شبكة الإستخبارات الإسلامية

"They plot and plan but ALLAH also plans and ALLAH is the best of Planners." Qur’an VIII – 30

‘’ويمكرون ويمكر الله والله خير الماكرين ‘’: قال الله عزَّ وجل

سورة الأنفال

رضيت بالله ربا و بالإسلام دينا و بمحمد صلى الله عليه و سلم نبيا رسولا لا إلـه إلا اللـه ... محمد رسـول اللـه

This is default featured slide 1 title

Go to Blogger edit html and find these sentences.Now replace these sentences with your own descriptions.This theme is Bloggerized by Lasantha Bandara - Premiumbloggertemplates.com.

This is default featured slide 2 title

Go to Blogger edit html and find these sentences.Now replace these sentences with your own descriptions.This theme is Bloggerized by Lasantha Bandara - Premiumbloggertemplates.com.

This is default featured slide 3 title

Go to Blogger edit html and find these sentences.Now replace these sentences with your own descriptions.This theme is Bloggerized by Lasantha Bandara - Premiumbloggertemplates.com.

This is default featured slide 4 title

Go to Blogger edit html and find these sentences.Now replace these sentences with your own descriptions.This theme is Bloggerized by Lasantha Bandara - Premiumbloggertemplates.com.

This is default featured slide 5 title

Go to Blogger edit html and find these sentences.Now replace these sentences with your own descriptions.This theme is Bloggerized by Lasantha Bandara - Premiumbloggertemplates.com.

Showing posts with label War on Islaam in UK. Show all posts
Showing posts with label War on Islaam in UK. Show all posts

Friday, May 21, 2010

Jews are eight times over-represented in UK parliament

At that rate Muslims would have 200 seats

By Stuart Littlewood

21 May 2010

Stuart Littlewood considers the phenomenal over-representation of Jews and non-Jewish Zionists in the UK parliament which, in terms of support for Israel, is magnified even further when viewed alongside the Conservative and Labour party leaders’ umbilical ties to the Israel lobby.

“Proportional Representation” is a big buzz-word in the UK these days. It implies fairer voting and fairer government. It is claimed to give minorities a better chance of being heard and therefore, they say, it should be incorporated into the “new politics” our shiny new coalition government has promised us.

But one minority group needs no help in that direction.

The Jewish Chronicle has published a list of Jewish MPs in Britain's parliament. It names 24 – Conservatives 12, Labour 10 and Liberal Democrats two.

I thought it was more. But let us for the sake of argument accept the Jewish Chronicle’s figures.

The Jewish population in the UK is 280,000 or 0.46 per cent. There are 650 seats in the House of Commons so, as a proportion, Jewish entitlement is only three seats.

With 24 seats they are eight times over-represented. Which means, of course, that other groups must be under-represented, including Muslims.

"If Muslims were over-represented to the same extent as the Jews (i.e. eight times) they’d have 200 seats. All hell would break loose."

The UK's Muslim population is 2.4 million or 3.93 per cent. Their proportional entitlement is 25 seats but they have only eight – a serious shortfall. If Muslims were over-represented to the same extent as the Jews (i.e. eight times) they’d have 200 seats.

All hell would break loose.

Yes sir, in the name of fairness there’s plenty of work here for proportional representation. Bring it on!

Meanwhile two Jews – the Miliband brothers – are battling for the leadership of the beaten Labour Party. Ed Miliband (former energy secretary) is 40 and David Miliband (former foreign secretary) 44, both far too young to lead this country, especially when neither has achieved anything worthwhile in the real world outside politics.

It’s a reflection of the generally poor calibre of MP talent when such people, although academically gifted, can rise to the top. And indulging the young has had disastrous results. Think of Blair and the cult of arrogant youth he brought onto the political scene. Men of 40, especially politicians, think they know everything. They know nothing, as David Miliband (who backed the Iraq war) demonstrated in his blundering approach to the Middle East in Gordon Brown's government.

Jewish over-representation is only part of our problem. An even bigger worry is the huge number of non-Jew Zionists that have stealthily infiltrated every level of political and institutional life. They swell the pro-Israel lobby to such a phenomenal extent that it accounts for an enormous 80 per cent of the Conservative Party, which is now in power with the Liberal Democrats in tow as their junior coalition partner.

"Too many pro-Israel MPs speak and act as if they would rather wave the Israeli flag than the Union Jack. These 'Israel-firsters' refuse to condemn the illegal occupation, the racist policies and the war crimes. "

Too many pro-Israel MPs speak and act as if they would rather wave the Israeli flag than the Union Jack. These “Israel-firsters” refuse to condemn the illegal occupation, the racist policies and the war crimes. As Israel’s interest often clashes with Britain’s, their defence of the indefensible inevitably raises questions about loyalty, a deadly serious issue given the number of Zionists in public life.

And still we are cursed with the cult of youth. Cameron, 43, had no significant achievement under his belt but was able to manoeuvre himself, with the help of Jewish backers, into Britain’s prime minister slot. He is also a self-declared Zionist and voted for the war in Iraq, so how can he be trusted?

William Hague, who has been a member of Conservative Friends of Israel since he was 15, is the new foreign secretary. Alistair Burt, an officer of the Parliamentary group of Conservative Friends of Israel, has been appointed Foreign Office minister for the Middle East, and David Lidington is now the Foreign Office minister for Europe. He has spoken of being a “staunch defender” of the State of Israel. So the stooges are safely installed and activated.

Nick Clegg, Cameron’s Liberal Democrat coalition partner, is also 43. He at least had a useful career before becoming an MP, as did his right-hand man Vince Cable, a person of more mature years and far greater stature than the two coalition leaders put together.

In their “programme for government” our new coalition has precious little to say about the stolen Holy Land except “We will push for peace in the Middle East, with a secure and universally recognized Israel living alongside a sovereign and viable Palestinian state”. Note it’s a secure Israel and only a viable Palestinian state, not the other way round or even equal status. And there’s no mention of action to end the Gaza blockade which Clegg called for in the Guardian last December.

So, stooging for Israel has made the transition from Labour to the Conservative-led coalition with seamless smoothness. It is business as usual between Britain and the rogue state’s amoral thugs, as Sir Gerald Kaufman calls them.


Stuart Littlewood is author of the book Radio Free Palestine, which tells the plight of the Palestinians under occupation. For further information please visit www.radiofreepalestine.co.uk.

http://www.redress.cc/global/slittlewood20100521
Share:

Thursday, March 25, 2010

War on Islaam in the UK : Are British Zionists behind the Tahir-ul- Qadri fatwa ?

Neo-Conservative ‘Fatwa’ of Tahir-ul-Qadri

Leading Islamophobes and Zionists have naturally welcomed Dr. Qadri’s one-dimensional fatwa, condemning suicide bombing and terrorism. There was hardly any reference to the context; the ongoing Anglo-US-Israeli terrorism over the last three decades that has resulted in occupation, theft of land and natural resources, and numerous massacres of innocent Muslims (Sabra and Shatila, Qana, Jenin, Lebanon, Gaza, Fallujah, Highway of Death going towards Basra, etc). Far from a fatwa, it looks like the typical spin of a nasty neo-conservative.



If the subject of the fatwa is terrorism, then he should at least define this elusive term; according to Dr. Qadri, terrorism is targeting non-combatants, whereas ‘legitimate’ war mean targeting combatants. It is strange for man claiming to have scholarly credential, to come up with such a simplistic view of war and terrorism, which bears no relation to the real world. The methods of warfare have ‘evolved’ from the days of spears and swords, and with the use of explosives over populated cities, substantial ‘collateral’ damage is guaranteed; war means the mass killing of civilians.



Even a mediocre academic recognises the pseudo distinction between, terrorism of non-state actors and wars waged by state. To be succinct –wars waged by states is mass terrorism with a big budget, whereas terrorism is war on a smaller budget. Both acts involve the killing of civilians, driven by a political motive. Therefore, one can wage war for democracy or for the implementation of Sharia laws. To label one category of violence, as terrorism has no intellectual merit, it is just for political convenience.



There is no inherent logic to suggest that terrorism can only be committed by non-state actors. The bombing of the pharmaceutical factory in Sudan, the illegal invasion of Iraq and the carnage in Gaza are all clear examples of state terrorism and crimes against humanity. However, such acts of terrorism fail to register on Dr. Qadri’s ‘fatwa’ radar. Indeed, it would have been logical and fair for Dr. Qadri to condemn ‘terrorism’ in terms of magnitude – thus start with condemning state terrorism, then the terrorism of non-state actors (groups and individuals); many of which can also be classed as resistance against state terrorism, such as the reaction to the criminal invasion and the subsequent gang rape of Iraq. In terms of rape, I am not just referring to the horror chamber of Abu-Ghraib, but the destruction and looting of the entire country.



Far from addressing state terrorism, Dr. Qadri calls such crimes as foreign policy mistakes1; this is the language of a typical heartless neo-conservative. If Dr. Qadri is really bothered by acts of terrorism, then he should have issued his fatwa a lot earlier, focusing on the primary source of terrorism, which is the ongoing state terrorism inflicted on the innocent Muslims and non-Muslims around the world by the Anglo-US-Israeli terrorists. Instead, he decides to jump into his fatwa suit, when the Muslims respond to invasion, occupation and slaughter of innocent civilians. He cites classical scholars and for sure, none of the classical scholars would have issued such a meaningless, irrational and a treacherous ‘fatwa’.



Furthermore, state terrorism is not confined to direct combat, collective punishment is also used by states to kill civilians. The sanction against Iraq killed 500,000 innocent children; Israelis also continue to use similar methods against the Palestinians, as it builds various concentration camps for the Palestinians. Such methods are far more effective than suicide bombing and they are not worthy of a fatwa.



The UN has failed to reach consensus on the notion of terrorism, simply because it is a term of abuse to denigrate ones opponent. Only the naive would carry the definition of the opponent. Thus, Dr. Qadri should retract his one-sided condemnation of the lesser ‘terrorism’; reissue the fatwa condemning the primary source of terrorism.



Allegedly, Dr. Qadri also supports the right to resist occupation, in places like Palestine. After giving extensive details of what the suicide bombers cannot attack in the face of the ongoing Israeli oppression and collective punishment, he implies that resistance can only target active Israeli troops in combat. However, he condemns the use of suicide bombing. Thus, how can the unarmed Palestinians resist a conventional force? How do you target an F16 flying at high altitude dropping bombs on the civilian population, and committing the ultimate act of mass terrorism? It seems Dr. Qadri is lecturing the side with the mass civilian casualties not to engage in killing enemy civilians, as a matter of response and deterrence. This is more like a Christian priest advising the followers to turn the other cheek, rather than an Islamic scholar calling for Jihad to liberate the occupied lands from oppressors.



War is a bilateral issue, at the very least. You fight the enemy as they fight you – because not only it is stated in a verse of Quran, but also that is the essence of combat. Thus, a fatwa should have started with examining the conduct of both sides, taking into account the disparity of the two sides and most importantly, highlight who is the culprit in the conflict. Any legal system demands that you make a distinction between culprit and the victim; otherwise, a murder is the same as the one killing in self-defence. The Palestinians in Jerusalem is not the guilty party, it is the thieves coming from abroad and occupying their home are the ones that need to be expelled. This is all justified in the name of religion by the fanatical Zionists.



In addition, it is in the interest of the Muslims to halt the killing of civilians, as they are the biggest victim. However, that requires a collective effort – and only a simpleton would call on the victims for unilateral disengagement.



Of course, the fatwa has been magnified by the media, and some quarters amongst the Muslims have shown support, as well as the anti-Islamic faction, but many more have not, their voice remains silent. Ultimately, the ‘success’ of the fatwa will depend on how many adheres to it. The essence fatwa seems to have adopted the method of Ghandi, advising the resistance to lay down their arms and recourse to non-violent actions and hope for mercy from their oppressors.



Dr. Qadri maybe recognised as a scholar of Islam in some quarters, and like many of the Muslim scholars and Imams, they are out of touch with the real world, and thus easily misguided on the simplest of issues. He should retract his superficial notion of terrorism and war, which no doubt will nullify his fatwa that is in the process of being fully translated.



It is reasonable to expect that any Islamic Scholar should take into account the interests of the Muslims, whilst issuing a fatwa. So, why Dr Qadri could not stand up and issue a fatwa when the civilian population were slaughtered in Gaza or the numerous occasions prior to that? He has written on human rights, and thus he could easily pass a fatwa on the numerous Muslims incarcerated in the prisons of the democratic western world. What about a fatwa on torture carried out by US intelligence? Is it too much to expect from Dr. Qadri to come out in defence of the Muslims? Anyway, so what prompted him to pronounce a ‘fatwa’ now? He says, the events in Pakistan have provoked him, yet the hundreds of thousands slaughtered prior to that were not enough to trigger him into action.



Far from being scholarly, Dr. Qadri seems like one of those simple people, suffering from the moderate-Muslim syndrome, who only see violence in the deaths of 3000 or 52, and fails to see the killing of one million plus innocent Muslim civilians. His fatwa radar is surely defective! After the killing of 1500 civilians, the Palestinians are still the terrorists and the Israelis were merely defending themselves; Dr. Qadri’s irrational and misguided ‘fatwa’ reinforces that type of skewed viewpoint that is propagated by the real terrorists and extremists of this world. Such a fatwa serves the neo-conservative agenda; most certainly, it will prove to be irrelevant for the oppressed Muslims.





Yamin Zakaria (yamin@radicalviews.org)

London, UK



Published on 21/03/2010



www.radicalviews.org

http://yaminzakaria.blogspot.com





1 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=09WxkO54egU&feature=related – Dr. Qadri gives a CNN interview.
Share:

Sunday, March 07, 2010

Supressing Evidence, David Miliband and UK Comlicity in Torture. By Sarah Gillespie




http://sarahgillespie.com

Last Saturday I went to see Polly Nash and Andy Worthington’s harrowing documentary ‘Outside the Law, Tales from Guantánamo’ at London’s BFI.

The film knits together narratives so heart-wrenching I half wish I had not heard them. Yet the camaraderie between the detainees and occasional humorous anecdotes, such as Binyam Mohammed’s false confession that he tried to induce nuclear fission on April 1st, provide a glimpse into the wit, courage and normalcy of the men we are encouraged to perceive as monsters.

Nash and Worthington’s film also explores the legal and pragmatic implications of our transatlantic freefall into ethical bankruptcy. It asks how we might navigate our way out of a situation that doesn’t legally exist. The answer is: with great difficulty. With lawyers like Clive Stafford-Smith working tirelessly to defend people who have not been accused of a crime and have no evidence against them to refute, the courtroom has become the domain in which we watch the dream of European multiculturalism imploding. Here we see UK Muslims struggle to exert Enlightenment-based Common Law against a so-called civilized, liberal government who would apparently prefer the Magna Carta had never been written. (1)

Two weeks ago the Foreign Secretary David Miliband lost his long legal battle to suppress a section (known as paragraph 168) from a court decree revealing that MI5 officers were involved in the torture of ex terror suspect and British resident, Binyam Mohamed. Up until now the testimonies of released British Residents Omar Deghayes, Mozzam Begg and Binyam Mohamed have not been fully absorbed by the British public. This is despite the fact Omar Deghayes entered Cuba with two eyes but came home with one. Many news consumers prefer to maintain that detainee accounts of asphyxiation, physical torment, sexual and religious abuse, were either deserved, fabricated or necessary. Others can not contemplate that a nation proudly branding itself on civil liberties, tolerance and ‘fair play’ could willfully throw us back into the medieval barbarism of the Norman Conquests. Yet, as Miliband’s credibility crumbles in the light of his failed cover-up, so the plausibility of Binyam Mohammed’s testimony gains ground. The tide is changing.

Recently Court of Appeal also stated that it withstood ‘unprecedented bullying’ from the Foreign and Home Secretary to withdraw 168 from its ruling. However, Miliband’s plee was overturned by independent judges and we now know the report stated that British treatment of Binyam Mohammed was “at the very least cruel, inhuman, and degrading”. David Miliband dismissed the testimony of this particular British resident, whose torments included having razzor blades applied to his penis, as ‘ludicrous lies.’

The independent judge apparently dissagrees with our delightful foreign secretary. He warns that the integrity our government is now under serious dispute and suggests that Miliband has an undisclosed agenda.

“Not only is there an obvious reason for distrusting any UK Government assurance, based on SyS (secret services) advice and information, because of previous “form”, but the Foreign Office and the SyS have an interest in the suppression of such information.”

Shaker Aamer, the Witness from Battersea.

Perhaps the most disturbing and crucial aspect of ‘Tales from Guantánamo is that it spotlights the continuing illegal incarceration of South Londoner, Shaker Aamer. All British residents have been discharged from Guantánamo. Yet despite being officially cleared for release in 2008, Aamer remains impounded in a 6 foot by 8 foot cell, tortured, humiliated and, according to reports, force fed through a pipe routed to his stomach via his nose. At 8 stone, he has lost over half his body weight. His wife, the mother of their 4 children continues to live in London where she has been treated for a succession of nervous break downs since her husband was seized.

There is no justification offered as to why this Aamer has been singled out. No evidence has transpired to counter his claim that he was in Afganstan in 2002 to help construct schools as part of his religious duty of zakat. It is believed that Aamer’s conspicuous eloquence, linguistic talents and charisma identified him within the gates of Guantánamo, as a exceptional case. He orchestrated collective hunger strikes, translated fluetnly between Arabic and English and inspired his fellow inmates to demand their rights. He was treated by detainees as a holy man, a leader. He was punished accordingly.

Speculation surrounding Aamer’s continued detention pivots on the numerous ‘suicides’ he is alleged to have seen, the severity of the torture he has endured and his claims that it was, in part, executed on the behest of British agents. It is widely believed that should Binyam Mohammed’s case progress, Shaker Aamer would be a leading witness against British authorities, cementing evidence that could transfer the label of ‘criminal’ from the defendant to the accuser: namely Whitehall. Back in November last year the Independent’s law editor Robert Verkaik predicted Aamer’s release would be detrimental to the reputation of the UK government.

“The case is potentially more damaging to Britain than that of former Guantanamo detainee Binyam Mohamed because British agents are accused of being present during Mr Aamer’s alleged torture. In one allegation an MI5 agent is said to have been present when Mr Aamer’s US interrogators banged his head against a wall.”

As calls for a full judicial inquiery gather pace, we may well ask why on earth Miliband persists in attempting to thwart evidence in this degrading farce we call Justice. His CV so far for defending the interests of Britain abroad, is not great. Since he took the job he gave Britain’s blessing to Israel’s masacre in Operation Cast Lead (2), he maintained Britain abstain from voting agaisnt the Goldstone Report, he intervened in Polish domestic politics slandering a popular MEP as an ‘anti-Semite’ and he has stood limply in the wings giving lip servace to the Mossad’s use of British passports in their assaination last month. Worringly, it seems the concerns of British soveriengty do not feature high on Miliband’s list of priorities. If they did we could expect that, instead of pushing for a re-write of the law to enable war criminal Tzipi Livni tio visit the UK without charge, Miliband might consider adhering to the law that has protected our rights for the last 800 years – and allow Shaker Aamer to come home.

(1) Magna Carta Libertatum (the Great Charter of Freadoms) is and English legal charter, orrigionally issued in 1215. Among other things it explicity supported what became the writ of habious corpus, allowing appeal against unlawful imprisonment.

(2) Less than a month before Israel launched its assult on Gaza Miliband visited the Israeli town of Sderot. He said “Israel should, above all, seek to protect its own citizens. It’s very important that counties like mine and others show solidarity with the people of Sderot…. Israeli people need to know that the British people know of Sderot, and we know of the tragedy they are facing, and we stand with them.”

To write to David Miliband requesting the safe return of Shaker Aamer click here.

To find out where you can see ‘Outside the Law, Tales from Guantánamo’ click here.

Share:

Monday, January 25, 2010

UK & Churchill Crimes Exposed from British Raj Indian Holocaust to Palestinian, Iraqi & Afghan Genocides

Miliband is directly working for Netanyahu in the UK. He is the puppet behind the December 'coup d'etat' against Brown during Christmas, helped by Straw and others zionist jewish british MPs, from the tory to the labour. Miliband is acting as Netanyahu's personal representative in the UK and Foreign Minister of the 'fake jihadis groups' created by londonistan british jews who control MI5/MI6 and Peter Clarke, from the fake 'anti-terror' branch in Scotland Yard. Are Netanyahu and Miliband preparing a massive and huge terror operations in the UK in 2010 ? The answer is clearly 'YES'!


January 24, 2010

Gideon Polya writes:

I have listed below an expanded list of immense crimes in which Churchill was complicit as a racist soldier, politician, mass murderer and holocaust-denying writer – indeed he was awarded the Nobel Prize for Literature in 1953 for his numerous published works, especially his six-edition set The Second World War in which he ignored his deliberate, remorseless murder of 6-7 million Indians in 1943-1945 I have provided estimates of violent and non-violent avoidable deaths in square brackets.

1. British Indian Holocaust (1.8 billion excess deaths, 1757-1947; 10 million killed in post-1857 Indian Mutiny reprisals; 1 million starved, 1895-1897 Indian Famine; 6-9 million starved, 1899-1900 Indian Famine; 6-7 million starved under Churchill, Bengali Holocaust 1943-1945].

2. Sudan atrocities horrendous British atrocities after the Battle of Obdurman 1898.

3. Boer (Afrikaaner) Genocide 28,000 Afrikaaner women and children died in British concentration camps, 1899-1902.

4. World War 1 promotion World War I Allied military and civilian dead 5.7 million and 3.7 million, respectively; German-allied (Central Powers) military and civilian deaths 4.0 million and 5.2 million; troop movement-exacerbated Spanish Flu Epidemic killed 20-100 million people world wide. 1918-1922.

5. WW1 Dardanelles Campaign in Turkey 0.2 million Allied and Turkish soldiers killed, 1915; precipitated 1915-1923 Turkish Armenian Genocide, 1.5 million Armenians killed.

6. UK and US invasion of Russia 1917-1919 millions died in the Russian Civil War and the subsequent Russian Famine; 7 million died in the circa 1930 Ukrainian Famine; and perhaps up to 20 million died overall in Stalinist atrocities.

7. British suppression of the Arab revolt in Iraq (invaded by Britain in 1914) .

8. Support for British Occupation and opposition to Indian self-determination 1757-1947 excess deaths, 1.8 billion; 1895-1897 famine deaths1 million; 1899-1900 Indian Famine, deaths6-9 million deaths; 1943-1945 Bengali Holocaust deaths 6-7 million.

9. World War 2 promotion World War 2 military deaths 25 million and civilian deaths about 67 million.

10. Promotion of Japan entry into World War 2 in order to involve the US and hence ensure victory 35 million Chinese avoidable deaths, 1937-1945; 6-7 million Indians starved, Bengal 1943-1945; millions more died in the WW2 Eastern Theatre.

11. Churchill knew Singapore was indefensible 8,000-15,000 killed, 130,000 captured in the 1941 Malaya campaign; 14,000 Australian, 16,000 British and 32,000 Indian troops surrendered in Singapore.

12. Churchill deliberately did not warn Americans about Pearl Harbor attack Eastern Theatre WW2 deaths 45 million.

13. WW2 Bengal Holocaust, Bengal Famine deliberate starving to death of of 6-7 million Indians; confessed by Churchill in a letter to Roosevelt.

14. Churchill rejected top scientific advice and supported bombing of German cities instead of protecting Atlantic convoys .016 million allied airmen killed; 0.6 million German civilians killed; Battle of the Atlantic almost lost; 7 million dead from famine in the Indian Ocean region related to halving of Allied shipping in 1943.

15. Churchill acknowledged the crucial importance of maintaining Hindu-Muslim antipathy to preserve British rule 1 million dead and 18 million Muslim and Hindu refugees associated with India-Pakistan Partition in 1947.

16. 1944 UK War Cabinet decision Partition of Palestine .

17. UK rejection of 1944 Brand plan to save Hungarian Jews 0.2-0.4 million killed by Nazis and Arrow Cross fascists out of 0.7 million; Zionists also opposed the Brand plan

18. British, American, Zionist, Australian and European adoption of Churchill’s holocaust commission and holocaust denying legacy, with post-war atrocities involving invasion, occupation, devastation and genocide .

Source http://alethonews.wordpress.com/2010/01/24/uk-churchill-crimes-exposed-from-british-raj-indian-holocaust-to-palestinian-iraqi-afghan-genocides/
Share:

Thursday, November 19, 2009

Israel infiltration and control of Westminster

TV documentary exposes Britain's Israel lobby




Channel 4 Dispatches: "Inside Britain's Israel lobby", broadcast on 16 November 2009. The video can also be viewed here.
Share:

Sunday, March 22, 2009

UK terrorist networks are in the hands of british-israelis like Jonathan Evans head of MI5, Jack Straw and David Milliband, puppets Blair-Brown






There is mounting political pressure for an independent judicial enquiry to be held into the abduction and torture of Binyam Mohamed, who recently returned to the UK after being released from Guantanamo.


Lord Carlisle, the government's own terrorism watchdog, has called for a judicial enquiry and this has been echoed by a senior Conservative MP, David Davis, who is quoted as saying:
"I am convinced... that Binyam Mohamed was actually tortured. ...I am pretty convinced that we knew about it, and I'm reasonably convinced - I think there's a prima facie case - that we colluded in it in some way."


The unambiguous claim made by Binyam Mohamed is that it could only have been British intelligence that supplied his abusers since the series of questions asked by his torturers required specific knowledge of his life in the UK.


Also, Binyam's revelation that it was British intelligence who interrogated him in Karachi, at the beginning of the many years of his ordeal, makes it incredible to think that the subsequent torture of this man was outside of the UK government's knowledge.


So far, the government has not used their ultimate defence of denying a judicial enquiry on the basis of "national security" and it is uncertain if this claim could be sustainable in light of the increasing pressure to investigate.


The Binyam Mohamed case is not likely to be an isolated criminal act but part of a much broader British collusion in a programme of extraordinary renditions, torture and extra-judicial custody - all in the name of "national security". It is of utmost concern that values of liberty, the rule of law and accountable government have been contravened in light of a meta-narrative of security.
Something for us all to consider is what impact do immoral and illegal actions abroad have on our liberal values at home? For sure, the government will make the incredulous claim that there is no connection, but for us who can see the state's incursion into private space and freedom the connection is very apparent.





OTHER EVIDENCES THAT BRITISH POLICE IS USING ISRAELI TORTURE METHODS TO BUILD UP FILES AND CASES AGAINST INNOCENTS: TIME FOR AN INTERNATIONAL INQUIRY AGAINST BRITISH -ISRAELIS TORTURE NETWORKS INSIDE BROWN'S CABINET IN LONDON, MANCHESTER AND GLASGOW


PRESS RELEASE: Wednesday 18th March 2009
FROM THE FAMILY OF BABAR AHMAD


Five years ago, in December 2003, Babar Ahmad was released from police custody. He was battered and bruised from head to toe. He was limping and we could not even embrace him due to his injuries.

In our fight for justice, many doors were slammed in our faces. Firstly by the Police, then the Independent Police Complaints Commission, then the Police tribunal which praised those very officers for their bravery.


Today The Metropolitan Police have finally admitted full liability for the brutal assault their officers carried out on Babar on 2nd December 2003.


The Metropolitan Police admit Babar did not resist arrest. They also admit they repeatedly punched him and stamped on his feet. They have admitted holding him twice in a dangerous head-lock which made him fear for his life.


The Police even admit that they did indeed place Babar in the Muslim prayer position and taunted him, “Where is your God now?”


These words alone were a direct attack not just on Babar, but on every single Muslim in the world.


Despite the Police admitting that their officers carried out this brutal, islamophobic attack, they have refused to offer any form of apology for their actions. This shows their arrogance and refusal to express any remorse.


Before this day, the Police had repeatedly accused Babar of lying. These admissions have exonerated Babar and prove that they were the ones who were lying.


There are still many unanswered questions and we call for an independent inquiry. For example, what happened to the bags of evidence that have miraculously “disappeared”, including all the officers’ notebooks and interview transcripts?


We feel that there has been a cover-up. It took five years and only after court proceedings began did they admit fault. This is something the IPCC should also be investigated for, so that no one should ever have to face the brutal treatment that Babar received at the hands of the Police.
We would like to thank our excellent legal team at Bhatt Murphy Solicitors, in particular Fiona Murphy and Phillippa Kaufmann, and all our friends and supporters whose assistance has been invaluable.


Throughout this ordeal, our faith has not waivered as we believe that our Lord never forsakes us. For those officers who asked, “Where is your God now?” Here is the answer.


Family of Babar Ahmad, Outside Royal Courts of Justice, London


Share:

Thursday, July 03, 2008

Arab Modernists: Western Schemes with New Tricks


Written by Bishr Ahmed,


We have been reminded in a recent JumahPulse article of the RAND's recipe to rebuild Islam, a project engineered by Cheryl Bernard. The impact of the RAND report is not only being felt in the West: Bernard's schemes and ideas are being parroted in Arab countries too.

Arab modernists, usually depicted as "thinkers", "philosophers" or even self-styled ulama, adopt and advocate western views on how to deal with the Quran, mimicking the underlying justifications that paved the way for the reformation of Christianity and Judaism.

In the last two decades, these "thinkers" started deploying western philosophies or methodologies of language to circumvent well-established rulings that have been provided for in the Quran or have been properly derived from it in accordance with the special discipline of usul-al-fiqh, the foundation of shari'ah.

This circumvention is a prerequisite to RAND's attempt to reengineer and reconstruct Islam. In the following paragraphs we will examine but a few aspects of the approach adopted by Arab modernists for interpreting the Quran, with a view to highlighting some of the weaknesses of the approach and the irrationality of applying it - instead of the rules of usul - to the Quran.

An Old Story

A distinct trend to undermine the divine basis of the Quran can be detected in modern history. From William Gladstone (1809-98), the British Primer Minister who once stated in the House of Commons that "as long as the Qur'an remains in the world, there would be no peace in the world", to Pope Benedict VIX, who attempted to link Islam with violence, it would be possible to compile a long list of statements reiterating the same falsehood.

In addition, the deception that the Quran conflicts with scientific facts was vainly peddled, at least in the Arab world, during the first half of the twentieth century. This is similar to our main theme of utilising post-modernist language philosophies to attack the Quran because both approaches meretriciously pose as academic, scientific discourses and aim to isolate Muslims from their belief in the Quran as wahy, the revealed word of Allah.

Opportunistically trying to benefit from the fascination of scientific discoveries in the early twentieth century, a suspicious call arose that the Quran apparently contained verses that were inconsistent with recent scientific discoveries. In light of this call, writers started adopting a new method to interpret the Quran, and for that matter the ahadith and sirah, in accordance with the scientific theories of the time, even if this entailed twisting verses of the Quran.

Thus, Mohammad Abduh, an Egyptian sheikh trained partly in France, adopted such an approach in his writings. In his interpretation of the Quran, for instance, Abduh argued that the miracles mentioned in the Quran should be interpreted in a scientific manner. Thus, Abduh took the view that the tayrun ababeel (the birds described in Surah Al-Fil) which were sent with stones to turn back an army attacking the Ka'bah are a metaphoric reference to a disease that spread amongst that army.

In this interpretation, Abduh turned a blind eye to the apparent and ordinary meaning of words and to the simple rules of interpretation which tell us that apparent and explicit meaning should not be departed from without a good reason derived from the text or context. Abduh gave no reasons other than referring to his preferred approach, overlooking that the context in Surah Al-Fil is to show the power of Almighty Allah. Abduh also ignored the historical narrations of birds dropping stones literally, and ignored even pre-Islamic poetry that recorded the event. He further argued that even jinn could be interpreted as bacteria or the like. Since jinn belong to the unseen world, they ought to be understood in such a way as a scientific mind would accept it, according to Abduh.

Another example of this approach comes from a book on sirah entitled "The Life of Muhammad" and written by another Egyptian writer, Haykal. The author declared frankly in his book that he would not restrict himself to the narrations of sirah, even sahih narrations, so long as they conflicted with science (in the mind of the author). Thus, narrations of material miracles in the life of Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) were all metaphoric since they contradicted scientific rules.

Scholars have responded and rejected this approach by refuting the purported contradiction between the Quran and science - exposing the methodological error in an approach which attempted to extend the scientific method beyond the boundaries of science - and by emphasizing the settled objective rules of interpretation. Sheikh Mustafa Sabri, the grand mufti or sheikh-ul-Islam in the last years of the Ottoman Empire, was one of those who answered this deception that was aiming to swindle Muslims out of their belief in wahy. He even pointed out that the works of Abduh and the like were aimed at introducing into Islam a movement like those of Calvin and Martin Luther in Christianity.

Indeed, in addition to the efforts of the scholars, time and science in and of themselves have derided the call of Abduh and his ilk. As science advanced over the years, more and more scientific facts proved to match the text of the Quran directly or indirectly. French physician Maurice Bucaille explored the amazing conformity between the words of the Quran and the known scientific facts about the universe. One may refer to the works of the Egyptian Professor Zaghloul Al-Najjar for a voluminous scientific account on this topic.

The New Scenario: The Attack on Language

As the scientific spin died away, the old story has continued with a new scenario, all the while maintaining the same plot of isolating Muslims from the Quran. This time language itself is being attacked so that the meanings of the Quran can be undermined. Arab modernists have become self-declared interpreters of the Quran who deploy "hermeneutics", "humanism", "structuralism" or "deconstructionism" as a basis for their interpretation methods. While these approaches are not identical, all of them are manifestations of a materialist worldview that treats everything, including language and the human being as such, as an intrinsic part of matter.

Arab modernists deny the possibility of there being definite meanings to words. They free themselves from any objective means of interpretation, and therefore conveniently dispense with any objective standards, perceived truth, or maxims derived from a text. To them, language is very individualistic with no literal or conventional meanings. Applying such methods to the interpretation of the Quran, they discard the fatawa of ulama and use their own techniques to reach their own personal preferences. With their approach, modernists effectively subvert the meanings of words.

For example, new standards of modesty, far from hijab, are advocated on the basis of a so-called "contemporary reading" of religious texts. This is justified by deriving a particular meaning for a key word in the abstract, and then imposing it on the text regardless of the context of the relevant verse of the Quran, the ordinary meaning of the word, the hadith which explains the verse, etc.

Thus, women have been ordered to extend their "jalabib" to cover their chests, described in the Quran as "juyub". On the basis of one abstract meaning of the word "jayb" (the singular form of juyub), some modernists have argued that the word means "a natural fissure or cleft", hence what must be covered is anything akin to a natural cleft in the body like a woman's chest and genitals. Their argument leads to the conclusion that any style of clothing from a jilbab or 'abayah (a long garment) to something that is little more than a bikini does conform with shari'ah. According to them, the Quran does not require Muslim women or men to dress in a particular way, and has left it for existing customs to dictate subject only to covering the "juyub" as interpreted by modernists.

That is but one example of the modernists' fraud. Any sensible person would realize immediately the obvious fallacies inherent in the modernists' approach. They purport to make the Quran subordinate to the customs and existing realities in a society at a given time. Therefore, they generally argue that the Quran contains no detailed shari'ah but only sets minimums and maximums within which a spectrum of varying solutions is open to people to work out according to their specific time and place. This is totally ignoring the divine characteristics of the Quran. The Quran guides Muslims to a particular Islamic way of life deemed best for the individual and the society. No particular Islamic way of life could ever be imagined, let alone practiced, where Islamic rules and standards are subject to facts that change with time and differ from one society to another.

Modernists argue that even the ulama throughout Islamic history have been influenced by the peculiar realities of their time when passing their fatawa, realities which are irrelevant to our contemporary time. Or, more arrogantly, modernists argue that ulama over hundreds of years have failed to adopt the correct methodology of interpreting the Quran according to the features of language as discovered by the modernists!

Rejecting any definite understanding of the Quran, modernists make the interpretation of the Quran a product of ever-changing social and economic facts. One may not be surprised with this approach if it is realised that some of its advocates are veteran Marxists, who have all of a sudden become concerned with how to understand and apply the shari'ah. This also explains some modernists' concurrence with Darwinism and their vain attempts to accommodate it within verses of the Quran "by hook or by crook". The fact that their approach would not prevent them from maintaining their materialist worldview or way of life reveals the deception in their claims to have changed their ideological position.

The idiocy in the modernists' approach may be further exposed when one follows their "Islamic standards and rules" to their inevitable conclusion - that every society and legal system existing in the world can be described as Islamic. While all nations and legal systems claim to seek justice, benefit, modesty and freedom, they differ on their paths and solutions. Hence, for instance, the distinct world legal systems. Therefore, while Islam also aims at realizing these values, there are distinct Islamic standards and solutions that are prescribed to define and realize them. By such specific rules and standards, shari'ah manifests itself as a distinct way of life.

Furthermore, the modernists' materialist approach denies any objective rule of interpretation. This undermines any permanent or common understanding of any text. Consequently, any standards derived from any text would be relative, subjective and ever-changing. This is utterly at odds with the nature and purpose of divine revelation. The Quran aims at providing guidance to the truth, and to achieving justice and protection for the dignity of humans. Because the modernists' approach rests on a materialist, pragmatic basis of extreme relativity, it leaves no room for recognizing a truth and it is therefore repugnant to the interpretation of divine revelation.

It is noteworthy that modernists do not rely on ahadith in their approach. In fact, most of them question the reliability of ahadith altogether. At best, they are selective and arbitrary in accepting a hadith and rejecting another. This is most convenient for their subjective approach which replaces the objective rules of interpretation used by the recognized ulama throughout history with their personal preferences. Indeed, their subjectivity is self-evident. They do not hide that their objective is to bring Islam in line with the contemporary age. "Contemporary age" is the deciphered code for western values and way of life.

Thus, the modernists' conclusions are known and pre-determined even before embarking on any interpretation process, or even before knowing the relevant verses of the Quran. It is in this subjective way that the so-called "hadith project" has been started in Turkey. The director of the project has from the outset declared that those ahadith that appear to impose restrictions on women and those which do not have current value would be discarded. Thus, their methodology is not the examination of the chain of narrators, but assessing whether a particular hadith is consistent with western values and way of life. Again, it is subjectivity in its ugliest manifestation that dwarfs the mind and thwarts sound methodology of research so as to reach pre-determined conclusions.

Ulama have answered the modernist approaches. This is not because modernists have an arguable case or attraction for Muslims, but because modernists have put forward their ideas in a provocative way, showing explicit resentment towards shari'ah and ulama. They have openly questioned not only clear issues of fiqh but also essential tenets of Islam. And it seems to be unprecedented for thinkers speaking or writing in their capacity as Muslims take such a dangerous path.

To link this discussion with the old story of questioning the consistency between the Quran and scientific facts, several similarities exist between that story and the new modernist methodology for the interpretation of the Quran.

Proponents of both approaches borrow methods that have been followed in a western context with respect to Christian and Jewish scriptures and they hurtle towards the same destination - albeit through different techniques - that of bringing Islam in line with the western way of life. It is noteworthy, for instance, that Abduh who called for a scientific interpretation of the Quran one century ago collaborated with Qasim Amin who was known for his call to "liberate" women in Egypt (as if to suggest the they were enslaved by Islam) so much so that it has been suggested by some commentators that it is Abduh who authored the first book on this issue published under the name of Qasim Amin. This endorses the view that current Arab modernists are but a new chapter in the same old narrative.

Both strands of modernists - the old and the new - also claim that their approach ensures that Islam is acceptable and understandable to non-Muslims, and that shari'ah is valid and relevant at all times. To these modernists I say that when Prophet Muhammad, Peace Be Upon Him, started his da'wah, Islam was at odds with the community in Makkah. Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) rejected all compromises that could have been viewed by modernists as "making Islam acceptable". Carrying the message of Islam (tableegh) requires presenting Islam as it has been revealed with the firm belief that it is acceptable to those sincerely seeking the truth. And it has always been so.

As for the validity and relevance of shari'ah, it is remarkable that shari'ah had caused Arabs in the Arabian Peninsula to develop dramatically in civilizational terms in less than 20 years. This is despite the fact that, prior to Islam, Arabs did not have any sophisticated legal rules or philosophies, unlike the Romans, the Greeks or the Persians.

Historically, any man-made advancements in systems of law amongst the ancient civilizations came with the culmination of long experience and creative thinking. In contrast to this, shari'ah was the initial source of development for the Muslim community and its creative legal thinking, which came to be the madhahib. This is because shari'ah derives from the revealed word of God, and it was not initiated by humans. The madhahib have been developed on the basis of the Quran and the legitimate sources of fiqh indicated to by the Quran, by applying objective rules of interpretation which form the major part of 'usul al-fiqh. The modernists fail to demonstrate any reasonable basis for their alleged concerns that shari'ah may not be capable of application other than by their approach.

Contrary to such concerns, ulama have constantly continued to work on the basis of 'usul to reach solutions for new occurrences. While the ulama have offered coherent shari'ah rulings relating to stock exchanges, banking, medical transplants, cloning, etc., modernists fail to demonstrate their intellect in such matters apart from their "ready-to-use-solution": adopt man-made regulations because they are Islamic in the final analysis of benefit (maslahah), which is also defined according to a materialist view. After all, as a matter of fact, there is no one example in modern times where shari'ah has been implemented as a whole and failed. The modernists' conviction that shari'ah as understood throughout history is incapable of application is therefore fictitious.

'Usul al-fiqh ensures the relevance of shari'ah and its capacity not only to find rulings on contemporary issues, but also to maintain the distinct identity of Islam and Muslim society. The modernists' approach does nothing but dispense with the existing shari'ah rulings while providing no new Islamic solutions, leaving it all for man-made laws based on benefit (maslahah) as defined by the materialist mind.

'Usul Al-Fiqh

Since the modernists present their methodologies as a substitution for 'usul al-fiqh, it is necessary to highlight the fallacy of their approach. 'Usul al-fiqh is a unique Islamic discipline for working out rulings by ijtihad. It is largely based on objective rules of interpretation that are applied to the Quran and ahadith. These rules of interpretation are in turn derived from the canons of the Arabic language as practiced and understood by Arabs in the epoch of reliable linguistic citation, which goes back to the pre-Islam era. Thus, while the companions of the Prophet (PBUH) did not define or articulate 'usul, it was embedded in the way they understood the Quran and the ahadith just as nahw (Arabic grammar) was embedded in their speech and only later penned as a discipline.

Those scholars who penned and explained nahw did not bring about new grammars. Likewise, al-Imam al-Shafi'i, who was the first to write on 'usul al-fiqh, did not manufacture something that did not exist; he revealed that which was effectively applied by the companions of the Prophet (PBUH). Sheikh Muhammad Said al-Buti describes the work of al-Shafi'i as discovering rather than inventing 'usul al-fiqh.

According to al-Buti, while Muslims had notable controversies due to the concern that rulings of ijtihad were being made out of ra'y (opinion or personal judgment), history bears witness that such controversies were obviated considerably by the work of al-Shafi'i, since it explained the methodology and objective grounds lying behind the apparent ra'y. The rules of interpretation are substantially the same in all madhahib. While they differ on some secondary aspects or applications of the rules, they use the same methodology, i.e. referring to Arabic as used and understood by Arabs at early ages, to support their views.

By contrast, the methodologies utilized by the modernists have been invented by modern western philosophers. Arab modernists simply copy them. (In many cases, Arab modernists, while echoing western thinkers, do not cite them.) An invented method has to be proven and cannot be accepted in the same way as 'usul was universally accepted. While the ulama and Arabs in general were able to realize that the rules of 'usul had been there all the time, no sensible person will be prepared to accept the modernists' imported methodologies, which are based on subjective and abstract arguments.

A central difference between 'usul and the modernists' approaches is that 'usul assumes that language is a means of communication that can be understood in accordance with objective rules. Modernists question the assumption that language is a means of communication. As such, a text becomes susceptible to as many different meanings as readers who apply their minds and subjective perspectives to it. Jacque Derrida argued that one cannot be certain that he means what he says. Arab modernists apply such a wrongful assumption even to the revealed word of Allah, The All Knowing.

The modernists' approach brings to mind Humpty-Dumpty, who had this exchange with Alice:

"... there's glory for you!"
"I don't know what you mean by 'glory'", Alice said. Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously, "Of course you don't - till I tell you. I meant 'there's a nice knock-down argument for you!'"
"But 'glory' doesn't mean 'a nice knock-down argument'", Alice objected.
"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less."
"The question is", said Alice, "whether you can make a word mean so many different things."
"The question is", said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master - that's all." (Lewis Carrol, Through the Looking Glass, Ch 6.)

If one replaces the word "use" in Humpty-Dumpty's third statement above with the word "read", it sums up the modernists' approach. They are the new Humpty-Dumpty-like readers who claim to be the "masters’ of the revealed word of Allah.

Academics in Cambridge who objected in 1992 to offering Jacque Derrida an award were not concerned with modernists borrowing Derrida's approach to interpret the Quran. They were professors of literature and philosophy who were outraged by Jacque Derrida's approach to language, which undermines the role of criticism. This exposes the fact that modernists' approaches amount to an attack on language per se, and is viewed by many western academics as repugnant to man-made texts, let alone the attempted application of such approaches to Arabic and the revealed word of Allah.

Yet, the need for a new approach, as perceived by western lawyers, to the interpretation of legislative texts does accentuate the beauty, intelligence and importance of 'usul. While they may accept that language arguably has an open texture that makes general terms fuzzy around the edges, the interpretation techniques envisaged by them rest on objective grounds.

From a legal point of view, it is important for there to be objective rules and criteria for interpretations which apparently dispense from the literal or apparent meaning of statutes. This is because parliament is sovereign, hence the duty of judges to apply statutes as enacted by parliament. Such objective grounds include figuring out the underlying reason for a rule contained in a statutory provision and restricting (or broadening) the apparent meaning of the word accordingly. This indicates that western legal method is still in the process of working out, and justifying, interpretation rules of a kind similar to the rules on interpretation contained in 'usul.

Amazingly, 'usul has dealt with and resolved such questions early on in Islamic history. Thus, 'usul contains principles relating to identifying the underlying reason for (or the effective cause of) a ruling ('illah) and working out rulings through qiyas (analogy) according to it. 'Usul also identifies the objectives of shari'ah (maqasid) which are indicated by the Quran and ahadith (not on a subjective or materialist basis), the contexts or circumstances which restrict a general rule or term (khusous vs. umoum) or qualify an absolute term (muqayyad vs. mutlaq), and contains many more rules of interpretation that derive from the characteristics and practice of (classical) Arabic.

As regards the deconstructionist approach which does not allow for such objective criteria, a lecturer on jurisprudence at Oxford University said in one of his lectures, after considering the need for rules of interpretation as explained above, "Now we have the additional instruction of post-modernism generally and the notion of reading a text such that the reader is as important as the author in constructing or perhaps reconstructing... the text. Attractive as that postmodern perspective may be in the reading statutes, I have never quite convinced myself that when I read Hamlet, I am as important as Shakespeare!"

Modernists need to learn to be sensible and humble when reading the revealed word of Allah.

Western Connections

While the modernists' approach represents sheer disconnect with Arabic and the essence of language per se, it involves many connections with the West. With the early appearance of modernism amongst Arab thinkers, and in addition to the intellectual and shari'ah answers to them, some pointed out that there were connections between modernists (even the likes of Abduh) and western political circles and freemasons. Many modernists, both the early and the most recent, have been trained in western countries (France, England, US). Certainly, many would dismiss this view as baseless conspiracy theory. However, as far as recent Arab modernists are concerned, one needs only to point out a few notorious facts.

The RAND report of 2003 clearly emphasized the significance of supporting modernists by financing them on the ground as well as in cyberspace, and focusing on them so as to elevate them to the post of representing Muslims and talking in the name of Islam.

France, too, has started to openly channel cooperation with modernists. Last May, the French Embassy in Amman held a conference in association with the French Institute for the Near East on legal philosophies and practices in the Middle East. French speakers focused on "post-modernist Islam" and shari'ah rules relating to family law. They cited Arab modernists calling for revising the shari'ah on family law, hudud, and the theological foundations of 'usul altogether. It all derives from French intellectual influence on modernists, but the French presented it as a purely internal debate within Islam. The organizers of the conference announced that it is intended to be annual, and is set to be held in Egypt, Lebanon and Syria in the future.

This western support for Arab modernists links with the American strategy towards Islam at both the global and regional levels. At a global level, modernists must realize that their approach serves the Neocons' plot to "rebuild Islam" as such. At a regional level, the modernists' approach takes a step towards a new or greater Middle East, where the identity of the region being perceived as Arab or Muslim would be submerged into a new regional regime that involves Israel, not only as a component of the region but as the leading regional power.

Arab modernists must realize that their works incinerate the Muslim identity and pave the way, consciously or unwittingly, to achieving this western - rather American - new regional regime, one without there being a distinct Arab or Muslim identity that would warrant the question as to what historical, social or cultural elements should draw Israel and the rest of the region together.

http://ummahpulse.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=427&Itemid=71
Share:

Blog Archive

Support


Definition List

Just Foreign Policy Iraqi Death Estimator

Unordered List