Archive for October 2008
Ed’s Fascinating Experiences!
You know I just noticed this from Sir Ed the cursed who gave this glowing description of his “murid” Jamal al Banna. I quote
“…..Jamal al Banna, Shiekh al Banna God bless him! His brother is sitting there in a room in Cairo, today 7/7 refuting everything that his brother stood for”
Here is his video again
Now we must remember that Jamal Al Banna, the evil man that he is, hates those confounded Islamists and was a breath of fresh air. We also must remember that we cannot support Yusuf al Qaradawi and ,in fact, we should ban him from the UK because he supports suicide operations in Israel. Lo and Behold, guess what we have from the Mu’dill Jamal al Banna? Forgive me for linking to the notorious Memri site
Well, well, well! Let us translate what he has to say;
“..When I say soldiers, the entire Israeli population is recruited, the women are the most vicious of them all , therefore from this angle it is allowed. I consider this martydom”
I personally have problems with suicide operations and a flexible understanding of “soldiers”. In other words I personally do not endorse this but it makes you wonder doesnt it? Actually, not anymore. The wonder is lost, we are used to it!
A Reply from Islamonline
Further to our initial inquiry about the reasons for giving the fool of a heretic Rashad a voice, Islamonline has been kind enough to draft a response.
From my personal view, I do not mind giving them a platform on two conditions
1-That they attach no constraints to the meeting
2-That they are exposed for who they are
In that way the Muslim Ummah is not confused about the nature of these people. After all, judging from the responses, in the Q and A, the Muslim Ummah could innocently think that they are another representitive Muslim body of which they are certainly not! Islamonline should have clearly known that Ed thinks they are representitive of Islamofascism and are compared to the Nazi British National Party! That is the more shocking that we have Rashad on there “communicating” with them!
Next time, if Islamonline does bring them on make sure that they introduce them as the Islamophobes that they are!
Here is the reply. What do you think ?
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Dear Brother and Sisters,
Al-Salamu Alikum w Rahmat Allah w Barakato,
Jazakom Allah Khayran for your contribution to IslamOnline.net’s coverage and your concern about what IOL presents.
However, I would urge you not to judge what IOL is doing from the first glance and inquire into further details before passing your judgment. Before contacting QF, we did contact MCB and they nominated a certain person for a Live Dialogue. As a media outlet –and whether we are against QF’s policies or not- we have to present all the viewpoints and let our audience establishes their own opinion based on what we present. Accordingly, we invited both Rashad and Farrukh, from MCB, to speak about this issue together and to present the two different opinions that even if they may meet at a certain point at the end they will remain different.
Farrauk requested the delay of his session for a personal reasons and it is supposed to be held on the same topic on October 21 in shaa allah. I will make sure to invite you via another comment here to take part in it once organized and confirmed. Check ths link for more details on MCB Live Session on the same issue:
http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite?c=Article_C&cid=1224089101185&pagename=Zone-English-Euro_Muslims%2FEMELayout
Again, Jazak Allah Khayran for your important comemnt and please do stay in touch and do continue sending your valuable feedback via radwa.khorshid@iolteam.com
Moreover, please do not hesitate to send any further suggestion, though and/or comment via the same mail.
For further contribution to IOL, you may join our “Euro Muslims on IOL” blogs project:
Wsalam,
Radwa Khorshid
Editor- European Muslims Zone
IslamOnline.net
They have Been Given a Voice Yet Again!
We have Ed saying that we should never speak to Islamists which of course includes the Muslim Brotherhood and Qardawi yet all of a sudden we have Rashad Ali who as the Quilliam Foundation Curriculum Manager ( I though he was head of research!, they make up titles daily dont they!) go on Islamonline and give a Q & A! They are not denounced and judging by the people getting involved they had no idea who this heretic was!
Really this getting ridiculous! I suggest brothers and sisters now bombard the site with emails asking about the reasons for giving such a bastion of Kufr a platform
http://www.islamonline.net/livedialogue/english/Browse.asp?hGuestID=S5XG89
A New Term!
We had Islamofascists, Islamists, literalists and now we have a new term! Wait for it from another idiot of this foundation “Ghaffar Hussain”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/sep/30/islam.religion/print
Are you ready for it? Sure….?
“Westophobia”
Oh the wonders of the English language. They even have an article on the teachers net, just in case any poor ”innocent” teacher meets such a “vile creature” in the school. I mean Allah forbid with all this “suspended morality” and “westophobia” .
http://www.teachernet.gov.uk/wholeschool/violentextremism/quilliam/
Now they want to support an initative that will create a paranoid conspiratorial mindset in the teachers everytime they meet Muslims! He believes in Asharite moral philosophy , call the British secret service and suspend him now!
Oh, how about we just send him to a Quilliamite “brain washing camp” so they can tell them about the wonders of the “medievalist mindset” when they think homosexuality is a sin! Oh dear did I just have a clear moment of a “suspended morality” ? Shudder the thought!
Summary of Ed and Maajid’s Tour of America
A brother who wants to remain anonymous but knows the Quilliam Foundation quite well has sent me this good summary of Ed and his side kick’s begging bowl tour of America. I think it is a good summary of their waste of British Tax payer’s money! I mean they go on holidays, and Allah knows what else they do (more to come inshallah maybe?) to tell the converted that “Islamists” are bad! They forget to tell the British Tax payer that they have alienated virtually the whole Muslim community in this country and have made them much more political wal hamidullah! Now anyone even associating with them, let alone supporting them receives outright condemnation from all Muslims be they “Sufi”, “Salafi” “Islamists” or whatever. Even the word “Islamist” has become a bad word among the Muslims in this country.
Anyway…. here is his summary. Enjoy!
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
Summary of Ed and Maajid’ tour of America: Meeting AIPAC’s Children
Who are The American Jewish Committee?
Founded in 1906 it is one of the oldest Jewish advocacy organizations in the United States,[2] and has been described by The New York Times as “the dean of American Jewish organizations.” They describe themselves as such:
”The American Jewish Committee is a leading international think tank and advocacy organization that uses education and diplomacy to build support for Israel.”
http://www.ajc.org/site/c.ijITI2PHKoG/b.835973/k.D3B7/Israel__Middle_East.htm
The organization’s mission statement is
“to safeguard the welfare and security of Jews in the United States, in Israel, and throughout the world;…..deepen the ties between American and Israeli Jews.” They say “For six decades, American Jewish Committee (AJC) has proudly introduced millions to the vibrant democracy that is Israel. AJC was the first U.S. Jewish organization to open an office in Israel, in 1961.”
lhttp://www.ajc.org/site/c.ijITI2PHKoG/b.4358887/k.66/Israel__60.htm
In the 1970s, AJC spearheaded the fight to pass anti-boycott legislation to counter the Arab League boycott of Israel. In 1975, AJC became the first Jewish organization to campaign against the UN’s “Zionism is Racism” resolution. In 1992, Japan, citing AJC’s diplomacy, reversed its policy of supporting the Arab League boycott of Israel. In 2000, Israeli Ambassador to the UN Dore Gold, cited AJC as playing a central role in Israel’s gaining acceptance into the UN’s Western Europe and Others Group. In 2003, AJC opened in Brussels the Transatlantic Institute, aimed at fostering improved relations between Europe, Israel, and the U.S.
In an essay, “Progressive” Jewish Thought and the New Anti-Semitism by Alvin H. Rosenfeld, published on its web site,[6] the AJC attacked Jewish critics of Israel by name, …The essay accused them of supporting a rise in anti-Semitism, and of participating in an “onslaught against Zionism and the Jewish State”.[7]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Jewish_Committee
http://www.muzzlewatch.com/?cat=15
Guess who would call Muslims to cooperate with such an organisation?
Read:
http://quilliamfoundation.org/index.php/component/content/article/303
Who is The Washington Institute for Near East Policy ?
The Washington Institute for Near East Policy (TWI; known informally as WINEP) is a Washington, DC-based think tank which concerns itself with U.S.-Middle East policy. It was founded in 1985 by Martin Indyk, a research director for AIPAC who would later be appointed U.S. Ambassador to Israel….WINEP is regarded as having a pro-Israel tilt,[2][3] and “funded by individuals deeply committed to advancing Israel’s agenda”.[4] It is described by the US foreign policy scholars John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt as ‘part of the core’ of the Israel lobby.[5]
Discussing WINEP’s establishment, Mearsheimer and Walt in The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy state:
|
“ |
Recognising the need for a prominent but seemingly “objective” voice in the policy area surrounding Israel, former AIPAC president Larry Weinberg; his wife, Barbi Weinberg; AIPAC’s vice president; and AIPAC deputy director of research Martin Indyk founded the Washington Institute for Near East Policy in 1985. Although WINEP plays down its links to Israel and claims that it provides a “balanced and realistic” perspective on Middle East issues, this is not the case. In fact, WINEP is funded and run by individuals who are deeply committed to advancing Israel’s agenda. Its board of advisors includes prominent pro-Israel figures such as Edward Luttwak, Martin Peretz, Richard Perle, James Woolsey and Mortimer Zuckerman, but includes no one who might be thought of as favouring the perspective of any other country or group in the “Near East”. [6]. |
“ |
Some have described the Institute as
”serving as an important venue for policies advocated by leading Bush administration hawks and their supporters outside government.” [7]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Institute_for_Near_East_Policy
Which Muslims would be invited to speak at their conferences? See:
http://quilliamfoundation.org/index.php/component/content/article/304
Some liberals argue that despite its left-of-center reputation, Brookings foreign policy scholars have been overly supportive of Bush administration policies abroad.[5][6]The Atlantic’s Matthew Yglesias, for example, has pointed out that Brookings’ Michael O’Hanlon frequently agrees with—and appears on stage with—scholars from conservative organizations such as the American Enterprise Institute, The Weekly Standard, and the Project for a New American Century.[5] Similarly, Brookings fellow and research director Benjamin Wittes is a member of the conservative Hoover Institution’s Task Force on National Security and Law.[33] The Brookings Board of Trustees include prominent Republicans such as Kenneth Duberstein, a former chief of staff to Ronald Reagan, and prominent Democrats, such as former Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers.[34] Its scholars include former government officials hailing from both Democratic and Republican administrations, as well as many who have not served in government and do not advertise a party affiliation.
The Brookings Institution’s ‘Saban Center for Middle East Policy’
In 2002, the Brookings Institution established the Saban Center for Middle East Policy in order “to promote a better understanding of the policy choices facing American decision makers in the Middle East”[35]. The Center is named after Haim Saban, an Israeli-American media proprietor, who donated $13 million toward its establishment[36] and directed by Martin Indyk, a former US diplomat and a former director of research at the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). The Center’s political slant has been described as “pro-Israel” by US foreign policy scholars John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt.[37] A U.S. government indictment alleges that the Center’s Director of Research, Kenneth Pollack, provided information to former AIPAC employees Steve J. Rosen and Keith Weissman during the AIPAC espionage scandal.[38]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Brookings_Institution
What do our brothers at Quilliam Foundation have to say about this?:
“Maajid Nawaz and Ed Husain then met with staff from the Saban Center for Middle East Policy at The Brookings Institution. The session involved introducing the work of The Quilliam Foundation to the Saban Center, and vice versa. The discussion centred around what Quilliam could offer the US, whether there was a radicalization problem in the US and how the Saban Center and Quilliam could cooperate in future on this issue.”
http://quilliamfoundation.org/index.php/component/content/article/305
Who is the National Stratey Forum ?
National Strategy Forum is another right-wing ’stink tank’ based in Chicago, a cursory look at their homepage seems to read like a spoof website ridiculing the extreme paranoia of the American right, but remember this is real and taken seriously!:
”In Defence of America: Public Diplomacy in the 21st Century “
“SPECIAL ESSAY: A NEW THREAT”
“The Crossover of Urban Gang Warfare and Terrorism”
“Forging Improved Government Agency Cooperation to Combat Violence”
“The United States and Counterinsurgency Learning: A Sisyphean Task?”
“Female Suicide Bombers in Iraq”
“Personal Safety and Security: Protecting self, family, and property is the first line of defense against violence, and is a critical component of a broader U.S. national security strategy.”
In one of it’s quarterly journals; ‘National Strategy Forum Review’ which they claim has over two decades “provided readers with influential, commonsense thinking on critical US national security issues” (http://www.nationalstrategy.com/Portals/0/Winter.2003.US.Strategy.Islamic.World.pdf) the publisher (the National Strategy Forum) writes under “Letter from the publisher” about the crusades as if they were the fault of “militant, expansionist Islam”:
“There is growing discussion regarding a supposed “Clash of Civilizations”- a looming confrontation between the Western and Islamic worlds. This would be a historical repeat of the twelfth and thirteenth century clashes between Christianity and militant, expansionist Islam.”
In this quarterly journal (winter 2003) are the following articles:
-Rethinking US Policy in Afghanistan
In which the author states in his conclusions:
“there are certain actions that the United States should take: Explicitly commit its troops to stay in Afghanistan…and encourage the expansion of the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) into provincial capitals and rural areas….”
Militant Islamic Terrorists Among Us (referring to western Muslims) In which the author states that Iraq has been ‘liberated’:
“To be sure, Islamic militants do not need an excuse to attack the United States. Their hatred of the United States and its values existed before the ?liberation? of Iraq.” He goes on typically scaremongering about Islam, and describing all resistance against occupation as terrorism, and even quotes Daniel Pipes!. He goes on “Changing our behaviour, our policies, our democratic belief system to conform to militant Islamists’ “wish list” will not serve our purpose of eradicating the violence. Rather, accommodating their demands will only empower those who wish to see the West fall. The religious dogma that is the underpinning of militant Islam will not change, regardless of our actions…..The actions taken by the FBI, Department of Justice, Treasury, CIA, Homeland Security and other agencies in shutting down terrorist conduits [read Muslim charities for Palestine] must be supported on a long term basis— and not have powers suddenly withdrawn…”
And here’s my favourite quote from this article;
“Today, much of Middle Eastern academia is dominated by the ideology of militant Islam or anti-Americanism.”
In the article “VISION, VIOLENCE, VITRIOL, AND VALVOLINE” Richard E. Friedman the President and Chair of the National Strategy Forum, who invited and sat with the Quilliam boys says:
“Informed discussion should now go beyond Iraq to include:
• US world primacy, • Public diplomacy (The need for a vigorous campaign to inform the world about US policy and values.)…..
The American people view US primacy and world leadership as givens, but we need to adjust to the unpleasant reality that, for the immediate future, the hunter is the hunted”
Other articles in the journal include: “THE ROLE OF THE MILITARY IN SECURING THE HOMELAND”
Under the “Recent Speaker” section they hosted Colonel William Smullen, former Chief of Staff, US Department of State, to address the National Strategy Forum members on the formulation of US foreign policy. who argues for fundamental US imperatives which includes sustaining American leadership around the globe, protecting security in the maintenance of US supremacy and superpower status.”
The list of articles continues:
Desert Queen: The Extraordinary Life of Gertrude Bell (the British colonialist wo drew the false maps of the middle east)
Sleeping with the Devil: How Washington Sold Our Soul for Saudi Crude
Which Muslims would be invited to speak at their conferences? See:
http://www.quilliamfoundation.org/index.php/component/content/article/309
Maajid Nawaz Attempts to break all dialog with all Islamists at the Senate and at American Think Tanks, Police, Counter Terrorism Units etc
For the Quilliam Foundation, all Islamisms and all Islamists are the enemy, not just terrorists. In fact, as stated in his own words to the Senate Committee on Homeland Security, Maajid Nawaz lists factors that define an Islamist and says:
“The above four elements, in general, form common ground for all types of Islamists.”
He begins with
“I have made it my aim to spare no effort in directly challenging the Islamist ideology wherever I happen upon it.”
In this list or criteria he defines an Islamist as any Muslim that believes Islam should shape to some degree the politics, economy or law of a land, or that to some degree Shariah should be state law. He makes the absurd claim that
“This again is a modern innovation unheard of in traditional Islamic sources.Muslim history is in fact bereft of examples of any type of Shari’ah being wholesale adopted as state law…On the contrary, ordinary Muslims are perfectly happy for the Shari’ah to remain a personal code of conduct”
He goes on to attack the notion of Muslim solidarity by saying
“the Islamist notion of the ummah, or Muslim community, forming a political rather than simply a religious identity…subsequent implication for Islamists is that loyalty and allegiances are owed to this global community above all else.”
In this he misrepresents most Islamists, by claiming they don’t believe in any other identity at all!
Then he attacks the concept of a Khilafah, or Caliphate as an expansionist totalitarian supremacist empire. Remember he is not talking about Al-Qaida’s version of the Khilafah, he is talking about even Muslim Brotherhood’s, Tariq Ramadhan’s or Maududi’s undertsanding of it, because he goes on to say
“The above four elements, in general, form common ground for all types of Islamists.”
In his statement he ridicules many scholars claiming
“Islamists have long suffered due to their lack of theological legitimacy having been founded by political activists rather rather than (real) theologians (scholars)”
he says that Imam Hassan Al-Banna was only “a school-teacher”, and refers to Allama Mawdudi as a mere journalist, conveniently ignoring that both of them had traditional learning in the Islamic Sciences, al-Banna even being a preeminent Scholar of the University of Al-Azhar, one of the highest and oldest Sunni institutions of learning in the world. He then goes on to attack Shaykh Yusuf al-Qaradawi as
“been reared exclusively by an Islamist party to become a theologian so as to reinterpret the theology”.
Although Qaradawi was on the path of knowledge and learning before he became a member of the brotherhood, and is again a preeminent graduate of Al-Azhar.
The full statement to the senate can be found here:
http://www.quilliamfoundation.org/images/stories/pdfs/us-senate-submission-09-2008.pdf
In response to many non-Muslims being happy that prominent Jihadists have left the Al-Qaida Jihadi ideology and defaulted back to traditional Islamism, Maajid Nawaz responded to comments made by the panel by welcoming the Jihadist revolt against Al Qaeda, but cautioned that Jihadists who recant terrorism may still advocate the Islamist ideology. Hence, the strategic gain made by publicising Jihadist recantations must be balanced against the ideological loss of promoting Islamism as an antidote to terrorism. Maajid further cautioned that the solution to terrorism is not Islamism and radicalization, as it was Islamism that gave birth to Jihadist terrorism in the first instance.”
http://quilliamfoundation.org/index.php/component/content/article/306
“On 22nd September 2008, Quilliam Directors Maajid Nawaz and Ed Husain met with former US Ambassador to Egypt Francis Ricciardone, who is currently a guest scholar at the US Institute for Peace. The Directors asked the Ambassador his views about US foreign policy engagement with Islamist organizations, such as the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. The Ambassador recalled the history of US engagement with the Muslim Brotherhood and outlined his strategy and views vis-a-vis this organization in Egypt. After an engaging discussion, a further exchange of views and ideas was agreed on this topic.”
http://quilliamfoundation.org/index.php/component/content/article/305
Maajid Nawaz has been carrying this vitriolic message against all Islamists and trying to create a definite causal link between Islamism and terrorism to people like anti-Terrorism head Marc Sageman of the New York Police Department’s Intel division:
http://www.quilliamfoundation.org/index.php/component/content/article/299
Apologies
The promised updates in Ramadhan are coming brothers and sisters. Be patient, and forgive me for the delay!
It is all a Misunderstanding!
Now we know the British government with its nasty agenda is going around trying to get legitimacy for its enterprises from, lets say for now, rather busy figures that are popular in the Muslim Community. Hamza Yusuf is your “archetype” in the RAND report. He is supposedly “Sufi” and “moderate” and assumed to be more then willing to conspire with the “modernist” enemies of Allah like the Quilliam Foundation to be a fifth column in the destruction of our deen. We had Hamza Yusuf praising certain representitives of the British Government who are known now to push the Quilliam Foundation. He was a civil servant after all and we do pay taxes.
Hamza Yusuf, did not seem to realise that the British Government has a much more nasty agenda and is using people like him. We then, all of a sudden, had Hamza Yusuf on the same platform with Tony Blair! He to has his own agenda (i.e. Tony Blair). As a saying in Arabic goes, using good words with bad intentions. Here is the link
Now, to be honest, I saw the face of Tony Blair. He was not comfortable. Hamza Yusuf had his say, I thought! Alhamidullah my intuition with the body language was confirmed with Zaid Shakir in his two replies. Here is the relevant quote from the first reply
Since he was there, Shaykh Hamza condemned Tony Blair to his face and warned him of the sad fate he would have when he met his Lord, precisely because of the role he played in the war. He does not endorse in any way the work of Tony Blair’s organization, nor does have any past (or future) connection with Saleema Abdul Ghafur. His only intention was to help eradicate malaria, a disease he was personally afflicted with during his years of study in Mauritania, and a disease whose devastating effect he has witnessed first hand during his years of traveling and studying is West Africa.
Yes there was a genuine misunderstanding but Hamza Yusuf, it seemed, in the face of this war criminal said his piece confirming the hadith of the prophet.
“The master of martyrs (sayyid al-shuhada) is Hamza, and a man who stands up to a tyrant ruler and gives him nasiha (advice). And so the ruler kills him”
Of course Tony Blair is not of that extreme level. Hamza Yusuf is still alive. Still it takes alot to say this kind of thing in his face. May Allah reward the Shiekh! Ameen! I do have good intentions towards this man, but sincere advice for the brothers from Zaytuna ( and I know brothers that you may read this). There seems to be a slight naive streak with our shiekh. Yes, we engage in the common good with non Muslims, but now the game is different and the cards are laid out open for all to see. They want to destroy our deen in the name of “revisionism” and “modernism”. It is time to step out of this “individualism” with cliches like “establish the Islamic state in your heart and you will establish it in reality” and stand up firm proud of our religion and recognise the modernist enemies for who they are! Truly the modernist “quietism” is not the “quietism” of our Ulema. We only need to read the biography of Sarkhasi and Nawawi to know that!
Zaytuna, come out in the open and reject the liars, the “modern sufis” the “quilliamites” of this ummah that want to use you and for Allah’s sake know the politics of this country before you attend events!
