On the streets of London, some Libyans demanding freedom for their country are quick to spot a local problem. This is what happened to deluded idiots from the extremist party Hizb ut-Tahrir when they tried to join a demonstration:
At around 4.30pm a group of Hizb ut-Tahir supporters had arrived waving black flags and began chanting. At this, the Libyans used the sticks which previously held banners as a makeshift barrier in an attempt to separate that group from the rest of the main protest. One of the Libyan organisers called the police and demanded that the steel barriers should be re-configured so as to separate Hizb ut-Tahir group from the others in the protest.
“They are not welcome” a man shouted to me about the newcomers, “They have nothing to do with us, they are for themselves”
Read Faizur Rahman’s piece on David Cameron’s game changing speech. Here’s an excerpt, taken from the Indian Muslims blog:
British Prime Minister David Cameron’s speech against “Islamist extremism” delivered recently at a security conference in Munich sparked an unnecessary controversy in the U.K., particularly among Muslims. Ramadhan Foundation, a Muslim youth group, described it as an attempt to “score cheap political points” in a way that would “rip communities apart.” And as the speech coincidentally came on the same day the right-wing English Defense League (EDL) demonstrated against the Muslims in Luton, Labour’s shadow justice secretary Sadiq Khan, a prominent Muslim MP, joined the chorus of protests to accuse Mr. Cameron of “writing propaganda material for the EDL.” Mr. Cameron on his part stood by his statements saying a “whole new way of thinking is needed.” He certainly has a point.
American pundits speak glibly of “Islamofascism,” thus deeply insulting Muslims by tying their religion to a Western political movement. What they do not know is that Libyan Muslims suffered mightily at the hands of the real fascists. The movement of Omar Mukhtar, the school teacher who turned anti-colonialist revolutionary, was repressed by Italian fascism.
iEngage presents itself as a body which campaigns against Islamophobia. However, it spends its time attacking Muslim liberals and progressives, as well as journalists and politicians who oppose hate preachers and Islamist political parties.
It also engages in advocacy for Islamist terrorist organisations and their supporters, and demands various changes to Britain’s foreign policies. Here are a few examples.
Opposing the ban on Hezbollah activist, Ibrahim al-Musawi
Senior Hezbollah activist, Ibrahim al-Musawi, was banned from the United Kingdom in March 2009 by the Home Secretary, Jacqui Smith. Al Musawi had previously worked for the Hezbollah propaganda TV station, Al-Manar. When Al-Manar was banned from French satellite TV for airing a 29-part Ramadan special Ash-Shatat (Diaspora) during October–November 2003, which showed Jews drinking the blood of Christian children , and which quoted extensively from the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, Mousawi said the ban resulted from “political pressure by the Jewish lobby”.
This weekend saw a massacre of civilians in Benghazi ordered by Ghaddafi followed by Junior’s televised threat to Libyans of more to come, the LSE have issued a statement on its funding arrangements with Ghaddafi:
The School has had a number of links with Libya in recent years. In view of the highly distressing news from Libya over the weekend of 19-20 February, the School has reconsidered those links as a matter of urgency.
LSE Enterprise has delivered executive education programmes to Libyan officials, principally from the Economic Development Board, and managers. That programme has been completed, and no further courses are in preparation. We have also received scholarship funding in respect of advice given to the Libyan Investment Authority in London. No further receipts are anticipated.
One of my earliest memories of censorship occurred when I was in high school. I was debating the merits of military intervention in Iraq with a select group of friends. The first thing that struck me was how lonely my point of view was, I couldn’t, not for one second, understand how one could justify the continued existence of the Saddam regime.
“Even if there aren’t any weapons of mass destruction, Saddam had previously used such weapons, twice. He is uniquely evil to the region.” I remember stating, rather proudly.
And at that very moment, someone called me a neocon. I didn’t know what a neoconservative was (if I did, I would have perhaps defended the term better). It was clear it was meant to be a negative word.
Amnesty International has given payoffs totalling more than £860,000 to its two most senior former officials, angering its supporters.
The human rights charity says it had no alternative but to pay Irene Khan, its former secretary general, £533,104 after she completed her second four-year term in 2009.
Khan’s deputy, Kate Gilmore, received up to £330,000 at the same time, according to Amnesty’s latest financial records.
The combined payments are equivalent to approximately 4% of Amnesty’s £21.9m annual budget…
Amnesty insiders are outraged Khan was paid more than four times her annual salary of £132,490. “They basically gave her the equivalent of working for another term,” one informed source said. “It is a ridiculous waste of money that will anger a lot of donors.”
This is a cross-post by Lucy Lips from Harry’s Place
Over the last few days, we’ve been considering the manner in which iEngage has conducted itself. iEngage hopes to be appointed the Secretariat of the APPG on Islamophobia. Despite the opposition of the APPG’s first chairs – Lord Janner and Kris Hopkins – who resigned when it became clear that Jack Straw, Sadiq Khan, Stephen Timms and Simon Hughes appear determined to retain this body’s services.
Yesterday, we demonstrated that iEngage’s major target is Muslim liberals and progressives, and opponents of hate preachers and Islamist political parties. Today we will consider some of those hate preachers and Islamist political parties which iEngage defends.
Before we start, let’s look very quickly at one of its “Trustees“: Mohammed Ali Harrath.
A thoughtful article on gay British Muslims, people who combine the unlikely, remaining true to their sexuality and continuing to practicing Islam. But the Muslims in this article want to go further and they discuss the growing phenomenon of gay Muslims who wish to formalise their partnership with both a civil partnership, which is legal in Britain and with a same-sex “nikah”, which in Islam is not.
Sarah and Asra know their marriage is unorthodox, and the idea of a gay nikah would be rejected by the majority of Muslim scholars, but Sarah says it is nobody’s business.
“It is between me and God, and when we got married it was not ideal, but we were doing our best.”
However, there is a small but growing voice within the Muslim community representing gay people, with the emergence of British gay Muslim support groups such as Imaan and Safra Project.
iEngage is an attack organisation, which hopes to be appointed as the Secretariat to the APPG on Islamophobia. As we will show, this is not an organisation whose primary focus is opposing racism and anti-Muslim bigotry. Instead, it is significantly devoted to attacking non-Islamist Muslims and liberals, while defending hate preachers and Islamist political parties.
The following politicians have led the charge to install iEngage as the Secretariat:
If they allow iEngage to continue as Secretariat to the APPG, they will personally be betraying those Muslims and liberals who are the primary target of iEngage. iEngage is certain to use its authority to continue the attacks on Muslim liberals that have been the hallmark of its campaigning activity to date. The