Nadine Dorries MP: How Journalism Works in Bedfordshire

A couple of days ago I noted a ranting post entry which Nadine Dorries MP had posted late on Friday night and deleted on Saturday morning. She has now re-instated it, which extra attacks on Tim Ireland (whom she does not deign to name). As well as boasting that the police are “monitoring” the blogs of anyone Tim “communicates with on a regular basis”, she now also tells us that she has the support of local media:

My local newspaper editors and journalists are well aware of him and describe him as a ‘menace’ and much, much worse.

This may be true – it’s certainly the case that hacks on the Bedfordshire on Sunday regularly use Dorries as a fount of easy churnalism, and have no interest in holding her to account.

In particular, back in February Tim highlighted some rather substantial payments made by Dorries (at tax-payers’ expense) to a company run by a friend named Lynn Elson. One payment to Elson had actually been the subject of a police investigation following whistle-blowing by a former employee, although it was eventually decided that there was insufficient evidence to proceed. Dorries has also been investigated by the Parliamentary Standards Commissioner over her expenses, and she was cleared after explaining that material on her blog was fictitious.

Dorries, it should be noted, has a massive sense of entitlement as regards her expenses: such is her arrogance, she once posted a photo of her copy of the official expenses guide lying on the roof of a building after it had supposedly been blown out of her office window: “And there I think it shall stay”, she added, obviously sticking two fingers up at the Commissioner and at the plebs who keep her in the manner to which she is accustomed.

Elson resigned following Tim’s investigation, but – taking Dorries’ lead – she spun the unwelcome scrutiny as “internet intrusion”. Bedfordshire on Sunday duly decided that the story was indeed “MP’s aide quits her role after internet intrusion”, rather than anything of wider public interest.

I’ve used Twitter to ask Chris Gill, the editor of Bedfordshire on Sunday, whether Dorries’ latest claim was correct. Here’s the exchange:

Barthsnotes @Chrisg_BoS Nadine #Dorries is currently boasting that you regard @bloggerheads as a “menace” for writing about her. Care to clarify?

Chrisg_BoS @Barthsnotes tell me more. Haven’t had any personal contact with her since last October.

Barthsnotes @Chrisg_BoS See her blog entry here, 2nd para from end: bit.ly/lhXe19 “My local newspaper editors… describe him as a ‘menace’ 

Chrisg_BoS @Barthsnotes just seen it. can’t see me mentioned. She says editors, you shouldn’t jump to conclusions.

Barthsnotes @Chrisg_BoS So she means some other local editor, not the only one whose paper has written about @bloggerheads and interacted with him?

Chrisg_BoS @Barthsnotes I have no views on whoever it is she is referring to. I think there must b 5 papers in her area. Ask them

Chrisg_BoS @Barthsnotes no idea mate, ask her. I have no views and care not. Can’t make it any clearer.

Barthsnotes @Chrisg_BoS Thanks. But just to clarify 100%: her description of what “local editors” are saying does not reflect anything you said to her?

Chrisg_BoS  Not getting involved in something that has nowt to do with me… Look elsewhere.

Barthsnotes @Chrisg_BoS #Dorries has got you involved, by citing “local editors” in her post. You should be able to see that.

I must say that I expected something rather less evasive and obtuse from a mature adult writing in a professional capacity.

Tim had communication of his own with Gill back in February, which can be seen here. Gill took the view that being challenged on his paper’s distortions was “offensive”.

Dorries’ new revised blog entry also returns to the issue of the fiction in her blog:

Occasionally, he gathers traction, notably with the storm he kicked up regarding my own blog. He wrote, and used Twitter to amplify the statement that my blog is 70% fiction 30% true. What he didn’t have was the whole statement or the context of that remark and indeed, he used it to pretend that my blog was instrumental in my having been cleared by the Standards Commissioner with regard to my expenses enquiry.

…I was advised by the Met Police to obfuscate my blog because of this man, which then brought about the 70/30 blog statement problem which he exacerbated.

Here’s what was reported at the time:

According to documents published by the Standards and Privileges Committee, Ms Dorries responded: “My blog is 70% fiction and 30% fact.

“It is written as a tool to enable my constituents to know me better and to reassure them of my commitment to Mid Bedfordshire.

“I rely heavily on poetic licence and frequently replace one place name/event/fact with another.”

The idea that she lies to her constituents to “reassure them” of her commitment was met with howls of derision, and only then did she come up with the “stalker evasion” excuse. And either way, it was central to her defence against the accusation that she had fiddled her expenses.

As I’ve written before, she’s vicious and ridiculous – and I don’t believe that an intelligent man like Iain Dale (who is currently promoting her blog entry) can’t see it.

Report Highlights Saudi Links to SOAS

A few days ago, an organisation called Student Rights published a seven-page report entitled “Buying Influence? Saudi Arabia and the School of Oriental and African Studies”. The report – which also highlights links with Libya and Brunei – is presented as being based on the results of a Freedom of Information Request, although it contains very little that wasn’t already in the public domain: donations are openly commemorated with names such as the King Fahd Chair of Islamic Studies and the Brunei Gallery (1). However, the “gift of a set of cufflinks made of Quarter silver Riyals” made to SOAS officials looks shabby and ought to be a source of embarrassment.

The report also draws attention to the presence of the sanguinary Yusuf al-Qaradawi on the editorial board of the Centre of Islamic Studies’ Journal of Qur’anic Studies, along with 32 other names listed on the journal’s website. This has garnered the most media interest, and SOAS has defended his involvement:

Professor Yusuf al-Qaradawi and some other editorial advisers from the Middle East only advise on the Arabic section of the Journal, and not on the English section. His academic peers and Muslim scholars in the UK and across the globe consider him to be one of the most outstanding scholars of the Quran in the Arabic and Islamic world. No political or other consideration was involved in asking him to be on the board.

There is a dilemma when an academic has a reputation for technical competence in a certain area but is also notorious; however, the phrasing “no political or other consideration was involved” is simply dodging the issue, especially if the decision to involve him was made a number of years ago. The fact is that al-Qaradawi’s inflammatory statements, as increasingly revealed over the past few years, adversely affect the credibility and ethical standing of any academic project with which he is now associated.

The question-mark in the Student Rights report’s title is unencouraging: such question marks in titles are often a tacit admission that the case hasn’t actually been made properly. Certainly, the articles published in the Journal of Qur’anic Studies appear to be a perfectly respectable ordinary academic fare. However, I know from my own experience of SOAS that there was some disquiet about how the SOAS Centre of Islamic Studies came into being, and over the scholarly level of some of the events held under its auspices. It seems to me that it’s time for a review.

(1)  Incidentally, I’ve often wondered if the Sultan of Brunei has ever been made aware that the Brunei Gallery is graced with a ludicrous plaque apologising for its architectural style, which is out of keeping with the rest of Russell Square.

(H/T: Harry’s Place)

Nadine Dorries MP “Disappointed” by Ian Puddick Harassment Case Outcome, Boasts that Police “Monitor” Blogs that Criticise Her

From the Guardian:

A man has been cleared of harassing his wife’s millionaire lover on the internet in “a victory for free speech and the small man”.

Plumber Ian Puddick tweeted, blogged and posted videos online after being enraged by his wife Leena’s 10-year affair with Timothy Haynes, a City director.

…Puddick, of Enfield, north London, claimed he decided to expose the relationship after finding out Haynes was using company expenses to fund the affair, taking his wife to “wonderful places around the country”.

He described his shock when his home was later raided by anti-terror police at 6am, with officers removing phones, computers and even his satnavs.

Further details were given in an earlier report. Haynes’ company, Guy Carpenter, employed the private security firm  Kroll and liaised with police (link added):

Michael Wolkind QC, representing Puddick, said his client intended to defend his actions. “This case is about Mr Puddick’s right to express his feelings about another person’s immorality. Ian Puddick dared to speak out about his wife’s affair and it has cost the public £1m for the extraordinary investigation carried out by an unusually enthusiastic police alongside an elite security firm.”

I haven’t looked into Puddick’s case in depth – it is possible that his pursuit of Haynes went beyond what Haynes could reasonably have been expected to take on the chin, but the use of anti-terror police to make life easier for a millionaire businessman at a cost of £1 million leaves an unsavoury impression. Puddick has a website here.

One person who disagrees with Wolkind – and with the judge who found Puddick innocent – is Nadine Dorries MP. According to a blog entry posted last night (and deleted this morning):

I am very disappointed with the judge’s finding following a three day trial of a case brought to court for on line harassment… I had really hoped for a different outcome today.

The reason for Dorries wished for “a different outcome” is because she believes that, despite being a public figure who is paid from the public purse, her political activities – and, crucially, her expenses – should not be subjected to hostile scrutiny. To this end, she employs false accusations of harassment to discourage critics, and boasts that the police do her bidding:

One of the especially ‘poorly’ compulsive obsessive’s [sic], recently alarmed the Police enough for them to issue a verbal warning on tape following a five hour interview. Following the warning, his tweets and blogs have remain monitored, as are those of people he communicates with on a regular basis in which I am discussed or mentioned.

This is an obvious reference to Tim Ireland; as I blogged here, Dorries objected to Tim’s presence at a hustings event in 2010, and the police advised Tim that further attendance at events involving Dorries could therefore be “construed” as stalking. Dorries has sought to portray this as as some sort of police acknowledgement of wrongdoing; milking it further, she now implies that the police consider his blog and others (including, surely, this one) to be a matter of police concern. Either she’s making it up, or we’re looking at more abuse of power.

There’s also a second reason why Dorries may have sympathy with Haynes: back in December, a married man left his wife to become her lover (this was a several months before Dorries began her campaign for “abstinence education”). Dorries did not appreciate her lover’s wife complaining to the Daily Mail, and took revenge.

If anyone wants to see what on-line harassment really looks like, I outline some genuine examples herehere, and here.

(H/T to Jules Lewis)

UPDATE: Sim-O has more.

UPDATE 2: More today.

Witch-Hunt Against Huma Abedin

Following widespread ridicule of the suggestion that Anthony Weiner may have secretly converted to Islam as part of a socialist plot to orchestrate a Muslim takeover of the USA, the conspiracy-mongerers are now settling on the idea that Weiner’s wife Huma Abedin – who works as an aide to Hilary Clinton – may be a spy for the Muslim Brotherhood. The inspiration for this has come from Walid Shoebat (whose views I overviewed here) and Ben Barrack; as they explain:

Al-Liwa Al-Arabi (translated here) claims to have leaked an extensive list, which was partially published by Al-Jazeera and several other major Arab newspapers. The detailed list included Huma’s mother, Saleha Abedin, as belonging to the Brotherhood’s secret women’s division known as the Muslim Sisterhood or what is known as the International Women’s Organization (IWO). Egyptian Al-Dostor revealed that the Sisternood included 63 International members that span 16 different countries; it’s also confirmed by the Arab Centre for Studies, headed by researcher Abdul Rahim Ali. Neither Huma nor any major western media outlet even mention what is common knowledge in the Arab world. Yet, confirmed by Arab sources – is that Huma Abedin has a brother named Hassan Abedin who works at Oxford University.

The theory is that because these relatives haven’t condemned Huma’s marriage to a non-Muslim, this may be a sign that they’re in on the conspiracy. Given this, we apparently do not need to dwell on the fact that there is no evidence that Huma has ever abused either her own or her husband’s professional position in any way.

But what what of Shoebat’s touted “SECRET Muslim Brotherhood Connections” among Huma’s relatives? Shoebat doesn’t give us much to go on: the link given for Al-Liwa Al-Arabi leads to an obscure and short-lived blog from January 2010, while the al-Jazeera piece is largely derivative of Egyptian newspapers (so far as I can tell from Google translate). The aforementioned Abdul Rahim Ali appears to be the actual source, but where he got his information from remains unclear.

Saleha Abedin appears to be a respectable academic and a moderate: she’s a co-chair of the Global Peace Initiative of Women, and, according to her profile there:

Dr. Abedin is a member of several inter-faith organizations committed to promoting peace and dialogue including the Millennium World Peace Summit, the Vienna Round Table for Christian Muslim Dialogue, the Peace Council, the Parliament of World Religions, and the World Council of Muslims for Interfaith Relations. She is also committed to promoting the advancement of women and has been part of a founding group for a pioneering women’s college. Dr. Saleha Abedin serves as the Director of the Institute of Muslim Minority Affairs.

But even if Shoebat’s claim turns out to be correct, it’s a rather big jump from identifying a “member” of the Muslim Brotherhood to showing that that this person’s daughter is therefore a spy working against the USA.

The “SECRET Connection” regarding Huma’s brother is even more tenuous: the Oxford Centre for Islamic Studies, where he’s based, has some troubling names on its board, but the notion that this is somehow the key to understanding the OCIS as an Islamist conspiracy is excessive.

There is no evidence that Huma Abedin has been involved in any wrongdoing. The abuse now being heaped on her by conservative websites in no more than a witch-hunt against a successful young woman, at a time when she is doubtless suffering great personal distress and humiliation over her husband’s sexual failings. It’s distasteful to witness.

UPDATE (26 June): It seems that Shoebat hadn’t quite scraped the bottom of the barrel. Here he is in Frontpage Magazine, warming to his conspiracy theory in conversation with Jamie Glazov:

FP: Look, some skeptics would still say: “So What? Huma is still not a member of the Sisterhood. And that’s that.” How would you respond?

Shoebat: Imagine during World War II, the U.S. government accepted Eva Braun, Hitler’s mistress or one of Hitler’s henchmen daughters to work with our State Department and even be with the Secretary of State 24/7?

After all “Braun” they argue “is not a member of the Nazi Party”; how will that bode with the American people?

James Woolsey’s Former PR Agent Outlines “Anthony Weiner is a Muslim” Conspiracy Theory

A number of sites have noted a remarkable commentary piece that was recently pulled from the Washington Times website. Take a deep breath:

Less than a year ago, in July 2010, Huma Abedin married Jewish U.S. Representative Anthony Weiner (D-NY). Attesting to the strength of her relationship with the Clintons, former President William J. Clinton officiated at the ceremony. Not unlike President Obama, the Clintons, as well as powerful politicos such as George Soros, are devotes of Saul Alinksy [sic] , who is considered “the founder of modern Community Organizing.” From my position, I clearly see that the actions of this group signal their socialist agenda, which includes domination of the U.S. by a Muslim ruled world.

Which begs the question of whether Huma Abedin been groomed by family and political leaders to carry this agenda forward? …Therefore we must consider that Mr. Weiner *may* have converted to Islam, because if he did not, we have to consider the unlikely, that being that Ms. Abedin has abandoned her Muslim faith, even while she still practices.

…The question that begs to be asked, however, is, has Huma been groomed to access leading political movers and shakers to advance the cause of Islam in America, including a politically positioned marriage to Congressman Anthony Weiner?

As “evidence” for all this, the author points out that an Imam in New York has urged “counselling” rather than stoning – therefore he must be in on the conspiracy. This is so absurd that a rebuttal is superfluous: political change in the USA is not brought about by “grooming” women to make “politically positioned marriages”, and the attempt to link the notion to Alinsky’s “Community Organizing” is simply bizarre. A secret conversion to Islam makes little sense, either: the whole point of a nominal conversion to Islam prior to marrying a Muslim woman (as does sometimes occur) is that it’s for show. Why would it be secret, and how could the secret have been conveyed to various Imams without leaking out?

Of course, “crank conspiracy theorist uses internet” is not a particularly original tale, although the article’s author, Eleana Benador (var. Eliana Benador), is of some wider interest. As Max Blumenthal notes:

She is the former CEO and founder of Benador Associates, an outfit that handled PR for a who’s who of the neocon movement, from Richard Perle to James Woolsey to Frank Gaffney. Is this what Beltway neocons are saying about Weinergate?

A profile was published in the Asia Times back in August 2003:

…Benador left the [Middle East Forum (MEF), a Philadelphia-based think tank headed by neo-con Daniel Pipes] in October 2001 to create Benador Associates, and credits Woolsey and [A.M.] Rosenthal, in particular, with helping her get started. “Woolsey really opened his doors for his other friends,” she said.

Clients listed included Richard Perle, Michael Ledeen, Hillel Fradkin, Michael Rubin, Meyrav Wurmser, and Laurie Mylroie, and “a number of Muslims, such as Amir Taheri, Ismail Cem, Fereydoun Hoveyda, Tashbih Sayyed and Mansoor Ijaz” (as well as Shaykh Kabbani), along with “two controversial Iraqis – Kanan Makiya and Khidhir Hamza – associated with the Iraqi National Congress led by Ahmad Chalabi”. And for a bit of variety, there’s “Arnaud de Borchgrave, a right-winger who has opposed the neo-cons’ Mideast policy as tilted too far toward Israeli interests” (the elderly De Borchgave is still “editor at large” for the Washington Times and for the associated UPI). Her most infamous moment was in 2006, as the promoter of Taheri’s bogus story that Iranian Jews were being forced to wear yellow stars.

Benador now promotes herself as a “Goodwill Ambassador” for the “Shomron Liaison Office, Samaria, Israel”. This organisation is run by David Ha’ivri, a militant settler who is regular source of quotes for Aaron Klein at WorldNetDaily.

Benador is not the only pundit to suggest that Weiner is a secret Muslim: the same conspiracy was suggested by a talk-show host named Ben Barrack, and perhaps inspired Benador’s article:

Omar Abu-Namous is the imam of the Islamic Cultural Center in New York and he is encouraging Huma Abedin – a practicing Muslim – to stand by her husband, New York congressman Anthony Weiner. Why would this imam support Anthony Weiner, who was raised Jewish, in a marriage with a practicing Muslim woman?

Every Islamic scholar agrees that it is forbidden for a Muslim woman to marry a non-Muslim. 

…Abu-Namous is in direct opposition to his Islamic superiors? Why?

WorldNetDaily Describes Mortgage Banker as “Counter-Terrorism Specialist”

A thundering rebuke on WorldNetDaily:

A counter-terrorism specialist is defending TV evangelist Pat Robertson against a charge of bigotry toward Muslims by Anti-Defamation League boss Abraham Foxman.

Robertson, founder of the Christian Broadcasting Network and Regent University, was criticized by Foxman for expressing concern on CBN’s “The 700 Club” show about the growing construction of mosques in Europe. Foxman called Robertson’s statements “troubling,” based on “hateful stereotypes of Islam.”

In an open letter, Jeffrey M. Epstein, president of America’s Truth Forum, pushed back at Foxman for defending “a seditious enemy that’s not only sworn to the death and destruction of the Jewish People but one that is determined to undermine the very fabric of western society – and you have the chutzpah to do so with Jewish funding.”

And on what basis is Epstein a “counter-terror specialist”? The America’s Truth Forum website gives his background:

He accumulated over thirty-five years experience in mortgage banking, marketing and business management.  Mr. Epstein was promoted to Senior Vice President of the nation’s largest portfolio-lending institution following his initiation of an FBI/OTS fraud investigation that led to the conviction and incarceration of several real estate professionals for their roles in committing mortgage fraud.

That may not seem like much, but his website has the obligatory white-font against black background, and there’s a dramatic logo showing the earth encircled by a target. From what I’ve seen over the past couple of years (e.g. here), that seems to be enough to qualify as a  “counter-terror specialist” to the satisfaction of most people.

Epstein (better-known as “Jeff Epstein”, see Sourcewatch) was formerly part of Vietnam Vets for Truth, in which capacity he suggested that “Vietnamese communists clearly recognize John Kerry’s contributions to their victory” due to the fact that Kerry appears in a photo from a 1993 delegation to the country that is now on display in a Vietnamese museum.

America’s Truth Forum has held several events: “Understanding the Threat of Radical Islamist Terrorism” (2006), which was followed by the imaginatively named “Exposing the Threat of Islamist Terrorism” (2008) – both were graced by the usual speakers. Epstein also promotes the conspiracy theory that Muslims were behind the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing, and he has worked with Paul L. Williams; Williams’ own conspiracy-mongering about McMaster University led to some legal difficulties for WorldNetDaily in 2007.

UK Bill to Amend 1996 Arbitration Act

From the Guardian:

Islamic courts would be forced to acknowledge the primacy of English law under a bill being introduced in the House of Lords.

The bill, proposed by Lady Cox and backed by women’s rights groups and the National Secular Society, was drawn up because of “deep concerns” that Muslim women are suffering discrimination within closed sharia law councils.

The Arbitration and Mediation Services (Equality) Bill will introduce an offence carrying a five-year jail sentence for anyone falsely claiming or implying that sharia courts or councils have legal jurisdiction over family or criminal law. The bill, which will apply to all arbitration tribunals if passed, aims to tackle discrimination, which its supporters say is inherent in the courts, by banning the sharia practice of giving woman’s testimony only half the weight of men’s.

The 1996 Arbitration Act allows for private arbitration or private  third-party arrangements in civil disputes; as has been widely reported, a number of Muslim groups have taken advantage of this provision to establish private shariah courts, leading to reports of inheritances doled out unequally between male and female relatives, and of women “persuaded” to drop complaints to the police about domestic violence. The obvious – and reasonable – fear is that some women are agreeing to be bound by the courts’ decisions as a result of community and family pressure rather than giving true consent. I noted this here, and suggested that the 1996 act ought to be amended so that civil courts will not enforce decisions where there is evidence of gender bias.

Given that there is a genuine problem, the bill’s approach could provide a useful contrast to the posturing and pointless “anti-Shariah” bills that are being proposed in various US states. Cox’s bill can be seen here; it includes the following:

…After section 6 (definition of arbitration agreement) insert—

“6A Discriminatory terms of arbitration

No part of an arbitration agreement or process shall expressly or implicitly provide—
(a) that the evidence of a man is worth more than the evidence of a woman, or vice versa,
(b) that the division of an estate between male and female children on intestacy must be unequal,
(c) that women should have fewer property rights than men, or vice versa, or
(d) for any other term that constitutes discrimination on the grounds of sex.

It should be noted that the bill – correctly, in my opinion – deals in general principles; it does not anywhere mention Islam or shariah. This is in contrast to a website set up by Cox’s supporters promote the bill, which seems designed to alienate Muslims: the site’s banner headline features a woman in a niqab, and it is concerned exclusively with shariah. The site was created by David Clark of the British Christian Right lobby-group Christian Concern; Christian Concern’s own website has a triumphant report on the subject:

New Bill to Stop Shariah Law Operating in the UK

On 7 June 2011 Baroness Cox introduced a new Bill in the House of Lords intended to outlaw the use of Sharia law where it conflicts with English law…

“Through these proposals, I want to make it perfectly clear in the law that discrimination against women shall not be allowed within arbitration. I am deeply concerned about the treatment of Muslim women by Sharia Courts. We must do all that we can to make sure they are free from any coercion, intimidation or unfairness. Many women say, ‘we came to this country to escape these practices only to find the situation is worse here’.”

The headline is obviously misleading; one wonders whether it is deliberately so.

World Public Forum Dialogue of Religions Holds Conference in Berlin

Last week, the World Public Forum Dialogue of Religions held a conference in Berlin, on “Integration and Identity in the Global Society”. According to a pre-conference blurb:

The President and Founder of the World Public Forum “Dialogue of Civilization” Vladimir Ivanovich Yakunin, the Prime Minister of GDR (retired) Dr. Lothar de Mezier, German Bundestag (Parliament) deputy Franz Thunnes, Chairman of the Youth Association of the ruling CDU Party in Germany Philipp Missfelder, and other top level experts will give speeches as a part of the conference in Berlin.

I’ve blogged on the WPF previously; it  arranges high-level international conferences on inter-religious dialogue and has links to a Russian Orthodox organisation. There are three co-chairmen:

The Forum is headed by the Council of Co-chairmen, which consists of the WPF Founder and President Vladimir Yakunin (Russia), President of Titan Capital Corporation Nicholas Papanicolaou(USA/Greece), and former federal Chancellor of Austria Alfred Gusenbauer. The late Jagdish Kapur(1920– 2010), President of the Kapur Surya Foundation (India), was the Co-chairman and Founder of the WPF.

Yakunin is a close ally of Vladimir Putin, and back in March he was described by the Moscow Times as “the Kremlin’s model ‘Orthodox businessman'”. Papanicolaou is a curious figure: while in Europe he hob-nobs with elite mainstream politicians, back in the USA he identifies with the neo-Pentecostal Christian Right, in particular Rick Joyner and William “Jerry” Boykin. He is also the author of a book, published by Joyner, entitled Islam vs the United States, and Joyner and Boykin are both members of a chivalric order of which Papanicolaou is the “Grand Master”.  I surveyed this rather odd association – which Joyner uses to boast of links to Europe – here.

Gusenbauer, meanwhile, received an award from the WPF back in 2008; in March, the same award was presented by Yakunin to the president of Kazakhstan, Nursultan Nazarbayev, ahead of elections that saw Nazarbayev re-elected with 95.5% of the vote (Nazarbayev had been due to step down due to constitutional term limits, but he reluctantly bowed a petition from “ordinary citizens” to stay on for a third decade). As the WPF website explains:

The Award is given to political, intellectual and spiritual leaders who follow the ideas of justice and unity, to people who strongly contribute to the strengthening of peace and consent among the nations. Among the laureates of the Award there are such outstanding leaders as former Chancellor of Austria Alfred Gusenbauer and the President of Kazakhstan Nursultan Nazarbayev.

Gusenbauer and Nazarbayev also have other links: in 2010 the Austrian business magazine Format reported that Gusenbauser had become a “consultant” to the Kazakh leader:

Wie FORMAT aus hochrangigen Brüsseler Kreisen erfuhr, ist Gusenbauer Teil ­eines neuen Beraterstabs rund um den 70-jährigen Nasarbajew, zu dem auch Deutschlands ehemaliger Bundeskanzler Gerhard Schröder, Italiens früherer Ministerpräsident Romano Prodi und Polens Expräsident Aleksander Kwasniewski zählen. „Ja, ich stehe der kasachischen Regierung und somit dem Präsidenten als Berater zur Verfügung“, bestätigt Gusenbauer. Über seine neuen Kollegen will er aber lieber nicht reden, nur so viel: „Präsident Nasarbajew holt sich sicher nicht irgendwelche Leute in sein Team.“

Just last month, Gusenbauer was a “guest of honour” (alongside former Polish President Aleksander Kwasniewski, Tony Blair, and Romano Prodi) at a Foreign Investors Council (FIC) meeting in Astana. The meeting took place at the inevitably-named Nazarbayev University.

Another link goes back to 2007, when Gusenbauer was chancellor and the Kazakh ambassador to Austria was Nazarbayev’s then son-in-law Rahat Aliyev. Aliyev now lives in Austria in exile; while in office, he was accused of criminal activity in Kazakhstan and his wife divorced him. Nazarbayev telephoned Gusenbauer to facilitate his extradition, but Gusenbauer “informed the caller that he had no jurisdiction over Austrian courts.” Aliyev was accused of abducting two bankers, and the bankers’ bodies were discovered “stuffed into metal barrels and covered with quicklime” just last month. Aliyev “denies any connection with the men’s deaths”.

MEQ Report Claims 81 Per Cent of US Mosques Promote “Violent Jihad”

At the American Thinker and Big Peace, Andrew Bostom discusses  “Sharia and Violence in American Mosques”, a new article  by Mordechai Kedar and David Yerushalmi published the Middle East Quarterly (Summer 2011, Vol. 18, No. 3, pp. 59-72). The somewhat inflammatory title is par for the course: Yerushalmi (perhaps best-known as Pamela Geller’s lawyer) is the brains behind the ideologically-driven “Mapping Shariah” project, which has a number of methodological problems that I outlined here. The paper is being published today; it appears that Bostom has been given an advance copy.

According to quotes in Bostom’s post (itself a diatribe entitled “Mosques as Barracks in America”), a number of US mosques were chosen at random,

(a) to observe and record 12 Sharia-adherent behaviors of the worshipers and the imam (or lay leader); (b) to observe whether the mosque contained the selected materials rated as moderate and severe; (c) to observe whether the mosque contained materials promoting, praising, or supporting violence or violent jihad; and (d) to observe whether the mosque contained materials indicating the mosque had invited guest speakers known to have promoted violent jihad.

Findings:

51 percent of mosques had texts that either advocated the use of violence in the pursuit of a Shari’a-based political order or advocated violent jihad as a duty that should be of paramount importance to a Muslim; 30 percent had only texts that were moderately supportive of violence like the Tafsir Ibn Kathir and Fiqh as-Sunna; 19 percent had no violent texts at all.

…The survey found a strong correlation between the presence of severe violence-promoting literature and mosques featuring written, audio, and video materials that actually promoted such acts. By promotion of jihad, the study included literature encouraging worshipers to engage in terrorist activity, to provide financial support to jihadists, and to promote the establishment of a caliphate in the United States. These materials also explicitly praised acts of terror against the West; praised symbols or role models of violent jihad; promoted the use of force, terror, war, and violence to implement the [strange gap here – RB] Sharia; emphasized the inferiority of non-Muslim life; promoted hatred and intolerance toward non-Muslims or notional Muslims; and endorsed inflammatory materials with anti-U.S. views… [O]f the 51 mosques that contained severe materials, 100 percent were led by imams who recommended that worshipers study texts that promote violence.

 [M]osques containing violence positive materials were substantially more likely to include materials promoting financial support of terror than mosques that did not contain such texts. A disturbing 98 percent of mosques with severe texts included materials promoting financial support of terror. Those with only moderate rated materials on site were not markedly different, with 97 percent providing such materials.

These results were comparable when using other indicators of jihad promotion. Thus, 98 percent of mosques that contained severe-rated literature included materials promoting establishing an Islamic caliphate in the United States as did 97 percent of mosques containing only moderate rated materials.

Further details on methodology are provided in an Appendix, which has been posted on-line here. The list of “Sharia Adherent Behaviors” includes: “gender segregation during prayer service”, “alignment of men’s prayer lines”, the imam’s beard style, whether the imam has a head covering or not or is wearing Western-style clothing, and whether the imam wears a watch on his right wrist. Also significant is the percentage of men wearing beards or hats, whether boys have head-coverings, and whether girls and women are wearing hijabs or niqabs – “Non-Shari’a-adherent behavior”, we are told, “is to wear the modern hijab (a scarf that does not completely cover the hair) or to not wear any hair”.

For reasons that are not immediately clear, we then segue into the issue of violence, as the list continues:

If the surveyor found the Fiqh as-Sunna or Tafsir Ibn Kathir, but not more extreme materials, then the mosque was categorized as containing moderate-rated material. If the surveyor found the Riyadh as-Salaheen, works by Qutb or Mawdudi, or similar materials, then the mosque was categorized as containing severe-rated materials.

If the surveyor found no violence-positive materials or if the violence-positive materials constituted less than 10% of all available materials, then the mosque was categorized as containing no materials.

…Following the prayer service, the surveyor asked the following question: “Do you recommend the study of: (a) only the Quran and/or Sunna; (b) Tafsir Ibn Kathir; (c) Fiqh as-Sunna; (e) Reliance of the Traveller; or (f) the works of Qutb, such as Milestones, and Maududi, such as The Meaning of the Qur’an?”

If the imam or lay leader recommended studying any of the materials mentioned above except the Qur’an and/or Sunna, then the imam or lay leader was recorded as having recommended the study of texts promoting the rated material.

The “10%” principle here is a welcome nod towards proportionality, but it’s undermined by what follows. The Reliance of the Traveller and the Tafsir Ibn Kathir are both pre-modern compendiums of Islamic law; of course they contain some troubling material, like many other pre-modern texts. But they also contain a lot else: we need to understand why the imams recommend these texts, not just note that they do and therefore chalk up one more extremist. It’s also unclear whether the imams are being asked about their general recommendation practices in relation to these texts or whether they are simply advising the questioner.

Further:

If materials available on mosque premises promoted joining a known terrorist organization, such as “mujahideen” engaged in jihad abroad, then the mosque was recorded as having promoted joining a terrorist organization.

That may seems reasonable so far as it goes, but again it begs a lot of questions. Some general sympathy for a mujahideen group involved in military conflict in somewhere in central Asia is a very different proposition from supporting al-Qaeda, so we need more than just a broad-brush “terrorism” label if we are to understand what is going on and why. And we need to know more about how the materials are made available, and in what ways they are promoted. Are leaflets given out to attendees, or is “promotion” simply an obscure poster pinned to an unmoderated noticeboard somewhere on the premises? There’s scope for various interpretations there.

If materials available on mosque premises indicated that speakers came to the mosque to raise money for specific terrorist organizations, then the mosque was recorded as having openly collected money at the mosque for a known terrorist organization.

…If any of the materials featured on mosque property promoted engaging in terrorist activity; promoted the financial support of terrorism or jihadists; promoted the use of force, terror, war, and violence to implement Shari‘a; promoted the idea that oppression and subversion of Islam should be changed by deed first, then by speech, then by faith; praised acts of terrorism against the West; or praised suicide bombers against Israelis, then the mosque was recorded as having promoted violent jihad.

This raises further questions: are we talking about organisations which are banned under US law, or organisations around which there are suspicions (reasonable or contrived) of links to terrorism?

We all know that some mosques in the USA and elsewhere promote radicalisation and extremism. We also know that others need to do more to ensure that radical elements do not gain a toe-hold. But this kind of inquisitorial and quantitative approach is of very limited value and is probably even misleading. If one wants to know whether a mosque “promotes jihad”, one needs to get a sense of the overall teaching and the general perspectives of those who attend. Simply totting up whether an undercover visitor can spot or elicit something troubling is an insufficient methodology. And what purpose is served by mixing all this in with a list “Sharia Adherent Behaviors”, other than to give Muslim cultural practices a sinister hue?

The Middle East Quarterly has a note on its peer-review process here. Previously, it rejected peer-review on the grounds that most specialists were not interested in “American interests” or were hostile to USA; however:

…In 2009, circumstances have begun to change. This journal finds itself part of a growing community of specialists not hostile to the United States and its allies. As other journals and organizations have joined our ranks, they increased the circle of those with professional and expert knowledge of the Middle East and created a larger pool of reviewers to engage in a constructive process of refereeing.

Daily Mail Promotes “Bin Laden Killed by Pork-Coated Bullet” Claim

From the Daily Mail:

Did a pork-coated bullet kill Bin Laden? Yes, says firm who claim its pig fat gun oil is bought by U.S. military personnel

Was Osama bin Laden shot with a bullet soaked in pork fat, denying him a place in paradise?

The makers of Silver Bullet Gun Oil claim it contains 13 per cent USDA liquefied pig fat thus making the product ‘a highly effective counter-Islamic terrorist force multiplier.’

…A promotional YouTube video for the oil shows a picture of Bin Laden and the claim: ‘Killed with a weapon using Silver Bullet Gun Oil’.

The “firm” claims to have made private sales of the gun oil to numerous US military personnel, but there is absolutely no evidence that its product was used in the Bin Laden operation or that the the producer knows anything more about the operation than the rest of us.

The Mail goes on to add that:

In Islam consumption of pork is forbidden, but the Quran also states that if one is forced to consume the meat then they are guiltless and therefore not disqualified from paradise.

The relevant verses are 2:173, 5:3,  6:145, and 16:115, all of which have variations on the phrase “whoever is driven to necessity, not desiring nor exceeding the limit, then surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful”.

The people behind SBGO, by contrast, tell us that:

According to the Koran, Allah states, “Any of my followers contaminated by swine at the time of his death will be denied entry to my paradise forever, I HATE THE STENCH OF SWINE.”

No reference is given, and I can’t find anything even remotely along these lines in the Koran (or in any other Islamic source, for that matter). SBGO also makes much of General Pershing’s supposed use of pork products to spread terror among Muslim rebels in the Philippines, but Snopes points out that the story appears to be apocryphal. In short, there is no properly documented evidence of Muslim terrorists abandoning their ways or aborting a mission out of fear of porcine contamination, and there’s no reason why they would. The product is useless for its stated purpose.

However, the product does have other purposes (aside from raising money, of course): its existence helps to give the impression that US soldiers are involved in a war against Islam, and to spread the notion that the Islamic taboo against pork is an exceptionally absurd aspect of Islam. It’s also useful to suggest that a superstition, rather than any ethical principle, would be the only reason that Muslims might reject the notion of Bin Laden enjoying “a place in paradise”.

The Southern Poverty Law Center has further details:

The oil’s manufacturer goes by the nom de guerre, “Midnite Rider – Servant of Yahweh,” an Old Testament name for God, but his real identity is unknown.

…Hatewatch recently purchased several bottles of the gun oil to determine if the company was real. The gun oil arrived in a box postmarked from Courtland, Va., a town of about 1,300 people 50 miles southwest of Norfolk…

The Daily Mail article is currently being headlined at WorldNetDaily; the UK tabloid appears to be making increasing efforts to get traffic from right-wing American websites.

In late September 2001, WND ran a column by Paul Sperry which suggested dropping leaflets over Afghanistan warning that “that we’ve enlisted Afghani moles to contaminate their water supplies with pig’s blood”. WND editor Joseph Farah later announced that the column had been “satire”.

UPDATE: The Mail article was partly lifted from a Mother Jones blog post by Adam Weinstein of 31 May, which begins with:

Did a Navy SEAL kill Osama Bin Laden with a pork-coated bullet, thus denying him entrance to paradise? That’s the highly unlikely claim coming from a shady website selling gun lubricants that it guarantees to be “13% USDA liquefied pig fat.”

Compare with the Mail on 2 June:

Was Osama bin Laden shot with a bullet soaked in pork fat, denying him a place in paradise?

Yes, if one rather shady website, that peddles gun oil containing liquefied pig fat, is to be believed.

The Mail‘s plagiarist took out the “highly unlikely” part, and ignored most of Weinstein’s assessment:

At best, Silver Bullet Gun Oil seems like snake oil for Islamophobes. At worst, it’s putting forth an image of American soldiers as crusading anti-Muslim killers… Most Muslims, devout and secular, simply see pork as gross, and they don’t consider incidental (or forced) contact with porcine products to disqualify one from entrance to heaven.