First Drafts - The Prospect magazine blog

16 Responses

1. Ashok Chowgule says:

   June 2, 2007 at 3:31 pm

   Many Hindus came to the UK for the same reasons as the Pakistanis - to get jobs in various manufacturing industry. Also, many Hindus came to the UK after they were kicked out of Uganda by Adi Amin, often with very little of the wealth they had worked hard to accumulate. Yet, one does not see the Hindus creating any problem for the host society. Can they not be held up as models to be emulated?

   Ashok Chowgule, Goa, India
2. M Prins says:

   June 3, 2007 at 12:57 am

   Two points rang out to me in this excellent article. The first was his drive to suicide with a new baby and a wife he married for “love”. His death has dishonored his family name and that of his child!

   The second is what hope is there for this community and successful integration of a religion into a society that drives change not through discourse and persuasion but through, fear, intimidation and indeed terror. There can be little hope if in the face of failed cultural integration the default is an unspeakable act of terror that runs against the honor of family, friends and the community. A truly wasted life!
3. tuff gong says:

   June 4, 2007 at 11:38 am

   Shiv Malik needs to open his eyes and his mind slightly wider if he’s going to understand the undercurrents of this story or be helpful in allowing this country to progress socially and culturally beyond its current trajectory. The responsibility here should be to raise the level of the people you’re writing for rather than reinforcing their dearly held prejudices - look at the response from Ashok Chowgule.

   Truth is that everything is not always as it initially apears…. see these very interesting articles about a muslim demonstration planned to take place outside Downing Street on 15th June….

   The 2 links below are saying that:

   1 - The website promoting the demonstration is very dubious and is linked with OBM, Muhajiroun, Ghurabaa etc
   2 - There appears to have been co-ordination between the (’muslim’) organisers of the demo and the (far right) organisers of the petition against the demo
   3 - Downing Street has allowed this demo to take place within its exclusion zone - why?

   http://antagonise.blogspot.com/2007/05/british-oppression-downing-street.html

   http://my.telegraph.co.uk/faisal_haque/may_2007/who_is_behind_the_british_oppression_demo_.htm

   Very dangerous business….. needs to be exposed.
4. Roger Clague says:

   June 9, 2007 at 12:44 pm

   Mr. Malik says young Muslims are using Islamism to assert their right to chose how to live.

   Their will be a solution when British society is able to offer that.

   The Jews and Afro-Carribeans are now part of the British way of life but Islam can never becoming British.

   Both will have to end and produce something new.
5. Tomasz Torpedo says:

   June 11, 2007 at 6:51 am

   I don’ t believe in terror. The terror means breakdown in communication. And we know that we can’ communicate effectively without understanding other’s culture and desires. The last word - “desire” is very powerful stimulant pushes immigrants ino beeing citizens. But they feel that their voice doesn’ belong to british society. Thefore they spek as they can; shout with boms.
6. Francine Last says:

   June 11, 2007 at 6:39 pm

   I found Malik’s article absolutely fascinating. It reminded me a little of the equally fascinating story of the Mafia in the US. I agree however, with Ashok Chowgule’s blog, that other Asian immigrants have managed to integrate more easily than the Pakistani Islamic community. Why?

   It is all about powerful loyalties and strict, unyielding traditions within the immigrant community which has purposely rejected cultural influences from the immediate ‘host’ community. Customs become more important away from the ‘mother’ land and are tenaciously adhered to. There are examples of this all across the globe (the old British or Dutch colonial communities in southern Africa, the Amish communities in the US, the Lebanese communities in west Africa, Chinese and American communities everywhere), however, religion (particularly Islamic or Christian) seems to be the major factor in whether violence becomes an issue.
7. Sam Hussey says:

   June 20, 2007 at 8:41 am

   It was well article, written in a way
8. Eremos says:

   June 20, 2007 at 10:10 pm

   Ashok makes an interesting point, certainly one worth debating. Whilst it is true that many Hindus also came as economic migrants to the UK, more of their community had an exposure to urban lifestyles and therefore were aspirational.

   The Pakistani communities of the ilk that are described in the article are the most rural Pakistan has to offer. In fact, people I have been in Pakistan’s urban centres themselves look down on the tribalism of these people.

   It’s not fair to compare such a compmunity that the highly mobile, educated merchant class that Adi Amin threw out.
9. Sophie Masson says:

   June 21, 2007 at 12:18 am

   a fantastic article, thoughtful and very interesting. And disturbing that the BBC should have canned the drama, esp on such grounds. It’s ridiculous–if people aren’t prepared to allow for the fact that Muslims are complex human beings, like everyone else, that there’s good and bad in every community–that Muslims have agenda every bit as much as a non-Muslim(and aren’t always victims but active agents, just like ‘us’), then we’re all in dire trouble..
   Interesting point Ashok raises, too. One could say, I suppose, that the answer is that Islam is a universalist, proselytising kind of religion and therefore inevitably there’s an acceptance of the idea, within muslim communities, that it’s a rival to Christianity–whereas Hinduism is very much more a particularist religion which keeps very much to its own people and its own turf…It is a religion for Indians, by and large(and some Indonesians, like the Balinese). In non-Hindu countries, the religion is not attempting to replace anyone else’s religion or persuade outsiders that it IS the best. In India, of course there’s resistance to conversion of Hindus by both Christianity and Islam, but that’s different.
   But then of course there’s complexities. For instance, as far as I know, there has been very little ‘take’ amongst Turkish-born or origin people of Islamism. Is it just because the idea of Turkey itself–Turkish identity–trumps Islam as a Turk’s central core? If that’s true then it also means Pakistani identity can’t be that strong.
10. Nasser says:

    June 25, 2007 at 6:06 pm

    A poorly written article with very little new to say has evoked responses that seriously need reexamining. Take Ashok’s comment. Begs the question did he even read the article in which he would have noted the different backgrounds of say East Asian immigrants and Mirpuris in Britain.
11. Kurtlane says:

    June 26, 2007 at 9:30 am

    I have two disagreements with this otherwise excellent article.

    First of all, I disagree that the root of terror in Britain lies with cultural breakdowns, with old vs. new generation, breakdown of marriage customs, Pakistani vs. British identity, etc. I am not saying these are unimportant, but they might be important as an introduction to the road of terror (as in Hassan Butt saying that “his most important job was to discover what his potential recruit identified with, and then to pick holes in it”), but then the road to murder and death is in the hands of religion. And one cannot help but notice that it is the religion that leads to terror.

    These problems between young and old people, immigrants and their native-born children, in-laws at war with each other are all very familiar to me. I too am an immigrant, belong to an in-between generation, and have seen plenty of all that. Every immigrant generation from every country has these problems. That doesn’t mean every immigrant community produces terrorists. Mr. Ashok Chowgule is absolutely right, and not only about Hindus.

    I think one can see the root of the problem in the quote from Khan’s suicide video:

    “Our so-called scholars today are content with their Toyotas and semi-detached houses. They seem to think that their responsibilities lie in pleasing the kufr instead of Allah. So they tell us ludicrous things, like you must obey the law of the land. Praise be God! How did we ever conquer lands in the past if we were to obey this law?”

    It is all here: hatred for the “kufr”, desire for conquest of lands, and putting one’s religion (or view of the religion) above the law. Religious leaders of other faiths also get corrupted, driving fancy cars, etc, and reformers regularly come to renew them and clean them up; but Christian, Jewish, Hindu or Buddhist reformers are not terrorists. Because terror, conquest and hatred are not at the core of these religions.

    However one might want to escape this conclusion, Islam is the root problem.

    The second disagreement I have is with the statement that “maybe all that we can do now is remain vigilant and wait for the tide in the battle for Islam’s soul to turn in the west’s favour.” Because it will not turn in the west’s favour. Why should it when it is winning. I see this victory of Islam, and of jihadis within Islam, everywhere I look. They are winning in Iraq, in England, America and Australia, in Spain and in Gaza. There are occasional setbacks, like in Afghanistan and more recently in Somalia and France, but we are dealing with an enemy who is, if anything, extremely tenacious. They give up, if ever, only when all their hopes are utterly destroyed. And the west is just too soft-hearted and respectful to destroy anyone’s hopes, even its enemy’s, even when it has a chance to do so.

    This is a long war, and we might very well lose it. But it is extremely important to fight it. The alternative is to end up Muslim, enslaved or dead.
12. VHG says:

    June 29, 2007 at 3:12 am

    Thanks very for this sensible and yet insightful article.

    God, one hates to quote Margaret Thatcher in such a context as this, but I’m reminded of her statement that “There’s no such thing as society” reading this report.

    Although the sociological environments are worthy of study, individual’s decisions are normally personal, affected by so many different factors as to be unintelligible to the outside - even to the inside, to someone as close as a brother.

    Societal analysis draws the boundaries of an organisation as being smooth, but to an organism as small as the individual, the nearby outline will appear as complicated as a fractal image, with so many different tangents, that it will be impossible to predict the outcome of impact.

    It’s only by micro-analysis of the kind in this report that we can really get to grips with the reality of the way affected individuals view their own coastlines, their own boundaries and their own societies.

    Great work. Thanks again.
13. Jennie says:

    June 30, 2007 at 12:54 am

    Great article. Having lived in Australia for the last 6 years I really believe that the fact that the children of migrants do not feel British is a big part of the problem and that “true multiculturalism” can prevent this.

    Under Australian multiculturalism, migrants have the opportunity to become citizens after two years and all cultures are valid. This enables migrants and their children to feel both Australian and Turkish or Vietnamese, for example. Integration cannot be forced and takes a few generations. It only seems to happen if migrant communities are able to also hold onto their home culture.

    The fact that Australia has been home to people from hundreds of different cultures without any violent conflict until recently is testament to this fact.

    It is also no coincidence that since the Howard government has been dismantling multiculturalism over the last 10 years that problems have started to occur with race riots in Sydney in 2005 and arrests of suspected Muslim terrorists.

    Multiculturalism means all cultures are respected and young people do not have to chose between their parents culture and Australian culture, minimising alienation.

    Britain needs to recognize that its people are made up of many different cultures and that this has an impact on British culture itself, which is not static, but changes to reflect this.
14. dave bones says:

    June 30, 2007 at 11:44 am

    I was filming for years outside Finsbury park mosque. I reckon this is the most useful article on the subject I have read to date. Nice one.
15. bob says:

    July 6, 2007 at 2:00 pm

    Hello,

    Anybody knows where I can find a french translation of this article ?

    Sorry but my english is too bad to understand it correctly and I’m interesting by subject.

    Thanks.
16. C L O S E R » Cover story: ‘My brother the bomber’ by Shiv Malik | Prospect Magazine says:

    July 19, 2007 at 3:03 pm

    [...] interesting article, you can discuss it here but of course also here at the Prospect Magazine’s blog.  I suggest you read also Yahya Birt’s insightfull  comments on the article [...]