The New Nation - Internet Edition

Most Muslim coverages negative

Researchers looking at the way British Muslims are represented by the media say they have found that most coverage is negative in tone.

A Cardiff University team behind the study looked at nearly 1,000 newspaper articles from the past eight years.

Two-thirds focused on terrorism or cultural differences, and much of it used words such as militancy, radicalism and fundamentalist.

The research was commissioned by Channel Four's Dispatches.

Dr Paul Mason, a member of the team, said the team looked at three areas.

They carried out a statistical analysis looking at types of stories and the way Muslims were described and the language used, the photographs used alongside the stories and they analysed the types of case studies used.

He said: "We looked at both nouns and adjectives and the way in which British Muslims were described.

91% of the articles about Muslims were found to be negative

"And we found the highest proportion of nouns used were about things like extremism, suicide bombers, militancy, radicalism - which accounted for over 35% of the adjectives used about British Muslims - fanatic, fundamentalist - those kinds of languages were used.

"And Islam was portrayed or constructed in the language as dangerous or backward or as a threat," he said.

The team found that since the attacks of 11 September 2001 in the United States and 7 July 2005 in London there had been an increase in stories about British Muslims and this peaked to more than 4,000 in 2006.

'Perceived threat'

Mr Mason added: "What you have to be careful of here is to watch the kind of generalisation of the very, very small number of people that are involved in political violence of any kind and the generalisation about Islam which is carried out by the newspapers.

"So following 9/11 and 7/7 of course there is a perceived threat from the public and the public are concerned about political violence.

"But it is wholly wrong to make what the newspapers do in the generalisation of those who carry out public violence to the whole of Islam and the whole of the British Muslim community."

He said there were concerns that journalists and editors may have sought to appeal to their own readership about some perceived threat to British unity or values.

"You get these inaccurate stories about this threat of there is going to be more mosques than churches, which is a complete nonsense.

"There are roughly 900 mosques and there are 42,000 churches, so this is a ridiculous report."

The Channel Four documentary, It Shouldn't Happen To A Muslim, investigated whether the 7/7 London bombings and the fear of terrorism had fuelled a rise in violence, intolerance and hatred against British Muslims.

Muslims 'under siege like Jews'

A government minister has warned that many British Muslims "feel like the Jews of Europe".

Dewsbury MP Shahid Malik, who is a minister for international development, stressed that he was not equating the Muslims' situation with the Holocaust.

But, in an interview to mark the 7 July bombings anniversary, he suggested that many Muslims felt "under siege".

This had the effect of segregating society and undermining efforts to deal with extremism and terrorism, he said.

Mr Malik, who revealed he had been the victim of religious hatred himself, made the comments in an interview for a Channel 4 Dispatches programme.

He said: "I think most people would agree that if you ask Muslims today what do they feel like, they feel like the Jews of Europe. "I don't mean to equate that with the Holocaust but in the way that it was legitimate almost - and still is in some parts - to target Jews, many Muslims would say that we feel the exact same way.

"Somehow there's a message out there that it's OK to target people as long as it's Muslims.

"And you don't have to worry about the facts, and people will turn a blind eye."

David Brown, from the Jewish Life Education Centre, said he did see some parallels between the persecution of Jews in the 20th Century and the contemporary treatment of Muslims.

"If you think about the earlier stages of what was going on in Europe in the later (19)20s and early (19)30s and the way that Jews were scapegoated and stereotyped, I can certainly understand a sentiment of that is going on for the Muslim community," he said.

The documentary - which investigates whether the fear of terrorism has fuelled a rise of violence, intolerance and hatred against British Muslims - will be broadcast on Monday to coincide with the third anniversary of the 7 July London bombings.

Mr Malik's constituency in West Yorkshire was home to 7 July suicide bomber Mohammad Siddique Khan.

The MP, who told how his car was firebombed, a car drove at him in a petrol station and said he receives regular hate mail, called for action to be taken to help Muslims feel accepted in society.

"It is critical we ensure that Britain's near two million Muslims have a sense of belonging and feel accepted, first and foremost because it is their right as British citizens, but secondly because it is vital in the fight against violent extremism in the name of Islam," he said.

"With some 2,000 people under surveillance because of the possibility that they might engage in terrorism the threat of an attack is a very real one and Muslims in communities up and down the country become indispensable in the fight against terrorism.

"Yet there is no doubt that many Muslims feel under siege in the media and in society and this siege mentality feeds into a wider victim narrative."

Mr Malik said the apparent persecution made it more difficult for people in positions of responsibility to persuade people to challenge the "small minority of extremists who call themselves Muslims".

(Source: BBC)

The post-Musharraf Pakistan

Syed-Mohsin Naquvi

Another military dictatorship has ended, this time peacefully by the shear force of public opinion.

Ever since Pakistan was created, the armed forces have looked at the driving seat with great ambition. As early as 1951 one Major-General Akbar Khan aspired to take over government. His plans were found out. He was prosecuted and went to Jail.

However, that did not deter another General only seven years later to usurp democratic government. That was Ayub Khan. He actually is the main culprit in the latest saga. The public is equally to blame for that. Because, everyone, even today considers Ayub Khan as a hero.

Ayub Khan created a fraud of an election. He stood against Fatima Jinnah. She was called MAADAR-E-MILLAT. But the public could not find enough wherewithal to defeat the dictator in favour of the MAADAR-E-MILLAT.

The next inline was Gen. Yahya. He was a drunkard, a womanizer and a fool of the highest order. He conspired with ZAB to dismember the country and succeeded in doing that.

The country should have gone through a process of catharsis, but it did not. No lessons were learned. ZAB, the destroyer of Pakistan became a national hero.

Next came Zia-ul-Haq, the infamous butcher of the Black September in Jordan. He considered himself Khaleefat-ul- Muslimeen. The country went along with him. He created the bleakest political precedent in Pakistan's history by hanging the leader he had deposed. The whole world protested against that action. But the Pakistani public sat there supinely.

The intervening years saw a succession of civilian governments, each failing in turn due to its own internal wranglings, selfish motives, incompetence and ineptness.

Then came Musharraf. The whole country welcomed him as the savior.

If we compare Musharraf with all the other military dictators, he would probably rate the most moderate and reasonable.

Ayub Khan had killed all political institutions. He had persecuted his opponents and all those he feared, both legally by subverting the Justice system as well as by using strong-arm tactics. Many opponents of the military regime were liquidated. But it was done so quietly that many cases are still hidden. When one quarter of Karachi voted for Fatima Jinnah openly, his machinery imported hundreds of men from the NWFP and let them lose at that area of Karachi for looting and plundering that went on for three days. The police would just stand by on the sidelines and watch. Ayub Khan oppressed students and university teachers. Students were beaten by the police on the streets of Karachi, even school children of ages 12-14. This is my own eyewitness report. Ayub Khan had gagged the press. All media worked to serve his person. He had to be removed by the force of the public opinion - that public opinion which had surfaced in East Pakistan. The west Pakistanis supported him all along.

Yahya Khan's time was limited. He did not have much time to create any large mayhem . However, he was able to bring the greatest disaster to Pakisatn as a nation - A humiliating defeat at the hands of an Indian army, a record 90,000 prisoners of war and the loss of one half of the country . What he had not done as a dictator, all that was done by ZAB Eventhough he was a democratically elected ruler.

When ZAB's daughter came to power, all she wanted was revenge from the Army for her father's murder. She failed miserably as an elected PM.

Zia-ul-Haq's period will probably be rated in Pakistan history as the bleakest. Minorities were openly oppressed, tortured and exterminated. Women's rights were thrown out the window and the education system went through the drain. The Madarsah system flourished and with it religious extremism and Talibanization. God removed him from the scene in one of His strangest ways. But the monster of religious extremism and corruption he had created persisted and it was bequeathed to the nation in the form of Nawaz Shareef.

Shareef turned out to be thoroughly corrupt and a master of nepotism and favouritism. The war between Punjab and Sind intensified during his reign. Much as the hatred in East Pakistan against the West Pakistan institutions and people had built up during Ayub regime, the hatred against the institutions and people of Punjab has built up among the Sindhis and Baluchis during Shareef's regime.

As compared to that, Musharraf, much as he was an illegitimate ruler, did try to fix many things. But the problems had grown so much and they had intensified to such a degree that it wasn't one man's job any more. He did do the right thing by washing his hands off the Taliban and joining in with the west to eliminate terrorism and religious extremism. Musharraf provided much greater freedom to press. He let his opponent go into exile instead of trying him in a court of law and punishing him for all the wrongs he had committed. He never bothered the institutions of higher education like Ayub had done. His greatest folly was staying on longer than was necessary and reasonable. He got on people's nerves. He should have held general elections much sooner. If he had allowed legitimate elections to take place back in 2005 or 2006, we would have a different set of people in the assembly and the senate. And he would have been able to go back to the barracks in his uniform gracefully. But that was his stupidity. He would pay for that in the pages of history. One thing si very clear though, Musharrf is the only leader who has not been accused so far of embezzlement of public funds. Both Zardari and Nawaz Shareef make me laugh when they call Musharraf corrupt.

The Pakistani people must realize that by punishing an ambitious army general in a court of law and sending him to jail did not deter the later generals to usurp legitimate democratic power. That formula did not work, so leave it aside.

What is wrong with the society? Why do people, after every few years, crave for the army to come back and take over the society?

The army is the only organized institution in the country. People are trained in the army in a certain way. They cannot, of course, work as university vice-chancellors, educators and reformers, but they are trained managers and they can build roads, run institutions such as water supply and energy generation plants. That is why, during military regimes services do improve - but at the expense of democratic institutions. One other thing about the army is that the soldier is conditioned to protect the borders of his country. That becomes his second nature. So, when a soldier goes wrong, he can become greedy, inefficient and Zaalim. But he never stops to remain patriotic. On the other hand, a businessman and an industrialist will always think of taking his money and running with it to the farthest corners of the globe for a better opportunity.

For an army general, Musharraf had shown exceptional skills in diplomacy and politics. But that was Musharraf. Once again, I hate military take-overs and I believe earnestly in a democratic system. This is just analysis for reflection.

What is missing from the society is proper education at the primary and secondary level. There is no training in schools in civic responsibility, respect for the law-and-order institutions and a sense of belonging to the society. The average Pakistani always looks at the society belonging to the government - he does not feel himself/herself a part of the society. A part of that feeling has been inherited from the period of the British rule. The average Pakistani is more inclined in his daily life to break the rules rather than obey them. These things have to be fixed by education.

Lack of education at school level has killed any hope for moderation and the flowering of true pluralism, tolerance and acceptance of the "others." People are easily excited into violence on religious grounds and sectarian hatred.

Shia minorities are being killed in large numbers in the Kurram agency of Pakistan. And it is not just killings, it is real butchery with a lot of savagery. They do not just go and shoot people, they chop their arms and legs off and let them bleed to death. Why do people belonging to the same nationality and same faith do this to each other? No Pakistani is willing to stop and think on that. The press has been conspiratorially mum on such news.

What is the new elected government doing about such things? So far nothing.

Nearly 150,000 people have been transported from the NWFP and the FATA areas to be resettled in Karachi. Why? The new authorities want to re-organize the demographics of the country. They want to create a new seat in the assembly based on Pashtoon nationalism to counter the MQM in Karachi.

In Pakistan no one loves Karachi and her people but every one benefits from both. Karachi is the biggest tax-base in the country, it provides the largest market for all goods, it provides the best educational services to the society. But every ruler wants to loot Karachi. Now they are preparing for a new war on the city and the people of Karachi.

If that is how the new government plans to govern the country then we cannot stake much on the future of Pakistan.

Musharraf has left as a very unpopular leader. He may be maligned in the pages of history. But if the current situation is any indicator, years later, Pakistan public may actually, stop, look back and reflect on the Musharraf period.

Bid to sue UN for Srebrenica fails

Fatema G Valji

On July 10, a Dutch district court of the Hague rejected legal action brought by family members of the victims of the 1995 Srebrenica massacre to sue the UN for failing to protect the victims. Accepting the UN's claim to legal immunity, judge Han Hofhuis declared that hearing the case did not fall within the Dutch court's jurisdiction.

Previously, several UN reports have criticised the UN and Dutch failure to prevent in the worst case of genocide in Europe since World War II.

In April 1993, the town of Srebrenica was established a 'safe area' by UN Security Council Resolution; some 400 UN Dutch troops were charged with Bosnian protection.

However, in July 1995, Srebrenica was overrun by Serb forces and the besieged Bosnians became victims of a mass killing spree. Over 20,000 refugees fled to the UN base at Potocari, seeking safety under the protection of UN troops. Between 11-15 July, Serb forces summarily executed thousands of men, indulged in mass rape and forcibly deported approximately 25,000 women, children and elderly.

Last year, a class action suit against the Dutch Government and UN was filed by the 'Mothers of Srebrenica,' representing 6,000 family members of victims of the Srebrenica genocide.

Lawyer for the survivors, Axel Hagedorn, has stated that he will appeal the court's decision. "The court ruled that the UN has immunity, even if a genocide has happened, and that is in our opinion exactly what you can't accept…You have to change the jurisdiction on this, because otherwise you accept genocide," he declared.

The verdict came as two other landmark civil cases against the Dutch state continue.

In unprecedented civil action taken against Dutch troops, Hassan Nuhanovic and the family of Rizo Mustafic accused the Dutch Government of allowing Serb forces to murder his family in the Serb slaughter that claimed some 8,000 Bosnian lives.

During the hearing, Nuhanovic, a UN interpreter who survived the 1995 massacre, accused Dutch troops of expelling his father, mother and younger brother from the Potocari base to which they had fled for sanctuary. All 3 were then killed by Serb forces.

"Dutch battalion members in Srebrenica in the Dutch base expelled my family and handed them over to the Serbs. I saw it with my own eyes," stated Nuhanovic.

In a Reuters interview prior to the hearing, Nuhanovic clarified that, as a UN interpreter he was allowed to remain in the base because he carried a UN identity card. "If I had not done this, I would not be able to go on with my life. I am seeking justice," he said.

In court, Zegveld argued that the UN Dutch Battalion (Dutchbat) violated its mandate by handing over those under its protection, to be brutally killed by Serbian forces. "Dutchbat was professionally charged with the safety of its civilians…They had a humanitarian assignment, but they acted contrary to their instructions," she told the panel of judges at the Hague's district court in the Netherlands.

In a separate civil claim, the family of Rizo Mustafic, testified that Dutch troops evicted him and thousands of other Bosnians from the base to be captured by Serb forces.

On July 13, 1995, Mustafic, his daughter, wife and son were evacuated from the Dutchbat base. While his family survived, Mustafic was murdered along with approximately 8,000 others who were executed and dumped into mass graves. Like many other victims, Mustafic's remains have yet to be found.

While the Dutch court has closed the case filed by 'The Mothers of Srebrenica,' without ruling on UN and Dutch liability, the Mustafic and Nuhanovic trials against the Dutch state continue.

Book review: State-religion tensions in Turkey

Religion and Society: New Perspectives from Turkey. Ali Bardakoðlu, Turkish Presidency of Religious Affairs, Ankara, 2006, 150 pp.

Religion and Society: New Perspectives from Turkey addresses the administration of religious affairs, state-religion relations, secularism, democracy and Islam and freedom of religion in modern Turkey. Professor Ali Bardakoðlu, a scholar working on Islam for more than twenty years, shares his views and the insights he has drawn from his tenure as Turkey's President of Religious Affairs. The mere existence of this office (Diyanet) as a public institution in a secular state has been a contested issue since the establishment of Turkey, and is still widely debated. Given his vested interest in the position of the Diyanet and its role in society, the author begins his book with a discussion of the structure, mission, and function of this institution.

The author asserts that the Diyanet is not a new invention in the history of Turkish religious and political culture. Rather, it was established during the Republican period, and, ironically, continued the Ottoman experience to a certain extent; however, the state now took responsibility for the organisation and administration of religious affairs via the office of the ªeyhülislam.

As the continuation of the Diyanet indicates, the state in modern Turkey also claims the responsibility for the organisation and administration of religious affairs.

Today, the Diyanet has a mandate for the administration of religious affairs confined to Islam. The organisation of mosques and the role of informing people about Islam are also primary responsibilities of the Diyanet. It is frequently criticised as being controlled by the state since it is a public institution and its President is appointed by the Government. Bardakoðlu challenges such claims and argues that the Diyanet emerged as a response to a social need for the organisation of religious affairs and in order to provide religious services. For him, the existence of the Diyanet does not contradict the principles of a secular state. Instead, he argues that although the Diyanet is part of the state machinery, it remains an independent and civil institution as far as implementation of its mandate is concerned.

One of the most frequently asked questions these days is whether Islam and democracy can co-exist, and, by extension, whether Muslim societies can nurture the rule of law, political participation, and democratic governance. There is no straightforward answer to this question since there are many Muslim countries with different political cultures and perceptions of religion. Bardakoðlu focuses on the Turkish experience to show the factors that have shaped perceptions and the practice of religion in Turkish society.

He argues that there is a "moderate understanding of Islam" in Turkey. He attributes the development of such a perception to several factors: the tradition of co-existence with different faith communities and cultural groups in Anatolia for many centuries, which promoted peaceful life styles, recognition of diverse religious interpretations and differences in Islamic tradition, and to the tradition of mystical thought in Islam, which reinforces tolerance, as well as to the experience of the last two hundred years in Turkish history, including modernisation, legal, educational and constitutional reforms, which included the establishment of a Republic and parliamentary democracy.

The author argues that harmony between Islam and democracy is sustainable in Turkey and that a democratic culture helps promote healthy religious diversity in a democratic society. He concludes his arguments on Islam and democracy by reminding his readers, "Muslims should be conscious of the fact that a democratic culture and democratic values do not contradict Islam."

In the popular media and in populist political rhetoric, Islam is often associated with violence, intolerance, and oppression of differences. More specifically, Islam is blamed for imposing restrictive principles which are used to justify the violation of freedom of religion and belief. Bardakoðlu challenges these clichés which tend to essentialise Islam.

Based on theoretical principles derived from the textual sources and historical experiences, he shows that Islam recognises and protects religious liberty. He argues, "There are certain principles that guarantee the freedom of religion in Islam. The foremost of these is the principle that religious belief must be based upon free choice." Bardakoðlu refers to the culture of co-existence and its expression in the Ottoman state and modern Turkey as meaningful and relevant experiences.

This timely work provides an excellent introduction to one of the most interesting and fascinating countries among the Muslim nation states. It shows how Turkey differs from others as far as state-religion relations and debates on secularism and Islam are concerned. Written by an authority on Islam as President of the Diyanet, Religion and Society: New Perspectives from Turkey makes a valuable contribution to the current debate about Turkey's negotiations with the European Union for a full membership on the one hand, and the best means of improving its relations with the Muslim world on the other.

(Source: Muslim News. Talip Küçükcan, SETA Foundation )