David T today posted an alert at Harry's Place about an article at MPACUK calling on Muslims to expose 8 so-called Sufis who did the "research" on which the recent Policy Exchange report relied. Those involved were unable to comment for the Newsnight expose, which showed that some (but not all) of the receipts were not genuine, because they were on a religious retreat in Mauritania. MPACUK's tone is typically harsh:
You would have to be sitting in a darkened room repeating the name of Allah since 7/7 to be unaware that the new front against Muslims by the Government is being led by Sufi cults.
It's an old Russian trick, they used Sufi sects to pacify the Mujahadeen who were fighting for their freedom from occupation. These Sufi cults taught them to forget the world and be content sitting in darkened rooms repeating the name of Allah over and over and over again. The British used it in India too, creating groups who focused on every minor ritual and repeated the words 'no politics' over and over and over again...anyone guess who they are? ...
However as we have been reporting on this website, Newsnight uncovered that these Sufi researchers had in fact forged the receipts to prove the case.
These Sufi researchers then fled the country to Mauritania for what the Zio-Con think tank called 'religious purification'!
MPAC now wants to find out exactly who these Sufis are, who are working for the Zio-Con think tank. There were 8 Sufis who worked for them, and all apparently have gone abroad to hide while the storm is raging. They worked, according to Policy Exchange for over a year on the project, so some Muslim out there must have come into contact with them.
Who are they, what are their backgrounds ... MPACUK will dig deeper and expose every last detail of the Sufis who tried to destroy their own community.
David T compares MPACUK's call to the racist website Redwatch, which gives names and addresses of so-called enemies of their so-called struggle; people identified on the site have been attacked and one person was nearly blinded. From my experience of MPACUK, I strongly suspect that no such thing will happen as a result of this; after all, all these people did was buy books from the mosque bookshop, as probably many people have done over the years; they may well have paid only one visit to the mosques concerned. I would not mind knowing myself who the "researchers" were, although I do not want to see their addresses made public. I do not support vigilantism, but I would like to know if there are people in whose company I have to be careful of what I say, lest he twist my words and use them against me later. However, I do not want to see a wave of mutual suspicion with Muslims accusing each other of being "Zionists" or spies, as I was by some of them a year or so ago.
I find the Mauritania story, in any case, not all that believable. I find it difficult to believe that people sufficiently attached to Islam to go to Mauritania for any religious purpose - the rural areas, in particular, are not easy places to live - would snoop on other Muslims and pass their findings onto an organisation as biased against Muslims as Policy Exchange is well-known to be. If they did have Muslim, or "Muslimoid", researchers, I suggest they may well have been Bareilawi sectarians, people attached to Schwartz and Alawi, or even Qadianis or other un-Islamic elements. The country is best known as the source of Shaikh Hamza Yusuf's shaikh, Murabit al-Hajj, and one of the teachers at his academy in California, namely Abdullah bin Bayyah, and some of them took part in the recent Radical Middle Way lecture tour.
MPACUK's tirade about "Sufi Zio-Con Frauds" displays their usual ignorance and recklessness about condemning other Muslims. Most Muslims in this country, particularly those of Indian Subcontinental backgrounds, are if not "Sufis" then followers of tendencies of which Sufism is part. These include both Bareilawis and Deobandis. The MPACUK article calls them "Sufis" over and over again as if this was what motivated them to snoop and spy for Policy Exchange, but the majority of Muslims, whether attached to a Sufi shaikh or not, would not even consider helping an anti-Muslim organisation attack Muslims. The majority would condemn such an act.
Among the idiotic claims in this report is this:
The Sufi Muslim council are the recognisable face of the new Government appointed cults. However there are many Sufi groups operating throughout Britain doing work to pacify the Muslim mind.
The reality is that the SMC is an outfit whose membership could probably fit on one piece of furniture, headed by Haras Rafiq, a nonentity until he popped up on Panorama in 2005. I very much doubt that they have (or, as I should perhaps say, that he has) any links with any of the "Sufi" groups in the UK, other than what exists of the US-based Hisham Kabbani group. The other Sufi groups do not "pacify the Muslim mind" but seek to train and purify them, to perfect Muslims' faith and attachment to Islam. They do not, at least not all, instruct Muslims not to be active in their community, even if they do not stand up and shout and wave their arms around so we know who they are. As for the "old Russian trick" accusation, while there may have been Sufi groups which collaborated with the Russians, it is well-known that they helped keep Islam alive in areas where Muslims were being persecuted under Soviet rule.
This affair has confirmed some Muslims' view of the entire group of Muslims following shaikhs like Hamza Yusuf and Nuh Keller, and others who participated in Radical Middle Way and those around them in the Muslim world, as a government project, when it originated as a grass-roots movement among English-speaking Muslim youth in the 1990s (I must say I had my doubts about RMW myself, because it would encourage precisely this suspicion). The truth is that there is no evidence that Policy Exchange's informants were part of the movement, or that the movement endorses it (I do not believe it does). There is no excuse for blaming Sufism for activity which may possibly come out of a group which uses Sufism as a means of achieving dominance over, or the status of spokesman for, the Muslims but which has no connection with authentic Sufism at all. Whether deliberately or thoughtlessly, MPACUK has, once again, slandered a whole swathe of the Muslim community.
It's interesting that Roger Ballard, I think, stated that - in his experience as a researcher - UK Muslims of Pakistani origin faced with a personal crisis will invariably head back to the village shrine, even if they are 100% Salafi (I'm not sure how many generations down the line this works for, though).
I have two bones to pick with your article, the first is that on one hand you say "The truth is that there is no evidence that Policy Exchange's informants were part of the movement" but on the other hand you are willing to speculate that "all these people did was buy books from the mosque bookshop" without any corroborating evidence. There is an inconsistency here.
My second point is that I think it is right not to pass judgement until things are proven but you seem to be in denial of the fact that there are large numbers of leading members in the Hamza Yusuf-Nuh Keller camp who despise Deobandis and speak very ill of them in private. I have numerous reports of this happening in Jordon and elsewhere from credible sources. Given this, is it not conceivable that some of the younger members of the group could have been made to believe that they were doing something noble by participating in the research?
I am not a supporter of MPAC, I think they are too fixated on criticising Mosques themselves and therefore have much in common with the Policy Exchange. However, putting MPAC aside, in this case I think there is need to be more sophisticated in our analysis of the underlying factors. This attack was meant to have far reaching consequences, including government policies. There are many individuals from the "movement" who are highly involved in these government programmes. These should give us reason for more thought.
Jazakallah,
Amir
This is becoming ugly.
From calls to bring the "researchers" to justice, we end up with a war on followers of Islam by a particular group of Muslims.
One nil to Policy Exchange!
As-Salaamu 'alaikum Amir,
Shaikh Nuh has students from both the Deobandi and the Bareilawi camps, and others who are part of the tendency you refer to specifically want to be neither, largely because of the acrimony between the two groups and their reliance on Urdu, which many of the younger generation do not speak. I have also heard, from another brother I know who is a student of Shaikh Nuh, of Bareilawis making derogatory remarks about Deobandis during the UK *suhba* meetings; however, the brother who told me this is a Deobandi himself, and Shaikh Nuh has always approved of the Deobandi shuyookh and recommends the writings of Mufti Taqi Usmani, and probably other known Deobandis. Many of the shaikhs with which he associates in the Gulf region have Deobandis among their teachers, notably Shaikh Yusuf al-Rifa'i of Kuwait. So, I know that there are brothers among us with these attitudes but it is not everyone, and it is not the shaikh and his immediate circle.
Salaam 'Alaikum
I live in Jordan, and I have never, ever heard anyone slagging off the Deobandis. TBH, I think British Muslims make a bigger deal of this than it is, and once people are outside of the UK, the issue is put into perspective. There are other things people can and do talk about than D v. B. I know what you've "heard," but I actually live here... and I know what I experience.
AA
checked it out and it seems that the comment about the researchers being in mauritania either originated from Policy Exchange or Newsnight as it is reported as such in the Guardian and so is not the attempt to smear a particular group by vengeful sectarians.
I think there does need to be some recognition that with the large change of tone by what i term "the Q-News crowd" no offence, after 9/11, there has been a big attempt to co-opt them by the British government and a tendancy for those who do not share tradtional sufi views and who have other agendas have been able to latch onto them and claim legitimacy by association.
Ed Hussain is an obvious example, though i can think of plenty of others, though i don't want to start a row here.
So it wouldn't suprise me if they did have some attachment however tenuous.
Perhaps i am wrong about this and it has already been done, but I think it's well overdue for those in prominent positions within the movement (i.e. the Ulema) put some clear blue water between them and these types of actions.
Forgive me if I'm wrong about this, I'd be willing to read an article or a transcript of a speech where this is made clear.
JazakAllah
"It's an old Russian trick, they used Sufi sects to pacify the Mujahadeen who were fighting for their freedom from occupation."
This ugly assertion springs from either ignorance or distortion. Though I cannot speak about the modern situation, historically the Sufis did not "pacify the Mujahadeen" but led them. The classic example is of Imam Shamil, a Sufi of the Naqshbandi-Khalidi order, who employed religious reform as the impetus for unity in the Caucasus. See the following articles:
- Jihād in the name of God: Shaykh Shamil as the religious leader of the Caucasus
- A Biography of Shaykh Muhammad al-Yaraghi (authorized Imam Shamil in the tariqah)
- A Biography of Shaykh Jamal ad-Din al-Husayni (Imam Shamil's main teacher who initiated him in the tariqah; the successor of Shaykh al-Yaraghi)
Perhaps the notable exception of the period was Shaykh Kunta-Hajji Kishiev, who introduced the Qadiri order to the Caucasus. A pacifist, likened to Gandhi, he exhorted his followers to spurn the resistance, but his movement irked the xenophobic Russians for the amalgamating effect of his dhikr circles on the incontiguous Caucasian tribes.
I find it hard to believe these "researchers" are real Sufis -if they were, wouldn't they belong to authentic Tariqas where presumably other members there would advise them it's unIslamic to fabricate evidence against Muslims? In fact any evidence against anyone? Or are there bogus Tariqas preaching it's all right to do what these guys have done?
I agree with Ismaeel, some people with strong dislike for islam are claiming attachment and affiliation to Sufis.
What I know for sure is that the bookshop in East London the "researchers" claim is evidence the LMC is selling objectionable books is not even in the same premises as the mosque. So this claim is an outright lie.
Yusuf, you know where the bookshop is in relation to the mosque don't you? It's a good 200-250 metres away from the mosque. It's also a commercial outfit that's not under the control of the mosque and has the right under British Laws to sell these books -the same books are also sold by Borders. The Times apologised to Dr. Abdul Bari for smearing the LMC based on the PE report.
Yusuf,
I don't think it's fair to criticize MPACUK for calling some people 'Sufis' when they've been doing the same with other Muslim groups all along, since they began operating infact. If you read their previous articles you'll see they call Salafis "Cave Muslims" and I can't remember what they call the TJs. Their criticism has got to be understood in the context it's made. MPACUK are not sectarian in any way,they claim they have bigger fish to fry, but yes, they could be more diplomatic.
i just visited the mpacuk site. i expected to see some fervent attack on sufis for effectively attacking mosques.
what i saw on mpacuk as the first few articles were mpacuk written articles attacking mosques.
its strange they attack mosques and then attack sufis for attacking mosques. Allah knows best.
As-Salaamu 'alaikum,
Saggal: there is also a bookshop inside East London mosque, which is to the left as you walk in. They sell books and other Islamic merchandise like hijabs. Or at least there was last time I was in there, which was a few years ago.
As for MPACUK, undiplomatic is not the word I'd use - they are incredibly loose with their tongues and they make disgraceful slanders against entire groups of Muslims with abandon.
"As for MPACUK, undiplomatic is not the word I'd use - they are incredibly loose with their tongues and they make disgraceful slanders against entire groups of Muslims with abandon."
but isnt that what you do to them you accuse all their sisters of lax hijab and say they are 'sandwiches short of a picnic' 'semi-literate clowns' 'morons' etc
i dont like the tone of this particular article whoever wrote it should have done better research but when they have written good articles, defended Islam, Palestine, done alerts, campaigned, told people to be active you have never mentioned that, never ever mentioned anything positive about them you are really quite a hypocrite Yusuf.
Salaams,
Yusuf,
Like you, I have not been to the LMC for a while although I seem to recall that the shop that used to sell Hijabs is no longer there or was not there the last time I visited. Neither is Casablanca, the cafe, both have became something else. The bookshop you're thinking of might or might not still be there, what seems clear from The Times apology however(link below)is that it's the bookshop that does not form part of the mosque that the so-called research covered -they clearly state that it's near the mosque but not in the same premises. Perhaps the one attached to the mosque (if it still exists) didn't have the material the PE people were after.
The LMC covers a big area and comprises several separate buildings including apartments that are,I assume, rented to the poor, or perhaps are occupied by the Imams, am not sure. And then of course there are the commercial entities including bookshops, restaurants, cafes etc.
From what I know the LMC is very open and liaises with local statutory bodies and serves the local community very well.
It is a shame the apology did not appear on The Times front page like the report did (as if).
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article3059836.ece
aafreen,
What exactly is positive about MPACUK. They shout louder and louder and more and more controversially so people will notice them.
It is actually very embarassing that they claim to represent public affairs of muslims. I am a muslim and wish they would stop representing me for a start! I don't want to be represented by an org that bashes mosques and other Muslims.
There are so many muslim individuals and orgs trying to promote themselves on the back of the wave of Islamophobia. There are very few that are effective. MPACUK does not appear to be one of them.
salaam, not an angel i dont think youve ever read the mpac site or met any of them i have done both why dont you go to their site type in success/palestine/alert and look at how they have defended their fellow muslims for example Interpal, how they have issued alerts and encouraged people to complain about Islamophobia in the media, how they have taken on Israeli govt spokespeople on tv, how they have campaigned for pro-muslim/anti-war candidates during by-elections and general elections (brent est, southall, blackburn,rochdale) how they have defended our sisters that wear niqab/hijab, or those that have been attacked most recently during ramadhan several mpacers went up and down my high street (one was a sister with a baby in a stroller) and others encouraging muslim businesses not to buy Israeli dates but support palestinian produce/fair trade, if you think they are ineffective then criticise them to their face, perhaps even help them with your time or your money if you think you can do better job...i am Muslim too (maybe not as good a Muslim as you or Yusuf!) i think they represent me certainly they care about same things i do...and they didnt bash my mosque they came and did media training there and our maulana loved it....so i have seen many things positive about them and i have met several of them and they were all nice they listened to my criticism and suggestions and took it on board i worked with some of them on an Islam channel show i used to be involved they always said good things to spur people to defend Islam and Muslims ...yes i think they are contraversial and they should tone it down but then i'm happy they rile up the pro-Israelis/Harry's place/BNP/Engage lot. I think they would defend me against Islamophobes (they have defended plenty of others) like i said try doing some research and try to be a bit balanced inshallah.
In defence of MPAC, i would have to say that their hearts are in the right place most of the time - but their brains often are not. As with any muslim group or individual, support them as best you can when they are in the right but have no hesitation in drubbing them down when they are in the wrong.