Comments on: Shiraz Maher fails to prove his point (again)

By: Islamophobia is the Politics of the Ahmadiyya cult | Ahmadiyya

Islamophobia is the Politics of the Ahmadiyya cult | Ahmadiyya — Tue, 03 Jan 2012 23:08:29 +0000

[…] A good background on Mahere can be found at Indigo Jo Blogs in the article Shiraz Maher fails to prove his point (again) […]

By: Indigo Jo

Indigo Jo — Mon, 03 Aug 2009 17:08:01 +0000

No, I’m not, but I am against people making false claims in order to legitimise the banning of groups and government interference in the Muslim community (and just to make names for themselves, and money).

By: Qazu

Qazu — Mon, 03 Aug 2009 17:06:35 +0000

Are you pro-HT? From what I know HT is causing serious problems for British Muslims.

By: Anon

Anon — Tue, 28 Jul 2009 08:20:50 +0000

Ugh. No offence, but he doesn’t half milk the fact that he was once in the Hizzy. (I can’t spell the real word) He’s used this to get his fame and glory. I saw he now writes for the guardian. Damn, so that’s what we need to do folks, become members of a group like the hizzies, whine and warn everyone about the dangers, and get in the spot light. Damn, why on earth didn’t I think of that?

By: Indigo Jo

Indigo Jo — Sun, 29 Mar 2009 12:45:00 +0000

@pretzelberg: It was conquered in the 8th century, not in 1948, and the local population were not expelled. The point was: Palestine was not a peripheral land like, say, an Ottoman conquest in eastern Europe, but had been Muslim from way back.

By: pretzelberg

pretzelberg — Sun, 29 Mar 2009 12:03:07 +0000

“The fact is that any Muslim watching would have sympathised with it, simply because Palestine is understood to be Muslim land on account of having been among the first conquests of the Muslim army”

That’s a bit backward, isn’t it?

So why isn’t Palestine now considered Jewish/Israeli on account of it having been conquered in 1948?

It’s like saying that Iraq is now American or Christian just because of military might.

By: Iento

Iento — Sun, 14 Oct 2007 15:22:32 +0000

The fact is that the doc used really cheap editing techniques BUT a lot of what Shiraz, Hussein and Maher have to say is true. The ideology of HT does promote seperation and creates a context where jihadi ideology is seen as legitimate. The question is not how dangerous HT are but what is the best approach; I’m not convinced that at the moment banning them is.

By: Abdullah

Abdullah — Thu, 04 Oct 2007 14:33:54 +0000

The government is trying to generate enough public opinion to ban not only political dissent, but also to stop the rise of the upcoming Islamic state, that will foil their capitalist interests across the middle east.

Nice analysis Indigo btw!

By: T

Thu, 04 Oct 2007 03:46:52 +0000

I clicked on the link of the docu above, I don’t follow tele that much, and it was a cheesy documentary. The old use of the seedy Arabic accent when reading those very secretive and seditious leaflets. The camera angles etc.

Most Muslims in this country would laugh at the documentary and I doubt it would convince any kid out there to stay away from the bogey man Islamist. The docu is not even geared to a Muslim audience but the general public, who don’t know what Islam is let alone HT. The government probably wants to ban a non-violent group, without precedence, and maybe it’s about building some support for possible proscribing of the group (?)

By: Yunus Yakoub Islam

Yunus Yakoub Islam — Tue, 02 Oct 2007 22:09:03 +0000

At least there was, I gather, a much more interesting documentary after this programme on Shariah (taped it), although it was shockingly biased according to Sunny Pickle.