Muslims must integrate

The chairman of London's City Circle recently made the statement below, which I think is excellent: "The idea that Muslims need to rally under a Muslim banner on all issues has had its day. The idea that there needs to be a ‘Muslim’ viewpoint or a ‘Muslim’ response to every issue under the sun is simply nonsensical. If Muslims are concerned with foreign policy they should go join Amnesty International, if they have an issue with civil liberties they should go join Liberty. These are professional organisations, amongst many other mainstream bodies, that understand how the law works. Muslims should join mainstream bodies as fellow citizens, not just as Muslims." See the full text here.

Let's karaoke

Hilarious

Opus Dei

There was an interesting programme on Radio 4 about Opes Dei. Apparently Ruth Kelly is a member too. I have been reading a bit about this group and I think there are many things we can learn from it. If you want to listen to the programme, go to this site and search for a link in the "Listen Again" section. Look for the "Club Class" programme on Thursday 27 Oct at 20.00 p.m.

Comical Musa

I read about Musa Hassan's statement on bangmat's. Apprently Musa said this: "We have laws in our country and everything we do is in accordance with the law. We don’t just go out there and detain anyone without any evidence or intelligence" Comical Ali, step aside. We have found a Malaysian replacement for your spot.

A busy week...

This week is extremely busy. On Sunday I gave a short talk in London at an event organised by the Islamic Youth Force, the youth wing of Khilafat Majlis – the second biggest Bangladeshi Islamic movement. Nothing major… just some reflections on working as a da’i. On Monday I was at the Institute of Business Ethics seminar. Excellent discussion themed around “Islam and Business: Global Conflict and Cooperation”. The presentation was by David Logan of Corporate Citizenship Company. In the audience were some very senior executives from major multinationals and organizations. The event was done under Chatham House rule and therefore I will not disclose who said what. But suffice to say that the discussion was amazing! These senior executives were discussing about how best to operate in Muslim countries where there exist some very un-Islamic rules like preventing women from working, limiting women’s access to education, favouritism and cronyism, etc etc. When the customs and practises in a country do not go in line with corporate values, what should the company do? Should they comply with local customs, or should they play an active role and bring change? I came out from the seminar thinking “The attitudes of many capitalists have changed. Many have moved from mere colonialist mindset to a more ethical and socially responsible paradigm. But have the Muslims’ perception towards capitalists changed in anyway? Do we still view them as the enemy, or should we accept them as allies to bring change for the better?” Then on Wednesday, yesterday, I was at the National Liberal Club for a masterclass organised by MHC International. It was on CSR and the media. This too was an excellent event, with speakers like Roger Cowe, Michael Hastings, Adel Darwish and Jenny Dawkins, Ed Milner and Tobias Webb.

Many issues about the social responsibility of the media were raised:

• Was it right for the media to hound Kate Moss when we all know that surely the fashion agencies have things to answer for too?
• Is it ok for the BBC to put to slow death genres like serious documentary and drama when the license fee payers may benefit greatly from them?
• How do journalists, especially the freelance ones, balance the need to ‘sell’ their stories with the need to report responsibly?
• What are the latest CSR trends when it comes to the media?

But one thing for sure, I came out from the masterclass convinced that I was right to not read Daily Mail and to not rely on Sky News. This afternoon will be a trip to Nottingham for an evening programme with David Grayson.

Disastrous

The outcome of the Tory leadership contest’s first ballot is disastrous. The only candidate who can bring the party back into power has been eliminated by Tory MPs. Now that Ken Clarke is out, we are left with David Davies, David Cameron and Liam Fox for the second round. I can see only two possible reasons why the MPs decided to not vote for Ken Clarke. One possibility is that the MPs are totally disconnected from the real world. Ken Clarke is by far the most popular candidate among the British public (see the BBC video on this link too). I suspect the majority of the MPs did not even consult their local associations before voting. They definitely need to more frequently get away from the Westminster village. There is a bigger world out there, you know. The other possibility is that the MPs have conceded defeat in the next general election and they feel that it is not worth even a try. Eliminating Ken Clarke is akin to supporting Brown for Prime Minister in 2008. Unless Clarke agrees to take up a very senior post under the new leader, New Labour can laugh all the way to the next general election. I must say that I am disappointed with the outcome. I am so disappointed to an extent that I feel like doing something about it. As a first step, I will accept the invitation from my local association’s vice-chairman to help out at the associations’ office. See where it goes from there… In any case, it looks more likely now that David Cameron will win. Good luck to him.

Malaysian managers and CSR

If anyone is interested to get a bit more info on Malaysian managers' attitude towards corporate social responsibility, try this link.

Conservative leadership contest II

Bravo, Sir Malcolm.

Business' role in society

I met Robert Davies, CEO of the Prince of Wales International Business Leaders Forum (IBLF), towards the end of July this year. Visibly tired from what must have been a long day, his face gleamed with enthusiasm when I asked him to tell me about the Tsunami Taskforce he is sending to India, Sri Lanka and Thailand in end August 2005. IBLF is an international educational charity founded by HRH The Prince of Wales. Originally established in 1990, its aim is to encourage businesses to become socially responsible particularly in new and emerging market economies. As an active network of businesses, its list of members and supporters is impressive. Among its members are global industry leaders like Accenture, the management and technology consulting firm; GlaxoSmithKline, the world leader in pharmaceutical industry; Vodafone, the world largest mobile telecommunication company; and Toyota Motor Corporation, the third largest auto-manufacturer in the world. As members of IBLF, all these companies made a commitment to continuously improve their business practice by enhancing dialogue with stakeholders and by making corporate social responsibility a strategic part of their worldwide operations. IBLF works by directing the attention of companies to what they can do to build social progress, and by facilitating cross-sector partnerships between businesses, the public and NGOs. In response to the disaster of the tsunami, IBLF immediately engaged with its corporate members to assess and identify how to react. IBLF's members initially committed over USD$40 million in aid for the region, as well as provided support for various relief efforts including provision of clean water, food distribution and medical assistance. Later, the IBLF published a management action brief outlining what businesses and their managers can do in the longer-term. The brief describes a three-phase framework of rescue, relief and recovery for responding to disasters. The brief argues that in the recovery phase, the question of sustaining long-term livelihoods will overtake many other needs and businesses have an important role to play. The local coastal economies will not be revived if business leaders do not take proactive actions, engage with relevant parties and work together to augment the recovery and rehabilitation of local communities. This is where the IBLF Tsunami Taskforce comes into action. Consisting of managers from various business interests, the taskforce will visit some of the areas struck by the tsunami. The good thing about this taskforce is, it will consist of business executives with different expertise, thus enabling them to look at the situation from a variety of perspectives. Their aim is to produce a report targeted at board-level audience to explain what roles businesses can play to ensure sustainable social and economic redevelopment of the region. India, Sri Lanka and Thailand are fortunate because they are receiving the attention of such an international coalition of businesses. But I wonder what is happening to the victims of the tsunami in Malaysia. Yes, they may now have accommodation. Their children may be able to go to school. Some may have even gone back to the sea as fishermen. Perhaps life is returning back to normal. But is it really possible for their lives to be normal again after such disaster? Has any of the Malaysian businesses stepped in to exercise their corporate social responsibility?

Multiculturalism

See what multiculturalism does to a country? See here too. Trevor Philips' statement was discussed in BBC Radio 4's Moral Maze last Wednesday (5 Oct 05). It was a very lively discussion. I was on my way to the mosque for tarawikh when I tuned in to Radio 4, and I ended up sitting in the car, in the mosque parking space ,all the way until 8.45pm. One of the panelists asked, "what is wrong with assimilation if it means we all change towards a similar identity - I change and adapt to your culture, and you change and adapt to my culture. If we both change and assimilate each others' culture, what is wrong with that?". This is a very interesting question to explore further. Perhaps on another take...

Conservative leadership contest

I greatly enjoy watching the leadership contest in the Conservative Party. To me, Sir Malcolm Rifkind and Liam Fox simply do not have the charisma or the popularity to become the next leader of the party. David Davis is too right wing for me. He once said "We should learn lessons from abroad, for example from the United States where pride in the nation’s values is much more prevalent among minorities than here. Questions about citizenship qualifications, about what is taught of British history, and about the emphasis on learning English need to be asked and answered. Above all, though, we must speak openly of what we expect of those who settle here – and of ourselves". The line "those who settle here" indicates to me how he sees some people as the landlord, while others are just tenants, or should I say, immigrants, who are not equal to the landlords. I do not think Davies will lead the party to victory. David Cameron is slightly different. I see him as a potential leader. He has the charisma and the potential to become a Prime Minister, but he needs to wait. This is not yet the right time for him. He needs to gain more experience in dealing with, and then uniting, a divided party. If he waits, his time will come. But Ken Clarke must be the one to go for. This political "beast" can take on both Blair and Brown at the same time. His political wit was clear in the conference speech. He did not spend too much time attacking Blair, but he was showing to the world that he can easily take Brown head on. After all, it is Brown who will lead Labour into the next election. If the Tories want to win the next election, then they should elect Ken Clarke now. But if they have already accepted defeat in 2008, and would rather focus on 2012, then they should elect David Cameron. They will then need to pray, and pray hard, that the party can remain united for another 8 years behind a young leader who is still learning. In any case, the Tories should listen again and again, and again and again, to what Michael Howard said. (I think Abidin will disagree with me on Ken Clarke.)

Serupa tapi tak sama.

One guy claims he is on a godly mission. The other lunatic says the same too. Both are freely using weapons and killing civilians, while invoking God as justification. Can someone please tell me what are the difference between them?

Join the band...

It seems that this test is getting popular. So, here it goes.... Summary: I am a Social Moderate (56% permissive) and an Economic Conservative (61% permissive) I am best described as a Centrist. I exhibit a very well-developed sense of Right and Wrong and believe in economic fairness. Seems allright. But I would personally put myself a bit higher on the capitalist scale.

You are a Social Moderate (56% permissive) and an... Economic Conservative (61% permissive) You are best described as a: Centrist