Dear MPAC UK: You are utter morons!

I decided to go to the MPAC UK website today to see what they were saying.

They seem to be a pretty active place, so a good place to catch up on news, especially comment on George Galloways's victory in the by election in Bradford.

George Galloway is a pretty well liked politician

Instead I come across a smear campaign against the local Labour candidate. I think his main crime was being the Labour candidate standing against George Galloway - he was probably the candidate probably even before George Galloway had announced his intention to stand.

The Labour candidate was Muslim and they saw it fit to slander his character in a dispicable manner without the courage to outright say what their allegations were. Worse, they were not allegations of a political nature, but a personal attack on his credentials as a good Muslim, all without having the guts to say it in as many words.

As a Muslim pressure group, they were acting rather unislamic. Like all the other extremists who go against Islam when trying to push Islam. Hypocritical.

If George Galloway had not stood in this constituency, chances are this same MPAC would have been very supportive of the Labour candidate as another Muslim who can represent us in the bigger picture as a new face who is also Muslim.

Instead Since George Galloway decided to also contest the seat, he no longer fit their vision of being a candidate standing against George Galloway, so they went for character assassination.

Dear MPAC: get a grip. If you want to do something, do it right.

Character assasinations are not the way. Remember that the M in MPAC stands for Muslim. Always ask yourself how Muslim you are being in what you are doing.

Comments

dominic decocco (not verified)

I find this blog absolutely pathetic! It completely ignores the implications of vouching for the wrong leader. Imran Hussain (not to be confused with the great Sheikh) showed support for the Iraq War among other atrocities against the Muslims (such as the Prevent Strategy).

This is a public problem and it had to be exposed. It is because of minds like MPACUK that rather than rely on the beraderi system (which have caused Muslim communities to essentially commit suicide) that they actually voted for something which is good for the community. Just because someone has a brown face and a 'Muslim name' does not been they should not be criticised especially as it is a public problem. MPACUK have also criticised many other Muslim MPs who supported Iraq's invasion such as Adam Patel, Shahid Mahmood and others.

Before you come out with slander and vitriolic nonsense, please clarify your facts with the organisation.

dominic decocco (not verified)

Apologies on the above post, I meant Khalid Mahmood.

Imran (not verified)

I think its easy to look at one side.

You seem to negate the fact that Imran Hussain and his guys tried to character assassinate Galloway. And they even committed acts of vandalism. And don't forget postal fraud.

If anything Imran got what deserved. The man has no integrity.

And I don't understand why the writer says that MPAC would have supported Imran if it wasn't for Galloway standing. Given they have heavily criticed Khalid Mahmoud for voting for the Iraq War and for the Terrorism Laws. And so he should be.

Imran (not verified)

Its funny how you call MPAC extremists, but not the neo-conservative Muslim Labour candidate?

I expect those kind of angles from the likes of the Zionist Mad Mel.

Just who side are you on?

You
Member since:
24 June 2005
Last activity:
6 hours 4 min

The article I read wasnt an attack on his policies - in fact it didnt even discuss them!

It was a personal attack on him where the writer was too cowardly to straight out say what he/she meant.

Pure simple character assassination, and we are not in kindergarden where we can say "but miss, he did it first!" when talking about underhanded tactics.

I dont see any discussion of policy in that disgusting post.

I don't know what the candidates credentials are/were and it would have been interesting to actually read what they are, which is why I decided to read in the first place - the article could have been informative if the author wanted, actually discussing policy and why voting for someone who had grown up and taken part in politics (which is something MPAC UK seem to be keen to emphasise!) was wrong simply because George Galloway had decided to stand against him (as opposed to it being the other way around).

The attack was inexcusable, intolerable.

Try to defend MPACUK all you like, but that was simply unislamic.

Its funny how you call MPAC extremists, but not the neo-conservative Muslim Labour candidate?

The article didnt mention this or take him on for such reasons. It was slander and unislamic.

Saying which, care to prove your assertions? I wouldn't mind seeing some evidence.

Just who side are you on?

The side of truth and justice. Blindly supporting "your own" when they are wrong is something forbidden.

Its time to be angry.

dominic decocco (not verified)

Clearly you have not read the multiple articles on the MPACUK website. Secondly, by your standards, what you have done is unislamic by calling MPACUK morons.

To add insult to injury, you still fail to acknowledge how leadership is not a personal issue but a community wide issue and is different. Imran Hussain voted for our brothers and sisters to die in Iraq and Afghanistan and is unrepentant about it. Furthermore, he used smear campaigns and lies against George Galloway.

Imran (not verified)

If you knew his policies, you wouldnt be defending him at all.

Also, Husaain, himself put out the same slurs and alot more on his leaflets around the Muslim only areas, even though, in Galloway's case, it was a complete lie. I don't see the writer highlighting that hypocrisy. So there is a serious double standards to this article. Whether it was done deliberately or by ignorance is another thing. But I do have to ask you again, just who's side are you on?

And given that fact, that Hussain did that, the public should have been warned of him & his character for the vote. The rights of the many outweigh the rights of the individual. That is a principle of Sharia.

The most you can complain about is the tone, but not what was said. Because it was true. Galloway raised the same thing, but only after Hussain tried to defame and lie about him. If it was lie, then Hussain would have taken him to an election court, but he didnt.

And as someone else posted, you deliberately ignored the other articles about his polices that were are on the website at exactly the same time.

You
Member since:
24 June 2005
Last activity:
6 hours 4 min

"miss, he started it first!"

I remember that from primary school. If that is where MPACUK wants to be...

I can complain about what was said. the linked to article is totally unislamic.

I have been open and honest with my criticism while MPACUK hasnt.

and no, I have not deliberately ignored any article on the site. I clicked the tags in the article. but since that foul article left such a bad taste, I wasnt going to go digging too far when I could see clear bias and targetting of an individual by MPACUK.

That article did not discuss any policy - it was a smear campaign clear and simple.

Totally unislamic.

They should change their name if that is how they wish to approach things.

Give me the links providing documentary evidence of that candidates views. I wouldnt mind reading it.

(and no, I wouldnt say that getting a poster replaced in a shop is dirty politics. The shop keeper had no backbone to stand by his convictions. Just like the author of that article had no backbone to stand behind its convictions and used suggestion to suggest something instead of saying it clear and explaining why that was a voting issue.)

The most you can complain about is the tone

No. The content was also unislamic and a slur that was unneeded. Slanderous. there are clear ahadith about slander and backbiting.

The tone and the content are both unislamic.

Its time to be angry.

You
Member since:
24 June 2005
Last activity:
6 hours 4 min

I've just checked the further content you have tagged on this candidate:

I cant see you analysing his policies. Where have they and his past been discussed?

Where have you discussed his policies?

The only discussion on policy is that you dont want the Pakistani community to unite and have one of their own be successful.

Seems like he had the misfortune of being the person going against MPACUK's own agendas and he didnt fit so had to be mowed down and the unislamic nature of this didnt make anyone involved bat an eyelid - worse, we have defenders defending them!

On twitter @mpacuk has linked to a video of some political debate where the Labour candidate makes a fool of himself (allegedly - not finished it yet), but this isnt a support of MPACUK as this content is from another source while what mpacuk did was simply (and from what I can see, only) character assassination.

Its time to be angry.

Imran (not verified)

Its not the fact he simply did it first, its the fact the he did it and its shows how much he is a threat as an elected leader of the constituency & Muslims. Like other sell out Muslims have been.... ...

Imran (not verified)

Bully boy tatics are significant when it comes to Labour politics, especially in beradari system AND is the bane of progressing Muslims to be politically intelligent.

As for the article that has the politics show vid, thats all the evidence you need to know of his views and policies. And the article breaks that down for you.

So Im not sure you have a leg to stand on.

If you want to defend Hussain, and you are, then at least know you are defending a sell out Muslim who support the illegal wars & the "efforts" on extremism.

You
Member since:
24 June 2005
Last activity:
6 hours 4 min

I dont see how that lets MPACUK off the hook for their own actions.

Yes, deflect, blame others. Like any good conspiracy theory. When will the illuminati be blamed?

I cant see MPACUK actually discussing with documentary evidence what this candidate did which was so bad.

If you think the content exists, post me links of articles from MPACUK which show the discussion of policy and why this candidate was not worthy of the vote.

Otherwise, my criticism stands.

(and even if it exists, the referenced post remains despicable and unislamic regardless.)

Its time to be angry.

Imran (not verified)

What is there to let off the hook?

You obviously not taken into account your own misinformation and double standards. In addition, even in Islam, you are permitting to warn people, in a very public way, if they are a threat to you and evidence why they are a threat. All MPAC was doing is showing how he lied about Galloway about a problem that he infact had.

Which comes back to one of my initial points. IF you are unable to accept that & do not even acknowledge the stance of Hussain, after seeing that video, then it just appears that you wrote this article simply to defend Hussain.

You
Member since:
24 June 2005
Last activity:
6 hours 4 min

Imran wrote:
If you want to defend Hussain, and you are, then at least know you are defending a sell out Muslim who support the illegal wars & the "efforts" on extremism.

1. MPACUK have not proven any of this.
2. Even if they had, that article was still despicable and unislamic.

If the candidate had been wrong, supported wrong policies, that STILL does not make MPACUK's actions islamic in any way.

Wrong is wrong even if the attacked is also wrong. Two wrongs do not make a right.

The fact is the labour candidate is irrelevant as MPACUK was wrong and unislamic in its approach.

and no, Islam does not allow character assassination - the articles was not informative, but a personal attack. It didnt even discuss policy. the two are different things.

the candidate's stance is irrelevant and do not justify how MPACUK conducted itsself, just like how Israels actions against the Palestinians do not justify the actions of Assad's regime in Syria.

Accept what is wrong is wrong even if its from your own side/group. Here mpacuk clearly were morons.

Its time to be angry.

Imran (not verified)

Your still not getting it. Hussain lied about GG, saying that he drinks on his leaflets and other things. He leafleted these in Muslim areas only.

In doing so, as far as I can see, MPAC just simply highlighted that and put the slur on him.

If a thief is a threat to society, you are, Islamically, allowed to shame them in public, which in turn shames and defames his character.

If a liar and a corrupt politician who is looking to represent his people is a threat to society, you are allowed to shame him Islamically, on the same principle. This in turns defames his character, out of his own actions. And this is what your complaining about. Do you see your fallacy?

I dont know how many times I have to say it, and you just come back with the same rhetoric. With no Islamic understanding.

You
Member since:
24 June 2005
Last activity:
6 hours 4 min

1. I have not seen those leaflets. Considering the rest of the "evidence" posted against him, I am suspicious to if a smoking gun exists.

2. A thief is allowed to be exposed as a thief in order to stop others getting robbed (the aim is not to defame and slander but to warn and educate and safeguard others). This was clearly not the case here as the attacks were suggestions instead of clear evdence. They were also unrelated to politics or policy.

I am getting it totally - it was a character assassination that you are justifying through "he did it first", which is not a valid Islamic justification.

(I also wonder how much of a role intra communal racism played in MPAC's campaign - braderi voting has never worked for electing MP's, yet it was a major focus against the Labour candidate. Could it be because of the fact that his family background was linked mirpur? Was that enough to turn many in the Pakistani community against him?)

Its time to be angry.

dominic decocco (not verified)

//1. I have not seen those leaflets. Considering the rest of the "evidence" posted against him, I am suspicious to if a smoking gun exists.//

Clearly you have still failed to read anything from our website. Is states quite clearly here-

"The constituents of Bradford West have a clear choice between the councillor who represents the party that thinks it has a right to rule in the Northern seats, that started the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, that brought the economy crashing down around our ears, or the candidate who is a tee-totaller and has consistently shown he has the courage of a lion, who has taken on the Zionist scourge, who and is a defender of Muslims and Bradford West's last hope."

The above paragraph is clearly shows reasons why not to vote for Imran Hussain. If you read the above paragraph, you'll know that this is not slander. Thirdly, how is a character assassination of those who are stealing the rights of people not Islamically justified?

However what is slander is calling MPACUK morons and trying to imply we are racist. Read Quran 49:12 where slander and suspicion are forbidden.

The beraderi system IS a racist system as you vote for someone on racial supremacy and not actual policies.

TPOS
Member since:
8 November 2008
Last activity:
5 days 14 hours
Imran (not verified)

You wrote:
1. I have not seen those leaflets. Considering the rest of the "evidence" posted against him, I am suspicious to if a smoking gun exists.

This is what I'm saying, you obviously have not done your research, it was in the Sunday Times on the 1st April that Imran distributed those leaflets. Just because you did not do your research, doesn't mean there is no proof. Hell, even after you watch what he said on Live TV, you still deny that there is proof that he has non-conservative views & policies.

The fact that you do not even recognise the possibility, shows that you are not even considering the other side at all. Which again, makes me ask, whos side are you on? Cos again, it just seems your trying to stick up for Hussain, but why?

And your kidding right? Beradari has always been a way for the Asian Labour to get their whole community to vote. I am in dismay how much reality your dismissing.

The Lamp
Member since:
10 November 2008
Last activity:
1 year 7 months

MPAC did just accuse Imran Hussein of belonging to the "party that brought the economy crashing down and started wars in Afghanistan and Iraq".
But that by itself, does not show that he's in favour of the Iraq war or the way the economy was handled.

He might be- in that case MPAC should fish out those policies, back them up and argue against them properly!
It's the simple yet Islamic thing to do.

"If you stand for nothing, you'll fall for anything!"

Motto of Outlandish

Imran (not verified)

The Lamp wrote:
MPAC did just accuse Imran Hussein of belonging to the "party that brought the economy crashing down and started wars in Afghanistan and Iraq".
But that by itself, does not show that he's in favour of the Iraq war or the way the economy was handled.

He might be- in that case MPAC should fish out those policies, back them up and argue against them properly!
It's the simple yet Islamic thing to do.

Again, if you look at The Politics Show clip, which was on MPAC website and everywhere else. Hussain said, he supports the wars. EVEN when the current Labour opposition doesn't!

You
Member since:
24 June 2005
Last activity:
6 hours 4 min

In the clip I saw of the Politics show he stated that soldiers do not make policy but those that do should withdraw the troops.

We can disagree about whether it should be a quick straight away withdrawal or there should be something structured leaving behind something that can be governed (and that has no clear cut answer because the people who suffer are not the armchair critics at MPAC but the afghans, who suffer now and will suffer later).

However, what I did not hear him was state in that video was that he supports war and that he supports the invasion of Iraq.

For the records, I have no problem with George Galloway and think he is a good person, good politician, with conviction and worthy of winning. I just have an issue with how MPACUK conducts its affairs.

They need to drop the word "Muslim" from their name if they feel they can conduct themselves in this unislamic manner.

Its time to be angry.

Looking To See
Member since:
24 December 2008
Last activity:
2 days 8 hours

salaam, i dont get the point of the main article discussed here (http://www.mpacuk.org/story/260312/bottoms-imran-hussain.html). it doesnt have any point? except dissing?

or is my inferior mind missing something?

and i think that's what You is referring to. this article is pointless. ISlamically or otherwise. It's not informative and just seems to be dissing. slyly.

I havent heard much about MPACUK. well not much at all really, BUT recently ive been pretty disgusted by THIS article. the title..is appalling. and that article is quite old (2007).

while googling for the link to this article i found this. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M9hu2jUeKNQ Im totally disgusted.

Is it true? Is it kind? Is it necessary?

dominic decocco (not verified)

The point of this article was quite simple: it was to show how Imran Hussain is lying to the people of Bradford about his campaign. Seeing as he was hell bent on destroying the ummah (so far done a terrific job with supporting Iraq and Afghanistan invasions), we felt we have to stop him as Islam tells us to speak out against injustice. If you have a problem with that, then leave Islam.

Secondly, what's wrong with Shut the Fiqh Up? It is a fact that our institutions judge people not on their understanding of Islam and their love for justice but on superficial things such as beard lengths and leather socks.

I am disgusted by the slanderous article and your response.

Looking To See
Member since:
24 December 2008
Last activity:
2 days 8 hours

dominic decocco wrote:
The point of this article was quite simple: it was to show how Imran Hussain is lying to the people of Bradford about his campaign. Seeing as he was hell bent on destroying the ummah (so far done a terrific job with supporting Iraq and Afghanistan invasions),

i didnt understand that from the article.

dominic decocco wrote:

Secondly, what's wrong with Shut the Fiqh Up? It is a fact that our institutions judge people not on their understanding of Islam and their love for justice but on superficial things such as beard lengths and leather socks.

I am disgusted by the slanderous article and your response.

ive never heard of or met someone who judges someone else on their beard length..they're a minority. so even if they were involved politically it wouldnt make that much of a difference. THIS article on the other hand hurts "moderate" muslims who try to care. but totally put them off. im totally put off. i personALLY dont think i'll ever work with MPACUK. just coz of that article.

you used a very rude expression and replaced a very rude word with "fiqh" how is that in any way islamic?

Is it true? Is it kind? Is it necessary?

dominic decocco (not verified)

//i didnt understand that from the article.//

It wasn't just one article but quite a few on Galloway. If you can't read and deduce facts, it isn't my problem.

//ive never heard of or met someone who judges someone else on their beard length..they're a minority.//

I beg to differ. They are the majority. For God's sake brothers won't even pray behind each other because of fiqh issues! These are in major Isocs and mosques around the country so please, don't feed me that nonsense.

// THIS article on the other hand hurts "moderate" muslims who try to care. but totally put them off. im totally put off. i personALLY dont think i'll ever work with MPACUK. just coz of that article.//

How can you be supportive of those who still refuse to apologise for the massacres in Iraq and Afghanistan! What kind of disgusting, unislamic filthy imperialist loving moron are you?

//you used a very rude expression and replaced a very rude word with "fiqh" how is that in any way islamic?//

How is offensive? The word fiqh in this context is applied to the majority of morons who call themselves Muslims who prioritise fiqh over their brethren! Look at the Muslims response to Shaima al Awadi's death who only go on about the fact she is shia!

I am not sure MPACUK would want to work for you because clearly you don't care about the oppressed.

Looking To See
Member since:
24 December 2008
Last activity:
2 days 8 hours

you seem to be missing a massive point here. we are talking about a PARTICULAR article. we feel this article was written for no reason. and cotributes NOTHING. "You" believes this article is character assasination. i might do so if today wasnt the first time i came across this term.

so...beard-measuring-brothers are the majority eh? so... Muslimhands, muslim aids, and all those other muslim charities are run by who? the minority?

what the flip are you talking about?! im talking about the "shut the fiqh up" article. how am i a (let me quote) "disgusting, unislamic filthy imperialist loving moron" wouah man. these ae some harsh words right there.

you're basically saying "shut the eff up" to fiqh. the question is HOW is that NOT offensive? the word fiqh has a specific meaning. so dont tell me "in this context it means..."

Is it true? Is it kind? Is it necessary?

Looking To See
Member since:
24 December 2008
Last activity:
2 days 8 hours

just one more thing. "You" i know moron isnt such a strong word. and someone defending them just called me that. but i guess that's the only thing that they got against you. calling mpac moron. you shouldnt do what you dont want others to do. that's all.

Is it true? Is it kind? Is it necessary?

Imran (not verified)

Lilly wrote:
you're basically saying "shut the eff up" to fiqh.

Don't be silly, if you actually read or watch the video, they are making fun of those Muslims who go on about fiqh issues instead of the suffering of the Ummah. Even some Muslims use the whole fiqh arguments to put down muslims who say the exact same thing as scolars & excuse themselves from listening to the truth.

This is a common complain amoung the Muslim activist community amoung all organisations. Even amoung non-Muslims who tackle Islamophobia and complain about Muslim apathy and generally lack of will to defend themselves.

Imran (not verified)

Lilly wrote:
ive never heard of or met someone who judges someone else on their beard length..they're a minority. so even if they were involved politically it wouldnt make that much of a difference. THIS article on the other hand hurts "moderate" muslims who try to care. but totally put them off. im totally put off. i personALLY dont think i'll ever work with MPACUK. just coz of that article.

you used a very rude expression and replaced a very rude word with "fiqh" how is that in any way islamic?

Again coming to this point, people who are not out there pleading "moderate" non-political Muslims to get active for the sake of their Ummah, get this alot! As well as "your not even a scholar, why should we listen to you?" Even though they say the exact same things as the scholar. And its one of the main excuses you get from Muslims. Ive heard this complaint amoung members of PSC as well as other politcal orgs.

Once you start trying to reform the way Muslim relate to Islam, even if done in the polite way, you will get the same excuses.

Your just transplanting your experience on to everyone else. Believe it or not, ive seen Muslim join MPACUK off the back of it. Because, they and others are sick to death of the hypocrisy of the muslim masses and their institutions. If I had more time, I would join them too.

Pages