another article on the death of "progressive islam"

This article on the "death" of "progressive islam", I am much more inclined to agree with - especially with regards to how this so-called "movement" manifested itself. A much more accurate name of this form of "islam" might be "US empire friendly islam."

According to Hannah Arendt, the two key characteristics of colonialism are racism and bureacracy. The professional elites were clearly created to support the colonial bureacracy, and is also not surprising that they adopted, in essence, the same disdain for their fellow Muslims (especially the 'Ulema) which more likely than not, was due to absorbing British racism. The professional elites often adopted the same purported "reformism" that was used to justify imperialism in the first place. Just like the "White man" had reached the pinnacle of human evolution and it was his duty to uplift the lesser races from their anthropological shortcomings, so did the professional elites view themselves as the pinnacle of Islamic history and had achieved material success and, thus, it was their duty to uplift the Muslim masses from their decadent superstitious faults.

Read the entire article here

Announcing the death of Progressive Islam

An article that announces the death of Progressive Islam can be found here

Unfortunately, in the view of publicdebate, the neo-con type native informant/good Moslem role that pro-regressives took on as their mantle is not quite dead.

At this time only the lables have changed. The same proggie types have, in some ways, become even more insidious. Stay tuned...

"secular islam summit"

Here they are, and they are going to have a summit: click here to view the speaker list.

***Disclaimer: This blog is not responsible for any emotional and/or physical health issues that may arise due to viewing the above web site. View at your own risk. -The Management of PMUNA DEBATE.

Secularism, Hermeneutics, and Empire:

The Politics of Islamic Reformation by Saba Mahmood

"Taking the U.S. government’s current project to reshape and reform Islam on a global scale as my focus, I want to think about the place of the secular in relation to the current strategies of domination pursued by the United States. As I will show, over the last two years, in addition to its military “war against terror,” the United States has embarked upon an ambitious theological campaign aimed at shaping the sensibilities of ordinary Muslims whom the State Department deems to be too dangerously inclined toward fundamentalist interpretations of Islam.

As such, it is the ideological arm of an otherwise military campaign to subdue and discipline the vast population of Muslims who, in their religious beliefs and lifestyles, are judged to be the recruiting ground for more extremist and fundamentalist forms of Islamic opposition to U.S. strategic interests and what are now loosely termed “Western values.” In this elaborate undertaking, the U.S. government has found an indigenous ally in the form of moderate or liberal Muslims who, in the opinion of State Department planners, are most open to a “Western vision of civilization, political order, and society.”

The core problem from the perspective of U.S. analysts is not militancy itself but interpretation, insomuch as the interpretive act is regarded as the foundation of any religious subjectivity and therefore the key to its emancipation or secularization. In this understanding, the U.S. strategists have struck a common chord with self-identified secular liberal Muslim reformers who have been trying to refashion Islam along the lines of the Protestant Reformation.

Aware of these recent setbacks, the White House National Security Council (NSC) formally established a new program named Muslim World Outreach in 2003, with as much as $1.3 billion at its disposal (and with more allocations to come). This is a project aimed at “transforming Islam from within”:

Among the reformers the Rand Corporation mentions are Khaled Abou El Fadl, Serif Mardin, Abdulaziz Sachedina (United States), Bassam Tibi (Germany), and Muhammad Shahrur (Syria). They are upheld as “good Muslims,” distinct from their “bad” counterparts.

more here (pdf document)

the problem with CAIR

Yes, I know CAIR sometimes does good work. Yes, I know the Sacramento activist Basim Elkarra is a good guy - and has done decent advocacy work in the area. And yeah, I know proggies love to pick on CAIR. OK - now that you know that I've said all that...

See, CAIR has this problem of insisting on inviting FBI and Homeland Security dudes to their conferences - so that they can be seen as one of the good guys. But then who are the bad guys? Those who have some awareness of COINTELPRO? Those who know how these agencies have actively played the divide and conquer game to destroy the activism of African Americans, Latino, Native Americans - you name it... ?

So, now CAIR is all shook up - 'cause guess what? Even with all these invitations and cozying up with the FBI - Boxer, the liberal senator from California, decided to rescind an award that she gave to CAIR. Now, I understand that there is Islamophobia at play here... But you know, at the same time - CAIR had it coming to them. Did they really expect that their FBI contacts was going to save them? Did they really? Do they really expect, that if/when the time comes, that their FBI/Homeland security contacts are going to save the day for Muslims in America? It is time to seriously wake up and smell some real strong coffee dudes and bros. That is not the way the US system works.

check malangbaba's blog for more on this sordid affair.

and Angry Arab offers a word or two on this affair also...

Dr Maxtor's top 10 proggie list...

click here to view - enjoy (but read at your own risk :-))

the hair splits again

The Progressive Muslim Union North America's chair (Pamela Taylor) and Executive Director (Ani Zonneveld) resign...

Since our resignations, Tarek Fatah, owner and moderator of the PMUNetwork, has placed the entire list on moderation and seems to have no intention of allowing any discussion, Pamela and I have set up a list where former PMUNetwork members (and anyone else interested in joining us) can continue our conversation and information sharing. The name is Muslims for Progressive Values, and you can join at: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MuslimPV/ . While I understand that there are concerns about the situation that precipitated our resignation, we do not intend for that to be a subject of discussion. Let us not get distracted but let's carry on in our task of providing an alternative Muslim voice. Onwards and upwards!

Pamela Taylor
Ani Zonneveld
----------------------------------------------------------------

And then there were four left at the PMUNA.

Saleemah Abdul-Ghafur
Mona Eltahawy
Tarek Fatah
Ahmed Nassef, Chair

An open letter to PMUNA board member

Following is an open letter from Seven Oaks Magazine (Canada) to the right wing board member of the right wing Progressive Muslim Union North America: Tarek Fatah

The following letter was sent to Tarek Fatah some ten days ago. The response was so flailing and off topic that we felt it was worthwhile to post the original note to him as an open letter, though we have no illusions of generating a coherent response or a change of course. Mr. Fatah’s slide to the Right – in his case from the NDP to the Liberals, and from opposing Israeli apartheid to collaborating with authorities and some of the most repellant columnists the corporate media has on offer – is hardly unique, but disturbing nonetheless.

click here to read more

the racist brooking institution

I have covered the liberal imperialists at the Brooking Institution on this blog here and here. A few days back they invited over the racist anti-Arab "Israeli" Avigdor Lieberman, and of-course, as can be expected he was warmly met with the likes of Hillary Clinton.

As often is the case these days, most Muslim groups chose to stay silent about this bigot's visit. Lets see who gets the invitation to go to the next year's Brooking conference in Doha - maybe that will throw some light on the reasons behind this silence.

So, who is Lieberman, well amongst his statements include:

In 2002, the Israeli daily Yedioth Ahronoth quoted with dismay one of Lieberman's many disgusting proposals. If the Palestinians did not comply with Israeli dictates, he suggested, the occupying forces should "bomb all the commercial centers... gas stations... [and] banks."

Lieberman's ghastly plan for Palestinian prisoners held by Israel was to drown them in the Dead Sea. He offered to provide the buses to transport them.

In May, 2004, he said that 90 percent of Israel's 1.2 million Palestinian citizens would "have to find a new Arab entity" beyond Israel's borders. Lieberman, an immigrant from Russia, claimed the Palestinian citizens of Israel "have no place here." Russians do, of course. This newcomer has the nerve to tell Palestinians with ancient lineage to "take their bundles and get lost."

Despite the vitriol of this hatemonger, the Brookings Institution is proudly hosting the former nightclub bouncer on his upcoming trip to Washington. Officials at the Institution said they were "honored" to host Lieberman's first address abroad since joining the government.

more here

Unfortunately, it is not only the proggies who have cozied up with the neo-cons, and have acted on their recommendations. There are also other Muslim groups who, while not obviously distorting and insulting Islam like the proggies, are nevertheless involved in an opportunistic game of attempting to gain a seat next to the empire. To reflect this reality, to provide coverage, a historical record and an archive of such actions, the name of this blog will be changed in the near future.

Some names I am considering include sitting with the emperor, imperialist muslims, sellers of the deen, the court jesters, court muslims, muslim sellouts, muslim collaborators ----

stay tuned...

The Blair British Program For Muslims

The recently issued thinly veiled threat to Muslims by the Blair regime can be stated in a single sentence: "conform to what we tell you to do or leave Britain," readers of this blog know that this is not an idle threat.

Both the Bush and Blair regimes have instituted a war on Islam. This is not only a hot one attacking and killing Muslims in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and elsewhere, but also a "cold war" that is focused on changing the face of Islam to make the tradition empire friendly.

To this end, the British government has favored (and funded) the neo-con Sufis, and "traditionalists" associated with the Radical Middle Way group.

Crescent International has an article by Fahad Ansari of the Islamic Human Rights Commission in their December issue that further discusses this trend (excerpts) :

Although it (the radical middle way) is being presented as a grassroots Muslim initiative, the website and the entire project are in fact funded by the Foreign Office, through the Home Office, with the objective of fighting “extremism”. The hidden aim is to pacify Muslims into accepting an ‘Islam’ that is submissive to the agendas of the West. This project is not to be understood in isolation but as part of a larger effort at social engineering of the Muslim community. This effort has been going on since September 2001

We should not be surprised by such intricate plots by the enemies of Islam; they have been taking place in vain for over 1,400 years. The sheep should not look to the wolf for protection. What is more worrying is the change in attitude of the shepherds of the Ummah, those entrusted with its guidance and protection, its own leaders and imams. It seems that the events of 11 September 2001 in the US and 7 July 2005 in London have paralysed these people, and forced them to implement the RAND and Operation Contest recommendations in record time. The very groups and individuals named in the latter document are those we see today at the forefront of this attempt to ‘reform’ Islam.

As the Sunday Telegraph has stated, Operation Contest has been implemented primarily through the Radical Middle Way Project. One of the schemes of this Project was a national roadshow of Muslim scholars flown in from all over the world to preach a more pacific message to British Muslims. Perhaps we should not question the intention of the scholars themselves, and certainly many of those associated with the project are sincere and well-meaning, but it does seem that they have allowed themselves to become pawns of the government, letting themselves be manipulated by it to complete its agenda. The roadshow has become a platform from which to bash so-called Wahhabi groups in the most cynical manner, as Muslims begin to divide themselves even more along lines drawn for them by the West. In doing so, these speakers take on the very characteristics they so vehemently attack.

In all this darkness, there is one light. History shows us that one of Islam’s wonderful characteristics is that the more it is pushed down, the higher it rises.

Slowly but steadily, more and more Muslims are realising that it is not terrorism or extremism or the niqab that is being targeted, but Islam itself. The enemies of Islam will continue to attempt to divide Muslims and to ‘reform’ Islam as they have done throughout the centuries. At such times, it is vital for Muslims to educate themselves about these plots but to always bear in mind Allah’s words that “they plot, but Allah also plots; and Allah is the best of plotters” (Q. 8: 30).

Read complete article here

the veil and the Orientalist/Islamophobe elite

Hot Coals, an online zine that usually publishes insightful articles regarding Muslim issues, unfortunately, ended up publishing an article on the niqab that is orientalism at its worst.

The author, Yasmin Amin, has, in the past, written critically about the proggies, including this critique of Asra Nomani. However, this article can only be described as an expression of borderline hate of the type that the Progressive Muslim Union North America (PMU) and their supporters, engages on a regular basis.

I would like to encourage readers of this blog to read that article, and respond on the Hot Coals comments section. However, here are some points that will give folks an idea what the article is all about:

Amin, writing in an extreme orientalist manner, does not even allowing the sister wearing the niqab, the courtesy of being a human individual - for her, this person is a "something":

Before the sentence was complete, something entered the room.

Note also the emphasis, and indeed, what appears to be a fear of the color black, in the excerpt below. The orientalist Islamophobe is often not just fearful of the religion, but also of the colors of those who follow Islam, and who are often of a darker shade. So, they fear not just the beard, but specifically a "black beard." Those who have internalized this form of racism/orientalism also express themselves in very similar words.

It was a bit of a shock to me to see this mass of black! A black niqab, where even the two tiny holes where the eyes would be were covered in black gauze, entered the room. Thick black gloves sticking out of two wristbands attached to the shapeless black garb, tightly fastened, allowing only the black gloved hands up to the wrists to escape the dark cloud were placed the right hand on top of the left one on the chest, as if in a silent prayer.

Further down the article, Amin again refers to the individual person as a "black creature" - and again as "that black being, now dangerously armed" and yet again " black niqab then turned to the next victim" and once more "a faceless black creature."

Such Muslim orientalist-racists get a significant amount of attention these days because of the continuing war on Islam and Muslims - and this article appears to have gotten wide circulation on the various blogs and websites - including this Hindu right wing web site.

And finally, this "desi" web site included the following racist/orientalist image along with the article:

Muqtedar Khan and the Saban Center

Khan sahib is well known to readers of this blog, he first joined the Progressive Muslim Union North America's advisory board, only to be later driven out by Tarek Fatah and his crew. Khan's subsequent resignation letter is however to be credited. We are familiar with Khan's weird politics , dreams of becoming the first "Muslim" Henry Kissinger - and his attacks on Shi'a Muslim scholars.

Mutqedar Khan has been part of the liberal imperialsts crew for some time at the Brooking Institute.

That affiliation is bad enough - but amongst his credentials he now also lists Senior Nonresident Fellow with the Saban Center at Brookings Institution. So what is this "Saban Center?"

The name might give us a clue or two, it is named after Haim Saban :

born in Alexandria, Egypt and moved to Israel as a child. He is a financial donor and founder of the Saban Institute for the Study of the American Political System at the University of Tel Aviv.

Saban is a member of the Board of Trustees at the Brookings Institution. In a NYT interview (Andrew Ross Sorkin, "Schlepping to Moguldom", September 5, 2004) he stated: "In 2002, he pledged $13 million to start a research organization at the Brookings Institution called the Saban Center for Middle East Policy."

The same interview lists this quote: "I'm a one-issue guy and my issue is Israel".

Khan's affiliation should not come as any surprise to many of us. What is unfortunate is that he been given credibility by some Muslims, such as Shahed Amanullah, who publishes him on his website altmuslim.

Here are a couple more quotes from the founder of the institute where Muqtedar Khan is a "senior fellow"

"On the issues of security and terrorism I am a total hawk," he said."I'm a Democrat for the reinforcement of the Patriot Act. It's not strong enough. The A.C.L.U. can eat their heart out, but they are living in the 1970's. We should all have ID's. You betcha. What do you have to hide? Some friends of mine on the left side think I'm crazy."

Why is he so supportive of Israel? "I hate quoting Tom DeLay, I really do,"Mr. Saban said. "If you're going to quote me quoting Tom DeLay, say I hate quoting him." He continued, apparently quoting Mr. DeLay, the House Republican leader: "He said: 'It is the right thing for us to do to be supportive of Israel. The reasons go back to the beginning of time.' "

Muqtedar used to also have a regular column on Muslim Wake Up -- but since his falling out with PMUNA, he has found himself a new home at Amanullah's altmuslim.

the "veil" again

Why is it that the proggies, who are always harping about how there is too much attention being paid to how Muslim women dress, now the ones who come out with statements about the niqaab? Well, we all know why -they will use any and all opportunity to attack those Muslims who do not fit their ultra-secularist mold.

check out Mere Islam's post on The Face Veil...

This is not the first time that the proggies have attacked Muslim women for the way some choose to dress. Previously, Pamela Taylor (the chairperson of PMUNA) had talked about how she "positively hates" the "burqa" (i.e. the niqaab). Why such strong language? What is it that evokes such "hate" amongst the proggies?

I think some of this has to do with how they have become close in their ideology to extremist right wingers and the neo-cons, who are, often, no better than racist hate groups.

a radical wrong way

Some friendly advise to my "traditional" sisters and brothers --- and I do mean friendly, 'cause I do think the "traditionalists" have a lot of good going (unlike the proggies, for whom I have little or no love at all) .

But lets be clear, taking money from a government that is the #1 friend of the #1 enemy of Muslims (the neo-cons) is not going to cut it... The radical middle way is a group that holds events that presents a primarily "traditional" Islamic point of view. This is all well and good, but this group gets most of its funding from the British home office:

The hardline approach is being pushed alongside a new covert weapon to win the propaganda war over the internet, Scotland on Sunday understands. A 'front' website (referring to the "radical middle way") designed to transmit a more moderate Islamic message to young Muslims has been set up.

Although the site is run to resemble a "grassroots initiative by Muslim organisations", a government document reveals that "most of its financial backing [is] from the Foreign Office and Home Office". Editors of the website have been encouraged to use podcasts to spread messages from 'Muslim roadshows'- government-funded national tours by moderate Islamic scholars.

The site also uses videos and other new technology to transmit its 'alternative message' to young Muslims - without indicating that it is effectively an arm of the British government.

Now, amongst UK Muslims, this news is not new - all of this is well known. And because the funding source is so well known, large segments of alienated British Muslims will not have anything to do with this group.

A UK govt. sponsored group is not going to win these folks a lot of friends. And if anything, such tactics will lead to even further alienation of young British Muslims - who will rightly point out that this kind of US/UK funded versions of Islam is just another strategy in the ongoing war on Islam.

I hope, strongly encourage and recommend that the organizations affiliated with radical middle way disown any and all fundings by the British govt. and/or dis-affiliate themselves from this group. Otherwise they are, quite frankly, headed down a radically wrong way.

Yes, I know this blog entry does not have anything to do with the proggies --- But remember the problem with them was not only how they viewed Islam, but also their affiliation and cozying up to the neo-cons. It would be very unfortunate if some of our respected, and otherwise well intentioned Islamic scholars also ended up going the same way.

the progressive neo-cons

Lets take a look at what some former progressive muslim union north america’s board members are upto these days. Folks may remember the infamous Ziad Asali and his portege Hussein Ibish of the American Palestine Task Force. Well, truns out that these folks are having a little party – did you get an invitation? No? Well – Condi Rice did, and she’s gonna be the keynote speaker.

Oh it gets better, guess who else is coming for dinner? "His Royal Highness Prince" Turki al-Faisal, The “Saudi” Arabian ambassador himself!

Folks might remember how Hussein Ibish, and other progressive Moslems get all bent out of shape about “fundamentalism” and “wahabism” and so on. They even accused mainstream Muslim groups of being “wahabbi” – and yours truly was accused of being a “neo-salafi.” So, now all that has changed . Why?

Well, because “Saudi” Arabia is now considered a “moderate” – and Turki, the guy who actually encouraged the Taleban links with the CIA/United States – is a “respectable” statesperson:

Turki has been controversially associated with the terrorist group al-Qaeda As head of Saudi intelligence, he met with Osama bin Laden several times during the 1980s hoping to convince him to lead an army in Afghanistan against the Soviets.

Saudi intelligence joined Pakistan's intelligence service and the CIA in funding the mujahideen. Turki's relationship with bin Laden and al-Qaeda after bin Laden became an official enemy of Saudi Arabia and lost his Saudi citizenship is unclear. A continued connection to bin Laden was claimed in an article by Paris Match magazine. In 2002, Turki was named in a multi-billion dollar lawsuit by the families of September 11 victims, alleging that he and other Saudi princes, banks, and charities may have funded the terrorists involved in the attack. His involvement was also strongly implied in the Michael Moore documentary Fahrenheit 911. A reporter for the Baltimore Chronicle claimed he was flown out of the United States shortly after the terrorist attacks, but the claim disappeared from later versions of the article.

Does anyone still have any doubts about what this Progressive/Moderate Islam/Moslem “movement” is all about? It is an extremist right wing movement that is opportunistic to its core.

Lets take a brief look at another "reformer" Moslem - the noble prize winner Shirin Ebadi. Here is a quote from a recent article:

There was a time when relations between the United States and the Iranian government were mutually beneficial. That honeymoon period began in 1953 when Mohammed Reza Pahlavi, the shah of Iran, was in power. A good friend of the United States, the shah purchased U.S. weapons and signed important oil contracts with American companies. He also became a close ally of Israel in the Middle East.

"Mutually beneficial"?!!! Well, I suppose if you were one of the Shah's goons - this relationship must've been "mutually beneficial"!

Like the proggies, the "reformers" are in bed with some of the worst criminals and dictators.

Ebadi does not want Iran to be bombed, that is good - but she is all in favor of the United States being recognized as the ultimate power in the world:

And the Iranian government must also accept the fact that after the downfall of the Soviet Union, the United States is the one and only superpower — a reality that should preclude pejorative political remarks. Only through recognition of these facts can a solution for resolving the conflicts be reached

I suppose she did not like President Chavez's remarks? Well, this is what we can expect from people who call the criminal regime of the "shah" of Iran - a "honeymoon!"

Right Wing Proggies Unite!

Pictured above are Irshad Manji, Mona Eltahawy, and Naser Khader at a "moderate Moslems" conference in Denmark.

Mona Eltahawy is on the Board of Directors of the Progressive Muslim Union North America (PMUNA).

The above photograph says it all - PMUNA, and their Progressive Moslem types are nothing more (or less) than right wing extremists.

Thanx to Dr. Maxtor for his post on the above "event."

the extremist-moderates

...the moderates function well as political rodents; they are policy carriers for the likes of Bush and Blair. However, unlike rodents they are unable to infect the masses, because the masses have already been inoculated against such types of vermin. They recognise the moderates as simply echoing the voice of Blair, justifying his murderous foreign policy that is composed of state-terrorism and mass murder of Muslims. They see the voice of the moderates only gets amplified when it coincides with Blair’s policy.

These extremist-moderates attempt to uphold their Islamic credentials by giving a liberal ‘interpretation’ (misinterpretation) of Islamic texts in order to justify their alliance with those who hate Islam and are busy murdering Muslims. Hence, their position is not dictated by their understanding of Islam rather it is the opposite; they mould Islam to justify their political position which they have adopted in the first place. So call them traitors, Zionist-Muslims, neo-con Muslims, neo-Coolies, they all point to the same trait of treachery

click here to read entire article

The liberal imperialists: The Brooking Institute

A couple of recent article discuss the liberal imperialists: The Brookings Institute.

This institute is notorious for inviting well meaning, and not so well meaning (including Progressive type) Muslims to Qatar for an annual conference that is ostensibly to create "dialogue."

But given what Brookings is about, these conferences are more about getting naive and/or opportunistic Muslims on their side - and less about anything else.


Alexander Cockburn writes:

Open up the Washington Post and the strategic vision on display was an utterly mad piece co-written by one of the big boosters for war on Iraq, Kenneth Pollack, a hack thinker at the Brookings Institution, now an integral part of Israeli territory with its "Saban Center for Middle East Policy" named for the fanatic Zionist billionaire Haim Saban, majority owner of Paramount Pictures, a man who handed the Democratic Party a total of $12.3 million in 2002, a $7 million component of which was the biggest single contribution ever recorded up to that time.

more on Brookings by Ron Jacobs.

Proggies do the resignation dance (again)

If there is one thing the pro-regressivists are good at, it is in writing grandiose public resignation letters. Last year Tarek Fatah's PMUNAists did their bit (see here and here) - and now it is Tarek Fatah's Muslim Canadian Congress's turn to do the dance.

Here are a couple of newspaper articles on the splintering: 1 and 2

Meanwhile, Ingrid Mattson, who had been maligned by the proggies, has been elected as the first woman president of ISNA.

A large number of MCC's executive board did a public resignation, and announced the formation of a brand new splinter group. Here is the complete text of the letter:

August 22, 2006: For immediate release!

This statement is the resignation of the following Board members from the Muslim Canadian Congress (MCC):

* Niaz Salimi, President;
* Rizwana Jafri, Vice President;
* El-Farouk Khaki, Secretary General;
* Arif Raza, Legal Advisor;
* Abbas Syed, Chief Financial Officer;
* Gary Dale, Director & webmaster;
* Atique Azad, Director;
* Jehad Aliweiwi, Director;
* Suhail Alsameed, Director.

It is also signed by the following people who have recently resigned from
the MCC Board and who share our concerns:

* Nadia al-Khatib;
* Hanadi Loubani.

The MCC was intended to be a voice of "Muslims not represented by other organizations, organizations that are sectarian or ethnocentric, largely authoritarian, and influenced by a fear of modernity and an aversion to joy." Over the years the MCC has made significant strides in offering a voice to many.

Recently, however, the public face of the MCC has deviated from its stated priorities. The message that MCC has been giving out is "not addressed to Muslims, it is aimed at making Muslim haters feel secure in their thinking".

As a result, many in the Muslim community have been alienated from the MCC as a viable voice for the community. Sadly many progressive Muslims and others perceive the MCC as being holier-than-thou, arrogant and enclosed in an ivory tower.

This was never our intention. The signatories to this statement believe that to combat the grips of fundamentalism and social isolation, we must engage and involve the Muslim community, and in particular the progressive and liberal voices within it.

For these reasons, we have chosen to leave the MCC, an organization which we have devoted ourselves to for several years.

We have decided to establish the Canadian Muslim Union (CMU), an organization which while advocating a separation of religion and state, will also work with and within the Muslim community.

The CMU will seek to engage the larger Muslim community in issues of human rights, human dignity, social justice and alternate progressive and inclusive visions of Islam. In so doing, we aim to instill joy in the celebration of our identities as Muslims and as Canadians with social consciences and a commitment to social justice and human dignity.

Contact: Arif Raza, 416 558-4777

Neo-Con "Sufis"

The Rand Report (see side bar) did not only focus on "modernist" vs. "fundamentalists" - they also encouraged using divide and rule tactics including shi'a vs. sunni, and sufi vs. non-sufi.

This blog has focused on the "pro-regressive" native informants led by the "progressive muslim union north america" (pmuna)... or, what the Rand Report calls "modernists."

However, we also need to be aware of the fake "sufi" types as well - who are doing the bidding of the neo-con empire builders. This should in no way shape or form be taken to be a slam on those who follow the teachings of Tasawwuf or Irfan.

Rather, this is about those who make common cause with the empire builders, and end up causing serious harm to the Muslim communities through their alliances and affiliations. "Shaykh" Kabbani is no stranger to controversy, but his group's latest activities are of very serious concerns. A new -must read blog- has done an excellent job of investigating the links between Kabbani's group, the Washington neo-cons, and the Blair regime of Britain.

Click here to read the blog.

Tarek Fatah resigns

This blog is not about Tarek Fatah - repeat this blog is not about Tarek Fatah.

The problem is that he acts like a spoilt little brat who wants to hog (no pun intended) all the attention. And if you don't give him the attention he gets worse and worse.

So, OK - here is a little bone to the brat:

Dr. M on Fatah's resignation

Meanwhile, Fatah's other group, the Progressive Muslim Union North America (this blog *is* about the PMUNA - and other native informants) - has been eerily silent about the Zionist assault on the people of Palestine and Lebanon. Why?

These guys have a virtual statement mill, and can churn out statement after statement on just 'bout everything - so why the silence?

Well, the PMUNA is pretty much dead - I think they took the group off life support - so maybe that is one reason.

But the real reason is probably best expressed by Fatah in a recent e-mail (excerpts) - you see, for Fatah - the problem is the Muslim community - not the Zionists.

Does this sound familiar? It should - this is a neo-con/zionist Christopher Hitchens/Daniel Pipes type of thinking.

This infatuation with misery while Hizbollah gains the admiration fo the Arabs reminds me of the young shia boys in Karachi who beat and flagellate themselves bloody to outdo each other on Ashuar (10 Muharram) to posture as adults and impress the hijabi/niqabi chicks.

How blind can this ummah be. Dumber and dumbest, that is what we all are. Creating our own Karbalas to feel good about our victimisation.


Tarek

Pro-regressives masquerading as "progressives"

Tarek Fatah's recent article characterized mainstream Muslims as "fundamentalist Muslim groups draped themselves in 'moderate' garb." (Fatah is a member of the dwindled PMU NA board of directors.)

Lets take a look at where the pro-regressives get published these days:

The Fatah article was published in the Canadian "news"paper The National Post. This happens to be the same paper that recently published neo-con Amir Taheri's lies about Iran. And this is the same newspaper that has earned the dubious distinction of being a repeat ‘worst offender’ in its characterization of Muslims and Islam.

With its frequent use of phrases such as ‘Islamic terrorist,’ ‘Muslim militants,’ ‘Islamic fundamentalists,’ and similar wordings, the Post was found during the study period to contain more than 230% as many negative references as the average of other media examples, even when the same stories were covered by other newspapers.

And

From the beginning the Post has had a strongly conservative editorial stance, and has an editorial page featuring the writings of many prominent neo-conservatives and libertarians from the United States and Canada, including Diane Francis, Andrew Coyne, Mark Steyn and David Frum. This stance is typically mocked by those who refer to the paper as the "Fascist Post" or the "Zionist Post". A number of newspaper stands in Toronto holding the National Post for sale have been vandalized with these statements.

Given the kind of regressive politics the Progressive Muslim Union North America advocates, it is not at all surprising that they have taken the neo-cons as their not so strange bedfellows...

The Fatah article, along with the usual nonsense against mainstream Muslim organizations, is a rant against multiculturalism. Amongst other things, he says:

That is not all. If we do not reform multiculturalism to promote integration and civic secular society, we risk creating a fragmented nation, divided into 21st century religious and racial tribes, suspicious of the other and longing for the home we left behind.

It is interesting to note that this is exactly the kind of paranoid slippery slope thinking that characterizes the extreme right - that if there is not a single uniform value system, we're all doomed to becoming divided into racial tribes.

But the Pro-Regressives do not stop at this - Pamela Taylor, chair of the Progressive Muslim Union, in a gushing tribute to Fatah also expressed how the family members of the 17 accused in Canada "were wearing burqas which Tarek (like many of us) positively hates." Taylor claims that Fatah was helping the family... that maybe true... But it is a strange form of help, given his anti-Muslim rants elsewhere. And it is stranger choice of words: "positively hate" regarding the clothing that the family members were wearing.

This is the so-called "Progressive Muslim Union North America" --- their extreme rightward shift, and the use of words such as "hate" should not come as a surprise to any of us who have been following the trajectory of these individuals. But it does look like the neo-cons have found their native informants.

see also a Sunni Sister blog entry titled: Isn't It Funny:

The difference is that the racist “conservative” is a little more open about his / her views. The racist “liberal” talks a lot of talk about lifting everyone up, but it’s an equality and uplifting as defined by him / her / the dominant culture. Why are so many liberals, here and in Europe, wringing their hands over “multiculturalism,” and some now talking as though it can be reversed? Because they don’t realize that our country (the US) is by default and always has been “multicultural.” Even many European countries have had a variety of ethnic, if not racial, groups living in them for centuries.

So when liberals and others start blabbering about “rethinking multiculturalism,” what they’re really doing is betraying their discomfort with the teeming masses saying, “Yes I am!” and with the minorities challenging the way things have always been done, the way history’s always been told, and the way the rest of the world is and has been explained to Joe and Jane America.

tarek fatah at it again...

via drmaxtor

Canadian Muslima blasts Tarek Fatah

Fatah champions his own views

Jun. 10, 2006. 01:00 AM

---

Editorial, June 7.Let me get this straight. Tarek Fatah of the Muslim Canadian Congress complains when the media make gross generalizations about Muslims, but has no problems making even bigger ones himself. Has Fatah visited every single mosque in Canada, enough to make the sweeping claim that no mosque allows freedom to debate? Imagine if someone had made similar comments about Canada's Jewish or Hindu communities, stating that their temples and synagogues were being overrun by "a fascist cult" of supremacy? It would border on hate. So why should his accusations about the Muslim community be accepted as legitimate discourse?Fatah's words bear the mark of hypocrisy. He regularly uses his weekly television show and position within the community to spread his own political views. He wants Muslims to discuss politics, just not in the one place that he and his fellow secular Muslims have no influence — the mosque. The double standard is laughable. Rather than promoting himself as a champion of the Muslim cause, Fatah and the à-la-carte critics like him, should admit that by trying to project their narrow-minded views on the community, they're no better than the "fascist" imams they claim to detest.

Samrina Wadhera, Toronto

more on fatah here

Native Informers and the making of the American Empire

A review of "Reading Lolita in Tehran"

A particularly powerful case of such selective memories is now fully evident in an increasing body of mémoire by people from an Islamic background that has over the last half a decade, ever since the commencement of its "War on Terrorism," flooded the US market. This body of literature, perhaps best represented by Azar Nafisi's Reading Lolita in Tehran (2003), ordinarily points to legitimate concerns about the plight of Muslim women in the Islamic world and yet put that predicament squarely at the service of the US ideological psy-op, militarily stipulated in the US global warmongering. As President Bush has repeatedly indicated, the US is now engaged in a prolonged and open-ended war with terrorism. This terrorism has an ostensibly "Islamic" disposition and provenance. "Islam" in this particular reading is vile, violent, and above all abusive of women--and thus fighting against Islamic terrorism, ipso facto, is also to save Muslim women from the evil of their men. "White men saving brown women from brown men," as the distinguished postcolonial feminist Gayatri Spivak puts it in her seminal essay, "Can the Subaltern Speak?"

The publication of Azar Nafisi's Reading Lolita in Tehran coincided with the most belligerent period in the recent US history, the global flexing of its military muscles, and as such the text has assumed a proverbial significance in the manner in which native informers turned comprador intellectuals serve a crucial function in facilitating public consent to imperial hubris. With one strike, Azar Nafisi has achieved three simultaneous objectives: (1) systematically and unfailingly denigrating an entire culture of revolutionary resistance to a history of savage colonialism; (2) doing so by blatantly advancing the presumed cultural foregrounding of a predatory empire; and (3) while at the very same time catering to the most retrograde and reactionary forces within the United States, waging an all out war against a pride of place by various immigrant communities and racialised minorities seeking curricular recognition on university campuses and in the American society at large.

ON THE SURFACE, Azar Nafisi's Reading Lolita in Tehran has a very simple plot. A female professor of English literature at an Iranian university, having been born to a privileged family and thus educated in Europe and the United States, is finally fed up with the atrocious limitations of an Islamic republic, resigns her post, goes home, collects seven of her brightest female students and they get together and read some of the masterpieces of "Western literature," while connecting the characters and incidents of the novels they thus read to their daily predicaments in an ungodly Islamic republic. The plot, factual or manufactured or a combination of both, provides an occasion for the narrator to give a sweeping condemnation of not just the Islamic revolution but with it in fact the entire nation, the poor and the disenfranchised, that has given rise to it--for which she has absolutely nothing but visceral contempt. To connect this simple plot and its extended services to the US imperial operations at home and abroad, we need a larger theoretical frame of reference in comparative literary studies.

The entire review is a must read - click here to read it!

Muqtedar Khan and Shi'a Muslims

Muqtedar Khan is a former advisory board member of the Progressive Muslim Union North America, to his credit, Khan resigned from the PMU NA after raising the issue of "athiest Muslims" and "alcohol consumption." Read his resignation letter here.

Khan has recently earned the ire of Shi'a Muslims after he was invited to speak at a conference of the controversial Shi'a Muslim group called UMAA. The leadership of this group has, in the past, allowed the likes of Wolfowitz to speak at their conference, and there was also some discussion about inviting Daniel Pipes to this year's conference. Stephen Schwartz the strange "leftist" turned neo-con, turned "sufi" had also, in the past, endorsed UMAA's conferences. Each of UMAA's conferences has resulted in sharp controversy in the Shia Muslim community. And this year was no exception.

The source of this year's controversy was Muqtedar Khan's February 13th, 2005 article in which he compared Ayatullah Sistani with Saddam Hussein, and stated that:

"The US-led invasion of Iraq may have replaced an overt and brutal dictatorship by Saddam Hussein with a covert and subtle dictatorship buy the Marja-e-Taqleed, Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani—the highest-ranking Shiite authority on the planet."

Many Shia Muslim did not appreciate this grave insult of their scholar, especially the comparison that Khan drew with the tyrant Saddam Hussein. Khan was confronted at the conference, and on on-line Shia forums. Click here for a blog entry for a summary of the concerns raised.

While the issues raised specific to Ayatullah Sistani are important, Muqtedar Khan's politics has been very inconsistent - at times calling for American Muslims to support United States imperialist military actions because of some kind of a "divine commitment" towards the United States:

“Once the war is declared, make no mistake Mr. Saddam Hussain and Mr. Bin Laden, We are with America. We will fight with America and we will fight for America. We have a covenant with this nation, we see it as a divine commitment and we will not disobey the Quran (9:4).”

Click here to read a wide ranging critique of Muqtedar Khan's strange politics and statements.