www.wansaiful.com

The Conservative Muslim Forum is organising a series of Policy Roundtables to look at various issues. Our aim is to produce a short Policy Briefing for the Party following each Roundtable. We therefore expect the Roundtables to be ‘learning dialogues’ in which we hope participants will actively join in the debate and contribute ideas to the discussion.

Places for all Roundtables are strictly limited. To attend, please register your interest by sending your details (name, occupation, contact details) to me via email wansaiful@gmail.com. Please register your interest early so that we can confirm your seat allocation.

Theme: Is it possible to have unity in a diverse society? A case study of Malaysia
Date: Wednesday, 2 July 2008
Time: 6.00pm for 6.15pm start, to 7.45pm. Please allow 20 minutes to pass security
Venue: House of Lords, Westminster, London.

Background: Malaysia’s is a diverse population. Ethnically, it comprises of Malays, Chinese, the indigenous people, Indians, and various tribes in the Borneo island. Religiously, the proportion of Muslim to non-Muslim is almost equal, with a healthy number of Christians, Buddhists and Hindus. The country has been working hard to maintain harmony between the different groups. With Britain becoming an increasingly plural society, what can British policy-makers and the Conservative Party learn from the experience of its former colony, Malaysia? How can we ensure unity in the increasingly diverse British society? Dr Ooi Kee Beng, Fellow, Institute of South East Asian Studies (ISEAS) and an expert commentator on the sociopolitics on the South East Asian region will present his thoughts. Join us to discuss this important issue.

This event is jointly organised by the Conservative Muslim Forum and the Malaysia Think Tank London.

To attend, please send your name, occupation, and contact details to me via email: wansaiful@gmail.com

I am on the train back from Liverpool. I was there for two days (since yesterday) for a conference at the Arena and Convention Centre at the Albert Docks. The last time I was in Liverpool must have been at least six to seven years ago. The city has changed quite a bit.

I stayed at Thistle Hotel, Atlantic Tower, which is not far from the Albert Docks. While the hotel was good, it was not that close to the places I really wanted to revisit. Time was not on my side either. I only had a few hours after 5pm on Tuesday to go places. But I did manage to go to a few places.

First stop was The Olive Tree on Renshaw Street. This was, and probably still is, the only shop in Liverpool city centre to sell Islamic books. I almost missed it because its facade is now painted red. Previously it was green. Stepping into the shop, I saw a familiar face but this time looking just a little bit older. Sister Somayya, the owner of the shop, was sitting at the counter. She said I have grown a little bit. She must have meant I have fatten up since Liverppol!

Next stop was the University, in particular, the Guild of Students. As I stepped into the building, I saw a poster advertising a play “Jebat”. I was president of the Liverpool University Islamic Society in 1999 and 2000 so unsurprisingly my next stop would be the prayer room, at the basement under the Guildmore Bar (is that the right name?). Not much have changed, but there was more people there during the Maghrib prayers. And I am glad to see that the wudhu area is now more properly done relatively to when I was leading the ISOC. During my time, we made several requests to get the Guild to install something like a shower basin and a pipe so that people don;t have to put their feet into the sinks when making wudhu. It didn’t happen even when I left, but there were two basins there now.

After a quick walk around the Guild of Students, I made my way to Smithdown Lane. When I was in my second year, I lived at either 27B or 28B Smithdown Lane - can’t remember the exact number. But it was on the top floor, and my room was on the furthest left of the building. I then got married and moved to Huntley Road, near Liverpool FC’s Anfield football stadium. And then I moved back to Smithdown Lane, this time number 31. So, I know the landlord - Mr Kassim, an Iraqi - quite well. The area around Smithdown Lane was well known as a prostitute area during that time. Don’t know if it still is, but when I was there yesterday there was no one asking me if I wanted “business”!

By this time, it was almost 8pm and I was getting hungry. So, after a short bus trip towards town, next stop was Master Chef - used to be my favourite Indian restaurant. The food is still quite good. I had dinner with Dr Jeevan Naidu. We were at Liverpool University together and the last time I met him must have been back in 1999. Had a very interesting chat about Malaysia, and, since it is election time, you can’t run away from Malaysian politics. By the time we finished I was too tired to do anything else so straight to the hotel and to bed.

I got up this morning to the news that Britain had its first earthquake for many years last night. Some people at the hotel were actualy woken up by the tremor which was at around 1am. I must have been half-dead because I didn’t feel anything.

Today, just before boarding the train from Liverpool Lime Street station, I paid a visit to Mr Mann, another former landlord of mine. After Smithdown Lane, I moved to 37 Princes Avenue, one of the properties owned by Mr Mann. He has a shop at St John’s shopping centre called Basic Design.

Unfortunately I didn’t have the time to visit Ar-Rahma Mosque ofthe Malaysia Singapore Association. Next time, hopefully.

Face to Face published an interview with me today.

One of the points picked up by commentators was that I said oil price hike is inevitable. One person commented that it was silly to compare Malaysia with Britain.

First of all, I was not trying to compare the price GBP vs RM. That would be silly. A more accurate comparison would require comparison of purchasing power parity (PPP), but I did not intend to do that. I was just trying to make the point that in the UK fuel prices have been on the rise for many years, and the price figures were there to illustrate how the price has gone up (not to compare the actual prices).

Secondly, one person also said that you cannot compare Britain to Malaysia because, according to the commentator, “Dear wan comparing our oil with Britain is stupid since they import oil not export oil. Bodoh.” I am afraid the bodoh-ness goes back to the person who said this becuase it is obvious he does not know what he was talking about. The reality is, fuel price in the UK has been rising since I first arrived in 1993. During that period, the UK was NOT a net oil importer. In fact, they were, on average, a net oil EXPORTER. In 2005, an expert analyst said: “The UK will eventually have to import”. That means, even in 2005, the UK was still exporting but they expect to have to import soon (the UK became a net importer only in 2006). So, even when they were a net exporter, fuel price still went up.

Oh, by the way….. one of the sources of funds for the British “welfare state” government, to pay for their welfare provisions, is tax on fuel.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, the lecture by Archbishop Rowan Williams has been picked up in Malaysia (see Subky Latif’s article here). And the framework of the argument, in its simplest term, is this: “Even the Archbishop is now supporting shariah!”. This is both not at all surprising and couldn’t be any more wrong.

I have touched on this previously, but, for the record once again, the Archbishop was not advocating shariah. He was advocating choice in arbitration.

It is not only the “seculars” who oppose his statement. Malaysians should know that mainstream Muslim leaders in Britain do not fully endorse the Archbishop’s statement, nor do they support the introduction of syariah in this country.

However, I do support his statement. But I support him because, as a libertarian, I believe in choice, including choice in arbitration.

I would not be surprised if one day a conspiracy theory arises claiming that the Archbishop has converted to Islam. But I do not believe that he said what he said because of his conviction in Islam as such. There was no sign of that. I see it more as a sign that he believes in choice, which, in this particular context, is a sign of a liberal.

I was at the Royal Courts of Justice yesterday, listening to the speech by the Archbishop of Canterbury on “Civil and Religious Law in England: a religious perspective”. This was the foundation lecture for the 2008 Temple Festival, under the theme of “Islam in English Law”.

Not at all surprising, the lecture receives very wide coverage in the British media - Guardian, The Times, The Telegraph, The Independent, Daily Mail, Daily Mirror, The Sun, and I am sure many more.

All the reports almost invariably condemned his speech, as if he was arguing for the total acceptance of all aspects of Islamic law. To be fair to him, his speech was actually far more cautious than what was reported.

For a speech that started at 6pm on a Thursday, I think it was an extremely ‘heavy’ speech, and very very academic. My eyes felt heavy after about 30 minutes. But, my brain went into immediate ‘wake-up’ mode in the last 20 minutes of his speech. If you read the text below, you will see that he proposed a sort of a ‘market’ system that he calls ‘transformative accommodation’. And, I almost jumped from my seat when he actually admitted that what he said would effectively introduce a market element in the legal system. This is what he said:

(more…)

Making rounds on the internet (and showing the idiocy of state welfarism!):

The Rt Hon David Miliband MP
Secretary of State,
Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA),
Nobel House
17 Smith Square
London SW1P 3JR

(more…)

This is bound to raise a few eyebrowse!

Who’s coming?

From MPAC-UK

British Muslims should participate fully and sincerely in mainstream democratic politics including supporting any of the three mainstream parties. The Conservative Muslim Forum should be warmly congratulated for writing a generally excellent response and showing Muslims what is possible when intelligent, hard working Muslims take the time and effort to stand up for the truth. The Conservative leadership should take heed. The CMF are an asset to you. Without them, Tory credibility amongst most Muslims would be close to zero.

To read the full comment, click here

And, IRNA (Iranian’s news agency) also picked up on the report.

Britain’s main opposition Conservative Party has been advised by its Muslim wing to adopt a realistic policy of engaging with Iran rather than scaremongering.

“Regardless of the foreign policies of the United States, hostility to Iran is not in Britain’s national interest. A constructive engagement with Iran offers many possibilities for progress,” the Conservative Muslim Forum said in a new report.

The Forum was formally responding to a wide-ranging national and international policy paper drawn up in July for the consideration of a future Conservative government in the UK.

To read more, click here.

The submission I co-authored for the Conservative Muslim Forum (CMF) generated more responses:

National Review Online

Melanie Phillips

ConservativeHome.com

And, the comments on LGF are very worrying.

I co-authored a Conservative Muslim Forum (CMF) submission to the Shadow Cabinet recently. The report can be downloaded here.

Yesterday, the submission received press coverage. Under the title “Muslim Tories: ‘Iran has right to nuclear arms’”, the Daily Telegraph reported our submission. This can be accessed here.

The report quoted us as saying:

The group calls on the party to be more sympathetic towards Iran. It says: “Given Iran’s position in the Middle East, facing a nuclear-armed Israel, Iran appears to have legitimate reasons for seeking nuclear weapons for defensive purposes.”

That is only half of what we said. The full paragraph of our statement on this issue actually reads:

Given Iran’s position in the Middle East, facing a nuclear armed Israel, Iran appears to have legitimate reasons for seeking nuclear weapons for defensive purposes. However, an incoming Conservative administration should continue to oppose Iran’s nuclear weapon ambitions, and our primary goal should be assisting in the strengthening of Iranian state institutions to avoid any risk of the transfer of nuclear technology to non state actors. (emphasis added)

Yes, the report did state that we oppose Iran’s nuclear weapon ambitions. But the title of the report gives the wrong impression.