Quilliam Director “Supports” the Construction of Nuclear Weapons in Muslim Countries.
Ok, Ok is the site winding people up ? How in the world can a Counter “extremist” think tank have an “Ahmadanijad” figure as a Director especially when the whole project is closely linked to the Policy Exchange. Would a Director be this daft ? Well….. Sources have sent the site an interesting link courtesy of Maajid’s “adventures” in Pakistan. While he was avoiding the “assassination attempts” by “Islamists” Maajid had the time to go on a local Pakistani Satellite Channel for a Debate!
A bit of background to the debate (for all those who cannot speak Urdu) the topic of the debate was about relations with the West. Should we have them or not? Maajid, of course, was on the side that encouraged more relations (or at least a relation) with the West. The opposing side started by the usual hostility towards Islam, the hypocrisy and the disdain for any genuine independence. Then we have this ayah (2:120)
Never will the Jews nor the Christians be pleased with you (O Muhammad Peace be upon him ) till you follow their religion. Say: “Verily, the Guidance of Allâh (i.e. Islâmic Monotheism) that is the (only) Guidance. And if you (O Muhammad Peace be upon him ) were to follow their (Jews and Christians) desires after what you have received of Knowledge (i.e. the Qur’ân), then you would have against Allâh neither any Walî (protector or guardian) nor any helper.
It was Maajid’s turn and we have our first shock! 17 minutes and 50 seconds into the debate Maajid says
We are not here to debate about whether the West is hypocritical. We are not here to debate about whether the West hates Islam. We are not here to debate about whether Muslims will never be accepted or they want us to leave Islam….Jho apne baat kiya Allah ta`la ki ayaat jho apne pesh ki (‘the verse of God Most High you mentioned earlier…’) … ye baat nehi (‘this is not the topic [of discussion]) “.
The verse he is talking about is the one in Surat al Baqarah. (2:120). Fine, but did Maajid refute these premises ? What does he say? I quote
“We know this…….(after reciting the Arabic) This is the word of God! They will not be satisfied until you leave your religion but the topic is not this…”
Wait a minute here! No, no no! We must have a Quilliam Alert! Maajid is telling us that the Jews and Christians will never be satisfied until we leave our religion ? No, perish the thought. How can this be? Is he accepting the premises and using the ayah to confirm these facts by saying “We know this!” ? (Later on in the debate, he allowed the Western Media a more privilaged position. That is a funny point. Publishing Ed and Maajid’s rants is not an argument against an anti-Muslim bias in the press)
What I find particularly funny is that Maajid while in the UK rants and raves about the false construction of something called a “Muslim World” (this is nothing original and is just following the current “advice” given by neo con think tanks ) but in Pakistan he talks about the “West” as an entity in its own right. In fact he believes that the Jews and Christians will not be satisfied until we leave our religion. Did Maajid contextualise it in the debate to those that are at war with the Muslims? Was that his criticism towards the opposing party? Actually his only concern was this. The ayah is informative, Maajid tells us, and it does not provide a Hukm ( a legal verdict ). “Allama” Maajid to the rescue again. Thanks for that. He also did not restrict it! Maajid was particularly worried about the “unrestricted” nature of the topic of the debate. As per Maajid’s “rhetoric” we are using your premises against you heretic!
Oh, it does not stop here Maajid goes on later in the debate to provide examples that have benefited Pakistan with it’s relationship with the West. I mean Benazir Bhutto went to Oxford and Muhammad Ali Jinnah was educated in London but the third example is the cherry on the cake! This example should really worry those Neo Con Zionist outfits that maybe funding the Quilliam Foundation. In fact the Home Office and the Foreign Office should be concerned. So what was the example that was put forward by our local “counter-extremist” Director ? Mr AQ Khan the Father of the Pakistani Nuclear Bomb! Maajid thinks that Muslim Countries (ok, ok, just for you Maajid countries with a Muslim majority) should get an education about weapons of mass destruction and ship it back home! If this isn’t the case then why oh why mention it as an example for the debate?
Look, personally I find it obvious. The guy is a hypocrite and will change his persona depending on the crowd he is addressing. In my eyes he is just out there to make a career for himself and he will do anything and I mean virtually anything to keep it alive.
We should report this terrorist to the Home Office…lol.
anon
June 17, 2009 at 12:15 am
I think some people already have, and a few newspapers too
Abu Laith
June 18, 2009 at 9:37 am
Remember this TI post?
http://traditionalislamism.wordpress.com/2008/07/28/they-have-polluted-a-mosque/
It seems that this mosque was fiddling its PVE money!
http://www.ldexpress.co.uk/ldexpress/DisplayArticle.asp?ID=425926
I wonder what QF does with its government money?
Abdullah
June 18, 2009 at 10:48 am
I’ve been told that Usama Hasan has been kicked out of City Circle. I don’t know if it’s true or just a rumor. Does anyone have any information on this?
Abdullah
June 21, 2009 at 3:10 pm
I’ve also noticed that Usman Raja has become an unperson at the QF website – his biography under ‘people’ has been deleted. So it looks like he has left QF.
Abdullah
June 21, 2009 at 3:38 pm
Abdullah, we had removed everything i.e. the update and the letter for a reason and there is more than meets the eye with the Usman Raja saga. Inshallah, we will have more to say on this.
traditionalislamism
June 21, 2009 at 7:39 pm
As-salamu ‘alaykum brothers,
I actually watched this debate. Needless to say this Majid Nawaz is an extremely hypocritical person who changes colors when it suits him.
However, there is a matter of even greater concern. Maajid Nawaz has managed to make rounds of many respectable universities and institutes (mostly govt. run!) around Pakistan. He’s being portrayed as a great expert of sorts and people are apparently really impressed by him. He’s pulling the same trump card like everywhere else “look at me I’m an ex-islamist and I know it all”. It’s just sad that people just don’t know who he is! Also, what I don’t understand is who exactly is purporting him as an ‘expert’. Pakistani media (not a surprise) have embraced and seem happy to have found this ‘expert’.
One satellite channel in particular, which held the debate in question, has been really at the forefront. Aaj TV has gone even further, just today they’ve been showing a DOCUMENTARY about ‘Allamah Maajid Nawaaz and his escape for reactionary islamism, and his master plan for Muslim Ummah. I mean what on earth???!!!!!! Is this how intellectually bereft Pakistanis are? Oh he speaks english with an accent, and knows ayaat, he must be right. This and only this seems to be the criteria. It’s very worrying!
Anti-Quilliamite
June 22, 2009 at 11:33 am
Clearly there needs to be a Pakistani version of Traditional Islamism!
Abdullah
June 22, 2009 at 2:01 pm
Any volunteers
traditionalislamism
June 22, 2009 at 5:12 pm
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/jun/21/hizb-ut-tahrir-pakistan-islamism/print
Majids trip to Pakistan summarised. What a fool.
Mentions at the end of the article that newsnight will be showing video footage of his trip. On Tuesday (22nd June I guess)
Not sure what one can say to the lies this man is perpetuating. He does not fear Allah (SWT). He just fears losing the pounds currently flowing into his pockets, so needs to come out with new angles to keep the devil happy.
Abdul Rehman
June 22, 2009 at 5:41 pm
He’ll be on Newsnight tonight. Can’t wait for his lies…
Tobias
June 23, 2009 at 9:39 pm
Looks like Usman Raja has begun to speak out against them.
Let’s see if he goes further than his subtle criticism he wrote in this article.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2009/jun/23/muslim-radicalisation-quilliam
Tobias
June 23, 2009 at 10:31 pm
I watched the newsnight footage. I thought there was one excellent scene, where an invited sister from the North West Frontier asked majid:
“We have no water. We have no electricity. How do you expect us to solve the problems you are talking about if we can’t even get these basic needs? How will you solve these problems?”
I didnt hear a reply. I am sure he would have given a reply. But like all his other nonsensical arguments, the reply would have been purely academic and a million miles away from the reality of society in Pakistan.
In my opinion, he is doing this to justify his funding from the British govt. Wanted to show them that he is willing to risk his life (have to be a child to believe he was doing that!) for the cause, so keep the money coming.
I also thought newsnight should have questioned his staying at a 5 star hotel for “so called” security protection at our tax payers expense. He should have left the country to save on spending more hard earned taxes.
Its an absolute disgrace.
Abdul Rehman
June 23, 2009 at 10:38 pm
When they want to ban the ‘burkha’, do they mean this specific Afghan/Pak type of dress? Or are they really aiming at niqab or even hijab? Whatever it is – QF support a ban.
http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/109563/Ban-the-Burkha-here-in-Britain
Moderate Muslims in Britain supported the move here, pointing out that the burkha had no justification in Islamic teachings. Ghaffar Hussain, of the anti-extremist think-tank Quilliam, said: “There is nothing in the Koran that says you have to wear a burkha. It’s a cultural thing. To wear a burkha in modern Britain is not essential from any Islamist point of view.”
Ghaffar is in good company:
Among those welcoming the call for it to be banned was Douglas Murray, director of the Centre for Social Cohesion. Pointing out that using religion as an argument to keep the burkha was “completely bogus” He said: “There is nothing in the Koran that justifies the covering of women in what amounts to a black sack. “There are parts which speak of modesty but not this complete covering up. This idea that it is a religious requisite is only put forward by the extremists.”
Ali Abdullah
June 24, 2009 at 12:53 am
I saw some of it. I really liked the theatricals with the bullet-proof vest!! Note that the lecture he gave in the hotel was to people specially bussed-in from Peshawar. Hand-picked? In the open lectures his reception was more hostile and sceptical. In the pre-programme write-up it says this:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/newsnight/8115206.stm
The man also had a dig at Nawaz’s mainly English speeches, peppered with Urdu: “You come here as a Pakistani, I would first like to tell you to go and learn to speak the Pakistani language. Then you come here and tell us how to be good Pakistanis.”
Also see here:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/8115668.stm
Abdullah
June 24, 2009 at 4:06 am
“Looks like Usman Raja has begun to speak out against them. Let’s see if he goes further than his subtle criticism he wrote in this article.”
So, even if the text of the ‘resignation letter’ was false, the sentiments that it expressed appear to be true.
Abdullah
June 24, 2009 at 8:29 am
People are very skeptical of this charlatan, even Pakistanis can see through his empty rhetoric. The only people who seem more than happy to promote Maajid Nawaz are the secularists like Parvez Hoodhboy, who can’t even stand the sight of qur’an being recited.
The fact that Maajid Nawaz actually lost the motion overwhelmingly on that Aaj TV debate show, is a testament to this reality. I actually don’t think Aaj TV, who have religiously taken up the duty of promoting Maajid Nawaz, were expecting him to lose. But, alhamdulilah no matter how much these hypocrites try, the very fact that on University campuses niqaab, abaya, hijaab have become so common that ladies not wearing one seem odd, is by Grace of Allah a slap in their faces.
Anti-Quilliamite
June 24, 2009 at 9:20 am
It seems that the Islamophobic Express is the only newspaper currently happy to quote Quilliamites. Here’s another one, from last week:
http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/107304/Government-plans-new-counter-terrorism-strategies
Ed Husain, the former Islamist who renounced jihad to form the well-respected Quilliam Foundation counter-terrorism think tank, said: “I am not convinced that we can learn much from Saudi Arabia. “Green Lane Mosque in Birmingham and the East London Mosque, as well as others, have Saudi trained clerics and the mindset of bigotry, literalism and supremacist tendencies behind these kind of mosques are the bane of our lives.”
Abdullah
June 24, 2009 at 3:20 pm
This story contains an error. Ghaffar did not say what is quoted above – this is an error which the Express has rectified. See here and here.
.
Groucho
June 24, 2009 at 3:42 pm
Since when have s*ittoon/Quilliam ever care about letting facts get in the way of propaganda? After all there are 1 million (pounds) of reasons why banning the burqa, supporting the war in Iraq (see edwina), supporting the state of Israel (shiraz maher), and banning anything Islamic that contradicts secularism pays!
Sam
June 27, 2009 at 11:42 pm
I am sorry but how many ppl actually wear the bukha in uk? Why make it such an issue are main stream political parties just pandering to the far right islamophobic sentiments that have arisen since the European elections ?
Abu Laith
June 28, 2009 at 2:16 pm
Does anyone have any idea what the Conservative Party policy on government-funded groups like QF is?
Ali Abdullah
July 3, 2009 at 6:21 am
Slms brother, i have been following your blog since its inception, i hope allah (swt) rewards you for all your efforts.
I just had a question which is slightly unrelated to the objectives of your blog, i think i read it in one of your entries (or linked articles).
I’m doing some research and I have heard in the past brothers mention statistically the amount of times hadd punishments (particularly cutting the hand of the thief) were applied throughout islamic history and how these were relatively low. Are you aware of where these statistics have been sourced from? If possible could you direct me to those sources?
Would appreciate any help from any of the bros.
Jazakumullah khairan
Mahfuz
Mahfuz
July 7, 2009 at 1:48 am
Wa Alekuum al Salaam brother,
Certainly, this did apply to Ottoman records that are available. The references that can be found for this are available in the article on the Ottoman Fiasco. Inshallah the authors noted should provide you with a base to further research Ottoman history and it’s relationship to the Sharia and in particular the Huduud.
We do have at least a normative stance in the books of Fiqh throughout the Muslim world that push this forward so at least we can say this is an ideal, unless we think of a Muslim conspiracy to make the Huduud more palatable (that would really be a bit silly).
Whether the other “Empires” of Islam were absolutely corrupt and arbitrary in the application of the Sharia is something to be seen. How can we show this ? Are all the Islamic dynasties like this ? Isn’t this a bit simplistic ?
In other words the question now becomes to generic and really should be applicable to a generation that we are talking about.
traditionalislamism
July 10, 2009 at 7:39 pm
Every society or ideology will try over time to blur the distinction between its contradictions and that of any other foreign culture or idea to which it may be engaged with in a conflict. It is thus NO surprise that fair weather moral, nominally ‘Muslim’ secular progressives, employed by kuffar in academia are pushing one such contradiction, homosexuality as sanctioned by Islam:
“Homosexuality is NOT incompatible with Islam. The two can and have coexisted. The important thing is to link it with living a good life and creating a good society,” said Dr. Amanullah De Sondy, who will shortly take up a new teaching post at Ithaca College, New York State.
it is then linked, RAND-style back to sufism:
“In the 16th-century Punjab, there lived a Sufi [uslim mystic] saint and poet called Shah Hussain. He fell in love with a Hindu boy. They lived together and are buried in the same tomb. But some people want to rewrite history, saying the boy was in fact a girl.”
source: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/scotland/article6689699.ece
one neo-con wants his PhD released as a book:
“Men, Sex, & Islam”
http://waltjr.wordpress.com/category/homosexuality/
this is apart from the fact that someone with ZERO credibility Islamically and whose knowledge of Islam comes SOLELY from kuffar employed at universities to curate it at museums as “cultural artifacts” and/or teach it as an academic subject:
http://www.blogger.com/profile/11522288849357546093
It should thus come as NO surprise that British govt. funded parakeets, i.e. the secular recycled Quilliam munafiqs are now trying to justify homosexuality as something that is “native to islam” under the guise of RAND style sufism and islam’s view on slavery
“…we should join De Sondy in making the positive case for accepting homosexuality.”
“People who make the argument that homosexuality always has been and always will be completely unacceptable in Islam should also make their case for why slavery is a different matter – which went from being accepted to illegal.”
source: http://www.spittoon.org/archives/1724
I would kindly request that another information packet be made of this post along with the previous statements of Majid justifying homosexuality and put up as a PDF on your site.
regards,
Sam
Sameer
July 12, 2009 at 7:15 pm
I have been rebutting the guys at spitoon. While doing so i came across some very childish articles with some very immature comments e.g. the one about Imran Waheed.
I made a mistake thinking they are serious, so no more posting on their site.
Abdul Rahman
July 14, 2009 at 1:25 pm
lol! Are you really taking fist of kufr seriously ?
I mean his mistakes are atrocious. For example I quote
“And what is Imam Muslims explanation of these hadiths O you engineer’s apprentice? Read it, and you will find that he quotes Imam Haramain who allows more than one ruler… slightly inconvenient?”
So according to this guy Imam Muslim quotes Imam Haramain! Interesting that since Imam Muslim died in 261 AH yet he quotes someone i.e Imam Juwayni who died in 478 AH.
Then he makes a big deal about Juwayni and his Ghiath i.e. the phrase
“…there is room to allow it”
Note he has no familiarity with the primary texts or he just intentionally pretending to engageand knows he is a liar
Juwayni clearly in a number of texts gives the reason why can have one Amir who is independent of the Caliph. Note not two Caliphs. He does not hold this view at all ! You can have an independent Amir according to him if the Caliph cannot pass on his intentions to the land mass because it is cut off from dar islam. This can also happen as an interim to get a Caliph.
Yes these scenarios something to look into but they do not talk about different Caliphs. How in the world can a land mass be cut off from the communications of a Caliph now ?
So according to fist of kufr he believes it is an ijtihaad to think that the modern world is no longer global in communication. What next an ijtihaad to think that the world is flat?
He is silly and not worth talking to. Leave them alone. They have an agenda.
If they are concerned about dialogue let them come here
traditionalislamism
July 14, 2009 at 6:51 pm
Ok JZK TI. I thought i show them that the deen has a lot more to say than the one dimensional misquotations they are propogating.
But you are right, they are not serious. Just mocking every point.
Abdul Rehman
July 14, 2009 at 9:49 pm
As expected, the guys at Spittoon really do lack coherency and intellectual rigour. At least on TI, the writers are brave enough to back their points of view with well researched references.
This is not the case at spittoon. Debating them intellectually is a waste of time as the deabtes degenerate into abuse when they have no way of answering even the most simplest of contentions.
They also fail to grasp obvious points of jurisprudence which junior students of fiqh know by heart.
You will be pleased to know that they do monitor this blog. So maybe someday they will see sense and actually come and debate, properly here at TI, where they won’t be met with abuse, but real intellectual debate, in a respectable, but firm manner.
JZK TI keep up the good work.
Abdul Rehman
July 15, 2009 at 7:57 pm
Abdul Rehman
what do you expect from a site that has contributions thinking that a good case can be made for the legality of homosexuality lol!
Say Alhamidhullah that our traitors are rather easy to catch out and alienate in the Muslim community.
Abdul Rehman accept the fact that people like that exist and move on inshallah.
traditionalislamism
July 15, 2009 at 8:54 pm
According to some of them Imam Muslim lived a hefty 276 years, Mashallah, That was so funny when it was posted. Brilliant, the stupidity is brilliant!
traditionalislamism
July 15, 2009 at 8:58 pm
Great advice TI. JZK. Am heeding!
Abdul Rehman
July 15, 2009 at 9:37 pm
The spittoon guys have shown themselves to be rather hypocritical. They write articles slandering people with lies. Rashad has written an article about how Islam allows the existence of more than one caliph. In the comments section I stated that he cannot be trusted as he has been exposed on TI many times for making up refrences to backup his fantasies. I also stated that he is a criminal who got kicked out of HT for committing VAT fraud. I also stated that he got kicked of shallow quilliam for writing even shallower research. I think Rashad runs the site. I should have known!
Abdul Rehman
July 19, 2009 at 8:19 am
Evidence for which is that they deleted my comment. So much for the saying, heresy is another expression for freedom of thought
Abdul Rehman
July 19, 2009 at 8:21 am
Ya Akhi I told you. We have exposed these old references over and over again and yet they repeats the same points. We told you they are just there to insult and pretend they are doing something for cash! I mean do you really think that this blog would have any influence on the Muslims at all lol?
I mean the article is utterly useless and he just writes it as if no one has already exposed the referenecs. He did the same thing with the Ottoman Fiasco. So let us look at his referencing again
Regarding the hadith about one ruler. Imam Nawawi has this to stay, which he convieniently removed
Here is the refutation that has been on this site for a long time
http://traditionalislamism.wordpress.com/2008/04/15/multiple-distortions-for-multiple-islamic-states/
Note Imam Juwayni does NOT hold the position that one can have two Caliphs, the issue of so called “Hajjaa” has been addressed along with the quote, the view of Imam Juwayni clarified and to top it off Imam Nawawi says
“….and this is a corrupt position that goes against the agreement of the Salaf, the Khalaf and the apparent wording of the hadith”
Yet, Imam Nawawi was a tad harsh because Imam Juwayni was not talking about two Caliphs at all. Both Juwayni and Imam Nawawi think this is an issue of IJMA which means it is Qati! In fact Imam Juwayni thinks that the Imama is in the branches of the Deen like Ghazzali but they think it Qati. They even think that Ijma is in the branches of the Deen.
So the ignorant amateur overlooks the obvious classification of the Ulema of things into the Usul and the Furoo of the Deen. Those in the Furoo of the Deen though can be Ilm Nadhari and that is the context of the quote of this scholar as well
“The obligation of appointing an Imam is from the branches of religious rulings (furoo ul-fiqh’hiya), and without a doubt they are not from the fundamentals of religion (Usul ul-Din).” (volume 3 page 92)”
For Imam Ansawi also holds it to be Qati and in fact it is the same theme over and over and over again with other Ulema. We have many Ulema who say the same thing about the Imama because it is in the context of the Shia.That is why you find it in the books of Aqida. Even though it is in the branches of the deen it is Qati!
Then he quotes Amir Sanani and Shokani who are in the same camp and the view has already been clarified in my article. We cannot take Shokani’s view now because the reasoning is defunct, unless Rashad wants to think that Suyuti’s view that the world is flat is also an Ijtihaad! Also see the article here
http://traditionalislamism.wordpress.com/2008/04/15/multiple-distortions-for-multiple-islamic-states/
Regarding the branches and Usul and its relationship to the Imama see this article as well and as well the view of Juwayni and Ghazzali see this article
http://traditionalislamism.wordpress.com/2008/03/19/abdullah-bin-bayah-juwayni-and-noddy-2/
It is just amazing how someone exposed over and over and over again is just in denial because of the money that he smells.
Then we have the so called Khawarij label.Generally the Salaf attacked the Khawarij on particular views and not for rising up against tyrants per se.
This has been dealt with here
http://traditionalislamism.wordpress.com/2007/12/30/the-art-of-evading-shubhat-part-2/
and here
http://traditionalislamism.wordpress.com/2007/12/30/the-art-of-evading-shubhat-part-3/
Interesting if on the site one thinks that Homosexuality is subject to revision, one wonders why the position that Rashad rambles on about is Qati? Why are the views against the heretical Khawarij Qati? lol!
What is the criteria ? Does he believe in Ijma ? Why ? Why isnt this subject to the “maqasid” approach” What about Fist of Kufr’s view aka probably “Maajid ( he is know for the Oh ye blah blah…. approach lol and the label is interesting ) In fact Ed wanted any Muslim Government that implements the Hudud to be overthrown!
Here they are calling for the overthrow of certain Muslim leaders! Is that the act of the Khawarij ? lol! They fail to realise that the so called use of an opponents argument against himself does nothing for the conversation to progress. More importantly to do that one must have common grounds in the first place. You show that the opponents view is incoherent with premises that you do not believe in yourself! There are so many grounds to attach this approach, one just wonders why they make it so easy for us ?
By the way we have collected the hadith on unity and they are muttawatir (Oh my God do I sense a so called well Muslims differ on the number issue blah blah) and the meaning does not allow the Razaq approach
http://traditionalislamism.wordpress.com/2008/04/15/multiple-distortions-for-multiple-islamic-states/
and here
http://traditionalislamism.wordpress.com/2008/04/20/ali-abd-razzaqs-poor-logic/
Even if they find a view that allows this. So what! You have to put the view up against the evidences that are there. If you do not hold this view, you will even have problems with our foundations of belief (Ibn Taymiaah talks about it and I just love the twist of Rashad on this. I was in tears of laughter)
Of course in the absence of the Caliph we do follow our rulers as per the hadith that are so many on this in matters that are good and disobey them in matters that are haraam. This, of course, does not remove the obligation of having a Caliph as Juwayni clarified in the Ghiath!
traditionalislamism
July 19, 2009 at 8:56 am
JZK TI. As always, sharp, on the ball and showing them clearly the error of their ways.
JZK
Abdul Rehman
July 19, 2009 at 1:21 pm
I was going to post a rebuttle to Rashad’s article, but they have started deleting my comments. So I hope those interested in a sincere rebuttle read your post above.
We know the spittoon lot visit TI – at their peril.
Alhamdolillah.
Abdul Rehman
July 19, 2009 at 1:23 pm
No offense – but why are you wasting your time on their site?
They are heretics and hypocrits of the lowest form – even promoting homosexuality.
No one in the ummah or even amongst the disbelievers would take them seriously – so why spend any time there??
abu abdullah
July 20, 2009 at 6:32 pm
I agree Abu abdullah. It was a holiday period for me, so thought I check them out during moments of spare time.
But now work is back on, so time is a premium again!
Masalaam
Abdul Rehman
July 21, 2009 at 10:32 am
I was reading the article below from Edward/ Edwina/ Ed the duck, whatever his name is and interestingly enough, Ed has become an Islamist incognito.
Before everyone goes What? Really? his name can not remain Edwina, it is here in black and white…
You remember, how there is no politics in Islam?
You remember, how the Masjids are about spiritualism
yes we all remember that, the vulgarity coming out of Ed’s mouth, look at line 6/7: when people do not find political guidance in the mosque, does that imply that Politics should be in the Mosque Edward??
He goes on to say; this is a huge infrastructural problem, should we look to restructure our Masjids to guide Muslims through Islamic politics and point them to Foreign Policy of his Masters, yes his Masters that is the cause of the chaos? or point them to ruling by Islam and not he Kufr he up holds?
I heard Edward was a confused man, a Bengali, feminist (come on when he talks you don’t believe it?), about to become a Buddhist then decided not too, excited by one cleric, upset because he was no longer around, rebelled like a child and became a government prostitute, renamed his family and kids to fit in and after all this he is still confused. Says one thing Monday and Forgets by Friday.
You could not make this up even if you tried…
Ed Husain, of the Quilliam Foundation, the counter-extremism think-tank, said while Ibrahim was responsible for his own path, the Muslim community had to play a part in identifying and stopping the journey to extremism.
“When young people like Ibrahim don’t find political guidance at the mosque, they then turn, as he did, to the internet,” said Mr Husain.
“There they find ample guidance for political matters but that comes in the form of extremism, radicalism, or taking up arms, of being terrorists.
“This is a huge infrastructural problem within mosques and with British Muslims.
Abu Abdullah
July 21, 2009 at 2:56 pm
I have to correct myself: I called Ed feminist, he maybe, but I meant effeminate…sorry Edward..
Abu Abdullah
July 24, 2009 at 3:37 pm
Here’s something we can do! Shiraz Maher on his blog:
http://standpointmag.co.uk/node/1968
(Also cross-posted on Harry’s Place!).
tells us that the government is reviewing the “prevent” part of PVE. He also tells us that Inayat has requested ISB/YM members to make submissions:
“I would urge all of you to contribute submissions to this inquiry. You will know of how the millions in PVE has been spent (or wasted eg on the Quilliam Foundation) in your localities. Do write in with your own views. Don’t remain silent!”
I think Shiraz wants people to write in support of QF. Therefore we can all write in explaining why groups such as QF are a complete waste of taxpayer’s money.
Abdullah
July 24, 2009 at 4:04 pm
What do you think of this blog which seems to have the same general outlook as TI (particularly towards a certain government-backed ‘Muslim’ think-tank!)?
http://intellectualmuslim.blogspot.com/
Abdullah
July 27, 2009 at 3:51 pm
A few days ago HT had a conference and QF sent Lucy James to it:
http://www.eastlondonadvertiser.co.uk/content/towerhamlets/advertiser/news/story.aspx?brand=ELAOnline&category=news&tBrand=northlondon24&tCategory=newsela&itemid=WeED31%20Jul%202009%2015%3A16%3A01%3A070
And why didn’t Ed go to challenge them as QF state on it’s website? Because he preferred to give lectures in Lahore (and visit some shrines too):
http://www.quilliamfoundation.org/index.php/component/content/article/533
I wonder where Maajid was?
Abdullah
July 31, 2009 at 3:59 pm
Usama Hasan supporting Sayyid al-Qimni
http://unity1.wordpress.com/2009/08/04/death-threats-to-sayyid-al-qimni-egyptian-historian-and-thinker/
Even when almost every Muslim entity, scholar (even Ali Gomaa!) and faction in Egypt has called this guy a apostate.
Ahmadi
August 4, 2009 at 11:01 am
Some insight into recent issues rising again with al-Qimni
http://www.alarabiya.net/articles/2009/07/13/78580.html
Ahmadi
August 4, 2009 at 11:11 am
David T of Harry’s Place links to Usama’s blog entry with approval!!
http://www.hurryupharry.org/2009/08/04/defend-the-life-of-dr-sayyid-al-qimni/
Abdullah
August 5, 2009 at 8:43 am