• Family

    • Ala Abbas
    • Clairwil
    • Daily Rhino
    • Leon Green
    • Liberal Conspiracy
    • Sajini W
    • Sid’s blog
    • Sonia Afroz
    • Sunny on CIF
  • Comrades

    • Andy Worthington
    • Angela Saini
    • Aqoul
    • Bartholomew’s notes
    • Blairwatch
    • Bleeding Heart Show
    • Bloggerheads
    • Blood & Treasure
    • Butterflies & Wheels
    • Campaign against Honour Killings
    • Cath Elliott
    • Chicken Yoghurt
    • Clive Davis
    • Daily Mail Watch
    • Dave Hill
    • Dr StrangeLove
    • Europhobia
    • Faith in Society
    • Feministing
    • Harry’s Place
    • IKWRO
    • Indigo Jo
    • Liberal England
    • MediaWatchWatch
    • Ministry of Truth
    • Natalie Bennett
    • New Humanist Editor
    • New Statesman blogs
    • open Democracy
    • Our Kingdom
    • Robert Sharp
    • Rupa Huq
    • Septicisle
    • 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
    • Ariane Sherine
    • Desi Pundit
    • Get There Steppin’
    • Incurable Hippie
    • Isheeta
    • Neha Viswanathan
    • Power of Choice
    • Real man’s fraternity
    • Route 79
    • Sarah
    • Sepia Mutiny
    • Smalltown Scribbles
    • Sonia Faleiro
    • The Langar Hall
    • Turban Head
    • Ultrabrown



  • Technorati: graph / links

    Criteria for engagement with Muslim groups


    by Sid on 9th March, 2009 at 5:00 pm    

    In the British context, there must be a concern that the authorities have too often allowed themselves to be deceived into accepting the agenda of political Islamists as the authentic voice of Islam. Distinguishing between real Muslim progressives and those who present themselves as such is a difficult task. The result is that the British state has, on occasion, ended up, whether by accident or design, giving support (often financial) to some of the more reactionary elements from within the Muslim community in the UK.

    Shiraz Maher and Martyn Frampton have written an analysis of Preventing Violent Extremism (PVE), the £90 million centrepiece of the government’s effort to stop the radicalisation of young Muslims. The report aims to “set out how the sound priniciples and good intentions of PVE have been compromised by muddled thinking as to the appropriate criteria for selecting Muslim groups as partners and by lax implemementation at local level”.

    Download the report (PDF).

    Here are its recommendations:

    1. The recasting of Preventing Violent Extremism to Preventing Extremism.
    2. The creation of a short, sharp, independent inquiry to examine where funds have been allocated, and to what end, under PVE.
    3. The new criteria for engagement should be adopted across government and the public sector, creating a consistent and coherent framework across institutional lines.
    4. The PVE strategy should be simplified and made more transparent.
    5. Single group funding should be the exception rather than the rule. Where it is awarded, funding allocation should be clearly explained.
    6. All Prevent-related activity must be subjected to rigorous ‘Equality Impact Assessments’, which consider the activity by their impact on society as a whole.
    7. Members of Parliament must be put into the heart of the decision-making process for Prevent and given oversight positions which allow them to adequately audit its delivery.
    8. Government must create a cross-departmental Select Committee with responsibility for auditing, accounting and overseeing the Prevent strategy.
    9. The Department for Communities and Local Government must establish an in-house Due Diligence Unit which will develop an open source central information resource on the array of different groups operating around the country.
    10. The government must promote and incentivise good behaviour – and disincentivise bad behaviour.

    Here are the proposed criteria for governmental engagement:

    1. Government must not engage with organisations or individuals thatsupport or condone the deliberate targeting of civilians (as defined by the Geneva Conventions) anywhere in the world.
    2. Government must not engage with individuals or organisations that call for, or condone, attacks on British soldiers and their allies anywhere in the world or against any forces acting under a UN mandate.
    3. Government must not engage with people or groups that call for or condone the destruction of UN member states.
    4. Government must not engage with people or organisations that give a platform to, deny, or are apologists for crimes against humanity, including genocide.
    5. Government must not engage with groups or individuals who support or condone terrorism anywhere in the world.
    6. Government must not engage with groups or individuals that present a threat to rights and freedoms protected by the ECHR and discriminate or advocate discrimination on the basis of religion, religious sect, race, sexual orientation or gender in any aspect of public life or public policy.
    7. Government must not engage with organisations that oppose Armed Forces’ recruitment because they selectively oppose wars that the state, under the authority of the democratically elected parliament, is currently fighting. Where decisions are made to engage with a group:
    8. Government should only engage with organisations that declare any and all sources of foreign funding.
    9. Government should only fund incorporated associations.


      |   Trackback link   |   Add to del.icio.us   |   Share on Facebook   |   Filed in: British Identity, Muslim




    80 Comments below   |   Add your own

    1. blah — on 9th March, 2009 at 5:44 pm  

      Yes the true voice of the Muslim community are people like Sid and Shiraz Maher , last seen praising Israel for its slaughter in Gaza and calling on Muslims to support it.

      Honestly people like this have zero credibility and would just be laughed at by most of the community especially the people who this initiative targets.
      The groups who the government engaged with before , for all their faults, were made up of people who worked for years for the community- building mosques, community centres , getting halal meat provision etc.

      They are not the johnny come lately brown sahibs like QF and Maher eager to do the govt’s (any govt) bidding in return for a tidy sum.

    2. Shamit — on 9th March, 2009 at 5:48 pm  

      These are excellent recommendations and the Government would do well to pay heed to them.

      Following these guidelines would take away the flawed argument that one man’s terrorist is another man’s hero. The days of armed revolution Che style or ben Gurion style are over.

    3. blah — on 9th March, 2009 at 5:49 pm  

      BTW Sid’s master/hero/sheikh David T had this story on HP at 7am this morning.

      As with most of his articles Sid just copies whatver Dave has said and brings it to PP. Sad he cant think of his own ideas/stuff to write.

    4. Shamit — on 9th March, 2009 at 5:52 pm  

      Sid never supported the killing of innocent people in Gaza Blah and I don’t recall any regular at PP doing so either.

      And why is using euality impact assessment analysis so wrong in your eyes blah?

    5. Sid — on 9th March, 2009 at 6:01 pm  

      This is a report by Policy Exchange, so I have as much reason to want to discuss it here, or anywhere else I choose, as David T does on HP. Luckily, we don’t have our editorial policy dictated to us by racist, unhinged Islamists like yourself munir.

      Besides, many regular PP commenters would rather discuss the matters raised on the report here than on other blogs. And I always respect and welcome their input.

      Try and come up with criticisms of the report if you possibly can, otherwise: You know where the door is, use it.

    6. fug — on 9th March, 2009 at 7:09 pm  

      Muslim organisations must not seek support, political, financial or otherwise, from the Government, because it is naff and they just look stupid. Dogooders should be advised of the problems of cooption, betrayal, toolboyness and embarrasment.

      Muslim individual and organisational engagement with the problems of british society should be self financed, thought through and graceful. Try to avoid jumping onto bandwagons.

      In parallel, I think a study needs to be done on ex-fringe political muslims in the mainstream white studies policy arena, in parallel with a study of mel p and other once upon a lefties.

    7. blah — on 9th March, 2009 at 7:11 pm  

      Shamit
      “Sid never supported the killing of innocent people in Gaza Blah and I don’t recall any regular at PP doing so either.”

      Er yes but Shiraz Mahir did. And Sid is inviting us to take him seriously

      “And why is using euality impact assessment analysis so wrong in your eyes blah?”

      It isnt; but why isnt it being used against other groups? e.g the Hindu community and its RSS/VHP/BJP supporting orgnaistaions.

      Its comical to have an “equality impact assesment” which treats different communities … unequally

    8. soru — on 9th March, 2009 at 7:26 pm  

      Presumably, this is the paper which was leaked to the Guardian and discussed in this thread:

      http://www.pickledpolitics.com/archives/3282

      If so, interesting to see exactly how the Guardian misrepresented it, in a way that arguably counts as Islamophobic. For example, the bland and uncontroversial:

      .Government must not engage with groups or individuals that present a threat to rights and freedoms protected by the ECHR and discriminate or advocate discrimination on the basis of religion, religious sect, race, sexual orientation or gender in any aspect of public life or public policy

      becomes

      They argue that Islam bans homosexuality and that it is a sin against Allah

      Neutral, descriptive language becomes loaded with emotive Arabic terms like ‘Allah’, ‘jihad’, ‘Shari’a’ and ‘caliphate’. None of which were in the document, and adding them only makes sense if you make a lot of assumptions about what they mean.

      Thing is, those assumptions are precisely what would be shared by bin Laden and some Islamophobic site like Little Green Footballs: shari’a is cutting limbs off, a Caliphate is a war-fighting super-state, and so on.

      As was pointed out on the last thread, most of those terms, in Arabic, can have very different meanings, for example a Caliphate could, in principle, be an EU-like body, Shari’a can be just a set of rules for divorce, and so on.

      Which is precisely why it was wrong and misleading for the Guardian to use them in this way.

    9. fug — on 9th March, 2009 at 7:28 pm  

      blah,

      its about the state trying to discipline muslim citizens by toying with the willing. best not expect even an interesting read from these reports.

    10. Don — on 9th March, 2009 at 7:38 pm  

      If implemented across the board, these criteria seem reasonable.

    11. Shamit — on 9th March, 2009 at 7:56 pm  

      blah

      I despise those groups that go on supporting RSS and their lot.

      And why should the British taxpayers pay for their crap anyways? Why should we subsidise their screwed up agenda? No way.

      I don’t think they do and I have never heard any Hindu group getting money to help cohesion or similar issues.

      Can you highlight some examples where Hindu/Sikh groups get money from the Government to promote community cohesion in the UK.?

    12. Shamit — on 9th March, 2009 at 8:04 pm  

      The religious group that has been persecuted the most in this country has been the Catholics since the days of Henry VIII and most recently in N. Ireland.

    13. Dalman — on 9th March, 2009 at 8:09 pm  

      Ah yes, the Policy Exchange, purveyor of Muslims in Britain:

      http://www.pickledpolitics.com/archives/1597

      http://www.pickledpolitics.com/archives/1597

      http://www.pickledpolitics.com/archives/1848

      So what makes their conclusions so valid now?

    14. Don — on 9th March, 2009 at 8:22 pm  

      Dalman,

      Which points do you take issue with?

    15. Sid — on 9th March, 2009 at 8:35 pm  

      best not expect even an interesting read from these reports.

      Best for you not to engage with the facts head on? No change there then.

    16. Imran Khan — on 9th March, 2009 at 8:42 pm  

      Sid - Why should anyone including you take seriously the advice of an organisation with an axe to grind such as Policy Exchange which has done nothing but harm the Muslim voice.

      Lest you forget their dodgy research exposed by Newsnight.

      Also do those guidelines then apply to other religious groups?

      Policy Exchange have been very selective (again) in the criteria to make sure it applies to Muslims and appeases those who supress Muslims from their wish for freedom.

      Its strange that this approach of Policy Exchange isn’t being questioned.

      Policy Exchange like other neocon and right wing think tanks simply design policy to target Muslims and not for the betterment of society. That is their failure and people still listen to them prattle on.

      In the case of Governmental Criteria on point one that means that many other groups and organisations are affected apart from Muslims so would Policy Exchange have the guts to tell other religious groups that Govt shouldn’t engage them or is their venom simply for Muslims?

      Why couldn’t this be a general report on engagement with religious groups? Why target just Muslims?

      That in itself shows the agenda that Policy Exchange pursue.

      May I offer you one bit of advice if HP support something then approach with due care and attention.

      I am afraid this report is designed to target and push back the support that Muslims have gotten as a result of Gaza and it does not do anyone any good.

      The problem with the right wing is that it has failed to find an honest balance for the good of humanity and for its allies. Its gross and extremist support for its allies means that resolutions to conflict are harder to find. The right wing is responsible through Blair and Bush for the massive failure to address the wider needs across the world.

      The right is still fighting a battle that it lost and which caused massive suffering. If people can’t see that then the world is in a poor state.

      Engagement and policy must be based on ethics and not on blind support. We have seen the outcome of that but the policies enacted by Bush and Blair and see that still as Blair remains blind and deaf as well as dumb to what he has allowed to take place in the Middle East.

      Policy Exchange is simply pushing for more of that and should be condemned for their approach.

      They also should not be so easily forgiven for their tactics exposed by Newsnight.

      Policy Exchange to my knowledge have yet to apologise and if it was any Muslim Organisation who did this then their would be uproar and yet they got away with it.

    17. Imran Khan — on 9th March, 2009 at 8:48 pm  

      Sid - “Best for you not to engage with the facts head on? No change there then.”

      The facts are that Policy Exchange and other right wing think tanks have an agenda so you need to admit that and their agenda is to target Muslims.

      Why couldn’t these points of engagement be made general? The reason is because that would then affect the allies that Policy Exchange seeks to protect. Which in itself makes them biased.

      When Policy Exchange has the courage to apply guidelines to all religious groups then we have something to go forward with.

      Again you need to look at the facts the approach and proposals are biased and do not address the wider need of all religious communities.

      A soverign state as recognised by the UN does not have the right to take over land beyond its borders so how does POlicy Exchange tackle those issues?

      Its another poor report from another loud right wing organisation whose past form is anything but clear.

    18. fug — on 9th March, 2009 at 8:53 pm  

      think tanks are a danger for democratic life.

    19. Imran Khan — on 9th March, 2009 at 8:56 pm  

      “Government must not engage with people or groups that call for or condone the destruction of UN member states.”

      So should Government engage with people or groups that call for attacks on other UN Member states?

      See the selective approach as this allows the right wing organisations to continue to call for military action against Iran.

      The wording is delibertly narrow to avoid their own agenda bring stopped.

      So far despite the rhetoric Iran has not been found to be producing nuclear weapons so can Government engage with groups or organisations calling for military action against Iran?

      Its simply another case of a nasty targeting of Muslims.

      Also don’t forget that many of the people who have been accused of terror in the past few decades are seen as leading statesmen today.

      It was in fact engagement that brought an end to terror then and its engagement that will bring it to an end now.

      That is what terrifies right wing organisations as that would destroy their agenda.

      The sooner people realise that the better.

    20. Shamit — on 9th March, 2009 at 8:58 pm  

      “The right wing is responsible through Blair and Bush for the massive failure to address the wider needs across the world.”

      Well Imran — the two politicians you mention actually have done more to alleviate poverty and deliver health care to a large group of people who were before completely ignored.

      Under Blair and on this even Brown has a good record on this one, the International Development aspect of British Government has been better than ever before. And, UK has been the only country (yes the only country) that actually kept its promises in terms of delivering aid.

      And what results are we seeing of apparent failed policy of Blair? A democratic Iraq where Iraqis time and again voted in large numbers to elect their own government (yeah that too under death threat) — and obviously a democratic Iraq is not a good policy outcome.

      Or do you support those assholes who are still trying to destabilise Iraq through suicide bombings in the name of religion?

      ***********************************

    21. Imran Khan — on 9th March, 2009 at 8:59 pm  

      Fug - “think tanks are a danger for democratic life.”

      Yes they are as well as Lobby Groups.

      We’ve seen the ill effect of them in America and Blair has brought them here and they’ve contributed practically nothing to improve the political process.

      They allow extreme positions to dictate government policy and are harmful for the cohesion of the community as they are divisive.

    22. Shamit — on 9th March, 2009 at 9:03 pm  

      Fabian Society was brought here by Blair. Yeah right.

      Thatcher had her think tanks too.

      Think Tanks do bring a lot of good policy recommendations and guess what many policies that Policy Exchange have come up with especially in local governance and other administration issues would feature in the next Government.

    23. Imran Khan — on 9th March, 2009 at 9:04 pm  

      Shamit - “Well Imran — the two politicians you mention actually have done more to alleviate poverty and deliver health care to a large group of people who were before completely ignored.”

      What of their other track record you so carefully ignore? Their war mongering? Their deceit? Their responsibility for the deaths of so many people? Their lying to and ignoring the UN?

      Overall their record in international affairs was extremely poor and you know that. In your desperation you pull out one example amongst a slew of failure and deceit which destroyed international institutions and which sidelined hopes for peace in parts fo the world.

      Your argument defies the reality and is like Policy Exchange selective.

    24. Shamit — on 9th March, 2009 at 9:06 pm  

      “They allow extreme positions to dictate government policy and are harmful for the cohesion of the community as they are divisive.”

      What extreme policies did IPPR propose which pretty much defined the Labour Government in 1997 - 2003.

      Or Demos.

      or Reform.

      or LGiU

      Any thoughts?

    25. Imran Khan — on 9th March, 2009 at 9:08 pm  

      “Think Tanks do bring a lot of good policy recommendations and guess what many policies that Policy Exchange have come up with especially in local governance and other administration issues would feature in the next Government.”

      Nonsense. Think Tanks and Lobby Groups destroy wider discussion, target their own interests and lead to unfair and unjust policy to serve their own ideals and purpose.

      It is because of think tanks and lobby groups that americans lack a decent national healthcare system.

      America is a shining example of the failure of think tanks and lobby groups to push forth a just policy which is why America is now embarking on projects to improve its poor image.

      What about Policy Exchange’s role exposed by Newsnight and why should they be trusted when they haven’t even apologised for their actions?

    26. Shamit — on 9th March, 2009 at 9:14 pm  

      The war in Balkans was before Bush’s time and it was to protect Muslims.

      The war in Sierra Leone restored that country to a path of democracy and stability which it still enjoys.

      The war in Afghanistan was something any US president would have undertaken and Britain would have supported in under any Government.

      Under Clinton and Blair, the world resolved the N. Ireland crisis.

      Blair was instrumental in setting up the deal for the East Timor resolution.

      I would like to see examples of these failures you talk about. And the UN — that whole body needs to be rethought. Why did the French block the second resolution?

      Any international body ensures that some countries are more equal than others who have never lived upto the spirit of the UN charter such as USSR (russia), China in the security council with veto powers — as i said need to be rethought.

      And, I thought the Universal declaration of Human rights, empowered the UN and member states — actually makes it a responsibility of the UN and member states to intervene when genocide or crimes against humanity occurs. In Iraq it did happen or Kurds are not muslim enough for you. And by god, we should have removed Mugabe much earlier, no 100,000 innocent people dying from cholera is much more acceptable to you than war.

      God’s sakes man -

    27. Imran Khan — on 9th March, 2009 at 9:15 pm  

      “What extreme policies did IPPR propose which pretty much defined the Labour Government in 1997 - 2003.

      Or Demos.

      or Reform.

      or LGiU

      Any thoughts?”

      Look you are being selective. If you look at the wider role of think tanks and lobby groups they do not allow Government to pursue an ethical policy. This is shown in policy dictated by Blair and Bush. The Iraq War is prime example and the policy towards Muslims, the policy in Palestine, environmental policy etc. are all examples of lobby groups and think tanks derailing policy that is for the long term good.

      Think tanks have bias and agendas which they pursue and a small number of examples of good they do are outweighed by the bad examples of policy which leaves much to be desired.

      It was at the encouragement of think tanks and lobby groups that led Bush and Blair to act outside of their own national as well as international laws that has led to grave consequences for the future of international cooperation.

      If you want to keep highlighting the few good examples then also look at the string of failures.

      Also again you won’t address the issue of think tanks and lobby groups such as Policy Exchange distorting evidence to make their point and influence policy. What control do you have their given Policy Exchanges track record?

      Why are they to be trusted?

    28. Shamit — on 9th March, 2009 at 9:16 pm  

      Think tanks and industrial lobby groups are very different things but lobby groups and think tanks are part and parcel of any democracy that looks for new ideas.

      What do you think are these muslim organisations in Britain? Aren’t they lobby groups?

    29. Sid — on 9th March, 2009 at 9:18 pm  

      Its simply another case of a nasty targeting of Muslims.

      Imran, I don’t think so. Not unless you want to champion overtly reactionary Islamic groups as the *only* groups that should be recipients of PVE funding.

      Have you read the report? If so, can you give a specific example of what you mean by “nasty targetting of Muslims”. You’ve made the claim, you should be able to factually back it up.

    30. Imran Khan — on 9th March, 2009 at 9:19 pm  

      Again more nonsense from you. Bush and Blair vetoed any discussion on issues they chose not to address.

      What about the lies man? What about the lies to the UN which were encouraged by the same think tanks and lobby groups?

      You are talking sheer nonsense. Those think tanks and lobby groups encouraged the mass deception to the international community. They have encouraged the lack of will in resolving international issues. They have been used to bypass international laws and broken human rights conventions.

      I am sure you’d be screaming at those lobby groups and think tabnks if you or your nearest and dearest had been rendered illegally for torture. An act which was defended by think tanks and lobby groups and in some cases still is.

    31. Shamit — on 9th March, 2009 at 9:20 pm  

      I hve answered that case for national - international laws Imran.

      I reiterate

      “I thought the Universal declaration of Human rights, empowered the UN and member states — actually makes it a responsibility of the UN and member states to intervene when genocide or crimes against humanity occurs.”

      Every political organisation and individual and group have their own agendas — and persuasion and ability to give and take on ideological positions and agenda are the basic fundamentals of Government. It does not only happen in democracies only it happens everywhere — look at Iran.

    32. Imran Khan — on 9th March, 2009 at 9:28 pm  

      Sid - “Imran, I don’t think so. Not unless you think overtly reactionary Islamic groups *only* should represent and be funded by the government as recipients of PVE funding.

      Have you read the report? If so, can you give a specific example of what you mean by “nasty targetting of Muslims”. You’ve made the claim, you should be able to factually back it up.”

      Sid as I explained the report is biased in targetting Muslims and issues that affect Muslims.

      Why couldn’t the report for example have been generic regarding engagement with religious groups?

      Why also not address the issue of support for occupation of land? In this case Muslims can’t support for example the rights of Tibetans to call for the freedom of their land becaise China is a recognised UN country?

      The report is biased against issues that affect Muslims.

      Also government needs to engage with all groups in order to end violence. If this policy was followed then a government minister couldn’t have spoken to Gerry Adams and thus that conflict may have gone on for longer.

      Also hwo are we to trust a think tank that has been exposed for its research as Policy Exchange have and they have never apologised for it.

    33. Shamit — on 9th March, 2009 at 9:28 pm  

      Imran,

      On the rendition policy, on Guantanamo, on the encroachment of civil liberties and highlighting the false choices between liberty and security — I agree with you. And, I hate those policies and the way they have been executed. I firmly believe that in a democracy and society ruled by law, even those who are charged with the most heinous crimes should have due protection from the law — which of course Blair tried to circumvent.

      Blair started this downward spiral towards a police state and I vehemently disagree with that. And, I also disagree with the British Government allowing dodgy mullah’s to come to this country and preach hatred as it has been proven.

      But did Blair knowingly deceive the Parliament and the British public? I don’t believe so. And as a PM and head of Government he was far better than his predecessor as well as successor.

      Agree or disagree he was a leader not someone who just sat there and he had convictions and he acted based on his convictions — again very different from Major and Brown.

      I like Blair but I am no blind supporter.

    34. Imran Khan — on 9th March, 2009 at 9:32 pm  

      ““I thought the Universal declaration of Human rights, empowered the UN and member states — actually makes it a responsibility of the UN and member states to intervene when genocide or crimes against humanity occurs.””

      Ok so if that is your proof then why didn’t the USA stop extraordinary rendition and why was the UN powerless to prevent it? Why was the UN which you claim is empowered fail to close Guantanamo Bay? Why was you beloved Bush and Blair not prosectuted for their deception as well as their human rights violations?

      Why if the UN was so enpowered do your pin up boys walk round scott free having violated the very law you claim was brought in to empower the UN.

      Do you ever seriously think that Bush or Blair or Chenney or Rumsfeld ever answer for their role in human rights violations?

      If as you claim the UN has that power why is it unable to enforce it for the most powerful in the world?

    35. Sid — on 9th March, 2009 at 9:32 pm  

      The report is biased against issues that affect Muslims.

      Imran, is there any specific issue raised in the report which you feel is biased against, or as you say “nasty targetting” of Muslims?

      Can you call out something specific? It would do your case a lot of good if you can pinpoint an exact case, otherwise your criticisms risks being charged for vagueness and being simply abstract.

    36. Imran Khan — on 9th March, 2009 at 9:42 pm  

      “Agree or disagree he was a leader not someone who just sat there and he had convictions and he acted based on his convictions — again very different from Major and Brown.

      I like Blair but I am no blind supporter.”

      Oh please you are a blind supporter. It was Blair who failed to act in the early days against those Mullahs and allowed them to carry on.

      Blair failed in so much and continues to do so. As Middle East Peace envoy - what has he done? Diddly.

      As Prime Minister he spent more time explaining to Rupert Murdoch that Parliament.

      He lacked the courage to push for Middle East peace and became a lackey for the right wing on whom he is still reliant today.

      By rushing to war and never proving his case he misled Pariliament and the people and by narrowing enquiries he ensured he got away with it and in the process destroyed investigative journalism which is so detested by his bosses in America.

      Blair is a showman and nothing more. He isn’t a leader.

      If he had been a leader then he wouldn’t have charged to war, he would have led. He failed and you don’t want to admit it.

      Blair was influenced by the very lobby groups and think tanks he still pandours to and who laud him and that shows the danger of think tanks and lobby groups.

      Ok answer me this point in the UK the number of Jews is dwindling and Muslims rising. As a Muslims I am telling you that I don’t want to see Jewish people deprived of their rights because of Muslim lobbying. As has happened to Muslims - not because of Jewish Lobby groups by the way. But in your scenario of think tanks and lobby groups this is possible.

      In a decade or two we may see roles reversed and that is poor politics.

      That is why I want ethical government and not government by unelected think tanks and lobby groups.

    37. Imran Khan — on 9th March, 2009 at 9:49 pm  

      Sid - Why can’t the report be generic across all faiths? Why the focus on Muslims?

      If the aim is for inclusion rather than exclusion then the report is skewed.

      Thta is my example is that the report itself is flawed because it targets engagement with Muslims and sets standards on them that are not applied to other groups.

      Also please answer my question why accept Policy Exchange’s views when they have failed to address the issue of their dodgy research?

      Also in odre to defeat extremism in the Muslim community means engagement with extremists. You don’t need to fund them but you need to engage and defeat their ideas from within. It can’t be done by ignoring them.

      That policy has never worked and never will. Extremism is destroyed by engaging and refuting not by ignoring.

    38. Shamit — on 9th March, 2009 at 9:49 pm  

      Bush is not my pin up boy — lets get that straight.

      However, on charges of violation of human rights — it would be difficult to prosecute either of them because none of them committed crimes against humanity ie genocide.

      Especially in case of Blair, each and every British citizen who were in Guantanamo were brought back to this country and placed under arrest based on laws passed by the United Kingdom parliament.

      Niether Bush nor Blair committed genocide or violated international law. So, these stupid arguments about Bush should face ICC (which US does not recognise) charges is ludicrous. Niether did they deliberately order civilians to be killed.

      And by the way, according to US laws, the VP is not really in the chain of command especially in military matters. It is very clear when the President is alive and has not invoked the 25th ammendment — then, the military chain of command flows directly from the President to the Secretary of Defence to the theatre commanders. Even the joint chiefs of staff do not fall in the chain of command when it comes to force mobilisation.

      So Chenney may have given bad advice but advice does not construe actions legally speaking.

    39. Shamit — on 9th March, 2009 at 9:54 pm  

      “Extremism is destroyed by engaging and refuting not by ignoring.”

      I actually agree with that especially when you are dealing with extremists with political ideology.

      But when there are no legitimate political objectives but a call for flawed theological interpretation to be forcefully implemented on people by thugs — you don’t engage with them or those who sponsor them.

      Throwing acid bulbs on girls going to school or young girls be stopped from coming out of a burning school because they are not appropriately dressed are not examples of sane political objectives. These are acts of mad men. And you do not engage with such people.

    40. Imran Khan — on 9th March, 2009 at 9:57 pm  

      Lobby Groups and Think Tanks bring us Government by unelected people such as Douglas Murray, Melanie Phillips, Ed Hussein and the like.

      It is democratic or ethical. It is government by the loudest gob. We’ve had almost a decade of this disaster inflicted on us why do we want more?

    41. Imran Khan — on 9th March, 2009 at 10:01 pm  

      “And you do not engage with such people.”

      So you let them carry on? If you don’t show them as being grossly stupid then you don’t stop them.

      8 years of not confronting the issue has brought us to this point and now you want more.

      You may not persuade the idiots but you will ensure people don’t join them.

      By not engaging then you don’t stop the rot.

    42. Imran Khan — on 9th March, 2009 at 10:05 pm  

      “However, on charges of violation of human rights — it would be difficult to prosecute either of them because none of them committed crimes against humanity ie genocide.

      Especially in case of Blair, each and every British citizen who were in Guantanamo were brought back to this country and placed under arrest based on laws passed by the United Kingdom parliament.”

      Oh please grow up. Your arguments are lame.

      Bush and Blair denied people their fundemental human rights, if thats only a few in number thats enough to be charged with.

      Also this exposes your lame argument that the UN was enpowered but now you are saying the USA isn’t party to that legislation. So how was the UN enpowered when it can’t go after Security Council members?

      Bush is responsible for the human righst violations committed by US Troops in Iraq and Afghanistan and by your own admission he can’t be prosecuted so the UN isn’t enpowered.

      The same applies for Blair.

      They got away with it.

    43. Imran Khan — on 9th March, 2009 at 10:08 pm  

      “And by the way, according to US laws, the VP is not really in the chain of command especially in military matters. It is very clear when the President is alive and has not invoked the 25th ammendment — then, the military chain of command flows directly from the President to the Secretary of Defence to the theatre commanders. Even the joint chiefs of staff do not fall in the chain of command when it comes to force mobilisation.”

      What that got to do with UN Enpowerment? Both are responsible so the UN shouldn’t give a damn about US Law should it if it was enpowered?

      According to your example, poor example, then Karadic isn’t responsible because power lay with Milosovic.

      The Bush White House was guilty of human righst violations. You know that so if the UN was enpowered as you claim they’d be up on charges.

    44. Sid — on 9th March, 2009 at 10:15 pm  


      Sid - Why can’t the report be generic across all faiths? Why the focus on Muslims?

      If the aim is for inclusion rather than exclusion then the report is skewed.

      Imran, the scope of the document is the lack of success of the Preventing Violent Extremism fund, or PVE as it is known, which is a key strand of the government’s counter-terrorism strategy.

      And as it aims to channel resources to those organisations and individuals within Britain’s Muslim communities, it stands to reason that it’s focus is on Muslims!

      Surely that is apparent from even a cursory reading of this report and the issue at hand? If this was a report on religious extremism in the UK in general and it focused on Muslims exclusively, you would have had a point.

      But the PVE, is by its nature, a fund designed for grassroots engagement of local councils with Muslim groups.

      If that is your only gripe against this report, then your one and only point is redundant from the outset.

    45. Shamit — on 9th March, 2009 at 10:22 pm  

      Imran,

      UN and member states are empowered to act against those who commit crimes against humanity such as genocide or complete violation of human rights.

      And the US/UK troops who violated international human rights laws and tortured prisoners were brought to book and by orders of the President of the US and the Government of United Kingdom.

      So it would be hard for any lawyer through established legal doctrine (not ones with ideas like George Monbiot) to argue that George Bush and/or Tony Blair was responsible for genocide, or inhuman and cruel torture.

      **************************

      On the engagement front, who do you engage with in Taliban or those who go on a killing spree in Lahore or in Mumbai. Or throw acid bulbs on young girls going to school or order 141 lashes for an elderly woman. The world tried to engage with them and guess what the answer is its my way or the highway.

      I would love to see this brand of extremism go away with engagement and conversation but I seriously doubt it Imran.

      The main beef Osama bin laden has against the Saudi Royal family is why the King allowed US and coalition forces (ie infidels) to come to Saudi Arabia to stop Saddam Hussein. How can you reason with people like that?

      How can you reason with people who think listening to music or flying kites is against ones religion? How could you engage with some people who think women have no rights to go to school and should be treated as no better than property?

      These people actually end up killing more Muslims than anyone else and thats a shame. Who should the Pakistani Government engage with now to stop the killings in Pakistan? And what should they say when the other group says we want Taliban style Sharia law in all of Pakistan?

    46. dave bones — on 9th March, 2009 at 10:23 pm  

      Muslims who believe what non-Muslims believe to be extreme things but nevertheless do not believe in terrorism are useful if you want to stop terrorism.

      This seems pretty obvious to me. I can’t see how 90 million quid is any use in this.

    47. septicisle — on 9th March, 2009 at 10:24 pm  

      “# Government must not engage with people or groups that call for or condone the destruction of UN member states.”

      If this was applied across politics as a whole, we would most likely never in any way engage with Iran. To call this a nonsense based on the failed policy of ideological purity would be putting it too lightly.

    48. Sid — on 9th March, 2009 at 10:30 pm  

      But Iran is not a youth club in Birmingham or an independent grassroots organisation set up by local women in Derby.

    49. Shamit — on 9th March, 2009 at 10:32 pm  

      Are you really equating George Bush with Milosevic?

      I think you really need to stop and think. Where did Blair and Bush act like they wanted to wipe out entire Muslim population?

      For fucks sake’s — look at the logic of it all.

      Now, if Iraq war was wrong so was the war in Kosovo — as niether had UN sanction. So that would have been okay with you if Blair like the rest of Europe and Clinton allowed milosevic to kill and wipe out the entire Kosovo muslim population. Oh man, this Blair guy, he violates international law too many times, he should be hanged..

      Are you happy now?
      *******************************
      Last, eGov monitor at midnight would be publishing an interesting article from Reform (which you would like) its about transparency and read it and what they suggest is good for the country

      http://www.egovmonitor.com/node/23947

    50. Shamit — on 9th March, 2009 at 10:34 pm  

      Sid

      Many apologies for derailing this thread

      Sorry mate

    51. Imran Khan — on 9th March, 2009 at 10:37 pm  

      Sid - “If that is your only gripe against this report, then your one and only point is redundant from the outset.”

      No it isn’t. The point is that if you want to counter extremism in the Muslim community then you need to counter extremism in other communities which is also a gripe for Muslim extremists.

      It all goes hand in hand. Those like you who go charging in to isolate Muslims are making the problem worse not better.

      Thus any report on clountering Muslim extremism needs to also address wider issues.

      Is that so hard to see.

      That is where the report is skewed because it is laying limits on engagement (not just funding) on one group and giving unrestricted freedom to others.

      Their ideas won’t tackle extremism they’ll simply create more as well as re-enforce the feelings of isolation.

      Ok lets take recent events as an example, Policy Exchange being a right wing think tank is allied to Israel and thus they have this statement:

      “Government must not engage with people or groups that call for or condone the destruction of UN member states.”

      Ok but then they don’t have an equivalent redress to balalnce to say that Government must not engage with people or groups that call for or encourage settlement of land deemed occupied by international law and UN Resolutions.

      Thus they are biased in setting engagement terms for one religious group and not others.

      Equally the 90 million in funding is going to mainly Sufi organisations who are on the whole approved by neocons and right wing think tanks.

      Which means that significant parts of the community are not being engaged.

      There are good ideas but on the whole its a poor report and skewed to protect right wing interests.

      If you think this report will address extremism and tackle it you are sorely mistaken.

    52. Imran Khan — on 9th March, 2009 at 10:43 pm  

      Shamit - “I think you really need to stop and think. Where did Blair and Bush act like they wanted to wipe out entire Muslim population?

      For fucks sake’s — look at the logic of it all.”

      You really do pray at Temple Blair in Bush Church don’t you.

      Are you too damn silly to see that human rights violations are punishable just as much as genocide?

      Why do you keep referring to genocide as a piss poor excuse to get Bush and Blair away from their responsibilities for human righst violations, violations of international laws, lying to international bodies etc.

      They are different but just as punishable.

      Are you too damn blinded to see that if people can try and get Israeli and Palestinians tried for human righst violations then your boys can be brought before the courts also?

      Human Rights Violations are not Genocide but they are violatiosn and they can be brought to book. The fact that no one will shows that the UN Human Rights Declaration is limited to certain people.

      Is that so hard for you to grasp?

    53. Imran Khan — on 9th March, 2009 at 10:49 pm  

      Also it isn’t derailing the thread because it shows how lobby groups and think tanks such as Policy Exchange can influence government policy for good or bad.

    54. septicisle — on 9th March, 2009 at 10:51 pm  

      Yes, but we shouldn’t engage with them at all? We shouldn’t even argue with them, we should just let them get on with it? This is simply nonsense, there’s no other way to describe it. It’s the rigidity of the Euston Manifesto crowd, from the same organisation that fabricated receipts from mosques and bookshops for a previous report, by a writer duped by Hassan Butt.

    55. Shamit — on 9th March, 2009 at 10:56 pm  

      No actually its not. And I accept your points. But do you accept mine? If Iraq war was illegitimate as many cry out then the war in Bosnia was illegitimate too?

      And Blair was wrong trying to save Muslim lives and try to give a better quality of life to citizens in those countries who were overwhelmingly Muslim both in Iraq and in Kosovo.

    56. Shamit — on 9th March, 2009 at 11:02 pm  

      How do you engage with them? I think the whole world is trying to figure that out?

      What is their objective? and how can we develop a negotiating position on what is acceptable and where we dfraw the line?

      Okay today the Swat valley, tomorrow Pakistan, the next day India — where do you draw the line and engagement and negotiations always require sacrifice from all parties.

      What sacrifice are you expecting from the Taliban and their supporters? The whole world is looking for engagement and peace but not at the cost of our way of life and democracy. Where do you draw the line?

    57. Ravi Naik — on 9th March, 2009 at 11:13 pm  

      If Iraq war was illegitimate as many cry out then the war in Bosnia was illegitimate too?

      You can’t compare Iraq with Bosnia.

      The Iraq War was illegitimate because it was sold on lies. Lies that Iraq had WMDs, lies that they could attack the West, lies that they had anything to do with 9/11. Unlike Bosnia, Iraq was never supposed to be a humanitarian mission. And we all know that they knew they didn’t have evidence, so they fabricated.

      But the worse part, in my view, was going to Iraq without any post-invasion plan.

      My respect for Blair ended with his disastrous Iraq policy. Not sure why you still defend him.

    58. septicisle — on 9th March, 2009 at 11:15 pm  

      Shamit: The people we’re talking about here are not the Taliban, they’re not suddenly about to take over, they are for the most part marginalised individuals and groups that we would be better challenging than we would ignoring. Even Obama is talking about separating off the “moderate” Taliban and dealing with them; why on earth can we not do the same here with those who are nowhere near as extreme as that?

    59. Imran Khan — on 9th March, 2009 at 11:26 pm  

      Shamit - The Iraq war was sold on a pack of lies by unelected officials from Lobby Groups and Think Tanks who persuaded Bush and Blair that it was the thing to do.

      Therein lies the danger of Lobby Groups and Think Tanks to make far reaching decisions.

      The deception about Bosnia is simply an excuse to absolve blame. Bosnia was about saving lives.

      Iraq was about the need to protect Israel, Oil Supply and Military Presence in the Gulf. It was about interests and long term strategy and not about ethical policy.

      Therein lies the rub that unelected people have a voice in shaping policy which can actually make the situation worse.

      That is my point about Policy Exchange and the undue influence they have on government despite their less than flattering record.

      Despite the recepit episode Hazel Blears still addressed them and speaks to them and they can push policy for who she should and shouldn’t speak to despite their record. Yet they are advocating a policy of who the government should engage. Not fund but engage.

      Its wholly wrong and the positions they recommend won’t work because they arte one sided and lack a way to resolve the issues which drive extremism and in fact merely entrench those positions which can only make matters worse.

      Sid - The approach being recommended is so poor that it will merely serve the pupose of extremists by allowing them to say they won’t listen to us so we must fight. The position is poorly thought out and lacks substance.

      This was tried by Thatcher with the IRA etc. and it failed miserably and made the government look stupid. Eventually they had to engage the very people Thatcher opposed and that led to peace.

    60. Sid — on 9th March, 2009 at 11:33 pm  

      Equally the 90 million in funding is going to mainly Sufi organisations who are on the whole approved by neocons and right wing think tanks.

      Which means that significant parts of the community are not being engaged.

      There are good ideas but on the whole its a poor report and skewed to protect right wing interests.

      If you think this report will address extremism and tackle it you are sorely mistaken.

      Imran, Are you sure about the above?

      Which Sufi grassroots group is receiving PVE funding? You say “mainy” - can you name any names?

      The recipients of the largest chunks of funds seem to be the London Muslim Centre which is part of East London Mosque, through Tower Hamlets Council. It is a Jamaati Islami stronghold and the home of other Jamaat affiliates including the Islamic Forum Europe, of which our old friend Azad Ali is a senior member.

      Another PVE recipient is the Cordoba Foundation, the organisation headed by Anas Altikriti, and is associated like the head, to the Muslim Brotherhood. It received £19,000.

      These groups are not “mainly Sufi organisations” and Sufi orgs are not affiliated with the radical extremism of Jamaat and the Muslim Brotherhood.

      You say:
      “Which means that significant parts of the community are not being engaged.”

      Which significant parts of the community, in your opinion, would need to be engaged in order for the PVE 2.0 to be successfull?

    61. Shamit — on 9th March, 2009 at 11:41 pm  

      But the worse part, in my view, was going to Iraq without any post-invasion plan.

      Agree 200%.

      septicisle — I have no problem with engaging with any British Groups. I was referring to South Asia and globally about dealing with terrorists. I have no problem at all engaging with all marginalised groups in this country. I think the Government must do that and its appropriate.

      However, I also don’t see anything wrong with putting this guidelines with regard to getting Government funding. If you want funds then your work needs to add positive value to the country as a whole.

      First of all, I don’t like the PVE phrase -the terminology itself has very negative connotations. And, I think we should do everything within our power to ensure that disaffected youth do not get sucked into terrorism.

      I objected to Imran trying to bring the whole world and bringing the Iraq war and the whole jing bang about it.

    62. fug — on 10th March, 2009 at 2:35 am  

      i think there should only be a short engagement before the nikah!

      Now on my mark brothers, find yourself a white sister to be(not inbrededly) with a double barelled name and go for it.

    63. munir — on 10th March, 2009 at 9:15 am  

      Imran Khan - some excellent contributions

    64. platinum786 — on 10th March, 2009 at 11:11 am  

      The government is free to keep it’s money. We don’t need it. We have used it as it was available to us. Muslims in Britain have managed to build Mosques costing Millions of pounds using funding got from the community within Britain alone. If we want to run projects to benefit our community, we’ll run them without the government funding them, but we won’t compromise our principles.

      In Derby we are currently running various sucessful, Muslim funded Islamic education programes. Some of them cost £20 a month, they’re jam packed with members.

      I’m working with a group who want to run an educational trust. A group to help children from deprived bakgrounds with education and careers advice. Were going to help tutor from the Three R’s to GCSE and A-level support and revision classes etc. We’re planning mentoring and other such activities. If the government doesn’t wish to support us as we’re not a bunch of obedient wala’s, then screw them, we’ll get our project to work without them. there are people in our community who pay £27 an hour for tutoring, we can easily get the community to pay £1 a month to support us.

      To make unreasonable demands of the Muslim community will only further us from the government, rather than bring us closer.

    65. platinum786 — on 10th March, 2009 at 11:37 am  

      1. Government must not engage with organisations or individuals that support or condone the deliberate targeting of civilians (as defined by the Geneva Conventions) anywhere in the world.

      This is one I actually agree with. I hope our government will be taking the lead by cutting off all ties with the State of Israel as well as other states around the world where state sponsored terrorism has occured, irregardless of whether it is a Muslim country or not.

      2. Government must not engage with individuals or organisations that call for, or condone, attacks on British soldiers and their allies anywhere in the world or against any forces acting under a UN mandate.

      Let me get this right. The white man has 4 out of the 5 seats in the UN security council and you consider that as representative? You think we should obey and accept the laws of the UN? Who represents the Muslim? Who represents the Indian? Who represents the black man? Until the UN has an equal number of power brokers as there are groups in this world, why should anyone accept it’s verdict. The UN is for the weak only. The UN can’t do anything for Kashmir or Tibet or Palestine or even Daffur. The UN stood by and watched massacres around the world occur. Why should we respect the UN, a tootheless organisation which only has power over those even more pathetic than itself?

      Secondly we know this is clear a politically worded reference to your troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. No I refuse to condemn anyone fighting back to defend their own country from invading forces. That’s war, deal with it.

      3. Government must not engage with people or groups that call for or condone the destruction of UN member states.

      yet you hold diplomatic relations with the entire Muslim world. The only Muslim countries who recognise Israel are Jordan, Eygpt and Turkey. Nobody else does, why not cut off ties with the sandy petrol pumps? It is a clear double standard.

      I refuse to recognise the right for the state of Israelt o exist until a viable Palestinian state is created. that’s the position of the Islamic republic of Pakistan, I am a Pakistani citizen, I hence have a right to that position and I will keep that position.

      4. Government must not engage with people or organisations that give a platform to, deny, or are apologists for crimes against humanity, including genocide.

      Why? It’s my right to deny whatever I like. I didn’t see any holocaust take place, how do I know one happened for sure? Same way Israel denies a holocaust took place last Christmas. None of us where there to witness it, maybe it didn’t happen. I deny there is a sun in the sky. I reckon it’s a giant torch that god flicks on and off. What happened to freedom of speech?

      i’m free to deny god exists despite 1.5 billion Muslims telling me so. By deying the existance of god I deny the stories of Biblical reference such as the Floods of Noah, the Famines, the genocide of the Paroah against the people of Moses. If those historical genocides can be denied, with billions telling they occured, why can’t I deny those where only a few hundred thousand alleged surivivors tell me they occured?

      5. Government must not engage with groups or individuals who support or condone terrorism anywhere in the world.
      Aother one I agree entirely with. There is no escuse for terrorism. It all depends on how we define terrorism. I don’t see anyone fighting an occupying force, be it in Georgia, Palestine, Kashmir, Afghanistan, Iraq as terrorism, If those people are targetting military targets.

      6. Government must not engage with groups or individuals that present a threat to rights and freedoms protected by the ECHR and discriminate or advocate discrimination on the basis of religion, religious sect, race, sexual orientation or gender in any aspect of public life or public policy.

      Yeah sure why not. As long as this does not mean I cannot tell someone I beleive homosexuality is wrong, the same way I think drinking Alchohol is wrong and Smoking is wrong and killing for fur is wrong.

      7. Government must not engage with organisations that oppose Armed Forces’ recruitment because they selectively oppose wars that the state, under the authority of the democratically elected parliament, is currently fighting.

      So they deny me the right to say whether joining the army is right or wrong? Especially since our army is righting illegal wars.

      So let me get this straight, the government will only fund those Muslims who;

      - don’t support the democratically elected Palestinian and Lebanese governments
      - Support the war in Iraq and Afghanistan
      - Recognise the State of Israel
      - Reject the right to deny a historical event
      - Support homosexuality
      - Support/encourage recruitment into an army which fights fights mostly other Muslims

      Good luck with that. Sid it appears your right in the money mate.

    66. Imran Khan — on 10th March, 2009 at 5:19 pm  

      Sid - “Imran, Are you sure about the above?

      Which Sufi grassroots group is receiving PVE funding? You say “mainy” - can you name any names?

      The recipients of the largest chunks of funds seem to be the London Muslim Centre which is part of East London Mosque, through Tower Hamlets Council. It is a Jamaati Islami stronghold and the home of other Jamaat affiliates including the Islamic Forum Europe, of which our old friend Azad Ali is a senior member.

      Another PVE recipient is the Cordoba Foundation, the organisation headed by Anas Altikriti, and is associated like the head, to the Muslim Brotherhood. It received £19,000.

      These groups are not “mainly Sufi organisations” and Sufi orgs are not affiliated with the radical extremism of Jamaat and the Muslim Brotherhood.

      You say:
      “Which means that significant parts of the community are not being engaged.”

      Which significant parts of the community, in your opinion, would need to be engaged in order for the PVE 2.0 to be successfull?”

      Sid to address your point, the Quilliam Foundation subscribes to Sufi Thought and receives over £1 Million in Govt funding though it isn’t a grassroots organisations. That is a pretty big difference to the £19,000 which the Cordoba Foundation receives.

      The Sufi Muslim Council funding is open to debate.

      If the Cordoba Foundation is not meeting the criteria of preventing extremism and I don’t know enough about them to comment then they shouldn’t get funding.

      However as I have said to you before some Sufi Organisations also promote violence so we can go round and round.

      I have the same criticism of the MCB Leadership that if have of theQuilliam Foundation - they are miserable at grassroots, though better connected than the later.

      The failure of government policy led by Hazel Blears who herself listens to right wing think tanks thus her own role needs to be questioned, but the failure of policy is because it is used to set-up administrative organisations and employ people with no real projects to influence the grassroots.

      That is the gross failure so we are spending 90 million on talking shops or a significant percentage.

      Be that The Cordoba Foundation, The Quilliam Foundation, MCB, ISB, MAB - take your pick but they spend their time talking and essentially slagging each other off to ensure they get a piece of the money pie.

      But it doesn’t make much difference to you or I as we don’t get much benefit for it and our own grassroots projects struggle for funding.

      Hence the money doesn’t reach the areas it is needed.

      Please tell me of the projects you may run to improve community life and promote cohesion - how much gets funding? Most likely zilch because it isn’t operating at the political level, doesn’t have the exposure so Hazel isn’t interested.

      What is the point of PVE programmes that spend their time slagging off other organisations and don’t wormk at grassroots,

      I don’t care who they are but the money - my tax money - isn’t well spent. Its hype.

      Thats why I detest think tanks and lobby groups as all we get is lots of hot air for our money.

    67. Sid — on 10th March, 2009 at 5:24 pm  

      Imran, the question was

      Which Sufi grassroots group is receiving PVE funding? You say “mainy” - can you name any names?

      And you answered the Quiliiam Foundation and the Sufi Muslim Council.

      But the QF are not a sufi grassroots organisation and have not received PVE funds. The SMC is also not a recipient of PVE.

      You also said
      However as I have said to you before some Sufi Organisations also promote violence so we can go round and round.

      Can you provide any names of these Sufi Organisations which promote violence? Munir/blah claims to be a sufi (I know, loud guffaws). Perhaps he might be involved with these pseudo Sufi Organisations you are alluding to? But we won’t know unless you say which ones you’re referring to, if any.

    68. Imran Khan — on 10th March, 2009 at 5:50 pm  

      Sid - QF receive massive government funding and are Sufi oriented. Which pot it comes out of is semantics. Its government money whether it be PVE or direct funding. Its all tax payers money.

      By implying the government is funding non-Sufi organisations more than Sufi by limiting discussions to specific pots is playing with semantics.

      >Can you provide any names of these Sufi Organisations
      >which promote violence?
      I try and dig them out.

      However the point is that funding needs to be for projects which address this issue.

      The Policy Exchange Report is pushing for funding for creeds it alone approves of. This in spite of the fact other creeds have also worked with the government and police to counter extremism.

      They are implying that only Sufi Islam is the acceptable form and this isn’t correct.

      Again I say to you that if you can prove that Cordoba or whoever else have promoted extremism then they shouldn’t get funding.

      However in the Muslim world there is a variety of creeds and not all support extremism and indeed others counter it so there is a failure if only one creed - the Sufi’s - are funded.

      Equally I am not saying they shouldn’t get some funding, if they meet the criteria they should.

      Policy Exchange who fail to produce receipts are being selective by promoting only one part of a diverse community and that is grossly unfair.

      As regards the Muslim Brotherhood - I don’t believe in funding them but they should be engaged to prove the stupidity of their position.

    69. Sid — on 10th March, 2009 at 9:15 pm  

      The Policy Exchange Report is pushing for funding for creeds it alone approves of. This in spite of the fact other creeds have also worked with the government and police to counter extremism.

      That’s exactly what its not saying. Have you read the report Imran? If so, I can’t see why you can say this since it seems to raise the very points you’ve raised in #68, especially when you sayu:

      “Hence the money doesn’t reach the areas it is needed.”

      However, I am concerned that since you have made an accusation as serious the the PVE funding Sufi Organisations which promote violence, you cannot seem to name them. Surely you should be able to back up a charge as serious as that.

      Which groups or areas do you think should the PVE fund be directed at?

    70. Imran Khan — on 10th March, 2009 at 9:58 pm  

      Sid - With respect I think you have not read what I said correctly

      I made two statements:

      1. That the PVE mainly funds Sufi Organisations.

      2. In a seperate statement I said that some Sufi Organisations also promote violence.

      I did not say that the PVE funds Sufi Organisations who promote violence.

      To clarify I haven’t read the report I have read summarised extracts in the media.

      “Which groups or areas do you think should the PVE fund be directed at?”

      As I said those that work at the grassroots and tackle extremism be they Sufi, Salafi, Super Salafi - I don’t care but those that tackle extremism.

      So how do you reconcile Mulim aspiration for control of Temple Mount with Israel’s Anexation and Policy Exchange saying that Government should not engage with organisations commited to overthrowing a UN State. Israel is a UN State, Jerusalem is disputed so how can you engage with the Muslim world which wants a partition of Jerusalem and Israel which doesn’t?

      Also may I ask why you are so concerned at the labelling of Sufi Organisations when you are quick to label Organisations as Wahabi and thus extreme?

    71. Sid — on 10th March, 2009 at 10:07 pm  

      I did not say that the PVE funds Sufi Organisations who promote violence.

      This is what you did say upthread:

      “Equally the 90 million in funding is going to mainly Sufi organisations who are on the whole approved by neocons and right wing think tanks.” and

      “However as I have said to you before some Sufi Organisations also promote violence so we can go round and round.”

      Which to most readers would that there is some overlap betyween funded Orgs and Violent Orgs. But when you’re asked to name these Sufi Organisations, you cannot. I should think that if you’re going to make a claim as serious as that, you ought to back it up. Don’t you think?

    72. Imran Khan — on 10th March, 2009 at 10:19 pm  

      Sid - No thats two different statements. If there had been an overlap then I would have made one statement.

      You are mixing the two into one.

      I made two statements and your even quote them seperately.

      Are you a Sufi?

      Sufi’s who support Jihad in Iraq
      http://www.jamestown.org/single/?no_cache=1&tx_ttnews%5Btt_news%5D=4683

    73. Sid — on 10th March, 2009 at 10:25 pm  

      Imran, no I’m not a sufi, but I did belong to the Shadhiliyya tariqa in my youth.

      I am just interested to know which Sufi Organisation has adopted or condone violence in the UK, as you have asserted.

      But you weren’t able to name any names. That’s quite irresponsible don’t you think. It seems you are very concerned about Muslims being perceived as violent fundamentalists and here you asserting some Sufis are just that, without being able to identify any leaf and brach group who you claim are.

      Do you know of any violent Sufi Orgs which have received PVE funds?

    74. Imran Khan — on 10th March, 2009 at 10:29 pm  

      Sid - Kindly don’t start your nonsense again. I thought you were over that.

      I did not say in the UK - I said Sufi Organisations in general terms. You are clearly confused and are mixing up points (again) to make a point.

      In order to counter extremism I would:

      Encourage Mosques to open their doors to the wider community

      Arrange community events

      Encourage cross communal charity work whcih brings different people together

      Promote an exchange of meetings between the community leadership

      These are practical steps to counter isolation and prevent extremism.

      The nonsense you are supporting from Policy Exchange who can’t even get valid receipts and are expected by you to make policy is never going to work.

    75. Imran Khan — on 10th March, 2009 at 10:32 pm  

      Sid - “Do you know of any violent Sufi Orgs which have received PVE funds?”

      Did I say any had? Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo.

      Are you also seriously claiming that all Sufi Organisations do not support any Muslim struggles anywhere?

      Sufi/Brailwee Mosques in this country are mainly Northern Pakistan and Assad Kashmir so are you now seriously saying they do not support that struggle?

      BTW That is a violation of the criteria of your Policy Exchange.

    76. Sid — on 10th March, 2009 at 10:34 pm  

      I did not say in the UK - I said Sufi Organisations in general terms. You are clearly confused and are mixing up points (again) to make a point.

      Ah, in *general terms*. In general terms, some Somalian groups have committed mass murders, Imran. In Somalia. But that is outside of the scope of the PVE.

      This PE report on the PVE is talking about specific grassroots organisations operating in the UK. Let’s try and stick to the scope of the subject matter of the article.

      And furthermore, let’s not be so partisan about this or that “creed” or religious denominations and groups, shall we? You will *have* to accept that there are indeed Salafi, Sufi and Wahhabi sympathetic orgs which do promote extremism, sometimes of the violent sort. That’s all the report is stating, and I would advise you to read it in full.

    77. Imran Khan — on 10th March, 2009 at 10:38 pm  

      Sid - “You have to accept that there are indeed Salafi, Sufi and Wahhabi sympathetic orgs which do promote extremism, sometimes of the violent sort.”

      Of course I accept that and they are to be condemned and are idiots.

      Ok so I’ve stated some of my ideas for preventing extremism. I’d like to hear yours?

      Also is there anything in the report you disagree with?

    78. Sid — on 10th March, 2009 at 10:39 pm  

      I think the recommendations and the governmental crieteria, if implemented across the board, seem reasonable and I hope the government adopts them.

    79. Imran Khan — on 10th March, 2009 at 11:04 pm  

      Sid - One of my points was based on this:

      http://www.lgcplus.com/policyandpolitics/news/2009/03/concern_over_councils_muslim_links.html

      They reported that The Policy Exchange Report said:
      “It also criticised authorities in Lambeth for engaging in partnership with “a hard-line Salafist from Brixton Mosque”.”

      Now this is not correct as this mosque is well known for working against extremism:

      http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1730523.stm

      http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2001/dec/26/september11.uk

      The mosque has been praised by the Police for its work against extremism and is regarded by the Police as a good partner in the figth against extremism.

      But it appears that Policy Exchange isn’t happy with this and is subscribing to its masters in the neocon circles who want to promote just Sufi’s.

      If true this is an unfair distortion.

    80. Imran Khan — on 10th March, 2009 at 11:06 pm  

      Sid - But what are your ideas for tackling the extremism issue?



    • Post a comment using the form below

    Pickled Politics © Copyright 2005 - 2009. All rights reserved. Terms and conditions.
    With the help of PHP and Wordpress.