If there was any doubt remaining that the current British strategy to tackle “extremism” is a thinly veiled policy to discriminate against the followers of Islam, then the following should remove any remnants of uncertainty.
As reported by 5PillarsUK, Shakeel Suleman has been prevented by the Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) from adopting a child due to being flagged by the Derbyshire Constabulary as “holding radical and extreme views”.
The far-right/neocon-style reasoning provided by the police force is frankly shocking. The following has been categorised as “extreme views”:
- Sharing a link from the Hizb-ut-Tahrir website including the news of the release of Moazzam Begg,
- Supporting the creation of the Caliphate,
- Adherence to the Shari’ah
- Anti-western rhetoric
- Anti-establishment views
Fundamentally, personally held views are being used arbitrarily by authorities to determine the citizen’s conformity to a government standard of “valid views”, rather like the totalitarian regimes the West so hypocritically chides. Presumably, thinkers like Noam Chomsky or activists such as Russell Brand and Frankie Boyle would have a problem adopting a child, given their “anti-Western” and/or “anti-establishment” views.
Copyright Daily Telepraph
Just over a year ago, a furore had been triggered by none other than the neoconservative hate-mongers from the Student Rights group, a front organisation for the Zionist-funded and thoroughly bigoted Henry Jackson Society. The furore was specifically around the practice of sex separation at universities. An Islamic organisation had privately hired university premises for their own religious usage and the audience were set to be sex-separated – perfectly within the law and in keeping with the eventual guidance issued by the Equality and Human Rights Commission during the hysteria. Thanks to the frenzy whipped up by the Student Rights group, and HJS’s prized links with the government courtesy of the Islam-hating neocon Michael Gove, David Cameron “weighed-in” into the debate. Cameron, though, didn’t stop at merely preventing speakers from requesting a separated audience. In his neocon-driven adversarialism towards Islam and Muslims, he fanatically went further: the PM wanted a ban on men and women who chose to voluntarily separate themselves from one another.
Equality was the raison d’etre with a “possible” risk of discrimination. The rationale was airy fairy at best. He did stress that his views did not extend to places of worship. Cameron couldn’t target places of worship as a matter of pragmatism, otherwise he would have targeted more than just the Muslim minority; he would have hurt the lobby groups which fund his Tory party. Nevertheless, it certainly demonstrated David Cameron’s keen, concerted commitment and concern for gender equality. The man went so far in his fight for equality that Muslim individual liberty and volition was defenestrated along with reason.
It is fast approaching that time of year when people engage in the process of democracy to elect their leader of a party which represents the wishes of the electorate. Of course that is the ideal understanding of democracy, however the reality of this non-existent utopia is dominated by corporations and lobby groups.
The neoconservative perversion has pervaded the upper echelons of most parties, as demonstrated most emphatically through the rapid passing of the Counter Terrorism and Security Act. Hook line and sinker, most sections of all big three parties, including the shapeless Lib Dems voted in its favour without batting an eyelid at the incredibly invasive, thought-policing measures being proposed.
After perniciously battering the Muslim minority with a host of further “extremism” measures, where “extremism” continues to entail normative Islamic beliefs, where the Muslim community continue to be treated like a fifth column and where Shari’ah courts are investigated, Theresa May gifted Muslims the penny Mojo chew, just to “sweeten” the taste of blood in the mouth. Five years of harsh rhetoric targeting the Muslim minority, government interference with religion and thought, harassment and “disruption” is meant to be excused because the anti-Muslim hate crime, born in part because of this public treatment against Muslims, will be categorised as a more serious crime.
No. Way. I was touched. No really, I am speaking the truth (in a neoconservative sort of way).
Crosspost: Media Lens
The sudden cancellation of an academic conference on Israel, as well as the lack of outcry from ‘mainstream’ media, demonstrates once again the skewed limits to ‘free speech’ in ‘advanced’ Western democracies. ‘Je suis Charlie’ already feels like ancient history. It certainly does not apply when it comes to scrutiny of the state of Israel.
The conference, titled ‘International Law and the State of Israel: Legitimacy, Responsibility and Exceptionalism’, was to be held at the University of Southampton from 15-17 April 2015. Planned speakers included Richard Falk, the former UN special rapporteur on human rights in the Palestinian territories, Gabi Piterberg, a historian at the University of California at Los Angeles, Israeli academic Ilan Pappé and Palestinian historian Nur Musalha.
The meeting was billed as the ‘first of its kind and constitutes a ground-breaking historical event on the road towards justice and enduring peace in historic Palestine.’ The approach would be scholarly with ‘multidisciplinary debate reflecting diverse perspectives, and thus genuine disagreements’. Rather than being a coven of political extremists and violent hotheads, this was to be a serious gathering of respected and authoritative academics with in-depth knowledge of Israel and Palestine.
But intense pressure from the Israel lobby about the airing of ‘anti-Semitic views’ has torpedoed the University of Southampton’s earlier stated commitment to uphold ‘freedom of speech within the law’. In a classic piece of bureaucratic hand-wringing, the university issued a corporate-style statement on 1 April that leaned heavily on the pretext of ‘health and safety’ to kill off the conference. This happened a mere two weeks before the conference, planned months earlier in consultation with the university, was due to begin.
“A thousand words from an impure heart do not achieve anything, but one word from a purified heart achieves a thousand things.”
In my previous blog, I elucidated upon the overt strategy of deforming Islam. In short, individuals, Muslims and non, demand a change in Islam, either by removing parts of the Qur’an, or by post-modernist deconstructionism vis-à-vis free-for-all interpretations of the texts. In this piece I intend to cover another method of pushing deformation and control: through the subterfuge of fronting traditional scholars for the counter-extremism agenda.
The desire for a deformation in Islam, if it wasn’t clear from my previous blog, is to control/shape Muslims and/or their thinking. At the geopolitical level, Muslim movements deemed “moderate” are being closely monitored by Western governments and their agencies. A digital leak published by Al-Jazeera shows the Zionist intelligence agency, Mossad, tracking government-sponsored movements promoting “moderate Islam”. It notes that Arab and North African states are abusing Islamic scholars to push a “moderate Islam” in order to effectively ensure government compliance. The Egyptian government, for instance, has “harnessed” Al-Azhar institute and the Waqf bureau by sending their scholars on “indoctrination missions” to Sinai at the behest of the regime. As another example, the top secret document records that a new association of scholars has been set up and tasked to disseminate “moderate Islam based on the Maliki School in the accepted Sahel states and considered moderate compared to other schools of Sunni Islam.” It carries out “propaganda” work to prevent radicalisation and violence. In essence, Islam and traditional scholars are being abused to instantiate state control, all to the glee of Mossad.
The question is what is this “moderate Islam” which excites Mossad?
The past couple of weeks have been quite eventful in the context of the “reformist” deformist attack on Islam. There is no longer a need for a smokescreen of social issues behind which to mount the attack. It seems to be the case that the events like the actions of ISIS have provided a sufficient pretext to renew the call to deform Islam. This, despite the fact that scholars from different theological backgrounds have continually expressed their revulsion at ISIS activities, not as a matter of political expedience but through Islamic textual deductions.
The Conveyor Belt to Disbelief
Neoconservatism has been at the forefront of pushing a reformation, or as I call it, a deformation in Islam, particularly after the onset of the Iraq War. Leading neocon and architect of the disastrous US foreign policy, Paul Wolfowitz stated on the eve of the Iraq war,
“We need an Islamic reformation and I think there is a real hope for one”.
The fountains of traditional Islamic learning also came in for neocon smear. In a speech at Georgetown University on the 30th of October 2003, Wolfowitz described madaaris (Islamic schools) as “schools that teach hatred, schools that teach terrorism” while providing free “theologically extremist teaching to ‘millions’” of Muslim children.