Muslim Radicals

[Rasputin]

Fundamentalists rarely encourage debate. And if they do debate, it is to argue for the most fervent, literal embrace of their religious doctrine.

While the rest of humanity struggles with the more-difficult questions in life, religious fundamentalists claim to have the answers already. They are unwilling to negotiate. When we doubt, they act.

At a time when terrorism has become the greatest threat to world security — and especially to the United States — identifying the roots of the problem becomes paramount.

Eliminating false fears, in order to identify actual threats, may be the first step in fighting terrorism. A key realization is that Islam does not perpetuate the terror feared today. It is not an inherently violent religion.



A review of the three predominant monotheistic religions tells us that Judaism, Christianity and Islam call for the worship of one God; the embrace of his ideals; and the defense of those ideals.

This common theme is not an accident, but rather a shared tradition of the three main Abrahamic faiths, with Judaism being the oldest, or essentially the monotheistic mother of both Christianity and Islam.

So how does an Abrahamic tradition like Islam digress from its path and contribute to terror?

The answer: Islam itself has never digressed from its rightful path. The terror is manufactured by those who see themselves in charge of interpreting Islamic doctrine — without the least consideration of historical context or traditional significance, and with the sole purpose of preaching divisive ideology.

The fundamentalist approach deems scripture infallible and not subject to critical analysis. The extremists' stringent focus is to feed young minds with unfounded hatred in order to serve their political agendas.

Thus, we arrive at a perverse version of Islam that justifies strapping bombs to young men and women in the name of jihad and detonating them in Baghdad coffee houses, the London Underground, Tel Aviv malls and any place where religious militants creep.

The Quran never justifies the killing of innocent people, a vile act against humanity. The Bible never justified the brutality of the Crusades, either, but it is worth remembering they, too, were done in the name of Christianity.

Militant Islam is no longer the practice of a religion but a self-serving agenda of destruction coupled with religious conditioning.

Much to the dismay of the Muslim world and the international community, the forward-looking thinkers — those peaceful believers of Islam whose population surpasses millions — are not the driving force of the religion, but rather are invisible in the shadow of the militant Islamists who comprise less than 5 percent of the entire Muslim population.

These militants don't use religious doctrine to enhance the morality of their respective societies. What they succeed in doing is transforming religion into a terrorizing force that keeps citizens fearfully quiet and compliant with extremist governments or organizations.

To eradicate terror in the post-9/11 era, we must combat extreme Islamists, the fundamentalists' agenda and the abuse of Islam — by embracing those who are passionate about change at the core. We must support a revisionist Islam and the secular Muslim agenda.

In the face of pious populations, the sincere revisionists who see the wrong that has been done to their religious tradition possess the passion to change that course.

Finding those people, distinguishing them from the corrupt leaders, embracing their passion and giving them the power and platform to bring about change amount to the only viable solution for curbing terror that comes under the cover of a religion that has been abused and manipulated too long.

The day that a Muslim leader, an intellectual, fearlessly treats the fundamentals of Islam as the pillars that sustain a believer — and not as propaganda to hate others — is the day that we will have helped turn the tide of hatred, the day that terrorism will cease, and the day the Middle East will breathe freely again.

[Rasputin]

The Act is an insult to the intelligence and integrity of foreign-born American citizens. It contributes to the self-destruction of America as it divides this “nation of immigrants’ along racial, ethnic and religious lines. Welcome to the beginning of another crusade with more widespread catastrophic outcome than ever before because this time around the war mongers possess more sophisticated weapons of mass destruction.

Fortunately not all Americans are to be blamed for this. The Act was passed because of the present make-up of the congress and a small band of extremists or neo-cons that are trying to hijack America and its ideals and hold this nation and the whole world as hostage in the name of “War on Terror.” Although this doesn’t seem like America, America can be America again if we if we act promptly by getting out to vote this coming November.

Behind all of this mess lie ignorance, arrogance and hypocrisy of astronomic proportion that even after some two hundred years is not willing to understand what America is all about, by trying to undo its revolution and throw its ideals in the trash bins of history. These are mostly the remnants of the opposition to the American Revolution who took their assets and fled to Canada and Europe to weather that progressive event. This is the group that is doing all it can to gradually change the “government of the people, by and for the people” to “government of a few, by and for a few.” In short, they are trying to take the “people” out of the “government of the people.”

Thomas Jefferson in his infinite wisdom knew that a society without infusion of new blood and new ideas will become stagnant like water without stirring. He also said, “God forbid if this country goes without a revolution for twenty years,” in spite of his genius he underestimated that the country could go without a big revolution for about two hundred years. The secret, as we know now, has been the constant influx of immigrants with talent, investment and determination to succeed that has kept this nation alive. It is that life-line the neo-cons want severed.

A combination of ignorance, arrogance, hypocrisy, backward thinking and jealousy has been the reasons for neo-cons belief that all of America’s problems are due to the influx of other nationalities into America. This plan to exclude foreign-born from the mainstream America starts with certain nationalities and in time will include all of them-very much like Adolph Hitler’s failed tactics that engulfed the fires of war a world war. History is repeating for those who do not read it!

With American public voting turnout of about 140th in the world, the foreign born Americans have a golden opportunity to effect a positive change in the direction of America as they always have, if this group forms an equal and opposite force to neutralize the neo-cons influence. We must not forget that almost all great movements including the American Revolution have started by a handful of dedicated people.

Let us remember the American saying, “Only the squeaking wheel gets the grease,” we can only reverse this self-destructing trend by utilizing our right to vote next month. Remember if there is one American habit we should not emulate is apathy and complacency and not voting.

[dasa424]

that is fascinating!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Rasputin]

Fight on two fronts

Twenty-five years ago we had a battle with the left in terms of how to deal with regimes like Iran. We won that battle ideologically, but at a price which was really disastrous, with tens of thousands of people killed, including over 400 from my own organisation, and 8 from our central committee. Having to fight the same battle yet again is almost like a sick joke, but it is one we are going to have to fight.

There are those who today find themselves standing in defence of the Islamic republic - equating, for instance, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in Iran with Chávez or Castro. In order to counter this, it is important to show where this regime came from, how it developed and what it means in terms of economic and social policy. I would also like to look at the way it is opposed by those various movements that the left in Europe and America seems to completely ignore and to examine the potential of those movements.

Defeat of revolution
1978-79 saw perhaps the largest mass movement ever in history, in the sense that it involved virtually the entire population of the country at that time - around 55-60 million people rose in revolt under the slogans of 'freedom', 'independence' and the 'Islamic Republic'. The first two were progressive and democratic, demonstrating that this was an anti-dictatorial and anti-imperialist movement, which was in the process of time subsumed under the third slogan.

Of course, large sections of the population came to realise that the Islamic Republic was not the answer and had not fulfilled the promises of that revolution: true independence and freedom. Before 1981, with its the mass arrests and executions, the organs of suppression had not yet been built and the left and democratic movements were becoming fully active. When we had street demonstrations, instead of watching us from the sidewalk, people were beginning to actually join us under the slogan of freedom.

What happened in 1981 was by no means preordained. There were three key factors that aided the counterrevolution. First of all there was the issue of the war, instigated by Iraq, which was essentially pushed by the United States as a means to throttle a major mass movement with truly anti-imperialist potential. That had the effect of halting the process whereby people were wavering and breaking away from the Islamic movement and the mullahs and moving towards the democratic camp.

The second was the charade of the occupation of the US embassy in Tehran. That gave a section of the left the excuse to fall behind the so-called anti-imperialism of the Islamists and their opposition to the 'great Satan'. The Tudeh Party, although not a mass party in terms of numbers, was ideologically very powerful and was able to split the largest left movement in Iran - which had not tens of thousands, but hundreds of thousands behind it - into three separate parts: the majority, minority and the third group (the left-wing of the majority).

Even so, that democratic movement could have won were it not for the fact that the Mujahedin made the tactical mistake of making a military uprising prematurely, allowing the Islamists to launch a major crackdown on the left, killing and imprisoning tens of thousands of us. Almost every left organisation was destroyed, with those who escaped forced into exile. Those that stayed behind, such as Tudeh, called us 'radishes' - red on the outside, but white inside. They were in turn imprisoned and killed three years later.

That was the end of the left as a force in Iran. The war ended in disaster, supreme leader Ruhollah Khomeini drank his "cup of poison" and within a year or so died, having ordered the massacre a thousands of prisoners. What was left of the working class and democratic forces was decimated. The ideological battle that we had with the Tudeh, the majority, about the anti-imperialist nature of the Islamic regime, was won - but in the process we were killed in out thousands. Yet now we have to fight this whole battle again - what a tragedy.

'Reconstruction'
I want now to concentrate on the 'reconstruction programme' at the time of Hashemi Rafsanjani's presidency of Iran - Rafsanjani was, of course, defeated by Ahmadinejad in 2005. Although Rafsanjani was president, Ali Khamenei, who was Khonmeini's successor as the supreme leader was very much running the show, as he still does. He has control over all the major organs of the state, including the armed forces, security forces, judiciary and prisons, and he also has representatives in almost every other organisation. Khamenei stands on top, but he does not have the charisma of Khomeini.

The essence of the reconstruction was the neoliberal programme of the International Monetary Fund. It means privatisation, urbanisation and all the things that go with it -- poverty, hunger, destitution. The reconstruction drove the population of Iran into a series of revolts between 1992 and 1995. In some cities like Qazvin the people took over for two or three days. In Mashhad they had to be shot down in the streets from helicopters. It was interesting to see the 'anti-imperialist' government implementing this neoliberal policy. In 1995-1997, stung by the urban riots, foreign exchange controls were abandoned (another IMF dictat), causing a huge crash in the value of the rial, the Iranian currency. The price of bread and housing soared and essentially forced the regime to change course. The 'reformist' Khatami was elected in 1997.

However, those who tell us the Islamic republic is reformable should listen to the words of Mohammad Ali Abtahi. Ali Abtahi became vice-president for legal and parliamentary affairs after Khatami's landslide re-election in 2001. He chaired the national security council and was deputy minister of information, so he knows what he is talking about. He said: "We initiated the reform movement because we heard the sirens of danger."

For this regime, reform, if it does occur, has to be pushed from below and this is really what happened - a 'landslide' movement from below. But Khatami continued the neoliberal policies of the previous regime. Therefore the poverty, the increasing encroachment on people's livelihood, privatisation, unemployment, layoffs - and all those things which we have learnt to recognise as part and parcel neoliberal policy across the globe - continued. The reformist movement gradually crumbled, because it was unable to answer the very questions posed by the people. They wanted freedom - there was some superficial movement, but it was limited and the regime would not allow more. They wanted an answer to the poverty, but inflation went up and things actually got worse. This was a time when a whole generation born in the period after the revolution came of age, but they had no jobs and nothing to do.

Neoliberalism created an oligarchy, or 'clericarchy', of rich mullahs, including Rafsanjani himself, who is one of the hundred richest people in the world. About 100 families were able to use the changes brought by privatisation, abolition of exchange controls, etc to accumulate immense private wealth. The Iranians call them aghazadeh ha ('sons of lords') - the whole new class of super-rich that is concentrating the wealth of the country in their hands.

They went into things that in countries like Iran were never previously privately owned. For instance, Rafsanjani owns the new Mahan airline. They took over shipping and private banks begin to appear, where they were previously state-owned. In particular they went where the real money is - oil and gas. Lucrative deals involving new oilfields in the Persian Gulf were struck with companies under the control of the aghazadeh ha.

Militarisation
In Khomeini's time the military had no political role. The army was specifically barred from involvement in politics and military personnel could not stand as candidates or for office unless they resigned their post. Khomeini wanted all power in the hands of the mullahs. He also made sure the military had very little economic power - although heroin smuggling from Afghanistan was at this time run by the security forces.

During this whole period from 1997 onwards, the military started encroaching upon the power of the mullahs and began a process of rivalry. Initially they tried to undermine the reformist programme of Khatami by kidnapping and killing progressive writers and intellectuals, and later assassinating reformist intellectuals and leaders, such as publisher Saeed Hajjarian (who was shot and left in a come, but did not actually die).

Gradually changes were made which allowed the military to engage in politics. For example, for the first time it was possible for them to contest elections and leading army personnel were elected onto town councils, which do have some power, and won the mayorships of many towns. In the last parliamentary elections, which saw the end of the reformist majority, a number of military candidates won seats and some were appointed to posts such as deputy minister.

Elements in the military became involved in smuggling goods in a big way -- consumer goods, banned videos, and drugs. Along the entire Persian Gulf coastline countless unofficial jetties are used for smuggling on a mass scale.Unlike the mullahs and the aghazadeh ha who engage in legal trade, these military elements are importing illegally and not paying tax (and by not paying tax they are indirectly weakening the theocratic state).

The aim is to institutionalise militarisation and channel the resources of the country into military hands. They were first of all able to undermine the reformist movement by gaining control over the security apparatus and the courts. It was largely through their efforts that Khatami's vote fell and eventually he was defeated. Last year saw a head to head fight with the clericarchy in the presidential elections, when Ahmadinejad came to power.

[Rasputin]

The mullah oligarchy made a big mistake in putting forward Rafsanjani as their candidate. Rafsanjani is the most hated and detested figure in Iran, corrupt from head to toe. He looks like a crook, behaves like a crook and everyone knows he is a crook. People refused to vote for him as the reformist candidate and there was a huge abstention.

By contrast, Ahmadinejad's election was brilliantly orchestrated like a military campaign. Firstly, his supporters ignored television and other media and went out directly to shanty towns, selling Ahmadinejad as a man of the people. They distributed hundreds of thousands of videos and CDs showing the corruption of the oligarchs. Secondly they mobilised the basij militia, ordering each member to bring 10 people to vote. There are one million basij members, so even if they only succeeded in bringing seven, that would still be seven million guaranteed votes.

It was, if you like, a silent, clean and bloodless coup. In a way it completed the militarisation process. Today all the major ministries, all the major deputy ministries, governorships, city councils, etc are in the hands of military or ex-military people. They are using this power to shift over ownership to themselves (their possession of the means of violence gives them an additional ability to do so, of course). Let us give some examples.

The new international airport in Tehran is absolutely state of the art. The intention was to put the construction contract out to tender, but the military argued that, being an airport, it was a security matter and took it over without tender. A Turkish firm won the tender to supply mobile phones to Iran, but again the military argued this was a security risk and took it over. You may ask, how is the army able to do this? Linked to various ministries are thousands of companies which are actually part of the military establishment. The military in Iran is a major economic force. We know where all the revenue will be going from the airport and phone company.

The military has also been to where the real money is: oil and gas. But in order to mount a takeover they had to get rid of the mullahs. Firstly, a series of corruption cases were instigated against Rafsanjani, who is still one of the most powerful people in Iran. Apart from his wealth, he is head of the expediency council, which is supposed to stand above all the institutions of the state and resolve disputes amongst them. There has been an attempt to bring Rafsanjani before a clerical court on charges of corruption and a huge amount of detail has been published about his practices. Through this process the military camp was able to remove Rafsanjani and others connected to the mullahs from the national oil company.

To give an example of what this means in terms of money, the $9 billion contract to build an gas pipeline from Iran to India has been awarded to a military-connected engineering firm, without tender. The sum of $9 billion dollars from the foreign exchange reserves has now been transferred into the military coffers in an extra-budgetary transaction that did not have to go through parliament. $36 billion has actually disappeared from the reserves: it is not noted in any of the official accounts and has presumably also gone into military hands.

This battle is still going on. The old clerical oligarchy is now being seriously challenged by a new military oligarchy in terms of the possession of the wealth of the country. Recently there was a change in the constitution. There was an article that ring-fenced a whole series of key industries and services deemed to be essential for the running of the state. So, for instance, health, banks, shipping, airports, railways, oil and steel, etc could not be privatised. A year ago, before Ahmadinejad came to power, the expediency council changed the interpretation of that article. To change the constitution a referendum is supposed to be held, but, of course, after parliament refused permission, the article was re-interpreted in any case. Yet the change was only announced after Ahmadinejad was elected. The whole sphere of neoliberal policies, and the degree of misery that comes with it, is a battlefield between the two rival power bases.

There are some differences in the way the two sides have approached privatisation. Control of the strategic heights of the Iranian economy is one of the key aims of the military. This is in part a preparation for a war they know is coming, a perspective of war economy. It is able to use the income from the sale of these industries for whatever purposes they deem fit. There are now between 1,000 and 2,000 companies linked to the military. In addition, a certain number of shares are made available to the public. This is a way of paying back those who voted the right way.

What about the political dimension? I think in the long term, or even the shorter term, the aim is almost certainly to simplify the power structure and to have a much more governable system than we have had in Iran hitherto. Remember, there are at present two parallel systems - one elected from below and the other imposed from above - and they have often come into conflict with each other. Although power has mostly remained in the hands of the unelected, clerical-controlled top-down structure, sometimes the lower, elected structure has been able to intervene, has been able to push, as we have seen in the reforms of the last eight years.

I think the aim of current policy is to remove the mullahs once and for all and to institutionalise a military government headed by one single mullah at the top. This can be done through winning control of the 'Assembly of Experts', which has the power to elect the supreme leader and votes every eight years. The next vote is due within a year. If they can control this assembly, as they now control parliament, they will then remove and put in their own man. The removal of the government of the clergy and its replacement by the military will in some senses make it more fascistic. Previously, institutions below had some role. There was always a battle over the exclusion of people who were not deemed Islamist enough, or who did not have the 'right kind' of Islam. Such people were always liable to be purged, but they did have some access to power and this power actually increased during the time of the reformist movement.

In a sense then this government is closer to fascism than even Khomeini's was. The whole aim is to exclude the people from any process where they can have any direct role in decision-making. People are pulled into the political scene as a mass, but not as an organised mass. Any independent organisation or action is to be banned. The only place where people can be organised is through the military -- eg in the Basij.

Look at it from a historical perspective, this was the only response that the Iranian regime could give to the crisis in that country, a crisis that had its roots in a mammoth waking up from the distant past, trying to organise a modern state in a modern world with rules that are inherited from a time of shepherds and camels.

Mass movements
What is happening down below in Iran? No-one seems to talk about the movements. As with most other countries in the Middle East, people talk about Islam and imperialism, but you would think there is nothing else 'down there'. This is not so. Iran's many movements are becoming more organised.

* The women's movement has always been highly active, but it has become even more so now. More and more independent women's movements are forming, and they have gained new courage, as on the March 8 celebration of International Women's Day this year. A mass gathering of women came together in one of the major squares of Tehran, but was attacked by thugs in civilian clothes and suppressed. Iranian women have become, and will become, much bolder.

* The student movement, which was actually almost entirely in the hands of Khomeini, became disillusioned, mostly switched allegiance and became the motor force behind the organisation of the reformist camp. However, students have lost their illusions in the reformists too and are now developing their own independent organisations. For an example see an article one of these students recently published in the Weekly Worker (July 27). I urge those of you who have not done so to read it to see the radical views these people are taking up. They are forming independently, separately and radically - some of them radically left. This is something which is new.

The regime understands that, which is why it is trying to stamp out the student movement. They have arrested and tortured student leaders, provoking hunger strikes -- in some cases to the death. They have expelled them from university and imprisoned them, but the movement continues.

[Rasputin]

* The working class movement in Iran has changed radically and there is a very good article in the latest issue of Iran Bulletin describing the developments in the Iranian workers' movement over the last year and the way it is beginning to think of itself and organise nationally. There have been at least three gatherings of national representatives in attempts to form free trade unions.

This was the demand of workers at the Sherkat-e Vahed bus company in Tehran, which employs a huge number of people. They went on strike, among other demands, for the right to form independent unions. The leaders were arrested in February and the chair of the union, Ossanlu, was only released in August. This strike caught the attention of the international working class and shows that pressure can be applied and that true solidarity does make a difference. Workers at the Giant Khodro car plant have also been on strike. But the list is much, much longer than this. The Iranian working class is fighting for its life and workers are destitute - many have not been paid for some time, so the action taken is over really basic demands. Increasingly, though, they are addressing key issues like the right to form trade unions and other organisations.

* Then there are the nationalities. In the early days of the revolution, the Kurdish national movement and then the Turkmen movement were brutally suppressed. More recently the Azeri, Baluchi and Arab movements have been active. Armenians and Assyrians are also beginning to demand more rights.

Remember, Iran is a multilingual and multinational state and all the regimes that have been in power since the last century have suppressed the independent voice of these nationalities. Interestingly the Islamic regime, because of its very nature in emerging from a revolution, was actually less repressive. For instance, whereas in the time of the shah Turkish-language newspapers were not permitted, there are now a number that are publishing. For the Arabs the clampdown is more severe - the regime claims for security reasons. On the whole, although there is strong repression, it is slightly less than before - which explains why the national movements are much more vocal.

It is usually the case that in conditions of repression democratic demands have tended to be channelled around one question - in Iran it has been the nationalities movement. It is the one area over which it is possible to some extent to organise, meet and even write. The national movement is both a movement for the right to be educated in one's own language, etc, but it is also a focus for some of the other resentments.

This is also a field where imperialism can operate. Imperial aggression may well take the form not of a direct attack, but of fomenting fragmentation - that is a very real danger. A strong, single Iran is not part of the neoliberal agenda for the Middle East and they are using the nationalities as a means of splitting up or at least weakening Iran. Some of the nationalist movements - for example, elements in the Azerbaijani movement - are highly chauvinistic. The nationalist movement is alive and potentially very dangerous, if its legitimate demands are not addressed by progressive forces.

Finally, the religious minorities. The majority of Iranians are shia, but there is also a large sunni minority, who are denied many jobs.

For the Socialist Workers Party and the Stop the War Coalition it is as though these movements down below are of minor significance or do not even exist. Yet they are essentially the force which can genuinely resist imperialist aggression. Not just in Iran, but also in Iraq and Syria, by ignoring such movements they are missing out on those very forces that can genuinely block, prevent and perhaps reverse imperial aggression. If we, the left, do not support these movement, then the monarchists will - and they did. When the Tehran bus workers went on strike, Radio America was the first to gave them a voice. When the International Women's Day protestors were attacked, Radio Israel were the first to report it. But the left in Europe and the USA was strangely silent.

Not just two sides
This is the second time this ideological battle has been fought. First time round it ended in tragedy, and we must ensure that does not happen the second time. Yet much of the anti-war movement and major sections of the American and European left see only two sides. On one hand there is imperialism and on the other are the Islamists.

They fail to see that within these societies there are major movements, which are excluded by the Islamists. You could scour their voluminous publications in vain. There would be pages and pages comparing Ahmadinejad to Castro and Chavez, but not a word on the working class demanding its basic rights from this Ahmadinejad -- and getting a bloody nose and more.

The Islamist movement in Iran is different from Hamas, different from Hezbollah, different from the Taliban, different from Rifah Party in Turkey - there is no question they are different. But what do they have in common? We must look at all political movements and decide what are the key factors allowing us to assess them. When it comes to their political and economic programme there is one thing that unites these movements - they are all repressive and when in power all have pursued neoliberal policies.

How is it possible to fight imperialist aggression with these forces as your only ally? It is so short-sighted and so stupid. Unless are able to mobilise the left behind a much more logical and combative programme, we are going to perpetuate the cycle of war, massacres and terrorism, and more war, massacres and terrorism, spreading to other areas of the Middle East and perhaps central Asia.

[Rasputin]

Muslim radicals to justify violence at student debate

Islamists will seek to justify the use of violence at a debate this week organised by students at Trinity College Dublin.
They will be opposed by moderate Muslims, including the Turkish ambassador to Ireland, at an event organised by the Philosophical Society on Thursday.

In an atmosphere where the UK government is seeking to clamp down on signs of extremism on campus the debate is guaranteed massive media interest.

The Trinity students have invited Anjem Choudary, a former spokesman for Al-Mahajiroun, to participate and make the case for violence. He will be joined by Sulayman Keeler, of al-Ghurabaa, Omar Brooks, religious leader of the Saviour Sect Islamist group, and Mohammed Shamsuddin.

Al-Mahajiroun, al-Ghurabaa and the Saviour Sect group have all been banned by Westminster.
"People are saying that we are giving the extremists a platform to preach hatred but to not allow freedom of speech is to go against everything that this society stands for and this country," said Daire Hickey, president of the society.

"This is obviously a hugely contentious issue, but like any argument has two valid sides to the story, which in this case is the views of the moderate and the extreme.

"The society is here to listen, to question and to understand and the open forum that we provide is the very best place for them to dispel any myths."

Opposing and speaking on behalf of moderate Muslims are Berki Dibek, the Turkish ambassador, David Pidcock, of the UK Islamic party, and Shaheed Satardien, of the Supreme Muslim Council of Ireland.

Mr Hickey said: "We have not deliberately chosen this topic to provoke an outcry, but to address the issue of violence and to give the students an opportunity to challenge both sides."

He added: "The issue of the veil will more than likely be raised because of Jack Straw's recent comments but it will all tie in well together."

The immense media attention to the debate promises a crowd of high proportions, but organisers say they will not change venue.

"We have enough capacity for 250 people and it's going to be crowded, but we didn't want to change venues simply for the reason that we always have it in the same place and the subject matter shouldn't affect that."

The university has given permission for the debate to take place, but a spokesman added: "This event is being organised by the Philosophical Society, which is a student society. The College authorities have no part in the organisation of these debates or the choice of speakers."

The debate will be held at the Graduates Memorial Building, Trinity College, Dublin, at 7.30pm.

[Rasputin]

Report: British universities to be asked to 'spy' on Muslim students

In a move sure to set off more fireworks between Tony Blair's government and the Muslim community in Britain, lecturers and university staff will be asked to spy on "Asian looking" and Muslim students whom they suspect are "involved with Islamic extremism and supporting terrorist violence."

The Guardian reports that universities will be told to report these students to police because the government believes that campuses have become "fertile ground" for recruiting would-be extremists.

Wakkas Khan, president of the Federation of Student Islamic Societies, said: "It sounds to me to be potentially the widest infringement of the rights of Muslim students that there ever has been in this country. It is clearly targeting Muslim students and treating them to a higher level of suspicion and scrutiny. It sounds like you're guilty until you're proven innocent."

Gemma Tumelty, president of the National Union of Students, said: "They are going to treat everyone Muslim with suspicion on the basis of their faith. It's bearing on the side of McCarthyism."

The 18-page document sent to universities that outlines the proposal apparently acknowledges that universities will not be happy about passing information to British police's special branch, for fear it amounts to collaborating with the "secret police." It also singles out Islamic societies on campus.

The document urges close attention be paid to university Islamic societies and - under the heading "inspiring radical speakers" - says: "Islamic societies have tended to invite more radical speakers or preachers on to campuses ... They can be forceful, persuasive and eloquent. They are able to fill a vacuum created by young Muslims' feelings of alienation from their parents' generation by providing greater 'clarity' from an Islamic point of view on a range of issues, and potentially a greater sense of purpose about how Muslim students can respond."

It suggests checks should be made on external speakers at Islamic society events: "The control of university or college Islamic societies by certain extremist individuals can play a significant role in the extent of Islamist extremism on campus."

The Times of London reports that the government plans for schools, universities, and colleges comes a day after the news that Britain's religious schools of all faiths will be required to offer at least a quarter of their places to students of other faiths or "non-believers." About one-third of the state-run schools in Britain are religious in orientation, primarily Christian. The Times reports that four-fifths of the top secondary (British equivalent of US high school) schools are faith-based.

There are seven Muslim state schools in England, and five more are recommended for public funding. Tony Blair hopes to bring more of the 150 private Muslim schools into the state sector. There are two Sikh schools, 37 Jewish schools, 2,041 Catholic schools and 4,646 Church of England schools.
The Daily Telegraph reports that British Communities Secretary Ruth Kelly, who has been accused of "stigmatizing Muslims," will try to defuse the row with that community by "calling on the whole of society to share the burden of fighting extremism in all its forms."

Ms Kelly, who specifically widened the debate to include the threat of the extreme right, will urge community leaders to consider whether they are doing enough to tackle extremism in schools, colleges and universities and to promote national cohesion. Identifying "hot spot" neighborhoods which breed hatred should be a priority, she will add.

"In major parts of Britain the new extremism we're facing is the single biggest security issue for local communities," she will say. "This is not just a problem for Muslim communities. The far right is still with us, still poisonous, still trying to create and exploit divisions. Extremism is an issue for all of us. We all must play our part in responding to it."

While the Church of England schools have said they will set aside a quarter of their places for people outside the faith, The Telegraph reports that Catholic and Muslim school authorities have responded angrily to the idea. The Catholic education service said it was deeply saddened by the idea.

Its director, Oona Stannard, said: "Far from leading to improved community cohesion it would lead to division. It is hardly a recipe for cohesion and parental choice when Catholic families seeking to bring their children up in the faith are turned away from Catholic schools to make way for quotas of children from families of other religions or none at all," she said. "The Government is treating Catholic schools as part of the problem when in fact they are part of the solution. It wants to take away the rights of governing bodies, the ramifications will be enormous if these quotas are railroaded through at the eleventh hour," she said.

Idris Mears, the director of the Association of Muslim Schools, said that less than one percent of Muslim children in Britain have access to state-run schools. He said a third of Christian children and two-fifths of those from Jewish homes do have access to similar facilities in their faiths. "Parents would be very unhappy if they moved to be near a Muslim school and found it had to provide a quarter of places to other children," he said.

The BBC reports that these initiatives, along with former Foreign Secretary Jack Clark's criticism of Muslim women wearing veils in public and the case of a Muslim teaching assistant suspended because she would not remove her veil in a classroom, has led a Muslim politician to attack his own party. Lord Nazir Ahmed, a Labour peer in the House of Lords, accused the government of "demonizing the Muslim community" and that it was fashionable these days for politicians to "have a go at the Muslims."

The Times reported Friday that the Blair government also drew fire when it released its report on human rights abuses last week. While the report criticized Hizbullah and Syria for their roles in the recent Lebanon war, it didn't mention any of Israel's actions. Three of the major human rights organizations, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and the office of the United Nation High Commissioner for Human Rights, issued reports or warnings that said both Hizbullah and Israel committed war crimes and violations of international law during their conflict. The British Foreign Office offer an explanation for the discrepancy: "the war came too late to be dealt with comprehensively and that Israel's part would be covered next year."

[Rasputin]

Report: Islamic site finds Apple store offensive

A Middle East research organization reports that Apple's flagship retail store on 5th Avenue in midtown Manhattan (between 58th and 59th) is offensive to Muslims. The report cites an Islamic Web site urging Muslims to spread the word in hope that "Muslims will be able to stop the project."

The report by The Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI), a 501 (c)3 organization based in Washington, D.C., states that some Islamic Web sites take exception to Apple's cube-shaped building design (pictured above) and that it "constitutes a blatant insult to Islam."

The reason? Because the building resembles the Ka'ba in Mecca (pictured below), is called "Apple Mecca," (by whom?), is open 24 hours a day like the Ka'ba, and "contains bars selling alcoholic beverages."

Ka'ba means cube. It is the first place Allah was worshiped. From the outside it does not look very exciting. It is made of concrete blocks. Inside it is decorated with texts from the Qu'ran.

I was just at the Fifth Avenue Apple store in NYC and don't remember them serving alcohol. The report appears to have misunderstood the intent of the "Genius Bar" and the "iPod bar." The group which "explores the Middle East through the region's media" only appears to have two valid facts in their complaint - that the Apple store is in the shape of a cube and that it's open 24 hours a day.

UPDATE: MEMRI is not suggesting that the Apple store is offensive, they merely cite "an Islamic Web site." Their function is to translate existing news reports from Arabic, not endorse or agree with those reports.

[mike435]

lol omg

get a life

[Rasputin]

Terror and Cause and Effect

We know now what we didn't know then, back in the dark days of the autumn of 2001, and we still cannot get it right. After five years we now have a long track record of seeing what can, will and usually does go wrong when the administration acts unilaterally in the legal war on terror. It has been written into the record of one Supreme Court case after another, one lower court ruling following the next, and still we accept the premise that the rule of law as we knew it could and should be twisted unrecognizably, now and forever more, until this ill-defined, ever-evolving, undeclared war is over.

The detainee legislation that the Congress has just passed, with the advice and consent of White House officials hungering for more legal latitude upon their conduct, represents a complete abdication of the legislative branch's vital duty to act as a brake upon the executive branch. Worse, Congress has now officially become an explicit co-conspirator along with the Bush administration in its five-year-long effort to freeze out of the equation the federal courts, the last bulwark against tyranny. The less-than-do-nothing Congress finally did something and in doing so made a bad situation an order of magnitude worse.

Generations from now, historians and scholars and lawyers and judges will look back upon the past five years, and last month's formal legislative reaction to it, and marvel at the vast gulf between cause and effect. It is of course inapt to compare this atrocious law to the decrees that caused the internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II. But it is not too early to predict that our heirs will look back upon this law, and the dark effort behind it, with the same mixture of astonishment and disgust which our generation feels over what our government did in our name following Pearl Harbor. A Sept. 28 New York Times editorial compared this law with the notorious Alien and Sedition Act of the late 18th Century and, indeed, it is that bad and maybe even worse given what we know of the current war on terrorism.

But back to the grand disconnect that exists between what this law does -- gives the President new broad power -- and what preceded it -- the White House's often bungled use of its already-existing broad power. Long after both President Bush and Osama Bin Laden are gone from the scene, our successors-in-interest will look at this wretched law in particular, and the events upon which it is based, and wonder why Congress dramatically loosened the Bush Administration's legal leash at this time rather than severely restricting it.

Reasoned voices will then ask: What did the White House do between 9/11/01 and 9/11/06 to earn the trust and added authority that the Congress now has given it? What did President Bush do along the terror law front since the Twin Towers fell to cause Congress to place so much faith in him and his Administration when it comes to tiptoeing the tightrope between security and freedom?

The answer to these questions is nothing. So far, some legal experts say, the Bush Administration's track record when it comes to exercising unbridled power has been lame. To put it less mildly, as some legal experts have, it is actionable. Over and over again, they say, the executive branch has deceived Congress and the courts. Over and over again, the Administration has oversold its terror cases. Over and over again it has tried to hide its errors under the veil of "national security."

And after this foreboding pattern and practice by the executive branch what does the Congress do? Does it increase its oversight until it is satisfied that its partners in the White House are doing a better job of fighting the war on terror? Does it give the White House clear and unequivocal limits for its authority? Does it point to the abuses and excesses of the past five years and say, "no more"? No. It does none of these things. Instead, it rewards the White House's behavior with more discretion, authority, and power. And then, to ensure that the White House can safely use its new freedom, the Congress also tries to ensure that the federal courts cannot subsequently come in and put a stop to it all.

Enormous and unchecked new power now has been given to a White House whose officials at first called Zacarias Moussaoui the "20th hijacker" but were wrong; who at first called Jose Padilla the "dirty bomber" but were wrong; who at first called Yaser Hamdi such a threat to national security that he could not even be allowed to talk to his attorney -- until they decided to set him free. Freedom from judicial review now has been given to the same administration officials who allowed Maher Arar, a Canadian citizen whom we now know that they knew was not a terrorist, to be transferred to Syria for torture. Vague or narrow definitions of torture now have been given to the executive branch operatives who are responsible for Abu Ghraib. New powers have been given to the people who brought us the National Security Agency's domestic spying program, the one that some legal experts say violates both federal law and the Constitution.

The list goes on and on. The draconian USA Patriot Act, enacted just weeks after September 11, 2001 without any meaningful review or discussion on Capitol Hill, seems like the Bill of Rights compared with this effort. And yet despite the breadth and weight of this evidence, Congress, our national fact-finding body, has just reached its verdict: The culpable party doesn't just get acquitted -- it goes free with permission to operate under a brand new set of laws made especially for it, laws that will make it even more difficult to ever find it guilty again. This isn't Orwell. It's the Marx Brothers. Only there is absolutely nothing funny about it. Our elected officials have just traded the promise of more security for the actual loss of our liberty.

Thanks to this new law, fewer judges will be willing or able to look behind the curtain and help tell us all what is really happening to those individuals who, under the new law, can be rounded up and denied fundamental rights (like the right to face charges or the right to a trial). Remember the old Reagan saw? Trust but verify? Here, Congress has given the President its trust and ours without verifying whether the White House truly deserved either. The record establishes that it doesn't.

[Rasputin]

Survey reveals Muslim ambivalence on terrorism

A recent survey that found 9 percent of Indonesian Muslims justify the Bali bombings as a form of "jihad to defend Islam" confirms the ambivalence of some Muslims toward terrorism, a Muslim scholar says.

Ihsan Ali Fauzi of Paramadina Foundation, which was co-founded by the late Muslim scholar Nurcholis Madjid, told The Jakarta Post the 9 percent figure cited in the study by the Indonesian Survey Institute (LSI) was "reasonable", given the troubled relationship between Islam and the West.

"Many Muslims do not like terrorists and they fully support the government's effort to take strict action against them, but at the same time they also accept why militants turn to terrorism, which is primarily the fear of Western domination in Muslim countries," he said.

The survey found a significant number of Indonesian Muslims sympathize with the violent tactics of the al-Qaeda-linked regional terrorist group Jamaah Islamiyah, which has been fighting for the establishment of an Islamic state in Southeast Asia.

In the survey, 17.4 percent of respondents said they supported Jamaah Islamiyah, 16.1 percent backed the Indonesian Mujahidin Council (MMI) and 7.2 percent supported Hizbut Tahrir Indonesia. The latter two are hard-line Islamic groups campaigning for the introduction of sharia in the country. The survey involved 1,092 Muslim respondents from across the country, who were questioned between September and mid-October.

Ihsan said he feared some Muslims support terrorism because they see it as bargaining power against a "capricious" West.

"But we have to conduct qualitative studies on this," he said, noting that the LSI survey was quantitative and it was likely the respondents did not really understand what they were saying.

Indonesia, a predominantly Muslim country, has been hit by several deadly terror attacks since the Sept. 11, 2001, attack on the U.S.

The 2002 Bali bombings that killed more than 200 people, mostly foreign tourists, was the first and deadliest attack on Indonesia so far.

In 2003, homegrown terrorists attacked the J.W. Marriott Hotel in Jakarta, while the Australian Embassy was targeted in 2004. Most of the victims of those bombings were Indonesian Muslims.

Ihsan said Muslims intoxicated by extreme views did not necessarily act like militants. He said it was likely that some Muslims were quietly throwing their support behind the militants, including financial support, even if they remained reluctant to carry out attacks themselves.

"It is expensive to carry out these attacks," he said.

He divides Islamic militants into three categories. The first are vigilantes, who raid bars and nightclubs, especially during the fasting month. In the second category are paramilitary groups such as the Indonesian Mujahidin Council and Laskar Jihad, while the third category includes terrorists such as Bali bombers Imam Samudra and Amrozi.

Syarif Hidayatullah State Islamic University rector Azyumardi Azra said the LSI survey showed that Muslim leaders and ulema had work to do to make clear that suicide bombings and terrorism run counter to the true meaning of jihad.

"There is no religious justification for violence and terrorism," he told the Post.

However, he doubted the number of radicals in Indonesia reached 9 percent of the Muslim population. "It is too high. It (9 percent) would mean there are 15 million of them. From my view, the figure is far lower," he said.

Azyumardi urged Muslim leaders to be more proactive in reaching out to young Muslims, so they would not fall under the influence of extremists like Noordin M. Top, who has allegedly recruited young Indonesians to carry out terrorist missions.

He warned that the survey's findings could be seen as confirming the perception of some Westerners that Islam is a violent religion, thereby further fueling intolerance and the divide between Islam and the West. He said it was up to the ulema to promote a peaceful Islam to prevent this from happening.

[Rasputin]

Radical Muslim who made death threats against Pope escapes prosecution

A furious row has erupted after it emerged that a notorious preacher will not be prosecuted for issuing a death threat to Pope Benedict over his remarks about Islam.

During an organised demonstration, Muslim radical Anjem Choudary said that anyone who insulted Prophet Mohammed would be 'subject to capital punishment'.

He made his remarks in a TV interview while protesting at the rally.

The protest took place outside the Roman Catholic Westminster Cathedral at the height of the furore over the Pope's quoting of a 14th century emperor who said the Prophet brought 'things only evil and inhuman'.

Police received about 25 complaints about the protest which left members of the central London Cathedral's congregation 'upset' and 'intimidated'.

But Scotland Yard has concluded that 'no substantive offences' were committed on September 17.

The force has also decided that lawyer Choudary's comments, which actually came in a media interview rather, did not constitute an offence.

Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir Ian Blair told the Metropolitan Police Authority his officers were trying to 'hold the line of free speech' in an 'angry time'.

"The Met can only police the law as it stands," he said.

"No substantive offences were discovered during that demonstration.

"The remarks by one person that were widely printed in the media did not take place at the demonstration."

David Davies, Tory MP for Monmouth, who demanded action against Choudary, said: "My reaction is that it is quite disgraceful that Sir Ian Blair is not taking action over this.

"It sends out a message to Muslim extremists across the world that we, as a country, do not have the moral courage to stand up to them.

"They are likely to become more and more outspoken because it is apparent that we do not have the courage to stand up to them."

Rachel Whittaker, a Tory member of the MPA, had earlier described in the meeting how members of the congregation 'felt intimidated' and 'were upset' by the protest.

Others even felt 'threatened' she said, describing the demonstration as: "An appalling misuse of the freedom of speech".

However, Sir Ian said: "The Cathedral authorities expressed complete satisfaction with the police operation.

"We are living in an angry time. It is the job of the Metropolitan Police to hold the line of free speech and it is a difficult line to hold.

"But in this particular case I am satisfied there were no offences committed by anybody.' However Sir Ian's comments have sparked further confusion.

A spokeswoman for the Crown Prosecution Service said that its lawyers were still reviewing TV footage from the day of the demo - leaving the door open for a prosecution.

About 100 Muslim demonstrators took part in the protest . Slogans on display included 'Pope go to hell' and 'May Allah Curse The Pope'.

In the wake of the protest, Scotland Yard's Assistant Commissioner Tarique Ghaffur, announced that officers would look to see if any criminal offences had been committed.

Scotland Yard officers also carried out an investigation after a demonstration outside the Danish embassy earlier this year over the controversial Muslim cartoons.

On that occasion, Choudary was fined £500 for failing to give police proper notice before the protest march in February. Other participants are awaiting trial.

[Rasputin]

Four Muslim baggage handlers are appealing against a decision to bar them from working at Charles de Gaulle airport in Paris.
They say that the local government's decision to revoke their security passes is evidence of anti-Muslim discrimination.

A local government spokesman says the decision was based on an assessment of the terrorist risk.

He denied the move was linked to the men's religion.

Passes withdrawn

Lawyers acting for the four men say that dozens of other Muslims who work at the airport have also been stripped of their security passes, leaving them unable to work.

The four men, who are of North African origin, say they were summoned by security officials for interviews concerning their employment in August.

A few days later they were told that their airport passes, which gave them access to the area near runways, were being withdrawn.

Criminal complaint

A lawyer acting for the men said the baggage handlers were told they had been barred because they had "not shown that their behaviour was unlikely to violate airport security".

As well as appealing against the local authority's decision, the baggage handlers' lawyers have submitted a criminal complaint for alleged discrimination against the men on the grounds that they are Muslims.

The head of a local government office, Jacques Lebrot, said the ban had nothing to do with religion.

'Islamic radicals'

"For us, someone who goes on holiday to Pakistan several times raises questions," he told Reuters News Agency.

Mr Lebrot added that the local authority investigation looked for those who could "compromise airport security".

A book published by a far-right politician four months before the security clampdown raised questions about France's airport security.

Philippe de Villiers' book alleged that Islamic radicals worked at Charles de Gaulle airport and were planning terror attacks.

[Rasputin]

Sarkozy backs ban on ‘radical’ Muslim staff

PARIS: France’s Interior Minister Nicolas Sarkozy yesterday jumped into a row over the suspension of access badges for mostly Muslim airport workers, saying it was unacceptable that people with “radical” ties work in sensitive jobs.
“Regarding those with access to runways, it is our duty to ensure they don’t have links near or far to radical organisations,” Sarkozy said, referring to the recent removal of security clearances for several dozen mostly Muslim airport workers at the Charles de Gaulle airport outside Paris.
The matter has sparked outcry on the part of some airport employees, who have denounced an atmosphere of “paranoia” at the airport.
A trade union, CFDT, has filed a discrimination complaint on behalf of Muslim workers, whose badges to work in sensitive zones at the airport were suspended.
Half a dozen luggage handlers have also appealed to an administrative tribunal against the decision to suspend their work badges, which gives airport personnel access to customs zones and sensitive areas near runways.
According to the French anti-discrimination group MRAP, roughly a hundred workers have lost their badges since August.
“In the fight against terrorism, Mr Sarkozy’s cause is just, but his methods are not. One does not fight terrorism by spurning people’s rights,” said two lawyers, respectively representing the CFDT trade union and the baggage handlers in their complaints.
But during a public gathering in Paris yesterday, the interior minister said he could “not accept that people with radical practices work at the airport”.
If they consider themselves victims of discrimination “they can air their rights before the courts,” said Sarkozy, who is seen as the hot favourite to represent the right in next year’s presidential elections.
In April, a book claiming the airport had been infiltrated by Islamic militants stirred furore. Anti-terrorist officials cast doubts on claims made in ‘The Mosques of Roissy’, by right-wing French politician Philippe de Villiers.
An airport union, Sud Aerien, accused Villiers - another presidential hopeful in next year’s elections - of playing on public fears of radical Islam to win votes.
But four months later, Sarkozy announced that unofficial prayer sites at the airport had been closed.
“In the six years I’ve worked at Roissy, I’ve never had a problem,” said one Franco-Tunisian airport worker, Mohamed Seddiki, who said he received a letter from the local police precinct claiming he posed a “significant danger to airport security.”
Seddiki’s badge was withdrawn in early October.
“In June, they closed out prayer hall, and now they tell me I’m a danger to the airport,” Seddiki said. “All of this is paranoia caused by de Villiers’ book.”
Like Seddiki, another Muslim worker also lost his badge earlier this month, after being questioned by police.
“I was asked if I prayed and if I’d made the pilgrimage to Makkah,” said the worker, who refused to disclose his name. “Yes, I went to Makkah with my wife, and so what?”
Earlier, the airport’s deputy police chief said that being a practising Muslim “was absolutely not a criterion” for suspending the access badges.
Rather, he referred to conclusions drawn by France’s Anti-terrorist Co-ordination Unit (UCLAT) as the basis for the sanctions.