2013-05-21T07:32:32-04:00 Muhammad Abdul Bari http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/author/index.php?author=muhammad-abdul-bari Copyright 2008, HuffingtonPost.com, Inc. HuffingtonPost Blogger Feed for Muhammad Abdul Bari Good old fashioned elbow grease. tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.3263864 2013-05-12T19:33:01-04:00 2013-05-14T08:50:53-04:00

Muhammad Abdul Bari http://www.huffingtonpost.com/muhammad-abdul-bari/ killed at least eight people. This has added to the trauma of the Rana Plaza collapse on 24th April that has already killed 1,021 people and still counting. This is one of the deadliest industrial disasters in history; almost 650 bodies have so far been identified and handed back to their families; one woman was pulled alive after 17 days from the rubble of the eight-storey building, thanks to the resilience of rescuers. The disaster has created world-wide compassion and concern for the poor factory workers who provide the developed world with cheap clothes with their sweat and blood; The Pope has condemned 'slave labour' conditions of the garment workers some of whom live on just £32 a month.

The significantly high death toll has provoked outrage amongst Bangladesh's factory workers; many are however shocked by insensitive and reckless comments from senior government ministers, including the Prime Minister (her interview with the CNN). Some observers compare the Bangladesh ruling class attitude with the proverbial 'Nero sings while Rome burns'.

Bangladesh's garments industry, the life-line of millions of people and one of its major national export industries, is now in tatters. The government recently announced the shutdown of 18 garment factories due to safety concerns. Critics fear that the government does not have the ability or intention to bring back confidence to factory workers by robustly implementing health and safety measures in the industry. Many are asking, is the current Bangladesh government presiding over the collapse of the garments industry, as its predecessors from the same political party did to the successful Jute industry in the early 1970's?

Midnight massacre

However, before all the victims of the factory collapse were buried, another human tragedy visited Bangladesh with the killings of unknown numbers of opposition protestors by the government in the early hours of 6th May. This was after a day of massive anti-government rally organised by Bangladesh's newly formed religious group Hefazat-e-Islam. The exact number of casualties in the darkness of the night is still unknown, but Asian Human Rights Commission calls it a 'massacre of demonstrators' and says, "[on that fateful night] major news channels in Bangladesh have been silenced. Two private television channels that were showing live pictures of the attacks on the demonstrators were immediately closed down."

Odhikar, a reputable human-rights group in Bangladesh, reports that some hundreds of people died during a "killing spree" by a force of 10,000 made up of police, paramilitaries and armed men from the ruling party. Bodies were strewn about the streets of Dhaka's commercial district.

In the absence of any reliable information as the 'cowed local press' has kept largely silent, the Economist says "What happened in Dhaka and beyond in the early hours of May 6th looks like a massacre." Bangladesh Police said 22 people died, but Hefazat claims the figure would be at least 2000; European diplomats say as many as 50 people were killed.

The emergence of Hefazat-e-Islam as a new organised force goes back to only a few months ago, on the back of recent detestable anti-Islamic rhetoric by some bloggers and the government's dubious relationship with them; this apolitical religious group consists of teachers and students from the country's religious schools; they came up with some demands from the government, among them a few debatable.

Political stalemate between the government and the opposition is continuing unabated since 2009 when Bangladeshi people put their trust in the current elected government after two years of military-backed unelected administration. Sadly, instead of a policy of working collaboratively with the opposition the current Awami League government resorted to a politics of retribution from day one. Since then the country has slid into further political violence and social division.

Bangladesh is prone to natural calamities, but in the last few months it has only seen man-made disasters, one after another. Rana Plaza disaster of such epic proportion would have humbled any rulers in any other country. But alas, the current Bangladeshi rulers are different!

The ruling party has a detrimental control over the print and electronic media networks. When it comes to Islamic opposition it has employed the same regurgitated argument that is often used by despots in some Muslim countries, that it is fighting 'Islamists' or fundamentalists - goodies fighting the baddies! Due to the post-9/11narrative, some international news channels including the BBC have failed to rise above lazy journalism in unearthing the truth behind Bangladesh's self-destructive course in recent times.

It is instructive to note, in Bangladesh, politics and religion is mixed up. Even the supposedly secular Awami League is involved with politics of religion; it had dallied with Islamic groups in the past and is doing so even today; in 2006 it struck an electoral deal with another ultra-orthodox religious party. Its close relationship with its now arch-enemy, Jamaat-e-Islami, in the 1980's and 1990's is still in people's memory. Hefazat's 13-point demands needed debate, not bullets; their protestors deserved the right to life, not mid-night massacre by 10,000 armed men!

Bangladesh has been known as a land of religious moderation and the Bangladeshi diaspora abroad are also generally recognised as such. About half a million British Bangladeshis in the UK are perplexed and troubled with the recent events back in Bangladesh. On behalf of many of them, the Muslim Council of Britain has urged the Foreign & Commonwealth Office recently to find the truth behind the 6th May massacre in Dhaka.

Cracks in Bangladesh's state system

The world's micro-finance guru and practitioner, Bangladesh's Nobel Laureate Prof Muhammad Yunus, recently made an intuitive comment on the state of Bangladesh itself, "The collapse of the building is just a precursor to the imminent collapse of all our state institutions... If we don't face up to the cracks in our state systems, then we as a nation will get lost in the debris of the collapse. ... We will have to find ways to fix the institutions to protect them from complete collapse."

Dr Muhammad Abdul Bari is an educationalist, writer and freelance parenting consultant (www.amanaparenting.com). Follow him on Twitter: www.twitter.com/MAbdulBari]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.3178559 2013-04-29T14:34:09-04:00 2013-04-30T07:49:19-04:00

Muhammad Abdul Bari http://www.huffingtonpost.com/muhammad-abdul-bari/ tragedy that hit Bangladesh's ready-made garments industry on 24th April has shocked the international community. Scores have died, many more are missing. The news has been given extensive coverage by major TV channels and in print media across the world, contrary to the generally indifferent media coverage of such calamities in poorer countries. The misfortune and substandard treatment of impoverished factory workers in Bangladesh has been laid bare.

The recent human catastrophe caused by the collapse of an eight-storey building that housed five garment factories 'is not the first incident of its kind in Bangladesh.' Back in 2005, a similar building collapse left 64 workers dead. According to the BBC, the factory owner was then arrested, but did not serve any time in prison; since then, 'there have been fires, stampedes and other incidents at various garment factories, causing hundreds of deaths.' The last major disaster happened on 24 November 2012 in which 117 workers perished in a fire at Tazreen Fashion factory in Ashulia, near the capital Dhaka.

With over 370 dead, this time it has generated wider debate on the plight of workers, health and safety concerns in work places and exploitation of people in the developing world. For millions of Bangladeshi citizens this has again highlighted the deep-rooted political and economic corruption of the ruling class and the loss of moral compass of the government leaders. Very few in Bangladesh believe that their government will bring any meaningful change to the miserable condition of millions of factory workers. According to The Daily Telegraph, the Bangladeshi government has refused outside help for fear of 'damage to national pride'.

The owner of the Rana Plaza that housed the factories was on the run since the collapse; to jubilation across the country, Sohel Rana has now been arrested near the Indian border by the troops from the Rapid Action Battalion (RAB). Bangladeshi media widely reported the news that Mr. Rana pressured the workers to go into work even after police had ordered an evacuation of the building after cracks appeared the previous day; the factory management simply ignored the order. Two other factory bosses and two engineers have recently been arrested. But given the past inaction of the government, people are not confident whether the owners will be taken to task, the health and safety of workers will be guaranteed or that work ethics will be changed.

Bangladesh has one of the largest garment industries in the world; ready-made garments made up 77.1% of Bangladeshi exports in 2009-10 and the textile industry accounted for 17% of its gross domestic product (GDP). More than three-quarters of total exports come to Europe and the US. The value of exports increased dramatically over the past 30 years; in 2012 it was worth almost $20bn.

But the garment industry in Bangladesh has been marred with triple injustices since day one: dismal low pay, little or no employee rights and dangerous working conditions in factories. The complaints about this 'slave labour' in the 21st century have fallen on deaf ears; political arrogance and economic corruption of successive Bangladesh governments and an indifference of the western companies that happily milk the profits have worsened the situation.

Sohel Rana is a local politician connected to the ruling Awami League and, like other political party cadres, was used to exert intimidating influence on the employees and local people. This was the main reason why so many workers entered the ill-fated building even after knowing its condition.

Party hooliganism is not uncommon in Bangladesh, but this has multiplied in worrying proportions during the tenure of the current government. Some factory owners who are political cadres of the ruling party are known to use their employees as political pawns. For some it is the way of moving into the world of influence and affluence within the span of the government. Most of these 'hooligan' politicians forget their ordinary roots and indulge in vulgar display of wealth and power.

The irony is some of these party cadres even spend their illegally earned wealth to publicly feed poor people or donate to charity causes to display their new status. People around them may detest their 'Jekyll and Hyde' type double standard, but are powerless to face them as the law and order forces are either soft on them or complicit in their illegal earnings.

Bangladesh's factory workers produce high quality, but low cost, clothes for western consumers through companies like British high street retail chains Primark and Matalan. This raises a serious question about the ethics and standard of ethical trading of these companies. It is claimed that last year several retailers, including Wal-Mart, the Gap and H&M, rejected proposals aimed at improving safety following the November 24 factory fire.

A protest was organised recently in front of Primark's store in Oxford Street to send a clear message to Primark that the deaths in the Bangladesh factory building collapse were not an accident - 'they were entirely preventable deaths.' They demanded compensation for the victims and want these companies to end "appallingly unsafe factory conditions" in Bangladesh. Graciela Romero, of British Charity War On Want, says firms who use Bangladeshi products must "safeguard the life of these workers".

Primark apparently has accepted its share of responsibility and said "it is providing assistance in the region, and will take further steps in due course." It is important these companies stick to their promises and the international community takes some moral burden on alleviating the plight of Bangladeshi factory workers.

Dr Muhammad Abdul Bari is an educationalist, writer and freelance parenting consultant (www.amanaparenting.com). Follow him on Twitter: www.twitter.com/MAbdulBari]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.3132587 2013-04-22T12:42:58-04:00 2013-04-23T09:56:55-04:00

Muhammad Abdul Bari http://www.huffingtonpost.com/muhammad-abdul-bari/ President Obama's sobriety after the Boston marathon bombings reassured America. His words were measured and statesmanlike. He told Americans that the perpetrators would be hounded and held accountable, justice would be pursued and they, the Americans, would not be terrorised. Most importantly, he urged his listeners not to 'jump to any conclusion'. It set a totally different tone to former President George Bush Jr's declaration of a 'global war on terror' in the aftermath of 9/11.

Americans appeared to have taken the message well: apart from some warmongering comments by a few right-wing commentators vilifying Muslims for this latest atrocity, the overall mood after the Boston bombings "seems one of sadness and horror, but not one of anger or ramped-up patriotism", according to the BBC's Mark Mardell.

The Muslim community, meanwhile, was praying to God that the perpetrators were not Muslim.

But alas, the two suspects are of Muslim faith from Chechen origin. After a massive manhunt one, the 19-year-old younger brother Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, was captured on 19 April; the older sibling,Tamerlan Tsarnaev, was killed the previous day in a shootout with police.

The FBI is now trying to untangle the motive behind this attack. The two brothers were living in Boston itself for a decade or so and the older one was known to the FBI. Some members of the Tsarnev family have disowned the brothers, but the suspects' mother has claimed innocence of her sons in a video message, saying she is '100% sure that this is a set up', as her oldest son 'was controlled by the FBI for years.' No-one knows how much will be revealed of this murky world of intelligence.

However, US Muslims are still haunted by the spectre of the 9/11 experience; major organisations have unequivocally condemned the Boston Marathon bombings and urged Americans of all faiths to join them in praying for the victims and their families. An integral part of American society, they felt it their religious obligation to do so - to give a message to the Islamophobes that when it comes to patriotism the US Muslims are not behind others plus to let criminals know that they do not represent the Muslim community.

This has been possible with a new style of governance from the Whitehouse since 2009. Some keen observers now see that even news and online articles have toned down a little in commenting about Muslims. Ordinary people are gradually getting to understand that not all Muslims are bad and like any other community the state of the Muslim community is mixed.

There is a fear, though, that the gradual healing of the relationship between Muslims and others could be easily undone by incidents like Boston bombings - even though 'no soul should bear the burden for another' according to the teachings of the Abrahamic faiths. But in a real world where politics is partisan or divisive narratives of events would differ. There are powerful opinion formers in the American Right who would take advantage of the religious background of the Tsarnaev brothers and try to bring religion itself in the forefront of the debate.

Terrorists and criminals do not have any religion or ethnicity. In a civilised society the law of the land is applied evenly to bring them to justice, irrespective of race or religion. The world has gone through a temporary phase of injustice in the heat of 9/11 for the last decade; in this phase, terrorism carried out by a non-Muslim was seen as an individual aberration or described as mental illness, whereas if it were carried out by someone from the Muslim community the whole people were vilified. Under these new rules of the game, Muslims have been under microscope in Europe and America for too long.

However, things should (hopefully) change; the world has seen the folly of this selective justice. What we need now is a massive culture shift in America and other developed countries. No individual or community should be seen as guilty unless proven through judicial process; no community should go through the trauma of vilification for the misdeeds of a few aberrant individuals form their community.

Recently an email ended up in my inbox from a highly acclaimed business consultant who lives in Boston; such was his worry and fear about Muslim Americans that he feels the next few years would be even more challenging for Muslims because of the recent bombings. He pleaded that we "keep them in our prayers".

Why should people undergo such emotional trauma for the criminality of others in this day and age? I hope and pray that America does not go back to its post-9/11 era again.

Dr Muhammad Abdul Bari is an educationalist, writer and freelance parenting consultant (www.amanaparenting.com). Follow him on Twitter: www.twitter.com/MAbdulBari]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.3081513 2013-04-14T17:39:13-04:00 2013-04-16T10:42:46-04:00

Muhammad Abdul Bari http://www.huffingtonpost.com/muhammad-abdul-bari/ Reform of the National Curriculum in England. It ends today (16 April). The DfE has already published a draft curriculum specification for 12 school subjects. In History, the Islamic contribution to this country remains almost entirely absent.

In June last year an education group made up of Muslim and non-Muslim academics, Curriculum for Cohesion (CfC), submitted a proposal 'A Broader, Truer History for All' to the National Curriculum Review for History. It urged the Government to adopt a history curriculum that was relevant to the diverse school populations of our times - including Muslim students. It did not ask for any special favours to the Muslim community. The recommendations were flatly ignored and now we are on the deadline for final submissions to the DfE's reform proposals. It is a shame matters have come to this.

The National Curriculum Review (page 166) states that the purpose of studying History seeks to provide '...a knowledge of Britain's past, and our place in the world, helps us understand the challenges of our own time.' This can hardly be achieved if the interaction of Europe and the Muslim world over the ages is absent from school curriculum. We cannot ignore historical facts, such as the contribution of Muslim service personnel during two world wars; or the fascinating relationship that existed between Richard the Lionheart and Saladdin during the Third Crusade; and the discussions of forming an alliance between Elizabeth I and the Sultan of Morocco to confront an imminent Spanish Armada!

The Muslim contribution to British culture and history is far too strong to be ignored in this chronological history. For example, the Muslim contribution in the development of scientific ideas and technological inventions is an established fact. Ibn Sinna (Avicenna) still remains the patron figure of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society, for example.

Professor Nabil Matar, a US academic, has discussed the interaction of Elizabethan England and the Muslim world in several books, including in 'Islam in Britain 1558 -1685'. British academic Professor Humayun Ansari's 'The Infidel Within' gives a broad account of Muslims in Britain since 1800; his 'Minutes Book' of the historic East London Mosque provides an insight on the emergence of the Muslim community in the early 20th century London.

The DfE's response implies that our education leaders in the National Curriculum for History (NCH) are not yet ready to accommodate the Muslim contribution to human civilisation nor ready to accept the cultural heritage of 4.8% of the population in England and Wales and approximately 10% of the children in English schools.

At a time when Islamophobia is becoming socially acceptable in Britain it is vital we help build confidence among Muslim children of their rich heritage and provide opportunities for a better understanding of fellow Muslim citizens among the rest of the population.

The exclusive nature of the draft National Curriculum for History (NCH) has created resentment amongst mainstream education bodies. The Association of School and College leaders has said curriculum changes were 'rushed' and could 'create chaos'.The head of the National Association of Head Teachers, Russell Hobby, echoed his concerns - 'if teachers don't believe in the curriculum it won't work.' The Historical Association asserts that the content of the draft Programmes of Study are 'far too narrow in their focus on British political history...'

The CfC has submitted a formal response to the consultation; so has the Muslim Council of Britain.

Why should we include Muslim achievements and contribution to all the Key Stages of the history curriculum? Because they are true and because it will help young Muslims identify positively with Britain and its history. The history curriculum could be one area which they can relate to in terms of their own family and cultural histories; this could be a real opportunity for them to become stake-holders in the cultural and political life of the land.

In his keynote lecture at the Sheldonian Theatre, Oxford in 1993 HRH Prince Charles noted, "... there is also much ignorance about the debt our culture and civilisation owes to the Islamic world."

Compulsory Holocaust Studies and related school trips have contributed to minimising right-wing anti-Semitism in the playground. Positive curriculum material in history could help significantly reduce Islamophobia.

School children could, for example, be provided with curriculum-related educational visits, including to the Royal Observatory to learn contributions of Muslim astronomers. This recognition of social and cultural diversity in the history curriculum would be extremely valuable in building self-belief within Muslim children; it would also help bust a myth among others that Muslim youth are a 'problem'.

The OSCE Guidelines in 2011 for 'Educators on Countering Intolerance and Discrimination against Muslims' stated: "Discriminatory and intolerant behaviour can be nourished by false and misleading representations of Muslims. Of particular relevance in school settings are inaccurate and misleading representations of Muslims and Islam in textbooks."

We need a culture shift in our public discourse. The continuous absence of the history of Islamic civilisation and of the longstanding Muslim connection with Britain in the history curriculum is untenable in our current social reality. It is time Muslim children are seen as our national asset; it is time we have an inclusive national curriculum of history in our schools.

Dr Muhammad Abdul Bari is an educationalist, writer and freelance parenting consultant (www.amanaparenting.com). He is also a Patron of Curriculum for Cohesion. Follow him on Twitter: www.twitter.com/MAbdulBari]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.3014875 2013-04-04T11:13:37-04:00 2013-04-05T06:32:13-04:00

Muhammad Abdul Bari http://www.huffingtonpost.com/muhammad-abdul-bari/
With more than 6,000 people dead in one month, the Syrian crisis enters into a deadly phase.

Britain's Disasters Emergency Committee (DEC) recently launched an urgent campaign to help coordinate relief efforts for Syria, a land ravaged by death, destruction and suffering in the past two years. Islamic Relief, the UK's largest international Muslim charity, has coordinated its relief effort with London's oldest mosque, the East London Mosque, to this end. According to the DEC, four million Syrians are now relying on aid, food and clean water; basic sanitation is faltering and the risk of air-borne diseases is increasing day by day.

The United Nations estimates that more than 70,000 people have been killed in the bloody civil war. "With a million people in flight, millions more displaced internally, and thousands of people continuing to cross the border every day, Syria is spiralling towards full-scale disaster", said the UN High Commissioner for Refugees recently.

The world divided

Disaster relief is obviously a vital element in helping Syria from falling into a humanitarian catastrophe, but unless the root cause is addressed things may only get worse. Violence from both the government and opposition rag tag army has brought this great land, known as Bilad al-Sham, to its knees. The world is not only divided on the Syrian crisis, but is also driven by neighbouring and global political interest; ample fuel is being thrown into the fire.

Since the Syrian Uprising began over two years ago (15 March 2011), popular discontent grew nationwide against President Bashar al-Assad, whose family from the minority Alawite Sect has been ruling Syria with an iron fist for four decades. The Syrian army was deployed to put down the uprising; but instead the protests evolved into an armed rebellion led by mainly defected soldiers and civilian volunteers. However, the opposition armed groups remain divided and without an organised national leadership; the Syrian government characterises the insurgency as an 'armed terrorist group and foreign mercenaries'.

With a population that is 74% Sunni, 13% Shia (including Alawite) and 10% Christian, Syria's religious and sectarian complexity has exposed its challenges. No other 'Arab Spring' country has divided its people, its neighbours and the international community as much as Syria; Turkey and Jordan are supporting the opposition, but Iran and Iraq strongly support the Assad regime; in the Security Council Russia and China are against the other three veto powers on regime change. The Arab League is supporting the Syrian opposition; its recent decision to offer Syria's main opposition coalition its official seat has drawn criticism from Russia and Iran.

Iran continues to provide Syria with military and economic help; the Iranian Basij militia is accused of training the Syrian militia (Shabiha), which was implicated in the brutal Houla massacre in May 2012. Lebanese militant group Hezbollah, an ally of Iran, has warned against any foreign intervention that could stir a wider conflict in the region. On the other hand, Syrian rebels are getting military help from Qatar and Saudi Arabia through Turkey.

The opposition political alliance is still weak and the military wing not yet under one central command; the West is worried about the rise of Al-Qaeda which has become one of the most effective fighting forces against the Assad regime.

The Syrian crisis is also creating tensions within Muslim communities in many countries including in Britain where it has thrown some challenges for British Muslims; fortunately the Muslim community here is better organised compared to many other countries, thanks mainly to the efforts of the umbrella body, the Muslim Council of Britain.

Is there light at the end of the tunnel?

The intransigence of the Assad regime, weak opposition and division in the UN Security Council has created a dreadful stalemate. The often-admired Arab Spring has fallen flat in Syria. A propaganda war between the regime and the opposition gives a distorted picture of the real Syrian tragedy. The efforts by global mediators such as Kofi Anan and Lakhdar Brahimi came to no use in finding a political solution. The NATO has ruled out a military intervention in Syria; other military options such as the use of air power or no-fly zones are not on the table.

The recent alleged use of chemical weapons in Syria raises far bigger concerns; it is the Syrian people who would pay the price if sanity is lost from any side. Analysts do not expect any immediate change in the military conditions on the ground. In the absence of any light in the tunnel, international and regional diplomacy still remains the only option.

However, the ultimate solution lies with the Syrian people and their political leadership. The mainstream opposition can make a breakthrough if they can really become inclusive enough to bring all meaningful sections of Syrian people in their anti-regime umbrella movement. For this, they should be able to moderate their strategy and win over sensible Alawite, Kurds and others to strengthen their justifiable cause. In addition, their armed wing should stop waging indiscriminate attacks on civilians and the country's infrastructure.

On the other hand, the regime must come down from its ivory tower and realise that its total disregard for popular opposition is not going to work in the long run. The government's job is to protect its citizens, not clinging to power at any cost.

However this is easier said than done, given the Alawite fear of a future Sunni rule and mistrust between the fractured people for. But this is not impossible. This needs some courage and determination from both sides. The regime and the opposition should find some 'out of the box' way to converse, side-by-side if not face-to-face, to save their land from total anarchy and bloodshed.

Dr Muhammad Abdul Bari is an educationalist, writer and freelance parenting consultant (www.amanaparenting.com). Follow him on Twitter: www.twitter.com/MAbdulBari]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.2886812 2013-03-15T19:17:41-04:00 2013-05-15T05:12:01-04:00

Muhammad Abdul Bari http://www.huffingtonpost.com/muhammad-abdul-bari/ a rising level of anti-Muslim hatred and sentiment is creeping into British life. We appear to have passed the point where Baroness Warsi referred to Islamophobia 'passing the dinner party test'.

Since the terrible events of 7 July, 2005, the Muslim community has often been stigmatised for apparent 'fifth column' instincts: for desiring to 'take over', to 'impose Sharia law', for oppressing women, rampant homophobia, harbouring terrorist sympathies, and apparently being unwilling or unable to adapt to 'Western' ways.

The terrible logic of this so-called 'counter-jihadist' narrative is that, unchecked, it leads to Anders Behring Breivik. Breivik's justification for his Norwegian killings was that the mainly young, white Norwegian Labour party members he killed were "cultural Marxists", part of a liberal elite selling out Europe to some sort of 'Eurabia' fantasy.

The irony is that Muslims' loyalty to Britain is actually ranked higher than that of other Britons - 83% versus 79% according to a recent survey. This was also highlighted in a recent Campus Extremism, Freedom and Security conference at the London School of Economics.

British Muslim youth

Muslim students make up a significant proportion of Britain's further and higher educational institutions. These young people are as varied as the Muslim community itself: a 'community of communities' and not - contrary to what some might believe - a single monolithic block. Originating from the four corners of the world, they hail from incredibly diverse ethnic, linguistic and religio-cultural backgrounds.

In last summer's Olympic and Paralympic Games, this contribution was well recorded. From Mo Farah to thousands of ordinary helpers, together this community joined in with the rest of Britain and made London 2012 the 'greatest show on Earth'. (I played my own small part as a board member of the London Organising Committee.)

The overwhelming proportion of Muslim students are from a new generation: raised and schooled with fellow British citizens. Most of their families, though, still live in poorer inner-city conurbations. Some of these students may display overt religiosity in their dress and expressions; however, they are remarkably similar in their hopes, aspirations and dreams to any other young, modern Briton. They are, to whit, an integral part of our society.

Muslim students are also among some of the most active members on a university campus. They fundraise thousands during Charity Week for orphans and needy children around the world; they are actively involved in organising stimulating debates and discussions; and many give up their free time for volunteering and transferring their skills back to their own community.

Sadly the current trend in national politics is to see Muslims through the 'prism of security'. 'Securitisation' of government policy has put Muslim students at the sharp end of an unfair scrutiny. There is a risk of alienating a generation of young Muslims who are simply trying to secure better futures for themselves and their families.

Prevent legacy

The Prevent agenda that was initiated by the Blair government in the aftermath of 7/7 created serious disquiet. His successor, Gordon Brown, attempted to redress some of the flaws through a review chaired by Dr Phyllis Starkey, but the Tory-led Coalition ignored her recommendations and initiated another Prevent review within months of coming to power. No noteworthy civil society or Muslim groups were consulted. The government formally distanced itself from mainstream Muslim groups (deemed as insufficiently 'moderate'), which included Britain's largest and most representative Muslim umbrella organisation, the Muslim Council of Britain. It also included FOSIS, the student body.

In these troubling times, far-right groups such as the English Defence League (EDL), were able to rise, orchestrating a number of violent demonstrations against mosques in British cities from 2009 onwards. Muslim women - particularly those wearing a veil - have born the brunt of attacks from white EDL or BNP supporters, according to the Tell MAMA project.

Universities were advised to inform the police about Muslim students "who are depressed or isolated under new guidance for countering Islamist radicalism." The mistrust surrounding Muslim students was part of the reason for draconian measures such as 'section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000'.

The Tory politician, Baroness Warsi, rightly claimed couple of years ago that Islamophobia was now socially acceptable in Britain. No wonder a recent YouGov poll found that fewer than one in four people believed Islam was compatible with the British way of life.

The consolation is that many have now acknowledged that the Prevent strategy is 'discriminatory' against Muslims. The NUS warned ministers that "wild sensationalism" over claims about radicalisation on campuses would "only serve to unfairly demonise Muslim students".

Reappraising Muslim students

The greatest fear in modern times is violence and terrorism; some undertaken in the name of religion. However, 'racialisation' or 'Islamisation' of crime is not going to solve the problems that we face. We need to deal with the true extremists collectively - not by stigmatising one community or dealing unfairly with its young people. In a modern pluralist society no group or community should feel pushed to the margins, for the misdemeanor of a few.

When it comes to Muslim community, I have not seen a mass desire for establishing an 'Islamic caliphate' with 'sharia law' in the British Isles, despite what the EDL or certain think tanks or hate-filled blogs might claim. Similarly, I have not heard any call for death penalties, punishment of homosexuals, forced marriages or degradation of women by the vast majority of ordinary, law-abiding Muslim citizens.

Yes, there are disagreements on some of parts of government policy - sometimes foreign, sometimes domestic - and that is part of democratic process. Universities as seats of learning are places forthis debate; their success can only be achieved through fresh, creative and contradictory ideas that are often 'radical'.

Britain has changed. There is a generational shift among young Muslims and other Britons, providing an opportunity for more liberal and progressive understanding of one another; the proportion of young Britons viewing Muslims as a threat to white Britons or a danger to the West is going down. Muslim students today are different from what they were a decade ago. With a significantly higher presence in the campus now they have a huge potential to become a serious force for good in wider society. Our policy makers must better-understand their make-up and beliefs, rather than encourage universities to muzzle all ideas and debate.


Dr Muhammad Abdul Bari is an educationalist, writer and freelance parenting consultant (www.amanaparenting.com). Follow him on Twitter: www.twitter.com/MAbdulBari]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.2765766 2013-02-26T11:21:11-05:00 2013-04-28T05:12:01-04:00

Muhammad Abdul Bari http://www.huffingtonpost.com/muhammad-abdul-bari/
Muhammad Abdul Bari asks why so much social and political turmoil is taking place in South Asia.

Is the historic Indian subcontinent, that was once a cradle of civilisation, facing another disaster along the lines of Indian Partition in 1947 or Bangladesh's bloody birth in 1971? So much disturbing news is coming from the region that many here - who can trace their roots back to that part of the world - are feeling very perturbed. And there are potential ramifications for us all.

South Asia is the home to about a quarter of humanity. It occupies a strategic geopolitical location. Yet from Pakistan to Burma, Bangladesh to Sri Lanka, it is - in parts - succumbing to chaos.

Muddled politics

In the west of the region, Pakistan is the world's second largest Muslim country, marred for over a decade by sectarian violence. Its central government is weak and violent religious extremists butcher the minority Shia population, as well as launch attacks on Christians. With its apparent complicity in US drone attacks, which has killed hundreds of its own people (with a remarkably low success rate against genuine terrorists), the Pakistani government has miserably failed to protect its own citizens.

In the east lies Bangladesh. It is the world's third largest Muslim country and so far recognised as one of the 'moderates' in the world. However, it too is rapidly losing its way. Its post-liberation trauma ended with a two-party, family-owned democracy in the early 1990s, following earlier military rule. The ruling party, the Awami League, had a two-third parliamentary majority in the last election. Instead of using this for nation building it decided to punish its one-time political ally, the Jamaat-e-Islami, for alleged war crimes of some of its leaders in the 1971 independence struggle. The Awami League did not raise this war crimes issue when previously in power (1992-95 and 1996-2001). This time it bulldozed a unilateral decision through Parliament to selectively punish Jamaat leaders.

Since then, the respected International Crisis Group painted a very bleak picture of the country in its June 2012 report "Bangladesh: Back to the future". Bangladesh is now going through a traumatic phase: the judiciary is known to be taking orders from the Government; ruling party cadres are mobbing the streets of major cities; politicised secular civil society is hiding behind recent Shabag protests and demanding death sentences for alleged war criminals from the public square; and the opposition Islamic party is not allowed to organise demonstrations. Meanwhile the government has signalled that it will ban the Islamic party and many institutions run by it. The situation has become toxic and the country could, literally, implode with these tensions.

Even further east, in Myanmar (Burma), some Buddhist monks have resorted to startling violence against Rohingya Muslims in the south-west Rakhine region. This hate-mongering of Buddhist religious leaders, calling Rohingya 'vipers in our laps', is a far cry from the Buddhist precept of avoiding harm to living creatures. The world community has now come to call the Rohingya people "one of the world's most persecuted minority groups." Hundreds of thousands of Rohingya Muslims are now internally displaced in a land where they had been living for hundreds of years; nearly one million are now treated as stateless by the Myanmar government. The irony is the Nobel Laureate and one-time political prisoner in Myanmar, Suu Kyi, has remained curiously silent on one of the most urgent humanitarian issues facing Burma.

In the south, in Sri Lanka, 26 years of civil war have brought into focus the human rights violations from both the Sinhalese-led central government and the separatist 'Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam'. The dangerous after-effects of this war (which the Tigers lost) has seen sections of the Sinhalese majority turning against minority religious groups. The recent call for halal boycott by a hardline vigilante Sinhalese Buddhist group is unheard of; Muslims constitute about one tenth of its population and have had historic good relations with the Sinhalese majority. There is shock at the recent turn of events.

In the middle, the giant India is holding its democracy together with enviable persistence, though there have been occasional violent outbursts by Hindu extremists against minority communities such as Dalits, Sikhs and Muslims. In recent decades orchestrated atrocities have tainted Indian democracy: the killings of thousands of Sikhs in retaliation to the assassination of Prime Minister Indira Gandhi in 1984 by her Sikh bodyguard; the demolition of the historic Babri mosque brick-by-brick in 1992 under the right-wing central government and ensuing inter-communal riots that resulted in at least 1,500 deaths; another spate of killings of Muslims in 2002 in Guajarat under a state government that failed to protect its minority citizens.

What's the State for?

Millions of people in this region are living, literally, a sub-human life. If political leaders fail to address socio-economic challenges South Asia will fail to rise above its current impasse.

There is a common thread here: the role of politics and civil society on the one hand and the influence of religion and place of secularism on the other. Three major world religions - Hinduism, Buddhism and Islam - are faced with major social challenges in this region.

Constructive political engagement and religious dialogue will be essential to strengthen civil society and protect these countries from the spectre of communal violence and political despotism. Otherwise high-level corruption and chauvinism, plus playing politics for short-term gain, will be fatal to the developing countries of South Asia and their once-burgeoning democracies.

Dr Muhammad Abdul Bari is an educationalist, writer and freelance parenting consultant (www.amanaparenting.com). Follow him on Twitter: @MAbdulBari]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.2670731 2013-02-12T13:02:58-05:00 2013-04-14T05:12:01-04:00

Muhammad Abdul Bari http://www.huffingtonpost.com/muhammad-abdul-bari/ flawed international tribunal trying Islamic leaders for alleged war crimes in 1971 - is pulling the country into a head-on collision between its secularist and Islamic camps. These are two historic Muslim countries with unique history, cultural background and social make up. But one common theme transcends both and, in fact, many other countries in Asia and Africa: it is their divided politics and chaotic civil society.

Civil society works as the eyes and ears of a nation: it must be politically conscious, but neutral or at least non-partisan. A forceful civil society defends the weak from the strong and poor from the rich; strengthening it is a continuous and creative endeavour and its successful continuity should never be taken for granted. Art, culture and public discourse are used to inform and educate citizens about their civic responsibilities and rights. The danger for any country, old or new democracy, is the polarisation of its politics and politicisation of its civil society.

For a robust civil society citizens do not necessarily have to be part of a big middle class or highly intellectual group. A culture of public duty and a drive for common good, justice and shared values are its allies; selfishness, partisanship and opportunism are its deadly enemy. Civil society often needs champions: individuals, institutions, or both. Martin Luther King in the US in the 1960s and Archbishop Tutu in South Africa today come to mind when thinking about individuals. Meanwhile, the historic Al-Zaytuna mosque in Tunisia and Al-Azhar University in Egypt - two of the oldest religious education institutions in the Muslim world - have played a unique 'institutional' role in creating strong civil society; they have the potential to do the same now in the conflict-stricken Middle East.

Civil society in developed democracies stubbornly takes both the government and the opposition to task. It remains highly alert in making sure citizens are not deprived of their rights, liberty and freedom by the powerful. Even if some errant politicians have temporary success in pushing the boundaries of power, such as President Bush Jr in the aftermath of 9/11, they are challenged tooth and nail by this ever-alive civil society. Through civil protests and ballot box, errors are either repaired or leadership is changed.

Sadly, civil society in many Muslim countries is not that effective. Over the last few decades only a handful of these nation-states have been able to cross the threshold of political peril and improve the socio-economic conditions of their people by means of representative governance and the rule of law. Although they have a long way to go, this is a positive sign.

On the other side of the spectrum, there are quite a few countries that are still at war with themselves; some lie under the long shadow of the 'war on terror', still going strong in the form of drone strikes and other actions. Perilous democracy is struggling to survive; politics is violently divided and civil society is embarrassingly weak in both Pakistan and Bangladesh, with their decades of intermittent democracy and military rule.

Pakistan's failure to democratise itself ended up in a violent war of liberation by the-then East Pakistani people in 1971. Pakistan in recent times has been torn apart by another menace - religious violence - thanks to the ineffective central government, long-unresolved sectarian divisions, and the 'war on terror' that was unleashed in the aftermath of 9/11. Civil society has been too weak to cope.

Unfortunately, Bangladesh also followed its own style of flawed family-led democracy and military rule over the past four decades. Home to one-fifth of the world's Muslim population, its economy has been growing well since the 1990s. But a vengeful politics under the current secularist government is putting the country in peril. Despite serious questions from the international community, including many judicial and human rights bodies, the current government has obstinately gone ahead with an 'international crimes tribunal' (without any international oversight) to punish alleged war of independence criminals who also happen to be political opponents from Islamic and nationalist parties). The ultra-secularist and leftist political partners of the ruling party, who dominate Bangladeshi civil society through the media and academia, and ruling party activists, are using their street power (with police support) to bring in capital punishment for opposition leaders who have been incarcerated for several years. A massive miscarriage of justice is now taking shape: whatever their crimes, this partisan approach to the rule of law - something critical to any healthily functioning civil society - may bring catastrophic consequences to the country and wide-ranging impact on its neighbours.

On the other hand Egypt and Tunisia, which are now being ruled by Islamic parties, are bogged down with their own crises: confrontation between ruling Islamic activists and a combination of secularists and supporters of the old regime. The real problem here is the clash between ultra-conservatives and ultra-secularists who are each vying for political gains. Sitting on these two extremes, anarchic forces are trying to derail the democratic process by street violence and destruction of national property. Again, the lack of a strong 'civil society' is being felt. However, there is a ray of hope. After weeks of violence, Egypt's premier Islamic institution, Al-Azhar, has brought together the country's rival political factions who pledged to work on halting violence.

In this maelstrom of re-birth, only constructive politics and political moderation from both Islamic and secular camps will safeguard democracy and protect these fledgling democracies from falling into further chaos.

Dr Muhammad Abdul Bari is an educationalist, author and parenting consultant (www.amanaparenting.com). Follow him on Twitter: www.twitter.com/MAbdulBari]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.2561238 2013-01-27T09:13:34-05:00 2013-03-29T05:12:01-04:00

Muhammad Abdul Bari http://www.huffingtonpost.com/muhammad-abdul-bari/
Recently there have been impassioned debate on this area on two high-profile TV programmes: one an Al Jazeera interview with atheist Richard Dawkins by Muslim political commentator Mehdi Hasan and the other a BBC Big Questions debate over whether it is time for all religions to accept evolution as fact. Many of my co-religionists are left bemused, if not downright confused, by all this kerfuffle.

Why fight on two dissimilar subjects?

In its heyday, Islam brought about harmony between religion and science. With, among other things, the demise of Islamic scholarship, science clashed with religion during the European Renaissance. After this co-existence for many centuries, we are now entering an era of science led by intolerant atheism.

Is a confrontation between religion (I exclude 'dogmatism' here) and science necessary? Having a background in both science and religion, I do not think so. We do not have to battle over things that are dissimilar in terms of reference and remit. Let me say why.

Science is about 'how': it tries to find natural 'facts' through ideas, theory, postulation, experiment and empirical evidence. It is not meant to find 'truth'. Science is based on statistical probabilities and experimental evidence; during this process of discovery, it is prone to errors. A scientific approach cannot find for sure whether our universe was created or self-made, for example. As our knowledge expands, many 'established' scientific theories have been thrown away. Scientific giants understood this and accepted the 'new' knowledge with humility.

On the other hand, religion is about 'why': it gives meaning to our life through a metaphysical approach, searching for ultimate 'truth'. Religion's emphasis is on morality and behaviour. Believers are asked to keep an open mind, observe, question, reflect, contemplate and then act. A verse from the Qur'an (chapter 3, verse 190) is intuitive - "Surely in the creation of the heavens and the earth, and in the alternation of night and day, there are signs for people of understanding".

Science explores and scientists differ. On the issue of human evolution even Darwin's supporters could not agree, because some thought that "the mental capacities and the moral sensibilities of humans could not be explained by natural selection". This is understandable. Our individual life on Earth is infinitesimal compared to the age of our known universe; our personal sphere is also minuscule compared to the expanse of the universe we are in. To pretend that we would be able to know the 'truth' of our life and about the universe would be sheer arrogance.

This does not mean we surrender to our 'fate' and sit back; not at all. We, as human beings, are not a mere physical entity but have 'moral sensitivities' and a spiritual dimension. We are born with an inquisitive, creative mind that is full of imagination and innovation. We see, hear and observe things and ask questions. Do we get all the answers? No. We are not supposed to; if we did all our uniqueness would disappear and we would end up being dull and stagnant. That is the mystery of human life.

As an experimental physicist until my mid-30s, asking questions and throwing challenges were part of my research. This did not deter me from getting closer to my (Muslim) faith. I have always been fascinated by the life of many ancient scholars from China, Greece or India, who were religious saints and scientists at the same time. I am enthralled by many pre-Renaissance Muslim scientists and scholars like Al-Khwarizmi and Ibn Sina, who were pioneers in science and at the same time devoutly religious and spiritual. I am still amazed to see this tradition of harmony between science and religion in the personality of scientific giants like Newton and Einstein. Their thirst for knowledge was matched by their humility.

Belief in or denial of God is the main issue

Religion is essentially about primary belief in one Living God; the rest follows from this premise. In Islamic belief God has 99 'attributes' e.g. His Omniscience or Omnipotence. The Abrahamic religions are adamant on monotheism. Yes, there is no way of experimentally proving God's presence, but there are coherent evidences in support of this belief, such as a) all the Prophets who were known to be extremely honest and trustworthy in their life informing us of God, b) numerous signs (ayat, in Arabic) within and around us and in the cosmos testify His presence. These arguments cannot just be brushed aside as irrational or non-progressive.

The benefit of a resolute belief in God has a positive impact on life: it has created a myriad of highly-motivated, spiritually-uplifted and self-regulated selfless individuals who have spent or even sacrificed their life for the good of others. The belief in God and a sense of accountability in the Hereafter is a catalyst to those actions.

Then there is the classical argument: imagine there is no God. Believers do not lose anything on Earth. But imagine there is one, what happens to deniers in the Hereafter?

It is true that religion was and can be misused to foster division, hatred and cruelty; but history is the evidence that most wars, destruction, ethnic cleansing and killings were the result of manipulative politics or selfish use of religions, rather than the inherent faiths in and of themselves.

Let us comprehend the complexity of body, mind, soul and spirit

There is obviously a common ground between the two approaches, the spiritual and the scientific. All living beings have phases or evolution in their life from birth to death. Without a doubt there is biological evolution in the world of low-level living beings, including many animals. Our 'evolution' in a mother's womb, from a zygote into a fully-fledged baby, is mentioned in the Qur'an - "And certainly We created man of an extract of clay, then We made him a small seed in a firm resting-place, then We made the seed a clot, then We made the clot a lump, then We made the lump bones, then We clothed the bones with flesh, then We caused it to grow into another creation, so blessed be Allah, the best of the creators" (chapter 23, verses 12-14).

So, religion is not irrational. It asks us to think very seriously about our place on this planet. Just because we are physically similar with some primates, I believe we cannot conclude that humans have evolved from them. Yes, gorillas and chimpanzees are biologically closest to humans and their DNA sequences are very similar, but that does not necessarily 'prove' that a highly intelligent and spiritual man evolved from them. Even with very close DNA-similarity between two twin siblings we see incredible differences between their personality, ability and creativity.

The human mind may operate faster than light, but it cannot fully understand the mysteries of our universe and our life. It is time we step back and try to comprehend the highly coherent and intelligent universe and the 'whole' of our existence. It is also time religious adherents practice their critical autonomy to continuously enhance their knowledge and understanding of our natural world. As for Muslims, I can only say that our belief and reason (aql, in Arabic) are intertwined; we should be the first to use this gift of reasoning.

Dr Muhammad Abdul Bari is an educationalist and parenting consultant (www.amanaparenting.com). Follow him on Twitter: www.twitter.com/MAbdulBari]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.2470271 2013-01-14T04:25:01-05:00 2013-03-15T05:12:01-04:00

Muhammad Abdul Bari http://www.huffingtonpost.com/muhammad-abdul-bari/
Strong family, confident children

Parenting starts in the family; family is the first human institution and the essential building block of a society. A woman and a man together bring a new life on earth through a shared responsibility for themselves and for the new arrivals in the family. Mother and father complement their household tasks and endeavour to create a happy family with a creative learning atmosphere. It is a well known and age-old fact that a strong, stable and loving family produces confident and competent children with a positive outlook of life.

Being a parent is a heavy responsibility. The mother's share of the burden that starts with pregnancy is distinctly high; all cultures and religions have given mothers highest respect.

Raising children to grow as successful human beings is a noble task and serious business. In this endeavour both mother and father have mutual rights and responsibilities; a good balance between these rights and responsibilities may not be so easy, but this is the essence of marriage.

A family where a woman as wife and a man as husband take charge of their offspring has an obligation to give the little ones everything that is needed in life. The mother and the father often put their personal differences aside and give their best to the growing children. The home has always been the first school where children get a grip of their lives, before stepping outside into the harsh realities of the world.

Raising children consciously and passing on positive family and social values to the new generation is vital. Positive parenting is essentially a planned enterprise and a life-long commitment that starts from the moment a baby is conceived.

To people of faith parenting is a highly rewarding task; it is not only about children's achievements in the world but also about their success in the life to come. That is why in many religious traditions, such as Islam, children are a 'test' and a 'trust' and raising them properly is a religious obligation.

Compromise, but no compromise ...

The similarity that makes us humans and the differences that make us diverse is a wondrous beauty on earth. The rainbow nature in us makes our life enjoying, challenging and testing. We all have our individual needs and ambitions, as well as our egos; we also have our group needs and interests - as a family, as a community and as a society. My own feelings and instincts are very important to me; as yours are to you. But what do I do when my whims and desires clash with yours? Can I afford to stubbornly hold on to my own wish? In a family situation this can be disastrous; most families break up due to a lack of this basic understanding of 'give and take' between the couple.

The culture of compromise or finding a middle ground is at the core of two people coming together and forming a family. Family starts with two individual 'I' becoming one 'we'. This becomes vital when they start raising their children; synergy between parents is the key.

However, this does not mean there will be no disagreements, arguments or squabbles in life. Real life is full of challenges and family rows may be inevitable. It is also a fact of life that there are times when we cannot compromise on our principles. Once a couple plans to have children, this may come about on issues of career, household chores and other day-to-day issues. In situations like this the challenge is how we deal with differences in a civilised manner.

However, a family where relationship between the couple is based on love, compassion, respect and empathy these differences are resolved by the ethos of 'share and care'; with compromise becoming second nature differences may even solidify their relationship further. A pragmatic couple with positive attitudes towards life nurture warmth, affection and understanding; they are able to use the art of compromise to navigate through potential family turbulence. In fact, most couples become acutely sensitive to each other's likes and dislikes over time; they gradually learn how to avoid conflicts.

Human mind is complex and our feelings are varied. While conversing with our spouse on potentially sensitive issues we should always step back and think seriously what we want to achieve. How important really is the issue? Is something worth arguing for? Where does the success rate of a discussion fall on a scale of, say, 1 to 10? Once we hear a positive inner response from within us only then we should try to make our case in a nice manner. We should make sure we listen to our spouse attentively; proper listening is the testimony of respect and is a good remedy for family or social ills. We should think and approach the issue with empathy, 'putting my feet in my spouse's shoes', and then negotiate; no trick, no manipulation. There is only a win-win situation in a family.

There are simpler and better ways of handling compromise in a family - through the art of persuasion, negotiation or through a positive but pro-active dealing with our partners, and without any ill-feeling or aggression. No spouse has to walk on tightrope or become over-sensitive of each other. We should come to the table with honesty and discuss issues with an open mind.
Continuous quality time with our spouse, exchange of love and respect, one to one relaxed chats, eating or going out together and occasional open discussions or family sessions enhance understanding and deepens relationships.

A blissful family is what we need

Our journey of life is short and full of imperfection. We may start our life as idealists in our adolescence, but idealism often evaporates once we enter into our adulthood. We may get worn-out by our continuous struggle for survival, feeling that our life has probably lost its meaning, and even fall into the spiral of a 'mid-life crisis'. But human resilience most often wins and we stand up with real-life experience and more wisdom.

A blissful family with boundless love, care and respect is essential for children, especially in their early years to mid-teenage period. It is time we practice what we preach.]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.2383368 2012-12-30T04:44:00-05:00 2013-02-28T05:12:01-05:00

Muhammad Abdul Bari http://www.huffingtonpost.com/muhammad-abdul-bari/ Nearly two-thirds of voters (63.8%) of those who voted - in a record low turnout of 32.9% - have supported the proposed new constitution.

Egypt's case is unique to Egypt, but there is a lesson that can be learned by others. According to many observers President Morsi's hands were tied by the forces which have a vested interest in making the revolution fail. He decided to exert his Presidential authority by pushing aside the gatekeepers of the old regime in a spectacular way. This further polarised the political division. The newly formed opposition National Salvation Front (NSF), a coalition of the country's fractious secular groups and Mubarak supporters, have fiercely opposed the President. They have been holding street demonstrations in major cities, which have often descended into violence. In response, Morsi's supporters have organised counter-demonstrations. The political crisis has deepened further whilst Egypt is being watched by the Arab and Muslim world, and many others in the international community.

Yet the two political forces cannot even sit at the same table, despite Egypt being in desperate need for political stability and an economic plan. Many Egyptians, particularly the youth who initiated the revolution, have felt betrayed by their politicians. Some see the current deadlock as another battle between the old guards: the Muslim Brotherhood and Islamic groups on one side and the NSF on the other. The intransigence expressed by the Nobel Laureate physicist-turned-politician, Mohamed ElBaradei, who has described Morsi as a "new pharaoh", tells how divided Egypt has become. At least the Egyptian Armed Forces have so far proved sensible and have restrained from taking any advantage of the chaos.

Now that he seems to have the political upper hand, can President Morsi behave like a wise statesman and stretch out his hands to all sections of the Egyptian society, as he declared after his election? "This national unity is the only way to get Egypt out of this difficult crisis" he said. Can there be some Archbishop Tutu-type personality in Egypt to help bring political reconciliation among the people? Can Egyptian politicians and civil society leaders see the big picture and, like in Turkey and Tunisia, behave more pragmatically than ideologically?

Elsewhere

Situations in some developing countries are not too dissimilar from Egypt. Some of them are now paying the price of failed politics.

Failure of politics in a country can happen due to autocracy, oligarchy, a weak central government or fragile democracy. Whatever the reasons, the result is seriously damaging, leading to probable political, social and economic meltdown. In a country where politics is weak and politicians are bitterly divided intolerance flourishes; power stays in the hands of a few; society is polarised; opponents are kept divided or ruthlessly crushed; civil society stumbles and social stability and cohesion torn apart. Free speech is usually proscribed, too, and many ordinary citizens often struggle for daily survival. A country with failed politics can become a hotbed of religious, sectarian or ethnic violence; economic mismanagement, ineptitude and corruption. In addition, a slavish foreign policy weakens it from within; inequality cripples social cohesion; and external forces beyond its border take advantage of its internal division.

Even in a so-called developing but fragile democracy, majority rule can be riddled with crime and dominated by party gangsters, with political vengeance at the forefront. The hardware of democracy can falter without the software of an independent judiciary, a clean civil service, effective police force, vigorous legislature and proper regulatory bodies.

Sadly, this has become the hallmark of many developing countries across the world. The recent sectarian and political violence in some Muslim countries is a warning. The situation in some of these countries is so anachronistic, so bizarre that their rulers consider themselves beyond any rule of law; most probably they have a mindset that they 'own' the country.

Autocrats often get away with their thuggery due to the weakness of civil society and low social capital. Colonialists in the past preyed on this misfortune; regional and global hegemonic powers today use the same faultlines to use exploit such states as their satellites.

Fighting political intolerance and social division

Failed politics and corruption are intertwined; they may be pervasive in some parts of Africa and Asia, but are by no means the monopoly of developing countries. Over the last few years some European countries have seen the ugly side of wrong and selfish politics. However, as the civil society is generally stronger in these countries they are spared of the political and social meltdown as we often see in developing states. Transparency International (TI) is one international body that has been charting worldwide levels of corruptions. Its recent Corruptions perceptions index 2012 has shown, once again, a strong correlation between corruption and failed politics.

It cannot be true that leaders in developing countries, who indulge in playing intolerant politics, are ignorant of this correlation. However, they need to accept these stark realities or fraction and division will haunt them in the future. It is vital they rise above their short-term gains and work for the good of people and their nation. An extra ounce of honesty and tolerance as well as a little more wisdom and statesmanship can save their country and themselves from impending disaster.

It is also no less important that the powerful leaders in already-developed countries recognise that the world has become incredibly inter-dependent and the 'beggaring thy neighbour' policy of the past is untenable in our global village. Can they walk an extra mile to truly help those nations which are suffering from bad governance and offer some practical support, such as political capacity building and skills transfer?

As 2012 is over and we are now in the dawn of a new year, the world needs to be a better place for our collective existence. Ordinary people, be they in developing or developed countries, deserve better from political leaders.

Dr Muhammad Abdul Bari is an educationalist, community activist and freelance parenting consultant (www.amanaparenting.com). He is currently Chairman of the East London Mosque Trust. He is the former Secretary General of the Muslim Council of Britain (2006-10) and a founding member of The East London Communities Organisation (TELCO).

Follow Muhammad Abdul Bari on Twitter: www.twitter.com/MAbdulBari

The views expressed in this article are the author's own.]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.2316216 2012-12-17T11:51:38-05:00 2013-02-16T05:12:01-05:00

Muhammad Abdul Bari http://www.huffingtonpost.com/muhammad-abdul-bari/
Among the key points revealed are the fact the population is growing (to 56.1 million) of which 86% are now white (the mixed-race population has risen to 2.2%). Just under half of us (46.6%) are married, and the number of households where everyone speaks English is 91% (4% speak no English at all). In London the picture is more varied, where just 59.8% describe themselves as white and 37% say that they were born in a foreign country.

Around a quarter of the population now has no professed religion (compared to 14.8% in 2001), with Christianity suffering a significant hit (down to 59.3% of the population, from 71.7% in 2001). However the 'loss' of religion is not unique to Britain. As most developed countries become increasingly secularised, religion is taking the hit. America is losing religion. According to an extensive survey by the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life, the number of people with no particular faith today (16.1%) is "more than double the number who say they were not affiliated with any particular religion as children". Among 18 - 29-year-olds, one in four say that they are not religious.

Muslims under scrutiny

Many headlines have seized on the fact that Muslims now make up nearly five percent (4.8%) of the English and Welsh population, to 2.7 million (up from 3% in 2001). In London Muslims now make up 12.4% of the city, followed by the West Midlands and Yorkshire and the Humber (both under 7%).

At the same time, especially after the London bombings in July 2005, the level of prejudice against Muslims has multiplied. The hate spewed out in the past by far-Right groups against the Jews, Catholics and Blacks has now shifted against Muslims. These communities have all in their time been accused of undermining traditional British values and living parallel lives with strange language, clothing and customs. Today it is the Muslims who are seen in that light. Since its formation in 2009 the English Defence League (EDL) has tried to intimidate Muslims by holding numerous protests, sometimes violent, against mosques and Muslim institutions. At the same time right-wing media and certain think tanks have fanned the flames of such hatred. The Muslim community has been urging national politicians to do something about this blatantly negative coverage, but the response has been less-than-overwhelming. The current Government even refuses to deal with mainstream Muslim organisations such as the Muslim Council of Britain (MCB), despite research showing that British Muslims often express a stronger sense of belonging than other citizens. Sadly, negative perception is overshadowing this reality.

Nearly two years ago the Tory Minister Baroness Warsi flagged the issue head-on, saying that "hostility to Muslims has passed the dinner table test." In Lord Leveson's massive inquiry into the Press presented a grim view of how Muslims have been deliberately targeted by elements of the popular media.

Our collective challenge

The Muslim community is by-and-large a law abiding, loyal and enterprising community. The MCB has welcomed the Census results saying "the growth in number points to the fact that Muslims play a significant part in the increasing diversity of Britain".

The community has a younger age profile than any other group. However, they are also clustered in deprived inner city areas, under-achieving in education, unemployment and often living in overcrowded conditions. This is a real challenge both for leaders of these communities, for the young within them, and for our politicians.

Vision and reality might have differed, but ironically Islam itself has had historical success in accommodating diverse peoples. It is a communitarian religion and urges its adherents not to confine themselves to their own clan, tribe or race; it encourages them to serve people around them, in the neighbourhood and in the community. Indeed, several Muslim organisations (as well as various Muslim-interfaith groups) have launched cross-community neighbourhood schemes. Therefore in a pluralist society where multiple identities are not seen as a threat, Muslims can naturally flourish. Like any other community, they may have conflicting theological, social and political trends, but their recent categorisation by right-wing think tanks as moderate, extremist or fundamentalist is both unhelpful and inaccurate.

In fact, I would argue that ghettoisation is antithetic to Islam. It comes from fear and a 'survival instinct'. Confident Muslims do not (and should not) have this fear and they should be colour-blind. They can interact, participate and engage with all for a common good. Those that are 'colour-blind' are already contributing to the mosaic of the new British pluralism and its rich culture. Some Muslims may advocate an isolationist approach for fear of 'losing' their religion in a secular environment, but isolationism is against the spirit of Islam.

Diversity is strength. Muslims themselves are very diverse: something they, and we, should not forget. There are brown, black and white Muslims across the country, tracing their heritage across many national and ethnic boundaries, as well as denominations. Such diversity can be bound together into a greater whole: just look at the success of the London Olympics and Paralympics in forging a new identity for our nation.

To build interconnected, not segregated or parallel, communities we now need to move beyond simple 'tolerance' of others. Genuine respect, appreciation of other communities, and positive interaction are required and should be encouraged. It is time to celebrate the strength of modern pluralist Britain without undermining any community in that process. As such, there is no excuse for scaremongering by the increase of Muslim population in Britain.]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.2219401 2012-11-30T13:41:59-05:00 2013-01-30T05:12:01-05:00

Muhammad Abdul Bari http://www.huffingtonpost.com/muhammad-abdul-bari/ An Inquiry into the Culture, Practices and Ethics of the Press, the newspapers and their proprietors have been found guilty of "wreaking havoc in the lives of innocent people". Self-regulation has failed, amounting to "the industry marking its own homework". The press has "treated the rights of ordinary people with disdain".

Sadly, the governing coalition, headed by Prime Minister David Cameron, has already rejected the idea of regulation, saying there are "serious concerns" over new laws to underpin such a move. "We should be wary of any legislation that has the potential to infringe free speech and the free press," Cameron said even before the report had launched. This despite the fact that the Labour Party unilaterally supported all of Lord Leveson's mammoth recommendations and even his deputy prime minister, Nick Clegg of the Liberal Democrats, disagreed with his coalition partner's conclusions.

Yet pressure was piling up on Lord Leveson even before he published his findings. On 28 November more than 80 MPs and peers, including some well-known figures, urged him not to recommend a press regulation law. But that did not deter Leveson: he rejected a proposal from the press itself to enforce standards through contracts, saying he could not see how it could be independent.

One thing is clear: there is universal acceptance that the status quo cannot be maintained.

Recommendations

Let's get some things clear. What Leveson is not arguing for, nor have I seen seriously suggested, is some sort of Soviet-style, repression of the free press. That is the line frequently trumpeted by some newspaper editors to justify their continued self-regulated status.

Leveson has argued instead for a a new independent press watchdog, underpinned by legislation. He has insisted that such a measure does not amount to state control of the press. Reaction has generally been positive (except from Cameron and the newspapers themselves), particularly from victims of phone hacking - which got us into Leveson in the first place - and those who have suffered from media intrusion and abuses of power, such as the Dowler and McCann families.

Opposition to independent regulation is based on the fear that it will erode long-fought for press freedoms. But as we have clearly seen, that does not work. Editors have ignored the Press Complaints Commission (PCC, the existing self-regulatory body) when it suited them and one proprietor (Richard Desmond, owner of The Express and Channel 5 TV station) even withdrew from it completely! So reliance on self regulation, without any regulatory teeth, has not worked and is not going to work in the future. There is a balance to be struck here: between freedom of the press and responsibility towards the individuals whose lives can be affected by their actions. How does a democratic society maintain that balance between rights and responsibilities?

Phone hacking

The phone hacking scandal appeared to be a battle between two powerful forces in our society: journalists who needed 'news' and celebrities, crime victims, or powerful people who were their targets. The phone hacking scandal was exposed by the media itself (The Guardian newspaper in particular) and the fight against the abuse of media power was led by prominent people in our society. But we still need a better mechanism than expensive libel laws to defend ordinary people who do not have the money and power to challenge the abuse. Some have said that with hacking criminal law was broken - as it was - but the police did very little to pursue complaints, something acknowledged by Leveson too.

This is where the need for some new kind of law comes in. "It may be true that the law cannot make a man love me, but it can keep him from lynching me, and I think that's pretty important", said Martin Luther King, Jr. It is unfortunate our media industry and the Prime Minister himself have been so swift to reject the idea of a press watchdog. There is room for common ground; Lord Leveson's proposal is balanced and with good implementation all in the society will benefit.

In the heat of this big debate one issue seems to have been missed, and that is the way sections of our media, particularly the tabloid press, have dealt with women as well as well as certain communities and minority groups in our society. On the broad issue of gender equality he found that "the tabloid press often failed to show consistent respect for the dignity and equality of women and there is a tendency to sexualise and demean women". Under the report section titled 'Ethnic minorities, immigrants and asylum seekers', Leveson presented a grim view of how Muslims have been deliberately targeted by elements of the press. The Muslim community has been banging its head on the door of our politicians for some time over this issue - either ignorant reporting or, in many cases, blatant Islamophobia and fear-mongering - but the response so far has been very lacklustre.

The Daily Star newspaper, for example, printed an untrue article about taxpayer's money being used for "Muslim only loos [toilets]" in one city; it also claimed, falsely, that Remembrance Day poppies would be banned from sale in Muslim-majority areas. Meanwhile The Sun claimed there was a Muslim plot to kill British Jews on the basis of "extremist posting" fabricated by an "anti-terror expert".

When a small minority of powerful journalists demonises a people it creates a suspicion surrounding that community. In the aftermath of the July 7th 2005 (7/7) atrocities in London this is exactly what happened to the Muslim community. The situation has become so toxic that many young Muslims feel very disheartened and cynical, like "conditional Britons" and part of a suspect community. This situation was highlighted by some very fair-minded journalists, like Peter Oborne ('The shameful Islamophobia at the heart of Britain's press') but has not been taken up elsewhere.

It is vital therefore that the recommendations from Lord Leveson are taken up. There is great tradition of journalism within this country, and many fine journalists - as Leveson himself acknowledged - and press freedom won over 300 years of struggle should not be lost. Nor will it be, if we sensibly and responsibly protect the weaker and more vulnerable members of our society from the uncontrolled actions of a few powerful media barons and their editors, who have tarnished the rest of their fine profession with their irresponsible actions. They have shown contempt for the laws and the people, and thus regulation must be backed by law.

The views expressed in this article are the author's own.]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.2133482 2012-11-14T19:34:53-05:00 2013-01-14T05:12:01-05:00

Muhammad Abdul Bari http://www.huffingtonpost.com/muhammad-abdul-bari/ Liverpool Care Pathway (LCP) system, which is intended to ease the last hours of a dying patient. But critics are saying that LCP is a way of hastening patients' deaths. Some in the media are now calling it the "death pathway". The Care Minister, Norman Lamb, has rightly ordered a report on LCP. As with life, one of the most fundamental human rights is the opportunity to have a decent and respectable death.

Death is an inevitable enigma

"When you see
My corpse is being carried
Don't cry for my leaving
I'm not leaving
I'm arriving at eternal love"

Mystic poets like Rumi can eulogise death in this manner, but for ordinary mortals death is indeed perturbing and scary. Death is the end of our worldly life and it disconnects us from our beloved ones and the belongings and possessions we crave most. Yet, death is the only reality that is lying in wait for us; it is the only truth that we all have to confront. It is heart-wrenching to see our nearest and dearest die and it is painful to think that one day we all will have to face it. Death is frightening; the moment we are born our fate to die has become predestined.

Death is the unbeaten conqueror; it silently overpowers its prey without any mercy. It is very democratic and life's ultimate leveller. A victim's wealth, power, fame, strength, age or look does not matter. It makes no distinction between humans, animals or any other living organisms.

Death is always shrouded in mystery. Because of this inevitable but unknown fear factor most people avoid thinking of death. We celebrate birth, enjoy the fruits of youthful vigour and adulthood and appreciate the wisdom and experience of matured life. However, we try to keep away from uncomfortable thoughts of death; so are the British people who do not talk about death. We try to pretend death does not exist, but it comes in stealth and knocks at our door.

There is a nice parable which sums this up:

"Death asked life:
'Why does everyone hate me but love you?'
To which life replied:
'Because I am a beautiful lie and you are a painful truth' "

Millions of people die in the world every day. A pang of death or someone's motionless dead body on the street is not uncommon in some parts of the world where death is more frequent due to malnutrition and man-made or natural disasters. While human life and dignity are paramount in all cultures and religions this is sadly missing in those parts.

Our life is sacred from conception to death. Sacred is also the dead who lived among us. The life and dignity of every person must be respected and protected at every stage and in every condition. As with life, one of the most fundamental human rights is the opportunity to have a decent death.

Palliative Care

This is where palliative care (from the Latin 'palliare' or 'to cloak') comes in; it focuses on the relief of pain and other symptoms and problems experienced in serious illnesses, with care and respect. The goal of palliative care is to improve the quality of life, by giving comfort and providing a support system to the person who is ill and also to those close to the patient. Palliative care can neither hasten nor prolong death. The World Health Organisation describes palliative care as "an approach that improves the quality of life of patients and their families facing the problems associated with life-threatening illness, through the prevention and relief of suffering by means of early identification and impeccable assessment and treatment of pain and other problems, physical, psychosocial and spiritual."

Palliative care can be delivered in any care setting - including at homes, care homes, hospitals, day care centres or hospice inpatient units. Through pain relief many hospices and some hospitals manage a patient's dying days with care and compassion and palliative drugs that are tailored to the patient's pain. Families, where available, are involved in earnest. The dear ones in many families spend time with the patient; some families prefer the patient to be at home where there is plenty of reassurance, comfort and love.

More and more people are now living longer; this is putting strains on the national budget on health care, including palliative care. There must be strict medical codes of ethics on palliative care.

Diversity of human traditions

We must educate our communities about the role and goal of palliative care. The Muslim community in east London, have been hosting a series of meetings with palliative (end of life) care professionals. On World Hospice and Palliative Care Day we initiated a momentous collaboration between faith leaders and hospices, including Richard House Children's Hospice, St Joseph's and London Muslim Centre in East London.

Our life consists of body, mind and soul; so, there is a need for physical, emotional and spiritual care. Religions tend to deal with birth and death well; as such, religious communities are generally well-equipped to deal with palliative care with an emphasis on spiritual care. Institutional religions encourage their adherents to often remember death so that they can live a righteous and spiritually enriched life. According to the three Abrahamic faiths death is not the end of life, it is a new phase of an eternal journey. With strong moral and spiritual guidelines to look after the old and frail the religious adherents try to overcome the fear factor concerning death; they tend to use the network of extended families and religious institutions.

Spiritual care should thus be provided on palliative care to those who need it. Awareness of patient beliefs could be very helpful to the care providers; it creates a staff-patient-family relationship. Although still patchy, spiritual care in the NHS is now accepted as an important ingredient in palliative care in the UK. Judaism, Christianity, Islam and other faiths have valued this enormously and are working with the health service to provide a more effective care plan.

The focus on a patient's quality of life has significantly increased in recent decades, albeit with emphasis on physical and psychological support. It is vital no community is left out from access to high quality terminal care. It is also important spiritual well being is linked with good health.

Understanding patient narratives of what constitutes a peaceful death is critical for palliative care. For this to happen doctors, nurses, and other health professionals should have basic training on spiritual care; recruitment of staff from a broad range of ethnic, religious and cultural backgrounds is also important. We need a palliative care that is universal and where all can fit in.

Dr Muhammad Abdul Bari is an educationalist, community activist and freelance parenting consultant (www.amanaparenting.com). He is currently Chairman of the East London Mosque Trust. He is the former Secretary General of the Muslim Council of Britain (2006-10) and a founding member of The East London Communities Organisation (TELCO).
Follow Muhammad Abdul Bari on Twitter: www.twitter.com/MAbdulBari

The views expressed in this article are the author's own.]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.1948716 2012-10-10T19:00:00-04:00 2012-12-10T05:12:02-05:00

Muhammad Abdul Bari http://www.huffingtonpost.com/muhammad-abdul-bari/ Time for an Inclusive politics I wrote of my optimism surrounding the impending demise of the War on Terror. President Barack Obama himself had declared the war finished in 2010. Here in Britain we were looking forward to the Queen's Diamond Jubilee as well as the Olympics. For once, ours seemed a hopeful nation. The spectacularly successful London 2012 Games proved 'Yes We Can': a more inclusive, and hopeful, Britain seemed on the verge of emerging.

But I am worried. Very worried indeed. The recent extradition of two young British citizens, Babar Ahmad and Talha Ahsan, from Tooting in south London, marks a dark day for British justice and reminds some of us of those opaque days of the War on Terror which brought us Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib.

On 5 October 2012 our country finally caved in to an uneven extradition treaty with the US. It extradited Babar Ahmad and Talha Ahsan (though the media reported on the more controversial figure of Abu Hamza) to face charges in Connecticut, related to a website they are alleged to have run over a decade earlier. They had already been incarcerated here for eight years, and six years, respectively, without any charge in a British court.

From its inception the Extradition Act 2003 invited controversy. It allowed the US to extradite UK citizens for offences committed against US law, even though the alleged offence may have been committed in the UK. There is no reciprocal right to extradition from the US to the UK; the levels of proof required are different (more stringent) in the USA's favour. Feelings are running high and some members of my community have even perceived the extradition of Babar and Talha as an extraordinary rendition.

Immediately after the High Court verdict on 5 October, Ahmad's elderly father Ashfaq, who had fought with dignity for the last eight years to get his son tried on British soil, made the following remarks. "After over 40 years of paying taxes in this country, I am appalled that the system has let me down in a manner more befitting of a third world country than one of the world's oldest democracies..."

A report published by the House of Parliament Joint Committee on Human Rights (JCHR) concluded that the "current statutory framework" of the Extradition Act 2003 "does not provide effective protection for human rights." Alas, there was no political will to redress this apparent imbalance; in the case of Ahmad and Ahsan all attempts and pleas for these two young British men to be tried in the UK fell on deaf ears, despite a broad alliance of civil society leaders, parliamentarians, legal voices, media commentators and the Muslim community's backing. The Muslim community in Britain had tried every democratic campaigning method available. They even petitioned Downing Street and got nearly 150,000 British citizens to sign an e-petition (itself a Government-created initiative) for Ahmad to be tried in the UK. Even a parliamentary debate was initially denied, despite receiving more than 100,000 signatures (the cut-off that which was supposed to automatically generate a debate in the House of Commons). The men's legal teams took their cases to the highest courts in Britain and Europe, only to be trumped, apparently by political considerations. What else could be the reasons to deny this reasonable demand?

Sadly, our tabloid press adopted a strategy of continuously describing Ahmad and Ahsan as terrorism suspects (despite the lack of charges). Even the BBC started using the same language, giving us a trial as much by media as the courts. With politicians and the media taking a hardline stand, justice has always been at risk. The police and the Crown Prosecution Service have had a lot to answer on this case, but who cares? These young British citizens were guilty unless proven innocent. The US aircraft to extradite the detainees arrived in the UK even before the High Courts had finished deliberating on the matter.

Many political commentators also noted the Home Office's media strategy of linking the cases with the previously-convicted hate preacher Abu Hamza al-Misri (with similar media caricatures). Lumping them together helped convict them all in the court of public opinion.

The five men extradited last week are now in US custody. Abu Hamza al-Misri without hook during Manhattan court appearance; four other 'jihadist's plead not guilty, read The New York Times on 6 October. Babar Ahmad and Talha Ahsan are being held in the most secure pre-trial detention facilities available in Connecticut, most likely with special administrative measures (Sams, according to one former warden described as "a clean version of hell"). Inmates spend 22 to 23 hours per day in a completely sealed and soundproof cell and may be an hour or so in an outdoor cage for solitary exercise. There are strict rules for their lawyers, who cannot discuss their clients even with their family. Gareth Pierce, the lawyer representing Babar Ahmad, has described Sams as, "crippling in every way, not just in terms of ability to prepare a trial."

A number of serious violations to Ahmad and Ahsan's human rights, as defined by the UN Declaration on Human Rights, have been made throughout these extraditions. Article 10 of this declaration says: "Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him." It is evident to me that the men have been denied the basic right to liberty for many years. Their extradition to the US is a travesty of justice.

Terrorism is indeed a crime that needs to be confronted. The allegations against Babar Ahmad and Talha Ahsan are serious and need proper judicial consideration. Yet neither of these men have had any chance to defend the allegations against them, which they both contest vehemently.

Their extradition does not bode well for trust in British justice. It has marginalised a broad section of British society, including many Muslims, who are totally opposed to this one-sided extradition. There will now be a great deal of bitterness and frustration among these disenfranchised ordinary people who are active in public life. Within the Muslim community disturbing questions are already being raised - were these two men treated the way they were because they are Muslims? These questions will reverberate and may haunt the relationship between a section of our citizenry and our political class for some time.

There was a flicker of hope that was kindled by President Obama's speech to the Arab and Muslim world in 2009. He stated: "I do have an unyielding belief that all people yearn for certain things: the ability to speak your mind and have a say in how you are governed; confidence in the rule of law and the equal administration of justice." With his follow-up the next year that the war on terror was finished, that flicker was fanned into a flame. We had hoped that change would be permanent; that we could contain Abu Ghraib, Bagram, Guantanamo and extraordinary rendition to a darker period of our history. One wonders whether this is the case.]]>