Now This

This blog is now read by more machines than humans: RSS robots, spam-laying insectopoids, echoes of blog-gathering .edu projects. This essentially is the state of affairs that all human activities wil

Cleaning Up the Nation

Austin Bay:

If Air America were a conservative radio network its corrupt funding trail and cynical abuse of a poverty program would be front page news at the NY Times and full-time mega-scandal at

Rank Materialism

Freedom. I am now the proud new owner of a Gateway 6020GZ laptop, perfect for students and others with limited means. I can now go into a Starbucks or a Barnes & Noble and look like I'm doing some

Fallujah Fonda

Uh-oh. From the Telegraph comes this exciting news:

Jane Fonda is returning to anti-war activism and embarking on a cross-country tour to call for an end to US military operations in Iraq.

Acros

John Pilger: Partner in Terrorism

In an outrageous piece of terrorist propaganda appearing on the cover of today's New Statesman, John Pilger puts the blame for the 7/7 London attacks not on the terrorists, but rather on Tony Blair:

Sassy Islamists

There are a few points about the "sassy" Dilpazier Aslam Guardian article I haven't seen elsewhere. To catch up, read this Daily Ablution post, if you haven't already. This Harry's Place post is also informative.

Khilafah.com and the magazine Khilafah aren't just supporters of the Islamist organization Hizb ut-Tahrir, they're the organization's propaganda arms. See this interview with one of the group's leaders, Nazreen Nawaz, for example:

We also publish many leaflets and booklets that include discussions on how to maintain the Islamic identity while living in the West as well as fulfilling our responsibility of aiding the work for the re-establishment of the Khilafah in the Muslim world. We also have a monthly magazine - "Khilafah magazine" and a number of websites -"1924.org" and "khilafah.com".

As noted, Dilpazier Aslam wrote several articles for the Hizb ut-Tahrir organ. Here's a pdf of Khilafah from June 2004 featuring an article by Aslam, and his nifty 1924.org email address.

The Guardian was the beneficiary (along with others) in late 2004 of a Hizb ut-Tahrir outreach program. From a November 11, 2004 Guardian article:

In a sign that the group is changing direction, it has given the Guardian unprecedented access to its leadership. The newspaper has spoken to current and former Hizb members and supporters in London, Derby, Leicester, Birmingham, Nottingham and Manchester in an attempt to piece together the group's motivation and ideology.

Aslam's earliest Guardian byline (that I could find) was this January 19, 2005 article.

The connection is circumstancial, but the timing is interesting, assuming I have it right that is. Did the Guardian deliberately recruit a reporter from an Islamist house organ? If so, what is it they hope to gain from this?

One troubling aspect is that Aslam's "sassy" article is of a piece with Hizb ut-Tahrir's aims of discrediting the old-line Muslim leadership. But the Guardian represents Aslam merely as a trainee reporter, and not as someone with organized Islamist connections.

Here's a snappy quote from the Hizb ut-Tahrir website itself:

It also aims to bring back the Islamic guidance for mankind and to lead the Ummah into a struggle with Kufr, its systems and its thoughts so that Islam encapsulates the world.

Resistance is futile I guess.

Here is some additonal material on the group: one, two, three.

Update: Scott Burgess at The Daily Ablution has written the Guardian asking them about Aslam. Let's see what happens.

Later Update: More from The Daily Ablution here.

Even Bigger Update: Tim Worstall notes that the very same Hizb ut-Tahrir backed Shabina Begum in the jilbab controversy in the UK. Tim quotes Vicki Woods in The Telegraph:

The girl who insisted on wearing a jilbab instead of perfectly acceptable Muslim-type school uniform should not have been allowed to. Full stop.

Especially when Hizb ut Tahrir, who seem to have spread out a bit from Uzbekhistan and gone to live among our friends in the north, targeted her school, and backed her. And even though that brisk barrister Cherie Booth won her case for her.

The Guardian used its Hizb ut-Tahrir writer (and presumably, member) to write an article on the Hizb ut-Tahrir-backed jilbab fight. From Dilpazier Aslam's Guardian article on the jilbab story:

In an exclusive interview with the Guardian, Shabina Begum, 16, described the court of appeal verdict against Denbigh high school in Luton as a victory for all Muslims "who wish to preserve their identity and values despite prejudice and bigotry".

The Guardian would be well-placed to land that exclusive wouldn't it? Aslam's connection to the Islamist Hizb ut-Tahrir is nowhere disclosed. This relationship between the Guardian and Hizb seems pretty cozy. Aslam quotes the girl quoting Islamist propaganda (unchallenged of course):

Our belief in our faith is the one thing that makes sense of a world gone mad, a world where Muslim women, from Uzbekistan to Turkey, are feeling the brunt of policies guided by western governments. I feel I've made people question the jilbab issue again.

Note the girl's odd reference to Uzbekistan. Hizb ut-Tahrir is very active in Uzbekistan in particular, and is one of the main groups that the Uzbek government is actively (and overzealously, using torture) fighting.

It seems that the Guardian has been a Hizb ut-Tahrir propaganda outlet for some time.

See also this Ace of Spades post and Tim Blair.

Yet Another Update: Michelle Malkin has now picked up the story, with a gracious link to this blog, among others. This story of the Guardian's apparent collusion with Islamist enemies of the West might go mainstream now. Props to Scott Burgess of The Daily Ablution for starting this whole thing.

More in the Update Vein: Patterico's got it, and brings the distressing news that the LA Times has reprinted Aslam's Islamist apologia. Don't they check this crap out first?

Final Update: The Guardian confims Aslam's Hizb ut-Tahrir membership. See this follow-up post.

Trackbacks

1. APOLOGISTS FOR TERROR: WE'RE "SASSY!" from Michelle Malkin

Don't eat or drink anything while you read this piece of tripe from Dilpazier Aslam, a Muslim Guardian "trainee journalist" attempting to explain away the 7/7 terrorist bombing attacks. "The Muslim community is no monolithic whole. Yet ther...

2. Trainee journalist from Ghost of a flea

The Guardian fires Dilpazier Aslam from its trainee journalist scheme, purportedly for his membership in the Islamist political party, Hizb ut-Tahrir. A Home Office briefing note describes the group. The note says of the organisation that it is "an ...

Comments

They reprinted it, but they edited out the "sassy" comment.

You guys have been lying about the "sassy remark" Patterico, what you are doing is offensive. Are you telling me that you honestly think any reasonable interpretation of the article, We rock the boat, is that the author means that the terrorist attacks are "opinions?"

The author wrote, "We're much sassier with our opinions, not caring if the boat rocks or not."

You guys really ruin public discourse when you do these dirty and dishonest things. An "opinion" may figuratively "rock the boat" but, by definition, it does not destroy or kill. By definition an opinion is not a physical act.
o·pin·ion n.
* A belief or conclusion held with confidence but not substantiated by positive knowledge or proof: “The world is not run by thought, nor by imagination, but by opinion” (Elizabeth Drew).
* A judgment based on special knowledge and given by an expert: a medical opinion.
* A judgment or estimation of the merit of a person or thing: has a low opinion of braggarts.
* The prevailing view: public opinion.
It is disgusting that you and Michelle Malkin play such games about life and death issues. Opinion isn't terror, your post's title is extremely offensive.

Others across the web have played the same game, I explain to them: The author did not say that the bombers were sassy. The author referred to opinions shared by many Muslims, the term "sassy" CLEARLY referred to those opinions, not the bombings. You are a fool or a liar if you think otherwize.

"Are you telling me that you honestly think any reasonable interpretation of the article, We rock the boat, is that the author means that the terrorist attacks are 'opinions?'"

Considering it was published four DAYS after the first round of bombings: Yes, that is a reasonable interpretation. The only other reasonable interpretation is that Aslam is such an awful writer that he shouldn't have been given that venue in the first place.

Check for new comments.

Add Your Comment

Name (required)

Email (not required, not displayed)

Web (optional - will be linked)

Comment (max 4000 characters)


Reload Image

Enter Code

Top Tags
Archives