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, 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 (neither a member nor a leader) of the EDL until 2012. This blog has retained the old web address.

****************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************

Sunday, 20 February 2011

iEngage: Another moderate extremist Islamic group popular with MPs

THE SPITTOON Blog


- The Spittoon's article, 'iEngage: More Support for Hate Preachers and Islamist Political Parties', by Cross Post Published: February 20, 2011

This is a cross-post by Lucy Lips from Harry’s Place

(EDL Extra comments are in red.)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Over the last few days, we’ve been considering the manner in which iEngage has conducted itself. iEngage hopes to be appointed the Secretariat of the APPG on Islamophobia. [Another extreme Islamist group being offered roles within the UK's democratic system.] Despite the opposition of the APPG’s first chairs – Lord Janner and Kris Hopkins – who resigned when it became clear that Jack Straw, Sadiq Khan, Stephen Timms and Simon Hughes appear determined to retain this body’s services. [Jack Straw requires the Muslim block vote in Blackburn. Sadiq Khan is a kind of Islamist in that he sees his role primarily as a Muslim politician. He was the guy who accused Cameron of being ‘Islamophobic’ and of encouraging the EDL by supplying it with ‘propaganda’. And Simon Hughes is an extreme Islamophile and Muslim lickspittle who once said, at a Muslim conference, that Muslims have the right to rule any country and indeed the whole world.] Yesterday, we demonstrated that iEngage’s major target is Muslim liberals and progressives, and opponents of hate preachers and Islamist political parties. [All the once Government-friendly Islamist groups, such as MCB, MAC, MPACUK and Muslims4UK, ‘target Muslim liberals’, especially the Quilliam Organisation – if that is genuinely liberal or ‘progressive’ at all. In other words, the Inayat Bunglawalahs (Muslim4UK, etc!) of this world criticise the Ed Husains for being Uncle Toms because they try to get various Muslim houses in order.] Today we will consider some of those hate preachers and Islamist political parties which iEngage defends.

Before we start, let’s look very quickly at one of its “Trustees“: Mohammed Ali Harrath.

Mohammed Ali Harrath is a founder of the Tunisian Islamic Front, a radical Islamist group linked to An Nahda, a Tunisian Islamist party led by Rashed al-Ghannoushi, and aligned with the Muslim Brotherhood. He has told The Times:

“There is nothing wrong or criminal in trying to establish an Islamic state”

Harrath is the Chief Executive of the Islam Channel. [John Rees, ex-SWP and now Counterfire, also broadcasts on the Islam Channel. Small world, eh?] The Islam Channel has recently been censured by OFCOM, which found that it broadcast views condoning marital rape, encouraging violence against women and describing women who wear perfume as ‘prostitutes’, and unbalanced support for Hamas. [Does John Rees support marital rape? Yes; but only by Muslims? He certainly supports Hamas – more violent Brown Exotics.]

Harrath believes that a Jewish conspiracy controls the United States:

“Look at the Zionists in the United States. There’s not that great number [sic]. The United States is nearly 300 million [sic]. But they have six million Jews living there. Every single one votes and every single one makes sure he influences many votes. And that’s how they command. That’s how it works.” (at 3:46)

It is plainly inappropriate that a group aligned with the worldview of a senior Muslim Brotherhood politician, with views such as these, should be empowered in this manner.

So, who else is iEngage batting for?

Campaigning against the ban on hate preacher, Zakir Naik

Zakir Naik is a hate preacher [No. Only the EDL ‘preaches hate’. Brown Exotics never do.] who was excluded from the United Kingdom by the Home Secretary, Theresa May. The ban was challenged by Naik, but was upheld by the High Court. The Chief Executive Officer of iEngage, Mohammed Asif, wrote to the Home Secretary to protest the exclusion. He sought to link the decision to exclude the hate preacher with Islamophobia:

We would further add that the exclusion order puts at risk the very notion of good community relations in whose defence this move has been justified. There are many Muslims who are appalled at the decision taken to exclude Dr Zakir Naik from the UK all the while groups like the English Defence League terrorise neighbourhoods across the UK chanting obscene anti-Muslim slogans. [In other words, ban him and I promise you that Muslims will give you hell. Riots and maybe assassinations and bombs. Who knows? So do what I say!]

Support for the Islamic Education and Research Academy

iEngage published an article promoting a publication by the Islamic Education and Research Academy (“IERA”) entitled “’Perceptions on Islam and Muslims: A study of the UK Population”.

The IERA is an extreme Salafi organisation, whose advisers include three hate preachers, banned from the United Kingdom: Bilal Philips, Hussein Yee and Zakir Naik.

Andrew Gilligan has demonstrated that the data contained within the IERA report does not support its conclusions, and overstates hostility to Islam and Muslims in the United Kingdom. [Such overstatements about 'Islamophobia' are absolutely vital to the Islamist and indeed Muslim cause. Claims of being put on the defensive by Islamophobia are of course a perfect way to mount various political attacks. The SWP/UAF, etc. also find accusations of Islamophobia absolutely necessary - and useful - to their shallow political cause.]

Defending Hizb ut Tahrir

The politics of iEngage are not precisely the same as those of Hizb ut Tahrir. It criticises the party for its opposition to voting in elections. However, it has also defended Hizb ut Tahrir on a number of occasions. [Take part in the kuffar voting system. Gain control by voting (or by more nefarious means). Then destroy that system from within. Hizb ut Tahrir, on the other hand, believes in keeping its hands clean of the kuffar system from the very beginning – thus keeping itself Islamically pure.]

Ban at Queen Mary

iEngage objected to the banning of Hizb ut Tahrir speakers at Queen Mary, University of London. [But not to banning the EDL, the BNP and ‘Zionists’?]

Islamic Shakhsiyah Foundation

In October 2009, the Telegraph reported that two schools run by the Hizb ut Tahrir linked Islamic Shakhsiyah Foundation, were in receipt of £100,000 of public money. [A good cause.] The Conservative Party asked the Government to examine the propriety of the funding.

iEngage argued:

“The opposition leader David Cameron’s ill-informed remarks will aid only those given to scaremongering and inciting anti-Muslim prejudice. It is risible that David Cameron, Michael Gove, the shadow schools secretary, and Paul Goodman, shadow communities secretary, (see BBC Newsnight yesterday), should have engaged in their fishing expedition of ‘extremists’ on the same day that news broke that gravestones in the Muslim section of Southern Cemetery in Manchester were desecrated for the third time in as many months. [Moral blackmail.] Perhaps those in the Conservative Party so concerned with extremists and the threat to social cohesion might usefully turn their attention to those that actually are threatening community relations in the UK instead of manufacturing demons where none such exist.” [Such as the EDL terrorists who have blown up many mosques and halal slaughter houses throughout the UK?]

It is clear that iEngage defines Islamophobia as opposition to hate preachers and Islamist political parties. This is certain to be the conclusion that iEngage will urge on members of the APPG on Islamophobia, if its services are retained as the Secretariat to the group.

This entry was posted in Islamism, UK Politics. Bookmark the permalink. Trackbacks are closed, but you can post a comment

No comments:

Post a Comment