MPACuk is a grass roots Islamist group, founded by Asghar Bukhari: a virulent anti-semite who once offered to fundraise for the Holocaust denier and neo-Nazi, David Irving.
Although MPACuk has attempted to position itself as a moderate and constructive organisation, its true nature has never been far below the surface. And now they have come clean. They are in favour of political violence after all:
Understanding The Philosophy Of Muslim Violence
MPACUK, unlike the many other Muslim groups out there, have not just pioneered the best solution against any terrorist attack in mainland Britain (i.e. get the mosques and ISOCs to teach democracy) but has now embarked in cutting through the media propaganda to reach British Muslims, and hopefully non-Muslims, and informing them of the true nature of Muslim violence.
We know it will get us in trouble with the media; make us targets for the government elites who want to hide this from you. We are prepared to pay the price. Most Muslim groups in the UK are still silent, or worse apologising, so they can get the ‘moderate’ medal of dishonour from their masters. We prefer the truth – no matter what they call us.
We realised that until the public understand why many in the Muslim world are reacting so violently to them, they will neither know the cause of the deaths of so many innocents on both sides or know how to solve it. We simply no longer feel that the most vocal parties who claim to be countering terrorism are sincere to the very cause they talk of.
We will no longer be part of the deliberate attempt to keep the public confused on the issue of terrorism. We will not be part of the apologetic Muslim leaders who blame their own community for terrorism. We will not condemn, nor allow ourselves to be condemned by governing elites who are more interested in a political stunt than saving lives. No more politics and propaganda when it comes terrorism – its the truth and nothing else.
That said, if you want to know why Muslims – or any human being – turns to violent ends, then watch this:
There then follows a video of a lecture by the Black Panther, Stokley Carmichael, entitled “Violent Resistance“.
This post is one of the most cretinous things that MPACuk has ever done. At one swoop, they’ve identified themselves as a Jihadist organisation, that links “Violence” to being “Muslim”. There’s no turning back for them, now.
This isn’t a mistake, however. One of the most important goals of British Islamist groups, is to achieve recognition of the legitimacy of Jihad. That is one of the key Islamist talking points. It is why, for example, Azad Ali of the Civil Service Islamic Society is so anxious to push the politics of the Jihadist, Abdullah Azzam. What Islamists seem to be saying is this. Without Jihad, we are nothing.
Where does MPACuk’s embracing of open Jihadism leave Edmunds and Jawad, the authors of the recent Cambridge University report on extremism on campus?
You’ll remember that report author, June Edmunds, was at pains to downplay the extent of Islamist radicalisation on British university campuses. However, in conducting their research, Edmunds and her researcher Rana Jawad liaised with “organisations concerned with the promotion of the interests of young Muslims”. Those organisations included FOSIS, a Hamas/Muslim Brotherhood front, and … MPACuk.
In other words, a study purporing to show that Jihadism in British universities was no problem, relied upon the assistance of two organisations that support and promote Jihadism.
To what extent, therefore, can this research be trusted. I’d suggest that the answer is: not at all. Take a look at this forum comment advertising focus group work at Bradford University that fed into this research, spotted by Rashad Ali of Quilliam, :
We should also note that this research is very neutral in character and interviewees will not be asked about their affiliations to any ‘controversial’ organisations. Indeed, it is in the spirit of our research to highlight the diversity Muslim youth and their active experience as second generation Muslims in the UK.
This is an amazing statement. Bradford University is an institution with a genuine problem. Four of its students were would-be jihadis who came to the attention of the authorities. They were convicted of offences under the Terrorism Act 2000 in July 2007 just four months before the focus group was formed. The convictions were ultimately overturned, but the evidence that underpinned them showed the defendants to have been utterly immersed in Jihadist culture. Bradford University Islamic Society itself appears to have been a Hizb ut Tahrir front before it was taken over by Deobandi fundamentalists.
So, it is not surprising that Edmunds and Jawad found no evidence of Jihadism. They weren’t looking for it.
In the case of Jawad, I’d go slightly further. What do you make of this language (see pages 14 and 18) in a paper she wrote about Hamas and Hezbollah:
“(4) social welfare provisioning is a key facet of the identity of controversial political organisations such as Hizbullah and Hamas who act very much as social movements within their societies. Such organisations have evolved organically within their societies in response to exclusion from the formal state apparatus; (5) the discourse of these Islamic welfare groups is rooted in the fight for social justice and their vision of social welfare is deeply concerned with human ethics”
….”Based on the simple precept that religious welfare organisations are acting out of social solidarity to solve social problems, allowing them formal recognition into the social policy apparatus may form a step in the right direction”
Hmm.
My gut feeling is that this report was produced by academics who are sympathetic to Islamist politics, in order to push the line that Islamist groups on campus are no source of concern. I would like to know precisely what contact Edmunds and Jawad had with pro-Jihadist groups like MPACuk. In particular, did MPACuk and their friends in FOSIS, the Islam Channel and the Muslim Council of Britain see Edmunds and Jawad as part of their strategy for improving the public image of Jihadist groups. You’ll remember that various Islamists, including MPACuk, wanted to put together:
a team of credible and authoritative commentators/academics who will be prepared to provide written response/analysis to key events on a regular basis – this may have to be budgeted for. It will be the provision of this regular credible information that will be the justification for journalists to engage with us. “
Is that what is going on here?
If so, well done MPACuk for letting the cat out of the bag. There is now doubt at all, that MPACuk openly supports political violence.
The Edwards/Jawad study lies in tatters.
