i came across this particular gem of an essay  from his website today. it is an elegant argument for the ability to reconcile scientific and religious viewpoints:

“…Even if the Darwinian mechanisms were inadequate, presumably G!D had some sort of means of transforming creatures via natural law, which science would eventually discover. Dissing the neo-Darwinian explanation would mislead people into thinking that it necessarily happened in a supernatural manner.

Together with further contemplation of the topic, in which it occurred to me that the “random” nature of Darwinian evolution was no more theologically problematic than the “random” nature of the events of Purim or of a lottery, I realized that it didn’t make a whit of theological difference which mechanism powered evolution. As a result, I lost all interest in whether the neo-Darwinian explanation of the mechanism made sense or not. It was no more relevant to me than any other obscure problem of science.”

you can read the rest here.

r. slifkin’s continued writing, in the face of the continuing unjustifed attacks on him, is something that we at the spittoon should support. we are against obscurantism and nuttery and attempts to stifle discussion – and we are entirely in favour of the assertion of principles that are both rational, clearly expressed and both scientifically and spiritually honest to a degree that is all too rare in todays polarised debate.

In 2005 Marc Levin, a Jewish-American film maker released an interesting documentary about a rise in anti-Semitism after the 9/11 attacks. It consisted mainly of Levin engaging with a diverse range of people which included: white nationalists, black nationalists, Arab-Americans,   evangelicals, Kabbalist rabbis, holocaust survivors and even the founder of the website Jew Watch.

According to Levin he had been prompted to make the film after an encounter in a New York cab shortly after 9/11. His driver an Egyptian immigrant had claimed that Jews had been warned not to go to work on the day of the attacks. When probed further the driver had told Levin that “it’s all written in the book”.

‘The book’ he was referring to is commonly known as The Protocols of the Elders of Zion and despite being published over a hundred years ago it remains an international best seller. At the core of most editions are a series of twenty four recorded ‘protocols’ or ‘minutes’ allegedly produced by Jewish elders at the turn of the twentieth century.  They describe a grand plan designed by the Jewish people to achieve global dominance.

In this article I will be looking the emergence of The Protocols, proof of its forged nature and how it still influences certain ideological groups today.

The first abridged form of the protocols had been serialised by a Russian newspaper in August 1903, a year that had been particularly bad for parts of the Russian Jewry. Earlier that year a Russian-Christian boy had been found murdered. A local newspaper had alleged that not only had the boy been murdered by Jews, but that his blood had been used in the preparation of matzo- an unladen bread. What followed was the first Kishinev pogrom which the New York Times described:”as a well laid-out plan for the general massacre of Jews on the day following the Russian Easter. The mob was led by priests, and the general cry, “Kill the Jews,” was taken- up all over the city. The Jews were taken wholly unaware and were slaughtered like sheep”. The murdered boy had in fact not been killed by Jews, but by a relative.

The text itself remained for a while obscure. However during the next two years it began to circulate more widely as problems in Russia began to grow. A wave of mass political and social unrest had resulted in the 1905 revolution, while in the same year Russia was defeated by Japan in the Russo-Japanese War. Sergei Nilus would be the first to have the whole text published in his book ‘The Great within the Small: The Coming of the Anti-Christ and the Rule of Satan on Earth’. The text was used by monarchists and ultra-nationalists to scapegoat the Jewish people who they believed were at the root of Russia’s problems.

It would be more than a decade before the text spread to a wider arena. The 1917 revolution and its dismantling of the monarchy caused white Russians (anti-communists) to abandon their homeland and head west, taking the obscure text with them. From abroad it was used to discredit the Bolsheviks who were portrayed as overwhelmingly Jewish and who were accused of carrying out the plans described in the protocols.

In the United States the text was initially used as part of the First Red Scare. In 1919 it appeared in the Public Ledger in a pair of newspaper articles with all references to “Jews” replaced with references to Bolsheviks. Later the Protocols were also used by the industrialist Henry Ford who stated that ‘…they fit in with what is going on. They are 16 years old, and they have fitted the world situation up to this time.” He sponsored the printing of 500,000 copies of the Protocols as well as supporting other anti-Semitic publications.

Another sinister undertone of The Protocols was the artwork that appeared on the covers of various editions.  This included pictures of the Devil draped with the Star of David, a snake encircling the globe and other images commonly associated with magic and Satan worship.

A manuscript for the protocols had never been found and raised doubts about its authenticity.   In August 1921 Lucien Wolf traced back the history of the concepts found in the Protocols to the works of Goedsche and Jacques Crétineau-Joly. A more dramatic series of articles appeared   afterwards in The Times. Its Constantinople reporter, Philip Graves uncovered that text had been plagiarised from Maurice Joly’s ‘The Dialogue in Hell between Machiavelli and Montesquieu’.

On September 4, 1921 the articles were reprinted by The New York Times. An entire book written by Herman Bernstein documenting The Protocols was published in the United States in the same year. In 1934, an anonymous editor expanded the book a commentary. This 1934 text is the most common edition found in the English-speaking world, as well as on the internet.

The Protocols became a part of the Nazi propaganda effort to justify persecution of the Jews and were made required reading for German students.  Hitler refers to the Protocols in Mein Kampf stating that there importance “is that with positively terrifying certainty they reveal the nature and activity of the Jewish people and expose their inner contexts as well as their ultimate final aims.” At the height of World War II, the Nazi Propaganda Minister Joseph Goebbels proclaimed: “The Zionist Protocols are as up-to-date today as they were the day they were first published.”

After the extent of the holocaust became clear most political figures in most parts of the world generally avoided claims that The Protocols represent a truth about a Jewish conspiracy. In the Middle East the opposite occurred. A Large number of Arab and Muslim regimes and leaders endorsed them as authentic. Many Arab governments even began funding new printings of the Protocols, and taught them in schools as historical fact.  According to a Freedom House 2006 report, in Saudi Arabia the:

“textbook for boys for Tenth Grade on Hadith and Islamic Culture contains a lesson on the “Zionist Movement.” …It asserts that the Protocols of the Elders of Zion is an authentic document and teaches students that it reveals what Jews really believe. It blames many of the world’s wars and discord on the Jews.”

Many Islamist organizations also accept them as fact. Article 32 of the Hamas Charter states:

“The Zionist plan is limitless. After Palestine, the Zionists aspire to expand from the Nile to the Euphrates. When they will have digested the region they overtook, they will aspire to further expansion, and so on. Their plan is embodied in the “Protocols of the Elders of Zion”, and their present conduct is the best proof of what we are saying”

Even some largely peaceful groups have promoted the same view.  In 1991 Mirza Tahir Ahmad (4^th global head of the Ahmadiyyah Muslim Community) in a sermon cited The Protocols to support his argument that the Jews were secretly controlling the world.  About the Protocols he states:

“This was a scheme of the top leaders of Israel, who believe in Zionism, as to how they shall dominate the world, what mode of action shall be adopted for this purpose, what will be the work principles and objectives, what means will be adopted etc”

In 2003, al-Usbu, an Egyptian weekly reported that the Alexandria Library was displaying the first Arabic translation of the Protocols next to a Torah scroll. The museum’s director Dr. Youssef Ziedan was quoted as saying:

“…it has become one of the sacred [texts] of the Jews, next to their first constitution, their religious law … more important to the Zionist Jews of the world than the Torah, because they conduct Zionist life according to it … It is only natural to place the book in the framework of an exhibit of Torah”

Aside from the Arab world The Protocols remain popular worldwide especially among far-right groups and other fringe groups which use it as evidence of a new world order. The book in recent times has become more widely available and can be found on many sites on the internet.

On two occasions in South Africa in 1934, and Switzerland in 1937, the Jewish community won important civil cases against the publishers of The Protocols.  Although the Swiss Appeal Court in the Berne trial overturned the decision, it was on a technicality, and the judges made clear their criticism of the evil nature of the forgery.

Despite being exposed as a forgery over 90 years ago the book continues – with the support of contemporary anti-Semitic literature – to strongly influence many people’s world view. In the words of the Nobel Peace Prize Laureate Elie Wiesel who suffered firsthand the consequences of anti-Semitism in a concentration camp:

“If ever a piece of writing could produce mass hatred, it is this one. . . . This book is about lies and slander.”

By Raziq

“Inappropriate, disparaging, inaccurate, condemnatory and intemperate personal attacks,” acknowledges HRW

“Apology accepted, let’s move on and work together,” urges Peter Tatchell

London – 30 June 2010

Human Rights Watch (HRW) has made a full and unreserved apology to human rights rights campaigner Peter Tatchell.

The apology has been made by HRW’s Executive Director, Kenneth Roth, in New York.

It says sorry for a series of untrue and personal attacks on Mr Tatchell, made by the head of HRW’s lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) programme, Scott Long.

The full text of the apology follows below, including statements by Kenneth Roth, Scott Long and Peter Tatchell.

The apology by Human Rights Watch acknowledges that Mr Long made a series of “inappropriate…disparaging…inaccurate…condemnatory…intemperate personal attacks” on Peter Tatchell.

“I thank Kenneth Roth and HRW for their gracious and fulsome apology. Their readiness to acknowledge the wrong done and say sorry is commendable. My appreciation also to Scott Long for conceding his false allegations and apologising. It can’t have been easy for him. He has shown dignity and humility. I appreciate that,” said Mr Tatchell.

“I accept the apologies. It is time to forgive and move on. For me, this closes the matter. The attacks on me are in the past. I look forward to working with HRW and Scott Long in the future.

“Despite this unfortunate episode, my admiration for HRW’s inspiring, effective work is undiminished. It is documenting tyranny and oppression all across the world; exposing human rights abusers and defending the victims. I urge people to support its humanitarian endeavours,” said Mr Tatchell.

Referring to the nature of the attacks on him by Scott Long, Peter Tatchell added:

“I defend the right of people to criticise me. But Mr Long’s attacks went beyond criticism. He made false allegations, which misrepresented my human rights campaigns. It is these untrue claims that are the focus of my objections.

“Mr Long’s falsehoods and personal attacks were many and varied. They included a highly libellous and defamatory essay written by him, which appeared in the March 2009 issue of the journal Contemporary Politics, published by Routledge, which is part of the Taylor and Francis publishing group:

“This essay made inaccurate allegations. It grossly misrepresented and denigrated my campaigns in defence of gay people persecuted by Iran and in opposition to Islamist fundamentalism.

“I acted in good faith when I opposed the execution of Iranians accused of homosexuality and when I campaigned against fundamentalist Islam in Britain and worldwide.

“Contrary to Mr Long’s claims, I never accused the 13 year-old victim of an alleged rape in Iran of ‘wanting the rape.’ Nor am I guilty of ‘belittling violent sexual assault, and blaming the victim.’ These are outright fabrications.

In addition, Mr Long accused me of me ‘going after’ British Muslims and adopting a ‘bullying tone’ towards the Muslim community in Britain. This is also untrue. I have always made a clear distinction between Muslim people in general and the Islamist extremists who oppose human rights, including the human rights of fellow Muslims. Indeed, I have often defended Muslim communities, in Britain and worldwide, against prejudice and persecution. I will continue to do so.

“Sectarian smears against human rights defenders are wrong and counter-productive. We should support each other in our shared commitment to universal human rights,” concluded Mr Tatchell.

This is the full text of the Human Rights Watch statement and apology:

Human Rights Watch (HRW) apologizes to Peter Tatchell for a number of inappropriate and disparaging comments made about him in recent years by Scott Long, director of HRW’s LGBT program. We recognise that personal attacks have no place in the human rights movement.

Mr Long said: “Although we have our different viewpoints, I respect Peter Tatchell’s contribution to human rights and apologize for any condemnatory and intemperate allegations made in haste and for any inaccurate statements made in my personal capacity.”

Mr Tatchell said: “Despite the unfortunate personal attacks on me by Mr Long, I acknowledge his otherwise important contribution to LGBT human rights and I continue to value the vital work of Human Rights Watch worldwide.”

Following Mr Long’s apology and subsequent discussions, Human Rights Watch is pleased to announce that both Mr Long and Mr Tatchell agree that the movement to protect human rights, including the rights of LGBT persons, is best served when activists focus their criticism on those who abuse rights rather than those who seek to defend those rights.

Mr Long and Mr Tatchell undertake to work to ensure that any airing of disagreements on LGBT and other human rights issues takes place with honesty, civility and respect. They also agree to encourage their friends and colleagues to do likewise.

HRW hopes that this apology and agreement will enable us to move forward together to pursue our common goal: the defence of universal human rights.

Kenneth Roth, Executive Director, Human Rights Watch – New York, 30 June 2010

Every now and then, however, comes a set-piece moment:

“The Trustees of Policy Exchange are delighted to report that Mr Justice Eady yesterday struck out the claim brought against us by the North London Central Mosque.

North London Central Mosque commenced an action against Policy Exchange and Dr Denis MacEoin for libel, following publication of our study “The Hijacking of British Islam” in October 2007.

Six trustees who had advanced the claim on behalf of the North London Central Mosque were ordered to pay Policy Exchange’s costs of defending this action.

The High Court made a further Order that £75,000 of those costs be paid by North London Central Mosque within 28 days.”

Of course, a Hail Mary appeal by the NLCM is not out of the question. Indeed it is likely, given that part of the point of all Islamist legal action is to intimidate and distract regardless of the prospect of success.

But, for now, I look forward to reading the gleeful accounts of this “humiliating climbdown” that will no doubt follow on ‘Liberal Conspiracy’ and its ilk.

****

Hello Spittoonland.

I am writing to let you know that when I heard that the Quilliam Foundation threatened Craig Murray with libel action, I was disappointed.

This is Murray’s account of a hilarious phonecall conversation he had with a QF person by the name of Ed Jagger.

The question we would like to put to Quilliam Foundation has to be this: If it considers itself to be an anti-Islamist organisation which is willing to take libel action against its detractors for suggesting that it “has never filed a set of accounts”, why didn’t it go after these guys for posting this?

UPDATE: This post has been edited to remove inaccuracies.

She wrote,

Last weekend the BNP’s annual shindig ‘Red, White and Blue’ took place in a small town in Derbyshire. Reports said that the number of attendees was only marginally more than the number of anti-fascist protesters who congregated outside the gate. Unfortunately, these anti-BNP protesters soon became violent – leading to a total of 19 protesters being arrested. Although it is good to see ordinary people protesting against the BNP, such protests become ineffective when they descend into thuggery and hooliganism. Just a week earlier, for example, violent clashes erupted between the English Defence League and Unite Against Fascism in Birmingham, leading to bottles, sticks and banners thrown, and brought police in riot gear onto the streets.

Bob, however, wilfully distorts Lucy’s words by cutting off that final sentence.

“Unfortunately, these anti-BNP protesters soon became violent – leading to a total of 19 protesters being arrested. Although it is good to see ordinary people protesting against the BNP, such protests become ineffective when they descend into thuggery and hooliganism.”

Lucy James, research fellow at the Quilliam Foundation, writes at Progress Online, 18 August 2009

No other account has alleged “thuggery and hooliganism” on the part of anti-BNP protestors at Codnor, so far as I’m aware. The worst that was reported was “minor scuffles” as some demonstrators tried to push through police lines.

Lucy did not allege the existence of “thuggery and hooliganism” at the Derbyshire protests, she was alleging its existence at the Birmingham protests. “Thuggery and hooliganism” was documented there by a multitude of sources so this crude attempt to discredit Quilliam (Bob concludes his article saying “How much lower can the creeps at Quilliam sink?”) completely fails to convince. Not least because even anti-fascist magazine Searchlight shares Lucy’s concerns.

[W]e also have to change our tactics on the streets. The hammer attack on a BNP activist in Leigh, Greater Manchester, in March was an unmitigated disaster. When we learnt about the BNP’s intention to hold a fundraising event in a local nightclub we got almost 5,000 people, including 400 from the local area, to sign an open letter from a local vicar calling for the event to be cancelled. Our pressure proved successful but what should have been a great media story, showing the strength of people power against the BNP, became three days of appallingly negative local headlines after an anti-fascist struck a BNP member in the head with a hammer. [...]

There is also a need for an honest debate about the use of rallies, marches and pickets. While one could argue that it is important continually to oppose the BNP gaining any legitimacy, such protests are increasingly ineffective and, probably more importantly, a distraction from the real work required in the communities.

But Bob is not concerned with the finer points of anti-fascist tactics; he just wants to attack Lucy and her employers, Quilliam. If he were genuinely concerned with beating the BNP then he would’ve mentioned what makes up the majority of Lucy’s article, discussion of her new paper dismantling the BNP’s attacks on Islam.

Violence is not the answer to countering the BNP. The BNP is best opposed through a systematic deconstruction of their slurs against ethnic and religious minorities. In a paper entitled In Defence of British Muslims: A response to BNP racist propaganda [pdf], I aimed to do just that. Since about 2006, particularly post-7/7, the BNP has consciously changed their rhetoric from being anti-Asian, -Black and -Jewish, to being ardently anti-Muslim. Released last week, the paper takes 10 of the key accusations thrown against Islam and British Muslims by the BNP, and points out their intellectual inconsistencies and factual weaknesses. Rather than simply dismissing the BNP’s ideology as racist or bigoted (an approach which the BNP’s steady popularity proves is not working), there needs to be a greater focus on intellectually undermining and countering their arguments.

Which would’ve been the end of the affair, but then Inayat Bunglawala jumped into the ring. Crediting Islamophobia Watch with first pointing this issue out, Bungle’s iEngage today also published an article under the title Quilliam accuses anti-BNP protestors of ‘thuggery and hooliganism’.

The way to challenge the BNP’s anti Muslim racism is certainly through a sustained, fact based critique of its wildly false ideas on Islam and Muslims and its exaggerated anti Muslim scaremongering, as Lucy James claims. But that would require an interest in accuracy and facts, something QF’s James appears to have lost sight of in her portrayal of anti fascist demonstrators in Codnor.

Laughably, Bungle seems completely unaware of Lucy’s “sustained, fact based critique” of the BNP and instead reiterates Bob’s flaky arguments which were based on a misunderstanding (and misquoting) of what Lucy wrote.

Bob and Bungle, what a pair. So desperate to attack Quilliam that they can’t even be bothered to read to the end of Lucy’s 614 word article. If they had bothered to do so then they would’ve realised that, far from slandering the name of anti-fascist protesters, she has put together a devastating attack on the BNP. She deserves applause, not condemnation.

“Veteran Islamophobe Martin Bright criticises MCB libel win”.

Martin was rightly upset with that slur observing:

“I object in the strongest terms to the way the insult  “Islamophobe” is thrown around so casually. It is essentially a charge of racism: the cheapest of shots and utterly without foundation”.

He was much too kind. The charge was not just without foundation – it was an outright lie. At the Observer, Martin mentored the headscarf wearing Fareen Alam. And, while he was Political Editor at the New Statesman regularly gave a voice to newly emerging Muslim voices including: Ed Husain, Shiraz Maher, and ‘Umm Mustafa’ (a pseudonym).

The Engage article nonetheless made a number of lazy accusations, one of which said:

“Bright himself is no stranger to making allegations against the MCB that play cavalier with the truth.”

This assertion was entirely unsubstantiated.

It had to be, because there is no evidence to support it. What really annoyed the bungling Bungles was that Martin exposed the Muslim Council of Britain in a series of sensational scoups based on leaked documents from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. His revelations lead to a shift in government policy resulting, in part, with the MCB losing favour with ministers. So, how could Engage claim that Bright was playing ‘cavalier with the truth’?

Well, they couldn’t. Instead, the accusation was quietly watered down, now saying:

“Bright himself is no stranger to making controversial allegations about the Qur’an, Muslims and the MCB”.

They also thought it would be wise to drop the rediculous charge of ‘Islamophobia’, changing the title of their article to:

“Martin ‘The Great Koran Con Trick’ Bright criticises MCB libel win”.

This is a glaring admission of guilt by Engage. Notably, however, they haven’t bothered to apologise to Martin. He should really insist on one, particularly as the bungling Bungles loves to sue and always insists on receiving an apology.

He should really be much more careful in future.

The briefing was poorly researched, wilfully inaccurate rubbish. This didn’t stop Islamophobia Watch and Bungles from giving it a ringing endorsement.

Now the CST have responded.

CST wholly denies the entirely unfounded allegations made by IHRC. The IHRC briefing is full of basic errors, distortions and misrepresentations that completely alter the meaning of the articles that it claims to analyse. It contains supposed quotes and arguments in CST articles that do not exist; and omits relevant context from the quotes and articles that it claims to analyse. Worst of all, however, the IHRC makes these claims in order to accuse CST and its staff of propagating Islamophobia, when nothing could be further from the truth.

As my correspondent put it, critiquing the IHRC briefing is like shooting fish in a barrel. Rather too easy but still able to provide some guilty pleasure.

-

UPDATE:

Habibi has his say over on Harry’s Place.

****

Salam! Peace!

I would like to take this opportunity to clarify a few distortions and lies that are being circulated by certain factions. Namely:

1. The alleged “resignation letter” to the Quilliam Foundation. This letter is a fabrication and none of its content is true in any way or form. I did not send this letter to Quilliam at all.

2. I have no connection at all, philosophically or in practise with the Islamists and Jihadists at the loathed website “Traditional Islamism”. I do not advocate their message, and am deeply distressed that these people should abuse my name on that forum.

3. I believe Islam, in it’s classical form, as expounded by the mashaikh of tassawuf of the spiritual path is a message of mercy and love, which is diametrically opposed to the propaganda espoused by websites such as “Traditional Islamism”.

4. I am active and, inshallah, will remain so to ensure that the classical understanding of Islam is disseminated to build strong British Muslim communities in our liberal democracy.

I demand that this fabricated letter be removed by all those involved and these lies circulated in my name ceased by those involved, if they have any integrity.

Salam-Peace

Usman Raja

Update:
Following this message by Usman Raja, the “TraditionalIslamists” have taken down the forgery.