• Family

    • Liberal Conspiracy
  • Comrades

    • Andy Worthington
    • Angela Saini
    • Bartholomew’s notes
    • Bleeding Heart Show
    • Bloggerheads
    • Blood & Treasure
    • Campaign against Honour Killings
    • Cath Elliott
    • Chicken Yoghurt
    • Daily Mail Watch
    • Dave Hill
    • Dr. Mitu Khurana
    • Europhobia
    • Faith in Society
    • Feminism for non-lefties
    • Feministing
    • Gender Bytes
    • Harry’s Place
    • IKWRO
    • MediaWatchWatch
    • Ministry of Truth
    • Natalie Bennett
    • New Statesman blogs
    • Operation Black Vote
    • Our Kingdom
    • Robert Sharp
    • Rupa Huq
    • Shiraz Socialist
    • Shuggy’s Blog
    • Stumbling and Mumbling
    • Ta-Nehisi Coates
    • The F Word
    • Though Cowards Flinch
    • Tory Troll
    • UK Polling Report
  • In-laws

    • Aaron Heath
    • Douglas Clark's saloon
    • Earwicga
    • Get There Steppin’
    • Incurable Hippie
    • Neha Viswanathan
    • Power of Choice
    • Rita Banerji
    • Sarah
    • Sepia Mutiny
    • Sonia Faleiro
    • Southall Black Sisters
    • The Langar Hall
    • Turban Head

  • Azad Ali suspended


    by Sid (Faisal)
    18th January, 2009 at 9:00 pm    

    A Muslim civil servant has been suspended over public statements on his blog ‘Between the Lines’.

    As well as being a career civil servant, Mr Ali has been a community activist for more than 20 years. He is also on the board of London CrimeStoppers and sits on the Metropolitan Police’s Strategic Stop & Search Committee and Police Use of Firearms Group. Mr Ali is a member of the Independent Police Complaints Commission’s Community Advisory Group and the Home Office’s Trust and Confidence Community Panel. There are few people with a higher profile within the ‘moderate’ Muslim community. He is a trustee of the East London Mosque & London Muslim Centre. He chairs the Muslim Council of Britain’s membership committee and is a member of its central working committee. He is also the vice-chairman of Canon Barnet School board of governors and chairman of the Saturday Islamic School board of governors. He has a wide network of friends, making him an influential figure as the Government tries to ‘engage’ with radical Islamic groups to prevent them turning to terrorism.

    Azad Ali is the president of the Civil Service Islamic Society. He is also the official “go-between” for various government bodies and organisations such as the East London Mosque, which is the base of the Southasian Islamist organisation Jamaat-e-Islami and its UK front, the Islamic Forum Europe.

    This is how he is described on his blog:

    Azad Ali is a National Council Member of Liberty, President of the Civil Service Islamic Society, and Treasurer of the Muslim Safety Forum. He is also a presenter on the the popular ‘Easy Talk’ show on Muslim Community Radio (MCR).

    Azad Ali has never disguised his politics. In fact he has been making unambiguously extremist (read Islamist) statements about his hardline stance on Islamic attitudes to various issues on his blog and radio show for many years. But why has he been suspended now?

    Cabinet Secretary Sir Gus O’Donnell – who is the patron of the [Civil Service Islamic Society] – acted immediately after being alerted to the comments by The Mail on Sunday.

    He takes a far more hardline approach, using the most provocative language, and appears to challenge the Whitehall code of practice that restricts mandarins’ political activities.

    In one posting, ‘Defeating extremism by promoting balance’, he appears to condone the killing of British and US troops in Iraq.

    He said there was ‘much truth’ in an interview with an Islamic militant who said: ‘If I saw an American or British man wearing a soldier’s uniform inside Iraq I would kill him because that is my obligation.

    Last week Mr Ali wrote on the ‘Between the Lines’ site: ‘We are the Resistance. The Zionist terrorist state of Israel had only one aim, to destroy all semblance of resistance. We have yet to hear any condemnation from our government.’

    He pours scorn on the British Government’s call for a ceasefire and mocks official representatives of moderate British ‘Muslims’ (his quotation marks) who support them.

    [Ali] added: ‘The [British] government is engaging with individuals who have no credibility in the community…a motley crew who are nothing but self-serving vultures, feeding on the dead flesh of the Palestinians.’

    Mr Ali said people who blame the Palestinians or Hamas for the Gaza attacks ‘are like sick men or women who blame the woman who has been raped, saying she brought it upon herself’.

    Tory MP Patrick Mercer, an adviser to Gordon Brown’s Security Minister Lord West, questioned how Mr Ali could continue as a civil servant.

    ‘I can’t see how this man can ever be viewed as objective again,’ said Mr Mercer. ‘It is extraordinary to me that a civil servant who is meant to be politically neutral should be making these sorts of comments about the Government.

    ‘It would seem that Mr Ali is not trying to conceal the fact that he is a civil servant, nor suggesting these statements are purely made in a personal capacity. I believe he has compromised himself seriously with these comments.’

    The civil service code restricts political activities ‘which impinge wholly or mainly on party politics’ including ‘speaking in public on matters of national political controversy; expressing views on such matters in letters to the Press, or in books, articles or leaflets’.

    Officials who want to engage in this kind of activity need permission from their Whitehall bosses.

    Until his internet outburst, Mr Ali was regarded as a moderate Muslim who could help tackle Islamic fanaticism in Britain.

    Azad Ali certainly holds some unattractive political views. I once had long exchanges of comments on his blog (here and here) in which he refused to condemn the Mumbai terrorists because they were merely, in his own words, “misguided” Muslims. That he has a soft spot for Islamic jihad is plain to see and he makes no bones about it.

    I believe the government should have been alerted to the figure of Azad Ali and what he stands for should long before be became ‘our moderate rehabiliated Islamist’.

    The only reason, I can think, why Ali has been suspended now is not just because his political writings and statements is apologia and glorification of jihadi Islamism pure and simple; that they certainly are. But more importantly, it is because it this polarised political climate that exists because of the Israeli attack on Gaza that emboldens Patrick Mercer to call for Ali’s resignation, which buys him political brownie points and an ‘exposé’ in the Daily Mail, forcing Gus McDonnell to spring into damage control mode to suspend Ali.

    But Azad Ali didn’t start writing Islamist material on his blog on Satuday December 27, the day Israel launched its air attacks on Gaza. What we should be asking is how Azad Ali managed to be selected as the Islamist of choice for so many government departments for this long.


                  Post to del.icio.us


    Filed in: British Identity,Muslim,Terrorism






    173 Comments below   |  

    Reactions: Twitter, blogs
    1. Pickled Politics » Quilliam Shocker?

      [...] Unfortunately, in spite of lovingly nurturing some reprehensible hardline attitudes of their very own. “Ed and Quilliam have very little support in the mainstream Muslim community,” the minister [...]




    1. Steve M — on 18th January, 2009 at 9:49 pm  

      Hamas leader Mahmoud Zahar said Jewish children are ‘legitimate targets’.

      This was a disgraceful remark that was rightly condemned by David Miliband. For this, Miliband was lambasted for on Ali’s blog where he wrote “Blaming Hamas does not wash any more… you can stop peddling the Zionist lie about Mahmoud Zahar!”

      As Zahar did in fact say precisely this on a television programme it was hardly a ‘Zionist lie’.

      Had I read this on his blog I would also have complained about it and this might have contributed to Ali being, quite rightly, suspended from his position in the civil service. Truthfully, until Zahar threatened my own children I probably wouldn’t have bothered.

      Now this has moved me to be the first person to post on this thread. Does that make me some kind of Zionist conspirator, Sid?

      What’s your point?

    2. Boyo — on 18th January, 2009 at 10:01 pm  

      I think it simply illustrates the disrespect the government has for Muslims, whom it presumably regards as an inherently antipathetic minority that has to be appeased and controlled.

      By engaging with self-appointed “representatives” and “community leaders” it exceptionalises Muslims and promotes the idea of difference, which in itself feeds a tendency any new community might have for grievance.

      Multiculturalism has not been an unmitigated disaster - England is a more integrated society than France - but its flip side has been the development of a “colonial” approach by the authorities, whereby when the minority in question has not fully integrated, they have engaged with it not as they would indigenous Britons, but as they did in their former colonies.

      As a result, perhaps some members of those communities have been encouraged to regard themselves not as part of British society, but as effectively “ruled” by “the British”?

    3. Shamit — on 18th January, 2009 at 10:03 pm  

      This joker should have been sacked the day he made those unfortunate comments about British soldiers. And, the main reason he did not get sacked or suspended earlier, is because no one in Whitehall was probably aware of it. You cant expect every action of every civil servant to be monitored — that said, his colleagues who he works with probably gave him the benefit of doubt.

      And I agree with Steve M.

      And this asshole should be sacked not suspended and there should be some ways of prosecuting him for inciting hatred and inviting people to attack and kill British Serviceman.

      Sid, if people were aware of it, I think he would have been sacked — so don’t go finding some great conspiracy behind this. Come on man…

    4. Sid — on 18th January, 2009 at 10:05 pm  

      He has also made comments that legimitise the Mumbai terrorists and the theological justification for killing British soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan in the past as well. He’s been doing it for years and he’s sitting on all sorts of boards and trusts. I’m not diminishing the disgusting nature of his Hamas support, Steve, but I am asking whether the heightened sensibilities of the Gaza attacks have contributed to raising the political stakes and therefore the likelihood of his suspension.

    5. Shamit — on 18th January, 2009 at 10:10 pm  

      Boyo actually has a point here and I am getting tired of the Government trying to at least give the impression that British Muslims are different- and that I think is insulting to most British Muslims.

      People who wear the uniform of this country and go and defend us in wars, people who work in intelligence services and fight extremism and many of them are Muslims. And these idiotic efforts by the Government supported by the weird loony left are insulting.

    6. MaidMarian — on 18th January, 2009 at 10:15 pm  

      ‘But Azad Ali didn’t start writing Islamist material on his blog on Satuday December 27, the day Israel launched its air attacks on Gaza. What we should be asking is how Azad Ali managed to be selected as the Islamist of choice for so many government departments for this long.’

      Or, to put it another way, is there not a question to be asked about why government departments felt that they were not able to face this person down until now?

      I quite agree that the timing with regard to the Mail is interesting to say the least, but if this has been going on for some period of time I question why this was not picked up on before 27th December. One can only wonder if his position in the Islamic Society may have offered him protection by raising the political stakes around him.

    7. Shamit — on 18th January, 2009 at 10:22 pm  

      I wonder the so called defenders of liberty and equality — the loony left (which gives centre-left a bad name) if aware never called for this idiot’s sacking.

      Makes you wonder — people wrote millions of lines and rightly so about Gaza but very few if any lines have been written about this guy who is trying to destroy our own country.

      I am sure if you knew about this guy there would be some others who would too and interestingly no one ever said a comment. May be they didn’t know — but the loony left is usually quiet about this kind of things — like they were about George Galloway.

    8. kobial — on 18th January, 2009 at 10:26 pm  

      This is reminiscent of Mockbul Ali, “Islamic issues adviser”, from the Foreign Office. In 2006, Mockbul defended Delwar Hossain Sayeedi’s “right” to come to Britain http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article687513.ece

      The government appears to remain a confederacy of dunces when choosing people as advisers for issues related to Islam.

      Shamit, I’m not suggesting a conspiracy theory behind his suspension either. Nonetheless, Azad Ali is a prominent figure, being a trustee on several prestigious boards. And he’s been inciting hatred for quite some time. He’s a front for the Jaamat-e-Islami, who underplay their role in the liberation war of Bangladesh, to the extent of condoning the genocide.

      Azad Ali’s extremist views have been out in the open for a long time. So the question hangs — why suspend now?

    9. Sid — on 18th January, 2009 at 10:33 pm  

      Azad Ali is not unfamiliar with the concept of freedom of speech, since he uses it to his full advantage to espouse and qualify his extremist viewpoints. He is a great fan of Anwar al-Awlaki a Yemen-based takfiri who blogs about the problem of the “phenomenon of a Muslim for the sake of the disbelievers” or “stooges of the west” - in other words Muslims who cannot be relied on as radicalised jihadis.

    10. Shamit — on 18th January, 2009 at 10:33 pm  

      Azad Ali’s extremist views have been out in the open for a long time. So the question hangs — why suspend now?

      Good question — and I think I sort of referred this at 7. However, Sid deserves an apology..I misunderstood his point. He and I agree.

    11. Ravi Naik — on 18th January, 2009 at 10:44 pm  

      I am getting tired of the Government trying to at least give the impression that British Muslims are different- and that I think is insulting to most British Muslims.

      You are absolutely right. It seems that extremist speech is tolerated only when it originates from Muslims. This double-standard is insulting because it makes “moderate” Muslims look radical and different from the rest.

    12. flipside — on 18th January, 2009 at 10:44 pm  

      http://ibloga.blogspot.com/2009/01/lauren-booth-tony-blairs-sister-in-law.html He’s got a friend.

    13. Sid — on 18th January, 2009 at 10:53 pm  

      kobial - yeah!

      no apology required Shamit :)

    14. persephone — on 18th January, 2009 at 10:53 pm  

      “What we should be asking is how Azad Ali managed to be selected as the Islamist of choice for so many government departments for this long.”

      Alternatively, what we should be asking of Mr Ali is when signing his contract of employment (and no doubt numerous other paperwork which detail the modus operandi of a civil servant) what was he thinking?.

      One could almost point the conspiracy towards Mr Ali given his belief system seems to be long term & given that the Civil Service does not do many (post) employment checks unless alerted.

      It remains to be seen whether Mr Ali ‘nobly’ resigns or takes issue with this.

    15. fug — on 18th January, 2009 at 10:58 pm  

      Azad Ali is sound. His participation in MSF makes us safe. He doesnt chase after govt ears, my observation is that they chase after him. A lot of good people look up to him. I imagine him to have greater social leadership in his little finger nail than you keyboard crusaders.

      No sense chasing bengali accountant spawn singing tagore songs and screwing eachother sideways at university, then going religious when it comes to the time of marriage, right?

      I think folks trying to sully people ‘under the age of 37′ with bangladesh deamons are sorely distracted. ELM is basically a community based organisation, as anybody participating in prayers, death rites and other programmes there will know. They did a lot of work towards the recent demos and were humble, practical, cute and cuddly to boot.

      Interesting how little time it takes some people to smell a ‘jamati bone’ and go for it.
      Its just in the ‘Protocols of the Lovers of Zion and Their Malicious Hordes’ to get up the arse of any organisation that acts against their interests.

      Whether its on campus, or in any other institution. It kinda confirms my theory that grown ups shouldnt blog. And that you people are destructive and pointless. Anyway his talents are probably wasted in government.

    16. Ravi Naik — on 18th January, 2009 at 11:00 pm  

      Anyway his talents are probably wasted in government.

      Too easy…

    17. persephone — on 18th January, 2009 at 11:04 pm  

      Fug, are you ashik?

    18. Shamit — on 18th January, 2009 at 11:05 pm  

      listen fug,

      Any asshole who is a British citizen let alone British civil servant calls for killing of British soldiers is a FUCKING CRIMINAL and has no social standing in my eyes and guess what most people who regularly write here would agree.

      And, calling us children probably makes you sleep better in your ideological and flawed interpretation of religion closet that you live in and you know what pickled politics wont miss you at all. Actually it would be good riddance to bad rubbish so why don’t you pack up and fuck off.

      Because of idiots like you, PP recently had to take a lot of flak and I am tired of you lot derailing threads with your bigoted statements and sensibilities.

      You are rubbish and you can fuck off you degenerate idiot and imbecile.

    19. chairwoman — on 18th January, 2009 at 11:06 pm  

      We were saying ‘Don’t trust anybody over 30′ in 1967, strange how opinions changed when we hit the ‘Big Three O’ ourselves.

      In the same vein I doubt that Pete Townshend is shedding any tears that his hope to ‘die before I get old’ wasn’t fulfilled.

    20. Ravi Naik — on 18th January, 2009 at 11:06 pm  

      Fug, are you ashik?

      Heh. :) I also wondered about that. Honestly.

    21. Shamit — on 18th January, 2009 at 11:08 pm  

      Perse -

      on your question about Mr. Ali. I am sure he would suddenly find a lot of faith in the British justice system and equality in the eyes of the law. Now isn’t that interesting

    22. chairwoman — on 18th January, 2009 at 11:10 pm  

      ‘Fug, are you ashik?’

      Is that rhyming slang for ‘dick’? :-)

    23. Steve M — on 18th January, 2009 at 11:12 pm  

      “I’m not diminishing the disgusting nature of his Hamas support, Steve, but I am asking whether the heightened sensibilities of the Gaza attacks have contributed to raising the political stakes and therefore the likelihood of his suspension.” - Sid

      I don’t think so but I do think the most awful aspect of the Gaza attacks has been the death of children. Certainly that has been for me the most sickening, heart-wrenching and difficult. I agree with the points made about the government disrespecting Muslims by their (the government’s) willingness to hang out with extremists. But let’s be honest. You can make viciously stupid remarks about British soldiers and maybe get away with it but when anyone, directly or indirectly, can justify the deliberate targeting of children - any children, then they’ve stepped over the line.

    24. Sid — on 18th January, 2009 at 11:16 pm  

      fug, you may pray that one day there will be a Zionist civil servant suspended for justifying the murder of Muslim children on his government funded blog. And on that day, you can be sure that I will blog about it but until that day, I remain older than 37.

    25. Steve M — on 18th January, 2009 at 11:18 pm  

      Its just in the ‘Protocols of the Lovers of Zion and Their Malicious Hordes’ to get up the arse of any organisation that acts against their interests.

      Fug, your prose generally is a little too obscure for me to understand what the fuck you’re talking about but did you just post what I think you did? If so (and I suspect it is so) then I can do no better than echo the wise words of Shamit when he says:

      You are rubbish and you can fuck off you degenerate idiot and imbecile.

    26. douglas clark — on 18th January, 2009 at 11:25 pm  

      Sid,

      When I was in the Civil Service, which was not yesterday, it was a given that you were not political. When did this change? I recall an Indian friend being nearly called to account for being anti Catholic when he was, in fact, a Catholic. The bureaucratic orgasms we all had…

      He got off.

    27. sheila — on 18th January, 2009 at 11:36 pm  

      Having read through the above blogs, im thinking why am i wasting my time with this. All those people who have misunderstood Azad Ali, its such a shame i tell you. Azad is working tirelessly, trying to eradicate extremism and tackling radicalisation. He is at the forefront of creating community cohesion. So how can you people call him an extremist? Its atrocious!! People need to educate themselves. Dont lap up everything the media throws at you!

      @ Shamit - my oh my, dont you have a colourful mouth. You have the articulation skills of a four year old. Its people like you who are ‘imbecils’ (using your own word!) - can’t even convey messages without swearing. Do you think that maybe if you swear your point may seem stonger? Or is swearing and rubbish the only things that come out of that crap mouth of yours. Next time you type, maybe have a little think what you are going to write. Maybe check to see if it makes sense. Maybe check to see if its even TRUE!!!

    28. persephone — on 18th January, 2009 at 11:37 pm  

      Ravi @ 20 Ok I believe you! I was thinking it may be since in line with ashik’s oft repeated claim that his is not the minority view hence he is posting under more than one moniker to make up for lack of numbers

      Chairwoman @ 22 yep you got it - the two words are completely interchangeable

      Shamit @ 21 and he would get advisers aged over 37 who had been to uni to 1) represent him legally & 2) a ‘bengali accountant’ spawn (to quote) to sort out the resultant financial settlement

    29. douglas clark — on 18th January, 2009 at 11:38 pm  

      fug,

      Are you trying to be satirical or just a mug?

      Its just in the ‘Protocols of the Lovers of Zion and Their Malicious Hordes’ to get up the arse of any organisation that acts against their interests.

      Firstly, your reference is wrong. It is properly, “The Protocols of the Elders of Zion”, not what you just said.

      And it is a fucking forgery,

      For goodness sake, read a little, before you make a complete utter fool of yourself.

      As you just did.

    30. persephone — on 18th January, 2009 at 11:42 pm  

      @27 - is the first para said in tongue in cheek or are you ashik? C’mon on now don’t be shy

    31. Steve M — on 18th January, 2009 at 11:43 pm  

      All those people who have misunderstood Azad Ali

      sheila, then please help us understand. Did Azad Ali support Mahmoud Zahar over his statement that children are ‘legitimate targets’, or not?

    32. chairwoman — on 18th January, 2009 at 11:44 pm  

      douglas - never trust anyone under 37 :-)

    33. Shamit — on 19th January, 2009 at 12:03 am  

      Sheila

      Obviously, you are not a regular here at PP. And, I apologise if I have offended you with my swearing.

      But I read the whole argument Sid had with Mr. Ali about the Mumbai attacks and guess what your argument here sounds hollow. And I stand by my statement any British Citizen (let alone who lives on salary paid by the taxpayer) calling for the death of British soldiers is a FUCKING criminal.

      And, as for my articulation skills, have a read through some of the recent posts and my comments there. Guess judging people by one post or comment and basing that on your perspective is your habit — not mine. But Fug, has been getting on a lot of nerves and has made anti-semitic statements in the very recent past — and so what I stand by everything I called Fug.

      So anymore lessons for me the imbecile — Please do educate us.

      We await your wisdom

    34. J-man — on 19th January, 2009 at 12:06 am  

      I agree with Sheila people have misunderstood Azad Ali.

      in the mail it says “he appears to condone “????

      I can smell the stench of a witchhunt here! He has been noble by putting his view “…and act with ‘honesty, impartiality and integrity’ (as the Mail referes to codes of the civil service) ” by openly talking about his moral concious (and the injustice in the world)while the government cowers behind political correctness and people in the world are being butchered and slaughtered through illegal occupations!

    35. Shamit — on 19th January, 2009 at 12:08 am  

      ‘Defeating extremism by promoting balance’, he appears to condone the killing of British and US troops in Iraq.

      He said there was ‘much truth’ in an interview with an Islamic militant who said: ‘If I saw an American or British man wearing a soldier’s uniform inside Iraq I would kill him because that is my obligation.”

      Nice language for a person who builds community cohesion and serves in the British Civil service. Sheila, if you think that is correct then its not me who needs to learn a bit more — may be??

    36. kobial — on 19th January, 2009 at 12:14 am  

      Shamit, I wouldn’t waste time/energy on Fug.

      Fug could do with some grammar lessons at the elementary level. His sentences don’t make sense, let alone his views!

    37. kobial — on 19th January, 2009 at 12:19 am  

      Sheila take a, sheila take a bow
      Boot the grime of this world in the crotch, dear

      ;)

    38. Shamit — on 19th January, 2009 at 12:27 am  

      Mr. Ali said the following in his blog as well…direct quotes.

      “In Islam, Khalifa or Caliph (English word) is the successor to the Prophet, peace be upon him, in his role as leader of the Muslims and the head of its political, military and administrative systems. So the Khalifa is the successor and the Khilafa is the government system of which he is the head.

      So, since we are all working our socks off, in different ways, for the resurgence of the Khilafa, ….”

      Wow — he believes in our system of governance where Church and state is separate — yeah right. Sheila and J-Man — you want to come up with some better arguments of Mr. Ali being misunderstood. Any debate you want to have you are welcome…you know the place — and even if I am not around there are plenty of sane voices who would take your arguments to pieces.. So feel free to come back when you have worked out a sensible argument.

    39. douglas clark — on 19th January, 2009 at 12:34 am  

      Chairwoman @ 32,

      Point.

      Though I’d still like an answer out of Sid as to why it is now legitimate for anyone in the Civil Service to express a political view.

      I think that is just wrong.

      My friends case excepted, obviously. We are not into crushing butterflies on wheels, are we?

    40. Salun Miah — on 19th January, 2009 at 12:39 am  

      Very strange and i’m shocked, I have met Azad Ali, yes he is community champion in my eyes.
      I find him very moderate, liberal or open minded, for his view of world matters.
      These articles and stories are just a set up (by some wicked/evil people). I believe those wicked editors just want to give a bad name to great player of the community, Azad is in the forefront of fighting the ills of societies e.g. drugs, v.crime, hate crimes and etc. So sad, negative only is written about him :(

      Just like when great football players / famous people go out to socialize, and they make small error in speech or action. The press comes down and takes everything out of size.

      Message to editors. Please stop this madness of putting people down, write some real news ;) or analysis.

    41. Steve M — on 19th January, 2009 at 12:41 am  

      Salun Miah, have you read Azad Ali’s blog?

    42. blah — on 19th January, 2009 at 12:41 am  

      Ali was sacked because Harrys Place ran a campaign against him then got in touch with its right wing contacts in the media who then published a story.

      And why did Harrys Place bastion of free speech do this?
      Because Ali condemned Israel and they are determined to get critics of Israel or anyone who doesnt tow the line sacked from their jobs in governemnt

    43. Sid — on 19th January, 2009 at 1:04 am  

      Don’t agree blah.

      Azad Ali was making pro-Jihadi noises, and making them loudly, for years. The only reason he’s suspended now is because newspapers thought his comments were newsworthy, in the light of this article:

      Second, Hamas is a true resistance movement that is standing up for the rights of the Palestinians, whereas Fatah and specifically Abu Mazen have capitulated to the colonial mindset. Of course Abu Mazen can prove me wrong by holding a general election and allowing Hamas to participate and then we can all agree on the winner. Third, the lack of any real action by our government and the international community has been consistent throughout the many years of oppressive occupation the Palestinians have had to endure, let’s not fall out of the pram over it now! Fourth, the consequences on the Arab governments that tacitly and actively supported this massacre will come home to roost. Fifth, be wary of those that blame the victims, those who blame Palestinians or Hamas, they are like those sick men or women who blame the woman who had been raped, saying she brought it upon herself.

      I think its a horrible indication of just how low Muslim’s sense of self-esteem is when we are not outraged by a man who claims that the only good Muslim is a jihadi Muslim and all others are weak, brainwashed stooges. That’s a total reinforcement of the “Muslims = terrorists” narrative. made by a so-called moderate who is employed by the government to “eradicate extremism and tackling radicalisation” in the East End. And finally endorsed by the government itself.

      This is an insult to British Muslims. One which should have prvoked outrage and the need to raise the heat. It should have Muslims themselves who should have exposed this Mir Jafar to the Daily Mail.

      It just happens that his specious pro-Palestine (Hamas = Palestinians) comments got picked up by the Press and he gets suspended and rightly so. That viewpoint is dangerous and an insult to Palestinian civilians.

      But the tragic irony is that it’s Muslims like you who would be the first to cry Azad Ali is the victim of the Zionist lobby. But I suspect that even if he never made a comment about Zionism at all it would still be because of the ‘Zionist conspiracy’.

    44. blah — on 19th January, 2009 at 1:08 am  

      Ravi Naik

      “You are absolutely right. It seems that extremist speech is tolerated only when it originates from Muslims. ”

      Welcome to Planet Ravi Naik. Circulating in the same orbit as Planet Daily Mail.
      We live in a country where Muslims can get 6 years in jail for shouting offensive slogans at a march while Christians like Robert Cottage get 2 1/2 years despite having a huge haul of bombs and explosives in their house.

      Isnt it “interesting” that a zionist could say “all Palestinians should be wiped out” and not be prosecuted but if someone were to say one zionist should be killed they would be charged under the anti-terrorism act.

      Freedom of speech. Dont make me laugh.

    45. blah — on 19th January, 2009 at 1:23 am  

      Sid

      “I think its a horrible indication of just how low Muslim’s sense of self-esteem is when we are not outraged by a man who claims that the only good Muslim is a jihadi Muslim and all others are weak, brainwashed stooges.”

      I will take your word for it. If he said that he clearly has some issues. The reverse attitude though is also outrageous- that any Muslim who took up the sword to fight for the faith is to be condemned. This would of course mean condeming people who fought legitamate jihads who are considered Muslim heroes from Muhamed bin Qasim to Saluhiddin Ayyubi to Emir Abd ul Kadir.
      I am not ashamed of such people. I am deeply proud of them. Wonder which other nation on earth would condemn its warriors in toto and those who lay down their lives for it as terrorists?

      “That’s a total reinforcement of the “Muslims = terrorists” narrative. made by a so-called moderate”

      Your belief that all Muslims who defend themselves against soldiers invading their land are terrorists is far more of an insult to Muslims, Even islamophobes who say that dont truly believe it. As a British citizen its unconsiable that Azad Ali shouldve (if he did) call for the deaths of UK troops. But your suggesting all Muslims who defend themselves are terrorists is vile.
      Perhaps Muslims should lay down and let themselves be slaughtered lest their killers think they are “terrorists” for daring to defend their land and families.

    46. Sid — on 19th January, 2009 at 1:32 am  

      But your suggesting all Muslims who defend themselves are terrorists is vile.

      Actually, I think you’ll find its Mr Ali who thinks that.

      When Mr Ali equates all Palestinians to Hamas, he is equating all Palestinians to a terrorist outfit. He also insinuates that if there were an election mandated by Abu Mazen, then Palestinians would choose Hamas again. He likes to regard the Palestinian cause as the embodiment of his jihadist fantasies.

    47. douglas clark — on 19th January, 2009 at 1:43 am  

      blah,

      So given your silence and offtopicness*, HP had nothing to do with it? Is that right?

      *Offtopicness - a tactic I use when I know I am wrong. An attempt to change the subject and hope no-one has noticed. I use it a lot.

    48. Try — on 19th January, 2009 at 1:46 am  

      I have checked his blogs to see what all the hu ha is about and as suspected it is all lies. No real facts given, anything that ‘suggests’ in the article is a lie. I cant seem to find where he wrote about killing a British soldier…thats because he didnt! Go and check it out! It seems he was quoting someone in a different context.

      All that will happen is he will be suspended on full pay…how ridiculous of a story! What a time to choose it as well! How pathetic that someone speaks out against our governments lack of actions against the bloody massacres taking place and this is what he gets! Where the hell have you all been? Do you not see the demos day in day out from hundreds of thousands of British people asking answers from the same British Government as Azad is, do you not see the parliamentarians commenting and condemning these actions but yet the govt doesn’t. The whole world is condemning these actions of brutality against civilians and you think Azad is alone… How pathetic and sad!

    49. liza — on 19th January, 2009 at 2:23 am  

      yup this really is sad an pathetic! here we have a man who s doing good with the community but oh …he s got a blog..and some nasty scumbag decides hey he s muslim..itl b easy to take things outta context and here is what u get! and the daily mails a rubbish low life anyway who feed on stories like this for money..they dont give a damn whether its true or not and hey presto they get a fan club like this who think they are not controlled by the media and can speak for themselves and actually do the research! yeh right!

    50. Ravi Naik — on 19th January, 2009 at 2:28 am  

      We live in a country where Muslims can get 6 years in jail for shouting offensive slogans at a march while Christians like Robert Cottage get 2 1/2 years despite having a huge haul of bombs and explosives in their house.

      Who exactly got 6 years for shouting offensive slogans?

      Isnt it “interesting” that a zionist could say “all Palestinians should be wiped out” and not be prosecuted but if someone were to say one zionist should be killed they would be charged under the anti-terrorism act.

      Who actually said “one zionist should be killed” and got charged under the anti-terrorism act?

      Freedom of speech. Dont make me laugh.

      Freedom of speech is not a call for violence. From what I’ve read, Azad Ali is a disgrace.

    51. liza — on 19th January, 2009 at 2:38 am  

      ^ from what you have ‘read’ ravi? u come to the above conclusion..so er no need to do any research to find out whether thats true is it? the holy media can never lie and accuse innocent people can they? oh they must be so proud of u..its people like you who are the core of the daily mails ‘no brain needed just believe in us’ fanclub!

    52. Try — on 19th January, 2009 at 2:40 am  

      Ravi> You know Azad Ali, do you?

      How does this sound..your a disgrace in my view!

      That doesnt stand for much does it..has no backing does it…has no moral values does it?

      Well before you go labeling others how about you go find out the truth for yourself!

      Speak to Azad and find out the truth, find some facts….hold on maybe you’ve tried and there is’nt any!

      In that case your doing exactly what you accuse others off, spreading hatred!

      And where on earth did Azad call for violence???…I guess you dont stop at spreading hatred but malicious lies seems to be on your agenda too!

    53. Ann Frank — on 19th January, 2009 at 2:41 am  

      Azad Ali, seems to be an ok kinda guy, and i feel this is all a witch hunt.

    54. liza — on 19th January, 2009 at 2:43 am  

      Poor ravi tends to believe in things he’s ‘read’.how pathetic!

    55. Sunny — on 19th January, 2009 at 2:44 am  

      Well, for a start they’ve suspended him not fired him entirely. Its a good start - he should be allowed to explain his views.

      Secondly, if his job is to talk and work with hard-right Muslim groups, then he’s probably the right person for the job. If his job is to represent all Muslims, then he’s not.

      I suspect the minister got a fright when phoned by the Mail on Sunday. If the inquiry is held and he clears himself, he’ll be back, quietly.

    56. barak — on 19th January, 2009 at 2:53 am  

      I’ve just read his blog, i think the Mail has got this one wrong! Ali was presenting a case agaisnt global Jihadism.

    57. Try — on 19th January, 2009 at 3:08 am  

      Ok who has actually even read the blog? I reckon that might be a good place to start.

      Sunny at least you would like to hear his views! Im guessing you have read the blog, what conclusion did you draw from it?

      You say its a good start> how is it a good start?

    58. Cabalamat — on 19th January, 2009 at 3:38 am  

      There are a number of points I would make:

      1. It is wrong that civil servants are not allowed to make comments on controversial issues. They should have the same right to freedom of speech as anyone else.

      2. Azad Ali is clearly not a fan of the Israeli government. However, the same is true of millions of British people, and I would expect that most people who take an interest in politics have at least one foreign government whose activities they strongly disapprove of. It seems unreasonable that they be sacked for this; though in some cases if they are doing a sensitive job it may be reasonable for them to be moved to another post.

      3. Azad Ali allegedly supports the killing of British soldiers. If this is true, he’s an enemy of Britain and should be sacked.

    59. douglas clark — on 19th January, 2009 at 4:40 am  

      Could someone give a link to the points that Ravi Naik made:

      He asked:

      Who exactly got 6 years for shouting offensive slogans?

      or if you can’t handle that, how about:

      Who actually said “one zionist should be killed” and got charged under the anti-terrorism act?

      Could any of you provide evidence?

      That was all Ravi asked for, and you ignored him…

    60. Boyo — on 19th January, 2009 at 7:41 am  

      With friend like Sheila, Liza and Try, Muslims don’t really need enemies…

    61. Shamit — on 19th January, 2009 at 9:27 am  

      “Ok who has actually even read the blog? I reckon that might be a good place to start.”

      I have and I think he is dodgy

    62. ann frank — on 19th January, 2009 at 10:27 am  

      I have read and re-read the blog in question and for the life of me i cant find where Azad Ali suggests that Killing British soldiers is acceptable? the “I sense there is much truth in this..” qoute has, in my reading of the blog been taken out of context.

      I read the Much truth to mean there is much truth in Azzams statement that “Muslims cannot be defeated by others. We Muslims are not defeated by our enemies, but instead, we are defeated by our own selves.” For me this is the only logical and literal understanding. read the whole passage again:

      Abdullah Azzam (r) is attributed with the saying, “Muslims cannot be defeated by others. We Muslims are not defeated by our enemies, but instead, we are defeated by our own selves.”

      I sense there is much truth in this from my discussions with many Muslims at the grassroots over the last few years. I have noticed that Jihad, and what Muslims have to say about it, is becoming an issue in itself, and this is true of many other - once unshakable and clear - foundations or pillars of our religion. Much of these are now becoming confused, and redefined in extremes of the left or the right.’

      I am in full agreement that we must challenge and take on extremists and promoters of hate and violence. I feel on this occassion picking on this man, is not the right course of action. He seems not to be an Extremists, dare i say, its the likes of him with whom engagement and understanding should be developed.

    63. fug — on 19th January, 2009 at 10:59 am  

      ‘Protocols of the Lovers of Zion and Their Malicious Hordes’.

      Yes old man i know, the above title is in the Habitus, not the library.

      Sunny
      Left and right are very eurocentric cheeks of the same set of buttocks. Muslims in the UK don’t tend to categorise themselves upon that axis. Global islamism 1.0 gets the rightist treatment simply because of the cold war, not its essential meaning.

      Azad Ali has general respect. The ploy to sully his name is to ensure Muslim people think twice about thinking and speaking out loud against the Israel problem. Why do you think it is that white lefty anarchists have the most expressive time at demos and muslims on the whole are quite subdued. There is state disciplining going on.

      Its a symbolic violence to appeal to media manufactured common sense of what can be said or not. Zionists are well established in the TWAT industry and willing and able to fudge matters in their favour to create ‘jihadi’ or ‘nutter links’ to exact their will.

      All this fuss over a US-sponsored Abdullah Azzam quote? raising money for interpal framed as an illegal activity? hmm. I think its important to undress the daily mail journalist who seems to have had Azad Ali in his cross hairs for a while.

      I wonder if there will be any action against the journalist or the paper.

      What i dont understand it why a portion of brown people would have the remotest bit of sympathy with the zionist condition. Trying extra hard perhaps?

    64. Sid — on 19th January, 2009 at 11:15 am  

      I suspect Azad Ali had made great progress in his career by appearing to be a moderate to his “radical” governmental patrons but a fierce radical to his moderate Muslim peers. I get the impression that many of his co-bloggers on ‘Between the Lines’ consider him to be a ridiculously indiscrete loose cannon.

    65. fug — on 19th January, 2009 at 11:16 am  

      how is an ife ‘blog’ government funded? (and by you logic citizen owned or something)

      muslim orgs shouldnt allow themselves to be unguled by govt anyway. Its organisationally spasticating.

      Its interesting too to see how that at a time when FCO officials are under tacit orders to block UN action against the Beast of Israel, a small person’s blog writing is targeted for righteous indignation and frankly biased ignorance-based accusations.

      Excellent distraction tactics.

    66. Shamit — on 19th January, 2009 at 11:24 am  

      Azad Ali lambasts Foreign Secretary David Miliband for condemning Hamas leader Mahmoud a-Zahar for saying Jewish children are “legitimate targets”. “Blaming Hamas does not wash any more… you can stop peddling the Zionist lie about Mahmoud Zahar!” Azad Ali writes.

      Yeah a very sensible community cohesion expert supporting the calling for killing of children. And he is a father.

      1. He finds it right that is okay to kill British soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan. Well, I wonder what the Muslim Admiral in the British Navy would have to say about that. For me, one dead British Soldier irrespective of their colour or religion is one dead too many.

      2. Attacking Government Policy statements is not a civil servant’s job — he is supposed to implement policy not try to set them.

      And no matter how much one tries to paint this guy as the man with a community cohesion vision — he is obviously not.

      No one here is attacking Muslims, actually this site and its contributors both writers as well as commentators are known for defending rights of all citizens.

      This man is also on record to say he is tirelessly working to build a caliphate — a direct quote I have provided above. So, he really has a lot of belief in our system of governance doesn’t he?

      And, I have to accept he is a nice guy and this is just a media manipulation. Come on give us a break and stop insulting our intelligence. Please.

      What’s your skin colour got to do with protesting against what is wrong?

    67. bananabrain — on 19th January, 2009 at 11:25 am  

      fug,

      i’ve met some conspiracy nuts in my time, but you really take the biscuit. you are clearly nuttier than squirrel poo.

      b’shalom

      bananabrain

    68. Shamit — on 19th January, 2009 at 11:26 am  

      “FCO officials are under tacit orders to block UN action against the Beast of Israel,”

      Any proof of that or is that again a figment of your imagination.

    69. persephone — on 19th January, 2009 at 11:37 am  

      “Ok who has actually even read the blog? I reckon that might be a good place to start.”

      I read the first few items on this blog & there was much to take issue with:

      “Zionist terrorist state of Israel”

      ” What the Zionists fail to grasp is that the Gazans, whether or not they succeed in repelling the ‘dogs’ from their land”

      “It had hints of fascist, racist and malignant undercurrents laced with little miss Jewess being a good British citizen. Her notion of being British: Having a ‘Labrador’, ‘Sunday lunch’ and ‘eating Marmite’ ”

      He is making overt racist comments himself

      “Hamas is a true resistance movement that is standing up for the rights of muslims”

      How does Azad Ali know what all muslims feel about Hamas?

      “First of all we should know that the government is engaging with individuals who have no credibility in the community, apart from the MCB”

      Methinks rather like individuals like Azad Ali

      ” we must … using wise words to counter the manipulative media”

      He needs to practice what he preaches about wise words

      “We have yet to hear any condemnation from our government.”

      And other phrases that are critical of his employer as well as being frequently critical of the foreign secretary

      He also goes on to criticise the fact that Israel is represented by a chief rabbi & queries why a religious leader can represent the secular Israeli’s yet he frequently resorts to quoting islamic scripture & referring to god in his posts himself. I also do not see much representation of secularity in the bio’s of the individuals who are listed as co bloggers on the site.

      All in all, not credible, very contradictory & certainly alot for his employer (civil service or no) to take issue with him. Many white spokespeople have had to resign on much less.

      If he ever needs another job he would be most suited to working with Gerald Ratner.

    70. Shamit — on 19th January, 2009 at 11:52 am  

      Perse,

      You have just become another member of the Zionist conspiracy and as a brown person how dare you question Azad Ali — the man who is here to bind our communities together under a Caliphate.

      And how dare you question his right to speak for all Muslims? Didn’t you know that if a Muslim did not adhere to Mr. Ali’s views then he is not a true Muslim.

    71. Shamit — on 19th January, 2009 at 11:59 am  

      And the Muslims, the Mumbai terrorists killed were not true Muslims either and Mr. Ali also questioned the right of Indian Muslims to refuse the right to bury those terrorists. Thats unislamic he said but he did not use that phrase to define the actions of the terrorists.

      Not a single word in his blog has been about Sudan or the indiscriminate killings of Muslims by other Muslims in Iraq. Taliban seems to be okay in his books as well — I guess throwing acid in the faces of young girls seeking an education is okay too. Cos, I did not read a single line in his blog entries about those.

      The British Army Engineer Corps just built a power plant in a part of Afghanistan which did not have any electricity before — and they were thanked by all and sundry there. How dare the bloody occupiers do such a thing? What’s funny they were led by a young Muslim Officer — oh people have the right to try to kill him — how dare he serve his country?

    72. ann frank — on 19th January, 2009 at 11:59 am  

      Are all civil sevants restricted in terms of what they can say publically? What if Azad Ali is free to say what he has from an civil servant point of view

    73. Shamit — on 19th January, 2009 at 12:05 pm  

      “Are all civil sevants restricted in terms of what they can say publically? What if Azad Ali is free to say what he has from an civil servant point of view”

      Well - they are not supposed to make any public statements that could be construed as criticism or backing of any Government policy. It does not matter whether they agree with the policy or not.

      Therefore the second question is mute.

    74. ann frank — on 19th January, 2009 at 12:10 pm  

      shamit,

      a personal blog is exactly as it should be - Personal. one writes about what one wants. Just because he hasnt written about the Sudan et al, doesnt show his apporval or otherwise of what is happening there.

      To keep this discussion useful we need to focus on the issue at hand. Many keep repeating that he has suggested that it is ok to kill british soldiers in Iraq. My Simple question is where in the blog has he done so?

      BTW, i belive our soldiers are doign a fantastic job all over the world. Even if they may have been sent to an illegal war, as is the opinion of some.

    75. Jai — on 19th January, 2009 at 12:13 pm  

      And the Muslims, the Mumbai terrorists killed were not true Muslims either and Mr. Ali also questioned the right of Indian Muslims to refuse the right to bury those terrorists.

      Hmm. So the Mumbai terrorists were “more Muslim” in the “true sense” than the Indian Muslim civilians they deliberately murdered ?

      Charming.

    76. Jai — on 19th January, 2009 at 12:16 pm  

      Incidentally, if Mr Ali believes that Indian Muslims are not “true Muslims” then it also raises the question of why he believes they should be under any religious obligation to bury the terrorists.

    77. persephone — on 19th January, 2009 at 12:24 pm  

      Ann Frank

      As Shamit said in 73.

      The overiding duty is to act as a civil servant first & foremost, act in the public interest & be impartial.

      It is also career death to embarrass 10 downing st. (In a similar way if you publicly criticised/talked about the Chairman, CEO, internal business of a non civil service employer that would be against your employment)

      Some civil servants are required to sign what was called the official secrets act. There are alot of other things that are written into the contract of employment & others docs which spell out literally what you cannot do in a public sphere.

      @ 74 - personal interests do also come into it. There used to also be a disclosure doc where you had to disclose private interests, memberships etc that may prove a conflict of interest to the govt (including any that entailed your close family) - you are also under a duty to inform them if you/family joined any post employment

      And civil servants are not above the law, including employment law, racist, incitement to violence etc.

      Thats why I query Azad Ali’s motivation in all of this

    78. ann frank — on 19th January, 2009 at 12:32 pm  

      persephone - thanks for your response,

      Im just keen to establish if indeed he has broken any contractual agreements or code of conduct. I read in the article that Azad Ali is a mere IT technician, with all due respect it does not sound like a senior civil servant role to me.

      If he hasnt broken any laws, then the call to sack him is pointless, thats the poin im articulating.

      As to the other allegations about suggesting it is ok to kill british soldiers in Iraq. He never said that. not in teh blog in question at least.

    79. persephone — on 19th January, 2009 at 12:43 pm  

      Ann frank

      Alot of what I said in 77 is releavnt for all role levels. His being in IT I imagine he may have access to alot of what maybe personal info so he may have extra duties.

      See links for the numerous aspects of the code of conduct:
      http://www.civilservice.gov.uk/iam/codes/cscode/index.asp

    80. Sid — on 19th January, 2009 at 12:48 pm  

      Im just keen to establish if indeed he has broken any contractual agreements or code of conduct. I read in the article that Azad Ali is a mere IT technician, with all due respect it does not sound like a senior civil servant role to me.

      He may have held down a day job as an IT admin, but this is how he is described on a SOAS website:

      Azad Ali is married with 3 children and lives in East London; he has been a community activist for over 20 years. He is a presenter on Muslim Community Radio’s flagship show Easy Talk. Aziz is the former chair of the Muslim Safety Forum and currently leads on the Counter Terrorism work-team for the Forum, working with the Home Office, ACPO and Security Services. Azad is currently the President of the Civil Service Islamic Society and a Board Member of the London CrimeStoppers. He is also a Trustee of the East London Mosque & London Muslim Centre. He chairs the Muslim Council of Britain’s Membership Committee and is a member of its Central Working Committee. He is also the Vice-Chair of Canon Barnet School Board of Governors and Chair of the Saturday Islamic School Board of Governors. He sits on the Strategic Stop & Search Committee and Police Use of Firearms Group with the Met. Azad is also a member of the IPCC’s Community Advisory Group and the Home Office’s Trust and Confidence Community Panel.

      This is how part of his resumé reads:

      As well as being a career civil servant, Mr Ali has been a community activist for more than 20 years. He is also on the board of London CrimeStoppers and sits on the Metropolitan Police’s Strategic Stop & Search Committee and Police Use of Firearms Group. Mr Ali is a member of the Independent Police Complaints Commission’s Community Advisory Group and the Home Office’s Trust and Confidence Community Panel. There are few people with a higher profile within the ‘moderate’ Muslim community. He is a trustee of the East London Mosque & London Muslim Centre. He chairs the Muslim Council of Britain’s membership committee and is a member of its central working committee. He is also the vice-chairman of Canon Barnet School board of governors and chairman of the Saturday Islamic School board of governors. He has a wide network of friends, making him an influential figure as the Government tries to ‘engage’ with radical Islamic groups to prevent them turning to terrorism.

      In short, a community activist for social cohesion, the “go-to” man to go to when the police needed consultancy on how Islamists do things. His profile was very high. He has also fully exposed his employment as a Civil servant on his blog and radio show.

      If he hasnt broken any laws, then the call to sack him is pointless, thats the poin im articulating.

      He had clearly broken the civil service code of conduct. Whether he is sacked remains the decision of his employers.

      The question is, how did he feel that he could have made these statements publicly without being called up on them?

      Was he emboldened by his network of supporters in government?

    81. ann frank — on 19th January, 2009 at 12:54 pm  

      Sid you say:

      “He had clearly broken the civil service code of conduct. Whether he is sacked remains the decision of his employers.”

      Its not clear that he has broken anything, he is under investigation to establish this!

      The list of his credentials i do not see the point in highlighting this, except for the fact that he is an influential and well positioned person whoes comments and opinions sjhould be heard.

      Now, i can not find where he suggested it is ok to kill British soldiers, please show me.

    82. persephone — on 19th January, 2009 at 12:56 pm  

      “Im just keen to establish if indeed he has broken any contractual agreements or code of conduct”

      The answer is yes & yes. To be clear, the CS code of conduct constitutes part of the employment contract & applies to all.

    83. Sid — on 19th January, 2009 at 1:04 pm  

      Its not clear that he has broken anything, he is under investigation to establish this!

      He has clearly broken some aspect of the Civil Service code. He would not be suspended otherwise.

      Now, i can not find where he suggested it is ok to kill British soldiers, please show me.

      He does not do so directly, but he is certainly enthusiastic in his endorsement of Huthaifa Azzam, son of Abdullah Azzam, a prominent “Afghan Arab” in the 1980s jihad against the Soviets in Afghanistan, a mentor of Osama bin Laden, and a fanatical Zionist conspiracy-monger. He quotes him directly:

      “If I saw an American or British man wearing a soldier’s uniform inside Iraq I would kill him because that is my obligation. If I found the same soldier over the border in Jordan I wouldn’t touch him. In Iraq he is a fighter and an occupier, here he is not. This is my religion and I respect this as the main instruction in my religion for jihad.”

    84. persephone — on 19th January, 2009 at 1:06 pm  

      “Its not clear that he has broken anything, he is under investigation to establish this!”

      Have you read the code of conduct - he clearly has broken it otherwise he would not have been suspended - it takes some doing to be suspended in the CS.

    85. BT — on 19th January, 2009 at 1:16 pm  

      I believe Azad Ali has been subject to a withhunt by the zionist machinery at large. David Toube and his merry men have been at Azad Ali for quite sometime. David Toube achieved what he wanted, the suspension of Azad Ali from his post with the Civil service. His blogs on Harry’s place were bogus - with snippets of quotes that were misrepresented and used against Azad Ali.

      I have met Azad Ali, and heard his flagship radio show ‘Easy-talk’ on many occasions - which discusses topical subjects that are important and relevant to British Muslims. I have found his views to be moderate, balanced and without the extremist undertone the mail on sunday has portrayed him to be. He is a very articulate, sociable man with views that are shared by a lot of muslims. It’s a shame a lot of people were out to get him. He has done a lot for the Bengali and Muslim community mainly in the deprived area of East London- which we should all be grateful to him.

      The character assasination has just got to stop - in my eyes his suspension aided by the mail on sunday is just that. He remains a valued and respected member of the Bangladeshi and Muslim community.

    86. Ravi Naik — on 19th January, 2009 at 1:16 pm  

      And the Muslims, the Mumbai terrorists killed were not true Muslims either and Mr. Ali also questioned the right of Indian Muslims to refuse the right to bury those terrorists. Thats unislamic he said but he did not use that phrase to define the actions of the terrorists.

      Ok, I have read Azad Ali’s blog three times now, including the altercation between him and Sid.

      He is unfortunately using a language that does not translate well to mainstream audiences, and as a public figure living in the West, he should know better.

      I actually think I got his point. He wants to claim back the word “Islamist”, and hates the fact that it is conflated with terrorism. He calls the acts in Mumbai as “criminal” (which I am fine with it), and says it has nothing to do with Islam, because religion does not mandate extremism. In other words, those were the acts of criminals that happened to be Muslims. I also think it is a legitimate point of view that it is anti-Islamic to refuse to bury Muslims.

      I still do not like Azad Ali - his views are largely anti-Secular, and not really conducive to living in a multicultural society and reaching out to other communities… and as consequence, it serves to alienate Muslims from the larger community.

      His language suggest pretty much that. But I feel he is not an apologist for what we call terrorism, nor he is defending their actions. Framing his views using puritan Islamic language does not do him any favours, but I feel now that he has the right to say so… which is totally independent on whether he is suited to work as a civil servant.

    87. Cabalamat — on 19th January, 2009 at 1:24 pm  

      @73 Shamit: Therefore the second question is mute.

      You mean moot. It’s a common mistake made on the Internet, like loose/lose, or peak/pique.

    88. Shamit — on 19th January, 2009 at 1:25 pm  

      Thanks for the spell check..Cabalmat.

      Btw, I think its really worth reading what Ravi has said. It makes sense.

    89. Sid — on 19th January, 2009 at 1:29 pm  

      I actually think I got his point. He wants to claim back the word “Islamist”, and hates the fact that it is conflated with terrorism. He calls the acts in Mumbai as “criminal” (which I am fine with it), and says it has nothing to do with Islam, because religion does not mandate extremism. In other words, those were the acts of criminals that happened to be Muslims. I also think it is a legitimate point of view that it is anti-Islamic to refuse to bury Muslims.

      That’s right Ravi but further to that position, he was also unwilling to call the Mumbai massacres an act of terror - since he saw that as “conflation” of the words “Muslim” and “terrorist” - something he is resists in principle, thereby opening the doors to conflating Islam as such with terrorism!

      And furthermore, he refused to denounce these “criminals” presumably because that would either mean 1) denouncing muslims - something he is unwilling to do
      2) He didn’t regard Mumbai an act of terror

    90. fug — on 19th January, 2009 at 1:31 pm  

      Janab Sh&$it,

      Craign murray wrote a post called, “Gordon Brown is a Murderous Two-Faced Cunt”, at a critical time. Im not a policy wonk myself nor a Mandarin but i buy the fact that hes still got mates in the FCO.

      http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2009/01/gordon_brown_is.html

      Thing is, coming from a ‘comprehensivist’ tradition in islam (these are how the first generation movements conceive themselves), you would find ‘jihadi’ stuff, virile ‘anticolonial’ stuff ‘sufi’ stuff, sometimes quite ‘modernist’ stuff because it includes all of them. Its all there for you to decontextualise and recontextualise of you like.

      on the burial of mumbai attackers, the point he was making was that you can’t ‘not bury a muslim because they are evil’, its a basic islamic right that nobody can interfere with. He wasnt accusing indian muslims for lacking virility. Thats not my positition, but its a perfectly valid one. Again you people really dont have any idea of the plurality of positions held to by muslims.

      And Janab Sh*&it, a position on Sudan i think has been made clear to the sudanese through muslims organisations involved in the field not for the benefit of white consumption, which is how you undoubtedly orientate your pronouncements. The western human rightist narrative is not uncritically adopted by the musalman.

      We know how and why these arguments are contructed, and that just because they are promoted by enemies of muslim interests, that they are not completely baseless.

    91. ann frank — on 19th January, 2009 at 1:33 pm  

      persephone, thanks for your response:

      He is suspended pending an investigation. As far as i a am aware, the purpose of an investigation is to establish the truth or otherwise of the allegations. It is clear he is suspended and the allegations are being investigated, roboustly i hope. But to attribute guilt at this state is hasty.

      Sid, thanks for your response 83. This is exactly my point, he is qouting another person, as you rightly say, Hudaifa Azzam. I argue that he is in no way “enthusiastic in his endorsement of Huthaifa Azzam”, rather he is using a figure known to jihadi islamists to argue against the global jihadist mantra. For in the very same blog Hudaifa says about his father Abdullah Al Azzam, and Azad Ali Quotes him:

      “He always warned people to stay away from the extremists, he even put it in his will. What is happening today with Al-Qaeda is not his way.”

      Thus what Azad Aliis doing here, in my opinion is taking head on the Al-Qaeda Ideology, my using personalities who Al-Qaeda revere, such as Abdullah Azzam to prove that attacking civilians and extending jihad outside of the battle field is incorrect. I was also informed by a friend of mine who lectures on political Islam that Hidaifa Azzam has recieved many death threats drom Al-Qaeda for ‘disowning’ jihad.

      There is a real need to keep prespective and justice innour arguments.

    92. Sid — on 19th January, 2009 at 1:57 pm  

      ann frank, do you wish to contextualise his love (“I really do love him for the sake of Allah, he has an uncanny way of explaining things to people which is endearing”) of the extremist jihadi “Shaykh” Anwar al Awlaki?

      here is one post where al Awlaki claims America is at war with Islam “and not just against the so called extremists”; insists that Muslims have a duty ”to strive through Jihad to establish the Islamic Khilafah [caliphate]; and compares American Muslims who particpated in the presidential election to abused dogs that remain loyal to their “owners” only because they are given a bone once in a while.

    93. persephone — on 19th January, 2009 at 2:00 pm  

      Ann Frank

      “There is a real need to keep prespective and justice innour arguments.” and “But to attribute guilt at this state is hasty.”

      Do you think it lacking perspective/unjust/hasty to come to such thoughts when he has been using phrases such as ‘little jewess’ & refer to humans as dogs etc across several of his blog articles over a period of time?

      And that quote he used from Huthaifa Azzam - Azad later went on to state about jihad being less clear & wrongly being re-positioned as relating to peace when instead it should be from a position of fighting for justice. I read into that a need to re-instate violence as a means for fighting for what he calls oppression & other coomments where he sees Hamas as resistance fighters. Thats how I perceive it from just reading 5 of his articles.

      He’s said so much that he’s been hoisted by his own petard. You cannot attribute it to the view being formed from that one quote.

    94. ann frank — on 19th January, 2009 at 2:15 pm  

      Sid, Thanks for your response.

      I just spoke to a Muslim friend of mine, on the phone, he is studying Islam and Arabic Language at SOAS and asked him about “Loving for the sake of Allah” he explains, Muslims Love each other for the sake of Allah,in fact muslims are supposed to love for their brothers in humanity what they love for themselves yet that in no way means the love is unconditional or blind. If someone makes a mistake commits a crime etc you can not condone it or support it. You are required to correct it, and if the mistake crime is punishable they aught to be punished by the authorities, yet you can still have love for the person. like your own child when they do something wrong you dicipline them yet teh love still remains. This explanation seems fair.

      To be fair to Azad Ali, in the very same blog his ‘love’ for Awlaki did not stop him from being critical of Awlaki’s extreme opinions:

      “By this approach we have caused disillusionment and in some instances radical and extreme reactions from within. You may take Shaykh Anwar Awlaki as an example. Reading his blogs, one cannot help but feel his frustration at the constant denial of legitimate Islamic principles. Worse is the complete incompetence of some Muslims to distinguish between Jihad and acts of murder.”

      Persephone,

      We are discussing teh allagetions made in a particular blog in question. let us deal with that first. Being fair, in that blog Azad Ali has not suggested that it is ok to kill british soldiers in Iraq, wouldnt you agree?

      i not at this stage talkign about his other blogs, just the one hoisted by the Mail to make these accusations against him.

    95. Sid — on 19th January, 2009 at 2:30 pm  

      I just spoke to a Muslim friend of mine, on the phone, he is studying Islam and Arabic Language at SOAS and asked him about “Loving for the sake of Allah” he explains, Muslims Love each other for the sake of Allah,in fact muslims are supposed to love for their brothers in humanity what they love for themselves yet that in no way means the love is unconditional or blind.

      I think you’ve missed my point entirely. I used the “love” quote to show just how highly Azad Ali regards “Shaikh” Anawar al Awlaki. I couldn’t care less if they’re having a man-love thing going on with each other. My point is, have you seen the nature of al Awlaki’s views? And Azad Ali “loves” this religious supremacist and thinks highly of someone who regards Muslims who vote in the US elections as “dogs”.

    96. ann frank — on 19th January, 2009 at 2:37 pm  

      Sid, on the contrary you have missed my point! Love for an individual and agreement and support of the said individuals opinions, are two very dictinct points. It is possible - indeed natural - to love a person yet hate their opinions, ideas ideology. It is possible to love what a person has to say on one matter, agree with him/her completely while while hate what he has to say on another issue, disagree and oppose him.

      Yes Azad Ali does Love Awlaki, its there on his blog. no contention there. Does he agree with everythign Awalaki says or does, does he love all his opinions and views, thats a different matter altogether.

      wouldnt you agree?

    97. persephone — on 19th January, 2009 at 2:43 pm  

      Ann Frank

      ” We are discussing teh allagetions made in a particular blog in question. let us deal with that first. Being fair, in that blog Azad Ali has not suggested that it is ok to kill british soldiers in Iraq, wouldnt you agree?”

      Maybe I did not make myself clear. But when he goes on to talk further, relating to the quote in question & within the same blog, it seems as if he wants jihad to be what he calls justice seeking violent methods & not peaceful.

      Also, you asked to know if there was a CS code of practice - now that you have access to it, is it ok for him as a CS to say such things on a public blog (whichever blog you want to cover).

      Wouldn’t you agree that he has broken the code?

    98. fug — on 19th January, 2009 at 3:26 pm  

      Interesting thoughts on blogging and being a CS

      http://www.tom-watson.co.uk/2008/03/blogging-and-the-civil-service/

      http://puffbox.com/2008/03/11/civil-service-blogging-guidelines/

      and the Official Code

      http://www.civilservice.gov.uk/iam/codes/cscode/index.asp

    99. Gary — on 19th January, 2009 at 3:43 pm  

      I have to agree with others, people are reading these articles and believing what it says. If you read Azad Ali’s blog you will see that he is trying to combat the view of OBL. The timming is also very shady, he has been a civil servant according to the sources for many years….so what happened all of a sudden. If you read the other blogs as well you can see how he has worked to promote balance and understanding. I ask people not to judge a man so quick, remember how people back in the days used to accuse others of being a witch and they would be burnt at stake…..we are doing the same thing.

    100. ann frank — on 19th January, 2009 at 3:50 pm  

      persephone Thank you so much for your considered reply,

      Yet againyou are unfortunately misrepresentign the blog in question. Azad Ali is arguing for a - what he deems, - a proper and comprehensive understanding of Jihad from within islamic scholarship and understanding. To that end he argues that the balanced understanding of jihad includes. He argues: “There are some Muslims who go out of their way to deny the full meaning and understanding of the term Jihad.”

      for him, and he is not alone in this understaing, most of orthodox islam also shares this view, Jihad is both ‘Jihad al nafs’ self purification as well as ‘Qital’War.

      He does not go into exactly how ‘Qital’ is to be carried out, (where and when, under whose authority etc)we know that this is in itself a long discussion, yet he does combat the idea that the whole world is a battle field and every disbeliever is a legitimate target.

      Furthermore, International law recognises the right of occupied peoples to resist by any means possible. this is what the palestinian resistence call jihad, what the iraqi resistence (other than al-Qaeda) call jihad. and this is what Azad is alluding to, teh right of te occupied people to resist occupation.

      re. CS, it’s not my place to say if he broke CS codes or not. The man is suspended under investigation so that his employes can answer this very question. in the mean time, he is innocent unless proven otherwise.

    101. Random Guy — on 19th January, 2009 at 4:01 pm  

      From my brief skim of the comments, it sounds like Azad Ali is a man worth listening to, witch-hunt or no….

    102. fug — on 19th January, 2009 at 4:32 pm  

      Only its a particularly poisonous and malevolent blogger pointing the witch stick, feeding the daily mail and everybody is joining him in a fit of bloghogging, blogslip and righteously indignant dissentary.

      very progressive.

    103. Sid — on 19th January, 2009 at 4:32 pm  

      Yes Azad Ali does Love Awlaki, its there on his blog. no contention there. Does he agree with everythign Awalaki says or does, does he love all his opinions and views, thats a different matter altogether.

      wouldnt you agree?

      Yes, but after making such a strong endorsement (love no less) the onus is on Azad to state clearly the opinions by al Awlaki that he finds objectionable. So far I’ve seen none, which leads me to believe that he endorses everything al Awlaki has to say.

    104. Sid — on 19th January, 2009 at 4:37 pm  

      Nice to see so many IFE and Jamaat-e-Islami supporters coming here to defend Azad Ali: sheila, Liza, Greg, ann frank, Try et al.

      Good of you to come here and debate far more sensibly than can be said of some other regular Islamists who afflict us around here. :)

    105. Ravi Naik — on 19th January, 2009 at 4:52 pm  

      That’s right Ravi but further to that position, he was also unwilling to call the Mumbai massacres an act of terror - since he saw that as “conflation” of the words “Muslim” and “terrorist” - something he is resists in principle, thereby opening the doors to conflating Islam as such with terrorism!

      And furthermore, he refused to denounce these “criminals” presumably because that would either mean 1) denouncing muslims - something he is unwilling to do
      2) He didn’t regard Mumbai an act of terror

      Again Sid, you are debating semantics, and that is a pointless exercise. You say terrorism, he says it’s a criminal act from misguided individuals who happen to be Muslims. There is some truth that the terms ‘terrorist’ and ‘terrorism’ have been used to promote wars, because calling them criminals and murderers, would not illicit such a show of brute force, and wars on terror(tm).

      In my view, Azad Ali main concern is not the atrocities in Mumbai or its victims, but protecting the reputation of Islam, and he does that by disassociating Islam from the acts of Mumbai. This makes him look completely insensitive with the atrocities, but it does not mean he condones those acts.

      I do hope Azad Ali is not a role-model for young Muslims. He is certainly entitled to his opinion, but like every Islamist, Cristianist, and other -ists, he is living deep in a bubble.

    106. BT — on 19th January, 2009 at 4:56 pm  

      Azad Ali has been a community activist for over 20 years and his background must have been vetted by the civil service mandarins long before his position was granted to him.

      Question, why has he been suddenly been framed,

      Answer, He choses to use the liberties of freedom of speech to air his views which go against the grain of the zionists- quite rightly and justly done.

      Bravo, this man deserves an MBE!

    107. ann frank — on 19th January, 2009 at 5:08 pm  

      Yes Azad Ali does Love Awlaki, its there on his blog. no contention there. Does he agree with everythign Awalaki says or does, does he love all his opinions and views, thats a different matter altogether.

      wouldnt you agree?

      Yes, but after making such a strong endorsement (love no less) the onus is on Azad to state clearly the opinions by al Awlaki that he finds objectionable. So far I’ve seen none, which leads me to believe that he endorses everything al Awlaki has to say.
      __________________

      Sid,

      In the very blog we are debating Azad Ali critisises Awlaki’s views on Jihad. It is clear that since he has come out of Prison in the Yemen, for which he was not convicted i have been informed, Awlaki has more radical opinions.

      btw, I dont know what IFE is… and i do not have any association with Jamaat Islam

    108. Sid — on 19th January, 2009 at 5:09 pm  

      Again Sid, you are debating semantics, and that is a pointless exercise. You say terrorism, he says it’s a criminal act from misguided individuals who happen to be Muslims. There is some truth that the terms ‘terrorist’ and ‘terrorism’ have been used to promote wars, because calling them criminals and murderers, would not illicit such a show of brute force, and wars on terror(tm).

      But the mumbai attacks are as clear an act of terrorism as anything. To suggest that this is merely a “criminal act” as Azad Ali does diminishes the correct use of the word. And semantics and words are very important.

      Its very important definitions of words like terrorism are accepted. Otherwise Muslims can easily become victim to the “All Muslims condone terrorism” narrative. Azad Ali seems unable or unwilling to state his definitions for what differentiates terrorism from jihad from acts of murder. He decides mumbai was a criminal act but terrorism; To me that’s just irresponsible and disengenuous.

    109. Try — on 19th January, 2009 at 5:21 pm  

      Sid Im not a supporter of IFE or Jamaat-e-islami (not really sure of what they preach and dont really care).

      I dont do this on a regular basis but I happen to believe after reading Azad Alis blog that he did not make the statement which has made the headlines, thats all simple.

      I think this is a case of misfortune, I do not care one bit what Azad Ali does in his own time (im sure he has enough dedicated fans following his footsteps) but what I am not happy with is the lie the Mail is spreading.

      This is quite outrageous and if the Mail can get away with this then anything is possible for them in the near future.

      If Azad Ali has broken codes of conduct than that is for his work to look into, I do not appreciate lies and slander from the media and people spreading hatred.

    110. David T — on 19th January, 2009 at 5:22 pm  

      Why are supporters of Jamaat-e-Islami calling themselves things like “Ann Frank” “Liza” and “Sheila”

      Do you think that

      (a) We don’t know who you are and why you’re trawling blogs defending Azad Ali?

      (b) We don’t take people with Bangladeshi names seriously?

    111. David T — on 19th January, 2009 at 5:28 pm  

      PS: Ann Frank

      Hilarious!!!!!!!

    112. Sid — on 19th January, 2009 at 5:32 pm  

      Try #109

      In that case, do understand that by supporting Azad Ali who glorifies jihadism and who stands against pluralism and liberal democracy, you are making things difficult for real moderate Muslims who fundamentally disagree with his principles (or should I say, lack of). And that’s just irresponsible of you.

    113. persephone — on 19th January, 2009 at 5:43 pm  

      Sister Ann frank

      “Yet again you are unfortunately misrepresentign the blog in question. Azad Ali is arguing for a - what he deems,a proper and comprehensive understanding of Jihad from within islamic scholarship and understanding”

      I think Sid @ 108 answered this aspect very well. In short when does a jihad become terrorism. Anyhow, I have no faith that Azad should be the one to decide the distinction.

      “CS, it’s not my place to say if he broke CS codes or not.”

      Then why query whether a code existed & if he has transgressed it in your previous posts. Or having now seen it, is it less easy to defend Azad?

    114. A. Hussain — on 19th January, 2009 at 7:12 pm  

      This is another proof of witch Hunt of prominent Muslim figures. Our government gets away with murder and should we remain silent? Where is the freedom of speech gone? I don’t trust the media regarding exactly what he said and it needs to be verified. BNP leader Nick Griffin gets away with extremist views and his hatred for the Muslims/Asians. Why is he still a political figure?

    115. fug — on 19th January, 2009 at 7:22 pm  

      liza and sheila are perfectly bangladeshi names.

      Big up to the Ganj.

      are people doubting that the Mighty Begums have any discursive agency? and asserting that any female of deshi ancestry and who is literate and writing here must be some kind of ayan hirsi ali figure to be recognised and bankable?

      Refresh, this ones for you.

      David Pube once took a tube,
      To a station called Pathetic,
      He met Anjem, they kissed and scrummed,
      The attraction was magnetic.

      For nights and days,
      they exchanged ways,
      of social spastication,
      To sacrifice, or get a life,
      where lay Pube’s emancipation?

      He toiled and boiled in dissentry,
      whilst working at a law firm.
      Technocrat or evil twat
      Were his twin confused obsessions.

      But Lenin’s Tomb came in the room,
      and with his great big wooden spoon,
      Removed the mask of this vile hater,
      Revealing him as degenerate baiter.

    116. liza — on 19th January, 2009 at 8:23 pm  

      david nice tactic…u cnt answer the question or defend ur stupid views thats y u resort to picking on our names and so called support for jammat e islam..wow u really do have brains!

    117. sheila — on 19th January, 2009 at 8:32 pm  

      @ David T 110:

      ‘Do you think that
      (a) We don’t know who you are and why you’re trawling blogs defending Azad Ali?’

      Do you think i care if you know who i am?? N why do u think im defending Azad? Its becuase he has every right to be defended. Its such a shame that you are still grossly misunderstanding Azad. But then what is expected of single minded people who actually don’t bother to find out if what they read is even true? You’ve read Azad’s blog havn’t you David Toube? The one that MOS have pathetically misquoted. You’ll know fully well from the blog that Azad is not justifying the killings of british troops. He has been disgustingly misquoted, and it is very unfortunate that people like yourself lap it all up!

      ‘(b) We don’t take people with Bangladeshi names seriously?’

      Oh how pathetic! That very comment of yours shows how pathetic you are! How unworthy of any discussion! How little minded you are. I could go on but i think i’d rather not.

      * Hmmm i wonder if that is the reason why the sellout Ed Hussain changed his name? Because he felt it was easier to suck up to people and get patted on the head for his ridiculous work?

    118. dave bones — on 19th January, 2009 at 9:11 pm  

      The thing about “Confronting Extremism” is that at some point you are going to have to talk to and build a level of trust with a person some of whose ideals you find abhorent.

      I know TV and government go off in all directions distracted from this because they find it uncomfortable, but it is true.

      Alternatively we could “Not talk to them” and hope for the best..

    119. Crisp — on 19th January, 2009 at 9:26 pm  

      @Fug…lol…loving ur poem!!!!!!!

      @Sheila…wudnt be surprised if sellout Ed Hussein and his motley crew are amongst these bloggers making pathetic comments as usual..*yawn* Im sure he laps evry moment, anyting 2 get his arse licked!

      I’ve read and reread Azad’s blogs over and over again, and still cant seem to come across the statements he has supposedly made…please direct me oh blind ones? Or is it that those comments wont even made in the first place?

    120. Boyo — on 19th January, 2009 at 9:28 pm  

      i think shelia, liza and anne frank are probably one person. or maybe one person with three heads and eight arms in a dark room somewhere trying to bat back multiple blog entries against Mr Ali - they’ve been doing the same over at HP. either way they’re pretty creepy…

    121. Refresh — on 19th January, 2009 at 9:37 pm  

      Good post Dave Bones - and it may well be the reasoning behind why Azad Ali has such a free-hand; and why he will be back in post after a reasonable period.

      As for the Daily Mail, I wonder who has set Azad Ali up for this. But to be fair its not Azad Ali they are going for, its the policy of engagement that is being targeted.

      On the point Sid makes on the timing, how many blogs have been distracted from what is going on in Gaza and the horror there is to be unearthed in the next few days and weeks?

    122. Refresh — on 19th January, 2009 at 9:41 pm  

      Fug, thanks.

      Nearly missed it, as I had no intention of following this thread.

    123. Mr Daroon — on 20th January, 2009 at 4:19 am  

      What a cop cop! He’s a hero and a political martyr for speaking his mind just like all those thousand who are marching, protesting and speaking against our government for its’ in action and support for the Zionist mass murder in Gaza: in simple layman’s turn; we call it the truth.
      It’s a good which hunt, and keep it up, as the British Muslims are very much used to it by now.
      Mr Moderate Azad Ali is very popular in East London, the heart of radicalism and activism: who says radicalism is illegal in this country!!
      Can’t handle a moderate!! Already in pain!!
      I say to Mr Azad Ali continue speaking your mind. It’s a view shared by many. Like it or lump it! Its part of British culture to speak the truth!!

    124. douglas clark — on 20th January, 2009 at 8:37 am  

      Mr Daroon,

      Whatever else I think about the UK government, and it’s not a lot, they have consistently called for peace in Gaza.

    125. fug — on 20th January, 2009 at 10:11 am  

      liar.

      you mean the good old british government tradition of saying one thing and doing another.

    126. Sid — on 20th January, 2009 at 10:27 am  

      He’s a hero and a political martyr for speaking his mind just like all those thousand who are marching, protesting and speaking against our government for its’ in action and support for the Zionist mass murder in Gaza: in simple layman’s turn; we call it the truth.

      Yes and my mum’s Angelina Jolie.

    127. try — on 20th January, 2009 at 12:45 pm  

      SID> “In that case, do understand that by supporting Azad Ali who glorifies jihadism and who stands against pluralism and liberal democracy, you are making things difficult for real moderate Muslims who fundamentally disagree with his principles (or should I say, lack of). And that’s just irresponsible of you.”

      Sid,

      Who are the real moderate Muslims? Ed and his crew? The ones ripping the Govt of a million pounds so they can buy palsma tvs? Dont make me laugh….puuuhlease!!!

      Yeah I can really see the moderate Muslims right behind them!

      The fact of the matter is….THE MAIL ON SUNDAY HAS GOT IT WRONG BECAUSE NOWHERE ON THE BLOG DOES AZAD ALI SAY ITS OK TO KILL BRITISH SOLDIERS!

      I am discussing the headlines that have made it to our British trashy press…not Azad Alis principles or anything else in that regard. The discussion is also not about what Azad Ali is doing to ‘making things difficult for real moderate Muslims’ or what the BNP are doing in certain areas to make life difficult for Muslims or what Israel is doing to make life impossible for most Palestinians.

      Get it correct! As a British I was alarmed and concerned over the headline..having done researh it seems its baseless and Azad Ali did not say such a thing.

      Had he said such a comment, I would be disgusted and sickened. BUT HE DID NOT!

      Now get over it!

    128. Sid — on 20th January, 2009 at 1:01 pm  

      Who are the real moderate Muslims? Ed and his crew? The ones ripping the Govt of a million pounds so they can buy palsma tvs? Dont make me laugh….puuuhlease!!!

      oh no, I see you’ve turned weird and nasty. You must be from the IFE or the ELM.

      I hope you can appreciate that the vast number of ordinary Muslims who practice their religion and respect the laws of the land are far superior to a career Civil Servant who uses his position to espouse the worst Islamist supremcist diatribes on a public blog and is endorsed by the government as the “moderate” muslim spokesman of choice.

    129. fug — on 20th January, 2009 at 3:58 pm  

      so its all about recognising your latent superiority?

      figures.

    130. Ann Frank — on 20th January, 2009 at 9:01 pm  

      persephone - its not my business to say whether Azad Ali broke CS codes cause the appropriate body are investigating this. This is about codes of conduct, protocols etc, it’s quite legal and specific and there fore not my place! quite simple really,

      Again and again i ask - Where did Azad Ali say it is ok to kill British soldiers in Iraq? Where? please show me where?

      108 - Does not answer a thing, it’s a tactic of avoiding the specific discussion and throwing more distractions in the way of having a the real discussion!

      Jihad as understood by Azad and by the the majority of scholars in islam is inclusive of legitimate warfare, as well as purification of the soul. Jihad is also resisting occupying forces.

    131. gary101 — on 20th January, 2009 at 9:15 pm  

      why am I not suprised about the type of nespapers that have picked on this story? Very typical these days that a Muslim who actualy promoted a better community cohesion and inter-faith talks is now at the at the focus of a witch hunt. I will repeat my words……history is repeating itself. The Tresuary should realise that the views that Azad Ali holds are not extreme and in fact they are combating the extreme view of people like OBL and his followers like Abu Hamzah. Now you tell me who is the enemy and who is the friend? I think Azad Ali is the friend and also a BRIT!

    132. sonia — on 20th January, 2009 at 11:09 pm  

      good insight @ 2 boyo

    133. Wyda — on 21st January, 2009 at 12:59 am  

      wow there has been lengthy discussions about

      1)breaking codes of conduct
      2)definitions of jihadist
      3)love for the sake of Allah
      4)English and Bengali names even????

      errm but Im with Ann Frank on this one…could someone please actually just answer her questions:

      where in the blog in question does Azad Ali suggest all british troops should be killed? Where does it show he is an extremist?

    134. gary — on 21st January, 2009 at 5:55 pm  

      YES please answer the above question posed by Wyda!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    135. Crisp — on 21st January, 2009 at 6:00 pm  

      @ Wyda…dont expect an answer to that question cos it doesnt exist! Simple! I’ve read his blog a few times now and im still lost as to where he suggests the killing of British troop!?! And Damn…for criticising the British gov for their inactions, his now an extremist??!!!

    136. Wyda — on 21st January, 2009 at 7:20 pm  

      @ Crisp….exactly, WE seem to understand that…

      David T and his crew just need a little longer i guess. Though David T, im a patient person so again I ask if you are so sure of the things you utter, so confident Azad Ali is an extremist, so sure he asked for troops to be killed, why oh why can you NOT back up your ‘conclusion’ with actual evidence?

      Or is your silence and inability to answer our questions your way of showing damn you messed up big time on this one?

      Guess you were not expecting so many ‘english’ named folks to retaliate. What a silly silly man I say.

    137. Quote provider — on 21st January, 2009 at 7:35 pm  

      “Jihad was promoted and proved useful to repel the Soviet occupiers of Afghanistan, but the same patrons now equate Jihad to terrorism when it comes to the Iraqi occupation by the Allies.”

    138. sheila — on 21st January, 2009 at 11:07 pm  

      All those asking questions to David T and crew…. please carry on asking! We’re all eagerly waiting for the answers! However, I doubt David T will answer. How will he be able to show on Azad’s blog where Azad has written about supporting the killing of British troops, when this statement actually doesnt EXIST at all. David T and the other pathetic writers got carried away with their fingers and imagination. WITOUT ANY CONSIDERATION TO THE TRUTH. But as David T is so insistent that Azad is supporting the killings of British troops, then please do enlighten us all with the exact source of your information!

      We’re all waiting!!!

    139. Mary — on 21st January, 2009 at 11:48 pm  

      Just came across this blog, only been skim reading but I cannot believe this was the answer to the question posed at 83:
      ‘Now, i cannot find where he suggested it is ok to kill British soldiers, please show me.’

      “He does not do so directly, but he is certainly enthusiastic in his endorsement of Huthaifa Azzam”

      Unbelievable. Are you really telling me Sid that you and the papers believe that posting someone’s quote equates to calling for the murder of British troops?
      Do you have any idea how incredibly stupid and wrong that sounds? Oh ‘He hasn’t directly said ANY SUCH THING but IN MY OPINION, he SEEMS enthusiastic about X dodgy person so that’s the same as directly saying such a thing’
      1. He doesn’t directly say anything. So that’s a huge assumption on your part.
      2. That he’s enthusiastically endorsing a certain thing is again, another gross assumption on your part.
      3. Therefore concluding from the blog that he endorses the killing of troops is just seriously blinkered and a seriously abominable misrepresentation.
      Surely you can see that?

      ——————————-
      In regards to 128: “I hope you can appreciate that the vast number of ordinary Muslims who practice their religion and respect the laws of the land are far superior to a career Civil Servant who uses his position to espouse the worst Islamist supremcist diatribes on a public blog and is endorsed by the government as the “moderate” muslim spokesman of choice.”

      I’d just like to say that in fact, YOU need to appreciate that Azad Ali stands high AMONGST the vast number of ordinary Muslims who practise their religion and respect the laws of the land.
      He is also a fantastic Civil Servant, an intelligent, approachable, totally moderate and truly inspiring Muslim individual.
      Please do yourself a favour and get out of denial - He DOES speak for the majority of Muslims but no, this is not a scary thing. Why? Because unlike certain press and people like you, most Muslims and non Muslims would UNDERSTAND what he’s all about and what he says and they wouldn’t misrepresent his moderate views and ways for something it is not.
      His personal blogs, when read without malice are very interesting and such a pleasure to read.

      This witch hunt founded on nothing but baseless accusations and far-fetched assumptions due to the deficiencies in understanding or/as well as malicious intent, has just got to stop.

    140. Mary — on 22nd January, 2009 at 12:01 am  

      89. “And furthermore, he refused to denounce these “criminals”..”

      I know this is off-topic but wanted to respond to what was said at 89.
      Now I’ve read and heard Azad Ali condemn terrorism many many times before in the past and he has also always been very vocal about condemning and denouncing criminals who commit crimes, be it on a minor scale or major scale.

      So perhaps, and this is just a suggestion, but perhaps the reason why he didn’t respond to your question in that blog was quite simply because he couldn’t be bothered to?
      Now no need to take it so personally Sid, I’m sure you have people in your life who always answer your questions no matter how redundant or lame they are?
      So one Azad Ali not wanting to answer a lame, obvious question shouldn’t really get to you THIS much should it? :)

    141. Ann Frank — on 22nd January, 2009 at 1:54 am  

      guess what both the Mail and the telegraph have removed their articles about azad ali from their sites. wonder why??? maybe because teh articles contained gross inaccuracies, lies and misqoutes? I believe Azad will win Libel! and i hope he also takes this place and Harry’s Place to court too. So much islamophibia and incitement to hatred on here!

    142. qidniz — on 22nd January, 2009 at 6:30 am  

      Your long exchanges with Azad Ali weren’t complete wastes of time, as would ordinarily be expected of any exchange with a jamaati thug. They proved beyond a doubt to readers like me that between someone like you and someone like Azad Ali, you are much the better human being while he is much the better Muslim.

    143. Staggered — on 22nd January, 2009 at 11:38 pm  

      Sid, you really are a racist bigot living in a very narrow little world where anyone that doesn’t have the same opinion as you must be either an idiot or an extremist….are you the editor of the Mail on Sunday by any chance?

      If you were an intelligent individual you wouldn’t have just reproduced the Mail on Sundays article and taken exactly the same line as they did, i.e. not checking your facts!

      It took me about 10 mins to find out that the above article is completely untrue, with selective quotes taken and reproduced completely out of context. Azad Ali has not once anywhere in his blog called for, or supported the notion that British troops should be shot or targeted.

      Incidentely since complaints have been made to the MonS, The Telegraph and The Standard about this article by the moderators of Between the Lines, all of these so called papers have removed the article in question from their websites until the facts have been investigated and verified, shame they didn’t do that before they published the article and spared a decent man’s reputation.

      Whether he’s broken the Civil Service code is a matter for his employer to deal with.

    144. Katy Newton — on 22nd January, 2009 at 11:57 pm  

      I’d love to know the ratio of IP addresses to commenters’ names on this thread.

    145. Mary — on 23rd January, 2009 at 2:07 am  

      Oh so would I Katy Newton, so would I..
      But I sense the more relevantly important question requiring an answer is ‘What has Azad Ali said that was extreme?’
      Our curiosity over IP addresses must wait I’m afraid, For there lies ahead a bigger issue,
      a bigger cause,
      a deeper unrest
      we must not pause..

    146. Liza — on 23rd January, 2009 at 9:18 am  

      yes yes katy newton u go do that dont worry we understand you havent got it in you to even have a discussion, its a bit too much for your small pea sized brain. you go think about ip ratios while we people have a discussion here..and wait for the ‘sid and co’ to actually answer the questions that have been set instead of diverting to other issues to TRY and make the audience believe what they are stating is true and that this is not made up of their own opinion. and oh yeh in the meantime i will make sure even my passport names me as ‘liza’:)

    147. Katy Newton — on 23rd January, 2009 at 10:38 am  

      yes yes katy newton u go do that dont worry we understand you havent got it in you to even have a discussion, its a bit too much for your small pea sized brain.

      It’s true. My poor pea-sized brain. It can’t cope.

    148. Liza — on 23rd January, 2009 at 10:39 am  

      ^ no need to state the obvious again…. now lets get back to the BIGGER issue which Mary has stated clearly.

    149. Sid — on 23rd January, 2009 at 10:56 am  

      Liza and Mary,

      Please take a look at our second post on Azad Ali, where in the comments thread you will see a discussion which clarifies how Azad Ali is very much supporting Abdullah Azzam Jnr’s justification to kill British soldiers in Iraq.

    150. Shamit — on 23rd January, 2009 at 12:46 pm  

      Let me see if I can explain to these wonderful intelligent people why we object to Mr. Azad Ali.
      *****************************************

      Mr. Azad Ali indirectly condones killing of British combat soldiers because he implies that people who are attacking them are doing so because they are an occupying force. Legally and morally that is simply not the case as I would explain below. Further, as a civil servant going directly against the views of the Government of the day is something that is unacceptable.

      Whether one agreed with the Iraq war or not (I supported it in principle but it was the wrong war at the wrong time) — one must accept that today Iraq has a democratically elected Government where over 70% of Iraqis’ under death threats came and voted for their chosen political party. And however fagile there is democracy at work.

      How can one forget the teenagers who come back from School in Anwar province and take over guard duties so that militants don’t come in their area. These kids and their families and their communities back the US led forces in their area.

      In a scenario such as this where the democratically elected Government of Iraq has an agreement with the United States and others on how long they think foreign troops should be there — where is the combat coming into play?

      So, the combatants that Mr. Ali refers to are those who do not support the wishes of Iraqi Government and thereby people and who wish to go and kill foreign soldiers who are now in Iraq following request from the Iraqi Government?

      Where is Mr. Ali taking a similar stance as the Geneva Conventions? Where is the legal right for these people to go and fight for Iraqi’s when their Government does not want it.

      Right now Iraqis’ are trying to rebuild a country — they don’t need outsiders to come and kill Iraqis’ indiscriminately or their guests (the foreign soldiers).

      What are these so called Islamic fighters trying to defend? Please enlighten me — maybe I am mistaken. But what he is calling for in my book is total anarchy and it does not befit a British Civil Servant especially when his Government has a clearly different view.

      Saying its a Muslim’s duty to fight occupying forces is just trying to use religion to support illegal activities and in the process causing for more Muslims to be killed. That is called being a religious fanatic.

      And, I also object to him expressing himself to be working hard in his own way to bring Caliphate back. That is unacceptable to me and many others in a secular society.

      I don’t imagine any Minister coming out and saying there is a lot of anger amongst the Hindu/Sikh communities against terrorism in India and the rage is building up. But a minister did that recently about a particular group

      I dont see the Guardian or the Government making comments about how angry the Christian community in Britian is about the indiscriminate killing of Iraqi Christians and attacks on christian missionaries by right wing hindus in India.

      I am all for equality of the law and for all british citizens to be treated the same way. I do have a problem when a British civil servant talks about his hard work in bringing back the caliphate and then people going around and defending him. Does this make sense your brain which you claim to be bigger than Katy’s?

      Maybe the brains are bigger with substantially more white matter but much less grey matter — probably but what would a Hindu bloke know right?

    151. Shamit — on 23rd January, 2009 at 1:24 pm  

      So where did all these intelligent people go now? Trying to consult together and come back with a group approach with wierd indefensible logic I am sure.

      I feel pity on you that you don’t understand the basis of a secular society. Religion in a secular society is personal and has no place in public policy — irrespective of what religious teachings might say.

      If people dont like that they could always leave Britain. Make sense

    152. douglas clark — on 23rd January, 2009 at 1:42 pm  

      Staggered @ 144,

      What makes you say Sid is a racist bigot? Is it just because you can, or something?

      I don’t always agree with our Sid, but he is certainly not what you’ve just accused him of being.

    153. Shamit — on 23rd January, 2009 at 1:48 pm  

      Douglas

      I am tired of idiots coming here and accusing our regulars and members of the editorial team of being racists and bigots and none of them are.

      So, even though I might face the wrath of Sunny and the rest of the editorial team including Sid, I am going to start defending people aggressively.

      These idiots calling Sid a bigot or suggesting Katy has a pea sized brain is just getting to me especially when they refuse to understand and accept the basis of a secular society.

    154. Katy Newton — on 23rd January, 2009 at 1:59 pm  

      My brain IS the size of a pea. See handy illustration.

    155. douglas clark — on 23rd January, 2009 at 2:03 pm  

      Shamit,

      I’d have doubted that you would face much wrath. Mostly, folk on here look out for each other and it is self monitoring. You have to either be a complete idiot or get so worked up about something that you forget who your friends are, to even get that big bad boy Leon on your back :-)

      I know. I’ve been there.

    156. douglas clark — on 23rd January, 2009 at 2:05 pm  

      Katy,

      It’s a hell of an intelligent pea, so it is!

    157. Katy Newton — on 23rd January, 2009 at 2:09 pm  

      Thanks, Douglas :-)

    158. Sid — on 23rd January, 2009 at 2:50 pm  

      So, even though I might face the wrath of Sunny and the rest of the editorial team including Sid, I am going to start defending people aggressively.

      I wouldn’t worry too much. When these many defenders of Azad Ali have to resort calling me a “Muslim hater”, “racist bigot”, “uncle tom”, then you know they’ve completely run out of ideas. Not that their defence of Azad Ali’s reprehensible comments have been convincingly good, in any case.

    159. Ravi Naik — on 23rd January, 2009 at 3:32 pm  

      Further, as a civil servant going directly against the views of the Government of the day is something that is unacceptable.

      I am sure that there are better ways to phrase this, specially in the context of a Democracy.

      In a scenario such as this where the democratically elected Government of Iraq has an agreement with the United States and others on how long they think foreign troops should be there — where is the combat coming into play? So, the combatants that Mr. Ali refers to are those who do not support the wishes of Iraqi Government and thereby people and who wish to go and kill foreign soldiers who are now in Iraq following request from the Iraqi Government?

      That’s a pretty good argument, Shamit.

      Saying its a Muslim’s duty to fight occupying forces is just trying to use religion to support illegal activities and in the process causing for more Muslims to be killed. That is called being a religious fanatic.

      I disagree. Most people would agree with Azad Ali on his general premise that if people are oppressed by an occupying force, then there should be an equal force to repel it in order to achieve balance. Most people would also agree with Azad Ali that there should be rules of engagement, in order to distinguish between genuine resistence and acts of violence and murder.

      However, the vast majority of Iraqis did go and vote for the current Iraqi government and the US/British troops are guests who are securing peace, so in that sense I agree with you that Azad Ali showed rather poor judgement in bringing up that quote, and make him open to accusations that he is condoning violence.

      I do have a problem when a British civil servant talks about his hard work in bringing back the caliphate and then people going around and defending him

      That should be covered by freedom of speech… no?

    160. douglas clark — on 23rd January, 2009 at 3:53 pm  

      Ravi,

      Can I ask you one thing?

      Why should it be allowable for anyone’s employment contract to inhibit their free speech? This, I’d have thought, should be prohibited by the very government that is supposed to serve us. They do not own us, after all. Whether Azad Ali is right or not seems to me to be a bit beside the point. He ought to be allowed to express himself. He is not ‘owned’ by the government, is he?

      It would be a form of slavery if he was.

      You, Azad Ali, and I spend 168 hours every week on this planet. What we think, or do, outwith the 40 hours that we are employed should not matter.

      Anyway, that’s what I think.

    161. Sid — on 23rd January, 2009 at 4:31 pm  

      I do have a problem when a British civil servant talks about his hard work in bringing back the caliphate and then people going around and defending him

      That should be covered by freedom of speech… no?

      I’d take that up with Gus O’Donnell, Head of the Civil Service and patron of Azad Ali’s Civil Service Islamic Society. He suspended Azad Ali.

    162. Shamit — on 23rd January, 2009 at 4:49 pm  

      Ravi - Douglas

      If you replace the words civil servant with citizen then I would agree with both of you.

      The “civil servant” is by law not permitted to publicly view his opinions on any Government policy. Also, a civil servant is expected to believe in our secular democratic system of Governance.

      In our own system, while the Anglican Church is the official religion we are by law a secular democracy — where a citizen can be assured of not having some religious edicts defining common law.

      So, there is a breach of trust when he coherently talks about how him and others are working hard in their own ways to bring back a Caiphate.

      These laws also protect civil servants from political changes and they can equally without favour or fear give their impartial advice to their political masters. For our system of Governance to work, politicians and civil servants should have mutual trust so that there could be frank and honest discussions among two groups while identifying implications or specific implementation of any policy choice the politicans make.

      Imagine, if the ambassador to India now decided to contradict the Foreign Secretary when Mr. Miliband made some serious gaffes during his recent visit there. Niether do you want foreign politicians getting wind that the British civil service disagrees with actual Government policy.

      So, if someone describes himself as a civil servant in a blog which is public and openly argues for policies and approaches which the Government of the day which we are all aware that he had done — then he vioated the basic cardinal principles of being a civil servant.

      If he wants to articulate his political views which are very religion oriented — then he should quit his job with the State and do so.

      Otherwise he is tarnishing not only himself but other civil servants and dare I say not doing much favour to the Muslim community either.

      When British forces are stationed in a foreign country based on an agreement with the host Government which has been democratically elected;- and a civil servant finds some right in some jihadi arguing for the killing of those soldiers — I call it treason and I would argue for him to be sacked and may be prosecuted.

      Human Rights laws of Europe enable a government officer to refuse to obey an illegal order but not break the basic trust.

      Is that explanation accurate?

    163. Ravi Naik — on 23rd January, 2009 at 6:37 pm  

      Why should it be allowable for anyone’s employment contract to inhibit their free speech?

      I feel that deep down you are right, Douglas. However, employees may sign a form of conduct, that could include not belonging to racist parties, or sign non-disclosure forms where they are supposed not to divulge or comment about a company’s IP. etc In that case, you are knowingly abdicating your rights as a regular citizen.

      My question is whether defending the ‘caliphate’ somehow violates being a civil servant. Shamit, very kindly answers that.

      The “civil servant” is by law not permitted to publicly view his opinions on any Government policy. Also, a civil servant is expected to believe in our secular democratic system of Governance.

      So, there is a breach of trust when he coherently talks about how him and others are working hard in their own ways to bring back a Caiphate.

      As I am not a Muslim or an Islamist, I have no idea
      what he means by Caliphate. Is he talking about bringing the sort of government found in classical and medieval Islamic history in Britain? He would have to be an utter fool to believe that in a multicultural and diverse Britain he could ever bring about such form of government. Or is he talking about something more abstract? And how he wants to bring this change?

      Rather than taking things literally, I would prefer to have him explain in terms I can understand before making judgement.

    164. Richard Bellingham — on 24th January, 2009 at 10:20 am  

      I know The Sun is great at making trash up, but surely The Daily Mail should not have followed in their footsteps just to sell a few papers.

    165. douglas clark — on 24th January, 2009 at 10:57 am  

      Ravi, Shamit and Sid,

      Thanks for replying.

      Shamit, I think your statement on the legal situation of a Civil Servant is completely accurate. That is certainly my recollection of how it worked.

      Ravi, yeah, I think I am being a bit idealistic. I suppose it depends how high you place free speech up the ladder. It does seem pretty obvious that a Civil Servant who is at complete odds with a policy in the area s(h)e works in has got a major issue. Though you do have to remember that the vast majority of civil servants have no input into policy whatsoever.

      If you take Shamits’ example of the Indian Ambassador, it might be OK to allow them to have a bee in their bonnet about, say foxhunting in the UK, I’d have thought that could be tolerated. The problem would be that managing it would become byzantine in it’s complexity.

      So, I suppose, on balance, the present system works.

      Sid, my question was not about applying the rules, it was about whether they are the right rules to apply.

      I end up fairly well persuaded by the three of you.

    166. sonia — on 26th January, 2009 at 5:33 pm  

      “As I am not a Muslim or an Islamist, I have no idea
      what he means by Caliphate”

      heh, you and the rest of us :-)

      douglas,

      “It does seem pretty obvious that a Civil Servant who is at complete odds with a policy in the area s(h)e works in has got a major issue. Though you do have to remember that the vast majority of civil servants have no input into policy whatsoever.”

      yeah but a system of governance is a bit more than just one piece of policy.

      anyway its not about restricting the man’s freedom of speech or even dismissing him - i’d like to hear more from him - explaining his views - before we make those decisions, whether he is fit for his job or not.

      based on what i’ve read, my issues - and questions for him- would be very simple. he talks about oppression, so yeah fine. but what about the people who were oppressed by the expansion of the caliphate, on its way to becoming a major empire? He wants to criticise ‘Empire’ - well what about OUR glorious history of empire. “we” might be oppressed now, but what about the days when we were the oppressors? what does he say about those oppressed peoples? Or is it okay because that was done to “please Allah”? It’s the usual - do it to me, its oppression. If i’m doing it, its not. its glorious religion. I can’t tell how much of that thinking he might subscribe to, and it seems to me very important.

    167. persephone — on 26th January, 2009 at 6:04 pm  

      @ 145 Yep I asked if there were monikers for the same person about a 100 posts ago but no one responded…

      Its also interesting that several new handles appeared alomost simultaneously & largely on the two Azad Ali posts..

    168. douglas clark — on 26th January, 2009 at 6:08 pm  

      Sonia @ 167,

      Fair comment. I was probably arguing with myself, and on balance, I ended up agreeing with the terrible trio. (They know who they are!)

      Which is to say that he has a case to answer.

      You are quite right in querying the basis of his arguement. My point here and on t’other thread is that it is no-where near clear cut that that particular post of his - which some people have analysed, ad absurdum - is as damning as has been suggested.

      I am not really very happy about people trolling the internet, placing an interpretation on words used perhaps hastily, and then using that as a weapon against someones livelyhood. Which is the risk that the guy now faces.

      Wonder if we’ll ever hear an outcome?

    169. sonia — on 26th January, 2009 at 6:18 pm  

      Douglas i wouldn’t worry too much about Azad Ali’s “livelihood” - really I wouldn’t. the man is smart and has many supporters, we don’t need to feel sorry for him from that perspective, he is hardly without means to make money. and he is a political bloke, and understands all this. he is no simpleton. ( i don’t mean politican in the party political sense, i understand it from his writings)

      from having read his article, i think he wasn’t directly suggesting british soldiers be killed. but as i said, that’s not particularly relevant for me. he was foolish to leave himself open in that way - and as a civil servant - and his position in general - would have been well aware of it.

    170. Dan — on 29th January, 2009 at 1:29 am  

      Sid, I’ve had alook through those links you put down where Azad Ali refuses to condemn the mumbai terrorists.

      Unfortunately, having read through the whole discussion - and having studied Islam at university (in order to make sense of it all!), I was truly disappointed to see you deliberately misread and twisted the discussion to come to the conclusion you say.

      The discussion was never revolving around ‘condemning or condoning’, but about the wroding used by Melanie Philips to connect the terrorists to ‘Islamists’ (a term - from my sturdy - that is highly controversial if not completely biased). Your argument was “whats wrong with that connection”, his argument was that it was inaccurate!

      What’s going on Sid? when you see someone like yourself go on what can only be a ‘smear-campaign’ (because even though you claim to be different to ‘islamists’, you still have your own personal differences I’m sure - just had a look at your comments on that link about some issue from the 70s! Hardly good grounds for a fair account of Ali!), how can we trust your posts?

      If you had an agenda, it would have been far more polite (to the readers) to say so before you expect non-muslims (which you appear to assume are ‘uneducated’ about Islam and Muslims) to fall for your smear campaigning.

      You have a clear political and religious opinion - and thats your right - but the problem is you are trying to pass your version off as the ‘moderate and acceptable one and actively attacking the others, and all the while - because it falls within our government’s ‘political’ aims - the government is scooping up your type into its arms.

    171. alz-1986 — on 31st January, 2009 at 5:00 pm  

      OK, I have just had a long hard look at the articles (azad ali) and blogs, and it seems to me that certain people like “Sid” are trying desperately to overtake him as an “opinion leader”. Azad Ali hasnt actually approved the killings of British soldiers has he?, and many of his article speak well of social cohesion and fostering good relations amongst communities, which is more than I can say for those now calling for his head.

      This may have something to do with his views on Isreal which is a difficult pill to swallow for its powerfull freinds.

    172. Jake Sanders — on 19th March, 2009 at 11:17 pm  

      This is sweet (Sellout Ed) coming from a guy from whom we saw emotional outcrys, lamenting and school boy sobbing in protest for when the UK banned Dutch MP Geert Wilders from entering UK and now you want someone thrown out from the civil service. Does it bug you when someone with some islamic and grassroots credibility tries to tackle extremism by talking with their government and not singing to their ears? (a job you clearly are fit enough to do)you pathetic, hypocritical idiot.

    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.