Syria, Gaza and the Criminalisation of Islam

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Karl

But the UK is full of reds now, "progressive liberals" they call themselves, otherwise they wouldn't let Muslims or brown or black or whatever other races in to stay. Remember they used to be Crusaders and what are they now? Zionist Cultural Marxists...Western Europe has fallen to the libtards. The place is run from Israel, they rule the West now.
I also heard that "Islamic State" fighters are being treated in Israeli hospitals and being sent back to fight Assad in Syria.

---

The UK is full of liberals? lol are you serious. Labour is losing support left, right and center just as a man tries to move them away from being red Tory and the legacy of Blair and the Liberal Democrats are all but destroyed.

It could be argued that the media is largely leftist and liberal but that is not reflective of the politics of the country (the gap between rich and poor is the worst in post WW2 Britain, the NHS is on its last legs and most of it is privatised already anyway, even more grammar schools will be opened up and I doubt the social welfare state survives the next 10 years) nor is the populous "Marxist".

The modern Zionists are far more capitalist than Marxist anyway and yes, Syrian fighters, ISIS or otherwise are indeed being treated in Israel, I think the hospital is called Ziv or something.

So what point were you trying to make?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Born_Believer

The UK is full of liberals? lol are you serious. Labour is losing support left, right and center just as a man tries to move them away from being red Tory and the legacy of Blair and the Liberal Democrats are all but destroyed.

It could be argued that the media is largely leftist and liberal but that is not reflective of the politics of the country (the gap between rich and poor is the worst in post WW2 Britain, the NHS is on its last legs and most of it is privatised already anyway, even more grammar schools will be opened up and I doubt the social welfare state survives the next 10 years) nor is the populous "Marxist".

The modern Zionists are far more capitalist than Marxist anyway and yes, Syrian fighters, ISIS or otherwise are indeed being treated in Israel, I think the hospital is called Ziv or something.

So what point were you trying to make?

---

I suppose it is relative, to me the UK is very left. When it was ruled by pagan Kings and Queens and later Christendom, it was right wing. But when they adopted democracy, that was the turning point towards the left. I suppose a caliphate would put that right if you think Islam can win. But I don't think Islam is compatible with these northern tribes unless it was absolutely corrupted like Christianity was.

"Islamic State" must be a Zionist creation if Israel is helping them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Karl

I suppose it is relative, to me the UK is very left. When it was ruled by pagan Kings and Queens and later Christendom, it was right wing. But when they adopted democracy, that was the turning point towards the left. I suppose a caliphate would put that right if you think Islam can win. But I don't think Islam is compatible with these northern tribes unless it was absolutely corrupted like Christianity was.

"Islamic State" must be a Zionist creation if Israel is helping them.

---

It's not a matter of perspective, it is a matter of fact. The conservatives are carrying out such right wing politics you would never have seen in the 1940s and 1950s and so on. It started with Thatchers love or Reagans privatised America and this infect the labour party, in particular people like Tony Blair. Anyway, I really don't have the stamina at this point to go into all that. I'm curious what makes you think Britain is so left wing these days?

And it's pretty obvious ISIS is a Jewish and American creation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Born_Believer

It's not a matter of perspective, it is a matter of fact. The conservatives are carrying out such right wing politics you would never have seen in the 1940s and 1950s and so on. It started with Thatchers love or Reagans privatised America and this infect the labour party, in particular people like Tony Blair. Anyway, I really don't have the stamina at this point to go into all that. I'm curious what makes you think Britain is so left wing these days?

And it's pretty obvious ISIS is a Jewish and American creation.

---

Britain lets in foreigners and gives them the benefit etc. It is an international socialist country from my point of view. It has capitalism too because pure socialism does not work well at all. It is easier for the state to put the burden of ownership and productivity on the people and then regulate them and tax them and control them as if the state owned their property and businesses anyway. The oppression and the social engineering and the application of extreme conformity and regulation is an extreme left trait. Islam is a big threat to them and they are trying to twist it into a liberal lefty religion. They are propping up the lefty "Muslims" (moderates) and censoring, oppressing and killing the others.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Karl

Britain lets in foreigners and gives them the benefit etc. It is an international socialist country from my point of view. It has capitalism too because pure socialism does not work well at all. It is easier for the state to put the burden of ownership and productivity on the people and then regulate them and tax them and control them as if the state owned their property and businesses anyway. The oppression and the social engineering and the application of extreme conformity and regulation is an extreme left trait. Islam is a big threat to them and they are trying to twist it into a liberal lefty religion. They are propping up the lefty "Muslims" (moderates) and censoring, oppressing and killing the others.

---

You think throughout the history of the world, only socialists have let migrants into their countries? lol

Salaam

Another update

PREVENT, like Schedule 7, just another intelligence gathering operation

AGE’s report, ‘The ‘science’ of pre-crime’, dives deep into the foundations of the government’s counter-extremism strategy. For the first time, the public has been made aware that the government’s flagship PREVENT and Channel programmes are not founded upon reliable science.

Despite this, annual figures of referrals to the Channel programme have nearly doubled year on year since 2006. The latest numbers between 2015 and 2016 have shown, more than 20 people a day were referred, a total of about 7,500 people in the year. Figures showed 610 of them were under 10, and 3,100 were under 18. Most importantly, only 10% overall were assessed as requiring further ‘counter-terrorism’ support.

This is suggestive of mass over reporting and widespread data collection.

Expanding the Schedule 7 stop

Because of the vast intervention powers inherent in the policy, and the legal duty upon public sector workers to apply it, large swathes of information and personal data are being collected and stored by local authorities and made available to counter terrorism police.

How this data is used and who has access to it and for how long, are questions of vital importance. Moreover, the catchment net for data collection is wide. PREVENT referrals may be instigated by the most of mundane of actions, such as requesting a prayer room, or supporting the Palestinian people. There may be no suggestion of criminality with these referrals, however they often lead to interviews with social workers, PREVENT officers, and school safeguarding leads.

Seen in this light, PREVENT and Channel are an evolution of the Schedule 7 stop, where police intercept individuals at airports with no suspicion required (largely due to racial profiling), in order to gather intelligence through asking uncomfortable questions which range from trying to elicit an individual’s opinion on Palestine to their feelings about Syria and even which mosques they attend.

This is an alarming state of affairs. Both PREVENT and Schedule 7 stops collect data from individuals which can and is used in court proceedings. As a result of both processes, individuals may find themselves forever on the security ‘radar’ with no access to redress.

The case of Rahman Mohammadi, questioned once by PREVENT, being barred from the labour conference as a security risk is illustrative of this.

PREVENT is an unjustifiable programme

This is by no means a coincidence. Rather it is indicative of an overwhelming expansion of the security state, which is being coerced into society using a fear-based narrative and dodgy ‘science’.

PREVENT and Schedule 7 act as a social ‘dragnet’ to gauge, monitor and manage the discussion within the Muslim community, while overlooking key grievances around foreign and domestic policy. Both processes are inherently discriminatory. Despite Muslims being only 5% of the population, they represent at least 54% of all PREVENT referrals, while approximately 80% of Schedule 7 stops target people from ethnic minorities. At the same time, the legislation behind them makes them easily transferable to individuals in broader civil society. This makes both programmes not only ineffective but dangerous.

Now, the Investigatory Powers Act, will build on this environment and provide the government and security services with further and vast interception powers. Once these measures are written into law, the security state can and will apply them on anyone that falls foul of their narrative. This is culminating in a burgeoning securitised ‘public space’ at the expense of a disappearing ‘private space’, a vital concern for civil liberty advocates.

This spectre of oppression is all the more reason to resist PREVENT and call for it to be scrapped. The solution to political violence is not legislated oppression – in fact, it is the opposite. It is accountability for the ongoing abuses of the War on Terror, an end to aggressive foreign policy, a return to the rule of law, and an open, just and fair society that is based on empathy and understanding rather than mistrust and fear. Such a status quo would be a relief for us all.

https://cage.ngo/article/prevent-like-schedule-7-just-another-intelligence-gathering-operation/

Salaam

Another update

Towards a closed society: The worrying themes of the leaked OSCT PREVENT Catalogue

Recently, transparency group Public Interest Investigations published the leaked Home Office document entitled “Prevent Strategy – Local Delivery Best Practice Catalogue”. The document reveals:

• Government is shaping the political discourse for citizens through projects like Faith on the Frontlines which manufactures an opinion supportive of the British militarism, and promotes a state-friendly understanding of historical events among children.

• Attempts to mainstream PREVENT include embedding its propaganda in the education system.

• There are a worrying number of initiatives which seek to control, shape and initiate behavioural change using religion. These include co-opting imams with security services in a project in Derby, the ‘British or Muslim’ project with a sports club London Tigers which uses Quran and Sunnah as a basis to justify PREVENT narratives, and the exploitation of female Islamic scholars to disseminate PREVENT propaganda in their study circles in Leicester as part of the project STR!VE.

• Worryingly, despite no legal requirement for madrassas to implement the PREVENT Duty, the Home Office document demonstrates that third-party security contractor firms are already being funded by the state to roll out PREVENT propaganda within these religious institutions, despite there being no evidence to link madrassas with terrorism. Faith Associates and HA9 Consultancy are two such organisations.

• A big theme of the document is increasing “critical thinking skills” in order to challenge “extremism”. The concern is not that critical thinking is being encouraged, but that there is a certain type of thinking being administered to children, one that encourages compliance with the state, which is really not critical thinking at all. This sets a precedent for wider state control in other communities and in other spheres.

• Organisations such as the Active Change Foundation and Reveal Theatre between them target 5000 Muslim youth. The Reveal Theatre lists among its resources the neo-conservative groups Quilliam Foundation and the Institute for Strategy Dialogue, as well as Faith Associates and Imams Online, both PREVENT propaganda tools.

• A number of PREVENT projects targeting Muslim women and women’s organisations shows how the state views women as tools for their narratives to gain traction and validity, abusing the trust women have built up over the years in their communities.

• The ability to deconstruct “extremist narratives” is categorised as a “vulnerability” which may result in a CHANNEL referral in children as young as fourteen years old.

• The government will “focus on engagement with mosques in order to develop safeguarding pathways to challenge extremism and increase community referrals to Channel” thereby raising issues around mosque trust and community cohesion.

• With the government not only interfering with political and religious views, but actually making rigorous attempts to steer them in order to support state policy, Britain is slipping towards totalitarianism and the fear-based PREVENT policy ensures we keep sleepwalking towards a closed society.

Towards a closed society: The worrying themes of the leaked OSCT PREVENT Catalogue

Britain’s debilitated soft power strategy known as PREVENT lingers on, with its proponents applying various types of plasters and sutures to desperately prop a terminally wounded policy. Whether it is the claim that PREVENT is safeguarding, that the study underpinning it is “peer-reviewed”, or that PREVENT is not discriminatory, the overstretched PR campaign to architect an image of viability has come in various forms and varying grades of superficiality and desperation.

PREVENT is what it is: an approach which is part and parcel of a “framework of counterinsurgency; a military doctrine used against non-state actors that encourages, amongst other things, the blanket surveillance of populations and the targeting of propaganda at them.” (Sabir, 2017)

Recently, transparency group Public Interest Investigations published the leaked Home Office document entitled “Prevent Strategy – Local Delivery Best Practice Catalogue”. In contrast with stories revolving around Muslims, mainstream media activity around this revealing document has been notable only by its absence.

However, there are some disturbing – though completely PREVENT-concomitant – themes which emerge from the document.

(It is worth bearing in mind that this leaked document only contains those projects which are fit enough to be designated “best practice”.)

Controlling political expression

With echoes of the Schmittian totalstaat, the document reveals the disconcerting trend of how government is shaping the political discourse for citizens.

The very first section of the document is called “Ideology” and concerns national and local “counter-narrative” products. Under the sweeping guise of “combatting extremism”, a selective narrative friendly to the status quo is being disseminated and championed by the state.

One particular project, “Faith on the Frontlines”, states its objective explicitly:

“To promote the work of Muslims in our Armed Forces by showing their role in Afghanistan, and undermine the extremist narrative that we are at war with Islam and that the 2014 drawdown was a victory for the Taliban”.

The views on what the 2014 Afghan drawdown mean vary among the public; many would baulk at promoting state militarism to children, and given outgoing prime minister’s speeches promoting “moderate” and “reforming voices” which incidentally undermine orthodox Islamic beliefs and practices as well as the Casey Review which highlights traditional Islamic rulings as “extremist”, some may be forgiven for thinking elements within the government are on their own crusade against Islam; but is it for the state to target Muslim children in particular to enforce a particular version or interpretation of events, and to categorise an opposition to this version as “extremist” and therefore a “pathway” to terrorism?

The document further states,

“It shows a positive image of British Muslim identity, and addresses core radicalising narratives around Afghanistan by showing the positive legacy of intervention”.

Again, the implication here is that opposition to militarism in Afghanistan is perhaps a “negative” portrayal of British Muslim identity, coercing the discourse towards an state-ideologically-defined “ideal”.

The ramifications for political activism in addition to the discriminatory focus on Muslims is self-evident.

“Mainstreaming” PREVENT through education

Linked to this military propaganda are efforts to “mainstream PREVENT”. A Bradford project targets newly qualified teachers with PREVENT in order to increase their awareness of “extremism”. In order to “mainstream” PREVENT, it describes the following strategy:

“The resources are based on using World War 1 as an example, looking at choices taken by people and the consequences of their actions, linking to the present day scenarios.”

Education is not only used to entrench PREVENT, but also to disseminate a particular, politicised narrative of history.

Interference with religion

Continuing the theme of control and discrimination through PREVENT is the area of theology. There are a worrying number of initiatives which seek to control, shape and initiate behavioural change using religion.

Targeting Derby, a PREVENT projects in place seeks to leverage Imams to challenge “extremist propaganda” and further, to work with police and authorities to respond appropriately. Taken to together, the securitised function of the Imam raises ethical problems for those who attend mosques. Can they still trust an Imam who has been the receptor for a structurally flawed policy?

The Derby project also establishes 3 forums to discuss Islam and the role of women. The question of course here needs to be raised; why are “discussions” about Islam and the “role of women” being funded by the state under the banner of PREVENT?

One project called “British or Muslim” was carried out by a sports facilities provider (London Tigers) with an aim to “improve critical thinking skills” of vulnerable young people in order to challenge “extremism”. Noticeable is the use of a particular understanding of theology as a weapon of the state to project soft power:

“This project, delivered by London Tigers, is a series of interactive workshops which use real life examples of extremist propaganda espoused by known extremists, taking a counter narrative from the Qur’an and Sunnah”.

The outcome of this project was that a “greater depth of theological knowledge” was achieved amongst the 150 “young people” who had participated in the project.

In other words, the Qur’an and the Sunnah (Prophetic tradition) are being used to prop state narratives designed to combat undefined “extremist propaganda”. Given opposition to PREVENT has been categorised by state officials as an example “extremist narratives” (Casey Review), this sets a worrying precedent of co-opting and funding a particular understanding of religion to validate the state in a manner not dissimilar to authoritarian regimes.

Focussing on women in the context of theology, the document also highlights a Leicester-based organisation “STR!VE”, which seems to have exploited female Islamic scholars (Alimas) to serve and promote the PREVENT policy. The document asserts that the project, the contact point of which is Will Baldet, spent £18,565 for two trainers to do ten courses. The project “builds the knowledge and capability of women to respond to extremist propaganda”. It seeks to manipulate Alimas to become the eyes and ears of the state and promote PREVENT “within their study circles that they educate in their homes”. Furthermore, a “web presence” has been developed for women to refer to these PREVENT propagating Alimas any questions they may have.

STR!VE has trained 135 women under the project.

JAN Trust has also been a recipient of PREVENT funding for its “Web Guardians” initiative to tackle online radicalisation. Again, the state is seen here funding the interference of religion, with claims that mothers have discussed “the true meaning of ‘jihad’”.

If the discriminatory utilisation of religion as a soft power tool was not clear from the above, the last section is explicitly dedicated to “faith”, with the following stated aim:

“To build the capacity of the faith sector to recognise and challenge vulnerability to extremist propaganda and activity.”

Every “best practice” example highlighted under this section relates to the Muslim community.

As highlighted in our June 2016 report, “We are completely Independent”, Faith Associates is linked to PREVENT. The leaked document confirms this and also highlights how Faith Associates has been funded to effectively embed and bake PREVENT into the governance structures of mosques and madrassas:

“This project delivered an improved governance structure and madrassah system and enabled the mosque leadership to become more resilient to the threat from extremists as well as being able to manage their services (for young people and women) more effectively.”

Worryingly, despite no legal requirement for madrassas to implement the PREVENT Duty, the Home Office document demonstrates that third-party security contractor firms are already being funded by the state to roll out PREVENT within these religious institutions, despite there being no evidence to link madrassas with terrorism. Faith Associates is listed as one of the organisations carrying out this work. HA9 Consultancy has also delivered a PREVENT project to target madrassa staff under the guise of supporting madrassas, albeit “by raising awareness and facilitating compliance around key areas of concern in particular, Prevent (through WRAP training), safeguarding, discrimination, extremist literature and better governance structures.”

More here

https://cage.ngo/article/towards-a-closed-society-the-worrying-themes-of-the-leaked-osct-prevent-catalogue/

This guy Tariq Ramadan is a kaffir with dodgy aqeeda. I've met him myself and heard it from his mouth

Salaam

Another update.

Terror Watchdog tries to sell failed PREVENT strategy despite not being his remit

In a letter to CAGE in September last year, David Anderson, the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation, told us: “My statutory functions (described on my website) extend only to the review of certain counter-terrorism laws, and not to Prevent.” Despite that, Mr Anderson was quoted in a front page article in the Evening Standard and wrote a glowing review of PREVENT, a clearly failed policy, simply calling for limited “reforms”. This is surprising, as he has continuously maintained up to now that Prevent is outside his remit.

His intervention in favour of the discredited policy, brings into question the impartiality of terrorism reviewers, past and present, and whether they provide any genuine opposition or criticism of counter-terrorism legislation.

By failing to even acknowledge the toxic approach at the heart of PREVENT, which facilitates an unequal two-tier justice system – one for Muslims, another for everybody else – Mr Anderson is not advocating real change, but simply calling for PREVENT to be wrapped up in a different guise.

In a swipe at Muslim organisations who oppose PREVENT, Mr Anderson was quoted as saying that criticisms of the policy were partly the result of “‘exaggerated tales’ promoted by ‘Islamist advocacy groups’”.

This ‘Islamist’ smear is an ad hominem attack reminiscent of neoconservative “think-tanks” that seek to whitewash Prevent and delegitimise community concerns. Like the neoconservative “think-tanks”, Mr Anderson consistently fails to deal with fundamental due process problems with PREVENT.

Furthermore, Mr Anderson’s references to far-right referrals under PREVENT are only intended to dispel what he claims are “rumours about discrimination”. In fact, Muslims represent nearly 70% of all PREVENT referrals and at and a similar percentage of all CHANNEL deradicalisation cases, despite being only 5% of the population.

His shocking claim that far-right extremism is a direct reaction to “Islamist extremism” also puts the blame squarely at the door of Islam, while ignoring British foreign policy’s role in aggravating political violence, as well as the obvious neo-Nazi roots of far-right groups.


Due process violations show PREVENT is rotten to the core

Mr Anderson has also ignored the broader opposition to the PREVENT strategy amongst academics, health practitioners and teachers – presumably because they cannot be disparaged under the ‘Islamist’ label. This opposition can be seen through our widely reported joint statements on PREVENT and ERG22+.

He dismissed examples where PREVENT has violated rights as “exaggerated” despite numerous high profile and well documented cases that demonstrate otherwise. At CAGE we have logged testimonies from hundreds of Muslims who have been denied their due process rights under PREVENT, some of whom have even had their children taken away for choosing not to engage with the policy, as is their right. These case studies illustrate that PREVENT is systemically problematic – from the way it is formulated to the way it is implemented.

Additionally the use of secret evidence gathered under PREVENT – which defendants cannot see or challenge in courts – has now been sanctioned in the Family Courts. This is an issue that should alarm Mr Anderson and any objective analyst or practitioner concerned with justice.

Mr Anderson does not address the relationship between the government’s secretive domestic propaganda unit RICU and PREVENT-funded Muslim organisations, who are paid to influence public opinion, particularly amongst the Muslim community. This form of black propaganda – when false information and material that purports to be from one side but is actually being written by the other – is not even directed at an outside enemy as it was in the Cold War, but it is now being directed at its own citizens.


Honest and genuine engagement is needed now more than ever

Mr Anderson’s support for PREVENT shows that, as the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, he has been too accommodating of government policy. This is compounded by the fact that he appears to have stepped outside of his remit in commenting on PREVENT, creating confusion between his official capacity as a reviewer of terrorism legislation, and his personal position on PREVENT.

Nonetheless, we do agree with Mr Anderson that the government should not view Muslims through a securitised lens and only in the context of counter terrorism, and we encourage genuine debate and discussion around this issue. However, discussions can only involve all stakeholders and must be built on the trust of the community.

Instead, by anchoring his proposals on the back of unjustified attacks on those who engage in legitimate criticism of the PREVENT policy, he further alienates the very community that he says needs to be involved in formulating a strategy that adheres to the basic tenets of a just and free society.

There is no escaping this: PREVENT is a policy that should be abolished altogether in favour of a climate and a commitment to open dialogue and an equal justice system, firmly premised upon due process and the rule of law.

https://cage.ngo/article/terror-watchdog-tries-to-sell-failed-prevent-strategy-despite-not-being-his-remit/

Salaam

This is thoughtful piece from Peter Oborne.

'A soft apartheid towards Muslims is emerging in Britain'

Peter Oborne is an anti-establishment Conservative and is anything but predictable. We talked about his belief that David Cameron's government has constructed a narrative about Islam which distinguishes between 'good' secular Muslims and 'bad' devout ones, leading to a 'soft apartheid' emerging in Britain. We also discussed his surprising views on Jeremy Corbyn's Labour leadership, his explosive resignation from the Daily Telegraph and his views on the UK's foreign policy in Libya, Syria, Saudi Arabia and Israel.

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

Salaam

Another update

Prevent’s exploitation of female Muslim scholars

Quratulayn Haamidah explains how the Prevent strategy is manipulating orthodox female scholars to promote its agenda, while positing next generation reformist Muslims groomed by discredited counter-extremism proponents as the ideal “British Muslim woman”.

I have always found it fascinating to read the various pity pieces about Muslim women, how we need saving from hairy, chest and wife-beating Muslim men; how our hijabs should be ripped off by the illuminated hand of enlightenment rationalism; how we must be leveraged out of sadistic servitude-laden homes and thrust into the civilised world of sexual-harassment-ridden office spaces, subservience to capitalist men, and expectations of success drawn also mainly by men.

The feeling while reading such articles is strangely mixed, like someone handing you a coffee spiked with a particularly strong anaesthetic, and then placing an arm of comfort around you only to slowly slip a knife into your back. You only realise the damage when it goes so deep. Or when the anaesthetic wears off.

Such pieces are usually supplemented by the usual coterie of “Muslim feminists” suffering from severe cognitive dissonance between their strange brew of feminism, and their own exploitation as mouthpieces for Orientalised perspectives on Muslim women. The dissonance increases as they receive money from the government for exploiting women for the problematic countering violent extremism agenda (CVE), better known in the British context as Prevent.

What is going through the already confused, feminism-infused mind? Do they not feel exploited as marionettes for a state policy drafted by machoistic neoconservatives? Is there any pondering and reflection over the moral sterility of co-opting an agenda like Prevent?

Ulama and Prevent

Such questions are many. However, a recent revelation in the context of women and Prevent epitomises the hypocrisy of such groups. While the discussion on the appropriateness of Islamic scholars to get involved with policies like Prevent has been previously discussed, little attention has been given to the subset female Islamic scholars.

Recently, an article published by advocacy group CAGE described the implications of the leaked Home Office-produced “Prevent Strategy – Local Delivery Best Practice Catalogue”. The Home Office document revealed a particularly Machiavellian example of how female Muslim scholars are being exploited to advance the Prevent policy, which predetermines the stifling, “reformist” parameters of discussion set by neo-conservatives, and elements usually hostile towards Islamic orthodoxy and its adherents.

Prevent’s female scholars

The Home Office catalogue shows that a Leicester-based women’s organisation has “trained” 135 Alimas under the Prevent project to become the eyes and ears of the state. The aim of the project has been to abuse the trusted position of female scholars so that they promote Prevent “within their study circles that they educate in their homes”. Furthermore, a “web presence” has been developed for women to ask these indoctrinated scholars any questions they want.

The third-party organisation delivering Prevent to Alimas is called “STR!VE” or “Strive Women”. The organisation has been a vehicle for the Prevent agenda since 2010.

The organisation shows trademark signs which indicate to the “reform Islam” agenda. While the presumably orthodox female scholars provide legitimacy to the organisation among local Muslim women, the question remains, what is the “ideal” Muslim advocated by STR!VE?

A clue can be found in the individuals the website promotes. In one article, it positively references the well-known deformist Dilwar Hussain, who openly works for the Christianisation of Islam. Hussain has also stated that controversial and draconian counter-extremism proposals like closing down mosques on the basis of undefinable “extremism” contain “positive messages” and “important sentiments”.

Another clue is found in STR!VE’s curious promotion of a new class of Muslim leadership.

Grooming the next generation

Touted as London’s “young leader” who is “proud to be a British Muslim woman”, STR!VE introduces Fatima Zaman to its Leicester audience. There is a clear effort to push Zaman as an authoritative voice for Muslims.

So, who is Fatima Zaman?

Raised in Tower Hamlets, Zaman is part of the “Extremely Together” initiative which is run by the Kofi Annan Foundation. The Foundation has facilitated the grooming of ten young people to be the next generation of counter-extremists and Muslim leaders.

“Extremely Together” has been supported by Maajid Nawaz, a self-professed liberal “reformist”, who’s organisation has received funding from far-right groups, and enjoys warm relations with controversial neoconservatives like Douglas Murray.

Nawaz was also listed by the US civil liberties group Southern Poverty Law Centre as an “anti-Muslim extremist”. In a crass, poorly cued, and scripted video promoting the Extremely Together initiative, Nawaz pledges his support to activists like Zaman.

Having been sold as a “#ExtremelyTogether leader”, Zaman spoke at the One Young World Summit 2016 held between September and October. In the introduction to Zaman’s speech, Nawaz says that Zaman “epitomises leadership”, which he believes is needed in the Muslim community. Based on Nawaz’s praises, it is clear Zaman is being groomed to be the future of Muslim leadership, which ensures community responses to injustices against Muslims remain passive and inert.

Associating violence and “extremism” with Islam

It is interesting to note that Zaman paints a picture of Islam and Muslims which mirrors neoconservative hawks currently working for Trump. In her 2016 speech, she told global leaders that Islam, in the context of terrorist attacks, is a “devastating force” (5:50).

In a blog for the Kofi Annan Foundation, she wrote, “Be-they young, old, male or female, modern day extremism has undoubtedly focused on Islam, with Muslims at its core.”

Zaman also explicitly removes problematic foreign policy as a root cause of terrorism.

Exclusion of Muslims and oppression of children

According to Nawaz, Zaman has “rolled out counter-extremism policies and counter-terrorism policies” (3:30). She elaborates her function as having helped develop material to assist the Prevent spying system in schools as part of the “educate against hate” government website (9:00).

Considering she is being promoted as a “successful British Muslim woman” by STR!VE, and the future of Muslim leadership by Nawaz, she noticeably failed to consult a single Muslim community organisation during the development of the government website.

Worryingly, the website suggests that argumentativeness; changes in appearance, and excessive time spent online or on mobile phones might be signs of radicalisation amongst teenagers. With such vague information, it is unsurprising that young Muslim children are experiencing second-class treatment in society, namely in schools: violation of their rights, while being demonised as potential terrorists until proven otherwise.

Female scholars and Prevent

While seemingly manipulating traditional female scholars into becoming Prevent puppets, the ideal “successful British Muslim woman” simultaneously advocated by STR!VE, is one who is groomed by the worst kind of deformists, associates violence with Islam and Muslims on global platforms, formulates and propagates policies which harm the Muslim community, and disregards the community’s legitimate grievances while doing so.

If this is the future of British Muslim women’s leadership, it is a dystopian future indeed!

Female scholars, and scholars in general, must question whether they should allow themselves to be abused by policies such as Prevent, and be linked to organisations like STR!VE.

Do they really wish to act as stepping-stones to a “deformation of Islam”? Do they, as mothers, sisters and daughters wish to propagate Prevent, which is now resulting in Muslim children being taken away from their parents?

As for STR!VE, it should ponder over its affiliations, and perhaps revisit its website content for reflection. In one blog covering conspiracy theories, STR!VE says that people online “might even say that this blog is being written by sinister forces out to brainwash you”. The irony could not more acute.

http://5pillarsuk.com/2017/02/08/pre...slim-scholars/

Salaam

Another update

How Trump’s administration wants to shut down Muslim groups by following the example of Arab regimes

The Muslim Brotherhood Terrorist Designation Act bill, currently sitting at the US Congress, will designate the Muslim Brotherhood (MB), and all its “affiliates”, terrorist organisations.

This is a worrying prospect for Muslim civil society, since these “affiliates” as alleged by far right anti Muslim lobbyists, include mainstream Muslim civil society organisations including the Council on American-Islamic Relations (Cair), the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) and the Muslim Students Association (MSA).

These are organisations which hundreds of thousands of Muslims have come into contact with over the years. The broad reach of the bill prompted Mike Merryman-Lotze from the American Friends Service Committee in Philadelphia to term it the beginning of the “Muslim registry”.

Banning the MB would be a clear sign that the US is following the politically motivated moves by the military regime in Egypt and its political and financial backers, Saudi Arabia and UAE. This is also in line with the despotic Syrian regime, Bahrain and Russia, all of whom have designated the MB as a “terrorist” organisation as of 2015.

An attack on Islam in the public sphere

The Bill follows the same lines as Trump’s Islam-centred Countering Violent Extremism (CVE) initiative, and the UK government’s PREVENT policy, which both criminalise and condemns as ‘extreme’, beliefs that challenge the status quo, that question aggressive Western foreign and domestic policy, and that support efforts to relieve the suffering of Muslims worldwide.

Not only is this a ‘divide and rule’ tactic, but it has strong potential for a kind of societal “mission creep”; the Bill’s broad definitions and targeting of MB “affiliates” can be widened to include other civil society movements, eventually threatening civil society itself.

The Bill represents a further institutional attack on Islam in the public sphere. A recent article by Alex Delmar-Morgan and Peter Oborne in the Middle East Eye revealed just how the use of the labels “extremist” and “terrorist” against charities in the UK are generated by right-wing organisations who then in turn influence the press and government policy here and in the US.

It is abundantly clear that the labels “extremist” and “terrorist” are deliberately abused to smear Muslim led civil society organisations which encourage active and constructive Muslim participation in public life. This constructive activism is clearly opposed by both PREVENT and CVE agendas, which seek a more pliable Islam.

No evidence in targeting the Muslim Brotherhood

Trump is even ignoring the US State Department and Security Services who say there is no evidence to support the notion that the MB is “terrorist”.

But his position could well be influenced by Arab regimes. The influence of Saudi Arabia in broadening the ban of the MB globally has been evident on both sides of the Atlantic. In an article for the Financial Times in 2014, senior UK officials admitted to being put “under huge pressure, as have the Americans, from the Saudis to do something about the Muslim Brotherhood.”

In Britain, a government review of the MB was conducted in 2015 by Sir John Jenkins, ex-UK Ambassador to Riyadh, and Charles Farr, at the time Director General of the Office for Security and Counter Terrorism in the Home Office, and it concluded that “aspects of Muslim Brotherhood ideology and tactics, in this country and overseas, are contrary to our values and have been contrary to our national interests and our national security”.

The report was strongly contradicted by the Foreign Affairs Committee in its own publication. It stated that Saudi Arabia might have had undue influence on the report through Jenkins. This was given added impetus when reports emerged that the review was launched just six weeks after BAE Systems struck a major sales deal with the Saudis and just three weeks after Saudi Arabia designated the Muslim Brotherhood as a ‘terrorist organisation’.

In a U-turn in state policy, the FAC also said that the MB was in fact a “firewall” against “extremism”, and, like similar political Islamic organisations, “a vehicle through which a significant element of citizens can and should be able to address their grievances”.

A world of increasing “extremes” is dangerous

Finally, we must also not lose sight of the aims at the heart of the Trump government, which is essentially giving the green light to right-wing nationalist movements while honing its sights on Islam. Nothing could be more evidence of this than the statements of Trump’s advisor Steve Bannon of the necessity for the West to ensure that Islam is “kept out of the world”.

This hints at a deeper malaise in Western society: the tendency to see Islam and Muslims as “other”, and a corresponding attempt to control and refine a way of life with which it refuses to engage meaningfully, preferring to rely on fear and bullying.

Instead of reading groups like the MB and other Muslim organisations within their context and with all their complexities, the West rather seeks to forcefully impose its own interpretations and worldview on them. This is a violent approach that will result in a more divided world.

https://cage.ngo/article/how-trumps-administration-wants-to-shut-down-muslim-groups-by-following-the-example-of-arab-regimes/

Salaam

CVE has always been about targeting Islam and so has PREVENT

Trump’s move to exclude violent far-right groups from the US Countering Violent Extremism programmes shows them for what they have always been: a tool to target Islam and ‘reform’ it into something palatable to the state. This emboldens the far-right and contributes to a sense that Muslims are a threat to society. Trump’s moves should come as no surprise however; Britain’s counter-terrorism strategies have also honed in on Islam specifically, despite claims to the contrary.

Only four days after the deadly and cowardly attack by a far right supporter on a Canadian mosque, Trump announced that he would be excluding right-wing extremism from the government’s “Countering Violent Extremism” (CVE) programmes. The programmes – which involve securitising communities using the same methods as PREVENT – would instead focus, solely on Islam.

CAGE has always stated that CVE aims to bring about a ‘reformed’ Islam palatable to Western governments, one which does not question their discriminatory domestic legislation against Muslims nor their aggressive foreign policy.

PREVENT pundits the world over have insisted that CVE programmes are not just about Islam. CVE advocates have criticised those who oppose the policy as fermenting “victimhood” and a “false sense of grievance “, however the recent revelations of the most powerful adviser to Trump are extremely insightful.

According to reports, Trump’s advisor Steve Bannon said in July 2014 during a Skype interview to the Vatican, that the Judeo-Christian West is “at the beginning stages of a global war against Islamic fascism” and that the West should respond by taking “a very, very, very aggressive stance against radical Islam”. (“Fascism” and “radical” here are interpreted according to the views of his Islamophobic government.) Bannon also said he believed that Islam needs to be “kept out of the world”.

Attempts to whitewash CVE and PREVENT by adding neo-Nazi fascism as one of its targets is now no longer possible. PREVENT and CVE even by their statistics remain primarily focussed on Muslims and now will be even more so.

Trump’s strong arm rule is a reflection of an attitude born from over a decade-long attrition of the principles of the rule of law and due process under the auspices of neoconservatives.

CVE/PREVENT approaches are premised upon neoconservative assumptions and shaped by neoconservative think-tanks. The Trump administration’s explicit discriminatory targeting of Islam and Muslims within the discourse of counter-terrorism is a policy which has also been encouraged by neoconservatives like Michael Ledeen and Frank Gaffney.

British counter-extremism initiatives are all about Islam too

Trump’s position should come as no surprise. A closer look at David Cameron’s comments preceding Britain’s Counter-Extremism Strategy document released in October 2015, on which the British government’s current approach is built, shows how counter-extremism has always had Islam as its focus.

In the forward to the document, Cameron outlined the government’s intention to intervene into almost every part of Muslim public and private life, and into their minds and hearts as well.

“We know that terrorism is really a symptom; ideology is the root cause,” he wrote, despite presenting no evidence to justify this statement. Since then, government ‘studies’ to back-up this sentiment have been largely discredited due to their lack of scientific basis.

Academics involved in the ‘studies’ themselves even called out the government for leaving out political grievances as a factor that contributes to political violence.

Nonetheless, the government has rushed headlong along this trajectory, denying or side-stepping the political roots of violence, and instead pouring millions into ‘hearts and minds’ propaganda directed at Muslims and bring about a state sanctioned Islam, while continuing with its aggressive foreign and domestic policies that feed many of these grievances.

This is also replicating itself all over the world through UN-administered counter-terrorism legislation and the global CVE initiative, backed by, among others, Tony Blair. Now given impetus by Bannon and Trump, the CVE agenda is set to hone in on its intended target, the practice of Islam, despite the protests of liberal commentators.

PREVENT, a failing policy designed to criminalise Muslims?

Recently, Central Bedfordshire council was compelled to apologise and pay damages after racially discriminating against two boys of Asian descent, who were reported to PREVENT by teachers at their school. This, after one boy told his teacher he had been given a toy gun as a present.

What makes this case exceptional is that the council apologised and agreed to pay damages so readily. Perhaps this was because the boy’s family were Hindu; no such apologies and damages have been as forthcoming when similar cases of PREVENT over-reporting involve Muslim children.

Such high incidence of over-reporting of Muslims, can only be due to the Islamophobic bent inherent in the PREVENT strategy itself – and CAGE has written numerous reports featuring many case studies that attest to this and to its effect on Muslims and its potential to be expanded to broader society.

Islamophobic approaches must end if we are to find peace

Targeting Islam and trying to ‘reform’ it into something palatable to the towers of power, through counter-terrorism strategies such as CVE under Trump and Britain’s failing PREVENT, embolden the far right and create a corresponding sense of threat among Muslims.

These policies – which represent a kind of thought and behavioural control experiment – will drive society further apart. Is it now time for us to acknowledge this.

It is also time for those who participated in the orchestrated campaign of disinformation about those who dissent against PREVENT and CVE, to accept they were wrong and understand the dangerous implications of these policies for us all.

https://cage.ngo/article/cve-has-always-been-about-targeting-islam-and-so-has-prevent/

Salaam

Another update

When PREVENT officers came knocking on my door

‘Musa’, a regular student, was approached by PREVENT officers for deradicalisation, but was never given any explanation. This is his story of how on one day, PREVENT officers came knocking on his door. You can read his interview here, or watch this short film where he recalls his story.

I am not really sure when I first came into contact with PREVENT or came to the attention of the security services.

In school I remember we had a discussion in religious studies class. One of the pupils asked how come I have all the answers, and after that a teacher, a Muslim teacher, jokingly said if I carried on like that he’d call Mi5. I also gave a khutba at school, and one of the teachers warned me not to give khutba anymore. I then thought they had their eyes on me. It was a surprise to me that It wasn’t my teachers, but my doctor who tried to question me.

This happened when I was 17. I went to the doctor and he was very, very friendly. He met me at the door and held it open and everything. I was so surprised. He started to ask me what college I was at and so on, all these innocent questions. Then he started taking my blood pressure, and he asked me about my political opinions. Being young, I just stayed quiet. Then I said “What do you mean?”

He replied: “Oh nothing. Are you left wing or right wing?”

Then I got a bit anxious and I asked him: “Why, are you right wing?”

He said “No, no, I’m not right wing.”

When I got home I saw articles about PREVENT operating in the NHS buildings. I thought the incident could be linked so I wrote up a post on Facebook talking about what happened that day. It gained a lot of traction and I feared that it may become out of hand and cause alarm to too many people, so I removed it. Then I got a call from a friend and I told him what happened, and he said: “That’s PREVENT.”

Even then I didn’t believe him. He explained to me that I should talk about it so more people would know about what was happening. If I didn’t speak, young Muslims might find themselves in a similar situation and they might say something like they were depressed at what was happening in Syria, and then they would end up getting referred.

This first encounter didn’t really have that big of an effect on me.

The following year at college was 2015 and the CTS Act came into law. Most universities and human rights groups did a campaign against it. I led a campaign at my college. One of the PREVENT officers was supposed to come in and do PREVENT training for staff at my college, but many teachers were uncomfortable about him coming in. When we asked Muslim members of staff why they did not raise complaints, they told us they were too scared to. Even non-Muslim students regarded the PREVENT trainer as an Islamophobe.

I, along with other students, put a petition together against him. After that, he couldn’t come and his training was cancelled. But then our event on Islamophobia was cancelled – we think it was PREVENT getting their own back on us.

I’m not sure if it was the charity work I do, or the campaigning, but shortly after that I woke up in the morning, on a Friday at about 8.45am, and the police were outside my house. This was 2016.

My mom got a fright. I thought it was a case of mistaken identity. So I went down the stairs. My dad said, “Don’t let them in!”

When I opened the door, there were two normally dressed people standing there, and they asked to come inside to have a chat. I said no. They asked three times. They said I was not in trouble, so I said let’s talk outside then. They said they didn’t want the neighbours to hear. They said because you’re 18 your parents don’t have to hear this. So I stepped outside and as soon as I closed the door, they said they were counter-terrorism police from the Channel programme.

Immediately, I turned round and rang the doorbell. I think they were happy because they thought I was going to ask them in, but I didn’t. Instead, my dad answered the door, and the police started saying to him they were concerned about me, that they really wanted me to join the Channel programme. He told them to back off, and so did I. I said I didn’t want to join their programme.

That whole day, my heart was pounding. I didn’t know if I should tell anyone, what I should say. I stopped walking to mosque for fajr. I got a bit paranoid. Every single time I went home I was looking over my shoulder. Whenever I was out and I heard police sirens, I got worried that they were going to stop and cause a big scene. This happens even now.

I told a few friends. I told my Quran teacher, who advised me to tell as many people as I could, so that’s what I did. But there were some that I didn’t tell. The thing is when you tell people it leaves a stain on them. And in the community, if you want to help someone out, or carry the message of Islam, if you’ve been in touch with the counter-terrorism police, it doesn’t feel good to the people you are trying to help.

I changed my name on social media. I continued with my activism but I was more subtle, a bit smarter with my words.

There was a third incident. After college I left and got a job. I was turning 19 and I thought that the whole thing was over. You get on with your life. But when I was working at a school, I got a call on my mobile. I have no idea how they got my mobile number as my number is not linked to my name.

A police officer asked me to come into the police station. He said they respected my views about not wanting to be a part of Channel, but after I asked them why I should come in, they said they wanted to talk to me about safeguarding in the area. They persisted and said I should come in and help them regarding preventing children from being drawn into radicalisation in the local area.

After that, I was so angry. My manager was looking at me, and she asked if I was okay. I just felt so messed up. I thought: Why? It’s going to continue.

I am more vocal now. I always pass things through my dad. My mom and dad are understanding. They have always been politically aware. They know everything. So my mom is alright. She’s strong. My dad’s okay. The rest of my family don’t really know. It’s a big deal for people when it involves the counter-terrorism police.

After these incidents, I consulted CAGE and the brother here said he had similar cases and that it sounded like they were trying to recruit me.

Now, I don’t know what’s going to happen. I have a feeling that something is going to happen. I’m 20 now and it’s been a year since my last contact with them. After I spoke to CAGE, they told me what I could do, that I could put a complaint in against the police. After that, I knew where I stood and things became clear. If anything happens, I talk to CAGE and they explain how to best deal with the situation.

If I were to advise other people going through the same thing I would tell them that if you think they are trying to silence you, don’t let them win. Carry on being vocal. They are going to do this on a mass scale, to organisations and individuals, to scare them and silence them. But if we give in to their intimidation, they’ve won.

You should consult people, consult your parents and speak to people like CAGE and make sure the case is documented somewhere. Now CAGE has my whole case recorded and written down.

Looking back I don’t find my story that crazy or as damaging as others. There are so many stories now. But the best thing to do is don’t keep it secret. Don’t keep it hidden.

https://cage.ngo/article/when-prevent-officers-came-knocking-on-my-door/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wP-K0VjqPr0

Salaam

Another update

Muslim women at the frontline once again

Written by Karen Jayes

The Muslim woman, in wearing the headscarf, is the most visual representation of Islam in western societies. Because of this, in the wake of violent incidents such as that which occurred at Westminster, she is in the first line of any Islamophobic backlash that inevitably ensues.

Equally Muslim women are thrust to the fore by the authorities in the fight against ‘extremism’. It seems Muslim women cannot escape the scrutiny and politicisation of their dress, which has only been exacerbated by the latest Hijab Ban.

The decision by the European Court of Justice to allow companies to ban the Muslim headscarf at their discretion is the next step along a continuum of discrimination and criminalisation of Muslims that began with counter terrorism laws and moved on to CVE policies and PREVENT.

This next step means criminalising Muslim women, who are increasingly seen as the ‘vehicles’ through which the state plans to tackle ‘extremism’. It is the Muslim woman’s ‘heart and mind’ that is now the counter-terrorism frontline.

This is not a surprising development given the unending global War on Terror, which has for decades institutionalised and enshrined Islamophobia in law through the demonisation of Islam.

We can confront the roots of Islamophobia and discrimination as we are individually able to. But we do not have to stand alone.

A counter-productive bullying tactic

Firstly, employees who are free to express their identity – be it in the form of a hijab, turban or kippah – are more committed and engaged employees. Those who feel censored or “different” are more likely to have poor experiences at work, which in turn affects productivity.

There are also countless of Muslim women in leadership and other roles who perform their tasks – especially managerial and client service roles – with even more effort simply because they wear a hijab and are aware that, in the current environment, they are important ambassadors for Islam.

But it is clear that productivity is not the concern here. If it was, such a counter-productive decision would not have been made.

Rather, the concern here is with normalising discrimination.

The decision – made by a non-Muslim group of mostly white men – is a cowardly, act with broad implications for society. It therefore demands a considered and united response.

The court absolves itself and companies become the arbiters of rights

Covering is in line with Allah’s command in the Qu’ran. It is an Islamic duty according to the majority of Muslims. The judges, by this decision, have intruded upon the personal and intimate spiritual affairs of Muslim women.

The ruling is a legalisation of discrimination that will primarily affect Muslim women but rather than coming out and admitting this, the court has conveniently passed the decision whether to ban the hijab or not, over to the boards of companies.

In doing so, the justice system is washing its hands of their responsibility to protect citizens’ rights to express their faith. Rather, the court has chosen to give further ascendance to the world of capital as the arbiter of rights.

This crucial point, which has broad implications for society, has been missed. But it has put Muslim women at the frontline in protecting and fighting not only for our Islamic identity, but also for a fair society.

A symbol of resistance and strength

It is unfortunate that Muslim women are being pressured into choosing between their right to wear what they want and their right to work. There are solutions, but they demand courage and innovation.

Muslim women must continue to wear their scarves and raise their voice in other creative ways to rally support in the workplace and beyond, and use this as a chance resist and fight back against state abuse, challenge and change perceptions of Islam, or hold Islamophobic practices up for ridicule.

This is what it means to be on the frontline.

Through our courage, the headscarf can take on an agency beyond what it is holds currently. Far from the misrepresentation of it being perceived as a symbol of subjugation, it will become a powerful symbol of resistance.

https://cage.ngo/article/muslim-wome...ne-once-again/

Salaam

Another update

Dr Yasir Qadhi slams British press for latest slanderous accusations against him

Prominent American scholar, Dr Yasir Qadhi, has slammed the British press for their recent attacks accusing him of homophobia and advocating violence against non-Muslims.

The following status was posted on Dr Qadhi’s official Facebook page:

“A number of prominent British newspapers and magazines are attempting to smear my reputation before my visit there next week (primarily to raise funds for children in East Africa).

To show you how vile some reporters are, and how clear of an agenda they have, the main reporter actually emailed me two weeks ago, with selective quotations from my lectures that attempted to make me appear as a terrorist. Some of these ‘radical quotations’ were simply verses and hadith, translated (and if you don’t have commentary or context, it’s easy to misuse such Sacred Texts). Others were quotations from my Seerah lectures, in which I mention the historical battles of the Prophet’s (SAW) era and praise some aspects of them.

When I replied to each and every one of these allegations, and pointed out that the real terrorists out there have actually called for my assassination, the reporter simply dismissed those allegations and moved on to find others.

And what did they find? That I claim that Islam teaches that same-sex relations are not morally correct, and unhealthy from a spiritual perspective. That much is true – but they then add the outright lie and shear slander that I preach violence against people whom we ethically disagree with. This is a bold lie, as this video made last year explicitly mentions.

These people shall never be content with us until we leave our faith for their sake. Rather than leave our faith, we choose to leave them to their ways, and put our trust in our Creator, and continue to preach the truth.

Their agenda is clear: to make each and every mainstream Muslim appear as a radical hard-liner.

Our response will be to say what needs to be said, with wisdom and beautiful preaching. If they lie about us, we respond with truth; when they smear, we pray that Allah guides them; when they slander, we forgive.

PS. Once in a while, we’ll choose not to forgive, and sue the pants off of them for libel so that they learn their lesson.

But yes, the default is indeed forgiveness…”

http://5pillarsuk.com/2017/04/11/dr-yasir-qadhi-slams-british-press-for-latest-slanderous-accusations-against-him/

Salaam

Another update

[Webinar] 14 Ways To Resist and Build Unity in Hard Times

We are living in an age where the security state is becoming more dominant over our everyday lives, and where counter-terrorism legislation threatens our rights, charities and privacy. But there is still a lot Muslims and their organisations can do to resist oppression and build unity within the community. We’ve taken Timothy Snyder’s ‘On Tyranny: Twenty Lessons from the Twentieth Century’ as a rough guide and added some steps of our own:

Believe in the Truth:
Never let go of the truth that Allah is in complete control. When times get tough, hold this close to your heart. Use this as the basis for all your actions.

Inform yourself and others:
Don’t accept manipulations of the truth. Inform yourself with a wide range of alternative, objective news that quotes real, named sources from non-partisan organisations.

Resist the crowd:
In the face of oppression, people often anticipate what the state wants and they do it without even being asked to. Don’t be one of these people. Question authority fearlessly and stay true to your principles.

Support charities and institutions:
Lend your support, voluntary or otherwise, to a group or institution whose aims and ethics contribute to a robust civil society. There is strength in numbers.

Do not use or buy into the language of oppression:
Watch out for loaded terms such as “terrorism”, “radicalisation” and “extremism”. Reclaim language for yourself and others. If you have to use such terms, mention the wider context and qualify your use of them.

Don’t be afraid to set an example:
Standing out from the crowd can be scary, but once you do it a few times, you get used to it. If you’re speaking truth, people will follow. Courage is contagious.

Talk to people:
Technology is not enough to keep you connected. Nothing beats face-to-face time with like-minded people. Make new friends. Follow up. It is crucial for forging unity.

Investigate events and broaden your knowledge:
Invest your time in good investigative journalism (yes, those long articles). Read books that provide a critical world view like:
– ‘On Tyranny: Twenty Lessons for the Twentieth Century’ by Timothy Snyder
– ‘Misunderstanding Terrorism’ by Marc Sageman
– ‘Trauma and Recovery: The Aftermath of Violence – From Domestic Abuse to Political Terror’ by Judith Herman
– ‘Orientalism: Western Conceptions of the Orient’ by Edward Said
– ‘Drone Theory’ by Gregoire Chamayou

Protect yourself:
Encrypt your devices. Keep your private life private. Minimise interactions online. Have important meetings in person with your phone switched off or even left at home.

Find common ground:
Interact with others that disagree with you and try to find where you can work together. Oppressors love it when “their subjects” fight with each other; it keeps them strong. Resist the urge to argue over small things. Find middle ground. Practice

healthy debate.
Work outside the common constraints:
Power attempts to place you within a pre-set framework of known constraints and outcomes. You must break the mould and work to find alternative solutions outside these frames. Be creative in your activism.

Be resilient:
Working against oppression will entail taking risks. You will make mistakes, and you will be targeted by the media and politicians. You must be resilient, uncompromising over the rights of your community and overall patient and dignified. Change happens with time.

Be calm in the wake of an act of violence:
Wait for the truth to emerge. Remember acts like these are often used to divide communities and introduce more oppressive laws and policies. You don’t want to be complicit in that.

Be resourceful
In confronting oppression and tyranny you will be less resourced and will be locked out of the public space. You must be resourceful in breaking this blockade and maximising your efficiency.

https://cage.ngo/article/webinar-14-ways-to-resist-and-build-unity-in-hard-times/

Salaam

Informative lecture.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kOaoJg7mGHY

Salaam

Another update

CAGE director in legal battle to protect crucial evidence in torture case

London – Yesterday, the Guardian and the Middle East Eye reported on Muhammad Rabbani’s legal battle to protect crucial evidence in a torture case. CAGE have launched a campaign to highlight this.

Mr. Rabbani was arrested at Heathrow in November and will report to police on Wednesday to face a possible charge. Mr. Rabbani has never been accused or suspected of any crime but police are pursuing charges against him despite him citing client confidentiality as the reason for him not handing over his passwords.

Muhammad Rabbani, International Director for CAGE, said:

“This entire episode boils down to one thing: a password. I’m facing prison due to the existence of a power that has been operating at the UK borders for 17 years now. Using this power, officers can compel a person to surrender their passwords without cause and there’s also no right to remain silent. There is nothing like this anywhere in the Western world.”

“It was a split second decision for me. Lawyers, journalists, teachers and others who are employed to serve members of the public can all be stopped and demanded to do the same. They can be coerced into passing over private information on their clients and beneficiaries without being suspected of wrongdoing. I really do think that any professional faced with the same dilemma would do all that they could to protect their clients’ private and personal information.”

Gareth Peirce, senior partner at Birnberg Peirce and Partners, said:

“Schedule 7 is an enormous blunderbuss that is over-used and the consequence of its overuse is that it is abusive. It affects almost every Muslim in ever-increasing numbers who contemplates travelling. It is not just the sheer number of Muslims stopped but that the same people are stopped repeatedly. Once on the system, you are flagged up for life.”

Ibrahim Mohamoud, spokesperson for CAGE, said:

“Statistics show that Schedule 7 stops amount to racial profiling, with 88.4% detained coming from an ethnic minority background. Only 5 people were arrested out of roughly 20,000 that were stopped last year. Clearly, huge numbers of innocent people are being interrogated and their data confiscated from them. Where is all this data being stored? With whom is it being shared? How does one remove themselves from these databases? These are some of the wider questions that Mr Rabbani wishes to raise.”

“Governments should not interfere in the work of human rights defenders, especially those investigating international law violations such as torture. The arrest of Mr Rabbani in this instance and the confiscation of his devices have significantly affected the course of an ongoing and live investigation into torture complicity by a UK ally. We are unable to make any further comment on this currently.”

https://cage.ngo/press-release/cage-director-in-legal-battle-to-protect-crucial-evidence-in-torture-case/

Salaam

Brother Muhammad Rabbani has been on the news

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

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fAIRJO6wLR8

A lecture on the subject

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K65EdrhfF98