated christianity, not christians, hate the sin, not the sinner! was i christophobic?

sure, prejucide and racism is a problem. people have no choice about what skin they're born into, and on a person to person level it doesn't have to be an issue (i believe in a brotherhood of values, but many people feel they have more in common with those of similar race/culture, and i'm cool with that as long as people don't make laws to impose that). but ideas, beliefs, that's a different can-of-beans. at some point, we can't all get along. many muslims espouse views that are by their nature inimical to who i am. many fundamentalist christians espouse views that are by their nature inimical to who saurav is as a gay man. there is certainly a conflation of 'muslim' with 'brown person,' but i don't think we should give into the tendency to identify a particular religion with an exclusionary category (ie; non-white), and so include the religion in the umbrella of outrage that is included as a response to race-hatred.

Same bucket as Ted Rall or Ann Coulter - conservative pedigree. Gets a lot of spotlight. Yes. Has credibility? Not sure. Uses sexual identity, religion, ethnicity to good effect - claims prejudices from all ends - media is alternately thrilled at the opportunity to be a voice for the downtrodden and afraid of being labeled as biased if it fails to be a mouthpiece - bends over backwards to appease.

the problem i have with a term like 'islamophobic' is that islam is a diverse set of ideas. hell yeah i'm phobic about a lot of islamic ideas! i really don't like bug-eyed bearded muslims who glare at my gf in public places because they don't want to see her in shorts marring their appreciation of the sunset. my small oregon has a bunch of loonie converts, and with their big red beards and pasty ass complexions set off on their faux arabic dress they make me pretty islamophobic (these aren't sufis, one of the dudes was bitching about his friend was detained because he worked for a saudi 'charity'). i used to tell my christian evangelical friends that i hated christianity, not christians, hate the sin, not the sinner! was i christophobic?

I agree it's not the best term in the world, and I completely sympathise with your distaste for the bearded, staring guys, but I'm not sure. I think the term has some merit. When the newspaper front pages jostle to vilify entire communities on the basis of their religion, I get the feeling they're pretty Islamophobic. And every other person who fits the profile gets to have a taste of it too, but because of their association with a "Muslim" physical type (horrible notion). Having said that I do realise that all kinds of nasty types hide behind the term in order to deflect criticism. I'm not really sure if there is a more suitable term, however.

When the newspaper front pages jostle to vilify entire communities on the basis of their religion,

i don't know if you live in britain, but here in the US our middlebrow press always presents both sides, and i don't ever really seeing it villifying all muslims. i agree that profiling 'muslim' types is wrong, but while objecting to the natural psychological response (and i'm sorry, but it is natural, which doesn't mean it can't be controlled or modified) one should also always remember that that response is set off by the reality that a small subset of self-describe muslims seems intent on waging war against their own citizens because the dictates of their understanding of their religion renders all outside of belief subhuman.

there are multiple reactions one can have toward group X (doesn't have to be muslims) who espouse values, propositions and practices a, b, c, d....

a) revulsion and opposition
b) distaste
c) tolerance
d) acceptance
e) admiration
etc. etc. etc.

radical islamists are objects of a. i doubt anyone would object to that. but frankly, most practicing conservative muslims are the objects of b in my opinion, i don't like their attitude toward gender roles, i don't appreciate their tendency to assume that those who know about islam but are in unbelief are being obstinate or haven't read the appropriate texts and i don't like their ostentatious regimentation of their life according to a code formulated between the 7th and 11th centuries. as for most religions, they fall under c, they strike me as weird, but it's their business.

islamophobia is just one of those terms that ends up with a lot of mission creep. some people seem to take it to mean that muslim orthodoxy shouldn't be challenged by free thinkers as has been our prerogative since 1750. all cultures have a free right to be expressed in western societies, so long as they fit within the bounds of liberalism as it has developed to this point and time. should i accuse traditionalist conservative muslims of 'liberalophobia' because they send their daughters back to pakistan or often produced sexually repressed and warped sons?

p.s. option b is what i go for in the case of hasidic jews. sorry, they creep me out. call me anti-semitic.

btw, the USA has a bimodal educational profile in its immigrants. personally, i think we should just skew toward highly skilled types and suck the rest of the world dry of their elite if possible.

While Hanif Querishi is a massively self-indulgent fiction writer (whose work nonetheless I adore), his article in the Guardian actually makes some good analytical points. I like how he writes, "multiculturalism is: not a superficial exchange of festivals and food, but a robust and committed exchange of ideas - a conflict that is worth enduring, rather than a war."

I'm occasionally rendered speechless by the way conservative elements existing within most diasporic communities advocate the most retrograde, stupid-headed essentialist cultural politics of nostalgia that are usually several decades out of date with what's goin on 'back home,' where odds are the corner chai huts continue as they have been for the last two centuries to be filled with queer pot smokin socialists writing bad poetry and resistin the state like any self-respecting third world revolutionary, unlike the keeners who upwardly-mobilized themselves right out of the country.

Sorry Bong Breaker I just couldnt be bothered to type out Bong Breaker so just typed Bongi and BB seems too impersonal but if you are offended by Bongi I will not do so again.

Yeah, the article by Kenan Malik is very good - this victimhood culture is the fast route to religious 'leaders' getting their egos boosted with attention - scream and stomp your feet and throw a hissy fit and you get noticed - it is a strategy Sikh and Hindu 'organisations' will try to use and have tried to use, in fact it is the way of the minority mentality everywhere - it is just with Muslims it has a certain urgency because, well, a handful of them blow themselves up on the Underground and other places.

Sometimes people wallow in victimhood.

Nah it's very hard to offend me Punjabi Boy!

should i accuse traditionalist conservative muslims of 'liberalophobia' because they send their daughters back to pakistan or often produced sexually repressed and warped sons?

Good point razib.

In Britain some have criticised the press with giving too much attention to extreme Islamic fundamentalists, saying that the media doesn't give Combat 18 or the National Front exposure, so why do they put forward a twisted form of Islam as the norm?

Bongi

I am touched I made you change your name - although personally I think Bongo sounds much better.

It's just a temporary thing my friend. I am the Bong Breaker! (you have to imagine me saying that like WORF. A short skinny version of him, but still WORF)

if only WORF could dance like you ;)

I vote for Bongi.
Or perhaps Bongi ji.

Further permutations:

-->Bongi G

-->Bongee jees (as in Bee Gees)

-->Bong Bejeezus

Bongo is the best I reckon - no doubt about it.

I am thinking of changing my nick - just for the novelty - but I cannot think of anything as sexy as Punjabi Boy.

DesiDancer that is some thought. Imagine Worf doing a headspin on his Klingon cranium. Hell, imagine Picard and Worf battling...I'd give all my gold pressed latinum to see that. Then Data comes along, busts out the robot and dumps all over them. Awesome!

This conversation went a bit weird.

Punjabi Boy. It's a good solid name. No points for imagination I have to say, but at least it ain't PunjbiJatt2Hott4U. My name started out as the Bengali Bboy and somehow worfed into Bong Breaker. Oddly enough Amardeep, I've been Bee Gee too - as the nickname everyone else knows me as begins with a 'g'.

incidentally, Bongi, I tried to reach out on your med student link, but I am not sure if the email form came to you...

Seems not to have - there's a mailto: at the top of the contact page which works. Or guptastar at gmail dot com.

I cannot think of anything as sexy as Punjabi Boy.

Wait a minute....we're going for sexy with the nicknames? Hmmm, I truly missed the mark with "but no" ;)

Any time a post I write turns into a discussion about Star Terk, I love it. All is right with the Federation.

I registered with imdb for the sole reason to post up a thread entitled The Lamest and the Coolest, where I argued who the 5 lamest and coolest characters were. Ah, happy days.

Geek power.

Some Muslims complain it's not Muslim enough ;)

"There are a few changes they could make to give the place a completely Muslim image," Halimi said. "The television is OK, but there shouldn't be any music..."

Sourpuss.

Seems to me their biggest problem is actually trademark.

the problem i have with a term like 'islamophobic' is that islam is a diverse set of ideas.

this isn't how this stuff works, razib. if you assume a set of negative essential traits about someone (in this context, that they might blow up a train or otherwise want to kill you) on the basis of some group membership, that's where the -phobia part comes in. You're free to criticize maulvis without being islamaphobic and if someone attacks sikhs for being "muslim-looking," then that's islamaphobic too. It's about the mental state of the person and a cultural trend to the extent that many others share it (if that's the case...which is a separate argument).

It's obviously not an exclusive factor--it goes with other kinds of racism, anti-Arab sentiment, legitimate critique, economic motives, personality, blah blah blah and it does get misused, but you've got to admit that there's your fair share of baseless and irrational anti-Muslim sentiment these days by ordinary folks.

Do you read some of your blog comments? ;)

-netaji saurav

but you've got to admit that there's your fair share of baseless and irrational anti-Muslim sentiment these days by ordinary folks.

the ordinary folks are irrelevant being the short term, in the long run history is a dialogue between elites ;) and the 'islamophobia' charge, in my eyes, is being used to chill criticism against a religious system and its byproducts. prefixing islam to phobia has i think had the unfortunate (as i've stated over and over) effect of coupling criticism of islam with racism, if not strongly, at least enough so that it quenches the anti-religion skepticism that is normative among manys secularists. attacks against sikhs because they look muslim, burnings of mosques, etc. is motivated by racism and ethnic bias coupled with the amplifying power of islamic terrorism as a trigger. i think we should be careful about compressing detestation of beliefs with detestations of race, ethnicity, etc. the latter is far less fungible than the former, and i think that distinction matters.

your fair share of baseless and irrational anti-Muslim sentiment these days by ordinary folks.

and it depends on how you define 'baseless' and 'irrational.' when i was in college girls were terrified of walking by a particular cemetary because of a rape that had occurred there years before. someone pointed out that the incidence of rape was actually higher in the environs of a local bar, but ultimately women were specifically avoid the cemetary as opposed to the bar even though statistically rape was far more likely at the bar. you know me well enough to know that i don't believe that the human mind is a classic utilitarian modeling device, especially the stupid human mind (the majority). the public can be educated, but ultimately, within the context of normal cognitive architecture, i suspect the responses you are seeing is quite normal. in fact, the cultural milieu of relative tolerance is of course dampening the response if history is to be any judge.

p.s. many of my comments related to 'islamophobia' would probably fall under the rubric of 'framing.' i think in the present battle that browns are having to do against 'islamophobia' will have long term ramifications with the way muslim groups will be able to utilize the term. i don't think it is a big step to drop off the 'irrational' part from irrational hatred of islam, and i think that tends to happen a lot, as rational critiques are quelched because of the climate.

the ordinary folks are irrelevant being the short term, in the long run history is a dialogue between elites ;)

I know you're capable of understand the effects of social movements and demographics on institutions and elites and the importance of demographics, so I'm left to assume that you're just deliberately trying to piss me off because you know the better angels of my nature are populist. :)

In any case, the practice of history is a dialogue between a scholar and a primary source and then among other scholars who are doing the same (and maybe their friends); everyone else can f#ck off or more accurately call what they produce "pop history" or "badly done history" (whichever applies).

I can understand what you're saying about the misuse of "Islamaphobia" as a way of deflecting a critique of faith but if your goal is to promote critiques of faith, there are other ways to do it besides denying the validity of a term (as opposed to calling for it to be used precisely and effectively and calling out people when they don't do that).

The crux of our disagreement, I think, is that you choose to view Muslims as people who adhere to a particular set of "beliefs" and I choose to view them here as an outsider-defined social group who are alleged to share commonalities--i do this because, imo, those are the grounds on which people are being targeted.

Of course preexisting elements of racism and ethnic bias play into all this (as do many other things--particularly xenophobia, class, nationality-based bias), but rounding and questioning 82,000 immigrants from countries with "Al Qaeda" presence through a single policy is tantamount to official targeting using religion as a primary factor (as was an FBI decision to choose to use the number of mosques in an area as a means of allocating counterterrorism resources). I'm picking just two of about 50 examples of what I consider officially sanctioned policies that rely on religion-based profiling from the Ashcroft years--since you want to talk about elite actions ;)

You can pick another word for "Islamaphobia" if you want--it's just kind of catchy.

i don't know if you live in britain, but here in the US our middlebrow press always presents both sides, and i don't ever really seeing it villifying all muslims.

No, I live in Australia. The press here is split on the issue, but there are middlebrow conservative broadsheets and tabloids here which are literally competing with each other to vilify Muslims. No joke, it's appalling.

The crux of our disagreement, I think, is that you choose to view Muslims as people who adhere to a particular set of "beliefs" and I choose to view them here as an outsider-defined social group who are alleged to share commonalities--i do this because, imo, those are the grounds on which people are being targeted.

your operational definition is understandable, and perhaps pragmatic in narrow constraints of time, but i think in the long term is it numinous and too loose. i don't really have an axiomatic definition of "who is a muslim," i say that anyone is a muslim who identifies as a muslim. the question of who is a muslim is rather strange, and one contingent upon subjective perception, and i will offer and anecdote that illustrates this. a friend of mine who sometimes comments on my blog has recently decided to adhere to a more militant anti-islamist stance. she emailed me because she was worried that i would take offense at her anti-islamist stance because it shaded into anti-muslimness. now, i was a little taken aback by the email, because

1) she perceived me as muslim, though she knows i'm an atheist.

2) i don't perceive myself as muslim.

3) i'm notoriously narcissistic and have a difficult time seeing how anything is really relevant to me that doesn't have a direct connection me, so the email was a rather poor judge of my character (she was more disturbed by her own views than i was!).

now, am i muslim because some people out there think i am muslim? frankly, i am as muslim as you saurav, by which i mean that most ignorant rednecks would not discern 'razib' to be a more muslim name than 'saurav.' more sophisticated people would know about my family's origin was muslim from the surname, and some of these people seem to persist assuming i identify as a muslim even though i am an atheist. but in any case, if there is a strong anti-muslim backlash there is an assumption i might be a target. i would not have a hesitation in changing my name if there was a strong anti-muslim backlash, so i am as vulnerable as any brown person out there. but as i said, the ignorant types don't care about such things. so i see the many of the short term issues that 'islamophobia addresses.'

but, the issue relating to islamophobia is partly semantical. i might even object less if it was muslimphobia, as at least that makes people the target of hatred rather than a complex of ideas (there is a range which these ideas cover, but they do tend to exhibit certain features, for example, adherence to the shahada). but again, you are talking about a totally different thing than what i am thinking about, i am not speaking to FBI targeting of mosques or muslim leaders, round-ups, or anything like that. i am addressing a tendency i see in some circles to not treat islam like a regular complex of ideas and institutions which are not sacred to those outside the circle of belief because the religion has started to imbue the untouchable mystique of the oppressed (for lack of a better phrase).

in sum, i think the short term utility of the term 'islamophobia' (or the phenomenon) is debatable, but, i think in the long term it lays the seeds for an insulation of islam as a set of ideas and practices espoused by various people because it is instrinsically associated with them like their skin color or gender. i am simply being a moron if i declare that i am not a brown, as that is a fundamental part of who i am because of biology. on the other hand, my religion is fungible, it is up for discussion, debate, refutation and scorn. or should be.

p.s. i think that i would have the same objection to the term "judeophobia," as opposed to anti-semitism. as it is, i have gotten into arguments with jewish friends and acquaintances because they conflate my objections to various jewish religious customs and traditions with anti-semitism. in fact, i have seen some rather bizarre articles on the net which smear the anti-circumcision movement with anti-semitism!

British Bong Corporation!!!

I vote for British Bong Corporation.

That is all.

Saurav

The trouble is - legitimate criticism of Islamic extremism (which is itself an intolerant and bigoted creed) - a type of fascism that is a menace to the whole of society and produces suicide massacring psychopaths (I am talking about Britain) - is being deflected by recourse of the phrase 'Islamophobia'

And you know what? Non Muslims who have the best intentions, who stick their heads in the sand because they dont want to face up to this fact also invoke this very elastic concept to create a taboo against the discussion of certain issues.

It devalues the phrase and becomes a hinderance to the frank and neccessary open discussion we need to have about a strain of fascsim that exists and is identifiable and real - soft soaping this issue leads to death - read Kenan Malik's article which I posted above.

In short, Saurav, any ideology that promtes hatred, intolerance, violence, death, religious supremacism, the oppression of women, and the murder of infidels and homosexuals, DOES NOT DESERVE to have protection from scrutiny in a free and democratic society - especially at a time when this ideology has resulted in the deaths of 55 people and the maiming for life including amputation and blinding and scarring of 200 others - and when this ideology and threat remaisn present and real.

Hence, Muslim organisations need to use the term more carefully and judiciously and should not prevent discussion by throwing it about as a term of abuse - not least because the more they do it and try to stigmatise legitimate discussion the more the use of the term comes to be seen as an example of 'the boy who cried wolf'

Which does not help anyone.

in sum, i think the short term utility of the term 'islamophobia' (or the phenomenon) is debatable, but, i think in the long term it lays the seeds for an insulation of islam as a set of ideas and practices espoused by various people because it is instrinsically associated with them like their skin color or gender.

Yes, I'm using it specifically in context to the discussions that we're having now. I don't think it's worthwhile to try to come up with an immutable definition of what constitutes "Islamaphobia." I see what you're saying about how this "trend" might be used by others as a means of essentializing a religion as something immutable in a person, but I think this has more to do with your views on religion than your views on whether or not there's currently any antipathy towards those perceived to be Muslims or not. Different lenses.

Here we have another disagreement, though--one that we've talked about before. I think that religion in this context is closer to the other markers that you mention in the context of a conversation about social relationships. There's clearly a difference in applying a label on the basis of: how you self-identify; what's emotionally practical for you to belief; how you're perceived by others; how you were raised; the community of which your family was a part; what you actually believe; and many other criteria by which you could take on or not take on the label of a particular religion. I could say that I'm not Hindu because I've chosen not to be so anymore, but it wouldn't change particular experiences I've had--having been to pujas, having read the Gita, having been exposed to Goddess worship, ritual, etc. You could argue that "Hindu" is imprecise, but I would be as foolish in denying it as I would my brown skin because there was a cultural and intellectual tradition I was brought up in. Even if I myself were not raised Hindu but my parents were, I could see some of the traditions or ways of thinking making their way into my brain. It's unfortunate in some cases and fortunate in others, but it's there. The problem with modernity is that it demands you check of a box when people are generally more complicated than that.

On the other pole you laid out, the qualities you're talking about are influenced by, build on, include cultural ideas that have nothing to do with anything abundantly self-evident. I mean, if we're talking about skin color--"white", "black", and "yellow" are pretty inaccurate terms and "brown" is even less meaningful as a universal social descriptor than "Asian" To wit, I learned today that the first reference to a people being "yellow" was original applied to desi people by Turkish people.

Binary notions of gender can also be problematic (I haven't quite figured this out yet, but obviously "boys do this" and "girls do this" is something we're still working through). It's also culturally specific--transgender and hijra are not the same thing. I take it you mean "sex" and not gender, but that I can draw a distinction makes clear that we're not talking about something that's entirely reliant on an understanding of an objective world either.

PB, you're talking about the use of the term Islamaphobia. I was talking about the existence of a phenomenon that might justify the term. Any term can be politically used in various ways; some Zionists and some anti-Semites and are united in confusing the state of Israel with Judaism (although for different ends.

I don't know what's going on in the UK so I won't comment on that, but the article you provided has some lines that read like a standard denial of a race problem (the "how can we know an Afghan taxi driver" line caught my eye in particular).

But in the US, we had an attorney general (who was then in charge of immigration services, the FBI, and other law enforcement agencies) who decided to go after Muslim communities (which involved investigating, detaining, or trying to deport at least 100,000 people). We also had a war that was reliant on the fact that people would be willing to confuse the secular (if horrendous) Muslim state of Iraq with the almost uniformly Saudi 9/11/2001 hijackers. We have people who call for the United States to invade Muslim countries and convert them all and are still allowed to take the airways. We have a Congressman who's thinking about running for President who says that a nuclear attack by Al Qaeda should be met with attacks on Muslim holy sites--and whose party chairman is still catching his back. So even if I might choose to view what's going on in the US through other lenses, it's kind of important to understand that anti-Muslim sentiment exists.

So, yes, people should be careful about throwing around terms like "islamaphobia"--and "fascist"--i'm still figuring out what I think about this so I'm not going to take up the argument, but you should really back that up if you're going to use a term so loaded in a context this inflammatory.

In any case, if someone's bull$hitting, call them out on it--that's the point of this whole global war on struggle and terror against extremism, right? And if someone baits you, then call them out on that too. I'm all for speaking your mind sensibly.

"fascist"--i'm still figuring out what I think about this so I'm not going to take up the argument, but you should really back that up if you're going to use a term so loaded in a context this inflammatory.

Do you believe that the political movement that nurtured, gave succour to and produced a bunch of suicide bombers - that believes in the imposition of sharia law and the creation of the caliphate - that discriminates against all non believers - that is rabid with hatred for Jews - that advocates the opression of women and homosexuals - that repudiates democracy - that ultimately believes in violence as a tool for gaining political ascendancy - do you honestly believe describing that as a strain of fascism is inflammatory?

Placing bombs on trains to kill 55 people is not fascist? The ideology that gives justification to this action is not fascist? Calling that fascistic is inflammatory? Inflammatory to whom?

but the article you provided has some lines that read like a standard denial of a race problem

Read the article - nowhere does he provide a 'standard denial of a race problem' - you are just laying down your pre-existing ideas and refusing to engage with Kenan Malik's thesis - Kenan Malik is, I might add, an anti-racist veteran who fought the skinheads in the streets in the 1970's and 1980's - so please Saurav dont fall back into a default position of denial - actually take on board what he says - dont try and discredit it sniffily on the basis of a couple of sentences which fit into your pre-conceived notions of whatever you believe in - read the article line by line and think - you will see that your characterisation of the essay and the authors intent is a TRAVESTY.

if someone's bull$hitting, call them out on it--

I do that all the time, no problem, there is alot of bullshit flying around these days

You could argue that "Hindu" is imprecise, but I would be as foolish in denying it as I would my brown skin because there was a cultural and intellectual tradition I was brought up in. Even if I myself were not raised Hindu but my parents were, I could see some of the traditions or ways of thinking making their way into my brain. It's unfortunate in some cases and fortunate in others, but it's there. The problem with modernity is that it demands you check of a box when people are generally more complicated than that.

i think hindus are like jews in that they have a broad, and not specifically confessional orientation in terms of religious definitions. i have discussed this issue before in reference to what i perceive as a cartel mindset among american jewish leaders. your definition of religious identity is totally valid, but here is the issue, in the united states right now multiple definitions are battling it out. though i'm obviously not a protestant evangelical, i tend to lean toward their belief-centric definition, because i think that is the closest analogy to a liberal idea of individual self-definition where your roots may serve as a point of departure, but do not constrain you. in the modern american context jews are at one end, a people and a religion, while protestant evangelicals are at the other. hindus are probably closer to jews. muslims are somewhere in the middle. now, observers regularly identify islam and protestantism as similar, as they are text based religions, but like judaism (and hinduism, and to some extent catholicism) it is also a highly praxy oriented religion. it also has a mild ethnic element in that you are muslim if your father is muslim (so someone born of a muslim father is an apostate if they reject the muslim religion even if they weren't raised in the muslim religion). ultimately for a religiously diverse liberal society to fully express itself i think a radical protestant conception of religious identity should be dominant. there will always be groups which emphasize descent and practice rather than belief, but i am fully in favor of the 'protestantization' of all religions so that a free market of beliefs can exist that individuals can choose from without social conceptions of 'you are always a jew' or 'you are always a muslim' getting in the way.

as for the 'checking off a box' issue, well, obviously identities are complicated. being born in the USA you were influenced by many things that someone born in south asia, or east asia, or latin america, woud not be. you are a composite. but as a matter of verbal practicality, you do have to slice and dice identity as if all the parts are reducible and separable. the united states has never been a 'traditional' society, it is has been about identity flux.

To wit, I learned today that the first reference to a people being "yellow" was original applied to desi people by Turkish people.

well, interesting reference, but my understanding is that ancient egyptian color identifications of various neighboring peoples coded levantines/west asians (whom they kept as tributaries for centuries) as "yellow." in any case, i used "brown" as shorthand for my physical type, which is clearly south asian.

Oh, and in case anyone thinks focusing on anti-Muslim sentiment is a "left" argument that only people who care about social justice should bother about, here's what Marc Sageman says about stopping Al Qaedaish violence (the language is a little different from this quote, which came from his book):

"The war against global Salafi terror also requires active support from American and other Muslim communities....Strong-arm governmental tactics antogonizing Muslim communities in the United States will not earn their support in the fight against the jihad. U.S. government agencies urgently need to implement active measures to restore their previous good relationships with the Muslim community and elicit its support."

Any good police officer will tell you the same thing.

Do you believe that the political movement that nurtured, gave succour to and produced a bunch of suicide bombers - that believes in the imposition of sharia law and the creation of the caliphate - that discriminates against all non believers - that is rabid with hatred for Jews - that advocates the opression of women and homosexuals - that repudiates democracy - that ultimately believes in violence as a tool for gaining political ascendancy - do you honestly believe describing that as a strain of fascism is inflammatory?

Okay, before you jump out a window, what I said was that the context was inflammatory--meaning the context of a conversation about Islamaphobia, fascism, and terrorism (and, if I get my way, abuses of state power). I said that the term fascist is loaded--which it is. All I was asking you to do is connect how the ideology and practice that motivates these people relates to fascism.You know--being careful about language and all ;) So, for example, placing bombs on a train, however horrendous, is not in and of itself "fascist"--it depends why it was done. Like I said, I'm still learning about this and haven't made up my mind about whether I personally think this is an appropriate use of the term.

Read the article - nowhere does he provide a 'standard denial of a race problem'

I shouldn't have said anything about the article because I barely skimmed it and, like I said, I don't know what's going on in the UK. In any case, I wasn't trying to characterize the article or the author--I was pointing to a couple of lines that jumped out at me.

Anyway, I can't read the article line by line and think anything about the particulars, because I don't have the context that you do for who he is, what race relations are like now, what they were like then, what his documentary was about, blah blah blah. For example, here's this rejoinder to him. Without reading a lot more about a lot of things, all I can do is make assumptions about who to believe and who not to. At the end of the day, being lazy, I would rather offer you my own experiences and what I've seen that bears on the topic that he's talking about. Which is what I did. Last I checked, we weren't talking about Islamaphobia (or Muslimphobia or anti-Musilm sentiment or however you want to call it) in Britain, but in general.

You know--being careful about language and all ;) So, for example, placing bombs on a train, however horrendous, is not in and of itself "fascist"--it depends why it was done. Like I said, I'm still learning about this and haven't made up my mind about whether I personally think this is an appropriate use of the term.

Saurav - you are a satirical construct of the morally equivocating relativist - I cannot see the point of debating with somebody who quibbles over whether or not describing the political ideology that leads to the detonation of suicide bombs on the Underground is a form of fascism or not.

Ostriches with their heads in the sand spring to mind - artful sophistry.

being born in the USA you were influenced by many things that someone born in south asia, or east asia, or latin america, woud not be.

I don't buy this argument in the context of what I was talking about. The use of the census in colonial South Asia had particular uses and stratified things like caste and religion in ways that they hadn't been prior. I don't think it's a contemporary American thing that I'm pointing to but part of the project of taxonomizing the whole world--probably built into the nation-state system and how it operates and with a history of some sort that ties into it. I wouldn't take issue with the claim that some Americans are more hung up on identity than people occupying similar places in other societies.

you are a composite. but as a matter of verbal practicality, you do have to slice and dice identity as if all the parts are reducible and separable.

Not really--at least, not in 99% of my daily life. I give long wordy answers like "I was raised Hindu but it's really weird--at the
last thing I was at, i prayed to Allah--it was totally weird--and then a lot of my friends growing up were reform Jewish."...and so forth. I'm trying to move towards "eclectic" when pressed for a one-word answer--which is kind of a cop out that goes into the long wordy answer. It's more interesting that way anyway.

My points above were more that a) there are several different ways to look at religion and to identify someone beyond self-identification and b) that there are probably elements of ways of thinking and doing that you were exposed to that you have no control over and that stay as remnants regardless of the particular faith tradition you were raised in--that can include what you're talking about in terms of emphasizing self-definition over, say, identification with the religion of your parents.

In any case, re islamaphobia--you can start out by removing religion from the discussion entirely and say that discrimination form X applies to people perceived to be a member of a specific group and that being in that group makes you subject to df X. It happens (imo) that here, the people making up that group would significantly overlap with Muslims (and probably Muslims of color more strongly in the US...and immigrants...and "foreign" accents...being working class...etc.). Which would then probably lead you to ask whether there was some correlation between being targeted by df X and being Muslim and then whether there was something in df X that created that correlation.

Of coures, I think that's an ass backwards way of approaching it for the purposes of this conversation, because of the evidence I cited above which makes clear that some anti-Muslim sentiment (governmental and private sector) exists in the U.S. to the point where it's worth talking about as a form of discrimination nowadays.

Saurav - you are a satirical construct of the morally equivocating relativist - I cannot see the point of debating with somebody who quibbles over whether or not describing the political ideology that leads to the detonation of suicide bombs on the Underground is a form of fascism or not.

Thanks! Apparently, you have no appreciation of irony. This is what you said in comment 62 about the term we were originally talking about:

use the term more carefully and judiciously and should not prevent discussion by throwing it about as a term of abuse - not least because the more they do it and try to stigmatise legitimate discussion the more the use of the term comes to be seen as an example of 'the boy who cried wolf'

Which does not help anyone.

Enjoy your Saturday :)

The Ashes are a bit too exciting today for me to comment on everything (how popular is cricket amongst South Asians in the rounders-playing US? I've followed the cricket situation in America, how sad.)

Saurav, we've been trying very hard to make people realise that the threat facing us from extremists is fascism, plain and simple. PLEASE do not start saying things like "it depends why they planted the bombs". No it doesn't. As I said on here before, if a fascist white group murdered a brown guy, would we wringing our hands and pussyfooting around asking "why did they do it?"

These fanatics are a menace and they are fascist.

Now, back to the cricket. Flintoff; shades of Beefy. We need an early wicket. Nail-biting stuff.

Bong Breaker.

Around 4-5 years ago when I was in India (before 9-11, Iraq etc when Europe was still supporting Hamas and co) there was a suicide attack in an Israeli bus killing many people. I was watching BBC and a young couple (in their 20s) near the crime scene were sobbing in the camera. In the end, I vividly remember, they said "All we want to say to Europe is beware...beware of these terrorists...Now you are supporting them, but one day they will strike your backyard, and then you will understand what we are going through". Every word that kid said that day has become prophetic...Lets all live in la-la land, they are not fascists.
Btw, You can go ahead and ban this IP too. Only my office IP is banned.

anti-Muslim sentiment (governmental and private sector) exists in the U.S. to the point where it's worth talking about as a form of discrimination nowadays.

ok, i don't think we're going to move any further on this topic, suffice to say that i'm simply skeptical that one couldn't switch to

a) a more general way to characterizing the discrimination (because i think there are general cognitive tendencies being triggered by specific acts of muslims).

b) another more specific term which to my mind doesn't give muslims too much leverage in other contexts.

i don't oppose defending muslims against attacks, physical or legal, my point is to prevent what i perceive is a transference of sympathies from one context to another. this can be combated situation by situation, but i think it would be best to undermine the structural-semantic weakness which serves as an opening for opportunists. on this weblog, i will simply continue to fight thread-by-thread when i happen to read this blog. finally, i do think that there is a difference between racism and religionism, i find the former more concerning than the latter, because i think there are legitimate grounds to be prejudiced or biased against certain religions (depending on the tenets of the religion and your own values). in the case of anti-muslim prejucide the two intersect, but not totally (ie; if racism was the principle component beyond anti-muslim prejudice one would presume that blacks in continental europe suffer more animus than light-skinned muslims, but that is not the case to my knowledge).

Saurav, we've been trying very hard to make people realise that the threat facing us from extremists is fascism, plain and simple. PLEASE do not start saying things like "it depends why they planted the bombs". No it doesn't. As I said on here before, if a fascist white group murdered a brown guy, would we wringing our hands and pussyfooting around asking "why did they do it?"

You're responding to something I said that was taken out of context by PB. Here's one of the things I originally said. None of my points were about culpability. All I questioned, in the context of a discussion about using strong words wisely, was why it's okay to use the word "fascist" without being bothered about such niceties as backing up whether it's applicable here or not.

Why do I bother with such trivial arguments? The one thing I've learned in the past four years is that unskeptically accepting what I'm told is going on leads to unskeptically supporting poor policies that have enormous consequences. My government hasn't exactly been "pussyfooting around."

Hey I know you're government hasn't been pussyfooting around (who knows what they've been doing), but I wasn't targetting the statement at the government! Perhaps I did take the comment out of context - sorry - but I don't see why I should need to back up calling a fascist ideology fascist when it patently is.

My misunderstanding of your sentiment has already been explained; cricket. What a day's play. Poised on a knife edge for tomorrow morning.

Punjabi Boy, are you referring to violent Islamists as fascists simply because they're violent? Because I tend to think that what we call them really does depend on why they planted the bombs. I really don't think it's moral relativism to point out that they are not fascists, despite their ultimately conservative moral and political agenda.

Islamists have historically been a pretty diverse bunch, and have espoused a range of political positions, sometimes even with a rather sophisticated critique of capitalism, like the Sayyid Qutb brand, for example. Al-Qaeda-type politics, of course, are quite different from Qutbism, and don't carry a critique of markets and exploitation, except for what I suspect is an instrumental denunciation of Western geo-political interests in Muslim countries. Even so, this is taken up by a constituency which is not necessarily as cynical as Osama bin Laden and his lieutenants.

Also, not all conservatism is fascism. Islamism, even lately, is highly contradictory, and has carried objections to cultural and economic imperialism, and in a post-communist world, has provided notions of utopian change, even while it provides no practical solutions. Terrorism isn't much of a political strategy, and the utopian vision of a just, Islamic society is completely compromised by anti-Jewish bile and prurient moral conservatism. Yet all the same, al-Qaeda's Islamism is not ultra-nationalist or strongly pro-capitalist state, which to me are two very important distinctions between Islamism and fascism.

The other problem is that referring to these people as "fascists" tends to feed into a strain of conservative politics which attempts to draw this parallel in order to justify the War on Terror. It does this by arguing that those who oppose the occupation of Iraq, etc, are arguing for "appeasement". This clever conflation of anti-war sentiment with pro-Nazi collaborationism in Europe is all about presenting the War on Terror as a War for Democracy, or War for Western Values, or Clash of Civilisations, and is used with startling effect by the likes of Daniel Pipes.

None of this, of course, makes the politics of al-Qaeda worth defending, but regardless, "fascism" should not be turned into an empty signifier, applied to anything and everything. I know people get killed and the politics are objectionable no matter what we call it, but the same applies to the US occupation of Iraq, and I wouldn't call that "fascist" either.