Recent Articles
Religious Bigots
The Muslim Public Affairs Committee is an organisation with a long history of odd behaviour- they have over the last few days excelled themselves. They published last week a call for the names of the researchers for Policy Exchange’s recent report to be given to them- they wanted Muslim activists to ring up their offices and tell them who these eight researchers were. MPAC accused these researchers- and the whole Sufi community in the UK- of being fifth columnists for a zionist neo con cabal who were intent on destroying Islam and then the world…… fill in the blanks. They suggested that these Quislings should be reported to them so that MPAC could ”dig deeper and expose every last detail of the Sufis who tried to destroy their own community.” Having been called up on this language, MPAC are now asserting that their interest was purely in the researchers’ credibility as researchers- given that they advertise this operation as being “A Hunt for 8 Sufi Zio Con Frauds”- I’m not entirely sure that their interest is in research methodology.
That’s particularly true given the rest of the content on their website. They have published articles which argue that Sufi scholars collaborate with the Pharoah of our time George Bush and that Sufism is a trend in Islam that promotes a passivity desired by the zio con forces of evil. They have also published articles defending Sufism but it definitely seems to me that MPAC beleives that this is a legitimate debate- its strange that they don’t have any articles saying that any other strands of Islam aren’t Islamic! Furthermore their official statement, ‘The Hunt’ supports the anti-Sufi case- they state there that the Sufis have been used throughout history as a weapon in the arms of Russian and British and now American imperialism. The slurs on Sufism are absolutely and completely ridiculous. Anyone who knows an iota of the history of Islam- obviously noone involved in MPAC can be listed in that category, knows that Sufism is an old and established trend in Islamic theology.
For the benefit of MPAC, it might be worth rehearsing some of the contributions of Sufism- and others can add to this- in stimulating Islamic theology and political thought. Plenty of sources see Sufic communities going back right to the beggining of Islam- into the eighth century. Muzaffar Allam in his study of Indian Islamic political thought argues that Sufis have been present in India since the 11th or 12th centuries. As Richard Eaton demonstrates in his studies of the growth of Islam in India- Sufi movements provided many of the missionaries that spread throughout India to convert communities to Islam. Indeed David Cook shows in his studies of martyrdom and Islam that Sufi movements were also central to the growth of Islam in Indonesia and in many other places around the world. Great Sufi poetry and art has animated Islam: think of the Persian/Turkish poet Rumi whose work provides inspiration for art in the middle East right up until today, where its often quoted in the novels of Orhan Pamuk. The thesis that Sufis have never done anything for Islam- implied by MPAC- is just plain wrong and perhaps the organisation would like to withdraw its slurs.
Quite frankly though this goes further than just that. Because MPAC in reality are saying something else. They are saying that they have the right to define what Muslims ought to do or be- Muslims can’t support say the invasion of Iraq. What utter nonsense! It is not for MPAC to define the essence of Islam. Muslims have been throughout history a group with a wide variety of beliefs just like Christians and Jews and Hindus and all other faiths. MPAC demands the names of these researchers because ultimately it wants to publish them and expose them- it doesn’t want to argue or discuss (afterall they are Zio Con quislings) it wants to condemn. It doesn’t want to examine why some Muslims might decide to help Policy Exchange- that they do convicts them and means they are irrelevant- they don’t need to be talked to, they just need to be condemned. That stance fits into a general pattern- whereby their rhetoric is violent and conspiratorial- they don’t seek to understand, they don’t take on other arguments, they just want the luxury of an easy assertion that everyone else is evil. Their rhetoric avoids unhelpful facts- how can the war against Islam be a verifiable fact when Tony Blair bombed the Serbs out of Kosovo. How can it be a verifiable fact when the West repeatedly attempts to do things for Darfur and when westerners put their hands in their own pockets to help victims of the Tsunami? Has MPAC ever looked at the amount of aid that the EU gives to Palestine? Have they ever considered the support that America has always given to Pakistan?
MPAC want to define Islam and define certain people out of Islam. They seem to want Islam defined politically. Their politics is bizarre, conspiratorial and has a tangential relation to reality. But it goes further than that- in reality their conception of Islam excludes many Muslims from its definition. They basically argue that Sufis are quislings- they basically say that they would junk the entire tradition of Sufism because of the closeness of some present Sufis to politicians that they don’t like. They are apocalyptic in their language. They are aggressive in their abusive calls for the silencing of those that disagree with them. If there is one thing likely to make me sympathetic to Policy Exchange in this whole debate, its the attitude of the Muslim Public Affairs Committee. I still feel that there are legitimate questions about the reporting in Policy Exchange’s work and I have no problem with critiques of it: but as Liberals we should stand, as our enlightenment predecessors did, against religious bigotry. And religious bigotry is what MPAC peddles against Muslims who don’t back their political line and against plenty of others as well.
Casting the net – Britain’s liberal future
Welcome to Casting the net, Liberal Conspiracy’s daily web review.
Highlights
Clairwil – Having A Pop At Herion Addicts
A compelling, hard-line view on talking Britain’s addiction to hard drugs
Crooked Timber – Belgium: time out of the political crisis
A sticky plaster has been placed on the seething wound that is Belgian politics.
Nick Clegg – Together, we can build Britain’s liberal future
The newly elected Lib Dem leader sets out his stall.
Politicalbetting.com – How important is believing in God?
Paul Linford – Clegg says no to English Parliament (and God)
Bob Piper – God botherers
In the States it would make him a presidential dead-duck, but does Clegg’s atheism even matter?
donpaskini – Telling lies about poverty
The Tories claim to be progressives. Yeah, whatever.
John B/The Sharpener – Opposition to immigration is inherently immoral
Claiming the moral high-ground in defence of the indigenous poor doesn’t bear scrutiny.
Elsewhere
Andrew Brown – Facebook is like Hotel California, but you might want to leave Andrew Brown
Andrew Hinton – Lib-Connery
James Graham – Homeophobia? I am not a scientist but…
Wongablog – Rampant Homeophobia
Compass Youth – A new chapter? Forging a truly progressive response to the threat of terrorism
Michelle Goldberg/CiF – Mike Huckabee, conservative golem
If you would like your blog or site to be considered as source material for future reviews, drop me an email at aaronh [at] liberalconspiracy [dot] org with the relevant url. I can then enter it into my RSS reader and monitor it for suitable content to be included. Likewise, if you have a specific article/post you feel deserves a little more traffic, get in touch.
Casting the net – Clegg, by a nose
Welcome to Casting the net, Liberal Conspiracy’s daily web review.
The Lib Dems have an early Christmas present…
In the shape of a new leader, Nick Clegg.
The Yorksher Gob – A Clegg Victory
The Huhne-lovin’ Gob is not a happy camper.
Simon Heffer/Telegraph – Why Nick Clegg’s election could change Britain
The Hefferlump thinks Clegg is “charming, serious, intelligent and even sincere.” If that’s not reason enough to loathe Clegg, I don’t know what is.
Jonathan Freedland/CiF – If Clegg gets it right in 2008, he could bring the Lib Dems into government
Clegg is the latest Mini-Blair to be elected to lead a major political party, and this one has a big job on his hands, too.
Steve Richards/Independent – Now that he is leader, Clegg cannot afford to trip up in the ways he did as a candidate
After a tepid election, Nick Clegg must get serious. Preparation is the key.
Chris Dillow – How to elect leaders
Does a crap campaign make a crap leader?
Stephen Tall/LDV – Now’s your chance, Nick
An open letter from one of the Lib Dem’s leading bloggers.
Obsolete – The clunking Clegg.
Clegg won: meh.
The Very Fluffy Diary of Millennium Dome, Elephant – Nick Clegg: His Hand on My Bottom
Millennium Elephant’s very different take on events.
Cicero’s Songs – Brown and Out
There will be no honeymoon, Clegg will have to get straight to work.
Highlights
Julie Burchill/CiF – Why I love Tesco
Independent shopkeepers should stop whining and get off their lazy arses. Tesco rules. Via.
New Direction – About liberalism
A lengthy essay from politico-in-waiting, Tom Miller.
Westmonster – A sad day
Newsnight’s coverage of the Lib Dem election was garbage, and indicates “the Death of Political Journalism on the BBC.” A little bit sensational, maybe?
Alex Parsons – The Church is stealing Christmas
The Christians are angry, the atheists are angry. It’s Christmas Time!
Jon’s union blog – Here we go, here we go, here we go?
Don’t expect the next round of union pay talks to be any easier.
Elsewhere
John’s Labour blog – Galloway sticks knife in over SWP sleaze
Graham Watson MEP/LDV – United in Europe
Chris Paul – Tory Health Charity Hijack: Ashcroft’s Bearwood Barefaced
Stephen Newton – Beth Ditto on Keira Knightley
Liberal Burblings – Iain Dale proves that the Tories wouldn’t recognise decentralisation if it hit them in the face
William Gumede/CiF – Zuma’s victory may trigger the break-up of the ANC
If you would like your blog or site to be considered as source material for future reviews, drop me an email at aaronh [at] liberalconspiracy [dot] org with the relevant url. I can then enter it into my RSS reader and monitor it for suitable content to be included. Likewise, if you have a specific article/post you feel deserves a little more traffic, get in touch.
Newsnight vs Policy Exchange
The argument between Newsnight and Policy Exchange is, quite rightly, carrying on. On Monday The Times published an apology to the MCB’s Dr Abdul Bari for claiming the East London Mosque was responsible for hate-literature Policy Exchange had unearthed.
That evening, writing on Newsnight’s blog, journalist Richard Watson said:
A professional document examiner found evidence that three of the receipts may have been fabricated. Later, we had concerns about the authenticity of another receipt – from Al Muntada mosque in south west London – so that makes a total of six questionable receipts.
Now it seems that there are doubts about the quality and reliability of the research in a seventh case – East London Mosque.
…
This then is very similar to the scenario set out to us by the management at Tawhid mosque in Leyton, a case we did feature in our film. Policy Exchange has accepted its researcher bought books from the bookshop next door but argue it was justified in saying in the report that they came from the mosque because, they say, its researcher was led from the mosque into the bookshop to buy the books – and that means the mosque approved the material. If this was the case, then why is this not spelled out in the report?And by the way, we still haven’t had an answer from Policy Exchange to that simple question: do they believe all of the receipts are genuine?
Dean Godson’s illustrious past
Over the last few days, there has been much said about Dean Godson, Policy Exchange’s “Research Director”. His appearance on Newsnight to defend P.E.’s report into extremist literature was quite extraordinary. Here are some interesting facts about Mr Godson.
Most notably, he holds the extraordinary distinction of having lost his position at the Daily Telegraph because of his political views. Back in 2004, Martin Newland, former Telegraph editor, explained to the Guardian:
It’s OK to be pro-Israel, but not to be unbelievably pro-Likud Israel, it’s OK to be pro-American but not look as if you’re taking instructions from Washington. Dean Godson and Barbara Amiel were key departures.
Dean Godson was too pro-Likud and too subservient to the US government for the Telegraph. Given the writers they happily still employ, you’ve got to wonder just how extreme his own views must be.
continue reading… »
Casting the net – Decision day for the Lib Dems
Welcome to Casting the net, Liberal Conspiracy’s daily web review.
D-Day
Today Vince Cable will announce the winner of the Liberal Democrat leadership election. Clegg is expected to win, but it’s a close call.
Lib Dem Voice has the following series of posts from Lib Dem bloggers, on how they feel the new leader should begin: -
Paul Walter – Opinion: What should the new leader do in his first 100 days?
Linda Jack – Opinion: What should the new leader do in his first 100 days? #2
David Morton – Opinion: What should the new leader do in his first 100 days? #3
Mary Reid – Opinion: What should the new leader do in his first 100 days? #4
UPDATE: The new Lib Dem leader is Nick Clegg, and it was VERY close.
Highlights
Charles Kennedy/CiF – There’s no harder party to lead than the Lib Dems
He should know!
Michael Brown/Independent – Cameron should remould our political system
The Tories have as much of a vested interest in electoral reform as the LibDems do.
PoliticalBetting.com – Why Labour under Brown is certain to lose
Mike Smithson chronicles how things have gone from bad to worse for the Labour Leader.
Recess Monkey – So what’s the deal with Dale?
After the “tw*t” remark, Alex Hilton uses his right to reply. If this were Eastenders, we’d be looking forward to a Christmas Day showdown.
The Diary of Chris K – One more thing – Are Tories evil?
More from the “Tories are evil” debate.
Stroppy Blog – In Defence Of Argument
An argument in favour of arguing. All very meta.
Matt Wardman has the latest BritBlog Roundup.
Elsewhere
Obsolete – Charles Moore enters the Policy Exchange/Newsnight fray.
Joe Otten – Reinventing the State Chapter 19: Tackling Terrorism: A Liberal Democrat Approach
John McDonnel MP – Credit Crisis and Economic Downturn Looms but it’s Another Good Year for City Bonuses.
Antonia Bance – The difference between halving child poverty and doing nice things
Freemania – Abuse of office
Love & Garbage – Trumpton: some questions
And yes, Chicken Yoghurt is back!
If you would like your blog or site to be considered as source material for future reviews, drop me an email at aaronh [at] liberalconspiracy [dot] org with the relevant url. I can then enter it into my RSS reader and monitor it for suitable content to be included. Likewise, if you have a specific article/post you feel deserves a little more traffic, get in touch.
Women’s rights… and annoying Trots
Associated Press is reporting that:
A gang-rape victim who was sentenced to six months in prison and 200 lashes for being alone with a man not related to her was pardoned by the Saudi king after the case sparked rare criticism from the United States, the kingdom’s top ally.
…
Justice Minister Abdullah bin Mohammed al-Sheik said the pardon reported Monday by Saudi media does not mean the king doubted the country’s judges, but that he was acting in the “interests of the people.”
What he means is that western media outrage, which led to the issue being raised with President Bush, forced the Saudi king to back down. For the victim this is undoubtedly good news and I would hope this incident would make the Saudi legislative think again next time when they convict rape victims. Though, I doubt it. Governments are understandably reluctant to tell other countries how they should treat their own citizens, lest it comes back to haunt them.
For lefties there are (possibly) added dimensions to such stories.
continue reading… »
New Jersey Abolishes Death Penalty
The Democratic Governor of New Jersey, Jon Corzine, has just signed a bill abolishing the state’s death penalty. It is the first state to do so since the USA reintroduced capital punishment in the 1970s. (h/t Tyra).
Is “progressive” a word worth fighting for?
David Cameron is nothing if not audacious. He is after all, the Conservative leader who set out to be the “heir to Blair,” who tried to steal the Lib Dems’ long-held mantle as the party of the environment, and who even attempted to convince us that the Tories are now the party that cares most about “society.”
So it should come as no great surprise that Mr Cameron, in his call for a Tory-Lib alliance to topple Gordon Brown, is now trying to purloin the label “progressive,” which has, in British politics at least, traditionally belonged to the centre-left.
I seem to recall there was some discussion about using the word “progressive” in the title of this blog, but the common consensus was that it’s a word that’s more readily abused even than “liberal.” If so, Mr Cameron’s initiative seems to show we probably made the right decision.
Dictionary definitions are no great help. Among those listed by the Free Dictionary are:
- Moving forward; advancing.
- Proceeding in steps; continuing steadily by increments: progressive change.
- Promoting or favoring progress toward better conditions or new policies, ideas, or methods: a progressive politician; progressive business leadership.
By this token, “progressive” is about as meaningful as that irritating and vacuous piece of management consultancy jargon that is now heard in offices up and down the land – “going forward.”
The dictionary also lists definition for “progressive” in the context of taxation, namely:
- A tax that takes a larger percentage from the income of high-income people than it does from low-income people.
This is more helpful in terms of defining a centre-left agenda, but then again David Cameron probably claims he believes in this as well, in the sense that we already have a progressive taxation system, and he isn’t seeking to make it any less progressive.
Is progressive a word worth fighting over – or should its definition forthwith be restricted to a form of rock music involving long guitar solos, mellotrons and metaphysical imagery?
Interfering with the Anglican Church
According to my Facebook profile, I am variously an anesthetist, and aesthete, and (less frequently) a non-practicing atheist. But whatever guise I choose for myself, I tend to look upon the tribulations of Dr Williams with the detachment of an outsider. I reason that because I’m not a church-goer, the possible ‘schism’ over gay clergy should not really concern me.
But now I’m wondering whether that is the correct view. Looking again at the word ‘Anglican’, it occurs to me that this particular Communion of Churches might actually be considered an exporter of British ‘soft power’ and influence, much like the British Council. The Church of England is still a formal branch of our state, and Anglican Bishops sit in the House of Lords. Furthermore, it is the British Prime Minister who effectively appoints the Archbishop of Canterbury. So I would say that the Archbishop and his Church are formal (though obviously not democratic) representatives of our country.
If The Church represents us all, is is not reasonable for atheists, agnostics and secularists to poke their nose into its affairs? Traditionalists say that Britain is still essentially a Christian country built on Christian morals. If that is the case, and while Church of England retains its privileged position in our political system, then I would say that us non-believers have the right to interfere in its policies and rulings.
continue reading… »
35 Comments
48 Comments
21 Comments
49 Comments
4 Comments14 Comments
27 Comments
16 Comments34 Comments
65 Comments
36 Comments
17 Comments1 Comment
19 Comments
46 Comments
53 Comments
64 Comments
28 Comments
12 Comments5 CommentsNEWS ARTICLES ARCHIVE