Hope not Hate recently released a report about the Counter-Jihad movement, perhaps not by accident on the eve of the trial of Anders Behring Breivik.  There has been a systematic effort since last July to try to implicate the Counter-Jihad movement in Breivik’s reprehensible actions.  Such efforts have been acts of political opportunism undertaken in the poorest possible taste and those who have tried and continued to try to score cheap political points on the back of tragedy and suffering should be ashamed of themselves.  This has happened despite the fact that the concerns of the Counter-Jihad are a matter of mainstream political discussion.

The Counter-Jihad is primarily concerned about the growing political power of those who want to make our societies sharia compliant.  Organisations like the International Civil Liberties Alliance are concerned about the human rights implications of the rise of sharia compliance in the West and the actual exercise of sharia law elsewhere in the world.  The efforts of those who seek to demonise and misrepresent Counter Jihad activists may therefore have sinister motives of their own for doing so.

Western Governments seem to be actively promoting the agenda of the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) whose campaigns implies that it wants to institute a new order of global sharia compliance which could adversely affect the freedoms of the whole of society including those of Muslim minority communities.  Later this year the European Union plans to host a meeting of the ‘Istanbul Process’ that seeks to make freedom of speech sharia compliant.  Of course, reasonable mainstream opinion would rightly label the idea of sharia compliant free speech as an oxymoron but this does not seem to deter some Western political leaders.  Outlawing freedom of speech has huge implications for society but discussions with the OIC will of course more than likely focus on how to shut up dissidents who ask awkward questions.

A stifled atmosphere has been created since 9/11 in which expressing concern about sharia has become taboo.  Fear rather than reason has begun to permeate our society and sensible policy making is rendered impossible.  Some factions within the Western elite clearly do not want to discuss the issues, and opinion formers have been unleashed to conduct campaigns of demonization, misrepresentation, and outright nastiness against those who acknowledge the pressing need to discuss them.

However, some members of the political elite have had the courage to speak out and this illustrates how Counter-Jihad ideas have had a place in the political mainstream for many years.  The current Secretary of State for Education, Michael Gove, wrote a book called Celsius 7/7: How The West’s Policy of Appeasement Has Provoked Yet More Fundamentalist Terror – And What Has To Be Done Now back in 2006.  The Counter-Jihad was in its infancy at that time and its ideology was not yet developed.  Books like Celsius 7/7 had an impact on the formation of that ideology, an ideology that, contrary to the rantings of the modern day  Torquemadas who revel in hunting down an demonising the heretics of our age, is peaceful and law abiding.  Counter-Jihad ideology is treated as new heresy by some factions in the establishment and that is why there are well funded efforts to link it and its advocates to the appalling and inhuman actions of Anders Behring Breivik.  It is much easier for opponents of the Counter-Jihad to actively demonise it than it is to openly discuss the issues raised, issues that they want to cover up.  Back in 2006 Mr Gove himself identified this serious problem – on page 3 of Celsius 7/7 he wrote:

“Instead, in a curious inversion, the energy that should be devoted to analysing and combating a totalitarian challenge is directed towards those campaigning against those who dare to take the threat seriously.”

Perhaps the energies of Hope Not Hate should be directed against the real purveyors of hate rather than the innocent Counter-Jihad that has merely raised matters of social concern. However, it would appear that Hope Not Hate has its own agenda and would be unwilling to do so. Mr Gove made some very important observations in Celsius 7/7 that Hope Not Hate should consider:

“The West faces a challenge to its values, culture and freedoms as profound, in its way, as the threat posed by fascism and communism.  But the response to that challenge from many in the West is all too often confused, temporizing, weak and compromised.” (p2-3)

And:

“Christians and Jews lived in a tolerated second-class existence as dhimmis, able to follow their own, more primitive faiths, but without the rights of citizenship enjoyed by followers of the Prophet.” (p15).

Michael Gove’s colleague in Government, Prime Minister David Cameron has adopted elements of Counter-Jihad ideology.  In his ‘State Multiculturalism Has Failed Speech’ he made some very pertinent observations.  In reference to some Muslim advocacy groups that the UK Government had worked with in the past he said:

“Let’s properly judge these organisations: Do they believe in universal human rights – including for women and people of other faiths?  Do they believe in equality of all before the law? Do they believe in democracy and the right of people to elect their own government?  Do they encourage integration or separatism?”

He effectively summarised exactly what the Counter-Jihad movement stands for thus confirming its mainstream credentials.  The Counter Jihad is concerned about the development of sharia compliance because it believes that such compliance had an adverse affect on universal human rights, the equality of men and women, freedom of worship, democracy, and integration.  The Counter-Jihad movement is effectively a living breathing example of the ‘muscular liberalism’ that Mr Cameron also referred to in that speech.  Of course, the Prime Minister was criticised by those who do not want such issues to be raised, but a Muslim Peer, Baroness Sayeeda Warsi came to his defence, and in a way to the defence of the Counter-Jihad ideology he was articulating, when she said “to smear the Prime Minister as a right wing extremist is outrageous and irresponsible.”  She was right.

Another mainstream politician, Conservative MP for The Wrekin and member of the Conservative Party Human Rights Commission – Mark Pritchard, articulated what could effectively be described as a Counter Jihad position when he expressed fears that Sharia Councils could undermine social cohesion in 2010.  He also wrote:

“Since the 1996 Arbitration Act, Government ministers have allowed Islamic tribunals around Britain to rule on a range of financial disputes, provided both parties agree to accept the court’s decision. But in recent years, these tribunals have developed into fully fledged Sharia Councils – allowed to settle new disputes, such as divorce, family law, and faith issues. These powers go well beyond the letter and spirit of the original legislation and whilst they provide new ways of dispensing cheap justice they do not always dispense fair justice.”

He went on to write:

“Sharia Councils shine an embarrassing light on how ministers have increasingly relegated and downgraded thousands of Muslim women to defacto second class British citizens, perversely in the name of tolerance and understanding.”

Concern for women, including Muslim women, is a central concern of the Counter-Jihad and a legitimate mainstream concern that should not be ignored.  Thankfully, The Arbitration and Mediation Services (Equality) Bill sponsored by Baroness Caroline Cox is currently progressing through Parliament to address this important issue.  This shows quite clearly that the concerns of the Counter-Jihad are mainstream concerns of such importance as to be worthy of consideration by the UK parliament.

It is quite clear that Counter-Jihad ideology, rightly, has a good degree of mainstream support.  It is unfortunate that those who are bringing important matters to public attention are frequently demonised and misrepresented, even by politicians who effectively support Counter-Jihad ideology in all but name.  It seems that ‘Counter-Jihad’ has become a bogeyman term despite the ideas behind it being socially and morally acceptable by the political mainstream.  It is unfortunate that organisations such as Hope Not Hate apparently has its own campaign of hatred against the Counter-Jihad movement.

Michael Gove discusses Celsius 7/7 in the video clips below:

Above: Minerva as a symbol of enlightened wisdom protects the believers of all religions (Daniel Chodowiecki, 1791)

A recent article on MailOnline reports that London Metropolitan University is considering banning the sale of alcohol on campus because it is thought that its Muslim population, which represents 20% of student numbers, think that drinking alcohol is immoral.  This is yet another example of the actual application of sharia law in the United Kingdom.

Despite many actual examples of the implementation of Islamic law many sharia apologists refuse to acknowledge that it is actually being applied in Britain.  Sharia of course is well known for its brutal punishments, yet many people do not realise that sharia is not a pick ‘n’ mix collection of laws but an integrated total system which is an alternative to our own legal system.

Of course there is no honesty with regard to the step by step implementation of this alternative legal system, instead of calling it the implementation of sharia law it is referred to as a ‘sensitivity’ measure.  Of course it is not being very sensitive to the remaining 80% of the student population, but it seems that their opinions do not matter.  Many pro-sharia activists claim that sharia just applies to Muslims only, but in this case the reality is clear for all to see – the entire population of London University is effectively subject to sharia.

What will happen if the 20% that apparently define the rules at London University become offended with the presence of Bibles, or the ringing of church bells, or the presence of practicing homosexuals or unveiled women on campus?  To even consider this position on alcohol London Metropolitan University is demonstrating a trend towards theological tyranny.

The reality of the situation is that the university is either responding to prejudice against Western cultural norms or is unilaterally trying to socially engineer those norms out of existence.  It is unclear whether this prejudice comes from the Muslims students themselves or from non-Muslim ‘progressive’ university administrators.  In all likelihood it is the latter and it would be very gratifying to see the Muslim population of the university standing shoulder to shoulder with the 80% to demonstrate that Islam does not want to impose its morals on non-Muslims.

How with the theological regime that appears to preside over the administration of the university affect the student intake in the future?  Will the university effectively end up as an Islamic ghetto where non-Muslims do not feel comfortable?  Will it encourage the emergence of a sharia police force on campus that will extend the anti-alcohol regime to ensure that people merely in possession of alcohol are harassed and vilified?

If some students choose to create a version of the seventeenth century religious sect ‘The Ranters’ will their freedom of religion be respected or will the university find itself in violation of Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights?  You never know, a European Court of Human Rights ruling might mean that Ranter ‘places of worship’ would have to be reopened and expanded.

If alcohol prohibition is just applied to defined areas of the campus, then another danger emerges – the creation of religious ghettos within the campus itself.  University Vice Chancellor Professor Malcolm Gillies seems to think that imposing what is effectively sharia law on campus and creating the possibility for the emergence of ghettos is a way to create a liberal environment.  A genuine liberal environment requires tolerance, and if someone is obliged to bow to another person’s religious views then it is not a liberal environment.  A liberal environment is one in which even a person whose religion forbids alcohol tolerates other people drinking alcohol in their midst.  Indeed, a great many Muslims would probably be horrified that Professor Gilles appears to be suggesting the opposite.  Perhaps a large number of Muslims will ask him to mind his own business.

There are massive social implications regarding the ideas put forward by Professor Gilles because similar proposals could conceivably be made for society as a whole.  His argument is that because of an increased number of Muslims at the university then it is the university’s duty to change the rules in order to accommodate their religious views.  This is a very dangerous position to take and has massive implications if applied to society in general which also has an increasing Islamic population.  Will we find that the laws of the land are similarly changed when the Islamic population reaches 20%.  Is this what the Archbishop of Canterbury meant when he made his infamous comments regarding the inevitability of adopting certain aspects of sharia in Britain?  Is the real reason for the Government’s current campaign against drinking less to do with health concerns and more to do with making our society sharia compliant?

The word ‘offence’ in recent years has gone hand in hand with the decline of the right to freedom of expression.  The right not to be offended increasingly trumps the right to freedom of expression in contemporary society.  It is becoming increasingly difficult for people to discuss important social and political issues as a result of censorship and self- censorship.  Effective policy making is not possible in such an environment and democracy and freedom in general are imperiled as a result.

Can We Talk About This? is a production that uses the medium of dance to explore the issues and makes them accessible to a broader public that might otherwise not consider them.

The issue of freedom of expression is perhaps the most important political issue in the contemporary West but it is something that people are generally afraid to address for fear of causing offense.  In a year when the EU hosts a meeting of the ‘Istanbul Process’, that seeks to further erode our right to freedom of expression at the behest of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation – a group of countries not well known for their support for free expression, the promotion of freedom of expression as one of the central pillars of our civilisation is urgently needed.

—

The following discusses the threat posed by the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation to our freedom of expression: The Organization of Islamic Co-operation Needs To Get Its Own House In Order Before It Lectures The West

 —

There is discussion about Can We Talk About This? At the following:

The Financial Times

Mail Online

An article on the Telegraph website highlights an apparent desire at senior levels in Government to prevent Christians from wearing crosses and crucifixes in the workplace because they are not “required” by their religion.  However, there are still people who doubt that sharia law is being actively enforced in the Western world in countries like Britain even though incontrovertible evidence is available right before their eyes. Undoubtedly, and paradoxically, many will point to human rights as the reason for such a restriction of human rights.  People have worn Christian religious symbols for thousands of years without it affecting their ability to engage in gainful and productive employment.  So what has changed?

In modern Britain the full power and majesty of the state prevents you from speaking your mind or expressing your faith outside the strictures of sharia.  Christians are persecuted and free speech is outlawed and punished, people are imprisoned, lose their jobs, and are demonised when they engage in non-sharia compliant activities.  Sharia law is therefore effectively already the law of the land in Britain.  You can say anything or believe anything so long as it is ‘consistent with sharia’ and some are definitely more equal than others under sharia law!  Justice and freedom are now decaying ruins on the landscape of Britain.

Under sharia you have a stark choice between conversion to Islam or accepting a humiliating second class status that is secured by paying Jizya protection money! If you opt for a third option of accepting neither then you have no rights, no status, and no protection.  This choice is called tolerance by many misguided fools in the West who constantly carp on about the wonders of Al Andalus!

Britain has already created an atmosphere for the imposition of sharia law, Ministers are now actively fighting to introduce sharia laws one law at a time, in this case beginning the process of officially outlawing the open practice of non-Islamic religion.  In countries like Saudi Arabia that are under full sharia law it is illegal to openly display Christian symbols and to practice the religion openly, and it is a very serious offense to try to convert Muslims from Islam.

Allegations of police harassment of Christians when they were preaching in a ‘Muslim area’ of Birmingham illustrate the sharia atmosphere in Britain – people have the perception that preaching Christianity is a hate crime because it offends Islamic sensibilities.  If what the Christian’s are saying is true then enforcement of sharia rules is being officially enforced by agents of the British state. Of course it could be said that opposing Christian proselytization is a ‘requirement’ of the Islamic faith just as specifically wearing a cross or crucifix is not a ‘requirement’ of the Christian faith!  However, since proselytization is a requirement of the Christian faith it is quite clear that it is sharia and not what is religiously ‘required’ that determines the way people are allowed to conduct themselves in Britain.

The campaign against the open practice of non-Muslim religion was given momentum following the atrocities perpetrated on 11 September 2001 and the cynical invention of the term ‘Islamophobia’ by the Muslim Brotherhood.  Rather than accepting the reasons stated by the perpetrators themselves, self flagellating Western elites instead turned on their own people and traditions and used it as an opportunity to attack freedom itself.  In their eyes the attacks had nothing what so ever to do with the interpretation of Islamic religious texts, but everything to do with Westerners not showing the necessary level of servile respect towards Islamic teaching and beliefs.  As a direct result of the attacks on 9/11 Western governments responded by introducing sharia compliant legislation to ensure that Islam was accorded the respect that it demanded for itself.

Due to the inordinate power that Islam now has due to aggressively lobbying by powerful bodies such as the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation and the possible influence of petrodollars from the Middle East to subvert our political system and constitutional safeguards specific legislation is clearly needed to ensure the separation between mosque and state in Britain.  It is time for the British Government to represent Britain and the British people and not the interests of the barons of globalisation and their Islamist allies who lurk behind the scenes in corridors of power.

An event took place in London’s Trafalgar Square on Saturday 10 March 2012 in support of Aasiya Bibi, a Christian who has suffered persecution in Pakistan following accusations of blasphemy.  We gave more details about her case in a previous post.  The event started with a short march which was followed by a peace concert that incorporated prayers, speeches, and live music.

Muslim refusenik and author of The Trouble With Islam Today and Allah, Liberty and Love made a good speech in support of Aasiya Bibi.  Liberties Alliance had one of its British activists present at the event who recorded Irshad Manji’s speech and photographed the event – these can be found below:

The case of Aasiya Bibi is a heartbreaking catalogue of institutionalised injustice against a Christian woman in Pakistan.  What makes things even worse, is that Western leaders are currently collaborating with the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) to extend this institutionalised injustice to Western countries via the Istanbul Process.

Aasiya Bibi has been sentenced to death because it has been judged that the somehow insulted the Muslim Prophet Mohammad.  It seems that the insult came from Mrs Bibi’s devout Christianity and her refusal to convert to Islam.  The persecution of Mrs Bibi began when she said “Our Christ sacrificed His life on the cross for our sins…Our Christ is alive.”

This is an example from Pakistan and Pakistan is a member of the OIC that wants to get our rulers to impose a blasphemy law upon us in the West, a law that would effectively render our tradition for freedom of expression meaningless and invite the sorts of abuses that can be seen in this case.  The case of Aasiya Bibi illustrates why the OIC proposals are so insidious and why blasphemy laws are so wrong and contrary to the most basic human rights.

It is highly likely that the gradual acceptance of the OIC mantra will ultimately lead to the casual acceptance of the fanaticism and injustice that we see in Pakistan in the case of Aasiya Bibi.  We even see Muslims in Pakistan subjected to similar treatment because they are deemed ‘not Muslim enough’.  In the eyes of many fanatical Islamists the mere declaration of being a Muslim from a member of the Amadiyya sect can be regarded as blasphemy and therefore a hate crime!  So much for religious freedom under OIC norms!

Sign A Petition To Help Aasiya Bibi HERE where more information about her case is available.

The Organisation for Islamic Cooperation does what it can to wear the clothes of human rights despite the human rights records of many of its member states.  The Geneva based NGO UN Watch reported  that the 56 member voting bloc in the UN refused to participate in a debate about homophobic violence.  It appears that the OIC mask is slipping and it is beginning to show its true colours.

Readers of this website will no doubt be aware that the OIC has been campaigning against freedom of speech for many years in its effort to create a global blasphemy law.  Western governments have already embarked on a policy of appeasement with regard to the OIC and its tyrannical demands.  The US State Department has already hosted a meeting of the ‘Istanbul Process’ and the EU plans to follow suit later this year.  If freedom of speech is abolished then perhaps the OIC will try to pass the persecution of homosexuals off as a religious right and therefore demand punishment for anyone who criticises it.

The OIC’s attitude towards homophobia is completely unacceptable and the way such an organisation gets to lecture the world on human rights issues beggars belief.  It is incomprehensible that supposedly progressive Western states fawn on this organisation and apparently indulge its every whim.  The Istanbul Process is an effort on the part of the OIC to spread its outdated and tyrannical practices to societies that were once free.  It is time for Western leaders to  see OIC efforts for what they are.

The leaders of Western countries by acquiescing with the demands of the OIC are showing their own tyrannical streak.  They may claim to be tolerant and progressive but their actions suggest otherwise.  It would appear that the human rights garb worn by the OIC  and its member states is the most ill fitting and dishevelled ensemble that fools no one but perhaps the credulous pro-sharia leaders of the Western world.

In January we reported on the plight of Ahmadiyya Muslims in Kirklees in the United Kingdom.  We would now like to show how the intolerance toward this peaceful Muslim group is more general, and indeed perhaps a global phenomenon.

The People of Shambhala website has recently drawn attention to the attack on a mosque used by Ahmadiyya Muslims in West Java, Indonesia.  It seems that the attack was motivated by a feeling of intolerance from the surrounding orthodox Muslim community who do not regard Ahmadiyyas as proper Muslims.  Quite what gives one group of Muslims the right to judge another is unclear, but we are familiar with persecution of what one group regard as heretics from our own European history.

Those who campaign against the imposition of sharia norms on Western societies are frequently accused of seeing Islam as a monolith – something that is clearly not the case.  However, it seems that those who judge some of their coreligionists as heretics actually want to make Islam into a monolithic culture.  The hypocrisy of Islamist rhetoric, that seems to run with the hare and hunt with the hounds, is clear for all to see.

We call upon Western Governments to provide greater support and encouragement to minority Muslim groups, such as the Ahmadiyya in their jurisdictions, who genuinely support peace and tolerance.  Such governments should avoid policy making which gives comfort to those who want to persecute such groups.  Moderate Muslims as well as liberal Islamic reformers deserve the support and encouragement of those with political power.

More information about the The Ahmadiyya Muslim Community can be found HERE.

Those who claim that sharia law is just a moral code and something used to settle family disputes may be surprised that it could result in the death of a man who is accused of ‘insulting the Prophet Muhammad’ in tweets.  Even though he apologised for his tweets people are still demanding that he be executed in view of the seriousness of this most heinous of ‘crimes’.  It looks like the actual charge will be for apostasy as THIS article at SouthEastAsiaRealtime reports. Further information on this heartbreaking case can be found at National Post.

Malaysia, of course, is a member of the Organisation of Islamic Co-operation (OIC), the very same organisation that is lobbying against freedom of expression and demanding a global blasphemy law.  The instrument for this is the innocuous sounding United Nations Resolution 16/18 which refers to:

“Combating intolerance, negative stereotyping and stigmatisation of, and discrimination, incitement to violence and violence against, persons based on religion or belief.”

We can see clearly from this case, if people are willing to spend a few short minutes reading the articles that we have linked to,  that the accused young man has been stigmatised, discriminated against, been the victim of incitement to violence, and may ultimately be the victim of state sanctioned violence on the basis of beliefs stated in a casual communication via Twitter.  It that the sort of fearful world that people want to live in?  If United Nations Resolution 16/18 becomes the basis of a global legal norm then that is the direction that the world is likely to take.

It seems from these kinds of cases that sharia law can be used as an instrument of terror to punish thought crime.  It is a very sad testament to the state of Western democracy when sharia compliance is put forward as something that is reasonable and ethical and something to be embraced on human rights grounds.  Western Governments are currently encouraging the OIC’s anti free speech efforts by supporting the Istanbul Process.  Do they really think that it is a good idea for legislation to be created that can potentially be abused in this way to effectively punish people as heretics? Perhaps the powers that be want a docile compliant population who are afraid to give voice even the most basic of thoughts.

Laws that place unreasonable restrictions on freedom of expression, such as those based on sharia compliance, only serve to destabilise society by creating an atmosphere for mob rule and witch hunts.  They do not create happy societies or just societies and they are designed to only to protect established interests and entrenched dogma.  The vicious and spiteful way in which this young man has been hounded and put into a state of terror is a perfect illustration of why freedom of expression and universal human rights are essential.  Sharia compliance provides for neither and serves to undermine them both.  Increasingly people are persecuted in Western countries when they disagree with and campaign against sharia.  Western societies are becoming darker and more fearful places as a result of the gradual slide towards sharia ‘justice’.

By making excuses for sharia and encouraging the creation of sharia norms in Western societies national leaders are demonstrating that they are moving their societies away from the values of the Enlightenment.  They are making people think that their rulers actually support the terror that sharia can inflict as a means of increasing and consolidating their own political power.

Much has been said to reassure non-Muslims that sharia law will not apply to them, but are these reassurances valid? CNSNews.com has reported on a case in the Indian province of Jammu and Kashmir that put non-Muslims are the very centre of a sharia ruling.  The article at CNSNews.com states:

“A “shari’a court” in Srinagar, capital of India’s Jammu and Kashmir state, has issued a decree expelling four pastors from the territory, after accusing them of using financial inducements to convert young Muslims to Christianity.”

So much for sharia apologists who say that sharia is just a ‘moral code for Muslims’ that just cover matters relating to marriage and family disputes, and do not affect non-Muslims in any way.  Of course the spread of sharia compliance to the West in the wake of constant lobbying by the Saudi based Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) has created an atmosphere of sharia inspired discrimination there too.  People may recall the case in Birmingham in the United Kingdom when Christian preachers were confronted by a Police Community Support Officer (PCSO) and told that converting Muslims was a hate crime.

It is true that many Muslims regard apostasy as an extremely serious issue, but learning to tolerate people who choose to change their religion is something that such people need to work on.  Governments and servants of the state should not be encouraging such attitudes either through their action or inaction.  It seems that governments in many countries seem to encourage Islamist ideas and are apparently unwilling to support liberal Islamic reformers who could help promote understanding and community cohesion.

Sharia apologies tend to explain such examples away as just isolated negative examples.  If this is indeed the case then where are the positive examples of the practice of sharia where it stands clearly in favour of universal human rights?  Where does sharia stop the practice of stoning, amputating, and flogging?  Where are the positive parts of sharia that give non-Muslims and women equal rights?  Where are the parts of sharia that combat homophobia? Where is sharia active in promoting the most fundamental of freedoms – freedom of expression?  It is time for opinion formers to stop making excuses for sharia, and it is time for governments to stop encouraging it.