Showing posts with label Islam. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Islam. Show all posts

10 April, 2007

Be careful who you hug.

One of most curious aspects of Islam is the ease with which almost anybody can set themselves up as a religious leader, establish a Sharia court and issue fatwas against whomsoever they disagree with. Often, a fatwa serves as an open invitation to any homicidal maniacs to kill somebody. The fatwa against Salman Rushdie is a famous example.

According to Forbes, the most recent high profile subject of a fatwa is Nilofer Bakhtiar, Pakistani Tourism minister. Her crime was to hug her male instructors after surviving a charity parachute jump in France.

The Times of India has no doubts what is happening:

The fatwa, combined with threats by the mosque’s leader to unleash a wave of suicide bombers if the government tries to shut down the court, have fuelled concern over the creeping "Talibanisation" of Pakistan.
In the Pak Tribune, however, the mosque authorities are retreating at full speed. Could this possibly have anything to do with electioneering. If he lives that long, Musharraf's term of office expires in October.

Noblesse Oblige has a more detailed account of events.

15 February, 2007

July 7th Truth Campaign.

As conspiracy theories go, this is a belter.

According to the 7th July Truth Campaign, the London bombings were not a terrorist act. That theory was cooked up by the authorities to cover the truth: a rehearsal for an anti-terrorist operation went wrong and a bus was accidentally blown up, and there was deadly power surge on the underground. At least I think that is what these prize loonies are saying but I may have misunderstood since I glazed over after the first three or four pages.

The campaign wants a public inquiry. Sounds like a job for inquisitor supreme, Lord John Stevens. For under £5m he will lunch well for a year, conclude there was a series of explosions and offer to run a further inquiry into the matter.

I came across the campaign through finding Islamic Networking, thanks to lgf.

On one point they are correct. Nobody has ever been convicted of the attacks, but then we do not put corpses on trial in the UK, whether dismembered or not.

09 February, 2007

Ministers close Islamic school.

Jameah Islameah the Islamic public school (in the UK that means, a private school) formerly raided by anti-terrorist officers has been shut down after it failed to meet the standards of educational provision required by the Education Act,2002. Reports from the Times and the BBC.

From its website, Jameah Islameah appears to have been a training college for imams, that is, a madrassah.

Birmingham kidnap plot: man charged. (Updated)

The Guardian has an early report that one man has been charged over the Birmingham kidnap lot, and four more have been named. Parviz Khan...

is accused of is accused of engaging in conduct "to give effect to his intention to kidnap and kill a member of the British armed forces" between November 1 last year and the time of his arrest last week...

...Mr Khan is also charged with attempting to supply equipment for use in terrorism acts and making available funds or property which could be used for terrorism acts.

He was charged last night with Mohammed Irfan, 30, Zahoor Iqbal, 29, Hamid Elasmar, 43, and Amjad Mahmood, 31.
The Daily Telegraph is also quick off the mark.

Update 9/02/07 @ 21:15.

The Guardian has the full text of a Crown Prosecution Service statement on the case, detailing the charges with reference to section 5 of the Terrorism Act 2006, which deals with the preparation of terrorist acts:
Preparation of terrorist acts
(1) A person commits an offence if, with the intention of-
(a) committing acts of terrorism, or
(b) assisting another to commit such acts,

he engages in any conduct in preparation for giving effect to his intention.

(2) It is irrelevant for the purposes of subsection (1) whether the intention and preparations relate to one or more particular acts of terrorism, acts of terrorism of a particular description or acts of terrorism generally.

(3) A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable, on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for life.


Birmingham kidnap plot charges.

Five men have been charged by the West Midlands Police with a range of offences under the Terrorism Act 2006 and the Terrorism Act 2000. The BBC expects more details of the charges to be given at a conference later today.

The Guardian focuses on Abu Bakr's highly original interpretation of a police state and also offers a mass of links to terrorist related articles, including what looks to be a very useful Islamic terrorism archive.

Just a cynical thought. I have difficulty believing Abu Bakr's allegations that the police subject him to random questioning. Senior detectives are expensively well trained and questioning suspects is one of their areas of expertise. In such an important case, I would be very surprised if they had not followed a strict procedure within an agreed strategy. I cannot but wonder, therefore, if MI5 have turned Bakr and he is trying to divert attention from something else. It would be useful to have such an educated individual on the books.

Update: @ 9:50

In The American Muslim, the British Muslim writer, Emdad Rahman gives his thoughts on the Birmingham case. An interesting article, but wanting cake and also eating it springs to mind. Rahman criticises Islamic "self styled preachers (nutters) of truth" for creating the impression that Muslims support terrorism. He continues,
In a nutshell, it’s a bunch of fanatics who have screwed things up for the rest. The rest of the Muslims were seen to be not doing enough to denounce atrocities seemingly carried out in the name of Islam even though people like the Met Police Assistant Commissioner Tarique Ghaffur called for an independent judicial inquiry into radicalisation of young Muslims after the 7 July bombs. This in turn has led to a quarter of the world’s humans beings being victimized. Non Muslims should also be ashamed for their slumber regarding the policies and acts being implemented and carried out in their names.
No, it is the failure by the Muslim community to denounce terrorist atrocities which is the problem here, not any type of victimisation or discrimination. Moreover, the Muslim community is being targeted by the security services because it is the source of a dangerous, and very real, threat to UK citizens of all religions and none, Muslims included.

08 February, 2007

Abu Izzadeen arrested.

Abu Izzadeen is a Muslim extremist with a homicidal tendency towards those who insult the prophet. Last September, he gained some notoriety by barracking the Home secretary, John Reid. Now Izzadeen's reuptation has no doubt been enhanced by his arrest on terror charges. According to the Times:

It is understood that the arrest is connected to a speech he gave in the West Midlands area - thought to be Birmingham - last year and not to the barracking of John Reid.
The BBC adds that Izzadeen "is being held at a central London police station under Section 1 of the" Terrorism Act 2006, which deals with Encouragement Of Terrorism. So far, the authorities are not saying anything officially.

Actually, Izzadeen is really a West Indian born in Hackney, who converted to Islam when he was 17. His real name is Trevor Brooks.

Reports also from the Guardian and the Daily Telegraph.

UK a police state, moans freed suspect.

Abu Bakr, one of the Muslims arrested in the Birmingham terrorist kidnapping plot has been freed and has been complaining to the BBC that the UK is a "police state for Muslims":

It's not a police state for everybody else because these terror laws are designed specifically for Muslims and that's quite an open fact," he added.

"So we're the ones who are being locked up, detained and then told to go back to our lives."
Bakr is studying for a PhD in something called Political Islam. If he went back to Pakistan he could research a real police state. For the meantime, leaving aside the fact that Islamic terrorism is the major problem rather than terrorism from everybody else, he might care to consider that a judge ordered his release.

07 February, 2007

Attacking Islamic extremism.

Ruth Kelly, communities secretary is going on the offensive. Here is the press release "detailing" her proposals, which amount to throwing at least £5 million at Muslim groups, to facilitate a load of typically vague initiatives:

* Programmes to work with those who maybe excluded from colleges, schools and mosques and may be vulnerable to extremist messages - giving them the knowledge and confidence to turn their back on extremism.
* New local forums that can take on perverted extremist ideology with strong local leaders and role models promoting shared values, such as the rejection of violence, understanding and belonging.
* Leadership projects with increased training to develop the capacity of key opinion formers in facing down extremist messages.
* Increased training and information for local institutions, such as mosques and madrassahs, on warning signs, extremist tactics and effective responses.
* Programmes to promote greater understanding between faiths such as school twinning programmes and to improve civic and volunteering opportunities for young Muslims to develop a greater sense of shared belonging.
I have no idea what they mean in practice and neither, probably, do ministers.

The Guardian has both the Communities secretary's proposals and Tony Blair's thoughts on them.

The Daily Telegraph focuses on inter-faith schools. Whatever they might be, Acton might be a good place to start, though the extremists there are, at least temporarily, in retreat after the adverse publicity.

The BBC reports that British Muslim Forum, based in the West Midlands, is already squawking for more taxpayers' money.

03 February, 2007

More from Mohammed Naseem.

According to the Daily Telegraph, Mohammed Naseem, head man at the Birmingham Central Mosque, thinks "“This unfortunate country is moving towards a police state - the laws being passed are wrong and against the traditions of this country.”

One recent tradition of this country, is for Naseem to compare the UK with Nazi Germany and to dismiss the threat of Islamic terrorism as a government plot. Yesterday's Times reports that Naseem has been at it again. For good measure, he added,

“This is a persecuting course of action that the Government has taken. They have invented this perception of a threat. To justify that, they have to maintain incidents to prove something is going on. There is dismay and people feel they are being persecuted unjustly.
Naseem says that the Muslim community is "upset" at all this. Easily remedied. The Muslim community should stop supporting apologists for terrorism, like Naseem.

More Muslims in denial in the Birmingham local press.

Update

You have read Naseem's drivel. Now, thanks to lgf, you can watch it.

02 February, 2007

Dr Mohammed Naseem

The International Herald Tribune carries an article on local Muslim denial in the wake of Wednesday's terrorist arrests in Birmingham. Towards the end of page 2, it reports that:

The chairman of the Birmingham Central Mosque, Mohammed Naseem, said the attention from the arrests was unwelcome because it was based on what he called the un-British notion of arresting people on the basis of suspicion.

But Dr. Naseem, 82, an outspoken critic of American foreign policy who confronted the American ambassador, Robert H. Tuttle, on Iraq during the ambassador's visit to the mosque last year, said he was concerned about "Muslim nationalism." This "Muslim nationalism" had developed among some of his constituents since 9/11 and was based "not on morality, but my nation right or wrong," he said. "That's the dangerous element, and we're trying to counteract it."
Is that the same Dr Mohammed Naseem who compares Blair's attitude to Muslims with Hitler's towards the Jews, thinks al Qaeda only exists as a CIA lie and denies that Muslims were responsible for the 7 July London Bombings?

Is this the same Dr Mohammed Naseem who wants to execute homosexuals (although anybody can be excused for wanting to execute Peter Tatchell)?

Is this the same Dr Mohammed Naseem who has complained that MI6 are watching him?

Is he representative of the people that the West Midlands Police is pandering to with leaflets?

Yes, yes, yes and very probably.

Of today's press, only the Daily Telegraph puts the police's multi-cultural pandering in a rational perspective.

17 December, 2006

Blair: Get your panzers off our lawns.

According to the Sunday Telegraph, Muhammed Abdul Bari, the head of the Muslim Council of Britain thinks that the British government should stop causing terrorism by behaving like Nazis towards Muslims. Perhaps they will , as soon as Islamic terrorists stop randomly killing and maiming innocent individuals. Addressing MPs at the All Party Group on Race and Community, Bari could not manage even the remotest trace of condemnation for his co-religionist murderers.

Mr Bari also rejected Tony Blair's call for Muslims to do more to fight terrorism. He put the responsibility squarely at the door of the Government.

He said: "The attempt to place the problem on one doorstep is unfair and counter-productive." He blamed the "relentless barrage" of anti-terrrorism laws, labelling them "hastily formulated responses masquerading as policy".
Blair in jackboots? Strange fantasy.

18 November, 2006

DfES guidance to higher education on Islamic extremism

The Department for Education and Skills has published guidelines to help universities and other higher education institutions tackle Islamic extremism on campuses. As the Times reports, reaction to the advice has been mixed, with some universities criticising the document's emphasis on Islamic terrorism.

Further Education News has a link to a text file containing the guidelines. Click here to access the file directly.

Essentially the guidelines identify a number of areas which universities should especially keep an eye on - student societies, literature, outside speakers, internet use - and, if they spot anything suspicious, inform the police. Having worked in higher education, I can confidently predict that most, if not all,universities will issue reams of internal guidance as to how the guidelines are to be interpreted, probably along the lines of: if you have any suspicions, inform a senior staff member in your department who in turn will pass the information to somebody higher up the hierarchy, they then, in turn, will pass it up even higher and so on until it reaches the top.

17 November, 2006

Mirza Tahir Hussain: new developments;

The Pakistani newspaper, Dawn reports that the family of the murder victim in the Mirza Tahir Hussain case is to appeal against the pardon.

Family members of a taxi-driver killed 18 years ago by a British national have expressed outrage at President Pervez Musharraf’s decision to commute his death sentence and said they would challenge the decision in the Supreme Court. President Musharraf commuted Mirza Tahir Hussain’s death sentence on Wednesday following a well-orchestrated campaign by his family, friends and politicians in Britain. The move came after a series of negotiations by Pakistani officials to persuade the victim’s family to reach a settlement failed.

“It is an unfair and unlawful decision,” Abdul Ghani, father of the taxi-driver, Jamshed Khan, told Dawn. “Not only all the courts in the country had upheld the death sentence but even the president had turned down the mercy petition of the accused earlier this year.”

Mr Ghani said in the present situation all he could do was to … seek justice from the apex [supreme - HB] court.

Advocate Malik Rab Nawaz told Dawn that the taxi-driver’s relative Sobhat Khan had contacted him regarding the appeal and added that they would contend in the appeal that the president did not have powers to commute the death sentence and it was the prerogative only of the heirs of the deceased to pardon the killer or reach a compromise.
The British High Commission is refusing to comment but, according to Reuters India, a British diplomat has confirmed that Hussein has already left Pakistan. Just as well, perhaps. I have an uneasy suspicion that, given Musharraf's political problems with Islamic extremists, we have not heard the last of this case.

Mirza Tahir Hussain released

The Times reports that Tahir Mirza Hussain has been released from prison in Pakistan. Last month, a Times reporter spoke to Hussain.

The BBC and the Independent also have the story.

Update 2 18.11.06@14:42

The Yorkshire Post has said it will give the story full coverage tomorrow but there is nothing online, as yet.

The regional BBC programme, Look North currently has a video report, which will probably be gone tomorrow.


16 November, 2006

Mirza Tahir Hussain reprieved. (updated)

Mirza Tahir Hussain is the British citizen sentenced to death in Pakistan by a sharia court after being found not guilty by a criminal court. Now, following a behind the scenes intervention by Prince Charles, President Musharraf has commuted the sentence to life imprisonment. According to The Nation:

Musharraf commuted the sentence under Article 45 of the Constitution of Pakistan that states: “The President shall have power to grant pardon, reprieve and respite and to remit, suspend or commute any sentence passed by a court, tribunal or authority”.
The BBC says that Hussain, who has now spent 18 years in jail, could now be eligible for release. The Times reports that:
The decision to show mercy comes shortly after the Prince of Wales took the rare step of appealing to President Musharraf for Hussain’s life when he visited the country last month. The request was reported to have come in an informal moment as the two men walked to the Prince’s car after their official meeting in Islamabad on October 30. The formal announcement, expected today, will be in time for Tony Blair’s arrival next week.
The "informal moment" is a clever propaganda touch but a British embassy official let slip to an Asian journalist that negotiations have been going on over Hussain's future.

Perhaps Blair's visit will provide a politically circumspect occasion for Hussain's release.

It remains scandalous that the religious police can convict an individual for a crime of which he has already been found innocent by the legal system.

Update 16:11:06@21:21
The Pakistan Times reports the release without comment and notes that the manner and date of Hussain's release is a matter for the Law ministry. At the time of posting, neither the Daily Times nor Dawn references the story. Lahore Press links to an extensive set of links at World News If anybody is interested in rooting around further, here is the list of press links I use for Pakistan. I suspect the issue of Sharia law is currently so sensitive in Pakistan that the Pakistani press are working on the principle of leave well alone.

11 November, 2006

The perils of female masturbation.

Do not do it, ladies. Female masturbation damages the hymen and deters potential husbands. Read a book instead. On the bright side, it is not a beheading offence, a flogging will suffice.

That is the advice from Qatar television: Sheik Yousuf Al-Qaradhawi on the Risks of Female Masturbation.

Another instructional clip from Memri TV.

09 November, 2006

Mizanur Rahman: guilty of incitement

Mizanur Rahman, a London Muslim who got rather over-enthusiastic at a demonstration against the Danish Prophet cartoons, has been found guilty of inciting racial hatred. The jury was unable to reach a verdict on a charge of incitement to murder and a decision on a retrial will be made later. Sentencing was deferred. The BBC has a report and some video of the demonstration, which may to may not be relevant. It will not play for me.

So, the question now is, having secured a conviction against an individual who seems to have got worked up on the day, when are the authorities going to move against the really dangerous individuals: the radical preachers who incite the crowds to incite racial hatred? So far we have had only abandoned plans and ineffective taskforces. But let us not quibble. Not so long ago, a case such as Rahman's would have been inconceivable. The authorities are slowly taking a more realistic attitude.

Tags: ,

Margaret Beckett on Defeating terrorism.

Margaret Beckett, Foreign Secretary, has been giving a speech, at the Royal United Services Institute,in which she said not very, much other than vague generalities. She argued Muslims need to stand up against extremists and, along the way, had a poke at Israel for defending itself in Gaza. All typical of the FO line we have heard dozens of times before. The interesting part, however, is buried towards the end of the speech and will probably get little coverage in the media:

The extremists talk of a clash of civilisations, of an implacable war between Muslims and non-Muslims.

But there is no such clash, no such war.

There is only the determined struggle of the vast majority of civilised people in the world who want to live, work and prosper together against a few who would drag that world into chaos.
Beckett misses the point entirely. Although there are only a "few" Muslims who actively participate in terrorism, integration of Islam into the Judeo-Christian western values of European societies is being actively resisted by the many.

Robert Leiken, writing from an American perspective has analysed the problems facing Europe. In a paper for the Council of Foreign Relations, Europe's Angry Muslims. Leiken argues that
Radical Islam is spreading across Europe among descendants of Muslim immigrants. Disenfranchised and disillusioned by the failure of integration, some European Muslims have taken up jihad against the West.
As Leiken observes, Islamic refusal to integrate is spreading because " Europe's Muslims gather in bleak enclaves with their compatriots" and have no interest in adopting the values of their new countries. Indeed, particularly in the UK, they are encouraged not to integrate by the government's multi-cultural policies and by radical preachers who are allowed to denigrate western society and stir up anti-western sentiment. Interestingly, since Leiken's article, there are signs that Tony Blair has realised the UK's mistake and the official line is slowly beginning to change.

Taking Leiken's argument a step further, the problem now is that Muslims increasingly demand the right to retain their traditional practices even when they are in conflict with the host country's laws. Moreover, an increasing number are seeking to impose Islamic law (sharia) on the entire population, Muslim and non-Muslim alike. Compromise is not possible in the face of such (to borrow a word from Beckett) implacable Islamism. The more European governments surrender to Islam's demands, the more those demands are made and, if they are not met, the result is violence, as the continuing French jihad attests.

The first requirement for dealing with any problem is to recognise its nature. Beckett is a living in the FO version of reality if she fails to realise that the clash between Islam and the west has now developed into a war between two diametrically opposed civilisations: a kulturkampf.

08 November, 2006

PC Farooq: Islamic reaction.

More on PC Farooq, the Muslim Met protection officer removed from duty because he failed the security vetting procedure. The local paper in Swindon, where Farooq was a policeman before moving to London, reports that,

The leader of a Swindon mosque has rubbished suggestions that a Muslim cleric linked to a suspected terrorist group was teaching children in the town....

...Azim Khan, secretary of the Thamesdown Islamic Association and general secretary of the Jamia Mosque, said he was "shocked and saddened" that his mosque had been tarred with a link to extremism....

...We made a policy about six years ago not to allow anybody into our community who stands for inter-community hatred and we have no association or affiliation with any groups around the country.
The iman they are talking about left three years ago and he did not have any links to terrorism," Mr Khan said.
Well he would say that. The security services, who know their own business best, say otherwise.

Reaction from the usual suspects is predictable. Inayat Bunglawala, of the Muslim Council of Great Britain, is himself no stranger to controversy. According to Life Style Extra, he said,
"It does appear that he was unfairly treated. Certainly there is a concern that smear and innuendo have taken the place of hard evidence.

"I don't think this particular story will come as a surprise to Muslims. It does cause concern, but it would be premature to speculate at this stage. It is possible that they are just being overly cautious.

"The reason that was given for removing him was because he was in contact with an alleged radical cleric. But there is no evidence this cleric ever committed any crime, or that Amjad Farooq was influenced by him, so it does seem to be unfair.

"We need to hear the other side. I don't want to be unfair to the Metropolitan Police - they've got a difficult task as well."
Well he would say that. The security services, who know their own business best, say otherwise. Oh, sorry, I already said that; but it really does reduce to a question of whether the security services are going to either err on the side of caution or take risks with the safety of the individuals they are charged with protecting.

07 November, 2006

Pc Farooq: suing the Met.

PC Amjad Farooq is suing the Metropolitan Police for racial discrimination. Farooq, a Muslim, was removed from duty with an armed protection unit responsible for guarding diplomats and senior politicians such, as Tony Blair. According to the Met, he failed a counter-terrorism vetting procedure but they are not saying why, on security grounds. The Independent of course senses racism and, to prove its point, quotes various Islamic dignitaries and refers to other cases involving Muslims.

Farooq's lawyer, Lawrence Davies is obviously a learned friend and a half. The Indy quotes him as saying,

" We live in a society where it is possible to point a finger at a Muslim abroad and say that they have WMD and are a threat to national security and no questions are asked. Now those who 'protect' us feel emboldened to point the same finger at British Muslims. Muslims are labelled guilty by association. Doubt is insufficient to save them. They are assumed guilty before being proven innocent. We are very close to living in the days of Salem. If the head of counter-terrorism becomes a Witch-Finder General then any Muslim or Muslim-looking person or sympathiser best take cover.
I'm not sure what WMD have to do with Farooq and I am not convinced at all convinced by the links between the case and 17th Puritanism in Massachusetts and East Anglia.

What is clear, however, is that PC Farooq failed the security vetting so was removed from duty. So far, all that has been revealed is that his children attended a mosque associated with suspected Islamic extremists. Its sounds to me like a sensible precaution. Until, or unless, the detailed evidence either enters the public domain or is inspected by an independent figure, it will have to be left at that. Better safe than sorry.