Technorati Tags: khalid yasin, shaikh feiz, london central mosque, dispatches, evening standard, wahhabism
On Wednesday evening the Evening Standard ran an "exposé" on the central mosque in London, alleging that its bookshop was run by Wahhabis and that the mosque is run by Saudi Arabia. The specific accusation is that the bookshop sells DVDs by Khalid Yasin and one Shaikh Feiz which contains content the average white Briton might find offensive, among them that women are deficient in intelligence compared to men, that Jews are comparable to pigs and that Christian missionaries deliberately spread AIDS in Africa under the cover of vaccines for common dangerous diseases. You can find the article reproduced here.
The claim that the bookshop is run by a Wahhabi organisation, Dar us-Salaam, is true. When I first started attending that mosque, the bookshop was actually in the mosque foyer and sold a variety of books by mainstream Islamic publishers like Ta-Ha. Then, for some reason, Dar us-Salaam moved in and the book stands in the foyer disappeared. Dar us-Salaam is a well-known publisher of propaganda-laden poor translations of classical Islamic texts such as those by Khan and Hilali. Shaikh Nuh Ha Mim Keller noted that in one such translation, Muhammad Muhsin Khan inserted a seventy-three page introduction explaining the Wahhabis' three categories of monotheism, something of which the original author, Imam Muhammad al-Bukhari, knew nothing.
The article quotes "Shaikh Feiz" thus:
Sheikh Feiz is seen imitating the snorting noises of a pig when referring to Jewish people, whom he says will be killed when the day of judgment arrives. He says: "This creature will say, ‘Oh Muslim’ behind me is the Jew. Come and kill him. They will be [makes snorting noises] all of them, every single one of them."
This is, of course, a predictive prophecy about a forthcoming battle between Muslim and Jewish forces, not an attempt to inspire Muslims today to go and kill Jews today, but is routinely quoted as if it were just that. I suspect that the snorting noises were meant to represent the noises of dying, not the noises of a pig, although I have not seen the video. While there is a well-known passage in the Qur'an noting a group of Jews who were turned into apes and pigs for playing legal tricks to get around a ban on fishing on the Sabbath, that is not relevant to this quotation.
I've not watched the DVDs myself so I cannot confirm or deny what the Standard quoted from him or from Shaikh Yasin. What is obvious, however, is that none of them actually defend terrorism or try to inspire anyone to commit violent acts, which is what is illegal; they simply say things that Britons in general do not like. It appears that the investigators went after real extremist links and really only found a few controversial statements, some of them ugly and prejudicial and some which are just at variance with mainstream British culture, and made a big deal out of them. No doubt some of those who will be most offended by the few words they will hear from Khalid Yasin and Shaikh Feiz on Dispatches this coming Monday will be quite happy to hear insulting things said about religion, particularly about Islam. Besides, it stands to reason that a bookshop cannot screen every single item it sells for content which is illegal or offensive. If they did, companies like Waterstone's and Borders would have massive screening houses to process the books quickly, which we would all know about (and there would certainly be fewer booksellers).
The real scandal about that bookshop is the fact that the only bookshop at the most famous mosque in the UK, which is not known to be a sectarian mosque, is run by a sectarian organisation. As stated in the article, the imams at the mosque are all Egyptian; specifically, they were trained at al-Azhar which is still a major centre for the teaching of Islam despite not having quite the authority it once did before the British and Gamal Abdul-Nasir messed around with it. (It never was a Muslim Vatican, but is often spoken of as if it were still.) Al-Azhar is not a Wahhabi institution; it does not take converts from the ghetto and turn them into preachers unlike certain other institutions.
The Wahhabis of the sort who run Dar us-Salaam are not terrorists and pose no real threat to anyone's life and liberty. They are a sect who cause trouble within the Muslim community and which brands practices and beliefs which were actually mainstream until very recently (and in many places still are) as idolatry and heresy. They have in fact thrived under the present world order, which has allowed them to occupy, and operate unmolested in, the Hijaz while Muslims elsewhere are sometimes unable to even grow their beards or wear normal Islamic clothing; they barely lifted a finger to defend Palestine against the Israeli invasion and their rulers had so little confidence in their ability to save Kuwait from the Iraqi invasion that they invited the Americans to do it for them, with all the hideous consequences for the innocent Muslims (and others) in Iraq over the subsequent decade. In at least one conversation with one of their activists, I was told that it was not for the Muslims to establish an Islamic state anywhere; it was incumbent on us to establish tawheed (monotheism), meaning their version of it.
The scandal, and the ordinary Muslims' battle, has been going on since at least the mid-1990s as was the case with Abu Hamza and others, but the ravings and other activities of Abu Hamza attracted attention only when they became an embarrassment to the government. Now that Abu Hamza and his ilk are all either in jail or out of the country, the media seem to be sniffing round for more scandals involving Muslims. Non-Muslims should be assured that the Wahhabis are not wider society's problem but the Muslim community's own.
But if this is the Muslim community's own problem, why isn't the Muslim community tackling it?
Seeing as muslims right now are completely incapable of sorting out our own 'in house' issues, why the big fuss if the non-muslims do it for us?
There has been no real, mass concerted effort to deal with this problem from within the muslim community, many scholars have shied away from it too, so I certainly have no problems with non-muslims sorting it out for us.
The wahhabis have caused more destruction and problems for muslim unity and Islam than we can ever count. But some muslims would rather we pretend it didn't exist for the false notion of 'muslim unity'.
We have to live and participate in a wider multicultural society, and so these individuals too, become a wider society problem. Wahhabism is not just restricted to Islamic beliefs and practises, it also comprises within it, a certain attitude of hate and intolerance (not to mention characterised by arrogance) towards others, including muslims, who do not follow their extreme ideologies. They have created young, hot headed 'arm chair ayatollahs' out of our youth, who do not hessitate at issuing angry fatwas at everyone, from their 'textbook' version of Islam. The sooner we return to the moderate, traditional classical islam, the better; and the sooner we can begin the recovery of this Ummah.
OP: the Muslims haven't "tackled it" because the mosques in question are generally not under democratic control, and because those who don't subscribe to the extremist theology they promote have their own spaces. In recent years, mosques run by, for example, Indo-Pak immigrants and their descendents have become more moderate (I'm thinking of the Deobandi/Tablighi tendency in particular here) rather than less. The use of Dar us-Salaam to run the bookshop at Central Mosque is the fault of the mosque management, and theirs alone. I don't recall anyone being asked about it before the old bookstalls were removed and the Wahhabi bookstore installed.
"Wahabi" has become a buzz word to slam any Muslim who is not deemed "moderate" enough by those who don't mean Muslims any good. A convinient straw man, if you will. Its insteresting that you mention the apolitical Tabligh Jamaat Yusuf, but even they are being called "extremists" by the usual suspects. No Muslim is acceptable unless its a domesticated house Moslem. Most hateful preachers comes from armageddonist christian churches and zionist terrorist run synangogues, I wonder why there is no "exposé" there. With Bush and Blair on the loose, what have the likes of old pRickler done but support the agenda of these war criminals while demanding "moderation" from Muslims who are the target of their imperial misadventures?
Is it only "the average white briton" who might find offensive claims that "that women are deficient in intelligence compared to men, that Jews are comparable to pigs and that Christian missionaries deliberately spread AIDS in Africa under the cover of vaccines for common dangerous diseases."?
DrM: in this particular case, I'm talking about the real Wahhabis and not using the term the way the president of Uzbekistan does. These particular ones are not political except in the sense of being supported by the Saudi regime and its religious establishment. As for the TJ, I meant moderate in the sense of moving away from their previous sectarian stance of denouncing certain other Muslims in the Indian sub-continent as mushriks and innovators and siding with those who follow one of the four madhhabs and other aspects of traditional Islam like them, rather than those who grow long beards and have their women wear niqab like theirs but whose attitudes are totally different and who actually had enmity towards them. As a Muslim I'm more concerned about their attitudes towards other Muslims and about things like ending the acrimonious Deobandi-Brelwi schism. I was around Deobandis in the late 1990s and know of their attitudes regarding the Taliban. The TJ itself is apolitical but it doesn't mean it comes out of an apolitical culture.
DrM is right, the term Wahabbi a convenient strawman.
No current Saudi official has called himself a wahabbi, no Dar-us-Salaam publication (who are not as bad as you make out by the way) has ever advocated ‘wahabbism’ as a distinct ideology or school of thought. How many people have you met that have called themselves a ‘Wahabbi’?
The two greatest threats to world peace are the UK and USA extremist foreign policies. It those governments that invade Muslim countries, supply arms to dictators in Muslim lands and employ discriminatory trade practises which mean tens of millions around the world stay poor. They have though their actions over the past century killed many more innocent people then any so called ‘extremist’ Muslim sect. It is this reality you should be focusing on, not on the minor differences that divide us as Muslims. I have had negative experienes from non-muslims, muslims, Sufis, brelvis, salafis, ikhwanis, deobandis, whites, black, asians – but I have never thought to malign the whole group for the vagrancies of the few.
But in this surreal world and upside down world, it is the Saudi government and the ‘wahabbi sect’ that get the stick for the worlds problems. You just have to replace the word ‘war’ with ‘Jihad’ in Tony Blair speech most recently publicised talk and you will have a speech that would make Usama Bin Laden blush.
Assalamu alikeum
What Sheik Khalid Yassin said regarding christain missionaries and health organisations being responsible for contaminating aids and other illness in africa is a widely common held belief within the black community and im not just refering to the black muslim either. Many many black african/carribean chrisians, say the same behind closed doors. Sheik Yassin merly re-itterated in the open the deep thoughts of blacks in all religious (and non) backgrounds living in the west and africa. Many vocal and well known black personalities have said the same.
I dont know why people here so shocked to hear that. Spend some time with the black community and you'll know that those beliefs are widespead and believed to be the truth.
There was one senior U.S politican (i think he was, or ceratinly was involved within U.S politics) was recorded on tape in a speech talking of the need to descrease population in africa back in the 70's, just before the aids outbreak in the region. I'll listen back to the CD his speech was on and get his name if anyone wishes to know who im referring to (can't remember @ moment).
My personal belief, I think there have been covert malicious efforts to decrese population and mobility of the third world overall.
Who by? Western goverments (with the help of their puppets in non western world) who are afraid of countries from the non western hemisphere gaining too much control within the world, of resources and of gaining economic, social and politcal power.
How? Through stealing natural resources, enslavement, political sactions, econimic sactions, unfair trade laws (i.e within medical pharmacutical department for life saving medicine). Also you have the old divide and conquer technique which has always resulted in mass slaughter amongst the population, with certain militias/regimes/dicatators being armed and backed by western nations- again resulting in more loss of life.
Where they are western puppets in the non western world, there always follows desctruction, wars, poverty and illness and with that comes death and all this has helped increase death rates and slowly bring down the population and much of this has been fuelled on by the help of the west and their multinational global corparations which benefit financially from the chaos and descruction of the third world civilisations and their puppets whom they've forciably placed amongst so many non western nations!
I also have my suspicions regarding how aids got into africa but i can't say I agree with Khalid Yassin and so many other fellow people of african descent on it being done by chritsian missionaries as im not 100% sure on my own thoughts yet on that matter. What i am sure is that i think the whole "black- african-booty-scratching- man-in-jungle-with-monkey" idea to be ludicrus. Sounds like something the colonists spun when taking over africa and how they potrayed africans routinely (as they still are today) back to their fellow people that africans were nothing more then wild savge people, swinging in trees in the african 'jungle'. Forgetting that the contienant produce some of the most advance civilasations within history.
You can call me conspiracy theorists/wack/pariniod, im not bothered lol. I know i've clearly digressed from the main bulk of topic lol.
As for the documentary, i will be watching it purely to see its contents, judging by the advert though and the highly selectively edited speechs aired through the background of the ad, i have a fair idea how it'll pan out and what the media led goverment response will be.
What Sheik Khalid Yassin said regarding christain missionaries and health organisations being responsible for contaminating aids and other illness in africa is a widely common held belief within the black community and im not just refering to the black muslim either. Many many black african/carribean chrisians, say the same behind closed doors.
Really? And that makes those views correct?
Twaddle.
Apart from Yusuf, the general response seems to have been that no Muslim can ever be blamed for anything. That's why the Muslim world is so behind in a lot of countries - always passing the buck and not taking responsiblity.
As regards this programme, well let's see it first. It isn't necessarily saying that the problems at this mosque are the fault of all Muslims, but merely pointing out the problems. Muslims should be concerned about this nutter as much as non-Muslims.
OP: I think Muslim Gal's thesis was that Khalid Yasin, being an Afro-American, was articulating common assumptions of the black community rather than those of any group of Muslims, while the journalists seem to have taken this as typical *Muslim* conspiracy-mongering.
OK, on a second reading I see that too - sorry.
But let's see the programme first - it may not be about lumping all Muslims together, as has been assumed.
I didn't express my view very well above.
To use a comparison, there is a problem of paedophilia among some Catholic priests. It is wrong for the Catholic Church to cover this up as it has done at times. It would also be wrong to say all Catholic priests are paedophiles. But it is very wrong to say that if abuse takes place it is because of British policy in Ireland or some such.
Ultimately the Catholic Church must take responsibility for abuse in its ranks. So equally someone in that mosque should put his (or even her) foot down.
There is concern about the population of Africa and its rate of increase for a very simple reason, Muslims_gal: the fact that there are more people in Africa than the continent can support in comfort. If the intention was to reduce the population through drastic measures there was no need to introduce a new disease: simply cut off food aid, disease elimination programmes for such illnesses as malaria, polio and sleeping sickness and leave nature to take its course and the problem is solved.
Yusuf, I wasn't referring to you, just the general red herring the "wahabi" has become. Most of the people who use it nowadays tend to be neocon style nutters who have an axe to grind with any Muslim who doesn't agree with western nihilism.
pRickler seems to be rather tight lipped about the hate preachers who supported the war against Iraq. As I recall, this creature was all for it. The only foot which needs to be put down is on the faces of these imperial liars and hypocrites.
Well, having seen the programme, I think there's an obvious problem in mosques. There's only so much selective editing and taking out of context you can do.
About time Muslims looked at what is really going on in the mosques.
Really pRickler, good thing that skewed little propaganda piece came along to confirm your broken record of a thesis.
You know whats really going on? Your policies are a failure, and you and the crooks and war mongers you support are looking for a red herring. Besides I got some hate to watch on TV...its called the 700 club. Required viewing for every christofascist hillbilly butter hog. Don't need to go undercover to see where the hate is really coming from.
Assalaamu alaikum,
It's not as ridiculous an idea as one might think. This story is about Latin American and Asia, but...
Bayer Sold HIV-Risky Meds
FRANKFURT, Germany, May 22, 2003
(AP) Chemical and drug maker Bayer AG said Thursday it acted "responsibly, ethically and humanely" during the 1980s in selling a blood-clotting product that stopped potentially fatal bleeding in hemophiliacs but was linked to the risk of HIV infection.
The company's statement was in response to a New York Times report that it sold millions of dollars worth of an older version of the medication in Latin America and Asia while marketing a newer, safer product in the United States and Europe.
Bayer division Cutter Biological continued selling old stocks of the medicine for more than a year after it introduced a version in February 1984 that was heat-treated to kill HIV, according to documents obtained by the Times...
Why are the ethically dubious but legal activities of a secular German company in Latin America and Asia in selling treatments for an illness more rapidly lethal than AIDS if left untreated evidence that "Christian missionaries deliberately spread AIDS in Africa under the cover of vaccines for common dangerous diseases.", Ummabdulla?
Watch the clarification from Abu Usamah. It should not surprise anyone that channel 4 (the same channel that condones racism and bullying) seeked sensationalism through its misrepresentation, lies and out-of-context statements for the sake of the unweary audience:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=QSYgu4moeng
Thersites, that's certainly not evidence that "Christian missionaries deliberately spread AIDS in Africa under the cover of vaccines for common dangerous diseases."
And, of course, I didn't say that.
There were references to ideas that are circulated in the African-American community about AIDS being spread purposely in Africa. I was aware of those rumors, but frankly, I thought they were ridiculous.
It just so happened that I was with a group of people last week and one of them was talking about an e-mail that she had forwarded about Bayer selling medicine in the Middle East that could infect people with HIV. My reaction was that it was ridiculous, and even if it were true, I would have heard of it before.
Out of curiosity, I checked later and came across this news report from CBS News, citing a New York Times report.
It's a few years old, and it references something that happened 20 years ago - not in Africa, but in Latin America and Asia. But I found it shocking (didn't you?), and I thought of this thread. And it occurred to me that the idea wasn't quite as ridiculous as I had thought. Which is all that I wrote...
You obviously don't know much about drug companies, Ummabdulla.
Twenty years ago people knew much less about AIDS than we do now. Treatments for haemophiliacs use donated blood and AIDS had got into the supply. First the US and then Europe passed laws covering the supply of medicine to haemophiliacs. There was a lot of debate as to whether this was needless panic or not. It turned out it wasn't, but at the time Bayer saw no reason why they shouldn't sell a product in countries whcih didn't pass laws against selling it.