« Atif Siddique sentenced | Main | Lib Dem leadership rivals pledge civil disobedience on ID cards »

30 October 2007



What are the agendas here? The newspapers need to support their anti-Saudi campaign, so they make a big fuss of MacEoin's hot-air report.

Policy Exchange, in turn, have a broader agenda to undermine Muslims' presence in this country (just Google the names of Denis MacEoin, Anthony Browne and Charles Moore to see what they've written previously).

Who has to deal with the fallout? Ordinary Scottish Muslims.

This reminds me of Anthony Glees' preposterous "When Students Turn to Terror" which cast aspersions on Islamic societies on the basis of precisely nothing. How do such things pass as research, and why does the media give it prominence? Not for its academic merit, that's for sure.

The Mosque should be judged on its actual output, including its internal sermons, lectures and circles, as well as its progressive external strategy - the exhibition/Festival, kitchen and interfaith activities.

Not on an obscure quote from an obscure booklet possibly found in some obscure corner of the building.


Based on how it's been described, it sounds about as serious and credible a threat as the kind of stuff that gets posted on internet messageboards and in comments in replying to online newspaper articles. This must have been a very slow news day.


I've only perused the report, mainly looking at the list of Muslim literature in the back which I assume is all meant to be wicked stuff: the list includes Ghulam Sarwar's Islam: Belief and Teachings, as well as writings by Doi and (predictably) Mawdudi.


I think you are right that this was a non-story. As far as I could gather only ONE book seems implicated and the TV coverage showed a book being fingered on camera which was in ARABIC. Implying that it was an Arabic book that was the source of these comments, so I'm wondering what percentage of the Muslim community visiting the Mosque would actually be able to read this book?

The wider story, from the media angle is perhaps the timing of the Saudi visit; but the other dimension, is that the non-Muslim community is steadily growing in awareness of Islam and from time to time it encounters aspects of Islamic theology it does not find compatible with civil society in a multi-faith context. A little knowledge, they say, is a dangerous thing; all knowledge needs to be contextualised. I have heard a Christian theologian sagely warn, 'Text without context is pretext' and this is what seems to be happenning here. But what the mainstream British community really needs to know is if Muslims feel an automatic hostility towards non-Muslims (including 'apostates')merely on account of their non-belief in Islam, so it was very reassuring to hear that you disagreed with this view on apostasy. I think a 'diplomatic offensive' is called for. Once the media gets hold of a nice simple one dimensional like this they just run and run with it.


Rupert Murdoch is offended by some Saudi exports but not others.

Rupert Murdoch wants to remain friends with a fundamentalist regime that he knows wants to kill everybody that doesn't see eye to eye with it (basically the philosophy of the three fundamentalist regimes which matter, viz:- American-Christian, Israeli-Jewish, Saudi-Wahabbi - all of them rely on the US government for their existence rather than their various congreagations).

Rupert Murdoch reckons 'Islam' is a threat to democracy but he doesn't mind hob-nobbing with an anti-democratic, corrupt, brutal, absolutist feudal monarchy responsible for producing these threats, such as 16 of the 19 bombers responsible for 11-9 (as we all know, Murdoch also supported the American invasion of Iraq, which was the wrong country to invade in respone to the 11-9 atrocity).

It shouldn't come as any surprise that two people in charge of totalitarian organisations, such as Murdoch and Abdullah, should get on famously with each other. After all, even Hitler and Stalin made a famous peace treaty together, the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact (1939).

Both Murdoch and the House of Saud are also responsible for dragging the great name of Islam through the mud - they have so much in common it doesn't surprise me that alienating Scottish/British Muslim folk will benefit both Murdoch and the House of Saud equally. On this very messege board I have sadly read Scottish/British Muslim folk discuss emigrating because of the venomous racist lies and abuse they are being subjected to - too sad for words!

Being subjected to racist abuse also, sadly, helps promote radicalisation in ways completely detrimental and counter-productive to the individuals in question, to the very religion and ideals they hold most dear, and to their friends. The only ones ever to gain from racism are racists such as Murdoch, Blair, the British, Israeli and American governments, not forgetting King Abdullah.

As always, the bottom line -
I heard someone from the business community on the radio saying that we had too much trade with the state to be worrying about human rights there.

Murdoch and the rest of the British corporate news media don't actually care a fig about humanity or law and order, whether domestic or international, as long as people follow their orders and the corporate oil/profits/contracts keep rolling in, then western values such as democracy, freedom, accountability can be ignored or abused as circumstances dictate.

Universal standards such as truth, responsiblity, integrity are applicable depending on which enemies/friends of the day, are being held to account by the champions of western values, the bewildered herd of western corporate journalism.

On the same day that Scottish Mosques and their congregations were being dragged through the neo-nazi sewers of British 'anti-journalism' (after John Pilger) those long-time suffering parents, the McCann's, were also being subjected to the same standarsd of abusive anti-journalism with such headlines as
McCanns admit using Madeleine fund to pay mortgage

McCanns Accused of Using Madeleine Fund to Pay Their Mortgage.

As the spokesman for western corporate mentality stated quite clearly on the radio, who cares about morality, as long as there is money to be made - in a nutshell, thus is the one values which Western Elites hold most dear.

Sorry for going on - I hope some of this makes some sense.

All the best everyone!


Should all books with scriptures mentioning "hellfire" or punishment to the wicked be labelled as 'inciting'?

The discussion should actually touch upon the question of how to ideally deal with texts that are about 'infidels' and God's wrath to the wicked.

Shall we await a statement by Head of the Jewish Education Board (BJEB) where he explains if scriptural passages about the gentiles justifying harsh measures on one ground or the other for pagans should be retained or expunged?

Will Policy Exchnage also approach the chair of the Church of England Board of Education to response if he is prepared to throw away the text of the Old Testament book of Psalm 21 as it mentions the evil to be eaten by hellfire: "Thou shalt make them as a fiery oven in the time of thine anger: the LORD shall swallow them up in his wrath, and the fire shall devour them."


Good point from Indigo Jo on the trackback above:

"I get the impression, as with the Dispatches programme "Undercover Mosque", that their "researchers" were expecting to find material a lot more incriminating when they went snooping round various mosque bookshops. As with that incident, they have found nothing incriminating, and resorted to reproducing whatever they suppose their audience will find objectionable, or just ridiculous."

Also quote from:

Here is the suggested solution from Policy Exchange:

"Such literature must immediately be removed from religious institutions. The institutions themselves should be subject to greater regulation aimed at establishing a new 'gold standard' for genuinely moderate Islam." (p7)


The danger with the "reds under the bed" approach that tired right-wing outfits like Policy Exchange routinely adopt is that the logical conclusion of all the measures they propose are, on closer inspection, every bit as frightening as what they claim to be speaking out against.


Hate literature continued -

I noticed more than a few of the leading British hate publications (amusingly called 'newspapers'), when I went to the shops today, spewing out their venom and bile against poor, defenceless, powerless Heather Mills.

British anti-journalism makes Goebbal's and Stalin's publishing empires seem amateur and squeamish by comparison.

I also noted something called 'The Daily Star' claiming that wee bairnie, Madeleine McCann, could be being used as a slave in Morocco - I'm sure this story will come as a big relief to the newspaper's shareholders, if not the McCann family themselves.


From Hate Literature to Hilarious Literature,
here's one of England's finest sons -
http://comment.independent.co.uk/commentators/mark_steel/article3112795.ece>Mark Steel: How nice that we make King Abdullah feel at home

And here is a real pair of comedians, a real comedy classic -
'top human rights lawyer' Cherie Blair, wife of Middle East Peace Envoy, Tony Blair, who wants to bomb Iran, because that's the only language he understands -
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article2777427.ece>Cherie Blair speaks out against the veil
31 oct 2007

Brave Cherie speaks out against evil, sorry the veil, and stands up for the rights of Muslim women in Iraq, Afghanistan and Iran to be bombed by us - she puts here foot down, however, and refuses to stand up for women's rights to be bombed in Saudi Arabia.

Obviously, Saudi Arabia's role is to buy our bombs, with all that lovely wonga it has, thus saving us the trouble of dropping them on their heads.

All the best!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7071258.stm>Targeting Islamist extremism
01 Nov 2007
"We really hardly have anyone who has called in with extreme views"
Obviously, Tony and Cherie haven't got round to calling this telephone helpline yet.

Behind the scenes, how British Hate Literature works -


Given that it was Mohammed who stated in a canonical hadith that "if anyone changes his Islamic religion kill him" it is more than a little disingenous for you to joke about it. This statement of Mohammed is believed and acted upon by Muslims throughout the world.If you reject Mohammed's statement very good. Please can you look at all the other nasty ordinances including the Koran's racist description of Jews and Christians as "pigs and apes". Oh and the instructions to Muslims to dominate the world and subdue it by violence. And the poor dhimmis condition in the middle east. And stonings. And amputations. Oh and the Koran's command to crucify people who oppose Allah and his messenger. Oh and maybe the stuff about women which leads to all sorts of horrible fates for women in Islamic countries ( and even here) by applying the Koran and the words of your religion's founder.Just a few thoughts..

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo


View Osama Saeed's profile on LinkedIn


  • Subscribe in Bloglines

    Subscribe in NewsGator Online

    Add to Google

  • Enter your email address:

    Get alerts of new posts