MCB vs Secretary of State
Daud Abdullah is suing Hazel Blears’ office of the Secretary of State. The response from the Secretary of State, which confirms this incredible news, is on the Speccie blog :
“We have received correspondence from Dr Daud Abdullah’s solicitors.
“We have been in dialogue with the MCB since the 6 March seeking clarification of the actions taken by Dr Abdullah in relation to the serious issues raised by the articles in the Istanbul Declaration. We are concerned with those articles which appear to call for violence and Dr Abdullah’s repeated unwillingness to distance himself from those articles specifically.
“The legal route that Dr Abdullah has chosen to take despite our offer of further private dialogue with the MCB to resolve the matter means this will now be taken forward by solicitors.”
Well this is amazing isn’t it? After the news of Daud Abdullah’s signature on the Istanbul Declaration blew up he made a statement in an email, followed by yet another email to the Guardian to clear his name. Blears published her counter. Abdullah then went ahead and wrote a statement as a full “reply to Hazel Blears”. But none of this seemed to be enough. He has now decided on maximum action and threatened legal action against Blears.
I dearly hope Daud Abdullah takes his threat all the way to court. I welcome a libel case in which Dr Abdullah’s Rolodex of Islamist association gets forensically examined and presented to the jury. It will mean every action, every speech and the identity of every associate will be picked through and laid bare and the full extent of the Jamaati and Muslim Brotherhood connections with the MCB will be out in the clear light of day.
It will be like lifting a rock and watching the creepy crawlies scurry around for cover from under it.
Could this be the end of the MCB as we know it?
| Post to del.icio.us |
Filed in: Muslim, Organisations
Wow!
Sid, I quite like Inyat Bunglawala.
‘There’s life out there, but not as we know it.’
Do you think Sunny would let him comment here after the MCB implodes?
My weekend would be complete if Harry’s Place imploded too, but you knew that anyway, didn’t you?
_______________________________
Just for your benefit, as a newbie citizen journalist, I am currently being assaulted with ‘Guard Old Derrys’ Walls’ from my neighbourhood Orange Walk. Nowt much changes, I fear….
Always loved REM…
I was about to congratulate Sunny on his return to reality, whence I realised it was the venerable Sid!
Sunny will be backing Daud Abdullah against Hazel Blears. Well, he’ll get all annoyed, deny that’s the case, then go on to argue in favour of Daud’s position against the right-wing press and the renegade neo-Labs, anything printed in the non-Grauniad rags is by default the antithesis of the Guardianista-group-think that he now chases after so doggedly.
Sid – you take on events is truely amazing and once again biased beyond belief.
Hazel Blears lied – how difficult is that for you to comprehend.
She falsely claimed he had advocated attacks on Jews worldwide.
You’ve been asked to address that fact and you won’t – time and again you ignore her blatent distortion of what was said.
A Senior Minister in the government has lied to justify her position and you don’t find that unacceptable but you find it amazing that Daud Abdullah is suing.
Either show us where the statement said that or stop this nonsense.
The MCB may have unsavoury links but that isn’t the issue. The issue was what was signed and it wasn’t what Blears claimed so she bloody well lied to try and worm her way into a better position.
From your politicians do you find such lying acceptable?
It was the same nonsense by government which led to innocent Irish people being jailed for crimes they didn’t commit.
The MCB may be guilty of many things but they have not called for attacks on Jews worldwide and they have not called for attacks on UK Forces. These are lies and even the Jewish Communities leadign writers have said so.
But hell Sid can’t bring himself to admit that Blears lied and is in the wrong.
The issue about the MCB’s link is a seperate issue and this is about a Minister smearing a member of the public with statements which were not made.
The Jewish Community itself has highlighted the failings of Blears approach and you still can’t accept she is wrong.
Blears has misled the people and we the taxpayer will end up paying for her stupidity in libelling a member of the public.
People who back Blears are basically giving Ministers licence to decieve.
Ministers have a duty to be honest in their dealings. Making up lies when there is so much that could be said about what is wrong with the MCB simply shows a lack of leadership and isn’t to be praised.
This episodes highlights that Blears is a poor politician and leader.
Also if you think that the MCB’s links will be exposed well dear boy Blears own dodgy links with War Tanks such as your beloved Policy Exchange who can barely keep a receipt will come into play. Her links with SMC, Quilliam all will play out.
Blears isn’t the innocent here and any fair minded person can see that. She is in the wrong and needs to be responsible and apologise.
Also if she was so in the right why did she want private discussions on the matter when she could have pushed her advantage home?
Blears knows she is wrong which is why she tried to sort this out in closed doors. It didn’t work and shows that she misled people.
Blears lied and you need to decide if that is acceptable.
Hazel Blears lied – how difficult is that for you to comprehend.
She falsely claimed he had advocated attacks on Jews worldwide.
Imran, in Daud Abdullah’s “reply to Hazel Blears”,
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/mar/26/hazelblears-islam
he does not once mention that Blears had “falsely claimed he had advocated attacks on Jews worldwide”.
Probably not, he’ll just sue her under Sharia law.
Tom FD: Ah yes, good old Sharia law where it is legal for marital rape…
I am surprised that the MCB is not on the Home Office proscribed terrorist list.
Imran said:
The Jewish Community itself has highlighted the failings of Blears approach
Has it? Which Jewish community organisations have done this?
If he did I’d walk. There’s a line and Idiot Bungaglow is on the wrong side of it.
Pity they can’t both lose.
“Pity they can’t both lose.”
Effectively- in damage to pocket and reoutation- they both can and probably will if the case goes ahead.
Sid
“Imran, in Daud Abdullah’s “reply to Hazel Blears”,
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/mar/26/hazelblears-islam
he does not once mention that Blears had “falsely claimed he had advocated attacks on Jews worldwide”.”
Are you unable to read Sid?
“Her latest claim as stated in a letter on her behalf to our secretary-general and published in the Guardian today is that I signed a document “advocating attacks on Jewish communities all around the world”. She had not raised this allegation before yesterday and it is entirely untrue.”
“3. I am absolutely opposed to any attack or violence directed against innocent persons of any faith or no faith anywhere in the world. To claim that I call for attacks on Jewish communities throughout the world is completely false and an inflammatory and malicious assault on my beliefs, words and actions.”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/mar/26/hazelblears-islam
Or do you understand the words “entirely untrue” and “completely false” in a different way?
What do people think of Inayat Bunglawala’s latest piece, on Hubble:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/mar/31/hubble-space-telescope-space-exploration
But it is neither “entirely untrue” nor is it “completely false” that article 7 of the Istanbul Declaration does not advocate attacks on Jewish communities all around the world, is it? Here it is again:
Rather than outright denials from Daud Abdullah, which are a waste of time because there is a document with his signature on it, he needs to clarify some of the wording on that Declaration:
“Islamic Nation” – what constituencies does this nation comprise and who are its leaders?
What is this “position” towards the “Zionist Entity” and to “countries, institutions or individuals” which provide “a substantial contribution to the crimes and brutality of this entity”?
I guess we will learn all this and more in a court of law.
but you are talking from your MEMRI cribsheet.
so who can believe your, and their, forked tongues, let alone ‘judjement’?
Sid – He has been quite clear on TV in the Newsnight interview and in writing that he did not support attacks on Jews and did not call for attacks on British Forces.
At this point when he has clearly stated this then what is left for Blears other than to accept when she claimed she wanted clarification; instead she went on to make up a false allegation that he called for attacks on Jews worldwide.
Why do you find it so difficult to see that she was palying a dirty sordid game and made a false smear. As I said with so many other thinsg she could have said why make up a pack of lies?
Also as has been asked and what she won’t answer is why she has one policy for Muslims supporting Palestinians and one policy for Jews supporting Israel. That in itself is a racist policy.
Blears is in the wrong here and it is obvious when even her most ardent Right Wing Supporters are resorting to portraying this as a stand of principles. But what is the principle in making up false claims?
You are failing to answer key points about Blears.
She is wrong and everyone knows it. This was her right wing showmanship gone wrong and its exactly the same as her beloved Policy Exchange making up receipts to back their claims. She made it up and is too damn arrogant to admit she is wrong.
You know she made up that claim but you keep pushing the line.
At the end of the day in court you and Hazel and Policy Exchange can bring up all the dodgy links you like. But if he didn’t say those words then she is in the wrong and we as tax payers will have to pay for it. It was a stupid careless statement and if Blears loses she should pay from her own money not my taxes.
What is more shocking is the fact that Blears has failed to question the leadership of the Jewish Community regarding its support for Israel when Israel clearly violated human rights and continues to do so.
She should take an even handed approach but doesn’t and whilst you claim that you don’t support Israel you back people who refuse to question any strand of Israeli policy. You don’t find that approach strange?
She is wrong for smearing someone. He is wrong for signing a meaningless declaration. At the end of the day they are both a sign of what is wrong with the approach to the Middle Eastern situation.
A true sign of justice is when you preach justice for all not just your side. Thats what both of them can’t grasp. Their spat isn’t our problem as both shouldn’t be where they are in positions of responsibility and their behaviour shows that.
Sid – in English where things are vague as in the declaration then it can’t be stated by a 3rd party that this is precisely what a vague statement said.
She make a specific point which is what she claims is in a vague statement.
Your flogging a dead horse.
1. It is a vague statement and she was entitled to ask for clarity of his position on each of the points.
2. Without him first confirming his position on those points she wasn’t entitled to make a false claim on his position.
3. Even though he clearly said on Newsnight that he didn’t support attacks of British Forces and Jewish Civilians she went on to smear him with a false claim based on her own interpretation of the statement which most likely came from her Right Wing War Tank friends that she likes to keep.
4. Just because the right wing war tanks say it is so doesn’t make it true.
5. This is the same approach taken in the war on Iraq – WMD’s and lies about those. Haven’t we learnt anything?
If the war on Iraq proved anythign it was that politicians shouldn’t make up lies to justify their position.
The only thing I am grateful about is that this whole unsavoury episode hasn’t caused further problems in community relations.
Is there a translation of this document on which all sides are agreed?
In the translation used by the BBC the two articles in question are quite generalised, but I wouldn’t say vague.
Dr Abdullah was quite likely sincere when he said that he did not condone violent attacks on supporters of Israel, whether nations, institutions or individuals. But then, he wouldn’t be the first functionary to sign a document without taking on board the full impact of every paragraph.
If the translation in general use is a ‘MEMRI cribsheet’, then is there an alternative available?
Don – they are vague in terms of what is meant by the obligation and postion which are mentioned in term 7. nothing specific is stated regarding what these mean.
Hence asking Daud Abdullah to clarify what these mean, Blears was entitled to do. Making specific statements saying these advocated attacks on Jews worldwide isn’t correct.
She asked for clarification on his position – Tick – Correct.
She made a specific statement on something she was asking for clarification – Cross – Incorrect.
You can’t say clarify this and then tell people it means something when you are waiting to hear the clarification!! It isn’t clear at that point.
Imran,
Looking at the article again I still see it as broad and general, but not vague.
“The obligation of the Islamic Nation to regard the sending of foreign warships into Muslim waters, claiming to control the borders and prevent the smuggling of arms to Gaza, as in effect a declaration of war, a new occupation, sinful aggression, and a clear violation of the sovereignty of the Nation, that must be rejected and fought by all means and ways.”
It specifies the sending of foreign warships into Muslim waters at a time when that role for the RN was under discussion and afirms that this would be in effect a declaration of war which members of the Islamic Nation would be obligated to fight by all ways and means.
By signing up to that, Dr Abdullah very specifically identifies himself as a member of ‘The Islamic Nation’ and accepts that he has obligations to it, including considering himself to be at war with the UK should RN vessels enter ‘Islamic waters’ with a view to cooperating with Israel. A war to be conducted ‘by all ways and means.’
He may not have meant that, but he signed it.
To say ‘We are now at war and must fight by all ways and means’ is not specific, but that is not the same as being vague. It means everything is on the table, nothing is excluded. If it meant vigorous lobbying it should have said so.
Don – they are vague in terms of what is meant by the obligation and postion which are mentioned in term 7. nothing specific is stated regarding what these mean.
Are you seriously sugggesting that the terms of the Declaration were vague to Abdullah, that he did not know the meaning of the words, which were to him non-specific, at the point of signing?
I think Abdullah would be better advised to clear up his intentions for signing the document rather than use the “he did not know what he was signing” defence. Because the latter sounds like pure snake oil.
Well, the statements sound like the rhetorical snake oil that conferences like that usually produce- as someone said, broad and general, but not vague. The sort of thing that people can sign and feel heroic because they signed it but does not impose any actual obligation to actually do anything upon them. I wouldn’t be at all surprised if Abdullah and all of the signatories didn’t mean it literally and thought that no-one would ever take what they said literally
Sid – he has been clear on what he means and he has said this on Newsnight and in print.
It is Hazel Blears who is unclear and frankly you are condemning someone based on her smears which is scandalous.
You just won’t address the issue of the behaviour of Hazel Blears which is unjust, biased and littered with false accusations and statements which she cannoit prove.
This highlights clearly why people complain aboiut your approach which frankly is similar to the nonsense your friends over at HP who you have admitted you like take in their approach.
At the moment your apporach copies the approach taken by some on the right in the IslamExpo issue. They feel that if the right condemn an organisation they then have no position to defend and people can say what they like about them.
It isn’t on and it isn’t correct.
She smeared him with a statement she cannot prove was made. It boils simply down to that. Are you now saying that if the government dislikes an organisation – any organisation – then it Ministers can smear people with unsubstantiated smears and allegations?
Isn’t that what was done at the time of the Iraq War and we were promised lessons had been learnt.
He never said what Hazel Blears said he said and in all your posturing you’ve never proven he made that exact comment. So she is wrong and its as simple as that.
Put it this way the easy way to prove he didn’t say that. If he had said that he could be prosecuted for incitement but here is the point, the government including Hazel Blears hasn’t referred his case to the Croiwn Prosecution Service. If he said that why haven’t they done that.
Because he didn’t say that.
So that in itself proves she is wrong and she is the one who has smeared a member of the public unfairly. You can’t do that as it is unethical no matter how much their position is despised you can’t make up allegations about people.
Sid – If you have evidence that he made the statements that Hazel Blears said he made then please put them forward to the Crown Prosecution Service so this can be judged.
It is Daud Abdullah who is taking Hazel Blears to court not the other way round.
If he said what she said he said then it would constitute a criminal offence and can be prosecuted.
The fact is he didn’t say that which is why he hasn’t even been visited by the Police. It is political posturing with unsubstatiated smears which is a disgrace.
How anyone can defend her position is beyond me.
As the Telegraph highlights today the plot to bomb a mosque in Glasgow wasn’t referred to as an extremist Christian plot but this constant labelling of Muslims is acceptable – why?
Now smears are acceptable. Where does it stop?
Now you keep going on about his position so either put your evidence to the authorities that he said that or accept he didn’t and she is incorrect at best and at worst well what can I say.
You have to se the Istanbul Declaration in context, and primary it’s a critique of ( some of ) arabic nations. And the language is characterized by a high pitched rhetoric. A first step to a more peaceful world could be that the islamist tone down their rhetoric. The Declaration is burdenened by violent language and hidden and manifest threats.
And if you remember the original BBC coverage of the Istanbul meeting, then it wasn’t the declaration itself, who was the most imporant, but the mentioning of a ‘third’ jihad i Gaza, which means that the sunny group in Istanbuhl also support jihad in Iraq and Afganistan.
But who do they support in Afganistan ? Who do they support in Iraq.
Neil, you could support the Iraqi’s in iraq, you know the guys who used to be there before the oil and will be there after you finished it all.
Also in Afghanistan you could support the Afghans, in particualr teh pukhtoons, who form the majority of the state but who are eing ruled by ethnic minorities endofrce upon them by the American and their allies, who are in fact the same as the government they replaced.
Sid – Please could you update us regarding your visit to report Daud Abdullah for incitement and what the police said?
Is the case being referred to the CPS as you and Hazel had so much clear cut evidence regarding what he said.
No doubt Hazel Blears will recommend you for a community award and possibly a knighthood for services to.
I also notice one of your favourite Muslim Bashers – Hazel Blears – is now saying Ross and Brand should pay the BBC Fine for their show whilst asking the Department of Communities to handle her case for libel. Pot Kettle Black – huh? Why isn’t she paying for her own case herself?
How come you and your boyz at HP are not pulling her up on this?
I’ve yet to see her evidence to back up her claim that he precisely avocated what she said.
Also another thing that you are not highlighting is the fact she is taking the same approach as certain blogs took last year. So this raises the interesting question of are some ministers with undocumented links to right wing war tanks taking the advice or approach of certain bloggers when dealing with the Muslim community and their organisations.
You are quick to bash Muslims for links to war mongers but awfully quiet on similar links for other communities – strange eh?
Not quite as strange as thinking that attacking an anti-semitic Islamist community leader who champions terrorist organisations is equivalent to “bashing Muslims”.
Sid – Your proof? You like Hazel have yet to provide proof he said that. Or do you find it acceptable to attack people without actually having proof of what was said?
You are free to attack such people with evidence but despite being asked to provide the evidence your whatabouterry is staggering as you won’t provide us with a link to those words on which you’ve based your assertion with Hazel that is what was said.
You are wriggling round and round but you won’t provide proof he said those words. So are we to take it that you are backing Blears without proof? Should we ask Daud Abdullah to add your name to his legal case?
As I have explained to you the other things whilst unsavoury have little bearing on the simple matter of did he exactly say that?
You’ve gone round and round but not provided proof.
Do you find it acceptable that she has smeared someone without producing clear evidence?
It is a simple question you won’t answer.
Do you subscribe to the DaveT theory as put forth during his spat with one of the guys at IslamExpo “has no reputation to defend.”
Are you now taking lessons from HP’s approach?
What about the concept of innocent until proven guilty and the fact you can’t show that he called for attacks on Jews worldwide.
So please show me your proof and I’ll stand with you otherwise accept that he was smeared.