New Report Helps Build the Islamist Case for Islamophobia

I’ve written before about the use of the shibboleth concept Islamophobia as a tool by Islamists to peddle grievances for political gain.  So it comes as no surprise that ‘Dr’ Bob Lambert, the man who set up the Metropolitan Police’s Muslim Contact Unit and brokered a deal with the Brotherhood to take over management of Abu Hamza’s Finsbury Park mosque:

In 2003, British police shut [Finsbury Park] mosque, but Abu Hamza’s followers continued to have a strong presence in the area. In February 2005, police helped broker a deal for the mosque to re-open under the leadership of the local chapter of the Muslim Association of Britain (MAB), a Muslim Brotherhood group. No sooner had the moderates gained control of the Finsbury Park mosque than they were confronted by Abu Hamza’s angry followers, led by the pugnacious Atilla Ahmet, who calls himself “the number-one Al Qaeda in Europe” and who, in October, pled guilty to providing British Muslims with terrorist training. “They brought sticks and knives with them,” recalls Kamal El Helbawy [former European spokesman for the Ikhwan – ed.], spokesman for the new trustees at the mosque.

Undeterred, a few days later Helbawy gave the first Friday sermon, explaining that this was a new start for the mosque and stressing how important it was for Muslims to live in harmony with their neighbors. Detective Inspector Lambert, the Metropolitan police officer who helped broker the takeover, says that, because of its social welfare work and its track record supporting the Palestinian cause, the MAB has “big street cred in the area and [has] made an impact on Abu Hamza’s young followers.”

Detective Inspector Lambert told us preachers like Anas and Al Oudah “can’t be discounted. … When you have Muslim leaders who are attacked both by Al Qaeda supporters and by commentators who oppose engagement [with Islamists], then they are in a useful position.”

is the co-author of a report entitled Islamophobia and Anti-Muslim Hate Crime: a London Case Study, published yesterday by a newly formed research unit, the European Muslim Research Centre, at the University of Exeter.

And Lambert has form on this score, having acted ‘as consultant for an AHRC funded research project An Examination of Partnership Approaches to Challenging Religiously-Endorsed Violence involving Muslim Groups and Police headed by Dr. Basia Spalek, Senior Lecturer in Criminology & Criminal Justice, Institute of Applied Social Studies, University of Birmingham and Dr. Salwa El-Awa, Lecturer in Islamic Studies, Theology Department, University of Birmingham.’

The background of some of his colleagues, in particular,  Dr Salwa el-Awa, a lecturer in Islamic studies at Birmingham, should raise more than a few eyebrows.

I recognised the name, but couldn’t decide where I’d seen it before. I googled it and it dawned on me that she was related to Dr Muhammad Salim el-Awa, a well-known Egyptian Islamist and Secretary-general of the International Union of Muslim Scholars, where he works closely with Shaykh Yusuf al-Qaradawi. I found a profile of him and discovered that Dr Salwa is his daughter.

Now, his links to the Ikhwaan are well-publicised even if the profile of him paints him as ‘distancing’ himself from their core doctrines.  What I didn’t realise was that el-Awa is now married to Hasan el-Ashmawi, a key figure (and former leader) of the Ikhwan.

The question is, why is the daughter of a well-known Islamist integral to a research project that will not only shape the way that the police deal with Islamists such as the MB/MCB/MAB etc. but also the government? The proximity of such individuals to the coterie of advisors that formulate and influence govt. policy on counter-terrorism is extremely worrying.

According to the project’s homepage, Dr el-Awa’s previous research ‘involved establishing strong connections with experts in and leaders of the Islamic movement in Egypt and UK, as well as relations and co-operation with other interested agencies.’  According to the report itself, ‘religion could play a positive role in counter terrorism’:

Contrary to traditional policing and academic perspectives, the research has highlighted the importance of religious knowledge for counter terrorism, not only in understanding communities within which extremists may operate, but also in motivating the work of police and community members who wish to prevent violence. Dr Salwa al-’Awwa, who co-led the investigation, said the study showed that religion could play a positive role in counter terrorism. The team found strong evidence that an effective counter message to Al-Qaeda’s propaganda must offer a convincing and reliable alternative for religious people to turn to, and that the knowledge and expertise of religious community leaders was essential.

The University of Birmingham report suggested that groups such as the Muslim Brotherhood would be appropriate in bringing such ‘religious knowledge’ to bear on preventing terrorism and included the following statements:

Certain Muslim groups are particularly demonised, including those labeled as ‘Salafi’ and ‘Islamist’, and are used to illustrate the inherent threat from ‘fundamentalist’ Muslims.

…

The MCU’s [Muslim Contact Unit] ability to engage with ‘radical’ and marginalized groups such as Salafis and Islamists allows for counter-terrorism work that many other policing and security units are unable to achieve. This approach has also facilitated counter-terrorism work by communities themselves, opening up another important avenue in the prevention of violence that has otherwise been closed down.

…

This study has documented direct examples of ‘success’ in terms of partnership work helping to counter terrorism – reclaiming a mosque from an infamous cleric’s hard-core extremist supporters, launching community based counter-violent extremism initiatives in London, supporting Muslim minorities – especially Salafis and Islamists – against widespread stigmatisation as terrorist ‘fellow travellers’ or ’suspect communities’.

Now, there’s no denying that there are plenty of bigots only too willing to paint Muslims in general as some sort of threat; a monolithic entity, restricted to Islamist interpretations of religious dogma, if you will.  And anti-Muslim bigotry does lead to violence, as the report amply documents.  But what the report tries to do, and fails miserably, is to postulate a link between the often highly selective reporting of individual extremist Muslims such as Anjem Choudary and Abu Qatadah; the legitimate criticism of Islamic dogma and the behaviour of specific Muslims; and hate crimes against Muslims and their communities.

Here’s one revealing paragraph in the preface to the EMRC report:

From our perspectives and experience, both academic and practitioner, the rise of Islamophobia and anti-Muslim hate crime is morally abhorrent and needs to be countered. Muslim communities in the UK and Europe have important contributions to make to the local communities and broader societies in which they live. Yet to date, these communities, and Islam more broadly, are often the subject of misunderstanding and vilification. Whereas Islamic legal and political traditions have, at key points, inspired and informed Western political and intellectual traditions, and Muslims in Europe have historically made, and especially today continue to make, important contributions at every level of British and European society, portrayals of their religion and identity still often seem to focus on terrorism, intolerance, and issues such as the veil. While such portrayals are unjust and empirically untrue, they still appear to academically, politically and popularly inform perceptions of Islam in Britain and Europe. This insidious phenomenon runs the very real risk of driving deep divisions through European societies, and of alienating friends, neighbours and political partners.

Again, I don’t think that any right-thinking Briton would today argue that crimes against individuals or communities based on their adherence to a particular faith are not ‘abhorrent’.  Quite the contrary.  Unfortunately, what the authors seem to be saying, and its a narrative that we’ve seen Islamists employ as a strategy time and again, is that the majority of people somehow misunderstand Islam, Muslims and Islamic culture, and it’s this hypothetical ignorance that leads to so-called Islamophobia; that tax-payer funded da’wah and consultation with specific Muslim organisations on behalf of the UK Government should be used to counter this; and that political engagement with Islamists (This insidious phenomenon runs the very real risk…of alienating…political partners) is somehow a necessary expedient.

The premise, of course, is a false one.  Criticism of Islam and Muslims is generally directed at those anti-social and often extremist practices that the mainstream non-Muslim public object to and, aside from a small minority of bigots who essentialise Muslims and extremist Islam, such criticism is justified; a fundamental right in a free society.  Freedom of speech, with certain caveats, is one of the pillars of liberal democracy, and a quality that distinguishes Britain from the surfeit of authoritarian regimes in the Middle East and beyond.

If we examine the report itself more closely, on page 9, where acknowledgements are made we come across some familiar names:

We have also benefitted enormously from guidance from our advisory board: Anas Altikriti, Mohamed Abdul Bari, Rachel Briggs, John Esposito, Andy Hull, Oliver McTernan, Basheer Nafi and Tim Niblock.

Anas al-Tikriti is the founder of the Cordoba Foundation, a Muslim Brotherhood front which received Prevent funding towards tackling violent extremism and tried to play host to Anwar al-Awlaki, the Yemeni-based Salafist preacher linked to the radicalisation of both the Fort Hood shooter, Nidal Malik Hasan, and the failed ‘underpants’ bomber, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab.  He’s also the former head of the Muslim Association of Britain and founder of the British Muslim Initiative, both Brotherhood front organisations.  Not coincidentally, his father, Osama al-Tikriti, is the head of the Iraqi Brotherhood chapter, the Iraqi islamic Party. On the same page, we see Brotherhood ideologue Tariq Ramadan and the Islam Channel’s Director of Programming.  The Islam Channel’s CEO is Mohamed Ali Harrath, a convicted terrorist and former member of the Tunisian Islamic Front.

Mohamed Abdul Bari is Secretary-General of the Muslim Council of Britain, an organisation founded by supporters of  Abu ‘Alaa Mawdudi’s Pakistani Islamist organisation, Jamaat-e Islami.  His deputy is Daud Abdullah, co-signatory to the Istanbul Declaration.  Abdul Bari is also chairman of the East London mosque, a masjid that has played host to numerous extremists and has links to the Jamaat too.

John Esposito is a well-known American academic sympathetic to the Brotherhood.

Basheer Nafi is a member of the Brothers who has written books published by the Brotherhood publishing house, Dar el-Shorouq, and was arrested by federal US Immigration Service agents and charged with immigration fraud. He was considered an active leader of the Islamic Jihad terrorist organisation working for a network of academic front groups, and was linked as well to the Islamist militant group Hamas.  He eventually pleaded guilty to a lesser violation of his visa status, and was deported and barred from entering the U.S. for five years.

But perhaps most startling of all, we find this:

We also wish to thank the trustees of Islam Expo and the Cordoba Foundation who have provided the funding to launch the European Muslim Research Centre (EMRC) and enabled us to carry out the research for this report.

Islam Expo‘s founding members include Mohamed Sawalha, the fugitive Hamas commander and co-founder of the Muslim Brotherhood front, the Muslim Association of Britain.  Cordoba are, of course, run by al-Tikriti.

How could anyone take this report’s conclusions seriously?

Islam or Islamism?

Soner Cagaptay has an article up today at the Washington Institute defining Islamism in opposition to Islam, at least from his own perspective.  He gets it mostly right:

While Islam is the faith of 1.4 billion people, Islamism is not a form of the Muslim faith or an expression of Muslim piety. Rather, it is a political ideology that strives to derive legitimacy from Islam. Islam and Islamism are not synonymous…So if Islam is a faith, then what is Islamism? It can be best described as an “anti-” ideology, in the sense that it defines itself only in opposition to things.

I like that bit about defining itself in terms of what it is not.  Islamists do this all the time; it’s their driving rationale: Islam4UK’s Anjem Choudary rails against alcohol, liberal democracy and homosexuality, all things he asserts that his movement stands in direct opposition to – but he fails to offer any concrete ‘solutions’ to what he views as ‘problems’.

Islamists are idealists.  They want to see the re-establishment of a pan-Islamic global caliphate enforcing the legal norms of shar’iah.  But they don’t acknowledge the debt that mediaeval political theorists such as al-Mawardi owe to the classical Greek philosophers, or the nod to political realism that these thinkers made in propounding their theory of Islamic constitutionalism.  Ideals are fine as ideals, but they inevitably don’t pan out the way their supporters thought they would. 

Chris Grayling will not be attending the MCB-hosted Muslim Leadership Awards

Chris Grayling, the Shadow Home Secretary, will not be attending the Muslim Leadership Awards hosted by the MCB.  His name remains on the flyer though, albeit with TBC (To Be Confirmed) inserted in brackets:

al-Qaradawi: Egypt’s a nightmare…may Allah save her!

Shaykh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, the some-time spiritual leader of the Muslim Brotherhood and Islamist ideologue, has broken his heretofore conspicuously-observed silence  on the trials and tribulations surrounding the appointment of the MB’s 8th Supreme Guide, Muhammad Badie, in an interview with Egypt’s al-Shorouk newspaper.  This is the first time that al-Qaradawi has tackled the thorny issue of ledership election since al-Shorouk reported last November his assertion that the failure to promote the reformist Essam el-Erian to the organisations’s Guidance Bureau was a ‘betrayal of da’wah, the MB and the Ummah’  made on his own website.  al-Qaradawi wrote a letter to al-Shorouk, which they duly published, opting for a more conciliatory approach towards the conservatives within the MB amidst the furore that his widely-reported comments had made.

I’ve included a summary of the main points dealing with the Brotherhood below:

– Muhammad Badie should be the Supreme Guide of ALL the Brothers; making use of reformists Muhammad Habib and Abdul Moneim Abul-Futouh.

– Gamal Mubarak should announce his withdrawal from the presidential race.

– Egypt must have a true democracy to regain its place in the world.

– The tribulations of the Ikhwan are over now that the election of the Supreme Guide has taken place [he refused to say any more].

– Badie should make it his business to protect the cause of reform and renewal and not to become a prsioner of any one school of thought.

– Praised the ‘balanced’ and ‘reasonable’ nature of Badie’s acceptance speech and urged him to continue in this vein if he wants to see change with regard to the Egyptian state and its apparatus.

– Essam el-Erian and the rest of the brothers should assist Abul-Futouh and Habib after their ‘demotion’ in the elections. 

H/T MEMRI

MCB to host MPs Jack Straw, Nick Clegg and Chris Grayling (…and Brother Tariq)

Following hot on the heels of news that the UK government is to welcome the Muslim Council of Britain (MCB) back to its bosom, according to the MCB website, Jack Straw MP, the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice, Nick Clegg MP, Leader of the Liberal Democrats, and Chris Grayling MP, the Shadow Home Secretary, are all to attend a dinner hosted by the MCB at the London Marriot in Grosvenor Square.

The Muslim Leadership Dinner, where Muslim Brotherhood ideologue Tariq Ramadan will also be in attendance, gives attendees the opportunity to “network with leaders, opinion formers and people of excellence from all walks of life”.

Also present will be “Government and Shadow Cabinet Ministers, Faith leaders, Trade Union leaders, prominent MPs and Peers, Media Personalities, [and] Muslim civil society leaders from Britain and the Continent.”  It’s not clear whether ‘Government and Shadow Cabinet Ministers’ is referring to those already mentioned, or whether more high profile politicians are to attend.

According to the event’s flyer:

This dinner will also raise funds for the work of the Muslim Council of Britain. At the Muslim Leadership Dinner, the Muslim Council of Britain will launch its new, grassroots-led strategy that will set in motion a new effort to work for the common good of the community and British society.

Critics would argue that, as a charity, the MCB should be working ‘for the common good of the community and British society’ as a matter of procedure anyway; it should not be necessary to have to restate these aims over a decade after its foundation.

A seat at the table does not come cheap:

A seat at the dinner: £250 per person

A table of ten: £2500

 And:

Exclusive sponsorship opportunities also available

News that prominent figures from the government and both main opposition parties are to sit down to dinner with such a controversial figure as Tariq Ramadan, as well as helping to raise funds for the MCB, is sure to raise more than a few eyebrows; particularly given that Daud Abdallah’s position appears secure and his signature remains on the Istanbul Declaration, which glorifies jihad against British forces.

UPDATE

Chris Grayling has confirmed that he will not be attanding the Muslim Leadeship Dinner hosted by the MCB.  Initially, I sent him this mail:

Then, today, I received the welcome confirmation:

This is good news, though quite why Mr Grayling’s name was included on the flyer (albeit with the abbreviation TBC) in the first place is anybody’s guess.

H/T GMBDR

Muslim Brothers Choose Their New Supreme Guide

According to reports (عربي English), Dr Muhammad Badie, a veterinarian and self-professed conservative once imprisoned for 9 years, has been elected the 8th Supreme Guide of the Muslim Brotherhood.  He replaces Magdi Akef who, in an unprecedented but widely reported move, chose to step down.

Information on Dr Muhammad Badie’s background can be found here.

UK Government and MCB Kiss and Make Up

Incredible.  And Dawood Abdullah’s signature remains firmly in place on the Istanbul Declaration.  Didn’t take very long, did it?  Let’s remind ourselves of the MCB’s response to the government severing relations with it, once the then Communities’ Secretary, Hazel Blears, had discovered Abdullah’s support for terrorism:

The MCB is appalled by the high handed and condescending action of the Secretary of State, Hazel Blears.

In response to recent media reports (IoS, 22nd March) about the Gaza Declaration in Istanbul, the Muslim Council of Britain wishes to make clear that it no way supports the targeting or killing of British soldiers anywhere in the world. This is the agreed position of all MCB Office Bearers without exception including the MCB’s Central Working Committee.

As an independent community organisation, the MCB is committed to faithfully representing the views of all our affiliates. As such we reaffirm the right under international law of the Palestinian people to resist the ongoing illegal and brutal occupation of their land.

So that’s alright then.  No apology from the MCB; Daud Abdullah is still in his post, unrepentant; and the Jamaat-e Islami/Muslim Brotherhood pressure group who claim to ‘represent’ Britain’s Muslims are back on friendly terms with the government.  What a disgrace!

Government lifts ban on contact with Muslim Council of Britain | The Jewish Chronicle via kwout

The Green Revolution and the Remaking of Shi’ite Constitutional Governance

In a recent article in the New Republic, Abbas Milani predicts far-reaching implications for Shi’ite political theory as the Green Revolution takes root in Iran:

The Green Movement (and the Ayatollah Khamenei’s clumsy response to it) has exacerbated a split with Shiism. It has accelerated the development of profound and potentially far-reaching doctrinal innovations. The course of the coming months will determine the extent to which these innovations will transform Shiism and Iran.

The continuing unrest, which received new impetus following the disputed re-election of President Ahmedinejad, has galvanised secularists and those theologians adamant that a more democratic system, in harmony with Islam, must be brought about:

The most significant innovation—found in essays, sermons, books, and even fatwas—is the acceptance of the separation of mosque and state, the idea that religion must be limited to the private domain. Some of these thinkers refuse to afford any privileged position to the clergy’s reading and rendition of Shiism–a radical democratization of the faith. And others, like Akbar Ganji and Mostafa Malekian, have gone so far as to deny the divine origins of Koran, arguing that it is nothing but a historically specific and socially marked interpretation of a divine message by the prophet. The most daring are even opting for a historicized Muhammad, searching for the first time in Shia history for a real, not hagiographic, narrative of his life.

Some of these proposed reforms may seem unpalatable to some, but reality has caught up with Iran’s clerical dictatorship.

In spite of Ayatollah Khomeini’s role as the figurehead of the Islamic Revolution, even his intransigence, disregard for human rights and arbitrary use of power caused consternation amongst supporters of the Revolution desperate for an end to tyrannical rule.  His chosen successor, Ayatollah Khamene’i, does not have same credentials.  Chosen by Khomeini as his successor, Khamene’i attained the rank of Ayatollah without completing the necessary study and reflection, and his tenure will forever be associated with nepotism and disregard for the rule of law.  Hence, he has all but invalidated his authority as Iran’s supreme spiritual and temporal leader, and any kudos he might once of enjoyed from being the Imam’s choice, has dissipated in two decades of political violence and, perhaps more importantly, hostility from some section sof the clerical establishment.

It’s not certain yet what sort of geopolitical entity Iran will evolve into, and what role Shi’ism will play in this new entity.  What is certain though, is that the institution of the Vali and Khomeini’s most important legacy, the religio-political theory of velayet-e faqih, have been forever tarnished.

Could the Green Revolution usher in a new constitutional arrangement in keeping with Islamic dogma and tradition?  According to the foremost scholars of Islamic government, the establishment of justice in the land and its decline under Khamene’i, could be grounds for his impeachment.

Although his role as Iran’s Supreme Leader is constitutionally guaranteed during his lifetime, Iran has the institutions, the Majlis-e Shura, to depose him should a plurality of the Ummah acknowledge his unsuitability and the irreparable nature of his role as the Hidden Imam’s representative on earth.

Disobeying and removing the Khalifa

Many Muslim scholars have discussed as to when it is permissible to disobey or remove the Khalifa, an act normally forbidden when the Khalifa is meeting all his responsibilities according to the Shari’ah.

Al-Mawardi believed that if the Khalifa has followed the Qur’an and Sunnah, the people must follow and support him. On the other hand, if he becomes either unjust or handicapped to the point of ineffectiveness (such as blindness or an amputation), then he must be removed.

Al-Baghdadi believed that if the Khalifa deviates from justice, the Ummah needs to warn him first to return to the straight path. If this fails, then he can be removed.

Al-Juwayni held that since Islam is the goal of the Ummah, any Khalifa who steps away from this goal must be removed.

Al-Sijistani wrote that if the Khalifa is found to be ignorant, oppressive, indifferent, or a kafir after his selection, then he must be removed.

Al-Ghazali believed that an oppressive Khalifa must be told to desist from his crimes. If he does not, then he must be removed.

Al-Iji believed the Ummah has a definite list of permissible reasons to remove the Khalifa.

Al-Asqalani wrote that if the Khalifa starts to act as an unbeliever, it is prohibited to obey him and obligatory to fight him. It is obligatory to stand against him if one can – and this entails a big reward. Those people who choose to ignore the situation are in sin, whereas those who cannot fight should emigrate (to organize resistance). Al-Asqalani used two ayahs from the Qur’an in particular to support his position. The first is from Surat al-Ahzab 67-68, “…And they would say, ‘Our Lord! We obeyed our chiefs and our great ones, and they deceived us as to the right path. Our Lord! Give them a double penalty and curse them with a very great curse’…”, and the second is from surat Al-Baqara 167, “…And those who followed would say, ‘If only we had one more chance, we would clear ourselves of them, as they have cleared themselves of us.’ Thus will Allah show them (the fruits of) their deeds as (nothing but) regrets. Nor will there be a way for them out of the Fire…”

Muslim reported that Ibn Umar said the Prophet ordered every Muslim to obey their leader unless commanded to do something bad, in which case they must neither obey nor listen. Muslim also reported that Ibn Malik said the best leader is the one where mutual love exists between him and the people, and the worst leader generates mutual hate. However, even in the latter case, fighting the Khalifa is prohibited unless he enters kufr by stopping prayers or zakat for example.

Ibn As-Samit reported that the Prophet said to obey him in all things and situations, and not to remove the leaders unless they openly practice kufr.

Abu Daud reports from Ibn Ujrah that the Prophet entered a masjid, and said there will come leaders after him who disobey the Qur’an and Allah. Those who help them are not of the Muslims, but if someone opposes them, he or she is of the Prophet’s people.

The Khalifa must be seriously and unrepentantly off the straight path if he is to be accused of kufr. Actions like neglecting prayers, ignoring the fast, and claiming that the Qur’an and Sunnah are outdated are the types of crimes that indicate kufr on the part of the Khalifa. In such circumstances, he must be warned quietly first before taking any physical action against him. However, in cases where the Khalifa is not a kafir, but is simply very belligerent (e.g., seizing the land of others unjustly), the people are obligated to yield their rights (including possessions) to avoid bloodshed. Instead, they should pray to Allah to restore their rights.

Who has the authority to remove a bad Khalifa?

In a the event of a bad Khalifa, the Majlis ash-Shura must be the voice of the Ummah which steps forward and orders the Khalifa to step down (although they must warn the Khalifa first of his crimes). If there is no Majlis ash-Shura, the general populace must create one first by nominating and appointing people to form it. No individuals should rise up alone in protest against the Khalifa. Muslim scholars have elaborated on this subject extensively.

Al-Juwayni has written that if the Khalifa acts strangely and is leading the Muslims to weakness, the Ummah should not allow individuals to step forward and challenge the Khalifa because this leads to anarchy. Rather, any change must go through the Majlis ash-Shura.

Al-Mindad believed that an oppressor cannot be the Khalifa, a judge, imam for prayer, or even a simple witness. However, if he is already the leader, then we must go through the Majlis ash-Shura first to remove him.

Ash-Shahastani believed that the Khalifa is very important, so in case of disagreement between him and the people, no individual should go about creating turmoil. Instead, the people should go through the Majlis ash-Shura.

Al-Ash’ari noted that the first fitnah or dispute after the Prophet’s death was the dispute over the Khilafa.

Ibn Taymiya believed that an oppressive Khalifa should not be fought against immediately, but rather after going through the Majlis ash-Shura first (and failing).

An-Nawawi wrote that a sinning, oppressive Khalifa should be removed by the Majlis ash-Shura. However, if much bloodshed among the Muslims is forthcoming, then the Ummah should avoid the fighting and bear him.

Ghazali believed that a bad Khalifa should be borne to avoid the possible killing of Muslims. However, the Majlis ash-Shura should warn the Khalifa quietly at first. If the Majlis ash-Shura is unsuccessful, and fighting is threatened, then the Ummah must weigh the possible cost of many deaths against oppression. Sometimes the bloodshed warrants that the oppressive Khalifa should be tolerated.

The removal of the Khalifa

The Majlis ash-Shura is the body which has the authority to remove the Khalifa if he behaves contrary to Islam. At first, the Majlis ash-Shura must advise the Khalifa of his deviant behavior, and warn him to stop. If the Khalifa does not change, then he must be told to resign. If he refuses and threatens to use physical force to stay on (e.g., a corrupt army backs him), then the Muslim Ummah has three options available to it at that point:

• Fight him according to some scholars.
• Be patient, and let him lead, to avoid Muslim bloodshed. This is the strongest opinion: the majority of the ahl-ul-hadith and scholars of the Sunnah advocate this view including Malik, Ash-Shafi’i, and Ahmad.
• Depending on the circumstance, either fight or be patient according to some scholars.

When should the Ummah have to fight? Muslim scholars all agree that fighting is obligatory on the Ummah when the Khalifa starts to alter Islamic doctrine and practice. This makes him a clear kafir. Some scholars say that the Khalifa can be fought even when he becomes only a fasiq – e.g., he believes in prayer, but does not do it regularly. The majority of scholars say that this particular offense (neglecting prayer) is kufr anyway – not just fisq.

Did Miliband meet Khaled Meshaal?

Via MEMRI, we learn that a ‘delegation from the British Parliament met with Hamas political bureau head Khaled Mash’al in Damascus on November 2’.  The delegation.  According to the Hamas website, the delegation were there as ‘part of European efforts to open channels of communication with Hamas’ and ‘gain a deeper understanding of the “issue”‘.  Apparently, members of the delegation ‘were satisfied that no peace could be realised in the region [Israel/Palestine] without a dialogue with Hamas, who had the trust of the people by dint of their democratic mandate‘.

What’s interesting is that the Rt. Hon. David Milliband MP, the Foreign Secretary, has been ‘in the region’ over the last few days, with visits to Jordan and Turkey.  I wonder if he found time to drop in on the meeting with Mr Meshaal?

Belgium: Muslim Executive should stay out of Politics

Islam in Europe: Belgium: Muslim Executive should stay out of politics via kwout