I grew up in a liberal household in the Middle East where religious practice was never forced on me. But when I was 17 I made the choice to wear the hijab (headscarf), in the belief that this was a religious obligation and symbol of modesty. At times, I even wore the niqab, a veil of thin chiffon cloth that covers the face.

I knew that the niqab wasn’t a religious obligation, unlike the hijab, but I wore it in markets and malls — any place where I wanted to be hidden from the prying eyes of men. Although it was restrictive — it’s difficult to manoeuvre in busy shops, to eat or cross the road — that didn’t bother me. When I wore it, I felt comfortable knowing that my face would not be known, that I would not be leered at by men. And I certainly did not feel out of place. Many women around me wore it, too, not because it was a legal requirement or because of family pressure, but out of choice.

When I moved to Britain to go to university, I came to realise that neither the hijab nor the niqab is necessary for a woman to be religious or modest, which I was so eager to feel at the age of 17. Faith comes from within, not from outer appearances. I no longer believe the hijab is a religious requirement — and I now see the niqab as a symbol of oppression and misogyny, which is why I would never wear it again.

But I would have been outraged to be told that, by force of law, I could not wear it. The French National Assembly made a terrible mistake yesterday by voting to ban the niqab. It is not the business of governments to tell women who choose to wear the veil that they are oppressing themselves. And it is certainly not a government’s place to arbitrate in theological debates as to what is or isn’t a religious requirement.

What governments do have a right to do, however, is ban any form of face covering in certain public buildings — schools and hospitals, for example — if it is not conducive to the public good. Schoolchildren should be able to see their teacher’s face, and doctors should be able to look at their patients. Legislating for such restrictions is certainly not Islamophobic. How could it be when countries such as Egypt, Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates have banned the niqab in certain workplaces or while driving?

But a total ban is plain draconian. Imagine it, women getting arrested and fined for not wearing the right garment. Can French lawmakers not see the irony: taking away the right of women to choose in the name of women’s rights? Women should make their own decision about the niqab, just as I did, without being patronised or punished.

Timothy Garton Ash has written a comment piece for the Guardian discussing the Swiss ban on mosque minarets. I agree with all that he says except for the Islamic Shakhsiya Foundation point.

I have looked at the curriculum that they were teaching at the time they received government funding. And yes, they do promote Hizb ut-Tahrir (HT) ideology to the core. And as many of us know, HT ideology mandates Muslims to lead segregated lives from the rest of society and to only follow HT’s version of Islam. It is not exactly rocket science to know that HT run schools with HT teachers and a headmistress that was HT at the time of funding and writing the school’s curriculum would be teaching HT ideology to children. Anyway, the rest of the article is good. Have a read:

So Nicolas Sarkozy, responding to the minaret ban in Switzerland, admonishes us to practise our faiths with “humble discretion”. To be recommended humble discretion by President Sarkozy is like being counselled modesty in dress by Lady Gaga, or self-denial by a banker.

But France’s mercurial president does have a point when he says, in his recent article in Le Monde, that it is not enough simply to condemn the Swiss referendum vote; we should try to understand what motivated so many Swiss, and what this tells us about Europe today. How is it possible that, in a country with just four minarets, 57% of those who voted, on a turnout of 53% – in other words, more than a quarter of the Swiss electorate – could vote for the constitution to be changed to include a blanket ban on the building of minarets?

Were they responding to inflammatory posters showing minarets that looked like missiles all over the Swiss flag, together with the threatening figure of a woman in a niqab? Or to ludicrous arguments like that of the Swiss People’s party representative Oskar Freysinger, who said “the minute you have minarets in Europe it means Islam will have taken over”? By which logic, Spain and Britain are already Islamic countries. Was this an expression of rampant “Islamophobia”, finding different targets from country to country but basically the same poison under the skin? Or was it merely anxious people crying “this change in our societies has come so fast – tell us where it is all going to end”?

Sarkozy writes blithely that the vote has nothing to do with putting in question the freedom of religion, but then almost contradicts himself by saying “one does not respect people when one obliges them to practise their religion in caves or in hangars”.

Let us be clear: this vote was wrong both in principle and politically. The European court of human rights would almost certainly find that it does violate the principle of religious freedom, as we interpret it in 21st-century Europe. Religious freedom cannot consist of saying: “We, Christians and Jews, have our churches and synagogues, but you, Muslims, cannot have your mosques. Your religion is tolerable so long as it is practised only by consenting adults in private.”

That is to put the clock of religious toleration back 300 years, to a time when even protestants in Catholic France could not worship in public. Of course, planning regulations and the local townscape must be respected. Architectural tact and syncretic innovation are desirable, as brilliantly exemplified in the new buildings of the Oxford Centre for Islamic Studies or Boston’s Islamic Cultural Centre. But this vote was not about urban planning.

Some retort that many Islamic countries don’t allow Christians to build churches, so why should European countries allow Muslims to erect minarets?

This argument is completely back to front. It is like saying: well, the US has the death sentence so why shouldn’t Italy put Amanda Knox to death in an electric chair? Or: well, Saudi Arabia has women stoned for adultery so why shouldn’t we torture Arab men? In many majority Muslim countries, there is pervasive religious intolerance towards Christians, Jews, other religious groups (Bahai, Ahmadiyya) and, not least, atheists, but we can only be credible in criticising that intolerance if we practise at home the universal principles that we preach abroad. As someone once said: do as you would be done by.

The vote to ban minarets is not a mistake because there are no problems in relation to Muslims in Europe; it is a mistake because there are so many problems in relation to Muslims in Europe. We have to decide which of them really matter, and which are secondary.

On the Muslim side there is the problem of radical extremism and the rather different one of reactionary illiberalism (for example, the treatment of women in some conservative Muslim communities). On the non-Muslim side there is the problem of people lumping together worries about terrorists, immigrants, asylum seekers, job losses and crime, putting a big wrapper around them all and marking the package “Islam”. The worst thing that could happen is a polarisation around purely symbolic issues, with one side, consisting almost entirely of non-Muslims, shouting “Islam!” and the other, consisting almost entirely of Muslims, shouting back “Islamophobia!”

Switzerland shows us the danger of sliding into a culture war, a Kulturkampf, which does not even go to the heart of the matter. At the heart of the matter is not Islam or anti-Islam, minarets or headscarves, but the things essential to maintain a free society: free speech; human rights; personal security against terrorism, crime and arbitrary state power; the equality before the law of men and women, rich and poor, believers in all faiths and none; schools in which the rules and values of a free country are learned and internalised by children of all backgrounds, whatever they are taught or not taught at home.

In Britain, too, we must beware the Swiss danger of slipping into a Kulturkampf about secondary, symbolic issues. Whether a mosque gets a minaret should be a subject for local planning. What an adult woman wears should be her free choice. (The obvious exceptions, in some workplaces, for instance, do not falsify the basic rule.) Whether this or that preacher or organisation is banned should not become the test case for the whole position of Muslims in Britain.

David Cameron’s Conservatives will have to watch out that a security-led agenda does not impair the larger cause of integration in freedom. To this, schools are vital. Cameron was left with egg on his face a couple of weeks ago, because he got the facts wrong about government funding for an Islamic faith school. But the debate revolved around too narrow a question: was this school promoting extremism while receiving government money aimed at preventing it?

The larger question to ask, of that and all other schools, is: are they teaching the language, history, civics and values that will equip their pupils to be full, participating citizens of a free country? An unintended consequence of the Tory emphasis on localism, and on giving more autonomy to schools, may be to make that more difficult. For the purposes of civic integration, we need more nationwide curriculum, standards and inspection, not less.

Not all Muslims, all of the time, will be able to support all these minimum essentials of a modern free society. There is a real tension between some of the essentials (for instance, the equal rights and dignity of homosexuals) and what is habitually taught even in mainstream, conservative Muslim communities. But most British Muslims, most of the time, will support most of them. In my view, the absolute star of the BBC Question Time confrontation with BNP leader Nick Griffin was the Conservative Muslim politician Sayeeda Warsi. She gave him hell, while speaking up for British traditions of openness, fair play and tolerance. I felt she spoke for me, for Britain, and for freedom. We must not let totemic dust-ups about minarets or headscarves obscure the battles that really count.

Bright writes:

Inayat Bunglawala of the MCB defended his attacks on British Muslims for Secular Democracy because leading members of the organisation opposed the wearing of the hijab and believed drinking was permitted in Islam. The chair of the organisation is Independent columnist Yasmin Alibhai-Brown.

The row broke out over a demonstration to oppose the Islam4UK march by al-Muhajiroun, which was due to call for the introduction of an Islamic state and sharia law in Britain. The march was cancelled at the last moment on October 31.

Mr Bunglawala, who regularly appears in the British media as the representative of the MCB, was vocal in his condemnation of Islam4UK march. He even established a new organisation, Muslims4UK, to oppose the extremists. His actions were praised at the time by Ed Husain of the anti-extremist Quilliam Foundation.

[...]

On October 26 Mr Bunglawala sent an email to the Islamic Society of Britain and Young Muslims group on Yahoo which said: “I have received some emails from people concerned that British Muslims for Secular Democracy (whose chair opposes the wearing of the hijab, openly admits to drinking alcohol etc) are also demonstrating. Muslims4UK will be completely separate from them and will have our own area, banners and placards, insh’Allah”.

Four days later he sent a second email said: “The BMSD — whose leading members advocate that Muslim schoolgirls should be forbidden from wearing the hijab and believe there is nothing wrong with drinking alcohol in Islam — have naturally attracted the support of Zionists like Mel P, Harry’s Place and the Spittoon blog [Mel P is a reference to the JC columnist Melanie Phillips; Harry’s Place and Spittoon are blogs which often cover the subject of radical Islam].

Mr Bunglawala continued: “Muslims4UK have spoiled that little plan of theirs, Alhamdulillah!”

Ms Alibhai-Brown said: “I do say young pre-pubescent girls should not be covered up, and that the fact that I drink wine is my own business.”

[...]

Mr Bunglawala confirmed to the JC that he had asked for a separate area to demonstrate, away from the BMSD.

He added: “BMSD have almost zero support in UK mosques and Islamic institutions which is not very surprising given that their chair openly drinks alcohol and sees nothing wrong with that! Even a young Muslim child is aware that drinking alcohol is forbidden in Islam.

“The only support BMSD appear to attract seems to be from pro-Israeli groups. That itself is very telling.”

Bungles should be ashamed of himself. What happened to that ‘I am such a liberal’ attitude he had going on at the Guardian’s Comment is Free for a while? There are plenty of Muslims who are against pre-pubescent girls wearing the hijab, and with good religious justification. As for drinking wine, Alibhai Brown is right – it is no one’s business what she does in her personal life.

This is what I hate the most – people like Bungle’s thinking they have the right to pass judgment on what others do, who is he to judge and decide what makes a good Muslim or not? God? Besides, what makes him think that his recently made up organisation ‘Muslims4UK’ (sounds very similar to Islam4UK) has any credibility for him to even dare to suggest that BMSD has none? At least they did not cancel their protest on the 31st (as Bungles did) and carried on defending liberalism, secularism and democracy in the UK. That is one more than what Bungles has so far achieved.

How disappointing.

Actually, minarets not only have religious but historical significance as well. Furthermore, minarets are described as “symbols of a religious-political claim to power and dominance which threatens – in the name of alleged freedom of religion – the constitutional rights of others.” I am not sure how building a couple of minarets here and there would be an infringement on the constitutional rights of others…

In highlighting the issue of the argument that a ban would be an infringement of human rights, Damien Thompson writes in his blog that ‘minarets broadcast a call to prayer which interrupts the lives of Muslims’. Yes, it does – but that is if one lives in a Muslim-majority country where the call to prayer is announced through mega speakers five times a day. However, not all Muslim-majority countries allow the call to prayer to be announced five times a day. In Istanbul, ‘the city of a thousand minarets’, mosques are only allowed to announce the call to prayer a couple of times a day when it least disrupts the lives of Istanbullus.

In most places in London (since I live here) where there are mosques, to my knowledge anyway, the call to prayer is not broadcasted out loud. However, Regent’s Park Mosque has a minaret. And it is part of the architecture, which signifies the unique design of a particular time.

I don’t see anything wrong with building a mosque or temple which architecturally has religious significance as long as it caters to a local community. The idea that non-Christian religious buildings poses a threat is absurd – it is not like hundreds of mosques and temples are springing up everywhere – where there is demand there is supply.

Moreover, the argument that as long as Churches are not allowed to be built in Saudi Arabia and ‘Muslim countries’ is stupid. Just because some authoritarian governments do not cater to religious minorites does not mean that Europe has to act the same. In fact, Qatar, for example, has a church that caters for 4,000 Christians living in the country. I’ve seen it, and it is massive.

However, since Europe is a historically Christian continent I think it only right that its historical and cultural heritage preserved. So of course, no one would want to see Switzerland turn into a ‘city of a thousand minarets’. But, I highly doubt that was ever going to be a reality.

Besides, isn’t Switzerland meant to be a democratic country? What happened to liberal values?

More findings include:

• Sexual harassment by men was experienced by 83% of Egyptian women.

• Sexual harassment by men experienced by 98% of foreign women visitors in Egypt.

• 62% of Egyptian men admitted to sexually harassing women.

• More than 60% of both male and female respondents suggested that a ‘scantily clad woman’ was most at risk.

• 53% of Egyptian men blame women for ‘bringing it on’ [typical disgusting male attitude].

• The attitudes of Western respondents differed to Egyptian respondents: Western women strongly believed in their entitlement to personal safety and freedom of movement whereas Egyptian respondent did not mention freedom of choice, movement or the right to legal protection, nor were they aware that harassment is a criminal behaviour, regardless of what clothes the victim is wearing.

From my experience, it does not matter what a women wears. In the Gulf, when I used to wear the the abaya, hijab and sometimes niqab I was still harassed by men.  When I made the holy pilgrimage to Mecca, obviously covered, I was again harassed. When I wore a top and jeans, I was harassed. Even when I wore no make-up and went out, I was harassed. Over here, I am still harassed by perverts. The point: if men want to be perverts, they will be perverts regardless of what you wear. The problem does not actually lie with what women wear but with men who think they have the right to treat women with disrespect.

So why should women define modesty based on what men think? Why am I any less modest than a woman who does wear the hijab and abaya? This report suggests that it makes no difference whatsoever! Modesty lies with a woman’s respect for herself regardless of what she wears. And for the men out there reading this, respect women instead of treating them as sexual objects ready to be screwed around with, groped or harassed whenever it pleases you, and then think you have done nothing wrong.

For more information on ‘Blood & Honour’ see Edmund Standing’s post here.

In the context of my academic research and practical work I have been able to provide an important set of motion in the stagnant Egyptian situation. I have attempted to make reforms from the inside and worked on the disarmament of those who exploit Islam politically and make it a source of livelihood at the expense of the simple, good people of Egypt. I have therefore created a secular movement that has imposed its presence, although still at a formative stage.

In a free ballot of Egyptian thinkers, I was granted the State Award for Social
Sciences, on June 25th 2009. The hard-line radical militant groups considered that the state has adopted this intellectual secular trend officially, infuriating the mentioned group which called on the State to withdraw the prize with the declaration of my defection from Islam and excommunication which means in our country, I could be slain; any citizen is allowed to kill me and be awarded by God in Paradise.

The following parties have participated in the statements of excommunication (takfir), noting that none of them have read a single word of what I wrote, and have not been able to hold a dialogue to discuss my ideas:

1 – Al-Azhar Scholars Front headed by Yahya Ismail Habloush, which
issued the first statement of excommunication on July 10, 2009.

2 – The Islamic Group (condemned terrorist group) issued a statement of excommunication on July 10, 2009.

3 – The Muslim Brotherhood hailed the excommunication, and were represented at the parliament by Hamdi Hassan requesting the withdrawal of the award and the declaration of religious-defection and excommunication on July 7, 2009. The Muslim Brotherhood also declared my excommunication on Mohwar Channel on July 11, 2009 and on Al Faraeen Channel on July 13, 2009.

4 – The Salafi (Fundamentalist) Group (condemned terrorist group) dedicated its Internet site named “The Egyptians” for excommunicating me and incitements to kill me, since the date of obtaining the prize until today.

5 – Al Nas channel, which represents the theoretical side of bloody terrorism which declared excommunication and demanded “all citizens who can” to kill me immediately, on July 24 and 25, 2009.

6 – The Hisbah Sheikh Youssef Al Badri in Egypt declared on the channel “ON TV” on July 3, 2009 that I have cursed God and the Prophet Mohammad in my books even though I have challenged him and others to refer to a single text written by me where such claims were made. Due to this proclamation, he has issued an incitement to kill me.

7 – A member of the Al-Azhar scholars, Sheikh Mohammed El Berry, on Mihwar TV Channel on July 11, 2009 announced my excommunication as he also said that he did not read any of my writings since he does not read “garbage”. He repeated the same words on the channel “ON TV” on July 22, 2009

8 – Sheikh Ali Gomaa, the former Chairman of the “State Religious Affairs Advisory Board”, issued a statement declaring my infidelity and calling for slaying me for “insulting the Prophet of Islam, the God of Islam” on July 24, 2009.

9 – The Sheiks of more than 5,000 mosques on Friday prayers on July 24, 2009 declared the incitement to kill me, especially in my hometown, which led to the rampage against my family and relatives, and that could possibly evolve to some serious consequences in the coming weeks.

Due to the above, I call upon the conscience of all humanity in the free world
to come to me and my children’s rescue by providing moral support and the
condemnation and denunciation of the radical thinking with quick solutions to save us from the danger that is luring around us.  This is a distress call to all bodies and individuals. A call to the consciences of every free individual in the world.

Signed

Sayed Mahmoud El Qemany- Researcher

In describing her experience, Sergeant Deb Leonard said:

I have gained an appreciation and understanding of what Muslim females experience when they walk out in public in clothing appropriate to their beliefs.

We are keen to gain a better understanding of issues which our communities face.

Why doesn’t she and her colleagues start walking out in jeans and a t-shirt to also experience what other Muslim women feel when they walk out in public in clothing appropriate to their beliefs!

A South Yorkshire Police in-house magazine said:

The exercise is just one of many activities South Yorkshire Police has planned with communities and ethnic minority leaders to secure strong relationships, celebrate diversity and encourage integration, working towards a safer, closer society.

How would wearing a full face veil (which most Muslim women in this country do not wear anyway – a minority of a minority) or ‘other traditional clothing’ enhance any sort of relationship or make communities safer? Why wear clothing that other Muslim women in this country choose not to wear? How absurd.

HT Malaysia Khilafah Conference

A beheaded Statue of Liberty. A burning and ruined Financial District in Manhattan.  Conveniently using this clip image from the film Cloverfield, Hizb ut-Tahrir uses it to epitomise everything the party loathes and despises: democracy, freedom, capitalism, secularsim (values many of us cherish) – and generally the West. And they want to do what? Take over the world?

Viva la Islamist revolución!

Joya was four days old when the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan. On that day, her father dropped out of his studies to fight the invading Communist army, and vanished into the mountains. She says: “Since then, all we have known is war.”

Her earliest memory is of clinging to her mother’s legs while policemen ransacked their house looking for evidence of where her father was hiding. Her illiterate mother tried to keep her family of 10 children alive as best she could. When the police became too aggressive, she took her kids to refugee camps across the border in Iran. In these filthy tent-cities lying on the old Silk Road, Afghans huddled together and were treated as second-class citizens by the Iranian regime. At night, wild animals could wander into the tents and attack children. There, word reached the family that Joya’s father had been blown up by a landmine – but he was alive, after losing a leg.

There were no schools in the Iranian camps, and Joya’s mother was determined her daughters would receive the education she never had. So they fled again, to camps in western Pakistan. There, Joya began to read – and was transformed. “Tell me what you read and I shall tell you what you are,” she says. Starting in her early teens, she inhaled all the literature she could – from Persian poetry to the plays of Bertolt Brecht to the speeches of Martin Luther King. She began to teach her new-found literacy to the older women in the camps, including her own mother.

She soon discovered that she loved to teach – and, when she turned 16, a charity called the Organisation for Promoting Afghan Women’s Capabilities (OPAWC) made a bold suggestion: go to Afghanistan, and set up a secret school for girls, under the noses of the Taliban tyranny.

So she gathered her few clothes and books and was smuggled across the border – and “the best days of my life” began. She loathed being forced to wear a burka, being harassed on the streets by the omnipresent “vice and virtue” police, and being under constant threat of being discovered and executed. But she says it was worth it for the little girls. “Every time a new girl joined the class, it was a triumph,” she says, beaming. “There is no better feeling.”

She only just avoided being caught, again and again. One time she was teaching a class of girls in a family’s basement when the mother of the house yelled down suddenly: “Taliban! Taliban!” Joya says: “I told my students to lie down on the floor and stay totally silent. We heard footsteps above us and waited a long time.” On many occasions, ordinary men and women – anonymous strangers – helped her out by sending the police charging off in the wrong direction. She adds: “Every day in Afghanistan, even now, hundreds if not thousands of ordinary women act out these small gestures of solidarity with each other. We are our sisters’ keepers.”

The charity was so impressed with her they appointed her their director. Joya decided to set up a clinic for poor women just before the 9/11 attacks. When the American invasion began, the Taliban fled her province, but the bombs kept falling. “Many lives were needlessly lost, just like during the September 11 tragedy,” she says. “The noise was terrifying, and children covered their ears and screamed and cried. Smoke and dust rose and lingered in the air with every bomb dropped.”

As soon as the Taliban retreated, they were replaced – by the warlords who had ruled Afghanistan immediately before. Joya says that, at this point, “I realised women’s rights had been sold out completely… Most people in the West have been led to believe that the intolerance and brutality towards women in Afghanistan began with the Taliban regime. But this is a lie. Many of the worst atrocities were committed by the fundamentalist mujahedin during the civil war between 1992 and 1996. They introduced the laws oppressing women followed by the Taliban – and now they were marching back to power, backed by the United States. They immediately went back to their old habit of using rape to punish their enemies and reward their fighters.”

The warlords “have ruled Afghanistan ever since,” she adds. While a “showcase parliament has been created for the benefit of the US in Kabul”, the real power “is with these fundamentalists who rule everywhere outside Kabul”. As an example, she names the former governor of Herat, Ismail Khan. He set up his own “vice and virtue” squads which terrorised women and smashed up video and music cassettes. He had his own “private militias, private jails”. The constitution of Afghanistan is irrelevant in these private fiefdoms.

Joya discovered just what this meant when she started to set up the clinic – and a local warlord announced that it would not be allowed, since she was a woman, and a critic of fundamentalism. She did it anyway, and decided to fight this fundamentalist by running in the election for the Loya jirga (“meeting of the elders”) to draw up the new Afghan constitution. There was a great swelling of support for this girl who wanted to build a clinic – and she was elected. “It turned out my mission,” she says, “would be to expose the true nature of the jirga from within.”

As she stepped past the world’s television cameras into the Loya jirga, the first thing Joya saw was “a long row with some of the worst abusers of human rights that our country had ever known – warlords and war criminals and fascists”.

She could see the men who invited Osama bin Laden into the country, the men who introduced the misogynist laws later followed by the Taliban, the men who had massacred Afghan civilians. Some had got there by intimidating the electorate, others by vote-rigging, and yet more were simply appointed by Hamid Karzai, the former oilman installed by the US army to run the country. She thought of an old Afghan saying: “It’s the same donkey, with a new saddle.”

For a moment, as these old killers started to give long speeches congratulating themselves on the transition to democracy, Joya felt nervous. But then, she says, “I remembered the oppression we face as women in my country, and my nervousness evaporated, replaced by anger.”

When her turn came, she stood, looked around at the blood-soaked warlords on every side, and began to speak. “Why are we allowing criminals to be present here? They are responsible for our situation now… It is they who turned our country into the centre of national and international wars. They are the most anti-women elements in our society who have brought our country to this state and they intend to do the same again… They should instead be prosecuted in the national and international courts.”

These warlords – who brag about being hard men – could not cope with a slender young woman speaking the truth. They began to shriek and howl, calling her a “prostitute” and “infidel”, and throwing bottles at her. One man tried to punch her in the face. Her microphone was cut off and the jirga descended into a riot.

… US and Nato occupiers instructed Joya that she must show “politeness and respect” for the other delegates. When Zalmay Khalilzad, the US Ambassador, said this, she replied: “If these criminals raped your mother or your daughter or your grandmother, or killed seven of your sons, let alone destroyed all the moral and material treasure of your country, what words would you use against such criminals that will be inside the framework of politeness and respect?”

…

So she ran for parliament – and won in a landslide. “I would return again to face those who had ruined my country,” she explains, “and I was determined that I would stand straight and never bow again to their threats.”

…

Joya looked out across the new Afghan parliament on her first day and thought: “In every corner is a killer, a puppet, a criminal, a drug lord, a fascist. This is not democracy. I am one of the very few people here who has been genuinely elected.” She started her maiden speech by saying: “My condolences to the people of Afghanistan…”

Before she could continue, the warlords began to shout that they would rape and kill her. One warlord, Abdul Sayyaf, yelled a threat at her. Joya looked him straight in the eye and said: “We are not in [the area he rules by force] here, so control yourself.”

…

But she was not allowed to raise these issues in the supposedly democratic parliament. The fundamentalist warlords who couldn’t beat Joya at the ballot box or kill her chanced upon a new way to silence her. The more she spoke, the angrier they got. She called for secularism in Afghanistan, saying: “Religion is a private issue, unrelated to political issues and the government… Real Muslims do not require political leaders to guide them to Islam.” She condemned the new law that declared an amnesty for all war crimes committed in Afghanistan over the past 30 years, saying “You criminals are simply giving yourselves a get-out-of-jail free card.” So the MPs simply voted to kick her out of parliament.

It was illegal and undemocratic – but the President, Hamid Karzai, supported the ban. “Now the warlord criminals are unchallenged in parliament,” she says. “Is that democracy?”

…

Today, she fights for democracy outside parliament. But, she says, any Afghan democrat today is “trapped between two enemies. There are the occupation forces from the sky, dropping cluster bombs and depleted uranium, and on the ground there are the fundamentalist warlords and the Taliban, with their own guns.” She wants to help the swelling movement of ordinary Afghans in between, who are opposed to both. “With the withdrawal of one enemy, the occupation forces, it [will be] easier to fight against these internal fundamentalist enemies.”

If she were president of Afghanistan, she would begin by referring all the country’s war criminals to the International Court of Justice at the Hague. “Anybody who has murdered my sisters and brothers should be punished,” she says, “from the Taliban, to the warlords, to George W Bush.” Then she would ask all foreign troops to leave immediately. She says that it is wrong to say Afghanistan will simply collapse into civil war if that happens. “What about the civil war now? Today, people are being killed – many, many war crimes. The longer the foreign troops stay in Afghanistan doing what they are doing, the worse the eventual civil war will be for the Afghan people.”

[To read the full story click here]

Malalai Joya is an impressive, courageous and admirable woman, putting many of us to shame. Her courage in standing up to Afghan warlords and defending women’s rights has put her in danger of being killed by the warlords. Not only did she set up a secret underground school for girls in the Taliban ruled Afghanistan, but has also recently run for parliament to fight the religious fundamentalists and warlords currently in power – power that has been granted by Bush’s government. She now moves between different safe houses, never staying in the same place for more than two nights.

Western forces currently fighting in Afghanistan against the Taliban, as many argue, are doing so to fight ‘an enemy which is a threat to all non-Islamist countries’ [see A. M. Hitchens blog on Afghanistan]. All nation states in the international system act ultimately to serve their own national self interest. Fighting the Taliban in Afghanistan eliminates the terrorist threat posed to the West, which of course is necessary and justifiable.

However, to quote Joya, “Dust has been thrown into the eyes of the world by your governments. You have not been told the truth. The situation now is as catastrophic as it was under the Taliban for women. Your governments have replaced the fundamentalist rule of the Taliban with another fundamentalist regime of warlords. [That is] what your soldiers are dying for.”

The deeply moving story of Malalai Joya highlights that the West should not only be fighting in Afghanistan to protect its citizens, but should help in implementing justice for the Afghan people; justice that they so desperately seek and deserve.

I work at Press TV because it broadcasts the truth about what is happening in the world.

Says Roshan Muhammed Salih, Press TV’s head of news in London. A regular writer for the Iranian propaganda channel, he wrote in today’s Guardian’s Comment is Free defending what many of us would not even begin to comprehend defending: why he actually enjoys working for his Islamist – totalitarian – human rights abusing – homosexual executing – employer. Really.

He says:

The channel is willing to give a platform to legitimate actors whom the western media will not touch, such as Hamas and Hezbollah, while at the same time reporting what the authorities are saying.

So terrorist organisations that condone and encourage suicide bombings, the killing of innocent civilians (Jewish children are legitimate targets according to Hamas), propagate anti-Semitic filth, kill and maim political opponents, and are constructed and run by Islamist fascists are legitimate?

He does not stop there:

It is simply not fair to characterise Press TV as a mouthpiece for the Iranian government. It is true that we are state-funded (like the BBC World Service) but that does not mean we slavishly follow the Tehran line.

Salih’s right – he does not forcibly have to follow Tehran’s line. Otherwise why would he work there, right? Instead, he willingly and lovingly follows the Tehran line:

I believe it [the Islamic Republic of Iran] is a fundamentally decent government run by a fundamentally decent man [Ahmadinejad is a homophobe, holocaust ‘fact correcting’, Israel wiping - genocidist wanabe]. The Iranian government supports Islam [Islamism] and resistance movements [Hezbollah and Hamas] in the Islamic world and opposes western interference in the region [he would rather Saddam remain his neighbor?]. It also doesn’t go around invading sovereign nations, killing their people and occupying their countries [they get their puppet terrorist groups to do the dirty work]…

Moreover, many feel that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is a corruption-free man of the people who speaks truth to power [he supposedly had more than 100% of votes in some provinces - he is accused of rigging the recent elections]. They like the fact that he looks un-presidential and that he spends most of his time with the poor and powerless…

I do not agree, however, with everything the Iranian government does. For example, I support the right to peaceful protest and the right of journalists to report freely.

So why does Salih not criticise in this article the Ahmadinejad government and the regime when they imprison journalists and aid workers, and kill protesters?

But wait! The Iranian government has reasons for doing what it does:

What everyone must understand is that Iran is a country under threat and countries under threat restrict freedoms. Western-sponsored wars, economic sanctions and destabilisation programmes have taken their toll. Iran’s institutions have not been allowed to develop in the same way that Britain’s have, so it is unfair to judge it by the same yardstick when we talk about freedom. That said, Iran remains a stable, peaceful country in a region of chaos and turmoil. Its people have more liberties than perhaps any other country in the Middle East and it has a government that rules with the consent of the majority. It is heading in the right direction.

Iran may be more democratic than other Middle Eastern countries in terms of elections. But can someone who completely opposes the Islamic Republic of Iran and what that means, stand for election? Of course not! We will judge and compare the Iranian regime by the same yardstick when we talk about freedom because we live in the 21st century, where every country and its rulers are subject to international human rights standards. And no – Iran does not have more liberties than any other Middle Eastern country – governments in that region have varying degrees of providing certain liberties for its citizens whilst denying others.

Salih also adds:

We are also regulated by Ofcom, which means we must stick to strict broadcasting regulations regarding balance, due impartiality and objectivity.

Does Salih honestly think Press TV is any where near the standards of other broadcasters like the BBC? Press TV is light years away. Impartial, objective and true? Have a look at Press TV’s website and its coverage of Iran’s post election unrest. Press TV conveniently chose to ‘objectively’ portray the post-election protests and violent deaths as a conspiracy by Western powers in interfering in the internal affairs of Iran – the Tehran line.

Salih ends with:

And Press TV is a young channel with a minuscule budget… So if the anti-Iran brigade really want the country and its institutions (such as Press TV) to reform, they should call for an end to economic sanctions, military threats and destabilisation programs. Above all, they need to engage with us.

Press TV is not a mouthpiece for the Iranian government. Oh wait it is – it is one of the country’s ‘institutions’, of which all are controlled by this nasty so-called ‘Islamic’ regime.

The only ‘engaging’ we will do with Press TV is to prove what a joke it is. At least Salih is honest enough to admit where his sympathies and admiration truly lies. I guess Salih’s position is not so surprising after all.

For those unfamiliar, HT is a revolutionary Islamist party that aims to overthrow governments ‘peacefully’ in order to establish an Islamic state. It operates freely in most countries in the West, but banned by governments in the Middle East and Pakistan.

HT members in Pakistan have recently urged the Chief Justice of Lahore’s High Court to have an early hearing of its 2005 petition challenging the ban placed on the party. According to the Pakistani based news source, The News, a local HT spokesman Imran Ahmed said:

The ban on our organisation was clamped by the Musharraf regime without any legal ground as we are peaceful people and strictly believe in peaceful struggle to achieve any objective whatsoever. [My emphasis]

HT members in Pakistan have admitted that it has a policy of trying to recruit military officers there to wage a so-called ‘bloodless coup’. One intellectually dim member from Britain- Tayyib Muqeem [see here and here for evidence] said that HT wants to overthrow the current government in Pakistan in order to use the country as a base to spread and subject other ‘un-Islamic’ countries to Sharia law – if necessary ‘by force’. Waging bloody wars would be part of the party’s foreign policy. He also added that HT, aka the ‘Liberation Party’, would force “every woman … to cover up”, and legalise stoning to death for adultery and chopping hands for thievery in HT’s Islamic state.

The News also reported Imran Ahmed to have said:

The ban was unlawful and unjust because we abhor violence and have nothing to do with the violent acts of the Taliban or other extremist groups.

If HT supposedly abhor violence, then why do we never here them denounce the violent acts of the Taliban? Because they are hypocrites who apply double standards. Instead of condemning the Taliban for its disgusting human rights abuses, HT both in Pakistan and in the UK consistently condemn the Pakistani government in its fight against the Taliban. [See my previous blog about this here; Sunny’s blog from Pickled Politics here]

The fact that HT members are plotting to overthrow the current Pakistani government by using the military to wage a supposedly ‘peaceful coup’ amounts to treason. In a country where the fight against violent extremism is paramount, keeping HT banned would at least keep this nuisance organisation from gaining any influence.

Bosnian families laid to rest the remains of 534 newly identified victims. The US ambassador to the country said in the latest burial ceremony: “The world failed to act, failed to protect the innocent of Srebrenica.”

That’s why we must remember and never forget.

God willing, the nuclear weapons will not fall into the hands of the Americans and the mujahideen would take them and use them against the Americans

Oh no…

Interviewed by Al-Jazeera, Abu al-Yazid also commented on AQ’s future strategy:

The strategy of the … organisation in the coming period is the same as in the previous period: to hit the head of the snake, the head of tyranny — the United States.

That can be achieved through continued work on the open fronts and also by opening new fronts in a manner that achieves the interests of Islam and Muslims and by increasing military operations that drain the enemy financially.

i.e. to revive AQ’s unit in the Middle East by naming Abu Basir al-Wahayshi as the new leader to campaign AQ’s cause in Saudi Arabia.

Good luck Saudi.

Abu al-Yazid further added AQ would only ever accept a 10 year truce where the US would have to agree to stop backing Israel and pro-Western governments in Muslim majority countries as well as to withdrawing its troops from those countries.

Never.

Islam4UK is an odious organisation headed by Anjem Choudary, the new head of the-should-be-banned-extremist-outfit al-Muhajiroun. Islam4UK’s followers – who have been dubiously re-named as the Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jama’aah (ASWJ), lit. meaning ‘Adherents to the Sunnah and Community’ (a vague term) – propagated ‘the Deen [religion] of al-Islam to the local community’ in Tooting, and provided an ‘illuminating foretaste of how Britain would transform under the Shari’ah [Law].’

Don’t be fooled. These aren’t just a bunch of guys literally trying to follow in the footsteps of Islam’s Prophet Mohammed’s example (Sunnah), but manipulate the term to create front organisations and generally act as thugs while doing their so-called ‘dawah’ (more like distorting the Prophet’s example) work.

For example, ASWJ is an organisation that was created in November 2005 by former leading members of ‘al-Macaroon’ – including Abu Izzadeen and Simon Keeler who have been convicted for terrorism related offences. ASWJ was created after al-Muhajiroun disbanded (now re-launched) in 2004 and its two successor organisations, Saved Sect and al-Ghuarabaa, were banned in July 2006 for glorifying terrorism. Organisers and followers of ASWJ are bum chums with Choudary – only because they are the same group of ‘pals’ that operates under different pseudonyms.

This is what Islam4UK’s website also said about the road show in Tooting:

Topics spoken about included: the purpose of life; the inevitability of death, hell-fire, paradise and the Day of Judgement; the beauty of the Islamic Shari’ah. The ills of democracy, freedom and man-made law in the UK were also voiced, vividly encouraging the community to reprehend the British law & order, in particular Gordon Brown.

Alhamdulillah (all praise is to Allah alone), by His guidance, 5 members of the public reverted (converted) to Islam and embraced the Shari’ah wholeheartedly.

Oh no. This chilling video [see non-Muslim embraces Islam #1] shows the venom spouting media craving Anjem Choudary ‘reverting’ a 10 year old boy to Islam.

Also watch the video at the bottom of this webpage. These were the very same individuals who were present in the Douglas Murray / Anjem Choudary debate that never happened on 17 June 2009 in Conway House, London. They wanted to impose gender segregation upon the whole audience, and decided to riot like children after they didn’t have their way.

It is interesting to note that the Islam4UK thugs and their sidekicks operated right under the nose of Sadiq Khan – Tooting’s MP, and preventing extremism ‘expert’ who was once ‘Community Cohesion’ minister.

UEL Islamic Society Annual Dinner advert

East London Islamic Societies are at it again. University of East London Islamic Society (UEL ISoc) is hosting its annual dinner event today on UEL premises hosting ‘Sheikh’ Abu Usama Adh Dhahabee.

Abu Usama, an African American convert, advocates holy war (jihad) in an Islamic state; preaches hatred against non-Muslims; that apostasy and homosexuality is punishable by death; and women are inferior to men. He also spoke at two Queen Mary Islamic Society events in March and November 2008.

You may remember Dhahabee from Channel Four Dispatches’ documentary Undercover Mosque (2007) [See here for transcript]. His statements include:

“Verily Allah is going to bring a group of people that he loves and they love him. These people will be soft and kind to the believers, and they will be rough and tough against the kuffaar [derogatory term for non-Muslim]. They will fight in the cause of Allah. I encourage all of you to be amongst them, to begin to cultivate ourselves for the time that is fastly approaching where the tables are going to turn, and the Muslims are going to be in a position of being uppermost in strength, and when that happens people won’t get killed, unjustly.”
“We ask Allah to bring about the means and the ways in which the Muslims will get the power and the honour of repelling the oppression of the kuffaar, where we can go out and perform the jihad. We ask Allah to bring that time so we can be participants in that.”
Non-Muslims:

“No one loves the kuffaar [non-Muslims]. No one loves the kuffaar! … […] Whether these kuffaar are from the UK, or from the US … We love the people of Islam and we hate the people of the kufr [non-Muslims]. We hate the kuffaars.”
Apostasy:
“Whoever changes his religion from al-Islam to anything else kill him in the Islamic State.”
Homosexuals:
“Do you practise homosexuality with men? Take that homosexual man and throw him off the mountain.”
Women:
“Allah has created the woman, even if she gets a Phd, deficient. Her intellect is incomplete. Deficient. She may be suffering from hormones that will make her emotional. It takes two witnesses of a woman to equal one witness of the man.”

Following the documentary’s broadcast Abu Usama was interviewed by Channel 4 news where he refused to reject these statements.

UEL ISoc initially invited Dhahabee, with Hittin Institute’s Uthman Lateef, to speak at their Annual Dinner that was due to take place on 28 April 2009.
The Centre for Social Cohesion (CSC), my organisation, corresponded with University staff, informing them of the April event. The event was promptly cancelled by UEL. This is the letter I sent on 14 April 2009:

Dear Sir/Madam,
This letter is in regard to a planned 28 April 2009 University of East London Islamic Society (ISoc) annual dinner event, featuring two guest speakers: Abu Usama adh Dhahabee and Uthman Lateef, aka Abu Mujahid.
[Information on Dhahabee as noted above]
“Lateef is a preacher from the Hittin Institute, an organisation whose work reflects the separatist mindset of Hizb ut-Tahrir, a radical Islamist group. Hizb ut-Tahrir was banned by the National Union of Students in 2004.
Addressing an audience at a Queen Mary ISoc event (12 December 2007), Lateef was recorded promoting homophobia:

“We don’t accept homosexuality … we hate it because Allah hates it”
We are very concerned that these individuals will have a negative effect on the young and impressionable audience who will be given a very confused and extreme interpretation of the Islamic faith.
[…]

Uthman Lateef, the lesser of the two evils, was then supposedly banned from speaking. A UEL staff member rather rudely corresponded with me by email, saying that the event was banned, the Secretary and Registrar will decide on speakers for future events by the ISoc to do an event will be considered then, and that speakers who are banned by the NUS are banned by ‘default’ at UEL. The staff member also mentioned that permission to enter campus is required for every non-staff/student member.

This is interesting, as it shows the inept nature of UEL staff, who clearly have no grasp of what to actually do. They seemed to have banned Uthman Lateef, supposedly because the NUS have. It appeared they took no position on Dhahabee.

At the time UEL told me they would rather not have any publicity, perhaps this was because jihadist sympathiser, Anwar al-Awlaki was due to speak at City University Islamic Society’s Annual Dinner earlier that month. His speech was cancelled after press took an interest in Awlaki – with the help of a CSC press release.

When I saw that UEL ISoc decided to have an Annual Dinner with Dhahabee, I contacted UEL staff again, including the Student’s Union office, and the Secretary/Registrar office. After repeated correspondence, speaking to a number of individuals, I finally got a response from the secretary of the Secretary and Registrar – at the moment, the state of affairs is that the Registrar is in talks with the Student’s Union. They said this yesterday afternoon and this morning. Dhahabee is speaking TODAY, at 4.30pm!

In my last correspondence, after the telephone conversation this morning, I sent UEL staff members this email:

Dear XXX,
I have been in contact with your secretary, XXX, who informed me yesterday afternoon and today morning that UEL and the Student’s Union have not come to a decision yet on Abu Usama adh Dhahabee, invited to speak at a UEL Islamic Society event today (See http://uel-isoc.com/ ) at 4.30 to 9pm at West Building Main Lecture Theatre, Dockland Campus, University Way.

I would like to remind UEL on the government’s university guidance for preventing violent extremism on campus states that unacceptable extremism on UK campuses includes “incitement of social, racial or religious hatred.” The guidance warns that external speakers may “seek to exploit feelings of alienation and sometimes offer “religious” justifications for extreme actions.” Such speakers, it continued “can be forceful, persuasive and eloquent, and often have a scholarly background, the latter fact being emphasised in order to give them greater credibility in the eyes of students.”

The whole document can be found here.

I have also informed the press about this event and they are interested in attending.

[…]

I have also just spoken to the press office – who, as soon as I mentioned ‘press’ in my email [Jerome Taylor of the Independent just blogged on this after I informed him], have decided to take an interest. They were more worried about which members of the press are attending than what Dhahabee has said in the past. I mentioned there is a problem if hate preachers such as Dhahabee come and address students, and masqarade as ‘Sheikhs’. To which they responded with ‘that’s your position’. I replied that this should be the university’s position, to which they said it was not for me to decide what their position is. So will UEL actually take a position on a man who said “…Take that homosexual man and throw him off the mountain”? How many positions are there on homophobic murder? This is a disgrace.

My point is this: The Islamic Society must not be inviting speakers who are bigoted and should not legitimise them as ‘Sheikhs’. Inviting hate preachers like Dhahabee should not be the norm – students, Muslims and non-Muslims, cannot be abused into thinking that ‘Sheikh’s’ such as Dhahabee are the best to understand matters of faith. The guy is intolerant. Though freedom of speech must be held at university campuses, this should not be abused by the likes of Dhahabee when it comes to those who preach religious intolerance, hatred and misogyny.

I really hope UEL staff stop Dhahabee from speaking based on the above grounds – UEL said they will get back to me with any updates – so let’s hope they come to their senses.

UPDATE:

UEL staff responded at 17:06 – 35 minutes after the UEL ISoc event with Dhahabee took off. This is what they said in their email:

Dear XXX
Sorry for this belated response.

We are aware that there has been some controversy surrounding this speaker and remarks attributed to him in a recent Channel 4 documentary. We have been in consultation with our Students’ Union about this event, and have been advised that the speakers are not on any official or NUS ‘blacklist’. As this is a private event organised by a student society, we are satisfied that there is no risk of public disturbance. UEL a multicultural university with a strong record on equality and diversity. The speakers have been advised that we do not tolerate homophobia or other offensive views, and they in turn have assured the Islamic Society they will respect this policy.

Kind regards,

XXX

Anjem Choudary vs Douglas Murray

Global Issues Society will be hosting a debate between Anjem Choudary, who will argue that Sharia law should take precedence because it is “divine”, and Douglas Murray (Centre for Social Cohesion, Director), who will argue that British law supercedes. The debate will take place on the 17th of June 2009 (click on the poster image for venue details and timing).

This will be the first time that Anjem Choudary will be speaking as the new UK head of al-Muhajiroun. Exiled hate preacher Omar Bakri Mohammed set up this foul, fringe and extreme Islamist group in 1996 and was it previous leader. The group disbanded in November 2004 before the government could ban it. Now they have re-launched, and unfortunately, the group is still legal.

Please do come to this event and support the motion against Choudary, and let’s challenge him and his followers.

Nicky – initially arrested for inciting racial hatred – and his father, Ian Davison, were arrested on the 6 June 2009 under the Terrorism Act 2000, on suspicion for being part of a global network of white supremacist terrorists, plotting to attack ethnic minorities by using the deadly substance ricin. A tiny grain of ricin is enough to kill someone if they came into direct contact with the substance. Police found in the men’s home a jam jar that contained the poison, and is believed to have been kept in a kitchen cupboard for two years.

In uncovering the white supremacist plot, Durham’s assistant chief constable Mike Barton rightly stated “This shows that the terrorist threat in the UK is real and present.”

The recent arrests closely resembles the foiled UK terror plot, where Kamel Bourgass, an Algerian al-Qaeda operative, was convicted in April 2005 for planning a biological terror attack in the UK using ricin. He has been jailed for 17 years for conspiracy to cause a ‘public nuisance’ with the plot and life for murdering a police officer.

Not only do we have Islamist terrorists wanting to kill indiscriminately in the name of religion, but white supremacists wanting to imitate Islamist terror tactics to kill non-whites.

The question: Is Europe’s future Christian?

[My piece was originally posted in Guardian's Comment is Free: Belief]

The influx of people from a variety of cultures to Europe has seen Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists and others practicing their faith as they see fit. Coupled with these relatively new religious practices there is an increasing sense of a lack of faith amongst Christians.

Before the 17th century, Christian religious wars tore Europe apart. Partly, this bitter history has meant that Europe’s post-Westphalian political order has been based on secular and liberal visions for the organisation of society, intended to eradicate the prospect of religious conflicts. Disagreements between peoples of different faiths and belief systems are no longer defined and debated in theological terms, but on the democratic plane.

Defining Europe’s future as Christian amounts to linking European identity to a particular religious conviction. Being a Christian, Jew, Muslim, atheist or whatever else should not matter. Christian fundamentalists or Islamic extremists wanting to turn Europe into a predominantly Christian or Muslim continent are seeking to overturn Europe’s political traditions. Though allowed to express such views, these extremists should expect criticism without fear of repercussions from those who do not want to see a particular religious belief imposed upon society. To do so in such a diverse continent would be to undermine the evolving principles of the Enlightenment and its liberal values, which must be protected.

Nor should religion be the sole determining factor in guiding contemporary morals. No doubt many see their religion as a guide to their moral conduct, but such guidelines must remain applicable only to the individual if they so choose. Since Europe is now composed of individuals of different faiths and beliefs, only universal ethical standards that are applicable and agreed upon by all can be justified.

Does this leave any form of Christian expression in the future of Europe? All societies have their own heritage based partly on religious symbolism and cultural practices, and it is important to protect these. Europe has a rich Christian history, and the legacy of this religious tradition must be preserved. Christian religious festivities and the unique architecture of different types of churches and cathedrals are iconic reminders of Europe’s Christian heritage. To maintain this does no one any harm.

If Christianity as a religion is to play any role in the future of Europe it should remain in the sphere of the individual, because Europe’s political tradition has granted individuals the right to practice and believe without compulsion. I can practice my faith, Islam, however I deem fit – I can celebrate Eid with family and Diwali, Hanukkah, Christmas or Easter with friends. There is absolutely nothing wrong with people displaying their faith by wearing a cross, hijab or turban. This does not make the public domain religious, but uses public life to express varying forms of religiosity.

Secularism is not an alternative to religion, but necessary for religious freedom. Maintaining Europe’s secular tradition is vital for the free expression of diverse forms of faith.