We spend hundreds of hours ensuring you receive a quality service from this site. We do not fall into the advertisement schemes as all the ads contain elements of Haraam including Haraam Islamic links. Please consider setting up a £1 monthly donation. May Allah (swt) reward you.
i read this article yesterday and what annoyed me was the pathetic response by the deos. all they seem to do was say its all the wahaabis fault and blame them for preaching jihad. what scum bags. non muslims dont give two sheets about what sect we are. they hate core and fundamentle teachings of islam. jihad shariah hijab are all core islamic tenents. instead deos should just grow a pair and say this is our deen love it or lump it. where is this going to end/ before long deos will have same outlook as brealwis and qadiyanis. all lovey dovey rubbish. this is just tip of iceburg. deos are gana get it hard from media over next few years and all i can say is shame we deserve it. we kept quiet when media came afters 'others'
wont be long before i get silly whatsapp messages about defending deo and deo scholars. im telling u now i aint gana do a thing for them. why is a deo life worth more than a non deo?
As for the article itself, it has its merits and gave me a good chuckle.
lets start with the Title : "Masood Azhar: The man who brought jihad to Britain"
That is a clear lie, Maulana Masood Azhar did not engage in any Jihad in Britian nor did he call on Muslims to wage Jihad against Britain, nor did he justify the targetting or killing of civilians...he came on a speaking tour of U.K. much like many others from various religions and political persuasion make the rounds of the speaking circuit. From what I can tell the topic of his tour was the genocide being committed in Kashmir. A genocide that the BBc has completely ignored because the victims are Muslim.
Infact Maulana Muhammad Ali Jahaur the courageous freedom activist and opponent of tyranny and oppression of British colonial Terrorism, British Colonial extremism, British Colonial Fundamentalism, was the man who brought Jihad Britain.
He waged the Jihad of the Pen wrote various articles denouncing atrocities and barbarism committed by Britian and calling on the British Public to support, the right of the Indian people to freedom, was locked up at various times for sedition and infact finally passed away in London, the British writer H.G. wells had this to say about him,: “Muhammad Ali possessed the pen of Macaulay, the tongue of Burke and the heart of Napoleon.”
So if you are going to speak about who brought Jihad to Britain then get your co-ordinates right. It was a Maulana Muhammad Ali Jauhar (Ra) a firm believer that the pen is mightier then sword, and who wrote various articles boldly and courageously exposing Colonial Fanaticism.
At the same time Maulan Mawdoodi (Ra) also unleashed his pen against the hypocrisy, lies, misrepresentation of European Imperialism, and the propaganda tools of Colonial tyranny here is his retort in 1939, to the largest propaganda tool of Colonial fanaticism The BBC speaking in 1939 he stated:
“It is as if the artists have drawn a picture with masterly strokes, and inscribed beneath it the legend: “The History of this Nation is a Tale of Bloodshed”.
The irony is that the painters of this picture are none other than our so-called “benefactors” who have themselves been engaged in an extremely unholy war for centuries. They themselves present us with an image of robbers who – armed to the teeth with all manner of deadly weapons, have set upon the world, pillaging it for sources of raw materials, new markets for their trade, and new lands to conquer and colonize – all of which provide fuel for their ever-burning fires of greed. They fight not for the sake of Allah or their religion, but to satisfy their lust and hunger. For them, it has always been sufficient excuse to invade a land if that land is known to contain valuable mines, or if it can be exploited as a market for their manufactured goods, or if some of their surplus population can be settled there.
In the absence of any other excuse, they would even consider it a crime on the part of a country if it happened to exist en route to a country they had already conquered, or which they intended to conquer.
Nowadays, it is more subtle: “Democracy” must be upheld, by direct intervention if necessary – except, of course, when the democratic will of the people opts for Islamic rule…!
Asia, Africa, Australia, Europe, the Americas… Which part of the world has been spared the bloodbath resulting from this unholy war? We are still witnessing their dark deeds and their horrific aftermath, on a global scale.
But they are highly skilled – let us give credit where it is due! They have managed to paint such a dark and gruesome picture of us that their own true colours have been overshadowed and obscured. Yet we should be stunned by our own simplicity and gullibility. When we saw this picture of ourselves painted by the foreigners, we were so overwhelmed by it that we never thought to look beyond it to see the face of the painter. Instead, we assumed the role of apologists,”
Perhaps Innes Bowen was speaking of the Post Colonial era, I will address that later.
She further states in her article rather erroneously: " The story of Masood Azhar's trip to Britain does not fit the narrative promoted by Muslim community leaders and security experts alike. According to them, the spread of jihadist ideology in Britain had nothing to do with the UK's mainly South Asian mosques. The source of all the trouble, they say, was a bunch of Arab Islamist exiles - the likes of Abu Hamza and Omar Bakri Mohammad."
No historical facts do not fit the narrative being promoted by Innes Bowen, in the 1980's various Mujahadeen organisations fighting Soviet Union were invited by the British Security services and given full logistical support to come and speak on the Jihad taking place in Afghanistan to raise funds and gather recruits, amongst those invited was one of the senior leaders of the Original Al Qaidah the late Shaykh Tamim al Adnani رضي الله عنه (who did a speaking a tour of both UK and the United States, and in fairness to Shaykh Tamim Adnani he clearly condemned the Targetting of Civilians hijacking planes ) , those wishing to go and fight in Afghanistan had their travel costs paid for by the British Security forces. This was mentioned by one of those recruits who went to fight in Afghanistan the now infamous Shaykh Abu Hamza Al Misari.
So why has Innes Bowen engaged in half truths? Incontrovertible fact is that it was British Security Services that brought Jihad to Britain along with recruitment drives and logistical support. As for her following remarks,... "The source of all the trouble, they say, was a bunch of Arab Islamist exiles - the likes of Abu Hamza and Omar Bakri Mohammad."
No that again is untrue what the Muslim leadership say, is that the source of all trouble was the British Security services, recruiting the likes of Shaykh Abu Hamza Al Misari, Shaykh Omar Bakri Muhammed, Shaykh Abu Qutada as agent Provacateurs. The fact that all these individuals were connected to British security services is an incontrovertible fact, the fact there has not been a single documentary or investigative programme by the BBC is criminal, infact the BBC has deliberately either chosen to gloss over this fact and suppress is criminal.
The rest of rhetoric is complete Balderdash to say the least, Kashmir is not a dispute over territory it is a legitimate Freedom struggle, of a people who were bought and sold like cattle in treaty of Amritsar, it is a struggle of people who were betrayed by Lord Louis Mountabatten, it is struggle of a people who have suffered genocide with rape being used as massive tool of warfare over 30'000 were raped. As Lord Avebury put it many years ago "When women are dragged from their homes and raped with impunity then should not every self-respecting Kashmiri be militant.
Note: the disparity of coverage, how when the Christians in East Timor were fighting for self determination, BBC was reporting as a freedom struggle of an oppressed tyrranisied people, when it was Christians South Sudan fighting for self-determination again they were reported as being an oppressed people fighting for a legitimate right to self-determination. But the Kashmiris who have suffered for far greater and far longer are automatically labelled as Militants. Shame on you.. Innes bowen.
Then she goes on to make various claims against Maulana Khalid Mahmood, Maulana Khalid Mehmood is an academic and historiian who is invited to speak at various forums. In Islamic conferences people of various differing opinions and often diametrically opposed views get invited.
If BBC is going to apportion guilt by association, then The BBC itself is far more guilty for having given various radicals a platform to air the view points.
" The story of Masood Azhar's trip to Britain does not fit the narrative promoted by Muslim community leaders and security experts alike. According to them, the spread of jihadist ideology in Britain had nothing to do with the UK's mainly South Asian mosques. The source of all the trouble, they say, was a bunch of Arab Islamist exiles - the likes of Abu Hamza and Omar Bakri Mohammad."
The journalist did not directly quote or reference anyone, something she just made this up....Perhaps you should read and decipher what is written first.
Sadly but true. Closes deos got to a leader or form of leadership is sh. Motala and bury darul ulool. But they dnt wana knw..just concerned about themselfs. Every darul uloom and mosque is too busy competinf for business with each other..unity is far off their agenda. To many egos and personalities. If we cant unite now when we under such attacks whwn can we
Some points that were raised in the BBC programme about the DEOBAND that need addressing.
1. The programme claimed that “Masood Azhar, the Man that brought Jihad to Britain” spoke at various Deobandi masaajid in the UK in 1993
The British govt KNEW Masood Azhar was from Jaish-E-Muhammad. He had served a term in prison in India for his jihad in Kashmir. THEY GAVE HIM THE VISA. They knew exactly who he was yet did not view him as a threat.
Jaish-E-Muhammed was not a prescribed organisation in 1993, Masood Azhar had not broken any laws in the UK, so it is a bit rich for the “media” to bring this out 23years after the event!!
If any one has any questions to answer, it is the government for issuing a visa, not the masaajid. The masaajid did not control the borders!
2. Deoband was founded by Moulana Qasim Nanotvi who fought against the British in 1857.
India was ruled by Muslims for about a 1000 years from the Delhi Sultanate to the Mughal Empire, until the illegal occupation of India by the British. They murdered and slaughtered their way into occupying India and making it a part of Britain.
To fight occupation is an honourable thing. The charge that he “fought the British” is not something to be ashamed of, but a badge of honour for defending against the tyranny of occupation. People in France that fought German occupation of WW2 are celebrated not criminalised, so why should we be ashamed of the honourable Moulana? Britain was in the wrong not those who resisted occupation.
The 1857 Jihad was against an occupying force unlike the British slaughter in India which was targeted at civilians and ulema.
3. Moulana Motala is a secretive figure. The implication being that there is something sinister about that.
The moulana is first and foremost a teacher of Islamic studies. He is not a politician, a leader or a public figure. He does not have to answer to the BBC for what he does.
4. The unsaid narrative of the program was, staunch adherence to Islam is a danger to Britain.
This is the governments line on what causes violence and terrorism. It clearly doesn’t. Every single evidence based study into this has disproved this. Violence is because of injustice in world. The West’s foreign policy had a great deal to answer here.
Islam has been on the planet for 1500 years, yet “islamic terrorism” has only been around since 911? Maybe its not because of Islam, but because of illegal wars, occupation, support of tyrants.
How does it harm Britain if ladies were nib, or men grow beards and we don't party or drink? How does that harm Britain and why is that a problem? Unless the problem is Islam itself.
This cannot be undone and I am sure it will be greatly appreciated.
We apologise but you have been denied access to report posts in this thread. This could be due to excessively reporting posts and not understanding our forum rules. For assistance or information, please use the forum help thread to request more information. Jazakallah