Here is a fatwa allegedly by the eminent Islamic ‘scholar’(!) Ibn Baz, posted by an Islamophbe on a Dawah website. He also spammed the usual stories about how in Islam there is the death penalty for apostasy. Needless to say, he got his ass handed to him and had no comeback.  It is useful though as it shows that sometimes, the idiotic comments of certain Muslims can be the greatest obstacle to Dawah or even understanding between communities. It also show how trying to defend these comments plays into the hands of the enemy. And finally, that we have to shame people who say stuff like this.

The Fatwa:

Question Some friends say that whoever does not enter Islam, that is his choice and he should not be forced to become Muslim, quoting as evidence the verses in which Allaah says : “And had your Lord willed, those on earth would have believed, all of them together. So, will you (O Muhammad) then compel mankind, until they become believers” [Yoonus 10:99] “There is no compulsion in religion” [al-Baqarah 2:256]

What is your opinion concerning that?.

Answer: Praise be to Allaah. The scholars explained that these two verses, and other similar verses, have to do with those from whom the jizyah may be taken, such as Jews, Christians and Magians (Zoroastrians). They are not to be forced, rather they are to be given the choice between becoming Muslim or paying the jizyah. Other scholars said that this applied in the beginning, BUT WAS SUBSEQUENTLY ABROGATED by Allaah’s command to fight and wage jihad.

So whoever refuses to enter Islam should be fought WHEN THE MUSLIMS ARE ABLE TO FIGHT, until they either enter Islam or pay the jizyah if they are among the people who may pay jizyah.  The kuffaar should be compelled to enter Islam if they are not people from whom the jizyah may be taken, because that will lead to their happiness and salvation in this world and in the Hereafter. Obliging a person to adhere to the truth in which is guidance and happiness is better for him than falsehood. Just as a person may be forced to do the duty that he owes to other people even if that is by means of imprisonment or beating, so forcing the kaafirs to believe in Allaah alone and enter into the religion of Islam is more important and more essential, because this will lead to their happiness in this world and in the Hereafter. This applies unless they are People of the Book, i.e., Jews and Christians, or Magians, because Islam says that these three groups may be given the choice: they may enter Islam or they may pay the jizyah and feel themselves subdued.

Some of the scholars are of the view that others may also be given the choice between Islam and jizyah, but the most correct view is that no others should be given this choice, rather these three groups are the only ones who may be given the choice, because the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) fought the kuffaar in the Arabian Peninsula and he only accepted their becoming Muslim.

And Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning): “But if they repent [by rejecting Shirk (polytheism) and accept Islamic Monotheism] and perform As-Salaah (Iqaamat-as-Salaah), and give Zakaah, then leave their way free. Verily, Allaah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful” [al-Tawbah 9:5]

He did not say, “if they pay the jizyah”. The Jews, Christians and Magians are to be asked to enter Islam; if they refuse then they should be asked to pay the jizyah. If they refuse to pay the jizyah then the Muslims must fight them IF THEY ARE ABLE TO DO SO. Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning): “Fight against those who (1) believe not in Allaah, (2) nor in the Last Day, (3) nor forbid that which has been forbidden by Allaah and His Messenger (Muhammad), (4) and those who acknowledge not the religion of truth (i.e. Islam) among the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians), until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued” [al-Tawbah 9:29] And it was proven that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) accepted the jizyah from the Magians, but it was not proven that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) or his companions (may Allaah be pleased with them) accepted the jizyah from anyone except the three groups mentioned above.

The basic principle concerning that is the words of Allaah (interpretation of the meaning): “And fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief and polytheism, i.e. worshipping others besides Allaah), and the religion (worship) will all be for Allaah Alone [in the whole of the world]” [al-Anfaal 8:39] “Then when the Sacred Months (the 1st, 7th, 11th, and 12th months of the Islamic calendar) have passed, then kill the Mushrikoon (see V.2:105) wherever you find them, and capture them and besiege them, and lie in wait for them in each and every ambush. But if they repent [by rejecting Shirk (polytheism) and accept Islamic Monotheism] and perform As-Salaah (Iqaamat-as-Salaah), and give Zakaah, then leave their way free. Verily, Allaah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful” [al-Tawbah 9:5] This verse is known as Ayat al-Sayf (the verse of the sword).

These and similar verses ABROGATE the verses which say that there is no compulsion to become Muslim. And Allaah is the Source of strength.”

(Source: http://islamqa.com/en/ref/34770

Free Lover:

You need to stick to the point instead of quote mining scholars like Ibn Baz etc who some people within Islam openly accuse of heresy. Stick to the Quran, and don’t use these cheap missionary arguments about ‘abrogation’. The orthodox position is that there IS no abrogation, and those who DO believe in it do not say that it is a compulsory belief. And even if you did use Bin Baz, anyone who knows about the Wahhabi movement knows that Ibn Taymiyyah trumps your Bin Baz and he does not share this interpretation.

Flop.

Try respected scholars like Abu Hanifa (RA) amongst thousands of others if you INSIST on straw manning on the basis of scholars (yawn), instead of organs of the Saudi state which itself is aided and abetted by the ‘secular’ West of which you are a no doubt a card – carrying fanboy. Better yet stick to the Quran and Mutawatir Hadith. Better yet, just get lost.

You argument is so poor (apart form the OLD tactic of not quoting after 9:5) that EVEN if we accept your posturing that they ayats are abrogated, the remaining ayats do not tell you to compel to belief, merely fight and kill the enemy, which you admit, so what was the point of all that waffle? And who the hell are you to say that the option of paying jizya is ‘unfavourable’? Don’t believe in taxation do you? Then sort out your own country first. And who cares what this guy says huh? Is he like the Islamic Pope or something? Get a grip and stop doing all your research off Google and go pick up a book. You don’t know jack about apostasy in Islam on this evidence. And perhaps you can tell us what happens to you when you ‘apostate’ from a secular state? They let you run off with their secrets do they? I heard nowadays they take away your passport and lock you up in some part of Cuba and water-board you without a trial. But you know all about detention in Australia, so who am I schooling?

Oh yeah, Australia…that reminds me of Julian Assange, who didn’t even ‘apostate’ from the United States, since he AIN’T EVEN A CITIZEN THERE and people STILL asked for the death penalty! Damn, steady on boys, even the Muslims think that’s harsh!

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/dec/01/us-embassy-cables-executed-mike-huckabee

Didn’t hear you complain though…or are you confused about ‘apostasy’ and ‘treason’? You see, we could play this game all year long, I can go on the internet and find dumb atheists and secularists who say moronic stuff (you know, like Sam Harris saying people deserve to be killed for holding ideas that are ‘sufficiently’ dangerous or like France telling women what to wear, just like the Taliban) but that would be aimless because just finding a dumb exponent of an idea does not invalidate the idea, it merely proves that there is a surfeit of dumb people. Like you.

Big Boss:

But you must remember, in Dawah it is very difficult to defend the views of each and every scholar, especially people like Ibn Baz and Albani etc who say some very messed up things. If a Christian had to defend the views of every Church Father or Pope or Christian scholar from Augustine to Aquinas throughout history then their job would be much more difficult, so they do not try to do that, and neither should we, or it becomes ‘asymmetric warfare’. I promise you that one of the main reasons that Islam is not spreading as fast as it could is because of the so called ‘Salafi’ movement and the opinions of their scholars such as Ibn Baz above.

They say all of these things, like driving bans for women are justified, like covering the face is Fard etc. and the western people just think: ‘Well, if this is how crazy their leaders are, then I will not bother to look into the religion or read the Quran’. Also, the behaviour of the Saudi leadership and royal family when they are abroad is a big deterrent and creates a false impression of Islam. And this is not condemned by the scholars in Saudi, although The Prophet (SAW) said that the BEST jihad is to speak a word of truth to the unjust ruler, which the scholars in Saudi and other places fail to do. In fact they justify the absurd policies on the basis of ‘Islam’. Any person who is too cowardly to speak up before the oppressors or the unjust or immoral has no right to be followed as a scholar in Islam, even if he has Knowledge (which Ibn Baz does not anyway).

To make the point even more obvious, The Prophet (SAW) said: ‘The master of martyrs is Hamzah and a man who stood up to an unjust ruler, commanding him (to do good) and forbidding him (from evil) and was killed’ .

Thus The Prophet (SAW) was emphatic in commanding the believers to endure harm and even death in questioning and struggling against the unjust rulers. If that is the case for us, as ordinary believers, how much more so for the scholars? So you have to face facts that the scholars in these places, since they are in league with the state, are not reliable. End of the day, we do not care what scholars say. We listen to them and if it makes sense to our limited knowledge and intellect, then we accept it. If not, then we don’t. If following scholars was allowed to an unlimited extent, then there is no point in doing Dawah, as the other religions would just say: ‘We are following OUR scholars’.

We have to use our own mind, and if we do, it is clear that what Ibn Baz is saying above is idiotic and that the theory of abrogation is just that: a THEORY, and one which does not make sense: there is not a SINGLE proved incident of abrogation in the Quran and the verses people use to justify it like; ”None of Our revelations do We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, but We substitute something better or similar: Knowest thou not that Allah Hath power over all things?” (TMQ 2:106) actually refer to PREVIOUS scriptures/oral traditions, As Muhammad Asad explains in his translation:

‘‘The principle laid down in this passage – relating to the supersession of the Biblical dispensation by that of the Qur’an – has given rise to an erroneous interpretation by many Muslim theologians. The word ayah (“message”) occurring in this, context is also used to denote a “verse;” of the Qur’an (because every one of these verses contains a message). Taking this restricted meaning of the term ayah, some scholars conclude from the above passage that certain verses of the Qur’an have been “abrogated” by God’s command before the revelation of the Qur’an was completed. Apart from the fancifulness of this assertion - which calls to mind the image of a human author correcting, on second thought, the proofs of his manuscript – deleting one passage and replacing it with another – there does not exist a single reliable Tradition to the effect that the Prophet ever declared a verse of the Qur’an to have been “abrogated”. At the root of the so-called “doctrine of abrogation” may lie the inability of some of the early commentators to reconcile one Qur’anic passage with another: a difficulty which was overcome by declaring that one of the verses in question had been “abrogated”. This arbitrary procedure explains also why there is no unanimity whatsoever among the upholders of the “doctrine of abrogation” as to which, and how many, Qur’an verses have been affected by it; and, furthermore, as to whether this alleged abrogation implies a total elimination of the verse in question from the context of the Qur’an, or only a cancellation of the specific ordinance or statement contained in it. In short, the “doctrine of abrogation” has no basis whatever in historical fact, and must be rejected. On the other hand, the apparent difficulty in interpreting the above Qur’anic passage disappears immediately if the term ayah is understood, correctly, as “message”, and if we read this verse in conjunction with the preceding one, which states that the Jews and the Christians refuse to accept any revelation which might supersede that of the Bible: for, if read in this way, the abrogation relates to the earlier divine messages and not to any part of the Qur’an itself.”

I would not use these erroneous ideas about abrogation in my (very small) dawah work personally and would advise you to do the same brother.

Free Lover:

There is a confusion amongst the non – Muslims about ‘apostasy’ and ‘treason’. They seem to think it is fine to punish ‘treason’ with the death penalty but not ‘apostasy’. As you brothers point out, there is no penalty for simple apostasy, but when action is taken by the apostate against the Islamic state, then it IS punished, as treason. I indicated the same in his response above. The proof is the fact that both of the apostates mentioned in the Quran went unpunished.

The End.

This business about ‘killing apostates’ is a wet dream of Islamophobes, and it’s getting old. Maybe we need to remind the atheists how their Communist ‘brothers’ used to enforce ‘ideological hygiene’ and deal with ‘dissent’. Or perhaps we should remind our Christian brothers how the Church dealt with heresy and sectarianism.

‘Transcendent is Allah’ by Haji Noor Deen, Master Calligrapher

A brilliant set of five lectures by Sheikh Atabek Nasafi clarifying points on this oft mis-understood issue. I was reluctant to get involved in this kind of stuff  but it is important to have clarity, especially if we are to call people to Islam, as is our duty. It is also an issue that has repeatedly (and unnecessarily) brought to the fore by the Salafi/Wahhabi brothers who unfortunately tend to make a big issue out of this and tend to get themselves and others confused in the process.

Part 1; Introduction to The Waseeya of  Imam Abu Hanifa (RA)

Part 2: The Waseeya of Abu Hanifa (RA) 

Part 3: The Isnad of the Waseeya of Abu Hanifa (RA)

Part 4: The Prophet (PBUH) On The Right Hand Of God?

Part 5: Where Is Allah?

There are a further two parts but they are extremely detailed (and ‘controversial’) and therefore perhaps only for somewhat advanced students. They are nonetheless hugely enjoyable and informative and I will post them if people want. (Update: I have added these as well)

Sheikh Atabek Shukrov Nasafi is a noted scholar and specialist in Islamic aqeeda and theological sciences. Undertaking his religious studies at first in secret in Uzbekistan while it was part of the USSR, he has gone on to have an eclectic and comprehensive Islamic education all over the Muslim world. Already a scholar when he arrived in the Middle East, he studied in Damascus under such luminaries as Mhmd Adnan Darwish, graduating finally from Al Azhar but only after having studied both in Medina and the wider region, for example under Sh. Uthaymeen (and numerous others).

He is currently based in the Northwest of England where he is the founder of the Afiyah Institute.

The guy must be a strict Wahhabi…

I don’t agree with this methodology, but with those Muslim speakers who like to spam statistics and empirical evidence…then have this and be consistent.

Boys taught in male-only schools face divorce and depression by their early 40s, research reveals.

You might have thought that boys brought up in a single-sex environment would find relationships with girls difficult to handle. Now research due to be published tomorrow proves it.It shows that boys taught in single sex schools are more likely to be divorced or separated from their partner than those who attended a mixed school by their early 40s.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/education/education-news/why-singlesex-schools-are-bad-for-your-health-if-youre-a-boy-1831636.html

There is a homeless Chinese man who I often see walking around my neighbourhood. You would not know from looking at him that he was homeless, but I know because I see him often. Today I saw him outside my house, walking on the street. He was carrying a couple of bags and was trying to look normal, which is why a lot of people probably don’t realise he is homeless. He always smiles and never asks for money. He is always clean , though invariably in the same clothes. He even keeps his cheap white trainers immaculate. I don’t know how old he is, it’s hard to tell with oriental guys, he could be maybe forty – five. Then again he could be sixty five.

When I saw him outside my house today, I thought it was very strange. It made me realise that the fact that I see this guy so often in a city as large and as impersonal as London is very odd. Actually, come to think of it, of all the hundreds of thousands of strangers and even the many homeless people in Stratford, he is the only one I would recognise, including all the pretty shop girls and attendants that I see regularly who all eventually blend in to one. I first saw him at the library, sitting and reading a book. But he stayed for a very long time, and I would see him whenever I was at the library. It was small things like this, and the way I would see him in a park on a warm day, looking wistfully at the children playing, that made me realise that despite his façade, he was in fact a homeless person. He would also take very long walks around East London, always looking clean, his long straight hair combed and trying his best to smile when people looked his way. But his eyes never joined in the dance of the smile on his mouth, which always danced alone because his smile was like his crisp white shoes, just a disguise.

Despite all this, when I saw him as I stood outside my own house, I did not smile back at him. In fact, I did not acknowledge him at all, let alone offer him a drink or waffle on about the weather with him. After all, who would want a strange homeless man, even one as well turned out as him, in their house? Or even outside their house?

I went on about my business. The episode troubled me though. It made me think I was missing something, just as how everyone else was missing the fact that he was probably sleeping on the streets. It reminded me of what the Sufis say, that everything is a ‘sign’ or more profoundly ‘tajalliyyat‘, a manifestation of the will of Allah. If that is the case, then what did the Chinese man represent? Was he really a ‘symbol’, and of what? And what was the meaning of my own (in)action towards him?

‘The world has issued from the pages of God’s words. And though man himself is but a great word of God – more precisely a great sign on the horizons of the world – it is man alone who is in a position to interpret here…not only God’s Book, the Quran, but also another open book revealed by God – the world…Sufism underlines that both the Quran and the World should be interpreted by means of the same hermeneutics (tawil)…The basic principle in Islam: ‘There is no divinity except God’ means that all the phenomena of the world, as well as the world itself, are no more than manifestations of the Absolute, the Reality, the Eternity. To describe those manifestations the Sufis like to use the Arabic word tajalliyyat’ - Enis Karic

Muslims, in apologetics and otherwise rightly attack atheists for the idea that ‘it’s all just random, a big coincidence’. But then the Muslims must appreciate that if is is NOT all random then it means something. The whole and every part. We must then, try to find the meanings.

I was reminded of the Hadith of RasoolAllah (SAW) about the rights of the neighbours:

“He is not a believer whose neighbour is unsafe from his mischief.” They announced it thrice and then to Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) pointed towards forty doors to his right and forty to the left indicating that forty houses in every direction constitute ones neighbourhood. One is obliged to observe their rights.

It further reminded me of a story about Imam Abu Hanifa. He had gone to visit his neighbour who had been imprisoned for being drunk for the umpteenth time. Abu Hanifa wanted to fulfil his rights as a neighbour, though the man was a drunk and in jail. Abu Hanifa was amazed that despite everything, the man had been able to find alcohol yet again. The man said to Abu Hanifa: ‘Imam, today it is I who will teach you something: it is God who is hard to find, alcohol can be found with little effort’ (I have paraphrased the story from memory).

The Chinese man, being homeless, is actually a neighbour to more people than anyone else, since he drifts about and has no fixed abode, hence, according to the Hadith, he enjoys more rights than anyone else with a house, since he has more neighbours, though you wouldn’t know it from the way I treated him.

It also made me think that there is no way that the Prophet (PBUH) would have ignored a man like that. Not that the man asked for anything, or even needed anything. For all I know he may have deliberately chosen to live that way. Even if offered him money I don’t think he would have taken it. I can tell that he is like that. In fact, strangely I feel that I know him quite well. I just don’t think RasoolAllah would have ignored him, that’s all.

It also reminded me of a Muslim story about Jesus (PBUH). Jesus had very few possessions, and he only used to take with him a jug with which to drink water and a comb for his hair. One day he saw a man at the river drinking water using his hands. Upon seeing this, Jesus threw away the jug. He later saw a man combing his hair with his fingers, and upon seeing this he threw away the comb as well.

It is also narrated about Jesus (PBUH) that he said: ‘He who seeks after the world is like one who drinks sea water; the more he drinks, the more his thirst increases, until it kills him’.

Or, as the Second Imam of the Caucuses put it: ‘The world is a carcass, and he who seeks it a dog’.

And maybe that’s what the Chinese man represented or ‘manifested’: that to turn away from a good deed is to turn away a gift from God. And who would be stupid enough to do that?

Well, me apparently…

How exactly should Muslims approach Hadith literature? Do we act upon all Sahih Hadith? Are all ‘Sahih’ Hadith ‘true’? Is Bukhari Sharif ‘perfect’? Who is qualified to use Hadith? Is a Hadith ‘Proof’ in an argument? Is ‘Hadith spamming’ allowed? Who or what are ‘Ahlal Hadith’?

This part deals with the issue of Bukhari being the ‘most authentic book after the Quran’. Is it? What does this statement mean? And are you in trouble if you deny a Hadith from Bukhari? Does a Sahih chain mean you must act on a given Hadith? What do the pious predecessors say?

The biography and ideas of Imam Bukhari are explained as well as the relative position of Fiqh and Hadith, Imam Bukhari visiting graves, and the rank of Imam Malik relative to Imam Bukhari as a Muhaddith.

All this and more in YET ANOTHER brilliant talk, tackling this oft misunderstood subject. Detailed and indispensable as always.

Sheikh Atabek is really becoming the premier scholar as far as Dawah and apologetics responses go in the U.K by addressing all of these misconceptions about Islam that both non-Muslims, and sadly Muslims bring to the fore.

Sheikh Atabek Shukrov Nasafi is a noted scholar and specialist in Islamic aqeeda and theological sciences. Undertaking his religious studies at first in secret in Uzbekistan while it was part of the USSR, he has gone on to have an eclectic and comprehensive Islamic education all over the Muslim world.

Already a scholar when he arrived in the Middle East, he studied in Damascus under such luminaries as Mhmd Adnan Darwish, graduating finally from Al Azhar but only after having studied both in Medina and the wider region, for example under Sh. Uthaymeen (and numerous others).

He is currently based in the Northwest of England where he is the founder of the Avicenna Institute.

http://www.avicennaacademy.com/

Well, ARE they?

Does being in Bukhari mean that a Hadith is superior to those in other collections? Are you still Muslim if you don’t believe in a Hadith from Bukhari? Are you sinful?

What about the Hadith in Bukhari where Abdullah Ibn Masud is allegedly questioning the number of Suras in the Quran?

It also addresses some of the immensely troubling and controversial attitudes to Hadith exemplified by the Salafi/Wahhabi movement, including the common practice of anathematising and harassing people who question Bukhari as Hadith rejecters - however, they seem to openly reject Hadith from Bukhari and then there is the issue of Ibn Taymiyyah rejecting the famous Hadith of Bukhari ‘There was Allah and nothing else besides him’ (Bukhari 3091)…the stance of Alabani is also addressed.

This clarifies many of the almost universal misconceptions amongst Muslims who have perhaps become confused by all the different voices in the community claiming to use the ‘Sunnah’.

A brilliant introduction to the Usool of Hadith.

Are All Weak Hadith Rejected?

People nowadays often try to settle an argument by bringing forth Hadith and if one of them is found to be ‘weaker’ than the other, then it’s case closed.

Really?

Sheikh Atabek Shukrov Nasafi is a noted scholar and specialist in Islamic aqeeda and theological sciences. Undertaking his religious studies at first in secret in Uzbekistan while it was part of the USSR, he has gone on to have an eclectic and comprehensive Islamic education all over the Muslim world.

Already a scholar when he arrived in the Middle East, he studied in Damascus under such luminaries as Mhmd Adnan Darwish, graduating finally from Al Azhar but only after having studied both in Medina and the wider region, for example under Sh. Uthaymeen (and numerous others).

He is currently based in the Northwest of England where he is the founder of the Avicenna Institute.

http://www.avicennaacademy.com/

  The Flowers of War (Dir: Yimou Zhang)

Back to 1942 (Dir: Xiaogeng Feng)

These two big – budget Chinese productions, released in the past year, share a lot in common: a WWII setting, the presence of Oscar winning foreign leading men (Christian Bale and Adrien Brody/Tim Robbins respectively), massive box office success (domestically at least), excellent production values, as well as the virtue of having been directed by inarguably the two most recognised and successful mainland Chinese directors: Zhang Yimou (best know outside China for ‘Hero’ and ‘House of the Flying Daggers’) and Feng Xiaogeng (‘Assembly’, ‘A world Without Thieves’).

They also feature something else in common which even the casual observer cannot help but notice: a sympathetic portrayal of Christianity and indeed even of the Church.

Why is this interesting? Well, with the rise of China soon to become the ascent of China, arguably everything about China is interesting at the moment. However, in the context of China, like other countries influenced by Communist ideologies, having had various campaigns against religion, as well as having the largest number of atheists in the world (http://www.thechapmans.nl/news/Atheist.pdf), it is perhaps not what we would expect.

Further, neither director is particularly a critic of the state and one has directed a film which arguably served as ‘Communist parable’ (Xiaogeng’s ‘A World Without Thieves’). Would it not be going out on a limb to depict religion at all? Why would directors with such great local approval (Yimou even directed the opening ceremony of the Beijing games) take such a risk if Christianity was proscribed as missionary groups like to say it is? Would it not annoy the Party Elite?

Given that it is inconceivable that religions such as Buddhism and Islam would be portrayed at all, let alone sympathetically in such big budget productions despite being, at least until recently, more firmly established in China than Christianity, it makes the central role played by that religion in these films even more difficult to understand. ‘Back to 1942′ even features Tim Robbins waxing lyrical about Christian theodicy and ‘Flowers of War’ features nothing less blatant than Chinese prostitutes being co-opted into a choir! It’s all a bit ‘on the nose’ in terms of ‘rehabilitating’ Christianity for Chinese consumption, and prompts the questions of why would these luminaries feel confident to portray Christians thus if they feared the Party and it’s notorious film censors (even Yimou had a film banned early in his career) and do Christian missionary accounts of the hardships their brethren face in China hold water? One answer is that there is nothing to be afraid of and Christianity may be enjoying a certain level of state sanction, whereas the accounts of persecutions, though perhaps true, find utility in fundraising for Chinese missions amongst western congregations.

Then there is this news that China is one of the world’s largest publishers of Bibles:

http://www.economist.com/news/china/21574529-china-has-become-one-largest-producers-bibles-world-beginning-was

It would indeed be strange if Muslims enjoyed sympathetic, even polemical portrayals in blockbuster Chinese movies and the largest Quran distribution network in the world was in China and they yet complained of ‘harsh’ restrictions against Islam. No-one would buy that story. So just how strained are Christian activities in China?

Christians, perhaps having a bit of a persecution complex from hearing all of those stories about Christians being thrown to the lions by pagans (whereas for most of history, including that of early Christianity in Europe from Constantine onward, it was the other way round), will no doubt harp on about difficulties still faced by Christians in China, and no doubt many of these are real. But when one asks for the specific restrictions one finds specifics are thin on the ground, unless one turns to impossible to verify evangelical websites trying to raise funds from Western countries, most particularly the United States. However, Christians in China, unlike Muslims or Buddhists enjoy protection and representation from China’s important trade partners such as the U.S or Europe. And they aren’t exactly immolating themselves or having razor wires inserted into unspeakable places as Amnesty International claims Muslims are (1).

I would suggest that the Chinese Party Planners, well known for their very long range thinking (a la Deng Xiopeng, who put China on it’s current road to prosperity way back in the 70′s) are giving a preferential status to Christianity to fill a possible ideological vacuum in any ‘post – Communist’ society that emerges in the New China. Christianity’s alleged secularism, especially as interpreted by the Protestant variety (‘give unto Caesar’) with it’s emphasis on salvation by faith alone (actions, dietary requirements, politics be damned) make it a far more attractive alternative to the secular faith of Communism, which is now ideologically disappearing from the ‘new’ China. The affectionate and accommodating attitude shown to Christianity by the top Chinese film-makers should perhaps be seen in this more ‘nation building’ perspective.

Alternatively, it’s just a narrative choice in these films and means nothing.

But  if anyone doubts the possibility of the Chinese authorities co-opting of Christianity on pragmatic grounds, recall Deng Xiaoping’s response when asked about differing economic models: ‘Who cares if it’s a black cat or a white cat, as long as it catches mice?’ (paraphrase)

No doubt large numbers of people are converting to Christianity in China, largely due to the liberalisation of access for missionary groups and the romanticised notions with which Christianity is often related to ‘Western’ Civilization in Asian countries in general, but this freedom does not seem to extend to other religions. Nor do those other religions have powerful E.U and U.S contingents lobbying for them.

It will be interesting to see if Christians in China use their apparent preferred status to help other groups, for example Muslims, to gain more freedoms. If the near complete absence of support from Christians locally and globally in the matters of the French Hijaab ban, Italian and Spanish mosque building restriction, Swiss minaret ban etc. are anything to go by, don’t hold your breath. From the Mongol invasions (where Christian princes and converts egged on the Baghdad genocide) (2) to the Holocaust, Christian organisations don’t have a great record of upholding the rights of other religious communities.

(1) Amnesty International, ‘Gross Violations Of Human Rights’ p.44

(2) ‘The Christian powers both of the East and the West looked to the Mongols to assist them in their wars against the Musalmans. It was Hayton, the Christian king of Armenia, who was mainly instrumental in persuading Mangu Khan to despatch the expedition that sacked Baghdad under the leadership of Hulagu, the favour of whose Christian wife led him to show much favour to the Christians’ Arnold, ‘The Preaching Of Islam’ p.221.

I have always felt that Tim Winter must be living something of a charmed life: lecturing at one of the worlds top universities on the nowadays thorny subject of Islam, he is an Orthodox Muslim, classically trained in both Islamic and Western methodologies as well as an outspoken critic of the extremist and puritan tendencies in both Muslim and secular/liberal communities. I always wondered how a guy like that could survive in today’s environment - would he not be eventually assailed by Salafists and/or Liberal extremists? How could a voice so valuable to the Muslim community here and abroad, a bulwark against violence and puritanism, enjoy the approval of both Muslims and other intellectuals? It was almost too good to be true.

Sadly it seems that Winter has recently been targeted for comments he made fifteen or more years ago regarding homosexual practices. It was deemed worthy of a Daily Mail article and some student groups and (mostly) self – appointed gay activists, as well as secularised Muslims have been screaming for his tenure, blood or a ritual sacrifice.

He has apologised for the remarks, made before he took up his current post at Cambridge and said they do not represent his current views. Here are the offending comments as reported by the Mail (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2318169/Muslim-Cambridge-University-theology-lecturer-Tim-Winter-says-gay-ultimate-inversion.html):

- Homosexuality is the ‘ultimate inversion’.

- Homosexuals don’t know what their bodies are really for

- Homosexual acts are a defiance of God

- Homosexuals are ignorant of something even animals know

- There’s no [valid] argument for legalising homosexual acts

- Homosexuality is harmful to peoples health. It’s a vice.

Of course, the ‘I told you all Muslims are evil Bond villains’ lobby (Douglas Murray et al) are barely containing their glee and demanding resignations, public hangings etc. A typical response:

”Gareth Rhys, 23, a finalist studying History of Art at Magdalene College, said the ‘hateful, anachronistic views’ expressed in the video made him feel ‘deeply uncomfortable’. He added: ‘I think he should be removed from his position as Director of Studies because his views could cloud his judgement when dealing with gay students and could even put gay people off from applying for his subject for fear of prejudice.”

The Cambridge student rag reports the same story here: http://cambridge.tab.co.uk/2013/05/01/inexplicable-aberration-cam-lecturer-slates-homosexuality/ and goes on to publish a ‘Muslim’ (apostrophes since the writer states that ‘A Muslim, simply translated, is anyone who subscribes to the belief that there is some sort of higher power and who also tries to be a good person.’ Just like a Christian is someone who believes in the multi-verse, emergence, Buddha or reincarnation and tries to be a good person. Don’t sweat all that stuff about God and Jesus and whatever).

The writer concludes:

‘…he is no spokesman for Islam. If you want to know what Islam says about homosexuality, go read the Qur’an, or read articles gay Muslims have written. Don’t take someone’s words or actions as evidence of the doctrine, because they probably don’t know it as well as you could. Unfortunately, that will probably remain true until religious people stop being shit at applying their doctrine to the real world.’

?!

Don’t take anyone’s words or actions as proof of a religions doctrines since they probably don’t know it as well as you do? Like, you know, how we all know more about Tibetan Buddhism than the Dalai Lama right?! Tim Winter is biased so we should only discuss this with gay Muslims since they’ll be completely fair and detached from the subject.

Reality Check

Tim Winters has apologised, and that should be that, especially as the comments were made outside his professional role at the university and before he even took up said post. But the real reason that this has become a problem is the ‘Thought Police’. Let’s take the above comments: did he say that homosexuals should be harmed or hated? Did he even make an existential judgement on them and say they were ‘evil’? Newspapers are printing the above statements highlighted like they establish some hideous Holocaust denial level guilt that is self evident, but what on earth did he say? That homosexuality is unnatural, a sin and unhealthy. That’s it folks. The thought policing is that anyone who says that homosexuality is anything other than ‘good’ is to be outed as a hater and crushed.

But why is it ‘good’? Why is it not a vice? For that matter, why is heterosexual sex good or bad? This is never explained, but if you don’t follow the popular narrative, you deserve to be publicly shamed, lose your job and reported in the national press.

This reminds me of a story narrated by an elderly gentleman who said that in ‘his day’ they universally hated homosexuality, but they had no reason for this and it was dangerous because they were hating something without any basis. Today he said, it’s the exact opposite, and everyone is tripping over themselves to show how approving they are of it. But nothing had changed, people were liking or hating blindly, just based on what society seemed to approve of at that time. He concluded by saying ultimately this was bad for gay people, because the basic mentality of the people (i.e ignorance and blind following of social consensus) had not changed. They could just decide it was bad again, as society had oscillated between these positions since ancient times.

What the ‘Gay lobby’ needs to realise is that the laws on gay marriage or even racism are just like any other laws: as long as you follow them, you don’t have to agree with them or ’believe’ in them. You can legislate how people act in public, but you cannot force them to agree with your agenda and ideas personally. You can legalise gay marriage, but you can’t make people agree with it. And as long as there is no physical harm, LGBT campaigners and secularist fundamentalists will just have to allow people to dissent in public, or risk banning and persecuting the same freedoms which they used to secure legislation like gay marriage in the first place. If one uses freedom of speech to campaign for greater recognition and exposure for homosexuality, as has happened, one must expect a possible ‘counter – insurgency’ using the same means from people who disagree.

It’s like me saying I want the right to preach Islam, but then anyone who debates with me or disagrees must be a dangerous hater and should be silenced. We can all see that example for what it is, but then the gay lobby often engages in exactly the same behaviour under the banner of ‘homophobia’ or ‘hate speech’ and it is accommodated, especially when it can be used to target less favoured minorities like Muslims – who are the ‘gays’ of today’s society: you can say what you want about them, and it is allowed. Taking a community from being a persecuted minority to a protected minority requires a strong basis rather than just that we should all fall into line. Homosexuals suffered horribly in the past, but this does not mean that they should become a favoured group and we just go on to persecuting some other minority now. It’s like playing musical chairs with prejudice. Okay, let’s leave gays alone now and make it okay to be openly gay, but being openly Muslim, that’s another matter…

For example, I happen to believe in eating meat. Some other people find the mere idea of it extremely distasteful, let alone my practice of it. I can make them recognise my right to eat meat and insist that they don’t harm me on account of it. But I can’t make them ‘like’ it or proscribe them from speaking out against it. They may even say something like ‘meat is murder’ which even accuses me of a serious offence for my meat eating behaviour, but I have to tolerate and refute them on an intellectual basis. I can’t start dodging the criticism by insisting on purges of people who criticise my behaviour or their removal from public or academic life: like it or not, that would just be my attempt to take over and brainwash people. Whether I was right or wrong would make no difference. My method would still be censorious and indeed totalitarian.

Many homosexuals have come out and supported Sheikh Winters and this is heart-warming. But the militants of all sexual orientations and religions who are salivating for his blood (read: university post) need to recognise that what he has said is absolutely standard among faith communities of the orthodox variety in Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism and even systems such as Confucianism or Daoism (which stresses the same polarity of genders as Winters mentions in his talk) (1). For example, the Dalai Lama, in a meeting with Buddhist leaders and human rights activists in San Francisco (of all places), commented that all forms of sex other than penile-vaginal sex are prohibited for Buddhists, whether between heterosexuals or homosexuals. “From a Buddhist point of view, [gay sex] is generally considered sexual misconduct.’

These systems and religions all have their methodologies of determining what is and is not acceptable conduct and they differ greatly with each other but more so with ‘Liberalism’ on a whole host of issues, including homosexuality. You will never run out of passages disparaging homosexual conduct from these traditional religions. If the militant ‘gay lobby’ want to be tolerated, as it indeed should be, then it too has to tolerate dissent and criticism. We cannot replace the tyranny of hateful homophobes with the tyranny of militant homosexuals themselves demanding universal approval for their behaviour. Nor with the tyranny of any other group which wants to claim exclusive rights to propagate the ‘only truth’, Muslim or otherwise.

The Dalai Lama, Sikhs, the Pope, Hindu leaders, Daoists, Confucians (men in sexual contact with men or women with women are not considered in the ‘five relationships’), all disapprove of homosexuality, morally and in practice. Should we sack the Pope or the Dalai Lama and get more ‘gay friendly’ versions of them? If Tim Winter cannot hold a public post of mere university lecturer or pastor while morally disapproving of homosexuality since he may ‘influence people’, what about religious leaders or indeed politicians who find it distasteful? Should they be censored, sacked, limited from running for office? Remind me, how does fascism start again?

Tim Winter is merely expressing the undeniable reality that in virtually all traditional ways of life, things do not become licit or ‘good’ because they feel good or are popular. They have other bases for deciding what is good and that has to be respected.

‘Some people don’t like gay sex. Get over it’

What also has to be respected is that just as most of my gay male friends find vaginal intercourse distasteful and their community will not hesitate to use strong words like ‘I don’t see what anyone could see in a vagina’ or lesbian publications insisting that attraction to men is inexplicable and even bizarre, heterosexuals similarly find the homosexual tendency unappealing. They don’t ‘get it’ just like most gay people don’t ‘get’ heterosexuality (and aren’t afraid to say it). Should we now also start having a go at all homosexuals who don’t like straight sex or disapprove of it? Should we have a go at lesbians who think sex with a man is ‘nasty’? Should we criticise feminists who say that giving oral sex to a man is degrading? Hang on, aren’t we back where we started, persecuting gays again?

Even if it is just a matter of taste and not morality, we have to understand that taste can be very divisive: some people see haggis as eating faeces whereas other people love it. We can’t start enforcing that everyone has to agree on matters of taste by not expressing distaste at something. Just as how a lot, or rather I would say most, gay men cannot comprehend a woman as a sex object and would no doubt find it an extremely squeamish experience, likewise most heterosexual men and women cannot envisage anal sex as an expression of love between two people, and they may show their distaste in terms one may not like. Unless they are calling you evil or asking for you to be harmed, live and let live. Or, to paraphrase a recent campaign by Peter Thatchell: ‘Some people don’t like gay sex. Get over it’

Tolerance means we learn to get along and agree to disagree, not punish people who don’t fall into line or shut them up. It is disgraceful when Muslims or anyone else vilify homosexuals or incite people against them. Such people should be shunned but Winters is certainly not one of these people as any sane person reading his comments can see.

It could be argued that a large religious majority of people throughout history as well as today hold similar views. And even if they don’t, they at least want the freedom to express them without loss of standing or income. and express them in that very way. Though Tim Winter has apologised for his views and the way they were expressed, why can’t he say things in that manner? Gay people have a right to know how their behaviours are viewed by certain people with honesty, they don’t need to be cocooned by an ‘extra layer’ political correctness compared to everyone else (Muslims certainly aren’t nowadays), and they are no more fragile than any other segment of society.

Though harsh, what Tim Winter said was not, frankly, out-with the kind of language used in these discussions: the most rude thing would be his comment about ‘even animals know how to act’. I personally find this somewhat off-key but many Liberals use the exact same argumentation to legitimise gay sex when they point to it’s prevalence in the animal kingdom. I think in both cases making an analogy of gay behaviour with animal behaviour is inappropriate. But both sides have done it and righteous indignation is thus not justified.

The Increasingly Common Offence Of Comparing Disliking Gay Sex To Racism

Another standard attack repeated by those who would like to see Winter, one of the only authorities in the U.K who can stem any tide of extremism, gone, is that no-one would put up with a university lecturer who was racist, so what’s different about his comments on homosexual acts? Let’s ignore for now the fact that there are numerous ‘academics’ (the word is used with caution) who not only make Islamophobic comments  but have indeed made a career out of it and are tolerated just fine and there are no militant secularists/liberals/gay lobbies leading a campaign to purge our campuses of them or indeed people like Sam Harris who can openly assert that killing people for merely holding certain ideas is a potential moral good (a totalitarianism beyond even Orwell’s imagination).

Race is not a behaviour: believing that it is is the very definition of racism. So the comparison is completely inappropriate and indeed offensive. Both homosexual acts and heterosexual acts are behaviours; we can argue about whether they are choices or to what extent they are determined but if engaging in a sex act is the same as the fact of the colour of your skin or curliness of your hair, then this is a profound absurdity. Judging people on behaviour is necessary, normative and valid, whether the judgement is right or wrong is another matter entirely. Behaviour is not like race in any way whatsoever. Rather, behaviour is something which is a manifestation of your world-view, your will, your beliefs or your choices. Your ethnic group, race or even your nationality is most certainly not like that: it is out of your control and is purely deterministic.

Further, insisting that behaviour as complex and nuanced as homosexual orientation is not an act of will at all is dangerous if one makes the analogy to any other thing which could be called a behaviour, like heterosexual sex, choosing a university or partner or even going to war or murder. We have to be careful of the more dangerous solutions to the nature/nurture argument that have plagued mankind through its’ history.

Tim Winters’ critics, blinded by the opportunity to ‘score one’ against a Muslim intellectual or maybe just witch-hunt a dissenting academic, just haven’t thought this through: on even a superficial analysis, their attack on him exposes ideas far more dangerous to homosexuals (and the rest of us) than anything Winter has said.

(1) Murata, Sachiko: ‘The Tao of Islam’

Very controversial comments by a blogger friend of mine on the issue of ‘Muslim grooming gangs’ and exploitation of ‘our white women’. Not necessarily representative of our opinions at all, but raising some important points which perhaps need to be discussed by Muslims. I know the writer is an Asian Muslim man, so I have permitted  his ‘racial centric’ critique in the spirit of Malcolm X and indeed Franz Fanon, both of whom he references.

The alleged exploitation and degradation of ‘white girls’ by ‘Muslim gangs’ has been making the headlines in the U.K recently. A ‘grooming gang’ has just been sentenced in Oxford.

The ‘pimping white girls’ that the far-right groups such as the EDL  go on about is a very complicated situation. There are areas such as the Northwest, where ‘pimping’ and even the strip – club industry seem to be monopolised by Muslims. However, we need to bear this in mind: ‘white folk’ react a lot more badly to the same crimes when they are done by Muslims than non – Muslims. For example, plying a teenage girl with alcohol for sex is depressingly universal and a well known cultural artefact in the U.K, shared by both paedophiles and teenagers themselves. But it tends to only become an ‘issue’ when done by Pakistani pimps. So there is a  ’if anyone is going to rape our women it should be us!’ mentality going on. One in five British women was claiming some form of sexual molestation in the 2001 British Crime Survey.

That ain’t all being done by Muslims.

In fact, a large part of the reason ‘white girls’ end up under the influence of Asian men is due to how badly they are treated by ‘white guys’. The Asian then becomes the exotic ‘other’ who is perceived as a ‘way out’ of drunkenness, broken families and poverty. The white population in some of these areas such as the North-West  is horrendously poor. This was articulated by George Orwell in his work ‘The Road to Wigan Pier’. The situation in the NW of the UK, like the horrendous situation in the NW of Pakistan, has improved little in many respects since Orwell’s time.

The ‘white girls’ see the Asian men (often Muslims in these areas) as an escape. However, the Asian men see the girls as an opportunity for an easy lay. Also, these poor girls do not realise that the Asian men have learnt how to treat women from the exact same sources as White and other men; namely porn and Hip – Hop music (a recent survey in relatively conservative China showed that 85% of teenagers said they first learnt about sex from hardcore pornography. This is not the kind with German plumbers coming round to fix a fridge and then friskiness ensues, this is stuff which even liberals like Chris Hedges and feminists like Andrea Dworkin are getting censorious about.).

On top of the fact that the conditioning of the Asian men is basically the same as the prevailing community and culture, comes the added factor that there is a huge deal of sexual repression and a militant insistence in the Asian community in the North on cousin marriages (some say 80% of marriages in the UK Pakistani community are consanguineous). In fact, not far from where some of these gangs were arrested, in a place called Dewsbury, they have an international conference of Paediatricians, since that is the only place in the world where you can see so many recessive genetic illnesses, due to the endogamy of the Asian Muslim community.

This is where religion comes in: it is twisted in such a way as to ‘justify’ forced marriage, approve of consanguineous marriage and to encourage extreme segregation from Muslim females. Meanwhile, the guys are in a highly sexualised society where twelve – year olds are having sex or even getting pregnant. However, it is impossible for most of them to find a partner. The ones who have had an arranged marriage are not happy with the partners they have (hence the urban legends of the Asian taxi drivers and ‘white prostitutes’). Meanwhile, they can see the beautiful ‘white girls’ on display, and they are stimulating themselves with easily available pornography in the privacy of their bedrooms.

So there is a huge demand for ‘white girls’. They are everyone’s ‘type’. However, as George Bernard Shaw once said: ‘There are two tragedies in life: one is to lose your heart’s desire. The other is to gain it.’ It is not socially acceptable for Muslim men to be in a relationship with a Caucasian non - Muslims according to the values of their own community, it would be frowned upon and they would be pressured into an arranged marriage. Yes, I said guys being pressured, not just girls. I went to university in Manchester and all (and I do mean all) of my male Pakistani colleagues were being forced into marriages to some extent. It is a extremely common practice, to rebel against it invites ostricisation and even violence. I got a big shock.

So we have the ingredients:

- You live in the most deprived part of the U.K and whether you are a white girl or a Muslim man, you have little education and even less money or opportunities.

- As a Muslim man, you want sex, but you are not allowed to have it or you have to have it with someone you don’t like physically. You find release in pornography and masturbation, but this actually worsens your self – control and heightens your    desire.

- You like white girls because you are brainwashed by the media and since all the girls in your community look the ‘same’ (because they are often all related).

- Asian people in general also rather idiotically venerate light skin, even amongst each other. So apart from the media, they even brainwash themselves into liking white girls. We all know that in ‘Asia’, skin lightening cream is the number one ‘cosmetic’ product that people buy. You see, if it was the case that Asian men merely wanted to go for non - Asian girls that would be one thing, but you never see them with Black chicks or even mullatoes. It’s got to be a white chick or an oriental (preferably the Northern Chinese milk – bottle white ones though).

- White girls are seen as a trophy or status symbol due to the inferiority complex a lot of Asian men often have. I need say nothing more on this as Malcolm X and Franz Fanon have produced comprehensive analyses of this mentality in the Black man in America and France and her colonies respectively and their observations apply to British Asian men in their entirety.

- The religious community is silent or usually complicit. This goes for all ‘sects’/groups.

- They encourage you to ‘look down’ on white women as not worthy of your love or marriage. Although this has some basis in reality in the sense of social and religious incompatibility, they exaggerate the case since they don’t want you to do the logical thing if you are desperate and lonely and don’t have access to ‘pious sisters’ (like they do, but then, they’re not sharing), which is to get together with the nice white girl down the road. Since they think that will be disastrous for your iman (as opposed to being starved of female company and love which must be far more beneficial for your ‘iman’).

- Many of the Muslim girls are in ‘Islamic Girls’ Schools’. Not so the boys though. The girls are preferentially given an ‘Islamic Boarding Education’ (actually an imitation of Christian seminaries/convents) compared to boys. This is ostensibly to ‘protect’ them from ‘haraam’ (i.e having sex with anyone other than their cousins or who their family tells them to). However, the boys don’t need such ‘protection’. If they want to ‘sow their royal oats’ then that’s too bad, but as long as they don’t marry the ‘white slappers’ they consort with then c’est la vie.

- The above results in Muslim boys having no access to Muslim girls. At all. Ever. The religious and community establishments are in absolute and totalitarian control of the interaction between men and women. Ideologically in the case of the religious and physically in the case of the community. But with a large overlap.

- Sometimes the real reason Muslim girls are in such institutions as ‘Muslim Girls Schools’ is to dis-empower them educationally and economically and thus make them vulnerable to an ‘arranged’ marriage. No matter; by the time they get out of the ‘convent’ they will be so sexually desperate that they will take the first guy you give them. The Deobandi religious establishment in particular ignore the inglorious side of girls’ schools because it is a massive legitimacy/revenue stream for them. It’s also a great way for the Deobandi establishment to get ‘first pickings’ of any of the female religious students for their own families and contacts, thereby shutting out anyone else who may be a more ‘worthy contender’. Since all’s fair in love and war, right?

For the above and many other reasons, the market is there and someone will step in to fulfil it. Recall that in prostitution, it is not only the ‘producer’ who is exploited, but also the ‘consumer’: both are degraded and de – humanised. In the sex industry, the only one who wins is the distributor.

And the ones who are guilty are the ‘market forces’ and the ‘suppliers’.

And indeed, the biggest cause of the market forces is the culture (including all the stuff like segregation, arranged marriage & colour bias etc.)

The second biggest cause is the religious establishment, who have made marriage hard (in reality impossible) and fornication easy.

Yes, some evil Asian men (but also many Eastern European and Chinese, Black and other groups: 80% of sex workers in the U.K are illegal immigrants according to the Police five years ago. I’ll bet you it’s a lot higher in reality) have instigated a modern day ‘White Slave Trade’.

But who made the market for them to operate?

Is this the most sensational knife – crime in London’s history?

This week saw another horrific knife crime murder on the streets of London. This one was particularly shocking as it was an attempted beheading allegedly done in the name of Islam. This led it, unlike the many stabbings and killings by edged weapons which sadly take place in London, do be deemed an act of ‘terror’.

Instantly the EDL demonstrated in Woolwich and at least two mosques were attacked. The Prime Minister exonerated Islam of guilt and appealed for calm.

There is no doubt that this attack is to be condemned as an abhorrent murder and Islamicly illicit. Further, there is no doubt that we are all to give our sympathies to the family of the murdered soldier.

However, let’s calm down and think about this for a minute, as Glen Greenwald has here:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/may/23/woolwich-attack-terrorism-blowback

What is really concerning here are two things; first of all, that the murder of a soldier, though no doubt unconscionable and horrific, can be labelled, at least for starters, not as a murder by two unhinged individuals but as an act of ‘terrorism’. Despite our sadness at the attack, it is unhelpful to not challenge this narrative, as Greenwald shows, since this is counter-productive in allowing an unacceptably broad definition of ‘terrorism’. It also feeds fear and hysteria, with the Prime Minister saying we will not be intimidated by these horrendous acts, but at the same time (somewhat self contradictorily) labelling them a terrorist attack. As Greenwald eloquently showed, there is seemingly no way in which to see this as a genuine terrorist strike.

Second is the assumption that the Muslim community should be seen to apologise publicly and profusely for this incident. They should not only be sorry but be seen to be sorry. Why? And why do they need to be in fear of reprisals? This is the exact same logic as the perpetrators of the act itself: they are willing to make ‘reprisals’ on random off-duty soldiers for the perceived crimes of their colleagues abroad. Just as the 9-11 or 7/7 bombers thought it was legitimate to attack the civilian populations of countries who they considered as being ‘aggressors’. The fact that millions of British Muslims should now ‘watch it’ shows that the mentality of large segments of the British media and public may in fact hold to the same kind of polarisation that the terrorists themselves do. In foreign policy this is very evident, with targeted assassinations and civilian causalities or victimisation by sanctions being par for the course if you are not brave enough to ‘rise up’ against unfavoured regimes. We then engage in the same absurd intellectual and factual gymnastics to label these strikes as ‘acts of war’ and not terror that we have engaged in to try and paint Wednesdays’ horrific murder as a terrorist attack. But the logic of exaggeration and collective punishment is disturbingly similar.

The important question which Muslims and non-Muslims should be asking is that if a community should have to ‘check itself’ due to one murder, then what happens if there is a larger attack? What Muslims and their countrymen do not want to face is the reality this attack exposes about community relations in the U.K: after a decade or more of wars aboard and media caricaturing of Islam at home, large sections of the British public have become so agitated against Islam that the situation is like powder keg waiting for the right spark. Muslims know it, community leaders know it: even the Prime Minister knows it, which is why, in an out of character statement, he made the exoneration of Muslims and community cohesion the centrepiece of his response.

This was no accident: he knows full well what the irresponsible ramblings of both Right and Left in the UK have done over the last decade: leave the Muslim community extremely vulnerable. We all know it, this is why it took a non-Muslim like Greenwald to issue the ‘calm down’ orders that he courageously did. If a Muslim had made the same point, he would not have received a platform in the first place and if he had, he would have been berated for not being ‘apologetic’ enough.

That did not stop ‘kill all Muslims’ trending on Twitter. How’s that for a proportionate response?

But the logic of:  ’Your community needs to explain what members of it, no matter how few, did to members of my community. Right now. Or else!’ is sadly common to radicals and the wider British society. While the Prime Minster and much of the media were right to call for calm (but then, what was the alternative?), at the same time, they both inflated this tragedy as much as possible. And they inflated it in an unacceptable way.

Would British society tolerate it if every-time there was a racist murder or even an Islamophobic murder, (like the apparent killing of a 75 year-old man returning from mosque recently who was  stabbed in no less of an indiscriminate or brutal manner than the poor soldier:http://m.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/may/02/birmingham-murder-racially-motivated-police) people from the affected community demanded that it be labelled an ‘act of terror’ and insisted that relevant representatives of the perpetrators community (in the above case ‘white people’) be seen to visibly and excessively ’apologise’? We would all recognise that as absurd. But not so for this tragic killing.

Muslims can’t see the wood for the trees: in not highlighting the narrative of escalating responsibility that is being placed on the Muslim community as Greenwald has bravely done, they are sowing the seeds for their future persecution. They are understandably afraid to say ‘Hang on, let’s calm down’  for fear of not being seen as being ‘sorry enough’. But by going along with the narrative, they are further undermining their right as equal citizens and feeding into the ‘us and them’ narrative where attacks on ‘us’ are disproportionately hideous compared to acts against ‘them’ – the common thread that links the terrorist mindset with that of British the media, and sadly, wider society.

”Yet rather than treating this as a knife crime committed by two deluded men, the authorities and media have treated it as a declaration of war. The powers-that-be have gone on to an actual war footing in response to it…Politicians say we will ‘stand firm’ in response to what happened, as if Britain had just been invaded by a foreign army rather than having witnessed a horrible knife attack. Meanwhile, the media have transformed the two stabbers into massive threats to Britons. ‘You people will never be safe’, screams the front page of the Guardian…

The authorities’ overreaction to this act of murder represents a kind of unwitting moral collusion with the terrorists. In a very real way, it completes their act of terror, by allowing it to have the kind of impact that the two men on their own could never have: freaking out the British public, bringing the political class to its knees, and putting the security forces on high alert. In its response to the Woolwich murder, British society has thoughtlessly sent out a clear and quite scary message: if you want to hold the British political elite to ransom and transform yourself into an instantly famous representative of modern-day, civilisation-rattling evil, then all you need to do is carry out one bloody act on a street somewhere in London. You know what would have been a far better response? If Cameron had stayed in Paris, if COBRA had never met, if the two stabbers had simply been arrested and investigated by the police alone, and if their act of pseudo-political knife crime was covered on page 4 or 5 of the papers, not on page 1.”

Sudais with Arnoud Van Doorn, the Dutch Islamophobe who recently converted to Islam. I am sure Sudais comments will ‘secure’ his new faith…

Abdul Rahman Ibn Abdul Aziz as-Sudais is the Wahhabi appointee for the Imam of Mecca mosque by the Saudi Ministry of Religious Affairs. This is Islam’s holiest site and it means that as well as his Quran recitations being coveted throughout the Muslim world and selling millions, he leads Muslims in prayer when they undertake their sacred pilgrimages to Mecca.

His Wikipedia page tells us that he has spoken out against extremism and suicide bombing. More on that later, but he clearly forgot when he said this about the assassination of Sheikh Ramadhan Al Bouti (along with around fifty other people) during a sermon in a mosque (of all places) by a suicide bomber:

The following are some of his comments (For those who can read Arabic,  I have put the news agency below)

            Every believer should rejoice as this is glad tidings وهذا مما يستبشر به كل مؤمن ويفرح

            Sheikh al-buti was the head of ahli bid’a and dhalalah (deviance)   فالبوطي كان من رؤوس أهل البدع والضلال

            He is a mujahid in the name of The Devil فهو مجاهد في سبيل الشيطان بلسانه وبيانه 

            He is the imam of deviants and evil/deviance lessened due to his death  من أئمة الضلال، الذين يخف الضلال والشر بموتهم

http://arabic.cnn.com/2013/middle_east/3/24/saudi.alsedays/

Now we Muslims, extremely unfairly, get a hard time for being ‘violent fanatics and terrorists’ and the BBC has lately even taken to talking about ‘Islamic terrorism’. It is also abundantly clear that both suicide and killing of non-combatants (and killing by fire) are expressly, comprehensively & irrevocably forbidden in Islam.

But Muslims have to expect criticism when no less than the Imam of Mecca says that it is the duty of every believer to rejoice in the fact that an 84 year – old man has been killed in a suicide attack along with fifty others. We will leave the stuff about speaking ill of the dead alone as that pales into insignificance next to the massive own – goal that his ‘rejoicing’ in the death of a pensioner in a terrorist attack represents (though here is a sample: ”When a friend of yours (brother etc.) dies, leave him and do not backbite him, do not expose their secrets (belittle him e.g.do not say he was bad, and did such and such etc)“ (Abu Daud, 49,  IV /275) .

Before people start saying that this is ‘justified’(!) since Al – Bouti was allegedly supporting Assad’s regime (he was not and even if he was, that does not justify suicide attacks), then they need to realise that they too have just supported suicidal terrorism, thus giving gravity to the worst caricatures of Islamophobes (as ‘Imam’ Sudais has done).

Unsurprisingly, the comments have not been widely reported: from the ‘Wahhabis’ for obvious reason and by the West due to the issue of Salafist support for the Syrian insurgency and their ambivalence towards an apparent supporter of the regime.

The incident also demonstrates how the ‘Dawah’ organisations in the U.K are in fact actually mostly directed towards making Muslims ‘feel good’ and not towards always towards clarifying & refuting misconceptions about Islam: Not one of them has spoken out explaining Sudais’ comments or tried exonerating Islam from his gaffe. Because, you know, the Imam of Mecca supporting a terrorist strike (and even the head of Syrian opposition called it thus and decried it) has no bearing on the perception of Islam does it!?

It is all the more embarrassing that the Dutch convert Arnoud Van Doorn, whose conversion resulted in much celebration in the Muslim world, regretted his prejudiced opinion of Muslims and on his pilgrimage received a copy of the Quran from Sudais (pictured above). I wonder how he will feel about his prejudices when he hears of Sudais’ outburst?

Sudais’ ‘Wikipedia’ page sheds more light on this disturbing and unhinged individual; it says ”Al-Sudais has called for efforts to combat terrorism, discussed ways to combat terrorism,  and has preached Islam’s opposition to “explosions and terrorism”.

Yeah, combat it by ‘rejoicing’ in it’s outcome.

Interestingly, the article then contradicts itself and shames Sudais:

”Al-Sudais has been described as an antisemite for publicly praying to God to ‘terminate’ the Jews,^[18][19][20] and as a result has been barred from conferences in the United States and been refused entry to Canada…In a May 2003 interview with NBC‘s Tim Russert, the foreign policy adviser to the Saudi crown prince, Adel al-Jubeir, confirmed al-Sudais’s statements, agreed that they were “clearly not right”, and stated that he was reprimanded, but was still allowed to preach. He also said that “if he [Sudais] had a choice he would retract these words – he would not have said these words.”^[20] Al-Sudais not only attacked Jews, but other non-Muslims as well, such as Hindus and Christians…Ware pointed out the discrepancy between Sudais’s sermons to Saudis with his speech to Western audiences.^[3]”

With Imams like these, who needs enemies!?

If people now accuse the Wahhabis’ scholarly elites of advocating that the best way of dealing with ones’ dissenters is by killing them, they only have themselves, and Sudais, to blame.

In my time, I have tried lots of places in the UK and Europe to try and gain knowledge: from the age of twelve, I have been to Deobandi madrassas, Salafi gatherings and ‘aqeeda’ lessons, Brelwi celebrations and even ‘Dawah’ groups as well as too many others to even recount. Let’s just say the results have been somewhat of a let-down and in each case I ended up having to fend for myself and not only failing to get the grounding I so desperately wanted and needed, but having to do even more research on my own due to the confusion caused by ‘gaining knowledge’ from these and other sources

I recently had the honour of being invited to attend these guys’ ‘Muslim Retreat’ at Ilham Hall. Frankly, I was left stunned. I am familiar with Sheikh Atabek, but I was amazed at how well trained and grounded the students of Avicenna Academy were. Lay Muslims were treated to a three day session of Islamic teaching the likes of which I personally have failed to find before.

A guy had come all the way from Trinidad just to attend. And I could see why. It made me feel grateful that I had such a valuable resource at my doorstep here in the UK.

You will be able to see for yourself, as they were open enough to let me film the whole thing, so I will be posting the lectures here, but in the meantime, I found this trailer for their Islamic Scholarship Courses.

To top it all off, this is a smashing promo by any standards.

I for one will be signing up immediately.

A detailed and honest look from the perspective of classical Islam. Dawah carriers and apologists frequently fudge this issue and make up their own interpretative frame work, leaving them open to the counter-attacks of Islam – bashers when they bring more authoritative classical sources. So here is a talk explaining the practices of the classical period, so that one will not be taken unaware.

This lecture tackles the issue of ‘engagement’, where basically it is allowed for me to engage my child for marriage to another child when they are still too young to make up their own mind. Islamicly, such an arrangement cannot be consummated, according to the ijma of the scholars, until both parties are mature and agree to consummate. But what if by then the girl in particular is not happy with the arrangement? The man can just divorce, but is the woman not unfairly restricted by having to go to a judge or having a pre-nuptial? What if her father or guardian just married her off for nefarious reasons?
Is she forced to have sex with her husband?

All this is explained honestly and without deception or sophistry.

Tahir – Ul – Qadri, another well know scholar, unleashes an scathing barrage on forced marriage within Asian communities in particular.

Further, this guy includes a savage attack on the practice of ‘cousin marriages’.

At a recent debate in the hallowed halls of the Oxford Union on the motion ’This House Believes That Islam Is A Religion Of Peace’, Muslim journalist and commentator Mehdi Hassan had his turn to speak after two of his opponents had presented the case that Islam was responsible for: war in general, the marriage of children, the murder of children, murder in general, the stoning of adulterers, the mis-education of women, the killing of all dissenters from within and without, the economic backwardness of much of the Earth’s territory, the killing of homosexuals, the government and laws of The Kingdom Of Saudi Arabia, the Government of Pakistan, the government of all Muslim countries including the secular ones but especially Iran, anti-Semitism and the persecution of Jews and a threat to the existence of the Oxford Union itself.

‘I’m sorry’ replied Mehdi Hassan (I’m paraphrasing), ‘I’m sorry for…Saudi Arabia, I’m sorry for 9-11, I’m sorry for 7/7 I’m sorry for…’ The audience laughed.

But they didn’t really get the joke.

How funny they thought, here is this brown man in a suit, a spokesman for his faith and community, look how eloquently he exposes his opponents! They blame him for what people who look and think like him have done! How absurd! His facetious apology exposes their attempt to hold all Muslims to account for the transgressions of some Muslims! Here Here!

But like I said, that’s not what he was really saying. Or rather, it was not all he was saying. He went on ‘I find it strange that I am to be taken to task for the treatment of Jews by self-appointed representatives of Judeo – Christian Europe. The Holocaust…’ before he could finish, the murmur of unease and criticism went up in the hall, a replica of Parliament. A young man stood up and objected: ‘But you’re doing exactly what they did to you! Tarnishing a whole civilization by the crime of some!’

Indeed.

So what?

When they understood where he was going with this line of logic, they did not like it. How could he bring up the Holocaust and use that to critique European post – Enlightenment civilization? We thought he was making a sarcastic apology for the alleged crimes of Muslims. But now it appears what he really wants to say is:

‘If I and my people are to be accounted for the transgressions of our culture and religion, be it in Saudi Arabia or Iran, now or a thousand years ago, how about we ALL play that game?’

And why not? What’s wrong with that? Why can he not attack his intellectual opponents in the broad, sweeping, civilisational, atemporal strokes that they do? Because not only they, but even the rest of the audience would not like the outcome.

How about if every nominal Christian, or European nationalist or secularist or Frenchman or, in short, anyone who ‘looked like’ a member of European ’civilization’ had to explain and apologise for:

- The forced conversion of pagans to Christianity (King Cnut etc.)

- The Northern Crusades against Pagans

- The Northern Crusades against other Christians

- Crusades against the Muslims and Jews and Christians of The Middle East

- The Christian European princes’ incitement of The Mongols to massacre Muslims

- The repeated expulsions of Jews from Europe and the repeated pogroms against them

- The forced conversions of Jews in nearly every Christian territory in Europe. Repeatedly

- The expulsion and murder of Jews from the Iberian peninsula

- The expulsion and murder of Jews from nearly every European state

- The expulsion and killing of the Muslims of the Iberian peninsula

- The expulsion and killing of the inhabitants of the New World by the same Spanish who evicted the Jews…

- And by all the other European colonial powers that made it to the New World (Portuguese, British, French, Dutch…)

- And the Pacific Islands

- And Australia

- The small matter of The Transatlantic Slave Trade and it’s role in permitting the Industrial Revolution

- The slave trade within the European powers (including Britain)

- The persecution of Protestant Churches and by the Catholic powers after the Edict of Worms proscribing religious freedom

- The subsequent persecution of Catholic minorities by Protestant lands/principalities

- All the wars fought over Christian sectarianism, too numerous to list

- All the bans on the expression of various Christian ‘heresies’, too numerous to list

- The ban on practising any religion other than Christianity in the UK until the mid nineteenth century…and all similar bans

- The Spanish inquisition and the thousands of dead Muslims, Jews (and Christians) over nearly 400 years of it’s existence

- The Inquisition in the New World

- The Inquisition in the Philippines and the forced conversion of SE Asian principalities and Sultanates to Christianity

- The Salem Witch Trials

- All the random people that died in ‘The Terror’ of the French Revolution

- The Great Famine in Ireland

- The Opium Wars and The Unequal Treaties

- The ban on religions freedom by Peter the Great in Russia.

- The annexation of Khiva, Bukhara and Samarkand into the Russian empire

- British Imperialism in general

- French Imperialism in general

- Spanish Imperialism in general

- The Mexican Cession of 1848 to the United States

- To save time, ‘Imperialism’

- To save a LOT of time, lets fast forward to…

- WWI (in which 1.2 million Indian troops alone served in a war which had nothing to do with them…and then leaving them out of all of the crappy ‘men in a trench’ movies)

- WWII, which also had hardly anything to do with the colonised nations but in which millions of North African (Muslim), Sub Saharan African, Indian etc troops of all religions served…and then also got left out of all those crappy WWII movies

- The Holocaust. Yes. It wasn’t Muslims ‘what done it’ 

- All those people Stalin killed in collectivisation etc

- Inventing and using Nuclear Weapons

- Testing nuclear weapons in colonies and in areas like Kazakhstan (i.e. not on their own populations)

- We will forget that Communism is a product of Western Civilization. ‘Cos then we would have to talk about Mao, Pol-Pot…

- Jim Crow

- Supporting apartheid in South Africa and resisting sanctions against them (UK, US…)

- Killing at least four million people in the Vietnam War. And making crappy movies trying to show they were the bad guys

- US Interventions in…

China 1945-46
Korea and China 1950-53 
Indonesia 1958
Congo 1964
Laos 1964-73
Cambodia 1969-70
Lebanon 1983, 1984 (both Lebanese and Syrian targets)
Libya 1986/2011

- Uh, lets skip a few to save time…

- Supporting the Shah of Iran and Savak.

- Installing and supporting the same Saudi Arabian regime on account of which Muslims are labelled ‘barbarous’ with billions in military sales and tens of thousands of stationed troops (first British, now American)

- Supporting Israel unequivocally. No matter what they do.

- Supporting assorted Middle Eastern dictators and murderers (i.e Mubarak, Ben Ali)

- Supporting General Pinochet…and countless South American dictators and coups such as

Guatemala 1954

Cuba 1959-1961

Guatemala 1960

Guatemala 1967-69

Grenada 1983

El Salvador 1980s

Nicaragua 1980s

- To save even more time, we’ll only mention the above US interventions and not those of others…

- Killing in the region of a million Iraqis in the Iraq War. Having already killed half a million or more through sanctions

- Actually admitting that but then saying it was ‘worth it’

- Killing at least half a million Afghanis in the Afghan War

- Killing over a million Afghans in the Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan

- Not giving women the vote until the 20th century (when Muhammad (PBUH) gave it to them 1400 years ago)

- Locking up homosexual people until the mid to late 20th Century when the ‘Shariah law barbarians’ of the Ottoman Empire decriminalised it in the mid 19th century (though not declaring it moral)

- Forcing women to dress how YOU want in France, Spain, Germany, Singapore, Turkey…

- Denying women the ‘right to education’ if they dress how THEY want to in France, Spain, Singapore, Turkey…

- Innumerable racist murders. Ongoing

- Innumerable murders and violent crimes within their own borders

- All rape by ‘Westerners’

- All domestic violence by ‘Westerners’

- All ‘Crimes of Passion’ or ‘honour killings’ of women (as I prefer to call them) by ‘westerners’

- All sex trafficking by ‘Westerners’

- All sex tourism and paedophilia in SE Asia (and anywhere else) by Western ‘sexpatriates’.

You get the idea.

What if I as a Muslim was to or expect require all people who look, act or think like ‘Westerners’ to ‘feel bad’ about all of this stuff (and the literally hundreds of other embarrassing ’civilizational gaffes’ not included in this list) every single time they talk about their society and their history?

Further, what if I insist that I would like each community and religious leader, like the Pope and the President of the US, the head of the EU to apologise for all of this stuff explicitly every time he or she talks about ‘their’ way of life, religion, democracy, capitalism or any other idea held by ‘Westerners’?

What if I further reserve the right to blame all of these acts not on the individuals which are responsible, but on the civilization that produced those individuals and on the ideas and beliefs it holds dear, including Liberalism, Christianity, Atheism, secularism, capitalism or whatever else I feel like that day. And if I also demanded that this be entertained under the heading of ‘freedom of speech’, critique or at worst ‘mockery’ and comedy?

Do you get it?

(Taken From Sheikh Atabek Shukurov’s Facebook page)

That much of Hadeeth is very well known…Now, the hidden part!!!

John O. Voll, Professor of Islamic History at Georgetown University reports the follwing sad observation:

‘A report of the impact of international Islamic education in China…notes that Chinese Muslims studying in the University of Medina had a more narrow and rigid definition of Islamic practice than those who had studied with the Grand Mufti of Syria in Damascus.’

- Asian Islam At The Crossroads

Of course, this is unsurprising.

No doubt Wahhabis will see this as wonderful news (or like ‘Imam’ Sudais, see it as another reason to try and kill opposing scholars/civilians/onlookers/children:http://asharisassemble.com/2013/05/30/with-imams-like-these-who-needs-enemies-sudais-shames-muslims-by-celebrating-suicide-bombing/ ).

The rest of us however can only share Voll’s note of sadness at the pervasiveness of the malaise…

The atheist ‘YouTuber’ known as ‘The Rationalizer’ is the worst kind of charlatan and an embarrassment to both religious and non-religious people, not to mention Edward Woodward.

Here physics graduate and Islamic scholar Hafiz Mahmut aka ‘Chuck Connors’ (after joining astronaut selection) exposes his gaffes and bargain – basement sophistry.

He also takes Muslim apologists and speakers to task for forcing ‘scientific’ explanations into the Quran when they really shouldn’t.

‘The Rationalizers’ errors in the fields of science, history and religion are way too numerous to all be addressed individually, but this representative sample of his molestation of cosmology, mauling of the Arabic language and abuse of the historical method should suffice for intellectually engaged Muslims and Atheists, though it won’t stop him subjecting the public to his cheap polemics.

A unique video in both the qualifications of the speaker and the detail of his withering critique

The following is a mailshot/press release from iERA after two of it’s speakers were proscribed by the University of London:

”ACTION ALERT: STOP THE BANNING OF MUSLIM SPEAKERS!

The University of London has stopped Abdurraheem Green and Hamza Tzortzis from speaking at a private Muslim event.

The University of London stopped this event two days before it was to go ahead. They claimed that they had been warned by the Metropolitan Police about two of the speakers who were supposed to attend. These were none other than Abdurraheem Green and Hamza Tzortzis! As you are aware, both are world renowned orators known for their mainstream and normative Islamic views. They have not committed any crime, rather they have spoken out against terrorism and extremism in all forms and consistently call for Muslims to engage positively in society.

Their banning is part of a growing and worrying trend that needs to end now! 

We are asking you to help put a stop to this discriminatory behaviour that insults us all. There are two short and simple action steps you can take NOW to make a difference!

One of our regular contributors has requested we post this…errr ‘response’ to an alleged comment by Hamza Tzortzis. Apologies in advance to both parties (really) but it seems serious points have been raised and deserve to be aired:

I came across this fascinating piece of self promotion regarding my article on IERA’s emotional blackmail when a friend forwarded it to me:

Does this sound like sectarian bigotry?

Relying on lies, twists and clichés?

What’s wrong with us Muslims?

It must be jealousy or outright hypocrisy, because I have no idea why some people spend so much time writing such trash.

Whoever knows this person, can you tell him I invite him to a coffee or lunch (I’ll pay) because this guy has no idea what he is talking about. I want to show him love and really make him appreciate that we have are very broad in our approach, and thinking.

Most of his views are archaic and based on maybe some historical baggage,  that he must have been carrying around for a while.

If anyone knows him personally please tell him I want to have lunch with him – as sincere loving brothers – if he leaves with the same views then that’s fine, but at least he should approach his brothers and speak to them. Lies or misunderstandings are not conducive to brotherhood.

May Allah guide all of us, and shower us with His love and mercy.

http://asharisassemble.com/2013/10/04/emotional-blackmail-by-iera-again/

Love, H.

h.tzortzis

The irony is, I spent almost 40 minutes in Australia defending the madhaahib, defending our beloved brothers and sisters who hold different views on aqeeda – especially where there is misrepresentation. There were some jaahil Muslims who wouldn’t pray behind a hanifi!!!! And I had to spend some time in de-constructing such ignorance. In all my courses, especially AlKauthar courses I always get people to think in an usooli way. I even say that whoever learned doesn’t follow an usool is almost jahil! I also, explain the concept of valid differences, even in aqeeda, and fiqh. Not once have I – especially in the past few years – ever condone or promoted sectarianism or hatred for other views. I always give both views if there is a contentious issue. All of which is recorded.

So I am quite perplexed that some of our brothers and sisters come out with such hatred, and the fact that they support the anti-Muslim kuffar against their brothers in Islam.

I have many talks where I referred to brothers like Adam Deen on God’s existence (recent video in Surrey University – brother Yusuf Ahmet was in the audience and he works at Adam’s institute – ask him), and brothers like Abdullah Al-Andalusi (I even get him to replace me for international trips when I can’t make them! His recent Canada trip is example of that – and our beloved Iberian brother is staunch in his views, lol), and I even promote Shaykh Akram Nadwi especially when I spoke about gems from Surah Yusuf, and shaykh Yawar Baig, etc. The list goes on. So I am confused. Really I am.

My views our that in dawah you must never expose our differences or academic contentions. We must be united. Check all of my talks, they are aqeeda neutral – most of them anyway. The only hate I have received so far is from the neo-salafis and the militant atheists – oh the irony!

Now, this doesnt mean I dont have my own views, I do. And some of them are in direct contrast with brothers even in iERA, but the ummah is in an intellectual war and crisis. For that unity is required. And I believe unity is required regardless, and all of these issues must be dealt with over a nice roast lamb washed down with sweet mint tea

If anyone can arrange a friendly, loving and brotherly lunch, that would indeed make you of the peacemakers

Much love,

Hamza

It is interesting that Tzortzis wants to ‘reach out’ by appealing to a forum on which the post was not written as opposed to directly posting on the site on which the original article was found. Cynics would say this ‘indirect’ approach is a rather vulgar attempt to rally his fan-club on said forum to his defence.

He says he wants to show ‘love’ and then quickly proceeds with a bargain – basement pop-psych insult by accusing the writer of having ‘historical baggage which has been carried around for a long time’ (i.e he is saying the writer has psychological problems). Love indeed.

To emphasise his sincerity, he mentions his apparently effusive love a further two times. As if that was not enough, he then evokes Allah’s love (infinite) for good measure.

So the Devil can quote scripture and donkeys can carry books. And people who want to insult and draw others to fight their battles can speak of ‘love’ (and indeed tea).

He then gets to the real reason for his ‘invitation’: the poor fellow and his employer have been unfairly slandered and misrepresented! Why, he has only just returned from nowhere other than Australia (practically the ends of the flat Earth Sheikh Ibn Baz and presumably Hamza inhabit), where he has been battling for the rights of Hanafis against those who refused to pray behind them (as his teacher Haddad would in all likelihood say that they should not, with his catch-all caveat/get-out-of-takfir-free card that well, if no one told them that Hanafism was kufr then…).

Of course, by this stage I was fighting back tears just thinking of the poor chaps moral heroism. 

Sadly however, on further reflection, it appears he is engaging in the same sophistic exercises he frequently employs as well as the dilettantish pseudo-intellectualism that has become his hallmark (after such promising beginnings): he teaches at Al Kauthar he proffers in his defence – an academy as sectarian as they come (like IERA), with absolutely no non-Wahhabi/Deobandi-Wahhabi teachers, where courses are taught in a militantly sectarian manner and the Sheikhs of the Wahhabi movement, Albani, Ibn Baz and above all Ibn Taymiyya are venerated. Of note is that this veneration is extended despite the support of Ibn Baz (for example) for extremist causes, and yes, perhaps even terrorism. 

Instructors include alumni of WAMY and Medina University (those well known non-Salafi institutes). Examine the wonderfully diverse (note: Sarcasm) biographies of Al Kauthars’ instructors here: http://www.alkauthar.org/instructor.php?id=3 (no women, hmmm…). We can let the reader see their ‘inclusive’ aqaid and affiliations. Lots of Asharis, Sufis, Maturidis…oh wait…

I wonder who teaches the female students they seem so keen to recruit. The male instructors must have awesome self discipline and control. Maybe Hamza is in charge of that department?

But wait now! Poor Hamza has spoken out against both sectarianism and extremism (perhaps he spoke out against the latter in Australia as well: we all know – it’s always hotter down South!).

Poor Hamza, despite being a member, nay, instructor, at not one but two sectarian institutes (that promote barn-door extremist scholars), is not himself a sectarian nor an extremist. Perhaps he just did not know.

And of course, he tells people to behave in an Usooli way (i.e having principles, I mean who doesn’t…even Fascists have ‘usool’)…but what he means of course are the principles of his group, not the madhabs. Obviously he is careful to leave some ambiguity: like IERA, he does not want to make his Wahhabi-sectarian stance too obvious…funding and all that jazz.

Then we get to his real point: criticising the self appointed defender of the faith Hamza is to ‘support the anti-Muslim kuffar against their brothers in Islam’. So the writer has sided with the enemies of Islam by criticising IERA/Hamza. 

Love indeed!…or is it more like crypto – takfir?

But come hither! We haven’t heard the poor brother out yet!

He has ‘referred’ to Adam Deen (but also attacked him and accused him of heresy, as have other prominent members of the IERA team) and Abdullah Al Andalusi (a silly Tzortzis fanboy who cowers from doing anything more radical than saying that Saudi Arabia is not an Islamic state). He is even so magnanimous as to promote Akram Nadwi (a well known Deobandi graduate with Wahhabi leanings, so inclusive that he has allegedly publicly denied that there is even any such thing as A’shari or Maturidi aqeeda – non-sectarian indeed).

Sadly Hamza’s memory failed him regarding the ignominious occasion when his colleague (and fellow student of Haddad) Adnan Rashid called Adam Deen’s institute ‘enemies of the Sunnah’ (i.e of Islam and therefore perhaps a cowardly method of making takfir). And this somehow got posted on the main IERA Homepage…for three days running. Hamza did not race to Deen and Co’s defence then…and it still leaves the issue that none of the people Hamza or IERA have ‘promoted’ have been from the groups that his Imam Ibn Taymiyya takfired, Asharis, Maturidis etc…big coincidence. You know, the kind Hamza tries to take atheists to task for.

Then he predictably rejoined with a call for unity and to hide our differences for the purpose of dawah (i.e intellectual dishonesty and telling people to change their religion but not telling them for what. Or for that matter that he perhaps follows an anthropomorphic creed…like many good Christians and that other Muslims…well, do not). Not very open and honest: ‘Become Muslim!’…’but what is this Islam you speak of? Who is this ‘Allah” you speak of? Is he like, you know, a giant man sitting on a throne in the sky kinda like that painting on the roof of the Sistine Chapel like ‘Sheikh Ul Islam’ Ibn Taymiyya says?’. ‘I’m Sorry, but that’s classified. You can only be told after you have accepted ‘Islam’. And then only over Kebabs and mint tea’. ‘Uhhhh, this sounds familiar…’.

So by now, despite the nauseating repetitiveness of calls for ‘love’ and ‘tea’ (one is left wondering if he would like to dialogue with the critic or date them), we come to realise that it is all in vain: 

He says he is ‘aqeeda neutral’ but he mentions repeatedly the heretical views of Ibn Taymiyya, thereby legitimising him and acting as his interlocutor.

He is ‘not an extremist’  but he popularises a scholar who in the very first page of the very first volume of his most famous work calls for people who disagree with him on the mere matter of saying the intention of prayer out loud…to be executed. By beheading (which Hamza perhaps would remind us is painless, presumably not from personal experience). Taymiyya, scholar who insisted that women be circumcised unto the clitoris. He promotes this man to students around the country (and even, as he keeps reminding us ‘Australia’). But he is not extreme. He is not sectarian. He loves. He wants to have tea with you.

He is not unbalanced, but his organisation has, never once allowed a instructor of a creed against that of his own minority one to have a platform…but they are happy to take their money and donations nonetheless.

He is tolerant, but not of ANY other view of, for example, gender segregation and women speaking to a mixed audience. Ever. 

So tolerance of other views is in reality not tolerating them or accommodating them ever? A fascinating inversion.

He speaks out against extremism, but any attack on him or IERA is an attack on Islam nay, the Lord God himself, as per his post and earlier IERA press release. Islam is IERA and IERA is Islam. Dissenters are the enemies of Islam, the friends of the kuffar. I wonder what Ibn Taymiyya has in store for such?

But why ask Ibn Taymiyya when we have the real scholarly authority behind Hamza and IERA: Sheikh Haitham Haddad. A man so inclusive and so liberal that he encourages us to consider Osama Bin Laden for martyrdom honours: http://www.islam21c.com/politics/2644-advice-to-muslims-on-the-death-of-osama-bin-ladin, reminds us that Jews are descended from apes and pigs (who knew he was a good old fashioned Darwinian!), and insists that we inculcate ‘hatred for all Jews and Christians’.

The less said about his alleged ideas that sometimes innocent Muslims may need to be killed to ‘get at’ the enemy the better I think (gosh, I wonder what they think about innocent non-Muslims…no such thing according to Salafists perhaps?).

Since Hamza is a big fan of ‘love’, we won’t dwell on Haddad and Ibn Taymiyyas very ‘liberal’ take on female circumcision ‘to reduce the sexual desire’ of women. It somewhat kills the mood…

Oh wait, now I know why there are no public female IERA speakers!

So sadly, fearing for the safety of my clitoris, I have to decline his kind offer and will not be able to have tea (or kebabs) with Mr Tzortzis. But I would be more than happy to discuss my article with him in a moderated debate format: ‘Should IERA be Banned From The University Of London’.

After all, an ‘intellectual activist’ such as Mr Tzortzis should have no trouble making his point, even without tea. But something tells me he won’t be accepting…especially from a woman…

Appendix 1: 

How To Be Diplomatic Like Ustad Hamza Tzortzis

Assalamualaikum Warahmutullahi Wabarakatuh [if there is any way of making it longer please insert HERE],

Brothers and Sisters,

Gosh! I just waffle waffle waffle waffle love love love love love hug hugs hugs hugs hugs love love love love

Hugs hugs hugs man hugs groups hugs kisses kisses kisses [INSERT VEILED INSULT HERE]. Love love love love love love cultural reference cultural reference cultural reference love love love.

Love love hugs hugs hugs hugs hugs hugs hugs snogs snogs big wet man kisses [I AM THE DEFENDER OF THE FAITH]. Love waffle love waffle love waffle love waffle love waffle love waffle [I AM THE TIP OF THE SPEAR] waffle waffle love love.

Bromance bromance bromance bromance bromance bromance [insert cultural reference, preferably South Asian HERE]. Love waffle hugs bromance man snog/optional backslap [ I AM FIGHTING THE KUFFAR ON YOUR BEHALF. YOU OWE ME]. SMILEY

Love lies love lies love lies love lies love lies love lies.

Waffle, love half truth waffle love half truth waffle love lie waffle love lie waffle love hugs [MY ENEMY IS THE ENEMY OF GOD +/- CRYPTO - TAKFIR]. Love waffle food reference food reference love hugs big wet snogs.

Mock righteous indignation waffle waffle blah blah blah waffle half truth Mock righteous indignation waffle waffle waffle. SMILEY Mock righteous indignation UNITY UNITY UNITY UNITY UNITY UNITY UNITY [repeat until recipient is sub – catatonic]. Mock righteous indignation Mock righteous indignation [UNITY IS BEHIND US. DISSENT IS DEATH]. SMILEY

Appendix 2

(Possible) Protocols Of The Elders of IERA:

ALL PEOPLE: We want your money so we can pursue our secret agenda and make you into REAL Muslims and get lots of converts so that we can get bragging rights and more authority in the Muslim community.

MATURIDIS AND ASHARIS: Sorry guys, you are kaafirs and we will have nothing to do with you…except, feel free to give us your money (and don’t worry: Sheikh Uthaymeen says you are not REALLY kaafir until we have told you the truth, that is Wahhabism, but if you then reject it, well…)

SUFIS: You are grave worshipping kaafirs and your blood is halal as per Ibn Taymiyya and Sheikh Abdul Wahhab…but this is England so we can’t say that. Cash please though!

SECURITY SERVICES: We are moderates! Just don’t ask us to state an opinion on violence in countries other than our own, because, well you know…

NON – MUSLIMS: We love you (but we hate you)

WOMEN: See above

MEN: You are amazing with superhuman self control – feel free to address female audiences (and have an unusual preponderance of polygyny). But sadly those pesky women are, well, just too darn horny to address men or a mixed audience, we know they just can’t keep it in their pants. Unlike Hamza and Co…Oh, and cash please!

ACADEMICS AND POTENTIAL SPONSORS: We produce serious research – for example, last year we published a paper on embryology (without using our hundreds of thousands of pounds of public donations to actually consult a single embryologist). Uhhh…did we mention ‘cash please’?