The subjects covered in this blog include Slavoj Žižek, IQ tests, Chomsky, Tony Blair, Baudrillard, global warming, sociobiology, Islam, Islamism, Marx, Foucault, National/International Socialism, economics, the Frankfurt School, philosophy, anti-racism, etc... I've had articles published in The Conservative Online, American Thinker, Philosophy Now, Intellectual Conservative, Human Events, Faith Freedom, Brenner Brief (Broadside News), New English Review, etc... (Paul Austin Murphy's Philosophy can be found here

This blog used to be called EDL Extra. I was a supporter of the EDL until 2012. This blog has retained the old web address.


Wednesday, 7 April 2010

The Muslim Association of Britain [MAB]

[The spokeman for the Muslim Association of Britian.]


The Muslim Association of Britain (‘MAB’, not to be confused with ‘MAD’, the Muslim Association of Denmark) is an Islamic organisation in the United Kingdom established in 1997. The MAB membership is open to all religions, as long as they are Islamic. It also believes in an ‘open dialogue with other faiths, as long as those faiths are Islamic'.

Along with the Stop the War Coalition and the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, the MAB has co-sponsored various demonstrations against the 2003 ‘invasion and occupation of Iraq’. (The MAB has said that ‘although Saddam Hussein was a very naughty boy; he was, nonetheless, a Muslim naughty boy’. And ‘even Muslim naughty boys cannot be scolded by the kafir’.)

The Muslim Association of [not ‘Great’] Britain has explicitly said that ‘it is against all invasions,occupations and military actions if they are committed by white people and/or Christians against Muslims or Islamic states’. When it comes to Muslims killing Christians, or Muslims killing Muslims (as in Iraq and Allah knows where else), then the MAB also explicitly states that ‘we have no right to interfere in the running of such countries – especially if they are Islamic countries’. In addition, despite ‘co-sponsoring’ CND, it ‘wouldn’t mind [that much] if Iran developed the atomic bomb because it would only use it for the peaceful purpose of annihilating Israel’ (which, as everyone know, ‘is responsible for every war and crime in the whole-wide-world’). Thus the MAB thinks that nuclear weapons are acceptable ‘when used against the evil Zionist state of Israel’. Pakistan ‘can also use nuclear weapons, self-defensively, against an attack by the evil Hindu Empire of India’.

The Stop the War Coalition and the Palestinian Intifada

The MAB first started working with the StWC in 2002 when they agreed to join together a demonstration they had planned to mark the anniversary of the Second Palestinian Intifada with a demonstration StWC had planned against the looming Iraq war at the opening of the Labour Party Conference. The Stop the War march took place under the dual slogans 'Don't attack Iraq' and 'Freedom for Palestine'..

The MAB fully supports the Palestinian Intifada, as well as all other intifadas (as long as they are Islamic and not carried out by Christians against Islamic oppressers, as in, say, Pakistan, Iraq, Egypt, Somalia and numerous other countries). And the kind of freedom the MAB has in mind is the kind of Islamic freedom one can find in Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Somalia, Sudan and all the other freedom-loving Islamic nations. In terms of Palestine, the MAB is particularly keen to bring about the freedom Hamas requires to blow up more Israeli infant schools and fully supports all such struggles for such cherished freedoms. The MAB, however, is keen to stress that it is not an anarchist organisation. Thus Christians, other religious groups and dhimmis will not have full freedom in any Islamic country under the ancient Islamic concept of dhimmitude.

According to Altikriti, MAB ‘spoke to Stop the War and we said to them, we will join you; however we will not become part of your coalition, we will be a separate and independent entity but we will work together with you on a national basis as part of the anti-war movement’. The MAB would not become part of the coalition because it was run by non-Muslims and its members were non-Muslims. The MAB doesn’t like to mix too much with the kafir. All this reassured MAB members that the group would not ‘melt into that big coalition’ that was known to be led by the Left. The Left, of course, is full of ‘atheist scum’ – or at least it was in the old days before the rise of the Respect party. Since those days, the MAB and the Left have proved to be of mighty use to one another.

The MAB also stated that it ‘would remain a distinct and autonomous bloc [of Stop the War], able to shape the agenda.’ That is, to be able to make it more Islamist in nature and intent. Altikriti and others in the MAB leadership were working to persuade members that collaboration with non-Muslim anti-war activists was halal (religiously permissible) and that this was within the remit of their organisation. In other words, because the Left was prepared to propagate Islamist causes and fight for Muslims around the world, working with them was no longer considered halal. It was all fine as long as the MAB and other Islamists weren’t contaminated by ‘evil secular’ and ‘Western’ ideas like ‘Western democracy’ and that strange ‘secular stance’ against stoning women to death for being raped. In addition, the long-standing and important Islamic doctrine of Al-Taqiya means that it is fine to use, deceive and manipulate the Leftist kafirs as long as it furthered Islamic goals and the Global Jihad. The argument was that, if gender-segregated spaces and halal food could be provided at meetings, demonstrations and other events, then Muslims could participate in the anti-war movements without being assimilated. And that was the important bit – the non-assimilation of Muslims by the kafir.

The MAB and other moderate Muslims say that they ‘want to assimilate with British society, as long as we don’t [actually] assimilate with British society [too much]’ – not even with the Leftists who are very keen to do what they are told by the MAB, Islamists and other Muslims. Moreover, the MAB defined its limits to joint action: making it clear that, while they could overcome misgivings about sharing platforms with some groups (such as socialists and atheists), they could never do so with others (Jews, Zionists and Israelis, in particular). In other words, although kafir atheists and socialists are effectively ‘evil’ or ‘scum’, they do not compare with the ‘devils’ that are the Jews… sorry, the Israelis and the ‘Zionists’. And, as every member of the MAB will tell you, every Jew and Israeli is a Zionist. Thus the distinction between Zionist and Jew ‘is just a bit of highfalutin pedantry’ to the MAB.
Political Commitments
The MAB encourages its members to vote certain ways in elections - it supported Labour’s Ken Livingstone for Mayor of London, Respect in London and the Green Party of England and Wales in South East England. In 2004, its president Anas al-Tikriti stood down to become a European election candidate for Respect in the Yorkshire and the Humber region. He was not elected.
Just as the Church of England encourages its flock to vote for the Monster Raving Loony Party, so the MAB tells Muslims to vote in certain ways and for certain people. Usually the best MP to vote for will be a Muslim MP. However, because there aren’t that many Muslim MPs, a Muslim voter can opt for a kafir MP as long as he is not Jewish, a Zionist and he doesn’t speak out against Sharia law (amongst a lot of other things). Thus the MAB supported Ken Livingstone in London because Not-So-Red-Now Ken has a penchant for sheiks and moderate Islamic terrorists. The MAB also endorses Respect because it is an essentially Muslim party full of Arabophiles like George Galloway.

In 2004, the MAB’s president, Anus al-Tikriti (a moderate who is also well-known for supporting moderate Islamic terrorists) stood down to become a European election candidate for Respect in the Yorkshire and the Humber region. Anus al-Tikriti said that he ‘jumped at the chance to spread more Islamic stuff to Europe and not just England’. He was not elected because the ‘Zionists voted against him’ and also that the ‘Zionist press in England and Europe had spread foul lies about him’ for not being ‘too critical Islamist terrorists’. In addition, ‘Zionist spies had infiltrated the party and other Zionists had burned all the voting cards which had a cross under my name’. Zionists also ‘caused the bad weather which was responsible for the low turn out of otherwise supportive constituents’.

Since Muslims currently make up more than 10% of the local population in 40 political seats, the Muslim Association of [not Great] Britain believes that Muslim voters can influence the results in 40 seats. That is why the Labourty Party sacked Denis MacShane when he spoke out against organisations like the MAB by saying that such groups never spoke out – unequivocally! - against Islamic terrorism and violence (which, as the MAB knows, is a ‘Zionist lie’). This tribal and religious manner of voting emulates those ‘far better democratic regimes’ such as the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, etc. The MAB has also stressed that ‘athough there are only 200,000 Jews in the UK, the Jewish lobby has 20 MPs in Parliament’. The MAB then said that Muslims ‘only have one’. Thus the MAB stresses the importance of tribal and religious voting, in the syle of Pakistan and other very democratic countries.
Political Views

Though British Muslims have increasingly politicised their religious identities, there remain many different ways to be a political Muslim. Some Muslims even prefer to keep their religion private. However, this is pretty difficult to do because, as the MAB itself and many other Muslims have often stressed, Islam is an essentially political religion. Not only that, but dawa, that is the spreading of Islam (not to be confused with jihad, which it is very similar to), is essential to Islam. Some Muslims prefer to keep their religion private – that is, private vis-à-vis the kafir, especially if his or her religion endorses terrorism and the indescrimate killing of Israelis.

The MAB has also expressed its deep concerns about the proposed shift in counter terrorism policy. The MAB has said that ‘of course we all hate terrorism’. (This, it says, ‘must be said by every Muslim who appears on Question Time’.) Although the MAB says that ‘we all hate terrorism’, it also says that ‘it is a terrible liberty that the British Government wants to do something about it by daring to question Muslims’ - ‘this is not Nazi Germany, after all.’ (Critics have said that this reference to Nazi Germany is odd when one considers how much admired Hitler has been by many Islamists - and even by Muslim communities - over the years – particularly because of his ‘forthright, principled and honest policy towards Zionists in 1930s Germany’.)
The MAB Reaction to the 2005 London bombings
The MAB condemned the 7th of July 2005 London bombings. Apparently, just as Tony Blair said about 9/11, the MAB said these bombings were not committed by ‘Muslim terrorists’ or ‘Islamic terrorists’, just ‘by terrorists, pure and simple’. Even though these terrorists read the Koran every day and wanted to set up an Islamic Caliphate and help oppressed Muslims throughout the world, the MAB said that ‘this act of terrorism had nothing to do with Islam and that the terrorists were not even Muslims’ (they were ‘probably Zionists trying to stir things up’). Despite the possibility that Zionists were responsible for the bombings, the MAB nevertheless explained and justified (for a few hours) why the London non-Islamic terrorists did what they did. Every Labour MP, and every member of every inter-faith group (that has ever attended a inter-faith love-in) agreed with these fine words from the MAB. Then they held hands.

After all this, MAB members joined the vigil for the victims at the Peace Garden in Euston.
The MAB and Abu Hamza

In 2005 the MAB took control of Finsbury Park Mosque and expelled the followers of the moderate cleric Abu Hamza al-Masri (who they accused of ‘promoting hatred’). The MAB also opposed the US extradition request for Babar Ahmad - a UK IT specialist who has been accused of setting up websites which urged Muslims to ‘kill the Americans and their allies-civilians’. The MAB has explained this seeming anomaly by saying that ‘we support what Abu Hamza believes in, but we just don’t support his penchant for telling all and sundry what he believes in’. It continued by saying that ‘it is wrong to promote hatred when there are kafir cameras around’. Critics spotted the contradiction. The MAB publicly criticised Abu Hamza on every kafir website it could get on. It also opposed the extradition of someone who told his followers to ‘kill Americans and their allies-civilisations’. Why was this? Critics have said that this was because Babar Ahmad was not known to the readers of the Daily Mail and the Sun, but Abu Hamza certainly was. That, they argued, explained the anomaly.

No comments:

Post a Comment