- Home
- America’s CAIR’s expulsion by FBI well-deserved and overdue: A week ago, the FBI officially announced that it has cut ties with the Council on American-Islamic Relations. The self-styled civil-rights organization is characteristically squawking, but the FBI’s move was patently overdue — so much so that we ought to be asking: Why on earth did the FBI have ties with CAIR in the first place?
Comment at end
23rd March, 2009
The Istanbul declaration said: “The obligation of the Islamic Nation [is] to regard the sending of foreign warships into Muslim waters, claiming to control the borders and prevent the smuggling of arms to Gaza, as a declaration of war, a new occupation, sinful aggression, and a clear violation of the sovereignty of the Nation. This must be rejected and fought by all means and ways.”
During the Gaza conflict, Gordon Brown suggested sending forces to help stop weapons smuggling into Gaza.
The obligation of the ‘ISLAMIC NATION’!?
What ‘Islamic Nation‘?
I understood there was NO Caliphate yet in existence. Still, it’s nice to see our government is getting on top of things, AT LAST, even if The Guardian and its ilk are invariably elsewhere!
Government suspends links with Muslim Council of Britain over Gaza
Before you get TOO excited that the government’s eyes might be finally opening to the threats from within our country, note that the report says it is “suspending links” not breaking them as reported elsewhere. So there’s always a way back. Especially when the insulted complain about their “hurt feelings”.
This move comes after this body refuses to sack senior member over statements urging Muslims to resist Israeli military: Read Hazel Blears’s letter (pdf)
Article:
The government has suspended ties with Britain’s largest Muslim group and demanded that one of its leaders should be removed from office for allegedly supporting violence against Israel.
The news comes on the eve of the launch of a major government strategy aimed at fostering closer ties with Muslims to help counter the threat of Islamist terrorism.
The launch tomorrow of Contest 2, the government’s revised counter-terrorism strategy, comes after ministers decided to stop engaging with the Muslim Council of Britain (MCB).
The council’s deputy secretary-general, Daud Abdullah, signed a declaration last month that the government and critics of the MCB have interpreted as calling for violence against Israel and condoning attacks on British troops.
The declaration followed a meeting in Istanbul of clerics and other Muslim leaders from around the world to discuss strategy after Israel’s attacks on Gaza.
Hazel Blears, secretary of state for communities and local government, wrote to the MCB saying Abdullah should be asked to “resign his post” for signing a statement that supported Hamas and celebrated its “victory” against “this malicious Jewish Zionist war over Gaza”.
Muslims who are sceptical of government anti-terror plans say they cannot think of any other occasion where a cabinet minister has tried to dictate to a religious group about the composition of its leadership.
Abdullah, speaking for the first time about the row, told the Guardian he would not be standing down.
He said of his views: “If British troops were to engage in a breach of international law, it is up to the people of the territory to decide what to do. But as I understand it, under international law, it is their right to resist.”
He defended signing the statement, saying: “It made no specific mention of attacks on British troops. The statement does say if foreign troops enter Gaza’s territorial waters, it is the duty of Muslims to resist, as it would be seen as assisting the siege.”
Later, in an email, Abdullah said: “I did not and do not condone calls for attacks on British troops.
“The British government has not deployed troops to the territorial waters of Gaza and I do not believe it or our parliament would endorse any breach of international law.
“Any discussions about what should or would happen is hypothetical and I cannot speculate.”
Blears demanded that the MCB remove Abdullah from office and demanded to know what its leaders planned to do by today.
In her letter, dated 13 March , Blears wrote: “In light of the MCB’s unequivocal stance on violence, it would seem that Dr Abdullah’s position as the deputy secretary-general would be incompatible with his recent actions.”
Blears’s letter notes that the MCB would be investigating the matter, but says she was breaking links with the group, which was once seen as vital by the government to building better relations with British Muslims: “Whilst your investigation is ongoing and the matter remains unresolved I feel that it is only appropriate for us to suspend our engagement with the Muslim Council of Britain pending its outcome.”
In a statement, the communities and local government department said: “We … are very concerned that the statement from the event calls for direct support for acts of violence in the Middle East and beyond.
“We are concerned that the MCB have so far not recognised the gravity of this situation. If it is proven that the individual concerned had been a signatory, we would expect them to ask him to resign and for the MCB to confirm their opposition to acts of violent extremism.”
An MCB spokesman today condemned the government for trying to interfere in its internal affairs and said the cabinet minister’s demand would be ignored: “The MCB is a democratic organisation, with its own affiliates, and they decide who its representatives are, and not Ms Blears.”
The Istanbul declaration said: “The obligation of the Islamic Nation [is] to regard the sending of foreign warships into Muslim waters, claiming to control the borders and prevent the smuggling of arms to Gaza, as a declaration of war, a new occupation, sinful aggression, and a clear violation of the sovereignty of the Nation. This must be rejected and fought by all means and ways.”
During the Gaza conflict, Gordon Brown suggested sending forces to help stop weapons smuggling into Gaza.
Tags: British govrnment suspends links with MCB, Contest 2 launch, Gaza, Gordon Brown, hazel blears, hazel blears letter calls for resignation of Daud Abdullah, Hazel Blears suspends links with MCB, Istanbul Declaration, Muslim Council of Great Britain, obligation of the Islamic Nation
March 24, 2009 at 3:44 pm |
[...] The Muslim Council of Britain “helping to PREVENT extremism”. Hasn’t he heard? The government has suspended dealings with this outfit. Is this guy plain cuckoo or a cuckoo in the nest? And WHAT is the distinction he’s prattling [...]
March 24, 2009 at 5:54 pm |
This morning, I had an interesting discussion with people from my University’s Department of Military Science and Tactics. It wasn’t a formal academic discussion, just observations and opinions, so we didn’t really go into details. And they made very interesting points:
*Observations: US is losing it’s place as the world police with the economic crisis, Military budget cuts and anti-weapon policies of the Obama administration and this has resulted to Russia’s announcement to re-arm, North Korea’s missile testing and Iran’s more decisive stance in pursuing nuclear programs. Mexico is close to becoming a failed state and a narco state. The chance of a major war in the Middle East is probably around 50% give or take 5%. The pentagon placed it at 55% last month since Netanyahu’s victory. (Netanyahu said: “We have a right to survive. We have a right to live.” He’s not going to let Iran get nuclear weapons and now, Iran has the capability to make one.)
*The biggest risk now is if Netanyahu goes into Gaza and Hezbollah helps Hamas then Israel would have to go into Damascus against Hezbollah and Hamas and that would pull in Iran. Then there would be retaliation against Iran. And what will happen in the ME is tied in with Europe since Europe is teetering with Muslim extremists as well and America probably won’t be there to deal with it. They think Europe is folding and failing against Muslim extremism and America either won’t be able to afford a war or won’t be willing to go into one.
*Also, they pointed out that there can also be civil unrest. The problem will be such that in the face of widespread islamization, prolonged depression or militarism, there will be people that are going to do the right thing to truly protect the interests of their country to include their own but they will be the ones apprehended for it because they did something that is not compliant with their government’s policies and also because it is easier to arrest a guy who is going to be orderly and conduct himself accordingly. (We can take the case of Geert Wilders for example.) So there will be people who will feel that the government has betrayed their constitution or the country and they will see themselves standing up for their constitution or their country. Then you have a civil war on your hands. (Mostly, I think, the west will be revolting against tyrannical government. The sad thing is that they will be against the tyranny of incompetence.)
I’m not going into their assessment of our country, it’s horrifying. It’s scary talking with these guys not because they’re scary or that they talk like it’s the end of the world but because their assessments actually makes sense. But I guess their job is to really consider the worst, prepare for it and pray it won’t happen. And, in the name of every thing I hold sacred, I’m praying with them.
March 24, 2009 at 6:28 pm |
Interesting observations, Caela. And much in agreement with what some of us have been saying on the blogs (less so perhaps in the national press).
Civil war is almost definitely on its way for some parts of Europe, perhaps here in Britain, due to both the economic issues AND Islamisation. In my humble opinion!
I might use this for reference in one of my posts, if that’s OK with you.
March 24, 2009 at 6:35 pm |
Sure, those are not classified and were not said in confidence. I just want to make it clear, however, that those things were not said on the record and it does not represent the views of the Department of Military Science and Tactics as an institution.
April 5, 2009 at 3:11 pm |
The obligation to kill ‘occupiers’ of Muslim land is an ‘authentic’ Islamic law. This is a major problem. Only a nation-state should be able to declare war. Only a nation-state has ‘waters’ and land to defend. (Individuals may own land, but the government is the actual defender of that land.) The United States has fought wars for freedom of the seas. The tradition of the Royal Navy is to protect commerce. This declaration has made it obvious that Islamic law trumps the U.S. and British governments. ANY government.
This is but one issue that is present within Islam that is of the type that triggers armed conflict. These reasons help explain why so much violence and organized armed conflict is present throughout the Muslim world.
April 5, 2009 at 4:49 pm |
Hi Joe Six-Pack,
(A link to your blog for my readers – http://www.modwar.blogspot.com )
MUSLIMS’ OBLIGATION TO KILL “OCCUPIERS”
Thanks for making this point. It is something which escapes those who continue to criticise the “war on terror” as no more than a war on Muslims, or worse still, as racism.
The rules of the game DID change after 9/11, and yet much of the world is yet to be convinced. And, of course, WE in the west, did not change those rules.
There’s a lot that many have to learn about the unquestionable teachings of Islam. Even Muslims themselves, moderate or radical, are unclear.
The lack of authoritative interpretation of the koran and guidance from the top of Islam is also something some dismiss as of little consequence. Fundamentalists, ironically, since they have not time for “man-made democracy” like to brainwash the brain-dead in the west by waving the flag for the democratic nature of Islam – “a child can preach to men”.
This hypocrisy would be laughable, if it weren’t so serious.
Western governments particularly are finding this potato too hot to handle. They already know that countries and nation states are limited by the rules of warfare whereas a disparate religion, if it is actually a political grassroots movement isn’t so confined.
Especially when the naive so willingly swallow the notion that it is the ‘political religion’ that is being put upon by FREE people. In fact, as we can clearly see, it is the other way round.
The west is wishin’ and hopin’.
Governments are trying to avoid the obvious conclusion, either because they are hoping that the modernisation of Islam will occur organically QUICKLY, or because there are so many who refuse to see this clear truth and will turn on those who actually TELL it like it is.
This Memri report of September 2002 with Omar Bakri’s “thoughts”, are worth a look.
Excerpt:
Of course THIS was before the Iraq invasion of 2003, but following the Afghanistan invasion of 2001. Since then Bakri has been banned from Britian for his remarks on “jihad”.
We are in the midst of a kind of phoney war. A war like no other in our history, when Islam and its outreach was confined to Islamic lands.
It was described correctly by Bush as a “war on terror”.