Syria, Gaza and the Criminalisation of Islam

Salaam

More on the British's elite intimidation campaign against those Muslim organisations who don't follow the party line.

CAGE refutes inaccurate Telegraph article, planned for weekend

A planned report by the Daily Telegraph into an alleged ‘CAGE-sponsored event’ held by the Muath Trust on April 25 and chaired by Raza Nadim is inaccurate, biased and misleading.

By building a story based on lies and comments taken out of context by parties unassociated with CAGE, the Telegraph is contributing to a witch hunt against the organisation, a move that should be seen as part of a broader assault on Muslim civil society by the right-wing establishment.

CAGE was approached by Deputy Investigations Editor Edward Malnick to answer questions in relation to the article, for which we were given a deadline of 1pm today.

While the Telegraph alleges that the event was sponsored by CAGE, this is inaccurate - CAGE did not organise the event, nor did we sponsor it. The article’s main assumption is false.

Most of the questions put to CAGE concerned alleged quotes ascribed to Mr Nadim, a well known activist in the community who is dedicated to educating people about the abuses of the security state. He is not a member of CAGE. Thus it would be more appropriate to direct these questions to Mr Nadim himself. CAGE asked Mr Nadim for comment and he forwarded the following:

"The manipulation of my words by The Telegraph is more telling of the Islamophobic racist nature of the paper than my world view.

To be lectured by the paper that pushed for illegal wars killing millions about moral conduct and responsible speech is the height of hypocrisy."

This attack on CAGE is not surprising. We are now making a leading contribution to opposing and creating awareness around the continued erosion of the rule of law in the War on Terror. We have been very successful in exposing and undermining the government’s PREVENT policy. We have also been able to link the British government’s foreign and domestic policies as primary causes of political violence, as opposed to ideology.

CAGE does not support terrorism in any way. We advocate for due process and the rule of law as a means of ending the War on Terror. We stand against torture and detention-without-trial, and we stand for freedom of expression and association. We oppose the government’s PREVENT strategy as we believe a securitised approach will not prevent political violence, but rather encourage it.

We invite the Telegraph to come to visit us at our offices and sit with our staff and volunteers, there is no need to conduct a secret investigation which has resulted in the investigator presenting inaccurate facts in a malicious way. Our doors are open.

In the meantime, the Telegraph posited the following questions to CAGE, to which we have responded below:

Telegraph: At one point Mr Nadim asked for the doors of the hall to be locked, before inviting audience members to donate sums of up to £1,000 to Cage.
Why it was necessary to “lock” the doors, for a discussion about fundraising for Cage? Would you agree that this could give the impression what was about to take place was secret?

A widely advertised event where a journalist quite easily managed to gain a recording of the event for the press, could not have been less secret. This request by the lead fundraiser to lock the doors was a humorous dig at the audience - he was demanding that everyone in the hall stays inside and “doors are locked” so they can’t get away without donating. It was a humorous statement. Presenting it otherwise spins suspicion and lies.

We note that Cage’s bank accounts have been frozen amid concerns about its links with jihadists, and that earlier this year the Charity Commission told two charities to stop funding your organisation. In light of this, do you consider it appropriate for a charity to be carrying out for your organisation?

CAGE has no links to jihadists. Advocating for people who have been denied due process and not afforded a fair trial, does not mean that you accept whatever crimes they are alleged to have committed. CAGE stands for the principle of the rule of law. It is defamatory to allege links with jihadists.

Her Majesty’s Treasury confirmed that there are no concerns with CAGE. Furthermore, the Charity Commission may have acted outside its powers in demanding charities not fund CAGE. The High Court has granted us permission to get that decision judicially reviewed.

We are an advocacy organisation whose cause is an unpopular one with the prevailing government and its associate Charity Commission: we campaign for the rights of those adversely affected by the securitised policies that are part of the War on Terror. We believe that everyone has the right to freedom of expression, association, due process and a fair trial. We argue for an end to oppression and injustice and for a rational, dialogue-based approach for ending the War on Terror that recognises the rights of all.

During the event Mr Nadim introduced Moazzam Begg, and said: “Jihad is not extreme. Jihad is the greatest deed a Muslim can do.”

Firstly, the chair of the event is not a member of our organisation. Secondly, jihad has several meanings. For many it means the struggle against injustice. It was in this context that jihad was mentioned, and in so doing the statement was a concerted attempt to re-own the term, which has taken a skewed meaning in the media, linked to terrorism only.

He also referred to criticism of Lewisham mosque, where Fusilier Lee Rigby’s killers worshipped, saying that if such criticism was not “tackled” the Muslim faith “will become watered down”.

Blaming the mosque for what the killers did is like blaming a church or a school for the actions of a serial killer that may have attended them. This is an understandable view, but again, Mr Nadim’s opinions are his own. We should not be held responsible for comments made by someone outside of our organisation.

He also said: “If you want me to apologise for Jihadi John, make the Queen apologise for the colonial empire. Make her apologise for giving OBEs to paedophiles”.

Mr Nadim’s comment is an effort to highlight the double-standards applied between crimes committed by Muslims and non-Muslims. Although this is Mr Nadim’s point (who is not a member of CAGE), we should understand the context so as to better develop dialogue between communities.

Are these views that Cage endorses?

CAGE should not be held responsible for comments made by someone outside of our organisation. This is an attempt to make CAGE liable for comments deliberately taken out of context to create a story when there is not one there. It is an attempt to smear CAGE.

We would be grateful if you could also clarify the nature of Cage’s relationship with the Muath Trust.

We have no relationship and have never worked with this organisation in the past.

The Telegraph wishes to reflect your views fully in any article it chooses to publish.

We note that neither CAGE members Moazzam Begg nor Cerie Bullivant are alleged to have made any objectionable comments. This story is based on innuendo and allegations attributed to innocent and explainable comments by a third party. Stating otherwise is an attempt to smear CAGE, and our views need to be reflected.

http://www.cageuk.org/article/cage-refutes-inaccurate-telegraph-article-planned-weekend

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Abz2000

when you say "messenger" (rasul) with exception to "prophet" (nabi) (news bearer/bringer of tidings) it's difficult even for the scholars to differentiate properly - despite it being known and clear that Allah swt makes a distinction (Allah knws best) - which ones do you mean?

---

Is it that you have understood this from the Quran or simply from hawaa?
secondly, what do you think it is that should be legislated and enforced? And based on what?



Abu Bakr (Abdullah ibn Abi Quhafa) - Al Siddeeq's inaugural speech:

I have been given the authority over you, and I am not the best of you.
If I do well, help me; and if I do wrong, set me right.
Sincere regard for truth is loyalty and disregard for truth is treachery.
The weak amongst you shall be strong with me until I have secured his rights, if God wills;
and the strong amongst you shall be weak with me until I have wrested from him the rights of others, if God wills.
Obey me so long as I obey God and His Messenger.
But if I disobey God and His Messenger, you owe me no obedience.
Arise for your prayer, God have mercy upon you.

Abu Bakr's Caliphate lasted for 27 months, during which he crushed the rebellion of the Arab tribes throughout the*Arabian Peninsula*in the successful*Ridda Wars.
In the last months of his rule, he launched campaigns against the*Sassanid Empire*and the*Eastern Roman Empire*(Byzantine Empire) and thus set in motion a historical trajectory*(continued later on by*Umar*and*Uthman ibn Affan) that in just a few short decades would lead to one of the*largest empires in history.
He had little time to pay attention to the administration of state, though state affairs remained stable during his Caliphate.
On the advice of Umar and Abu Ubaidah ibn al-Jarrah he agreed to have a salary from state treasury and abolish his cloth trade.

It was once the internal struggles with the murtaddeen of the peninsula were over that 'Umar ibn Al Khattab (may Allah have mercy on him) was able to establish an orderly inter-continental state while expanding the rule of Allah east and west.

These were neither prophets - nor messengers.
they were level headed, seasoned men of God.

it's easy to detachedly condemn a people who were slaughtered for over 20 years with no recourse to justice, and even easier it seems, when they come to the inevitable truth that there is none who has the right to be obeyed in disobedience to God.[/QUOTE]

The messenger prophets of this relatively modern epoch are Abraham, Jesus and Muhammad (PBUT).

Why do all the empires fall no matter what religion they seem to be? The answer is, it is the will of God. People just don't get it. All they have to do is be, not try to rule the world. No matter what they think is best.

There is a difference between mutawakkiloon and mutawaakiloon.

Let those with the ability to enforce the laws of God in Quran and Sunnah do so,
let those who use the pen and tongue do so,
and let those who love Islam and hate kufr do so.
and peace be to those who follow the guidance.

laa yukallifAllahu nafsan illa wus'ahaa.

innamaa 'alaina al jahd

trust in Allah and tie your camel.

Salaam

Another update

CAMERON STRIKINGLY SIMILAR TO SOUTH AFRICA’S PW BOTHA AT THE HEIGHT OF VIOLENT APARTHEID

In this piece, Karen Jayes of CAGE Africa examines Cameron’s ‘extremist’ speech which was made last month, which bears many resemblances to PW Botha’s disastrous 1985 ‘Crossing the Rubicon’ diatribe which brought on South Africa’s second State of Emergency.

PW Botha’s ‘Crossing the Rubicon’ speech– a reference to Julius Caesar’s march across the Rubicon River in Italy, from which sprang the Roman Empire and the genesis of modern European culture – was delivered on 15 August 1985 in Durban, South Africa to an international audience of over 200 million.

When Botha took to the stand it was after months of deliberation and advice revolving around the need to recognise black human dignity, eradicate discrimination and create real tangible equal opportunities as a solution to South Africa’s spiraling violence, international isolation and dire economic status.

In the same manner that Prime Minister David Cameron has brushed aside advice from former police chiefs, MI5 and MI6, as well as many civil liberties groups, of the dangers of the government’s counter-terrorism programme’s blanket definition of ‘extremism’ and its securitised top-down approach to countering political violence, Botha chose to ignore advice to put South Africa on the road to a representative government once and for all.

Cameron’s simplistic insistence on ideology as a motivator of political violence, as opposed to giving due credence to the real socio-political grievances over Britain’s domestic and international policies, bears strong parallels to Botha’s head-in-the-sand approach to the real causes of political violence in South Africa: the government’s ongoing violence towards those who struggled for black liberation, its detention-without trial and torture of political activists, and its assassinations of liberation leaders.

The result of Botha’s speech was disastrous for South Africa. The currency plummeted and political violence increased. A second State of Emergency – a permanent securitised state reserved for periods of war – was declared and extended throughout the country.

A closer examination of both speeches shows some striking resemblances.

Cameron: It begins – it must begin – by understanding the threat we face and why we face it. What we are fighting, in Islamist extremism, is an ideology. It is an extreme doctrine. And like any extreme doctrine, it is subversive. At its furthest end it seeks to destroy nation-states to invent its own barbaric realm. …

Botha: We can ill afford the irresponsibilities and destructive actions of barbaric Communist agitators and even murderers … Our enemies-both within and without-seek to divide our peoples. They seek to create unbridgeable differences between us to prevent us from negotiating peaceful solutions to our problems.

Botha and Cameron have identified in the ‘enemy’ - an ideology that threatens the very fabric of life. This ideology is cast as a monster, voluminous and ever-morphing, both violent and non-violent. The only solution to defeating it is to hammer down into the thought processes of those who are the government deems are ‘at risk’ of absorbing it.

Botha’s singling out of ‘communism’, like Cameron’s targeting of ‘extremism’, cast a blanket over all those who aired grievances and spoke or acted in ways that betrayed a desire for change. Association with organisations that advocated for change meant risking being branded a ‘communist’, ‘traitor’ and even a ‘terrorist’. The policing of this was near impossible – and eventually failed – a lesson that proponents of thought policing strategies such as PREVENT would do well to consider.

Cameron: So when people say “it’s because of the involvement in the Iraq War that people are attacking the West”, we should remind them: 9/11 – the biggest loss of life of British citizens in a terrorist attack – happened before the Iraq War.

Botha: The Party must also deal with the heritage of history. Certain situations in this country were created by history and not by other national parties… We know that … it will not be possible to accommodate the political aspirations of our various population groups and communities in a known defined political system, because our problems are unique.

In the same way that Botha consigns the blame for political violence, to ‘history’ and ‘communist agitators’ and – laughably – South Africa’s ‘unique’ character, Cameron too, shirks his government’s responsibility in contributing to an atmosphere where Muslims in particular feel that their government’s foreign and domestic policies are at odds with their own ideals.

The Iraq war, the continuing occupation of Palestine, the disastrous Syrian interventions, as well as many other conflicts between the West and the Muslim world prior to 9/11, fuel a grievance-based world view that, when unchallenged by representative leadership, open dialogue and debate, is prone to be drawn to political violence.

In their hypocrisy, both leaders fail to acknowledge the inimitable links between their own government’s policies and the grievances of large sectors of the population.

Cameron: When they say that these are wronged Muslims getting revenge on their Western wrongdoers, let’s remind them: from Kosovo to Somalia, countries like Britain have stepped in to save Muslim people from massacres – it’s groups like ISIL, Al Qaeda and Boko Haram that are the ones murdering Muslims.

Botha: The Party stands for the just and equal treatment of all parts of South Africa, and for the impartial maintenance of the rights and privileges of every section of the population. But, the Party must also deal with the heritage of history … I know for a fact that most leaders in their own right in South Africa and reasonable South Africans will not accept the principle of one-man-one-vote in a unitary system.

More hypocrisy. Botha lies outrightly – the National Party’s policies on education, business, land ownership and human relationships themselves favoured whites over others. This is a self-evident fact. Cameron, too, has not considered that the involvement of Britain in Kosovo and Somalia took place after the worst atrocities against Muslims had already occurred, and often resulted in a status quo in those countries that did not reflect the aspirations of local populations, but rather erred to the West. Instead of taking a long hard look at their own policies, both leaders point the finger at others and deny the voices of many calling for change.

Cameron: We need to put out of action the key extremist influencers who are careful to operate just inside the law, but who clearly detest British society and everything we stand for.

Botha: Their actions speak louder than their words. Their words offer ready panaceas such as one-man-one-vote, freedom and justice for all. Their actions leave no doubt that the freedoms that we already have-together with the ongoing extension of democracy in South Africa-are the true targets of their violence.

Ah, fanning fear again. Here both leaders resort to harping on about the dangers of elements of society that operate within the law, those which call for due process and adherence to justice. Even these people, audiences are led to believe, are a danger. But attacking legitimate forms of dissent betrays a dangerous desire to silence it.

Cameron: Now the third plank of our strategy is to embolden different voices within the Muslim community. Just as we do not engage with extremist groups and individuals, we’re now going to actively encourage the reforming and moderate Muslim voices.

Botha: How do we build a better future out of cultures, values, languages which are demonstrably real in our heterogeneous society? We are resolved, we are committed, to do so in two fundamental ways. Firstly-by letting the people speak. By letting the people speak through their leaders.

Botha, like Cameron, chose ‘leaders’ that were unrepresentative of the majority of the population, and which many perceived as sell-outs. Some of these leaders even came forward as part of the post-apartheid Truth and Reconciliation Commission hearings to own up to their betrayals, some of which resulted in the imprisonment of activists and leaders. In the same way, Cameron’s choice of ‘leaders’ in the neo-conservative Quilliam Foundation, are questionable for their willingness to defer to the government’s line.

Cameron: I also want to issue a challenge to the broadcasters in our country. You are, of course, free to put whoever you want on the airwaves. But there are a huge number of Muslims in our country who have a proper claim to represent liberal values in local communities … so do consider giving them the platform they deserve. I know other voices may make for more explosive television – but please exercise your judgement, and do recognise the huge power you have in shaping these debates in a positive ways.

Botha: I have a specific question I would like to put to the media in South Africa: How do they explain the fact that they are always present, with cameras et cetera, at places where violence takes place? Are there people from the revolutionary elements who inform them to be ready? Or are there perhaps representatives of the reactionary groups in the ranks of certain media? My question to you is this: Whose interests do you serve-those of South Africa or those of the revolutionary elements? South Africa must know, our life is at stake.

Cameron’s advice to the media is a warning sign, a direct threat to the delicate and vital independence of the media that is a tenet of British society. Perhaps the Prime Minister needs to read up a bit on fundamental British values? Botha’s outright attack is the next step on the government own ‘extremism’ ladder.

Cameron: We need the police to step up and not stand by as crimes take place. We need universities to stand up against extremism; broadcasters to give platforms to different voices; and internet service providers to do their bit too. Together, we can do this.

Botha: I believe that we are today crossing the Rubicon. There can be no turning back. We now have a manifesto for the future of our country, and we must embark on a programme of positive action in the months and years that lie ahead. The challenges we face call for all concerned to negotiate in a spirit of give and take. With mutual goodwill we shall reach our destination peacefully.

Cameron’s round up of counter-extremism policy is a call to the security establishment, media and academia to march in line with government orders. It is in no small way a call to ‘extremism’ of a different sort: the denial of the legitimate grievances of Muslims in relation to British domestic and foreign policy; the shirking of responsibility for the security establishment’s role in contributing to political violence rather than countering it; and a thinly veiled threat to academia and the media to co-operate.

Like the National Party’s disastrous apartheid policies, these actions are cloaked in a veil of ‘positive action’, but his speech is a call for ‘mutual goodwill’ that through its alienating language and scare strategies, is in itself really full of malice.

‘Extremism’ for Cameron unambiguously singles out Muslims for discrimination no differently to the way in which black South Africans were singled out for discrimination under apartheid. The grounds of discrimination under apartheid was race and under Cameron, it is a religious barometer defined solely by his government. Their tacks are the same.

The ex-prime minister of South Africa said that, in this relentless march into tragedy, ‘there can be no turning back’, but South Africa managed to turn itself around from the brink of full blown societal violence, through negotiation and dialogue and an acknowledgement of truly representative leaders, an end to harassment, detention and torture, and an approach that relied on the fundamental setting down of the rule of law based on international human rights treatises and its application to all.

http://www.cageuk.org/article/cameron-strikingly-similar-south-africa%E2%80%99s-pw-botha-height-violent-apartheid

Salaam

Another update

UK State Religion is Secular Liberalism Not Christianity!

From the very moment Tim Farron became the new Liberal Democrat leader on Thursday 16th July 2015, he has been at the forefront of receiving a brutal onslaught by his critics. Farron a practicing catholic from the age of 20 has been put under a microscope in a barrage of interrogation style interviews held by the Media. The likes of which took place on Channel 4 News where Farron appears to be uncomfortably clawing a way out when being questioned on his personal views on homosexuality. Farron’s “Christian Convictions” have been viewed as a cause for concern amongst a diverse number of liberals ranging from MPs to the general public and the media hounded him for this. The eruption took place when being directly questioned on whether he believed the homosexual act was sinful. Farron clearly evaded the question when pressurised for an answer and ultimately replied to Cathy Newman saying “to understand Christianity is to understand that we are all sinners” This statement left many unsatisfied with Farron’s evasive answer.

The idea of Secular Liberal Democracy was born in an era where monarchies used religion to oppress any dissent and justify an absolute monarchy. The growing voice of the people tied together with thinkers and activists of the time resulted in a secular liberal revolution which would supposedly put an end to the tyranny caused upon minorities by the monarchical structure of ruling. The argument put forward was that all religions could coexist under a secular political system that would act as a neutral platform for all peoples and their beliefs. The truth is that 21st century secular Britain is just a modernised version of the 16th century totalitarianism of the Church. We don’t need to look far to find secularism imposing itself on society. There have been numerous rulings against the right of Christians wanting to practice their beliefs such as “refusing to work on Sundays”. Other cases also include the likes of Christian ‘bed and breakfast’ owners who lost their appeal against a gay couple when refusing them to share a room together. The Christian couple argued that they believed it was a sin for two unmarried people to share the same bed yet the ruling deemed their actions as unlawful and they were penalised for their actions. Another case was a Christian baking firm ‘Ashers Baking Company’ which refused to make a cake featuring a pro-gay marriage slogan and found the judgement against them with a fine and a discrimination charge. The district judge stated that “all business owners will have to promote any cause or campaign no matter how much they disagree with it”. The judge also stated businesses to either accommodate for customers or close the business if they can’t guarantee this. Other cases also include a Christian registrar not being allowed to opt out of conducting gay civil partnerships even though they argue it goes against their moral and religious principles. Moreover, in the recent Trojan Horse scandal, Christian Faith Schools were also interrogated for not promoting liberalism. This shows that Britain is imposing it’s religion of secular liberalism on society just as the Christian dictatorship of the past was.

MPs such as Michael Grove talk about how Christianity plays a bench warmers role in the field of play in politics. He once said that “now Christianity means the banal morality of the fairy tale and genuflection before a sky pixie’s simplicitie”. Tim Farron witnessed the reality of Goves comments and Christians have been pressurised to accept liberal values even though they may be at heterodox with their faith. The orthodox belief in Christianity is against homosexuality viewing it as sin, the same can be seen with other faiths such as Islam. The law clearly shows a no tolerance policy when it comes to the beliefs of other faith groups wanting to express their beliefs in all parts of their lives. Just as the Christians, in the aforementioned examples including the new Liberal Democrat leader Tim Farron, have had to compromise their beliefs in order to fit in to the secular liberal democratic structure the same is expected of all the people living in the United Kingdom to follow suite. Effectively there is an attempt to forcibly convert all peoples to the secular liberal ideology of the UK.

Muslims are also subjected to the secular liberal dictatorship. The government’s counter-extremism strategy has shown that certain forms of Islamic expression will not be tolerated in public life. If you don’t submit to the religion of the state, then you will either be forced to compromise your beliefs like Tim Farron, or be branded an “extremist”, the 21st century version of a heretic, and be excluded from engaging in society. Under the guise of counter-extremism, David Cameron in his latest speech conflated the political violence by ISIS to the belief in the Khilafah and has made clear that Muslims must accept “British Values”. The narrative of non-violent extremism is an attempt to root out the conservatively held Islamic views by Muslims and replace them with secular liberal beliefs and values.

Taking this into account Muslims must firmly hold on to the Sharia of Allah SWT and reject the attempts by the secular liberal establishment to secularise Islam like it has successfully achieved with Christianity. Muslims need to hold firm and put into practice the example set by the Prophet SAW when it came to challenging the ideas contrary to the belief and never letting go of the Haqq (truth). Allah the most high says…

And whoever is an ally of Allah and His Messenger and those who have believed – indeed, the party of Allah – they will be the predominant [5:48]

http://www.hizb.org.uk/current-affairs/uk-state-religion-is-secular-liberalism-not-christianity

Salaam

Another update

https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=54&v=NfIl_TU5gNc

Salaam

The criminalisation of Islam continues.

Imams will have to register and face security vetting under Home Office plans

Imams, priests, rabbis and other religious figures will have to enrol in a ‘national register of faith leaders’ and undergo vetting.

Imams, priests, rabbis and other religious figures will have to enrol in a “national register of faith leaders” and be subject to government-specified training and security checks in the Home Office’s latest action on extremism.

The highly controversial proposal appears in a leaked draft of the Government’s new counter-extremism strategy, seen by The Telegraph, which goes substantially further than previous versions of the document.

The strategy, due to be published this autumn, says that Whitehall will “require all faiths to maintain a national register of faith leaders” and the Government will “set out the minimum level of training and checks” faith leaders must have to join the new register.

Registration will be compulsory for all faith leaders who wish to work with the public sector, including universities, the document says. In practice, most faith leaders have some dealings with the public sector and the requirement will cover the great majority.

The move marks a significant deepening of the state’s involvement in religion and is likely to be resisted by many religious representatives.

Maulana Shah Raza, an imam who is a founding member of the Mosques and Imams National Advisory Board (Minab), a self-regulatory body designed to promote best practice, warned the Government “not to meddle in religious affairs or to expand the state’s involvement in deciding on religious and theological issues”.

He said: “The Government needs to concentrate on ensuring that safeguards are in place to protect the public and treating all faith communities equally.”

Minab was launched with ministerial support under the last Labour government, but relations with Whitehall have cooled after the group refused to sever ties with extremist mosques and imams.

The new crackdown has emerged the week after the Government announced that it had killed two British Isil fighters in a drone strike.

It is believed Reyaad Khan, 21, from Cardiff, the main target of the drone attack, was radicalised at the Welsh city’s al-Manar mosque, which has hosted a series of extremist preachers, including Muhammad Mustafa al-Muqri, an al-Qaeda ally and former leader of Egyptian Islamic Jihad.

Until 2013 the mosque’s in-house preacher, Ali Hammuda, who believes that music is a “sickness,” was allowed into Cathays High School, one of the schools attended by Khan, to run lunchtime sessions with students, teaching among other things that music and “free-mixing” between men and women were “not permitted in Islam”.

Another extremist preacher closely linked with a terrorist, Usman Ali, who taught one of the men who killed soldier Lee Rigby in Woolwich, was appointed chaplain at the area’s local hospital and was also on the management committee of a community centre. He was only sacked from his NHS role after an undercover reporter filmed him inviting a guest speaker who praised the Taliban.

A spokesman for the Catholic Church said it had not been consulted on the proposals. Other senior Catholic sources said any plan for state supervision of priests would be “firmly resisted”.

David Cameron, the Prime Minister, has said that the fight against Islamist extremism is the “struggle of our generation” and has to be won for the same reasons that Nazism was defeated. The leaked strategy is also sharply critical of the police and local councils for their failure to tackle scandals exposed by this and other newspapers, including the Trojan Horse plot to take over state schools in Birmingham, extremism and corruption in Tower Hamlets, and the child grooming scandal in Rotherham.

“The police response to Rotherham and Trojan Horse was hindered by a poor understanding of isolated communities and a fear of being seen as racist. This is not acceptable,” the document states. “We will therefore ensure that the police have a better understanding of extremist behaviour.”

The strategy states that local people will be given a new “extremism community trigger” – a right to “demand action where they feel the police and Crown Prosecution Service are not investigating and prosecuting people who have committed hate crime and other extremism-related offences”.

Under the “trigger,” the police would be forced to review the case and respond formally in writing.

The document says the Government will also set out a new “framework for intervention” when local councils “fail” to tackle extremism.

n a policy change stemming directly from Trojan Horse, which was largely led by hardline Muslim school governors, the document says that Whitehall “will compel schools, including academies, to have at least one governor or trustee with no familial or business ties to the school, and who lives outside the catchment area”.

More than a year after the official report into the scandal, by the former police chief Peter Clarke, only one person has been banned from becoming a governor and only one member of staff at the schools has been sacked. Other teachers accused of involvement in the plot have been reinstated, despite still being under interim orders banning them from the profession.

As revealed by The Telegraph in March, the extremism strategy also includes measures to remove benefits from people who do not learn English, review sharia courts, ban radicals from working unsupervised with children and use Jobcentre staff to identify potential extremists.

The strategy, which was supposed to be published in spring this year, has been delayed for months amid deep concern in some parts of government and most of the counter-extremism community about its most radical measure, to ban individuals whose behaviour “falls below the thresholds in counter-terrorism legislation” but which “undermines British values”.

Mr Cameron has said: “For far too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens that as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone. This Government will conclusively turn the page on this failed approach.”

n May, Haras Rafiq, director of the counter-extremism think tank Quilliam, described this proposal as “Orwellian and totalitarian,” saying it would “play into the hands” of extremists. He added: “It is very noticeable that the main Islamist groups are not really up in arms about this. They want it, because it will feed the narrative of grievance and victimhood they love. They will be able to use it to say, ‘look, we told you so’.”

The document defines extremism as “the vocal or active opposition to fundamental British values, including democracy, the rule of law, individual liberty and the mutual respect and tolerance of different faiths and beliefs,” or as calling for the death of members of the British Armed Forces.

It also names a number of specific groups – including the Association of Muslim Schools, which has close links to a number of the Trojan Horse plotters. Significantly, it describes the Muslim Brotherhood, a loose global Islamist network, as an “extremist movement”. A Government review into the Brotherhood, completed months ago, has still not been published.

http://www.hizb.org.uk/news-watch/imams-will-have-to-register-and-face-security-vetting-under-home-office-plans

Salaam

CAGE responds to accusations in Daily Mail and Huffington Post

The Daily Mail and Huffington Post have recently published articles criticising the National Union of Students (NUS) for inviting CAGE outreach director Moazzam Begg to speak at several events next month as part of a campaign against the government’s failing counter-terrorism programme PREVENT.

The articles reported several inaccuracies about CAGE, which we deal with below.

Huffington Post: The group was harshly criticised and accused of being "ISIS apologists" following the conference, where Qureshi described Emwazi as a "person [who].. would never hurt a single person".

Daily Mail: “Cage first hit the headlines in February when a senior figure described Islamic State beheader Jihadi John as a ‘beautiful, kind man’.”

These statements about CAGE’s position are simply false. The words used by CAGE Research Director, Asim Qureshi, referred to the Mohammed Emwazi of 2011 as a "beautiful man...extremely kind, extremely gentle, extremely soft-spoken…”. This was before the Syrian conflict began and even well before the creation of ISIS. This description is clearly not in reference to an alleged killer of innocents including aid workers.

We continue to call for open debate on the reasons people are turning to violence. Part of this process is to try to understand in a dispassionate and evidence-based manner the trajectory of individuals who have engaged in acts of political violence.

CAGE does not support terrorism in any form. This is underlined by the fact that our outreach director Moazzam Begg offered at a crucial point to negotiate for Alan Henning’s release, but the British government refused his offer of assistance.

Daily Mail: “Through Begg, Cage developed links with the radical preacher and Al Qaeda cheerleader Anwar al-Awlaki and campaigned for his release from detention in Yemen.”

CAGE’s position was that it campaigned for Anwar al-Awlaki when he was detained without charge in line with the remit of its work. Since his release CAGE was however opposed to a number of positions that he took, despite not agreeing with the order by President Obama to have him targeted for assassination. CAGE’s positions on Awlaki are important due to the organisation consistently asking questions of the efficacy of counter-terrorism policy.

Awlaki’s case is an important one to analyse, as questions must be asked about the role that his detention without charge and torture played in his subsequent desire to join those affiliated to al-Qaeda. These issues are crucial to debate in a public manner with full transparency, as CAGE feels this is the best way to understand how to keep communities safe.

Our full report into al-Awlaki’s detention and killing is available here

Daily Mail: “Cage’s bank accounts were frozen after intervention from the Treasury.”

The Treasury has written to us on more than one occasion confirming that we are not a designated organisation saying that “CAGE is not nor has it ever been subject to financial restriction imposed by the Treasury”.

[Rupert Sutton, director of Student Rights said:] "Until the NUS stops working with groups like CAGE, or parroting extremist narratives on Prevent, it will continue to be part of the problem on campuses."

The National Union of Students (NUS) itself and several student unions have condemned ‘Student Rights’ an “insidious” organisation whose work has led to “witch hunts” against Muslims.

Student Rights has seen its support haemorrhaging in recent years. With several members of it’s own board members quitting, including the Liberal Democrat MP Tom Brake. This comes as several student unions passed anti-Student Rights motions questioning the legitimacy of a group without any student representation.

More recently the sovereign policy making body of NUS passed a resolution to as far as is practical, not engage with the PREVENT strategy, to oppose the Counter Terrorism and Security Act and actively work to cut PREVENT funded initiatives.

NUS also “reaffirmed opposition to PREVENT, and to work with civil liberties organisations working to challenge it”. With a commitment to work “alongside civil liberties groups including CAGE, lobby the government to repeal it [Counter Terrorism and Security Act] immediately.”

CAGE welcomes this position as it will avoid the alienation of Muslim communities and sends a powerful message to students that all groups need to work together in countering the narrative that Muslims are a threat to society instead of equal partners committed to creating a more equal, just and fair society for all.

CAGE will continue to assert the need for an open and fair discussion looking at root causes of political violence, with a view to seeking solutions to end the cycles of violence that characterise the War on Terror. These unfounded accusations demonstrate a concern by vested interests that our position holds credible merit.

http://www.cageuk.org/article/cage-responds-accusations-daily-mail-and-huffington-post

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Junon

Salaam
CAGE responds to accusations in Daily Mail and Huffington Post

---

If they ever get round to creating an Olympic event of 'cutting and pasting' my money will be on you and ABZ2000 for gold medals!

Is there not a verse in the Koran that says, "less is more?"

If you have nothing of value to add to this thread then it’s better not to say anything at all. And judging by the level of ignorance you display in your posts, you have a lot of reading up to do.

Take heed little englander.

Salaam

Another update

Cameron Madrassas for the future

On Wednesday 7th October 2015, David Cameron made his keynote speech to the Conservative Party Conference. It seems over the years there is no tory party conference complete, without a healthy balance of austerity cuts, salutations to the Queen and a demonization of the Muslim community. This conference was no exception and did not disappoint.

Speaking in Manchester, Mr Cameron told delegates: “Did you know, in our country, there are some children who spend several hours each day at a madrassa?

“Let me be clear: there is nothing wrong with children learning about their faith, whether it’s at madrassas, Sunday schools or Jewish yeshivas.

“But in some madrassas, we’ve got children being taught that they shouldn’t mix with people of other religions; being beaten; swallowing conspiracy theories about Jewish people.

“These children should be having their minds opened, their horizons broadened, not having their heads filled with poison and their hearts filled with hate.

“So I can announce this today: if an institution is teaching children intensively, then whatever its religion, we will, like any other school, make it register so it can be inspected.

“And be in no doubt: if you are teaching intolerance, we will shut you down.”

This is about Madrassahs and nothing else

The issue of madrassas is one that has been high up the agenda in recent months. In July, Cameron delivered a speech in Birmingham on the subject of extremism, and focussed on the need to improve integration in the education system, and dismantle religious emphasis. It was this speech where he first signalled the intent to crackdown on the radicalisation which he believed takes place in madrassas.

Downing Street said that the new inspection regime would apply to religious institutions offering eight or more hours of study a week to children in England. This could include a minute number of Christian Sunday schools and Jewish yeshivas, but it is more likely to cover up to 2,000 Muslim madrassas in England.

It is only a year since plans for a voluntary code of conduct for madrassas were shelved by the Department for Education. Now, the government is going considerably further, with plans to consult then legislate to require supplementary religious schools to register and face what is being described as a “light touch” inspection regime. While any just and equal law would be broadly framed to include all religions, the thresholds of numbers of children and hours per week are likely to be set at a level that would exclude conventional Sunday schools as well as home education.

A 2011 report by the Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR) estimated that 200,000 Muslim children attend roughly 2,000 madrasas in the UK. According to the IPPR, children typically attend up to two hours every night until the age of 14-15. While it said many madrasas made a valuable contribution to society, the IPPR found that a “significant minority” did not provide adequate standards of teaching or child protection.

The report also claimed that some madrasas still use corporal punishment. An investigation in 2011 on BBC Radio 4 claimed to have uncovered hundreds of allegations of abuse relating to Britain’s madrassas.

Preferential emphasis on Madrassahs

Cameron and his band of merry men and women have become accustomed to spreading hate and have conveniently ignored a number of incidences from other religious communities that host education:

Orthodox Jewish Schools rated ‘outstanding’ that teach next to no English– A study carried out by the British Humanist Association (BHA) of Ofsted reports on independent Haredi or ultra-Orthodox Jewish schools during the period 2007-2014 found they were rated as “good” or “outstanding” 71 per cent of the time when inspected by a member of the Jewish community, but only 22 per cent of the time when inspected by a non-Haredi inspector.

http://i100.independent.co.uk/article/orthodox-jewish-schools-that-teach-next-to-no-english-are-beingrated-as-outstanding–byq6N4OoZx

The study was launched after evidence was given to an All-Party Parliamentary Group last year by a former British-born Haredi school pupil who described how he grew up in north London speaking almost no English and received less than an hour’s non-religious curriculum teaching a day.

One former pupil of a Haredi Jewish school said:

“ Haredi inspectors have consistently given good and outstanding ratings to schools where the curriculum is almost entirely focused on studying religious scriptures. Hundreds of children leave these schools every year barely able to speak a word of English or calculate basic arithmetic. Such schools should not be receiving good/outstanding solely on the basis of a biased inspector”

Beis Rochel’ secondary school– it was revealed that three-year-olds were told that “the non-Jews” are “evil” in a nursery worksheet handed out at ultra-Orthodox Jewish schools in north London. A whistle-blower showed The Independent a worksheet given to boys aged three and four at the school. The document refers to Nazis only as “goyim” – a term for non-Jews some people argue is offensive.

Durham Free School (DFS) – it was failing in all areas earlier this week – a verdict which prompted Education Secretary Nicky Morgan to announce she intended to withdraw funding for the 18-month-old Gilesgate secondary. Ofsted took the step of publicly defending its conclusions, saying its inspectors considered “a wide range of evidence”.

The statement continued: “Inspectors found that senior staff at DFS had allowed a culture to develop where it was acceptable for racist words and sexually derogative and homophobic terms to be used.
“Leaders were failing to properly tackle or challenge this type of language and behaviour.”

These are serious matters however the speech of David Cameron has emphasised Madrassas as the real issue. A subtle hint towards other religions does not negate the heightened emphasis towards the Muslim community. This is a concentrated and clinical effort- not directed towards supplementary schools of all religions rather it is towards Islamic supplementary Schools.

Reformation of Islam is the agenda

Cameron’s poisonous narrative and hate speech is linked to the Counter Terrorism and Security Act 2015, which is intertwined with the Prevent agenda. It’s a continuation of trying to reform Islam into a ‘British Islam’ that interprets this way of life in a secular manner and not as a holistic way of life. We can imagine what type of Islam they wish to see being taught; one which sees all religions as being essentially the same, that homosexuality is a valid lifestyle choice, that there shouldn’t be any segregation between the genders, or that adhering to Islam or not is simply a personal choice etc. This is in addition to being taught that there is no political system in Islam nor that the Muslims here are apart of the global Ummah, or that the ultimately loyalty is to Britain and the crown.

The Government has a problem with Muslims having a distinct value system that encompasses political opinions and values that they do not agree with. The problem is that Muslims would rather use Islam as a reference point, than what David Cameron and Theresa May want to teach.

Mosques, Islamic community centres and Islamic learning institutes will be monitored and forced to only convey Islamic beliefs that are acceptable to British secular liberal standards, until a new generation of Muslims adopt a secular version of Islam that ignores Islam’s distinct ideological beliefs. This is an ideological war against Islam.

Muslims need to be informed of discriminatory government designs and counter the counter-extremism policies in order to safeguard the Muslim community in the UK. Muslims also have a duty to develop the madrassa system to address the contemporary challenges facing Muslim youths living in Britain with the aggressive attempts to secularise and change their Deen.

Indeed many Muslims will recognise the need for the madrassa system to improve however the Government’s plans are not to change it for the better but to change it to change the teaching of Islam.

http://www.hizb.org.uk/current-affairs/cameron-madrassas-for-the-future

Salaam

More analysis

Cameron announces another nail in the coffin of ‘British freedoms’ calling them ‘counter-extremism’ measures!

London UK, October 19th 2015 – UK Prime Minister David Cameron has announced a series of measures to silence dissenting views – and to ban lawful religious practice – saying they fall outside his definition of “British values”.

These proposals – like almost all counter-extremism policy in this country – are not about ‘terrorism’ or violence – but are about enforcing a secular identity, suppressing political views and reforming the religious values of Muslims. They are a deflection from government policies – foreign and domestic – that are recognized drivers of legitimate grievances.

Using rhetoric that accuses those he disagrees with of being ‘hate preachers’ and ‘extremists’ – he perpetuates the discredited links between beliefs and violence, and exploits public fears of ISIS and of terrorist violence in order to justify yet more draconian laws, building upon a decade and a half of measures that have not just affected Muslims, but others as well.

Commenting on Cameron’s latest announcement, Taji Mustafa, media representative of Hizb ut-Tahrir in Britain said: “Cameron seems proud to propose more ‘police state’ policies to put himself alongside both his old friends in the Saudi royal family and his new friends in the Chinese politburo – including arbitrarily blacklisting ‘radicals’, subjecting them to a variety of measures including house arrest and internal exile, threatening a dissolution of mosques and imposing new censorship rules on broadcasters”.

‎”What does it say of his confidence – or lack of it – in being able to counter ideas, if he bans and bullies, rather than debates ideas?”

“What does it say of his confidence – or lack of it – in the judicial system of this country that he plans to take a flamethrower to Magna Carta, bypassing due process and giving the executive more power to criminalise peoples’ views and lifestyles, rather than use existing laws which outlaw incitement to violence?”

“Is every critic of liberal values or the democratic system to be labeled an ‘extremist’, in this so-called ‘free society’?”

‎”Amongst all his proposals, which would make employers and public services part of his ‘stasi’ state, there is still some room for amusement in his ridiculous proposal to waste yet more money funding government friendly groups, who have done him the service of trying to reform Islam! Having failed to convince the Muslim community to adopt his ideas, he now has to bribe people.”‎

“Why should anyone have confidence in another raft of ‘anti-extremism’ policies that have led Muslim children to be reported to police-led counter-extremism programs for requesting prayer facilities, declining to play musical instruments, holding pro-Palestinian political views and for using the word ‘eco-terrorist’?”

“Our aim in Hizb ut-Tahrir is to continue to expose pernicious policies like these wherever and whenever we can.”

“We will continue to work in protecting people’s Islamic identity at a time when they are being bullied into hiding it.”

“We will continue to discuss important political issues, and inform Muslims about Islam’s political views to the best of our ability. To accept the rules of “Prevent” and remain silent whilst everyone in society can discuss issues such as Syria, Palestine, Jihad, Shari’ah and Islamic State – would be a crazy approach. Most Imams and Islamic scholars do not dare discuss these issues in any meaningful way for fear of being labeled ‘extremist’ or ‘hate-preachers’ – thereby leaving a mountain of unanswered questions for the Muslim youth. This is utterly stupid in an era when young people need legitimate Islamic answers to difficult questions.”

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

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

“As we have said before – and we will say again, every student of history or religion knows that whenever an arrogant ruling class tries to crush the values of a principled few, they always end humiliated.”

http://www.hizb.org.uk/press-releases/cameron-announces-another-nail-in-the-coffin-of-british-freedoms-calling-them-counter-extremism-measures

Salaam

Another update

Message to Mr Cameron: Bomb us or blame us – Muslims won’t give up or ‘reform’ their Islam

After the brutal killings that took place in France, the British government has stepped up its efforts for more military action in Syria and its crackdown on the ill-defined enemy called ‘extremism’. It has created an atmosphere where major media outlets can fuel negative opinion against Muslims – like Channel 4’s program on ‘ISIS: The British Women Supporters Unveiled’ and the Sun newspaper’s ‘1 in 5 British Muslims’ have sympathy for Jihadis’.

Where is it leading?

Whether through military action – via drone or manned aircraft – or draconian domestic laws to silence Muslims – the British government’s policies are aimed, generally, to suppress the awakening of the global Ummah and, specifically, to counter the desire of the Muslims in the UK to connect to the global Ummah and to see her define her own political destiny.

ISIS are not a real Khilafah or Islamic State but are used as an excuse to produce more obstacles against the emergence of a real Khilafah or Islamic State, which would unite all the people of the region – Muslim and non-Muslim – under the justice of Islam. ISIS is used as an excuse to bomb the region, to curb the legitimate struggle against Bashar Assad until the US-led coalition can band together an alternative regime in Damascus that is acceptable to them. And it is the excuse to introduce unprecedented legal restrictions on Islam and Muslims within the UK.

This is not governance – it is intimidation

These government policies are not about preventing violence but about preventing Islamic beliefs and values. They propagate the lie that the more Islamic you are, the closer you are to Allah (SWT) by practicing your deen, the greater the threat you pose. So every Islamic practice is questioned and measures are rolled out thick and fast against the community. They have targeted everyone from children at nurseries to those working in public service jobs like teachers and doctors. They have made Imams too afraid to discuss the important issues of Islam for fear of being labeled ‘extremist’. And now once again they have attacked Madrassahs and Masajid.

The increasing bullying tactics of the UK government towards a minority community is not a measure of its strength. Rather, it is a measure of its failure to force the Muslim community to love British foreign policy more than the global Ummah. It is a failure to convince them to abandon their Islamic values in favour of assimilation. It is a failure in their own standard of being a pluralistic and a tolerant society – compromising the very values they market to the world. They have even failed to have an honest debate about the “superiority of secular liberal values”, which can neither be defined, nor defended.

In truth, the behaviour of the British government towards Muslim citizens does not differ in principle with that of Putin towards the Muslims in Russia.

This is not liberation – but forced conversion

Britain, America and their allies tried to force ‘freedom and democracy’ on Iraq and Afghanistan and failed – and are now heading for failure in Syria. Syria has been embroiled in a bloody conflict for nearly five years. More than 250,000 Syrians have been killed, and 11 million made homeless after challenging a secular tyrant. Abandoned by the ‘international community’ (who continued to support Assad even when he had killed tens of thousands) the people sought refuge in Allah and vowed to replace the regime with one founded on their Islamic values. Now the same ‘international community’ openly stands by Assad, or (as they put it) by ‘elements of his regime’.

Dear Brothers and Sisters!

These policies are to bully the Muslim community in Britain into submission; and bomb the Muslims of Syria into a compromise.

They are to silence Muslims through ‘Prevent’ and counter-‘extremism’ policies, which are not about preventing ‘terrorism’ but preventing Islam.

They have cynically exploited the murders in Paris, along with the media commentary that effortlessly links beards and women’s dress to terrorism – to engineer a so-called ‘reformation’ to deform and twist Islam or to make us abandon Islam.

Our message is very clear –

We will not abandon our Islam! Because you cannot abandon that which your heart and mind is convinced of.

We cannot change our Islam! Because this Islam was revealed by Allah (SWT) to His Messenger (SAW) and has been transmitted authentically to us.

Our role as Muslims:

As well as exposing these hostile political agendas and upholding the Islamic values that some are trying to ban and suppress, Muslims must find a positive role amidst this darkness.

It cannot be enough that we just look to defend our beliefs and values, without remembering that we have something positive to give.

It cannot be enough that we just look at the UK, without realizing that what is happening here is part of a global game. If we abandon what is happening in Syria today, it will mean abandoning Palestine, Kashmir and Afghanistan tomorrow.

It cannot be that we only focus on protecting a narrow part of Islam, when the agenda is about changing Islam to fit with a capitalist, secular and liberal agenda; to force a reformation to make a personal, spiritual, apolitical, quiet, subjugated, liberal, British-first, and non-international Islam.

Allah (SWT) sent His Messenger (SAW) with the Deen of Islam, a perfected way of life, for humanity – to lift people from darkness into light.

Within Britain there are Muslims and non-Muslims who wonder whether today’s world – with endless wars for resources; dominated by a few rich people exploiting others; driven by an excessive desire for wealth, regardless of who and what is damaged; where people live as individuals atomized and apart from each other; and where racism still thrives – is the best there is on offer for humanity.

And we, the Muslim community can give them hope that there is something more: a way of life built upon reason and intellect; a way of life that does not permit wars for resources, racism or economic exploitation; a way of life that encourages people to live as families, neighbours and communities; a way of life which believes people are accountable in the Akhira for their actions in this Dunya; where no one – not even the Khalefah himself – is above Allah’s Law. This is the Islamic way of life and this is incomplete without the Khilafah to implement so many of Islam’s solutions to human problems.

http://www.hizb.org.uk/current-affairs/message-to-mr-cameron-bomb-us-or-blame-us-muslims-wont-give-up-or-reform-their-islam

Salaam

Another update

Cameron’s war against Islam and Muslims continues

Barely a week after the UK Government announced that Islamophobic hate crimes would be treated as seriously as anti-Semitic attacks, Prime Minister David Cameron announced a new set of counter-extremism measures on Monday, vowing to crackdown on both violent and non-violent elements of the “poisonous” Islamist ideology.

Whilst many within the Muslim community have continually failed to understand Cameron’s “carrot and stick” approach to extremism, many more have failed to question why the recording of anti-Muslim hate crimes was framed within anti-terror and counter-extremism legislation.

Evaluating this new piece of legislation, Dr Chris Allen, from the University of Birmingham, argued that whilst the recording of anti-Muslim hate crimes separately would practically counter those who dismiss the reality of Islamophobia, the key protagonists who lobbied the government did not question why the news about the new legislation emerged in the midst of the latest anti-terror and counter-extremism laws.

As Cameron outlined his new counter-extremism strategy, he and Home Secretary Theresa May mentioned that all police forces in the UK will be legally required to record Islamophobic hate crimes as a means to counter any objection from Muslim communities towards the new anti-extremism measures.

With regards to the new strategy, unsurprisingly it contains a number of highly problematic measures. Not only does it reinforce the draconian policies that first emerged in February under the Counter-Terrorism and Security Act (CTS), but it also made it clear that the McCarthyite witch-hunt of Muslim preachers, organisations and institutions will continue. Of course, the mandatory twopence for the sake of “political consistency” was thrown in when the policy addressed far-right extremism, but in most part, the measures were targeted towards “Islamist” extremism.
ISIS and foreign policy

The frequent mentioning of events in Syria and Iraq involving the so-called Islamic State group - or ISIS - appeared to be the focal point of the wisdom behind the measures, similar to the CTS Act. The laughable predictability of Cameron and May using ISIS to rationalise this strategy but totally ignoring legitimate foreign policy grievances came as no surprise. Parents contacting the authorities and confiscating their children’s passports was presented as a practical means to prevent young Britons from joining ISIS, but understanding why some Muslims have left the comforts of life in Britain to fight a brutal dictator like Bashar al-Assad was given no attention.

Whilst reading the new counter-extremism strategy, I could not help but think that this country was steadily shifting towards a Stalinist police state. Mosque closure orders, extremism disruption orders, banning “hate preachers”, pressuring venues not to host certain organisations, granting the Charity Commission arbitrary powers to shut down charities, preventing “entryists” from working in the public sector, the NHS and with children; all based on ideas and beliefs, which allegedly contravene Britain’s secular liberal values.

The extremism strategy went as far as to mention the founding father of the Muslim Brotherhood movement, Hasan al-Bana, its leader Syed Qutb, and prominent theorist Abu-Ala Mawdudi. It flagged the opposition to bid’a (innovation in religion) and the “doctrine of takfirism” as “key elements of Islamist thought”. It was reassuring to know that Cameron and the Home Secretary were able to display some grasp of theological terms, yet failed in demonstrating what components of this “poisonous ideology” could drive “non-violent extremists” to become violent.

Undoubtedly, this was an impossible task because the “conveyor-belt theory” which the government is peddling cannot be empirically substantiated, and has been consistently refuted by academics and the intelligence services. No matter how convincing neoconservative think-tanks and policymakers are when propagating this deluded theory, it will never stand any credible scrutiny.
Community Exclusion Forum

At a time of austerity, cut backs and creeping unemployment, Cameron also announced the allocation of £5m for “grassroots organisations” to fight extremism, which posed another dilemma. The Community Engagement Forum (CEF) that met Cameron at Downing Street last week consisted of organisations like the Quilliam Foundation, Inspire and members of the Ahmadi community - none of whom have an ounce of credibility within any British Muslim spheres.

The CEF excluded the Muslim Council of Britain (MCB), the country’s largest Muslim umbrella organisation, who described the new strategy as having a “McCarthyite undertone”. There were no prominent leaders from the Salafi, Sufi, Deobandi or Shia circles; perhaps the “Community Exclusion Forum” would have been a more apt term for Mr Cameron’s dream team.

Inevitably, funding and giving platform to bolster the subservient and compliant “moderate voices” to drown out the “Islamists” was expected. Ironically, while the British government defines an “Islamist” as someone who imposes their version of Islam on society, Mr Cameron and his secular liberal Muslim reformists see no problem with imposing their version of Islam on society!

Expectedly, the new counter-extremism strategy received strong criticisms from a wide spectrum of groups. Sir Peter Fahy, one of the most senior police officers in the country, told the Guardian that the measures could be counter-productive, and result in further alienating the Muslim community. Shadow Home Secretary Andy Burnham stated that the strategy could fuel “resentment, division and a sense of victimisation” among groups who felt they were targeted. Matthew Goodwin, who left the government’s Anti-Hatred Task Force after three years due to its lack of financial commitment and seriousness, commented on the “highly divisive” individuals and organisations that made up the CEF.

Ultimately, when a secular state interferes in the private religious affairs of its citizens, it is no longer secular. When governments use taxpayers’ money to fund initiatives and policies that will silence dissent and take away peoples’ civil liberties, it can no longer claim to be a free liberal democracy. If beliefs are criminalised and thoughts are policed, then surely these are the signs of a police state in the making?

Unfortunately, Mr Cameron is following in the footsteps of his predecessor, Tony Blair, who created a battle of hearts and minds by declaring a war against the “evil ideology” of ‘Islamism’. As simplistic as it may sound, the solution to preventing extremism and radicalisation are the following: stop bombing and meddling in the affairs of Muslim countries, allow ideas to be debated, and do not criminalise orthodox normative Islamic beliefs under the facade of the conveyor belt theory.

If the UK government continues to ignore legitimate foreign policy grievances, and introduces more anti-terror and counter-extremism laws, it will further criminalise large swathes of the Muslim community, which in effect, can “radicalise” more Muslims.

http://www.middleeasteye.net/columns/cameron-s-war-against-islam-and-muslims-continues-2094150994

Salaam

And another

Society of mosques to boycott ‘racist’ anti-terror Prevent programme

A society of mosques that represents up to 70,000 Muslims has vowed to boycott the government’s anti-terrorism Prevent programme after accusing the policy of being a racist attack on the Islamic community.

The Waltham Forest Council of Mosques made the move in the wake of increasing tensions between the area’s council and the Muslim community.

It is the first time a council of mosques has issued such a boycott and it will be seen as a blow to the government’s attempt to involve religious communities in the fight against radicalisation.

The WFCOM statement was triggered by a motion at a meeting of Waltham Forest council on Thursday endorsing the need for the controversial Prevent programme and an associated programme known as Brit, launched to identify signs of radicalisation in primary school children.

The council of mosques condemned the council for linking the high profile stabbing at Leytonstone tube station this month reportedly by a man shouting “this is for Syria” to the need to implement the Brit programme in schools.

“We endorse the manner in which the police dealt with such an incendiary situation,” says the council of mosques statement. “It provided the community with a sense of reassurance. It is shameful how politics is being manipulated to implement a programme which asks questions such as:

– I believe that my religion is the only correct one: True/False

– God has a purpose for me: True/False

– I would mind if a family of a different race or religion moved next door: True/False.”

The statement goes on to say: “The project itself and Prevent in general is an ill-conceived and flawed policy. It is racist, and overtly targets members of the Muslim faith. This has been demonstrated by organisations who are collecting data on referrals to the [anti-radicalisation] Channel programme … We see the Brit project as another tool being used (like the Prevent strategy) to spy and denigrate the Muslim community and cause distrust. We have no confidence in the Brit project and the Prevent strategy overall.”

At a meeting on Thursday night councillors withdrew the contentious paragraph of the motion which linked the Leytonstone attack with the need to have programmes such as Prevent in schools.

Cllr Chris Robbins, leader of Waltham Forest council, said: “The council motion was about celebrating the borough’s diversity, a sentiment that we can’t understand anyone objecting to. It goes on to thank the community and police for their response to the incident at Leytonstone tube station on 5 December.

“At the council meeting tonight, a paragraph which referred to the need for programmes such as Prevent and our school programme was removed to ensure that no one could use its contents in any way to detract from praise for our community and police. The motion was passed unanimously.

“But no one should take from this any lessening of the council’s commitment to working with everyone in our community and across government to tackle violent extremism … We are confident that residents from all backgrounds and faiths support us in this work.”

Irfan Akhtar, a member of the council of mosques, welcomed the council’s U-turn but insisted that the boycott remained in place.

“Prevent is a toxic brand,” he said. “We are fighting the implementation of Prevent and will not let it into the mosques. We want to work closely with all teachers on safeguarding of children of all faiths and none. We think that Waltham Forest is a testing ground for Prevent programmes and this is a wake-up call that we are not just going to accept Prevent in our community.”

http://www.hizb.org.uk/news-watch/society-of-mosques-to-boycott-racist-anti-terror-prevent-programme

Salaam

Another update

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UILTL_Dv2aU#t=567

Salaam

Another update

Cameron’s calls for Muslim women to ‘integrate’ – speaking in fluent ‘dog whistle’

When UK Prime Minister David Cameron announced twenty million pounds funding to teach Muslim women to speak English, he argued it would help fight ‘radicalisation’, make them less isolated and move towards a truly ‘One Nation’ Britain.

The proposals were both farcical and sinister at once.

It was farcical because the ridiculous simplicity of the ideas (that Muslim women need language skills more than other men and women; that this makes radicalisation more likely in their families; that this leads to terrorism; that there are thousands of nasty Muslim men out there trying to seek to imprison their wives and daughters) was like hearing a monologue from a cheap, racist, third-rate, 1970s standup comedian.

But the fact that the Prime Minister of this country singled out Muslim women in this way, making headline news and policies with a series of anecdotes and generalizations, is deeply sinister.

After paying lip service to criticizing Islamophobic attacks on Muslim women, he proceeded to fuel misconceptions about them, and the community of which they are a part.

Whatever his caveats at the start of his article – that it’s not all Muslim women, and it’s not only Muslim women (but stopping short of saying some of my best friends are Muslim women) – the main result of his article was to talk about Muslims, not speaking English and radicalisation.

The Prime Minister of Britain is not a fool to pen an argument in the Times, owned by his good friend Rupert Murdoch. He is a master communicator and knew exactly what he was doing, playing to the ignorance and basest prejudices of people in Britain who are affected by the constant negative press about immigration, ‘terrorism’ and Muslims in general.

But beyond this nasty message, Cameron has at least done everyone a favour by exposing the true nature of initiatives supposedly aimed at ‘community cohesion’ and countering-extremism. Just like his ‘guru’, Tony Blair, Cameron casually conflated two very different things: terrorism with a lack of integration – and then repeated his pride in ‘muscular liberalism’, effectively showing that this agenda is not about security as much as it is about values and beliefs.

If he cared about language skills, he would have included the numerous European, Indian and Sri Lankan people in Britain who have yet to master the language. He might have protested that 40% of five year olds lack basic literacy skills. If he cared about the well-being of women, he might have addressed a report that emerged exactly one year ago that a third of UK women university students reported being sexually assaulted on campus. And if he had cared about community cohesion, he certainly wouldn’t have stoked prejudices in this overtly clumsy way.

Cameron is not concerned if people are law abiding or productive citizens. He is a supremacist – a muscular liberal supremacist, who wants to force people who share different social, economic and political values to adopt those he has decided are ‘British’. The unwritten message is that Britain cannot accommodate people of different beliefs, values and viewpoints. Pluralism, if it ever existed, is dead. Muslims can cite the Qur’an that there is no compulsion in belief, and liberals can cite Cameron that Britain must compel its citizens to be one ‘liberal’ nation.

It is a prime example of forced conversion for those ‘annoying Muslims’ who have thus far resisted his liberal secular vision of the world – and if they don’t, he will cancel their passports, send them back ‘home’ and be rid of them, Ferdinand and Isabella style.

Many Muslims and non-Muslims will look t Cameron’s latest fad with amusement. But the more serious amongst them will see that Cameron’s British values include an ‘extreme’ intolerance towards any Muslim who believes in Islamic values and who dissents from official British policy.

http://www.hizb.org.uk/current-affairs/camerons-calls-for-muslim-women-to-integrate-speaking-in-fluent-dog-whistle

Salaam

Another update

WHY IS CAGE BEING TARGETED BY THE BRITISH POLITICAL ESTABLISHMENT?

Over the past three weeks, CAGE has been the subject of what appears to be a co-ordinated attack from the right-wing media and the British political establishment, with the express intention to cast the organisation as ‘extremist’ in order to malign us and compel us to shut down.

In an unprecedented attack on a small organisation of only 6 full-time staff, eight newspapers ran 28 headlines in the space of four days, all of them attacking CAGE for our successful opposition to the government’s failed counter-terrorism programme, PREVENT. Several politicians and conservative leaders joined the fray.

Rounding on CAGE

The Daily Mail acted as the attack dogs, publishing headlines that echoed the opinions of neo-conservative think tanks, state security services and conservative MPs. Their articles directly quoted Home Secretary Theresa May, who supported the Daily Mail “investigations” even though they were conducted underhandedly and with the express intention to cast CAGE as “extremist”. This despite our remit being to campaign for the rule of law and an end to torture.

The clear line journalists had to the Home Secretary showed these stories ran with the approval of the Home Office. It is not surprising then that Education Secretary Nicky Morgan has recently joined May, Prime Minister David Cameron, Foreign Secretary Philip Hammond, London mayor Boris Johnson, and Conservative MP Jo Johnson, all of whom have very deliberately and specifically sought to smear CAGE.

What’s behind the raucous?

But why dedicate so much time and energy to go after a small organisation that has already felt the brunt of political, legal, economic and media pressure for several years?

CAGE has been successful in challenging the government’s narrative around “radicalisation”. This narrative seeks to group all forms of dissent under the banner of “extremism” and in so doing quell opposition to its neo-conservative aims. Its end goal is a surveillance state, in which Muslims are placated into accepting a state-sanctioned version of Islam, in which opinions that counter the government’s are policed and open debate is shepherded by rubber-stamped organisations and individuals.

We have consistently and intensively highlighted this since the inception of the PREVENT strategy. Using case study based research we have shown how PREVENT is a danger to civil society, intellectual debate, individual expression and religious freedom. Far from “extreme”, the problems we have highlighted and the questions we have posed of the security state are now being echoed by academics, civil society groups and by key members of the public sector including Her Majesty’s Opposition itself.

The government is losing the intellectual and political argument over the growth of the security state through PREVENT. CAGE has been at the forefront of the counter-argument, consistently stating that ideology does not cause political violence, but socio-economic factors and foreign and domestic policy play a far more prominent role. This argument is gaining traction because of its central validity. This is why major players are employing the whole apparatus of the conservative establishment to try to close us down.

CAGE position has broad and high level support

The main global dissenters to the surveillance state including the likes of Wikileaks, Edward Snowden and Intercept have endorsed CAGE and the work we do. Secular academics and student organisations have signed up to the CAGE narrative on campus. Trade Unions are now coming on board. The number of loyal supporters is growing.

In a landmark High Court victory, the lord chief justice Thomas ruled that the Charity Commission - headed by neo-conservative William Shawcross - had no right to compel charities not to fund CAGE. This was a major blow to an arm of the conservative establishment, and demonstrated support for CAGE amongst the highest echelons of Britain. In forcing the Charity Commission into retreat, our victory was heralded as a victory for all of civil society by key opinion makers in the sector.

Our consistent and well-grounded view that terrorism laws are too broad and that they threaten human rights was echoed in the Court of Appeal this week, which ruled precisely this in the David Miranda case, concluding that the Terrorism Act violates the fundamental freedom of the press.

CAGE will continue to grow in credibility and effort insha’Allah

Despite co-ordinated attempts to demonise CAGE, the organisation has been resilient and strong. We continue to campaign successfully for due process and the rule of law. We continue to support individuals and organisations whose rights have been infringed upon by PREVENT and counter-terrorrism legislation in other countries, referring them to lawyers and publicising cases where necessary. We are in the process of opening offices overseas to challenge PREVENT narratives that strengthen the neo-conservative establishment further afield.

It is thanks to the countless numbers of people who continue to donate to CAGE despite the systematic campaign against us, that we are able to continue to do this crucial work.

We intend to launch more projects calling for transparency around PREVENT and advancing the debate. We will continue to call for more constructive solutions to end the cycles of violence that characterise the War on Terror, as opposed to reinforce it. We will continue to campaign for a return to the principle of the rule of law, an end to torture and a world free from oppression and injustice. We invite you to lend your support to keep us going.

http://www.cageuk.org/article/why-cage-being-targeted-british-political-establishment

Salaam

Another update

David Cameron ill-advised in his approach to British Muslims and MAB

Report depicts Muslim Association of Britain in negative and patronising light despite many years of distinguished community service.

The British Government's publication of the findings of the review of the Muslim Brotherhood has raised more questions than answers.

By declaring it to be a "classified report" and releasing 11 pages of what he determined to be the "main findings", the government has acted in a manner that is far less candid and transparent than expected.

Having refused repeated requests from lawyers acting for the Muslim Brotherhood to view the report, the government has, by default, committed the very act which it accuses the Brotherhood of; that is acting in a "secretive, if not clandestine" manner.

Inevitably, this sad state of affairs has provoked questions about political motives and credibility of the entire review process.

Unsurprisingly, the Muslim Brotherhood Review commissioned by Prime Minister David Cameron and prepared by former Ambassador to Riyadh, Sir John Jenkins, has singled out a number of British organisations, charities and institutions – most notably the Muslim Association of Britain (MAB).

Despite many years of distinguished community service, the report depicts the MAB in a wholly negative and patronising light.

Not only did the MAB work alongside the Government and Metropolitan Police to oust the notorious preacher Abu Hamza from Finsbury Park Mosque in 2005, it has since then successfully transformed this important pillar of the North London community into a beacon of community excellence and a model for others to follow.

As part of its endeavour to present an enlightened understanding of Islam, the MAB has conducted welfare projects; it provides shelter for the homeless and feeds the poor. It has done this at a time when the phenomenon of food-banks has proliferated across the country amid cuts to the Government's welfare spending.

While many armchair experts were theorising about the perils of extremism from the comfort of their luxurious offices, the MAB and other Muslim organisations mentioned in the report were busy organising scouting activities for the youth, teaching them useful life skills and steering them away from the scourge of criminality. Yet for whatever reasons, Cameron and Jenkins saw no need to acknowledge or appreciate these initiatives.

The report also claimed that the MAB has continually objected to the Government's Prevent strategy. True, but they are not alone. There is in fact a growing chorus of high profile public figures and academics who have denounced Prevent as a "toxic brand". They include the chair of the Home Affairs Select Committee Keith Vaz, and retired senior judge Baroness Butler-Sloss.

In the circumstances, it is a matter of grave concern that Cameron's government views the fundamental democratic right to object to Government policy as reason to consider objectors subversives – or even worse.

The problem with government officials and cheerleaders who vilify the MAB and similar British Muslim organisations is that on the one hand they accuse them of not integrating or assimilating into society, and then when these organisations actually attempt to do so, they are accused of "entryism".

This inherent contradiction and inconsistency in the government's approach to the Muslim community was underscored recently when the prime minister lavished all praise and extended every possible courtesy to India's prime minister Narendra Modi.

As Leader of the Hindu Bahartia Janata Party, Modi failed to stop the 2002 massacre of more than 1,000 Muslims in Gujrat. As a result he was deemed a persona non grata to Britain for more than a decade.

However, for obvious economic reasons Cameron chose to afford his Indian counterpart a state visit in November 2015.

There are, of course, other occasions when the government has sacrificed British values of tolerance and harmony between different cultural traditions, the protection of individual citizens, and the rule of law.

The Guardian newspaper published an exclusive report on how United Arab Emirates threatened to block a billion-pound arms deal with the UK, stop inward investment and cut intelligence cooperation if Cameron did not act against the Muslim Brotherhood.

It is no secret that the UAE has been the main financial and political backer of the military junta that overthrew Egypt's first elected civilian president, Mohamed Morsi. The coup killed thousands of civilians and incarcerated tens of thousands of opposition figures and activists.

In this light, most reasonable and fair-minded observers would be more inclined to deem the MAB a greater champion of British values than David Cameron, while he supports undemocratic countries like UAE and the military despot who currently rules Egypt.

After spending taxpayer money on its review into the Muslim Brotherhood, the government must now demonstrate the moral courage and publish it in full, and in the manner it was written by John Jenkins. Failure to do so and accept responsibility for its flaws will only further poison community relations and fuel the climate of suspicion and hostility toward British Muslims, as Cameron was reportedly warned by MI5.

Rather than wait for a time when he would have to seek the benefit of hindsight, the time is right for Cameron to act upon all the principles that he so passionately preaches – honesty; fairness; impartiality; and moderation.

It is ironic that former Prime Minister Tony Blair adopted a similar condescending approach to British Muslims. When faced with criticism and protest over his Iraq policy, he famously accused British Muslims of harbouring a sense of "false grievance". In the end, he has admitted that the invasion of Iraq could have possibly contributed to the rise of Islamic State, and al-Qaeda before them.

Before more damage is done, David Cameron must now demonstrate the same humility and accept that he was ill-advised in his approach to British Muslims, and the Muslim Association of Britain in particular.

http://stopwar.org.uk/index.php/news/2972-david-cameron-was-ill-advised-in-his-approach-to-british-muslims

Sad reality for those in Syria, Gaza etc. :(.

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