Hope not Hate or Mainstreaming Hate? The Counter-Jihad Movement and the Sara Khan Connection

HnH2017QuilliamHJSClarionGatestone

The fostering of the Straussian neocon “closed society” continues to soldier on ahead. The main, but certainly not the only, conduit for this austere vision of society utilises the rhetoric of fear – “safeguarding”, “cohesion” and “counter-extremism”, augmented courtesy of puppets of the neoconservative malignancy within Government.

Despite being utterly baseless academically and broken as pre-crime tool, there has been effort to mainstream PREVENT into society. This normalisation of authoritarian PREVENT-thinking has led to the latest charade; anti-fascist group Hope not Hate (HnH) has been used to spread the tentacles of PREVENT further into civil society by using Sara Khan in its publication State of Hate 2017.

In doing so, HnH comprehensively debilitated its legitimacy.

The founder of HnH, Nick Lowles, has a history of confronting far-right racist individuals and groups. He has also campaigned for the banning of Pamella Geller and Robert Spencer for their anti-Muslim, hate filled rhetoric. The question is of course, how has such a campaign group been hoodwinked into co-opting PREVENT-thinking and allowed itself to be exploited by a cheerleader of discrimination?

Continue reading

Indifference to Blatant Muslim Profiling

Copyright: msnbc

Over the past couple of weeks, a number of stories, each exceeding the other in the ridiculousness, have surfaced. Imagine the following scenario:

News reports hit media outlets that the government has drafted a policy which was primarily being implemented in the Jewish areas of Manchester and Stamford Hill. The policy threatens to close down Synagogues and ban Jewish speakers for promoting “extremism” – a term which is often conflated with religious conservatism and unpopular/dissenting political viewpoints. Primary school Jewish children are targeted and asked “radicalisation” questions such as, whether they believe their religion to be the correct one. Jewish children as young as eleven are subject to “external agencies” which “educate” about “extremism”, radicalisation and “terrorism”. The parents of four year-olds are invited by Primary schools to workshops on how to “detect” radicalisation. Jewish students who oppose the draconian policy are banned from their college for protesting a decision to cancel an event discussing the policy. Software companies capitalise on the insanity by selling software to schools which filtered for words like “goy”, “Shoa”, “Moshe Ya’alon”, “Benjamin Netanyahu”, “Operation Protective Edge”, and “IDF”. Tens of Jewish-only teachers have been purged from the education sphere. The government funds and utilises unrepresentative and widely rejected members from the community to assist in the attack on schools in Jewish areas and also trots them out to give credence to their policy.

What would the response be to the above? Would not comparisons be drawn to the Third Reich? Would not cries of anti-Semitism and calls for the government to be castigated made? Would we accept the destruction of democratic principles and hypocritical postulations of rule of law and “equal treatment”?

Continue reading

Ayaan Hirsi Ali’s Deformist Call and a Lesson from the Haskalah

MaajidNawazAyaanHirsiAli

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”.[1]

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.[2]

Continue reading

Theresa May’s Neoconservative Cold War Against Islam and Muslims (2)

BritishValuesMusimOnly

A Look at Theresa May’s Responses

The blind-spot for far-right and Zionist “extremism” extends to Theresa May’s pathetic response to critics.  She responds to the argument that “Islamist extremism” is social conservatism, stating that it is invalid because if anybody else discriminated against women, and rejected the democratic process on the basis of beliefs then they would be challenged.

There are a number of points being conflated.  Firstly “discrimination against women” for instance, is tolerated in other communities.  The Beth Din courts have “discriminated” against women in their judgments for over a century.  Yet it has never warranted the label of “extremism” let alone an independent inquiry which is called for in the context of Shari’ah courts. In fact, as per my previous blog specifically on this topic, the Home Office has effectively approved “discrimination” as a result of “Jewishist extremism”.  Moreover, previous versions of the London Beth Din website have clearly stated the Halachic position that it is prohibited  for Jews from take their legal matters to a “secular” civil court (rule of law anyone?).

Continue reading

Theresa May’s Neoconservative Cold War Against Islam and Muslims (1)

BritishValuesMusimOnly

“Irving Kristol came up with the solution that has become the cornerstone of neoconservative politics: use democracy to defeat liberty. Turn the people against their own liberty… if you can convince people that liberty undermines security, they will gladly renounce it.”[1]

 

The principles of democracy, human rights and rule of law have been “hijacked” and torn down by neoconservatives in government.

Theresa May, an “extremist” by her own criteria of “British values”, has outlined some truly shocking measures to “counter” the notoriously nebulous “extremism”.  Before delving into the McCarthy-May Measures speech, there are few overarching points to keep in my mind.

There is a fundamental flaw which runs straight through her speech.  The flaw is the underpinning conveyor-belt theory of radicalisation i.e. that one begins disaffected, starts practising Islam, becomes politicised and then blows things up.  The professoriate in the counter-extremism and terrorism field have slammed the theory as no longer maintaining any credibility. From sociologists to former CIA operations officer, the focus on ideology, or in this case “Islamism”, has been placed on its head, with it being characterised as incidental as opposed to pivotal.

The second point of note is moral supremacy afforded to liberalism, which has been posited as the zenith of societal values, yet it has been thoroughly shackled, gagged and torn up in pursuit of its preservation, as though it is too weak to stand up to scrutiny.

The final point to keep in mind is the issue of definition.  I am not one to labour this point, as I have addressed this in several blogs in detail (see here).  The issue is defining “Islamist extremism” and “extremism” itself.  The bottom line is, part of rule of law, an ascribed “British value”, is that the law being applied is just, and a law cannot be just if it references vaguely defined terms, especially where the impact is such that it effectively socially cripples one’s life. What are the boundaries of critique and vocal opposition? What is the fault line which demarcates traditional religious beliefs shared across the Abrahamic faiths for instance, and “extremism”? Simply stating they are clear is political-speak with no real meaning. Indeed, the social experiment in which the Muslim minority has been the guinea pig for the PREVENT Strategy has already evidenced miscarriages of justice.

Continue reading

Maajid Nawaz and his Call to Deform Islam

douglasmurrayMaajidnawaz

Unfortunately, it has become something of a regular occurrence to erroneously attack Islamic principles for the self-declared “reformist” deformist Maajid Nawaz. My prayer has always been for him to forsake the attention of the ephemeral for the pleasure of the One. I will continue with this prayer. Nevertheless, his points need to be exposed.

Maajid Nawaz has been making frequent comments on Twitter and Facebook on the need to “reform” Islam, standing in “solidarity” with the likes of Irshad Manji, Tarek Fatah and even Ayaan Hirsi.  In one comment he declares quite clearly his intentions: to remould Islam concordant with a source which is external to Islam itself, as opposed to allowing it to sprout forth from the sources themselves. His post-modernist, deconstructionist outlook can be witnessed clearly in his statement: “there is no ‘correct’ Islam,” apparently, “it is all interpretation”. Quite.

Recently, in a Facebook update Nawaz wrote about a “problematic hadith”, which, according to him demonstrated the need for reform.  The status itself was marketing for his contribution to a panel discussion held in a London Synagogue, entitled “Europe and Anti-Semitism: Are we at a civilisational crisis point?”  On the panel are Douglas Murray and Alan Mendoza, directors of the Henry Jackson Society.

Continue reading