On Thursday June 26th, Alex Salmond will be helping to launch a new group called the Scottish Islamic Foundation. The head of this organisation is one Osama Saeed, a former researcher employed by Salmond and a prospective SNP candidate for one of the Glasgow constituencies. Salmond has also appointed Saeed to the working group which is looking at how best to remove nuclear weapons from the Clyde.
The Centre for Social Cohesion briefing (pdf) sent out last night shows that this "new" organisation and Saeed have strong connections to the Muslim Brotherhood, "an Islamist organisation with an increasingly high-profile presence in the UK".
The Brotherhood's slogan is:
"Allah is our objective. The Prophet is our leader. The Qur'an is our law. Jihad is our way. Dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope."
But many religious organisations even (gasp) Christian ones tend to have such OTT rhetroic; what makes Saeed’s connection with Salmond more worrying in practical terms is the fact that:
1. Saeed defends sharia punishments, including mutiliation and death.
2. Has attacked the principle of free speech.
3. Saeed has defended Shaik Qaradawi (spiritual leader of the Muslim Brotherhood) on numerous occasions. Qaradawi is an advocate of both wife-beating and the murder of homosexuals.
Going on that record, Saeed is not the kind of person I’d want as my prospective MP.
And the Scottish Islamic Foundation the organisation, led by Saeed and at whose "launch" Salmond will be speaking at tomorrow?
Well, as the Centre of Social Cohesion points out in their press-release, they have been active for some months now and associating with some extremely unsavoury anti-semitic and extremist individuals and organisations.
Salmond is a canny political animal and thus cannot be fail to be aware of the background of both Saeed and this organisation.
And yet still he agrees to warmly endorse Saeed and speak at the SIF's launch?
What exactly is he playing at?
7 comments:
The Centre of Social Cohesion is a pretty unsavory group to be quoting O'Neill. Despite the inclusive sounding name, the whole thing is aimed at "tackling" islam.
hardly a reliable source on any natter, let alone a source to give a reasoned critique of a Muslim.
I know their background (and the slant they may put on it), but the information provided in particular re contacts and Saeed's background is objective.
However, if someone can come up with counter-evidence proving he doesn;t believe in the more extreme elements of Sharia being applied and the curtailment of free-speech, or that he and his organisation don't have links with anti-semitic organisations and individuals, then fair enough, I'll remove the post.
You can have views from the man himself - he has a blog too:-
http://www.osamasaeed.org/osama/
If being critical of Israel over treatment of Palestinians is anti-semitic then there are a lot of anti-semites around.
"If being critical of Israel over treatment of Palestinians is anti-semitic then there are a lot of anti-semites around."
If you check my post, I haven't accused Saeed personally of being an anti-semite. The SIF however have invited people such as Kemal Helbawy to speak at their conferences. Referring to Jews as part of a criminal conspiracy, as Helbawy has done, I'd regard as being anti-semitic.
Actually make that a "satanic" rather than "criminal" conspiracy".
Of course unionist politicians would never hang out with dodgy Islamic types er like Sir Iqbal Sacranie who is on record as saying of now fellow knight of the realm Sir Salman Rushdie after the Fatwah was issued for writing a novel:
"Death, perhaps, is a bit too easy for him… his mind must be tormented for the rest of his life unless he asks for forgiveness to Almighty Allah."
That's what we call in the Northern Irish blogosphere complete "Whataboutery", ie trying to defend the indefensible by accusing the other side of exactly the same crime. It might be true, but does that fact diminish the original crime?
If the SNP were to make a compact with the, let's say Burma regime, that would be totally Ok as long as, somewhere along the line, Unionists had done the same?
Post a Comment