Critical essays and letters (to newspapers) on the close connections between the far left and Islam/Islamism. (SCROLL DOWN to the bottom for menu/contents.)

[Image above: Nasrallah, leader of Hezbollah, and Chomsky.]

Sunday, 30 March 2014

Satirical Images (1)

.... but only if you're a Muslim. If you’re not – you’re "destined to burn in hell for eternity". How do I know that? It says so in the Koran.

"Muslims believe in freedom too"… but not the freedom to criticise Islam, Mohammed, the Koran, the hadiths, the Sunna, sharia law, Muslim behaviour (as Muslims), the actions of Muslim/Islamic states, etc. Apart from that, "Islam is freedom"; just as "Islam is peace".

Manningham Lane, Bradford. See: there aren’t that many Muslims in Bradford.

Friday, 23 April 2010

Hamas is an Islamic Party

[Image to the right: British student (SWP) 'helpers' of Hamas.]

i) Introduction
ii) Palestine: the Sacred Land
iii) The Umma and the Caliphate
iv) Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood
v) Hamas and the Palestinian Liberation Organisation (PLO)
vi) The 1987 Intifada
vii) Epilogue: Hamas Hates All Non-Muslims


The more one knows about the history of Islam, the nature of Islam itself, as well as the views and beliefs of Muslims through the centuries, the more one realises that Palestine is not unique. Indeed it is not even seen as the holiest Islamic ‘land’. It can easily be argued that Saudi Arabia (because of Mecca and Medina), and even Iraq (primarily because of Baghdad), are just as ‘sacred’. In addition, because of this the more one also realises that far leftists, left-liberals and other anti-Zionists have effectively been hoodwinked by Hamas and numerous other Muslims. Palestine is just one more bone of contention for Islam. It is just one more ‘occupied’ territory or state. More broadly, but just as importantly, the situation in Israel and Palestine is just one more battle in the never-ending war between good and bad – between Islam and all that is non-Islamic.
Palestine: the Sacred Islamic Land

Hamas’s overall position is summed up well in its well-known slogan:

“Allah is the goal. The Prophet is the model. The Koran is the constitution. The jihad is the path. And death on Allah’s path is our most sublime aspiration.”

How much clearer could Hamas be about its religious affiliations and motives? But, of course, Islam, or religion generally, is nothing but an epiphenomenon of much deeper and more important socio-economic and political factors. That’s the Marxist fairytale.

If you are left-liberal, words like the above are nothing more than Hamas posturing with rhetoric. All it really wants is the West Bank, Gaza and a good standard of living for all Palestinians.

How wrong they all are. More importantly, Hamas itself knows they are wrong.

Islam was, and still is, at the heart of the entire Hamas project, from the annihilation of Israel, to the death of every Jew and the subsequent creation of an Islamic state in the place of Israel.

Hamas continues in this honest and truthful vain when it tells us how all these things, or all these ‘aspirations’, will be brought about. Through jihad. As the Hamas charter puts it:

‘There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through jihad. Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are all a waste of time and vain endeavours.’

If only the far leftists and the left-liberals would believe Hamas when they say, or write, such things.

If such people want yet more honesty from Hamas, take the following, again from the charter, as a little extra evidence:

‘Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it.’

So is all this mere fluff and bravado? Or are they the epiphenomenal sighs of the more important ‘material conditions’ underneath? After hundreds of thousands of bombs, hundreds of suicide attacks, along with all the rest, I most certainly don’t think so. And neither should anyone else.

To Hamas, ‘the soil of Palestine is sacred’. It is also incumbent on every Muslim, Hamas believes, to liberate ‘every inch of Palestine from the Jews’. Clearly then, this is not a question of only liberating ‘the occupied territories’. It is also about liberating ‘every inch of Palestine’. Two-state theorists must surely know that this is Hamas’s position.

More specifically on the ‘sacred’ nature of Palestine. In Hamas’s charter it states the following:

‘The Islamic Resistance Movement believes that the land of Palestine is an Islamic Waqf [consecrated land held as an Islamic trust] consecrated for future Muslim generations until Judgement Day. It, or any part of it, should not be squandered: it, or any part of it, should not be given up.’

Here again we are not only talking about the West Bank and Gaza, ‘or any part’ of Israel/Palestine. Hamas believes that no part of Palestine ‘should be given up’. How can Hamas make its position any clearer?

So it is certainly not only because the Jews have taken over a Islamic land which primarily motivates Hamas. It is not even primarily because of ‘the Nakba’ that Hamas is doing what it is doing. The prime reason why Hamas is fighting - and attempting to annihilate - Israel is Islamic in nature. Palestine is a ‘sacred’ land. As Sheik Yasin, the first leader of Hamas, succinctly put it:

‘Jihad is a duty on every Muslim if the Muslims’ land is violated.’ (59)

What Hamas says about Israel could, and sometimes is, also said about certain areas in China, Russia, etc. and indeed about many - or all! - Arab countries. It can even be applied to Spain and those parts of France which were taken over by Muslims in the century 8th century. Palestine is just another ‘Islamic country’ amongst many others. Indeed, ultimately, as Anjem Choudary (of Islam4UK) put it (to paraphrase):

The whole world belongs to Allah and therefore Islam.

The Umma and the Caliphate

Why did Osama bin Laden hardly mention Palestine until fairly recently? If the Palestine-Israeli situation ‘is the prime concern and worry of all Muslims’, Islamists and terrorists, why has al-Qaeda, and other extreme Muslim groups, not spoken as much about Palestine as, say, the UK’s Guardian or even British Muslim organisations? Because to bin Laden, and many other Muslims, the ‘Palestine problem’ is just one of many problems which face Muslims today. For example

i) The fact that US soldiers are still in Saudi Arabia.
ii) The fact that non-Muslim soldiers are still in Iraq and Afghanistan.
iii) The fact that many states with a majority of Muslims are still not properly Islamic states.

Thus it is easy to see that Palestine is just the latest Islamic issue and conflict in over 1,500 years of Islamic/Muslim history. Palestine is just one more place which Muslims should conquer and then annihilate the infidel enemy. The same is required in Iraq, Afghanistan, the Philippines, the Sudan, Somalia, etc. What all these conflicts share is that they are all attempts to increase the Islamic umma; and in so doing ‘carry the banner of Islam’. If the Muslim Palestinians are successful, Palestine will be just another, and the latest, addition to the Islamic umma. Perhaps Andalusia (Spain) will be next. There a still ‘occupied territories’ in other parts of the world which, according to many Muslims, need to be liberated in order to become part of the Islamic umma (e.g., places in current China, Russia, etc.).

Let’s put it this way. It is very possibly the case that al-Qaeda, and other Islamist groups and individuals, think less about Palestine than the British and American far left. Indeed perhaps bin Laden thinks more about ‘occupied’ Saudi Arabia than he does about ‘occupied’ Palestine! This is no surprise. The Jihad had been going on for over a thousand years before ‘the Zionist entity’ was created. And long before Israel’ creation, Muslims had tried to conquer and re-conquer many countries for Islam. Some of these countries, such as Egypt, also have Muslim majorities and are far more populous (they have more Muslims) than Palestine. Only Western left-liberals and far leftists think that a solution to the Palestine problem will solve all the problems of the Middle East; and even help prevent Islamic terrorism in the West. This is dangerously naïve.

One way to show that Palestine is just one more problem for Muslims is by highlighting what Muslims themselves think of Palestine and what its real nature or status is.

Is it not only Zionists, and Zionist sympathisers, who argue that there never was a Palestinian state. Many Muslims did and still do. More than that, Hamas, or at least some individuals within it, accept this. More precisely, one senior Hamas leader, al-Zahar, has freely admitted that

‘Islamic and traditional views reject the notion of establishing an independent Palestinian state In the past, there was no independent Palestinian state… [hence] our main is to establish a great Islamic state, be it pan-Arabic or pan-Islamic.’ (219)

Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood

According to Hamas’s own charter, the

‘Islamic Resistance Movement [Hamas] is a wing of the Muslim Brotherhood in Palestine, and the Muslim Brotherhood movement is a world organisation.’ (80)

Thus, if Hamas is a ‘wing’ of the Muslim Brotherhood, and the Muslim Brotherhood is a ‘world organisation’, then Hamas too is a ‘world organisation’. This should show us that Palestine, the ‘oppression and suffering’ in that country, is far from being the only piece in Hamas’s ideological armoury. Perhaps the ‘liberation’ of Palestinian by the ‘Islamic Resistance Movement’ is just the beginning of a global jihad coordinated by Hamas, the Muslim Brotherhood, al-Qaeda, and other Muslim groups and organisations.

The Muslim Brotherhood was formed in 1926. That was around twenty years before the creation of Israel in 1947. It was around 40 years before Israel occupied the West Bank and Gaza in 1967. In other words, the Brotherhood’s prime or only concern was not Palestine. Its primary aim was, and still is, the establishment of the Islamic caliphate and thus the parallel increase in the size of the Muslim umma.

What has just been said about the Muslim Brotherhood can also be said about its offshoot, Hamas, even if to a lesser extent. As Karsh puts it, Hamas

‘has followed in the footsteps of its Egyptian parent organisation, which viewed it violent opposition to Zionism from the 1930s and 1940s as an integral part of the Manichean struggle for the creation of a worldwide caliphate rather than as a defence of the Palestinian Arabs’ national rights.’ (219)

Indeed many Muslim Brotherhood members, and even leaders of Hamas, have often said that to concentrate on Palestine alone is tantamount to 'nationalism'. And nationalism is not an Islamic phenomenon. (Arabism was similarly rejected and criticised by the Muslim Brotherhood.) Instead the caliphate is something which should apply to the entire world. That is why it is often named ‘the global Islamic caliphate’.

So Palestine is not the be all and end all of every Muslim. Indeed it is not even the be all and end all for Hamas. If only far leftists and left-liberals actually read Hamas’s propaganda. That is, the propaganda Hamas aims at fellow Muslims rather than the propaganda which is designed exclusively for Western ears and eyes. If they did truly understand Hamas, they would soon realise that Israel’s ‘occupation of Palestine’ is not the only festering sore in the Middle East and in the world generally.

Hamas and the PLO

Hamas’s very creation, of course, was mainly a response to the Palestinian Liberation Organisation’s secularism. However, we can ask ourselves how secular can an Arabic movement actually be? Much has been made of the secular - and even Marxist - orientation of the PLO. Of course it was partly leftist in orientation. However, even Arafat’s Fatah organisation, which was the main group within the PLO, was originally built as an offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood, just like Hamas. Indeed even the name, Fat’h’, means ‘holy crusade [for Islam]’ in Arabic. Nonetheless, that lack of Islamic credentials was the main reason why Hamas was formed and why it was against much of what the PLO stood for. (The other reasons were that the PLO simply wasn’t seen, by many Palestinians, as being at all successful against the Israeli state not to mention the fact that it was also hugely corrupt in the Arab style.)

However, at first Hamas did cooperate with the PLO (or the other way around). But even from the very beginning Hamas demanded something that the PLO could not, or would not, agree to. That was the creation of an Islamic state after the ‘Zionist entity’ was defeated. Sheikh Yasin, Hamas’ first leader, put it this way:

‘There must be a mutual common ground, based on commitment to Islamic values and principles, without violating them in times of resistance. There must also be prior agreement that after liberation, the state will be Islamic. We opposed the Palestine national charter because if we had accepted the establishment of a secular state, we would have violated Islam.’ (71)

Actually Yasin, broadly speaking, demanded two things from the PLO. Firstly, as we have said, he wanted the PLO to commit itself to the creation of an Islamic state. But even before that, Yasin demanded a ‘commitment to Islamic values and principles’ – even ‘in times of resistance’ and not just in times of victory.

Yasin could not have put it simpler. He stated that even if the PLO defeated Israel and then established a secular state to go in its place, then it ‘would have violated Islam’ itself. The PLO wanted to destroy Israel just as much as Hamas itself. Hamas did not have a problem with that. Hamas was against the PLO because it did not call for the creation of an Islamic state in what was, and still is, Israel. There could not have been a greater bone of contention than that. The PLO was made up of Muslims, for sure. But it was not an Islamic party. And neither did it call for the establishment of an Islamic state.

The Hamas charter was explicit about Hamas’s main problem with the PLO. That problem, quite simply, was it secularism. The charter states:

‘The PLO endorses secular ideas… Secular thought is incompatible with religious thought, completely incompatible.’ (82)

Quite simply. Hamas rejected the PLO because it was not an Islamic party. It was a secular organisation. Not only that, the PLO’s secular ideas were seen as ‘completely incompatible’ with ‘religious thought’.

These are the other additions which also distinguished Hamas from the PLO:

i) PLO fostered Palestinian and Arab nationalism. Hamas did the same but also added the upholding of moral/Islamic purity.
ii) The PLO engaged in various forms of social action. So too did Hamas. But with the addition of the possibility, or actuality, of Muslims receiving divine grace through military action.
iii) The PLO offered a homeland to the Palestinians. So too did Hamas. But also with the added bonus of salvation – both of the mind and after death.

The 1987 Intifada

Many think that the first intifada, in 1987, was a ‘spontaneous event’. (Indeed many think that about the following intifadas.) If it was spontaneous, then that spontaneity required a lot of organisation! And that organisation was primarily supplied by Hamas. And it is far from being the case that Hamas has actually denied this. Hamas’s Ibrahim al-Quqa has said that it was the

‘decision of the Islamic Resistance Movement (Hamas), which set the precise zero-hour in the sanctuaries of the mosques.’

The leader of Hamas at that time (1987), Sheikh Yasin, also claimed that Hamas helped set off the intifada and that it was Hamas that led and controlled it thereafter. More specifically and Islamically, as it were, the intifada basically began in the mosques of the West Bank and Gaza. These mosques worked as a rallying point for militants and ordinary Muslims as well as the launch pads for demonstrations and other intifada activities. Hamas thus utterly transformed the mosques into centres for Islamic learning as well as the places for all political organisation.

The timing of the jihad, and therefore the first intifada, also proved to be a problem for Hamas and Yasin. They debated about whether or not it should begin after Palestinian society was fully Islamised or before that. Yasin decided that it should begin after the full Islamisation of Palestine. That explains the Muslim Brotherhood’s, and therefore Hamas’s, quiescence in the early days. That is also why the Israelis took Hamas to be a thoroughly religious group with no political aspirations and no interest in political violence. The Israelis were wrong in big way. Hamas was simply preparing the ground for jihad and therefore for the 1987 intifada.

Part of Hamas’s Islamisation project was the propagation of the position that those Muslims who were silent about the occupation of Palestine were actually committing an Islamic sin. That is because Islam requires that every Muslim must engage in ‘holy war’. (And for those who care to look, this Islamic imperative is indeed there in the Koran.) It followed that if certain Muslims failed to act, or to become jihadists, they would be committing ‘fatal treason’. And treason is, of course, punishable by death. Not only that, Hamas stated that if any ‘philosophy’ was seen to be justifying submission to the Israelis (or to any non-Muslims), or encouraging Muslims not to ‘sacrifice their souls’, then it would be seen as an ‘heretical’ philosophy to be immediately stamped out. And every such philosophy was indeed stamped out by Hamas.

More concretely and specifically, Hamas got to work on producing, as well as distributing, thousands of leaflets. All these leaflets began with passages from the Koran and included within them other such Koranic passages. They also contained accounts of various episodes in Islamic history. As for graffiti. The following is a small sample of the graffiti which could be seen before, during and after the 1987 intifada:

“Our land is Islamic, this is the identity.’
‘Islam is the way to return.’
‘Islam is the solution.’
‘Khaibar, Khaibar, O Jews, Muhammad’s army will return.’
‘The land of Palestine is an Islamic waqf, Islamic law forbids its abandonment or bargaining over it.’
‘The destruction of Israel is a Koranic imperative.’
‘There is no solution except by the Koran.’
‘The Koran is the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people.’ (78)

So the 1987 intifada was a thoroughly Islamic event, as it were. At the very least, it certainly began in the mosques. As Hamas leader, Dr. ‘Abd-al-‘Aziz, put it. The intifada began

‘with one fixed outcry, allahu akbar [God is great], and took off from the mosques, where the Koran was being read, and the Islamic songs sung, and the people provided with guidance…’ (60)

Not only was the 1987 intifada utterly Islamic in nature, it was also only a small part of the larger jihad. That jihad had known many conflicts and battles over the centuries. The 1987 intifada was just another ‘phase’ in this ‘eternal jihad’. It was only one mechanism to mobilise the masses into the spirit of Islamic jihad. In effect, the fight against Israel was, and still is, only one part of the Islamic battle against all non-Muslims and all non-Muslim states. (Another part is the re-conquest of Andalusia – Spain.) In other words, the intifada was, and was seen as, only one form of jihad which was itself was a preparation for the later jihads which would then be fully armed. (60)

Apart from the war against Israel, which is Islamic, and the various forms of jihad that war takes, what about the Islamic nature, as it were, of the Islamic soldiers themselves? They too were to be thoroughly Islamised by Hamas. As one commentator put it:

‘The fundamentalist groups offered a special kind of activism that combined patriotism with moral purity and social action with the promise of divine grace. Sheikh Yasin offered the young Palestinian something far beyond Arafat’s ken: not just the redemption of the homeland, but the salvation of his own troubled soul.’ (66)

Epilogue: Hamas Hates all Non-Muslims

If any non-Jewish or non-Muslim group had ‘occupied’ Palestine, Hamas would still have wanted to destroy it. And even if Palestine had been more or less empty of Arab/Muslim inhabitants in 1947/8, Hamas (or their precursors) would have still called for a jihad. Jews are not the only people to be hated by this fanatical group.

Hamas has also carried out various hate-driven campaigns against Christians, Bahais and secular Muslims. So let me finish with a list which will hopefully also work as a warning:

i) Hamas has brutalised Gaza Christians and ordered them to wear traditional Islamic dress.
ii) Hamas has attacked churches in Gaza.
iii) Hamas terrorists have attacked Gaza’s Latin Church and adjacent Rosary Sisters School, destroying crosses, bibles, pictures of Jesus and furniture and equipment.
iv) Church leaders have been ordered by Hamas to promote Islam.
v) Hundreds of Arab Christians have fled from Hamas-ruled Gaza.
vi) Hamas operates ‘vice squads’ which murder unmarried Muslims who meet together.
vii) Hamas tortures and kills homosexuals.
viii) Other victims of Hamas vice squads are knee-capped, often for visiting internet cafes and music stores. Hamas attempts what it calls a ‘re-education’ of these victims of its rule.

Thursday, 15 April 2010

Militant Muslims? Prison's the Best Place For 'em

Prison is ‘not taming Islamist radicals’. Really? Well how the hell was that supposed to work? After all, these Islamic radicals do not think they have committed a crime. Not even Hamas or Al Qaeda think that they have committed a crime when they blow women and children to pieces. How can it be a crime? Jihad is sanctified by Allah himself.

What were prisons supposed to do exactly? I’m pretty sure that the average prison officer is not deeply steeped in Islamic theology and jurisprudence. Well, actually it’s Muslim chaplains who are supposed to ‘challenge and undermine extremist ideology’. What makes the Government, or anyone else, think they will be successful? This won’t be like persuading an 18 year-old petty criminal to take up a trade which he can then make use of when his prison term ends. These ‘Islamic radicals’ have a mountainous ideology behind them. They’re not likely to be won other by some interfaithing Muslim chaplain or even by an imam (who would probably praise the prisoner anyway).

To be honest. I would love to know how exactly these Muslim chaplains ‘challenge and undermine extremist ideology’. I really would. What do they say? I honestly think that, Islamically speaking, the radicals or extremists are on much firmer Islamic ground than any Muslim chaplain or even the Muslims who appears on Question Time selling 'moderate Islam' to us naive infidels. After all, jihad is there, numerous times, in the Koran... Oh, I forgot! On some translations of the Koran the word ‘jihad’ does not occur. Still, ‘fighting’ and other words for belligerency and anger certainly do frequently appear in the Koran. And does this make even a tiny bit of difference? Of course not… The games Muslims play, eh?

Apparently, these tough, hard-core Muslim inmates see the Muslim chaplains as mere ‘puppets’. You know, like ‘Uncle Toms’ or ‘poster boys’. Every Muslim who is not hardcore, like them, is bound to be seen as an ‘puppet’ or a ‘poster boy’ for the ‘neo-cons’ or ‘Zionists’ or ‘Jews’ or ‘Freemasons’ or the ‘Satanic United States’. Only they know the Truth about what Islam really is. And in a certain sense, they are right. The unpalatable truth of their Islam is actually the unpalatable truth that is Islam. No Muslim chaplain or interfaith zealot is going to change the unpalatable reality that is Islam and the Koran. These hardcore Muslim inmates must know this. They must be laughing at these Muslim chaplains - or planning to kill them. So far, the hardcore Muslim posse has only assaulted these helpless and hapless chaplains.

Actually, the naiveté of the Muslim prison chaplains has been passed on to them, as it were, from the Ministry of Justice. It is this body that is attempting to ‘rehabilitate’ Muslim offenders. It has been working ‘with a number of third-sector partner organisations’ – whatever they are!

There are around 200 Muslim extremists who have been imprisoned since the 2005 London bombings. That does not sound like many. However, it only took a small handful of Muslims to kill fifty or so in London in 2005. Some massive terrorist outrages have been carried out by individuals. Indeed all suicide bombings, in Israel and elsewhere, tend to be the work of individuals even if they are controlled and coordinated by Islamic groups like Hamas.

The frightening thing is that some of these 200 Muslim extremists are now due for release. And just like many other kinds of inmate, they will return to their Muslim ghettoes even tougher and more Islamic than they were before they were convicted. No doubt too they will have gained a lot of ‘Respek’ from the younger Muslims in their 'hoods.

My sceptical account of Muslim-extremist imprisonment is backed up by some evidence. For example, a Muslim Londoner, who was 17 years old when he was jailed for after admitting attending a place used for terrorist training, has said that the Muslim chaplains, or imams, utterly failed to challenge his extreme Islamic beliefs. He even said that prison didn’t change his views at all. He went on to say that imprisonment made him stronger as an (extremist) Muslim. He had become a kind of small-time martyr for the cause of Islam. How else would anyone expect a young Muslim to view his imprisonment by the infidel state?

In any case, all this ‘de-radicalising’ seems to have been a bit of a gimmick anyway. It certainly isn’t widespread or thorough in the prison service. For example, one former inmate, Shah Jalal Hussain, told BBC Radio 4 that they

‘didn’t try to de-radicalise me. There wasn’t much at all to be honest. There was a prison imam but he only came on a Friday to lead prayers.’

Perhaps he wasn’t radical enough to be de-radicalised. Or perhaps he was too radical to be properly de-radicalised. Would any form of de-radicalisation work anyway? It would depend on how much de-radicalising is actually carried out and on which particular Muslim is being de-radicalised.

In the end, then, the prison imams who work in our prisons won’t achieve much; if anything. Who knows, perhaps some of these imams sympathise - or even agree - with these militant Muslim prisoners. After all, New Labour has often used Muslim extremists to deal with, well, Muslim extremists. Thus one set of Muslim extremists has often ended up taking the place of another set of Muslim extremists. Who is to say that these prison imams or chaplains really are doing what they say they are doing?

Wednesday, 14 April 2010

Bunglawalah, the Islamist, Against Ed Husain, the ‘Neo-Con Poster Boy’

(Ed Husain)

(Inayat Bunglawala)

i) Introduction
ii) Who are the Islamists?
iii) The Islamists Against the Neo-Cons
iv) Most Muslims are For the Islamists
v) Bunglawala on Wahhabism
vi) Conclusion: Keep Silent About the Islamists!


The following is a commentary on Inayat Bunglawala’s extremely critical review of Ed Husain’s popular book, The Islamist. Bunglawala is currently the main media spokesman for the Muslim Council of Britain.

Ed Husain helps run the Quilliam Foundation (which was set up - and then funded - by the Government to help ‘counteract Islamic extremism’) with the Swiss academic, Tariq Ramadan.

My reading of Bunglawala’s review of The Islamist led me to conclude that Bunglawala is not very keen on ‘counteracting Islamic extremism’, especially if it is fellow Muslims (or ‘Muslims’) who are doing the counteracting. Perhaps he sees them as traitors. He does indeed accuse Ed Husain of ‘washing his dirty linen in public’.

Who are the Islamists?

Bunglawala (ironically) notes Husain’s position on Islamism thus:

‘political Islam’ = ‘extremism’ = ‘Islamists’

Thus Bunglawala, on the other hand, believes that

Political Islam is not extreme. Therefore Islamists are not extreme.

Why else would he (ironically) note Husain’s position on Islamism if he didn’t believe the opposite? However, even though in one breath he appears to defend Islamism, he then goes on to question Husain’s inclusion of Hizb ut-Tahrir, the Islamic Forum Europe, the Muslim Association of Britain, and Bunglawala’s own Muslim Council of Britain, as examples of Islamist organisations. Thus, to Inayat, none of these groups are either Islamist or extreme. This is strange.

Bunglawala goes on to say that Hizb ut-Tahrir has changed. Honest. They’ve really changed. That’s funny. It was only yesterday that they carried out acts of violence against the Islamophile tyrant-lover, George Galloway. They threatened to hang him in the gallows for pretending to be a new prophet – ‘a false prophet’. Now if this is Hizb ut-Tahrir’s new-found moderation, I would hate to know what they used to be like. Perhaps back then they would have crucified Galloway instead.

Bunglawala then defends Hizb ut-Tahrir some more. Again, he disagrees with Husain’s analysis. So what does Bunglawala disagree with? That

‘HT as being not actual terrorists themselves, then at the very least they are a conveyor belt for graduation to terrorist activities.’

The funny thing is that Bunglawala doesn’t say why this analysis is wrong. All he can do is tar Husain with the brush that is Daniel Pipes. That is, Bunglawala thinks that Husain is wrong quite simply because he ‘appears here to have adopted the Daniel Pipes theory of HT’. My guess is that Husain didn’t need to adopt, borrow or plagiarise Daniel Pipes’ theory at all. After all, Husain spent quite some time with HT. If that was indeed the case, then he wouldn’t have needed Daniel Pipes or anyone else to infect his thinking about the Hizb ut-Tahrir. He knows what he needs to know about this lovely group. And what he knows he doesn’t like. What Bunglawala knows about the Hizb, on the other hand, Bunglawala does appear to like. Each to his own.

It is no surprise, then, that Bunglawala thinks that it was a good thing that ‘New Labour fail[ed] to carry out their threat to ban HT’. Of course Bunglawala was against the ban because he believes, very strongly, in the freedom of speech… for extreme Muslim groups, but not for Danish cartoonists, Anglo-Indian novelists and Dutch politicians.

What about the Islamic Forum Europe? The following occurred not yesterday (as with the Galloway/HT tête-à-tête), but only the other week. This organisation was found to be trying to intimidate voters and influence various MPs and councillors. It was also accused of entry-ism in various non-Muslim organisations. So Bunglawala thinks that the Islamic Forum Europe is moderate and not Islamist?

Now what about the ‘non-Islamist’ Muslim Association of Britain? Non-Islamist? Really? The MAB is a branch of the Muslim Brotherhood. Hamas is also a branch of the Muslim Brotherhood. Azzam Tamimi is the main spokesman for the MAB. He has also held many talks with Hamas and has frequently defended both suicide bombings and terrorism generally. If the MAB is not Islamist to Bunglawala, then who the hell is?

Now what about Bunglawala's very own Muslim Council of Britain? That too is a branch of the Muslim Brotherhood. It too defends terrorists and suicide bombers. However, it has a slightly more media-friendly image that the MAB.

The Islamists Versus the Neo-Cons: Guilt by Association

The logic is simple for Islamists like Bunglawala (as well as far leftists). If one does not subscribe to the Islamist (or far leftist) position on X, then one is, by definition, a ‘neo-con’ or a ‘neo-liberal’. Thus we have a simple binary opposition:

Islamism (or far leftism) ↔ neo-conservatism

Take the example of Ed Husain in this respect. Because Husain did not have the same position on Saddam Hussein and the Iraq War as Inayat and the far left did, then Husain simply must have ‘embraced the neo-con narrative’. Bunglawala is saying that

you are either for us, or you are a neo-con.

The thought of other possibilities, neither Islamist nor neo-con, simply don’t enter Bunglawala’s mind. Hussain is a neo-con, to Bunglawala, simply because he had a negative and critical view of Saddam Hussain and thus was in favour of the invasion of Iraq.

Thus Husain’s position on Saddam Hussein and the war was not wrong because it was, well, wrong. It was wrong because it was the same as the ‘neo-con narrative’ on Saddam Hussein and the war. This is a case of guilt by association if ever I saw one.

And just as Bunglawala dismisses Husain’s position because it is allegedly the same as Daniel Pipes’, so the Islamophile par excellence, Madeline Bunting (also quoted by Inayat), rejects Husain because his points and opinions have been taken up by people with a ‘rightwing and anti-Islamic sentiment’. Is this another case of guilt by association? Can Husain be held responsible for the many and varied people who will read and perhaps then quote his book? Perhaps a few serial killers will also read and then quote his book. Who knows? Unless Bunting is really claiming that Husain is actually encouraging ‘right-wingers’ to ‘feast on his testimony’. Should Husain therefore hide the truth because the truth may get into the wrong hands? Who will then decide whose the right and wrong hands are? Will it be Madeline Bunting or will it be Inayat himself?

Most Muslims are For the Islamists

Bunglawala makes a confession. (Or is it actually a slip of the tongue?) I’ll explain.

Muslim ‘moderates’ are always telling us that ‘not all Muslims are Islamists or extremists’. Indeed Bunglawala himself has often said this. However, he also says that Ed Husain

‘tries hard in the book to portray himself, and not the dreaded “Islamists”, as being in tune with the majority of Muslim
opinion in the UK.’

Clearly Bunglawala thinks that Husain is wrong about this. Thus Bunglawala must believe that

The Islamists, and not ‘moderates’ like Ed Husain, are really the ones who are in tune with the majority of Muslim opinion in the UK.

This is just what many non-Muslim sceptics have always thought. Thanks, Bunglawala, for confirming our suspicion about the so-called ‘moderate majority’ of Muslims. It’s nice to hear it from the horse’s mouth. In addition, if Bunglawala used the phrase ‘the dreaded Islamists’ to take the piss out of Husain, one can only conclude that Inayat does not think the Islamists should be feared. Again, this is just what we sceptics always thought the ever-so slippery Bunglawala really believed.

And just as Bunglawala has just said that ‘the majority of Muslim opinion in the UK’ will prefer the ‘dreaded Islamists’ to the equally dreaded Ed Husain, so he then puts the ‘Muslim majority’ further in the shit, in my view, by saying that Husain’s moderate book about Islamist extremism ‘will not find much favour among many British Muslims’. Why is that, Inayat? Won’t they like his moderate position on Islam? Or perhaps they won’t like his exposé of extreme Islamism because they are actually fairly sympathetic to Islamism themselves. That must be the only conclusion to draw from Bunglawala’s words and his many criticisms of Ed Husain. Not only will it not appeal to the ‘Muslim majority opinion’ of pro-Islamists, it will appeal to ‘the warmongering sections of the present government’. What the hell did Bunglawala mean by ‘the warmongering sections of the present government’? And even if such a thing existed, what direct relevance did they have to Ed Husain’s book about Islamism and the Islamists? Bunglawala simply does not say. Like his arch-Taqiyya rival, Tariq ‘two faces’ Ramadan (another Muslim who is too moderate for Bunglawala), Bunglawala hints at things quite a lot, but rarely states anything in full.

Bunglawalah on Wahhabism

Forget Bunglawala’s defence of Hizb ut-Tahrir, what about his support for Wahhabism? He is annoyed by the fact that many people use the word ‘Wahhabis’ as a ‘derogatory term’. He must either believe that it is not a derogatory term or that it is misused. In any case, if there is one thing which can prove to non-Muslims whether or not a Muslim is truly moderate, it is his or her position on Wahhabite Islam. And it seems that Bunglawala has positive feelings towards Wahhabism in this review. Not only that, I have also heard him eloquently defend the Saudi Wahhabite regime on YouTube. These disclosures, more than anything else about Bunglawala, show us where he is really coming from. We must always keep an eye on a Muslim who is at one and at peace with ‘the path of the salaf’.

Bunglawala even goes so far as to defend Wahhabism in strictly theological terms. He thinks that it is a good thing that Wahhabites are ‘careful to ensure that [their love for the Prophet] enhances and does not in any way detract from the sole worship due to the One God’.

In addition, does Bunglawala think that that Husain’s statement that the ‘Wahhabis are a deeply literalist sect’ is false? He certainly seems to be at odds with it.

Conclusion: Keep Silent About the Islamists!

It is clear that Bunglawala thinks that Ed Husain should never have written or published his book. He probably would have liked to have had it banned. But not so quick! Bunglawala knows that he must watch his words - just in case anyone comes to the outlandish conclusion that he too is, well, an extreme Islamist in Government-friendly sheep’s (i.e., MCB’s) clothing. What does he say instead of ‘ban it’? He says that Ed Husain shouldn’t have ‘washed [his] dirty linen in public’. So the doings and sayings of Hizb ut-Tahrir, and other Islamic extremists, are dirty linen to Bunglawala? That is, they are Muslim - or Islamic - dirty linen that should be kept between Muslims and not exposed to the ‘dreaded’ kafir.

Plastic Mosques in the North Yorks Moors

Just the other day a rumour was doing the rounds, within Muslim circles, that the British army was shooting at replica mosques during its practice sessions. Or at least this is what was reported to a Muslim group in Bradford. The group swiftly complained that ‘the features on Bellerby firing range at Catterick Garrison in North Yorkshire’ looked like mosques and should be dismantled immediately.

How the hell did this snippet of misinformation travel all the way down to the Islamic Republic of Bradford?

In any case, this should give the Islamists of Bradford and beyond more fuel for the jihad. That is, Muslims simply can’t survive without the latest ‘offence’ or ‘insult’ against Islam. It’s called victimhood. It is ever-present and ubiquitous. It is what unites most Muslims (along with anti-Semitism). More than that, defence against insult or offence is the best form of attack for many Muslims. When Muslims are insulted or offended, very soon after there are riots, killings and bombings. Not only that, governments tend to bend over backwards, legally and in other ways, to guarantee to their Muslim voters that such things will never happen again. Think here about the widespread bits of legislation which were brought into being after the Bradford Muslim riots. And the Muslim Council of Britain was formed by the Government and Islamists largely in response to the Satanic Verses riots and other overreactions to ‘insult and ‘offence’.

Are these offended or insulted Muslims psychotic or something? No? Then why are they so easily offended and insulted? Why are they always so angry? It is because Islam is an eggshell? An eggshell religion needs to be protected in every which way. Protected by jihad or by government legislation against ‘hate speech’.

Islam has lasted for so long because of these overreactions to all and every criticism – or ‘offence’ or ‘insult’. Criticism of Islam was never allowed within the Islamic world. That’s why it survived. Death for ‘apostasy’ also helped it survive and spread. Even train spotting would survive and prosper if all criticism - or ‘insults’ - were declared illegal. Train spotting would also survive if becoming an ex-train spotter resulted in one’s head being chopped off.

And why shouldn’t the army replicate mosques? These are the places in which many Taliban hide. They also sometimes use mosques as bases for military action and bombings. In fact the Taliban does the same as Hamas. In Hamas’s case, it too hides in - and fires from - mosques, as well as from schools and other civilian areas. And judging by what the Turkish PM said recently, it is no surprise that mosques are used for such things. Indeed we already know that many, many mosques encourage jihad. The PM of Turkey recently said that ‘mosques are our weapons’. Perhaps he meant this literally as well as metaphorically.

In any case, if the British army wants to replicate the reality of Afghanistan it should also have women walking around with horribly disfigured faces - the victims of acid attacks for not wearing the burka or for looking at ‘non-Islamic books’ (most Afghan women can’t read). Actually, such scares will usually be covered by the burka.

The reality is that Muslims do far worse than replicate churches. Forget about replica mosques, Muslims in Afghanistan and Iraq blow mosques up. They blow Sunni mosques up if they are Shia. And they blow Shia mosques up if they are Sunni. So let’s get things in perspective here. Let’s us hear just one example of British Muslim anger at Muslim-on-Muslim mosque bombings or Taliban acid throwing instead. But of course we won’t. Muslim-on-infidel violence is OK. Even Muslim-on-Muslim violence is OK. However, infidel-on-Muslim violence is most certainly not OK. Isn’t Islamic logic painfully simple?

George Galloway Defends Britain's Islamic Republic

If there are over two million Muslims in the UK, and it is the duty of all Muslims to protect their faith from ‘insult’ and ‘offence’, then it is not a surprise that more than 1,000 viewers complained about the Channel 4 documentary on ‘Britain’s Islamic Republic’. In fact I am surprised there haven’t been more complaints than that. Of course many Muslims will have complained without having actually seen the documentary. After all, this is exactly what happened about the Satanic Verses and the Danish Cartoons. Most of the rioters and killers hadn’t actually read the Satanic Verses or seen the cartoons of Mohammed. Not only that, many Muslims would have still complained even if the documentary were completely truthful and factual. None of this matters when it comes to defending Islam - which is an absolute imperative for all Muslims. Galloway, the honorary Muslim and Arabophile, admitted he hadn’t seen the programme. That didn’t stop him from saying that it was ‘a dirty little programme’.

Is there a single non-Muslim and non-Trot who has even a second’s worth of time for this despicable little exhibitionist tyrant-lover? No one else outside his IslamoTrot tiny circle of friends takes him seriously anymore (if they ever did). He is an utter buffoon and an unashamed exhibitionist. He will say anything and do anything to get himself on TV. That’s why he pretends to believe in so many outrageous and absurd things – all before breakfast. It is only the absurd and the extreme which will guarantee him a slot on TV and keep his tacky little Respect career afloat. Aren’t his supporters not even a tiny bit embarrassed by this master-fool? Unless all of his supporters are deranged IslamoTrots. And nothing is too foolish and absurd for them. They thrive off such things.

So it is not a surprise that a tyrant-lover like Galloway is trying his very best to stop, completely, all and any criticism of Islam and Muslims. If the Islamists see him doing such things, he will be rewarded, both financially and politically. And he has always made a fast buck out of supporting killers and lunatics, hasn’t he?

Barack Obama: 'There is no such thing as Islamic terrorism'

Islam and terrorism are not linked. That’s official. Islamism or militant Islam and terrorism are not linked either. There is absolutely no connection whatsoever between Islam, in any of its forms, and terrorism. The only thing that is linked to terrorism are various ‘death cults’ or ‘sects’. This is the truth according to Barack Obama. This man has ordered a revision of America’s National Security Strategy so as to erase all possible connections between Islam and terrorism. Between Islam and anything violent.

This is thought control. It all about words, not realities or actions.

Specifically, the phrases ‘Islami radicalism’ will be erased from American governmental discourse. And if the words no longer exist, then the realities don’t exist either. At least not according to the post-modern logic of the American state.

Apparently it was George W. Bush who got it all wrong. He made the illogical and Islamophobic conclusion that Islam and terrorism are indeed intertwined. Actually not quite that. He rightly concluded that ‘militant Islam’ and terrorism are intertwined. More specifically, a Bush-era document described the war against terrorists as

“the struggle against militant Islamic radicalism … the great ideological conflict of the early years of the 21st century.”

After all, didn’t he also think pure and good Islam was a pretty decent thing?

Then the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) got in on the act. And when it does so, which is quite often, it usually gets what it wants from the US Government.

Clearly such a disuniting of Islam and terrorism pleased CAIR very much. It said that it would

‘welcome this change in language as another step toward respectful and effective outreach to Muslims at home and abroad’.

Well I never! Muslims being jubilant over the effective denial of any Islam-terrorism connection? You wouldn’t expect anything else. Now Muslims can carry out their jihadist acts without anyone seeing the deep connections between Islam and violence. Or at least they won’t be able to use the phrase ‘Islamic terrorism’ or ‘Islamist terrorism’ if they work for the US Government. Who knows, perhaps Islamic terrorism will magically disappear if such a thing is never spoken of, or even thought about, in those words.

CAIR thinks that phrases like ‘Islamic terrorism’ are ‘loaded’. That is, it is wrong and quite simply Islamophobic to use phrases like ‘Islamist terrorism’. Let’s not mess about here. It is wrong and Islamophobic to even think that there is even a slight hint of a connection between Islam and terrorism or violence generally.

Yet Islamic terrorism and violence exists. It exists on a massive and everyday scale. So what does CAIR, and therefore Barack Obama, want to do about this very inconvenient and logical connection between Islam and violence? They want to change the words we use to describe Islamic terrorism by keeping the ‘terrorism’ part and erasing the ‘Islamist’. Surely that will change reality too, not just the words we use and the thoughts we think. Or so CAIR and the US Government think.

Specifically, they want to keep the ‘Words that Work’ and get rid of the ‘Words that don’t’. That is how the US National Counter-Terrorism Centre put it. “'Islamist terrorism’” does ‘not work’. "'Death-cult terrorism”’ or ‘”evil terrorism”’, yes, ‘does work’. Why is that? Well, it can in no way stop Islamist terrorism. It may make the lives of American Muslims a whole lot easier. The ‘moderate’ Muslims will not feel the need to defend their religion any more. The terrorists will find it a whole lot easier to do what they do if Government infidels are not allowed to look towards Islam, and the teachers and teachings of Islam, to help them fight Islamist terrorism.

Not even al-Qaeda can now be called ‘Islamic’ or ‘Muslim’. It will come as a surprise to Osama bin Laden that he is not a Muslim and that he does not control an Islamic terrorist network. Indeed this is a surprise to me, as it will be to the millions of non-Muslims who do see a strong connection between Islam and violence.

More specifically, CAIR and the US Government are claiming that these naughty and Islamophobic phrases ‘unintentionally legitimise’ terrorist groups. That is, by seeing these organisations as Islamic, or as aspects of Islam (even small aspects), is to make them seem more acceptable and, well, Islamic than they really are.

But what if there is a connection between Islam, or only parts thereof, and violence? What if Osama bin Laden is a Muslim. Full stop? What if he is a good Muslim who is actually truer to his religion than many other Muslims, including CAIR and the ‘moderates’. That’s if CAIR and the Muslim moderates are genuinely against Islamic terrorism or terrorism in the name of Islam. Alternatively, CAIR’s suggestions may have been offered to make life not only easier for moderate Muslims, but for the Islamic terrorists themselves. If the terrorists and their acts cannot be spoken of as what they truly are, then they case to exist qua Islamic terrorists. And if Islamic terrorism ceases to exist qua Islamic terrorism, then the terrorists will be far harder to defeat. Islamic terror will thus get worse, not better.

All this is no surprise if one bears in mind Obama’s speech at Cairo University in Egypt in June 2009. In that speech he told Egyptian Muslims that the US did not fear or hate the Muslim world. And to prove this he promised to bend over backwards - as far as is humanly possible. He promised to rewrite the English language and thus retune the infidels’ thoughts about Islam and terrorism. Could any Muslim ask for more?

Let’s take the ‘Guide for Counter-Terrorism Communication’ in more detail. This document seeks to ‘avoid labelling everything “'Muslim'". Thus the US Government can longer label anything ‘Muslim’. Or at least not acts of terrorism and other acts of jihadist violence. This is because Obama wants to get rid of the mindset which believes that it is the case today of 'the US vs Islam’. What if it is largely a case of Islam versus the US and the rest of the non-Muslim world? What if it is the case that millions upon millions of Muslims believe in jihad, even if they don’t carry it out themselves? Not all Muslim believers in jihad and terrorism are actually active in either jihad or terrorism. Not every Nazi loaded the cattle trucks with Jews, fought on the Russian front or joined the Gestapo. Still they supported these things, either directly or indirectly.

This is a chicken-or-egg scenario. The aforesaid document says that when we use the naughty words which connect Islam with terrorism this will result in ‘a large percentage of the world’s population’ becoming the victims of policy and hurtful words. This in turn will result in our ‘unintentionally alienating them’. That ‘is not a judicious move’.

What if it is actually the other way around? That is:

i) National legislation and government actions alienate Muslims because it is Muslims, and their religion, who and which are largely responsible for most contemporary acts of terrorism.

Barack has got this the wrong way around. He thinks that

ii) National legislations and government actions, up until now, have alienated Muslims and have thus contributed to the rise of terrorism and Muslim violence generally.

Why would the US Government have focused upon - and thus alienated - Muslims if it had not made the obvious connections between Islam/Muslims and terrorism? Of course there is a Leftist and an Islamist alternative to this. The US Government focused upon, and thus alienated, Muslims quite simply because of its ‘Islamophobia’ and/or its ‘racism’. But again we can ask: Where did that ‘Islamophobia’ came from? It came from Islamist terrorism. It did not create Islamist terrorism. Most people don’t fear that which is not dangerous. The possibility of Islamic terrorism is ever-present. Thus we have the fear of Muslims and Islam. We have Islamophobia.
The US will never understand Al Qaeda and Islamic violence if it really believes it own Muslim-friendly rhetoric. It will be forever barking up the wrong tree. Barack makes the absurd and dangerous conclusion, or at least US officials do, that Al-Qaeda ‘exploits religious sentiments and tries to use religion to justify its actions’. This is similar to the mistakes governments made about the ‘ridiculous’ Hitler and his ‘silly brown shirts’. It is also parallel to the grave mistakes UK ministers and officials made about a whole host of potential terrorists and Islamists. Civil servants and officials in the UK once saw these people as simple 'buffoons' and 'clowns' and thus concluded that they were no real threat to Britain. Some civil servants still think this way. Thus the ‘misfits’ and ‘clowns’ were quite simply ignored. As long as they didn’t plant their bombs in England, all was fine. And then came 9/11. Madrid. Bali. And then London.

Barack, instead of seeing Al Qaeda as being made up of clowns or buffoons, sees it as being made of ‘criminals’ instead. How does that work? Is it being suggested that Al-Qaeda is making money from their operations and propaganda? If not, what other kinds of criminality is being hinted at here? One cannot say ‘the exportation of heroin’ because the funds gained from this are invested into the jihad against the West. Thus we are back to where we started – Islamic jihad and Islamic violence generally.

What about just calling Al Qaeda ‘terrorists’. Full stop? But terrorists must terrorise for reasons, principles or beliefs. No one is just a terrorist simpliciter. Thus, as with the 'criminals' earlier, we are back to the starting point again. Al Qaeda members aren’t terrorists simply because they are terrorists. They are terrorists in the name of Allah and Islam. Even if we, and indeed Muslims, think that terror in the name of Allah and Islam is wrong or a misinterpretation of that religion, it is still the case that Al Qaeda does not think it is theologically or Islamically wrong in doing what it does. Why pretend that they are not Muslims just because we think they are theologically in the wrong or that such an acceptance of their politico-theology would work against moderate Muslims at home? Al Qaeda is made up of Muslims and commit acts of Islamic terrorism no matter what we think of their theology, etc. So even if we accept that there exists a non-violent Islam, this need not mean that we are given a good reason to claim that Al Qaeda members ‘are not really Muslims’ and that what they do ‘is not really Islamic’.

As it is, million of people do believe that there is such a thing as Islamic violence and that Al Qaeda is not really distorting Islam at all. No word games from Barack Obama and others will change this.