school for puppet "Imams" in Jordan

The British (neo-colonial) Ambassador looks on approvingly as the Jordanian ministry opens a school for "Muslim preachers."

Apparently, this "school" to create puppet "imams" has the approval of the British Blair regime.

(Actually, the Jordanians were probably required to get the British approval before starting this "school." )

Welcome US Department of State

As you can see, your little puppet "Imam" did not do all that well in that little tour you had going for him... was he at least worth the cost of his flight to India?

clayton.state.gov (U.s. Department Of State) 169.252.4.21

District Of Columbia, Washington, United States, 0 returning visits

Date Time WebPage

2nd April 2007 01:23:19 No referring link

(visited) http://pmunadebate.blogspot.com/2007/03/us-state-department-moslem-imam-yahya.htm

A Declaration of Cold War: Rand Report.

A brand new Rand Report is out on the stands - that is nothing more (or less) than a formal declaration of Cold War on Islam.

The specifics outlined in this report has already taken shape in Britain with the so-called Radical Middle Way group that presents itself as a "moderate Muslim" outfit, but, in reality, is funded by the extremist government of Blair and his Home office. For more on how the moderates are, in reality, extremists - click here.

The Rand Report points out that the USA support and financing of the "moderate" (i.e. extremists) groups should be covert, and not too "obvious." It is thus, the responsibility of Muslims to investigate the source of funding and support of Muslims groups in North America, Europe, Australia, and also in the Muslim majority areas. Those groups and/or individuals who are being funded and/or otherwise supported by the extremist US and/or British governments and/or their affiliated extremist "think tanks" should be boycotted, and questioned publicly as to why they are collaborating in this extremist anti-Islam project?!

Partners in this network-building effort should be those who share key dimensions of democratic culture, the study says. The report recommends targeting five groups as potential building blocks for networks: liberal and secular Muslim academics and intellectuals; young moderate religious scholars; community activists; women's groups engaged in gender equality campaigns; and moderate journalists and scholars.

As America learned during the Cold War, moderate groups can lose credibility – and therefore, effectiveness – if U.S. support is too obvious. Effective tactics that worked during the Cold War include having the groups led by credible individuals and having the United States maintain some distance from the organisations it supports.

“This was done by not micro-managing the groups, but by giving them enough autonomy,” Rabasa said. “As long as certain guidelines were met, they were free to pursue their own activities.”

To help start this initiative, the report recommends working toward an international conference modeled in the Cold War-era Congress of Cultural Freedom, and then developing a standing organisation to combat radical Islamism.

more here

Liberalizing the Qur'an: The Case of Laleh Bakhtiar

I have to say I am dissapointed in Laleh Bakhtiar that she is allowing herself to be used in this way - to make it appear as if she is some ground breaking woman of Islam --- same as some of the progressivist Moslems claimed in their drive towards "reform Islam." I am dissapointed because I have a number of Laleh Bakhtiar's translations of Islamic books (Farsi to English translation) and have found them very useful, and carefully translated.

But, in the case of this "new translation" of the Qur'an by Bakhtiar, there are way too many problems, not the least the kind of coverage she is getting from the American corporate media.

Why is it that when A’isha Bewley, who actually speaks Arabic, and is a known and respected translator of classical texts, published a translation of the Qur’an the NYT didn’t profile her? Heck, most Muslims didn’t even know she’d done this, and you have some people today talking about “the first translation by a woman” wrt Bakhtiar (and prior to Bewley’s, there was at least one other version that was done by an Egyptian woman). Is it because Bewley doesn’t fit the image of what Cheryl Benard and Rand told us “friendly” Muslims look like? Scoff all you like. I’m not a fan of conspiracy theories, but more and more coverage of Islam and Muslims seems to take a page from the infamous Rand report. And we go along with it.

Or is it because Bewley didn’t set out with the mindset that she was going to change what the Qur’an meant to English readers or not do it?

“I decided it either has to have a different meaning, or I can’t keep translating.”

What Bakhtiar is doing, then, is a grave, grave disservice to those people who pick up her version. She is doing what liberal Muslims accuse the ‘ulema of having done for 1400 years. It’s not a translation if she decides what the meaning is based on what she wants. It’s wishful thinking. Alhamdulillah, it doesn’t change the meaning of the Qur’an… but saying that English speakers are alienated by Arabic names, deciding yourself to do tafsir, even though you don’t really know Arabic and you admit to having no classical or scholarly training is changing how people who pick up your book will perceive the capital-T Truth, and this can lead one into spiritual territory where one would not want to be caught on the Day That Counts.

more here

US State Department Moslem: "Imam" Yahya Hendi

The article below is from ultra-neo-con friendly Washinton Times, so they are trying to put a good face on this absurdity, but the readers of this blog are savvy enough to read between the lines, I am sure!

The chaplain, Imam Yahya Hendi, was in India for three days late last week to debunk myths about the status and treatment of Muslims in America, much as he has done in State Department-sponsored trips to the Middle East, Africa and Europe.

The visit, arranged by Karen Hughes' two-year-old public diplomacy office at the State Department, did produce successes.

At our mosque the imam wanted to lead a mass prayer and interact with the people," said Hyder Ali, a spokesman for the Baitul Aman Mosque, the largest in West Bengal. "But we turned down the request ... because he was acting on behalf of a government which for long years has been responsible for killings and sufferings of innocent Muslims in many countries including Iraq, Palestine and Afghanistan. We did not want to betray our brothers and sisters in those countries by extending him hospitality in our mosque."

Nur-ur Rahman Barkati, the chief of another prominent Calcutta mosque, said he would be pleased to allow Imam Hendi to conduct a prayer at his mosque had the American been on a "purely religious mission, with no connection with America's foreign diplomacy."

"He is a Muslim -- he is our brother. But we could not take him in our arms because he was here as a representative of the American government and George Bush -- the enemies of Islam and the world's Muslims," he said.

"We took part in this ... prayer only because we knew an American imam would conduct it. Had we known that he was sent by the American government we would have never dreamed of standing behind him on this prayer," said Rifat Hossain, a 21-year-old student. A dozen of his friends nodded in agreement.

click here to read more

Who Is Vali Nasr?

Vali Nasr has become the US media's new favorite Muslim expert - especially on Shi'a Islam, Iran, and sectarianism. He has also become a favorite of some liberals, who like to quote him authoritatively from a couple of his books, again, especially when discussing Shi'as.

For these liberals, quoting a Shi'a Muslim scholar (i.e. an Ayatullah) on Shi'a Islam, would be anathema, because they are all considered to be "fundamentalists", and "backwards." And also because many liberals have adopted the neo-con hatred and Islamophobia for scholars of Islam, so they now have a supposed "liberal" American educated dude, who they can quote safely as a supposed representative of Shi'as.

So, now lets take a closer look at this guy. Who exactly is he? Who is he speaking for, and what are are his affiliations?

A glance at Vali Nasr’s career shows where he is coming from — and whom he is serving. In January 2006, Nasr was named the Adjunct Senior Fellow for Middle Eastern Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations, the main Neocon Think Tank, focusing on foreign policy. He is currently Professor in the Department of National Security Affairs at the Naval Postgraduate School (NPS). He joined NPS in 1993. The Naval Postgraduate School's Department of National Security Affairs (NSA) specialises in the study of International Relations, security policy, and regional studies. The NSA, according to its Web site, ‘brings together … faculty, students from the Army, Air Force, Navy, Marines, National Guard and various civilian agencies, and scores of international officers from dozens of countries for the sole purpose of preparing tomorrow's military and civilian leaders for emerging security challenges’.

The Wikipedia entry on Vali Nasr offers some interesting insights that are worth examining:





First, Nasr, in January, 2006, was named the Adjunct Senior Fellow for Middle Eastern Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR).

Now, I've talked about the awful liberal Brooking Institute.. But, if that is not bad enough, the CFR is like plain rotten - amongst its members are the following:

Dick Cheney
Condoleezza Rice
Paul Wolfowitz
Robert M. Gates
John D. Negroponte
Richard Perle
Leslie Gelb
Colin Powell
Alice Rivlin
Madeleine Albright
Zbigniew Brzezinski
Henry Kissinger

Nasr is often quoted as an expert on Shi'as of Middle East - so, what does he have to say about Iraq? Well here is an interesting bit:

By liberating and empowering Iraq's Shiite majority, the Bush administration helped launch a broad Shiite revival

and again:

Iraq's liberation has also generated new cultural, economic, and political ties among Shiite communities across the Middle East.

So, now we understand why Nasr was chosen to be a senior fellow at the CFR - he, like his neo-con buddies, regard the invasion and destruction of Iraq a "liberation" ! (heee hawww).

Now, it also turns out that Nasr "briefed" Bush on sectarianism in August 2006. It is quite possible that this guy is totally naive, that he thinks that the neo-cons are just ignorant, and are not doing anything deliberately to fan the flames of sectarianism to their advantage. It is possible that is what Nasr was thinking when he sat down for his chat with Bush.

But it is rather strange that Nasr was not familiar with the Rand Report that explicitly called for using sectarianism to divide Muslims and that he was not aware of other articles that also called for using Shi'a Sunni divisions to create a civil war situation amongst Muslims.

What exactly did Bush learn from Nasr, one wonders?

Nasr, is unfortunately just one in a whole slew of Muslims who have allied themselves with the neo-cons, and like other liberal imperialists, are not so much as opposed to the invasion ("liberation") of Iraq - but rather, how it was done, and that it could be done better. So, he is not opposed to the supremacy of the United States, just that it could exert its supremacy more efficiently.

In this respect, Nasr fits into what Saba Mahmood describes as one of those with whom

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.

There is a fair bit of material available on this guy on the web, and I'll be updating this entry...

the intelligence (not) summit

I really do not have much to say about the "secular islam summit" --- other than check out their absurd program and this little bit:


Mediterranean Reception---sponsored by the Secular Islam Summit in conjunction with The Intelligence Summit

Irshad Manji, Amir Taheri, Ibn Warraq

***(cash bar)***

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.