Syria, Gaza and the Criminalisation of Islam
- Thread starter سيف الله
- Start date
- Replies 601
- Views 219K
British Wholesales - Certified Wholesale Linen & Towels | Halal Food Gastronomy | vBulletin 4 php 8.0 patch
Salaam
Another update
Muslim Swiss Film Maker speaks out against being put to trial for telling the stories of Syrians
Swiss film director Naim Cherni talks to Ayla Bongaertz for CAGE about Islamophobia, his Syrian-based film and why it’s important as a Muslim activist to keep working and speaking out despite sometimes overwhelming odds.
In 2016, the Swiss government opened a case against Cherni and two other Swiss citizens accusing them of making propaganda for Al Qaida, after they produced a two-part documentary in Syria, filming an inner Islamic perspective in the fight against IS ideology.
The case was covered extensively by the media, but up until now, the perspective of the accused filmmakers has been missing.
What follows is an interview with one of the accused, Naim Cherni, a Swiss self-taught filmmaker based in Switzerland and The Netherlands.
He has produced documentaries in countries like Syria and Bangladesh on topics such as the war in Syria and the Rohingya fleeing Myanmar. He is currently working on a joint project about asylum seekers returning to Syria.
How did you get started as a filmmaker and what you personally find important when making films?
I’ve travelled several times to Syria since the beginning of the revolution. I took my camera with me and documented my journeys. That’s how I got into documentaries. I like to communicate through images and video; it addresses the heart directly.
Citing dry facts doesn’t move people. So I translate my impressions during filming to the viewer, but more importantly I provide a voice to those often drowned in the entertainment focused media in the West. The cult of the perfect body seems to be as important as the persecuted Rohingya minority in Myanmar, or the struggle for freedom and self-determination of the Syrian people. But I’m not having it.
What project are you currently working on?
“Al-Oudah / The Return”, is a doc-film about a Syrian refugee returning to Turkey and Syria after having waited 2.5 years in Germany for legal status. We accompanied him to the Greek-Turkish border, where we first were threatened at knifepoint by a smuggler, then arrested by Greek border police, who claimed we were smugglers.
The story is worth the struggle however. The EU-TR deal made it nearly impossible for families to follow their relatives to Europe. So a growing number of refugees return the way they came in. They are frustrated at being unable to reunite with their loved ones.
Depression is widespread among the refugee community. It was touching to see him opening up – he had few people to talk about his time in Germany. He was an outcast from society and at the same time was struggling to meet the high expectations from waiting family members back home. His smartphone was the only connection to them. It’s silly how refugee deals are made over numbers, while it is humans lives they decide upon.
In our current media climate, do you feel that your perspective as a bicultural Muslim is adequately represented?
There are certainly journalists who make an effort to understand the Muslim community in Europe – they are realising it is part of society. However the majority prefer sensationalism. “Sex-Jihad Terror” is a common headline in Switzerland, and these stories sell well.
I grew up in two different worlds. My mother with her German roots and artistic vein has shaped my character as much as my Muslim father, who is an immigrant from Tunisia. When it comes to Islam and West, I’m able to put things into either perspective. This has an influence on me as a filmmaker. I am to provide an accurate picture of Muslims and the Islamic world, while bearing in mind the perspective of the West.
Could you tell me a bit more about the case and films concerned?
During 2015 in Syria I investigated the conflict between rebel groups and the Islamic State (IS) organisation. Having observed the group closely since 2013 and being personally affected through the loss of several close friends of mine, who were killed by IS, I decided to deconstruct their narrative in the documentary “Al-Fajr As-Saadiq”.
While filming I met Dr. Muhaysini, a prominent and independent figure among the rebel spectrum. With the goal of providing an authentic source to talk about the issue, I set up an interview with him, where he explained in detail his personal experience trying to negotiate with IS in an effort to prevent bloodshed. Realising they were resistent to any reason, he called upon all rebel groups to take up arms against them.
However back in Switzerland, Federal Prosecutor Michael Lauber, who frequently visits his colleagues in post-coup Egypt, decided that the production was spreading Al-Qaida (AQ) propaganda, and charged me and two fellow board members of the Islamic Central Council of Switzerland (ICCS) with the said claim.
In 2.5 years he and his apparatus of state detailed in almost a thousand pages how I fail to measure Islamic law by Western standards and how I allegedly provided a platform to high ranking AQ representatives.
The struggle to prove the claims is understandable. Neither the documentary nor the interview mentions or features any member of AQ. Dr. Muhaysini himself is neither on the EU, nor Swiss (Seco) sanctions list and denies his US designation.
The Swiss media played along nevertheless, granted a few keen exceptions. We’ll see if the judges consider public opinion or facts.
What is your relation to the Islamic Central Council of Switzerland?
The Council funded the documentaries in Syria along with humanitarian projects. Being the largest Islamic grassroots organisation in Switzerland and being unapologetic in communication and media advocacy, the government struggles to get along with the ICCS. Publicly defending Islamic values comes with a large target sign.
This case may very well be an attempt to silence our voice, but a conviction wouldn’t change a thing. As long as you read “minaret-ban” in the Swiss constitution and attempts to compromise core values of Muslims are frequent, there will be resistance.
Has it been more difficult to do your work since the gov. Opened the case?
Several countries issued an entry ban for me, quite likely on Swiss request. But where a door closes, another opens. I get to speak to many lovely border officers, in the UK for example, where I was invited to a three-hour ‘tea’ session. I gave my fingerprints and DNA rather involuntary though. Same applies for my phone code. Having read Muhammad Rabbani’s case a few weeks before however, I did not feel the wish to prolong my ‘tea’ session.
Has there been any solidarity from leftist movements in Switzerland?
Not more than expected. One investigative journalist from the leftist magazine WOZ wrote in an article that the case “crosses a line”. He quotes Swiss leftist attorney Marcel Bosonnet saying ‘the Federal Prosecutor’s Office does not judge the act, but the views’, and this would mean that ‘thoughts aren’t free anymore’. My surrounding circle of supporters and friends, Muslim and Non-Muslim, stand behind me and express their discontent at the absurd actions of the Swiss government.
Why do you think is necessary for for you to do your work?
Muslim filmmakers in the West have a unique insight into the Islamic community here. Listening to our voices might help understanding what some media and politicians want you to consider foreign. When you understand something it is less likely to cause fear. That way we can all laugh at those silly headlines together.
This trial and all the media attention must have been stressful. Could you describe the impact it has had on you?
I reacted defiantly at first and, although not my intention, I was admittedly fascinated by the media storm the film caused, as it really portrayed the media’s obsession with Islamic topics. The motivation behind the film was clearly ignored which, to a certain degree, caused me to be angry and disappointed.
Then, after taking a step back and reflecting my position, I realised I was too emotionally invested. I was dancing the dance of provocation and reactionism, rather than soberly analyzing the situation. I stand behind what I did and I always will. This security leaves me peacefully facing the trial and might come after.
I’m more certain of my path than ever. I’m at peace with myself and my actions. In order for us to continue to bring such stories to light, others might struggle too. In a way, I have matured.
What have been some reflections that you could leave with our readers around what it means to be a Muslim activist today, and what advice would you give to those facing the ‘terrorism’ label for doing social justice work?
If one can stand behind every act, you’ll find peace with whatever gets thrown at you. To the journalists celebrating this ‚scandal‘, which is in effect an attack against freedom of the press to report on crucial stories, I say: Do your thing; it might however backfire one day.
What will you do if you lose the case? The max penalty is five years.
My attorney will prepare the appeal, I’ll have a lot of time to read, write and draw.
https://www.cage.ngo/muslim-swiss-film-maker-speaks-out-against-being-put-to-trial-for-telling-the-stories-of-syrians
Another update
Muslim Swiss Film Maker speaks out against being put to trial for telling the stories of Syrians
Swiss film director Naim Cherni talks to Ayla Bongaertz for CAGE about Islamophobia, his Syrian-based film and why it’s important as a Muslim activist to keep working and speaking out despite sometimes overwhelming odds.
In 2016, the Swiss government opened a case against Cherni and two other Swiss citizens accusing them of making propaganda for Al Qaida, after they produced a two-part documentary in Syria, filming an inner Islamic perspective in the fight against IS ideology.
The case was covered extensively by the media, but up until now, the perspective of the accused filmmakers has been missing.
What follows is an interview with one of the accused, Naim Cherni, a Swiss self-taught filmmaker based in Switzerland and The Netherlands.
He has produced documentaries in countries like Syria and Bangladesh on topics such as the war in Syria and the Rohingya fleeing Myanmar. He is currently working on a joint project about asylum seekers returning to Syria.
How did you get started as a filmmaker and what you personally find important when making films?
I’ve travelled several times to Syria since the beginning of the revolution. I took my camera with me and documented my journeys. That’s how I got into documentaries. I like to communicate through images and video; it addresses the heart directly.
Citing dry facts doesn’t move people. So I translate my impressions during filming to the viewer, but more importantly I provide a voice to those often drowned in the entertainment focused media in the West. The cult of the perfect body seems to be as important as the persecuted Rohingya minority in Myanmar, or the struggle for freedom and self-determination of the Syrian people. But I’m not having it.
What project are you currently working on?
“Al-Oudah / The Return”, is a doc-film about a Syrian refugee returning to Turkey and Syria after having waited 2.5 years in Germany for legal status. We accompanied him to the Greek-Turkish border, where we first were threatened at knifepoint by a smuggler, then arrested by Greek border police, who claimed we were smugglers.
The story is worth the struggle however. The EU-TR deal made it nearly impossible for families to follow their relatives to Europe. So a growing number of refugees return the way they came in. They are frustrated at being unable to reunite with their loved ones.
Depression is widespread among the refugee community. It was touching to see him opening up – he had few people to talk about his time in Germany. He was an outcast from society and at the same time was struggling to meet the high expectations from waiting family members back home. His smartphone was the only connection to them. It’s silly how refugee deals are made over numbers, while it is humans lives they decide upon.
In our current media climate, do you feel that your perspective as a bicultural Muslim is adequately represented?
There are certainly journalists who make an effort to understand the Muslim community in Europe – they are realising it is part of society. However the majority prefer sensationalism. “Sex-Jihad Terror” is a common headline in Switzerland, and these stories sell well.
I grew up in two different worlds. My mother with her German roots and artistic vein has shaped my character as much as my Muslim father, who is an immigrant from Tunisia. When it comes to Islam and West, I’m able to put things into either perspective. This has an influence on me as a filmmaker. I am to provide an accurate picture of Muslims and the Islamic world, while bearing in mind the perspective of the West.
Could you tell me a bit more about the case and films concerned?
During 2015 in Syria I investigated the conflict between rebel groups and the Islamic State (IS) organisation. Having observed the group closely since 2013 and being personally affected through the loss of several close friends of mine, who were killed by IS, I decided to deconstruct their narrative in the documentary “Al-Fajr As-Saadiq”.
While filming I met Dr. Muhaysini, a prominent and independent figure among the rebel spectrum. With the goal of providing an authentic source to talk about the issue, I set up an interview with him, where he explained in detail his personal experience trying to negotiate with IS in an effort to prevent bloodshed. Realising they were resistent to any reason, he called upon all rebel groups to take up arms against them.
However back in Switzerland, Federal Prosecutor Michael Lauber, who frequently visits his colleagues in post-coup Egypt, decided that the production was spreading Al-Qaida (AQ) propaganda, and charged me and two fellow board members of the Islamic Central Council of Switzerland (ICCS) with the said claim.
In 2.5 years he and his apparatus of state detailed in almost a thousand pages how I fail to measure Islamic law by Western standards and how I allegedly provided a platform to high ranking AQ representatives.
The struggle to prove the claims is understandable. Neither the documentary nor the interview mentions or features any member of AQ. Dr. Muhaysini himself is neither on the EU, nor Swiss (Seco) sanctions list and denies his US designation.
The Swiss media played along nevertheless, granted a few keen exceptions. We’ll see if the judges consider public opinion or facts.
What is your relation to the Islamic Central Council of Switzerland?
The Council funded the documentaries in Syria along with humanitarian projects. Being the largest Islamic grassroots organisation in Switzerland and being unapologetic in communication and media advocacy, the government struggles to get along with the ICCS. Publicly defending Islamic values comes with a large target sign.
This case may very well be an attempt to silence our voice, but a conviction wouldn’t change a thing. As long as you read “minaret-ban” in the Swiss constitution and attempts to compromise core values of Muslims are frequent, there will be resistance.
Has it been more difficult to do your work since the gov. Opened the case?
Several countries issued an entry ban for me, quite likely on Swiss request. But where a door closes, another opens. I get to speak to many lovely border officers, in the UK for example, where I was invited to a three-hour ‘tea’ session. I gave my fingerprints and DNA rather involuntary though. Same applies for my phone code. Having read Muhammad Rabbani’s case a few weeks before however, I did not feel the wish to prolong my ‘tea’ session.
Has there been any solidarity from leftist movements in Switzerland?
Not more than expected. One investigative journalist from the leftist magazine WOZ wrote in an article that the case “crosses a line”. He quotes Swiss leftist attorney Marcel Bosonnet saying ‘the Federal Prosecutor’s Office does not judge the act, but the views’, and this would mean that ‘thoughts aren’t free anymore’. My surrounding circle of supporters and friends, Muslim and Non-Muslim, stand behind me and express their discontent at the absurd actions of the Swiss government.
Why do you think is necessary for for you to do your work?
Muslim filmmakers in the West have a unique insight into the Islamic community here. Listening to our voices might help understanding what some media and politicians want you to consider foreign. When you understand something it is less likely to cause fear. That way we can all laugh at those silly headlines together.
This trial and all the media attention must have been stressful. Could you describe the impact it has had on you?
I reacted defiantly at first and, although not my intention, I was admittedly fascinated by the media storm the film caused, as it really portrayed the media’s obsession with Islamic topics. The motivation behind the film was clearly ignored which, to a certain degree, caused me to be angry and disappointed.
Then, after taking a step back and reflecting my position, I realised I was too emotionally invested. I was dancing the dance of provocation and reactionism, rather than soberly analyzing the situation. I stand behind what I did and I always will. This security leaves me peacefully facing the trial and might come after.
I’m more certain of my path than ever. I’m at peace with myself and my actions. In order for us to continue to bring such stories to light, others might struggle too. In a way, I have matured.
What have been some reflections that you could leave with our readers around what it means to be a Muslim activist today, and what advice would you give to those facing the ‘terrorism’ label for doing social justice work?
If one can stand behind every act, you’ll find peace with whatever gets thrown at you. To the journalists celebrating this ‚scandal‘, which is in effect an attack against freedom of the press to report on crucial stories, I say: Do your thing; it might however backfire one day.
What will you do if you lose the case? The max penalty is five years.
My attorney will prepare the appeal, I’ll have a lot of time to read, write and draw.
https://www.cage.ngo/muslim-swiss-film-maker-speaks-out-against-being-put-to-trial-for-telling-the-stories-of-syrians
Salaam
He is right, can you imagine the reaction? :nervous:
He was replying to this
He is right, can you imagine the reaction? :nervous:
He was replying to this
Last edited:
Salaam
Oh dear its getting worse, the British state going to dictate to Muslims what Islam means.
I dont think so.
Oh dear its getting worse, the British state going to dictate to Muslims what Islam means.
I dont think so.
Salaam
Another update
Austria's right-wing government plans to shut down seven mosques and expel up to 40 foreign-funded imams in crackdown against Islamist ideology
Austria said today it could expel up to 60 Turkish-funded imams and their families and would shut down seven mosques as part of a crackdown on 'political Islam' that was described as 'just the beginning', triggering fury in Ankara.
Chancellor Sebastian Kurz said the government is shutting a hardline Turkish nationalist mosque in Vienna and dissolving a group called the Arab Religious Community that runs six mosques.
His coalition government, an alliance of conservatives and the far right, came to power soon after Europe's migration crisis on promises to prevent another influx and clamp down on benefits for new immigrants and refugees.
In a previous job as minister in charge of integration, Chancellor Kurz oversaw the passing of a tough 'law on Islam' in 2015, which banned foreign funding of religious groups and created a duty for Muslim societies to have 'a positive fundamental view towards (Austria's) state and society'.
'Parallel societies, political Islam and radicalisation have no place in our country,' Kurz told a news conference outlining the government's decisions, which were based on that law.
'This is just the beginning,' far-right Vice Chancellor Heinz-Christian Strache added.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5820445/Austrias-right-wing-government-plans-shut-mosques-expel-imams.html
Another update
Austria's right-wing government plans to shut down seven mosques and expel up to 40 foreign-funded imams in crackdown against Islamist ideology
Austria said today it could expel up to 60 Turkish-funded imams and their families and would shut down seven mosques as part of a crackdown on 'political Islam' that was described as 'just the beginning', triggering fury in Ankara.
Chancellor Sebastian Kurz said the government is shutting a hardline Turkish nationalist mosque in Vienna and dissolving a group called the Arab Religious Community that runs six mosques.
His coalition government, an alliance of conservatives and the far right, came to power soon after Europe's migration crisis on promises to prevent another influx and clamp down on benefits for new immigrants and refugees.
In a previous job as minister in charge of integration, Chancellor Kurz oversaw the passing of a tough 'law on Islam' in 2015, which banned foreign funding of religious groups and created a duty for Muslim societies to have 'a positive fundamental view towards (Austria's) state and society'.
'Parallel societies, political Islam and radicalisation have no place in our country,' Kurz told a news conference outlining the government's decisions, which were based on that law.
'This is just the beginning,' far-right Vice Chancellor Heinz-Christian Strache added.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5820445/Austrias-right-wing-government-plans-shut-mosques-expel-imams.html
Salaam
Another update. The Sovietisation of the UK continues.
The Home Office just launched a frightening new assault on democracy, and almost nobody noticed
In 2000, the UK passed the Terrorism Act 2000 – one of the most draconian pieces of legislation in its history. Now, the state wants even more power.
Counter-terrorism and border security bill 2018
The Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Bill 2018 is a dangerous new development apparently aimed at further criminalising speech and dissent in the UK. It was first revealed on 6 June, with no debate. Its second reading is scheduled for 11 June 2018.
Under the plans, the definition of “inviting support” for a banned group will include:
expressions of support that are reckless as to whether they will encourage others to support the organisation.
The offence of “collecting information likely to be useful to a terrorist” will now also cover [pdf, p6] “viewing or streaming of material online”.
And while the current penalty for these ‘offences’ is up to 10 years of imprisonment, the 2018 bill seeks to increase many maximum punishments of such ‘terror’ offences to 15 years.
The 2018 bill also updates the offence of publishing [pdf, p1] an:
image displaying a flag, emblem or other such symbol of a proscribed organisation… so that the criminal law expressly covers displays online.
This will include a photograph taken in a private place.
It’s important to remember here that many organisations engaged in armed conflicts for self-determination with oppressive regimes in Palestine, Turkey, and Sri Lanka have been labelled ‘terrorist’ organisations.
“Shrinking public space”
In April 2017, the EU parliament recognised the worsening problem of a “shrinking public space” and reported [pdf, p6] that the:
global clampdown on civil society has deepened and accelerated in recent years. Over a hundred governments have introduced restrictive laws limiting the operations of civil society organisations (CSOs)…
The closing space is part of a general authoritarian pushback against democracy…
A 2017 discussion paper on this “shrinking space” says [pdf, p8]:
Attacks on freedom of expression and association… are invariably justified on the grounds that certain political activities may be legitimately curtailed by the state, whether under the banner of protecting the ‘public interest’, ‘social cohesion’, ‘national security’ or ‘counter-terrorism’.
rest here
https://www.thecanary.co/uk/analysis/2018/06/08/the-home-office-just-launched-a-frightening-new-assault-on-democracy-and-almost-nobody-noticed/
Another update. The Sovietisation of the UK continues.
The Home Office just launched a frightening new assault on democracy, and almost nobody noticed
In 2000, the UK passed the Terrorism Act 2000 – one of the most draconian pieces of legislation in its history. Now, the state wants even more power.
Counter-terrorism and border security bill 2018
The Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Bill 2018 is a dangerous new development apparently aimed at further criminalising speech and dissent in the UK. It was first revealed on 6 June, with no debate. Its second reading is scheduled for 11 June 2018.
Under the plans, the definition of “inviting support” for a banned group will include:
expressions of support that are reckless as to whether they will encourage others to support the organisation.
The offence of “collecting information likely to be useful to a terrorist” will now also cover [pdf, p6] “viewing or streaming of material online”.
And while the current penalty for these ‘offences’ is up to 10 years of imprisonment, the 2018 bill seeks to increase many maximum punishments of such ‘terror’ offences to 15 years.
The 2018 bill also updates the offence of publishing [pdf, p1] an:
image displaying a flag, emblem or other such symbol of a proscribed organisation… so that the criminal law expressly covers displays online.
This will include a photograph taken in a private place.
It’s important to remember here that many organisations engaged in armed conflicts for self-determination with oppressive regimes in Palestine, Turkey, and Sri Lanka have been labelled ‘terrorist’ organisations.
“Shrinking public space”
In April 2017, the EU parliament recognised the worsening problem of a “shrinking public space” and reported [pdf, p6] that the:
global clampdown on civil society has deepened and accelerated in recent years. Over a hundred governments have introduced restrictive laws limiting the operations of civil society organisations (CSOs)…
The closing space is part of a general authoritarian pushback against democracy…
A 2017 discussion paper on this “shrinking space” says [pdf, p8]:
Attacks on freedom of expression and association… are invariably justified on the grounds that certain political activities may be legitimately curtailed by the state, whether under the banner of protecting the ‘public interest’, ‘social cohesion’, ‘national security’ or ‘counter-terrorism’.
rest here
https://www.thecanary.co/uk/analysis/2018/06/08/the-home-office-just-launched-a-frightening-new-assault-on-democracy-and-almost-nobody-noticed/
Salaam
Another update, Prevent isnt working again.
So lets rebrand it again
The British governments mass conversion campaign is continuing. Still trying to create a class of bootlickers.
The end goal
And for anybody who wants to know the long term goal of the ruling classes is to turn us into something like Christianity, and we all know how well they are doing don't we?
https://www.islamicboard.com/world-...its.html?highlight=Peter hitchens#post1583532
Another update, Prevent isnt working again.
So lets rebrand it again
The British governments mass conversion campaign is continuing. Still trying to create a class of bootlickers.
The end goal
And for anybody who wants to know the long term goal of the ruling classes is to turn us into something like Christianity, and we all know how well they are doing don't we?
https://www.islamicboard.com/world-...its.html?highlight=Peter hitchens#post1583532
Last edited:
Last edited:
Last edited:
Salaam
Heh, not a 'conspiracy theory' anymore.
Leaked State Department Memo Advised Trump Administration to Push for “Islamic Reformation”
The Trump administration, as part of a dual effort to counter both Iran and the Islamic State, should push for an “Islamic Reformation,” a State Department memo advised the White House last year.
The suggestion was ultimately not adopted as part of the National Security Strategy announced in December, but that a so-called reformation of Islam was up for discussion at the highest levels of the State Department and National Security Council underscores the extraordinary rise of a once-fringe, far-right approach to foreign policy. Were it to be adopted as official policy, it would mark a radical departure by directly inserting the U.S. government into a theological discussion that is carried out almost exclusively among anti-Muslim zealots.
“The goal against Iran and ISIS is to break each’s brand and Islamic extremism,” reads the document, which was obtained by The Intercept. “In seeking a public diplomacy means for undermining the ideological basis for supporting the current Iranian or ISIS structures, an emphasis on ‘Islamic Reformation’ should factor in heavily.”
The document, on the subject of “ideological competition,” was submitted to the White House National Security Council by the State Department Policy Planning Staff in the summer of 2017 — a period in which the NSC was drafting the Trump administration’s National Security Strategy. The State Department at the time was helmed by Rex Tillerson, who distanced himself from President Donald Trump’s anti-Islam rhetoric. Mike Pompeo assumed leadership in April, and his track record as an anti-Muslim ideologue has many worried about the State Department’s approach to Islam.
A State Department official confirmed the authenticity of the memo and told The Intercept that the paper was “one of dozens” of documents that helped inform the framing of the National Security Strategy. “As with all pre-decisional documents designed to stimulate discussion, a healthy dose of skepticism is appropriate as to how much of a single thought or phrase from the document survived debate and discussion,” the official wrote. “‘Islamic Reformation’ is a phrase that has been used and debated by analysts of Muslim world for decades, and was used in the article as an historical analogy, not a policy prescription.”
Founded in 1947, the Policy Planning Staff is the department’s in-house think tank. It is headed by the hawkish former Bush administration official Brian Hook, who was in charge at the time the memo was produced. According to the department’s website, Hook and his team “take a longer term, strategic view of global trends.” The document was finished shortly after Hook had purged career staffers he considered to be insufficiently loyal to Trump or too friendly with Iran. Sahar Nowrouzzadeh, for instance, was pushed out of Hook’s policy department following a right-wing smear campaign that questioned her loyalty to the United States, reporting falsely that she was born in Iran.
The policy shop, shorn of expertise and stocked with ideologues, is now producing material unlike anything it has before, according to a range of former State Department, Pentagon, and NSC officials, advisers, and lawyers consulted by The Intercept. They said that they had never seen the contentious and inflammatory phrase “Islamic Reformation” — a call for a Martin Luther-like figure to bring Islam into modernity that is rooted in tropes that presume Islam to be inherently violent and backward — used in an official U.S. government document before.
The lack of expertise comes through in the memo. “Iran is under increasing political and military pressure, giving support to domestic oppositional forces in both ISIS-held territory and within Iran. [U.S. government] ideological activity should find greater receptivity in such an environment,” the memo suggests. But the Shia ayatollahs of Iran and the Sunni militants of ISIS are openly hostile to each other, rendering the analysis nonsensical.
“These people are curating crap” from the far-right, anti-Muslim blogosphere, said a separate senior U.S. government official, referring to the unnamed authors of the State Department paper. (The official spoke on condition of anonymity as they are not authorized to discuss these matters.)
The document goes into detail about how to bring about this so-called reformation, including a remarkable passage acknowledging the cynical use female empowerment as a means to further the goals of American empire. “Two practical target groups for this approach are women and youth, though they are by no means the only potential targets. Focusing on female-empowerment as the primary information messaging goal within the Islamic-influenced world will allow the United States to maintain a moral component for American power and its liberation narrative,” it reads.
“Demands for an Islamic Reformation are nothing new,” wrote Todd Green, an associate professor of religion at Luther College and a former U.S. State Department adviser on Islamophobia, in September 2017. “They have fueled the careers of some of the most prominent anti-Islam activists in the West today.” For example, conservative writer and ex-Muslim Ayaan Hirsi Ali, who has expressed support for the Trump administration’s so-called Muslim ban, published the book “Heretic: Why Islam Needs a Reformation Now” in 2015.
Peter Mandaville, a former member of the Policy Planning Staff under Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, told The Intercept there were a number of “political, intellectual, and legal” problems with the “Islamic Reformation” proposal. “First, the United States government has no standing to be taking positions on matters of Islam, or what is or is not a correct … understanding of a world religious tradition,” said Mandaville, a professor at George Mason University and the author of “Islam and Politics.”
“Second, the U.S. government pointing to a particular interpretation of religion, pointing to a particular religious scholar, and saying, ‘Hey, this guy, he is awesome, follow this guy’ would most likely have the effect of wrecking any standing that individual had. Third, the U.S. Constitution forbids the federal government from undertaking any kind of activity that expresses a preference for any particular religion or any particular interpretation of religion.”
Robert Tuttle, professor of law and religion at the George Washington University Law School and an expert on the Establishment Clause, said that “the United States government does not express its views on religious matters.”
It is not settled, however, whether the Establishment Clause applies to U.S. foreign policy. “You could argue that the Establishment Clause doesn’t apply overseas, instead it only applies domestically,” said Tuttle, author of the book, “Secular Government, Religious People.” “I don’t think that’s a very good argument and the Supreme Court has not settled the debate.”
Case law on the question is sparse, but a 1991 decision from the 1st Circuit held in Lamont v. Woods that “the operation of the Establishment Clause strongly indicates that its restrictions should apply extraterritorially.”
The Trump administration, of course, has already weighed in theologically in its own way. Trump ran for president on a platform of banning Muslims from the U.S. and one of his favorite phrases on the campaign trail was “radical Islamic terrorism.” He badgered his opponent Hillary Clinton, as well as former President Barack Obama, for avoiding the term, suggesting that uttering those words out loud would conjure up a patronus of sorts to counter the dark-spirited Dementors committing violence in the name of Islam.
“A Horrendous Idea”
In addition to the issue of legality, there are fears that the Policy Planning Staff’s “emphasis on an ‘Islamic Reformation’” could backfire on the United States and do more harm than good.
“The idea of the United States promoting some sort of reform of Islam as a tool of foreign policy is a horrendous idea,” Green told The Intercept. “The last thing the United States needs to be doing is intervening in internal theological debates within Muslim communities, irrespective of whether those communities are located in Iran or here in the United States.”
For Green, the U.S. government delving into Islamic theology and “deeming which Muslims are acceptable and which are not” gets into “dangerous territory.” “Frankly, if you want to discredit those groups, the first thing you could do is prop them up and say, ‘This is the theologically correct version of Islam.’”
Qamar-ul Huda, a former senior policy adviser in the State Department’s Office of Religion and Global Affairs under both Obama and, for the first half of 2017, Trump, agreed with Green. “This could be taken the wrong way, as some sort of an agenda to subvert Muslim societies,” said Huda, who is Muslim and has an academic background in Islamic studies. “On the ground [in the Muslim-majority world], it will feed into the sense that the U.S. is turning into an anti-Muslim, Islamophobic country.”
At the height of the war on terror discourse, during the George W. Bush era, polls suggested that majorities of Egyptians, Pakistanis, Indonesians, and Moroccans believed that the United States was trying to weaken and divide the Muslim-majority world. Any evidence that members of the Trump administration, many of whom have strong ties to far-right, anti-Muslim groups, want to “reform” Islam could provoke similar concerns, and a backlash in Muslim communities and countries across the world.
A former senior U.S. diplomat who served in Afghanistan told The Intercept: “For a lot of people in the region, it will confirm their suspicions and conspiracy theories. When the leadership is bandying around these ideas, it sort of wipes out a lot of the good work that is being done on the ground [by U.S. diplomats].”
“This good Muslim/bad Muslim narrative … is a slippery slope,” said the former diplomat, who pointed to U.S. policymakers’ conflation of “Sunni and Shia groups together” as evidence of their inability to understand the basics of Islam, let alone reform it.
Distraction From Self-Examination
Huda suggested that the authors of the document lack religious literacy and are “very myopic.”
“I think there’s an unfortunate assumption by those in the policy world that … if you’re more religious or Islamically religious … you are more prone to radical thinking,” he said. “That’s nonsense because there’s no study I know of that shows the more religious you are, the less you become open for dialogue, and I’ve been studying this for 30 years.”
The assumption that Islam is the root cause of violence is “flawed,” Green agreed, and “reflects the shallow thinking that continues to infect far too many sectors of the U.S. government when it comes to the drivers of violent extremism.” According to “The Fear of Islam” author, “Most scholars who study terrorism and violent extremism argue that political and social conditions are the most important factors driving this violence. Islam certainly gets instrumentalized in this violence, but that’s different than claiming it is the cause.”
“Calling for an Islamic reformation has very little to do with what Muslims are or are not doing in terms of reform,” added Green. “It’s a distraction. As long as we focus on what Muslims need to be doing, we don’t need to do any self-examination of our own foreign policy and our role in the rise of violent extremism abroad.”
The Trump administration, however, has been keen to focus on the role that Islamic ideology, rather than geopolitical or socio-economic factors, supposedly plays in fomenting extremism and violence. The phrase “Islamic reformation” was not ultimately included in the final National Security Strategy, which was published in December 2017 and committed the United States to battling “jihadist terrorists.” Still, its inclusion in the State Department submission reflects the broader “thinking” on this issue of influential Trump administration officials, according to the senior U.S. government official who spoke with The Intercept.
The official pointed out that the environment today is much more favorable to such an ideology-heavy agenda, given the sacking of more moderate, less Islam-obsessed figures such as Tillerson and former national security adviser H.R. McMaster, and the new “top cover” provided to anti-Islam ideologues inside the administration. Hook, who runs the policy department, has only seen his stature rise as more ideological allies have filled the building.
Green also highlighted the role played by a fringe far-right, anti-Muslim “Islamophobia network,” which has been mainstreamed by the Trump administration, in pushing conspiratorial and bigoted ideas about Islam and Muslims, from “no-go zones” to mass rape hysteria. “The secretary of state and the national security adviser have strong ties to this network,” he said, referring to Pompeo and John Bolton, respectively.
McMaster tried on multiple occasions to convince Trump to resist using language that conflated Islam with terrorism. The president fired McMaster in March and replaced him with hawkish neoconservative Bolton, the former chair of an anti-Muslim think tank.
“McMaster and Tillerson weren’t convinced of this [Islamic reformation] argument,” the U.S government official said. “Now you have Pompeo and Bolton who live and breathe this stuff.”
https://theintercept.com/2018/06/18/islamic-reformation-trump-administration/
Heh, not a 'conspiracy theory' anymore.
Leaked State Department Memo Advised Trump Administration to Push for “Islamic Reformation”
The Trump administration, as part of a dual effort to counter both Iran and the Islamic State, should push for an “Islamic Reformation,” a State Department memo advised the White House last year.
The suggestion was ultimately not adopted as part of the National Security Strategy announced in December, but that a so-called reformation of Islam was up for discussion at the highest levels of the State Department and National Security Council underscores the extraordinary rise of a once-fringe, far-right approach to foreign policy. Were it to be adopted as official policy, it would mark a radical departure by directly inserting the U.S. government into a theological discussion that is carried out almost exclusively among anti-Muslim zealots.
“The goal against Iran and ISIS is to break each’s brand and Islamic extremism,” reads the document, which was obtained by The Intercept. “In seeking a public diplomacy means for undermining the ideological basis for supporting the current Iranian or ISIS structures, an emphasis on ‘Islamic Reformation’ should factor in heavily.”
The document, on the subject of “ideological competition,” was submitted to the White House National Security Council by the State Department Policy Planning Staff in the summer of 2017 — a period in which the NSC was drafting the Trump administration’s National Security Strategy. The State Department at the time was helmed by Rex Tillerson, who distanced himself from President Donald Trump’s anti-Islam rhetoric. Mike Pompeo assumed leadership in April, and his track record as an anti-Muslim ideologue has many worried about the State Department’s approach to Islam.
A State Department official confirmed the authenticity of the memo and told The Intercept that the paper was “one of dozens” of documents that helped inform the framing of the National Security Strategy. “As with all pre-decisional documents designed to stimulate discussion, a healthy dose of skepticism is appropriate as to how much of a single thought or phrase from the document survived debate and discussion,” the official wrote. “‘Islamic Reformation’ is a phrase that has been used and debated by analysts of Muslim world for decades, and was used in the article as an historical analogy, not a policy prescription.”
Founded in 1947, the Policy Planning Staff is the department’s in-house think tank. It is headed by the hawkish former Bush administration official Brian Hook, who was in charge at the time the memo was produced. According to the department’s website, Hook and his team “take a longer term, strategic view of global trends.” The document was finished shortly after Hook had purged career staffers he considered to be insufficiently loyal to Trump or too friendly with Iran. Sahar Nowrouzzadeh, for instance, was pushed out of Hook’s policy department following a right-wing smear campaign that questioned her loyalty to the United States, reporting falsely that she was born in Iran.
The policy shop, shorn of expertise and stocked with ideologues, is now producing material unlike anything it has before, according to a range of former State Department, Pentagon, and NSC officials, advisers, and lawyers consulted by The Intercept. They said that they had never seen the contentious and inflammatory phrase “Islamic Reformation” — a call for a Martin Luther-like figure to bring Islam into modernity that is rooted in tropes that presume Islam to be inherently violent and backward — used in an official U.S. government document before.
The lack of expertise comes through in the memo. “Iran is under increasing political and military pressure, giving support to domestic oppositional forces in both ISIS-held territory and within Iran. [U.S. government] ideological activity should find greater receptivity in such an environment,” the memo suggests. But the Shia ayatollahs of Iran and the Sunni militants of ISIS are openly hostile to each other, rendering the analysis nonsensical.
“These people are curating crap” from the far-right, anti-Muslim blogosphere, said a separate senior U.S. government official, referring to the unnamed authors of the State Department paper. (The official spoke on condition of anonymity as they are not authorized to discuss these matters.)
The document goes into detail about how to bring about this so-called reformation, including a remarkable passage acknowledging the cynical use female empowerment as a means to further the goals of American empire. “Two practical target groups for this approach are women and youth, though they are by no means the only potential targets. Focusing on female-empowerment as the primary information messaging goal within the Islamic-influenced world will allow the United States to maintain a moral component for American power and its liberation narrative,” it reads.
“Demands for an Islamic Reformation are nothing new,” wrote Todd Green, an associate professor of religion at Luther College and a former U.S. State Department adviser on Islamophobia, in September 2017. “They have fueled the careers of some of the most prominent anti-Islam activists in the West today.” For example, conservative writer and ex-Muslim Ayaan Hirsi Ali, who has expressed support for the Trump administration’s so-called Muslim ban, published the book “Heretic: Why Islam Needs a Reformation Now” in 2015.
Peter Mandaville, a former member of the Policy Planning Staff under Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, told The Intercept there were a number of “political, intellectual, and legal” problems with the “Islamic Reformation” proposal. “First, the United States government has no standing to be taking positions on matters of Islam, or what is or is not a correct … understanding of a world religious tradition,” said Mandaville, a professor at George Mason University and the author of “Islam and Politics.”
“Second, the U.S. government pointing to a particular interpretation of religion, pointing to a particular religious scholar, and saying, ‘Hey, this guy, he is awesome, follow this guy’ would most likely have the effect of wrecking any standing that individual had. Third, the U.S. Constitution forbids the federal government from undertaking any kind of activity that expresses a preference for any particular religion or any particular interpretation of religion.”
Robert Tuttle, professor of law and religion at the George Washington University Law School and an expert on the Establishment Clause, said that “the United States government does not express its views on religious matters.”
It is not settled, however, whether the Establishment Clause applies to U.S. foreign policy. “You could argue that the Establishment Clause doesn’t apply overseas, instead it only applies domestically,” said Tuttle, author of the book, “Secular Government, Religious People.” “I don’t think that’s a very good argument and the Supreme Court has not settled the debate.”
Case law on the question is sparse, but a 1991 decision from the 1st Circuit held in Lamont v. Woods that “the operation of the Establishment Clause strongly indicates that its restrictions should apply extraterritorially.”
The Trump administration, of course, has already weighed in theologically in its own way. Trump ran for president on a platform of banning Muslims from the U.S. and one of his favorite phrases on the campaign trail was “radical Islamic terrorism.” He badgered his opponent Hillary Clinton, as well as former President Barack Obama, for avoiding the term, suggesting that uttering those words out loud would conjure up a patronus of sorts to counter the dark-spirited Dementors committing violence in the name of Islam.
“A Horrendous Idea”
In addition to the issue of legality, there are fears that the Policy Planning Staff’s “emphasis on an ‘Islamic Reformation’” could backfire on the United States and do more harm than good.
“The idea of the United States promoting some sort of reform of Islam as a tool of foreign policy is a horrendous idea,” Green told The Intercept. “The last thing the United States needs to be doing is intervening in internal theological debates within Muslim communities, irrespective of whether those communities are located in Iran or here in the United States.”
For Green, the U.S. government delving into Islamic theology and “deeming which Muslims are acceptable and which are not” gets into “dangerous territory.” “Frankly, if you want to discredit those groups, the first thing you could do is prop them up and say, ‘This is the theologically correct version of Islam.’”
Qamar-ul Huda, a former senior policy adviser in the State Department’s Office of Religion and Global Affairs under both Obama and, for the first half of 2017, Trump, agreed with Green. “This could be taken the wrong way, as some sort of an agenda to subvert Muslim societies,” said Huda, who is Muslim and has an academic background in Islamic studies. “On the ground [in the Muslim-majority world], it will feed into the sense that the U.S. is turning into an anti-Muslim, Islamophobic country.”
At the height of the war on terror discourse, during the George W. Bush era, polls suggested that majorities of Egyptians, Pakistanis, Indonesians, and Moroccans believed that the United States was trying to weaken and divide the Muslim-majority world. Any evidence that members of the Trump administration, many of whom have strong ties to far-right, anti-Muslim groups, want to “reform” Islam could provoke similar concerns, and a backlash in Muslim communities and countries across the world.
A former senior U.S. diplomat who served in Afghanistan told The Intercept: “For a lot of people in the region, it will confirm their suspicions and conspiracy theories. When the leadership is bandying around these ideas, it sort of wipes out a lot of the good work that is being done on the ground [by U.S. diplomats].”
“This good Muslim/bad Muslim narrative … is a slippery slope,” said the former diplomat, who pointed to U.S. policymakers’ conflation of “Sunni and Shia groups together” as evidence of their inability to understand the basics of Islam, let alone reform it.
Distraction From Self-Examination
Huda suggested that the authors of the document lack religious literacy and are “very myopic.”
“I think there’s an unfortunate assumption by those in the policy world that … if you’re more religious or Islamically religious … you are more prone to radical thinking,” he said. “That’s nonsense because there’s no study I know of that shows the more religious you are, the less you become open for dialogue, and I’ve been studying this for 30 years.”
The assumption that Islam is the root cause of violence is “flawed,” Green agreed, and “reflects the shallow thinking that continues to infect far too many sectors of the U.S. government when it comes to the drivers of violent extremism.” According to “The Fear of Islam” author, “Most scholars who study terrorism and violent extremism argue that political and social conditions are the most important factors driving this violence. Islam certainly gets instrumentalized in this violence, but that’s different than claiming it is the cause.”
“Calling for an Islamic reformation has very little to do with what Muslims are or are not doing in terms of reform,” added Green. “It’s a distraction. As long as we focus on what Muslims need to be doing, we don’t need to do any self-examination of our own foreign policy and our role in the rise of violent extremism abroad.”
The Trump administration, however, has been keen to focus on the role that Islamic ideology, rather than geopolitical or socio-economic factors, supposedly plays in fomenting extremism and violence. The phrase “Islamic reformation” was not ultimately included in the final National Security Strategy, which was published in December 2017 and committed the United States to battling “jihadist terrorists.” Still, its inclusion in the State Department submission reflects the broader “thinking” on this issue of influential Trump administration officials, according to the senior U.S. government official who spoke with The Intercept.
The official pointed out that the environment today is much more favorable to such an ideology-heavy agenda, given the sacking of more moderate, less Islam-obsessed figures such as Tillerson and former national security adviser H.R. McMaster, and the new “top cover” provided to anti-Islam ideologues inside the administration. Hook, who runs the policy department, has only seen his stature rise as more ideological allies have filled the building.
Green also highlighted the role played by a fringe far-right, anti-Muslim “Islamophobia network,” which has been mainstreamed by the Trump administration, in pushing conspiratorial and bigoted ideas about Islam and Muslims, from “no-go zones” to mass rape hysteria. “The secretary of state and the national security adviser have strong ties to this network,” he said, referring to Pompeo and John Bolton, respectively.
McMaster tried on multiple occasions to convince Trump to resist using language that conflated Islam with terrorism. The president fired McMaster in March and replaced him with hawkish neoconservative Bolton, the former chair of an anti-Muslim think tank.
“McMaster and Tillerson weren’t convinced of this [Islamic reformation] argument,” the U.S government official said. “Now you have Pompeo and Bolton who live and breathe this stuff.”
https://theintercept.com/2018/06/18/islamic-reformation-trump-administration/
JustTime
كـٌنٍ مـَع الـلُّـہ
- Messages
- 354
- Reaction score
- 2
- Gender
- Male
- Religion
- Islam
The level of arrogance that some people contain is rather extraordinary, who made it their place or position to make such remarks or come to such conclusions? Had a Muslim group, individual, state or nation said such things we all know how that would go down. If they truly are so worried about Iran then why do they not have the courage to invade and divide the country on ethno-religious grounds like they try so hard with Iraq and Syria? They had no issue invading Iraq 4 times for allegedly having WMDs, whilst Iran does have WMDs and has used them and their military is active across the region murdering and destabilizing while the military of Saddam's Iraq only fought to secure its borders. The west's lack of interference is what enables Iran, the west's soft approach to avoid their supposed biggest fear, "destabilization" is exactly what causes so many issues in the region, there is no doubt Iran is the biggest and most problematic nation in the region because of their Neo-Safawi ideology. When the US invaded Iraq who did this benefit? Certainly not America and most definitely not the people of Iraq, the removal of Saddam Hussein was one of the biggest tragedies in modern history and Arab history.
The United States opened the door for Iran empowering Badr Organization, The "Islamic" Dawa Party and their allies, during Saddam's era those dogs were locked up in cages where they belonged. While the Obama administration that liked to act like Islam's best friend was the pro-Iran administration in American history giving them maximum leeway in Iraq and Syria by arming the so called "Popular Mobilization Forces" (Iran's army in Iraq) this group was supposedly armed to combat ISIS and that was it, yet groups of PMF not only traveled beyond the borders of ISIS held territory and even beyond Iraq, into Syria openly fighting with the IRGC, Russian Mercnaries, and Assad's army, then they want back to Iraq and when ISIS was no longer considered a major threat to Iraq's government they turned their guns on Peshmerga and the KRG.
In Syria only until recently has the Assad regime had to pay for their actions in using chemical weapons, as prior to Trump's administration Obama either totally ignored it or said that it's a "red line", but air strikes are insufficient especially when the goal is minimal causalities on Assad's end, and even then there is hypocrisy present, yet again with Saddam Hussein they were quick to invade over the slightest suspicion of chemical weapons, while Assad actually has them and uses them yet he receives little to no backlash, and even has some very sick people even denying his use of them. The other hypocritical action is how harsh they use their air strikes, when it came to Raqqa their air strikes amounted to international war crimes, yet when it comes to Assad and Iran they receive nothing that could in any sense be considered, excessive, and the question remains, why?
It's not Islam or Muslims who have the problems, it's their decades of failed foreign policy that is rooted in the strongest level of arrogance anyone can imagine, just to show that they can police others, truly pathetic.
Last edited:
Salaam
A response to 'muscular liberalism'
Blurb
A Palestinian former refugee Latifa Abouchakra, from Ealing, London. As she reports she is a first time delegate and speaker at the 2018 NUT. This is a speech Latifa made at this year's conference regarding Islamophobic policies in our education system. Latifa says our because it is ours. WE work in it. WE benefit or suffer from how its administered. And it shall be US who make it fit for purpose. Silence is acceptance. Let's speak more.
A response to 'muscular liberalism'
Blurb
A Palestinian former refugee Latifa Abouchakra, from Ealing, London. As she reports she is a first time delegate and speaker at the 2018 NUT. This is a speech Latifa made at this year's conference regarding Islamophobic policies in our education system. Latifa says our because it is ours. WE work in it. WE benefit or suffer from how its administered. And it shall be US who make it fit for purpose. Silence is acceptance. Let's speak more.
Salaam
Another update
CEO of Muzmatch explains why he attended the Downing Street Eid party
The CEO of the Muslim matrimonial app Muzmatch, Shahzad Younas, explains why he attended the Downing Street Eid party after much deliberation.
A week ago I received an email from the Prime Minister inviting me to 10 Downing Street to celebrate Eid with other Muslim figures in the community. I was initially over the moon to be recognised for the huge success Muzmatch has had both here in the UK and abroad. Alhamdullilah we’re shaping up to be a real British Tech success story.
But then as the days passed something tugged at my conscience. To be frank, I’m not a fan of Theresa May, her party or her politics. Collectively a lot of damage has been done to Muslim relations both here in the UK and abroad as a result of their policies. Something didn’t sit quite right with me to attend such a function. You are the company you keep, they say. What would it say about me as a person?
I still hadn’t made up my mind, as I saw some other figures in the community publicly boycott the event – on similar grounds – from foreign policy, Grenfell, Conservative Party Islamophobia as well as foreign policy. Grounds which I respected and fully resonated with me.
I then stepped back and thought, what would I achieve by not attending? Would they lose any sleep if I didn’t attend? Of course not. There would be plenty of others who would. Would I get any sort of point across by declining an invitation? Probably not – the RSVP email address was a generic one.
I spoke to close friends, and heard a range of opinions on the matter. I prayed istikhara and slept on it.
After much self-deliberation I decided to attend, however promising myself that I would not let the opportunity to speak directly to the Prime Minister be wasted. Opportunities such as this are fairly few when you’re not naturally in such circles.
Monday was the day of the Eid celebration in the gardens at 10 Downing Street. Photos below.
There were some faces I recognised, some friends too. Then there were some I would rather not meet. People who have caused a lot of damage and distrust between Muslim and government relations in this country.
I stood and observed as she entered the gardens with her entourage. Seeing lots of Muslim attendees suddenly desperately jostling to go and speak to her and be present for photos was quite a sight and a little cringeworthy.
After being introduced by Sajid Javid, she then began with Assalamu Alaikum (which drew applause) and then gave a short speech about the contribution to British life Muslims have played and wished Eid Mubarak to the attendees.
I was then asked if I would like to meet and speak to Theresa May herself after the speech. I said yes I would love to.
As she finished her speech I stood to one side as a civil servant then introduced two other attendees to her. They thanked Theresa for all her work for the Muslim community. At this point I was scratching my head trying to figure out what exactly that could be.
Then it was my turn. I shook her hand and said thank you for inviting me to the event. I then said that I have been troubled by the role of the UK in the current situation in Yemen with respect to British arms sales. Cue awkward glances by some of the attendees close by.
Safe to say she was caught off guard with my question. Up until that moment she only had niceties said to her. To be fair to her she did respond – saying that in her eyes providing aid to the people of Yemen was crucial and that a long term political solution is key. I then said that’s all well and good but at the same time we are providing the means for this conflict to continue. At that point I was hurriedly moved along so others could introduce themselves.
What did it achieve? Did it change anything on the ground there? Of course not. Did it bring to her direct attention something that British Muslims care about? Absolutely.
Having observed the event and the interactions I saw, I realised collectively most were happy to be there and were grateful for it. It was all very polite and cordial.
Yet to me it equally showed that as a community, at these levels we lack confidence in ourselves. Particularly to bring up difficult questions which relate to the Muslim community as a whole. Maybe I’m just too cynical.
In business you learn to play the long game. The same applies here. We should too. Work to positions of power or access, and then do our best to effect some change. Whilst staying true to ourselves. Or at least to voice that change in the hope of making a positive difference. But we shouldn’t be too timid, to not speak our mind on important matters.
I respect those who declined to attend on the grounds above. It definitely takes someone to put their own ego aside and turn it down and to take a principled stance.
Similarly those who did attend – fair play – it is not often you are invited to such an occasion and to many it is a huge moment and honour for them.
I hope more of us choose instead to engage on every level in a smart and respectful way – and directly make your voices heard – at any and every opportunity you get. There is real power in unity here, if only we realised.
Of course given the high level of awkwardness I wouldn’t be surprised if I were to not be invited again. But rather that, than let the opportunity to speak directly to the Prime Minister be wasted.
Ever the optimist, in my eyes, at least perhaps, just perhaps, the Prime Minister may think back over today and be reminded of that Northerner talking about the situation in Yemen. And who knows – maybe her conscience would also tug at her.
https://5pillarsuk.com/2018/06/20/ceo-of-muzmatch-explains-why-he-attended-the-downing-street-eid-party/
Another update
CEO of Muzmatch explains why he attended the Downing Street Eid party
The CEO of the Muslim matrimonial app Muzmatch, Shahzad Younas, explains why he attended the Downing Street Eid party after much deliberation.
A week ago I received an email from the Prime Minister inviting me to 10 Downing Street to celebrate Eid with other Muslim figures in the community. I was initially over the moon to be recognised for the huge success Muzmatch has had both here in the UK and abroad. Alhamdullilah we’re shaping up to be a real British Tech success story.
But then as the days passed something tugged at my conscience. To be frank, I’m not a fan of Theresa May, her party or her politics. Collectively a lot of damage has been done to Muslim relations both here in the UK and abroad as a result of their policies. Something didn’t sit quite right with me to attend such a function. You are the company you keep, they say. What would it say about me as a person?
I still hadn’t made up my mind, as I saw some other figures in the community publicly boycott the event – on similar grounds – from foreign policy, Grenfell, Conservative Party Islamophobia as well as foreign policy. Grounds which I respected and fully resonated with me.
I then stepped back and thought, what would I achieve by not attending? Would they lose any sleep if I didn’t attend? Of course not. There would be plenty of others who would. Would I get any sort of point across by declining an invitation? Probably not – the RSVP email address was a generic one.
I spoke to close friends, and heard a range of opinions on the matter. I prayed istikhara and slept on it.
After much self-deliberation I decided to attend, however promising myself that I would not let the opportunity to speak directly to the Prime Minister be wasted. Opportunities such as this are fairly few when you’re not naturally in such circles.
Monday was the day of the Eid celebration in the gardens at 10 Downing Street. Photos below.
There were some faces I recognised, some friends too. Then there were some I would rather not meet. People who have caused a lot of damage and distrust between Muslim and government relations in this country.
I stood and observed as she entered the gardens with her entourage. Seeing lots of Muslim attendees suddenly desperately jostling to go and speak to her and be present for photos was quite a sight and a little cringeworthy.
After being introduced by Sajid Javid, she then began with Assalamu Alaikum (which drew applause) and then gave a short speech about the contribution to British life Muslims have played and wished Eid Mubarak to the attendees.
I was then asked if I would like to meet and speak to Theresa May herself after the speech. I said yes I would love to.
As she finished her speech I stood to one side as a civil servant then introduced two other attendees to her. They thanked Theresa for all her work for the Muslim community. At this point I was scratching my head trying to figure out what exactly that could be.
Then it was my turn. I shook her hand and said thank you for inviting me to the event. I then said that I have been troubled by the role of the UK in the current situation in Yemen with respect to British arms sales. Cue awkward glances by some of the attendees close by.
Safe to say she was caught off guard with my question. Up until that moment she only had niceties said to her. To be fair to her she did respond – saying that in her eyes providing aid to the people of Yemen was crucial and that a long term political solution is key. I then said that’s all well and good but at the same time we are providing the means for this conflict to continue. At that point I was hurriedly moved along so others could introduce themselves.
What did it achieve? Did it change anything on the ground there? Of course not. Did it bring to her direct attention something that British Muslims care about? Absolutely.
Having observed the event and the interactions I saw, I realised collectively most were happy to be there and were grateful for it. It was all very polite and cordial.
Yet to me it equally showed that as a community, at these levels we lack confidence in ourselves. Particularly to bring up difficult questions which relate to the Muslim community as a whole. Maybe I’m just too cynical.
In business you learn to play the long game. The same applies here. We should too. Work to positions of power or access, and then do our best to effect some change. Whilst staying true to ourselves. Or at least to voice that change in the hope of making a positive difference. But we shouldn’t be too timid, to not speak our mind on important matters.
I respect those who declined to attend on the grounds above. It definitely takes someone to put their own ego aside and turn it down and to take a principled stance.
Similarly those who did attend – fair play – it is not often you are invited to such an occasion and to many it is a huge moment and honour for them.
I hope more of us choose instead to engage on every level in a smart and respectful way – and directly make your voices heard – at any and every opportunity you get. There is real power in unity here, if only we realised.
Of course given the high level of awkwardness I wouldn’t be surprised if I were to not be invited again. But rather that, than let the opportunity to speak directly to the Prime Minister be wasted.
Ever the optimist, in my eyes, at least perhaps, just perhaps, the Prime Minister may think back over today and be reminded of that Northerner talking about the situation in Yemen. And who knows – maybe her conscience would also tug at her.
https://5pillarsuk.com/2018/06/20/ceo-of-muzmatch-explains-why-he-attended-the-downing-street-eid-party/
JustTime
كـٌنٍ مـَع الـلُّـہ
- Messages
- 354
- Reaction score
- 2
- Gender
- Male
- Religion
- Islam
How ridiculous, this is the problem with many Muslims today, when their brothers are actually suffering like in Aleppo and Mosul they are too busy making up lies about how it's either justified or exaggerated, but when Muslims are in a place of power like in Yemen and are capable of defending themselves and holding superiority, supposed "Muslims" will condemn it and claim that it's against the interests of Islam and it's people.
Let's take a quick review,
Mosul, Genocide of Sunnis by Shias = 0 public outcry, no media mention, totally ignored and disregarded
Aleppo, Sunnis besieged and collectively slaughtered by Shias = Almost ignored with bare minimal outcry
East Ghouta, Shias using chemical weapons and fighting an offensive against Sunnis = Some outcry
Hudaybah, Sunnis take back their land = Maximum outcry
It's ridiculous out of all the things he would mention to this woman, he chose the one that actually benefits our people as something to condemn. He could have mentioned the fact that the UK supports Arab forced displacement by Rojava which is itself a manifestation of the PKK which is an internationally recognized terrorist organization, that is essentially the Kurdish left-wing version of the KKK, with all the same racism. Or how hard Britain fought to protect Iranian interests in Iraq, but no this man thought he was being a brave and thought it would be fun to discuss how the Houthis, Iran's army in the Arabian Peninsula, are getting exactly what they deserve and how Iran is loosing miserably and paying only fraction of the misery they caused with their pathetic mushrik devil proxies in Yemen.
Last edited: