Welcome to the Net Muslims Forums.
Page 3 of 8 FirstFirst 1234567 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 145
  1. #41
    Member Array
    Join Date
    Jan 2007


    British News Daily Mail Caught Pretending to be a Muslim to Entrap Muslims

    Did Daily Mail incite ‘war against the corrupt west’?

    by Bob Pitt - July 6, 2014


    Two days ago BBC News reported an interview broadcast on Radio 5 Live with an individual who gave his name as Abu Osama and claimed to be a British Muslim fighting in Syria. Describing Britain as “pure evil”, Abu Osama said:

    “If and when I come back to Britain it will be when this Khilafah, the Islamic state, comes to conquer Britain, and I come to raise the black flag of Islam over Downing Street, over Buckingham Palace, over Tower Bridge and over Big Ben.”

    The claim was widely publicized in the British media, not least by the Daily Mail.

    Yesterday a new thread was opened at the Ummah.com discussion forum under the heading “i am pledging allegiance to the caliphate”, with the following comment:

    “salam my sisters and brothers we should get out of this evil country and pledge our allegiance to the muslim sharia law and get out of evil west. who wants to join me so we can wage war and jihad against the corrupt west.”

    The thread was posted in the name of abuaisha10, who had only just registered as a member of the forum and had posted no other comments, which was clearly suspicious.

    Suspicions were confirmed when Ummah.com admins discovered that abuaisha10′s IP address ( belongs to DMG Media (formerly Associated Newspapers), which publishes the Daily Mail.

    Indeed, according to one IP look-up service, the address would appear to be associated with the Mail‘s chief reporter, David Williams.

    IP Address


    Update: See also Morning Star, 7 July 2014

    According to the Star report: “The Daily Mail Group did not respond to the Morning Star’s requests for comment, while an operator with Scotland Yard’s anti-terrorist hotline confirmed they would investigate the source. ‘If someone is obviously trying to rally people together to commit violence, that would be an offence we would look into,’ she said.”



    These enemies of Islam are everywhere doing such things. They pretend to be Muslims online to entrap Muslims or to make Muslims look bad/extremists by making such comments! They also take pictures of Muslims elsewhere (eg another country) and make up stories or comments and then ascribe it to those Muslims who don't know anything about it let alone making such comments.
    Last edited by islamirama; Mar-12-2015 at 10:41 PM.

  2. #42
    Member Array
    Join Date
    Jan 2007


    White Christian extremist Britain First 'battalion' invades mosque demanding removal of 'sexist' entrance signs

    The far-right [Christian Extremists] group have given Bibles to Muslims and conducted 'Christian patrols'

    by Lizzie Dearden - 15 July 2014

    A self-styled battalion of the far-right [Christian Extremist] group Britain First has “invaded” a mosque in south London.

    The stated aim of the altercation on Sunday was to “demand the removal of sexist signs” outside the Crayford Mosque.

    The signs designate separate entrances for men and women, so they can enter for segregated worship as is the custom in most mosques.

    Men and women also sit apart in Orthodox Jewish synagogues and some Sikh gurdwaras.

    A film of the encounter was posted on Facebook, set to dramatic drumming music and ending with the slogan: "Britain First Defence Force. No fear. No retreat. No surrender."

    All sporting matching black flatcaps, the group of five “activists” marched into the mosque and asked to speak to the imam, before quickly giving up and speaking to the first person they came across.

    The leader, Paul Golding, announced: “We’re Britain First, yeah? We object to your signs that are outside, the signs for men and women… in this country we have equality.”

    The man politely asked them to remove their shoes in a place of worship but the Britain First members ignored him.

    “When you respect women we’ll respect your mosques and you’ve got signs out there that segregate men and women,”
    Mr Golding told him.

    A female member of the group accused Muslims of taking equality back “a hundred years” and told him to take the signs down.

    The man promised quickly to take the signs down and ushered them outside but then there was another demand – to cover up the Christian cross built into the brick of the building, which is a former Methodist Church.

    Mosque members explained it was part of the structure and under council control but Britain First called it “offensive” to Christians.

    Syed Alam, who volunteers at the North West Kent Muslim Association, told the News Shopper they found Britain First "aggressive and threatening". "They are filthy people creating trouble in our society," he added.

    "They were quite lucky because if they had come earlier there would have been lots of people finishing their prayers and there could have been real trouble."


    Britain First Organize “Fight Club” To Target Muslims

    by Emperor on July 2, 2014

    Britain First is led by a Neo-Nazi, and now the group is creating “Fight Clubs” to fight Muslims. This is clear incitement and a threat to “social cohesion,” where is the outcry?

    A FAR-RIGHT [EXTREMIST] group led by a notorious Scots rabble-rouser are promoting sinister “fight clubs” for their followers. And anti-racism activists claim Jim Dowson’s Britain First organisation are training boot boys to fight Muslims on the streets.

    Mathew Collins of Hope Not Hate said: “They have been booking mixed martial arts gyms so they can fight among themselves, training for confrontations with Muslims.”

    Vicky Burns of Show Racism the Red Card Scotland added: “Britain First’s brand of racism and prejudice simply is not welcome here.”

    Britain First have used a series of Facebook posts to attract recruits for fight training. One ad says: “Things are bad and will only get worse. “Don’t you think it’s time to learn how to protect the ones you love – and yourself?” Another ad says of the plan: “We feel this is a vital part of building a real movement for the future struggle to take back our country.”

    It adds that the fight clubs – apparently named after Brad Pitt’s 1999 film – will be rolled out UK-wide and free of charge. Dowson’s rag-tag mob of former BNP members have already targeted Muslims in Scotland and beyond.

    They swaggered into mosques in Glasgow, Cumbernauld and several English cities, handing out Army Bibles to worshippers and telling them to stop Muslim men grooming young girls for sex. [So why is it that More than 650 suspected pedophiles arrested, many prominent figures of society, are all white]

    The invaders claimed to be carrying out a “Christian crusade”. Britain First have also staged “Christian Patrols” in London, with supporters in military style fatigues marching through Asian areas waving Union flags.

    Collins called Britain First “the most dangerous group to emerge on the far right [extremism] for years”, and urged the authorities to take proper action against them. He warned that Dowson’s men were “generating a climate of fear” and said their actions “could lead to a violent backlash”.

    Former Orangeman Dowson is from Airdrie but lives in Belfast. The self-styled born again Christian has links to anti-abortion extremists. A group he founded, Precious Life, have been accused of intimidating pro-choice supporters.

    Dowson was one of the leaders of Loyalist protests in Belfast over city council plans to limit the amount of time when the Union flag was flown over their HQ.
    He wore a veil over his face on his way to appear in court after the disorder.

    Dowson was a close associate of BNP leader Nick Griffin and a major fund-raiser for the far-right party, but he quit over claims that he groped a female party activist. He then founded Britain First with Paul Golding, an old ally and former BNP councillor.

    The group have raised their profile by urging Facebook users to “like” posts backing British troops, paying tribute to Princess Diana and opposing animal cruelty. The strategy has helped Britain First get more than 480,000 Facebook “likes”. Many users don’t know they are interacting with the extreme right.



    Friend of Bosnia: That's how it started against Bosniaks too...

    GaribaldiOfLoonwatch: If an economic crisis hits Britain these groups will grow stronger and gain momentum, they already have a pool of criminals, frustrated fascists, hooligans to gather recruits.

    JD: If brown people organize something same to counter this or defend them self it would be called Jihad training and Terrorism.

  3. #43
    Member Array
    Join Date
    Jan 2007


    Secular Extremist France bans Muslim worker from nuclear sites

    2 September 2014

    French court upholds ban citing "religious radicalisation" but his lawyer calls it a case of Islamophobia.

    A French court has upheld a ban on a Muslim engineer from accessing nuclear sites, citing his links with what it termed as "jihadist networks", but his lawyer called it a case of Islamophobia.

    Lawyer Sefen Guez Guez told AFP news agency on Monday that he was looking at launching an appeal.

    The 29-year-old working for a firm subcontracted by energy giant EDF had been granted access to nuclear installations as part of his job throughout 2012 and 2013.

    But in March this year, the man - who cannot be named according to French law, had his pass to enter the Nogent-sur-Seine nuclear power station revoked.

    Officials said he had links with a violent armed group and that he was in touch with an imam involved in recruiting people to fight in Iraq.

    A court in the north-eastern town of Chalons-en-Champagne upheld the ban saying the management could prevent those "undergoing a process of political and religious radicalisation" from accessing sensitive sites.

    The lawyer for the man cried foul and argued that his client had no police record.

    "There is no proof of these supposed links," Guez Guez said.

    In June 2014, Guez Guez successfully had the ban revoked by an appeals court. But when the engineer turned up for work, he found he was once again refused access - this time by EDF - to his place of work, and his lawyer appealed again.

    France is home to some five million Muslims - the largest Muslim population in western Europe.

    Like a number of European countries, France has expressed concern over young people leaving the country to fight in Iraq and Syria, and who could pose a risk to domestic security on their return.

    According to official estimates, about 800 French nationals or residents, including several dozen women, have travelled to Syria, returned from the conflict-ridden country or plan to go there.


  4. #44
    Member Array
    Join Date
    Jan 2007


    The Moazzam Begg case shows how Muslims are criminalised


    On 1 October, Moazzam Begg was released after seven months in detention because of allegations arising from his time in Syria which included charitable and investigative work (Report, 2 October). Days before a much-delayed court hearing, all charges have been dropped. Begg has been a role-model and mentor to many, young and not so young, and this new period of detention has caused great distress among those who look to him for inspiration. The manner in which he has been targeted and detained – with, ultimately, no evidence being brought against him in an open court – will confirm the view that this is a concerted campaign of intimidation, designed to scare Muslim communities away from active engagement in public life. While we celebrate his release, we remain concerned that he has spent another lengthy period in detention because of laws that are fundamentally unjust.

    We write to express our extreme concern about the use of allegations of terrorism and the arrest and detention of charity workers to slur and curtail the work of Muslim charities and organisations such as Cage, Interpal, Ummah Trust and HHUGS, including through closing bank accounts, lengthy investigations into charitable status and, at the extreme, the arrest and detention of high-profile campaigners.

    While we recognise and support the role of the charity commission in regulating the charity sector, it is inconceivable that the simultaneous investigation of such a number of Muslim charities at this sensitive time has arisen without political pressure. Recent history has meant that many Muslim charities are working with communities living through conflict – in Afghanistan and Palestine, in Syria and Iraq. Who can doubt that there is real human need in such locations? In common with many other charities, these organisations have sought to campaign for justice as well as raising funds for the needy. The concerted attack on such charitable activity when undertaken by Muslims threatens to further alienate a generation of young people politicised by the relentless images of suffering from Syria and Gaza.

    We fear that we have drifted into a situation where the charitable giving of Muslim communities is regarded as “suspect”. We urge all people of goodwill to resist the attempt to criminalise the charity of some communities and we ask the charity commission to enable the organisations in question to resume their invaluable work.



    According to your report on the Moazzam Begg case “it is now clear that police and prosecution lawyers involved with the case are angry that the documents were disclosed to them after Begg had spent several months on remand”. It is probably much worse than that. Begg would have disclosed his case at an early stage in the proceedings, possibly before the bail application, if not during his original interview following his arrest. The statutory duty of disclosure would have required the police to ask MI5 if his account were true. What did MI5 reply? “No?” A lie. Begg would be entitled to huge damages from them. Alternatively: “For security reasons we can neither confirm nor deny the proposition.” That should have been enough to bring the prosecution to a grinding halt.For dragging it out, the police or CPS should similarly be liable in significant damages.
    David Wolchover
    Anthony Heaton-Armstrong

    Although Moazzam Begg was released from prison for lack of evidence, we can rest comfortably because Theresa May’s latest proposals (Report, 1 October)should see him back behind bars in short shrift. Her proposals will require no evidence, just the perception of harassment, alarm or distress. So one of her new-fangled “extreme disruption orders” will sort him out. No evidence needed, just a perception. Problem solved.
    Neil Holmes

    Justice for Tarik Hassane – A politically motivated arrest by a police state

    The “anti-terror” raids which took place earlier this week were politically motivated and typical of a militarised police state, writes Amar Alam.

    On Tuesday 7th October, five young men, one of whom was named as 21-year-old medical student Tarik Hassane, were arrested in police raids on their homes, on “suspicion of forming a terror cell in London”.

    Without verifying the information, a number of news outlets reported that these men were “jihadists” and a threat to national security in the UK, thus insinuating that they were guilty before any rule of law was applied to them, and their circumstances. But on what grounds were these arrests made? And was there enough evidence beyond reasonable doubt to assume these men were “terror suspects” and a danger to the British public?


    On Monday 6th October, Tarik Hassane sent a tweet “Oi lads…I smell war” to two friends, which was isolated and stripped of its surrounding context by the British media, and half-wittedly reported as a sign of admission that he was about to instigate a terror related incident in the UK.

    Itching to break the story as quickly as possible and grounded by their unprofessional standards, they failed to mention that the tweet was sent to Tarik’s friends who were witnessing an argument between a number of females on Twitter. Not wanting himself or his friends to be involved in the dispute, Tarik sent the tweet to tell his friends that they should leave because a “war” i.e. a big spat was about to take place between the females.

    But conveniently ignoring the real context of the tweet, in typical sensationalist fashion, the British media, including The Sun, Channel 4 News, Metro and The Independent, who have frequently exaggerated and even published false stories against the Muslim community in the UK, reported that Tarik was arrested because his tweet implied he was guilty of planning a “terror attack”, when there was no evidence to substantiate this claim.

    “Terror raids”

    What is greatly alarming is the manner in which Tarik was arrested. It has been reported that excessive force, through the application of stun grenades and tasers, was used when the police broke into his home.

    Furthermore, the raid was unjustifiably violent and was described by some as tactics that would go unnoticed in a militarised police state. So while the media were quick to paint Tarik as a possible terror suspect based on one innocent tweet between friends, their biased reporting failed to report the police brutality committed against Tarik during his arrest. Additionally, the ease in which Tarik was accused of terror related offences is also extremely troubling.

    In the wake of his false arrest, there has been a major outcry and support for Tarik on Twitter and Facebook; showing that the British public is now beginning to see through the Islamophobic agenda of the British media and their sensationalist stories. Using the hashtag #JusticeForTarik, Twitter users have demanded that Tarik and the other four men arrested on false terror charges be released. In fact, many of Tarik’s non-Muslim friends condemned the media who they believe sensationalised a false story against him.

    War on Islam and the silent community

    This story may cause some to draw parallels with the arrest of Moazzam Begg seven months ago, when he was falsely arrested under the guise of terror related offences in Syria, that were recently proven to be false. It was found that the British security services and politicians such as Teresa May withheld vital information that would have exonerated Moazzam on the day of his arrest.

    On that occasion, the Muslim community in the UK, their leaders and Imams remained silent, and were afraid to speak out for an innocent man in case they were scrutinised themselves. But how long will the Muslim community remain silent; too afraid to speak out for innocent men arrested on a weekly basis under false terror charges?

    This has now occurred too frequently for the Muslim community to ignore what is happening and the current events taking place inAustralia against Islam and Muslims, should serve as a reminder to them that they cannot sit silently while their community is victimised, abused and subjugated by the government.

    Instead, the Muslim community must raise their voices in unison and campaign to end the attacks aimed at innocent Muslims.

    The following should serve as a reminder that Muslims must show unity during these troubling times; the Prophet (saw) described the Muslim nation as unique and that their honour was only established when they were all safeguarded from trouble [Ahmed].

    For this reason, Muslim organisations, community leaders and Imams must fully support the campaign to help release Tarik, and the other Muslims falsely arrested on Tuesday. While some from the Muslim community are happy to embrace secular values, and follow a government set agenda by condemning anything they feel does not follow their interpretation of “Britishness”, those who follow an orthodox interpretation of Islam must make a stand by campaigning and defending their fellow Muslims, not because they are told to by the government, but because it is the right thing to do, religiously and morally.

    Amar Alam has studied an undergraduate Psychology degree and completed an MSc in Research Methods in Psychology at UCL. He regularly has academic articles published in medical journals and writes articles on various Islamic topics using a social framework for a number of media outlets.


  5. #45
    Member Array
    Join Date
    Jan 2007


    Are British Muslims facing the same fate as the Irish in Britain once did?

    The Sun's 'Oi Lads' headline

    Remember the Birmingham Six, the Maguire Seven, the Guildford Four and Judith Ward? Behind the campaigning numbers were 18 innocent people who collectively spent scores of years in British jails after being falsely convicted of terrorism offences.

    Their sin was to be Irish (or, in Ward's case, to have spent time in Ireland) during that 1970s period when the Provisional IRA was bombing targets in the UK.

    The police, convinced in each case that the 18 were guilty, extracted confessions under torture and/or intimidation, faked evidence and lied in court.

    All of this is known, but all of this is too easily forgotten. Now, amid the hue and cry in Britain over the activities of the Islamic State (Isis), it is timely to recall the "mistakes" by the police, by MI5 and by a compliant media, of 40 years ago.

    I couldn't help but notice the triumphant and incautious tone in some newspapers last week when five men, aged 20 to 21, were arrested in London over "a suspected terrorist plot to mount an attack in Britain".

    We learned from some papers last Wednesday (8 October) that they had links to Syria and to Islamic State (Isis). The headlines were unequivocal: "Jihadi plot to attack UK smashed" (Daily Mail); "MI5 smash British 'Isil terror plot'" (Daily Telegraph); "British medical student arrested on terror charges 'may have just returned from Somalia'" (the Independent); and "MI5 nab surgeon" (The Sun).

    Given that the force is not supposed to leak to the press, journalists received a surprising amount of detail in off-the-record briefings. One of the men was named as Tarik Hassane, a 21-year-old medical student, and we learned he had, allegedly, sent a tweet to two friends saying: "Oi lads… I smell war" (giving the Sun a follow-up splash headline on Thursday).

    But was that tweet really about the conflict in Syria and Iraq? According to a lengthy article on the Islam21c site, it concerned a personal matter involving women friends of Hassane's friends.

    I don't know whether that's true or not, of course. But I am not alone in having suspicions about the case and about the sensationalism of the coverage surrounding his arrest and that of the other four.

    Even the Mail began to wonder. Towards the end of its article on Thursday it hedged its bets by reporting that friends of Hassane said his tweet "simply referred to a 'bunch of rowdy girls' who were bickering on the social networking site."

    Channel 4 News also reported that claim by Hassane's friends (but I note it did so while revealing the first picture of the student and asserting that he had been originally named by the Sun).

    I am heartened that the Guardian's first news report included this key paragraph:

    "Some past high-profile terror arrests have been based on intelligence that turned out to be inaccurate, and have led to accusations that police and MI5 have ramped up the nature of possible plots".

    Even so, Scotland Yard tell me that the five men remain under arrest because, although the legal questioning period has passed, a warrant granting the police an extension runs until tomorrow (14 October).

    So it's possible that we will know much more in 24 hours' time. But I can't help thinking that the errors committed against the Irish in the 1970s are being replayed with a new set of victims, British Muslims, in 2014.

    Why is the Sun outraged by attacks on its anti-Isis stance?

    Meanwhile, Tim Fenton, in a blogpost on Zelo Street raised a much more interesting matter: the linkage between the MI5 arrests and the Sun's call last Wednesday (8 October) to "Britons of all faiths to unite to defeat IS fanatics".

    I wrote at the time that the paper had "used its muscle to make a valid political invention". I stand by that.

    However, that claim to validity was immediately questioned by Nesrine Malik, who viewed the Sun's 'Unite against Isis' campaign as "a proxy for anti-Muslim bigotry." In fact, she considered it to be a "stunt" in which... "Muslims have to prove their British credentials with a display of loyalty – that their Britishness is not taken for granted until they do so. You are a shady Muslim first, and a citizen second...

    It is a way to sneak into plain sight an increasingly popular view that Muslims are an enemy within, and, as Islamic State allegedly reaches British shores, the idea that British Muslims are their allies."

    That did give me pause for thought. I trailed down the 1,500-plus comments thread below Malik's polemic in which, amid the predictable tangential diversions (and plenty of deletions), there was a measure of support for her opinion among the criticism.

    I noted that the Sun's managing editor, Stig Abell, thought Malik's comment "vapid, pious and divorced from reality".

    I haven't spoken to him about his tweet, but I'm guessing he was angry because - in company with his editor, David Dinsmore - he sincerely believed the paper had made a genuine attempt to do something worthwhile, and then had it thrown back in their faces.

    Although I am more open than Malik in accepting that their motives were not as she suggested, Abell's scathing response to her was unworthy of him. It is perfectly plausible to argue that there is a difference between good intentions and unintended consequences.

    That difference is simple to grasp. Many Muslims, after years of alienation and what they regard as prejudicial media coverage, are bound to see a sinister agenda in anything done by newspapers they regard, rightly or wrongly, as hostile.

    Similarly, the Sun would have done better not to have linked its anti-Isis campaign to what it called a "police swoop on first suspected Islamic State terror cell in UK."

    This tended to reaffirm for Muslims living in Britain that they are under collective suspicion unless they distance themselves publicly from Isis.

    Surely, Malik's argument required a cogent reply stressing the paper's sincerity rather than an offhand tweet.


  6. #46
    Member Array
    Join Date
    Jan 2007


    William Shawcross – The Neocon, Zionist, Anti-Muslim Head of the Charity Commission

    April 4, 2014

    Muslim charities have been coming under intense scrutiny of late, and it seems that it is no coincidence that this discriminatory treatment of the Muslim charities is in synchrony with Shawcross’s appointment. Him overseeing charities is a major threat to all charities which do not subscribe to the current government’s policies and neoconservative aims. It is thus necessary to analyse this individual from the Muslim minority perspective to determine whether there is a possibility of discriminatory treatment of charities associated to or run by members of the Muslim minority of the UK.

    The Charity Commission Neocon Coup

    The fact that William Shawcross resigned from the Henry Jackson Society in 2012, a neoconservative organisation with Douglas Murray on the board, to take up his appointed role as head of the Charity Commission gives us the first clue to his mindset.

    It is worth analysing his controversial appointment. Both the Labour and the Lib Dem MPs criticised Shawcross. MPs drew the attention of their concern at his pre-appointment hearing highlighting his extreme political views, bias towards the conservative party, and his resultant lack of impartiality. In a poll by the Guardian in determining whether Shawcross was suitable for the role, 77 per cent of the readers voted “No”.

    This neocon coup does not end with Shawcross however. Most of the replacement board members also have some interesting, extremely biased, untenable backgrounds:

    • Peter Clarke was formerly the Head of Counter-Terrorism Unit and was (through a security contract in Iraq and Libya with Olive Group) and still is employed by major war-profiteers (KBR) as an advisor to them

    • Tony Leifer is a Member of the Board of Deputies of British Jews, an organisation which despite claims to the contrary, is an avid promoter of Zionist/Israel supporting events and have campaigned against human rights organisations which are deemed anti-Israel

    • Gwythian Prins is a senior academic advisor to the Defence Academy of the UK. He has written, that

    “Moves are needed to take defence and security, as far as possible, back out of the arena of short-term party politics.”

    In other words, defence policies should not be democratically controlled.

    The Charity Commission is run by partisan, warmongering elites whose interests and vision are in clear compliance with all that neonconservatism represents: elitism, deception and perpetual war.

    Shawcross – Iraq War and Guantanamo Bay

    William Shawcross, like Andrew Gilligan was once a journalist of repute. Another Eton College and David Cameron bed-fellow, he switched to neoconservatism and has since supported the Iraq war through his writings by bending legal precedent as per his neocon beliefs, and twisting even the Nuremberg trials to justify his own extremism.

    Invoking the legacy of his father who was present in the Nuremberg trials, he has used it as a smokescreen to defend the United States’ disregard for human rights in the context of Guantanamo Bay
    , stating:

    “Any Nazi defendant transported by time machine from the dock in Nuremberg to that in Guantanamo would be stunned by the rights, privileges, and safeguards to which he was now entitled. Most basic of all, there was no right of appeal at Nuremberg. As General Martins said, “Like our forebears [at Nuremberg], we are not seeking “victors’ justice,” but justice consistent with the rule of law and our longstanding values and ideals.””

    The falsity in this statement is ridiculously self-evident. We are not living in accordance with the standards emanating from the atmosphere of shock from the genocide in WWII, where justice was desperately sought. Rather, the international legal norms have developed and refined over the years to a preventative form, restraining the abuses of power the likes of which the current UK Government is perpetrating and halting the creation of conditions which led to the Holocaust.

    However his writings are an extension of his neoconservative philosophy which regards an architected perpetual war as a necessity to govern the masses through fear. As the Canadian academic Drury (The Political Ideas of Leo Strauss, 2003) regarding neoconservatism states,

    “Perpetual war, not perpetual peace, is what Straussians believe in.”

    Shawcross – Zionist, Anti-Islam and Anti-Muslim

    His philosophy of neoconservatism extends to his blatant, bigoted bias against Islam and Muslims. This is mostly through the “Islamist” rhetoric, positing the discredited (by MI5 no less) conveyor-belt theory of radicalisation as truth. However, his true position on Islam and Muslims has come out. In a lecture delivered by him regarding his book, he states:

    “Europe and Islam is one greatest most terrifying problems of our future, I think all European countries have vastly, very quickly, growing Islamic populations…”

    In his Zionist, blind defence of Israel, he has frequently attacked the United Nations for condemning Israeli actions, calling it a “lynch mob”, and rehashes the false claims of Iran’s “threats to obliterate” Israel. Whilst trivialising Israeli extremisms he maintains that:

    “Israel is an imperfect society (like any other), but it has extraordinary social, scientific and scholastic achievements.”

    Rehashing the same right-wing neocon extremist, anti-Muslim rhetoric without the same level of nonchalance he writes:

    “Radical Muslims, on the other hand, stone women, hang homosexuals and kill to deny free speech. Do Europeans protest that? Not many, not often.”

    The above statement is a staple neocon/EDL-esque regurgitation: gross simplification, contextual misapplication, outright lies, and more significantly an attack on the theological rulings established scripturally in Islam through smear and distortion. Is a man with such overt bigoted bias fit to hold a position in the Charity Commission?

    His anti-Muslim tirade, through his emotional plea for Israel continues:

    “No one marches or calls emergency meetings of the UN and the EU to protest the vicious Muslim brutality against other Muslims that takes place every day throughout the Islamic world – and beyond. No one demonstrates on behalf of Christians murdered in the Middle East, their churches burned.”

    His pro-Zionist/anti-Muslim bias is most acute in the language used in the following quote:

    “The Muslim world and the Western Left are in an unholy alliance; they do not want to improve the Jewish state, they want to remove it… [Obama] He has showed himself far more tolerant of (or unconcerned by) abuses of power in the Muslim world than by mistakes of Israel.

    Muslims abuse power. Israel makes “mistakes”. “Mistakes” which include habitual violations of international law and committing crimes against humanity. “Mistakes” where Palestinian children as human shields in war, torturing them and imprisoning them for 20 years for throwing a stone at a tank. “Mistakes” in which the reality of the hatred of the Israelis comes to the fore in their massacres of the Palestinians and the racist graffiti by the IDF in Palestinians homes. These are of course, but “mistakes”.

    His constant drum-beating against Islam in his writing clearly postulates a position akin to Huntington’s Clash of Civilisations. His Neocon, Zionist motivations are evident in the article from which the above quotes are taken. He sets the piece up to depict the “Muslim world” – not Islamist extremists, or terrorists – as one which is intolerant and racist towards Jews. Ironically, similar quotes can be found in the statements of Jewish oppressors such as Ariel Sharon and even Ehud Barak who infamously called Palestinians “crocodiles”. Recently the mayor of Jerusalem Nir Barkat was endorsing Rabbi Shmuel Eliyahu for the Chief Rabbi position. He is an outright racist who has gone on record to say,

    “Arab society is generally and without generalizations, a violent society”

    “It is forbidden to sell apartments to Arabs, it is forbidden to rent apartments to Arabs. Say ‘racist’ all you want, I’m unimpressed by such words. This, by the way, is prohibited by Jewish law.”

    In Shawcross’s blatant wanton bias, extremisms amongst Jewish Israelis are not recognised, and are categorised as “mistakes”.

    He has also endorsed the extremist neocon Douglas Murray, who views Islam and Muslims in the following light:

    “Islam is a proselytising faith, and one that is incompatible with British history, British law, and British society. With nearly two million Muslims currently living within Britain’s borders, no risk whatsoever should be taken… Britain must start implementing its response… we must not allow tolerance to prove the Achilles heel of our freedom. To defend our tolerance we must be intolerant to those who oppose us, even when we express tolerance. We must not tolerate them” (Murray, 2003)

    The above quote is from Douglas Murray’s Neoconservatism: Why we need it. Shawcross endorsing his work in his book writes:

    Conservatism is lost in crisis – Douglas Murray brilliantly defines the way out.

    Shawcross also references him in his own publication (Justice and the Enemy: Nuremberg, 9/11, and the Trial of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed) which is an exemplification of neoconservatism, justifying outrages like the Iraq war, Guantanamo Bay and imperial American foreign policies. In the acknowledgements he cites Douglas Murray and even “mad Mel” Melanie Philips among other anti-Muslim haters and thanks them for helping him in writing his book (p.219).

    It is interesting to note that Andres Breivik, the right-wing, anti-Muslim terrorist who bombed Norwegian government buildings and massacred innocent civilians cited articles written by Melanie Philips in his terrorism manifesto. Regarding Muslims she has gone on record saying,

    “The problem, however, is that it doesn’t understand what Muslim extremism is. Believing that Islamic terrorism is motivated by an ideology which has ‘hijacked’ and distorted Islam, it will not acknowledge the extremism within mainstream Islam itself.”

    There is no distinction here between an “Islamist” threat and Islam itself, as is tactfully done by the current UK Government. This is understandable given her views are similar to Robert Spencer’s, with whom she has shared platforms as a speaker spreading her message of anti-Muslim hate. Platforms, which have been organised by the extremely bigoted David Horowitz Freedom Center, the umbrella organisation running Robert Spencer’s Jihad Watch website.

    Pamela Geller, who is the anti-Muslim speaker for the American Tea Party and who has advocated an alliance with the EDL, is an admirer of Phillips and cites her work.

    Note that both Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer were banned from entering the UK, by non-other than Theresa May the government extremist. So even by government extremist standards, these two are extreme beyond extreme!

    Shawcross - An Exremist According to the Government

    Such are the associations of William Shawcross, some of whom have links with individuals who have inspired terrorist atrocities and violent right-wing movements. He is an extremist neocon. And an extremist even according to the government’s PREVENT definition of extremism:

    “Extremism is vocal or active opposition to fundamental British values, including… individual liberty and mutual respect and tolerance of different faiths and beliefs”

    He has praised and defended Guantanamo Bay, the anti-thesis to the human rights paradigm and has therefore vocally opposed individual liberty of all human beings. And his extremely bigoted, anti-Muslim views expressed through his articles, books and lectures are an active opposition to “mutual respect and tolerance of different faiths and beliefs”.

    Arriving at the precipice of our discussion, I end with following question and recommendation: how can such an individual, who openly proclaims is deceptive neoconservative philosophy, associates with people who are outright Muslim-haters and who have connections with individuals banned by the Home Secretary, is an extremist by laymen’s standards as well as the government’s, be allowed to remain as the head of the Charity Commission?

    The above analysis points to the overwhelming conclusion: he must be removed.

    Last edited by islamirama; Feb-11-2015 at 09:57 PM.

  7. #47
    Member Array
    Join Date
    Jan 2007


    Rochdale's Muslim community say they face 'unprecedented and unacceptable' racism after town's grooming scandal

    A group of local leaders have come together to speak out about the rise in violence and discrimination they say Asian people have been subjected to following the town’s grooming scandal

    Nov 18, 2014

    Members of the Muslim community say they are facing ‘unprecedented and unacceptable’ racism in Rochdale – and are calling on all parts of society to take a stand against Islamophobia.

    A group of local leaders have come together to speak out about the rise in violence and discrimination they say Asian people have been subjected to following the town’s grooming scandal.

    They say the ‘excessive’ focus on the ethnicity and religion of non-white sex offenders has led to the ‘stigmatisation’ of their community – meaning that Islamophobia is now an ‘acceptable norm’.

    The group, a coalition of local leaders under the name of Rochdale Muslim Community, say they now want to work with people in the town to eradicate the hatred.

    In a statement passed to the M.E.N., they said: “It has become evident to anyone that follows events in the media that Islam is being portrayed negatively and that Muslims living in Britain are bearing the brunt of discrimination and violence.

    “There is little doubt that this has resulted in not only the community feeling vilified but could potentially breakdown social cohesion within society. Irresponsible comments from senior local and national politicians are aiding the negative portrayal of the Muslim community.

    Time and time again some politicians and the media have attempted to equate issues such as grooming and the Muslim community as being one and the same.

    “It is only natural that this sort of misinformation will stigmatise the whole of the Muslim community. This has meant that casual xenophobia towards Muslims has now become an acceptable norm.”

    Their stand comes after a group of Asian taxi drivers went on strike in Heywood after their boss revealed his firm, Car 2000, would supply a white cabbie on demand. The drivers described how their cars had regularly been attacked or vandalised following the town’s grooming scandal.

    In 2012, nine men from Rochdale were jailed for grooming girls and sharing them around the north west for sex.

    But the coalition of the town’s Muslims said, while the pedophile gang was often refereed to as ‘Asian’, the ethnicity and religion of sex offenders such as Jimmy Savile, Stuart Hall and former Rochdale MP Cyril Smith has never been mentioned – even though they too used positions of trust to abuse young children.

    The group’s statement added: “Unfortunately, we are now facing a situation where a disdain of the Muslim community is something which is deemed acceptable.

    “We do not wish to go back to a situation where discrimination against minorities becomes the norm. We believe that all segments of society have a duty to stand up against Islamophobia in all of its guises no matter how subtle or apparent.

    “We intend to double our efforts in order to alleviate the misconceptions that have been manufactured by irresponsible speech, not only by far-right but mainstream politicians and the media.

    “Part of our action plan will be to educate the wider society about the Islamic belief to help overcome stereotypes against Islam.”

    Signatories to the statement include Mazhar Khan, from Manchester Muslim Forum, local businessman Kasim Javed, Saaqib Ali, from Project Madinah, and Tayab Nabi and Kamran Khaldi – both of the Rochdale Association of Private Hire Drivers (RAPHD).


  8. #48
    Member Array
    Join Date
    Jan 2007


    Police say no charges after Bolton taxi driver viciously assaulted by passenger

    A 62-year-old taxi driver claims he has been denied justice after police refused to press charges over an alleged attack in which he was “viciously assaulted” by a passenger.

    Mohammed Aslam says the attack took place outside Bolton police station in Scholey Street after he drove a passenger there because he was behaving aggressively.

    The veteran Metro driver had to go to hospital with cuts and bruises on his face after the incident on October 15.

    Police have now informed Mr Aslam that there will be no further action in the case because of a “conflict” between the accounts of those involved.

    He has now complained to Greater Manchester Police, as well as the region’s crime commissioner and local councillors, in his bid for justice.

    Mr Aslam said: “It appears that the investigating officer is not pressing charges because he believes the perpetrator acted in self-defence, but this is ridiculous — I am a frail 62-year-old man who cannot physically attack anyone.”

    He said he picked up the male customer, thought to be in his twenties, along with another man from an address in Tonge Fold just before 7pm.

    He said he had not realised at the time that the passengers wanted to be taken into Manchester and that when he went past the turn off for St Peter’s Way, the younger man became aggressive and started shouting.

    He said: “He was swearing a lot and saying racist remarks to me. He was very aggressive so I pulled in and told him to get out.”

    “The men wouldn’t get out so I drove them to the police station in Scholey Street.”

    Once in Scholey Street, the 62-year-old alleges that the younger man got out and forcefully kicked his car, prompting the driver to get out of the taxi.

    “I shouted at him because he kicked the car and that is when he punched me hard in the eye — he followed this with four or five more punches to my head.

    He kicked me and pushed me again but then two police officers came running to help because I think officers inside the station had contacted them on the radio.”

    Mr Aslam admits that he grabbed the customer by his shirt to stop him running from the police but said that was the only point at which he touched him.

    He then went to hospital and the man was apprehended by police, but Mr Aslam said he never heard back from them regarding charges.

    He said: “Three weeks later I asked my nephew to contact them and he said they would not be taking any action — I felt terrible and I couldn’t believe it.

    “This man viciously beat me up and he should be punished.

    “What upsets me the most is that he had no regard for my age — I am a frail man with a white beard and he showed me no respect or moral decency, and yet he has walked away.

    “Surely it should be for the courts to decide if he acted in self-defence?”

    A police spokesman said: “It has been decided that no further action will be taken in this case because of a conflict in the accounts of what happened.”

    Mr Aslam has now been contacted by Jim Battle, the deputy police and crime commissioner, and Bolton councillor Linda Thomas, who have both agreed to look into the the matter.


    The Bolton News

  9. #49
    Member Array
    Join Date
    Jan 2007


    #KillAllMuslims – The Dawn of The Second Inquisition


    Whilst the world focuses on the Charlie Hebdo killings, a far more calamitous chapter of European history is unfolding, writes Dilly Hussain.

    Within 12 hours of the shooting outside the French magazine, Charlie Hebdo’s office in Paris, which resulted in the death of 10 journalists and two policemen, #KillAllMuslims started trending on Twitter.

    The perpetrators were heard by witnesses shouting “Allahu Akbar” and “Prophet Muhammad has been avenged,” in relation to the derogatory cartoons of Prophet Muhammad (saw) published by the controversial weekly magazine.

    World leaders, including Prime Minister David Cameron, echoed President Francois Hollande’s sentiments in describing Wednesday’s shooting as a “barbaric attack on liberty and freedom of speech.”

    As expected, many Muslim leaders and organisations that have been “condemning terrorism” since 9/11 went out of their way to do what they do best – to apologise for a crime that had absolutely nothing to do with them. Embarrassingly, many have even jumped onto the #IAmCharlieHebdo bandwagon, forgetting that this was a magazine that published pornographic images of Muhammad (saw).

    The Charlie Hebdo incident was an act of murder, but one that was provoked, and no one should shy away from stating this fact. Many analysts and commentators, both from the right and the left, have conflated Muslim critique of the concept of “right to offend” with condoning the murder of journalists. This is obviously a cheap and convenient trick for muscular liberals, who are fully aware of the damaging nature of this principle in society.

    It amazes me how Muslim liberals and seasoned apologists have fallen for the honey trap laid by Western governments who wage illegal wars, prop up brutal dictators, and commit the most horrific crimes on a macro level under the banner of “democracy”, are parroting the narrative that the Charlie Hebdo shooting was an attack against freedom of speech, and linked to an extreme “Islamist ideology“. Rather, it is Western leaders who are referring to this incident as an attack on liberalism, in an effort to validate their ideological conflict with Islam.

    Freedom of speech

    If #KillAllMuslims wasn’t an indication of the climate in which Muslims find themselves in at the dawn of 2015, numerous magazines and publications in the US, France and the UK reprinted the cartoons of Prophet Muhammad as a defence of free speech. British cartoonist, Martin Rowson told the BBC that the best way to respond to those who oppose free speech in the form of satirising religion should be: “laughed back to the dustbins of history where they belong.” Quite an ironical statement considering that absolute freedom of speech, which does not exist in practice anywhere, was never the default universal position in human history. Respect, honour, and considering others’ sensitivities were always the default position.

    The liberal outlook of many Western journalists and comedians who have the licence to insult God, Prophets, Messengers, and religious figures with impunity will only create an atmosphere of social decadence.

    Doctors, lawyers, teachers, law enforcement officers, and civil servants are expected to carry out their work professionally with due care.

    However, the lack of professionalism and sensitivity displayed by journalists, comedians, and cartoonists demonstrates the inconsistent practice of free speech.

    Additionally, the existence of defamation, treason, public disorder, holocaust denial, and race laws is further proof of the flawed concept of freedom of speech, and the right to offend.

    Whilst Muslim leaders’ tap dance to their governments’ narrative, they remain oblivious to a far more sinister reality taking root in the form of a mainstream Islamophobic culture in Europe, that could possibly materialise into a violent systematic Inquisition.

    The coming of the second Inquisition

    2014 marked the peak of Islamophobia, and the rise of the far-right in Europe. The right wing “Europe of Freedom and Democracy” (EFD) bloc within the EU continues to expand, led by our very own Nigel Farage of UKIP.

    The rise of the far-right has been covertly facilitated by the hysteria created by mainstream political parties, and the media, which has made Islam and Muslims synonymous with terrorism, extremism and fanaticism. This growing culture of anti-Muslim prejudice has led to numerous attacks against Muslims (mainly women), and places of worship in Europe.

    Within the space of a week, three mosques in Sweden were fire bombed by arsonists amid tensions over the country’s immigration debate.

    In Germany, more than 20,000 people have joined the racist and anti-Muslim Pegida movement in the streets of Dresden, protesting against the supposed ‘Islamisation’ of their country.

    In Austria, violent attacks against Muslims in public have been frequent, including one that led to an elderly woman suffering a spinal injury in broad daylight outside a bank.

    France’s crusade against Muslim women wearing the niqab continues as it refuses to even acknowledge the existence of Islamophobia, whilst the rise of the French National Front forces Muslim children to either “eat pork or starve“.

    In light of events in Syria and Iraq, Denmark and Bulgaria has seen a wave of anti-terror arrests, even for possessing a black flag bearing the Muslim declaration of faith.

    Greek farmers were cleared for shooting 28 Bangladeshi strawberry pickers. Whilst many have argued that this was not linked to race or religion, it would have been interesting to know what the punishment would have been if roles were reversed.

    Numerous mosques have been desecrated and vandalised in Poland, which has become somewhat a norm in Europe.

    In Belgium, a young Moroccan mother escaped death when she was rammed by a car, as the driver shouted racist abuse at her for wearing the hijab.

    Besides the Pegida protests in Germany, and the mosque arson attacks in Sweden, all the aforementioned incidents in Europe just about made into non-mainstream news sites. This is taking into consideration that Islamophobic hate crimes are majorly under-reported out of fear of backlash, and a genuine lack of faith in the judicial system to adequately punish the perpetrators.

    As for Britain, it is slowly but surely shifting towards becoming a neo-Stasi police state, especially in light of home secretary Theresa May’s proposed Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill (CTS). The CTS bill could possibly be the most damaging piece of legislation for the British Muslim community as draconian measures such as spying on toddlers, censoring dialogue at universities under the guise of ‘preventing extremism’, the confiscation of passports, revoking citizenship, interception of personal mail become state policy. The unprecedented rise of the UK Independent Party (UKIP) during a climate of Islamophobia, has forced the Tories to reveal their true colours on policies relating to Europe, immigration, and counter-terrorism.

    As the wider non-Muslim community’s suspicion, distrust and hatred towards Muslims worsens, it is an undeniable fact that the state of Europe’s largest religious minority is facing an existential threat, and the possibility of a quasi-inquisition in the future would not be a far-fetched nightmare.


  10. #50
    Member Array
    Join Date
    Jan 2007


    Charlie Hebdo, Selective Free Speech and Muslim Minority Discrimination

    January 9, 2015

    As the world now knows, three masked men stormed Charlie Lebdo offices killing 12 employees including four cartoon artists a few days ago. As I write this, they are still at large leaving a trail of damage.

    As is the norm now, Muslim organisations have come out condemning the action. Nevertheless the discourse rapidly focussed on two key areas, which are typically only discussed in the Muslim context.

    Free Speech and Propaganda

    Reading statements from politicians and emotionally-charged papers defending “free speech”, the fact that free speech is not absolute, is continually ignored. The right to life is an absolute non-derogable right. Thus balancing the two rights in the human rights discourse would mean giving way to one when the two are in jeopardy. This is not something new.

    Balancing competing rights happens every day in the Strasbourg Court of Human Rights. Under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights restrictions may be imposed on freedom of expression “for the respect of the reputations and rights of others”, and protection of national security, public order, health and morals.[1]

    As it is there needs to be some pressing questions which need to be answered. Rights, as I discussed last year, is often used as a stick to beat the Muslim minority with. The freedom of expression is an important right. After all, it is the protection measure for the people against the state and a fundamental mechanism of holding the executive to account, sharing knowledge and challenging ideas. The question is however, at what point does it become hate speech and/or propaganda to alienate a minority and normalise xenophobia? A further restriction on freedom of expression lies in the prohibition of abusive invocation of rights. Article 5(1) states,

    “Nothing in the present Covenant may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms recognized herein or at their limitation to a greater extent than is provided for in the present Covenant.”

    As such Article 20(2) requires that, “any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law.”

    The French Muslims have been systemically discriminated against, their places of worship desecrated and attacked, their religious manifestations curbed and their faith repeatedly mocked. Freedom is binned when a Muslim woman wears a hijab on the beach. The European Court of Human Rights in its judgement upholding the French ban on the veil acknowledged that the discourse leading up to the enactment of the law banning the veil was in fact Islamophobic thus demonstrating that discrimination against Muslims is strongly institutional.

    To foment further discrimination of the Muslim minority through increasingly repugnant anti-Muslim drawings in such a politically charged environment smacks of Goebbels’s strategy to demonise the Jews. Take for instance the paper’s incredibly disgusting image depicting a caricaturised Egyptian protester being riddled with bullets by the Egyptian army. Mocking one of the worst massacres of protestors in recent history, the writing on the cover translates as “killing in Egypt – the Qur’an is s**t – it does not stop the bullets”. The propaganda image at the very least normalises the killing of Muslims and wanton attacks on the Qur’an, at a time when Muslims were being massacred by the military. It is purely Nazi-esque. In 1946, Julius Striecher, editor-in-chief of the anti-Semitic newspaper Der Stürmer, was convicted by International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg. According to the Tribunal,

    “Striecher’s incitement to murder and extermination at the time when Jews in the East were being killed under the most horrible conditions clearly constitutes persecution on political and racial ground in connection with war crimes… and constitutes a crime against humanity”.[2]

    Were it not for common decency, I would present an open challenge to “satirists” and papers to depict a picture of a Jew holding the Torah while being gassed in a chamber. I for one would condemn such actions. Would the defenders of free speech publish such an image? Or perhaps publish a “satirical piece” on how no one really died in the holocaust? At this point the liberals point to the fact that free speech must be exercised within the confines of the law and in French law anti-Semitism is banned, thus conceding the point that unfettered free speech in society is not possible and a blatant unreflective delusion.

    As a matter of “principle” (for free speech purists), one needs to question why the Holocaust is such a “sensitive” issue that it is off-limits for “criticism”, or, in the present context, “satire”. Why are the “freedom to offend” brigade so deafeningly silent on this topic? If satire involving a religious figure who is central to the hearts of a minority to such an extent that it evokes strong emotions globally is open game, then what is so sacrosanct about the Jewish holocaust that any criticism or expression of suspicion must be gagged through law? If a protestor holding his sacred Book is being shot in Egypt can be depicted in such a repugnant fashion, which “principle” restricts its application to Jewish sensitivities and why is this restriction not universally applied?

    Today’s freedom-defending French President François Hollande called the attack “an attack on free speech”. A year ago, celebrating the ban on comedian Dieudonné M’bala M’bala’s performance before France’s anti-semitism laws were breached, Hollande declared the decision a “victory”. Casting doubt over Charlie Hebdo’s claims that they satirise everyone, in 2009, when their cartoonist Maurice Sinet made a snide remark and drew cartoons about Jean Sarkozy’s marriage to a Jewish heiress, he was promptly fired when he refused to apologise on the editor’s orders.

    It is clear that some human beings are more entitled to human rights than others.

    David Cameron

    This hypocritical application of free speech couldn’t be more acute in the British context than Cameron’s statement on the French shooting. Condemning the actions as a sickening attack on press freedom, he said,

    “We stand united with the French people in our opposition to all forms of terrorism and stand squarely for free speech and democracy.”

    This is of course, rather rich coming from the leader of a government whose laws detain, harass, and monitor journalists.

    Cameron’s government is pushing forward with measures which gag dissenting voices, and ban speakers from speaking at universities. In fact, the PREVENT strategy which draws parallels with Nazi Germany and East Germany’s Stasi goes beyond free speech and seeks to discriminate and sanction based on thought, thus violating the absolute right of freedom of conscious and belief!

    Cameron couldn’t be more hypocritical even if he tried.

    Collective Amnesia and Framing the Discourse

    Interestingly, when news of a number of Swedish masaajid being attacked hit headlines, they were described by the media and state officials as “arson attacks” thus given the action a criminal framework (see here, here, and here for example). Where the perpetrator is allegedly a Muslim, the public, papers and politicians in Western nations rapidly deploy their highly politicised “terrorism” linguistic-armoury. Following this, “free speech” and “values” are used to evoke a sense of collectiveness, similar in method adopted by authoritarian demagogues of the past.

    Often the broader public, as evident on social media networks, suffer from a collective amnesia. “Only Muslims kill!” “You don’t see Jews and Christian killing when they are offended”. Except they do. The only problem is it is not as comprehensively broadcast daily as it neither serves the purposes of the right-wing and neocons in Western governments. When it is reported, it is done so from a different perspective.

    If we continue to use the human rights framework to frame the attacks, then far-right, Christian fundamentalist terrorist Anders Breivik, attacked a much weightier right: the right for immigrants, Muslims and those who support multiculturalism to exist in Norway. In other words, Breivik attacked the fundamental right to life of minorities and those he politically differed with. The same applies to Pavlo Lapshyn, who murdered an 80 year old and bombed masaajid in Britain. His intent was to create a race war and kill “non-whites”, thus denying them the right to life purely on the basis of their skin colour.

    On 7th of January of this year, a white man committed a “terrorist” attack in Colorado, US, against the National Association for the Advancement of Coloured People, one of the oldest civil rights groups in the US. Again, this attack, if framed in the human rights discourse can be viewed as an attack on the freedoms of “coloured” people. The provocation is the existence of “coloured” people in a given area. The same can be applied to far-right, white supremacist attacks on Jews in the US last year, and the several far-right terrorist attacks in the preceding years.

    But you will never read a report entitled “far-right, white, Christian terrorist attack on Muslims provoked by their fundamental right to exist”. Nor will you see the level of reporting, national debates, and continued Muslim-reaction baiting we are currently witnessing.

    Provocation and Backlash

    As is the norm with such events, a backlash has already begun, with #killallMuslims hashtag trending on Twitter. Masaajid and kebab shops have been subjected to French “terrorist attacks”, despite the chorus of condemnation from Muslim leaders. Of course, the Daily Mail and Western media generally won’t class these as terrorist attacks. They are but white, non-Muslims “coming to terms” with what has passed.

    And herein lies a more subtle point. When a “provocation” is made against western nations in their own countries, we witness a backlash by the white people; mosques are bombed and Muslims are terrorised, yet there seems to be an inability to comprehend or a refusal to accept Muslim backlash when western nations bomb Muslim lands, exploit their resources and destroy future generations. At its most basic level, both cases are emotional responses to provocation which continue cyclical violence. Yet one is humanised whilst the other, is dehumanised. It is this unceasing hypocrisy which undercuts the Western liberal discourses which will continue to demarcate the dire situation of the Muslim minorities and fuel resentment.

    Concluding Remarks

    Globally Muslims feel the pain that French Muslims feel when the noble Prophet peace be upon is insulted, for verily he is revered more than the human who gave birth to us. It hurts us when the French racists and xenophobes use the Muslims to pedal themselves to power, curtail their freedoms in the name of freedom, perpetuating an atmosphere of hate. We understand Muslim minority discrimination all too well.

    The discourses around such attacks certainly emphasis an important point. The Muslims do not benefit from such actions, neither do the perpetrators spiritually as they break the commands of their faith. It does however, provide a justification for further persecution of the Muslim minorities, further curtailment of freedoms and further military invasions abroad as the hot pursuit for the ever evasive “Islamist extremism” materialises exasperation. For particular policy-makers and politicians, events like these are a benefit; be it whipping up fear to manufacture consent of an uniformed public, winning the upcoming elections, justifying French military invasion of North Africa, or all three.

    Indeed the neoconservative and Zionist advisors in Western governments feed off such tragedies and direct their renewed warmongering vigour through their policies. When the September 11th attacks occurred, Benjamin Netanyahu told an audience at Bar Ilan university that the September 11, 2001 terror attacks had been beneficial for Israel. The neocon David Brooks wrote,

    “Sept. 11th really did leave a residue — an unconsummated desire for sacrifice and service.”

    Of course this self-sacrifice translated well in the jingoist neocon plans for global hegemony. In the Great Game, such actions play neatly into the hands of those who wish to exploit the vulnerable mood.

    [1] Art.19(3)
    [2] Judgment of the International Military Tribunal for the Trial of Major War Criminals, Cmd.6964 (London: HMSO, 1946)


  11. #51
    Member Array
    Join Date
    Jan 2007


    London mosques sent death threats and Prophet Mohamed drawings after Charlie Hebdo attack


    Mosques in London have been sent death threats, hate mail and drawings of the Prophet Mohamed in the wake of the Paris attacks.

    Tell Mama, which records Islamophobic hate crime in Britain, said it had received reports of incidents at the East London Mosque, in Tower Hamlets, and Finsbury Park Mosque.

    Among the 15 emails and letters sent to the Finsbury Park Mosque were hand-drawn cartoons depicting the Prophet worshipping the devil.

    Mohammed Kozar, the general secretary, told Sky News that despite the spike in abuse there had been many messages of support.

    “Most of them are nasty drawings about our prophet and our books,” he added.

    “Some of them make death threats against our community, so it's quite frightening for our community and our mosque.”

    Finsbury Park Mosque’s former links with radical preachers resurfaced after the Paris attacks as it was alleged that the Charlie Hebdo gunmen were followers of Djamel Beghal, a radical preacher based there in the late 1990s.

    The mosque’s new management, focusing on community work, anti-extremism and improving interfaith relationships, has earned it several awards.

    Fiyaz Mughal, director of Tell Mama, warned in a column for The Independent that there has been a rise in Islamaphobic abuse, particularly on social media.

    Muslim women have told the group they have been abused since the Charlie Hebdo attack with comments like “I'm Charlie - you are not”.

    Mr Mughal said many Islamophic incidents stem from people associated with far-right groups, usually white men under the age of 40.

    “After the murder of Lee Rigby in 2013, the real impact of far right sympathisers was felt in the United Kingdom,” he wrote. “Since May 2013, over 50 mosques have been attacked.”

    Tell Mama is urging any mosques or Islamic groups receiving abuse to get in touch for assistance.


    Moroccan man in France killed at home in front of wife in 'horrible Islamophobic attack'


    A Moroccan man in France was brutally killed after being stabbed 17 times in front of his wife at his own home by a neighbour in what is described as a “horrible Islamophobic attack”.

    Mohamed El Makouli was confronted by a 28-year-old attacker who forced himself through the front door at around 1:30am on Wednesday, shouting “I am your god, I am your Islam”, the National Observatory Against Islamophobia said yesterday.

    The father of one, 47, was killed in the quiet village of Beaucet, near Avignon in southern France, while his 31-year-old wife Nadia tried to save him. She suffered wounds to her hands before she fled the scene with their child to call the police.

    Observatory president Abdallah Zekri condemned the attack “as a horrible Islamophobic attack” and claimed that the victim’s partner was very clear about what the man had shouted regarding Islam.

    He told AFP: “She is sure of what he [the attacker] said.”

    The man was charged on Thursday with murder, attempted murder and possession of drugs before he was admitted to a psychiatric hospital in Montfavet. Police said yesterday that the claims of Islamophobia will be investigated when they start questioning the attacker.

    He was reported to have been diagnosed with schizophrenia as he claimed he had heard voices and officials say that he was found at the scene in an incoherent state.

    The attack is one of at least 50 Islamophobic incidences reported so far in the country after the murders of 17 people at the Charlie Hebdo magazine and a kosher supermarket in Paris earlier this month, according to the Central Council of Muslims in France.

    A 20-year-old Muslim man originally from Eritrea, Khaled Idris Bahray, was stabbed to death in Dresden, Germany, on Tuesday. He is reported to have left his home on Monday and did not return before his body was found on the street in the early hours.

    The attack on Bahray is feared to be linked to “anti-Islamification of Europe” marches held in Germany, which have been strongly condemned by the country’s leaders including Chancellor Angela Merkel.



    how typical that this white islamophobe terrorist is being labeled mentally ill (schizophrenia) and of his meds, seems like they are always "lone wolf" and "mentally disturbed". Muslims don't have an extremism problem, these Anglo Europeans do as is evident from their extremist groups guised as "far-right" groups. People don't fear their Muslim neighbor will turn on them and kill them, but we Muslims have that fear and yet we are called "extremists"?

  12. #52
    Member Array
    Join Date
    Jan 2007


    Channel 4's Most Complained About Programme Was Ramadan's Muslim Call To Prayer


    Channel's 4 broadcasting of the Muslim call to prayer during the holy month of Ramadan was the broadcaster's most-complained about program last year.

    It received 2,011 complaints about its 4Ramadan season with 1,658 specifically about the broadcast of the daily call to prayer.

    A Channel 4 spokeswoman said: "We are clearly not saying that all the complaints we received were Islamophobic in nature, but simply that we were surprised by the level which were."

    Writing in the broadcaster's annual report, Channel 4's head of factual Ralph Lee said: "The level of Islamophobia we encountered with the 4Ramadan season was unexpected, though much of it came from communities that were either very polarized or very un-diverse."

    Lee said he personally received hundreds of emails complaining about the broadcast after he defended it in a column for Radio Times, where he said it would "act as a nationwide Tannoy system" and a provocation to viewers "in the very real sense of the word".

    At the time of the broadcasting, a committee of MPs questioned whether the Channel had made the correct decision, with MP Angie Bray saying the decision could be seen as "patronizing".

    But Channel 4 chief executive David Abraham told MPs broadcasting a Muslim call to prayer does in fact fit in with the broadcaster's public service remit.

    Channel 4 chairman Lord Burns said that the broadcasts had received "very little" negative reaction, adding that they were not "inflicted upon" viewers and that watching was "a matter of choice."

    He said that the broadcast, at 3am, had attracted 186,000 viewers in a slot that was normally watched by around 35,000.



    Shaytaan runs away farting when he hears the Adhaan (call to prayer), and it seems these Islamphobes are the same.

  13. #53
    Member Array
    Join Date
    Jan 2007


    Life in Britain is about to get MUCH worse…


    1984 in 2015: Counter Terrorism & Security Bill

    A new piece of legislation currently being rushed through Parliament called the Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill carries serious implications for communities across the UK. In particular, the Muslim community is brought under particular scrutiny as Part 5 of the Bill seeks to make reporting on those on pathway to terrorism (through ‘extremist’ actions, beliefs of statements) a statutory requirement. This means that nursery teachers, university lecturers, doctors, nurses and even opticians, will all be under a mandatory duty to inform to Prevent police if they feel one of their students, patients of even colleagues are at risk of becoming terrorists.

    The potential impact of such legislation is limitless, as those who are placed in positions of reporting will have to base their concerns over their own subjective assumptions. With the government’s definition of extremism including those who do not respect British values, how will a doctor or teacher assess that an individual is not doing so, particularly where no definition of what constitutes British values is provided.

    In George Orwell’s 1984, it is through the character Parsons, that Orwell makes his point about the way in which reporting/informing on others within a climate of fear, can lead to manifest abuses. Ultimately, that is the greatest danger behind such legislation, that while some may be happy with the prospect that Muslims will come under increased scrutiny, ultimately it is every community that will suffer.

    “Parsons was Winston’s fellow-employee at the Ministry of Truth. He was a fattish but active man of paralyzing stupidity, a mass of imbecile enthusiasms–one of those completely unquestioning, devoted drudges on whom, more even than on the Thought Police, the stability of the Party depended. At thirty-five he had just been unwillingly evicted from the Youth League, and before graduating into the Youth League he had managed to stay on in the Spies for a year beyond the statutory age. At the Ministry he was employed in some subordinate post for which intelligence was not required, but on the other hand he was a leading figure on the Sports Committee and all the other committees engaged in organizing community hikes, spontaneous demonstrations, savings campaigns, and voluntary activities generally.”

    Parsons represents an unknowing and unseeing class of citizen, who sleepwalk their way through oppressive policies, constantly unaware of the impact that such policies can have on them. Like with the current iteration of the Prevent strategy, so much of its ‘effectiveness’ lies within its ability to keep communities in fear of non-compliance, despite it lack of power.

    With debates emerging about the way in which the CTS Bill will impact within environments such as those with child minders and nursery workers, it is in fact Parsons’ children who represent the greatest danger of over reporting and the serious impacts it can have, albeit from a different perspective. The children are presented as having grown up in the national security paradigm that makes them obsessed with rooting out the ‘bad guys’ or the arch-enemy to the 1984 world in the form of ‘Goldstein’.

    “There was a trampling of boots and another blast on the comb as the children charged into the living-room. Mrs. Parsons brought the spanner. Winston let out the water and disgustedly removed the clot of human hair that had blocked up the pipe. He cleaned his fingers as best he could in the cold water from the tap and went back into the other room.

    ‘Up with your hands!’ yelled a savage voice.

    A handsome, tough-looking boy of nine had popped up from behind the table and was menacing him with a toy automatic pistol, while his small sister, about two years younger, made the same gesture with a fragment of wood. Both of them were dressed in the blue shorts, grey shirts, and red neckerchiefs which were the uniform of the Spies. Winston raised his hands above his head, but with an uneasy feeling, so vicious was the boy’s demeanor, that it was not altogether a game.

    ‘You’re a traitor!’ yelled the boy. ‘You’re a thought-criminal! You’re a Eurasian spy! I’ll shoot you, I’ll vaporize you, I’ll send you to the salt mines!’

    Suddenly they were both leaping round him, shouting ‘Traitor!’ and ‘Thought-criminal!’ the little girl imitating her brother in every movement. It was somehow slightly frightening, like the gamboling of tiger cubs which will soon grow up into man-eaters. There was a sort of calculating ferocity in the boy’s eye, a quite evident desire to hit or kick Winston and a consciousness of being very nearly big enough to do so. It was a good job it was not a real pistol he was holding, Winston thought.”

    In this scene, Mrs. Parsons apologizes to the protagonist Winston, that the children are upset, as their father is not able to take them to the public execution of a spy. As Winston begins to leave their home after assisting with some plumbing, he is shot in the back of his head by the boy with a catapult with the accusation that he is ‘Goldstein’. Later Parsons approaches Winston at work to apologize for his son’s behavior, although he fails to place danger of his son’s beliefs within a wider context. He becomes particular proud as he explains how his daughter denounced a stranger to the Thought Police – although this makes Winston uncomfortable, he is forced to accept that this was the right thing to do due to the prevailing narrative of threats and also the fear of not being seen to comply.

    “’By the way, old boy,’ he said. ‘I hear that little beggar of mine let fly at you with his catapult yesterday. I gave him a good dressing-down for it. In fact I told him I’d take the catapult away if he does it again.’

    ‘I think he was a little upset at not going to the execution,’ said Winston.

    ‘Ah, well–what I mean to say, shows the right spirit, doesn’t it? Mischievous little beggars they are, both of them, but talk about keenness! All they think about is the Spies, and the war, of course. D’you know what that little girl of mine did last Saturday, when her troop was on a hike out Berkhamsted way? She got two other girls to go with her, slipped off from the hike, and spent the whole afternoon following a strange man. They kept on his tail for two hours, right through the woods, and then, when they got into Amersham, handed him over to the patrols.’

    ‘What did they do that for?’ said Winston, somewhat taken aback. Parsons went on triumphantly:

    ‘My kid made sure he was some kind of enemy agent–might have been dropped by parachute, for instance. But here’s the point, old boy. What do you think put her on to him in the first place? She spotted he was wearing a funny kind of shoes–said she’d never seen anyone wearing shoes like that before. So the chances were he was a foreigner. Pretty smart for a nipper of seven, eh?’

    ‘What happened to the man?’ said Winston.

    ‘Ah, that I couldn’t say, of course. But I wouldn’t be altogether surprised if—-‘ Parsons made the motion of aiming a rifle, and clicked his tongue for the explosion.

    ‘Good,’ said Syme abstractedly, without looking up from his strip of paper.

    ‘Of course we can’t afford to take chances,’ agreed Winston dutifully.

    ‘What I mean to say, there is a war on,’ said Parsons.”

    For some reason Winston suddenly found himself thinking of Mrs. Parsons, with her wispy hair and the dust in the creases of her face. Within two years those children would be denouncing her to the Thought Police. Mrs. Parsons would be vaporized. Syme would be vaporized. Winston would be vaporized. O’Brien would be vaporized. Parsons, on the other hand, would never be vaporized. The eyeless creature with the quacking voice would never be vaporized.”

    Winston’s belief that is was only men like Parsons who would escape the Thought Police due to the way in which such men propped up the system ultimately turns out to be untrue. The narrative of security eventually impacts on all, even those who believe in the prevailing discourse with completely certainty. For Parsons though, his lack of understanding of the world around him results in his disbelief that he would ever be harmed, and despite his predicament, continues to maintain that he is a loyal subject, rather waking to the idea that it is the system that is broken.

    “Parsons walked into the cell. He was wearing khaki shorts and a sports-shirt.

    This time Winston was startled into self-forgetfulness.

    ‘YOU here!’ he said.

    Parsons gave Winston a glance in which there was neither interest nor surprise, but only misery. He began walking jerkily up and down, evidently unable to keep still. Each time he straightened his pudgy knees it was apparent that they were trembling. His eyes had a wide-open, staring look, as though he could not prevent himself from gazing at something in the middle distance.

    ‘What are you in for?’ said Winston.

    ‘Thoughtcrime!’ said Parsons, almost blubbering.
    The tone of his voice implied at once a complete admission of his guilt and a sort of incredulous horror that such a word could be applied to himself. He paused opposite Winston and began eagerly appealing to him: ‘You don’t think they’ll shoot me, do you, old chap? They don’t shoot you if you haven’t actually done anything–only thoughts, which you can’t help? I know they give you a fair hearing. Oh, I trust them for that! They’ll know my record, won’t they? YOU know what kind of chap I was. Not a bad chap in my way. Not brainy, of course, but keen. I tried to do my best for the Party, didn’t I? I’ll get off with five years, don’t you think? Or even ten years? A chap like me could make himself pretty useful in a labor-camp. They wouldn’t shoot me for going off the rails just once?’

    ‘Are you guilty?’ said Winston.

    ‘Of course I’m guilty!’ cried Parsons with a servile glance at the telescreen. ‘You don’t think the Party would arrest an innocent man, do you?’ His frog-like face grew calmer, and even took on a slightly sanctimonious expression. ‘Thoughtcrime is a dreadful thing, old man,’ he said sententiously. ‘It’s insidious. It can get hold of you without your even knowing it. Do you know how it got hold of me? In my sleep! Yes, that’s a fact. There I was, working away, trying to do my bit–never knew I had any bad stuff in my mind at all. And then I started talking in my sleep. Do you know what they heard me saying?’

    He sank his voice, like someone who is obliged for medical reasons to utter an obscenity.

    ‘”Down with Big Brother!” Yes, I said that! Said it over and over again, it seems. Between you and me, old man, I’m glad they got me before it went any further. Do you know what I’m going to say to them when I go up before the tribunal? “Thank you,” I’m going to say, “thank you for saving me before it was too late.”‘

    ‘Who denounced you?’ said Winston.

    ‘It was my little daughter,’said Parsons with a sort of doleful pride. ‘She listened at the keyhole. Heard what I was saying, and nipped off to the patrols the very next day. Pretty smart for a nipper of seven, eh? I don’t bear her any grudge for it. In fact I’m proud of her. It shows I brought her up in the right spirit, anyway.’”

    In a world where ideas, thoughts and beliefs are being criminalized on a statutory basis, we would do well to remember Orwell’s prophetic novel. In it we see reflected a world that will come to be, should we not arrest the current trajectory on which this government basis its ideas. The notion that a man, woman or child should be reported to counter-terrorism police for expressing thoughts and opinions places us within the very world that Orwell tried to warn against.



    The movie 'Minority Report' showed a similar story where the government would monitor people's thinking and those who planned to carry out a crime were arrested and punished even though they had not committed the crime. The movie 'Equilibrium' had a similar theme to the above novel also. In this movie the government deemed emotions to be the root cause of violence and so forced the population to take emotion suppressing drugs and everyone (including family) was to report anyone who displayed any emotion, showed interest in any art, or did not take their drug.

    These western countries are turning their countries back to how they were during the Dark Ages when someone had to be just accused of witchcraft and they would be burnt alive. Now they are doing it to the Muslims. Anyone can report any Muslim (or person) to the police if they don't like them by simply accusing them of terrorism. This is similar to the false rape accusations the women/feminists of today use against men they don't like.

  14. #54
    Member Array
    Join Date
    Jan 2007


    British Politician Says Muslims should 'prove their identity'

    British Muslim leaders outraged after Eric Pickles says followers of Islam should 'prove their identity'

    by Cahal Milmo - 19 January 2015

    Muslim leaders have accused Prime Minister David Cameron and his Cabinet colleague Eric Pickles of adopting the mindset of the far-right by suggesting followers of Islam must prove their British identity

    In an open letter to Downing Street provided to The Independent, one leading campaigner said Muslims had been left feeling their loyalty to Britain was permanently in question after Mr. Pickles wrote to imams asking that they underline being a British Muslim involves being “proud of your faith and proud of your country.

    Mr. Cameron was accused of pouring fuel on the fire when he defended his Communities Secretary by saying the letter sent to 1,000 clerics and other Muslim leaders had been “reasonable, sensible and moderate. The Prime Minister suggested anyone who disagreed with it“ really has a problem.

    Mohammed Shafiq, chief executive of the inter-faith Ramadhan Foundation, told The Independent that it was wrong to appear to question the commitment of British Muslims when he and others combating extremism had been put on an Islamist death list precisely for speaking out against radicalizers.

    In his letter, Mr. Shafiq, who has been warned he appears on a target list drawn by Somali terror group Al Shabab, said: “[Mr. Cameron] is straying dangerously into the territory of suggesting that, as a British Muslim, if you don’t agree with the Government then you have a problem.

    “I am very tired of hearing that British Muslims are not doing enough to tackle extremism…The Muslim community reacted with one voice alongside all other Britons in condemning the attacks in Paris.

    “And yet we hear from Mr. Pickles the sort language that we have come to more commonly associate with the far right. We know precisely what being a British Muslim means because we are in the front line of the battle against extremists.”

    The letter sent by Mr. Pickles, co-signed by Conservative Muslim peer Lord Ahmad, said both men were “proud” of the way British Muslims had responded to the Paris attacks but added that there was “more work to do.

    It said: “You, as faith leaders, are in a unique position in our society. You have a precious opportunity, and an important responsibility, in explaining and demonstrating how faith in Islam can be part of British identity.”

    Mr. Cameron yesterday defended the message, saying it had been “absolutely right” to write to leaders urging them to redouble their efforts to confront extremism.

    The Prime Minister said: “Anyone who reads this letter - and I’ve read the letter - will see that what he is saying is that British Muslims make a great contribution to our country, that what is happening in terms of extremist terror has nothing to do with the true religion of Islam.

    “It’s being perverted by a minority who have been radicalized. Anyone frankly reading this letter who has problem with it, I think really has a problem. It is the most reasonable, sensible, moderate letter that Eric could possibly have written.”

    The Muslim Council of Britain, which expressed bemusement that it had not been sent Mr. Pickles’ letter despite being the umbrella group for more than 500 UK Muslim organizations, said that the Government appeared to be aping the far-right by suggesting Islam and its followers were “inherently apart from British society.

    In its own letter to Mr. Pickles, the MCB said it felt his message should have been “worded differently”. Dr. Shuja Shafi, the organization’s secretary general, said: “We do take issue with the implication that extremism takes place at mosques, and that Muslims have not done enough to challenge the terrorism that took place in our name… We also reject suggestions that Muslims must go out of their way to prove their loyalty to this country of ours.”

    The Department for Communities and Local Government declined to comment on why it had not sent the MCB a copy of its letter, which was placed online as well as being sent directly to mosques.

    The aftermath of the Paris attacks, which claimed 17 victims including four French Jews, has provoked a groundswell against religious hatred across the political spectrum and among Britain’s religious leaders.

    Senior Muslim, Jewish and Christian figures met at an Islamic cultural center in Regent’s Park Mosque, central London, last week in an “act of solidarity” against the killings. Mr. Pickles this weekend joined Home Secretary Theresa May at a service to remember those killed. Ms. May said Britain needed to redouble efforts to “wipe out anti-Semitism.

    Some commentators said the negative reaction to the letter from Mr. Pickles was disappointing when they said radicalism remains an issue in some communities. Haris Rafiq, of the Quilliam Foundation think tank, said: “Whether we like it or not, there are some mosques, some imams who are preaching hate.”

    Faith Matters, which runs the Tell MAMA hotline, said surveys had shown more British Muslims were more likely to identify with Britain than the general population and were more likely than Christians to say they felt they belonged to the UK.

    Fiyaz Mughal, founder of the organization, said: “I don’t think it is helpful to say no-one should have a problem with the opinions expressed in the letter. The risk is they will be read in the Muslim community as saying you are part of the problem and not the solution.”

    The letter to David Cameron and Eric Pickles

    Dear Prime Minister and Secretary of State,

    I am writing to express my sadness and dismay at the letter sent to Muslim leaders and the subsequent response of the Prime Minister that anyone disagreeing with its contents really has a problem.

    This is straying dangerously into the territory of suggesting that, as a British Muslim, if you don’t agree with the Government then you have a problem.
    I have got a problem with the letter and here is why.

    I am very tired of hearing that British Muslims are not doing enough to tackle extremism. It is the case that everything we hear from politicians about Muslims is expressed through the prism of security and terrorism.

    And yet huge amounts of work have been done, and continue to be done, by Muslims to stand up against the threat of extremism.

    Were you in any doubt about the sincerity with which this threat is pursued, you should know that I personally and other Muslim leaders have received death threats from terrorists because of the views we express condemning what they stand for.

    As a result of the work against terrorism carried out by me and some other prominent Muslims 15 months ago we were targeted by Al Shabaab for our work against the killing of Lee Rigby; hardly a community not dealing with the threat of terrorism.

    The ability to express extremist opinion in any British mosque has diminished dramatically. In the wake of the 9/11 attacks a number of mosques were identified as harboring preachers expressing unacceptable views, such as convicted extremist Abu Hamza. Today no such opportunities exist and preachers from outside Britain who visit to express such opinions are rapidly identified and told they are not welcome.

    The Muslim community reacted with one voice alongside all other Britons in condemning the attacks in Paris. We campaigned strenuously to help save Alan Henning from the murderers of Islamic State in Syria.

    And yet we hear from Mr. Pickles the sort of language that we have come to more commonly associate with the far right when he suggests that we have “an important responsibility in explaining and demonstrating how faith in Islam can be part of British identity”. I would not have been surprised to hear such words come from the mouth of Tommy Robinson and the English Defense League.

    We know precisely what being a British Muslim means because we are in the front line of the battle against extremists. It would be nice to hear from the Prime Minister that he and others in his Government recognize that Muslims are hurting in this struggle as well. We have to pick up the pieces when our faith is rubbished by the killers who pretend to act in its name.

    I have reached the point where I don’t know how much more the Government expects us to do. Instead of a letter insinuating that being Muslim and British are somehow different things, I would welcome an expression of support and recognition of what is being done day in, day out by British Muslims to keep this country united and safe.

    Yours sincerely,
    Mohammed Shafiq
    Chief Executive
    Ramadhan Foundation

    What Eric Pickles wrote and why Muslims object

    :: “You have a precious opportunity, and an important responsibility: in explaining and demonstrating how faith in Islam can be part of British identity” Objection: Critics complain that Islam is being presented as separate from Britishness and needs to constantly prove its compatibility – a demand not made of other faiths.

    :: “There is a need to lay out more clearly than ever before what being a British Muslim means today: proud of your faith and proud of your country” Objection: Complainants feel their loyalty to the United Kingdom is being automatically questioned because of their adherence to Islam, again an aspersion that is not automatically cast on other religions.

    :: ”The vitriol espoused by the thugs of the English Defense League and Britain First is just as much an affront to British values as the teachings of preachers of hate.” Objection: Muslims welcome the condemnation of the far right but are concerned at the perception that extremist preachers remain in mosques. They say radicalization has moved onto the internet and takes place within peer groups rather than mosques.



    The Muslims in Britain are more loyal to the country than their own Christians, yet still their loyalty is in question. These Muslims don’t realize that they will never be accepted…Allah has already told us about these people but the heedless Muslims think they know better.

    "Never will the Jews nor the Christians be pleased with you (O Muhammad) till you follow their religion..." (Quran 2:120)

  15. #55
    Member Array
    Join Date
    Jan 2007


    Why are we questioning the loyalty of British Muslims? We never ask anyone else

    I hate the union flag and I would scrap the royal family. But no one asks me to prove my Britishness.


    How loyal are you to this country? How proud are you of it? Answer exactly. Explain yourself to me. Tell me how safe you feel. Tell me what you think other people think of you. Let me then declare the truth about you, your family, your faith. You are a Muslim and I am British, you see, so I can ask these things. My loyalty is taken for granted, though it shouldn’t be. Yours is always suspect. Though it shouldn’t be. Thus I can read that a BBC survey this morning found that “95% of Muslims feel a loyalty to Britain”, but that there are“no similar measurements for the general public.” Making it meaningless. And 95% does not count for much when run alongside other aspects of the survey, which showed: “One in four (27%) said that they had some sympathy for the motives behind the attacks in Paris on satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo.”

    What does any of this mean? Are a quarter of our Muslim population going to behead us in our beds? Is the man in the Turkish shop who gives my children sweets secretly cheering on the death cult? This poll just drives the us-and-them mentality. There is a “them”, of course. But “they” are killing out in Syria and Iraq and they are killing mostly other Muslims. There is a “them” in Saudi Arabia, whom we are asked to think of as an “us”, where Prince Charles gets his sword dance on with the right kind of beheaders.

    This sense that any stat or poll can identify some generic Muslim identity is a mistake that is made repeatedly.

    Islamophobia and Islamofascism are two sides of the same coin
    . Both envisage Muslims as a kind of homogenous block. There is no nuance, no difference, no accounting for lived experience or the generational divide. To read about the three teenagers who ran away to jihad has been to see children, yes, children – who need protection and who will pay the heaviest possible price for their stupidity – spoken about not as our children but somehowtheirs. “Should we actually be worried about the Syria-bound schoolgirls?” asked the ever-fragrant Rod Liddle. The clue is in the headline: schoolgirls. When I was young, a boy I knew ran off to join the IRA. We lived in Suffolk! He knew what they did and he was going to fight for freedom. Jihadis don’t just sell themselves as rock stars; they sell certainty in an uncertain world.

    And it is this uncertainty, this fluidity, which this survey has not captured at all. The conflation of a Muslim identity with fundamentalism is wrong. The idea that all Muslims are observant is wrong. Post Hebdo, the lumping together of young men of Algerian descent with those of Pakistani descent has hardly helped. Karim Miské, the author of Arab Jazz, has written at length about how secular much of the Muslim population of France is. But we don’t hear it. Yes, some young people are using Islam as a political identity, sometimes as a protest against the foreign policy of the west, sometimes against their own parents, sometimes to signal their cultural and economic isolation. This is a combustible and complex mix. When the going gets tough, it is easier to simplify, to ask of Muslims what we don’t ask of ourselves.

    I love Stonehenge, fish and chips and sarcasm. But I am also a republican who would scrap the royal family, hates the flag and wants the church out of parliament. I failed the Life in the UK test that those applying for British passports have to take. Sample questions: What did the 1689 Bill of Rights confirm? Where are the Laurence Olivier awards hosted? Is saving energy a key part of being British? My score indicates that I should probably have my passport taken away.

    Yet because I am not a Muslim, no one is going to test my loyalty. Because I am not the editor of this paper breaking the NSA story, I am not going to be asked by a parliamentary committee if I love this country. Because I don’t live in the United States, I don’t pledge allegiance to “one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all”.

    Because in Britain we are divisible and unbelieving. Let’s be clear about the divisions. Those that have sympathy with those that murdered in Paris offend me, even if I understand their offence. Some of us think the same as some of them. Some don’t. Some of us are them. Some parents are horrified by what their children do. Some of us will not back down on the free speech issue, others are prepared to accept that we should not offend those of faith.

    What is ultimately disloyal to this country is not to acknowledge the actual diversity, the range of opinion, belief and dissent that intertwines all of us into a nation. A nation that allows me to say what I have just said.


  16. #56
    Member Array
    Join Date
    Jan 2007


    UK's Bogus Counter Terrorism Bill

    This is an excerpt of the full article:

    Islamophobic people are not happy with the success of Islam

    Unfortunately, some individuals amongst us are scared to see Muslims positively integrating into society, and passing on good character and morals taught by the Shariʿah. They do not want Islam to flourish in Western countries, and are trying to create friction amongst Muslims and non-Muslims. Aided by extensive media coverage, far right groups and extremist policy makers have begun a campaign of scaremongering. As is clear from other European countries, right wing fascist groups have held rallies against Islam in the name of democracy. These demonstrations are held under the banner of preventing the ‘Islamization of the West’. Western governments have come under pressure from these extreme views, and are beginning to take measures to ensure that Islam in its true form is no longer practiced. Laws such as the banning of the veil in public places have already been introduced in neighboring European countries, and right wing think tanks are trying to bring these policies to Britain.

    The Islamophobic tactic to suppress Muslims

    They are trying to introduce legislations and policies that may stop this success of Muslims. They have found that playing the terrorism card is the best tactic to achieve their goals. They claim that acting upon certain Islamic practices leads to extremism and eventually to radicalization and terrorism.

    What is the government definition of extremism?

    Under the pretext of extremism, a loosely coined term which includes anything that goes against British values (though there is no definition of what British values are), our government has introduced various policies to prevent Muslims from practicing many Islamic practices that are in accordance with the Qur’an and the Sunnah of the Prophet (sall Allahu ʿalayhi wa sallam).

    Examples of normal Islamic practices that may be seen as extreme

    The way a number of politicians, along with many media outlets, speak about Islamic extremism confirms the thought that many of the Islamic teachings that form part of mainstream Islam will be classified as extremism. Examples include: teaching children that they MUST pray; teaching Muslim girls that they MUST don the hijab; teaching children that homosexuality is a sin; believing Islam is the best religion; believing the Prophet Muhammad is the best of mankind and mocking him is an insult for Islam and Muslims.

    Counter terrorism Bill

    In order to aid them in this agenda, the government seek to bring the ‘Counter Terrorism and Security Bill’ into effect. The Bill represents the seventh piece of terrorism legislation since 2000. It is likely to have an impact on activists, campaigners, charity workers and some religious groups including Muslims. The Bill, if enacted, will also affect public servants such as local government officers, immigration officers, teachers, social workers, lecturers and other healthcare workers. The government’s stated purpose for provisions within the Bill are to respond to concerns about security in relation to the situation in Syria and groups like ISIS. Whilst the Government rightly seeks to protect its citizens from harm, there is a danger that further laws will affect the ability of particular groups to work for change abroad and/or practice their religious beliefs in the UK.

    Muslims are concerned for the security of their country

    British Muslims in general are keen to live peacefully with all other communities in Britain. It has been established that the vast majority of the terrorist attacks in the UK in the last few years have nothing to do with Islam. However, they refuse to attribute terrorism to Islam and they also refuse to link normal Islamic practices to terrorism.

    What is the counter terrorism bill?

    The bill has 5 main parts:


    Powers to seize passports if the government suspect that a person is leaving the country in support of a ‘terrorism related activity (TRA)’. This assumption will affect aid workers, in particular Muslim charities, who are trying to get aid into countries such as Syria. It also includes a temporary exclusion order. Any individual suspected of being involved in a terrorism related activity abroad can be prevented from entering the UK for up to 2 years, effectively leaving the individual stateless. This will likely have implications specifically on Muslims, as the government seems to turn a blind eye to other individuals who leave the UK to fight for the army of their country of birth, such as soldiers in the IDF.


    This section introduces a range of new measures including relocating people away from their homes and communities. Any individual suspected of extremism can be taken away from their family.


    The government is seeking power to intercept communications such as emails and messaging, raising grave concerns related to breach of privacy.


    Airlines and carriers are forced to adopt an ‘authority to carry’ scheme which can effectively enforce ‘no fly’ lists on entire nationalities.


    This is the part of the bill which is most concerning and possibly damaging to Muslims in the UK. This promotes the government’s much-criticized PREVENT scheme in becoming a statutory requirement for specified authorities including police, councils, health and social care. If authorities fail to follow orders, the government can enforce. For example, they can take a university to court for not banning a particular speaker. The statutory duty will have a particular impact on faith-based schools, especially those that are state aided. The broad term “extremism” and “British values” offers little in the way of practical guidance, and may conflict with the faith ethos.

    This last point has been aimed at ensuring that Muslim scholars do not preach true Muslim values. Informing the Muslim community of their duty to pray, the necessity of hijab, unlawful things in Islam such as homosexuality will be considered as extremism. Anyone who preaches such things will be stopped from speaking.


    The new bill makes the following proposals

    Seizure of passports from persons suspected of involvement in terrorism – The Bill proposes granting powers to police and border officials to seize a person’s passport for up to 14 days (This can be extended upon application to a judge). The seizure applies to those coming into the UK as well as those leaving and affects UK citizens as well as non-UK nationals and is based on ‘suspicion'; the officer need not have any grounds or evidence for his suspicion.

    Temporary exclusion orders – The Bill will empower the Home Secretary to issue a Temporary Exclusion Order, which will ban a UK citizen who is abroad from returning for up to 2 years, where she/he believes there is a “reasonable suspicion of involvement in terrorist activity abroad”. The Home Secretary may issue a permit for the individual to return, but the permit will impose conditions including where the person lives and what flight they take to return to the UK.

    Introduction of new, tougher measures within Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures – TPIMs replaced Control Orders, which were used to restrict the activity of suspected terrorists who had not been convicted. When TPIMs were introduced in 2011 they decided they would scrap the powers to move people across the country. The Home Secretary now proposes bringing back the power to send suspects to new towns (up to 200 miles from their normal residence), introducing internal exile.

    Creating an obligation to monitor and report extremism – Colleges, schools, prisons, GPs and councils will now have a legal duty to prevent people being drawn into terrorism. Schools, nurseries even GPs will be required to monitor those they provide services to and report anyone they believe is at risk of, or has in fact been drawn in to terrorism. Universities will have to draw up policies on extremist campus speakers, and prisons will be required to have policies for dealing with radicals. The Home Office will be able to get court orders obliging bodies to comply with their obligations.

    “De-Radicalisation” Panels – The Bill creates a legal duty that will require local authorities to establish a panel to refer people identified as being at risk of ‘being drawn into terrorism’. The composition of that panel is set out in the Bill, and its purpose is to draw up a “de-radicalisation” plan for the person identified as being at risk. The Bill makes no provision for the person identified to have legal or other representation, or in the case of a child, to have a parent present.

    Obligations on airlines – Airlines will now be required to disclose personal information about their passengers in advance. Airlines that refuse or fail to provide advance passenger lists will be banned from landing in Britain and may face a penalty.


  17. #57
    Member Array
    Join Date
    Jan 2007


    Muslim ex police chief: Prevent has become “toxic brand”


    The government’s anti-extremism strategy, Prevent, has become a “toxic brand” and is widely mistrusted, a former senior Muslim police officer has said.

    Dal Babu, an ex chief superintendent with the Metropolitan police, said most Muslims were suspicious of the scheme and see it as a tool for spying on them.

    Babu told the BBC: “We’ve had situations where cameras have been implemented without the community understanding in Birmingham,” he said. “A huge amount of money has been spent on this. At a time when we have limited resources we really need to make sure that we measure it.”

    Prevent was introduced as part of the government’s post-9/11 counter-terrorism strategy, aimed at stopping people becoming terrorists.

    However, the strategy remains deeply controversial. Critics believe Prevent is counter-productive and discriminates against Muslims, while others have said there is no clear way to measure its effectiveness.

    Speaking on Radio 4’s Today programme, Babu said counter-extremism officials “should not be putting Muslim community in a separate box when it comes to safeguarding vulnerable young people”.

    He said there was a “spectacular lack of diversity” in local safeguarding services and police forces that meant many of those involved in Prevent did not understand the communities they serve, particularly in cities such as London and Birmingham.

    Babu – who has been involved with the National Association of Muslim Police and was chairman of the Association of Muslim Officers within the Met – added that Prevent money had been given to organisations such as the counter-extremism thinktank Quilliam Foundation, which he said was viewed with deep suspicion in the Muslim community.


    [Extremist] Conservative Party to introduce 'mosque closure orders'


    The Conservative Party will introduce new powers to close down any mosque which hosts extremists, Theresa May said today.

    The new 'mosque closure orders' would give the government widespread powers to close down any premises which are either run by, or welcome, extremist speakers.

    May said she would also introduce new banning orders against extremist groups, review the sharia court system and introduce new "extremism disruption orders" against individual extremists.

    In a decidedly neo-Conservative speech, May channeled the language of George Bush, saying the nation faced a new battle between "them and us".

    "For too long we have let the extremists define the 'them and us'," she told a press conference in central London.

    "We, the 'us' will form a new partnership and show 'them' that we want nothing to do with their hatred bigotry and ignorance."

    Those refusing to join this new alliance would feel the full force of the law, she said.

    "To those people who do not want to join this partnership. To those people who choose consciously to reject our values, the message is equally clear.

    May admitted that she has not secured agreement from her coalition partners for the new measures but said they would be included in the upcoming Conservative manifesto.

    Her speech comes at an unfortunate time for the party, as one of their own candidates comes under fire for allegedly trying to form an alliance with the far-right extremists the EDL.

    Labour today criticised Theresa May for not acting sooner.

    "She has had five years as Home Secretary to do all these things, yet too many of her promises are the opposite of what she has done in Government," shadow home secretary Yvette Cooper said.

    "She could have had banning orders, reviewed sharia courts, and insisted preachers speak English five years ago, rather than leaving it until now.

    "Everyone other than the extremists agree that we should robustly defend and actively promote the pluralistic values our society rightly holds in esteem. But it isn't enough for the Home Secretary to say it, she needs to act.

    "We need to work in as many communities as possible, throughout the UK, to support civil society and defeat extremism.

    And we should never tie the hands of our agencies and the police in confronting dangerous, violent extremists. The Government's record is one of making that harder, not easier."



    Razi Ashraf: There is a serious misunderstanding here. There are no extremist preachers in the mosques. Do not judge people by their appearances. Wearing beards and traditional Islamic robes do not necessarily make someone an extremist. It requires knowledge to understand such people. There used to be some foolish preachers some 10-15 years back but too much has passed since this time and Muslims are just going about their religion rather quietly in a very passive manner. Just because Muslims attend mosques and offer prayers it does not mean they are following extremists. It gives them a strange sense of spiritual solace. In the evenings many go to the mosques often as a social gathering instead of visiting the pubs and drinking. This keeps the family intact and also keeps the young people away from just roaming around in wrong places and d
    oing wrong things. Women usually pray at home. Praying as often as possible keeps the minid of the youth in order . They don't drink or swear or waste their time doing stupid things. There is a beauty in religion if followed wisely. If they find a preacher who is instigsating them they will not be foolish to blindly follow him. Just compare those who do not arttend mosques or even follow their religion. There is a big difference in their attitudes. They are often arrogant and disrespectful and appear rather confused about life in general. Theresa May's statement is alarmimg and will only serve to bring unease and fear in the Muslim community. This is also insulting to the fair traditions of British values.

    Ait Ita: So, spending only 20 minutes of your day praying, wearing some robes and growing beards somehow make you an extremist? Not swearing, not lying and not cheating make you an extremist? Giving charity makes you an extremist? To fight if you are being attacked somehow makes you an extremist, and it means that you are not defending yourself?

    I have lost my faith in humanity... Extremists are ISIS, Taliban etc (funny enough they were both created by America)... Are there not extremist Jews in Israel bombing Gaza and the West Bank like every 5 seconds?

    It seems to me that they are just banning things because they just don't like it. Question: Why did you let people from Muslim countries and foreigners in general into the UK in the first place if you don't like what they practice and believe?

    Muslims are not a threat to Britain, the only threat to Britain is the lies your government spreads about Islam and Muslims in general.

    Edit: Traditional culture of British youth is getting absolutely wasted and teenage pregnancies. I don't think praying, growing beards or wearing robes are any worse than this (granted growing beards and wearing robes aren't actually rules of Islam, it's just what the prophet Muhammad wore).

  18. #58
    Member Array
    Join Date
    Jan 2007


    Muslim groups accuse government of criminalising Islam


    More than 60 imams and leaders of Muslim organisations have signed an open letter to the government accusing it of criminalising Islam.
    They said that the "terror threat" was being exploited for political capital ahead of the general election.

    Signatories include journalist Yvonne Ridley, former Guantanamo detainee Moazzam Begg and members of the Islamist group Hizb ut-Tahrir.
    The umbrella body, the Muslim Council of Britain, has not signed the letter.

    The 61 signatories criticised the "demonisation of Muslims in Britain.... despite their disavowal of violence and never having supported terrorist acts".

    The letter accused the government of trying to deflect attention from crises in the economy and health service, while trying to silence criticism of foreign policy.

    'McCarthyite witch-hunt'

    It condemned the exploitation of the "terror threat" for political capital as "the big parties inevitably try to outdo each other in their nastiness", in the run up to May's election by playing on public fears about security and immigration

    The letter cited the targeting of Muslims through anti-terror legislation: "The latest Act of Parliament, the Counter-Terrorism and Security Act, threatens to create a 'McCarthyite' witch-hunt against Muslims, with nursery workers, schoolteachers and Universities expected to look out for signs of increased Islamic practice as signs of 'radicalisation'".

    "Such a narrative will only further damage social cohesion as it incites suspicion and ill feeling in the broader community.

    "The use of undefined and politically charged words like 'radicalisation' and 'extremism' is unacceptable as it criminalises legitimate political discourse and criticism of successive governments," the letter said.

    The statement comes nearly a month after the government's Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill was passed, giving the authorities greater powers, including new temporary exclusion orders, to deal with those suspected of going to fight in Iraq or Syria.

    It's laws like these which the list of more than 60 signatories say have resulted in a "witch-hunt" against Muslims living in the UK, a backlash against Muslim women and children and a negative depiction of the religion as whole.

    The 2.7m Muslims who live in England and Wales belong to a range of different sects, denominations and Islamic schools of thought, making a single statement from the Muslim "community" a difficult task.

    Those who have signed however, will be hoping their sentiments do not fall on deaf ears.


    As well as imams, the signatories include advocates, activists, community leaders, community organisations and student bodies.
    Others giving their backing include Moazzam Begg, who is Director of Outreach for Cage, the advocacy group which had been in contact with Mohammed Emwazi, the man revealed to have been "Jihadi John".

    Majid Freeman, was on an aid convoy with taxi driver Alan Henning in Syria when he was kidnapped, before the 47-year-old father of two was killed by Islamic State militants, also signed the document.

    Others include journalists Lauren Booth and Yvonne Ridley. Ms Ridley is a Respect Party Activist and stood as a candidate in the Rotherham by-election in 2012. She was kidnapped by the Taliban in Afghanistan in 2001 and later converted to Islam.


  19. #59
    Member Array
    Join Date
    Jan 2007


    Teachers forced to act as 'front-line storm troopers' to spy on pupils under guidelines aimed at combating terrorism

    Teachers are being forced to act as "front-line storm troopers" spying on their pupils as a result of new government guidelines for schools to combat terrorism, a teachers' union conference heard today.

    Delegates at the National Union of Teachers' annual conference in Harrogate unanimously backed a motion warning the guidelines were effectively "closing down" any classroom discussion of issues surrounding the radicalisation of young people.

    Alex Kenny, for the union's executive, said the government guidelines "will damage and prohibit debate in schools".

    "We live in a dangerous world where pupils - like us - are trying to make sense of it," he said. "Schools are places where these discussions should take place in an environment of enquiry and it may be an environment where young people say things we don't like."

    However, the guidelines were "shutting down debate" as young teachers were unsure what they should do if students raised issues about extremism, he added.

    "Young people are also telling their teachers they don't want to discuss them," he said. He cited the instance of the Charlie Hebdo cartoons depicting the prophet Mohamed which led to the massacre of its senior staff - where young people feared the consequences if they said they found the cartoons offensive.

    Jan Nielsen, from Wandsworth, south London, added: "We're expected to be a front-line storm trooper to listen, to spy on and to inform the authorities of students we may be suspicious of."

    She said schools had been warned that - if they failed to report suspicious of pupils being radicalised - they would face emergency inspections from education standards watchdog Ofsted to check whether they were promoting British values and adequatelt preparing pupils for life in the 21st century. Ofsted's remit allows them to intervene if they feel pupils are not adequately safeguarded and that the school has failed to protect them from extremist influences.

    Phillip Allsopp, from Waltham Forest, warned that implementing the government guidelines on reporting extremist activity would "alienate more and more students who won't come to us about things that affect them and worry them".

    Delegates also called for the Government instruction to schools to teach "British values" - identified by ministers as democracy, freedom of speech and respect for others - to be scrapped.

    Baljeet Ghale, a former president of the union, said: "What makes these values uniquely British and not what you would find supported by people of other cultures and countries?"

    She said there was an element of racism in suggesting these values were uniquely British and a suggestion that "one culture's values are superior to another's". "I am proud to be a Londoner, I am proud to be a Kenyan, I am proud to be an Indian and I am proud to be a member of the NUT," she said.

    he added that Ofsted should have no place in determining whether British values should be taught in schools.

    Vendathal Prekumar, from Redbridge, said the requirement to teach British values was "damaging and dangerous".

    "What are British values anyway?" she asked. "They are universal. After centuries of imperialism, the habit of claiming ownership of things that aren't yours must be a difficult habit to drop.

    "Telling teachers to teach British values is an attempt to scapegoated children and Muslim students in particular so the Government can looknlike they are being tough on terror and immigrant communities who do not fall into line.

    "Muslim kids are being demonised. We have seen this happen in Birmingham and Tower Hamlets where Muslim students are being turned into suspects."

    Five schools were failed in Birmingham as a result of the Trojan Horse affair - where an anonymous letter claimed hardline Islamists were plotting to take over the running of several of the city's schools. A secondary school in Tower Hamlets, Sir John Cass and Redcoat Church of England school was also failed after Ofsted judged it had not taken adequate steps to safeguard pupils from extremism as a result of setting up a sixth-form Islamic society.

    A Conservative party spokesman said: "The battle against extremism begins at school where young people learn to be active, resilient and tolerant citizens ready to seize the rich opportunities of modern Britain.

    "Teaching about the fundamental British values of democracy, the rule of law, individual liberty and tolerance and respect for others is part of our promotion of British values and is at the heart of what every school has to deliver for children."

    Radicalisation in schools: Case studies

    Case 1 A pupil came under suspicion at his school because he wanted to visit his dying grandfather in Pakistan. This angered the non-Muslim pupils at the school, one of whom argued: “If I want to visit my granddad in Holland I am not under suspicion, but Muslim students are?”

    Case 2 A pupil had his laptop confiscated by his head teacher acting on suspicions that he was involved in extremism. This was despite the fact that the boy had just taken part in a discussion about jihadi extremist groups and spoken strongly against joining them. The head teacher said he had found three examples of jihadi websites on the computer. The boy’s explanation was to ask: “How can I argue against something if I don’t understand it myself?”

    Case 3 A female pupil asked her teacher whether she should go on a demonstration to protest about the Israeli bombing of Gaza. Under the Prevent guidelines to combat extremism, her teacher feared he should have reported her to the police. Instead, he told her that if she wanted to go on the demonstration, she should seek out a responsible adult to accompany her on the march. The teacher said he was glad that the girl had felt able to discuss the issue with him – but warned that the guidelines were preventing others from doing so.


  20. #60
    Member Array
    Join Date
    Jan 2007


    Charlie Hebdo Shooting : How Governments Use Terror To Pass Laws


    David Cameron has used the ‘opportunity’ presented by the Charlie Hebdo shootings to call for increased surveillance powers, not just as a general act of defiance against terrorists but for specific powers he tried to get through a few years ago but was blocked by Parliament. He was referring to the draft communications bill which would among other things give security services access to encrypted messaging services like whatsapp and imessage and all but remove end to end encryption of data entirely. This desire to control internet traffic has been on going for over 15 years now.


    These people do false flag attacks and then use the media to scapegoat Muslims for it and create Islamophobia. Then they use these attacks and generated fear mongering to create such laws.

    These are the headlines posted by the 'Daily Express' over the last couple of years! And some people still think Islamophobia does not exist


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts