Zeyno Baran
This is a cross-post of an interview by Barry Rubin with Zeyno Baran, senior fellow of the Hudson Institute and editor of The Other Muslims: Moderate and Secular, recently published by Palgrave-Macmillan.
Barry Rubin: Zeyno, you begin your book with this sentence: “The most important ideological struggle in the world today is within Islam.” Can you explain the nature of this struggle and how it is going?
Zeyno Baran: This struggle is essentially a Muslim civil war over whose definition of Islam will be accepted as “mainstream.” Will it be the version of the Islamists (shared by all political-religious radicals, both non-violent and violent)? Or that of traditional Muslims (cultural, secular, and pious)? One will become accepted by a majority of Muslims, and by extension, of non-Muslims. Since the 1970s Islamists have made tremendous headway in this struggle thanks to money from Saudi Arabia and the Gulf region; they were thus able to establish institutes and networks all over the world to spread Islamism. Today, many Muslims don’t even realize what they believe to be authentic Islam is in fact a primarily political ideology of recent origin. Non-Islamists are still lacking in the financial resources — whether state or private — necessary to organize effectively against the Islamists; this is true as much in the West (the focus of this book) as in Muslim-majority countries. So, in the short term I argue that Islamists will continue to be winning in this struggle. That said, I believe in the longer term both non-Islamist Muslims and non-Muslims will eventually wake up to the realization that Islamism is a serious ideological challenge to universal human rights.
Barry Rubin: Precisely what is a “moderate Muslim”? Hasn’t that term been subject of a lot of misuse and misunderstanding?
Zeyno Baran: You are exactly right — the misuse of the label “moderate Muslim,” by Islamist groups operating in the West, has indeed led to major misunderstandings. This is precisely why I used this term in this book — to clear up this misunderstanding and reclaim the term from the Islamists, many of whom represent themselves as “moderates” to Western policy makers. American and European policy makers have accepted as “moderate” people who do not commit violence; to me, however, that is a very narrow definition. An Islamist that participates in the electoral process yet does so with the goal of limiting women’s rights or of introducing a sharia regime is not moderate. The contributors to this book are all true moderates — those who fully support both universal human rights and the teachings of the Islamic faith. Being “moderate” does not mean they are not pious, which is another common misunderstanding of the term.
Barry Rubin: Why is it wrong to base the definition of a “moderate” Muslim on simply those who don’t use violence?
Zeyno Baran: The true divide within Islam is not between violence and nonviolence, but between moderation and extremism. Few Muslims resort to violence — but many more share the thinking of the violent extremism. Unless the ideology of Islamism is understood as the root cause of the violence, I don’t believe we’ll see an end to the terrorism and radicalism among Muslim communities. Moderation has to start with thought; if we are giving a free pass to those with extremist ideologies as “moderates,” then the true moderates will continue to be weakened.
Barry Rubin: How have the U.S., Canadian, and European governments helped the radicals and hurt the moderates?
Zeyno Baran: Western governments, in their desire to “engage with Muslims,” have often reached out to well-established Islamist organizations as their “partners.” In doing so, these governments did not realize that they were lending legitimacy to these Islamists in the internal struggle against their moderate opponents. With the Islamists being the main “go-to Muslims” for Western governments, it has been much harder for the true moderates to make their voices heard.
Barry Rubin: Why are Western media and institutions so easily fooled by radicals, and why do they seem to favor them?
Zeyno Baran: I think when Western media and institutions look for “Muslim voices,” they automatically gravitate to those who most closely resemble their preconception of what an “authentic” Muslim sounds like — a conception that has, of course, been shaped by Islamist propaganda. In recent years, an “authentic” voice has been one that is opposed to U.S. policies, especially in Iraq and Afghanistan, and that is strongly critical of Israel. Many in the media share these views as well, so it is in some ways a natural fit. The true moderates are often accused of being neo-conservative or “not really Muslim” when they support U.S. policies or express a more balanced view of the state of Israel; these ideas seem to Western journalists and policy makers to be “un-Muslim,” as if there were a single Muslim way of thinking! Certainly, the Islamists argue there are certain “Muslim opinions” on some issues — such as the Middle East peace process — but that’s because they are trying to establish their own view as the single dominant one. It is as wrong as saying there is a “Christian opinion” on an issue, given the vast range of views held by individual Christians.
Barry Rubin: How does assimilation and acculturation work with Muslim immigrants in the West and how should it work?
Zeyno Baran: Each country has had different policies and different experiences, but in general, European countries for many decades paid little attention to assimilation; in particular, the UK and the Netherlands followed an openly multiculturalist policy that avoided any mention of assimilation and/or acculturation. This led to Muslim immigrant enclaves being formed in parts of European cities; when an area becomes heavily Islamic, then Islamists come in with their institutions and mosques, and establish themselves as the interlocutors between the immigrant community and Western authorities. Even after many of these governments decided to change their policies and developed programs for increased acculturation, they continued to work with the Islamists, whose ultimate responsibility is not to Muslim immigrants, but to the global Muslimumma (community) as they understand it. Since these “representatives” had no interest whatsoever in promoting the integration and assimilation of European Muslims, this led to frustration on the part of Western governments and societies, which began wondering whether Muslims can ever truly become “Western.” In turn, this frustration — directed towards all Muslims, not just the extremists — fostered a sense of anger and victimization on the part of the Muslim immigrants, who felt they would never be accepted as long as they remained Muslim. A better way to ensure social cohesion would be to address the pragmatic needs of Muslim immigrants — jobs, education, equal rights — in accordance with the social norms of the country, with a sensitivity to different religious/cultural backgrounds. In practice, this would mean allowing the establishment of dignified prayer places for Muslims, while not assuming all Muslims go to the mosque all the time, or that the mosque is the only social place for Muslims. There should be many other places where Muslims can go to socialize with each other and non-Muslims; these will develop naturally if Europeans can move away from characterizing these populations as “Muslim first.”
Barry Rubin: Has the concept of multiculturalism helped or hurt in this struggle?
Zeyno Baran: Despite being born of good intentions, the Western policies of multiculturalism have made it harder for Muslims to become Western. The pendulum of respect for cultural/religious difference has swung too far, and Muslims have been trapped into their Muslim identity as “the other,” instead of being assisted in becoming one of “us.” One of the recent and most clear examples of this is the wearing of the burqa in the West. For years multiculturalists have looked the other way when seeing women covered from head to toe in a style contrary to most Western norms as well as to Islam itself. Islam simply mandates modesty in dress, which for many women traditionally meant the headscarf, but never the full covering. Yet, until recently, in another unintended consequence of multiculturalism, few Westerners were willing to tackle this issue as they did not want to be seen as intolerant or bigoted. The few that have spoken out have been silenced with threats of being labeled “racist”; thus, intolerable forms of social behavior have continued to the point where they have become acceptable.
Barry Rubin: How can Western societies “win over” Muslims without losing their own identity or surrendering to the Islamists?
Zeyno Baran: The question is which Muslims? The Islamists would never be won over since their long-term goal is to see a world that is ruled with sharia. If Western societies continue to try to judge their success in “winning over Muslims” by giving into Islamist demands, then they’ll continue to lose their identity and their basic freedoms. But if Western societies were to side with non-Islamist Muslims, and learn from them how best to counter the short- and long-term goals of the Islamists, then I would say there is a great possibility that the West will not only successfully defend its own values and norms, but also help Muslims usher in a desperately-needed Islamic Renaissance.
Barry Rubin: How can moderates justify their interpretations of Islam when they appear to differ with the most important and basic Islamic texts?
Zeyno Baran: Many of these texts have been written centuries ago and in a particular context. Many moderates read them recognizing that what may have been a great social advancement in the 8th century cannot be taken literally in the 21st century. Over the centuries, there were many different voices widely debating how to interpret the Qur’an or the hadiths; moderates follow the tradition of those who have used their rationality and interpreted revelation as well as historic developments within their correct context. There are also many moderates who have not read many of the basic Islamic texts; yet they are no less legitimate, because 1) many of the radicals have never read many of these texts either and 2) Islam is not just about the written text but the living tradition. Indeed, for centuries Muslims learned the basics of their religion orally, passing down teachings from one generation to another. The recent radical trend we see among Muslims is due to radicals picking and choosing certain passages from the Qur’an and other key texts, interpreting them in a way to make their case, and then presenting them as the most legitimate interpretations. Again, I’ll draw an analogy with Christianity — it is as if saying that only one denomination’s interpretation of basic texts is the correct one. Paraphrasing Bernard Lewis, the situation we face within Islam is as if a KKK-controlled state found major sources of oil, and used the money to spread its own version of Islam as the most correct form and the whole world gradually began seeing them as the most authentic voices.
Barry Rubin: The Islamists are so well financed and well-organized. How can the moderates compete? How can they win?
Zeyno Baran: This is the most difficult question. The moderates have not been able to compete and won’t be able to compete unless there is help from the West. Theoretically some of the Muslim-majority countries that are threatened by Islamists could help, but in practice they are often too afraid to challenge them for fear of being labeled as “apostates.” The West knows from its own history the damage religious extremists cause to societies and the religion itself; they can help the moderates by no longer giving Islamists a free pass while their activists are working to undermine Muslim moderates and Western (or universal) values. They can also help by increasing visibility of the moderates’ work, such as those in The Other Muslims who argue for secular rule using Islam’s own texts and history, or those who push for an Islamic Renaissance, without which I believe we’ll never quite win against the radicals who are increasingly becoming the mainstream.
142 Comments
Baran is absolutely spot on, isn’t she?
wow. excellent stuff. when i have a moment, i might put up a counterpoint to this on why i think a similar process is happening/has happened in judaism, albeit with extremely localised violent outcomes.
b’shalom
bananabrain
From
http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2006/08/the_neoconserva.html
We found that one of the prominent authors on the SMC website, who also writes for the SMC magazine “Spirit”, is Zeyno Baran a self confessed neocon who works for the ultra right wing Hudson Institute. She is close to the Uzbek regime and close to the oil and gas interests in Washington and Central Asia. She tirelessly does the bidding of the dictatorial regimes of Central Asia by playing down human rights abuses and encouraging western governments to enact draconian measures against Muslims. She has condemned Sheikh Qaradawi and the International Union of Muslim Scholars, amongst others. She says that Islam should play no role in politics and condemns even the mere mention of Islam in the Iraqi and Afghan constitutions.
From our enquiries it seems that for some time now, Baran has been trying to establish a neocon-friendly Muslim organisation in the UK. She has talked of the need to, “provide money and help create the political space for moderate Muslims to organize, publish, broadcast, and translate their work.” We also uncovered evidence that she has also held meetings with government officials in the UK, urging them to ban the Muslim Brotherhood and Hizb ut-Tahrir and cease working with Muslim organisations that mix Islam with politics.
Craig Murray is a prime nutter. Hadn’t you noticed, resistor?
And as for:
“We also uncovered evidence that she has also held meetings with government officials in the UK, urging them to ban the Muslim Brotherhood and Hizb ut-Tahrir and cease working with Muslim organisations that mix Islam with politics.”
Shocker! But let’s have the nature of the evidence.
Perhaps you could post it on Pulse Media.
Quoting Craig Murray leads to an instantaneous failure of argument, in much the same way as Godwin’s Law of the reductio ad Hitlerum operates. Only worse is attempting to support an argument by reference to the views of David Icke.
If I may, might I suggest a new fallacy – reductio ad Murrayum – as follows:
Support for an argument via quotations of Craig Murray (a confirmed lunatic) reduce that argument to instant failure.
Variations of the same involve the deployment of links to conspiracy sites, such as Global Research, etc.
“Perhaps you could post it on Pulse Media.”
Surely resistor could manage a better class of pro-Hamas Lobby website that crappy ‘Pulse Media’.
Playing the man and not the ball. This resistor really is a thick as a bucket of shit. You could be forgiven for thinking it was Idrees Shah.
Craig Murray may be batshit crazy, but there are certain regularities in his lunatic momentum. One of which is to smear anybody he does not approve of as having “links to the Uzbek regime”.
So Craig Murray was mad to expose the use of torture by the dictatorial Uzbek regime?
…and what is your definition of Islamism? I mean you must have one given there are 327 links to Islamism in your categories sidebar.
Murray and the rest of the world knew all about the Uzbek regime and their use of torture years ago. Murray was embroiled in scandals involving local belly dancers, only later didn’t he suddenly develop a conscious and started babbling on about torture which for him was a red herring. And yes he’s nuts.
Gosh resistor no wonder you’re confused, undergrad level analysis indeed.
resistor, why did you choose to leave out Jew-hatred and unconditional but exclusive support of Islamist groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah from your support of “anti-Neoconservatism”?
More on your friend
http://www.harpers.org/archive/2006/09/sb-maybe-borat-1159547352
‘Bryza’s longtime paramour Zeyno Baran has worked for several think tanks, including the Hudson Institute, where she is currently employed. Baran, it appears, has never met a Caspian dissident whom she didn’t dismiss as an Islamist terrorist. In a 2004 interview with the Washington Times, she noted that a recent suicide bomber in Uzbekistan had been female and predicted that “the next set of attacks in the United States will use blonde, blue-eyed women.” Along with Fred Starr of the Central Asia and Caucasus Institute, Baran earlier this year presented a propaganda video prepared by the Uzbek government to counter widespread condemnation of the 2005 Andijan massacre.’
Even your neocon comrades don’t seem to like her support for dictators
http://www.henryjacksonsociety.org/stories.asp?id=1637
‘The United States does not wish to lose an ally and has no interest in undermining Azerbaijani interests. The US consistently backs the Aliev dynasty, despite their horrendous human rights abuses and the increasing authoritarianism of the regime. Whilst Washington continues to call for greater democratisation, the American leadership (the Obama administration being no exception) embraces realpolitik considerations with an enviable consistency. The appointment of Matthew Bryza, former US co-chairman of the OSCE Minsk group, as the new US ambassador to Baku serves to underline that point. Bryza enjoys a close and long-standing relationship with the Azerbaijani government, and his wife Zeyno Baran, a Turkish American scholar, Director of the Center for Eurasian Policy and a Senior Fellow at the Hudson Institute in DC, is well known for her support for the Aliev regime.’
But resistor, most of your pro-Islamist comrades don’t want to have any business with you and your antisemitic, pro-Hamas gang of sociopathic academics at Strathclyde University either.
from wikipedia:
what a terrible person she must be.
gosh, what a terribly right-wing thing to do. of course the local wing of hamas and the hizbies should be allowed to do whatever they like to radicalise and sectarianise british muslims without anyone being allowed to gainsay this.
hell of an objection to ms bayran.
b’shalom
bananabrain
There is not a word in the interview spoken by Zeyno Baran that resistor can refute. Not a single one.
So he ends up trying to malign her as a “neocon”, hoping that label alone will be enough to discredit the *content* of her thesis.
Abu Wannabe Arab, ‘Murray and the rest of the world knew all about the Uzbek regime and their use of torture years ago.’
Oops what a giveaway. The rest of the world would have to include Ms Baran who you do admit is a supporter of the regime and thus an apologist for torture.
As for Barry Rubin (what a nice piece of work he is) do you agree with his depiction of the victims of IDF piracy as ‘terrorists’?
http://rubinreports.blogspot.com/2010/07/what-really-happened-on-mavi-marmara.html
‘Preparing to attack the soldiers, the terrorists took over the ship and ignored the orders of the captain to stop what they were doing.’
ps
Have you come up with a working definition of ‘Islamist’ yet?
Resistor – you really are thicker than I thought. When did I ‘admit’ that Mrs Baran was a supporter of the Uzbek regime? Do you also now concede that Craig Murray didn’t reveal anything new?
resistor,
er, before you carry on in that vein, I should point out that Barry Rubin makes this point in the piece you linked to:
And here’s a report from TimesOnline.
Perhaps the Times is in on the Zionist Conspiracy too?
Those skills of distortion you are using could be put to good use on NeoconEurope. You could probably work for them. Oh wait…
Do you deny that she is a supporter of the Uzbek regime?
Does the Murdoch-owned Times support Israel? Do Bears defecate in sylvan surroundings?
You can oppose Islamism without knowing what it is – priceless. What a bunch of chumps!
“Does the Murdoch-owned Times support Israel? Do Bears defecate in sylvan surroundings?”
Now add:
Does the IHH have terrorist links?
Is NeoconEurope a pro-Hamas lobby group? Is it a project devised by a bunch of pro-Islamist jew-haters? Is the Pope a catholic? Do Bears defecate in sylvan surroundings?
No
Meanwhile, Barry Rubin boasts about helping the British Government produce their dodgy dossier that lied us into the invasion of Iraq.
http://meria.idc.ac.il/british-govt-plagiarizes-meria.html
Look for MERIA next month, to see new articles by both Rabil and al-Marashi: Robert Rabil, “The Making of Saddam’s Executioners: A Manual of Oppression by Procedure” and Ibrahim al-Marashi, “How Iraq conceals its Weapons of Mass Destruction.”
Would those be the Weapons of Mass Destruction that turned out not to be there?
What a liar.
Now, what do you mean by Islamism? Any idea yet chumps?
Not so fast resistor.
Does the IHH have terrorist links or not?
No
Well why didn’t you say so! No wonder you’re having trouble with understanding what Islamism is.
See my 2.16pm post for my answer. Clearly you have difficulty reading.
As to what Islamism is, please enlighten me. It sounds like a made-up word.
I have no difficulty reading what you’re writing and you’ve made your position eminently clear.
Fascinating collection of whataboutery, assorted obfuscations, evasions, self-serving fabrications and mistruths from resistor.
Exactly what have Ms Baran’s connections (close or otherwise) with the Aliyev regime in Toshkand to do with the content of her article about the positives of a moderate and secular Islam?
On the surface – absolutely nothing whatsoever. And here resistor gets himself into a real hole, because the only way that he can claim that there is any connection is by supporting the Islamists in Uzbekistan.
Let us see how that works. The Uzbek opposition is not some monolithic whole in complete agreement with itself. In the main, the secular and democratic opposition to the Aliyev dictatorship want nothing to do with the Islamists (mainly Hizbies and some al-Qaida affiliates) and have absolutely no truck with them. As it is, Aliyev’s regime persistently play the game of branding any and all opposition as inspired or driven by an Islamist agenda. Indeed, the Islamists actively fragment and hold back the progress of the democratic and secular opposition. It is this democratic and secular opposition that is supported by most citizens of Uzbekistan and not the Islamists.
In contrast, resistor persistently implicates the opposition to Aliyev as Islamist – or at the very least as *including* the Islamists in some important manner. This is simply not the case. Murray is chiefly responsible for this distortion of the reality in Uzbekistan (and thank heavens he was not ambassador elsewhere in the former Soviet Central Asian “-stans” because who knows what mischief he might be spreading about their opposition to dictatorships.
Unlike resistor, I have actually spent some time in these far away places of which he knows absolutely sweet F.A. I know the land, I know the people and I have a fairly good idea of what they really want. In contrast, resistor (who I suspect if pushed might start quoting Hizbie literature at length) knows very little of what he writes about – hence his resort to sources as notoriously unreliable as the rather sad and definitely often manipulated (by ruthless scum like HT) Craig Murray.
It seems odd that resistor purports to know nothing about Islamism and yet wants to wax on about the resistance to Aliyev in Uzbekistan which (again) he wants to paint as some sort of Hizbie movement.
The view that IHH are not connected to terrorist organisations is contemptible as it is risible. However, this will doubtless sponsor the usual trolling from resistor along the lines of “what is your definition of terrorism?” or something equally juvenile.
Are you in Hizb ut-Tahrir by any chance, resistor?
I am just asking as you appear to have their usual unhealthy obsession with and yet near total ignorance of Central Asian affairs.
Oh and you still owe me a definition of a “Zionazi”, resistor.
Islamism seems to be a “made up word”. I would charge off to Cairo and consult with the Muslim Brothers, them resistor. As they “made it up” in the first place… to describe their own position.
Let me get this absolutely clear, resistor:
You think something does not really exist if people have to make up a word to name it?
Perhaps resistor prefers the original Arabic:
Arabic: الاسلامية al-’islāmiyya also Arabic: إسلام سياسي al-Islām al-Siyāsiyy
People belonging to an Islamist group, call themselves, and are called by others ‘islāmiyy for men and ‘islāmiyya for women.
Oddly then, Arabic speaking Islamists appear to have “made-up” the word too… and then used it to describe themselves as *cough* Islamists.
brilliant stuff AF.
‘Islamism’ is an English construction, as for ‘Zionazi’ – that’s as stupid and offensive a word as ‘Islamofascist’. I wouldn’t use either other outside quotations.
So Islamism is the political philosophy of the Muslim Brotherhood.
Thanks
What was so hard about that?
Abu Faris – I don’t think ‘resistor/Idrees Shah wannabe’ has the brains for political theory, hence inability to comprehend phenomenon of Islamism or even acknowledge term despite it being around in academia for over 30 years and used Islamists themselves. Gosh the standards must be low in Strathclyde.
Resistor – all English words are English constructions. Duh.
ps
doesn’t al-’islāmiyya just mean Islamic?
The Arabic is actually Islamiyyun. Just google the term and you will find a plethora of online resources which deal with definitions. But seriously are you really confused about such a well known and widely used term? Or maybe you support Islamist aims and thought it was the true Islam, hence the shock and deep disappointment.
I note that resistor refuses to confirm or deny that he is associated with Hizb ut-Tahrir.
Abu Wannabe Arab is correct in that the written Standard Arabic form would include the “un” suffix as a noun. However, of course, spoken Arabic has no truck with such grammatical niceties.
I would be interested in resistor’s response to Matthias Kuntzel’s statement that he rejects the term “Islamofascist” to describe Islamist ideology not because it is offensive, but because it does not capture the full character of the fascism that is the core component of Islamism.
I await with baited breath to discover that Kuntzel is a “close ally” of the Uzbek regime…
Incidentally, resistor, al-Ikhwaan Islamism is but one wrinkle on the Islamist face.
The exact quote from Kuntzel is worth repeating:
Islamism, anti-Semitism and the Political Left, http://www.matthiaskuentzel.de/contents/islamism-antisemitism-and-the-political-left
Actually, the generally held view is that it entered Western lexicons via French at some point in the 1950s as French scholars of Islamic movements began to study the influence and impact of groups such as the Egyptian-based Muslim Brotherhood on the anti-colonial movements in France’s African colonies. The French academics concerned drawing the term from the terms used by the Arabic-speaking Islamists to identify themselves.
‘I await with baited breath to discover that Kuntzel is a “close ally” of the Uzbek regime…’
What do you bait your breath with, maggots?
uh oh, there you go. resistor has reverted to type.
If I recall aright (and it has been a very long time since I read the book), a book on the Sufi published by Jonathan Cape in the mid 1960s in England in discussing the Sufi turuq of sub-Saharan Africa explicitly uses the term “Islamist” to describe those groups that were placing innovatory pressures on the traditional Sufi character of sub-Saharan African Islam.
Oh dear, resistor.
I’ll ask again:
Are you associated with Hizb ut-Tahrir?
Yes or no?
The silence is telling, resistor.
Of course there are a number of possible explanations for resistor’s sudden silence.
(a) He is associated with HT; but wants to portray himself as a “concerned citizen” (a common Islamist trick – goes with giving oneself a non-Islamic handle like “Dave”, incidentally).
(b) He would like to be associated with HT; unfortunately the HT cadres think he is too batshit crazy even for them and want nothing to do with him.
(c) He is actually associated with something like – ohhhh, let me think…. I know! – Neocon Europe; however, he doesn’t want to admit that because they are not exactly regarded as very reliable by anyone at the moment.
(d) He is a lone crank with a selection of well-thumbed bookmarked sites.
Difficult to tell, really.
Don’t give him too much credit Abu Faris, you need some basic grasp of geo-politics to join HT.
Does anyone know what Zeyno Baran’s religious beliefs are?
Does anyone know what Zeyno Baran’s religious beliefs are?
She’s of Turkish origin, so that probably makes her Muslim by background.
She is a Muslim – not that this is either here or there, actually.
Works such as this are what exercise the likes of Craig Murray and lead him to smear the author:
“Radical Islamists in Central Asia.” Current Trends in Islamist Ideology. Volume 2. Edited by Hillel Fradkin, Husain Haqqani and Eric Brown. November 2005.
Noorul
Does that make the slightest difference to the validity of her arguments?
No.
Move on.
Who cares? We are not mureeds of Zayno, all I know is that her analysis is spot on.
Zeyno Baran’s wikipedia entry is here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeyno_Baran
What is most interesting is that it does not record her as a friend/ally, nor even “close to” the Uzbek regime. What it does record is her acting as an advisor to the US government in its handling of Central Asian (specifically Uzbek) affairs in the light of the Aliyev dictatorship, the interests of the Russian Federation and other regional powers and the continued destabilisation of the region by Islamists such as HT.
In fact, Baran is one of the world’s leading experts on HT and its Central Asian operations. No wonder Hizbies and their supporters hate her so much.
Baran, of course, is also loathed as one of the most vocal advocates of the line that Islamists should *not* be officially engaged with in dialogue, however seemingly “soft” their Islamist line.
Yes that makes sense.
I think her analysis is completely correct. But this passage should be digested and understood by every government, media and “left-liberal” (I use that term in the loosest sense) commentator on Muslim opinion today:
Zeyno Baran’s incredibly important paper, “Radical Islamists in Central Asia”, (mentioned above) is available here:
http://www.currenttrends.org/research/detail/radical-islamists-in-central-asia
Please read it – especially for its utter demolition of Murray’s and his supporters’ myths concerning the May 2005 Andijan Massacre.
Slightly OT, but people might also want to look at:
“Aims and Methods of Europe’s Muslim Brotherhood”, Lorenzo Vidino (2006) in the same series produced by the Hudson Institute. The section dealing with the history of MB in Britain is especially valuable.
Available, here:
http://currenttrends.org/research/detail/aims-and-methods-of-europes-muslim-brotherhood
Again somewhat OT…
Have a look at the page for “The Spittoon” on Neocon Europe’s site, here:
http://www.neoconeurope.eu/The_Spittoon
Yes, that’s right. It *is* completely empty. The revision history (http://www.neoconeurope.eu/index.php?title=The_Spittoon&action=history) shows that Idrees Ahmad emptied the page of all content on 16 June, 2010 at 23:20.
I wonder why?
‘Zeyno Baran’s incredibly important paper, “Radical Islamists in Central Asia”, (mentioned above) is available here:
http://www.currenttrends.org/research/detail/radical-islamists-in-central-asia
Please read it – especially for its utter demolition of Murray’s and his supporters’ myths concerning the May 2005 Andijan Massacre.’
Hold the front page! Apologist for torture regime absolves said regime of murder.
It has already been pointed out to you, resistor, that asserting that Zeyno Baran is an “apologist for torture regime” is not only not true; but is also a definite attempt to smear rather than deal with the issues.
Incidentally, did you actually read the paper?
Can you?
Perhaps you should stick to the troofer and anti-semitic “NWO” sites you appear to haunt.
Idrees – you’re a real tit.
resistor
I would be fascinated to learn what you think of Hizb ut-Tahrir (especially given your consistent refusal to admit or deny your association with HT).
I should also like to know why it is you have as persistently refused to engage with any of the information that has been provided you on this thread, save by repeatedly smearing writers with already conclusively disproved allegations.
Do you actually read what others have written – or do you simply repeat the same pat slanders over and over?
What exactly do you see as your role on this thread? Since if you are seeking to “defend” a position, or even elaborate one, it is precious difficult to see how your strategy of smearing and mantra-like repetition of the same discredited themes over and over again are helping your cause one jot.
You see, apart from some very unreliable references to Craig Murray and assorted troofers, unbalanced conspiracy theorists and assorted apologists for clerical fascism, you have introduced absolutely nothing of any value or interest whatsoever.
But you know this, don’t you?
If it is Idrees, perhaps he might explain why he wiped Spittoon’s page from Neoconservative Europe’s website?
Oh dear, poor resistor. This rather goes to prove that resistor did *not* read the article – because this is exactly what Baran does *not* do!
What an absolute tit.
Baran wrote of the Andijan Massacre:
Thus Baran in no way is in the business of absolving anybody of murder.
I would recommend resistor actually reads articles before commenting on them in future.
What a tit.
Here’s a profile of Idrees (still fresh-faced from Dubai by the looks of it) in happier days:
http://www.atlanticfreepress.com/component/comprofiler/userprofile/Muhammada.html
With added photo of Idrees looking hard-yet-intellectual.
Here’s Idrees doing his bit for the Syrian regime *and* the hijab. Apparently the only “true oppression” in the Middle East is of guest workers from South Asia.
http://mondoweiss.net/2008/09/the-hijab-and-colonial-feminism.html
Yes Abu Faris. The problem with simpletons like him is that they view all politic events in terms of whether or not they fit into a pre-defined narrative, namely the evil west against noble Muslims. Hence when data that contradicts this narrative arises they go into denial or conspiracy mode. When they see Muslims attacking extremism they malfunction and thus hopelessly seek to portray them as ‘neo-cons’, which is short hand for we don’t know what to do with you so we will smear and ignore. Hence the usage of the term ‘Islamism” also causes them to malfunction since only Muslims can only possibly be the good guys. Confused, you should be.
‘It has already been pointed out to you, resistor, that asserting that Zeyno Baran is an “apologist for torture regime” is not only not true; but is also a definite attempt to smear rather than deal with the issues.’
The above makes you all apologists for torture regimes, America, Israel and Uzbekistan
ps I you’re having withdrawal symptoms, you chumps should go to
http://www.powerbase.info/index.php?title=The_Spittoon
Neocon Europe’s Spittoon page re-emerges on Powerbase:
http://www.powerbase.info/index.php?title=The_Spittoon
linked to there on the Neocon Europe site by Idrees Ahmad today (17 July 2010 at 11:47):
http://www.neoconeurope.eu/index.php?title=The_Spittoon&action=history
Now, here’s intriguing: the Spittoon page on Powerbase is subtly different from the old page on Neocon Europe. One example is the insertion of the following information:
Given that this article went up only on July 15; and given the revision history of the Powerbase page shows that only Idrees Ahmad has been tinkering with the page; and given “resistor’s” obsessing over this issue; and given the highly unusual targeting of this issue in particular by Idrees Ahmad as a revision of the webpage… I think we may safely conclude that “resistor” is most likely to be none other than Idrees Ahmad.
Idrees, it is you, isn’t it? Come on, don’t be shy.
Tell me, Idrees – why do you think that the only oppressed people in the entire Middle East are foreign guest workers from South Asia?
Well?
What do you think of HT, Idrees (I ask again)?
Resistor/Idrees
You clearly did not read Baran’s article before you chose to smear her as supporting the Uzbek government in that article (something which is, on examination of the article, actually completely untrue).
Tell me, is this the sort of rigour that post graduate students in your discipline are expected to display at Strathclyde – or is it just you who is guilty of such a serious breach of academic standards?
To put it another way:
With what seriousness do you expect the academic community to hold your work when you repeatedly make public statements about the work and interests of another academic that are possibly seriously damaging yet also may be shown to be completely untrue?
Further, you compound what may be actionable defamation of another academic’s character, good name and professional standing on the basis of not actually having read the materials that were made here at hand for you: materials that factually disprove your plausibly defamatory statements.
Oh deary me, resistor/Idrees.
… and you clearly still have not read the article, because you persist in your smear against people on this site as supporters of the Uzbek dictatorship (this means, of course, that you did not read my previous comment, where I made crystal clear my contempt for that regime).
But don’t let reality stand in the way of your smearing, Idrees: it has clearly not done so in the past.
How exactly does that follow?
How odd.
For those who do not know Idrees’ form, here is an article from last year on HP exposing the man:
http://hurryupharry.org/2009/08/10/muhammed-idrees-ahmad/
HP cite this earlier article on Idrees Ahmad on The Spittoon:
http://www.spittoon.org/archives/2192
ooh nice bit of bit of forensic work.
Back in 2008, Hizballah chief Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah made this comment:
“Some Arab regimes … are helping by all means to impose the conditions of surrender on the resistors of the American-Zionist project,” he said. “The 2006 July war occurred under Arab approval, even Arab request… They told the Israelis to get rid of Hizballah. They are doing the same thing in Gaza, they are asking the Israelis to destroy Hamas and the resistors.”
I wonder if our friend Idrees got his handle from a Nasrallah quote.
Ah but dictatorial regimes are okay if they are Islamist, you won’t find them criticising Iran or the Sudan who regularly murder their own citizens. Idrees you are not only thick as shit but also a hypocritical spineless knob.
You can follow Idrees’ ditherings, musings and howlers on his website:
http://fanonite.org/
In one of his articles he stores there he clearly identifies Pakistani Taliban as “Islamists” – meaning, of course, that young Idrees knows perfectly well what Islamism is.
In a highly sympathetic take on the Pakistani Taliban, Idrees writes:
All of which is BS, naturally, designed to portray the Pakistani Taliban as a legitimate fighting force of the Pashtun.
Idrees goes as far as to describe the Afghan Taliban glowingly as:
Again, utter tosh and motivated by a support for the lethal mix of Pashtun supremacism and Islamism that is Taliban ideology.
http://pulsemedia.org/2010/04/05/from-the-front-line-insurgent-pakistan/
So, resistor/Idrees, the question must be: what do you think “Islamism” means and why do you support racist religious bigots like the Taliban?
‘we may safely conclude that “resistor” is most likely to be none other than Idrees Ahmad.
Idrees, it is you, isn’t it? Come on, don’t be shy.’
I’d love to confirm or deny your speculations, but I can’t be bothered.
I’m just pleased that you think that the definition of Islamist is any group that has the term ‘Islamic’ in their name. That lets HuT off the hook chumps!
ps I think Islamist for you just means Muslims you don’t like.
“That lets HuT off the hook chumps! ps I think Islamist for you just means Muslims you don’t like”
Oh, so now you suddenly know what Islamist means, because you agree that Hizb are Islamist. Where do we say Hizb are Muslims we like?
Oh and by the way Idrees, was it you who posted the work of racist academic Kevin MacDonald to back up your anti-semitic screed on NeoconEurope? Do you think Kevin MacDonald’s work justifies your anti-semitism? In other words, is anti-semitism the kind of racism that is acceptable if you can package it as “anti-Zionism” and embellish it with the “research” of MacDonald?
Do you agree that the Uzbek regime carries out torture and extra-judicial killings?
Do you agree with Barry Rubin that the victims of the IDF on the Gaza flotilla were terrorists?
Idrees, is racism acceptable if it’s anti-semitism or anti-Bangladeshi bigotry?
Resistor – you’re just jumping from one issue to another without expressing any intention to resolve or get to the bottom of any, very childish really. I appreciate that you are on some form of anti-imperialist campaign but you do bark up the wrong tree most of the time. There aren’t just two sides to an argument.
PS I think for you neo-con is a term for anyone who disagrees with your simplistic and binary worldview
Chumps! Get it into your tiny brains, I’m not Idrees – not that will stop you believing I am. It’s clear you suckers would believe anything that suits you!
Meanwhile any chance of answering my questions:
Do you agree that the Uzbek regime carries out torture and extra-judicial killings?
Do you agree with Barry Rubin that the victims of the IDF on the Gaza flotilla were terrorists?
Both those questions have been addressed resistor. Have you not been following the thread?
Addressed, but not answered.
Yes or no?
Idrees, are you having trouble with reading-comprehension? You seem to have tripped over your own attempts at dissembling your nonsensical single-issue race-based politics. Save it for your contributions to NeoconEurope, Spinwatch, PulseMedia and fanonite!
Do you agree that the Uzbek regime carries out torture and extra-judicial killings?
Do you agree with Barry Rubin that the victims of the IDF on the Gaza flotilla were terrorists?
Simple questions, simple answers. Yes or no?
They have been answered Idrees, as you well know. But you haven’t answered these:
1) Is anti-semitism the kind of racism that is acceptable if you can package it as “anti-Zionism” and embellish it with the “research work” of the racist academic Kevin MacDonald?
2) Is racism acceptable if it is anti-semitism or anti-Bangladeshi bigotry?
3) Is NeoconEurope an Islamophobic site, since it attacks muslims such as Shiraz Maher, Ed Husain amongst others?
Simple questions, simple answers.
I’m not Idrees , but
1.No
2.No
3.No
Now your turn
1. Do you agree that the Uzbek regime carries out torture and extra-judicial killings?
2. Do you agree with Barry Rubin that the victims of the IDF on the Gaza flotilla were terrorists?
Read the thread, the answers are within.
No they are not. You do not answer a question asking another,
1. Do you agree that the Uzbek regime carries out torture and extra-judicial killings?
2. Do you agree with Barry Rubin that the victims of the IDF on the Gaza flotilla were terrorists?
What’s the problem, two little words – is it so difficult?
Yes they have been answered. I’m not answering your questions with another, I’m telling you to read the answers to those questions, which you have already asked, many times now, in the thread. Is that so difficult for you to understand?
Do you agree with Barry Rubin that the victims of the IDF on the Gaza flotilla were terrorists?
Of course!
IHH split in two – the German one has just been banned in Germany. The US Treasury is desperate to ban the Turkish one, and may do so. The French think they’re connected to Al Qaeda. And they also suppport Basayev, who masterminded the slaughter of the little children in Beslan.
http://hurryupharry.org/2010/07/16/obama-%E2%80%9Cislamic-democracy%E2%80%9D-and-ihh/
As the most numerous victims of Islamist groups are Muslims, you really shouldn’t be trying to shill for them.
Unless you’re a Muslim hater.
Sorry, I’ve gone back over the thread. Were the answers yes or no?
It would appear that “Islamist” for Idrees means “Muslims Idrees likes”. The list seems to include:
(1) Hamas
(2) Hezbollah
(3) Afghan Taliban
(4) Pakistani Taliban
Idrees has shown that he:
(a) does not read others’ contributions to this thread before smearing them
(b) does not read others’ articles before smearing them
Idrees – you really are not very bright, are you?
1. Do you agree that the Uzbek regime carries out torture and extra-judicial killings?
2. Do you agree with Barry Rubin that the victims of the IDF on the Gaza flotilla were terrorists?
Come on chump answer the questions, what have you got to hide?
Do they need to be?
Another chance
1. Do you agree that the Uzbek regime carries out torture and extra-judicial killings?
2. Do you agree with Barry Rubin that the victims of the IDF on the Gaza flotilla were terrorists?
Idrees, lolz
1. Do you agree that the Uzbek regime carries out torture and extra-judicial killings?
2. Do you agree with Barry Rubin that the victims of the IDF on the Gaza flotilla were terrorists?
You must agree that these have yes or no answers.
I’m assuming your answers are 1. No and 2. Yes
I’m right aren’t I?
You are right that you’re assuming alright!
So what’s the answer?
1. Do you agree that the Uzbek regime carries out torture and extra-judicial killings?
2. Do you agree with Barry Rubin that the victims of the IDF on the Gaza flotilla were terrorists?
Idrees
You claimed above that Baran’s position in the article to which I earlier referenced showed that she actively supported or excused mass killing on the part of the Uzbek regime. You wrote of the article:
I then showed, by a lengthy quotation from the very same article, that in no way can that article be construed as absolving the Uzbek regime of murder.
You have since systematically refused to deal with the fact that you have been caught:
(i) not actually reading an article before commenting upon it;
(ii) making up a pack of lies about the position of the author within that article.
Instead, you have made the astounding claim that because we do not agree with your “analysis” (read: pack of lies) about the content of the article this means that we support the Uzbek regime (together with the Americans and Israeli – although exactly how these latter states fit in to this is beyond me). Now, that is desperate reaching, Idrees. You smear and slander one person on the basis of absolutely no information whatsoever – and when you are caught out, you simply extend the same smear!
It has also been shown that you, Idrees, have here and elsewhere:
(i) Absolved the Islamist regime of Khartoum of its genocidal policy against its own peoples in Sudan;
(ii) Shown active support for the anti-Semitic, Holocaust denying clerical fascists of Hamas and Hizbollah;
(iii) Shown active support for the racist Islamists of the Afghan Taliban
(iv) Attempted to downplay the ambitions and have actively shilled for the Pakistani Taliban – the latter group you have identified as Islamist.
Further, you have on this thread asserted that the term “Islamist” is a “Western” construct of little meaning. Yet this is in stark contradiction to your active and explicit use of the term “Islamist” for the Pakistani Taliban that you deployed in an article published less than six months ago.
In all, you are intellectually dishonest, unable to form consistent or coherent arguments of any real value, you regard the truth of statements as less important than their propaganda value. You will stoop to the most despicable lies and smears of others in order to further your causes.
You are an active and quite disreputable supporter and promoter of various Islamist and jihadi groups.
Address the issues of this thread, Idrees – including the fact that you have been caught lying.
As an academic, presumably Idrees is less interested in the person of the interviewer and more interested in the content of the interview?
No.
Idrees does not read the articles or interviews. He simply contents himself with slandering the person who wrote them.
This is called the fallacy of argumentum ad hominem, of course.
In fact, Idrees’ contributions to this thread have simply been an extended ad hom argument.
It’s a technique that is extremely common now in the responses made to often uncomfortable and complicated dynamics by the “liberal/left” (and I use that term in the loosest form).
For example, in the Gita Sahgal/Moazzam Begg episode, it went like this:
‘Gita Sahgal was wrong to call BS on Amnesty because (1) she has attacked Islamists and jihadists who (2) are also the targets of “right-wing neocons” such as Nick Cohen and Martin Bright. Therefore (3) she must be a neocon and that makes (4) her analysis invalid’ and (5) relieves us of making some serious self-analysis of our own.
No mention of the fact that most of her most active supporters where Muslim Southasian human rights lawyers, whose support was totally ignored by Amnesty and the “neo anti-colonialists”.
And I’m not even going to go into the intellectual laziness and the inherent racism that that showed.
I can fully understand why resistor is resisting the temptation to admit that he is Idrees Ahmad. Universities are understandably exceptionally jealous of their reputation for academic excellence.
The sort of scandal associated with the discovery that one of their staff or students has wilfully slandered another academic’s work and person – especially when it can be shown that the person concerned did not even bother to read the text cited – would be something about which any university would take a very dim view.
Given the rather less than desired publicity that Professor Miller and his cohorts are presently generating for Strathclyde University, I (again) can fully understand why resistor refuses to admit what we all strongly suspect, that he is the Idrees Ahmad who works out of that university.
More damning evidence that Idrees can either not read or is fond of making things up as he goes along.
This is from the most recent edit of The Spittoon’s page on Powerbase made by Idrees Ahmad:
12:49, 17 July 2010
http://www.powerbase.info/index.php?title=The_Spittoon&diff=next&oldid=125336
Idrees Ahmad idiotically references Faisal’s comment:
http://www.spittoon.org/archives/7133#comment-19341
That’s this thread, above.
Let’s have a look at what Faisal actually wrote there:
In other words, it was not Faisal who made the linkage between terrorism and the flotilla; and Faisal was quoting Barry Rubin. Furthermore, Barry Rubin was not writing that the people killed on the flotilla were linked to terrorism – Barry Rubin was arguing that the IHH organisers of the flotilla were so linked.
In other words, resistor/Idrees Ahmad has quite deliberatelydistorted beyond all recognition a comment made by Faisal on this thread in order to further Idrees Ahmad’s agenda.
As Faisal pointed out in the comment:
Of course, it again rather suggests that resistor and Idrees Ahmad are one and the same as they both appear absolutely obsessed with this thread and it keeps popping up in Idrees Ahmad’s revisions of his Powerbase site’s page.
Oddly, Idrees has fallen silent again.
The fact that Muhammed Idrees Ahmed and Professor David Miller can write and publish fabrication like this is shocking:
This is pure calumny, never mind rigorously evidence-based!
It goes to show how skewed, biased and unprincipled the academics running the NeoconEurope, SpinWatch and Powerbase are. The fact that they are conferred academic credibility by association to Strathclyde University is outrageous.
‘Barry Rubin was not writing that the people killed on the flotilla were linked to terrorism – Barry Rubin was arguing that the IHH organisers of the flotilla were so linked.’
Outright falsehood.
Rubin claimed the people murdered by the IDF on the boat were ‘terrorists’.
http://rubinreports.blogspot.com/2010/07/what-really-happened-on-mavi-marmara.html
He wrote
‘Preparing to attack the soldiers, the terrorists took over the ship and ignored the orders of the captain to stop what they were doing.’
and
‘But here’s a critical point everyone has missed. Suppose the navy had planned for a violent resistance. The soldiers would have been more aggressive, perhaps crowd control gas would have been laid down first and they would have been ready to fight. Given the terrorists’ determination, more people might have been killed and Israel would have looked more aggressive.’
So do you agree with him that they were ‘terrorists’.
Ah, Idrees – but *you* claimed that it was Faisal who made this comment… and he did not. Idiotically, you even provided a link that *proved* it was not Faisal who made the comment.
I notice that you still do not want to discuss the fact that this is now twice you have been caught red-handed making things up on this thread.
I suspect that Strathclyde may move on this in the future. The wheels of academe do grind exceeding slow – but they do eventually move.
So you do agree with him that they were ‘terrorists’.
Your lunacy is looking pathetic now, Idrees. Are you trying for the sympathy vote? I’m certainly feeling a little sorry for you.
Idrees
You have now lied twice – and it has been proven that you have acted dsshonestly twice.
You have attributed to Baran a stance in an article – when the article actually showed she did not hold that position at all.
You have also published a statement quoting one person (Faisal), when you knew perfectly well that the quote was from quite another person.
You have published other articles denying the genocide in Sudan, supporting clerical fascism in Palestine and Lebanon, supporting the theocracy in Iran, supporting the Pashtun racist Islamists of the Taliban.
You have disingenuously here claimed that the term “Islamism” is a meaningless construct, when it can be shown that you yourself have used exactly this term to describe the position of the Pakistani Taliban.
Your conduct brings both your university into disrepute and your own standing as someone trustworthy and of good academic standing into considerable question.
This does not seem to faze you one iota. I wonder how long that will last.
According to the Powerbase: Etiquette page:
http://www.powerbase.info/index.php?title=Powerbase:Etiquette
Oh dear. What will powerbase’s owner, Professor David Miller think?
http://www.networksolutions.com/whois-search/powerbase.info
I suspect that Strathclyde may move on this in the future. The wheels of academe do grind exceeding slow – but they do eventually move.
Pfft. I’ll believe it when I see it, and meanwhile, I’m not holding my breath.
How silly of me to imagine a bunch of chumps like you could come up with a working definition of ‘Islamism’ when you can’t answer two simple questions. Still here goes,
1. Do you agree that the Uzbek regime carries out torture and extra-judicial killings?
2. Do you agree with Barry Rubin that the victims of the IDF on the Gaza flotilla were terrorists?
Utterly desperate…
Both questions having already been answered.
Honestly, you would have thought a doctoral candidate would be able to read.
Honestly, you would have thought a doctoral candidate would be able to read.
At Strathclyde? Shome mishtake shurely.
Liars
Neither question was answered.
1. Do you agree that the Uzbek regime carries out torture and extra-judicial killings?
2. Do you agree with Barry Rubin that the victims of the IDF on the Gaza flotilla were terrorists?
ps Idrees might have very good lawyers, do you?
Both questions *were* answered.
The only person who has maliciously confabulated (twice) on this thread has been *you*, Idrees.
The legal threats are pathetic, by the by.
Resistor – you have no right to demand answers to any questions since you have evaded so many questions yourself and been caught lying a number of times on a single thread.
Resistor – you have no right to demand answers to any questions.
That’s a convenient get of of jail card when you refuse to answer. You’ve got yellow stripes down your backs.
ps I am not Idrees, have never met him but would be willing to remove my mask of anonymity any time he decides to sue your asses off. You’re in a hole, keep digging.
pps
1. Do you agree that the Uzbek regime carries out torture and extra-judicial killings?
2. Do you agree with Barry Rubin that the victims of the IDF on the Gaza flotilla were terrorists?
Or are you too chicken-shit to answer?
I think this character needs banning now, this has gone on quite long enough. Now he is making idle threats.
How silly of resistor to think that when we were addressing comments to Idrees, we really meant him. Some people might read things into that. Of course, far be it from me to dispute resistor’s eventual (and long-awaited) denial that he is Idrees Ahmad.
I’m afraid so. Threats, insults and mindless trollery gets resistor banned.
I now accept that Idrees Ahmad and resistor are two completely different people – because resistor has said so.
I also acknowledge that it was very silly of me to believe even for a nanosecond that Idrees Ahmad could ever conceivably be mistaken for the utter moron, serial liar and total wanker known as “resistor” on this thread.
Thanks, Faisal, I think that is best.
I concur. This text from Powerbase shows that Idrees and ‘resistor’ are probably two different individuals but with very similar methods of political analysis.