This is a cross-post of an article by Sumaya Ahmed Rafique, originally written for Hermanas magazine. (Hat tip: Isa in the comments)
Muslim communities around the world face many challenges, from both within as well as outside sources. Certain issues, such as poverty and substance abuse, are widespread amongst all races and religions. The Muslim community, however, also has problems unique to itself.
One particular phenomenon has come to be known as that of “marriage fraud” – a problem found in both the West and the Muslim world, although its occurrence has been more widely documented in the West. Most cases of “marriage fraud” are recorded to take place in certain areas of America, Canada, and the UK, although there is evidence that it also occurs in other Western and Arab countries.
This is a cross post by Bina D’Costa first published in BDNews24
Ever since the International Crimes Tribunal (ICT) began its work, opponents of the mechanism have emphasised that the first government of the state pardoned the alleged war criminals, that this was a project of political witch-hunt against Jamaat and BNP senior leaders and that there was no demand for justice from the majority of Bangladeshis who were more interested to move forward and have economic security rather than revisit the past. This write-up explores the political history until the ICT started its proceedings to respond to some of these claims.
We know how it began. That the Pakistani forces were perceived by the overwhelming majority of Bangladeshis who supported liberation as occupation forces; and that India’s armed intervention to end the conflict was welcomed. Pakistan also attracted global condemnation due to its brutal military crackdown in 1971, which resulted in mass atrocities and genocide. But what happened after the war was over?
What an extraordinary few weeks it has been for those who battle the forces of Islamist extremism. First, StandforPeace exposed Haitham al-Haddad’s FOSIS London love-in, then the good folks at Hope not Hatecalled on the East London Mosque to ban him from an event there and to finish, the JC published the story that he had been banned from speaking at the London School of Economics.
It is completely understandable that al-Haddad would feel a little uncomfortable in the UK. After all, his supporters can’t bring themselves to wonder why someone who condones suicide bombings, female circumcision and self-exile from wider society would be despised by free-thinking people.
So, a few days ago, I was contacted by an internet acquaintance on al-Haddad visiting the Netherlands. Admittedly, I don’t know much about the Netherlands’ problem with extremism although I was aware of events concerning Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Theo Von Gogh and the Hofstad Network. It was enough to act.
This is a cross-post by Stephen R. Shalom, professor of Political Science, William Paterson University, New Jersey originally posted at Z Communications
In 1971, Pakistan became engulfed in civil war. Pakistan consisted of two regions separated by more than 1,000 miles, with India in between. The two regions shared a Muslim majority, but differed in language, ethnicity and culture. West Pakistan politically dominated the more numerous, largely Bengali population of the East and exploited them economically. The callous indifference shown by the authorities in Islamabad in the West to a devastating cyclone that struck the East in November 1970 further inflamed separatist sentiment.
The Pakistani ISI and its parliamentary lapdogs are responsible for tens of thousands of Afghan and ISAF/NATO deaths over the past decade. Everybody knows now. But the depths of duplicity, mendacity and barbarism to which the Pakistani elites have stooped, and the enthusiasm with which they have devoted themselves to the care and feeding of some of the world’s most savage and lumpen jihadi gangsters, are not so well known.
As of last Wednesday, the BBC World News has been blocked by Pakistan’s cable channels as a “protest” against this two-part BBC documentary, Secret Pakistan. Watch this, and you will see what the Pakistani establishment does not want the people of Pakistan to know. The people of the “west” need to know these things, too, no less.
This is an article by Houriya Ahmed which first appeared in The Times
Closing down the Iranian Embassy in London is not forceful enough. After the storming of the British Embassy in Tehran by a mob of petrol-bomb-hurling hardliners, the British Government was right to move beyond impotent expressions of “outrage” and demand that Iran’s embassy staff leave the UK within 48 hours.But Britain can do more in the face of what looks like officially orchestrated violence.
There is an arm – albeit unofficial – of the Islamic republic at work here that could be punished to show British disapproval: Press TV’s London operation should be shut down.
Launched in 2007 as an “alternative” to Western media, Press TV is an English-language satellite television channel with a licence to operate in London. It is funded by, and acts as a mouthpiece for, the Iranian regime. Muslim and non-Muslim female presenters are required to wear the Islamic headscarf in front of the camera while broadcasting from London.
I was so saddened to learn about the trial in Tunisia over the broadcasting of the animated movie, Persepolis. The Tunisian revolution which was supposed to be about the overthrow of a dictator will soon descend into a religious dictatorship, if the secular Tunisians remain silent about this sort of thing. Once again, my favourite quote by Edmund Burke “Evil Only Prevails, When the Good Remain Silent” manifests itself in our own times.
The animated movie, Persepolis, is not about attacking sacred values at all. Only a religious zealot moron could come to such a conclusion. It is in fact a brilliant depiction of how a revolution against dictatorship is hijacked by such extremists. It is a movie that pre-warns ordinary people what will happen if they remain silent and allow the extremists to take over.
In the years to come, the history of the so-called “war in Afghanistan” will be little more than a footnote in a chapter about the lies successive American governments told themselves and the world about Pakistan – that American-subsidized, nuclear-armed, military-industrial crime syndicate with a bribe market for a parliament that masquerades as a UN member state. All we can hope is that chapter won’t be in a book about a nuclear holocaust that ended a sickening, paranoid hoax of a country that had held most of its 170 million “citizens” hostage and barely alive on less than $2 a day in the final years before it all went up in flames.
Here’s a rare and horrifying glimpse of the reality behind the lies: The Ally From Hell. Excellent journalism from Jeffrey Goldberg and Marc Ambinder.
If a person denies clear evidence of racism, defends a racist, and attacks a leading anti-racist institution, is it fair to conclude that they are in fact a racist?
It is a genuine question. The answer in some cases will, undoubtedly, be yes. However, others may find themselves in the position of supporting a racist and denying their racism, and attacking anti-racist organisations: because they believe that a little racism is necessary, in furtherance of a greater political cause. Those people are not racists themselves. They are merely tolerating and facilitating racism, making it more difficult to challenge, giving it an alibi.
Yet others may honestly fail to recognise racism, or may not believe the evidence of racism. It is quite easy to tell who those innocent endorsers of racism are. They’re the ones who, once they realise their error, are the keenest to correct it, publicly.
This is a cross-post by Lucy Lips from Harry’s Place
Raed Salah has lost his ill conceived attempt to prevent his deportation from the United Kingdom. Despite being the subject of a banning order, you will remember that the hate preacher was accidentally admitted to the United Kingdom.
He has had his fun. It is now time for him to sling his hook.
This is what the court found:
We are satisfied that the appellant has engaged in the unacceptable behaviour of fostering hatred which might lead to intercommunity violence in the UK.
“We are satisfied that the appellant’s words and actions tend to be inflammatory, divisive, insulting and likely to foment tension and radicalism.