Joan Ryan has asked for her constituents views on today's Commons vote on military action against Islamic State in Syria. Here is the substance of my response to her:
1. Afghanistan,
Iraq, Libya, Iraq again, Syria. The recent Western track-record does not
encourage confidence in the judgement, or even truthfulness, of our
MoD-intellgence-military complex. The situation is visibly worse than
pre-911 and much (not all) of the worsening is due to Western military
action.
2. No military action is defensible except in
pursuit of a clear and defensible STRATEGY. I see no sign of such a
strategy and it may be that no such strategy is possible. Intervention
without a strategy is no more than revenge or macho posturing and is
more likely to cost lives than save them.
3. There is one partial exception to this analysis. The Kurdish forces are disciplined
and effective and the Kurds are trying to build communities based on
mutual tolerance and democracy. Their attempts may fail but they seem to
be the only communities even trying to go in the right direction. I
think we should support their efforts and this may require limited
military action in Syria as it has in Northern Iraq.
It would be good to have a solution to the region's problems which are both serious and contagious. But I have yet to hear one. To kill civilians without a reasonable hope of a good outcome is simply outrageous.
+++++++++++++++++++++++
Since I wrote this Joan Ryan has announced her support for airstrikes against ISIL in Syria.
Showing posts with label Islam. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Islam. Show all posts
Wednesday, 2 December 2015
Wednesday, 15 July 2015
The real reason to welcome the US-Iran nuclear deal
The deal announced yesterday does more than end a specific dispute about Uranium enrichment. That's welcome of course; almost anything that reduces tension between states is welcome.
What it really does is signal the end - well, the beginning of the end - of the mutual hostility between the US and Iran. Much could be said about the causes of this hostility, which goes back at least 70 years, but I want to look forward.
The deal will undermine the hostility of Iran's backwoodsmen to the US. I hope it will reduce the hostility of the US's backwoodsmen to Iran though given Israel's reaction that seems less certain. It will increase the opportunities for trade and other exchanges between Iran and the rest of the world.
It's clear that most Iranians will welcome this. They want better contacts with the rest of the world and many will take the opportunities that will follow.
Will it, as Netinyahu claims, increase Iran's opportunities for military meddling in its neighbours' affairs? Well yes, it probably will. But it will reduce its motivation to do so. Increased meddling might bring back the sanctions that this deal will remove. And as Iran celebrates this diplomatic success it will be more likely to favour diplomacy on other issues.
The Middle East cannot be understood as Goodies versus Baddies. Iran and Saudi Arabia are rivals but both pretty hostile to human rights. In Iraq-Syria we have a least a six-way conflict (Iraqi and Syrian governments, USA, shia militias, secular militias and the Kurds). Iran can be a useful ally in the region (which is not to deny that there will also be conflicts) if we are open to those possibilities.
But the big prize here is increased engagement with Iran. With its unlovely government, certainly, but more with its people. Let's have cultural exchanges and translations to and from Farsi. Let's have international seminars about science, history, arts and politics. Let's have scholarships for Iranians at UK universities and some courses in Persian poetry for UK students.
In short, let's seize the opportunities to learn more about them and to open their eyes to us. Our best argument against fanaticism is our success in creating a prosperous, tolerant and sustainable society.
What it really does is signal the end - well, the beginning of the end - of the mutual hostility between the US and Iran. Much could be said about the causes of this hostility, which goes back at least 70 years, but I want to look forward.
The deal will undermine the hostility of Iran's backwoodsmen to the US. I hope it will reduce the hostility of the US's backwoodsmen to Iran though given Israel's reaction that seems less certain. It will increase the opportunities for trade and other exchanges between Iran and the rest of the world.
It's clear that most Iranians will welcome this. They want better contacts with the rest of the world and many will take the opportunities that will follow.
Will it, as Netinyahu claims, increase Iran's opportunities for military meddling in its neighbours' affairs? Well yes, it probably will. But it will reduce its motivation to do so. Increased meddling might bring back the sanctions that this deal will remove. And as Iran celebrates this diplomatic success it will be more likely to favour diplomacy on other issues.
The Middle East cannot be understood as Goodies versus Baddies. Iran and Saudi Arabia are rivals but both pretty hostile to human rights. In Iraq-Syria we have a least a six-way conflict (Iraqi and Syrian governments, USA, shia militias, secular militias and the Kurds). Iran can be a useful ally in the region (which is not to deny that there will also be conflicts) if we are open to those possibilities.
But the big prize here is increased engagement with Iran. With its unlovely government, certainly, but more with its people. Let's have cultural exchanges and translations to and from Farsi. Let's have international seminars about science, history, arts and politics. Let's have scholarships for Iranians at UK universities and some courses in Persian poetry for UK students.
In short, let's seize the opportunities to learn more about them and to open their eyes to us. Our best argument against fanaticism is our success in creating a prosperous, tolerant and sustainable society.
Monday, 6 July 2015
Enfield has London’s first solar mosque
This is a guest post by Harfiyah Haleem, a 38 Degrees activist based in Southgate.
“Palmers Green mosque has just announced
the installation of its 15 kW array of solar panels. I'm urging them to
have a celebration and invite lots of other mosques and interested
people. I hope this will be the first of many solar mosques in London
and add to the few already established in other places in the UK and
around the world. (Jordan has announced a plan to make all its 6000
mosques solar.)
Some
churches have already got solar panels. Community buildings usually
have large roofs that are suitable for sizable arrays, and many mosques
are new-build or still being built so offer more possibilities than old
and decaying roofs. I've also discovered www.Polysolar.co.uk
which provides transparent solar PV glass that can be used for windows
and conservatories etc. and have passed this information to Palmers
Green mosque for their new extension plan, which includes a large glass
roof.
Saturday, 4 July 2015
Syria: Let those people go!
For weeks the news has been full of stories of people leaving the UK to live in the "Islamic State". Each time there's great anguish and calls for the government to stop them. Apparently every such departure is a failure by our police and security service.
But why?
Most are adults. They've decided that they don't like our liberal, tolerant, democratic society. They think they'd prefer a theocratic tyranny where they'll be free to follow their Caliph's interpretation of the Koran, to hate Jews, Christians, atheists, gays and cartoonists and, if male, to buy slaves - but not, if female, to choose their style of dress. It's choice I don't understand and never will. But why do we want them to stay?
They don't fit in here and we and they know it. So they should go.
Just one thing. They should renounce their UK citizenship and rights of residence on the way out and surrender their UK passports. They want to be citizens - or do I mean subjects? - of Islamic State. Then let them. They won't need their UK passports will they? And they won't be coming back.
We're not threatened by the departure of a few hundred intolerant hotheads for Syria. We might be threatened by the return of a few score battle-hardened militants with military training. So this is should be a one-way street.
This policy is honest, it respects fundamental rights and it protects us. And maybe some of those offered a one-way route to Syria will think a bit harder about their choice if they know its irrevocable.
PS. On July 7th the Guardian carried a report that Robert Quick, former head of counter-terror at the Met, had advocated the same policy. He said:
But why?
Most are adults. They've decided that they don't like our liberal, tolerant, democratic society. They think they'd prefer a theocratic tyranny where they'll be free to follow their Caliph's interpretation of the Koran, to hate Jews, Christians, atheists, gays and cartoonists and, if male, to buy slaves - but not, if female, to choose their style of dress. It's choice I don't understand and never will. But why do we want them to stay?
They don't fit in here and we and they know it. So they should go.
Just one thing. They should renounce their UK citizenship and rights of residence on the way out and surrender their UK passports. They want to be citizens - or do I mean subjects? - of Islamic State. Then let them. They won't need their UK passports will they? And they won't be coming back.
We're not threatened by the departure of a few hundred intolerant hotheads for Syria. We might be threatened by the return of a few score battle-hardened militants with military training. So this is should be a one-way street.
This policy is honest, it respects fundamental rights and it protects us. And maybe some of those offered a one-way route to Syria will think a bit harder about their choice if they know its irrevocable.
PS. On July 7th the Guardian carried a report that Robert Quick, former head of counter-terror at the Met, had advocated the same policy. He said:
“You have to think how do you confront it, if you have hundreds or thousands who want to go [to Islamic State] and live that life? We should try and convince them not to go. If they want to go, you have to ask the question, are we better off, if they surrender their passports and go? It’s better than them festering away here. “Should we say we’ll lay on charter flights to Syria; turn up with your passport and if you are over 18, if this is the life you want, then go?”
Sunday, 24 May 2015
The Islamic reformation has begun!
Most Westerners look at the escalating violence across the Middle East, and in Africa, with horror. We compare the brutalities of Islamic State and Boko Haram with the largely peaceful and tolerant societies we live in. We note that whilst Islamic State has re-invented state-sanctioned sexual slavery and kills homosexuals the Irish people have conducted an energetic but civilised debate and will legalise gay marriage.
Why, we ask, can't they be like us? Why can't they agree to differ about sex, religion and politics?
Now this question ignores our own brutalities, such as Guantanamo Bay and extraordinary rendition, and our roles in creating Muslim extremism and frustrating democracy in the region. These deserve our condemnation. But for now I want to recognise that the extremism and brutality we see have distinctively Islamic roots.
Some people have reflected on European history and decided that our tolerance is the result of the Protestant Reformation. They've called on Muslim leaders to create their own reformation - I've done so myself.
That, I now see, is wrong. That's not because Islam does not need reform but because the Islamic Reformation has been underway for the last century. For the Protestant Reformation is not what you may think.
Mehdi Hassan made this point in the Guardian recently:
The Reformation took 130 years to get to that point but many scholars put its end at 1750 - a full 230 years after Luther's decisive act.
But let's go back to Hasaan:
But the reform process is not over. A 'reformist' current has been active in Muslim lands since the time of Ibn Abdul Wahab, most obviously in the form of the Muslim Brotherhood. It was politically ineffective for many years; I'll leave the historical explanations for others but I suspect that the Ottoman Empire, colonialism, military strongmen and secular politicians all played their parts.
The Iranian Revolution of 1979 marked a key point in the evolution of the Reformation - a Shia response to Saudi Arabia's Sunni fundamentalism and the creation of the second Muslim Reformation state. Or, some may think, a Counter-Reformation state.
The appearance of Islamic State and Boko Haram should therefore come as no surprise. They, too, are puritanical and harsh and though Islamic State claims universal jurisdiction Sunni nationalism clearly plays a key part.
Another parallel concerns religious 'ethnic cleansing'. Reformations and Counter Reformations are inherently intolerant. They seek conversion, forced if necessary, to their peculiar truths and the banishment or death of those who will not convert. The Protestant Reformation (and the wars that followed) created hostility to Jews, the division of Europe into Catholic South and Protestant North and the emigration of the Huguenots (Protestants) from France. The latest phase of the Muslim Reformation in the Middle East has led to the expulsion of Arab Christians, the persecution of Yazidis and the segregation of Sunii, Shias and Kurds in Syria and Iraq.
I think three things are obvious:
This is a very unpleasant prospect but there is hope. For the Protestant Reformation led to the Enlightenment, to religious tolerance and ultimately to the less dogmatic and enthusiastic forms of Christianity that are now the Western norm. I believe that Islam will find these changes harder but, with luck, they will prove possible.
We must all hope so.
Why, we ask, can't they be like us? Why can't they agree to differ about sex, religion and politics?
Now this question ignores our own brutalities, such as Guantanamo Bay and extraordinary rendition, and our roles in creating Muslim extremism and frustrating democracy in the region. These deserve our condemnation. But for now I want to recognise that the extremism and brutality we see have distinctively Islamic roots.
Some people have reflected on European history and decided that our tolerance is the result of the Protestant Reformation. They've called on Muslim leaders to create their own reformation - I've done so myself.
That, I now see, is wrong. That's not because Islam does not need reform but because the Islamic Reformation has been underway for the last century. For the Protestant Reformation is not what you may think.
Mehdi Hassan made this point in the Guardian recently:
Luther did not merely nail 95 theses to the door of [his church] ... He also demanded that German peasants revolting against their feudal overlords be “struck dead” ... and authored On the Jews and Their Lies ..., in which he referred to Jews as “the devil’s people” and called for the destruction of Jewish homes and synagogues. ... Luther helped establish antisemitism as “a key element of German culture and national identity”.All true. The Reformation and the nationalism that grew alongside it did release great violence and did divide Europe, roughly, into a Catholic South and Protestant North. One mark of its success is that the Peace of Westphalia,1648, ended the Pope's claim to rule Europe and guaranteed Christians the right to follow forms of Christianity not favoured by their kings.
The Protestant Reformation also opened the door to blood-letting on an unprecedented, continent-wide scale. .... Tens of millions of innocents died in Europe; up to 40% of Germany’s population is believed to have been killed in the thirty years’ war.
The Reformation took 130 years to get to that point but many scholars put its end at 1750 - a full 230 years after Luther's decisive act.
But let's go back to Hasaan:
The truth is that Islam has already had its own reformation ... Wasn’t reform exactly what was offered ... by Muhammad Ibn Abdul Wahhab, the mid-18th century itinerant preacher who allied with the House of Saud? He offered an austere Islam cleansed of what he believed to be innovations, which eschewed centuries of mainstream scholarship and commentary, and rejected the authority of the traditional ulema, or religious authorities.
Some might argue that if anyone deserves the title of a Muslim Luther, it is Ibn Abdul Wahhab who, in the eyes of his critics, combined Luther’s puritanism with the German monk’s antipathy towards the Jews.Just so. Lets also note that both men allied themselves with local rulers. Both reformations were puritanical and nationalistic. Ibn Abdul Wahab is the Muslim Luther for all those reasons. So we may date the Muslim Reformation from 1844, the date of his pact with Muhammad bin Saud.
But the reform process is not over. A 'reformist' current has been active in Muslim lands since the time of Ibn Abdul Wahab, most obviously in the form of the Muslim Brotherhood. It was politically ineffective for many years; I'll leave the historical explanations for others but I suspect that the Ottoman Empire, colonialism, military strongmen and secular politicians all played their parts.
The Iranian Revolution of 1979 marked a key point in the evolution of the Reformation - a Shia response to Saudi Arabia's Sunni fundamentalism and the creation of the second Muslim Reformation state. Or, some may think, a Counter-Reformation state.
The appearance of Islamic State and Boko Haram should therefore come as no surprise. They, too, are puritanical and harsh and though Islamic State claims universal jurisdiction Sunni nationalism clearly plays a key part.
Another parallel concerns religious 'ethnic cleansing'. Reformations and Counter Reformations are inherently intolerant. They seek conversion, forced if necessary, to their peculiar truths and the banishment or death of those who will not convert. The Protestant Reformation (and the wars that followed) created hostility to Jews, the division of Europe into Catholic South and Protestant North and the emigration of the Huguenots (Protestants) from France. The latest phase of the Muslim Reformation in the Middle East has led to the expulsion of Arab Christians, the persecution of Yazidis and the segregation of Sunii, Shias and Kurds in Syria and Iraq.
I think three things are obvious:
- The political processes of the Muslim Reformation are far from from complete. They may take much longer than the Protestant Reformation!
- Those processes are only incidentally concerned with the West.
- The Reformation will affect every mainly Muslim country to some degree; and many others. To a large degree it already has.
This is a very unpleasant prospect but there is hope. For the Protestant Reformation led to the Enlightenment, to religious tolerance and ultimately to the less dogmatic and enthusiastic forms of Christianity that are now the Western norm. I believe that Islam will find these changes harder but, with luck, they will prove possible.
We must all hope so.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)