Great. So these guys dislike Al-Qaeda, but they still believe in the global jihad and Islamic supremacism. But that, apparently, is just fine. "Hardline imams sought to fight terror," by Richard Kerbaj for The Australian (thanks to PRCS):
HARDLINE Muslim spiritual leaders who preach the fundamentalist Salafi brand of Islam espoused by Osama bin Laden have become the latest recruits in combating global terrorism.Australian security agencies have been urged by former Scotland Yard counter-terrorism expert Robert Lambert to enlist key Salafi leaders - who are widely perceived to be part of the radicalisation problem - to help prevent young Muslims from embracing al-Qa'ida's ideology.
Mr Lambert, co-founder of Scotland Yard's Muslim Contact Unit, said Salafi spiritual leaders, who follow a puritanical interpretation of the Koran and are often accused of being proponents of terrorism, had a vested interest in discrediting al-Qa'ida because the network had hijacked and distorted their true beliefs.
"As far as they're concerned, al-Qa'ida distorts the Salafi view of the world," Mr Lambert told The Australian during an interview in London. Australian Salafi leaders yesterday backed the idea of imams working with the authorities to prevent young Muslims from becoming radicalised, but they admitted it would be difficult for them to trust the counter-terrorism agencies.
Prominent Salafi cleric Toufic Mallah said counter-terrorism agencies should have been working closely with fundamentalist leaders to combat radicalisation from the beginning. He accused the authorities of discriminating against and singling out Salafis as extremists.
"These people (in authority) who are genuine I wouldn't mind working with," the Sydney-based imam told The Australian.
"But for those who want to use me to achieve what they want to achieve, then no, I don't want to work with them. But the thing is how do you pick out the genuine from the non-genuine?"
Good question!
"War is deceit."
You been deceived, mate.
"Mr Lambert, . . . said Salafi spiritual leaders, who . . . are often accused of being proponents of terrorism, had a vested interest in discrediting al-Qa'ida because the network had hijacked and distorted their true beliefs."
There seems to be an awful lot of hijacking involved with Islam, whether of airplanes or of beliefs. Apologists for the possibly mythical "moderate" Islam say that the Salafists, among others, have hijacked the true meaning of Islam. But now the Salafists say al-Qaida has hijacked their beliefs. I guess there's no honor among thieves. But then they're only imitating their founder, also a thief without honor.
Does anyone really think that the cops can tell the difference between a good Salafist and a bad Salafist? I've heard of good cop bad cop, but this is absurd.
It would be much more prudent to assume that all Salafists are bad and throw them out, just as you would tainted milk.
Imagine trying to make such a distinction during the Cold War: Let's see, those guys are Trotskyites, so we'll work with them, as opposed to the Leninists, and then there are the Revisionists...
Just stand up and be counted in the fight against Islam. Who needs it?
As someone who lives Down Under, this is really worrying. It's kind of taking advice from the lunatic who runs the asylum.
Why the hell are we taking advice from a former Scotland Yarder?
Why does Lambert think that fanatic Salafist imams are going to change their ways if they are part of a counter-terrorist unit?
All Australians should be aware of this and tell Lambert to scram. He's talking garbage.
Progress.
We’ve come a long way baby:
“The Religion of Peace”;
“A Great Religion”;
“Radical Islamofascists”;
“Radical Islamic Fundamentalism”;
“Global Jihad”; and now
“A Puritanical Interpretation of the Koran”
As compared to what other kind of interpretation? But still.
Combine those words with a leader, and we’d really be getting somewhere.
Imagine trying to make such a distinction during the Cold War: Let's see, those guys are Trotskyites, so we'll work with them, as opposed to the Leninists, and then there are the Revisionists...
by jewdog
But what was Nixon doing when he went to China?
Haven't we tried something similar already with Iran, trying to separate the Khomeinists from those who "wanted good relations with the US"? Almost brought down an American president. The Australian leadership should watch its back.
"Mr Lambert, co-founder of Scotland Yard's Muslim Contact Unit, said Salafi spiritual leaders, who follow a puritanical interpretation of the Koran and are often accused of being proponents of terrorism, had a vested interest in discrediting al-Qa'ida because the network had hijacked and distorted their true beliefs."
-- from the article above
What is the "vested interest" that "Salafi spiritual leaders" have in "discrediting al-Qa'ida"? And what exactly is the way in which the "[al-Qa'ida] network...hijacked and distorted their true beliefs"?
Mr. Lambert needs to spell out exactly what the "true beliefs" of these "Salafi spiritual leaders are, as he understands them, and then we shall be able to judge for ourselves if they have been "hijacked and distorted" by al-Qa'ida and be able to see exactly what the "vested interest" of those "Salafi spiritual leaders" turns out to be -- for example, if it turns out to be nothing more than their fear that the Infidels deep within whose lands they have managed to settle, with their ideology largely until now unremarked, will because of al-Qa'ida start to learn just a little too much about Islam, and become -- a little too prematurely -- a little too alarmed for the tastes of those "Salafi spiritual leaders."
Yes, we need detail, Mr. Lambert. Detail.
When it comes to ISLAM, i am always amazed at how DUMB some of these 'counter-terrorist' types seem.
http://members.dodo.com.au/~wtt626/troublewithislam2.html#The_naivete_of_American_counterinsurgency_experts_is_breathtaking
*ALL* devout muslims support "way of allah", "allah's way", "cause of Allah".
TRANSLATION.... To impose Sharia law on the whole world, by hook or by crook.
*ALL* devout muslims are working to this end.
Duh! All of you CT types, all devout muslims want to make us all dhimmis, or dead.
The method *ALWAYS* used [incrementally] by devout muslims ....deception, denial, and violence.
It is not rocket science.
A little more about this total nincompoop Lambert, formerly -- thank god -- of the "Muslim Contact Unit" can be found in a Guardian article written by someone who is himself a non-stop apologist for Islam, and Muslim causes (as the Lesser Jihad against Israel) but who, in quoting both Lambert and his detractors, provides material that is useful and revealing, though not in the way that the writer apparently believes:
"Last week, as the archbishop's sharia storm raged, Gordon Brown banned the leading Islamic cleric Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi from the country. The pretext given was his support for Palestinian suicide attacks during the intifada. But the 81-year-old scholar has been to Britain several times since then - in fact he was encouraged to come by the government after the Iraq invasion because of his opposition to al-Qaida. The real reason for the ban, apart from the competition to appear tough on terror, is his links with the Muslim Brotherhood, the most influential Islamist organisation in the Arab world - but also a particular target for liberal hawks and neoconservatives. They have played a key role in convincing the government to end its engagement with mainstream Islamist groups and sponsor more pliant Muslim bodies.
One man who thinks that's not just bad for community relations but actually a threat to Britain's security, is Detective Inspector Bob Lambert, who retired six weeks ago as head of the Metropolitan police special branch's Muslim Contact Unit. With more than a quarter century at the sharp end of counter-terrorism operations, Lambert is scarcely a bleeding-heart liberal. But he has been unable to speak out publicly until now and is deeply frustrated by the Qaradawi ban. "Qaradawi is clearly useful in countering al-Qaida propaganda", Lambert told me this week. "He is held in high esteem: how can we think meaningfully about enlisting credible Muslim community support against al-Qaida if we're not prepared to engage constructively with the likes of Qaradawi?"
The aim of the Muslim Contact Unit, set up in 2002, was to avoid the mistakes made during the IRA campaign of alienating the Irish community, and to work with credible Muslim figures to isolate and counter those prepared to support terror attacks. Lambert points as an example to the crucial role played by prominent Islamist activists, such as the British Muslim Initiative leader Azzam Tamimi, in taking back Finsbury Park mosque in 2005 from supporters of Abu Hamza, now awaiting extradition to the US on terrorism charges.
"The government approach is increasingly to lump all Islamist groups together", the special branch veteran says. "But Islamists can be powerful allies in the fight against al-Qaida influence. Our experience shows they can be the levers that help get young people away from the most dangerous positions. Issues that are most troubling to people like the oppression of women and gays mustn't be swept under the carpet, but they also shouldn't be treated as a block on engagement."
Lambert also highlights the importance of Islamic activists' cooperation with the anti-war movement and radical MPs such as Jeremy Corbyn and George Galloway in offering Muslim youth a way to channel their political grievances into peaceful political action. This isn't about 'political correctness or deference to Islamist thinking,' he insists, 'it's a genuine issue of London's safety.' Groups now promoted by the government, such as the Sufi Muslim Council, may have their role, but from the perspective of countering terrorism they have "neither religious nor political credibility. Let's be clear who it is that can keep London safe in the runup to the Olympic games".
Given such a challenge to official orthodoxy there has been opposition to the Muslim Contact Unit's approach in both the police and government - and reportedly pressure for it to be wound down or disbanded. Its work has been singled out for attack by Dean Godson, research director of Policy Exchange, the Tory-linked thinktank whose recent research on extremist literature in British mosques was found to have been based on faked material [note: this is untrue, but you will have to google to find out more].. The unit has, Godson argued, been suffering from 'ideological Stockholm syndrome.'"
Both Lambert and Milne are idiots. Exactly in what way they are idiots, and how dangerous each is because of his idiocy and his past or present influence, and on whom, I leave to you to weigh, and decide.
Lambert got a brain transplant from Aby Normal.
Isn't this the same type thinking that allowed for the hiring of Heshem Islam to the Pentagon staff?
That somehow we can use 'them' to overcome 'them', while never quite understanding who 'them' are.
Sounds like a plan...
Duh_Swami ...
I think it's denial. They just can't get that there is a problem for which there is no "union of sets". There's no place this overlaps in intent.
I did, however, find a very interesting website out of Omaha. At first it looks like a Muslim "hippie" site, but when you read their mission statement (Muslims against Sharia, the site is called), they get everything right.
http://www.reformislam.org/
Morgaan Sinclair said,
"....I did, however, find a very interesting website out of Omaha. At first it looks like a Muslim "hippie" site, but when you read their mission statement (Muslims against Sharia, the site is called), they get everything right."
No true muslim can oppose Sharia [except as a Taqqiya 'play'].
What these people are, *if sincere*, are apostates.
But if they are still calling themselves 'muslims', who's side are they really on?
Maybe they should start reading the Koran, and Hadith, and decide.
Wanna bet that this 'former Scotland Yard counter-terrorism expert Robert Lambert' is on the Sowdi payroll?
Nobody is that stupid. He probably thought if Esposito & Hesham Islam can get away with it, why not cream a bit off the top as well...?
Morgaan...I have heard of this group previously. Most everything that was stated on the site was right. I also think Ezekiel2012, above was right when he labeled them apostates.
Mohammad said: 'If anyone changes their religion kill him'. Altering Islam, is changing it.
How do 'moderates' and 'reformers' get around that?
I keep asking, 'How is it possible for a good muslim to worship Allah in moderation'?
How is it possible for a good muslim to follow the directions given in the Quran, and Shari'a by extention, in moderation, and how is it possible for good muslims to emulate Mohammad the perfect man in moderation? No one answers those questions for obvious reasons. At least it is obvious to me.
So while I approve of the Muslims against Shari'a group, I don't think they will attract much of a following. I wonder how many members they have now?
I also noticed the logo with the crescent and peace symbol, and the words 'Peace love and light'. Allah did not call for any of those, and the rendering of the Islamic crescent with the western style peace symbol, would be blasphemy if I were a muslim...thanks for the link...
Hey, how about those Kosovarians?
I've had some exchanges with the "Muslims Against Sharia" group at their website, where they are very responsive to people who comment (though they tend to be prickly -- what is it about forum moderators? why are they all so damn prickly? anyway...). However, they failed to satisfy me on key issues -- the most important being that they could not wrap their heads around the impropriety of a religion requiring military "self-defense" -- as though any other religion on Earth requires Che Guevara-style guerillas to "defend" against constant "oppression".
Hey, how about those Kosovarians?
Posted by: Concerned Citizen
I didn't know they were playing. What was the score?
Oh 'those' Kosovarians. Yep, they scored big on that one. Needed Bush and Clinton to play quarterback. They would have never reached the goal without them.
I bet the Serbs are tickled pink. The Christians in Kosovo better take a powder, before Allahmania takes over...
Muslims against Shari'a. As long as they continue to worship Allah, I cannot take them seriously. That is like denouncing Nazism, but adoring Hitler.
If they formally apostate, I will give them mucho credibility...
Would you prefer to be fried, baked, grilled or just plucked?
Islam: the mother of all pluckers.
From Indonesia,
Needless to say, this is what the so called anti terror expert come up with. They thought if the little fox given a bit more bribe then the fox can be employed as one of the security guards at Henhouse.
Wow, this is naivete which can cost more Australian loss of lives.
If money and cajoling can be a way out of their problem, why dont the Allies bribe a Pakistani imam to get the actual whereabouts of Osama Bin Laden.
Menwhile
Check out the Bali bombers press conference. They are ready to be executed, but they said prefer beheading than firing squad because they do not adhere to Indonesia law but Sharia.
Well, how about boiling them oh so slowly.
From Indonesia,
Needless to say, this is what the so called anti terror expert come up with. They thought if the little fox given a bit more bribe then the fox can be employed as one of the security guards at Henhouse.
Wow, this is naivete which can cost more Australian loss of lives.
If money and cajoling can be a way out of their problem, why dont the Allies bribe a Pakistani imam to get the actual whereabouts of Osama Bin Laden.
Menwhile
Check out the Bali bombers press conference. They are ready to be executed, but they said prefer beheading than firing squad because they do not adhere to Indonesia law but Sharia.
Well, how about boiling them oh so slowly.
‘Fanatical Frenzy, More Dangerous Than Hydrophobia in a Dog-’ Kills Raving Ayatollah
Iran: Ayatollah Drops Dead of Heart Attack While Giving “Impassioned” Speech….
http://sheikyermami.com/2008/02/18/fanatical-frenzy-more-dangerous-than-hydrophobia-in-a-dog-kills-raving-ayatollah/
Curious bunch these “Muslims against Shari'a”.
Check out their sanitized Qur’an. Someone went to a LOT of trouble excising pretty much all of my favorite “behead the infidel wherever you find him” passages.
They even took out the “beat your wife” part – so I’m pretty sure it won’t fly.
Nice effort though.
Again, deceit. Just so many ashes thrown into our eyes so that we cannot see Islam for what it is.
How does Osama bin Laden's interpretation of Islam differ from that of the Salafists?
Salafism and Wahhabism: What's the Difference?
The attempts by the Musulmans to obfuscate the issue, to confuse us so that we do not know what is what we are facing, can be done away with by us simply deciding Shall We Fight or Shall We Fold?
Bat Yeor answers e-mail:
I wrote,
"After Camp David, scholars sought to create a theological basis for cultural unity among Jews,
Christians and Muslims. You have written of Hans Kung's dhimmism, thus I assume that you have read the work of reference in this link:"
http://global-dialogue.com/swidlerbooks/muslim.htm
"I recall excellent characterizations of the enemy, that were produced during the Cold War.
I still have a copy of "Facts on Communism," as published by the House Un-American Activities Committee. No moral inclarity there."
BY replied :
"Thank you for sending this important book. I was travelling and couldn’t read it. BY"
batyeor@club-soft.ch
http://www.reformislam.org/
Posted by: Morgaan Sinclair
I go to this site often and it is refreshing to see how much it mirrors the anti-jihadi sites.
It is easy enough to email them.
I believe one of the people explained that no one any longer follows the rules of the church as set down by the Spanish Inquisitions and that is how they feel they can still be muslims without all "the bad bits". But feel free to post and write to them.
I give them credit for taking risks.
OT
I just checked IslamWatch. Worth a look. Nothing we don't already know:((
http://www.islam-watch.org/MuminSalih/Islam-west-will-lose.htm
The Wahabis believe that the Salafis were "rightly guided" by the phony "prophet" and his colleagues "sahaba." Lacking the ability to attain the same type of guidance in the "straight path" (istikat al-sirat), they believe that current imans must rely in part on the teaching and exemplary of the sahaba (wahabi publishers crank out millions of stories of the "prophet's" fellow gangsters). Literalists could say that Wahabis lessen the sunna (example) of Muhammad. Wahabis are Salafists, but doubt that they can be true Salafis.
Wahabis - loose followers of the anti-philosophy school of al-Ghazaly - champion "sacred knowledge" over both particular doctrine (madhab), and use of Greco-Roman dialectic (kalam) as a means of koran exegesis. In the 13th century al-Misri wrote ("Reliance of the Traveller") the following attack on the kalam, in light of obligatory learning (fard-ayn): "As for the basic obligation of Islam, and what relates to tenets of faith, it is adequate for one to believe in everything brought by the Messenger of Allah (...) and to credit it with absolute conviction free of any doubt. Whoever does this is not obliged to learn the evidences of the scholastic. The prophet...did not require of anyone anything but what we have just mentioned, nor did the first 4 caliphs, the other prophetic Companions (sahaba), nor others of the early muslim community who came after them...
Our Imam Shafi...went to the greatest possible lengths in asserting that engaging in scholastic theology is forbidden...He insistently emphasized its unlawfulness, the severity of the punishment awaiting those who engage in it, the disgrace of doing it, and the enormity of the sin therein by saying, 'For a servant to meet allah with any other sin than idolatry is better than to meet him guilty of anything of scholastic theology.'"
Al-Misri also wrote of hadith narratives in defense of blind obedience to muslim dogma:
"(On resurrenction day) a man will be brought forward who learned Sacred Knowledge, taught it to others, and who recited the Koran. Allah will remind him of His gifts to him and the man will acknowledge them, and then Allah will say. `What have you done with them?' The man will answer. `I acquired Sacred Knowledge, taught it, and recited the Koran, for Your sake.'
"Allah will say, `You lie. You learned so as to be called a scholar, and read the Koran so as to be called a reciter, and it has already been said. `Then he will be sentenced and dragged away on his face to be flung into the fire."
(2) "Anyone who seeks Sacred Knowledge to argue with fools, vie with scholars, or draw people's attention to himself, will take a place in hell."
(3) "The most severely tortured on Resurrection Day shall be the scholar who did not benefit from his knowledge."
a3.4 Sufyan al-Thawri said.
"No servant increased in knowledge and then in desire for the things of this world, save that he increased in distance from Allah."
------------------------
Essence of Wahabism: stupidity is the cardinal virtue; practical understanding is the supreme vice. Islam is a mental disease; Salafism and Wahabism are merely temporal plagues that will be wiped out when the White House is emptied of the serial Abrahamist gas-bags who have polluted it since Nixon. Obama is a cockroach in dhimmi form.
Australian Salafi leaders yesterday backed the idea of imams working with the authorities to prevent young Muslims from becoming radicalised, but they admitted it would be difficult for them to trust the counter-terrorism agencies.
.................................
Hmm--perhaps counter-terrorism agencies should find it somewhat difficult to trust Salafis, as well.
Here is a story that might perhaps prove sobering in this regard--from a NYT story from a couple of days ago:
6 Iraqi allies die in mistaken attack on U.S. troops
Six members of an Awakening Council, groups composed mostly of Sunni Muslims who have turned against the insurgency, were killed Thursday after they mistakenly fired on U.S. soldiers in the north, Iraqi police said.
Here's the link:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/02/15/MN8EV304B.DTL
Now, it it possible that the Iraqi "allies" fired on US troops in error? Of course it is. We all know that terrible things happen in the "fog of war".
Is it, however, likely that they mistook Americans, in their distinctive gear, for insurgents? Or is it more likely that the members of the "Awakening Council" might not be as staunchly against the insurgency as we would hope?
This vital question is not, of course, even raised in the article.
The full, rich, ripe absurdity of this news story can be exposed by a simple mental exercise: as you read it, each time you encounter the word 'terror' or 'terrorism', substitute the word 'jihad'; and for 'radicalisation' substitute 'jihad recruitment' or 'recruiting for jihad'.