Oh no, the idiots are unhappy with a positive Muslim campaign


by Sunny
14th June, 2010 at 7:31 pm    

The desperation of neo-con and the “decent left” never ceases to amaze me. A few weeks ago a group of Muslims got together to launch a campaign called ‘Inspired by Muhammed‘ that wanted to challenge negative perceptions of Muslims. It features Muslims saying they also believe in women’s rights, protecting the environment and social justice (among other things) and so does their religion.

Of course, everyone has a different interpretation of their religion. I suppose someone like Anjem Choudhary might not care much for those ideals. Can’t see Abu Hamza caring much for the environment, nor Omar Bakri for women’s rights. But hey, isn’t it good that some Muslims do want to challenge those negative interpretations and say they also care for those ideals?

Oh nooooo. We can’t have that can we?

Over at Harry’s Place they are positively pissed off that Muslims even dare to talk about women’s rights. Edmund Standing, who previously wrote this shit report for the Centre for Social Cohesion very neatly spits out a range of Quranic verses that apparently illustrate the opposite. And he’s back at it again today.

Let me explain for those who do little to read religious texts why this is idiotic. Religious scriptures are very historical documents. Half the time they’re describing specific events, or they’re in verse and open to intepretation, or sometimes it’s just narration of history. The Koran has a mixture of all three. And not always in order. Anyone can read into it however they want to, which is why Islamic scholars have, sometimes violently (as with Christian history), fought over how verses are interpreted from the beginning of its publication. And then you have the Hadiths, which sometimes look like they’re contradicting the Koran. Interpreting the religion is not a neat process as many Muslims and their haters would like to admit.

Hell, even in Sikhism people argue over whether proper Sikhs should eat meat or not because in some cases it looks like the Gurus warn against it and in other cases it looks like they sanction it. As a general note, once Sikhs become baptised they stop eating meat. But this is by no means uniformly adhered to.

Anyway, that digression aside, this is why these people should be uniformly ignored when it comes to understanding religion.

Furthermore, Standing is interpreting the religion as how Abu Hamza et al would do and implying that this is how most Muslims approach their religion. It is as bigoted as it is ignorant – there are many feminist Muslims who have alternative interpretations.

And then there’s Douglas Murray, who coincidentally runs Centre for Social Cohesion which published Standing’s report earlier.

He asks Why don’t Catholics get taxpayer funding, like Muslims, to propagandise? – and where’s the evidence?

At least one taxpayer-funded Muslim organisation is promoting the “Inspired by Mohammed” campaign because it aims to “improve the public understanding of Islam and Muslims”. Why we taxpayers should be paying to change any understandings or misunderstandings of religion strikes me as the significant question here.

Promoting is of course different to ‘actively giving them money for that campaign’, isn’t it? Because the implication from the blog-post is that tax-payers are funding this campaign.

He wants to know why Catholics don’t get this kind of money, leaving out the Anglican Church which of course gets tons of government support to propagandise.

So which organisation is promoting this campaign and is he saying they are actively funding the IbM campaign from taxpayer money? The blog post doesn’t offer any such evidence sadly.


              Post to del.icio.us


Filed in: Media,Muslim,Organisations






91 Comments below   |  

Reactions: Twitter, blogs
  1. Ally A

    RT @sunny_hundal: Blog post:: Oh no, the idiots are unhappy with a positive Muslim campaign http://bit.ly/9CFMAI


  2. Natalya

    RT @sunny_hundal: Blog post:: Oh no, the idiots are unhappy with a positive Muslim campaign http://bit.ly/9CFMAI


  3. Nadia

    RT @sunny_hundal: Pickled Politics: The idiots are unhappy with a +ve Muslim campaign http://bit.ly/9b8oEo


  4. sunny hundal

    Blog post:: Oh no, the idiots are unhappy with a positive Muslim campaign http://bit.ly/9CFMAI


  5. Political Animal

    RT @sunny_hundal: Blog post:: Oh no, the idiots are unhappy with a positive Muslim campaign http://bit.ly/9CFMAI


  6. Yakoub Islam

    Oh no, the idiots are unhappy with a positive Muslim campaign – Pickled Politics: http://ow.ly/1YyLz


  7. Yakoub Islam

    Oh no, the idiots are unhappy with a positive Muslim campaign – Pickled Politics: http://ow.ly/1YyLo


  8. earwicga

    RT @sunny_hundal: Blog Post: Oh no, the idiots are unhappy with a positive Muslim campaign http://bit.ly/9CFMAI


  9. Denise Taylor

    Pickled Politics » Oh no, the idiots are unhappy with a positive …: RT @sunny_hundal: Pickled Politics: The idio… http://bit.ly/9WDkQO


  10. twaterrati

    Oh dear, the neo-con 'useful idiots' douglas murray / edmund standing are unhappy with a positive Muslim campaign http://tinyurl.com/35ln6m4


  11. muslimcouncil

    Oh no, the idiots are unhappy with a positive Muslim campaign @sunny_hundal on Pickled Politics: http://alturl.com/7tgk


  12. britislam

    RT @MuslimCouncil: Oh no, the idiots are unhappy with a positive Muslim campaign @sunny_hundal on Pickled Politics: http://alturl.com/7tgk




  1. Sarah AB — on 14th June, 2010 at 7:40 pm  

    I tend to be (sort of) on the HP side when it has a fight with PP. But I didn’t like those posts either.

  2. Sunny — on 14th June, 2010 at 8:15 pm  

    Wanted to add that Sikhs also argue about whether homosexuality is permissible or not, even though it’s never been explicitly sanctioned or warned against.

  3. Roger — on 14th June, 2010 at 8:55 pm  

    “It features Muslims saying they also believe in women’s rights, protecting the environment and social justice (among other things) and so does their religion.”

    Except that either they define women’s rights, protecting the environment and social justice (among other things) differently from the other people who say they are believe in them or they define their religion differently from other people- probably most other people- who claim to follow it.

    “ted to add that Sikhs also argue about whether homosexuality is permissible or not, even though it’s never been explicitly sanctioned or warned against.”
    Then souch the worse for sikhs.
    However, do sikhs debate over whether homosexuality is permissible for religious sikhs or whether whether homosexuality is legally permissible? Do sikhs debate over whether homosexuality should be punished by peop;le being tortured to death or merely tortured?

  4. Sunny — on 14th June, 2010 at 9:01 pm  

    protecting the environment and social justice

    Go on, you define it.

    However, do sikhs debate over whether homosexuality is permissible for religious sikhs or whether whether homosexuality is legally permissible?

    The legal issue is rather irrelevant to them, since they’ll see religious commands as more important.

    Does the Pope care what the local laws on abortion rights or family planning are before issuing edicts?

  5. Roger — on 14th June, 2010 at 9:12 pm  

    “protecting the environment and social justice

    Go on, you define it.”
    Well, I’d like to see these muslims define what they mean by protecting the environment and social justice, women’s rights and other things and how their religion defines them. They’re the ones that make the claim.

    “The legal issue (on homosexuality] is rather irrelevant to them, since they’ll see religious commands as more important.”
    More important as in more important to what they do themselves or more important as in more important as in what they are entitled to make everyone else do, whatever the local law?

    “Does the Pope care what the local laws on abortion rights or family planning are before issuing edicts?”
    Yes. He often points out that he thinks local laws on abortion rights or family planning are sinful. Some of his more lunatic followers feel entitled to force people to follow the pope’s opinions as a result. Do you approve of that?

  6. Arif — on 14th June, 2010 at 9:24 pm  

    Interesting website – although it does make a mistake or two which will make it an easy target for Muslims who suspect liberals aren’t really Muslims. And it keeps things very simple, totally ignoring contrary interpretations, which I understand completely enrages people who believe Islam is inherently inhumane.

    The test for me is to see whether it can develop in response to arguments and discussions, or whether it stays at this level (rendering it a PR gimmick, which maybe does the cause of liberation-type Islam more harm than good). Personally, I don’t think it is a gimmick, and the EIF seem to have a longer term vision. But I think the problems that Progrssive Islam type movements tend to have nowadays is a lack of theological depth (on the currently dominant traditional models) on the one hand, nor shock troops on the ground on the other hand.

    And I don’t think that the Islamic Right can be destroyed by a coalition of the Islamic Left and “anti-terrorists”, partly because the Islamic Left was liquidated by various coalitions between the Islamic Right and “anti-communists” and such-like. Partly because what remains of the Islamic left seems to be more interested in morality than power and keeps a distance from totalising discourses offered by their suitors.

    The EIF may be a newer phenomenon – distanced from the battles of the past – but I doubt they will be innocent of the lessons of postcolonial history. Good luck to them.

  7. boyo — on 14th June, 2010 at 9:54 pm  

    It reminded me of the Scientologists – that woman on the posters certainly looked like one.

    I wouldn’t advise (ahem) “the Muslims” to promote a positive image of Islam like that – it immediately invites the response “no you don’t” (even if, as Sunny points out, they arguably do).

    Plus the statements are so broad to be particularly fatuous. it will mostly antagonise people – it’s obviously been created (or more likely directed) by people with no idea how these things work. A few posters won’t solve their problems, they will only draw attention to them.

    PR is cheaper and less visible. It also won’t happen overnight – they need to plan for generations. Take advantage of the (bullshit) Big Society – encourage mosques to start delivering meals on wheels, put up the homeless etc. Open them up to local activities etc (compete with church halls!). But also publicly adjust to the UK culture – get imams to say wearing the veil is not compulsory, that they don’t want to introduce sharia etc (in short: reassure). Integrate activity and do not emphasise alienation but commonality.

  8. Sunny — on 14th June, 2010 at 11:37 pm  

    They’re the ones that make the claim.

    http://inspiredbymuhammad.com/coexistence.php

    Would you like a policy paper? Perhaps an outline of to what extent they support carbon trading?

    I don’t want to sound facetious, but there are loads of bullshit claims made in the media too, as well as on blogs by idiots who claim to stand up for liberty while demanding people be spied on. I’d like to see more scrutiny of those claims too. Bizarrely enough, it’s only Muslims who are asked to lay out everything they mean to the last detail.

    Even better – perhaps Edmund Standing could tell you. He already seems to think he knows what all Muslims think and how they follow their religion.

    It’s amazing what you can learn these days by putting together quotes from random websites. That those quotes end up being used by Abu Hamza et al regularly is, I’m sure, entirely coincidental. He doesn’t mean to imply all Muslims are like that.

  9. Shamit — on 15th June, 2010 at 12:51 am  

    heh heh – why do most democracy saviours hate pluralism so much?

    Roger – they have already defined it. why don’t you go and take a look at the bloody website?

    Next – go and read the Old Testament and tell me how many people sell their children or kill people because they work during the Sabbath. Not many I would say – why can’t you give the Muslims same credit?

    Also, you know the thing that pisses terrorists off most is our pluralism – and why the hell would anyone want to stifle a good contribution to the discourse that talks about social justice, women’s rights – unless one is completely fucking bigoted.

  10. Roger — on 15th June, 2010 at 1:51 am  

    Who said anything about hating pluralism? Pluralism means allowing bigots and fools to follow their beliefs in practise as long as they don’t try to force others to do so. However, it doesn’t mean not saying they are bigots and fools.
    I have looked at the website. I don’t think “I believe in X. So did Muhammad.” is a very persuasive argument for either of the claims.

    “Next – go and read the Old Testament and tell me how many people sell their children or kill people because they work during the Sabbath. Not many I would say – why can’t you give the Muslims same credit?”
    I give muslims exactly the same credit I do to other believers. If there weren’t laws stopping them I wouldn’t be surprised if believers did sell their children into slavery. When they could religious people forced people to observe the sabbath whether they wanted to or not. I do not think muslims are any better than other believers, even though they do.

    I have no objection to social justice and women’s rights. What I find interesting is that if someone wants to know whether definitions of these terms which claim to be specifically inspired by Mohammed are the same as those of people who lack that source of inspiration they are accused of being completely fucking bigoted; a characteristically religious contribution to the discourse.

  11. douglas clark — on 15th June, 2010 at 2:22 am  

    Sunny @ 8,

    You’ve perhaps noticed how Edmund Standing is a new hero of the decents then? It is in fact worth pointing out that he is a deep delver. Whatever you, or I, said in nineteencanteen will be dug out by the brainless ferret.

    That is who he is, that is what he does.

    He is a person that assumes that digging up shit about someone, no matter how far back, is the name of the game. I assume we are talking about the same Edmund Standing that is beloved of Harry’s Place and the Spitoon?

    For he certainly must be a clean wee bunny.

  12. Shamit — on 15th June, 2010 at 2:27 am  

    I did not go around asking people to explain what they meant by social justice.

    And another thing faith is not a prescriptive medicine – it comes from within and faith is usually something beyond the written words – its a deeply held belief to do good for humanity. Irrespective of what one’s faith is – faith in itself teaches peace and love for fellow human beings. That is the spirit of the all the scriptures across all religions while we, usually a minority on all sides, choose to fight over the specific letters and anecdotes. Yeah, the stupid ones.

  13. douglas clark — on 15th June, 2010 at 2:39 am  

    Shamit,

    In Roger you have run up against a ‘modern’ atheist.

    Wherever one finds what you say – “its a deeply held belief to do good for humanity. Irrespective of what one’s faith is” – applies just as much to me.

    And I am an atheist.

    It doesn’t seem sensible to me to try to knock your deeply held, profoundly good, beliefs to do well by humanity in exchange for their lack of belief. That is the equation that Roger and the neo-atheists try to express.

    Personally, I like to think, that both atheists and believers can do well by humanity. It just seems that atheists have become, err.., too sharp for their own good.

    Once upon a time, I fell out with the idiots on Pharyungya over that.

    Just saying.

  14. douglas clark — on 15th June, 2010 at 2:45 am  
  15. Roger — on 15th June, 2010 at 2:47 am  

    “I did not go around asking people to explain what they meant by social justice.”
    Why not? Joseph Stalin was keen on social justice. He meant- I hope- something different to what you mean by the term.

    “And another thing faith is not a prescriptive medicine”
    It is, to a large degree. It consists of doing what the faith’s inventor thought was right and in making others do it, for their own good as well as the good ofthe faithful.

    “faith in itself teaches peace and love for fellow human beings”…and that if they don’t do what faith requires them to do they will go to hell and be tortured for ever. As a result the faithful are actually practising peace and love for fellow human beings by forcing them to do what faith requires them to do.

  16. Roger — on 15th June, 2010 at 2:57 am  

    On the contrary, Douglas, I am a very old-fashioned atheist. I think the most important thing about religious beliefs is the fact that there is no reason to think they are true and that the basic beliefs of christianity and islam are profoundly wicked. They enable bad people to think they are doing good when they are gratifying their desires and they persuade good people to do bad things from excellent motives. The desire to dogood to humanity has probably harmed many more people than the desire to do harm to humanity ever did.

  17. douglas clark — on 15th June, 2010 at 3:50 am  

    Roger, your not.

    Sorry. I am a very old fashioned atheist. Of course we both agree that religion is a meaningless concept. But it is not, to quote you, ‘profoundly wicked’.

    It has the potential to be so, just as any other philosophy of the human mind has. But it is not intrinsic that believing in a religion makes you wicked. It just doesn’t. It might make you look naive, it certainly doesn’t make you ‘profoundly wicked’.

    For some folk, anything will let them do whatever they want. It means they have corrupted the concept.

    ________________________________________

    The desire to do good to humanity has probably harmed many more people than the desire to do harm to humanity ever did.

    Really?

    Could you explain to me what you mean by that? Being nice to folk is somehow wrong?

  18. Roger — on 15th June, 2010 at 7:13 am  

    I don’t think religion is a meaningless concept, Douglas. I think the supernatural claims are untrue and that the basic belief of christianity, islam and derived religions- that a loving and benevolent god is going to torture most of thehuman species for ever with no possibility of escape- is profoundly wicked. Nor do I thinkbelieving in areligion makes you wicked; it does make people do wicked things for benevolent reasons. The inquisition tortured people now to save them from infinitely worse tortures in the future.

    “Being nice to folk is somehow wrong?”
    Nothing wrong with that. Being nasty to people for their own good is definitely wrong. Being nasty to people for the good of humanity is definitely wrong. As well as the inquisitors, cited above, even the worst people have been inspired by good or heroic motives. The SS believed they were nobly sacrificing themselves in the extermination of a degraded enemy of humanity. The NKVD believed their work would bring closer the radiant future of humanity.

  19. Arif — on 15th June, 2010 at 8:05 am  

    I agree with you boyo (#7), not everyone is open to a message in favour of good relations between communities, and for those who are, actions may speak louder than words. After all, words have become weapons for people intent on culture wars.

    But good actions too, can be effectively stigmatised by culture warriors – as a camouflage, insincere, manipulative etc. At some point some kind of intellectual self defence against paranoia is necessary. And in the absence of a kind of faith, there may not be an effective defence.

    Roger – I suggest that it may be worth identifying more subtly the kinds of faith that lead to self-righteously performed cruelty and the kinds of faith that oppose cruelty even when it seemingly has all the rational arguments on its side.

    I assume you will accept there is a difference between Martin Luther King Jnr’s ministry and the Ku Klux Klan, Gandhi and the RSS, Abdul Khan Ghaffar Khan and the Taliban etc. The differences seem to me to be significant and I wouldn’t say that the basic beliefs of MLK, Gandhi and Khan are profoundly wicked, but that they have misunderstood the religions they claim inspiration from (is this what you are saying?).

    I’d probably argue there is something about their relationships to their spiritual and their social commitments which differ from those of many other religious and non-religious people alike. Something I would like to learn from.

  20. cjcjc — on 15th June, 2010 at 8:11 am  

    I’m not sure what is wrong in pointing out that the woman in the poster has some unattractive political affiliations.

    Though even I agree that the HP piece struck slightly too shrill a note.

  21. organic cheeseboard — on 15th June, 2010 at 8:27 am  

    wow, douglas murray on islam eh?

    murray elsewhere:

    It is late in the day, but Europe still has time to turn around the
    demographic time-bomb which will soon see a number of our largest
    cities fall to Muslim majorities. It has to. All immigration into
    Europe from Muslim countries must stop. In the case of a further
    genocide such as that in the Balkans, sanctuary would be given on a
    strictly temporary basis. This should also be enacted retrospectively.
    Those who are currently in Europe having fled tyrannies should be
    persuaded back to the countries which they fled from once the
    tyrannies that were the cause of their flight have been removed.

  22. organic cheeseboard — on 15th June, 2010 at 8:33 am  

    as for edmund standing – well not only is he happy to work for murray, but the ‘smoking gun’ evidence in both of his pieces comes from secondary sources. and one of these is… why, another post at HP Sauce.

    another part of his smoking gun is this:

    Tafadar also has links to the far-left, having conducted an interview for ‘Socialist Lawyer‘, magazine of the Haldane Society of Socialist Lawyers. The Society’s website, unsurprisingly, offers links to, amongst others, the Communist ‘Morning Star’ newspaper, the Palestine Solidarity Campaign, and the Stop the War Coalition.

    O NOES!

    he’s just a reconfigured mccarthyite, like so many HP Saucers (Mr Ezra being the clearest example).

  23. Bob — on 15th June, 2010 at 8:51 am  

    Sultana Tafadar should be careful who she’s mixing with. After all, we have it on Michael Ezra’s authority that even the briefest contact with the far left can place you in a life-threatening situation:

    “Next time you see someone selling a copy of a newspaper called Socialist Worker or a different Trotskyist title, look at the person selling the newspaper and know that you are looking at a potential murderer.”

  24. organic cheeseboard — on 15th June, 2010 at 9:11 am  

    more seriously, i do think this demonstrates the HP Sauce/Decent commitment to ‘moderate muslims’. I mean, unless a Muslim actively has a go at the Prophet for being a misogynist, they’re obviously not moderate, right? and if that same ‘moderate’ has previously spoken to a left-wing organisation which does not carry the Decent Seal of Approval, they’re not really a Moderate either.

    seems like the list of these moderates who HP Sauce like is pretty thin on the ground. in fact as far as i can tell, it numbers just one – Ayaan Hirsi Ali, someone who is not a Muslim.

  25. Abu Faris — on 15th June, 2010 at 9:41 am  

    I have to say that I agree quite wholeheartedly with everything that organic cheeseboard has so far written on this thread.

  26. douglas clark — on 15th June, 2010 at 9:57 am  

    organic cheeseboard @ 24,

    It seems to me that it is just a convenient thought pattern. Harry’s Place is just the extreme tip of a thought process that says, “if you are Muslim, then you are guilty”. Of something, we’ll fill in the details later.

    There are quite a few Muslims who post here. I have never felt threatened by any of them. It is not the case that I agree with them all of the time, it is however the case that we can have a civilised conversation. Am I wrong about that?

    It is also true that we have all said stuff in the past that can be twisted by the sort of morons that Harry’s Place loves, into a case pro the inquisition.

    I genuinely dislike that.

    Edmund Standing is the Witchfinder General.

    Seems to me…

  27. Dan — on 15th June, 2010 at 10:24 am  

    Does anyone think that the IbM website will actually achieve anything?

    Everything on it seems to be very very broad in order to make it look attractive to a non-muslim audience, but when you read past the headlines, it’s quite depressing. ‘Women’s rights’ seems to be ‘we believe in women’s rights – those rights laid down by our religion and no other, we won’t mention those rights taken away by it’ whereas ‘coexistence’ seems to be a whole host of scope ambiguities struggling against each other. I don’t see it swaying any non-muslim to much more of a favourable view.

    I guess spin is nothing new, but I’m not sure if the website is an apologetic, an advertisement or a total waste of time. Or maybe all 3.

  28. James — on 15th June, 2010 at 10:36 am  

    From their website:

    http://www.eifoundation.net/faq.html

    How is EIF funded?
    EIF is a not for profit initiative and is funded by private donations.

    So no, they do not use tax-payers money and just private donations. If it used Tax-payers money, you would be able to dig up the info from the government itself.

  29. Sarah AB — on 15th June, 2010 at 10:36 am  

    To be honest, if I’d come across the website independently I might (as an atheist) have felt slightly cynical and sceptical. In fact I still do I guess. But I wouldn’t want to post two articles about it! I probably like HP more than most of the rest of you but, based on these recent posts and the subsequent comments, I think organic cheeseboard has a point. There’s a lot of middle ground between radical Islamists – including those who don’t actually take part in or advocate terrorism – and Muslims who are happy to chat about and acknowledge the perceived flaws of Mohammed.

  30. earwicga — on 15th June, 2010 at 11:13 am  

    douglas clark @ 17

    For some folk, anything will let them do whatever they want. It means they have corrupted the concept.

    Yes! It’s not the religion that is defective, it is the thinking of the person who hangs his/her defence of crime on said religious belief. It’s such a nonsensical notion that if there were no religion then life everywhere would just be all hunky-dorey.

  31. Hasan — on 15th June, 2010 at 11:24 am  

    International Herald Tribune censored for using word ‘Mosque’

    Story here; http://cafepyala.blogspot.com/2010/06/point-blank.html

    Censored article is available online; nytimes.com/2010/06/13/opinion/13sethi.html?src=me&ref=opinion

    Height of insecurity.

  32. gsw — on 15th June, 2010 at 12:18 pm  

    Doesn’t anybody ever read history & apply it to current affairs?

    Oh, so all those nice Muhammedans (their spelling) in the UK wouldn’t dream of introducing Shari’ah because women’s rites, sorry, rights are so important?

    That is what the people in Lebanon, Egypt and Turkey thought and look where they are now. Not to mention all the other places – previous democracies – now islamic ‘republics’.

    It only takes a small amount of determined people and a lot of lazy apologists (or people frightened for their lives) for it to happen.

    Laughter is a method of attracting peaceful debate.
    If there are some of us who believe this is a campaign of lies, then we shall say so – in public.

  33. earwicga — on 15th June, 2010 at 12:33 pm  

    As is your right gsw. And you will be laughed at – in public.

  34. Sarah AB — on 15th June, 2010 at 12:35 pm  

    gsw – of course you/they can say what you like. But as someone who thinks HP has plenty of good posts on broadly similar issues – but which find better targets and which point to genuine problems or potential problems associated with certain Muslim groups or individuals – I think it’s a shame that these two posts by Edmund Standing might stop people being receptive to the blog’s more convincing (though I realize HP is often criticised here) campaigns. If you really want to alert people to substantial issues/possible dangers then it doesn’t seem a good idea to alienate all but the already (over)converted. In fact, from the point of view of persuading moderate and undecided people, posts like these could be actively counterproductive.

  35. Arif — on 15th June, 2010 at 1:35 pm  

    gsw – on what basis have you decided “Inspired By Muhammed” is a campaign of lies?

    Do you think that no Muslim can believe in women’s rights?

    Or do you have any evidence that these Muslims don’t believe in women’s rights?

  36. Phil B — on 15th June, 2010 at 3:58 pm  

    Sarah B “…might stop people being receptive to the blog’s more convincing (though I realize HP is often criticised here) campaigns”

    On the occasion I make the mistake of dropping by, the only “campaigns” they run are smear campaigns that involve Muslims.

    Maybe there’s something more interesting I’ve missed out? I doubt it though. I used to read it – now it’s just a predictable snake-pit.

  37. axiomiser — on 16th June, 2010 at 12:39 am  

    it’s just a terrible coincidence that so many muslims act on those ancient, historic religious texts

  38. Sunny — on 16th June, 2010 at 1:18 am  

    Is that you Edmund? There’s no need to hide behind pseudonyms you know.

  39. LibertyPhile — on 16th June, 2010 at 6:01 am  

    I wonder what people here would think of an advertising campaign, which, for example, ran posters saying;

    “I think people should be flogged for adultery
    Muhammad did”

    Or do all we Islamophobes simply have to mentally blank out all the nasty things in the Koran and the hadith (like so many Muslims do).

    But then you get Muslim propagandists like Inayat Bunglawala, an educated civilised man one assumes, saying stoning to death for adultery (not flogging mind you) is OK if people voted for it!!

  40. Sarah AB — on 16th June, 2010 at 6:41 am  

    LibertyPhile I don’t fully understand your question – you seem to imply that not having any (particular) objections to this rather bland campaign means that one would approve a completely different campaign – as though everyone here refused to engage in criticism of any people/views just because they are Muslim. But that’s not the case – for example I don’t care for Inayat Bunglawala even if he has does come over as more moderate than he used to – he’s spoken approvingly of Al Qaradawi and wrote a very weak and evasive criticism of Andrew Gilligan’s Despatches programme.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2010/mar/03/dispatches-islamic-forum-europe

  41. gsw — on 16th June, 2010 at 8:21 am  

    “Half the time they’re describing specific events, or they’re in verse and open to interpretation, or sometimes it’s just narration of history”

    Nope, that’s Christianity after Cromwell and the enlightenment – before that they took their texts literally too – and tortured, stoned and burnt alive any dissenters.

    All this ‘Muhammed was a kind, loving man and islam is a religion of peace’ taqyya tends to stop once the islamic regime takes over.

    What these people fail to realise (and you too – unless you are lying) is that this warm & fuzzy religion is not what we object to. It is the harsh cold reality of countries which have become a theocracy in the last 30 years – where tyranny and misogyny are on the norm and little girls are mutilated to “keep them pure”.

    This is the truth and no amount of wishy-washy campaigning is going to hide what is actually happening in places where shari’ah rules unchallenged.

  42. gsw — on 16th June, 2010 at 8:30 am  

    @Arif.
    “Or do you have any evidence that these Muslims don’t believe in women’s rights?”
    YES.

    Their belief in women’s rights admits to: being stoned to death for zina (being raped), being flogged for showing their hair, being sold off at the age of 9 to DOM for sex, being worth 1/2 of a man.

    They just don’t happen to coincide with the men’s rights, which are based on male supremacy.

    READ A FEW FOREIGN NEWSPAPERS – INDIA, PAKISTAN, IRAN, LEBANON etc. where these ‘rights’ are in practise’.
    Not just the NuLabor/Newspeak propaganda.

  43. organic cheeseboard — on 16th June, 2010 at 8:34 am  

    I probably like HP more than most of the rest of you but, based on these recent posts and the subsequent comments, I think organic cheeseboard has a point. There’s a lot of middle ground between radical Islamists – including those who don’t actually take part in or advocate terrorism – and Muslims who are happy to chat about and acknowledge the perceived flaws of Mohammed.

    But equally, there’s a lot of perfectly nice and decent Muslims who genuinely believe that Mohammad cannot be criticised and still get on with their daily lives in Britain, working hard, paying taxes, voting for Labour/Tories/whoever, etc. They might well get very upset about events in Israel/Palestine, they might well get seriously upset over cartoons of Mohammad, but they’re still very much moderate.

    HP Sauce think these people are ‘extremists’, but that’s simply not the case; Catholics who practice their faith in exactly the same way aren’t treated in anything like the same manner, for instance.

    One can argue that the people described above are part of ‘the problem’, whatever that might be, but for me the problem is lumping every Muslim believer together in the reductive HP Sauce manner.

    Yes, there’s a lot one can disagree with, criticise, and find repellent in the Koran. There is in every religious text. But 1) advertising campaigns decribing Christianity are not opposed in anything liek the same manner as the HP Sauce posts on this affair treat Islam and 2) there genuinely IS a need for Muslims like the lawyer in this advert to stand up for what they believe in – to demonstrate that not all Muslims are West-hating terrorists. If you disagree with the sentiment of the adverts, ok, that’s fine, but you won’t convince Muslims otherwise, especially not when you post on so clearly an islamophobic site as HP Sauce. All you’ll do is feed the general anti-Muslim frenzy on there. And I think that the advertising campaign is slightly more positive in its aims than HP Sauce.

    What’s so weird – as a couple of people up there have also said – is that Standing and a lot of HP Saucers seem to think that al-Qaradawi’s brand of Islam is the true one. Which is surely more problematic than they realise.

  44. organic cheeseboard — on 16th June, 2010 at 8:36 am  

    oh and btw – this whole ‘Christianity stopped taking holy texts literally in year x – well for a start, that’s not entirely true, and also, it’s a fundamental part of Islam that the Koran is the literal word of God. it’s not in Christianity.

  45. cjcjc — on 16th June, 2010 at 8:40 am  

    Though unfortunately the lawyer campaigns on behalf of West-hating terrorists.

  46. Sarah AB — on 16th June, 2010 at 9:00 am  

    organic cheeseboard – I think maybe you misunderstood my point, as it’s essentially the same as yours – maybe you got distracted by the fact I said I liked HP!

    What I meant was that there are Islamists on the one hand (however we define that somewhat problematic term) – and on the other hand there are Muslims who are prepared to criticise Mohammed in a surprisingly relaxed way – one such group was mentioned approvingly in the comments after one of these posts on HP. Then there is exactly the middle ground you describe – which I assume includes the majority of UK Muslims although it rather defends on exactly how you define ‘moderate’, ‘Islamist’ etc.

    I don’t think it’s fair to describe HP as Islamophobic – though lots of the commenters are. I think it’s a pity David T doesn’t seem to be writing there any more as he’s written very eloquently against Islamophobia – even though he is described as an Islamophobe by some.

  47. gsw — on 16th June, 2010 at 9:10 am  

    @Sarah AB:
    ‘islamophobic’ is a word used to cover a lot of sins, mainly as a complaint from muslims when non-muslims fail to obey their religious laws, as in drawing pictures of mohammed – which is forbidden under shariah; drinking beer during rammadam etc.

    Just as when I use the word misogynistic to depict the islamic religion, I do not assume that all muslims really believe that all women are “deficient in intelligence” as mohammed did, neither are all people who disapprove of islamic theology islamaphobics.

    Some of us are merely well educated in the shariah and islam and find its tenets as repugnant as naziism (another supremacist ideology).

  48. Arif — on 16th June, 2010 at 9:18 am  

    I agree with organic cheeseboard (on the general issue, I don’t have any views on Harry’s Place).

    If Christians and Jews can say they believe in women’s rights or human rights, and square that with their interpretation of the prophets, then why not Muslims?

    gsw – your answer (although I think you provided no evidence that these Muslims in the EIF support what you say they do) has some force for me, in the sense that real existing “Islamic Republics” don’t protect human rights like they should. Nonetheless, I also believe there is a space for Muslims who wish to critique the policies, practices and interpretations used to justify human rights violations in different ways.

    I understand the impulse to present Islam as a frightening monolith, in order to mobilise campaigns and justify otherwise unreasonable behaviour. People in Muslim countries often do the same, decrying western support for human rights not just as blatant hypocrisy, but also a camouflage for imperialism.

    In fact people can believe in human rights while maintaining their other religious and political identities. They should not be confused with the very governments they criticise, but which selectively take up human rights (or religious) discourse for other reasons, or due to our natural human difficulty in seeing the motes in our own eyes which appear as planks to others.

  49. gsw — on 16th June, 2010 at 9:43 am  

    @Arif:
    There appears to be some confusion here between what constitutes the muslim religion (previously known as mohammedism) and the islamic political-ideology.

    Almost all anti-islamists I have spoken to – and many hundreds of letters, emails and blogs – differentiate between someone practising their religion (how ever silly we as outsiders may find it) and someone attempting to make a political change from a democracy to a theocracy. As is happening in Turkey at this very moment!

    You may be young, perhaps you do not remember what it was like in England when a women still needed a man’s permission for most things or own property.
    Many of us do and we have no wish to see the clock turned back.

  50. Sofia — on 16th June, 2010 at 10:22 am  

    gsw – the muslim relgion was only known as mohammedism by people like yourself who know very little about Islam. Also, if your analogy about women is to say that Islam teaches the same then again your understanding is incorrect.

  51. gsw — on 16th June, 2010 at 10:35 am  

    @Sofia – people like myself?
    Oh, you mean people who have read the Koran and the Shariah law books and followed politics for the last 30 years?

    I am always willing to learn.

    So, what DOES islam teach about a women’s right to work, marry, get a divorce etc. as compared to say – a man’s rights to do the same thing?
    What is a women’s position under islamic law?
    And please, where does your information come from?

  52. LibertyPhile — on 16th June, 2010 at 11:02 am  

    Sarah AB

    Given the way that Edmund Standing’s article has been attacked here (mainly by attacking the author) I think I might have had some justification for what you think I was implying.

    I don’t think the campaign is “bland” at all. It is serious and professional propaganda, and the more insidious for that.

    I’m very glad to hear you don’t approve of Mr Bunglawala even in his new guise.

    No one has answered my question yet.

  53. Sarah AB — on 16th June, 2010 at 11:10 am  

    I’d say – in response to your question – I’d be unlikely to grumble if anyone on HP, or here, wrote an article attacking such a campaign!

    I haven’t formed any negative impression of Standing before now – I associate him with opposition to the BNP – and maybe I would have responded to his post differently within its orignal setting which was Butterflies and Wheels I think.

  54. Sofia — on 16th June, 2010 at 12:00 pm  

    gsw – i can’t be bothered because maybe if you read a bit more then you’d know that there is no such thing as shariah ‘law’ in the first place…what’s the point of discussing a whole way of life with someone who bastardises it by reducing it to shariah law.

  55. Sofia — on 16th June, 2010 at 12:04 pm  

    oh and before you think that I have some ‘hidden agenda’ for not being bothered, then you can have a look through the archives of pickled politics to know what I believe in.

  56. gsw — on 16th June, 2010 at 12:08 pm  

    @Sofia:
    Why am I not surprised?

    Ahmad ihm Naqib al-Misri refers to it as Islamic Sacred Law. – available from:
    http://www.onlineislamicstore.com/b2439.html
    Please read it.

  57. T — on 16th June, 2010 at 12:12 pm  

    Sunny – “So which organisation is promoting this campaign and is he saying they are actively funding the IbM campaign from taxpayer money? The blog post doesn’t offer any such evidence sadly”

    That it because there is no evidence. I think Douglas is referring here to Quilliam, since the quote he uses is exactly the same as the quote Quilliam put out in their press release regarding the campaign. Quilliam are supporting the campaign and are partly funded by the government, but sadly it seems that Douglas can’t differentiate between supporting a campaign and actively funding it. Shame such a ‘clever’, ‘articulate’ ‘Director’ of a stink, i mean ‘think tank’, can’t make that simple differentiation. Pathetic….

  58. Sarah AB — on 16th June, 2010 at 12:37 pm  

    Looking further at the website, and noting the fact that this campaign is backed by Quilliam – who are seen as a bit edgy by Muslims I’d still class as moderate – I see still less to criticise – unless you are determined to see any positive and moderate campaign on behalf of Muslims as having some insidious hidden agenda. Here are two answers to FAQs on the site.

    Does EIF represent British Muslims?

    EIF does not represent British Muslims and as such is not in the politics of representation. It seeks to articulate a contextualised, dynamic and accessible vision of Islam.

    Is EIF a missionary organisation?

    No. EIF does not seek to preach or proselytise. Our objective is to firmly challenge stereotypes and misconceptions about the Islamic faith and Muslims. It aims to demonstrate the Islam is a mainstream British faith. We aim to do this through creative marketing and public relations campaigns

  59. Sunny — on 16th June, 2010 at 2:00 pm  

    Aha! The Quilliam Foundation! Of course. I didn’t click, but now it all makes sense.

    Well spotted T.

    cjcjc: Though unfortunately the lawyer campaigns on behalf of West-hating terrorists.

    In cjcjcjc world lawyers will not be allowed to represent anyone he doesn’t like. They can just rot in hell because it’s just clear they’re guilty isn’t it.

    I do like though how a blog run by lawyers are so fucking myopic as to have a fit everytime a lawyer represents some Islamist – as if that damns them by association.

    Do some people even have a brain?

  60. Sofia — on 16th June, 2010 at 2:36 pm  

    gsw – you’re funny…islamic jurisprudence and fiqh is not the same as shariah doh!

  61. Sofia — on 16th June, 2010 at 2:38 pm  

    and you shouldn’t be surprised…there are enough ‘experts’ who claim to know everything about islam who I’ve responded to and it’s now very boring…so please feel free to look into the archives if you’re that interested

  62. _bananabrain — on 16th June, 2010 at 4:38 pm  

    this discussion is all very well, but nobody seems to be particularly addressing the point that edmund standing (who i have no particular brief for, before you ask) is making, namely that presenting yourself as an advocate for, say women’s rights and other progressive things, when you have links to the ihrc, is somewhat disingenuous. on one hand, you could call that mccarthyist, but you must also consider that it could also be a bit of an achilles heel, particularly given how easily something so vapid as an ad campaign lends itself to satire and reductionist, islamphobic rebuttals.

    b’shalom

    bananabrain

  63. Sunny — on 16th June, 2010 at 5:54 pm  

    namely that presenting yourself as an advocate for, say women’s rights and other progressive things, when you have links to the ihrc, is somewhat disingenuous

    What sort of “links” bananabrain? And how deep do those links go?

    Shall I get into Edmund Standing’s “links” with the Centre for Social Cohesion? And then perhaps he could tell us how far he agrees with what Douglas Murray said at Pim Fortuyn’s funeral?

  64. Arif — on 16th June, 2010 at 9:37 pm  

    What is wrong with being linked to the Islamic Human Rights Commission? Is that who you mean by “ihrc” bananabrain?

    It may not be perfect, and I may not agree with all their positions, but it appears to me to be the kind of group I would want to work with.

  65. gsw — on 17th June, 2010 at 7:29 am  

    Re:Islamic Human Rights Commission

    The full text of the “Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam” is available on the internet. Since it starts with equality for all, many people fail to read it through to the end – where it states:
    “all rights and freedoms mentioned are subject to the Islamic Shariah”.

    Since the Islamic Shariah still treats women as 2nd. class citizens, the idea that someone who supports the IHRC has the same criteria for women’s rights as, say, an educated, non-muslim woman is unlikely.

  66. organic cheeseboard — on 17th June, 2010 at 9:21 am  

    Shall I get into Edmund Standing’s “links” with the Centre for Social Cohesion? And then perhaps he could tell us how far he agrees with what Douglas Murray said at Pim Fortuyn’s funeral?

    well, indeed.

  67. cjcjc — on 17th June, 2010 at 10:16 am  

    There’s a difference between representing on the “cab rank” principle and campaigning.

  68. bananabrain — on 17th June, 2010 at 2:02 pm  

    What sort of “links” bananabrain? And how deep do those links go?

    sunny – that is exactly what *i’m* asking. i’m glad you think we should be told. they are not unreasonable questions.

    Shall I get into Edmund Standing’s “links” with the Centre for Social Cohesion? And then perhaps he could tell us how far he agrees with what Douglas Murray said at Pim Fortuyn’s funeral?

    as i said, i’ve no particular brief for either standing or murray (although i don’t especially understand what you have against the csc, please do write something). of course you’re entitled to do whatever investigations you like, but, for me, the question *i* am interested in is whether this ad campaign is linked to the ihrc who, as outlined above, are interested not in “human rights”, but in something called “islamic human rights”, where:

    “all rights and freedoms mentioned are subject to the Islamic Shariah”.

    which the ad campaign, of course, does not state as an aim.

    which brings us back to your questions above.

    b’shalom

    bananabrain

  69. Sarah AB — on 17th June, 2010 at 2:44 pm  

    bananabrain – you ask what the problem is with the CSC – one problem is the fact that its Director, Douglas Murray, said

    “All immigration into Europe from Muslim countries must stop…. Conditions for Muslims in Europe must be made harder across the board: Europe must look like a less attractive proposition.” Some defender of “actual diversity in society”!

    You quote from the IHRC wrt Shariah and then say that the ad campaign doesn’t mention such goals – I’m not sure whether you mean to imply that the campaign is hypocritical but, if so, I think that may be unfair given that afaik this woman was just someone chosen at random rather than someone strongly involved with the campaign. I’m perfectly receptive to the idea that the IHRC isn’t ideal but it seems her involvement with it is comparatively tangential so I wouldn’t want to make too much of it – any more than I’d assume someone involved with the CSC was a bigot just because of something Douglas Murray said a few years ago.

  70. bananabrain — on 17th June, 2010 at 2:54 pm  

    sarah, yes, i’ve seen the quote before. i wouldn’t agree with it, but i do feel strongly there is an element of “suckering” going on with the proponents of the islamic variety of clerical fascism in europe; i certainly wouldn’t put it in the terms that murray did. however, i don’t feel that the ihrc are any better as a proposition for defending the diversity of society.

    I’m not sure whether you mean to imply that the campaign is hypocritical but, if so, I think that may be unfair given that afaik this woman was just someone chosen at random rather than someone strongly involved with the campaign.

    in which case, it’s rather unfortunate that she should turn out to have such unsavoury associations.

    I’m perfectly receptive to the idea that the IHRC isn’t ideal but it seems her involvement with it is comparatively tangential

    that’s not how it looks to me.

    any more than I’d assume someone involved with the CSC was a bigot just because of something Douglas Murray said a few years ago.

    a fair point, except that the original piece does seem to investigate the political and religious opinions lady in question in some detail. i’m not sure i especially like what i see.

    b’shalom

    bananabrain

  71. Sunny — on 17th June, 2010 at 3:32 pm  

    sunny – that is exactly what *i’m* asking. i’m glad you think we should be told.

    Well then, please tell us. I’m sure you wouldn’t like it if that before society started taking Jewish people seriously they asked how close that person was to Avigdor Liberman. Your attitudes is shoot first ask questions later. Unless you can show she’s worse than Souglas Murray – you’ve bought into the view that a bit of mud by Standing justifies labelling her an Islamist.

    lthough i don’t especially understand what you have against the csc, please do write something

    Oh you don’t know? Come on. That is very naive of you.

  72. bananabrain — on 17th June, 2010 at 4:23 pm  

    I’m sure you wouldn’t like it if that before society started taking Jewish people seriously they asked how close that person was to Avigdor Liberman.

    you have to be kidding – coming from the left, where before anyone is taken seriously as a jew they apparently have to criticise everything about israel! you are part of the “and do you condemn the occupation?” hallelujah chorus yourself, so i think that’s a bit rich. what i am saying is that you are perfectly entitled to ask for clarification on matters of relevance. if someone from the jewish community gets up and says they are against discrimination against arabs in israel and it turns out that they donate money to leiberman, then it’s a perfectly reasonable question!

    Your attitudes is shoot first ask questions later.

    no, it isn’t. douglas murray has raised the possibility, i am trying to understand whether there is any basis for concern. that is far from “shoot first, ask questions later” – and it looks like there is. your response to this concern, apparently, is whataboutery about lieberman – and, as i have just pointed out – on a subject where lefties in general are not shy of guilt by association – indeed, this is constantly employed. it is somewhat ironic for you to be accusing me of this.

    Unless you can show she’s worse than Douglas Murray – you’ve bought into the view that a bit of mud by Standing justifies labelling her an Islamist.

    that’s like saying “oh, mr x reckons that apple’s rotten? well, i don’t agree it is unless it’s more rotten than an orange that mr x ate last week, i don’t accept his recent bout of food poisoning as evidence”.

    deary, deary me.

    b’shalom

    bananabrain

  73. Sarah AB — on 17th June, 2010 at 5:24 pm  

    bananabrain – I’m sure I’d share your concern wrt particular individuals and groups associated with clerical fascism. But in a way it’s *because* I have those concerns that I am particularly keen to distance myself from that statement by Murray. And I think plenty of people who might be classed as ‘decents’ – eg David T, Norman Geras – are pretty good at distancing themselves from eg the minaret or burkha bans.

    Sorry to drag Israel into the discussion again but, because I think there’s a lot of kneejerk anti-Israel feeling about, including academic boycott attempts etc, I am perhaps more on my guard against articles critical of Israel than I might otherwise be. So if the author of the article articulates some concern about anti-semitism, some awareness that anti-semitism can manifest itself as anti-zionism, then I’m going to be more receptive. In the same way I think it’s constructive, if one does want to criticise some Islamist groups etc, to make some effort to distance oneself from anti-Muslim bigotry.

  74. LibertyPhile — on 17th June, 2010 at 6:34 pm  

    I sometimes think Mr Hundal is really a manifestation of someone from a parallel universe. He isn’t totally in tune with this one.

    He says in the post above:

    “Religious scriptures are very historical documents. Half the time they’re describing specific events, or they’re in verse and open to intepretation, or sometimes it’s just narration of history. [So far, so good, then he goes on to say..] The Koran has a mixture of all three. And not always in order. Anyone can read into it however they want to ….,”

    Really? However they want to!

    Have a look at this review of John Esposito’s “Future of Islam”. Here is a link to the section dealing with Esposito’s reformers, what he calls Islam’s Martin Luthers.

    http://libertyphile2.blogspot.com/2010/06/espositos-future-of-islam.html#three

  75. bananabrain — on 18th June, 2010 at 9:08 am  

    Sarah AB:

    I’m sure I’d share your concern wrt particular individuals and groups associated with clerical fascism.

    i certainly hope so!

    But in a way it’s *because* I have those concerns that I am particularly keen to distance myself from that statement by Murray.

    i thought i just did the same – however, that doesn’t get the campaign’s poster girl off the hook, does it?

    And I think plenty of people who might be classed as ‘decents’ – eg David T, Norman Geras – are pretty good at distancing themselves from eg the minaret or burkha bans.

    not being a self-described “progressive”, i couldn’t really tell you what a “decent” is supposed to be, nor what they are supposed to be in favour of or against. i have certainly not argued for a minaret ban, i think it most unsuitable – although i can see how the swiss context might permit it given their draconian legal codes. as for the burkha and the niqab (although, as i have said many times, *not* the hijab or anything that shows the face) i am against them. in fact, although i’d not support an outright ban, i would certainly restrict their use to mosques. my position has recently hardened on this, mostly as a result of talking to a very lovely niqabi convert who i met over at interfaith.org and, though i like her very much, i find her rationale indefensible, illiberal and unnecessarily divisive. you can read the most relevant recent discussion here:

    http://www.interfaith.org/forum/will-europe-soon-have-a-12764.html

    if one does want to criticise some Islamist groups etc, to make some effort to distance oneself from anti-Muslim bigotry.

    which i feel that i do plenty of, to be honest, as a defender of the hijab, halal and voluntary use of shari’a courts as well as well as an admirer of sufism (particularly qawwali) the great mediaeval scholars and so on and so forth, if you want to be specific about it.

    libertyphile:

    thanks for your email, i will take a look at the site.

    b’shalom

    bananabrain

  76. MixMatch — on 20th June, 2010 at 10:33 pm  

    “he’s just a reconfigured mccarthyite, like so many HP Saucers (Mr Ezra being the clearest example).”

    Yes, Ezra is a true orthodoxy-sniffer who would be happier on Socialist Unity. He makes a point of asking HP mods to delete posts – any posts, no matter how innocuous – by posters who cross the sanctimonious old goat. Here is what he emailed me: “As of now, should I note any contributions in the next while from yourself, I will try and arrange that they are deleted forthwith.” So much for the famed HP slogan about telling people things they don’t want to hear. What a frustrated school monitor that arse is.

  77. me — on 20th June, 2010 at 10:53 pm  

    MixMatch bananabrain’s site Spittoon does likewise. Its tagline is “Heresy is another name for freedom of speech” but it doesnt allow any speech that contradicts or exposes its errors. That would be heresy.

  78. MixMatch — on 20th June, 2010 at 11:10 pm  

    I agree. In view of how few people read all these political blog sites anyway, it suggests some people don’t have any sense of proportion that they ban stuff and simply even posters they don’t agree with.

  79. me — on 20th June, 2010 at 11:13 pm  

    bananabrain

    “which i feel that i do plenty of, to be honest, as a defender of the hijab, halal and voluntary use of shari’a courts as well as well as an admirer of sufism (particularly qawwali) the great mediaeval scholars and so on and so forth, ”

    Who writes for a site, Spittoon which viciously attacks many of these things. What a contradictory individual you are.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

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