/* */

PDA

View Full Version : Syria, Gaza and the Criminalisation of Islam



Pages : 1 2 [3]

سيف الله
03-31-2020, 09:39 AM
Salaam

Another update.





Reply

Login/Register to hide ads. Scroll down for more posts
سيف الله
05-05-2020, 07:27 AM
Salaam

Another update. Brown Sahibs of the British establishment doing what they do best.



The Quilliam Foundation has called for the Islamic hudood laws to be abolished.

In a new report, the controversial “counter-extremism” organisation says the reforms would help defeat “ISIS, Al-Qaeda, Taliban, Jamaat-e-Islami, Muslim Brotherhood and Khomeinist ideology.”

Quilliam released the report shortly after Saudi Arabia abolished flogging from their penal code – a move Quilliam applauded.

In its report, Quilliam says hudood punishments are not required by Islamic law. This goes directly against the mainstream Islamic position that the laws (which include the cutting of the hand and the death penalty) are timeless as long as they are implemented correctly and in the right context.

Mainstream Islamic scholars say that the harsh punishments are rarely implemented in a proper Islamic system, but do exist as the ultimate deterrent for the worst crimes.

Usama Hasan, co-author of the Quilliam report said: “Islamists seek to challenge democratic and secular states by arguing that these are not legitimate because they do not carry out floggings, amputations and other cruel punishments.

“Violent Islamist groups resort to the application of hudood precisely in order to prove the legitimacy of their rule. It is for this reason that unspeakably barbaric punishments were such a prominent feature of the rule of ISIS in Syria.

“However, the key theological sources which underpin the Sharia make it clear that the approach favoured by Islamists ignores certain of the higher objectives of Islamic law: the promotion of forgiveness and rehabilitation, including the waiving of punishments. The Islamist approach to corporal punishment is a distortion of the Islamic approach to criminal justice.

“Severe corporal punishment was a feature of all societies in the 7th century. It represented a necessity within a nomadic society, which could not imprison and rehabilitate criminals. However, by the 19th century, the Ottoman Caliphate had abolished such punishments, because they were considered to be neither necessary nor appropriate.

“An approach to Sharia, premised upon its fundamental objectives, both promotes human rights and the honouring of those international agreements which Muslim-majority states have signed. Islamic jurisprudence supports the evolution, modification and repeal of hudood laws in our age because these are outdated and contradict the essential Islamic principles of justice and mercy.”

Since its foundation in 2007, Quilliam has campaigned for an “Islamic reformation.” It has received millions in funding from the British government and conservative groups. And it has also targeted many British Muslim organisations and activists, including 5Pillars, accusing them of extremism.

https://5pillarsuk.com/2020/05/04/qu...-be-abolished/

Hah!



More discussion.





Reply

سيف الله
05-06-2020, 01:07 PM
Salaam

Like to share.

Blurb

Shaykh Tahir Wyatt's speech, "Confronting Extremism" broadcasted on C-Span August 7th, 2017.


Reply

سيف الله
05-22-2020, 07:35 AM
Salaam

Another update.

Reply

Welcome, Guest!
Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up
سيف الله
05-27-2020, 09:00 AM
Salaam

This is a little different but relevant.

Reply

سيف الله
06-05-2020, 10:10 AM
Salaam

Like to share.







Reply

سيف الله
06-19-2020, 06:04 AM
Salaam

Another update.





Reply

سيف الله
06-23-2020, 06:13 AM
Salaam

Another update, the 'moderate' Islam project continues.



Reply

سيف الله
06-24-2020, 06:45 AM
Salaam

Another update.

Muslims need to create their own social media platforms

Muslims are facing unprecedented censorship and pressure from social media companies and that’s why we must urgently create our own platforms, argues 5Pillars editor Roshan Muhammed Salih.

Social media used to be great. Those of us who didn’t have a voice on the mainstream media could, at last, express ourselves freely on platforms which attracted millions of people.

This was a godsend for small media companies like 5Pillars. We really believed that through sheer hard work and editorial know-how we could build a community platform that would genuinely represent the priorities and concerns of British Muslims. A platform that would say all the things that the mainstream wouldn’t.

And how would we drive traffic to that platform? Mainly by posting our content on social media sites such as Facebook, Twitter and YouTube.

And indeed for several years it was great. With the mainstream media either demonising Muslims, ignoring them or trying to choose who should speak for us or not, a gaping hole was left for people like us who were determined to tell the community’s stories unfiltered.

So there’s no doubt that platforms like Facebook and, to a lesser extent, Twitter and YouTube have played a huge role in the growth of our website, as they have for countless others. And in doing so they have helped minority communities find a voice for themselves which is so lacking in the mainstream.

What’s more, it isn’t just about getting the stories out there. Social media sites have also allowed platforms like ours to fundraise to support the journalism that we are doing. Advertisers will naturally gravitate towards online sites with huge traffic flows so social media has offered us the ability to directly appeal for funds to people who follow us.

So with the chance to build a business and reach millions of people, what’s not to like?

Fake News

Sadly, a few years ago things began to change and this change seems to have coincided with the mainstream media and politicians heaping pressure on the likes of Facebook to censor alternative opinions. This was done, of course, not under the banner of “censorship” but under the premise of cracking down on “fake news.”

The Department for Education is now even setting up its own “rapid rebuttal unit” to tackle so-called fake news in the media. It’s said to be one of the first department-specific teams in government to challenge “misinformation at the source” and rebuff “misleading content” before reaching the mainstream.

But I’m one of the few journalists who has always been sceptical about the fake news furore because I believe that the main disseminator of fake news has always been the mainstream media itself. After all, these are the people who manufactured consent for the Iraq war, and for the Tory Party victory in the General Election following a prolonged demonisation campaign against Jeremy Corbyn over antisemitism. And I could go on and on.

Ultimately we must remember that fake news in the mainstream media is far more significant than fake news in the alternative media because it has the ability to reach far more people and create far more impact. So in my view the fake news crisis was not actually about stopping fake news; rather, it was about reasserting the dominance of the mainstream media.

The fact is that the mainstream media is heavily distrusted by the British public and is shedding audiences. A recent YouGov poll for Sky News found that two-thirds of the public don’t trust TV journalists, and almost three-quarters don’t trust newspaper journalists. On top of this, the viewing and readership figures for the traditional media is plummeting in a multi-channel and online world.

But rather than take a good, long hard look in the mirror and admit that this is because of false reporting, the targeting of minorities, and the parroting of the Establishment line, journalists have instead decided to bury their heads in the sand and blame “conspiracy theorists” in the alternative media instead.

Anyhow, the constant barrage of propaganda about the dangers of fake news seems to have had an effect on the social media giants who’ve responded by censoring alternative views.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Article ends - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Islamic alternatives?

The truth is that social media giants such as Facebook, Twitter and YouTube have way too much power and our dependence on these platforms makes us vulnerable to being censored.

The American social media giants are no longer the saviours of alternative journalism; in fact they have destroyed the journalistic model for so many news organisations by hoovering up online advertising and pulling the editorial plug when they see fit.

So we have a few choices in front of us.

Firstly, we could simply persevere with the social media behemoths which is what we are doing at the moment. This is a very tempting course of action because we already have major platforms on them which we have invested a lot of time, money and effort into. But it also means that we will have to self-censor in the hope of staving off that inevitable day when we are kicked off permanently. And let’s face it, what’s the point of doing what we do if we are prepared to self-censor?

Secondly, we could seek to migrate to other platforms which are not based in the West. Both China and Russia have massive social media platforms although most cater for Chinese or Russian speakers so the English language audience is just not present there yet. Moreover, what’s not to say that China and Russia won’t censor us one day too? In fact, I’m sure you would get censored on a Chinese platform if you started criticising China’s repression of the Uyghurs.

Thirdly, the Muslim world could give some serious thought to creating its own social media platforms. I understand that this is a gargantuan task given that the American social media giants have such a head start; not to mention the divisions within the Muslim world itself. But I do believe there is a compelling reason to create such platforms (the lack of freedom of speech and Islamic values on the U.S. platforms) whereas in the past none existed.

I, for one, am willing to migrate immediately to a Muslim-led social media platform if a credible one could be created. And I believe millions of others would be ready to do the same. It would be a task which could take years, even decades, to accomplish and see flourish. But it is all about controlling our own destiny and taking it out of the hands of our potential enemies. And if it were to happen, believe you me I wouldn’t miss the likes of Facebook one little bit.

https://5pillarsuk.com/2020/06/23/mu...dia-platforms/

You can agree or disagree with his views but this is unacceptable, and highlights the need for independent media and tech.

Reply

سيف الله
06-29-2020, 07:19 AM
Salaam

Like to share.

Blurb

In this much anticipated episode of the Blood Brothers Podcast, Dilly Hussain speaks with the founder of Alasna Institute and the Muslim Skeptic blog Daniel Haqiqatjou.

The podcast begins with a brief overview of Daniel’s recent online debate with the prominent atheist YouTuber Ridvan, better known as the ‘Apostate Prophet’.

The public speaker then explains his issues with Muslim leaders he describes as “compassionate imams” – scholars and students of knowledge who allegedly propagate a compromised Islam which conforms to secular liberalism.

The crux of the podcast looks at Daniel’s areas of disagreement with the Yaqeen Institute of Islamic Research, an organisation he was previously employed by, and the various disagreements and concerns he has with the organisation’s contributors.






Related.





Reply

سيف الله
06-30-2020, 09:10 AM
Salaam

Another update





Reply

سيف الله
07-07-2020, 08:12 AM
Salaam

Another update.







Reply

سيف الله
07-17-2020, 07:35 AM
Salaam

Another update.

Blurb

Why is France linking protests over racism, unemployment and inequality to separatism? And what does it mean for the country's minorities?

Reply

سيف الله
07-23-2020, 08:08 AM
Salaam

Another update.



[Important Thread]: The Terrorism Act 2000 and the Uighurs. 1

Monday saw the 20th anniversary of the enactment of the Terrorism Act 2000. To mark this lamentable occasion @UK_CAGE produced a detailed report on its malignant effects over the duration of its operation. PLEASE do read and share it. Link:





I want to turn my attention now to China and her genocide of the Uighurs in order to demonstrate just how insidious a piece of legislation the Terrorism Act 2000 is (hint: READ MY ARTICLE).

The Act defined terrorism as the use (or threat of use) of action (meaning serious violence to persons or serious damage to property) against a government or international governmental organisation (e.g. UN, NATO) for the purpose of advancing a political, religious, racial or...
...ideological cause.

When the Bill was debated at least one MP (David Lidington, the former Conservative MP for Aylesbury) raised the age old conundrum of "one man's terrorist, another man's freedom fighter". How would the legislation resolve it?

Then Home Office minister, Charles Clarke assured the House of Commons that given that any prosecution under TACT 2000 had to be approved by the Director of Public Prosecutions (currently @Max HillQC ) one needn't worry about supporting "righteous causes" e.g. the Kurdish...

...rebellion under Saddam. Because the DPP would use their discretion and decided not to prosecute you, even if technically those actions WERE terrorism by the letter of the law. Leaving aside the fact that this violates the principle of "legal certainty" whereby the legal...

...consequences of any given action should be determinable in advance of their being carried out, it effectively confers upon the DPP (and ultimately the Attorney General) the power to decide what is and isn't terrorism upon a whim. A whim that is invariably decided by...

...the political expediencies of Her Majesty's Government at that moment in time. So, for example, if they are pro-Kurdish at the time you most likely won't be prosecuted. If they are pro-Saddam at the time (as in the 1980s) then you almost certainly will be.

Fast forward 7 years to 2007 and the Court of Appeal (R v F). A Libyan dissident had been convicted of downloading (inter alia) bomb making manuals in order to aid groups seeking the overthrow of Libyan dictator Muammar al-Gaddafi. He appealed claiming the overthrow of such...

...Gaddafi's regime didn't fall under the definition of "terrorism" given that it was a brutal, unrepresentative authoritarian government. He argued, effectively that he was supporting "freedom fighters" not "terrorists" despite their activities falling within the Act's...

...catch-all definition of terrorism. The Court in its Judgement demurred from this interpretation and determined that any government that is internationally recognised falls within the ambit of TACT 2000, despite how dictatorial and abusive it might be. It stated that:

"...the legislation [The Terrorism Act 2000] does not exempt, nor make an exception, nor create a defence for, nor exculpate what some would describe as terrorism in a just cause. Terrorism is terrorism, whatever the motive of the perpetrators."

And so it dismissed the appeal. So the assurances provided by Charles Clarke turned out (entirely predictably) to be hollow and empty. But furthermore a mere four years later the UK government would provide military support to the very same people! Yes, that's right...

...now that HMG's political stance towards Gaddafi had changed (because of course they didn't know he was a murderous thug back in 2007) it was no longer terrorism to support armed groups attacking his government. So even though it came under the definition of the Act...

...nobody would be prosecuted for carrying out such terrorist activities anymore. Lol.

Ok, so how does this tie into the Uighurs? Well I'm sure you've noticed the sudden outpouring of neoconservative tears for the plight of this Muslim ethnic group in China's far western region. Declarations of genocide are now bellowing forth from people who for years didn't...

...utter a word (despite these atrocities being public knowledge for about 5 years now). They didn't care about the genocide of the Rohingya Muslims or the suffering of the Palestinians either. But now China's ascendancy threatens Western economic hegemony the Uighurs...

....present a useful tool to exert pressure on Beijing. Anyway, tying it in to TACT 2000....any people facing genocide sure have the right to physically (yes that's right, I mean violence) resist? Except under TACT such resistance would constitute terrorism. Yes, that's...

...right...to resist one's own genocide under this law would be classed as "terrorism". That' how sick and disgraceful it is. So if tomorrow the Uighurs were to rise up and say we won't accept to be lead like sheep into concentration camps anymore, for our women to be forcibly...

...sterilised...for our children to indoctrinated into hating our religion and culture...for Han Chinese men to be billeted upon our womenfolk whose men are in said camps...and for our mosques to be demolished or turned into bars...and we will fight the regime perpetrating...

...these genocidal policies upon us...as British Muslims if we were to say "we stand with them and support their righteous struggle" we would be committing a terrorist offence. Yes, really.

What's worse is that given the decision to prosecute is in the hands of the DPP, the authorities could selectively prosecute some whilst giving a pass to others. So for example were I to call for jihad against the Chinese regime I would more than likely end up...

...in HMP Belmarsh (the UK's main prison for terrorist offenders). Were a certain nasty individual who spends his time denigrating Islamic practises and posting insulting imagery of the Prophet (saw) to do the same nothing would happen...because he sings the tune...

...those in power want to hear. I don't.

It's important to bear in mind that China's genocidal policy vis-a-vis the Uighurs is actually nothing more than PREVENT taken to its logical conclusion. They have long tried to "reform" Islam, to induce the Uighurs to abandon their Islamic beliefs and practises.

Because they see Islam as "the problem" - just like neocons like @DouglasKMurray. Islam in the eyes of the Chinese authorities is inherently violent and subversive and so if its votaries won't voluntarily abjure it then more forcible means must be employed. Sure their methods...

...are exponentially more crude and brutal than anything PREVENT has, or (hopefully) ever will, employ but the thinking is the same. When @Amanda _spielman makes evident in her parliamentary cross questioning by Muslim MP Shabana Mahmood her disdain for the hijab and...

...her very obvious desire to deracinate Muslim children she exemplifies this same mindset. If you stand against the genocide of the Uighurs then you have no choice but to stand against PREVENT also.

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1...135494656.html
Reply

سيف الله
08-24-2020, 08:56 AM
Salaam

Another update.

The UK Government’s social engineering of Muslim beliefs through counter-extremism is doomed to fail

A report by CAGE entitled ‘Beyond Prevent’ released earlier this year outlines how the government should deal with the threat of political violence.

“The attention of policy makers,” the report said, “should be on those material conditions from which political violence draws its perceived legitimacy”.

This is far more effective for building a harmonious society than “focusing on ‘ideology’ and criminalising a wide range of perfectly nonviolent beliefs and political activity”.

The latter approach, however, is what has characterised the domestic ‘War on Terror’ over the last two decades, and it continues to do so today.

The reason for this, of course, is that the state does not wish to engage in a serious rethinking of its domestic and foreign policy.

The compulsion instead has been to craft an alternative narrative explaining political violence that absolves the state of any responsibility.

The standpoint of counter-extremism is shaky despite the glitz

This has given rise in Britain and the US to the Countering Violent Extremism (CVE) apparatus, which has been successfully exported to countless other countries.

The task of stopping political violence, thus, has morphed into a social engineering project. A prime example of this is the Prevent programme, which makes it a statutory duty for public-sector workers to report people they believe to have been radicalised.

Rooted in the obscure (and certainly not evidence-based) science of “pre-crime”, up to 95% of Prevent referrals are false positives — a number which does not even include the countless other cases of people (often schoolchildren) who are subjected to needless interrogation due to the paranoia of one of their fellow citizens.

It is, of course, particularly galling that a strategy which is only very rarely successful even on its own terms has not yet been scrapped.

Rather, in giving the state the power to intervene in the realm of (perfectly legal) ideas, under the more recent banner of “safeguarding”, Prevent is a significant and unjustified expansion of state power.

Turning Muslims against one another to facilitate discrimination

Arun Kundnani documents in his book The Muslims Are Coming how the US-led War on Terror’s “reformists” sought to move away from the concept of a clash between Islam and the West, and rather frame the conflict as being between a violent and threatening version of Islam, and another deemed moderate.

In Britain, this has meant setting a standard which Muslims have to meet to be deemed “good Muslims” rather than “bad Muslims” according to state definitions.

Prevent represents an important component of this project. Initially designed to target Muslims, it remains to this day discriminatory; a recent study, for example, has demonstrated that Muslims are eight times more likely than non-Muslims to be referred to the programme by NHS staff.

The reason for this is simple; in a society in which anti-Muslim prejudice is exceedingly common, forcing ordinary people to identify fellow citizens at risk of “extremism” inevitably yields discriminatory results.

Criminalising a centuries-old tradition of debate and contextualisation

CAGE’s research director, Dr Asim Qureshi, highlights the fact that Prevent “limits public-sector understanding of far-right issues to overt racism and violence” – meaning that it does not “extend into the realm of beliefs and discussions, or even into non-violent engagement with historical figures and arguments”.

The same, of course, is not true for the programme’s approach to Muslims. “Islamist extremists”, according to the government’s Task Force on Tackling Radicalisation and Extremism report, “seek to impose a global Islamic state governed by their interpretation of Shari’ah as state law, rejecting liberal values such as democracy, the rule of law and equality”.

As Qureshi notes, under this banner, criminality then includes “the discussion of, interest in, or even exploration of concepts rooted in a 1,400-year jurisprudential tradition which have had a dynamic place within Islamicate communities, and are highly dependent on context and scholarly consensus for their implementation”.

Muslims, thus, are expected to prove their compliance with liberal values and their adherence to an Islam considered acceptable to the powers that be. This is an extraordinary infringement on religious liberty, one that renders the state an active player in regulating and controlling religion.

Covert methods include community and arts projects that push “muscular liberalism”

Consider the recent appearance of two websites, “Stoosh” and “This is Woke”, seeking to influence the behaviour of young Muslims.

Both websites describe themselves as having been produced by a “media/news company” – but were actually created by Breakthrough Media, a communications company under contract to the Office for Security and Counter Terrorism, a unit within the Home Office.

Similarly, a furore was caused in 2019 when a number of writers and artists staged a boycott of the popular Bradford Literature Festival after it emerged that it had been part-funded by the Home Office’s “Building a Stronger Britain Together” (BSBT) programme, which “supports the delivery of the government’s counter-extremism strategy”.

These examples demonstrate the pervasive securitisation of British Muslim life and civil society, and the treatment of Muslims as subjects to be monitored and influenced rather than respected as equal citizens.

“Rather than adopting a passive liberalism that says anything goes, for fear of causing offence, schools leaders should be promoting a muscular liberalism,” the chief of Ofsted, Amanda Spielman, declared at a 2018 conference held by the Church of England in London.

Such a statement, made against the backdrop of Prevent, should be recognised as posing a threat to pluralism, while the government’s efforts to cultivate a palatable Islam are structurally incompatible with the religious tradition.


Muslim dynasties were unable to mould the Shari’a, so the modern project will fail


In his monumental book The Impossible State, Wael Hallaq lambasts the attempts of modern Muslim governments to enforce Islamic law, arguing that the Shari’a is incompatible with the modern nation-state.

It is a cruel irony that Islam is so often caricatured as being theocratic; as Hallaq demonstrates, pre-modern Muslim judiciaries were generally independent of the executive, while non-Muslim communities were free to live by their own denominational laws.

Rulers came and went, and dynasties rose and fell – but through it all the Shari’a remained essentially independent. Education, too, was denominational, and curriculums were untouched by sultanic authority.

European colonial forces, by imposing the modern state on Muslim polities, created a situation which fundamentally differed from the manner in which Muslim societies had functioned throughout most of Islamic history.

If, then, Muslim dynasties themselves have been historically unable to engineer an Islam of their choosing, on what grounds can the British government attempt to do the same?


Expanding Prevent will only absolve the government further of its failures

Such a project, facilitated by the War on Terror, is both unjustified and doomed to fail; in the words of Shaykh Abdal Hakim Murad, Professor of Islamic Studies at the Cambridge Muslim College, “non-Muslim think-tankers, social administrators and party politicians have no jurisdiction in matters of Muslim belief, outlook and practice”.

Respecting this principle is necessary to ensure the flourishing of British Muslim communities. The Prevent strategy, which targets legal beliefs and ideas, must be abolished.

It certainly should not be expanded to focus on the “far-right”; fundamentally, the idea of “pre-crime” has no place in a healthy society.

Moreover, as Muslims know very well, it will be working-class white people, rather than Conservative MPs who have openly maligned and demonised minorities, that will be targeted under supposed efforts to “combat the far-right”.

Political violence can be fought, as CAGE’s ‘Beyond Prevent’ report recommends, through the adoption of a more ethical approach to foreign policy, as well as the restoration of social spending without strings attached, and the decoupling of welfare and safeguarding from counter extremism.

In other words, the unnecessary securitisation that we have seen over the last two decades must be reversed.

Pluralism should be maintained and attempts at social engineering – through counter-terror measures and quasi-state institutions such as Ofsted – must be abandoned by the government.

Societal harmony lies in the upholding of civil liberties and the assurance of religious freedom for all citizens. Unfortunately, this government seems to care about neither.

https://www.cage.ngo/the-uk-governme...doomed-to-fail
Reply

سيف الله
09-03-2020, 11:27 AM
Salaam

If you want a textbook example of how a Muslim organisation is being subverted and undermined by the British establishment you only have to look at whats happened to Islamic Relief. A lot of what is said is wrong but doesnt detract from the point that they are using this to purge Islamic organisations of those who don't serve their interests.

Islamic Relief elects new trustees after exposé of pro-Hamas, anti-Israel posts

Islamic Relief has elected a new board of trustees after The Times reported one of its trustees had praised Palestinian Islamic group Hamas and described Israel as the “Zionist enemy.”

Now deleted posts on the personal Facebook account of Dr Almoutaz Tayara, who is also the chairman of Islamic Relief Germany, described the leaders of Hamas as “great men” who responded to the “divine and holy call of the Muslim Brotherhood.”

Although widely considered a legitimate resistance organisation in Palestine and the wider Muslim world, Hamas’s military wing, the Izz al-Din al-Qassem Brigades, has been designated by the UK and the EU as a proscribed terrorist organisation since 2001.

Dr Tayara wrote in Arabic: “The al-Qassem heroes did not graduate from the military academies of the UK and the US, unlike the rulers and royals of the Arab world who, there, were nurtured on cowardice and allegiance to the foreigners — the UK and the US.”

Social media posts by Tayara also showed the former American president Barack Obama in clothing branded with the Star of David. A caricature he posted showed a grinning Obama wearing a blue tie branded prominently with a white emblem. On his lap sat three smaller figures – Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran’s leader, President Assad of Syria and Abdulmalik al-Houthi, the Yemeni rebel leader.

In the Arabic speech bubbles Ayatollah Khamenei is saying: “Death to America . . . Death to Israel”; Assad says “Death . . . Death”; the Houthi leader shouts “Death to America”.

Dr Tayara told The Times he was “deeply ashamed” of his posts and that when he published them he was in a state of distress owing to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

He accepted that the comments, which he said he had copied from posts by others, were “shameful and unacceptable.” He had apologised in 2017 to the board of Islamic Relief Germany, making it clear that “these were not and are not my beliefs.” “I do not support any terrorist movement. I do not support the Muslim Brotherhood or the Izz al-Din al-Qassem Brigades. I am not an antisemite,” he said.

When The Times asked Dr Tayara why he posted an antisemitic cartoon in which Shia Muslim leaders demanded death for America and Israel, he said he was “deeply ashamed” of his actions.

He was not antisemitic, he said. Someone else posted the cartoon and he chose to repost it because it “was referring to the Iranian, Shiite involvement in the war in Syria and the region”.

This is the second time in a month that Islamic Relief has faced scrutiny over controversial comments by a trustee.

Heshmat Khalifa resigned his IRW directorship last month after The Times revealed antisemitic posts in which he called Israelis the “grandchildren of monkeys and pigs” and Egypt’s president a “pimp son of the Jews.”

https://5pillarsuk.com/2020/08/25/is...-israel-posts/
Reply

سيف الله
10-07-2020, 10:42 PM
Salaam

Another update. When will this French fool ever learn. . . . . .







More comment.



















At least they are honest about their intentions. . . . .



On the damaging impact.





The paranoia



A geopolitical perspective that helps explains Macrons attitude towards Muslims and Islam.



A humourous take.





In the end they will fail.

Reply

سيف الله
10-24-2020, 11:35 PM
Salaam

the situation for Muslims in France is going from bad to worse.





















Reaction.





A bit harsh.



Comment.

Blurb

Beheading of a teacher resulting in indiscriminate crackdowns, 2 Muslim women being stabbed whilst the media ignored it and elections coming up.

What is going on in France?
























But we shouldnt be too surprised given French history.







The end goal, to finish what the French revolution began, the creation of a secular theocracy.



Macrons gone off the deep end. . . .

Reply

سيف الله
10-25-2020, 09:51 AM
Salaam

Oh dear, Macrons delicate sensibilities have been offended.



France recalls Turkey envoy after Erdogan says Macron needs 'mental check'

France has recalled its ambassador to Turkey for consultations after President Recep Tayyip Erdogan insulted his French counterpart Emmanuel Macron.

He said Mr Macron needed a mental health check for pledging to defend secular values and fight radical Islam.

Mr Macron has spoken out forcefully on these issues after a French teacher was murdered for showing cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad in class.

France "will not give up our cartoons", he said earlier this week.

Depictions of the Prophet Muhammad can cause serious offence to Muslims because Islamic tradition explicitly forbids images of Muhammad and Allah (God).

In the wake of the remarks, a French presidential official told AFP news agency that France's ambassador to Turkey was being recalled for consultations, and would be meeting Mr Macron.

"President Erdogan's comments are unacceptable. Excess and rudeness are not a method. We demand that Erdogan change the course of his policy because it is dangerous in every respect," the official was quoted as saying.

Erodgan is a pious Muslim who has sought to move Islam into Turkey's mainstream politics since his Islamist-rooted AK Party came to power in 2002.

But state secularism - or laïcité - is central to France's national identity. Curbing freedom of expression to protect the feelings of one particular community, the state says, undermines the country's unity.

Responding to Mr Macron's campaign to defend such values - which began before the teacher was murdered - Mr Erdogan asked in a speech: "What's the problem of the individual called Macron with Islam and with the Muslims?"

He added: "Macron needs treatment on a mental level.

"What else can be said to a head of state who does not understand freedom of belief and who behaves in this way to millions of people living in his country who are members of a different faith?"

The diplomatic spat is latest issue to strain relations between France and Turkey, who are allies under Nato but disagree on a range of geo-political issues, including the civil wars in Syria and Libya, and the conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan over disputed Nagorno-Karabakh.

Seven people, including two students, have been charged over the beheading of French teacher Samuel Paty on 16 October near Paris. His killer, 18-year-old Abdullakh Anzorov, was shot dead by police shortly after the attack, which took place near Mr Paty's school.

In 2015, 12 people were killed in an attack on the offices of French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo. The publication was targeted by extremists for publishing cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad.

Earlier this month, Mr Macron described Islam as a religion "in crisis," and announced plans for tougher laws to tackle what he called "Islamist separatism" in France.

He said a minority of France's estimated six million Muslims were in danger of forming a "counter-society".

Some in Western Europe's largest Muslim community have accused Mr Macron of trying to repress their religion and say his campaign risks legitimising Islamophobia.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-54678826

Appreciate the irony.





Pakistan PM responds.

Blurb

"By attacking Islam, clearly without having any understanding of it, President Macron has attacked and hurt the sentiments of millions of Muslims in Europe and across the world.”[



But Macron neednt worry the Crown Prince MBZ has got his back!









Blurb

A mosque has been ordered shut and a pro-Hamas group disolved.

It follows dozens of raids on muslims and organisations suspected of inciting hatred.

The campaign comes after the stabbing and decapitation of a teacher by a Moscow-born Chechen refugee, who was later shot dead by police.

Samuel Paty had discussed cartoons of Prophet Mohammed in a class on free speech.

President Emamnuel Macron has promised to step up crackdowns on what he calls 'radical Muslims'.


He says he's protecting the French people from 'evil'.
But will this iron-fist policy work?
And how much is politics at play?


Reply

سيف الله
10-27-2020, 02:13 PM
Salaam

MBS, MBZ and Sisi are quietly backing France, what a surprise.



#BoycottFrance : A counter-campaign organized in Saudi Arabia, the UAE and Egypt

...More : https://en.yabiladi.com/articles/det...di-arabia.html


The boycott campaign against French products in reaction to Emmanuel Macron's determination to continue publishing cartoons of Prophet Mohammed is unlikely to have the support of all the States of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC). Voices close to power circles in some OIC countries have been opposed to the #BoycottFrance campaign.

For Mohammed Al Issa, secretary general of the Islamic World League and former justice minister in Saudi Arabia, «cartoons are just worthless bubles». «The place of religion will not be affected by madness and the wars waged against it by ignorant satire», he told the Saudi channel Al Arabiya on Monday.

An opinion which is in line with the press release published the same day by the Superior Council of Ulema in the Wahhabi kingdom. «Defaming prophets and messengers will never hurt them, but only serve extremists who want to spread hateful calls among humanitarian communities».

Al Issa believes that the responses against these drawings «were reckless». A way for Al Issa, who is very close to Crown Prince Mohamed Ben Salman, to stand out from calls targeting French products.

A counter-campaign

Al Issa's words are also part of his defense of the French president's speech of October 2 on «Islamist separatism». «Muslims - or those who claim to be - who have given a bad image of our religion through their extremism, their fanaticism or the violence of terrorism. They are in no way representatives of Islam and if we found excuses for them, we would be like them», he told a Saudi media outlet, as reported by French-language daily L'Opinion.

In the past, Al Issa had already praised Macron's speech of April 25, 2019, on «political Islamism». «All Muslims in Europe must respect the constitutions, laws and cultures of the countries in which they live. They must not accept the importation of fatwas and foreign ideas», he insisted during his participation in a congress, organized in September 2019 in Paris, devoted to the same theme.

In Egypt, Al Azhar condemned the publication of the controversial cartoons. However, the official institution has not yet commented on the boycott. A gap that some preachers are trying to fill. Khaled Al Joundi who hosts several programs on a private channel close to Al Sissi spoke numbers to urge Egyptians to distance themselves from the boycott, recalling that «there are 165 French companies» in his country which provide employment to several «Egyptian employees». «French investments amount to $ 5 billion and $ 2.8 billion is the value of trade between Egypt and France», he pleaded.

The same goes for the United Arab Emirates. The mission to denounce the movement was entrusted to personalities close to Abu Dhabi's strongman, Mohamed Ben Zayed. This is the case of his advisor, Abdelkhalek Abdellah, who did not hesitate to accuse the Muslim Brotherhood and Turkey of being behind the campaign against the French economy. Ironically, in recent months, Saudi Arabia and the Emirates have witnessed calls to boycott Turkish goods.

The positions expressed in these countries contrast with the reactions of these same states, in autumn 2006, in favor of the campaign against Danish products, in reaction to the publication by the Jyllands-Posten newspaper of caricatures of the Prophet.

https://en.yabiladi.com/articles/det...di-arabia.html





How spineless they are. They wonder why their crediblity is continually going down the drain.



Appropriate response.

Reply

سيف الله
10-30-2020, 12:16 AM
Salaam

More comment.





The killing is not an act that as a Muslim I would approve. But while I believe in the freedom of expression, I do not think it includes insulting other people. You cannot go up to a man and curse him simply because you believe in freedom of speech.

In Malaysia, where there are people of many different races and religions, we have avoided serious conflicts between races because we are conscious of the need to be sensitive to the sensitivities of others. If we are not, then this country would never be peaceful and stable.

We often copy the ways of the West. We dress like them, we adopt their political systems, even some of their strange practices. But we have our own values, different as between races and religions, which we need to sustain.

The trouble with new ideas is that the late comers tend to add new interpretations. These are not what the originators intended. Thus, freedom for women, meant the right to vote in elections. Today, we want to eliminate everything that is different between men and women.

Physically we are different. This limits our capacity to be equal. We have to accept these differences and the limitations that are placed on us. Our value systems is also a part of human rights.

Yes, sometimes some values seem to be inhuman. They cause some people to suffer. We need to reduce the sufferings.
But not by force, if the resistance is great.

The dress code of European women at one time was severely restrictive. Apart from the face no part of the body was exposed. But over the years, more and more parts of the body are exposed.

Today a little string covers the most secret place, that’s all. In fact, many in the west are totally naked when on certain beaches.

The West accepts this as normal. But the West should not try to forcibly impose this on others. To do so is to deprive the freedom of these people.

Generally, the west no longer adhere to their own religion. They are Christians in name only. That is their right. But they must not show disrespect for the values of others, for the religion of others. It is a measure of the level of their civilisation to show this respect.

Macron is not showing that he is civilised. He is very primitive in blaming the religion of Islam and Muslims for the killing of the insulting school teacher. It is not in keeping with the teachings of Islam.

But irrespective of the religion professed, angry people kill. The French in the course of their history has killed millions of people. Many were Muslims.

Muslims have a right to be angry and to kill millions of French people for the massacres of the past.

But by and large the Muslims have not applied the “eye for an eye” law. Muslims don’t. The French shouldn’t. Instead the French should teach their people to respect other people’s feelings.

Since you have blamed all Muslims and the Muslims’ religion for what was done by one angry person, the Muslims have a right to punish the French. The boycott cannot compensate the wrongs committed by the French all these years.

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1...233811970.html



Khabibs reponse.



More comment. Fearless and unapologetic as always.



Responses to the video.

Mognodor

I'm French, and disrespect towards Islam is very normal, almost encouraged here. There really isn't a culture of free speech like in the USA, but when it comes to religion, you can be as mean as you want, even if it's for no reason other than being mean, provocative and disrespectful. This so called "freedom of speech" (freedom of insulting religion really) used to be practiced on every religion, but for the past few years it's been particularly targeted towards Islam and Muslims.

Some people say horrible things about Muslims, spread their hatred of Islam, sometimes on TV, and they're given even more visibility for that. French people will understand very well what I'm talking about (Eric Zemmour). And those people act like they're being so subversive, so brave, when in reality it's become the norm in the media, to just insult Muslims, blame them for everything bad in the country. And when you point all this injustice out, people say that you're whining, or they say "we are allowed to do that and that because it's in the law", but in reality they only do those things to Muslims. Because Christians are the majority, and criticising Jews is kind of taboo in France.

So yeah France really doesn't feel good to live in as a Muslim right now.




More analysis.


Blurb


In the West hearing the word beheading, Islam and terrorism is scary. What's even more scary is how worse violence is not linked to faith or terrorism. This makes it seem like Islam has the copyright over terrorism. Only difference is the other are state backed and well marketed.

Here I also present 6 cases where France didn't exercise freedom of speech when it came to Christians, Jews and others. Why are Muslims any different? (Memorise and share them)

A good academic video on freedom of speech by academic Hamza Tzortzis: https://youtu.be/WtRvdFu8i7I

If you are interested in learning more about Islam click here: https://onereason.org

Follow and support work being done by CAGE and MEND.

https://twitter.com/UK_CAGE
https://twitter.com/mendcommunity




The grass is not always greener on the otherside.







It gets worse and worse.

Reply

سيف الله
11-04-2020, 11:02 AM
Salaam

UAE leadership are backing Macron surprise surprise.



UAE minister backs Emmanuel Macron’s remarks on Muslims

Anwar Gargash rejects accusations against French president that he seeks to exclude Muslims.


A prominent United Arab Emirates minister has called on Muslims to accept the stance of French President Emmanuel Macron on his claims about the need for “integration” in Western societies.

“[Muslims] have to listen carefully to what Macron said in his speech. He doesn’t want to isolate Muslims in the West, and he is totally right,” Anwar Gargash, minister of state for foreign affairs, said in an interview on Monday with the German daily Die Welt.

He said Muslims “need to be integrated in a better way” in Western nations.

“The French state has the right to search for ways to achieve this in parallel with combating extremism and societal closure,” he added.

Gargash rejected accusations against the French president that he seeks to exclude Muslims living in France.

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020/...rks-on-muslims



Meanwhile.

‘End to misunderstood tolerance’: Austria’s Kurz doubles down on vow to fight ‘political Islam’ following Vienna attack

Austrian Chancellor Sebastian Kurz has said he expects Europe to abandon what he called “misunderstood tolerance” in the wake of a terrorist attack in Vienna while calling for an EU-wide effort to combat “political Islam.”

“I expect an end to the wrongly understood tolerance … in all European countries,” Kurz told Germany’s Die Welt newspaper, adding that the ideology of “political Islam” endangers “our freedom” as well as the very “European model of life.”

The chancellor maintained that the issue is grave enough to require a Europe-wide response, adding that he already raised this topic in phone calls with many European leaders and also plans to make a fight against “political Islam” an issue on the agenda at the upcoming EU summits.

Speaking to the Austrian media, Kurz also called a decision to release the Vienna attacker on parole “definitely wrong.” Earlier, the nation’s Interior Minister Karl Nehammer admitted that the Islamist radical that killed four people and injured 23 more in Vienna on Monday “tricked” a de-radicalization program overseen by the Justice Ministry.

The perpetrator was earlier sentenced to 22 months in prison in April 2019 over swearing allegiance to Islamic State (IS, former ISIS) and attempting to join terrorists in Syria. Yet, he was released just some eight months later since he was no longer considered a threat.

“Had he not been released from prison, a terrorist attack like this could not have happened,” Kurz admitted. Still, the chancellor also maintained that there is only “one culprit”“guilty” of this “barbaric, cowardly Islamist terrorist attack” and that is the assailant himself.

In the wake of the Monday shooting, Kurz apparently sought to ease any potential tensions by saying it was “not a conflict between Christians and Muslims, or between Austrians and migrants” but between “civilization and barbarity.”

https://www.rt.com/news/505444-austr...-islam-attack/

Macron leads the way in defending freedom of speech. . . .oh wait. . . . . .

Reply

سيف الله
11-05-2020, 09:01 AM
Salaam

Another update.

Blurb

There have been only a select few terror attacks that have made the headlines, take a guess why the others didn't.

There is an active campaign against Islam, here we can see clearly with news from mainstream sites.




More discussion.



Macron being inconsistent, again. . . . .

Reply

سيف الله
11-07-2020, 09:49 AM
Salaam

More comment.



“The enemy within”: Is there a place for Muslims in France’s secular republic?

“This terrorist wanted to kill the Republic, its values, the Enlightenment, the possibility to turn our children into free citizens. This fight is our fight, and it is an existential fight.” So President Emmanuel Macron announced to the nation in the wake of the murder of teacher Samuel Paty on 16 October 2020. Paty was beheaded by 18-year-old Abdullakh Anzorov, a Chechen refugee, following his use of Charlie Hebdo cartoons of the Prophet Mohamed as part of a classroom discussion on free speech.

Just days later, there was another attack, this time inside the Basilica of Notre-Dame de Nice, where three people were killed by recently arrived Tunisian migrant, Brahim Aouissaoui. For many French people, already dealing with further COVID-19 restrictions, and the ongoing Charlie Hebdo trial, these attacks are the latest wound on the nation’s bruised body — and a bloody reminder that France remains a prime target for some Muslim extremists.

In the wake of this latest paroxysm of violence, fierce public debates have re-ignited over the place and rights of Muslims in France, framed as part of an ongoing civilisational struggle between an “enlightened, beleaguered” France and a “regressive, violent” Islam — and this despite the fact that both of the most recent assailants were not actually French, and that French Muslims have also been among the victims of similar attacks.

At a time when working with Muslim communities to root out those who seek to harm us all is most urgent, the French state has persisted with a strategy which casts the net of suspicion so widely that it risks designating all religious Muslims as suspect citizens and fuelling the very binaries off which extremists feed. Worse still, in the name of a truncated version of republican values, this strategy risks undermining the core principles of the French state itself.

Caught in the middle of this illusory “clash of civilisations” narrative are regular Muslims, whose everyday practices — from wearing a headscarf to donning full-body swimming attire — were already in the nation’s crosshairs, and who are now facing tougher restrictions in the name of national security. Even halal shopping aisles are the latest Muslim “threat” to the republic in the firing line, while the new law on “separatism” is set to include a five-year prison sentence for those who request a physician of the same sex.

Some academics are pushing back against charges of “islamo-facism” being wielded by the French education minister. According to the interior minister, France is fighting a “culture war” — but to many Muslims, this feels more like a witch-hunt.

Whose freedom of speech?

Freedom of speech — the purported right to express the unpalatable — has effectively been sacralised in blood by the French government, through the institutionalisation of support for Charlie Hebdo, itself once a fringe, gratuitously offensive publication, now a litmus test of French Muslim patriotism. Claims of “freedom of speech” are currently being used as a form of “virtue signalling” by the same people who publicly support the suppression of the marginal voices, from comedians to rappers, and others who challenge the elite consensus.

In a measure of just how far this debate has strayed, in 2015 a French court had to adjudicate that “white people” do not represent a component of national identity after a rapper and a sociologist were accused of “anti-white racism” by a far-right Christian group on the grounds of “public injury”. By June this year, almost half of those surveyed said they accept the concept of “anti-white” racism, popularised by Marine Le Pen and other ideological movements on the far-right.

This victimhood narrative among the white majority, which began as a fringe movement, today serves to deflect from real issues of discrimination facing minorities, and is reflected in current debates over the principle of freedom of speech. The strategy, it seems, is no longer to commit to tolerating voices on the margins, but rather to weaponise a reified version of the principle in order to suppress the very groups it was meant to protect. As the French lawyer Nicolas Gardères stated back in 2018:

[I]f the far right defends freedom of speech, it’s so it can be more openly racist. They hate Jews and want to be able to say that Blacks and Arabs are less intelligent and should be sent “back” …

Make no mistake, freedom of speech does permit and protect voices which are deeply offensive, morally challenging, and upsetting. It doesn’t require the whole of society to approve of them, nor for the state to incorporate them into the defining markers of national identity. But that’s the point of free speech: it allows space for such views to be expressed, as long as they do not incite violence.

Free speech isn’t about defending cartoons now republished globally, or about projecting those cartoons onto government buildings in a display of state-sanctioned Islamophobia. It is certainly about the right, in principle, to publish such images. But it’s also about the right to voice opposition to those cartoons without risking criminalisation. It’s about the freedom to publish images of police wrongdoing without being prosecuted (as in the case of Loan Torondel), or to teach the full picture of colonial history, or to protest against the government’s environmental policies without fear of reprisal.

The truncated version of free speech currently being touted as a key republican value is applied in a politically self-serving way, leading some to question the underlying motives — particularly when compared to the limits imposed on such principles when it comes to other aspects of French political and social life.

Last week, the French Council of Ministers dissolved one of the largest Muslim charities in France, BarakaCity, on the grounds that it “incites hatred and justified terrorist acts” — claims that are based in part on social media posts which appeared to support a parent-led campaign against Samuel Paty. Anxiously awaiting a similar fate is the largest anti-Islamophobia organisation in France, the Collectif contre l’islamophobie en France (CCIF), which has been branded an “enemy of the republic” by the government, and yet is one of the few vocal groups pushing back against discrimination. Its loss would mean even less oversight and chronicling of instances of Islamophobia, in a country which has seen the number of Islamophobic acts more than double in just one year. CCIF has recently announced its decision to go into exile in order to escape the punitive environment which risks halting their work in France entirely.

The weaponisation of laïcité

France is, undoubtedly, a nation under attack — the question is: by whom, and why? President Macron has focused on the danger of what he calls “Islamic separatism”: a “politico-religious project, which is materialised by repeated discrepancies with the values of the republic.” The fact this term seems largely defined in opposition to republican values, themselves evolving and often nebulous, raises some concern that the term can simply be used to criminalise those deemed not to subscribe to the prevailing, mutable conception of those values.

Similarly, on the day after Samuel Paty’s murder, French Prime Minister Jean Castex told a group of teachers, “Secularism, the backbone of the republic, has been targeted through this despicable act.” But was it?

This transformation and manipulation of laïcité into an illiberal legal tool to restrict religious freedom has allowed elite public discourse to constantly question Muslim loyalty to France and debate whether or not Muslims can be good French citizens.

Although much of the public conversation assumes that Muslims are the ones eroding republican values, it isn’t Muslims who are seeking to change or challenge France’s longstanding republican edifice — it is the French secularist majority who are attempting to weaponise these values in order better to target Muslims, which may be the very definition of discrimination.

Consider this: not only did a 2016 study find that two-thirds of French Muslims believe laïcité allows them to practise their religion, but the same study also found that the majority of French Muslims do not see their understanding of “religion” as being in conflict with France’s republican framework. So why are some parts of the government pushing to change the definition of secularism, and with it the purportedly immutable republican values it claims to uphold?

Societal laws and the values that undergird them are constantly evolving, but for them to evolve fairly — which is to say, democratically — they must evolve in consultation with those groups they most directly affect. These laws must reflect a degree of social consensus, not be the result of governmental fiat. After all, this is no longer the colonial era in which the French could simply impose their “civilisational” values on the colonised “other” — is it?

I suspect the government’s current conception of laïcité would be utterly unintelligible to the torchbearers of the French revolution, who fought both for the strict separation of Church and State, and for freedom of religion from state intrusion. What would they make of President Macron’s latest plans for the French state to train Muslim faith leaders and bring mosques under tighter government control? The government’s own website on the meaning of laïcité states unequivocally that the free practice of religion is guaranteed, and that “laïcité is not an opinion, but the freedom to have one — it is not a conviction, but the principles which allows all opinions to exist, within the limits of the law.” At a time when a politicised, weaponised version of the term — formulated explicitly in opposition to Islam and Muslims — has become the measure of French patriotism, this struggle over terminology reveals a wider struggle over the very soul of France.

The struggle within France

Some might argue that the erosion of civil liberties in France in the wake of the November 2015 terror attacks in Paris poses the true existential challenge to the republic. Muslims may be first in the firing line, but such precedents set the tone for future violations of what was previously perceived as inviolable.

The state of emergency laws that held sway between 2015 and 2017 were widely criticised by human rights organisations for affording security services exceptional powers, including “the ability to place anyone deemed to be a security risk under house arrest, dissolve groups thought to be a threat to public order, carry out searches without judicial warrants and block any websites that ‘encourage’ terrorism.” The UN Committee against Torture raised concerns regarding allegations of excessive use of force by police during searches, and special rapporteurs warned of “excessive and disproportionate restrictions” on fundamental human rights. While Muslims bore the brunt of this legislation, such excesses were also used against leftist groups. The state of emergency ended in 2017, but there has been little scrutiny since of how these practices have eroded public trust and human rights.

Last year, as part of ongoing anti-terrorism measures, President Macron announced a list of “weak signs of radicalisation” to which authorities were told to be alert. The list makes for glacial reading. It includes ordinary aspects of Muslim religious practice, such as “growing a beard”, “praying regularly”, “greater religiosity during Ramadan”. Those “concerned” were advised to call a free government number — over 68,000 did. The list fuelled a McCarthyite witch-hunt in which any signs of religiosity could, and sometimes did, lead to Muslims being denounced to the authorities.

Just last year, Amnesty International called on French authorities to respond to growing discrimination against French Muslims. It reminded the French government to “beware of presenting Muslims as a suspect group through focusing on the practises of one religion, which should be protected in law, as a security risk.” And yet, in the wake of these recent attacks, this is exactly what has begun to happen once again.

Among worrying trends highlighted by Amnesty was the decision by the French senate to ratify a law prohibiting individuals from accompanying school outings from wearing “visible signs of religion” — legislation clearly understood to be targeting Muslim women in headscarves. In August 2018, the Human Rights Committee of the United Nations concluded that the restriction on the right to wear a headscarf by an employee at a private crèche constituted an attack on the employee’s religious freedom, defying French rulings on the matter. The reality is that French Muslims are now having to seek justice in international courts, because justice at home is in short supply.

This struggle for the French republic isn’t being fought between Islamist fanatics and the French public, but between the new France — a multi-ethnic, multi-religious nation which embraces its range of identities and beliefs under the republican banner, and internalises the notion of laïcité as a principle for the articulation of diversity— and the old elites, desperately clinging to power, drawing on nativist tropes to justify the two-tier republic and the exclusion of those who might challenge their monopoly on power and wealth.

Figures within the French government are increasingly pressing the Observatoire de la laïcité, a state-funded body tasked with protecting secularism, to change the meaning of the term laïcité (“secularism”) to more closely align with their desire for increasingly severe restrictions on Muslim religious practises. Such legal challenges are not new: at least since 1989, when the so-called Affaire du Foulard (“headscarf affair”) in French schools first erupted, the French government effectively has been at war with its own institutions over the meaning of fundamental French principles. Crucially, however, the parts of the population most directly and adversely affected by each proposed set of new laws are rarely, if ever, consulted.

Just this week, forty-nine public figures, from philosophers to journalists and professors, signed a public letter calling on the government, among other things, to create new state institutions to enforce secularism. But not only do such institutions already exist, their voices are most often drowned out because they refuse to bow to public and political pressure to instrumentalise laïcité against the very minorities republican principles were meant to protect. As the French legal scholar Rim-Sarah Alouane has observed:

The French terror

The history of the French republic is marked by the struggle to keep at bay state intrusion into the sphere of the individual — our personal, sacred space, wherein resides our deepest convictions and foundational beliefs. It is freedom which the French constitution guarantees as inalienable to all its citizens, and yet, today, it is this guarantee that is most under threat.

Since January 2020, the French government has shut down 73 mosques and Islamic schools. It has undertaken more than 120 searches of individual homes; it has implemented the dissolution of associations accused — often on scant evidence and without the opportunity for appeal — of spreading “Islamist rhetoric”; and it has applied considerable pressure on social media companies to police content. It has now rendered very normal markers of religiosity suspect and in so doing, linked ordinary Muslims to criminal and terrorist activity.

The erosion of civil liberties always begins at the margins, with minorities, but it creates the conditions for profound shifts in the relationship between the state and civil society. The “exceptions” contain within them the possibility of becoming the “rule”. At this moment, France is claiming to fight an amorphous enemy in the name of republican principles it itself is simultaneously undermining. And in so doing, it is ultimately fomenting rifts within French society which render the struggle against the very real threat of terrorism, much harder. According to the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights on Counter-terrorism:

Respect for human rights and the rule of law must be the bedrock of the global fight against terrorism. This requires the development of national counter-terrorism strategies that seek to prevent acts of terrorism, prosecute those responsible for such criminal acts, and promote and protect human rights and the rule of law. It implies measures to address the conditions conducive to the spread of terrorism, including the lack of rule of law and violations of human rights, ethnic, national and religious discrimination, political exclusion, and socio-economic marginalization …


In France, as in other countries, terrorism has been used to justify “exceptional” legislation which has resulted in repressive measures being used to stifle the voices of human rights defenders, journalists, minorities, and civil society. The new “security state” has redirected resources normally allocated to civil society programmes, thereby effectively weakening their ability to assist at the grassroots level. Media debates bang on relentlessly about “separatism” and the “threat” of political Islam, while referencing ordinary aspects of Muslim religious life, with no consideration of the effect such rhetoric has on community relations, and on Muslims — whom the French Interior Minister recently referred to as “the enemy within.”

It is worth recalling that state terrorism was born during the French revolution. As Guillaume Ansart has argued, “The Terror” marked the first time a government attempted to institute what he calls a “despotism of freedom” — to base “a regime of terror on the universal values of liberty and equality.” He notes that two of the most infamous laws from this period were “the Law of Suspects” — which called for the arrest of all “those who, by their conduct, associations, comments, or writings have shown themselves partisans of tyranny or federalism and enemies of liberty” — and the Law of 22 Prairial Year II — which marked the culmination of the Terror, and broadened the notion of “enemy of the people” to such an extent that every citizen critical of the government could potentially be included in that category. “The Terror” was defined by this imposition of national unity through the criminalisation of any who dared critique its functioning. As a nation, we must do better than fall back into the terror of our darker times and meet the darkness of those who threaten our safety with the light of our shared humanity.

Today, France finds itself in a new period of “terror” in which terrorism poses grave threats: one form of terrorism threatens the peace and safety of the people; the other, a form of political terrorism, threatens the very fabric of society. Both are dangerous, but there is only one which truly represents an existential threat to the nation.

https://www.abc.net.au/religion/plac...ublic/12848512





Reply

سيف الله
11-07-2020, 11:25 AM
Salaam

What else should be expected from the UAE leadership?







Comment.



Hah at least their honest about their intentions.



Reply

سيف الله
11-13-2020, 10:35 PM
Salaam

Another update.

Reply

سيف الله
11-20-2020, 10:24 PM
Salaam

And the mask continues to come off. The French are preparing for a mass conversion campaign.



Macron: Muslim organisations must say Islam is not a political movement

French President Emmanuel Macron has demanded that Muslim organisations sign up to a charter which proclaims that “Islam is a religion and not a political movement.”

According to French media, the charter must recognise the “values of the Republic” and put an end to foreign involvement in French mosques.

Macron has given the French Council of Muslim Worship (CFCM) two weeks to draw up a charter of “republican values” its member organisations and affiliates will be expected to comply with, as part of his efforts to centralise the formation and accreditation of Muslim religious leaders in the country.

During a meeting on Wednesday evening with a number of French Muslim leaders, including CFCM president Mohammed Moussaoui and Chems-Eddine Hafiz, Macron tasked the national Muslim body with filing a draft of the charter.

“This is historic,” a statement from the presidency quoted by French media read. “This has been in discussion for decades.”

“I put my trust in you and you are beholden to my trust,” Macron told the CFCM members on Wednesday. “If some do not sign this charter, we will draw the consequences from that.”

Created in 2003 under then-interior minister Nicolas Sarkozy, the CFCM is a federation of Muslim religious organisations in France. It has since become the principal interlocutor of the government with regards to issues of organised Islam in France.

It remains unclear what exact consequences will face imams and organisations that do not abide by the future charter.

In early October, Macron sparked controversy during a speech in which he called Islam “a religion in crisis” and vowed to crack down on alleged Muslim “separatism”.

Paris’s plans have since intensified following the killing of a schoolteacher and an attack in the city of Nice that left three dead that same month.

A draft law on “separatism” is expected to be presented to the cabinet on December 9.

Demonstrations also took place across the Muslim world denouncing France’s stance on Islam and calling for boycotts of France.

https://5pillarsuk.com/2020/11/19/ma...ical-movement/

Freedom of speech in action. . . . . . .



Lots of comment and analysis.

The biggest con ever 'secularism' was neutral.





More comment.



























Usual hypocricy



What a surprise.





This shouldnt surprise anyone.





The future? I hope not.




Reply

سيف الله
11-20-2020, 11:25 PM
Salaam

As serious as the situation is, heres some hunour to lighten us up in these dark times.

Blurb

French PM Macron has packaged his tirade against Islam and Muslims with the convenient label of "Freedom of speech" but here he owned himself (if he hasn't done so, many times before).

Reply

سيف الله
11-23-2020, 10:48 AM
Salaam

Once again we see the French governments dedication to freedom of speech, oh wait. . . . .



France demands that Pakistan withdraws Macron Nazi jibe

Row escalates over images of the Prophet Mohammed by a French magazine


France's foreign ministry is demanding that Pakistan withdraws comments made by one of its ministers that President Emmanuel Macron was treating Muslims like the Nazis had treated Jews in the Second World War.

The comments were posted on Twitter on Saturday by Pakistan's Federal Minister for Human Rights Shireen Mazari.

The re-publication of images of the Prophet Mohammed by a French magazine in September sparked anger and protests in the Muslim world, especially in Pakistan.

"Macron is doing to Muslims what the Nazis did to the Jews – Muslim children will get ID numbers (other children won't) just as Jews were forced to wear the yellow star on their clothing for identification," Ms Mazari tweeted.

In a follow-up tweet on Sunday, Ms Mazari restated her claims after a condemnation by France's foreign ministry late on Saturday.

"These hateful words are blatant lies, imbued with an ideology of hatred and violence," said France's foreign ministry spokeswoman, Agnes von der Muhll.

"Such slander is unworthy of this level of responsibility. We reject them with the greatest firmness."

She said that Paris had informed the Pakistan embassy of its strong condemnation of the comments.

"Pakistan must rectify these remarks and return to the path of a dialogue based on respect," she said.

After the latest remarks, Ms Mazari later deleted her earlier tweet.

Pakistan's parliament at the end of October passed a resolution urging the government to recall its envoy from Paris, accusing Mr Macron of "hate-mongering" against Muslims.

Mr Macron had paid tribute to a French history teacher who was beheaded by an 18-year-old man of Chechen origin for showing cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed in a class on freedom of speech.

French officials called the beheading an assault on the core French value of freedom of expression.

After satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo in September re-published the cartoons it first published in 2015, Mr Macron said the freedom to blaspheme went hand in hand with the freedom of belief in France.

https://www.thenationalnews.com/worl...jibe-1.1115744



More analysis.

Blurb

On November 18, President Macron issued an ultimatum to Muslim leaders to accept a "charter of republican values," including a ban on political action from Muslim groups. Speaking to TRT World, civil liberties activist Yasser Louati believes the future of French Muslims lies in their capacity to stand against oppression.

Reply

سيف الله
11-24-2020, 05:14 PM
Salaam

The scholar for dollars give judgement.



Comment.











Whats at stake.



Reply

سيف الله
12-02-2020, 02:55 PM
Salaam

Another update.






France’s hypocrisy on liberty and equality laid bare as main anti-Islamophobia group is banned


The forced closure of the CCIF today (Collectif contre l’islamophobie en France; Collective against Islamophobia in France) [1] by the French Interior Minister Gérald Darmanin, exposes the French state’s brazen hypocrisy in advocating ‘free speech’ while legally denying Muslims the freedom to speak and organise.

The CCIF now faces the unprecedented situation of not only being banned, but also having its staff indefinitely blacklisted. This means they cannot moderate the CCIF, nor can they set up new associations or speak publicly. Their freedom of association and expression has been suspended indefinitely.

The move follows similar action against Baraka City, another household name among Muslims in France, and the violent arrest of its manager as well as a series of raids on mosques, Islamic schools and homes.

Muhammad Rabbani, managing director of CAGE, said:

“Individuals linked to the CCIF have been muzzled in a manner only heard of in the most autocratic countries. Governments are evading due process the same way that untransparent corporates such as World Check and other shady proscription lists operate, where there is no right to challenge and listing is indefinite.”

“This disruption and attempt to weaken the Muslim community follows Macron’s announcement of a new ‘Separatism Law’ [2] to curtail Muslim charity work and political campaigning. It also follows an EU Joint Statement of a “united front against Islamism” – to distract the EU from French violations of ‘liberty, egality and fraternity’ and even EU laws.”

“All those that claim to uphold the right to organise and collaborate to bring about positive social change cannot be silent any longer. This is not the way to nurture trust between people and government. We must speak up with courage for those in France who are standing firm despite state repression.”

https://www.cage.ngo/frances-hypocri...roup-is-banned
Reply

سيف الله
12-03-2020, 04:28 PM
Salaam

Another update.



Abdullah bin Bayyah will no longer address Canada conference following UAE complaints

One of North America’s largest annual Muslim conferences has announced that Shaykh Abdullah bin Bayyah will not be speaking after complaints about his ties to the United Arab Emirates.

Bin Bayyah was due to speak at the Toronto-based Reviving the Islamic Spirit (RIS) conference on December 26-27, but organisers announced yesterday that this is no longer the case.

They said: “Shaykh Abdullah Bin Bayyah will not be participating in this year’s conference. We pray that the first RIS virtual conference provides an uplifting experience, as far removed as possible form the trials of our times, to enter for a few brief days into a shared space of lofty ideals and inspiriting heights. May Allah protect the community of believers wherever they may be, and may He protect us from the trials and tribulations of this world.”

Around a week ago the official Fatwa Council of the United Arab Emirates denounced the Muslim Brotherhood as a “terrorist organisation” and urged Muslims to steer clear of the group.

The statement came during an online meeting of the council led by Sheikh Abdullah Bin Bayyah and called on all Muslims to reject division and to refrain from affiliation or sympathy with groups that “work to divide the ranks and inflame discord and bloodshed.”

It reiterated that “it is not permissible to pledge allegiance to anyone other than the ruler,” and said the community should show “respect and commitment” to leaders.

A few months ago Bin Bayyah also supported the UAE-Israel peace deal that has widely been denounced as a betrayal of the Palestinian cause.

Bin Bayyah is the President of the UAE-funded Forum for Promoting Peace in Muslim Societies and his Arabic statement praised the “wisdom” of de facto UAE leader Mohammed bin Zayed Al Nahyan and his “pursuit of a just and permanent peace in the Middle East region, and expressed the wish that this initiative would pave the way to peace and the promotion of stability in the region and the world.

Bin Bayyah is the teacher of U.S. Muslim theologian Shaykh Hamza Yusuf who has been heavily criticised by Muslims for giving credibility to the United Arab Emirates through his associations with the Forum for Promoting Peace in Muslim Societies.

Hamza Yusuf is still slated to appear at RIS along with other prominent Muslim speakers and cultural figures.

Last week a prominent American Muslim imam announced his withdrawal from the conference in protest against the UAE.

Imam Khalid Latif, the first Muslim chaplain at New York University, said he would not be taking part in the annual conference due to the participation of Bin Bayyah.

“Over the last few years, there have been a lot of dangerous positions from UAE-based councils that have named individual Muslim leaders and organisations like ISNA, Islamic Relief, and CAIR as being linked to terrorism,” Latif said in a Facebook post.

“The most recent fatwa that Shaykh Bin Bayyah’s UAE Council issued deeming the Muslim Brotherhood a terrorist organisation simply adds to an already problematic geopolitical agenda.

“That agenda seemingly has no qualms in assisting in the development of iniquitous policy in countries throughout the world that will disrupt the lives of so many people and justify the oppression of that many more all in the pursuit of power retention,” he added.

Commenting on the RIS announcement, American Muslim imam Shaykh Suhaib Webb said: “Kudos to Imam Khalid for taking a principled position and refusing to participate in any event which is going to showcase people who are being propped up by the UAE. God bless him.

“We need principled leadership. If you have seen the position of the UAE on Austrian Muslims and French Muslims it is absolutely unacceptable… unfortunately those positions were that they should just deal with these new laws that are being passed, that they should just step back and forgo some of their religious rights. Added to this is the position of the UAE an normalising relationships with the Occupier of Palestine, the support of the UAE for Sisi during the coup in Egypt and to undermine Muslims’ presence in America and Canada.”

https://5pillarsuk.com/2020/12/02/ab...ae-complaints/
Reply

ashraf__
12-03-2020, 04:55 PM
BEFORE we blame the west for all our woes what have we done? we in our muslim majority countries always end up supporting the tyrants. I know when Bangladesh broke of from Pakistan most muslim countries didn't want to recognize us, guess what Israelis did. Nor did any muslim country pressure the Pakistanis to stop killing their own muslim citizens.
Reply

سيف الله
12-03-2020, 05:10 PM
What an amazing obeservation! You dont think we dont know about this? That many have been arrested and jailed trying to talk about this? Incidentally why do you think Zios wanted to recognise you? Not out of the goodness of their hearts I can assure you.

Now stop trying to derail this thread and stick on topic.
Reply

ashraf__
12-03-2020, 05:24 PM
What an epic failure at trying to take a jab. The cause I stated still stands to this day which allows the non Muslims to use this against us. I guess you received wahi about whats inside their hearts? how quick to judge someone. Looks like you are providing validation for what the Pakistanis did and at the same time you want non Muslims to stop doing that to you!



Unless you show the non muslims you have respect for rule of law they will not respect you. Simple as that.



Are you aware of the two sheppards visiting Nabi Daud and asking for insaf?
Reply

سيف الله
01-30-2021, 11:12 PM
Salaam

Another update.



CFCM “Charter of Principles” rejected by twelve international Ulamā councils

A large number of international scholarly bodies and organisations have convened and released a joint statement condemning the French government’s foolhardy pursuit of forcing the crassly titled “Charter of Principles” down the throats of masājid and a’immah across France.

The Charter, devised in light of a spate of attacks blamed on ‘Islamists’, is the French government’s latest attempt to usher in a new era of Islam, one of so-called “enlightenment Islam”.

In an article published on The Spectator in October 2020, the President of France, Emanuel Macron, said:


“We intend to lead in finally building an Islam in France which can be an Islam of the Enlightenment. We must help this religion in our country to structure itself to be a partner of the Republic in terms of the affairs that we share.”
Macron is essentially set on watering down Islam.

In response to the Charter, the Ulamā councils that convened proclaim it impermissible to sign the Charter as it is an open declaration to give precedence to French liberal values before Islam. The Charter is a threat to Muslims in France and abroad, as it builds an openly discriminatory foundation against them. This sets a dangerous precedent that could be used to target any minority, and in particular the Muslims of Europe.

In a statement, the Chief Editor of Islam21C, Dr. Salman Butt, praised the sense of solidarity expressed by numerous scholarly councils from around the world, including committees in Palestine, Lebanon, Syria, and Iraq.

“It is heartening to see such a huge international consensus of Muslim scholars speaking out against such an outrageous example of colonial hubris that has not yet left some quarters of the French establishment.”

“In order to score a few cheap political points, the French government are appearing to unravel the façade of tolerant values of the French Revolution, which were at least paid lip service to among nations claiming to be democratic and free.”

“French minorities are treated like laboratory animals for testing increasingly repressive secularist experiments. Secularism is now clear for everyone to see as an imposition of White Western-Christian norms under the name of neutrality.”

“Minorities across the rest of the Western world need to pay close attention to the all-too-easy descent into totalitarianism and legalised White supremacy if we fail to act now to strengthen our civil societies against such transgressions of people’s God-given rights.”
France’s right-leaning President Macron has been on a mission to collectively punish the entire French-Muslim population for what he deems ‘foreign interference’ and ‘political Islam’. In doing so, Macron has made no substantive attempts to engage with the Muslim community at large, instead preferring ultimatums and threatening language.[2]

Last week, three component organisations from within the CFCM (Conseil français du culte musulman) also denounced the Charter, saying:

“We obviously agree with the demand for non-interference by States, the non-instrumentalization of religions and respect for the Constitution and the principles of the Republic. However, we believe that certain passages and formulations of the submitted text are likely to weaken the bonds of trust between the Muslims of France and the Nation. In addition, certain statements undermine the honor of Muslims, with an accusatory and marginalizing character.”
The Faith and Practice movement, the Coordination Committee of Turkish Muslims in France (CCMTF) and the Milli Görüş Islamic Confederation (CMIG) insisted for amendments to various parts of the Charter, decrying the fact that such a document had been approved despite lacking the full consensus of other critical parts of the CFCM.

A translation of the statement can be read in full below, followed by the list of cosignatory bodies.

In the name of Allah, Most Gracious, Most Merciful.


Muslim Scholars Association

Press release no.142 (08/06/1442 – 21/01/2021)

STATEMENT OF MUSLIM SCHOLARS ASSOCIATION ON THE CHARTER OF MOSQUES IN FRANCE


Praise be to Allah, Lord of the worlds. Prayers, peace and blessings be upon the seal of prophets, Muhammad, his fellow messengers.

At a time when Muslims, both in France and abroad, were hopeful that the French State would take steps to rectify its relationship with Islam and its faithful, the Government has instead put forward a charter to the imams of France and requested their agreement.

After analysing the articles of this charter, the twelve international bodies of scholars (ulama) cited at the end of this press release declare the following:

Firstly, the ulama declare, to all their brothers and sisters in Europe and France who have questioned them, that it is illegal to sign a charter that elevates the principles of the French Republic and its constitution, and gives them authority over the Qur’an, the Sunnah and the fundamentals of the creed and law of Islam. This is all the more unlawful when the signature of this charter is optional and not imposed by the State.

The ulama greatly commends all those who refused to sign it and calls on the rest of Muslims to follow their example.

Secondly, this charter, which has become known as the “Mosque Charter”, and which imams have been requested to commit to by way of signature, clearly goes against everything that they, the so-called secular states (including the French government), as well as international organisations and institutions, have been proclaiming loudly – that they believe in: freedom of belief, and equal treatment of all regardless of language, ethnicity, race, colour or religion.

Thirdly, this charter is an official statement against Islam, clearly declaring this religion to be suspect. It is therefore rejected both in substance and in form. It opposes the unanimous respect afforded to the three Abrahamic faiths by the modern world and its institutions. The religion of Islam is followed by well over a billion people around the world and cannot collectively be deemed suspect.

Fourthly, this dangerous charter does not only constitute a clear violation of the rights and civil liberties of the Muslims of France, but rather against all Muslims around the world. It is a legal and ideological establishment of racial discrimination, of oppression against religions, of violations of rights, freedoms and human dignity.

Fifthly, all state constitutions, and all declarations of human rights, stipulate in no uncertain terms, that French Muslims and Muslims residing on French territory (who number well into the millions), are all an integral part of French society, with equal rights to their fellow citizens; therefore enjoying the same freedoms, rights and dignity.

This charter announced by the French government contradicts that very notion, and sets a very dangerous precedent in what threatens the presence of Islam not only in France but in the entire Western World.

Sixthly, the charter represents an explicit declaration, and dangerous example to follow, against all religious and ethnic minorities around the world. As it is well-known, nearly every nation and city includes religious or ethnic minorities. At a time when the whole world is striving to respect the rights of all through a framework of peaceful co-existence, mutual respect, principles of tolerance and good neighbourliness, the French State seems to be taking a decisive and destructive strike against these efforts.

Seventh, the body of scholars urge all people in the free world, and in particular Muslims in Europe, as well as all rights-based or religious organisations and institutions, to fulfil their duty by openly declaring their rejection of this racist charter.

Eighth, evil acts committed by individuals, wherever they may be from or whatever their background, does not give the right to label a divine religion as a religion of terrorism and violence.

All leaders and communities must confront and eradicate violent extremism, no matter which society or religion the preparator may belong to. The protection of public order is an obligation shared by minorities first and foremost, and upon communities before the State.

At the heart of this matter are the imams and Muslim leaders / organisations in the West, and they are amongst the best-placed people to elevate the principles of peaceful co-existence, mutual understanding and cooperation, and fairness between all societies.

In conclusion, Muslims have their hands outstretched towards peace, open communication and reconciliation, as opposed to the otherization and discrimination they are faced with, and this is part of the tolerance of their religion and from the greatness of their civilisation.

And God is the One who speaks the truth and guides to the right path.

The signatory organisations of this press release:

Muslim Scholars Association (رابطة علماء المسلمين)
The Committee of Scholars of Lebanon (هيئة علماء لبنان)
The Association of Scholars of Morocco (رابطة علماء المغرب)
The Union of Sudanese Scholars, Imams and Preachers (الاتحاد السوداني للعلماء والأئمة والدُّعاة)
The Religious Council of Aleppo (المجلس الشرعي في محافظة حلب)
The Association of Sunni Scholars, Iraq (رابطة علماء أهل السنة في العراق)
The Centre for Scholars in Mauritania (مركز تكوين العلماء في موريتانيا)
The Committee of Scholars of Palestine (هيئة علماء فلسطين)
The Association of Scholars of Eritrea (رابطة علماء إرتريا)
The Association of Scholars of Syria (رابطة العلماء السوريين)
The Committee of Scholars in Iraq (هيئة علماء المسلمين في العراق)
The Association of Sunni Scholars (رابطة علماء أهل السنة)

Meanwhile.

Reply

Karl
01-31-2021, 11:49 PM
Are nuns "totalitarian and murderous"? Le Pen is talking like a lefty loon. Odd that she is considered "right wing" given she embraces concepts which stem from Marx rather than Hitler.
Reply

سيف الله
04-26-2021, 11:34 PM
Salaam

As mentioned in another thread, French government is considering baning Headscarfs for young Muslim women.

Blurb

France is pushing forward with its xenophobic anti-Muslim legislations. A ban on minors wearing hijab in public has been added to the ‘anti-separatism’ bill.




Perhaps its all in preparation for something worse to come?

The hour is grave

20 French generals warn the corrupt globalist neoliberal regime that uncivil war is coming to France as a result of the mass immigration and multiculturalism and anti-racism they have championed. As it was foretold, the Nations are rising.

Mr. President,

Ladies and Gentlemen of the Government

Ladies and Gentlemen of the Parliament,

The hour is grave, France is in peril, several mortal dangers threaten her. We, who even after retirement, remain soldiers of France, cannot, in the present circumstances, remain indifferent to the fate of our beautiful country.

Our tricolor flags are not simply a piece of cloth, they symbolize the tradition, through the ages, of those who, regardless of their skin color or creed, have served France and given their lives for her. On these flags, we find in golden letters the words "Honneur et Patrie". Now, our honor today lies in denouncing the disintegration that is affecting our country.

This deterioration, through a certain anti-racism, has only one goal: to create on our soil a malaise, even a hatred between communities. Today, some speak of racialism, indigenism and decolonial theories, but through these terms it is the racial war that these hateful and fanatical supporters want. They despise our country, its traditions, its culture, and want to see it dissolve by tearing away its past and its history. Thus they attack, by means of statues, former military and civil glories by analyzing centuries old words.

This is a disintegration which, with Islamism and the suburban hordes, leads to the detachment of multiple parcels of the nation to transform them into territories subject to dogmas contrary to our constitution. However, each Frenchman, whatever his belief or his non-belief, is at home everywhere in France; there cannot and must not exist any city, any district where the laws of the Republic do not apply.

Delay, because hatred takes precedence over fraternity during demonstrations where the power uses the forces of order as auxiliary agents and scapegoats in front of French people in yellow vests expressing their despair. This while infiltrated and hooded individuals vandalize businesses and threaten these same forces of order. However, these forces are only applying the directives, sometimes contradictory, given by you, the government.

The dangers are rising, the violence is increasing day by day. Who would have predicted ten years ago that a teacher would one day be beheaded at the entrance of his school? Now, we, the servants of the Nation, who have always been ready to put our skin to the test - as our military status demanded - cannot be passive spectators of such actions.

Therefore, those who lead our country must imperatively find the necessary courage to eradicate these dangers. For this, it is often enough to apply without weakness the laws that already exist. Do not forget that, like us, a great majority of our fellow citizens is fed up with your wavering and guilty silences.

As Cardinal Mercier, Primate of Belgium, said: "When prudence is everywhere, courage is nowhere. "So, ladies and gentlemen, enough procrastination, the hour is serious, the work is colossal; do not waste time and know that we are ready to support the policies that will take into consideration the safeguard of the nation.

On the other hand, if nothing is undertaken, laxity will continue to spread inexorably in society, ultimately causing an explosion and the intervention of our active comrades in a perilous mission to protect our civilizational values and safeguard our compatriots on the national territory.

We can see that it is no longer time to procrastinate, otherwise tomorrow civil war will put an end to this growing chaos, and the dead, for which you will be responsible, will be counted in thousands.

http://voxday.blogspot.com/2021/04/t...-is-grave.html
Reply

سيف الله
05-11-2021, 01:28 AM
Salaam

Its getting worse.

The French military warns the government


It appears the active-duty military is very much inclined to back up the retired generals who warned the French globalists about the civil war their pro-immigration, pro-Muslim policies are creating:

A group of serving French soldiers have published a new open letter warning Emmanuel Macron that the 'survival' of France is at stake after the President made 'concessions' to Islamism.

The letter published in the right-wing magazine Valeurs Actuelles late on Sunday echoes the tone of a similar letter printed in the same magazine last month which also warned a civil war was brewing and called for military action against 'Islamists'.

French Interior Minister Gerald Darmanin, a close ally of Macron, slammed the letter as a 'crude maneouvre' and accused its anonymous signatories of lacking 'courage'.

The previous letter, signed by 1,000 people including serving officers and some 20 semi-retired generals, warned of the 'disintegration' of France because of radical Islamic 'hordes' living in the suburbs.

The explosive letter sparked a furore in France, with Prime Minister Jean Castex called the letter an unacceptable interference while France's top general vowed that those behind it would be punished for the 'absolutely revolting' letter.

It is not clear how many people are behind the current letter or what their ranks are - and their anonymity is likely to due to the backlash faced by the authors of the previous letter, with 18 officers who signed the letter facing disciplinary action.

In contrast to the previous letter, it is also open to be signed by the public, with Valeurs Actuelles saying more than 93,000 had done so by Monday morning.

'We are not talking about extending your mandates or conquering others. We are talking about the survival of our country, the survival of your country,' said the letter, which was addressed to Macron and his cabinet.

The authors described themselves as active-duty soldiers from the younger generation of the military, a so-called 'generation of fire' that had seen active service.

'They have offered up their lives to destroy the Islamism that you have made concessions to on our soil.'
The nations rise. Time is running out again on The Empire That Never Ended. Now you know why the politicians are so desperate to keep their lockdowns in place and prevent the wars that are rapidly approaching. It won't take much of a spark to kick things off in any of over a dozen nations.

http://voxday.blogspot.com/2021/05/t...overnment.html
Reply

سيف الله
05-26-2021, 08:30 AM
Salaam

And it continues - Germany government is gearing up for its mass conversion campaign.



Germany is following in the footsteps of France and Austria, with increasingly oppressive proposals to target Muslim communities


A spectre is haunting Europe: the spectre of political Islam. From France’s fight against “Islamo-leftism” to Austria’s battle against “political Islam”, Muslims and Muslim anti-racist civil society groups are coming under more and more pressure from state authorities.

In both countries, governments have shut down NGOs and mosques, limited freedom of expression, and raided homes and institutions under the pretext of the “war on terror”. Such measures intensified after terrorist attacks were carried out last year.

In Germany, Chancellor Angela Merkel’s Christian Democratic Union (CDU) appears set to follow in the footsteps of French President Emmanuel Macron and Austrian Chancellor Sebastian Kurz. While Macron was met with harsh international criticism for his anti-Muslim legislation, Kurz’s initiatives went nearly unnoticed. But they all seem to follow the same playbook, claiming to protect the majority of peaceful and law-abiding Muslims while targeting only the “dangerous” Muslims.

In reality, they are dramatically widening the group of potentially "dangerous Muslims".

According to a recent publication by the CDU/CSU alliance in the German parliament: “Islamism is not confined to a certain number of violent menaces. The ideology behind it is poison for our liberal society. It endangers integration and social cohesion by inciting Muslims against our democracy.”

This crusader rhetoric does not come out of thin air. Statements like these build on a long and problematic history of “countering violent extremism” and “deradicalisation programmes”, which emerged after the “war on terror” was initiated two decades ago.

State surveillance

A more recent development has been the broadening of the notion of “countering violent extremism” to include the targeting of “non-violent extremism”. The latter term implies that non-violent Muslim groups share the same goals as violent ones, and differ only in methodology, as noted in a Bavarian intelligence report.

This term is used to exclude Muslim organisations from civil society by targeting Muslim associations that work within the western democratic political order and reject violence. According to the report, these legal, non-violent means include operating “cultural associations and mosques, which serve to recruit members on the one hand and to spread their ideology on the other hand. Through their umbrella organisations, they try to offer themselves to the state as the mouthpiece of Muslims.”

This concept targets mainstream Muslim groups, rather than subversive movements hiding in the shadows. Most mainstream Muslim associations have been subjected to state surveillance for years in Germany. A general suspicion underlies this discourse, treating Muslims with mistrust and cynically questioning their integrity.

The term being applied broadly is “political Islam”, but not in the way academics would use it to differentiate between diverse manifestations of the intersection of politics and religion. The problem with the vague term “political Islam” in countries such as Austria is that the government uses it to criminalise Muslim practices and to silence Muslims who express political opinions critical of the government.

In a sense, it has become the intellectual foundation upon which to institutionalise a general demonisation of Muslims, reminiscent of Joseph McCarthy’s witch hunt in the 1950s against Black and leftist groups under the banner of anti-communism.

Hardline positions


The growing hardline positions of European countries such as Austria, France and Germany seem to be coming in tandem. Last October, a group of well-known authors and politicians from Germany’s CDU/CSU signed an open letter that proposed five recommendations for “strengthening the free democratic basic order in the face of political Islam”. The letter noted: “It is high time to face the problems of the immigrant society openly and not to be intimidated by unfounded accusations of alleged Islamophobia.”

Similar to France’s culture war against gender, postcolonial and racism studies, these scholars were trying to immunise the status quo against any critique.

Did this letter gain traction because of the attacks in France and Austria last year? Not really, for the claim is that “political Islam” is much more dangerous than militant violence stemming from Muslims.

The five recommendations include establishing a “documentation centre” based on the Austrian model, in which “the structures, strategies and financing of political Islam are analysed and disclosed”; the establishment of 10 university chairs dedicated to analysing the structures of “political Islam” in Germany; and the establishment of an expert group within the interior ministry to make recommendations in the fight against political Islam.

Such ideas raise serious questions. Austria’s Documentation Centre is largely run by hawkish law-and-order figures who have a long history of supporting anti-Muslim legislation, including people like Mouhanad Khorchide, Susanne Schroter and Lorenzo Vidino.

The recent CDU/CSU position paper also argues that state authorities should stop supporting associations that fall under the category of “political Islam”, and proposes creating a "German imam", designed to be a Germany-trained student who is attached first and foremost to German national identity and thus reproduces the existing power structures. The paper also calls for stricter financial controls on Muslim groups.

The goal is to surveil Muslims as much as possible, violating secular notions of separating state powers and religious communities. As similar measures have not been enacted against other religious communities, it seems that Muslims are being singled out as targets yet again.

https://www.middleeasteye.net/opinio...olitical-islam
Reply

سيف الله
05-27-2021, 08:04 AM
Salaam

Another update



A Very French Inquisition

When the French Interior minister Gérald Darmanin declared, “never at any given time, is Allāh superior to the Republic.” he was echoing an emerged consensus in French political life – Islam has to be chastened and suppressed if Muslims are to be tolerated in the country.

For France’s some six million Muslims, his intemperate remarks only served to underscore an intolerance to which the sizeable yet marginalised minority community have become accustomed. The political establishment, left and right, perceives Muslims and their continued adherence to Islam as not only a danger to the republic but also an affront to French secularism known as laïcité, a fundamentalist separation of religion from the society that undergirds the republic.

As the state turns the screw on all Muslims through the passing of new draconian legislation, its experiment will serve as a blueprint for other European countries.

At the centre of this offensive against the Muslim community is the so-called “anti-separatism” bill, given the Orwellian sounding name, the law “to reinforce the principles of the Republic and the fight against separatism”.

The draft legislation has this past month passed both houses of the legislature – Senate amendments are currently being considered by a joint committee.

The provisions of the bill, crafted to incorporate all religions – lest it be challenged on discriminatory grounds – is nonetheless directly aimed at coercing French Muslims into adopting the ideological dogma of the state. Home- schooling will be banned and there will be an introduction of a child ID system for all over three years old, to track students in the educational system.

This serves to prevent those parents that have chosen to educate their children at home, seeking to navigate around the already harsh restrictions on hijab wearing and a muscular liberalism that restricts all forms of religious observance in educational settings.

The bill increases the administrative powers of the state to shut down ‘extremist’ faith schools.

As Rayan Freschi, a French legal jurist argues, this gives legal cover to what has already been the practice of the state for many years, the use of schools inspectorates to close Muslim schools down on minor infractions.

It is what has become known as a wider unstated policy of “systematic obstruction”, employed by successive governments to undermine Muslim civil society institutions, such as mosques, schools and charities by using existing provisions to make it impossible to remain open, often setting onerous fines or temporary closures to act as a disincentive against community initiatives.

The bill helps the state to more directly control what is being said in mosques, banning sermons that stray into politics or criticise, for example, French interventions in the Sahel and the Middle East.

Religious leaders and organisations that receive public funds and tax exemptions would have to sign up to a ‘charter of principles’, explicitly declaring their allegiance to the French Republic.

Possibly the most egregious aspect of the bill came via an amendment in the Senate last month, proposing to in effect ban the hijab in public for all under the age of 18.

This measure, tabled by the French right, if not rejected by the joint committee, would deny Muslim girls the right to wear the hijab anywhere in public. The wording of the clause talks of banning “signs or clothing” in public spaces that “ostensibly manifest a religious affiliation” or “that would signify the inferiority of women to men.”

Emmanuel Macron’s En Marche party opposed the amendment together with much of the left in the senate, citing its unsubtle wording.

Until now, the bill has steered clear of mentioning Islam directly, instead focussing on the façade that it represents an equal treatment of religion. By including the religious symbol clause, it removes any pretence and does what everyone knows the bill is aimed at doing – further obstructing observant Muslims from practising their faith.

The amendment would also ban hijab-wearing mothers from accompanying their children on school trips.

One left-leaning Senator Mari-Noëlle Lienemann explained her vote against the amendment by saying that she wanted to “find legislation that outlaws the veil for minors,” but that “we cannot make a mistake in choosing which method to use”.

A former Socialist Party minister, J-P. Chevènement who headed the government’s Fondation de l’islam declared, “The veil (hijab) is for many women an identity claim. This symbol means that marriage is only possible with a Muslim. This is a manifestation of separatism.”

Like much of the political establishment in France, the progressive left subscribes to the aim of systematically obstructing Muslims, but differ on the means.
[Macron Le Pen poster]

In 2004 it was the Socialist Party that banned the hijab in schools and in 2010, President Sarkozy from the centre-right The Republicans banned the niqab using terrorism laws.

Darmanin absurdly declared the amendment would harm “religious pluralism” in France, yet in the months before tabling the bill he talked of his horror of halal-only food aisles in supermarkets and in an interview in La Voix du Nord floated the idea that Muslim women who refused medical treatment from male doctors could face heavy fines or even jail sentences.

What is going on in France is nothing short of an inquisition. Even a charitable reading of the legislation would surmise it is aimed at all Muslims who observe Islam in their lives.

Its objective is to remove the usual organising capacities in Islamic communities that help foster a commitment to faith and at the same time forcibly convert young Muslims to embrace more stridently the commitments of the secular liberal republic.

Recently, Darmanin had to reprimand two “overzealous” police officers when they asked a group of topless sunbathers to cover up on a beach, tweeting “it was wrong that the women were warned about their clothing” and “freedom is something precious”, yet the same respect is not afforded to Muslim women, who face a daily barrage of racist slurs, discrimination and suspicion.

Some commentators have rightly pointed out that Macron’s poor handling of the Covid crisis and the ‘Yellow Vest’ movement has harmed his prospect for re-election, citing the surge of Marine Le Pen’s National Rally in the polls.

Le Pen broke through to the second round in the last presidential election, a first for the French far-right.

In a televised debate between Darmanin and Le Pen, the interior minister accused her of “going soft on Islam” because she had reservations about the separatism bill. In reality, the prospect of Le Pen winning may remain slight, but she is making ground in the polls.

A second-round runoff may be closer this time than 2017 and Macron knows that to neutralise the non-committed right in the electorate he has to outdo Le Pen and show a greater disdain towards Islam.

Yet to dismiss his position as merely posturing ahead of a general election would be naïve. The French state has embarked upon the systematic dismantling of the religion of Islam as practised by the majority of Muslims in the country.

It is an acknowledgement that the 1905 law that explicitly removed religion from the public square has failed to diminish Muslim observance, resistant to attempts to secularise the faith.

Many in French society see Islam to be a regressive religion and, like attempts in colonial Algeria, nothing short of forcibly eradicating a religious culture can be entertained.

Echoing its colonial past, there is a particular obsession with ‘liberating’ the Muslim woman, yet what is apparent is Muslim women, what they think and feel, is noticeably absent from the public discourse.

This unsavoury direction of travel was underscored by an incendiary open letter in April written by a group of ex-generals who claimed “Islamism and the hordes of the banlieue” – the impoverished immigrant suburbs that surround French cities – was a recipe for “civil war”.

In the absence of political and public pressure at home, Emmanuel Macron has a free hand to treat the Muslim community with the disdain that he has shown.

Notwithstanding, recent protests and boycotts of French products after the cartoon controversy shows that external pressure works if it is sustained. In the absence of meaningful international condemnation of France, a collective Muslim civil society effort to put pressure on the French government can temper the fundamentalism of the French state.

Macron was rattled late last year after the boycott started, having to appear on Al Jazeera to allay concerns.

He also took umbrage at an article in the Financial Times – now removed – written by a Muslim journalist about him. Instead he penned his own op-ed, replete with erroneous slurs of Muslim girls as young as three forced to wear full-face veils; claims that have yet to be corroborated.

Only coordinated civil society action can stop what Islamic scholar Dr Yasir Qadhi calls a template of suppression to be borrowed soon by governments across Europe.

https://www.cage.ngo/a-very-french-inquisition
Reply

سيف الله
05-30-2021, 08:10 AM
Salaam

Distrubing but come to think about it not really surprising. Zios and the British elite are once again working together to regain control and to create a new 'approved' narrative of whats going on in Palestine. Standard good cop bad cop routine. First they will try to subvert protests with the usual fake concern for peace and harmony between people.

When that doesnt work they will slander and intimidate with the 'antisemitism' and/or 'extremism' label. Note these are the same forces that undermined Jeremy Corbyn leadership of the Labour party with their endless accusations of antisemitism.

An example of the good cop routine.



And another from an American perspective. Though Im glad people see through this.



British schoolchildren face punishment for wearing Palestine flags and keffiyehs

Students said they were threatened with detention, expulsion and barred from taking exams due to their pro-Palestine activism


Schoolchildren in the UK are being punished for their pro-Palestine activism on school premises, with some being disciplined for wearing keffiyehs and holding Palestine flags.

Several students who spoke to Middle East Eye said they were threatened with detention, expulsion and being blocked from taking their exams if they continued protesting for Palestinian rights on school premises.

The forms of activism being penalised by schools include displaying the Palestinian flag on face masks or their hands and putting up posters designed by students to educate their peers on the Israel-Palestinian issue.

Every student and teacher who spoke to MEE requested anonymity as they feared possible repercussions from their school for speaking out.

Pupils who spoke to MEE attended schools in Birmingham, Leeds, Manchester, Rochdale and different areas of London.

Jay, a student from Allerton Grange School in Leeds, said she was motivated to put up posters after attending demonstrations and reading stories about child deaths in Gaza.

Taking inspiration from last year's Black Lives Matter protests (BLM) and her school's awareness campaigns on LGBT rights and mental health, Jay assumed Allerton George would encourage discussion on Palestine.

But when students put up posters around the school in communal areas without permission, teachers quickly took them down.

"The teachers went as far as ripping the Palestine posters into pieces and scrunching them up in our faces," Jay told MEE.

"When we asked why they took down the posters, the teachers said they didn't have to justify it to us and were given clear instructions to take down these posters as they were seen as sending antisemitic messages."

Jay stressed the messages on the posters were not antisemitic and said: "End Israeli Apartheid, End illegal Occupation and Free Palestine".

She added: "They took our lanyards from us because they had the Palestine flag.

"When we asked them why it was okay to wear BLM or LGBTQ+ flags on our lanyards but not Palestine, they couldn't give us an answer and later said as a political cause, it caused distress to others.”

Students from Allerton Grange later posted a video of headteacher Mike Roper describing the Palestinian flag as a "call to arms" and "symbol of antisemitism". Roper has since apologised after facing protests outside the school.



'Posters were torn down and binned'

Jay said the school had refused to take down the Israeli flag displayed in the library after seeing the Palestine flag taken down.

Allerton George had not responded to MEE's requests for comment at the time of this article's publication.

Some teachers from other schools who spoke to MEE also confirmed that students were placed in detention for putting up posters in support of Palestine.

Like Jay, Sam from West London put up posters in his school for Palestine on their class boards and wore badges to raise awareness about Palestine.

When Sam came back to school in September, he noted how his school made an active attempt to hold discussion groups on the themes of BLM and racism in society.

"We put up small Palestinian flags and posters on our class poster boards wearing badges that read 'Free Palestine', drawing Palestine flags on our hands and wearing keffiyehs to spread awareness and pique student interest," Sam told MEE.

"The posters were torn down and binned, the students were told to remove their badges at the threat of suspension from school and all 'flags and symbols' were removed from sight at the threat of detention."

Sam added that students were threatened with being withdrawn from their GCSE exams if they refused to delete a video of senior staff taking down posters or wore a Palestine badge.

Aisha faced a similar situation as Sam did at Brampton Manor Academy in Newham, east London, where she says she was punished for wearing a Free Palestine badge in her school.

She said her teachers banned students from protesting and threatened them with detention if they continued putting them up.

Brampton Manor Academy, a state school that has received praise for sending dozens of students to Oxford and Cambridge University, did not respond to requests for comment at the time of this article's publication.

Students fear speaking out

Several students from other parts of the UK also expressed their disappointment at how their schools reacted towards their activism following the BLM protests.

Letters given to MEE that were sent to teachers and parents by Redbridge Council and a school in Birmingham told them that schools are "apolitical" bodies and could not allow students to participate in Palestine protests despite holding discussions for BLM and selling poppies to students.

Ilyas Nagdee, an activist who campaigns against the Prevent strategy, said children and their parents had contacted him about schools clamping down on pro-Palestine activism.

His call-out on Twitter to help students facing issues at school for their Palestine protests was retweeted 1,300 times at the time of writing.

Since then, Nagdee has received nearly a hundred requests for help, with many students afraid to speak out publicly.

"The cases we have received span the entire length of the country with hotspots where there are sizeable Muslim communities. The sanctions applied are wide in range, from young people being spoken to in class or given lunchtime isolation all the way to exclusions," said Nagdee.

"We are also receiving a growing number of concerned parents who are contacting us due to fear their child has fallen into the clutches of Prevent or fearful of visits from the police.

"This particularly seems to be the case with younger children who were subject to inappropriate questioning without the knowledge or consent of the parents."



Prevent in schools

Shereen Fernandez, a lecturer at Queen Mary University in London who specialises in Prevent in schools, believes the school reaction to Palestine protests is a direct result of the Prevent strategy telling teachers that campaigning for Palestine is associated with extremism.

Prevent is a strand of the British government's counter-terrorism strategy that aims to “safeguard and support those vulnerable to radicalisation, to stop them from becoming terrorists or supporting terrorism”.

It was publicly launched in the aftermath of the 2005 London bombings and was initially targeted squarely at Muslim communities, prompting continuing complaints of discrimination and concerns that the programme was being used to collect intelligence.

"What we are seeing now is a product of years of Prevent trying to micro-manage political conversations and debates among young children and adults on issues it deems contentious and what it perceives as deviating from the prescribed norm," Fernandez told MEE.

"Although Prevent will maintain that schools are 'safe spaces', that is not the case, as teachers will be anxious about approaching ‘controversial’ topics like Palestine because of its alleged association to extremism as indicated in the training material."

"Symbols of solidarity such as wearing a badge supporting Palestine has been enough to refer students in the past to Prevent."

In 2016, MEE revealed that the UK government told teachers in schools, colleges and universities to monitor Muslim students who display an interest in Palestine as being susceptible to terrorism.

And in 2014, Rahmaan Mohammadi, a 17-year-old student from Luton, was reportedly referred to Prevent and visited by the police after he organised a Palestine fundraiser at his school.

A teacher from Mayfield school in the London area of Ilford said the school's reaction to pro-Palestine protests was "confusing", adding that colleagues perceive "pro-Palestine activism as racism".

"Schools are adamant on toeing this apolitical line and punished children for wearing Palestine badges or drawing them on their hand," said the teacher who wished to remain anonymous.

"I wouldn’t be surprised if Prevent is involved in constructing that line for schools across the country, and I'd say issues like BLM and poppies are allowed because they are considered neutral enough for schools to talk about."

Mayfield School had not responded to MEE's requests for comment by the time of this article's publication.

Nagdee, the activist, said that many parents who spoke to him said they feared their children would be referred to Prevent because of their campaigning.

'Biased' assemblies


Following the protests, many schools across the UK held assemblies to address student concerns on raising awareness.

But students who spoke to MEE said the assemblies fuelled further anger among students.

Images posted online showed students protesting at Judgemeadow Community College in Leicester after it was perceived to minimise Palestinian suffering.

It remains unclear whether students in the video were punished for protesting.

Sam noted how his teacher described the tensions between Israelis and Palestinians as similar to a "messy bedroom" and disputed the phrasing of tensions as a "conflict".

"To address the discomfort many students felt about censorship of student voices, they organised an assembly on the concept of 'conflict' where the events in Palestine was compared to a 'messy bedroom where a rebellious child and their parent had differing opinions on how it should be dealt with," said Sam.

"It just felt patronising and demeaning to us all."

The Department for Education did not respond to MEE's requests for comment at the time of this article's publication.

https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/i...tests-activism

Blurb

Dr Layla Aitlhadj, director of Prevent Watch, praises Muslim pupils who have protested for Palestine in schools. She also gives practical advice to parents whose children may have been disciplined by teachers.






Elsewhere



More comment.





Reply

سيف الله
05-30-2021, 07:05 PM
Salaam

Right on cue.




Muslim groups in Austria fear attacks after government publishes map of mosques


Austria’s government is facing backlash for launching an “Islam Map” website that shows the locations of more than 600 mosques and Muslim associations across the country.

The map is intended to “fight political ideologies, not religion,” Integration Minister Susanne Raab said Thursday. But critics fear that it could lead to hate crimes and argue that it stigmatizes Muslims.

“Imagine if we had a Judaism map or a Christianity map in Austria,” Muslim Austrians Initiative chairman Tarafa Baghajati told broadcaster ORF.

Officials categorize the map as a tool in the fight against “political Islam,” a broad term that Austria’s government uses to refer to any Islamist movement that strives to restructure society according to religious ideals that contradict democratic principles. But the organizations listed include cultural centers for Bosnian and Albanian immigrants, youth organizations and sports clubs — often with no evidence of any links to extremism.

“We want to use this information to create transparency and not just look at where laws are being violated,” Raab said Thursday, according to Austrian newspaper Kleine Zeitung. “There is no general suspicion of Muslim organizations.”

Critics say that the map will, in fact, lead people to be suspicious of Muslim groups. While most of the institutions could easily be found with a quick Google search, Adis Serifovic, the chairman of Muslim Youth Austria, told ORF that it also includes youth organizations with private addresses and presents an “enormous security risk.” The group plans to sue over the potential breach of privacy.

Many Muslims living in Austria are of Turkish descent, and Turkey’s foreign ministry on Friday declared the map “xenophobic, racist and anti-Islamic.”

Although the project was initially described as a joint effort between the University of Vienna and the Austrian government’s Documentation Center for Political Islam, university officials have since distanced themselves and demanded that the school’s logo be removed.

Reports of anti-Muslim attacks in Austria have been on the rise since an Islamic State sympathizer killed four people in a November mass shooting in Vienna. Numerous Austrian politicians and advocacy groups have raised concerns that the map will further endanger Muslims, and the bishop of Germany’s Evangelical Lutheran church, Michael Chalupka, has called for it to be taken down.

The controversy has also led to tensions between the governing Austrian People’s Party, which was behind the map, and their coalition partners in the Green Party.

“This project is the opposite of what integration policy and dialogue should look like,” Green Party spokeswoman Faika El-Nagashi told Der Standard.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world...ria-islam-map/

Comment.

Reply

سيف الله
06-12-2021, 08:05 AM
Salaam

Zios and the British establishment engaging in more 'good cop' routines.



Solutions Not Sides: Promoting the ‘two sides’ narrative on Palestine in schools


Roshan Muhammed Salih says Muslim parents should complain to their schools if they platform Solution Not Sides, a government-backed organisation promoting the misleading “two sides” narrative on the Palestine-Israel issue in British schools.

Many Muslim parents have expressed concern about the activities of Solution Not Sides (SNS) in the light of the recent horrific Israeli attacks on Palestinians in Sheikh Jarrah, Al-Aqsa and Gaza.

The organisation has its origins in an NGO with links to Israel and has received government funding and promotional support to deliver its message of “both sides have suffered” to tens of thousands of British schoolchildren, often in Muslim majority areas.

Pro-Israel Education Secretary Gavin Williamson promoted the organisation recently while warning schools not to tolerate antisemitism. The organisation is also backed by Zionist organisations such as the Board of Deputies of British Jews.

I even recently received a picture of Usama Hassan (ex Quilliam Foundation) delivering a Solution Not Sides presentation in a school a few years ago.

In the light of the above it is my view that this organisation spreads a dangerously false narrative about the Palestine issue which should instead be presented as a struggle for freedom against ethnic cleansing, land theft, occupation, racism and Apartheid.

What is SNS?

Since 2010 SNS has been delivering an education programme in “schools, universities and community groups,” intended “to counter extreme narratives on Israel-Palestine” among young people aged 15 to 25.

Instead of talking about the overwhelmingly one-sided violence and dispossession perpetrated by the Israelis against the Palestinians, SNS focuses on the language of “both sides.”

A key part of its discourse is the framing of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as a battle of “moderate majorities” versus “extremists.” Its goal is to show students “that the conflict is complex and that the majority of citizens in the region on both sides just want peace.”

Nowhere is Israel portrayed as a powerful, brutal occupier and the Palestinians as stateless, occupied victims.

On its website SNS says: “Solutions Not Sides aims to tackle Antisemitism, Islamophobia and polarisation around the issue of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in the UK.

“The non-partisan programme has been formulated with the input of both Israelis and Palestinians as well as senior members of Jewish and Muslim communities, and is designed to prepare students to make a positive, solutions-focused contribution to debates on Israel-Palestine.

“We use critical thinking tools and open & safe-space discussion with the aim of shifting attitudes away from supporting one side against the other, and towards seeking a solution for the human beings involved.

“Solutions Not Sides has delivered conflict resolution training, provided educational workshops, and facilitated discussion on the conflict in the UK since 2010, engaging thousands of young people in the process. Not simply pro-Israel or pro-Palestine; above all, pro-solution.”

Origins, funding and targeting Muslims

SNS has its origins in an NGO with links to Israel called One Voice which focuses on “leveraging … the centrist mainstream [within the Israeli and Palestinian publics] who support resolution of the conflict through a negotiated and mutually acceptable two-state solution.”

Its founder is Sharon Booth who used to be employed by the Ministry of Defence. And Mohammed Ali Amla is SNS’s Director of Bridge Building, leading on youth empowerment, strategic partnership development and community collaborations.

SNS has attracted significant amounts of funding from the British government. In 2016-17, it received £50,000 of taxpayers’ money for its education programme, and in 2017-18, the size of the grant doubled to £100,000.

In 2020, it received public funding to focus its work in areas with high Muslim populations: Hackney, Haringey, Hackney, Barnet, Camden, Brent, Redbridge, and Newham in London, and outside London in Bradford, Birmingham, Leicester, Derby, Nottingham, Manchester, Leeds, and Kirklees.

In a document titled “Solutions not Sides Business Plan,” the organisation’s “target areas” are defined as “the areas [of Britain] with the largest populations of Jews and/or Muslims.”

But in a report on a tour of the British Midlands in spring 2017, SNS stated that the “majority” of targeted students came “from Muslim backgrounds,” adding that “to our knowledge, we did not work with any Jewish students” on account of the region’s “very small Jewish population.”

The report added that “the Midlands continues to be a target area for SNS where we encounter some troubling views regarding violence and zero-sum narratives.”

What you can do?

There is a good chance that SNS may be invited to to your school after the latest assault on Palestinians to work with staff and students.

But given its background and message I believe it is inappropriate to ask SNS to provide a narrative in a school that has a significant Muslim intake.

Parents have a right to withdraw their children from any classes, sessions or assemblies run by SNS, although this provision would not be covered by the RSE (Relationships and Sex Education) as apsects of PSHE (Personal, Social and Health Education) having been made compulsory in September 2020.

But you can:

  • Spread the word about SNS
  • Write to your headteacher and ask him/her to withdraw the invitation to SNS
  • Withdraw your consent for your child to attend any session run by SNS
  • Demand that your school appoint appropriate resources/trainers to address this issue impartially



https://5pillarsuk.com/2021/06/02/so...ne-in-schools/
Reply

سيف الله
06-23-2021, 03:59 PM
Salaam

More news from France. The mask of the 'liberal' continues to slip.



France’s Macron Pushes Controls on Religion to Pressure Mosques

He demands mosques endorse nation’s secular values, seeks power to close houses of worship if any members provoke violence or incite hatred


President Emmanuel Macron is redrawing the line that separates religion and state, in a battle to force Islamic organizations into the mold of French secularism.

In recent months, his administration has ousted the leadership of a mosque after temporarily closing it and poring over its finances. Another mosque gave up millions in subsidies after the government pressured local officials over the funding. A dozen other mosques have faced orders to close temporarily for safety or fire-code violations.

The government has taken these actions as a precursor to a much broader push to rein in the independence of mosques and other religious organizations across France. Mr. Macron has submitted a bill to Parliament, called the Law Reinforcing Respect of the Principles of the Republic, that would empower the government to permanently close houses of worship and dissolve religious organizations, without court order, if it finds that any of their members are provoking violence or inciting hatred.

In addition, the bill would allow temporary closure of any religious group that spreads ideas that incite hatred or violence. Religious organizations would have to obtain government permits every five years to continue operating, and have their accounts certified annually if they receive foreign funding.

The bill will be debated next week in the National Assembly, where Mr. Macron’s majority is expected to pass it by the end of the year. It applies to all houses of worship, including churches and synagogues, but the government’s actions are aimed at mosques and Islamic organizations.

Religious leaders say the government’s push oversteps the religion-state divide created under a landmark 1905 law. That act forged laïcité, France’s strict secularism, by barring religious groups from receiving state aid, with few exceptions, and excluding clergy from government posts. It also established freedom of conscience and freedom to practice religion, within the bounds of “public order.”

“We’re giving too much power to the administration,” said Chems-Eddine Hafiz, rector of the Grand Mosque of Paris. Cardinal Pietro Parolin, the Vatican’s No. 2 official, told French television that the legislation “threatens the balance that was found over the course of the past century.”

Mr. Macron says he is defending France against what he calls Islamist separatism, which he describes as a political and religious project to create a parallel society where religious laws take precedence over civil ones.

Its adherents, he says, use intimidation and violence to pressure teachers, health workers and other civil servants to deviate from the French republic’s values, fueling years of attacks on French soil.

“Terrorists who commit these acts are doing it in the name of this ideology,” Mr. Macron told reporters in January. “We’ve seen there’s continuity between this phenomenon and a fundamentalism that is less and less peaceful, that legitimizes a break with the republic.”

The government is pressuring mosques to sign a “charter of principles” attesting to their compliance with France’s republican values. Some Muslim leaders have been reluctant to sign, saying the document defines the scope of religious practice too narrowly, and have seen their organizations targeted by the government.

French officials say they are holding mosques to a charter that was written by prominent Muslim leaders at the request of Mr. Macron. People involved in the drafting process, however, said that his interior minister, Gérald Darmanin, played a pivotal role in shaping the charter, closely supervising a small group of Muslim leaders he tapped to write it and barring any changes from other leaders, who were then expected to sign it.

A spokesman for Mr. Darmanin said he met with Muslim leaders to help facilitate discussions.

Mohammed Moussaoui, Chairman of the French Council of the Muslim Faith, or CFCM, says the fight against Islamist separatism is a priority for Muslim leaders but he disputes that mosques are spreading it. “Radicalization takes place primarily in the digital space, not in places of worship,” he said.

France has gone further than any other Western country in confronting radical currents within Islam. In some German states, local authorities have signed agreements with Muslim groups in which they reject violence and discrimination. Austria has banned foreign funding for places of worship.

In France, the question of Islam’s influence on society has become the defining issue of next year’s presidential election. At times, the Macron government has pointed to its push to regulate mosques as a sign it can outflank Marine Le Pen, the leader of the anti-immigrant National Rally party and his main rival, on the issue.

Ms. Le Pen has tried to paint Mr. Macron as soft on Islamism, an imprecise and contentious term that some politicians in France use to generally describe a political or social movement that seeks to organize society in accordance with laws prescribed by Islam.

During a recent debate with Mr. Darmanin, the interior minister, Ms. Le Pen criticized Mr. Macron’s bill as an attack on religious freedom that blurs the lines between Islam and Islamism. “Islamism is an ideology, a totalitarian ideology, and we can certainly separate it from the religion,” she said.

“You need to take your vitamins. You’re not tough enough,” Mr. Darmanin said, leaving Ms. Le Pen with a stunned expression. “Madame Le Pen won’t name the enemy. You are softer than we can be.”

Mr. Macron’s party faces runoffs in regional elections on Sunday after falling far behind conservative candidates and the National Rally in the first round of voting, which saw a high level of abstentions.

M’hammed Henniche, who attends a mosque in the working-class Paris suburb of Pantin, was at home last October when a mosque volunteer sent him a video over WhatsApp. It showed a man railing against his daughter’s middle-school teacher for showing lewd cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad in class. Islamic teachings forbid depictions of the Prophet. The man in the video said the teacher had told Muslim students to leave the classroom before the cartoons were displayed—a claim French prosecutors would later determine was false.

The volunteer wanted permission to share the video on the mosque’s Facebook page. The notion that Muslim students were being singled out struck a chord with Mr. Henniche. As chairman of the mosque, he gave the go-ahead.

After the video was shared, a comment from someone police haven’t publicly identified appeared on the mosque’s page identifying the teacher and giving the address of his school. A week later, the teacher, Samuel Paty, was beheaded on his way home. Police suspected that the mosque’s Facebook page led the attacker to Mr. Paty. Police shot and killed the assailant, an 18-year-old Russian of Chechen origin, minutes after the attack.

The government temporarily shut the Pantin mosque, invoking a law passed in the wake of 2015 terror attacks that included the massacre at Charlie Hebdo, the French satirical magazine, and coordinated attacks by Islamic State militants that killed 130 people across the Paris region. The law empowers the government to close a mosque for six months to counter acts of terrorism.

“The news came as a bombshell,” said Fatima Lyazami, a 68-year-old local resident who often prays at the Pantin mosque.

For Mr. Macron, the beheading of a teacher was an assault on everything the French republic stands for. During a tribute at the foot of the illuminated 17th-century facade of the Sorbonne University, he cast the teacher as a symbol of France’s enlightenment values and the fight against Islamists. “We will not give up caricatures, drawings, even if others back down,” he said.

In November, Mr. Macron met inside the Élysée Palace with leaders of the CFCM, representing France’s highly divided Muslim population.

Some of those gathered in the gilded chamber oversaw mosques funded by Algeria and Morocco, former colonies that maintain close ties with Paris. Others represented Muslims who had emigrated more recently from Turkey, where tensions with France were on the rise.

Mr. Macron said he wanted the leaders to write a charter to reassure the country that they, as representatives of French Muslims, supported France’s secular and republican values. He said he was worried that mistrust of Muslims was growing across France.

He sought to reassure the group the government wasn’t overstepping its bounds. “Listen, we are not here to tell you who is or who isn’t a practicing Muslim,” he said.

Mr. Macron tapped Mr. Darmanin to coordinate negotiations among Muslim leaders to draft the charter. Mr. Moussaoui, the Muslim council’s chairman, said Mr. Darmanin responded to the group’s initial draft with a request to shorten much of it, but on one part wanted more detail: the rejection of the use of Islam for political aims.

Debate ensued within the Muslim council over what constituted political activity by mosques. The Algeria-funded Grand Mosque of Paris supported a broad rebuke of any interference in political matters. But Millî Görüş, a group representing Turkey’s Muslim diaspora, worried that the charter would act as a muzzle for Muslims wanting to participate in political debates in France and their country of origin.Several leaders noted that some of the issues that animate French politics, such as the ban on civil servants wearing Muslim headscarves at work, collided with Islamic teachings.

Mr. Darmanin summoned Mr. Moussaoui and his two CFCM deputies, Mr. Hafiz and Ibrahim Alci, leader of the Coordinating Committee for Turkish Muslims in France. The group spent hours in the interior minister’s office working on a new draft, Mr. Hafiz said, with the minister dipping out for an official lunch. When he returned, the group read through the text and finalized it.

Mr. Hafiz recalled the minister’s parting words to the three, who were now under instruction to solicit signatures from the other Muslim leaders. “We’re not changing a comma of this text.” The spokesman for Mr. Darmanin declined to comment when asked about that line.

The new version, titled the “Charter of Principles for Islam of France,” required signatories to reject all forms of “political Islam.” It defined that as movements such as Salafism—a school of Sunni Islam that teaches strict interpretation of Shariah law—as well as ideologies linked to national and transnational organizations such as the Muslim Brotherhood.

The text described as defamatory any attempt by Muslims to accuse the state of racism or claim victimhood. It rejected any use of mosques for “the dissemination of nationalist speeches defending foreign regimes and supporting foreign policies hostile to France, our country and our French compatriots.”

Any group that violated the charter, it said, would face ejection from “all representative bodies of Islam of France.”

The next day, Mr. Moussaoui showed the new draft to other CFCM leaders. After hours of debate, he said, he delivered an ultimatum: Take it or leave it.

“There was total incomprehension and stupefaction,” said Fatih Sarikir, president of the French chapter of Millî Görüş.

He objected to several points, from the definition of political Islam to the rejection of discrimination based on sexual orientation. Millî Görüş and two other groups would later issue a point-by-point rebuttal of the charter, including saying that Islamic teachings consider homosexuality a sin.

When Mr. Moussaoui called Mr. Macron’s office that evening, a presidential aide told him Mr. Macron wanted to organize a signing ceremony the next day with all of the leaders present. Mr. Moussaoui said some weren’t ready to sign.

On Jan. 18, the ceremony went ahead, without Mr. Sarikir and leaders of two other groups.

Leaders who refused to sign, a close adviser to Mr. Macron said in an interview at the time, exposed their groups to “doubts about their attachment to the republic.”

“So we will be very, very attentive to their operations, in terms of control, surveillance, sermon analysis and financing,” the aide said.

In March, the city council of Strasbourg voted to earmark 2.5 million euros ($3 million) to help Millî Görüş finish building a monumental mosque in eastern France near the German border. The group had spent years raising funds for the €32 million project. Massive concrete walls were already erected.

The project was eligible for subsidies because Strasbourg is in Alsace-Moselle, a borderland that was under Prussian rule in 1905 when France adopted its law on laïcité. A concordat Napoléon Bonaparte and the Vatican reached in 1801 remains in force there, permitting Strasbourg to subsidize religious groups.

After the city council vote, Mr. Darmanin posted a Twitter message accusing Strasbourg Mayor Jeanne Barseghian of financing a mosque backed by a group that “refuses to sign the charter of principles of Islam of France and that defended political Islam.”

He later told French radio: “The goal is to make it so the enemies of the republic—those opposed to the values of the republic—can’t continue living in France.”

The comments set off a firestorm. Ms. Barseghian requested a security detail after receiving threats. One poll showed that 78% of respondents across France supported abrogation of the 1801 concordat in Alsace-Moselle.

Mr. Macron weighed in, from a summit in Brussels. “When you have associations that admit they are not capable of adhering to the values of the republic, that’s a problem,” he said, adding that some local authorities were perhaps too accommodating.

Ms. Barseghian said the French government hadn’t given her any warning, before the city council vote, that Millî Görüş presented a threat to republican values. She said her final approval for the subsidy would depend on Millî Görüş providing a transparent report on how it was funding the rest of the project. She also demanded it endorse the Charter of Principles.

Millî Görüş withdrew its application for the subsidy. “We had become a source of tension, something we never wanted,” Mr. Sarikir said.

Three hundred miles away in Paris, the government’s order to close the mosque of Pantin, housed in a former gymnasium owned by the town, was running up against its six-month limit. No one at the mosque had been charged in connection with the teacher’s beheading, but French authorities used the closure to pressure the mosque into making deep changes.

They insisted the mosque oust one imam, saying his sermons were inspired by visits to a Salafist website and his children attended a clandestine Islamic school. The imam declined to comment. Authorities ordered the mosque to appoint women to the board of its governing association.

Mr. Henniche, its president, complied, replacing the imam with someone who practices a more moderate form of Islam. He agreed to broader oversight of the mosque’s Facebook page. But there was one demand Mr. Henniche opposed: his own resignation.

When he resisted, the government sent him a letter withdrawing his association’s license to operate. The city of Pantin also stepped in, threatening to cancel a lease on land where Mr. Henniche’s association planned to build a new mosque, for which Mr. Henniche had already collected €700,000 from residents.

Mr. Henniche resigned. The mosque was allowed to reopen in April after its new leaders included the Charter of Principles in the mosque’s statutes, according to the government and Mr. Henniche who remains a member of the mosque’s governing association.

“This is blackmail,” Mr. Henniche said.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/frances...es-11624385471

A secular theocracy, they dont even bother to hide it.
Reply

سيف الله
07-16-2021, 10:52 AM
Salaam

Another update.



ECJ rules hijab can be banned in workplaces “under certain conditions”


In a major blow to the inalienable right of Muslim women to freely practice their religion, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) – Europe’s highest court – has ruled that private companies have the prerogative to introduce a ban of the hijab in their workplaces. According to the Court, curtailment of religious freedom can in fact be upheld if the companies have a genuine need to present a “neutral image”.

“A prohibition on wearing any visible form of expression of political, philosophical or religious beliefs in the workplace may be justified by the employer’s need to present a neutral image or to prevent social disputes.”
The Luxembourg-based court came to its decision after deliberating on the interrelated cases of two German Muslim women, who had been suspended from their jobs for donning the Islamic headscarf. One of the two women is a special needs carer at a Hamburg childcare centre, while the other is a cashier at the German drugstore chain Müller. While the two women previously did not don the hijab when they first began their respective roles, they later made the decision to do so. Unfortunately, this change in attire was met with hostility from their employers.



The recent ruling has in effect reasserted a 2017 decision rendered by the ECJ, which had been widely criticised for being discriminatory against a number of faith groups. Maryam H’madoun, a member of the Open Society Justice Initiative, expressed her sheer disillusionment with the decision. H’madoun said that the 2017 ruling will facilitate discrimination against people who wish to practise their faith by wearing specific forms of clothing.

“It will lead to Muslim women being discriminated in the workplace, but also Jewish men who wear kippas, Sikh men who wear turbans, people who wear crosses. It affects all of them, but disproportionately Muslim women.”
Antagonism and a lack of religious sensitivity vis-à-vis Muslims has plagued a number of European countries in recent years. The foremost example is the state of France, which in 2004 passed an ultra-secularist law which banned the display of any religious symbols in schools. In France, this statute has caused religious attire such as hijabs and crosses being banned in public places.



In a 2013 Guardian piece, 37-year-old Yetto Souiriy, who is a mother of five, recounted her negative experiences surrounding the topic of the hijab. Souiriy had been barred from attending her son’s school trips in the commune of Montreuil, due to her status as an observant Muslim who wore the hijab.
“France is not like it used to be. When I was a child, there wasn’t a problem. I was born here. I was accepted…France now seems to be stoking a kind of anger against Muslims. You hear of women having their headscarves pulled off at the market. Even parents at my child’s school look at me differently since I was excluded from trips. I had a lot of hope for the left in France, but in terms of discrimination, nothing has changed. Even in shops, I’ve had people say: ‘Take off your headscarf. You’re only wearing it to be aggressive.'”
With the Thursday judgment handed down by the ECJ, the national courts of Germany and other EU nations will now have to decide whether discrimination has occurred in the cases of the two German Muslim women. This opens the door to the misuse of legislation, and will likely have detrimental consequences for followers of several religious groups. This is because the court ruling does not only affect Muslims, but also Sikhs and Jews. It is a sign of the EU’s encroaching approach against religion specifically and freedom of expression in general. The disappointing ruling will likely be once again welcomed by extreme groups, such as Germany’s Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) and France’s National Rally (formerly known as the National Front).

Indeed, following the 2017 ECJ ruling, the then Berlin leader of the rightwing AfD political party Georg Pazderski made the following chilling remark:

“The ECJ’s ruling sends out the right signal, especially for Germany…Of course companies have to be allowed to ban the wearing of headscarves.”
https://www.islam21c.com/news-views/...in-conditions/

Provocative comment.

Reply

سيف الله
07-19-2021, 10:41 PM
Salaam

More analysis.



The ECJ Hijab Ban: A Call For Calm And A Call To Action

I was 14 years old when France banned religious symbols in schools and hospitals. After seeing a documentary about how this affected French Muslim girls, I decided this would be the right topic for my year 9 English talk. I was passionate and persuasive and my entire non-Muslim class agreed that the French law was discriminatory.

I didn’t wear hijab until the age of 19 but I somehow felt personally affected by the French law. It was clear to me then as it is now that this was a law intended to target Muslims, most evident by Jaques Chirac’s comments that the hijab is, for the French, “a kind of aggression that is difficult to accept”. In the documentary I saw a French Muslim school girl trying to compromise with her teachers by wearing a black bandana to cover her hair instead of a full hijab. Yet she was told that it still looked too Islamic. They finally accepted a tiny pink bandana that barely covered her hair. I recall how uncomfortable she appeared, self-consciously tugging at the sides of her scarf and I remember thinking how farcical this whole thing was.

That was 2004. Now, we’re seeing headlines such as “European Companies May Ban the Hijab at Workplaces” and those feelings of injustice resurface. Banning hijabi women from any workplace would be outrageous and there is no justification for it. The truth is however that most of these recent headlines are misleading and intended as clickbait. Therefore, we need to have a closer look at the European Court of Justice ruling.

Direct vs Indirect Discrimination

First, it is important to clarify difference between direct and indirect discrimination in the workplace. If a Muslim is treated less favourably at work because they are Muslim, that is direct discrimination. But if the workplace has a policy that applies to everyone but puts a Muslim at a disadvantage, that would be indirect discrimination.

The ECJ held that banning employees from wearing any visible sign of political, philosophical or religious belief at work is not direct discrimination so long as the ban is applied in a “general and undifferentiated” way.

The ECJ also held that where such a ban indirectly discriminates, an employer can justify this if they can demonstrate a “genuine business need” for a policy of political, philosophical or religious “neutrality” with regard to its customers or users, in order to take account of their “legitimate wishes”.

Two cases were brought to the ECJ in which German women were suspended for wearing a hijab to work. It was accepted that this had an indirect discriminatory effect but the court had to decide whether this was justified by the employer’s desire for religious neutrality. The court held that while it is fine for an employer to desire religious neutrality, a mere desire is not enough to justify indirect discrimination.

A policy of “neutrality”

To justify an indirectly discriminatory policy, an employer must demonstrate that it had a genuine need for the policy. And to establish this need, the employer must consider the rights and legitimate wishes of customers or users, for example, parents who wish to have their children looked after in a religiously neutral environment. The ECJ noted two further conditions for objective justification which are:

  • The policy of neutrality is applied in a manner which is consistent and systematic and;
  • the policy must be limited to what is strictly necessary, taking into account the actual scale and severity of the negative effects of not having such a policy



Clearly the ECJ ruling is not simply a green light for employers to ban the hijab as many headlines seem to suggest.

It is also worth noting that this ruling is actually much less troubling than the French hijab ban of 2004. How? Because that was a ban on conspicuous religious symbols. That meant that Christians could still wear a small cross and Sikhs could still wear a small hair net instead of a turban – so in reality the ban served to discriminate primarily on Muslims.

But this ECJ ruling differs because it says that if an employer wants to ban religious symbols, it needs to ban all of them – not only the obvious ones and therefore the discriminatory effect is certainly not as serious as France’s Laïcité-inspired version. In any case, since the UK has left the EU, this judgement is not binding on UK courts and tribunals.

Should British Muslims worry?

Any discriminatory policy that affects Muslims around the world should trouble all Muslims regardless of where they live. We should all be concerned about the niqab-ban in several European countries and the increased securitisation of French Muslims. Not just because these laws can trickle down towards us in future, but because we have religious obligation of brotherhood and solidarity with our fellow Muslims wherever they may be.

That said, this decision can still affect British Muslims living and working in the UK. S.6(2), of the EU Withdrawal Act 2018 states that UK courts and tribunals may ‘have regard’ to ECJ judgements ‘so far as it is relevant to any matter before the court or tribunal’. With this in mind, British Muslims do have a valid cause for concern.

Hijab: just religious symbol?


Legal matters aside however, it is troubling that the hijab is being considered merely as a religious symbol and that this simplistic view is largely left unchallenged. It is important that we distinguish the Muslim headscarf from other religious symbols. The hijab means different things for different Muslim women. Some may wear it simply as an outward symbol of their faith or a cultural custom and they might even have no issue with removing it. Some might wear it day to day but remove it on weddings or on a night out. But in my own experience, most hijabi women cover their hair as an observation of their faith, which they believe is a command of Islam.

This command is one standard of modesty – the normative Islamic standard. While removing the hijab might be a simple task for one woman, it will be unthinkable for another. For many Muslim women, including myself, the hijab is our clothing and asking us to remove our clothing is only justified if there is a genuine medical need.

A slippery slope

So an employer wants religious or political neutrality – but does the hijab really get in the way of this? A hijabi schoolteacher might be religious, secular or politically left or right wing. Hijabis are diverse and a simple cloth worn on the head in no way compromises neutrality. Furthermore, how far can an employer go in his desire for an appearance of neutrality in his company? What about Muslim names – do they affect the appearance of neutrality in the same way as a hijab supposedly does? Or should Muslim women adopt more respectable-sounding work names to go with their new hijabless personas such as Ana or Helga?

The point is that the western perception of neutrality is not always one that everyone can get behind. Many Black British people have experienced a similar issue trying to explain to their employers and headteachers that their afros or braids are not a statement or symbol but simply their natural hair. Only last year the Halo Code was launched to ask schools and companies to commit to recognising natural hairstyles. This was necessary because many employers expect Black people to conform to white norms without realising the implications of it and how damaging these expectations can be.

Similarly, our employers need to be educated about the very real, negative effects removing our hijabs can have. That it is not just a simple case of removing a piece of cloth from our heads. The only way in which this can be achieved is by hijabi women coming together, organising ourselves and explaining with a unified voice what the hijab really means to us.

https://www.cage.ngo/the-ecj-hijab-b...call-to-action

Another viewpoint



Again another demonstration of the two faces of liberalism - whats interesting they dont even bother to hide their intentions anymore

Reply

سيف الله
07-25-2021, 10:48 PM
Salaam

And it gets worse and worse.



Imam in France fired over verses recited during Eid prayers

An imam of a mosque in France’s Loire region was fired after verses and hadiths he recited during his Eid al-Adha prayer sermon were considered “contrary to the values of the Republic” by Interior Minister Gerald Darmain.

Mmadi Ahamada, the imam of the Great Mosque of Saint-Chamond, who is of Comoros origin, shared a hadith and Surah Ahzab verses addressing the wives of the Prophet Muhammad in his sermon.

After Isabelle Surply, a member of the Municipal Council of the Republican Party, shared a video of the sermon online, Darmanin asked the Loire Governor's Office to dismiss the imam and ensure that his residence permit is not renewed, on the grounds that "he finds these statements unacceptable" and "sees them against gender equality."

Speaking to the Le Progres website, Ahamada said some of the statements and verses in the sermon were taken and used out of context.

"Our girls do not have to stay at home; they become doctors, engineers or pilots," he added.

In a message on social media, the mosque administration announced that the imam had been dismissed.

The Loire Governorate said that they are working on not renewing the imam's residence permit.

Another imam sacked in Hauts-de-Seine


Imam Mahdi, whose criticism of the dressing style of some Muslim women in a sermon he gave on June 4 at the Gennevilliers Mosque in the province of Hauts-de-Seine was also terminated by Darmanin's order.

The interior minister also asked the governor to intervene and to suspend the mosque's activities if a similar sermon is repeated, using the new tools allowed by a law "to strengthen respect for the principles of the Republic," which rights groups say risks discrimination.

After a meeting of the Hauts-de-Seine Governorate last week, the imam was dismissed.

'Imams dismissed at my request'


Darmanin announced on Friday that the duties of the imams were terminated.

"On my request, two imams who gave unacceptable sermons in Hauts-de-Seine and Loire were dismissed. We will fight tirelessly against those who oppose the rules and values of the Republic," he said on Twitter.

According to Le Figaro newspaper, the Interior Ministry has targeted the Roubaix Mosque, which is claimed to have not allowed women since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic.

The administration of the northern province was waiting for an explanation from the mosque administration on the subject, according to the newspaper.

Hatred toward Islam


On Late Friday, Lawyer Sefen Guez, a human rights advocate, criticized the French interior minister for targeting imams and for asking the governor to dismiss the imam.

"The Saint-Chamond Mosque has confirmed what everyone knew: imams are appointed by governors in France," he said on Twitter.

Media expert Sylvain Tirreau accused Darmanin of having hatred toward Islam and said the interior minister did not give up on his attempts against Muslims.

Meanwhile, a petition campaign was launched in France to support Mmadi Ahamada.

https://www.dailysabah.com/world/eur...ng-eid-prayers

More comment and analysis.



Step 1: to conduct a nationwide criminalization of a minority, you need an ideology and propaganda. That's the job of @SG_CIPDR, in charge of threatening unapproved Muslims and labelling any dissenting voice as "political islam"/"enemy of the Republic". (no Starwars pun intended)

Step 2: you need to get rid of any organization that opposes or disagrees with your political agenda. That's why associations like Baraka City or CCIF were dissolved and that's why the Observatory of laïcité was dismantled, just for not being islamophobic enough, according to gvt

Step 3: you need to frame Muslims as a problem, by hammering the idea that any problem in the country can be "islamized". Security, gender equality, preservation of French "culture"... Any topic can be linked to islam, with the help of tabloids and a few complacent neocon media.

Step 4: Now it's time to dismiss international voices. Any comment on the situation of Muslims in France is dismissed as "uninformed". Observers are met with "you cannot understand the *universalist* French model", like if there was a cultural exception that could justify racism

Step 5: Same treatment for international journalists. Their editor in chief are lobbied to modify or take down the articles, when Macron doesn't pick up the phone himself to call the journalist, putting them under pressure to write something more "nuanced". Journalistic freedom.

Now back to France and the everyday condition of Muslims. French elite apparently have a thing for Muslim women. Appart from being the top query on FR porn websites, they're a constant target for debates on TV, most of the time without them. A French obsession, some would argue.
Muslim women wearing a burkini, Muslim women infiltrating academia, Muslim women challenging fashion, Muslim women trying to influence children during school outing, Muslim women illustrating articles on criminality... seems like Muslim women should ask permission for breathing.
So what's new with the government program against Muslims ?

Step 6: The massive use of administrations and informal reporting for surveillance of Muslims, from education to health or social services. What UK has tried to do with PREVENT, France is taking it to a whole new level.

Step 7: The "prefets" (local police constables, at a local level) now have a mandate to ideologically assess Muslim organizations and, if they are deemed "ennemies of the Republic" (without ANY definition), to trigger investigations, using health/urbanism/security to close them.

Step 8: At the national level, the minister of interior is destroying any sense of agency for Muslim communities, when it comes to organizing their work. The government forced Muslim orgs to sign a "charter of values" and, if they declined, they were... "ennemies of the Republic"

Step 9: Ideological control. The government has teams listening to what imams/Muslims say. If they say something the government doesn't like, the president of the mosque is summoned and asked to fire the imam. That's why Minister Darmanin was so proud today. He had 2 imams fired.

Step 10: Political control. If Muslims say there's islamophobia in France, they're "ennemies of the Republic". If they do charity work at the mosque, it's "political islam". If they try to get involved, they're "infiltrating" the system. If they don't, they're "communautarists".

Clearly, we're past all red lines and the reasons the government is getting away with it, are that
1) many international observers don't always take the time to study the facts in details
2) France is actively lobbying any international org who pays attention

This has to change.

For further reference, you can read this article, with the sources and data for every single fact I mentioned in the thread, as well as the reports by equality bodies (referenced in the article):
middleeasteye.net/opinion/how-fr…

Also, this great analysis by @amnesty, covering the way France has weaponized its "values" against Muslim communities, at the expense of everyone's freedoms.

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1...958708737.html







More comment















And it goes on and on





Reply

سيف الله
08-01-2021, 06:58 AM
Salaam

Another update on the situation of Muslims in France.

Reply

سيف الله
08-04-2021, 10:58 PM
Salaam

The usual hypocricy.





Reply

سيف الله
08-05-2021, 06:29 AM
Salaam

Easy to have a go at the French but the situation for Muslims in the UK is slowly deteriorating. This is disturbing given British history. All this guff about 'security' is a cover for the UK establishment to try to subvert interfere dictate to shape a Muslim community for their own interests.



Protect Duty: Counter-terror officers could be involved in running of mosques

The government is planning to impose new rules on mosques and madrassahs which would subject them to inspections and would oblige them to report suspected terrorist activities.

The plans, which would see counter-terror officers involved in the running of mosques for the first time, come under the new Protect Duty which the government says is intended to protect public places – including mosques – from attacks.

Within the scope of the proposed Protect Duty, the owners and operators of public venues and large organisations would be required to use information provided by the government (including the police) to consider terrorist threats to the public and staff.

An inspection would be introduced to ensure that the Protect Duty is being implemented, and if guidance and support is not considered enforcement actions could be taken.

In case of non-compliance a new offence is proposed for the organisations that fail to take actions to reduce the potential impact of attacks. The proposal includes an enforcement regime with penalties.

The government has held a consultation on the proposals which ended in July and they say they have received over a 1,200 responses.

The government is partnering with Faith Associates through its Mosque Security Project to implement the scheme. At the moment there is no date for legislation to be introduced.

Legal expert Nasir Hafezi has produced a video on this subject which he encourages mosques leaders to watch.

He says advantages of the scheme include that worshippers will be kept safe in the face of threats, and mosques may receive additional funding.

On the other hand, he says the arguments against include:

  • Mosques and mosque leaders may face fines, prison sentences or even closure
  • The state may target mosques through unfair inspections
  • Mosques and congregation members may not welcome counter-terror involvement in mosques
  • The securitisation of mosques may have a chilling effect on freedom of speech
  • The involvement of the state in mosques is a slippery slope. Where will it end?



Nasir Rafiq said: “While the consultation is open or closed if you’re a manager at a place of worship read the consultation document. Raise awareness of the Protect Duty among your faith community and its likely impacts and changes that are likely needed to be made.

“Find out what other faith leaders think about the Protect Duty including with those who facilitate meetings with government. Make your views known in writing to the government and whether the Protect Duty should apply to places of worship or whether it should be exempt from places of worship. Read the bill (the proposed law) when it’s published and again make your views known to government.”

https://5pillarsuk.com/2021/08/04/pr...ng-of-mosques/

More comment.





Reply

سيف الله
08-06-2021, 08:02 PM
Salaam

Another update.



In late 2020, following a spate of violence by men claiming to act in the name of Islam, the French Republic embarked upon a severe crackdown on its Muslim communities. Not content with security measures, the Interior Minister expressed his horror at seeing halal food in supermarkets, President Macron excoriated gender segregation, linking conservative religious practice to “Islamism,” and his government moved to shut down the organisation that documented anti-Muslim discrimination in France.

Such happenings were symptomatic of France’s brand of secularism, laïcité; it was a significant indicator of how the United Kingdom is changing, then, to witness the British establishment’s response to events across the Channel.

Monarchical Britain has long differed from republican France with regards to questions of secularism and religious liberty, but few condemnations of Macron’s measures came forth from the British commentariat. Instead, government ministers Tom Tugendhat and Neil O’Brien publicly praised the French government’s actions, and now-cabinet minister Sajid Javid penned an incoherent article for the Telegraph praising Macron and warning against allowing “woke activists” to inhibit the fight against “Islamist extremism.” Liam Duffy, a researcher in the field of British “counter-extremism,” also lauded Macron’s approach—while none of his colleagues spoke in disagreement. The bestselling historian Tom Holland, meanwhile, wrote passionately that it is France’s privilege to “serve, more than any other country, as the very embodiment of the West”.

The respectable British stance on France’s secular militancy is intriguing, for it serves as a sign of how Britain’s once-cherished tradition of religious liberty is no longer esteemed by its ruling elite. In order to understand the extent of British secularism’s transformation in recent years, we must look back to the late eighteenth century, and the British response to the upheaval in France of the old order.

It was in 1789 that the French Revolution erupted. The Bastille was stormed, the Ancien Régime toppled, and the Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen adopted by the National Assembly. “Liberté, égalité, fraternité," declared Robespierre the following year as blood filled the streets. King Louis’s head rolled in 1793. In England, disgust was almost ubiquitous. Even those English reformers who had initially cheered on the Revolution watched in horror at what it had turned into, for their radical tradition was fundamentally different from that of Robespierre. They proclaimed adherence to an imagined vision of the old Anglo-Saxon liberties and valorized the constitutionalism of the 1688 Revolution, which had reached a compromise with the monarchy rather than abolishing it. From Cumberland and Westmorland in the North came a public declaration signed by 19,322 people expressing disgust with events in France: “We abhor monarchical tyranny. We still more abhor republican tyranny.“

“The Contrast,” Thomas Rowlandson’s famous print produced in 1792, contrasts the supposed ideals of the French Revolution with ostensibly British ones. French liberty, it announced, meant “atheism, perjury, rebellion, treason, anarchy and misery.” British liberty, by contrast, signified “religion, morality, loyalty, obedience to the laws, national prosperity and happiness.” This was, of course, propaganda intended to rebuke those who sympathised with French revolutionaries, but it demonstrates the significant difference in how religion was being treated by the two states. By “atheism” Rowlandson was referring to the French Revolution’s violent subjugation of Catholicism, seen as part of the Ancien Régime.

French secularism was intimately tied to republicanism, representing an anticlerical effort by the state to completely dominate religion (Jews, too, were expected to disregard the mosaic law). Secularism in Britain’s constitutional monarchy, by contrast, was not at all antagonistic towards the dominant religious authority; Anglicanism was the state religion, and the monarch served as head of the Church. Though tolerance of Catholics and Protestant Dissenters was limited, the position that Anglicanism was afforded in the public sphere set British secularism firmly apart from its French counterpart.

In the writings of Edmund Burke, the preeminent conservative thinker of the Anglosphere, we see a perfect articulation of English secularism’s potential for tolerance. He vehemently condemned the French Revolution, sensing in it a spirit of wild anti-religious destruction; secularism for Burke entailed “the consecration of the state by a state religious establishment". But he defended religious freedom, supporting freedom of worship for Dissenters and attacking the anti-Catholic legislation imposed on his native Ireland. Toleration, he argued, was desirable, for the Church was "built up with the strong and stable matter of the gospel of liberty".

Burke also campaigned extensively against the British East India Company’s exploits in the Indian subcontintent. Britain was becoming a multicultural empire, and Burke advocated for the preservation of India’s long-standing religious traditions and cultural formations. His vision may have been disregarded by the colonialists, but it is significant to note that the conservative figure was an early and passionate advocate for British imperial multiculturalism and religious freedom.

In Britain, secularism developed over the next century and a half, with religious toleration gradually increasing (an important moment, for example, was the Catholic Emancipation Act of 1829). In France, meanwhile, secularisation had a different trajectory, culminating in the Law of 1905 which decisively separated church from state and aimed at eliminating the clergy’s influence in the lives of the populace. After the Second World War, moreover, the situation began to change even more dramatically, as unprecedented numbers of colonized Asians and Africans began arriving on British and French shores, bringing with them new religious traditions. Ever since then, religious freedom in an increasingly diverse Britain has been more expansive than its French counterpart, especially given France’s escalating attempts over the past few decades to use legislation to privatize and subjugate the growing tradition of Islam in the way that Catholicism and Judaism had previously been repressed.

France has banned the hijab for schoolgirls and the face veil wholesale; Britain has not. France is stripping parents of the right to choose homeschooling in an attempt to increase state control over the education of children; there is no imminent prospect of the same happening in Britain. In the French Republic, the government will not so much as collect data based on religion, while British politicians take photos at places of worship and routinely wish religious minorities well on their holidays.

Religious liberty for French Muslims has nearly vanished with Macron’s recent demand that mosques sign a “Charter of Principles” for French Islam, which would declare the religion an entirely private affair, to be banished from the public sphere. A believer’s religious convictions govern their entire worldview; to have to keep their values consigned to the home is to lose any semblance of genuine freedom of worship. France is essentially issuing an ultimatum to its most religious minority: publicly accept the majority’s social values or lose any possibility of a respectable life in this country. What, then, explains the enthusiasm shown by so many British conservative commentators, counter-extremism practitioners, and government ministers for Macron’s crackdown on French Islam? The answer lies in the significant erosion of religious freedom that has occurred in Britain over the past decade, an erosion carried out largely through incursions into British Muslim civil society.

"Multiculturalism has failed,” declared then-Prime Minister David Cameron in 2011, firing the starting pistol for what the British government calls “muscular liberalism,” a startling departure from established British norms. The belief—contradicted by sociological data—supporting this agenda was that Muslims were constituting a self-segregated nation within a nation. Alongside it came the conviction that too many Muslims rejected liberal values, threatening law and order. “When,” Boris Johnson once asked, “is someone going to get 18th century on Islam’s mediaeval ass?” The watershed moment was the “Trojan Horse” hysteria in 2014, wherein the mainstream media induced a nationwide panic concerning a supposed Islamic plot to take over Birmingham state schools. The case collapsed and the plot was exposed as non-existent, but the damage was done. The government soon unveiled a significant ramping up of its Prevent “counter-extremism” agenda.

A statutory duty in the public sector, Prevent came to demand adherence to a set of “British” (in reality, liberal) values; “extremism” now constitutes vocal or active opposition to these values. Ofsted, the British state’s education watchdog, launched an inquisition into schools, with inspectors questioning young Muslims on their religious beliefs and adherence to liberal principles. Muslim schoolgirls across the country have been interrogated as to why they wear the hijab, and in 2018 the head of Ofsted—seemingly channelling the spirit of laïcité—defended a school’s decision to ban it outright.

The education system has been further transformed by Prevent in recent years. The Department of Education recommends that Relationships and Sex Education “meets the needs of pupils and parents and reflects the community they serve.” Yet, as John Holmwood has shown, the Prevent agenda proudly eschews such diplomacy: when Muslim parents protested their lack of consultation regarding a Prevent-related curriculum in 2019, they were roundly condemned as extremists and bigots by the political establishment. Muslim children, bien pensant opinion now holds, are to be protected by the state from the religious values of their parents.

This is liberalism of a coercive, statist bent, one that threatens the freedoms of all traditional religious believers, even if has thus far focused on Muslims. Liberal toleration was not conceived of by its original proponents as an end in itself, but rather as an instrument for facilitating a marketplace of ideas: it was from this marketplace that liberal values would supposedly emerge triumphant. Today, in an increasingly irreligious Britain, liberals see traditional religion as disrupting that process; the government's response is increasingly to intervene in the marketplace in favour of liberal values. The state's imposition of its own conception of Britishness on the populace, then, is not an attempt to express what Britons have in common. It is the vaunting of the establishment's own particular sentiments and values, and a marginalisation of anyone who dissents from the current secular liberal orthodoxy.

Britain, we might conclude, has disregarded its traditional conception of the importance of religion to the nation in a way that is rapidly collapsing the difference between British and French forms of secularism. Edmund Burke would likely be horrified to witness the current state of religious liberty in Britain, as well as the reticence of most self-described conservatives to protect it. Whenever any of the Equality Act’s protected characteristics (such as race, religion, gender, and sexual orientation) are seen to come into conflict with each other, it is religious freedom that is jettisoned. In the absence of a broad coalition being formed to counteract this trend, the current onslaught on religious liberty is likely to continue.

Where might such a coalition be found in a post-Christian, largely non-religious Britain? Those within the conservative establishment, whose concerns are secular, have more in common with Macron than with Burke, while the liberal-left is generally untroubled by attacks on religious freedom. Even the Church of England has proven itself willing to defer to the demands of coercive liberalism. The Muslim community cannot mount a campaign alone. As the country slides towards a more militant secularism, the question we must urgently pose is this: who will defend religious liberty in Britain?

https://www.athwart.org/britains-war...gious-liberty/



More comment





And the madness continues

Reply

سيف الله
09-02-2021, 07:55 PM
Salaam

Another update. Towards a secular theocracy.









Spot the Difference!





The new 'Freedom' that is being offered.

Reply

سيف الله
09-03-2021, 11:44 PM
Salaam

Another update.




CAGE launches legal challenge over ban on schools debating Israel’s ‘right to exist’


Advocacy group CAGE has issued judicial review proceedings in the High Court challenging the Education Secretary’s instructions prohibiting schools from engaging with organisations that reject Israel’s “right to exist.”

CAGE says that international law contains no such right to prohibit people and groups from questioning a state’s legitimacy, and that the prohibition is a serious violation of academic freedom and freedom of expression.

On May 28, shortly after Israel had bombarded Gaza, Gavin Williamson told headteachers: “Schools should not present materials in a politically biased one-sided way and should always avoid working with organisations that promote antisemitic or discriminatory views.

“Schools should be particularly wary of potential bias in resources which claim to present the conflict in a balanced manner schools and should not work with or use materials from organisations that publicly reject Israel’s right to exist.”

The government has also accepted the IHRA non-legally binding working definition of antisemitism which says that contemporary examples of antisemitism in public life could include “denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavour.”

But CAGE says the notion of Israel’s “right to exist” is a partisan political view that the Education Secretary is prohibited from promoting in any way under the 1996 Education Act.

The legal challenge has been supported by expert opinions provided by eminent international law jurist Professor John Dugard and Professor Avi Shlaim, emeritus fellow at Oxford University.

A number of Palestinian civil society organisations including the Palestinian Return Centre, the Palestinian Forum in Britain, the British Palestinian Policy Council and Al Haq, have also provided evidence in support of the judicial review.

International law jurist Professor John Dugard said: “In order to assert its legitimacy as a state and the legality of its creation it (Israel) asserts its ‘right to exist.’ This assertion is not made in the exercise of any right recognised by international law. It is simply a political appeal designed to justify the morality and legality of Israel’s creation and existence as a state. To exclude this subject from debate would be a serious violation of academic freedom and freedom of expression.”

Professor Avi Shlaim, emeritus fellow at Oxford University said: ”Israel’s ‘right to exist’ is not a legal right but an ideological and emotionally loaded catch phrase that served to divert attention from mounting international opposition to its illegal occupation.”

Muhammad Rabbani, Managing Director of CAGE, said: “For too long, the political phrase ‘Israel’ right to exist’ has been used as a weapon to silence any debate about the legitimacy of its creation, the right of return of Palestinian refugees displaced by its creation and the apartheid nature of the Israeli state. Our children should not be prevented by the Education Secretary from having access to organisations and material that provide a balanced view of these issues.”

And Fahad Ansari, solicitor and director of Riverway Law, who is instructed in this challenge, said: “The evidence filed in support of the challenge clearly demonstrates that the Education Secretary breached the Education Act 1996 by imposing his own partisan political view on school pupils. While he is entitled to hold the view that Israel has a right to exist, he cannot legally deny discussion about the legality of its creation and its current legitimacy. Schools should be safe spaces for healthy debate, not institutions of political indoctrination.”

https://5pillarsuk.com/2021/09/03/ca...ight-to-exist/
Reply

سيف الله
09-11-2021, 12:48 AM
Salaam

Final update, The pathetic Bliar speaks. His enmity towards Islam and Muslims is becoming more and more apparent.



Hes being roasted in the comments section.

More sane commentary.









Muslim Scholar JAILED for 8 Years for Opposing USA War | Sh Hassan Kettani

Reply

سيف الله
02-21-2022, 10:31 PM
Salaam

Its no big secret that the British government is engaged in a mass 'persuasion' campaign with Muslims being the primary target. One method was the Trojan Hoax.

Finally the truth is out about the Trojan Horse hoax is coming out. From the NYT of all places.

An unlikely duo chases down the origins of a mysterious letter that caused a national scandal.

The Trojan Horse Affair


A strange letter appears on a city councillor’s desk in Birmingham, England, laying out an elaborate plot by Islamic extremists to infiltrate the city’s schools. The plot has a code name: Operation Trojan Horse. The story soon explodes in the news and kicks off a national panic. By the time it all dies down, the government has launched multiple investigations, beefed up the country’s counterterrorism policy, revamped schools and banned people from education for the rest of their lives.

To Hamza Syed, who is watching the scandal unfold in his city, the whole thing seemed … off. Because through all the official inquiries and heated speeches in Parliament, no one has ever bothered to answer a basic question: Who wrote the letter? And why? The night before Hamza is to start journalism school, he has a chance meeting in Birmingham with the reporter Brian Reed, the host of the hit podcast S-Town. Together they team up to investigate: Who wrote the Trojan Horse letter? They quickly discover that it’s a question people in power do not want them asking.

From Serial Productions and The New York Times comes The Trojan Horse Affair: a mystery in eight parts.


The podcast series is here.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...ir.html#listen

Mini docu with the participants involved. A frank discussion.

The Muslim victims of Operation Trojan Horse



More comment.

















As if you need any more proof, these types are NEVER your friends.

Reply

SoldierAmatUllah
02-22-2022, 06:10 AM
Deleted out of fearful duhayma fitan attack
Reply

سيف الله
04-02-2022, 10:04 AM
Salaam

Like to share, good discussion.

Blurb

Today we have two special guests - Prof. John Holmwood and the now quite infamous gentleman, Tahir Alam - that guy who was singled out by the government, Birmingham City Council and the whole Educational establishment for being an Extremist Islamic Trojan horse in the heart of the Birmingham Education system.

Recently the New York Times have done a deep expose into the scandal of the Trojan Horse affair and that these allegations were wholly untrue and marked a man and his colleagues who had transformed failing schools into outstanding schools. The plot is sinister - some of the players have been unearthed from the shadows through the investigation - and we are left wondering how deep does Islamophobia run in the establishment. The story is worthy of a Hollywood production and it would be no surprise that one day in the coming decades it will become just that.

So, we welcome you to Tahir Alam - the man at the centre of this whole story.




The British establishment 'response'.





Sums it up



Reply

سيف الله
04-11-2022, 08:41 PM
Salaam

format_quote Originally Posted by IslamLife00
They will do this to Islam next. May Allah protect us
Right on cue.

The gay agenda working with Prevent - a 'partnership' made in heaven.



Credit to the young brother for holding is ground despite the intimidation.

Lots of comment.













Reply

سيف الله
04-30-2022, 11:28 PM
Salaam

Like to share.

Blurb


In this intense episode of the Blood Brothers Podcast, Dilly and Aki Hussain speak with senior lecturer and criminologist at Liverpool John Moores University, Dr Rizwaan Sabir, about his new book, 'The Suspect: Counterterrorism, Islam, and the Security State'.


Reply

سيف الله
07-28-2022, 09:51 AM
Salaam

Another update.

Blurb


In this eye-opening episode of the Blood Brothers Podcast, Dilly Hussain speaks with the director of advocacy group Prevent Watch, Dr Laila Aitlhadj, about the UK government’s controversial counterterrorism ‘Prevent’ strategy.

Topics of conversation include:

- Chronology of the Prevent strategy (Labour
to Conservative).

- Are there any benefits to Prevent?

- CTS Act 2015 and Prevent’s statutory footing.

- Does Prevent disproportionately target Islam
and Muslims?

- Muslim children in schools and safeguarding. Advice to teachers and social workers.

- Why scrap Prevent? Why can't there be an alternative that is managed by the Muslim community?


Reply

Karl
08-06-2022, 01:15 AM
Many people convert (or pretend) to convert to other religions (depending on where they live). For example, Stephen Colbert pretends to be a "white Catholic" even though he has dark eyes, a swarthy complexion and looks like a caricature from a Nazi propaganda poster. And many newsreaders and reporters from Aljoozeera masquerade themselves as "Muslims" yet they look much more phenotypically Jewish rather than Arab, Iranian or any other West Asian racial group. Therefore if all THIS is possible, wouldn't Palestinians be able to (at least pretend) to convert to Judaism in order to avoid conflict there? Or for Jews, is it just as much (if not more) a racial issue than it is a religious issue?
Reply

سيف الله
10-23-2022, 06:42 AM
Salaam

like to share

Reply

سيف الله
11-14-2022, 05:40 PM
Salaam

Another update.

Reply

سيف الله
11-18-2022, 10:14 AM
Salaam

Only a paranoid conspiracy theorist would say there's an 'agenda' behind this.



Credit to the sister to standing up to this nonsense. Again another example of the British establishments attempt to lead Muslims away from their deen. They don't even bother to disguise their intentions.

Lots of comment Ill post them later if time permits. In the meantime.







Video response



A statement of the obvious.



Schools response.



The purpose of government mandated 'tolerance'.









Good friends are so hard to find these days.



More generally











Reply

سيف الله
11-22-2022, 12:21 AM
Salaam

And it gets worse. Now there attempting to blacklist children potentially ruining the future prospects.













The end goal



You could say the British establishment want to go back to the good old days. When lesser people knew how to behave towards their betters.



Problem for them is that these days are long gone and not coming back.
Reply

سيف الله
11-27-2022, 01:55 AM
Salaam

Heres the full conversation. 'Modern' education in the UK.



Wood Green Academy invites a self-proclaimed Gay 'Muslim' speaker Khakan Qureshi to preach to students that being gay and Muslim is okay. This is an extended audio recording from the session.

Following this incident, students have been; placed in isolation, reported to prevent and be threatened to stay quiet or face further consequences.


Anonymous & Annoyed

Further update on WGA for parents and community following yesterday's update.

10. The Academy has received over 800 complaint by both parents and from the community. However, due to loopholes within their complaints policy majority of these complaints won't be responded to.

11. The school has not allowed parents to generally engage with the school on this subject referring them to thier complaints policy (which is flawed).

12. Mr Topham (Head Teacher) has been in regular contact with Mufti Muhid regarding the incident and ongoing issues surrounding the incident. The Academy say, that students have agreed and understood why the teacher shouted, and accepted isolation as a punishment. This clearly shows manipulation.

13. A 6th form student who is a Hafiz/Imam that initially challenged the preaching was put in isolation for 2 days on the grounds of bad behaviour when clearly there is no concern or evidence of behaviour.

14. A number of students have been reported by the Academy to Prevent and we will inshallah signpost to organisations who can support.

15. Students have been pressured systematiclly by the Academy to keep quite on this incident or face consequences. This has scared many parents/pupils from speaking up.

16. Further support will be given to the Students by both CAGE and Prevent Watch along with UMO (Union of masjid) MEND, IRU and wider community.

17. The DfE have been informed who will investigate this matter along with the Director of Sandwell Children's Safeguarding and Education. All 3 local councillors of Wednesbury are in consultation and will support the community.

18. We as the Muslim ummah have a duty to protect the Aqeedah and Imaan of our children but also their safety and welfare. We will be seeking legal advice and welcome support from any professional legal advisor with experience dealing with the education sector on Safeguarding.

20. A meeting will be held for parents of WGA organised in conjunction with all the masjids in Walsall, Darlaston and Wednesbury to support families and provide guidance. Sunday 20th November 2022 after Zuhr @ 1:30pm. VENUE: MET Wednesbury, Walsall Street, WS109EL.

21. The support received locally, across the UK and beyond so far has been humbling and overwhelming. Everyone stands shoulder to shoulder with you the student and you the parents/guardian's. You are not alone, you are the most important people in this matter and we stand together in support. Many organisations, councillors, professionals and Masjids across the UK have offered support for parents and pupils.

22. If any student or parents are feeling distressed or victimised, please come forward as help and support is here for you.

23. To ensure the voice of our children and their parents are heard, we will support parents with their complaint and collate these which will be sent directly to DfE, sandwell education board and WGA.


Some sobering responses. However pessimism is not warranted. Bad situations don't last forever.



Reply

سيف الله
12-08-2022, 05:43 AM
Salaam

On to another controversy, this time about the World Cup hosted in Qatar. Over the past couple of months there has been a lot of manufactured hysteria particularly from liberal elites shedding their crocodile tears over Qatars real or imagined failings. Its quite unprecedented. They didn't even bother to show the opening ceremony on BBC 1.

However there has been noticeable pushback. Ill post some here.



A trifle condescending but never thought Id see this from Piers Morgan.



John Barnes.

'Football can't change people's perspective, life changes your perspective.'

Three Lions icon John Barnes believes you should respect the laws of that country.








Tried to reason with them but largely to no avail.



Germany covered their mouths in the first group game in a virtue signalling move. They were knocked out rather promptly. Qataris response.





Guess whos hosting the next world cup, the USA. lets see how the virtue signalers respond given its less than clean record in world affairs. (not holding my breath).

Having said that many many travelling fans have had very positive experiences.

Opening ceremony.



Alcohol ban helps female fans enjoy hassle-free football in Qatar.



More fan responses.





Nice to see



Finally



Reply

سيف الله
12-08-2022, 01:11 PM
Salaam

More comment.

Clown World Fails in Qatar


The Gay Rainbow brigade is afraid to stand up for their fake human rights at the World Cup:

Qatar’s conservative regime has been clamping down on pro-LGBT football fans with rainbow bucket hats, T-shirts and flags as Harry Redknapp had his say and declared today: ‘I just want to get on and enjoy the football. If you feel that strongly don’t play or don’t go’.

The farcical row over Harry Kane and other captains facing a ban from the pitch for wearing a rainbow armband has spilled over to the stadiums of Doha.

Last night former Wales captain Laura McAllister was among female football fans who were ‘told to take off their rainbow bucket hats’ at the Qatari stadium ahead of the Dragons’ first match. Men, however, were allowed to keep them on.

US football reporter Grant Wahl was stopped by security at the same match and ordered to take off his rainbow T-shirt. He refused and the Qatari officials questioned him before they eventually backed down. One security guard told him that they were protecting him from fans inside who might’ve attacked him for wearing the shirt.

FIFA has made it clear that rainbows on clothing and flags is not prohibited in stadiums – but have acted to prevent protests on the pitch. Organisers of the Qatar World Cup and Qatari cultural groups have also urged visitors to respect their customs and religious rules. These including no drinking or swearing in public, wearing modest clothes and no public displays of affection. LGBT people are criminalised and they have also faced discrimination and violence.

Harry Kane did not wear his ‘One Love’ armband during England’s game against Iran because of the threat of a yellow card after orders from the FA. The England captain had previously said he was determined to put it on, and was accused of ‘bottling it’.

On the sidelines former England footballer Alex Scott, now a BBC broadcaster, wore the armband during a live broadcast.

Veteran football manager Harry Redknapp told LBC today that he backed Kane’s pro LGBT stance, but suggested he believes it will make no difference in Qatar.

He said: ‘I agree with Harry Kane. But we’ve gone to their country – If you feel that strongly don’t play or don’t go. I don’t know whether wearing the armband will change anything in that country. It’s their country and that’s how they want to run it. I just want to get on and enjoy the football. But a yellow card for wearing an armband is ridiculous’.
Qatar, like Russia, China, and the rest of the free world, has learned from the failure and subjugation of the former West to Clown World. If you give the clowns an inch, they will take a marathon’s worth of miles. Isn’t it interesting how “it’s just a rainbow” and “it’s just a t-shirt” and “it’s just an armband” suddenly become an outrageous authoritarian denial of so-called “human rights” as soon as they are banned?

If it’s just a t-shirt, then what’s the problem with banning it? If it’s just an armband, why are you vowing to accept any punishment in order to wear it?

As always, they speak with forked tongues. It’s not as if FIFA or the clown media would ever permit a team to wear a swastika armband, even if it was a Hindu team from India. It’s just too bad Qatar hasn’t banned the ridiculous prematch submission to St. George Floyd as well.

Clown World is literally built on lies, chief among them being that the political is personal until it is made mandatory.

https://voxday.net/2022/11/22/clown-...ails-in-qatar/
Reply

سيف الله
12-17-2022, 11:34 PM
Salaam

Another update. More comment and analysis on the purpose of hosting the world cup and future implications.



Blurb

We'll be asking if Qatar has paid too big an Islamic price for hosting the World Cup.



The World Cup has ended - what a show!





Oh dear, they havent learnt anything.







Imagine my shock and surprise.



To summarise.



In conclusion.





Hah

Reply

سيف الله
12-28-2022, 02:20 AM
Salaam

Just to finish on the World Cup.

Blurb

The UK media’s censorship of the opening ceremony for the Qatar FIFA World Cup was ‘seen’ and noted by the globe, CEO of emel Muslim Lifestyle, Sarah Joseph said in Doha this week.



You shouldn't be surprised at how low the British press will go.



Oh dear commiseration to all the virtue signalers at the BBC.



So much rubbish has been said but these two take the biscuit. Bigotry directed at the Moroccan team.







More peoples experience of the World Cup.



English had a good World Cup, not a single arrest! Thats a first. Lack of Alcohol and good policing really made the difference. Compare and contrast what could of happened.

Reply

سيف الله
01-01-2023, 03:52 AM
Salaam

Normal service is resumed.



The McCarthyite blacklist of Muslim groups Gove wants published should never see the light of day

Some of the people who created this list – as part of the Prevent strategy – held problematic views about Islam themselves

Who poses a threat to British society? The debate about what counts as extremism, which grew so heated during the years of the “war on terror”, has raised its head again in recent months with the sorry saga of the government’s independent review on Prevent.

The review, which has not yet been published, is controversially expected to encourage the government to divert its attention from the growing threat of the far right and instead focus on Islamist extremism. Yet, only in October, we saw a terror attack by a far-right Islamophobe on an immigration processing centre in Dover, at a time when far-right terror was on the rise.

The latest development, reported in the Times, casts light on a supposed fault line in cabinet about the content of the review, which apparently names several individuals and groups it blames for “spreading Islamist extremism in Britain”. The Home Office is said to have redacted some of these names, but the communities secretary, Michael Gove, wants the report published in full. The review’s chair, William Shawcross, is reported to be “increasingly frustrated and annoyed” by the delay in publishing.

But forget the Westminster hearsay for a moment, and recognise this list of names and organisations for what it will effectively be: a McCarthyite blacklist of Muslim organisations in Britain.

This should scare us all.

What’s worse than the creation of such a list is that some of the people deciding who was included, or pushing for it to be public, were themselves holders of hugely problematic views about Muslims.

For example, Shawcross said in 2012: “Europe and Islam is one of the greatest, most terrifying problems of our future. I think all European countries have vastly, very quickly growing Islamic populations.” When he was chair of the Charity Commission, it was accused of disproportionately targeting Muslim charities for investigation. He even defended the torture carried out by US interrogators during the “war on terror”.

Michael Gove hardly fares better in his views of Muslims. The most senior British Muslim in politics at the time, Lady Warsi, was genuinely “fearful of the idea of Michael Gove becoming prime minister” because of “his views on British Muslims”, and noted how he had the same “crazy” anti-Muslim policies as Donald Trump.

The attempt to arbitrarily target Muslim organisations is not new. It was the approach of the now defunct Quilliam Foundation, which, in 2010, sent a secret list to a government official of mainstream Muslim organisations it alleged were extremist sympathisers. But at least the dangers of such a list being made public were realised.

Gove, on the other hand, wants this report to be made public. A few weeks after a far-right Islamophobe attacked a migrant centre, he and others genuinely seem to want the government to publish a report that names Muslim organisations they deem to be “spreading Islamic extremism in the UK”. Surely this poses a huge risk, especially since we also know that when the government’s teams try to determine what is “extreme”, they can get it completely wrong.

When the UK government described Salman Butt as an “extremist hate preacher” in 2015, it had to pay compensation and apologise “for the harm caused to him and in particular for the fact that the allegation was made and maintained for so long”. When former prime minister David Cameron and former defence secretary Michael Fallon said imam Suliman Gani “supported IS”, Cameron had to issue an apology and Fallon had to pay libel damages.

And even if the process to create this list was reasonable, how could it be fair that Muslim organisations on it be tarred seemingly with no opportunity to defend themselves?

The idea that this is going to get the seal of approval from this government shows the scale of the issue that mainstream British Muslims have to deal with. We can only hope that given sections of the Home Office apparently fear libel action, even though others think this is “implausible”, such a blacklist of British Muslims and Muslim organisations will not be published.

But with this government’s track record on Islamophobia, maybe that’s just too much to hope for.

https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...prevent-review



The British state monitoring Muslims, incase they behave in a 'too Muslim' way.



Also the British state is in the process of manufacturing a 'moderate' Muslims class to do their bidding. Bit like the brown sahibs of the past.
Reply

سيف الله
01-30-2023, 12:46 AM
Salaam

Another update.



Muslim organisations say that new Home Office figures on Prevent referrals prove that the government counter-extremism policy is targeting and traumatising children.

In the year ending March 31, 2022, there were 6,406 referrals to Prevent – an increase of 30% compared to the year ending March 2021 (4,915).

For the second year running, the number of referrals for “extreme right-wing radicalisation” concerns (1,309) was greater than referrals for “Islamist” concerns (1,027).

Of the 804 Channel cases (cases which are considered more serious), the most common were referred due to concerns regarding extreme right-wing radicalisation (339), followed by those with concerns regarding “Islamist” radicalisation (156), and those with a “conflicted ideology” (120).

The education sector made the highest number of referrals (2,305 or 36%) – the highest proportion of referrals received from the sector since data has been compiled.

The next highest number of referrals to Prevent came from the police (1,808).

Most referrals were of males (5,725 or 89%), and those aged 15 to 20 accounted for the largest proportion (1,902 or 30%).

However, those aged under 15 accounted for an increased proportion of referrals (1,829 or 29%), and those under 15 accounted for the largest proportion of cases that were discussed at a Channel panel (1,486) and adopted as a case (804).

Muslim experts said the Home Office figures confirms that Prevent is a failed policy that is traumatising children.

CAGE’s Head of Public Advocacy Anas Mustapha said: “It’s alarming that the education sector continues to be the largest referrer of cases to Prevent. This underlines how the sector has been co-opted to deliver on what are surveillance operations.

“Proportionally, Prevent remains discriminatory against minority communities. Prevent enables a system of surveillance that clamps down on dissent and freedom of religion that can be weaponised against any group. The Shawcross review demonstrates this clearly in how it brazenly attempts to refocus Prevent on Muslims.

“Far-right talking points and policies have been normalised in our political landscape and even within Parliament and 10 Downing Street. Prevent’s targeting of the far-right is therefore not a rejection of the politics of the far-right but rather a concern with elements that operate outside the purview and control of the state.”

And Dr Layla Aitlhadj and Professor John Holmwood, co-authors of the People’s Review of Prevent report, said: “The latest Home Office figures on the Prevent Programme, where the largest proportion of referrals – some 36% – came from the education sector and just under a third of all referrals were children under the age of the 15, confirms one of the major conclusions of the People’s Review of Prevent: that Prevent is a failed policy that is traumatising children.

“Despite committing no crime or having any intention of committing any crime, these 1,829 children will have been interrogated by counter-terrorism officers, some without their parents’ presence or knowledge. They have been left deeply traumatised by the experience and distrustful of the very people they should trust – teachers and the police.

“The government introduced Prevent in 2015 to safeguard vulnerable people who are deemed to be at risk of being radicalised. However, as the People’s Review of Prevent report found last year, Prevent does not stop terrorism. Rather, it is a huge waste of public resources that could otherwise be deployed to the very services that most Prevent referrals – 87% – are found to require. This includes social care, mental health care and education.”

The government says Prevent aims to safeguard vulnerable people from being drawn into terrorism. It insists that Prevent is non-discriminatory.

However, Muslim groups have long said that Prevent monitors and profiles Muslims and has had a chilling effect on free speech.

A government review of Prevent, led by the right-wing activist William Shawcross, is due to be published soon as is thought to recommend placing renewed focus on Muslims.

https://5pillarsuk.com/2023/01/27/ne...ting-children/



And it continues

Reply

سيف الله
03-24-2023, 08:02 AM
Salaam

Here we go again... . . .

Birmingham school causes outrage by inviting ‘gay Muslim’ to address pupils

Erdington Academy in Birmingham has provoked outrage amongst Muslim staff, pupils and parents by inviting a “gay Muslim” who said the Quran does not prohibit same-sex relations to address pupils aged 11-13.

On Tuesday Erdington Academy invited a “gay Muslim” called Ash to do an online power point presentation and speech during an “enrichment day” session with Year 7 and 8 pupils.

Parents have told 5Pillars that Ash, who said he was a Bengali Muslim from Birmingham, announced that he was a Muslim and gay and said he had read the Quran and hadiths and it is “ok to be gay.”

There is nothing in the Quran that says you can’t be gay, he said, adding that it’s up to interpretation and you have old Muslims and new modern Muslims who interpret it differently.

But when questioned by students about how he could be Muslim and gay given Islam’s strict prohibition on same-sex sexual relations, Ash replied that he lost his faith years ago but still knows lots of “gay Muslims.”

Sources told 5Pillars that the online session took place without Muslim pupils or staff knowing that a “gay Muslim” would address the students.

The presentation included images of two men kissing and other images and captions promoting homosexuality, which, if acted upon, is considered a major sin by a consensus of Islamic scholars.

One parent told us: “Whoever organised this knew what he or she was doing and they were trying to provoke Muslims. Kids and Muslim staff were really angry. Children were telling staff to switch the presentation off because he was lying and misquoting the Quran. A lot of people were distressed.

“Basically, a guy was invited in knowing full well that he was gay and Muslim and that he was going to make a speech to majority Muslim kids and Muslim staff, and he has misquoted the Quran to say that it’s allowed to be gay and that the Quran says it’s ok. That’s unacceptable. Parents need to know what’s going on and the school need to understand what they’ve done is wrong.”

Investigation launched

5Pillars approached Erdington Academy about the incident and asked them why they decided to go ahead with the session on such a controversial topic without consulting Muslim parents, staff and children. We also asked if they considered it appropriate to try to expose Muslim children to teachings which are clearly contrary to their Islamic faith.

The school did not respond directly to our questions but released the following statement:

“We are aware of an issue in a session delivered by an external third party to students on Tuesday. As a result of communications with staff after the session, an investigation to ascertain the facts was commissioned that evening and will be conducted with appropriate actions taken.

“The Principal met with concerned staff before school on Wednesday to listen, reassure and ensure the scope of the investigation covers the specific concerns raised. From the outcome of this investigation appropriate actions and communications will then be taken. A communication has also been sent to parents keeping them informed.”

Meanwhile, educator Yusuf Patel, of SRE Islamic, told 5Pillars that the Muslim community and parents need to push back when LGBTQ identities are being imposed by schools on Muslim children.

He said: “This kind of thing is happening more and more. Schools are jumping over themselves to prove that they are pro-diversity but that diversity seems to emphasise LGBTQ identities and doesn’t take into account that there are Muslim pupils who also have a protected characteristic and should be treated with respect. Schools are forcing a hierarchy of equality where sexual orientation and gender is at the top and faith and belief is at the bottom.

“But one of our biggest problems is that Muslim parents do not push back often enough. If they did then schools would re-think or think twice about what they do in these sessions. There is a profound difference between someone coming in and saying ‘these are my experiences,’ and someone coming in who has no expertise on Islamic theology and saying ‘there is nothing wrong with being gay and Muslim or that there is nothing in the Quran which precludes these types of relationships.’

“They are speaking about things with no authority, a school would not allow a Covid conspiracy theorist to speak about the pandemic and be given a platform to speak untruths. But in this instance schools are allowing anybody to claim they have some authority to speak about Islamic texts which run country to 1,400 years of normative Islamic values.”

He added: “I would advise parents and the local Muslim community to get organised and involved and liaise with the school, like happened at Wood Green Academy in Wednesbury, and this could yield a positive result.”

https://5pillarsuk.com/2023/03/23/bi...ddress-pupils/

More comment.



To repeat the purpose of this 'agenda'.









Having said that some good news.



Reply

سيف الله
04-04-2023, 09:17 AM
Salaam

Another update.



Erdington Academy says ‘gay Muslim’ strayed off topic during LGBTQ session

An investigation by Erdington Academy into a lesson where a “gay Muslim” told pupils that the Quran does not prohibit same-sex relations has concluded that the speaker “strayed off topic.”

In a letter to parents, the headteacher of the Birmingham secondary school apologised for any offence caused but said this was not “my or any member of staff’s intention.”

But sources connected with the school have told 5Pillars that the investigation is a whitewash and the school have tried to cover for their failings by pinning the blame on an external speaker.

In his letter, Principal Simon Mallet admitted that parents/carers were not informed about the LGBTQ+ session which “is a mistake which cannot occur again.”

He also said that:

  • Parents/carers should henceforth be fully informed about events which take place on Enrichment Days.
  • Enrichment Day activities need to be better communicated to staff so they can prepare more effectively.
  • More effective oversight is needed when external speakers are invited to address students and staff should terminate the session if needed.
  • Elements of the LGBTQ+ session planning and communication was not of the expected standard.


Following the conclusion of the investigation parents told 5Pillars that the school is refusing to take any responsibility and accountability for their part in serious negligence.

A source told 5Pillars: “I believe the school deliberately misinformed parents about the LGBTQ+ session that was planned and about the ‘gay Muslim’ invited to speak to Muslim children. They failed to do any checks or any regulation and supervising of sessions. He was able to speak as he wanted and they let him. It was a free-for-all.

“There have been multiple failings in safeguarding and protecting the rights of Muslim children, as well as a lack of communication with staff, students and parents.”

The controversy erupted last week when Erdington Academy invited a “gay Muslim” called Ash to do an online power point presentation and speech during an Enrichment Day session with Year 7 and 8 pupils.

Parents told 5Pillars that Ash, who said he was a Bengali Muslim from Birmingham, announced that he was a Muslim and gay and said he had read the Quran and hadiths and it is “ok to be gay.”

There is nothing in the Quran that says you can’t be gay, he said, adding that it’s up to interpretation and you have old Muslims and new modern Muslims who interpret it differently.

But when questioned by students about how he could be Muslim and gay given Islam’s strict prohibition on same-sex sexual relations, Ash replied that he lost his faith years ago but still knows lots of “gay Muslims.”

Sources told 5Pillars that the online session took place without Muslim pupils or staff knowing that a “gay Muslim” would address the students.

The presentation included images of two men kissing and other images and captions promoting homosexuality, which, if acted upon, is considered a major sin by a consensus of Islamic scholars.

The controversy led to a student protest the following day during which around 20-30 pupils challenged staff and the headteacher over the LGBTQ session.

https://5pillarsuk.com/2023/03/31/er...lgbtq-session/



Exactly, they know what they are doing.
Reply

سيف الله
04-18-2023, 06:26 PM
Salaam

Good summary of what has been previously discussed.

Blurb

Join us for our sixth Ramadan live appeal on Monday 17 April at 11.30pm (BST) where we will be discussing how to combat LGBTQ indoctrination in schools.



Grim :(



Like to share add for anyone how has naive views about the supposedly 'neutral' nature of education (American perspective). Ill pick the most interesting parts.







More comment.







More history.

Reply

سيف الله
05-19-2023, 12:59 AM
Salaam

Was trying to leave this topic, but this is an important development.

Blurb

Around 200 Orthodox Jews held a protest outside Parliament on May 16 against the British state's attempts to regulate Jewish education, including by imposing LGBTQ guidelines. They said the government is threatening the Jewish way of life.

Reply

سيف الله
06-01-2023, 07:18 AM
Salaam

Another update. More on the global 'moderate' Islam project.



Selective moderation: Indonesia–UAE religious diplomacy

Much has been written of late on the growing relationship between Indonesia and the United Arab Emirates (UAE), particularly its economic aspects. Over the past five years, the UAE has emerged as the largest Gulf-state investor in Indonesia, with bilateral trade projected to grow from the US$4 billion in 2021 to US$10 billion by 2030. Some US$44.6 billion in future Emirati investment has been promised, including joint development of major infrastructure, energy and IT projects.

Less attention has been paid to the burgeoning religious relations between the two nations, especially a professed shared commitment to combatting radicalisation, promoting Islamic moderation and deepening inter-faith understanding. Such commentary as has appeared in media and scholarly outlets has generally been favourable, frequently citing the complementarity of Indonesia’s rich tradition of religious tolerance with the Emirates’ well-funded international programs on peace and cross-faith dialogue.

Little critical scrutiny has been given to the details of religious relations between Indonesia and the UAE. Behind the carefully crafted statements and stage-managed events lie a tangle of domestic political and strategic interests, not all of which are shared, and nor are they necessarily likely to result in greater religious moderation in either country, let alone globally.

Here I argue that Indonesia–Emirates religious diplomacy has multiple drivers, not all of which accord with liberal notions of moderation. Moderation is commonly defined as the avoidance of extremes and display of self-restraint and reasonableness. A key difficulty here is that this is a relational definition, in that moderation is defined vis-à-vis behaviour or views that are deemed excessive. Deciding what is excessive or unreasonable is often highly subjective. Is the propagation of puritanical religious views extreme or pious, for example? Are calls for major changes to a political system dangerously excessive or legitimate comment?

Certain aspects of the moderation agenda put forward by Indonesia and the UAE do enjoin religious openness and exchange, while contesting faith-based militancy. But other aspects point to fundamentally immoderate intentions, particularly related to the suppression of domestic political dissent. Indeed, one aim of the diplomacy of moderation is to legitimise autocratic state actions that curtail the rights of civil society groups in both countries.

The growth in bilateral religious diplomacy

In the increasingly warm personal relationship that has grown between Indonesia’s President Joko Widodo (Jokowi) and UAE President Muhammad bin Zayed al-Nahyan (commonly shortened to MBZ), religion comes second only to economic matters as a feature of their public utterances and policy initiatives.

When the two leaders meet, they regularly praise their respective nations’ efforts to combat radicalism and to strengthen religious moderation. During his 2021 visit to Abu Dhabi, Jokowi said: “I see that religious moderation and diversity in the UAE are widely respected. And that is the area of cooperation we would like to explore more because we both share the closeness in the vision and character of moderate Islam that propagates tolerance.”

This has been accompanied with bilateral agreements and cooperation to promote counter-radicalisation efforts and advocacy of religious tolerance. In 2020, the two governments signed a memorandum of understanding, the paramount point of which was to “promote concepts of religious moderation, values of tolerance and raising public awareness of the risks of extremism.” Particular reference was made by Indonesian officials to wasatiyyah, an Arabic term meaning “centre” or “middle”, but which is also often used to denote moderation.
Over the past three years, more than 200 Indonesian imams have been sent to UAE to take up interim roles in major mosques and to “study how Islam in UAE is fully tolerant and contributes to creating peace in society”. Indonesian politicians and Islamic scholars have also participated regularly in international religious conferences run by the Emiratis and a number of eminent Indonesian academics have been appointed to the advisory boards of UAE Islamic institutions.

Commanding the most headlines has been UAE’s “mosque diplomacy”. Recently, construction was completed on a lavish US$20 million replica of Abu Dhabi’s Sheikh Zayed Grand Mosque in Surakarta, Jokowi’s home city. MBZ and Jokowi officially opened the mosque in November 2022, prior to the G20 summit in Bali, to which Jokowi had invited MBZ to be a guest of honour. The mosque has been described by local officials as a “pioneer of religious moderation” which helps “address the contemporary society’s vulnerability to fragmentation”. The UAE is also currently erecting a large mosque in Jokowi’s honour in Abu Dhabi.

At first sight, there appears to be much to applaud in these closer religious ties between Indonesia and UAE. Indonesia has not previously had strong relations with any of the Gulf states, with the exception of Saudi Arabia, and even these have often been strained due to maltreatment of Indonesian domestic workers and accusations that Saudi religious influence fuels intolerance and jihadist violence in Indonesia. The UAE’s ambitious international religious moderation program brings the prospect of raising Indonesia’s profile and clout as a source of innovative thinking on religious reform.

Indonesia’s Islamic soft power

Jokowi has always had a supremely pragmatic approach to foreign affairs, viewing diplomacy as being primarily about generating economic opportunities for Indonesia, whether it be attracting foreign capital and technology or selling Indonesian goods and services abroad.. But religion—and especially religious moderation—has been a major secondary factor in his international interactions. In fact, it has become a key form of Indonesian “soft power” that he has consistently championed during his presidency.

Over the past half century, Indonesia has enjoyed a reputation abroad as a tolerant and harmonious Muslim-majority nation. Following the 11 September 2001 attacks on New York and Washington DC, and the ensuing “Global War on Terror”, Indonesia attracted Western attention as one of the few Muslim-majority democratic nations in the world that proudly proclaimed its moderation, and was thus feted as an example from which other Muslim countries should learn.

Jokowi’s predecessor, Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono, Indonesia’s most diplomatically adept president, traded heavily on this moderate image and strode the world extolling his nation’s religious virtues. Major Indonesian Islamic organisations also sought to benefit by seeking funding from foreign donors for their “moderate” educational and outreach programs, including scholarships, money for schools and development of anti-radicalisation projects.

Soon after becoming president in 2014, Jokowi took up the Islamic moderation theme in a more specific way than Yudhoyono. He adopted the Islam Nusantara (Archipelagic Islam) concept formulated by Nahdlatul Ulama (NU), Indonesia’s largest Muslim organisation. The concept’s essence was that Indonesian Islam had unique and commendable characteristics because it married local culture with Islamic legal and theological traditions. NU intended the concept to challenge what it saw as a growing “Arabisation” of Indonesian Islam driven by the belief that Middle Eastern Islam was superior to, or more pure than, indigenous variants. Jokowi gave prominence to Islam Nusantara in numerous speeches abroad for several years (albeit without mentioning Arabisation) and he also instructed his foreign ministry to incorporate Islam Nusantara into its official messaging.

This had both political and diplomatic motivations. NU is Jokowi’s chief base of support among Muslim voters, a majority of whom voted for his opponent, Prabowo Subianto in the 2014 and 2019 presidential elections. Without NU’s backing, Jokowi would likely have lost both races.

A grateful Jokowi was happy to expound NU’s Islam Nusantara and raise the organisation’s profile globally. NU had long felt that it had far less international attention than it deserved, given its size and the quality of its Islamic scholarship, and therefore welcomed having its ideas presented abroad. Jokowi probably also felt that Indonesia’s religious moderation was a natural diplomatic selling point among Western leaders preoccupied with the threat of Islamic militancy.

After several years, Jokowi shifted the focus of his moderation messaging as the limitations of Islam Nusantara became apparent. Most Indonesian Islamic organisations were cool on the concept, seeing it as too NU-centric and not representative of their own religious views and practices. Moreover, doubts arose about the applicability of Islam Nusantara to other Muslim societies.

In 2018 Jokowi signalled a change of tack by appointing Din Syamsuddin, the former chairman of Muhammadiyah, NU’s great rival, to a new position of Special Presidential Envoy for Interfaith Dialogue and Cooperation. A conference of international scholars was organised in Indonesia in the middle of that year, which endorsed “Islam Wasatiyyah” as a pivotal concept for promoting peace and tolerance. The term wasatiyyah had the advantage of already being in common international usage and acceptable to a wide range of Muslim states and movements. Thereafter, Jokowi and his officials made frequent reference to Islam Wasatiyyah, thereby allowing Indonesia to more easily align with international Islamic discourses.

The election of Yahya Cholil Staquf as NU chairman in late 2021 has seen Jokowi again show strong favour to NU as a source of religious diplomacy. Yahya, who has long been close to Jokowi and is a member of the president’s advisory council, had been diligently pursuing building international networks over several years, using various concepts, the most recent of which is called Humanitarian Islam.

The most controversial part of the Humanitarian Islam concept is its call for thorough-going reform of Islamic jurisprudence as a means of delegitimatising radical interpretations and creating more tolerant and irenic understandings. Yahya persuaded Jokowi to support a new religious dialogue initiative known as the Religious Forum 20 (R20) in the run up to the G20 summit in Bali in November 2022, of which Indonesia was the chair. Generous funding for the event was secured from Saudi Arabia’s Muslim World League.

This decision was controversial as the R20 displaced the long-established US-based Interfaith Forum 20 (IF20) which had preceded annual G20 meetings since 2014. Opinion is divided within officialdom and civil society regarding the outcome of the R20, and there is now intense competition between R20 and IF20 to organise the 2023 pre-G20 religious forum in New Delhi. Jokowi has sought to strengthen the R20’s bid by making NU the permanent organiser. If the R20 is unsuccessful, it would be a blow to Indonesia’s efforts to place itself at the centre of global religious diplomacy.

The UAE’s moderate makeover

The Emirates, like Indonesia, regards the economic aspect of the bilateral relationship as the most important, but in its case, the nexus between religious and economic issues is far more tightly interwoven than is the case for Indonesia. The UAE is pursuing a policy of economic transformation in order to create a thriving, sustainable post-fossil fuel-based economy. This not only involves diversifying UAE’s predominantly oil-based economy by attracting and developing a wide range of new industries—such as IT, clean energy technology, financial services and defence manufacturing—but also creating a cosmopolitan and multi-cultural society which is enticing for expatriates who will bring the necessary expertise to enable sweeping economic restructuring.

The UAE has pursued a “Look East” policy for the past decade, placing greater focus on Asia. Indonesia, the largest economy in Southeast Asia and with prospects of becoming one of the world’s top five economies in the next decade or two, presents an attractive option to the Emirates.

Religion is a key part of the Emirates’ makeover. MBZ, the main architect of this this process, is determined to replace the his country’s image as a traditional, rather puritanical Islamic society with one that is open, pluralistic and welcoming of different faiths and cultures. An ambitious program has been implemented over the past 15 years to achieve this, placing particular emphasis on interfaith outreach and Islamic moderation. The UAE has opened diplomatic relations with Israel as part of the 2020 Abraham Accords and is now constructing a massive multi-billion-dollar Abrahamic Family House in Abu Dhabi which will feature a Catholic church, a synagogue and a mosque—all on an opulent scale. It describes the project as a manifestation of “Common Humanity”. The Emirates is also building large Hindu and Sikh temples and has funded a succession of international interfaith conferences and initiatives.

Establishing itself as a credible voice for moderation has been more challenging for the Emirates as it lacks home-grown ulema (Islamic scholars) and institutions of high standing in the Muslim world. As a result, it has had to recruit reputable ulema from abroad and form new organisations capable of raising UAE’s religious profile. Its chief recruits have been Sheikh Abdallah bin Bayyah, a Mauritanian scholar; his student Sheikh Hamza Yusuf, a prominent US-based scholar; and Sheikh al-Habib Ali al-Jifri, a Yemeni Sufi (mystical) scholar.

New institutions followed soon after. In 2013 the Forum for Promoting Peace in Muslim Societies (FPPMS) was founded, headed by bin Bayyah, with the aim of building international networks and producing Islamic scholarship supportive of moderation. Bin Bayyah has published extensively and travelled the world propounding his views on religion and peace as well as correct political behaviour for Muslims. The following year, the Muslim Council of Elders was set up, with the stated objective of “extinguishing” sectarian and jihadist “fires” in the region and promoting humanitarian values. Ali al-Jifri’s main vehicle was the Tabah Foundation, which challenges what it sees as “fundamentalist” thought using Sufi ideals. The UAE also founded Hedayah, an international body to counter violent extremism, and created a Ministry of Tolerance in 2016.

UAE religious engagement with Indonesia is part of this effort to rebrand the Emirates; Indonesia’s reputation as a stronghold of religious tolerance makes it a useful partner. In effect, the Emirates is hoping that closer and more high-profile relations with Indonesia and other religiously diverse and tolerant nations will reflect positively upon it, helping it to appear more like its international partners.

Indonesia and the UAE also have similarities in their legal and devotional practices that make international partnerships easier. The Emirates is often incorrectly seen as sharing the strict Wahhabist doctrine of its neighbour, Saudi Arabia—but it in fact adheres to the mainstream Sunni law schools and has strong Sufi traditions, as does Indonesia. UAE religious institutions such as the Muslim Council of Elders and the Tabah Foundation directly contest Wahhabist doctrine, as also does NU in Indonesia, and they deploy the term Ahlul Sunnah wal Jamaah (“followers of the tradition of Prophet Muhammad and the community”—in effect, mainstream Sunni Islam) in seeking to exclude Wahhabists and other perceived fundamentalist groups.

Indonesian Islamic scholars with expertise in traditional jurisprudence thus have much in common with their Emirati counterparts. Several senior Indonesian Islamic scholars, such as Professor Quraish Shihab, hold advisory board positions in Emirati Islamic organisations. In 2022, FPPMS bestowed on Jokowi the Hassan bin Ali International Peace Prize for his G20 leadership and also invited Indonesia’s vice president to be a keynote speaker at their annual Peace Forum. For its part, Indonesia ensured that Abdallah bin Bayyah spoke at the R20 conference in Bali and at other interfaith events.

Less moderate than it seems?

To what degree is the Indonesian and Emirati rhetoric of tolerance and moderation genuine? At one level, both nations have a strong interest in enjoining moderation. Indonesia has grappled with a serious terrorism problem since the early 2000s, and, although attacks have been rare in recent years, much is due to successful police counter-terrorism operations rather than ebbing terrorist recruitment. The UAE’s terrorism threat is less severe but nonetheless present.

Whether the kinds of “civilisational” discourses favoured by the two governments will have any effect on extreme radicalisation is questionable, given that militant Muslims usually reject the authority of mainstream or official ulema. Undoubtedly, also, both Indonesia and the Emirates aspire in a broad sense to have harmonious, plural and tolerant societies, and are bent on inculcating these values in their communities. Their espousal of religious moderation thus has some substance.

But at another level, Indonesia and UAE are using “moderation” in an instrumental and selective way for domestic political purposes. Both the MBZ and Jokowi governments have repressed local Islamist movements, often using methods that breach civil liberties. The UAE aggressively targets Islamists, particularly the Muslim Brotherhood and its sympathisers, which it sees as one of the major sources of opposition to the monarchy. Amnesty International says there are currently at least 32 political prisoners in jail and in recent years almost 100 Muslim intellectuals and activists from the Brotherhood-linked al-Islah Islamist group have been tried and jailed under a vaguely worded but draconian counter-terrorism law. Moreover, the UAE uses state-employed ulema, such as Bin Bayyah and Hamza Yusuf, to argue for political quietism and obedience to the ruler, thus seeking to cast dissent as sinful.

The Jokowi government has also quashed Islamist activism that it deems a political threat, albeit somewhat less harshly. It banned Hizbut Tahrir Indonesia in 2017 and the Islamic Defenders Front in 2020—movements which had tens of thousands of members—on grounds including involvement in terrorism and sedition that many observers believe to be unsubstantiated. Numerous Islamist leaders have either been charged and convicted of questionable offences or forced from public view on threat of investigation into alleged criminal behaviour. Both governments behave immoderately when it comes to suppressing opposition but use their religious diplomacy of moderation to deflect attention from their autocratic tendencies. Most of their fellow world leaders are happy to ignore or play down such excesses.

It is also the case that, despite their apparent warm relations, the UAE and Indonesia sometimes pursue contrary agendas. A recent case is the R20 conference in Bali, largely funded by the Emirates’ rival, Saudi Arabia. Sheikh Abdullah bin Bayyah’s Forum for Promoting Peace in Muslim Societies (FPPMS) pointedly hosted the US-based IF20 as part of its annual Peace Forum in Abu Dhabi last December, enabling the IF20 to demonstrate it was still active despite its exclusion from the broader 2022 G20 program. FPPMS and IF20 have made clear their desire to supplant Indonesia’s NU-organised R20 and restore the IF20 to the next G20. In effect, Indonesia and UAE, through their proxies, are now competitors to manage what is arguably the world’s premier interfaith event.

Despite the lofty rhetoric of Indonesian and Emirati religious diplomacy, hard-headed and politically self-interested considerations drive the use of moderation and tolerance as strategic commodities. If aspects of these religious programs succeed in implanting moderate and pluralistic values in their respective societies, then there will be cause for praise. But it is also the case that moderation has also become a tool for crimping the ability of Indonesians and Emiratis to organise and express themselves freely. From this perspective, the diplomacy of religious moderation has an empty ring to it.

https://www.newmandala.org/selective...indonesia-uae/

The new face of 'moderate' Islam!

In the UK - The leader of MCB Zara Mohammed



And in the US Imam Omar Suleiman. Hes been nicknamed the 'sandwich Imam'.



More generally

Reply

سيف الله
06-09-2023, 08:33 PM
Salaam

Like to share.

Blurb

In this episode of the Blood Brothers Podcast, Dilly Hussain speaks with the American scholar and founder of Safina Society, Dr Shadee Elmasry. #BloodBrothersPodcast #LGBT #Liberal

Topics of discussion include:

• Quick fire Maliki fiqh questions.
• "Navigating Differences" joint statement on LGBTQ ideology. Praise and criticism.
• The struggle for Muslim rights vs Islamic identity in the West.
• Post 9/11 Muslim politics and activism in the West.
• Can Muslims “co-exist” with the LGBTQ community?
• Future of Muslims in the West and hijra.
• Muslim laity accounting and criticising scholars publicly.



Reply

سيف الله
07-15-2023, 06:29 PM
Salaam

Another update. Back to whats going on in France.



More generally

Blurb

France’s estimated six million strong Muslims are subject to daily inhuman treatment at the hands of a militant secular state. Islam as a faith has long been traduced and othered, exceptionalised as a religion that must be chastened by French enlightenment.

It is this context that we observe with horror the recent episode of brutality. Seventeen year old Nahel Merzouk was killed at point blank range for a minor traffic infraction. His death, normally another statistic, was caught on camera and led to days of protests and rioting.

To help us make sense of this tragic week, we have invited back onto The Thinking Muslim Rayan Freschi. Rayan is a legal expert and researcher for Cage International and he has recently authored a disturbing report on the French government’s policy of “systematic obstruction” of the Muslim community. He recently wrote a piece for Middle East Eye analysing these tragic events.




Reply

سيف الله
07-22-2023, 09:14 PM
Salaam

How vindictive they can be.

Tariq Ramadan: Islam scholar cleared of Swiss rape charges

Renowned Islamic studies scholar Tariq Ramadan has been cleared of rape and sexual coercion by a Swiss court.

Mr Ramadan, who is a Swiss citizen, is the grandson of Hassan al-Banna, the founder of Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood.

The case was brought by a Swiss woman who said she had been raped by Mr Ramadan in a Geneva hotel in 2008.

A convert to Islam, and a fan of Mr Ramadan's, the woman told the court she had been subjected to a brutal sexual assault, beatings and insults.

She said it happened after she was invited by the former Oxford academic for a coffee after a conference.

Mr Ramadan, who is 60, had faced up to three years in prison if convicted. He denied all the charges, but did admit to having met the woman.

The trial was a sharp contrast to the career so far of the man once feted as a "rock star" of Islamic thought.

As Europe struggled with terrorist attacks and rising anti-Muslim feeling, Mr Ramadan appeared as a voice of reason - condemning terrorism and opposing the death penalty. He was denied entry to Tunisia, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Libya, and Syria, because, he said, he had criticised their lack of democracy.

In 2004 he was voted one of Time magazine's 100 most influential people in the world.

In 2007 he became a professor of Islamic studies at St Antony's College Oxford. He also had his critics, particularly in France, where a number of leading academics accused him of anti-Semitism.

But in 2017, Mr Ramadan's meteoric rise ended, when he was accused by a French woman of rape.

When that case became public, more women came forward.

By 2020 he was facing five charges of rape - four in France, and one in Switzerland - and had spent nine months in detention in France before being released on probation. He has consistently denied all the charges against him.

The Swiss case was the first to come to trial, and the atmosphere in the Geneva courtroom was tense.

Mr Ramadan faced a barrage of cameras as he arrived. His accuser, using the name Brigitte to protect her identity, requested a screen be put up in the courtroom so she would not have to look at the man she claimed raped her.

She described the alleged attack in detail, saying she feared she would die.

Mr Ramadan admitted inviting her to his hotel room, but denied any form of violence. He said all the accusations against him have been politically motivated and designed to discredit him.

His French and Swiss lawyers also questioned the accusers' truthfulness, citing inconsistencies around the dates of the alleged attacks.

Mr Ramadan was supported in that argument by his family. His son Sami, pointing to his father's "role in the debate about Islam in France," told the BBC in 2019 that the cases against his father were "motivated by other reasons, which we feel are political."

That view was backed by dozens of high-profile figures, including American philosopher Noam Chomsky, and British filmmaker Ken Loach, who signed an open letter questioning whether Mr Ramadan was receiving a fair legal process, with the usual presumption of innocence.

In court in Geneva, the prosecution insisted Brigitte could not have invented the alleged attack or have been able to tell it to the judges in such detail.

Mr Ramadan's defence lawyer insisted on his innocence, describing the charges against him as "crazy". In his own remarks to the court, Mr Ramadan asked not to be tried on his "real or supposed ideology".

After a week's deliberation, the three Swiss judges found him innocent.

While he has been cleared in Switzerland, this could be just the first of several trials.

In France, prosecutors are still assessing whether charges brought against Mr Ramadan should go to court.

He continues to protest his innocence in all the cases, and has vowed to clear his name.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-65611696

Tariq Ramadans viewpoint.




TO MY FELLOW SISTERS AND BROTHERS IN ISLAM
May I both inform you and remind you :

1. Even though I acknowledged my own weaknesses (and I have to deal with them before God alone and my family), the cases and the objective facts show that I have never been a predator, nor was I violent, and I never admitted any "domination", let alone "violent domination", as it has been wrongly reported by French media.

2. The Swiss plaintiff, and all the French ones, "got in touch with (me)" and tried "to seduce (me)": they "were in touch with each other and were organizing (my) downfall" as the Swiss judges mentioned it in their written verdict.

3. Some sisters and brothers are taking a kind of "neutral stance" by saying they support women and sisters, potentially victims", and, at the same time, refrain from supporting a Muslim scholar and leader, who was not morally consistent and must not be idealized.

4. Indeed, Muslim scholars must not be idealized, yet this has nothing to do with the crux of the matter: the plaintiffs are not "victims" or "sisters" manipulated by a scholar: these are women with a specific political mission, who planned an encounter, were in touch with (French, Saudi, Emirati and Israeli) governements' institutions, journalists, far right activists... and asked for money !

5. May I ask my sisters and brothers, in the light of the Islamic principles to avoid any rushed moral judgements (about facts they don't know), to justify a lack of understanding, a lack of courage, or both.

6. In the West, some Islamophobes and ideological enemies know quite well the Muslims' weaknesses and inclinations, and they know how to use, at time, the very Islamic morality they despise against the Muslims they hate. And naive Muslims are quick to falling into the trap...

7. Remember ... morality is not a weapon to be used to destroy and "cancel" a sister or a brother, be her/him a scholar or a leader. Rather it is a set of principles, a path, to help our sisters and our brothers to be protected from our superficial judgments and to find release, forgiveness, resilience and peace with God.

8. Rightly used our morality is the essential means of our unity and strength ... wrongly used it is the means of our weakness and division : be your sister/brother's private educator and teacher, not her/his public judge.

May God help us,
With faith and love.
A tough but but necessary response from Bro Talha.



I'm all for defending people from wrongful allegations, especially for zina and other serious sins. I'm also against "cancel culture" as perpetuated by these online vultures who lie in wait for any opportunity to try and ruin people.

But if your key subject area is Islam, and you preach *your* reformist version of it but complete with a general morality recognisable to other Muslims, and then you end up admitting to the crime of zina in the Sharia in order to wriggle out of a secular crime of being a predatory sexual abuser, then the only thing you need to be doing is a) thanking Allah for having mercy on you and then b) withdrawing from public life for the foreseeable future.

This doesn't mean Tariq Ramadan is irredeemable - everyone sins. But the gravity of his sin, freely admitted to knowing a secular court couldn't care less about zina (in most instances), is so great as to warrant a very long time away in reflection and *no more preaching*. Perhaps he could come back and specifically warn against the evils of zina, as someone Allah put through trials and (I pray) has learned a lesson from it at some point in the future. But even that isn't for now.

What he absolutely should not be doing is saddling up again like nothing ever happened to this cowboy and it's business as usual. Have some shame.
Reply

سيف الله
07-26-2023, 07:58 AM
Salaam

Another update.

Hah! Some good news.













As mentioned compare and contrast Moazzam treatment with Nigel Farage.

NatWest boss Alison Rose resigns over Nigel Farage Coutts account row

Former Ukip leader obtained report suggesting media coverage of his political views was considered in Coutts closure decision


Dame Alison Rose, the chief executive of NatWest Group, has stood down after a row over the closure of Nigel Farage’s bank account with the private bank Coutts, which NatWest owns.

Rose has resigned from the banking group after the former UK Independence party leader complained to the BBC about a report that claimed his accounts with Coutts were closed for commercial reasons. The broadcaster has since apologised and amended its story.

Farage said Rose’s exit was “a start” but called for the whole Natwest board to go. He told GB News that the resignation “had to happen”, adding: “The first rule of banking is you have to respect the privacy of the customer.”

The City minister Andrew Griffith tweeted: “It is right that the NatWest CEO has resigned. This would never have happened if NatWest had not taken it upon itself to withdraw a bank account due to someone’s lawful political views. That was and is always unacceptable.

“I hope the whole financial sector learns from this incident. Its role is to serve customers well and fairly – not to tell them how or what to think.”

In a statement released in the early hours of Wednesday, the NatWest Group chairman, Sir Howard Davies, said: “The board and Alison Rose have agreed, by mutual consent, that she will step down as CEO of the NatWest Group. It is a sad moment.”

In her own statement, Rose thanked her colleagues “for all that they have done”, adding: “I remain immensely proud of the progress the bank has made in supporting people, families and business across the UK, and building the foundations for sustainable growth.”

Having announced after markets closed on Tuesday that Rose was set to stay at the bank, her resignation was then confirmed just before 2am on Wednesday morning.

Her departure followed a media storm in which several newspapers had called for her to quit. Reports late on Tuesday citing sources close to No 10 and the chancellor claimed there were “significant concerns” about her staying in her role. By 11pm, shortly after front pages were revealed, the board of NatWest were locked in emergency talks over her future.

Rose had admitted earlier on Tuesday that she was the source of a controversial BBC story about Farage’s bank accounts, and for which she issued a grovelling apology.

Commercial considerations – falling below a wealth threshold – were one reason why his accounts could be closed, said a dossier obtained by Farage using a subject access request.

However, the documents also showed that media coverage of Farage’s political views was weighed up while discussing whether to retain him as a client.

The former Ukip leader had claimed that his bank account was closed on the basis of “blatant corporate prejudice” or because of rules about financial services for being a so-called politically exposed person: someone with political connections that could make them more at risk of receiving corrupt or illegal payments.

He said “I can’t get a bank account” in a video on 29 June. However, it is unclear when he was offered an alternative of accounts with Coutts’ sister lender, the high street bank NatWest.

In a letter of apology to Farage sent last week, Rose said the bank would “reiterate” its offer for “alternative banking arrangements” at NatWest, but that it was sorry for “deeply inappropriate comments” about the political campaigner.

Davies said earlier on Tuesday that the board was giving its full backing to its 53-year-old chief executive, who has spent her career at the lender, and retained the board’s “full confidence”.

Farage said on Wednesday: “Anybody on that board that backed that statement that was put out at 17.42 yesterday, a totally unsustainable and untrue statement, anybody that backed that behaviour, should be gone.”

He called for “cultural change” at NatWest and in the wider industry, adding: I think there is a massive anti-Brexit prejudice and I think the whole thing needs to change.

https://www.theguardian.com/business...account-coutts

Reply

سيف الله
07-27-2023, 11:33 PM
Salaam

Another update.

Nigel Farage row: When Muslims have their bank accounts closed, nobody cares

British Muslims were the first to suffer from bank account closures, but nobody protested. When the same thing happens to Nigel Farage, it’s close to a national scandal

Every major British media outlet has reported the revelation from British populist politician Nigel Farage that his bank accounts are to be closed without notice or explanation.

The Times, Financial Times, Guardian, Telegraph, Independent. Mail, Express, Evening Standard, Spectator and others have awarded Farage ample space. He's compared modern Britain to communist China - and claimed that without a bank account: "I won’t be able to exist or function".

This is more than empty hyperbole.

In the modern world, a bank account matters as much as electricity or running water. Without one you cannot travel overseas, you feel like a criminal and normal life becomes impossible.

I know this because, over the last decade, I have spoken at great length to dozens of people who have had their bank accounts removed without explanation - the same fate as Farage.

One lost his job, another saw his life’s work, a charity, wiped away. Yet another, a proud man, broke down in tears as he described the humiliation inflicted upon him and his family.

An attack of the vapours

I have written up many of these stories in Middle East Eye. Not one of them has been followed up in the British media, or taken up as a cause by politicians.

No prizes for guessing why not. The individuals concerned, though mainly British citizens, were Muslims.

Four years ago, I reported how the World Uyghur Congress, which raises awareness about the terrible plight of Chinese Muslims, was having bank transfers blocked. Completely ignored in British media, I rang up journalistic colleagues urging them to follow the story.

Not interested, even though the World Uyghur Congress was blacklisted on the basis of Chinese disinformation that it was a terror group.

I revealed how Interpal, one of the leading British charities focusing on providing relief and development aid to Palestinians in the occupied West Bank and Gaza, was prohibited from raising money.

I described how Anas Altikriti, chief executive of the Cordoba Foundation, had lost his bank account, along with members of his family, with no reason given. Ditto the Finsbury Park Mosque, stripped of its account after being falsely listed as a terrorist organisation.

I also exposed how the Palestinian Solidarity Campaign received letters - out of the blue - from their bankers closing down their accounts, and giving no reason or right of appeal. When I wrote about the problem in The Daily Telegraph a decade ago, the newspaper suppressed my report.

This week, it gave ample space to Farage's supposed banking trails.

Sinister authoritarianism

I raised the subject personally with George Osborne when he was chancellor of the Exchequer.

I went into the Treasury to meet his junior Harriet Baldwin, the minister responsible, and explained the plight of Muslims deprived of a bank account. I also briefed her successor John Glen who turned out to be a timewaster.

Contrast the Westminster reaction when a Muslim loses her or his account - total lack of any interest, let alone concern, but when Farage supposedly loses his, Fleet Street has an attack of the vapours.



Columnists like Richard Littlejohn, Dominic Lawson and Rod Liddle rally to his defence and politicians jump to attention.

Chancellor of the Exchequer Jeremy Hunt responded almost at once, promising prompt action. Culture Secretary Liz Frazer and Security Minister Tom Tugendhat followed suit.

According to the Daily Mail, a Treasury source stated yesterday that "it is absolutely a concern. No one should have their account denied on the grounds of freedom of expression. We expect to take action on this issue within weeks."

Canary in the mine

I can’t help comparing the alacrity with which the government has gone into battle on behalf of Farage to its total indifference to the fate of British Muslims and others over many years.

This shows two things: first and foremost, the structural Islamophobia which has long poisoned British media and politics. When Muslims have their bank accounts closed, nobody cares. When the same thing allegedly happens to Nigel Farage it’s close to a national scandal.

But there’s a deeper point. Ever since Tony Blair joined George Bush’s so-called “war on terror”, British Muslims have been the testing ground for sinister authoritarianism.

As I demonstrated in my book, The Fate of Abraham, politically engaged Muslims were the first to suffer from cancel culture, having been systematically excluded from British life for many years.

Nobody protested.

They were the first to suffer from financial attack in the shape of bank account closures. Nobody protested. Muslims are, in short, the canary in the coal mine.

Now, it may be happening to Farage, the ultimate symbol of white English middle-class smug complacency.

Let’s not forget that when British Muslims first lost their bank accounts a decade ago, neither Farage nor any other British mainstream politician lifted a finger in their defence.

Today, when the same thing threatens them, it's suddenly a national scandal, a threat to free speech, an act of political persecution and Britain is compared to communist China.

Welcome to the world of British Muslims.

https://www.middleeasteye.net/opinio...d-nobody-cares
Reply

سيف الله
08-01-2023, 10:37 PM
Salaam

Another update. The casual disregard and 10%, 10%!







And more cases.





More comment.









Peter Hitchens echoing Collingwoods earlier point.

*******

Has Nigel Farage really won a great victory over the forces of the Cultural Revolution? I don’t think so. The bank which tried to cancel him had to be dragged almost by force into admitting it had done anything wrong. Those who eventually resigned quite plainly had no real belief they had done anything wrong. Much of the left-wing media and the Labour Party still think Mr Farage is exaggerating or protesting too much. Here’s the truth. Most British institutions, companies, media, educational establishments, churches etc are now in the grip of a severe, intolerant left-wing dogma. We are in the twilight of free speech.

https://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co...t-some-in.html
Reply

سيف الله
08-02-2023, 02:41 PM
Salaam

Another update



Why does the government of a Muslim country support and fund a campaign directed against Muslims in Europe, regardless of their political views or activities?

What is the point of UAE spreading fear, slandering innocent Muslims?

Ruining their reputation and business, inciting racist attacks on mosques and giving a boost to far-right parties and positions in European countries? For one thing, MBZ can sell himself to European governments as a "good Muslim."

In Europe people like to think in terms of dichotomies. Especially when it comes to Muslims: Here the good, the moderate, the liberal, there the bad, the fanatical, the pious. From bin Zayed's point of view, there is definitely an economic interest in presenting oneself as supposedly good guys: The European Union is the autocrat's second largest trading partner after China.

At the same time, from the perspective of the UAE, it cannot do any harm to cause unrest in Europe. Russia's President Putin has been using similar tactics for a long time he supports various right-wing extremist parties in Europe and uses "RT" to spread targeted disinformation about an alleged "Islamization" of Europe. Not so much because the ideological similarities with the New Right are so great (which they definitely are), but out of cold calculation: confusing people, causing trouble, fueling the belief in conspiracies.

A third motive is also important: The UAE is arguing with Qatar about who has more influence in Europe. The host country of the 2022 men's World Cup is seen as a supporter seen as a supporter and sponsor of groups close to the Muslim Brotherhood. The dictator of the Emirates, on the other hand, proclaims Sufism, a mystical branch of Islam that the West likes to categorize as "liberal" or "cosmopolitan" without much background knowledge.
Abu Dhabi Secrets: The Emirati 'smear campaign' explained

UAE smeared over a thousand people and hundreds of organisations as Muslim Brotherhood supporters, according to a new investigation

A new report has revealed that the United Arab Emirates was involved in a smear campaign that targeted over a thousand people and hundreds of organisations, alleging that they had links to the Muslim Brotherhood.

Based on 78,000 confidential documents obtained by the French online newspaper Mediapart, the Abu Dhabi Secrets case reportedly involved people from 18 different European countries being spied on by Alp Services, a company hired by the Emirati government.

The campaign was linked to around 1,000 individuals in Europe, all of whom were portrayed as having links to the Muslim Brotherhood, which is described as a terrorist organisation by the UAE.

Some of those targeted have since come out to distance themselves from the allegations, while others have expressed fear over being targeted again or losing everything.

The investigations, which have been published across 13 different publications, found that Emirati authorities paid at least 5.7m euros for the campaign.

The Emirati embassy in Paris did not respond to Mediapart's request for comment. Mario Brero, founder of Alp Services, did not respond to questions sent to him by the French investigative site.

Brero's lawyers, Christian Luscher and Yoann Lambert, told Mediapart that the documents used for the investigation had been "obtained unlawfully" and "are the result of one or more criminal offences".

The lawyers said that criminal complaints had been filed and that the case is now under investigation. They further claimed that Mediapart had ignored their formal notices "ordering it to destroy all data concerning our principals".

The Swiss publication RTS, which has published the investigations, said it was doing so in the public interest despite the fact that the documents were most likely stolen by hackers.

The UAE has previously denied being involved in similar campaigns. The Belgian government has summoned the UAE's ambassador over the campaign.

What is Abu Dhabi Secrets?

Now dubbed “the Abu Dhabi Secrets”, the investigations claim that Alp Services, a Swiss private intelligence firm, was hired by the UAE government to spy on citizens of 18 different European countries.

Between 2017 and 2020, Alp Services gave the details of over 1,000 people and 400 companies and organisations to the Emirati intelligence services, who claimed that they all were members of - or sympathisers with - the Muslim Brotherhood.

A political Islamic movement, the Muslim Brotherhood briefly gained power in Egypt following the rise of the Arab Spring protests in 2011 and the election of Mohamed Morsi in 2012.

The UAE considers the group a terrorist organisation and Qatar's support for it was a source of tension between the Gulf states and a reason for the blockade imposed on Qatar between 2017 and 2021.

European Investigative Collaborations (EIC) published maps created by Alp Services that showed the locations of those targeted. Some references on the map included "other terrorists", "Qatari charities" and "other radical preachers".

The maps had hundreds of names and arrows, in a purported attempt to link individuals with extremism.

How did it work?

Alp Services - and Brero - were paid tens of thousands of euros per individual targeted, according to Le Soir. The Swiss group then produced reports on the identified individuals.

Information sent to Emirati intelligence services included phone numbers and personal details. Alp Services said this accusation was based on "stolen data" and claimed the line of questioning from journalists suggested the documents were "partly falsified".

Once the information was sent over to Emirati intelligence services, agents were able to target the individuals further through press campaigns, forums published about them, the creation of fake profiles and the modification of Wikipedia pages.

In some cases, work was done to ensure that the bank accounts of targeted individuals and organisations were closed.

Who was targeted?

Among those targeted were politicians, representatives of Islamic organisations, activists and prominent feminist figures.

An investigation carried out by the EIC media network and Spanish news site infoLibre, found that over 160 people from Spain were targeted in the smear campaign, all of whom deny having a relationship or affiliation with the Muslim Brotherhood.

One of those targeted in Spain was Riay Tatary, the founder and general secretary of the Union of Islamic Communities of Spain. Tatary, who died of Covid-19 in April 2020, was also the imam of Madrid's Tetuan mosque.

According to infoLibre, the criteria that the detectives used to single out Spanish sympathisers of the Muslim Brotherhood were "very vague and their methods unprofessional".

Hanan Serroukh, an immigration expert and the district coordinator, was also targeted. She said it was “incoherent, serious and even insulting” that her name would be associated with the Muslim Brotherhood.

Pedro Rojo Perez, co-director of the Observatory of Islamophobia in the Media and founder of al-Fanar Foundation, also denied having any affiliation to the group.

“I have no relationship with the Muslim Brotherhood, other than my speciality, which is the Arab world,” he told infoLibre.

Perez said he thought he had been included on the Alp Services maps because he had helped facilitate meetings between Spanish politicians and a democratically elected Egyptian minister aligned with the Muslim Brotherhood.

“We brought them together with former Spanish parliamentarians so that they could explain to them what the Spanish transition to democracy was like and so that they would understand that it is a very complex process,” he said.

According to Mediapart, a French investigative news site, around 200 individuals and 120 organisations were also targeted in France.

Among them are former socialist presidential candidate Benoit Hamon, the deputy mayor of Marseille Samia Ghali and journalist and activist Rokhaya Diallo.

Zakia Khattabi, a climate minister in Belgium, decried the list of people targeted as "clearly so absurd and ridiculous that they deserve neither comment nor attention".

In the UK, former Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn was also singled out in some reports.

Many of those who appeared on Alp’s maps and reports have asked for their names not to be made public, out of fear of being harassed or targeted again.

How did the campaign change lives?

Victims of the files have been left shocked, angry and paranoid.

Some have been forced to flee their home country, while others have lost their businesses and suffered huge financial losses as well as reputational damage.

The singer Mennel Ibtissem was included in one of Alp’s reports because of a controversy that erupted during her participation in the television show The Voice in 2018, where she sang while wearing a turban.

Ibtissem was forced to leave the show after old tweets of hers relating to terrorist attacks in Nice and Saint-Etienne-du-Rouvray resurfaced. She later denounced the tweets, saying that she loved France and condemned violence, and that the tweets were written during a moment of anger to criticise "amalgams between terrorism and religion".

Ibtissem has since distanced herself from any Muslim Brotherhood affiliation.

“It’s nonsense, I’ve never said anything or done anything that could suggest that I have a political or religious commitment,” she said.

Others have also decried the accusations, which have had an impact on their careers.

Benoit Hamon said that being included on the list was "appalling" and called for investigations into the issue.

“I’m not going to let myself go, injustice and the French authorities must investigate and explain to us,” he said.

“I’m going to ask myself the question before going to the Emirates,” said Samia Ghali.

In March, the New Yorker reported that the UAE financed a campaign by Alp to smear the UK-based charity Islamic Relief Worldwide (IRW), and sought to link officials with the organisation to the Muslim Brotherhood and violent extremists.

https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/u...aign-explained





Or to sum it up another way.

Reply

سيف الله
08-04-2023, 09:39 AM
Salaam

Another update. Again another discussion on the problem with 'muscular' liberalism.

Can Muslims Survive the Liberal Inquisition? with Imam Tom Facchine

Many Muslims living in the West have become aware that the ideas of tolerance, individualism, liberal multiculturalism and freedom of religion – all liberal notions — have their limits when it comes to our community. A series of tensions, from depictions of the Messenger (saw) in offensive cartoons and the teaching of sexual practices at odds with our faith in schools, has brought into focus how there remains an incompatibility between the ever-increasing demands of the liberal state and the Muslim community.

To help us understand these tensions, Imam Tom Facchine, an imam and convert to Islam helps us understand the liberal state. He finished his BA in Political Science and was granted the opportunity to study at the Islamic University of Madinah from 2015-2020, where he obtained his BA from the Faculty of Shariah. Imam Tom is the Research Director of Islam and Society at the Yaqeen Institute for Islamic Research. He is also a resident scholar and imam of Utica Masjid (New York state).




Or to put it in another way.



More comment.



I think there is about a twenty year lag between Anglo Islamic discourse and the ''rest'' - we'll be discussing surveillance statism, transhumanism, cyborg theory, monetary and private currency theory, accelerationism probably by 2040-2050 at this rate but inshallah we get there

The same thing happened with Bucaillism and scientism - the debate was essentially done to death by the time Muslims got around to realising actually ''Science in the Quran'' isn't what it's cracked up to be - many such examples

But more seriously I don't know why as a religious community we are stuck in a sort of time lapse of sorts - maybe these things just get filtered down to Muslims at a much slower rate and if so then the question is why?

In terms of mainstream academia, Eberle effectively wrote the definitive work tackling Rawls, Gaus etc on this issue all the way back in 2002 -

https://ndpr.nd.edu/reviews/religiou...eral-politics/

I think the question of the Administrative State (as a starting point) which transcends Rawlsian liberalism which is essentially just a post-hoc fairytale we tell ourselves is a lot more pressing and even relevant

Perhaps though there is a silver lining in this - Sunni Islam has this wonderful symphony between being incredibly decentralised backed up by some conception of authoritative scholarly authority which is plugged into serving local communities - so naturally pace is slower


Your point is for sure well taken, but you sorta answer your own question -- we're still talking about Rawlsian liberalism *because* there are still people out there trying to find ways to make Islam resonate with it. My last book was written as a response to these people

I am currently interested in what a model of Islamic public reason could look like -- I think theories of public deliberation w/in an Islamic context need to be discussed because currently -- it is clear -- that throughout much of the Muslim world, this is a real problem.

I guess what I am trying to say is: a lot of us are just trying to respond to the things we are seeing out there that are lacking or problematic. I hope people out there more original and creative than myself can address the critical issues you raise in your earlier post.
Reply

سيف الله
08-16-2023, 06:26 PM
Salaam

Interesting ,the de-banking issue has reached mainstream news.




Blurb


For Muslim communities in Britain, accessing financial services can prove especially difficult. From delays with applying and problems passing screening checks, to sudden debanking without an explanation. Aisha S Gani reports.



Heh



To be fair there is an attempt to address the issue, we will see what comes of it.
Reply

سيف الله
08-28-2023, 08:13 AM
Salaam

Another update.

Debunking De-banking

The closure of Nigel Farage’s Coutts account for political reasons should worry not just conservatives but anyone concerned with society’s general welfare.

Mixing politics and banking is a risky exercise. It can also prove calamitous. The most recent example concerns the decision in July of the NatWest-owned Coutts private bank to close the account of one of Britain’s most well-known political figures, Nigel Farage.

Coutts claimed that the Brexit leader’s account had been closed because the amount invested had fallen below the financial threshold required by the bank’s customers, but it turned out that Farage’s political views had also played a significant role in the decision to de-bank him. In internal Coutts documentation acquired by Farage, Coutt’s reputational risk-assessment committee described him as someone “considered by many to be a disingenuous grifter” and “seen as xenophobic and racist.” His supposed views were thus deemed “at odds with our position as an inclusive organization.”

Worsening the situation was a breach of client confidentiality by NatWest’s CEO, Dame Alison Rose. At a dinner, she intimated to a BBC journalist that Farage’s account was closed for purely commercial reasons. Britain’s national broadcaster (not known for its friendliness to conservatives) apparently didn’t bother to check the veracity of the claim. They simply ran with it.

For this inaccurate reporting, the BBC apologized. For violating one of banking’s most basic rules of conduct, Rose eventually resigned, but only after pressure from the British government—itself a 39 percent shareholder in NatWest, a legacy of the 2008 financial crisis.

Maintaining client confidentiality is about as sacrosanct as it gets in the world of private banking. But the NatWest fiasco also reflects significant political biases presently operative in much of the financial sector throughout Western countries.

It’s no secret that progressive social views are considered de rigueur throughout much of the banking industry. Many bank CEOs publicly associate their institutions with left-leaning causes; they rarely show interest in supporting positions considered conservative. In a few cases, these decisions may mirror a CEO’s personal political preferences. But they also reflect how, like other corporations, banks face relentless pressure from progressive activists to support their favored positions. Such trends are reinforced by the banking industry’s embrace of diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives and the creation of attendant positions like Chief Diversity Officers (CDOs) to promote DEI throughout financial institutions.

These elements contribute to an atmosphere in which many people working in the financial sector are encouraged—or coerced—into looking askance at someone like Farage, who does not disguise his conservative opinions on topics ranging from immigration to climate change. Farage’s decidedly non-woke views, it should be noted, are shared by millions of Britons who are, like Farage, neither woke nor right-wing extremists, let alone racists.

At a minimum, it is surely imprudent for any bank to let itself be seen as regarding entire swathes of the British population as extremists. That’s a sure-fire way to alienate potential clients. Yet this is precisely the situation into which NatWest stumbled when Coutts employees decided that having Farage as a client was a risk to the bank’s reputation.

Yet the trend of progressive de-banking will be difficult to dislodge, for two complicating reasons. First, banks do indeed need to think about reputational risk. The long-term success of banks relies heavily on that intangible but real element called “confidence.” The moment that confidence in a bank is compromised—whether because of a perceived lack of probity or a collapse in trust—it is difficult for that institution to recover.

Many things can undermine a bank’s reputation. These range from allegations of insider trading to the provision of commercial services to criminals or terrorists. It follows that any bank should be free to decline to do business with anyone that it suspects will damage its good name.

The difficulty presently facing banks is the extent to which some of their staff confuse genuine reputational risk with people expressing political views disfavored by progressives. Moreover, attempts by banks to extricate themselves from these circumstances will likely lead to highly visible spats with the same progressive groups that have pressured them into adopting such stances, and from whose ranks those who hold CDO positions inside banks are often drawn.

The second complication is the extent to which government involves itself in modern banking. The financial sector is one of the world’s most heavily regulated industries. This reality means not only that the links between finance and politics run deep but also that governments, legislators, and regulators enjoy immense leverage over financial institutions.

Return, then, to the Farage affair. Like everyone else in Britain, people at NatWest and Coutts were surely aware that Britain’s deeply unpopular and perpetually dysfunctional Tory government may get tossed out at the next general election, scheduled for 2024. Should that transpire, the vast regulatory structure that oversees every financial institution in Britain will be working for a Labour government with little time for outspoken conservatives. In NatWest’s case, the situation would be worsened by the fact that its biggest shareholder will be that very same government. It is not beyond the realm of possibility that some Coutts staff concluded that having Nigel Farage as a client might complicate NatWest’s relationship with an incoming Labour government. If Farage’s defenestration from Coutts was indeed an effort at preemptive action, it backfired spectacularly on NatWest. After considerable dithering from various Labour spokesmen, Labour’s leader, Sir Keir Starmer, publicly and firmly stated that Rose had to go.





Beneath these specific challenges looms a larger issue. The Coutts internal document listing the reasons for discontinuing business with Farage stated that his “controversial public statements . . . were felt to conflict with the bank’s purpose.” What bank purpose was “felt” to be at stake here? The purpose of banking is not global social justice, promoting inclusiveness and diversity, or advancing progressive (or, for that matter, conservative) causes.

Instead, banks and financial institutions have very particular functions. These include creating economic value by facilitating efficiencies in the investment of capital by individuals and businesses; managing risk in ways that increase potential gains over the short, medium, and long term; introducing more flexibility and freedom into how people match the potential capital at their disposal with what they need and value at different points of their lives; and establishing relationships of trust and confidence between creditors and debtors in multiple economic settings.

The goal of these functions is to generate quality financial services and sufficient revenue to cover operating costs and deliver profit to the bank’s owners. But in pursuing these ends, banks help to put capital at the disposal of thousands of businesses and millions of individuals and families, in often clever ways. This grows the sum total of wealth in society; a world without banking—or one in which banks get distracted from pursuing their core objectives—would be much poorer.

Too many in the financial sector have lost sight of the fundamentals of what they do, and why they do it. If this turn of events has taught us anything, it is that bankers should stop pandering to progressives. Instead, they should spend more time defending and promoting the importance of what banks do qua banks. For therein lies their true legitimacy—something that will only be weakened by their becoming mere auxiliaries of activism.

https://www.city-journal.org/article...ing-de-banking

What the author describes is a phenomena called 'convergence' (think the term was coined by Voxday). When you let liberal/progressive/leftist ideologues hijack and dominate the values of a business/organisation, it inevitably leads to dysfunctional outcomes.

Blurb

The corporate cancer of social justice convergence is costing corporations literal billions of dollars even as it drives both productive employees and loyal customers away, destroys valuable brands, and eats away at market capitalizations. From Internet startups to entertainment giants, convergence is killing corporations as they focus on social justice virtue signaling at the expense of good business practices, sales, profits, and retaining loyal customers.

In CORPORATE CANCER, Vox Day explains how you can fight social justice convergence in your own organization for both personal and corporate profit, and why you must do so if you want to keep your job.


Reply

سيف الله
11-04-2023, 08:39 PM
Salaam

Another update.



A secretive, Islamophobic , and Pan-European project "The Vienna Forum on Countering Segregation and Extremism", is a major threat to Pro-Palestinian Activism and Solidarity in Europe.

On October 24, 2023, Austrian Minister @susanneraab_at hosted the third Annual Vienna Forum, a secretive conference attended by 10 EU states and 150 experts. It masks discussions about the "Muslim question" under the pretext of combating "extremism" and "political Islam."

This year's keynote speaker was @AhmadMansour__, a German-Israeli "extremism expert" who supports hijab bans. He also endorses the Austrian Documentation Center for Political Islam, a state-sponsored Muslim surveillance initiative.

The choice of Ahmad Mansour as the keynote speaker reflects the forum's agenda: the criminalisation of pro-Palestine activism.
Mansour, a Palestinian with Israeli citizenship, plays the role of a native informant legitimising the racist and anti-Muslim views of Western elites.

Mansour also co-authored a politically motivated report that led to the purge of 7 Arab journalists alleging anti-semitism.



Mansour has worked tirelessly to silence #ProPalestine activism by equating it with anti-Semitism and sympathy for terrorism. In his keynote speech, echoed these sentiments.

Mansour's presence at the #ViennaForum can be seen as a measure to heighten the securitization narrative, especially in light of unfolding events in Palestine. He argues that solidarity with Israel is a prerequisite in the fight against “extremism” and “terrorism.”

This argument insinuates that, for Muslim Europeans, demonstrating solidarity with #Palestine can/should lead to harsh counter terrorism and extremism measures, including surveillance, criminalisation, and control.

Mansour has dedicated his entire career to stigmatizing Muslim youth in Germany. Through books, articles, active participation in public debates, and the establishment of projects, he has consistently propagated a pervasive sense of suspicion against Muslim youth.

This is exemplified in the following quote:

“the threat Germany faces comes not from a few hundred fanatic Islamists, but from the entire generation of young Muslims—Generation Allah—who are all under threat of Islamic radicalisation.”

Mansour's attack on Islam and Muslims has gained him favourability among German conservatives, giving him a significant presence in debates about Islam and integration. This has significantly fueled Mansour's profile, allowing him to amass funding and accolades for his work.

His for-profit anti-extremism consultancy, received a substantial €792,000 from the Bavarian government.



Mansour is part of a network of self-proclaimed "Islam experts" whose reports and studies are used by states to marginalize and criminalize Muslims. Such actions can lead to large-scale police operations like "Operation Luxor."

https://derstandard.at/story/2000142...e-aufpeitscher

The #ViennaForum is driven by the Austrian government with support from France, Denmark, and Belgium. It aims to establish an alliance of establishment elites promoting #Islamophobia on a state level across Europe, while given legitimacy by these 'experts' and 'intellectuals'.

We anticipate that Islamophobic states, which have already been suppressing Palestinian voices, will be further emboldened and radicalised by this alliance.

It's imperative for us to challenge the #ViennaForum and debunk the biased intellectual foundation it provides for the crackdown on Palestinian activism in Europe.
Reply

سيف الله
11-04-2023, 10:07 PM
Salaam

Another update.





Revealed: plan to brand anyone ‘undermining’ UK as extremist

Leaked documents spark furious backlash from groups who fear freedom of expression could be suppressed


Government officials have drawn up deeply controversial proposals to broaden the definition of extremism to include anyone who “undermines” the country’s institutions and its values, according to documents seen by the Observer.

The new definition, prepared by civil servants working for cabinet minister Michael Gove, is fiercely opposed by a cohort of officials who fear legitimate groups and individuals will be branded extremists.

The proposals have provoked a furious response from civil rights groups with some warning it risks “criminalising dissent”, and would significantly suppress freedom of expression.

One Whitehall official said: “The concern is that this is a crackdown on freedom of speech. The definition is too broad and will capture legitimate organisations and individuals.”

Gove’s Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities started a review of non-violent extremism in spring this year. A national cohesion and counter-extremism plan with the new definition is expected to be launched shortly.

Internal departmental documents marked “official – sensitive” say the proposed definition could “frame a new, unified response to extremism”.

It lists a number of organisations which it considers would be “captured” by the new definition.

Among them are the Muslim Council of Britain (MCB), Palestine Action and Mend (Muslim Engagement and Development), which has featured at some Conservative party conference fringe events and in 2021 provided evidence to parliamentary committees.

The documents state: “Extremism is the promotion or advancement of any ideology which aims to overturn or undermine the UK’s system of parliamentary democracy, its institutions and values.”

Gove’s officials are understood to have been in talks with the Home Office and No 10 over the definition, which arrives during a particularly fraught period.

Last week the home secretary, Suella Braverman, described pro-Palestinian demonstrations in London as “hate marches”, prompting dismay from many participants who consider themselves peace campaigners.

On Saturday during the latest pro-Palestinian march, thousands assembled in London’s Trafalgar Square with 11 arrests made.

Civil rights groups said introducing a wider definition of extremism would threaten freedom of speech. There has been no public consultation on the new definition.

Akiko Hart, interim director at Liberty, said: “This proposed change would be a reckless and cynical move, threatening to significantly suppress freedom of expression.

“Expanding the definition so far beyond the current guidance risks further discouraging individuals and groups from legitimately exercising their right to free speech, while allowing the government to crack down on community groups, charities or faith groups they disagree with.”

Martin Bright, editor-at-large, Index on Censorship, added: “This is an unwarranted attack on freedom of expression and would potentially criminalise every student radical and revolutionary dissident. It has never been the British way to arrest people for thought crime.”

Ilyas Nagdee, Amnesty International UK’s racial justice director, said: “This definition must not be accepted or implemented.

“The definition of extremism and its usage in counter-terrorism policies like [counter-terrorism strategy] Prevent is already being applied so broadly it seeks to effectively hinder people from organising and mobilising. The proposed definition takes this even further and could criminalise any dissent.”

The government’s 2011 Prevent strategy defined extremism as the “active opposition to fundamental British values, including democracy, the rule of law, individual liberty and the mutual respect and tolerance of different faiths and beliefs”. Further attempts over the past decade to implement a new definition have been unsuccessful.

The government proposed a bill in the Queen’s speech in 2016 to “tackle the menace of extremism”, with a new civil order regime to restrict activity. The bill faced widespread opposition and was shelved after the government failed to provide a legally acceptable definition of extremism.

Under the proposed definition in the documents, extremism would be the promotion of any ideology which aims to “overturn or undermine the UK’s democracy, its institutions and values; or threaten the rights of individuals or create a permissive environment for radicalisation, hate crime and terrorism”.

It adds that the definition should be supported with public guidance that enables “consistent use and application”. The documents state that “stakeholders have thus far agreed this sets a clear threshold for identifying extremism”.

There is significant concern among some officials because they consider the broader definition could be used against legitimate organisations fiercely opposed to certain government institutions or calling for their abolition. They are concerned a wider range of individuals could be no-platformed or reported as suspected extremists in official files.

The proposed definition also includes: “Sustained support for, or continued uncritical association with organisations or individuals who are exhibiting extremist behaviours.”

It said the new definition moves from the 2011 definition of “active opposition” of British values to identifying extremism “through behaviours that enable the spread of extremist ideology”. This is a significantly broader definition, potentially capturing people who are considered to have failed to properly challenge what is seen as extremist behaviour.

Some officials are concerned the new definition could hamper the activities of legitimate political or environmental groups. It was reported in 2020 that at least 45 activists were referred to Prevent over environmental extremism between April 2016 and March 2019. At the time Amnesty International described the referrals as “deeply concerning”. MCB said the government “needs to challenge its own extremists who are intent on dividing our communities”. Palestine Action said: “This new definition is clearly an attempt to undermine and intimidate our movement. We refuse to be deterred.”

Mend has been contacted for comment.

A government spokesperson said: “We are clear there is no place for extremism, and over the last few years we have taken action to tackle hatred and those who seek to divide us.

“As you would expect, we keep our approach to tackling extremism under review to ensure it meets the evolving challenge it poses.”

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...P=share_btn_tw

Related

Blurb

The anger we feel from Israel’s continued barbarous shelling of Gaza cannot be put into words. The impunity with which it acts and the green light given by the west just reminds us that the so-called rules-based order is setup to serve the West. With all this in mind, young people in particular are being reminded daily that Palestinian activism is viewed with suspicion by education authorities. In the UK, the government has mooted that flying the Palestinian flag could be supporting terror and its Prevent laws make it extremely difficult for our youth to voice even their support for our ummah, lest they are investigated for links to extremism. To help parents and young people understand how to navigate this minefield.

Dr Layla Aitlhadj, has been a tenacious campaigner to expose how the government has violated the most basic rights of ordinary Muslim citizens. Her organisation Prevent Watch has helped countless Muslim families caught up in this net of accusations. Her diligence and assiduous approach to prevent cases has helped shine a light on how destructive this policy is.







To sum up


Reply

سيف الله
11-17-2023, 01:15 AM
Salaam

Like to share

Blurb

Come election time, Western Muslim communities have been asked to support mainstream political parties in exchange for representation. Some commentators have praised the multiculturalism of countries like the UK, where the party system has integrated many Muslims into the political system.

Here in London, we have Sadiq Khan, arguably the highest-ranking elected Muslim official in the Western world. In the United States, there’s a similar push for Muslims to support the Democrats and even the Republicans, and some have broken the glass ceiling and represent the parties at local and national levels.

But does Muslim representation really work? On Gaza we have seen the limits of the ‘Muslim voice’. What are the structural compromises the system will always want to solicit from Muslim representatives? Does the system only support particular types of candidates, and indeed does the system change the people who set out to change the system?

To explore this topic, I have with me in the studio today Dr Asim Qureishi. Dr Asim Qureshi is the research director at CAGE, a UK-based advocacy organisation working to empower communities impacted by the War on Terror. He has a background in International Law and is the author of the books "Rules of the Game" and "A Virtue of Disobedience".



Reply

سيف الله
12-01-2023, 04:53 PM
Salaam

Just one example of how involvement in politics can be rather compromising.

Muslims can aspire to top office in UK… on condition they abandon Islam

Academic Tallha Abdulrazaq says that the elections of Humza Yousaf and Sadiq Khan prove that ethnicity is no longer a hindrance to top office in the UK, but being a believing and practising Muslim definitely still is.

If one were to cast their gaze over the characters who populate the British political landscape, they would assume that the country has come a long way since its days of Empire when it had colonised the Indian subcontinent and other territories across the Muslim world.

To be frank, that assumption in many ways would be correct.

Prime Minister Rishi Sunak is of Indian Hindu heritage. The Mayor of London is Sadiq Khan, of Pakistani Muslim descent. Now, Humza Yousaf, descended from Punjabi Muslims, has won the Scottish National Party’s leadership race and has taken office as First Minister of Scotland.

Considering Britain’s imperial history, this is of course somewhat remarkable.

Several high political offices are now dominated by the descendants of very same people the British Empire subjugated less than a century ago, and this is an indication that the United Kingdom is, to some extent, attempting to embrace a future where the definition of who is or is not “British” is not solely based on race or ethnicity.

But there is always a limit to tolerance, and that limit appears to be one that heavily scrutinises the religious heritage of one who seeks to enter political life, even if as a campaigner.

I can never forget when, at the height of ISIS mania as the group swept through Iraq and Syria in 2014, British Muslim human rights advocate Asim Qureshi was subjected to an Islamophobic line of questioning on national television to find out whether or not he supported Daesh, simply because he was a Muslim.

Bizarrely, the interviewer, Matt Frei, thought it would be an appropriate line of questioning because Qureshi said he supported humanitarian intervention and not military intervention in the Middle East.

While Qureshi handled himself with admirable panache, that was not the only example of Muslims being berated simply for being Muslim, ever a cloud of suspicion hanging over their heads.

During the 2016 London mayoral race, the Conservative candidate, Zac Goldsmith, attempted to smear the ultimate winner and Labour candidate, the aforementioned Sadiq Khan, as an “extremist.”

Once again, the securitisation of Muslims and Muslimness reared its ugly head, simply because of Khan’s religious background.

But I’m not that Muslim!

This intense level of scrutiny has had a few interesting results when examining Muslim engagement in British politics. Whenever a Muslim runs for public office, they will now almost invariably attempt to jump through as many hoops as possible just to show their would-be constituents just how “not-so-Muslim” they really are.

Take Khan, for example. When speaking to Iran’s state-sponsored Press TV outlet in 2009, he accused some in government of ignoring regular British Muslims in favour of speaking to organisations and leaders that he characterised as being “Uncle Toms” for showing subservience to the power structures in British society that dictate what you can and cannot be.

Effectively, Khan was attacking those who felt too afraid to speak out about their beliefs or those who showed sickening levels of obsequiousness to the authorities as they threw their own under the bus.

Naturally, and fast-forward a few years when he urgently needed political support to get into office, Khan needed to make a grand statement to reject his Muslimness to garner votes. His solution? Well, and despite the unambiguously sinful nature of homosexuality in Islam across its sectarian divide, he became the first mayoral candidate in 2015 to sign the so-called “Pride in London” pledge for the LGBT community.

Since then, he has made grand and public displays cavorting and frolicking upon giant rainbow flags in the middle of London and holding up placards with common slogans used by LGBT activists.

Fear and loathing

Scotland’s Yousaf was himself not immune to this. During the SNP’s leadership race, he was repeatedly cornered on his views about the gay community, with former First Minister Alex Salmond accusing him of intentionally scheduling a timetable clash so that he could avoid voting on gay marriage “due to religious pressure.”

A month ago, he was cornered by Sky News’ Sophy Ridge, who asked him, point-blank: “Do you believe gay sex is a sin?” to which Yousaf responded with an emphatic “no.” He could have simply stuck to his original talking point about not using his religion as the basis for legislating in secular Scotland. Instead, he kowtowed under the relentless scrutiny of the system, and tucked his Muslimness away, perhaps for another day.

This is in stark contrast to Christian politician Tim Farron, who resigned as leader of the Liberal Democrats in 2017 because he did not know how to reconcile his Christian values with being a political leader, saying: “I have found myself torn between living as a faithful Christian and serving as a political leader.” This came from a man who supported gay marriage, but could not bring himself to say that it was not sinful according to his Christian beliefs.

This is not at all to say that Muslims ought to expect a country like the UK to be run under Shari’ah law or anything of the sort. According to the 2021 census, Muslims make up a small minority of the overall population, some 6.5 percent. Their relative size aside, they are often from disadvantaged communities, and are further subdivided along ethno-sectarian lines, making it almost impossible to get that 6.5 percent to agree on anything.

But isn’t the entire point of a democracy to represent a plurality of voices, ideas and beliefs? Isn’t it wrong that Muslims are so scared of expressing their Muslimness for fear that they will be ostracised or be denied employment? So long as it is peaceful and “worthy of respect” in a democratic society – as women’s rights activist Maya Forstater achieved when she challenged in court her loss of employment after she wrote “men cannot change into women” – then why is this sort of engagement discouraged?

And, as Farron showed us, this not only affects Muslims, but other people who hold conservative values and religious beliefs, including Christians and Jews.

The truth, however, is that while democratic and liberal ideology may promote one thing, reality often has the final say. And, in today’s climate, that say is effectively to shut out true Muslim representation as vast swathes of the British Muslim community will not feel represented by the likes of Khan or Yousaf, who are welcomed to give the illusion of diversity in modern Britain because they are Muslim – just not too Muslim.

Tallha Abdulrazaq is a British-Iraqi academic, holding a PhD in Strategy and Security from the University of Exeter. He has also worked as a consultant and analyst for a number of private businesses, and is a frequent contributor for both international print and broadcast media outlets on Middle Eastern politics and security issues.

https://5pillarsuk.com/2023/04/10/mu...abandon-islam/
Reply

سيف الله
12-05-2023, 08:40 PM
Salaam

Another update

The Ulema are the successors of the Anbiya – it’s about time they behaved accordingly.

Abu Darda reported: The Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, said, “The scholars are the successors of the prophets. Verily, the prophets do not pass on gold and silver coins, but rather they only impart knowledge.”

The election of Humza Yousaf as leader of the Scottish National Party (SNP) and consequently to the position of First Minister of Scotland has, predictably, divided Muslim opinion. His coronation was met with huge acclaim from some quarters of the community who saw in him an exemplum of high achievement in the face of adversity, the Muslim lad done good and who’d remained true to his roots.

Their approbation and encomiums were matched in measure by the opprobrium from those who saw him as the archetypal sell-out; an unprincipled arriviste willing to do and say whatever it might take to climb the political ladder.

At the heart of the furore lies his interview with Sky News’ Sophie Ridge wherein, in response to a pointed question on whether he viewed gay sex as a sin, he denied subscribing to such a view, going on to explain that he viewed gay marriage as equally valid to its heterosexual counterpart.

He further stated that he didn’t use his religion (i.e. Islam) as the basis for legislation and that he didn’t believe the public wanted that but rather that they wanted their legislators to do what was in the best interests of the country. The obvious corollary being that legislating according to the guidance of the Qur’an and Sunnah doesn’t serve that purpose.

Now it hardly requires a PhD in aqeedah to understand that the import of such statements is clear kufr and tantamount to a declaration of apostasy.

It constitutes denial of the muhkam [clear and unambiguous] verses of the Qur’an and as such a rejection of one of the core tenets of the Islamic faith; it’s also worth noting that in the same interview Humza Yousaf clearly alluded to the fact that homosexuality was forbidden according to Islamic scripture revealing his awareness of the Islamic verdict on the matter.

Whether he truly believes the statements he uttered or whether he was dissembling for political expediency is a question only he can answer but we have no option but to take him at his word. When some pleaded clemency for al-Hallaj to Abu al-Qasim al-Jonaid upon the basis that the former’s statement “an al-Haqq” had an esoteric meaning, the Qadi of Baghdad responded that it was incumbent to judge according to the manifest – as to what the heart might conceal then we consign that judgment to Allah.

Whether Humza Yousaf is an apostate or not, isn’t really my concern, however. What is, is the response of our ulema to this all. If we accept that Humza Yousaf’s statements are “potential kufr” then on what basis should we be celebrating his “achievement”?

The duty of the ulema is to warn and chastise, much as the prophets did, the perpetrators of evil. Not solely for their benefit but much more importantly, so that the people at large are dissuaded from emulating their behaviour.

When you have ulema talking of the “symbolic significance” of someone selling their deen and akhirah for ”positions of power and influence” what message does that send to our young men and women? When the Rasul (ﷺ) was offered leadership of the Quraysh in return for abandoning his declaiming against their false gods what was his (ﷺ) response? When you have ulema talking about encouraging and benefitting from the potential good such people may do, do you think this encourages or dissuades others from following in his footsteps? If Humza Yousaf was a pornographer or a drug trafficker (and to avert any potential legal action I want to make clear there is absolutely NO evidence to suggest he is either) who had amassed wealth by such means but who now intended to use it to benefit the Muslim community, how many of these same ulema would be happy to speak up for him, to talk of encouraging him and benefiting from the good he might do or to otherwise mitigate criticism of him? Well, to belie Allah’s kalam and the guidance of His Messenger (ﷺ) is exponentially worse.

But benefit. The Muslims will benefit from having one of their own in such a position of authority. Well perhaps someone would care to compile a list of these supposed benefits. A few points against which we might evaluate his tenure in retrospect.

Will he abolish the detested PREVENT policy? Will he ban the indoctrination of our children with pro-LGBTQ sentiments? Will he alter British foreign policy towards the Muslim world? How about the abundance of terrorism legislation which severely curtails the ability of Muslims to speak openly about the issues that affect our ummah? What precise benefit (or benefits) is his leadership likely to afford our community. Come Ramadan or Eid he may well switch on some lights somewhere or host a banquet so I suppose there’s that. As for something more meaningful then I’m dying to know and only too happy to be enlightened.

And should you think his “mistakes” will end at a few statements on gay sex and gay marriage then I’m willing to wager (metaphorically speaking) you shan’t have to wait too long to be disabused of your misapprehensions. Like the other “Muslim representation” ‘success story’ 500 miles to the south, he’ll soon find himself being dragged to mandirs (Hindu temples) to pay obeisance to idols, parading with gays, lesbians and transgender degenerates, partaking in Christmas festivities, honouring the British war dead (those who fought and killed Muslims), feting representatives and supporters of the Zionist and Hindutva regimes and generally partaking in all manner of grossly un-Islamic activities. The truth of the matter is that when you compromise with kufr you compromise entirely. It is a compromise which is plenary by nature and which accepts no abridgement.

Humza Yousaf has nothing to do with Islam. He has made that clear through word and action. I hope he repents of his evil and abandons his career in the filth of secular politics. Do I judge a politician (least of all secular politician) according to the standards of scholars? No. But I judge scholars by the standard that the Rasul (ﷺ) laid down for them: successors to the prophets. It’s high time they started living up to it.

If we applaud – or otherwise normalise – Mr Yousaf’s actions today upon the basis of “good intentions” the day will soon come when the community at large no longer remembers the distinction between Islam and secularism.

When “not legislating according to one’s [Islamic] faith” has become the accepted norm rather than a temporary exigency. Idolatry began through good intentions, when Satan persuaded the generations that followed from Adam (as) to erect statues of their pious predecessors (chief amongst them, Wadd) in order to remind them of their duty to Allah. That first generation which did so understood that only Allah (swt) was to be worshipped and that Wadd himself had been but a worshipper of the One God. The passage of generations attenuated this understanding, however, until the time came when people began to call upon the statue of Wadd, rather than to Allah (swt), for the fulfilment of their needs. The path to hell is forever paved with good intentions.

So (O Muhammad ) obey not the deniers [of Islamic Monotheism, those who belie the Verses of Allah, the Oneness of Allah, and the Messenger of Allah (Muhammad ), etc.]

They wish that you should compromise (in religion out of courtesy) with them, so they (too) would compromise with you. [TMQ 68:8-9]


https://maskedavenger1.wordpress.com...d-accordingly/
Reply

سيف الله
12-21-2023, 10:50 PM
Salaam

Another update



New report exposes scale of Palestine repression at UK schools and workplaces

A new analysis by CAGE International reveals an alarming increase in the number and types of cases involving an attack on expressions of support and solidarity for Palestine across the UK.

CAGE International notes a 455% increase in the number of cases it has handled since the last upsurge in 2021. Between October and December 2023, CAGE International handled 214 cases, spanning 118 school and college cases, 35 workplace cases, 35 protest and related cases, 13 university cases, and 13 mosque cases.

This substantial rise signifies a broad and alarming clampdown of pro-Palestinian activity. The report also includes five case examples that illustrate the adverse impact on individuals, including children.

Our casework observations provide evidence of a full-spectrum coordinated attack instigated by right-wing interests, mainstream media, politicians, and lobby groups. This represents a wholesale assault on the Freedom of Expression under Article 10 and Right to Privacy under Article 8 of the ECHR.

The report outlines various aggressive tactics employed in the repression of Palestine solidarity, including:

- Enforcing removal of Palestine symbols or clothing in schools and workplaces.
- Holding students in isolation rooms and imposing suspensions and exclusions.
- Disciplinary actions against parents and students
- Criminal investigations, suspensions, and immediate terminations in workplaces.
- Gross misquotations of Imams in media outlets leading to Charity Commission investigations.
- Abuse of anti -terrorism powers at protests.

Key Findings:

- An aggressive and authoritarian response from the government to legitimate activism in support of Palestine.
- A disturbing double standard compared to the government's responses to the Russia-Ukraine conflict revealing hypocrisy in public spaces, schools, and workplaces.
- The Islamophobic nature of censorship, with 209 out of the 214 cases involving Muslims.
- The weoponising of PREVENT and PREVENT referrals in suppressing support for Palestine.
- A consistent pattern nationwide across towns and cities, from Newcastle to Portsmouth.

Yassar Mohammed, a youth worker who supported a Palestinian student removed from class for a pro Palestine shirt on non-uniform day said:

“The whole community was outraged and the support and advice we received from CAGE got us more than what we asked for. We finally had closure and the school reversed its policies and apologised. It was a massive victory for us

Schools and workplaces should be more tolerant. Our rights as Muslims are always violated, we simply want to be treated the same as any other person in the UK. Fairness is all we want.”

‘William’, a teacher who lost his job for expressing pro Palestine views said:

“I felt betrayed and abandoned by my school. I felt scapegoated just because I am a revert to Islam. It crushes my soul to know first-hand that my school thinks absolutely nothing of a literal genocide.

'Schools must stop saying they are impartial when they are in fact partial, for Israel. Staff must be allowed to think what they want as long as it abides by the law. We must stop censoring Muslims.'

Rasha, a Palestinian mother of an 8 year old child in an East London primary school, who was pulled out of classes, placed on detention and effectively bullied out of school for wearing a Palestine badge on his jacket, said:

“Our child has been traumatised by this experience. He has lost sleep and confidence, has felt hated and bullied and no longer trusts his own teachers who should have been understanding and compassionate. Whilst dealing with the grief and sadness of losing our direct family members in Gaza, we did not expect grief and pain would land at our doorstep from my child’s own teachers. We have been shocked beyond belief to realise that the school’s management have made it no longer a space for our child or anyone supporting Palestine.

We are told about diversity and inclusion as British Values, all we’ve seen is a double standard. We believe the Headteacher must resign, the school must rebuild trust and my child is given all the support to help him recover.”

Anas Mustapha, head of Public Advocacy at CAGE International, said:

“The repression faced by our clients for their solidarity with Palestine is a reflection of the systemic Islamophobia, racism, and anti-Palestinian discrimination prevalent in segments of society and government.

“We’re witnessing high levels of repression of Palestine Solidarity, with employers, teachers and Police acting upon prejudice and increasingly disturbing levels of irrational intolerance.”

“The hostile environment created by the state has incentivised harsh penalties being imposed by the police, schools, universities, central and local government, as well as employers.”

“Through our support, we’ve managed to resolve the vast majority of cases we’ve handled and in many we’ve successfully overturned the penalties imposed and even secured apologies.”

https://www.cage.ngo/articles/new-re...and-workplaces
Reply

سيف الله
05-10-2024, 06:35 PM
Salaam

Edit - Ill come back to the government new education policy towards Muslim, to give better context.

In the meantime the harassment continues



Today, after a 20-hour trip back from South Africa, I was stopped by
@BHX_Police
under #Schedule7 for over 3hrs . The incoherent questioning focused on my trips to #Afghanistan and my recent film with
@AJWitness
about #Bagram as well as attempts to obtain details of #Afghan #Guantanamo clients we are representing alongside lawyers.

Their questions on Afghanistan were more akin to those posed on #tripadviser rather than any meaningful linear police interview.

They ended, somewhat predictably, by asking about my views on #Palestine and the role of #SouthAfrica in the #ICJGenocideConvention against #Israel's war on #Gaza.

Finally, they took my phone and left me without the ability to communicate with anyone.

I've no idea when I'm getting it back.

That's schedule7:

  • No reasonable suspicion of criminal acts.
  • No right to remain silent.
  • No right to refuse searches, DNA sampling, photos and fingerprints
  • Detention in small windowless rooms can last up to 6 hours
  • Questioning can take place without legal representative presence
  • Failure to comply can lead to arrest, prosecution and conviction for terrorism


Losing access to one's phone today effectively renders you unable to function properly - especially as so much is connected to 2-step verification or communication on platforms like WhatsApp.

  • I am unable to communicate with relatives so I can attend my cousin's funeral
  • I'm unable to speak to my children who live abroad
  • I am unable to communicate for the purposes of work
  • I am unable to make or receive calls
  • I am unable to access my bank account
  • I am unable to navigate when driving
  • I am unable to access purchase applications
  • I am unable to access social media (other than X)



Officers at
@BHX_Police
continue the decades-old failed British policy of discriminating against #Muslims.

Your abuse of power only strengthens our resolve.
More comment.











Sister Bibi takes a different approach.



Good points





And.

Reply

سيف الله
06-05-2024, 07:50 AM
Salaam

Another update. The 'agenda' strikes again.

Free Speech is Forced Speech

Forced speech is the end game of Clown World’s so-called “free speech”:

Professional footballer Mohamed Camara, who plays for AS Monaco in France, has been benched for the next four matches for refusing to take part in an anti-homophobia campaign, the French League (LFP) announced on Thursday.

During a Ligue 1 match against Nantes on May 19, the jerseys of Monaco’s players featured a logo to mark the World Day Against Homophobia, Transphobia and Biphobia. However, 24-year-old Camara, a Mali national, chose not to support the LFP campaign and used white tape to cover the logo on his uniform and refused to join his team for a photograph.

The match, which was the final game of the season, ended 4-0 in favor of Monaco, with Camara scoring from the penalty spot. After the match, the footballer was referred to the LFP for disciplinary action.

“After hearing the player Mohamed Camara, and noting his refusal during the meeting to carry out one or more actions to raise awareness of the fight against homophobia, the commission decided to impose a four-match suspension,” the LFP said.
Silence is not enough for Clown World. Its social justice warriors always demand complete submission and compliance, which is what convergence means. This is why it’s absolutely necessary to stop trying to be nice, inclusive, and more responsive to the purported “feelings” of others than to the truth. Give the clowns an inch and they will view it as both a confession of weakness and an invitation to take a mile.

https://voxday.net/2024/05/31/free-s...forced-speech/
Reply

سيف الله
07-24-2024, 04:05 PM
Salaam.

France again.

France launches widespread raids on Muslims ahead of Olympics

France has unleashed a series of violent police raids against the Muslim community under the pretext of protecting national security during the Olympics.

Minister of the Interior Gérald Darmanin announced in a message sent to all administrative regions that all measures should be taken to limit the “capacity to cause trouble” and to keep the most dangerous individuals monitored by the services “away from events.”

Darmanin has also outlined a system of “detection and obstruction” targeting all Muslims who find themselves on the ever-expanding state security files, supposedly for “radicalisation for terrorist purposes.” More than 5,100 Muslims will be closely monitored.

French regions are required to establish interventionary measures “of any kind” for “any target” registered in the state security file. These include raids, house arrests and imprisonments.

This means that any alleged or perceived infraction is to be pursued and used to justify state intervention.

CAGE and other organisations have received numerous testimonies of violent raids carried out against innocent Muslims. 250 Muslims were raided in Paris alone.

Rayan Freschi, researcher for CAGE International, said: “Police use extreme violence to terrorise the victims of these raids, through deliberate destruction of doors, furniture and belongings in addition to physical brutality. The state used similar tactics between November 2015 and February 2016, a period during which thousands of Muslim families were violently raided as a form of collective punishment for the ISIS-inspired attacks in France that year. These tactics seek to discipline and silence Muslims by spreading paralysing fear amongst an entire community.”

In 2022 CAGE released a report which revealed the unprecedented crackdown on Islam and Muslims in France under the government of Emmanuel Macron.

The report said the crackdown on Islam and Muslims amounted to “persecution” under international law, as well as institutionalised Islamophobia and repression.

CAGE said the pattern of behaviour exhibited by the French state towards Muslims was calculated to harass and humiliate, resulting in the intentional and severe deprivation of freedom of religion, of opinion, of association and right to property.

In 2021 the French parliament approved a law to strengthen oversight of mosques, schools and sports clubs. The government said it was needed to safeguard France from “radical Islamists” and to promote respect for secularism and women’s rights. The law has been used to shut down multiple mosques and community groups.

https://5pillarsuk.com/2024/06/18/fr...d-of-olympics/



Shouldn't be surprised given their historical treatment towards Muslims.

Reply

سيف الله
07-29-2024, 07:55 AM
Salaam

Salaam

Since were on the topic of the Olympics. Or should we say the satanic Olympics.

Blurb

0:00 Israel In Olympics
2:34 The Last Supper controversy



Ill share some comments from this link.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Y0GYuCFmoY



@jom2487

I'm a French Catholic, I take this act as an act of war by my own country. I apologize to Christians the world over for this distressing blasphemous spectacle. Please pray for us

@XavierLeFrancais

I'm French. I'm so shamed of the blasphemy of my country. France Is normally know reputated to be the first Christian Kingdom. Nick named " La fille aînée de l'église" always defending Christianity. This night, I'm shamed to be French for the first time of my life. It shows who has the power in France and that is Satan. As a Frenchman I will apologize to everyone for the madness of my country. Please pray for my France to find again the words of Jesus. God Bless you all.

@user-pt9mb1sy9i

No, it isn't France, it is Macron and the cast who is at the head of politic, medias and so on. As a French man, I am ashamed and angry.

@JulioCezar-we9zo


I am from Russia. Thanks God we dont participate in that degenerate event.

@dariusmelquiadez2050

I am a Colombian American horrified by the grotesque spectacle of the mocking atheist that organized the presentation . They mocked Christianity and the last supper was portrayed by bizarre images in the context of attacking our faith and mixing the Bible account with a endless orgy of religious and cultural distortions including France’s own history. What sort of human rubbish find these themes motivating and of value to celebrate our world and humanity. The ceremony was horrendous, distasteful, irrelevant, shameful and disrespectful. Shame on the organizers to allow such frivolous and grotesque presentation to be witnessed.


@auntie4387

And yet they wouldn't let a Muslim woman wear her headscarf at the opening ceremonies. France said the athletes had to be secular. Then they go and put on this?


@3sixtysystems

In a way, France, many years ago, indirectly tried to mock Islam when Charlie Hebdo did that carricature of Mohamed and it didn't turn out well for them ... many died and it left a very sore feeling and memories to the country.

Now one thing, as a French person, I can say is that they know they won't get the same treatment for mocking Christianity as they did with the carricature.
They know Christians aren't going to revolt and destroy everything the same way it happened many years ago.
They mock it because they know there wont be any consequences.

They wouldn't do the same with Jewish because they know they'll get a big financial and political etc... backclash from Israel.

As a French person, I am deeply ashamed of what's happening !

Important point, compare and contrast how different countries host Olympics.

@user-qj4dx4fc3n

At first, I too was offended, but on closer inspection and research, I believe that this tableau vivant is actually based on Jan van Biljert's The Feast of the Gods rather than on Leonardo's Last Supper.

The irony is that Biljert himself was influenced by Leonardo and by other scenes of the Last Supper, and they inform his painting. It is Biljert, in the 1600's, who is transforming a Christian story into a Pagan one.

Biljert even has a bloated Dionysus at the center of his painting. At the banquet table, the center is occupied by a Christ-like Apollo--but the images of Christ and Apollo were often blended in the transitional period from Paganism to Christianity. (Apollo and Christ are both associated with light, with shepherding, with fish and disciples.) That said, the Olympic committee could have been more sensitive to the look of this performance. Still, there is no reason, I now believe, for any Catholic to be unduly offended, except if it is for the utter banality of the Paris tableau vivant, so full of "buzzwords--I "heart" you, drag queens, inclusion, be kind to fat people, etc. It is bad performance art and propaganda, and that's enough to offend anyone, Christian or not. If France wants true "inclusion," it could begin to offer better lives to the poor who live in its notorious Parisian suburbs.

Late liberal Capitalism is disgustingly hypocritical.

Muslims responses.

@AbdullahAljalil

I am a Muslim and I will put my hand with All Christians to strongly condemn this shameless act
This occasion has nothing to do with any belief or any agendas except sports

@tnt70416

Since I am an Arab and a Muslim, I tell you that this ugly, dirty scene must be stopped no matter how many years it takes... And as some of us have helped, and I mean the peaceful peoples all over the world, I tell you that I am with you and against this dirty mockery, even if there is a difference in point of view between us. And from Saudi Arabia, I tell you that the enemies of the heavenly religions, every day they deliberately provoke a certain religion... This is happening globally and they will not stop, and the intelligent peoples are the ones who stand in the face of evil...



Now on to the seculars, some of them seem genuinely appalled.

@michaelgimenez4032

I am an atheist and yet, this is utterly revolting.

@stefanswiss3760

French here not religious but culturally Christian, I am ashamed of this.
I just can't stand the Parisian elites who think this is a good show.
I don't understand what it had to do with Olympics

@darcycummings7214

I’m not religious but I was also disgusted it was horrific disrespectful and vulgar. The left woke culture talk about being inclusive and yet they do this. Gobsmacked by this horror show. I feel it had nothing to do with sport or French culture.

Mind you those influential in the liberal elites aren't. In fact they are rather pleased at the outrage being the attention seekers that they are. Here's a response from the organiser.

This is called the art of the non apology. Also known as gaslighting.

Blurb

Paris 2024 organisers have apologised to Catholics and Christian groups angered by a kitsch tableau in the Olympic Games opening ceremony that parodied Leonardo da Vinci’s The Last Supper painting.




Most arent buying it.


@BuffPomsky

How is this an apology? The director had zero regrets

@Johnlanzer

That's not an apology, that's a "we succeeded and we will do it again"

@dumwyteguy

"If anyone was offended, we are sorry" - That is a classic example of a non-apology.

@tammyjo6056

Basically, you demand tolerance, respect, and inclusion by being intolerant, disrespectful, and divisive. Got it.

@DarthQuantum-ez8qz

First off, it WAS NOT UNINTENTIONAL - IT WAS DELIBERATE. Secondly, it WASN'T AN APOLOGY - IT WAS A LAME "I'M-SORRY-IF-YOU-WERE-OFFENDED" type of apology. Thirdly, if they were trying to send a message of "inclusion" and being against "division", then THEY FAILED MISERABLY!!!!!!!!!!! I'm not a Christian, but even I found that parody grossly offensive because it mocks the very core of Western civilization.

@jeremytan5297

Basically a girl/boyfriend that offended you and tells you “im sorry that you felt offended and saddened by what we did”. It’s called gaslighting. Shame on these organizers.

More are increasingly are seeing through the fog of these so called 'secular values'

@lejournaldunecrivain2912

Hi, I'm french and I can tel you guys those type of attacks against christian's religious, french culture, language and history happening every single day. The saddest thing is they force us to be ok with this and if we don't they call us as dangerous intolerant extremist people. A big part of french people is very ashame in front of the rest of the world since some days ago, and I can tell : we are sorry... this is very hard for us since many years.
Sorry for my english, have a nice day.

More generally.

Reject the Olympics

And all its wicked pomps. But, as Owen Benjamin observers, the Christian Right is always more interested in complaining about what the wicked do than they are in either eliminating the wickedness or establishing an alternative to it.

Christians are targeted for mockery with the Olympics because marketing research says they’ll tweet about it with outrage but still watch. Which means free advertisement with no drop in viewers. In fact more will probably tune in to join in on the rage.

It’s actually smart. Most other demographics would then not watch. White Christian’s will not only watch but send it to everyone they know with a “we are under attack” or “disgusting.” As they watch and share. And when the Christian’s share all of these clips but never share local community projects or anything inspiring, the people that enjoy seeing Christianity mocked because of their upbringing will see it and remember to watch the Olympics.

Hope that helps! And you can pretend that I’m attacking Christianity but I’m not, just telling you the truth as to why corporations and politicians love to troll you. They just had an obese woman as Jesus in the last supper and a bunch of trans as apostles. And every right wing grifter is promoting it furiously.

Well, that’s one reason Christians are targeted for mockery. The other, more important reason is because Clown World is quite literally satanic, the people who produce big Clown World events like the Olympics, the Oscars, the Grammys, and the Gotthard Tunnel opening ceremony are satanic servants of Clown World, and the events are used as part of their “revelation of the method” rituals, which is why the 2012 London Olympics hinted at the 2020 pandemic and why the “white rider” that appeared riding over the waters of the Seine likely presages a future depopulation program.

Don’t complain about these things. Just recognize them for what they are and turn them off. Of course, there’s nothing wrong with the sports themselves. But at the very least, skip the opening and closing ceremonies. Let them wallow in their filth. We focus on the Good, the Beautiful, and the True.

https://voxday.net/2024/07/27/reject-the-olympics/
Reply

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up
British Wholesales - Certified Wholesale Linen & Towels

IslamicBoard

Experience a richer experience on our mobile app!