The recent heavy sentencing of Muslim protesters in the demonstrations against the Gaza war last year have, as Seumas Milne demonstrates, set a dangerous precedent by demonizing Muslims who perhaps mistakenly choose the democratic route for change. And as he correctly states:

attempts to drive …….. Muslims out of normal political activity, and the refusal to confront anti-Muslim hatred, can only ratchet up the danger and threaten us all.

Even here in Ireland, attempts by MPAC.ie to encourage political activation on the part of Muslims has been met with claims of subversion by certain TDs. Robert Spencer and his cohorts deem ANY political activity on the part of Muslims as a ’stealth jihad’. It seems that despite all the talk of inclusion in the political process, encouragement to air grievances legitimately through the ballot etc, there are still many who do not want Muslims involved in any aspect of public life, and the sentiment is quickly gaining ground. The unjustified and unprovoked attack on the Islamic Forum of Europe is ample proof that the west does not want Muslims to become politically active.

The problem as Milne points out is when you remove the option for change through legitimate means (within a western framework) you disincentivise a growing demographic and inculcate other means of seeking redress. History demonstrates that exclusion does little to enhance safety and cohesion – it is a threat to us all.

Islam4UK is no more, until of course the same group pop up under another name. In the meantime we ponder over the ‘narrow inadequacies and febrile delusions of liberal democracy’ not to mention the blatant hypocrisy of a system that castigates Muslims for doing what everyone else does freely.

The planned march through Wootton Bassett was the proverbial straw that broke the camel’s back, but as Deborah Orr of The Guardian shows, the idea that this ’sacred place’ was simply to show respect was anything but true:

…the timing of this latest ban is intimately connected with the group’s claim that it was going to march through Wootton Bassett, which is situated near RAF Lyneham. The small Wiltshire town has come to prominence in recent years because its townspeople, on their own initiative, had begun paying silent tribute to the dead British servicemen whose bodies were driven through it as part of the grisly process of repatriation. Their act of simple respect attracted attention in the media. Why would it not? The Wootton Bassett tributes stood for something. That something, in turn, attracted the attention of Choudary, for whom the media, in its very hostility, is an important ally.

Yet Choudary is not the first man to have alighted on the tributes at Wootton Bassett as a means of advertising his own agenda. Those who initiated the tributes, primarily the town’s mayor, were keen to emphasise that theirs was not a political gesture, but a human one, signalling only individual sorrow for the young people who had lost their lives in far-off wars. They were making no statement about the wisdom or the justice of those wars, in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Yet regimental standards started to appear in the crowds. People had to be asked to refrain from parading medals. An ex-serviceman started a petition, asking for Wootton Bassett’s main street to be renamed Highway of Heroes. There was talk of the town being awarded the George Cross. Whether those who initiated the tributes liked it or not, their gesture was not always accepted on its own terms. In a quiet and still-dignified way, matters took on their own momentum, and the tributes were easy to interpret as expressing sympathy with military action.

This was hardly a surprise. The Wootton Bassett tributes may have pretensions towards political neutrality. But they are inherently conservative, or at least inherently in tune with the needs of the establishment. They suggest that the role of the public is not to question the decisions of government, but merely to honour without complication the sacrifices of those who carry them out. All citizens of Britain have the right to support such humane passivity, or reject it. Choudary’s showy rejection was hardly a surprise, despite all the expressions of shock and anger that it inspired.

None of this is pointed out in mitigation of Choudary’s limited but successful attempt to co-opt Wootton Bassett into his own propaganda effort. The unwritten rule in the town was that theirs was a space for simple respect. Choudary wished to gatecrash that space, and publicise his own lack of simple respect by despoiling it. Liberal democracy enjoins people to let others get on with their own thing, uninterrupted, as much as possible, in theory, at least.

When the cartoon debacle was at its zenith, Muslims were told time and time again that the right to free speech (read offend) was the cornerstone of democracy and that we’d simply have to put up with the offence.

Those same voices were oddly silent yesterday as five Muslim men were charged over ‘offensive’ and ‘insulting’ remarks issued against returning soldiers in the UK.

District Judge Carolyn Mellanby said: “I have no doubt it is abusive and insulting to tell soldiers to ‘Go to hell’ – to call soldiers murderers, rapists and baby killers”.

We have no doubt that it is insulting and offensive to all Muslims to cheer and wave those who have killed our sons and daughters, our mothers and fathers, our wives and husbands, but Muslim sensibilities matter little in a democracy built on hypocrisy.

For those who have any doubts that UK soldiers are murderers, read this: UK troops ‘executed Iraqi grandmother’

In 1961, the Defamation Act was introduced into the Irish Constitution. At a time when the religious landscape was largely defined by Catholic hegemony, the Defamation Act stated that a person could be both fined and imprisoned for a maximum of seven years for the crime of blasphemous libel. There was no known objection from the catholic clergy or their apologists.

In 2009, with Ireland developing into a vibrant multicultural and religiously pluralist society Mr Dermot Ahern announced the need to reform the act as a necessary obligation according to the constitution.

Extremist atheistic elements launched a puerile campaign of civil disobedience in a vain attempt to force the ministers hand, but most surprisingly they found interesting bedfellows in the form of Catholic clergymen and their apologists. Some 48 years later, the Catholic Church was singing a different tune, why?

Some felt that the church was using the commotion as a means of distracting attention away from their crimes against the young Irish people. Others felt that it was a disingenuous attempt to undermine the growing trend of Islam in the country. Whatever and wherever the truth may lay, the church is keeping mum!

Perhaps one of those apologists would care to answer this simple question; why did the clergy and their apologists show no interest in defending the law in 2009? What was the difference between 1961 and 2009 that prompted this change of heart?

For the French, kissing is a way of life and multiple kisses are normal, even between men. Paris adopted a four kiss greeting years ago and has stuck to it. The sequence is left cheek first—always and the kiss is often accompanied by an intimate hug.

It is not an Irish custom though, and for many Irish men the thought of kissing and hugging another man would be received with indignant disdain and a lot more besides.

That revulsion however did not stop our Taoiseach entering into the spirit of things when he greeted French president Nickolas Sarkozy in Dublin yesterday. Casting aside his own feelings, An Taoiseach is pictured warmly embracing and kissing President Sarkozy.

Consider Mr Cowen’s accommodation and willingness to entertain a different social custom with that of the Africa Centre, which in a show of imperialist hegemonic sanction retracted an award simply because the person in question declined to shake hands with a member of the opposite sex.

There was no hullaballoo asking why our leader had taken on the French custom, it simply passed off as normal, a sign of respect. Not so with the Muslim, the Muslim asylum seeker was told to go back to his own country, was denigrated in the press and was publicly humiliated. Why? Need we ask!

60yr old Erika Tazi, who suffers from the chronic pain condition fibromyalgia and a recent revert to Al Islam had finally plucked up the courage to don hijab. It was a big moment for her and she’d previously discussed her trepidation with her doctor. Nevertheless, wear it she did, and with pride and dignity.

Unfortunately, what should have been a very special moment for her ended abruptly when she was set upon by two ‘Christians’ who called our Prophet a warlord and accused poor Mrs Tazi of living in bondage. What’s worse of course is that the couple in question were the proprietors, and Mrs Tazi a paying guest in their hotel. Is this the kind of treatment British law now condones toward Muslim customers? Should we expect the same when we go into any shop to buy something now?

While the judge cleared the ‘Christian’ couple of hate speech yesterday, we must ask had the tables been turned would the situation be the same. Many of our brothers are languishing in British prisons for doing what the ‘Christian’ couple did, exercising their right to free speech. But again we see, it’s one law for the kuffar, another for the Muslims.

Sadly, Mrs Tazi fought this battle alone, while the ‘Christians’ were supported by donations from their group. Our prayers go out to our sister, may Allah reward her for standing up for the truth.

The Prophet said: “Beware of extremism, for indeed the only thing that has destroyed those who came before you is extremism.”

Extremism in religion is to exceed the limits of its legislated boundaries. It could be in worship, such as the three men, one of whom said: ‘I will stand the whole night in prayer and not sleep.’ The second said: ‘I will fast continuously not missing one day without fasting.’ The third said: ‘I will not marry.’

Extremism can also be in rulings; such as making something that is recommended an obligation, or being extreme in the ruling of one who practices a major sin that is less than polytheism by declaring him to be a disbeliever who has left the fold of Islaam.

Extremism can be in ordering the good and forbidding the evil, such as the extremism practiced by the Mu’tazillah in the form of revolting against the rulers with the excuse of ordering good and forbidding evil as justification.

Extremism is also in declaring something permissible to be impermissible, or declaring something impermissible to be permissible.

Extremism in religion in all its forms is prohibited, it may cause the individual to exist the fold of Islaam or cause destruction, as it destroyed those who came before us, and no person who has been given understanding and foresight by Allaah in rulings and in placing things in the rightful place can doubt this.

However, there are people whose state is the exact opposite of the extremism of exceeding the limits in the religion, there are those who went to extremes in lenience and indulgence. There is no doubt that our religion is the religion of lenience, ease and justness, but this lenience must be within the legislated boundary, by acting upon the legislated permits when needed, and all the religion, and to Allaah belongs all praise, is free of hardship and restrictions.

Shaykh Saalih ibn Fowzaan al-Fowzaan

When we consider extremism, we often have in mind the kuffar (mis)understanding of the issue, for they would never castigate a lax Muslim or one who did their bidding. Rather they and unfortunately a number of Muslims reserve their wrath for those who go to what the kuffar deem extreme. More often than not though, this will include the temerity of actually fighting back against oppression and occupation.

While the extremism that unduly and illegitimately causes harm to life and limb is to be shunned and condemned, the other end of the spectrum is equally if not more dangerous – that of extreme liberalism. This type of extremism seeks to rob Islam of its distinctness, to dilute its teachings and subjugate its followers to the will of the kuffar.

This type of extremism raises the banner of liberalism and democracy while castigating the Caliphate and Shariah, it subverts Islamic law in favour of so-called human rights, it takes as its example the kuffar, willfully and wholeheartedly imitating kufr while criticizing Muslims who seek to follow the Prophet. They are wolves in sheep’s clothing, silver-tongued devils who seek to ‘improve upon’, under the guidance of their kuffar masters, the Islam that the Prophet left us with – their arrogance and insolence knows no bounds.

Therefore, brothers and sisters beware, we have entered a time when people fear man more than their Lord and seek the pleasure of the dunya rather the hereafter. The allegiance of the liberal is not with the Muslims, rather he has sold his soul to the Shaitan and inshaAllah will reap his just rewards in the hereafter.

Here’s a little test to expose the extreme liberal:
1. Ask him/her if democracy or Shariah is better and what they are doing to institute it
2. Ask him/her about Jihad and the right of defence
3. Ask him/her about homosexuality and its condemnation
4. Ask him/her about the obligation of hijab/beard/raising the garments above the ankle, etc
5. Ask him/her about the separation between religion and state
6. Ask him/her about polygamy
7. Ask him/her about sexual relations outside the confines of marriage
8. Ask him/her about the hudood (penal system) and its application
9. Ask him/her about the role of women and leadership

Of course there are so many more, but these are the few that the liberal extremist will take issue with, though remember they speak with a forked tongue and like hypocrites wear a face to suit the situation – takiyyah takes on a whole new life with the extreme liberal devils.

In the topsy-turvy world of the war of terror, Muslims have found that the usual rights afforded citizens in terms of presumed innocence is a thing of the past, at least when it comes to them.

Any act carried out by an individual is now the fault of all Muslims, and all Muslims must bear the guilt. Declan McPartlin, an independent councillor in the Wexford area said as much when he referred to the Fort Hood shootings as a ‘problem’ that Muslim people have.

Quite how a man who had obvious psychological problems ‘exemplifies’ this Muslim problem is perhaps something Mr McPartlin might like to expand upon. And why the increasing propensity on the part of non-Muslims to hold Muslims collectively responsible for the actions of one or a few people is a Muslim problem and not a shameful failing on the part of non-Muslim is anyone’s guess.

Another example of animosity toward Muslims is exemplified on Mark Humphry’s web site, which carries a list of Irish people who have allegedly suffered ‘Islamic terror attacks.’ Obvious misnomers aside – the site, a hovel of hate against Muslims that can only serve to drive a wedge between communities, certainly appears to build upon the collective responsibility ethos.

The idea of collective responsibility isn’t new. The same hostile sentiment gave rise to the attempted genocide of the Jews in Nazi Germany, where they too were considered a problem and responsible for all the woes in society. Their lack of assimilation was also an issue, it seems no matter what they did they were still Jewish and that was simply not German.

Bosnian Muslims also learned to their detriment that no matter what you do, once you are a Muslim you are the enemy. Serb troops famously removed over 5000 Muslim men and boys from a UN safe area and summarily executed them. Only their family names distinguished them from non-Muslims, in every other way they had assimilated. Little wonder then that talk of assimilation, coupled with talk of a new supposedly correct interpretation of the Islam that requires the disavowing of fundamentals of the religion has been met with the disdain it deserves.

But here’s a question, if it’s OK to hold all Muslims responsible for the actions of a few, is it OK for Muslims to hold all non-Muslims equally responsible for the actions of their military in Muslim lands? And if not, why not? Granted Allah commands us as Muslims to rise above the pettiness of revenge and injustice, but that’s our argument, not yours.

MPAC.ie Podcast

Telling it how it is!

Revelations that a self-styled ‘cleric’ sent hate mail to the widows of brutal occupation soldiers in Australia has prompted the Prime Minister to consider whether Australia’s immigration laws should be changed to allow citizenship to be revoked in such cases.

But what is being contested here? The fact that a person harassed some war widows or that the individual in question was not supportive of the war of terror? Is Judd actually proposing that a lack of agreement with the war of occupation is grounds for the revoking of citizenship? What of the democratic right to dissent, to voice opposition and to contest action that is clearly not in the public interest.

Similar threats were made when another Australian cleric had the audacity to point out the widely held belief that there is a link between lewd dress, licentious behaviour and the preponderance of rape. It seems the hypocrisy of democracy knows no bounds – particularly with regard to its Muslim citizenry.