I quoted what Ed Husain wrote to refute the poisonous stuff posted on the “Evening Standard” website in response to his article of 7 July.

And his earlier life was no pretensions. He relates a period in different sectarian groups. His book is in all good libraries and probably in most bad ones as well.

I saw the film of Dune and I wasn’t impressed. It was a mish mash of pre-islamic middle eastern myths with a few bits of pre-christian north european myths thrown in. Arbian nights with a bit of saga for holidays.

It’s interesting when you consider that the Berbers themselves in late antiquity tended heavily to a heterodox form of Christianity (Donatism) which had violent tendencies/extremist behaviour.

In the sense that there is a civil society in Syria (though weak and at times vulnerable there is a thriving intellectual life) despite its paranoid, surveillance obsessed state, yes it is less repressive than the hatefull theocratic kleptocratic monarchy of Saudi Arabia (truly one of the worlds most hateful regimes).

Ed Hussain coming from a democratic secular country with a highly elaborated civil society, despite his then islamist pretensions, would have found a theocracy where he could scarecely breathe or associate in any way other than at Mosque unbelievably alien and oppressive.

Syria though it has the functions and structure of a secular state would appear immediately less alien and more welcoming to an outsider than saudi Arabia, though as Dave M has observed sharply the longer you spend in a parnoid military/spy state like Syria the weirder and more oppressive it becomes..

Syria is probably more like Spain and Portugal in the 60s or Cuba or Bulgaria under communism.

Saudi Arabia is an absolute Monarchy and theocracy with modern toys and money alltogether more of a sci-fi state (I am thinking Dune).

Good observations about Algeria.

Of course one of the reasons for the arrest of Christian prreachers is the increasing numbers of Berbers converting to Christianity to escape the ’spiritual stain’ of the brutal Islamist generated civil war that carried out unimaginable horrors against them.

I should say re converting as the islamically hetereodox Berbers were for centuries pagans Jews and Christians, religiously, until reluctantly and forceably converted to Islam.

Jewish Berber communities who had been in the Maghreb since at least, Roman times, though most likely before, since 1948 the Algerian war and the civil war are reduced to at most a few thousand (and are no more in Morrocco).

Berber beliefs and continuing cultural traditions place them as nominal or ‘impure’ Muslims and thediscriminatory process of Arabization continues.

It is not surprising that many might be drawn to a non-violent Christianity in this context and even less surprising that the Government would react to increasing Christian evangelism as a political challenge to centralised rule.

In 2006 the Government passed an anti-conversion law

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=49495

Recently there have also been arrests of Christian converts, in one case reported in June this year the convert is facing up to three years imprisonment; in another case involving six converts prosecuters are demanding 2 years jail;

http://www.africafiles.org/article.asp?ID=18174

http://www.compassdirect.org/en/display.php?page=news&length=long&lang=en&idelement=5393

http://blogs.reuters.com/faithworld/2008/02/22/pressure-rises-on-christians-in-jordan-algeria/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berber_Jews

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berber_people

http://www.orthodoxengland.org.uk/maghreb.htm

Why is that? Because the Islamist organisations mentioned above are intimately implicated in the fostering of a sense of grievance against and violence towards their fellow citizens and the state. (Despite the ostensibly peaceful means.)

I would consider the SWP etc as being rather more akin to the BNP in terms of threat. I would not be in favour of banning the BNP at this point, as I do not consider it, at the moment, a threat to the current liberal and democratic order of things. If, in the future, the BNP were to become more intimately implicated in violent and terrorist acts by its supporters, then I would not blink for a moment at the idea of banning it. Similarly, if the SWP were to become a focus of grievance for a small number of people who were setting off bombs, then I would ban them as well.

The key point is that all of the above groups are totalitarian in nature. That is why they could become involved in violence against the liberal democratic state. As long as they don’t foster that – either consciously or an instrumental manner – then they should be allowed to peddle their propaganda. I don’t think anyone except the most extreme far leftist or hard rightist is in favour of banning any non-Islamist groups at this point.

But I don’t myself consider that the rights of any of the above groups to exist legally is absolutely sacrosanct in all, extreme, instances. But it’s needlessly controversial to consider that sort of thing in the political climate in which we find ourselves. The far right and far left are a largely non-violent irrelevance. This is not – necessarily – the case for extreme Islamist groupings.

However, in his “Evening Standard” piece on 7 July, Ed Husain implies that various individuals and groups should be banned. If that is to be done, there has to be a consistent basis for it.

What good reason is there to make Hizb-ut Tahrir or Al Muhajiroun illegal, but not the Socialist Workers Party (SWP) or the Socialist Party in England and Wales (SPEW)?

I know its tempting to think of banning trotskyite sects like SWP and SPEW, but what good reason is there for it?

I’m guessing future dates for Eid ul-Adha, but IslamExpo will probably change dates in 2021 and 2012.

Distraction: In 1991, one of my sisters rented her house on the Shetland Isles to some Muslim oil workers from Nigeria. The group followed the practice of fasting in the days prior to Eid ul-Adha, which was on June 21st that year. Only 18 hours of daylight…

“A grevious lie-Qardawi condemned 7/7 and 9/11 vociferously. To disagree with the tactics employed against occupation is fair enough – To say land stolen and under occupation is the same as London and New York is blatantly dishonest. Is London land which has been occupied?”

-do you think Spain is occupied land?