»   "The Spectator front-cover article on riots is riddled with inaccurate stats and ill-founded claims" http://t.co/QsEhRs0 8 hrs ago

»   “@fleetstreetfox: @MrHarryCole @sunny_hundal I'd love to know how much they pay, because at the moment they're not telling me!” < hah! Pwned 9 hrs ago

»   And a 50-50 split in ad revenue? That's way too high. You get a much better deal with the Guardian ad network (which @Libcon is signed to) 11 hrs ago

»   This Standard article says to me that Paul Staines' blog-ad network MessageSpace is in trouble, hence the need to puff http://t.co/6R92Xur 11 hrs ago

»   Congrats to Osborne for fooling most of the media into believing low bond yields = 'safe haven' than 'we're screwed' http://t.co/skiCbXA 12 hrs ago

» More updates...


  • 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



  • Technorati: graph / links

    The Wit and Wisdom of Abu Qatada


    by Sid (Faisal)
    19th February, 2009 at 2:00 pm    

    This is an excerpt from Rafaello Pantucci‘s article Abu Qatada’s Comfortable British Jihad.

    Amongst Britain’s radical preachers, Abu Qatada usually distinguished himself as the most erudite and productive in literary terms of “Londonistan’s unholy trinity.” Omar Nasiri, who worked undercover in London for British and French intelligence and attended a number of his lectures, identified him as “very intelligent [and] very learned,” speaking a language of jihad that Nasiri noted as “almost identical” to that used in the Afghan training camp he had attended [8]. Qatada’s writing advocates the separation between the Muslim and non-Muslim world; his most cited text, Islamic Movements and Contemporary Alliances, details the dangerous development of Muslim “involvement in alliances with modern non-Islamic powers,” providing an analysis of numerous instances across the Muslim world where this has not worked [9].

    He further expounds in his sermons on the concept of a “covenant of security” (aqd al-amaan), explaining that “the land of kufr is considered as a land of war. The exception is if the land has a contract with the Muslims.” However, he qualifies this by citing that “some scholars limit it to 10 years, and the reason they say this is in order for the Muslims to not abandon the jihad against the kuffar” [10]. In other words, he offers a possible time limit for the covenant of security between Muslims and non-Muslims that was often offered as the justification for the lack of attacks in the UK before 7/7. From his new perch in Beirut, Omar Bakri Muhammad recently stated that he left the UK in August 2005 because he felt “the government had violated the ‘covenant of security’ that had hitherto guaranteed peace between Muslims and the British state” (Asia Times, June 12).

    In a lengthy series of sermons entitled Sil silatul Iman (the Belief Series), Qatada lays out much of his belief structure. He opens by detailing the presence of three circles of Muslims within the Umma, beginning with “The Muslims,” in other words the 1 billion or so community around the globe, who have within them the more selective “Saved Sect” and finally within this sub-group, the “Victorious Sect” [11]. He then goes on in great detail to answer a vast number of theological questions and definitions, before turning to the topic of jihad. In response to the question “What is required in order to establish an Islamic state?” Abu Qutada replied that “dignity is only established through jihad” [12]. After a long series of detailed explanations, Abu Qutada justifies the use of jihad:

    “It is jihad that breaths life into the ummah [Muslim community]. It is the jihad that distinguished the Muslim from the hypocrite. We must be proud that we are the tool that Allah uses against the kuffar to punish them. What is this life that’s so precious to us? It is worse than that of a dog, this humiliated and submissive life where the ummah is subjected to the worst of crimes, and groups still insist that Muslims should use peaceful measures in order to bring change. How ignorant!” [13]

    Some have accused Abu Qatada of making permissible “the killing of women and children… [and] using other people’s money by any means, claiming that such monies were the spoils of war” [14]. In the context of his Iman sermons, this does not seem too far off, as he concludes that the blood of both apostates and their women is halal (permissible) and “that the wealth that belongs to the group is permissible. Therefore you are permitted to steal it from them, and even assassinate its members” [15]. To support this process of justification, Abu Qatada cites the 9th-10th century Persian Sunni historian Imam Tabari and 13th-14th century Islamic scholar Ibn Taimiyah, a frequently cited authority for today’s Islamists.

    Conclusion

    In his ruling on the decision to release Abu Qatada, Justice Mitting stated: “The appellant represents a continuing and significant risk to national security,” and the Home Secretary has declared the government will fight this decision [16]. Nonetheless, Abu Qatada now rests comfortably in West London in an £800,000 house, living with his family on welfare from the British government amounting to more than £50,000 a year (Daily Mail, June 23). For some this is merely a reflection of the “fair play” in the British legal system, however, it has left many counter-terrorism experts exasperated and raises concerns over how the UK will manage to deal with the 2,000 dangerous individuals currently under surveillance by the Security Services.

    With the recent collapse of cases against “lyrical terrorist” Samina Malik and the so-called “Bradford Five,” the British legal system has shown it has a real problem in convicting individuals it alleges are domestic terrorists (Times, June 18; Guardian, February 14). The release to house arrest of Abu Qatada, one of the more infamous names in extremist literature around the globe, has merely reinforced the fact that this problem extends to foreigners in the UK as well. While an argument could be made that such rulings deflate Muslim perceptions of xenophobia in the British legal system, the reality is that very real security concerns are not going away and a quick read of many of the chatrooms or webpages frequented by British Muslims would indicate that British “fair play” is not filtering through to the community. The surprising release of Abu Qatada makes it clear that many fissures existing in the current system of dealing with domestic terrorist threats remain in need of repair.


                  Post to del.icio.us


    Filed in: Race politics,Terrorism






    121 Comments below   |  

    Reactions: Twitter, blogs
    1. » Abu Qatada lost his case to prevent depo … Talk Islam

      [...] might complain as to why the legal system indulges such cases when they involve such ‘obviously’ [...]




    1. dave bones — on 19th February, 2009 at 2:31 pm  

      Strasbourg want to give him money too. Are they a bit off message?

    2. ukliberty — on 19th February, 2009 at 3:04 pm  

      No, they are applying the law.

      He was unlawfully detained and therefore entitled to compensation.

    3. Kismet Hardy — on 19th February, 2009 at 3:08 pm  

      “We must be proud that we are the tool”

      Indeed.

    4. The Common Humanist — on 19th February, 2009 at 4:05 pm  

      Change a few words, like ‘muslim’ to ‘German Volk’, Kuffar to Jews and it is almost like Adolf is still with us.

      Queue Munir etc to explain about ‘context’ etc and all the other excuses for clerical fascism that I hear these days…………

    5. munir — on 19th February, 2009 at 4:34 pm  

      “Queue Munir etc to explain about ‘context’ etc and all the other excuses for clerical fascism that I hear these days…………”

      In which intellectual pygmy’s universe is questioning a legal verdict on a person the same as agreeing with every view that person expresses ? This is the “continuum” of far right Islamophobes.

      Shouldnt a “common humanist” be questioning it too?

      And BTW I think you mean “cue” not “queue” unless you expect me to stand in a line to wait and say my piece

      LOL

    6. comrade — on 19th February, 2009 at 5:09 pm  

      This Muslim thing is getting a bit boring, can’t we talk about Christians, jews or even better just about humanbeings.

    7. Ala — on 19th February, 2009 at 6:24 pm  

      Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty? You can hate someone all you like, doesn’t make it okay to detain them without trial, and then balk at them being handed a measly £2500 in compensation.

    8. soru — on 19th February, 2009 at 6:47 pm  

      Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty?

      reminder: Abu Qatada has been tried and convicted of mass murder. Like Ronnie Biggs in Brazil, he is ‘on the run’.

      5 law lords looked at his conviction, and the evidence for his third mass murder trial, and unanimously decided it was sound.

      People who want you to forget those facts have an agenda.

    9. blah — on 19th February, 2009 at 7:07 pm  

      soru
      “reminder: Abu Qatada has been tried and convicted of mass murder.”

      reminder: by Jordan the country. I would as much faith in that as if he had been found guilty by Jordan the supermodel

    10. blah — on 19th February, 2009 at 7:12 pm  

      Heres a story thats been ignored by the press

      I wonder why?

      Guilty plea on bomb threat to Glasgow Central Mosque
      Date: 18th February 2009
      A man has admitted to threatening to blow up Glasgow Central Mosque, and behead one Muslim a week until every mosque in Scotland was shut down.

      The proceedings at Glasgow Sheriff Court regarding Neil MacGregor, who sent the threats to Strathclyde Police as a National Front member, are reported in the latest edition of the Digger and have caused extreme alarm in the Muslim community.

      Osama Saeed of the Scottish-Islamic Foundation said:

      “I hope that he is dealt with in exactly the same manner as an extremist who was Muslim would be.

      “This latest episode underscores the need for effective action tackling Islamophobia. The far right use fear of Muslims as a cloak for their old overt racism. They should realise they follow the same ideology as Al-Qaeda when they target an entire community for violence.”

      Bashir Maan, President of Glasgow Central Mosque said:

      “I’m surprised there hasn’t been more coverage of this. I could imagine the controversy and analysis there would have been if he had been a Muslim doing this to non-Muslims.”

      Last year in Glasgow, Mary McKay was sentenced to six years for stabbing a Muslim man in the chest. She said: “I hope the guy is dead. I just stabbed a guy with the same colour of skin as a terrorist. I just saw the two Pakis and he had an NY on his top.”

      Mosques across Scotland have been subject of attacks. As well as in Glasgow, this includes Edinburgh, Falkirk, Bathgate and Stirling.

      The last Scottish Government Social Attitudes Survey found that half of Scots saw Muslims as a “cultural threat” to the country.

      In the recent past, far right extremists have been found guilty of possessing explosives and planning to use them, for example Robert Cottage and Martyn Gilleard.
      http://www.scottishislamic.org/index.php?go=news&id=311

    11. Sunny — on 19th February, 2009 at 8:36 pm  

      Hmmmmm…. This article is quite unconvincing for various reasons.

      There’s no doubt the guy is a clerical supremacist. But where is the incitement to violence specifically? He has said the blood of non-Muslims can be excused or whatever, but that shit is no different to White supremacists saying Muslims are ‘cockroaches’ that they leech off British society, that they all have a propensity to violence etc.

      Has he said: it’s your duty to kill all non-Muslims? Has he said Muslims should kill all Jews? That would be incitement to violence. Ppl accusing him means v little unless it can be traced to what was actually said.

      The same ppl who are calling for this guy’s neck won’t be calling for nick griffin’s neck even though his views are pretty similar, but from a different perspective. Saying that, it is annoying the law still has to put him up in an expensive house and offer so much bloody benefits to someone who is basically a leech.

    12. dave bones — on 19th February, 2009 at 9:05 pm  

      I’ve not really had a good idea what to do with Qatada legally. I am sympathetic to Islamists who are violently denied an Islamic state as much as I am with governments whose duty it is to represent and protect us really.

      If he is some sort of representative of the Jihadis who threaten us with terrorism I would talk to him, and Hamza. Negotiate with them like we did with Gerry Adams.

    13. dave bones — on 19th February, 2009 at 9:05 pm  

      I’ve not really had a good idea what to do with Qatada legally. I am sympathetic to Islamists who are violently denied an Islamic state as much as I am with governments whose duty it is to represent and protect us.

      If he is some sort of representative of the Jihadis who threaten us with terrorism I would talk to him, and Hamza. Negotiate with them like we did with Gerry Adams.

      They are both easy to label as serious terrorists, but hard to charge as such aren’t they.

      I saw Hamza preach on and off for more than an year. I couldn’t help feeling at the time that an opportunity for some sort of climb down was missed there. I am kicking myself I didn’t get closer with a camera.

      Trying to scare these people from expressing their views is a bad idea. Vilification will cause terrorism more than it will prevent it.

    14. blah — on 19th February, 2009 at 9:37 pm  

      Sunny your fairness and intelligence once again shine through. While people are scrambling around to condemn or celebrate this action you are actually trying to look at the evidence in a balanced way.

      If only other contributors (I include myself) could take a leaf out of your book!

    15. soru — on 19th February, 2009 at 10:32 pm  

      Have to admit, I don’t get it. Which bits of sharia criminal law are ambiguous about whether it is permissible to blow up hotels in a muslim country ruled by an islamic monarch in a time of peace?

      Looks like a pretty unambiguous case of hiraba or qat’al-tariq.

      I could understand it if he was only supported by the usual leftists or whatever, who could hardly to be expected to worry about coming under the scope of Q[5:33]:

      The just retribution for those who fight GOD and His messenger, and commit horrendous crimes, is to be killed, or crucified, or to have their hands and feet cut off on alternate sides, or to be banished from the land. This is to humiliate them in this life, then they suffer a far worse retribution in the Hereafter.

      But what are the usual Islamists doing supporting this guy? Jordan doesn’t have sharia criminal law, and hasn’t since Ottoman reforms in the mid 19C. Like Syria and Lebanon, it has a hybrid ‘islamic-influenced’ legal system that takes a lot from French and British common law. So maybe the complaint is that Jordan won’t punish him harshly enough?

      Or is the whole islamic thing just a pose, a tactical move, not something to be taken seriously?

    16. marvin — on 19th February, 2009 at 10:58 pm  

      from Wikipedia

      Abû-Qatâda al-Filisṭînî (Arabic: أبو قتادة الفلسطيني‎), sometimes called Abû-Omar (ابو عمر) is an Islamist militant. Under the name Omar Mahmoud Othman (عمر محمود عثمان), he is under worldwide embargo by the United Nations Security Council Committee 1267[1] for his affiliation with al-Qaeda. He is wanted on terrorism charges in Algeria[2], the United States, Belgium, Spain, France, Germany, Italy, and his native Jordan[3].

      Clearly the government know they have a live one, they just don’t seem to have the adequate procedures in place to deal with such relative anomalies as Qatada. I can’t help but think the other European nations wouldn’t be have pussy footed around for so long (except perhaps for Belgium - do they have a government yet?)

    17. Refresh — on 19th February, 2009 at 11:10 pm  

      Marvin, evidently you’ve missed your appointment at the barber’s.

    18. septicisle — on 19th February, 2009 at 11:19 pm  

      One thing that has never been adequately explained to me regarding Qatada is if he is indeed such a supporter of takfirist jihadist causes, why was it that he made an appeal on behalf on Norman Kember, one of the “kufr” and a cross-worshipper to boot who has been held presumably by a group who he would support, and was also prepared to make one on behalf Alan Johnston? Was it purely because he hoped it would help him in his legal cases, despite supposedly not being offered anything in return? Or was it because he’s not as extreme as has been made out? Undoubtedly he’s a jihadist, and one much admired by al-Qaida, but some things just don’t add up, including claims that he was a double agent which have never been officially denied.

    19. Don — on 19th February, 2009 at 11:32 pm  

      claims that he was a double agent which have never been officially denied.

      This is where it gets interesting.

    20. MaidMarian — on 19th February, 2009 at 11:35 pm  

      Sunny (11) - The DT (I know, I know) gave a good laundry list:

      http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/lawandorder/4686286/Radical-Muslim-cleric-Abu-Qatadas-battle-against-deportation.html.

      I think that the point about AQ is not about incitement etc. The point is why the legal system continues to indulge someone like him. The man has had a near-decade long legal fight, all in the context of a well known list of offences. Exactly how much due process and indulgence does one man need?

      There is a more interesting question of why the UK authorities have not come down hard, but I fear you are reducing this to semantics.

    21. Refresh — on 19th February, 2009 at 11:39 pm  

      I feel really really ignorant, but what does this word mean:

      takfirist

      I’ve come across others but tonight I thought I’d start with this one.

      I would ask Sid when he next ‘accuses’ someone, anyone, he has a tiff with.

      Maybe Sid, can tell us about Taqqiya - which despite his upcoming assertions - actually means, shock, pillow. The thing at the end of your bed, usually placed under your head.

      So can we all stop bullshitting each other, and use words we know, and ask where we don’t.

      And Sid can you please start compiling the PP Glossary of terms, and offer it out for corrections and additions.

      ps. I am fed up of pretending to know these words, often used in the prejorative. And I am bored as hell.

      Oh yes, on Qatada: Why was he let in in the first place, on a false passport? Presumably convicted in Jordan (an ally), and for the 10 years here, going about his business (which it seems was passing analysis of global issues - in the same vein as Samuel Huntingdon of Clash of Civilisations fame).

      What purpose did he serve the state in the last decade?

      We should ask the questions or remain ignorant.

    22. septicisle — on 20th February, 2009 at 12:31 am  

      Wikipedia is your friend: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Takfiri

    23. Refresh — on 20th February, 2009 at 1:00 am  

      Thanks Septicisle. I don’t always feel wikipedia is on our side. There are cases where those defintions are of the last man standing. A bit like a victors justice.

      Ideally we need to ask individuals who use those terms to define them. So if you don’t mind, what do you mean by Tafirist?

      And whilst I am on the subject, can somebody explain to me how anarchists could look on HP with sympathy.

    24. munir — on 20th February, 2009 at 9:03 am  

      Refresh

      “takfirist”

      Or more correctly takfiri is a person who goes around declaring other Muslims non-Muslims on no basis (for example if they commit a major sin-which according to orthodox belief DOES NOT render someone a non-Muslim)

      It is something that should be left to the ulema and only then when they are say dealing with court cases or warning the Muslims of a person or a group

      Its a major sin when done wrongly. Prophet (may peace and blessings be upon him) said: Any person who calls his brother: O Unbeliever! (then the truth of this label) would return to one of them. If it is true, (then it is) as he asserted, (but if it is not true), then it returns to him (and thus the person who made the accusation is an Unbeliever). [Muslim]

      Some ignorant Muslims make takfir of Muslims who drink alcohol or fornicate. Likewise those who make takfir of those who commit murder/terrrorists. In Islam someone who commits such major sins is still a Muslim albiet a sinful one. They are not non-Muslim unless they claim that sin is halal (lawful)

      “Maybe Sid, can tell us about Taqqiya - which despite his upcoming assertions - actually means, shock, pillow. The thing at the end of your bed, usually placed under your head.”

      In the Urdu language taqiyya means pillow. In Islam it means something close to dissimulation/hiding ones beliefs. It is not allowed except in exceptional circumstances such as when ones life is endangered since as heinous a sin as lying is the preservation of life is more important. In such a case where ones life is endangered it would not be a sin to deny one was Muslim or if forced to insult God or sacred Islamic things or people

      It is used by Muslim haters to imply Muslims lie and cant be trusted when they say something. Sid has used it thusly.

      PS Dont ask Sid anything .

    25. soru — on 20th February, 2009 at 10:35 am  

      As far as arabic loan words go, ‘takfiri’ is ok in my book:I don’t think there is any English word or phrase that quite gets the flavour of that combination of traitor (fighting against lawful authority) and Satanist (wilful breaking of religious taboos to gain, or just demonstrate, personal power).

      ‘Taqqiya’, on the other hand, is very rarely used in English for anything other than crude racism - ‘lies told by muslims’, which are somehow supposed to different, more subtle, scary and pervasive than lies told by anyone else.

    26. Sid — on 20th February, 2009 at 10:39 am  

      Sunny:


      Has he said: it’s your duty to kill all non-Muslims? Has he said Muslims should kill all Jews? That would be incitement to violence. Ppl accusing him means v little unless it can be traced to what was actually said.

      The same ppl who are calling for this guy’s neck won’t be calling for nick griffin’s neck even though his views are pretty similar, but from a different perspective. Saying that, it is annoying the law still has to put him up in an expensive house and offer so much bloody benefits to someone who is basically a leech.

      Has Abu Qatada called for the killing of non-Muslims? Yes, he has said, quite categorically, that in the Dar al Harb (House of War) where we all currently reside, it is justifiable to kill the “kufar”. Look at the quotes in the text in the article above.

      And a statement like that is pure incitement to hate and violence to Islamists who regard kufar as a catchall descriptor for people they regard as the enemy. Take a look at the confusion the term “kufar” triggers with one of PP’s resident Islamist commenters: blah/munir. Clearly there is no distinction for him between the meanings of “Kufar” and “Jew” or “Christian”.

      Sunny, if you stood and protested against Narendra Modi for his role in the Gujarat Massacre, why are deliberately excusing Qatada, especially since there is even less evidence, in real terms to directly implicate Modi than there is of Qatada!

      Qatada is directly implicated for the killing of Muslims in Jordan. He should extradited be extradited to Jordan to face a trial for that crime.

    27. munir — on 20th February, 2009 at 10:40 am  

      “As far as arabic loan words go, ‘takfiri’ is ok in my book:I don’t think there is any English word or phrase that quite gets the flavour of that combination of traitor (fighting against lawful authority) and Satanist (wilful breaking of religious taboos to gain, or just demonstrate, personal power). ”

      I agree since takfiri doesnt give the sense of “traitor” or “satanist” (bizarre word to use) in any way.

    28. Sid — on 20th February, 2009 at 10:56 am  

      It is used by Muslim haters to imply Muslims lie and cant be trusted when they say something. Sid has used it thusly.

      Goodness, what a ridiculous and blatant lie. You *have* accused me, in any number of threads, of being an “Unbeleiver”. Even in the statement above, you can’t bring yourself to call me a Muslim. Which qualifies you as a takfiri. Not in the Khariji sense, however, I’d say more in the “thickest kid in the class” sense.

    29. thabet — on 20th February, 2009 at 11:01 am  

      “The point is why the legal system continues to indulge someone like him.”

      It’s called the rule of law, one of the pillars of liberal democracy.

    30. Sid — on 20th February, 2009 at 11:06 am  

      Thanks Septicisle. I don’t always feel wikipedia is on our side. There are cases where those defintions are of the last man standing. A bit like a victors justice.

      Why don’t you think an online encyclopedia of verifiable facts would be on “your” side? And who is this “our side” you refer to? What is on your side? The subjective opinions of people who agree with everything you need to believe?

    31. Refresh — on 20th February, 2009 at 11:12 am  

      Sid,
      Lighten up.

    32. Sid — on 20th February, 2009 at 11:14 am  

      Refresh, pathetic.

    33. Sid — on 20th February, 2009 at 11:17 am  

      It’s called the rule of law, one of the pillars of liberal democracy.

      Joan Bakewell:

      The fuss over this man’s right to stay in the country is all the more surprising considering how many and how often otherwise worthy and innocent people are returned to their country of origin. Earlier this year, Ama Sumani, a 39-year-old Ghanaian, was deported home even though she was undergoing treatment for cancer, a treatment that would not be available in Ghana. Friends protested and saved money to help her. But their pleas went unheard. She was returned home and died in Accra alone and friendless just a month ago.

    34. Adnan — on 20th February, 2009 at 11:40 am  

      Soru @ 25: ‘Taqqiya’, on the other hand, is very rarely used in English for anything other than crude racism - ‘lies told by muslims’, which are somehow supposed to different, more subtle, scary and pervasive than lies told by anyone else.

      Spot on Soru!

    35. Refresh — on 20th February, 2009 at 11:46 am  

      Thanks Soru.

    36. Refresh — on 20th February, 2009 at 12:04 pm  

      Does anybody think there is similarity between Qatada and Samuel Huntingdon?

      I presume neither physically went out perpetrating violence, they talked about it or talked it up?

      Is he wanted or convicted in Jordan? And do we know what for?

    37. Sid — on 20th February, 2009 at 12:10 pm  

      Rather, I see more of a similarity between Abu Qatada and Narendra Modi.

    38. Refresh — on 20th February, 2009 at 12:16 pm  

      Sid, it was a serious question. One claims that West’s economic, political and cultural hegemony was attained through organised violence; that it was the right thing to do and it should continue with that policy.

      I don’t know the works of Qatada, but isn’t he saying pretty much the same thing?

      As for Modi, I presume he was prepared to give a nod to the violence and offer political cover. Unless Qatada, was there approving specific actions, the similarity is probably closer to Huntingdon IMHO.

    39. Sid — on 20th February, 2009 at 12:20 pm  

      Refresh, it was a serious answer.

      I don’t think Huntingdon ever used coded language and polemics to incite the murder of innocent civilians in the way, as Qatada has. Modi has used his political office for exactly that purpose.

      By the way:
      I don’t know the works of Qatada, but isn’t he saying pretty much the same thing?

      If you don’t know his works, isn’t that a contradiction in terms?

    40. soru — on 20th February, 2009 at 12:30 pm  

      It’s called the rule of law, one of the pillars of liberal democracy.

      An even more fundamental pillar of the rule of law is that the guilty risk punishment.

      The specific moment when Mussolini took power in Italy was when he had someone killed, and everyone knew he had them killed, and everyone knew he would not stand trial for it.

      Granting a legal immunity from charges of murder, a license to kill, would be bad enough if it was a deliberate action of MI6 to protect an asset. For it to happen by legal accident, or because well-meaning people simply can’t think straight, would be a bitter joke.

    41. munir — on 20th February, 2009 at 12:31 pm  

      munir
      “It is used by Muslim haters to imply Muslims lie and cant be trusted when they say something. Sid has used it thusly.”

      Sid
      “Goodness, what a ridiculous and blatant lie.”

      You explicitly stated on another thread that “Islamists” use taqiyya

      ” You *have* accused me, in any number of threads, of being an “Unbeleiver”.”

      Now THATS an utter lie. Bring your proof if you are truthful or admit you are a liar. A post where I said you were an unbeliever.
      I did no such thing. I did point out you are clueless about Islam related matters.

      ” Even in the statement above, you can’t bring yourself to call me a Muslim.”

      So everything I reference you I have to mention you are a Muslim and my not doing so is takfir? lol
      Sid I consider you a Muslim (not that what I think on the matter has any bearing). Albiet a cluless one.

    42. Sid — on 20th February, 2009 at 12:36 pm  

      Sid I consider you a Muslim (not that what I think on the matter has any bearing). Albiet a cluless one.

      After that embarrassing detail that came to light about your ignorance of use of the phrase “Allah-wa t’ala” on the other thread, I am suprised you have the will to hold your head up as our “Islamist in residence”. :D

    43. munir — on 20th February, 2009 at 12:57 pm  

      Sid
      “After that embarrassing detail that came to light about your ignorance of use of the phrase “Allah-wa t’ala” on the other thread, I am suprised you have the will to hold your head up as our “Islamist in residence”. ”

      Actually the embarresment is on you and Im suprised you exposed yourself again. “Allah-wa t’ala” is a meaningless phrase. The phrase you linked to elsewhere was “Allah t’ala” which makes sense (Allah most high)
      Your initial phrase “Allah-wa t’ala” doesnt and thats what I pulled you up on. Your phrase “Allah-wa t’ala” means “Allah and most high” and is meaningless and not used. Its indication of lack of basic knowledge on your part.

      I believe you might have meant “Allah Subhana-wa t’ala”

      Oh dear

      And you havent brought evidence for your lie that I called you an unbeliever

    44. Refresh — on 20th February, 2009 at 12:57 pm  

      Sid, is it a contradiction in terms?

      I don’t know if it is. Perhaps it points to the fact that we have to rely on so many intermediaries to settle on a view.

    45. munir — on 20th February, 2009 at 12:59 pm  

      ” I am suprised you have the will to hold your head up as our “Islamist in residence”. ”

      I dont since it was an idiot (namely you) who gave me that meaningless name I never gave it to or claimed it for myself.

      Im off to jumuah

    46. Sid — on 20th February, 2009 at 1:03 pm  

      blah-job:

      I think you’ll find it is a diminutive of the phrase “Allah Subhana-wa t’ala” which is in currency in Arab and North African countries. But if you want to diminish my knowledge over somthing as paltry as this, you have your work cut out for you as a Takfiri. Check them out.

    47. Sid — on 20th February, 2009 at 1:04 pm  

      Sid, is it a contradiction in terms?

      Attempting to compare the works of A to B after claiming to know nothing about either A or B? Yes it is.

    48. Refresh — on 20th February, 2009 at 1:21 pm  

      Well I went by your post above and some of the media coverage and obituary of Huntingdon - hence the question.

      On a broader front, I believe there are thinktanks who are paid to put together analyses and justifications for killing folk. Perhaps not in the language you and I would instantly recognise.

    49. Refresh — on 20th February, 2009 at 1:36 pm  

      Sid, what is Khariji?

    50. Sid — on 20th February, 2009 at 1:43 pm  

      Khariji/Kharijites : An early heterodox Islamic sect. Often regarded as the precursors to the Salafi/Wahhabi movement. I’d refer you to wiki but you wouldn’t trust it.

    51. Refresh — on 20th February, 2009 at 2:04 pm  

      Sid, thanks.

      ‘I’d refer you to wiki but you wouldn’t trust it.’

      One of the problem with wiki, which I do use, is that you can end up spending days. And its also helpful to ask the commenter as they may have a different definition, or approach a use of the word from a different context. As Soru kindly amplified.

    52. soru — on 20th February, 2009 at 2:41 pm  

      Huntingdon is actually pretty relevant here. If you read him generously, he is not saying war between ‘civilisations’ is _desirable_, but peace between them is _difficult_, even when it is in the obvious self-interest of both parties.

      You can see that here: a minimum requirement for peace is that if someone in your country kills a bunch of people in another, you hand them over for trial and punishment. That was the whole basis for both the war on Taliban Afghanistan, and the rapprochement with Libya after Lockerbie.

      Without that, you get ‘we are very sorry about the unfortunate flattening of your capital. The air force commander responsible has been reprimanded severely, and if he does it again he will consider docking his pay’.

      Jordan is at peace with the UK. But it is still an Arab country with an islamic-influenced legal system, and doesn’t follow the culturally-Christian taboo on torture and capital punishment. A surprisingly large proportion of public opinion, even liberals, think that means noone should ever be extradited there, whatever their crime. So the case for deportation has to be made on other grounds - i.e. he says nasty things and has a beard. This is, naturally, depressingly effective.

      The mirror of these issues apply in Jordan: when the King and Queen mingle with western leaders to discuss trade deals or whatever, a certain proportion of Jordanians consider that a sign of decadence and corruption that justifies stringing them up from a lamppost. The more peaceful their relations with the West, the more repressive they end up being at home.

      In other words, when cultural and linguistic difference are large enough, public pressure, in a democracy or overthrowable dictatorship, can pose a problem for peaceful relations.

      The thing is to treat that as a challenge to try harder, not an excuse to stop trying.

    53. Sam — on 20th February, 2009 at 3:11 pm  

      Sid, please be honest: why do you hate Muslims who actually believe in and practice Islam?

    54. Sid — on 20th February, 2009 at 3:17 pm  

      Sam, please be honest: why do you wish to protect and excuse Islamists who preach hatred and condone the killing of other innocent Muslims?

    55. Sam — on 20th February, 2009 at 3:48 pm  

      No need to pull that straw man out of your handbag, Sid. I do not wish to protect and excuse murderers or hate-preachers of any sort. I do however want to know what you have against Islam. Not Islamism, or Islamists, or any other coded word you use for Islam and Muslims.

    56. Sid — on 20th February, 2009 at 3:53 pm  

      I do not wish to protect and excuse murderers or hate-preachers of any sort.

      What in your opinion is Abu Qatada, then? Would you say he is a hate-preacher?

    57. Sam — on 20th February, 2009 at 3:57 pm  

      Whatabouterry! “Why won’t you condemn x,y,z instead of condemning a,b,c?” Qatada is a hate-preacher (I should be careful the Sun doesn’t get me for using their copyrighted phrase) and there are hate-preachers from all religions. There was a US Christian hate-preacher recently banned from the UK. There are plenty of hate-preachers over at Harry’s Place. I unreservedly condemn Qatada, much as you would want Muslims to condemn any old homophobic antisemitic crank preacher. Now that I’ve played your whatabouttery game, can you tell me what you have against Islam and Muslims?

    58. Sid — on 20th February, 2009 at 4:03 pm  

      huh?

      How can it be “whataboutery” when this *entire* post and the comments thread thereof is all about the government’s decision on Abu Qatada?

      It is you, in fact who has introduced “whataboutery” by going off on the tangent of US Christian hate preachers and Harry’s Place.

      So, come on, Sam. It’s a very simple question - do you think Abu Qatada is a hate preacher or not?

    59. Katy Newton — on 20th February, 2009 at 4:11 pm  

      “Whataboutery” is when you ask someone why they hate Muslims because they’ve condemned a hate preacher.

    60. Ravi Naik — on 20th February, 2009 at 4:13 pm  

      There’s no doubt the guy is a clerical supremacist. But where is the incitement to violence specifically? He has said the blood of non-Muslims can be excused or whatever, but that shit is no different to White supremacists saying Muslims are ‘cockroaches’ that they leech off British society, that they all have a propensity to violence etc.

      You are being disingenuous. First, I see little point in engaging in whataboutery: the case against Abu Qatada should stand on its own merit - not on white supremacists. Second, you should know that incitement of violence can be done is many ways - and does not have to be made in explicit terms. One way of inciting violence is demonisation of a group of people - another, is by dehumanising them. When Abu Qatada says that the blood of non-muslims - including women and children - is fair game, what game is he talking about? And who is his target audience?

      Let him be tried in an Islamic court - for people like Blah - they should rejoice like the rest of us with the decision to deport him. I also welcome the deporting of every foreign national who is a fundamentalist and preaches hate against any other ethnic and religious minority. What is the point of keeping rotten people in this country?

    61. Sam — on 20th February, 2009 at 4:30 pm  

      Quoting myself from #57, “Qatada is a hate-preacher” - I’m not quite sure how you’re reading that but in case you’re having trouble understanding what I mean, Yes, I do think Qatada is a hate-preacher. Next: let’s write letters to all prominent Muslims asking them to condemn 7/7 and state clearly that Bin Laden is a terrorist!

      But there seems to be a thread running through any discussion you are involved in when any infringement upon religious Muslims is seen as a cause for celebration and a blow struck for freedom. Some nut gets deported, but because he is a Muslim nut, it’s a special occasion for you. He’s a hate-mongering bastard: now, let’s see the same exuberance for my local Baptist minister, who should presumably be deported for saying all sexual deviants will burn in hell? Why do you have it in for Muslims, Sid?

    62. Sid — on 20th February, 2009 at 4:41 pm  

      Sam

      If I am celebrating the deportation of Abu Qatada who is a “hate mongering bastard” (your words, not mine) how can you then conclude that I “have it in” for Muslims?

      I will admit that I have it in for hate mongering bastards in general - see my other posts on Christian and Hindu hate mongering, there are plenty here on PP.

      If it is a problem for you when I celebrate when Muslims, whom even you regard as hate preaching nut jobs, get deported from these shores, then that’s your problem, not mine. It is your problem if you think I hate Muslims because I’ve condemned a Muslim hate preacher.

      I doubt very much if Muslim relatives of Abu Qatada’s victims think so, however.

    63. munir — on 20th February, 2009 at 4:56 pm  

      Sam
      “Sid, please be honest”

      Sam, you hopeless optimist you

    64. Don — on 20th February, 2009 at 5:12 pm  

      If a hate-preacher, of whatever stripe, is a UK citizen then we are stuck with them.

      If not, then as with Wilders and the Phelps clan, we don’t have to let them in. Whether or not we should is a matter for debate, but we have the option.

      As for Abu Qatada, he came here on a phony passport, has broken the terms applied to him and has been convicted and sentenced by his home country, with which we have diplomatic relations.

      Unfortunately, Griffin et al are our problem, I don’t see why Abu Qatada should be as well.

    65. Sam — on 20th February, 2009 at 5:14 pm  

      Qatada aside, and I made it clear that this was a general thread running through your writings on PP so take it as an unrelated issue if you so wish, you do seem to have a particular problem with Muslims. Not just with the bearded, hook-handed preacher variety: but any Muslim who is more than just Muslim in name only. Why do you hate Islam in particular? I want to know the reasons.

    66. Ravi Naik — on 20th February, 2009 at 5:15 pm  

      Unfortunately, Griffin et al are our problem, I don’t see why Abu Qatada should be as well.

      Well said.

    67. Sam — on 20th February, 2009 at 5:37 pm  

      Why then shouldn’t we then amend the law to get rid of hate-preachers like Griffin? Just because one hate preacher was born between lines on one part of the map, and the other was born between lines on another, does that mean “our” hate-preacher should be allowed to rant and rave and incite racial hatred on our shores without disturbance, whereas “their” hate-preacher should be tortured to death?

      What oddly immoral “values” you have there, sir.

    68. Katy Newton — on 20th February, 2009 at 6:49 pm  

      He has said the blood of non-Muslims can be excused or whatever, but that shit is no different to White supremacists saying Muslims are ‘cockroaches’ that they leech off British society, that they all have a propensity to violence etc.

      It is different. Both are disgusting, but there is a difference between saying that someone is inferior/less civilised because of their race and saying that it is acceptable to kill anyone who is not of your race. One is disgustingly ignorant and offensive. The other is incitement to kill.

    69. Sunny — on 20th February, 2009 at 7:04 pm  

      Sid, please be honest: why do you hate Muslims who actually believe in and practice Islam?

      Jeez - can you idiots fuck off instead of wasting out time?

    70. Sid — on 20th February, 2009 at 7:12 pm  

      Thanks, probably the best way to deal with that sort of nonsense. :)

    71. sonia — on 20th February, 2009 at 7:21 pm  

      “isn’t he saying pretty much the same thing?”

      well i daresay -these Islamists are the same as the neo-cons - empire lovers/mongers/ all about perpetuating their particular vision of domination.. qatada simply wants a return to the days of islamic empire expansion.

      i suppose one couldn’t arrest him for that alone had he not had these other accusations/cases against him. (and all this business as don points out - and as a non-citizen, you are effectively a ‘guest’ remaining at the host’s will, and having agreed to not cause trouble - those are the terms of being allowed in.) good character and all that. if huntingdon had been on the run rather than a Harvard academic, i daresay some Lefties would have been well up for incarcerating him somewhere.

      but i think what dave bones up there said was right, dangerous talkers like this - should be engaged with, if only to be ‘shown’ up. i reckon he’s far more trouble in jail (think of all the contacts and time to plot) - than sat up on some media panel/big brother house with all of us scrutinising him.

    72. sonia — on 20th February, 2009 at 7:28 pm  

      or, shave off his beard, dress him up in a sari, get him a sri-lankan passport and send him off to work as a maid for some Saudi bloke, that’ll show him

      {i wouldn’t wish that on my worst enemy actually, so i wouldn’t do that if it were up to me, but it could be put to him as a proposed alternative..}

    73. dave bones — on 20th February, 2009 at 9:05 pm  

      The Big Brother house is really not a bad idea at all. I wrote about that as an option way back when Blunkett and Hamza were shouting about each other from their respective platforms. If these two had to work together to overcome their disabilities in a Big Brother setting I am sure we would all benefit.

    74. Refresh — on 20th February, 2009 at 10:39 pm  

      I would happily put Blunkett in the Big Brother House along with Rula Lenska. But someone else would have to do the watching.

      For the more sensitive, we can have both Blunkett and Hamza join the queue for the PP sponsored beard plucking for Comic Relief. Right behind DavidT.

      More fun than waterboarding.

    75. Ashik — on 20th February, 2009 at 10:55 pm  

      PP loses a lot of credibility because of Sid’s articles. Sid cannot even decide whether he is or isn’t a Muslim. On one occassion Sid stated he saw himself as ‘technically an apostste’. I suspect that is the position that is closest to the truth.

      Sid is not a secularist but an aeithist unable/unwilling to publically express this fact.

      Sid dislikes Islam and Muslims. He hates not just political Islam but Islam the religion and it’s followers. This much is transparent from the tenor of his posting.

      Remember, fanatics can be aeithists as well as religious in outlook.

    76. Ashik — on 20th February, 2009 at 11:13 pm  

      Sid has written dozens of articles for PP over the years, the vast majority regarding Islam/Muslims.

      I will pay the handsome sum of £100 for anyone who can pull an article written by Sid which portrays Muslims and Islam in a positive manner.

    77. douglas clark — on 21st February, 2009 at 12:03 am  

      Ashik,

      I think it would be fair to say that Sid is not of the dreamworld, Caliphate loving at any price, wing of the new - since Sayyid Qutb at least - militant Islam. It seems to me, as a bystander, that he isn’t too happy that there are some folk around who are trying to turn a largely peaceful religion into a bloody vendetta.

      I’ll stand corrected but I think he’s been pretty consistent on that.

      So, if you don’t want Islam to become a latter day reflection, with better weapons, of Christianity with it’s Crusades and suchlike, you should maybe read what he says.

      Without prejudice.

      Just make your cheque out to Liberty.

    78. Refresh — on 21st February, 2009 at 12:11 am  

      Ashik, you owe me £100 (or rather my Comic Relief fund), there was one Sid’ article which comes close. And it wasn’t that long ago.

    79. dave bones — on 21st February, 2009 at 12:24 am  

      It is a bloody vendetta. Since they set the dogs on Sayyid Qutb mate. Before. An Islamic state as set out in the Koran has been surpressed in an extremely brutal way it is no surprise that it has bread a few brutal people.

      The majority still manage to live in peace don’t they.

      Seriously Qatada is bloody wasted (Norman kember aside). If you have a Muslim who can seriously challenge the mans perspective bloody stick him on telly to debate Qatada. What is TV for? Selling shit no one wants?

      This is ridiculous.

    80. Sunny — on 21st February, 2009 at 12:24 am  

      PP loses a lot of credibility because of Sid’s articles. Sid cannot even decide whether he is or isn’t a Muslim.

      Ashik, if anything, people read you as a Muslim and then worry if all are as deranged as you. Then they probably read Sid and think “thank fuck, they’re not”.

      So I wouldn’t get too smarmy if I were you.

      These discussions about whether Sid is a good enough Muslim for some readers is really as stupid as the people you spend condemning on Harry’s Place all the time. Get over yourselves. Either discuss the topic at hand or please don’t. I will personally delete any such discussion of this lame attempt at Look! Uncle Tom Sid!

    81. Leon — on 21st February, 2009 at 12:47 am  

      PP loses a lot of credibility because of Sid’s articles.

      Does it fuck, his articles are of the highest quality and while I don’t always agree I always enjoy them. Any way more to the fucking point: Sid’s a real fucking dude!

    82. douglas clark — on 21st February, 2009 at 9:35 am  

      dave bones,

      Err…

      The majority still manage to live in peace don’t they.

      Yes, they do. If we forget the fact that global jihad is a tiny franchise in the Muslim world, then we are just denying reality. Else we would be in some sort of alternate universe. Y’know, the one occupied by journalists who make a living out of hysteria. Sure makes headlines though, don’t it?

      Apart from that, and for the absence of doubt, I agree with Leon at 80. Sid’s articles are always thought provoking.

    83. Ashik — on 21st February, 2009 at 9:42 am  

      Sunny:

      ‘I will personally delete any such discussion’

      With all due respect I don’t see how you can do that and still maintain PP’s credibility on permitting legitimate debate.

      As much as you wish to protect your friend Sid, it is not in dispute that he himself stated he was ‘technically an Apostste’ and that he has a long history of writing only negative things about Muslims. Recently, Sid even posted to a far-right journal as a source of evidence.

      I think that we can all agree that we are not talking about whether Sid is a ‘good’ or ‘bad’ Muslim but according to his own words whether he considers himself a Muslim at all. This is a legitimate debate since PP owes a minimal care of duty and professionalism to it’s readers. Sid should disclose the fact he is an ex-Muslim on his articles articles since we can all agree this will have an impact on his own jaundiced views about Islam and it will allow readers to come to an informed opinion about the article.

      ***
      ps. Sunny did Sid face any censure for linking to a far-right source to evidence his article about the Wilders story? I bet you would have deleted the article if a Muslim had used a far-right link on an articlee about Jewish people. This is not balance.

    84. Katy Newton — on 21st February, 2009 at 10:02 am  

      Sid’s one of the best writers around and his honesty and ethics are not open to question.

    85. Sid — on 21st February, 2009 at 10:48 am  

      Thank you my lovelies, for defending me from my enemies amongst the Identity Cultists.

    86. blah — on 21st February, 2009 at 11:45 am  

      sonia
      “or, shave off his beard, dress him up in a sari, get him a sri-lankan passport and send him off to work as a maid for some Saudi bloke, that’ll show him”

      There is a notion that “Islamists” (sic) somehow agree with all the abuses that go on in the Muslims world. This is untrue. In fact the reverse is true. They oppose the regimes in the Muslim world and their doings.

      One issue I had with Ed Husains book is that Husain was he claimed, a member of HT. He then went to Saudi Arabia where he became disullusioned with political Islam on seeing injustices against Asian and African workers (people like the clueless bigot Martin Amis triumphantly point this out). But this makes no sense- HT consider the Saudi regime deeply unislamic and wanted it replace. Why would you become disullilisioned by a government you considered evil in the first place? Husaisn story makes no sense.

      With regard Islamic political groups- They and revolutionary groups like them considered the treatment of workers from poorer countries appalling, critizising it and the apartheid system that operates there as totally against Islam. (The only groups who defend such regimes are those subsided by them like the Saudi Salafis) They wish to replace these regimes.

      So if you are going to criticise people at least know what they believe

    87. blah — on 21st February, 2009 at 11:52 am  

      Ashik Sid’s groupies will simply ignore the points you raise about him using far right sources or Sid’s lack of disclosure . They are so enamoured of someone from a Muslim background demonising other Muslims. They ignore for example his rabid anti-Arab racism

      He condemns “identity cultists” yet the funny thing is Sid strikes one as a rabid Bangladeshi nationalist.

    88. Sid — on 21st February, 2009 at 12:19 pm  

      blah-job,

      your anti-Bangladeshi stance, your championing of the genocide against Bangladeshi muslims by Jamaat and the Pakistani military, your gloating over the deaths of my relatives who were murdered in that genocide, your insipid excuses for the abuses of Bangladeshi migrant workers and their dehumanisation by Saudi Arabian authorities is a mark of your anti-Bangladeshi bigotry. I hope you realise there is nothing ‘Islamic’ about that supremacist attitude you’re nursing but more to do with inculcated racist conditioning.

    89. Ravi Naik — on 21st February, 2009 at 12:36 pm  

      I will pay the handsome sum of £100 for anyone who can pull an article written by Sid which portrays Muslims and Islam in a positive manner.

      They are so enamoured of someone from a Muslim background demonising other Muslims.

      Abu Qatada is accused of bombing Jordan, as well as having influenced the terrorist attacks in NY and Madrid. He is also accused of saying that the life of non-Muslims - including children and women - is fair game.

      The question I have to Blah and Ashik is why they feel that criticising Abu Qatada is an attack against Muslims and Islam - do they think that Abu Qatada represents the values of Islam? Isn’t that the message of Islamophobes like Mad Mel and Geert Wilders?

      I feel that both of you - Blah and Ashik - along with Melanie Phillips and Geert Wilders, are the ones who are demonising Islam and Muslims living in Europe, not Sid.

    90. blah — on 21st February, 2009 at 12:56 pm  

      Sid you are a liar

      “your anti-Bangladeshi stance, your championing of the genocide against Bangladeshi muslims by Jamaat and the Pakistani military, ”

      I called the Pakistani army Nazis who should be put on trial. The astonishing thing is this was in reply to a comment by……YOU
      http://www.pickledpolitics.com/archives/2956#comment-149656

      This in Sids twisted mind is “championing the genocide against Bangladeshi muslims”

      “your gloating over the deaths of my relatives who were murdered in that genocide,”

      I explicitly mentioned how tragic it was. What I condemned is your using your familial tragedy as a cover to demonise others. You are insulting your relative more than anyone by doing so.

      ” your insipid excuses for the abuses of Bangladeshi migrant workers and their dehumanisation by Saudi Arabian authorities is a mark of your anti-Bangladeshi bigotry.”

      I explicitly condemned it above !

      You arent well are you? When you are cornered you simply lie and attribute to people the opposite of what they said

      ” I hope you realise there is nothing ‘Islamic’ about that supremacist attitude you’re nursing but more to do with inculcated racist conditioning”

      LOL. I dont have supremacist attitudes or racist conditioning since they are against Islam. You are the racist my friend with the anti-Arab garbage you spew. I consider all human beings equal. I am upon what the Prophet peace be upon him said in his last sermon.

      ““All Mankind is from Adam and Eve, an Arab has no superiority over a non-Arab nor does a non-Arab has any superiority over an Arab; in addition, a White has no superiority over a Black nor has a Black any superiority over a White except by piety and good actions.”

      Are you?

    91. blah — on 21st February, 2009 at 12:58 pm  

      Ravi Naik
      “The question I have to Blah and Ashik is why they feel that criticising Abu Qatada is an attack against Muslims and Islam - do they think that Abu Qatada represents the values of Islam?”

      When did I say criticising Abu Qatada is an attack on Muslims and Islam? The issue I have is that he hasnt been given a fair hearing either here or in Jordan.
      Everyone is entitled to a fair trial .That has nothing to do with their religion.

    92. Sid — on 21st February, 2009 at 1:42 pm  

      He condemns “identity cultists” yet the funny thing is Sid strikes one as a rabid Bangladeshi nationalist.

      blah-job

      If I were to use “rabid Pakistani Islamist” as a slur, you would be right to call me a bigoted racist.

      Why is it no different when you use “rabid Bangladeshi nationalist”? Compare and contrast.

    93. Sid — on 21st February, 2009 at 2:02 pm  

      I feel that both of you - Blah and Ashik - along with Melanie Phillips and Geert Wilders, are the ones who are demonising Islam and Muslims living in Europe

      spot on.

    94. Sid — on 21st February, 2009 at 2:21 pm  

      I consider all human beings equal. I am upon what the Prophet peace be upon him said in his last sermon.

      This couldn’t be more ridiculous than if the BNP were to claim to not being racist because as Christians they believed in Christ’s teaching to ‘Love Thy Neighbour’.

    95. blah — on 21st February, 2009 at 2:56 pm  

      “If I were to use “rabid Pakistani Islamist” as a slur, you would be right to call me a bigoted racist.

      Why is it no different when you use “rabid Bangladeshi nationalist”? Compare and contrast.”

      1) Because I am not a rabid supporter of Pakistan. You know this yet continually lie about it. In fact I dont even agree with the creation of Pakistan.

      2) Becuase I am not even Pakistani

      3) Because I am not an “Islamist” (sic)

      4) Because you are a rabid Bangladeshi nationalist
      who despises anyone heretical enough to oppose the creation of Bangladesh.

      5) You have used far worse language against opponents.In fact abusing opponents is a substitute for you for actually answering their arguments

      Seriously how can you be considered a serious political commentator? You are a joke, man.

      Case in point
      “This couldn’t be more ridiculous than if the BNP were to claim to not being racist because as Christians they believed in Christ’s teaching to ‘Love Thy Neighbour’.”

      The BNP are an explicitly racist party who believe in the superiority of one race (in this case whites) When have I said any race is superior to another?

      I am not a racist despite your helpless attempts to potray me as one to deflect when I bring up your anti-Arab racism

    96. blah — on 21st February, 2009 at 3:00 pm  

      I notice Sid hasnt responded to my showing that his early lies (for which he produced no proof) that I:

      -championed the genocide of Bangladeshis
      -gloated over the deaths of his relatives
      -supported for the abuses of Bangladeshi migrant workers and their dehumanisation by Saudi Arabian authorities

      are utterly false

      He just ignores this and moves on to telling another lie.

    97. Sunny — on 21st February, 2009 at 3:27 pm  

      With all due respect I don’t see how you can do that and still maintain PP’s credibility on permitting legitimate debate.

      I’m not looking for your approval.

    98. damon — on 21st February, 2009 at 4:31 pm  

      blah

      ”When did I say criticising Abu Qatada is an attack on Muslims and Islam? The issue I have is that he hasnt been given a fair hearing either here or in Jordan.
      Everyone is entitled to a fair trial .That has nothing to do with their religion.”

      I might agree with this point.
      Whenever I hear Chami Chakrabarti talking like this on TV, I’m usually nodding in agreement at what she says.
      And then I go back to my real world and hear ”regular people” saying that they couldn’t give a stuff about his human rights or whether he’d be tortured back in Jordan. Just wanting to get rid of him.
      Should I grant those people (family members, work colleagues etc) any respect?
      Or should I think less of them for having these ”base” feelings?
      (Which are pretty normal ones for human beings).

    99. Leon — on 21st February, 2009 at 4:32 pm  

      Right, I’m bored of this now. Blah, your tedious stalking of Sid is off topic, consider any more of this crap a good candidate for deletion.

      There’s a topic at hand, argue that, stop with this whole ‘trial by blog commentariat’ shite and play the ball not the man.

    100. Leon — on 21st February, 2009 at 9:30 pm  

      I’ve deleted the bullshit and responses to the bullshit by Ashik, PP isn’t a playground for fucktards to attack people in.

    101. Ashik — on 21st February, 2009 at 9:52 pm  

      Right, my comments have just been censored by Sid’s drinking buddies.

      That’s fine. This is Sunny’s forum and his freinds are moderators. You can ban me too.

      The terms ‘progressive’ and ‘freedom of expression’ have limited currency on this forum.

      The problem with PP was identified by Rumbold a while ago where he said PP did too much politiking and not politics. The factions formed on on this forum inhibite legitimate debate.

      Fine,protect Sid if you will. In future please do not write every other article on PP about Muslims/Islam and please desist always portraying us negatively. If you want to stop or manipulate the debate then don’t even start it. This much is fair to all.

      ps. Aren’t ‘moderators’ supposed to be neutral. Why then am I called a ‘fucktard’? Or is drinking buddy Leon going to balance this by calling Sid a fucktard too?

      This is truely a serious blog.

    102. sonia — on 21st February, 2009 at 9:56 pm  

      why bother mention someone is someone’s ‘drinking buddy’

    103. Ashik — on 21st February, 2009 at 10:02 pm  

      Because Sid is known to those who own/run this site. They meet up in pubs. Hence reasonably: drinking buddies. This is a reason why Sid is treated differently from others as has been identified further up this thread.

      ps. Freindly advice, for the sake of progressive equality and diversity, PP meet ups shouldn’t be held in pubs. The few Muslims you have visiting here are not likely to attend.

    104. Leon — on 21st February, 2009 at 10:34 pm  

      I called you a fucktard because you’re acting like one.

      The problem with PP

      There’s no problem with PP other than idiots like you who are determined to just attack people.

      PP people, both writers and readers, meet up often and have all manner of relationships which are highly valued but it doesn’t determine moderation policy.

      PP is a community and the community will be defended by fucktards such as yourself purposely mis-representing or attacking it or it’s constituent parts.

    105. Refresh — on 21st February, 2009 at 10:37 pm  

      Leon,

      can you please delete all the comments that start with blah-job.

    106. Don — on 21st February, 2009 at 11:13 pm  

      PP isn’t a playground for fucktards to attack people in.

      No, I suppose not. But ‘Sid’s Psychosis’ was still a great name for a Pink Floyd tribute band.

    107. Ravi Naik — on 22nd February, 2009 at 8:28 am  

      The terms ‘progressive’ and ‘freedom of expression’ have limited currency on this forum.

      Being progressive means calling a fucktard when we see one - and having little tolerance with those who act that way.

      In future please do not write every other article on PP about Muslims/Islam and please desist always portraying us negatively. If you want to stop or manipulate the debate then don’t even start it. This much is fair to all.

      Fucktards don’t decide what is discussed here.

      ps. Aren’t ‘moderators’ supposed to be neutral. Why then am I called a ‘fucktard’?

      It’s a progressive thing. See above.

    108. Ravi Naik — on 22nd February, 2009 at 8:56 am  

      Because Sid is known to those who own/run this site. They meet up in pubs. Hence reasonably: drinking buddies. This is a reason

      … why you started this new ‘drinking buddy’ theme, to portray one of our regulars as a bad Muslim, yada yada yada does not speak for Muslims. You also used the term “pay-n-all” (prostitute) for another of our regulars because she married outside the community, yada yada yada, does not speak for Muslims.

      You have shown to be a weasel of the worst kind, so stop whining that moderators are not neutral - they have been very tolerant with your smears.

    109. ashik — on 22nd February, 2009 at 1:02 pm  

      Refresh has just provided an opportunity for Leon the ‘moderator’ and PP to prove their objectivity by deleting Sid’s posts calling Blah ‘blahjob’, for example at post 46.

      This forum is edited and moderated according to political taste and there is no uniform policy of deleting posts which stray off topic. Else Sid would be a primary casualty. And the post Leon deleted was not a personal attack unlike the Sid-Blah joisting above.

      Both HP and PP like to talk frequently about Muslims/Islam. HP is too Pro-Israel but PP is let down by the fact it’s no.1 focus is on Muslims (in terms of number of articles here) but you have no Muslim article writers and do not permit dialogue. Each Muslim-related article falls into a familiar trend of politiking where aethiests (one of whom sometimes claims Muslim heritage), non-Asians and Hindus talk about Islam and Muslims as ‘the other’. You have minimal understanding of Islam/Muslims eg. no matter how much you dislike it Muslim women cannot within Islam marry Non-Muslims. Sham Muslim marriages are moreso disapproved of. it is unlikely that even when youat PP identify Muslim-related topics which are relevant (which to be fair PP sometimes does) that you can engage in a manner which increases understanding between Muslims and non-Muslims. This then leads to Muslim-Non Muslim members infighting on most threads. Hence as Rumbold said, PP is about politiking not politics.

      To cut to the chase, PP is highly interested in Muslim issues so it needs to foster an environment for Muslim participation. Otherwise it’s just a bunch of talking heads.

      ***
      ps. Could Sunny please clarify PP’s position about Sid’s use of a far-right journal to write a negative article about Muslims. Especially as Lord Ahmed’s alleged quote about 10,000 Muslims demonstrating could not be referenced. Minimal standards of blogging demand PP act professionally and ensure that articles are accurate and not based on hate-sites.

    110. Rumbold — on 22nd February, 2009 at 1:35 pm  

      Ashik:

      Unsurprisingly, Muslim regulars are always welcome at our meetups. Since I started going to the gatherings, we have only met once in a pub. At least one Muslim broke their Ramadan fast with us. Given the amount of time we spend holding anti-Muslim stories and groups to account, I do rather resent the implication that we are some cosy anti-Muslim gang.

    111. Amrit — on 22nd February, 2009 at 2:02 pm  

      You have minimal understanding of Islam/Muslims eg. no matter how much you dislike it Muslim women cannot within Islam marry Non-Muslims.

      GOOOOOOOOOOOLD! (As the Californians caught up in the Rush must’ve thought to themselves when they struck lucky). Here, once you cut through all the outraged posturing, we have the heart of the matter.

      Ashik, might I just say that I find it unendingly bizarre how one minute you complain that PP doesn’t represent you (I’m not going to give your attempts to represent all Muslims any airtime, soz) and then, the next minute you… complain that PP doesn’t represent you *scratches head*.

      If you have such grievances, why on Earth don’t you email in an article time to time, eh? Given the new Sunday feature, you’ve got no excuse. Or does that not appeal to you because it would involve the dreaded word RESEARCH?

    112. Rumbold — on 22nd February, 2009 at 2:48 pm  

      Good points Amrit.

      Ashik:

      Furthermore, we can either talk about Muslims and treat them as individuals rather than a horder, or we can stop and leave it for those who will stereotype them.

    113. Leon — on 22nd February, 2009 at 4:00 pm  

      … why you started this new ‘drinking buddy’ theme, to portray one of our regulars as a bad Muslim, yada yada yada does not speak for Muslims.

      Indeed, I was thinking it’s that or an attempt to cast friendships as some kind of secret conspiracy…

      Btw, I’m not getting into a cynical exercise in ‘debate’ over PP moderation. The agenda at work is too plain to see.

      Unsurprisingly, Muslim regulars are always welcome at our meetups. Since I started going to the gatherings, we have only met once in a pub. At least one Muslim broke their Ramadan fast with us. Given the amount of time we spend holding anti-Muslim stories and groups to account, I do rather resent the implication that we are some cosy anti-Muslim gang.

      Very well said. But the point about pubs is a non starter, who cares where we meet, people are free to drink and eat what they like…the point is we are a varied bunch and enjoy each others company. And are not interested in the tribalistic cynicism of people like Ashik.

    114. Ashik32@hotmail.com — on 22nd February, 2009 at 5:58 pm  

      Ashik:

      ‘ps. Could Sunny please clarify PP’s position about Sid’s use of a far-right journal to write a negative article about Muslims. Especially as Lord Ahmed’s alleged quote about 10,000 Muslims demonstrating could not be referenced. Minimal standards of blogging demand PP act professionally and ensure that articles are accurate and not based on hate-sites’.

      ***
      For the last time, Sunny or Rumbold please clarify PP’s ‘official’ position about the use of far-right sources by Sid. What is the editorial line followed by your writers. Is there any quality control? Stop ignoring this point. After all, you surely have nothing to hide?

      Leon, it is plain to see that you are using double-standards by deleting my post about my families experience of the Bangladeshi Liberation War while you permit your drinking buddy Sid ample opportunity to joist with Blah about his families experiences. That has nothing to do with tribalism but basic 101 rules of moderating: never leave yourself open to being seen to show favouritism.

      Why have you not responded to Refresh’s request to delete Sid’s offending posts? Surely everyone who posts should be treated the same? Or am I being a tad naive….

    115. Ashik32@hotmail.com — on 22nd February, 2009 at 6:12 pm  

      Amrit,

      Scripture is scripture and the Islamic position regarding marriage is well known. Surely, you are not asking for Muslims to change Islam!

      You make a good point about writing articles for PP. I would be happy to, if Sunny and the gang will post anything I write. However, given the controversial nature of PP and it’s long history of anti-Muslim articles (primarily written by Sid with complementary backslapping from drinking buddies), I would feel more comfortable if Sunny could persuade another Muslim to write an article (preferably not yet another article about political Islam, there is so much more to Islam and Muslims than politics).

      Amrit, you talk about research, what sort of research do you think Sid did when he linked to a far right link and got caught red-handed halfway through the debate? What editorial and quality control would you like to see? I am interested in your opinions about PP writers using dubious sources making unreferenced claims of public figures (Lord Ahmed and the’10,000 rampaging Muslims’) since you have written for PP as a visitor.

      And the reason I am pursuing this double standards in moderating and special treatment of Sid is that Leon deleted my post about a family member who was killed during the Liberation War. Yet he let Sid go on at length about Sid’s family experiences. I hope you understand.

    116. Katy Newton — on 22nd February, 2009 at 7:12 pm  

      Scripture is scripture

      What sort of discussion can you have if that’s your starting point?

    117. Rumbold — on 22nd February, 2009 at 7:17 pm  

      Ashik:

      Our position on sources is this: we try and cite from things that have been widely quoted as possible, and quoted by credible news sources. However, we also recognise that mistakes can be made, as we don’t have a team of reporters and researchers. Therefore, if a source we have linked to have been proven false, we will correct it. Has the source been proven false in this case?

    118. Refresh — on 22nd February, 2009 at 8:25 pm  

      Relying on highly damaging and uncorroborated information from a far-right journal is a blot on Pickled Politics. I was clear at the time.

      It put this blog in an invidious position, and it can only be put right by Sid. Loyalty is commendable in most cases, but this isn’t one of them.

      I think Sid should do the honourable thing, and acknowledge it as a lapse in judgement.

      As for the childish temper tantrums and offensive name-calling is concerned, well lets leave that to one side. My view is that he who intitiates and participates damage themselves.

    119. Ashik — on 22nd February, 2009 at 8:30 pm  

      Rumbold, Sid linked as evidence to the far right eurosceptic Brussels Journal in his ‘Two responses to Geert Wilders’ post on 11th February. The first line of Sid’s source story stated ‘The House of Lords is a venerable British institution, but what does one get if one accepts Muslims in?’ Furthermore, one of the comments submitted on the page states ‘The mere fact that these discussions take place is evidence that there is no place for Islam in the West. It is the core of an alien, hostile, and incompatible civilization.’

      This Journal also runs other scaremongering stories like ‘Turning Red: Immigrants Tip the Balance in Belgian Local Elections’ and ‘Why the Future May Not Belong to Islam’ stating ‘Critics would claim that Mr. Steyn isn’t contributing to maintaining Western willpower by suggesting that we’ve already lost. Islamic countries are parasitical. Even the massive population growth is only an advantage as long as Muslims are allowed to export it to infidel lands’.

      This is clearly not a mistake on Sid’s part since the first line of the story he used should have alerted him to the nature of that site. The site also claimed a Muslim official, Lord Ahmed threatened 10,000 Muslims protesting Mr. Wilders entry to the UK and the film event but neither the Brussels Journal nor your writer Sid have been able to evidence that Lord Ahmed said any such thing. The Pakistan Times article Sid pointed us to suggested no such thing.

      In the interests of journalistic professionalism I would like PP, yourself or Sunny, to maintain tighter editorial oversight of your stable of writers. Stories should be linked to credible (preferably multiple) sources. This story clearly shows the depths to which Sid will plummet to write a story showing Muslim officials in positions of responsibility and Muslims generally in a bad light. Can’t you persuade any Muslims to write articles exploring all facets (not just politics and Islamism, contrary to what some ppl believe we Muslims do not sit around all day hatching plans for global domination) of Muslim life? There should be accountability for your writers. Will PP rebuke Sid for such blatent disregard of posting rules and for letting his personal feelings clearly dictate his articles?

    120. Sunny — on 22nd February, 2009 at 8:37 pm  

      Can you guys shut the fuck up about our editorial policy? Ashik, if you actually had one ounce of credibility with me I’d pay attention. But you don’t. So I don’t really give a fuck what you say. And to add to that - please don’t send in an article because I’m not going to publish it either.

      This discussion is over. I certainly don’t have webspace for Ashik to spend his time saying how I should be running PP or on our editorial policy. It makes FA all difference to me what he says.

    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.