http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/feb/17/counterterrorism-strategy-muslims

Anti-terror code 'would alienate most Muslims'

The government is considering plans that would lead to thousands more British Muslims being branded as extremists, the Guardian has learned. The proposals are in a counterterrorism strategy which ministers and security officials are drawing up that is due to be unveiled next month.

Some say the plans would see views held by most Muslims in Britain being classed by the government as extreme. According to a draft of the strategy, Contest 2 as it is known in Whitehall, people would be considered as extremists if:

• They advocate a caliphate, a pan-Islamic state encompassing many countries.
• They promote Sharia law.
• They believe in jihad, or armed resistance, anywhere in the world. This would include armed resistance by Palestinians against the Israeli military.
• They argue that Islam bans homosexuality and that it is a sin against Allah.
• They fail to condemn the killing of British soldiers in Iraq or Afghanistan.

Contest 2 would widen the definition of extremists to those who hold views that clash with what the government defines as shared British values. Those who advocate the wider definition say hardline Islamist interpretation of the Qur'an leads to views that are the root cause of the terrorism threat Britain faces. But opponents say the strategy would brand the vast majority of British Muslims as extremists and alienate them even further.

The Guardian has also learned of a separate secret Whitehall counterterrorism report advocating widening the definition of who is considered extremist. Not all in Whitehall agree with the proposals and one official source said plans to widen the definition were "incendiary" and could alienate Muslims, whose support in the counterterrorism effort is needed. There were also fears it could aid the far right.

Contest 2 is still being finalised by officials and ministers. Those considered extreme would not be targeted by the criminal law, but would be sidelined and denied public funds. Ed Husain, of the Quilliam Foundation thinktank, said the root causes of terrorism were extremist views, even if those advocating the views did not call for violence. Husain, once an extremist himself, said: "Violent extremism is produced by Islamist extremism and it's only right to get into the root causes."

Inayat Bunglawala, a former spokesman for the Muslim Council of Great Britain, said such plans would affect many British Muslims. Bunglawala, who now runs Engage, which tries to get Muslims to participate in politics and civic society, said: "That would alienate the majority of the British Muslim public. It would be counterproductive and class most Muslims as extremists."

In a speech in December, the home secretary, Jacqui Smith, said the government's counterterrorism strategy had to include challenging nonviolent extremist groups that "skirt the fringes of the law ... to promote hate-filled ideologies".

The Contest strategy was put in place in 2003 as the UK beefed up its response to the threat of al-Qaida inspired terrorism. But the security service's assessment shows no drop in those they consider dangerous and the UK's terror threat level remains at severe general. The Home Office said: "We don't comment on leaked documents."

• They advocate a caliphate, a pan-Islamic state encompassing many countries.
• They promote Sharia law.

Muslims believe in an Islamic Caliphate that is traditional in its theology and principles but which is also modern and able to provide the fruits of good positive morals in society as well as the benefits of living under Shariah law. Shariah law is not just about the popularly held conceptions of penal/criminal law, but also concerned with social, economic and foreign policies that cater for Muslims who practise their religion.

• They believe in jihad, or armed resistance, anywhere in the world. This would include armed resistance by Palestinians against the Israeli military.
• They fail to condemn the killing of British soldiers in Iraq or Afghanistan.

Occupiers and illegitimate forces must be resisted wherever they exist in the world. This is not just an Islamic value, but one which is universal. Muslims cannot abandon this, for to do so, would be to cripple their allegiance to Islamic values.

• They argue that Islam bans homosexuality and that it is a sin against Allah.

It's funny how only Muslims are being targeted here, when it is clear that both orthodox Christianity and Judaism also condemn homosexuality and consider it to be a sin! In any case, Muslims can never abandon this. To do so, would be apostasy.

--
P.S. Perhaps now the forum audience will realise why I used to condemn homosexuality in the past. It was never about homosexuality per se, but more importantly to do with the corrosive influence that the forced liberalism being waged on us by secular society, has on us.

As part of this "Context 2" strategy, the Muslim Council of Britain is being targeted by the Government. The Government is trying to force the MCB to remove one of it's elected representatives purely because of his statements regarding the Zionist State of Israel and its allied troops!

This is Hazel Blears criticism of Dr Daud Abdullah and the MCB

This is his response to her:

In her misguided and ill-advised attempt to exercise control on the affairs of the largest independent Muslim organisation, the MCB, which has steadfastly and with honesty represented the views of Muslims over the years, Hazel Blears has used my attendance at the Global Anti-Aggression Campaign conference and the signing of a position document as the peg to hang her coat on. Her latest claim as stated in a letter on her behalf to our secretary-general and published in the Guardian today is that I signed a document "advocating attacks on Jewish communities all around the world". She had not raised this allegation before yesterday and it is entirely untrue.

The official communiqué of the Global Anti-Aggression Campaign conference thanked the Turkish government for its political stand towards the war on Gaza and allowing the conference to be convened in Istanbul. Despite his public condemnation of the war, prime minister Tayeb Erdogan's government maintained its strong diplomatic ties with Israel. On several occasions during and after the war he reaffirmed that his government would not tolerate any acts of antisemitism in Turkey. Contrary to Hazel Blears, the Turkish government did not interpret the Istanbul declaration to advocate attacks on Jews.

In her letter to the MCB, Blears wrote: "We have particular concerns around paragraphs II.7 and II.8. Although the wording of these paragraphs is not exact, it is clear that the intention behind them is to call for attacks on Jews throughout the world and to retaliate against any action which could be taken by the British government in sending naval forces to prevent arms smuggling into Gaza. While the wording is not specific, both the tone and content of these paragraphs call for violence."

Although the letter to the MCB from the government says the wording of the document is "not exact" and "not specific", Blears affirms in her letter to Guardian with astounding certainty that it "advocates attacks on Jewish communities all around the world".

We have arrived at the stage where the secretary of state is now attributing an "intention" which in fact does not exist. While it is true that dictators often persecute their people for what they assume their intention is and not their actions, this has never been a feature of life in a mature democracy.

The focus of Blears' latest sudden concerns is item 7 of the document which talks about the political "position" towards those who support the Israeli ("Zionist entity") crimes – and they are crimes, as Israel is committing actions which are illegal and contrary to international law. The paragraph does not suggest in any way how to react to those who support Israel. More importantly, it refers to those who support Israeli crimes in general including Arabs and Muslims, as was clear from other parts of the statement which criticised the Arab regimes more than anyone else. However, none of these autocratic regimes interpreted this statement as a call for violence or attack on them or anyone else.

For the purposes of clarity, my position remains as follows:

1. I did not call for or support attacks on British troops anywhere in the world. As a British citizen, I have the right to criticise and campaign against government political decisions that embroil young British soldiers in illegal occupations and interventions. One of the reasons I joined the demonstrations against the war in Iraq was to prevent the sacrifice of young soldiers in an illegal war. For this reason I was the first to go to Baghdad in 2004 to seek the release of the British hostage, Ken Bigley, despite threats to my life in Iraq and here in the UK after I returned. This move was welcomed by the government at the time, but it seems some have a short memory.

2. Unlike his predecessor, prime minister Brown has promised that any such future intervention would only be carried out after it is endorsed by parliament. All the assertions made by the secretary of state are based on conjecture and totally hypothetical scenarios.

3. I am absolutely opposed to any attack or violence directed against innocent persons of any faith or no faith anywhere in the world. To claim that I call for attacks on Jewish communities throughout the world is completely false and an inflammatory and malicious assault on my beliefs, words and actions.

4. The Palestinians have the right to resist Israel's illegal occupation, a right supported by international law and the Charter of the UN. In the same way as it is a common British value to respect international law and support justice and freedom of oppressed people, I, along with the Muslim community and large sections of the wider British society, support the rights of the Palestinians.

5. If anything good is to emerge from this saga it should be the affirmation of the independence of MCB. However much Hazel Blears may dislike or disagree with its views she should respect this independence and deal with its representatives as equal citizens, just as it deals with the representatives of other communities.

I have no intention of bowing to the pressure from Hazel Blears to resign. The MCB will continue to make its positive contributions toward a just and fair society.