57,5% av väljarna i Schweiz har röstat Ja till att förbjuda minareter, d.v.s. de torn som ofta byggs i anslutning till moskéer och är kända för att användas för böneutrop.

En rad huvudlösa kommentarer har följt på omröstningsresultatet, icke minst från muslimska fanatiker världen över. En ledande muslimsk ledare i Indonesien, Maskuri Abdilah, anklagar det schweiziska folket för hat mot islam (ett “alibi” för terrordåd mot schweizare?). Egyptens stormufti Ali Gomaa kallar schweizarnas vilja för en förolämpning av Islam.

Tragiskt nog skäms inte Amnesty International för att sälla sig till islamisters och terroristers fördömanden, och uttalar att resultatet av omröstningen är ett “brott mot religionsfriheten”. När blir det OK för Amnesty att springa totalitära, odemokratiska ideologiers ärenden?

Positiva reaktioner kommer däremot från bl.a. den nederländske frihetskämpen Geert Wilders och från Dansk Folkepartis Pia Kjärsgaard, som nu vill se en liknande folkomröstning i Danmark.

DN
SvD
SD-kuriren
Formidabelt skrivet här av Mattias Karlsson

The following is a statement from the Executive Committee of the General Federation of Iraqi Workers.

The Executive Committee of the General Federation of Iraqi Workers mourns the murder of  Majiid Karim an executive member of the GFIW

As a continuation of human and trade union right violations in Iraq, terrorists have committed another heinous crime on Thursday, 26 / 11 / 2009. Brother Majid Karim, member of the Executive Committee and the head of the internal relations died when his car exploded. The enemies of democracy have attached improvised explosives to his car that led to his death.
The deceased had worked actively to organize, in the public sector, despite the anti union legislation150 of 1987, issued by the former regime of Saddam Hussein that banned workers from joining unions in the public sector. Our late colleague had contributed actively seeking to unit the trade union movement in Iraq.
The GFIW demands that the Iraqi government and its security authorities conduct an urgent investigation to uncover the circumstances of this criminal incident and bring criminals to justice in order to receive punishment.

Glory and eternity for the martyrs of the Iraqi working class.

Executive Committee
the General Federation of Iraqi Workers
27 / November / 2009

iraq, GFIW

And there are some people – like ‘Workers Power’, and (maybe) the SWP – on the British “left” who support these killers of workers…

H/t: Will

The Sunnah in Performing “Ablution”

1.  Mentioning the name of Allah-In the Name of Allah, the Most Beneficent, the Most Merciful [saying: bismillah ar-Rahman ar-Rahim]

2.  Washing the hands thrice.

3.  [Starting by] Rinsing the mouth and nose before washing the face.

4.  Rinsing the nose by one’s left hand. This is because it is mentioned in the hadith that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him), “washed his hands thrice, then he rinsed his mouth and washed his nose with water by putting water in it and blowing it out, and he washed his face thrice…) [Narrated by Bukhari and Muslim].

5.  Exaggerating in rinsing one’s mouth and nose if not fasting by moving water around the mouth and snuffing water to the end of one’s nose. This is because of the hadith, “…and snuff with water well except when you are fasting”. [Sunan al-Tirmidhi, Abu Dawoud, ibn Maja and An-Nasa'i].

6.  Rinsing one’s mouth and nose with the same handful of water. This is because of the hadith, “He [the Prophet] put his hand [into the vessel containing water] rinsed his mouth and his nose”. [Bukhari and Muslim].

7.  Using tooth stick [Ar. Siwak] before rinsing one’s mouth. The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him says, “Had I not thought it difficult for my Ummah, I would have commanded them to use the Siwak (tooth-stick) before every Prayer.”[Narrated by Ahmed and An-Nasa'i].

8.  Running one’s wet finger through the beard upon washing the face. It is mentioned in the hadith that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him used to run his wet finger through his beard while performing ablution. [Al-Thirmithi].

9.  Wiping over one’s head. This is performed as follows: passing one’s wet hands over the head from front to back and so forth. As for obligatory wiping over one’s head, it is to wipe over one’s head in any way. It is narrated that the Messenger of Allah used to pass his hands over his head [in ablution] from the front to the back. [Bukhari and Muslim].

10.     Running wet fingers between the fingers and toes. The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said, “Perform your ablution perfectly and let water to run between the fingers [and toes]“.

11.     Washing the right [limb] before the left. It is narrated in the hadith that the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him): “Used to start from the right side on wearing shoes, combing his hair, cleaning or washing himself and on doing anything else” [Bukhari and Muslim].

12.     Performing the actions thrice when washing the face, hands and foot.

13.     Saying the two testifications of faith [Ar.Shahadatan] after finishing ablution. Meaning, to says, “I testify that there is no god except Allah and that Muhammad is His Messenger”. It is narrated that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said, ” If anyone amongst you performs the ablution perfectly and then says: I testify that there is no god but Allah and that Muhammad is the servant of Allah and His Messenger, the eight gates of Paradise would be opened for him and he may enter by whichever of them he wishes”. [Muslim]

14.     Performing ablution in one’s house. The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said, “Whoever purifies in his house and walks to the mosque to perform obligatory prayer, his steps are counted as one expiates a sin and the other raises his rank” [Muslim]

15.       Passing one’s hand over the limb while or after washing.

16.     Using little amount of water. The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) used to use little amount of water in ablution. [Narrated by Bukhari and Muslim]

17.     Washing above the limits of the four limbs [hands and foot]. It is narrated that Abu Huraira (may Allah be pleased with him) performed ablution, he washed his arm up to the elbows and his feet up to the ankles and said: this is how the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) performed ablution”. [Muslim]

18.     Performing two rak’ahs [Eng. Units of prayer] after ablution. The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) said, ” He who performs ablution like this of mine and then stood up (for prayer) and offered two rak’ahs of prayer without allowing his thoughts to be distracted, all his previous sins are expiated” [Narrated by Bukhari and Muslim]

In a report by Muslim through ‘Uqba ibn ‘Amir: “He will be rewarded by nothing except Paradise”.

19.     Perfecting one’s ablution: washing each part perfectly. Muslims vary in times of performing ablution during the day, and everyone has to observe these Sunan in every time he performs ablution.

   Virtue of observing the above Sunan:

The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said, “He who performed ablution perfectly, his sins would come out from his body, even coming out from under his nails.” [Muslim].

Yesterday the Tories were making a lot of noise about the alleged influence of the extreme Islamist group Hizb ut-Tahir in two independent Islamic schools, and the alleged ‘fact’ that the schools had received £113,000 between them in funding from the government’s Preventing Violent Extremism fund. The schools – one in Slough and the other in Haringay, had also not been “properly” registered or inspected by Ofsted, said Cameron.

Gordon Brown and schools secretary Ed Balls hit back, accusing Cameron and his education secretary Michael Gove of “playing politics” with education and of getting their facts wrong. No “anti extremism” public funds had gone into either school; the schools had been inspected in 2007 and had been found to be meeting the required standards. Balls, in a letter, claims that the 2007 and subsequent inspections found no evidence “to support allegations that the schools are teaching antisemitic or anti-western values” or were using public funding to “further Islamist aims”, as Gove had alleged.

This is, of course, all a smokescreen: note what Balls does not deny: that Hizb ut-Tahir (via its front organisation the Islamic Shakhsiyah Foundation) set up both schools, and still runs one of them (the Slough school, where the head teacher/proprietor, Farah Ahmed, is either a member or very close supporter of Hizb). Meanwhile, Haringay Council have stated that the school in their borough has written to them, “stating that it no longer has any links with any of the individuals alleged to have connections with Hizb ut-Tahir” (my emphasis - CC) .

Cameron and Gove got it wrong about the £113,000 coming from the Preventing Violent Extremism fund; the money actually came from the Pathfinder fund to pay for nursery education (confusingly, part of the PVE fund is also called Pathfinder – which is presumably the cause of Cameron’s mistake). But the fact remains that schools with a strong link to the vicious, racist clerical fascists of Hizb-ut Tahir are not only allowed to exist, but are actively encouraged and have have received state funding in Britain today.

Yet Cameron and the Tories appear to have now shut up about the matter, meekly admitting their (minor) mistake about the Pathfinder fund. Why?

Could it possibly be that with the line of attack over the Prevention of Violent Extremism fund pulled from under him, Cameron was loath to pursue the far more important issue of why religious nutters and racists are allowed to set up schools in the first place? After all, Cameron and Gove’s only objection to New Labour’s academies programme is that it doesn’t go far enough and too many restrictions are placed upon prospective sponsors; like New Labour, they’re all in favour of faith schools; and now they’ve discovered the so-called ‘Swedish model’, whereby all manner of parents groups, charities and religious nutters will be allowed to set up schools with a minimum of supervision.

Michael Gove’s  Tory  conference speech on education policy was well described by the education commentator and working teacher Francis Gilbert; note Gilbert’s comment that under the Tories “every crackpot fundamentalist group – from extreme Islamists to creationist Christians – will be setting up educational institutions”: I think that comment alone explains why Cameron and Gove have gone all quiet about Hizb ut-Tahir…

“Throughout his speech, he referred to the Labour initiative of academies as a panacea for our educational ills. If in power, the Tories would enable any school to become an academy. In this sense, this flagship policy is no different from Labour’s.

“What both parties have not mentioned though is that the academy programme is far from a proven success; while there are some good ones, increasingly Ofsted, parents and teachers are blowing the whistle on some pretty terrible academies. There are currently 40 academies that are failing to meet the government’s benchmark figure of 30% five A*-C grades at GCSE. In other words, a high proportion of these so-called great schools are really sink schools. Since Gove has promised in his first 100 days to sack the managements of such failing schools, he could find himself in the embarrassing position of disbanding a great many of the very schools that he wants to see more of.

“Most troublingly, his promise to create 20,000 extra school places by enabling parents, charities, religious groups and businesses to set up schools at the drop of hat could well mean that every crackpot fundamentalist group – from extreme Islamists to creationist Christians – will be setting up educational institutions. Gove, like this current government, is very supportive of faith schools, sending his own children to one. I believe this will create massive secular divisions in our society at a time when we really need schools to bring our society together, not fragment it even more.”

Lebanon’s new cabinet has agreed to acknowledge the Islamic Hezbollah movement’s right to use armed resistance against the Israeli acts of hostility.

A cabinet committee commissioned with drafting a policy statement for the country’s new government met for the ninth time on Wednesday, when it reached an agreement on the issue, said Information Minister Tarek Mitri.

He added that the new statement would retain the same clause approved by the previous cabinet.

The clause states the right of “Lebanon, its government, its people, its army and its resistance [a common reference to Hezbollah in Lebanon]” to liberate all the Lebanese territory.

The decision came in the face of opposition from some members of the ruling majority against the arms possessed by Hezbollah, which parried an Israeli offensive against southern Lebanon in the summer of 2006.

Mitri said that reservations concerning the clause by members of the Western-backed majority would be addressed in the government program.

Hezbollah, which has two ministers in the 30-member unity cabinet, maintains its arms are necessary to protect the country against any future aggression by Israel, which left southern Lebanon in 2000 after more than two decades of occupation.

A report and photos from the November 21st One Law For All rally are now online.

This is how to oppose Shari’ah:

And this, this, this, and this is how not to.

Daca pina aici din carte se desprinde o tristete grea, de acum incolo lucrurile capata accente tragice. Senzatia ca “povestea” se transforma incet dar sigur in necrolog, se instaleaza hotarit. Pentru ca “O lume se destrama”. Moare. O lume cindva vie, devine amintire. In ritm accelerat. Daca la inceput, religia omului alb fusese privita cu neincredere, acum incepea ca capete adepti; inclusiv printre oamenii de frunte ai clanului. Barbati altadata falnici, acum isi lepadau fara pic de remuscare insemnele titlurilor pe care le cistigasera cu greu. ” Omul alb e foarte abil. A venit linistit si pasnic cu religia lui. Noi am ris de prostia lui si l-am lasat sa ramina. Acum i-a cistigat de partea lui pe fratii nostri, si clanul s-a dezbinat. A taiat cu cutitul firele care ne uneau si lumea noastra s-a destramat“. Sigur ca omul alb a venit cu scoli, cu magazine, cu spitale. Sigur ca o parte dintre  oamenii clanului vedeau si avantaje. Dar barbatia celor mai buni dintre ei, se frinsese. Locul in care Spiritele Batrinilor imparteau dreptatea, ramasese gol. Omul alb venise si cu tribunalele sale. Si cu ostasi, care impuneau dreptatea sa. “Okonkwo era foarte mihnit. Si nu doar pentru soarta lui. Deplingea soarta clanului, pe care il vazuse dezbinindu-se si destramindu-se, deplingea soarta barbatilor din Umuofia, care, in mod inexplicabil, devenisera fricosi ca niste femei“. In lipsa sa, locul sau fusese luat printre egwugwu de alt barbat. Care nu mai propovaduia razboiul, ci impacarea cu omul alb. Capitularea. Pentru ca ” Binecuvintat cel ce lasa pe tatal si pe mama sa ca sa-mi urmeze. Cei ce asculta cuvintele Mele sunt tatal Meu si mama Mea.[...] Okonkwo fusese poreclit “Focul Tunator“.  [...] Cum a putut sa zamisleasca un fiu ca Nwoye, degenerat si lipsit de barbatie ? [...] Ofta adinc, si parca in chip de intelegere, busteanul, care ardea mocnit, ofta si el. In acea clipa lui Okonkwo i se deschisera ochii si vazu clar intreaga situatie. Focul viu naste cenusa rece si neputincioasa. Ofta inca o data, din toate puterile”. Cutuma. Fusese bine ca il ucisese pe Ikemefuna ? Nu era Okonkwo omul care sa se resemneze. Incearca sa-i adune pe cei din clan si sa ii insufleteasca. Incearca sa ii indemne la razboi. Nu il mai urmeaza aproape nimeni. Este arestat impreuna cu alte citeva capetenii, batut, umilit. Clanul plateste rascumpararea. Dar Okonkwo nu intelege sa traiasca in robie. El nu era un sclav. El era un barbat brav. Aduna clanul la vechiul loc de adunare. Un barbat vorbea : ” – Zeii nostri pling cu totii. [...] Stramosii nostri pling din cauza sacrilegiului rusinos pe care l-au suferit, si din cauza ticalosiilor pe care le-am vazut cu totii cu proprii nostri ochi. [...] Trebuie sa scoatem raul din radacina. [...] Si trebuie sa actionam acum. Trebuie sa trecem apa acum, cind apa e doar la glezne. [...] Nimeni nu observase venirea celor cinci mesageri judecatoresti. [...] Vraja fu rupta de capetenia mesagerilor – Lasati-ma sa trec! ordona el.  – De ce-ai venit aici ? – Omul alb, a carui putere o cunoasteti foarte bine, a ordonat ca intilnirea aceasta sa inceteze. [...] Intr-o clipita Okonkwo isi scoase maceta din teaca. [...] Maceta lui Okonkwo lovi de doua ori si capul mesagerului se rostogoli linga omul in uniforma. Okonkwo ramase in picioare, uitindu-se la victima. Stia ca Umuofia nu avea de gind sa porneasca razboi. [...] Isi sterse maceta de singe in nisip si se indeparta. [...] Cind guvernatorul de district intra in curtea lui Okonkwo, gasi aici o mica adunare de oameni, care stateau istoviti. Le-a ordonat sa iasa si ei se supusera fara sa cricneasca. – Care dintre voi poarta numele de Okonkwo ? [...] – Te vom duce la el. [...] Cind ajunsera in fata copacului de care atirna corpul lui Okonkwo se oprira inmarmuriti. – De ce nu-l dati jos ? – Obiceiurile noastre nu ne permit acest lucru. Cine isi ia viata singur se face vinovat. E o ocara adusa Pamintului, iar omul care a comis acest pacat nu poate fi ingropat in mijlocul neamurilor lui. [...] – Va fi inmormintat cum se cuvine ? [...] – Barbatul acesta a fost unul dintre cei mai de seama barbati din Umuofia. L-ati impins la sinucidere, si acum va fi inmormintat ca un ciine“. Cutuma. Okonkwo va fi abandonat in Padurea Blestemata. Adica acolo unde clanul le oferise misionarilor pamint, ca sa-si ridice biserica.  In timp ce se intorcea spre tribunal, guvernatorul gindi la cele intimplate. Va scrie o carte consistenta, in care povestea acestui barbat, va ocupa un paragraf important. Cartea se va numi ” Pacificarea triburilor primitive din bazinul de jos al Nigerului“. Nu stiu daca aceasta carte a fost scrisa si publicata. Dar.

Cartea lui Achebe vorbeste despre lucruri petrecute in urma cu mai bine de doua sute de ani. Nigeria a fost pacificata. Crestinismul a fost imbratisat de 20% protestanti si 9 % catolici din populatie. Vechile cutume nu au disparut complet – animism – 28%.  Iar 43 % sunt adepti ai islamului. (Cifre din 2002). A progresat Nigeria sub presiunea Omului Alb ?

Putem privi la lumi aproape exterminate si aici, mai aproape, acasa la noi. Numai ca aici lumile acelea au apus sub cizma si tancurile Omului Rosu. A carei religie, a fost imbratisata atit de strins de unii dintre compatriotii nostri, ca ne sufoca si azi. Aici, nu au trecut decit 60 de ani de ciuma rosie. Dintre care ultimii 20, intr-o democratie originala, marca Kaghebusa. Care ne innabusa definitiv daca nu o stirpim acum, cind apa nu a trecut inca de… Chiar, pina unde sintem bagati in apa asta rosie de singe ???

Ed Balls attempts to catch Gordon's Nokia.

Today’s PMQs were probably the most fascinating – and telling – for some weeks.  After the traditional litany of the fallen and a solemn statement about the flooding in Cumbria, the PM found himself facing an emollient David Cameron, keen to find out what more the Government could do to support Cumbria’s recovery.  Despite Cameron’s calm and apolitical questions, Labour backbenchers couldn’t help themselves from braying as though he had called for the abolition of trade unions.

Following that, Cameron seemed genuinely to catch the Prime Minister off guard.  Michael Gove had written to Ed Balls to ask about two schools set up by the Islamist ‘kill the Jews’ organisation, Hizb ut Tahrir.  HT had claimed £113k from a Labour council to set up the schools.  Brown, it was clear, had not heard a thing about it from the villainous Ed Balls, who sat nearby staring on impassively as his complacency was exposed.

So, as Gove looked on like a rebellious schoolboy contemplating a prank on the headteacher, Brown fumbled and floundered.  HT wouldn’t be proscribed, he said, as though that was a good thing.  As Cameron pointed out, HT had called for Jews to be ‘killed wherever they are’, and another, similarly dodgy Islamist organisation – Islam for UK – had also not been proscribed.  Where does this leave the Government’s proscription system?

This is a serious issue, which, sadly, was not pursued by the Tories to the fullest extent possible.  HT gets away with a lot by carefully avoiding calling for violence (although advocating death for Jews might seem a little… heated, to say the least).  Islam for UK, similarly, does not call for violence – but it refuses to condemn the 7/7 and 9/11 attackers, calls for the subjugation of women, and calls homosexuality a ’sign of destruction’ of the UK.  They might not be overtly violent, but their attitudes must directly contribute to the radicalisation of impressionable young people.  Put it another way – they’re not proscribed, but do we want them to be using public money to indocrinate children with their extreme and anti-British views?

Brown is never weaker than when he is surprised, as we saw with the election dithering after the Tories surged ahead in the polls back in 2007. Today he must have been close to losing his temper, blindsided by a justifiably jubilant Opposition who had simultaneously exposed his inability to realise how concerned people are about Islamism, and undermined the Brown-Balls relationship.  Stressed and strained, all he could do was warn Cameron, sternly, that he might ‘regret’ some of his remarks about the anti-semites and homophobes whom the Government basically refuses to condemn.

I fear Ed might find himself at the wrong end of a hurled Nokia fairly soon.

Review. What I Believe. Tariq Ramadan. Oxford University Press. 2009.

Tariq Ramadan is a “controversial intellectual”. He faces “many-sided opposition”. The soft-spoken supporter of “solidarity, human dignity, and justice” is accused of “doublespeak”. “Criticisms first of (and mainly in) France, then taken up by some French loving groups of some ideological currents, have built up a haze of controversy around me and my commitment.” He asks, “What are the “ideological and/or interests” of these groups?” Not too savoury, as we shall see. He, by contrast, tries to “build bridges between two universes of reference”, “Western and Islamic ‘civilisations’” “and “between citizens within Western societies themselves”. The book’s contribution to this “process of mediation”? It’s an “opportunity to read me in the original and simply get direct access to my thought”. To show that we “share many common principles and values”. That it is possible to ‘live together’” (all liberal English Anglian inverted commas Ramadan’s). That he belongs to a “reformist trend” within Islam. Which is? A “great and noble religion.” And what of the West’s achievements? “Freedom and democracy.” Its faults? “Murderous ‘civilising missions’, colonialisation, the destructive economic order racism, acquiescent relations with the worst dictatorships, and other failings”. Ramadan is bold enough “to contradict accepted opinions” – even by raising these all-too often ignored features of the Western world. Particularly the “other failings”.

There is much in this pamphlet on the need for Muslims to engage in Western society. Its tone throughout is high ‘inverted comma’ clericalese. He pleads for Islam’s European future as part of a new ‘We’. “Western Islam is now a reality” – that is there are European populations with Muslim beliefs immersed in Western culture. So, “Islam is a Western religion”. Apparently this is a big plus. For bridge-builders this implies, Openness to Others (reciprocally), “Handling Fears” and “post-integration” pluralism. Up to, political engagement, and a commitment to worrying about the rights and oppressions of other groups than Muslims (why does this need to be said?). This has to be negotiated through “the fluctuating multiplicity of personal identities”.

Islam, in all its complexity, has to reach into the public domain. This will come about not by playing on “community feelings” and “community-oriented political logics”. A much more ambitious strategy is afoot. Much like the early Christian Christians the Muslim faithful need to integrate, to become part of the institutions of the state. Why? Muslim organisations would wield power and influence. As bearers that is, of a “consistent global vision”. This would be one that assembles a variety of interests in an effort to capture a position in society. Not just politics are important. There is ignorance of Islam’s intellectual richness. To counter this, he claims, the religion’s contribution deserves a larger place in the culture. Revised syllabi, he argues, may help. There needs more mention of Muslim thinkers, from al-Kindî (ninth century), al-Ghazâlî (twelfth century) to Ibn Khaldûm (fourteenth century) To rival no doubt the attention already given in Europe’s school trivium to Thomas Aquinas, Dun Scotus, and Anselm of Canterbury.

Not everyone from an Islamic background wants to span the division between Islam and the West. More shame them, apparently. Ramadan is forthcoming about his battles with Qu’ranic literalists – those who see in the Qur’an signs enough to justify their rigorist interpretation of the Sharia. Who, though he is fairly coy about this, do not exactly like non-Muslim societies, or indeed non-Muslims. Other distances are more tractable. There are Muslims soaked in traditional cultural practices that turn its pages to lend weight to “patriarchal reflexes, failure to respect women’s rights”, other customs “wrongly associated with religion (excision, forced marriages..)” These are wrong, but their reform has to be handled sensitively, by, for example, education – for which Ramadan’s services are graciously offered.

To start with he separates cultural accretion from religion. Why? That in “my Sharia” “all the laws that protect human life and dignity, promote justice and equality, enforce respect of Nature, and so on” are part of the “way to faithfulness to Islam’s objectives”. Take what is true to this, and, as for the rest, well we are not sure. Applied to law and jurisprudence he argues for “radical reform”. Of what? There are plenty of ‘controversial’ parts of the Sharia, throughout all the different schools of Islamic ‘law’. Quite a few subjects for a would-be reformer. Including the Hudud ‘claims of God’ – punishments against Theft, Highway Robbery, Extra-Martial Sex, Apostasy and so on. These – applied in many countries under what at least some scholars call the Sharia (many with as strong qualifications as Ramadan) are renowned for what we shall call in non-clericalese, obscenity and brutality. The laws categorised as Qisas, “eye for an eye” – (the law of the Talion) are not mild either. In this what exactly is a matter of custom and traditional and of divine law? Sometimes a particularly weaselly attempt is made to say that the Sharia will only really exist in a ‘pure’ Islamic society, with no penalties being carried out – presumably as there will be no theft, no sexual impropriety, no unbelief, and indeed no crime whatsoever. More modestly Ramadan once made a call for a ‘moratorium’ (not abolition) on many of the harshest Islamic penalties. This request doesn’t get a mention here. The idea was dropped without support. What happened on the Way? Did it not shine a light on Ramadan’s reforming path that others may follow? What are his proposals now?

What I Believe contains many similar cases of illumination smothered in obscurity. Anyone convinced that Ramadan is a ‘progressive’ will find it hard to dredge up any specific economic and social progressive ideas. Beyond condemnation of domination, marginalisation, discrimination, and other platitudes that would disgrace even a Social Forum sermon. As they say in the trade, the art of the publicist lies in spinning phrases broad enough for others to put their dreams in.

But we shall enter the murkiest area of all. What are Ramadan’s core principles? What exactly is his Islam? It is founded on the Qur’an. Is this a “shared universal”? As we find little details about his religious beliefs in What I Believe, to find out we have to cite from his other works. In the Messenger (2007) he states that this “revealed Book the written text, is made up signs (ayat), just as the universe, like a text spread before our eyes, is teeming with signs. When the heart’s intelligence, and not only analytical intelligence, reads the Qu’ran and the world, then the two texts address and echo each other, and each of them speaks of the other and of the One. The signs remind us of what it means to be born, to live, to think, to feel, and to die.”(P 41)

This doctrine, based on the “the oneness of God, the status of the Qur’an, prayer and life after death.”(P 39 – 40) is, for Ramadan, non-negotiable. Any critical reading and reasoning (ijihâd) rests on this block. As he says in Western Muslims and the Future of Islam (2004) “The whole of creation, in its most natural state, is the most immediate expression of the order intended by the transcendent.”(P 12) In this sense there is, he has stated, no Islamic theology (in the manner of testing the road to the Divine). The existence and presence of God is just ‘there’ – it cannot be questioned, only recognised and accepted. Hardly much of a basis for a “shared We”. Now much of his call for mutual understanding, and gently reform makes a worthy Must-do list. But we would fain find a justification for the justification behind all this: that is, his religion is just affirmed. And affirmed. Islamic reformism is a matter of applying reason after having accepted unchanging principles, not on focusing reason to the principles themselves. In fact, then, Ramadan is trapped in the chains of absolute and pitiful religious dogmatism.

Where such rigidity is found, it can’t be kept underground. When God has shown himself so clearly, we can understand Ramadan’s ire at the “ideological currents”, and the ‘highly sectarian ideologues of secularism” who deny his presence. The “historical quarrel with “religion” – not just Catholicism by the way – is a source of endless irritation to someone who knows God is great, and that’s it. Ramadan has trouble accepting that we might want to prevent people with his faith, any faith, from laying down the ground rules of politics. French laïcité is only a model in this respect for the way it has drawn up the battle lines. That is a political declaration of the need for religious influence to be removed from the public administration, as the creator, the foundation stone of the public sphere.

 In reality the French state is as flawed as any Western democracy. Its secularism is riddled with compromises, from the host of subsidies for recognised religions, such as for Catholic education, to, strangely unmentioned by Ramadan, proposed subventions for what he calls the “free and autonomous practice of Islam”. While it has passed laws (highly progressive ones) against ostentatious religious symbols being used as a weapon for communalist and sexual apartheid, in education, under Sarkozy it risks reintroducing – and spreading – state support for religious institutions. From state funded religious representation (extended to Muslims), to state sponsored training (now spread outwards to Islam), there are material reasons to be wary about those who think that France, for all its advances, is a fully secular state. In other words, France, which has made progress in secularist terms, risks retreating. Faced with those with the certainties Ramadan pushes. Against secularism, for religious rights, and (unmentioned here) has made some distastestful coments about people with a  non-Christian background on the way – guess which one…

Ramadan avoids any discussion of this. He has met with some “top French specialists” whom he’s happy to name drop. He now accepts what “specialists of secularism” tell him, that “militant atheism” is a problem. That is, he is not happy that these people “try to spread their influence and find a number of supporters the world over, in the media as well as with some intellectual or some political parties”. Other threats to his plans for more influence for Islam? The far-Right gets a brief mention; apparently their principal baneful effect is to demonise Muslim in terms that used to be applied to Jews. The fact that the extreme right’s main thrust is against foreigners en bloc does not raise the possibility for him that this is their spring of action, and targeting Islam a mere offshoot.

But it is secularists who get the most stick. Ramadan painfully tries to separate out good feminists from bad, those who accept Muslim cultural difference from those with a “Western-centred view” who criticise Islam. He speculates, “some women might find liberation through Islam” (how, is left unspecific). Perhaps wisely he does not repeat his defence of the Veil in The Messenger. That Muslims have thereby “spiritual training and asserting a femininity that is not imprisoned in the mirror of men’s gaze or alienated within unhealthy relationships of power or seduction.”(P 213) Instead he claims, probably even more unwisely, that behind feminist criticisms of Islam “paternalism looms large”. For gays he promises respect, though not a moratorium on religious criticism of the “opinions and actions of homosexuals as to their sexuality”. Finding time to assail Pro-Israeli and neo Conservatives (Ramadan’s foes “are varied and diverse”), he ends by spitting out venom against ex-Muslims, “who gain recognition, fame, and some financial benefit.” One can only sigh with relief, as more than a hint of a threat looms, “I say ‘Peace’, with force, tranquillity, and dignity, to all the instigators of lies, hypocrisies, and wars.”

Some instigators have clearly stung Ramadan. It requires all his sense of “humanity, dignity and ethics” to stay patient. What I Believe was no doubt written too early to include a section justifying his appearances on the Iranian state propaganda outfit, Press TV – or the resulting “controversy” that saw him slung out of his Rotterdam sinecures. But, hey, let him smart.

To escape criticism it is not enough to accept the separation of religion and state, particularly when your strategy is to conquer positions of political influence. We remain ready to question the aim behind this march through the institutions. That this remains hitched to a dogmatic, intellectually sparse, doctrine is a problem. As one sympathetic specialist puts it in general terms Islam is the “putting one’s life and livelihood at the service of divine sovereignty which is the Qu’ran’s constant theme, to ensure that it is everywhere recognised.”* Ramadan’s appeal to divine sovereignty is a blatant falsehood. No post-secularist waffle can disguise this. Or reach an accommodation with him – for all the indulgence of the British religious establishment (from Oxford onwards), and its state sympathisers. The danger (amply documented) is that these authorities, while repressing, overzealously, violent Jihadists, are acceding to some of the pressure of Islamists – reformists if you will – in an effort to re-found the lost religious emprise over moral and political life.

Atheists are indeed secularists. Though not the only ones to want to have public institutions that have no basis in religion, that are neutral between all kinds of belief. From this follows efforts to fight attempts to affirm a religious influence on public life, such as Ramadan’s attempts to shore up the existing power of the faith establishment by joining it. This is one the things that democracy is about. As indeed are a host of issues, from socialism as opposed to capitalism, or social against private ownership, that no doubt divide unbelievers and believers alike. But there remains one common atheist claim. That all forms of religion, Islam included, are fundamental misconceptions of the world. At the heart of Ramadan’s failure to define what he really believes is a serpentine evasion of justifying his doctrine. Is this because his faith in God’s Messenger is that the message is not provably ‘there’ at all? That what he and the faithful follow cannot win an argument on its basic tenets? To answer this tolerance, pluralism, and acceptance are not enough. We know that believers, of all stripes, dislike their mythology and sublime feelings being tramped over by the hobnail boots of rationalists. Tough. For atheists, we would wish that at some point, that those trapped in religion come to recognise that their ideas are false. That they would come to the Light of a Godless reality. This part of the atheist message is non-negotiable.

* P 94. Daniel A. Madigan. The Cambridge Companion to the Qur’an. Edited Jane Dammen McAuliffe. Cambridge. 2006.

What I Believe

Islamism 2.0 by Daniel Pipes

Jerusalem Post

November 25, 2009

http://www.danielpipes.org/7770/islamism

“Islamism 2.0 – an even greater threat”

To borrow a computer term, if Ayatollah Khomeini, Osama bin Laden, and Nidal Hasan represent Islamism 1.0, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan (the prime minister of Turkey), Tariq Ramadan (a Swiss intellectual), and Keith Ellison (a U.S. congressman) represent Islamism 2.0. The former kill more people but the latter pose a greater threat to Western civilization.

Hussam Ayloush (l.) hosted Congressman Keith Ellison (D-Minn) at a CAIR event in November 2007.

The 1.0 version attacks those perceived as obstructing its goal of a society ruled by a global caliphate and totally regulated by the Shari’a (Islamic law). Islamism’s original tactics, from totalitarian rule to mega-terrorism, encompass unlimited brutality. Three thousand dead in one attack? Bin Laden’s search for atomic weaponry suggests the murderous toll could be a hundred or even a thousand times larger.

However, a review of the past three decades, since Islamism became a significant political force, finds that violence alone rarely works. Survivors of terrorism rarely capitulate to radical Islam – not after the assassination of Anwar el-Sadat in Egypt in 1981, nor the 9/11 attacks, the Bali bombings of 2002, the Madrid bombing of 2004, the Amman bombing of 2005, or the terrorist campaigns in Israel, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. Terrorism does physical damage and kills and intimidates but it rarely overturns the existing order. Imagine Islamists had caused the devastation of Hurricane Katrina or the 2004 tsunami – what could these have lastingly achieved?

Non-terrorist violence aimed at applying the Shari’a does hardly better. Revolution (meaning, a wide-scale social revolt) took Islamists to power in just one place at one time – Iran in 1978–79. Likewise, coup d’état (a military overthrow) carried them to power just once – Sudan in 1989. Same for civil war – Afghanistan in 1996.

If the violence of Islamism 1.0 rarely succeeds in forwarding the Shari’a, the Islamism 2.0 strategy of working through the system does better. Islamists, adept at winning public opinion, represent the main opposition force in Muslim-majority countries such as Morocco, Egypt, Lebanon, and Kuwait. Islamists have enjoyed electoral success in Algeria in 1992, Bangladesh in 2001, Turkey in 2002, and Iraq in 2005.

Once in power, they can move the country toward Shari’a. As Mahmoud Ahmadinejad faces the wrath of Iranian street demonstrators and bin Laden cowers in a cave, Erdoğan basks in public approval, remakes the Republic of Turkey, and offers an enticing model for Islamists worldwide.

Sayyid Imam al-Sharif, the Egyptian theorist of Al-Qaeda, changed his approach and now endorses lawful Islamism.

Recognizing this pattern, Al-Qaeda’s once-leading theorist has publicly repudiated terrorism and adopted political means. Sayyid Imam al-Sharif (b. 1950, also known by the nom de guerre Dr. Fadl) was accused of helping assassinate Sadat. In 1988 he published a book that argued for perpetual, violent jihad against the West. With time, however, Sharif observed the inutility of violent attacks and instead advocated a strategy of infiltrating the state and influencing society.

In a recent book, he condemned the use of force against Muslims (“Every drop of blood that was shed or is being shed in Afghanistan and Iraq is the responsibility of bin Laden and Zawahiri and their followers”) and even against non-Muslims (9/11 was counterproductive, for “what good is it if you destroy one of your enemy’s buildings, and he destroys one of your countries? What good is it if you kill one of his people, and he kills a thousand of yours?”).

Sharif’s evolution from theorist of terrorism to advocate of lawful transformation echoes a much broader shift; accordingly, as author Lawrence Wright notes, his defection poses a “terrible threat” to Al-Qaeda. Other once-violent Islamist organizations in Algeria, Egypt, and Syria have recognized the potential of lawful Islamism and largely renounced violence. One also sees a parallel shift in Western countries; Ramadan and Ellison represent a burgeoning trend.

(What one might call Islamism 1.5 – a combination of hard and soft means, of external and internal approaches – also works. It involves lawful Islamists softening up the enemy, then violent elements seizing power. The Hamas takeover of Gaza proved that such a combination can work: win elections in 2006, then stage a violent insurrection in 2007. Similar processes are possibly underway in Pakistan. The United Kingdom might be undergoing the opposite process, whereby violence creates a political opening.)

In conclusion, only Islamists, not fascists or communists, have gone well beyond crude force to win public support and develop a 2.0 version. Because this aspect of Islamism undermines traditional values and destroys freedoms, it may threaten civilized life even more than does 1.0’s brutality.

Mr. Pipes is director of the Middle East Forum and Taube distinguished visiting fellow at the Hoover Institution of Stanford University.