Wednesday, April 23, 2008

Joke of the Week : "Quilliam Foundation"

Kufi tip to PMUNA for bringing this farce to my attention. The British government has formed a new group, composed of supposed "former extremists" turned neutered proggies to undermine established British Muslim organizations. Its become downright laughable the extent to which the usual suspects have gone to recruit fraudsters to parrot their tattered script. "Sufi Muslim council," "Islam Supreme Council," "British Muslims for a Secular Democracy," "Radical Middle Way," "Honest non-Muslims pretending to be Muslims,"I've lost count. But hey, it pays well, just make sure you rubber stamp whatever the government says, and presto! You're a "good Muslim." Oh, and lets not forget that they all come with a judeofascist seal of approval. For those who know their history(no, reading a couple of paragraphs at disinfopedia doesn't make you an expert on the issues), this is a continuation of the time honored tactic of "divide and conquer." Remember somebody called "Mirza Ghulam Ahmed"? Heres the "director" of the "Quilliam Foundation," who's also is a nightclub owner. Well shiver me timbers.
We know what the game plan is, as virtually the same tactics were used to promote proggies in the US. Alhamdulilah that failed miserably, and thats exactly where these charlatans are headed. Check out these links for more laughs :

Quilliam Foundation exposed
All Mod cons

How about this for some unrelated icing on the cake : Remember those "Muslims for Bush" cats? Turns out Muhammed Ali Hassan has been slapped with a restraining order from his political campaign manager.


mo said...

Just a quibble. The radical middle way is actually an organization of predominantly traditional scholars like Shaykh Hamza, Shaykh Habib Ali etc. I don't think they quite belong in the groups you listed.

publicdebate said...

The radical middle way is, however, funded by the UK government. Why are these scholars taking money from that regime? The same that is the #1 partner in crime with the US/UK war on Islam?

Additionally, Tim Winters (Shaykh Abdul Hakim Murad) is also affiliated with the Quilliam foundation .

The slope down the hill very slippery once you start taking money from such regimes. Also radical middle way, like these other groups was specifically formed to promote "moderate islam" .

mo said...

I don't really concur with publicdebate's point. I mean I am under the assumption that we all are Muslims in the West. In one way or another, we take services from the government, because they take dollars from us in taxes. For example, all muslims receive a free education in the West. I think the money is better spent on education of Islam. then the eradication of Iraqis. I tend to agree with Ron Paul's view of his white supremacist donors. Better they spend the money on my campaign of non-interventionism and libertarianism then on their agenda of hatred and bigotry.

publicdebate said...

Yes, i know that you would not concour --- and i've heard your justifiaction for Islamic schoalars taking money from anti-Islam regimes before.

The objective of the UK regime is to use these scholars and groups to create an empire friendly Islam.

I, not for one minute, belive that anyone, not you not me, nor any Islamic scholar is immune from the influence of the source of the funds.

As one comment said on the pmuna website on this issue:

"Let us also not forget that the corrupt 'muslim' leaders themselves had bankrolled ulema throughout history. Some to readily provide appropriate fatwas/ideas, but some in more ambiguous roles."

I don't trust corrupt US/UK puppet "muslim" leaders funding their own official ulemas --- I trust the UK/US regime even less.

Your analogy with getting a secular education in the "west" really does not apply in this case... it is one thing to fund public social services, and universal health care/education.

It is an entirely other thing to fund organizations that will propagate a particular form of "moderate Islam" --- to suit the imperialists.

Of-course, Muslims, and everyone should also be critical of the kind of "free education" we get, and to check if even that is real education or not... Plenty of books have been written in both UK and US about how "free education" is used to propagate a particular ideology.

(In Arizona they are considering, or have already passed a bill that specifies that public schools cannot teach anything that undermines "western civilization" - i.e. comparative politics, multi-cultural studies are out the window).

Uther said...

Deutschland Ziegt an Alles Fronten. (oops) Wrong Blog.!!!!

RZ said...

have you read this piece by Ziauddin sadar in the Guardian today

keep on truckin' =)

Khalid said...

salaam aleikum,

agree with publicdebate's comments 100%. Would also like to add that if you can agree with Radical Middle Way's half ass justifications for taking money from the UK govt SPECIFICALLY to secularize / "spiritualize" Islam than you have NO justification to condemn "Ed" Husain or any of the jokers in Quilliam Foundation (since they are also taking British taxpayers funds, but laundered through Kuwaiti businessmen). He claims in numerous interviews that Hamza Yusuf/Zaid Shakir FULLY AGREE with him and his agenda (and have privately said so through TJ Winter/Abdul Hakim Murad). So there really is NO difference between one or the other, and this is eventually where they were going to end up anyhow.


mo said...

I think associating majid/ed with Shaykh Hamza, Imam Zaid etc. is not particularly accurate. After all Shaykh Hamza, Imam Zaid and their mentor Shaykh Bin Bayyah have far stronger and more visible ties with Shaykh Al-Aoda, then with any of the so-called ex-hizbis . Just see the Islam today website for a listing of articles. And remember when all the neocons were up in a knot when Imam Zaid said he wished America would become a muslim country.
The difference between ed and the shaykhs is that ed disavows the sharia and the quest for the islamic state as evil, while the shaykh have a more tablighi jamaat approach of reforming individuals before reforming the political system.
I don't think there's been a major impact on the output of the traditionalist shaykhs by the funding they receive. I've regularly heard sympathethic views for Hamas, Iran and Hizbullah by especially from Imam Zaid, something completely contrary to the ruling UK government. I also do not think there's anything wrong with promoting the tasawwuf partof islam. While I was a child in Saudi, we were taught how to pray, but we were not taught the importance of khushu in salah, purity of intention, and perfection of character. I think without this many muslims are not able to work together in groups, and frequently fights break out at local mosques and institutions over trivial matters, something I believe is a major wound self-inflicted and inhibiting our potential as a community.

Khalid said...

salaam aleikum,

1. sheer coincidence that the British govt. came out with a paper advising the use of "traditional sufi sheikhs" BEFORE 7/7 as they did here in 2004:

2. "Ed" has claimed justification for his Kuwaiti/British funded "foundation" from Hamza Yusuf and Zaid Shakir. Last night on a radio show he specifically cited the first 5 minutes of this speech:

if "paying taxes" and "asking for refunds" is justification for RMW why is it NOT justification for Quilliam?

3. Why is it also sheer coincidence that the RAND corporation study specifially recommended the promotion of sufism as an antidote to political opposition in the Muslim world as they did here:

this line from the summary document is apt:

"Support the traditionalists against the fundamentalists:
— Publicize traditionalist criticism of fundamentalist violence and extremism;
encourage disagreements between traditionalists and fundamentalists.
— Discourage alliances between traditionalists and fundamentalists.
— Encourage cooperation between modernists and the traditionalists who are closer to the modernist end of the spectrum.
— Where appropriate, educate the traditionalists to equip them better for debates against fundamentalists. Fundamentalists are often rhetorically superior, while traditionalists practice a politically inarticulate “folk
Islam.” In such places as Central Asia, they may need to be educated
and trained in orthodox Islam to be able to stand their ground.
— Increase the presence and profile of modernists in traditionalist institutions."

just some background on the author of this instruction manual (she is the wife of zalmay khalilzad, America's man in Afghanistan and now Iraq and FIRMLY a neo-con):

Given that America is spending nearly $1.5 billion a week in Iraq and $100 million dollar a day in Afghanistan, can we really be so criminally naive to believe that all of this is random, has no centralized plan, or political direction behind it?


mo said...

The whole problem by salafists arguing that its wrong for RMW to accept money from the UK government is that Saudi, the beacon of (pseudo) Salafism in the Islamic World.
As for ed husain, I don't care if he gets funding from the British government. It has no relevance to how RMW uses
Rand only wishes to a promote watered down sufism of the kabbani/inayat khan/coleman barks variety, not orthodox sufism as espoused by the deoband/barelwi schools in the subcontinent and the habaib in the yemen . Moreover, the most referenced denunciation of the RAND report in the islamosphere was by jinnzaman, a committed traditionalist.
America does not have a centralized plan that is solely created and mindlessly followed by all of it's citizens in the Islamic world. It's against human nature, as Allah has declared in the Quran, that the enemies fight amongst themselves even when fighting you. Moreover, the incompetence of the occupation shows the Americans really have no clue as to what they are doing. They have all the military firepower, but no intellectual firepower to back it up. It's only when we believe in grand CIA conspiracies that we grant them the power that they believe they should have. By the way, I see that you have been unwittingly following the dictates of the RAND report:
"encourage disagreements between traditionalists and fundamentalists.
— Discourage alliances between traditionalists and fundamentalists."
I hope that we will drop poisonous infighting and sectarian tendencies and commit more wholeheartedly to Islam.

Khalid said...

>The whole problem by salafists >arguing that its wrong for RMW to >accept money from the UK government >is that Saudi, the beacon of >(pseudo) Salafism in the Islamic >World.

Taking money from the Saudis is just as dirty and wrong as taking money from the people who EMPLOY the Saudis and Kuwaitis to watch over the oil fields while they loot them. There should be NO distinction between the two.

>As for ed husain, I don't care if >he gets funding from the British >government. It has no relevance to >how RMW uses

The issue is NOT what he does with the money but WHY do you need to take it in the first place? If you had grass roots support for your initiative, the community can and should fund it itself. Furthermore, taking money from others (be it Saudi or UK/US govt) compromises your message and creates a cycle of dependency, you tailor your actions to ensure continuous funding. This happens all of the time in basic science research, where a grant proposal is written and actions undertaken in the lab so as to maximize govt. funding to continue the "work". It's like a rat running a wheel to constantly get at the cheese.

>Rand only wishes to a promote >watered down sufism of the >kabbani/inayat khan/coleman barks >variety, not orthodox sufism as >espoused by the deoband/barelwi >schools in the subcontinent and >the habaib in the yemen

I've read through the entire RAND report twice and found nothing of the sort. Please point out SPECIFIC references if you continue to claim otherwise.
Secondly, there has never really been a clear seperation (politically speaking) between Kabbani and his gang and Hamza Yusuf, they after all looked pretty comfortable together sharing this sheikh's presence here:

Furthermore, the link i gave earlier was from a leaked memo from the British foreign office specifically mentioning Hamza Yusuf , Tariq Ramadan, and Yusuf Estes as people the British govt. need to promote to "counter extremism" -- BEFORE 7/7 when thousands upon thousands of people were protesting the impending invasion of Iraq. Why would they say this?

>America does not have a >centralized plan that is solely >created and mindlessly followed by >all of it's citizens in the >Islamic world.

Your making claims with little or no evidence or basis in fact. This specific one is DIRECTLY contradicted by this article in U.S. News and World Report, where it reports on a series of meetings that the CIA, NSA, Dept. of Defense, and the Pentagon had in the summer of 2005 about changing Islam or parts of the Islamic message that contradict American foreign policy:

this line from this article about *how* to go about doing it:
"You do it quietly" by Zeyno Baran, a Turkish sufi/jew speaks for itself.

>I hope that we will drop poisonous >infighting and sectarian >tendencies and commit more >wholeheartedly to Islam.

The Haq (truth) and Batil (falsehood) cannot be one and the same. Commitment to Islam entails accountability to the shari'ah for actions undertaken, especially for PUBLIC actions done in the name of Muslims and Islam as a whole.
When the "progressive" Muslims were pulling stunts such as Asra Normani trying to pray with men and Amina Wadud giving ju'mah khutbah and leading prayers, there was muted silence from so-called "sheikhs" above, even though there is less than 1-2 degrees of seperation between them given their past.
Only after it became obvious how far deviated from Islam pro-regressive Muslims were/are and of how due to their own infighting the "progressive" label became like an insult, did you see any of them come out publicly attacking them or their actions. Similarly, now that we have "counter extremism think tanks" funded and paid for (like Radical Middle Way) by the British govt. there is muted silence at the treasonous actions and statements said by "Ed" Husain, Majid Nawaz, et al., they have SPECIFICALLY claimed numerous times that they have support from Zaid Shakir, hamza yusuf, TJ Winter, and others for their actions. To date, NOT one article, or press release contradicting them or denying this.
That speaks for itself.
Enough said.


Khalid said...

This statement in today's Guardian (26/04/08) represents a breath of fresh air and a good way to frame the issue:
We represent a cross section of the Muslim community, and reject the simplistic narrative about the dangers of Islamism espoused by the Quilliam Foundation (Response, April 25). We believe this is just another establishment-backed attempt to divert attention from the main cause of radicalisation and extremism in Britain: the UK's disastrous foreign policy in the Muslim world, including its occupation of Muslim lands and its support for pro-western Muslim dictators. The foundation has no proven grassroots support within the Muslim community, although it does seem to have the ear of the powers that be, probably because it is telling them what they want to hear.

It is quite possible to be a politically engaged Muslim without wanting to fly planes into tall buildings. Yet the foundation equates all forms of political Islam with extremism and terrorism. There are extremists among British Muslims and some of our young have been radicalised. But those misguided few who are willing to cross the line into terrorism are not driven by disfranchisement or Sayyid Qutb's writings; they do it because they are furious about western foreign policy.

Before we are accused of being apologists for terror, we all condemn the 9/11 and 7/7 terrorist atrocities in the strongest possible terms. And we believe the British Muslim community has gone out of its way to promote tolerance in the UK while standing up for justice. If our shared goal is to prevent further terrorist atrocities and to promote community cohesion, listening to the likes of the Quilliam Foundation is self-defeating.
Anas al-Tikriti
Cordoba Foundation,
Yvonne Ridley
Respect national council,
Ihtisham Hibatullah
British Muslim Initiative,
Ismail Patel
Friends of al-Aqsa,
Roshan Muhammed Salih


mo said...

#1: Hamza yusuf condemns Kabbani:
As you are probably aware, the most vociferous attackers on shaykh hamza have been salafis and neocons.
Stephen Schwartz, the fanatical neocon, has waged a decade long war against shaykh hamza (just go to his website,, maybe a quarter of his output is towards condemning shaykh hamza) while yusuf estes, a salafi, made a famous public denunciation of the shaykh available at:
The problem with the funding think is while RMW receives a minimal amount of funding from the government, salafi organizations receive far more in support from middle eastern governments. I think most people believe it's perfectly alrite for RMW to take money, as we pay money in taxes, and we should get it back in projects that benefit us.
As I've already shown, traditionalists have condemned the Rand report and were the first ones to do so. What you are asking for people is that they be absolutely perfect in what they do, something we should ask of ourselves first before demanding it of others. You are also asking that the shuyukh keep condemning ed hussain, somebody who has had very little impact on the muslim community despite his love-in with the melanie philips crowd. We should be spending more time on constructive things, then spend time denouncing some irrelevant fool, who is only asking for the attention we give him.
Imam Zaid on woman-lead prayer:

The only changing of Islam over the past 100 years is that by muslims themselves, who have ignored traditionalist shuyukh and their guidance believing that they themselves, in their infinite wisdom, can understand the Quran by themselves, thereby throwing out a millenia of scholarship and tradition. This peculiar characteristic is particularly common amongst pro-regressives and wahhabis, believing they can interpret without learning of the great ulema over the centuries.
A cursory look at:
shows a broad coalition of traditionalist and salafi voices that are working together instead of against another. I urge you to join it, khalid. I urge you to follow in the best tradition of salafism, Qutb's avowal of a unifying ummah between shia and sunni, and mawdudi's espousal of patient, gradual reformation.

Khalid said...

>As you are probably aware, the most >vociferous attackers on shaykh hamza >have been salafis and neocons.

Salafis were reacting to his own comments which he made here in the Guardian:
"If you Hate the West Migrate to a Muslim Country"

this, incidentally is NOT too far off from *exactly* what "Ed" is currently saying. Read his mission statement on his website and compare to the article above.

As for Stephen Schwartz, he is still tight with Kabbani and is challenging Hamza to get back with them (hence his articles). Incidentally, the site that you posted, is the SAME site (in the guestbook) that has the link of Kabbani and Hamza relaxing together with sheikh Katry. I wonder, should Muslims/muslim leaders also share a stage and give talks with Salman Rushdie? Irshad Manji? Tarek Fatah?


>I think most people believe it's >perfectly alrite for RMW to take >money, as we pay money in taxes, >and we should get it back in >projects that benefit us.

Well I see we are making remarkable progress. The same half baked b.s. justification for taking money from the govt. can and indeed is, recycled by "Ed" and his cronies for their cause, so if you still accept your statement above, than you have NO reason to condemn anyone else for doing the same.

>As I've already shown, >traditionalists have condemned the >Rand report and were the first >ones to do so.

When and where did you show this?
Furthermore, how can you "condemn" something if you are getting paid by the people who wrote and seek to benefit from it?

>You are also asking that the >shuyukh keep condemning ed >hussain, somebody who has had very >little impact on the muslim >community despite his love-in with >the melanie philips crowd.

Again when and where? Can you post ONE example of Hamza Yusuf, Zaid shakir, Tariq Ramadan, et al condemening "Ed" Husain and the Quilliam Foundation explicitly by NAME. Just one will do.

>The only changing of Islam over >the past 100 years is that by >muslims themselves, who have >ignored traditionalist shuyukh and >their guidance believing that they >themselves, in their infinite >wisdom, can understand the Quran >by themselves, thereby throwing >out a millenia of scholarship and >tradition.

This is 100% in agreement with "Ed" Husain's view. In fact, once i get my copy of his book that I lent to someone back, I can quote the exact page number where he says the SAME thing you just did above. The only difference is, he uses this as a point of departure as to why he can "bring Islam back" to its essence (via British funds) and make islam "peaceful" and "tolerant" for British/American colonization.

>A cursory look at:
>shows a broad coalition of >traditionalist and salafi voices >that are working together instead >of against another. I urge you to >join it, khalid. I urge you to >follow in the best tradition of >salafism, Qutb's avowal of a >unifying ummah between shia and >sunni, and mawdudi's espousal of >patient, gradual reformation.

This looks like a big tent, filled with lots of hot air and competing personalities and agendas. Zia ul Haq's son? George Galloway and his antics on Big Brother? Sadiq Khan the "Muslim MP" who stayed silent and couldn't find a voice when the vote was taken to authorize the war in Iraq?

I consider salafism/sufism 2 sides of the same coin actually, especially in terms of being politically discredited amongst the Muslim masses the world over for their services that they render to the dictatorships in the Muslim world (and those who back them).


Khalid said...

salaam aleikum,

it appears the following 4 people have resigned or requested their names be removed from the Quilliam Foundation site:

# Professor Yahya Michot
# Shiekh Abu Subhaan
# Mufti Abu Laith
# Shiekh Babikar

these blogs:

are leading an online campaign to get Muslims to distance themselves from it, I highly recommend you consider doing the same.

all the best.

salaam aleikum,

Khalid said...

salaam aleikum,

It seems that one of the Quilliam foundation spokesman has been openly exposed as a liar in court. He admits to the police that he made the whole thing up so as to sell books and make money as he does here:

PS - still no condemnation from any of the "traditional" sheikhs ????

Reader said...

A great critique has been done on the QF

Khalid said...

salaam aleikum,

If anyone needed further proof that Quilliam Foundation and Radical middle way are two branches of the same tree of kufr, need look no further than this:

British taxpayer funds being used to endorse a travelling roadshow to a U.S. backed dictatorship in Egypt -- how nice!

still nothing from any of the self-proclaimed "traditional islam" sheikhs distinguishing them from the Quilliam foundation -- wonder why that is?


Sulejman Schwartz said...

I have not been involved in any way with the Kabbani group or other Naqshbandis outside Bosnia-Hercegovina for at least five years and nobody can produce serious evidence showing otherwise. I am interested in a completely different stream of Sufism found in the Balkans and Kurdistan. Some of it is described in my 2008 book THE OTHER ISLAM. Claims that I criticize Mufti Hanson to get him back to Kabbani are absurd conspiratorialism too common among Muslims. Astaghfirullah.