Let Muslim Women Speak

This just posted on the Guardian website at Comment is Free. Swing by and leave a comment.

The last few weeks have been particularly eventful for Muslim women on Comment is Free. We would have felt extremely exhausted by all the excitement, were it not for the fact that - with the notable exception of Samia Rahman and Reefat Drabu - we were spared the ignominy of having to participate in the debate ourselves.

AC Grayling started us off by equating the headscarf with an iron shackle and stating that Muslim women are complicit in their own oppression. In the process of attacking the abhorrent denial of freedom that Muslim women can wrongly suffer, Grayling (in)advertently takes away the very same freedom of choice to decide to wear the hijab if we choose.

Julie Burchill bigged up Christianity, and in the process scathingly dismissed Islam and Muslim women. The only "Muslim" women she suggested as role models - Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Irshad Manji - were those she claimed had rejected Islam and were no longer Muslim.

Cath Elliott on the other hand says she's not holding out for women to emerge empowered from religious communities. She asks some good questions, such as why does God always appear to be a "He"? Why are the decision makers in politics and economics still predominantly male? But let's not be weasely as some pundits are: Muslim men often wriggle out of addressing these difficult questions by deflecting attention away from themselves; and it needs to stop.

Islamic theology has a strong framework for a blueprint of gender equality. I know that this is a deeply unfashionable thing for a Muslim woman to say, but let me explain.

In Islam, God is not gendered, not physically located, nor carnal. There is no original sin – the two genders were "created from a single soul" which is entirely pure and good. God is "like nothing else" we can imagine, and in that sense is neither male nor female. However, in order to know God, there are at least 99 qualities or names, that are characterised as masculine and feminine, and both are equally critical in learning about and approaching the divine.

Both genders have their own free will and have their own minds and must make their own contribution. Qur'anic and Islamic narrative has plenty of examples of such women: Mary's immaculate conception is a strong vision of a woman raising a child as the head of the family without any men present. Hagar raises her son while her husband is away, Aasiya the wife of Pharaoh stands up to her dictatorial bloodthirsty husband. All of them are celebrated as role models for both men and women.

Neither is marriage supposed to be a subjugation for women, but a completion and partnership for both man and woman. Every man that is held up as an example has a woman by his side (or you could argue it is vice versa) who is exemplary in her own right: Adam with Eve, Rachael with Moses, Mohamed with his wife Khadijah.

With such a framework and strong and robust archetypes to inspire Muslims, what went wrong? How did we end up at a place where Muslim women are not fully empowered and find themselves at the unprotected and miserable end of cultural oppression endorsed in the name of Islam? There is no denying that Muslim women do suffer and have not been granted the freedoms, choices and opportunities that are the right all human beings, and guaranteed by Islam. But somewhere between the ideals of faith, and the pleasure of patriarchal power, that respect and those rights were lost.

Which brings me neatly to the latest set of discussions about the proposed Muslim marriage contract. The idea of having a contract between the two parties is embedded in the very notion of Islamic marriage. The goal is to allow both parties to be clear about each other's expectations of the relationship. It would probably help most couples – Muslim or otherwise to have such an agreement.

The basic rights are guaranteed with or without the written document. These are that neither party can be forced to marry – they must do so of their own free will; that both parties may divorce should they choose, and that neither a woman nor a man can be prevented from marrying the person of their choice. As Reefat Drabu of the Muslim Council of Britain put it, the contract "is not a re-invention of the shariah."

So why the hoo-ha about the document?

Ed Husain flags up the core of the real problem beautifully by recounting the tale of an imam who refused to conduct a nikah in the absence of the bride's father's permission. But he draws the wrong conclusion in thinking that the contract papers would have saved the day. Since the imam's actions were clearly out of line with the principles of Islamic marriage it is unlikely that the document would have changed his mind.

Instead, what the document champions is the notion that the behaviour of the people who hold authority needs to be questioned, or as Drabu puts it, the need of a "change in behaviours". No authority should ever be too humble to be challenged. What it also highlights is the extreme need for accessible and easy to understand information.

What is most important about the concept behind the marriage contract should be the reiteration to Muslim women – and to Muslim men – that knowledge is a powerful thing, and that empowerment and questioning are two fundamental components of the Islamic spirit.

Knowledge is about learning and about being brave enough to ask questions, and about getting your voice heard: education and courage. Laying down challenges for the status quo can be a transformative rather than antagonistic activity.

What that means for many commentators is that we may say, believe and do things which don't fit in with the caricature of a Muslim woman who would be desperate to be "liberated" from Islam if only she knew it.

You may find our voices reverberating with the view that we like being Muslim women, we just want to make our lives better and in line with true Islamic principles. It would be nice if those who debate vociferously about Muslim women would therefore move over and give us the seat at the table that we're demanding

Re-interpreting Ramadhan

Ramadhan seems to mean being hungry by day, and laying tables full of fatty fried foods and high calorie treats by night. Have we completely missed the month of fasting's messages of moderation and spiritual liberation?

As the credit crunch takes us into its firm grip, you might be forgiven for thinking that Muslims would be particularly prepared for tightening their belts. I put forward this bold thesis, as we get ready to begin fasting in the month of Ramadhan, a month highlighted for physical restraint and a rejection of excess. With years of experience in control and temperance, Muslims should be well-prepared to exercise moderation and eschew extravagance, but is that really the case?

The Qur'an advises those who believe, that fasting is prescribed for them, as it was for those who came before them so that "...you become of those who are conscious of God." Physical restraint in all spiritual traditions - which includes but is not limited to Islam - is directly related to a blossoming of the spirit, and therefore a closer relationship to the Divine.

If you listen to any explanation of the spiritual and physical meaning of Ramadhan and why Muslims fast, one of the key reasons that features will undoubtedly be along the lines of... to remember those less fortunate than ourselves who have less to eat than we do. It makes perfect sense as an explanation: Muslims deny themselves food and drink (and other physical pleasures) during daylight hours, which create painful hunger pangs and a parched state of dehydration that offers a mild and temporary hint of the traumas and difficulties that people suffering food shortages, droughts and famines around the world must suffer. But this very weak and brief pain is tempered by the knowledge that within some hours- even if the number of those hours reach double digits - we will be tucking into food and drink again.

It is of no doubt that the hunger and thirst that we experience during Ramadhan is something we would never ordinarily feel. And in that sense it allows us a peek into the lives of those who are truly suffering and can have no respite from the shortages of food and comforts that we take for granted. Our experience is incomparable in magnitude and it would be arrogant and patronising to complain that we now 'know how it feels'. But it can soften our hearts and at least give us a glimpse of the suffering that others go through, within the parameters of our own lives.

However, whilst we may be living the physical experience - albeit briefly - have we really grasped the meaning and spiritual experience? As soon as the adhaan rings out at maghrib time as the sun sets, we all settle down to heaving tables of our favourite foods. Tables buckle under the weight of specialities made for each individual's palette. Every child is cooked their favourite, starters are multifarious and highly calorific and main courses include several varieties. Not to mention the many sugar-filled and fatty desserts which slip so easily and pleasurably past our lips. For those from the sub-continent, think samosas, bhaajis, halwa, kebabs, pakoras. It comes as no surprise that many people leave the month of Ramadhan heavier and more rotund than when they started.

This is not to mention the hours and hours that are ploughed into culinary production. You might imagine that the reduced number of meals, and the reduction in appetite might mean that less cooking needs to be done. Instead, the kitchen is on full alert for a greater stretch of the day - and night. It is usually the women who lead the culinary preparation and it is right that the cooks want their families to be well-taken care of. But if we started to look holistically at the purpose of Ramadhan - to free ourselves from our physical indulgences and open up possibilities of spiritual exploration that we otherwise deny ourselves - we might find that all that additional time spent cooking could actually be used to maximise our gains from Ramadhan. By not eating, and by having to cook less, Ramadhan suddenly offers a huge amount of extra time (at least three hours saved by avoiding breakfast and lunch and perhaps more if dinner was a light simple meal) which could be devoted to activities we all claim we do not have time for - lingering over prayers, reading Qur'an, community service, mediation and reflection. If you don't cook that extra plate of samosas will it really make that much difference to the iftar experience? But if you spent all that extra time to read a few pages of the Qur'an – especially in the month of Ramadhan when the value and merit is so much greater - imagine what impact that could have.

Eating and drinking in the hours of dark becomes a festival of indulgence at the polar opposite of the hunger and thirst we underwent for a few paltry hours. We acquire bipolar disorder - riding high in the daylight hours and then binging at night. What does that say about our understanding of the very meaning of hunger as empathy, hunger as freedom from the physical and release into the spiritual? We have followed the literal rules of Ramadhan, but what about the meaning? Instead of physical restraint and spiritual freedom, we have greater indulgence and have blinded ourselves to the spiritual opportunities. Ramadhan is not only about feeling the pain of those less fortunate, but about being able to distinguish and implement the very concepts of moderation rather than excess.

The Global Ummah Needs to Start Local

Muslims are rightly proud of the diverse global ummah, but we should be more willing to embrace the diversity of the British Muslim communities, and channel it to drive forward new ideas

Outside of the period of hajj in Makkah, the UK is home to the most diverse Muslim community in the world. The extraordinary mix of ethnic origins and opinions from across the theological spectrum make it a unique moment in the history of the Muslim world, representing a microcosm of the diversity that Islam has always aspired to.

Islam and Muslims have travelled fluidly through history - across the Arabian Peninsula on horseback, by boat along the Eastern coasts of Africa and across to India and into the South Indian seas. It was often trade, by sea, or across the Silk Road, that flung Muslims eastward to China and Indonesia and west towards Morocco and Spain. In fact, records of the slave trade to the Americas suggested that Muslims had made it across the Atlantic long ago.

The re-drawing of national boundaries, wars, post-colonialism and the ease of travel and communication which have been the driving forces of the twentieth century, have once again shuffled Muslims around the world. Their movement has been mostly into Europe and North America, and nowhere has this redistribution and melting pot of Muslims been more apparent than in the UK.

In 2001, the British census estimated that there were 1.6 million Muslims in the UK, a number which is now forecast to be close to 2 million. This makes Muslims the second largest faith group in the country, and Muslims make up more than half of the non-Christian faith community. Almost three quarters of Muslims in the UK are from an Asian ethnic background. Those from Pakistan make up 43 per cent, from Bangladesh 16 per cent and Indians and other Asians make up 14 per cent. We probably could have guessed that. But did you know that 17 per cent consider themselves to be from a 'white' background, whether that is White British, Turkish, Cypriot, Arab or Eastern European? And did you know that 6 per cent of Muslims are of Black African origin, from North and West Africa, particularly Somalia.

We also know that all these figures are out of date, and show little of those of Middle Eastern origin who have joined us on this green and pleasant land in the last few years. If you haven't spotted your country on the list, then you make up that great overlooked fact of British Muslims - that they come from all the blessed corners of this God's great earth.

But so what?

First, it is important to take note of these astounding facts. We live in an historic time and place for Muslims. We have more ideas, cultures and perspectives in a concentrated space than ever before, to inspire, motivate and produce more than ever before. If ever we were to create something overwhelming, tumultuous and inspirational, then the time has never been more ripe. The great age of Muslim learning flowered because minds were open to new ideas, perspectives and cultures. Thinkers would wait eagerly for new books and learnings to travel across the ethnicities and languages of the Muslim world.

Islam is also about appreciating different people and knowing them. The Qur'an is quite clear about this, and Muslims love to quote that Allah created people into "tribes and nations" so that we may "know each other". We take positive pride in the diversity across the global Ummah. We claim that we love all our brothers and sisters, and that we feel their pain, wherever and whoever they are! Of course, this statement of bravado only lasts as long as we don't have to go to a mosque that 'belongs' to those of a different ethnicity. As long as we don't have to marry them. As long as we don't have to have children with them. As long as we don't have to work in communities together. There are exceptions, but they are relatively few.

We will protest vehemently for the Palestinian cause, and we may deplore the terrible situation in Iraq, but do we know any Palestinians or Iraqis here in the UK? It is easier to care for those thousands of miles away, then to look after those on our doorstep.

Nowhere in the world do we have more opportunity than in the UK, to put into action the ethos that the Prophet taught us - to treat all human beings as equal in worth, and to appreciate our variations and differences. At no time in history have we had the opportunity to infuse so much culture, so many ideas and so much vivacity into the future of Muslims.

History will judge us harshly if we remain enclosed in our ethnic and ideological bunkers. Our future generations will be even less forgiving if we fail to create the magic of cultural fusion and intellectual development that history has shown is in the DNA of the Muslim spirit.

This article was published in The Muslim News
Statistics quoted can be found in greater detail at the National Office of Statistics

Can you dress provocatively and be religious?

I've just got back from BBC Asian Network discussing the issues around revealing clothing and being a person of faith. Can you wear a short skirt and low cut top and call yourself religious? Can you show off your assets in tight jeans and a teeny tight white t-shirt (I'm talking about the men here!)

It's a topic of passionate discussion, and that's because it is much more complex than it appears. First (and let's be honest about this), the conversation is almost always sparked off about complaining about women not being properly covered up. Rarely is the question asked in relation to men. Muslim women who do not wear the headscarf are immediately assumed to be less religious than those who wear it. Those who do wear it, are immediately assumed to be over-zealous and seated on their prayer mats for 22 hours each day. Those who do and don't wear hijab are constantly frustrated by these caricatures which block their path to exploring their faith and spirituality. Why should we judge an individual's constant struggle to be a person of faith by what they wear? We cannot judge that status. Judgement is only for God. What we can do is comment on the impact that their dress makes on those around them, and what we think it reveals about their understanding of modesty - for whatever is inside, always shows itself on the outside.

More challenging for our modern society is the issue this topic raises with regards to public and private faith. Even when you have strong inner values, we are told that they can and should be divorced from your participation in the public domain. Faith, we are told, is a private matter. But faith, de facto, must be public because it shows itself in the relationships you build with the people around you. For example, faith encourages compassion and kindness. There is no point exhibiting these values only at home - you need to demonstrate them in the world 'out there'. In fact, you must exhibit them out there, because part of being a person of faith is making the world a better place.

Modest dress and behaviour is part of all religions, in order to maintain humility, but also to make it easier to build relations with others. We have forgotten in our post-modern society that everything we do has an impact on others, and that whilst we have the freedoms of individuality, they come with responsibilities to others. It's not just all me-me-me. If modesty is an inner value, it must and will show itself to the world around us.

Bishop Nazir-Ali to speak at Interfaith forum about pluralism

Imagine my surprise when I came across a listing for a lecture being held this evening by the East London Three Faiths Forum: "FAITH IN A PLURAL COMMUNITY with Bishop Nazir Ali (Bishop of Rochester)". Surely an interfaith group should be worried about some of the comments he has made?

The Telegraph wrote: 'In an outspoken attack on the custom of Muslim women to cover their faces, the Pakistani-born bishop said that the Islamic community needed to make greater efforts to integrate into British society. "It is fine if they want to wear the veil in private, but there are occasions in public life when it is inappropriate for them to wear it," he said.'

[shelina's comment: if the Bishop knew anything about the veil, then he would know that the concept of wearing it in 'private' is comical - the veil is a public matter, not a private one]

In January 2008 Nazir-Ali wrote that Islamic extremism had turned "already separate communities into 'no-go' areas" and claimed that there had been attempts to "impose an 'Islamic' character on certain areas". When he was challenged to name such areas, by various leading figures including Hazel Blears, he has failed to provide such evidence. He has failed to actually back up such a divisive statement. For a man of faith, it seems a strange way to build up community links and inter-faith work.

I have sent some people along to attend the lecture, and will post up their comments once they are in.

"Conversations on Religion" book launch

Tomorrow is the launch of a new book entitled Conversations on Religion edited by Mick Gordon and Chris Wilkinson. "A stimulating collection of interviews on the subject of religion and belief, including high-profile names such as Richard Dawkins, Rowan Williams and Jonathan Sacks." Here is the blurb:

Conversations On Religion addresses questions such as; How do we define religion? Can we define faith? Why in our twenty first century world are so many people religious? and What should our ambition for religion be?

Mick Gordon and Chris Wilkinson explore these questions together with 18 well-known religious thinkers and commentators, including: AC Grayling, Giles Fraser, Rowan Williams, Lewis and Matthew Wolpert, Don Cuppit, Muhammad Yusuf Al-Hussaini, Tariq Ramadan, John Gray, Alistair McGrath, Abdelwahab El Affendi, Richard Dawkins, Julia Neuberger, Fraser Watts, Azzam Tamimi, Ann Widdecombe, Karen Armstrong, Shelina Janmohamed, and Jonathan Sacks.

The result is a fascinating insight into human nature. We human beings are strange in our commitment to beliefs which we inherit, imbibe and choose. We find them difficult to let go. For better and for worse, this is our commonality. The task is to better understand and attempt to take responsibility for those different beliefs and positions which seem to mean so much to us. Conversations on Religion is an important part of that process.

Yes, well-spotted! There is a chapter with me amongst all the well-known names, reflecting on what faith and religion mean to me, and answering some of the questions that come up time and again about extremism, Muslim women and organised religion.

The Art of Conversation - Britons, Britain, Muslims and Islam

Readers of a sensitive disposition should be advised that this article contains words of a difficult nature. What you are about to read may cause a temporary shut down in common sense and a brief outburst of hysteria.

Shariah.

Are you still there? I have smelling salts if you need them. Beware, here are a few more: fatwa, hijab, apostasy, niqab, cousin-marriage, Imam, Muslim women.

We can take a short breather now, and collect ourselves. Phew. I apologise if my outburst has reduced some readers to gibbering ranting Alf Garnett type creatures.

When the Archbishop mentioned the scary S-word, all rational debate - even if it be to score a resounding knock-out in the first three minutes for the secular corner - was suspended. What on earth have we just experienced in the last few days? Rowan Williams barely mentioned the word 'shariah' and the country was in an Armageddon-style-end-of-the-world frenzy. It wasn't even possible to get a word in edgeways to say that he was not in fact advocating shariah law. Instead, the media was awash with images of floggings from Somalia to the rings of Saturn and all the way in between.

Now that we are in the post-MTV, post-spin sound-bite century, we have lost the ability for discussion and debate. Sophistication and subtlety are a thing of the past. What I rue most is the lost art of conversation. Mention a word, and its caricature will be whipped up in front of you. Muslim woman in hijab? Poor, oppressed woman, one of four wives forced into marriage to her cousin, barely speaks English, wishes she could wear a mini-skirt... Muslim Imam? Mad ranting mullah burning a flag... Fatwa? Sentence to death for parking on a double yellow line.

It is completely impossible to have any kind of conversation about these issues without tantrums and hysteria. If British culture, values and laws are robust, then they will stand the test of discussion about these concepts, and vanquish anything that turns out to be barbaric or medaeival, or simply just not suited to the stiff upper lip and rugged British constitution. The knee-jerk ranting that surrounds us belies a lack of confidence and an unfounded sense of mistrust in the historic institutions that have made this country great.

We must ditch the cartoon (pun entirely intended) responses to any Muslim-sounding word that decorate our front pages week in week out. If we could get away from the unhelpful and misleading stereotypes that have lodged themselves into the public psyche, then maybe we could work our way through these minefields that seem to explode every few weeks. We might find our national debate engaging in that elusive thing - progress. Instead, the conversations that we need to have are being de-railed by the inability to communicate on the same wavelength. How can Muslims be part of the national conversation, if their terminology is at best unheard and misunderstood, or worse is misrepresented and the object of scaremongering?

P.S. To reduce the burden on some 'opinionated' readers, I have prepared some comments in advance that you might like to make. If you still feel het up, you can register your vote for your preferred tantrum. (1) What on earth is this Muslim complaining about? If she doesn't like it here she can go home (2) Stop blowing us up if you don't want us to react with hysteria every time you mention a foreign word (3) All Muslim women are oppressed. This is a fact. Thus Muslims are wrong on every possible count and we are right about everything (4) The sooner Muslims get it into their thick heads that this is Britain and we do things the British way, the happier we will all be

Holding out for a hero - published on the Guardian

Poverty, war and climate change are all indications that individual is not as heroic as we once thought. Do we need a modern-day messiah?

Click here to read more

This article has just been published at Comment is Free on the Guardian website

Saudi rape victim 'pardoned'

The poor young woman known as the 'Qatif girl' has been pardoned by King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia for her 'crime' of being with an unrelated male. She was the victim of a multiple gang rape, but because she was accused of being alone with a man, and then complaining about her initial sentence, she was given a punishment of 200 lashes and six months in jail. The case provoked an international outcry, which seems to have paid off with this pardon.

I welcome the fact that the victim will not have to endure further punishment. Her husband has stated that she is a "crushed human being." Who wouldn't be after a rape ordeal like hers? And then having to face the prospect of further punishment, and supposedly her own brother wanting to kill her to save honour? I feel huge relief for her, but also worry about her ongoing physical and mental well-being, and her safety as the case comes to a close.

It seems the pardon comes with a forked tongue. The letter states that "the suffering of the two rape victims was in itself enough "discipline" so they would "learn the lesson"", implying that the guilt was there, and that somehow the two involved had invited what happened to them. The country's Ministry of Justice had defended the woman's punishment, declaring her to be an adulteress who "provoked the attack" because she was "indecently dressed". The man she was alone with was also raped and sentenced to punishment for being alone with her. The pardon also applies to him. Despite the threats of being disbarred, the lawyer will also retain his license to practice.

A great post on the utter ludicrousness and incoherency of the Saudi laws is here explained by a young woman living in said country. Her post entitled "Lash me I was alone with my driver" runs riot through the impossibilities of the law of not being alone, starting from the simple point that women are not permitted to drive in Saudi Arabia, and therefore must have a driver, with whom de facto they end up being alone.

This horrific case illustrates the extremity of the problems that the Muslim world has to deal with in relation to gender. The point of the Islamic ideals of modesty, in my humble opinion, is to make gender interaction and relationships easier and smoother and reduce the tensions, heartache and difficulties that exist in human societies. However, Muslims seem to have taken modesty in the entirely opposite direction and completely split the genders apart. First of all, how does a society then function holistically? And second, and what is illustrated here, is that the genders have no clue how to interact with each other. It foments hatred and discrimination.

Instead of modest dress and behaviour allowing women and men to be seen as human beings rather than physical objects, the extreme segregation has had the total opposite effect - of seeing women as physical objects with only sexual intentions by them and towards them. That's why the court can make a ridiculous statement like "she provoked it" or elsewhere statements like "inviting rape like open meat to a cat".

Muslims need a fundamental overhaul in their understanding of 'modesty' and gender relations.

Before anyone reading this gets too complacent that the 'western world' has all the answers: Europe, the Americas, the West and the East, all have issues with gender relations, whether it be in areas such as political representation, domestic violence or equality of pay. Even rape is a difficult area, with only 5% of cases in the UK leading to conviction, and the victim having to defend her credibility and good character. The 'She asked for it' attitude also exists here. However, at least the debate has recognised the victim's status and is in principle set to defend her. For this I am thankful.

I notice that whenever I point out that we in the 'west' still have problems dealing with women, I am quickly barraged and sent insults and offences. (I've been called 'weasly, very weasly' by a well-known journalist).

I am in no way drawing a direct comparison but simply pointing out that we also have issues to deal with. The scale and magnitude of the problems are quite different I agree, quite distressingly different. At least we can have a debate and discussion - something that is sadly progressing very slowly, or is not permitted or possible, in some parts of the Muslim world. But if we are asking the Muslim world to apply some honesty and integrity, then we must be willing to do the same.

Are Muslims allowed to have a sense of humour?

Check out this spoof blog about a tongue in cheek Islamist: http://theislamicist.wordpress.com/

The nameless author is weaving a chapter by chapter insight into his parody of growing up to be an Islamist. It's well worth a read, for a humorous few minutes. I particularly like comments such as:

"I was surprised at how many women their were. The next thing I was surprised at was how many men there were. " which for anyone who has been to an Islamic society at university and been exposed to the obsession with gender, will find very sharp as an observation.

Other moments include: "They successfully lobbied for a new prayer space, and we got a lobby." and "It was then that I became involved with my first Islamicist group, the Hizb-ut-Tizer (party of Tizer). They wanted to get rid of corrupt Muslim states and replace them with a superstate, based in Scotland, made from girders."

The blog was picked up by the Guardian who wrote a comment piece

Reading through the comments, however, it seems that the public don't like Muslims to have a sense of humour, or can't seem to compute that Muslims might be able to poke a bit of fun...

ASBOs and terrorism: the problems of bombs, beer and bling

A man was recently stabbed to death for standing up to a gang of aggressive young men who were throwing rubbish into his car. Another was murdered when he came out of his house to ask some young men to quieten down while he tried to sleep for an early morning start. Two teenagers have been charged. Binge drinking, and in particular under-age drinking and related violence is on the rise. Violence instigated by young women is increasing too. The police say that they have to change their working hours to accommodate the late night violence and youth crime. The government's solution? Slap an anti-social behaviour tag on the perpetrators - this is just labelling the problem, but not addressing the causes.

Where is this intense aggression coming from? Why do young people feel so angry, why so little concern for tolerance of those around them? Where is the sense of community and honour that used to bind people together and create a framework for social interaction? Where are the aspirations, direction and connections that are needed to fill the void that is possessing youth? It is being filled with anger, despair and destruction. The disaffected generation of the turn of the century takes pride in creating havoc and distress.

We've heard a cry in recent days that young black men need better role models, people who can offer them different options other than rapping, violence and drug dealing. Success is material and ephemeral. Expensive outfits and outrageous jewellery along with angry lyrics and a gun are the leitmotifs. Clothes, bling and attitude maketh the man in the 21st century. The only thing in reach is the aggressive attitude, everything else is beyond their touch through legitimate means. The world that they see before them seems so appealing, so idyllic and so out of their reach, and they have nothing else on which to model their ambitions and drive them forward. They follow the lead of those who seem to have the answers – those glamorising gun crime and violence.

Young Muslims are just as disaffected. They too suffer from the same malaise as their peers. Why should they be any different? The world around them has little meaning to them, and there appears to be no way to change it. They see and experience discrimination, they are ostracised from being British, despite the fact that they identify themselves as such. Media and political rhetoric tells Muslims they must 'fit in' and do it 'their' way or go back home. But this is home, for the young Muslims. But they feel unwanted in their own home, rejected and ridiculed. When trying to communicate through the political system, their dress code is challenged. When trying to talk to the government about its policies, as the government asks citizens to do, then they are ignored. They turn to those who seem to succeed in creating impact – those advocating violence. Instead of rappers glamorising gun-crime, it is extremists glamorising terrorism.

The government, policymakers and the media treat these groups differently. They are different problems, they tell us. Heavy drinking, violence and anti-social behaviour are a cultural phenomenon, we are told. Young black men suffer from discrimination, reduced life chances and an identity crisis. Young Muslims are being poisoned by Islamic extremists, cry the tabloids and the neo-cons.

These evils do indeed exist, but they find their fertile breeding grounds in the same ugly causes. Young people have been let down by our ability to give them aspirations and opportunities. There is a failure to offer a framework of values, self-worth and the belief that they can achieve something in their own right by being part of society rather than trying to destroy it.

When success is measured entirely by the wealth and celebrity that can only be bestowed upon a few, and which we all know deep down is only a fickle yardstick, why bother trying? When you have never been taught at school about what faith and values are, and why morality is important, why do we find the disappearance of 'traditional' values a shock?

Neighbours and communities were once the bedrock of bringing up children, allowing them to learn how to interact, behave with and respect others. Now anyone taking a caring interest is labelled as 'interfering' and attacked. Why then are we surprised when the value of others is diminished?

There was once a drive to succeed and achieve your potential, now it is about gaining success and wealth. When simple material measures become meaningless, and you feel helpless to improve things any other way, then the void can be filled by ideology which offers clear directions and answers.

The murky grey of liberalism lurks like a mournful cloud over young people who want direction. It offers no pointers on how to break the deadlock and create something better. No wonder strong ideologies that paint a more vivid picture of the world and how to deal with it are so popular. Is it any surprise that the stark black and white nature of neo-conservatism or extremism and terrorism are so appealing to young people who have little aspiration, and less optimism about their future? When there appears no way to create change, then what is unexpected about using violence and terror to finally be heard?

The symptoms need treating. Violence, whether through over zealous addiction to bombs, beer or bling has to be dealt with firmly and with zero tolerance. They will all destroy our society. Beneath these we need to see that young people are bearing the burden of the deconstruction of our values and communities.

Muslims are accused of not being 'British', and are told they must be more British and adopt British values and live as part of the community. But accusations are usually most revealing about the self-same accuser. Do these directives uncover a longing to return to values and community life?

Being British is about sharing the same values. Sadly, as a nation, the values we once held dear of living together with respect, the importance of self-worth and of ambition to make something of ourselves, however small that ambition might seem, have been lost. We once loved to succeed. Now our younger generations are bearing the brunt of the self-loathing we feel at our failures. Young people of whatever background feel that the world around them has nothing to offer and that today's Britishness is of little relevance.

For young Muslims, we need to instill a sense of empowerment and inclusion in society. Everyone wants to be part of the community they live in. Only when they see or experience rejection does anger build up and do alternatives become appealing. For young Muslims, it may be that they already have a grounding in the basics of faith. They may already have understood in their hearts that they want to live in a good society and create a better world for themselves and the people around them. But with the inability to create change and channel their aspirations through legitimate means, then extremist ideologies step in to show them how they can make a real impact. Young people learn by what they are shown. If governments can use violence to create a better world, then they will ask, why can't they? And if a community has rejected them, then what responsibilities to they have to that community?

Anti-social behaviour and terrorism are degrees of difference. They both create fear, violence and death, albeit on enormously different scales. But for each individual that is affected by the fear, violence and death, for every single person murdered, the actions are equally mindless, and show equal disregard for the worth of others and the importance of community. What we need to recognise is that their roots lie in the same dark place of rejection, role models that glamorise violence and a seismic lack of hope and frustration.

"Let's bomb Mecca and Medina" says US congressman

Tom Tancredo is a Colorado Republican congressman and presidential candidate for the USA. He stood by his assertion that bombing holy Muslim sites would serve as a good "deterrent" to prevent Islamic fundamentalists from attacking the United States.

"If it is up to me, we are going to explain that an attack on this homeland of that nature would be followed by an attack on the holy sites in Mecca and Medina," Tancredo said. "That is the only thing I can think of that might deter somebody from doing what they would otherwise do. If I am wrong, fine, tell me, and I would be happy to do something else. But you had better find a deterrent, or you will find an attack."

A case of very back to front logic. However, it is perturbing coming from a would be presidential candidate and long standing member of congress. Although perhaps not entirely surprising or unexpected.

He also claims to be both pro LIFE as well as pro GUN, which seems to be another minor inconsistency. (er, guns suck the life right outta ya)

P.S. In case you were wondering the US State Department had condemned the comments by Tancredo as "absolutely outrageous and reprehensible".