Syria, Gaza and the Criminalisation of Islam

Salaam

How vindictive they can be.

Tariq Ramadan: Islam scholar cleared of Swiss rape charges

Renowned Islamic studies scholar Tariq Ramadan has been cleared of rape and sexual coercion by a Swiss court.

Mr Ramadan, who is a Swiss citizen, is the grandson of Hassan al-Banna, the founder of Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood.

The case was brought by a Swiss woman who said she had been raped by Mr Ramadan in a Geneva hotel in 2008.

A convert to Islam, and a fan of Mr Ramadan's, the woman told the court she had been subjected to a brutal sexual assault, beatings and insults.

She said it happened after she was invited by the former Oxford academic for a coffee after a conference.

Mr Ramadan, who is 60, had faced up to three years in prison if convicted. He denied all the charges, but did admit to having met the woman.

The trial was a sharp contrast to the career so far of the man once feted as a "rock star" of Islamic thought.

As Europe struggled with terrorist attacks and rising anti-Muslim feeling, Mr Ramadan appeared as a voice of reason - condemning terrorism and opposing the death penalty. He was denied entry to Tunisia, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Libya, and Syria, because, he said, he had criticised their lack of democracy.

In 2004 he was voted one of Time magazine's 100 most influential people in the world.

In 2007 he became a professor of Islamic studies at St Antony's College Oxford. He also had his critics, particularly in France, where a number of leading academics accused him of anti-Semitism.

But in 2017, Mr Ramadan's meteoric rise ended, when he was accused by a French woman of rape.

When that case became public, more women came forward.

By 2020 he was facing five charges of rape - four in France, and one in Switzerland - and had spent nine months in detention in France before being released on probation. He has consistently denied all the charges against him.

The Swiss case was the first to come to trial, and the atmosphere in the Geneva courtroom was tense.

Mr Ramadan faced a barrage of cameras as he arrived. His accuser, using the name Brigitte to protect her identity, requested a screen be put up in the courtroom so she would not have to look at the man she claimed raped her.

She described the alleged attack in detail, saying she feared she would die.

Mr Ramadan admitted inviting her to his hotel room, but denied any form of violence. He said all the accusations against him have been politically motivated and designed to discredit him.

His French and Swiss lawyers also questioned the accusers' truthfulness, citing inconsistencies around the dates of the alleged attacks.

Mr Ramadan was supported in that argument by his family. His son Sami, pointing to his father's "role in the debate about Islam in France," told the BBC in 2019 that the cases against his father were "motivated by other reasons, which we feel are political."

That view was backed by dozens of high-profile figures, including American philosopher Noam Chomsky, and British filmmaker Ken Loach, who signed an open letter questioning whether Mr Ramadan was receiving a fair legal process, with the usual presumption of innocence.

In court in Geneva, the prosecution insisted Brigitte could not have invented the alleged attack or have been able to tell it to the judges in such detail.

Mr Ramadan's defence lawyer insisted on his innocence, describing the charges against him as "crazy". In his own remarks to the court, Mr Ramadan asked not to be tried on his "real or supposed ideology".

After a week's deliberation, the three Swiss judges found him innocent.

While he has been cleared in Switzerland, this could be just the first of several trials.

In France, prosecutors are still assessing whether charges brought against Mr Ramadan should go to court.

He continues to protest his innocence in all the cases, and has vowed to clear his name.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-65611696

Tariq Ramadans viewpoint.

Embedded Tweet

Quote:

---

TO MY FELLOW SISTERS AND BROTHERS IN ISLAM
May I both inform you and remind you :

1. Even though I acknowledged my own weaknesses (and I have to deal with them before God alone and my family), the cases and the objective facts show that I have never been a predator, nor was I violent, and I never admitted any "domination", let alone "violent domination", as it has been wrongly reported by French media.

2. The Swiss plaintiff, and all the French ones, "got in touch with (me)" and tried "to seduce (me)": they "were in touch with each other and were organizing (my) downfall" as the Swiss judges mentioned it in their written verdict.

3. Some sisters and brothers are taking a kind of "neutral stance" by saying they support women and sisters, potentially victims", and, at the same time, refrain from supporting a Muslim scholar and leader, who was not morally consistent and must not be idealized.

4. Indeed, Muslim scholars must not be idealized, yet this has nothing to do with the crux of the matter: the plaintiffs are not "victims" or "sisters" manipulated by a scholar: these are women with a specific political mission, who planned an encounter, were in touch with (French, Saudi, Emirati and Israeli) governements' institutions, journalists, far right activists... and asked for money !

5. May I ask my sisters and brothers, in the light of the Islamic principles to avoid any rushed moral judgements (about facts they don't know), to justify a lack of understanding, a lack of courage, or both.

6. In the West, some Islamophobes and ideological enemies know quite well the Muslims' weaknesses and inclinations, and they know how to use, at time, the very Islamic morality they despise against the Muslims they hate. And naive Muslims are quick to falling into the trap...

7. Remember ... morality is not a weapon to be used to destroy and "cancel" a sister or a brother, be her/him a scholar or a leader. Rather it is a set of principles, a path, to help our sisters and our brothers to be protected from our superficial judgments and to find release, forgiveness, resilience and peace with God.

8. Rightly used our morality is the essential means of our unity and strength ... wrongly used it is the means of our weakness and division : be your sister/brother's private educator and teacher, not her/his public judge.

May God help us,
With faith and love.

---

A tough but but necessary response from Bro Talha.

Embedded Tweet

Quote:

---

I'm all for defending people from wrongful allegations, especially for zina and other serious sins. I'm also against "cancel culture" as perpetuated by these online vultures who lie in wait for any opportunity to try and ruin people.

But if your key subject area is Islam, and you preach *your* reformist version of it but complete with a general morality recognisable to other Muslims, and then you end up admitting to the crime of zina in the Sharia in order to wriggle out of a secular crime of being a predatory sexual abuser, then the only thing you need to be doing is a) thanking Allah for having mercy on you and then b) withdrawing from public life for the foreseeable future.

This doesn't mean Tariq Ramadan is irredeemable - everyone sins. But the gravity of his sin, freely admitted to knowing a secular court couldn't care less about zina (in most instances), is so great as to warrant a very long time away in reflection and *no more preaching*. Perhaps he could come back and specifically warn against the evils of zina, as someone Allah put through trials and (I pray) has learned a lesson from it at some point in the future. But even that isn't for now.

What he absolutely should not be doing is saddling up again like nothing ever happened to this cowboy and it's business as usual. Have some shame.

---

Salaam

Another update.

Hah! Some good news.

Embedded Tweet

Embedded Tweet

Embedded Tweet

Embedded Tweet

Embedded Tweet

Embedded Tweet

As mentioned compare and contrast Moazzam treatment with Nigel Farage.

NatWest boss Alison Rose resigns over Nigel Farage Coutts account row

Former Ukip leader obtained report suggesting media coverage of his political views was considered in Coutts closure decision

Dame Alison Rose, the chief executive of NatWest Group, has stood down after a row over the closure of Nigel Farage’s bank account with the private bank Coutts, which NatWest owns.

Rose has resigned from the banking group after the former UK Independence party leader complained to the BBC about a report that claimed his accounts with Coutts were closed for commercial reasons. The broadcaster has since apologised and amended its story.

Farage said Rose’s exit was “a start” but called for the whole Natwest board to go. He told GB News that the resignation “had to happen”, adding: “The first rule of banking is you have to respect the privacy of the customer.”

The City minister Andrew Griffith tweeted: “It is right that the NatWest CEO has resigned. This would never have happened if NatWest had not taken it upon itself to withdraw a bank account due to someone’s lawful political views. That was and is always unacceptable.

“I hope the whole financial sector learns from this incident. Its role is to serve customers well and fairly – not to tell them how or what to think.”

In a statement released in the early hours of Wednesday, the NatWest Group chairman, Sir Howard Davies, said: “The board and Alison Rose have agreed, by mutual consent, that she will step down as CEO of the NatWest Group. It is a sad moment.”

In her own statement, Rose thanked her colleagues “for all that they have done”, adding: “I remain immensely proud of the progress the bank has made in supporting people, families and business across the UK, and building the foundations for sustainable growth.”

Having announced after markets closed on Tuesday that Rose was set to stay at the bank, her resignation was then confirmed just before 2am on Wednesday morning.

Her departure followed a media storm in which several newspapers had called for her to quit. Reports late on Tuesday citing sources close to No 10 and the chancellor claimed there were “significant concerns” about her staying in her role. By 11pm, shortly after front pages were revealed, the board of NatWest were locked in emergency talks over her future.

Rose had admitted earlier on Tuesday that she was the source of a controversial BBC story about Farage’s bank accounts, and for which she issued a grovelling apology.

Commercial considerations – falling below a wealth threshold – were one reason why his accounts could be closed, said a dossier obtained by Farage using a subject access request.

However, the documents also showed that media coverage of Farage’s political views was weighed up while discussing whether to retain him as a client.

The former Ukip leader had claimed that his bank account was closed on the basis of “blatant corporate prejudice” or because of rules about financial services for being a so-called politically exposed person: someone with political connections that could make them more at risk of receiving corrupt or illegal payments.

He said “I can’t get a bank account” in a video on 29 June. However, it is unclear when he was offered an alternative of accounts with Coutts’ sister lender, the high street bank NatWest.

In a letter of apology to Farage sent last week, Rose said the bank would “reiterate” its offer for “alternative banking arrangements” at NatWest, but that it was sorry for “deeply inappropriate comments” about the political campaigner.

Davies said earlier on Tuesday that the board was giving its full backing to its 53-year-old chief executive, who has spent her career at the lender, and retained the board’s “full confidence”.

Farage said on Wednesday: “Anybody on that board that backed that statement that was put out at 17.42 yesterday, a totally unsustainable and untrue statement, anybody that backed that behaviour, should be gone.”

He called for “cultural change” at NatWest and in the wider industry, adding: I think there is a massive anti-Brexit prejudice and I think the whole thing needs to change.

https://www.theguardian.com/business...account-coutts

Embedded Tweet

Salaam

Another update.

Nigel Farage row: When Muslims have their bank accounts closed, nobody cares

British Muslims were the first to suffer from bank account closures, but nobody protested. When the same thing happens to Nigel Farage, it’s close to a national scandal

Every major British media outlet has reported the revelation from British populist politician Nigel Farage that his bank accounts are to be closed without notice or explanation.

The Times, Financial Times, Guardian, Telegraph, Independent. Mail, Express, Evening Standard, Spectator and others have awarded Farage ample space. He's compared modern Britain to communist China - and claimed that without a bank account: "I won’t be able to exist or function".

This is more than empty hyperbole.

In the modern world, a bank account matters as much as electricity or running water. Without one you cannot travel overseas, you feel like a criminal and normal life becomes impossible.

I know this because, over the last decade, I have spoken at great length to dozens of people who have had their bank accounts removed without explanation - the same fate as Farage.

One lost his job, another saw his life’s work, a charity, wiped away. Yet another, a proud man, broke down in tears as he described the humiliation inflicted upon him and his family.

An attack of the vapours

I have written up many of these stories in Middle East Eye. Not one of them has been followed up in the British media, or taken up as a cause by politicians.

No prizes for guessing why not. The individuals concerned, though mainly British citizens, were Muslims.

Four years ago, I reported how the World Uyghur Congress, which raises awareness about the terrible plight of Chinese Muslims, was having bank transfers blocked. Completely ignored in British media, I rang up journalistic colleagues urging them to follow the story.

Not interested, even though the World Uyghur Congress was blacklisted on the basis of Chinese disinformation that it was a terror group.

I revealed how Interpal, one of the leading British charities focusing on providing relief and development aid to Palestinians in the occupied West Bank and Gaza, was prohibited from raising money.

I described how Anas Altikriti, chief executive of the Cordoba Foundation, had lost his bank account, along with members of his family, with no reason given. Ditto the Finsbury Park Mosque, stripped of its account after being falsely listed as a terrorist organisation.

I also exposed how the Palestinian Solidarity Campaign received letters - out of the blue - from their bankers closing down their accounts, and giving no reason or right of appeal. When I wrote about the problem in The Daily Telegraph a decade ago, the newspaper suppressed my report.

This week, it gave ample space to Farage's supposed banking trails.

Sinister authoritarianism

I raised the subject personally with George Osborne when he was chancellor of the Exchequer.

I went into the Treasury to meet his junior Harriet Baldwin, the minister responsible, and explained the plight of Muslims deprived of a bank account. I also briefed her successor John Glen who turned out to be a timewaster.

Contrast the Westminster reaction when a Muslim loses her or his account - total lack of any interest, let alone concern, but when Farage supposedly loses his, Fleet Street has an attack of the vapours.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fNBAK-74MzM&t=306s

Columnists like Richard Littlejohn, Dominic Lawson and Rod Liddle rally to his defence and politicians jump to attention.

Chancellor of the Exchequer Jeremy Hunt responded almost at once, promising prompt action. Culture Secretary Liz Frazer and Security Minister Tom Tugendhat followed suit.

According to the Daily Mail, a Treasury source stated yesterday that "it is absolutely a concern. No one should have their account denied on the grounds of freedom of expression. We expect to take action on this issue within weeks."

Canary in the mine

I can’t help comparing the alacrity with which the government has gone into battle on behalf of Farage to its total indifference to the fate of British Muslims and others over many years.

This shows two things: first and foremost, the structural Islamophobia which has long poisoned British media and politics. When Muslims have their bank accounts closed, nobody cares. When the same thing allegedly happens to Nigel Farage it’s close to a national scandal.

But there’s a deeper point. Ever since Tony Blair joined George Bush’s so-called “war on terror”, British Muslims have been the testing ground for sinister authoritarianism.

As I demonstrated in my book, The Fate of Abraham, politically engaged Muslims were the first to suffer from cancel culture, having been systematically excluded from British life for many years.

Nobody protested.

They were the first to suffer from financial attack in the shape of bank account closures. Nobody protested. Muslims are, in short, the canary in the coal mine.

Now, it may be happening to Farage, the ultimate symbol of white English middle-class smug complacency.

Let’s not forget that when British Muslims first lost their bank accounts a decade ago, neither Farage nor any other British mainstream politician lifted a finger in their defence.

Today, when the same thing threatens them, it's suddenly a national scandal, a threat to free speech, an act of political persecution and Britain is compared to communist China.

Welcome to the world of British Muslims.

https://www.middleeasteye.net/opinio...d-nobody-cares

Salaam

Another update. The casual disregard and 10%, 10%!

Embedded Tweet

Embedded Tweet

Embedded Tweet

And more cases.

Embedded Tweet

Embedded Tweet

More comment.

Embedded Tweet

Embedded Tweet

Embedded Tweet

Embedded Tweet

Peter Hitchens echoing Collingwoods earlier point.

*******

Has Nigel Farage really won a great victory over the forces of the Cultural Revolution? I don’t think so. The bank which tried to cancel him had to be dragged almost by force into admitting it had done anything wrong. Those who eventually resigned quite plainly had no real belief they had done anything wrong. Much of the left-wing media and the Labour Party still think Mr Farage is exaggerating or protesting too much. Here’s the truth. Most British institutions, companies, media, educational establishments, churches etc are now in the grip of a severe, intolerant left-wing dogma. We are in the twilight of free speech.

https://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co...t-some-in.html

Salaam

Another update

Embedded Tweet

Quote:

---

Why does the government of a Muslim country support and fund a campaign directed against Muslims in Europe, regardless of their political views or activities?

What is the point of UAE spreading fear, slandering innocent Muslims?

Ruining their reputation and business, inciting racist attacks on mosques and giving a boost to far-right parties and positions in European countries? For one thing, MBZ can sell himself to European governments as a "good Muslim."

In Europe people like to think in terms of dichotomies. Especially when it comes to Muslims: Here the good, the moderate, the liberal, there the bad, the fanatical, the pious. From bin Zayed's point of view, there is definitely an economic interest in presenting oneself as supposedly good guys: The European Union is the autocrat's second largest trading partner after China.

At the same time, from the perspective of the UAE, it cannot do any harm to cause unrest in Europe. Russia's President Putin has been using similar tactics for a long time he supports various right-wing extremist parties in Europe and uses "RT" to spread targeted disinformation about an alleged "Islamization" of Europe. Not so much because the ideological similarities with the New Right are so great (which they definitely are), but out of cold calculation: confusing people, causing trouble, fueling the belief in conspiracies.

A third motive is also important: The UAE is arguing with Qatar about who has more influence in Europe. The host country of the 2022 men's World Cup is seen as a supporter seen as a supporter and sponsor of groups close to the Muslim Brotherhood. The dictator of the Emirates, on the other hand, proclaims Sufism, a mystical branch of Islam that the West likes to categorize as "liberal" or "cosmopolitan" without much background knowledge.

---

Abu Dhabi Secrets: The Emirati 'smear campaign' explained

UAE smeared over a thousand people and hundreds of organisations as Muslim Brotherhood supporters, according to a new investigation

A new report has revealed that the United Arab Emirates was involved in a smear campaign that targeted over a thousand people and hundreds of organisations, alleging that they had links to the Muslim Brotherhood.

Based on 78,000 confidential documents obtained by the French online newspaper Mediapart, the Abu Dhabi Secrets case reportedly involved people from 18 different European countries being spied on by Alp Services, a company hired by the Emirati government.

The campaign was linked to around 1,000 individuals in Europe, all of whom were portrayed as having links to the Muslim Brotherhood, which is described as a terrorist organisation by the UAE.

Some of those targeted have since come out to distance themselves from the allegations, while others have expressed fear over being targeted again or losing everything.

The investigations, which have been published across 13 different publications, found that Emirati authorities paid at least 5.7m euros for the campaign.

The Emirati embassy in Paris did not respond to Mediapart's request for comment. Mario Brero, founder of Alp Services, did not respond to questions sent to him by the French investigative site.

Brero's lawyers, Christian Luscher and Yoann Lambert, told Mediapart that the documents used for the investigation had been "obtained unlawfully" and "are the result of one or more criminal offences".

The lawyers said that criminal complaints had been filed and that the case is now under investigation. They further claimed that Mediapart had ignored their formal notices "ordering it to destroy all data concerning our principals".

The Swiss publication RTS, which has published the investigations, said it was doing so in the public interest despite the fact that the documents were most likely stolen by hackers.

The UAE has previously denied being involved in similar campaigns. The Belgian government has summoned the UAE's ambassador over the campaign.

What is Abu Dhabi Secrets?

Now dubbed “the Abu Dhabi Secrets”, the investigations claim that Alp Services, a Swiss private intelligence firm, was hired by the UAE government to spy on citizens of 18 different European countries.

Between 2017 and 2020, Alp Services gave the details of over 1,000 people and 400 companies and organisations to the Emirati intelligence services, who claimed that they all were members of - or sympathisers with - the Muslim Brotherhood.

A political Islamic movement, the Muslim Brotherhood briefly gained power in Egypt following the rise of the Arab Spring protests in 2011 and the election of Mohamed Morsi in 2012.

The UAE considers the group a terrorist organisation and Qatar's support for it was a source of tension between the Gulf states and a reason for the blockade imposed on Qatar between 2017 and 2021.

European Investigative Collaborations (EIC) published maps created by Alp Services that showed the locations of those targeted. Some references on the map included "other terrorists", "Qatari charities" and "other radical preachers".

The maps had hundreds of names and arrows, in a purported attempt to link individuals with extremism.

How did it work?

Alp Services - and Brero - were paid tens of thousands of euros per individual targeted, according to Le Soir. The Swiss group then produced reports on the identified individuals.

Information sent to Emirati intelligence services included phone numbers and personal details. Alp Services said this accusation was based on "stolen data" and claimed the line of questioning from journalists suggested the documents were "partly falsified".

Once the information was sent over to Emirati intelligence services, agents were able to target the individuals further through press campaigns, forums published about them, the creation of fake profiles and the modification of Wikipedia pages.

In some cases, work was done to ensure that the bank accounts of targeted individuals and organisations were closed.

Who was targeted?

Among those targeted were politicians, representatives of Islamic organisations, activists and prominent feminist figures.

An investigation carried out by the EIC media network and Spanish news site infoLibre, found that over 160 people from Spain were targeted in the smear campaign, all of whom deny having a relationship or affiliation with the Muslim Brotherhood.

One of those targeted in Spain was Riay Tatary, the founder and general secretary of the Union of Islamic Communities of Spain. Tatary, who died of Covid-19 in April 2020, was also the imam of Madrid's Tetuan mosque.

According to infoLibre, the criteria that the detectives used to single out Spanish sympathisers of the Muslim Brotherhood were "very vague and their methods unprofessional".

Hanan Serroukh, an immigration expert and the district coordinator, was also targeted. She said it was “incoherent, serious and even insulting” that her name would be associated with the Muslim Brotherhood.

Pedro Rojo Perez, co-director of the Observatory of Islamophobia in the Media and founder of al-Fanar Foundation, also denied having any affiliation to the group.

“I have no relationship with the Muslim Brotherhood, other than my speciality, which is the Arab world,” he told infoLibre.

Perez said he thought he had been included on the Alp Services maps because he had helped facilitate meetings between Spanish politicians and a democratically elected Egyptian minister aligned with the Muslim Brotherhood.

“We brought them together with former Spanish parliamentarians so that they could explain to them what the Spanish transition to democracy was like and so that they would understand that it is a very complex process,” he said.

According to Mediapart, a French investigative news site, around 200 individuals and 120 organisations were also targeted in France.

Among them are former socialist presidential candidate Benoit Hamon, the deputy mayor of Marseille Samia Ghali and journalist and activist Rokhaya Diallo.

Zakia Khattabi, a climate minister in Belgium, decried the list of people targeted as "clearly so absurd and ridiculous that they deserve neither comment nor attention".

In the UK, former Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn was also singled out in some reports.

Many of those who appeared on Alp’s maps and reports have asked for their names not to be made public, out of fear of being harassed or targeted again.

How did the campaign change lives?

Victims of the files have been left shocked, angry and paranoid.

Some have been forced to flee their home country, while others have lost their businesses and suffered huge financial losses as well as reputational damage.

The singer Mennel Ibtissem was included in one of Alp’s reports because of a controversy that erupted during her participation in the television show The Voice in 2018, where she sang while wearing a turban.

Ibtissem was forced to leave the show after old tweets of hers relating to terrorist attacks in Nice and Saint-Etienne-du-Rouvray resurfaced. She later denounced the tweets, saying that she loved France and condemned violence, and that the tweets were written during a moment of anger to criticise "amalgams between terrorism and religion".

Ibtissem has since distanced herself from any Muslim Brotherhood affiliation.

“It’s nonsense, I’ve never said anything or done anything that could suggest that I have a political or religious commitment,” she said.

Others have also decried the accusations, which have had an impact on their careers.

Benoit Hamon said that being included on the list was "appalling" and called for investigations into the issue.

“I’m not going to let myself go, injustice and the French authorities must investigate and explain to us,” he said.

“I’m going to ask myself the question before going to the Emirates,” said Samia Ghali.

In March, the New Yorker reported that the UAE financed a campaign by Alp to smear the UK-based charity Islamic Relief Worldwide (IRW), and sought to link officials with the organisation to the Muslim Brotherhood and violent extremists.

https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/u...aign-explained

Embedded Tweet

Embedded Tweet

Or to sum it up another way.

Embedded Tweet

Salaam

Another update. Again another discussion on the problem with 'muscular' liberalism.

Can Muslims Survive the Liberal Inquisition? with Imam Tom Facchine

Many Muslims living in the West have become aware that the ideas of tolerance, individualism, liberal multiculturalism and freedom of religion – all liberal notions — have their limits when it comes to our community. A series of tensions, from depictions of the Messenger (saw) in offensive cartoons and the teaching of sexual practices at odds with our faith in schools, has brought into focus how there remains an incompatibility between the ever-increasing demands of the liberal state and the Muslim community.

To help us understand these tensions, Imam Tom Facchine, an imam and convert to Islam helps us understand the liberal state. He finished his BA in Political Science and was granted the opportunity to study at the Islamic University of Madinah from 2015-2020, where he obtained his BA from the Faculty of Shariah. Imam Tom is the Research Director of Islam and Society at the Yaqeen Institute for Islamic Research. He is also a resident scholar and imam of Utica Masjid (New York state).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZASesV2FePU

Or to put it in another way.

Embedded Tweet

More comment.

Embedded Tweet

Quote:

---

I think there is about a twenty year lag between Anglo Islamic discourse and the ''rest'' - we'll be discussing surveillance statism, transhumanism, cyborg theory, monetary and private currency theory, accelerationism probably by 2040-2050 at this rate but inshallah we get there

The same thing happened with Bucaillism and scientism - the debate was essentially done to death by the time Muslims got around to realising actually ''Science in the Quran'' isn't what it's cracked up to be - many such examples

But more seriously I don't know why as a religious community we are stuck in a sort of time lapse of sorts - maybe these things just get filtered down to Muslims at a much slower rate and if so then the question is why?

In terms of mainstream academia, Eberle effectively wrote the definitive work tackling Rawls, Gaus etc on this issue all the way back in 2002 -

https://ndpr.nd.edu/reviews/religiou...eral-politics/

I think the question of the Administrative State (as a starting point) which transcends Rawlsian liberalism which is essentially just a post-hoc fairytale we tell ourselves is a lot more pressing and even relevant

Perhaps though there is a silver lining in this - Sunni Islam has this wonderful symphony between being incredibly decentralised backed up by some conception of authoritative scholarly authority which is plugged into serving local communities - so naturally pace is slower

---

Embedded Tweet

Quote:

---

Your point is for sure well taken, but you sorta answer your own question -- we're still talking about Rawlsian liberalism *because* there are still people out there trying to find ways to make Islam resonate with it. My last book was written as a response to these people

I am currently interested in what a model of Islamic public reason could look like -- I think theories of public deliberation w/in an Islamic context need to be discussed because currently -- it is clear -- that throughout much of the Muslim world, this is a real problem.

I guess what I am trying to say is: a lot of us are just trying to respond to the things we are seeing out there that are lacking or problematic. I hope people out there more original and creative than myself can address the critical issues you raise in your earlier post.

---

Salaam

Interesting ,the de-banking issue has reached mainstream news.

Embedded Tweet

Blurb

For Muslim communities in Britain, accessing financial services can prove especially difficult. From delays with applying and problems passing screening checks, to sudden debanking without an explanation. Aisha S Gani reports.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=88j7GSP_gps

Heh

Embedded Tweet

To be fair there is an attempt to address the issue, we will see what comes of it.

Salaam

Another update.

Debunking De-banking

The closure of Nigel Farage’s Coutts account for political reasons should worry not just conservatives but anyone concerned with society’s general welfare.

Mixing politics and banking is a risky exercise. It can also prove calamitous. The most recent example concerns the decision in July of the NatWest-owned Coutts private bank to close the account of one of Britain’s most well-known political figures, Nigel Farage.

Coutts claimed that the Brexit leader’s account had been closed because the amount invested had fallen below the financial threshold required by the bank’s customers, but it turned out that Farage’s political views had also played a significant role in the decision to de-bank him. In internal Coutts documentation acquired by Farage, Coutt’s reputational risk-assessment committee described him as someone “considered by many to be a disingenuous grifter” and “seen as xenophobic and racist.” His supposed views were thus deemed “at odds with our position as an inclusive organization.”

Worsening the situation was a breach of client confidentiality by NatWest’s CEO, Dame Alison Rose. At a dinner, she intimated to a BBC journalist that Farage’s account was closed for purely commercial reasons. Britain’s national broadcaster (not known for its friendliness to conservatives) apparently didn’t bother to check the veracity of the claim. They simply ran with it.

For this inaccurate reporting, the BBC apologized. For violating one of banking’s most basic rules of conduct, Rose eventually resigned, but only after pressure from the British government—itself a 39 percent shareholder in NatWest, a legacy of the 2008 financial crisis.

Maintaining client confidentiality is about as sacrosanct as it gets in the world of private banking. But the NatWest fiasco also reflects significant political biases presently operative in much of the financial sector throughout Western countries.

It’s no secret that progressive social views are considered de rigueur throughout much of the banking industry. Many bank CEOs publicly associate their institutions with left-leaning causes; they rarely show interest in supporting positions considered conservative. In a few cases, these decisions may mirror a CEO’s personal political preferences. But they also reflect how, like other corporations, banks face relentless pressure from progressive activists to support their favored positions. Such trends are reinforced by the banking industry’s embrace of diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives and the creation of attendant positions like Chief Diversity Officers (CDOs) to promote DEI throughout financial institutions.

These elements contribute to an atmosphere in which many people working in the financial sector are encouraged—or coerced—into looking askance at someone like Farage, who does not disguise his conservative opinions on topics ranging from immigration to climate change. Farage’s decidedly non-woke views, it should be noted, are shared by millions of Britons who are, like Farage, neither woke nor right-wing extremists, let alone racists.

At a minimum, it is surely imprudent for any bank to let itself be seen as regarding entire swathes of the British population as extremists. That’s a sure-fire way to alienate potential clients. Yet this is precisely the situation into which NatWest stumbled when Coutts employees decided that having Farage as a client was a risk to the bank’s reputation.

Yet the trend of progressive de-banking will be difficult to dislodge, for two complicating reasons. First, banks do indeed need to think about reputational risk. The long-term success of banks relies heavily on that intangible but real element called “confidence.” The moment that confidence in a bank is compromised—whether because of a perceived lack of probity or a collapse in trust—it is difficult for that institution to recover.

Many things can undermine a bank’s reputation. These range from allegations of insider trading to the provision of commercial services to criminals or terrorists. It follows that any bank should be free to decline to do business with anyone that it suspects will damage its good name.

The difficulty presently facing banks is the extent to which some of their staff confuse genuine reputational risk with people expressing political views disfavored by progressives. Moreover, attempts by banks to extricate themselves from these circumstances will likely lead to highly visible spats with the same progressive groups that have pressured them into adopting such stances, and from whose ranks those who hold CDO positions inside banks are often drawn.

The second complication is the extent to which government involves itself in modern banking. The financial sector is one of the world’s most heavily regulated industries. This reality means not only that the links between finance and politics run deep but also that governments, legislators, and regulators enjoy immense leverage over financial institutions.

Return, then, to the Farage affair. Like everyone else in Britain, people at NatWest and Coutts were surely aware that Britain’s deeply unpopular and perpetually dysfunctional Tory government may get tossed out at the next general election, scheduled for 2024. Should that transpire, the vast regulatory structure that oversees every financial institution in Britain will be working for a Labour government with little time for outspoken conservatives. In NatWest’s case, the situation would be worsened by the fact that its biggest shareholder will be that very same government. It is not beyond the realm of possibility that some Coutts staff concluded that having Nigel Farage as a client might complicate NatWest’s relationship with an incoming Labour government. If Farage’s defenestration from Coutts was indeed an effort at preemptive action, it backfired spectacularly on NatWest. After considerable dithering from various Labour spokesmen, Labour’s leader, Sir Keir Starmer, publicly and firmly stated that Rose had to go.





Beneath these specific challenges looms a larger issue. The Coutts internal document listing the reasons for discontinuing business with Farage stated that his “controversial public statements . . . were felt to conflict with the bank’s purpose.” What bank purpose was “felt” to be at stake here? The purpose of banking is not global social justice, promoting inclusiveness and diversity, or advancing progressive (or, for that matter, conservative) causes.

Instead, banks and financial institutions have very particular functions. These include creating economic value by facilitating efficiencies in the investment of capital by individuals and businesses; managing risk in ways that increase potential gains over the short, medium, and long term; introducing more flexibility and freedom into how people match the potential capital at their disposal with what they need and value at different points of their lives; and establishing relationships of trust and confidence between creditors and debtors in multiple economic settings.

The goal of these functions is to generate quality financial services and sufficient revenue to cover operating costs and deliver profit to the bank’s owners. But in pursuing these ends, banks help to put capital at the disposal of thousands of businesses and millions of individuals and families, in often clever ways. This grows the sum total of wealth in society; a world without banking—or one in which banks get distracted from pursuing their core objectives—would be much poorer.

Too many in the financial sector have lost sight of the fundamentals of what they do, and why they do it. If this turn of events has taught us anything, it is that bankers should stop pandering to progressives. Instead, they should spend more time defending and promoting the importance of what banks do qua banks. For therein lies their true legitimacy—something that will only be weakened by their becoming mere auxiliaries of activism.

https://www.city-journal.org/article...ing-de-banking

What the author describes is a phenomena called 'convergence' (think the term was coined by Voxday). When you let liberal/progressive/leftist ideologues hijack and dominate the values of a business/organisation, it inevitably leads to dysfunctional outcomes.

Blurb

The corporate cancer of social justice convergence is costing corporations literal billions of dollars even as it drives both productive employees and loyal customers away, destroys valuable brands, and eats away at market capitalizations. From Internet startups to entertainment giants, convergence is killing corporations as they focus on social justice virtue signaling at the expense of good business practices, sales, profits, and retaining loyal customers.

In CORPORATE CANCER, Vox Day explains how you can fight social justice convergence in your own organization for both personal and corporate profit, and why you must do so if you want to keep your job.

https://www.islamicboard.com/images/...BQnXdgcL-1.jpg

Salaam

Another update.

Embedded Tweet

Quote:

---

A secretive, Islamophobic , and Pan-European project "The Vienna Forum on Countering Segregation and Extremism", is a major threat to Pro-Palestinian Activism and Solidarity in Europe.

On October 24, 2023, Austrian Minister @susanneraab_at hosted the third Annual Vienna Forum, a secretive conference attended by 10 EU states and 150 experts. It masks discussions about the "Muslim question" under the pretext of combating "extremism" and "political Islam."

This year's keynote speaker was @AhmadMansour__, a German-Israeli "extremism expert" who supports hijab bans. He also endorses the Austrian Documentation Center for Political Islam, a state-sponsored Muslim surveillance initiative.

The choice of Ahmad Mansour as the keynote speaker reflects the forum's agenda: the criminalisation of pro-Palestine activism.
Mansour, a Palestinian with Israeli citizenship, plays the role of a native informant legitimising the racist and anti-Muslim views of Western elites.

Mansour also co-authored a politically motivated report that led to the purge of 7 Arab journalists alleging anti-semitism.

Embedded Tweet

Mansour has worked tirelessly to silence #ProPalestine activism by equating it with anti-Semitism and sympathy for terrorism. In his keynote speech, echoed these sentiments.

Mansour's presence at the #ViennaForum can be seen as a measure to heighten the securitization narrative, especially in light of unfolding events in Palestine. He argues that solidarity with Israel is a prerequisite in the fight against “extremism” and “terrorism.”

This argument insinuates that, for Muslim Europeans, demonstrating solidarity with #Palestine can/should lead to harsh counter terrorism and extremism measures, including surveillance, criminalisation, and control.

Mansour has dedicated his entire career to stigmatizing Muslim youth in Germany. Through books, articles, active participation in public debates, and the establishment of projects, he has consistently propagated a pervasive sense of suspicion against Muslim youth.

This is exemplified in the following quote:

“the threat Germany faces comes not from a few hundred fanatic Islamists, but from the entire generation of young Muslims—Generation Allah—who are all under threat of Islamic radicalisation.”

Mansour's attack on Islam and Muslims has gained him favourability among German conservatives, giving him a significant presence in debates about Islam and integration. This has significantly fueled Mansour's profile, allowing him to amass funding and accolades for his work.

His for-profit anti-extremism consultancy, received a substantial €792,000 from the Bavarian government.

Embedded Tweet

Mansour is part of a network of self-proclaimed "Islam experts" whose reports and studies are used by states to marginalize and criminalize Muslims. Such actions can lead to large-scale police operations like "Operation Luxor."

https://derstandard.at/story/2000142...e-aufpeitscher

The #ViennaForum is driven by the Austrian government with support from France, Denmark, and Belgium. It aims to establish an alliance of establishment elites promoting #Islamophobia on a state level across Europe, while given legitimacy by these 'experts' and 'intellectuals'.

We anticipate that Islamophobic states, which have already been suppressing Palestinian voices, will be further emboldened and radicalised by this alliance.

It's imperative for us to challenge the #ViennaForum and debunk the biased intellectual foundation it provides for the crackdown on Palestinian activism in Europe.

---

Salaam

Another update.

Embedded Tweet

Embedded Tweet

Revealed: plan to brand anyone ‘undermining’ UK as extremist

Leaked documents spark furious backlash from groups who fear freedom of expression could be suppressed

Government officials have drawn up deeply controversial proposals to broaden the definition of extremism to include anyone who “undermines” the country’s institutions and its values, according to documents seen by the Observer.

The new definition, prepared by civil servants working for cabinet minister Michael Gove, is fiercely opposed by a cohort of officials who fear legitimate groups and individuals will be branded extremists.

The proposals have provoked a furious response from civil rights groups with some warning it risks “criminalising dissent”, and would significantly suppress freedom of expression.

One Whitehall official said: “The concern is that this is a crackdown on freedom of speech. The definition is too broad and will capture legitimate organisations and individuals.”

Gove’s Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities started a review of non-violent extremism in spring this year. A national cohesion and counter-extremism plan with the new definition is expected to be launched shortly.

Internal departmental documents marked “official – sensitive” say the proposed definition could “frame a new, unified response to extremism”.

It lists a number of organisations which it considers would be “captured” by the new definition.

Among them are the Muslim Council of Britain (MCB), Palestine Action and Mend (Muslim Engagement and Development), which has featured at some Conservative party conference fringe events and in 2021 provided evidence to parliamentary committees.

The documents state: “Extremism is the promotion or advancement of any ideology which aims to overturn or undermine the UK’s system of parliamentary democracy, its institutions and values.”

Gove’s officials are understood to have been in talks with the Home Office and No 10 over the definition, which arrives during a particularly fraught period.

Last week the home secretary, Suella Braverman, described pro-Palestinian demonstrations in London as “hate marches”, prompting dismay from many participants who consider themselves peace campaigners.

On Saturday during the latest pro-Palestinian march, thousands assembled in London’s Trafalgar Square with 11 arrests made.

Civil rights groups said introducing a wider definition of extremism would threaten freedom of speech. There has been no public consultation on the new definition.

Akiko Hart, interim director at Liberty, said: “This proposed change would be a reckless and cynical move, threatening to significantly suppress freedom of expression.

“Expanding the definition so far beyond the current guidance risks further discouraging individuals and groups from legitimately exercising their right to free speech, while allowing the government to crack down on community groups, charities or faith groups they disagree with.”

Martin Bright, editor-at-large, Index on Censorship, added: “This is an unwarranted attack on freedom of expression and would potentially criminalise every student radical and revolutionary dissident. It has never been the British way to arrest people for thought crime.”

Ilyas Nagdee, Amnesty International UK’s racial justice director, said: “This definition must not be accepted or implemented.

“The definition of extremism and its usage in counter-terrorism policies like [counter-terrorism strategy] Prevent is already being applied so broadly it seeks to effectively hinder people from organising and mobilising. The proposed definition takes this even further and could criminalise any dissent.”

The government’s 2011 Prevent strategy defined extremism as the “active opposition to fundamental British values, including democracy, the rule of law, individual liberty and the mutual respect and tolerance of different faiths and beliefs”. Further attempts over the past decade to implement a new definition have been unsuccessful.

The government proposed a bill in the Queen’s speech in 2016 to “tackle the menace of extremism”, with a new civil order regime to restrict activity. The bill faced widespread opposition and was shelved after the government failed to provide a legally acceptable definition of extremism.

Under the proposed definition in the documents, extremism would be the promotion of any ideology which aims to “overturn or undermine the UK’s democracy, its institutions and values; or threaten the rights of individuals or create a permissive environment for radicalisation, hate crime and terrorism”.

It adds that the definition should be supported with public guidance that enables “consistent use and application”. The documents state that “stakeholders have thus far agreed this sets a clear threshold for identifying extremism”.

There is significant concern among some officials because they consider the broader definition could be used against legitimate organisations fiercely opposed to certain government institutions or calling for their abolition. They are concerned a wider range of individuals could be no-platformed or reported as suspected extremists in official files.

The proposed definition also includes: “Sustained support for, or continued uncritical association with organisations or individuals who are exhibiting extremist behaviours.”

It said the new definition moves from the 2011 definition of “active opposition” of British values to identifying extremism “through behaviours that enable the spread of extremist ideology”. This is a significantly broader definition, potentially capturing people who are considered to have failed to properly challenge what is seen as extremist behaviour.

Some officials are concerned the new definition could hamper the activities of legitimate political or environmental groups. It was reported in 2020 that at least 45 activists were referred to Prevent over environmental extremism between April 2016 and March 2019. At the time Amnesty International described the referrals as “deeply concerning”. MCB said the government “needs to challenge its own extremists who are intent on dividing our communities”. Palestine Action said: “This new definition is clearly an attempt to undermine and intimidate our movement. We refuse to be deterred.”

Mend has been contacted for comment.

A government spokesperson said: “We are clear there is no place for extremism, and over the last few years we have taken action to tackle hatred and those who seek to divide us.

“As you would expect, we keep our approach to tackling extremism under review to ensure it meets the evolving challenge it poses.”

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...P=share_btn_tw

Related

Blurb

The anger we feel from Israel’s continued barbarous shelling of Gaza cannot be put into words. The impunity with which it acts and the green light given by the west just reminds us that the so-called rules-based order is setup to serve the West. With all this in mind, young people in particular are being reminded daily that Palestinian activism is viewed with suspicion by education authorities. In the UK, the government has mooted that flying the Palestinian flag could be supporting terror and its Prevent laws make it extremely difficult for our youth to voice even their support for our ummah, lest they are investigated for links to extremism. To help parents and young people understand how to navigate this minefield.

Dr Layla Aitlhadj, has been a tenacious campaigner to expose how the government has violated the most basic rights of ordinary Muslim citizens. Her organisation Prevent Watch has helped countless Muslim families caught up in this net of accusations. Her diligence and assiduous approach to prevent cases has helped shine a light on how destructive this policy is.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cChw4wnlZqE




To sum up

Embedded Tweet

Salaam

Like to share

Blurb

Come election time, Western Muslim communities have been asked to support mainstream political parties in exchange for representation. Some commentators have praised the multiculturalism of countries like the UK, where the party system has integrated many Muslims into the political system.

Here in London, we have Sadiq Khan, arguably the highest-ranking elected Muslim official in the Western world. In the United States, there’s a similar push for Muslims to support the Democrats and even the Republicans, and some have broken the glass ceiling and represent the parties at local and national levels.

But does Muslim representation really work? On Gaza we have seen the limits of the ‘Muslim voice’. What are the structural compromises the system will always want to solicit from Muslim representatives? Does the system only support particular types of candidates, and indeed does the system change the people who set out to change the system?

To explore this topic, I have with me in the studio today Dr Asim Qureishi. Dr Asim Qureshi is the research director at CAGE, a UK-based advocacy organisation working to empower communities impacted by the War on Terror. He has a background in International Law and is the author of the books "Rules of the Game" and "A Virtue of Disobedience".


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jxRMDQ8ASjA

Salaam

Just one example of how involvement in politics can be rather compromising.

Muslims can aspire to top office in UK… on condition they abandon Islam

Academic Tallha Abdulrazaq says that the elections of Humza Yousaf and Sadiq Khan prove that ethnicity is no longer a hindrance to top office in the UK, but being a believing and practising Muslim definitely still is.

If one were to cast their gaze over the characters who populate the British political landscape, they would assume that the country has come a long way since its days of Empire when it had colonised the Indian subcontinent and other territories across the Muslim world.

To be frank, that assumption in many ways would be correct.

Prime Minister Rishi Sunak is of Indian Hindu heritage. The Mayor of London is Sadiq Khan, of Pakistani Muslim descent. Now, Humza Yousaf, descended from Punjabi Muslims, has won the Scottish National Party’s leadership race and has taken office as First Minister of Scotland.

Considering Britain’s imperial history, this is of course somewhat remarkable.

Several high political offices are now dominated by the descendants of very same people the British Empire subjugated less than a century ago, and this is an indication that the United Kingdom is, to some extent, attempting to embrace a future where the definition of who is or is not “British” is not solely based on race or ethnicity.

But there is always a limit to tolerance, and that limit appears to be one that heavily scrutinises the religious heritage of one who seeks to enter political life, even if as a campaigner.

I can never forget when, at the height of ISIS mania as the group swept through Iraq and Syria in 2014, British Muslim human rights advocate Asim Qureshi was subjected to an Islamophobic line of questioning on national television to find out whether or not he supported Daesh, simply because he was a Muslim.

Bizarrely, the interviewer, Matt Frei, thought it would be an appropriate line of questioning because Qureshi said he supported humanitarian intervention and not military intervention in the Middle East.

While Qureshi handled himself with admirable panache, that was not the only example of Muslims being berated simply for being Muslim, ever a cloud of suspicion hanging over their heads.

During the 2016 London mayoral race, the Conservative candidate, Zac Goldsmith, attempted to smear the ultimate winner and Labour candidate, the aforementioned Sadiq Khan, as an “extremist.”

Once again, the securitisation of Muslims and Muslimness reared its ugly head, simply because of Khan’s religious background.

But I’m not that Muslim!

This intense level of scrutiny has had a few interesting results when examining Muslim engagement in British politics. Whenever a Muslim runs for public office, they will now almost invariably attempt to jump through as many hoops as possible just to show their would-be constituents just how “not-so-Muslim” they really are.

Take Khan, for example. When speaking to Iran’s state-sponsored Press TV outlet in 2009, he accused some in government of ignoring regular British Muslims in favour of speaking to organisations and leaders that he characterised as being “Uncle Toms” for showing subservience to the power structures in British society that dictate what you can and cannot be.

Effectively, Khan was attacking those who felt too afraid to speak out about their beliefs or those who showed sickening levels of obsequiousness to the authorities as they threw their own under the bus.

Naturally, and fast-forward a few years when he urgently needed political support to get into office, Khan needed to make a grand statement to reject his Muslimness to garner votes. His solution? Well, and despite the unambiguously sinful nature of homosexuality in Islam across its sectarian divide, he became the first mayoral candidate in 2015 to sign the so-called “Pride in London” pledge for the LGBT community.

Since then, he has made grand and public displays cavorting and frolicking upon giant rainbow flags in the middle of London and holding up placards with common slogans used by LGBT activists.

Fear and loathing

Scotland’s Yousaf was himself not immune to this. During the SNP’s leadership race, he was repeatedly cornered on his views about the gay community, with former First Minister Alex Salmond accusing him of intentionally scheduling a timetable clash so that he could avoid voting on gay marriage “due to religious pressure.”

A month ago, he was cornered by Sky News’ Sophy Ridge, who asked him, point-blank: “Do you believe gay sex is a sin?” to which Yousaf responded with an emphatic “no.” He could have simply stuck to his original talking point about not using his religion as the basis for legislating in secular Scotland. Instead, he kowtowed under the relentless scrutiny of the system, and tucked his Muslimness away, perhaps for another day.

This is in stark contrast to Christian politician Tim Farron, who resigned as leader of the Liberal Democrats in 2017 because he did not know how to reconcile his Christian values with being a political leader, saying: “I have found myself torn between living as a faithful Christian and serving as a political leader.” This came from a man who supported gay marriage, but could not bring himself to say that it was not sinful according to his Christian beliefs.

This is not at all to say that Muslims ought to expect a country like the UK to be run under Shari’ah law or anything of the sort. According to the 2021 census, Muslims make up a small minority of the overall population, some 6.5 percent. Their relative size aside, they are often from disadvantaged communities, and are further subdivided along ethno-sectarian lines, making it almost impossible to get that 6.5 percent to agree on anything.

But isn’t the entire point of a democracy to represent a plurality of voices, ideas and beliefs? Isn’t it wrong that Muslims are so scared of expressing their Muslimness for fear that they will be ostracised or be denied employment? So long as it is peaceful and “worthy of respect” in a democratic society – as women’s rights activist Maya Forstater achieved when she challenged in court her loss of employment after she wrote “men cannot change into women” – then why is this sort of engagement discouraged?

And, as Farron showed us, this not only affects Muslims, but other people who hold conservative values and religious beliefs, including Christians and Jews.

The truth, however, is that while democratic and liberal ideology may promote one thing, reality often has the final say. And, in today’s climate, that say is effectively to shut out true Muslim representation as vast swathes of the British Muslim community will not feel represented by the likes of Khan or Yousaf, who are welcomed to give the illusion of diversity in modern Britain because they are Muslim – just not too Muslim.

Tallha Abdulrazaq is a British-Iraqi academic, holding a PhD in Strategy and Security from the University of Exeter. He has also worked as a consultant and analyst for a number of private businesses, and is a frequent contributor for both international print and broadcast media outlets on Middle Eastern politics and security issues.

https://5pillarsuk.com/2023/04/10/mu...abandon-islam/

Salaam

Another update

The Ulema are the successors of the Anbiya – it’s about time they behaved accordingly.

Abu Darda reported: The Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, said, “The scholars are the successors of the prophets. Verily, the prophets do not pass on gold and silver coins, but rather they only impart knowledge.”

The election of Humza Yousaf as leader of the Scottish National Party (SNP) and consequently to the position of First Minister of Scotland has, predictably, divided Muslim opinion. His coronation was met with huge acclaim from some quarters of the community who saw in him an exemplum of high achievement in the face of adversity, the Muslim lad done good and who’d remained true to his roots.

Their approbation and encomiums were matched in measure by the opprobrium from those who saw him as the archetypal sell-out; an unprincipled arriviste willing to do and say whatever it might take to climb the political ladder.

At the heart of the furore lies his interview with Sky News’ Sophie Ridge wherein, in response to a pointed question on whether he viewed gay sex as a sin, he denied subscribing to such a view, going on to explain that he viewed gay marriage as equally valid to its heterosexual counterpart.

He further stated that he didn’t use his religion (i.e. Islam) as the basis for legislation and that he didn’t believe the public wanted that but rather that they wanted their legislators to do what was in the best interests of the country. The obvious corollary being that legislating according to the guidance of the Qur’an and Sunnah doesn’t serve that purpose.

Now it hardly requires a PhD in aqeedah to understand that the import of such statements is clear kufr and tantamount to a declaration of apostasy.

It constitutes denial of the muhkam [clear and unambiguous] verses of the Qur’an and as such a rejection of one of the core tenets of the Islamic faith; it’s also worth noting that in the same interview Humza Yousaf clearly alluded to the fact that homosexuality was forbidden according to Islamic scripture revealing his awareness of the Islamic verdict on the matter.

Whether he truly believes the statements he uttered or whether he was dissembling for political expediency is a question only he can answer but we have no option but to take him at his word. When some pleaded clemency for al-Hallaj to Abu al-Qasim al-Jonaid upon the basis that the former’s statement “an al-Haqq” had an esoteric meaning, the Qadi of Baghdad responded that it was incumbent to judge according to the manifest – as to what the heart might conceal then we consign that judgment to Allah.

Whether Humza Yousaf is an apostate or not, isn’t really my concern, however. What is, is the response of our ulema to this all. If we accept that Humza Yousaf’s statements are “potential kufr” then on what basis should we be celebrating his “achievement”?

The duty of the ulema is to warn and chastise, much as the prophets did, the perpetrators of evil. Not solely for their benefit but much more importantly, so that the people at large are dissuaded from emulating their behaviour.

When you have ulema talking of the “symbolic significance” of someone selling their deen and akhirah for ”positions of power and influence” what message does that send to our young men and women? When the Rasul (ﷺ) was offered leadership of the Quraysh in return for abandoning his declaiming against their false gods what was his (ﷺ) response? When you have ulema talking about encouraging and benefitting from the potential good such people may do, do you think this encourages or dissuades others from following in his footsteps? If Humza Yousaf was a pornographer or a drug trafficker (and to avert any potential legal action I want to make clear there is absolutely NO evidence to suggest he is either) who had amassed wealth by such means but who now intended to use it to benefit the Muslim community, how many of these same ulema would be happy to speak up for him, to talk of encouraging him and benefiting from the good he might do or to otherwise mitigate criticism of him? Well, to belie Allah’s kalam and the guidance of His Messenger (ﷺ) is exponentially worse.

But benefit. The Muslims will benefit from having one of their own in such a position of authority. Well perhaps someone would care to compile a list of these supposed benefits. A few points against which we might evaluate his tenure in retrospect.

Will he abolish the detested PREVENT policy? Will he ban the indoctrination of our children with pro-LGBTQ sentiments? Will he alter British foreign policy towards the Muslim world? How about the abundance of terrorism legislation which severely curtails the ability of Muslims to speak openly about the issues that affect our ummah? What precise benefit (or benefits) is his leadership likely to afford our community. Come Ramadan or Eid he may well switch on some lights somewhere or host a banquet so I suppose there’s that. As for something more meaningful then I’m dying to know and only too happy to be enlightened.

And should you think his “mistakes” will end at a few statements on gay sex and gay marriage then I’m willing to wager (metaphorically speaking) you shan’t have to wait too long to be disabused of your misapprehensions. Like the other “Muslim representation” ‘success story’ 500 miles to the south, he’ll soon find himself being dragged to mandirs (Hindu temples) to pay obeisance to idols, parading with gays, lesbians and transgender degenerates, partaking in Christmas festivities, honouring the British war dead (those who fought and killed Muslims), feting representatives and supporters of the Zionist and Hindutva regimes and generally partaking in all manner of grossly un-Islamic activities. The truth of the matter is that when you compromise with kufr you compromise entirely. It is a compromise which is plenary by nature and which accepts no abridgement.

Humza Yousaf has nothing to do with Islam. He has made that clear through word and action. I hope he repents of his evil and abandons his career in the filth of secular politics. Do I judge a politician (least of all secular politician) according to the standards of scholars? No. But I judge scholars by the standard that the Rasul (ﷺ) laid down for them: successors to the prophets. It’s high time they started living up to it.

If we applaud – or otherwise normalise – Mr Yousaf’s actions today upon the basis of “good intentions” the day will soon come when the community at large no longer remembers the distinction between Islam and secularism.

When “not legislating according to one’s [Islamic] faith” has become the accepted norm rather than a temporary exigency. Idolatry began through good intentions, when Satan persuaded the generations that followed from Adam (as) to erect statues of their pious predecessors (chief amongst them, Wadd) in order to remind them of their duty to Allah. That first generation which did so understood that only Allah (swt) was to be worshipped and that Wadd himself had been but a worshipper of the One God. The passage of generations attenuated this understanding, however, until the time came when people began to call upon the statue of Wadd, rather than to Allah (swt), for the fulfilment of their needs. The path to hell is forever paved with good intentions.

So (O Muhammad ) obey not the deniers [of Islamic Monotheism, those who belie the Verses of Allah, the Oneness of Allah, and the Messenger of Allah (Muhammad ), etc.]

They wish that you should compromise (in religion out of courtesy) with them, so they (too) would compromise with you. [TMQ 68:8-9]

https://maskedavenger1.wordpress.com...d-accordingly/

Salaam

Another update

Embedded Tweet

New report exposes scale of Palestine repression at UK schools and workplaces

A new analysis by CAGE International reveals an alarming increase in the number and types of cases involving an attack on expressions of support and solidarity for Palestine across the UK.

CAGE International notes a 455% increase in the number of cases it has handled since the last upsurge in 2021. Between October and December 2023, CAGE International handled 214 cases, spanning 118 school and college cases, 35 workplace cases, 35 protest and related cases, 13 university cases, and 13 mosque cases.

This substantial rise signifies a broad and alarming clampdown of pro-Palestinian activity. The report also includes five case examples that illustrate the adverse impact on individuals, including children.

Our casework observations provide evidence of a full-spectrum coordinated attack instigated by right-wing interests, mainstream media, politicians, and lobby groups. This represents a wholesale assault on the Freedom of Expression under Article 10 and Right to Privacy under Article 8 of the ECHR.

The report outlines various aggressive tactics employed in the repression of Palestine solidarity, including:

- Enforcing removal of Palestine symbols or clothing in schools and workplaces.
- Holding students in isolation rooms and imposing suspensions and exclusions.
- Disciplinary actions against parents and students
- Criminal investigations, suspensions, and immediate terminations in workplaces.
- Gross misquotations of Imams in media outlets leading to Charity Commission investigations.
- Abuse of anti -terrorism powers at protests.

Key Findings:

- An aggressive and authoritarian response from the government to legitimate activism in support of Palestine.
- A disturbing double standard compared to the government's responses to the Russia-Ukraine conflict revealing hypocrisy in public spaces, schools, and workplaces.
- The Islamophobic nature of censorship, with 209 out of the 214 cases involving Muslims.
- The weoponising of PREVENT and PREVENT referrals in suppressing support for Palestine.
- A consistent pattern nationwide across towns and cities, from Newcastle to Portsmouth.

Yassar Mohammed, a youth worker who supported a Palestinian student removed from class for a pro Palestine shirt on non-uniform day said:

“The whole community was outraged and the support and advice we received from CAGE got us more than what we asked for. We finally had closure and the school reversed its policies and apologised. It was a massive victory for us

Schools and workplaces should be more tolerant. Our rights as Muslims are always violated, we simply want to be treated the same as any other person in the UK. Fairness is all we want.”

‘William’, a teacher who lost his job for expressing pro Palestine views said:

“I felt betrayed and abandoned by my school. I felt scapegoated just because I am a revert to Islam. It crushes my soul to know first-hand that my school thinks absolutely nothing of a literal genocide.

'Schools must stop saying they are impartial when they are in fact partial, for Israel. Staff must be allowed to think what they want as long as it abides by the law. We must stop censoring Muslims.'

Rasha, a Palestinian mother of an 8 year old child in an East London primary school, who was pulled out of classes, placed on detention and effectively bullied out of school for wearing a Palestine badge on his jacket, said:

“Our child has been traumatised by this experience. He has lost sleep and confidence, has felt hated and bullied and no longer trusts his own teachers who should have been understanding and compassionate. Whilst dealing with the grief and sadness of losing our direct family members in Gaza, we did not expect grief and pain would land at our doorstep from my child’s own teachers. We have been shocked beyond belief to realise that the school’s management have made it no longer a space for our child or anyone supporting Palestine.

We are told about diversity and inclusion as British Values, all we’ve seen is a double standard. We believe the Headteacher must resign, the school must rebuild trust and my child is given all the support to help him recover.”

Anas Mustapha, head of Public Advocacy at CAGE International, said:

“The repression faced by our clients for their solidarity with Palestine is a reflection of the systemic Islamophobia, racism, and anti-Palestinian discrimination prevalent in segments of society and government.

“We’re witnessing high levels of repression of Palestine Solidarity, with employers, teachers and Police acting upon prejudice and increasingly disturbing levels of irrational intolerance.”

“The hostile environment created by the state has incentivised harsh penalties being imposed by the police, schools, universities, central and local government, as well as employers.”

“Through our support, we’ve managed to resolve the vast majority of cases we’ve handled and in many we’ve successfully overturned the penalties imposed and even secured apologies.”

https://www.cage.ngo/articles/new-re...and-workplaces