More on the Quilliam Foundation


by Sunny
25th April, 2008 at 6:01 am    

In many ways, the launch of QF reminds me of the reception that my own initiative, New Generation Network, and then Independent Jewish Voices got. There are entrenched interests and people hate the consensus being shaken up.

What riles Muslims here is that Ed Husain goes on TV and openly talks about Muslims being seduced by extremist ideology and becoming terrorists. Its easy to ignore or criticise someone like Melanie Phillips when she does it. Ed adds credibility to the argument that there are active terror cells in this country looking to recruit, brainwash and persuade more Muslims to blow themselves up. He does go overboard in blaming Muslims and ‘liberals’, but the fact that he says it really riles fellow Muslims.

Are they in denial? Yes and no.

No, because most Muslims they interact with and know (and this applies to me) may be angry at government hypocrisy and foreign policy but they’d never blow themselves up and have little sympathy for al-Qaeda. They’re simply extrapolating from the community they know and see.

But there’s also an element of denial because there are active terror cells who are trying to organise themselves. They may be incredibly incompetent, like the boys who wanted to blow up the planes in the sky, but they were kind enough to make videos telling us that they were at war with all non-Muslims.

These kind of people aren’t easily persuaded by the MCB or MAB types because they denounce them as turncoats anyway. Even al-Muhajiroun and Anjem Choudhury hates and denounces the MCB all the time, despite their grass-roots links. So who is going to convince them and the more radicalised kids?

An anti-terrorism strategy
So this brings me to my main point. There is little in the way of a coherent anti-terrorism strategy. There are groups like Radical Middle Way doing their roadshows, and there are other attempts to fund local community groups in the hope this will somehow dissuade young Muslims becoming radical, but its not any targetted or measured in any meaningful way. That is what’s lacking here – a very specifically targetted anti-terrorism strategy that is British Muslim driven.

The MCB cannot be part of it because their line is that Iraq is to blame and once we pull out everything will be fine. Obviously, that’s not the case. What has the MCB done on this over the past years? Nothing.

Zia Sardar’s article
Zia and I agree on most things but I didn’t agree with the basic jist of his article.

Maajid Nawaz has written a reply in today’s Guardian which points out some inconsistencies:

It is amazing that the foundation, which includes advisers such as Paddy Ashdown, Sheikh BaBikr Ahmed BaBikr, the Rev Giles Fraser, Catherine Fieschi and Professor Timothy Garton Ash, can be reduced to “neocon ex-extremists”. Sardar goes even further: Sheikh Abdul Aziz al-Bukhari, a great man of peace who spoke at our launch, is described as a “neocon Sufi” despite his dedication to campaigning for cooperation between Palestinians and Israelis and his anti-war message. I wonder whether Sardar would describe his friend Dr Ghayasuddin Siddiqui, another adviser, as a neocon?

The word neocon really is being abused by Zia here. Soon people will be calling me a neocon as well. Catherine Fieschi, one of the advisors, is about as far as you can get from being a neocon. She is a fantastic thinker and definitely on the left. Ed Husain, for all his initial mistake that we should ban HuT, isn’t a neocon either. He opposed the war in Iraq and still does. He signed the letter against extending 42 days detention without hesitation. He’s not a fan of the Bush administration. How did he become a neocon ex-extremist?

The question
There’s no doubt that Muslims are angry about the war in Iraq. But the question no one wants to address is: How did someone angry about the war (most Muslims, and myself included) go from being angry to blowing themselves up?

That’s not an issue about poverty. That is down to brainwashing and using the religious texts to convince someone they’re doing the right thing by strapping on a bomb. If the MCB and their ilk can’t do anything to change that then we need someone new to step up.

Grassroots support
The criticism that QF have little grassroots support is irrelevant. Neither do the MCB – their affiliates do. The Quilliam Foundation is specifically focused on anti-terrorism, not “representing British Muslims” – this is an important distinction to understand. In effect, all it has to do is come up with some good and much-needed ideas, get government funding to go into that direction, and hopefully see an impact. That will be good for Muslims and non-Muslims.

When NGN and IJV launched, we didn’t necessarily need grass-roots support. That requires a ton of money and investment. What’s needed in some cases is a strong argument, compelling ideas and the start of an intellectual movement. That alone can shift the consensus.

NGN and IJV both shifted the consensus by the force of our arguments alone. Now, no one argues for community leaders. Its become a dirty word. For that to happen, people needed to speak out.

If the QF can help re-direct the ton of govt money that is sloshing around into something more productive in dealing with terrorism, it will have done its job. (Note: I’m not saying all the money going into combating extremism is crap, but I’m worried a significant proportion is being wasted on silly projects and I’ve heard enough bad examples). The amount of controversy it has raised simply signals to non-Muslims that Muslims don’t actually want to sort out terrorism.


              Post to del.icio.us


Filed in: Muslim,Organisations,Terrorism






131 Comments below   |  

Reactions: Twitter, blogs


  1. Random Guy — on 25th April, 2008 at 9:29 am  

    Sunny, you are asking the wrong question. I think the right question is: if the UK and US were not committing mass murder in the Middle East, would there still be the threat of terrorism? If the UK and US had not had aggressive or tacit military intervention in the ME and Central Asia over the last century – with oil as the motivator – would the threat of terrorism be so great?

    The way you phrase your question is pretty much providing tacit support towards illegal and horrible actions commited by the UK and US. How would you feel if it was your family in the firing line?

    And thanks for clearing up that the QF actually is not supposed to be representing British Muslims, but rather has its own agenda on Anti-Terror, an agenda which may or may not be independent from/consistent with maintaining the current status quo in the world – especially in terms of shifting the majority of the blame onto the fabled ‘Islamist ideology’ that all Muslims are apparently susceptible to.

    Whether or not you see this response as part of your problem or the solution is neither here nor there, but mark my words, if the FP issue is not addressed then there will always be people willing to cause bloodshed – in what they see as retaliation – in the West.

  2. Random Guy — on 25th April, 2008 at 9:30 am  

    And before the inevitable flaming begins, let me just say that the above is my opinion and I have no wish of derailing this thread. So make of that what you will.

  3. Sid — on 25th April, 2008 at 10:28 am  

    Excellent write up Sunny. I didn’t go to the QF so I don’t know how exactly they see their function but I feel you’re giving them too much of an easy ride, a panglossian view, if you like.

    If the QF has only been created to answer the question: “How did someone angry about the war (most Muslims, and myself included) go from being angry to blowing themselves up” – then that is indeed a specialist area that perhaps only ex-Jihadis can answer because I certainly don’t know why kids from Beeston and Tower Hamlets would want to do that.

    But there are other questions which also exist, big time, such as:
    What are the mechanics that are going to be put in place in the UK to enable Ijtihad to answer questions for the entire Muslim world:
    1) How can we make legislative law be paramount to sharia law?
    2) What are the mechanics we can put in place to allow Ijtihad to bring family and inheritance law in line with legislative law?
    3) How can we make inclusive secular cultural identity more attractive and more important than exclusive religion identity?
    4) Where are the pro–secular and pro-democratic Islamic scholars?
    5) When are we going to see a formal fatwa (religious editc) against the terrorism and Jihadism?

    I would like the QF to cover these too. What do you think?

  4. Sid — on 25th April, 2008 at 10:31 am  

    oops apologies to HTML god. that </strong> should be after “Muslim world.”

  5. Rumbold — on 25th April, 2008 at 10:35 am  

    Sid:

    “Oops apologies to HTML god. that should be after “Muslim world.””

    You are forgiven my child.

  6. Sid — on 25th April, 2008 at 10:39 am  

    no one ever blew themselves up for you, HTML god.

  7. Leon — on 25th April, 2008 at 11:01 am  

    Sid makes some excellent points although I don’t think Sunny is being panglossian (new word for me that).

    I think he sees opportunity with QF and is being positive/optimistic because of the possibility of opening up the debate on matters like this.

  8. Will Jones — on 25th April, 2008 at 11:32 am  

    The Muslims community in the UK are quite conservative in their views, even if not in their individual practice. Even a nightclubbing Muslim will not refer to another nightclubber for spiritual guidance or take anything they say from theology seriously.

    No youth, radicalised or otherwise, is going to listen to someone selling themselves as an authority on Islam when they get up to this -

    http://www.quilliamexposed.blogspot.com

    Though the antics may seem harmless – this is from someone whose selling point is supposedly strength in theology.

    Anyway – I am sure time will show the effectiveness, or lack of, this group.

  9. Rumbold — on 25th April, 2008 at 12:31 pm  

    That’s what you think Sid.

  10. AsifB — on 25th April, 2008 at 12:50 pm  

    A tiny cross cultural group of enthusiasts in Liverpool has been trying for years to get funds to restore Qulliam’s mosque. Just as they’re making headway with the National Heritage and Lotterry funds, along comes a far bigger foundation appropriating Qulliam’s name.

    Sid – I’m not totally up to date but I think there are some interesting legal cases in Bangladesh which would answer your questions : eg; the Supreme Court saying a constitutional right to livelihood exists to protect sex workers from having their brothels broken up by vigilantes

    Sunny-While I agree Zia Sardar bandied around the word neocon’ too freely in his commentary , the gist of his article is important – there are plenty of Muslims around the world who were not and never have been close to being brainwashed by HT :If Ed Hussain was daft enough to be brainwashed when he was in his early 20s, why should everyone else listen to him now that he’s decided to rejoin the rest of humanity?

    It’s kind of offfensive to those Muslims who have been living peacefully in the UK’s secular democracy for years that such a small self regarding clique should be getting so much attention.

    Anyhoo – good luck to them, it beats getting a real job

    On related thread, I agree BMSD have got a really lousy concw

  11. AsifB — on 25th April, 2008 at 12:52 pm  

    ps: my unrelated last line on related thread should read BMSD have lousy concept and name open to mockery

  12. douglas clark — on 25th April, 2008 at 1:00 pm  

    AsifB @ 11,

    I expect their biggest Google hits will be from dyslexic masochists!

  13. Sid — on 25th April, 2008 at 1:17 pm  

    AsifB, yes you’re right.


    “We are not against women’s rights, but it has to be according to the guidelines of Islam,” said Mohammad Ismail, a protester. “The draft that the government prepared is totally anti-Islamic. We will not allow it to be passed,” said another protester Kawser Ahmed.

    Several other groups joined the protests, including the Ahkame Sharia Hefazat Committee, backed by the country’s biggest Islamic party, Jamaat-e-Islami. Activists carried banners such as “Islami Law Implementation Committee” and “Committee for Prevention of Anti-Koranic laws.” Bangladesh follows a secular constitution although the state religion is Islam.

  14. The Common Humanist — on 25th April, 2008 at 1:43 pm  

    “We are not against women’s rights, but it has to be according to the guidelines of Islam,”

    Ergo, they are against almost all women’s rights?

  15. sonia — on 25th April, 2008 at 2:37 pm  

    thanks for that link Sid. my dad was telling me about it when i spoke to him last weekend – shocking!

    and good points in no. 3

  16. Sunny — on 25th April, 2008 at 2:39 pm  

    Random Guy you say:
    I think the right question is: if the UK and US were not committing mass murder in the Middle East, would there still be the threat of terrorism?

    Well, there was 9/11 and the resulting invasion of Afghanistan, which had flared up a confrontation anyway. So I’d probably say yes that some sort of terrorism was going to happen, whether that be British Muslims blowing themselves up in the UK or in Israel or Afghanistan.

    Regardless of Iraq there was an issue that British Muslims are now having to confront: their identity, their relationship to the state, the theological underpinning to violent jihad against innocents, their view of al-Qaeda etc. Hizb ut Tahrir were around and so were al-Muhajiroun and the one thing both these extremist groups strive on is confrontation and polarisation. I know that from my personal experiences too.

    So, without Iraq and without 7/7, we would have just seen these arguments play out over a much longer time. 7/7 accelerated that clash and the identity question. I think that’s worth taking into account.

    If I was a liberal Muslim I’d think (and I do as a liberal Sikh (of sorts) anyway) that 7/7 forced out questions that would have otherwise been buried and they were important questions.

    But without the framework that HuT and al-Muhajiroun etc laid out before 7/7, it would never have happened. Otherwise almost every British Muslim would have been blowing himself up right now.

  17. Sunny — on 25th April, 2008 at 2:44 pm  

    there are plenty of Muslims around the world who were not and never have been close to being brainwashed by HT :If Ed Hussain was daft enough to be brainwashed when he was in his early 20s, why should everyone else listen to him now that he’s decided to rejoin the rest of humanity?

    Agreed, but then why throw so much vitriol on an org which simply wants to add to the existing number of people challenging extremism? If they fail then that would be a shame but we don’t lose anything by it. The govt has already funded lots of stuff already, the Radical Middle Way is an example. They also funded the MCB with various “grants” for years remember? Where did that get up other than Inayat Bunglwala’s inflated ego?

  18. sonia — on 25th April, 2008 at 3:08 pm  

    “”“We are not against women’s rights, but it has to be according to the guidelines of Islam,””

    i.e. in this case, they will recognise a woman’s rights to inheritance, but not have that right equate to what right a MAN has.

    so as long as its less than what the man gets – its fine. can’t be equal.. so when people talk about women’s rights under islam, that’s why these fellows can say but of course we aren’t against women’s rights. they of course dont say that they are against giving women the same rights as men.

  19. AsifB — on 25th April, 2008 at 3:14 pm  

    Calling someone daft,(re:10) but wishing them good luck cos “it beats getting a real job” is quasi-envy, not vitriol.

    Re: 17, on principle, I do not want the govt funding any ‘community group’s to ‘represent’ me.

    Here’s a thought for the weekend – Arguably the MCB allows for trustee elections in a more open manner than the cliquey way in which QF, BMSD and for that matter CityCircle operate – BUT – a) only particular types of public religosity are able to nominate themsleves and b) as plenty of Picklers including me have often pointed out, MCB has done enourmous damage by allowing ‘those that do not like or are tending to go off their browner/Muslim neighbours’ to paint all British Muslims in a reactionary light.

  20. sonia — on 25th April, 2008 at 3:14 pm  

    “If Ed Hussain was daft enough to be brainwashed when he was in his early 20s, why should everyone else listen to him now that he’s decided to rejoin the rest of humanity?”

    well it ain’t about him in himself is it, its the same thing about drug addict turned rehab person’s story and example. similarly if you set up an ex-drug addicts club it a) doesn’t mean that it is ‘representative’ of society and b) might not offer all those people who aren’t dabbling in drugs but that’s not the point is it – its about appealing to young kids who might make the same mistakes!

    can’t see why everyone has their knickers in a twist – but i guess it all goes back to being ‘representative’. anyway perhaps it does make sense to have a group of muslims who arent busy trying to hide and lie about when they went clubbing or had a girlfriend…given that so many young muslims out there are doing much the same sort of thing, perhaps it might mean they wouldn’t feel so schizophrenic about what they are actually doing. the way i see it, its about lifting the layers of lies that we surround ourselves with, pretending to be pious people. its one thing to have standards to set for yourself and society, its quite another about being hypocritical that society as a whole is maintaining these standards!

  21. sonia — on 25th April, 2008 at 3:17 pm  

    anyway, good for Ed Husain. at least he’s doing something with himself, why shouldn’t he have some publicity for what he is doing? {can’t see there is anything wrong – some people seem to refer to “self-publicity” as if it is somehow pejorative. What was the Prophet up to if not some grand version of self-publicity hmm??} And if he was daft, well at least he can admit he made mistakes and change his mind, which is more than you can say for most of us!

  22. sonia — on 25th April, 2008 at 3:21 pm  

    good point asifb in 19

  23. Refresh — on 25th April, 2008 at 3:23 pm  

    I am just waiting for Anjum Choudhary (I think that’s his name) to set up another group to rival QF. I am sorry to say this is likely to prove to be about egos and their psychological makeup. They do not deserve a hearing and probably won’t get one.

    Their past antics (and I am being polite) in their previous incarnation should have damned them enough not to show their faces. But then you just have to look at all those past politicians who have travelled this path. Not least New Labour eg John Reid, Milburn etc. who translated from uncompromising activists to buy into the ‘activism without power is meaningless’ mantra.

    With the QF gang, its actually no different. Its about them. Their taste for global impact will not dissipate quietly or quickly. They are not to be trusted.

    Vitriol will come later, as it all comes crashing down. And probably on the heads of the vast majority of muslims who knew nothing about them and cared less.

    Which makes it even more important to sit up and take note, before its too late.

  24. fugstar — on 25th April, 2008 at 3:26 pm  

    no sunny, QF remind you of independant jewish voices because they remind you of yourself, because you see yourself everywhere. even of non-reflecting surfaces.

  25. bloggersmosaic — on 25th April, 2008 at 3:42 pm  

    interesting post,thanks

  26. AsifB — on 25th April, 2008 at 3:47 pm  

    Sonia(no:21), I’m fine with the ex-junkie analogy (the great enduring appeal of the Autobiography of Malcolm X is willingness to change) but as you’ll see from the correspondent in no.8 above it’s not necessarily clear cut that QF will reach those we want it to reach (the bombmakers) – after all there’s no one identity extremists hate more than ‘traitors’ – on balance of course I hope QF is helpful if it can help to split extremist cells .

    But I wouldn’t rely on Ed Hussain who has swapped one unconvincing ideological shibboleth (everything was okay until Attaturk) for another (‘Ed’ is short for Mohammed) -and has curious identity issues in his book.

    You hit the nail on the head though in your comment Sonia – I too would like the media to show more real shades of grey/split personality Muslims – and don’t think this would be a problem for the public at large – real life Muslims are after all the ordinary people everyone lives with and would recognise – not the extremists.

    (-btw it’s a bit of trap to say the ‘living of double live’s’ is particular to young Muslims per se)

    Until hearing the word Muslim on tv makes you think of Konnie Huq and Richard Thompson, and not Ed Hussain and Bin Laden, there’s a long way to go…

  27. Random Guy — on 25th April, 2008 at 4:10 pm  

    Sunny @ #16: Thanks for the response.

    The US/UK foreign policy involvement I am talking about started well before 9/11, as I stated in my initial post. In a way we agree about the Terrorism aspect being inevitable, but as far as my point goes, from a historical perspective the UK and US must shoulder a large part of that blame. And if they do not modify their FP approach this threat will not dissappear, no matter how many organisations spring up.

  28. Sid — on 25th April, 2008 at 4:11 pm  

    The real litmus test for the QF will be if they can take on the parlous state of religious freedom, human rights and women’s rights in Arab coutries that fund the Quilliam Foundation. I suspect not.

  29. sonia — on 25th April, 2008 at 4:27 pm  

    there’s never any guarantee anything will reach anyone in particular of course. and i dont think it should be a matter of ‘relying’ on one person – no it should be about hearing as many people’s experiences and stories really. ed and his gang being out there i dont think is stopping anyone else, as far as i can see anyway,.

    “You hit the nail on the head though in your comment Sonia – I too would like the media to show more real shades of grey/split personality Muslims – and don’t think this would be a problem for the public at large – real life Muslims are after all the ordinary people everyone lives with and would recognise – not the extremists.”

    thanks. yes i dont think it would be a problem for the public at large, but probably a problem for the people who are trying to keep their double lives secret! after all, th ere are many reasons why they’re leading those double lives in the first place. of course the main stream media is quite one thing.

  30. Shamit — on 25th April, 2008 at 4:58 pm  

    Random Guy

    Your point is well taken on US/UK foreign policy screw ups. But if you go back a bit further in history invading armies (mostly Muslim) have rampaged through Asia and South Asia specifically killing, raping and conquering. Destroying temples and forcibly converting people to Islam. Except for Akbar pretty much all Muslim rulers in India followed this trend. So if someone now believes that this is justification for violence against Muslims – is that acceptable? I think not.

    On the broader issue:

    I don’t know this QF group and neither do I know the BMSD lot — but any group that attempts to bring about cohesion in British society and foster understanding gets my support and respect.

    I hardly read the CIF as I find its usually a place for huge egos trying to prove how clever they are and how everyone else is so stupid (Sunny – you and some other contributors are not included so dont take it personally).

    Somehow this debate has become personality oriented rather than the cause. The arguments here are at least reasonable and issue based but glancing through the CiF posts it seems like a personality war between clans of who is more influential than whom. Not a very good way to bring about cohesion I would say.

    Also a quick question to everyone. How do you think the Kurds who were attacked by nerve gas in the middle of night because the West failed to support their rebellion against a genocidal dictator would have felt about the Iraq war? They were Muslim too – and so were those being slaughtered in Bosnia. So UK/US foreign policy hasn’t always been bad

  31. Random Guy — on 25th April, 2008 at 9:24 pm  

    You make a good point Shamit, and actually yes, I do believe that if Muslim armies were rampaging through countries at the time and killing, raping etc. then it would be a pretty rational decision by the other side to justify carrying out retaliatory attacks. It is normal human nature.

  32. dave bones — on 25th April, 2008 at 10:07 pm  

    panglossian- I am obviously out of my depth here already.

    Hi, Sunny it was good to meet you if a bit briefly at the Quilliam Event. I wrote a blog about it slagging it off but have changed my views quite a number of times reading what everyone else has written about it. It has provoked debate which is good. It just came across as a bit media glamorous. All those who might be “tempted by extremism” who I met hate the media. No one would be able to get to them through the media and I’m still not sure what these guys are doing or what “think tanking” is.

    As you know I’ve been wracking my brains since 2003 working out what these guys think and what on earth to do about it. I’m still pretty clueless but have formed some fairly strong opinions based on the people I have met.

    The first thing I would argue is that they aren’t brainwashed. In two years outside Finsbury park mosque I didn’t meet a single Muslim who seemed brainwashed at all. Standing in the street in 2003 with what was going on in Iraq at the time was just embarassing. What could I say?

    “Don’t blow up. Not all us kaffirs are like this..”

    None of them wanted to blow up anyway, and just today I found out that Hamza’s bunch also thought HuT were an extremist group. Ridiculous no?

    Tragically I think that these bombers are reacting to events as they see them. They believe Islam is one. You squeeze Islam over there so the pips burst over here. I’ve said to Rachel that I am more worried about what they are right about than what they are wrong about.

    That people are innocent, and might even sympathise with some of your grievances I can deal with, but Palestine? Kashmir? Capitalist support of oppresive dictatorships? How on earth do I deal with that? It is extremism and people are brainwashed by it.

    How do you get to them? I saw the video’s of the aeroplane guys. It all looks frighteningly simple and frighteningly like tactics of war used throughout history by armies big and small.

    Government, Economic and Military targets.

    If the participants of this alleged plot had been successful I would imagine it would have an effect on the economy.

    The Quilliam event looked like a lot of expense to get the media on board, but they are on board already.

    Mus and I are going to make a video tomorrow about Quilliam, hopefully it’ll be on Youtube tomorrow night. Obviously with a “Reformed Atilla” in the chrysalis stage in Belmarsh I have a fair bit of hope.

  33. Shamit — on 26th April, 2008 at 1:33 am  

    Tragically I think that these bombers are reacting to events as they see them. They believe Islam is one. You squeeze Islam over there so the pips burst over here.

    Dave, with all due respect — is Islam really one? History teaches us different.

    Then why did the liberation war for Bangladesh happen in 1971.– and genocide prior to that happen? Why do we see sectarian blood bath in streets of Iraq? In Iraq its mostly Muslim vs Muslim — and why do the Kurds want a separate nation and want Turkey to give Kurdistan up? Aren’t they all Muslim?

    Kashmir – another issue. Why has there not been any elections or any form of self governance in the part that is administered by Pakistan?

    No, its all our (ie British) and US foreign policy that have poisoned the minds of all these groups and causing disharmony among Muslims who agree on everything — come on folks get real.

    By the way, we did get rid of a dictator in Ira(a really horrible one) you should listen to some of the stories of Saddam Hussein and his sons.

    The attack against Kuwait, and the torture, rape and killing in Kuwait was perpetrated by a mostly Muslim Army against a Muslim nation. I have a Kuwaiti friend who had a sister a nurse in a hospital — she was gang raped by Iraqi soldiers and when her husband tried to stop it ( he was a doctor in the same hospital) — they were brutally killed after torture. By the way the attack on Kuwait was for OIL and by a Muslim country on another.

    I have no problems accepting that there are problems with our foreign policy — heck many policies — but its no bloody excuse to blow your own country.

    And anyone who is born and bred here thinks that this is not their country and therefore fair game for destruction and mayhem — is brainwashed and plain downright thick. They are waging war against their own country.

    In 7/7, there was one bomber whose family came from mayhem in Ethiopia or Somalia and this country gave them shelter and education and security. He tried to blow us up in the name of religion. Come on Dave he was not brainwashed or was it a legitimate war

    I am just surprised and tired of so many in the mainstream keep on making excuses for them. That is unacceptable. Religion as a binding entity historically hasn’t shown to be of that adhesive and anyone who preaches that is attempting to brainwash. Again this is not unique to Islam but all religions – remember Northern Ireland.

    And finally yes we supported some pretty nasty dictators in the past and there is no excuse for that. But in Iraq we did get rid of a very nasty one and guess what 70% of the Iraqi population came out and voted in an election under death threat from TERRORISTS — they were threatening to kill their Muslim brethren.

    Post war Iraq has been blotched by group think in the White House and their idiotic de-bathification policies.

    And, finally if my country happens to be at war — I want to win that war because fundamentally I would say that is my identity not religion.

  34. dave bones — on 26th April, 2008 at 10:03 am  

    Cheers, I believe no religion and make no excuse for anyone. Personally I’ve had quite serious and amusing problems in Islamic countries so I would have serious misgivings about an Islamic state. I’m not claiming even to know about Islam, just reporting some of the simpler views of Islamists I have met and my own cluelessness about how to deal with the situation WE ALL face together, not just Muslims as a separate entity.

    I am not sure what I have ever achieved but I remember thinking that society is suffering because people don’t communicate with each other directly, so motivated by the invasion of Iraq I felt compelled to put my lack of money where my mouth was. It was blatantly obvious that the tiny group around Hamza were dangerously isolated so I thought I would try and subtly have some effect on that if I could.

    As I say I have no idea if this worked at all, I will ask Atilla when he gets out. Although I have lost contact with most of The Supporters of Shareeah, none of the tiny group around Hamza’s mugshots (except Atilla) have come up on TV yet. I am not sure what this says.

  35. Avi Cohen — on 26th April, 2008 at 10:15 am  

    Sunny – The problem is that the media and consequently commentators such as yourself tend to limit things in such a way that what actually makes Muslims angry and thus go to extremes is often ignored and thus you allow the government to essentially get away with their failures by limiting your won analysis.

    If you actually look at what drives Muslims angry and to extremes then you’ll notice that whilst Iraq is mentioned first other much older issues, conflicts and grievances are also mentioned and putting all these together one sees that the Muslim world feels that core issues it has have not been addressed for at least 50 decades if not more.

    This brings with it the feeling of injustice which then drives the hatred.

    By focussing just on Iraq which is the straw that broke the camels back then one sees that Muslims do feel a sense of grievance due to the world ignoring their issues for 50 years.

    Hence QF will never work because it doesn’t directly address these issues. Govt initiatives will never work because they don’t address these issues.

    In addition the lack of education across the Muslim world is leaving it behind in the global economy which then itself causes resentment towards the west. This isn’t the fault of the west but itself has a baring on the consequences.

    In addition the west always tells the Muslim World, Africa and parts of Asia what it can and cannot do which agin causes resentment and allies are selecetd based on Western needs and not the needs to the people in that part of the world.

    Until people recognise these issues and possibly a few more contribute greatly towards extremism and hatred then the battle against extremist ideology won’t be won.

    By allowing the Bliar Govt to limit the scope of debate the commentators are giving way to the govt and thus causing more problems that are being solved. If people want to look at this issue seriously then look at the overall picture and not a part of it.

    Simply put the will to solve certain conflicts isn’t there thus why would the Muslim world trust the UN, the USA and the UK?

    Equally worrying is that extremism in Christians is going unchecked and this is contributing fuel to the fire. Evangelical Christians call even basic Muslim worship evil and with USA and UK Prime Ministers linking to these groups don’t people think that causes issues?

  36. Avi Cohen — on 26th April, 2008 at 10:55 am  

    In addition the way that events are portrayed and presented by government ministers and indeed the media is adding fuel to the fire of injustice and the thirst for revenge thus leading to terrorism.

    In conflicts involving Muslims then in the majority of cases where Muslims are killed rarely do leaders in the West condemn such attorities instead leaving it to some junior to issue a statement. But should a non-Muslim(s) be killed by Muslims then a leading minister or indeed the head of state themselves will make a statement condeming such brutality.

    This leaves Muslims feeling that the death of their people seems irrelevant to the west thus allowing extremists groups to gain a foothold.

    Case in point is Iraq after the abuses were discovered, Bush didn’t comment for a while and it was left to juniors to comment. The investigation was clearly rigged to protect his senior officials. Pretty much the same happened here with Bliar. So why couldn’t these people come straight out and say they took full responsibility and this was unacceptable?

    Look through all the regions where Muslims feel they have a grievance and you’ll see that governments reduce these issue to discussion by junior ministers.

    In addition look at the engagement by the government with the grassroots Muslim community – it is simply non-existant. When did Bliar or Brown or Miliband or other senior ministers go to Muslim events? It doesn’t happen. It isn’t seen as good publicity so they ignore it and send idiots like Phil Woolas who proceeds to denigrate Muslims when they want to discuss core issues. Or they send people like Hazel Blears who tells Muslims to expect more stop and search because they are a threat – hardly the way to bring people on side. Is that sensible government?

    In addition when govt does spend money then it is given to people to toe the line and not to projects that can help the whole community (muslim and non-muslim).

    In addition we see that the majority of Muslims seemingly don’t know what to do to address all these issues and the path followed is silence thus leaving the ground to 2 extremes:

    1. HT, Al-M etc. who advocate one extreme that the west is to be shunned.
    2. QF, SMC etc who then go to the other extreme that the east is to be shunned and we need western islam.

    Thus nothing is really acheived.

    What is needed is better analysis, honest government and a will to address issues by both sides.

    If an simpleton like me can see this then why can’t government?

  37. dave bones — on 26th April, 2008 at 12:18 pm  

    Absolutely Avi. Big up yourself. In simple terms I am looking for revolution, but by revolution I think I just mean a take over by the majority. I’d love to be involved in a link up of the common man across national and religious lines to refuse to accept the excesses of capitalism.

    If I could relate to any “fundementalist ideology” it would be their views about banking. I don’t want a small number of bankers to control the fate of the rest of the planet. I think the majority can do something about it. Why not?

    If a fairer world is possible with people making honest government for themselves I am sure the majority of Muslims would have a lot more investment in stopping terrorism. If there is one thing perpetuated by some avenues of media I would like to confront it would be the idea that these people are rabid mad dogs you can’t talk to.

  38. Sunny — on 26th April, 2008 at 5:15 pm  

    Refresh you say: Their past antics (and I am being polite) in their previous incarnation should have damned them enough not to show their faces.

    The thing is, youi’re quite hypocritical anyway. You make excuses for Inayat Bunglwala, a man who’s done more u-turns than anyone else. Remember he’s on record praising al-Qaeda. Remember he wanted Salman Rushdie’s head. He now “regrets” those actions and then has the audacity to criticise others who have also become more mature since. You’re just as hypocritical – defending one bunch of those who have seen the light and criticising others for exactly that. Grow a backbone will you.

    Random guy:
    The US/UK foreign policy involvement I am talking about started well before 9/11, as I stated in my initial post.

    As Shamit has already pointed out, you seem to have selected standards on this. I’m assuming, going by the logic of your post, you supprt the RSS in India and their crusade against India’s Mughal history and the slaughter of Muslims in 2002 and in 1991.

  39. thabet — on 26th April, 2008 at 5:47 pm  

    Give it 6 months: Anjum Choudhary will be out with his own reformed jihadist group…

  40. Random Guy — on 26th April, 2008 at 6:21 pm  

    Sunny, the big difference here is the context of time. The things that are happening now continue to happen because of the policies of the West. I don’t believe in any sort of retrospective revenge as you imply, rather what I am saying is that at any given time in history, such policies being enacted on a certain group will cause retaliatory groups to spring up. I am not supporting anything, merely pointing out the fact of the matter.

  41. Sunny — on 26th April, 2008 at 8:02 pm  

    Pointing out the fact of the matter is rather irrelevant Random Guy – either you support that reasoning or you don’t. People use a whole bunch of reasons to justify violence and even rape (during partition and Bangladeshi independence) – doesn’t make it right does it? Why should I take that view as legitimate then? do you view the RSS point as legitimate that should be given due consideration?

    thabet – I hope so!

    Avi Cohen:
    2. QF, SMC etc who then go to the other extreme that the east is to be shunned and we need western islam.

    This is a common misunderstanding. These guys aren’t saying that Islam should be changed for the West. What they’re saying is that British Muslims do frequently view their religion in the context of British life and therefore its different. There’s a papey by a respected academic – Tufyal Choudhury – at Durham university, who has written on this a lot. The way you guys twist this around is really annoying.

    Dave Bones – an interesting post and it was good to meet you too mate! I was surprised you turned up in a suit too! heh!

    If you have any more videos or anything from the event I’d love to feature them here.

  42. Random Guy — on 27th April, 2008 at 1:46 am  

    The fundamental difference is one of agressor and victim. There can never be any justification for the killing of innocents, but the bigger fish normally carry the day in terms of scale of atrocity etc.

  43. fug — on 27th April, 2008 at 3:52 pm  

    sunny i think even you’d have trouble twisting tufayl choudhry to be providing intellectual cover and backing to QF and SMC in any way shape of form

  44. Munir — on 27th April, 2008 at 3:56 pm  

    Will Jones has hit the nail on the head
    there are so many reasons why Muslims, of all hues, arent buying the Quillam foundation (I speak as a Muslim)

    1. Its support for the Iraq war
    2.Its support amongst Islamophobes and people who hate Muslims
    3. The deeply unislamic behaviour of its founder
    4 They speak about traditional islam but adopt positions at extreme variance from it
    5 They speak about represnting traditional Islam while not being scholars – and traditional Islam is about taking from ulema
    6 They use the name of Abdullah Quillam to promote British Islam whereas he was a strong supporter of the Khilafah and a feerless critic of imperialism -not a support of it
    7. They are backed by this govt which has so no credibility

    From speaking to Muslims I have found perhaps 90% who think Quillam F is a joke. And these are people who dont have any time for HT or for terorism.

    Quillam is a dead duck

  45. raffat — on 27th April, 2008 at 4:44 pm  

    fair points made by most here but my concern is that QF is more of an anti HuT org rather than counter-terrorism because whatver one thinks of HuT they are non-violent…what they would be in power is another matter.
    To further use the analogy of former drug users QF are a bunch of spliff heads and some didn’t even inhale who are being asked to tackle crackheads.
    Ed Hussein is HMGs favourite Muslim and as such holds no credibility for those involved in jihadi activity.
    Majid at least has the credibility of being in jail but those who have spoken to his fellow jail birds fom the Egypt 3 say he was singing like a pigeon from the moment of his arrest and did not have a road to damascus moment.More like an electric truncheon to his nether regions.
    My concern is that this is more money being wasted on projects of dubious significance or efficacy whose main objective is ignoring the plain fact this violence has a political dimension which needs to be acknowledged before anything else.But good luck to them at least they are getting more attention than other ventures like MCB/BMF/SMC…

  46. dave bones — on 27th April, 2008 at 5:39 pm  

    Yeah that Sufi Muslim Council was my personal favourite. I will never forget the Islamic David Brent with his flip chart graphs plotting radicalism. I wish that was on youtube.

  47. dave bones — on 27th April, 2008 at 7:24 pm  

    Musa’s so Mustafa filmed us discussing things Quilliam here. There is more coming.

  48. dave bones — on 27th April, 2008 at 7:25 pm  

    sorry that should be Musa’s son

  49. Sunny — on 27th April, 2008 at 8:09 pm  

    Ok, well lets dislodge some more fantasies by its critics.

    1. Its support for the Iraq war
    No it doesn’t.

    2.Its support amongst Islamophobes and people who hate Muslims

    Such as? And before you say Melanie Phillips or Ayaan Hirsi Ali, consider that Ed Husain has written articles attacking Islamophobes:
    http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/ed_husain/2007/11/stop_supporting_bin_laden_geor.html

    3. The deeply unislamic behaviour of its founder

    such as? Oh and consider that Anjem Choudhury, the biggest “protector” of British Muslims also has a shady past at uni. And if you think supporting al-Qaeda is unislamic, then that rules out the MCB’s Inayat Bunglawala too!

    4 They speak about traditional islam but adopt positions at extreme variance from it

    Such as?

    5 They speak about represnting traditional Islam while not being scholars – and traditional Islam is about taking from ulema

    They don’t talk about represeting Islam. In fact they do precisely the opposite.

    7. They are backed by this govt which has so no credibility

    You do know that practically most British Muslim orgs have been funded at one time or another by this govt. Do you know how much money the MCB has received from the govt over the past 10 years?

    Random Guy – that bizarre and fluffy response is exactly what I expected of you.

  50. Refresh — on 27th April, 2008 at 8:49 pm  

    Sunny, I think its you who needs the backbone.

    With Inayaat you struggled along on the basis of support of the HP crew. We all knew that. What was particularly disturbing was your cheerleader style. Which I am glad to say you have restrained.

    Hypocritical? Not at all – lot of the names of people and organisations you’ve attacked I’d only heard of on here. My knowledge of Inayat prior was non-existent.

    Nuance entered your vocabulary because of interaction here, with us the commenters. It certainly wasn’t there before, which is of course commendable. That is not to say you don’t revert to form from time to time. And some us just sigh and try to move it along anyway.

    So in a nutshell explain to me what it is that muslims are expected to take from QF? What is it they are offering? And also tell me what will happen when the wheels fall off – which they will?

  51. Sunny — on 27th April, 2008 at 9:17 pm  

    With Inayaat you struggled along on the basis of support of the HP crew.

    Errr no. Try reading the mission statement for this blog and the first ever post. Its obvious why I started it. Of course I’ve learnt a lot from commenters here but that’s neither nor there in this debate specifically. If you didn’t know about the others orgs or Inayat Bunglawala’s past (but you did because others have posted about his support for al-Qaeda and you said things had changed since then), then I’m glad you do now.

    And also tell me what will happen when the wheels fall off – which they will?

    Well its nice to know you want the wheels to fall off an initiative that wants to protect Muslims and challenge religious extremism. I’ve never really expected anything other than cynicism from you.

    As for Harry’s Place, my support has always been nuanced. I never supported the war in Iraq nor their blind support of Israel/Oliver Kamm etc. I’ve even defended Bunglawala and Salma Yaqoob on there. But hey, you love seeing things in black and white like other QF bashers here. What else did I expect? Maybe more, since you’ve been posting here for years. And you let me down again. Oh well.

  52. Refresh — on 27th April, 2008 at 9:44 pm  

    Sunny, not so fast. Mission statement is one thing and practise another.

    Am I cynical about QF, of course. I’ve not heard one argument which convinces me otherwise. Cynical in the general sense, no.

    ‘If you didn’t know about the others orgs or Inayat Bunglawala’s past (but you did because others have posted about his support for al-Qaeda and you said things had changed since then), then I’m glad you do now.’

    What was there to know? That he has changed his outlook, is to the good of course.

    How that compares to these guys I really don’t know.

    ‘(but you did because others have posted about his support for al-Qaeda and you said things had changed since then)’

    When I said here, I meant here on PP not on this thread specifically. And I work on the basis of believing half of what I hear and none of what I read (paraphrasing lyrics from a great song), and will go and do my own digging around.

    ‘But hey, you love seeing things in black and white like other QF bashers here. What else did I expect? Maybe more, since you’ve been posting here for years. And you let me down again. Oh well.’

    No, never in black and white as I am sure others will attest. And I am sure it has shown over period I have posted here.

    As for letting people down, you do often. Take this QF charade, this debate could very well be about the merits of their objectives and not mechanics of their organisation and not even the personnel.

    What really put me off, was the suave and sophisticated ex-xxxxx trying to lay into Tamimi on Newsnight. All the ex-xxxxx had to do what explain why he felt the need to have Michael Gove involved with his organisation. Instead he ends of slagging off Tamimi.

    Now this is not necessarily a defence of Tamimi, but the miserable attitude we are likely to see in a very important debate. All ex-xxxx had to do was realise there were a large number of viewers who really wanted to understand the rationale behind QF, the ex-xxxx reasons why this and why that. But no, it turned into what felt like PP thread derailed by Mazumadar.

  53. Anas — on 27th April, 2008 at 9:52 pm  

    Hey guys stop letting Sunny down! I just hope you haven’t made him cry.

  54. Sunny — on 27th April, 2008 at 10:16 pm  

    Lol @ Anas!!

    Refresh:
    Not really. It was why I founded this space.

    I’ve not heard one argument which convinces me otherwise.

    And i’ve not heard one solid argument, other than a whole bunch of smears that I’ve continually refuted, to convince me to stop supporting QF.

    That he has changed his outlook, is to the good of course.

    How that compares to these guys I really don’t know.

    It does because the principle argument is that we should listen to former Pizza HuT’ers because they were stupid then and remain now. But oddly you don’t apply this thinking to the people you support.

    Take this QF charade, this debate could very well be about the merits of their objectives and not mechanics of their organisation and not even the personnel.

    My article for CIF was all about the merits of their work and what they need to do. You and others are the ones who have been talking about how you don’t trust the personell. Its hilarious you raise this point and don’t realise the irony.

    What really put me off, was the suave and sophisticated ex-xxxxx trying to lay into Tamimi on Newsnight.

    Azzam “I wish I could become a suicide bomber” Tamimi shouldn’t even be on TV representing British Muslims. He represents Hamas. Its a problem with the media that they keep inviting such extremists on there anyway. That Maajid Nawaz tore him a new ass illustrates:
    1) Not all Muslims think the same
    2) Not all Muslims support suicide bombers
    3) Not all Muslims are fundamentalists
    4) Muslims are willing to challenge extremists.

    I expect most of that went above your head because you’re obsessed by “Muslim unity”. How about you try preaching that to your friend Inayat Bunglwala who loves to slag off any Muslim group that might threaten the MCB’s cosy relationship with the govt.

  55. Sid — on 27th April, 2008 at 10:28 pm  

    All the ex-xxxxx had to do what explain why he felt the need to have Michael Gove involved with his organisation. Instead he ends of slagging off Tamimi.

    Now this is not necessarily a defence of Tamimi, but the miserable attitude we are likely to see in a very important debate.

    Yeah right. Pull the other one Refresh.

    To tacitly support Tamimi and suggest to that his communalist politics based on tribalistic allegiances is something that the Muslim community should be supporting rather than kicking it right up its distended backside, which is what they should be doing, is what’s really indicative of lack of backbone.

    Nice to see Refresh finally getting his arse off the fence and place it where we have always suspected it to be – in supporting thugs and terrorist sympathisers.

  56. Refresh — on 27th April, 2008 at 11:24 pm  

    My God!

    ‘Nice to see Refresh finally getting his arse off the fence and place it where we have always suspected it to be – in supporting thugs and terrorist sympathisers.’

    How can you even have a debate when you’re so riven with suspicion. You might as well come out and say you are propagandist and not really interested in debate. To rejoice when someone tries to balance the different arguments, and accuse them of sympathising with terrorists is chilling to say the least. J’accuse!

    And who is WE?

    Sunny, the irony is most definitely there. Some of us actually want to hear the arguments. The point I was making was very clear, having seen his performance on Newsnight left me with an uneasy feeling. Even now no one had explained why Michael Gove is involved.

    That guy didn’t win me over and your brow-beating style gives you no credit.

    To throw your weight fully behind an organisation because of differences of opinion is usually not enough for serious commentators. Almost a bit like Sid, earlier doing it because he didn’t like some of the comments rejecting QF. Almost at the risk of turning the debate into a joke.

    Are you involved with them? Genuine question. If yes, to what degree?

  57. dave bones — on 27th April, 2008 at 11:27 pm  

    Its a problem with the media that they keep inviting such extremists on there anyway.

    The problem I find is what they do with them when they invite them on. It all just looks ridiculous and tells us nothing, which was why I started filming them myself. I said to Musa yesterday that the only difference between what I was doing and what most of the journalists did was that I asked people questions and wrote down the answer.

    Islam seems a very unwieldy thing to try and represent in any official manner. The guys in charge of Quilliam are just people. They will say things you agree with and things you don’t. Its whether you want to be part of a process or not. Its your Islam. Its not mine. I am very pleased that although Musa has misgivings, he would rather help Quilliam if he can than oppose it or suspect it.

  58. Sid — on 27th April, 2008 at 11:28 pm  

    WE the readers of PP.
    I’ve always found your pretences at objectivity amusing Refresh. I think it’s time you came out of the closet, old boy.

  59. Leon — on 27th April, 2008 at 11:33 pm  

    We the readers of PP, being of sound mind, do humbly declare…

  60. Sunny — on 27th April, 2008 at 11:38 pm  

    dave bones – spot on mate!

    Refresh, no I’m not involved in any way. If you notice, I initally criticised Ed Husain and he even had a go at me on CIf in his early days. But we’ve met loads of times since and he’s persuaded me he’s genuine (for now anyway). Most notably he persuaded a hostile City Circle audience a while back. Anyway, your cynicism bores me to tears and I don’t want to cry otherwise Anas might laugh so I’m not gonna bother any more. You make up your own mind.

  61. Refresh — on 27th April, 2008 at 11:38 pm  

    ‘That Maajid Nawaz tore him a new ass illustrates:
    1) Not all Muslims think the same
    2) Not all Muslims support suicide bombers
    3) Not all Muslims are fundamentalists
    4) Muslims are willing to challenge extremists.’

    Most sensible people already knew 1~4 and more besides. I would add:

    5) Most muslims and non-muslims know there is something fishy about US/UK foreign policy

    ‘I expect most of that went above your head because you’re obsessed by “Muslim unity”.’

    I wish you would stop trading in stereotypes.

    ‘How about you try preaching that to your friend Inayat Bunglwala who loves to slag off any Muslim group that might threaten the MCB’s cosy relationship with the govt.’

    Most of the thread clearly is about ex-xxxx and who they are associating with. And now you are telling me I am a friend of Inayat and presume that colours my judgement. Again I knew very little about him and the MCB until your stream of posts on them and others. I am wondering who is actually obsessed.

  62. Refresh — on 27th April, 2008 at 11:46 pm  

    Leon

    ‘We the readers of PP, being of sound mind, do humbly declare…’

    your turn to sit on the fence?

    Sid,

    Looks like we both presume too much and amuse each other in the process.

  63. Refresh — on 27th April, 2008 at 11:50 pm  

    Dave,

    ‘The problem I find is what they do with them when they invite them on. It all just looks ridiculous and tells us nothing, which was why I started filming them myself. I said to Musa yesterday that the only difference between what I was doing and what most of the journalists did was that I asked people questions and wrote down the answer.’

    I agree with the above. And we really want to know, and it probably explains why people turn to blogs to get the real story – but even then its a matter of learning to be selective on who you trust.

  64. Sid — on 27th April, 2008 at 11:51 pm  

    Most definitely Refresh. Most amusing of all is your insistence that you agree with Point (2) of the list of things Muslims are, whilst making out that Tamimi is less dangerous than Michael Gove. I swear I fell off the chair on that one.

  65. Refresh — on 27th April, 2008 at 11:54 pm  

    Sid, you are so incisive you wear me out.

  66. Leon — on 27th April, 2008 at 11:58 pm  

    your turn to sit on the fence?

    I’ve made it clear in this very thread that jumping to conclusions based on nothing more than a launch and people involved isn’t the wisest judgement to make.

    I’ve also made the point elsewhere that I think the number of Muslim organisation is fast approaching a ratio of 1:1 with the Muslim population of the UK…

  67. Arif — on 28th April, 2008 at 12:26 am  

    I think the Foundation presents itself in a reasonable way on its website. I think the website “exposing” it is unfortunately likely to be effective in neutralising its ability to do at least one major part of what it is meant to do – to provide any kind of bridge for violently angry people into something else.

    I hope it is more broadly nuanced than Ed Husain often presents his arguments. See what happens.

  68. adnan — on 28th April, 2008 at 12:34 am  

    this is all a bit unedifying with all these groups shouting the loudest for govt funding claiming they are all the most “moderate”.
    Dave Bones’ clip was great but it exposed the inconsistency of quilliam complaining about Saudi islam and the UK govt bending over backwards to block any investigation about the Saudi-BAe scandal on grounds of national security…meaning that we will see who got all the kickbacks and which extremists were tortured and “deradicalised” for the sake of national security.
    The most compelling person to talk about the realities of UK foreign policy is former ambassador Craig Murray who had the courage to confront these issues and was not just hounded out of his job but driven to madness.
    I would have more time for Quillaim if showed the same courage to confront those in power who are violently extreme on an industrial scale rather than the incompetent terrorists filling up Belmarsh and other prisons.They have the ear of Govt so would be more effective at that level…any trip to Belmarsh to speak to Abu Hamza et al would make fantastic TV but i don’t think they are such media whores to want to star in a snuff movie.

  69. Refresh — on 28th April, 2008 at 12:39 am  

    Leon

    And I thought you were backing up Sid’s accusation.

  70. Avi Cohen — on 28th April, 2008 at 3:57 am  

    Sunny – “2. QF, SMC etc who then go to the other extreme that the east is to be shunned and we need western islam.

    This is a common misunderstanding. These guys aren’t saying that Islam should be changed for the West. What they’re saying is that British Muslims do frequently view their religion in the context of British life and therefore its different. There’s a papey by a respected academic – Tufyal Choudhury – at Durham university, who has written on this a lot. The way you guys twist this around is really annoying.”

    Sunny – Have you actually ever read their website and what they promote?

    They say on their website:
    “we believe that Western Muslims should revive Western Islam”

    So explain what is Western Islam which you say they are not saying is needed????!!

    Their list of scholars is none of the major scholars which many people listen to.

    The idea of a Western Islam won’t ever reduce their aim of extremism as it doesn’t address the issues which lead to this in the first place.

    The way that apologists such as yourself excuse the lacking of these people is shocking in itself.

    Whilst the principle is fine it also needs a practical approach and 6 months down the line you’ll see that what I wrote above is correct and you won’t be so supportive of QF.

    In order to address the issue of extremism requires an addressing of the issues not a detachment which is what these guys are promoting.

    A central core of Muslism have empathy for their brethren who suffer in various conflicts aroudn the world. It is the same for many other faiths. Thus to addess the issue of people going t extremes means addressing issues.

    It isn’t rocket science and the fact that commentators won’t even allow a firework down this road means the problems continue.

    Your failure to grasp the issue at hand means that you’ve brought into an idea that is bankrupt at the start and doomed to failure because it has:

    1. No major connection with the Muslim community it aims to influence.
    2. No aim of addressing issues that cause extremism which it hopes to counter.

    Your failure to answer central point I and others have outlined means that you haven’t grasped what is going on and the best means to counter such thinking.

    I’ve said to you before and say again even here mainstream Muslim voices are not represented in being able to write articles and your continual allowance of articles pushing certain thought and creed is in itself disturbing. We see one more published today.

    If you want to tackle these issues then you have to listen to the thoughts of mainstream as well.

  71. dave bones — on 28th April, 2008 at 6:59 am  

    I would have more time for Quillaim if showed the same courage to confront those in power who are violently extreme on an industrial scale rather than the incompetent terrorists filling up Belmarsh and other prisons.

    That was the main thing I was thinking as the debate droned on. Mus and I have showed up in the back of This Reuters piece which is amusing.

    In it Ed Hussain accepts that some Muslims are “beyond the pale”. This confuses me. I thought it was about confronting extremism. If they are beyond the pale which extremists are to be confronted and how? Have I got the wrong idea?

  72. dave bones — on 28th April, 2008 at 7:22 am  

    …any trip to Belmarsh to speak to Abu Hamza et al would make fantastic TV but i don’t think they are such media whores to want to star in a snuff movie.

    I get the impression that Hamza is much more civilised than you expect. Listening to Musa tell it, all of them are. I think an organised debate between Quilliam and whoever the Belmarsh posse put up to represent them would be an invaluable experience for Quilliam to get some idea of what they should confront and how. Obviously I’d give my eye teeth to film it. I’d end up coming over like that Robert Downey jnr character in Natural Born Killers.

    Obviously they will meet Muslims who are in there for nothing and Muslims like Musa who’s only crime was going out for a Chinese.

  73. dave bones — on 28th April, 2008 at 10:18 am  
  74. fugstar — on 28th April, 2008 at 12:50 pm  

    Beyond the paling somebody is an extreme thing to do. Thats what vilent criminals do as a first step. Its sellouts who are more damaging than anyone else, theres internal ways of calming people down.

    70million pounds into muslim orgainisation over 3 years. 2011 should be interesting to experience. Tory britain.

  75. sonia — on 28th April, 2008 at 1:01 pm  

    yes brilliant comment from dave bones in no. 57 and later.

  76. Leon — on 28th April, 2008 at 1:38 pm  

    And I thought you were backing up Sid’s accusation.

    I found the tone amusing hence my US constitionesque satire…

  77. Avi Cohen — on 28th April, 2008 at 1:53 pm  

    Dave Bones, Sunny and Sid – you’ve yet to outline apart how QF intends to combat extremism?

    It’s all very well saying that is what they are there for but how? What is their plan?

    Sunny – you may be interested to learn that QF also refer to publication works – now throughly discredited even here on PP – by Policy Exchange. That is hardly a great reference.

    Again by picking on creeds they dislike they are attacking Saudi-Wahabi clerics. Now Sunny these clerics have huge influence and the main ones have always condemned terrorism and written much work on this issue. Yet QF is straight away wanting to distance these clerics whilst endorsing Sufi clerics. Again I emphasise to you that a largely conservative community won’t listen to this.

    Smearing clerics QF disagree with on creed is an intellectually-bankrupt way of addressing the issue especially as these clerics have continually spoken out against terrorism. In addition many of the youth in this country follow their works so they will not listen to QF who smear these people.

    Also Sunny you are in denial of their attempt to create a Western version of Islam but they are saying it openly:
    “Extremism and scriptural intransigence in Muslims’ communal discourse are among the most important barriers to the emergence of a Western Islam,
    a fusion between traditional Islam and the modern West.”

    That is on their latest policy paper. As I said how the hell will such a strategy combat terror when most Muslims won’t ever agree to this?

    Again they say:
    “Nevertheless, there remains a core of Wahhabite-Islamist activists and groups”

    This is smear in linking two groups who are complete opposites. So clearly the strategy is to smear creeds (Whahabi’s) with whom they disagree.

    “Al-Qaeda is an offshoot of the above
    worldview, and suicide bombers are born from this milieu.”

    So Sunny explain how Al-Qaeda which have no major links in Palestinian Territories then why does suicide bombing take place – shock horror could it be that this is due to the situation.

    Also what you’ll find that is that Azam Tammini however misguided he is, refers to violence due to the situation in I/P and not due to religious conviction. Interestingly Cherie Blair and others have said they understand why Palestinians are driven to suicide bombing so does that make them Islamists! Lets be practical and understand that this is down to the situation there which drives people to extremes and this needs to be addressed. It doesn’t make it right but that is a national cause not a religious one.

    “Cut ties with Islamist groups and funding agencies from Saudi Arabia;”
    Actually you’ll find much of this funding comes from the Gulf States and not Saudi Arabia. Qaradawi is funded by Western Backed Qatar.

    “Here, Muslim scholars such as T J Winter, Imam Ba-
    Bikr Ahmed, Dr Musharraf Hussain, Dr Usama Hassan have been crucial.”
    None of whom are recognised as Muslim scholars and a few of whom refer back to scholars from yes Saudi Arabia for guidance and one of whom their father has called for establishment of Shariah here but because his son is involved then he isn’t on the list of people they disagree with, hardly ethical prose huh!

    “Encourage students and imams to wear clothes that ensure belonging to
    mainstream society, and not Pakistani ethnic attire designed for a different climate. Islam requires modesty, not Arab or Pakistani clothing.
    We are not like Polish Jews that insist on wearing black clothes, unrelated
    to religion;”

    Disgusting statement and a bit of anti-semitism thrown in as well. Hurrah nice group this QF. Lets talk about integration but have a few ethnic smears whilst we are it. What the hell has Jewish dress got to do with extremism?

    Reading the QF Manifesto – it is simply a neocon agenda by Muslims after funding. There is little concrete action to appeal to the community.

    It appears they are saying what will attract funding and not a policy for addressing the actual issue at hand.

    “Facilitate sending British Muslim delegations to key Muslim countries to
    illustrate British Muslim life, and thereby help rid hostile attitudes
    toward Britain in certain Muslim countries;”

    If they did their homework properly they’d know this already happens and is backed by The British Council.

    All in all Sunny this isn’t quite the group you hoped for and though your sentiments are well meant sadly they are misplaced.

    QF has just given the extremists exactly what they need by creating a notion of Western Islam and how Muslim Orgs are manipulated by Govt. This is simply another attempt at one creed trying to marginalise another and there is no difference between MCB and QF in their disgraceful communal approach which doesn’t address key issues.

  78. Soso — on 28th April, 2008 at 2:34 pm  

    I doubt the initiative will work.

    Radical Islam isn’t the result of foreign policies or atrocitities committed in foreign lands against Muslims.

    The radicalism stems from a particular interpretation of Islamic texts, an interpretation that CAN be viewed as comletely legit.

    The causes leading to acts of terrorism by radical Muslims are identical those that have lead to the supression of the Ahmadiyya sect in Indonesia, Bangladesh and elsewhere.

    And those same causes lead to the oppression of other relgious minorities in a whole host of majority Islamic countries.

    The inability and unwillingness to recognise the influence and impact that certain interpretations of Islam’s core texts can have on behavior, including murderous behavior, when combatting islamic extremism means the effort will fail.

    There’s no way around it; the intolerance, chauvinism and extremism displayed by certain islamist groups is self-generated, inspired, as it is, by Islam and the ‘example’ of Mohammed himself.

    Foreign wars and foreign policy intiatives are mere window-dressing, convenient excuses really, invoked by those so chock full of hatred they’d engage in violence no matter the direction of gov’t.

    I think more and more people are now seeing that.

  79. Will Jones — on 28th April, 2008 at 2:59 pm  

    “We are not like Polish Jews that insist on wearing black clothes, unrelated to religion;”

    This quote just sums up their document, their elitist mentality and their pandering to what they see as, and want to be part of, racist chattering classes

    Lets pick on a small and vulnerable community, smear them (after all, I am sure they would say that they do wear black for religious reasons), and suggest that “we” are somehow more civilised.

    Sound familiar?

  80. Will Jones — on 28th April, 2008 at 3:11 pm  

    Avi – as far as I am aware – JIMAS has always supported Saudi Arabia, and they all wear full “traditional Middle Eastern” clothing, and are actually well known to be “Wahabi” etc.

    In fact, they fall foul of almost every QF criteria.

    But since Osama Hassan jumped on board to help promote QF, they have somehow not only been spared any criticism but are actually labelled as the way forward.

    Its basically a form of political prostitution.

  81. dave bones — on 28th April, 2008 at 3:33 pm  

    Avi-

    Although I was at th event I have yet to speak to the organisers, so I don’t know what they intend to do. Mus and I came up with a suggestion for a first move. A lot of the fears you write here- that they are just speaking in a language to get funding rather than addressing the issues are fears I share and I know Musa does too, but I won’t judge them based on these fears. They have said things you and Mus disagree with and apparently been divisive, these are their opinions, but we have to ask- do they want to stop terrorism? Can you move forward with people you have disagreements with if that move is in the right direction?

    The answer is, I don’t know. I don’t know them, I have no religion. I just enjoy filming a controversial subject but if there are people who want to cut the BS and take this thing by the horns I’d like to at least cheer, if not help.

    I don’t think it is “Quilliam” we want to link up with at the end of the day, its ALL OF YOU. In the video we made Musa says “there is only one Islam”. It would be helpful of there was. You seem to have the same factional problems that we on “the left” have which I know drove me to distraction, hence the title of my other more infamously named website.

    I’ve just looked at some more video of Musa and I discussing whether and how his brother Atilla could get involved in “anti-extremist activity”. I will edit it and put it up, hopefully in time to continue this discussion. I have also told Mus that we are discussing things here, and my Neo-Con buddies that I argue with all the time so don’t be worried if they pop by.

  82. Will Jones — on 28th April, 2008 at 3:53 pm  

    dave – why don’t you just read their proposals.

  83. dave bones — on 28th April, 2008 at 4:38 pm  

    Yeah I read it all, still clueless I’m afraid.

  84. bananabrain — on 28th April, 2008 at 4:46 pm  

    *i* don’t think it’s “racist” to object to the black-and-white get-up some of the ultra-orthodox sects wear, even the fur-hat-and-white-stockings combo. i think it’s fair comment. i also think it looks *stupid* and it doesn’t make sense to wear it, but i think they’re entitled to wear what they like. i think some of the things other groups wear are equally if not more stupid, like those damfool baggy trousers that wannabe gangstas wear that show their arses. and don’t get me started on some of the stupid things that women wear, everything from the “full dalek” niqab / burqa combo to the brazilan “dental floss” bikini. i hardly think that the quilliams are singling out the hasidim for anything – as if the hasidim themselves would actually give a monkey’s left bollock.

    b’shalom

    bananabrain

  85. Will Jones — on 28th April, 2008 at 5:33 pm  

    good to know what *you* think, bananabrain

    fact is that according to those that wear such items – they do it for religious reasons and not simply because they feel like it

    so to talk about “insisting” etc. “with on religious reason” and singling them out speaks volumes

    as for whether they care or not is irrelevant, someone may not give 2 hoots about the BNP but it doesn’t mean that the BNP is not racist

  86. Refresh — on 28th April, 2008 at 7:04 pm  

    ‘I have also told Mus that we are discussing things here, and my Neo-Con buddies that I argue with all the time so don’t be worried if they pop by.’

    Oh joy! If they are anything like Morgoth then bring them in. He was always fun. As are most of the Crowley set.

    Who is Musa?

  87. dave bones — on 28th April, 2008 at 8:02 pm  

    Yes, sorry I should explain myself a bit as I haven’t been here before This is Musa. His brother Atilla, who I was filming for years pleaded guilty to incitement to Murder, charged along side “Osama Bin London”. He got 7 years.

    He reformed inside but it was touch and go convincing the judge not to IPP him. I wrote extensively about the trial and the sentencing on my blog, (click on the Mohammed Hamid tag on the left)

    part 2 of our discussion of things Quilliam gives a bit of background, what it was like during the trial and part 3 focuses on Quilliam again and Atilla’s possible role.

    Hopefully this will inject a real human story into the debate here as it is very important that when Atilla gets out in two years or so there is a really good “anti extremism” structure he can get involved in- whatever you decide to call it and who ever is in it.

    He’s been a very unorthodox character.

    As I say, I’m not a Muslim but I really want you all to work it out for Atilla’s sake really cos he’s my mate.

  88. Refresh — on 28th April, 2008 at 9:18 pm  

    Problem is Dave, we have all (in the main) led a sheltered life, and feel it safer to keep our heads down. Goodness knows when you are going to be accused of being a ‘closet’ symapthiser. See Sid’s post above.

    And naturally it means muslims can only have non-muslims and ex-xxxx speak for them. :)

    What’s IPP?

  89. Ali Balozi — on 28th April, 2008 at 9:31 pm  

    I think that the Quilliam Foundation is genius. At last some people have done the obvious thing and started engaging the British Muslims in British society. If you are a Muslim and born here, the earlier you start to take your place in the matters of this country the better for you. Self marginalisation and rejection of the other can only result in one group of losers. Those who soon realise that the ‘have nothing live for’.
    I am from Uganda and I was old enough to see what happened to people from the Indian sub-continent (many who were muslim) when Idi Amin (a muslim himself) expelled them from that country. People left everything that they worked for – for generations, everything. They were literally thrown out of a country that many of them were born in but took very little interest in otherwise. A very, very sad time it was. I’ll tell you that not many Ugandans shed a tear. Many hold Amin in high regard to this day for that single act. Why? Because of the ‘multiculturalism’ that the British invented in Uganda long before it was tried out here.
    Later on I lived and worked in the Gulf countries and was even more surprised at the treatment that the Muslims from the sub-continent received (and still receive). My people in Uganda had lived side by side with Asian Muslims but had little to do with them; the exact was true in the Gulf, except that the natives there openly showed their contempt for their Muslim brothers.
    Brothers forget about these grandiose and plainly stupid ideas of an Islamic caliphate etc and ask yourselves what you can do for your country – the UK. You have the right to vote here, to influence policy, to descent peacefully and your lives and property is protected by law. This is your country and should be your first loyalty. Not some random ‘Muslim country’. This country has given you what you have. What can you give back?
    The indigenous peoples of this country don’t have infinite patience and understanding. They are humans just like Ugandans and Saudis, for example. Instead of testing this, grab your chance and make this your country, just like many before you have done.

  90. Refresh — on 28th April, 2008 at 9:35 pm  

    Dave

    I was infuriated and so should be the City of Bradford for Mr Hussains comment and I quote:

    ‘We’ve got to reach out to the many young muslims in Bradford who haven’t made up their minds’

    I presumed Ed Hussain was from the East End, and so were quite a few of his mates. So why Bradford?

    Isn’t that enough to make Bradfordian muslims’ lives even more troubled now he seemingly has homed in on that other great city?

  91. dave bones — on 28th April, 2008 at 9:55 pm  

    Goodness knows when you are going to be accused of being a ‘closet’ symapthiser…

    Which was why I went through Rachel. I figured that I could justify myself to her and did over a few pints. We haven’t got exactly the same views but I think we are walking in the same direction. Reading Sunny’s mission statement there are a few of us.

    I don’t think I’m a closet anything. I’m a radical. I think “We the people” should take over by the shortest possible route. If I thought that meant violence I suppose I would do it but I don’t think violence is the shortest possible route, it looks like the same thing over and over.

  92. Sid — on 28th April, 2008 at 10:35 pm  

    Ali Balozi, great comment. You should post here more often.

  93. dave bones — on 29th April, 2008 at 12:15 am  

    Refresh-

    sorry IPP is “Interned for Public protection”? Something like that. Hamid is the first Muslim to get one of these I think. It means they only let you out when they believe you are safe- an open ended sentence. I honestly have no idea if Hamid deserved this, I only met him twice. It was a mad case.

    Atilla was lucky he had a change of heart at the right time. I think he’s going to come out with an amazing story.

  94. JavK — on 29th April, 2008 at 3:06 am  

    I would disagree strongly with Ali Balozi’s comment.

    There are many structural problems in the UK (mainly derived from its historical evolution) that have resulted in problems, schisms and tensions in the country.

    Examples include this false notion of a loyalty to some “british” identity that foreigners are expected to adopt but even locals can’t define or articulate. Furthermore, this identity and its superiority means that foreigners are seen as foreigners – whether they are new (as in the 60s) or have been around for decades. Outbursts like the Big Brother fiasco with Shilpa Shetty show this underlying streak.

    Ali is insultative about those calling for a Caliphate – maybe he should stand back and look at Britain more critically, rather than buying the propaganda we hear day in and day out…

    As for the Quillam guys, they are little more than a few guys who see an opportunity to make some money out of the anti-terrorism wave and the predicament the govt has found itself in due to foreign policy and blind faith in its problematic values. (An expose has been done on their founder, Maajid Nawaaz, and the others some months ago – http://www.abu-ibrahim.blogspot.com – interestingly it doesn’t suit the establishment to raise any of those issues as the stuff these guys are saying are 100% in line with whitehall).

    The Rushdie affair and its stubborn attitude to “freedom of speech” triggered things, followed by the first gulf war which Muslims hated, the Bosnian crisis where Jihadists were encouraged as part of British foreign policy through to the current conflicts. Many committees have grass roots groups keep telling the gov’t this but it’s not the reality they want to hear…

  95. Avi Cohen — on 29th April, 2008 at 4:04 am  

    Ali – though your sentiments are well expressed. Talking to many Africans the reason Idi was so popular was because the Asians were basically taking advantage of the locals. So wages paid were very poor, Africans were treated as outcasts in their own land etc.

    Thus Africans felt cheated in their own country.

    That isn’t the situation in this case.

    It is also worth bearing in mind that the economy in that country collapsed without the Asians and they are now free to go back and claim their rights back.

    So the complete story isn’t being told.

    It simply highlights that communities play vital roles in countries.

  96. douglas clark — on 29th April, 2008 at 6:18 am  

    Avi @ 95,

    That doesn’t make any sense whatsoever. The bad Asians exploited the locals, were chucked out of the country, whose economy consequently collapsed! Strikes me as cutting off your nose to spite your face.

    I think Idi Amin played into another brand of rascism and his country got stung for playing along.

  97. Avi Cohen — on 29th April, 2008 at 8:20 am  

    Douglas – You are correct in what you say and it was pretty silly what Idi Amin did. However many Africans felt they were being expolited by Asians and to this day support Idi Amin’s actions.

    It is much like the situation with the white farmers in Zimbabwe, where land is given to Zanu-PF supporters who don’t have the means to do much with it. Thus destroying the economy.

    Things politicians do often don’t make long term sense but they do it for popularity.

    Amins actions had long term negative consequences for his country but at the time he had much support across Africa.

  98. Will Jones — on 29th April, 2008 at 3:56 pm  

    Ed – of Quilliam Foundation who challenged HT to debate – is shown up as the hypocrite he is here, refusing to show up because someone may have been there who opposed his view

    http://worldhaveyoursay.wordpress.com/2008/04/29/are-there-some-people-we-shouldnt-invite-onto-whys/

    Unbelievable

  99. Ali Balozi — on 29th April, 2008 at 7:26 pm  

    Idi Amin may have been portrayed as a mad man by those who only saw flashes of the news that came out of Uganda during his reign in power and terror. Unfortunately we like to simplify and reduce the dimensionality of complex processes to a couple of words, which can be misleading. I will summarise Amin in as short a way as possible. Amin was not mad. He personally resented the Asian population of his country, but he was not a racist. He never claimed to be superior to the Asians in any aspect of life. After all he claimed to be Muslim. By the time he became president, there was little or no animosity towards the Asian population in Uganda. He, almost single handedly, whipped it up. It is also important to add that Amin did not expel Asians who were citizens of Uganda. There was a small community of Asians who remained in Uganda because they had taken up Ugandan citizenship before Amin was president. The majority however, because of lack of interest in the political, social and cultural life of that country, chose to remain British citizens (although not fully so, I am told). So, what made this man take such drastic action against fellow human beings? People who lived amongst his own? People he worked for, and who were making great economic contributions to his country?
    In an attempt to dismiss him as a mad man, the real reason why he acted as he did is lost in translation. Idi Amin was trained in Israel and had good connections there. It is with the help of Israel that he came to power in the first place; after his predecessor had become a thorn in the flesh of the western world for taking every opportunity he could to put pressure on the racist regime of South Africa. Obote, who Amin overthrew, was in the process of sinking the commonwealth as we know it, unless a unequivocal stance was taken by all commonwealth nations with regard to South Africa. To make a long story short, Israel realised that Amin was reckless and erratic in his behaviour and decided to withdraw the military support they gave him. That vacuum was quickly filled by his Muslim brothers who showered him with money and weapons. It was upon a return from one of the many trips he made to the middle east that he made the shocking decision to expel all the ‘blood sucking foreigners and agents of the Zionists’ from Uganda – within 90 days. Asians are Zionists? This was amazing! However, Amin knew exactly what he was doing. He had been advised by his ‘Muslim’ brothers to flood the UK with Asians so as to cause ethnic, religious and political chaos. They wanted to test British democracy and will to the limit. Did Amin’s new found brothers forget to tell him that his actions were about to be gravely consequential for a great many of their fellow Muslims? I don’t think so. They just never cared.
    Meanwhile in neighbouring Tanzania Asians were welcome. In Tanzania, under Nyerere there was no cultural and social elitism. Everyone in that country took part in the political social, cultural and economic process. As an immigrant, you implicitly signed up to a set of values which included tolerance, inclusion and respect for each other. Tanzania is one of the most ethnically and religiously integrated countries in Africa. People of Arab, Asian, Persian and African descent live together in that country. Freddy Mercury was born there! That is where their loyalty lies, and it is unthinkable that particular groups could have been expelled.
    I hope that you get the moral of this story by now. As for your Middle Eastern Muslim brothers, the creation of the state of Israel seems to be the greatest gift that they could have been given, except for the poor Palestinians of course. This has been used to excuse anything and everything. From oppressing and killing thousands of their own to using it in their proxy wars by ruining the lives of generations of Ugandan Asians. Anyone can overcome the inhibitions that define us as normal functioning humans and blame, it either directly or indirectly, on Israel. From presidents to extremists and everyone in between.
    I’ll end like I said earlier; if you are born in this country, make it your home. Drop the heavy political baggage which was never yours in the first place. No country, no society is perfect. You will face difficulty but you have to deal with it. The best instruments for survival are democracy and respect for the individual and his property. They are in your hands. Use them. Participate. Influence society. Get your point across. Disagree peacefully. Cumming from Uganda and having lived in the Gulf, I’ll tell you that there are not many plying fields that are more level than this.
    As for Idi Amin, he was in one way or the other responsible for the death of an estimated half a million people, many of them Muslim. He ruined what was Africa’s most prosperous nation in the short time of 8 years. Between 1979 and 2002 he lived in Islam’s most holy land and was treated with utmost respect and humility. After all he was a brother in arms against Israel.

  100. dave bones — on 29th April, 2008 at 7:43 pm  

    that is an amazing story. I don’t feel as a community that what happened in Uganda is in the air, but I am in London.

    JavK, I am a bit glum reading anti-Quilliam stuff so early in their project. I’m sad Muslims judge these guys for their life choices. I would hope that they would just ask themselves if they want to get rid of extremism. I’m sure a more active community vibe would protect us from extremists in our midst and those abroad could be protected from our extremism.

  101. Don — on 29th April, 2008 at 8:36 pm  

    ‘The Rushdie affair and its stubborn attitude to “freedom of speech” triggered things, ‘

    I agree with the statement, but I doubt that I agree with the sentiment behind it.

  102. bananabrain — on 1st May, 2008 at 11:22 am  

    what an absolute load of arsewash about idi amin and israel. congratulations, ali balozi, you win the conspiracy nut of the week award.

    b’shalom

    bananabrain

  103. Avi Cohen — on 1st May, 2008 at 12:54 pm  

    BB – as usual you react like Alan Dershowitz and go completely over the top.

    Try actually reading what is said rather than inferring everything negatively – it”l soon clear up what the writer is saying. He isn’t blaming Israel he is saying that is the excuse that Idi Amin used and the Arab World uses and the writer says it is a poor excuse. The writer is basicaly relating what happened and not blaming Israel.

    To lift the fog a bit for you try reading these sources:

    http://news.scotsman.com/idiamin/Idi-Amin.2453742.jp

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/2003/aug/18/guardianobituaries

    So do you now deny he trained is IsraeL?

    Do you now deny they may have helped bring him to power not realising what he’d do?

    Whether you like it or not Israel will have connections with people Jews find unsavoury. Israel was on talking terms with Sheikh Khalid Yasin and had his direct phone number. They are probably on speaking terms with much of the Arab World and Iran. Do you seriously believe that despite the rhetoric these countries don’t talk to each other?

    Blimey they have covert trade so thye must be talking.

    Israel sold plane parts to Iran as part of Iran Contra so Khomeini’s Govt was talking to Israel and vice versa.

  104. bananabrain — on 1st May, 2008 at 1:25 pm  

    what, he failed an israeli paratrooping course when he was a sergeant? hardly “trained by israel”, is it? and a medical aid team? and the israelis trying to make diplomatic hay by cultivating an african ruler? and why would the saudis give him asylum if he was so in cahoots with the israelis? what is it with you, avi, that you consistently show yourself predisposed to believe the worst of israel and give the benefit of the doubt to anyone who criticises it? why are you so mired in these bizarre conspiracies?

    of course i know israel has connections with people jews find unsavoury. i know of a few diplomatic back-channels myself. that’s how things get done in politics.

    rereading the post, perhaps i overreacted somewhat. however, i now find myself reacting to your own attempts to play up the relationship – on the basis of the sketchiest references in a couple of obituaries? why do you feel the need to distance yourself so strongly?

    b’shalom

    bananabrain

  105. Katy Newton — on 1st May, 2008 at 1:53 pm  

    Amin was not mad.

    This is the guy who kept bits of people in his fridge, right?

  106. Anas — on 1st May, 2008 at 4:04 pm  

    BB – as usual you react like Alan Dershowitz

    Whatever my disagreements with bananbrain have been in the past, and whatever disagreements I have with him now (there are many), I would never level an insult that greivous, that ugly, and that unpleasant at him.

  107. Avi Cohen — on 1st May, 2008 at 4:36 pm  

    Katy – Your question is slightly easier to answer so I’ll do that first, there are rumours that ole Idi did more than refridgerate people, some claim he ate them.

    BB – I’m afraid you’ve overreacted again. I didn’t criticse Israel in this case. Where Israel needs criticising I do and like many people who are concerned about I/P we are right to.

    But in this case I wasn’t and they don’t need criticising. Like I said whats the big deal that Israel had a relationship with Idi Amin’s Uganda? So when you react it seems like there is something to hide which there isn’t. So what they trained him and had an early relationship with him? Its called international politics.

    That was my point that you’re overreacting to.

    It wasn’t and isn’t even today a big deal that Israel had a relationship with him because it is the same as other countries and in that I mean it is normal internation relationships.

    Yes he was a nasty sod but was Israel involved in his inhumanity – NO.

    So why on earth do you need to get defensive about Israel and Idi Amin?

    I can’t understand the issue here. Was Israel in any way involved in his brutality – hell no. So why get defensive – yes they knew and yes they had a relationship with him. But so did everyone else.

    So they may have helped bring him to power but so did Britain. Did either expect him to become what he did – hell no. So why be defensive?

    Like I said I’d be more suprised if they didn’t have a relationship. Like I said Israel had communication – direct communication with Khalid Yasin and Khomeni’s Govt and most likely does with Hezbullah. We know they do with Syria. Whats the big freakin deal?

    The fact is now that you’ve drawn so much attention to it by complaining people will think something is untoward.

    My approach is so what they had a relationship but they didn’t do anything or weren’t involved in any of the bad things he did. He did them and not Israel so Israel doesn’t need to be defensive about this.

    So what they spoke to him like everyone else and they trained him in something like others did. Big deal.

    This is simply a non-issue.

    Tell me do people get defensive that Britian had a relationship with Idi Amin – No. So why do you feel the need to get defensive about Israel having one?

    It isn’t an issue and thats why you saying it is a conspiracy is not on – its there as fact and Israel didn’t do anythign wrong so no point in trying to muddy the waters as it is a clear issue.

  108. Avi Cohen — on 1st May, 2008 at 4:52 pm  

    Where issues are clear and the waters calm then you don’t need to come along and make the waters muddy and create a torrent.

    That causes more problems and makes Israel appear an unnormal international country.

    They had a perfectly clear and normal relationship so lets be upfront and clear so people don’t get the wrong freakin idea. With the approach you take is to take normality, and make it appear to be a conspiracy.

    That then makes Israel appear negatively and off we go.

    Why couldn’t you just say a simple comment of that was a normal relations Israel had like other countries. I don’t get the logic.

    Freakin Dershowitz does this and it seriously gets on my case by making issues stand out rather than keeping them at the norm.

    It doesn’t help and in this case it hasn’t helped.

    Hell Livni went to Qatar – a country Israel has no “official” relations with and you’re making a big deal out of a relationship Israel had in the early 70′s with Uganda. It isn’t an issue.

    In the same period there were lots of countries that Israel, The PLO, the Arab World, the West all had relations with countries whose leaders did bad things. Were they involved – no.

    Then why be defensive about it and draw to and make attention of somethign that isn’t and wasn’t an issue?

  109. Avi Cohen — on 1st May, 2008 at 5:01 pm  

    BB – before you throw another wobbly:

    I typed – “I can’t understand the issue here. Was Israel in any way involved in his brutality – hell no. So why get defensive – yes they knew and yes they had a relationship with him. But so did everyone else.”

    I meant to say – “I can’t understand the issue here. Was Israel in any way involved in his brutality – hell no. So why get defensive – yes they knew him and yes they had a relationship with him. But so did everyone else.”

    My bad typing.

    But basically my point still stands there isn’t an issue here so there is no need to hide any aspects of the dealings Israel had which applies to most other countries as well.

  110. bananabrain — on 1st May, 2008 at 5:40 pm  

    i guess what i’m being a little sensitive to at the moment is my perception that you bend over backwards to try and whitewash salafis, jihadis, wahhabis and islamists of all stripes whilst being keen to sit in judgement on every israeli failing to an extent that i find quite absurdly overblown. yes, they have done some damfool things, yes, some aspects of international diplomacy are pretty murky and unpleasant, i’m just a bit fed up of feeling like every second i’m having to leap to israel’s because, believe it or not, there are a lot of other things i’d like to be discussing and engaging with. i am just fed up that israel and palestine get dragged into every bloody discussion and discussed in such a doctrinaire fashion so i feel like i have to be the local dershowitz in order to provide some balance. and, as you ought to know, he and i have very little in common. i object to being called a neocon, i object to being told i’m in denial and i object to being told i’m an apologist. i’m simply trying to maintain a balanced PoV and having to be the only person on the israeli side of the scales doesn’t allow for that. i’m just sick of this discussion at the moment.

    b’shalom

    bananabrain

  111. Avi Cohen — on 1st May, 2008 at 6:06 pm  

    BB – I have never and will never stand up for Islamists/Jihandis that kill people indiscriminatly and I am a touch offended you said that.

    What I’ve said and backed up is that Salafi/Wahabi is a diverse creed and many share the opinion you and I have that indiscrimnate killing is evil. Hence I don’t like the labelling.

    In regards to Israel I do stick up for the people and what they go through but I am also aware of what the other side go through and at the moment these voices are starting to grow in the Jewish Community.

    Here I don’t need to stick up because there are enough people to do it.

  112. Ali Balozi — on 1st May, 2008 at 6:47 pm  

    b’shalom – If you read my piece you would not have been ranting all over the place. I am not for conspiracies and I actually come from Uganda. I lived there under Amin. Here are the facts:

    Idi Amin, at some point in his life trained as a paratrooper in Isreal.

    Idi Amin made his first international trip to Israel after being invited by Prime minister Golda Mier.

    The coup in Uganda that brought Amin to power was organised and co-ordinated by Colonel Bar-Lev, the Israeli defence attaché at the time. Everyone in Uganda knew that. You could read it in the papers.

    In Late 1971 Amin visited Libya and became buddies with Colonel Gadaffi. It was Gadaffi’s influence on Amin that led to Amin expelling Ugandan Asians. Not Israel. Israel had already distanced itself from Idi Amin by then.

    The gist of what I wrote was that muticulturalism leads to disastrous community relations, as it did in Uganda. Integraton is good for everyone, as in Tanzania.

    I never blamed Israel for anything. Infact they were the first to abandon Amin after finding out that he was up to no good. I implicitly blamed the middle eastern countries for loading everyone with political baggage and using israel’s existence to justify anything and everything.

    I suppose that you read the article upto the point you saw Idi Amin’s name and Israel in the same sentence and could not overcome your knee jerk reation that a) Think this is another rediculous conspiracy story and b) you did not have to continue reading it.
    Keep an open mind and read to the end before making comments. It is a decent thing to do.

  113. Avi Cohen — on 1st May, 2008 at 6:58 pm  

    BB – One other point you say that I stick up for Salafi/Wahabi’s and I’ve shown you this is for those that condemn things such as suicide bombing anywhere.

    Why shouldn’t I when what they are saying can help to save lives in I/P by telling people they shouldn’t do this?

    By not helping as I said then the alternative is that we get juice and sandwiches at launches and lots of talk. Plus we annoy people that can help stop this madness. So I choose to stick up for people who have been consistent about saying this is prohibited for years now.

  114. Ali Balozi — on 1st May, 2008 at 7:08 pm  

    Amin was not mad.

    This is the guy who kept bits of people in his fridge, right?
    ________________________________________________

    No he did not keep bits of people in his fridge! I am not sure where you got that from. I guess one of the myths meant to create resentment towards him was that he had babies for lunch? There is so much nonsense written about Amin that you wonder whether those who wrote these things were sane themselves

  115. Sid — on 1st May, 2008 at 7:19 pm  

    What I’ve said and backed up is that Salafi/Wahabi is a diverse creed and many share the opinion you and I have that indiscrimnate killing is evil. Hence I don’t like the labelling.

    The “labelling”, which you agreed was correct, is perfectly well documented on this article:
    http://www.awaazsaw.org/awaaz_pia4.pdf

    In it, it says that Salafis and Wahhabi ideology is used to validate extremism in all its forms, including terrorism. Hence, if we are speaking of Islamic right wing terrorism, we are perfectly correct to use terms like Salafi and Wahhabi to describe them.

    Bananabrain, I feel your pain.

  116. Don — on 1st May, 2008 at 7:32 pm  

    ‘This is the guy who kept bits of people in his fridge, right?’

    I think that was Bokassa.

    Amin was probably mad, but there is no evidence (AFIK) of cannibalism.

    Besides, ‘cannibal’ is really no more than a label, we should avoid such things.

  117. douglas clark — on 1st May, 2008 at 10:52 pm  

    Don,

    If you see someone being called a cannibal, without a lot of supporting evidence, you can assume that they are being demonised. It is a well recognised tactic to accuse your enemy of whatever is likely to disgust. It takes reason out of the equation.

    It is a well known fact (not) that Saddam Hussein liked to screw Nordic Women, then have them murdered by being run over by bulldozers. It is a well known fact (not) that Iraqi soldiers bayoneted babies in incubators in Kuwait. It is a well known fact (not) that Blacks in America could be guilty of ‘eye rape’.

    The list is endless.

    This deliberate denigration of your enemy presumeably makes it easier for your own folk to do whatever you’d have them do. Like ‘kill these evil bastards’. By which they mean sub-humans, ’cause they do all these ‘bad’ things. It is propoganda, or as we now know it now, spin.

    Any group whatsoever can be reduced to being sub-human.
    It just takes the right sort of PR.

    Disgusting, I’d call it.

  118. Don — on 1st May, 2008 at 11:47 pm  

    Douglas,

    Not sure how one could demonise Amin and Bokassa more than they did themselves. Or DuValier, come to that.

    ‘It is a well recognised tactic to accuse your enemy of whatever is likely to disgust.’

    Actually, I did know that.

    It’s also a well known tactic to control the populace by being the bogey-man.

  119. douglas clark — on 2nd May, 2008 at 12:31 am  

    Don,

    ‘It is a well recognised tactic to accuse your enemy of whatever is likely to disgust.’

    Actually, I did know that.

    Hah, hah!

    I knew you knew that. I just wondered whether others did too.

  120. Avi Cohen — on 2nd May, 2008 at 3:35 am  

    Sid – so now you and your one reference are the entire source for reference – ok thats just about sums you up and your approach when anayone says anything to you. Fine journalism – Murdoch woud be so proud of you.

    Generally it is accepted that extremism and funding for extremism comes from all creeds, There are Jihadis in Iraq who are Sufis but Gosh I guess you didn’t want to know that.

    What is scary is that you’ve beeen given editorial rights which are being used to promote your own hatred for people you don’t agree with and none of the other editors is doing anything to stop this.

    I notice even on the other thread you’re refusing me the right to reply to your bullshit and treating other people like crap. Fine work indeed – Gosh you didn’t know that.

    Everyone – I feel your pain having to listen to Sid The Hack writing and supplying his condecending commentary.

    getting back isn’t it sad that Western Leaders couldn’t come out and say somethign about the needless deaths in Gaza of the family who were killed. That hardly helps the situation when somethign isn’t said.

  121. Avi Cohen — on 2nd May, 2008 at 4:06 am  

    Sid – “In it, it says that Salafis and Wahhabi ideology is used to validate extremism in all its forms, including terrorism. Hence, if we are speaking of Islamic right wing terrorism, we are perfectly correct to use terms like Salafi and Wahhabi to describe them.”

    His ludicrous claim that all – ALL – forms are extremism down to Salafi/Wahhabi ideology. This is sheer nonsense historically and today. This is nothng more than falsehood.

    http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/006184.php

    “The Sufi branch of Islam has enjoyed spectacularly good press in the West. Hailed as peaceful mystics who believe jihad is a spiritual quest, nothing violent or unpleasant, Sufism has attracted favorable attention and converts from all sorts of Westerners, from new agers in Marin County, California, to East Coast intellectuals. But Sufis are not necessarily all peace-loving meditative seekers of the divine.

    The formation of the “The Sufi Jihadi Squadrons of Shaykh ‘Abd al-Qadir al-Gilani” in Iraq was recently announced at the jihadist website, “Jihad Unspun”.”

    Show the falsehood up for what it is. These people are inspired by the extremism of Sufism as are at leats part of the Muslim Brotherhood.

    More telling from the same article:

    “Sufism has been linked integrally to the Muslim institution of jihad war since the 11th century C.E.”

    From another source:

    http://www.jamestown.org/terrorism/news/article.php?articleid=2373883

    Ex-Baathists Turn to Naqshbandi Sufis to Legitimize Insurgency

    http://www.semp.us/publications/biot_reader.php?BiotID=299

    The Sufi Side of Egyptian Islamic Jihad and Al-Qaeda Brothers

    Sid is being allowed to get away with what is shameful communal politics to push his own agenda. Sadly PP is giving him coverage and leeway to do this. This is not only a disgrace but even basic facts in his writing and statements he is blandly making can be exposed rather easily but still he isn’t censured for his communal politics.

    In addition it isn’t just limited to Iraq, Sufi’s involved in armed combat are involved in other areas of the world despite the denials of Sid.

    As you can see away from the communal politics being pushed by one of the editorial team, then we see the extremism isn’t limited to one creed. Sadly though one creed – The Sufi’s – are being allowed to get away with false labelling. The issue of extremism applies across Muslims creeds and includes Sufi’s. Until people recognise this the problem can’t be tackled.

  122. douglas clark — on 2nd May, 2008 at 5:51 am  

    Avi,

    I have read Sid for a long time. I think his heart is in the right place. He stands against extremism. I did not agree with his idea that he could cut off debate with you. There have been other authors that have assumed they had that ‘right’ and Sunny told them they didn’t.

    From what I’ve read Wahhabism does seem to promulgate a pretty nasty idea of the ‘other’. Perhaps this is just propoganda, but that is what I’ve heard. Address that, rather than having out a vendetta with Sid.

    You haven’t been banned, you haven’t even been silenced.

    Sheesh.

  123. Avi Cohen — on 2nd May, 2008 at 8:20 am  

    Douglas – Thank you. Just to let you know that I have been silenced because I posted a comment 3 times after he said he wouldn’t allow me to post and my comments, which were very short (2 lines) were deleted within seconds of posting. With respect that is silencing me.

    The comment I made was that if he stopped labelling pople incorrectly I stop feeling the need to reply. That was it. I posted three times and 3 times it was deleted within seconds of posting.

    I stand against extremism as well and yes there are nasty strains of people who call themselves Wahabi and there are nasty strains in other creeds within the Muslim world. There are nasty strains within Sufi’s.

    Hence my point about care with labelling.

    Also Douglas I don’t have a vendetta with Sid and generally agree with his sentiments about extremism, I have Sufi friends and Salafi friends and that is why I think the way that Sid labels people is unfair. I speak from my experience with these people.

    It is simple enough for PP writers to avoid communal politics and say Some of such and such creed are extreme. That is all I am saying is that is fair. Sid is sayng that all extremism is down to Wahabi/Salafi creeds and his own is far removed from it. I’ve shown this isn’t true and if this type of commentary keeps up how can people expect to defeat extremism if the actual problems isn’t identified.

    Sid wants to say all of the creeds he doesn’t like are solely responsible for extremism. This is false.

    Sunny complains rightly about the communal politics of MCB, The Hindu Forum etc. So then why the exception for Sid when he does it and why is Sid allowed to delete comments replying to him if the PP policy is that people have a right to be heard?

    My comment was deleted 3 times and just before a PP Editor had said he wouldn’t allow me more comment.

  124. Sid — on 2nd May, 2008 at 8:56 am  

    Avi Cohen

    Your use of the word “creed” is a misnomer or use it because of ignorance. A creed is a religion. Here we are looking at a single religion within which ideological strains have developed extremist interpretations. Islamic extremism operating in the world today is a direct extension of Salafism and to a lesser extent, Wahhabism.

    The Awaaz article was spot on when it identified these as mostly neo-Salafi and neo-Wahhabi extensions. The Muslib Brotherhood of today is not the one that Hasan al-Banna formulated. You’ve conveniently missed out a 30 year period after the 70s when Egypt expelled its MB demagogues and they almost all ended up in Saudi Arabia where for the next few decades they have been the theologians of this extremist brand of Islam.

    I will continue to use neo-Salafi to describe extremists when the description fits, ie they are an extension of Salafism as a concession to you. But you do realise that your sentimental and partisan objections to the facts of the matter mean that you are unwilling to accept the reality of the situation or you have an agenda of your own.

    As for Sufism, please continue to show us abuses and interconnections with extremism as and when they exist. I have no affiliation to Sufism and have no intention to reject your arguments on the matter, that would be doctrinaire. But I would ask you to try and not collude the facts of the matter. We should all be working together against extremism, rather than take pot shots at this or that ideology because of tribalistic tendencies.

    The only time I deleted your comments was on the Ahmadiyya thread where your continued, extensive and frankly boring off-topic posts on how “Sufis are Terrorists” (or words to that effect) derailed the thread from the far more serious matter at hand, and that is the continuing terrorism of the Ahdmadiyya community. I advised you that your last off-topic comment, which was incidentally full of contradictions (but that’s another story), would be the last allowed. So that is your further three off-topic comments were deleted.

  125. Avi Cohen — on 2nd May, 2008 at 9:51 am  

    Sid – If I feel you are incorrect I should be allowed to reply. Also how can it be off topic when you in the original article made your assertions which I disputed?

    By writing it you made it part of the topic and hence debate – obviously you can’t understand the concept that people will reply to what you write and you made it a statement of fact.

    The 3 posts you deleted simply said that if you made such statements I wouldreply. They didn’t say anything more and thus your heavy-handed censorship and editorial is limiting the concept of my right to reply.

    “The Awaaz article was spot on when it identified these as mostly neo-Salafi and neo-Wahhabi extensions.”
    Again you are shifting ground to wriggle out of what you did. You stated that all extremism was down to these groupings now you’re saying the article says mostly. If it is mostly then what I am saying is perfectly correct that it isn’t all and therefore care needs to be taken with labelling.

    If you took greater care with your statements then I wouldn’t feel the need to step in.

    Whilst I do enjoy your posts and good debate since you have been given editorial control your treatment of people is getting worse. On the Ahmadiyya post someone replied outlinging issues to do with Hinduism and your reply of “Ghosh ..” was uncalled for. You are behaving as if you know best and that is doesn’t help your position.

  126. Avi Cohen — on 2nd May, 2008 at 9:56 am  

    Sid – “But you do realise that your sentimental and partisan objections to the facts of the matter mean that you are unwilling to accept the reality of the situation or you have an agenda of your own.”

    I’ve already said I accept that there are people within this creed, thinking whatever you want to call it that are extremist and thye must be confronted as must all people who are extreme.

    I don’t have an agenda. As I said to you and BB and Sunny my point is that by taking this approach of all Salafi or all Wahabi are responsible for terrorism then those that aren’t spend all their time defending themselves with counter arguments and the focus of the debate and need is needlessly shfited and thus people lose the focus of fighting extremism.

    If the talk is about which creed or thought said what then that isn’t addressing extremism. Thats’s my point.

    It isn’t an agenda it is simply lets focus on the issue of extremism and address it where it needs to be addressed.

  127. Sid — on 2nd May, 2008 at 12:03 pm  

    “The Awaaz article was spot on when it identified these as mostly neo-Salafi and neo-Wahhabi extensions.”
    Again you are shifting ground to wriggle out of what you did. You stated that all extremism was down to these groupings now you’re saying the article says mostly. If it is mostly then what I am saying is perfectly correct that it isn’t all and therefore care needs to be taken with labelling.

    If you took greater care with your statements then I wouldn’t feel the need to step in.

    I stand by that statement categorically. All of the terrorism and Islamic extremism *in SouthAsia* which includes Pakistan, Afghaistan, Bangladesh and even India is by who have adopted the neo-Salafi ideology. The reason for this is simple, much of the overt politicisation of extremist tendencies have been influenced as a direct result of exposure to neo-Salafi ideas and funding. Worldwide, the picture starts to skew as you start seeing geo-political influences such as the Palestinian issue or the Iraqi insurgencies, which are not springboarded exclusively from Salafi ideology.

    I don’t have an agenda. As I said to you and BB and Sunny my point is that by taking this approach of all Salafi or all Wahabi are responsible for terrorism then those that aren’t spend all their time defending themselves with counter arguments and the focus of the debate and need is needlessly shfited and thus people lose the focus of fighting extremism.

    This single sentence exposes your entire confusion on this matter. The statement that *All* Salafis are extremists has not been made. However, it is correct to say that the increased levels extremism seen all over the Muslim world has been because of extremist articulations of Salafism or neo-Salafism if you like.

    I hope this clears matters up and we can move on.

  128. Sid — on 2nd May, 2008 at 12:10 pm  

    On the Ahmadiyya post someone replied outlinging issues to do with Hinduism and your reply of “Ghosh ..” was uncalled for. You are behaving as if you know best and that is doesn’t help your position.

    Why was it uncalled for? That would suggest that I made an intentional provocatory remark or something. If that is what the Ahmadiyya believe in a peaceful rational and tlerant, I’m fine with that.

    Why doesn’t it help my position?

  129. bananabrain — on 2nd May, 2008 at 2:14 pm  

    I suppose that you read the article upto the point you saw Idi Amin’s name and Israel in the same sentence and could not overcome your knee jerk reation that a) Think this is another rediculous conspiracy story and b) you did not have to continue reading it.

    yeah, sorry, i’m a bit tired. i’m a little punchdrunk from feeling like i’m the only person here who cares if israel gets blamed for all the world’s evil.

    you say that I stick up for Salafi/Wahabi’s and I’ve shown you this is for those that condemn things such as suicide bombing anywhere.

    i didn’t say anything about terrorism or suicide bombings. my point is more about the radicalisation of islamic discourse that has taken place over the last 20 years by the global outsourcing of islamic education to those with lots of spare money – ie the saudis. i don’t particularly care whether you call them salafis or wahhabis or whatever. i know who these people are, i know how they dress, i know how they talk, i know how their worldview works. the furore over the textbooks at the king fahd academy (which i expect you will still maintain is a fit-up) is a case in point. go into any islamic bookshop and you’ll see the books about jews and zionism. talk to any of these people and you’ll soon see what they’re about. they are financing the wholesale hijacking of islam worldwide and i think it is about bloody time the muslims stood up and said “not in our name, ahmed”.

    b’shalom

    bananabrain

  130. Avi Cohen — on 2nd May, 2008 at 4:20 pm  

    Sid – Best to drop this now.

    BB _ I know you didn’t say but I was clarifying my position in that people who condemn attrocities are the people I stick up for.

    Also I didn’t say the King Fahd Academy was a fit up -why do you have to take what I said and twist it. I said that the verses being taught when reported by the press were taken out of context. They were a historical story and not applicable to all Jews. This is correct and any Muslim can tell you. Rabbi’s and Imams have told me this. But oh no you won’t accept that – hel no you have to keep throwing that up. It is a verse related to G-d’s punishment to those who disobeyed the Sabbath. It that so difficult for you to grasp. The papers false reported that the verse was beign taught as all Jews were pigs and monkeys. Can you see the difference?

    You won’t read what people are saying then have a go at them by twisting what they say. I dunno why I bother.

    Try sittign down and actually reading what the hell I said then try commenting on whether I said it was a fit up. Sheesh.

  131. Ismaeel — on 13th May, 2008 at 11:42 am  

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Pickled Politics © Copyright 2005 - 2010. All rights reserved. Terms and conditions.
With the help of PHP and Wordpress.