AN ISLAMIC extremist who hurled abuse at Britain’s home-coming troops has been beaten up by fellow Muslims.

Sayful Islam was set upon by moderates who say his controversial beliefs are making their lives hell.

Their mosque was firebombed after he led the now notorious protest against the 2nd Battalion Royal Anglian Regiment’s homecoming parade in Luton in March.

Islam – former leader of the local branch of extreme Islamic group Al-Muhajiroun – told how he “felt elated’’ at the sight of terrorists steering two passenger jets into the Twin Towers in New York on 9/11.

But moderate Muslims claim the 29-year-old’s doctrine of hatred has led to them being shunned and want him driven out of town.

Since the Islamic Education Centre was burned down they have been left with nowhere to pray.

“The group did not like the fact his actions have caused them problems. They are now being treated as outsiders and extremists.

“Their place of worship has been firebombed. Luton has become a difficult place to be a Muslim thanks to Sayful.”

He added: “These people are not extremists and do not share his beliefs. They believe they are suffering unnecessarily because of his actions.

“Punches were thrown and Sayful legged it. He will be looking over his shoulder from now on.’’

(HH here: Sigh, even the “moderates” can’t seem to settle things peacefully!)

One Muslim posted on an Islamic website: “He got bust up. Wherever they go they’d best watch out.’’

One former worshipper at the bombed mosque said: “There has been some trouble. He was not badly hurt but he has not been seen since.

“Feelings are running high. The majority of people who attended the centre are not extreme in any way. They are peace-loving members of the community.”

(HH: Just don’t piss them off or they might beat you silly!!!)

Islam was unavailable for comment last night.

The Muslim cleric who blames British mosques for the 7/7 bombings, says multiculturalism is a disaster and would throw Islamic fanatics out

By Richard Pendlebury

You can usually find at least one in any saloon bar, ready to give you the benefit of their peppery views on the parlous state of Britain today.

This particular example is a clean shaven, middle-aged man with the de rigueur attire of carefully knotted mustard tie and blue, golf club-style blazer.

Brass cuff buttons flash as he pounds an angry fist on to his knee.

Terror: The bus destroyed in the 7/7 London bombings

‘Please, please go and leave us alone. This is Britain, not 10th century Arabia!’
We are indeed sitting in a bar, on a busy main road in Oxford.

But the man before me is no stereotypical Islamophobe.

For one, he is sipping a glass of water rather than something more inflammatory.

More importantly, though by no means obviously, Dr Taj Hargey is himself an Islamic cleric; perhaps the most controversial imam in Britain today.

In an age when the highest-profile Muslim preachers are bearded, anti-Western firebrands such as Abu Hamza or Omar Bakri Dr Hargey seems an anomaly.

He does not care much for male facial hair. He believes that women can be both seen and heard, even in a mosque at Friday prayers.

And don’t even get him started on the sort of fanatics who blow up London buses, or the poisonous teachings that inspired them.

…Dr Hargey has little doubt who, and what, is truly to blame for unleashing such terrorism on our streets.

‘It is the extremist ideology present in many UK mosques which is the cement behind nihilistic plots such as this,’ he says. ‘They are twisting Islam.’
Violence: Dr Taj Hargey deplores fanatics such as the suicide bombers who targeted London
He has little or no time for the Government’s ‘pussyfooting’ policy of encouraging multiculturalism.

‘That is the biggest disaster to happen to Britain since World War II,’ he says. ‘It has given the extremist mullahs the green light for radicalism and segregation. We have to, we must, adjust to British society. And we can do so without losing our faith.’
Hardly surprisingly, such statements have made him wildly unpopular among those who adhere to the brand of ultra-conservative Saudi-funded Wahhabi Islam which currently makes most noise in Britain and around the world.

Certainly, if you Google Dr Hargey’s name you will find him vilified as a ‘charlatan’ on any number of Islamic website forums.

In return, he is quite happy to describe his critics as ‘fanatics’. Recently, one hostile publication went too far.

When we meet, Dr Hargey, 56, is still basking in the glow of his successful libel action against the English-language Muslim Weekly newspaper, which had accused him of being a heretic.

Earlier this month it agreed to pay him a five-figure sum and issue a grovelling apology, which was a little more esoteric than most heard in the High Court.

It stated: ‘Dr Taj Hargey has never subscribed to, belonged to or been affiliated with any sect or minority group, religious or otherwise. On the contrary, Dr Hargey has consistently and openly reiterated his unconditional belief in the absolute finality of prophethood in Islam and Mohammed (peace and blessings upon him) as God’s last prophet and final messenger.’

Afterwards, the cleric described the case as a ‘watershed moment’ in the battle between ‘progressives’ such as himself and what he called the ‘Muslim McCarthyists’, after the U.S. senator who accused opponents of being communist and ‘un-American’ with little or no evidence.

But despite his victory, or perhaps because of it, when his phone rings now it is still almost as likely to be an anonymous death threat as a request for spiritual guidance.

Certainly more people hate him than follow him.

‘The masses have been brainwashed by the mullahs,’ he says.

Which begs the question: can this intellectual Oxford imam really succeed with his ambition to lead a ‘reformation’ of British Islam? Or will medieval orthodoxy triumph in the end?

Dr Hargey was born and raised in apartheid- era South Africa. …Hargey was a natural scholar and destined for a better, if consistently controversial, existence.

His first battles were against the Pretoria government, rather than fundamentalists from his own faith.
‘The masses have been brainwashed by the mullahs’The attention he received from the South African security services prefigured the intimidation and intolerance he says he receives from British extremists today: ‘I was an anti-apartheid fighter, against institutionalised racism.
‘For me, Islam was a liberating vehicle for attaining justice on this Earth. I was pursued then by the South African secret police, so why should I fear these people now?’

Hargey attained his doctorate in Middle Eastern and Islamic studies from Oxford University. His thesis was on the slave trade in Anglo-Egyptian Sudan.

… he (held)down a number of academic posts in the United States, not least of which was a spell teaching African studies at the Sarah Lawrence University in New York State, alma mater of Rahm Emanuel, Barack Obama’s White House Chief of Staff.

His latest venture is the Muslim Education Centre of Oxford, of which he is founding chairman.

He also leads the city’s Summertown Islamic congregation. ‘The most progressive pulpit in the land, from which we do everything in English except prayer,’ he states.

The ideological core of his opposition towards the fashionable Islamic fundamentalists lies in his rejection of the absolute importance of hadith and Sharia law.

To explain, the Koran is the teaching of Allah, handed down to the Prophet Mohammed.

The hadiths, meanwhile, comprise the sayings and actions of Mohammed, as recorded by others, some time after his death.

For many Muslims, the hadiths are a fundamental guide and part of their faith. For Hargey, they are often unreliable and an obstacle to the integration of Islam into contemporary society. He believes the Koran is all.

‘This is a big fight for the hearts and minds of Islam. There is nothing in the Koran which is incompatible with (living in) British society, unlike what I call “Mullah Islam” and their reliance on hadiths.’

And so he explains his position: ‘These people say they have a right to stone adulterous women. We say show us where it says that in the Koran.

‘The Koran must have precedence. It must be sovereign. Everything else is supplementary or subservient. All that stuff about jihad, women’s rights, apostasy, all these issues come from the hadiths.

‘We do not say get rid of the hadiths. But we do say that every hadith must pass two litmus tests.

First, it must not conflict with the Koran. Second, it must not conflict with reason or logic.

‘One of the hadiths, for example, says the majority of people in Hell will be women. But let’s do a forensic examination of this. First, let’s look at the fact that 88 per cent of crimes are committed by men rather than women.

‘How then, logically, can there be more women in Hell? Theologically, the Koran says that every human irrespective of gender will be rewarded for what they did and punished for what they did not.’

Of Sharia law he is even more dismissive. ‘The Koran is clear that blasphemy is dealt with in the next life by God. The Sharia, meanwhile, is a medieval compilation of religious opinion which is not immutable, not eternal.

‘How can we be dependant on 10th-11th-century jurists and scholars? It makes no sense.’

He also wants Muslims to integrate more with mainstream Britain.

‘The (Muslim) reaction to 9/11 was to withdraw. I think the best way is to go out and belong.
‘I love this country, I follow Spurs and I go to the pub, if only to drink orange juice’ ‘If you met me walking down the street, for example, would you know I am a Muslim? No.

‘I know I am a Muslim in my heart and my actions, not in my beard or the niqab face mask. The niqab only comes from a hadith and even that only refers to the Prophet’s wives. This is a big fight for the hearts and minds of Islam. There is nothing in the Koran that is incompatible with (living in) British society.’

Of the cries of ‘heretic’ to which he is frequently subjected, he argues: ‘Faith is between the person and God. No one can pronounce you a heretic (in Islam) and I think that is a wonderful thing.

‘But we do need a reformation in Islam. We have to go back to the pristine principles in our faith. We need a British Islam and by that I do not mean a compromise.

‘Christianity was once an alien faith. We have to integrate in a matter of decades rather than centuries.’

But what of the accusations that he is simply a State stooge? This angers him.

‘I have called for Bush and Blair to be indicted at the international criminal court for their wars. What kind of stooge does that make me?
‘We have a multicultural community of men and women, including converts. We are not fanatics and appeal to a very broad constituency. We do not appeal to those who have been brainwashed by the mullahs.

These people refuse to debate with me and instead send their minions to do their dirty work on the internet or via anonymous phone calls. We get death threats, intimidation and blackmail tactics. But it does not dissuade us.

‘Our group is based on the “Three Es”: Enlightenment, Egalitarianism and Erudition.

But the Government, with its anti-terrorist strategy, has never contacted us, even though we say violence and suicide bombing are against the faith.

‘What a mistake. In this city we have the Wahhabi-backed Oxford Centre of Islamic Studies. It preaches the most repressive and egregious theology.

‘We want to establish an Oxford Centre for British Islam. We will have a mosque and the leader could be either male or female.’

So, for example, he has supported a state school which banned the niqab, much to the fury of his Muslim foes.

And last October he hosted the appearance in Oxford of Professor Amina Wadud, a female Islamic academic, who gave a sermon at Friday prayers before a mixed-gender congregation, which was anathema to the extremists.

Dr Hargey says: ‘She is the undisputed authority on women in the Koran. We invited this heavyweight intellectual and the people who made the most protest outside our prayer hall were women dressed in niqabs who had been brainwashed by their menfolk.

‘It was like the time of Emmeline Pankhurst and the suffragettes agitating for the vote.

‘Then, many of the women were conditioned to think their behaviour a scandal. Now look at all those women walking past us who have the vote and think nothing of it.’

He also frowned on the recent extremist demonstration against the troops parading through Luton.

‘While we feel it was an illegal war, you cannot punish the average squaddie for what is done in the name of New Labour and that toxic Texan.

‘Yes, the war was wrong, but you cannot call soldiers murderers, or cowards. My life’s work is to make British Muslims integrated.’

He is also utterly dismissive of the Muslim Council of Britain, which until the Government’s recent reversal of policy, was the state’s contact point with British Islam.

‘They are Indo-Pakistani and sexist,’ he says. ‘It’s a reactionary group, infused with the repressive ideology of the Wahhabis.

‘If we go along their path we will have a ghetto mentality, segregated and giving our enemies such as the British National Party the opportunity to target us like the Jews in the 1930s. Isolation is our greatest peril.’

For the record, he supported BNP leader Nick Griffin’s recent appearance at an Oxford Union debate, although he certainly did not endorse his views.

‘We should not silence him. We should expose him.

‘I love this country, I follow Spurs and I go to the pub, if only to drink orange juice. I am also a Muslim. But I am not a threat. If people like me are smothered then we will all sleep less safely in our beds.

‘These people are religious fascists. The view that Islam is incompatible with British society is something that the Muslim Council of Britain and their hangers- on have promulgated.’

And with that, he adjusts the knot in his mustard tie, drains the last drop of his (non-alcoholic) drink and leaves the bar.

He may be a deeply controversial imam. But he is undoubtedly a brave one.

Labour Party candidate told she was ‘too white and Jewish’ to be selected despire district being “safe”

(HH here: for those of you who do not know what a “safe district” is let me explain. Due to demographics a safe district is one that is dominated by voters that support one party almost to the exclusion of any opposition. After runoffs internal to the party the final candidate is utterly assured election no matter who they face in the final vote. Because of this the “palatiblity” of the candidate due to racial considerations is moot. If she had made it to the final election it would have been proof that she DID have local support and in that final election she would win even if a large number of voters abstained. Why exclude her? Sheer racism and anti-semeticism!)

Labour Party embroiled in race row after candidate told she was ‘too white and Jewish’ to be selected
By Emily Andrews
Elaina Cohen, …, claims she was told she was ‘too white and Jewish’ to be selected as a Labour candidate in Birmingham
The Labour Party has become embroiled in a race row after a prospective female councillor was allegedly told she was ‘too white and Jewish’ to be selected.

Elaina Cohen claims that Labour councillor Mahmood Hussain said he would not support her application for an inner-city ward because ‘my Muslim members don’t want you because you are Jewish’.

Mrs Cohen, 50, has made an official complaint about the alleged remarks made by Mr Hussain, a Muslim and former lord mayor of Birmingham.

She said: ‘I am shocked and upset that a member of the Labour Party in this day and age could even think something like that, let alone say it.

‘People should not be allowed to make racist comments like that. If someone in the party feels I cannot represent them because of my colour or religion, that’s ridiculous.

‘I felt particularly aggrieved because I have worked across all sections of the community, particularly with the Muslim section, and have been on official visits to Pakistan.’

Mrs Cohen had applied to stand as a Labour councillor for the Birmingham ward of East Handsworth and Lozells, which has a high Asian and Afro-Caribbean population.

As one of Labour’s safest seats on Tory-led Birmingham city council, the final candidate would be almost certain of victory at the June 4 by-election.

But when Mrs Cohen telephoned 57-year-old Mr Hussain for his support, she was astonished to be told that she was too ‘white and Jewish’ to be considered.

Lorraine Briscoe, who runs a local community association, was sitting next to Mrs Cohen when the conversation took place on speakerphone last Tuesday.

‘I was disgusted that a councillor could make comments like that in 2009,’ she said.

‘He told her, “They will not vote for someone who is white and Jewish. My Muslim members don’t want you because you are Jewish”.

‘Elaina then asked him if he had talked to his Muslim members about it and he said, “I don’t want to talk about it with you” and hung up.

‘Elaina does a lot of good work in this community and she does not see race or religion, she just sees people.’

Two days after the alleged conversation, Mrs Cohen and another candidate were rejected by a pre-selection panel after failing to gain the support of the local party.

Instead, members were presented with one candidate, black South African Hendrina Quinnen, who was selected by an almost unanimous vote.
Mrs Cohen has now sent an official complaint to Labour Party general secretary Ray Collins and Birmingham city council accusing Mr Hussain of improper conduct.
Mr Hussain said yesterday: ‘I would not make those sort of comments. The allegations are not true.’

Female Genital Mutilation: If you are a woman and NOT up in arm about this then you might as well get a sex change!

Female Genital Mutilation on British Turf
By Jamie Glazov | Friday, March 20, 2009

Latest reports indicate that approximately 500 girls a year have their genitals mutilated in Britain.

It may come as no surprise to the knowledgeable political and cultural observer that the poor victims of these crimes are not from Christian or Jewish families, nor from Hindu or Buddhist ones. They are to be found predominantly in Muslim households. And being Muslim is a status that gives the victims, and all future victims, the unfortunate distinction of being part of a group that society can’t help, because the lib-Left has made sure that the Muslim culture can never be criticized and, therefore, that its sufferers can never be protected or saved.

Fact: female circumcision is illegal in Britain. But this doesn’t mean that British law enforcement is doing anything about this crime that Muslim communities are perpetrating against their little girls.

The reality: five hundred girls’ genitals are mutilated every year in Britain. Not one arrest. Not one incarceration.

You think protecting little girls’ genitals is more important nowadays than protecting oneself from the charge of being Islamophobic? Think again.

Islamic women haters, therefore, are reigning free in Britain. Enraged at even the thought of female sexuality, the self-appointed guardians of Islamic purity make sure to obliterate the clitorises of little girls before the girls begin to get the concept of their own human agency and the magic of love. In a fascistic effort to deny women even the possibility of personal happiness, individuality and sexual satisfaction, these mutilators start cutting girls at the age of seven or eight—before their menstrual periods begin—so that their sexuality will be amputated forever.

Despite its gruesome terror, this crime is widely practised throughout world, for it is a crucial ingredient of Islamic gender apartheid and is known as female genital mutilation (FGM). Its ideological premise has been carefully constructed: a girl’s genital area is dirty and unacceptable. How much is amputated varies among cultures. In Egypt only the clitoris is amputated; in countries like Sudan the woman-haters are not so kind. In a savagery called infibulation, the girl’s external genital organs are completely removed: the clitoris, the two major outer lips (labia majora) and the two minor inner lips (labia minora). In Sudan, the term used for this is tahur—which means “cleansing” or “purification.”

(HH: Call me what you will but it seems to me that this ALONE is grounds for the U.N. to basically invade and take over Sudan and put it right. Imagine the institutionalized HORROR female children are subjected to daily in Sudan and Egypt etc.Of course it is not going to happen that way. Currently the U.N. would probably DEFEND the practice. The OIC certainly would.)

More than 130 million women living today have been subjected to this horrifying practice, and more than two million girls are assaulted by it each year. That is more than five thousand girls every day. Many girls lose their lives during FGM, which is often done with broken glass. Most victims suffer from chronic infection and pain for the rest of their lives. The mutilation robs women of their ability to enjoy the fullness of their sexuality and, therefore, the fullness of their lives. Approximately 75 percent of women cannot achieve orgasm without clitoral stimulation; thus, the possibility of sexual satisfaction has been obliterated for millions of women in the Muslim world.

(HH: The loss of sexuality is horrific, but it is the absolutely inhuman torture of the procedure and the Attitude the girls are subjected to. You are a thing a dirty dirty thing but can be made “useful” if we mutilate what God gave you. I shudder and want to scream, cry and hurt someone at the same time. These are little girls!!!!!! )

The Muslim communities who practise FGM will not easily abandon their barbarity. The Egyptian government, for example, banned FGM in 1996, but an Egyptian court overturned the ban in July 1997. The problem is that the clitoris mutilators point to traditional teachings that sanction FGM. Islamic tradition, for instance, records the Prophet Muhammad emphasizing that circumcising girls is “a preservation of honor for women.” A legal manual of the Shafi’i school of Islamic jurisprudence, ‘Umdat al-Salik, which is endorsed by Al-Azhar University of Cairo — the oldest and most prestigious university in the Islamic world — states that circumcision is obligatory for both boys and girls.

(HH: Here we have the exposure of a lie by the hard Left. It is NOT mainly Pagan Africans that do this. The vast majority of these mutilations, by numbers, are committed by Muslims.)

Underlying this brutality is the obvious belief that the sexual mutilation of women will help keep the structure of Islamic gender apartheid in place. Keeping FGM legitimized and institutionalized is one of the most effective means to keep women subjugated and caged. The assumption is that amputating the clitoris will kill the woman’s sexual desire and thereby reduce the chances that she will ever toy with the notion of self-determination.

(HH: The funny bit is that the Islamic apologists will tell you the same thing but in different words. Those poor darling girls must be cherished and kept clean and since they can’t be chained up or watched all the time the HUMANE Islamic solution is to make them incapable of following their natural evil tendencies. THAT is the party line from the Imams.)

Thanks to the Left’s policy of multiculturalism, where no value can be said to be worse or better than any other (except, of course, if American society and culture is the subject of discussion), (HH: That is a very succinct way of describing the philosophy of the Far Left.) FGM is now being widely practised on Western territory. A study estimates that 66,000 women living in England and Wales have suffered FGM, most of them before emigrating from their home country. More than 7,000 girls in Britain alone, meanwhile, are at a high risk of being victims of the crime. At present, we know that more than 500 girls in Britain are being mutilated every year.

(HH: If your response to THAT number is not outrage and a feeling of THIS MUST NOT CONTINUE then turn in your humanitarian badge and accept your demonic hypocrite I.D.!)

This horror show demands a certain question: Where are the leftist feminists in the West crying out in opposition to this crime against their sisters being carried out on their own shores? In what pages, in what demonstrations, are they denouncing the theology that serves as an inspiration to this crime and calling it to account? Where are the Women’s Studies Departments on Western campuses demanding that Islam be confronted on these grotesque elements of misogyny? Where are the columnists of the Nation Magazine, the supposed leader of the humanitarian Left, repudiating this practise and the texts on which is based?

The Left’s cries of indignation are not to be heard because admitting the inferiority of an adversarial culture might very well legitimize Western civilization, a recognition that no leftist can allow if he hopes to retain his identity and social belonging. (HH: Again VERY succinctly put!)That’s why the leftist forces in our society do their best to excuse FGM with the tired old mantra: it’s not only Muslims that do it – as if inaction to save human beings from evil is somehow justified because a sin might exist somewhere else.

Hypothetical question: if we could have saved the Jewish inmates from Auschwitz before they were gassed, would it have been right to abort the rescue operation upon discovering that someone, somewhere, in some other place, said or did something anti-Semitic?

Yes, there are non-Islamic parts of Africa whose cultural traditions also dehumanize women and practice FGM. But Muslims are the principal religious group that practices this sexual violence against women. In Egypt, 97 percent of girls are circumcised. And there is no greater revolting image than the smug leftist turning his back on these victims because a non-Muslim somewhere sliced the genitals off of a little girl. How does this self-satisfied inhumanity save the Muslim girls who will be mutilated in the future?

We know that it doesn’t. But alas, this is only another chapter of a long dark story – the story of the Left, with its hands drenched with complicity in human blood, sacrificing human beings on the altar of utopian ideals.

[Editors’ note: Jamie Glazov’s new book, United in Hate: The Left’s Romance with Tyranny and Terror, provides an analysis of the Left’s silence about Islamic gender apartheid. To order a copy, click here.]

Pressure Works: UK Denies Entry to Hizbullah Official

(HH here: IT seems sense may be breaking out. Or at least a good imitation. Lets see how far they take it.)

by Avraham Zuroff

( After mounting pressure to deny entry of a senior Lebanese member of the Hizbullah terrorist group from entering British borders, the UK’s Home Office denied an entry visa on Friday to Ibrahim Moussawi.

Britain’s Home Secretary, Jacqui Smith, faced growing pressure to deny Moussawi’s visa, after details of his intended visit were first published in the British Daily Mail last month. Despite the newly-appointed Hizbullah media relations director’s anti-Semitic background, Moussawi had been allowed into the UK to speak publicly in December 2007 and February 2008.

British officials granted senior Hizbullah member Moussawi a visa to visit the country on Thursday, and revoked it the next day. Moussawi intended to lecture at a conference on political Islam at the University of London on March 25.

Secretary Smith revoked the entry permit after critics said his entry would represent a “double standard” in visa refusals. Dutch MP Geert Wilders had previously been banned from presenting his film about Islam extremism, Fitna, out of concern that it would threaten “community harmony.” Conservatives stated that Smith’s ban of people who threaten community harmony while allowing in members of terrorist groups would emit the wrong message.

The British government granted Moussawi a permit to visit Britain in 2008, as well. During that visit he appeared at events sponsored by the British group Stop the War.

Moussawi, who has been quoted as calling Jews “a lesion on the forehead of history” and justifying attacks on Israeli civilians, insists that he is not an anti-Semite. “I’m a bridge-builder and I’ve always been an advocate of dialogue and discussion,” he claimed in response to criticism of an earlier visit.

Moussawi also edits Al Manar, Hizbullah’s weekly paper. In the past, he served as political editor of Hizbullah TV, which has been banned in the United States as well as some European Union nations due to its anti-Semitic content.

He walks like one, he talks like one, except for certain reservations I do believe he is a true moderate Muslim!

Salafism: greatest obstacle to Muslim integration
Ghayasuddin Siddiqui

Research has highlighted three major obstacles to human development within Arab countries. They are: absence of freedom; gender inequality; and knowledge deficit. Although these findings relate to Arab countries, they apply to all Muslim societies.

History of integration of all minorities in Britain has followed a certain pattern – whether they be Jewish, Irish, Afro-Caribbean or others. Initially, they are despised because of their history, language, culture or colour. They are treated as a threat to British values, even a fifth column or enemy within. They are told who is in charge, and what is their place in society. Minorities adjust to these pressures, begin to engage, build bridges and begin to find a space. For Muslims it is too early to be definitive as to why the Muslim community has become an “odd one out” and not following the same pattern. The purpose of this presentation is to highlight possible obstacles in their integration into British society. The three shortcomings highlighted by the Arab Human Development Report (2002) were good enough reasons to ensure the Muslim community was going to take longer to adjust and integrate into British society. But the presence of ideology of extremism and confrontation has made it difficult for the community to understand British society, learn from the experience of others, and carve out a space for them within the British ethos, where they may also have freedom to pursue their own community goals.

… writings of scholars like Maududi, Syed Qutb et al have changed the goalpost. Now, according to their interpretations of Islam, the priorities of Islam are to re-create the seventh century society of Arabia, establishment of an Islamic estate, or the global Khalafa, and pursue jihad for the re-conquest of the world for the application of shariah, the Islamic law. An opportunity to fulfil this dream came when the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan in 1979. The CIA, British Intelligence Services, Pakistan Intelligence Services, and Saudi Intelligence got together and created an alliance between godfearing corporate America and the Salafism against the godless communism. The war of liberation was turned into a religious war. As a result a dramatic development began taking shape – salafism, which was itself a minority ideology within Islam became globalised and militarised. Thousands of young men were attracted to Afghan jihad where they were trained the by CIA and British Intelligence Service to make explosives among other things. This, equipped with radical Islamic literature, they found themselves setting Muslim agenda globally. These Islamists with new narrative of Islam also had a well oiled and well organised infrastructure. Now, people who believe in salafism in any form are the ones who are occupying the main ground within the Muslim communities in Britain, although they are no more than 15% of the Muslim population.

It is known that Muslims are at the bottom of all piles: social, economic and educational. But for the salafist leadership the hijab (HH:women covering their hair), the jilbab (HH:women covering their bodies) and foreign policy (HH:any support for Israel) are the main Islamic issues. None of them talks about social exclusion, marginalisation and racism. They do not realise that a socially excluded community cannot influence foreign policy of any country (HH: except by violence and intimidation)but a community, which has a clout due to its excellence in the society, might.

Whether Islam came to create a society or a state is an internal debate. Muslim scholars and societies ought to decide what is the right course of action. The salafists push the foreign policy argument to increase their internal legitimacy within the Muslim groups without realising that this approach is further marginalizing the community. Politicians are good at using external conflicts to distract attention from real issues on ground and salafists are politicians of highest order!

There ought to be open discussions on these issues within the Muslim communities. But this is not happening. Whatever debate and discussion that is taking place is within religious settings. As long as these draw backs are not understood Muslim integration will remain slow. They will defy the normal pattern of integration and continue to provide ammunition to the rightwing groups.

The salafists have managed to turn the war on terror into war on Islam. I see it as a war on resources and markets. If we look at the history of the US since the second world war, they have killed far more Christians than Muslims in their wars… But Muslims have a very limited memory of the world events. They suffer from victimhood. They think that the whole world is against them. We need to explain this to our younger generation to win their hearts and minds so that they understand how dangerous this ideology is! Research on this is needed, and should be done by Muslims themselves, so that the research is not misunderstood. Unless we liberate ourselves from this ideology, there will be no peaceful future for us.

[A paper presented at a workshop on Comparative study of Jews and Muslims in the UK, organised by Royal Holloway, University of London, on 29 November 2006]

(HH: Now I know there are those who will attempt to tear to shreds anything a man like this says. They will spin it all to be nothing but a whitewash for radical Islam. But that is not how I see this man. At least in this article. There is some question whether he supports Muslims remaining outside the political system. But as long as he is not Saudi financed and hiding their agenda I say let him have his voice.)

Sharia’s Inroads Around the World (An answer to those who ask HOW is Radical Islam infiltrating non-violently

(HH here:How have non-violent as well as violent means been used to advance the erosion of Western liberties and law in favor of Islamic Supremacist ideology? Here are a few examples.)

By OLIVIER GUITTA (Middle East Times)Published: March 02, 2009

Pakistan recently gave in to the pressure of Islamist militants. Indeed to buy off peace, Pakistani authorities allowed the imposition of Sharia (Islamic law) in the Swat valley.

How long the cease-fire will last is anyone’s guess. But in any case, Pakistan has allowed a precedent that could extend to other provinces; in fact the Swat valley is only about 100 miles away from Islamabad, the capital. But Sharia is not just making inroads in Pakistan but actually creeping in the West and in particular in Europe.

One area particularly touched by this phenomenon is the judicial system in Europe. Two recent cases in Italy and France are particularly troublesome. First, in Italy, three members of a Brescia-based Maghrebi family (father, mother and eldest son) were accused of beating up and sequestering their daughter/sister Fatima because she wanted to live a “Western” life.

In the first trial, the three were sentenced for sequestration and bad treatment. The court acknowledged that the teenager was “brutally beaten up” for having “dated” a non-Muslim and in general for “living a life not conforming with the culture” of her family. But on appeal, the family was acquitted because the court deemed that the young woman was beaten up for “her own good.” The Bologna public prosecutor’s office then disputed the acquittal of the three accused parties, but the Italian Supreme Court of Cassation dismissed it and ruled in favor of the charged parties.

Interestingly two Italian political leaders on the opposite side of the political spectrum, Isabella Bertolini, vice president of the MPs of the right-wing party Forza Italia, and Barbara Pollastrini, a post-communist former minister agreed to condemn the Supreme Court decision: “This verdict writes one of the darkest pages of history of the law in our country.”

Isabella Bertolini was upset that the court “allied itself with radical Islam” and Barbara Pollastrini is pushing for parliament to pass as soon as possible a law condemning violence against women: “Now more than ever, it is urgent to defend the rights of a large number of immigrant women victims of an intolerable patriarchal culture.”

Muslim women were quick to denounce the supreme court’s decision. Among them, Souad Sbai, president of the Organization of Moroccan Women in Italy.

She said, “It is a shame, this verdict is worthy of an Arab country where the Sharia would be in vigor. In the name of multiculturalism and respect of traditions, the judges apply two kinds of rules: one for the Italians and one for the immigrants. A Catholic father that would have acted this way would have been severely sentenced.”

…in one very publicized case, last June, a French judge ruled in favor of a Muslim man who wanted the annulment of his marriage because his wife turned out not to be a virgin. What this decision amounted to was the endorsement of the repudiation concept.

This decision triggered a huge outcry from politicians, and various organizations. In November, a French court of appeal overturned the decision. Interestingly, a large majority of French Muslims, about 80 percent are very secular and totally reject any kind of Sharia law being implemented in the homeland of human rights.

But the United Kingdom is a different story, indeed there close to 40 percent of young Muslims are in favor of Sharia law being implemented in Britain. The idea seems to be also making headway among non-Muslims. So, last year, Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury, gave his support for the (sharia) courts in Britain, saying that the legal recognition of them “seems unavoidable.” He added, the United Kingdom has to “face up to the fact” that some of its citizens do not relate to the British legal system.

(HH here: DO NOT RELATE TO THE BRITISH LEGAL SYSTEM? Do not RELATE??? Now I am not sure what planet Mr. Williams lives on but on mine that is grounds for deportation of a foreigner who insist on abusing the hospitality of the host country. Whatever country. MY advise to anyone planning on traveling or emigrating; if you can’t “relate” to a country’s laws you had best NOT CHOOSE TO GO THERE.)

Williams argued that adopting parts of Islamic Sharia law would help maintain social cohesion. For example, Muslims could choose to have marital disputes or financial matters dealt within a Sharia court.

(HH: In the world of The Rev. Williams letting a subgroup of society set it’s own rules for itself and how others relate to it PROMOTES social “cohesion”. The only “cohesion” I see this promoting is amongst radicals on both sides of the divide. British and Muslim under this system would become more foreign to each other and more likely to descend into group-think and radicalism.)

But contrary to what Williams advanced, Sadiq Khan, a British Muslim MP said that Sharia courts would discourage Muslims from developing links with other cultural and ethnic groups. He feared also that women could be “abused” by Sharia courts, which may give unequal bargaining power to the sexes.

In Switzerland, echoing Williams, Christian Giordano, an anthropology professor at the Fribourg university wrote that a special jurisdiction for Muslims could be envisioned in Switzerland. He added that including elements from Islamic law could allow to better manage the multiculturalism issue.

(HH: What do you want to bet that this person has the goal of “managing” the non-“white” population by separatism??? Just as the KKK and Louis Farrakhan agree on keeping blacks and white separate I think this “analysis” is motivated more by a desire to keep immigrants separate than to unify society.)

Islamists, much to the detriment of the majority of Muslims in Europe seem to be making headway in Europe in pushing Sharia law into the judicial system.


Olivier Guitta is an adjunct fellow at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies and a foreign affairs and counterterrorism consultant. You can read his latest work at

British Muslims: How the government lost the plot

Feb 26th 2009
From The Economist print edition

A desperate search for a new policy towards Islam has yet to produce results


A WAR, a riot, a terrorist attack or a row over blasphemy: not long ago, Britain’s government knew exactly what to do when a crisis loomed in relations with the country’s Muslims. As recently as July 2005, after bombs in London killed 56 people, Tony Blair was confident that he could avoid a total breakdown of trust between Muslim Britons and their compatriots.

Using an old formula, the prime minister called in some Islamic worthies and suggested they form a task force on extremism. Then, hours before the worthies were due to reconvene and mull their response, Mr Blair breezily announced that a task-force of top Muslims had just been created. They moaned, but dutifully went to work.

That system of trade-offs, the equivalent of the “beer and sandwiches” once used to woo trade unionists, had some big drawbacks. It gave hardline Muslims—generally male, old and new to Britain—disproportionate sway. It also led to some dubious bargains; for example, Muslim resentment of British foreign policy was parried by, in part, huge generosity towards the cultural demands of some Muslims—such as the right to establish schools where the curriculum bears scant relation to the lessons other young Britons get.

Now that system, and its unspoken compromises, lies in ruins. It was jettisoned in the autumn of 2006, when the government downgraded existing ties with the Muslim Council of Britain (in which movements close to the Muslim Brotherhood and the Islamists of Pakistan were strongly represented) and tried to find different interlocutors.

(HH here: Simply targeting the new, mostly Saudi funded, Mosques and Madrassas would go a long way toward stemming the tide of extremism.)

But attempts to define a new policy towards Islam in Britain have been floundering since then.

The government is under fire from the political centre-right for being too soft on radical or reactionary Muslim groups who stop just short of endorsing violence. (HH again: Just short? What about letting groups that DO endorse violence go about their merry business unmolested?) It is also attacked from the left (Muslim or otherwise) for using the fight against terrorism as an excuse for a general assault on Muslims and their cultural rights.

Hazel Blears, the communities secretary, sought to clarify official thinking in a speech on February 25th, … The government, she said, would reserve the right to deal with people whose ideas were unpleasant through a “spectrum of engagement, carefully calibrated to deal with individual circumstances”. With groups that have “an equivocal attitude to core values such as democracy, freedom of speech or respect towards women” there might be “some scope for limited engagement”, the minister carefully added. But on certain forms of “absolutely unacceptable behaviour”—such as homophobia, forced marriage or female genital mutilation—the government would firmly enforce the law with no regard for a cultural “oversensitivity” that had gone too far.

But the failure of current policies aimed at fostering moderate Islam can hardly be overstated. After spending lavishly on a strategy called Prevent that was supposed to empower moderates—at least £80m ($116m) will have been dished out on such efforts by 2011—the very word “prevent” has become discredited in the strongholds of British Islam, which include east London, Birmingham and a string of northern industrial towns. At the Muslim grass roots, there is a sense that any group or person who enjoys official favour is a stooge.

(HH: Why can’t people see that the first failure here was allowing too many immigrants with too little exposure to Western values. Does it really take genius to see that floods of people with no experience in our culture of laws and equal treatment under the law will be a source of crime and tension? The saddest part is that if immigration is shut down totally in order to correct past abuses in the other direction the people who will suffer most are the ones living in non-Western countries that do NOT accept the values of Islam and want to change. IT is hard for us here to say to them “Stand up for yourself, all you have to lose is your head”.)

Many in the government, meanwhile, think their partners are not delivering value for money. The whole relationship has deteriorated since August 2006. After a foiled plot to blow up transatlantic flights, and amid huge ire over the war in Lebanon, a group of prominent Muslims, including two now in government, signed an open letter arguing that British foreign policy in general, and its softness towards Israel in particular, was an important factor behind a surge in extremist sentiment.

(HH here: this points up the total difference in world-view with these people who did not grow up with our cultures. In the West it does not MATTER if you are “upset” about your government’s foreign policy, you simply do not, in a CIVILISED society RIOT and commit murder and mayhem in response. As the British say; “It just isn’t DONE!” But in their home society’s it IS done all the time. Riot and murder and daily tools of “politics” in tribal cultures. Can anyone explain t me why Europe and America et al. should go BACKWARD into a more tribal future? The bottom line is that it is not the place of an immigrant to try to completely revolutionize their new land. We welcome immigrants because they want to JOIN us in OUR future together. Their kids or grandkids will stand as equals to native born they hope. Are we also required to welcome those who come to our lands in order to make them more like the third-world hellhole from which they came? Are we even required to take their “arguments” for their lack of integration seriously?)

The government says … two problems are related: poor, frustrated and mainly self-segregated groups are more likely to produce terrorists. Muslims as a group lag behind other Britons in qualifications, employment, housing and income (see chart). But in fact the overlap between exclusion and extremism is messy. And attempts to fight terrorism through tougher policing, which can alienate whole communities, make boosting cohesion harder.

(HH: I think that a tough but fair stance that says that the door is wide open for ANY immigrant who integrates and gives realy loyalty to their new nation but anyone who lives as a hostile, alien ghetto-dweller and seeks to remain unintegrated and defiantly ignorant of the local laws should be treated like a hostile alien. Give that policy a few years and I think you would see the ghetto shrinking. Muslims would better understand the issue if posed in terms of a good or bad guest. The host-guest relationship is supposed to be sacred in Islam. Why not use that image? Western society needs to stop apologizing for being more tolerant than any of theses people’s original nations. I have always been taught that if I go into another persons house or country it makes no difference, I am inn THEIR home and should make every effort to fit in by THEIR standards. IF their ways are too different I leave. Is that a bad thing?

Among those who claim to speak for disadvantaged Muslims and articulate their grievances, there has been an outpouring of indignation over the government’s stated aim of “preventing violent extremism” by making Muslim communities more “resilient” and better at dealing with hotheads. The idea seems to stigmatise all Muslims, many complain, while the violent extremism of, for example, the white far right is ignored.

(HH here: Wow! I get this image in my head of a Muslim man standing amongst several bodies, blood everywhere. The cops are about to arrest him and he points to a 12 year old who just beat up a little kid for his lunch money. The little kid has a bloody nose. The man indignantly yells at the police that they must pay as much attention to the 12 year old or they are racist. There is no doubt that there are nut-case neo-nazi types running around. But they commit very little violence because society has no tolerance for their games. They talk a lot and beat up a few people here and there but they know that if they were caught committing any serious violence against society they would be stomped on by virtually everyone without dissent. Now if there are any local towns in Britain where skinhead gangs are running rampant and Muslims are committing violent crimes no more than the average of native British then of course the LOCAL response might need to be adjusted. That is a lot of ifs!!!!)

Probing and pre-empting attacks by Muslim extremists is now understood to occupy about 75% of the energy of the British security services, who claim to have had some success in reducing the number of terrorist plots that are stopped only at the last minute. Another less obvious factor in British thinking is strong American concern over the risk that a British-born Muslim could enter the United States and commit a terrorist spectacular there. A healthy slug of America’s anti-terrorism spending goes to forestall just such a possibility.

But successful British Muslims as well as poor ones resent the fact that the rest of society often sees them mainly as potential extremists. Sarah Joseph, a convert to Islam who edits the glossy monthly Emel, says Muslims are fed up with being asked if they are against violence; they want people to know what they are for, such as social justice. The sad fact, in a country that has come to live in fear of terrorism, is that many Britons are indeed more interested in assessing Muslims’ potential for violence than in anything else about them.

Read it all at The Economist by clicking on the post title