Honour Attack in Burnely?

According to The Asian News:

Mohammed Islam, 48, struck Shadiya Islam repeatedly, threatened to pour acid in her face and told her he would kill her after the police arrived.

According to the prosecution this was the result of his daughter's declaration that she intended to move in with her boyfriend. If that is true (and since the defence was so weak it probably is) then this was the first step on the route to a possible "honour killing".

As a side note, this is quite worrying:

Jawad Babar, defending, said [Mohammed] Islam was quite liberal and had not imposed any major sanctions on his children. They had gone to school, he allowed them to work and they were free to chose their partners.

Allowing your kids to go to school and choose who to marry is not exactly the preserve of liberals. Makes one wonder what he would consider normal.

The Prevent Strategy

The Government's "Prevent" programme for trying to stop the spread of Islamism in the UK has come in for some attention recently. The Tax Payer's Allowance released a report on the 8th September detailing the various organisations that had received money under this scheme (read the report from here).

The report revealed that much of the money went to groups who did not oppose extremism (but who were not extreme themselves) while some went to extremist groups. Matthew Sinclair argued that the strategy should be scrapped essentially because the scheme is impossible to implement properly. Ed Husain argued that it should be continued but fixed.

I think Prevent should be scrapped for two important reasons. The first is that not only can it not be implemented properly but that it cannot work. The money must go to one of three groups. The recipient may be inactive in the area of extremism (neither opposed to it nor encouraging it) in which case the money is wasted. The recipient may be a proponent of extremism in which case the money is counter-productive. But even if the recipient works to oppose extremism the receiving of money from the State will undermine its efforts completely. No one with animosity towards the British State (the kind of people Prevent is supposed to encourage to turn away from extremism) is going to listen to groups funded by the British State. Perhaps this is why Rochdale Council refused to disclose who they gave money to claiming that it would be commercially detrimental to a third party.

But the main reason why Prevent should be scrapped is that it is wrong. The State should not be in the businesses of funding some ideas and not others. The State should not put its weight behind some ideology and should not preach to us what we should or shouldn't believe. If we want to be a liberal country we must allow the free flow of ideas, not gang up to fund some against others.

Scrap Prevent and let people believe what they want. Use the money to make sure that the Islamist cannot blow me up, don't use it in an attempt to force people to believe what the State wants them to believe.

Muslim Businesses United

I came across an article in the Telegraph and Argus reporting that a group called "Muslim Businesses United" was hosting a dinner on 2nd October to raise money for Gaza. Nothing remarkable about that but I thought I'd have a quick look at their website. It was worth a little digging as a picture of extremism quickly emerges. Their home page announces that they are sending delegates on the Viva Palestina convoy. This group raised money for Hamas.

Another page is entitled "Stop Wars" and encourages people to take strike action and boycott various companies. A list is provided neatly splitting companies into two groups - those with links to Israel who should be shunned and those without. Although I'm not entirely convinced by their methods since Starbucks is to be boycotted because:

"Although Starbucks has gone to great length stating it does not support Israel. It is still on boycott lists as there is no evidence that it is not supporting Israel."

On their "Stop Wars" page they explain why they should not give money to charity:

Our charities are being blocked because banks are closing down the charity accounts or the Charity Commission are freezing accounts. This happened in 2008 and 2009 with Interpal and Viva Palestina respectively.

Interpal being another charity that has links to Hamas.

There is also considerable craziness from one of the organisation's founders. Saeeda Naz is one of the workers for the organisation. Her name and number appear on the posters for this latest event and the MBU website containts a scan of an article about how she raised £600 for Viva Palestina (ie for Hamas). She also has her own website and on it she has a page of press releases. On that page she kindly informs us that 9/11, 7/7, the Bali bombing, the Mumbai attacks and the attack on the Sri Lankan cricket team were all the work of the Americans and Israelis.

Far from being a normal Muslim organisation raising money for those suffering the effects of war and occupation, this is an organisation run by extremists with a history of raising money for Hamas and apparently intent on doing so again. I don't need to point out that Hamas is a terrorist organisation and deemed so by UK law making it illegal to raise money for them.

Pre-charge Detention, Outrage and Decadence

The big topic of the day, obviously, is the Government's bid to extend pre-charge detention to 42 days. Sean O’Neill in The Times asks why we would need this. He points out:

There is no widely perceived need for more authoritarian legislation. So far there has been no case where the police would have liked more than the current 28-day limit and only 11 suspects have been held for more than 14 days.

So why do police chiefs want up to 90 days? He explains:

It is during a wave of multiple, complex terror plots or attacks that, security sources say, the power to hold suspects for up to 42 days will be necessary.

They argue that the time to legislate for emergency detention powers is now – when it can be properly considered – rather than in the frenzied atmosphere of a national emergency.

The assumption behind this plan is clear, then. One day the police will have a suspect in custody, will be forced to release him after 28 days and he will go on to kill people. And then there will be such an outrage against the police and government that they will rush through an extension. The essential accusation is that we, the British public, would be so distraught at the loss of life that we will accept, nay demand, that our leaders compromise on our high standards to ensure our protection.

And he's probably right. Just this week we found out that a terrorist had been released a whole 17 days early from prison and there was such an outcry that the government very quickly changed its policy. It would seem that faced with the choice of danger of some deaths or compromise on moral high standards we will compromise every time.

What is more, in the comfort of our safe armchairs, when is all is fine and calm, we will oppose these moves. We will cite freedom and people will talk about doing the terrorists' work for them. But as soon as the bomb goes off and people die we will be shouting for action against those very freedoms.

There is surely only one word for this, decadence. The Islamists accuse the West of this and we are guilty as charged. When all is peaceful we extol the virtues of civil liberties and freedom. We laud ourselves for our high moral standards and unshakeable values. But in reality we're scared, terrified. As soon as something goes wrong, someone dies, we will turn our backs on those freedoms in a heartbeat.

In WWII Britain's ability to take the punishment of the Blitz, of the V1s and 2s allowed us to stand firm for what we believed in. And we rightly look back at that with pride. People died and we accepted that as the price of freedom. A heavy price, but one we were willing to pay. Today we're not willing to pay that price. The result is evident.

We will compromise, demand compromise, on our standards to avoid the deaths of some citizens. We demand that Afghanistan and Iraq are left to fend for themselves against the Islamists lest some of our brave soldiers die in defence of democracy and freedom. We are at a point where safety and calm are more important to us than morality and liberty. We are truly decadent. We should be ashamed.

Anti-Semitism over at MPACUK

On MPACUK's website is a page of FAQs. The first is, naturally, "Are you anti-Semitic? Do you deny the holocaust?" And the answer is "In a word, NO." And yet, the evidence is to the contrary. On their site today is an article entitled, "4 things Israel will get away with if you don't attend our event - Saturday 29th March".

MPACUK's obsession with Israel is well known and so it will come as little surprise to readers that they make claims such as "More than 130 Palestinians MURDERED in the last few weeks", confusing self defence with murder. But it is the anti-Semitism that is of concern in that article.

The first thing Israel "will get away with" is "The BLOCKADE of supplies into Gaza will continue". MPACUK make the following claim:

The sea and land borders of Gaza are controlled by Israel. Gaza: a concentration camp in all but name.

All-Party Parliamentary Inquiry into Antisemitism recommended that the Government adopt the European Union Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia working definition of anti-Semitism. In that definition it states

Examples of the ways in which antisemitism manifests itself with regard to the state of Israel taking into account the overall context could include:

Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis

I guess MPACUK didn't read that report (odd when you consider that there is a whole section devoted to them). Accompanying the article is a poster for an MPACUK event in Manchester. Yet more extremism on that with the question "Why is Israel allowed to commit Genocide [sic] in Palestine [sic]?". There is also the statement "The Israel Lobby - We expose the powerful force shaping both the media coverage and the actions of your MP" yet again repeating the offence that caused the All Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) to state "MPACUK has also articulated Jewish conspiracy theories through the language of Zionism".

And finally on that poster is the boast "MPACUK made British History in 2005 by removing a pro-Israel MP!" For those who don't know about this, this was when MPACUK campaigned to have Lorna Fitzsimons unelected during which they sponsored leaflets calling attention to her Jewish origins (even though she actually has none). This was another incident that the APPG wasn't happy with stating, "it is concerning to see the ‘accusation’ of being Jewish being used in such a way in the context of an election campaign."

All in all, another example of extremism, radicalism and anti-Semitism from MPACUK.

Former MI6 Head Calls on Muslims

Former MI6 head, Sir Richard Dearlove, told a conference that Muslims are best placed to root out extremism in Britain. He said:

At the moment it is very easy for al-Qaida to recruit its foot soldiers. The most effective way for Muslim communities to police the al-Qaida influence in the UK is to do it themselves. Community policing in the UK has failed in this specific area.

Would this failure have to do with the government and media giving all their attention to groups run by extremists and Islamists. A group who's head threatens Britain with 2 million home-grown terrorists is not a group that will tackle terrorism. A group that boycotts Holocaust Memorial Day is not a group that will oppose extremism. A group who's leaders call for non-cooperation with police and who support Hamas and Hezbollah is not a group that want to stop Islamism.

By giving these groups all the attention, the moderate majority are effectively silenced and ignored. Instead the debate about Islamism is skewed because we take the opinion of Islamists as mainstream. The government must lead on this by completely ignoring such groups. If we stop shining the spotlight on the extremist groups we might start to find the moderate groups out there.

Bakri Recruiting

In the aftermath of the fertiliser bomb plot trial it was revealed that Al Muhajiroun, run by Omar Bakri, was at the centre of virtually all British Islamic terrorism. The Sun is reporting that he is still recruiting people to spread his hatred over the Internet.

Neil Doyle has found numerous videos that have been uploaded to the Internet preaching hatred of non-Muslims. He estimates that 20 people are in Britain preaching this hate and trying to radicalise more Muslims.

UPDATE (09/05/07 15:49): Omar Bakri has tried to refute the claims made against him. He told London based newspaper Asharq Alawsat that he was "too pre-occupied with my work in the library learning about and researching Daawa in Lebanon to know what is going on in Britain." he also claimed that "I am not in touch with them and I do not know anything about them."

Bakri is, naturally, lying. Every night he gives lectures via the Paltalk chat room. These lectures are advertised on Al Muhajiroun websites. Of course he knows exactly what is going on here and still has a big hand in orchestrating events.

Mission Statement

A post last Friday mentioned some of the aims of this blog and it became apparent that these aims had never been clearly stated and explained. This post shall do just that.

There are three main aims:

1) To encourage Muslims to publicly oppose violent extremism.

There are two reasons for this aim. First, and foremost, it is because Muslims alone can solve the problem. The root cause of Islamic terrorism is an ideology that interprets Islam as requiring Muslims to kill non-Muslims in an attempt to create an Islamic Caliphate. While many Muslims have become politicised by the Iraq war, those in Britain who become suicide bombers or who aid and abet them, have done so because of the ideology that they have been introduced to. Therefore, since the cause is an interpretation of Islam, the only people who can stop that are Muslims themselves.

Secondly, even if publicly opposing extremism, through demonstrations and ostracising the radical preachers, doesn't have any effect on extremism (which is highly unlikely) it will have a major effect on the British population. The radicalisation of some Muslims in Britain is having a radicalising effect on some British people. The result is that all minority groups are suffering and will suffer. By openly opposing extremism the Muslim community will allay the fears of the British public and will ease the pressure they are under as well as improving the relations of all parts of British society.

2) To fight against racism against Muslims

As has been mentioned, the radicalisation of some Muslims has been mirrored by some Brits. The result of that radicalisation has been the spreading of lies and scare-stories about Muslims and the effect is now seen with increased opposition to all forms of multiculturalism and religious activity. As a blog that deals with Islamic extremism it is likely that people who may already be or heading towards that form of radicalisation will be reading this. Therefore, hopefully, we are in a position to help fight that form of racism too.

NB: The use of the term racism is in its more general sense to include discrimination against identifiable groups of people. It is used as a short-hand for religious discrimination which is just as serious.

3) To highlight and discuss other interesting topics that come to hand.