Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Our Islamic Fifth Column
City Journal ^ | Autumn 2001 | Farrukh Dhondy

Posted on 11/05/2001 7:16:37 AM PST by aculeus

My first name gives rise to confusion. It's a common Muslim name, so people I meet, or who read my byline, assume that I am of the faith.

Most recently, in response to a column I write for an Indian paper, in which I confessed to having met a few terrorists in my time and attempted to analyze their limited grasp of the world, I received a lot of hate mail. Some of the e-mailers clearly thought I was a Muslim apostate and reminded me that the penalty for that sin was death. One, who signed himself Zahir Pathan, was more strident. He graphically said I was a Muslim sin cojones, as Hemingway would have put it, because I failed to face up to what had to be done. He went on to say, presumably as part of what needed doing, that preparations were under way for the bombing and destruction of Bombay. His tone was swaggering, his e-mail rage directed against one who had, he thought, reneged on Islam.

I haven't. I was born a Zoroastrian, in India, a descendant of refugees from the Muslim conquest of Iran by Arab armies in the seventh century. The India of my childhood was full of superstition, of faith in myriad manifestations of the unseen, but even then one knew that Islam and its followers were distinctive. From the Shia mosque in Poona, where I grew up, there emerged every Moharrum night, the end of Ramzaan, a procession of chanting Muslims in black shirts, cutting themselves with chains and little daggers strung together, in frenzied and bloody penance through the night—a demonstration of a belief beyond the threshold of pain. They believed that theirs was the only creed, that their book was dictated by God, that Hindus were idolators and the worshipers of trees and monkeys, that Zoroastrians were fire-worshiping infidels, and that Christians were an ancient military enemy. Their faith seemed to me even at the time to exclude what it had not invented.

In the searching years of adolescence, when we all tried to come to terms with the great ideas of democracy, liberalism, the possibilities of life embodied in literature, only the pious Muslims among us seemed impervious to taking part in the passionate arguments. They seemed to have an inbuilt view of the world and of history, formed and sanctioned by the Quran. Even then I wondered: if they would not assimilate the world, how would the world assimilate them?

I arrived in Britain at 20, just when the Muslim migration there, principally from India and Pakistan, was under way. The immigrants were leaving circumstances of grinding poverty and little hope to better themselves materially. They took it for granted that they would be afforded the right to work and live within the cultural and religious freedom that Britain's liberal civilization guaranteed.

During my years in England, I acquainted myself with various groups from the subcontinent who were part of this migration. Most were from peasant backgrounds. The Bangladeshis came to London's East End and found work in the garment industry. The Mirpuris, who came from the part of Kashmir that Pakistan occupied, went to work in the old cotton and woolen mills of Yorkshire, Lancashire, and the Midlands. They cohered around the mosque, the central symbol of discipline in their lives, and around the small shops that sold the spices, the lentils, the halal meat that made these towns feel like home. The first generation that arrived imagined making some money quickly and, some time in the future, returning home. That future never arrived. Their children and grandchildren have now grown up as Lancastrians and Yorkshiremen—Muslim Lancastrians and Yorkshiremen.

These antiquated mills went out of business in the 1980s. The population—white, brown, and black—had no jobs. The general depression of the mill-and-mosque towns reflected itself in run-down, restless schools, without ambition or excellence. The activists and ambulance chasers of the Left demanded more multiculturalism in these schools—which gave cover to the ex-peasant community's demands for the Islamization of the schools' ethos and curriculum. They demanded—successfully, in some cases—that girls and boys be taught separately, that girl pupils cover their heads and limbs, that the schools serve halal meat, that Arabic and the Quran be taught, that British history classes depict Britain primarily as an exploitative, demonic nation. Principals who resisted these demands were branded racists.

In 1989 came the most significant divide in the multicultural history of Britain: the Rushdie affair, which uncovered a multicultural fifth column, whose literary criticism entailed book burning and death threats. The British Muslim community echoed the call of the Ayatollah Khomeini to hunt down and kill the writer. There were denunciations of Rushdie in every mosque by mullahs and crowds who had only handled a copy of the book to burn it. Not one mullah—not one—raised a voice in support of the principle of freedom of creativity; no mullah ventured the opinion that the fatwa was wrong or against Islamic teaching. Though the supposedly liberal Muslim commentators whom the British press retains were not in favor of the death sentence, none would extend himself to a defense of the book. In Bradford, an ugly book-burning rally was led by one Kalim Siddiqui, who was forced to admit to an investigating press that he and his operation were financed by the government of Iran. He subsequently set up a "Muslim Parliament of Britain," which professed to dispense laws and promulgate rules for the Muslims of Britain.

In the first week of the fatwa against Rushdie and his book, I appeared on a television panel. Among the Muslim panelists, all of whom favored condemning the book, were two zealots: the same Kalim Siddiqui; and Yusuf Islam, the Muslim convert pop singer of Greek Cypriot origin formerly known as Cat Stevens. The moderator asked if, in my role as a commissioning editor of Channel 4 UK, I would contemplate turning The Satanic Verses into a film. I said that I would judge the cinematic merits of the script, and that no other consideration would rule it out. Kalim Siddiqui and Yusuf Islam snarled, warning that the sentence of death on Rushdie would extend to all those who forwarded his book in any way.

We had all come from London to Manchester to record the "discussion." The producer had a word with me when it was over: would I feel more comfortable if he changed my hotel, away from the threateners and their entourage?

Before the fatwa and the Muslim solidarity it generated, the race industry that arrogates to itself the leadership of immigrant opinion had assumed that, with a few concessions, and with some exotic and welcome additions to British cuisine, the new immigrant communities would be assimilated into British life with hiccups but not convulsions. The fatwa affair—when the entire Islamic community united behind the condemnation—should have put an end to the idea. This was one bridge that Muslim immigrants were not willing to cross.

In fact, after the Rushdie affair, Muslim spokesmen and their supporters demanded that the law of blasphemy, which still existed in Britain, be extended to apply to Islam. The Muslim clerics would then determine what was blasphemous. Thankfully, nothing came of it. The book burners and novelist killers, recognizing only one book as the fount of truth, cannot countenance a literary tradition, established through centuries of struggle against censorship and obscurantism, that allows the sacred to be prodded critically, even to be profaned. The liberal, democratic freedom to think and speak that the West enjoys has been won in part through this prodding and provocation. That freedom allows people to vilify a writer, to demonstrate their antagonism to his fiction, even to burn a few books. But it does not bestow the freedom to call for the execution of anyone.

The affair of the Verses demonstrated that successive generations of Muslim immigrants to Britain, despite their broad Midland accents and their (admittedly rather curtailed) education in the Western intellectual tradition, identified themselves primarily as Muslims. They declared their allegiance not to the traditions that allowed them to settle, to worship, to have the Prince of Wales visit their mosques and proclaim himself their protector, but rather to a religious philosophy that emanates from a different place and different age.

It was in the early eighties that this identity with a freshly militant universal Islam emerged as a politically distinct force in Britain. While the earlier generation of Muslim immigrants had gone their way without bothering to adopt Western dress, their children grew up wearing Air Jordan sneakers, baggy trousers, and Hilfiger tops, in imitation of American blacks. The great cliché of their generation, enshrined in endless articles and now in facile novels, is that they were caught between two cultures. Some of these second- and third-generation Muslim Britons resolved this tension by adopting the politics, philosophy, and culture of fundamentalist Islam. On college campuses, some students began to dress in what they imagined was a fashion decreed by an Islamic identity. They reformed their lives, their speech, their friendships. They assumed a mission and characterized the evolution of civil liberties—the gains of feminism for instance—as immorality. Their puritan disgust for the West's popular culture and sexual license, their support for laws that decree the stoning to death of adulteresses and the beheading of apostates, became the profession of an allegiance alienated from the Britain that allows them the freedom to assume and argue these positions.

All these new zealots were brought up in a traditional Muslim way by parents whose religious views were generally orthodox but not extremist. But in the 1980s, a new Muslim leadership of mullahs inspired and paid for by various Islamic powers around the world was entering the country and setting up bases in Britain, thanks to an immigration-law loophole that allows religious personnel open-ended permission to stay. Iranian money, Saudi money from worldwide foundations for the promotion of Islam, was establishing mosques and setting up madrasas, schools that purvey primitive religious instruction and teach the Quran by rote. Adolescents attracted to this new radical preaching, young people whose childhood religious observances had already set them apart from their British contemporaries, came under the domination of a stricter observance with the allure of an ideology. The new mullahs were offering a single-minded, luminously simple explanation of the cosmos and promising membership in an organization that would dominate the world. "We carry Islam as a political belief, a complete system," says Omar Bakri Muhammad, a poisonous cleric who runs a London Muslim organization. "We don't carry Islam as a religion. It's an ideology."

If you prostrate yourself to an all-powerful and unfathomable being five times a day, if you are constantly told that you live in the world of Satan, if those around you are ignorant of and impervious to literature, art, historical debate, and all that nurtures the values of Western civilization, your mind becomes susceptible to fanaticism. Your mind rots.

[Click on the site for the remainder.]


TOPICS: Editorial; Front Page News; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-53 next last
To: father_elijah
WOW!! This one is above and beyond!! Thanks for the ping!
21 posted on 11/05/2001 9:56:22 AM PST by dennisw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: ipaq2000; Lent; veronica; Sabramerican; beowolf; Nachum; BenF; monkeyshine; angelo...
WOW!! This one is above and beyond!!
22 posted on 11/05/2001 9:56:56 AM PST by dennisw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: dennisw
Eye-opening read!
23 posted on 11/05/2001 10:01:09 AM PST by Lent
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: TopDog2; harpseal; Travis McGee; Victoria Delsoul; Spirit Of Truth; Manny Festo...
growl!


24 posted on 11/05/2001 10:02:40 AM PST by Sabertooth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Lent
Being from India, the author has got their number. He understands the Muslim mindset more than any nice naive Englishman or American ever could. Just like VS Naipaul.

Author has been well acquainted with Muslim aggressiveness for longer than he ever wanted to be.

25 posted on 11/05/2001 10:08:18 AM PST by dennisw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: dennisw
Very interesting. Very.
26 posted on 11/05/2001 10:48:02 AM PST by Nachum
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: dennisw
Thanks, neighbor- I'm busier than a cat on a hot tin roof right now with housework, so don't have much to say, but I'll add this to the next DUBOB update. Americans need to read this stuff!
27 posted on 11/05/2001 10:50:36 AM PST by backhoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: dennisw
Scary. But to speak out against a Muslim invasion of the West is to invite charges of racism and xenophobia.

They come to the West using our liberal immigration laws knowing full well they will impose their laws on us as soon as they are able...but if we point this out, or any view contrary to the "Islam is Peace" line, we are attacked and villified.

28 posted on 11/05/2001 11:01:02 AM PST by GuillermoX
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: aculeus
The problem exists in the U.S. to an even greater extent. About 80% of the mosques in the U.S. are financed by the Saudis, and follow the fundmentalist Wahhabi tradition. It's almost as retrogressive as the Taliban variety of the Muslim religion.

By the way, if you want to know if your local mosque is Wahhabi, just walk in and look around. Wahhabi mosques are NOT intensely decorated on almost every surface as are most non-Wahhabi Sunni or Shi'ite mosques. They are relatively plain.

29 posted on 11/05/2001 11:07:16 AM PST by Magician
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: aculeus
I am sure we all get it, or let me say, any thinking person gets it. Now what to do about it becomes the next question, I know this, government worldwide will not only do nothing productive about the problem, but will hinder any solution. Most are to busy disarming their citizens to pay attention to much else.
30 posted on 11/05/2001 11:09:08 AM PST by MissAmericanPie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: aculeus
A very interesting post, and worth reading all the way through.

I question his idea of a "reformation" of Islam as being the solution, however. The Christian "Reformation," including not only Protestantism but the Catholic movement known as the Counter-Reformation, basically built on things that were inherent in Christianity from the beginning, but had been somewhat obscured in the course of centuries of struggles between absolutist secular rulers and the rulers of the Church.

Free will and individual conscience? These things were part of Christianity from the very beginning. One of the most significant steps towards the equality of women, for example, was the fact that under Christianity, women had to give their consent to a marriage, and could not be married against their will. In practice, of course, they often were, especially those who were members of royal families, who seem to have been doled out to other royal houses purely in order to form alliances. But the principle was there, and was very important.

Islam has never had this principle of sovereign individuality; remember, even the name of the religion means "submission." In contrast, Christianity was spread by missionaries who suffered themselves (the martyrs), not by "missionaries" who made others suffer (as Islam has always done). Christianity was not based on the sword, either before or after the Reformation; Islam has been that way since its very beginnings.

In short, I'm not sure that any reform is possible. Perhaps ignoring it, as secularized Muslims do, is about the only solution, if one still wants to consider oneself Muslim. Or maybe it's time for these people to start searching out other possibilities.

31 posted on 11/05/2001 11:26:16 AM PST by livius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: aculeus
Great post! Thanks for finding it.
32 posted on 11/05/2001 11:52:10 AM PST by white trash redneck
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MissAmericanPie
I'll bump THAT!

Most are to busy disarming their citizens to pay attention to much else.

33 posted on 11/05/2001 11:55:01 AM PST by packrat01
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

Comment #34 Removed by Moderator

To: aculeus
....and that Christians were an ancient military enemy.

That's okay. I'm thinking of an old enemy also. The one they represent.

35 posted on 11/05/2001 12:05:20 PM PST by He Rides A White Horse
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sabertooth
"The vast number of Muslims in Britain and the U.S. who are educated in Western disciplines and culture, who live by the demands of Western ways of work, are driven by a conflict between the prescriptions of Islam and the freedom to think, speak, and associate, and to be protected by democracy and Western jurisprudence. These Western Muslims will have to resolve their dilemma by seeding the reformation in Islam.

"True, passages in the Quran urge believers to "kill those who join other gods with God wherever ye shall find them" and to wage war on neighboring infidels. But a hundred suras of the Quran also enjoin the faithful to tolerance: one specifically says that killing one innocent person is akin to the murder of the whole world."

That depends on who the "innocent" person is. To a Muslim, a terrorist is an innocent person.
36 posted on 11/05/2001 12:06:43 PM PST by Victoria Delsoul
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Anamensis
Radical Islam is the anti-Christ!!! imho
37 posted on 11/05/2001 12:08:30 PM PST by Ann Archy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Victoria Delsoul
To a Muslim, a terrorist is an innocent person.

Unless, of course, that terrorist is a Zionist. ;^)


38 posted on 11/05/2001 12:21:01 PM PST by Sabertooth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: MaxwellWolf
How can it be forwarded to all the journalists and pundits who are taking out of their rearends? I don't know how to do it--does anyone have an email list of journalists and anchors and other such people who should read this?
39 posted on 11/05/2001 12:33:17 PM PST by IceGirl2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Sabertooth
Right! ;-)
40 posted on 11/05/2001 12:33:48 PM PST by Victoria Delsoul
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-53 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson