Syria, Gaza and the Criminalisation of Islam [Archive]

سيف الله

11-21-2014, 05:35 PM

Salaam

Another update

Islam, Violence and the Science of Bigotry

Over the last decade, it has become increasingly apparent that Muslims are receiving the kind of treatment once reserved for blacks, Jews and Irish – dehumanized groups that were also the victims of racial and ethnic prejudice and violence. Anti-Muslim prejudice is now seen by many as normal and uncontroversial, as the patronising, superficial way Islam is discussed in powerful and far reaching quarters make the world a less tolerant place for believers.

“We have to be able to criticize bad ideas and Islam is the motherload of bad ideas,” said Neo-Atheist Sam Harris in a heated TV discussion with actor Ben Affleck. Not to be outdone, controversial host Bill Maher was quick to echo the sentiment,“It’s the only religion that acts like the Mafia.”

The trio, appearing on HBO’s Real Time with Bill Maher, collided while debating whether large numbers of the Muslim population are inherently violent with an oppressive and backward outlook to life.

Seeking an explanation, Affleck then asked the panelists: “What is your answer? Is it just to condemn Islam? We’ve killed more Muslims than they have killed us by an awful lot. Yet somehow we are exempt from these things. Because they are not really a reflection of what we believe in.”

He then added sarcastically: “It was by accident, that’s how we invaded Iraq. I am explicitly telling you that I disagree with what you think.”But Maher disparagingly tells the actor: “We are obviously not convincing anyone here.”

Dehumanised

While Maher might be the loudest and most frank in his bigotry towards Muslims, the inclusion of academics such as Sam Harris points to a subtler, more pervasive and far more dangerous ‘anti-Islam’ that has crept into mainstream coverage. This is the type of Islamophobia that presents itself as a critical and candid study of ‘Islamic Extremism’, but in the process does just what Maher does; it assumes that the violent actions of reactionary movements are the default position of all Muslims and that they share inherent traits making them worse than other human beings. Sam Harris’ methodology is an attempt to employ ‘science’ and the charade of objectivity to legitimise contempt towards other communities. Prompting memories of ‘scientific racism’ and Nazi Eugenics, a forced sterilisation program engineered by the Nazis to improve the Germanic “master race”, that sought to justify its abhorrent policy with reference to Charles Darwin’s magnum opus: “On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life”.

Far from voicing criticisms of Islam as part of a general critique of religion, Harris has repeatedly made clear that he thinks Islam is uniquely threatening, requiring specific policies above and beyond those required for other groups. “While the other major world religions have been fertile sources of intolerance, it is clear that the doctrine of Islam poses unique problems for the emergence of a global civilization.” He has insisted that there are unique dangers from Muslims possessing nuclear weapons, as opposed to nice Western secularists (the only ones to ever use them) or those kind Israeli Zionists: “It should be of particular concern to us that the beliefs of devout Muslims pose a special problem for nuclear deterrence.” In his 2005 “End of Faith”, he claimed that “Islam, more than any other religion human beings have devised, has all the makings of a thorough going cult of death.”

Such conclusions are nothing short of a sustained demonisation campaign particularly at a time the Western world has been engaged in more than a decade long splurge of violence, aggression and abuses against Muslims.

More significantly, Harris has used his views about Islam to justify a wide range of vile policies aimed primarily, if not exclusively at Muslims, from torture (“there are extreme circumstances in which I believe that practices like ‘water-boarding’ may not only be ethically justifiable, but ethically necessary“); to steadfast support of Israel, which he considers morally superior to its Muslim adversaries (“In their analyses of US and Israeli foreign policy, liberals can be relied on to overlook the most basic moral distinctions. For instance, they ignore the fact that Muslims intentionally murder non-combatants, while we and the Israelis (as a rule) seek to avoid doing so…there is no question that the Israelis now hold the moral high ground in their conflict with Hamas and Hezbollah“); to Muslim profiling (“We should profile Muslims, or anyone who looks like he or she could conceivably be Muslim, and we should be honest about it“); to state violence (“On questions of national security, I am now as wary of my fellow liberals as I am of the religious demagogues on the Christian right. This may seem like frank acquiescence to the charge that ‘liberals are soft on terrorism.’ It is, and they are“). He argued for extrajudicial killing of Muslim suspects like in the CIA drone programme (“some propositions are so dangerous that it may even be ethical to kill people for believing them“); and even advocated nuclear first strike in the advent of an “Islamist nation” acquiring nuclear weapons capability (“the only course of action available to us, given what Islamists believe“).

A climate of bigotry has allowed standards to be applied to Muslims that could not be applied under conventional circumstances. Those who advocate these measures (torture, extrajudicial killing, profiling, nuclear first strike etc) effectively claim that, unlike the West, it is the political beliefs of Muslims in Sharia law – namely cutting the hand of the thief, the beliefs regarding women and apostasy laws – that lead to the problems and instability that exists in Muslim lands. A shallow judgement is made connecting progress in the West with its secular values and regress in the Muslim world with Islamic values. However, a more insightful analysis demonstrates otherwise.

State Terrorism

Rather than its adherence to abstract ideals, much of the accumulation of wealth and material progress in the Western hemisphere is a consequence of centuries of colonialism, genocide and a massive exploitation of slave labour.

This was summarised by Samuel P Huntington when he said:

“The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion, but rather by its superiority in applying organised violence, Westerners often forget this fact, but non-Westerners never do”

On the other hand, the challenges Muslims withstand are a relatively modern phenomena. Far from an outcome of what liberals assume are primitive values adopted from Islam, the volatility in Muslim lands are in fact the aftermath of post-colonial brutality and proxy wars sanctioned by the leading states to this day.

In his book, A Peace to End All Peace, David Fromkin, Professor and expert on Economic History at the University of Chicago explained how the current situation in the Muslim world came about:

“Massive amounts of wealth of the old Ottoman Empire were now claimed by the victors. But one must remember that the Islamic empire had tried for centuries to conquer Christian Europe and the power brokers deciding the fate of those defeated people were naturally determined that these countries should never be able organise and threaten Western interests again. With centuries of mercantilist experience, Britain and France created small, unstable states whose rulers needed their support to stay in power. The development and trade of these states were controlled and they were meant never again to be a threat to the West. These external powers then made contracts with their puppets to buy Arab resources cheaply, making the feudal elite enormously wealthy while leaving most citizens in poverty.”

The colonial legacy is not simply a relic of the past but responsible for much of what is taking place today. In 2009, the US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton described Egyptian dictator Hosni Mubarak and his wife as ‘family friends’. The US rewarded his regime and his arguably more ruthless successor Sisi handsomely with billions to sustain them. In 2011, when informed of Hafez Al Assad’s crime of butchering 25,000 people during an uprising against the Syrian regime, Clinton noted that the son, Bashar, was now in power and he was a “different leader” and a “reformer”. Confident of American support, Bashar’s regime went on to oversee the slaughter of 200,000 people with the death toll still rising. Perhaps this confidence was born from the intimate relationship the US enjoyed with Syria following 9/11; Syria was a favourite destination for the US ‘extraordinary rendition’ program. Here, terror suspects were abducted and transferred to secret prisons where “interrogations” (torture or simply making people disappear) could be conducted without the bureaucracy of trials and evidence.

Horrendous crimes of the secular Western states are masked by ideological language. Euphemisms make the inconceivable sound palatable. Millions of deaths of Iraqi citizens are justified in the name of “liberal interventionism”. Bombing a group of unknown individuals in the tribal borders of Pakistan will be referred to as “servicing the target”. States where Muslim populations are mercilessly repressed by Western-backed despots are referred to as “stable” states. Daily Israeli acts of war committed against Gaza are referred as “peace-time”. The reality on the ground does not reflect the language in political discourse.

To detach Western interference from the crisis that exists in the Muslim world would be ignorant at best. However, when advocated by self-styled political experts, one is more inclined to feel this error of judgement is a deliberate ploy designed to sidestep inconvenient truths that do not fit narratives against Islam and Muslims. A narrative that attempts to place the sole blame of the current plight of the Muslim world on Islam while completely ignoring that the Middle East is a post-colonial construction.

Perspective

For neoliberals it seems that turning a blind eye to colonial blowback isn’t enough – with claims of “Jihadi extremism” being the most pressing issue to the stability of the modern world, the Maher and Harris contribution went on to popularising the claim that “not all Muslims are terrorists, but (nearly) all terrorists are Muslims.” Despite this idea becoming self-evident in some circles, it is simply not factual. Official FBI records show that only 6% of terrorist attacks on U.S. soil from 1980 to 2005 were carried out by Islamic extremists. The remaining 94% were from other groups (42% from Latinos, 24% from extreme left wing groups, 7% from extremist Jews, 5% from communists, and 16% from all other groups).

For Europe, Europol publishes an annual report entitled EU Terrorism Situation and Trend Report. On their official website, the reports from 2006 to 2012 are accessible and the results are profound.

An overwhelming 99.6% of terrorist attacks in Europe were by non-Muslim groups; 84.8% of attacks were from separatist groups completely unrelated to Islam. Leftist groups accounted for over sixteen times as much terrorism as radical Islamic groups. Only a measly 0.4% of terrorist attacks from 2006 to 2012 could be attributed to Muslims.

Sensationalising and selective reporting have certainly skewed perceptions. Violence is not a monopoly of the Muslims but a consistent response from those who have been politically subjugated – suicide bombing was a popular tactic of Sri Lanka’s communist Tamil Tigers long before it became by-words for Islamic terrorism. The Buddhist insurgents of Tibet are accused of orchestrating the unrest and violence in parts of China; in 2008 the Ministry of Public Security spokesperson claimed searches of monasteries in the Tibetan capital had turned up a large cache of weapons, including 176 guns and 7,725 pounds of explosives. With innumerable such examples across the world, it raises the question as to why undue focus is given to Islam and why violent reactions are stripped from the political context? Such an approach only deflects criticism from Western policies that fuels acts of violence, blaming the reaction while absolving oneself of the cause.

Conclusion

With the zeal to impose (through wars and aggressive policies) liberal values on Muslims at its peak, neoliberal cheerleaders are absolutely convinced of furthering a disruptive reform that is on a historically unprecedented scale. It is a reform that wants to see an entire world discarded, with no remnants of its natural heritage, including its social and political institutions.

The rule of law, justice and security are all hopes and aspirations of Muslims that were demonstrated successfully via Islamic governance, under the legitimate Caliphate for over a millennium. Holding differing ideals to a self-righteous Eurocentric worldview to achieve this has never been an obstacle to remarkable progress and stability. In his book “The Spirit of World Politics”, this realisation led Professor Hocking of Harvard University to admit:

“Islamic lands will not progress by merely imitating Western arrangements and values. Can Islam produce fresh thinking, independent laws and relevant statutes to fit the new needs raised by modern society? Yes! – and more! Islam offers humanity greater possibilities for advance than others can. Its lack is not ability – but the will to use it. In reality the Shariah contains all the ingredients needed.”

Unfortunately, the ideological and agenda-driven nature of Capitalist states means that a sincere and detailed examination within powerful, far reaching circles in the West has become a bleak prospect. Today’s neoliberals have formed superficial arguments that make causal links between Islamic values and the state of the Muslim world. The use of haphazard narratives only justifies violence against Muslims, where science and authority figures are used as tools of propaganda. The challenge is to refocus the discussion in its appropriate place, where correlation (when things happen together or in sequence) is not confused for causation (where one thing actually causes the other to happen). Far from being an independent entity, the mass media is generally an extension of the government apparatus. While imperialism persists in Muslim lands, the intellectual war of ideas merely represents a culmination of a long and violent campaign carried out by the West.

http://www.hizb.org.uk/current-affairs/islam-violence-and-the-science-of-bigotry

سيف الله

11-21-2014, 05:38 PM

Salaam

And another update

NEW CAGE REPORT WARNS AGAINST CLASSIFYING MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD AS 'TERRORIST'

London, UK] CAGE has warned that moves by the British government to crackdown on the Muslim Brotherhood (MB) and all groups associated with it will increase anti-British sentiment in the UK and around the world, as well as foster a culture of suspicion and polarisation.

The government review will allow for: investigations into charities deemed to be “fronts” for the MB; enquiries into the funding of the MB and alleged links to militant groups abroad; and bans on clerics from Qatar and Turkey who are linked to the MB from visiting Britain.

The review comes in the wake of a Cabinet Office report, compiled but not yet published, that alleges “an incredibly complex web” of up to 60 organisations in Britain, including charities, think tanks and even television channels, with links to the Muslim Brotherhood.

The review was called on the back of government claims that the Muslim Brotherhood were connected to the killing of Lee Rigby in Woolwich, as well as claims that it was involved in a violent attack on a tourist bus in Sinai which killed three people. [2] In fact, the al-Qaeda-linked group, Ansar Bayt al-Maqdis, has claimed responsibility for the Sinai attack, while Rigby’s killers have no proven ties to the MB.
CAGE has numerous concerns about claims that the MB “might be a terrorist organisation”, as well as in terms of the political influences on the report, and its timing – in the wake of the group’s recent designation as a ‘terrorist organisation’ by the military regime in Egypt and by its political and financial backers in Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates.

Ironically, Al-Qaeda leaders have repeatedly denounced the Muslim Brotherhood for a host of charges; paramount among these is its support for democracy.

Only five countries have designated the Muslim Brotherhood a ‘terrorist organisation’: Syria, Russia, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates.

“The public must be assured that foreign regimes and private defense companies hold no sway over British policy. The choice of Britain’s current ambassador to Saudi Arabia to lead the review must also be questioned,” said CAGE research director Asim Qureshi.

“This review was launched just six weeks after BAE Systems struck a major sales deal with the Saudis and just three weeks after Saudi Arabia’s designation of the Muslim Brotherhood as a ‘terrorist organisation’.”

“The UK government’s apparent confusion about the roots and role of the Muslim Brotherhood is questionable since the organisation has existed openly for over 86 years, has countless records of its activities, and David Cameron met with its leaders last year.”

“Leaks now confirm that the report states the obvious: the Muslim Brotherhood aren’t a violent organisation. The government should publish the report immediately and stop pandering to those who won’t agree with its findings.”

These concerns take place within the context of CAGE’s ongoing alarm at the British government’s increasingly broad definition of “extremism”, which targets ideology and belief as opposed to actual criminal activity, thereby threatening individual thought and freedom.

http://www.cageuk.org/press-release/new-cage-report-warns-against-classifying-muslim-brotherhood-terrorist-0

Karl

11-22-2014, 11:33 PM

Originally Posted by truthseeker63

Most White Nationalists hate Jews as well as People of Color and Homosexuals.

Wow so they are two thirds Muslim then. LOL
The reason they hate coloured immigrants is because they steal the jobs off them. Zionist employers would rather give jobs to insecure sycophantic immigrants than to big white short tempered pro union knuckle draggers. The Zionists are also trying to crossbreed the races as they find whites too big, obnoxious and have a long record of hating and killing Jews. Things may backfire, God works in mysterious ways. This Zio Marxist lefty liberal movement may fail as people begin to yearn for conservatism and the old way.

سيف الله

12-20-2014, 09:48 AM

Salaam

More on the British government attempts to dictate to Muslims what they can and cannot believe.

PREVENT INFILTRATES BIRKBECK AND SHUTS DOWN IHRC ISLAMOPHOBIA EVENT

CAGE are very concerned to have read about Birkbeck College who have taken the cowardly step of forcing the Islamic Human Rights Commission (IHRC) to find an alternative venue for their Islamophobia conference, due to begin tomorrow.

The purpose of this conference was to tackle the rise of Islamophobia in the UK. The university got the local council PREVENT officer involved.

PREVENT is the UK government’s “anti-terrorism” strategy. It is incredibly broad and clearly politically driven, using a government approved, unchallenged definition of ‘extremism’.

There is a worrying trend that, even before the Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill has been passed there is a clear ramping up of the PREVENT programme.

As CAGE’s PREVENT report shows, this is a comprehensive policy which has far outstripped its stated remit. “This is what PREVENT has always been all about,” says Asim Qureshi, Research Director at CAGE. “It’s always been a social engineering programme to legitimise the government sponsored version of Islam only.”

PREVENT has covertly shut down events organised by mainstream Muslim organisations, where issues like Palestine and Guantanamo Bay have been under discussion. It is notable that the IHRC event in question here was on islamophobia and the racist scapegoating of Muslims. Is this now a forbidden topic for Muslims’ to be concerned about?

Furthermore the capitulation to PREVENT by a renowned University is something that should be a concern to wider civil society organizations.

IHRC are a long established organisation who campaign for human rights, their conference will be shown on livestream here.

CAGE is building awareness and constantly highlights and challenges PREVENT. Find out more about the PREVENT programme on www.cageuk.org or read the full report here.

http://www.cageuk.org/article/prevent-infiltrates-birkbeck-and-shuts-down-ihrc-islamophobia-event

سيف الله

12-20-2014, 09:53 AM

Salaam

Another update

Muslim charities lose government help over 'extremism'

Two Muslim charities have lost their grants after the government claimed they had links with Islamist extremism.

A spokesman for Birmingham-based Islamic Help, said it was "surprised, dismayed and angered" by the action.

The Muslim Charities Forum (MCF), said the decision was based on "unfounded allegations".

The Department for Communities and Local Government said it would not fund any group "linked to individuals who fuel hatred, division and violence".

In a written statement the Secretary of State for the department, Eric Pickles, claimed Islamic Help had invited "an individual with extremist views" to speak at an event, and that the MCF - an umbrella organisation for Muslim charities - had "failed to reassure us that they have robust measures in place to investigate and challenge their members."

A spokesman for Islamic Help said the speaker alleged to have extremist views had not been identified to them.

The DCLG has so far refused to name him or her publicly.

'Not political platforms'

The spokesman for Islamic Help, which provides emergency relief following major disasters and has worked in Gaza, the Central African Republic and Syria, has said its events are to raise money for humanitarian work and not political platforms.

He said although the amount of money they would lose [about £7,000] was a "drop in the ocean", the move "besmirches the reputation and integrity" of people who had taken part in their campaigns.

The charity had not received any notification from the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG), the spokesman said.

Mr Pickles said only programmes which "uphold fundamental British values" would receive aid.

Both Islamic Help and the MCF had received the money through the Faith Minorities in Action project, which was set up by the DCLG in March last year.

The scheme, established in conjunction with the Extremism Task Force, was designed to encourage integration by promoting interfaith work, the role of women in faith, tackling youth crime and to provide child protection training.

'Best practice'

The Muslim Charities Forum was awarded the contract to implement the scheme, which included running workshops to "share experiences and best practice on addressing a wide variety of social and community issues".

Mr Pickles said the MCF had not been meeting objectives and was unable to reassure him that the body was sufficiently rigorous over its members' activities.

The MCF said it was unaware of any perceived failings, and that it had not been contacted by the DCLG about the decision to stop the cash.

A spokesman for the forum said: "We will continue to foster cooperation and positive relationships between Muslim charities and other faith and community groups.

"We have responded to the DCLG to reassure them of our processes, the vital importance of the work we do, and of the Faith Minorities in Action project."

The DCLG is due to launch a new call for applications from organisations able to work in collaboration with faith groups and to deliver effective support, Mr Pickles said.

The money comes from the government's integration strategy, which between 2010 and March 2015 is expected have invested about £50m in community and interfaith projects.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-30537237

سيف الله

12-20-2014, 10:00 AM

Salaam

Perhaps being a practicing Muslim will one day be considered a criminal offence.

Sharia law guidelines abandoned as Law Society apologises

Law Society apologises over advice to solicitors on how to draw up Sharia-style wills penalising widows and non-believers[/B]

The Law Society has withdrawn controversial guidelines for solicitors on how to compile “Sharia compliant” wills amid complaints that they encouraged discrimination against women and non-Muslims.

Andrew Caplen, president of the society, apologised and said the criticism had been taken on board.

It follows a storm of protest after The Telegraph disclosed in March that the society had issued a practice note to solicitors effectively enshrining aspects of Islamic law in the British legal system.

The guidelines advised High Street solicitors on how to write Islamic wills in a way that would be recognised by courts in England and Wales.

They set out principles which meant that women could be denied an equal share of inheritances while unbelievers could be excluded altogether.

The document also detailed how children born out of wedlock might not be counted as legitimate heirs.

Mr Caplen’s predecessor as president, Nicholas Fluck, strongly resisted criticism of the guidelines when details were published in March.

But in a short statement the society said it now had decided to withdraw them in light of “feedback” from the public and lawyers themselves.

"Our practice note was intended to support members to better serve their clients as far as is allowed by the law of England and Wales,” said Mr Caplen.

"We reviewed the note in the light of criticism.

“We have withdrawn the note and we are sorry."

Keith Porteous Wood, executive director of the National Secular Society, who campaigned for the guidelines to be withdrawn, said: “This is an important reverse for what had seemed to be the relentless march of sharia to becoming de facto British law.

“Until now, politicians and the legal establishment either encouraged this process or spinelessly recoiled from acknowledging what was happening.

“I congratulate the Law Society for heeding the objections we and others made.

“This is particularly good news for women who fare so badly under sharia law, which is non-democratically determined, non-human rights compliant and discriminatory code.”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/11250643/Sharia-law-guidelines-abandoned-as-Law-Society-apologises.html

سيف الله

02-14-2015, 12:12 PM

Salaam

Another update

DON'T LIKE THE PC MOB? WELL NOW THAT MAKES YOU A TERROR THREAT

We are on the verge of founding Britain’s first Thought Police.

Using the excuse of terrorism – whose main victim is considered thought – Theresa May’s Home Office is making a law which attacks free expression in this country as it has never been attacked before.
We already have some dangerous laws on the books. The Civil Contingencies Act can be used to turn Britain into a dictatorship overnight, if politicians can find an excuse to activate it.

But the Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill, now slipping quietly and quickly through Parliament, is in a way even worse. It tells us what opinions we should have, or should not have.
As ever, terrorism is the pretext. Yet there is no evidence to suggest that the criminal drifters, school drop-outs and drug-addled losers who do much terrorist dirty work (and whose connections with vast worldwide conspiracies are sketchy to say the least) will be even slightly affected by it.

In a consultation paper attached to the Bill, all kinds of institutions, from nursery schools (yes really, see paragraph 107) to universities, are warned that they must be on the lookout for ‘extremists’.
But universities are told they have a ‘responsibility to exclude those promoting extremist views that support or are conducive to terrorism’.
Those words ‘conducive to’ are so vague that they could include almost anybody with views outside the mainstream.

What follows might have come from the laws of the Chinese People’s Republic or Mr Putin’s Russia. Two weeks’ advance notice of meetings must be given so that speakers can be checked up on, and the meeting cancelled if necessary.
Warning must also be given of the topic, ‘sight of any presentations, footage to be broadcast, etc’. A ‘risk assessment’ must be made on whether the meeting should be cancelled altogether, compelled to include an opposing speaker or (even more creepy) ‘someone in the audience to monitor the event’.

Institutions will be obliged to promote ‘British values’. These are defined as ‘democracy, the rule of law, individual liberty and mutual respect and tolerance for those with different faiths and beliefs’. ‘Vocal and active opposition’ to any of these is now officially described as ‘extremism’.

Given authority’s general scorn for conservative Christianity, and its quivering, obsequious fear of Islam, it is easy to see how the second half will be applied in practice. As for ‘democracy’, plenty of people (me included) are not at all sure we have it, and wouldn’t be that keen on it if we did.

Am I then an ‘extremist’ who should be kept from speaking at colleges? Quite possibly. But the same paragraph (89, as it happens) goes further. ‘We expect institutions to encourage students to respect other people with particular regard to the protected characteristics set out in the Equality Act 2010’.

These ‘protected characteristics’, about which we must be careful not to be ‘extremist’, are in fact the pillars of political correctness – including disability, gender reassignment, pregnancy and maternity, race, sex and sexual orientation.
The Bill is terrible in many other ways. And there is no reason to believe that any of these measures would have prevented any of the terrorist murders here or abroad, or will do so in future.
They have been lifted out of the box marked ‘try this on the Home Secretary during a national panic’, by officials who long to turn our free society into a despotism.

Once, there would have been enough wise, educated, grown-up people in both Houses of Parliament to stand up against this sort of spasm. Now most legislators go weak at the knees like simpering teenage groupies whenever anyone from the ‘Security’ or ‘Intelligence’ services demands more power and more money.

So far there has been nothing but a tiny mouse-squeak of protest against this dangerous, anti-British, concrete-headed twaddle. It will go through. And in ten years’ time we’ll wonder why we’re locking people up for thinking.
We’ll ask: ‘How did that happen?’ This is how it happens.

http://www.cageuk.org/article/mail-online-dont-pc-mob-well-now-makes-you-terror-threat

سيف الله

02-14-2015, 12:16 PM

Salaam

And another

HOW THE GOVERNMENT MAKES YOU INTO A TERRORIST WITHOUT EVER ARRESTING YOU

In this piece, Asim Qureshi Research Director at CAGE takes us through how a routine stop under Schedule 7 and its specially engineered questions, can lead to oppressive civil orders leaving the individual having been declared guilty without judicial oversight, left to prove their innocence. Further, concerns about the implementation of the new Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill which seeks to arbitrarily impose orders under the elusive idea of “extremism”.

I want you to imagine going through an airport where you are subjected to a Schedule 7 stop under the 2000 Terrorism Act. This stop results in you being taken away, and asked questions not only about your travel, but also pushes you to answer questions about your family, your mosque, your Islamic teachers, your religious views and your politics. Personal experience and the experience of others, tells us that questions like, “What type of Muslim are you?” and “What do you think about Palestine?” are among the more common questions that are asked.

Due to the nature of the Schedule 7 law, it is not possible to avoid answering the questions of the interrogating officer, rather, failure to do so could result in being arrested and charged with an offence. How is this information used though? What potential value might it have for the security agencies?

At the time of the stop you may not think too much of the Schedule 7 stop other than to be annoyed by the fact that you were profiled and made to feel like some form of threat. What you were probably not prepared for, was what would take place next.

According to the definition of extremism, laid out in the UK government’s Prevent strategy, vocal or active opposition to democracy, British values and the armed forces, makes you an extremist. Whether you realised it or not, the interview conducted under your Schedule 7 stop, will have informed the government if they feel that your answer fits into this criteria.

The next thing you know, a letter will come to your home informing you or your family that you have had your citizenship removed, or you have had your passport revoked, been placed under a financial sanctions regime, or you have been placed under a form of house arrest. As you scan the letter to try and understand the reason for this, all you are given is the fact the government considers you to be an ‘Islamist extremist’.

There has been no judicial oversight as to why this has happened, just an arbitrary decision made by the Home Secretary on the advice of the security agencies.

You decide that you want to challenge this arbitrary order against you. As you sit down with your lawyer to understand where you stand, you are told that the vast majority of the government’s information against you, you will never see. All you will do, is see the gist of the evidence, but won’t actually know what it is. Further, your lawyer will not be able to see the evidence either. Both you and your lawyer will be excluded from hearing the evidence of the agencies.

Not to fear though. In the government’s wisdom, they have assigned to you someone known as a special advocate to sit in the court. While the secret evidence is being presented, this special advocate will represent your interests. Except…you are not permitted to speak to the special advocate, neither is your lawyer. The special advocate has no way of ascertaining whether or not the evidence the government is presenting is flawed at all in any way.

What I am asking you to imagine, is a process that has been taking place for over a decade in the UK. There have been over one hundred and fifty cases where individuals have had to fight not just for their freedom, but even the simple right of knowing what the evidence is against them.

The environment that has been engineered by the government is one where the criminal law space has been moved into the civil space, reversing the burden of proof. Now, the government is able to apply arbitrary orders on you, expecting you to then explain why you are innocent, not the other way around.

With the new Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill coming through, there is more danger than ever that individuals will be labelled as extremists, resulting in increased arbitrary civil orders. Once the government’s Extremism Disruption Orders also come into being, there is no telling how far abuses against communities will go.

Abz2000

02-15-2015, 02:29 PM

It's the kabbalist zionists man,
Right from since they formed the templar order and took over the the papacy and western hemisphere and scrubbed out official records (the dark ages), they seem to have been dictating policy and method of administration in the incrementally "secularised" countries they gained control over.

In britain the whole court system echoes with similitudes even though it was never officially controlled by jews.

Ok, back in the days when faith existed among the descendents of those whom Allah saved from the famine in the time of yusuf pbuh, leaders from the twelve tribes of Israel (comes from the twelve sons of jacob pbuh though the name of yusuf is for some reason absent) would make unanimous decisions on behalf of the whole people by what Allah revealed.

Each of the twelve tribes enjoyed a good deal of autonomy, ordering its own affairs after the patriarchal-tribal pattern.
No doubt there were administrative institutions common to all the tribes, situated beside the central shrines, though information about them is exceedingly scanty.
During the desert wanderings, leadership of the people was vested in the princes of each of the tribes and the elders who assisted*Moses. They met and legislated for the entire people. There are references to meetings of tribal leaders and elders during the periods of the settlement and the Judges. "The princes of the congregation, the heads of the thousands of Israel" along with Phinehas the priest, conducted negotiations with the Transjordanian tribes, in the name of the entire nation. Joshua summoned "the elders, the heads, the judges, and the officers of Israel" to make a covenant in Shechem. The elders of Israel, speaking for the entire nation, requested Samuel to appoint a king. The incidents of the concubine in Gibeah and Saul's battle with Nahash the Ammonite are classic examples of joint action taken by the league of twelve tribes acting "as one man, from Dan even to Beer-Sheba, with the land of Gilead". In the one case, unified action was taken by the tribes against one of their members, Benjamin, for a breach of the terms of the covenant. The war against Nahash the Ammonite proves that the tribes were required to come to the aid of any one of the league that found itself in difficulty. Because of the sacral nature of the league, the wars of the tribes were considered "wars of the Lord". Nevertheless, the narratives in the Book of Judges regarding the battles which Israel waged against its enemies make it clear that the league must have been rather weak in those days.

Those were the twelve members of Jewry reaching verdicts which were judged by what Allah revealed.

But what took place afterwards is obvious to any who cares to look at the "secular" court systems.

To understand that a babylonian streak has seeped through history via some who claim to be jews, one only has to search term the emblem of the "church of satan", one will find hebrew codes plastered all over it.

And to see how it infected england, one needs just look at ch 17 of the book orevelation and compare it with the queen's throne at parliament.

One effect of the crusades was that britain started getting religious, king james 1 issues an official translation of previous remnants of scripture etc, his son king james 2 gets conquered by the dutch william of orange in 1690 and the bank of england gets created in 1694, then they turn paper into gold - or gold into paper - and start playing satanic monopoly with the world.
The orange order is masonic through and through, google it if you think i've gone mad.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orange_Order

The future's bright - InshaAllah

M.I.A.

02-15-2015, 02:45 PM

Have been involved in sending aid to Syria and am personally aware of convoys sent and successfully so.

Am also personally aware of some people who went to Syria to fight and die for there cause...

And also how that has been reported by the media.

I fail to see how this is relevant to ISIS or in any way islamifies there actions..

They are no part of me I hope.

Have also constantly sent aid to Palestine to rebuild so they can destroy again...

Sometimes the words are just wrong. Sometimes the tactics are just wrong.

But its the same government that has a list of names..

People who ordered issues of the Charlie hebdo magazine to the UK.

Will still give to all causes but only Allah swt changes the state of the people.

سيف الله

02-16-2015, 10:01 PM

Salaam

Another update

Response to Telegraph Article “Worried about Muslims in Britain? Here’s the answer”

On the 13th February 2015, a Telegraph journalist, James Kirkup, wrote a piece titled “Worried about Muslims in Britain? Here’s the Answer” presenting an argument that Muslim integration can be better approached by taking an economic perspective rather than a “British Values” one.

The data he presented showed that;

Muslim’s are less likely to have degrees now than they were from the previous census compared to the overall population. James argued this is partly down to gender, since in the population as a whole young women are more likely to go to university than young men, whilst amongst British Muslims the pattern is reversed.

Other religious groups also outperform British Muslims: 30.1 per cent of Sikhs have degrees, and 44.6 per cent of Hindus whilst 27.2% of Muslims have degrees.
Whilst Muslims are only slightly under-represented in the higher managerial groups, there are major gaps in the lower managerial, administrative jobs.
Some 21.3% of British Muslims have never worked (a figure that excludes full-time students), the figure for the UK as a whole is 4.3%
The 10% of council wards that count as the most deprived parts of the country are now home to 1.2 million Muslims, around 46% of the total. In 2001, this was only 33% of Muslims lived in Britain’s poorest places.

He then connected this data to a conclusion made by BSA surveys that concluded “much of the difference on socio-moral opinions was due to socio-economic disadvantage and high religiosity, both factors which predict social conservatism among all Britons and not just Muslims.” He then summarised by presenting a new way to look at solving the integration problem though the lens of economics i.e focus on the economics and the values will “take care of themselves.[1]”

Having read and thought about his article, I found his proposal to be indicative of the typical capitalist approach towards viewing human problems through the lens of cash. In a way it’s also quite insulting to imply that throwing money at Muslims will equate to the adoption of secular liberal values as though our Islam is only worth a few extra sterling. Moreover, the data he presented was selective and ignores some key statistics that can also be found in the same MCB report.

Firstly, he chose to use the “Never-worked” statistic to insinuate that Muslims are economically deprived. Whilst the figure excluded full-time students, he forgets to mention that over half of the British Muslim population are under 25 which include all types of students and that one in ten babies born are Muslim even though Muslims count for 4.8% of the total population. In other words, the Muslim population is very young hence the disproportionate statistics compared to the overall population. The actual unemployment rate is 7.2% compared to 4.0% which is a much more accurate figure to describe their economic activity/inactivity[2]. This can be explained due to racial discrimination, Islamaphobia and employment inequality.

Secondly, the reversed pattern in male/female degrees compared to the rest of the society is due to Muslim women prioritising children and family than working due to the Islamic viewpoint on gender roles in society (Of Muslim women in the 16-74 age band, 18% are ‘looking after home or family’ compared to 6% in the overall population). However, this does not imply that they are less educated than men, for example 43% of the 329,694 Muslim full-time students are female and there are a number of local authority districts where the population of Muslim women in full-time education exceeds men. The discrepancy in degrees is due to the pursuance of different priorities to Non-Muslim women who prioritise careers over children.

Thirdly, patterns of Muslim migration differ to Hindus and Sikhs. Muslims migrated from villages following the construction of the Mangla Dam in the early 60s that submerged 250 villages and displaced 100,000 people, half of which moved to Britain and were relatively poorer, lacking education from their home country compared to Hindus who migrated from African cities mostly from Kenya and Uganda as certain African regimes encouraged a policy of Africanisation. They were better educated than the earlier immigrants, many of them were professionals or from skilled trades and already had experience of thriving in a minority community.

Moreover, the more affluent, the more British theory doesn’t explain why second generation Muslim professionals such as teachers feel the need to strongly hold on to and teach conservative Islamic values in schools, or why Muslims have invested millions of pounds into Mosques and private Islamic schools self-funded through donations by the affluent section of the community or why millions of Muslim professionals have expressed deep affinity to their brethren in the Muslim world by criticising British foreign policy and why the government’s assimilation strategy has utterly failed leading them to implement draconian policies such as the CTS bill that aims to root out conservative Islamic values from the mainstream Muslim community of Britain.

To me, it makes complete sense why the media and politicians focus on values rather than economics, for ultimately the Muslims can engage in economic activity and can be economically prosperous without compromising on their Islamic values.

http://www.hizb.org.uk/current-affairs/response-to-telegraph-article-worried-about-muslims-in-britain-heres-the-answer

سيف الله

02-21-2015, 12:46 PM

Salaam

The fraud Obama speaks. Have to admire the gall of this man

Obama says the West is not at war with Islam

US president urged Muslim communities, including scholars and clerics, to push back on twisted interpretations of Islam.

US President Barack Obama has reiterated his call for the world "to stand up to violent extremism", saying that violent groups peddle a lie that there is a clash of civilisations.

Obama said on Thursday that there was a complicated history between the Middle East and the West and no one should be immune from criticism over specific policies.

"But the notion that the West is at war with Islam is an ugly lie," he said. "And all of us, regardless of our faith, have a responsibility to reject it," he told a three-day conference at a White House summit on so-called violent extremism.

"Muslim communities, including scholars and clerics, therefore have a responsibility to push back not just on twisted interpretations of Islam, but also on the lie that we are somehow engaged in a clash of civilisations," the US president said.

Obama said that the US will continue the fight against al-Qaeda and its affiliates in Afghanistan, Yemen and Somalia a day after he said that those fighting for ISIL and al-Qaeda were not religious leaders, but "terrorists".
"We are united against scourge of violent extremism and terrorism. As we speak, ISIL is terrorising people of Syria and Iraq, involved in wanton murder of children, enslavement and rape of women and beheading of hostages," he said.

In his speech, Obama pledged that "in Iraq and Syria, our coalition of some 60 nations, including Arab nations, will not relent in our mission to degrade and ultimately destroy ISIL", referring to the Islamic State of Iraq and Levant by its acronym.

Obama asked Middle Eastern countries to stop actions that he claimed have stoked the rise of ISIL, al-Qaeda and others.

Fighting between Sunnis and Shia "will only end when major powers address their differences through dialogue and not through proxy wars", he said.

Syria and Iraq blamed

Obama blamed the governments of Syria and Iraq for the emergence of ISIL.

"In Iraq, the failure of the previous government to govern in an inclusive manner helped to pave the way for ISIL's gains there," he said.

In Syria, Bashar al-Assad's "war against his own people and deliberate stoking of sectarian tensions help to fuel the rise of ISIL", he said.

During the summit's closing session at the State Department, Obama urged delegate to "confront the warped ideology" espoused by armed groups.

"These terrorists are desperate for legitimacy and all us have a responsibility to refute the notion that groups like ISIL somehow represent Islam, because that is a falsehood that embraces the terrorist narrative," Obama said.

He urged Arab countries in particular to take steps to quell sectarian violence and boost economic and educational opportunities for young people susceptible to recruitment by armed groups.

Obama also announced the creation of a joint digital monitoring centre with the UAE.

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/americas/2015/02/obama-west-war-islam-150219202815818.html

سيف الله

02-21-2015, 12:51 PM

Salaam

Another update

5 STEPS TO PREVENT “EXTREMISM” THE FRENCH WAY

France has recently taken measures in order to avoid what it describes as “radicalism”, “extremism” and “jihadism”, in an attempt to follow the PREVENT blueprint implemented in the UK, which once started as just a policy but is now becoming law. This article takes you through the 5 step plan to identify and prevent extremism from a French perspective, through seemingly disproportionate and extrajudicial means. This is the plan...

Spot the « radicals » and report them

The French government launched a website called “stop jihadism”. It is a platform to encourage the population to report on their fellow citizens if they spot any signs of “radicalisation”.

According to the French government, these are the signs you should look out for in order to identify a “jihadist”:

suspicious about old friends
rejects members of the family
suddenly changing food habits
stops school
stops listening to music
stops watching TV or going to the cinema
stops playing a sport (because it's mixed)
changes clothing (hides shape if she is a woman)
spends time on the internet and social media
But also, they become withdrawn within themselves, they start to speak in an asocial manner and reject any form of authority or contribution to community life. Incidentally this is probably the definition of the average French citizen living in the UK.

Prosecute everyone and anyone

While many have made light of this, for some in France, the laughter has turned sour:

In just 22 days, between 7 and 29 January, the French justice ministry said that, there had been 486 legal cases linked to the Charlie Hebdo attacks.

Of these, 257 were cases of people accused of condoning or provoking terrorism.

These included:

A man who after a psychiatric report was conducted was found to have slight learning difficulties. He was sentenced to six months in prison after drunkenly shouting at police officers in the street: “They killed Charlie, I laughed.”
A 21-year-old drunken man with no criminal record who had resisted arrest. He said he had been wrestled to the ground by police. While begging them to stop hurting him, he had allegedly shouted a torrent of insults including: “You’ll see, the jihadis will put a bullet in your head. Look at the damage they’ve done. My cousin Coulibaly [the gunman who killed a police officer and four people at a kosher supermarket] didn’t kill enough of you.” He was immediately brought before a judge and denied having said it. He was sentenced to eight months in prison plus eight months suspended sentence for glorifying terrorism.
A man was arrested for drunk-driving in the north of France, he shouted at police officers: “There should be more Kouachi’s [the name of the brothers behind the Charlie Hebdo attack]. I hope that you’ll be next.” He was sentenced to four years in prison.

Interrogate the kids

Ahmed, only 8 years old, was interrogated by the police in the south of France.

His Head teacher had reported him for allegedly saying “I’m with the terrorists”. When the police asked him what terrorism was, the young boy did not know.

The Head teacher had previously been accused of bullying, mistreating the child amid islamophobic and racist remarks.

A few days later, a father lodged a complaint for defamation after his 9 year-old son was interrogated by police. He had initially been reported to the police by the school canteen.

Forget the courts, shut down websites

On 9 February 2015, a decree allowed the French government to block websites accused of promoting terrorism without a court order.

Critics say it will not prevent any attack and will likely be used to ban legitimate content.

But refuse to condemn the glorification of Nazism

In November 2014, the UN General Assembly adopted a resolution to combat the glorification of Nazism and Neo-Nazism and all forms of racism, xenophobia and intolerance.

France chose to abstain, so did the UK. The US voted against it.

http://www.cageuk.org/article/5-steps-prevent-%E2%80%9Cextremism%E2%80%9D-french-way

سيف الله

03-05-2015, 07:55 PM

Salaam

Another update

Islamic charities lose millions as ‘risk-averse’ banks block donations – think tank

Millions of pounds worth of donations to British charities have been blocked or returned by global banks, amid terror financing concerns. Humanitarian operations in Syria, Iraq and Gaza are in jeopardy as a result, a think tank warns.
In recent months, a slew of international banks including HSBC, UBS and NatWest have frozen accounts held by UK-registered charities and global NGOs that deliver aid to crisis-ridden conflict zones.

International development think tank, the Overseas Development Institute (ODI), warns banks’ “overly risk-averse action” towards charitable organizations and NGOs in Britain is a direct result of UK counter-terror legislation.
In a report, published Thursday, the think tank called for the Treasury to offer banks concrete guidance on how they should respond to Britain’s counter-terror laws.

Disproportionate targeting of Islamic charities

Muslim charities, based in Britain, argue they are being disproportionately singled out by UK authorities.
Since April 2012 alone, over 25 percent of all statutory probes launched by Britain’s Charity Commission have targeted Islamic organizations. The ODI warns these statistics are troubling.

In its report, ‘UK humanitarian aid in the age of counter-terrorism: Perceptions and reality,’ the think tank revealed one charity was forced to forgo donations amounting to £2 million over the past year due to funds being suspended by a bank.
The ODI’s research also suggests aid workers based abroad have had their wages blocked or delayed regularly by banks.

CAGE: Vilified but determined

The ODI's report comes as British charity the Joseph Rowntree Trust faces increasing pressure from MPs to clarify its allocation of funds to UK advocacy group CAGE.
The campaign group, which actively seeks to support victims impacted by the ‘War on Terror,’ liaised with Mohammed Emwazi, otherwise known as ‘Jihadi John,’ over a number of years.

Its relationship began with the Islamic State executioner when he visited its modest East London office block in 2009.
After describing Emwazi as a once “beautiful man” who had endured severe harassment at the hands of UK security services, the advocacy group’s research director Asim Qureshi was vilified last week by UK MPs and media commentators.

In response to Qureshi’s remarks, Home Secretary Theresa May told MPs she condemns anyone who “attempts to excuse that barbarism away.”
British government-backed regulator, the Charity Commission, subsequently launched a probe into CAGE’s financial activities.

Investigators are inquiring whether CAGE’s financiers, the Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust, had ensured the advocacy group was utilizing its grants in an acceptable manner. The investigation is ongoing.
In a formal statement, the Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust said it issued three separate grants to CAGE between 2007 and 2010 – amounting to £350,000. It clarified further it offered a fourth grant payment to the advocacy group in January 2014.

The trust maintains it stands by its decision to offer this funding.
“We believe [CAGE] has played an important role in highlighting the ongoing abuses at Guantanamo Bay and at many other sites around the world, including many instances of torture,” the trust said.

Labour MP John Spellar, however, described CAGE as “apologists for terrorism.”
He called for supporters and funders of the advocacy group to dissociate from it entirely.

CAGE is critical of UK authorities’ role in radicalizing Emwazi. It maintains British spies cannot continue to operate with impunity, and the state’s secret services should be made accountable for their actions.
Qureshi, the group’s research director, rejects recent criticism leveled at the campaign group, and suggests it is politically motivated.

“Certain media organizations [and] right-wing think tanks don't like our narrative as it goes against the prevailing national security paradigm,” he told Reuters.

US ripple effect

The ODI’s report concluded guidance offered by the British Treasury on how banks should respond to UK counter-terror legislation is sorely lacking and is the primary reason why charities’ funds are being blocked.
Tom Keatinge, a financial researcher for the ODI, says America’s legal and political climate has deeply sensitized global banks to US regulations.

He argues the “extra-territorial reach” of American authorities in pursuing banks “has had a chilling effect on risk appetite globally.”
He stresses global banks’ decision-making processes are often heavily influenced by American regulations irrespective of their jurisdiction.

http://rt.com/uk/238069-charities-funding-blocked-banks/

سيف الله

03-07-2015, 07:38 PM

Salaam

Another update

CAGE RESPONSE TO THE CHARITY COMMISSION

(London, UK) CAGE issues this response to the Charity Commission's statement released today regarding the discontinuance of funding that JRCT and The Roddick Foundation used to provide.

CAGE's spokesperson, Amandla Thomas-Johnson said,

"We respect their decision. We thank them for their past support. Both of these charities have played a significant role in contributing to the development of Muslim civil society here in the UK. We anticipated this decision ever since William Shawcross, a leading member of the neo-conservative think tank, Henry Jackson Society took over the Charity Commission. This is just another manifestation of their objective of pursuing a Cold War on British Islam.

CAGE will remain committed to its principle of speaking truth to power and calling for accountability and transparency. We will not hesitate in performing our role as whistleblowers and as advocates for due process."

http://www.cageuk.org/press-release/cage-response-charity-commission

سيف الله

03-09-2015, 06:43 PM

Salaam

Another update, seems the British government needs to refine its propaganda campaigns.

UK anti-radicalisation Prevent strategy a ‘toxic brand’

Former senior police officer Dal Babu says many Muslims see scheme as spying and many of those involved in it do not understand the communities they serve

The British government’s flagship anti-radicalisation strategy, Prevent, has become a toxic brand and is widely mistrusted, a former senior Muslim police officer has said.

Dal Babu, who was a chief superintendent with the Metropolitan police before he retired two years ago, said most Muslims were suspicious of the scheme and see it as a tool for spying on them.

Babu told the BBC that the £40m Prevent programme started off as a good idea but had become less and less trusted.

“We’ve had situations where cameras have been implemented without the community understanding in Birmingham,” he said. “A huge amount of money has been spent on this. At a time when we have limited resources we really need to make sure that we measure it.”

Prevent was introduced as part of the government’s post-9/11 counter-terrorism strategy, aimed at stopping people becoming terrorists.

However, the strategy remains deeply controversial. Critics believe Prevent is counter-productive and discriminates against Muslims, while others have said there is no clear way to measure its effectiveness.

Speaking on Radio 4’s Today programme, Babu said counter-extremism officials “should not be putting Muslim community in a separate box when it comes to safeguarding vulnerable young people”.

He said there was a “spectacular lack of diversity” in local safeguarding services and police forces that meant many of those involved in Prevent did not understand the communities they serve, particularly in cities such as London and Birmingham.

Babu – who has been involved with the National Association of Muslim Police and was chairman of the Association of Muslim Officers within the Met – added that Prevent money had been given to organisations such as the counter-extremism thinktank Quilliam Foundation, which he said was viewed with deep suspicion in the Muslim community.

“People had an open mind when [Prevent] first came in,” he said. “Over the years you’ve had the issue about cameras that caused a huge level of mistrust. But actually the organisations that the government have been prepared to talk to have been very, very challenging.”

Britain’s most senior counter-terrorism officer, Sir Peter Fahy, accepted that Prevent was hampered in its early days by concerns in the Muslim community about the Iraq war. Overall, however, he said the programme had been very successful.

“What you’ve got to do is make sure this is about safeguarding more in general. There is a danger in saying this is just about the Muslim community because I think all parents agonise about how you get the right balance between allowing your children some freedom and trying to protect them, particularly when you’ve got all this material on social media,” he said.

“But I’ve got to be really clear here: the prime responsibility for stopping young people going to Syria and being attracted by Isis has to lie with parents. If there’s one thing possibly we have made a mistake in Prevent is if we have created the impression that that somehow it is the job of the police.”

Asid Sadiq,president of of the National Association of Muslim Police, said he disagreed with Babu’s criticism’s of Prevent.

He told the Guardian: “Prevent has moved on a lot. Initially there were some teething problems but it is now moving in the right direction. I think Prevent is working quite well. It has made a difference. Del is entitled to his opinion, we’ve made a lot of progress.”

Sadiq diagreed that Prevent was a “toxic brand” or seen as a spy program: “People do understand the importance of it,” he said.

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/mar/09/anti-radicalisation-prevent-strategy-a-toxic-brand

سيف الله

03-10-2015, 08:30 PM

Salaam

Another update

‘Prevent’ is not just a toxic brand, it is a toxic agenda that needs challenging

Former Metropolitan Police commander, Dal Babu, has argued that the government’s counter-extremism policy, ‘Prevent’, has become a ‘toxic brand’ viewed with suspicion by Muslims in the UK. His comments were reported a day after the Sunday Telegraph announced a planned extension of counter-extremism powers by Home Secretary Theresa May, which were largely welcomed by Shadow ‘Justice’ spokesman, Sadiq Khan – illustrating the ‘arms race’ between the main parties as each tries to appear tougher on ‘extremism’ than the other.

Taji Mustafa, Media Representative of Hizb ut-Tahrir in Britain commented, “’Prevent’ has rightly become a toxic brand – not because it has been wrongly executed or misunderstood, but because it is a fundamentally flawed and ‘toxic’ agenda.”

“It has been built on the false premise that the more Islamic a person is, the more of a potential threat they are.”

“It has worked on a presumption that those with Islamic values or political views that dissent from the state’s standpoint are to be considered suspect, so needing state-organised reprogramming through the Channel programme.”

“It has quite deliberately deflected attention away from foreign policy, even though that link to acts of violence within the UK is well established.”

“It is a policy that uses a security narrative to counter political and religious beliefs. This was made clearer when, in December 2014, police chief Sir Peter Fahy said that the police risk being turned into a “thought police”.”

“It is a policy that is more commonly seen in totalitarian states. In the same comment, Fahy pointed out that since there was no precise definition of ‘extremism’, the police had worked to their own definitions, and expressed concerns that this was on the road to a “police state”.”

“The recent Counter-Terrorism and Security Act now places this role of thought policing and referral for reprogramming with teachers, nursery workers, health workers and universities – bringing echoes of 1950s McCarthyism or even the Stasi in East Germany.”

“Hizb ut-Tahrir feels it is mandatory to further expose this malicious and flawed agenda to the Muslim community and to the wider society – and we state our intention to continue to do this as we have done for over a decade.”

http://www.hizb.org.uk/press-releases/prevent-is-not-just-a-toxic-brand-it-is-a-toxic-agenda-that-needs-challenging

سيف الله

03-10-2015, 08:35 PM

Salaam

oh dear, its getting worse

Extremism in Britain: Now the crackdown is launched

The Government is planning a series of tough new measures to combat the growing threat from Islamist extremists.

A leaked draft of the Home Office’s new counter-extremism strategy, seen by The Telegraph, targets Sharia courts and calls for a ban on radicals working unsupervised with children over fears the young could be brainwashed.

Other measures include a requirement that staff at job centres identify vulnerable claimants who may become targets for radicalisation, after public outrage at people who hate Britain being able to live off the state.

There will also be an introduction of penalties in the benefits system to make people learn English to improve their integration into British society.

The rules on granting citizenship will also be tightened to ensure new residents embrace “British values”.

The crackdown is part of a new “get tough” strategy to deal with the perceived growing threat to the UK from Islamist extremists.

It follows the unmasking of “Jihadi John” as Mohammed Emwazi, a 26-year-old university graduate radicalised in London, and the attacks on Paris in January by a French terrorist cell with links to Britain.

The new report, drawn up by the Home Office with a foreword by Theresa May, the Home Secretary, will spearhead a drive to thwart extremists and attempt to prevent the radicalisation of young British Muslims. The Sunday Telegraph has been told that the number of jihadists who have now travelled to Syria to fight with the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (Isil) has exceeded more than 700.

Of those, about 320 “dangerous” jihadists have now returned to the UK after fighting with Isil, reinforcing the urgent need in Whitehall for a new set of anti-extremist measures.

The new counter-extremism policy targets a much broader problem than just finding and catching terrorists and aims to tackle radical preachers and individuals who try to brainwash others and encourage them to embrace extremist views.

The new approach strengthens Mrs May’s grip on how the Government tackles extremists. Responsibility previously lay with Eric Pickles at the Department for Communities and Local Government.

But his department has attracted criticism within government for being too sympathetic to Islamist groups.

Last year, Mrs May promised to “undermine and eliminate extremism in all its forms”. The Home Office draft document says it is not “primarily” directed at terrorism, but at behaviour which, while “often legal”, is said to cause social division and “very significant damage to our communities”.

Such behaviour includes hate speech by extremist preachers, the activities of some local authorities and plots such as the “Trojan Horse” conspiracy in Birmingham where hardline Muslims pushed out secular head teachers to Islamise non-faith state schools.

Other extremist behaviour targeted under the crackdown is likely to include violence against women, such as female genital mutilation and honour killings.

The strategy’s publication has been delayed for months amid arguments about how strongly worded it should be.

The Sunday Telegraph understands that it will be published before Parliament is dissolved for the general election at the end of the month but could be implemented immediately.

The document says that “in the past, there has been a risk that the Government sends an ambivalent and dangerous message – that it doesn’t really matter if you don’t believe in democracy”.

It adds: “We need to stand up and be more assertive in promoting our values and challenging the extremists who fundamentally oppose them.

“This will include explaining our foreign policy [and] promoting mainstream voices supporting the quiet majority in all communities who oppose extremism.”

Sharia courts and councils, which are used by some Muslims to resolve disputes and have been accused of operating a “parallel system of law”, are one focus of the document.

It says that the Government is “concerned about the way Sharia councils are working in some parts of the country” with “troubling reports that in some areas women have suffered from the way these councils work, either through forced marriage or discriminatory divorce proceedings.”

The strategy calls for an “independent review” into the Sharia courts’ operation and also makes specific reference to the “particularly concerning” Trojan Horse plot, which it says was “not an isolated example of schools where extreme views became prevalent… we have seen evidence of extremist ‘entryism’ where extremists have consciously sought to gain positions of influence to better enable them to promote their own values”.

It says that universities, charities and local councils are especially vulnerable to entryism. It names the London borough of Tower Hamlets as a place where “widespread allegations of extremism, homophobia and anti-Semitism have been allowed to fester without proper challenge” and where the council’s “abuse of taxpayers’ money” and “culture of cronyism” have been reflected in “partisan community politics that was to the detriment of integration and community cohesion”.

Last night details emerged of another example of alleged “entryism”. The Sunday Telegraph can disclose that an extremist who has called for the killing of British troops, Azad Ali, was joined in Parliament by the Labour MPs Yasmin Qureshi, Andy Slaughter and Gerald Kaufman and Sayeeda Warsi, the former Tory communities minister, to launch a “Muslim manifesto” for the general election.

The manifesto, by Mr Ali’s group, Mend, promotes the Islamist agenda of Muslim grievance and victimhood and includes demonstrable lies, such as a claim that the killing of Drummer Lee Rigby led to the murder of a Muslim man, Mohammed Saleem, in Birmingham.

Mr Saleem was actually killed three weeks before the Rigby attack. Mend is the new name for a group, Iengage, which was removed as administrative support to the all-party parliamentary group on Islamophobia for its links to extremism.

Under the new plan, councils will have to “take steps to ensure the safeguarding of children in hitherto unregulated places”, such as supplementary schools and tuition centres. One teacher at the centre of the Trojan Horse scandal has been handed an interim ban but has instead set up a private tuition centre, which nothing currently prevents him from doing. The new document also promises tighter rules on the granting of British citizenship, saying that any applicant will have to “prove adherence to British values and active participation in society”.

Refugees who otherwise qualify for asylum will not be given it if they cross a “carefully defined legal threshold” of extremism or opposition to British values. Instead they will be given a “new form of restrictive leave to remain”.

Even visitors will have to comply, with “British values” made “an integral part of applying for a visa”.

The strategy says that the Government “will introduce the power to refuse or remove licences to sponsor visa applications from any institution in the UK which promotes extremist views or knowingly and without challenge hosts extremist speakers”.

A number of universities, including Emwazi’s alma mater, Westminster, could be caught by this provision, which would seriously affect their income from overseas students. The launch of the Home Office anti-extremism strategy could well now coincide with a Downing Street report into the Muslim Brotherhood due imminently.

The report into the Muslim Brotherhood, the world’s most influential Islamist organisation, is expected to denounce the group as the “ideological precursor to terrorism”.

The report is so sensitive it will not be made public in full but a two-page executive summary is due to be published in the next fortnight.

http://www.hizb.org.uk/news-watch/extremism-in-britain-now-the-crackdown-is-launched

سيف الله

03-10-2015, 08:48 PM

Salaam

Another update

It isn’t Facebook that feeds terror. It’s war and tyranny

It takes some mastery of spin to turn the litany of intelligence failures over last year’s butchery of the off-duty soldier Lee Rigby into a campaign against Facebook. But that’s exactly how David Cameron’s government and a pliant media have disposed of the report by Westminster’s committee of intelligence trusties.

You might have expected Whitehall’s security machine to be in the frame for its spectacular incompetence in spying on the two killers: from filling out surveillance applications wrongly and losing one suspect’s house number, to closing down the surveillance of another – just as the pair were preparing the Woolwich attack.

Centre stage might have been the admission that British intelligence could have been “complicit” in Michael Adebolajo’s torture in Kenya, and tried to cover that up. There is evidence that MI5’s attempts to recruit the Muslim convert on his return to Britain played a part in triggering the killing – though the trusties thought better than to inquire too closely into the matter.

Instead it was the US internet giant, Britain’s prime minister insisted, that was really to blame. Facebook had “blood on their hands”, the Sun declared, as the Daily Mail denounced the Mark Zuckerberg corporation’s “twisted libertarian ideology”.

It’s nonsense, of course, but it gets the authorities off the hook. The spooks couldn’t handle the intelligence they had, and the US tech companies already operate in collusion with western governments. As Richard Barrett, MI6’s former counter-terrorism director, points out, the scale of material the internet barons would need to dredge would overwhelm the security services, let alone the companies.

No matter. The Rigby report’s timing was ideal for the government, which is launching the seventh anti-terrorism bill since 2000 – including new measures for the internal exile of suspects, crackdowns on schools and universities that fail to act against “extremists”, and requirements on internet service providers to hand over users’ identities.

Theresa May says Britain is facing the greatest terrorism threat in its history, and that the security services have foiled 40 plots since 2005. Who would know? Even ministers are in no position to judge the claims securocrats make about themselves. For the intelligence agencies the terror threat is good for business – as Cameron made clear this week when he announced another £130m for their already swollen budgets.

That there is a small number of would-be jihadists prepared to carry out acts of carnage in revenge for British and western bloodletting in the Muslim world is not in doubt. But, given the ease of carrying out low-tech atrocities – and the scale of the IRA’s armed campaign of the 70s and 80s – it’s striking how few there have actually been.

But the war on terror has now become a war without end: a permanent state where a politically constructed “national security” trumps the actual security of citizens and feeds a continual ideological campaign to discipline and intimidate the Muslim community.

For politicians, the promotion of customised “British values” has the advantage of putting themselves on the right side of the new culture wars while dogwhistling to racism in the process. But it certainly does nothing for community integration or public safety.

The anti-Muslim drumbeat is relentless. In the wake of the “Trojan horse” onslaught against mainly Muslim state schools in Birmingham, which branded conservative religiosity “extremism”, politically directed Ofsted inspectors have now turned their attention to east London.

Six Muslim schools in Tower Hamlets have been failed and a majority-Muslim state secondary school with good results has been put in special measures because of risks of “extremism”. That followed hard on the heels of Eric Pickles, the communities secretary, sending in commissioners to take over Tower Hamlets council from the twice-elected Muslim mayor, Lutfur Rahman.

Pickles claimed that Rahman had dispensed grants like a “medieval monarch”, though neither the police nor the PwC report Pickles commissioned found evidence of wrongdoing – and Rahman’s progressive record is widely acknowledged. But the undercurrent of accusations of extremism and corruption was clear – as was the message of the politically driven Charities Commission’s decision to put 55 Muslim charities on a watchlist for links to “radicalisation and extremism”.

The chilling impact of this campaign on Muslims in Britain is obvious enough, just as it fosters fear and prejudice in the non-Muslim population. One result is to feed a rising tide of Islamophobic attacks. The Metropolitan police recorded a 65% annual increase in anti-Muslim hate crimes in London in the past year alone.

On top of that, as the Rigby report blithely conceded, “the government’s counter-terrorism programmes are not working”. Its Prevent strategy has stopped many Muslims from speaking freely, but prevented little else. Around 500 Britons are now estimated to be fighting in Syria and Iraq.

But why would that be a surprise? The British and US governments first supported the rebels in Syria – as they did in Libya – and then turned against most of them, as the jihadist campaign mushroomed around Isis, intensifying cynicism about the west’s role in the Muslim world.

Which remains the heart of the war on terror 13 years on. It’s not considered seemly to mention it when discussing terrorism and extremism, but western wars and support for dictatorship are what drive jihadist terror in Britain and elsewhere, just as they fuelled it in the region itself.

Every single perpetrator of such violence in Britain has spelled out that it is carried out in response to Britain’s invasions and occupations in the Muslim world. Now British forces are once again carrying out bombing raids alongside US forces in Iraq – driving other rebel groups into the arms of Isis in the process – they are creating the conditions for more violence at home.

No amount of surveillance or oppressive legislation will stop those determined to launch attacks. The war on terror has spawned terror from the start, fomenting community divisions and curtailing freedoms everywhere. That’s true for those states that launched it – as well as those on the receiving end.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/nov/27/facebook-terror-war-tyranny-britain-fosters-fear-racism

M.I.A.

03-10-2015, 10:26 PM

Its funny because if you look at other forums, neutral or antimuslim.

They have just as many articals on how lenient the government is on extremism and how the Muslim community is given special favour..

Its literally who can screw up the most just to make the government.. Make a bad decision... Or another bad decision.

Its strange because there are Muslim countries with in fighting and underclasses.

Its absurd.

Literally anybody that panders to a sensationalist press does not know what's good for them.

The UK had a huge anti Islam march just recently, they came all the way from Europe.

..it was met by protest by a vastly greater number.

They should have put that on the front page.

It seems we all become puppets. Its just a matter of who pulls your strings.

سيف الله

03-11-2015, 05:47 PM

Salaam

Another update

British Muslims condemn terror laws for creating 'witch-hunt' against Islam

Strongly worded public statement, which includes signatories from Cage and Hizb ut-Tahrir, condemns ‘crude and divisive’ government election tactics

Anti-Muslim rhetoric and “endless ‘anti-terror’ laws” are in danger of creating a McCarthyite witch-hunt against Muslims, according to the signatories of a strongly worded public statement, who include several controversial figures.

The statement accuses the government of “criminalising” Islam and trying to silence “legitimate critique and dissent”, and decries what it describes as “the ongoing demonisation of Muslims in Britain [and] their values, as well as prominent scholars, speakers and organisations.”

Signatories of the statement include Moazzam Begg, director of outreach for Cage, the organisation that came under fire last week after it sought to explain the radicalisation of Isis killer Mohammed Emwazi. Members of Islamist organisation Hizb ut-Tahrir, which is banned in several countries including Germany, have also signed the statement.

It comes after it was revealed earlier this week that the Home Office is planning a “more assertive” stance against extremism, with a series of measures including imposing penalties on benefit claimants who do not learn English and making visa applicants commit themselves to “British values”.

The statement, seen by the Guardian, reads: “We reject the portrayal of Muslims and the Muslim community as a security threat. The latest act of parliament, the Counter-Terrorism and Security Act, threatens to create a ‘McCarthyite’ witch-hunt against Muslims, with nursery workers, schoolteachers and universities expected to look out for signs of increased Islamic practice as signs of ‘radicalisation’.”

The signatories state that the “Muslim issue” is being exploited for political capital in the runup to the general election.

“Exploiting public fears about security is as dishonourable as exploiting public fears about immigration,” the statement reads. “Both deflect attention from crises in the economy and health service, but are crude and divisive tactics, where the big parties inevitably try to outdo each other in their nastiness.”

Jahangir Mohammed, director of the Centre for Muslim Affairs, said the Counter-Terrorism and Security Act had made the entire Muslim community feel targeted. “Counter-terrorism policies are flawed and alienating,” he said. “This approach is not working and actually backfiring. The entire Muslim community is being blamed for the actions of a violent few and as a result Muslims in Britain feel marginalised.”

He added that the Act would legitimise public servants’ suspicions of Muslims and their beliefs and political views. “This goes against equality policies that state individuals should not be discriminated due to their political and religious beliefs,” he said. “It will serve to destroy good community relations that have been built over many years and will treat Muslims as a suspect community.”

Asked if he thought the statement could backfire, he added: “There are those who may want to look at it in a bad light, but in general Muslims are not worried about this: they are very angry and frustrated with the current climate and policies, which target the Muslim community, and want their voices heard.”

The list of signatories also include the high-profile Muslim converts Yvonne Ridley and Cherie Blair’s half-sister, Lauren Booth, as well as academic Dr Reza Pankhurst, who is a member of Hizb ut-Tahrir and spent four years in an Egyptian jail for trying to recruit others to the group’s cause in 2002.

Another signatory is Shakeel Begg, the imam of the Lewisham Islamic Centre, which was attended by the Woolwich killers, Michael Adebolajo and Michael Adebowale, in the months leading up to attack on Drummer Lee Rigby.

The statement goes on to criticise “the continued public targeting of Muslims through endless ‘anti-terror’ laws,” adding that there have been 10 such pieces of legislation since the year 2000. Such legislation gives “huge power to the state”, while fuelling “media hysteria”, it claims.

The group states that the use of words such as “radicalisation” and “extremism” prevents debate, adding that it is “unacceptable to label as ‘extremist’ numerous normative Islamic opinions on a variety of issues”.

Dilly Hussain, a spokesman for the group, said the list of 62 signatories included moderate Islamic thinkers alongside names he acknowledged were considered “controversial”. He pointed to the likes of Arzu Merali of the Islamic Human Rights Commission, and Musharraf Hussain , chief executive and chief imam of the Karimia Institute and an adviser to the Quilliam Foundation.

Asked why the mainstream Muslim Council of Britain, which could not immediately be contacted for a statement, were not signatories, Hussain said that members of the MCB were signatories, but because the organisation itself represents 500 mosques with different opinions, that made it difficult for the MCB to sign such a statement.

Tauqir Ishaq, a senior spokesman for Muslim Action Forum (MAF), which organised a rally of thousands of British Muslims protesting against cartoons showing the prophet Muhammad, said Muslims were feeling frustrated and disillusioned.

“People are being asked to compromise their faith and many feel there is no alternative here. The current environment has contributed to issues like young people leaving to go to Syria,” he said.

Ishaq added that he had been working on deradicalising people for a number of years, but that the government’s counter-terrorism legislation and Prevent strategy had pushed extremism underground. “Raiding mosques and investigating charities is not the way to tackle extremism,” he said. “Every Muslim is being treated with suspicion and heavy-handed tactics are being used against them. Celebrities like Jimmy Savile and Gary Glitter do not represent all British celebrities: why then do a minority of individuals who do something wrong become a representation of the entire Islamic faith?”

The combative statement declares a “concern about peace and security for all”, but adds: “We, however, refuse to be lectured on peace-building and harmony by a government that plays divisive politics and uses fear to elicit uncertainty in the general public, whilst maintaining support for dictators across the Muslim world, who continue to brutalise and legitimate political opposition to their tyranny.”

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/mar/11/british-muslims-terror-laws-witch-hunt-islam-cage-hizb-ut-tahrir

سيف الله

03-11-2015, 05:49 PM

Salaam

Here is the statement

Muslim community rejects the State’s criminalisation of Islam and condemns moves to silence legitimate critique and dissent

This joint statement expresses a position with respect to the ongoing demonisation of Muslims in Britain, their values as well as prominent scholars, speakers and organisations.

We, the undersigned Imams, sheikhs, advocates, activists, community leaders, community organisations and student bodies of the Muslim community, make the following points in this regard:

1) We reject the exploitation of Muslim issues and the ‘terror threat’ for political capital, in particular in the run up to a general election. Exploiting public fears about security is as dishonourable as exploiting public fears about immigration. Both deflect attention from crises in the economy and health service, but are crude and divisive tactics, where the big parties inevitably try to outdo each other in their nastiness.

2) We deplore the continued public targeting of Muslims through endless ‘anti-terror’ laws. There have been around ten pieces of legislation since the year 2000, all giving huge powers to the state, which have fuelled a media hysteria even though in most cases no crime was committed. This has created a distressing and harmful backlash towards Muslims, especially women and children.

3) We reject the portrayal of Muslims and the Muslim community as a security threat. The latest Act of Parliament, the Counter-Terrorism and Security Act, threatens to create a ‘McCarthyite’ witch-hunt against Muslims, with nursery workers, schoolteachers and Universities expected to look out for signs of increased Islamic practice as signs of ‘radicalisation’. Such a narrative will only further damage social cohesion as it incites suspicion and ill feeling in the broader community.

4) The expedient use of undefined and politically charged words like ‘radicalisation’ and ‘extremism’ is unacceptable as it criminalises legitimate political discourse and criticism of the stance of successive governments towards Muslims domestically and abroad. We strongly oppose political proposals to further ‘tackle’ and ‘crack down’ on such dissenting voices in the Muslim community despite their disavowal of violence and never having supported terrorist acts.

5) Similarly, it is unacceptable to label as ‘extremist’ numerous normative Islamic opinions on a variety of issues, founded on the Quran and Sunnah of Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him), implying there is a link between them and violence, using such labels as an excuse to silence speakers.

6) We affirm our commitment to robust political and ideological debate and discourse for the betterment of humanity at large. The attempts by the state to undermine this bring into question its commitment to its very own purported values and liberal freedoms.

7) We affirm our concern about peace and security for all. We, however, refuse to be lectured on peace-building and harmony by a government that plays divisive politics and uses fear to elicit uncertainty in the general public, whilst maintaining support for dictators across the Muslim world, who continue to brutalise and legitimate political opposition to their tyranny.

8) We affirm our intention to hold on to our beliefs and values, to speak out for what is right and against what is wrong based on our principles, whether that be on matters such as the securitisation of society, corporate hegemony, war and peace, economic exploitation, social and moral issues in society, nationalism and racism. Not to do so would be dangerous and leave our community unguided.

9) We call on all fair minded people in Britain – including politicians, journalists, academics, bloggers and others concerned about fairness for all – to continue to scrutinise the scare tactics, fear-mongering and machinations of politicians, which do not bode well for societal harmony and only increase the alienation felt and experienced by Britain’s Muslim community.

It is time that politicians stop diverting the attention of the British public away from its domestic crises and disastrous foreign policies by repeatedly playing the ‘Muslim’ or ‘national security’ card.

Signed:

Abdurraheem Green, iERA
Anjum Anwar, Teacher/Chair of Woman’s Voice
Arzu Merali, Islamic Human Rights Commission
Dr Abdul Wahid, Hizb ut-Tahrir, Britain
Dr Musharraf Hussain, CEO and Chief Imam, Karimia Institute
Dr Reza Pankhurst, Author and academic
Dr Saeed Al-Gadi, Presenter at Islam Channel
Dr Shahrul Hussain, Birmingham
Dr Uthman Lateef, Hittin Institute
Hodan Yusuf, Journalist
Ibrahim Hewitt, Leicester
Ibtihal Bsis, Barrister, Broadcaster, Hizb ut-Tahrir
Imam Abdul Wahhab, East London
Imam Abdul-Malik Sheikh, Imam & Khatib, London
Imam Abdul Mateen, East London
Imam Aziz Ibraheem, Iman Trust Community Centre, St Helens
Imam Irfan Patel, Jamiah Masjid, Gillngham
Imam Shakeel Begg, Lewisham Islamic Centre
Jahangir Mohammed, Centre for Muslim Affairs
Lauren Booth, Journalist
Mahmud Choudhury – Secretary Poplar Shahjalal Masjid
Massoud Shadjareh, Islamic Human Rights Commission
Moazzam Begg, Director of Outreach for CAGE
Muhammad Mustaqeem Shah, Al Mustaqeem Centre, Bradford
Shaikh Abu Abdissalam, London
Shaikh Haitham Haddad, London
Shaikh Haitham Tamim, Chairman of the Utrujj Foundation
Shaikh Khaled Fekry, Imam, London
Shaikh Omer Hamdoon, Muslim Association of Britain
Shaikh Sulaiman Gani, South London
Shaikh Zuber Karim, Intelligence Finance Consultancy
Shaikh Tauqir Ishaq, CEO Hijaaz College
Ustadh Kamal Abu Zahra, Lecturer on Islamic studies, London
Yusuf Chambers – Freelance community activist
Yusuf Patel, SRE Islamic
Azad Ali, Muslim Safety Forum
Asghar Bukhari, Muslim Public Affairs Committee, UK
Roshan Muhammad Salih, Broadcaster and journalist
Ghulam Haydar, Director of Myriad Foundation
Shoaib Khalid Bhatti, Muslim Lobby, Scotland
Dr Daud Abdullah, British Muslim Initiave
Shaikh Chokri Majoli, Imam, London
Yvonne Ridley, Vice President European Muslim League
Muhammad Shafique, Ramadan Foundation, Rochdale
Hasan Alkatib, Journalist
Mazhar Khan, Manchester Muslim Forum
Saaqib Abu Ishaaq, Project Medinah, Rochdale
Omar Ali, Chair of Brighton and Hove Muslim Community
Sofia Ahmed, Activist & founder of Muslim Women Against Femen
Nalini Naidoo, Newham Muslim Women’s Association
Irfan Hussain, Bradford Dawah Centre
Leyla Habibti, humanitarian activist
Tasmin Nazeer, freelance journalist
Ali Anees, Eccles Mosque
Saeed Akhtar, Cheadle Mosque
Yousef Dar, Community Safety Forum, Manchester
Dr Shameel Islam-Zulfiqar, Humanitarian campaigner
Majid Freeman, Humanitarian aid worker, friend of Alan Henning
Laura Stuart, Humanitarian aid worker, journalist and activist
Fatima Barkatula, Scholar and Director of Seeds of Change
Salman Sayyid, Author and Academic
Shezana Hafiz, Humanitarian Activist
Abdus Samad, IQRA TV / TV Producer
Alomgir Ali, MDRF, London
Shamsuz zaman, CYCD Chairperson, Luton
Tahir Talati, Imam Zakariya Academy, London
Abdul Razaq, Principal Iqra Academy, Peterborough
Fahad Ansari, Human Rights Solicitor
Adullah al Andalusi, Muslim Debate Initiative
Yusuf Shabbir, Blackburn Muslim Association
Suhail Akubat, Imam, Masjid e Salaam, Preston
Bilal Toorawa, Imam, Blackburn
Councillor Salim Mulla, Blackburn
Mohammed Alsheikh Mousa Attari Alhijazy, Alhuda Prophetic Medical Centre, London
Haji Mohammed Walayat, Sunni Council of Mosques, Luton
Edris Seth, Political Activist, Bolton
Ali Ahmad, Imam, East London
Zahid Akhtar, Founder Documenting Oppression Against Muslims, Walsall
Shirajul Haque, Imam, London
Ismail Rawat, Preston Muslim Forum, Preston
Khaleel Ur Rahman, The Deen Project / Activist, Derby
Ilyas Abu Yusuf, Imam, Bolton
Yaseen Ahmedabadi, General Secretary, Nuneaton Muslim Society
Munir Aya, Volunteer, Zakaria Mosque, Bolton
Raheema Bux, Community Worker, Blackburn
Nasima Begum, Solicitor, Luton
Mustafa Mustafa, Youth Worker, South London
Amanpaul Dhaliwal, Isalmc21c.com, London
Khaleel Ur Rahman, The Deen Project / Activist, Derby
Tahir Alam, PHD Student, SOAS, London
Dr Ajmal Hussain, GP, Stoke on Trent
Hafiz Kasim Javed, Community Activist, Rochdale
Ahmed Desai, Imam, Bradford
Muhammad Hansrot, Imam, Croydon, London
Muhammad Rahman, Teacher, Ilford, London
Rizwan Ahmed, Imam, Sheffield
Abdul Rehman Saleem, Khateeb / Activist, London
Inamul Hussain Yusuf, Teacher, Bolton
Dr Suhel Ahmed, GP, Bolton
Nasar Khan, Quran Project Volunteer, Birmingham
Asad Zaman, Imam & Chair Inter-Mosque Sports Association, Cheadle
Dr Siema Iqbal, GP, Manchester
Professor Yasin Patel, Senior Professor and Academic, London
Mohammed Makeen Salloo, Imam, Walsall
Qasim Asad, Community Voice, Blackburn
Ibrahim Bismillah, Director of Darul Ihsan Academy, Bradford
Faisal Mahmood, President, UKIM Peterborough

http://www.hizb.org.uk/current-affairs/muslim-community-rejects-the-states-criminalisation-of-islam-and-condemns-moves-to-silence-legitimate-critique-and-dissent

CalmPassenger

03-11-2015, 05:59 PM

Well Every one is trying their best to survive. Do you have any option left?

Narrated Abu Huraira:
Allah's Apostle said, "There will be afflictions (in the near future) during which a sitting person will be better than a standing one, and the standing one will be better than the walking one, and the walking one will be better than the running one, and whoever will expose himself to these afflictions, they will destroy him. So whoever can find a place of protection or refuge from them, should take shelter in it."

سيف الله

03-16-2015, 10:19 PM

Salaam

Another update

BRITISH PRESS RESORT TO FABRICATION IN AN ATTEMPT TO SMEAR CAGE

The Mail on Sunday has today made unsubstantiated claims that Moazzam Begg, Outreach Director at CAGE, was at the same training camp and trained Mohammed Emwazi.

“New evidence has come to light that means that the CPS and West midlands police are dropping all charges against Moazzam Begg who is an innocent man”
- Assistant chief Constable Marcus Beale

So despite wasting millions of pounds in taxpayers’ money on his imprisonment and legal fees and his exoneration has the MoS investigation unearthed vital new evidence?

Amandla Thomas-Johnson, Communications Officer at CAGE said:

“The plain facts are that the article is barely credible and relies on “unnamed official sources” speculating over unnamed and unidentifiable people in balaclavas. However it fits with an ongoing smear campaign against CAGE that has included the most senior UK politicians from the Prime Minister to Foreign and Home secretaries but also involved government regulators pressuring funders and other NGOs to boycott CAGE for asking uncomfortable questions. The vitriol and ferocity of the attacks on a minuscule organisation like ourselves should beg more questions of the attackers rather than the victims.”

“Our role is to provide a voice for the voiceless and is in line with statutory duties of whistle blowing. These questions will not go away and in a week when we are hearing devastating testimony by David Duckenfield over the Hillsborough tragedy and the collusion between elements of the media, politicians and the police we should not be surprised that 30 years later this could still be happening.”

“The apology by the Metropolitan Police Commissioner to the parents of the three teenage girls who left for Syria was welcome but the role of Canadian intelligence services in ushering them in to the hands of ISIS despite UK, Turkey and Canada all being NATO members is the real issue and requires a full contemporaneous inquiry with proper oversight.”

http://www.cageuk.org/press-release/british-press-resort-fabrication-attempt-smear-cage

سيف الله

04-07-2015, 02:43 PM

Salaam

Another update

CTS Act and the Elections 2015

The CTS Act will be enforced into statutory legislation before the elections in May. The fact that all MPs backed the issuing of this bill means regardless of which party wins, all will champion the CTS Act. The negative reaction by the Muslim community since the announcement of the Bill back in September has been ignored in its entirety only confirming the anti Islamic narrative embedded in the British establishment.

The CTS Act is designed to root out “extremism” by using the state institutions such as Ofsted, the charity commission, the NHS and those in the public service sector such as teachers, doctors, social services e.t.c to report subjective indications of “extremism” which will then be further pursued by the police, security and intelligence agencies. For example if any child even as young as 4 years of age express thoughts, opinions or actions which appear to be alien to “British Values” and hence “extreme” then they would be treated as a suspect for potential “radicalisation” and terrorist acts in the future.

The CTS Act has been the centre of attention in the Muslim communities as it has direct implications that will affect all segments of the Muslim community. To combat the CTS Act Muslims have united in various campaigns such as the “Stop the Bill” campaign before it was enacted, writing letters to MP’s, the education and health care institutions, signing petitions, as well as holding a number of public meetings around the country to raise awareness about the new legislation.

It is imperative that the objective behind these actions is clear lest the outcomes we seek are different. This could be counter-productive and potentially backfire on the Muslim community. One thing that’s clear however, is that voting for any of the political parties in the coming elections will only legitimise the policies against Islam. Muslims have no room for political manoeuvring within the secular liberal political paradigm that is in direct ideological conflict with the values and objectives of the Muslim community. To participate in a political framework that has for decades proved to be at odds with Islamic values such as the pressure to conform to liberal values such as same-sex marriage, non-segregation, banning of non-stunned meat to list a few will only further drag Islam into the Western idea of modernity and “Christianise” Islam until it is no longer distinguishable to “British Values.”

Moreover, the declining trend in voting polls by the general population has not occurred in a vacuum. The political apathy is indicative of a society that is witnessing fundamental ideological contradictions of the British democracy. For example, the bailout of the banks with tax payer’s money following the economic crisis contradicted the concept of free market economy. More recently the HSBC scandal, which saw the exclusion of monetary figures being left out by the bank from as far back as 2007, so large organisations could pay less in taxes saving them millions exposed the “rule of law” having one rule for the rich and another for the poor. Extra judicial rendition, complicity in supporting dictators, complicity in CIA torture are a few examples from a long ugly list of ideological contradictions.

History has shown us that the successful way to deter antagonistic policies is by creating an opinion against it through intellectually undermining the arguments used to justify those policies. By projecting a strong clear unified opinion it is possible to deter or even change the government’s policy. In such a case, a government would either scrap those plans or result in absolutism which would only further expose the weakness of the government. In such a scenario the moral integrity of the government would be made redundant.

We can learn from the Sirah how the Prophet PBUH and the companions were able to generate an intellectual atmosphere that resulted in the Quraysh continuously changing their tactics to attack Islam. From torture to propaganda to boycott and even attempting to reach a compromise, each policy was repudiated due to the firm adherence and conveyance to the message of Islam. The tyranny of the Quraysh exposed their intellectual bankruptcy even amongst their own clan such that the boycott ended after Zuhayr ibn Abi Umayyah went around the Ka’bah seven times addressing the crowd who were present, he said, “O people of Makkah, are we to eat and clothe ourselves while Banu Hashim perish, unable to buy or sell? By Allah I will not rest until this **** boycotting document is torn up.” Abu Jahl, who was nearby, exclaimed, “You lie, by Allah it shall not be torn up.” At this point the other four Zama’ah, Abu al-Bakhtari, al-Mut’im and Hisham, who had dispersed among the crowd, shouted back in support of Zuhayr. Abu Jahl realized that it was a matter which had been arranged beforehand, so he feared the worst and backed off. When al-Mut’im went to tear up the document he discovered that white ants had already eaten it except for the words ‘In your name, O Allah’.

We can also learn from examples in recent history such as in the 1950s, when the African-American Civil rights movements reached boiling point. This revolution saw a number of leading figures who made pivotal impacts, the likes of which included Malcom X, Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King Jr. They gained strength by their numbers and allied against racial segregation and discrimination. This eventually culminated into a greater awareness of the racial discrimination and led to a public opinion that pressurised the government into prohiniting racial segregation. Whilst we recognise that the underlying problem of racism has not been resolved due to an inherent flaw in the concept of nation states, the point here is to show the ability of people to shift a political position by developing an opinion that undermines the moral and intellectual authority of such policies.

Similarly, women’s suffrage gained momentum in the early part of the 19th centuryaim the UK as women became increasingly politically active (demonstrations, disrupting public events, pampheting etc) that resulted in women gaining the vote.

Thus the way we should respond to the CTS Act is not through challenging legislation through the political framework but challenging it by exposing the intellectual weakness of the argument used to justify the CTS Act amongst Muslims and Non-Muslims. By exposing the narrative that non-violent ideas lead to violence when in reality research has consistently shown that it is grievance of government policies such as the war in Iraq/Afghanistan or the permission for cartoons to be published against the Prophet PBUH that leads to violence. Moreover, the CTS Act will result in antagonism between Muslims and local authorities due to the default position of suspicion on the Muslims and will lead to the branding of innocent Muslims.

Such arguments should be presented to all sectors of the community including those who are expected to implement the CTS Act which include teachers, doctors, social services, police e.t.c as well as educating them about those key ideas that the government are trying to criminalise such as the aspiration of Muslims to live under a Khilafah in the Muslim World. This will weaken their conviction in these policies and will result in a public opinion against the legislation scuppering the government’s plans and providing the space for Muslims to express their Islam. The intellectual cracks of secular liberal politics will be exposed as well as the tyrannical nature of the government presenting an opportunity for the wider society to learn about Islam.

http://www.hizb.org.uk/election-2015/cts-act-and-the-elections-2015

سيف الله

04-10-2015, 08:56 AM

Salaam

Good video

سيف الله

05-03-2015, 01:04 PM

Salaam

Another update

Is state Islamophobia coming to a UK classroom near you?

We cannot allow our schools to become seeding ground for this latest wave of state Islamophobia, says Max Rosenberg.

The National Union of Teachers conference attracted front page headlines over Easter for its stand on Prevent, the government so-called ‘anti-extremism’ strategy. Previously a voluntary scheme, Prevent has now become statutory under the Counter Terrorism Act (CTA). The union conference position represented a beacon of principle against state Islamophobia.

Since January, we have seen a steep rise in anti-Muslim racism: a wave of demonising coverage followed the Charlie Hebdo murders; a political and media backlash was mounted against CAGE, the human rights organisation for Muslim prisoners; Theresa May announced new Tory manifesto pledges including the power to close Mosques and religious ‘supplementary’ schools. May declared ‘game over’ for ‘non-violent extremists’ while Nigel Farage referred to a Muslim ‘fifth column’ out to kill us. Meanwhile the election campaign is panning out to be the most racist in decades.

Not surprising then that teachers’ delegates gave example after example of Muslim students refusing to express their opinions for fear of being labelled extremist. NUT conference heard how whole classes shut down in silence at the mention of Charlie Hebdo and students would not admit they found the cartoons offensive in case they were reported. Prevent officers have told teachers that a student who goes on a demonstration against the bombing of Gaza should be treated as a suspect; even charitable work for Palestine has been challenged. This is the tip of a growing iceberg.

Jan Nielsen, NUT delegate from Wandsworth, told the conference, “We are really being expected to be the frontline storm troopers, who listen, who spy, and notify the authorities about students that we may be suspicious of”.

This is enshrined in the Prevent ‘Channel’ programme for reporting students on a ‘pathway to radicalisation’. The Institute of Race Relations found school students had been referred to Channel panels after making strong pro-Palestinian statements or for articulating strong political opinions on the role of British forces in Afghanistan. Pressure from Channel managers on schools and colleges to deliver referrals was leading to increasing numbers of young people being identified to Channel even before the CTA was introduced.

The stakes are high. Teachers need to have the trust of students if they are to foster discussion and debate and where necessary, challenge illusions in the likes of Anjem Choudary or ISIS. If we allow the government and Prevent to foster a climate of ‘them and us’ our students will be exposed to greater anti-Muslim prejudice and ever greater risks.

There are also dangers that Prevent ‘training’ will lead to divisions between Muslim and non-Muslim staff as well as between teachers and students. One teacher told me that he and other Muslim staff refrained from expressing any disagreement in Prevent sessions, even though they found the content highly objectionable. At the same time he said some non-Muslim colleagues seemed oblivious to their own discriminatory attitudes.

Now and then…

On 15 February, 2003, two million marched against war in Iraq. In a vast display of multicultural unity, Muslim and non-Muslim, Jew, black, white, young and old, LGBT and straight, marched side by side, against war, Islamophobia, racism, and in defence of civil liberties. In the words of a slogan of the times… this was what democracy looked like.

Tragically, we were unable to stop them from going to war and millions have paid a horrific price. However they were never able to win hearts and minds. In a poll taken on the weekend of the 2003 demonstration, opposition to the war stood at 52%, with support for the war at 29%. A decade later, the warmongers and their apologists are no further forward. In a 2013 poll, 53% of those questioned said the invasion was wrong; only 27% thought it was right.

On terrorism, a YouGov poll in 2013 showed that a majority of the public (70%) believe the war has increased the risk of a terrorist attack on Britain.

It is in this context we need to understand the Counter Terrorism Act now coming into force and in particular the statutory status now bestowed on Prevent. State Islamophobia is to a certain extent working. Fifty-two percent of non-Muslims now think that Islam is incompatible with ‘British values’ and polls show an alarming increase in prejudice towards Muslims and Islam. The CTA is part of an attempt to break the unity between Muslims and non-Muslims, to undermine united opposition to war and above all, to shift the blame for terrorism from where it clearly lies – with the warmongers themselves - to Muslims as a whole and to opponents of government policy.

The Counter Terrorism Act (CTA)

Liberty has described the measures enabling the government to confiscate passports and suspend citizenship rights as “dumping suspect citizens like toxic waste”. I do not wish to downplay these aspects of the legislation. Yet perhaps the most sinister and pervasive measures are not aimed at terrorist suspects, they are aimed at you and me.

For a time, sections of government felt it too risky to legislate on the basis of political opinions. Instead they advocated a strategy of identifying and pursuing individuals they suspected of terrorist offences, or those they felt they could at least implicate.

However this did not satisfy those who wished to mount a full scale ideological assault. Such a strategy, strongly promoted by Michael Gove as education minister, was characterised as ‘draining the swamp’ (as opposed to ‘batting away the crocodiles from the boat’).

Under the CTA, schools, colleges and public bodies will be under a statutory obligation to report instances of ‘non-violent extremism’. To be clear, this is not about students suspected of planning criminal acts or absconding to Syria; such instances would be reported through established ‘safeguarding’ procedures and any teacher would want to act in such circumstances. This legislation is specifically aimed at targeting students for their political opinions. The rationale is pure McCarthyism: ‘non-violent extremists’, states the guidance, “purport to identify grievances to which terrorist organisations then claim to have a solution”. The underlying thesis is that ‘non-violent extremists’ provide the ideological vehicle for attacking ‘western liberal democracy' that terrorists then act upon.

This is what passes for ‘analysis’ promoted by a bunch of extremely right-wing ‘think-tanks’ such as the Henry Jackson Society (HJS) and the Quilliam Foundation. The old McCarthyite charge of ‘anti-Americanism’ has been given an Islamophobic facelift as “Westophobia”. In place of the Jewish-Communist conspiracy we now face an alliance of Muslims, the anti-war movement and the left, all of whom are deemed to share a common hatred for ‘the West’. The spokespersons of the Henry Jackson Society and the Quilliam Foundation in turn find common cause with Islamophobe fringe publications such as The Commentator and organisations such as the Clarion Project.

Suspects by skin colour

The consequences are starting to show. Just before NUT conference, journalist Melanie Newman for The Bureau of Investigative Journalism exposed how three schools in areas of high EDL/BNP activity in South Yorkshire were assessing risk of ‘extremism’ on the basis of skin colour. A template ‘risk assessment’ approved by Prevent and the police, asks, “Is the school particularly prone to radicalisation and extremism?”. Each of the three schools replied: “No. Cohort of pupils are white British majority.” The three schools then noted that BME students (black minority ethnic) students would be singled out for monitoring. Despite the fact that the EDL have a strong base amongst soldiers and military families, pupils with military families were seen as a positive proof of low risk.

Another example has emerged in Newham where the Labour council has appointed Ghaffar Hussain, recently of the Quilliam Foundation and the Henry Jackson Society; Hussain was formerly an advisor to the HJS front organisation, ‘Students Rights’. As Prevent lead for the borough, Hussain’s involvement in ‘Students’ Rights’ is particularly troubling. The organisation has been condemned as Islamophobic by the NUS and by a host of student unions and student organisations, including the Black Students Conference. This should disqualify Hussain from any role in ‘safeguarding’ Newham students at risk of racism and anti-Muslim hatred in the most diverse borough in Britain.

One of Hussain’s claims to fame was Quilliam’s farcical attempt to rehabilitate and promote Britain’s two leading Nazis, Tommy Robinson and Kevin Carroll of the English Defence League, even though the EDL had by this time been comprehensively broken by national and local anti-Nazi mobilisations. Tommy Robinson, now in jail, has made clear he regarded Quilliam as useful idiots and his fascist views had not changed. Kevin Carroll went on to express his support for the horrific ethnic cleansing of Muslims in Myammar.

Hussain has written numerous articles for the Islamophobe publication, ‘The Commentator’, and gave a very friendly interview to the Clarion Project, formerly the Clarion Fund. The latter is infamous for the funding and distribution of the anti-Muslim hate film “Obsession”; 28 million free DVDs were distributed in predominantly swing states before the United States 2008 presidential election, clearly tapping the Islamophobe, racist drumbeat against Obama.

Unsuprisingly, Hussain is an extremely divisive figure in the Muslim community. Shortly after his appointment, a large meeting of mosque representatives in Newham met to express their shock and to explore whether any action could be taken to challenge the appointment.

The examples of South Yorkshire and Newham will only deepen perceptions that Muslim kids are suspects first, students second, and that token references by Prevent to far-right extremism will at best be mere window dressing.

The statutory obligations placed on schools and public bodies are designed to force schools and colleges to police themselves, and will have the effect of discouraging contentious views on government foreign policy, Palestine, or ‘the war on terror’. Muslim students will inevitably feel under suspicion and divisions will deepen. This is hardly a prescription for promoting faith in ‘democracy’ or preventing young people from absconding to Syria or embracing the likes of Anjem Choudary.

Ofsted now has an oversight role for ‘Prevent’ and will now provide the stick behind the policy. The ‘Trojan Horse’ hoax in Birmingham and the case of Tower Hamlets serve as warning. Of course, if there is an incident, the legislation can always provide a retrospective tool for scapegoating a school, college or local authority. In this Catch-22 world no-one will ever be able to prove they did enough to prevent ‘non-violent extremism’. In placing schools at the centre of the new legislation, the government will be able to target Muslim communities at will.

Resistance

Prevent has long been recognised as counter-productive not only by researchers and bodies such as the Institute of Race Relations, but from within the ranks of the establishment itself. Dal Babu, a retired former chief superintendent and chairman of the Metropolitan police Association of Muslim Officers, recently termed Prevent a “toxic brand”; Eliza Manningham-Buller, former head of MI5, told parliament that Prevent was "clearly not working". The government itself has worried that it may risk exposing the Prevent programme to wider, generalised opposition by making compliance statutory. The government’s own impact assessment noted, “There is a risk that parts of the policy may be perceived to restrict the freedom of speech; and that legislating will give greater prominence to criticism that the programme is there to spy on individuals, or that it targets Muslims.”

As NUT conference shows, their fears seem to be materialising. Most teachers will want to defend freedom of discussion in the classroom and treat their pupils as students not suspects. Resolutions are already circulating in some school associations insisting that Prevent ‘training’ respect professional ‘safeguarding’ principles; that such sessions respect the principles of free discussion, including on the causes of terror, and that right-wing ideological bias should not be presented as ‘expert’ training.

Wars continue to wreak catastrophe in Syria, Iraq, Libya, Yemen, Gaza and Somalia. Western governments and their allies promote vicious sectarian division in every corner of the Middle East. Terrorism is the inevitable price tag, including, appallingly, in London and Paris. Against this bloody backdrop we cannot allow our schools to become seeding ground for this latest wave of state Islamophobia. It is time to resist this ‘toxic brand’.

http://www.stopwar.org.uk/news/is-state-islamophobia-coming-to-a-classroom-near-you

سيف الله

05-13-2015, 06:55 PM

Salaam

Another update

THE QUR’AN AS A TORY INDICATOR OF EXTREMISM

In this piece, Asim Qureshi discusses the rhetoric which the Conservative party have been peddling for some time. Following their announcement that they will implement new counter terror measures to counter extremism, a term which has never legally been defined, but based on upholding so called British values, values which surely should include the individual's right to an identity.

Two months ago I watched a Channel 4 News debate between Dr Rizwaan Sabir and the then Conservative parliamentary candidate, Nadhim Zahawi. During the interview, the MP spoke of how the government needed to be intolerant towards intolerance. He then went on to speak of how those who preach hate and use mosques to spread those messages should not be tolerated. Really though, this is nothing new, and we have heard this type of rhetoric on many occasions. What was different, was how Zahawi went from speaking about hate speech, to inheritance laws under Islamic law,

“If you look at inheritance laws under shariah courts, inheritance laws are not equal between man and woman, and equality is a British value.”

What Nadhim Zahawi signalled for the first time publicly, was that the Qur’an itself is open to be subjected to the scrutiny of not being in compliance with British values. Regardless of the debates surrounding the contextual application of the rules as they have been largely laid out in the Qur’an, it was his conflation of the discussion on extremism and hate speech with the application of shariah in the private space that raised serious concerns about the way in which the Conservatives would be heading.

On 27 May 2015, the Queen’s Speech will include a raft of new counter-extremism measures, designed to shut down hatred and those whose messages run contrary to British values. David Cameron’s speech signalling their intention to bring in these new powers will focus very much on what the Tories perceive as a ‘poisonous Islamist ideology.’ The Prime Minister will say,

“For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone',”

“It's often meant we have stood neutral between different values. And that's helped foster a narrative of extremism and grievance.”

Like much of the approach that successive governments have taken in relation to preventing violent extremism or extremism itself, much of language is vague and no clear definition have been provided for clarity within the law.

As part of that process, the government has almost entirely shifted their strategy of combatting the threat of political violence within the civil law system, rather than prosecuting crimes as criminal acts. The reason for this, is to grant the Home Secretary the ability to use secret evidence when making arbitrary decisions when impacting the lives of individuals or organisations. Even with these new power, the Home Secretary will only be required to “reasonably believe” that a person is an extremist preacher/speaker in order to apply a sanction on them.

How will this apply in a real world sense, as that will really be the test of the new laws as they come into effect? One can imagine a scenario, where a scholar is teaching one of the classical texts of jurisprudence, potentially on a topic such as a succession, only to be reported to Prevent officials and ultimately the Home Secretary, for having been teaching ideas or beliefs that run contrary to British values. A fault line is potentially being created between normative Islamic practice and teachings, and the vague and amorphous terms of British values.

If British values are to mean anything, they must include the ability to be deferential to conceptions around identity. CAGE is not asking the UK government to remain neutral on issues to do with political violence and the conditions that foment that form of expression, rather we are saying that there should be open and robust challenges through debate and dialogue, that is the only way to reach those that perhaps have gone down an incorrect path.

http://www.cageuk.org/article/qur%E2...ator-extremism

سيف الله

05-13-2015, 06:57 PM

Salaam

Another update

DON’T CRIMINALISE THE INNOCENT

Fahad Ansari writes this piece in light of David Cameron’s latest proposals against "extremism", which threaten to erase whatever freedoms and civil liberties remain alive. Ansari points out that the solution to terrorism does not lie in criminalising the law-abiding population of this country but in tackling its root causes. This will require a considerable degree of honest introspection and enquiry.

Just over ten years ago, eight Algerian men walked free from the Old Bailey after a jury acquitted them of conspiring to murder through the manufacture and spreading of the deadly ricin poison. The acquittals were understandable as the evidence at trial confirmed two crucial issues surrounding the ‘ricin plot’. Firstly, that there was no ricin. Secondly, that there was no plot.

Despite the government research laboratories at Porton Down confirming within 48 hours of the terror raids on the suspects’ premises in January 2013, that neither ricin nor any other toxin was present, the police, media and government were notified of the exact opposite. While the men remained in prison for the next two years, the lie that ricin had been discovered was used to spread mass hysteria by then Prime Minister Tony Blair, members of his cabinet and even the then US Secretary of State Colin Powell who linked the “finding” to an “Iraq-linked terrorist network” during his presentation to make the case for an invasion of Iraq at the UN Security Council.

Although the eight men were vindicated by a jury of their peers following a seven month trial that cost the taxpayer an estimated £20 million, they continued to be treated as terror suspects by the government at the time. Within weeks of the verdict, the government announced that they would be deporting the men to Algeria despite several of them being asylum seekers who had been tortured in their home country.

In the months following the 7 July bombings later that year, the innocent men were again rounded up and detained as “threats to national security”. After several months in jail, they were released and subjected to strict immigration bail conditions (Control Orders in all but name). Terms of their release included wearing an electronic tag, being curfewed for up to 22 hours a day, limiting their movements to a small geographical area and having their premises searched regularly. Potential visitors had to be vetted and approved by the Home Office.

Although some were later cleared of all suspicion in a secret hearing by the Orwellian Special Immigration Appeals Commission (SIAC), others remain subject to those conditions until today, a decade on.

These Algerians are not the only ones to have been harassed and penalised in this manner despite obeying the law. Last year, Palestinian imam Abu Qatada was acquitted of all terrorism charges in a Jordanian court. The court verdict came after Qatada spent over a decade in detention and under very restrictive SIAC bail conditions in the UK. Despite an ugly vilification campaign against him in which he was accused of encouraging terrorism and inciting hatred, Qatada was never charged with any criminal offence (although laws were in place to prosecute him).

This was because he never broke the law in the UK. Nevertheless, he and his family were subjected to the full brunt of counter terrorism measures for over ten years before he voluntarily left the UK.

For David Cameron to therefore market the need for new counter terrorism laws by claiming that the UK has been “passively tolerant” of those who “obey the law” is simply disingenuous. The government’s last Counter Terrorism and Security Act was only introduced in March this year. It obliges public service providers such as doctors, nurses, firefighters, university lecturers, teachers and even nurseries to monitor and report their patients, students and toddlers for signs of the vague undefined notion of “extremism”. None of these victims of the 1984 society that is being created have been left alone, despite their law-abiding behaviour.

The reality is that these latest proposals threaten to erase whatever freedoms and civil liberties remain alive, are only the latest chapter in a policy that has not only miserably failed to achieve its objectives – end terrorism and make Britain safer – but has proven counterproductive. Introducing banning orders such as were used in South Africa against the ANC in its struggle against apartheid may appease a population that has been frightened into believing that it is an illegitimate grievance culture that fosters extremism and violence, but history has proven that it is only by fairly addressing those grievances that progress can be made. Those who supported the apartheid government and called for Mandela to be hanged yesterday, hail him as a hero today.

The solution does not lie in criminalising the law-abiding population of this country but in tackling the root causes of terrorism. This will require a considerable degree of honest introspection. We all have our role to play in tackling terrorism in our respective spheres. It is easy to point the finger at the mosques, Islamic schools and social media. If there is a problem, it has not been proven, but measures are in place to deal with any problems.

It is far more difficult to admit that government policies may play a role in that radicalisation process. Until we recognise that subjecting individuals to severe harassment and persecutory measures will only serve to alienate them and foster resentment against the state, we will never win the battle against terrorism.

It was encouraging to note that within hours of CAGE stating that the security services may have played a role in the radicalisation of Mohammed Emwazi, David Cameron ordered an inquiry into allegations that the security services may have been complicit in the mistreatment of Michael Adebolajo in Kenya in 2010. Adebolajo would become notorious three years later as one of the killers of Fusilier Lee Rigby on the streets of Woolwich, an incident that Mr Cameron is today exploiting as a reason to introduce these new laws. Perhaps Mr Cameron should await the findings of that inquiry before seeking to restrict our civil liberties further.

http://www.cageuk.org/article/don%E2%80%99t-criminalise-innocent

سيف الله

05-14-2015, 04:10 PM

Salaam

Another update

Cameron’s latest counter-extremism policy attempts to challenge Islam

The government has just announced its plans for another reboot of so-called ‘counter-extremism’ policies that have failed under previous administrations.

We have little doubt that their latest version – these latest measures coupled with the Prevent related measures in the CTS Act 2015 – will also fail, despite the threat to be more draconian because the policy is fundamentally flawed, dishonest, unjust and plain bonkers!

It is flawed because it rests on a false premise: the lie that the more Islamic a person is, the more of a potential threat they pose. ‘Deradicalisation’ has therefore come to mean making Muslims less Islamic and more ‘westernised’ or secular, using coercive means.

It is dishonest for the very same reason – because it hides this agenda of forced-assimilation behind a security threat. Just a few months ago, the organisation Europol published research that showed the percentage of terrorist attacks in Europe motivated by religious motivation (of which those committed by Muslims is a subset) was 2%. Even if the real target of such policies was violence rather than identity, criminalising whole communities for their political opinions or religious values is utterly disproportionate – as is expecting teachers, doctors, nurses and nursery workers to be a security arm of the state.

It is unjust because using loose definitions (exemplified by Theresa May’s babbling on BBC Radio 4 Today programme – 13th of May) means it will be so broad that it catches any non-establishment political views or less-than-liberal religious views. This means that the state will either clamp down on these people as well – or (more likely) the laws will be applied selectively, further politicising the criminal justice system.

There are many hypocritical ironies to these policies. Do they really want to deal with ‘Poppy-Burners’ by taking a flame thrower to Magna Carta? Are they serious about talking about ‘rule of law’ as being a fundamentally ‘British value’ when their own security services violate it so frequently? Will they really label every critic of liberal values or the democratic system as an extremist’? Can they really claim to be a bastion of ‘free speech’ yet criminalise the views they don’t like or can’t refute?

It is bonkers because, whilst everyone in society can discuss issues such as Syria, Palestine, Jihad, Shari’ah and ISIS, most Imams and Islamic scholars donot dare discuss these issues in any meaningful way for fear of being labeled ‘extremist’ or ‘hate-preachers’ – so leaving a mountain of unanswered questions for the Muslim youth. This is utterly stupid in an era when young people need legitimate Islamic answers to difficult questions.

Our aim is to continue to discuss these issues, educate Muslims about them to the best of our ability, and to encourage other Muslims to do the same.

Our aim is to work in protecting people’s Islamic identity at a time when they are being bullied into hiding it.

Our aim is to expose pernicious policies like these wherever and whenever we can, and to encourage practitioners of these policies to reject them.

They are not about ‘terrorism’ or violence – they are about identity, political views and religious values. They are a deflection from government policies – foreign and domestic – that are recognized drivers of legitimate grievances.

Cameron, May and Gove doubtless think they are more capable than Stalin, Islam Karimov and the leaders of Quraysh in forcing Muslims to abandon Islamic values.

However, it is our belief that just as their forebears failed to both convince Muslims by intellectual argument they will similarly fail to coerce Muslims by force.

Every student of history or religion knows that whenever an arrogant ruling class tries to crush the values of a principled few, they always end humiliated.

http://www.hizb.org.uk/current-affai...hallenge-islam

سيف الله

05-16-2015, 07:32 AM

Salaam

Another update

The Abolition of Liberty in the Name of Security

Here we are again with a government talking about laws to control ‘extremism’, a state of mind defined by failure to show enough respect for ‘British values’.

These ‘values’ apparently include ’democracy’ and ‘the rule of law’.

Please see my comments on the previous attempt to move in this direction, including alarming plans for the preliminary vetting of student meetings, laudably scuttled by (among others) Nick Clegg, whose good deeds should be acknowledged http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2015/01/dont-like-the-pc-mob-well-now-that-makes-you-a-terror-threat.html

In this article I pointed out : ‘Institutions will be obliged to promote ‘British values’. These are defined as ‘democracy, the rule of law, individual liberty and mutual respect and tolerance for those with different faiths and beliefs’. ‘Vocal and active opposition’ to any of these is now officially described as ‘extremism’.

Given authority’s general scorn for conservative Christianity, and its quivering, obsequious fear of Islam, it is easy to see how the second half will be applied in practice. As for ‘democracy’, plenty of people (me included) are not at all sure we have it, and wouldn’t be that keen on it if we did.’

A few months earlier, I had argued that the nebulous concept of ‘extremism’ could not possibly be of any use in legal or political matters, having no objective meaning. I suspect the ‘definition’ I quote above was cooked up in response to such criticisms.

Here, in any case, was my argument in June last year:

http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2014/06/the-word-extremism-does-not-mean-anything.html

…and I stand absolutely by it now.

I often ask readers to answer this question.: How do you think a totalitarian regime could or would be installed in a free society such as ours? Is it more likely that it will arrive in some thunderclap, as black-uniformed fanatics seize the state, or that it will grow in our midst by small and popular increments, introduced on the pretext of saving us from a supposed ‘terrorist’ threat?

It remains absolutely the case that, with the clear exception of incitement to violence, speech should be free. The law is involved only after a crime has been committed and in a free society cannot and must be used to pre-approve publication or speech. Stifling free speech is the staircase down to slavery. The moment we are having our speeches and articles scanned for ‘extremism’ by policemen we are out of the world of freedom and deep in the territory of tyranny ( Social Democrat public meetings in 19th century Germany could only be held in the presence of a uniformed police officer monitoring the speeches – do you want this?).

There are good practical reasons for this as well. If political fanatics are permitted to organise and publish in the open, we will be much better able to know what they are doing and to observe their interaction with actual men of violence. If we seek to restrict the expression of opinion by law, we will merely ensure that these interactions will take place in secret, where we cannot observe them.

I am shocked that any educated British person is not instantly revolted by this, as I am. This is one of the reasons why I noted the other day that the country I grew up in was both more honest and better-educated than the one we now live in. I don’t suppose even one member of the current Cabinet even knows who John Hampden was or what the Trial of the Seven Bishops was, or why it matters, or has more than the vaguest idea of the Petition of Right, the Bill of Rights and the whole thrilling period of our national history during which this country decisively rejected arbitrary power, secret courts, torture, and threw out continental autocracy in favour of liberty under the law.

‘British values’ indeed. ‘British values’ might as well be a taste for instant mashed potato, annual holidays in the sun, bad TV comedy and gassy lager.

These ‘anti-terrorist’ oafs know no poetry and no history and they do not love their country, indeed they barely know where and what it is .

How about this : ‘And whereas also by the statute called 'The Great Charter of the Liberties of England,' it is declared and enacted, that no freeman may be taken or imprisoned or be disseized of his freehold or liberties, or his free customs, or be outlawed or exiled, or in any manner destroyed, but by the lawful judgment of his peers, or by the law of the land.’

That’s a British value, if you like. As is this ; ‘when complaints are freely heard, deeply consider'd and speedily reform'd, then is the utmost bound ofcivill liberty attain'd, that wise men looke for.’

And this, too ;

‘It is not to be thought of that the Flood

Of British freedom, which, to the open sea

Of the world's praise, from dark antiquity

Hath flowed, "with pomp of waters, unwithstood,"

Roused though it be full often to a mood

Which spurns the check of salutary bands,

That this most famous Stream in bogs and sands

Should perish; and to evil and to good

Be lost for ever. In our halls is hung

Armoury of the invincible Knights of old:

We must be free or die, who speak the tongue

That Shakespeare spake; the faith and morals hold

Which Milton held.—In every thing we are sprung

Of Earth's first blood, have titles manifold.’

Or something like that, anyway. Chuck it, May.

http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/

سيف الله

05-24-2015, 07:14 PM

Salaam

Another depressing update.

Jihadi threat requires move into 'private space' of UK Muslims, says police chief

Exclusive: Britain’s most senior Muslim officer says potency of Islamist propaganda means some five-year-olds believe Christmas is forbidden

Islamist propaganda is so potent it is influencing children as young as five and should be countered with intensified monitoring to detect the earliest signs of anti-western sentiment, Britain’s most senior Muslim police chief has warned.

Scotland Yard commander Mak Chishty said children aged five had voiced opposition to marking Christmas, branding it as “haram” – forbidden by Islam. He also warned that there was no end in sight to the parade of British Muslims, some 700 so far, being lured from their bedrooms to Syria by Islamic State (Isis) propaganda.

In an interview with the Guardian, Chishty said there was now a need for “a move into the private space” of Muslims to spot views that could show the beginning of radicalisation far earlier. He said this could be shown by subtle changes in behaviour, such as shunning certain shops, citing the example of Marks & Spencer, which could be because the store is sometimes mistakenly perceived to be Jewish-owned.

Chishty said friends and family of youngsters should be intervening much earlier, watching out for subtle, unexplained changes, which could also include sudden negative attitudes towards alcohol, social occasions and western clothing. They should challenge and understand what caused such changes in behaviour, the police commander said, and seek help, if needs be from the police, if they are worried.

Chishty is the most senior Muslim officer in Britain’s police service and is head of community engagement for the Metropolitan police in London. He said Isis propaganda was so powerful he had to be vigilant about his own children. But some will argue that his ideas walk a fine line between vigilance in the face of potent extremist propaganda and criminalising thought.

Scotland Yard has recently said police are making nearly an arrest a day as they try to counter a severe Islamist terrorist threat. On Friday, the Met confirmed it is investigating the potential grooming and radicalisation of a 16-year-old east London girl to run away and join her sister in Isis to become a “jihadi bride”. Police estimate that about half the 700 thought to have gone to Syria to support Isis have since returned to Britain.

Chishty said communities in Britain had to act much earlier. He said: “We need to now be less precious about the private space. This is not about us invading private thoughts, but acknowledging that it is in these private spaces where this [extremism] first germinates. The purpose of private-space intervention is to engage, explore, explain, educate or eradicate. Hate and extremism is not acceptable in our society, and if people cannot be educated, then hate and harmful extremism must be eradicated through all lawful means.”

He said that what was new about Isis is the use of social media and the internet to spread its message and urge people lured by it to join the group or stage attacks in their home country.

Asked to define “private space”, Chishty said: “It’s anything from walking down the road, looking at a mobile, to someone in a bedroom surfing the net, to someone in a shisha cafe talking about things.”

He said friends and family were best placed to intervene. Questions should be asked, he said, if someone stops shopping at Marks & Spencer or starts voicing criticism. He said it could be they were just fed up with the store, but alternatively they could have “hatred for that store”. He said the community should “look out for each other”, that Isis was “un-Islamic”, as proven by its barbarity.

In February, three teenage girls from a school in Bethnal Green, east London, slipped away from their families to travel to Turkey and then into Isis-held territory in Syria. Their families said there had been no clue, but Chishty said there must have been some change in the children: “My view as a parent is there must have been signs.”

The propaganda of Isis was so powerful, the officer said, that he feared his own children might be vulnerable. He said his message to fellow Muslim parents was: “I am not immunised.” “If I feel the need to be extra vigilant, then I think you need to feel the need to be extra vigilant,” he said.

He said he had heard of cases of children seemingly influenced by Islamist views in stable families in which the parents or guardians had moderate views.

In the example of primary school children defining Christmas as “haram”, he insisted this was “factual” and said that while it may not be a police matter, parents and family needed to ask how children as young as five had come to that view, whether it be from school or their friends. Chishty said: “All the ugly bits of the problem, which are uncomfortable, you have to … deal with them properly, as a state, as a nation, as a community.”

He added that Muslim communities had done a lot to fight extremism but, given that there was no end in sight to the struggle and no slowing up in the stream of young people being attracted to extremism, it would need a level of vigilance not seen before. He said that current strategies were not working. “We are in unchartered water … We are facing a risk, a threat which is global, which is powerfully driven by social media, reaching you on your own through your mobile phone.”

The UK’s counter-radicalisation strategy has been criticised for co-opting those trusted by the young, such as teachers and youth workers, to inform on them to the authorities.

Chishty said it did not make someone an extremist if they criticised “British values”, but friends and family should ask why, especially if it marked a change in their view. He said more work was needed to understand why youngsters were attracted to Isis: “Some are bored, overqualified, underemployed … It is not a holy war.”

Chishty warned of a very real threat to Muslims in Britain from the backlash that might follow a terrorist attack, which counter-terrorism officials believe is a matter of when, not if.

After the murder of Lee Rigby in May 2013 by two men espousing jihadi views, attacks against Muslims increased from one to seven a day, and there were 28 attacks on Muslim buildings. Such an attack, and even terrorist atrocities abroad, such as January’s massacre in Paris of Charlie Hebdo staff, were making community relations in London more challenging, but he said police had boosted their efforts to reassure and protect all communities.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/may/24/jihadi-threat-requires-move-into-private-space-of-uk-muslims-says-police-chief

سيف الله

05-24-2015, 07:46 PM

Salaam

Another video

سيف الله

05-24-2015, 09:49 PM

Salaam

Another video

Karl

05-25-2015, 01:38 AM

Chishty sounds like a Zionist poodle. Talks like a textbook lefty liberal.

سيف الله

06-06-2015, 12:47 PM

Salaam

Seems the UK becoming more and more authoritarian. Muslim Parents have to be vigilant

Fury after primary pupils are asked to complete radicalisation-seeking surveys

Parents of children as young as nine have reacted angrily after schools in an east London borough asked pupils to complete surveys designed to provide clues to possible radicalisation. Waltham Forest council has been piloting the scheme in five primary schools with large Muslim intakes. The questionnaire, circulated among year 6 pupils, asks how much they trust the police and people from another race or religion.

They are also asked whether they agree that it is acceptable to marry someone from outside their race or religion and whether women are just as good as men at work. Another question asks if the pupils believe their religion is the only correct one. About 22% of the population in Waltham Forest, one of the most deprived local authorities in England, are Muslim.

The programme has been funded with a €500,000 (£360,000) grant from an EU fund – the Radicalisation Leading to Terrorism Programme – designed to “identify the initial seeds of radicalisation with children of primary school age”.

But some parents have complained they were not consulted about the surveys. One parent of an 11-year-old boy at Buxton primary school in Leytonstone, who was asked to complete the questionnaire, said: “This is why we need to get involved with this, otherwise ‘monitoring’ like this goes unchecked and without vetting. No letter was sent home explaining this and I found out just talking to my son.”

Other parents expressed outrage on Twitter. “This is shockingly Orwellian,” one said. “Our kids don’t stand a chance. Guessing there’s going to be a big jump in home schooling.”

A council spokeswoman said concerns had been raised about the survey, especially as pupils had been asked to put their name and other identifying details on the forms. Because the surveys were supposed to have been anonymous, all of those carried out so far may be destroyed.

The programme, known as Brit – Building Resilience Through Integration & Trust – is targeted at nine- to 11-year-olds and involves lesson plans and workbooks about identity and belonging. The charity Family Action is delivering the programme to schools.

Among other questions in the survey, children are asked if they agree or disagree with a series of statements including “God has a purpose for me” and “If a student was making fun of my race or religion I would try to make them stop even if it meant hurting them.” They are also asked to tick three boxes with which they identify, choosing from British, Muslim, student, artist, athlete, Christian and young.

A joint statement issued by the school’s executive headteacher Kath Wheeler and chair of governors Tom Williams apologised for any distress caused and said that an internal investigation had been launched. “When we agreed to run the Brit project on behalf of Waltham Forest Council, we were not made aware that this questionnaire would be included. If we had, current procedures would have identified concerns from the outset as this involved potentially identifiable and sensitive information.”

The surveys had been sent to a junior member of staff at the school and had not been seen by the senior leadership, according to the statement. “The local authority has confirmed their intention was to anonymise and then destroy the questionnaires,” it said. “Despite this we will not be taking part in this method of evaluation now or in the future.”

The Islamic Human Rights Commission has urged parents to boycott the questionnaire. Its chairman, Massoud Shadjareh, said it had been designed to target and profile Muslim children. “At this young age, we should be thinking about nurturing and developing our children, not compartmentalising them. I think the questionnaire has clearly been devised by people who haven’t got a clue about radicalisation.

“Some of the questions are just plain ridiculous. It’s also clearly racist and Islamophobic – there would be uproar if they mentioned the word ‘Jew’ or ‘black’ in the identity question.”

Local councillors Mark Rusling and Liaquat Ali said: “The Brit project is a council programme that works with primary school pupils and their families to develop community cohesion. We’re glad this has sparked a debate, as our aim is to encourage people to talk about the importance of cohesion at all ages.”

Bill Bolloten, an independent education consultant, expressed concern. “Some Muslim parents have been saying on Twitter that they will tell their children not to answer any questions at all. It’s important that schools do explore pupils’ multiple identities, but this project is tainted by the desire to spot the signs of extremism in primary school children.”

http://www.hizb.org.uk/news-watch/fury-after-primary-pupils-are-asked-to-complete-radicalisation-seeking-surveys

سيف الله

06-10-2015, 08:59 PM

Salaam

Another update. The criminalisation of Islam is well underway.

Schools monitoring pupils' web use with 'anti-radicalisation software'

Software flags up trigger words and phrases such as ‘jihadi bride’, ‘jihobbyist’ and ‘you only die once’

Schools are being sold software to monitor pupils’ internet activity for extremism-related language such as “jihadi bride” and “YODO”, short for you only die once.

Several companies are producing “anti-radicalisation” software to monitor pupils’ internet activity ahead of the introduction of a legal requirement on schools to consider issues of terrorism and extremism among children.

Under the Counter-terrorism and Security Act 2015, which comes into force on 1 July, there is a requirement that schools “have due regard to the need to prevent pupils being drawn into terrorism”.

One company, Impero, has launched a pilot of its software in 16 locations in the UK as well as five in the US. Teachers can store screenshots of anything of concern that is flagged up by the software. Other companies offering anti-radicalisation software products to schools include Future Digital and Securus.

Impero has produced a glossary of trigger words such as “jihobbyist” (someone who sympathises with jihadi organisations but is not an active member) and “Message to America” (an Islamic State propaganda video series).

Schools involved with the Impero pilot already have contracts to buy or rent other software from the company, and are trialling the anti-radicalisation software at no extra charge. They are in areas including London, County Durham, Essex, Leicestershire, Warwickshire, Yorkshire and Staffordshire.

A spokeswoman for Impero said: “The Counter-terrorism and Security Act places a duty on schools to prevent people from being drawn into terrorism. Since the introduction of the act at the beginning of the year we have had a lot of schools approach us requesting a keyword-detection policy focused on radicalisation.

“The system may help teachers confirm identification of vulnerable children, or act as an early warning system to help identify children that may be at risk in future. It also provides evidence for teachers and child protection officers to use in order to intervene and support a child in a timely and appropriate manner.

“It is not about criminalising children, it is about helping schools spot the early warning signs so that risk in relation to an individual can be assessed and measured, and counter-narratives and support can be put in place to help educate children before they potentially become victims of radicalisation.”

Different schools are interpreting the anti-radicalisation clause in the new counter-terrorism legislation in different ways. Headteachers interviewed by the Guardian said it was a very difficult issue for schools to get involved with.

Monega primary school in Newham has invited parents of children as young as four to a workshop on 26 June. The invitation states: “Come and join us for this session led by a social worker on how to prevent and detect radicalisation. All parents are welcome.”

Yahya Birt, a Muslim academic specialising in British Islam, tweeted about the four-year-olds potentially being monitored for radicalisation: “They’re pre-lingual, let alone pre-political. It’s bonkers.”

Last month there was controversy over a questionnaire circulated to pupils in five primary schools in Waltham Forest, another east London borough with a large Muslim population.

The questionnaire asked pupils leading questions about their views and beliefs including whether or not they would marry someone from a different religion, whether they would be prepared to hurt someone who made fun of their race or religion and whether they felt God had a purpose for them.

Waltham Forest council later said the questionnaires would be withdrawn. It said they had been produced by the behavioural insights team, also known as the “nudge unit”, which started life inside 10 Downing Street and is partly government-owned.

An internal memo circulated to directors of children’s services by the director of the Department for Education’s due diligence and counter-extremism group states that in the wake of the three British Muslim teenagers going to Syria, schools are being offered more support in tackling extremism, including a dedicated helpline for teachers.

The department is carrying out a review of schools where there is evidence of pupils having links to people who may have travelled to Syria.

Birt tweeted: “This policy covers about 800,000 Muslims who are under-18 when maybe a couple of dozen of them are with Isis, it’s a sledgehammer for a walnut.”

Bill Bolloten, an education consultant who provides training to schools in this area, said: “There are growing concerns that many schools are failing to understand what is required under the new act. The prevent duty requires them to respond in ways that are proportionate and appropriate, based on an assessment of genuine risks that children might face in relation to extremism.

“Workshops for parents on extremism, as well as other activities such as radicalisation questionnaires for children and software that spies on pupils’ internet activity in school, are based on the discredited idea that there are signs of extremism that can be detected in young children.

“These actions are alarming many parents and may compound a growing climate of mistrust. Schools should reflect and reconsider if these approaches are potentially counter-productive and might damage relationships with the communities they serve.”

Impero glossary of key words and phrases that its software will flag up

Jihadi bride A woman convinced that it is her Islamic duty to travel to join a jihadi organisation such as Isis and marry one of its fighters. Searching for this term may indicate vulnerability to radicalisation or support for Islamist extremism.

John Cantlie British journalist kidnapped and held hostage by Isis since 2012. He appears in several Isis propaganda videos.

War on Islam Phrase often used by Islamists and jihadis to perpetuate the narrative that the west is at war with all Muslims, which is crucial to their radicalisation and recruitment aims.

Jihobbyist Someone who sympathises or supports jihadist organisations but does not commit the offence of becoming an active member. Searching for this term may indicate support for jihadism.

Pogrom An organised massacre or persecution of an ethnic or religious group, particularly Jews. Searching for this term may indicate support for far-right extremism.

YODO Acronym for “you only die once”, a jihadi parody of YOLO. Used to promote suicide bombings and recruitment to Isis.

Storm Front White supremacist neo-nazi organisation.

Kuffs Arabic term for infidel, hate speech used by Islamists to denote non-Muslims.

Message to America Isis propaganda video series featuring beheadings of western hostages and threats to kill more.

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/jun/10/schools-trial-anti-radicalisation-software-pupils-internet

سيف الله

06-10-2015, 09:00 PM

Salaam

Another update

سيف الله

06-10-2015, 09:03 PM

Salaam

Another update

CAGE TO TAKE LEGAL ACTION AGAINST THE CHARITY COMMISSION

(London, UK) The advocacy group CAGE has today commenced judicial review proceedings against the Charity Commission for what it believes is an unlawful exercise of powers in the wake of the Mohammed Emwazi case and the subsequent pressure exerted by the Commission on charities associated with CAGE.

After the publicity CAGE received around Emwazi, it claims that the Charity Commission acted outside of its powers by exerting unlawful pressure on charities not to fund or associate with CAGE, despite CAGE not being a charity itself. As a result CAGE is finding it much more difficult to fund its advocacy and charities have been deterred from sharing a platform with it.

The Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust issued a press release stating that they had been pressured by the Charity Commission not to fund CAGE ever again. CAGE also became aware of other charities that were questioned about sharing a platform with them.

The Charity Commission is exceeding its role as a regulator.

This is underlined by the announcement in April that the National Council for Voluntary Organisations would review the Commission, because of an “accusation that as appointees of the government of the day they [the commissioners] are in some way politically biased.”

The perception of political motivations infringes upon the rights of charities in general, who may be chilled into silence by a regulator that is liable to clamp down on them when they do not align with what is seen to be its politics.

Zoe Nicola of HMA Solicitors said:

"The statement published by the Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust clearly states that its decision to rule out any future funding to CAGE regardless of any changing circumstances was due to intense regulatory pressure. Such interference on the part of the Charity Commission was in excess of its powers. These actions curtailed our Client’s freedoms of expression and association and was made unfairly and without any prior notice to our Client. This raises concerns that our Client is being penalised for engaging in a debate and expressing views which may have been unpopular with the government. The actions of the Charity Commission in this instance will have a chilling effect on the ability of third sector and charitable organisations to engage in controversial debates and are counter-productive."

Ibrahim Mohamoud, CAGE Communications Officer, said:

“This case is an important test case for the charity sector. At a time when the Commission is being given more powers, it is important that it does not deviate from its crucial role as an impartial regulator and become an instrument of state policy in a political agenda against unpopular causes.”

“CAGE’s mission is linked to preserving the Rule of Law. It is with this objective in mind that we have taken the decision to ensure the politicisation of the sector is reversed.”

“Charities must be able to function with a regulator that does not create a climate of fear and undermine the fundamental freedoms of expression and association. In recent years, the Charity Commission appears to be assuming the role of Counter-Terrorism Police, rather than a charity sector regulator.”

“The best way to hold power to account is to have a strong civil society being able to ask the questions others are scared to ask, and to support difficult causes.”

“The Charity Commission claims to act in the interests of the public, however public interest should never be dictated by the scaremongering of the mainstream media; this would mean that the rule of the mob was applied rather than the rule of law.”

http://www.cageuk.org/press-release/cage-take-legal-action-against-charity-commission

سيف الله

06-13-2015, 10:06 PM

Salaam

Another update

سيف الله

06-14-2015, 06:01 PM

Salaam

Another update

How 'British values' are used as a smoke screen for anti-Muslim government policies

Successive UK governments' commitment to the very 'British values' they use to justify anti-Muslim policies is questionable.

In light of the debunked Trojan Horse investigation of an alleged "Islamist plot" to take over Birmingham state schools, the passing of the Counter-Terrorism and Security Act in February, and the recent announcement by Prime Minister David Cameron of a new Counter-Extremism Bill, the discussion about the Muslim community's acceptance of “British values” has been taking place within many circles of power and influence.

Amid a climate of increasing Islamophobia and the rise of far-right groups in the UK, Muslims have found themselves in a situation where they are at risk of being labelled "extremists" for supposedly failing to accept “British values” - an arguably ambiguous term that in reality means many things to different people, including non-Muslim Britons.

Over the past year, Muslim schools, charities, and public speakers have been under immense pressure to subscribe to “British values,” something that is loosely defined but frequently referred to by politicians and the media when labelling large sections of the Muslim community as "extreme".

Furthermore, when legitimate questions are asked and these “values” are scrutinised by Muslims, in many cases it is perceived by some as an act of disloyalty to Britain.

‘What British values?’

As it stands, the current Tory government has defined “British values” as: belief in democracy, rule of law, individual freedoms and religious tolerance.

A fortnight ago, I was in central London filming a trailer for an upcoming debate on Islam's compatibility with British values, organised by the Islamic Education and Research Academy (iERA). I asked about 30 Caucasian UK-born non-Muslims to describe or define “British values” in four words.

Of course, under no circumstances can 30 people qualify as a significant quantitative specimen for serious research. Additionally, my interviews lacked any qualitative meaning, as I did not ask the public the simple follow-up question: "What do you mean by that?" - considering words are vehicles to definitions. Nevertheless, their responses were indicative of the confusion surrounding the concept of British values.

To my surprise, "I don't know" and "What British values?" were the most common answers, along with "pride," "patriotism" and "honesty". There were a few who stated "tolerance," "equality," and "freedom of speech," but not a single person mentioned two values stated by the government in their answer, let alone all four.

Naturally, these responses got me thinking - how absurd it is for the government to have such a rigid definition as a criterion to dictate who or what an "extremist" is in legislation such as the CTS Act and the proposed Counter-Extremism Bill, yet white non-Muslims who were born in this country failed to include those four values in their responses.

Thus, enforcing a specific definition on an entire religious minority poses a number of problems.

The cultural and socio-political implications aside, successive British governments' commitment to these very values are questionable. Let me briefly explain why:

• Democracy - Like its numerous predecessors, if the current British government claims to be a global "champion of democracy," it is rather disconcerting when it supports the most undemocratic and dictatorial regimes across the Muslim world; President Abdel Fatah al-Sisi (Egypt), Sheikh Hasina (Bangladesh), Islam Karimov (Uzbekistan), the Gulf sheikdoms and Israel, to name but a few. The aforementioned regimes are infamous for their brutality against its citizens and the suppression of political freedoms.

• Rule of Law - The MPs’ expenses scandal and the delayed investigation behind a child sex ring at the heart of the political establishment are two prime examples of how senior politicians are above the law, and in many cases are reprimanded lightly compared with laymen for comparable wrongdoings.

• Religious tolerance - The CTS Act, the proposed Counter-Extremism Bill and the Government's Prevent strategy clearly demonstrate how major aspects of normative Islam cannot be tolerated and is consistently referred to as "extreme". The irony is that everyone can discuss and debate Shariah law, Islamic State, jihad and Syria, except imams, scholars and mosques - unless they're peddling the establishment's narrative.

• Individual freedoms - Proposed Extremism Disruptive Orders, Mosque Closure Orders, the Draft Communication Data Bill, banning Muslim speakers from universities, and pressuring venues to cancel Islamic events, are all examples of how individual liberties such as the freedom of speech exist, except for those who oppose or criticise the Government.

Monitoring people's online activities unrelated to violent criminality, spying on Muslim pupils as young as five, and acting as “thought police” are basically Draconian attempts to silence political dissent by over-playing the fear factor of national security to pass legislation.

Taking the above into consideration, one cannot help but humbly advise the government to practise what it preaches.

Islam and British values

British Muslims, predominantly from the Indian subcontinent, have been living in peace since they arrived in the UK as economic migrants after World War Two. It was only after the 9/11 attacks and the subsequent “War on Terror” invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq did Britain face a real terror threat, albeit an arguably small one. Anglo-American foreign policy has been the main catalyst of most, if not all, the risks this country faces from international or home-grown terrorism.

Undoubtedly, an ultra-minority of Muslims have adopted fringe theological methodologies and positions pertaining to citizenship and warfare, but this should not be conflated with normative Islam, which is intentionally misconstrued by policymakers and neoconservative think-tanks when advocating the academically and empirically flawed “conveyor belt” theory.

Inevitably, there are common values that Muslims share with Britain and the whole of humanity in general, such as kindness, politeness, giving charity, and looking after the elderly, sick and needy. However, Islam's ontological foundations and world view are unique compared to all other belief systems.

Therefore, it is imperative to allow open debate to take place around Islam's compatibility with “British values,” both on a grassroots and policymaking level, because failing to subscribe to the current definition set out by the government leaves people exposed to being labelled an "extremist".

If dialogue around this topic amongst many others is censored, the worrying Orwellian shift that Britain is steadily moving towards can lead to animosity and resentment towards the Muslim community, due to a lack of understanding and fair representation.

http://www.stopwar.org.uk/news/how-british-values-are-used-as-a-smokescreen-for-anti-muslim-government-policies

Heres a funny video on the state of British democracy

Thank heavens we are not a democracy

سيف الله

06-23-2015, 11:38 PM

Salaam

Another update

No surprise as David Cameron scapegoats Muslims for his own government's failings

Western governments try to justify their failure to secure the Middle East militarily by blaming the Muslim community as a whole.

David Cameron seems to like travelling to Europe to make speeches attacking Muslims. He did it when the racist EDL held a major anti-Muslim demo in Luton back in 2011.

Then he was in Bavaria, a deeply Catholic and conservative state in Germany, calling for Muslims to embrace British values.

Now he's done it again. On the first full day of the Muslim holy month of Ramadan, Cameron has used a speech at a security conference in Slovakia today to berate any Muslims who buy in to a critique of the west.

According to him, this stokes the violent extremism which has seen the rise of ISIS, the flurry of individuals leaving Britain and other countries to join them, and the growth of terrorism worldwide.

Cameron says that blame for these actions needs to be laid at the door of the individual carrying them out. This is of course true in the final instance; people react differently to the same circumstances and most people who, for example, oppose foreign wars, do not end up directly going to fight in those wars or becoming terrorists. But it is highly disingenuous in two respects.

The first is that Cameron makes the link yet again between what he deems non violent extremists and violent extremists. In fact this is the whole thrust of government policy on the question. Violent extremism only happens because non violent extremists pave the way for their more violent counterparts. He talks of British Muslims 'buying into' or 'quietly condoning'

No doubt most in the Muslim community in Britain will find ISIS and its tactics abhorrent. But no doubt too that many Muslims - as well as those non-Muslims in Britain who have long opposed government policy - will reject the idea that they have to give up their beliefs in the spurious hope that this might defeat terrorism.

We should remember that opposition to wars, Islamophobia, attacks on civil liberties and Israeli policy over Palestine, has not been from terrorist groups but from a wide range of organisations which have campaigned over these issues. They have included Muslims and non-Muslims.

It is the failure of successive governments to recognise the widespread opposition to its policies and the disastrous consequences of them that has created the situation we now have.

That Cameron blames groups and individuals within the Muslim community for his government's failings is neither surprising nor new. Since Tony Blair helped launch the war on terror in 2001 terrorism has grown on a massive scale. While western governments lack a strategy for securing the Middle East militarily, they try to justify their errors by blaming the Muslim community as a whole - and by implication the non-Muslims who have worked with them in organisations such as Stop the War.

Yet it was the former head of MI5, Eliza Manningham Buller, who admitted that she had told government ministers that war in Iraq would increase terrorism.

The vicious circle we now find of wars, Islamophobia and attacks on civil liberties is not preventing terrorism but exacerbating it.

The government's extensive plans for spying on and scapegoating the Muslim community will do little to alter this, but will increase racism and develop an Orwellian thought crime.

At times of crisis and austerity, scapegoating of minorities is a means of creating new fears about real or imagined threats which can divert from the common threats our government is at present issuing towards working class people.

Cameron's speech is of course aimed at doing this, not looking for real solutions to real problems.

Those of us marching tomorrow for an alternative to austerity and war will also be speaking out against this scapegoating. The different issues are increasingly linked and need a united response.

سيف الله

06-23-2015, 11:41 PM

Salaam

Another update

The five pillars of Islamophobia and the roots of anti-Muslim racism

THE STATUS of Muslims in the west is under threat. The increased prevalence of anti Muslim hate crime is only one of the more visible consequences.

In the UK, Muslim schoolchildren are suffering a ‘backlash’ of abuse, according to the teaching unions; Muslim women are the victims of more than half of Islamophobic attacks, says Tell MAMA.

Though violent crimes against Muslims are understandably a key issue for Muslims and the anti-racist movement, it would be a mistake to think that Islamophobia is just a problem of racism by a small minority on the streets, or those on the fringes of politics.

In fact it is deeply embedded in our politics and society, and a more serious problem than many writers have recognised. Moreover, while most accounts of Islamophobia suggest that anti-Muslim racism is simply a matter of prejudice, which may have social consequences, it needs to be understood as more than a problem of racist ideas.

Obviously these are a key part of Islamophobia but to be effective such ideas need to be practically developed—to be actively produced, spread and institutionalised in new policies and practices. Anti-Muslim racism is sustained by what we call the ‘five pillars’ of Islamophobia.

Legitimate targets?

The first and most important is the institutions of the state—most notably the sprawling ‘counter-terrorism’ apparatus, the key nexus of institutions and practices which targets ‘extremists’ and those said to have been ‘radicalised’.

The imprecision with which these concepts are defined and operationalised in official discourse, together with the routine practices of the police and intelligence services, means that many thousands of people, including non-Muslims, are regarded as a legitimate targets for suspicion, surveillance and intelligence-gathering.

Some academic authors see the state as progressive, or at least neutral, and capable of helping challenge anti-Muslim racism by creating spaces for Muslim cultural and civic engagement.

But in our view the state is not neutral. Counter-terrorism policy disadvantages Muslims (and others) through exceptional legislation, pre-emptive incapacitation and intelligence and surveillance. And the counter-terrorism apparatus has spread from its traditional home in the police and intelligence services to occupy almost every branch of the state, from schools and universities to libraries.

A relatively new front in the war to drive Muslims from the public sphere is the NGO sector. The Charity Commission, headed by the neo-conservative Lord Shawcross, has presided over a significant increase in investigations of Muslim charities. The think tank Claystone reported that the Charity Commission had marked 55 British charities with new issue code ‘extremism and radicalisation’, without the organisations’ knowledge, and that Muslim charities were disproportionately affected.

Further right

The other four pillars of Islamophobia are social or political movements which bolster the state or push it further right—social movements ‘from above’, as the sociologists Laurence Cox and Gunvald Nilsen put it. By this they mean the ‘collective agency of dominant groups’.

The first is the most well known—the far right. Its traditional representatives in neo-fascist parties have all taken an anti-Muslim turn, but they have been joined in recent years by a plethora of new parties (such as the Sweden Democrats, the Danish People’s Party and UKIP in the UK), street movements such as the English Defence League, PEGIDA in Germany (and the UK, Austria, Denmark, Norway and Sweden) and the ‘counter-jihad movement’, which operates in almost every EU country, as well as in the US.

The far right is not neatly bounded and there are all sorts of overlaps with other strands of the social movements from above, which are themselves interpenetrated. They include the neo-conservative movement, strongly active in the EU as well as in the US, its country of origin; the Zionist movement; and a number of left/liberal currents such the pro-war or ‘decent’ left. All three are transnational movements from above and have connections to groups further to the right, as well as to the more mainstream conservative movement and indeed right-wing, neo-liberal think tanks.

These social movements, though divided on some matters, do work together—in combination with the state—to produce, reproduce and enact anti-Muslim racism, in the process putting in place the policy frameworks and practical arrangements which ensure the subordination of ordinary Muslims.

Take the neo-conservative Henry Jackson Society, a think tank which brings together key US and UK neo-conservatives, including William Kristol and Richard Perle. Among the key financial backers of the HJS has been the Conservative peer Stanley Kalms, the former treasurer of the Conservative Party and life president of DSG International (formerly Dixons). Kalms is a prominent member of Conservative Friends of Israel, though in 2009 he flirted with UKIP. He has supported the Henry Jackson Society and its predecessor the Centre for Social Cohesion through his Traditional Alternatives Foundation and the Stanley Kalms Foundation, and his links with more mainstream conservatism are illustrated by his financial backing for the Institute for Economic Affairs and the Centre for Social Justice.

Kalms appears to have quite ‘radical’ views on Muslims and Islam. According to Tony Lerman, the writer and ‘lapsed’ Zionist, Kalms was present at a meeting on 17 November 2006 where he said: ‘Most Muslims didn’t want to integrate ... Ultimately they would line up behind the fundamentalists.’

Social movements from above, including the far right and elements of the neo-conservative and Zionist movements, play an important active role in fostering anti-Muslim racism.

We will not turn back the tide of Islamophobia only by confronting the threat of UKIP in politics, or the EDL and other parts of the transnational ‘counter-jihad movement’ on the streets. We also need to focus our attention on elements of the (also transnational) neo-conservative and Zionist movements which provide information, ‘research’ and advocacy which can drag the state and politics to the right and sharpen Islamophobic polices, as we have seen in the UK with the revision of the ‘Prevent’ programme in 2010 (drawing on the material of the neo-conservative Centre for Social Cohesion) and in the Counter-Terrorism and Security Act 2015.

Dissent criminalised

Most importantly, we need to understand that it is the state itself and its machinery of surveillance and repression that is at the forefront of ensuring that Muslims are collectively pushed to the edge of public life with extremely serious short-, medium- and long term consequences for democratic politics.

The intention seems clear: dissent, whether by Muslim organisations, social movements or trades unions, is criminalised to protect our rulers from pressure from below.

It is a sad commentary on the state of hysteria about Islam in the UK today that even documenting evidence on Islamophobia is seen as evidence of ‘extremism’ or ‘radicalisation’. Simply in writing this article we have potentially entered what the police have called the ‘pre-criminal space’, which is enough to warrant unwelcome attention from the intelligence and policing agencies—never mind those of conservative newspaper columnists.

http://www.stopwar.org.uk/news/the-five-pillars-of-islamophobia-and-the-roots-of-anti-muslim-racism

Karl

06-24-2015, 12:01 AM

So in a nutshell it is just a fight between the Jews and Muslims in Europe and I think the locals are getting very sick of it. At least the ones that can see through all this.

سيف الله

06-24-2015, 01:16 AM

Salaam

Another update

Dismantling Cameron’s claim that Islam is the cause of “Radicalisation”

On the 19th June 2015, in a security conference in Slovakia, David Cameron echoed the words of Tony Blair and Charles Clarke ten years ago when they highlighted the ideological causes of terrorism and the need to target the “Islamist extremist ideology”. In his words Cameron said “The cause is ideological. It is an Islamist extremist ideology, one that says the West is bad, that democracy is wrong, that women are inferior, that homosexuality is evil.”

Recent incidents such as three missing Bradford sisters who purportedly tried to get into Syria with their nine children, after their visit to Saudi Arabia, the announcement of Talha Asmal who was named as the ‘youngest suicide bomber’ in the UK and Kenya and a Brit who was among 11 al-Shabab gunmen killed in a failed attack on a military base, have placed the Muslim community under the spotlight again, with complex questions being simplified to a “radicalisation” narrative. An argument that ignores political context and targets Islam as the root cause of their actions.

What lures women and young Muslims into war zone areas such as Syria and Iraq? Is there a conveyor belt of terrorism which encourages young Muslims to go to war torn areas? What role does identity play? What age do people becomes radicalised? Are those that go abroad the victim or the perpetrators?

These deeply layered and complicated questions are simplified to the “theory of radicalisation”. A theory which has justified the wholesale surveillance of the Muslim community via the “Prevent” program, the recent CTS Act and the recently proposed “Control Orders” that would allow the government to ban groups, launch Extremism Disruption Orders and handover more powers to the police such as the revocation of citizenship, data snooping and other draconian measures that are on the verge of turning Britain into a police state.

The Theory of Radicalisation

Two weeks after 7/7, on the 16th July 2005, Tony Blair made his infamous speech in which he described that the sole cause behind the attacks was an “evil ideology“. He then went on to describe what some aspects of this evil ideology consisted of, “the establishment of effectively Taleban states and Sharia law in the Arab world en route to one caliphate of all Muslim nations.”

These points were later echoed by his then Home Secretary Charles Clarke on the 5th October 2005, “What drives these people on is ideas… However there can be no negotiation about the re-creation of the Caliphate; there can be no negotiation about the imposition of Shariah law; there can be no negotiation about the suppression of equality between the sexes; there can be no negotiation about the ending of free speech. These values are fundamental to our civilisation and are simply not up for negotiation.”

In 2009 the British government considered plans which would have formalized the Blair narrative and considered ideas such as a belief in the applicability of Sharia law in contemporary times, the concept of belonging to a single Muslim community internationally (the Ummah), the legitimacy of resisting attack and occupation through the use of force (jihad), and the aspiration of living under an Islamic caliphate as key identifiers of “extremists.”

The spelling out of “extremist” ideas was explicitly stated in the leaked draft Government report known as CONTEST 2. The Guardian newspaper reported on 17/2/2009 that; “According to a draft of the strategy, Contest 2 as it is known in Whitehall, people would be considered as extremists if:

They advocate a caliphate, a pan-Islamic state encompassing many countries.
They promote Sharia law.
They believe in jihad, or armed resistance, anywhere in the world. This would include armed resistance by Palestinians against the Israeli military.
They argue that Islam bans homosexuality and that it is a sin against Allah.
They fail to condemn the killing of British soldiers in Iraq or Afghanistan.”
In the final version of the Contest 2 report they omitted these points but this narrative was, and still is, consistently raised in the media by a range of “counter-extremism experts” and think-tanks, who argue that it is indeed “Islamic extremism” that leads to terrorism divorced of any political context.

The Radicalisation Theory is a Myth

The argument that terrorists are purely motivated by the Islamic ideology and irrespective of the political circumstance would inevitably undertake violent acts, conveniently absolves the West of any policies or actions they have undertaken. It also does not stand-up to academic scrutiny. Take for example the prominent terrorism expert, John Horgan. He was the director of the International Centre for the study of terrorism in the University of Pennsylvania from 2007-2013. He said that “The idea that radicalization causes terrorism is perhaps the greatest myth alive today in terrorism research … [First], the overwhelming majority of people who hold radical beliefs do not engage in violence. And second, there is increasing evidence that people who engage in terrorism don’t necessarily hold radical beliefs.”

French sociologist Olivier Roy argues that “the process of violent radicalisation has little to do with religious practice, while radical theology, as salafisme, does not necessarily lead to violence.” The “leap into terrorism” is not religiously inspired but better seen as sharing “many factors with other forms of dissent, either political (the ultra-left), or behavioural: the fascination for sudden suicidal violence as illustrated by the paradigm of random shootings in schools (the ‘Columbine syndrome’)”

Marc Sageman, a former CIA Operations Officer, who previously held a position that supported this theory but then changed his position, suggested that governments should “stop being brainwashed by this notion of radicalisation, there is no such thing. Some people when they’re young acquire extreme views, many of them just grow out of them. Do not overreact-you’ll just create worse problems.”

Mark Sedgewick, a British Historian specialising in terrorism explained that “The concept of radicalisation emphasizes the individual and, to some extent, the ideology and the group, and significantly deemphasizes the wider circumstances – the “root causes” that it became so difficult to talk about after 9/11, and that are still often not brought into analyses. So long as the circumstances that produce Islamist radicals’ declared grievances are not taken into account, it is inevitable that the Islamist radical will often appear as a “rebel without a cause”

Internal government reports leaked to the Sunday Telegraph in 2010 concluded that they “do not believe that it is accurate to regard radicalisation in this country as a linear ‘conveyor belt’ moving from grievance, through radicalisation, to violence,” and that the “thesis seems to both misread the radicalisation process and to give undue weight to ideological factors.” So according to the government’s own officials and experts, suggesting that “Islamist extremist” aspirations (which are part of normative Islam) are a gateway to terrorism is incorrect. Perpetrators may hold these specific beliefs have not been proven to be a causal factor of violence, and such beliefs are similarly shared by millions of other Muslims globally as well as many living in the West.

The conveyor-belt offers a simplistic narrative, which is presented to wider society as the answer and legitimises draconian policies such as the Counter Terrorism Act 2015, the Prevent agenda and the proposed control orders.

This type of narrative was popularised after 2005, notably by Michael Gove’s Celsius 7/7 and Ed Husain’s “The Islamist.” Unfortunately, the waves of erroneous opinions offered by politicians, media commentators, “counter-extremism” experts and self-professed “ex-extremists” certainly do not stand up to any academic scrutiny.

On 12th June 2008, the MI5 concluded that there is no easy way to identify those who become involved in terrorism in Britain. This was after a classified internal research document on radicalisation seen by the Guardian. The sophisticated analysis was based on hundreds of case studies by the security service, and stated clearly that there is no single pathway to violent extremism. The report concluded that it is not possible to draw up a typical profile of the “British terrorist” and challenged the radicalisation process espoused by the government.

While both the Blair narrative and the convenient “conveyor-belt” theory may satisfy the need for explanation, the British Government struggle to admit a stronger link to Western foreign and domestic policy. Therefore this further alienates Muslims who have legitimate foreign policy grievances, as well as sowing distrust and suspicion of Muslims among the wider population.

Prevent is a failure

Ignoring the outcry from academics, the government implemented “Prevent” anyway. The Prevent programme was the manifestation of the theory of radicalisation which was implemented originally by the Labour government in 2007 and then reviewed by the Coalition government. And as expected it has been widely criticised by the Muslim community throughout its implementation.

Take for example, Dal Babu, a former chief superintendent until 2013 said many Muslims did not trust the “Prevent” strategy and many saw it as a form of spying, he described Prevent as a “Toxic brand”.

Professor Ted Cantle from the Institute of Community Cohesion (iCoCo) said “Instead of gaining the support of Muslim communities, the previous Prevent Strategy alienated the majority.”

Dr Matthew Wilkinson, director of the think-tank ‘Curriculum for Cohesion’ said about Prevent that it “has been largely unsuccessful”

Yet instead of abandoning the program the government has been insistent on having a hard-line approach by now enforcing it onto the public sector via the CTS Act. The CTS Act which takes effect from the 1st July 2015, reaches into every aspect of the lives of Muslims in Britain. The public sector will be used to spy on Muslim communities.

This includes Muslims children who are identified as being ‘at-risk’ referred through Channel. The new statutory guidance for Channel under the Prevent scheme from April 2015 describes the Channel programme as a ‘multi-agency approach to identify and provide support to individuals who are at risk of being drawn into terrorism’. It operates within sectors and institutions, such as schools, hospitals and nurseries where they believe there are risks of radicalisation. The police are the first point of contact for those referred under the programme before each case is presented to a local panel.

Prevent is not about national security but about ideological indoctrination

The truth about “Prevent” is that it is a programme designed not to catch terrorists, but to enforce the secular liberal belief system and values upon the next generation of the Muslim Community.

Take for example the recent questionnaire to identify possible children who are at risk of radicalisation from a primary school in London, it had questions such as “Do you agree or disagree that;

God has a purpose for me?
I believe my religion is the only correct one?
It’s okay to marry someone from a different race or religion?
People should be free to say what they like, even if it offends others?”
These are questions which are trying to ascertain if the beliefs of Muslim children are in concordance to secular liberal versions of equality, plurality and tolerance and thus whether they are on a path of “radicalisation” that would lead to violence.

Mak Chisty, a police commander recently said that we need to move into the “private space” and mentioned what he sees as signs of radicalisation such as not celebrating Christmas, change of attire from Western clothes, stopping drinking and even not shopping at Marks and Spencer’s! Again “extremism” is framed here as actions that don’t conform to liberal culture.

This is also why, the “Channel” program from “Prevent” disproportionality targets Muslims. Since 2007, when Channel was introduced, 153 children under 11, another 690 aged 12–15 and 554 aged 16–17 have been referred to the programme. The religious affiliation of the 2000+ people that were referred showed that from 2007-10, 67% of those referred were Muslim, from 2012-13, 57% were Muslim. Bearing in mind that Muslims makeup less than 5% of the population!

Simplicity is not a replacement for truth

The Government’s “theory of radicalisation” is criminalising normative Islamic beliefs such as Islam’s views on homosexuality, the role of men and women in creating a stable family home, belief in the Shariah and Khilafah for the Muslim world. Together with the barrage of attacks on the Muslim community by the media and far right groups (taking the lead from mainstream politicians) many Muslims feel isolated and vulnerable living in Britain. Their concerns against British foreign policy is delegitimised and, according to Cameron, it is “condoning terrorism.”

This is leading to an environment in which mosques and Imams are fearful in addressing legitimate concerns and directing the feelings of the Muslim community with the correct concepts of Islam. Thus isolated individuals may undertake criminal and unislamic actions to challenge these perceived unjust policies. Other isolated individuals may make the mistaken assumption that ISIS represents an Islamic state even though they are far from it. Without the ability to present the correct Islamic understanding of the Khilafah, the application of Shariah law and the rules of Jihad the Muslim community are left feeling angered and targeted without Islamic guidance. Thus some individuals may act based on ignorance rather than the guidance of Islam.

Therefore the government’s targeting of legitimate Islamic beliefs and silencing Muslims’ opposition to Western foreign policy will only exacerbate the problem and not solve it. The government may well prefer this silencing of the correct method for revival and challenging Western policy as this serves their agenda to distract wider society to their continued interference in the Muslim world (which is the source of instability). Indeed critiquing the flawed government narrative of “radicalisation” and presenting the correct method for revival would undermine both domestic and foreign policy of Britain exposing the real agenda behind their interference which is to secure their economic and political interests and not to create a stable, just and peaceful world.

In this difficult and hostile environment Muslims must not become silent, succumbing to the intimidation by the British government. We must continue to demonstrate the correct Islamic concepts to guide our community to adhere to Islam and challenge the draconian and unjust policies of Britain whether domestic or foreign.

http://www.hizb.org.uk/current-affairs/dismantling-camerons-claim-that-islam-is-the-cause-of-radicalisation

سيف الله

06-25-2015, 07:02 PM

Salaam

Another update

How Cameron's open war against Muslims feeds terrorism at home and abroad

THE ANTI-MUSLIM drumbeat has become deafening across the western world. As images of atrocities by the jihadi terror group Isis multiply online, and a steady trickle of young Europeans and North Americans head to Syria and Iraq to join them, Muslim communities are under siege.

Last week David Cameron accused British Muslims of “quietly condoning” the ideology that drives Isis sectarian brutality, normalising hatred of “British values”, and blaming the authorities for the “radicalisation” of those who go to fight for it.

It was too much for Sayeeda Warsi, the former Conservative party chair, who condemned the prime minister’s “misguided emphasis” on “Muslim community complicity”. He risked “further alienating” the large majority of Muslims fighting the influence of such groups, she warned.

Even Charles Farr, the hawkish counter-terrorism mandarin at the Home Office, balked. Perhaps fewer than 100 Britons were currently fighting with Isis, he said, and “we risk labelling Muslim communities as somehow intrinsically extremist”.

But Cameron and his neoconservative allies are preparing the ground for the government’s next onslaught. The target will not be terrorism, but “non-violent extremism”. Next month, from nursery schools to optometrists, health services to universities, all will be legally obliged to monitor students and patients for any sign of “extremism” or “radicalisation”.

The new powers represent a level of embedded security surveillance in public life unprecedented in peacetime. We already know from the government’s Prevent programme the chilling impact of such mass spying on schools, where Muslim pupils have been reported for speaking out in favour of Palestinian rights or against the role of British troops in Afghanistan.

But the “counter-extremism” bill announced in the Queen’s Speech is about to take the anti-Muslim clampdown a whole stage further.

The plans include banning orders for non-violent individuals and organisations whose politics are considered unacceptable; physical restriction orders for non-violent individuals deemed “harmful”; powers to close mosques; and vetting controls on broadcasters accused of airing extremist material. It’s censorship under any other name.

That was the view of Sajid Javid, then culture secretary, in a leaked letter to the prime minister earlier this year. But Cameron shows every sign of pressing ahead with what amounts to a full-blown assault on basic liberties. Most ludicrously, the new powers are defended in the name of “British values”, including “individual liberty” and “mutual respect and tolerance”.

But as became clear in the aftermath of the murderous Paris attack on Charlie Hebdo earlier this year, we are not all Charlie when it comes to freedom of speech. Anti-extremism powers will be used overwhelmingly against Muslims, rather than, say, non-Muslim homophobes and racists who have little interest in mutual respect and tolerance.

And they will fail, as their earlier incarnations have done, to discourage the small minority drawn to terrorism at home or jihadi campaigns abroad. Government ministers claim such violence is driven by “ideology” rather than injustice, grievance or its own policies. But, given that they refuse to speak to any significant Muslim organisation they don’t agree with or fund, perhaps it’s not surprising to find them in thrall to an ideology, neoconservatism, of their own.

Any other explanation for the terror threat would in any case implicate the government and its predecessors. In reality, it shouldn’t be so hard to understand why a small section of young alienated Muslims are attracted to fight in Syria and Iraq with Isis and other such groups.

Jihadi “ideology” has been around for a long time. But there were no terror attacks in Britain before US and British forces invaded Afghanistan and Iraq, and those behind every violent attack or terror plot have cited western intervention in the Muslim world as their motivation.

Isis has a different appeal to al-Qaida. It has taken huge stretches of territory using naked terror, destroyed borders and set up a self-proclaimed caliphate. In the Middle East it presents itself as the defender of Sunnis in a convulsive sectarian war. For a few young marginalised western Muslims, such groups can offer the illusion of a fight against tyranny and a powerful sense of identity.

But add in relentless media hostility, rampant Islamophobia, state surveillance and harassment of Muslim communities, and such alienation can only spread.

In the past year, we’ve had the “Trojan Horse” Birmingham schools plot that never was, the ousting of an elected Muslim mayor of Tower Hamlets by a judge – including on grounds that he had exercised “undue spiritual influence” on Muslims – and evidence of an increasing level of anti-Muslim attacks. Islamophobia now far outstrips hostility to any other religion or ethnic group.

Ministers and their media allies downplay the role of “foreign policy” in Muslim radicalisation, against all the evidence.

By foreign policy, they mean multiple western invasions and occupations of Muslim states, torture and state kidnapping on a global scale, and support for dictatorships across the Arab and Muslim world.

That includes Saudi Arabia, of course, which shares much of Isis’s “ideology” and practices; and Egypt, whose ex-military leader, Abdel Fatah al-Sisi, overthrew the elected president in 2013 and is soon to be welcomed to Downing Street.

Isis is itself the direct product of the US and British occupation and destruction of Iraq, and both countries back armed rebel groups fighting in Syria – as they did in Libya. So no wonder would-be jihadis get confused about who is on whose side. Western Isis volunteers are a disaster for Syria and Iraq, but so far they haven’t carried out return attacks at home.

That could of course change, not least as the government criminalises dissent, brands conservative religiosity “extremist” and, in the formulation of ministers, “quietly condones” Islamophobia.

The British government has long fed terrorism with its warmaking abroad. Now it’s also fuelling it with its scapegoating of Muslims at home.

http://stopwar.org.uk/news/how-david-cameron-s-open-war-against-muslims-feeds-terrorism-at-home-and-abroad

سيف الله

07-02-2015, 10:04 PM

Salaam

Another update

CAMERON WILL NOT ENGAGE WITH THE ONLY PEOPLE ABLE TO STOP THE IS NARRATIVE #TUNISIA

Moazzam Begg, Outreach Director at CAGE writes this piece for Middle East Eye following the recent attacks in Tunisia. He states it was a Western backed authoritarian government in Tunisia that suppressed Islam and aided the rise of groups such as the Islamic State

In 2010, when street-vendor Tarek Bouazizi self-immolated on a Tunis street protesting his abuse by police he couldn’t have known that he had ignited the “Arab spring”, which would remove the old dictators and, ultimately, lead to the rise of IS, that in turn would direct attacks on tourists in his homeland.

Detailing his intended reaction to the shootings in Tunisia that killed more than 30 British citizens, Prime Minister David Cameron asserted in the Telegraph:

“…ours must be a full-spectrum response – a response at home and abroad; in the immediate aftermath and far into the future.”

This militaristic language, borrowed straight from the US Department of Defence term “full-spectrum dominance” is bold in its aims, unapologetic of its consequences.

No one can dispute the Prime Minister’s assertion that the killings were barbaric. But what was the motive – the mens rea behind these acts? Was it solely down to a twisted understanding of the Islamic concept of caliphate and jihad? Certainly that expounds the claim to moral justification behind evidently immoral acts. But if we want to meaningfully work to prevent such things in future we need to ask why, not just how.

Shortly after World War I much of the Ottoman Caliphate was dismembered and occupied by Britain. Several client Arab states were created, one of them Iraq. In 1920, resentful locals rose up against their British occupiers. The uprising was quelled, but only after a fledgling British Royal Air Force used poisonous gas and indiscriminate airpower against its victims. The die was cast in Iraqi blood.

In 1991, Britain played a major role in Operation Desert Storm, the US-led assault during which more bombs were dropped on Iraq than the whole of World War II.

In 2003, as part of another US-led coalition, Britain invaded Iraq on the basis of torture evidence and fabricated intelligence. Even as US President George Bush claimed “mission accomplished” Iraqi resistance in the form of localised militias, Baathists and incarnations of Al-Qaeda found unity of purpose not just in battle but in the infamous torture centres of Abu Ghraib and Camp Bucca. Here, the once diametrically opposed Baathists [secular Arab socialists] and Islamic fighters met and exchanged ideas that were to erupt in the form of IS.

At the end of British combat operations in 2009, Prime Minster Gordon Brown said:

"Today Iraq is a success story. We owe much of that to the efforts of British troops…Britain can be proud of our legacy that we leave there."

The coalition left Nouri al-Maliki, a pro-Iranian Shia, in power. Five years later, following a series of humiliating defeats against Maliki’s forces, IS declared the return of the caliphate.

When Britain joined yet another US-led coalition to bomb IS in Iraq and Syria last year, it did so in the knowledge that British citizens were in peril and held hostage. European nations and Turkey successfully negotiated the release of all their hostages. However, Britain and the US chose to increase the bombing campaign against IS instead of negotiate. Consequently, the hostages were executed. Bombing IS, without pause, it seems, was more essential than saving American and British citizens.

Britain has already carried out 300 airstrikes on targets in Syria and Iraq; the US, 6,000. Cameron explained to the BBC how “British aircraft are already delivering the second largest number of airstrikes over Iraq, where ISIL (IS) has taken hold”. If history has taught this country anything it is that more bombing will produce more insecurity – for everyone. Cameron plans an increase.

Cameron told BBC Radio 4 that IS as an existential threat to the UK, which is the “struggle of our generation”. But Britain is threatened by IS because of its sordid history it in the region. IS, however, poses a far greater threat to the Arab and Muslim world.

Ahrar al-Sham - part of the Islamic Front coalition - and Al-Qaeda’s Al Nusra Front are the largest, most effective opposition forces in Syria. They have been at the forefront in the fight against IS. Thousands of their members have been killed in battle, tortured, beheaded and crucified. Despite Al Nusra’s confirmation that Syria would not be used as a launchpad for attacks on the West both groups have been bombed by coalition forces.

Arguably the most credible voices against IS have been Islamic clerics traditionally associated with Al-Qaeda. These include Jordanian scholars Abu Muhammad al-Maqdisi and Abu Qatada. Cameron’s government fought very hard to deport the latter from Britain where he had been imprisoned on the basis of secret evidence, without charge, for over a decade.

In the end, Abu Qatada opted to return to Jordan, of his own accord, where he was acquitted of terrorism charges against him. During and after his imprisonment in the UK and Jordan Abu Qatada made repeated calls for the release of British aid workers and journalists held by militant groups – including IS. He declared their consequent murders unlawful and subsequently issued scathing fatwa [religious edicts] denouncing IS:

"This group [IS] does not have the authority to rule all Muslims and their declaration [the caliphate] applies to no-one but themselves. Its threats to kill opponents, sidelining of other groups and violent way of fighting opponents constitute a great sin, reflecting the reality of the group."

Cameron must be wondering how many young Britons would have joined IS if Abu Qatada made these statements from the UK instead of Jordan?

Britain already has more anti-terrorism laws and measures in operation than at any other time in her history. Cameron is going to support the revival of previously failed attempts to pass the “snoopers charter” and the new extremism bill. Following the attacks in Tunisia he’s likely to succeed.

In his full-spectrum plan to tackle IS, Cameron wants to support weak governments against the threat of terrorism. Islam had been suppressed for decades in Tunisia. It is no surprise extremism is rife there or that the largest numbers of foreigners with IS are Tunisians. Cameron has the duty to protect his citizens and work with others in trying to achieve that, but he would do well to note that it was authoritarian Western-backed governments that, in the name of fighting terrorism, harassed, imprisoned and tortured their own people until they finally had enough.

But why did Seifeddine Rezguie kill 38 innocent tourists? Warped as his ideas must have been, he saw the tourists as representatives of Britain. Britain that had wanted to destroy the caliphate past, and, the caliphate present. The only ones who can successfully challenge the IS narrative, however, are the only ones the government will not engage with.

http://www.cageuk.org/article/cameron-will-not-engage-only-people-able-stop-narrative-tunisia

سيف الله

07-02-2015, 10:08 PM

Salaam

Another update

CAGE PUBLISHES LEAKED PREVENT TRAINING DVD

(London, UK) A source has leaked crucial elements of the PREVENT training module WRAP to CAGE and now for the first time, and in the interest of greater public debate and scrutiny, CAGE is publishing the material.

The DVD clips can be downloaded from these links (here, here, here, here, here, here and here.)

The training DVD makes several simplistic assumptions that are empirically untested, ineffective and raises more questions than it seeks to answer. This may increase the likelihood that ‘extremism’ will be over-reported contributing to growing islamophobia.

The controversial PREVENT policy comes into force from today amid increasing criticism this week from universities, the National Union of Teachers and Conservative Peer Baroness Sayeeda Warsi.

More than 300,000 public sector workers have already been provided this training and thousands more will be required to attend.

CAGE has previously obtained testimonies from concerned public sector staff that have been required to attend the training.

Despite its wide ranging roll out, there has been a cloak of secrecy surrounding the operations of PREVENT as well as its training. This lack of transparency, and PREVENT’s broad potential to criminalise citizens based on thought, is detrimental for a free and fair society.

CAGE spokesperson, Ibrahim Mohamoud noted the following concerns:

“The DVD makes crude comparisons between extremism and addiction and fails to discuss the causes of politically motivated violence. There is a distinct lack of authentic community voices in the film, making it one-sided and out of touch with reality.”

“This will lead to further religious profiling and overzealous reporting, which work to increase political motivated violence, rather than allowing the open debate and dialogue that counter it.”

“The assumption that a few videos can be used to train public sectors workers in a complex issue such as political motivated violence is naive and dangerous. The Counter Terrorism and Security Act 2015, which has made it legally binding for public sector workers to report "extremist" behaviours, combined with this poor training is negatively impacting the very communities that are required to support and help prevent political motivated violence."

“CAGE calls upon the government to abolish PREVENT; it has failed to deliver of the past 8 years, it is discredited, it is toxic and it is alienating the very community that is key to stopping political motivated violence. Questions need to be asked as to why such large amount of public funds have been invested into a programme that appears to be heavily scripted and built on flawed assumptions?”

http://www.cageuk.org/press-release/cage-publishes-leaked-prevent-training-dvd

سيف الله

07-23-2015, 05:36 PM

Salaam

Another update

Fighting the Prevent agenda

From Trojan Horse plots to tales of children going to Syria, those who work in the public sector will not be strangers to counter-terrorism law. Lois JC considers where counter-terror policies come from, their racist roots, and how we confront them in our workplaces. This article was originally published in the Summer 2015 issue of the rs21 magazine and here.

The War on Terror

The War on Terror has disproportionately affected the Muslim community. Since 2001 it has been waged on a global scale. A recent report calculated that during the last 12 years there have been approximately 1.3 million people killed in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan alone. This war does not just involve bombing Muslim countries, but also draconian legislation and the whipping up of Islamophobia. In the UK, there have been five major pieces of legislation dedicated to terrorism since 9/11, the most recent of which is the Counter‑Terrorism and Security Act (CTSA).

While the CTSA has many worrying features, its most concerning aspect is Part 5, which implements the Prevent strategy on a statutory basis.

The Prevent strategy was developed in response to the London bombings in 2005. It claims to stop terrorism by identifying people on the path to radicalisation. Even though this has already been implemented in many quarters, the CTSA would require teachers, doctors, nurses and other workers to spy on their students, patients and co-workers. They would have to refer them to specialist Prevent trained officers if they suspect they are becoming ‘radicalised’.

What is radicalisation?

According to the government’s own assessment framework, radicalisation includes factors such as ‘feelings of grievance and injustice’, ‘being at a transitional time of life ‘and ‘a desire for political and moral change’. These factors can be seen in nearly all teenagers! Radicalisation, according to the Government, leads to extremism. Extremists are defined as those who do not adhere to ‘British values’. These values according to Theresa May include ‘respect for the rule of law, equality, free speech and respect for minorities’. But values change, and are interpreted differently according to whoever is in power. The War on Terror itself has led to violations of all the ‘values’ that Theresa May herself insists upon.

The concepts of ‘radicalisation’ and ‘extremism’ are often skewed by the media. For example, the ‘Trojan Horse’ story alleged that schools in Birmingham were ‘taken over’ by ‘radical interpretations’ of Islam. The Commons Education Select Committee investigated the allegations and found that these claims were groundless, essentially pushed by the former secretary of state for education Michael Gove.

The Prevent strategy is pitched as protecting vulnerable people from the threat of extremist ideology and from groups who are seen to target new ‘recruits’. Similar concepts – ‘safeguarding’, ‘grooming’ – are taught to those combating child sexual abuse. We all want the most vulnerable in society to be protected, but the Prevent strategy does not do that. Firstly, the current situation has political causes. The roots of terrorism lie in Guantanamo Bay, and in the millions dead in Iraq, Pakistan and Afghanistan. There cannot be a solution that does not address these roots; it is not the same as abuse. Secondly, the government is not trusted. It is clear Theresa May’s answer to this is not rehabilitation and support but locking people in prison after a trial with secret evidence. Muslim families who have been subject to harassment by Prevent do not feel that their best interests are considered.

Prevent officers commonly claim that they do not just target Islamic extremism but “far right extremism” too. It is clear, however, that non‑muslims and the far right are not targeted in the same way. Ryan McGee was a soldier and member of the English Defence League who was caught with a nail-bomb and had written “I vow to drag every last immigrant into the fires of hell with me”. He was sentenced to two years, and avoided a terror charge. Solicitor Imran Khan said “It seems that if you are a Muslim, justice is not blind”.

What is the cause of violence?

The War on Terror is based on the idea that violence is rooted in ideology and the faith of Islam. But there is no evidence that faith causes terrorism. Even a leaked government memo said:

“It is sometimes argued that violent extremists have progressed to terrorism by way of a passing commitment to non-violent Islamist extremism … We do not believe that it is accurate to regard radicalisation in this country as a linear ‘conveyor belt’ … This seems to both misread the radicalisation process and to give undue weight to ideological factors.”

Successive governments refuse to acknowledge the role of imperialist wars by the West in Muslim countries, the curtailing of human rights, and the support given to brutal regimes that torture and kill their own people. Even Baroness Eliza Manningham-Buller, the former director of MI5 said that “Our involvement in Iraq radicalised, for want of a better word, a whole generation of young people.”

What can you do?

We need to be able to argue that these policies are not about protection but about surveillance and targeting of Muslims. Union meetings covering the War on Terror and Islamophobia can be useful to start a discussion with people at work about the wider context. Many unions have been addressing this issue at their conferences. The National Union of Teachers warned that these guidelines were shutting down debate and forcing teachers to ‘act as stormtroopers’ to spy on their students. The National Union of Students at its most recent conference adopted a motion to tackle Prevent and the CTSA. There are already plans for resistance to the CTSA once it is fully in place. It is also linked to other issues and campaigns like ‘Students not suspects’, “Cops off Campus”, and campaigns against police brutality. Never forget Jean Charles de Menezes was killed by police at Stockwell tube because he was thought to be Muslim. These links of solidarity are vital to strengthen resistance to the War on Terror.

http://www.cageuk.org/article/fighting-prevent-agenda

سيف الله

07-23-2015, 05:39 PM

Salaam

Another update

David Cameron’s anti-extremism proposals will backfire

(London, UK) David Cameron’s counter-terrorism agenda will create more distrust and alienation among British Muslims and an atmosphere in which political dissent is criminalised. He seeks to tear down a framework of laws built over centuries.

In his speech, Cameron referred to CAGE as an organisation that supports Jihadi John and ISIS in the Middle East. This is simply false. CAGE does not support terrorism or the use of political violence in any form. CAGE does not and has never supported the criminal actions of “Jihadi John”. CAGE has been consistent in its calls for a respect for the rule of law and due process, and has always advocated the need for dialogue and a rational approach to ending the War on Terror[1].

Cameron’s assertions that CAGE is an extremist organisation are false. The deliberate conflation of lawful political dissent with the chaos created in Iraq and Syria is the primary driver of alienation.

CAGE is seeking legal advice regarding possible defamation action given the deliberate attempt to malign a small NGO.

CAGE spokesperson Cerie Bullivant said:

“To outlaw genuine religious expression and political beliefs because they are perceived to be anti-democratic or at odds with the mainstream would put an end to centuries of development in civil liberties. All new ideas and thought start from a point of being seen as being against mainstream values.”

“Not only will it criminalise many more Muslims and thus alienate them from British society but it will also change the nature of the relationship between British civil society for future generations for all citizens. This is a fundamental assault on basic rights and freedoms.”

CAGE Research Director Asim Qureshi said:

“The worst thing about these proposals are that they will also target the ideas and expression of even school age children and turn our schools, universities and workplaces into surveillance centres. The so-called full spectrum attack will only create fear for those communities under intense scrutiny already, and may be the tipping point for many to leave the country despite our call that all right thinking people should join us in opposing these proposals.”

http://www.cageuk.org/press-release/david-cameron%E2%80%99s-anti-extremism-proposals-will-backfire

سيف الله

07-23-2015, 05:42 PM

Salaam

Another update

Repeated rhetoric from Cameron’s failed ‘extremism’ policy

David Cameron has made yet another widely previewed speech about combating ‘extremism’ following a pledge for a full-blown UK offensive against ISIS targets in Syria and Iraq, saying he wants to “destroy the Caliphate in both countries”.

His latest proposals include pushing Muslims to speak out against Islamic ideas such as the Caliphate (not simply speaking out against ISIS); measures to ‘rein in extremists’; targeting those who criticize or question policies and actions of the state labeling them ‘conspiracy theorists’; clamping down on schools to avoid more episodes like the ‘Trojan Horse’ affair; an aggressive promotion of ‘British values’ and a ‘creed’ of shared ideas (including freedom of speech); and a legal definition of extremism including opposition to the rule of law and religious tolerance.

Like his predecessors, Cameron conflates legitimate religious and political views that Muslims hold with the chaos that has been created in Iraq and Syria. His recipe for dealing with ‘extremism’ is a dog’s breakfast – gesture politics, policies that will cause more damage within communities and add to the confusion and chaos across the world, plus a spectacular ideological own goal.

It is gesture politics because he comes across as a showman as opposed to a politician who is genuinely concerned about real issues. So he is showboating by talking about preventing another ‘Trojan Horse’ in schools (though Graham Stuart, Conservative chair of the education select committee in the last Parliament, had said that apart from one solitary incident, no evidence of extremism or radicalisation was found by any of the inquiries into any of the schools involved).

It is gesture politics when he talks about bombing ISIS in Syria and Iraq. We hold no brief for ISIS – who are a militia, lack Islamic legitimacy for any Caliphate or Islamic state and for many of their actions. However, Cameron’s back-of-an-envelope proposal for carpet bombing regions of Iraq and Syria are as credible as ISIS’s Caliphate and Blair’s war in Iraq, and will do little to solve the region’s problems. While almost all Muslims globally do not recognise ISIS as a Caliphate, Cameron and other Western governments are happy to describe it as such and to justify their onslaught against people in the region while openly defending tyrants that kill people in Egypt and the wider region.

It is a recipe for more destruction across the world because military intervention by western governments – whether in Afghanistan, Iraq or Libya – has destabilised entire regions, blighting millions of lives. Cameron says he wishes to destroy ‘the Caliphate’ in both countries (which isn’t a Caliphate), ignoring Britain’s role in destroying the Ottoman Caliphate after World War One, which subsequently destabilised the entire Middle East for decades.

It is a recipe for more division and alienation in communities within the UK because it clamps down on Muslims who express legitimate political views, or who hold normal Islamic views on the Caliphate and Jihad. The Prevent policy has silenced legitimate and credible views of Imams or scholars who are able to explain concepts like ‘Islamic state’ or events such as the murders in Tunisia or Woolwich in any kind of meaningful or credible way for fear of being labeled ‘extremists’.

It is a spectacular ideological own goal because of the contradictions in the policies – as well as the abandonment of any pretence that he actually believes in the values he professes to be upholding.

You cannot launch a PR campaign to promote “British values” whilst simultaneously using civil, legal and security agencies to forcibly convert people to your ‘creed’ because you have failed to convince them intellectually.

You cannot argue that you believe in free speech then clamp down on Muslims who say the Iraq war was a driver of grievance; or who have arguments about the legitimacy of the Zionist entity based on legal and historically valid positions; or by labeling those who expose how Prevent has led to spying on Muslims, or a McCarthyite atmosphere, as conspiracy theorists to be targeted; or targeting those who expose the fact that he and his predecessors in government support dictators and tyrants like Sisi and the Saudi regime (a matter that Eliza Manningham Buller mentioned as deeply troubling in her Reith Lectures some years ago); or by silencing criticism by dismissing any notion of a grievance in a manner that is frankly intellectually dishonest.

You cannot argue that you believe in the rule of law then silence those who expose British complicity in rendition and secret jails, troop abuses in Iraq and Afghanistan and the unlawful actions of his own Home Secretary.

You cannot claim you believe in tolerance and then preside over one of the most intolerant periods in English history towards a minority community, stigmatizing the majority of Muslims if they do not tow a government line. Ironically, he demands Muslims denounce the very concept of a Caliphate that presided over harmony between different faith communities for centuries because of its Islamic approach to protecting peoples’ beliefs and worships – a lesson for him to learn from.

When Cameron clamps down or ridicules those who criticize and expose him, he only proves that he is not able to tackle their arguments.

His message to Muslims is ‘convert to our beliefs and political viewpoints’ or die a political and legal death. The most he can do is gag people, preventing them from saying what they think or punishing them for expressing their views.

Our message to the Muslim community is to ignore the man with the big mouth and little mind. When he has finished this round of rhetoric he will start again, and again. The more he bullies, the more he will fail.

The Muslim community has an important role to fulfil. When Cameron talks about the Caliphate, Muslims should look to the Islamic sources and understand what Islam really says about the Caliphate – and realise that both ISIS and Cameron are wrong!

The Muslim world needs a real Caliphate, not a bogus entity that kills people indiscriminately, is facilitating the breakup of Iraq, and has obstructed the campaign against Assad. The world needs a state to argue against the hegemony of global capitalism, that causes so much suffering.

The Muslim community in Britain needs more Islam, not less, to uphold their dignity in this world and the next in the face of the onslaught from politicians like Cameron, to carry a message of Islam in their words and deeds – expressing frank political views to challenge the state sponsored propaganda.

If the Muslim community follows this dignified Islamic path, little men like Cameron will just wither away, and crumble into political dust.

http://www.hizb.org.uk/current-affairs/repeated-rhetoric-from-camerons-failed-extremism-policy

سيف الله

07-23-2015, 05:58 PM

Salaam

Another update

An Open Letter to Britain’s Leading Violent Extremist: David Cameron

Dear Prime Minister David Cameron,

It is with deep disappointment that I read excerpts of your speech provided by Downing Street to the press, purporting to set out a five-year strategy to tackle fundamentalist terrorism, which — whatever its intentions — is thoroughly misguided, and destined to plunge this country, as well as the Middle East, into further chaos and misery.

I am writing this open letter to request you, as a matter of urgency, to abide by your obligations as a human being, a British citizen, a Member of Parliament, and as our Prime Minister: to undertake proper due-diligence in the formulation of Britain’s foreign, counter-terrorism and security policies, based on the vast array of evidence from scientific and academic studies of foreign policy, terrorism and radicalisation, rather than the influence of far-right extremist ideology, and of narrow vested interest groups keen to profit from war and fear.

Ideology, innit

In your speech, you say:

“It begins by understanding the threat we face and why we face it. What we are fighting, in Islamist extremism, is an ideology. It is an extreme doctrine. And like any extreme doctrine, it is subversive. At its furthest end it seeks to destroy nation-states to invent its own barbaric realm. And it often backs violence to achieve this aim….

And like so many ideologies that have existed before — whether fascist or communist — many people, especially young people, are being drawn to it.

We need to understand why it is proving so attractive… The root cause of the threat we face is the extremist ideology itself.”

But this is already incoherent. You state that the threat is Islamist extremism, an ideology. You then claim that we need to understand why that ideology is so attractive, and you answer the question by claiming that the “root cause” of this threat is the “extremist ideology itself.”

So essentially, the threat is the extremist ideology, and the root cause of the extremist ideology is the extremist ideology.

This is incoherent nonsense.

There are always factors outside ideology that push and pull people to that ideology. No one is suggesting ideology should not be tackled — but a strategy premised primarily on tackling ideology, which is what the government has been doing already for more than a decade, has already failed.

OSCT

Your own government and intelligence counter-terrorism experts have been trying to convince you and your Cabinets of this, for years. Why do you not listen to them?

Charles Farr, Director General of the Home Office’s Office for Security and Counter Terrorism (OSCT), last month repudiated your previous ill-conceived rhetoric implying that extremism is being “quietly condoned” in parts of local British Muslim communities.

He noted that only several hundred Britons have joined the ‘Islamic State’ (ISIS), out of 2.7 million Muslims in Britain, and that rather than insinuating that a threat is hiding amorphously amongst British Muslims, we must recognise that in reality Muslim communities on the whole have proven quite resilient to extremism:

“It’s not to say the challenges they pose are not significant, they are. But … the more we overstate them the more, frankly, we risk labelling Muslim communities as somehow intrinsically extremist, which actually despite an unprecedented wealth of social media propaganda, they have proved not to be. So I think we need to be cautious with our metaphors and with our numbers.”

Farr had also repudiated your claim that the “root cause” is “extremist ideology”:

“The background of broken families, lack of integration into what we might call mainstream society, some level of criminality, sometimes family conflict, are all more than normally apparent… People join terrorist organisations in this country and in others because they get something out of them beyond merely satisfaction of an ideological commitment.

Sometimes it’s about resolution of personal problems, sometimes it’s about certainty in an environment which has deprived them of it, sometimes it’s about excitement and esteem, and we should not omit the last two factors.

This is the reality in Syria and Iraq but also many other contexts we’ve worked on over the past five or 10 years.”

In other word’s Theresa May’s top security official in your government is saying that ideology is not the main reason that people join terrorist organisations. While there is no doubt ideology plays a role in defining the nature of the terrorist group, its self-justification and actions, it is not the main driver of radicalisation.

Why do you not heed the words of your government’s own top counter-terrorism official?

Grievances

You go on to say:

“Some argue it’s because of historic injustices and recent wars, because of poverty and hardship. This argument, the grievance justification, must be challenged…

So when people say its because of the involvement in the Iraq War that people are attacking the West… we should remind them: 9/11 — the biggest loss of life of British citizens in a terrorist attack — happened before the Iraq War.”

The thing is, Prime Minister, is that what you call “the grievance justification” was endorsed by the British government and British intelligence services.

Just three weeks before the 7th July 2005 London bombings, the Joint Terrorism Analysis Centre (JTAC) — which examines intelligence from MI5, MI6, GCHQ, Scotland Yard’s Anti-Terrorism Branch, the Foreign Office, and so on, warned in no uncertain terms:

“Events in Iraq are continuing to act as motivation and a focus of a range of terrorist related activity in the UK.”

In 2006, one year after 7/7, a report prepared for the Ministry of Defence’s internal think-tank, the Defence Academy, concluded — contrary to your dishonest or wilfully ignorant announcements — that the Iraq War had acted as a “recruit sergeant” for al-Qaeda.

The MoD paper, authored by an official linked to MI6, found:

“The war in Iraq… has acted as a recruiting sergeant for extremists across the Muslim world… Iraq has served to radicalise an already disillusioned youth and al-Qaeda has given them the will, intent, purpose and ideology to act.”

Saving Muslims

Nevertheless, you go on:

“When they say that these are wronged Muslims getting revenge on their Western wrongdoers…

…lets remind them: from Kosovo to Somalia, countries like Britain have stepped in to save Muslim people from massacres…”

Ah, Kosovo. It’s convenient that your understanding of the history of British foreign policy is so selective. You omit to mention that the destabilisation of the former Yugoslavia — which set in motion the ethnic conflicts across the Balkans of the 1990s — was planned and fostered by the US, Britain and German governments, setting in motion the events that led to the Srebrenica genocide.

And guess what! We used al-Qaeda fighters to finish the job.

You should really know this, given your job.

No, this is not a conspiracy theory. Although the US originally hoped for some decades to sustain Yugoslavia’s territorial unity and integrity, this changed as it became clear that the impact of escalating economic crises would likely result in the republic’s dismemberment.

As the late Prof. Sean Gervasi, an expert in Yugoslav affairs who was an economic advisor to John F. Kennedy in the White House, explained at a conference in Prague on NATO enlargement, the West:

“… carefully planned, prepared and assisted the secessions which broke Yugoslavia apart… And they did almost everything in their power to expand and prolong the civil wars which began in Croatia and then continued in Bosnia-Herzegovina. They were involved behind the scenes at every stage of the crisis. Foreign intervention was designed to create precisely the conflicts which the Western powers decried. For they also conveniently served as an excuse for overt intervention once civil wars were under way… It is nonetheless true that Germany and the US were the principal agents in dismantling Yugoslavia and sowing chaos there.”

Gervasi quotes the Jane’s Information Group publication, Intelligence Digest, which, citing Western intelligence sources, observed in 1995: “The original US-German design for the former Yugoslavia [included] an independent Muslim-Croat dominated Bosnia-Herzegovina in alliance with an independent Croatia and alongside a greatly weakened Serbia.”

Whether by design or default, German pressure on the EU/EC to recognise Slovenia and Croatia “incontrovertibly hastened the disintegration of Yugoslavia” in a manner with distinctive “economic advantages” for Germany.

US-backed macro-economic restructuring also played a key role in exacerbating inter-ethnic tensions and fuelling nationalist sentiments. Internal economic mismanagement was already deeply problematic, but Yugoslavia’s economic woes were compounded by the US-backed pro-market doctrines.

Through the 1980s, IMF stabilisation programmes and debt restructurings had left Yugoslavia unable to service an expanded external debt exceeding $21 billion. In her seminal study published by Cambridge University Press, Reading Humanitarian Intervention (2003), Prof. Anne Orford of the University Melbourne Law School examines the literature arguing that IMF reforms contributed to the crisis. She concludes:

“The social impact of IMF economic liberalisation and shock therapy stabilisation programmes also had unacknowledged political effects. These programmes arguably fuelled the nationalist dynamic by rapidly restructuring republican and federal levels of government, by implementing policies with divisive social consequences, and by advocating the removal of mechanisms that provided some state support to individuals who would suffer under unrestrained economic liberalism.”

Several scholars have documented this process including historical sociologist Prof. Robin Blackburn of the University of Essex, Catherine Samary of Paris-Dauphine University, and the late Peter Gowan who was professor of international law at London Metropolitan University.

A declassified top secret CIA assessment dated 18th July 1990 noted that Yugoslavia was “making headway” on Western-backed market reforms, but warned that as a consequence:

“Unrest is likely to reach worrisome levels as reforms cause voters to lose their jobs or suffer sharp drops in purchasing power. This will prompt asking the West for more financial support.”

Despite a “bold stabilization campaign” scoring “significant successes,” the CIA report warned:

“These gains came at high cost, including falling industrial output, rising unemployment, and declining real incomes.”

According to a restricted internal memo from the private intelligence firm, Stratfor, obtained by Wikileaks, senior Eurasian analyst Marko Papic told Stratfor analysts to: “Watch for any labor/union/rioting due to the crisis.” This was because, Papic wrote: “Don’t forget, the IMF austerity measures imposed on Yugoslavia was [sic] in part to blame for the start of the war there. We need to be aware of any economically motivated social discontentment.”

As early as October 1990, the CIA’s National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) — circulated to senior White House officials —concluded that:

“Within a year a year the federal system will no longer exist; within two years Yugoslavia will have dissolved as a state.”

While arguing that this was due to “national pride, local economic aspirations, and historically antagonistic religious and cultural identifications” — especially “overheated nationalism fostered by Serbian extremists” — the report also admitted that: “economic reform offers little chance of staving off political dissolution” even if successful.

As expected, the NIE offered offered glowing praise for market reforms, but in an extraordinary analysis nevertheless acknowledged in some detail that the IMF stabilisation programme, combined with local mismanagement, was contributing to dramatic inflation. The report noted that “one third of economic activities would have no justification for existence under market conditions.”

Essentially, the report acknowledged that the preceding years of IMF reform had created an economic point-of-no-return. Noting that “Monetary authorities can squeeze inflation out through restrictive monetary policies,” the assessment found that Yugoslavia had tried that in 1989: “The result was deep recession. Infusions of money to ease the recession immediately reignited old inflationary pressures.”

The CIA assessment also reveals that by late 1990, US and European officials had firmly adopted a policy of attempting to manage a dissolution of Yugoslavia, which they hoped would be “peaceable,” though they knew this was unlikely:

“European powers will pay lipservice to the idea of Yugoslav integrity while quietly accepting the dissolution of the federation. West European governments share Washington’s hope that Yugoslavia’s transformation will be peaceable, but they will not provide much financial support. Austrian officials fear possible consequences from a breakup of Yugoslavia but say, nonetheless, that they favor democracy and self-determination above unity. Bonn, with its influence in the region greatly enhanced by unification, will continue to foster individual contacts between German state governments and the emerging Yugoslav successor states.”

Thus, in 1990, years before the outbreak of conflict, the US and Europe were already jockeying to position themselves in preparation for the break-up of Yugoslavia.

The CIA assessment also predicted that the most likely source of violence would come from Serb efforts to “reincorporate disputed territory into greater Serbia.” It assessed that Slovenia and Croatia as “independent democratic market-oriented states” would be most easily integrated into Western Europe, but that Serbia — due to “nationalism and statism” — would be inhibited from such integration due to its “failure to adopt similar political and economic reforms,” to agree to settlements, and its human rights record.

Nevertheless, as Balkans expert Tim Judah documented in his book, Serbs: History, Myth and the Destruction of Yugoslavia (2008), the US effectively gave the “green light not only for the conquest of Srebrenica but of Krajina too” with a view to facilitate the carve-up of Bosnia and corresponding “simplified” population exchanges. The Srebrenica massacre in July “could not be ignored,” found Judah, but “it could nonetheless be used…

“Immediately after the massacres took place, the Americans had satellite pictures showing the location of mass graves but these were released in the UN Security Council only on 9 August, at such a time as to distract attention from the exodus of Krajina’s entire population which was then taking place.”

The US was also arming Bosnian Muslims through an alliance with Islamists.

According to British intelligence historian Prof. Richard Aldrich, summarising intelligence files exhibited in the official Dutch government inquiry into the Srebrenica massacre, the Pentagon, with support from MI6, literally flew in al-Qaeda mujahideen into Bosnia from 1992 to 1995, in violation of the UN arms embargo. The so-called ‘black flights’ carrying arms and military trainers were undertaken largely by Turkish and Iranian planes, and later by unidentified black C-130 Hercules aircraft — all facilitated under Pentagon control of Yugoslav airspace.

The Dutch report, by intelligence expert Prof. Cees Wiebes, estimates the mujahideen presence in Bosnia to have been around several thousand, facilitated by the Pentagon operation. The intelligence files show that the US and Britain were aware that multiple Muslim regimes were dispatching mujahideen fighters to Bosnia.

According to investigative journalist JM Berger, also a Brookings Institute fellow, a declassified State Department cable shows that the black flights documented by Wiebes routinely carried Islamist mujahideen fighters into Bosnia. One plane from Iran (out of hundreds) was intercepted by the Croats. Apart from being “fully loaded with arms,” there were also “20 to 40 mujahideen fighters on the plane… these were probably not all (or even mostly) Iranians. Iranian nationals in Bosnia functioned more as trainers and intelligence agents, but Iran helped smuggle in fighters from around the Muslim world.” Berger also reported that: “American military veterans were also flying into Bosnia to serve as trainers to the Bosnian mujahideen during the same period.”

The Croats, according to Berger, contacted US embassy staff — obviously not privy to the top secret Pentagon operation — who, perplexed, told them to send the plane back.

Wiebes points out that the mujahideen were integrated into the Bosnian Armed Forces, receiving significant arms and logistical support, although they operated with considerable autonomy.

While the culpability of Serb forces in genocidal violence against Bosnian Muslims is well-documented, less known is the role of these foreign Islamist militants in carrying out massacres and atrocities.

A report from the International Centre for Counter Terrorism (ICCT) in The Hague notes tensions between local Muslims and the mujahideen entering Bosnia with Pentagon support. Far from ameliorating violence, the mujahideen committed decapitations and mutilations of both soldiers and civilians. Jan Willem Honig and Norbert Both, in their Srebrenica: Record of a War Crime, acknowledge that, emboldened by these forces, Bosnian Muslims had “conquered and ethnically cleansed a vast area” — though they remained severely outmatched by the better armed Serb forces.

After Dayton, the Bosnian government issued thousands of passports, birth certificates and other documents to the mujahideen fighters, some of whom became implicated in terrorist activity.

A classified US State Department report leaked in 2001 showed that officials believed Bosnia had now become “a staging area and safe haven” for terrorists linked to Osama bin Laden.

Even one of your own senior Tory figures — Sir Alfred Sherman, top adviser to Margaret Thatcher and co-founder of the Centre for Policy Studies — noted in 1997 that:

“The US encouraged and facilitated the dispatch of arms to the Moslems via Iran and Eastern Europe — a fact which was denied in Washington at the time in face of overwhelming evidence…

The war in Bosnia was America’s war in every sense of the word. The US administration helped start it, kept it going, and prevented its early end. Indeed all the indications are that it intends to continue the war in the near future, as soon as its Moslem proteges are fully armed and trained.”

The NATO operations in the Balkans were about expanding US hegemony into Eastern Europe and rolling back Russian influence, according to Sir Sherman.

A year later, then US energy secretary Bill Richardson agreed with him in reference to US interests in Caspian oil and gas:

“This is about American’s energy security. It’s also about preventing strategic inroads by those who don’t share out values. We’re trying to move these newly independent countries toward the west. We would like to see them reliant on western commercial and political interests rather than going another way. We’ve made a very substantial political investment in the Caspian and it’s very important to us that both the pipeline map and the politics come out right.”

In 1996, MI6 had according to American intelligence sources begun working with Islamist extremists Omar Bakri Mohammed, Abu Hamza and Haroon Rashid Aswat to recruit British Muslims to fight in Kosovo. Among the factions Britain and the US supported as part of the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA) were al-Qaeda units linked to Ayman al-Zawahiri, bin Laden’s deputy at the time.

Ironically, the 1999 NATO bombing campaign which you claim was perpetrated to support Muslims in fact accelerated the violence and precipitated the ethnic cleansing of Kosovan Albanians. The OSCE inquiry found that “the pattern of the expulsions and the vast increase in lootings, killings, rape, kidnappings and pillage once the NATO air war began on March 24… The most visible change in the events was after NATO launched its first airstrikes.”

Then NATO Commander Gen. Wesley Clark admitted at the time that it was “entirely predictable” that Serb atrocities would intensify due to the bombing: “The military authorities fully anticipated the vicious approach that Milosevic would adopt, as well as the terrible efficiency with which he would carry it out.”

So why bomb? Not to save Albanians, according to Gen. Clark, who even pointed out that the NATO operation planned by:

“… the political leadership…was not designed as a means of blocking Serb ethnic cleansing. It was not designed as a means of waging war against the Serb and MUP [internal police] forces in Kosovo. Not in any way. There was never any intent to do that. That was not the idea.”

Saving Muslims in Kosovo from ethnic cleansing was “not the idea” according to NATO’s commanding General at the time — but you know better?

Revenge

None of this justifies “wronged Muslims” taking “revenge” against the West.

The terrorists who killed and maimed on 7/7 and 9/11 and so on, are not “wronged Muslims.” They are despicable criminals. But the despicable nature of their savagery does not erase the fact that Western wrongdoing plays a role in fuelling the grievances that permit extremist ideology to fester.

The funny thing is, Prime Minister, that it’s not mad conspiracy theorists that disagree with you on this: it’s British government counter-terrorism experts.

According to a joint Home Office and Foreign Office study based on survey evidence, information from British intelligence services, and academic research, foreign policy grievances are critical.

The report concluded:

“It seems that a particularly strong cause of disillusionment amongst Muslims including young Muslims is a perceived ‘double standard’ in the foreign policy of western governments (and often those of Muslim governments), in particular Britain and the US…

Perceived Western bias in Israel’s favour over the Israel/Palestinian conflict is a key long term grievance of the international Muslim community which probably influences British Muslims.

This perception seems to have become more acute post 9/11. The perception is that passive ‘oppression’, as demonstrated in British foreign policy, eg non-action on Kashmir and Chechnya, has given way to `active oppression’ — the war on terror, and in Iraq and Afghanistan are all seen by a section of British Muslims as having been acts against Islam.

This disillusionment may contribute to a sense of helplessness with regard to the situation of Muslims in the world, with a lack of any tangible ‘pressure valves,’ in order to vent frustrations, anger or dissent.

Hence this may lead to a desire for a simple ‘Islamic’ solution to the perceived oppression/problems faced by the ‘Ummah’ — Palestine, Iraq, Chechnya, Kashmir and Afghanistan.”

So British intelligence, along with senior civil servants and experts in the Home Office and Foreign Office, are all basically deluded?

But you and your Cabinet have somehow developed a special insight missed by counter-terrorism specialists in the Ministry of Defence, MI5 and MI6?

Murder

You say:

“…it’s groups like ISIL, Al Qaeda and Boko Haram that are the ones murdering Muslims.”

While entirely true, it is false to claim that these despicable groups are the only ones “murdering Muslims.”

The scale of death wrought by successive British and American governments in Iraq and Afghanistan alone — both before and after 9/11 — is truly colossal, by any standard.

Even taking on the lowest possible numbers — Prof Stephen Walt of Harvard University calculates very conservatively 288,000 Muslims killed by US forces, compared to 10,000 Americans killed — Western violence in the Muslim world far outweigh deaths of Westerners due to Islamist terrorism.

Prof. Walt, a founder of one of the core theories of International Relations, structural realism, has pointed out that:

“Our real problem isn’t a fictitious Muslim ‘narrative’ about America’s role in the region; it is mostly the actual things we have been doing in recent years.”

Over the last 30 years (thus including decades before 9/11), he wrote, the US and UK have “killed nearly 30 Muslims for every American lost” — a ratio that “is probably much higher” in reality.

How much higher? A number of scientific estimates suggest that the total number of people killed in Iraq and Afghanistan by US and British covert and overt interventions, since 1990, approximates 4 million.

Wherever the real figures are between these higher and lower estimates, the upshot is that what you call “the grievance justification” is not, in fact, about “justification” at all.

It is about motivation.

And there can be no doubt that British government and intelligence counter-terrorism experts for the last decade largely agree that Britain’s dismal foreign policy record in the Middle East, North Africa and South Asia has stoked resentment and provoked anger, thus fuelling the grievances that terrorist groups use to attract disillusioned recruits.

Why are you ignoring them?

You condemn the narrative of a ‘war on Islam’ while ignoring how our foreign policy has contributed to that narrative.

If you want to change the narrative, Prime Minister, you need to acknowledge the facts of history, and change your policy.

Exclusion

You continue:

“Others might say: its because terrorists are driven to their actions by poverty.

But that ignores the fact that many of these terrorists have had the full advantages of prosperous families and a Western university education.”

The same Home Office and Foreign Office report had also highlighted economic disadvantage as a critical factor in radicalisation.

Not, however, in the simplistic straw-man sense that you knock down, but in the more important sense that the deprivation experienced by the majority of British Muslims contributes to the formation of a general sense of identity associated with social exclusion, even for those who are not themselves excluded:

“Muslims are more likely than other faith groups to have no qualifications (over two fifths have none) and to be unemployed and economically inactive, and are over-represented in deprived areas. However, this is largely associated with the disadvantage of the Pakistani and Bangladeshi communities, whereas the experience of Indian and Arab Muslims is much less disadvantaged…

There is still low Muslim representation in mainstream institutions of influence, especially for women — eg in public appointments, volunteering and mainstream politics (although the Home Office Citizenship Survey 2001 suggests that low Muslim participation rates largely reflect non-faith factors such as education, economic empowerment, age and gender).”

When a wider community experiences deprivation and unemployment — and 70% of British Muslims of South Asian ethnicity are in poverty — all the social science literature confirms that this has a detrimental impact on general identity formation in those communities, and exacerbates a sense of exclusion.

No one is saying that this alone makes a terrorist. The reality, though, is that this sense of exclusion contributes to the grievances that terrorist groups like al-Qaeda and ISIS exploit to recruit to their cause.

Integration

You also insinuate that Muslims in particular suffer disproportionately from a lack of integration within Britain, which contributes to their disloyalty to Britain, and even hostility to its citizens.

“For all our successes as multi-racial, multi-faith democracy, we have to confront a tragic truth that there are people born and raised in this country who dont really identify with Britain — and feel little or no attachment to other people here.

Indeed, there is a danger in some of our communities that you can go your whole life and have little to do with people from other faiths and backgrounds.

So when groups like ISIL seek to rally our young people to their poisonous cause, it can offer them a sense of belonging that they can lack here at home leaving them more susceptible to radicalisation and even violence against other British people to whom they feel no real allegiance.”

Your contempt for facts, Prime Minister, is astonishing.

For despite the social exclusion that British Muslims suffer from disproportionately, it is not British Muslims who are failing to integrate with people from other faiths and backgrounds — it’s people like you.

In February, a ComRes poll of British Muslims for the BBC found that 93% believe they should always obey British laws; 95% feel loyalty to the country; 84% would not leave Britain to live in a Muslim state; 85% feel no sympathy towards those fighting against Western interests; 85% did not agree that organisations publishing depictions of the Prophet Muhammed should be attacked.

The poll also revealed that the risk of radicalisation was very much bound up with grievances. It showed that 30% of British Muslims aged 18 to 34 had some sympathy with the motives of the Charlie Hebdo attackers. So despite overwhelming opposition to the Charlie Hebdo attacks, a firm belief in their lack of justification, and unswerving loyalty to Britain, just over a quarter of young British Muslims felt some affinity with what they thought to be the grievances that motivated the attacks.

The latest poll corroborates previous polls. In 2009, Gallup found that 77% of Muslims say they “identified with the UK,” compared with only 50% of the public at large.

That is despite 75% of British Muslims also identifying with their religion. Religious belief, then, is not a barrier for the 82% of Muslims who say they are loyal to the UK.

The barrier is coming from outside Muslim communities. The Gallup poll showed that only 36% of the general public would consider Muslims loyal to the country: in other words, a disturbing majority of the general British public — 67% of Britons — are suspicious of Muslims in general.

Prime Minister, it seems, you are among that majority. Are you not ashamed?

Poll after poll, study after study, consistently prove that British Muslims are more integrated into British society than their compatriots. Many of the latter, beguiled by the constant association of Muslims with terror thanks to poorly researched and ill-informed speeches such as yours, rarely come across people of other faiths, barely know any Muslims (or other members of other minority communities), and therefore find it easy to swallow stereotypical fear-mongering promoted by politicians.

The Gallup poll, also pointed out that another major factor in inhibiting Muslims from reaching their “full potential” in Britain was economic. The poll found found that only 7% of British Muslims were considered “thriving” compared with 56% of the general population, and only 38% said they had a job, compared with 62% of the general public.

It’s worth noting here that the joint Home Office/Foreign Office report cited above, which drew on British intelligence, showed that the perception of anti-Muslim hostility is another major factor in radicalisation:

“Perceived Islamophobia (particularly post-9/11) in society and the media may cause some British Muslims including young Muslims to feel isolated and alienated and in a few cases to reject democratic and multi-cultural values…

Lack of understanding of Islam — insensitive use of language and perceptions of Islam and an ill-informed assumption that Islam’s teachings are inherently extremist. Media coverage of extremist fringe groups increases this…

Muslims’ perception of bias in the way counter-terrorism powers are used to stop, detain and arrest people, both at ports and in-country.”

So, Prime Minister, you have successfully reinforced the overwhelming perception among British Muslims that they are a problem community requiring special measures, thus vindicating the bigotry of far-right neo-Nazi extremists, and feeding the victim mentality that extremists prey on to exploit and recruit.

Sell outs

Why is your government so intent on ignoring the consensus in the academic literature on terrorism and radicalisation, which has proven your ideological presumptions about both to be fanciful theories, promoted by ignorant American neoconservatives?

Indeed, I am appalled but sadly not surprised to hear that instead of listening to experts with years of direct experience in the field, you are still taking advice from the laughably inept group of misfits who operate under the nomenclature of “the Quilliam Foundation.”

On Sunday afternoon, Quilliam’s founding chairman Maajid Nawaz tweeted:

“PM Cameron ‪@Number10gov gives major policy-defining speech on extremism tomorrow. I helped with it. It’s significant.”

He added:

“…. his speech will acknowledge this has something, not everything, but something to do with Islam.”

What advice did you receive from Maajid Nawaz? And why is it that you and your government take the Quilliam Foundation so seriously?

I ask this because of your statements as follows:

“But you dont have to support violence to subscribe to certain intolerant ideas which create a climate in which extremists can flourish.

Ideas which are hostile to basic liberal values such as democracy, freedom and sexual equality.

Ideas which actively promote discrimination, sectarianism and segregation.

Ideas — like those of the despicable far right — which privilege one identity to the detriment of the rights and freedoms of others…

We believe in freedom of speech, freedom of worship, equal rights regardless of race, sex, sexuality or faith. We believe in respecting different faiths but also expecting those faiths to support the British way of life.”

Does your government not vet the people it calls into No. 10 Downing Street?

Are you not aware that Maajid Nawaz and the ‘experts’ employed by his ‘thick-tank’, Quilliam Foundation, completely lack even a shred of meaningful academic expertise (not a single contribution to the peer-reviewed academic literature at all) and are largely devoid of any meaningful, concrete experience of actual counter-radicalisation/counter-terrorism practice?

Are you not aware that Quilliam is merely a tool of far-right violent extremists in the US?

If not, why not? Surely the government vets the people it calls into Whitehall?

You claim that freedom of speech is a British value, but you take advice from a man who appointed to the board of Quilliam an American neoconservative bigot, Chad Sweet, a former US Homeland Security official under the Bush administration who now sits on the board of the FBI’s InfraGard, which facilitates spying on the public for corporate interests. The American Civil Liberties Union has criticised InfraGard for eroding freedom of speech and political dissent—both of which are integral to democracy, no?

During his tenure as an American director of Nawaz’s Quilliam Foundation, Chad Sweet was campaign manager for Senator Ted Cruz — the far-right neocon bigot who is openly homophobic, racist, and misogynist, as well as being a climate denier.

As a Quilliam director, Sweet happily promoted Cruz and his Republican brand of homophobia, racism and misogyny to his heart’s content, without a peep of protest from the ‘liberal’ Nawaz, who is clearly happy to harbour the very same bigotry he publicly opposes, on his very own Board of Directors.

Chad Sweet was and is part of a wider US network of white supremacists who see anti-Muslim hatred as their ticket to political victory.

Also on Quilliam’s US board is Courtney La Bau, who is Vice President of a bank not only linked to the repressive regime of Hosni Mubarak in Egypt, but which also has a joint partnership with Saudi Arabia’s largest private bank, al-Rahji, described by US intelligence as a “conduit for extremist finance” — al-Rahji’s founder is a member of Osama bin Laden’s ‘Golden Chain’ of al-Qaeda financiers.

Over the last few years, Quilliam has received a million dollars in funding from a Republican front charity — Gen Next Inc. — which essentially operates to raise money for Republican political candidates, and for political causes and issues close to the hard-right of the Republic circuit: much of this involves promoting politicians who promote war — war and regime-change in the Muslim world.

The network’s members include senior members of the Bush administration who spearheaded the invasion of Iraq, which alone killed nearly a million people (according to last year’s study by the Nobel Prize-winning doctors group, Physicians for Social Responsibility).

These violent extremists pull the strings of the unqualified morons you are inviting into the heart of government, to advise you on your speeches and policies.

Given your professed concern with tackling “entryist” violent extremism, this is quite alarming.

The Home Office/Foreign Office report mentioned above even referred to how the government’s reliance on such crony organisations, with no grassroots credibility or expertise, is alienating and radicalising people:

“Some young Muslims are disillusioned with mainstream Muslim organisations that are perceived as pedestrian, ineffective and in many cases, as `sell-outs’ to HMG.

The government must make a more concerted effort to persuade the Muslim community that it is trusted and respected. That requires a change of language. Public challenges to Muslims to decide where their loyalties lie are counterproductive.”

It’s been over 10 years since that internal government study, and no lessons have been learned. To the contrary, you are repeating and reinforcing the incompetent, self-serving mistakes of your predecessors.

Your far-right promoters

Worse, Prime Minister, you are associating with people who stand for the very illiberal anti-British values you claim to oppose.

I am thinking, for instance, of one of your closest confidents and ad hoc advisors, Lord Daniel Finkelstein, who sits on the board of the Gatestone Institute, a notorious US think-tank that promotes far-right extremism and racism. This is the same think-tank that hosted Geert Wilders, who your Home Secretary previously banned for his racist incitement. Wilders not only promotes hatred of Muslims, he has openly called for ethnic Moroccans to be depopulated from the Netherlands.

Yet Finkelstein has promoted Wilders’ anti-Muslim bigotry and racist calls to depopulate Europe of its Muslims by, along with his other Gatestone board members, approving the publication of screeds sanitising and defending his far-right extremist ideology.

Finkelstein, in the same capacity at Gatestone, promotes the very same blogger who was cited 111 times by far-right terrorist Anders Breivik in his manifesto, and who has stated:

“Islam and all those who practice it must be total and physically removed from the Western world.”

Lord Finkelstein disavows that he personally advocates or believes such things. But he insists that such ideas deserve to be heard and platformed, and himself actively ensures they are heard and platformed. And he appears to have your ear.

Why?

Why do you cavort with a man who gleefully promotes racism and xenophobia, a man who publishes through the Gatestone Institute absurd narratives of “Muslim no go zones,” which you yourself described as idiocy?

Prime Minister, please disclose in the public interest the nature of your conversations with faux-liberals like Finkelstein and Nawaz, and please explain why your opposition to far-right extremism does not extend to rooting out the promoters and sympathisers of violent far-right extremism whom you are harbouring in your own private advisory sessions.

Conspiracy

You go on to suggest that those who criticise your government’s flawed and misguided counter-terrorism policies are engaged in malevolent conspiracy theories:

“And ideas also based on conspiracy…

..that Jews exercise malevolent power…

…or that Western powers, in concert with Israel, are deliberately humiliating Muslims, because they aim to destroy Islam.

In this warped worldview, such conclusions are reached…

…that 9/11 was actually inspired by Mossad to provoke the invasion of Afghanistan…

…that British security services knew about 7/7, but didnt do anything about it because they wanted to provoke an anti-Muslim backlash.”

Why is it that in 2007, when Tony Blair dismissed the need for an independent public inquiry into 7/7 as it would “undermine support” for the security services, you condemned his stance and demanded a full inquiry as only that would “get to the truth.”?

Let’s cut to the chase, Prime Minister — this not about “conspiracy theories.” It’s about your utter contempt for the 7/7 families and survivors, who after having suffered the worst terrorist attack in Britain since WW2, had to endure your government’s backtracking of your promise to hold an independent public inquiry.

It was the 7/7 families and survivors who were asking the hard questions that, before your rise to government, you disingenously supported to win votes.

Urgent questions like — why did MI5 lie by claiming it had not identified any of the 7/7 bombers prior to the attacks?

Why did the government lie by pretending that no warnings whatsoever of the attacks had been received by the intelligence services, when in fact, as we now know from leaks published in the press, dozens of warnings were received?

Why, despite urging an inquiry into the “preventability” of the attacks while hoping for votes, do you now effectively mock the 7/7 families and survivors, and the lawyers and experts who supported their call for an inquiry, as conspiracy theorists, complicit in extremism?

Prime Minister, this is disgusting behaviour, and it does not represent British values.

Scum

You say:

“The world is not conspiring against Islam; the security services arent behind terrorist attacks; our new Prevent duty for schools is not about criminalising or spying on Muslim children.”

As usual, your straw-men are irrelevant.

Your government played a key role in creating the murdering, rapist, tyrannical scum rampaging across Iraq-Syria under the banner of the ‘Islamic State.’

In your self-serving drive to destabilise the regime of Bashir al-Assad in Syria, and to rollback Iranian influence in the region on behalf of your allies in the Gulf, you and the US supported those despicable Gulf regimes in supplying arms and aid to al-Qaeda in Iraq, al-Qaeda in Syria, the Muslim Brotherhood, and Salafi-jihadist groups: groups that you now conveniently claim to oppose.

In 2012, the intelligence community was fully aware that the core of the rebel insurgency being supported by the West, the Gulf states and Turkey was overrun by al-Qaeda. We were warned that continuing this strategy would spawn a “Salafist Principality” in eastern Syria, which would in turn trigger the eruption of an “Islamic State” entity across Iraq and Syria.

Yet you, in alliance with the Obama administration, accelerated the strategy. You accelerated it knowing full well that British and Western Muslims were being recruited by extremists to fight in Syria, knowing full well that many of them would return to the West and pose a threat to our national security — yet in your noble pursuit to topple Assad the dictator, you helped other dictators support the extremists that would become ISIS, and you turned a blind eye to the radicalisation of a minority of our young people here as a result.

Even now, while you pontificate obscenely from your pulpit about “extremism,” British military intelligence officials are on the ground in Turkey and Jordan, working with the Gulf states and Turkey to supply arms and aid, and to coordinate operations, for al-Qaeda forces in Syria — purportedly to counter ISIS.

But you’d rather we don’t ask questions about that, right Prime Minister?

You’d rather we scrutinise the views of Muslim children — even when your own Parliament’s inquiry into the ‘Trojan Horse’ school allegations concluded that your Education Minister, Michael Gove, had severely overreached:

“One incident apart, no evidence of extremism or radicalisation was found by any of the inquiries in any of the schools involved. Neither was there any evidence of a sustained plot, nor of significant problems in other parts of the country.”

You have claimed on NBC news to be committed to working with the US “to destroy the caliphate” in Iraq and Syria, but you are working with some of the most extremist, corrupt and violent regimes in the region — Saudi Arabia, Qatar, the UAE, Turkey, Israel — supposedly to promote democracy and human rights.

These are the very same regimes which, by the admission of your American colleague, Vice President Joe Biden, funded al-Qaeda in Iraq (which became ISIS) and its rival al-Qaeda in Syria (many of whose members went on to join ISIS).

Now you are working with them to “destroy the caliphate,” despite failing to investigate and shut-down the same funding networks to these violent extremists that your government helped establish.

Your war, Prime Minister, is a farce.

You, more than any other British citizen, are complicit in the rise of ISIS, and the radicalisation of a minority of Britons. You have helped create the militant groups which, you rightly acknowledge, are murdering not just Westerners, but Muslims in Iraq, Syria and beyond.

The only people that will benefit from all this are giant defence contractors, many of which are closely connected to your party, and which hold overbearing counter-democratic influence on your foreign policy.

“Whether you are Muslim, Hindu, Jewish, Christian or Sikh, whether you were born here or born abroad, we can all feel part of this country — and we must all now come together and stand up for our values with confidence and pride.”

I don’t need you to tell me stand up for our values, or to feel part of my country, thank you very much.

I’m British-born and bred, and unlike you, I’ve been standing against violent extremists of all stripes, Muslim and Western, for much of my working life.

I’m standing up for British values right now, and taking this opportunity to demand that you stand up for British values by denouncing the violent extremism that you have been perpetrating, harbouring, and allying with through your own government.

I look forward to hearing from you soon.

Yours sincerely,

Dr. Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed

https://medium.com/insurge-intelligence/an-open-letter-to-britain-s-leading-violent-extremist-david-cameron-abb568861784

سيف الله

07-23-2015, 08:53 PM

Salaam

Another update

Responding to David Cameron’s ‘clash of civilisations’ speech

Following David Cameron's speech this week on his proposed counter-extremism measures, Asim Qureshi writes this piece, critical of the Prime Minister's approach and the language used as divisive and evoke a combative state between communities instead of bridging the divide between communities and the state. Cameron, again fails to address the causes and grievances and instead focuses on conspiracy theories advocated by a minority of people.

Part of David Cameron’s endorsement of the PREVENT strategy and CHANNEL deradicalisation programmes in the UK, is the notion that the government wishes to end the ‘us’ and ‘them’ mentality that plagues ‘extremists’ in the UK. However, his speech outlining new counter-extremism measures fortifies the very clash that he claims he is seeking to avoid. This is underlined in the language he uses:

“What we are fighting, in Islamist extremism, is an ideology.

It is an extreme doctrine.

And like any extreme doctrine, it is subversive.

At its furthest end it seeks to destroy nation-states to invent its own barbaric realm.

And it often backs violence to achieve this aim...

…mostly violence against fellow Muslims - who don’t subscribe to its sick worldview.”

There are a number of things wrong with these utterances.

To begin with, Cameron refers to the contest between ideas as a fight, reminiscent of George Bush’s War on Terror “crusade” in 2001. How is this fight to take place? What are the jurisdictional boundaries of the fight, and what are the rules of engagement?

To say that the language is poorly framed would be to undermine its significance. There is malicious intent in the words; they evoke a combative state towards communities, as opposed to redressing or bridging the divide between them and the state.

What are the hallmarks of this ideology that Cameron references? It is “extreme” and “subversive” and wants to “destroy” and is “barbaric” and “sick” and uses “violence”. These words tell us very little about what this ideology is, other than that it is evil and that we should hate it. The ultimate aim is to instill fear, as opposed to build cohesion.

Conspiracies are not the issue

It is absurd that the Prime Minister pays so much homage to the conspiracy theory elements of what some (Muslims and non-Muslims) believe, rather than engaging with the actual grievances Muslims have.

Just to be clear on what the majority of Muslims believe in relation to the prevailing conspiracy theories:

Muslims don’t believe that Jews have malevolent power. They do however believe that Israel’s atrocities against the Palestinian people are disproportionally whitewashed and given impunity by Western powers.
Muslims don’t believe there is a concerted effort by governments to humiliate Islam. They are concerned that so much of what governments do, gives that impression – we would just rather it all stopped so we could stop thinking there might just be something there.
Those involved in ‘truth’ movements around 9/11 and 7/7, are largely from non-Muslim backgrounds. You very rarely hear of people within Muslim communities speaking in these tones. Rather, there has been widespread condemnation of those actions, even though Muslims feel that they have no responsibility towards the criminal acts of individuals.

Revising history from 9/11 is a mistake

For David Cameron, the starting point of the War on Terror was 9/11, as if there was a complete vacuum when it came to the West’s relationship with the Muslim world before then. According to his revisionist version of history, nothing was wrong with the world, then 9/11 happened, and that heralded a new era.

But nothing could be further from the truth. There is a long history of political violence prior to 9/11 between the Muslim world and the West, with lengthy grievances attached to both. When detainees were sent to Bagram Airbase after the US invasion of Afghanistan in 2001, each cell at Bagram had a flashpoint in the conflict between East and West attached to it, such as the 1988 Lockerbie bombing or the 1979 attack on the US Embassy in Tehran. The American soldiers were not distinguishing between Sunni or Shia flashpoints, but rather othered Muslims as a whole.

There is also an assumption implicit in Cameron’s speech that 9/11 was an attack on all the West, rather than on the United States specifically.

This narrative, invariably leads David Cameron to adopt a ‘white saviour complex’ where he evokes Kosovo and Somalia as examples of where Britain has been magnanimously involved.

I was a very young man when the conflict in Kosovo began, and I knew many of the details of what was taking place due to reports coming from the region through refugees and others. NATO intervened when the massacres had already taken place. Only when slaughter beyond reckoning had occurred, did NATO feel the time had come to intervene. The saviour role that Cameron ascribes to Britain in this context is dubious and should be questioned.

Terrorism is not built on ideology

“But let's not delude ourselves. We could deal with all these issues - and some people in our country and elsewhere would still be drawn to Islamist extremism.”

For David Cameron the grievances that Muslims feel, can all be dealt with - except they have never been dealt with.

The last 14 years of the War on Terror have been based on the idea that somehow the existential threat of terrorism and political violence can be defeated by a securitized approach manifested in the government’s toxic PREVENT strategy. This approach has not only failed, but it has actually made us all less safe than ever.

The emergence of groups such as the Islamic State, condemned by Muslim scholars across the globe, are a phenomenon borne of decisions made by governments in 2002, not from ideology.

The best evidence of this is the fact that the very al-Qaeda scholars the West was so concerned about then, are now at the front lines of challenging the Islamic State on the very ideological basis into which Cameron groups them all.

The British Prime Minister’s speech is yet another example of poor thinking and short sightedness. Should the UK government remain on this combative course, things will not get any better.

http://www.cageuk.org/article/responding-david-cameron%E2%80%99s-%E2%80%98clash-civilisations%E2%80%99-speech

Karl

07-24-2015, 12:43 AM

Yes it is all very obvious. You have Jewish leaders in Europe and the rest of the West riding on moronic whites in their war to genocide their old enemies the Muslims.
They know they are talking drivel as they tighten up the screws, but the moronic whites buy it. The Jews have been infiltrating and grooming these cretins for centuries.

سيف الله

07-27-2015, 10:10 AM

Salaam

Another update

LESSON IN HYPOCRISY: CAMERON’S SPEECH AT MY SON’S SCHOOL

In this piece written for the Middle East Eye, Outreach Director Moazzam Begg discusses the Prime Minister’s duplicitous approach to tackling extremism following his speech this week in Birmingham, at the very school Begg's son attends. This approach to extremism is one that Begg believes will not wash with ordinary Muslims.

When it comes to education it seems that Prime Minster David Cameron is supportive at least of some local institutions that I’ve been involved with. I was pleased to hear him mention that the local Jewish King David primary school that I attended as child was a fine example of integration. I completely agree – it’s a wonderful school, although I don’t know what Britain’s most senior Muslim police officer who sought to enforce Cameron’s anti-extremism measures by citing hostility to Christmas as a form of extremism, would make of it. We never celebrated Christmas at King David.

What I’m sure escaped the Prime Minister was that while he extolled the virtues of adhering to the “rule of law,” a core British value in the fight against extremism, he was speaking from a Birmingham school attended by a child directly impacted by successive British governments’ violation of the rule of law.

In his speech at my son’s school, Cameron again stated the importance of being part of a tolerant and inclusive Britain under a set of values that undermines extremism. The British values debate, of course, isn’t new. A 2006 BBC poll identified the anniversary of the signing of Magna Carta as the best date to celebrate Britishness. 15th June this year marked the 800th anniversary of Magna Carta. I took one of my children with me to see an exhibition about it displayed at the British Library last week. I’d contributed to one of the art installations. Only three clauses of the document are still relevant today, the most famous of which is number 39:

No free man shall be seized or imprisoned, or stripped of his rights or possessions, or outlawed or exiled, or deprived of his standing in any way, nor will we proceed with force against him, or send others to do so, except by the lawful judgment of his equals or by the law of the land.

The history was fascinating - the hypocrisy palpable.

My son was born while his father was being abducted, falsely imprisoned without charge and tortured in Bagram and Guantanamo in the presence of British MI5/6 agents. I never met him until my release, when he was three years old.

Whilst it is true that Cameron did order an inquiry into allegations of British complicity in torture over five years ago, there has never been any government accountability and nothing has come of the inquiry. In fact, although once again tortures have escaped prosecution, the US has been much more forthcoming in admitting gross human rights violations committed by its spies.

Last year, again, my family was thrown out of our home by scores of anti-terrorism police officers scouring for evidence to imprison me – this time legally – for a long time. I was imprisoned and denied bail; the Home Secretary confiscated my passport and the Treasury froze my assets because I’d supported Syrian rebels with a generator and fitness exercises, long before the emergence of ISIS.

At the time Cameron’s government was openly supporting the same Syrian rebels with non-lethal aid. In 2013, evidence that the Asad regime had used chemical weapons prompted Cameron to seek – and embarrassingly lose - parliamentary consent for airstrikes against the regime. The duplicity of Cameron’s decision to bomb ISIS targets in Syria, revealed this week, without seeking parliamentary approval couldn’t be starker.

After awaiting trial for seven months as a high-risk inmate of a maximum-security prison I was released and declared innocent by police. But it was during this period, especially after prison visits, that my children, who’d been too young to understand concepts like freedom, democracy and the rule of law when I was in Guantanamo, finally saw what it meant to be a Muslim target of a state.

Over the years I have taught my children not to hate those who have harmed them or me, only to seek justice and accountability while holding true to their beliefs. Painful as it may be, I’ve invited US soldiers over to my house to meet the children they prevented me from seeing just so they can understand who we really are.

Belief in the Caliphate, jihad and shariah do not make people extreme. Cameron should know this better than most; he launched shariah-banking bonds a couple of years ago when he stated Britain was “one of the greatest centres for Islamic finance anywhere in the world”.

Cameron would do well to remember that Gandhi supported the caliphate movement every time he passes by his statue at parliament. The historic and very British Charge of the Light Brigade was done in support of the Ottoman Caliphate and to protect British trade routes to India. My grandfather and his father fought in both world wars as part of the British Indian army. Rightly or wrongly they did so believing they were doing jihad. Britain has since supported jihad against the Soviets, Gaddafi and even Assad.

Cameron chided the National Union of Students (NUS) for supporting CAGE, which he claims, apologises for terrorism. This kind of tabloid assessment of an organisation best placed to identify and unpick causes of alienation among Muslims typifies the PM’s inability to engage the community. His failure to allow us to act in the matter of Alan Henning is a sad matter of record.

It is agreed that ISIS has hijacked Islam and poses an existential threat to the Muslim world. But, just as Cameron said that (Muslims) condemning ISIS is not enough, he can’t redefine what Islam is, no matter how many lackeys he conjures up. His disconnection to mainstream Muslim views was evident when he dismissed the moderate Ramadan Foundation’s criticism as self-appointed and extremist.

The fight against extremism cannot be won while Cameron’s government continues to act hypocritically. But based on what we’ve seen so far, hypocrisy is as British as the Magna Carta.

http://www.cageuk.org/article/lesson-hypocrisy-cameron%E2%80%99s-speech-my-son%E2%80%99s-school

سيف الله

07-27-2015, 10:14 AM

Salaam

Another comment piece

Our latest weapon in the war on terror? Organic free-range tripe

Is David Cameron the man who will destroy freedom in order to save it? His strange, wild speech on Monday suggests that he is. Mr Cameron, as careful observers already know, has a surprisingly poor grasp of history and politics and does not seem to be very clever.

The reception given to his outburst was mostly friendly, all across what is supposed to the spectrum of media opinion – though increasingly it is not a spectrum but a monolithic bloc.

Did they read it? I did. It is full of seething organic free-range tripe.

He actually tries to pretend that Britain’s involvement in the Iraq War has had nothing to do with the development of resentful Islamist militancy here. He does this by saying that the September 11 attack on Manhattan took place before the Iraq War.

Indeed it did. It was motivated – as one of the hijackers, Abdulaziz al-Omari, made clear in his own recorded testament – by Arab fury over America’s support for Israel, and the continued presence of US troops on Saudi soil. And it succeeded in changing US policy on both.

Terror is rational. Terrorists know that it works, or why has the USA started supporting the two-state solution in Israel which it long opposed, and why is Martin McGuinness invited to Windsor Castle these days?

If Mr Cameron doesn’t like terrorism, then he wouldn’t have met Mr McGuinness and the even ghastlier IRA mouthpiece, Gerry Adams, at Downing Street last week. But he did. How can that be if, as the Prime Minister says, ‘British resolve saw off the IRA’s assaults on our way of life’. Oddly, you only saw the pictures of this pair meeting Jeremy Corbyn on the same day. The Downing Street meeting was not, it seems, filmed.

But that’s only a part of the problem. Mr Cameron claimed that we have, in this country, a ‘very clear creed’. But do we?

He says: ‘We are all British. We respect democracy and the rule of law. We believe in freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of worship, equal rights regardless of race, sex, sexuality or faith.’

Little of this is true. Few regard themselves as British any more. Votes are bought by billionaire donations and incredibly expensive marketing. Democracy is surely not respected by the growing legions who don’t vote. And, as Mr Cameron acknowledged, there are now areas of this country where votes are rigged and voters intimidated for the first time since the days of Dickens.

Freedom of speech, for those who don’t accept multiculturalism or the sexual revolution, is increasingly limited, mainly by threats to the jobs of those who speak out of turn.

Mr Cameron is also plain wrong when he says our freedom stems from democracy. Democracy these days involves agreeing with whatever slogans the Murdoch press is shouting.

Our freedom comes from the 1689 Bill of Rights, which he doesn’t seem to know exists, from Magna Carta, which he can’t translate, from Habeas Corpus, which has been whittled away on the excuse of counter-terrorism, and from jury trial, which is fast disappearing. Freedom of speech certainly can’t be defended by banning ‘hate-preachers’, which Mr Cameron is so proud of doing. Freedom of speech is freedom above all for those whose views you dislike most.

Nor can it be strengthened by demanding that people publicly declare that they don’t hold certain opinions. Mr Cameron actually said: ‘We must demand that people also condemn the wild conspiracy theories, the anti-Semitism, and the sectarianism too. Being tough on this is entirely in keeping with our values’.

How on earth is he going to make this happen? Electric shocks until they get their minds right? Personally, I’d much rather know that such people held these frightful views, than have them forced to pretend they didn’t.

Then there is: ‘We need to put out of action the key extremist influencers who are careful to operate just inside the law, but who clearly detest British society and everything we stand for.’

Put out of action? If they are inside the law, which protects the freedom Mr Cameron so values, what does this foggy phrase mean? Sandbagging them as they come out of the mosque?

I’m also not very reassured that we have a Premier who thinks he can advise TV companies on who they should and should not invite on to the airwaves. I think we can all see where that leads.

Mr Cameron and Mr Blair, and their predecessors over decades, have gone a long way towards Islamising this country through uncontrolled immigration and state multiculturalism. They have begun to panic, because they at last realise what they have done, and rightly fear they cannot stop it.

http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/

سيف الله

07-27-2015, 11:42 AM

Salaam

Another update

It’s scary just how much David Cameron doesn’t seem to understand extremism

Instead of ignoring all the expert advice he’s been given, the Prime Minister should address the political roots of terrorism.

Imagine a Prime Minister, during the height of The Troubles in Northern Ireland, announcing in a speech that he intended to tackle terrorism head on. To do this, he would crack down on the churches which “quietly condone” the IRA, and criminalise opposition to “British values” and the “rule of law” amongst dissidents.

Forget about pursuing a political resolution to the conflict over Northern Ireland, says the PM – this is about ideology and a misplaced sense of “grievance” by the IRA. As part of a raft of new policies, “non-violent extremists” – such as late Ian Paisley perhaps – would be shut out of any political dialogue, since clearly they were a “gateway” to loyalist terrorism, and certainly in no way able to contribute towards a peaceful future.

Such a PM might be condemned as entirely unable to grasp the nature of the conflict in Northern Ireland at the time, and with the benefit of hindsight, we could also say how entirely counter-productive the unnatural focus on religion and ideology was.

Well in 2015, we have a leader who just delivered a speech outlining how it was bad religion, and not politics, that is the cause of political violence. I use the phrase political violence because whether we are talking about Lee Rigby in the United Kingdom, or the Charleston shootings in the United States, or Anders Brevik in Oslo, we are talking about individuals who had political points to make with the lives they took.

Yet in his speech today, Cameron confidently stated that it was ideology that was the major factor in turning people to violence. This is despite the fact hundreds of academics, many who specialise in radicalisation and conflict, signed a public letter criticising the Government’s PREVENT policy’s obsession with the “unsubstantiated view that religious ideology is the primary driving factor for terrorism”. They argued instead that “academic research suggests that social, economic and political factors, as well as social exclusion, play a more central role in driving political violence than ideology.”

In his speech today Cameron also called non-violent extremists a “gateway” to violence. This is despite the fact that in 2010 a Whitehall report specifically argued the opposite, noting that only a handful of violent extremists had ties to non-violent extremist groups – directly in contradiction with Cameron’s own statements today.

Dr Matthew Francis, an academic researching radicalisation, specifically stresses that there is a difference between ideology and violence – “there are radicals that aren’t terrorists, but you also have terrorists who are not radical. It is important to make sure that these concepts are divorced.” This conveyor-belt theory on radicalisation has been discredited at every turn by experts and researchers, and is concerning not least because it casts the net of extremism so wide it undermines some very basic civil liberties.

t’s slightly scary how wrong Cameron is about violent extremism. He’s going against the academic consensus on radicalisation as well as the advice of his own civil servants. Instead, he’s apparently taking advice from Maajid Nawaz – a man whose most notable counter-extremism success is to get Tommy Robinson to leave the English Defence League. Nawaz describes himself as a former extremist, which appears to be his sole claim to expertise in the area of radicalisation. Unlike Nawaz, I’m not an extremist – and I’ve never been one either. I, like many millions of other British Muslims, have never seen the appeal of violence. If Cameron had asked me to advise him on his speech today, my advice would have been pretty straightforward.

Firstly, I’d tell him to address the political roots of terrorism – do this and the appeal of extremist ideology will disappear. For example, maybe it isn’t a great idea to give bombs to Saudi Arabia to deploy across Yemen. I mean, maybe it’s in the desperation and human suffering of nations which are bombed that groups like the Islamic State thrive. The Islamic State was born in post-war Iraq, it grew in the wake of conflict in Syria, and it is expanding in places like Libya. Despite this, Cameron still supports a bombing campaign in Yemen.

I’d probably also suggest Cameron not conflate religious conservatism with violent extremism. The new Liberal Democrat leader, Tim Farron, was criticised for refusing to answer a question on whether homosexuality was a sin. Yet he still clarified his commitment to LGBT rights. He demonstrates it is possible to hold unpopular, even unsavoury, religious views while fully participating in society and civic life. Just because a Muslim believes the leadership of a global Caliph would be valuable to Muslims (for example, to resolve global debates about the dates of Islamic festivals), doesn’t mean he or she is supports the Islamic State.

And finally, I’d suggest he stop linking debates about integration to debates about violent extremism. Tackling forced marriage and female genital mutilation is important. But it has nothing to do with terrorism, and largely cuts across religious groups. Instead of calling on Muslims to ascribe to some imagined list of “British values”, Cameron would do well to recognise that British Muslims are already as British as is possible. Their strengths are Britain’s strengths and their failures are Britain’s failures. By ending the incessant questioning of British Muslims, the rhetoric of violent extremists is undermined.

Perhaps if he listened to any of this, we could then formulate a counter-terrorism policy that worked.

http://www.hizb.org.uk/news-watch/its-scary-just-how-much-david-cameron-doesnt-seem-to-understand-extremism

Abz2000

07-27-2015, 08:56 PM

the best counter terrorism strategy is to collectively repent because God has promised to cast terror into the hearts of those criminals who refuse to submit to His laws as completed in the Quran and sunnah.
the punishment gets even worse when the rebellious criminals in God's kingdom try to form gangs called "armies" and use violence to fight against His obedient servants who work hard to establish His laws.

Karl

07-27-2015, 10:24 PM

Originally Posted by Abz2000

Hey, I thought people had freedom of choice? Do the terrorists need to repent too? Or is what they do just fine?

Abz2000

07-27-2015, 11:10 PM

everyone needs to repent, even God repents when people repent.
you need to re-read the story of Jonah bro.
innahu huwa at tawwaab arraheem.

Baqaara*[2:37]******** **فَتَلَقَّى آدَمُ مِن رَّبِّهِ كَلِمَاتٍ فَتَابَ عَلَيْهِ إِنَّهُ هُوَ التَّوَّابُ الرَّحِيمُ*
Fatalaqqa*adamu min rabbihi kalimatin fataba AAalayhi innahu huwa alttawwabu alrraheemu

Then learnt Adam from his Lord words of inspiration, and his Lord Turned towards him; for He is Oft-Returning, Most Merciful.****

**[20:122]
******** **ثُمَّ اجْتَبَاهُ رَبُّهُ فَتَابَ عَلَيْهِ وَهَدَى
Thumma ijtabahu rabbuhu fataba AAalayhi wahada

But his Lord chose him (Jonah) (for His Grace): He turned to him, and gave him Guidance.

ardianto

07-27-2015, 11:45 PM

Originally Posted by Abz2000

even God repents when people repent

What sin that God has done so He repented?.

MuslimInshallah

07-28-2015, 12:34 AM

Originally Posted by Abz2000

Baqaara*[2:37]******** ** إِنَّهُ هُوَ التَّوَّابُ الرَّحِيمُ*
innahu huwa alttawwabu alrraheemu

Sahih International translation: Indeed, it is He who is the Accepting of repentance, the Merciful.

Abz2000

07-28-2015, 12:45 AM

lol we need an arabic speaker to explain the definition of the term repent :)
even the aramaic and hebrew use it.

when we repent of our wicked ways which are in rebellion to God,
God repents of the punishment.

Brother ardianto, we mustn't confuse tawba with istighfar.

we'll often find that the interpreters resorted to interpreting when translating in order to catch the spirit over the letter, but it can get confusing when one tries to break it down from a different language with the aim of finding the letter.

لَقَد تَّابَ الله عَلَى النَّبِيِّ وَالْمُهَاجِرِينَ وَالأَنصَارِ الَّذِينَ اتَّبَعُوهُ فِي سَاعَةِ الْعُسْرَةِ مِن بَعْدِ مَا كَادَ يَزِيغُ قُلُوبُ فَرِيقٍ مِّنْهُمْ ثُمَّ تَابَ عَلَيْهِمْ إِنَّهُ بِهِمْ رَؤُوفٌ رَّحِيمٌ

{117*009:117*Khan:Allah has forgiven the Prophet (SAW), the Muhajirun (Muslim emigrants who left their homes and came to Al-Madinah) and the Ansar (Muslims of Al-Madinah) who followed him (Muhammad SAW) in the time of distress (Tabuk expedition, etc.), after the hearts of a party of them had nearly deviated (from the Right Path), but He accepted their repentance. Certainly, He is unto them full of Kindness, Most Merciful.

009:117*Maulana:Certainly Allah has turned in mercy to the Prophet and the Emigrants and the Helpers who followed him in the hour of hardship, after the hearts of a part of them were about to deviate; then He turned to them in mercy. Surely to them He is Compassionate, Merciful;

009:117*Pickthal:Allah hath turned in mercy to the Prophet, and to the Muhajirin and the Ansar who followed him in the hour of hardship. After the hearts of a party of them had almost swerved aside, then turned He unto them in mercy. Lo! He is Full of Pity, Merciful for them.

009:117*Rashad:GOD has redeemed the prophet, and the immigrants (Muhajireen) and the supporters who hosted them and gave them refuge (Ansar), who followed him during the difficult times. That is when the hearts of some of them almost wavered. But He has redeemed them, for He is Compassionate towards them, Most Merciful.

009:117*Sarwar:God pardoned the Prophet, the Emigrants, the Helpers, and those who followed them, when the hearts of some of them almost deviated (from the truth) in their hour of difficulty. God forgave them because of His Compassion and Mercy.

009:117*Shakir:Certainly Allah has turned (mercifully) to the Prophet and those who fled (their homes) and the helpers who followed him in the hour of straitness after the hearts of a part of them were about to deviate, then He turned to them (mercifully); surely to them He is Compassionate, Merciful.

009:117*Sherali:ALLAH has certainly turned with mercy to the Prophet and to the Emigrants and the Helpers who followed him in the hour of distress after the hearts of a party of them had almost swerved from duty. HE again turned to them with mercy. Surely, HE is to them Compassionate, Merciful.

009:117*Yusufali:Allah turned with favour to the Prophet, the Muhajirs, and the Ansar,- who followed him in a time of distress, after that the hearts of a part of them had nearly swerved (from duty); but He turned to them (also): for He is unto them Most Kind, Most Merciful.

1And the word of the LORD came unto Jonah the second time, saying,*2Arise, go unto Nineveh, that great city, and preach unto it the preaching that I bid thee.*
3So Jonah arose, and went unto Nineveh, according to the word of the LORD. Now Nineveh was an exceeding great city of three days' journey.*
4And Jonah began to enter into the city a day's journey, and he cried, and said, Yet forty days, and Nineveh shall be overthrown.
Nineveh Repents
5So the people of Nineveh believed God, and proclaimed a fast, and put on sackcloth, from the greatest of them even to the least of them.*
6For word came unto the king of Nineveh, and he arose from his throne, and he laid his robe from him, and covered*him*with sackcloth, and sat in ashes.*
7And he caused*it*to be proclaimed and published through Nineveh by the decree of the king and his nobles, saying, Let neither man nor beast, herd nor flock, taste any thing: let them not feed, nor drink water:*
8But let man and beast be covered with sackcloth, and cry mightily unto God: yea, let them turn every one from his evil way, and from the violence that*isin their hands.*

9Who can tell*if*God will turn and repent, and turn away from his fierce anger, that we perish not?

10And God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way; and God repented of the evil, that he had said that he would do unto them; and he did*it*not.
Jonah chapter 3 kjv

a bit like when God says:
fadhkuroonee adhkurukum washkuroo lee wa laa takfuroon.
remember Me, i shall remember you, and be grateful to me, and do not reject Me.

awfoo bi 'ahdee ooffee bi 'ahdikum
fulfill your covenant with Me, and i shall fullfill My covenant with you.

it's not that God has to, but that He has set a process and law in motion - and has made oppression haraam upon Himself.

May Allah reward you with good in this world and in eternity for your effort respected sister, i checked again just in case and found that the translation in sahih international was off the mark..

“At-Tawwab” is one of*Allah’s 99 Names.

The meaning of*At-Tawwab is “The Ever Returning, Ever Relenting”

i thibk this is the most beautiful piece of recitation i have ever heard - the word tawbah is reapeated in many variations.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/veg3p6dj71...a%20H.mp3?dl=0

ardianto

07-28-2015, 04:11 PM

Originally Posted by Abz2000

lol we need an arabic speaker to explain the definition of the term repent
even the aramaic and hebrew use it.

when we repent of our wicked ways which are in rebellion to God,
God repents of the punishment.

Brother ardianto, we mustn't confuse tawba with istighfar.

English-Indonesian dictionary translate repent in "bertobat". It's means "regretting the sin, ask forgiveness, and stop doing sin again". The word "tobat/taubat" itself is derived from Arabic word "tawbah". Yes, Malay/Indonesian language contains many words that derived from Arabic. And of course I know the difference between tawbah and istighfar because istighfar itself can be found in Indonesian language, it's mean "saying Astaghfirullah al-adzim"

At-Tawwab in 99 Allah names does not mean "ever relenting" , but means "the granter and acceptor of tawbah (repentance). Allah is the forgiver (Al-Ghafur) of human sins, is the pardoner (A-Afuww). If Allah repents, then who accept His repentance?.

Originally Posted by Abz2000

**[20:122]
******** **ثُمَّ اجْتَبَاهُ رَبُّهُ فَتَابَ عَلَيْهِ وَهَدَى
Thumma ijtabahu rabbuhu fataba AAalayhi wahada

But his Lord chose him (Jonah) (for His Grace): He turned to him, and gave him Guidance.

This verse is not about prophet Yunus (as), but about prophet Adam (as). You can read surah At-Thaahaa from verse 115 into verse 123.

:)

Abz2000

07-28-2015, 05:06 PM

Originally Posted by ardianto

my mistake, i neglected to check the verse and mistakenly thought it was about Yunus pbuh.

regarding the term taubah though you would need to research further bro.
it means "returning".

you have the term "taqwa" which is "adhering/clinging to/being on side"
and when you lose the adherence to Allah and go astray, you're on the opposite side, the dark side.
and God's face is turned away/darkened/displeased.
until you "return", then God also "returns" - If He pleases

Found in:*Knowledge
Al Bukhari - Hadith no: 66

Narrated: Abu Waqid Al-Laithi

While Allah's Apostle was sitting in the mosque with some people, three men came.
Two of them came in front of Allah's Apostle and the third one went away.
The two persons kept on standing before Allah's Apostle for a while and then one of them found a place in the circle and sat there while the other sat behind the gathering, and the third one went away.

When Allah's Apostle finished his preaching, he said, "Shall I tell you about these three persons?

One of them be-took himself to Allah, so Allah took him into His grace and mercy and accommodated him,
the second felt shy from Allah, so Allah sheltered Him in His mercy (and did not punish him),
while the third turned his face from Allah and went away, so Allah turned His face from him likewise. "

http://ahadith.co.uk/hadithbynarrato...l-Laithi&bid=1

Exerpt from hadith 7149 in Sahih Muslim. Book of piety and softening of hearts.

We went on till we came to Jabir b. Abdullah in the mosque and he was busy in observing prayer in one cloth which he had joined at its opposite ends.
I made my way through the people till I sat between him and the Qibla and I said: May Allah have mercy upon you. Do you observe prayer with one cloth on your body whereas your mantle is lying at your side?
He pointed me with his hand towards my breast just like this and he separated his fingers and bent them in the shape of a bow. And (he said): I thought that a fool like you should come to me so that he should see me as I do and he should then also do like it. Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) came to us in this very mosque and he had in his hand the twig of the palm-tree and he saw mucus towards the Qibla of the mosque and he erased it with the help of the twig.

He then came to us and said: Who amongst you likes that Allah should turn His face away from him?
We were afraid.
He then again said: Who amongst you likes that Allah should turn His face away from him?
We were afraid.
He again said: Who amongst you likes that Allah should turn His face away from him?
We said: Allah's Messenger, none of us likes it. And he said: If one amongst you stands for prayer, Allah, the Exalted and Glorious, is before him he should not spit in front of him, or on his right side, but should spit on his left side beneath his left foot and if he is impelled to do so all of a sudden (in spite of himself) he should then spit in his cloth and fold it in some part of it. (and he further said: ) Bring some sweet-smelling thing. A young man who belonged to our tribe stood up, went and brought scent in his palm. Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) took that and applied it to the end of that twig and then touched the place where there had been mucus. Jabir said: This is why you should apply scent to your mosques.

"Allah says, 'I am as my servant expects Me to be, and I am with him when he remembers me.
If he thinks of Me, I think of him.
If he mentions Me in company, I mention him in an even better company.
When he comes closer to Me by a handspan, I come closer to him an arm's length.
If he draws closer to Me by an arm's length, I draw closer by a*distance of two outstretched arms nearer to him. If my servant comes to Me walking, I go to him running."*
(Al-Bukhari)

Karl

07-28-2015, 09:56 PM

Attila the Hun used to send a message "Prepare to be enslaved or die". I wonder if "Islamic State" models themselves on him rather than on any prophets? To my mind actions speak louder than words. When the West says "freedom and democracy" and slaughters people in vast numbers, I think what kind of "freedom" is that? And when brigands slaughter many in the name of God, I wonder what god are they truly worshipping? Or they could be totally godless and doing it for the money.

Remember the prophets were the messengers of God (the messenger ones I mean). They only delivered the word, people can take it or leave it because it is between themselves and God and no one else's business. A political force that enforces the word on the people has no authority from God. God is Lord NOT some self-righteous people. God is judge NOT some self-righteous people.

Abz2000

07-29-2015, 12:10 AM

Originally Posted by Karl

Remember the prophets were the messengers of God (the messenger ones I mean). They only delivered the word, people can take it or leave it because it is between themselves and God and no one else's business.

when you say "messenger" (rasul) with exception to "prophet" (nabi) (news bearer/bringer of tidings) it's difficult even for the scholars to differentiate properly - despite it being known and clear that Allah swt makes a distinction (Allah knws best) - which ones do you mean?

Originally Posted by Karl

A political force that enforces the word on the people has no authority from God. God is Lord NOT some self-righteous people. God is judge NOT some self-righteous people.

[/quote]

Is it that you have understood this from the Quran or simply from hawaa?
secondly, what do you think it is that should be legislated and enforced? And based on what?

Sahih International: [And they are] those who, if We give them authority in the land, establish prayer and give zakah and enjoin what is right and forbid what is wrong. And to Allah belongs the outcome of [all] matters.
Quran 22:41

Indeed, Allah has purchased from the believers their lives and their properties [in exchange] for that they will have Paradise. They fight in the cause of Allah , so they kill and are killed. [It is] a true promise [binding] upon Him in the Torah and the Gospel and the Qur'an. And who is truer to his covenant than Allah ? So rejoice in your transaction which you have contracted. And it is that which is the great attainment.
Quran 9:111

O you who have believed, whoever of you should revert from his religion
– Allah will bring forth [in place of them] a people He will love and who will love Him
humble toward the believers, powerful against the disbelievers;
they strive in the cause of Allah and do not fear the blame of a critic.
That is the favor of Allah; He bestows it upon whom He wills. And Allah is all-Encompassing and Knowing.
Quran 5:54

Abu Bakr (Abdullah ibn Abi Quhafa) - Al Siddeeq's inaugural speech:

I have been given the authority over you, and I am not the best of you.
If I do well, help me; and if I do wrong, set me right.
Sincere regard for truth is loyalty and disregard for truth is treachery.
The weak amongst you shall be strong with me until I have secured his rights, if God wills;
and the strong amongst you shall be weak with me until I have wrested from him the rights of others, if God wills.
Obey me so long as I obey God and His Messenger.
But if I disobey God and His Messenger, you owe me no obedience.
Arise for your prayer, God have mercy upon you.

Abu Bakr's Caliphate lasted for 27 months, during which he crushed the rebellion of the Arab tribes throughout the*Arabian Peninsula*in the successful*Ridda Wars.
In the last months of his rule, he launched campaigns against the*Sassanid Empire*and the*Eastern Roman Empire*(Byzantine Empire) and thus set in motion a historical trajectory*(continued later on by*Umar*and*Uthman ibn Affan) that in just a few short decades would lead to one of the*largest empires in history.
He had little time to pay attention to the administration of state, though state affairs remained stable during his Caliphate.
On the advice of Umar and Abu Ubaidah ibn al-Jarrah he agreed to have a salary from state treasury and abolish his cloth trade.

It was once the internal struggles with the murtaddeen of the peninsula were over that 'Umar ibn Al Khattab (may Allah have mercy on him) was able to establish an orderly inter-continental state while expanding the rule of Allah east and west.

These were neither prophets - nor messengers.
they were level headed, seasoned men of God.

it's easy to detachedly condemn a people who were slaughtered for over 20 years with no recourse to justice, and even easier it seems, when they come to the inevitable truth that there is none who has the right to be obeyed in disobedience to God.

سيف الله

07-29-2015, 05:46 PM

Salaam

Another update

‘Extremist is the secular word for heretic': the Hizb ut-Tahrir leader who insists on his right to speak

As David Cameron lays out a counter-extremism strategy that he calls ‘the struggle of our generation’, the voice of the ‘extremists’ has been missing. So what does Dr Abdul Wahid really believe?

Since the Islamic State atrocity in Tunisia David Cameron has made a series of statements pointing the finger at those he calls extremists. These people, says the prime minister, refuse to subscribe to British values such as free speech and the rule of law.

Cameron does not assert that all extremists are terrorists. He does, however, warn that extremists form a pool where terrorism can flourish and from which killers emerge. This week, in a headline-grabbing speech, he laid out a counter-extremism strategy to fight what he described as “the struggle of our generation”.

As the prime minister has developed this theme he has persistently raised one group’s name as the most noxious: Hizb ut-Tahrir.

Cameron called for HT, the pan Islamist movement which presses for the restoration of the caliphate and introduction of sharia law, to be banned in 2007, following the example of Tony Blair two years earlier. He named it again a month ago in his Today programme interview in the wake of the Tunisian atrocity.

As the latest round of this debate has unfolded, one voice has been noticeably absent: that of the alleged extremist. And it seems worth examining exactly what form that extremism takes. So it is that I go to a leafy street in West London, where Dr Abdul Wahid, chairman of the executive committee of the of the British wing of HT, lives with his wife and two sons.

I have known Wahid for around a decade, ever since the time of the Iraq invasion. We have dinner occasionally. As well as his role at HT, he’s a GP. Today the weather is warm and he answers the door in a safari suit. He bought it, he says, on a recent pilgrimage to Saudi Arabia. (Later, he emails to specify that it’s from Medina, explaining “Saudi is an entity that was conceived in the Foreign Office, not in Islam”.)

His front room is a very ordinary environment for a man who leads an organisation so frequently accused of bigotry and worse. In recent years HT has been charged with trying to bring down democracy, antisemitism and suppressing women. It also outrages many foreign governments. When the head of the Pakistan army visited Britain in January, getting Britain to clamp down on HT was top of his agenda.

So, then: what does it feel like to be singled out by the government as an extremist? “Extremist,” says Wahid, “is the secular word for heretic. It means that you don’t subscribe to certain political and social norms.” Blair and Cameron,” he adds, “suffer from the disease of populism. Blair felt like after 7/7 he had to do something, and Cameron echoes a lot of that kind of talk. He is relying on the ignorance of most people and trying to get away with it.

“Someone murders people in Tunisia, and he goes on talking about people in Britain with political ideas and religious views he doesn’t like, who have nothing to do with violence. And he spins it in a way that makes it look almost seamless.” But what of the link, which has been made by many besides the prime minister, between extremist opinions and terrorism? Wahid is well prepared for this question: “Nobody serious has any evidence of that link. And in fact, several big players have actually refuted it.” He cites the work by Marc Sageman, a former CIA officer and forensic psychiatrist, which (he says) challenges the notion of a linear progression towards radicalisation. He quotes then MI5 chief Eliza Manningham-Buller telling the Chilcot enquiry that the Iraq invasion provoked Muslim terrorism. He has chapter and verse from a leaked cabinet memo from 2010 saying there was no “typical pathway to violent extremism”.

What of elections? In Britain, I suggest, we believe in democracy, free speech, tolerance. His critics say that he doesn’t believe in any of those things and in particular, not in democracy. Wahid replies: “Well, we have a view on democracy. I believe in voting, I believe in elections. The caliphate we want to see is one where a ruler would be elected, accountable, not above the law; accountable to people, to political groups, to elected assembly, to independent media.”

Wahid says David Cameron’s belief in democracy is just skin deep: “You don’t have to be a member of HT to say this, there are an awful lot of flaws and contradictions in the democratic system.

“Let us just remind ourselves at this juncture that Britain’s head of state is actually a hereditary monarch; she’s not elected and her successor will not be elected. Britain’s legislature has two houses, one of which is an appointed house. Cameron goes and has tea and dinner with the royal families of the Middle East. So suddenly pulling out the democracy card is a little bit rich.

“And that’s without saying that in democracies the people with voting power are not actually the masses. And if you need an example of that, just look at Greece. Greece had a popular referendum a week ago, and that decision is basically overturned by closed-door meetings in Europe. That’s democracy as it exists.”

I move onto another topic: HT and women. Critics of the organisation point to its draft constitution, which states “the primary role of a woman is that of mother and wife, she is an honour that must be protected”. Does Wahid agree?

“The view of HT on all those things is a traditional Muslim view: women and men before God have the same value, the same worth, the same status. The instructions for human beings, men and women, are broadly speaking, the same. However, there are distinctions in the way that Islam addresses men and women. Islam puts the burden of providing for the family on the man, which doesn’t mean to say that a woman can’t work.

What about his own wife? “My wife stopped working when we had kids. Before then she worked as a teacher, before that she worked in market research. My mum worked most of her adult life. I have two sisters, who are married, have kids, and they both worked before they had kids; one still works, even with kids. And that was the choice of my wife, when she gave up work.”

Do you believe that women can and should go into politics? “Yes, absolutely.” Can they become the caliph? “No, because of the specific injunction of the prophet, they can do everything except become the ruler.

“They can be the Judge, they can be in the assembly, they should be in the elected assembly. In our own drafted constitution it says that.

“They can be in the administrative services of the state. In the time of one of the prophet’s successors, peace be with him, he appointed a female judge in his time, you know, 14 centuries ago. And in fact HT has a very active political women’s movement, they organise their own conferences and meetings.”

I remind Wahid that men and women are segregated by a screen at these HT meetings. “Yes, the women and men sit separately, usually with a sort of screen between them, which is the normal Islamic etiquette. Actually, we believe very much that it’s the way it should be.

“It should be that women and men engage in political discourse actively. Our women’s section all across the world, by the way, organises conferences that address thousands of people.”

I suggest the HT women’s section is an affront to modern British sensibilities: “Is it? Do you ever listen to Woman’s Hour on Radio 4? Is it an affront to British sensibilities that there should be a regular magazine programme on one of its main broadcasting stations which is dedicated to women? If Mr Cameron thinks it’s in affront to Britain that there is a women’s section in HT, then tell him to go and say that to the Women’s Institute. I daresay a fair number of the Conservative party belong to men only clubs in the City.”

I turn to the charge that his organisation is antisemitic. Fifteen years ago HT published a notorious article entitled The Muslim Ummah will never submit to the Jews. It contained unpleasant language, some of which I read out to Wahid, and invite him to denounce the article. He refuses. “HT is not antisemitic at all, but we are absolutely anti-Zionist … It actually doesn’t matter whether you’re Jewish or non-Jewish, if you’re Zionist, we cannot support someone who believes that it’s right that the land was usurped from some people and given over to others, especially when the occupying force is particularly murderous and bloodthirsty, as it has been.

“You will never find those words being used about Jews living in other parts of Middle Eastern world, Iraq, Morocco or those places. And you should never find those words being used about that.

“And you will never find this language used by us, because probably here we have more understanding of the particular European experience, and what it means.”

Once again I invite Wahid to denounce the pamphlet. “Of course I am not going to denounce it! Because it’s about a leaflet, a small extract of the leaflet, which was written in response to murder, brutality. The people who wrote this in original Arabic in the context it was written, and the people who read it, understand what it means. When you take it out of context, you translate it into English, you take it to Europe and put an interpretation to it, which is not what it was, you find that people misunderstand it. But I am not going to denounce the leaflet.”

Later on, he emails about all this, saying he has now read it. “I appreciate through a European lens, after the massacre of millions of Jews by Europe, any generic negative language about Jewish people sets off alarms,” he writes. “But through a Middle East lens, where ‘Israel’ calls itself the Jewish state and the term Jew and Israel are used synonymously, where people see themselves in a war, people understand this language as the rhetoric of conflict and understand it within the context of that region and NOT Jews per se.”

So what about Britain? Would he fight for it? “You know what, I have no issue with serving the people of this country, but I wouldn’t fight for any country or a flag, a national flag. I think the Islamic idea of fighting is actually fighting for an idea, for a principle, it isn’t about fighting for a flag.”

Does Wahid regard himself as a subject of the Queen? “I have no particular issue with the Queen, I am sure she’s a very pleasant old lady. But I don’t regard myself as her subject. And, by the way, I never did.”

Would he support those who fought against British soldiers in Iraq or Afghanistan? “If someone invaded a country, then that would be their right to do that.” For justification he produces a quote from Winston Churchill: “It is the primary right of men to die and kill for the land they live in, and to punish with exceptional severity all members of their own race who have warmed their hands at the invaders’ hearth”.

I ask him why he joined HT. Wahid cites a possibly surprising reference: Lady Evelyn Cobbold, daughter of the seventh earl of Dunmore. “She became a Muslim in an odd way. Someone took her to a private audience with the Pope. The Pope asked her which denomination she was. She answered she was a Muslim. This spontaneous answer shocked her, although probably not as much as it shocked the Pope.”

Wahid takes down a book from his shelves and reads Cobbold’s account: “What possessed me I don’t pretend to know, as I had not given a thought to Islam for many years. A match was lit and I then and there determined to read up and study. The more I read, the more I studied, the more convinced I became that Islam was the most practical religion, and the one most calculated to solve the world’s many perplexing problems, and to bring to humanity peace and happiness.”

Wahid adds: “When I read that, years later, it echoed exactly with what my own journey was.”

Wahid has a well-organised mind, perhaps in part the product of his upbringing. His own family came to the UK from Pakistan. His father worked as a travel agent and made many sacrifices to send his son to Merchant Taylors’, a private school in north London. He also understands Britain, and the contradictions embedded in the British identity, uncomfortably well.

He is widely read, too. Before I leave, I look at the books on the wall. There is the collection of commentaries on the Qur’an by Sayyid Qutb, the Muslim Brotherhood theorist who has executed in Egypt by Nasser in 1966, and became (in part through Ayman al-Zawahiri) one of the inspirations for al-Qaida. Kissinger’s Diplomacy is there, as is Niall Ferguson’s Empire and Robert Peston’s Who Runs Britain?, alongside Dirty Wars by Jeremy Scahill and Ibn Khaldun’s masterpiece Al Muqaddimah: “It’s a very good book. I actually got it when I was working in obstetrics, and there is a chapter on midwifery which is fantastic.”

A man’s bookshelves can hardly be said to define him. All the same, they do teach an ironic lesson about the range of allowable voices. You can say many things about Wahid, and be appalled by much of what he says. But in a democracy he surely has the right to say it. Whatever the government thinks.

http://www.hizb.org.uk/news-watch/extremist-is-the-secular-word-for-heretic-the-hizb-ut-tahrir-leader-who-insists-on-his-right-to-speak

سيف الله

07-31-2015, 06:11 PM

Salaam

Another update

UK school-children expressing support for Palestine accused of 'terrorist-like' views

SCHOOLCHILDREN in the UK who express support for Palestine face being questioned by police and referred to a counter-radicalisation programme for youngsters deemed at risk of being drawn into terrorism under new laws requiring teachers to monitor students for extremism.

One schoolboy told Al Jazeera he was accused of holding "terrorist-like" views by a police officer who questioned him for taking leaflets into school promoting a boycott of Israel.

The case reflects concerns raised about the expansion of the government's Prevent counter-extremism strategy into schools, with critics complaining that teachers are being expected to act as the "eyes and ears of the state".

Since the beginning of July, teachers have had a statutory duty to monitor and report children who they believe may be susceptible to radicalisation, although Prevent engagement officers, who are usually also police officers, have long been active in schools in areas with significant Muslim populations.

Child suspects

The boy, who was then 15 and attending school in a southern English town, said he was also told that "Free Palestine" badges that he wore were "extremist". Al Jazeera is not naming the student or the school to protect his identity.

"He asked me what I thought of the leaflet," the boy said, describing how a police officer told him he had been brought into the school to "deal with this sort of extremism".

"I explained to him my views about freedom and justice and that I supported Palestine. I said I thought Israel should have tough sanctions put upon it and he said these could be radical beliefs," the boy said.

"He said these are terrorist-like beliefs that you have. He explicitly said you cannot speak about this conflict at school with your friends," the boy said.

The leaflet, produced by Friends of al-Aqsa, an organisation campaigning for Palestinian rights, promotes the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions campaign against Israel.

The boy said he had subsequently had numerous run-ins with teachers and with the officer, who had an office in the school.

"I asked my form tutor about Prevent and whether he would act as an informant if I said anything, and he said, 'I am uncomfortable with that but that is what I have to do,'" the boy said.

Spying or paranoia?

Al Jazeera has identified other examples suggesting that Palestine-related activism is something that teachers and public officials are being encouraged to look out for as part of their Prevent duties.

A leaflet produced for public sector workers to help them make judgements about referrals to Channel, a support programme for young people considered to be vulnerable to recruitment by violent extremists, includes a case study in which a student's discussion of "Palestine and other international conflicts" is deemed salient information.

A report on counter-extremism policy published by the think-tank Claystone also cited the case of a teenager identified as requiring deradicalisation for attending a protest against an Israeli diplomat.

"We've heard of the police going into schools to talk about Prevent to teachers and saying things like, 'If a kid thinks the West is at war with Islam it might be a cause for concern.' Or if a child goes on a demonstration against the bombing of Gaza, 'Keep an eye on him,'" Alex Kenny of the National Union of Teachers told Al Jazeera.

Prevent has long been a source of resentment among many British Muslims, with critics complaining that it sows mistrust of Muslims and subjects them to discriminatory levels of surveillance and harassment.

In an open letter this month, hundreds of academics warned that the extension of Prevent would have a "chilling effect on open debate, free speech and political dissent".

Addressing those concerns on July 19 in a speech at a school in Birmingham, David Cameron, the British prime minister, said critics of counter-terrorism policies were paranoid.

"The world is not conspiring against Islam; the security services aren't behind terrorist attacks; our new Prevent duty for schools is not about criminalising or spying on Muslim children. This is paranoia in the extreme," said Cameron.

But Ibtihal Bsis, a barrister researching the impact of Prevent, said that distrust of the strategy was motivated by genuine grievances.

"Children are now being told by their parents not to share any political views whatsoever," Bsis told Al Jazeera. "Some children are being asked questions like 'What do you think of ISIL?' to entrap them, so that is very concerning."

Fearmongering

Ismail Patel, chairman of Friends of al-Aqsa, dismissed allegations that the organisation's leaflets were extremist and accused the government of "veering towards totalitarianism".

"People are scared to talk about Palestine. A lot of mosques now will not put posters up. There is fear in the community so there is self-censorship and self-policing," said Patel. "That really feeds the process of radicalisation because they are not allowing individuals to express their grievances."

Bill Bolloten, an educational consultant involved in #EducationNotSurveillance, a campaign network, said there was widespread nervousness among school leaders about the implementation of Prevent in classrooms, and said that many teachers were still in the dark about what was expected of them.

"It is co-opting a range of non-security professionals to be the eyes and ears of the state," Bolloten told Al Jazeera.

"Quite normal teenage behaviours will be viewed in an entirely different way. There is huge potential in this to make mistakes and those mistakes could have lifelong consequences for the children involved," Bolloten said.

A government spokesperson from the Department for Education told Al Jazeera: "School staff should use their professional judgement in identifying children who might be at risk of radicalisation and act proportionately. Good schools already do this and there is guidance available for schools to use."

"This doesn't and shouldn't stop schools from discussing controversial issues, and will give pupils a safe space to develop the knowledge to challenge extremist beliefs," the spokesperson said.

The boy, who is now 16, left school in June and intends to continue his studies elsewhere. Since then he said he had been visited at home by a Prevent officer and a case worker who identified himself as working for Channel, the programme for young people deemed vulnerable to radicalisation.

During the visit, the boy said the police officer had raised his voice when he and his mother spoke to each other in Persian, his mother's first language, telling the boy, "Stop trying to be clever with me!"

He said he had been asked about his views about ISIL and the war in Syria even though he is a Shia Muslim, something which he believes most of those who questioned him did not fully understand.

"The Channel officer was more understanding," said the boy.

"He said they were happy that I was not 'the ISIS type'. He said if I had any concerns, maybe about friends, that I could call him. And he said, 'From now on nothing further is going to happen unless you do something similar.'

"I'm not sure what he meant by that."

http://www.stopwar.org.uk/news/uk-school-children-expressing-suport-for-palestine-accused-of-having-terrorist-like-views

سيف الله

07-31-2015, 07:22 PM

Salaam

More on the British's elite intimidation campaign against those Muslim organisations who don't follow the party line.

CAGE refutes inaccurate Telegraph article, planned for weekend

A planned report by the Daily Telegraph into an alleged ‘CAGE-sponsored event’ held by the Muath Trust on April 25 and chaired by Raza Nadim is inaccurate, biased and misleading.

By building a story based on lies and comments taken out of context by parties unassociated with CAGE, the Telegraph is contributing to a witch hunt against the organisation, a move that should be seen as part of a broader assault on Muslim civil society by the right-wing establishment.

CAGE was approached by Deputy Investigations Editor Edward Malnick to answer questions in relation to the article, for which we were given a deadline of 1pm today.

While the Telegraph alleges that the event was sponsored by CAGE, this is inaccurate - CAGE did not organise the event, nor did we sponsor it. The article’s main assumption is false.

Most of the questions put to CAGE concerned alleged quotes ascribed to Mr Nadim, a well known activist in the community who is dedicated to educating people about the abuses of the security state. He is not a member of CAGE. Thus it would be more appropriate to direct these questions to Mr Nadim himself. CAGE asked Mr Nadim for comment and he forwarded the following:

"The manipulation of my words by The Telegraph is more telling of the Islamophobic racist nature of the paper than my world view.

To be lectured by the paper that pushed for illegal wars killing millions about moral conduct and responsible speech is the height of hypocrisy."

This attack on CAGE is not surprising. We are now making a leading contribution to opposing and creating awareness around the continued erosion of the rule of law in the War on Terror. We have been very successful in exposing and undermining the government’s PREVENT policy. We have also been able to link the British government’s foreign and domestic policies as primary causes of political violence, as opposed to ideology.

CAGE does not support terrorism in any way. We advocate for due process and the rule of law as a means of ending the War on Terror. We stand against torture and detention-without-trial, and we stand for freedom of expression and association. We oppose the government’s PREVENT strategy as we believe a securitised approach will not prevent political violence, but rather encourage it.

We invite the Telegraph to come to visit us at our offices and sit with our staff and volunteers, there is no need to conduct a secret investigation which has resulted in the investigator presenting inaccurate facts in a malicious way. Our doors are open.

In the meantime, the Telegraph posited the following questions to CAGE, to which we have responded below:

Telegraph: At one point Mr Nadim asked for the doors of the hall to be locked, before inviting audience members to donate sums of up to £1,000 to Cage.
Why it was necessary to “lock” the doors, for a discussion about fundraising for Cage? Would you agree that this could give the impression what was about to take place was secret?

A widely advertised event where a journalist quite easily managed to gain a recording of the event for the press, could not have been less secret. This request by the lead fundraiser to lock the doors was a humorous dig at the audience - he was demanding that everyone in the hall stays inside and “doors are locked” so they can’t get away without donating. It was a humorous statement. Presenting it otherwise spins suspicion and lies.

We note that Cage’s bank accounts have been frozen amid concerns about its links with jihadists, and that earlier this year the Charity Commission told two charities to stop funding your organisation. In light of this, do you consider it appropriate for a charity to be carrying out for your organisation?

CAGE has no links to jihadists. Advocating for people who have been denied due process and not afforded a fair trial, does not mean that you accept whatever crimes they are alleged to have committed. CAGE stands for the principle of the rule of law. It is defamatory to allege links with jihadists.

Her Majesty’s Treasury confirmed that there are no concerns with CAGE. Furthermore, the Charity Commission may have acted outside its powers in demanding charities not fund CAGE. The High Court has granted us permission to get that decision judicially reviewed.

We are an advocacy organisation whose cause is an unpopular one with the prevailing government and its associate Charity Commission: we campaign for the rights of those adversely affected by the securitised policies that are part of the War on Terror. We believe that everyone has the right to freedom of expression, association, due process and a fair trial. We argue for an end to oppression and injustice and for a rational, dialogue-based approach for ending the War on Terror that recognises the rights of all.

During the event Mr Nadim introduced Moazzam Begg, and said: “Jihad is not extreme. Jihad is the greatest deed a Muslim can do.”

Firstly, the chair of the event is not a member of our organisation. Secondly, jihad has several meanings. For many it means the struggle against injustice. It was in this context that jihad was mentioned, and in so doing the statement was a concerted attempt to re-own the term, which has taken a skewed meaning in the media, linked to terrorism only.

He also referred to criticism of Lewisham mosque, where Fusilier Lee Rigby’s killers worshipped, saying that if such criticism was not “tackled” the Muslim faith “will become watered down”.

Blaming the mosque for what the killers did is like blaming a church or a school for the actions of a serial killer that may have attended them. This is an understandable view, but again, Mr Nadim’s opinions are his own. We should not be held responsible for comments made by someone outside of our organisation.

He also said: “If you want me to apologise for Jihadi John, make the Queen apologise for the colonial empire. Make her apologise for giving OBEs to paedophiles”.

Mr Nadim’s comment is an effort to highlight the double-standards applied between crimes committed by Muslims and non-Muslims. Although this is Mr Nadim’s point (who is not a member of CAGE), we should understand the context so as to better develop dialogue between communities.

Are these views that Cage endorses?

CAGE should not be held responsible for comments made by someone outside of our organisation. This is an attempt to make CAGE liable for comments deliberately taken out of context to create a story when there is not one there. It is an attempt to smear CAGE.

We would be grateful if you could also clarify the nature of Cage’s relationship with the Muath Trust.

We have no relationship and have never worked with this organisation in the past.

The Telegraph wishes to reflect your views fully in any article it chooses to publish.

We note that neither CAGE members Moazzam Begg nor Cerie Bullivant are alleged to have made any objectionable comments. This story is based on innuendo and allegations attributed to innocent and explainable comments by a third party. Stating otherwise is an attempt to smear CAGE, and our views need to be reflected.

http://www.cageuk.org/article/cage-refutes-inaccurate-telegraph-article-planned-weekend

Karl

08-02-2015, 11:47 PM

Originally Posted by Abz2000

Is it that you have understood this from the Quran or simply from hawaa?
secondly, what do you think it is that should be legislated and enforced? And based on what?

Abu Bakr (Abdullah ibn Abi Quhafa) - Al Siddeeq's inaugural speech:

I have been given the authority over you, and I am not the best of you.
If I do well, help me; and if I do wrong, set me right.
Sincere regard for truth is loyalty and disregard for truth is treachery.
The weak amongst you shall be strong with me until I have secured his rights, if God wills;
and the strong amongst you shall be weak with me until I have wrested from him the rights of others, if God wills.
Obey me so long as I obey God and His Messenger.
But if I disobey God and His Messenger, you owe me no obedience.
Arise for your prayer, God have mercy upon you.

Abu Bakr's Caliphate lasted for 27 months, during which he crushed the rebellion of the Arab tribes throughout the*Arabian Peninsula*in the successful*Ridda Wars.
In the last months of his rule, he launched campaigns against the*Sassanid Empire*and the*Eastern Roman Empire*(Byzantine Empire) and thus set in motion a historical trajectory*(continued later on by*Umar*and*Uthman ibn Affan) that in just a few short decades would lead to one of the*largest empires in history.
He had little time to pay attention to the administration of state, though state affairs remained stable during his Caliphate.
On the advice of Umar and Abu Ubaidah ibn al-Jarrah he agreed to have a salary from state treasury and abolish his cloth trade.

It was once the internal struggles with the murtaddeen of the peninsula were over that 'Umar ibn Al Khattab (may Allah have mercy on him) was able to establish an orderly inter-continental state while expanding the rule of Allah east and west.

These were neither prophets - nor messengers.
they were level headed, seasoned men of God.

it's easy to detachedly condemn a people who were slaughtered for over 20 years with no recourse to justice, and even easier it seems, when they come to the inevitable truth that there is none who has the right to be obeyed in disobedience to God.[/QUOTE]

The messenger prophets of this relatively modern epoch are Abraham, Jesus and Muhammad (PBUT).

Why do all the empires fall no matter what religion they seem to be? The answer is, it is the will of God. People just don't get it. All they have to do is be, not try to rule the world. No matter what they think is best.

Abz2000

08-03-2015, 07:32 AM

There is a difference between mutawakkiloon and mutawaakiloon.

Let those with the ability to enforce the laws of God in Quran and Sunnah do so,
let those who use the pen and tongue do so,
and let those who love Islam and hate kufr do so.
and peace be to those who follow the guidance.

laa yukallifAllahu nafsan illa wus'ahaa.

innamaa 'alaina al jahd

trust in Allah and tie your camel.

سيف الله

08-13-2015, 09:25 PM

Salaam

Another update

CAMERON STRIKINGLY SIMILAR TO SOUTH AFRICA’S PW BOTHA AT THE HEIGHT OF VIOLENT APARTHEID

In this piece, Karen Jayes of CAGE Africa examines Cameron’s ‘extremist’ speech which was made last month, which bears many resemblances to PW Botha’s disastrous 1985 ‘Crossing the Rubicon’ diatribe which brought on South Africa’s second State of Emergency.

PW Botha’s ‘Crossing the Rubicon’ speech– a reference to Julius Caesar’s march across the Rubicon River in Italy, from which sprang the Roman Empire and the genesis of modern European culture – was delivered on 15 August 1985 in Durban, South Africa to an international audience of over 200 million.

When Botha took to the stand it was after months of deliberation and advice revolving around the need to recognise black human dignity, eradicate discrimination and create real tangible equal opportunities as a solution to South Africa’s spiraling violence, international isolation and dire economic status.

In the same manner that Prime Minister David Cameron has brushed aside advice from former police chiefs, MI5 and MI6, as well as many civil liberties groups, of the dangers of the government’s counter-terrorism programme’s blanket definition of ‘extremism’ and its securitised top-down approach to countering political violence, Botha chose to ignore advice to put South Africa on the road to a representative government once and for all.

Cameron’s simplistic insistence on ideology as a motivator of political violence, as opposed to giving due credence to the real socio-political grievances over Britain’s domestic and international policies, bears strong parallels to Botha’s head-in-the-sand approach to the real causes of political violence in South Africa: the government’s ongoing violence towards those who struggled for black liberation, its detention-without trial and torture of political activists, and its assassinations of liberation leaders.

The result of Botha’s speech was disastrous for South Africa. The currency plummeted and political violence increased. A second State of Emergency – a permanent securitised state reserved for periods of war – was declared and extended throughout the country.

A closer examination of both speeches shows some striking resemblances.

Cameron: It begins – it must begin – by understanding the threat we face and why we face it. What we are fighting, in Islamist extremism, is an ideology. It is an extreme doctrine. And like any extreme doctrine, it is subversive. At its furthest end it seeks to destroy nation-states to invent its own barbaric realm. …

Botha: We can ill afford the irresponsibilities and destructive actions of barbaric Communist agitators and even murderers … Our enemies-both within and without-seek to divide our peoples. They seek to create unbridgeable differences between us to prevent us from negotiating peaceful solutions to our problems.

Botha and Cameron have identified in the ‘enemy’ - an ideology that threatens the very fabric of life. This ideology is cast as a monster, voluminous and ever-morphing, both violent and non-violent. The only solution to defeating it is to hammer down into the thought processes of those who are the government deems are ‘at risk’ of absorbing it.

Botha’s singling out of ‘communism’, like Cameron’s targeting of ‘extremism’, cast a blanket over all those who aired grievances and spoke or acted in ways that betrayed a desire for change. Association with organisations that advocated for change meant risking being branded a ‘communist’, ‘traitor’ and even a ‘terrorist’. The policing of this was near impossible – and eventually failed – a lesson that proponents of thought policing strategies such as PREVENT would do well to consider.

Cameron: So when people say “it’s because of the involvement in the Iraq War that people are attacking the West”, we should remind them: 9/11 – the biggest loss of life of British citizens in a terrorist attack – happened before the Iraq War.

Botha: The Party must also deal with the heritage of history. Certain situations in this country were created by history and not by other national parties… We know that … it will not be possible to accommodate the political aspirations of our various population groups and communities in a known defined political system, because our problems are unique.

In the same way that Botha consigns the blame for political violence, to ‘history’ and ‘communist agitators’ and – laughably – South Africa’s ‘unique’ character, Cameron too, shirks his government’s responsibility in contributing to an atmosphere where Muslims in particular feel that their government’s foreign and domestic policies are at odds with their own ideals.

The Iraq war, the continuing occupation of Palestine, the disastrous Syrian interventions, as well as many other conflicts between the West and the Muslim world prior to 9/11, fuel a grievance-based world view that, when unchallenged by representative leadership, open dialogue and debate, is prone to be drawn to political violence.

In their hypocrisy, both leaders fail to acknowledge the inimitable links between their own government’s policies and the grievances of large sectors of the population.

Cameron: When they say that these are wronged Muslims getting revenge on their Western wrongdoers, let’s remind them: from Kosovo to Somalia, countries like Britain have stepped in to save Muslim people from massacres – it’s groups like ISIL, Al Qaeda and Boko Haram that are the ones murdering Muslims.

Botha: The Party stands for the just and equal treatment of all parts of South Africa, and for the impartial maintenance of the rights and privileges of every section of the population. But, the Party must also deal with the heritage of history … I know for a fact that most leaders in their own right in South Africa and reasonable South Africans will not accept the principle of one-man-one-vote in a unitary system.

More hypocrisy. Botha lies outrightly – the National Party’s policies on education, business, land ownership and human relationships themselves favoured whites over others. This is a self-evident fact. Cameron, too, has not considered that the involvement of Britain in Kosovo and Somalia took place after the worst atrocities against Muslims had already occurred, and often resulted in a status quo in those countries that did not reflect the aspirations of local populations, but rather erred to the West. Instead of taking a long hard look at their own policies, both leaders point the finger at others and deny the voices of many calling for change.

Cameron: We need to put out of action the key extremist influencers who are careful to operate just inside the law, but who clearly detest British society and everything we stand for.

Botha: Their actions speak louder than their words. Their words offer ready panaceas such as one-man-one-vote, freedom and justice for all. Their actions leave no doubt that the freedoms that we already have-together with the ongoing extension of democracy in South Africa-are the true targets of their violence.

Ah, fanning fear again. Here both leaders resort to harping on about the dangers of elements of society that operate within the law, those which call for due process and adherence to justice. Even these people, audiences are led to believe, are a danger. But attacking legitimate forms of dissent betrays a dangerous desire to silence it.

Cameron: Now the third plank of our strategy is to embolden different voices within the Muslim community. Just as we do not engage with extremist groups and individuals, we’re now going to actively encourage the reforming and moderate Muslim voices.

Botha: How do we build a better future out of cultures, values, languages which are demonstrably real in our heterogeneous society? We are resolved, we are committed, to do so in two fundamental ways. Firstly-by letting the people speak. By letting the people speak through their leaders.

Botha, like Cameron, chose ‘leaders’ that were unrepresentative of the majority of the population, and which many perceived as sell-outs. Some of these leaders even came forward as part of the post-apartheid Truth and Reconciliation Commission hearings to own up to their betrayals, some of which resulted in the imprisonment of activists and leaders. In the same way, Cameron’s choice of ‘leaders’ in the neo-conservative Quilliam Foundation, are questionable for their willingness to defer to the government’s line.

Cameron: I also want to issue a challenge to the broadcasters in our country. You are, of course, free to put whoever you want on the airwaves. But there are a huge number of Muslims in our country who have a proper claim to represent liberal values in local communities … so do consider giving them the platform they deserve. I know other voices may make for more explosive television – but please exercise your judgement, and do recognise the huge power you have in shaping these debates in a positive ways.

Botha: I have a specific question I would like to put to the media in South Africa: How do they explain the fact that they are always present, with cameras et cetera, at places where violence takes place? Are there people from the revolutionary elements who inform them to be ready? Or are there perhaps representatives of the reactionary groups in the ranks of certain media? My question to you is this: Whose interests do you serve-those of South Africa or those of the revolutionary elements? South Africa must know, our life is at stake.

Cameron’s advice to the media is a warning sign, a direct threat to the delicate and vital independence of the media that is a tenet of British society. Perhaps the Prime Minister needs to read up a bit on fundamental British values? Botha’s outright attack is the next step on the government own ‘extremism’ ladder.

Cameron: We need the police to step up and not stand by as crimes take place. We need universities to stand up against extremism; broadcasters to give platforms to different voices; and internet service providers to do their bit too. Together, we can do this.

Botha: I believe that we are today crossing the Rubicon. There can be no turning back. We now have a manifesto for the future of our country, and we must embark on a programme of positive action in the months and years that lie ahead. The challenges we face call for all concerned to negotiate in a spirit of give and take. With mutual goodwill we shall reach our destination peacefully.

Cameron’s round up of counter-extremism policy is a call to the security establishment, media and academia to march in line with government orders. It is in no small way a call to ‘extremism’ of a different sort: the denial of the legitimate grievances of Muslims in relation to British domestic and foreign policy; the shirking of responsibility for the security establishment’s role in contributing to political violence rather than countering it; and a thinly veiled threat to academia and the media to co-operate.

Like the National Party’s disastrous apartheid policies, these actions are cloaked in a veil of ‘positive action’, but his speech is a call for ‘mutual goodwill’ that through its alienating language and scare strategies, is in itself really full of malice.

‘Extremism’ for Cameron unambiguously singles out Muslims for discrimination no differently to the way in which black South Africans were singled out for discrimination under apartheid. The grounds of discrimination under apartheid was race and under Cameron, it is a religious barometer defined solely by his government. Their tacks are the same.

The ex-prime minister of South Africa said that, in this relentless march into tragedy, ‘there can be no turning back’, but South Africa managed to turn itself around from the brink of full blown societal violence, through negotiation and dialogue and an acknowledgement of truly representative leaders, an end to harassment, detention and torture, and an approach that relied on the fundamental setting down of the rule of law based on international human rights treatises and its application to all.

http://www.cageuk.org/article/cameron-strikingly-similar-south-africa%E2%80%99s-pw-botha-height-violent-apartheid

سيف الله

08-18-2015, 07:28 PM

Salaam

Another update

UK State Religion is Secular Liberalism Not Christianity!

From the very moment Tim Farron became the new Liberal Democrat leader on Thursday 16th July 2015, he has been at the forefront of receiving a brutal onslaught by his critics. Farron a practicing catholic from the age of 20 has been put under a microscope in a barrage of interrogation style interviews held by the Media. The likes of which took place on Channel 4 News where Farron appears to be uncomfortably clawing a way out when being questioned on his personal views on homosexuality. Farron’s “Christian Convictions” have been viewed as a cause for concern amongst a diverse number of liberals ranging from MPs to the general public and the media hounded him for this. The eruption took place when being directly questioned on whether he believed the homosexual act was sinful. Farron clearly evaded the question when pressurised for an answer and ultimately replied to Cathy Newman saying “to understand Christianity is to understand that we are all sinners” This statement left many unsatisfied with Farron’s evasive answer.

The idea of Secular Liberal Democracy was born in an era where monarchies used religion to oppress any dissent and justify an absolute monarchy. The growing voice of the people tied together with thinkers and activists of the time resulted in a secular liberal revolution which would supposedly put an end to the tyranny caused upon minorities by the monarchical structure of ruling. The argument put forward was that all religions could coexist under a secular political system that would act as a neutral platform for all peoples and their beliefs. The truth is that 21st century secular Britain is just a modernised version of the 16th century totalitarianism of the Church. We don’t need to look far to find secularism imposing itself on society. There have been numerous rulings against the right of Christians wanting to practice their beliefs such as “refusing to work on Sundays”. Other cases also include the likes of Christian ‘bed and breakfast’ owners who lost their appeal against a gay couple when refusing them to share a room together. The Christian couple argued that they believed it was a sin for two unmarried people to share the same bed yet the ruling deemed their actions as unlawful and they were penalised for their actions. Another case was a Christian baking firm ‘Ashers Baking Company’ which refused to make a cake featuring a pro-gay marriage slogan and found the judgement against them with a fine and a discrimination charge. The district judge stated that “all business owners will have to promote any cause or campaign no matter how much they disagree with it”. The judge also stated businesses to either accommodate for customers or close the business if they can’t guarantee this. Other cases also include a Christian registrar not being allowed to opt out of conducting gay civil partnerships even though they argue it goes against their moral and religious principles. Moreover, in the recent Trojan Horse scandal, Christian Faith Schools were also interrogated for not promoting liberalism. This shows that Britain is imposing it’s religion of secular liberalism on society just as the Christian dictatorship of the past was.

MPs such as Michael Grove talk about how Christianity plays a bench warmers role in the field of play in politics. He once said that “now Christianity means the banal morality of the fairy tale and genuflection before a sky pixie’s simplicitie”. Tim Farron witnessed the reality of Goves comments and Christians have been pressurised to accept liberal values even though they may be at heterodox with their faith. The orthodox belief in Christianity is against homosexuality viewing it as sin, the same can be seen with other faiths such as Islam. The law clearly shows a no tolerance policy when it comes to the beliefs of other faith groups wanting to express their beliefs in all parts of their lives. Just as the Christians, in the aforementioned examples including the new Liberal Democrat leader Tim Farron, have had to compromise their beliefs in order to fit in to the secular liberal democratic structure the same is expected of all the people living in the United Kingdom to follow suite. Effectively there is an attempt to forcibly convert all peoples to the secular liberal ideology of the UK.

Muslims are also subjected to the secular liberal dictatorship. The government’s counter-extremism strategy has shown that certain forms of Islamic expression will not be tolerated in public life. If you don’t submit to the religion of the state, then you will either be forced to compromise your beliefs like Tim Farron, or be branded an “extremist”, the 21st century version of a heretic, and be excluded from engaging in society. Under the guise of counter-extremism, David Cameron in his latest speech conflated the political violence by ISIS to the belief in the Khilafah and has made clear that Muslims must accept “British Values”. The narrative of non-violent extremism is an attempt to root out the conservatively held Islamic views by Muslims and replace them with secular liberal beliefs and values.

Taking this into account Muslims must firmly hold on to the Sharia of Allah SWT and reject the attempts by the secular liberal establishment to secularise Islam like it has successfully achieved with Christianity. Muslims need to hold firm and put into practice the example set by the Prophet SAW when it came to challenging the ideas contrary to the belief and never letting go of the Haqq (truth). Allah the most high says…

And whoever is an ally of Allah and His Messenger and those who have believed – indeed, the party of Allah – they will be the predominant [5:48]

http://www.hizb.org.uk/current-affairs/uk-state-religion-is-secular-liberalism-not-christianity

سيف الله

08-18-2015, 07:30 PM

Salaam

Another update

سيف الله

09-19-2015, 04:25 PM

Salaam

The criminalisation of Islam continues.

Imams will have to register and face security vetting under Home Office plans

Imams, priests, rabbis and other religious figures will have to enrol in a ‘national register of faith leaders’ and undergo vetting.

Imams, priests, rabbis and other religious figures will have to enrol in a “national register of faith leaders” and be subject to government-specified training and security checks in the Home Office’s latest action on extremism.

The highly controversial proposal appears in a leaked draft of the Government’s new counter-extremism strategy, seen by The Telegraph, which goes substantially further than previous versions of the document.

The strategy, due to be published this autumn, says that Whitehall will “require all faiths to maintain a national register of faith leaders” and the Government will “set out the minimum level of training and checks” faith leaders must have to join the new register.

Registration will be compulsory for all faith leaders who wish to work with the public sector, including universities, the document says. In practice, most faith leaders have some dealings with the public sector and the requirement will cover the great majority.

The move marks a significant deepening of the state’s involvement in religion and is likely to be resisted by many religious representatives.

Maulana Shah Raza, an imam who is a founding member of the Mosques and Imams National Advisory Board (Minab), a self-regulatory body designed to promote best practice, warned the Government “not to meddle in religious affairs or to expand the state’s involvement in deciding on religious and theological issues”.

He said: “The Government needs to concentrate on ensuring that safeguards are in place to protect the public and treating all faith communities equally.”

Minab was launched with ministerial support under the last Labour government, but relations with Whitehall have cooled after the group refused to sever ties with extremist mosques and imams.

The new crackdown has emerged the week after the Government announced that it had killed two British Isil fighters in a drone strike.

It is believed Reyaad Khan, 21, from Cardiff, the main target of the drone attack, was radicalised at the Welsh city’s al-Manar mosque, which has hosted a series of extremist preachers, including Muhammad Mustafa al-Muqri, an al-Qaeda ally and former leader of Egyptian Islamic Jihad.

Until 2013 the mosque’s in-house preacher, Ali Hammuda, who believes that music is a “sickness,” was allowed into Cathays High School, one of the schools attended by Khan, to run lunchtime sessions with students, teaching among other things that music and “free-mixing” between men and women were “not permitted in Islam”.

Another extremist preacher closely linked with a terrorist, Usman Ali, who taught one of the men who killed soldier Lee Rigby in Woolwich, was appointed chaplain at the area’s local hospital and was also on the management committee of a community centre. He was only sacked from his NHS role after an undercover reporter filmed him inviting a guest speaker who praised the Taliban.

A spokesman for the Catholic Church said it had not been consulted on the proposals. Other senior Catholic sources said any plan for state supervision of priests would be “firmly resisted”.

David Cameron, the Prime Minister, has said that the fight against Islamist extremism is the “struggle of our generation” and has to be won for the same reasons that Nazism was defeated. The leaked strategy is also sharply critical of the police and local councils for their failure to tackle scandals exposed by this and other newspapers, including the Trojan Horse plot to take over state schools in Birmingham, extremism and corruption in Tower Hamlets, and the child grooming scandal in Rotherham.

“The police response to Rotherham and Trojan Horse was hindered by a poor understanding of isolated communities and a fear of being seen as racist. This is not acceptable,” the document states. “We will therefore ensure that the police have a better understanding of extremist behaviour.”

The strategy states that local people will be given a new “extremism community trigger” – a right to “demand action where they feel the police and Crown Prosecution Service are not investigating and prosecuting people who have committed hate crime and other extremism-related offences”.

Under the “trigger,” the police would be forced to review the case and respond formally in writing.

The document says the Government will also set out a new “framework for intervention” when local councils “fail” to tackle extremism.

n a policy change stemming directly from Trojan Horse, which was largely led by hardline Muslim school governors, the document says that Whitehall “will compel schools, including academies, to have at least one governor or trustee with no familial or business ties to the school, and who lives outside the catchment area”.

More than a year after the official report into the scandal, by the former police chief Peter Clarke, only one person has been banned from becoming a governor and only one member of staff at the schools has been sacked. Other teachers accused of involvement in the plot have been reinstated, despite still being under interim orders banning them from the profession.

As revealed by The Telegraph in March, the extremism strategy also includes measures to remove benefits from people who do not learn English, review sharia courts, ban radicals from working unsupervised with children and use Jobcentre staff to identify potential extremists.

The strategy, which was supposed to be published in spring this year, has been delayed for months amid deep concern in some parts of government and most of the counter-extremism community about its most radical measure, to ban individuals whose behaviour “falls below the thresholds in counter-terrorism legislation” but which “undermines British values”.

Mr Cameron has said: “For far too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens that as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone. This Government will conclusively turn the page on this failed approach.”

n May, Haras Rafiq, director of the counter-extremism think tank Quilliam, described this proposal as “Orwellian and totalitarian,” saying it would “play into the hands” of extremists. He added: “It is very noticeable that the main Islamist groups are not really up in arms about this. They want it, because it will feed the narrative of grievance and victimhood they love. They will be able to use it to say, ‘look, we told you so’.”

The document defines extremism as “the vocal or 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,” or as calling for the death of members of the British Armed Forces.

It also names a number of specific groups – including the Association of Muslim Schools, which has close links to a number of the Trojan Horse plotters. Significantly, it describes the Muslim Brotherhood, a loose global Islamist network, as an “extremist movement”. A Government review into the Brotherhood, completed months ago, has still not been published.

http://www.hizb.org.uk/news-watch/imams-will-have-to-register-and-face-security-vetting-under-home-office-plans

سيف الله

09-19-2015, 04:34 PM

Salaam

CAGE responds to accusations in Daily Mail and Huffington Post

The Daily Mail and Huffington Post have recently published articles criticising the National Union of Students (NUS) for inviting CAGE outreach director Moazzam Begg to speak at several events next month as part of a campaign against the government’s failing counter-terrorism programme PREVENT.

The articles reported several inaccuracies about CAGE, which we deal with below.

Huffington Post: The group was harshly criticised and accused of being "ISIS apologists" following the conference, where Qureshi described Emwazi as a "person [who].. would never hurt a single person".

Daily Mail: “Cage first hit the headlines in February when a senior figure described Islamic State beheader Jihadi John as a ‘beautiful, kind man’.”

These statements about CAGE’s position are simply false. The words used by CAGE Research Director, Asim Qureshi, referred to the Mohammed Emwazi of 2011 as a "beautiful man...extremely kind, extremely gentle, extremely soft-spoken…”. This was before the Syrian conflict began and even well before the creation of ISIS. This description is clearly not in reference to an alleged killer of innocents including aid workers.

We continue to call for open debate on the reasons people are turning to violence. Part of this process is to try to understand in a dispassionate and evidence-based manner the trajectory of individuals who have engaged in acts of political violence.

CAGE does not support terrorism in any form. This is underlined by the fact that our outreach director Moazzam Begg offered at a crucial point to negotiate for Alan Henning’s release, but the British government refused his offer of assistance.

Daily Mail: “Through Begg, Cage developed links with the radical preacher and Al Qaeda cheerleader Anwar al-Awlaki and campaigned for his release from detention in Yemen.”

CAGE’s position was that it campaigned for Anwar al-Awlaki when he was detained without charge in line with the remit of its work. Since his release CAGE was however opposed to a number of positions that he took, despite not agreeing with the order by President Obama to have him targeted for assassination. CAGE’s positions on Awlaki are important due to the organisation consistently asking questions of the efficacy of counter-terrorism policy.

Awlaki’s case is an important one to analyse, as questions must be asked about the role that his detention without charge and torture played in his subsequent desire to join those affiliated to al-Qaeda. These issues are crucial to debate in a public manner with full transparency, as CAGE feels this is the best way to understand how to keep communities safe.

Our full report into al-Awlaki’s detention and killing is available here

Daily Mail: “Cage’s bank accounts were frozen after intervention from the Treasury.”

The Treasury has written to us on more than one occasion confirming that we are not a designated organisation saying that “CAGE is not nor has it ever been subject to financial restriction imposed by the Treasury”.

[Rupert Sutton, director of Student Rights said:] "Until the NUS stops working with groups like CAGE, or parroting extremist narratives on Prevent, it will continue to be part of the problem on campuses."

The National Union of Students (NUS) itself and several student unions have condemned ‘Student Rights’ an “insidious” organisation whose work has led to “witch hunts” against Muslims.

Student Rights has seen its support haemorrhaging in recent years. With several members of it’s own board members quitting, including the Liberal Democrat MP Tom Brake. This comes as several student unions passed anti-Student Rights motions questioning the legitimacy of a group without any student representation.

More recently the sovereign policy making body of NUS passed a resolution to as far as is practical, not engage with the PREVENT strategy, to oppose the Counter Terrorism and Security Act and actively work to cut PREVENT funded initiatives.

NUS also “reaffirmed opposition to PREVENT, and to work with civil liberties organisations working to challenge it”. With a commitment to work “alongside civil liberties groups including CAGE, lobby the government to repeal it [Counter Terrorism and Security Act] immediately.”

CAGE welcomes this position as it will avoid the alienation of Muslim communities and sends a powerful message to students that all groups need to work together in countering the narrative that Muslims are a threat to society instead of equal partners committed to creating a more equal, just and fair society for all.

CAGE will continue to assert the need for an open and fair discussion looking at root causes of political violence, with a view to seeking solutions to end the cycles of violence that characterise the War on Terror. These unfounded accusations demonstrate a concern by vested interests that our position holds credible merit.

http://www.cageuk.org/article/cage-responds-accusations-daily-mail-and-huffington-post

JohnnyEnglish

09-19-2015, 07:13 PM

Originally Posted by Junon

Salaam
CAGE responds to accusations in Daily Mail and Huffington Post

If they ever get round to creating an Olympic event of 'cutting and pasting' my money will be on you and ABZ2000 for gold medals!

Is there not a verse in the Koran that says, "less is more?"

سيف الله

09-20-2015, 09:38 AM

If you have nothing of value to add to this thread then it’s better not to say anything at all. And judging by the level of ignorance you display in your posts, you have a lot of reading up to do.

Take heed little englander.

سيف الله

10-24-2015, 06:53 PM

Salaam

Another update

Cameron Madrassas for the future

On Wednesday 7th October 2015, David Cameron made his keynote speech to the Conservative Party Conference. It seems over the years there is no tory party conference complete, without a healthy balance of austerity cuts, salutations to the Queen and a demonization of the Muslim community. This conference was no exception and did not disappoint.

Speaking in Manchester, Mr Cameron told delegates: “Did you know, in our country, there are some children who spend several hours each day at a madrassa?

“Let me be clear: there is nothing wrong with children learning about their faith, whether it’s at madrassas, Sunday schools or Jewish yeshivas.

“But in some madrassas, we’ve got children being taught that they shouldn’t mix with people of other religions; being beaten; swallowing conspiracy theories about Jewish people.

“These children should be having their minds opened, their horizons broadened, not having their heads filled with poison and their hearts filled with hate.

“So I can announce this today: if an institution is teaching children intensively, then whatever its religion, we will, like any other school, make it register so it can be inspected.

“And be in no doubt: if you are teaching intolerance, we will shut you down.”

This is about Madrassahs and nothing else

The issue of madrassas is one that has been high up the agenda in recent months. In July, Cameron delivered a speech in Birmingham on the subject of extremism, and focussed on the need to improve integration in the education system, and dismantle religious emphasis. It was this speech where he first signalled the intent to crackdown on the radicalisation which he believed takes place in madrassas.

Downing Street said that the new inspection regime would apply to religious institutions offering eight or more hours of study a week to children in England. This could include a minute number of Christian Sunday schools and Jewish yeshivas, but it is more likely to cover up to 2,000 Muslim madrassas in England.

It is only a year since plans for a voluntary code of conduct for madrassas were shelved by the Department for Education. Now, the government is going considerably further, with plans to consult then legislate to require supplementary religious schools to register and face what is being described as a “light touch” inspection regime. While any just and equal law would be broadly framed to include all religions, the thresholds of numbers of children and hours per week are likely to be set at a level that would exclude conventional Sunday schools as well as home education.

A 2011 report by the Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR) estimated that 200,000 Muslim children attend roughly 2,000 madrasas in the UK. According to the IPPR, children typically attend up to two hours every night until the age of 14-15. While it said many madrasas made a valuable contribution to society, the IPPR found that a “significant minority” did not provide adequate standards of teaching or child protection.

The report also claimed that some madrasas still use corporal punishment. An investigation in 2011 on BBC Radio 4 claimed to have uncovered hundreds of allegations of abuse relating to Britain’s madrassas.

Preferential emphasis on Madrassahs

Cameron and his band of merry men and women have become accustomed to spreading hate and have conveniently ignored a number of incidences from other religious communities that host education:

Orthodox Jewish Schools rated ‘outstanding’ that teach next to no English– A study carried out by the British Humanist Association (BHA) of Ofsted reports on independent Haredi or ultra-Orthodox Jewish schools during the period 2007-2014 found they were rated as “good” or “outstanding” 71 per cent of the time when inspected by a member of the Jewish community, but only 22 per cent of the time when inspected by a non-Haredi inspector.

http://i100.independent.co.uk/article/orthodox-jewish-schools-that-teach-next-to-no-english-are-beingrated-as-outstanding–byq6N4OoZx

The study was launched after evidence was given to an All-Party Parliamentary Group last year by a former British-born Haredi school pupil who described how he grew up in north London speaking almost no English and received less than an hour’s non-religious curriculum teaching a day.

One former pupil of a Haredi Jewish school said:

“ Haredi inspectors have consistently given good and outstanding ratings to schools where the curriculum is almost entirely focused on studying religious scriptures. Hundreds of children leave these schools every year barely able to speak a word of English or calculate basic arithmetic. Such schools should not be receiving good/outstanding solely on the basis of a biased inspector”

Beis Rochel’ secondary school– it was revealed that three-year-olds were told that “the non-Jews” are “evil” in a nursery worksheet handed out at ultra-Orthodox Jewish schools in north London. A whistle-blower showed The Independent a worksheet given to boys aged three and four at the school. The document refers to Nazis only as “goyim” – a term for non-Jews some people argue is offensive.

Durham Free School (DFS) – it was failing in all areas earlier this week – a verdict which prompted Education Secretary Nicky Morgan to announce she intended to withdraw funding for the 18-month-old Gilesgate secondary. Ofsted took the step of publicly defending its conclusions, saying its inspectors considered “a wide range of evidence”.

The statement continued: “Inspectors found that senior staff at DFS had allowed a culture to develop where it was acceptable for racist words and sexually derogative and homophobic terms to be used.
“Leaders were failing to properly tackle or challenge this type of language and behaviour.”

These are serious matters however the speech of David Cameron has emphasised Madrassas as the real issue. A subtle hint towards other religions does not negate the heightened emphasis towards the Muslim community. This is a concentrated and clinical effort- not directed towards supplementary schools of all religions rather it is towards Islamic supplementary Schools.

Reformation of Islam is the agenda

Cameron’s poisonous narrative and hate speech is linked to the Counter Terrorism and Security Act 2015, which is intertwined with the Prevent agenda. It’s a continuation of trying to reform Islam into a ‘British Islam’ that interprets this way of life in a secular manner and not as a holistic way of life. We can imagine what type of Islam they wish to see being taught; one which sees all religions as being essentially the same, that homosexuality is a valid lifestyle choice, that there shouldn’t be any segregation between the genders, or that adhering to Islam or not is simply a personal choice etc. This is in addition to being taught that there is no political system in Islam nor that the Muslims here are apart of the global Ummah, or that the ultimately loyalty is to Britain and the crown.

The Government has a problem with Muslims having a distinct value system that encompasses political opinions and values that they do not agree with. The problem is that Muslims would rather use Islam as a reference point, than what David Cameron and Theresa May want to teach.

Mosques, Islamic community centres and Islamic learning institutes will be monitored and forced to only convey Islamic beliefs that are acceptable to British secular liberal standards, until a new generation of Muslims adopt a secular version of Islam that ignores Islam’s distinct ideological beliefs. This is an ideological war against Islam.

Muslims need to be informed of discriminatory government designs and counter the counter-extremism policies in order to safeguard the Muslim community in the UK. Muslims also have a duty to develop the madrassa system to address the contemporary challenges facing Muslim youths living in Britain with the aggressive attempts to secularise and change their Deen.

Indeed many Muslims will recognise the need for the madrassa system to improve however the Government’s plans are not to change it for the better but to change it to change the teaching of Islam.

http://www.hizb.org.uk/current-affairs/cameron-madrassas-for-the-future

سيف الله

10-24-2015, 06:55 PM

Salaam

More analysis

Cameron announces another nail in the coffin of ‘British freedoms’ calling them ‘counter-extremism’ measures!

London UK, October 19th 2015 – UK Prime Minister David Cameron has announced a series of measures to silence dissenting views – and to ban lawful religious practice – saying they fall outside his definition of “British values”.

These proposals – like almost all counter-extremism policy in this country – are not about ‘terrorism’ or violence – but are about enforcing a secular identity, suppressing political views and reforming the religious values of Muslims. They are a deflection from government policies – foreign and domestic – that are recognized drivers of legitimate grievances.

Using rhetoric that accuses those he disagrees with of being ‘hate preachers’ and ‘extremists’ – he perpetuates the discredited links between beliefs and violence, and exploits public fears of ISIS and of terrorist violence in order to justify yet more draconian laws, building upon a decade and a half of measures that have not just affected Muslims, but others as well.

Commenting on Cameron’s latest announcement, Taji Mustafa, media representative of Hizb ut-Tahrir in Britain said: “Cameron seems proud to propose more ‘police state’ policies to put himself alongside both his old friends in the Saudi royal family and his new friends in the Chinese politburo – including arbitrarily blacklisting ‘radicals’, subjecting them to a variety of measures including house arrest and internal exile, threatening a dissolution of mosques and imposing new censorship rules on broadcasters”.

‎”What does it say of his confidence – or lack of it – in being able to counter ideas, if he bans and bullies, rather than debates ideas?”

“What does it say of his confidence – or lack of it – in the judicial system of this country that he plans to take a flamethrower to Magna Carta, bypassing due process and giving the executive more power to criminalise peoples’ views and lifestyles, rather than use existing laws which outlaw incitement to violence?”

“Is every critic of liberal values or the democratic system to be labeled an ‘extremist’, in this so-called ‘free society’?”

‎”Amongst all his proposals, which would make employers and public services part of his ‘stasi’ state, there is still some room for amusement in his ridiculous proposal to waste yet more money funding government friendly groups, who have done him the service of trying to reform Islam! Having failed to convince the Muslim community to adopt his ideas, he now has to bribe people.”‎

“Why should anyone have confidence in another raft of ‘anti-extremism’ policies that have led Muslim children to be reported to police-led counter-extremism programs for requesting prayer facilities, declining to play musical instruments, holding pro-Palestinian political views and for using the word ‘eco-terrorist’?”

“Our aim in Hizb ut-Tahrir is to continue to expose pernicious policies like these wherever and whenever we can.”

“We will continue to work in protecting people’s Islamic identity at a time when they are being bullied into hiding it.”

“We will continue to discuss important political issues, and inform Muslims about Islam’s political views to the best of our ability. To accept the rules of “Prevent” and remain silent whilst everyone in society can discuss issues such as Syria, Palestine, Jihad, Shari’ah and Islamic State – would be a crazy approach. Most Imams and Islamic scholars do not dare discuss these issues in any meaningful way for fear of being labeled ‘extremist’ or ‘hate-preachers’ – thereby leaving a mountain of unanswered questions for the Muslim youth. This is utterly stupid in an era when young people need legitimate Islamic answers to difficult questions.”

“Cameron, May, Gove and others doubtless think they are more capable than Stalin Putin, Islam Karimov and the leaders of Quraysh in forcing Muslims to abandon Islamic values.”

“But it is our belief that just as their forebears failed to both convince Muslims by intellectual argument they will similarly fail to coerce Muslims by force.”

“As we have said before – and we will say again, every student of history or religion knows that whenever an arrogant ruling class tries to crush the values of a principled few, they always end humiliated.”

http://www.hizb.org.uk/press-releases/cameron-announces-another-nail-in-the-coffin-of-british-freedoms-calling-them-counter-extremism-measures

سيف الله

12-30-2015, 07:43 PM

Salaam

Another update

Message to Mr Cameron: Bomb us or blame us – Muslims won’t give up or ‘reform’ their Islam

After the brutal killings that took place in France, the British government has stepped up its efforts for more military action in Syria and its crackdown on the ill-defined enemy called ‘extremism’. It has created an atmosphere where major media outlets can fuel negative opinion against Muslims – like Channel 4’s program on ‘ISIS: The British Women Supporters Unveiled’ and the Sun newspaper’s ‘1 in 5 British Muslims’ have sympathy for Jihadis’.

Where is it leading?

Whether through military action – via drone or manned aircraft – or draconian domestic laws to silence Muslims – the British government’s policies are aimed, generally, to suppress the awakening of the global Ummah and, specifically, to counter the desire of the Muslims in the UK to connect to the global Ummah and to see her define her own political destiny.

ISIS are not a real Khilafah or Islamic State but are used as an excuse to produce more obstacles against the emergence of a real Khilafah or Islamic State, which would unite all the people of the region – Muslim and non-Muslim – under the justice of Islam. ISIS is used as an excuse to bomb the region, to curb the legitimate struggle against Bashar Assad until the US-led coalition can band together an alternative regime in Damascus that is acceptable to them. And it is the excuse to introduce unprecedented legal restrictions on Islam and Muslims within the UK.

This is not governance – it is intimidation

These government policies are not about preventing violence but about preventing Islamic beliefs and values. They propagate the lie that the more Islamic you are, the closer you are to Allah (SWT) by practicing your deen, the greater the threat you pose. So every Islamic practice is questioned and measures are rolled out thick and fast against the community. They have targeted everyone from children at nurseries to those working in public service jobs like teachers and doctors. They have made Imams too afraid to discuss the important issues of Islam for fear of being labeled ‘extremist’. And now once again they have attacked Madrassahs and Masajid.

The increasing bullying tactics of the UK government towards a minority community is not a measure of its strength. Rather, it is a measure of its failure to force the Muslim community to love British foreign policy more than the global Ummah. It is a failure to convince them to abandon their Islamic values in favour of assimilation. It is a failure in their own standard of being a pluralistic and a tolerant society – compromising the very values they market to the world. They have even failed to have an honest debate about the “superiority of secular liberal values”, which can neither be defined, nor defended.

In truth, the behaviour of the British government towards Muslim citizens does not differ in principle with that of Putin towards the Muslims in Russia.

This is not liberation – but forced conversion

Britain, America and their allies tried to force ‘freedom and democracy’ on Iraq and Afghanistan and failed – and are now heading for failure in Syria. Syria has been embroiled in a bloody conflict for nearly five years. More than 250,000 Syrians have been killed, and 11 million made homeless after challenging a secular tyrant. Abandoned by the ‘international community’ (who continued to support Assad even when he had killed tens of thousands) the people sought refuge in Allah and vowed to replace the regime with one founded on their Islamic values. Now the same ‘international community’ openly stands by Assad, or (as they put it) by ‘elements of his regime’.

Dear Brothers and Sisters!

These policies are to bully the Muslim community in Britain into submission; and bomb the Muslims of Syria into a compromise.

They are to silence Muslims through ‘Prevent’ and counter-‘extremism’ policies, which are not about preventing ‘terrorism’ but preventing Islam.

They have cynically exploited the murders in Paris, along with the media commentary that effortlessly links beards and women’s dress to terrorism – to engineer a so-called ‘reformation’ to deform and twist Islam or to make us abandon Islam.

Our message is very clear –

We will not abandon our Islam! Because you cannot abandon that which your heart and mind is convinced of.

We cannot change our Islam! Because this Islam was revealed by Allah (SWT) to His Messenger (SAW) and has been transmitted authentically to us.

Our role as Muslims:

As well as exposing these hostile political agendas and upholding the Islamic values that some are trying to ban and suppress, Muslims must find a positive role amidst this darkness.

It cannot be enough that we just look to defend our beliefs and values, without remembering that we have something positive to give.

It cannot be enough that we just look at the UK, without realizing that what is happening here is part of a global game. If we abandon what is happening in Syria today, it will mean abandoning Palestine, Kashmir and Afghanistan tomorrow.

It cannot be that we only focus on protecting a narrow part of Islam, when the agenda is about changing Islam to fit with a capitalist, secular and liberal agenda; to force a reformation to make a personal, spiritual, apolitical, quiet, subjugated, liberal, British-first, and non-international Islam.

Allah (SWT) sent His Messenger (SAW) with the Deen of Islam, a perfected way of life, for humanity – to lift people from darkness into light.

Within Britain there are Muslims and non-Muslims who wonder whether today’s world – with endless wars for resources; dominated by a few rich people exploiting others; driven by an excessive desire for wealth, regardless of who and what is damaged; where people live as individuals atomized and apart from each other; and where racism still thrives – is the best there is on offer for humanity.

And we, the Muslim community can give them hope that there is something more: a way of life built upon reason and intellect; a way of life that does not permit wars for resources, racism or economic exploitation; a way of life that encourages people to live as families, neighbours and communities; a way of life which believes people are accountable in the Akhira for their actions in this Dunya; where no one – not even the Khalefah himself – is above Allah’s Law. This is the Islamic way of life and this is incomplete without the Khilafah to implement so many of Islam’s solutions to human problems.

http://www.hizb.org.uk/current-affairs/message-to-mr-cameron-bomb-us-or-blame-us-muslims-wont-give-up-or-reform-their-islam

سيف الله

12-30-2015, 07:46 PM

Salaam

Another update

Cameron’s war against Islam and Muslims continues

Barely a week after the UK Government announced that Islamophobic hate crimes would be treated as seriously as anti-Semitic attacks, Prime Minister David Cameron announced a new set of counter-extremism measures on Monday, vowing to crackdown on both violent and non-violent elements of the “poisonous” Islamist ideology.

Whilst many within the Muslim community have continually failed to understand Cameron’s “carrot and stick” approach to extremism, many more have failed to question why the recording of anti-Muslim hate crimes was framed within anti-terror and counter-extremism legislation.

Evaluating this new piece of legislation, Dr Chris Allen, from the University of Birmingham, argued that whilst the recording of anti-Muslim hate crimes separately would practically counter those who dismiss the reality of Islamophobia, the key protagonists who lobbied the government did not question why the news about the new legislation emerged in the midst of the latest anti-terror and counter-extremism laws.

As Cameron outlined his new counter-extremism strategy, he and Home Secretary Theresa May mentioned that all police forces in the UK will be legally required to record Islamophobic hate crimes as a means to counter any objection from Muslim communities towards the new anti-extremism measures.

With regards to the new strategy, unsurprisingly it contains a number of highly problematic measures. Not only does it reinforce the draconian policies that first emerged in February under the Counter-Terrorism and Security Act (CTS), but it also made it clear that the McCarthyite witch-hunt of Muslim preachers, organisations and institutions will continue. Of course, the mandatory twopence for the sake of “political consistency” was thrown in when the policy addressed far-right extremism, but in most part, the measures were targeted towards “Islamist” extremism.
ISIS and foreign policy

The frequent mentioning of events in Syria and Iraq involving the so-called Islamic State group - or ISIS - appeared to be the focal point of the wisdom behind the measures, similar to the CTS Act. The laughable predictability of Cameron and May using ISIS to rationalise this strategy but totally ignoring legitimate foreign policy grievances came as no surprise. Parents contacting the authorities and confiscating their children’s passports was presented as a practical means to prevent young Britons from joining ISIS, but understanding why some Muslims have left the comforts of life in Britain to fight a brutal dictator like Bashar al-Assad was given no attention.

Whilst reading the new counter-extremism strategy, I could not help but think that this country was steadily shifting towards a Stalinist police state. Mosque closure orders, extremism disruption orders, banning “hate preachers”, pressuring venues not to host certain organisations, granting the Charity Commission arbitrary powers to shut down charities, preventing “entryists” from working in the public sector, the NHS and with children; all based on ideas and beliefs, which allegedly contravene Britain’s secular liberal values.

The extremism strategy went as far as to mention the founding father of the Muslim Brotherhood movement, Hasan al-Bana, its leader Syed Qutb, and prominent theorist Abu-Ala Mawdudi. It flagged the opposition to bid’a (innovation in religion) and the “doctrine of takfirism” as “key elements of Islamist thought”. It was reassuring to know that Cameron and the Home Secretary were able to display some grasp of theological terms, yet failed in demonstrating what components of this “poisonous ideology” could drive “non-violent extremists” to become violent.

Undoubtedly, this was an impossible task because the “conveyor-belt theory” which the government is peddling cannot be empirically substantiated, and has been consistently refuted by academics and the intelligence services. No matter how convincing neoconservative think-tanks and policymakers are when propagating this deluded theory, it will never stand any credible scrutiny.
Community Exclusion Forum

At a time of austerity, cut backs and creeping unemployment, Cameron also announced the allocation of £5m for “grassroots organisations” to fight extremism, which posed another dilemma. The Community Engagement Forum (CEF) that met Cameron at Downing Street last week consisted of organisations like the Quilliam Foundation, Inspire and members of the Ahmadi community - none of whom have an ounce of credibility within any British Muslim spheres.

The CEF excluded the Muslim Council of Britain (MCB), the country’s largest Muslim umbrella organisation, who described the new strategy as having a “McCarthyite undertone”. There were no prominent leaders from the Salafi, Sufi, Deobandi or Shia circles; perhaps the “Community Exclusion Forum” would have been a more apt term for Mr Cameron’s dream team.

Inevitably, funding and giving platform to bolster the subservient and compliant “moderate voices” to drown out the “Islamists” was expected. Ironically, while the British government defines an “Islamist” as someone who imposes their version of Islam on society, Mr Cameron and his secular liberal Muslim reformists see no problem with imposing their version of Islam on society!

Expectedly, the new counter-extremism strategy received strong criticisms from a wide spectrum of groups. Sir Peter Fahy, one of the most senior police officers in the country, told the Guardian that the measures could be counter-productive, and result in further alienating the Muslim community. Shadow Home Secretary Andy Burnham stated that the strategy could fuel “resentment, division and a sense of victimisation” among groups who felt they were targeted. Matthew Goodwin, who left the government’s Anti-Hatred Task Force after three years due to its lack of financial commitment and seriousness, commented on the “highly divisive” individuals and organisations that made up the CEF.

Ultimately, when a secular state interferes in the private religious affairs of its citizens, it is no longer secular. When governments use taxpayers’ money to fund initiatives and policies that will silence dissent and take away peoples’ civil liberties, it can no longer claim to be a free liberal democracy. If beliefs are criminalised and thoughts are policed, then surely these are the signs of a police state in the making?

Unfortunately, Mr Cameron is following in the footsteps of his predecessor, Tony Blair, who created a battle of hearts and minds by declaring a war against the “evil ideology” of ‘Islamism’. As simplistic as it may sound, the solution to preventing extremism and radicalisation are the following: stop bombing and meddling in the affairs of Muslim countries, allow ideas to be debated, and do not criminalise orthodox normative Islamic beliefs under the facade of the conveyor belt theory.

If the UK government continues to ignore legitimate foreign policy grievances, and introduces more anti-terror and counter-extremism laws, it will further criminalise large swathes of the Muslim community, which in effect, can “radicalise” more Muslims.

http://www.middleeasteye.net/columns/cameron-s-war-against-islam-and-muslims-continues-2094150994

سيف الله

12-30-2015, 07:49 PM

Salaam

And another

Society of mosques to boycott ‘racist’ anti-terror Prevent programme

A society of mosques that represents up to 70,000 Muslims has vowed to boycott the government’s anti-terrorism Prevent programme after accusing the policy of being a racist attack on the Islamic community.

The Waltham Forest Council of Mosques made the move in the wake of increasing tensions between the area’s council and the Muslim community.

It is the first time a council of mosques has issued such a boycott and it will be seen as a blow to the government’s attempt to involve religious communities in the fight against radicalisation.

The WFCOM statement was triggered by a motion at a meeting of Waltham Forest council on Thursday endorsing the need for the controversial Prevent programme and an associated programme known as Brit, launched to identify signs of radicalisation in primary school children.

The council of mosques condemned the council for linking the high profile stabbing at Leytonstone tube station this month reportedly by a man shouting “this is for Syria” to the need to implement the Brit programme in schools.

“We endorse the manner in which the police dealt with such an incendiary situation,” says the council of mosques statement. “It provided the community with a sense of reassurance. It is shameful how politics is being manipulated to implement a programme which asks questions such as:

– I believe that my religion is the only correct one: True/False

– God has a purpose for me: True/False

– I would mind if a family of a different race or religion moved next door: True/False.”

The statement goes on to say: “The project itself and Prevent in general is an ill-conceived and flawed policy. It is racist, and overtly targets members of the Muslim faith. This has been demonstrated by organisations who are collecting data on referrals to the [anti-radicalisation] Channel programme … We see the Brit project as another tool being used (like the Prevent strategy) to spy and denigrate the Muslim community and cause distrust. We have no confidence in the Brit project and the Prevent strategy overall.”

At a meeting on Thursday night councillors withdrew the contentious paragraph of the motion which linked the Leytonstone attack with the need to have programmes such as Prevent in schools.

Cllr Chris Robbins, leader of Waltham Forest council, said: “The council motion was about celebrating the borough’s diversity, a sentiment that we can’t understand anyone objecting to. It goes on to thank the community and police for their response to the incident at Leytonstone tube station on 5 December.

“At the council meeting tonight, a paragraph which referred to the need for programmes such as Prevent and our school programme was removed to ensure that no one could use its contents in any way to detract from praise for our community and police. The motion was passed unanimously.

“But no one should take from this any lessening of the council’s commitment to working with everyone in our community and across government to tackle violent extremism … We are confident that residents from all backgrounds and faiths support us in this work.”

Irfan Akhtar, a member of the council of mosques, welcomed the council’s U-turn but insisted that the boycott remained in place.

“Prevent is a toxic brand,” he said. “We are fighting the implementation of Prevent and will not let it into the mosques. We want to work closely with all teachers on safeguarding of children of all faiths and none. We think that Waltham Forest is a testing ground for Prevent programmes and this is a wake-up call that we are not just going to accept Prevent in our community.”

http://www.hizb.org.uk/news-watch/society-of-mosques-to-boycott-racist-anti-terror-prevent-programme

سيف الله

01-15-2016, 11:18 PM

Salaam

Another update

سيف الله

01-19-2016, 08:21 PM

Salaam

Another update

Cameron’s calls for Muslim women to ‘integrate’ – speaking in fluent ‘dog whistle’

When UK Prime Minister David Cameron announced twenty million pounds funding to teach Muslim women to speak English, he argued it would help fight ‘radicalisation’, make them less isolated and move towards a truly ‘One Nation’ Britain.

The proposals were both farcical and sinister at once.

It was farcical because the ridiculous simplicity of the ideas (that Muslim women need language skills more than other men and women; that this makes radicalisation more likely in their families; that this leads to terrorism; that there are thousands of nasty Muslim men out there trying to seek to imprison their wives and daughters) was like hearing a monologue from a cheap, racist, third-rate, 1970s standup comedian.

But the fact that the Prime Minister of this country singled out Muslim women in this way, making headline news and policies with a series of anecdotes and generalizations, is deeply sinister.

After paying lip service to criticizing Islamophobic attacks on Muslim women, he proceeded to fuel misconceptions about them, and the community of which they are a part.

Whatever his caveats at the start of his article – that it’s not all Muslim women, and it’s not only Muslim women (but stopping short of saying some of my best friends are Muslim women) – the main result of his article was to talk about Muslims, not speaking English and radicalisation.

The Prime Minister of Britain is not a fool to pen an argument in the Times, owned by his good friend Rupert Murdoch. He is a master communicator and knew exactly what he was doing, playing to the ignorance and basest prejudices of people in Britain who are affected by the constant negative press about immigration, ‘terrorism’ and Muslims in general.

But beyond this nasty message, Cameron has at least done everyone a favour by exposing the true nature of initiatives supposedly aimed at ‘community cohesion’ and countering-extremism. Just like his ‘guru’, Tony Blair, Cameron casually conflated two very different things: terrorism with a lack of integration – and then repeated his pride in ‘muscular liberalism’, effectively showing that this agenda is not about security as much as it is about values and beliefs.

If he cared about language skills, he would have included the numerous European, Indian and Sri Lankan people in Britain who have yet to master the language. He might have protested that 40% of five year olds lack basic literacy skills. If he cared about the well-being of women, he might have addressed a report that emerged exactly one year ago that a third of UK women university students reported being sexually assaulted on campus. And if he had cared about community cohesion, he certainly wouldn’t have stoked prejudices in this overtly clumsy way.

Cameron is not concerned if people are law abiding or productive citizens. He is a supremacist – a muscular liberal supremacist, who wants to force people who share different social, economic and political values to adopt those he has decided are ‘British’. The unwritten message is that Britain cannot accommodate people of different beliefs, values and viewpoints. Pluralism, if it ever existed, is dead. Muslims can cite the Qur’an that there is no compulsion in belief, and liberals can cite Cameron that Britain must compel its citizens to be one ‘liberal’ nation.

It is a prime example of forced conversion for those ‘annoying Muslims’ who have thus far resisted his liberal secular vision of the world – and if they don’t, he will cancel their passports, send them back ‘home’ and be rid of them, Ferdinand and Isabella style.

Many Muslims and non-Muslims will look t Cameron’s latest fad with amusement. But the more serious amongst them will see that Cameron’s British values include an ‘extreme’ intolerance towards any Muslim who believes in Islamic values and who dissents from official British policy.

http://www.hizb.org.uk/current-affairs/camerons-calls-for-muslim-women-to-integrate-speaking-in-fluent-dog-whistle

سيف الله

02-09-2016, 09:29 PM

Salaam

Another update

WHY IS CAGE BEING TARGETED BY THE BRITISH POLITICAL ESTABLISHMENT?

Over the past three weeks, CAGE has been the subject of what appears to be a co-ordinated attack from the right-wing media and the British political establishment, with the express intention to cast the organisation as ‘extremist’ in order to malign us and compel us to shut down.

In an unprecedented attack on a small organisation of only 6 full-time staff, eight newspapers ran 28 headlines in the space of four days, all of them attacking CAGE for our successful opposition to the government’s failed counter-terrorism programme, PREVENT. Several politicians and conservative leaders joined the fray.

Rounding on CAGE

The Daily Mail acted as the attack dogs, publishing headlines that echoed the opinions of neo-conservative think tanks, state security services and conservative MPs. Their articles directly quoted Home Secretary Theresa May, who supported the Daily Mail “investigations” even though they were conducted underhandedly and with the express intention to cast CAGE as “extremist”. This despite our remit being to campaign for the rule of law and an end to torture.

The clear line journalists had to the Home Secretary showed these stories ran with the approval of the Home Office. It is not surprising then that Education Secretary Nicky Morgan has recently joined May, Prime Minister David Cameron, Foreign Secretary Philip Hammond, London mayor Boris Johnson, and Conservative MP Jo Johnson, all of whom have very deliberately and specifically sought to smear CAGE.

What’s behind the raucous?

But why dedicate so much time and energy to go after a small organisation that has already felt the brunt of political, legal, economic and media pressure for several years?

CAGE has been successful in challenging the government’s narrative around “radicalisation”. This narrative seeks to group all forms of dissent under the banner of “extremism” and in so doing quell opposition to its neo-conservative aims. Its end goal is a surveillance state, in which Muslims are placated into accepting a state-sanctioned version of Islam, in which opinions that counter the government’s are policed and open debate is shepherded by rubber-stamped organisations and individuals.

We have consistently and intensively highlighted this since the inception of the PREVENT strategy. Using case study based research we have shown how PREVENT is a danger to civil society, intellectual debate, individual expression and religious freedom. Far from “extreme”, the problems we have highlighted and the questions we have posed of the security state are now being echoed by academics, civil society groups and by key members of the public sector including Her Majesty’s Opposition itself.

The government is losing the intellectual and political argument over the growth of the security state through PREVENT. CAGE has been at the forefront of the counter-argument, consistently stating that ideology does not cause political violence, but socio-economic factors and foreign and domestic policy play a far more prominent role. This argument is gaining traction because of its central validity. This is why major players are employing the whole apparatus of the conservative establishment to try to close us down.

CAGE position has broad and high level support

The main global dissenters to the surveillance state including the likes of Wikileaks, Edward Snowden and Intercept have endorsed CAGE and the work we do. Secular academics and student organisations have signed up to the CAGE narrative on campus. Trade Unions are now coming on board. The number of loyal supporters is growing.

In a landmark High Court victory, the lord chief justice Thomas ruled that the Charity Commission - headed by neo-conservative William Shawcross - had no right to compel charities not to fund CAGE. This was a major blow to an arm of the conservative establishment, and demonstrated support for CAGE amongst the highest echelons of Britain. In forcing the Charity Commission into retreat, our victory was heralded as a victory for all of civil society by key opinion makers in the sector.

Our consistent and well-grounded view that terrorism laws are too broad and that they threaten human rights was echoed in the Court of Appeal this week, which ruled precisely this in the David Miranda case, concluding that the Terrorism Act violates the fundamental freedom of the press.

CAGE will continue to grow in credibility and effort insha’Allah

Despite co-ordinated attempts to demonise CAGE, the organisation has been resilient and strong. We continue to campaign successfully for due process and the rule of law. We continue to support individuals and organisations whose rights have been infringed upon by PREVENT and counter-terrorrism legislation in other countries, referring them to lawyers and publicising cases where necessary. We are in the process of opening offices overseas to challenge PREVENT narratives that strengthen the neo-conservative establishment further afield.

It is thanks to the countless numbers of people who continue to donate to CAGE despite the systematic campaign against us, that we are able to continue to do this crucial work.

We intend to launch more projects calling for transparency around PREVENT and advancing the debate. We will continue to call for more constructive solutions to end the cycles of violence that characterise the War on Terror, as opposed to reinforce it. We will continue to campaign for a return to the principle of the rule of law, an end to torture and a world free from oppression and injustice. We invite you to lend your support to keep us going.

http://www.cageuk.org/article/why-cage-being-targeted-british-political-establishment

سيف الله

02-09-2016, 09:57 PM

Salaam

Another update

David Cameron ill-advised in his approach to British Muslims and MAB

Report depicts Muslim Association of Britain in negative and patronising light despite many years of distinguished community service.

The British Government's publication of the findings of the review of the Muslim Brotherhood has raised more questions than answers.

By declaring it to be a "classified report" and releasing 11 pages of what he determined to be the "main findings", the government has acted in a manner that is far less candid and transparent than expected.

Having refused repeated requests from lawyers acting for the Muslim Brotherhood to view the report, the government has, by default, committed the very act which it accuses the Brotherhood of; that is acting in a "secretive, if not clandestine" manner.

Inevitably, this sad state of affairs has provoked questions about political motives and credibility of the entire review process.

Unsurprisingly, the Muslim Brotherhood Review commissioned by Prime Minister David Cameron and prepared by former Ambassador to Riyadh, Sir John Jenkins, has singled out a number of British organisations, charities and institutions – most notably the Muslim Association of Britain (MAB).

Despite many years of distinguished community service, the report depicts the MAB in a wholly negative and patronising light.

Not only did the MAB work alongside the Government and Metropolitan Police to oust the notorious preacher Abu Hamza from Finsbury Park Mosque in 2005, it has since then successfully transformed this important pillar of the North London community into a beacon of community excellence and a model for others to follow.

As part of its endeavour to present an enlightened understanding of Islam, the MAB has conducted welfare projects; it provides shelter for the homeless and feeds the poor. It has done this at a time when the phenomenon of food-banks has proliferated across the country amid cuts to the Government's welfare spending.

While many armchair experts were theorising about the perils of extremism from the comfort of their luxurious offices, the MAB and other Muslim organisations mentioned in the report were busy organising scouting activities for the youth, teaching them useful life skills and steering them away from the scourge of criminality. Yet for whatever reasons, Cameron and Jenkins saw no need to acknowledge or appreciate these initiatives.

The report also claimed that the MAB has continually objected to the Government's Prevent strategy. True, but they are not alone. There is in fact a growing chorus of high profile public figures and academics who have denounced Prevent as a "toxic brand". They include the chair of the Home Affairs Select Committee Keith Vaz, and retired senior judge Baroness Butler-Sloss.

In the circumstances, it is a matter of grave concern that Cameron's government views the fundamental democratic right to object to Government policy as reason to consider objectors subversives – or even worse.

The problem with government officials and cheerleaders who vilify the MAB and similar British Muslim organisations is that on the one hand they accuse them of not integrating or assimilating into society, and then when these organisations actually attempt to do so, they are accused of "entryism".

This inherent contradiction and inconsistency in the government's approach to the Muslim community was underscored recently when the prime minister lavished all praise and extended every possible courtesy to India's prime minister Narendra Modi.

As Leader of the Hindu Bahartia Janata Party, Modi failed to stop the 2002 massacre of more than 1,000 Muslims in Gujrat. As a result he was deemed a persona non grata to Britain for more than a decade.

However, for obvious economic reasons Cameron chose to afford his Indian counterpart a state visit in November 2015.

There are, of course, other occasions when the government has sacrificed British values of tolerance and harmony between different cultural traditions, the protection of individual citizens, and the rule of law.

The Guardian newspaper published an exclusive report on how United Arab Emirates threatened to block a billion-pound arms deal with the UK, stop inward investment and cut intelligence cooperation if Cameron did not act against the Muslim Brotherhood.

It is no secret that the UAE has been the main financial and political backer of the military junta that overthrew Egypt's first elected civilian president, Mohamed Morsi. The coup killed thousands of civilians and incarcerated tens of thousands of opposition figures and activists.

In this light, most reasonable and fair-minded observers would be more inclined to deem the MAB a greater champion of British values than David Cameron, while he supports undemocratic countries like UAE and the military despot who currently rules Egypt.

After spending taxpayer money on its review into the Muslim Brotherhood, the government must now demonstrate the moral courage and publish it in full, and in the manner it was written by John Jenkins. Failure to do so and accept responsibility for its flaws will only further poison community relations and fuel the climate of suspicion and hostility toward British Muslims, as Cameron was reportedly warned by MI5.

Rather than wait for a time when he would have to seek the benefit of hindsight, the time is right for Cameron to act upon all the principles that he so passionately preaches – honesty; fairness; impartiality; and moderation.

It is ironic that former Prime Minister Tony Blair adopted a similar condescending approach to British Muslims. When faced with criticism and protest over his Iraq policy, he famously accused British Muslims of harbouring a sense of "false grievance". In the end, he has admitted that the invasion of Iraq could have possibly contributed to the rise of Islamic State, and al-Qaeda before them.

Before more damage is done, David Cameron must now demonstrate the same humility and accept that he was ill-advised in his approach to British Muslims, and the Muslim Association of Britain in particular.

http://stopwar.org.uk/index.php/news/2972-david-cameron-was-ill-advised-in-his-approach-to-british-muslims

strivingobserver98

02-28-2016, 11:12 PM

Sad reality for those in Syria, Gaza etc. :(.

سيف الله

03-12-2016, 02:35 PM

Salaam

Another update

EXCLUSIVE: CAGE LEAKS COMPREHENSIVE PREVENT COUNTER-TERRORISM TRAINING MATERIAL IN THE INTEREST OF TRANSPARENCY

London – The PREVENT Strategy has permeated all aspects of public life in the UK. It is important that the training provided to public sector workers to implement the strategy is scrutinised for its empiricism. To this end, CAGE has released the most comprehensive leak of PREVENT training material so far.

growing list of senior public figures have spoken out against PREVENT and over 300 professors, academics, experts and community figures have signed a letter against PREVENT.

CAGE has made the material available at http://www.preventresources.com/

The material includes:

A full script of the workshop session .
Full video clips that accompany sessions .
Software programs produced by a private sector company educating obligations under the Counter-Terrorism and Security Act 2015 .
A software program produced by the Police to teach Channel’s significance .

Freedom of Information requests to gain access to the workshop material have been repeatedly blocked by the Home Office, which prefers to keep the material secret* and away from public scrutiny even though some 360,000 public sector workers have already been trained using the information in these manuals.

Ibrahim Mohamoud, Communications Officer, said:

“CAGE has decided to make this information available to the public as a necessary step to allow academics, researchers, campaigners, journalists and students to research and analyse PREVENT training.” 

“The assumption that public sector workers can be trained in a few hours on a complex issue such as understanding the pathways to politically motivated violence is naive and dangerous. As CAGE predicted more than a year ago, implementation of PREVENT is leading to over reporting and several high profile cases of overreach.” 

“PREVENT only adds to the alienation being fed by anti Muslim attacks by politicians and right wing commentators. We call for a return to the rule of law, the implementation of principles of innocent until proven guilty and adherence to due process.” 

“CAGE repeats its call to abolish PREVENT. The safeguarding of civil liberties in an open, fair and equal justice system is the best means to protect all of us against politically motivated violence. The antidote to violence is a return to a legal order that does not target sections of society as a threat because of their sincerely held religious beliefs.” 

http://www.cageuk.org/press-release/exclusive-cage-leaks-comprehensive-prevent-counter-terrorism-training-material-interes

سيف الله

03-12-2016, 02:37 PM

Salaam

Another update

PREVENT INTERROGATES CHILDREN WITHOUT PARENTAL CONSENT: CAGE

London - Children across the UK are being interrogated at school on their personal beliefs and religious practice without the consent of their parents or guardians, according to CAGE’s latest case study based briefing paper ‘Consent Denied’.

The briefing paper presents four case studies that are indicative of a wider problem in which parents and guardians are kept in the dark when their children are questioned by PREVENT - only to find out after the fact, and only should their children wish to tell them.

Although PREVENT claims that consent is required, in reality this only comes into play if CHANNEL becomes involved.

This antagonistic and securitised approach threatens and alienates Muslims, especially parents and young people. Moreover, it is further evidence that PREVENT will push unpopular views underground, where they will go unchallenged.

Ibrahim Mohamoud, Communications Officer, said:

“In its broad definitions of extremism and lack of complexity, the PREVENT duty forces educators to view their students through a securitised lens, as opposed to developing positive teacher-pupil relationships based on mutual trust where difficult ideas and issues can be discussed freely and safely.”

“Our case studies show that children are being taken away from mandatory school hours to be questioned on matters misconstrued as markers of ‘extremism’. By alienating parents, turning teachers into informants, and antagonising students, PREVENT is a divisive policy that does an injustice to the education system.”

“PREVENT is flawed since it is presented as a safeguarding measure, which implies that should parents choose not to give consent, this could be construed as supporting ‘extremism’. This mechanism forces individuals to comply with a strategy that in its broad threat to freedom of expression and thought, stands to divide society.”

http://www.cageuk.org/press-release/prevent-interrogates-children-without-parental-consent-cage

سيف الله

04-13-2016, 07:26 PM

Salaam

The pathetic Blair strikes again.

Dr Abdul Wahid replies to Blair’s comment : Many millions of Muslims ‘fundamentally incompatible with the modern world’

Tony Blair’s latest contribution to ‘solving’ the world’s problems came in a Sunday Times interview in which he said that “many millions” of Muslims hold a viewpoint that is “fundamentally incompatible with the modern world”.

Blair would clearly like to see those millions of Muslims ‘converted’ to his ideals -by force if necessary.

But one must ask; what is the modern world he talks about? It is a world where secular liberal values and capitalist systems have dominated, rarely challenged, for decades.

It is world based upon the dominance of big business and capital, which sees people as consumers – or workers to receive mere ‘trickles’, whilst trillions are hoarded by a few; where migrants are seen as scapegoats for the global economic crisis created by capitalism.

It is a world in which people in the West have governments that serve those corporate interests – even taking whole nations to war on the basis of lies in order to serve those interests; whilst in the East they have to endure governments who serve themselves and their colonial masters at the expense of the people.

It is a world that thinks it is better to sustain kings, dictators and false democracies than to have a righteously guided Khaleefah who looks after the affairs of people like a shepherd cares for a flock – according to the ahkam of the Deen of Islam.

It is a world based upon division along colonial lines instead of unity along Islamic lines; a world, whichaccepts the occupation of Palestine, Kashmir and elsewhere, despite the injustice and human misery.

It is a world that insists that people live as lonely individuals who are free to express themselves in ways that harm themselves and society, rather than live as families, communities and cohesive societies.

It is the world of your ideology Mr. Blair – and I suspect over a billion Muslims, and even millions of non-Muslims, are happy to be incompatible with such a world-which is incompatible with human beings, and so in need of change.

http://www.hizb.org.uk/current-affairs/dr-abdul-wahid-replies-to-blairs-comment-many-millions-of-muslims-fundamentally-incompatible-with-the-modern-world

سيف الله

04-13-2016, 07:27 PM

Salaam

Another update

Teachers back motion calling for Prevent strategy to be scrapped

NUT rejects government anti-radicalisation scheme, saying it causes ‘suspicion in the classroom and confusion in the staffroom’

Teachers have voted overwhelmingly to reject the government’s Prevent strategy, designed to tackle extremism, over concerns that it causes “suspicion in the classroom and confusion in the staffroom”.

At the National Union of Teachers annual conference in Brighton, a motion was backed calling for Prevent to be scrapped, after a succession of speakers ridiculed its effectiveness and attacked the poor support offered to schools to implement it.

Since last summer, Prevent has obliged teachers to refer to police pupils they suspect of engaging in some sort of terrorist activity or radical behaviour. The duty has been largely considered a failure by teaching leaders, partly because about 90% of referrals end without action being taken.

Speakers at the conference said that while schools and teachers did have a role in safeguarding and protecting pupils from exposure to extremism, in practice Prevent was ineffective and even counter-productive.

Gary Kaye, a delegate from North Yorkshire, said the Prevent training given to many teachers was “crude and often involves loads of stereotypes”.

“I’m sure I’m not the only person in this conference hall today who has been given a sheet of A3 paper with a line that shows Isis on one side and the EDL on the other, as if the modern world of extremist political belief could be explained in such exact terms,” he said.

Kaye called for the government to withdraw the Prevent duty from schools and colleges “and stop education professionals being the secret service of the public sector”, to loud applause.

Lisa Tunnell, a teacher from Chesterfield, described one young Muslim student’s experience under Prevent. She said: “He talked about a French teacher who threatened to call the police because he used the word terrorism when being asked to explain an airport security sign.”

Tunnell said that the Prevent programme disproportionately targeted Muslim students and so damaged relationships with local school communities.

Alex Kenny, an NUT executive member who moved the motion, said teachers were receiving Prevent training “of very varied content, provided by a multiplicity of organisations, without accreditation or regulation”.

“It’s leading to a situation where teachers are finding it more difficult to seize opportunities to discuss important issues,” Kenny said.

“When that happens, we are in danger of abandoning young people to the dark places they can find elsewhere, on the internet and elsewhere, without any hope of any mediation by us.”

After the motion was carried, Christine Blower, the union’s general secretary, said: “Evidence shows that grooming by extremist groups happens mainly on social media sites, not on school premises.

“Schools’ best contribution to countering any behaviour that could be a problem is by encouraging discussion. Some aspects of Prevent inhibit this and it is for this reason that we need a review of the strategy to find the right, and best way to protect children and young people.

“The NUT is calling on the government to involve the profession in developing alternative strategies to safeguard children and identify risks posed to young people.”

http://www.hizb.org.uk/news-watch/teachers-back-motion-calling-for-prevent-strategy-to-be-scrapped

سيف الله

04-13-2016, 07:31 PM

Salaam

Another update

Prevent: A story of community resentment

I was heartened to see the vote at the British National Union of Teachers conference at Easter for the withdrawal of the "Prevent programme" in schools.

I recently chaired a meeting of Waltham Forest Faith Communities Forum and was told of yet another example of Islamophobic graffiti on the outside of one of our mosques.

Here in Walthamstow, where I am a vicar, we have excellent relationships between our diverse religious communities, and it is painful to us when any of our faith buildings are subject to hate crime.

We stand together in solidarity when any of our communities are under attack. That is why I spoke recently at a local meeting to register my opposition to the government's Prevent strategy.

Mass opposition

Opposition to Prevent has grown since it became a statutory duty of the public sector in February 2015.

Several hundred professors and academics have signed statements expressing concern; opposition includes the National Union of Students, the National Union of Teachers, the University and College Union, the Muslim Council of Britain, and other Muslim and anti-racist organisations.

Most important of all is the growing opposition within the Muslim community itself.

The majority of Muslims in my community see Prevent as placing their families under suspicion. Nothing could be more damaging or divisive.

This is not a misapprehension on their part. The Prevent narrative, despite disclaimers, implies that every Muslim has the potential to be a violent extremist and that our mosque communities are potential seedbeds for radicalisation.

In my own borough the Waltham Forest Council of Mosques (WFCOM) has declared a boycott of Prevent and issued a strong statement, condemning Prevent as racist.

This follows the racial profiling of Muslim primary schoolchildren under the BRIT project, which had the effect of stigmatising nine-year-old Muslim children as prone to violent extremism.

This has been compounded by press coverage of young people referred under the provisions of Prevent for expressing perfectly legitimate political or religious views. Some parents in my own community now warn their children not to discuss current affairs and political issues in class.

Suspect communities

The WFCOM statement and the opposition to Prevent in the Muslim community should be treated seriously. Long gone are the days when we should be claiming to know better than the victims of racism as to what does or does not constitute prejudice and discrimination; nor should we take cover behind unrepresentative "think-tanks" that are themselves part of a Prevent industry.

Community resentment towards Prevent must also be seen in a wider context. Muslims in my community are subject to Islamophobia from the media and on the streets.

A local family was refused permission to fly to the United States on a visit to Disneyland with no explanation.

We regularly see headlines equating Muslims with terror, child abuse and "extremism". We are witnessing a rise in Islamophobia and hate-crime, particularly against Muslim women.

In 2015, the Metropolitan Police recorded a 70 percent increase in Islamophobic hate crime in London, the figure being at 270 percent in some boroughs such as Waltham Forest.

Prevent cannot claim to be unjustly connected to these developments. It rests upon a barely concealed narrative of "a suspect community".

It shares this narrative with more open expressions of Islamophobia in the media and political circles in Britain, Europe and North America.

Much of this narrative echoes the demonisation levelled against Jews a century ago. It is a narrative of suspicion and hostility that extends not only to Muslims but to refugees and migrants seeking safety from war and economic deprivation.

Mass hysteria

Prevent has gained support or acquiescence from many genuine professionals who are rightly concerned with safeguarding our young people.

Many are horrified by open Islamophobia, let alone hate crimes, and would not hesitate to confront it.

But this is precisely where Prevent is so damaging and divisive. All of us want to see action to prevent young people absconding to Syria or being drawn into violence.

However, safeguarding procedures and legal provisions exist for the protection of our youth, and the evidence is that Prevent is not only counterproductive but also serves to alienate those with whom we need to engage if we are to protect them.

More recently, Prevent shows ominous signs of becoming a vehicle for suppressing free speech and dissent in the public domain.

Meetings held on campuses to campaign against Islamophobia or Prevent are asked to provide a "neutral" chairman or an "opposing" view on the platform.

If this were to be applied to climate change or Black History Month meetings on Malcolm X or establishment political speakers, there would be uproar.

But "Muslim" now equates with "extremist" and such demands point to an Islamophobic culture that is taking a perturbing currency.

The attempt to suppress dissent has also extended to demonising opponents of Prevent in sections of the press - often laced with racialised slurs of the worst type.

Muslim organisations such as Muslim Engagement and Development, CAGE, and Prevent Watch have suffered media hysteria. This hysteria has also extended to the National Union of Students and the National Union of Teachers - both organisations have taken admirably principled positions on the issue.

This raises serious concerns for democratic debate, especially when the British government's counter-extremism bill is seeking to remove the distinction between "extremism" and "violent extremism".

Prevent has been branded by authoritative establishment figures as toxic and counterproductive. It has sown division and suspicion and has helped to fuel prejudice against the most disadvantaged and discriminated.

It has become a vehicle for undermining the very principle of free expression and criticism. It gives rise to Islamophobia in communities such as Walthamstow. We should demand its repeal before any more damage is done.

http://www.cageuk.org/article/prevent-story-community-resentment

سيف الله

04-15-2016, 10:08 PM

Salaam

Another update.

Trevor Phillips’ convenient lies about Islam and Muslims

Trevor Phillips’ latest attack on Muslims who have not embraced liberal values is not the first and probably will not be the last. His latest intervention in The Sunday Times, which will also be part of Channel 4’s current affairs documentary on the 13th April 2016 – ‘What British Muslims Really Think,’ is yet another ‘muscular liberal’ attempt to fuel hatred and suspicion because Muslims will not lie down and believe what they are told by the dominant liberal elite.

He said that for a long time, he thought Europe’s Muslims would abandon ‘their ancestral ways’ and assimilate – and then went on to selectively use data from a poll of just 1000 Muslims in the UK to show Muslims have beliefs and values that don’t agree with liberal dogma, which for Phillips was a bad thing. He then stretched his argument beyond credibility to link these views to the usual accusations made against Islam and Muslims saying ‘hundreds of young people are being seduced to join Islamist fanatics abroad, thousands of young girls are shipped off to have their genitals mutilated, and many more are pressured into marriages they do not want.’

Trevor Phillips and his ilk should have realised by now that they do not undermine Islam and Muslims every time they attack Islam, rather they, once again, expose the weakness in liberalism by highlighting it cannot tolerate different views and needs to impose a muscular approach in every facet of the Muslim’s life.

Negative stereotypes are repeated every time a politician or commentator wants to push their agenda to bully Muslims; to promote ‘liberal Muslims’ (who Phillips is concerned may become extinct) and a religious ‘reformation’ to distort Islam and make it conform to their worldview; and justify ‘counter-extremism’ and forced assimilation policies. Harking back to the medieval church, we have seen forced conversion to a narrowly defined set of views –in the modern world, that is called fascism.

Britain has a long-standing record of bullying minorities into submission, Asians, Blacks, (as Trevor Philips well knows) and now Muslims. The bitter pill for liberals to swallow is that Britain doesn’t know how to integrate Muslims. Such a failure does not lie at the doorstep of the Muslim community; rather the finger should be pointed at the secular creed that is inherently divisive.

Yes, adultery and homosexuality are prohibited in Islam. Liberals can beat the Muslim community with these accusations, but should remember that these are core beliefs Muslims are convinced of and hold dearly. These core values have been in the Muslim community since the first set of Muslims arrived in the UK and will continue to be so as long as Muslims reside here. The Islamic creed, and culture is not like the secular creed and culture, where values evolve and change as time progresses, with no benchmark of what is good or bad. It was not that long ago that Phillips staunchly backed multi-culturalism – an idea he now attacks.

Phillips highlights the fact Muslims have not been intellectually convinced of the correctness of liberal values, yet, he does not reflect on this failure. People look at the Panama Papers revelations and see the economic injustice that sets the few above everyone else. They see that the fruits of a ‘free society’ include a hyper-sexualised society and family breakdown. They look at the spiritual vacuum at the heart of society and realise (with some pity) why people have to worship at the altar of deceased celebrities in order to get some temporary spiritual fulfilment – and that no one actually seems any happier.

Are liberals prepared to debate and attempt to convince the Muslim community of the superiority of their values, or is it convenient to hide behind sensational headlines and alarmist interpretations of polls?

Hizb ut-Tahrir Britain is ready to debate with anyone regarding the correctness of the Islamic belief and values over the decadent liberal ones. If liberals truly believe in their values, are they prepared for a rational and open debate and to outline why Muslims should consider liberal values?

Muslims should realise that these attacks will continue so long as the west continues its rhetoric of radicalisation and terrorism. In such times we draw upon the Quran which narrates several stories where believers were being ridiculed and oppressed for being steadfast on the Deen. We too should be steadfast and that shows the best way to live with dignity as a human being, not merely as a consumer; in families and communities, not as atomised lonely individuals; as slaves of Allah, not as slaves of their desires; as part of an Ummah, yet good to their neighbours; to speak good words or be silent, not to be free to insult. If we rely on Allah, He (swt) fulfils His light to be a shining example to others who live in Trevor Phillips’ liberal darkness.

http://www.hizb.org.uk/current-affairs/trevor-phillips-convenient-lies-about-islam-and-muslims

سيف الله

04-15-2016, 11:26 PM

Salaam

Another update

What mosques and madrassas can expect if regulated by Ofsted

Activist Kasim Javed sets out what mosques and madrassas can expect if Ofsted regulations become mandatory.

As the Government consider its proposed system for registering and inspecting out-of-school education settings, which will disproportionately target Mosques and Madrassas, it is worth pondering on what this will look like.

We already know that the “out-of-school settings” is a politically correct attempt to cover up the reality and intent of the policy which is to identify “Islamic extremism” from within the Muslim community. Something that MP’s in a recent parliamentary debate implied when raising concerns about why Christian out-of-school settings will be pointlessly dragged into this legislation. The Christian and Jewish communities have also made the point that they should not be scapegoated for a problem that concerns Muslims and Islamic “extremism”.

We also know that the proposals are an extension of Prevent and clearly framed within the context of the “radicalisation” debate which can be seen in the “Call for evidence” document that the Government published for the consultation period back in December 2015.

In addition to this, we have witnessed from the Trojan Horse hoax how Ofsted degraded schools simply for accommodating Islamic rituals such as calling the Adhaan, Segregation of boys and girls, teaching Islam as a superior value system, upholding the Islamic views on homosexuality, and criticising actions of the illegitimate state of Israel and British foreign policy. All of which the mainstream Muslim community doesn’t have any problem with irrespective of their Islamic persuasion.

Moreover, we have seen the national criticism against Prevent and even calls to repeal the legislation from all sectors of society, including the National Union of Teachers (NUT), the National Union of Students (NUS), intellectuals and academics, doctors and health professionals, social workers, and of course the Muslim community in general such as some stand-alone Council of Mosques and the northern coalition of mosques who strongly rejected Prevent in the consultation response to the out-of-schools legislation.

The main reason why the country has rightly so expressed unequivocal rejection of the Government’s Prevent strategy is because it is in reality an insidious attempt to liberalise normative beliefs, values and practises of Islam as well as to systematically impose political loyalties to Britain. Hence, anyone that opposes the idea of “British values” (a euphuism for secular liberal values) or opposes democracy, believes in the supremacy of Islamic law or criticises British foreign policy such as it’s support for the illegal state of Israel or it’s carnage in Syria or its relationship with dictators such as the dictatorial monarchy of the Saudi regime e.t.c are all susceptible in failing to meet the so called preventative anti-terror measures.

Prevent has also been criticised for it’s neo-McCarthyite like approach suppressing the proclamation of alternative ideologies and closing down debate and discussion, but the most worrying of course is the insanity of spying on children as young as 3 in case they become terrorists. We know this from lots of case studies that have come to the surface of the media including;

Teachers’ extremist fears over boy, 10, after he complains about lack of prayer room
12-Year-old suspected of being vulnerable to radicalisation in a row over Halal Chicken
Schoolboy Reported to Prevent After Palestinian Kids Appeal
Muslim boy interrogated at school for saying ‘eco-terrorist’
Four-year-old who ‘mispronounced the word cucumber’ threatened with counter-terrorism measures
Fury after Primary pupils are asked to complete radicalisation-seeking surveys
Three-year-old child from London placed in Government Anti-Extremism programme

So what can Mosques and Madrassas expect if the Government push through Ofsted style inspections?

Such proposals will radically alter the political landscape of then Muslim community for generations to come. Mosques and Madrassas will be pressurised to secularise their curriculums so that they are compatible with Western liberal values.

There will be countless cases of innocent Muslim children and teachers who are accused of being extreme. Imams will be forced to conceal the normative Islamic values and beliefs on issues such as segregation, homosexuality, extolling the virtues of the Shari’ah and the superiority of Islamic values, discussing the history and legacy of the Islamic Caliphate, as well as the de-politicisation of the Islamic Aqeedah.

If mosques and madrassas are registered, it will lead to the beginning of the end of traditional Islamic ideas that most Muslims in this country were taught and the race to reform Islam in accordance with British secular liberal values would gain momentum.

What should we do? Irrespective of the proposed legislations, Mosques and Madrassas should have a plan to Keep Mosques Independent. This doesn’t simply mean to be independent from state bureaucracy, but to have a vision that is predicated on the preservation of the Islamic identify and propagation of the Islamic Da’wah to both Muslims and the wider society.

The Keep Mosques Independent campaign is working with Mosques and Madrassas around the country in order to develop Islamic culturing programs such as parenting schemes, mentoring programs, non-Muslim exhibitions, media training on answering difficult questions as well as developing standards for self-regulation which is transparent and accountable to the community it serves. Email info@keepmosquesindependent.org to find out more on how you can keep your Mosque independent.

http://5pillarsuk.com/2016/03/16/what-mosques-and-madrassas-can-expect-if-regulated-by-ofsted/

Bhabha

04-16-2016, 06:43 AM

The criminalization of Islam from the British perspective has been there since the mid 1800s. However, the British have generally viewed 'deviant' populations as criminals and have put them into corners as "suspect communities". This happened with the Irish during the 1970s and the Prevention of Terrorism Acts legislation actually put "Irish" into its legislative papers to grant police extra-powers, which unfortunately ended up stigmatizing the Irish as "terrorists" across the UK.

There are pretty interesting articles by Sara Silvestri on the issue of Muslim suspect communities in the United Kingdom.

سيف الله

05-06-2016, 08:36 PM

Salaam

Another update

EXCLUSIVE: CAGE reveals groups and ‘products’ involved in covert Government propaganda programme

London – CAGE today releases a disturbing report based on a year-long investigation, that reveals the inner details of the covert Government propaganda programme, recently reported by the Guardian.

CAGE’s report “We are Completely Independent” published today reveals:

– How the Home Office has misled the British public, pushing state-sponsored propaganda at or about Muslims using seemingly independent groups and projects which include:

◦ Anti-tribalism Movement: Somalia: time to go home and Return to Somalia
◦ Armed Forces Muslim Association: Faith on the Frontline
◦ Don’t go to Syria, only give to registered charities: Syria Needs Your Help and Change the Picture
◦ Families Against Stress and Trauma: Families Matter
◦ Upstanding Neighbourhoods: KIKIT Pathwayz and Open Your Eyes: ISIS Lies
◦ Quilliam Foundation: #NotAnotherBrother
◦ Federation of Muslim Organisations: Ummah Sonic
◦ Faith Associates: Imams Online

– The government’s use of the Official Secrets Act to protect a PR company, Breakthrough Media, and conceal its role in producing state-sponsored propaganda

The report also explores in-depth:

– Breakthrough Media, the PR company at the heart of the government’s PREVENT propaganda programme directed at Muslim communities
– The role of the secretive propaganda unit, Research, Information and Communications Unit (RICU), within the Home Office in directing the conversation within the Muslim community while it claims otherwise.
– Clear evidence of specific instances where Muslim organisations including charities have been controlled and manipulated by the Home Office to convey a state-scripted narrative on ‘extremism’ and ‘radicalisation’.

Over the past five years, a secretive Home Office department called RICU, the Research, Information and Communications Unit, has been cultivating a network of ‘grassroots’ Muslim voices to promote ‘counter-narratives’ to combat the appeal of ‘extremist narratives’ among Britain’s young people. All of this is taking place with no public debate or oversight.

The covert nature of the ‘counter-narrative’ programme and the pretence that these messages come from independent, representative or ‘grass roots’ community organisations is deeply misleading and unbecoming of a government that claims to uphold transparency.

Further, the allegation that the PR company delivering a number of these counter-narratives is protected under the Official Secrets Act (OSA), is of great concern. If so, the use of the OSA to protect a propaganda programme would be a gross misuse of governmental power and authority. CAGE would never reveal anything believed to be risk to operational security in the UK.

Rather than engaging in genuine debate and consultations as to the causes of political motivated violence and ‘radicalisation’ – which demands a revision of the securitised response – the propaganda campaign has sought to impose a narrow ideological framework on these issues within the Muslim community.

This framework feeds into the controversial and failing PREVENT strategy, which is founded on a premise that maintains the state-sanctioned status quo and perpetuates the idea that the Muslim community is a suspect one.

Ben Hayes, report author, said:

“We should be under no illusion as to what is going on here. When the government starts using community groups and NGO’s to disseminate government propaganda to hoodwink the public into believing they are authentic, ‘grass roots’ campaigns, it damages everyone in civil society”.

“Democracy requires clear lines between the security state and the police on the one hand, and civil society, public and social services on the other.

“Having railed against ‘sock-puppet’ NGOs and introduced a ban on charities in receipt of public money lobbying government, it is time for an honest conversation about the impact, legitimacy and effectiveness of the government’s own secret propaganda programmes”.

Asim Qureshi, Research Director and report author, said:

“RICU is using ‘grassroots’ organisations as mouthpieces for a PREVENT sanctioned agenda, which justifies a securitised approach to all aspects of Muslim life.”

“There is also evidence to suggest that the Government is using the Official Secrets Act to hide its relationship with the role of Breakthrough Media, the PR company driving the propaganda. This suggests an abuse of power and a contempt for open society.”

“The findings of this report should be a cause of concern to the British public. It confirms the hidden hand of those who wish to manufacture consent for the expansion of the security state.”

“We are calling for greater scrutiny of RICU work, to include an independent audit to assess the ethics and cost of the whole programme.”

http://www.cageuk.org/press-release/exclusive-cage-reveals-groups-and-products-involved-in-covert-government-propaganda-programme/

strivingobserver98

05-06-2016, 09:27 PM

A piece of paper found in the pocket of a Syrian martyr, saying: "For the sake of Allah, if you have bread and rice, please send it to my children." What is love?

سيف الله

05-09-2016, 07:18 PM

Salaam

Another update, interesting comment piece.

PETER HITCHENS: Think extremism's a crime? You'll change your mind when they come for YOU

As an extremist, I am very worried about the planned Extremism Bill, which our Prime Minister is about to ram through Parliament.

So should you be. You are probably extremists, too, or will soon become extremists.
You may well remember when many opinions now viewed as despicable and more or less criminal were freely expressed – often by the same people and media who now condemn them.

I certainly do. Much of the conservative patriotic Christianity which my parents’ generation saw as normal has now been driven underground, and those who express it – especially in the public sector – face discipline or the sack, and are sometimes prosecuted.

Many of the current establishment’s attacks on Labour aren’t disagreements among free people in a free society. They are demands for abject recantations expressed by people who clearly think such views should not be allowed.
And the expression ‘extremism’ doesn’t mean anything objective or measurable. It just means a view that is out of favour with the current government and establishment.

What’s more, new and startling evidence from France (barely noticed here) suggests strongly that all these ‘anti-extremist’ strategies are wholly useless anyway for their main stated purpose.
It’s not the robed and bearded Islamist zealots we need to fear at all. An undercover French journalist, who infiltrated a jihadi cell in Paris, described those he found there as ‘fast-food Islamists’ who knew nothing of their supposed religion.

‘I never saw any Islam in this affair,’ the reporter told Canal+ TV. The cell members had ‘no will to improve the world’ but were ‘lost, frustrated, suicidal, easily manipulated youths’.
This is what I have been pointing out for many months. Track the backgrounds of the perpetrators of these crimes, here and abroad, and you do not find fanatical Wahhabi hard men, trained in the arts of death.
You find, almost invariably, low-life drifters in a haze of dope, on the borders of mental illness (and sometimes beyond it), capable of murder because they have fried their brains for so long that they no longer know right from wrong, or fantasy from reality. Some of these commit crimes which they then justify with a political purpose; many just commit crimes.

This is where we should be looking – and what we should be discouraging by enforcing our criminal laws properly.
Yet, instead, we waste our time and destroy our freedom by futile attempts to control what people think.

http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/

سيف الله

05-14-2016, 02:05 PM

Salaam

Another update

The Home Office, Breakthrough and PREVENT by Moazzam Begg

سيف الله

05-26-2016, 10:08 AM

Salaam

Another update. Stasi land is coming!

CAGE’s response to Counter-Extremism and Safeguarding Bill

The Conservative government took the opportunity at the annual state opening of parliament to announce a raft of new measures, amongst them a new Counter-Extremism and Safeguarding Bill. The Queen mentioned in her speech that “legislation will be introduced to prevent radicalisation, tackle extremism in all its forms, and promote community integration”. Further background notes were published by the government which provide the basic framework of this bill. It provides grim reading as the government outlines a series of regressive measures playing on people’s fears and concerns about terrorism. As an extension of the failed PREVENT strategy, this Bill will further exacerbate the chilling effect on open debate, free speech and political dissent. It is also worth noting the fundamental, overarching criticism, that while ideology is a factor in political violence, it is not a root cause. The perception of an unethical foreign policy and domestic disenfranchisement seem to play a more prominent role. Consequently, basing an entire piece of legislation on ideology is wholly misguided.

The entire rationale for the counter extremism strategy of this and previous governments is captured by Professor Brian Klug in his response to David Cameron’s previous speeches on extremism,

“Certainly, there ought to be a “shared national identity that is open to everyone”. But the colour of that identity, under the skin, is white. Anyone who, regardless of their features or complexion or extraction, is willing to become white – white in the sense of thinking like us, doing religion like us, basically being like us – is welcome; what is more, we celebrate their difference. When you scrape away the surface inclusiveness in the speech, this is the meaning of “muscular liberalism.”

(Klug B, Fawlty Logic, ReOrient, 2015, p.74)

Responses to the bill

This Bill gives law enforcement agencies new powers to protect vulnerable people – including children – from those who seek to brainwash them with extremism propaganda so we build a stronger society around our shared liberal values of tolerance and respect.

It will include:

Stronger powers to disrupt extremists and protect the public.

This limb of the proposed legislation is based upon the notion that there is a causal link based upon empirical evidence between violence and certain beliefs and ideas that are being perpetuated within certain sections of society. There is no evidence for this at all. It is obvious that the idea of “policing thought and belief systems” is the hallmark of dictatorships. It is an Orwellian concept and an attack on basic rights which ought not to be undermined without an overwhelming transparent case.

Powers to intervene in intensive unregulated education settings which teach hate and drive communities apart.

This can be construed as state interference in the private religious sphere. The political rhetoric continues to focus on Islamic places of learning and Mr David Cameron has already precluded Christian Sunday schools from this proposed intervention. This serves to reinforce the Muslims-as-suspect-community paradigm. If there are education settings involved in inciting hatred and violence there are already adequate powers in place to deal with this.

A new civil order regime to restrict extremist activity, following consultation.

This is an attempt to curtail freedom of association, movement and expression through the backdoor, again all on the basis of “extremism”. Furthermore, through civil proceedings, the government will lessen the burden upon itself to establish a convincing case against those it targets.

This is yet another example of the infection of secret evidence spreading within the legal system. The civil orders regime will allow secret evidence and thereby destroy yet another safeguard against unfairness and undermine the principles of natural justice.

Closing loopholes so that Ofcom can continue to protect consumers who watch internet-streamed television content from outside the EU on Freeview.

As covered in our piece (The ongoing extremes of David Cameron) the amalgamation of the “extremism” discourse into the broadcast sphere through Ofcom is tantamount to censorship and echoes the IRA broadcast ban which was counter-productive and ridiculous.

Legislation will be introduced to prevent radicalisation, tackle extremism in all its forms, and promote community integration.

The original remit of counter-extremism has been increased to “promote community integration”. There is a fear here that people will be societally castigated and therefore discriminated against if they enforce their right to cultural, religious and linguistic preservation as enshrined in international human rights treaties and implicit in the pluralistic notion of an open democracy.

There is already sufficient laws around ‘hate’ speech and the DBS already exist for adults working with children. The government has failed to demonstrate how these laws are not sufficient and why new laws are required.

The purpose of the Bill is to:

Provide stronger powers to disrupt extremists and protect the public.

The main benefits of these clauses would be:

To enable the Government and law enforcement agencies to protect the public against the most dangerous extremists.

This “benefit” demonstrates that despite the government spending several months, the proposals remain incoherent. We have yet to witness a viable definition of extremism, and we are now being introduced with a subcategory of “the most dangerous extremists”. How will “most dangerous extremists” be determined?

To ensure the Government and law enforcement agencies have a full range of powers to deal with extremism.

This will help deliver on the manifesto pledge to tackle all forms of extremism, so our values and our way of life are properly promoted and defended.

The main elements of the clauses are…

The Government will consider the need for further legislative measures following Louise Casey’s review into integration in those communities most separated from the mainstream.

“Our values” and “our way of life” is the language of alienation, designed to marginalise particular communities. The government is perpetuating the very same “us vs them” narrative it denounces in its PREVENT strategy. This is a dangerous step towards ostracising whole communities for simply adhering to differing beliefs and conceptions which may be at odds with mainstream society. It is therefore a further example of erosion of civil liberties and the targeting of vulnerable minority groups.

http://www.cageuk.org/article/cages-response-to-counter-extremism-and-safeguarding-bill/

سيف الله

05-26-2016, 10:12 AM

Salaam

Another update

Cameron’s ‘counter-extremism’ strategy – another nail in democracy’s coffin

Prime Minister David Cameron has outlined proposed new ‘counter-extremism’ laws in the Queen’s Speech, at the state opening of parliament. He has, once again, talked about ‘the introduction of a new civil order regime to restrict extremist activity’ and banning ‘extremists’ from working with children. He might use this muscular rhetoric to portray himself as the defender of democracy. And whether these laws are passed or not, he has managed yet again to demonise Islam – radicalising ‘middle England’ against Muslims with these proposal. But in reality, he has put another nail in democracy’s coffin. There are several factors that illustrate this.

Firstly, not defining ‘extremism’ precisely gives the government a free hand to use such laws against any person or any organisation that can be made to fit into the vague and broad definition of ‘extremist’. This would not be new (existing anti-terrorism laws and counter-extremism policies have already been used against Walter Wolfgang for heckling Jack Straw, and anti-fracking protestors) but it would extend state powers such that it will be even easier to suppress dissenting political and ideological views – even those expressed solely in terms of rational argument. By doing this, Cameron and Putin don’t differ in principle, only in degrees of totalitarianism.

Secondly, he is not simply using a security policy to silence political opinions, but to interfere, clamp down and even redefine religious orthodoxy – forcing believers to conform to today’s liberal capitalist norms. The endless focus on relations between men and women, Muslims not integrating enough and any manner of issues that are unrelated to violent actions proves again and again that this is nothing but an attempt at a forced conversion to liberal values where argument has failed to convince.

Thirdly, there remains no pretence that this is about ‘extremism’ or a strand of opinion amongst Muslims. There is a systematic attempt to bully orthodox practicing believers in a manner that would be called persecution if the subject of the bullying were any other community. The draconian plans to intervene in ’unregulated education settings’ (Muslim religious instruction Madrassas for children) is a clear example of this.

For those who hold different values or dissenting views and are attempting to persuade others, a confident answer would not be to ban them but to win the argument – unless of course they cannot win the argument, in which case the strong-arm tactics of the despot become the norm.

They are in a lose-lose situation. If they persist with these plans they will expose the weakness of democracy. If they desist, and leave Muslims to adhere to their own beliefs and bring about the Islamic system in the Muslim world, they surely will see that humanity will have a far better model of governance than democracy can ever give to people.

Our message is clear. We will continue to advocate that Muslims embrace Islam completely in their lives. This means a Muslim world coming out of darkness and chaos into justice and security for all its citizens under Islam. And it means Muslims in the west exemplifying the noble Islamic values and inviting others to look at them. As for Cameron and his anti-extremism rhetoric, this is no different to the rhetoric of the Quraysh. They too initiated measures like Prevent and the silencing of Muslims. They failed miserably and Islam was implemented throughout the Arab peninsula. Cameron and democracy are upon the same trajectory as the Quraysh.

http://www.hizb.org.uk/current-affairs/camerons-counter-extremism-strategy-another-nail-in-democracys-coffin

سيف الله

05-26-2016, 01:32 PM

Salaam

Perceptive comment.

A Few Thoughts on Extremism and Interruptions in Debate

On Sunday morning I took part in the BBC programme ‘The Big Questions’. The two subjects were the government’s worrying plans to pass laws restricting ‘extremism’; and the growing clamour for the removal of all remaining laws against abortion. I made a few fairly brief but (I hope) pithy contributions . My friend and (often) adversary Douglas Murray makes a very interesting point at just after 30 minutes into the programme. After admitting the problem is pretty insoluble, he says:

‘This government … doesn’t particularly have the confidence to say Britain and British values , British institutions … we’re basically trying to make it liberal values, that Britain will be about liberal values, about gay marriage…

I… think this is a big mistake… It’s all very well saying make people liberals but doesn’t mean …that you make them… British or with any other sense of identity

….Because the British government has decided that the best thing we can do is to make should make people vaguely liberal then it means that the qualificatiions for extremism are effectively conservative ideas…’

I think this is a very smart observation, though I would go further. I think the government intended from the start that liberal, PC ideas would be the ones that were to be reinforced by law and culture. It’s moved from crude multiculturalism to exaggerated neoconservative concern about Islam for precisely that reason.

http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2016/05/a-few-thoughts-on-extremism-and-interruptions-in-debate.html#comments

Karl

05-27-2016, 12:27 AM

“Certainly, there ought to be a “shared national identity that is open to everyone”. But the colour of that identity, under the skin, is white. Anyone who, regardless of their features or complexion or extraction, is willing to become white – white in the sense of thinking like us, doing religion like us, basically being like us – is welcome; what is more, we celebrate their difference. When you scrape away the surface inclusiveness in the speech, this is the meaning of “muscular liberalism.”

I believe this statement to be untrue as the mainstream modern culture in Britain today is not "white" but Jewish Zionist. "White" culture fell apart with the introduction and conquest of Christianity, the worship of a Jewish man as God. If Christianity never existed Britain today would still be "The old way" as the religion is so old and diverse it hasn't got a name. The Christians called them heathens. The fatal flaw of Christians and Liberal Leftists is that they try to assimilate different cultures and races to be like them but this is unrealistic and prone to backfire on them badly. People are different racially and culturally and they cannot become one. The cultural engineering going on in Britain will fail, the melting pot of races and cultures they are trying to achieve is against God, otherwise we would have all been the same for epochs.

Some non North Europeans from Africa and Asia etc. Who might seem assimilated are really just sycophants trying to fit in rather than being hard wired that way.

Karl

05-27-2016, 12:41 AM

Maybe the Conservative Party should change it's name to suit their politics. The Totalitarian Melting Pot Party. As genuine conservatives would only allow North European Germanic peoples to immigrate to Britain.

سيف الله

06-11-2016, 01:27 PM

Salaam

Originally Posted by Bhabha

Its safe to say that the UK is well on its way to becoming a secular theocracy.

Interestingly some secular people see the dangers.

Michael Portillo, discussing the plight of the Christian B&B owners sued over their double bed policy, has expressed concern at the dangers posed by a “secular theocracy”.

Bhabha

06-11-2016, 01:29 PM

Secular theocracy with the template of a "white" and "Christian" body that has been naturalized since European expansion into the Americas.

سيف الله

06-15-2016, 09:47 AM

Salaam

Another update.

Inside Ricu, the shadowy propaganda unit inspired by the cold war

The shadowy Whitehall unit at the heart of the British government’s covert strategic communications campaign was inspired by a clandestine cold war propaganda programme.

But while the cold war offensive targeted communism, trade unionists and newspapers in developing countries, the current operations are aimed at Muslims, both in Britain and the Middle East.

The British-based element of the campaign is part of the Prevent counter-radicalisation programme and is run by the Home Office’s Research, Information and Communications Unit, or Ricu.

Ricu officials dislike the word propaganda: they prefer the term strategic communications. The extraordinary ambitions of these communications are set out in Ricu documents seen by the Guardian. “Strategic communications aims to effect behavioural and attitudinal change,” says one paper.

For almost two years Ricu’s focus has been on Islamic State, whose own online propaganda has proven powerful. Isis is calculated to be posting an average of 18 messages a day, many of them showing not violence, but flowers, forests and flowing streams, to emphasise the natural beauty of the territory under its control. To counter this, Ricu says privately that it is working “at an industrial scale and pace”.

While it does produce some government-branded communications, the key to its counter-radicalisation messages is that they are disseminated through “discreet campaigns supported by Ricu without any acknowledgment of UK government support”.

It uses YouTube, Twitter and Facebook as well as more traditional propaganda methods, such as feeding stories to newspapers, including the Guardian, and leafleting.

Under the umbrella of Prevent

Ricu is based in the Office for Security and Counter-Terrorism (OSCT), in the Home Office’s Westminster HQ. Charles Farr, a former MI6 officer and head of the OSCT, set up the unit shortly after arriving at the Home Office in 2007.

Ricu was modelled on the Information Research Department (IRD), a propaganda unit established in 1948 by the Attlee government. The IRD’s exploits included hoodwinking journalists and academics and targeting trade unionists, before it was shut down in 1977.

Farr told MPs that the new unit had two functions: advising officials “from a brigade commander in Helmand province through to a chief constable in Yorkshire” on the language they should use to describe terrorism and the government’s response; and challenging the propaganda of al-Qaida and others.

Some of the unit’s funding came from the budget for Prevent, the controversial counter-radicalisation programme. This funding has risen steeply: for 2015-16, the unit’s budget was £17m, more than five times as much as three years earlier.

Ricu has hired linguists, psychologists and anthropologists as well as counter-terrorism strategists, digital media experts, film-makers and marketing consultants. It has three divisions: a monitoring and coordination team to watch and study digital and traditional media; an insight and analysis team to research audience reactions; and a domestic and international campaigns team to deliver the covert propaganda.

When the Home Office revised Prevent in June 2011, it declared that Ricu’s impact had been “variable”, and that more effort to “identify credible partners” and develop powerful narratives and “more professional counter-narrative products” was needed.

The following January, the home secretary, Theresa May, informed the intelligence and security committee that Ricu was “road-testing some quite innovative approaches to counter-ideological messages”.

By the end of the year, the unit had a new head, Richard Chalk. A former Conservative parliamentary candidate and communications chief, Chalk arrived after working in Baghdad for Bell Pottinger, the British PR firm. That work – some of which remains classified – included “information operations” intended to help undermine the insurgency.

On his return to the UK he became chief of staff for the then Tory party co-chair, Sayeeda Warsi. The Home Office says he was hired to head Ricu because of his expertise in counter-terrorism strategic communications.

Under Chalk’s leadership, Ricu began communicating with British Muslims in a manner more reminiscent of counter-insurgency operations than a traditional public information campaign: disseminating messages through the use of subterfuge.

Delivering the propaganda

Much of the work is outsourced. Ricu’s favoured contractor is Breakthrough Media Network Ltd, a company operating from an anonymous office block near Waterloo station in central London. Nothing inside, other than a series of locked doors and CCTV cameras, suggests the nature of the company’s work.

Like Chalk, one of Breakthrough’s two directors, Scott Brown, worked for the Conservatives before joining Bell Pottinger’s information operations team in Baghdad. The other, Robert Elliott, is a former reality TV producer. Both are in their 30s and attended the same school in Essex.

Working under contract to Ricu, Breakthrough produces masses of digital material – films, Twitter feeds, Facebook profiles, YouTube clips, online radio content and websites. It says these are often “hosted” by Muslim civil society groups.

One Breakthrough document seen by the Guardian explains that its objective is to “influence online conversations by being embedded within target communities via a network of moderate organisations that are supportive of it’s [sic] goals”.

While at least one entity Ricu has used to disseminate its messages – Help for Syria – has been designed for a specific counter-radicalisation message by Breakthrough, it usually works with groups that already exist.

One person familiar with Ricu’s work says that such groups are monitored closely before any approach is made. Sometimes, the source added, they are very small. “It could be just some guy with a blog, but it was always someone HMG [Her Majesty’s government] could work with. It’s not a genuine partnership, however: it’s a manipulative arrangement.”

Ricu does not fund these groups, instead funding Breakthrough’s work to produce these groups’ communications. Some of the groups with which Breakthrough works on Ricu’s behalf insist they retain editorial control and that Ricu and Breakthrough’s help amplifies their messages.

Privately, however, Breakthrough says it is providing “Ricu with effective ways of communicating its own messages through credible civil society organisations”.

Ricu’s briefing notes are even clearer about who is in charge: “Whilst retaining editorial control over all Ricu-produced material, Ricu provides a range of support and expertise to CSOs [civil society organisations] to help them shape campaigns, produce products and mobilise their stakeholders.”

As of February last year, according to one document, the unit had run 13 national campaigns, producing a total of 950 physical and online products, which had been accessed by audiences more than a million times.

Chalk is an occasional visitor to Breakthrough’s offices. One source said: “Sometimes he sits in the edit suites, watching the work. It’s not exactly scripted by Ricu, but they’ll make it clear that they want a particular form of words to be used at a particular point in a film.” A Breakthrough source said that as the government was paying for the contract, Ricu was within its rights to visit the edit suite to check the quality of the work.

Ricu and Breakthrough focus on “Prevent priority areas” in the UK, using keywords and paid-for Google and Facebook adverts to target people whose browsing history suggests they are Muslims. Using so-called “promotion and diversion techniques”, Breakthrough promotes Ricu’s messages to browsers who are searching for terms such as Isis, Khalifa and “What does the Qur’an say about jihad?”.

Last year, Breakthrough set up a public relations company, Horizon PR, as a joint enterprise with M&C Saatchi. “Horizon was created to support the public relations of civil society groups, voluntary organisations and NGOs [non-governmental organisations] who want to drive positive social change,” a Saatchi spokesman said.

Horizon has promoted the work of community groups as part of Breakthrough’s contract with Ricu. Journalists contacted by Horizon have not been told that the company was representing the groups as part of the Ricu contract. Breakthrough is understood to say that there was no obligation to disclose the government’s involvement.

Breakthrough says in one document that it “understands the sensitive nature of Ricu’s work and adheres to the highest standards of security and confidentiality”. Were Ricu’s involvement to be exposed, there would be a negative impact not only on the credibility of the messages, but on “Ricu, Prevent and the Home Office’s reputation”.

The purpose of this work, Breakthrough makes clear, is to help the British government “promote a reconciled British Muslim identity” while keeping its involvement hidden, as “any content or messaging attributed to the state are highly unlikely to have any credibility among these audiences”.

To achieve the government’s aim, Ricu is attempting to change the way young British Muslims think and act: time and again the documents talk about “implementing attitudinal and behavioural change communications”; “measurable attitudinal change outcomes”; and “campaigns designed to deliver real attitudinal and behavioural change”.

‘They’re not what they seem’

Breakthrough has contracts with several non-governmental bodies and has been transparent about governmental support for communications campaigns in east Africa. But several sources say its work for Ricu dwarfs its other operations.

Breakthrough’s relationship with the unit is lucrative. In 2012-13, the firm received £448,286 from its contracts with the OSCT. By 2013-14, this had increased to £5,911,719. In total, the company has earned £11.8m from the OSCT since 2012.

One person with knowledge of Ricu’s work said some freelancers working with Breakthrough do not appear to know they are engaged in covert propaganda. Several former Breakthrough employees, both freelance and staff, told the Guardian they had not heard of Ricu – a suggestion Breakthrough is understood to contest.

One former employee said she left after realising she was working on propaganda because she considered the work to be “stupid and reprehensible”.

Another, a freelance, said she realised the connection after Breakthrough managers repeatedly requested editing changes. “It became obvious that it was being directed from outside the company. It was a slightly more shadowy process. I asked where the money was coming from and they said the Home Office. I was uneasy enough to get out. They are not what they seem.”

The Home Office refused to answer questions about Ricu’s work and would not permit anyone from the unit to be interviewed. It would not comment on the extent of the home secretary’s oversight of Ricu; nor would it respond to suggestions that its covert support for Muslim organisations risks undermining support from Muslim civil society as a whole.

It issued a statement, however, saying it was working with communities, civil society groups and individuals to counter the “twisted narrative” of terrorists and extremists.

“We are proud of the support Ricu has provided to organisations working on the frontline to challenge the warped ideology of groups such as Daesh [Isis], and to protect communities,” the statement said.

“This work can involve sensitive issues, vulnerable communities and hard-to-reach audiences, and it has been important to build relationships out of the media glare. We respect the bravery of individuals and organisations who choose to speak out against violence and extremism and it is right that we support and protect them.

“Our guiding principle has to be whether or not any organisation we work with is itself happy to talk publicly about what they do. At the same time we are as open as we can be and have referenced the role of Ricu in publications and in parliament.”

Unlike Ricu, Breakthrough did provide answers to the Guardian’s questions but said it regarded those answers as confidential and not for publication.

In a statement, it said: “Breakthrough Media is enormously proud to be able to provide a wide range of community groups with the help and support they need to tell their stories, confront extremism in all its forms and build stronger, safer communities.”

Officials who are familiar with the work told the Guardian that it was a good and valuable effort. One person involved acknowledged that the work amounted to propaganda but added: “All we’re trying to do is stop people becoming suicide bombers.”

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/may/02/inside-ricu-the-shadowy-propaganda-unit-inspired-by-the-cold-war

سيف الله

06-15-2016, 09:49 AM

Salaam

And another

How Britain funds the 'propaganda war' against Isis in Syria

Government contractors effectively run a press office for opposition fighters but communications conceal UK’s role

The British government is waging information warfare in Syria by funding media operations for some rebel fighting groups, in the foreign front of what David Cameron has called “the propaganda war” against Islamic State.

The campaign aims to boost the reputation of what the government calls the “moderate armed opposition”, a complex and shifting alliance of armed factions.

Deciding which factions to support is risky for the government because many groups have become increasingly extremist as the five-year civil war grinds on.

Contractors hired by the Foreign Office but overseen by the Ministry of Defence (MoD) produce videos, photos, military reports, radio broadcasts, print products and social media posts branded with the logos of fighting groups, and effectively run a press office for opposition fighters.

Materials are circulated in the Arabic broadcast media and posted online with no indication of British government involvement.

As the Guardian has reported, the Home Office’s Office of Security and Counter-Terrorism is running a parallel effort within the UK, aiming to bring about “behavioural and attitudinal change” among British Muslims by producing anti-Isis messaging “at an industrial pace and scale”.

In both the foreign and domestic campaigns, the government’s role is often concealed. Messages are put out under the banner of apparently independent groups – community organisations in the UK, and armed groups in Syria.

The UK regards information as a vital element of modern conflict. The MoD has drawn up a doctrine describing information as “so prevalent, potent and unavoidable that it forms as much a part of the strategic environment as the terrain or weather”, and saying how it should be managed through “strategic communications”.

The UK’s propaganda effort for the Syrian armed opposition began after the government failed to persuade parliament to support military action against the Assad regime. In autumn 2013, the UK embarked on behind-the-scenes work to influence the course of the war by shaping perceptions of opposition fighters.

Contract documents seen by the Guardian show the government appears to view the project as a way to maintain a foothold in the country until there can be greater British military involvement, offering “the capability to expand back into the strategic space as and when the opportunity arises”.

Through its Conflict and Stability Fund the government is spending £2.4m on private contractors working from Istanbul to deliver “strategic communications and media operations support to the Syrian moderate armed opposition” (MAO).

The contract is part of a broader propaganda effort focused on Syria, with other elements intended to promote “the moderate values of the revolution” and help mould a Syrian sense of national identity that will reject both the Assad regime and Isis.

The documents call for contractors to “select and train a spokesman able to represent all the MAO groups as a single unified voice”, as well as providing media coaching to “influential MAO officials” and running a round-the-clock “MAO central media office” with “media production capacity”. One British source with knowledge of the contracts in action said the government was essentially running a “Free Syrian army press office”.

The contract to support the moderate armed opposition was briefly held by Regester Larkin, an international communications consultancy, where it was headed up by a former lieutenant colonel in the British army who had also worked as a strategic communications specialist at the MoD. He set up a company called Innovative Communications & Strategies, or InCoStrat, which took over the contract from November 2014, a Regester Larkin spokeswoman told the Guardian.

An InCoStrat spokesman confirmed: “InCoStrat is providing media and communication support to the moderate Syrian opposition to assist Syrians to better convey the reality of war and those involved in it.”

Both emphasised the close supervision of the work by the British government. An insider also described “tremendous oversight”, with handlers from the FCO and MoD meeting contractors up to three times a week. “They had the last say in everything,” the source said.

Much of the material produced under these contracts is day-to-day wartime propaganda, aimed at Syrian civilian and military audiences. It includes bulletins of successful military engagements, or videos of opposition fighters handing out food.

Some media, however, serve an additional military purpose, two sources familiar with the projects said. For example, a video of a shoulder-to-air missile shooting down a regime helicopter signals to those inside Syria that the group is well-armed and effective. But it also sends a message to those arming the group. “That’s good PR to go back to the Pentagon,” the insider said.

An MoD spokeswoman emphasised that the groups the UK supports are moderate. But identifying which groups really are is fraught with risk, as they can commit unpalatable acts or ally with groups considered unacceptably extremist.

The contracting document seen by the Guardian lists several “mid-level units” as examples of groups considered to be part of the “moderate armed opposition”. These include Harakat al-Hazm, which received military assistance from the US, and Jaysh al-Islam, a group reportedly set up with Saudi backing.

But six months before the document was written in November 2014, Human Rights Watch identified Jaysh al-Islam as the likely kidnappers of four human rights activists in December 2013. The four are widely assumed to have been murdered. The group has also been criticised for using imprisoned civilians as human shields, and for releasing a glossy video last June showing the grisly murder of 18 captive Isis fighters, a war crime under the Geneva convention.

The government initially denied that the group was referenced in its contracting documents. It later acknowledged that it was mentioned but said it was referenced in the document as part of a description of how other groups had described the moderate armed opposition.

An MoD spokeswoman said: “Jaysh al-Islam has never been given any assistance by the MoD, FCO or any contractors working on HMG’s [Her Majesty’s government] behalf … All recipients of our assistance are rigorously assessed to ensure they are not involved in any extremist activity or human rights abuses.”

A source said contractors had provided media support for Harakat al-Hazm, but the group collapsed in March 2015 and its weaponry, including anti-tank missiles provided by the US, fell into the hands of the al-Nusra Front, a group that has pledged allegiance to al-Qaida.

An MoD spokeswoman said: “The UK has been a longstanding supporter of the moderate opposition in Syria, who are standing up to both the tyranny of the Assad regime and the poisonous and murderous ideology of Daesh [Isis].”

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/may/03/how-britain-funds-the-propaganda-war-against-isis-in-syria

سيف الله

06-28-2016, 07:32 PM

Salaam

Another video. Preventing prevent. Short summary of their work.

A speech by Tariq Ramadan

سيف الله

07-13-2016, 10:00 PM

Salaam

Another video

سيف الله

08-08-2016, 07:52 PM

Salaam

Another update, UKIPs getting in on the act. There getting slicker with their propaganda, wanting to 'save' us.

Ukip's Lisa Duffy wants to ban Muslim veil in public venues

Leadership hopeful also wants to close down Islamic faith schools and prohibit sharia courts in Britain

A Ukip leadership candidate is calling for a ban on Muslim women wearing a veil in public buildings, shopping centres and on buses and trains.

Lisa Duffy will also demand the closure of Islamic faith schools until the problem of Islamist terrorism is dealt with, as well as a “complete and comprehensive ban” on sharia courts in the UK.

In a speech in London, Duffy will say her proposals are designed to foster integration, arguing: “Muslims who were born in this country … are as British as I am and I simply want them to feel as British as I do.”

But a rival in the race to succeed Nigel Farage will warn Ukip against focusing its efforts on issues such as Islam, warning it risks being seen as “small-minded” if it chases “the bigot vote”.

Launching his own leadership campaign in Manchester, the Ukip MEP Bill Etheridge will say: “I am proposing that as a party we focus on our policies, cementing libertarianism into our DNA.

“That means not focusing on small issues like Islam which makes us look small-minded – I’m not chasing the bigot vote.”

Duffy – who is backed by Suzanne Evans, the former Ukip spokeswoman – will say she wants to create a “path of opportunity” for young Muslim women who were told by men what they should wear, what leisure activities they should pursue and who they should marry.

“Why should I, as a white, Christian woman, effectively enjoy greater civil and human rights and freedoms than others?” the Huntingdonshire district councillor will ask. “My ambition is that everyone, from every community, should be able to enjoy the same rights and have the same independent control over their lives and their bodies as I do.”

She will describe the veil as “a symbol of aggressive separatism that can only foster extremism” and will claim that it is often “forced on women by men who view them as their property”.

While stopping short of a complete ban on the veil, Duffy said that under her leadership, Ukip would advocate a “show your face in public” policy.

“On our public transport networks, in public buildings, banks, stores and shopping precincts – all those places where teenagers are told to take their hoodies down and where motorcyclists are expected to remove their helmets – it is only reasonable to expect everyone to show their faces,” she will say.

“Again, it is about making sure there is one law for all, rather than making an exception for a community because we are frightened of causing offence. There is no offence to be taken if all are treated equally.”

Duffy will say the rule should apply “just as much to the retinues accompanying Middle Eastern princes to London as it will to Muslim women living in Britain” and that it should not be regarded as Islamophobic for someone to politely request a woman to remove a veil in public.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/aug/08/ukips-lisa-duffy-wants-to-ban-muslim-veil-in-public-venues

Abz2000

08-08-2016, 08:03 PM

Same old good cop bad cop tag team tactic as the republican democrat scam.

سيف الله

08-09-2016, 09:53 PM

Salaam

Another video

سيف الله

08-18-2016, 02:00 AM

Salaam

Another update, stating the obvious but its good to keep reminding people.

The Focus on Ideology to stop the cycles of violence “Stands little chance of success”

Counter terrorism policies in the UK have always sought to target ideology as the root cause of political violence. The former prime minister David Cameron was clear that in order to defeat violent groups the creed underpinning the ideology would have to be challenged, both the non-violent and violent as he phrased it. This approach has taken hold of the government’s direction and attracted widespread criticism because it is too broad, ill defined and threatens freedom of speech.

The government refuses to acknowledge the context from which these groups emanate and why individuals would feel an affinity towards them.This counter productive approach was epitomised by David Cameron’s complete dismissal of the role political grievances play, calling it the “grievance justification” argument. He deliberately conflates between understanding the paths to violence in order to address it and between justifying it. This has been a hallmark of the PREVENT policy, where genuine debate is silenced in exchange for a superficial and politically expedient discourse that doesn’t address the underlying causes of violence.

READ MORE: PREVENT: A STORY OF COMMUNITY RESENTMENT

Over 300 academics signed a joint statement condemning PREVENT and its undue focus on religious ideology as the primary factor of political violence. A focus which has honed in “on religious interaction and Islamic symbolism to assess radicalisation”. The academics state that “ideology only becomes appealing when social, economic and political grievances give it legitimacy”.

The opposition to an ideology focussed counter-terrorism policy has come from within the counter-terror industry itself. Counter terrorism expert and former FBI Special Agent on a Joint Terrorism Task Force, Clint Watts, states that based on thirty years of history, targeting ideology “would stand little chance of success”. His view is that these ideologies are not static and change based on the context on the ground and more broadly, on emerging global issues. Therefore he opines that there is no single extremist ideology strain but rather a fluid geopolitical interpretation of the world, a similar trait of all groups engaged in political violence. His view would seem to support that of the academics, in that ideology is a by product that seeks to legitimise violence as a response to social, economic and political factors.

Furthermore in a joint article, Michael Morell, Deputy Director of the CIA from 2010 to 2013, Admiral (ret.) James A. “Sandy” Winnefeld, Vice Chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff from 2011 to 2015 and Samantha Vinograd, Senior Advisor to the National Security Advisor from 2011 to 2013, provide an array of reasons for political violence, some of which would be dismissed as “grievance justification” by David Cameron. Although the article supports CVE programs, it also accepts that western nations must change their policies to not alienate Muslims and aggravate the causes which lead to political violence. Military intervention is seen as a factor as well as the lack of political change, reinforced by the western backing that many oppressive regimes in the Muslim world enjoy. They add: “One of the best ways to help Europe is for the United States to be a model of openness to Muslim immigration and of fully integrating Muslims into our society and economy — with our political leaders refraining from any rhetoric to the contrary.”

These expert opinions clearly indicate that ending the cycles of violence is a much broader struggle than simply challenging ideology “as a counterterrorism silver bullet”. Western powers must address the very real grievances which exist by shifting their attitudes towards Muslims and scaling back on their aggressive and counterproductive foreign and domestic policies.

READ OUR REPORT: WE ARE COMPLETELY INDEPENDENT: THE HOME OFFICE, BREAKTHROUGH MEDIA AND THE PREVENT COUNTER NARRATIVE INDUSTRY

http://cage.ngo/article/the-focus-on-ideology-to-stop-the-cycles-of-violence-stands-little-chance-of-success/

سيف الله

08-18-2016, 02:06 AM

Salaam

Another video

Ex-GITMO guard and ex-GITMO prisoner reunite

سيف الله

08-18-2016, 02:22 AM

Salaam

Another update

Dr Abdul Wahid comments on ‘A War of Keywords’ report

The basis of the report is biased because the Centre for Religion and Geopolitics is a surrogate of the Tony Blair Faith Foundation – an organization established by a man who has tried to impose his beliefs, ideology and values system on Afghanistan and Iraq by force; who established policies to indoctrinate Muslims in the UK – and who still tries to influence governments and others about his perverse beliefs about Islam and Muslims. It is impossible to take a report about Islam seriously when produced by an organisation founded by a man who holidayed with the Mubaraks of Egypt, hugged the Gaddafis of Libya and who holds court with Nursultan Nazarbayev. But worse than that, the Blair doctrine on Islam is one that has cost lives and justified the most barbaric of acts (rendition, torture, gulags, war crimes) of the past twenty years. This prejudice explains why the underlying arguments are so shallow. (We have no idea as to whether one of the co-author’s former military background plays a part in the report’s bias, anymore than his sharing a name with the political ancestor of Tony Blair – those who destabilised the Middle East during World War One).

The understanding of the issue is shallow because it persists on defaulting to the unsubstantiated ‘conveyor belt’ theory (albeit with a small caveat) attempting to link non-violent political groups that advocate alternative political ideas to those produced in the west, with violent movements. The attempts to associate Hizb ut-Tahrir with ISIS is a prime example, by saying that ‘establishing an Islamic state and a caliphate are central ideas for both groups. In theory, the only difference between Hizb ut-Tahrir and ISIS are the means of achieving these ambitions, but both advocate for an Islamic state’.

Aside from the fact that every reading of Islam – whether Sufi, Salafi or otherwise (other than distorted secular interpretations) all acknowledge the role of Islam in government as in all areas of life, and the centrality of the Caliphate in Islam, for most people the difference between using political means and violent means to achieve a goal is no small difference.

Furthermore, any serious observer of these organisations easily understands there is a world of difference between the two organisations. Hizb ut-Tahrir is a political party that has been working by political and intellectual means for an Islamic system of government since 1953, whereas ISIS is an armed group who used the idea of the caliphate in its bid to outcompete rival militias in Syria. Hizb ut-Tahrir has for decades emphasised the importance of the rights of citizens in the Caliphate according to the Shari’ah – regardless of their religion and has criticised the treatment of minorities in Iraq and Syria by ISIS, the regime in Baghdad and the regime in Damascus.

To conflate ‘Hizb ut-Tahrir’s commentary on the Syrian conflict’ to the ‘worldview of ISIS’ should be so obviously wrong to any independent observer that it is generous to call it a ‘shallow’ argument, when ‘wilful misinformation’ might be a better description.

Hizb ut-Tahrir has criticised the Assad regime, regional and global powers and armed militias such as ISIS for their shedding of innocent blood in the region – whilst the other is a participant in that bloody conflict. One presents a vision of a caliphate to stablise the region – recognising the government has to rule by Islam but for all its citizens, regardless of religion or sect, while the other is an armed group that has no vision for a caliphate other than using the label.

The study is flawed because, like so many others, it defines the term ‘extremism’ to serve its pre-existing argument. In its glossary, the document uses the definition ‘the desire to impose a belief, ideology, or values system on others to the exclusion of all other views by indoctrination, force, or by seeking to control government’ – a definition so broad it surely encompasses every secular liberal person who tries to convince people of their believes or makes a bid for political office. Yet it is used in such a way that it implies ‘extremists’ are those Muslims who wish to convince others or implement systems they believe in.

Moreover, the idea that these self-selected ‘keywords’ carry some deep importance is more than a little funny. We would draw peoples’ attention to the table on page 47 that tries to categorise Islamic terminology in a meaningless way, which the authors clearly think is terribly clever. The net result is that this study is a sad waste of time and money that if taken seriously by anyone, will only serve to misguide public policy on Islam and Muslims even more.

As a result, the conclusions are laughable. The crux of the authors’ argument is that when people use search engines to look for these keywords, policy makers should ensure the rigging of search engines to promote ‘sponsor links’ carrying arguments written by the Foreign office to reinforce their counter-narrative.

Clearly, the author’s think that Hizb ut-Tahrir’s arguments that present a caliphate on the Prophetic model are not arguments that can be refuted without rigging the system in this way.

We are now more than 90 years since the demise of the last caliphate. In that time there have been many Foreign Office and State Department attempts to sponsor and present counter-arguments, alternative narratives, pseudo-Islamic rulings e.t.c., all to try to mislead Muslims from an objective reading of Islamic texts and an objective assessment of the world’s political situation. These attempts have repeatedly failed and will continue to fail. Indeed, it is not just that Muslims across the world are looking for Islamic solutions to their problems, many in the west are increasingly questioning the serial disasters of capitalism, the corruption of their political order and excesses of liberalism. It is our firm belief that any new attempts to rig the system, will do little to stem human beings in their quest to search for something different.

http://www.hizb.org.uk/current-affairs/dr-abdul-wahid-comments-on-a-war-of-keywords-report

kritikvernunft

08-18-2016, 04:21 AM

Originally Posted by Junon

The matter is not about supporting or opposing the version of a Caliphate as demonstrated by ISIS but rather the criminalisation of Islamic political thought and ideology ... Charities are having their bank accounts closed without explanation ... They have had their organisation, business and bank accounts arbitrarily closed. Even their children's bank accounts have been closed.

I specialize in bitcoin platforms. I am staunchly anti-Statist. Therefore, I am utterly opposed to government-controlled fiat banking. Muslims reasoning from the Quran should even be more opposed than us, to what they could understand as pagan-controlled, interest/riba-infested fiat banking system. I really do not understand the attitude of the Muslim majority. Our very small anti-statist, libertarian constellation globally consists of only a few million people, but we are happily busy taking the entire system of fiat banking to the cleaners. We are obviously going to win this war. Nobody doubts it, not even the interest/riba-infested fiat bankers. They are now trying to adopt part of our technology (the "blockchain") in order to fend off the inevitable. At the same time, you have 1.5+ billion Muslims who are not only not doing anything about the problem ("Where is their alternative? Where are their initiatives?") but the Muslims are not even joining existing anti-riba alternatives (in large numbers) to address the very same problem. Go figure ...

Originally Posted by Junon

Some have even been imprisoned. They have been criminalised because they cared.

Ok, so the pagans imprison particular Muslims unjustly. So, where are the Virtual Associations that organize Muslims concerning this problem? All you need to do, in order to start, is to set up an internet forum just like this one, and make sure to constitute a detailed list of prisoners whom you believe that the pagans should release them. From there on, the Virtual Association can discuss counter-veiling measures that should discourage the pagans from imprisoning more Muslims, and from keeping already imprisoned Muslims in prison. There are so many ways to beef up the political and financial cost of keeping these Muslims in prison. Seriously, the list is too long to discuss in this one post. If we begin to demand the release of the existing list of such prisoners, it could certainly add substantial pressure to release them.

But then again, I usually run into Muslims who do not believe that it can be done. If they do not believe it, there is not much that I can do, because the belief that it will work is always the primary ingredient in any system that we could ever design, to make it work. In a sense, the majority of Muslims are characterized by this kind of disbelief. That is why it is so hard to get anything done. It is much easier to get something like bitcoin going and use it to compete successfully with the government-controlled interest/riba-infested banking system, because the people involved may not be believers in a traditional sense, but they do staunchly believe that they will succeed. That is why they actually are succeeding. Everybody can see that bitcoin will achieve its goal. Nobody doubts it any longer. Of course, it would be possible to set up a platform that would seek to release unjustly imprisoned Muslims. However, I would rather do it with the anti-statist, libertarian constellation than with the Muslims, because strange but true, even the most unbeliever libertarians will believe, while the Muslims will most likely again not believe. So, let me repeat: The Muslims will not believe, and therefore, they are failing. Seriously, it is their lack of belief that causes the problem, and that is something that someone like me cannot solve.

ThinkingCogs

08-21-2016, 03:52 PM

It's a phased war against Islam. Make no mistake.

Abz2000

08-26-2016, 09:08 AM

The war on terror, that campaign without end launched 14 years ago by George Bush, is tying itself up in ever more grotesque contortions. On Monday the trial in London of a Swedish man, Bherlin Gildo, accused of terrorism in Syria, collapsed after it became clear British intelligence had been arming the same rebel groups the defendant was charged with supporting.

The prosecution abandoned the case, apparently to avoid embarrassing the intelligence services. The defence argued that going ahead with the trial would have been an “affront to justice” when there was plenty of evidence the British state was itself providing “extensive support” to the armed Syrian opposition.

Terrorism has come about in assimilationist France and also in multicultural Britain. Why is that? | Kenan Malik
Read more
That didn’t only include the “non-lethal assistance” boasted of by the government (including body armour and military vehicles), but training, logistical support and the secret supply of “arms on a massive scale”. Reports were cited that MI6 had cooperated with the CIA on a “rat line” of arms transfers from Libyan stockpiles to the Syrian rebels in 2012 after the fall of the Gaddafi regime.

Clearly, the absurdity of sending someone to prison for doing what ministers and their security officials were up to themselves became too much. But it’s only the latest of a string of such cases. Less fortunate was a London cab driver Anis Sardar, who was given a life sentence a fortnight earlier for taking part in 2007 in resistance to the occupation of Iraq by US and British forces. Armed opposition to illegal invasion and occupation clearly doesn’t constitute terrorism or murder on most definitions, including the Geneva convention.......

...... https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...sis-syria-iraq

Abz2000

08-27-2016, 02:40 PM

America Created Al-Qaeda and the ISIS Terror Group

Incisive article originally published by GR in September 2014. Terror attacks or mass shootings allegedly perpetrated by the ISIS, the question that should be asked: who are the State sponsors of Al Qaeda and the ISIS? (M.Ch. GR Editor).

Much like Al Qaeda, the Islamic State (ISIS) is made-in-the-USA, an instrument of terror designed to divide and conquer the oil-rich Middle East and to counter Iran’s growing influence in the region.

The fact that the United States has a long and torrid history of backing terrorist groups will surprise only those who watch the news and ignore history.

The CIA first aligned itself with extremist Islam during the Cold War era. Back then, America saw the world in rather simple terms: on one side, the Soviet Union and Third World nationalism, which America regarded as a Soviet tool; on the other side, Western nations and militant political Islam, which America considered an ally in the struggle against the Soviet Union.

The director of the National Security Agency under Ronald Reagan, General William Odom recently remarked, “by any measure the U.S. has long used terrorism. In 1978-79 the Senate was trying to pass a law against international terrorism – in every version they produced, the lawyers said the U.S. would be in violation.”

During the 1970′s the CIA used the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt as a barrier, both to thwart Soviet expansion and prevent the spread of Marxist ideology among the Arab masses. The United States also openly supported Sarekat Islam against Sukarno in Indonesia, and supported the Jamaat-e-Islami terror group against Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto in Pakistan. Last but certainly not least, there is Al Qaeda.

Lest we forget, the CIA gave birth to Osama Bin Laden and breastfed his organization during the 1980′s. Former British Foreign Secretary, Robin Cook, told the House of Commons that Al Qaeda was unquestionably a product of Western intelligence agencies. Mr. Cook explained that Al Qaeda, which literally means an abbreviation of “the database” in Arabic, was originally the computer database of the thousands of Islamist extremists, who were trained by the CIA and funded by the Saudis, in order to defeat the Russians in Afghanistan.

..............

Hillary Clinton : We created Al-Qaeda
Truth Syria

Uploaded on Dec 27, 2011
In this video Hilary Clinton admits that the US government created and funded Al-Qaeda in order to fight the soviet union, and she even considers that as a good thing. But she claims that the Americans are fighting Al-Qaeda nowadays. If you really fighting Al-Qaeda, then who are the scums and terrorists you used in order to topple the government of Qaddafi in Libya… The American media describes “Aldel Hakim Belhaj” as an x-terrorist or as an x-jihadist. How funny and hypocrite!
Did his brain develop suddenly? or what are the marks that made him an x-Jihadist? There is only one reason… The American needed him, so they whitened his page and he became suddenly an x-Jihadist… Wait a couple of years to see him again an active jihadist when the Americans don’t need his services…
Al-Qaeda didn’t leave the US government bed… Let us review the history and see that Al-Qaeda acts served only the US foreign policy… Al-Qaeda terrorists are multipurpose fighters who are being used efficiently by the US government…

-----------

Abz2000

08-27-2016, 02:57 PM

“Standing in a large family house in the Hurriya district of Baghdad a little boy, no more than ten years old, with huge round eyes silently points out the bullet holes in each of the bedrooms.”

Deborah Davies reports from inside Baghdad

Standing in a large family house in the Hurriya district of Baghdad a little boy, no more than ten years old, with huge round eyes silently points out the bullet holes in each of the bedrooms. He goes from room to room, pointing out the marks in the wardrobe door, in the bed-frame, in the wall – he knows where they all are. It’s the kind of knowledge no child should be burdened with.

Downstairs, six almost identical figures in black robes, sit in a row holding large pictures of their murdered men-folk, with a clutter of children on their laps.

These six women – all of them members of the same family, all of them recently widowed – have not been back into their bedrooms since last November, when a convoy of police cars drew up outside their home in the early hours and dozens of uniformed men burst in.

Another of the children, Hanin, was asleep in her parents’ bed. She’s almost matter of fact as she describes what happened next. ‘I heard a gunshot so I cuddled my Dad. They came into our room and I told them not to kill my Daddy but the man threatened to shoot me. They shot Daddy and then they shot my Uncle.’

Five men were shot dead that night – a sixth had been killed in the street three weeks earlier. Their crime? The head of the family, Sheik Khadem Sarheed, was leader of a well-known Sunni tribe. Now he’s dead, along with four of his adult sons and one son-in-law. One of the sons was a policeman and recognised the killers. ‘He told them he was a policemen like them’, says his widow, ‘But they shot him in the neck and in the stomach’.

Neighbours saw the police cars parked outside the house and recognised the uniforms of the notorious police commandos. They’re highly trained, heavily armed officers, more like soldiers than ordinary policemen. And they report directly to the Ministry of the Interior. Over the last eighteen months these commandos – who are almost exclusively Shia Muslims – have been implicated in rounding up and killing thousands of ordinary Sunni civilians.

A hundred dead bodies a day

Up to a hundred bodies a day are found dumped on waste ground and rubbish tips around Baghdad. They’ve usually been dreadfully tortured. Acid and electric drills are the favourite methods and many of the bodies are still wearing police handcuffs.

As we discovered, there is even compelling evidence that the secret prisons of Saddam’s day are back – stinking hell-holes where hundreds of victims are herded together to be raped, tortured and maimed for no crime other than belonging to the wrong sect.

And it’s all happening under the eyes of US commanders, who seem unwilling or unable to intervene. These are the chilling findings of a special investigation, filmed for a Channel 4 documentary, The Death Squads that reveals how one of the most senior ministers in Iraq’s new administration stands accused of presiding over a campaign to torture, maim and execute his enemies. And this is the dossier that utterly explodes the myth that peace and a liberal democracy are blossoming in the new ‘liberated’ Iraq.

In the bloody mayhem of Baghdad it’s very difficult to untangle exactly who’s who amongst the various death squads who now rule the streets. There are organised criminal gangs, kidnapping and killing for ransom money, and there are private militia groups loyal to particular clerics or clan leaders. But there is no question that among the most efficient of the death squads are the police commandos.

As part of our investigation, we traced how these commando units have been deliberately infiltrated and taken over by one of the most militant Islamic groups, the Badr Brigade. They’re the military wing of an Iraqi political party, The Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq. SCIRI was set up in the early 80′s in exile in Iran and its aim was always to overthrow Saddam and his Sunni government and replace them with a Shia government. Now, very helpfully, the Americans have done that for them.

Return of the Badr Brigade

Immediately after Saddam was toppled in the Spring of 2003 thousands of Badr Brigade militiamen flooded back across the border from Iran, along with their political leaders who’d spent years waiting for this moment. They wanted the new Iraq to become a pro-Iranian, Islamic country where the Shia, who are 60% of Iraq’s population, would also be the dominant political force.

They soon discovered that the best way to achieve this has been to inflitrate Iraq’s new police force – right under the eyes the American administration.

From the early days of the US occupation of Iraq, the warning signs were there. One of the most senior British police officers sent to Baghdad was the former Deputy Chief Constable of South Yorkshire, Douglas Brand. His brief was very simple – to rebuild the Iraqi police. He wanted to create a professional force dedicated to law and order. But the Americans were so keen to build up the numbers they turned a blind eye to who was enlisting. ‘They wanted to have the graduation parades, to have them in new uniforms’, Douglas Brand told us. ‘Nobody was too interested in what happened when they actually went out on the streets’.

Douglas Brand says he voiced his concerns, ‘Probably ten times a day to whoever would listen, usually two star Generals and above.’ He even spoke directly to the US Defence Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, ‘But I sensed the subtleties were not understood and if there were consequences down the road, that’s something the Iraqis were going to have to handle themselves’.

Those consequences became clear very quickly. In June 2004 an American soldier, Kevin Maries, was looking through his sights of his sniper rifle from his usual position on the top floor of the Ministry of the Interior building when he saw Iraqi police commandos bring hundreds of prisoners into a Ministry compound directly below him.

He took a series of astonishing photographs through his rifle sight showing what happened. ‘They were forced onto their knees, beaten with rubber hoses,’ he remembers, ‘The beatings got more severe, a metal bar was used and they were beating the soles of their feet’. When he thought some of the prisoners might die, Kevin alerted his unit and American troops turned up to stop the torture.[u] But an hour later US Headquarters ordered them to withdraw and leave the prisoners to the mercy of their captors. As far as Kevin knows, most of the prisoners were later moved to an official prison but only after they were beaten again.[/b]

US reluctance to intervene

From the start the US authorities have been reluctant to interfere and that became even more marked when a controversial appointment was made to the Iraqi government. In May 2005, a man named Bayan Jabr was made Minister of the Interior – and thus the man in charge of the police. He was one of SCIRI’s most senior figures.

Suddenly huge numbers of his own exclusively Shia militiamen from the Badr Brigade were recruited into the police. Gerry Burke witnessed that first hand. A senior Massachusetts policeman, seconded as a police adviser to Baghdad, Burke saw a memo from the new Minister authorising the recruitment of one group of 1,300 men into the Commandos without any obvious qualifications for the job. ‘These were men without any police training, without any background checks’, Gerry Burke told us, ‘It was just changing uniforms from the Badr Brigade to the police’.

A few months later, when groups of Sunni men began to be kidnapped, murdered and their bodies dumped in the same spots every day, Gerry Burke tried to organise a surveillance operation to catch the killers. But the ordinary Iraqi police officers he was working with were too terrified to co-operate. ‘They believed the perpetrators were members of the police who would have killed them in retaliation for investigating it’.

But that is by no means the only evidence that Iraq’s Minsiter for the Interior is involved in a covert campaign of terror. One Iraqi MP, accuses Mr Jabr of being behind a network of secret prisons were Sunnis were held without charge and tortured. Of course, in a land where sectarian rivalries often involve wild allegations, we should treat any such claims with caution. But even with that in mind, the evidence provided to us by a Sunni MP named Mohammed al Dini is profoundly disturbing.

Torture videos

Last summer, Al Dini was among a delegation of MPs who turned up unannounced to check one of these suspected illegal sites. He showed us the video his staff took of the inspection. Several hundred men are pictured, crammed into cells. There are chaotic scenes of jubilation as the prisoners realise outsiders have come to end their ordeal and they all clamour to tell Al Dini their stories. One man is an Imam at a mosque. ‘They forced us to talk by raping us’, he tells the MP. Eventually prisoners sit patiently on the floor while one by one they display their injuries. Some have been branded with hot metal bars or had their fingernails ripped out. They lift their shirts to show bruises, scars and burns all over their bodies.

Then Mohammed Al Dini showed us a second video. Three days after he exposed this illegal prison, a group of his relatives visited him in Baghdad. On their way home their minibus was stopped by uniformed men. They were dragged out and executed on the street. The video shows ten bodies, lying on the pavement, in large pools of blood. Yellow leaflets have been scattered round which say, ‘Congratulations to those who killed these Sunni extremists.’

Mohammed Al Dini is in no doubt about who murdered his ten cousins. ‘They were militiamen operating as death squads inside the police’, he says, ‘And the attack was ordered by those people I exposed for running the prison.’

We interviewed Al Mohammed Dini in the safety of the Green Zone but he then made an extraordinary offer – to take us to his office and give us more evidence of police atrocities which have taken place while Bayan Jabr was the Minister in charge. His office was in a district called Yarmuk – a short journey but an incredibly dangerous one.

The Green Zone

The general rule for Western journalists in Baghdad is to stay in the Green Zone – if you go anywhere else you need your own armed guards in armoured cars and you never stay anywhere for longer than ten minutes. Any foreigner venturing out runs the very real risk of being kidnapped by Sunni insurgents.

We discussed it as a team and took the advice of our calm and experienced security man, who’s ex-British army. We decided to trust Mohammed Al Dini. We all climbed into his 4 x 4, with two of his own armed guards. As we drove through last checkpoint in the Green Zone and out into Baghdad’s wild beyond a dozen more vehicles, four armed guards in each, were waiting.

They swung in to surround us. We were now in a huge convoy which included two pick-up trucks with men stood on the back manning machine guns. We drove past the Jihad district where last July the police and other armed gunman set up unofficial checkpoints. They inspected everyone’s ID cards and executed more than forty people with Sunni names.

Then we went past Yarmuk hospital, which was surrounded by police cars. Iraqi hospitals are very dangerous places. We’d spoken to doctors who told us how patients, relatives and medical staff are regularly kidnapped from the treatment rooms by hospital guards and the police. Two doctors – too frightened to meet us – sent us emails. One said ‘I’m writing to you crying with tears, they’ve gone on a wild rampage killing doctors’.

Religious fanatics killing the educated

The second email, from a woman doctor, said ‘These religious fanatics are killing the educated people so the country will be easier to be controlled.’ A third doctor, who agreed to be in interviewed anonymously, described how an elderly woman was rushed in very ill. When the hospital guards realised she was the wife of a well known Sunni man they shot her.

There was more to come. When we reached Mohammed Al Dini’s office, he handed over several CD’s full of horrific images of corpses – victims, he claimed, of the death squads. ‘Bullet holes?’ I asked pointing to a picture of two round wounds. Mohammed Al Dini corrected me. ‘No – electric drill holes’.

Then he fished out a five page document from his briefcase. It was a top secret report from Military Intelligence describing how they had caught eighteen policemen in the act of kidnapping two Sunni civilians. The police had confessed that they’d been ordered to pick up the men by their own senior officers who were members of the Badr Brigade. They were paid for each captive they handed over and they knew of at least nine men who’d later been found dead.

Mohammed Al Dini told me this all started when Bayan Jabr became Interior Minister – he was later promoted to Finance Minister, a role he continues to hold. ‘There’s a great deal of evidence against him, he’s been involved in many human rights breaches in Iraq’, he says.

Could it be true? Could one of the most senior figures in Iraq’s new administration be presiding over a regime of terror every bit as savage as that under Saddam? We wrote to Bayan Jabr to ask for his response to all these allegations – but so far he hasn’t replied.

One thing is for sure: life in ‘liberated’ modern day Iraq is every bits as terrifying as it was under Saddam – perhaps even more so. The videos that Mohammed Al Dini gave us were only part of a huge collection we built up during our time in Baghdad. Human rights organisations gave us hours and hours of material. One mass funeral after another, lines of coffins, crowds of wailing relatives.

But among the most heartbreaking tapes are ones the women in the ‘House Of Six Widows’ gave us. One shows the immediate aftermath of the killings – the Sheik and his sons covered in blood stained blankets. Another video is of the funeral.

But the third is quite different. The final video is from 2002, a year before the war began, and it shows the joyful scenes at a huge wedding of one of the sons – now murdered. The house where the Sunni family still live is in a mixed area and among the hundreds of friends and neighbours pictured dancing in the street with teh wedding party many were Shia. But since the coming of the death squads, many Sunni families have fled the area altogether. It’s a pattern of ethnic cleansing being repeated across Baghdad as the city descends into ever deeper sectarian chaos.

It’s impossible to work in Baghdad and leave with any ideas about simple solutions. Beware of anyone who offers them. The only certain thing is that tonight and every night for the foreseeable future, the death squads will be roaming the streets. And many of them will be so-called policemen

http://www.globalresearch.ca/iraq-s-death-squads/3879

Synopsis: it has become clear at this stage that America the land at the forefront of wh0redoms and the daughter of England is run by a group of criminals fomenting corruption, sin, bloodshed and other mischief around the planet and is the principal reason for the chaos and bloodshed in the middle east and in other parts of the world.
Once the current stage of recognizing the satanic culprits and allowing them to justify the word of punishment upon themselves is complete, we shall, God willing, move into the next stage.
it is better to repent to Allah than to face His approaching swift punishment with heedlessness.
But that's a matter of choice.
Adios.

سيف الله

08-28-2016, 02:08 PM

Salaam

Another update.

A simple re-brand of PREVENT will not take away from its toxicity

London – The Home Affairs Select Committee report into Extremism is a wasted opportunity to address the real causes of political violence and relationship with the Muslim community.

While the Select Committee recognises the failure of PREVENT, it only suggests cosmetic changes and a new name, ENGAGE, in an attempt to attract Muslim organisations to work alongside state-approved organisations named by the CAGE report, We are Completely Independent.

These groups are neither independent nor grassroots, and have little experience with government counter-terrorism measures. They are therefore unable to effectively challenge the state’s overreach within the counter-terrorism space.

Instead of actively acknowledging the urgent need to address the key issues driving political violence, the government has resorted again to the good Muslim-bad Muslim narrative, while propping up its counter-terrorism agenda.

Ibrahim Mohamoud, Communications Officer, said:

“The Select Committee is playing the blame game. A lot of emphasis in the report is centred on the need for Muslims to take ownership for terrorist acts, instead of critically assessing if the government’s counter-terrorism measures have reduced or increased the threat.”

“The Select Committee claim there have been too many counter-terrorism laws yet they welcome the proposed Counter Terrorism and Safeguarding Bill. It is hard to understand how further legislation piled onto already existing failing legislation will rectify the situation.”

“Those at the receiving end of PREVENT, as well several organisations and high profile figures have called for the PREVENT duty to be scrapped outright. A simple re-brand of a fundamentally flawed policy will do no good.”

http://cage.ngo/press-release/a-simple-re-brand-of-prevent-will-not-take-away-from-its-toxicity/

سيف الله

08-28-2016, 02:13 PM

Salaam

Mixed results brothers and sisters, campaigning has forced the British government to ditch the Prevent brand. Not for long though.

PREVENT has ended, ENGAGE is its rebirth

The Home Affairs Select Committee report into radicalisation has rightly recognised the toxicity of PREVENT. Yet, instead of scrapping the failed policy, it only proposes a rebranded version of it, named ENGAGE. This programme seeks to implicate community organisations in order to gain a veneer of credibility, while the underpinning premises of PREVENT are left firmly intact.

It is an attempt to force the Muslim community to take ownership of the problem of political violence, while at the same time reinforcing the good Muslim, bad Muslim dichotomy, with the government’s overarching narrative as the determining factor. Ironically, the report refers to and quotes non-independent organisations who are state sponsored as outlined in our report “We are Completely Independent”, and gives them a semblance of legitimacy.

Underpinning flawed theories remain the same

There is no attempt to engage and seriously question the science behind counter extremism, as CAGE urged in its letter to Keith Vaz, dated 20th November 2015. ERG22+, a programme formulated with colluding psychiatrists and that underpins the entire counter-terrorism strategy, escapes scrutiny and remains a mystery.

The whole notion of identifying suspects using “radicalisation factors”, was sharply critiqued by eminent US psychologists who concluded “We do not read minds, and we know that none of us can predict the future.” The lack of acknowledgement of the opaque scientific basis behind the prevailing radicalisation theory, is a glaring omission in the report.

Despite questionable foundations, and the fact that the report recognises the problems of defining “extremism”, it proceeds to make a number of recommendations which broaden the surveillance apparatus and empower the upcoming Counter Extremism and Safeguarding Bill. This includes recommendations to considerably broaden the powers of social media and internet companies and even “smaller community organisations” to identify, monitor and take down content deemed to be “extremist”.

Certain flawed assumptions still prevail. Again, parents’ weak English language skills are equated to an inability to counter radicalisation in children, and grievances around foreign and domestic policy are said to be “perceived” as opposed to being real.

PREVENT is not addressed as a flawed policy that needs to be scrapped

The concerns surrounding PREVENT, that it securitizes a whole community and that it criminalises ordinary religious behaviour and in some cases movements for social justice, are not highlighted. They are all explained away through implementation problems like transparency, or communication lapses or due to a lack of good PREVENT training.

The report also claims there have been too many counter-terrorism laws and yet it still welcomes the new Counter-Extremism and Safeguarding Bill, seeing further legislation as a remedy for the effects of previous legislation. This is a weak justification for unnecessary laws that have only further codified Muslim existence.

A discriminatory expectation to condemn

The report also made several comments about CAGE: “We were deeply concerned to hear CAGE’s views on not condemning terrorist acts, which we believe simply increases the sense of isolation from society that some individuals within the community feel. We also note CAGE’s sensitivity about the use of the term ‘religious fascism’.”

CAGE is deeply concerned at the Committee’s inability to move beyond political posturing. No other community, minority or majority, is forced to condemn acts of political violence in a similar fashion. This demand for selective outrage is but a manifestation of the discriminatory attitude permeating the report. Contrary to what the report asserts, this subtle, unique coercion to condition condemnation for particular acts of violence reinforces isolation of the Muslim community from society.

CAGE’s position is clear: CAGE abhors all forms of violence against civilians, and we adopt a policy of fairness that relies on the assumption that all human life is equal.”

In short, the report is a “rebrand and tweak” effort, which effectively revisits the first version of the Prevent strategy under Labour, while maintaining the problematic underlying counter-extremism theory.

http://cage.ngo/article/prevent-has-ended-engage-is-its-rebirth/

سيف الله

09-11-2016, 08:52 PM

Salaam

Another update

Early Day Motion calling to “scrap the Prevent strategy in its entirety” a welcome contrast to efforts to rebrand the discredited policy

London – An Early Day Motion was proposed by Liberal Democrat MP Alistair Carmichael this morning calling to “scrap the Prevent strategy in its entirety”, saying the “strategy is no longer fit for purpose”. CAGE is pleased to see this serious call to abolish PREVENT being brought to parliament, contrary to the Home Affairs Select Committee’s recommendation to ‘rebrand’ it.

CAGE began the public call for PREVENT to be scrapped with a letter published in the Independent and signed by over 300 academics and civil society members. This call has gathered support from across many sectors, including the targeted communities, and now in part from prominent MPs.

Ibrahim Mohamoud, spokesperson for CAGE, said:

“Mr Carmichael’s motion calling for a debate should be welcomed by all. PREVENT has been criticised for lack of transparency and its potential to impact free speech and discussion, from many sectors. Since 2011, CAGE has been consistently cautioning against the overreach of PREVENT. There’s no place for PREVENT, or any of its manifestation in a fair and open society.”

“There should be no attempt to pressure the most impacted communities into bearing the responsibility of solving a very serious problem, which they have not created. In order to continue playing its positive role in society, the Muslim community, like any other, must be able to retain its integrity.”

“What is needed, more than anything else, is for decision-makers to reflect and acknowledge the negative impact of some policies, at home and abroad, on national security.”

http://cage.ngo/press-release/early-day-motion-calling-to-scrap-the-prevent-strategy-in-its-entirety-a-welcome-contrast-to-efforts-to-rebrand-the-discredited-policy/

سيف الله

10-11-2016, 08:04 PM

Salaam

Another update. Terrorism is not terrorism when the 'good guys' do it.

Britain and Libya: The legacy of unaccountability continues

The Foreign Affairs Committee’s report into Libya was damning in its criticism of David Cameron, outlining that the rise of IS was a consequence of the former prime minister’s “failure to develop a coherent Libya strategy.” But while the report outlines a number of failings, there is no serious accountability for the aftermath of the intervention.

When seen in the light of Britain’s approach to members of Libya’s opposition, and its continued lack of accountability in its treatment of these individuals, Britain’s recent military incursion takes on a more sinister light. The relationship between the British government and Libya has of course been one of political expediency and has for some time undermined Libyan attempts to alter their own political situation.

In 2004, British prime minister Tony Blair struck a deal with Colonel Qaddafi, despite his oppression of his people, in the name of co-operating in the war on terror. As part of the ‘Deal in the Desert’ Britain was to begin courting favour with Qaddafi by honing in on dissidents. That same year, Abdel Hakim Belhaj and Sami al-Saadi, members of the Libyan opposition, were kidnapped, rendered and transferred back to Libya where they were tortured.

Belhaj’s wife Fatima Bouchar was also abducted and flown by the CIA to Tripoli. Saadi’s wife and four children – the youngest being a six-year-old girl – were also rendered and imprisoned. Recent efforts to hold former foreign secretary Jack Straw accountable for their torture, have been unsuccessful – a situation that surely continues to taint British relations with Libyan people.

One year later, in 2005, the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, an organisation dedicated to the overthrow of Qaddafi, was banned as a terrorist organisation in Britain, and five Libyan dissidents were arrested, detained on control orders and threatened with deportation to Libya where they would have certainly faced torture. David Davis MP, said that the use of control orders against these men seemed to be “a way of appeasing Gaddafi by handicapping his opponents”. These men fought and won against their detention and deportation, but were confined to their homes under control orders, or house arrest.

One of the men subjected to this ordeal, Abdul Baset Azzouz, described these restrictive orders as having “excommunicated me and my family from the entire community.” The use of secret evidence against them was especially frustrating and a breach of the fundamental right to free trial.

“SIAC plays games with Muslims. They are using secret evidence – they have made this law just for Muslims. They said that we have contact with terrorists such as the Libyan Fighting Group who are supposed to have Al Qaeda ideology. When I asked where the evidence for this is, all I was told was that it was secret,” said Azzouz.

The basis for deporting these men was a memorandum of understanding outlining that these men would not be tortured and would be given a fair a trial. Faraj Hassan, who sadly passed away in 2010 soon after his restrictions were lifted said of the MOU: “It makes a mockery of the so-called civilised democracy and human rights the UK professes to uphold and uses as an excuse to invade countries like Iraq and Afghanistan claiming to be bringing democracy and human rights to these countries and removing dictatorship, when the UK itself deals with these very dictators as and when it suits it.”

Faraj rightly pointed that the behaviour of the British government only breeds resentment: “The double standards and the blatant hypocrisy of the UK government towards countries which torture is clear for everyone to see and the UK government wonders why Muslims feel angry?”

It remains to be seen whether this culture of impunity for this duplicitous British involvement in Libyan affairs will continue – for if it does, the situation will not improve. The recent parliamentary report is more proof that the British policy has changed from pro-Qaddafi to anti-Qaddafi in the name of protecting its own interests and at the expense of ordinary Libyans.

What is also clear in the report, is that regime change is often sold to the public in the name of protecting civilians. However, in time the real aim becomes clear: to instal a government friendly to the British counter-terrorism agenda, while local military despots and their complicit British security men and leaders continue to remain unaccountable for the abuses notched up in the process.

http://cage.ngo/article/britain-and-libya-the-legacy-of-unaccountability-continues/

سيف الله

10-11-2016, 08:06 PM

Salaam

Another update

Leading academics question ‘science’ that underpins PREVENT strategy

London – A joint statement signed by 150 academics and psychologists including Professors Noam Chomsky and Marc Sageman, poses important questions about the ‘scientific’ studies underpinning the government’s controversial PREVENT policy.

This is the first time the ‘science’ behind the government’s radicalisation theory has been identified and with its revelation it has been called into question by professionals in the field because it was not subject to proper scientific scrutiny or public critique.

The Extremism Risk Guidance 22+ (ERG22+) framework is being used to assess the risk of ‘radicalisation’ and influence referrals to the CHANNEL programme.

More than 500,000 public servants have been placed under duty to implement it. We know of 34 cases where children have been either removed, or threatened to be removed from their families based on this flawed assessment tool.

The joint statement follows a report The ‘Science’ of Pre-Crime by CAGE, which provides the only critique of the ERG22+, based on a journal article published by two former psychologists employed at the UK Nationals Offenders Management Service (NOMS). The actual scientific study is classified.

The report finds the following:

• The study’s conclusions have been implemented far beyond the original intention.
• A process that should have only ever been used by experts in a limited circumstance has been opened up to the entire public sector.
• Political context was omitted as a specific factor, despite the authors having been recommended not to leave it out.

CAGE spokesperson Ibrahim Mohamoud said:

“Even the authors of the study recognise that the ERG22+ cannot be used as a predictive tool, but in the hands of the Home Office, the study, which took as its subjects prisoners convicted of terrorism charges, has been extended to predict the behaviour of individuals beyond a prison environment. Now, more than ever, PREVENT as a policy needs to be scrapped.”

“Their claim in 2015 that the ERG22+ is still a, “work in progress”, is extremely disconcerting as the tool has real world consequences. Not only have children been removed from their families, but legal judgements have been made based on the ERG22+.”

“The fact that the government saw it fit to place on a statutory footing, a tool that has not been subject to sufficient scientific scrutiny, should be of grave concern not only to the psychology profession itself, but to the communities it targets, and the individuals who have subjected to being ‘lab rats’ in the government’s broader counter terrorism agenda.”

http://cage.ngo/press-release/leadin...vent-strategy/

سيف الله

10-11-2016, 08:14 PM

Salaam

Another comment piece.

Sara Khan’s The Battle for British Islam: A 250 page Prevent press release

Sara Khan’s new book The Battle for British Islam is basically a 250 page press release for the government’s discredited Prevent counter-extremism strategy, writes Roshan Muhammed Salih.

Badly stung by the unwillingness of many British Muslims to simply lie down and surrender, the prominent “counter extremism campaigner” takes aim at virtually every grassroots mainstream Muslim organization out there for refusing to take the state’s medicine.

She lambasts those anti-Prevent activists on the Left who obviously aren’t obsessed enough about such crucial issues to the British nation such as stoning adulterers to death and segregating men and women at public events.

And she bigs up those brave, misunderstood souls, such as herself, who are selflessly trying to get everyone to love each other (while simultaneously pocketing taxpayers’ cash).

By the end of the book I could almost hear her thinking: “If only those damn, pesky Islamists wouldn’t be so obsessed by their religion, would stop complaining about Islamophobia and would close their eyes when Britain bombs a Muslim country, I wouldn’t have to let a counter-terrorism officer write a book and then put my own name on it.” (Only joking, I’m sure MI5 and the Home Office had absolutely nothing to do with her potential Pulitzer Prize winner).

Salafis and Islamists

The basic argument of The Battle for British Islam is that Salafis and non-Salafi Islamists have hijacked the religion of Islam by politicising it and have harmed our ability to keep society safe, aided and abetted by “useful idiots” on The Left.

Khan says the rise of puritanical thought and Islamist ideology has become almost unstoppable.

“Ever since I was a teenager,” she writes. “I have witnessed how Islamist extremism has wreaked havoc on the lives of British Muslims. In my work over the past eight years as co-founder and director of Inspire, a counter extremism organisation, I have seen at first hand how this ideology has ripped families apart, turning daughters against mothers and sons against fathers. It has robbed kids of their childhood and their promising futures, and has even groomed teenagers to be killers.

“It has encouraged intolerance and the dehumanisation of both non Muslims and other Muslims, furthering sectarianism, acts of excommunication and even violence. Islamist extremism provokes anti-Muslim hatred and creates polarised communities; yet despite the damage it causes it continues to thrive among some Muslims in the UK.”

The good guys are those pro-Prevent tolerant, secular, Union Jack-waving Muslims who aren’t too hung up by what the Quran and Hadith actually say, but who live in a happy-clappy live-and-let-live universe. So that means institutions like Faith Matters, Islamic Society of Britain, British Muslims for Secular Democracy and Quilliam, and individuals like Fiyaz Mughal, Usama Hasan, Abu Muntasir and Tehmina Kazi.

On the other hand, the bad guys are the anti-Prevent, anti-Britain, pro-Caliphate, anti homosexual, pro-stoning to death Islamists like CAGE and Moazzam Begg, Hizb ut-Tahrir, The Muslim Council of Britain, Islam 21C and Haitham al Haddad, The Islamic Human Rights Commission, FOSIS, IERA, MEND, Prevent Watch, Students Not Suspects and, yes, 5Pillars.

And these bad guys are being bolstered by institutions such as the National Union of Students and the University College Union who have clearly been hoodwinked by a bunch of devious extremists.

Khan argues that the Salafis and the non-Salafi Islamists used to be divided before 9/11 but have since united to achieve common goals, such as fighting Prevent and spreading groundless scare stories about it. And it’s because of them that Prevent is so misunderstood.

According to her, Prevent is just about stopping individuals from being drawn into terrorism in the interests of national security. It’s about helping vulnerable young people before they enter the Criminal Justice System, especially in schools, and any mistakes that have been made can be remedied by better training and better communication.

In short, the government is targeting Islamic extremism, not Islam itself.

But there is hope! The way to beat the Salafis and the Islamists, she says, is not by banning them because that would be illiberal. No, it’s by empowering women and taking on extremist theological narratives. In other words, by forming a wide societal coalition to take on the Salafi-Islamists.

Good luck!

Prevent is the problem

I suppose I should begin my dissection of the book by tackling the central argument – that Salafis and Islamists have discredited Prevent and that they are lying about what it is.

Everyone should be aware that Prevent is opposed by a wide cross-section of Muslims, many of whom are not Salafi and many of whom are not Islamist. Moreover, they often disagree with each other about theology and politics and some of them are even very secular. But they all object to Muslims as a community being vilified by our government and media and being profiled and monitored in a way that other communities are not. They also resent being labelled as a “problem community” and being blamed for radicalisation and extremism.

The problems with Prevent and general counter terrorism policy are not “perceived,” they are real. From the stopping-and-searching of random Muslims at airports, to the monitoring and spying on the community, to aggressive policing and entrapment tactics, to the recruitment of agents, to the harassment of kids in schools and students at universities. And believe me I could go on.

The net effect of all this is that Muslims feel targeted, stigmatised and paranoid. And they feel they’re not being engaged by the authorities or being listened to by the powers-that-be.

All this is happening, of course, while foreign policy grievances (which are only addressed in a cursory way in Khan’s book) are being completely ignored or downplayed, and while state and media Islamophobia remain unaddressed.

And an increasingly broad cross-section of non-Muslims, especially in public institutions, can also see Prevent for what it is – nothing less than state Islamophobia and a massive spying and monitoring exercise on one particular community.

Is Sara Khan a victim?

Throughout the book Khan portrays herself as a victim and says she has suffered abuse for her views. She seems particularly upset at being called a “House Muslim” and a “native informant” by some on social media.

She writes: “‘House Muslim’ is derived from the Black Power and anti slavery movement in the United States. To get an idea of how offensive it is to British Muslims working in collaboration with Government to prevent radicalisation, one should listen to Malcolm X’s use of it. The ‘house negro’ in his terminology was a slave who loved his master more than his master loved himself, talked like his master, ate like his master and enforced his laws against the slaves in the fields.”

My only comment on that is “hmmm…”

She continues: “Those Muslims who believe in engaging fully with British society, supporting gender equality and human rights, condemning violence in the name of religion, promoting inter faith dialogue and standing against all forms of sectarianism within Islam, find themselves a beleaguered group these days. No insult is out of bounds in the bully pulpit of social media. Even violence and threats towards their person seem to be regarded as an acceptable form of discourse. But they soldier on, providing valuable community services to our country, such as youth leadership courses and hate-crime monitoring, as well as rebutting the arguments of Islamist ideology. They often pursue this work with the minimal financial and moral support.”

But is Khan really a victim? The fact is that anyone in the public eye is going to get abused if they have strong opinions. I am racially and Islamophobically abused all the time; it’s certainly not nice and if violence is threatened that is completely unacceptable, but I must admit that I find it difficult to feel sorry for her when nothing of any significance has actually happened to her.

I really don’t see Khan as a victim. She has the support of government and mainstream media even though her credentials to talk about Islam and counter terrorism are at the very least debatable.

These institutions are far more powerful than what the anti-Prevent people have behind their campaign, which is basically grassroots-funded and manned by dedicated volunteers.

It is the anti-Prevent brigade that is regularly demonised by mass market newspapers and by government officials; it is we who are weak and the likes of Sara Khan who are strong.

That said, Khan is entitled to her opinion of course, but it is essential to understand that it is an unrepresentative opinion within the British Muslim community itself and one that has been artificially amplified by government finances and mainstream media support.

Why should Sara Khan, someone without theological credentials, be given a platform to “save her faith”? And why should she have the last word on counter-extremism when there are far more qualified people to pronounce a verdict on it?

Government links

But perhaps it isn’t so surprising that Khan defends Prevent so vehemently because, after all, she works for it, as she herself explicitly admits, perhaps for the first time in such a detailed manner.

“I believe that, in order to combat radicalisation, partnership work is vital, whether with statutory agencies, police or Government. Civil society groups have a unique and important role to play in reaching communities, working directly with those who have been radicalised, their families or local networks, and governments have a duty to work with and support such organisations.

“In this spirit, Inspire, the organisation that I run, has engaged with women to protect families from extremism, through its #makingastand campaign. Our anti ISIS work has been achieved with the support of Prevent. Recognising the value of #makingastand, the Home Office helped fund our campaign to deliver its message to nine cities across Britain. It also provided technical assistance for Inspire’s social media videos – short films of young Muslims dissuading other young Muslims from traveling to Syria, and highlighting the brutality of ISIS.”

The book is also co-written by Tony McMahon, a consultant working with Breakthrough Media which has orchestrated a secret propaganda programme in collaboration with the Home Office. The book itself describes McMahon as an “independent consultant working with the UK Government and civil society groups on counter extremism projects.”

Of course in an ideal world there should be no problem with British Muslim institutions taking government money to fund their projects; but in the current environment when many Muslims believe that the government is waging a war on Islam and Muslims at home and abroad, any connection with government is absolutely toxic.

A must-read for anti Prevent activists

Unfortunately many non-Muslims who don’t have a good grasp on Islamic theology or counter terrorism and radicalisation issues will be fooled by Khan’s book. And some naive Muslims may be as well.

So I want to make something clear: the vast majority of anti-Prevent people care about a cohesive British society just as much as Sara Khan does. Most of us are born and bred in this country, pay our taxes, obey the law and help old grannies cross the road. We want to live with our neighbours in peace and harmony and also want to address the radicalisation of a small number of British Muslims and the terrorism threat that does exist in this country.

But we know that the way to address these issues is not by bombing Muslim countries with impunity, or allowing the mainstream media to demonise Muslims, or monitoring and targeting the community as a whole. Rather, it is by holistically addressing issues such as British foreign policy and state and media Islamophobia, having a much more targeted counter terrorism policy, and by working with grassroots members of the Muslim community to root out the extremists rather than people like Sara Khan who have no ability to reach them.

So in conclusion I would recommend that every anti-Prevent activist reads Sara Khan’s book because they, like myself, will surely consider it the most detailed defence of Prevent so far by the British authorities, who are the real power behind Khan.

And they, like Khan, are hopping mad with the success of the anti-Prevent campaign which has made the brand completely toxic. And all they can do now is label us as “extremists” by focussing on what some of us might believe about certain aspects of Islamic law which has absolutely no relevance to Muslims in Britain or British society in general (Khan seems more obsessed by stoning to death, the caliphate and hudood punishments than ISIS does!).

They are clearly rattled and they are clearly losing. They have no support within the Muslim community whereas we have loads. And they are losing the argument in the wider community as well. So we should all read this book cover-to-cover and use it as inspiration to continue the fight.

http://5pillarsuk.com/2016/08/26/sara-khans-the-battle-for-british-islam-a-250-page-prevent-press-release/

سيف الله

10-11-2016, 08:34 PM

Salaam

This is interesting tid bit from wikileaks.

The email was sent from Bill Ivey, a former Clinton administration official, to campaign chairman Podesta, on March 13, 2016. Ill highlight the most interesting part.

“And as I’ve mentioned, we’ve all been quite content to demean government, drop civics and in general conspire to produce an unaware and compliant citizenry.

The unawareness remains strong but compliance is obviously fading rapidly. This problem demands some serious, serious thinking – and not just poll driven, demographically-inspired messaging.”

Again another demonstration of how the ruling classes view the masses. With utter contempt.

سيف الله

10-21-2016, 09:25 PM

Salaam

A new documentary on Moazzam Begg.

سيف الله

10-21-2016, 09:49 PM

Salaam

Another update. Interesting how the British state was using the prevent programme to remake Islam in its own image.

Muslim Council of Britain to set up alternative counter-terror scheme

Mosque-centred strategy to start next year in challenge to Home Office’s unpopular Prevent programme

British Muslims are planning to set up their own programme to stop people becoming terrorists in a direct challenge to the government’s controversial Prevent scheme, the Guardian has learned.

The plans are being masterminded by the Muslim Council of Britain (MCB), representing 500 charities, schools and mosques, which plans to start the Muslim-run counter-radicalisation scheme next year.

“In reflecting the wishes of a cross-section of British Muslim society, our affiliates have directed the MCB to explore a grassroots-led response to the challenge of terrorism. Real challenges exists, as we see with Muslim families broken up as a number of children, mothers and fathers leave to travel to Syria,” the MCB said in a statement.

The Home Office’s Prevent scheme is run by the police and security officials. The new initiative, run by a network of community groups across Britain, could cause concern as it could take people away from the official programme. The number of referrals to Prevent reached a record 8,000 in the year to April 2016.

Critics, many of whom are in the Muslim community, say Prevent has at its heart an ideological purity test meaning western foreign policy can not be criticised, and the government is only prepared to work with those who do not challenge it.

Instead of trying to liberalise British Islam, the new scheme will focus solely on a message that violence can never be used. A source familiar with the plans said: “If we can get these voices more heard, they are anti-government and therefore more credible in saying do not turn to violence.”

https://www.theguardian.com/uk

سيف الله

10-29-2016, 07:46 PM

Salaam

Another update

Legalising Islamophobia is a growing international trend

Last year Ahmed Mohamed, a 14 year old high school learner in Texas, was handcuffed, taken into custody, and barred from seeing his parents as he was transported to a juvenile detention facility. Eventually he was suspended from school. His crime: bringing a homemade clock to school.

The same sentiment that targeted Ahmed as a threat resulted in a 10-year-old Muslim boy from Lancashire, north-west England, bring quizzed by British police for writing that he lived in a “terrorist” house – instead of a “terraced” house – during an English class.

The overwhelming paranoia that fuels suspicion even towards children who make simple spelling mistakes or display ambitious ingenuity is a growing trend within the global framework of Islamophobia.

But instead of being challenged at the policy level, Islamophobia is becoming more deeply entrenched in law. Last week the Danish government presented a list of measures to combat ‘radicalisation’, including steps to assist members of civil society to “systematically be present in social media and engage critically in relevant forums, take part in dialogue and challenge extremist views”, making it easier to prosecute those spreading “extremist views online”, according to the government.

Getting the general public involved in furthering the mentality of anything related to Islam being automatically associated with terrorism is a slippery slope. The definitions of “extremism” and “radicalisation” by governments lack clarity and are so broad they are able, at a push, to criminalise legitimate political dissent and apply to all manner of organisations and individuals that challenge the liberal democratic model.

Another example of this legalised Islamophobia can be seen in Australia – one of the most peaceful and law-abiding countries, yet it is about to allow people who might commit terrorism to be held in prison — indefinitely! But the definitions of “terrorism” in Australia are notoriously broad and have been widely criticised by the Australian Human Rights Commission for their lack of clarity and due process.

Nonetheless, under Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull’s center-right government, federal judges could stop prisoners being released after completing terrorism-related sentences, detaining them indefinitely with little recourse to justice. Further, new laws will allow teenagers as young as 14 to be subjected to court-ordered controls, restricting who they can see and where they can go if any “suspicious” activity is assumed. Because these laws are primarily executed by police, this is a clear sign of Australia’s further descent into a police state.The underlying assumption is that Islamic related activities of any sort are top on the watch-list.

Core issues remain unaddressed and violence continues

These sentiments are making their way into the laws of countries globally. They reflect a growing assumption that Islam is irrevocably linked to violence. What they don’t pay attention to is the crucial issue of grievances – that the underlying cause of political violence is a grievance with foreign policy against Muslims.

This crucial issue has even been acknowledged by security services in private for some time. A recently-released 2011 FBI Intelligence Assessment, a previously classified document, found that anger over US military operations abroad was the most commonly cited motivation for individuals involved in cases of “home-grown” terrorism.

This has followed to some extent due to the capitulation of non-violent political avenues of resistance. Following 9/11, the anti-war movement was completely isolated as trade unions and civil society organizations swallowed the media lies and government propaganda against Islam. What followed was the acceptance of a war of retribution against Afghanistan – an impoverished country of 30 million people.

US led military action in Iraq, Pakistan, Somalia and countless other Muslim countries followed. These incursions have left these lands devastated, with millions of innocent civilians losing their lives. The global NGO Physicians for Social Responsibility reported that over two million Muslims have been killed as a result of Western-led wars since 1990, while others have stated the death toll could be as high as four million. While retaliatory violence should not be lauded, it is essential that we acknowledge this violence does not come out of a vacuum.

CVE is a form of structural violence against Muslims

The FBI report also called into question current anti-radicalisation initiatives. It identified no coherent pattern to “radicalization,” concluding that it remained near impossible to predict future violent acts. “It can be difficult, if not impossible, to predict for any given individual what factor or combination of factors will prompt that individual’s radicalization or mobilization to violence.”

Despite this conclusion, the US government has announced plans to spend millions of dollars on “Countering Violent Extremism” initiatives, which involve community members spotting and stopping would-be extremists – a pattern of surveillance that has Orwellian overtones, and which, in its flawed theories linking religiosity to violence, is a form of subtle structural violence against Muslims.

“Countering violent extremism programmes are really a danger to us all. They hinge on very broad and vague definitions of ‘extremism’, and target any ideology that challenges liberal democracy. This is a dangerous approach, since it criminalises ordinary religious behaviour and stands to silence political dissent. This pushes ideologies underground where they may become violent,” says Karen Jayes, from advocacy group CAGE.

“‘Radicalisation’ theories are built on the flawed assumption that the more religious a person, the more likely they are to commit violence, when in fact the opposite is true. These theories have been proven to be based on unreliable studies, in a report authored by CAGE and entitled ‘The ‘Science’ of Pre-Crime‘, which was also backed by over 100 academics in the UK. Despite this, CVE programmes are expanding throughout the world, because they are a multi-billion dollar industry that trades off a fear of Islam, which is fanned by corporate media and a growing security industry.”

From the CVE initiatives in the US, to arbitrary yet dangerous laws being implemented from Denmark to Australia, the rapid move to vilifying Muslims has become extreme in itself. These moves seek to demonise Muslims as a whole, as a group and as an identity- not the individual acts of harm or evil committed by some.

Instead of uniting people this serves to divide them; instead of cultivating respect, it sows contempt, fear and antagonism. Most perniciously, it codifies automatic antagonisms in society as well as in law and regulation. By systematically denying Muslims the cherished civil liberties afforded to others, we are entrenching the ideology of Islamophobia within the fabric of our everyday lives, and this will have lasting consequences.

http://cage.ngo/article/legalising-islamophobia-is-a-growing-international-trend/

سيف الله

10-29-2016, 09:28 PM

Salaam

Another update

Respected Brothers: Imams, Khateebs, Teachers and Members of Masjid Committees

Assaalamu alaikum wa Rahmatullahi wa Barakatuh

You will have heard of the government’s ‘Prevent’ strategy. You may also be aware that many people have criticised it – including Muslim leaders and organisations, former Police Chiefs, Teachers, Doctors, Lawyers and even some politicians. The policy has been so heavily criticised for being ‘toxic’, ‘unjust’, ‘racist’, ‘Islamophobic’, creating ‘hatred of Muslims’ and ‘policing thoughts’ that many believe it has lost all credibility.

However, it is strange that against this background we are hearing that some Muslim organisations plan to ask masajid to participate in a new version of ‘Prevent’ that they hope will be run by Muslims instead of by the government. Some have endorsed the terrible idea that ‘Prevent’ should be reformed or rebranded (and named ‘Engage’), at the very time that it is at the point of collapse.

I am writing to share our belief that such an approach would be shallow, deeply flawed and harm the interests of Muslims in the UK. I say this as someone who has pursued this policy for over ten years, speaking and writing against it – at a time when some of our well-meaning but naïve Muslim organisations were participating in the same Prevent policy that they now say they are against.

I make these points confidently, for the following reasons:

Prevent is not, and never has been, about preventing terrorism. Prevent works by spreading the lie that the more Islamic you are, the more of a potential threat you are – so the solutions it pushes are aimed at ‘westernising’ Muslims by suppressing expression of Islamic beliefs and values, or our political views about foreign policy in the Muslim world. If you are against Prevent, it does not mean you are ‘for’ terrorism because the policy was never about preventing violence. Indeed, it can be argued that this policy alienates Muslims more and creates more division and potential harm in society.
It is a dangerous idea to say masajid and Muslim organisations should be taking responsibility for tackling ‘extremism’ and ‘terrorism’. The day Muslim organisations say they will take responsibility for dealing with ‘extremism’ and ‘terrorism, they will be accepting that there is problem that comes from Islam, the community and our institutions – which we all know is untrue. They will be blamed every time there is problem or a threat of violence, saying they have not done enough. It will absolve government of responsibility and be a distraction from the truth that such actions occur from individuals that have a grievance with government policies, some having mental health problems.
There is a need for masajid and Muslim organisations to prioritise important work over gimmicks that look to observers that they are aimed to win government approval more than to solve any real problem. Prevent has made some Muslims scared to address issues – such as Khilafah, Jihad, Islam as a complete way of life and problems in the Muslim world. The community’s neglect of these issues has meant that some Muslims search for information about these things on search engines and websites, so becoming confused. Organisations that historically fear to say anything that might upset the government have been at the forefront of ignoring such issues and sadly have little credibility to address those confused young people who look for genuine answers – not words that sound like they are meant to appease the local council or central government. Our masajid and institutions need to address these things, work to build and promote the identity of our youth and invite the wider community to understand what Islam really is – and how this beautiful way of life can bring light to them.

We pray Allah guides us all to the straight path – not the path of those who incur his anger – nor the path of those who go astray by seeking to change the deen of Islam, to fit in with a secular model.

http://www.hizb.org.uk/current-affairs/open-letter-about-prevent

Born_Believer

10-30-2016, 04:23 PM

Originally Posted by Junon

Prevent is not, and never has been, about preventing terrorism. Prevent works by spreading the lie that the more Islamic you are, the more of a potential threat you are – so the solutions it pushes are aimed at ‘westernising’ Muslims by suppressing expression of Islamic beliefs and values, or our political views about foreign policy in the Muslim world. If you are against Prevent, it does not mean you are ‘for’ terrorism because the policy was never about preventing violence. Indeed, it can be argued that this policy alienates Muslims more and creates more division and potential harm in society.
It is a dangerous idea to say masajid and Muslim organisations should be taking responsibility for tackling ‘extremism’ and ‘terrorism’. The day Muslim organisations say they will take responsibility for dealing with ‘extremism’ and ‘terrorism, they will be accepting that there is problem that comes from Islam, the community and our institutions – which we all know is untrue. They will be blamed every time there is problem or a threat of violence, saying they have not done enough. It will absolve government of responsibility and be a distraction from the truth that such actions occur from individuals that have a grievance with government policies, some having mental health problems.
There is a need for masajid and Muslim organisations to prioritise important work over gimmicks that look to observers that they are aimed to win government approval more than to solve any real problem. Prevent has made some Muslims scared to address issues – such as Khilafah, Jihad, Islam as a complete way of life and problems in the Muslim world. The community’s neglect of these issues has meant that some Muslims search for information about these things on search engines and websites, so becoming confused. Organisations that historically fear to say anything that might upset the government have been at the forefront of ignoring such issues and sadly have little credibility to address those confused young people who look for genuine answers – not words that sound like they are meant to appease the local council or central government. Our masajid and institutions need to address these things, work to build and promote the identity of our youth and invite the wider community to understand what Islam really is – and how this beautiful way of life can bring light to them.

Agreed with most of this.

As this country's (UK) own intelligence service put it, "we should not label them as Islamic terrorists but Islamic novices". The government, MI5, MI6 and whoever else is involved in running the country and the media knows, that Islam and the vast majority of so called "conservative" Muslims are not the problem. The problem is those young people, mainly men, who know little of Islam and once again, according to the report, are involved in acts such as drinking alcohol, taking drugs and prostitution. These people, who do not even have the most basic knowledge of Islam (one such terrorist, on his way to Syria, bought the book "Islam for Dummies" from Amazon before he made his so called Jihad) are easily misled by other criminals, who may appear as more religious from the way they dress or look, to committing acts of terrorism.

This is not an issue with our mosques or schools but with the environment the British community has created and the environment the media has helped propagate.

سيف الله

11-08-2016, 08:57 PM

Salaam

Another update

I refused to work with MI5 and now I can’t see my daughter

“I told them I was feeling intimidated. They continued to suggest I should work with them, that they could help with my training, money and employment. I refused.”

In this instalment of the Human Voices of the War on Terror, we share the story of a man who tells of how his life was made intolerable after the security services crossed his path. We have deliberately omitted the name of the person to protect his privacy.

I was born in the Koyama Island in Somalia. My early years were marked by fleeing my homeland to neighbouring Kenya as the civil war engulfed the country. My family later returned, only to then leave Somalia due to the continued unrest and economic instability. We moved to Yemen where for a short period of time before I made the decision to seek a better life elsewhere.

I travelled to the UK, arriving at Dover aged only 17 in the summer of 2003. I subsequently claimed asylum, and it was granted to me the following year. I enrolled in English language and Maths courses to improve my prospects and I managed to secure employment for myself in warehouses and catering.

I was a very active young man, travelling to different areas of the UK, meeting new people and wishing to contribute to society. In 2008, I travelled to Kenya to get married and meet my family. I was blessed with a daughter who is now eight years old.

In the year preceding my marriage I grew closer to my faith as a result of a number of difficult circumstances I was going through. I found solace in adhering closely to Islam. I would begin to frequent different mosques and socialise more with members of the community, from all walks of life.

I crossed the paths of many people, some I would learn later travelled abroad to take part in the conflict in Somalia. My acquaintance with them was fairly limited. I knew them from the mosque I would occasionally pray at and from a regular football session that was open for all.

At that point in time I was unaware that this would be the reason I would become a person of interest for the security services. It was only in 2009/2010 when I began the process of applying for British citizenship that I noticed a strange pattern arise. At this point I was suffering from depression for a few years. The delay in the Home Office’s response to my application had an adverse effect on my mental health. So when I received a response rejecting my application on grounds of ‘bad character’ I was devastated. I had no criminal record and the lack of explanation in the reply was perplexing.

Shortly after this refusal I received a phone call from a man who introduced himself as ‘George’ from ‘an agency that helps people with passport issues’. We arranged a meeting at a London hotel were I assumed they would help my citizenship application.

On the arranged day I entered the hotel and after a short wait a slim, tall white man approached me and identified himself as ‘George’ from the phone call. I was escorted into a room with a large round table filled with snacks. He offered me tea and coffee while another man with Mediterranean features was already seated in the room. I found this setting more strange and unsettling when they apologised and said they were from MI5 and that their job was ‘to protect people in the UK’.

“You know people we are interested in,” George said. He then mentioned their names.

I admitted I knew these people, but I was feeling anxious and fearful for my safety, so I requested a lawyer.

“Trust me – we can do anything, we can help you with your passport and bring your daughter over to the UK,” he said.

I told them I was feeling intimidated. They continued to suggest I should work with them, that they could help with my training, money and employment. I refused.

George handed me £100 for ‘my fare’.

I left the room extremely scared and shocked. I was sweating profusely. The following day at 10am I received a phone call from them asking me to meet again. I quickly directed them to my solicitor. They no longer contacted me anymore, which was good but that would be the start of my troubles.

The police raided me twice, at two separate addresses. These raids are extremely disruptive and caused great pain and anxiety. After one particular raid I was taken to Paddington Green police station, where I was held for four days.

During this arrest, I informed the police that I was claustrophobic, this was ignored. I soon had a panic attack and fainted in the cell. Despite being released with no charge, these experiences, mentally, set me on a downward cycle.

The last time I left the UK was in 2012 to Mekkah in Saudi Arabia. I performed the Umrah rituals and ended up befriending a man there. On my return to the UK I maintained friendship with this man until suddenly he stopped responding. I later learned that he was approached by the Saudi authorities, which I believe were under instruction by the MI5 and they warned him against communicating with me.

During this time my situation deteriorated. My extended family in Kenya also noticed a change. Whenever they would travel the authorities would ask them about me.

I am now too fearful to return to Kenya. My daughter lives in the UAE and they do not accept travel documents, so I have been unable to see her. My life was perfectly normal until MI5 showed up. I now suffer from lengthy depression and see mental health practitioners to help me overcome the emotional distress I experience.

I tried to apply for citizenship again in 2013 but I’ve yet to receive a response due to ‘additional checks’. What raised my suspicions that this delay was not due to normal administrative reasons, was the length of time it took to reply: 3 years despite repeated letters from my lawyers to the Home Office. Also during this period of time I successfully applied for a Security Industry Authority (SIA) security badge, and was found fit and proper to work as a security operative. I found it confusing how the SIA, which reports directly to the Home Secretary, found me fit to guard sensitive institutions and buildings, yet I did not even receive a reply for my citizenship application due to ‘additional checks’.

MI5 should stop destroying people lives. I’ve never had issues here or abroad. I feel my life is on hold. I truly feel that their intervention in my life was the beginning of all my problems.

I could not speak to anyone about my experiences because no-one had the experience and knowledge to help me. It was at CAGE that I found help and a way to bring about some legal redress to my situation.

I strongly believe that the way in which the security services seek to recruit young Muslims is counterproductive. In one hand you are given then opportunity to join them voluntarily, but if you refuse, they will make your life difficult. This approach fuels resentment and unfortunately pushes people to their very edge. I hope they reconsider their tactics and change their policies when it comes to the Muslim community.

http://cage.ngo/article/i-refused-to-work-with-mi5-and-now-i-cant-see-my-daughter/

سيف الله

11-08-2016, 09:00 PM

Salaam

Another update

Reflections: Books behind bars | Moazzam Begg

00001001

11-08-2016, 09:42 PM

Well... it is sort of our fault, isn't it?

Let's be honest here, who is currently fighting ISIS, the group who along with groups like Al-Qaeda have tarnished the name of our belief. It is mostly Syria and the Russians. Where are our leaders doing their job. Where is Turkish Prime-Minister Recep Tayip Erdogan, where is king Salman, king of Saudi Arabia. Where is Beji Caid Essebsi, president of Tunisia. Where is Hassan Rouhani, President of Iran. I could probably name 10 more names. The leaders that swore to protect our interest our filling their own pockets, along with the pockets of their inner-circle.

The reason why there is such massive problems is because of their is no true leader in any Islamic Country. NONE...

00001001

11-08-2016, 09:46 PM

There is quite an interesting video about politics called "The Rules for Rulers" on YouTube, but couldn't post it directly since I am not a full member...

سيف الله

12-12-2016, 10:26 AM

Salaam

Another update.

The Casey Report is an attempt to assimilate the Muslim community to “British Values”

Today, Dame Louise Casey, a Government official working in Social Welfare, published a report, warning that the country was becoming more divided with high levels of social, economic and cultural isolation. The report focused particularly on Muslims.
The reality is that that divisions in Britain are not due to immigrants or Muslims but that integration of faiths and ethnicities is an inherent fault line of secular societies. Whether it is the “Black Lives Matter” movement in America, the “Banlieues” of France or the racist campaigns of Brexit and the Trump election, all are examples of the widespread racism that exists. To this day, Britain has failed to harmonise the Scots and Irish! The discussion therefore should not be about Muslims but about failed secular liberal values.
The reason why Muslims haven’t abandoned their Deen in this country like other minorities is because of their conviction in Islam as the most superior way of life. Just like the time of the Prophet PBUH when the Quraysh resorted to the forceful repression of Muslims, today we are witnessing the same thing where coercive policies are being implemented by the Government instead of convincing Muslims to subscribe to “British Values”.
Islam has a rich and successful history in community diversity and understanding. Citizenship in a Caliphate (Khilafah Rashida) is based on someone permanently living within its lands, regardless of their ethnicity or creed. It was never a requirement for someone to become Muslim and adopt the values of Islam in order to become a citizen of the state as we see being demanded by Britain today.
The Muslim community must recognise the dangers of constant proposals from the British Government to reform Islam, by using the excuse of cultural practises to justify Government intervention. Likewise the false narrative needs to be challenged that Islam oppresses women and refuses to include women in daily life. The real debate that needs to take place is between Liberalism and Islam, instead of coercing Muslims to adopt values which are are alien to Islam.

http://www.hizb.org.uk/current-affairs/the-casey-report-is-an-attempt-to-assimilate-the-muslim-community-to-british-values

سيف الله

12-18-2016, 09:07 AM

Salaam

Another update. Cage needs support

Another lecture.

Prevent, the Extremism Bill and the defence of Civil Liberties

Workshop:
Prevent, the extremism bill and the defence of civil liberties

Speakers:
Moazzam Begg - former Guantanamo Bay detainee
Shelly Asquith - NUS VP welfare
Brian Richardson - UAF assistant secretary
Azad Ali - MEND director of engagement

سيف الله

12-18-2016, 09:32 AM

Salaam

The Casey Review: From the Jewish to the Muslim ghetto

Jahanghir Mohammed argues that this week’s Casey Review on integration, which placed the blame on Muslims for failing to integrate into British society, is a classic case of victim-blaming.

“The ghetto is never white, it’s always Jewish, black or Asian,” my line manager in the Council use to say. The word ghetto of course has an anti-semitic and racist history, and is avoided these days; but when politicians and policy-makers talk about “parallel lives” and “segregated” communities they now mean Asian or Muslim ghettos.

The “ghetto” is usually a product of both racism/discrimination and the economic situation of migrants in society. A serious, as opposed to a prejudiced and politicised, assessment of Muslim areas of settlement, necessitates a deep focus on these two factors. But the Casey Review pays scant attention to them. Using terms like “segregated” and “parallel,” British politicians, policy-makers and media have deflected responsibility for social and economic problems and especially the rise of indigenous racist politics onto migrant communities.

In the 19th and the first half of the 20th century, reports by Parliament focused on concentrations of Jewish immigrants in certain areas of major UK cities. The “Jewish Question” was the big issue; the lack of integration of “alien” Jewish immigrants with their distinctive religious and cultural practices was felt to indicate inability to assimilate into British life. Societal ills were often seen through the lens of anti-semitism and blamed on Jews.

Today Muslims have become the scapegoat of convenience. The “Jewish Question” has been replaced by the “Muslim Question.”

Excusing white nationalism and racism

The recent policy of deflecting the rise of racist politics onto minorities started with the Cantle Report into the 2001 riots in the Northern town of Oldham. Lest we forget, the riots were instigated by marching white racists attacking Asian areas in Oldham. Cantle’s report, instead of focusing on the emergence of white racist politics, managed to locate these riots and the rise of white nationalism/racism on “parallel lives.”

The rise of racist politics which caused community tensions in the North of England was effectively blamed on Asian and Muslim communities. Ever since then, politicians, media and policy-makers (in their public statements and policy reports) have pandered to, and, reinforced indigenous racist and anti-Muslim prejudices, stereotypes,and“ghetto myths”about Asians, Muslims. The Casey Report is just the latest example.

I find it disturbing that after stoking “moral panics” about Muslims and immigrants for the last 15 years, which UKIP has exploited skilfully, politicians and policy-makers are surprised by Brexit and the insidious racism it has unleashed. It is this background, and the role played by politicians and the media, that have been responsible for the rise of white indigenous nationalism and racism. Casey’s report fails to recognise this as a cause of in-cohesion because to do so would necessitate looking at the culture, beliefs, values and politics of indigenous white people and society and the role of politicians.

An obsession with Muslims

The Casey Review does not define what an integrated community, area or person is, even though one would have thought that would be essential to such a report. However, if the lack of contact with people from other groups, and adherence to one’s own beliefs, values, and lifestyles were benchmarks, then most of Britain would fail that test. All people socialise and mix in communities of interest; all people settle in their own clusters.

The report is clearly obsessed with “ghettos” and especially the Muslims who live in them. The commentary and narrative is framed from the lens of threat, security, problem, them and us, difference and lack of assimilation.

Reading the report reminded me of the very first anti-racism training session I delivered to Council housing staff decades ago. The questions started with numbers and then descended into criticism and myths about every perceived aspect of Asian culture, habits and lifestyle. Every training session, TV and radio interview I have done since on this topic follows the same pattern. As a trainer you then have to undo each myth, prejudice and stereotype.

“Ghetto” myths and stereotypes

The Casey Review uses attitude and opinion surveys as measures of progress and integration but focuses on Muslims. Leaving aside that this is a dubious measure of integration, there is also a pre-conceived notion that Muslims and their beliefs and values are a problem. A fair report would look at the attitudes and behaviour of all ethnic/religious groups concentrated in certain areas, and towards each other.

The notion that poor Muslim and white communities seldom see or interact with each other makes good survey and media headlines, but it is seldom based on reality. Casey rightly highlights that Pakistani and Bangladeshi men are concentrated in the taxi and food sectors, yet she appears not to understand that the main customers of these businesses are white people.

The report fails to stress that concentration in certain economic sectors, just as in residential areas, is the result of discrimination and lack of access to jobs in the wider labour market. It is reported that unemployment among young black men is 35%, but the same figure for Pakistani and Bangladeshi men is not provided. Why? Could it be that the figure is equally as high?

According to the report Pakistani and Bangladeshi women have high levels of economic inactivity (57%). The reasons are assumed rather than understood. If families make a choice together of what is in their best interests, and decide that childcare and caring for family members is a priority then why should that be a matter of concern? In any event, if all these women decided to sign on and seek work where would the jobs come from? The state would also have to pay for the caring responsibilities of elders and children too.

Public sector workers are taught not to be judgmental about people’s lifestyle choices, but when it comes to Muslims, everyone can make a judgement, even if it is based on a lack of understanding.

The residential concentration of Pakistani and Bangladeshi communities in the North is highlighted, but the decades of historical racist housing policies leading to a failure to demolish obsolete terraced housing in Asian areas for fear of the white backlash when rehousing them in mainly white areas is omitted.

Equally there is no mention of the positive economic contributions and largely self-regeneration of run-down areas that has taken place by these communities. These communities have almost entirely self-financed the creation of their own community institutions and businesses. That is a cause for celebration not demonisation.

The Casey Review deals with different multi-faceted social problems in a superficial and stereotypical way. Perhaps the greatest myth in the report is that ethnic and Muslim minorities that are “integrated” have some kind of protection from the racism and nationalism of the majority, and will become more cohesive. Jewish history informs us otherwise.

The Bosnian Muslims in the 1990s are perhaps the model that some policy makers may desire. White Muslims, with Westernised names, dress codes and dietary habits and 60% inter-marriage rates between Muslims and Serbs, with 500 years of co-existence. Yet the Muslims were on the end of genocide fueled by the rising tide of nationalism, anti-Muslim rhetoric and myths about Islamic extremism.

That type of politics is exactly what has fueled racial tensions and hate aimed at Muslims/foreigners in the UK, Europe and USA. The uncomfortable truth that Casey ignores is and that today Europe is in a dangerous place, not because of Muslims, but because its age-old demons of racist populism, nationalism/isolationism, and economic decline which are demonising minorities and foreigner sonce more. And British politicians and the media have played the main role in fueling those views.

Casey recommends attaching more weight to the teaching of British history in schools. Perhaps teaching British politicians and policy-makers about the history of political reactions to British ghettos might be a better starting point!

http://5pillarsuk.com/2016/12/07/the-casey-review-from-the-jewish-to-the-muslim-ghetto/

muslim brother

12-19-2016, 05:11 PM

Originally Posted by Born_Believer

and the quieter voice of the more sensible mainstream majority muslims,which more often gets drowned out by the political activists.

Born_Believer

12-20-2016, 09:03 PM

Originally Posted by AHMED PATEL

and the quieter voice of the more sensible mainstream majority muslims,which more often gets drowned out by the political activists.

Not really. The 99.9999999% are very vocal but the media refuses to highlight us. It really is as simple as that.

سيف الله

12-26-2016, 01:01 PM

Salaam

Not really. The 99.9999999% are very vocal but the media refuses to highlight us. It really is as simple as that.

Yes it doesnt make good propoganda.

The (British) governing classes are engaging in a 'intimidation' campaign against us so to speak. 'Bad' Muslims are contrasted with 'good' muslims who are servile and obdeident to the approved narravitve. Disappoiniting how some brothers and sisters fall for it.

Another update

PREVENT mafia pull out all the stops to PREVENT CAGE tour

CAGE was due to launch its anticipated PREVENT national tour today in an attempt to educate and empower communities on how they can challenge the discredited PREVENT policy, and to highlight some of our cases that demonstrate its many failings.

However in an ironic twist, PREVENT police have sought to silence these community events, by using all the tax payers resources at their disposal to block the PREVENT tour through the use of threats and intimidation. So far they have successfully intimidated four venues in Sheffield, Derby, Manchester and Luton, which were bullied into cancelling our bookings. Despite this, the events will go ahead as planned at alternative venues.

It seems clear that the police feel threatened by our criticism of a policy that is widely accepted as a failure. Have they not learnt the lessons from their treatment of Afro-Caribbean communities, that this sort of overreach and intimidation is not a good use of police time?

This is not the first time CAGE has endured this kind of pressure. It has become a somewhat regular occurrence that any event organised or attended by CAGE representatives will be approached by the PREVENT mafia in an attempt to silence our voice.

The fact that they fear a small organisation like CAGE speaks volumes about state overreach in silencing dissent, but it also explains the phenomenal growth in support for CAGE and the effect our work is having more broadly.

The tour will go ahead – Insha Allah

We will not be silenced by this intimidation. The tour will go ahead as planned. Please book your seats here and send a resounding message to PREVENT mafia that we will not be intimidated.

Bedfordshire police contact CAGE because of an ‘unhappy customer’!

CAGE received a call from Bedfordshire police wanting to speak to someone in connection with the Luton event on the 23rd of December. They said they had heard it had been cancelled and wanted to know if the event was still going ahead since an “unhappy customer” had told them they had bought their ticket and wanted to know if it was still going ahead.

They said this was a police matter as it was part of their “community engagement” to ensure that customers were happy and hence wanted to let them know of an alternative venue!

This call, despite seemingly innocent, was preceded by the PREVENT officials approaching two venues we had booked and effectively forcing them to cancel our event. The question is, if the police are so concerned about community engagement and ‘unhappy customers’, why would they pursue any venue that wished to host CAGE in the first place?

Derby Imams and Mosque committee threatened

PREVENT police in Derby approached the mosque that was due to host our event and spoke to the Imam and the committee. They threatened in no uncertain terms to “cause major problems for them” if they went ahead with the event.

Local authority leverages its powers to cause Manchester venue cancellation

Similarly The Pakistani Community Centre in Longsight, Manchester, have cancelled the event after they were approached by the local authority requesting that they do so. It was clear to them that hosting the event meant would result in serious repercussions from the local authority.

Sheffield: A repetition of the same tactics

PREVENT officials approached the centre where we had booked the event and had a ‘chat’ with them about their role in the community. Despite acknowledging that campaigning against PREVENT is protected under the freedom of speech, they advised the imam and committee against hosting CAGE.

With the state powers and local authority behind them, ‘advice’ from PREVENT officials carries significant weight. Many institutions feel vulnerable due to the political environment and prefer not to attract further unwarranted negative scrutiny.
The Charity Commission appears again

Another recurring theme that appeared is the use of the threat of a Charity Commission investigation in order to compel venues to cancel. This is despite the fact that the Charity Commission signed an Order of the Court agreeing that it “does not seek to fetter charities’ exercise of discretion” whether to support CAGE.

It also shows a tendency by the state to use different bodies with different powers to achieve its objectives of silencing dissent. These bodies include banks, the Charity Commission, police, local authorities, social services, teachers, doctors and so on, who all fall in line with the overarching Islamophobic PREVENT agenda.

The campaign against PREVENT will continue

Despite these bullying tactics, we are looking forward to seeing many CAGE supporters over the next few days as we campaign for an end to PREVENT, and dispel the myths of the government’s ‘radicalisation’ theories. Please bring along donations and, importantly, your voice.

https://cage.ngo/article/prevent-mafia-pull-out-all-the-stops-to-prevent-cage-tour/

Born_Believer

12-28-2016, 11:04 PM

Originally Posted by 00001001

Well... it is sort of our fault, isn't it?

Let's be honest here, who is currently fighting ISIS, the group who along with groups like Al-Qaeda have tarnished the name of our belief. It is mostly Syria and the Russians. Where are our leaders doing their job. Where is Turkish Prime-Minister Recep Tayip Erdogan, where is king Salman, king of Saudi Arabia. Where is Beji Caid Essebsi, president of Tunisia. Where is Hassan Rouhani, President of Iran. I could probably name 10 more names. The leaders that swore to protect our interest our filling their own pockets, along with the pockets of their inner-circle.

The reason why there is such massive problems is because of their is no true leader in any Islamic Country. NONE...

How exactly are every day, unarmed Syrians supposed to fight ISIS? Or are you claiming Turkey should be more violent in its bombing of a muslim country?

Originally Posted by Junon

Salaam

This is interesting tid bit from wikileaks.

The email was sent from Bill Ivey, a former Clinton administration official, to campaign chairman Podesta, on March 13, 2016. Ill highlight the most interesting part.

“And as I’ve mentioned, we’ve all been quite content to demean government, drop civics and in general conspire to produce an unaware and compliant citizenry.

The unawareness remains strong but compliance is obviously fading rapidly. This problem demands some serious, serious thinking – and not just poll driven, demographically-inspired messaging.”

Again another demonstration of how the ruling classes view the masses. With utter contempt.

Can you blame them for the contempt of the every day, non elite citizen? The vast majority of western people like living in ignorance. They like being told brown people or Muslims or Communists or anyone who is anti-cpaitalism and so on are evil and that they, the white person, are the good guys.

Even with the advent of wikileaks and the truth swirling around the internet the vast majority of people still do not bother in searching for the truth. They are happy being duped so how can we feel bad for them?

سيف الله

01-05-2017, 08:02 PM

Salaam

Another update. British governments psy ops are in full swing.

Leaked government document names ‘vetted’ organisations in receipt of £1.2 million in PREVENT funding

(London) – A Home Office document titled ‘Local Delivery Best Practice Catalogue’ leaked by Public Interest Investigations highlights in full organisations and projects vetted and funded by the government to deliver the controversial PREVENT strategy nationally. Produced by the OSCT (Office for Security and Counter Terrorism), the document reveals:

– The OSCT’s admission that Faith on the Frontline; FAST, #MakingAStand (delivered by Inspire) and A Tale of Two Cities (film) are all ‘products’ of the Home Office’s Research, Information and Communications Unit (RICU).

– The direct relationship between the OSCT and ‘third party provider’ organisations.

– The costs associated with these programmes and the specific locations it targeted at.

– The names of the ‘grass-roots’ organisations delivering government vetted projects.

Most notably the document refers to amongst many:

Faith Associates (Imams Online being one of their flagship projects),
Upstanding Neighbourhoods,
Families Against Stress and Trauma (FAST),
Active Change Foundation (ACF)
and London Tigers.

Despite being dated March 2015, the document highlights that the projects will be used to produce a best practice catalogue once the evaluation period is completed in March 2016.

Asim Qureshi, CAGE Research Director, said:

“These revelations call for a serious dialogue within the Muslim community on the legitimacy of government sanctioned activism. It also highlights the government’s deceptive approach in engaging with Muslim communities and again calls into question the failing PREVENT policy and its shadow, the global CVE campaign.”

“This document also conclusively demonstrates the relationship and oversight the Home Office has over ostensibly community led projects. CAGE’s earlier report “We are completely independent” and The Guardian revelations, have previously highlighted these points and demonstrated how RICU was in effect directing and attempting to manufacture consent for PREVENT amongst Muslim communities.”

https://cage.ngo/press-release/leaked-government-document-names-vetted-organisations-in-receipt-of-1-2-million-in-prevent-funding/

سيف الله

01-12-2017, 10:36 PM

Salaam

Originally Posted by Born_Believer

Think your being a bit harsh bro, race isnt such a big issue for the gloablist elite, they'll remove anybody who gets in their way reagardless of race, nation, culture and so on.

Its not easy to figure out just how deep the rabbit hole you have to go down to get the truth. And when it is exposed, powerful interests will do all they can to stop you with predictable results.

Just to illustrate

I refused to work with PREVENT and now I’m afraid of losing my children

Sister ‘Yusra’, a mother who is refusing to engage with PREVENT, steps forward to tell her story of how PREVENT is now seeking to have her children removed. Watch her abridged interview here.

“I’ve come under the radar of the social services because my ex-husband and I were told by security services that we were “persons of interest”. I have been quite a vocal Islamic activist for many years. I teach people about the basic principles of Islam, and the social issues. I am also a practicing Muslim and I wear niqab. These could be reasons why I am experiencing the problems I am today with the authorities. Also the Counter Terrorism Act has become more strict.

“My family and my children have been subjected to a child protection plan by the local authority due to concerns about radicalisation and extremist belief. As a result of that I have been placed in a very intensive 12 month plan set by the local child protection services. The plan is very intrusive, so social services have to visit the family, and see the children, every 7 to 10 days. I have to have regular meetings with all the agencies involved with the children, and that means speaking to and engaging with counter-terrorism officers.

“Working with them is very intrusive. I had to surrender my children’s passports. My own passport was confiscated from me. Social services have visited my house, looked at the children’s bedrooms, at the books they read, the DVDs they watch, even looked at what my children eat. But there’s been nothing in those areas that has concerned the social worker involving “radicalisation” and “extremism”. These are loose terms and the social worker has admitted on more than one occasion that she really doesn’t know what she is looking for.

“Because of these unknowns, they felt they had to escalate this matter to the PREVENT team, and in order for me to safeguard the children, I was told I must work with either a PREVENT officer, or an interventionist provider, who I am assured is independent but must be Home Office approved.

“But I’ve seen the CVs of the independent experts, and they all have historical links to the security services. They are not completely independent. I’ve seen a letter where the independent advisor got some 3000 pounds for just doing the assessment. And the questions they ask are all PREVENT questions.

“I was very co-operative for the past 12 months in this whole process thinking that by being transparent and co-operative, this will give me an opportunity to clear any concerns they have. But I’ve realised with the local authorities, that the more I co-operate, the more intrusive they become.”

I am raising my children Muslim and that is my crime

“When I refused to work with PREVENT and refused to work with the interventionist, the language became more threatening, and they said it would end up in a court process. This is where I am currently. Because I have refused to work with PREVENT, which has always been a voluntary programme, now they say they can’t de-plan my family and I have to go to court. I find it quite absurd.

“One of the health practitioners said I came across as chaotic. I am a single mother to five children, and I remember one professional said that I was far from chaotic, being a single mom of five children, able to get them to school every day with a packed lunch and being presentable.

“Nobody is actually looking at the children, at the long term effect of putting them under this child protection plan could be. They don’t see this struggle and disruption we are suffering as a family. It’s almost as if they’ve taken over our lives. We have no private family life.

“It’s a really difficult time for me, and I’m finding it very frustrating. It has been an abusive process and there are very few avenues to me where I can get some acknowledgement that this is the case. They’ve told me I’m under surveillance and I have no control over my life.

“There are no consequences for them. They don’t have to substantiate anything they say about me. They can say I have attended banned organisations meetings, but when I’ve asked for the dates of these meetings, they don’t give the dates. But they add this onto the minutes, and it just allows them to increase surveillance of me.

“The reason it’s gone to court is because I’ve refused to work with PREVENT and an independent advisor. So I am now being taken to court before a family court judge. You can see where the bullying is coming from. But if you’ve not found any indication of “radicalisation” from the children or from the items you’ve taken from my house, why do I have to work with PREVENT, which is voluntary anyway?

“I am quite looking forward to going to court, because this is the only way I feel I can remove the local authorities from trying to coerce my family into doing something we as a family don’t want to do, and don’t have to do by law, as PREVENT is not obligatory on any family.

“Sometimes I get really upset, but I have Allah, and I have my faith and I have strong merits to my case, and I am going to go before a judge with this. I am a unique case, the first who is not complying with PREVENT, and this is a test case, which will affect other Muslim parents.”

CAGE’s ERG22+ report has been critical in my case

“I got in contact with CAGE last year when my children were placed on the child protection plan. The kind of help I have received from CAGE has been very instrumental in my case. I cannot thank Allah enough that an organisation like CAGE exists. CAGE put me in touch with a number of good solicitors, and I’ve chosen one to represent me.

“CAGE has also offered me lots of other advocacy, lots of advice. I’ve had mobile numbers of brothers who I’ve been able to contact outside of office hours.

“What has been very instrumental in my case is the ERG22+ report, which has thrown light on a lot of what the children’s services has tried to push over me. CAGE members have attended meetings with my solicitor and given direction on how to incorporate the ERG22+ findings in my case, and given me a solid basis as to why I have declined to work with PREVENT.

“The report has given the legal team of the local authorities a lot of think about in terms of how to move with me. Had the ERG22+ report not been around, I would be in court fighting some kind of custody case. Now the local authorities have to look into another method of how to deal with my case, without having to bring it to court. That’s how instrumental the ERG22+ report has been.

“It’s such a critical report, that if it’s used and applied in other family cases, it would help a lot of other families who feel they have to co-operate with PREVENT. There would be a lot more resistance, and people would be more vocal and have a more learned understanding of what the whole PREVENT strategy is all about, and what it can do, and that it is a risk for many children to placed under such a programme.

“CAGE is very sensitive. They are very caring at a time when you feel very vulnerable because of the kind of bullying that you are getting from authorities. CAGE are the only ones who I felt have been brave enough to speak out against the policies of PREVENT. They work tirelessly, and they assist you and they don’t make any judgement on your beliefs, your practices, your differences of opinion.”

My children’s thoughts are being policed

“There’s a risk going to court but also a risk to work with PREVENT. But I’m allowed to have the opinions I have. Yes, I have a problem with foreign policy, with countries bombing civilian targets, and hospitals. I have a problem with British foreign policy, but that doesn’t mean my children are going to participate in ‘martyrdom operations’. My children are being punished and I am being punished for the opinions I have, which I feel are justified.

“I feel very sad for my children and I have tell them to be very careful, and they don’t know when to talk or when to debate. They are getting really fed up. My children’s thoughts are being policed. It’s a very uncomfortable life we are living. The other day my teenager was giving the social worker dirty looks because she’s getting fed up, but I am scared that this could be interpreted as being unfriendly to non-Muslims and it could be held against us, when really she is just being fed up.

“There are very few people willing to counter this. I feel it’s fighting a losing battle but I have to continue this, even though I know that by fighting this I might lose my children. This causes me sleepless nights. I don’t know what to do anymore. I can’t get away from it. I just have to speak up against it. I can’t not engage with them, but I can’t engage with them either. I am very very afraid for the future of my children.”

“There are a lot of insinuations that I am a poor parent, that I am a woman who carries radical ideologies. But I am raising my children Muslim and that seems to be my crime.

Karl

01-14-2017, 10:47 PM

Originally Posted by Born_Believer

How exactly are every day, unarmed Syrians supposed to fight ISIS? Or are you claiming Turkey should be more violent in its bombing of a muslim country?

Can you blame them for the contempt of the every day, non elite citizen? The vast majority of western people like living in ignorance. They like being told brown people or Muslims or Communists or anyone who is anti-cpaitalism and so on are evil and that they, the white person, are the good guys.

Even with the advent of wikileaks and the truth swirling around the internet the vast majority of people still do not bother in searching for the truth. They are happy being duped so how can we feel bad for them?

But the UK is full of reds now, "progressive liberals" they call themselves, otherwise they wouldn't let Muslims or brown or black or whatever other races in to stay. Remember they used to be Crusaders and what are they now? Zionist Cultural Marxists...Western Europe has fallen to the libtards. The place is run from Israel, they rule the West now.
I also heard that "Islamic State" fighters are being treated in Israeli hospitals and being sent back to fight Assad in Syria.

Born_Believer

01-15-2017, 12:30 PM

Originally Posted by Karl

The UK is full of liberals? lol are you serious. Labour is losing support left, right and center just as a man tries to move them away from being red Tory and the legacy of Blair and the Liberal Democrats are all but destroyed.

It could be argued that the media is largely leftist and liberal but that is not reflective of the politics of the country (the gap between rich and poor is the worst in post WW2 Britain, the NHS is on its last legs and most of it is privatised already anyway, even more grammar schools will be opened up and I doubt the social welfare state survives the next 10 years) nor is the populous "Marxist".

The modern Zionists are far more capitalist than Marxist anyway and yes, Syrian fighters, ISIS or otherwise are indeed being treated in Israel, I think the hospital is called Ziv or something.

So what point were you trying to make?

Karl

01-15-2017, 10:25 PM

Originally Posted by Born_Believer

I suppose it is relative, to me the UK is very left. When it was ruled by pagan Kings and Queens and later Christendom, it was right wing. But when they adopted democracy, that was the turning point towards the left. I suppose a caliphate would put that right if you think Islam can win. But I don't think Islam is compatible with these northern tribes unless it was absolutely corrupted like Christianity was.

"Islamic State" must be a Zionist creation if Israel is helping them.

Born_Believer

01-15-2017, 10:28 PM

Originally Posted by Karl

It's not a matter of perspective, it is a matter of fact. The conservatives are carrying out such right wing politics you would never have seen in the 1940s and 1950s and so on. It started with Thatchers love or Reagans privatised America and this infect the labour party, in particular people like Tony Blair. Anyway, I really don't have the stamina at this point to go into all that. I'm curious what makes you think Britain is so left wing these days?

And it's pretty obvious ISIS is a Jewish and American creation.

Karl

01-16-2017, 09:41 PM

Originally Posted by Born_Believer

Britain lets in foreigners and gives them the benefit etc. It is an international socialist country from my point of view. It has capitalism too because pure socialism does not work well at all. It is easier for the state to put the burden of ownership and productivity on the people and then regulate them and tax them and control them as if the state owned their property and businesses anyway. The oppression and the social engineering and the application of extreme conformity and regulation is an extreme left trait. Islam is a big threat to them and they are trying to twist it into a liberal lefty religion. They are propping up the lefty "Muslims" (moderates) and censoring, oppressing and killing the others.

Born_Believer

01-16-2017, 09:58 PM

Originally Posted by Karl

You think throughout the history of the world, only socialists have let migrants into their countries? lol

سيف الله

01-20-2017, 07:36 PM

Salaam

Another update

PREVENT, like Schedule 7, just another intelligence gathering operation

AGE’s report, ‘The ‘science’ of pre-crime’, dives deep into the foundations of the government’s counter-extremism strategy. For the first time, the public has been made aware that the government’s flagship PREVENT and Channel programmes are not founded upon reliable science.

Despite this, annual figures of referrals to the Channel programme have nearly doubled year on year since 2006. The latest numbers between 2015 and 2016 have shown, more than 20 people a day were referred, a total of about 7,500 people in the year. Figures showed 610 of them were under 10, and 3,100 were under 18. Most importantly, only 10% overall were assessed as requiring further ‘counter-terrorism’ support.

This is suggestive of mass over reporting and widespread data collection.

Expanding the Schedule 7 stop

Because of the vast intervention powers inherent in the policy, and the legal duty upon public sector workers to apply it, large swathes of information and personal data are being collected and stored by local authorities and made available to counter terrorism police.

How this data is used and who has access to it and for how long, are questions of vital importance. Moreover, the catchment net for data collection is wide. PREVENT referrals may be instigated by the most of mundane of actions, such as requesting a prayer room, or supporting the Palestinian people. There may be no suggestion of criminality with these referrals, however they often lead to interviews with social workers, PREVENT officers, and school safeguarding leads.

Seen in this light, PREVENT and Channel are an evolution of the Schedule 7 stop, where police intercept individuals at airports with no suspicion required (largely due to racial profiling), in order to gather intelligence through asking uncomfortable questions which range from trying to elicit an individual’s opinion on Palestine to their feelings about Syria and even which mosques they attend.

This is an alarming state of affairs. Both PREVENT and Schedule 7 stops collect data from individuals which can and is used in court proceedings. As a result of both processes, individuals may find themselves forever on the security ‘radar’ with no access to redress.

The case of Rahman Mohammadi, questioned once by PREVENT, being barred from the labour conference as a security risk is illustrative of this.

PREVENT is an unjustifiable programme

This is by no means a coincidence. Rather it is indicative of an overwhelming expansion of the security state, which is being coerced into society using a fear-based narrative and dodgy ‘science’.

PREVENT and Schedule 7 act as a social ‘dragnet’ to gauge, monitor and manage the discussion within the Muslim community, while overlooking key grievances around foreign and domestic policy. Both processes are inherently discriminatory. Despite Muslims being only 5% of the population, they represent at least 54% of all PREVENT referrals, while approximately 80% of Schedule 7 stops target people from ethnic minorities. At the same time, the legislation behind them makes them easily transferable to individuals in broader civil society. This makes both programmes not only ineffective but dangerous.

Now, the Investigatory Powers Act, will build on this environment and provide the government and security services with further and vast interception powers. Once these measures are written into law, the security state can and will apply them on anyone that falls foul of their narrative. This is culminating in a burgeoning securitised ‘public space’ at the expense of a disappearing ‘private space’, a vital concern for civil liberty advocates.

This spectre of oppression is all the more reason to resist PREVENT and call for it to be scrapped. The solution to political violence is not legislated oppression – in fact, it is the opposite. It is accountability for the ongoing abuses of the War on Terror, an end to aggressive foreign policy, a return to the rule of law, and an open, just and fair society that is based on empathy and understanding rather than mistrust and fear. Such a status quo would be a relief for us all.

https://cage.ngo/article/prevent-like-schedule-7-just-another-intelligence-gathering-operation/

سيف الله

01-26-2017, 03:20 PM

Salaam

Another update

Towards a closed society: The worrying themes of the leaked OSCT PREVENT Catalogue

Recently, transparency group Public Interest Investigations published the leaked Home Office document entitled “Prevent Strategy – Local Delivery Best Practice Catalogue”. The document reveals:

Government is shaping the political discourse for citizens through projects like Faith on the Frontlines which manufactures an opinion supportive of the British militarism, and promotes a state-friendly understanding of historical events among children.

Attempts to mainstream PREVENT include embedding its propaganda in the education system.

There are a worrying number of initiatives which seek to control, shape and initiate behavioural change using religion. These include co-opting imams with security services in a project in Derby, the ‘British or Muslim’ project with a sports club London Tigers which uses Quran and Sunnah as a basis to justify PREVENT narratives, and the exploitation of female Islamic scholars to disseminate PREVENT propaganda in their study circles in Leicester as part of the project STR!VE.

Worryingly, despite no legal requirement for madrassas to implement the PREVENT Duty, the Home Office document demonstrates that third-party security contractor firms are already being funded by the state to roll out PREVENT propaganda within these religious institutions, despite there being no evidence to link madrassas with terrorism. Faith Associates and HA9 Consultancy are two such organisations.

A big theme of the document is increasing “critical thinking skills” in order to challenge “extremism”. The concern is not that critical thinking is being encouraged, but that there is a certain type of thinking being administered to children, one that encourages compliance with the state, which is really not critical thinking at all. This sets a precedent for wider state control in other communities and in other spheres.

Organisations such as the Active Change Foundation and Reveal Theatre between them target 5000 Muslim youth. The Reveal Theatre lists among its resources the neo-conservative groups Quilliam Foundation and the Institute for Strategy Dialogue, as well as Faith Associates and Imams Online, both PREVENT propaganda tools.

A number of PREVENT projects targeting Muslim women and women’s organisations shows how the state views women as tools for their narratives to gain traction and validity, abusing the trust women have built up over the years in their communities.

The ability to deconstruct “extremist narratives” is categorised as a “vulnerability” which may result in a CHANNEL referral in children as young as fourteen years old.

The government will “focus on engagement with mosques in order to develop safeguarding pathways to challenge extremism and increase community referrals to Channel” thereby raising issues around mosque trust and community cohesion.

With the government not only interfering with political and religious views, but actually making rigorous attempts to steer them in order to support state policy, Britain is slipping towards totalitarianism and the fear-based PREVENT policy ensures we keep sleepwalking towards a closed society.

Towards a closed society: The worrying themes of the leaked OSCT PREVENT Catalogue

Britain’s debilitated soft power strategy known as PREVENT lingers on, with its proponents applying various types of plasters and sutures to desperately prop a terminally wounded policy. Whether it is the claim that PREVENT is safeguarding, that the study underpinning it is “peer-reviewed”, or that PREVENT is not discriminatory, the overstretched PR campaign to architect an image of viability has come in various forms and varying grades of superficiality and desperation.

PREVENT is what it is: an approach which is part and parcel of a “framework of counterinsurgency; a military doctrine used against non-state actors that encourages, amongst other things, the blanket surveillance of populations and the targeting of propaganda at them.” (Sabir, 2017)

Recently, transparency group Public Interest Investigations published the leaked Home Office document entitled “Prevent Strategy – Local Delivery Best Practice Catalogue”. In contrast with stories revolving around Muslims, mainstream media activity around this revealing document has been notable only by its absence.

However, there are some disturbing – though completely PREVENT-concomitant – themes which emerge from the document.

(It is worth bearing in mind that this leaked document only contains those projects which are fit enough to be designated “best practice”.)

Controlling political expression

With echoes of the Schmittian totalstaat, the document reveals the disconcerting trend of how government is shaping the political discourse for citizens.

The very first section of the document is called “Ideology” and concerns national and local “counter-narrative” products. Under the sweeping guise of “combatting extremism”, a selective narrative friendly to the status quo is being disseminated and championed by the state.

One particular project, “Faith on the Frontlines”, states its objective explicitly:

“To promote the work of Muslims in our Armed Forces by showing their role in Afghanistan, and undermine the extremist narrative that we are at war with Islam and that the 2014 drawdown was a victory for the Taliban”.

The views on what the 2014 Afghan drawdown mean vary among the public; many would baulk at promoting state militarism to children, and given outgoing prime minister’s speeches promoting “moderate” and “reforming voices” which incidentally undermine orthodox Islamic beliefs and practices as well as the Casey Review which highlights traditional Islamic rulings as “extremist”, some may be forgiven for thinking elements within the government are on their own crusade against Islam; but is it for the state to target Muslim children in particular to enforce a particular version or interpretation of events, and to categorise an opposition to this version as “extremist” and therefore a “pathway” to terrorism?

The document further states,

“It shows a positive image of British Muslim identity, and addresses core radicalising narratives around Afghanistan by showing the positive legacy of intervention”.

Again, the implication here is that opposition to militarism in Afghanistan is perhaps a “negative” portrayal of British Muslim identity, coercing the discourse towards an state-ideologically-defined “ideal”.

The ramifications for political activism in addition to the discriminatory focus on Muslims is self-evident.

“Mainstreaming” PREVENT through education

Linked to this military propaganda are efforts to “mainstream PREVENT”. A Bradford project targets newly qualified teachers with PREVENT in order to increase their awareness of “extremism”. In order to “mainstream” PREVENT, it describes the following strategy:

“The resources are based on using World War 1 as an example, looking at choices taken by people and the consequences of their actions, linking to the present day scenarios.”

Education is not only used to entrench PREVENT, but also to disseminate a particular, politicised narrative of history.

Interference with religion

Continuing the theme of control and discrimination through PREVENT is the area of theology. There are a worrying number of initiatives which seek to control, shape and initiate behavioural change using religion.

Targeting Derby, a PREVENT projects in place seeks to leverage Imams to challenge “extremist propaganda” and further, to work with police and authorities to respond appropriately. Taken to together, the securitised function of the Imam raises ethical problems for those who attend mosques. Can they still trust an Imam who has been the receptor for a structurally flawed policy?

The Derby project also establishes 3 forums to discuss Islam and the role of women. The question of course here needs to be raised; why are “discussions” about Islam and the “role of women” being funded by the state under the banner of PREVENT?

One project called “British or Muslim” was carried out by a sports facilities provider (London Tigers) with an aim to “improve critical thinking skills” of vulnerable young people in order to challenge “extremism”. Noticeable is the use of a particular understanding of theology as a weapon of the state to project soft power:

“This project, delivered by London Tigers, is a series of interactive workshops which use real life examples of extremist propaganda espoused by known extremists, taking a counter narrative from the Qur’an and Sunnah”.

The outcome of this project was that a “greater depth of theological knowledge” was achieved amongst the 150 “young people” who had participated in the project.

In other words, the Qur’an and the Sunnah (Prophetic tradition) are being used to prop state narratives designed to combat undefined “extremist propaganda”. Given opposition to PREVENT has been categorised by state officials as an example “extremist narratives” (Casey Review), this sets a worrying precedent of co-opting and funding a particular understanding of religion to validate the state in a manner not dissimilar to authoritarian regimes.

Focussing on women in the context of theology, the document also highlights a Leicester-based organisation “STR!VE”, which seems to have exploited female Islamic scholars (Alimas) to serve and promote the PREVENT policy. The document asserts that the project, the contact point of which is Will Baldet, spent £18,565 for two trainers to do ten courses. The project “builds the knowledge and capability of women to respond to extremist propaganda”. It seeks to manipulate Alimas to become the eyes and ears of the state and promote PREVENT “within their study circles that they educate in their homes”. Furthermore, a “web presence” has been developed for women to refer to these PREVENT propagating Alimas any questions they may have.

STR!VE has trained 135 women under the project.

JAN Trust has also been a recipient of PREVENT funding for its “Web Guardians” initiative to tackle online radicalisation. Again, the state is seen here funding the interference of religion, with claims that mothers have discussed “the true meaning of ‘jihad’”.

If the discriminatory utilisation of religion as a soft power tool was not clear from the above, the last section is explicitly dedicated to “faith”, with the following stated aim:

“To build the capacity of the faith sector to recognise and challenge vulnerability to extremist propaganda and activity.”

Every “best practice” example highlighted under this section relates to the Muslim community.

As highlighted in our June 2016 report, “We are completely Independent”, Faith Associates is linked to PREVENT. The leaked document confirms this and also highlights how Faith Associates has been funded to effectively embed and bake PREVENT into the governance structures of mosques and madrassas:

“This project delivered an improved governance structure and madrassah system and enabled the mosque leadership to become more resilient to the threat from extremists as well as being able to manage their services (for young people and women) more effectively.”

Worryingly, despite no legal requirement for madrassas to implement the PREVENT Duty, the Home Office document demonstrates that third-party security contractor firms are already being funded by the state to roll out PREVENT within these religious institutions, despite there being no evidence to link madrassas with terrorism. Faith Associates is listed as one of the organisations carrying out this work. HA9 Consultancy has also delivered a PREVENT project to target madrassa staff under the guise of supporting madrassas, albeit “by raising awareness and facilitating compliance around key areas of concern in particular, Prevent (through WRAP training), safeguarding, discrimination, extremist literature and better governance structures.”

More here

https://cage.ngo/article/towards-a-closed-society-the-worrying-themes-of-the-leaked-osct-prevent-catalogue/

Only1not3

01-26-2017, 05:03 PM

This guy Tariq Ramadan is a kaffir with dodgy aqeeda. I've met him myself and heard it from his mouth

سيف الله

02-17-2017, 06:52 PM

Salaam

Another update.

Terror Watchdog tries to sell failed PREVENT strategy despite not being his remit

In a letter to CAGE in September last year, David Anderson, the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation, told us: “My statutory functions (described on my website) extend only to the review of certain counter-terrorism laws, and not to Prevent.” Despite that, Mr Anderson was quoted in a front page article in the Evening Standard and wrote a glowing review of PREVENT, a clearly failed policy, simply calling for limited “reforms”. This is surprising, as he has continuously maintained up to now that Prevent is outside his remit.

His intervention in favour of the discredited policy, brings into question the impartiality of terrorism reviewers, past and present, and whether they provide any genuine opposition or criticism of counter-terrorism legislation.

By failing to even acknowledge the toxic approach at the heart of PREVENT, which facilitates an unequal two-tier justice system – one for Muslims, another for everybody else – Mr Anderson is not advocating real change, but simply calling for PREVENT to be wrapped up in a different guise.

In a swipe at Muslim organisations who oppose PREVENT, Mr Anderson was quoted as saying that criticisms of the policy were partly the result of “‘exaggerated tales’ promoted by ‘Islamist advocacy groups’”.

This ‘Islamist’ smear is an ad hominem attack reminiscent of neoconservative “think-tanks” that seek to whitewash Prevent and delegitimise community concerns. Like the neoconservative “think-tanks”, Mr Anderson consistently fails to deal with fundamental due process problems with PREVENT.

Furthermore, Mr Anderson’s references to far-right referrals under PREVENT are only intended to dispel what he claims are “rumours about discrimination”. In fact, Muslims represent nearly 70% of all PREVENT referrals and at and a similar percentage of all CHANNEL deradicalisation cases, despite being only 5% of the population.

His shocking claim that far-right extremism is a direct reaction to “Islamist extremism” also puts the blame squarely at the door of Islam, while ignoring British foreign policy’s role in aggravating political violence, as well as the obvious neo-Nazi roots of far-right groups.

Due process violations show PREVENT is rotten to the core

Mr Anderson has also ignored the broader opposition to the PREVENT strategy amongst academics, health practitioners and teachers – presumably because they cannot be disparaged under the ‘Islamist’ label. This opposition can be seen through our widely reported joint statements on PREVENT and ERG22+.

He dismissed examples where PREVENT has violated rights as “exaggerated” despite numerous high profile and well documented cases that demonstrate otherwise. At CAGE we have logged testimonies from hundreds of Muslims who have been denied their due process rights under PREVENT, some of whom have even had their children taken away for choosing not to engage with the policy, as is their right. These case studies illustrate that PREVENT is systemically problematic – from the way it is formulated to the way it is implemented.

Additionally the use of secret evidence gathered under PREVENT – which defendants cannot see or challenge in courts – has now been sanctioned in the Family Courts. This is an issue that should alarm Mr Anderson and any objective analyst or practitioner concerned with justice.

Mr Anderson does not address the relationship between the government’s secretive domestic propaganda unit RICU and PREVENT-funded Muslim organisations, who are paid to influence public opinion, particularly amongst the Muslim community. This form of black propaganda – when false information and material that purports to be from one side but is actually being written by the other – is not even directed at an outside enemy as it was in the Cold War, but it is now being directed at its own citizens.

Honest and genuine engagement is needed now more than ever

Mr Anderson’s support for PREVENT shows that, as the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, he has been too accommodating of government policy. This is compounded by the fact that he appears to have stepped outside of his remit in commenting on PREVENT, creating confusion between his official capacity as a reviewer of terrorism legislation, and his personal position on PREVENT.

Nonetheless, we do agree with Mr Anderson that the government should not view Muslims through a securitised lens and only in the context of counter terrorism, and we encourage genuine debate and discussion around this issue. However, discussions can only involve all stakeholders and must be built on the trust of the community.

Instead, by anchoring his proposals on the back of unjustified attacks on those who engage in legitimate criticism of the PREVENT policy, he further alienates the very community that he says needs to be involved in formulating a strategy that adheres to the basic tenets of a just and free society.

There is no escaping this: PREVENT is a policy that should be abolished altogether in favour of a climate and a commitment to open dialogue and an equal justice system, firmly premised upon due process and the rule of law.

https://cage.ngo/article/terror-watchdog-tries-to-sell-failed-prevent-strategy-despite-not-being-his-remit/

سيف الله

02-25-2017, 08:22 PM

Salaam

This is thoughtful piece from Peter Oborne.

'A soft apartheid towards Muslims is emerging in Britain'

Peter Oborne is an anti-establishment Conservative and is anything but predictable. We talked about his belief that David Cameron's government has constructed a narrative about Islam which distinguishes between 'good' secular Muslims and 'bad' devout ones, leading to a 'soft apartheid' emerging in Britain. We also discussed his surprising views on Jeremy Corbyn's Labour leadership, his explosive resignation from the Daily Telegraph and his views on the UK's foreign policy in Libya, Syria, Saudi Arabia and Israel.

سيف الله

02-25-2017, 08:58 PM

Salaam

Another update

Prevent’s exploitation of female Muslim scholars

Quratulayn Haamidah explains how the Prevent strategy is manipulating orthodox female scholars to promote its agenda, while positing next generation reformist Muslims groomed by discredited counter-extremism proponents as the ideal “British Muslim woman”.

I have always found it fascinating to read the various pity pieces about Muslim women, how we need saving from hairy, chest and wife-beating Muslim men; how our hijabs should be ripped off by the illuminated hand of enlightenment rationalism; how we must be leveraged out of sadistic servitude-laden homes and thrust into the civilised world of sexual-harassment-ridden office spaces, subservience to capitalist men, and expectations of success drawn also mainly by men.

The feeling while reading such articles is strangely mixed, like someone handing you a coffee spiked with a particularly strong anaesthetic, and then placing an arm of comfort around you only to slowly slip a knife into your back. You only realise the damage when it goes so deep. Or when the anaesthetic wears off.

Such pieces are usually supplemented by the usual coterie of “Muslim feminists” suffering from severe cognitive dissonance between their strange brew of feminism, and their own exploitation as mouthpieces for Orientalised perspectives on Muslim women. The dissonance increases as they receive money from the government for exploiting women for the problematic countering violent extremism agenda (CVE), better known in the British context as Prevent.

What is going through the already confused, feminism-infused mind? Do they not feel exploited as marionettes for a state policy drafted by machoistic neoconservatives? Is there any pondering and reflection over the moral sterility of co-opting an agenda like Prevent?

Ulama and Prevent

Such questions are many. However, a recent revelation in the context of women and Prevent epitomises the hypocrisy of such groups. While the discussion on the appropriateness of Islamic scholars to get involved with policies like Prevent has been previously discussed, little attention has been given to the subset female Islamic scholars.

Recently, an article published by advocacy group CAGE described the implications of the leaked Home Office-produced “Prevent Strategy – Local Delivery Best Practice Catalogue”. The Home Office document revealed a particularly Machiavellian example of how female Muslim scholars are being exploited to advance the Prevent policy, which predetermines the stifling, “reformist” parameters of discussion set by neo-conservatives, and elements usually hostile towards Islamic orthodoxy and its adherents.

Prevent’s female scholars

The Home Office catalogue shows that a Leicester-based women’s organisation has “trained” 135 Alimas under the Prevent project to become the eyes and ears of the state. The aim of the project has been to abuse the trusted position of female scholars so that they promote Prevent “within their study circles that they educate in their homes”. Furthermore, a “web presence” has been developed for women to ask these indoctrinated scholars any questions they want.

The third-party organisation delivering Prevent to Alimas is called “STR!VE” or “Strive Women”. The organisation has been a vehicle for the Prevent agenda since 2010.

The organisation shows trademark signs which indicate to the “reform Islam” agenda. While the presumably orthodox female scholars provide legitimacy to the organisation among local Muslim women, the question remains, what is the “ideal” Muslim advocated by STR!VE?

A clue can be found in the individuals the website promotes. In one article, it positively references the well-known deformist Dilwar Hussain, who openly works for the Christianisation of Islam. Hussain has also stated that controversial and draconian counter-extremism proposals like closing down mosques on the basis of undefinable “extremism” contain “positive messages” and “important sentiments”.

Another clue is found in STR!VE’s curious promotion of a new class of Muslim leadership.

Grooming the next generation

Touted as London’s “young leader” who is “proud to be a British Muslim woman”, STR!VE introduces Fatima Zaman to its Leicester audience. There is a clear effort to push Zaman as an authoritative voice for Muslims.

So, who is Fatima Zaman?

Raised in Tower Hamlets, Zaman is part of the “Extremely Together” initiative which is run by the Kofi Annan Foundation. The Foundation has facilitated the grooming of ten young people to be the next generation of counter-extremists and Muslim leaders.

“Extremely Together” has been supported by Maajid Nawaz, a self-professed liberal “reformist”, who’s organisation has received funding from far-right groups, and enjoys warm relations with controversial neoconservatives like Douglas Murray.

Nawaz was also listed by the US civil liberties group Southern Poverty Law Centre as an “anti-Muslim extremist”. In a crass, poorly cued, and scripted video promoting the Extremely Together initiative, Nawaz pledges his support to activists like Zaman.

Having been sold as a “#ExtremelyTogether leader”, Zaman spoke at the One Young World Summit 2016 held between September and October. In the introduction to Zaman’s speech, Nawaz says that Zaman “epitomises leadership”, which he believes is needed in the Muslim community. Based on Nawaz’s praises, it is clear Zaman is being groomed to be the future of Muslim leadership, which ensures community responses to injustices against Muslims remain passive and inert.

Associating violence and “extremism” with Islam

It is interesting to note that Zaman paints a picture of Islam and Muslims which mirrors neoconservative hawks currently working for Trump. In her 2016 speech, she told global leaders that Islam, in the context of terrorist attacks, is a “devastating force” (5:50).

In a blog for the Kofi Annan Foundation, she wrote, “Be-they young, old, male or female, modern day extremism has undoubtedly focused on Islam, with Muslims at its core.”

Zaman also explicitly removes problematic foreign policy as a root cause of terrorism.

Exclusion of Muslims and oppression of children

According to Nawaz, Zaman has “rolled out counter-extremism policies and counter-terrorism policies” (3:30). She elaborates her function as having helped develop material to assist the Prevent spying system in schools as part of the “educate against hate” government website (9:00).

Considering she is being promoted as a “successful British Muslim woman” by STR!VE, and the future of Muslim leadership by Nawaz, she noticeably failed to consult a single Muslim community organisation during the development of the government website.

Worryingly, the website suggests that argumentativeness; changes in appearance, and excessive time spent online or on mobile phones might be signs of radicalisation amongst teenagers. With such vague information, it is unsurprising that young Muslim children are experiencing second-class treatment in society, namely in schools: violation of their rights, while being demonised as potential terrorists until proven otherwise.

Female scholars and Prevent

While seemingly manipulating traditional female scholars into becoming Prevent puppets, the ideal “successful British Muslim woman” simultaneously advocated by STR!VE, is one who is groomed by the worst kind of deformists, associates violence with Islam and Muslims on global platforms, formulates and propagates policies which harm the Muslim community, and disregards the community’s legitimate grievances while doing so.

If this is the future of British Muslim women’s leadership, it is a dystopian future indeed!

Female scholars, and scholars in general, must question whether they should allow themselves to be abused by policies such as Prevent, and be linked to organisations like STR!VE.

Do they really wish to act as stepping-stones to a “deformation of Islam”? Do they, as mothers, sisters and daughters wish to propagate Prevent, which is now resulting in Muslim children being taken away from their parents?

As for STR!VE, it should ponder over its affiliations, and perhaps revisit its website content for reflection. In one blog covering conspiracy theories, STR!VE says that people online “might even say that this blog is being written by sinister forces out to brainwash you”. The irony could not more acute.

http://5pillarsuk.com/2017/02/08/pre...slim-scholars/

سيف الله

03-01-2017, 11:23 PM

Salaam

Another update

How Trump’s administration wants to shut down Muslim groups by following the example of Arab regimes

The Muslim Brotherhood Terrorist Designation Act bill, currently sitting at the US Congress, will designate the Muslim Brotherhood (MB), and all its “affiliates”, terrorist organisations.

This is a worrying prospect for Muslim civil society, since these “affiliates” as alleged by far right anti Muslim lobbyists, include mainstream Muslim civil society organisations including the Council on American-Islamic Relations (Cair), the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) and the Muslim Students Association (MSA).

These are organisations which hundreds of thousands of Muslims have come into contact with over the years. The broad reach of the bill prompted Mike Merryman-Lotze from the American Friends Service Committee in Philadelphia to term it the beginning of the “Muslim registry”.

Banning the MB would be a clear sign that the US is following the politically motivated moves by the military regime in Egypt and its political and financial backers, Saudi Arabia and UAE. This is also in line with the despotic Syrian regime, Bahrain and Russia, all of whom have designated the MB as a “terrorist” organisation as of 2015.

An attack on Islam in the public sphere

The Bill follows the same lines as Trump’s Islam-centred Countering Violent Extremism (CVE) initiative, and the UK government’s PREVENT policy, which both criminalise and condemns as ‘extreme’, beliefs that challenge the status quo, that question aggressive Western foreign and domestic policy, and that support efforts to relieve the suffering of Muslims worldwide.

Not only is this a ‘divide and rule’ tactic, but it has strong potential for a kind of societal “mission creep”; the Bill’s broad definitions and targeting of MB “affiliates” can be widened to include other civil society movements, eventually threatening civil society itself.

The Bill represents a further institutional attack on Islam in the public sphere. A recent article by Alex Delmar-Morgan and Peter Oborne in the Middle East Eye revealed just how the use of the labels “extremist” and “terrorist” against charities in the UK are generated by right-wing organisations who then in turn influence the press and government policy here and in the US.

It is abundantly clear that the labels “extremist” and “terrorist” are deliberately abused to smear Muslim led civil society organisations which encourage active and constructive Muslim participation in public life. This constructive activism is clearly opposed by both PREVENT and CVE agendas, which seek a more pliable Islam.

No evidence in targeting the Muslim Brotherhood

Trump is even ignoring the US State Department and Security Services who say there is no evidence to support the notion that the MB is “terrorist”.

But his position could well be influenced by Arab regimes. The influence of Saudi Arabia in broadening the ban of the MB globally has been evident on both sides of the Atlantic. In an article for the Financial Times in 2014, senior UK officials admitted to being put “under huge pressure, as have the Americans, from the Saudis to do something about the Muslim Brotherhood.”

In Britain, a government review of the MB was conducted in 2015 by Sir John Jenkins, ex-UK Ambassador to Riyadh, and Charles Farr, at the time Director General of the Office for Security and Counter Terrorism in the Home Office, and it concluded that “aspects of Muslim Brotherhood ideology and tactics, in this country and overseas, are contrary to our values and have been contrary to our national interests and our national security”.

The report was strongly contradicted by the Foreign Affairs Committee in its own publication. It stated that Saudi Arabia might have had undue influence on the report through Jenkins. This was given added impetus when reports emerged that the review was launched just six weeks after BAE Systems struck a major sales deal with the Saudis and just three weeks after Saudi Arabia designated the Muslim Brotherhood as a ‘terrorist organisation’.

In a U-turn in state policy, the FAC also said that the MB was in fact a “firewall” against “extremism”, and, like similar political Islamic organisations, “a vehicle through which a significant element of citizens can and should be able to address their grievances”.

A world of increasing “extremes” is dangerous

Finally, we must also not lose sight of the aims at the heart of the Trump government, which is essentially giving the green light to right-wing nationalist movements while honing its sights on Islam. Nothing could be more evidence of this than the statements of Trump’s advisor Steve Bannon of the necessity for the West to ensure that Islam is “kept out of the world”.

This hints at a deeper malaise in Western society: the tendency to see Islam and Muslims as “other”, and a corresponding attempt to control and refine a way of life with which it refuses to engage meaningfully, preferring to rely on fear and bullying.

Instead of reading groups like the MB and other Muslim organisations within their context and with all their complexities, the West rather seeks to forcefully impose its own interpretations and worldview on them. This is a violent approach that will result in a more divided world.

https://cage.ngo/article/how-trumps-administration-wants-to-shut-down-muslim-groups-by-following-the-example-of-arab-regimes/

سيف الله

03-16-2017, 04:03 PM

Salaam

CVE has always been about targeting Islam and so has PREVENT

Trump’s move to exclude violent far-right groups from the US Countering Violent Extremism programmes shows them for what they have always been: a tool to target Islam and ‘reform’ it into something palatable to the state. This emboldens the far-right and contributes to a sense that Muslims are a threat to society. Trump’s moves should come as no surprise however; Britain’s counter-terrorism strategies have also honed in on Islam specifically, despite claims to the contrary.

Only four days after the deadly and cowardly attack by a far right supporter on a Canadian mosque, Trump announced that he would be excluding right-wing extremism from the government’s “Countering Violent Extremism” (CVE) programmes. The programmes – which involve securitising communities using the same methods as PREVENT – would instead focus, solely on Islam.

CAGE has always stated that CVE aims to bring about a ‘reformed’ Islam palatable to Western governments, one which does not question their discriminatory domestic legislation against Muslims nor their aggressive foreign policy.

PREVENT pundits the world over have insisted that CVE programmes are not just about Islam. CVE advocates have criticised those who oppose the policy as fermenting “victimhood” and a “false sense of grievance “, however the recent revelations of the most powerful adviser to Trump are extremely insightful.

According to reports, Trump’s advisor Steve Bannon said in July 2014 during a Skype interview to the Vatican, that the Judeo-Christian West is “at the beginning stages of a global war against Islamic fascism” and that the West should respond by taking “a very, very, very aggressive stance against radical Islam”. (“Fascism” and “radical” here are interpreted according to the views of his Islamophobic government.) Bannon also said he believed that Islam needs to be “kept out of the world”.

Attempts to whitewash CVE and PREVENT by adding neo-Nazi fascism as one of its targets is now no longer possible. PREVENT and CVE even by their statistics remain primarily focussed on Muslims and now will be even more so.

Trump’s strong arm rule is a reflection of an attitude born from over a decade-long attrition of the principles of the rule of law and due process under the auspices of neoconservatives.

CVE/PREVENT approaches are premised upon neoconservative assumptions and shaped by neoconservative think-tanks. The Trump administration’s explicit discriminatory targeting of Islam and Muslims within the discourse of counter-terrorism is a policy which has also been encouraged by neoconservatives like Michael Ledeen and Frank Gaffney.

British counter-extremism initiatives are all about Islam too

Trump’s position should come as no surprise. A closer look at David Cameron’s comments preceding Britain’s Counter-Extremism Strategy document released in October 2015, on which the British government’s current approach is built, shows how counter-extremism has always had Islam as its focus.

In the forward to the document, Cameron outlined the government’s intention to intervene into almost every part of Muslim public and private life, and into their minds and hearts as well.

“We know that terrorism is really a symptom; ideology is the root cause,” he wrote, despite presenting no evidence to justify this statement. Since then, government ‘studies’ to back-up this sentiment have been largely discredited due to their lack of scientific basis.

Academics involved in the ‘studies’ themselves even called out the government for leaving out political grievances as a factor that contributes to political violence.

Nonetheless, the government has rushed headlong along this trajectory, denying or side-stepping the political roots of violence, and instead pouring millions into ‘hearts and minds’ propaganda directed at Muslims and bring about a state sanctioned Islam, while continuing with its aggressive foreign and domestic policies that feed many of these grievances.

This is also replicating itself all over the world through UN-administered counter-terrorism legislation and the global CVE initiative, backed by, among others, Tony Blair. Now given impetus by Bannon and Trump, the CVE agenda is set to hone in on its intended target, the practice of Islam, despite the protests of liberal commentators.

PREVENT, a failing policy designed to criminalise Muslims?

Recently, Central Bedfordshire council was compelled to apologise and pay damages after racially discriminating against two boys of Asian descent, who were reported to PREVENT by teachers at their school. This, after one boy told his teacher he had been given a toy gun as a present.

What makes this case exceptional is that the council apologised and agreed to pay damages so readily. Perhaps this was because the boy’s family were Hindu; no such apologies and damages have been as forthcoming when similar cases of PREVENT over-reporting involve Muslim children.

Such high incidence of over-reporting of Muslims, can only be due to the Islamophobic bent inherent in the PREVENT strategy itself – and CAGE has written numerous reports featuring many case studies that attest to this and to its effect on Muslims and its potential to be expanded to broader society.

Islamophobic approaches must end if we are to find peace

Targeting Islam and trying to ‘reform’ it into something palatable to the towers of power, through counter-terrorism strategies such as CVE under Trump and Britain’s failing PREVENT, embolden the far right and create a corresponding sense of threat among Muslims.

These policies – which represent a kind of thought and behavioural control experiment – will drive society further apart. Is it now time for us to acknowledge this.

It is also time for those who participated in the orchestrated campaign of disinformation about those who dissent against PREVENT and CVE, to accept they were wrong and understand the dangerous implications of these policies for us all.

https://cage.ngo/article/cve-has-always-been-about-targeting-islam-and-so-has-prevent/

سيف الله

03-22-2017, 05:55 PM

Salaam

Another update

When PREVENT officers came knocking on my door

‘Musa’, a regular student, was approached by PREVENT officers for deradicalisation, but was never given any explanation. This is his story of how on one day, PREVENT officers came knocking on his door. You can read his interview here, or watch this short film where he recalls his story.

I am not really sure when I first came into contact with PREVENT or came to the attention of the security services.

In school I remember we had a discussion in religious studies class. One of the pupils asked how come I have all the answers, and after that a teacher, a Muslim teacher, jokingly said if I carried on like that he’d call Mi5. I also gave a khutba at school, and one of the teachers warned me not to give khutba anymore. I then thought they had their eyes on me. It was a surprise to me that It wasn’t my teachers, but my doctor who tried to question me.

This happened when I was 17. I went to the doctor and he was very, very friendly. He met me at the door and held it open and everything. I was so surprised. He started to ask me what college I was at and so on, all these innocent questions. Then he started taking my blood pressure, and he asked me about my political opinions. Being young, I just stayed quiet. Then I said “What do you mean?”

He replied: “Oh nothing. Are you left wing or right wing?”

Then I got a bit anxious and I asked him: “Why, are you right wing?”

He said “No, no, I’m not right wing.”

When I got home I saw articles about PREVENT operating in the NHS buildings. I thought the incident could be linked so I wrote up a post on Facebook talking about what happened that day. It gained a lot of traction and I feared that it may become out of hand and cause alarm to too many people, so I removed it. Then I got a call from a friend and I told him what happened, and he said: “That’s PREVENT.”

Even then I didn’t believe him. He explained to me that I should talk about it so more people would know about what was happening. If I didn’t speak, young Muslims might find themselves in a similar situation and they might say something like they were depressed at what was happening in Syria, and then they would end up getting referred.

This first encounter didn’t really have that big of an effect on me.

The following year at college was 2015 and the CTS Act came into law. Most universities and human rights groups did a campaign against it. I led a campaign at my college. One of the PREVENT officers was supposed to come in and do PREVENT training for staff at my college, but many teachers were uncomfortable about him coming in. When we asked Muslim members of staff why they did not raise complaints, they told us they were too scared to. Even non-Muslim students regarded the PREVENT trainer as an Islamophobe.

I, along with other students, put a petition together against him. After that, he couldn’t come and his training was cancelled. But then our event on Islamophobia was cancelled – we think it was PREVENT getting their own back on us.

I’m not sure if it was the charity work I do, or the campaigning, but shortly after that I woke up in the morning, on a Friday at about 8.45am, and the police were outside my house. This was 2016.

My mom got a fright. I thought it was a case of mistaken identity. So I went down the stairs. My dad said, “Don’t let them in!”

When I opened the door, there were two normally dressed people standing there, and they asked to come inside to have a chat. I said no. They asked three times. They said I was not in trouble, so I said let’s talk outside then. They said they didn’t want the neighbours to hear. They said because you’re 18 your parents don’t have to hear this. So I stepped outside and as soon as I closed the door, they said they were counter-terrorism police from the Channel programme.

Immediately, I turned round and rang the doorbell. I think they were happy because they thought I was going to ask them in, but I didn’t. Instead, my dad answered the door, and the police started saying to him they were concerned about me, that they really wanted me to join the Channel programme. He told them to back off, and so did I. I said I didn’t want to join their programme.

That whole day, my heart was pounding. I didn’t know if I should tell anyone, what I should say. I stopped walking to mosque for fajr. I got a bit paranoid. Every single time I went home I was looking over my shoulder. Whenever I was out and I heard police sirens, I got worried that they were going to stop and cause a big scene. This happens even now.

I told a few friends. I told my Quran teacher, who advised me to tell as many people as I could, so that’s what I did. But there were some that I didn’t tell. The thing is when you tell people it leaves a stain on them. And in the community, if you want to help someone out, or carry the message of Islam, if you’ve been in touch with the counter-terrorism police, it doesn’t feel good to the people you are trying to help.

I changed my name on social media. I continued with my activism but I was more subtle, a bit smarter with my words.

There was a third incident. After college I left and got a job. I was turning 19 and I thought that the whole thing was over. You get on with your life. But when I was working at a school, I got a call on my mobile. I have no idea how they got my mobile number as my number is not linked to my name.

A police officer asked me to come into the police station. He said they respected my views about not wanting to be a part of Channel, but after I asked them why I should come in, they said they wanted to talk to me about safeguarding in the area. They persisted and said I should come in and help them regarding preventing children from being drawn into radicalisation in the local area.

After that, I was so angry. My manager was looking at me, and she asked if I was okay. I just felt so messed up. I thought: Why? It’s going to continue.

I am more vocal now. I always pass things through my dad. My mom and dad are understanding. They have always been politically aware. They know everything. So my mom is alright. She’s strong. My dad’s okay. The rest of my family don’t really know. It’s a big deal for people when it involves the counter-terrorism police.

After these incidents, I consulted CAGE and the brother here said he had similar cases and that it sounded like they were trying to recruit me.

Now, I don’t know what’s going to happen. I have a feeling that something is going to happen. I’m 20 now and it’s been a year since my last contact with them. After I spoke to CAGE, they told me what I could do, that I could put a complaint in against the police. After that, I knew where I stood and things became clear. If anything happens, I talk to CAGE and they explain how to best deal with the situation.

If I were to advise other people going through the same thing I would tell them that if you think they are trying to silence you, don’t let them win. Carry on being vocal. They are going to do this on a mass scale, to organisations and individuals, to scare them and silence them. But if we give in to their intimidation, they’ve won.

You should consult people, consult your parents and speak to people like CAGE and make sure the case is documented somewhere. Now CAGE has my whole case recorded and written down.

Looking back I don’t find my story that crazy or as damaging as others. There are so many stories now. But the best thing to do is don’t keep it secret. Don’t keep it hidden.

https://cage.ngo/article/when-prevent-officers-came-knocking-on-my-door/

سيف الله

03-26-2017, 10:54 PM

Salaam

Another update

Muslim women at the frontline once again

Written by Karen Jayes

The Muslim woman, in wearing the headscarf, is the most visual representation of Islam in western societies. Because of this, in the wake of violent incidents such as that which occurred at Westminster, she is in the first line of any Islamophobic backlash that inevitably ensues.

Equally Muslim women are thrust to the fore by the authorities in the fight against ‘extremism’. It seems Muslim women cannot escape the scrutiny and politicisation of their dress, which has only been exacerbated by the latest Hijab Ban.

The decision by the European Court of Justice to allow companies to ban the Muslim headscarf at their discretion is the next step along a continuum of discrimination and criminalisation of Muslims that began with counter terrorism laws and moved on to CVE policies and PREVENT.

This next step means criminalising Muslim women, who are increasingly seen as the ‘vehicles’ through which the state plans to tackle ‘extremism’. It is the Muslim woman’s ‘heart and mind’ that is now the counter-terrorism frontline.

This is not a surprising development given the unending global War on Terror, which has for decades institutionalised and enshrined Islamophobia in law through the demonisation of Islam.

We can confront the roots of Islamophobia and discrimination as we are individually able to. But we do not have to stand alone.

A counter-productive bullying tactic

Firstly, employees who are free to express their identity – be it in the form of a hijab, turban or kippah – are more committed and engaged employees. Those who feel censored or “different” are more likely to have poor experiences at work, which in turn affects productivity.

There are also countless of Muslim women in leadership and other roles who perform their tasks – especially managerial and client service roles – with even more effort simply because they wear a hijab and are aware that, in the current environment, they are important ambassadors for Islam.

But it is clear that productivity is not the concern here. If it was, such a counter-productive decision would not have been made.

Rather, the concern here is with normalising discrimination.

The decision – made by a non-Muslim group of mostly white men – is a cowardly, act with broad implications for society. It therefore demands a considered and united response.

The court absolves itself and companies become the arbiters of rights

Covering is in line with Allah’s command in the Qu’ran. It is an Islamic duty according to the majority of Muslims. The judges, by this decision, have intruded upon the personal and intimate spiritual affairs of Muslim women.

The ruling is a legalisation of discrimination that will primarily affect Muslim women but rather than coming out and admitting this, the court has conveniently passed the decision whether to ban the hijab or not, over to the boards of companies.

In doing so, the justice system is washing its hands of their responsibility to protect citizens’ rights to express their faith. Rather, the court has chosen to give further ascendance to the world of capital as the arbiter of rights.

This crucial point, which has broad implications for society, has been missed. But it has put Muslim women at the frontline in protecting and fighting not only for our Islamic identity, but also for a fair society.

A symbol of resistance and strength

It is unfortunate that Muslim women are being pressured into choosing between their right to wear what they want and their right to work. There are solutions, but they demand courage and innovation.

Muslim women must continue to wear their scarves and raise their voice in other creative ways to rally support in the workplace and beyond, and use this as a chance resist and fight back against state abuse, challenge and change perceptions of Islam, or hold Islamophobic practices up for ridicule.

This is what it means to be on the frontline.

Through our courage, the headscarf can take on an agency beyond what it is holds currently. Far from the misrepresentation of it being perceived as a symbol of subjugation, it will become a powerful symbol of resistance.

https://cage.ngo/article/muslim-wome...ne-once-again/

سيف الله

04-12-2017, 12:09 PM

Salaam

Another update

Dr Yasir Qadhi slams British press for latest slanderous accusations against him

Prominent American scholar, Dr Yasir Qadhi, has slammed the British press for their recent attacks accusing him of homophobia and advocating violence against non-Muslims.

The following status was posted on Dr Qadhi’s official Facebook page:

“A number of prominent British newspapers and magazines are attempting to smear my reputation before my visit there next week (primarily to raise funds for children in East Africa).

To show you how vile some reporters are, and how clear of an agenda they have, the main reporter actually emailed me two weeks ago, with selective quotations from my lectures that attempted to make me appear as a terrorist. Some of these ‘radical quotations’ were simply verses and hadith, translated (and if you don’t have commentary or context, it’s easy to misuse such Sacred Texts). Others were quotations from my Seerah lectures, in which I mention the historical battles of the Prophet’s (SAW) era and praise some aspects of them.

When I replied to each and every one of these allegations, and pointed out that the real terrorists out there have actually called for my assassination, the reporter simply dismissed those allegations and moved on to find others.

And what did they find? That I claim that Islam teaches that same-sex relations are not morally correct, and unhealthy from a spiritual perspective. That much is true – but they then add the outright lie and shear slander that I preach violence against people whom we ethically disagree with. This is a bold lie, as this video made last year explicitly mentions.

These people shall never be content with us until we leave our faith for their sake. Rather than leave our faith, we choose to leave them to their ways, and put our trust in our Creator, and continue to preach the truth.

Their agenda is clear: to make each and every mainstream Muslim appear as a radical hard-liner.

Our response will be to say what needs to be said, with wisdom and beautiful preaching. If they lie about us, we respond with truth; when they smear, we pray that Allah guides them; when they slander, we forgive.

PS. Once in a while, we’ll choose not to forgive, and sue the pants off of them for libel so that they learn their lesson.

But yes, the default is indeed forgiveness…”

http://5pillarsuk.com/2017/04/11/dr-yasir-qadhi-slams-british-press-for-latest-slanderous-accusations-against-him/

سيف الله

05-02-2017, 08:02 PM

Salaam

Another update

[Webinar] 14 Ways To Resist and Build Unity in Hard Times

We are living in an age where the security state is becoming more dominant over our everyday lives, and where counter-terrorism legislation threatens our rights, charities and privacy. But there is still a lot Muslims and their organisations can do to resist oppression and build unity within the community. We’ve taken Timothy Snyder’s ‘On Tyranny: Twenty Lessons from the Twentieth Century’ as a rough guide and added some steps of our own:

Believe in the Truth:
Never let go of the truth that Allah is in complete control. When times get tough, hold this close to your heart. Use this as the basis for all your actions.

Inform yourself and others:
Don’t accept manipulations of the truth. Inform yourself with a wide range of alternative, objective news that quotes real, named sources from non-partisan organisations.

Resist the crowd:
In the face of oppression, people often anticipate what the state wants and they do it without even being asked to. Don’t be one of these people. Question authority fearlessly and stay true to your principles.

Support charities and institutions:
Lend your support, voluntary or otherwise, to a group or institution whose aims and ethics contribute to a robust civil society. There is strength in numbers.

Do not use or buy into the language of oppression:
Watch out for loaded terms such as “terrorism”, “radicalisation” and “extremism”. Reclaim language for yourself and others. If you have to use such terms, mention the wider context and qualify your use of them.

Don’t be afraid to set an example:
Standing out from the crowd can be scary, but once you do it a few times, you get used to it. If you’re speaking truth, people will follow. Courage is contagious.

Talk to people:
Technology is not enough to keep you connected. Nothing beats face-to-face time with like-minded people. Make new friends. Follow up. It is crucial for forging unity.

Investigate events and broaden your knowledge:
Invest your time in good investigative journalism (yes, those long articles). Read books that provide a critical world view like:
– ‘On Tyranny: Twenty Lessons for the Twentieth Century’ by Timothy Snyder
– ‘Misunderstanding Terrorism’ by Marc Sageman
– ‘Trauma and Recovery: The Aftermath of Violence – From Domestic Abuse to Political Terror’ by Judith Herman
– ‘Orientalism: Western Conceptions of the Orient’ by Edward Said
– ‘Drone Theory’ by Gregoire Chamayou

Protect yourself:
Encrypt your devices. Keep your private life private. Minimise interactions online. Have important meetings in person with your phone switched off or even left at home.

Find common ground:
Interact with others that disagree with you and try to find where you can work together. Oppressors love it when “their subjects” fight with each other; it keeps them strong. Resist the urge to argue over small things. Find middle ground. Practice

healthy debate.
Work outside the common constraints:
Power attempts to place you within a pre-set framework of known constraints and outcomes. You must break the mould and work to find alternative solutions outside these frames. Be creative in your activism.

Be resilient:
Working against oppression will entail taking risks. You will make mistakes, and you will be targeted by the media and politicians. You must be resilient, uncompromising over the rights of your community and overall patient and dignified. Change happens with time.

Be calm in the wake of an act of violence:
Wait for the truth to emerge. Remember acts like these are often used to divide communities and introduce more oppressive laws and policies. You don’t want to be complicit in that.

Be resourceful
In confronting oppression and tyranny you will be less resourced and will be locked out of the public space. You must be resourceful in breaking this blockade and maximising your efficiency.

https://cage.ngo/article/webinar-14-ways-to-resist-and-build-unity-in-hard-times/

سيف الله

05-03-2017, 11:46 PM

Salaam

Informative lecture.

سيف الله

05-20-2017, 07:43 PM

Salaam

Another update

CAGE director in legal battle to protect crucial evidence in torture case

London – Yesterday, the Guardian and the Middle East Eye reported on Muhammad Rabbani’s legal battle to protect crucial evidence in a torture case. CAGE have launched a campaign to highlight this.

Mr. Rabbani was arrested at Heathrow in November and will report to police on Wednesday to face a possible charge. Mr. Rabbani has never been accused or suspected of any crime but police are pursuing charges against him despite him citing client confidentiality as the reason for him not handing over his passwords.

Muhammad Rabbani, International Director for CAGE, said:

“This entire episode boils down to one thing: a password. I’m facing prison due to the existence of a power that has been operating at the UK borders for 17 years now. Using this power, officers can compel a person to surrender their passwords without cause and there’s also no right to remain silent. There is nothing like this anywhere in the Western world.”

“It was a split second decision for me. Lawyers, journalists, teachers and others who are employed to serve members of the public can all be stopped and demanded to do the same. They can be coerced into passing over private information on their clients and beneficiaries without being suspected of wrongdoing. I really do think that any professional faced with the same dilemma would do all that they could to protect their clients’ private and personal information.”

Gareth Peirce, senior partner at Birnberg Peirce and Partners, said:

“Schedule 7 is an enormous blunderbuss that is over-used and the consequence of its overuse is that it is abusive. It affects almost every Muslim in ever-increasing numbers who contemplates travelling. It is not just the sheer number of Muslims stopped but that the same people are stopped repeatedly. Once on the system, you are flagged up for life.”

Ibrahim Mohamoud, spokesperson for CAGE, said:

“Statistics show that Schedule 7 stops amount to racial profiling, with 88.4% detained coming from an ethnic minority background. Only 5 people were arrested out of roughly 20,000 that were stopped last year. Clearly, huge numbers of innocent people are being interrogated and their data confiscated from them. Where is all this data being stored? With whom is it being shared? How does one remove themselves from these databases? These are some of the wider questions that Mr Rabbani wishes to raise.”

“Governments should not interfere in the work of human rights defenders, especially those investigating international law violations such as torture. The arrest of Mr Rabbani in this instance and the confiscation of his devices have significantly affected the course of an ongoing and live investigation into torture complicity by a UK ally. We are unable to make any further comment on this currently.”

https://cage.ngo/press-release/cage-director-in-legal-battle-to-protect-crucial-evidence-in-torture-case/

سيف الله

05-26-2017, 01:25 PM

Salaam

Brother Muhammad Rabbani has been on the news

A lecture on the subject

سيف الله

05-26-2017, 01:39 PM

Salaam

After the recent atrocity in the Manchester, theres been the predictable turbo charged hysteria on what should we do. Here are some other views. Willing to say the unsayable.

War on Terror isnt working

And more generally

سيف الله

05-26-2017, 01:43 PM

Salaam

More comment.

Manchester Attacks show that PREVENT has failed!

Upon the tragic deaths of children in Manchester, as expected, the media and politicians have once again turned their head towards the Muslim community. Whilst we may never know what caused Salman Ramadan Abedi to murder and maim so many young people at Manchester Arena on Monday night, the conclusions have already been implied by the politicians and media, that due to his connections with war-torn Libya and Syria, he was likely to have been “radicalised by an extremist ideology.” There is now a debate taking place once again about the effeciveness of the Government’s PREVENT strategy which is based upon the theory of radicalisation.

Since the time of Tony Blair where he infamously stated that the ‘rules of the game have changed’, the British government has pinned the actions of a very few to an entire community. The strategy has been heavily criticised throughout the last few years for discriminating against Muslims and viewing them as a suspect community, but now it is being given vindication by some in light of the Manchester attacks. Ironically, what the attacks show is that the PREVENT strategy has failed to prevent such attacks.

Preventing violent extremism has been the mantra but it has not been able to ‘prevent’ horrors in mainland Britain. Instead it has focused on law abiding Muslims in every town and city in England. It has questioned Muslim children in Schools and Colleges, leaving them psychologically damaged by the experience. It has integrated draconian legislation into statutory services, where normal Muslim families have not been able to travel without disclosing their entire family makeup and political views. Mosques have been ordered to curtail legitimate Islamic opinions and integrate their views with British values.

An entire community has been viewed with suspicion and contempt, because of deficient narratives engineered by a government that is adamant to change Islam, not to prevent violence.

The Muslim community in Britain has endured a torturous journey of villification from the media and the government, for actions it did not commit.

Whilst Islamic values have been criticised and British values celebrated, Muslims have been at the receiving end of endless violation of their core Islamic ideas. This has included indisputable beliefs around world politics, segregation, caliphate, marriage and many other aspects.

However the time has now arrived to question the government in these difficult times- what has the Prevent agenda and anti- radicalisation agenda actually achieved? It did not stop the murder of Lee Rigby. Neither did it stop the dreadful killing of children in Manchester.

So what has it acheived, apart from marginalizing the Muslim community, instilling fear and creating discord between Muslims and non Muslims? Absolutely nothing.

The Muslims in Britain have exhausted themselves, by making it explicitly clear that Islam does not allow the killing of innocent men, women and children. However the British government still throws out the narrative that there is a problem with Islam and that the community needs to do more to tackle ‘extremism’.

The very few committing violent atrocities is not because of Islam. It is not because Muslims encourage these actions. It is not because of Mosques preaching hate to people. It most definitely is not because Muslim women cannot speak English, as indicated by the poorly articulated Casey Report.

Indeed Islam does not associate itself to any of these crimes – therefore it is the apt time for the government to take a deep look at itself and ask another question – why do these violent actions take place?

British foreign policy will be a good starting point. It’s actions in Iraq and Afghanistan will provide an insight. Propping up tyrants in the Middle East and the rest of the Muslim world will give a perspective.

An attempt to answer these questions will provide an understanding of the reason why the very few engage in physical violence. The Prevent agenda does not even attempt to answer or engage the real narrative, rather it completely misses the point and as one critic described “barking up the wrong tree.”

Muslim will continue to challenge the perverse government narratives of extremism and question draconian policies- especially as they have achieved no outcome whatsoever.

http://www.hizb.org.uk/current-affairs/manchester-attacks-show-that-prevent-has-failed

Abz2000

05-26-2017, 02:42 PM

As we make and break our fasts, Let us also make the time to pray for those who are treated with injustice and cruelty by lying and treacherous greedy criminals only because they say: "our lord is the creator of the heavens and the earth" and seek to establish justice and correct guidance according to Allah's good pleasure.

Palestine goes on world’s largest hunger strike

By-Guest Contributor--02/05/2017

The world’s largest collective hunger strike is taking place, yet it took an trending challenge on social media in order for it to receive any proper attention.On the 17th of April, an estimated 1,187 Palestinian detainees throughout various Israeli prisons began a mass hunger strike. This strike commenced in demand of better access to medical treatment, better accessibility to see family members and, above all, to protest Israel’s illegal practice of detaining Palestinians without trial or probable cause, amongst other pertinent issues.We are now heading into the Day 16 of the strike and the number of hunger striking detainees has now soared to well above 1,600.

Issa Qaraqe, detainee affairs head for the Palestinian Authority (PA), threatened Israeli authorities with another Intifada upon the death of a single protestor and due to the implications of this strike, the measures of the protest finally seem to be turning a few heads, especially considering rumors emerging of Israel depriving the hunger strikers of the salt required to maintain their health.

Israeli far Right groups, as expected, made their way and showed up, cooking barbecues next to prisons in order to taunt inmates for their demonstration against Israel’s violations of various international laws and basic human rights. It emerged that individuals from Israeli settler communities (that number roughly 600,000 in total in the West Bank, against international law and directly violating three specific UN resolutions) showed up to fan the smoke generated from the barbecues in the direction of the hunger strikers.

With this in mind, we have also seen the development that emerged recently from the PA about its refusal to pay Israel for Gaza’s electrical supply. This will now mean an hour or two of electricity per day for the already suffering population of the strip which is now moving into its 11th year under Israel’s illegal siege. With the power out, the fuel cut, the water undrinkable, medical aid limited, all but seven hospitals non-operational and the sewage pumping plant beginning to overflow, perhaps the biggest blackout for the people of Gaza is the media blackout, meaning that not only do they suffer, nobody even knows.

All of this going on in Palestine and what was it that really started to get the attention of the corporate media outlets? Unfortunately it was not so much the situation itself on the ground, but instead a trend that has gone viral which entails drinking a cup of water, diluted with salt (the only thing the hunger strikers intake in order to stay alive). Aarab Marwan Barghouti, son of lead hunger striker Marwan Barghouti, was able to lead the charge in making the trend go viral and now it seems the media can no longer ignore the situation since so many have posted their videos up for their friends, family and the rest of the world to see.

However engaging the challenge on Facebook and Twitter may be, we should not get lost in all the hype, but rather ask the questions as to why this challenge was even initiated and what is happening in Palestine which has led to such a massive hunger strike.

So how deep does Israel’s violations of detained Palestinian human rights go? Well, let us start with something that is obviously inhumane.Israel currently holds over 300 child prisoners and is the only state in the world that will prosecute a child in a military court, the courts are intimidating, many children are forced to sign admission papers in Hebrew (which they often cannot read) and can (for instance) be charged with twenty (20) years imprisonment for throwing a stone at an Israeli tank. Israel directly violates the UN convention on the ‘Rights of the Child’, a statement which can be corroborated by NGO’s such as ‘Military Court Watch’, which in its studies (2013 and 2016) found that at least 60 percent of children testify to experiencing harsh physical violence at the hands of their detainers.

This is but one of hundreds of examples of what is being opposed by the hunger strikers. Another example of injustice regarding children is Israel’s persistent martyrdom of Palestinian children which is perpetuated to the tune of one every three days (on average) ever since the inception of the Zionist state.

To support the protestors in a desperate call for basic human rights, a number of individuals such as Younes Arar (Palestinian activist) and Amirah Abu Rabi (Palestinian girl aged 16) have taken it upon themselves to also go on hunger strike. It is extremely important that this hunger strike does not go ignored and that activists continue to circulate information concerning it, as the action itself has no meaning outside the individual so long as Israel maintains its ongoing policies of absolute apartheid.

Some will try and claim that apartheid is perhaps just a buzzword or headline grabber if you will, but when taking a look at the oppression of the Palestinians by the Zionists things that suggest apartheid really do present themselves quite plainly. In the West Bank illegal settlers are charged in Israeli courts of law whilst Palestinians are charged and dealt with by a military court; this along with the countless cases of administrative detention serve as a staunch example of the injustice and anyone who looks at it can easily see that it is so.

Administrative detention for those who do not know is the practice employed by Israel of holding people in prison without any reason whatsoever, not giving a trial. Many people have been subjected to this brutal form of punishment, some spending up to 15 years in Israeli prisons for doing absolutely nothing.

With such injustice being carried out openly, it seems that in order for the truth to sink in in today’s world, desperate measures must be taken in proportion to the desperate situation at hand, as a Facebook trend can be the difference between apartheid laws being ignored and a public uproar.

What will be the fate of these protestors? Only time will tell. We know that Israel ignores all international condemnation, it ignores the petitions demanding their Prime Minister’s arrest and ignores the protests and seventy-eight (78) UN resolutions. So will it just ignore this? However, the bigger question now is, will this finally spark another Intifada to perhaps meet Israel with the only language it seems to speak – violence.

https://mobile.almasdarnews.com/arti...hunger-strike/

Abz2000

05-28-2017, 02:17 PM

By Jonathan Cook

Six and a half years ago, shortly after Hamas won the Palestinian legislative elections and took charge of Gaza, a senior Israeli official described Israel’s planned response. “The idea,” he said, “is to put the Palestinians on a diet, but not to make them die of hunger.”

Although Dov Weisglass was adviser to Ehud Olmert, the prime minister of the day, few observers treated his comment as more than hyperbole, a supposedly droll characterization of the blockade Israel was about to impose on the tiny enclave.

Last week, however, the evidence finally emerged to prove that this did indeed become Israeli policy. After a three-year legal battle by an Israeli human rights group, Israel was forced to disclose its so-called “Red Lines” document. Drafted in early 2008, as the blockade was tightened still further, the defense ministry paper set forth proposals on how to treat Hamas-ruled Gaza.

The Fine Print
Health officials provided calculations of the minimum number of calories needed by Gaza’s 1.5 million inhabitants to avoid malnutrition. Those figures were then translated into truckloads of food Israel was supposed to allow in each day.

The Israeli media have tried to present these chilling discussions, held in secret, in the best light possible. Even the liberal Haaretz newspaper euphemistically described this extreme form of calorie-counting as designed to “make sure Gaza didn’t starve.”

But a rather different picture emerges as one reads the small print. While the health ministry determined that Gazans needed daily an average of 2,279 calories each to avoid malnutrition — requiring 170 trucks a day — military officials then found a host of pretexts to whittle down the trucks to a fraction of the original figure.

The reality was that, in this period, an average of only 67 trucks — much less than half of the minimum requirement — entered Gaza daily. This compared to more than 400 trucks before the blockade began.

To achieve this large reduction, officials deducted trucks based both on an over-generous assessment of how much food could be grown locally and on differences in the “culture and experience” of food consumption in Gaza, a rationale never explained.

Chronic Malnutrition
Gisha, the organization that fought for the document’s publication, observes that Israeli officials ignored the fact that the blockade had severely impaired Gaza’s farming industry, with a shortage of seeds and chickens that had led to a dramatic drop in food output.

UN staff too have noted that Israel failed to factor in the large quantity of food from each day’s supply of 67 trucks that never actually reached Gaza. That was because Israeli restrictions at the crossings created long delays as food was unloaded, checked and then put on to new trucks. Many items spoiled as they lay in the sun.

And on top of this, Israel further adjusted the formula so that the number of trucks carrying nutrient-poor sugar were doubled while the trucks carrying milk, fruit and vegetables were greatly reduced, sometimes by as much as a half.

Robert Turner, director of operations for the UN agency for Palestine refugees in the Gaza Strip, has observed: “The facts on the ground in Gaza demonstrate that food imports consistently fell below the red lines.”

It does not need an expert to conclude that the imposition of this Weisglass-style “diet” would entail widespread malnutrition, especially among children. And that is precisely what happened, as a leaked report from the International Committee of the Red Cross found at the time. “Chronic malnutrition is on a steadily rising trend and micro-nutrient deficiencies are of great concern,” it reported in early 2008.

Collective Punishment
Israel’s protests that the document was merely a “rough draft” and never implemented are barely credible — and, anyway, beside the point. If the politicians and generals were advised by health experts that Gaza needed at least 170 trucks a day, why did they oversee a policy that allowed in only 67?

There can be no doubt that the diet devised for Gaza — much like Israel’s blockade in general — was intended as a form of collective punishment, one directed at every man, woman and child. The goal, according to the Israeli defense ministry, was to wage “economic warfare” that would generate a political crisis, leading to a popular uprising against Hamas.

Earlier, when Israel carried out its 2005 disengagement, it presented the withdrawal as marking the end of Gaza’s occupation. But the “Red Lines” formula indicates quite the opposite: that, in reality, Israeli officials intensified their control, managing the lives of Gaza’s inhabitants in almost-microscopic detail.

Experiments In Social Engineering
Who can doubt — given the experiences of Gaza over the past few years — that there exist in the Israeli military’s archives other, still-classified documents setting out similar experiments in social engineering? Will future historians reveal that Israeli officials also pondered the fewest hours of electricity Palestinians in Gaza needed to survive, or the minimum amount of water, or the smallest living space per family, or the highest feasible levels of unemployment?

Such formulas presumably lay behind the decision to bomb Gaza’s only power station in 2006 and subsequently to block its proper repair; the refusal to approve a desalination plant, the only way to prevent over-drilling contaminating the Strip’s underground water supply; the declaration of large swaths of farmland no-go areas, forcing the rural population into the already overcrowded cities and refugee camps; and the continuing blockade on exports, decimating Gaza’s business community and ensuring the population remains dependent on aid.

It is precisely these policies by Israel that led the United Nations to warn in August that Gaza would be “uninhabitable” by 2020 (“Gaza in 2020 – A livable place?,” 27 August 2012).

Doctrines For Destruction
In fact, the rationale for the Red Lines document and these other measures can be found in a military strategy that found its apotheosis in Operation Cast Lead, the savage attack on Gaza in winter 2008-09.

The Dahiya doctrine was Israel’s attempt to update its traditional military deterrence principle to cope with a changing Middle East, one in which the main challenge it faced was from asymmetrical warfare. The name Dahiya derives from a neighborhood of Beirut Israel leveled in its 2006 attack on Lebanon.

This “security concept,” as the Israeli army termed it, involves the wholesale destruction of a community’s infrastructure to immerse it so deeply in the problems of survival and reconstruction that other concerns, including fighting back or resisting occupation, are no longer practicable.

On the first day of the Gaza offensive, Yoav Galant, the commander in charge, explained the aim succinctly: it was to “send Gaza decades into the past.” Deputy Defense Minister Matan Vilnai may have been thinking in similar terms when, months before Operation Cast Lead, he warned that Israel was preparing to inflict on Gaza a “shoah,” the Hebrew word for Holocaust.

Seen in this context, Weisglass’ “diet” can be understood as just one more refinement of the Dahiya doctrine: a whole society refashioned to accept its subjugation through a combination of violence, poverty, malnutrition and a permanent struggle over limited resources.

This experiment in the manufacture of Palestinian despair is, it goes with saying, both illegal and grossly immoral. But ultimately it is also certain to unravel — and possibly sooner rather than later. The visit this week of Qatar’s emir, there to bestow hundreds of millions of dollars in aid, was the first by a head of state since 1999.

The Gulf’s wealthy oil states need influence, allies and an improved image in a new Middle East wracked by uprisings and civil war. Gaza is a prize, it seems, they may be willing to challenge Israel to possess.

Jonathan Cook won the Martha Gellhorn Special Prize for Journalism. His latest books are Israel and the Clash of Civilisations: Iraq, Iran and the Plan to Remake the Middle East (Pluto Press) and Disappearing Palestine: Israel’s Experiments in Human Despair (Zed Books). His new website is www.jonathan-cook.net.

A version of this article first appeared in The National, Abu Dhabi.

Source: Electronic Intifada

http://www.middleeastrising.com/isra...diet-for-gaza/

سيف الله

06-19-2017, 10:35 PM

Salaam

A lot has happend in the past couple of weeks, some updates

Yes Prime Minister, Enough is Enough!

Fahad Ansari responds to the Prime Minister’s speech, “Enough is Enough”, and explores the decades of failed policies that she seeks to re-hash.

Following the horrific terrorist attacks in London on Friday, Theresa May delivered a speech in which she claimed that there has been far too much tolerance of extremism in Britain. “Enough is Enough” she boldly declared outlining a four point plan to counter the new trend in terrorism.

Unfortunately, for all her rhetoric, the Prime Minister’s proposals are not new. They are neither innovative nor unique. It is deeply concerning that despite 17 years of fighting terrorism, the government of the day’s response to the latest attack is to simply fall back on to its default position – calling for increased powers for police and the security services, an increase in the length of custodial sentences and a focus on fostering better social cohesion. The strategy is one that has failed to make Britain any safer than it was in 2001. On the contrary, Britain is a far more dangerous place to live for all communities today than it was when the War on Terror began.

May’s plan is fundamentally flawed as it falsely identifies the drivers of terrorism as an inherent hatred for “our Western values of freedom, democracy and human rights” and a belief that they are incompatible with Islam. In parroting the mantra of both George W. Bush and Tony Blair almost two decades later, Theresa May betrays the fact that she has learned very little from the errors of her predecessors. This precarious oversimplification of a very complex issue may be useful for soundbites for the evening news but brings us dangerously short of resolving the terrorism threat.

A solution according to the PM is a repetition of her own personal mantra from her time as Home Secretary: a need to propagate the superiority of British values. As many commentators have pointed out, linking terrorism to integration and social cohesion produces a dangerous confusion over the roots of the problem, which ultimately stigmatises and alienates some of the poorest communities in this country.

It is telling that in her entire speech, May fails to address the stated motivations of the terrorists themselves, that increasingly apparent elephant in the room known as Foreign Policy. ISIS hailed the Manchester attack as a response to Britain’s “transgressions against the lands of the Muslims”, a victory against “the crusaders” of the west and a response to airstrikes in Iraq. Khalid Masood revealed his own motivation in a Whatsapp message sent minutes before he carried out the attack in Westminster declaring that he was taking revenge for Western military actions in Muslim countries in the Middle East. From Usama Bin Laden to the 7/7 bombers, from the killers of Lee Rigby to the recent attacks from ISIS, all have spoken of the fact that British foreign policy has been a direct motivation for their actions. To acknowledge this is not justification. To ignore it however is grossly negligent.

If Theresa May is not comfortable in listening to the demands of terrorists, she should at least respect the expert opinions of those entrusted with our security. As far back as 2003, the Joint Intelligence Committee, representing the main British intelligence agencies, explicitly warned the Blair government that invading Iraq would “increase significantly” the threat of terrorism. That included risks of attack within the UK from al-Qaeda and other “Islamist terrorist groups and individuals”. In 2005, a few weeks before the 7/7 bombings, the Joint Terrorism Analysis Centre issued another warning to the Blair government noting that events in Iraq “are continuing to act as motivation and a focus of a range of terrorist-related activity in the UK”. If this was not sufficient, in 2011 in a lecture attended by Theresa May herself, former director-general of MI5 Eliza Manningham-Buller unequivocally drew the connection between the Iraq war and the 7/7 attacks stating:

“[The invasion of Iraq] increased the terrorist threat by convincing more people that Osama Bin Laden’s claim that Islam was under attack was correct. It provided an arena for the jihad for which he had called, so that many of his supporters, including British citizens, travelled to Iraq to attack Western forces. It also showed very clearly that foreign and domestic policy are intertwined. Actions overseas have an impact at home. And our involvement in Iraq spurred some young British Muslims to turn to terror.“

So yes Prime Minister, Enough is Enough. Let us open up the discussion on foreign policy and the role it plays in driving terrorism. Whether it is the UK’s military action in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria and Libya, its betrayal of the Palestinian people, or its massive arms sales to Saudi Arabia, foreign policy does play its part in fomenting terrorism and needs to change. Today, in what has become almost synonymous with blasphemy laws in theocratic states, those who question the link between foreign policy and terrorism, are maligned and labelled as apologists and sympathisers. In April this year, former MP David Ward was sacked from the Liberal Democrats for tweeting that “all terrorist attacks in UK stem from our foreign policy”. And if it is all to do with their hating our way of life, then why are most of the victims of ISIS Muslims living in the Islamic world?

Enough is Enough Prime Minister. Let us review the current counter-terrorism strategy but not with a view to increasing police powers but assessing whether there are already too many powers in place. With over a dozen different counter-terrorism bills passed into law since 2000 and the implementation of the Prevent strategy across public service providers, more extremism referrals are being made to the police than ever before. As the current Home Secretary has now finally admitted, Prevent is essentially an intelligence gathering exercise, used to spy on the Muslim community. It has been opposed by numerous trade unions, civil society organisations and hundreds of academics.

Enough is Enough Prime Minister. With children as young as four years old being reported to the police and subsequently detained and questioned (without the consent or presence of the parent) over issues such as possessing a toy gun, being accused of speaking Arabic or attending a mosque, not celebrating Christmas, or drawing cucumber and university students being reported for reading books about terrorism in the campus library as part of their course material, it does beg the question as to whether the net is being cast far too wide resulting in real threats slipping under the radar. When all acts of religiosity or an interest in politics by Muslims are deemed to be worthy of reporting, one can imagine how overwhelmed the police must be in dealing with all of this ‘intelligence’. It is little wonder then why the likes of Salman Abedi managed to commit his atrocity despite having been referred by the local community on no less than five occasions. It is now also emerging that one of the suspected London Bridge attackers was reported to the counter terrorism police on two occasions with no further action taken. With finite resources at their disposal, the police and security services cannot realistically be expected to protect this country from those who actually threaten our safety when there has been such a proliferation of reporting based largely on ignorance, prejudice, and profiling.

Enough is Enough Prime Minister. Do you not realise that equating conservative religious values and political activism with extremism is counter-productive? Do you not accept that it is because of such a policy that the security services have had to deal with 23,000 “subjects of interest” to date? 23,000 is an army corps. If that is what the security services really believe to be the threat, then we really all should be very afraid. But if these ‘subjects of interest’ are on this list because of nothing more than conservative religious beliefs, political activism and overzealous reporting under Prevent, then we are wasting our resources. The Muslim community should not be afraid of discussing the concept of jihad. For years now, this discussion has been stifled and censored by mosques, Islamic centres, schools and universities out of fear of being reported under Prevent. If these discussions can take place, perhaps young minds can be taught the distinction between legitimate jihad and acts of terrorism. It of course will raise uncomfortable questions about the legitimacy of jihad against military targets in conflict zones and how that balances with the law of the land one lives in, but closing down all forums for such discussions only perpetuates the problem. Without traditional scholars being able to address these questions, young minds are ripe for exploitation by the likes of Daesh who thrive in an environment where their ideas are not challenged within a religious framework.

Enough is Enough Prime Minister. Why are approximately 50,000 travellers to and from the UK detained and questioned under the Terrorism Act every year when only 0.02% of those stops have led to any further action? That these stops are not intelligence led and can be done without any suspicion has resulted in hundreds of thousands of innocent people being harassed and questioned over the past 17 years, the vast majority of whom have been non-White. Is this power not only discriminatory in its effect but also disproportionate and a unwise use of limited resources, when the security services are unable to prevent actual terrorists from harming this country?

Five years ago, it emerged that evidence was fabricated against Dr Rizwaan Sabir, then a university student, to detain him for 7 days under the Terrorism Act. Perhaps if the police were not trying to ensnare innocent people in such a manner, they could focus on finding the real terrorists in our midst.

Enough is Enough Prime Minister. We are all tired of you playing politics with the security and safety of this country. We are fed up of the propaganda and posturing to roll out the same failed policy time and time again. We have become weary from the rhetoric of division and the imposition of collective guilt upon our community after each attack. We are frustrated with being asked to prove our humanity each time by rushing to condemn something that no sane individual can condone. Most of all, we are frightened for ourselves and our children of both being killed in an atrocity and hurt in the inevitable violent backlash that follows.

Enough is Enough.

https://cage.ngo/article/yes-prime-minister-enough-is-enough/

سيف الله

06-19-2017, 10:39 PM

Salaam

Another update

Why Criminalising Non-Violent Extremism Won't Prevent Terrorism

Criminalising non-violent forms of expression undermines dialogue – a crucial component of resolving conflict in all forms

In the wake of the terrorist attack on London Bridge, Theresa May said that recent attacks “are bound together by the single, evil ideology of Islamist extremism that preaches hatred, sows division, and promotes sectarianism.”

In 2015, the prime minister had written that where “non-violent extremism goes unchallenged, the values that bind our society together fragment”. Going one step further, in its 2017 manifesto, May’s Conservative party called for a new approach where: “We will consider what new criminal offences might need to be created … to defeat the extremists.”

What this push for new legislation targets is not the criminal behaviour of violence, but the ideology behind it. This is based on the problematic assumption that criminalising the motivations behind an action can prevent it from happening: but my research suggests that the opposite may well be the case.

Under UK legislation terrorism is defined as violent acts committed to advance a political, ideological, or religious cause. This means that individuals engaging in such attacks are doing so to communicate and bring about some form of political transformation. Violent attacks are done for a political cause, to advance an ideological goal.

The crucial question then is how can states and wider civil society create a context whereby non-violent forms of political expression are considered preferable to such violent alternatives. In other words, how can we make 21st century politics function in a way that draws people with these views in, rather than alienates and isolates them?

The rush to criminalise

In new research I’ve published on negotiations, I discuss how such issues are often due to the orientation of the criminal justice system. Instead of just criminalising political violence, states frequently criminalise a much broader range of non-violent forms of political expression.

Because politicians like May link certain ideologies to acts of violence, these ideologies are regarded as being just as criminal. All corresponding non-violent expressions of these ideologies – such as certain extreme interpretations of Islam – are to be considered in like terms, as a “pernicious ideology”, as May’s predecessor David Cameron stated following the terror acts in Brussels in 2016.

For instance, during the conflict in Northern Ireland, Sinn Féin was censored, as were many advocating their political ideology. This led to a silencing of the political debate. Those challenging the violence of the IRA, but advocating for their goals – a united Ireland – were frequently labelled as terrorist sympathisers. For instance the former leader of the moderate nationalist Social Democratic and Labour Party (SDLP), John Hume, notably stated: “Listening to honourable members opposite one would think that it [the pursuit of Irish unity] was a crime.”

Cutting off dialogue

But criminalising non-violent forms of expression undermines dialogue – a crucial component of resolving conflict in all forms. If people don’t talk to one another they will have a much more limited understanding of what “the other” side actually wants. It will mean each side sees their goals in opposition to other, and any gains they make as the others’ losses.

Terrorism itself is an expression of these goals, but it is at the end of a spectrum. Intervention much earlier on down the scale could possibly enable alternative pathways to resolving the political objectives. Academic interviews with a number of “radicals” in Canada revealed how the pathway into jihad is by no means linear nor predetermined. Engaging with, rather than criminalising, those who are moving towards political violence is essential to its prevention.

When non-violent expressions of a political ideology are criminalised this links the very ideology with criminality, and with terrorism. Holding a belief, no matter how disagreeable you may find it, does not make a person a perpetrator. Media headlines after the recent terror attacks in the UK provide disturbing examples of just how demonising such language can be. One headline in The Daily Mail read: “Another fanatic slips through the net”, while another in The Sun called one of the attackers “The Jihadi next door”.

Instead of focusing on the acts, such media coverage demonises the individuals, creating suspicion against all those of a particular religion or culture. As a result, this alienates the very communities which counter-terrorism forces needs to work with most.

Linking those who hold illegal beliefs directly to terror may isolate and marginalise their voices and ensure that they are unable to openly express their political beliefs. Many of the murals and graffiti in Northern Ireland are illustrative of this very issue. As a former IRA prisoner explained to me as part of my research, “the state were in total control of all other expressions of citizenship”. As a result these individuals are likely to operate covertly rather than in the open, making it more difficult to engage and challenge their positions. Instead, they are reduced to simple characterisations, such as evil jihadists, closing down opportunities for dialogue rather than opening them up.

Providing legitimate and credible non-violent alternatives to terrorism may seem fanciful, but the motivations for some of these individuals often begins in their social exclusion and alienation. Addressing and engaging with these issues much earlier could help prevent violent motivations ever taking root.

This means re-orientating criminal justice so that the focus is on the illegitimacy of political violence, not the identities and individuals themselves, could help prevent these attacks, particularly as they become more difficult to detect. Dialogue, not criminalising non-violent forms of expression, will help prevent political violence.

http://www.stopwar.org.uk/index.php/...vent-terrorism

Abz2000

06-20-2017, 05:12 AM

I pray that Allah terrorizes the greedy satanist crusaders who have terrorized and murdered millions of Muslim, believing servants of Allah in injustice and transgression - unless and until they repent sincerely.

Abz2000

06-20-2017, 07:24 PM

https://www.facebook.com/story.php?s...%2Fsearch&_rdr

Video (linked above) of 15 year old Palestinian Child Nouf Infiat yesterday, as she lays on the ground riddled with bullets outside Jewish settlement. We just received news that she has now succumbed to her wounds and passed away. This comes in the wake of 16 year old Nada Adbach, who was also killed this week on Tuesday after being mowed over by a car as she walked home with her friends in Occupied Haifa. This year alone, 9 children have been murdered by Israeli forces and colonial settlers in occupied territories.
As she twitches to hold on to her life, those around her taunt her and deny her any kind of aid or assistance, leaving her to soak in her own blood. We wouldn’t tolerate this if it even happened to animals, so why are we silent when it happens to our fellow human beings?

There has been a viral video of the incident released, within which Israeli colonists from the illegal “Meto Dovan” settlement were standing near her with automatic weapons, along with Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) occupation troops who were screaming “die sl₩t! Die!” and “drown in your own blood”. This was said among a sea of other insults as the little girl slowly passed away from her fatal injury. Also it should be noted that this girl could have survived if treated quicker but instead she died a slow and painful death; she was ninth child to be wantonly shot in the West Bank this year.

read more here:

https://www.almasdarnews.com/article...nian-children/

سيف الله

06-21-2017, 08:52 PM

Salaam

Another update

Home Office evokes Orwellian vision of anti-extremism commission

Government decides to tweet picture of heavily armed police to accompany Queen’s speech announcement of new counter-terror body

A Home Office decision to use a picture of heavily armoured and masked line of police pointing automatic weapons at the camera will raise questions over what image the government wants to create for its new commission to counter extremism.

Downing Street says the commission is to be set up to “support the government in stamping out extremist ideology in all its forms”. But it will also be given the task of supporting the public sector and civil society in “promoting pluralistic British values and reducing tolerance of extremism”.

To do this the commission “will be expected to build partnerships with all those opposed to extremism, disrupt the most dangerous extremists, and build cohesive communities,” according to briefing notes published with the Queen’s speech on Wednesday.

It is difficult to see how images such as the one tweeted by the Home Office will help foster the cooperation of those likely to find themselves at the wrong end of this particular brand of police firepower.

Indeed, it seems rather too close to the police state in George Orwell’s 1984: “If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face – forever.”

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jun/21/home-office-evokes-orwellian-vision-of-anti-extremism-commission

Or to put it another way

سيف الله

07-07-2017, 05:38 AM

Salaam

Another update

Director of legal rights NGO appeared at Court today to plead not guilty in password case

London – CAGE International Director Muhammad Rabbani has pleaded not guilty today to charges that have serious implications for journalists, human rights defenders and lawyers.

Mr Rabbani was charged on 17th May for not giving up his passwords during an interrogation by border police under Schedule 7 at Heathrow in November last year.

He was unable to hand over the passwords to his devices as he was carrying crucial evidence taken from a torture survivor and did not have permission from the client to share the information.

Muhammad Rabbani, International Director for CAGE, said previously:

“I am innocent of these charges that have serious implications for journalists, lawyers and human rights defenders.”

“I’m going into this eyes wide open and I’m not a victim, but I’m not a hero either. I do believe I am doing what any reasonable person would do under the circumstances in order to protect the privacy of a client.”

“It was heartening to see the ordinary people that attended the hearing today to show their support, especially the many mothers who I spoke to. They told stories about worrying for their children when they travel through UK borders and they expressed their appreciation of my decision to challenge these powers.”

Ibrahim Mohamoud, spokesperson for CAGE, said:

“Rabbani has taken a principled stance to protect the right to privacy in an ongoing case of torture that implicates high ranking officials. Not only is this of crucial importance, but the outcome of his case has implications for all of our rights to privacy, when there is no suspicion of any crime.”

“Rabbani’s courage and principle in these circumstances has been an inspiration to the community. We continue to support him in his efforts to protect the privacy of us all, and to end the constant harassment at airports.”

Maryam Ahmed, a mother that attended, said:

“We are mothers and have sons, and one day it could be my son. Muslims are vulnerable at this present time and Rabbani is taking this challenge for all of us. We should stand united with one another.”

Soraya Mubeen, another mother that attended, said:

“I stand with Rabbani, just like I’d stand with my own son. As a mother I constantly worry about my children when they travel, I worry they will be stopped and detained. These powers affect all of us and we stand in solidarity to uphold key values and principles.”

https://cage.ngo/

سيف الله

07-09-2017, 11:25 PM

Salaam

Another update

George Galloway: 'Western countries invading and exploiting Muslim countries has led to terrorist outrages'

George Galloway says terrorism is a result of "Western countries invading, occupying, exploiting and degrading Muslim countries".

He continued: "And we must now defend ourselves."

During his talkRADIO show on Friday (June 23) he said the issue is "about the endless process of Western countries invading occupying, exploiting and degrading Muslim countries which creates a sense of grievance. Or, or as I have put it - maybe ten thousand times - a swamp of bitterness and hatred, in which mutates various forms of blowback.

"And one of those forms is the terrorist outrages we have been experiencing at an increasing rate across the Western world over the last nearly 20 years.

"Whilst we are fighting for different foreign policies, we must defend ourselves here at home, because the people who are being murdered by terrorists are not the politicians who are carrying out the unjust foreign policies. It’s somebody's daughter and somebody's son at a concert somewhere."

Read more at http://talkradio.co.uk/news/george-galloway-western-countries-invading-and-exploiting-muslim-countries-has-led-terrorist#YZODp3RaPvskiTFp.99

سيف الله

07-14-2017, 01:18 PM

Salaam

Its worldwide

Indonesia Sets Stage for Crackdown on Hard-Line Islamist Groups

JAKARTA, Indonesia — Indonesia’s central government announced a decree on Wednesday that will make it easier for the president to disband religious and civil society organizations, in an apparent effort to challenge hard-line Islamist groups who oppose President Joko Widodo’s pluralist administration.

The presidential decree was met with concern by human rights groups, which worry it is overly broad and could easily be used to disband any religious or civil society groups, whether they are hard-line Islamist or not.

“This threatens the legal rights of all NGOs in Indonesia,” said Usman Hamid, the Indonesia director of Amnesty International, referring to nongovernmental organizations.

For the last two months, administration officials have talked of banning Hizbut Tahrir, a conservative transnationalist Islamic organization active in Indonesia, on the grounds that the group’s desire to create a caliphate contradicts Indonesia’s Constitution and pluralist state ideology.

But existing law makes it difficult for the government to disband such groups, requiring the state to issue numerous warnings, followed by a lengthy court case, with no guarantee on how judges will rule.

The presidential decree changes the existing law so that the executive branch of government can disband groups without judicial oversight, greatly speeding up the process.

Mr. Joko’s administration has been struggling to contain Islamist groups since late last year, when several hard-line Islamist organizations, including Hizbut Tahrir, mobilized against Basuki Tjahaja Purnama, a high-rising Christian politician who is a close presidential ally.

The Islamists were extraordinarily successful, and they managed to propel their preferred candidate for governor to victory over Mr. Basuki, as well as begin a successful blasphemy case against Mr. Basuki that led to him serving two years in prison. With presidential elections in 2019, Mr. Joko appears intent on dismantling hard-line Islamist groups who are opposed to his pluralist vision for society, even if it means eroding civil liberties in the process.

The country’s security minister, Wiranto — who, like many Indonesians, goes by only one name — did not specifically mention Hizbut Tahrir when announcing the presidential decree, and it remained unclear when exactly Hizbut Tahrir would be banned.

What is clear is that Indonesia’s executive branch now has significantly more power to swiftly disband civil society groups, alarming rights groups.

“First and foremost, this is not an effective way of protecting democratic values while trying to contain radicalism,” Marcus Mietzner, an associate professor of political science at the Australian National University, wrote in an email. “Out of all the options available to a democratic state, issuing an executive order that temporarily bypasses both judicial and legislative processes is probably the worst.”

He added that the quality of Indonesia’s democracy “is now indisputably in decline.”

The question over how to ban Hizbut Tahrir has divided Indonesian civil society, including its two largest moderate Muslim organizations.

Nahdlatul Ulama, a deeply pluralistic organization, has taken the firmest line against Hizbut Tahrir, wholeheartedly supporting Mr. Joko’s decision to disband the organization.

In an unusual move, Said Aqil, Nahdlatul Ulama’s chairman, held a news conference on Tuesday to announce that the president would be issuing the decree, doing so instead of the president’s office. Some analysts interpreted that as an effort by Mr. Joko’s administration to have a Muslim organization lead the charge so that Mr. Joko could not be accused of being anti-Islam.

But efforts over the last two months by Mr. Said to persuade the leadership of Muhammadiyah, Indonesia’s second-largest Muslim organization, to support the steps the government is taking to ban Hizbut Tahrir have apparently been unsuccessful. While numerous leaders of smaller moderate Muslim organizations joined Mr. Said in announcing that the president had signed a new decree, no leaders of Muhammadiyah were present, according to news reports.

Muhammad Darraz, the executive director of the Maarif Institute, a progressive think tank affiliated with Muhammadiyah, said he supported efforts to ban Hizbut Tahrir and other hard-line groups but was bothered by the government’s decision to override legal protocol.

He said the decision smacked of politics, comparing the presidential decree to a recent effort to humiliate another cleric, Rizieq Shihab, the leader of the hard-line Islamic Defenders Front, whom the police named as a suspect in a pornography case in late May.

Gregory Fealy, a senior fellow in Indonesian politics at the Australian National University, warned that the decree may not be smart politics for Mr. Joko after all.

“The risk here is this causes an Islamic backlash against him, and this doesn’t look like a thing a nation of laws should be doing,” Mr. Fealy said. Over the last few months, hard-line Islamist groups have set up posters around Jakarta that say the current administration is “criminalizing” religious scholars.

Hizbut Tahrir Indonesia’s spokesman, Muhammad Ismael Yusanto, predicted that his organization would shortly be broken up by the government.

“Based on the authority of the presidential decree, Hizbut Tahrir Indonesia will soon be disbanded,” he wrote in an email when asked about the group’s response to the decree.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/12/w...st-groups.html

سيف الله

07-14-2017, 09:54 PM

Salaam

Another update

Moazzam Begg receives a standing ovation at the Marxism 2017 conference, where he delivers an inspirational speech, urging us all to stand together for justice for all.

سيف الله

07-16-2017, 08:46 PM

Salaam

Id like to share.

Q & A with James Fergusson, author of Al-Britannia, My Country: A Journey Through Muslim Britain

5Pillars editor Roshan Muhammed Salih talks to the author James Fergusson about his important new book on British Muslims, Al-Britannia, My Country.

Fergusson spent a year traveling around Muslim Britain, from the major population centres of London, Manchester, Birmingham and Bradford to the Scottish Highlands.

In perhaps the best book ever written by a non-Muslim about Islam in Britain, Fergusson argues that Britain’s Muslims are remarkably misunderstood, both by the non-Muslim majority and by a government preoccupied with national security.

Al-Britannia, My Country makes the case for a reappraisal of “fundamental British values,” and argues for a new approach towards the practitioners of a religion that is part of all our futures now.

Roshan Muhammed Salih: Why did you write the book?

James Fergusson: My background led me into it. I’m a foreign correspondent by trade and I spent 20 years or so running around the Middle East and North Africa, Afghanistan and Somalia so I’ve spent a lot of time on stories involving “Muslim extremists” of one stripe or another but I only knew a little bit about the Muslim community here in my own country. Also, in 2014 the community here was in the eye of a storm because of ISIS and M16 said 800 kids had gone off to join them so I thought it was a timely moment to look at Muslims in Britain. And I could see the way the story was being reported wasn’t the truth quite frankly – you could just smell the hysteria in the media and from government. So I thought it would be a good idea to see it for myself.

RMS: You spent a year visiting Muslim Britain. What conclusions did you draw at the end of that process?

JF: Firstly, how overwhelmingly varied British Islam is, getting a handle on 3 million people is frankly impossible. But although there isn’t one unique Muslim community the sense of community locally wherever I went was very strong and Islam definitely binds everyone together.

Secondly, the very “Britishness” of British Muslims. There’s a narrative out there that British Muslims don’t feel British but I think it’s the opposite.

Thirdly, Muslims are every bit as mystified and scared and worried about extremism as everybody else is

And finally, I’d say there is a sense of fear, loathing and bewilderment at how the whole narrative has gone wrong. A lot of these segregated communities are being “monstered” as breeding grounds for extremism and are being called no-go zones, but when you actually go there (and I couldn’t find a no-go zone anywhere) they have a strong community spirit, respect for the rule of law and these are in fact characteristics that are incredibly close to traditional Tories.

RMS: You said that you found a community “burning with resentment” and that wasn’t being listened to by politicians and the media.

JF: Yes, that was certainly a strong strand of thought out there but equally there’s a strong strand of thought from people who just want to be left alone and want nothing to do with politics.

My starting point was to go out and interview all those who were constantly being named by media and government like CAGE and the Muslim Brotherhood and when I met them I just kept rubbing my eyes and thought: “Are these the guys that David Cameron labeled as extremists?” They are just not extremists and it’s important to portray these guys as human beings. I don’t necessarily agree with their political views but I absolutely defend their right to say them because we have freedom of political thought in this country and as long as you don’t break the law or incite that’s fine.

RMS: Do you think your own profession, the media, has failed to report on the Muslim community fairly?

JF: By and large yes. I’m a newspaper man and they are in the business of selling newspapers and ISIS was a cracking good story so the narrative got set very early – young kids being hoodwinked by wicked Islamists and then those stories were often accompanied by photographs of somebody in a niqab with a gun.

RMS: Do you think that parts of the media have an ideological agenda against Muslims?

JF: Some of them maybe, but generally I wouldn’t go that far. Questions are always being asked about the Murdoch press but I have friends who work there and I think people have an idea of what Murdoch thinks and then they might write that, but it’s not quite the same thing as having some sinister diktat hanging over you.

RMS: But it seems to me that the government is deliberately conflating social conservatism and political dissent with radicalisation, extremism and terrorism and the media is following that lead.

JF: Once government policy is framed in that way the media do follow. They are in a sort of alliance even though that sounds a bit conspiratorial. I do blame the media for what has gone wrong but I think the government has more responsibility for it.

RMS: Could Muslims do more to root out extremism and terrorism?

JF: I’ve been hearing that argument for 20 years and I think it’s nuts. When someone decides to blow themselves up they don’t tend to go and tell their neighbours and friends about it so what are Muslims supposed to do?

They are on the lookout for it; there are some extremely impressive counter-radicalisation Muslim grassroots organisations out there and they are doing their best. Under Cameron and Theresa May at the Home Office they’ve gone after the ideology; it’s wrong that the ideology is being twisted but that’s not the only reason why people become extremists. The country’s own intelligence services know this, there is no one single path towards terrorism. You need a far more nuanced approach to this stuff.

RMS: As a non-Muslim what do you make of some of the social conservatism that exists in our community that may be at odds with Western values? For example, most Muslims will think that homosexuality is a sin.

JF: I think the centre ground of British Islam is much more conservative than the government believes because they tend to only listen to reformers and liberals. That said, I think morality is a private matter and the state shouldn’t be legislating for morality as long as you obey the law.

I was born in the 1960s when homosexuality was still illegal but public values have changed although traditional Islamic ones have not because they are taken from the Quran. Who’s to say who’s right? It is possible to have private views about homosexuality and obey the law. We live in a very diverse society and you have to make allowances for people’s private beliefs and prejudices.

RMS: You’ve probably visited Muslim Britain to a greater extent than any of us. What was your favourite and least favourite place?

JF: I found some places just jaw-dropping. Bradford is an extraordinary place physically – the hills, the terraces going around and the factory chimneys, the grimy Coronation Sreet feel to it; it’s incredibly Asian and I had no idea it was like that. East Birmingham was another one, the size of it just goes on and on.

I thought the sweetest and the most moving community I saw was probably in Inverness. I was there on the summer solstice during Ramadan and the imam told me that there were about 500 Muslims in the Highlands and they come into that mosque as it’s the only one in that area. And what’s so amazing is that because it’s the only mosque sectarian differences get forgotten so you’ve got Shias and Sunnis all praying together.

The feistiest place where I thought I was going to have trouble was Luton but I didn’t in the end. Luton has been under the microscope for so long and people are fed up of the attention so it has more of a shell around it than most places, but even there once I explained what I was doing and with the right introductions it opened up very nicely.

RMS: You fasted the whole month of Ramadan last year. How was that?

JF: I thought it was very tough but I really enjoyed it in the end. My family thought it was hilarious. My 8 year old daughter would say to me: “Daddy, if you cheat and eat something does God kill you?” It was very educational for them too. Fasting forces you to reassess the way you live. Westerners tend to live with very little discipline in our lives and if we want something we just go out and buy it and so I ended up thinking about consumerism in quite an existential way. It makes you think how lucky you are to be able to indulge all those desires that you have. If more of us fasted I think the world would be a better place.

RMS: You write about Scotland in a very positive way and as a model of how Muslims can be well integrated into British society.

JF: Muslims up in Glasgow will happily call themselves “Scottish Muslims” or “Scottish Asians” in a way that English Asians wouldn’t. A lot of Scottish Muslims have bought into the independence campaign and the SNP. There is an inclusiveness up in Scotland that we need to do elsewhere. The way the authorities have handled terrorism is also different to England; they’ve rushed to mosques and given people a hug and said “we stand with you.” And their attitude to foreign policy and the Iraq war is also different. That’s important.

MS: After all the time you spent with Muslims were you tempted to convert to Islam?

JF: No, there is much that I like and admire about Islam and I think a life without spirituality is a less rich life but in the end I think I’m just too much of a Westerner and I’m too jealous of my own independence. And there’s an aspect of Islam that I find a bit constraining and it is very didactic. It’s a holistic system for the whole of life and you can’t be a Muslim-lite. You either buy into it or you don’t.

RMS: Finally, are you optimistic about the future of Muslims in Britain?

JF: We are all part of one nation here and Britain is getting more crowded. And as it does I think our responsibility towards each other increases; there is a moral obligation to find ways of living better together.

But I am optimistic; the things that people complain about – FMG, misogyny and honour killings – are not Islamic at all, they are cultural. As time goes by these things will fade. The government is trying to crack the whip and tell Muslims to assimilate but actually they are doing it by themselves. I think a distinctive form of British Islam is emerging. Society is incredibly multicultural and that’s not going to change. Let’s celebrate it.

http://5pillarsuk.com/2017/06/28/q-and-a-with-james-fergusson-author-of-al-britannia-my-country-a-journey-through-muslim-britain/

سيف الله

07-19-2017, 03:59 PM

Salaam

Another update

Revealed: When PREVENT really put BOOTS on the ground

Boots, the UK’s leading pharmacy-led health and beauty retailer is peddling the Government’s highly divisive Prevent programme by instructing its employees to take ‘notice’ of their colleagues’ changes in behaviour.

A ‘Safeguarding and Prevent’ guidance poster displayed on the walls of its branches as well as a PDF form in the Corporate Responsibility section of the Boots website make implementing Prevent a collective responsibility.

The company instructs staff on how to spot the signs of ‘vulnerability’ which are devastatingly broad and include changes in mood, changes in eating habits and even a change in appearance. This approach in itself is unprecedented; many of these so-called signs are not even found in the highly disputed ERG 22+ factors that form the basis of Prevent.

The misinformed policy of Boots fails to accurately identify the official aim of Prevent, “to stop people becoming terrorists or supporting terrorism”, but rather sets out their aim as ensuring staff “are not drawn towards extremism”. This sweeping company policy has also extended the duty to a corporate setting where it is “everybody’s responsibility”.

This guidance to Boots staff will only serve to generate mistrust, suspicion and facilitate for a toxic programme and its harmful effects to be extended to the private sector and amongst employees on the high street.

Moazzam Begg, Outreach Director for CAGE, said:

“I was made aware of this particular application of Prevent guidance by a former university lecturer who’d been out shopping at his local branch of Boots, who said:

‘I was gobsmacked. It was in public view. I don’t work in there, I was just going in to get my prescription and just saw it in front of me; above a notice for prescription charges. Anyone could have seen this. I’m not sure whether they are informing on their staff or whether it is customers as well’.

“The disturbing part about this is that Prevent has not just encroached upon the relationship of trust between teacher and pupil, doctor and patient and colleagues at work but, some customers clearly believe that it may now potentially seek to extend its reach to cashiers and paying customers. The cumulative effect of this can only sow the seeds of mistrust and discord.

“If a highly respectable high street retailer like Boots has entered the business of policing its staff, then the public needs to know. They also need to know which other companies are following suit.”

https://cage.ngo/press-release/revealed-when-prevent-really-put-boots-on-the-ground/

Scimitar

07-22-2017, 10:03 AM

Surviving Israeli Terrorism: MUST WATCH

سيف الله

08-05-2017, 05:43 PM

Salaam

Another update

CAGE
Surprise Surprise! ��
PREVENT is leading to mass over reporting from schools...
A natural consequence of a programme that targets innocent behaviour under the pretext of 'extremism'.

Schools 'overzealous' in reporting radicalisation fears

Safeguarding teams warn that this can lead to unnecessary, time-consuming assessments and create problems with families

Schools are being “overzealous” in referring concerns to social workers as part of their duty to prevent pupils from becoming radicalised, according to claims in a report published today.

The research report published by the Department for Education looks into how children's social care workers in local authorities were responding to radicalisation.

Schools have a legal duty under the Prevent policy to identify children at risk of being radicalised and to take action, for example by referring their concerns to safeguarding teams.

However, the DfE's research found that social workers were concerned about the number of referrals they were receiving from schools and other services.

The report says: “Where universal services [including schools] were perceived to be overzealous or over-sensitive in their referrals, this was felt to be a potential stress on safeguarding and child protection resources."

'Inappropriate' referrals

Frontline practitioners in several authorities spoke of receiving referrals "that were ultimately found to be below safeguarding and child protection thresholds, which nevertheless resulted in time-consuming assessments and problems in relationships with families and young people," the report adds.

One example given was a referral from a junior school after a child had told teachers they were going to Syria the next day with their family.

A multi-agency meeting was called and police visited – only to find that the family had bought return tickets to Damascus for a legitimate family holiday and there was no case for intervention.

The social worker in the case said the process had created a problematic relationship with the family, and questioned whether the original referral had been appropriate.

There have been previous warnings that teachers felt they had insufficient training over how to deal with pupils whom they fear could be at risk of radicalisation.

https://www.tes.com/news/school-news...lisation-fears

سيف الله

08-05-2017, 08:27 PM

Salaam

Another comment piece.

I applaud British Islam’s refusal to bow to the establishment

I’m not asked to demonstrate that I am not a radical, or prove that I am an asset to society. So why should Muslims be pressed to do so?

Back in May, at the Roundhouse Poetry Slam, the brilliant Suhaiymah Manzoor-Khan took to the stage to denounce the importance of being one of those good Muslims, as opposed to one of the bad ones. I refuse to have to prove my humanity to you by cracking a smile, and saying how “I also cry at the end of Toy Story 3”, she said, her voice shaking with intensity and focus. I won’t try to tell you about “the complex inner worlds of Sumeahs and Aishas.” “No,” she insists, “this will not be a ‘Muslims are like us’ poem. I refuse to be respectable … Because if you need me to prove my humanity, I’m not the one that’s not human.”

I wholeheartedly applaud this refusal of respectability. I’m not asked to flaunt my moral or emotional credentials in order to be treated decently. I’m not asked to demonstrate that I am not a radical, or prove that I am an asset to society. Yet this is what immigrant communities, especially those that come with some “foreign” religion, are regularly pressed to do .

A report out this week, chaired by the MP and QC Dominic Grieve and titled The Missing Muslims, encourages adherents of Islam to greater participation in civil society and public life. It calls for more British-born imams and greater integration of Muslims into British cultural life.

It’s not a bad report, and its intentions are worthy. It recognises that there are problems with the Prevent agenda – which is an understatement – and it wonders out loud if an official definition of Islamophobia, along the lines of that used for antisemitism, should be explored. But, as with so many of the numerous reports about British Muslims, the focus is always on Islam as a problem to be solved and the need to distinguish between good Muslims and bad Muslims.

This good Muslim/bad Muslim distinction has history, of course. It was precisely this distinction that the British colonial authorities used to separate the secular, wine-drinking, western-integrated, moderate Muslims who were prepared to collaborate with British rule and the suspiciously religious, uppity, bearded Muslims who refused to bend the knee to colonial power. As the Oxford professor Tariq Ramadan has rightly pointed out, the good Muslim/bad Muslim distinction is entirely unhelpful, not least because it associates being good and moderate with some diminution of a Muslim’s religiosity. The distinction effectively says: if you are brown and pray more times a day than the local vicar then you should probably expect to have your phone tapped.

There is another problem with establishment bodies calling for Muslim participation within civil society. The British establishment has a longstanding and highly effective strategy when forced to deal with a “foreign” religion they don’t really understand – they seek to transform it into a mini version of the Church of England. This is how it works: first they encourage an organisational coherence, and crucially a hierarchy, and then they draw the newly established leadership into the establishment, with invitations to the Queen’s garden party and possibly a seat in the House of Lords. They did this with Jews in the 19th century. And they are trying to do it to Muslims in the 21st.

Jews called it the Minhag Anglia. The very idea of the chief rabbi, for instance – not a traditionally Jewish institution – was modelled on the office of archbishop of Canterbury, and its office holders took to behaving likewise. Take Hermann Adler, appointed in 1891. Adler styled himself “Very Reverend” and started wearing gaiters. He liked dining in London clubs and was made a CVO, Commander of the Royal Victorian Order. “He gave the Chief Rabbinate a high, unique dignity, ensuring that the Jews would be accorded official representation in national life,” wrote Rabbi Raymond Apple in a 1998 essay. Others saw it differently: he was the “willing captive of the gilded gentry”, wrote one columnist of the time.

This same strategy of drawing Muslims into the establishment has been at work for some time. But it’s a much harder sell because Islam is so much more theologically resistant to hierarchical thinking. It shuns the idea of popes or archbishops and insists that all human beings have equal access to God. This is what I most admire about British Islam. Its bolshy “Protestantism”. Its refusal to be bought off by official trinkets. Its refusal of respectability.

http://www.hizb.org.uk/news-watch/i-applaud-british-islams-refusal-bow-establishment/

سيف الله

08-14-2017, 08:18 PM

Salaam

Another update

Home Office ‘outsourcing’ surveillance to Far Right Henry Jackson Society – Report Summary

CAGE has released a new report which for the first time reveals the inner workings of the Extremism Analysis Unit (EAU) within the Home Office and its implications for wider civil society.

The high court case of Dr Salman Butt V Home Office has exposed how the British Government outsources the designation of “extremists” for security purposes to the extreme right-wing charity the Henry Jackson Society. The judicial review has presented a number of issues of huge significance.

At the core of Dr Butt’s legal challenge to being labelled an “extremist”, were the lawfulness of PREVENT guidance; the failure to have due regard for freedom of speech when implementing the policy; and the collection and storage of data by the Extremism Analysis Unit, which was argued amounted to warrantless surveillance and was in breach of the European Commission on Human Rights guidance.

Encouragingly, the judge agreed that the PREVENT guidance does fail to have due regard to freedom of speech. This means universities will now have to weigh freedom of speech concerns up against the PREVENT duty and give platforms to speakers with this in mind.

However, what the judge failed to recognise were concerns related to the collection and storage of data on “extremists” by the Home Office departments Extremism Analysis Unit (EAU), a secretive group with strong neoconservative links.

He also failed to examine and interrogate the role of the Research Information and Communications Unit (RICU), which shapes the “hearts and minds” of British citizens and has been likened to Cold War propaganda units.

The witness statements in the Dr Butt’s case provided by Paul Willis from the EAU and Matt Collins from RICU provide an unprecedented look into the workings of the Home Office. These units help determine who is an “extremist” in the UK, and it is necessary to reveal their scope and their links to dubious right-wing organisations.

The scope and focus of the EAU and RICU are broad and “fluid”

The role of the EAU is to determine and analyse “extremist” narratives, and to provide “the Office for Counter Terrorism and other customer departments” with information about “extremist” individuals and organisations, that will affect counter-extremism policy and work.

The EAU primarily feeds information to PREVENT officers, but their “customer departments” can also be “international”. Meaning that determinations of “extremism” can be shared with foreign governments and agencies.

The EAU operates directly under the authority of the UK Home Secretary who is accountable to Parliament. Both the EAU and RICU assist the government in its Prevent strategy, by conducting research (EAU) and coordinating propaganda (RICU).

RICU’s extremism unit and the EAU are focussed on the threat posed by the “ideology of extremism”. They admit that their definition of extremism is “fluid” which is dangerously subjective. Furthermore, the focus of the EAU is clearly on “understanding Islamist extremism” with the majority of its resources and employees targeting Muslims.

In their focus on “extremism”, special attention is given to how “extremism” is linked to terrorism. While Collins from RICU, in his testimony, referred to a ‘perfect storm’ of conditions that lead to terrorism, he implied that ideology is a key factor.

Rather than recognising the role of stereotyping, surveillance and disenfranchisement in pushing individuals towards violence, these units are still in the business of honing in on ideas, and “rhetoric that is anti-Western, divisive or critical of core British values”, drawing a link between these ideas and the potential to commit violence.

In order to counter these ideas, RICU invests heavily in counter-narratives by funding projects and organisations whose aim is to stop “extremism”. While the organisations currently funded by Prevent are not publicly declared, they are increasing; in 2015 RICU delivered 130 community-based projects which reached over 42,000 participants, almost double the number funded in 2014.

RICU and the EAU’s focus on narratives that challenge those of the state, as well as on Muslims, means that both units reinforce a structural form of discrimination. This can be easily extended to other groups due to the “fluid” definitions of “extremism” and the lack of consensus over what constitute “core British values”.

RICU and the EAU draw information from discredited right-wing organisations

Not only are the EAU and RICU operating from an extremely subjective and prejudiced space, but their views on terrorism and extremism are rooted in neoconservative politics and mistrust of Muslim communities.

RICU’s Collins quotes research conducted by the Centre for Social Cohesion (CSC), which is an organisation that was set up by Civitas who have promoted Baroness Caroline Cox’s vision of a civilizational struggle between the West and Islam.

The notion that Islam is incompatible with the West is reflected in CSC’s former director, Douglas Murray. Known for his mistrust of Muslims, Murray has consistently presented Islam and Muslims as being part of an existential threat to the western world.

In 2006, Douglas Murray told members of the Dutch Parliament: “Conditions for Muslims in Europe must be made harder across the board: Europe must look like a less attractive proposition. We in Europe owe – after all – no special dues to Islam. We owe them no religious holidays, special rights or privileges.”

The Centre for Social Cohesion’s counter-extremism research was subsumed into the Henry Jackson Society (HJS), with Hannah Stuart assuming her position as a researcher, and Douglas Murray becoming associate director. It’s far-right, neoconservative funding streams come from Nina Rosenwald who has been dubbed “the sugar mama of anti-Muslim hate” by journalist Max Blumenthal.

In the same vein, the EAU’s Willis explains that some of the EAU’s analysis is based on evidence provided to them by staff at the Henry Jackson Society through the organisation Student Rights, who “provide the information they were already sending to the Home Office in the form of a weekly digest” detailing extremism on campus.

The alignment of Student Rights can be understood through the involvement of Raheem Kassam as director of the organisation from 2009 to early 2014. Last year, speaking of their relationship while jointly running the neoconservative blog, The Commentator, Robin Shepherd said: “Raheem Kassam is a danger to British democracy, and the rule of law. I saw at first-hand behaviour that was so appalling it was, and remains, difficult to internalise.”

A “guidance” that has been misapplied with disastrous results

At no point do either RICU or the EAU make clear that they engage with scholars and experts from the critical terrorism studies community in order to maintain some balance in their assessments.

There is also no indication that those who have made assessments on them, are ever given an opportunity to challenge the final analysis. Rather, the EAU presents their determinations as objective and feeds them to public bodies to use in implementing PREVENT.

PREVENT in the beginning was marketed as a guidance, not an obligation. Its objective was to prevent terrorism, not so-called “extremism” – but now, in an increasingly fear-based environment, the pro-PREVENT lobby has shifted the boundaries. It is now increasingly an obligation, and its targets are the many who fall under the broad definition of “extremism”.

This has caused a misapplication of a “guidance” that was supposed to prevent political violence and which has done anything but. Not only this, it has resulted in a vicious campaign that has destroyed many lives, threatening individuals’ careers and the well-being of families.

The links between blatantly right-wing organisations and the EAU means the hunt for “extremists” is a political one, the end goal of which is to reinforce state power over individuals, organisations and families through court processes that violate due process.

CAGE calls for these court decisions to be reversed, and for families and individuals who have been branded as “extremists” based on these dubious assessments, to receive apologies for the damage it has done to their lives.

https://cage.ngo/article/home-office-outsourcing-surveillance-to-far-right-henry-jackson-society-report-summary/

سيف الله

08-22-2017, 01:18 PM

Salaam

Another update

All terror laws must go: Government’s Independent Reviewer of Terrorism legislation recognises incompatibility of terror laws with the rule of law

Max Hill QC stated in the Independent yesterday that terror laws should be scrapped and there should not be any prosecutions for ‘thought crimes’.

Dr Adnan Siddiqui, CAGE Director said:

“Max Hill is right to call for the end to all terror laws in this country. The Independent Reviewers comments come as a welcome break from a norm that has allowed this politicised corpus of law to continue to expand. The criminal justice system is adequate without entrenching Emergency laws that were intended only to be a temporary measure. A ‘state of exception’ has instead led to the normalisation of emergency powers over 17 years through 14 separate pieces of legislation.”

“CAGE reiterates its June announcement: We call for an abolition of the extensive web of laws that have ensnared our fundamental freedoms and rights. We call upon all right minded people to join our struggle to establish once again the Rule of Law and apply it to all irrespective of their background, race or religion.”

https://cage.ngo/press-release/all-terror-laws-must-go-governments-independent-reviewer-of-terrorism-legislation-recognises-incompatibility-of-terror-laws-with-the-rule-of-law/

سيف الله

10-03-2017, 03:57 PM

Salaam

Another update

Rabbani Trial Reactions: A Moral Victory Against Schedule 7

This week our international director Muhammad Rabbani appeared in Westminster Magistrate’s Court to defend the privacy of a torture victim after he was arrested for not divulging passwords at a Schedule 7 stop at Heathrow in November last year. Rabbani was protecting crucial information in a case implicating high ranking officials in torture.

Judge Emma Arbuthnot was constrained by the intrusive law to deliver a guilty verdict for obstructing a Schedule 7 search. Importantly she acknowledged that the issue of passwords and privacy was a fundamental one in our digital age and agreed that Rabbani was indeed carrying confidential material and that through his actions, was of good character and sound belief.

Such an outcome is a positive step in the campaign against this authoritarian law. It underlines the absurdity and injustice of Schedule 7 and demonstrates how far we have regressed when protecting client confidentiality and your privacy is deemed a ‘terrorism’ offence. The law allows for warrantless digital strip-searches, suspicionless stops, and mass profiling. As it stands, CAGE has no option but to appeal the verdict and challenge the law itself.

The media coverage of the outcome was overwhelmingly positive for CAGE. News outlets underscored the role that CAGE was playing, as the guardian not only of torture evidence, but also of the privacy and rights of all. Several journalists wrote about Rabbani’s courage and even more of them acknowledged the implications of the case for all those who pass through airports with confidential client information or private personal or professional data. Many raised the issue of the injustice of the Schedule 7 law.

The case also mobilised the community. The public gallery at court was packed, and over 100 supporters turned up outside the court on a Monday afternoon to show solidarity with Rabbani. Countless messages of support came from far and wide. Twitter and Facebook were alive with comments and we were overwhelmed by the goodwill shown towards CAGE. We would like thank all those who raised their voices in unison with ours.

https://cage.ngo/article/rabbani-trial-reactions-a-moral-victory-against-schedule-7/

- - - Updated - - -

Salaam

And another

Anti-torture advocate vows to appeal after magistrates court decision in crucial privacy case

London – Anti-torture advocate and International Director of CAGE Muhammad Rabbani will appeal a magistrate court’s decision that found him guilty yesterday in a landmark privacy case.

Mr Rabbani was ordered to pay court costs of £620 and was granted a conditional discharge of 12 months.

The judgement follows an incident where Mr Rabbani was stopped and searched in November at London Heathrow. He cited client confidentiality as a reason to refuse the police access to his devices. In relation to this point, both judge and prosecution accepted that Mr Rabbani was of good character and worthy of belief.

Schedule 7 gives police at borders unfettered access to individuals’ digital worlds, even when there is no suspicion of a crime. This is a violation of the rule of law. Moreover, statistics show that these digital strip searches overwhelmingly target Muslims, although they have broader implications for all those who carry confidential information.

Dr Adnan Siddiqui, Director of CAGE, said:

“Finding against Rabbani for upholding the rule of law, making a stand against the harassment of Muslims at airports, and protecting a torture victim’s right to seek accountability highlights the injustices of the system. The outcome demands an attitude of courage and fortitude from our supporters, as well as broader civil society. We must continue to challenge these injustices despite intimidation.”

“We would like to thank all those who supported Rabbani and CAGE in resisting oppressive counter-terrorism legislation, which has seen the steady erosion of our value and liberties. Despite the outcome, coercion and intimidation have still failed to break the principle of trust which is a key value of CAGE and all those who understand justice.”

Muhammad Rabbani, International Director of CAGE, said:

“I will be appealing this decision. In reality, Schedule 7 discriminates and the result indicates that our only option is to change the law. This judgement confirms that a person can fall foul of Terrorism laws for protecting client confidentiality. The principle of presumption of innocence, the principle of client confidentiality and the principle of personal privacy are all too important to surrender even with the threat of conviction. Maintaining the trust of the torture survivor is key to holding the perpetrators of his torture to account. CAGE will continue to seek accountability and due process, with the confidence that our community and our supporters are behind us.”

Gareth Peirce, solicitor, said:

“This is a mockery of the concept of due process – the exercise of a principled, rational, truthful, justifiable concern that legitimate confidential obligations should be respected is transformed instead into a strict liability criminal offence. The idea that there is access to any protection is nonsensical. The only comfort in this outcome is that it exposes vividly how shoddy and shabby are the claims that Schedule 7 stops are carefully calibrated, proportionally applied measures that serve to protect national security. The reality is Mr Rabbani’s experience boils down to having to run a capricious gauntlet of interference with every journey and with the Damocles sword of prosecution hanging over every stop.”

https://cage.ngo/press-release/anti-torture-advocate-vows-to-appeal-after-magistrates-court-decision-in-crucial-privacy-case/

سيف الله

10-12-2017, 08:53 PM

Salaam

The pathetic Blair returns from the dead.

The irony of Tony Blair: how one of the world’s greatest neo-con “extremists” has stepped into the “extremism” debate

Last week, the Tony Blair Institute for Global Change, a new policy shaping institute which professes to be “helping countries, their people, and their governments address some of the most difficult challenges in the world today” released a report criminalising several Muslim organisations.

Making absolutely no mention of the grievances that fuel political violence or the pressing need to address the abuse of Muslims, the report, seized upon and quoted by right-wing media, pinned the blame for political violence on a handful of “hate preachers” as well as UK “Islamist” groups, which it claimed audaciously serve as “recruiting pools” for violent “jihadism”.

The assertions of a trajectory of violence between ‘non-violent’ Muslim organisations and political violence, coming from an institute headed by an individual who is perhaps one of the greatest warmongers of recent times, is laughable. In fact, Tony Blair is responsible for significantly increasing the risk of political violence on the streets by plunging the UK into a succession of wars despite warnings from the security services.
Close connections to despotic regimes

Following his role in the invasion of Iraq and subsequent to his role as prime minister at the time, Blair pocketed more than $30 million in oil revenues from his secret dealings with a South Korean oil consortium, UI Energy Corporation, which specialises in oil exploration in Iraq.

Besides this profit from mass murder, perhaps the most telling examples of Blair’s political legacy and danger to society, are his links to despotic regimes in Egypt, Libya and Saudi Arabia.

In Egypt, President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi’s security forces have been accused by Human Rights Watch of arresting tens of thousands of Egyptians, as well as of torture, enforced disappearances and “extrajudical executions”, known in common parlance as murder. In 2013, Sisi overthrew the country’s first freely elected president, Mohamed Morsy, and from this has the blood of more than 1,150 people on his hands.

But it is Tony Blair who has stood behind him: in 2014, Blair wrote: “It is massively to our advantage that President Sisi succeeds. We should help him.”

Blair has also cashed in on Sisi’s leadership, stepping in as an advisor to the despot and furthering a brand of government-approved Islam which is fuel for various abusive but ultimately profitable “counter-terrorism” measures that have seen the mass curtailment of freedoms:

“Blair has become Sisi’s éminence grise [advisor behind the scenes] and is working on the economic plan that the UAE is paying for. For him, it combines both an existential battle against Islamism and mouth-watering business opportunities in return for the kind of persuasive advocacy he provided George Bush over Iraq,” wrote Peter Oborne.

When it comes to Libya, it is widely accepted that Blair, with the assistance of then foreign secretary Jack Straw and MI6’s Sir Mark Allen, handed over Libyan dissident Abdul-Hakim Belhaj and his pregnant wife Fatima Boudchar to Libyan leader Moammar Qaddafi in return for his co-operation in the ‘War on Terror’. The Boudchars were renditioned and tortured and have yet to receive an apology from the British government since their trial moved to secret court.

Blair’s ‘business interests’

Blair’s enterprises, which traded under the name Tony Blair Associates, included Windrush Ventures, under which Blair provided consultancy services to various governments around the world. According to the Telegraph: “Windrush Ventures was set up to channel money earned by Mr Blair through a series of consultancies giving advice to governments and their leaders including to Nursultan Nazarbayev, the autocratic ruler of Kazakhstan.”

Blair has made a substantial amount of money exporting his deathly political legacy. In 2015, Windrush saw its turnover increase by a third to £19.4 million in 2015, while profits tripled to £2.6 million. According to the Daily Mail, staff working for the firm have received an average pay increase that year of more than £30,000.

Even earlier than that, in November 2010, PetroSaudi hired Tony Blair Associates, then the trading name of his two groups of firms Firerush and Windrush, to court Chinese leaders to allow access to PetroSaudi, a London-based company co-owned by Prince Turki bin Abdullah – the son of Saudi Arabia’s then monarch. According to the Guardian, Blair was serving as Middle East peace envoy for the US, UN, EU and Russia at the time.

These are just a few of Blair’s dodgy business deals and links to despotic regimes whose human rights record is abysmal. And yet he reserves the right to declare what is acceptable Islam and what is not. It is no surprise then that last year, Blair proclaimed in an interview that “many millions” of Muslims hold a viewpoint that is “fundamentally incompatible with the modern world.” Now this year, his institute has released their report that casts Muslim organisations under suspicion.

The latest report on “jihadists” in Britain must be seen in light of these and other glaring and incriminating facts about Blair, a man who appears to be putting all his efforts into exporting his failed legacy to the world, in opposition to the sensibilities of the vast majority who are concerned with justice and peace.

https://cage.ngo/article/the-irony-of-tony-blair-how-one-of-the-worlds-greatest-neo-con-extremists-has-stepped-into-the-extremism-debate/

سيف الله

10-15-2017, 05:46 PM

Salaam

Another update

M.I.A.

10-17-2017, 04:01 PM

https://youtu.be/rz5fZziMWEE

A plan is constantly in effect, i just cant figure it out lol.

سيف الله

11-02-2017, 08:42 PM

Salaam

Another update

Outlawing gender segregation: How PREVENT and Ofsted are about conditioning our children, neo-con style

A recent ruling to ban gender segregation in faith schools is hypocritical and steeped in the hate-filled neo-conservative agenda to make conditions harder for Muslims “across the board”. But it will also affect other faith groups and is a call to action for us all.

Recently, the court of appeal ruled that a co-educational Islamic school in Birmingham, Al-Hijrah school, a voluntary-aided mixed-sex state school, could no longer separate boys and girls. This confusing ruling has called into question the neutrality of the court as it adversely affects Muslims by holding them to a unique standard.

It also exemplifies how PREVENT is being imported into the judicial system and it entrenches Ofsted’s role as an increasingly intrusive “regulator” that acts as an ideological henchman for the state.

A judgment steeped in hypocrisy which targets Islam

The ruling has attracted much commentary. However, it is important to focus on the actual judgment before addressing the deteriorating state of government institutions.

The judgment comprises the views of three judges, with the third Gloster LJ (Dame Elizabeth Gloster) approvingly referencing and citing the Casey Review, a highly problematic review for its anti-Islamic bias.

The arguments in the judgment assert that because a boy pupil can mix with other boy pupils but a girl cannot and vice versa, there is discrimination for each individual pupil on the grounds of sex.

This is highly hypocritical given the fact that all three judges attended elite single sex schools, and also problematic in light of the school’s insistence, with evidence, that it operated a “separate but equal” policy.

If this is the case, then why does this argument not apply to two single-sex schools – one boys and one girls – which discriminate on the basis of sex at the point of enrolment despite being under the regulatory auspices of Ofsted? Why does the court, Gloster LJ, and the pro-PREVENT interveners in this case refuse to consider this blatant contradiction?

The judges also determine “less favourable” treatment on the basis of Ofsted’s ideological agenda. Its findings were based on responses from a few pupils, which were then arbitrarily extrapolated to the general practice of segregation within the school. This approach can indeed be taken with single-sex schools too and yet again, this point is of little concern for the likes of Ofsted and the Equality Commission.

According to a report in the Guardian, “the school’s lawyers argued in court that the segregation was one of its defining characteristics. They said the policy was clear to parents who wished to send their children there and to previous Ofsted inspectors, who had never raised it as a concern”. In other words, teachers and parents (and even previous Ofsted inspectors!) saw this policy as being in the best interests of the children.

The influence of pro-PREVENT organisations whose aim it is to enforce the prevailing hierarchy

It is obvious that this judgment specifically targets Islam, although it will also adversely affect Jewish schools. This is not surprising when one takes a closer look at the background of those involved in this case – they are against religion. Islam in the current global climate is an easy target, and they are supported by the anti-Muslim bias of the tabloid press and their associated mob.

Gloster LJ mentions that she finds interventions by Inspire and Southall Black Sisters as “instructive” in the case. The fact that the opinions of these groups are being used as a guideline by top judges shows that the judiciary in Britain is becoming politicised by groups whose agendas are far from independent, while Muslim and even Jewish religious experts were not consulted at all.

Inspire is dedicated to promoting and defending discriminatory, academically baseless policy of PREVENT, a policy which allows power structures to coerce and bully minorities. Inspire has also received funding in the past from the Home Office for
projecting black propaganda to Muslims in the UK in order to bring about a state-approved version of Islam.

It is rich of Southall Black Sisters to intervene in a case concerning Muslims, whilst its founder Gita Sahgal seeks to restrict the rights of Muslim women to choose they way they dress, and how they conduct themselves in relation to men. Sahgal is a close associate of Maryam Namazie who has also expressed hateful views and called for a ban on hijab.

The Casey Review and the fingerprints of the neo-conservative hate network

But there is even more to this judgment than meets the eye. In order to enforce this aggressive secular view, these interveners and Gloster LJ assert that girls suffer greater detriment though segregation. Gloster LJ does this by relying on what the majority judges call “an objective inference” from the “entirety of evidence”.

Among this evidence is the Casey Review. The Casey Review is far from objective, however. It internalises PREVENT logic and Louise Casey herself is not known for evidence-based policy. Her previous reports have been criticised by academics for a “lack of rigour and transparency in the methods used to gather and analyse data”.

Ofsted, Amanda Spielman and Michael Gove

Questions only increase when it comes to Ofsted’s new head, Amanda Spielman, who is not without controversy. She was heavily criticised by the Education Select Committee in her pre-appointment questions for lacking passion and understanding for her role as well as teaching experience.

The Committee concluded that “Amanda Spielman was not prepared for the vast scope and complexity of this important role.” However, this advice was ignored and Nicky Morgan appointed Spielman anyway.

It is pertinent to note that Morgan’s tenure as secretary of state for education was mired by the revelation that her department was still being “back-seat” driven by warmongering, anti-Islam neoconservative Michael Gove and his allies. Spielman’s connection to the neocon does not end here. In fact she has a lengthy working relationship with him.

In 2011, Michael Gove and his then special advisor Dominic Cummings were exposed for their close links to a charity called the New Schools Network (NSN). Spielman was a trustee at the NSN, which was set up to provide advice and guidance to set up independent state-funded schools. It has several links to the Conservative Party. Spielman was also a member of the Sykes review group set up by Gove to review the school assessment system.

Not only was Spielman part of Gove’s agenda here, but she was research and development director of the academy operator. ARK was deeply implicated in the 2014 Trojan Horse scandal.

More worryingly, the Casey Review was heavily influenced by the neoconservative hate network. The Review references David Goodhart’s disturbing book The British Dream. Goodhart was formerly on the advisory council of notorious neoconservative Douglas Murray’s Centre for Social Cohesion, which later joined with the Henry Jackson Society.

He was also listed among those on the advisory board of the Quilliam Foundation in 2010. He now is a member of the advisory for Demos and currently heads the Demography, Immigration and Integration unit of Michael Gove’s notorious neoconservative think-tank, Policy Exchange. Notably, all three sources are referenced in the Casey Review.

Other think-tanks referenced in the Casey Review include another neoconservative group called Civitas and in particular, a report by the author David MacEoin. MacEoin said that he has “very negative feelings” about Islam. MacEoin has also authored several articles on the neoconservative propaganda website Gatestone Institute. Gatestone has been described as “one of the most important hubs in America’s Islamophobia industry, pumping out reams of dangerous anti-Muslim propaganda of the kind lapped up by far-right mass murderer Anders Breivik.”

The Gloster LJ opinion demonstrates an alarming lurch towards neoconservative thinking in the judiciary. The citing of the Casey Review and its neo-conservative links should be more vigorously interrogated and exposed.

Conditions for Muslims in Europe must be made harder across the board’

The ruling reflects how the neo-conservative lobby is exerting influence on top judges and the legal system to comply with Douglas Murray’s 2006 goal: “conditions for Muslims in Europe must be made harder across the board”.

For now, the hidden agenda behind this ruling is obvious. The British government – and indeed other like governments around the world – have placed the responsibility for educating children firmly in the hands of the state. In turn, the state is imposing a way of thinking on children with methods reminiscent of a dictatorship.

Through the use of PREVENT to police “British values” and a compliant neo-conservative dominated Ofsted, the government is embarking on a programme of social conditioning that tramples upon religious freedom, threatens other religious groups especially Jewish people, limits choice, and ignores what many parents genuinely believe to be the best conditions for their children to learn and develop as full human beings.

This is a nothing short of oppression and discrimination and should be seen as such, and resisted appropriately, with all the rigour that protecting our children demands.

https://cage.ngo/article/outlawing-gender-segregation-how-prevent-and-ofsted-are-about-conditioning-our-children-neo-con-style/

It is yet more evidence of how this hate-driven network is infiltrating all aspects of public life with its warped ‘War on Terror’ values, among them a support for structural oppression and torture – something CAGE has been warning about for years and in particular warned about in the wake of our victory over the Charity Commission and failed efforts by William Shawcross, a colleague of Murray, to shut us down.

The trickling down of these values into public life in Britain and their threat to the rule of law is something that we will continue to speak up against despite being maligned for doing so.

https://cage.ngo/article/outlawing-gender-segregation-how-prevent-and-ofsted-are-about-conditioning-our-children-neo-con-style/

سيف الله

11-23-2017, 05:04 PM

Salaam

The criminalisation of Islam in the UK continues apace. How low will they go :hmm:.

Inspectors to question primary school girls who wear hijab

Ofsted head says move is to tackle situations in which wearing head covering ‘could be interpreted as sexualisation’

School inspectors in England have been told to question Muslim primary school girls if they are wearing a hijab or similar headscarf, the head of Ofsted has announced.

Amanda Spielman, the head of Ofsted and chief inspector of schools, said the move was to tackle situations in which wearing a hijab “could be interpreted as sexualisation” of girls as young as four or five, when most Islamic teaching requires headdress for girls only at the onset of puberty.

The announcement – in the form of a recommendation to Ofsted inspectors rather than an update to the inspectorate’s official handbook – follows a meeting last week between Spielman and campaigners against the hijab in schools, including Amina Lone, co-director of the Social Action and Research Foundation.

Article continues

Recently Al-Hijrah school, a state Islamic faith school in Birmingham, was the subject of a long legal battle after being classed as inadequate by Ofsted for maintaining strict segregation between boys and girls.

In 2014 an Ofsted inspection of an Islamic faith primary school was derailed after parents complained that inspectors had quizzed pupils as young as nine about their attitudes towards homosexuality.

The Muslim Council of Britain secretary-general, Harun Khan, responded to the move saying: “It is deeply worrying that Ofsted has announced it will be specifically targeting and quizzing young Muslim girls who choose to wear the headscarf.

“It sends a clear message to all British women who adopt this that they are second-class citizens, that while they are free to wear the headscarf, the establishment would prefer that they do not,” he said.

“The many British Muslims who choose to wear the headscarf have done extremely well in education and are breaking glass ceilings. It is disappointing that this is becoming policy without even engaging with a diverse set of mainstream Muslim voices on the topic,” he added.

https://www.theguardian.com/education/2017/nov/19/school-inspectors-to-question-primary-school-girls-who-wear-hijab

- - - Updated - - -

Salaam

Another update

Toxic PREVENT is turning young girls into suspects

London – The announcement that primary school girls will be interrogated by OFSTED for wearing hijab is part of a broader neo-conservative policy driven by PREVENT, and which aims to make “conditions harder for Muslims across the board”.

This is a clear sign that PREVENT is a policy which is poisoning public life and creating an environment in which it is now acceptable to interrogate young children.

This toxic environment is maintained through the infiltration of the public sector by neo-conservative hate networks. The politicisation of OFSTED can be explained in part by the links between the current head Amanda Spielman and Michael Gove.

The move indicates that the regulator is enforcing a climate in which the state has a say over such minutiae as children’s dress codes and, in an attempt to bring about a state-sanctioned Islam, young girls are now being targeted.

Ibrahim Mohamoud, spokesperson for CAGE, said:

“This is yet another example of how PREVENT is allowing Muslim children to be selected for special discrimination within the education system. There is no mention of these kinds of measures being taken in the case of other religious groups that wear head coverings. As such, it is wide open to abuse and the application of Islamophobic criteria.”

“The policy is a signal that OFSTED has been given exemption from the rule of law, since it is in clear breach of the Equalities Act 2010.”

“Such a policy is a further extension of PREVENT, a toxic politically-driven programme that aims to control belief and which teachers themselves have stated has led to a breakdown in debate and trust in the classroom. PREVENT must be completely abolished, as should all policies associated with it.”

https://cage.ngo/press-release/toxic...into-suspects/

- - - Updated - - -

Salaam

Another comment piece.

Ofsted Hijab Inquisition – We will interrogate your children to promote our liberalism

The chief inspector of schools in Britain, Amanda Spielman, has aligned herself with the secular fanatics who wish to impose their liberal values on everyone, showing that attempts to undermine Islam are getting more desperate and more sinister.

The Times newspaper reported “Inspectors are to question children who wear the hijab (sic) to primary school,” and that “it will be the first time the rise of the classroom hijab has been officially challenged in state schools.”

Whilst it is not a shari’ah requirement for children to adopt any particular dress code, it is not unusual that parents would want to instill basic modesty within them, so that they grow up with values that stand them in good stead for the rest of their life. Hence why should it be a problem for a parent to ask their child to dress with the clothing that they will be required to wear when they do become an adult? This is aside from the reality that children like to dress like the ones whom they look up to around them, which is naturally their parents, older sisters, cousins and aunties.

In fact there is no reason to attack the school girls who wear khimar in such a way, other than to further the cause of the bigoted Islam haters who have given up all hope of winning people to secularism through rational debate. They cannot attack the Islamic beliefs, upon which all of the shariah rules are founded, as they will then leave themselves hopelessly exposed, as the secular belief has no rational foundation at all. They instead choose to target the vulnerable Muslim children, implying that adherence to Islamic rules is oppressing them, as they are unable to critique the belief foundation for those very rules. It is Allah’s plan, however, that in spite of all their plans, is the best of plans.

http://www.hizb.org.uk/media/press-releases/ofsted-hijab-inquisition-will-interrogate-children-promote-liberalism/

Karl

11-24-2017, 11:34 PM

Amanda Spielman and Michael Gove look like Jews. I think the problem here is that Jews have infiltrated Britain and currently rule. If it was under Anglo Saxon and other northern tribes rule they wouldn't let Muslim immigrants in at all, so there would be no problems.

سيف الله

11-30-2017, 08:24 PM

Salaam

Another update

New algorithm to predict crime will bring on a full spectrum surveillance state

London – A series of recommendations from an official review made public last week includes the development of a new algorithm to mine data and detect behaviour that could indicate future involvement in “terrorism”.

This is a threat to an open, accountable and non-partisan justice system that will shift the balance from an evidence-based approach to pre-crime – and it will move Britain closer to a full spectrum surveillance state despite Parliament and the public showing opposition to this.

Computers are only as objective and accurate as their programmers. This is proved by the devastation wrought by drone attacks and the broad and subjective nature of databases such as World Check, which has listed major charities, activists, and mainstream religious institutions under its category of “terrorism”.

Moreover, methods of intelligence gathering lack transparency as they are often covert and not open to the scrutiny of the justice system. This, along with the almost annual implementation of terror laws, means the rule of law continues to be eroded and the failures of the current approach rewarded, while the threat of political violence is still at a high.

Rather, what Britain needs is a fresh, innovative approach to the problem, which addresses root causes instead of bypassing this key issue and eroding the rights of all.

Muhammad Rabbani, CAGE International Director, said:

“Both the seizure of data without suspicion and the mining of this data with algorithms whose creation and methodology remain far from public scrutiny are a violation of due process. The public is unable to challenge the state’s methods and assumptions in both cases.”

“Rather than serving justice, prediction of future activity serves commercial and political interests which are orientated around an Islamophobic worldview, but which can be extended to other communities. As such they are nothing less than an attempt to extend the grip of the security state over all of us, and will create ever higher levels of mistrust and fear.”

“We call for an end to these counterproductive methods and a return to due process. Predicting the future by those intent on securing their political position is unprecedented, bound to be inaccurate, and is a threat to society.”

https://cage.ngo/press-release/new-algorithm-to-predict-crime-will-bring-on-a-full-spectrum-surveillance-state/

سيف الله

12-14-2017, 05:04 PM

Salaam

Another update.

Boris Johnson’s attempt to whitewash British foreign policy is a denial of reality

London – Boris Johnson’s speech at the Foreign Office today claiming that British foreign policy is the solution for and not the cause of political violence, represents a complete denial of reality and an attempt by the government to dodge any responsibility for our current situation.

Armed groups and those imprisoned for political violence, cite British foreign policy as a key grievance. This has been acknowledged by countless voices of authority including, Baroness Manningham-Buller, a former director-general of MI5, who in 2010 said: “Our involvement in Iraq, for want of a better word, radicalised a whole generation of young people, some of them British citizens who saw our involvement in Iraq, on top of our involvement in Afghanistan, as being an attack on Islam.”

In fact, Britain cites threats of violence or actual violence by these armed groups as a justification to carry out its own violent military strikes.

Before he left office US President Barack Obama admitted that the creation of Islamic State was an “unintended consequence” of the US-led invasion of Iraq and its subsequent dismemberment.

Considering Iraq was invaded based on flawed evidence centred on “dodgy dossiers” and tortured evidence, Boris Johnson’s assertion that problems in the Middle East have increased because of Britain’s “aloofness” beggar belief. When he says “British foreign policy is not the problem; it is part of the solution” Johnson tramples on the beliefs and views of millions of ordinary British people.

Dr Adnan Siddiqui, director of CAGE, said:

“Mr Johnson’s comments give air to right-wing groups and follow on from his earlier statements on Brexit which have inspired a narrow, insular nationalism, the consequences of which are being felt not only by Muslims, but all right-minded people concerned with justice.”

“Mr Johnson makes no mention of the swathe of evidence testifying to how the rule of law has been consistently and brutally eroded by the ‘War on Terror’ both abroad and at home. Not acknowledging this as a root cause of violence that needs to be tackled urgently, is quite simply a denial of reality, if not an outright deception. As such, it takes us further from solutions and simply reinvigorates an already failing approach.”

https://cage.ngo/press-release/boris-johnsons-attempt-to-whitewash-british-foreign-policy-is-a-denial-of-reality/

سيف الله

12-16-2017, 09:00 PM

Salaam

Another update.

New counter-terror rules give GPs bizarre incentives to refer mental health patients as radicalisation threat

London – New counter-terrorism rules that will give doctors incentives to refer individuals with mental health issues to PREVENT shows that the government is exploiting the doctor-patient care responsibility in an attempt to increase subscription to its toxic PREVENT programme.

The rules stipulate that urgent psychiatric care will now be provided by mental health trusts to those people with psychological problems who are referred to Prevent. This will influence doctors to refer patients to PREVENT in order to speed up treatment times.

Dr Adnan Siddiqui, CAGE Director and GP said:

“This latest move highlights the government’s determination to further the toxic PREVENT agenda under the guise of safeguarding even if it is as the expense of the wellbeing of societies most vulnerable people.”

“The government is effectively channelling psychiatric cases into a securitised policy that has been proven to damage individuals and families. The effect on doctor-patient trust and patient health will be devastating.”

“Safeguarding and public sector ethics rely on trust, and making public sector workers the handmaidens of the state, not only erodes that trust but has made no tangible improvement to national security.”

https://cage.ngo/press-release/new-policy-exposes-how-the-government-exploits-mental-health-patients-by-incentivising-referrals-to-its-toxic-prevent-programme/

Karl

12-16-2017, 11:53 PM

Brilliant! So the paranoid psychotics wont go to the doctor for help because of this "1984" Orwellian policy. Why is Britain as red as Mao's China these days? May as well burn the flag and put up a hammer and sickle.

سيف الله

12-17-2017, 12:50 AM

Salaam

Another video.

سيف الله

12-22-2017, 09:09 PM

Salaam

Another update

By casting teachers as informants, British counter-extremism policy is promoting violence

The Muslim children in my classroom withdrew from political debate when the Prevent counter-terrorism strategy cast me as an informant.

Prevent infers a duty on all teachers and doctors in England, Scotland and Wales to report signs of so-called “extremism” and “radicalisation” in their pupils and patients. Applying this duty is particularly difficult as “extremism” has not been legally defined by the Home Office.

Working as a secondary school teacher in London from 2005 to 2017, I was required to implement the Prevent counter-extremism strategy. My concern over the impact it was having on the dynamic of my and other classrooms led me to speak out against Prevent and counter-extremism strategy more generally.

When my Muslim students learned of my concerns, some of them approached me to express their anxiety that Prevent was a state surveillance strategy which was targeting them as a result of racial profiling – concerns supported by academic research. The children told me they hadn’t talked to other adults about this for fear that their vocal opposition to this controversial strategy would result in them being reported to the security services.

Some of the children told me that they no longer challenged the views of others that they perceived to be extreme. They feared that speaking out on sensitive issues would result in them being referred under Prevent, just by association. I have been offered examples of this happening in the classroom, on the street and in children’s homes.

Whether the children’s fears were justified or not, Prevent was altering their behaviour. I’ve heard similar examples repeated to me in focus groups I arranged of children from different schools in the London borough of Tower Hamlets.
Dialogue makes a classroom

Teachers, academics and politicians disagree over whether Prevent promotes or stifles debate in classrooms. This disagreement will continue until all of those with an interest in education recognise that there are different types of classroom debates.

The education expert Robin Alexander argues that authentic dialogue in classrooms is rare. Instead of having genuine conversations that may result in children and their teachers changing their preconceived views, children tend to be expected to offer their teachers anticipated answers. But authentic dialogue is crucial if schools are to promote a more harmonious society – for it is through genuine debate that we all moderate our views.

Before Prevent was imposed on schools, some of the children at the secondary school where I taught approached me to discuss how they had begun to feel alienated from society. Concerns such as the impact of British foreign policy on civilians in Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria were a frequent topic of conversation. When my students raised these concerns, I was often able to tell them that I shared them – and this helped us think of possible responses.

The children raised suggestions of travelling to war zones, but quickly dismissed them in favour of peaceful, democratic solutions. Through talking, they learned to write to MPs, raise funds for refugee charities and contribute to human rights campaigns. Threats of nationalist violence were also dismissed as we explored our values through dialogue – dialogue that my students have since told me they no longer engage in.

When all that’s left is violence

Many theorists have argued that peace in a democracy relies on people having their say. Belgian political theorist, Chantal Mouffe, wrote in her book On The Political that violence “tends to flourish in circumstances in which there are no legitimate political channels for the expression of grievances”. She describes the shutting down of discourse in a democracy as “letting death in”.

The late French philosopher, Jacques Derrida, in his conversations on 9/11 and other work, described what he called the “autoimmunity of liberalism”. This results from the liberal contradiction of simultaneously trying to suppress dissent while also promoting freedom. Derrida wrote that this contradiction at the core of liberalism results from an aspiration to consensual politics but can result in a violent backlash.

In my ongoing research, I am analysing over a million words of government policy on counter-extremism. It’s revealed that the definitions of “extremism” and “radicalisation” progressively changed to become synonymous with violence between 2005 and 2015. The meaning of words affects how we perceive the world and aligning extreme and radical views with violence not only creates a perceived need for counter-extremism strategy but also acts as a catalyst for the violence that the strategy purports to address.

A strategy such as Prevent that targets radical and extreme views becomes necessary if we accept this change in the meaning of what it is to be “radical” or “extreme”. However, the experiences of my pupils show that the expression of extreme and radical views can actually help to reduce violence.

This moderation of extreme views extends beyond the classroom. People protesting against fracking as well as other student protesters have been referred to the Prevent programme. Silencing dissenting voices undermines the mechanisms by which democracy helps us to avoid violence. Labelling those who oppose the status quo as violent adds a catalyst to this already dangerous situation.

The Home Office is currently in the final stages of recruitment for a counter-extremism commissioner. While the lack of a legal definition for “extremism” makes it difficult to anticipate what this role will involve, surely the successful candidate will want to reduce political violence. Removing the Prevent duty that compels teachers to inform on their students would be a good start.

https://theconversation.com/by-casting-teachers-as-informants-british-counter-extremism-policy-is-promoting-violence-85474?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=twitterbutton

سيف الله

01-01-2018, 10:25 PM

Salaam

Another update

Johnson’s fines for ‘no-platforming’ exposes a deep government hypocrisy

Government hypocrisy, it seems, is at an all time high as the year draws to a close. This week, with seemingly no sense of irony, higher education minister Jo Johnson announced that a new body, the Office for Students, will from April 2018 fine universities for refusing to host certain controversial speakers, while at the same time enforce the PREVENT duty.

Since the PREVENT duty already limits free speech by “disrupting” organisations and individuals in campuses under broad and malleable definitions of “extremism” that are discriminatory, we can only conclude that Johnson’s moves are a further attempt by the government to support ‘controversial’ speakers that feed its narratives, while at the same time clamping down on those who do not, under PREVENT.

When it comes to “stifling dissent”, Johnson is adept. In 2015, using his position of authority to negatively frame the National Union of Students (NUS), he asked the NUS to drop opposition to PREVENT.

All of this is taking place behind the illusion of protecting free speech, when in fact, through this duplicitous approach, the government is really becoming the sole arbiter of ‘free speech’. This political corruption feeds the government’s modified ‘muscular liberalism’. Not only this, but the moves will securitise education by streamlining by law what can and cannot be said on campuses, and by whom, according to this purported ‘liberal’ agenda.

This once again illustrates the state’s hypocritical double standards: ‘free speech’ for controversial speakers deemed palatable to the state agenda, PREVENT for all those who do not, with particular focus on Muslims.

PREVENT is toxic and has led to a corrupt environment

But it is not only Muslims that are affected. The involvement of the state within the fabric of universities deeply undermines the academic environment. It is widely acknowledged that PREVENT results in “confusion in the staffroom and suspicion in the classroom”. Now the deceptively named Office for Students (OfS) will add to this mess.

The OfS was set up by Johnson and Education secretary Justine Greening under the Department for Education. Justine Greening is an alumni the Conservative think-tank Bow Group, having formerly served its council. Pertinently, its senior patron includes the neoconservative philosopher Roger Scruton.

Unsurprisingly, Scruton is also listed as a Policy Council Member for Murray’s Henry Jackson Society – the notorious, hate-funded neoconservative think-tank that has influenced the British counter-extremism strategy.

With these links, the government has been encroaching on academic expression and chasing ghosts in it’s campaign to quell voices of dissent. The warnings of 360 academics about the consequences of state intervention in the academic environment are being realised today.

This overarching effect has also given air to alarming developments revealed through individual cases. In the case of Salman Butt vs Downing Street, CAGE published how court proceedings revealed that the government is fed data by the far-right Henry Jackson Society on individuals and organisations it deems “extremist” on campuses. This data is used as court evidence and has further bolstered a warped and neo-conservative definition of “extremism”, while criminalising dissent.

This development alone highlights the gross incompetence of this government and the grave error in providing it with any oversight in defining or protecting ‘free speech’.

How the state uses red herrings to drive their neo-conservative agenda

The enforcement of an aggressive neo-conservative agenda is often done through the sweeping application of the anti-Semitism label. Recently, hundreds of academics claimed that free speech on Israel is being suppressed by individuals and groups who deliberately seek to conflate criticism of Israel with anti-Semitism.

It is no wonder then that pro-Palestine groups are among the highest referrals from Universities to PREVENT. In fact, the anti-Semitism threat has been extended to any opposition against Israel and support for Palestinian rights, despite the fact that there are many Jewish supporters for these causes.

The appropriation of the anti-Semitic label for political ends is deeply cynical and offensive. However, the utilisation of the term under PREVENT shows how far the government will go to employ red herrings in order to control spaces where students organise and attempt to take action against injustice.

The students on campus are not the threat to free speech. This threat emanates through the corridors of power by using regulators like the OfS to push an ideological agenda rather than protect student rights. Given this trend it is difficult envisage OfS becoming overtly concerned with genuine student issues such as student debts, funding, finance and the pervading rape culture.

Students and broader society should not be fooled by Johnson’s words claiming that “government [is simply] playing its part in actively creating the conditions necessary for our universities to serve as the vibrant free-trading marketplaces for ideas that we need them to be.”

On the contrary, campuses are now even more inhibited by incessant state overreach. PREVENT intends to debilitate any capacity for student organising and dissent within campuses, while this new announcement by Johnson will allow ideologues who are friendly to the state programme to speak unchallenged at universities.

https://cage.ngo/article/johnsons-fines-for-no-platforming-exposes-a-deep-government-hypocrisy/

سيف الله

01-03-2018, 12:29 AM

Salaam

Another update

سيف الله

01-05-2018, 05:40 PM

Salaam

Another update

Children rounded up in Kenya madrassa raid by FBI and Scotland Yard must be returned to parents

Johannesburg – The 95 children taken into custody after a raid by the FBI and Scotland Yard on a madrassa in Likoni, Kenya, must be released and returned to their parents immediately.

The raid was conducted on 20 December by local and international forces, who claimed, without evidence, that the madrassa was operating a “terrorist cell”.

But according to the Council of Imams and Preachers of Kenya treasurer Sheikh Hassan Omar, the parents of the children are still waiting to be told exactly why their children were taken into custody. He said security forces had “picked and harassed our children without any reason”.

The latest news reports on the issue claimed the children are being interrogated by foreign agencies.

Feroze Boda, spokesperson for CAGE Africa, said:

“The fact that foreign security forces from the US and UK can swoop into a madrassa and detain almost 100 children shows how global counter-terrorism operations are a threat to international law, which is supposed to protect children from the trauma of detention and interrogation.”

“We call for the children to be released immediately and for due process. Police cannot use the results of interrogations to build a case. Justice demands that enough evidence be presented first, to determine whether it is necessary to question children, and even then strict legal standards must be maintained. However, foreign agencies are turning due process on its head, traumatising many families. Kenyans should be outraged that foreign agencies are allowed to launch operations of this nature on their soil.”

https://cage.ngo/press-release/children-rounded-up-in-kenya-madrassa-raid-by-fbi-and-scotland-yard-must-be-returned-to-parents/

سيف الله

01-14-2018, 07:26 PM

Salaam

Another update

East London primary school bans the hijab

A primary school in East London with a large Muslim intake has banned the hijab for pupils up to the age of 7.

St Stephen’s Primary School in Upton Park, Newham, has already banned the hijab in sports lessons because it allegedly “hinders movement.” It also discourages fasting on “health and safety” grounds.

In a video on the right-wing The Sunday Times website the school’s non-Muslim headteacher, Neena Lall, said that she wanted to teach the children to be British and that they should feel fortunate to be in the British education system.

She added: “They can still practise their religion and their culture but also take the best that this country has to offer. And every child, every member of staff and every parent buy into that vision because it works and what we are doing here is for the good of the children so that they can integrate into society.”

The Department of Education said: “It is a matter for individual schools to decide how to accommodate children observing Ramadan, and to set uniform policies.”

It is not clear what the views of Muslim parents and children at the school are but Muslim educationalist Yusuf Patel said the move smacked of “social engineering” and “forced assimilation.”

He said: “My own view is that this is a very clear case of schools overstepping their mark and delving into parenting issues. Their role is simply to educate our children without taking over responsibility for the values that parents should be responsible for.”

In recent years there has been a campaign against the hijab in schools led by right-wing ideologues, secular fundamentalists and anti-Muslim activists.

https://5pillarsuk.com/2018/01/14/east-london-primary-school-bans-the-hijab/

سيف الله

01-21-2018, 09:46 PM

Salaam

Another update, some good news.

East London primary school backs down over hijab ban

Chair of governors at St Stephen’s primary school in Newham resigns following complaints from parents

A primary school that controversially banned pupils from wearing hijabs appears to have backed down after the chair of governors announced his resignation following complaints from parents.

St Stephen’s primary school in Newham, east London, hit the headlines at the weekend after the Sunday Times reported it had banned Muslim girls under the age of eight from wearing headscarves, to the delight of campaigners who argued it enforces religious conformity on children.

That decision, along with curbs on children fasting on school days during Ramadan, upset many parents, who said they had not been consulted.
On Friday, the school’s chair of governors, Arif Qawi, said he was stepping down, telling colleagues in an email: “I wish the school continued success and am truly sorry that my actions have caused any harm to the reputation of the fantastic school.”

Qawi’s comments regarding “Islamisation” posted on social media attracted sustained criticism, while parents complained that they first heard about the ban through the media rather than the school.
The website for St Stephen’s posted a note on Friday, headlined as a uniform policy update, that read: “Having spoken to our school community we now have a deeper understanding of the matter and have decided to reverse our position with immediate effect.”

The note was later amended to read: “The school has taken the decision to make the changes to this policy with immediate effect and this follows on from conversations with our school community. We will work with out school community to continue to review this policy going forward in the best interests of our children.”

Miqdaad Versi, the assistant secretary general of the Muslim Council of Britain, said his organisation welcomed Qawi’s resignation because of his “appalling” statements in support of the ban.
“This decision on religious symbols did not appear to target adherents of other faiths and appears to have been made without consulting the parents or community,” Versi said. “Yet serious questions remain unanswered as to the school leadership’s attitude towards Muslims, which are potentially discriminatory.

“It is deeply disappointing that a primary school with such a reputation has acted in this way. We hope that future decisions are made carefully and with full consultation with local communities.”

Amina Lone, an activist who has lobbied the government to bar hijabs in schools for young girls, was disappointed by the school’s U-turn: “A result of clicktivism in all its polarised glory. So much for choice and individual liberty. Terribly sad day for a secular democracy,” Lone wrote on Twitter.

Earlier this week, a group of Newham councillors criticised the school’s decision for creating a “toxic atmosphere” and called for the hijab ban to be reversed.

“It is troubling that the school has decided on a course of action that has clearly divided them from the very community they look to serve,” the councillors said in a statement.

The Department for Education’s policy is for individual schools to set their own uniform policies.
The Sunday Times had previously claimed that St Stephen’s was the best primary school in England last year, based on its outstanding key stage two test results. But the DfE’s performance tables show that a small number of other primaries achieved better results.

The school did not respond to attempts to contact it.

https://www.theguardian.com/education/2018/jan/19/east-london-primary-school-backs-down-over-hijab-ban

سيف الله

01-25-2018, 11:59 AM

Salaam

Another update

سيف الله

01-27-2018, 01:58 PM

Salaam

Another update

Commission for Counter Extremism flawed in both purpose and function: CAGE

London – The idea of a Commission for Counter Extremism (CCE) when there is no accepted definition of “extremism” is flawed at best.
The definition can only be found in policy documents relating to Prevent and that definition has come under a great deal of fire from civil society and community organisations.
If opposition to the rule of law is a sign of “extremism”, then the systematic dismantling of due process rights in the UK legal system and silencing of dissent is indicative of state sponsored “extremism”, with the CCE being the latest manifestation.

Asim Qureshi research director at CAGE, said:

“The government has already made up its mind about where the emphasis of its counter extremism strategy should be. Throughout the history of Prevent it has relied on partners with minimal links to communities in order to prop up the policy. The appointment of Sara Khan is unremarkable considering the long history of such state nepotism.”
“CAGE calls for a complete policy of disengagement with the commission.”

https://cage.ngo/press-release/commission-for-counter-extremism-flawed-in-both-purpose-and-function-cage/

سيف الله

01-27-2018, 09:17 PM

Salaam

Another update. Seems the British government is grooming the Ahmadis to be their bootlickers, and they are quite happy to oblige.

Ahmadis take out advert in Metro claiming to respresent “true Islam”

The “Ahmadiyya Muslim Community” have taken a full page advert out in the Metro Scotland newspaper claiming to represent the “true Islam.”

Ahmadis are considered to be outside of the fold of Islam by mainstream Islamic scholars because they do not accept that the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) was the final messenger.

The Metro advert, which would have been distributed to hundreds of thousands of readers across Scotland, features a large picture of the “Ahmadi messiah” Mirza Ghulam Ahmad.

Ahmadis self-identify as Muslims and have achieved a good degree of influence in government and the mainstream media. They say that their message is one of tolerance and love and that they stand against extremism. They also complain of persecution in countries such as Pakistan.

In 2016 the Muslim Council of Britain, the largest Muslim umbrella organisation in the UK, issued a statement reaffirming their position on the Ahmadiyya sect as non-Muslims.

The statement said: “The MCB fully subscribes to pluralism and peaceful coexistence and acknowledges the rights of all to believe as they choose without coercion, fear and intimidation.

“We affirm the right of Ahmadis to their freedom of belief and reject any attacks on their property or persons. They have the right to live free from discrimination or persecution. The targeting of Ahmadis for their beliefs is totally unacceptable.

“The Muslim Council of Britain reflects the clear theological position expressed across Islamic traditions: namely that the cornerstone of Islam is to believe in One God and in the finality of the Prophethood of the Messenger Muhammad, peace be upon him. We understand that this is not a tenet subscribed to by the Ahmadi community.

“The MCB Constitution requires our affiliates to declare that Messenger Muhammad peace be upon him is the final prophet and whoever does not subscribe to that declaration cannot be eligible for affiliation with the MCB. Given this fundamental theological difference with the Ahmadi community, the MCB is not in a position to represent or be represented by the Ahmadi community.

“Despite our clear theological beliefs, we note that pressure is mounting to describe this community as Muslim. Muslims should not be forced to class Ahmadis as Muslims if they do not wish to do so, at the same time, we call on Muslims to be sensitive, and above all, respect all people irrespective of belief or background.”

https://5pillarsuk.com/2018/01/21/ahmadis-take-out-advert-in-metro-claiming-to-respresent-true-islam/

Misbah-Abd

01-27-2018, 10:37 PM

One of the reasons why they are being coaxed by the allies of shaytan is because they are deviant and it's an opportunity to corrupt the truth of Islam.

سيف الله

01-28-2018, 08:02 PM

Salaam

Another update

Preventing Prevent

Young Muslims are being unfairly reported as extremists

When I was at university studying my undergraduate degree, I developed a long-running in-joke with my friends and flatmates about being the only Muslim. A huge part of this involved kidding around about our internet search histories, and how I was probably definitely on a watchlist somewhere by dint of being brown and Muslim.

It was a way of coping with the mistrust aimed at me in everyday situations, like when I got stared at suspiciously after boarding public transport with a backpack full of books – it was a way of making light of the situation, because sometimes if you don’t laugh at the absurdity of it all, you’ll cry.

When the Syrian refugee crisis came to a head, scores of young brainwashed women went to Syria, to join ISIS. Amid all this my curious flatmate searched flights to Syria, wondering if it was even possible to find travel options to the war-torn country. It wasn’t, obviously.

I joked about it like we always did. “Why on earth would you search flights to Syria when you live with a Muslim woman?” I asked him. “When MI5 break down the door and drag me away because they think I’m a fundamentalist, I’m blaming you!”

It’s not something to joke about. Because the truth is, being questioned over something like that wouldn’t be anything out of the ordinary for a Muslim university student. For many of us studying after the Prevent Duty was enforced in 2015, being watched and reported has become part of our way of life. And that’s not funny.

What is Prevent?

Prevent is one of the four strands of CONTEST, the UK’s counter-terrorism strategy. The other three strands are named Pursue, Protect and Prepare respectively, but Prevent has been the section of the counter-terrorism strategy to hit headlines consistently.

Prevent is often explained to the public as a UK-wide safeguarding policy, to stop vulnerable members of society being exposed to the views of terrorist groups; to identify those who might have already been exposed to extremist views, and eventually to stop instances of homegrown terrorism.

The policy was first proposed by New Labour in 2006, and was transformed by the Conservative/Liberal Democrat coalition in 2011: this version of Prevent drew strong criticisms, but despite this, the policy was broadened and made compulsory in public institutions in 2015.

Every person working in specific parts of the public sector is given mandatory Prevent training: from primary school teachers to NHS staff, from those working for charities to those involved in community groups. These people have a responsibility, under the 2015 Prevent Duty, to report any individuals who seem to be at risk of being drawn into terrorist activity, or who may have been exposed to extremist views.

Once individuals are reported, they are reviewed, and if they are confirmed to be at risk of holding extremist views, are referred to Prevent’s sister-initiative, Channel. Channel is a police-led initiative which aims to support these vulnerable individuals and deter them from committing acts of terrorism, with support from Muslim mentors.

Young Muslims targetted

Young Muslims are disproportionately affected by Prevent referrals. The vast majority of the 7,631 people referred under the policy were aged 20 or under, the latest government data shows. Two-thirds of all referrals were due to worries about “Islamist” extremism, and 10% (759 people) were referred due to worries about “extreme right-wing” extremism.

Muslims are 40 times more likely than a non-Muslims to be targetted – in fact, one in every 500 Muslims in the UK are referred to Prevent.

What is more troubling is it seems like young Muslims are being profiled, as the majority of those who are referred under Prevent are in no danger of radicalisation. Of all the people referred, only 5% are directed through the Channel initiative to receive specialist help.

Uneven application

Prevent allows governments to look like they’re doing something substantial to tackle home-grown terrorism, whether by supporting the policy, condemning it, or calling for an independent review.

Conservatives stand behind the policy, having rolled out the Prevent Duty in 2015, but failed to mention it in their Manifesto, whereas Labour have promised to review it in their Manifesto, stating: “In doing so, we will address the government’s failure to take any effective new measures against a growing problem of extreme or violent radicalisation.”

However, critics argue Prevent fails to cover an area where it is needed most. Despite the fact that Northern Ireland has a higher threat rating used by MI5, Prevent is not implemented there – when this was questioned in a Commons debate in January 2016, Gavin Robinson, the MP for Belfast East, said: “That is an important point. The Government recently published a counter-extremism strategy. When I asked why Northern Ireland, which has a fair number of extremists, was not included in the strategy, I was told, ‘Don’t push the issue too far. It is really a counter-Islamic strategy’.”

Communities and censorship

The most prominent criticism of the Prevent strategy is the disproportionate way it affects Muslim communities and black communities. Nothing happens in a vacuum — with right-wing media outlets in the UK pushing narratives that paint non-white and Muslim people as extremists, and white non-Muslims who perpetrate violence against others as “lone wolves”, there are popular ideas of who “counts” as a terrorist, and who doesn’t. These ideas, as well as factors like racist and Islamophobic attitudes, are very likely to contribute to the over-referral of Muslim and black (and black Muslim) people to Prevent.

Another concern is that Prevent may be encouraging censorship at universities and schools. In a 2015 statement, the University and College Union stated: “The government’s approach is a dangerous strategy. It risks silencing those who are most vulnerable, leaving them no space in which to express their opinions or be challenged safely. Due to the Islamophobic narrative surrounding ‘extremism’, it also risks certain communities being targeted unfairly.”

There is also a complete lack of transparency surrounding Prevent. The latest figures don’t show answer many of the important questions: who is reporting people to Prevent? How effective is the strategy? What percentage of people put through Prevent and Channel still go on to commit acts of terrorism?

There’s also some secrecy surrounding the resources used to create and implement Prevent. Manchester-based creative Afshan D’Souza-Lodhi worked on a counter-terrorism project for the now-defunct Greater Manchester Police Authority, not realising that her contributions as a young Muslim woman were then used for Prevent.

She tells The Overtake: “It was a ‘counter terrorism and preventing violent extremism project’. With a team of young people, I helped write a teachers’ resource pack so that teachers could take it into schools and have uncomfortable conversations with young people. Did I realise that it would give teachers the ability and ease to ‘put people on lists’? No, of course not. Does it make me a little uncomfortable now? Yes.”

As a Muslim woman, Afshan resents not being told what her work was used for: “Knowing what I know now about Prevent and the targeting of young Muslims, it makes me a little uncomfortable that I worked on a project doing exactly that. At the time I thought it was a good way to address (what I now know to be) Islamophobia and racism. I didn’t think it would be used to target anyone, whatsoever. But then I was 16, eager to help and creatively active.”

The Prevent Duty has been called out by NGOs on several occasions, for varying reasons. Some groups state that Prevent has a detrimental effect on people who don’t need to be referred to counter-terrorism initiatives, but to mental health services.

Others point to various cases in which a double standard is in place, where Muslims are either reported for ridiculous reasons or treated differently from their non-Muslim counterparts in similar scenarios. For example, schools in BNP and EDL heartlands were only targeting Muslims for Prevent referrals. In another scenario, a physics teacher explained the concept of nuclear fission to their students, and a few students in the class had queries about how nuclear fission related to nuclear bombs – of these students, the only request for a Prevent referral was for a young Muslim boy.

These differences in the way that young Muslim children are treated has had obvious consequences – the Muslim Council of Britain has heard reports from worried parents of the Islamic faith who actively discourage their children from discussing their faith at school.

Calls for independent review

Since 2011, Prevent has been dogged by calls for an independent review, or a scrapping of the policy altogether. The Muslim Council of Britain has consistently asked for an independent review of the Prevent strategy, stating that an effective strategy for counter-terrorism that includes Muslim communities instead of alienating them, is desperately needed.

In 2016, an open letter backing independent review, signed by 380 people, including MPs, academics, NUS officers and prominent human rights lawyers was delivered to Parliament. Even former security officials who worked on Prevent have criticised it, referring to it as “a toxic brand”, and “counterproductive”.

Students Not Suspects: Preventing Prevent

The National Union of Students is openly anti-Prevent, and two years ago, launched the Students Not Suspects campaign in response to the 2015 Prevent Duty. Hareem Ghani, the NUS Women’s Officer, explained that the initial campaign focused on non-compliance and a national tour to educate students on what the Prevent Duty was, and how to pass policy against it in Student Unions.

The NUS provides resources for countering the strategy, like a handbook and the Prevent helpline, which gives students affected by Prevent support and advice. The NUS is also set to host another UK-wide tour of universities to raise awareness.

“The biggest concern for me is the way in which Prevent is affecting our education,” Ghani says.

“The Education Sector, for example, accounts for 33% of all referrals. The Prevent duty is breeding an atmosphere of distrust, leading to a culture of over-reporting and most worryingly cracking down on academic debate and political dissent – see, for example, the ways in which Palestinian student societies have been targeted in the past year.”

When asked what the current government should be doing, Ghani thinks that they “should be meeting with external stakeholders who have legitimate concerns about the policy and calling for a review (if not repealing the duty altogether).”

“Let’s be absolutely clear about what it is that we’re saying: we are aware that radicalisation is a pressing issue, and we agree it needs to be addressed. However, the current policy as it stands is fundamentally flawed. We need a policy that is effective and engages with the Muslim community, rather than vilifying them altogether.”

https://theovertake.com/~alpha/preventing-prevent/

- - - Updated - - -

Salaam

Police are determined to intimidate those who oppose the prevent programme.

سيف الله

01-31-2018, 07:00 PM

Salaam

Another update

Why the CCE needs to go

To properly identify the purpose and agenda of the Commission for Countering Extremism, and to understand why it needs to be disbanded, it is necessary to look closer at its claimed functions against the backdrop of a rapidly evolving counter-extremism landscape.

This landscape is filled with organisations that are profiting from the duplicitous task of “countering extremism”, in the process stifling ideas and expression that run contrary to the government’s own. The CCE is the latest addition to this toxic mix whose desired end result is a closed society, where only those narratives agreeable to the state are acceptable.

Claim 1: The Commission has nothing to do with PREVENT

The CCE fits into a web of organisations and individuals tasked with upholding the aims of the Home Office, which is to police society through programmes like Prevent, into compliance with a neo-conservative foreign and domestic state policy.
These organisations interact with one another and come from the same neo-conservative nexus, the aim of which is to silence dissenters, whether they be charities, environmentalists or anti-war campaigners, Muslims or pro-Palestinian activists. Clear evidence of this comes in the form of the existence of Counter Terrorism Local Profiles (CTLPs) a Stasi-style system used by security services to force local councils to identify “extremist threats”, which in turn interacts with Prevent.

Meanwhile, lurking in the shadows is the Extremism Analysis Unit (EAU), a government informant that identifies and reports so called “extremists” on campuses, under the direction of the hate-mongering Henry Jackson Society, whose definition of “extremism” fulfills a right-wing agenda but whose dubious tip-offs are used to blacklist individuals and organisations through the courts. In addition to this, there is the existence of Research and Information Communication Unit (RICU), the secretive government unit charged with analysing Muslim behaviour and belief and producing propaganda to influence them through manipulating or bribing grassroots organisations to align with its world view in a fashion reminiscent of the Cold War.

The latest addition to this toxic mix is the CCE. Nothing embodies the crossover between the CCE and these former organisations more than the lead commissioner, Sara Khan, herself. In fact, since her appointment, no right-thinking person has any excuse not to see quite clearly what the government is doing here.

Khan is a sock puppet of Prevent – it is common knowledge that her organisation Inspire was the recipient of considerable Prevent funding as was her book – and her sister held a senior position in RICU.

Moreover, instead of engaging the Muslim community, Khan has taken aim at various leading Muslim figures and organisations, while continuing to advocate the failed Prevent policy. It is obvious that she will bring this same outlook to her new role, marrying the pre-crime space created by Prevent and its enforcement in schools and public bodies, with the identification and criminalisation of those she and her commission decide are “extremists”.

The Home Office even states that the CCE “will support the public sector, communities and civil society to confront extremism wherever it exists promote fundamental, pluralistic British values”. It is perfectly twinned with Prevent.
With a “small secretariat” to assist her in her new role, Ms Khan yields considerable power despite her low standing in the Muslim community. To compound this, she and the CCE will have a role in calling for new laws. This and her clear Prevent ties, should prompt us to call for the complete disbandment of the CCE.

Claim 2: The Commission has a clear remit to support the government, the public sector, and civil and wider society to identify and challenge all forms of extremism.

In plainer words, the CCE will make full use of state techniques of surveillance, belief analysis and censorship to influence all levels of society into accepting views that align with those of the Tory government, while criminalising those that don’t. All of this will be done in a climate where the definition of extremism has not been agreed upon at parliamentary level and remains wide open to subjective interpretation.

In fact, the phrase “all forms of extremism” yields the catch net of the CCE even wider – not only have we not agreed upon what constitutes extremism, but we must now accept that there are many forms of these as yet undefined set of beliefs which can be criminalised.

While the mandate of the CCE is startlingly broad, it is also firmly focussed on the Muslim community. This means that the commission will adopt a sweeping approach to the community, with a state-sanctioned Islam as the desired outcome.

Claim 3: The CCE will provide the government with impartial, external advice on the tools, policies and approaches needed to tackle extremism

It is self evident that the CCE cannot be “impartial” and “external” while at the same time having a “clear remit to support the government” and, as further defined on the official website, being an “expert committee of the Home Office”.
Claims of independence and impartiality are the smoke and mirrors PR speak of the counter-extremism sector that can be dispelled by the vast amount of evidence that shows clearly that bodies like the CCE will never be impartial due to the environment in which they exist, where the flawed narrative of “extremism” is not only accepted but is used to drive the state agenda.

Claim 4: Initially, the Commission will widely and openly enter a discussion about extremism and Britain’s values with individuals from all areas of society, independently selecting who it will engage with.

This is a clear contradiction in terms – the CCE cannot “widely and openly” discuss matters, while at the same time “independently selecting” who it will talk to.
The parameters for engagement are clearly set: the CCE will only engage with those who buy into the state’s definition of British values (itself up for debate) and its nefarious counter-extremism programmes and bodies, despite the fact that they have created a surveillance state and destroyed trust in schools and the public sector. This amounts to strong-arming local organisations to adopt the CCE agenda, while offering them a cup of tea.

Claim 5: Because there is a strong correlation between extremism and the poor treatment of women and girls, the commission will have a specific responsibility to ensure women’s rights are upheld

This claim is an attempt to hijack a hot agenda at the moment, which entails the abuse of the ‘women’s rights’ discourse to push a singular secular world view of what female emancipation ought to look like. An example of this is the drive to eliminate the choice for young girls to wear hijab at school, by summoning all the neo-conservative, secular groups and organisations that support it to bully such measures through.

These self same efforts have manifested through PREVENT, and have nothing to do with women’s rights when it comes to practising their faith, but everything to do with making people who take a stand against state-led behaviour and belief policing seem unreasonable. Moreover Ms Khan’s track record of upholding women’s rights has little if any traction in the community. Recent leaked emails show Prevent officers instructing local organisations at the last minute to shepherd women to an Inspire event in order to fill the seats.

Claim 6: It will also produce a strategic assessment of the threat extremism presents as well as the current response and in this initial phase will also advise on the Commission’s future structures and work programmes.

This is evidence that the CCE will be a modern rendering of the McCarthyism panels which did “loyalty” tests on Americans to gauge their patriotism. It’s inherently based on a Manichean system that divides society into evil and good, an us vs them mentality that attempts to sift those who the state sees as espousing their defined “British Values”, from those who propose other philosophies and beliefs. This will be facilitated by increasing bureaucracy at the expense of the taxpayer, despite no academically sound evidence that the rapidly burgeoning counter-extremism sector is providing any real solutions to our challenges. In fact, the CCE is the latest proof that these efforts are divisive and detrimental and they must be halted and disbanded. Failing that, we advocate complete disengagement with the commission.

We continue to call for engagement among all those who seek to genuinely diffuse the root causes of violence, cooperation among grassroots organisations truly representative of the communities under threat, and a roll back of anti-terror laws, Prevent and all strategies that criminalise those who dissent.

https://cage.ngo/article/why-the-cce-needs-to-go/

سيف الله

02-01-2018, 09:28 PM

Salaam

The British governments intimidation campaign continues.

Senior Ofsted official backs headteacher over hijab ban for under eights

Amanda Spielman says religion is being used to ‘actively pervert’ education and school leaders should not fear causing offence when setting policies

Ofsted’s chief inspector has warned of the danger posed by people who use religion to “actively pervert” education as she made an unusual intervention in a dispute between parents and the headteacher of a primary school over banning the youngest Muslim girls from wearing the hijab.

In a speech to a Church of England schools conference on Thursday, Amanda Spielman is to publicly support the head, Neena Lall, who imposed the ban last month in the face of opposition from parents and community leaders at the predominantly Muslim state school in east London.

Ofsted staff conducted a surprise inspection of St Stephen’s primary school in Newham on Wednesday morning, two weeks after the school’s governors overturned Lall’s decision to ban the hijab worn by pupils under the age of eight.

“School leaders must have the right to set school uniform policies in a way that they see fit, in order to promote cohesion,” Spielman will tell the audience of Anglican clerics and educators.

“It is a matter of deep regret that this outstanding school has been subject to a campaign of abuse by some elements within the community. I want to be absolutely clear, Ofsted will always back heads who take tough decisions in the interests of their pupils.”

In her speech Spielman will also call on school leaders to use “muscular liberalism” to defend decisions they make, rather than fear causing offence.

“Ofsted inspectors are increasingly brought into contact with those who want to actively pervert the purpose of education,” Spielmann will say, according to remarks reported by the Times.

“Under the pretext of religious belief, they use education institutions, legal and illegal, to narrow young people’s horizons, to isolate and segregate, and in the worst cases to indoctrinate impressionable minds with extremist ideology.”

In response, a spokesperson for the Muslim Council of Britain said: “As Ms Spielman continues to issue a disproportionate number of public statements about Muslims and apparent links to extremism, we hope she will consult before issuing further unjustifiable policies.

“A lack of appropriate engagement will undoubtedly strengthen the negative perception among many Muslim parents about Ofsted’s interventions.”

Lall’s decision to ban the hijab – on the grounds that Islamic teaching did not require girls to wear it until reaching puberty – provoked criticism from local councillors and parents who complained it had been done without consultation.

The school announced that the ban had been overturned a week later, following the resignation of the chair of governors who had supported Lall’s move but later apologised for comments he had made on social media.

Spielman’s tough line on uniform policies follows a meeting between Ofsted and representatives from faith schools in January, which discussed a new policy aimed at penalising schools found to have bowed to pressure over uniforms.

According to the draft discussed at the meeting, schools that failed to consult adequately or allowed themselves to be swayed by a vocal minority of parents would be downgraded by Ofsted by having their leadership and management graded as inadequate.

In her speech Spielman will tell schools they have a responsibility to “tackle those who actively undermine fundamental British values or equalities law”.

School leaders may need to make “uncomfortable decisions” in the interests of their pupils, and not assume that the most conservative sections of a particular faith represent all its members.

“In that regard schools must not, in their entirely correct goal of promoting tolerance, shy away from challenging fundamentalist practice where it appears in their schools or communities,” Spielman will say.

“Similarly schools must not allow pressure from certain elements of school communities to dictate school policy, nor should we allow vocal parental minorities to pressure other parents and children to act or dress against their wishes. Giving way to the loudest voices is the opposite of tolerance.”

In November 2017 Spielman said Ofsted inspectors would question girls in primary schools wearing the hijab, which drew letters of protest from more than 1,000 academics, teachers and faith leaders accusing Ofsted of a “kneejerk, discriminatory and institutionally racist response”.

https://www.theguardian.com/educatio...r-under-eights

سيف الله

02-01-2018, 10:20 PM

Salaam

Another update

I am insulted at Sara Khan's appointment
#Prevent

Khan's overt support for the UK's Prevent policy should disqualify her from leading the Commission for Countering Extremism

It has been only a few days since the British government appointed Sara Khan as head of the UK's new Commission for Countering Extremism and there has been a predictable reaction.

The Henry Jackson Society, the Quilliam Society and the National Secular Society welcomed the news, alongside others such as "campaigners" Amina Lone, journalist Sunny Hundal , ex-London mayoral candidate Zac Goldsmith and former terror legislation watchdog David Anderson.

Branded as "extremists" or "Islamists" were those who opposed the selection and issued their own statements. They include the Muslim Council of Britain, the former co-chair of the Conservative party Baroness Sayeeda Warsi, Mend Community, Labour MPs Naz Shah and Diane Abbott, and CAGE, the London-based advocacy group focused on Muslim detainees.

Writer and radio host Maajid Nawaaz, as customary, deciding to use his airtime on LBC radio to attack "the usual suspects" for criticising the appointment.

As a woman I would normally celebrate the success of another woman, regardless of faith or colour. However, this time I do not. This time I am offended.

I am offended that a Muslim woman has been used to send the message that the government's controversial counter-terrorism policy, Prevent, will remain, because by choosing someone so in favour of it with hardly any links to the community it becomes clear where the weight of this commission will lie.

How does this bring any independence to the role? And how can we have a commission on extremism when a full independent inquiry of Prevent is being resisted?

Repeatedly we have seen reports by the parliamentary Home Affairs Select Committee identify alienation and disenfranchisement as causes of radicalisation, and so engagement with the Muslim community is paramount. Yet, they have chosen someone who is a strong advocate of disengagement.

An article Khan wrote that was published in a report by Hope Not Hate in 2017, which amounts to a collection of smears directed at dissenting Muslim individuals and organisations, is just the tip of the iceberg.

The broad-brush strokes with which she portrayed these organisations, many of which are stalwarts of the community, does not command confidence. It is true that Khan is from the Pakistani and Muslim communities, but without legitimacy and without trust, this amounts to little.

Impact on the ground?

What evidence is there of any impact of her work on the ground?

In her evidence to the Home Affairs Select Committee, Khan was asked by Naz Shah to illustrate the impact of her work, and she gave two examples in the evidence session, one from an event in 2012 and another from 2013.

Subsequently, supplementary evidence was submitted to demonstrate "impact" of the work done, but it gave no numbers on how many women had attended these events and instead provided extensive evidence of press comments and quotes to news sources. However, this is not impact, this is dissemination.

Impact is to have made demonstrable change. Can Inspire, the organisation which she co-led and which in the past has received Home Office funds, demonstrate that its work actually led to meaningful results?

There is also a perception of nepotism. Khan's sister has held a senior position in the government's Research, Information and Communications Unit (RICU), the body at the heart of the Home Office's propaganda machine, while the issue of Sara Khan's own relationship with the unit when questioned by the Home Affairs Select Committee still hasn't been addressed.

Yet, what is more extraordinary, is that the government has launched a Commission to Counter Extremism when there is no actual legal definition of the term itself. How is it possible to work on something the government has failed to define?

Instead, why not engage more widely with Muslim community organisations and address the concerns around Prevent and the lack of transparency around the Home Office's Extremism Analysis Unit and its work?

Numerous academics, organisations and individuals have expressed their concerns around the discriminatory aspects of the Prevent policy and its pseudo-scientific basis, yet the government still refuses to call an independent enquiry.

The government may have found itself a Muslim woman to serve as a "mouthpiece" for the Home Office alongside others. However, she is outnumbered by those who will not.

When the government starts to listen to the real grassroots voices in the community, we will be waiting. Until then, I, like many others, won't be distracted by the inappropriate appointment nor accept a commission that not only isn't fit for purpose, but shouldn't have been created in the first place.

http://www.middleeasteye.net/columns/i-am-insulted-sara-khans-appointment-1534803746

Karl

02-01-2018, 10:26 PM

Spielman Ashkenazi and a real lefty busy body too. The Zionists invite the Muslims in and then complain about them. I just don't get it. Is it the "keep your friends close but your enemies closer" philosophy? Are they going to start building death camps in Europe for Muslims one day? Are they pitting blacks against whites and hoping they will wipe each other out? A big Ashkenazi uber alles grand plan? They seem to be in powerful positions everywhere. Or maybe I am just a "blue eyed moron" that's what Samantha Bee (Ashkenazi) called my race on television.

Misbah-Abd

02-02-2018, 10:54 AM

Originally Posted by Karl

No, we are just goyim to them....

سيف الله

02-02-2018, 11:26 PM

Salaam

Like to share

سيف الله

02-07-2018, 07:29 PM

Salaam

Another update

The trial by media of Professor Tariq Ramadan erodes the presumption of innocence

London – In all cases of serious sexual assault it is fundamental that the rights of all parties are protected. All efforts must be made to safeguard the interests of victims particularly when the perpetrator is a well know personality. However, the requirement for due process also enshrines the right to a fair hearing. These are basic universal principles that underline the work of CAGE.

We are therefore concerned by the selective leaking of confidential evidence into the public domain which appears to be geared towards damaging the trial process. This is particularly dangerous when such leaks have coincided with prejudicial commentary by senior politicians and the media.

The hypocrisy of such a position has been demonstrated by former Prime Minister Manuel Valls who intervened pejoratively on the Tariq Ramadan case, yet extended the presumption of innocence in defence of the current Finance Minister, who is also accused of rape.

The law requires equal treatment of all suspects and the assumption of innocence before conviction. A trial of these serious allegations should be on the basis of concrete evidence procured in a fair manner, and not on the personality of the accused, or on the bias created by the media.

Furthermore, it is undermining to the interests of justice to use the case of Professor Ramadan as a tool to fan the flames of Islamophobia and play into the dog whistle politics of the far right.

In France, it is reported that the Muslim prison population stands at a shocking 70%. If Professor Ramadan’s trial by media continues on the current trajectory, it will only cement the already existing belief that Muslims are exempt from the French values of liberté, égalité, fraternité.

Moazzam Begg, Outreach Director for CAGE, said:

“CAGE is deeply concerned about the role of those engaged in instigating and perpetuating anti-Muslim sentiments based on the political and religious views of Professor Ramadan in France and beyond.”

“It is important for the legal process to arrive at a fair and just conclusion for all concerned. However, recent and past history shows us that governments are capable of hijacking the very serious issue of sexual offence in order to further smear campaigns against individuals who they perceive to have influence on the public discourse, especially on matters pertaining to civil rights, political dissent, community empowerment, whistleblowing and resisting government overreach.”

https://cage.ngo/press-release/the-trial-by-media-of-professor-tariq-ramadan-erodes-the-presumption-of-innocence/

سيف الله

02-09-2018, 04:26 PM

Salaam

Another update

How the UK government’s 'extremism' strategy targets Muslims

Over the short term, the British policy will deliver political benefits; over the long term, it will open up unnecessary sectarian division

None of us have the faintest excuse for feeling surprised at the intervention by new Ofsted chief Amanda Spielman over the hijab ban at St Stephen's primary school in Newham. Spielman's defence of "muscular liberalism" is another manifestation of the approach that produced Sara Khan as Britain’s first extremism commissioner. Ofsted’s successful High Court appeal to ban gender segregation in Birmingham's Al-Hijrah School forms part of the same pattern. How can we be so certain these three events are connected? Try reading the 2017 Conservative Party manifesto. Spielman is implementing government policy.

Promoting 'British values'

The manifesto states that one of Prime Minister Theresa May's core objectives is "confronting the menace of extremism". It notes: "Extremism, especially Islamist extremism, strips some British people, especially women, of the freedoms they should enjoy, undermines the cohesion of our society and can fuel violence." It pledges that an incoming Tory government would "support the public sector and civil society in identifying extremists, countering their messages and promoting pluralistic, British values."

The leadership chaos inside the Conservatives Party, coupled with Brexit, has caused observers to lose sight of what is actually happening. But there should be no confusion: May is determined to establish a new and much tougher relationship between the central government and Muslims. Those who refuse to conform to so-called “British values” will be pilloried as “extremist”.

Over the short term, the prime minister's war against what she calls extremism will deliver political benefits; just look at the glowing reviews Spielman is already receiving in the mainstream media.

The Muslim communities at the receiving end of the Tory extremism policy are already unpopular. They do not vote Conservative, and provide convenient whipping boys.

Over the long term, I am certain that this new policy will open up unnecessary sectarian divisions. This is because nobody has come up with a definition of extremism; despite the best efforts of the finest minds in Whitehall, all attempts to provide a definition have failed. Indeed, this is why May's promise to bring a counter-extremism bill to parliament has never been fulfilled.

Extremists - from suffragettes to Gandhi

This failure to define extremism is serious because it means that the term is open to abuse. Lacking an agreed meaning, it can be used selectively by politicians and activists as a way of insulting their enemies. According to Hansard, the parliamentary record, the term "extremist" was first used in Parliament in 1912, at the height of the suffragette agitation six years before women secured the vote.

Hereditary peer Viscount Helmsley (who was killed four years later in the Battle of Flers-Courcelette on the western front) told the House of Lords of his "fear that the sensible women, the majority of women, would be so disgusted by the conduct of the extremists of their sex, that you would find that gradually they tended to drift more and more out of politics, and you would be left with this type of woman only, exercising the vote which you are proposing to confer up them to-day." It's easy to see what was going on here. The term extremist was being used to exclude suffragettes from mainstream discourse. Women who did not believe they should have the vote were considered "sensible" (or moderate). By contrast, those who wanted the vote were “extremist” - far beyond the range of accepted opinion. They could therefore be ostracised or ignored.

Today, by an extraordinary historical irony, the positions have switched entirely. Anybody who campaigned for women to be denied the vote would themselves be regarded as “extremists."

Muslims singled out

My research, carried out with my friend and collaborator Alastair Sloan as part of a research project for a book I plan to write on British Islam, shows that once women were given the vote, politicians ceased to describe suffragettes as extremists. Instead, they used the term against those who supported Home Rule for India.

Once again, a huge historical irony is at work. Mahatma Gandhi is today regarded as one of the greatest statesmen in world history; it is the opponents of Indian independence who are seen as the die-hard extremists.

The term was also applied in parliament to the early Zionists who supported the existence of a state of Israel for the Jewish people. This is no longer viewed as an "extremist" position. In fact, not believing the Jewish people have a right to self-determination is, in Britain today, seen as extremist. Nowadays, our research has shown, the term "extremist" is almost exclusively applied to Muslims. Muslims will likely pass on the baton in due course, and some other group will have the misfortune to be invidiously singled out as "extremist" by the dominant media and political class of the age.

Extremism is something that only exists in the eye of the beholder: it cannot be objectively defined, but it does have a spurious authority that makes it ideal for vulgar abuse against whatever group happens to be most unpopular at any given moment.

Before the First World War, that unpopular group was the suffragettes. In the 1930s, it was the agitators for Indian independence and the Zionists. At present, it's applied to Muslims.

Enforcing cultural conformity

There is, however, a special difficulty about the use of the term today that makes it far worse and more dangerous than a century ago when it was applied to suffragettes, Zionists and supporters of Gandhi. This is the Conservative Party determination to incorporate the term into British government practice. Officially sanctioned busybodies like Spielman (who has no teaching experience and was given her job against the advice of the House of Commons education select committee) are starting to use it as part of their work. Spielman is on a mission. Ofsted used to focus on establishing high education standards in British schools. Now it's got a second objective: enforcing cultural conformity in British classrooms - but, it appears, only when it comes to Muslim children.

Crucially, Spielman’s determination to enforce conformity to so-called British values - another undefinable phrase - appears to apply to only Muslims. So far at least, there's no evidence that she has a problem with Jewish boys wearing the kippah with clips and tzitzit, Sikh boys wearing the patka, gender-segregated public school boys wearing top hats and tail jackets and girls wearing ankle-covering floor-length skirts.

Ofsted was firm on this point, with a spokesman noting that Spielman has "been clear that the context of this debate specifically relates to the wearing of the hijab by young girls where traditionally, the hijab is not worn until girls reach puberty, as a mark of modesty as they become young women".

In other words, Spielman's war against extremism in British schools is being applied selectively.

No legal definition of extremism

To be fair to Spielman, this is inevitable once you start using a term that has no generally agreed meaning. This is spelled out very well in an excellent research note circulated on Wednesday by the advocacy group Cage, entitled "Why we must reject the Commission for Countering Extremism".

"The CCE has no such basis in law," the note states. "It has not been debated in Parliament, there is no legal definition of extremism and its work is not underpinned by any parliamentary authority."

It then draws attention to an alarming exchange between Democratic Unionist Party MP Gavin Robinson and Conservative MP Gerald Howarth in Parliament in January 2016. Robinson told Parliament: “The government recently published a counter-extremism strategy. When I asked why Northern Ireland, which has a fair number of extremists, was not included in the strategy, I was told, 'Don't push the issue too far. It is really a counter-Islamic strategy.'"

Howarth replied: "Indeed. Everything is being done so that the government can pretend that they are being even-handed. We cannot be even-handed between those who do not threaten our national security and those who do. We have to be specific."

Here, we have two well-informed MPs apparently agreeing that the term extremism is being applied only to Muslims. This selective use of "extremism" as a weapon against Muslims recalls the way UKIP mobilised the debate over Halal meat.

'Caught in the crossfire'

In February 2015, UKIP announced that it would ban the ritual slaughter of animals for religious reasons. But speaking to the Jewish Chronicle, responding to concerns that this would affect Jews, the party’s agricultural spokesman said: "This isn’t aimed at you - it’s aimed elsewhere - it's aimed at others. You’ve been caught in the crossfire; collateral damage. You know what I mean." In other words, UKIP was saying that this was a policy directed at Muslims only.

Everyone interested in the manipulation of the term extremism should carefully study the research note circulated by Cage. In this context, the following passage is worth highlighting:

“‘Extremism’ is a term that is not legally defined. Despite this, the work of the CCE will seek to incorporate a second definition. This, at a time when already the notion of Fundamental British Values has been embedded within counter-terrorism without any clarity. The terms are not and cannot be legally defined because notions of what they constitute vary between people and within communities, across society and change from time to time.

"In the absence of clear legal definitions, we are left with subjective opinions of individuals and think-tanks of the most powerful groups in society being able to impose their views and opinions on minority groups.

"This will simply lead to more discrimination and criminalisation against Muslim communities and further erosion of rights. Muslims who support the CCE will be effectively supporting self-criminalisation of their own community and unequal treatment."

This demonstrates that under the new extremism strategy, Muslims in Britain are going to be singled out for unfair treatment. If there is any one British value we can all agree on, it's the importance of fairness. When it comes to extremism, it's the May government, and not Muslims, that has a problem with British values.

Peter Oborne won best commentary/blogging in 2017 and was named freelancer of the year in 2016 at the Online Media Awards for articles he wrote for Middle East Eye. He also was British Press Awards Columnist of the Year 2013. He resigned as chief political columnist of the Daily Telegraph in 2015. His books include The Triumph of the Political Class, The Rise of Political Lying, and Why the West is Wrong about Nuclear Iran.

http://www.middleeasteye.net/columns...ims-1155578885

IslamicBoard