“They help oppressed people and they have a positive stance,” he said.

I don’t want to get Mr. Farjoo in trouble, but perhaps he is unaware that both Spiderman and Superman are the creations of– um, er, how can I say this?– Jews.

In fact Jewish influence in popular culture appears to have been one of the topics at the 2nd international conference on Hollywoodism and Cinema in Tehran this month. This is from a Press TV interview with one of the participants, Tom Pollard:

Press TV: What are your views about the Jewish influence in Hollywood? How have they been able to use their domination in Hollywood to their advantage? And what are the pros and cons, given that only two to three percentage of the US population is Jewish?

Pollard: Well it’s and [sic] interesting point and it’s often raised, especially at this conference that we’ve attended. And it’s certainly true, that Jewish producers and directors do dominate a large segment, I mean not all of the, of course, I mean you can think of a lot of fine filmmakers that are not Jewish.

But they do have a disproportioned amount of influence.

Considering the Iranian regime’s usual sensitivity about Jewish– or, if you prefer, Zionist– influence in the media, it appears Mr. Farjoo may have made a big mistake.

Here is the real travesty of this revolution. Russia, Iran and Hezbollah have all been “intervening” in Syria’s internal affairs for ten months now. Meanwhile, the Arab League, the United States and the European Union have all determined that any claim to sovereignty Assad might have had in 2011 is null and void in 2012. What is needed, therefore, is not condemnations, demarches and shuttered embassies but a Western equivalent of intervention in Syria, namely in the form of:

• Humanitarian “safe areas” to provide food, aid and medical supplies to the civilian population and give the various opposition groups a headquarters inside their own country
• Advanced weapons and communication devices for the Syrian rebels
• A no-fly zone to stop the regime from using its aircraft to conduct reconnaissance, offload security personnel and – yes – strafe rebel strongholds from the sky.

Elements of the dead Left view a US military presence in the Middle East as more of a menace than a Soviet-style totalitarianism which rapes young boys in front of their fathers and murders newborn infants just for the hell of it. I don’t expect them to concede that their anti-imperialist theses are less important than Arab lives. But they have no right to misrepresent the will of the people doing the bleeding and dying. If certain comment editors have difficulty finding Syrians on the ground who want Nato fighter jets overhead, I’ll be glad to introduce them to several.

Israel’s main labor union declared a strike on Wednesday that caused delays at Ben Gurion airport, and affected banks, hsopitals, government offices, trains, the stock exchange, and more, after talks with the government failed to produce an agreement on the status of workers employed through labor contractors.

Finance Minister Yuval Steinitz called the strike unnecessary, saying it could cost the economy billions of shekels if it continues. He accused the Histadrut labor federation of being entrenched in its positions.

Histadrut chairman Ofer Eini said that the length of the strike now depends on the Prime Minister Benjamin Netanayhu and Minister of Industry, Trade and Labor Shalom Simhon.
…..
Meanwhile, the Histadrut and the Coordinating Bureau of Economic Organizations – which represents private employers – have reached an agreement in principle that meets the Histadrut’s main demands with regard to outsourced workers. According to the agreement, which has not yet been signed, outsourced workers who work full time and who have been working for at least one or two years would be hired directly by their employer instead of working for an employment agency as they do now. Workers who continue to work for an employment agency would have their salaries and benefits brought in line with those of regular employees.

The agreement was reached on Tuesday between Eini, the coordinating bureau’s chairman, Shraga Brosh, and its director general, Avi Barak, and the chairman of the Histadrut’s labor unions department, Avi Nissankorn.

While a separate agreement with the private sector does not solve the problem of the rest of Israel’s outsourced workers, it contributes to Eini’s image, and it increased his bargaining power during Tuesday’s negotiating session with Steinitz.

In the session, during which no progress was made, Eini presented a general outline with two main thrusts. Outsourced workers, especially full-time cleaning workers, would be taken on as regular employees by the firms in which they work. The status of other outsourced workers would not change in relation to their employer but they would receive salaries equal to people employed directly by the company.

So while private employers were able to reach an agreement with the Histadrut on contract labor, the Netanyahu government is dragging its heels.

LabourStart is linking to updates.

Among the second wave of Arab Spring uprisings that followed Tunisia, Syria was the most spectacular “out of the blue” that suddenly arose in the face of the media and analytic community. Just days before Deraa exploded with protests last March, some analysts were still scrutinizing Syria’s circumstances and declaring the country to be immune from the Arab Spring. Nor did reporters who visited the country spot signs of a brewing storm.

In fact, throughout the Arab Spring, the media and experts repeatedly fell into the same trap of confusing the capital city with the whole country. On the eve of the Islamist landslide in Egypt’s elections various polls and informed individuals were putting the popularity of radical Salafis at between 5% and 10%. The Salafis have indeed won about 10% of the vote… but only in Cairo. Nationwide they took almost 30%, beating even those unrepentant pessimists who were betting on a Muslim Brotherhood spring. In some provinces they grabbed all of 50%.

This routine of the periphery ambushing the media and analysts during the Arab Spring and making a mockery of their reports and predictions has reached such grotesque proportions in Syria partly thanks to the media restrictions imposed by the regime, but mostly owing to the very peripheral nature of the Syrian uprising itself. This “peripheralism” has also laid waste to the best efforts of Iranian advisers who came to Syria to share with their Syrian colleagues the know-how accumulated by the regime in Tehran in crushing the Greens.

In truth, the escalation in Syria took by surprise only the people who never bothered to examine Syria’s population pyramid. It was no “out of the blue” to anybody even slightly familiar with the basic facts on demography and climate in the region. In the Middle East’s long list of hopeless basket cases Yemen is surely beyond competition. However, for quite a while Syria has positioned herself as a formidable contender for respectable second place.

In some respects, the seeds of the current disaster were planted as far back as 1956, when Youssef Helbaoui — head of economic analysis in Syria’s Planning Department — famously declared: “A birth control policy has no reason for being in this country. Malthus could not find any followers among us.” Since then Syria has been living in a state of one uninterrupted demographic cataclysm. The regime was so obsessively pro-natalist that in the early 1970s, the trade and use of contraceptives in Syria were officially banned. By 1975, the birth rate reached 50 live births per 1,000 people, with Hafez al-Assad asserting that a “high population growth rate and internal migration” were responsible for stimulating “proper socio-economic improvements” within the development framework.

Even when other nations in the Middle East began to take measures to curb their population growth as the danger of demographic collapse started to loom over the region, the regime in Syria was struggling to make up its mind on the issue. Only in recent years has the regime introduced some measure of family planning, but by now the sheer amount of population momentum accumulated in previous decades has kept the population swelling to new highs. It’s true that the average Syrian woman entering the child bearing age now is expected to have no more than three children in her lifetime. Yet, the sheer proportion of such young people in the population continues to propel the population forward. And the workforce is still expanding at a neck breaking rate of 4%.

The impact of the rapidly mounting population pressures on the economy has been exacerbated by the steady depletion of natural resources that, critically for the regime, included declining oil production, with an output of 385,000 barrels per day (bpd) as of 2010 against the peak of about 583,000 bpd back in 1996. To give the reader some perception on the decline, even after hitting the bottom the oil sector still accounted for a majority of the country’s export income and about a quarter of government revenues.

The final blow came during the last decade. With Malthus sending broad smiles in the direction of Syria from his grave, the climate change that has hit the region has wrecked Syria’s countryside. Shifts in rain patterns have led to prolonged droughts all around the Middle East in recent years. But their impact was particularly devastating in Syria, where agriculture remains a major part of the economy and the lifestyle of a large section of the population, some 20% of Syria’s GDP being generated by this sector. With water shortages reported in many parts of the country, some rural areas have become impoverished disaster zones. Whole villages and fields have been abandoned, while slums around Syrian cities have been swelling with hundreds of thousands of climate refugees.

In 2009, the International Institute for Sustainable Development noted that a decline in rainfall and subsequent aggravation of water scarcity led to the abandonment of around 160 villages in northern Syria in the period 2007-2008. In eastern Syria, the Inezi tribe saw some 85% of its livestock killed between 2005 and 2010 because of prolonged drought. In 2010 the United Nations estimated that more than a million people have left the northeast of the country, “with farmers simply not cultivating enough food or earning enough money to sustain them.“

Basically, Syria’s GDP per capita was declining during the 1980s and stagnating in the 1990s. This trend was reversed only with the beginning of market reforms in 2000s, but the economic renaissance was largely confined to Damascus and Aleppo and struggled to spread to other parts of the country. A measure of prosperity brought into some cities by the economic liberalization, unevenly distributed in any case, was simply not enough to balance out the tremendous demographic and social pressures that were piling up in provinces like Deraa and Deir ez Zor and spilling into the center from the periphery. Regardless of whether the urban classes in Damascus and Aleppo were fully aware of their precarious existence living by the side of this volcano, they showed limited enthusiasm for fireworks once the volcano finally erupted and sent its flames towards the suburbs of their cities.

To be sure, the peripheral character of the uprising in Syria makes the task of ensuring the survival of the Assad regime rather difficult compared with the experience of its patrons in Tehran. However, getting rid of the regime would be an easy task for the country compared to surviving the post-revolution.

The uprising in Syria has many characteristics of a poor man’s revolt and a “periphery against center” conflict at the same time and as such it’s the exact opposite of the kind of unrest the regime in Tehran was facing in its big cities in 2009.

While the protest movement in Iran was led by the urban classes of the capital and major city centers, the Syrian uprising is very much powered by the same underclass that in Iran is providing the bulk of the recruits for the Baseej squads that eventually crushed the Green opposition. In Iran, Tehran was the epicenter of the protests, but the Syrian revolution started in the heavily Bedouin and undeveloped Deraa, and from its very beginning the uprising featured a rather unusual degree of mobilization in the countryside against the regime. Protests were regularly reported in villages and small towns. During the siege of Deraa and Hama, nearby villagers were reported trying to break blockades with supply convoys and clashing with security cordons.

Even where the Syrian regime was successfully keeping city centers clean of protesters, the unrest persisted in suburbs and the countryside. In far-flung provinces, towns and localities have been changing hands several times, with protesters and the Free Syrian Army reinfiltrating them immediately after the army had departed. The regime is clearly overstretched and struggling to contain such a widely geographically distributed and increasingly militarized unrest, as shown by the recent reports of unrest creeping in towards the centers of Damascus and Aleppo. More critically for the regime, the challenge of defending the country’s energy infrastructure over vast expanses of such a big country seems to be overwhelming the Syrian army, with attacks on oil and gas pipelines escalating.

Much was made of Syria’s sectarian configuration, which is indeed one of the most challenging in the region. The steady stream of reports about sectarian killings in Homs suggests mounting tensions and troubles for the future. Yet, even if stripped of all its minorities down to the bare Sunni heartland, the post-Assad Syria is still very likely to be resistant to any notion of unity and stability.

As a poor man’s revolt, the uprising in Syria, which by all accounts remains predominantly Sunni, is often blessed with the involvement of the most backward and conservative sections of the society. The Syrian opposition abroad may be represented by the finest intellectuals and members of all Syria’s minorities. However, a Voice of America reporter, recently allowed into one of the opposition’s strongholds in the area of Damascus-Douma, couldn’t help noticing how the place was teeming with fully veiled women.

Many parts of the Syrian periphery are severely impoverished and many are heavily tribal. The tribes in Deir ez-Zor are officially allowed to carry arms as a counterweight to the Kurdish population in the North. Tribes in Deraa and other provinces are also quickly becoming militarized.

The potential for internal conflicts over the country’s limited resources remains enormous. The same Deir ez-Zor, for example, is Syria’s poorest province. Yet Deir ez-Zor accounts for 70% of Syria’s oil production. Once the regime falls, the tribes in the province should be expected to demand their share of the oil revenues, either sending the rest of the country to beg the Saudis for a bailout, or starting a new “periphery against center” conflict.

None of this is to say that the survival of Bashar Assad’s regime is necessarily in the interests of the West, Syria’s neighbors and even the Syrians themselves. If only because it’s not obvious that Syria in its current configuration can survive at all. However, while the Western media can keep cheering on the Arab Spring and the triumph of liberal democracy in the Middle East until it’s blue in the face, the basic fact remains that this march to freedom in many parts of the region looks more like a modern species of a classic Malthusian collapse. Syria’s immunity to the Arab Spring was a short-lived notion. However, those who think that a better future beckons for the Middle East had better hope that by the time that future arrives Syria will be still hanging around.

Reading these articles, published between April 2007 and October 2011, it is impossible to avoid the conclusion that, for Chomsky, America is virtually the sole obstacle to peace in the world. Crimes committed by other powers are mentioned occasionally, but only in passing. Nowhere does he acknowledge the fact that many regions have intractable conflicts of their own, which will persist whatever the US does.

For Chomsky, conflict in the Middle East is exclusively the work of America and Israel. There is no struggle for hegemony between Saudi Arabia and Iran, or if any such struggle does exist it can be easily resolved so long as the US is ready to alter its policies. Again, unending war in Afghanistan does not reflect that unfortunate country’s internal divisions and its long history as a focal point of geopolitical rivalry, which now includes a stalemate between India and Pakistan in Kashmir. War in Afghanistan could be ended very simply, if only the US withdrew its forces and brokered a grand diplomatic bargain.

Looking further ahead, there is the prospect of antagonism between China and India. But since there is no major conflict that America has not caused, or at any rate seriously aggravated, there is none that America cannot end. It does not occur to Chomsky that the US may not have the ability to perform these miracles. The fact that America has not brought peace throughout the world only confirms its position as a uniquely powerful force for evil.
[...]
During the past 20 years America has been unhinged by ideological hubris – a disorder that Chomsky cannot analyse or even properly comprehend, since he embodies it himself.

The Abu Qatada case rumbles on interminably. One of the odd aspects I’ve read is the fact that he is apparently wanted on a warrant from other countries such as the US, Germany and Belgium. Now, it seems the problem with deporting him to Jordan is that he may be up against a trial with witnesses against him that MAY have been tortured.

But if there is a warrant against him from Belgium why don’t we just send him there ? I presume the ECHR doesn’t think they torture witnesses. I’ve looked on the web for the possible reasons for this but apart from conspiracy theorists types saying that a trial there as opposed to one in the UK would bring out stuff that our security services might not like, can’t find anything to solve the mystery.

I am not a lawyer, so this is mystifying me quite a lot, is there any one out there with more knowledge who can shed light on this issue ?

A humanist politician in Ireland is trying to prosecute a Catholic Bishop for hate speech. Fine Gael election candidate John Colgan complained to the police about a homily delivered by the Bishop of Raphoe, Philip Boyce, at the Knock shrine, saying that it breached the Prohibition of Incitement to Hatred Act, 1989.

The police have confirmed that they’ve prepared a file and forwarded it to the Director of Public Prosecutions.

Mr Colgan’s complaint referred to two particular passages in Dr Boyce’s homily which he believes broke the law. One referred to the Catholic Church in Ireland being “attacked from outside by the arrows of a secular and godless culture”.

The second stated: “For the distinguishing mark of Christian believers is the fact they have a future; it is not that they know all the details that await them, but they know in general terms that their life will not end in emptiness.”

The Irish Times reported that Mr Colgan said: “I believe statements of this kind are an incitement to hatred of dissidents, outsiders, secularists, within the meaning of the [Incitement to Hatred] Act, who are perfectly good citizens within the meaning of the civil law. The statements exemplify the chronic antipathy towards secularists, humanists etc, which has manifested itself in the ostracising of otherwise perfectly good Irish citizens, who do not share the aims of theVatican’sIrishMissionChurch.”

When Mr Colgan wrote to the Bishop asking for an apology and retraction, Dr Boyce responded that it was not his intention to “disparage in any way the sincere efforts of those with no religious beliefs, atheists, humanists etc. I have too much respect for each human person, since I believe all are created in the image of God. At Knock I wished to encourage and confirm the hope of believers, even in the present challenging times, since trust in God was the theme I was given.”

Our interest in this case comes from the National Secular Society’s long-time campaign to protect free speech from religious restriction.

We were at the forefront of getting the blasphemy law abolished and have opposed the introduction of legislation in England and in the United Nations Human Rights Council that would give religion a special protection from examination, criticism or mockery.

When they are first proposed, these kinds of laws are usually presented as an added protection for believers to practise and observe their religion without interference. But, of course, that right is already protected in just about every human rights charter ever written.

The danger from these laws usually comes from other rather more vague formulations that intend to prevent “religious hatred” or “vilification of religion” or “defamation of religion”. Such phraseology seeks to protect not only the believer’s physical safety, but also his or her feelings and sensitivities. This puts us in a completely different – and dangerous – arena.

And this is why I absolutely oppose John Colgan’s effort to prosecute the Bishop of Raphoe. Free speech is worth nothing unless it is available to everyone, believer and non-believer alike.

Does Mr Colgan not see that his attempted prosecution of the Bishop is no different from the efforts of Islamists to silence their critics through the use of blasphemy laws or by charges of ‘Islamophobia’ and racism? Or the religious activists who try to close art exhibitions that they claim offend their religious feelings?

When street preachers rail against homosexuality, they often upset people who overhear them. Indeed, there have been several cases in the UK of such preachers being arrested for inciting hatred against gay people when, in fact, they were simply repeating what it says in their holy book. Prosecuting them would have meant prosecuting the Bible – not a desirable use of secular courts’ time. The NSS has stood up for the right of street preachers to say what they want, even if someone is offended, just as long as there is no threat to the physical safety of those they are insulting.

Those who choose to stop and listen to homophobic preachers and are enraged should not send for the Old Bill, but should shout back. Differences of opinion should be settled by debate and rational exchange, not through violence or intimidation.

Similarly with Mr Colgan. If he doesn’t like what the Bishop said, he should argue with him, not seek his prosecution.

Actually, there was nothing in what the Bishop said that could be regarded as even remotely inflammatory or an ‘incitement to hatred’. Inciting hatred that will lead to violence against people steps over the line, but criticising their opinions most definitely does not. If the Bishop thinks his pious approach to life is superior to that of atheists, then he should be entitled to say so. Equally, atheists should be able to argue back that the Bishop is deluded and ridiculous, if they want to.

But if in the unlikely event that Mr Colgan’s complaint succeeds, the people ofIrelandwill have to think twice before engaging in vigorous debate on religious matters lest they, too, end up in the dock. This is utterly ridiculous.

Mr Colgan should withdraw his complaint immediately and grow a thicker skin.

Betreff: Fwd: IMPORTANT – private and confidential

Datum: Sat, 14 Aug 2010 06:03:38 +0300 (14.08.2010 05:03:38)

Your Excellency Dr Bouthaina Sha’aban

Special Advisor to President Bashar al Asad

President of the Syrian Arab Republic

Your Excellency, dear Dr Sha’aban

I hope this letter finds you well. Please be assured of my warmest fraternal greetings always. I am writing on behalf of Viva Palestina whose world-wide family of solidarity organisiations and registered charities will soon be setting out for beseiged Gaza again with our fifth convoy of aid. You will recall the outstanding assistance afforded us in Syria on previous occasions over the last period. I am writing once again to ask for Syria’s co-operation although I do not doubt it for one moment. Syria is as I have often said is the last castle of Arab dignity. My only regret is to have to ask for your help again.

This convoy sets out simulataneously on September 18th 2010 from London, from Casablanca and from the Gulf. The London and Gulf columns of vehicles would like to converge on Latakia and sail from there to Al Arish. The Casablanca column hopes to join us in Al Arish and we hope all three columns – hundreds of vehicles strong – will enter Gaza through Rafah without hinderance.

The aid on board the vehicles will be 50% medical equipment and 50% educational, construction and other aid. The organisers of the convoy are Viva Palestina UK, Viva Palestina USA, Viva Palestina Arabia, Viva Palestina Malaysia, Viva Palestina Ireland, the Turkish NGO IHH,the International Committee to break the Seige on Gaza, Kia Ora – the Viva Palestina sister organisation in New Zealand, Viva Palestina Australia, Viva Palestina South Africa, Viva Palestina Spain, Viva Palestina Italia, and Viva Palestina France.

It is intended that the vehicles and passengers should sail to Al Arish on board the Mavi Marmara, which as you know is owned by IHH. If His Excellency the President Bashar al Asad and his government can accept this proposal in principle perhaps you could nominate partner organisation(s) and individuals with whom my colleagues could liaise about the practical details? The liaison from our side would be Mr Kevin Ovenden and Mr Zaher Birawi of Viva Palestina UK (as we believe 2 is enough).

In any case please convey my respect and my admiration to His Excellency the President.

With all good wishes

George Galloway

This is wholly unsurprising, but still nice to see.

You can read the whole email exchange below:

UJS and LSE Jewish Society today welcomed the cancellation of tomorrow’s event featuring Haitham Al Haddad at LSE.

Al Haddad is reported to have made inflammatory remarks branding Jews “the enemies of God, and the descendants of apes and pigs”, quoting the notorious antisemitic forgery the Protocols of the Elders of Zion and citing the declaration that “Jews and Christians to be kuffur, and the necessity of hating them, and avoiding them”. It is also said that he has justified capital punishment for apostates and stated that “Muslims should rule the entire planet with this Islamic law”.

Following representations from the Jewish Society and discussions with the Islamic Society, who were due to host, this event has been cancelled by LSE Students’ Union.

“There’s something deeply flawed in the LSE’s procedures on speaker events when someone like Al Haddad is approved without due consideration.” said Jay Stoll, President of LSE Jewish Society. “We are thankful to LSE Students’ Union for their strong stance against antisemitism and all forms of discrimination.”

Just two weeks ago, LSE Students’ Union passed strong policies to reaffirm its commitment to fighting antisemitism and Islamophobia.

“This move shows that these policies work. We’d like to see other campuses follow the example LSE Students’ Union are setting in tackling racism and discrimination.” said Dan Sheldon, UJS Campaigns Director. “As ever, it is our firm belief that freedom of speech within our univerisities is vital, but not at the expense of student welfare. We should have no truck with those who seek to spread hate on our campuses”.

Haitham Al Haddad is one of the worst hate preachers on the British Islamist circuit. Rather than reprint, again, this obnoxious man’s record, simply a look through the Harry’s Place archive. I would not be at all surprised if he turned out to be the next Anwar Al Awlaki.

In fact, Al Haddad and Awlaki used to appear at the same meetings, back in the day. Here they both are at City University ISOC in 2009:

There is a good argument that Haitham Al Haddad’s views contravenes the new LSE union policy on Islamophobia:

To define Islamophobia as “a form of racism expressed through the hatred or fear of Islam, Muslims, or Islamic culture, and the stereotyping, demonisation or harassment of Muslims, including but not limited to portraying Muslims as barbarians or terrorists, or attacking the Qur’an as a manual of hatred”

Haddad is a man who believes that Islam should be “in power”, supports violent “jihad”, and heads a Sharia “court” that advises women who have been raped as children that if they don’t have sex with their husband on demand, the “angels will curse” them. Moreover, women are not equal to men, and it is an act of kuffar to doubt the wisdom of hand lopping.

Al Haddad has been hosted by a range of University ISOCs and other Islamist institutions over the last few years. His appearance at a particular institution is a sign that it is both political extreme and supportive of Al Haddad’s peculiar blend of racism and misogyny and homophobia.

First of all, the Federation of Student Islamic Societies (FOSIS) held a gala dinner at which Al Haddad was the guest of honour. The event was held – where else - at the East London Mosque/London Muslim Centre in December.

Haitham Al Haddad is also a popular speaker at the East London Mosque/London Muslim Centre, and at its satellite, the equally extreme and obnoxious Lewisham Islamic Centre. You will see he is speaking at the ELM/LMC in March, where his co-speaker is Abdul Qayyum, the Imam of the East London Mosque:

If the ELM/LMC were serious about opposing hatred and bigotry, they’d cancel this event. But, of course, they’re not: so they won’t.

Over the last six years, they’ve had £2.8 million in grants, £221,000 for “community cohesion” work and a further £28,500 for “preventing violent extremism”.

FOSIS loves Haitham Al Haddad. That is because FOSIS is an extremist organisation which pushes hatred into British universities.  Here is a recent FOSIS event, held last week, (also see this screenshot):

FOSIS London invites you to a series of circles of knowledge exclusively for the leaders of London Islamic Societies to be delivered by Sheikh Haitham Al-Haddad. The first halaqa will inshaAllah be held on Thursday 2nd Feb 2012 at 5pm. There will be a sisters only Q&A session with Sheikh Haitham straight after the main halaqah.

If the FOSIS  serious about opposing hatred and bigotry, they’d cancel all events with Al Haddad. But, of course, they’re not: so they won’t.

Which other ISOCs have hosted Haitham Al Haddad in recent years?

Well, of course there is UCL ISOC: which used to be run by the Al Qaeda terrorist, and undiebomber, Abdulmutallab. Al Haddad was invited by UCL ISOC to  speak at their annual conference on 6 September 2009. He had previously been invited to UCL on 2 November 2007. Indeed, Abdulmutallab himself produced an  ”autobiography” which cited Al Haddad’s influence:

Sabeel Retreat Course- Minhaj-ul-Istidhlal.

This course was a 3 day intensive program organised by the Muslim Research and Development Foundation headed by Sheikh Haitham Al Haddad. The MRDF committee includes students from Madinah. University and Professional from a variety of backgrounds.

The course Manhaj Al Istidhlal was the first 3 day intensive retreat organised by MRDF and alhamdulillah I was one of the pioneering students. The course is actually in 3 parts and the 2 parts are to come in the near future. We studied the sources of Knowledge in Islam. We looked at the Quran, Sunnah, Ijma and Qiyaas. The course also included sessions on build many team building and media skills sessions. The other two parts of the course will look at the understanding and implementation of the sources. Alhamdulillah, I passed the course with a Distinction.”

Of course he did.

But of course, UCL Provost Malcolm Grant sees no problem at all. Rather than focus on the promotion of hatred at his university, he says that extremism is ‘made-up‘. As far as this clueless man is concerned, “What induced [Abdulmutallab's] behaviour remains a mystery“.

This is why his university’s ISOC continues to host Al Haddad. So, in October 2010, Al Haddad was back at UCL ISOC, where his co-speaker was Tariq Ramadan:

And they still love him. Here’s a UCU ISOC post from last month, entitled The Top Five Qualities of Inspirational People:

1. Have Conviction in Your Cause
One of the first notable traits of inspiring figures I’ve been surrounded by over the past couple of years is that these people have true conviction in their cause …

I could name many figures here that I’ve been fortunate to meet and work with, including Sr Nai’ma Roberts who is an author and acclaimed editor, or the likes of Sarah Joseph. Others include our profound scholars, many of whom UCL get the blessing of often hosting, such as Sh. Haitham Al Haddad, Sh. Muhammad Al Shareef amongst many others you’ve probably Youtubed at some point this week! What is clear about these people is their conviction in their cause. Ultimately working for the Sake of Allah (swt) and this Ummah can have no better reward and requires a renewal of our conviction in whatever we do every day of our life.

Incidentally, the other hate preacher cited, Muhammad Alshareef, is the man who declared: “alhamdulillah I’m homophobic“.

Which other ISOCs love Haitham Al Haddad? How about this event, inevitably also at the ELM/LMC last year:

The ISOCs involved were: Queen Mary, City, Hertfordshire, Kingston and UEL.

Here are a few more:

Haddad has been to Brunel ISOC on a number of occasions. Here he is addressing “Misconceptions About Islam“.

UEL ISOC hosted an Al Haddad event last year entitled ‘Literally Life Changing Course: Productive Lives‘. They have hosted him on many other occasions, including at their Annual Dinner last year.

City ISOC has also invited Al Haddad to speak many times. Here he is at City ISOC’s Annual Dinner last year. Would you be surprised to hear that it took place at the ELM/LMC?

I could continue posting evidence of Haitham Al Haddad’s very deep reach into British Universities all day. I mean, here he is at Aston ISOC:

And at South Bank University ISOC:

And at Cardiff ISOC:

It is time for the promoting of hatred in Universities by FOSIS and by a myriad of its affiliate ISOCs to stop.