Ghaffar Hussein attempts to unravel this quandary:

The politically active classes today, led by the liberal-left, take their shopping trolleys and enter the supermarket of political causes. The only causes that attract their attention from the shelves are those in which western governments are complicit or perceived to be complicit.

How else do you explain Palestine becoming a cause de celebre amongst young politically active students who couldn’t even point to Darfur or Kurdistan on a map? How else do you explain anti-globalisation protestors solely focusing on western targets whilst ignoring the excesses and state supported abuses of Chinese and Russian corporations?

Familiarity breeds contempt and political activism today is not so much about values but about rebellion against the existing political order within which you live and are bitter and resentful towards.

It is parochial, isolationist and solipsistic. In standing up for select international causes, political activists are in fact acting like the over-privileged spoilt child who despises his/her parents and loses all sense of perspective.

The dark cloak of moral relativism and consumer feel-good activism has replaced the principle driven activism of yesteryear and left Iranian, Kurdish, Syrian, Darfurian and Zimbabwean activists feeling baffled and lonely.

Nick Cohen, in his excellent book ‘What’s Left’, encapsulates this sorry state of affairs by asserting “We no longer believe in internationalism and fraternity. Sticking by your comrades is as absurd a notion as staying loyal to Microsoft when Apple has a better product. Join us, and revel in the righteousness of your solipsistic anger”.

So in answer to the question posed to me, it is going to be very difficult to make Iran a popular cause. The Iranian regime’s position is further strengthened by the fact that it is virulently anti-western and therefore, in the minds of many western activists, worthy of sympathy.

The regime in Iran knows this all too well and plays the anti-west card every time it feels under threat from pro-democracy activists. It even has an English language mouth piece in Press TV which spouts hopelessly biased political propaganda and is fronted by disillusioned leftists such as George Galloway and Yvonne Ridley who didn’t even hesitate to support al-Qaeda in Iraq simply because it was anti-US.

Creating support for Iranian pro-democracy activists in the west is going to be tough because it requires, as a pre-requisite, a cultural revolution that hasn’t even it started yet. However, the stakes are too high and we can’t ignore the plight of suffering peoples, whether the west is complicit or not.

the latest blethering from the egregious dr miller is that the “conservative thinktanks” policy exchange and the centre for social cohesion are soft-pedalling the racism and violence of groups like the bnp and edl because it “might deflect attention” from islamism – defined by him as:

“the catch-all term for politically active muslims”

now i carry no particular brief for either of the thinktanks he mentions, but this is breathtakingly brazen doublespeak: come on, dr miller – everyone knows what is meant by the term “islamist”. are the muslim brotherhood, jamaat-i-islami, tablighi jamaat islamists? of course they bloody are! are the quilliam foundation, of british muslims for secular democracy “islamists”? are the muslims who work for csc or policy exchange, “islamists”? or, for that matter, the muslim authors at the spittoon? of course not. there is no reason muslims shouldn’t be politically active – either as muslims, or as british citizens, but there’s plenty of reason to be rude about people who are pushing extremist, clerical fascist, racist and homophobic agendas – unless you’re a doctrinaire leftie, that is.

it gets worse – dr miller now appears to be attempting to suggest that by attacks on islamists bolster islamophobia, which ultimately results in things like the breivik atrocity in norway. this is an outrageous caricature – the sort of thing we’d normally expect to see coming out of exeter, not strathclyde! as any regular reader will know, we are not exactly fans of the bnp or the edl.

on the other hand, as we know very well here at the spittoon, “spinwatch” is not exactly careful with its analysis:

http://www.spittoon.org/archives/9428

perhaps we should not be surprised that dr miller can’t tell the difference between islamists and liberals; it seems to be a bit of a theme on the left these days.

the state of "yiddishkeit" yesterday

anyway, it appears to be (you can download it from here) from one of the increasingly odd sub-groups of the breslover sect of hasidim, who you may have seen in the recent tv documentary partying at their annual jamboree at the sect founder’s tomb in the town of uman in the ukraine. they are regarded as somewhat odd even by other hasidim (in a kind of sufi high-on-G!D hippy kind of way) but they are rather obsessed with the kabbalistic aspects of correct sexual activity, the piece itself being extremely revealing of the attitudes that filter through in much of the discourse from the haredi world, particularly the hasidic bits, so i thought i’d share it, with some translation and commentary:

1. a “leshem yichud” is a kabbalistic formula meant to be recited before an action in order to concentrate the proper intention and mindfulness.
2. the “sita aher”, normally called the “sitra ahra”, is a kabbalistic term for, not to put too fine a point on it, the “dark side of the Force”.
3. “klipot” is a term referring to the “shells” that enclose the “sparks of holiness that were trapped in the lower worlds (including ours) during the cosmic catastrophe of the creation of evil in lurianic kabbalah.
4. “pogem enayim” means “defiler of one’s eyes” – a transgression of a Torah commandment; according to most interpretations, gazing at immodestly dressed women will constitute this transgression – haredi interpretations of “immodestly dressed” covers pretty much anything that doesn’t cover hair, elbows, knees, neckline or reveals the curves of the (female, of course) body.
5. a “lav doraysa” is a negative prohibition (thou shalt not) directly commanded in the Torah.
6. “lo sasuro achary levavchem vachari anachem” is a hasidishe transliteration of the hebrew phrase which refers to the commandment which is found in the third paragraph of the “shema”, numbers 15:37-41, to not “stray after your hearts”, in other words, follow impulses which might lead to idolatrous behavour.
7. “heshumer mkal dvar ra” is, again, a hasidishe transliteration of the hebrew phrase which refers to the commandment which is found deuteronomy 23:10, to “guard the camp when you go out against your enemies”, usually understood as “watch your back”, but easily reinterpreted to signify the protection of one’s home from evil influences; you will note the implicit attitude to the outside world.
8. a “deraysa” is a Torah commandment. to be “over a deraysa” (again, hasidishe transliteration, inconsistently done) one means to transgress the Torah commandment.
9. “poskim” are halakhic decisors, some of the important ones of whom are mentioned here; of course, it is by no means clear that the *way* in which these guys mean it is the same as the way in which these poskim mean it, certainly their decisions do refer explicitly to watching a film, but rather to other situations. however, if you want to take it that way, this is where you’d get the precedent from. of course, you can see “immodest” women (as these guys think of it) anywhere you like these days, you don’t need to be watching a film.
10. ” to be over on “Vehyisem Kedoshim” and “Kidoshim Tihyo”” means to transgress the Torah commandments to imitate G!D by being “holy” – leviticus 11:45 / 19:1-2 – which is taken by these guys to refer to refraining from illicit sexual acts, although ramban – nachmanides – has a big argument with rashi on this precise point, so clearly this isn’t as clear as it is made out to be.
11. “reshaim” – evil people; presumably this means the baddies.
12. “pogem habris” means “defiler of the covenant”, which is generally understood to be the misuse of the bit of you that the brit affects – in breslover thought i believe this is generally understood to be a euphemism for [male] masturbation, in any case they don’t half go on about it.
13. “see keri while i am asleep” – i.e. have sexual dreams.
14. “shmoneh esreis” – this refers to the “amidah”, the “18 benedictions” or standing prayer, which is of supreme importance in jewish prayer and is said three times daily; they’re worried that your mind will drift off during it.
15. “hiruray znus with my tefillin on” – a hasidishe transliteration of the hebrew phrase which can be translated as “thoughts of whoredom”, in other words, the contemplation of illicit sexual acts while wearing phylacteries during morning prayers, which they suppose will be much more likely; the preservation of proper mindfulness while wearing tefillin is of great importance.
16. “kfirot” – denial of the truth of Torah.
17. “tzadikim” – sages.
18. “holy Shemot” – the various Divine Names, the contemplation and manipulation of which are the practical structures on which many kabbalistic techniques are founded.
19. “azilut, briah, yitzirah and asiyah” – the kabbalistic names of the “four worlds”.
20. “nefesh, ruch, neshamah” – one schema describing the structure of the human soul.
21. “avodas haShem” – the service of G!D, which should of course be one’s primary consideration. the thought that watching a film might actually assist in this, or teach moral lessons, does not, of course, occur.
22. “moshiach” – the messiah.
23. “kedusha” – holiness.
24. “emunah” – belief / trust.
25. “chitzinim” – literally, “externalities”, which, kabbalistically speaking are elements of Creation that “act as a spiritual barrier” between humans and G!D, which are there effectively play “devil’s advocate” and be overcome in order to choose the way of Torah and commandments and closeness to G!D of our own free will.
26. “do teshuvah” – repent.
27. “find my zivug” – to locate and marry one’s destined wife.
28. “if i am married then i am willing to have my children considered semi mamzarim since i will not be able to control my thoughts.” – this, in my view is the most serious, as the prohibitions and disabilities associated with mamzerut (the offspring of Torah-prohibited intercourse such as an incestuous or adulterous liaison) are incredibly unpleasant, restrictive and persistent. this is pretty much tantamount to saying that they wouldn’t be able to get married (quite a penalty in the haredi world) because of your sins. to call this “overstated” barely covers it; there is no such halakhic status of being a “semi-mamzer”; the avoidance of potential mamzerut being a fundamental concern. raising it as a real possibility is, in my view, an outrageous piece of scaremongering based on the falsification of halakhah; it’s basically making up a new category of prohibition which can’t possibly be justified in intent, let alone determined in practice or policed; if having “impure thoughts” makes your kids “semi-mamzerim”, then nobody could possibly consider themselves free of these.

all in all, this would have been funny and mordant as a piece of swiftian satire – as a serious piece of moral exhortation, it is arrant nonsense and appallingly manipulative. if i find out who has been leaving this stuff lying around, i will have words.

i have for some time been aware of the powerful analytical frameworks for bio-psycho-social systems developed by the american psychologist dr clare graves and systematised for practical application by don beck and chris cowan in the excellent book “spiral dynamics” (i’m not affiliated with anyone concerned, incidentally). at the risk of sounding like somewhat of a “fanboy”, as i believe it is called on teh interwebs, i am convinced it constitutes an important piece of intellectual real estate for the understanding of complex socio-political systems, particularly in behavioural terms.

you can read more about the basics of spiral dynamics here and here - and i strongly encourage you to do so, but perhaps the easiest way to demonstrate its unique way of enabling insight into human nature is by a review of the various behaviours that have been exhibited during the riots. in the table below you will see a number of different types of responses and the messages associated with them, which you will have seen reflected by the proponents of these value systems in the various media channels. the vast majority of these types of response can present in either healthy or unhealthy forms – thus “C-P” (“red”) behaviours and messages were used both destructively (wanton destruction) and constructively (arresting looters) – in both cases, the behaviour was the demonstration of dominance and power, with corresponding public messages (a cartmanesque “RESPECT MY AUTHORITAAH!”) sent to the media.

you’ll see that whilst most of the operational trouble has functioned at C-P/red systems level, most of the discussion and analysis has been conducted by politicians and the media at blue (mostly “societal breakdown”, good-and-evil) orange (intellectual, opportunistic and tactical) and green (communitarian, progressive and inclusive) levels – and if the reactions are to be systematic, they will have to be a combination of green, blue and orange solutions appropriate to the situation, just as identifying looters using website photos (orange), communally organised clean-up squads (green) and attempts to strengthen traditional family structures (blue) have already been used. i note that ed miliband (who i usually have little time for) has supposedly come out against knee-jerk reactions and i think he’s correct in this at least; david cameron will not get very far if all his responses are couched in “blue” terms to appeal to the “respect for society must be restored” brigade and executed in “orange” technocratic action plans by community workers who are uncomfortable with anything which doesn’t take account of “green” inclusion. if he is serious about the “big society”, he will need to understand that the big society needs *all* these things, it is not a blue, orange or green concept, just as it needs “red” defences and alternative “purple” clan and kin affiliations than those of gang, patois and skin colour – and that includes the purple affiliations of the non-rioters, too! the “big society” could be second-order policy thinking and leadership, but that needs a shift in both our understanding of the situation and the strategies we use to manage it.

in all these cases i would say: if you want to find a constructive, insightful way of discussing the value systems that led to the events of the last couple of weeks, you would do worse than to look at how spiral dynamics sheds light on the tensions, relationships, structures and messages involved.

all comment and discussion welcome.

with this in mind, i thought it was worth setting out a few of the principles that i think are fairly basic to pursuing both the more aggressive and the more peace-loving sides without compromising the integrity of either. i believe we can both aspire to a more peaceful future at the same time as defending ourselves against those who threaten our society; i think these might be the things that we hold in common and the things which we believe are not held in common by those we oppose:

1. the belief that muslims have the potential to integrate into british (and other western) society as productively as jews have.
2. the belief that eventually mainstream islam will decisively reject the path of taking practical steps to take over the world and relegate this safely to the realm of the eschatological – at present the islamist movement still actually thinks it can win over this debate.
3. the belief that peaceful coexistence is possible even in the middleeast, given goodwill and a real desire to find a workable solution.
4. the acceptance that, islamism aside, there are a lot of people out there who have an unreasonable prejudice against any and all muslims, not just the fundamentalist sort – and that if we can only get the mainstream communities committed to a pluralistic, polycultural modern world rather than a salafist 7th century cloud-cuckoo-land, a commitment to standing shoulder-to-shoulder with muslims in fighting those islamophobes for their rights to be a part of that future.
5. the acceptance that 1, 3 and 4 also have ethnic dimensions and that we have nothing against arabs, persians, turks, pakistanis, bangladeshis etc qua arabs, persians, turks, pakistanis and bangladeshis etc.

if these can be accepted, without significant reservation, then we can begin to accept and deal with the following challenges that we believe to be real:

• a. that there are some muslims, whether individuals, groups, sects, parties or tendencies, that have the downfall of our society in mind and consequently hold what we consider to be unacceptable points of view – let’s say 13%, for argument’s sake; not even a particularly sizeable minority in relative terms, but in absolute terms, given the number of muslims there actually are, enough to cause problems for both their own communities and wider society.
• b. that some of these groups are busily trying to co-opt and own all the islamic community structures that presently exist, as well as present their narrative as that of “all” muslims.
• c. that these people have, over the years, received large amounts of funding and inspiration (with strings attached) from saudi and other insalubrious middle eastern places, as well as from credulous, starry-eyed orientalists in the guardianista / multiculti camp – without strings attached.
• d. that these people are busily engaged in not only political entryism a la tower hamlets, but in hoodwinking well-meaning liberals into acting as figleaves for their disingenuous political and religious programme and thereby bolstering their own credibility.
• e. that if you take a look into the history of many of these socalled respectable “community leaders”, you don’t have to look very hard before you start finding the bloody trail of the bangladeshi genocide as well as the knuckle-prints of the global islamist movements like the ikhwaan and hizb ut-tahrir, let alone all the dodgy things that get said in arabic, farsi, urdu and so on compared to what gets said in english for the benefit of the western media.

if one can accept all of these things, perhaps dialogue can get beyond the ceremonial and cynical to the meaningful and productive. i myself have to do some serious thinking about where i stand on “platform-sharing” issues in particular. on one hand, i try and follow mandela’s excellent principle of “talking to anyone that will talk to me”, but on the other, my deep distrust of certain people and groups, not to mention 16 years of experience, have led me to conclude that there are some people that it is not worth engaging with, like, say, the al-muhajigoonies of this world, who deserve nothing but merciless lampooning in the most liberal of terms (of late the ahmadis have been added to this list – so i saw with displeasure this morning an advert for them on the side of a bus). similarly, i have to consider the rabin principle – that it is one’s enemies that one makes peace with, not one’s friends and that platforms for dialogue will sooner or later have to address the points that i raise above – but you have to suspend certain questions until trust has been established; you can’t jump straight into a conversation about israel, for instance.

i would be most interested in whether people think i have the basis of the argument down correctly. alternatively, you can all call me an islamophobic racist or something.

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

Press Release: British Muslims for Israel condemns Jerusalem Bomb Plot

British Muslims for Israel condemns the terrorist attack in Jerusalem today. Such acts of indiscriminate violence are never justified, hurt the cause of Palestinians and harden public opinion in Israel.

Hasan Afzal, a spokesperson for British Muslims for Israel says “Today’s attacks seem to be of a piece with the extreme violence perpetrated against Israelis in the last few weeks. First we had the Itamar massacre, then a barrage of rocket attacks from Palestine into Israel and now the attack in Jerusalem. These attacks hurt all sides, and help no one.”

Afzal added “Recent events have shown that groups such as Hamas and the Al-Aqsa Martyrs’ Brigade are determined to kill indiscriminately and use ordinary Palestinians as hostages to their cause. We urge all British Muslims to condemn these senseless attacks which block any attempts for peace and ruin the lives of both Israelis and Palestinians”.

For further information, please call (+44) 7590 67 66 91 or email BritishMuslimsForIsrael@gmail.com

[ENDS]

Notes to editors:

1.       British Muslims for Israel is a Muslim pro-Israel advocacy group based in the United Kingdom founded in 2011.

2.       British Muslims for Israel is an independent, grassroots initiative.

There is much to be alarmed about with the political background of the pro-Islamist pressure group, ENGAGE

• There is a real danger that ENGAGE will seek to prevent non or anti-Islamist Muslims from participating in the APPG.
• It could also use the APPG as a platform to attack not those who hate Muslims but those who are critical of Islamist political parties.
• Such developments would undermine the potentially important findings and recommendations of the APPG.
• In fact, the role of ENGAGE could make the APPG’s project backfire in a spectacular fashion: it could be painted in hostile press coverage as yet another example of politicians failing to spot extremism or even knowingly promoting divisive people and messages.

If you want to see an independent, credible and effective APPG on Islamophobia and not one that is deligitimised by the presence of an Islamist advocacy group and its well-documented support for sectarianism, anti-semitism and extremist political networks, then you can do your bit by calling and writing to your MP now and urging him/her to join the APPG and support the work of ENGAGE in documenting real anti-Muslim bigotry and hate crimes that affect ordinary Muslims without furthering the cause of Islamism and the personal and political ambitions of a coterie of well-organised, well-funded Muslim extremists. Don’t delay this and urge your friends to also get in touch with their own MPs.

You can find and write to your Member of Parliament, your Member of the European Parliament and your local councillors through the links provided below:

WriteToThem

Find Your MP

They Work For You

In April 2002 Asim joined the Welsh Assembly Government as a race and religion advisor. He then went on to Head the Equalities unit before taking the lead for the Community Cohesion Strategy.  In 2007 Asim became the Prevent Coordinator for the Welsh Assembly Government. In this capacity he was responsible for helping to fund an organisation called the ‘Muslim Council of Wales’ (of which he was also a member).  This organisation is believed to have received funding commitments to the tune of £255,000 despite it having cooperated with Islamist groups such as Hizb-ut-Tahrir.  To date the money given to the Muslim Council of Wales has not resulted in any useful outcomes. Asim has also spoken publically as a representative of the Muslim Council of Wales on many occasions.  What is very concerning is that whilst he was publically representing this organisation, he was also helping to fund it through his role as Prevent Coordinator. This issue raises serious questions and deserves to be investigated. The results of an initial FOI request on this matter can be found here.

Last year Asim was given the position of Community Advisor at the Office of Security and Counter Terrorism (OSCT) in the Home Office.  He was later promoted to the senior role ‘Head of Interventions’. Government officials have become increasingly concerned about Asim’s strong links to hardcore Salafi groups and the funding he provides to them. An example of this is the hard-line Salafi ‘STREET’ project.

In 2009 Asim spoke at a controversial International Conference in India. Other speakers at the conference included: Zakir Naik, Bilal Philips and Hussain Yee, all three are now banned from entering the UK for having extremist views and sympathising with terrorists.

Last year JC raised concerns on Asim Hafeez’s appointment at the Home Office:

A “hardcore” Islamist has been given a key Home Office job to tackle terrorism and divert fellow Muslims from the path of violence.

The appointment of Asim Hafeez as head of intervention at the Office of Security and Counter-Terrorism has caused serious concern among more moderate Muslim advisers across Whitehall. It is seen as a sign of a shift in the government’s policy on radical Islam away from engagement with more moderate groups. There is a sharp divide of opinion within government about whether ministers should engage with Muslims at risk of radicalisation or concentrate on forging links with moderates.

Mr Hafeez was described by one fellow adviser as “hardcore Salafi”. Salafism is a strictly puritanical branch of Islam, often associated with Saudi Arabia. It does not promote violence, but does urge the creation of an Islamic state.

The new Home Office adviser is reported to have raised eyebrows at his new department during the Muslim festival of Ramadan, when he lectured guests at a reception about the benefits of fasting. Before his appointment at the Home Office, Mr Hafeez worked as an adviser to the Welsh Assembly where he had a reputation for his strict views on Islam. He also regularly lectured on Islamic issues at Welsh universities.

The Spittoon blog also raised concerns about a speech Asim gave in support of how a Muslim State should be run. It also reminded him that “the Home Office was no place for proselytisation“.

Asim’s appointment at the Home Office is a major issue of concern because of his strict conservative religious views and activist background.  For this reason many experts believe his advice, recommendations and professional work to be seriously biased.  It would be interesting to see how the new government minsters deal with senior officials such as Asim and how seriously they take his advice. What is clear is that his presence in the Home Office will certainly not help any future Preventing extremism strategies.  It’s most likely he will continue funding hardcore Salafi groups and promoting likeminded friends, whilst blocking any serious attempts to challenge extremism.

“Nationalism”. I believe the word instantly causes thoughts to materialise in one’s mind – of extremists, such as skinheads, thugs, nazis, people with “dark agendas” and violent or deceiving methods to fulfil said dark agendas. This is not me – but I still consider myself a nationalist. If you’re interested in more detail, I consider myself a “territorial nationalist”. That is to say, I don’t see colour / race and such as important, or a necessity to be “a part of the club”. I personally see it this way: everyone is a part of the club and should pull together and make this club a better place. I think most people are truly nationalists, even though they wouldn’t use that exact word to define themselves: “Hi, I’m ABC, I’m a nationalist.” But the dictionary definition tells us it is a person who loves his or her country, with synonyms such as “good citizen”. I am sure that we would all like to consider ourselves good citizens, people who care for the wellbeing of the nation and our neighbours. Sure! So, when a party brings a slogan to you like: “Putting British people first!” “People like you!” “Bring our troops home!”, they feel like reassuring statements, noble statements. Can they inspire to a degree and draw you in? Well, I thought so. I wanted to see how they were doing this and see these “people like me”. Obviously, there was a multitude of people saying this party was full of bad people, people not at all like me. As I saw myself as a nationalist, I thought they must be wrong and that I would be much, much more satisfied finding out what’s what for myself. This is how I am – always having to see for myself rather than taking someone’s word for it. Just because many people say so, that doesn’t necessarily make it true.

I wouldn’t deny for a moment from the beginning that there were bad apples within the group; you’re always going to get a few, (see if you spot the irony and please place answers on a postcard) and I feel it is unreasonable and lacking in logic to define an entire group by the actions of a small percentage. I spent months before the general elections and a few months after that becoming affiliated and trusted within the “online ranks” of the party. It got to a stage where in a relatively short time I had become respected and given Moderation / Administration authority within the groups. If I’m honest, this fuelled my ego. I started to try and educate and moderate the bad apples and promote the good parts of the party, always, always having to defend its past mistakes and errors. But I began to tire of defending the past, which I wasn’t a part of. Each time, I was assured by all the others that things such as that wouldn’t happen again – we were building a righteous nationalist party the land could be proud of, they just needed to realise we had changed! United, we had the power to change anything!

As time passed – especially after the elections – I saw more of the entrails of the beast; saw what it was and how it worked. The deeper inside, the uglier it got. Many people, making a racist remark here or slandering another who opposed them… I still held onto the idea that ‘Well, perhaps this is still just the bad apples; I need to reach the higher echelons.’ I was frustrated, because when I wasn’t there, keeping everyone in check, people would just come on and instantly start spouting hatred. There was no reason behind many people’s rants; they were blinded. “Nationalism seems to just draw this kind of people”, I thought. I finally got a meet with the area representatives; now I was buzzing, it was all going to be different, more positive, more progress, get to meet leaders – it’s going to be awesome. I had planned out so many ideas and suggestions and wanted to put them forward.

But at the meeting, all the ideas and topics I had to offer were shot down or ignored. They were much more interested in and – dead set focused on – ranting about “those damn blacks” and how “they didn’t belong here” and they were “invading inferior beings”. No matter what topic I tried to raise – always the same. It really came down to a personal hatred of black people. Now it was confirmed to me, finally. I had gone on to meet three influential people within the party, whose jobs and duties it was to encourage and promote to the members… All had blinding grudges and unreasonable hatred of other races; they had no interest in speaking to me about education, economy, health, welfare. So what are they teaching the rest of the group? Not many of those I encountered would second-guess them, or follow up on their statements -  they just wished to get people pissed off, because pissed-off people can be manipulated very easily. I felt sad, because I gave them the opportunity to prove me wrong and they, in my opinion, had sadly not done so.

These people just breed hatred and anger.  Maybe there’s something valid they’re upset about, something that looks like it needs looking into or stopping, but this sort of hate only breeds hate. The way they offer misinformation makes this a vicious cycle. I was asked to represent them, to encourage people my age and younger to join. That I just had to decline; I couldn’t encourage anyone to join a group which is so blinded.

Thank you for taking the time to read this.

It has been reported that Gamal Mubarak, son of the president Hosni Mubarak has fled to Britain with his family.

The BBC reports on the Muslim Brotherhood:

After all, in Egypt, the best organised, biggest opposition movement is – despite being banned from open political activity – the Muslim Brotherhood. Some say they would easily win any free election in Egypt and they wouldn’t exactly be the cosiest partner for Mr Obama and the US.

This will, no doubt, make the Obama administration very happy.

Al-Jaz has a live video feed of the events which makes for compelling viewing.

Viva Egypt! Viva the Domino Effect!

But all eyes are on Rachid Ghannoushi’s Islamist party, Ennahda (‘The Awakening’) as it emerges out of the underground and into the mainstream. Ghannoushi still has a warrant for immediate imprisonment hanging over his head if he steps back into Tunisia, which is why he is biding his time in London. Damien McElroy in Tunis writes about campaign by Ghannoushi’s supporters to establish Ennahda as a dominant player in the polity may become a reality as the ban on it is lifted and Ennahda enters the public space.

Tunisia’s strong record of promoting women’s rights and liberal stance on social issues such as the sale of alcohol is vulnerable as its political system is torn apart by the popular uprising.
Sana Bel Mkaddem, a Tunis resident, said she was fearful her rights would be eroded after elections. “We need to know what the parties represent. Most Tunisians are open-minded and view religion as a private issue but because of the past of this country, I’m worried that we could see the Islamisation that we’ve seen in other countries.”
Traditional views retain a strong following that Al-Nadha could capture in the elections. “The youth need jobs but they also don’t understand the faith,” said Sara Abid, 65, a restaurant owner. “I hope our country can bring them back to God.”

This development is also picked up by the Indy:

Ennahda believes that political momentum is on its side. Rachid Ghannouchi said he will return to his homeland, after two decades, at the opportune moment while the movement’s deputy leader, Ali Laraidh, has held talks with the Prime Minister over the possibility of being part of a government of national unity.

“To do that, we need to have our party legalised,” said Mr Laraidh, who was imprisoned for 14 years under the old regime for “plotting against the state”.

The belief that Islam should play a part in shaping the new political landscape has some unexpected adherents in Tunisian society. Sahar Ben Younis, 20, a student dressed in jeans and a T-shirt, said: “We are not saying that there should be things like burkas here. But Ben Ali put a lot of people who held the true values of Islam in prison and we need people like them in politics.”

However, Samir al-Taibi, a member of the opposition PDP party and a trade union activist, urged caution: “Ennahda say they are not extremist, they say that they believe in democracy and tolerance. Well, let us seen their manifesto, let us see how they will react if someone criticises fundamentalist Islam. We would also like to see their positions on armed struggle and Islam. There are a lot of questions to be answered.”

Those espousing armed struggle have urged Tunisians not to be “seduced by democracy”. Al-Qa’ida in the Islamic Maghreb said this week: “This is the time to go to training camps and wage the decisive battle against the Jews, the Crusaders and their agents.”

Hopes for the establishment of a secular democracy and Tunisia’s culture of support for women’s rights could sink without a trace should the Islamist parties step into the power vacuum that exists and establish a sharia state.

1. standard “deplore and condemn” statements from the peace camp, from leftie organisations like peace now, b’tzelem, adalah, rabbis for human rights and so on.
2. standard “you see what we have to deal with, this just makes peace more difficult” statements from the palestinian authority and allied bodies
3. standard “vowing revenge on the zionists” rhetoric from the likes of hamas and its fellow travelers.
4. anodyne PR-speak from the military authorities making excuses for why they weren’t able to prevent the incident or prosecute the people involved

what is usually absent is the voice of religious traditionalism – except, unfortunately when it is supporting the obscene “price tag” policy that is bringing the settlement enterprise into further disrepute.

it’s therefore encouraging to see the voice of mainstream modern orthodoxy being raised in a productive way, particularly here in our own dear jewish chronic, where a scion of the united synagogue rabbinate, now a figure of growing authority in the modern orthodox establishment in israel, speaks out against the disgusting attacks on mosques that have been the latest desecration of the Divine Name. r. gideon sylvester is known to me personally as a man of the highest moral and religious principles and a committed a-list educator; it was another sad loss to anglo-jewry when he joined the continuing brain drain of our best and brightest, leaving his pulpit in hertfordshire for a new life in israel. happily, he has not faded from the uk scene, writing regularly in the jc and invariably giving a clear statement of the sort of moral leadership we all ought to be able to expect from a modern orthodox rabbi and zionist.

more of this, please

r. sylvester gives a quick insight into precisely why the actions of the mosque-desecrators are so despicable – not only are they an affront to moral sense and jewish history, but they are in complete contradiction of some of the strongest principles of halakhah (jewish religious law), the system that the most extreme settlers claim to be serving. let us be absolutely clear about this: the provisions in the Torah that are often cited as justification for harassment and persecution of arabs clearly do not apply to the muslim and christian inhabitants of the west bank; they only ever applied to the immoral and idolatrous “seven nations” of canaan, the canaanites, girgashites, hivites, hittites, amorites, jebusites and perizzites, the “seven nations greater and mightier than you” of deuteronomy 7:1. these nations no longer exist. they have not existed, officially according to halakhah, since “sennacherib mixed up the nations” (tosefta kiddushin 5:6) – this is the source of the position cited by r. sylvester taken by rabbis halevy, herzog and sacks. therefore it is, halakhically, impossible to spot, say a girgashite any more. as i have said on numerous occasions, i certainly wouldn’t be able to identify one even if he danced naked on top of a harpsichord singing “girgashites are here again”.

quite apart from this, such activity flies in the face of the even stronger Torah imprecation to “love the stranger, for you were strangers in egypt” – this is repeated no less than three times in the Torah: exodus 22:21, leviticus 19:33 and deuteronomy 23:7. nobody is saying that jews – or even settlers – have no right of self-defence. this, however is simply an act designed to provoke, inflame and exacerbate tensions that are already at breaking point. this is a political act, not a religious one – any suggestion that it has any kind of religious sanction must therefore be resisted in the strongest possible terms. anyone who acts in such a way is a desecrator of the Divine Name and an apostate, not a zealot. they are setting up the land as an idol – building an “asherah pole” next to their altar (deuteronomy 16:21) – and ignoring, with astounding accuracy, the even more explicit words of the Torah – juxtaposed *just one verse before*:

“justice, justice shall you pursue, so that you may live and possess the land that HaShem your G!D Gives you.”

in other words, you have been Warned.

significantly, r. sylvester highlights the participation of rabbis aharon lichtenstein and shlomo riskin, both of whom are major figures in modern orthodoxy in israel, which can often be overlooked in favour of the more theatrical and controversial ultra-orthodox “Torah sages”. like another regular participant in demonstrations of religious solidarity with arab victims of jewish extremist activity and a particularly prominent proponent of dialogue, peace and harmonious co-existence, r. menahem froman, both are also inhabitants of important west bank settlements, r. lichtenstein in alon shvut and r. riskin in efrat. both settlements are, i believe likely to be retained by israel in the event of a peace agreement, unlike r. froman’s settlement of tekoa and the militant strongholds from which settler violence emanates. i’m not aware of these two public and highly regarded figures taking such a public position in this way before – their efforts have been quieter, more background – and it is good to see them taking a civilised stand so publicly. we need more of this – and quickly. it cannot happen soon enough and it cannot be widespread enough. it is time for religious jews to take a stand and say “not in our name – and not in the name of the Torah”.

This is a cross-post by Robin Simcox

It seems increasingly trendy to believe that ‘non violent’ Islamists can be a bulwark against al-Qaeda in preventing terrorism in the west. Chief proponent of this thesis is Robert Lambert, director of the European Research Muslim Centre (ERMC). Along with Jonathan Githens-Mazer, his co-director at the EMRC, Lambert believes that Salafi and Ikhwani ‘street’ legitimacy and religious knowledge work as a safety valve in reducing the threat.

This is convenient, considering the ERMC receives all of its funding from Ikhwani-sympathetic organisations. The Cordoba Foundation, described by the Prime Minister in March 2008 as a ‘front for the Muslim Brotherhood’, donated £50,000 to the ERMC for the year 2009/10; and Islam Expo, whose registered directors and companies secretaries have a variety of links to the Brotherhood, another £50,000.

Director General of the OSCT, Charles Farr, appears to have bought into ‘Lambertism’. There is little other explanation for Farr’s attempt to reverse the government’s decision to ban foreign advocate of terrorism Zakir Naik coming into the UK (it is also significant that helping him come to this decision was another individual of dubious merits, Inayat Bunglawala, owner of the website domain Muslims4UK).

Yet once Lambert and Githens-Mazer’s ideas are held up to any proper scrutiny, their thesis quickly falls apart – for example, see their recent article for International Affairs titled ‘Why conventional wisdom on radicalization fails’. In an attempt to prove that ‘conventional wisdom’ (defined as either ‘a lack of integration, a lack of secularism, the existential threat posed by Islam to the West, or external influences from Saudi Arabia and the Middle East’ being the root causes) on radicalism has failed, Lambert and Githens-Mazer use a case study of three ideologically extreme brothers – Lamine, Ibrahim and Rahman Adam (aka Anthony Garcia).

According to Lambert and Githens-Mazer, ‘there was little doubt that Lamine Adam was the leader of the three, with Rahman and younger brother Ibrahim tagging along’. Compared to the highly ideological Lamine, who regularly proselytized jihadist rhetoric, the only notable thing about Rahman ‘was his silence…Rahman was far less vocal’. Yet it was Rahman who was sentenced to life for his role in the ‘fertiliser bomb’ cell, which discussed attacking a variety of targets, including shopping centres and nightclubs. Lambert and Githens-Mazer ask:

[W]hy should it have been someone [Rahman]…who was directly implicated in a terrorist plot, rather than his overtly ideological sibling?

It appears that Lamine posed the greatest threat; yet it wasn’t Lamine who would go on to commit a terrorist attack…Lamine could be drawn into lengthy discussions about Islamic practice and belief, whereas Rahman was drawn instead to “doing”, not “talking” or “thinking”…If conventional wisdom cannot properly explain the differences between the Adam brothers, then what explanatory value does conventional wisdom have in understanding terrorist violence?

Clearly then, they regard Lamine Adam as proof that ideology does not cause terrorism.

Yet there is a slight problem with all this.

Both Lamine and Ibrahim Adam were placed under control orders in February 2006 because the Security Service assessed that ‘there were reasonable grounds to suspect that they were intending to engage in terrorism-related activities [that] involve assisting in fighting against western forces in Iraq or Afghanistan or training for such fighting’. Both men escaped their control order in May 2007, and neither has been re-captured.

It gets worse. Lamine actually introduced Rahman to Omar Khyam – head of the ‘fertiliser’ cell – and was repeatedly mentioned as an associate of those convicted during the trial. Al-Qaeda supergrass Mohammed Junaid Babar testified that Khyam gave Lamine bomb-making instructions, and that:

[Lamine] said he wanted the formula because he wanted to do an operation himself in the UK. He didn’t know how to make a bomb. He said he wanted to do something with someone else as far as making a bomb and hitting a nightclub. [source available from the author]

Babar also said that Lamine shipped camping equipment to a terrorist training camp in Pakistan in 2003.

So Lambert and Githens-Mazer’s poster-boy turns out to be a suspected terrorist on the run from the authorities, who has been identified by a member of al-Qaeda as connected to one of the largest terrorism plots the UK has ever faced. As far as disclaimers go, these seem like awfully big ones to miss out.

Ibrahim, meanwhile, has turned up again recently – though not in a way that Lambert and Githens-Mazer may hope. He was recently identified by the Security Services as part of a significant terrorist network, and is currently in Pakistan attempting to obtain a false passport to return to the UK. Passport photographs of Ibrahim were discovered in an Oslo flat, following the arrest of an alleged terrorist cell in Norway. Security sources told the Daily Telegraph that they ‘have been aware of his involvement in terrorist circles’ and ‘there are concerns about his desire to return to Britain and engage in terrorist activity’.

Lambert and Githens-Mazer are quick to get excited when others apparently fail to offer ‘no evidence base’ for the argument that ideology may just have something to do with terrorism. But they have a pretty significant ‘evidence base’ problem here themselves.

If ‘Lambertism’ is OSCT’s answer to the terrorist threat, it is hard to fathom what the question was.

Here is another look at the work of Ibrahim Zakzaky, the head of the Islamic Movement in Nigeria and a guest next week of the self-styled Islamic Human Rights Commission (IHRC). He is scheduled to speak at the Islamic Centre of England in Maida Vale, a propaganda centre of the Iranian regime.

This is “Islamic scholar” Yusuf Ali speaking at a meeting of the Islamic Movement, as reported on the Movement’s own website. Want to know about the Jews? Read the “Protocols of the Elders of Zion”, the notorious antisemtic hoax.

Sheikh Dr. Yusuf Ali. started his address with the most common trait of the Yahud (Jews) which is that everyone is goyim except them who are chosen ones of God. According to them, anything unlawful is only unlawful between Jews themselves but lawful for them on the other people. He pointed out that almost all conflicts going on in the world now are due to the instigation of the Jews to benefit in one way or the other.

Sheikh Ali explained that knowing Jewish plot is a weapon to Muslims, as what is happening now in the world is a direct or indirect applications of the plots contained in their Protocols. He categorized their evil plans as follows:

1. Their utmost aim is to own the whole world and bring it under their control and enslave everyone.
2. All destructions were result of the executions of those plots
3. Media is under their control and as such only news items they approve will be aired
4. Weapons industries are also under their control.

The strategies they use to cause confusions are many; they use them to achieve what they want.

They have written many lies about the prophets of Allah some of which can be found in the Bible. They did it on Dawud, Sulaiman, Isa (alaihimus salam)etc. They also killed many prophets.

Their grand design on Islam, Muslims and the world over, which are contained in the protocol of the Zion, are many and multifaceted but time would not permit to mention them all but prayed for the realization of the Unity of Muslims and thanked Sheikh Zakzaky for convening such a gathering.

What was Zakzaky’s reaction to this poisonous speech? Bravo! Plus, did you know the Iraq war is the work of an Arabic speaking Jew battling Islam?

While giving vote of thank, leader of the Islamic Movement in Nigeria, Sheikh Ibraheem Zakzaky(H) said the Jewish plot against Islam is manifested in Iraq as they sent Bush to capture Iraq for them. Sheikh said if you asked Bush on why he went Iraq, he cannot give you answer. The only answer Bush will give is ‘the job must be completed’. The units of the American army in Iraq are under the command of a Jew who can speak Arabic. Sheikh explained that the solution to this is holding fast to the teaching of the Holy Quran.

Shiekh zakzaky thanked the speaker for attending the occasion.

Zakzaky is a man who appears to be very proud of getting into trouble.

The Sheikh was jailed several times for his ideas by all the successive Nigerian regimes from Obasanjo in khaki to the last Abacha/Abubakar regime. Charges against him were always sedition or inciting disaffection to Government. In Abacha time it was for declaring, “there is no government except that of Islam”. His total prison experience is nine years in nine different prisons across the country – the most famous being Enugu (1981-1984), the notorious Interrogation Center of NSO, Lagos (1984-1985), Kiri-Kiri Maximum Security (1985), Port Harcout (1987-1989 and 1996-1997) and Kaduna (1987 and 1997-1998).

Who comes to the rescue? The IHRC. It calls its work for him in the 1990s “IHRC’s first large scale campaign”.

This is because vicious racist hatred is what the IHRC is all about.

It is aided and abetted by idiots on the British left. Look at Jeremy Corbyn, MP for Islington North, for example, speaking outside the Islamic Centre in Maida Vale:

I like the way it works, I like the sense of values surrounding it, and I’ve found them extremely helpful in bringing cases to my attention of individual abuses of human rights that they’re concerned about. But also general issues concerning the rights of people in the Middle East. The situation in Iraq and Afghanistan. And I’ve found them generally extremely helpful, extremely positive, and help to challenge the notion that human rights is somehow or other something based on Romano-Christian law and based on Europe rather than the rest of the world.

I like the concept that Islamic Human Rights Commission represents all that’s best in Islam concerning the rights of individuals to free expression, to peaceful assembly, and the rights of individuals within a society.

The IHRC should be opposed just as strongly as the BNP. The IHRC’s promoters, starting with the likes of Corbyn, should be shunned by anti-racists.

Good luck with that one on the British left.

PRESS STATEMENT FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

TOWER HAMELTS COMMUNITY STANDS UP TO FIGHT FASCISM IN ALL ITS COLOURS:

The entry of the English Defence League (EDL) into Tower Hamlets to protest against a meeting at the Troxy in East London is a direct provocation to stir up racial tensions, foment dissent among faiths and attempt to bring disunity amongst the communities of the borough. We condemn the fascist EDL whose sole objective is to act as storm troopers for the British National Party (BNP) and pick up the pieces for them after their miserable rout in the local and national elections in neighbouring Barking and Dagenham Council. Under the guise of being non-political and upholding “English” values they are propagating a virulent form of naked Islamophobia which is rejected by the communities of Tower Hamlets. We will do everything in our power to defend the peace in the borough, protect the lives of Muslims and ensure that the unity amongst all is maintained.

This borough has a rich tradition of successful challenge to fascist forces of the Blackshirts and the National Front. The Battle of Cable Street in the 30,s and the Struggle for Brick Lane following Altab Ali’s murder in the 70’s and the move to oust Derek Beackon in the 90’s is part of our common history. The values of universalism, anti-racism and no compromise with fascism inform our thinking and has become part of our existence. We will build on this rich tradition as we face Oswald Mosley’s grandchildren. The irony is those who attacked the Jewish community in the 30’s have tried to usurp the flag of Israel to mount their challenge today. United with the Jewish community we condemn such blasphemy.

As we confront the fascist thugs of EDL we in the Bengali and the Muslim community are being asked to stand side by side with Islamic Forum in Europe (IFE). This we refuse to do. The IFE does not represent the Muslim community in Tower Hamlets. They do not uphold the glorious tradition of Cable Street, Altab Ali and the anti racist movement. Under the patronage of an exclusivist Islam emanating from Saudi Arabia they are attempting to impose it amongst the Bengalis in this borough. Just as the EDL takes the guise of being ordinary English citizen to hide their true identity of  fronting the fascist BNP so do IFE act as the sole representatives of ordinary Muslims but are in fact operating under the direction of their parent organization Jamaat Islam in Bangladesh. It is Jamaat that was party to the massacre of innocent Bangladeshis in the 1971 war of independence that establish the independent state of Bangladesh. A war Tribunal has been established in Bangladesh to try leaders of Jaamat Islam who are IFE’s real ideological and organizational gurus. In other words IFE represent a virulent form of political Islam that is fascistic in nature like Jaamat Islam and verges on the anti-Semitic and is very exclusivist and undemocratic.

In defending the people of Tower Hamlets and especially the ordinary Muslims we do not have to defend IFE. EDL is attacking the Muslims of this borough and we must protect them. IFE must not be allowed to use this occasion to propagate their very reactionary version of political Islam.  

We must also alert the entire community about the opportunist and divisive politics of IFE. Using this latest EDL threat to the local community, it is clear to us that the IFE brigade is trying to terrify the most vulnerable in our community – the Bangladeshi women and children into joining their ranks under the banner of ‘defending the Ummah’. It has come to our knowledge that IFE and its operatives have sent out mass e-mails, text messages and visited members of the community including young children in primary schools to ask them to join forces and defend Muslims and East London Mosque from imminent threat of destruction.

All progressive forces must realize that the gut reaction to EDL is to defend everybody including IFE because they might be accused of being Islamophobic. But we boldly proclaim that it is not Islamophobic to have no trucks with the heirs of Fascist Jaamat? It is not Islamophobic to denounce the anti democratic credentials of IFE and their Saudi patrons? It is not Islamophobic to show solidarity with the Muslims of Tower Hamlets and their diverse representative organizations without marching under the leadership of IFE? We cannot be consistent in fighting the fascist EDL if we elect the “fascist” IFE as our Imam. In line with the best in the Islamic and Bengali tradition we reject the siren calls of IFE as we prepare to organise against EDL.

On behalf of:

Harmuz Ali (Bangladesh Welfare Association (BWA), Ataur Rahman Chowdhury (Brick Lane Mosque), Shamsuddin Shams (Altab Ali Foundation), Badrul Islam (Centre for Citizenship and Development (CCD), Akikur Rahman (Bangladesh Youth Association), Rajonuddin Jalal (London Bangladeshi Association), Ansar Ahmed Ullah (Nirmul Committee), Mahmoud Rauf (Brick Lane Business Association), Abdus Subhan Gedu (Banglatown Restaurant Association), Ethnic Minority Enterprise Project (EMEP), Abdul Ali Rauf (Chicksand Citizen’s Forum), Collective of Bangladeshi School Governors, Tower Hamlets Parents Centre, Tower Hamlets Parents Association, APASENTH, BYM, Nurul Islam (Kendrio Shaheed Minar Committee), Sundar Miah (Tarling Tenants & Residents Association),Nooruddin Ahmed (Bangladesh Youth League), Ruhul Amin (Progressive Youth Association), Taimus Ali (Bangladesh Youth Front), Shahab Uddin Ahmed Belal (Human Rights Secretary (Awami League), Cathy Forrester, Claire Murphy, Phil Maxwell, Terry Fitzpatrick (Blair Peach Project), Syed Sad Ahmed, Fanu Miah (Golden Moon Youth Project), Altafur Rahman, Sheikh Noor, Sirajul Islam, Shofiq Ahmed, Tanu Miah and others.

For further details:

On behalf of UNITY PLATFORM AGAINST RACISM AND FASCISM

C/O  Centre for Citizenship and Development, Business Development Centre, 7-15 Greatorex Street, London E1 5NF

The begining of the end for IFE : )

Day by day the violent and racist English Defence League are becoming more dangerous. This shocking video exposes the truth behind this self professed “peaceful” group. Watch this video and then share it with everyone you know:

The EDL exists for one simple reason: they want to spread fear and hatred throughout the UK – and it’s only going to get worse.

In a few weeks the EDL will be invading Bradford for what they’re calling “The Big One.” Once again they plan on attacking the Muslim population.

We’ve been down this route before – the riots in Bradford in Oldham were sparked by small groups of violent racists attacking the local community.

We simply can’t let that happen again. I’ll be in touch about Hope not Hate’s plans to combat the EDL in the next few days – but for the moment please watch this video, share it with your friends and get as many of them as possible to signup to our campaign.

http://action.hopenothate.org.uk/EnglishDefenceLeague

We’ve really got our backs against the wall on this one – we’re all going to need to take ownership of this issue.

Above is Peter Tatchell - the most principled, brave and tireless left-wing activist against hate crimes, homophobia, racism and anti-muslim bigotry, not to mention a one-man anti-Nazi movement – confronting Nick Griffin.

Terry Glavin says:

“Since the 1970s, the journalist and human-rights activist Peter Tatchell has been a singularly brave and principled voice for justice and human decency. It would be hard to name anyone in left-activist circles, anywhere in the English-speaking world, whose aim has been so true.”

The man is a national treasure.

Father of four Robert Harush, 58, grew up in Ashkelon and having completed his military service tried his luck in the real estate business in Europe. His success has won him many hotels and buildings and he is estimated to be worth hundreds of millions of shekels.

Despite his success Harush did not forget his hometown and has returned to Ashkelon and invested in local building ventures. For the past 10 years he has been dividing his time between Israel and France. His four children all speak Hebrew.

The businessman even chose to stay in the southern city during Operation Cast Lead. He remained in Israel also after a Grad rocket landed near his house.

Surprisingly, he has not harbored any ill-feelings against the Arab side and is a strong supporter of co-existence. He was recently approached by the mayor of Montereau, a French city adjacent to Paris, who informed him of his difficulties in financing the renovation of a large mosque in the city.

“I told myself ‘here is an opportunity to bring the people together’ and decided to donate the money,” Harush said. “People were dumbfounded. What does a Jewish-Israeli man have do to with refurbishing a mosque? The answer is simple: I’m sick and tired of the hatred. A sane voice must emerge.”

Harush explained that he built the mosque in order to promote co-existence. “It wasn’t a cheap venture but I did with all my heart.”

Tehmina Kazi says of the gesture:

“You are either part of the problem or part of the solution, and this man has clearly decided to be part of the solution!”