Talk:Dilpazier Aslam

message: I've removed the sentence: 'Many people saw this as attempting to justify the July 7 bombings'. It begs the question of how many's many, who the 'many' are - right-wing bloggers, newspapers with an axe to grind, 'all right-thinking people', 'any Daily Mail reader worth his salt', 'the liberal consensus' etc etc.  
I would have perferred to have simply linked to the article at that point and say: 'Read it for yourself'. I'm not sure of the etiquette of that - or how to do the link. Perhaps someone would help.
I'm also reinstated 'right-wing'. I believe that would be a fair description of his position. Nothing to be ashamed of there.
--Charlesp 14:33, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the sentence ought to go back in.  I don't know how many many is, but it was enough for the Guardian to sack him - that is unusual in and of itself.  Presumably it even offended Guardian readers (the Daily Mail ones are simply taken for granted) or there would have been no pressure.  The Guardian page has a link to the original article so you could copy that.  I think the main idea is that Aslam caused offense by justifying the bombings and did so by trivialising the attacks (the bombers weren't "sassy" after all).  But as this will be read in the main by those notorious muesli eating G readers I doubt it will fly. Lao Wai 15:01, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: I will happily reinstate this sentence if Lao Wai can point to anything in Aslam's article that points to this. It proves nothing that the Guardian doesn't usually sack journalists. Surely that's why the whole affair is interesting and the article needs to be as dispassionate as possible. How often does the Guardian ask a a journalist who belongs to a perfectly legal non-violent political party to resign or face the sack? 
--Charlesp 15:45, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Points to what?  That people saw it as justifying the bombing?  I can find a few articles which claim just that (within the confines of the libel laws of course).  What was Aslam's argument if not that the Second and Third generation younger Muslims were not sit back and take it any more?  And take what if not the actions of the British government?  He seemed to be saying that young Muslims like himself were outraged by Falluja for instance, and the bombings were a predictable (if not justifiable) response.  I may be doing him and his argument and injustice, but I think not.  It proves something that they sacked him.  I know of no other case where they have sacked someone for belonging to a perfectly legal non-violent political party.  They have published people with ties to Sinn Fein before so the parties don't even need to be all that non-violent either.  So something happened here and presumably it was outrage from the G's readership.  But I am happy enough with the way it is now. Lao Wai 16:04, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  There are loads of articles out there demonstrating that many people felt Aslam's article was rationalization for the bombing. The "Sassygate" link at the bottom of the article is one of them. Burgess's website has links to plenty others. Babajobu 19:06, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  'justifying the bombing" 

message: Wikistyle is normally to avoid putting external links in the body of the article. I put an internal link to khilafah.com; at present it's a red link. I don't see how persecutions of Hizb ut-Tahrir members in Uzbekistan is relevant to L'Affaire Aslam. I've moved that material to the main Hizb ut-Tahrir article. I've redescribed Burgess as a "conservative American blogger", rather than "a right-wing American". I did a rather inadequate rewrite of the section on Burgess's "application" to The Guardian. But it needed to be changed to more clearly emphasize that this was a tongue-in-cheek application (promising to restore appreciation for Yankee virtues, etc.) posted on Burgess's website as a piss-take. Other changes. Babajobu 19:01, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Dbiv's changes are much better. :) Babajobu 19:43, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Compromise revisions

message: Being new to this game I've just noticed that Dbiv keeps reverting stuff with no explanation at all. Could someone explain this to me? Perhaps Dbiv hu'self?  Thanks.
--Charlesp 11:34, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Simply that I considered that no justification was given for your removal of a paragraph about Hizb-ut Tahrir and why people considered it objectionable, and that your edit expressed your point of view on the blogger campaign by saying that some of it was inaccurate. See WP:NPOV for why no article should endorse anyone's opinion. David | Talk 14:14, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Dbiv Mystery 

message: It's not appropriate to use this form of words. Google themselves actively discourage it and the verb 'to google' is a neologism which is understood by too few people. David | Talk 15:00, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: To google someone

message: It's not appropriate to use this form of words says Dbiv.
It is in fact more than appropriate to use this form of words in Wikipedia, particularly as the second line of Wikipedias own definition says 'Neologisms are especially useful in identifying inventions, new phenomena, or old ideas which have taken on a new cultural context.
Wikipedia is intended to be a forward looking information source, open to all. Although there are clear guidelines as to how articles should be constructed, there is no intent that Wikipedia becomes unnecessarily stuffy from either its creators or its vibrant community, that is the preserve of the Encyclopaedia Britannica and those it is replacing.
The American Dialect Society chose the verb to google as the most useful word of 2002 for good reason, it is an efficient (allows the usage of less words) and precise verb. Three years on which is an age in the evolution of worldwide English the word is in universal usage.
To remove this from an posting indicates a lack of research (not having read Wikipedia's own articles on googled and neologism) a mistaken understanding of the current status of the word googled and a misunderstanding of the spirit of Wikipedia.
Please re think this kind of unnecessary correction as it sends out the wrong message to other users.
:It is good to see that arguments over such an important issue ultimately boil down to the use of a neologism or not.  Makes yer proud to be British!  Could people please sign their bits with three or four tildas (~) so that everyone else can see who said what?  And in passing the Guardian published an article today by John Lloyd claiming "These pages have been host to several pieces arguing, in essence, that we British had it coming (it being terrorist attacks by those acting in the name of extreme Islamism). Such arguments blur, at the very least, the essential nature of democratic societies. That is, that opposition is necessary to their health and it is that which must carry the burden of anger and protest. As long as that is the case, we don't have to accept terrorism as our guilty due; we have to entertain argument as our responsibility, our privilege and our patrimony."  Isn't it nice to see the G can recognise the obvious stupidity of their stance and try to balance it?  Lao Wai 15:35, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Apropos the earlier conversation, which I missed while away from the comp for a few days, Aslam's Guardian article *absolutely* did suggest that the bombings were an expression of the unbridled sassiness of this generation of young Muslims. Souds too dunderheaded to be true, so I sympathize with Charles for wanting to disbelieve it, but it's really not Lao Wai who needs to give the article a more careful reading. Babajobu 20:16, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neologisms 

message: I've removed the comment at the end of the article asserting that "it has been suggested" that pressure from American Guardian readers resulted in firing of Aslam. I'd like to see a reasonable sourcing for that. Sounds dubious to me...the idea that the American viewers of the Guardian website, virtually none of whom are paid subscribers to the paper, were able to force that kind of decision. Many people would "suggest" that The Guardian shows little evidence of being moulded by its American readership, and that this case is unlikely to be a sudden exception. Regardless, would like to see a source for the comment if we're to put it back in. Cheerio, lads! Babajobu 20:44, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Pressure for American readers

message: Here's the 'sassy' sentence from Aslam's article: 
"Second- and third-generation Muslims are without the don't-rock-the-boat attitude that restricted our forefathers. We're much sassier with our opinions, not caring if the boat rocks or not." 
A key sentence in the article. From the title on, Aslam's talking about the cultural gap between younger Muslims and their parent's generation in the UK. It is a common phenomenon, after all; a similar tension existed between the 'Windrush' generation of Afro-Caribbean migrants to the UK in the 50's and their children. It's understandable. When you first arrive in a new country you don't 'rock the boat'. You don't want to. But the second and third generation don't feel the same 'gratitude' as their parents did (though, with all the material benefits, anti-discrimination laws and opportunities 'logically' they should feel MORE). 
In reality the Windrush generation had little to be grateful for. They had the most menial work, the worst pay, and when they went looking for somewhere to live, they were greeted with signs saying; No Blacks, No Irish, No Dogs.  The kids ended up blaming their fathers and mothers for being 'grateful', rebelled and, in turn, earned the anger and disappointment of their parents...
Aslam is pointing to the same phenomenon in his community. But there's one big difference: the culture of deference in the Muslim community; to parents, leaders and 'elders'. So there’s not the same opportunity to rebel. And there lies the danger.  These elders are not doing that job, according to Aslam and, as a result, young Muslims have no safety valve for their (political) anger and frustration. 
It's not a particularly original idea. It's been expressed quite a bit on TV and in the newspapers lately - certainly in the UK. But what was really interesting about the Aslam article was that is was the first one I'd read - and I remarked upon it when it first appeared - FROM THE HORSE'S MOUTH. And not from some white guy pundit, expert, psychologist, weapons expert, anti-terrorism professor, Johann Hari - or older Muslim. Aslam wasn't one of the Usual Suspects . Yes, Aslam is angry. But that's the point, isn't it? That's what he's saying: his generation is angry.  And what's interesting - and, surely, the real point of the whole business - is that the Guardian, bleeding heart liberal newspaper par excellence, allowed that voice to speak but - being that self same bleeding heart liberal newpaper - at the first whiff of cordite, got scared and sacked him. Thereby compounding the frustration. 
Do you think the Dilpazier Aslams of this world are more or less likely to be rocking the boat now?  With Richard Littlejohn plus every smart-arse left or right-wing blogging nut crawling out of the woodwork to crow?  This isn't diffusing a situation. It's putting a match to it. And axiomatic.
That's why I really believe  that the Wiki-DP article as stands is not reflecting, neutrally, what HAPPENED . Not neutral in the way that any self-respecting Vulcan would understand that word. Much of the so-called neutral comment is angry too. And reverts to a false dichotomy between 'The Mainstream' and 'people who hate' our freedoms/Dilpazier Aslam/any young Muslims who don't feel grateful to the UK/the bombers/ anyone who doesn't subscribe exactly to what The Mainsteam believes.  Please read the article - dispassionately.  Before Burgess 'outed' Aslam, no-one gave a damn.  The Guardian's letters page, as far as I can see, didn't have a single response - outraged or otherwise. So, Aslam is a member of Hizb ut-Tahrir? The Guardian has staffers who are members of the Labour Party. Even one's who, in print, supported and still support, the invasion of Iraq which led to the deaths of between 15,000 to 100,000 innocent people. Is the Guardian going to sack them too? 
And I'm not being a smart alec. I'm trying to get at the truth. I'm angry too. We're all angry  - and scared. I don't take the Tube any more. But we owe it to ourselves to try to conquer that anger with calm reason. In the next few days I will try another edit on the article to reflect what I’m attempting  to argue here.  I won’t do it yet so we can all try and calm down a bit. However, I'd welcome help and feedback -  from Mamaloucos, Dbiv, Babajobu, Lao Wai and anybody else who's interested. Thanks.
--Charlesp 23:51, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually he is not talking about the gap between generations.  From the first sentence he is talking about the gap between the Muslim communities and the rest - the distinction between older and younger Muslims is a minor one.  The "sassy"ness comes with how they deal with the gap with the mainstream, not with how the younger Muslims deal with the older ones.  I think everyone really expects Muslims to feel gratitude, but that is not the issue.  The issue is whether they ought to deal with whatever problems they see by murdering innocent fellow British people.  To describe that as "sassy" is offensive.  Aslam shows no signs of being deferential to his elders of either race and your point is just wrong.  Regardless of how frustrated the younger ones feel they should not murder innocent people.  Aslam, and you, seem to overlook that point.  That was what was offensive about his argument.  Aslam is going to be one of the Usual Suspects now.  I certainly hope police are looking at his phone records.  No it is not the point.  Aslam might be angry but there is no sign his generation is.  And if some Muslims are angry there is no reason to express that by murdering innocent people.  And if they do there is no reason to justify that, or at least appear to, in the G.  There is something very interesting going on at the G - they are part of that Red-Green alliance that has taken George Galloway so far so naturally they would employ someone like Aslam.  But for once they seem to have woken up to the fact they have gone too far and sacked the guy.  Perhaps people at the G were upset because those "sassy" young men murdered a Guardian trainee.  I think that if Aslam was thrown in jail for an indefinite period fewer young men would be prepared to blow themselves up.  Muslim extremists say the West is weak and the G simply proves their point.  They blow people up and the G publishes extended apologies from the bombers' sympathisers.  A little intimidation would probably go a long way about now.  There is nothing false about the chasm between those younger Muslims who do and defend this and the mainstream.  The G has chosen to put itself on the wrong side of that gap, but that gap exists.  The page as it is now is fairly dispassionate.  This talk page is not but that is OK.  The G clearly refused to publish most letters - I think they published some because I am sure I read some.  But I know a few people who wrote in and were not published.  Ask them how many letters they got.  I would think it was a lot.  If they justify the murder of innocent people I would think they would get the sack.  I notice that David Aaronivitch has left. Lao Wai 09:45, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  'The Mainstream' 

message: I support both of these proposals from Robertbyrne. As I've said elsewhere on the Talk page  there is a perfectly good - or detailed and ongoing - Hizb ut-Tahrir article in Wikipedia and we are already linked to it. HT is itself currently a highly contentious organisation - have a look at the W article if you want any proof of that. If we're trying to be neutral it's better that the subject isn't treated skimpily or partially here, unless, of course anyone thinks we should cut and paste the whole of the HT article into the DP one...
As for the G and B article. This was originally a sentence from a very early draft (of mine, actually) that was blown up into a subsection by someone else.  It was merely to say that the Guardian's reaction to the blog campaign may have been because it has traditionally been sensitive to American sensibilities - particularly after the Clark County debacle. However, after the article's promotion to a subsection, a later editor felt there was little proof of an 'American Connection' and removed the concluding sentence. The subsection, as it now reads, therefore no longer has much, if any, connection with the DP affair.  
Removing these two sections would also have the beauty of shortening/simplifying the article which a number of contributors have asked for.
--Charlesp 10:27, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I suppose that's fine; maybe add two sentences in the main body of the text providing the basic gist of those subsections. Babajobu 11:37, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removing subsections on Hizb ut-Tahrir and Guardian and the Blogosphere 

message: Someone has added to the "kill them wherever you find them" quote, for which a Guardian citation was supplied, the words "and expell [sic] them from where they have expelled you," which isn't in the Guardian article and therefore remains uncited. Could we have a source please? I've removed it in the meantime. Cheers, SlimVirgin (talk) 19:40, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Uncited quote 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Dilpazier Aslam. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100819184602/http://www.khilafah.com/index.php to http://khilafah.com/index.php
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://dailyablution.blogs.com/the_daily_ablution/2005/07/sassy_suicide_b.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://dailyablution.blogs.com/the_daily_ablution/2005/07/laffaire_aslam_.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:26, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified