About the Ideology of Party for islamic Renewal
[Working document - 2005]

CPDS Home Contact  
Introduction +



This [working] document outlines and comments on what can be learned about the ideology of radical Islamists from email communications (mainly during 2005) from a British-based group, the Party for Islamic Renewal.

Stated Qualification in Emails: "PIR (The Party for Islamic Renewal) rejects intellectual terror, supports the freedom of thought and believes in dialogue based on argument and evidence. This mailing list strives to educate the general public and inform it about interesting news, issues worthy of reflection or even points of view worthy of condemnation and rejection. Therefore the content of the topics published here should not be regarded as representing PIR's point of view, neither in full nor in part."

Quite apart from this qualification, PIR probably reflects views that differ in various ways from those prevailing amongst other Islamist groups. None-the-less these emails may be a useful a starting point in understanding the ideology of radical Islamists.



[Preliminary] conclusions which can be implied about this group's ideology from the material circulated are as follows:

  • the primary focus is on geo-political issues affecting Muslim communities. There seems to be little concern for theological questions related to Islam which would be the primary focus of mainstream Islamic scholars;
  • there is a heavy focus on grievances against others (especially Western societies and Israel).  Those grievances reflect events over hundreds of years associated with the expansion of the influence of European societies, as well as more recent and current events. Attacks against Western societies are seen to be justified because of prior damaging actions by those countries. A rationale is suggested for attacking civilians.
  • the perceived solution to the difficulties facing Muslim societies is the withdrawal of external influence, and the establishment of a system of self-determination which is presumed to give rise to government under Islamic law and a Caliphate.
  • there is essentially no consideration of the practical effectiveness of such a system, or of the real possibility that the difficulties facing Muslim societies might have a mainly internal origin which would not be eliminated by the withdrawal of external influence.
  • the liberties available under (say) British law are seen to require that Muslims be free to pursue their way of life. This raises difficult practical problems in as that 'way of life' is seen in totality to be determined by laws defined in the Qu'ran - whose underlying principles and surrounding worldview are quite different to those which are the basis of British law;
  • many unresolved issues affecting the global future (eg North / South relationships;  environmental sustainability; economic globalization of neo-liberal models; global institutions such as UN) are drawn into the agenda on the apparent assumption that those issues help to establish the legitimacy / relevance of the stated grievances - even though, as noted above, there seem to be few if any positive ideas about how those issues might be more effectively addressed;
  • a parallel seems to be seen with radical Leftist ideology of Chavez [1, 2] in Venezuela - which amongst other features involved diverting oil revenues to provide health and education programs to poorer communities (an ideology which is apparently admired elsewhere is Latin America);
  • minor countervailing groups (eg 'freethinkers') emerge within Muslim communities who dispute traditional Islamic assumptions 

Communications which have no direct contribution to clarifying ideology are also outlined for completeness. Many of these have a 'conspiracy theory' feel which is similar to theories which arise elsewhere - and about which comments are offered in About Grand Conspiracy Theories.

The latter highlights the fact that conspiracy theorists often tend to lack practical knowledge or capabilities and are characteristically 'against' some other group, rather than being 'for' anything. This characteristic, which renders any such speculation worthless in developing ideas for constructive change to current policies or practices, seems to be shared by many radical Islamists.


Only the Islamic State Can Guarantee ‘Free’ Speech (Yamin Zakaria, 4/10/05). Dr Mahathir recently suggested that US / UK pilots who bombed Iraq during invasion were murders, and that invasion was terrorism. Some walked out - which was hypocritical, as they claim to support democratic processes. The world listened to lies about Iraq's WMD, yet Anglo-US idea of free speech flows only in one direction. This illustrates deep seated racism, as others are allowed to oppose war. There can only be 'free speech' where there are no laws and thus no constraints. In reality each society has its own idea about what is acceptable. West does not with to spread its ideas in Islamic world or it would not align with brutal regimes that suppress dissention. When this happens there is no criticism. The West has a problem in Islamic world - continued rule with an iron fist, or allowing representative governments to gain power (which would risk loss of access to rich resources).  West expects the Muslims to capitulate by adopting their version of ‘free’ speech and their interests in the region - cloaked as ‘reform’. ‘Free’ speech  is primarily invoked as a license to hurl insults at Islam and Muslims. The Satanic Verses was intended to cause maximum offence to Muslims, and the Muslims were expected to tolerate that under the umbrella of ‘free’ speech though US / UK diplomats walked out during Mahathir’s speech, and Imam Khomeini's response to Satanic Verses (a ‘fatwa’, ordering the execution of its author - exercising his right of ‘free’ speech) was not tolerated by the West! The ‘fatwa’ was seen as an incitement to violence, but conveniently ignored that the fact it was Rushdie who drew first blood. The media also used the Rushdie incident to portray Muslims as intolerant and incapable of intellectual dialogue - assuming the Satanic Verses is worthy of an intellectual response. Muslims are not the ones with a history of inquisitions. There is no Islamic literature where volumes of information containing lies, profanities against other faiths (despite the medieval crusades, centuries of colonialism and the modern day crusades). There is a clear difference between intellectual discourses and subjecting a group of people to crass verbal abuse, and then the use of ‘free’ speech to halt retaliation. A US judge allowed a US newspaper to print a letter calling for killing of Muslims on the grounds of free speech. If there was a real interest in 'free speech', Western media would have welcomed Al-Jazeerah, and not hand-pick Muslim moderates (who always apologize for Islam) to represent the Islamic viewpoint. The media is most intolerant when waving the flag of tolerance - and only allows one-way 'free speech' because they can't compose an intellectual rebuttal. Journalists censor their opponents by not giving them an equal voice and then brag about ‘free’ speech. Surely the best way to expose the Islamic fundamentalists is to give them an equal opportunity in the media, for example, publish a series of exchanges with them and show the world how weak their position is intellectually. There does not seem to be much enthusiasm for this form of free speech. Even in academic circles the hypocrisy of ‘free’ speech is clear, as a university complained about articles on the basis of their content, yet claimed to be guardians of free speech.  For years, the secular fanatics have been maligning Muslims for lacking the ability to uphold ‘free’ speech by referring to the Rushdie-test, i.e. the Muslims should tolerate vulgar abuse as legitimate opinion. Now if the Muslims respond intellectually without resorting to vulgar abusive language, it gets classified as incitement to hatred. What the Islamic political parties are saying is not debated; they are not given an opportunity to defend their case, but simply stand accused of encouraging violence. The problem is that the British government is a greater cause of violence. The West now wants to engage in a ‘discourse’ with the Muslims under the umbrella of ‘free’ speech, by putting a tape across their mouths. The secular-liberal camp should have opposed the ban on Islamic Political parties - they cannot bear the thought of defending Islam and the Muslims. Each society implements its own version of ‘free’ speech, but the version implemented in a genuine Islamic state remains constant and fixed. The same can be said for its version of human rights and minority rights. However ideas like human rights, ‘free’ speeches, are fluid in the west; can alter any time at the whim of its rulers or the ruling elite, or the majority population. This is why only the Islamic State can guarantee ‘free’ speech, as the laws are permanent and fixed.

Why the World Loves Usamah and Not Bush (Yamin Zakaria; 2/10/05)

“A reaction might take place as a result of the US government's hitting Muslim civilians and executing more than 600,000 Muslim children in Iraq by preventing food and medicine from reaching them. So, the US is responsible for any reaction, because it extended its war against troops to civilians…We declared jihad against the US government, because the US government is unjust, criminal and tyrannical. It has committed acts that are extremely unjust, hideous and criminal whether directly or through its support of the Israeli occupation." (Usamah bin Laden - to CNN in March 1997)

Usamah bin Laden (UBL), clearly stated the reasons for declaring war on America and her allies, well before 9/11; they have been waging an undeclared war on the Islamic world for the last couple hundred years which has increased in intensity after the end of the cold war. Despite such clear statements from UBL, the western media continues to broadcast the message: we don’t know what Al-Qaeda wants. ....

According to Bush, the US was attacked due to the envy of its foes for its internal political systems and institutions, but not for its foreign policies, nor its murder of hundreds of thousands of Muslims. Did UBL ever complain about how the US manages its internal affairs? As for Bush claiming that the US was perceived as “soft” despite being the lone superpower and despite having demonstrated its firepower in the 1991 Gulf war, shows that George Bush’s mindset is on par with that of two rival school children fighting in a playground. The fight broke out because one of them thought the other one was weak; hence it was an opportunity to prove their manhood.

Bush went on to make even more absurd claims like the 9/11 attackers were motivated by their envy of their wealth, were they materially motivated they would not deny themselves of all material opportunities by killing themselves. There is a huge gap in perception about the causes of this recent conflict between the two protagonists, and Bush has utilised the mass media to mould public opinion in his favour by demonising UBL as a mindless criminal, and by threatening all dissention or questioning of US policy by labelling it ‘unpatriotic’. Now it seems that it is Bush who has been watching too much TV, by portraying UBL as some kind of evil character from Scooby-Doo, someone to poke fingers at, but never listen to, for in the listening may be the undoing of his own arguments. Bush and his advisors have cultivated absolutist tactics – the enemy becomes absolute evil, seeks absolute destruction, absolute nihilism, thus raising the noise level to such a din, that no rational argument can be heard or debated.

Yet, despite the overwhelming one-sided propaganda, there is greater level of support for UBL, than for Bush amongst the Muslim and non-Muslim masses. This is particularly true in countries that have been victims of US aggression, for example countries in Central and Latin America, Far East, South East Asia, Africa and even in Europe. When a poll was conducted in Europe and US asking who was considered to be the greater threat to peace, Bush or UBL, clearly Bush was given the red card. By contrasting some of the key characteristics of the two central protagonists in this war of terror on ‘terror’ it may partially help us to understand why UBL commands greater popularity. Listed below are some of those characteristics ... [a comment on personalities]

Home Office Task Force on Preventing Islamic Extremism (Jahangir Mohammed, Director Centre for Muslim Affairs). After July 7 bombings, UK PM spoke to meeting of Muslims 'leaders' - seeking help to defeat 'this evil ideology' and a task force was set up. A network seeks to dissuade young Muslims from 'extremism'. Some Muslims responded (as colonial subjects; for personal gain; out of naivety). This is same as mainstreaming process applied to Blacks in UK and US. The agenda for meeting with muslisms was set by government, which heard only what it wanted to hear. The Governments agenda is to reform Islam and Muslims instead of reforming their own foreign policies and support for the State of Israel - which is known to be the motive for the attacks. Though attacks were by individuals, the Islamic faith is under interrogation as are all of its institutions. UK defined “Islamic extremism” as Muslims who support Shariah, are against the State of Israel, and wish to see an Islamic State or States. i.e those who view Islam as an all encompassing way of life (Deen) as opposed to a spiritual lifestyle choice that does no challenge the dominant political ideologies of the West, namely, Capitalism, Socialism, and Secularism. When your ideas are shaped by the politics of Islam then that is extremism. Those who are radicalized into left wing / social action are not considered a problem, while Jewish, Christian and Hindu Extremism extremists (who preach hate) are not targeted. What about the neo-conservative ideology that both Blair and Bush subscribe to? And many people would consider the Jewish State, (Israel) which many Jews believe was promised to them by God, as the epitomy of fundamentalism, intolerance and extremism. Muslims have gone overseas for military training. But Jews in Britain raise funds for extremist Israel. It is wrong to equate Right Wing extremists with Muslim 'extremists' and the former have an ideology which is racist and based on white supremacy, while the latter have an ideology based on a political agenda of liberating the Muslim world from occupation and tyrannical regimes. The task force aims to come up with policies towards 'disaffected' young Muslims who turning towards a non-Western Islamic political ideology (considered as “extremism”). But perhaps these young Muslims simply have been convinced by the Islamic arguments? Western politicians, consider only Western political ideas can be universal and aspired too. Anyone who does not adopt them is considered backward and medieval and must be brainwashed by some “extremist” preacher. Working groups are looking at worthwhile social issues, but this can be linked  to Islamic Political resurgence in the Muslim world, which stems from a failure of western secular and nationalistic political ideas in the Muslim world and Western foreign policies. Task force's agenda is simple - to reform Islam and Muslims by (a) increasing government interference in Islamic faith (b) integrating Muslims into western political activity (c) create a class of career Muslims (d) create divisions amongst Muslims (e) create a special police unit to combat extremism (f) carrots such as support for Islamic schools. The net result however will be to endorse the idea that genuine Islam is the “moderate” spiritual Islam devoid of Islamic political ideas, which has to be reclaimed from the “extremists”. The control of Islam in Britain will be further handed to the British Government thus paving the way for the development of an Islam in the model of the Church of England, one that is secular in nature and subservient to the State. Muslims unfortunately are in danger of becoming partners in providing the British Government a decisive role in shaping a reformed Islam.

Comment: surely extremists are those who resort to violence not those who support Islamist political goals. The 'oppression' of Muslim world is by those who support the Deen. Does not say what the Islamist argument is, or how it would work

People with blood-soaked hands (Mahathir Mohamad, former Malaysian PM, 18/9/05) Human rights should be upheld because they can contribute to a better quality of life. To kill 100,000 people because you suspect that the human rights of a few have been denied is wrong. Yet the fanaticism of the champions of human rights have deprived more of their rights and their lives than the number saved. We have lost our sense of proportion. Submission to the strong and the powerful was right in the animal world and in primitive human societies. But advanced societies should have capacity to think, to recognize and evaluate between right and wrong and to choose between these based on higher reasoning power and not just base feelings and desires. But those who claim to be the most civilized believe that the misfortune which befall them as a result of the actions by their enemies are wrong but the misfortune that they inflict on their enemies are right. Before the invasion of Iraq on false pretences, 500,000 infants died because sanctions deprived them of medicine and food. Madelene Albright, then US secretary of state said it was difficult but the price for stopping Saddam Hussein was worth it. Those concerned with human rights did not expose this - because it killed others, not them. In Iraq for 10 years between the Gulf War and the Iraq invasion, the people lived in terrible fear. They were terrorized. Have they any rights? Did the people of the world care?
The British and American bomber pilots came, unopposed, safe and cosy in their state-of-the-art aircrafts, pressing buttons to drop bombs, to kill and maim real people who were their targets. Who are the terrorists? There are double standards where human rights are concerned. But the people whose hands are soaked in the blood of the innocents a right to question human rights in our country, to make a list and grade the human rights record of the countries of the world yearly. They have not questioned the blatant abuses of human rights in countries that are friendly to them. Israel is provided with weapons. Then there are other friends of these terrorist nations who abuse the rights of their own people, deny them even the simplest democratic rights, jailing and executing their people without fair trial but are not criticised or condemned. But when countries are not friendly with these great powers, their governments claim they have a right to expend money to subvert the government, to support the NGOs to overthrow the government, to ensure only candidates willing to submit to them win. There was a time when nations pledged not to interfere in the internal affairs of other countries. As a result many authoritarian regimes emerged which committed terrible atrocities (eg Cambodia and Pol Pot).  There is a case for interference. But who determines when there is a case? Is this right to be given to a particular superpower? Saddam Hussein was tried by the media and found guilty of oppressing his people. But that was not the excuse for invading Iraq. The excuse was that Iraq threatened the world with weapons of mass destruction (WMD). As we all know it was a lie. Every agency tasked with verifying the accusation could not prove it. Yet the US and UK took it upon themselves to invade Iraq to remove an allegedly authoritarian government - with the result that many more have been killed than Saddam was ever accused of. Also international laws on human rights were broken, by detaining Iraqis and others and torturing them at Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib and elsewhere. Should big powers alone  determine when to interfere in the internal affairs of other countries to protect human rights? Malaysia is concerned about human rights in its borders - and does not need outside interference. People in Malaysia are happy and free. Elections are held regularly. But Malaysia is accused of having a totalitarian government during the 22 years of my premiership. And when a former DPM was charged in court, defended by nine lawyers and found guilty through due process, all that was said was that there was a conspiracy, the court was influenced and manipulated and the trial was a sham. In the eyes of these self-appointed judges of human behaviour worldwide, you can never be right no matter what you do, if they do not like you. And now these same people have come up with what they call globalisation - which was conceived, interpreted and initiated by the rich. It is to be without borders. But if so, surely poor people in the poor countries should be able to migrate to the rich countries where there are jobs and opportunities. But , borderlessness is not for people but for capital.  There will be no flow of coloured people to white countries. If they succeed they would be sent to isolated islands in the middle of the ocean or held behind razor-wire fence. It is very democratic and caring for the rights of man. Globalisation is really not a new idea. Globalisation of trade took place when ethnic Europeans found the sea passages to the West and to the East. They wanted trade, but they came in armed merchantmen and invaded, conquered and colonised their trading partners. If the indigenous people were weak, they would just be liquidated, their land taken and new ethnic European countries set up. Otherwise they would be made a part of empires where the sun never sets, their resources exploited and their people treated with disdain. The map of the world today shows the effect of globalisation, as interpreted by the ethnic Europeans in history. There was no US, Canada, Australia, Latin America, New Zealand until the Europeans discovered the sea passages and started global trade. Before the Europeans, there were Arab, Indian, Chinese and Turkic traders. There was no conquest or colonization when these people sailed the seas to trade. Only when the Europeans carried out world trade were countries invaded, human rights abused, genocide committed, empires built and new ethnic European nations created on land belonging to others. These are historical facts. Would today’s globalization not result in weak countries being colonized again, new empires created, and the world totally hegemonised. Would today’s globalization not result in human rights abuses? In today’s world 20 percent of the people own 80 percent of the wealth. Almost two billion people live on one US dollar a day. They don’t have enough food or clothing or a proper roof over their heads. The people of the powerful countries are concerned about our abuses of human rights. But shouldn’t we be concerned over the uneven distribution of wealth which deprived two billion people of their rights to a decent living, deprived by the avarice of those people who seem so concerned about us and the occasional lapses that resulted in abuse of human rights in our country. We should condemn human rights abuses in our country but we must be wary of the people who want to destabilize us because we are too independent and we have largely succeeded in giving our people a good life, and are more democratic than most of the friends of the powerful nations. The globalization of concern for the poor and the oppressed is sheer hypocrisy. Detainees are abused, but when forced to take action against those responsible the culprits are treated lightly.  Yet these countries claim that Malaysian courts are manipulated by the government, that abuses of rights are rampant in Malaysia. We must fight for human rights. But we must not take away the rights of others in the name of human rights.

Speech by President Chavez at UN General Assembly (15/9/05): The UN model is exhausted, and a new system is needed. There is need to address a frightening neoliberal globalization, and also the challenging reality of an interconnected world. The UN should move outside US preferably to the South. Neo-liberal capitalism (the Washington Consensus) has generated misery, inequality and infinite tragedy. A new international order is needed. In 1974 UN General assembly adopted a plan for this involving: confirming rights of states to nationalizing the property and natural resources of foreign investors; and creating cartels of raw material producers. The main goal was to modify the Breton Woods economic order. Venezuela wants a new economic order, and a new international political order. Countries should not be able to reinterpret International Law to impose “pre-emptive warfare.” In seven years of Bolivarian Revolution, Venezuela has made important social and economic advances despite internal and external aggression. We will fight for Venezuela, for Latin American integration and the world. We reaffirm our faith in humankind. We are thirsty for peace and justice to survive as species. We can not rest until we save humanity.

Khilafah: The root of unacknowledged terrorism (abid Ullah jan, 10/9/05) In 1924 it was suggested that abolition of the Khilafah (Caliphate) in Turkey, regarded as a symbol of Islamic unity, will be a disaster to Islam and to civilization. Karimov’s recent massacre in Andijan is being buried the victims “wanted to establish Khilafah.” Dictatorial regimes are considered acceptable to the “civilized” world because these are seen as secular bulwarks against Hizb ut Tahrir-like movements, who struggle to establishing Khilafah. Global troubles have been attributed to Khilafah since its inception in the 7th century. When abolished in 1924 this was seen as the ultimate victory against Islam - but the problem, nevertheless, remains. Khilafah still provides motivation to many actions and reactions; movements and counter-movements. Thus the zeal of Islamophobes to abolish Khilafah is as much the root of all unacknowledged terrorism as the renewed zeal of Muslims to re-establish it is the mother of all solutions. Khilafah strikes dread in the hearts of the totalitarians determined not to allow Muslims to get united, exercise their right to self-determination and living by the Qur’an. Thus Islamophobes take pre-emptive measures, which lead to grievances, reaction and counter measures by Muslims. The 7th century revolution in the heart of Arabia not only culminated in establishing a way of life but also set guidelines for a basic governance mechanism, which are still valid today. Islamophobes don't want Muslims to establish an alternative model to the existing unjust socio-political and economic order. The “war on terrorism” is a summary title for all the anti-Khilafah efforts. All summits now say they would not allow terrorists to win. They are against our values and way of life. But where does the alleged ‘Muslim terrorism’ stand in comparison to the mass killings, tortures, detentions, and exploitations carried out by the legitimized institutions. The war is actually on something other than the deceptively labeled terrorism. One month before 9/11, terrorism was seen as a declining threat. Terrorism by US and its allies remained unacknowledged as they justified it with lies about Iraq’s WMD. Tirades about terrorism are directed at holding Muslims from exercising their right to self-determination. This crackdown is not new - as Khilafah has been ridiculed and presented as a threat to safety since 1924 in particular. A conference in London in 1994 to discuss this was criticized widely. The enemies of Khilafah would go to any length to discredit Muslims’ objective and deny them the right to self-determination (eg staged terror attacks, lies for justifying invasions and occupation, and support to criminal regimes). This can't work as it just generates resistance. The scare mongers in the West would lose nothing, not even oil. Muslims may not even ask for reparations for centuries of colonial rampage and holocausts. The totalitarians among them would only have to give up on their dreams to make everyone live by their “way of life.”

It is uncivilized to demand that Muslims abandon their way of life (Roy Hattersley, The Guardian, 12/8/05) Critics of multiculturalism are confused - as shown when shadow home secretary denounced the concept and then welcomed "the mainstream version of Islam as part of British society".  Muslims are accepted in Britain - only if they cease to behave like Muslims. People who go to church on Christmas Eve and think that makes them Christians may not realize that devout Muslims believe that the Qur'an should inform their whole lives. Britain has to decide if freedom is consistent suppressing the religious practices of its fastest-growing faith. The sensible, approach is to welcome diversity as a stimulus to vitality. But invitations to enjoy the benefits of British society are, like insistence on obedience to the rule of British law, different demanding that they abandon a whole culture. It is the assault on Islam - its culture and it theology - that alienates some Muslim youths so they will not condemn anyone who champions their religion. Social disadvantage (unemployment and poor housing) combines with attacks on their favoured causes to make them feel rejected. Blunkett's confusion of arranged and forced marriages was offensive to Muslim women (many westernised) for whom "a traditional wedding" is the only form of matrimony with which they feel comfortable. But obsession with immigration control is worse - as Muslims entering the country were seen to insisting on barbaric rituals. British Muslims support their culture and religion with passion. The alternative to that take-it-or-leave-it nonsense is acceptance that most Muslims will live Islamic lives and still accept the laws and conventions that hold Britain together. Whatever Howarth hopes, British Muslims will not go to what he imagines is their natural home. They are already there.

Other Material



‘Shoot to kill and lie afterwards’ (Shahin, 5/10/05) This is the best description of the public execution of Jean Charles De Menezes by the British Police (who have previously been described as institutionally racist) because they mistook him for a Muslim.

Britain 'agreed in secret' to expel Saudis during £40bn arms talks (Ewen MacAskill and Rob Evans, 28/9/05, The Guardian ) - concerned arms sales dealings; suspected support for al Qaida; and investigation of corruption in Saudi Arabia

Iraq: A War For Israel (Mark Weber, 28/9/05) - US did not invade Iraq because of WMD threat but to help Israel

A policy of absolute barbarism? (Mike Whitney, 24/9/05) - It is critical to discover whether vehicle in which two British commandos were traveling when arrested in Basra contained explosives. If it did it would prove that US and UK intelligence operatives are involved in terrorism in Iraq. 

Simon Wiesenthal: Fraudulent 'Nazi Hunter' (Mark Weber, 24/9/05) - Wisenthal has an undeserved reputation as a moral authority, because he frequently lied about his past 

Tony Bliar, Or Tony Blair the British Prime Minister (Shahin, 22/9/05) - UK PM said he would be judged by history for attack on Iraq. Many UK non-Muslims see his as liar and war criminal. Now war on Iraq has failed, he is turning on UK's Muslim minority to curb 'extremism' - though he can't even define it without exposing lies about unprovoked attacks on innocent Muslims in Iraq and Afghanistan. Reasons for going to war were bogus, and it is now claimed this was to bring democracy to Iraq. People in Iraq were claimed to have said that living under British colonial rule was better than old regime - which was blatant colonial white supremacist propaganda! British Crusader forces face bullets not rose petals in their sector of occupied Iraq. The SAS has not captured a single insurgent. Two SAS soldiers were arrested in a car rigged to explode, and killed one of the arresting police. This was a racist crime that even BBC propogandists could not hide. Racism goes back a long way as UK government listed 27 so-called ‘terrorist’ organisations it wanted to be banned (all but one of which were Muslim groups). New legislation will criminalise by association - knowing a suspect will make a person a terrorist. Blair's racist motivation is shown by by case of white non-Muslim criminal - where police did nothing while 13 Muslims who fled persecution (who had noting to do with 7 July bombings) are about to be deported to North Africa to be tortured! Blair is a coward who is trying to prove his manhood by sending British soldiers to make the “blood sacrifice”. The deaths in New Orleans can be blamed on Bush’s failed war on Iraq, which pulled away resources from home to loot oil Muslims, but thanks to the efforts of the resistance it rebounded badly on the American people who are now paying with their lives both at home and abroad. The economy of the USA is being bled dry.

War Pornography (Thompson C. 21/9/05) - US soldiers trade grisly photos of dead and mutilated Iraqis for access to amateur porn.

US attack on Tal Afar virtually ignored (By Linda S. Heard, 21/9/05) There is a huge amount of public attention to victims of Hurricane Katrina, yet there is no interest in fate of citizens of Tal Afar who have been attacked by US forces because of the assumption they were harbouring terrorists

Were the British Soldiers Engaged in pseudo-Insurgency Operation in Basra? (Yamin Zakaria, 20/9/05)

The NHS needs more money to help the elderly this winter. (A British Public Service Worker, 19/9/05) - cost of war in Iraq takes money desperately needed for social services

Freethinkers – Are they “Morons from Outer space”? (Yamin Zakaria, 14/9/05): 'Freethinkers' with Muslim ancestry have poor logic and commonsense works in reverse. All found the ultimate ‘truth’ of life (foul mouthing of Islam and Muslims) in web-sites usually with their pseudonyms. They use values rooted in Islam or religion in general, to attack Islam and Muslims. Even if Islam is evil,  these ‘freethinkers’ have no alternative to offer, that is so fantastic to humanity, and where are their followers espousing are the answers to life? The limitations of freethinkers can be illustrated by two examples: (a) Ali-Sina (faithfreedom.org) who abruptly terminated a debate. He identified the golden rule as an alternative - though as he explained it it was full of inconsistencies and exceptions. He said that he would bring allegations against the Prophet - but withdrew these. He said that praying as dispicable, and that Muslims were animals. (b) the Lambert Wit who argued that (a) secularism had led to growth of science and technology in West (which is true) - but those same secular societies then used this to colonise pillage and commit genocide (which continues now in Iraq and Palestine). He suggested those actions have no relationship with secularism, and that greed was the motivation. He could not respond when asked how to evaluate actions and values are compliant to secularism - a very uncomfortable question as it means he is committing himself to a position where he too can be judged. This is what the freethinkers avoid, as they want to be the judge, jury and executioner dishing out anti-Islamic diatribe. (b) he found the marriage of the Prophet to the former wife of his adopted ‘son’ offensive because he likened that to marrying his daughter - but could not justify why it was wrong to even marry a real daughter. He was using Islamic or religious values that he inherited to pass judgment. (c) he advocated free speech (eg to criticize Islam), while suggesting that it was wrong for Muslims in the West to criticize Western governments. ‘Free’ speech according to these freethinkers is you agree with them, else you should leave the country! - which sounds like non-thinking fascists. Muslim and non-Muslims migrants are living in the West, as law abiding citizens, while Western imperialist nations pillaging other nations. The West would not have economic migrants, if they did not make other nations so unliveable and ungovernable. These two freethinkers suffer from insecurity, inferiority complex and are desperate to be accepted by their new communities, thus they have turned their backs on their roots, foul mouthed their ancestry, rubbish their native values and vilify Islam. Islam promises accountability after death and resurrection.  Allah has sent Messengers and they would be the ‘best of thinkers’ to reflect upon the message and prostrate themselves before their creator, as a cure for their arrogance.

Move Over Pat Robertson, Racist Rabbi Says Black Hurricane Victims Deserved To Die! (9/9/05) - said to be because they had no God

Where is your Allah? (9/9/05) - US GI's were ordered by their leader, Bush, to flush Qurans while torturing innocent Muslims. Now Allah has flushed a great American city with the same type of sewer water Bush's minions were using to flush the Qurans.

Inside the Mind of a Suicide Bomber – Part 2 Targeting Civilians (Yamin Zakaria, 9/9/05) Lies breed more lies. To support the primary lie of Iraq’s WMD capabilities, layers of false information were generated by the Anglo-US government. Similarly, to conceal their culpability - the British, US and Israeli governments have tried to divert their publics from the real reasons that shape the minds of ‘suicide’ bombers. The most  credible argument against ‘suicide’ bombers is the indiscriminate targeting of civilians. These actions are made to seem gratuitously violent by cutting them from their political and historical context, while the actions of state terrorists are sanitized by amplifying political and historical context. Those killed by ‘suicide’ bombers, they ‘innocent’ victims of terrorism, while the killings of much larger numbers of civilians by an organized army in occupied Palestine, Iraq and Afghanistan are simply ‘defensive’ measures. Arguments against suicide bombings suggest (a) they are Indiscriminate - but all bombs are indiscriminate - and the more powerful the bombs the more indiscriminate they are. Even if the dubious claims of using precision or smart bombs were true, it would still be immaterial, because the pilots are usually neither precise nor smart (as bombs often fall on wedding parties, families, civilian markets etc). A murderous mindset was shown in the 1991  Gulf War, and by brutality of the Anglo-US forces in Abu-Ghraib and other prisons (b) ‘Suicide’ bombers mainly target innocent civilians - but powerful munitions are bound to have high civilian casualties. Western and Israeli forces use long range weapons to kill civilians using their long range weapons with ease, whereas the ‘suicide’ bombers cannot do this. The indiscriminate killing of civilians en masse was introduced with the arrival of Air Forces, by the Western powers (eg with needless destruction of civilian cities like Dresden, Cologne, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki). There can be no distinction between military and civilian (non-combatant) targets as the political establishment (civilians) in collusion with the mass media usually initiates and authorizes war? Political authority can become target in war, and so can the source of that authority (especially in a democracy). The final argument for excluding civilians as a whole is that many of them are opposed to the war. However, the same could be said for those who serve in the armed forces, who are also opposed to the war. (c) non-combatants should be avoided in war because they are innocent - but this is not true. Civilians are only excluded by mutual agreement between nations. Also innocent or guilty is misleading, because, innocent and guilty is decided by certain laws that one is subject to. The term “international laws” is also misleading, as often these so-called laws flow in one direction; used by stronger nations to subjugate the weaker nations. An a battlefield there is no principle that you seek the GUILTY soldiers only. Of course morally speaking, civilians and non-combatants should be off limits, but those who are lecturing on this issue are the worst violators, just examine their track record of civilian deaths! There is a simple solution: if you do not want your own women and children to be targeted, then don’t kill the women and children of other nations.

Who really bombed Paris? (Naima Bouteldja, The Guardian, 8/9/05)  - The evidence is that the 1995 Islamist attacks on the French metro were in fact carried out by the Algerian secret service

We Have Been Abandoned By Our Own Country (8/9/05): "Bureaucracy [referring to FEMA] has committed murder here in the greater New Orleans area, and bureaucracy has to stand trial before Congress now. "

Preachers of Hate (6/9/05) - quotes from various Christian fundamentalists in US many of whom supporting concept of integration of church and state

One huge US jail (Adrian Levy and Cathy Scott-Clark, The Guardian, 19/3/05) Afghanistan is the hub of a global network of detention centres, the frontline in America's 'war on terror', where arrest can be random and allegations of torture commonplace. 

Stop the destruction of the birthplace of Prophet Muhammad (SAWS) in Makkah (5/9/05). The birthplace is protected by a library built on the original foundations of the house in which the Prophet was born in. But the policy makers and "Ulema" or so-called scholars of Saudi Arabia have given permission for the destruction of the original foundation. It is entirely possible that this holy site will be replaced by a skyscraper or to make way for more hotels.

Bush to New Orleans: Drop Dead! (2/9/05)

CIA leak case- “It’s all about Iraq” (Aljazeera.com, 24/8/05) The key issue in publicizing identify of CIA operative was about manipulation of the United States Congress into voting for an unprovoked war in Iraq - and discouraging others from revealing what they know about this.

War Criminal, Tony Blair - Go back! (7/9/05) - Demonstration against visit of Tony Blair to New Delhi

Kashmir women fight 'obscenity' (Altaf Hussain, 3/9/05) - An all-women vice squad opposes liquor and prostitution. Eight veiled women gather outside a shop selling alcohol on the ground floor of a hotel in Srinagar, in Indian-administered Kashmir and start ransacking it, while chanting Islamic slogans.

‘Shoot to kill and lie afterwards’ (Shahin, 21/8/05) This is the best description of the public execution and assassination of Jean Charles De Menezes by the British Police because they mistook him for a Muslim.

Who Would Jesus Assassinate? (Ron Jacobs,. 24/8/05) The interpretation of Jesus Christ that is given depends on a teacher's political and cultural persuasion. Some taught that he opposed communism, while Jesuits see him as like a revolutionary communist. The latter leads to the tradition of liberation theology, which the late Pope attacked immediately after his appointment, while appointing Opus Dei to replace Jesuits as the pope's protectors. The underlying reason for this vehement opposition to liberation theology among the Catholic hierarchy stems from its alliances with nonreligious leftists and its attacks on the Church's role as part of the oppressive structure in the world of the peasantry. Liberation theology is seen as anti-Catholic and anti-hierarchy (despite the fact that Jesus threw the money changers out of the Temple, and challenged religious authorities). Chavez in Venezuela is opposed by the Catholic hierarchy, by Opus Dei, by the CIA and now by US evangelicals.

Two fingers to America (The Guardian, 25/8/05) Venezuela's president, Hugo Chلvez, is a friend of Castro, a critic of the war in Iraq, and wants to spread revolutionary fervour in South America.  A former military officer, he is a man of the left and, like most Latin Americans with a sense of history, is distrustful of the US. Free elections in Latin America have often thrown up radical governments that Washington would like to see overthrown. Chلvez is a revolutionary figure, one of those characters who surface regularly in Latin America, who wants to change the history of the continent. The US could have dealt with him except (a) they have been pre-occupied and (b) this could interrupt oil supplies. Chلvez comes from the provinces - the vast southern cattle lands - and has black and Indian ancestry. He is a brilliant communicator, who never stops talking and working. Castro warned Chلvez not to absorb himself in the minutiae of administration. He has long been concerned about assassination. He is the leader of the group of left-leaning presidents recently elected in Brazil, Argentina, and Uruguay, as well as the inspiration of the radicalised indigenous movements now clamouring at the gates of power in Bolivia and Ecuador. He is a follower and promoter of the ideas and career of Simَn Bolيvar, the Venezuelan leader who brought the philosophy of the European Enlightenment and the French Revolution to Latin America, and liberated much of the continent from Spanish rule. This is alarming to US, as is his attention to the Middle East (and OPEC). Today's high oil price has much to do with increased demand from China and India, and the Iraq war, but Chلvez gave OPEC new credibility. He is to show Iran, using the Venezuelan example, how to increase the revenues of a state-owned oil company and channel them to help the poor. Chلvez is popular now, but has faced widespread discontent in the traditional white elite. His reforms have been moderate and social democratic. He criticizes the "savage neo-liberalism" that harmed poorer peoples of Venezuela and Latin America in the past 20 years, yet the private sector is alive and well. His land reform is aimed at unproductive land and provides compensation. He has channeled oil revenues into social projects that bring health and education into neglected shanty-towns. He is hated by opposition parties, whose influences had fallen, on the basis of ideology and racial antipathy than in material loss. Mostly they are alarmed by the way in which he has enfranchised the country's vast underclass, interrupting the cosy, US-influenced lifestyle of the white middle class with visions of a frightening world beyond their gated communities. Attempts have been made to get rid of him for years.

Christian-Terrorists and Secular-Fanatics: Licensed to Kill (Yamin Zakaria, 29/8/05) Is it worse to practice violence or to do so while lecturing victims.  Why do nations, that profit most from the sale of weapons for war, death and destruction, shout loudest in claiming to be proponents of “peace”? How can the Christian-West charge others with anti-Semitism, when they built the gas chambers, implemented the inquisition, and carried out routine pogroms for centuries? Why do we have to listen to those who openly lied about Iraq’s WMD’s, or is this a virtue of a capitalist-democracy! Mass murderers who slaughtered over 100,000 civilians in Iraq, preach about non-violence. A US judge recently ruled that free speech gave the right to a  newspaper to publish letters calling for the killing of Muslim civilians, in retaliation for the deaths of any US soldiers in Iraq. The abusive xenophobic preacher, Pat Robertson, called for US Special Forces to “take out,” (assassinate) President Hugo Chavez, the democratically elected head of Venezuela. Pat Robertson is a Bible-bashing fanatic, those people are constantly lecturing the non-Christian world and especially the Muslims, that they should turn the other cheek - though Africans, Native Americans and others will testify that they got the Bible shoved down their throats, were told to turn the other cheek to invasion, murder, ethnic cleansing and genocide in return for the loss of their lands, languages and “way of life”. Chavez’s real crime is like Saddam, possessing lots of oil while showing disobedience to the US corporate interests. Then the other crusader, Pope Benedict of the Catholic Church, lectured Muslims to tackle the “cruel fanaticism of terrorism”. Does anyone remember the Vatican calling the Serbs and Croats fanatics, murderers, terrorists or any such like? 200,000 Muslims killed in the centre of Christian Europe by the Christian Serbs and Croats and not a whisper. Enough with the Christian-Fanatics, consider the secular fanatics. David Cameron compared Islamic extremists, meaning those who adhere to Islamic teachings, to the Nazis - though Nazism was a European tradition and a reason for Muslims not integrating. For the last 50 years it is Muslims who have been killed in their millions, yet to Mr Cameron, we are the aggressors like the Nazis. The Nazi’s created unjust laws to victimise and alienate minorities, similar to what the British government has started to do. Like the Nazi’s the UK government has bombed, imprisoned, killed and tortured hundreds of thousands of Muslims. Nazi ideology is based on the supremacy of one race, while Islam is the exact opposite. He called Muslims violent for resisting aggression in their own lands, but he thinks that invading a country which did not attack his and murdering over 100,000 civilians is not violent. I thought we no longer live in the age of racist white-Imperialism. The Nazis did not for instance imprison, rape and torture children [2] as the ‘liberators’ has been doing in Iraq. Why were the Atomic bombs used against Japan’s cities when it was already close to surrender? Blair wants to crack down on anyone glorifying or justifying ‘terrorism’. But who will crack down on those who justify, glorify and actually practice terrorism, State Terrorism?

Saudi dissident shuts down site (27/8/05) - A Saudi exile facing calls for his deportation from Britain has closed parts of his controversial website, which site has shown images of suicide bombings in Israel and Iraq in the past, as well as messages from supporters of al-Qaeda. He said the decision to shut down was his own, but that the site was a victim of the murder of freedom of expression.

Profit before the Prophet (Yvonne Ridley, 26/8/09) - Sites that are significant in the life of the Prophet are being lost because the Saudi Government (influenced by Wahabbism) has an irrational fear that places of historical and religious interest could give rise to idolatry or  polytheism, the worship of multiple and potentially equal gods.

Bush's Obscene Tirades Rattle White House Aides (Doug Thompson, 25/8/05) US president is making final effort to sell his Iraq war while aides scramble to hide the dark mood of an angry leader who unleashes obscenity-filled outbursts at anyone who dares disagree with him.

Papal Double Standards (Richard Itani, CounterPunch: 24/8/05) The new pope called for "trust and mutual respect between Christians and Jews", while "appealing to Muslims to help combat the 'cruel fanaticism of terrorism.'" Western-Christian forces invade Muslim countries, kill innocent children, women and men by the tens of thousands, and it's Muslims whom Pope Benedict calls upon to "combat the cruel fanaticism of terrorism"? Are we still living in the age of the crusades? In the time of the "Holy Inquisition"?