Zaid Shakir on Hamza Yusuf

(update: For some reason, this item was removed from Zaid Shakir's web site, and also from several other sites - this letter will remain here as a matter of record, especially since it is already in wide web circulation, and squarely in the public domain.

update 10/3/08: Imam Zaid has written another post clarifying reasons for why the original post was removed from his website. Further down this entry, you can find Imam Zaid's original statement, that (for now) will be kept here as a matter of record.

HOWEVER, it is clear that the sponsors of the Tony Blair Foundation event are not in any way to be blamed for Hamza Yusuf's participation, there was no treachery on their part. I assume that, with this statement, Imam Zaid and/or Hamza Yusuf are taking full responsibility, while also explaining the reasons, for Hamza Yusuf's erroneous participation at the event in question.

Click here for more information on the group Malaria No More that organized the event with the Tony Blair Foundation.

)



Misunderstanding Not Treachery


By Imam Zaid on 03 October 2008

The blog entry I wrote several days ago in defense of Shaykh Hamza Yusuf was based on my misunderstanding of the events leading up to Shaykh Hamza’s participation the malaria eradication program sponsored by the Tony Blair Foundation in Los Angeles, September 25, 2008. In reality, it was a lot of misunderstanding and a breakdown in communication that led to Shaykh Hamza’s participation in that event and not any treachery or deceit on the part of the organizers. The organizers tried to communicate that the venue, sponsorship, and participants in the program had changed due to the cancellation of the original host. Unfortunately, due to the fact that Shaykh Hamza was traveling right up to the day of the program, he never received the above information.

As soon as this was clarified to me, I responded by immediately removing my post from the NID website, as what I had written did not accurately reflect what had actually happened. Although that message was only posted for a few hours, it spread far and wide. I now encourage anyone who still has that message posted on their websites to remove it, and replace it with this one.

To reiterate, there was no treachery on the part of the organizers in their dealings with Shaykh Hamza. No matter what your opinion of any of the organizers, you should not allow a false accusation against them to stand uncorrected. To do so is to deviate from the teachings of our religion.

I further encourage anyone who has been involved in the vital work to eradicate malaria, one of the few remaining public health scourges on this planet, to continue that work with anyone who is making a difference. This is an issue that should transcend politics, and it is an issue that Muslims should be highly motivated to be involved in because of the disproportionately high numbers of Muslims who are suffering from it.

At the end of the day, we have to be submissive to the truth and the pursuit of good and justice, wherever they are to be found. We have to work hard not to allow our passions, especially those that are stimulated by the fleeting vicissitudes of the world and time to move us away from the truth. Let us be ever mindful of the commandment contained in the following verse:

O you who believe! Stand up firmly for God, as witnesses to fairness, and let not the hatred of a group of people lead you to deviate from justice. Be just! That is closer to piety, and fear God. Surely, God is well-informed of all that you do. Qur’an 5:9



-----------------------------
A couple of comments regarding this letter by Zaid Shakir.

1. The news of who the event was being sponsored by was broken at least a week ago, not only by this site, but also by other Islamic forums. I do hope that, for the sake of minimizing any potential fitna, that in the future, better investigation about the sponsoring group will be done (I appreciate Imam Zaid's acknowledgment in this regard).

2. Please, Imam Zaid, don't patronize those of us who took Hamza Yusuf to task for his participation at this event - it is not about "political passions" it is about caring about the millions of human beings who have been victims of the likes of Tony Blair and Bush and others...

THAT is what moves those of us who question Hamza Yusuf, not only in this particular instance, but also some of his other affiliations and actions. And being moved and detesting oppression, and oppressors, is very much a part of Islamic teachings.

3. Finally, lets be clear, no matter what Hamza Yusuf has said at that event, it does not mitigate the reality that he gave credibility to Tony Blair by the very fact that he showed up. This indeed *is* a political issue, and something that the likes of Tony Blair, and those around him, are masters at... it would be useful if Muslims (especially those in leadership capacity) would also have some basic understanding of these kinds of politics, so as not to fall in this kind of a trap.

However, Imam Zaid's letter does indeed help clarify, and help minimize the damage done - and that is a good thing, and well appreciated.


Inshallah, this incident will serve as a lesson.




Shaykh Hamza Yusuf and the Tony Blair Faith Initiative


*******Note that this letter contains erroneous information - there was no treachery involved, and the organizers did indeed attempt to inform Hamza Yusuf about the venue and sponsorship of the event. This error has been, acknowledged, clarified and corrected by Imam Zaid (see above).

As such, one can assume that Imam Zaid and/or Hamza Yusuf are taking responsibility for the erroneous participation at the war criminal Tony Blair's event.*********

By Imam Zaid on 29 September 2008


Insha Allah, This message finds you all in the best of health and spirits and enjoying the blessings of the last days of Ramadan. There is something you should know about Shaykh Hamza’s participation in the Tony Blair Faith Initiative Program recently held in Los Angeles. He was manipulated and set up by the organizers. He had absolutely no knowledge that the program was being sponsored by Tony Blair’s organization. I know because I was used by the organizers to help facilitate the set-up.

I had been working with an organization called “Malaria No More,” to help get Muslims involved in an effort to eradicate Malaria in Africa, a laudable goal as a majority of those suffering from Malaria in Africa are Muslims. Saleema Abdul Ghaffur works for that organization and had approached me about the issue several months ago.

I was asked by Saleema to help Malaria No More and the UN Development Fund to help get Muslims involved in the effort through a program they were sponsoring in the Los Angeles area to expand the effort at eradicating malaria. They also asked me to put them in touch with Shaykh Hamza because they wanted him to speak as a representative of Muslims, to be joined by Rick Warren as a representative of Christians, in an effort to raise awareness around the issue.

There was no mention of any involvement of Tony Blair’s organization as the sponsor of the event. In fact, Saleema knew that I would not help in any way if Tony Blair’s organization was the event sponsor because I had been invited to the launch of Tony Blair’s organization in New York a few months back, and had flatly refused to attend stating that Tony Blair was in part responsible for the murder of over a million innocent Muslims in Iraq because of the role he played in the current war there. Shaykh Hamza would not have agreed to participate either under those circumstances because he has consistently and vociferously condemned that war, which is part of the public record.

This is the background for Shaykh Hamza’s involvement with the event. All of this transpired over a month and a half ago. I stopped monitoring the events after that. In the couple of weeks leading up to the event Shaykh Hamza was in Morocco and assumed that the event was proceeding as a joint effort between Malaria No More and the UN Development Fund, and that it was timed to coincide with the convening of the UN General Assembly in New York, September 25, 2008.

Three days after he arrived back in the States, Shaykh Hamza went to LA for the event. Rick Warren had canceled at the last minute, something he was not informed of. He was taken to a hotel meeting room, having never been informed, or even it being hinted that the event was sponsored by Tony Blair’s group. When he arrived at the hall, he realized he had been manipulated by the Tony Blair people in order to attempt to give some type of legitimacy for his work among Muslims. He was constrained and did not wish to be there, as is clear from the footage of the event. I told him he should have left, but he felt he had given his word and preferred to take the risk of the kind of abuse he would receive for attending than to break his word, as he had promised to attend.

That is what happened and that is how Shaykh Hamza ended up at the program. He was set up and all of us involved should have been more diligent in monitoring the event and investigating the sponsors. However, the last thing any of us would have suspected is this type of treachery.
Since he was there, Shaykh Hamza condemned Tony Blair to his face and warned him of the sad fate he would have when he met his Lord, precisely because of the role he played in the war. He does not endorse in any way the work of Tony Blair’s organization, nor does have any past (or future) connection with Saleema Abdul Ghafur. His only intention was to help eradicate malaria, a disease he was personally afflicted with during his years of study in Mauritania, and a disease whose devastating effect he has witnessed first hand during his years of traveling and studying is West Africa.

Shaykh Hamza has not asked, nor would he ever ask that I write these words. I felt that I am obliged to write them because I was instrumental in getting him involved in this mess. I would caution those critics whose political passion moves them to cast aside Islamic teachings such as verifying news or having a good opinion of other Muslims or respecting scholars, as I would caution myself, to fear Allah.

These are the days of praying for Allah’s mercy and forgiveness, not the days of blind condemnation of other Muslims. Allah will treat us during this month as we treat each other. If we do not beseech Him to be merciful and to forgive others, He will not shower His mercy and forgiveness upon us. What we receive from Allah is a reflection of what we offer Him. Is there any among us so secure with Allah that we do not need His mercy and forgiveness? Is there any among so sure of his or her standing with Allah that we can squander the precious moments of this blessed month in slander and scandal-mongering, as opposed to trying to do some good for our souls?

I might add, that because of this treachery, I have ended my relationship with Malaria No More, and have already initiated an effort to explore how Muslims might effectively address the disease through the auspices of Islamic Relief.

May Allah bless us all during the balance of Ramadan, and may He bring our hearts together and guide us to understand who our real enemy is.

the battle for Islam

The article linked below discusses the official British regime's attempted colonization of the Muslim hearts and minds, so as to severely distort our understanding of Islam. There are both official and unofficial attempts at this distortion - it is not only the hired Muslim "thinkers" - but also those who are not necessarily on the official payroll, but who support and work towards the aim of the US/British regime's attempted distortion of Islam.

The most current incarnation of this colonial policy began under the former British regime's prime minister, and prime anti-Muslim/Islam war monger: Tony Blair. The current policy of the British regime is only a continuation of the fitna started by the Blair regime.

Tony Blair, himself, continues his work of distortions through his new "Tony Blair Foundation." Hamza Yusuf, in turn, gavee credibility to Blair's project by allowing himself to be called upon, and speaking at his foundation, and on the same panel. Mr. Yusuf has also been affiliated with the notorious Radical Middle Way project, along with a host of other so-called "traditional scholars."

(Note that according to Zaid Shakir, Hamza Yusuf was set up with regards to the speaking engagement at the Tony Blair Foundation).

The RMW recently, under the British Home Office's direction, expanded its project to spread their distortion to Egypt - under the title of "Projecting British Islam."

This article is an important read, especially to place the current imperial/colonial policies in historical context:

On 18th of July 2008, BBC News reported that the British government has devised a plan to hire “thinkers” from the Islamic world to discuss issues affecting Muslim communities. Some of the issues that are going to be examined will concern the role of Muslim women in society, loyalty to the State and of course the radicalisation of the Muslim youth. The government-approved list of theologians will be designated to re-interpret or “properly” interpret (as the government likes to put it) Islam so that it transforms into a politically flaccid, government-swayed version of religion.

Ms Hazel Blears, Communities Secretary, stated that ‘it was the government’s job to support the Muslim leaders on controversial issues.’ As to who will be asked to represent the Muslim community at this ‘elite’ gathering still remains a mystery, but one thing is certain, the panellists congregated by the government will have virtually no religious credibility in the Muslim community. Their ill-advised offering to the government has already sealed their fate. This government initiative is the latest project in a series of plans to win the British battle for hearts and minds.

‘Hearts and Minds’ campaigns are usually understood as Western attempts to emotionally and ideologically ‘liberate’ oppressed nations from tyrants, dictators and religious theocrats. The primary objective of ‘Hearts and Minds’ campaigns is for Western forces, who somehow always end up playing the role of the liberator (and never the occupier), to win over the loyalty and allegiance of native populations by selling them promises of freedom, security and development.

Today, ‘The Battle for Hearts and Minds’ is a cliché that is spearheading the American ‘War on Terror’. It somehow makes the current conflict all the more moral and principled.

Over the past few years, the Labour party has initiated a comprehensive plan to launch a major upheaval in the way that the Muslim community functions in Britain. Projects have been launched targeting almost every segment of the community. Through MINAB, the government has proposed the formation of a body that would generate government approved mosque imams, through Citizenship Foundation programmes such as the Bradford based initiative ‘Nasiha’, the government has attempted to penetrate Muslim families by encouraging them to report ‘radical’ members of their household to the authorities, and through government backed forums such as the Radical Middle Way, British Muslim Forum, and the Sufi Muslim Council, the government has attempted to siphon off Muslim affiliation away from the Muslim world. The Muslim community as a whole is viewed with suspicion. This attitude towards Muslims is not new; the current government has a well-established precedent to follow in the annals of the British Raj in India.

read more here

Hamza Yusuf and The Tony Blair Project

update to this post see Imam Zaid's clarification regarding Hamza Yusuf's attendance at this event.

(via the comments section - thank you Khalid)

From Tony Blair's website:

I (organizer of the event) am excited to be able to write to you today about a special event on 25th September 2008 that I will be hosting for the Tony Blair Faith Foundation in Los Angeles.

I (the organizer of the event) am going to be joined on the panel by Tony Blair; Hamza Yusuf, a significant and influential Islamic scholar; and Saleemah Abdul-Ghafur, of Malaria No More and an activist for Muslim women and Islam in the West.

Saleemah Abdul-Ghafur previously served on board of directors of the now defunct and discredited Progressive Muslim Union North America.

Hamza Yusuf has been part of the speakers "roadshow" of the British regime's colonial Radical Middle Way project.

Hamza Yusuf, a one time Islamic scholar, should of-course be fulfilling his responsibility of exposing the imperialists and neo-colonialists. They have slaughtered hundreds of thousands of Muslims in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Palestine and now making noise about killing even more in Iran.

Unfortunately, Hamza Yusuf appears to have no shame, and instead of telling Blair to take a hike, he will sit on the same panel, at an event hosted by this war criminal's foundation - who acted as a partner with the Bush regime in the killing of Muslims.

While people like Yusuf and Abdul-Ghafur hob nob with war criminals, we see that a mostly non-Muslim group held a war crimes trial in Istanbul in 2005.

Following is part of a declaration from the trial, that calls for an investigation of both Bush and Blair for war crimes, and crimes against humanity:

That there be an exhaustive investigation of those responsible for the crime of aggression, war crimes and crimes against humanity in Iraq, beginning with George W. Bush, President of the United States of America, Tony Blair, Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, those in key decision-making positions in these countries and in the Coalition of the Willing, those in the military chain-of-command who master-minded the strategy for and carried out this criminal war, starting from the very top and going down; as well as personalities in Iraq who helped prepare this illegal invasion and supported the occupiers.

That should be enough for any Islamic scholar of integrity, to not only refuse such an invitation, but to also organize a Muslim led trial of Blair and Bush.

It is interesting that supporters of Hamza Yusuf will (rightly) condemn extremists amongst Muslims who have killed other Muslims, yet they will not apply the same standard towards people like Blair who are also responsible for killing Muslims. They will, instead, come up with bogus one liners such as Yusuf's "from protest to engagement." It is this kind of double standards, amongst such so-called scholars, that leads to them losing whatever few shreds of credibility they still might have...

the latest futile attack

Muslim Matters writes on the latest efforts of the neo-colonialists' attempt to distort Islam, in this case, yet another vulgar attack on the Prophet (pbuh).

It is interesting, as the article notes, that the proggie AltMuslim website (edited by Shahed Amanullah) interviewed the author, and even encouraged readers to buy this filth.

Sherry Jones’ interview with AltMuslim is apparently meant to allay suspicions,soothe tempers, and encourage us all to read (to buy!!!) her book before making judgments on it.

Click here to read the article.

Read also The Attack Continues, on Ummah Pulse.

my dear brothers and sisters, just when you thought it couldn't get any worse than offensive cartoons, preposterous videos, and poisonous essays published in national newspapers written by ignoramuses lacking even a shred of personal moral fibre (yes, I mean you Johann Hari), in comes the latest volley in the attempt to character assassinate our beloved Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) and his family.

Amongst those coming to the defense of the author of this obscenity is none other than the notorious Asra Nomani, who wrote in the Wall Street Journal:

Literature moves civilizations forward, and Islam is no exception

That sentence says it all about the proggies, and their neo-colonial orientalist friends: First, to even regard this filth as "literature" suggests something is seriously wrong with Nomani's understanding of Islam (surprise surprise).

Then she also suggests that Islam is a civilization, no Nomani, Islam is a deen, it is a way, a religion - it may (or may not - depending on its followers) inspire civilization, but it is not a civilization. Our understanding of Islam may deepen, or it may remain shallow, or remain stagnant...

BUT:

Islam does not move forward or backwards, or sideways - it remains a Religion as revealed by Allah. And within Islam, as a revelation, as a guide to humanity, there are bounds within which we humans are expected to live.

It is the liberals who refuse to acknowledge that there is indeed halaal (what is allowed and even encouraged, so that humans may fulfill our potential) and haraam (what is disallowed and discouraged, so that humans don't lose our humanity) for Muslims, and indeed for all humanity. Giving up on these bounds, the liberals then feel "free" to go about calling pornography "literature."

It is unfortunate that Muslims go on the defensive when we get attacked this way. There is no reason to feel that way - we should respond clearly, unambiguously, and without any hesitation - and expose the hypocrisy of these attackers on Islam, and their defenders.

down memory lane

Do you all remember the Progressive Muslim Union North America? Here is how google remembers them - how very apt! All that remains is an abandoned web site that google posts a warning about.

Take heed - Quilliam Foundation, Radical Middle Way, and other such projects - if you don't change your ways, then this the future that awaits:



Their flagship online rag - Muslim Wake Up is also more or less dead, and abandoned:

Google is running their worst spam type ads. on that site:

British regime's committee of "Islamic" scholars

An interesting piece by Soumaya Ghannoushi on the British regime's attempts to impose a pro-empire "Islam" on Muslims. However, it needs to be noted that the problem here is not just that these "scholars" are accepting government money, nor is the problem in Muslim countries merely that the "official ulema" are government employees.

The issue here is what kind of a government: the British regime is partners with the US in its war on Islam, the problem with most Muslim governments are that they are little more than colonial puppets of the US.

Similarly, the problem with a "Prince" or any other super wealthy individual, funding a so-called "Islamic studies" program at the pro-empire Harvard University, is his ideological background that leads to himself being called a "Prince" in the first place. And how such individuals amass such huge quantities of wealth, while most of the rest of planet is barely struggling to get by.

It is important to highlight these issues because, otherwise, we can end up not examining what the "sultan" is about - what are his/her political positions, and the kind of pro-empire "Islam" they are promoting.

The question to ask is: when all the noise has died down, what will this initiative have achieved? The answer is very little. The likelihood is that Blears' committee of theologians will fare no better than Ruth Kelly's Muslim Action Committee, Sufi Council, or any of the other government-created paper bodies. The terrorists and would-be terrorists won't look to the government's scholars for fatwas, and ordinary Muslims are unlikely to give them much attention. It may help Blears, who insists on poking her nose in all things Islamic, to learn this old Islamic piece of wisdom: "If you see the scholar frequent the sultan, then point your finger at him and beware."

Islam may not have an ecclesiastical institution that monopolises religious interpretation, but it sets rigorous requirements for the acquisition of the title of "alim" or "learned scholar". At the forefront of these is autonomy from the ruling authorities and their agendas. The scholar is the voice and conscience of believers, not rulers and ministers.

Blears would do well to ponder the fate of religious ministries, government fatwa councils and muftis in the Muslim world. In the eyes of Muslims, they are part of the state apparatus, and thus devoid of moral authority or religious legitimacy. Their imams and muftis are state officials in religious clothing. They receive their salaries, like their sermons and edicts, from the government. This, in a nutshell, is the crisis of the Islamic religious establishment.

Terrorism is, in many respects, an effect of this reality. With the erosion of the traditional learning institutions generated by the process of modernisation and the emergence of the official scholar, radical groups became their own source of interpretation. They scavenge scripture for texts that validate their political positions. If they are to be confronted, it is not through government-picked and sponsored figures, committees and councils. Only the model of the honest, proficient and independent scholar can challenge them.

The British Regime's Official "Islam" in Egypt

The old time colonizers don't seem to realize that their time is over - here they are using a bunch of loyal subjects of the Queen, to spread a pro-empire version of "Islam." At least they are honest about it - they even call it "projecting British Islam."

It should be clear that what they are projecting, is not just about how Muslims live in Britain - at least two of the organizations listed are on the payroll of the British regime, and are representing the same regime that has been partners with US neo-cons. Readers of this blog will recognize the names of the organizations - esp. Quilliam and Radical Middle Way.

There is quite a bit of discussion and debate taking place on a variety of blogs with regards to this British attempted colonization, and distortion of Islam - one such blog is Traditional Islamism - check it out. And also check out the ongoing discussion on Sunni Forum - click here to read the 17 page (so far) thread. 

the debates + more on the "Prince"

A few months back, the Sunni Forum board had a wide ranging debate on the issues surrounding the British government sponsored group Radical Middle Way. While somewhat acrimonious at times, I think the debate and discussion just about covered all of the various concerns - click here to read the thread.

My own view is that no Islamic scholar, nor any Islamic group should be taking funds from a government that has been partners with the US in its war on Islam. And especially not to promote any specific form or school of Islam.

As I have implied earlier, with regards to Farid Esack, nor should Islamic scholars be part of any project, or academic program that has been primarily (maybe even 100%) funded by someone like "Prince" Al-Waleed Bin Talal. This "Prince" funds an "Islamic Studies" programs at Harvard - to promote a form of, no doubt, empire friendly Islam. And then also gives money to support Bush senior, and praises and partners with the likes of Rupert Murdoch (owner of the anti-Muslim, neo-con supporting, ultra right wing FOX news).

This is Al-Waleed's palace:

Al-Waleed's $130 million palace in Riyadh includes a 75-foot-high foyer is framed by dual winding staircases. In all, there are 317 rooms, covering 400,000 square feet. The palace has 520 TVs, 400 phones, and eight elevators. And of course swimming pools (indoor and out), a screening room, a bowling alley, tennis courts (indoor and out), and an Astroturf soccer field (that's outdoors). The staff, all 180 of them, carry walkie-talkies.

I can understand that there are scholars of Islam - even Muslim scholars of Islam - who are primarily academics. However, the task, and role of an Islamic scholar is different than that of a western university professor who is an academic. An Islamic scholar has to not only be a scholar of Islam, but also give primacy to living, and making appropriate choices, in accordance with the Qur'an and Sunna. This role does not change whether one is living in the US, England, Egypt, Iran, Pakistan, or Iceland.

Lets be clear, we are talking about the knowledge of Islam here, Allah's revealed religion. We are not playing games here, scholars have a greater responsibility to take seriously the Qur'an and Sunna, and such issues as sources of funding, contradictory agendas, and the role of the present day war on Islam. This war not only includes the obvious and severe violence against Muslims, but also attempts to ideologically corrupt how Islam is presented (and this form of corruption can be more subtle than the obvious neo-con anti-Islam hate mongering).

I would hope that most, if not all, of our Islamic scholars are savvy enough to not get tempted to join this project at Harvard, and be more vigilant with regards to sources of funding, and institutional pro-empire agendas.

click on image below to get a larger/clearer view:

The Absurdity of Muslims For Obama (part II)

Click here to read part I

see also Obama and our (Muslim) identity



What will it take for some Muslims to figure out that this Presidential campaign is not about who is going to be nicer to us Muslims. It is about who can pander most to the Zionists, and who can make the claim to be the most effective in administering American imperialism.

Why would any Muslim want to involve themselves in such a sordid affair?

Especially, especially, given the fact that the direct target of US imperial violence are Muslims.

So now, two sisters got told they can't be seen with the guy if they got hijaab on...

Frankly, what were these Muslims doing there in the first place? Were they there to register their protest against this guy encouraging the Zionist entity to completely take over Al-Quds, and thereby ethnically cleansing what remains of the Palestinian population? If so, they should've been outside the event carrying Palestinian flags - and making it clear that no self-respecting Muslim is going to vote for this Obama guy, nor for that other dude McCain.

As one Arab blogger noted: "To Arab and Muslim supporters of Obama: he does not want your support. He has made that clear. Please leave him alone."

I am reminded of these still so relevant words of brother Malcolm (audio) - listen and learn.

The enlightened moderate dance

The dude dancing is the Chairman of Federal Board Revenue of Pakistan (the FBR is more or less the tax collection agency of Pakistan). At the tail end of the video, Mr. US Puppet Mu(Bu)sharraf joins the dance. The audience is made up of a cream of the liberal/progressive/enlightened moderate elite of the country.

At one point, the singer asks that maybe the camera should be turned off... but apparently the camera person decided it was OK to film all of this... and then she tells the FBR dude to do the step one more time...

This, dear Muslim brothers and sisters, is just a taste of how the puppet liberal/proggie elites of Muslim majority countries spend their spare time (their full time job is, of-course, licking the boots of the imperialists).

Chairman Federal Board of Revenue Pakistan, Abdullah Yusuf Dancing to a song's tune in a party held in Army House Islamabad which is paid by the Poor Tax Payers Money... Musharaff, Shaukat Aziz and other Blood Sucking Mosquitoes are also present along with their wives. In the end Musharaff also starts to dance but the camera is moved away

Critique of the Quilliam Foundation

Quite interestingly, his (Shaykh Quillam) tract on the ummah and khilafah holds a certain resonance with contemporary Britain and through his writing, it is clearly evident that the sheikh-ul-Islam not only rejected sectarian nationalism, but also affirmed the unity of the ummah and allegiance to Muslims. Thus, it seems quite ridiculous that the Quilliam Foundation, an organisation calling for secularism, the westernisation of Islam, the end to notions such as Jihad, and extremely opposed to the notion of a global ummah and khilafah would have chosen the Shaykh (Quillam)'s name as the title of their foundation. The foundation was formed to ‘tackle extremism’, ‘fundamentalism’ and ‘radicalism’ in the Muslim community, and they have assumed that this goal can be achieved by claiming that Islam is non-political. In actuality, they are openly attempting to promote a form of Sufism, claiming that it is the ‘mainstream understanding’ of the deen. Members of the foundation frequently quote their notions of ‘mainstream Islam’ making extraordinary large claims about the way Islam is, and should be practised in the UK, while all the time maintaining a call for a radical secularist outlook.

I make no qualms about it, they disgust me. Not only because of their contrived views, which stem either from baseless opinions or constructed notions of Islamic law, but also due to the fact that every nuance from their mouths is steeped in ignorance (though they claim to have a mujhtahid amongst them!), while they foolishly manage to contradict themselves at every turn. The lack of true scholarship is clearly manifest in every argument they present, as well as the lack of Islam in their actions. However, the good news is that they have been exposed for all their depraved attempts (possibly unintentionally) to corrupt the deen of Allah the Most Sublime Preserver and those who believe in Him. The truth of the matter is that they are insignificant, with most of their pasts and intentions extremely questionable. But then again, ‘these are good times to be in the "moderate Muslim" business. If you press the right buttons on integration and "radicalisation" and hold your tongue on western foreign policy, there are rich pickings to be had - from both private and government coffers.

read all of the article here

The (Saudi) Prince and Farid Esack

While doing some research on Harvard University and its support of the proggies, I came across this:

"Farid Esack was William Henry Bloomberg Visiting Professor at Harvard Divinity School for the 2006-07 academic year, and is now (2007-08) the (Saudi) Prince Al-Waleed Bin Talal Visiting Professor of Islamic Studies."

This so-called "Prince" is worth 20.3 Billion Dollars, and is the 13th richest man in the world according to Forbes. Readers can do more research on this guy, there is plenty of information available on the net (I will probably do a more extensive write up on this "Prince" later on..

For now, suffice to say that he is also a major funder ($20 million) of an "Islamic Studies Program" at Harvard, where Farid Esack was a "(Saudi) Prince Al-Waleed Bin Talal Visiting Professor of Islamic Studies." during the '07-'08 term.

And:

In 2002, Al-Walid donated $500,000 to the George Herbert Walker Bush Scholarship Fund, established by the Phillips Academy in Andover, Massachusetts, to honor former President George H. W. Bush.

He has also taken a notable pro-American stance, backed up by his $10 million financing of American study programmes at the American University in Cairo.

Prince Alwaleed bin Talal holds a 5.7% voting stake in News Corp (This is the Murdoch umbrella group that owns, amongst other things, the notorious anti-Muslim FOX News) and is the second largest individual shareholder in News Corp (through his Kingdom Holdings business). He has long been a fan of Rupert Murdoch’s methodology.

Prince Al Waleed commented: "We- as Rotana Group- feel that we could not have chosen a better partner than this global media group towards our first step to bring western entertainment through our channels...this partnership is based not only on my long and personal relationship with Mr. Rupert Murdoch, but it is also based on the similarities and synergies between our two media companies."

Esack is known amongst left-liberal circles as someone who supposedly opposes imperialism, and is supposedly a critic of consumerism, and likes to talk about what he calls being "Prophetic." Infact, he is quoted to have said:

"“The progressive Islamist project, if it is to be truly progressive, has to be Prophetic by nature. What I mean by that is that we need to follow the example of the Prophet Muhammad (s), and all the other Prophets such as Jesus who located themselves at the margins of society. They spoke for the poor and the downtrodden of society. "

Wow - does'nt all that sound great? Imagine that - Islamic scholars would locate themselves on the margins of society, with the poor and downtrodden.

And what does Farid Esack do? The guy located himself not just at any 'ol university, he located himself in the most exclusive, elitist, and empire supporting university inside of the US. And if that is not enough, he qualified his name and profession with that of a super duper double multi billionaire - a so-called (Saudi) "Prince" no less:

"Farid Esack is a (Saudi) Prince Al-Waleed Bin Talal Visiting Professor of Islamic Studies."

For sometime now, Esack has been only a bare shadow of what he once was - a tireless outspoken Muslim who actually did live somewhat on the margins - but those days are now long gone.

I am not surprised at the trajectory of Esack, after all just about all the proggies (there are some exceptions) have gone the same way. I just wish some of the more aware activist Muslims would, instead of inviting him to speak at conferences, would challenge not only him - but seriously question and examine at a public level, how people like Farid Esack, and others of his type are contributing to the perpetuation of US imperialism. Because, it is just not possible that such individuals would get these types of "visiting professorships" unless they were serving a purpose.

Unfortunately, they will either remain quiet, or come up with some sort of acrobatic rationalizations...

war on Islam - Australia

Less than 12 months after the opening of the so-called ‘National Centre of Excellence for Islamic Studies’, this Centre has already utterly exposed itself as a Centre of Kufr. Its Directors call for secularism (the doctrine that the Laws of Almighty Allah have no relevance to daily life) with increased frequency, and several of the Centre’s leading figures are not even Muslims.

Read a full report/expose on this "center of excellence" here (pdf)

The UK govt. "Islam"

from the comments:

Just recently the UK version of "pro-regressive Moslem" phenomenon will launch with 2 organizations both bought and paid for by UK govt. funds:

the Quilliam Foundation, exposed here:

http://www.quilliamexposed.blogspot.com/

and the British Muslims for a Secular Democracy:

http://www.bmsd.org.uk/

they are thinking of having Tarek Fatah and Magdi Alah as speakers!

See also "radical wrong way" - another UK govt. funded "moderate" group, that has (unfortunately) attract a number of traditionalists.

See also on Ed Husain (a rabid proggie)

"Ed Husain has also come under criticism for his support of the Iraq war and Tony Blair, coupled with his connections to the right wing of the Labour party. It is known that Ed associates with pro-war Blairites and pro-zionist factions within the party. His political affiliations, has led to criticisms, usually centering around his inaccurate relay of information when citing what he terms 'Islamists'. It has been claimed this is also due to his prior connections and interests, with Islamophobic think-tanks, such as the Centre for Social Cohesion."

Thank You Pope!

A heartfelt THANK YOU! to the Pope for taking this Zionist Moslem --- he's all yours now!

Magdi Allam, a Zionist Moslem dude who is writing a book called "Viva Israel" converted to the catholic religion on Easter.

Dear Pope,

You can have 'em all of the Zionist Moslems. Now, if you find your religion getting all screwy with this influx --- well, too bad... this guy is your problem now.



Also check out Dr. Maxtor's take on this ummm... "conversion" ..

Oh, and "prominent Moslem" ? Eh...? OK, I guess after Heretic Moslems and Proggie Moslems, there is this category of "prominent Moslems" --- if you are a neo-con proggie type --- you get the title "prominent Moslem" kinda like Sir Rushdie.

The Heretics Confer!

First there were the progressives, then came the pro-regressives (proggies) then came the Randists, and now the friends of empire give us: "The Heretic Muslims!"

Yes, The Heretic Muslims will be holding their very own conference in Atlanta, Georgia, USA (check out their web site).

Lets take a look at the "activists" listed on their web site --- these are familiar names to those of you who are regular readers of this blog. However, some of them have claimed to be "mainstream Muslims" such as the notorious ali eteraz and the supposed good doctor, hesham a. hassaballa (both of these belong to Shahed Amanullah's proggie lite (and not so lite) Alt Muslim group).

These so-called "mainstream" types have teamed up with the obviously out there types like asra nomani and irshad manji.

Infact, what this collection shows is that these proggies hiding in mainstream muslim clothings are no better or different than their obviously out there comrades.

abdullahi an-na’im
afshin ellian
ahmad kassim
ahmed mansour
aidid safar
alan godlas
ali eteraz
arnold yasin mol
asma hasan
asra nomani
bassam tibi
dr hesham a. hassaballa
edip yuksel
http://en.fgulen.com/
irshad manji
laleh bakhtiar
mehdi mozaffari
mohamed sifaoui
mustafa akyol
reza aslan
saleemah abdul-ghafur
soheib bencheikh
tarek heggy
thomas haidon

The blog roll in this "celebration of heresy" is even more revealing --- and again, many of these sites are known to regular readers of this blog - they are obviously listed as comrades in heresy. Well, enjoy ;-)

1001inventions
altmuslim
american islamic fellowship
american islamic forum for democracy
apostasy and islam
canadian council of muslim women
center for study of islam and democracy
common ground news
crescentlife
csid
free minds
free muslims coalition
international centre for islam and pluralism
international forum of islamic dialogue
islam reform
liberal islam
liberal islam a source book
liberal islam network
minaret of freedom institute
muslim wakeup
muslims for peace
muslims for progressive values
muslims united against terrorism
naseeb
noor
ourbeacon
progressive islam
progressive muslim union
progressive muslims
quran: a reformist translation
tanseem project
the american muslim
threshold society
truth booth online

The Kite Runner

While The Kite Runner movie is now captivating audiences throughout the country—much as the book did four years ago—with its enthralling tale of “family, forgiveness, and friendship” and the promise that indeed “there is a way to be good again,” very little has been written critiquing this work and its prominent role in the New Orientalist narrative of the Islamic Middle East.

Iranian literature specialist Dr. Fatemeh Keshavarz (Washington University in St. Louis) has classified this book as one of the recent works that she argues constitute a "New Orientalist" narrative in her book Jasmine and Stars: Reading More than Lolita in Tehran. Dr. Hamid Dabashi of Columbia University also has written about New Orientalism and expatriates who serve as “native informers” or “comprador intellectuals” in respect to the Middle East.

Keshavarz broadly characterizes the New Orientalist works thusly:

Thematically, they stay focused on the public phobia [of Islam and the Islamic world]: blind faith and cruelty, political underdevelopment, and women's social and sexual repression. They provide a mix of fear and intrigue—the basis for a blank check for the use of force in the region and Western self-affirmation. Perhaps not all the authors intend to sound the trumpet of war. But the divided, black-and-white world they hold before the reader leaves little room for anything other than surrender to the inevitability of conflict between the West and the Middle East.

While The Kite Runner is perhaps less obvious in its demonization of the Muslim world and glorification of the Western world—what Keshavarz terms the "Islamization of Evil" and the "Westernization of Goodness"—than books like Reading Lolita in Tehran, these themes nevertheless clearly permeate the entire novel. While seemingly just a captivating story of Amir and his redemption through the heroic rescue of his childhood friend Hassan’s son, Sohrab, the entire plot is imbued with noxious stereotypes about Islam and the Islamic world. This story, read in isolation, may indeed just be inspiring and heart-warming, but the significance of its underlying message in the current geopolitical context cannot be ignored.

more here

fall of a corrupt puppet

"I had the chance to meet her (Benazir Bhutto) on several occasions, in which she expressed interest in Israel and said that she hoped to visit upon returning to power." -Shimon Peres (President of "Israel", pictured above with Benazir Bhutto at a "socialist international" (sic) conference) read more here

Muslim women and the discursive machine of hegemony

Soumaya Ghannoushi writes:

It seems that Muslim women - particularly those living in western capitals- are destined to remain besieged by two debilitating discourses, which though different in appearance, are one in essence.

The first of these is conservative and exclusionist, sentencing Muslim women to a life of childbearing and rearing, lived out in the narrow confines of their homes at the mercy of fathers, brothers, and husbands. Revolving around notions of sexual purity and family honour, it appeals to religion for justification and legitimisation.

The other is a "liberation" discourse that vows to break Muslim woman's bondage and free her of the oppressive yoke of an aggressive, patriarchical, and backward society. She is a mass of powerlessness and enslavement; the embodiment of seclusion, silence, and invisibility. Her only hope of deliverance from the cave of veiling and isolation lies in the benevolent intervention of this force of emancipation. It will save her from her hellishly miserable and bleak existence, to the promised heaven of enlightenment and progress.

The truth is that just as there is a military machine of hegemony, there is a discursive machine of hegemony. When armies move on the ground to conquer and subjugate, they need moral and ideological cover. It is this that gives the dominant narrative of the "Muslim woman" its raison d'etre.

Who is Akbar Ganji?

Akbar Ganji is one of a whole slew of self-styled Iranian dissidents who spend their time in the US on a speakers circuit - where they pose their liberal credentials - while in effect calling for regime change in Iran.

Ganji, like some other Iranian liberals, position themselves as being against military attacks on Iran, but nevertheless use the American establishment to pressure for regime change. Ganji does this by taking a neo-conist type negative attitude towards the present government, and political system of Iran. Because Ganji does not call for direct US government intervention or military action against Iran, he is viewed by the, often Islamophobic, liberal-left of the US as a "dissident." Ganji, however, like other such faux "dissidents" want to overthrow the present system, and install what he calls "democracy." (The fact that Iran, during elections, has the highest turn out in the region, if not the world, seems to escape his notice).

It should be noted that while Ganji does not particularly favor Bush, he would never make a public call for an overthrow of the US constitution - he would be deported, or shipped off to Guantanemo immediately if he made such a call. But, if we are to measure the amount of human rights violations, invasions, and the amount of killings that the US has engaged in just the past six or so years - whatever Iran's faults maybe - they are practically non existent when compared to the US human rights violation. So, then why does Ganji insist on the overthrow of the Iranian government, and of the Islamic Republic itself (to be replaced with "democracy") - but does not call for the same for the US during his tours?

An even larger question to examine is why the US liberal-left should call for the internal overthrow of the Iranian government ("regime change" ) while not calling for the same for the US, if indeed "human rights" is the only criteria being used? Remember that the liberal-left and Ganji are not merely suggesting that Iranian people vote for another candidate for president, the "regime change" in the context means overthrow of the present political-economic system itself. The same liberal-left would never ever call for a similar overthrow of the constitution of the US.

The reason, I think, should be obvious - and the name of this blog provides an explanation. This brand of so-called "progressives" and "liberals" are, in reality, imperialists themselves, and they feel that they have a moral superiority - and can make all kinds of calls that they think are "non-violent" and for "democratic change" but infact, these kinds of calls are nothing more than liberal imperialism of another kind.

And so it is no wonder that Ganji has been presented awards by neo-con types sympathizers who recognize him as one of their own, irrespective of his appeal to the liberal imperialists (with whom they only have a difference of tactics, not goals).

Akbar Ganji was recently given an award from the Right and Democracy (or International Centre for Human Rights and Democratic Development). This is a Canadian version of the US imperialist project of the National Endowment for Democracy, that has been involved in destabilization campaigns wherever and whenever any country or people exert their right of independence from US colonial and neo-colonialism

The award was given to him by Saad Eddin Ebrahim one of the most avid supporters of the now-defunct Neo-conservative plans to spread democracy in the Middle East, who has also been the director of Rights and Democracy and now sits on its board of directors. (Ibrahim was previously the director of the (neo-con friendly) American Islamic Congress and is still on its board, is on the advisory committee of the Journal of Democracy, published by the National Endowment for Democracy.

Ganji was also heaped praise by George Bush for his anti-Iranian government's activities in 2005, and said in a White House statement: "Mr. Ganji, please know that as you stand for your own liberty, America stands with you," While Bush is often dismissed by liberal-leftists as "stupid" etc. --- he does know who it is that serves his imperial project. Indeed Ganji himself only opposes Bush's intervention because he knows just how angry the people of Iran would be towards any such move - and probably it would mean he would not get the kind of support he does now from the anti-Bush liberal imperialist crowd.

moderate quote of the month

Benazir Bhutto - the wannabe moderate-proggie puppet in waiting of Pakistan - said an alliance of moderate parties was also being pushed by the United States. “In the past the United States would support dictatorships but now it is supporting democratic forces, which is a sign of encouragement for all the democracy-loving people,” she added. source (pdf)

Progressive Opportunism

Riffat Hassan has written a letter to the puppet Musharraf complaining about his no longer being very supportive of the proggie-reactionary institute she founded in Pakistan to bring about an "Islamic Renaissance." Readers of this blog may remember that Riffat Hassan, in a fit of progressive hypocrisy, had defended puppet Musharraf when he had stated that women in Pakistan were bringing charges of rape to get a green card.

This particular letter by Riffat Hassan is revealing in many ways, because she talks about how she viewed Musharraf, and more importantly, why she had a positive view of this puppet: apparently this all had to do with the puppet's support for her bleak vision of Islam. A lot of what she describes has little to do with the Muslim umma, and more to do with her personally - i.e. when the puppet supported her personally, and her project, she was happy do be a puppet's puppet. Read the letter here..

Those who still hold out on the notions of Progressive Islam and Progressive Muslims (now mainly confined to the super elites of Muslim countries, and Ivy League Imperial Universities such as Harvard) really need to get a grip: As the name of this blog clarifies, Progressive Muslims are nothing more or less than friends of imperialism and neo-colonialism - their affiliation with puppets and with Imperialists have completely discredited them.

Yes, they still have some credibility amongst liberal-leftists, who can identify with the often Islamophobic, and stereotypical image of Muslims societies that these proggies love to perpetuate.

Pakistan's next enlightened moderate puppet

Benazir Bhutto is expected to become the next liberal-moderate-proggie puppet of Pakistan. Benazir is seen here praying to her masters: ya condoli , ya bush.

Who is Raquel Evita Saraswati?

Well, I'm sure about 99.9% of readers of this blog have never heard about this individual who is the Human Rights Coordinator of something called "Muslims for Progressive Values." This group is basically a rehash of the Progressive Muslim Union North America - minus Tarek Fatah - who was giving the proggies a bad enough publicity that they had to dump him (or, maybe Fatah dumped them... or each other).

Here are the names of the executive board of this proggie organization - I'll say one thing for 'em they're good in coming up with self-appointed titles for themselves.

Pamela Taylor (Chair, former PMU co-chair, and chair),

Kareem Elbayar (Vice Chair),

Zuriani "Ani" Zonneveld (President, former PMU executive director), Noreen Dabbish (Secretary),
Vanessa Karam (Interfaith Coordinator),

Raquel Evita Saraswati (Human Rights Coordinator),

and Sabahat Ashraf (New Media Coordinator, former PMU techie or something).

So, now lets take a look at Raquel ---- well, turns out that she is an Irshad Manjist... remember how initially the proggies tried to distance themselves from Manji? Omid Safi, the then chair of PMU, even claimed that she was not a proggie.

Well, this group is not carrying on that charade anymore --- Raquel is Vice-President of Manji's pro-zionist, "Muslim Refuseniks"/"Project Ijtihad." And her website links directly to Manji's website (warning: the front page has a soft-porn photograph of Raquel).

There's more - but I think readers get the idea 'bout what this new (old) proggie group is all about, and what kind of "human rights" they gonna be promoting (google her name if you really wanna know more).

The absurdity of "Muslims for Obama"

The race for the "leader" of the so-called "free world" has begun. The race is, of-course, all about who can be the most jingoistic and play to the worst fears of the "free world" extremists.  

So, Obama says he gonna take the war on Muslims, now, to Pakistan. The country has already been under the rule of a puppet who has slaughtered his own people. But Obama takes it up not just a notch, but to a whole new level. The dude wants to basically complete the job that Bush started: destroy one Muslim majority nation after another.



Oh, yeah - he don't want to nuke Pakistan. But Hillary - she's gonna prove herself to be a real man - she has no qualms 'bout nuking anyone anywhere --- no ruling out nukes for her - none of that fuzzy warm smart bombs, if nukes are what it takes, then nukes it will be. 

Here is what the "Muslims for Obama" group says (created by Shahed Amanullah, the guy who recently had a chit chat with the extremist Homeland Security dude: Chertoff): 

He's not just a change from George W. Bush, he's a change from the emerging crop of Democratic presidential nominees, all of whom are still equivocating on the war in Iraq. Obama is the only candidate who was on the correct side from the beginning, and unlike most politicians, understands our concerns because of his unique background.

Through this group, we hope to work Muslim Democrats to ensure Obama gets the party nomination, and then work hard to get out the vote in key districts throughout America.

OK - so let's see - they wanna get this maniac Obama into office with Muslim vote, and then Obama will go bomb Muslims --- good plan.