Brighton & Hove Muslim Forum

The ‘Ground Zero mosque’ is treated as a party-political issue. In reality, both Republicans and Democrats are split on it.

In their reporting of the political arguments over the proposed Park 51 centre (the master building that will house the “Ground Zero mosque”), most US and international media coverage has characterised the ongoing debate as a Democrat v Republican party-line dispute. But this simplification obscures the reality of a disagreement that is significantly more complex, but also unambiguous in its rightful answer.

At face value, it is easy to see why the mosque debate is being portrayed by most reporting as a partisan battle. Sarah Palin’s 18 July Twitter assertion that the mosque represents an “UNNECESSARY provocation” that “stabs hearts”, ignited a storm of similar, but increasingly ridiculous (and attention-grabbing) exhortations from other high-profile Republicans. This summit of absurdity reached new heights with Newt Gingrich’s declarations that “Nazis don’t have the right to put up a sign next to the holocaust museum in Washington” and that the US “would never accept the Japanese putting up a site next to Pearl Harbor”.

Aside from the obvious logical fallacy in these statements (9/11 was conducted by extremists acting outside mainstream Islamic thought/authority and not, as with the Holocaust or Pearl Harbor, by state actors), these comments have been undeniably attractive to media organisations looking for saleable headlines. Against the backdrop of an election year, and motivated by polling that suggests most Americans oppose the Park 51 centre, the formal Republican leadership has not troubled itself to distance the party from Gingrich, Palin and their allies. President Barack Obama’s relative statement of support for Park 51 has also provided media outlets with the adversary to Republican positions needed to complete the partisan battle picture.

However, below the surface of the debate, deep doubts and disagreements exist within both parties about what line to take on the issue and the electoral implications associated with these choices. While Obama is standing with the mayor, Michael Bloomberg, to support the right of the Park 51 centre to proceed, many key Democrats are less than sure in their support for the president’s approach. Senator Chuck Schumer of New York (usually known for voicing strong opinions) has, significantly, not yet commented on the issue.

Under pressure from his Republican opponent in Nevada, the office of Senate majority leader, Harry Reid, has stated that the senator believes “the mosque should be built someplace else”. Nancy Pelosi has offered less than unequivocal support for the plan, declaring it to be a “local decision”. For Democrats, their traditional electoral fear of appearing weak on national security greatly complicates their ability to support Park 51 with confidence. Many already believe that their performance in this year’s election will be disastrous and so fear taking a seemingly unpopular line on an issue of great controversy.

More on this article at Guardian.co.uk. Article by: Tom Rogan

After a barrage of criticism, president appears to backtrack, saying: ‘I was not commenting and I will not comment on the wisdom of making a decision to put a mosque there’

Timetable for this ramadan has been uploaded to the BHMF website. Please feel free to save it to your computer or print it out.

We hope Allah graces your life with showers of Happiness, Love, His blessings and Emaan on this Ramadan and always.

[gview file=”https://www.bhmf.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/bhmf-timetable-2010.pdf”]

It would be grossly negligent to ignore theology, but its use as a tool of counterterrorism is limited

The question: Can you do counter-terrorism without theology?

This question is quite obviously about al-Qaida inspired terrorism. Far-right or left terrorists have their own holy scriptures, like the Turner Diaries, but this could in no way be describe as theology.

In a practical sense, the answer is a no-brainer. For counterterrorism agencies to not understand the theological motivation behind terrorist acts – as stated by terrorists themselves – would be tantamount to criminal negligence.

There is much debate about the the role that theology plays in terrorism. Many commentators believe the theology is the problem; that terrorism inspired by religious fanaticism is a new phenomenon, and that Islam needs to undergo a root and branch reform. Yet other research shows that Islamic religiosity can lead individuals to reject and actively discourage violence, often through moral and social sanctions. Our own research at Demos suggests that theology plays a relatively minor role for many al-Qaida terrorists – at least of the home-grown variety.

However, there is one undeniable fact: that some engagement in religious extremist ideology – however fleeting or superficial – is an essential element of al-Qaida terrorism, and that all terrorists seek out religious sanction for their actions. At the very least theology shapes symbolic content and meaning, bringing the individual to believe a movement is just – and in their eyes offering legitimacy or an obligation to commit violence.

The difficult fact for counterterrorism agencies is that al-Qaida emerged along with a broader resurgence of religious extremism, some proponents of which share elements of al-Qaida’s ideology or language but reject violence. This makes their work altogether more complicated. The irony is that targeting the wrong people can breed resentment and alienate potential allies. Theology can help better target resources. Clearly having theologians as advisers, or Muslim officers, to sift through the maze of theological concepts can help, because certain theological concepts like takfir are more useful than other radical but harmless ones like supporting sharia law.

More on this at Guardian.co.uk (Article by: Jamie Bartlett)

The UN Security Council has issued a statement calling for an impartial inquiry into Israel’s raid on a flotilla of Gaza-bound aid ships.

The statement said the investigation should be “prompt, impartial, credible and transparent”.

It also condemned the “acts” which led to the deaths of at least 10 civilian activists during the operation.

The raid sparked strong international condemnation and calls for Israel to lift its three-year blockade of Gaza.

The UN statement was reached after hours of discussion as the council deliberated through the night.

In Turkey, Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan called Israel’s raid a “bloody massacre” as he addressed parliament.

Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak has ordered the border crossing between Egypt and the Gaza Strip to be opened.

The Egyptian state news agency said it was to allow humanitarian aid through. It is not clear how long the crossing at Rafah will be kept open.

The UN statement was the result of a compromise between Turkey and the United States, with Turkey reluctant to water down its trenchant criticism of Israel while the United States, Israel’s closest ally, wanted to temper the language used, says the BBC’s UN correspondent Barbara Plett in New York.

Turkey is furious at the commando raid, which targeted a Turkish ship and appeared to have killed mostly Turkish activists, our correspondent says.

The compromise took out direct condemnation of Israel and removed references to an international investigation, our correspondent adds.

It also weakened demands for an end to the economic blockade of Gaza that the activists were trying to break, but the incident has refocused international attention on the siege and many states have renewed calls for it to be lifted, she says.

The Palestinian Observer at the UN, Riyad Mansour, said he was disappointed that the language in the final draft of the statement had been softened.

On the request to end the Gaza blockade, Mr Mansour said this was “perhaps the clearest statement by the Security Council requesting and demanding lifting the siege of the Gaza Strip.

Official vows ‘nothing of this sort will happen in the future’ after row over contest for images of Muhammad.

Pakistan lifted a two-week-old ban on Facebook today but said it would continue to block individual pages containing “blasphemous” content.

Pakistan banned Facebook on 19 May in response to an online competition that invited people around the world to submit drawings of the prophet Muhammad. Muslims consider all depictions of Muhammad as heretical.

Yesterday Bangladesh also banned Facebook, saying it would lift the restriction only when the offending material was removed.

In recent weeks Pakistan extended the censorship to hundreds of other sites, including YouTube and Wikipedia. Most are now accessible again.

The censorship triggered criticism on Twitter and in the country’s English-language media, but no street protests. Internet users were initially able to circumvent the ban through proxy sites but were thwarted when the government blocked those too.

Najibullah Malik, the Pakistani official orchestrating the censorship, said Facebook had removed all “sacrilegious material” from its website and promised that “nothing of this sort will happen in the future”.

But by late afternoon a Facebook page entitled “Everybody Draw Mohammed Day!” was still online. One image depicted a bearded face with an explosive fuse trailing from his turban pasted on to a photo of a naked woman. The page was not accessible in Pakistan.

A Facebook spokewoman said the company had restricted access to the page in certain countries, including Pakistan, “out of respect for local rules” but had not removed it in others.

Facebook critics say some drawings on the Muhammad page are so offensive to Muslims that they constitute hate material. They point out that the site has previously censored sensitive material in Pakistan, including blocking a lawyer who tried to set up a satirical page entitled Taliban Times.

More on this news at Guardian.co.uk

Authorities in Pakistan block access to Facebook after a competition page encouraged users to post drawings of the prophet Muhammad (PBUH)

Pakistan today blocked Facebook indefinitely in response to public outrage over a competition on the social networking site that encourages people to post drawings of the prophet Muhammad (PBUH).

The Pakistan Telecommunications Authority, which controls internet access, directed service providers to block the website “till further notice” in compliance with a high court order obtained by a group of lawyers yesterday.

The court action was triggered by a Facebook page entitled Everybody Draw Mohammad Day — May 20 which contains over 200 images, many of them certain to offend Muslims, who consider all depictions of the prophet to be blasphemous.

As of today, the site had 5,000 followers and listed links to the pages of prominent critics of Islam such as the rightwing Dutch politician Geert Wilders and the Somali feminist Ayaan Hirsi Ali.

The page says its objective is to encourage the “free discussion of brutality of the radical aspects of Islam” and invites members to submit drawings of the prophet Muhammad (PBUH) by tomorrow .

Whatever its goals, the site’s principal achievement may be to inflame Muslim opinion. Many of the 200 images already submitted depict Muhammad (PBUH) in a variety of unflattering poses and situations likely to offend even moderate Muslims. In one, a bearded face is superimposed over a bikini-clad body.

Others had a distinctly political tinge, such as a stereotypical photos of Islamist protests or images of an airliner smashing into the World Trade Centre under the slogan “Islam: a religion of peace.”

More on this article at Guardian.co.uk