Denunciation and the construction of norms in group conflict: examples from an Al-Qaeda-supporting group

In situations of violent group conflict, group members often argue about how to deal with the outgroup. While some argue for aggression, force and separation, others argue for negotiation and cooperation. Each side attempts to persuade the group that their own position is normative and is most in line with the interests and essence of the group. These arguments often involve denunciations of opponents as disloyal or deviant. In such situations, definitions of group identities and norms, and what counts as loyalty and deviance, are therefore disputed. This paper analyses how a UK-based Al-Qaeda-supporting organisation denounces ‘moderate’ Muslims in the UK who engage with secular institutions and who ally themselves with non-Muslims in political disputes. Drawing on theological, historical and political arguments, a prescriptive norm is constructed whereby the correct behaviour of Muslims in the West is to avoid participation in secular political systems and to avoid political cooperation with non-Muslims. Muslims who are seen as breaking these norms are denounced and denigrated in a variety of ways by assigning them a range of deviant identity positions. Denunciations involve explanatory accounts which construct opponents as unworthy representatives of the group based on their deviation from Islam, or from ignorance, cowardice, mental weakness or self-interest. This paper illustrates that the practice of denunciation is an important aspect of the organisation of group conflict. Finally, it argues that it is dangerous for social psychologists to treat group norms and protoypes as consensual

Sedation depth and long-term mortality in mechanically ventilated critically ill adults: a prospective longitudinal multicentre cohort study

PURPOSE: To ascertain the relationship among early (first 48 h) deep sedation, time to extubation, delirium and long-term mortality. METHODS: We conducted a multicentre prospective longitudinal cohort study in 11 Malaysian hospitals including medical/surgical patients (n = 259) who were sedated and ventilated ≥24 h. Patients were followed from ICU admission up to 28 days in ICU with 4-hourly sedation and daily delirium assessments and 180-day mortality. Deep sedation was defined as Richmond Agitation Sedation Score (RASS) ≤-3. RESULTS: The cohort had a mean (SD) age of 53.1 (15.9) years and APACHE II score of 21.3 (8.2) with hospital and 180-day mortality of 82 (31.7%) and 110/237 (46.4%). Patients were followed for 2,657 ICU days and underwent 13,836 RASS assessments. Midazolam prescription was predominant compared to propofol, given to 241 (93%) versus 72 (28%) patients (P < 0.0001) for 966 (39.6%) versus 183 (7.5%) study days respectively. Deep sedation occurred in (182/257) 71% patients at first assessment and in 159 (61%) patients and 1,658 (59%) of all RASS assessments at 48 h. Multivariable Cox proportional hazard regression analysis adjusting for a priori assigned covariates including sedative agents, diagnosis, age, APACHE II score, operative, elective, vasopressors and dialysis showed that early deep sedation was independently associated with longer time to extubation [hazard ratio (HR) 0.93, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.89-0.97, P = 0.003], hospital death (HR 1.11, 95% CI 1.05-1.18, P < 0.001) and 180-day mortality (HR 1.09, 95% CI 1.04-1.15, P = 0.002), but not time to delirium (HR 0.98, P = 0.23). Delirium occurred in 114 (44%) of patients. CONCLUSION: Irrespective of sedative choice, early deep sedation was independently associated with delayed extubation and higher mortality, and thus was a potentially modifiable risk in interventional trials

Islamic Politics and Secular Politics: Can They Co-Exist?

Professor Abdullahi An-Na'im's new book, "Islam and the Secular State: Negotiating the Future of Shari'a," attempts to set out a theoretical framework for the incorporation of the Shari'a (Islamic law) into the public life of secular democratic states. He also provides detailed case studies of the relationship of contemporary secular states to Islam (India, Turkey and Indonesia) as examples of how Muslim commitments to following the Shari'a can be potentially recognized in secular legal systems without subverting basic commitments of the secular state. Professor Na'im also makes explicit Islamic normative arguments in favor of the secular state and against what he calls a religious state in which religious and political authority are fused. In this review essay, I provide an overview of Na'im's theoretical account of the state and the role of Islam within that state, and his understanding of the Shari'a and why it is compatible with the demands of a secular state (or potentially so). I conclude with a critique of the Islamic reasons he offers in defense of the project of a secular state as being grounded in controversial theological claims that have the potential to undermine the possibility of enlisting the support of orthodox Muslims for the project of a secular state. Instead, I suggest a more sensitive reading of the Islamic theological and legal tradition for precedents that would support the project of a secular state. I argue that using the resources of Islamic theological and legal tradition in support of the idea of a secular state is more likely to win traditionalist Muslim support for a secular state than Islamic arguments that rely on controversial theological propositions that are not necessarily required for at least certain kinds of secular states, e.g. a politically liberal state of the sort An-Naim calls for