A guilty finding in the mosques
A shudder went down my spine when I read "Guilty: first Scots Islamic terrorist facing 15 years" (The Herald, September 18). A guilty finding in the Scottish court must be accepted as a guilty finding in the mosques. It is unacceptable and offensive to me, as a Scot who happens to be Muslim, to dodge outright condemnation of any individual who is convicted of having terrorist intentions. Acceptance of this verdict demands a significant response from us all.
The response of some that Siddique was "seeking answers on the internet" or that the internet is the "big bad monster" just doesn't make sense to me. The new generation of Scots are stuck between two extremes: acceptance of all that is expected of them from so-called Muslim leaders, which is, by and large, a highly-politicised Islamic view, and, on the other side, total rejection, leaving them in an identity crisis and vulnerable from all avenues. What we need are Scots who are a happy medium between the two, spiritual and progressive. And so maybe we need fewer platitudes and more expressions of seeking the beautiful in Islam through the beautiful landscape, culture and promise of our dear Scotland. This begs the question: are our Muslim leaders and mosque imams up for this challenge?
Amanullah De Sondy,
School of Divinity,
University of Glasgow.
After some 17 months of painstaking police work it has now been shown that a young Scots man, 19 when arrested, is not a member of a terrorist organisation, was not directly involved in any terrorist plot, does not have a bomb or bomb-making equipment, has no gun and has harmed no-one. Oh, yes, and it cost us more than £1m of our money to prove this.
We have learned that this teenager spent lots of time on the internet, looked at some things many adults may not have approved of, and held some radical, possibly extreme, political opinions. That sounds rather like a lot of teenagers I have known who turned out to be well-adjusted adults. Apart from the internet, which wasn't around, I recognise myself, and my earlier political friends.
A young boy who hurt nobody but himself and his family has been found guilty of being a daft boy. The problem, for there is one, lies not with daft kids, the folk of Alva or Islam. It lies with us for allowing politicians to make laws that make immaturity illegal.
Archie Drummond,
16 Willison Crescent,
Tillicoultry.
There is nothing Islamic about terrorism. The Muslim community is constantly asked to disavow these acts, and we are not helped when the language of a Scots Islamic terrorist is used, linking us right back to it. Siddique was not convicted of any crime of "Islamic terrorism", but offences related to terrorism. As Siddique's defence team highlighted, however, arguably only a Muslim would face the terrorism Acts for what he did.
Osama Saeed,
31 Arlington Street,
Glasgow.
© All rights reserved. Reproduction in whole or in part without
permission is prohibited.
Posted by: Myrmillo, Batavadorum on 12:11am Wed 19 Sep 07
Was this warped and potentially extremely dangerous man on his way to commit or assist in the perpetration of an atrocity in Ottawa, as has been claimed?
I don't know the answer to that one - it seems pivotal to the case.
Another question: is the downloading, circulation etc of footage showing putative Muslims committing atrocities - for example beheadings - on a similar or worse scale than internet offences related to paedophilia?
Again, I don't know the answer. But the link between the two is the destruction, or the intended destruction, of human beings. I cannot consider one form of murder (sexual abuse is surely the murder of the soul) to be less evil than the other. The gleeful sadism employed by Islamist fanatics is hardly less foul, and of course they are indifferent to the suffering of children.
Idealogy is no excuse or mitigation, as history is littered with mass murdering idealogues. One is currently the president of the USA (who in his native state has also sanctioned legal murder on a scale probably comparable to the barbarism practised in Saudi Arabia and other similarly medieval and backward states). Another is the now deceased Chilean dictator Pinochet, formerly personal friend of the woman paraded so inadvisedly on the steps of 10 Downing Street by Gordon Brown.
Siddique's lawyer appears to be suggesting there is a note of "pour encourager les autres" about the sentence, and - again - I don't know whether that's the case or not. Given that actual murderers were released in Northern Ireland in the interests of stitching up a ceasefire there, it could be argued that particular circumstances have a strong bearing on how a case is likely to be judged.
But I do think there's a line which free speech cannot cross, and that obviously includes incitement to commit murder. Or revelling publicly in murders others have committed? People who hold Siddique's views cannot expect to remain at liberty in the UK: we cannot risk them turning their fantasies into reality, as we know from London, and the attempt on Glasgow Airport, the evil that can result. But what is the appropriate judicial response?
Another question: what happens to this man when he is released in, I suppose, ten years or maybe less?
To Mr Saeed I would say, who but a (putative) Muslim would - currently - be likely to face arrest for what this man did, and was claimed to have wanted to do? Unless I've missed something they are the only group currently - I stress - trying to murder UK citizens on their home soil, in the pursuit of an idealogical goal. This puts the overwhelming majority of Muslims here in an invideous position, one not of their choosing.
Was this warped and potentially extremely dangerous man on his way to commit or assist in the perpetration of an atrocity in Ottawa, as has been claimed?
I don't know the answer to that one - it seems pivotal to the case.
Another question: is the downloading, circulation etc of footage showing putative Muslims committing atrocities - for example beheadings - on a similar or worse scale than internet offences related to paedophilia?
Again, I don't know the answer. But the link between the two is the destruction, or the intended destruction, of human beings. I cannot consider one form of murder (sexual abuse is surely the murder of the soul) to be less evil than the other. The gleeful sadism employed by Islamist fanatics is hardly less foul, and of course they are indifferent to the suffering of children.
Idealogy is no excuse or mitigation, as history is littered with mass murdering idealogues. One is currently the president of the USA (who in his native state has also sanctioned legal murder on a scale probably comparable to the barbarism practised in Saudi Arabia and other similarly medieval and backward states). Another is the now deceased Chilean dictator Pinochet, formerly personal friend of the woman paraded so inadvisedly on the steps of 10 Downing Street by Gordon Brown.
Siddique's lawyer appears to be suggesting there is a note of "pour encourager les autres" about the sentence, and - again - I don't know whether that's the case or not. Given that actual murderers were released in Northern Ireland in the interests of stitching up a ceasefire there, it could be argued that particular circumstances have a strong bearing on how a case is likely to be judged.
But I do think there's a line which free speech cannot cross, and that obviously includes incitement to commit murder. Or revelling publicly in murders others have committed? People who hold Siddique's views cannot expect to remain at liberty in the UK: we cannot risk them turning their fantasies into reality, as we know from London, and the attempt on Glasgow Airport, the evil that can result. But what is the appropriate judicial response?
Another question: what happens to this man when he is released in, I suppose, ten years or maybe less?
To Mr Saeed I would say, who but a (putative) Muslim would - currently - be likely to face arrest for what this man did, and was claimed to have wanted to do? Unless I've missed something they are the only group currently - I stress - trying to murder UK citizens on their home soil, in the pursuit of an idealogical goal. This puts the overwhelming majority of Muslims here in an invideous position, one not of their choosing.
Posted by: T.McLaughlin, Glasgow on 1:54am Wed 19 Sep 07
Myrmillo, Batavadorum on 12:11am
[quote]People who hold Siddique's views cannot expect to remain at liberty in the UK:[/quote]
You must be joking!
People holding Siddique's [italic]views[/italic] -or any other [italic]views[/italic] , however "extreme" MUST NOT be deprived of liberty in the UK-or in any liberal democracy for that matter. Is this what it now means to live in Blair's -oops, sorry Brown's -Britain? I hope that Mohammed Siddique has not been convicted for his[italic] views[/italic] , but for illegal actions based on those views.
Given the target driven, box ticking imperatives of modern UK police officialdom, I hope that this young man has not been convicted because he was a soft option like Barry George (who did not murder Jill Dando) or Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi, a nasty **** no doubt, in the employ of the Libyan despot's secret service, yet innocent of Lockerbie.
That someone of Myrmillo's standing can say "[quote]People who hold Siddique's views cannot expect to remain at liberty in the UK:[/quote] is appaling. Who next? People who hold my views on Blair/Iraq?
Myrmillo, Batavadorum on 12:11am
People who hold Siddique's views cannot expect to remain at liberty in the UK:
You must be joking!
People holding Siddique's
views -or any other
views , however "extreme" MUST NOT be deprived of liberty in the UK-or in any liberal democracy for that matter. Is this what it now means to live in Blair's -oops, sorry Brown's -Britain? I hope that Mohammed Siddique has not been convicted for his
views , but for illegal actions based on those views.
Given the target driven, box ticking imperatives of modern UK police officialdom, I hope that this young man has not been convicted because he was a soft option like Barry George (who did not murder Jill Dando) or Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi, a nasty **** no doubt, in the employ of the Libyan despot's secret service, yet innocent of Lockerbie.
That someone of Myrmillo's standing can say "
People who hold Siddique's views cannot expect to remain at liberty in the UK:
is appaling. Who next? People who hold my views on Blair/Iraq?
Posted by: Duncan McFarlane, Carluke on 2:42am Wed 19 Sep 07
As part of a Masters Degree in International Politics i and all the other students on one of our courses were asked one week to read various statements by Al Qa'ida and Bin Laden reproduced on academic and government websites and analyse them. This did not make any of us, our lecturer or the people running those sites supporters or followers of Al Qa'ida or involved in terrorism. I don't believe Muslims any more than non-Muslims should be charged merely for reading or watching videos of what Al Qa'ida say or do or even reproducing it if they have not also been proven to have been involved in plotting or carrying out terrorist attacks.
If we don't understand the aims of Al Qa'ida , their reasoning (and sometimes lack of logic in their reasoning), what is true and what's false in what they say then we can't counter Al Qa'ida propaganda.
Simply saying everything Al Qa'ida says is a lie won't work - especially if we dont know what they're saying.
Half the reason Al Qa'ida's propaganda works on anyone is that parts of it are true - western militaries are occupying Muslim countries and being ordered to torture civilians, Israeli forces funded and backed by the US are killing Palestinian civilians and forcing others out of their homes.
Now much of the rest of what Al Qaeda says is a mixture of lies , distortions, hatred and irrational arguments - but to counter that part we need to acknowledge the part thats true and change our governments' actions accordingly - and we also need to know what Al Qa'ida are saying so we can counter it effectively.
As part of a Masters Degree in International Politics i and all the other students on one of our courses were asked one week to read various statements by Al Qa'ida and Bin Laden reproduced on academic and government websites and analyse them. This did not make any of us, our lecturer or the people running those sites supporters or followers of Al Qa'ida or involved in terrorism. I don't believe Muslims any more than non-Muslims should be charged merely for reading or watching videos of what Al Qa'ida say or do or even reproducing it if they have not also been proven to have been involved in plotting or carrying out terrorist attacks.
If we don't understand the aims of Al Qa'ida , their reasoning (and sometimes lack of logic in their reasoning), what is true and what's false in what they say then we can't counter Al Qa'ida propaganda.
Simply saying everything Al Qa'ida says is a lie won't work - especially if we dont know what they're saying.
Half the reason Al Qa'ida's propaganda works on anyone is that parts of it are true - western militaries are occupying Muslim countries and being ordered to torture civilians, Israeli forces funded and backed by the US are killing Palestinian civilians and forcing others out of their homes.
Now much of the rest of what Al Qaeda says is a mixture of lies , distortions, hatred and irrational arguments - but to counter that part we need to acknowledge the part thats true and change our governments' actions accordingly - and we also need to know what Al Qa'ida are saying so we can counter it effectively.
Posted by: Myrmillo, Batavadorum on 8:35am Wed 19 Sep 07
No, Mr McLaughlin, I'm not joking. If my "view" is that my fellow Glaswegians ought to murder Edinburgh people whenever and however they get the chance, and preferably with refinements of cruelty, I would be naive not to expect to be "done" at the point where these "views" became public currency.
Your views on Blair/Iraq (and mine) do not involve any wish to murder Blair or anybody else. I am not talking about "criticism" or protest, but murder. So yes, the people who sell videos of atrocities are guilty of incitement to murder and cannot be tolerated. They have crossed the line. I am not "free" to punch you in the street, or suggest strongly to people I may meet that they should do so - why should I be "free" to insist that you must be murdered, and preferably with a hacksaw? We aren't going to agree on this one, I fear. In this particular case I am certain Siddique's activity went substantially beyond merely browsing the internet for naughty material: my question was, what price should he pay - and what to do with him when eventually he is set at liberty with possibly the same views amply reinforced.
No, Mr McLaughlin, I'm not joking. If my "view" is that my fellow Glaswegians ought to murder Edinburgh people whenever and however they get the chance, and preferably with refinements of cruelty, I would be naive not to expect to be "done" at the point where these "views" became public currency.
Your views on Blair/Iraq (and mine) do not involve any wish to murder Blair or anybody else. I am not talking about "criticism" or protest, but murder. So yes, the people who sell videos of atrocities are guilty of incitement to murder and cannot be tolerated. They have crossed the line. I am not "free" to punch you in the street, or suggest strongly to people I may meet that they should do so - why should I be "free" to insist that you must be murdered, and preferably with a hacksaw? We aren't going to agree on this one, I fear. In this particular case I am certain Siddique's activity went substantially beyond merely browsing the internet for naughty material: my question was, what price should he pay - and what to do with him when eventually he is set at liberty with possibly the same views amply reinforced.
Posted by: G Wright, Glasgow UK on 9:26am Wed 19 Sep 07
I feel sorry for the young mans family. They have worked hard to bring him up and give him opportunities. With his computing studies they would have been looking forward to him starting a succesful career, rather than a prison term.
However there is no room for savagery in the UK, (we have enough indigenous bampots anyway), and that is the title which videos of beheadings and looting corpses fall into.
The courts decision must not be interpreted as an attack on islam, or as an attack on people who hold certain opinions. It is simply a judgement on the mans behaviour and activities.
I have a real problem with Aamer Anwar who claimed his client "was looking for answers on the net". If I want answers from the internet, I look up an encyclopedia website. What kind of answers would one find in films of innocent people being brutally murdered? And what questions are they the answers to? Sadly Mr Anwar has not yet enlightened us further on this.
Whatever jail term the man gets - and he does deserve it - we can only hope the isolation from islamo-facism he will experience gives him a chance to come to his senses and make the most of the rest of his life, in a peaceful and compassionate manner.
I feel sorry for the young mans family. They have worked hard to bring him up and give him opportunities. With his computing studies they would have been looking forward to him starting a succesful career, rather than a prison term.
However there is no room for savagery in the UK, (we have enough indigenous bampots anyway), and that is the title which videos of beheadings and looting corpses fall into.
The courts decision must not be interpreted as an attack on islam, or as an attack on people who hold certain opinions. It is simply a judgement on the mans behaviour and activities.
I have a real problem with Aamer Anwar who claimed his client "was looking for answers on the net". If I want answers from the internet, I look up an encyclopedia website. What kind of answers would one find in films of innocent people being brutally murdered? And what questions are they the answers to? Sadly Mr Anwar has not yet enlightened us further on this.
Whatever jail term the man gets - and he does deserve it - we can only hope the isolation from islamo-facism he will experience gives him a chance to come to his senses and make the most of the rest of his life, in a peaceful and compassionate manner.
Posted by: Not convinced on 9:28am Wed 19 Sep 07
I don't really understand what point Mr De Sondy is making. [quote]quote[/quote] Individuals are responsible for their own actions. That is a basic priinciple that I think most people in Scotland would accept. You can't blame entire communities for the actions of individuals. If you go down that road where do you end up? Collective punishment? That's not a road we could go down and still claim to be civilised.
I don't really understand what point Mr De Sondy is making.
quote
Individuals are responsible for their own actions. That is a basic priinciple that I think most people in Scotland would accept. You can't blame entire communities for the actions of individuals. If you go down that road where do you end up? Collective punishment? That's not a road we could go down and still claim to be civilised.
Posted by: Richard P, Glasgow on 10:57am Wed 19 Sep 07
I have never heard any unconditional condemnation from the so - called Islamic spokesmen, after the recent dreadful islamic events. Utterances such as "not in our name" or " we condemn all acts of terrorism" just isn't good enough. You might say more can be done in the mosques, but the first loyalty of any muslim is to Islam and not to the civic infidel community. The suicide bombers shouted "Allah Achbar" ,something all muslims are aquainted with.
I often worry how much of the money collected in the Islamic mosques in Scotland end up in the hands of Terrorist Jihadists in Pakistan ? I would be surprised if none and for this reason I do not buy any goods ftom Pakistani shops anymore.
No matter how people wrap this up , it is clear that Scotland is suffering and paying a heavy and miserable penalty from large scale islamic immigration.
The great unknown is what about the impact on the Scots public opinion ?. Scotland is coming late to mass muslim immigration, other countries have experience it and rejected it (Denmark) , others restricting (Netherlands) and others never allowed it ( Slovenia).
Some recent events involving muslims would test any Nations resolve and is surely a testament to the Scots that there has never been a major backlash despite some very testing incidents.
1) The first racially motivated murder in Scotland and almost too painful to recall.
2) The first suicide terrorist event in Scotland - a tragedy of incalculable proportions averted.
3) The first MP forced to resign due to muslim death threats.
4) High incidence of bigamy , honour killings , under age marriages ,forced marriages.
5) Low economic , cultural and social engagement .
6) Extremist leaders - telling students not to co-operate with the policy.
Maybe the muslims should start getting their house in order.
I have never heard any unconditional condemnation from the so - called Islamic spokesmen, after the recent dreadful islamic events. Utterances such as "not in our name" or " we condemn all acts of terrorism" just isn't good enough. You might say more can be done in the mosques, but the first loyalty of any muslim is to Islam and not to the civic infidel community. The suicide bombers shouted "Allah Achbar" ,something all muslims are aquainted with.
I often worry how much of the money collected in the Islamic mosques in Scotland end up in the hands of Terrorist Jihadists in Pakistan ? I would be surprised if none and for this reason I do not buy any goods ftom Pakistani shops anymore.
No matter how people wrap this up , it is clear that Scotland is suffering and paying a heavy and miserable penalty from large scale islamic immigration.
The great unknown is what about the impact on the Scots public opinion ?. Scotland is coming late to mass muslim immigration, other countries have experience it and rejected it (Denmark) , others restricting (Netherlands) and others never allowed it ( Slovenia).
Some recent events involving muslims would test any Nations resolve and is surely a testament to the Scots that there has never been a major backlash despite some very testing incidents.
1) The first racially motivated murder in Scotland and almost too painful to recall.
2) The first suicide terrorist event in Scotland - a tragedy of incalculable proportions averted.
3) The first MP forced to resign due to muslim death threats.
4) High incidence of bigamy , honour killings , under age marriages ,forced marriages.
5) Low economic , cultural and social engagement .
6) Extremist leaders - telling students not to co-operate with the policy.
Maybe the muslims should start getting their house in order.
Posted by: Ted Kord, Fife on 8:05pm Wed 19 Sep 07
It's interesting that Mr Saeed prefers to criticise a Herald sub-editor rather than Siddique or the particular strain of extreme political Islam that cultivates minds like his.
I think one has more to do with giving Islam a bad name than the other, to be honest.
It's interesting that Mr Saeed prefers to criticise a Herald sub-editor rather than Siddique or the particular strain of extreme political Islam that cultivates minds like his.
I think one has more to do with giving Islam a bad name than the other, to be honest.
Posted by: Jack, Glasgow on 8:40am Thu 20 Sep 07
Mr Saeed, people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones!!
Mr Saeed, people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones!!
Features
INDEX
Comment | Read Comments (9)
