Politics Of Denial

[NewCivilisation]

Following the London bombs, the word on most commentators lips has been denial. The bombings have thrown a merciless spotlight on the Muslim community, with all and sundry seeking not just an immediate apology (as if all doctors were asked to apologise for Harold Shipman) but for Muslims to engage in a battle to confront the extremists and in Tony Blair’s words their ’evil ideology‘ Of course the Muslim community faces its challenges, for more than forty years it has been living in a largely localised cocoon, only venturing out to the host society when trade or receiving social benefits was involved. The first generation of Muslims had come to Britain for one reason, to make money and go back to the motherland. For them opening up their mosques, promoting Islam to Non Muslims and ensuring Islam could be made relevant to succeeding generations was not on their immediate agenda. These challenges remain key ones for the Muslim community to engage in irrespective of what happened on the 7th July.

However denial as a charge should not be merely confined to the Muslim community. For example take western intervention in the Muslim world. Tony Blair criticises those who link foreign policy to the London bombings as justifying the ’terrorists perverted logic’ and their ever changing and opportunistic reasons for attacks. Yet no one questions the ever changing reasons for western intervention in the Muslim world. During the period of colonialism it was about protecting trade routes, in 1956 it was about the nationalisation of the Suez canal, in the post war period it was about defeating communism, after 1991 it was about containing Saddam, and currently it is about winning the War on Terror. No matter what decade or century we are in, the western governments always seem to find a new reason for interfering in the Muslim world. Over Iraq, Tony Blair has constantly changed his rationale for the war, citing WMD, enforcing UN resolutions, removing a tyrant and promoting democracy at various times. Opportunism and perverted logic by the Prime Minister, surely not!

Of course denial is not confined to the Prime Minister, it has spread to the whole of the body politic. In their reporting of the allegations of war crimes made against British soldiers, many UK newspapers sought numerous justifications for their plight citing the difficult terrain they were operating in, the heat of the battle (as if war was ever tranquil) and the difficult political context. Yet these same newspapers metaphorically lynched anyone from the Muslim community who attempted to provide any such political context when explaining the 7 July bombings. Denial about soldiers committing abuse has led us to not joining the dots about this serious problem in places ranging from Deepcut in the UK, to Bagram in Afghanistan, to Guantanomo Bay in Cuba, to Abu Ghraib in Baghdad and to British jurisdiction in Basra. These are not cases of a few rotten apples but a more structural problem involving dehumanisation and barbarisation, denial merely overlooks the mounting evidence of a sick and degenerate culture that has been engendered by western leaders and which has now become ubiquitous. Of course there are no calls to examine some of the secular military ‘madrassahs’ these American and British soldiers have graduated from, or any investigations in trying to understand what causes some western soldiers to mete out such degrading, brutal and often lethal abuse.

Denial is not confined to foreign policy, a few days after the London bombings a 14 year old boy in Manchester was charged with 7 rapes of four young girls aged between 7 and 10 in a local park. Britain’s rapists are getting younger and younger, yet the liberal consensus still believes society’s permissive attitude to sex and its ubiquitous nature in popular culture have nothing to do with the increasing rise of sexual crime. Denial I think so! Or what links the pensions time bomb, the fertility time bomb, an ageing population, increasing divorce rates, yobbish behaviour and binge drinking. If you believe the liberal consensus, then nothing. They are individual problems with individual solutions all disconnected from one another, another case of complete denial. Yet the collapse of the family unit, the breakdown of the institution of marriage, the prioritisation of wealth and materialism over having children, a culture of lost respect for elders, growing levels of adultery and a hedonistic attitude towards sex, consumerism and alcohol are symptoms of a more worrying degradation and depredation of the glue that should hold societies together. As Melanie Philips a prominent British commentator recently wrote ‘our hedonistic culture appears to have lost any sense of its collective and long-term interests. Instead too many young women and men live in this affluent consumer society as if there is no tomorrow- and by doing so are helping ensure that that is precisely what is increasingly coming to pass.’

In this latest issue we try to avoid the politics of denial in our attempt to open up new horizons and instigate new debates. On the front cover we lead with New Caliphate New era, a timely article on what the Caliphate is really all about and more importantly what it is not. Many including Tony Blair recently have done a huge disservice to western society in their discussions surrounding the Caliphate, preferring to cite the usual stereotypes of a medieval women hating Taliban type state. Akmal Asghar attacks these myths head on articulating a 21st century vision for the Caliphate, and though we do not expect all to agree, our hope is that as a result of this article we may at least progress to having a more informed debate. In other articles we concentrate on key topics of how citizenship is understood in an Islamic society and a renewed look at globalisation or in Barry Stills view ‘globalisations’.

The key point surrounding denial is that sometimes the people most close to the issue are the least able to see what is wrong. In that sense the Muslim community should accept the many challenges it has head on, most of them pre-dating 7th July. However is western society ready to re-examine sincerely the suitability of its own core secular values and their failure in building a strong and stable society. Or will it continue in its current state of denial, a path that will inevitably lead to continued chaos, violence, hedonism and instability?

As Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, the famous German poet and novelist stated ‘Ich bin der Geist der stets verneint.’ Translated this means ‘I am the spirit that always denies‘, an apt comment for our current plight.

Sajjad Khan
Editor New Civilisation

[ibm]

i agree with you (for the most part), mr. obvious.

but do you have a point to debate or do you have any question to ask? :confused:

[NewCivilisation]

Whilst many are looking to the Muslim Community, there are many within the muslim community who feel the sentiments as expressed in the post, but it is getting little or no media coverage. Just expressing another sentiment held by muslims.

[Matt W]

With all due respect, Mr.Khan, whilst it is an interesting post, it is pretty much an advert for your magazine. And as such should be in the Misc. section, if anywhere - with the permission of the site owner.

[PatrickHenry]

Quote by: NewCivilisation is western society ready to re-examine sincerely the suitability of its own core secular values and their failure in building a strong and stable society. Or will it continue in its current state of denial, a path that will inevitably lead to continued chaos, violence, hedonism and instability?

I think we are a long way from the spiritual renaissance you envision. This will require a LOT of discussion and demonstration that the pathway chosen has been wrong. Your thesis is correct in my view, NS. But there are numerous intertwined threads, and getting consensus on the overall thrust of your message is probably hopeless.

[ibm]

Quote by: PatrickHenry I think we are a long way from the spiritual renaissance you envision. This will require a LOT of discussion and demonstration that the pathway chosen has been wrong. Your thesis is correct in my view, NS. But there are numerous intertwined threads, and getting consensus on the overall thrust of your message is probably hopeless.

i agree. and we might be right in the process of "a LOT of discussion and demonstration that the pathway chosen has been wrong"; and i fear the cost will be too dear.

[Libertarian]

Sadly, it takes a lot for the US to change its ways. And today, change is ever harder. More and more Americans believe that our current way is the ONLY correct way. But we have been wrong in our ways in the past many times, and such is some current policies. But again, to the disappointment of some Americans, the vast majority of the population and persons in power, do not see any change is needed in our current ways, and that we are the "right" nation and any opposition to us is the "wrong".

[belverron]

The language of the article seems somewhat cumbersome to me, and the tie to the central concept of denial isn't always as clear as it could be. Do they have different rules about comma usage in the UK?

[Libertarian]

Quote by: belverron The language of the article seems somewhat cumbersome to me, and the tie to the central concept of denial isn't always as clear as it could be. Do they have different rules about comma usage in the UK?

To me, it looks as though some of the commas should be semicolons. If that change was made, it would be a lot easer to read. But I am not very good at english and that is from my own POV.

[Compugasm]

Quote by: NewCivilisation No matter what decade or century we are in, the western governments always seem to find a new reason for interfering in the Muslim world.

"Göring: Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia, nor in England, nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship.
Gilbert: There is one difference. In a democracy the people have some say in the matter through their elected representatives, and in the United States only Congress can declare wars.
Göring: Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country." - Hermann Göring: prisoner held in the Nuremberg jail.

History, we're simply doomed to repeat it.

[icu]

A conflict between Islam and the west is threatening to engulf the world in a cycle of violence; the walls between peoples are being raised and fortified, yet the world is shrinking with the growing pace of communication, transport and trade. While the old barriers of distance and ignorance were once enough to keep people apart and prevent comfortable national certainties from being challenged, the new barriers of ideological stubbornness enable us not to see the humanity of perceived enemies we think we know so much about.

What is presented in the first edition of “New Civilisation” magazine is a unique attempt to break down these unreasonable barriers, which are the tragic irony of modernity post 9/11. Others have tried, but this new magazine stands completely alone in the manner of its approach: the facilitation of debate between the opposing poles. However, the current articles, perhaps inevitably for a first edition, are written from the same perspective; the writers are Muslims, who have, hitherto, been engaged in renewing Islamic political thought within their own Muslim communities and they do not sit on the fence in the pretence of moderation and dialogue between Islam and the west. Rather, they have a view; the product of extensive thought, upon which they present criticisms of current assumptions and offer alternative solutions.

This is only the beginning: something is lacking. It is not that the contributors to this first edition are opinionated: if they were not, what would there be to discuss? The inevitable deficiency is that the contributors are all from only one side of the fence, and a world in which people break down artificial barriers cannot take shape without hearing the opposing views. It is for this very reason that New Civilisation was established: to break the seemingly inevitable cycle of intellectual entrenchment.

New Civilisation, therefore, is offering a wide platform for those who have understood the increasing polarisation of the world we live in and want an opportunity to contribute and debate. Consider this an open invitation to present an opposing view in its best light. Consider the articles in this first edition as a challenge; a gauntlet if you will, but the floor is open to all. We believe the future need not be a choice between fanaticisms, of whichever orientation, on the one hand and flattery that buries important disagreements under a shallow veneer on the other. There may be little in common between the views of radically different political schools, but who would deny the power of the human intellect to serve as an anchor point?

We want to hear from all our readers and we want all our readers to hear the full spectrum of political views about how this world should best function. The inclusion of western secular thinking and Islamic thinking on the same platform is greatly anticipated for the next edition and will be a landmark achievement. Read, enjoy, disagree and then write; the door is open, not to a utopian dream in which we all think alike, but to a future in which political diversity can be examined and old dogmas put to the test. Exactly what the conclusion of this process will be remains to be determined; whatever it is, if intellectual honesty is the benchmark then nobody should have reason to fear.

Abdullah Robin and Sajjad Khan
First edition editorial New civilisation magazine
http://www.newcivilisation.com/

Very impressive

[belverron]

Wow, Compugasm. Thanks for bringing that to our attention.

[wlgriffi]

Gilbert: There is one difference. In a democracy the people have some say in the matter through their elected representatives, and in the United States only Congress can declare wars.
Göring: Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country." -

"Perhaps it is a universal truth that the loss of liberty at home is to be charged to provisions against danger,real or pretended from abroad." .....James Madison

"America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms,it will be because we destroyed ourselves." ....Abe Lincoln

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: NewCivilisation Of course there are no calls to examine some of the secular military ‘madrassahs’ these American and British soldiers have graduated from, or any investigations in trying to understand what causes some western soldiers to mete out such degrading, brutal and often lethal abuse.

A most profound, yet seemingly obvious observation that I have yet to see articulated anywhere. Until we are ready to understand the motivation of the West, we are really grasping at straws as to how the issues can be resolved.


I believe this to be the very core of the disagreement. The West is not ready to examine its own motivations for infringing on the rights that it holds sacred for itself, yet denies others.