,,,,,,even in sajda at the Prophet's Mosque (scws) Allah yarxamu, amiin

Rocko leave our Omani akhwaan alone man Snow in Aussie land?

Originally posted by Gordon Gekko: Almost as much as Riyaales personal budget. Their catching up. Waa runtaa. Riyaale uu hunguri badanyahey but I thought our Somali 'economist' would do better than that. Save the strawman comments and give us your thoughts on GBP 16m being spent on a conference. You can build 2 decent airports and a decent highway with that sort of money.

Overslept,,,,,,

Dlt

Blah blah blah blahdy blah You would probably have a problem with someone who states the sky is blue! Save the gibberish, you are not exactly the first nor will be the last of the ‘oooh I have a problem with Islam brigade’. Difference is some of your predecessors actually had an idea of what they were talking about. I no longer wish to waste time with ignorance disguised as ‘enlightened’. I'll leave it to Naden to pull you up on your earlier statement. Tata

then why a Diety has to order a Human messenger to fight people and take their sacred lives untill they beleive in what he says? Hmmm, I wonder if Naden is prepared to correct you on this,,,,,,,

21/7 suspect relives burka flight An alleged 21 July bomber took a burka from his mother-in-law to escape London in disguise because he feared police would shoot him, a court has heard. Yassin Omar, 26, from north London, has admitted setting off a device on the Tube, but says it was in protest at the Iraq war and not meant to be deadly. He said he ran away after police killed Jean Charles de Menezes by mistake, fearing he would be shot too. Six men deny conspiracy to murder and cause explosions in July 2005. 'Felt bad' In his second day of giving evidence at Woolwich Crown Court, Mr Omar told the court that when his device was detonated it sounded like a champagne cork and some fellow passengers "thought it was a joke". "Some of them, they looked alarmed. Some of the ladies, they panicked," he said. "I felt quite bad - my intention was not to do that to people." He added that the incident was timed before lunch when there were fewer people on the Tube, because he wanted to avoid a "stampede". When he heard of the shooting of Mr Menezes he thought his co-defendant Hussain Osman had been killed, he went on. He fled to Birmingham by coach, dressed in a long black burka - a garment that covers the face and body - and carrying a white handbag. "I was very scared, I thought they would have shot me dead," he said. "I realised that this thing had taken a wrong turn and now an innocent man had been shot." Mr Omar said he took one of his mother-in-law's burkas because she "had lots of them", adding that without a veil the police would have found him easily. 'Taser gun' He was arrested at a house by armed officers from West Midlands Police on 27 July. The defendant said he was woken by "something like a robot making a lot of noise" and fled to the bathroom where he was found standing in the bath, fully clothed and wearing a rucksack. "I realised that today might be my last. I was praying to Allah and thinking they are going to shoot me and I am not going to have a chance. "I thought if I was wearing a bag they would have to think twice and ask what I had got in there - then I would have had a chance to explain." Mr Omar claimed he was beaten by the officers and hit with a Taser stun gun during the arrest. "It was the worst feeling," he said. "It was like someone putting electricity into me. They put the Taser on my head and my heart. "I thought 'Because they cannot shoot me they are trying to electrocute me to death'." Mr Omar and Mr Osman, 28, of no fixed address, are on trial with Muktar Said Ibrahim, 29, from Stoke Newington, north London, Ramzi Mohammed, 25, of North Kensington, west London, Adel Yahya, 24, of High Road, Tottenham, north London, and Manfo Kwaku Asiedu, 34, of no fixed address.

'Allah instructed' 21/7 suspect An alleged 21/7 bomber has told a court Allah instructed him to put a rucksack on when police came to arrest him. Woolwich Crown Court heard officers almost shot Yassin Omar, who was found standing in a bath wearing what they believed to be a bag of explosives. But the 26-year-old denied wanting to be killed by police with a Koran on his back in order to become a martyr. Six men deny conspiracy to murder and conspiracy to cause explosions on London transport on 21 July 2005. Earlier this week, Mr Omar admitted setting off a device on a Tube train near Warren Street, but says it was carried out in protest at the Iraq war and was not meant to be deadly. Bucket and books Giving evidence for the fourth day, he was asked if he wanted to die with the Koran on his back. "That is not the case," he replied. "If they saw I had a rucksack on me then they would think twice before they shot me, and it worked. Allah answered my supplication," he said. Mr Omar fled London in a burka following the 21 July attacks and was arrested at a house in Birmingham six days later, the court has heard. The jury was shown the rucksack he was wearing when he was arrested, which had contained a bucket, mobile phone charger and some Islamic books. 'Next bomb' Mr Omar was accused of telling a man he stayed with in Birmingham that his actions on 21 July were a "failed attempted bombing". He denied this. Stephen Kamlish QC, for co-defendant Manfo Kwaku Asiedu, said: "You said you were worried about the next attempt." "These stories just keep on getting more fantastic. That never happened," Mr Omar replied. Mr Kamlish later told the court that the "next one" Mr Omar was referring to was a bomb that had been left in the sideboard at his flat - which Mr Asiedu claims to have dismantled. Mr Omar, of New Southgate, north London, is charged alongside Muktar Said Ibrahim, 29, from Stoke Newington, north London; Ramzi Mohammed, 25, of North Kensington, west London; Hussain Osman, 28, of no fixed address; Adel Yahya, 24, of High Road, Tottenham, north London; and Mr Asiedu, 34, of no fixed address. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6643411.stm

Remember this? Three guilty over 21/7 bomb plot Three men have been found guilty of plotting to carry out suicide bombings on London's transport network on 21 July 2005. Muktar Said Ibrahim, 29, Yassin Omar, 26, and Ramzi Mohammed, 25, were convicted of conspiracy to murder. Verdicts on three other defendants, who all deny charges against them, are still being considered by the jury. Woolwich Crown Court heard how the cell tried to set off bombs on the Tube and a bus, two weeks after the 7/7 attacks. Majority verdict The suspects had claimed the bombs were fakes, and their actions had been intended as a protest against the war in Iraq. Majority verdict The suspects had claimed the bombs were fakes, and their actions had been intended as a protest against the war in Iraq. After unanimously returning three guilty verdicts against Ibrahim, Omar and Mohammed, jurors were sent out to continue their deliberations on the three other defendants, Hussain Osman, 28, Manfo Kwaku Asiedu, 34, and Adel Yahya, 24. The judge, Mr Justice Fulford QC, said he would accept a majority verdict of 10-to-2. Mohammed had targeted a train at Oval station in south London, Omar was on board a train at Warren Street in central London and Ibrahim had boarded a bus in Hackney, east London. The six men have been on trial for six months. The trial heard that dozens of people would have been killed if the bombs, which were made of a similar hydrogen peroxide mixture used by the 7 July attackers, had detonated properly. Mohammed and Ibrahim were captured a week later in a flat in west London. Omar was arrested in Birmingham after travelling there disguised as a woman in a burka. Nigel Sweeney QC, prosecutor, had told the trial the men chose a date "just 14 days after the carnage of July 7". But the trial heard evidence that the conspiracy "had been in existence long before the events of July 7" and was not a "hastily-arranged copycat" operation. Mr Sweeney said: "The failure of those bombs to explode owed nothing to the intention of these defendants, rather it was simply the good fortune of the travelling public that day that they were spared." http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6284350.stm

I'm laughing at the responses LoL

Thanks akhi Nur I think the focus on Islam/Muslims in recent times has been a good thing. From the initial tone of negativity in the media to todays better understanding of various issue like extremism. It has also made many Muslims wake up from the slumber and re-read the sources, understand, reflect and actually have an informed opinion on many issues. That re-reading of the sources to one's self rather than from a third party has also made many Muslims have correct interpretations of issue which affect them on a daily basis. Then you have the internet boom in Islamic site/works etc. Many sites have been set up for people to have a correct interpretation of Islam which has had a great effect in terms of countering the misconceptions. All in all, recent years have made many Muslims stand up rather than sit and be passive.

Anyone recognise the player in the middle (in red)?

But there is a difference in reaction from Muslims when 9/11, 7/7 occured and last week. A positive no?

Reer UK maxaa maanta ku dacay? Monday blues?

^^So who is she?

There are far more AKs available on the black market than M16s. Why is that? Russian incompetence! Keen to support anti-colonial movements in Asia and Africa, the Soviets proliferated the rifle, sometimes for free, to pro-Soviet regimes or insurgents.

JZK Rudy A good read,,,,,here is more Question: I hope you scholars will help me get rid of these confusions I have been having since the Sept 11 incident, especially as regards some Qur’anic verses. These verses totally contradict what Muslims say that their religion calls for peace and denounces violence. Mind you, though not a Muslim, but I don’t hate Muslims. I just need shedding light on some issues. How would you interpret a verse like this (And slay them wherever ye catch them…)? (Al-Baqarah 2: 191) and (…But if they turn away, seize them and slay them wherever ye find them; and (in any case) take no friends or helpers from their ranks) (An-Nisaa' 4: 89) I will really appreciate your quick reply. Answer: Shedding more light on this issue, Dr. Muzammil H. Siddiqi, President of the Fiqh Council ofNorth America, states the following: Thank you very much for your kind words that you do not hate Muslims. Hate is not good for any person. I want to assure you that we Muslims also do not hate non-Muslims, be they Christians, Jews, Hindus, Buddhist or followers of any religion or no religion. Our religion does not allow killing any innocent person regardless of his or her religion. The life of all human beings is sacrosanct according to the teachings of the Qur’an and the guidance of our blessed Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him and upon all the Prophets and Messengers of Allah). The Qur’an says about the prohibition of murder, (…Take not life, which Allah hath made sacred, except by way of justice and law: thus does He command you, that ye may learn wisdom.) (Al-An`am 6: 151) and Allah says in the Qur’an, (Nor take life, which Allah has made sacred, except for just cause. And if anyone is slain wrongfully, We have given his heir authority (to demand Qisas or to forgive): but let him not exceed bounds in the matter of taking life; for he is helped (by the law)) (Al-Israa’ 17: 33). According to the Qur’an, killing any person without a just cause is as big a sin as killing the whole humanity and saving the life of one person is as good deed as saving the whole humanity. (See Al-Ma’idah 5: 32) However, your question is valid, then how come the Qur’an says, (kill them wherever you find them…) as it is mentioned in Surah Al-Baqarah 2: 191 and Surah An-Nisaa’ 4: 89. The answer is simple and that is, you should read these verses in their textual and historical context. You should read the whole verse and it is better that you read few verses before and few after. Read the full text and see what is said: (Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for Allah loves not transgressors. And kill them wherever ye catch them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out; for tumult and oppression are worse than slaughter; but fight them not at the Sacred Mosque, unless they (first) fight you there; but if they fight you, kill them. Such is the reward of those who reject faith. But if they cease, Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful. And fight them on until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in Allah; but if they cease, let there be no hostility except to those who practice oppression. The prohibited month, for the prohibited month, and so for all things prohibited, there is the law of equality. If then any one transgresses the prohibition against you, transgress ye likewise against him. But fear Allah, and know that Allah is with those who restrain themselves.) (Al-Baqarah 2: 190-194) For your second quotation also read the full text: (They but wish that ye should reject Faith, as they do, and thus be on the same footing (as they): so take not friends from their ranks until they flee in the way of Allah (from what is forbidden). But if they turn renegades, seize them and slay them wherever ye find them; and (in any case) take no friends or helpers from their ranks. Except those who join a group between whom and you there is a treaty (Of peace), or those who approach you with hearts restraining them from fighting you as well as fighting their own people. If Allah had pleased, He could have given them power over you, and they would have fought you: therefore if they withdraw from you but fight you not, and (instead) send you (guarantees of) peace, then Allah hath opened no way for you (to war against them). Others you will find that wish to gain your confidence as well as that of their people: every time they are sent back to temptation, they succumb thereto; if they withdraw not from you nor give you (guarantees) of peace besides restraining their hands, seize them and slay them wherever ye get them; in their case We have provided you with a clear argument against them.?w (An-Nisaa’ 4: 89-91) Now tell me honestly, do these verses give a free permission to kill any one anywhere? These verses were revealed by God to Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him), at the time when Muslims were attacked by the non-Muslims of Makkah on a regular basis. They were frightening the Muslim community of Madinah. One may say using the contemporary jargon that there were constant terrorist attacks on Madinah and in this situation Muslims were given permission to fight back the “terrorist”. These verses are not a permission for “terrorism” but they are a warning against the “terrorists.” But even in these warnings you can see how much restraint and care is emphasized. It is important that we study the religious texts in their proper context. When these texts are not read in their proper textual and historical contexts they are manipulated and distorted. It is true that some Muslims manipulate these verses for their own goals. But this is not only with Islamic texts, it is also true with the texts of other religions. I can quote dozens of verses from the Bible which seem very violent, if taken out from their historical context. These Biblical texts have been used by many violent Jewish and Christian groups. Crusaders used them against Muslims and Jews. Nazis used them against Jews. Recently Serbian Christians used them against Bosnian Muslims. Zionists are using them regularly against Palestinians. Let me mention just a few verses from the Old Testament and New Testament and tell me what do you say about them: “When the LORD your God brings you into the land where you are entering to possess it, and clears away many nations before you, the Hittites and the Girgashites and the Amorites and the Canaanites and the Perizzites and the Hivites and the Jebusites, seven nations greater and stronger than you. And when the LORD your God delivers them before you and you defeat them, then you shall utterly destroy them. You shall make no covenant with them and show no favor to them. (Deutronomy 7:1-2) “When you approach a city to fight against it, you shall offer it terms of peace. If it agrees to make peace with you and opens to you, then all the people who are found in it shall become your forced labor and shall serve you. However, if it does not make peace with you, but makes war against you, then you shall besiege it. When the LORD your God gives it into your hand, you shall strike all the men in it with the edge of the sword. Only the women and the children and the animals and all that is in the city, all its spoil, you shall take as booty for yourself; and you shall use the spoil of your enemies which the LORD your God has given you… Only in the cities of these peoples that the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance, you shall not leave alive anything that breathes (Deutronomy 20:10-17) Now therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known man intimately. But all the girls who have not known man intimately, sparefor yourselves. (Numbers 31:17-18) Even in the New Testament we read the following statement attributed to Jesus saying to his disciples: “I tell you that to everyone who has, more shall be given, but from the one who does not have, even what he does have shall be taken away. But these enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, bring them here and slay them in my presence." (Luke 19:26-27) source

we are all Somalis, we all speak the same language, have the same culture, have the same deen etc,,,,,,,but i supported the TFG/Ethio massacre! *bump*

^^I dont want anything to do with it! I will be in trouble when we get back to Hargaisa and everyone will blame me!

^^Borame maxaad ka dooni?

Cameron got it wrong The Tory leader was wrong to accuse Hizb ut-Tahrir of anti-semitism. We are utterly opposed to any form of race-based discrimination or hatred. At PMQs this week David Cameron accused Hizb ut-Tahrir of being anti-semitic. He is not the first, nor will he be the last, but he is, on this as well as many other matters, utterly wrong. Hizb ut-Tahrir, while utterly and unashamedly opposed to Israel, is similarly utterly and unashamedly opposed to racism, tribalism, nationalism and any other form of race-based discrimination or hatred. Mr Cameron said: "This organisation [Hizb ut-Tahrir] says, 'Jews should be killed wherever they are found'." Utter nonsense! Mr Cameron has either not done his research properly, or deliberately misled the House of Commons. He has selectively misquoted a Qur'anic verse which defines rules of engagement. The verse addresses the repelling of invasion or occupation of land, and explicitly addresses that and nothing else: "Kill them [meaning invading forces - NOT Jews] wherever you find them, and drive them out from whence they drive you out; for persecution (oppression or sedition) is worse than killing." The same verse then clearly goes on to say: "But if they desist, then, verily, Allah is Forgiving and Merciful." Read in its entirety it addresses those resisting occupation to not only fight, but to cease fighting when the invader ceases fighting - ie not to transgress limits and take wanton revenge: the motivation in war that led Salahuddin to liberate Jerusalem, but not to be vindictive to his enemy. It is rich of Mr Cameron, who supported the war that has killed more than 650,000 civilians in Iraq, as well as backing the Israeli bombardment of Lebanon last summer, to lecture others on the sanctity of life. Cameron has selectively misquoted a phrase from a leaflet that was written in Palestine, for Palestine and in the context of the massacre in Jenin. However, there are other problems - outside of culture, language and religion - in the context of the on-going occupation of Palestine, that confuse the matter further, which allow people such as David Cameron to make false accusations of anti-semitism to silence criticisms of Israel. One problem is that Israel calls itself the Jewish state. It has inextricably linked race with statehood. Hence, to attack or criticise the regime invites criticism that you are attacking or criticising the race. I have heard this concern from anti-Zionist Rabbis, who understandably resent the continued association between Zionism and Judaism. Also see Seth Freedman's blog. Islam's history in the region - and what Hizb ut-Tahrir argues for as a model of governance in the Muslim world - has an excellent and proud track record of unifying diverse people as citizens. Jews, Muslims and Christians lived largely in peace and security for much of the last 14 centuries in Palestine, in Islamic Spain and under the Ottoman Caliphate. In the 1950s Hizb ut-Tahrir issued a draft constitution for an Islamic state in which it clearly says: "All citizens of the state shall be treated equally regardless of religion, race, colour or any other matter. The State is forbidden to discriminate among its citizens in all matters, be it ruling or judicial, or caring of affairs." Our vision for tolerance in the Islamic world, under the Caliphate, has ample historical precedent. The Caliph of the Abbasids famously said that Europe's loss was the gain for the Caliphate when welcoming Jewish refugees from Europe in 1492. Islam's system of governance is built upon a concept of citizenship regardless of ethnicity, gender or creed. The Qur'an makes this clear when it states "O mankind! Indeed we have created you from a single male and female and We have made you into peoples and tribes so that you know each other, Verily the noblest among you in the sight of Allah is the one who is most deeply conscious of Him." Many have acknowledged this history. Carly Fiorina, ex-CEO of Hewlett-Packard, commented on the Islamic Caliphate saying: "And perhaps we can learn a lesson from his example: it was leadership based on meritocracy, not inheritance. It was leadership that harnessed the full capabilities of a very diverse population-that included Christianity, Islamic, and Jewish traditions. This kind of enlightened leadership - leadership that nurtured culture, sustainability, diversity and courage - led to 800 years of invention and prosperity." Cecil Roth, in his book, The House of Nasi: Dona Gracia, mentions that the treatment of the Jews at the hands of the Ottoman Caliphate attracted Jews from all over Western Europe. The land of Islam became the land of opportunity. Jewish physicians from the school of Salanca were employed in the service of the Sultan and the Viziers (ministers). In many places glass making and metalworking were Jewish monopolies, and with their knowledge of foreign languages, they were the greatest competitors of the Venetian traders." Dr William Draper said, in History of the Intellectual Development of Europe: "During the period of the Caliphs the learned men of the Christians and the Jews were not only held in great esteem but were appointed to posts of great responsibility, and were promoted to the high-ranking job in the government ... He (Caliph Haroon Rasheed) never considered to which country a learned person belonged nor his faith and belief, but only his excellence in the field of learning." In his book, The Call to Islam, Sir Thomas Arnold wrote: "We have never heard about any attempt to compel non-Muslim parties to adopt Islam or about any organised persecution aiming at exterminating Christianity. If the Caliphs had chosen one of these plans, they would have wiped out Christianity as easily as what happened to Islam during the reign of Ferdinand and Isabella in Spain; by the same method which Louis XIV followed to make Protestantism a creed whose followers were to be sentenced to death; or with the same ease of keeping the Jews away from Britain for a period of 350 years." All this proves that the period of hostility between different communities in the Muslim world is an aberration of the past 50 to 80 years. The rights of Jews and other non-Muslims are enshrined within statuary Islamic law (sharia). These were laid down by the Prophet Muhammad when he established the first Islamic state in Medina in the 7th century, when he said, "Whoever harms a dhimmi (non-Muslim citizen) has harmed me." Despite this, accusations of anti-semitism will probably continue for many people, not only Muslims. However, although Muslims today find themselves in the McCarthyist environment of the war on terror, anyone who cares for the future of the Muslim world should be willing to discuss any model of governance that can bring peace, security and stability for all people in the region.

Hearts and minds of young Muslims will be won or lost in the mosques The new honesty of community leaders must be matched by a strategy from government that is patient and painstaking Madeleine Bunting Monday July 9, 2007 The Guardian Two days after the 7/7 bombings in London two years ago, Muslim community leaders gathered at the London Muslim Centre to consider the impact of the attacks and who might have organised them. Many present refused to accept it might have been Muslims - the common refrain was that it could have been the French, because they had just lost the bid to host the Olympics. The discussion had the younger generation of professional British-born Muslims grinding their teeth with frustration at the stubborn naivety of an older generation of leadership. Their elders had completely failed to grasp how the community had been swept up in a global political conflict that was interacting with a local crisis of identity and generational conflict. Wind forward two years and the story has changed. On Friday, a campaign was launched with full-page newspaper adverts condemning the attempted bombings in London and Glasgow and pledging full support to avert future attacks. On Saturday, Muslim activists and imams from across the country gathered in London to consider what could be done to tackle extremism. Among the speakers were members of the Metropolitan police's counter-terrorism operations. More advertising campaigns are planned this week. Britain's Muslims have launched their most concerted attempt yet to win the hearts and minds of the public and distance themselves from the activities of violent extremists who claim to act in the name of their faith. For a younger generation of community activists it's been the breakthrough for which they've been waiting for years. They admit that there has been denial in the community, which has inspired fanciful conspiracy theories, but what has enabled them to challenge that has been the sheer volume of evidence in recent trials. Violent extremism cannot be dismissed as the responsibility of the odd loner. Last week saw a succession of appalling news stories. First it was the shocking cases of the attempted London and Glasgow bombings in which respected doctors and fathers were alleged to have been the ringleaders. Then there were two terrorism trials, in Manchester and Woolwich, which resulted in three convictions. For an older generation who migrated from impoverished areas of the rural subcontinent to offer their families a better life in the UK, this crisis is utterly, and painfully, bewildering: where did they go wrong? Such is their confusion and the pressure they are under, it might force this generation out of community leadership. Meanwhile, among their offspring, the crisis is prompting a huge soul-searching into what in their faith, historical and cultural background could give space for extremism to flourish. Many Muslims are incensed by injustice and angry about British foreign policy, but they don't plot to bomb innocent civilians - so what is it about these jihadis that draws them into such atrocities? And what do they use to license their outrage to commit such terrible crimes? In answering such questions, a new honesty and self-criticism is striking. In the past few days, key Muslim community activists have admitted to me that what worries them is how certain theological issues have not been properly clarified, and can be used to justify extremism. The most important is the age-old distinction between dar al-Islam (the land of Islam) and dar al-harb (the land of the other, of unbelief - or of war, according to the literal translation from the Arabic). This demonisation of all that is not Muslim is the "paradigmatic, instinctive response that people fall back on in a moment of crisis", I was told. Extremists such as Hizb ut-Tahrir use this dualism, as do jihadis, to justify their contempt for the rights - and lives - of the kufr, the unbeliever. Various Islamic theologians have tried to challenge this intolerance. Dr Zaki Badawi said it was unacceptable to designate the UK as dar al-harb, and declared a third category, the land of contract - dar al-sulh - where Muslims have entered a contract to obey the law in exchange for protection and freedom. Significantly, this was an idea promoted by the controversial Egyptian theologian Yusuf al-Qaradawi, that hate figure of the neocons, over 20 years ago. There are other equally fraught issues, such as the legacy of anti-colonial thinkers like Sayyid Qutb and Maulana Mawdudi, whose inflammatory, anti-western rhetoric, taken out of context, can sound much like a charter for jihad. Their books are still sold by mainstream Muslim organisations: why, asks Yahya Birt, a prominent member of this new reforming generation, in a recent posting on his blog. Is it tribal loyalty or what, he asks. What's remarkable is that these subjects are being aired in public and even discussed with non-Muslims; for years, the charge of washing dirty linen in public ensured silence. But Britain is now the arena for one of the most public, impassioned and wide-ranging debates about Islam anywhere in the world. This debate won't kill off extremism, but it's one of several crucial elements required in a patient, painstaking strategy to win the hearts and minds of young Muslims. The new security minister. Admiral Sir Alan West. acknowledged as much yesterday when he spoke of a 10- to 15-year strategy to tackle extremism. Gordon Brown was back on the hearts-and-minds theme last week - it's been one of the most familiar refrains of the government since 7/7. But what he proposed - a "propaganda effort" - shows how unfamiliar he is with this brief: how could he imagine propaganda will have any effect on media-literate youngsters deeply sceptical after Iraq of anything associated with this Labour government? The truth is that the government's hearts-and-minds strategy has been a fiction of speech writers. It has foundered in the break-up of the Home Office, been split across departments and got lost in the Department of Communities and Local Government's cohesion agenda. A recent meeting at the Home Office on how to combat extremism attracted few Muslims but several journalists - including those who have lobbied hard that the government should withdraw from any engagement with organisations with historical links to Islamism, the broad 20th-century movement of political Islam. Their lobbying succeeded in freezing out a wide range of organisations, including the Muslim Council of Britain. It has been self-defeating; it left Ruth Kelly, then at the DCLG, with a bunch of tiny, well-meaning organisations as her appointed "strategic partners", who had very little reach into the community. Hazel Blears must be cannier than that. What matters is what works - who has the power in a community to inch through change, most importantly in that closed world of Britain's 1,600-odd mosques that are fiercely independent, and have ethnic and sectarian allegiances. This is the most difficult front, and the most important. It is estimated that 90% of Britain's male Muslims attend Friday prayers, making it the best place to connect to the core constituency. The Metropolitan police's Muslim Contact Unit has understood this, following a strategy of working with Islamist- and Salafi-dominated mosques such as the one in Brixton, well aware that their best chance of drawing extremists away from violence is through those who know how to argue the case on Islamic grounds and redirect the religious fervour of hot-headed young men. Winning hearts and minds will take a generation; but what's becoming clear is just how many Muslims are engaged in this struggle already. m.bunting@guardian

They plan and Allah SWT plans.

'What gives me real edge is that I'm not as Labour as you lot' In this extract from Alastair Campbell's diaries, he talks about the Lib Dems, Diana and 9/11 Monday July 9, 2007 The Guardian On courting the Lib Dems Saturday April 26 1997 We were holding up really well in the polls. Richard Branson [head of Virgin] was going to be the big thing today. Again, it would help in terms of mood, the sense of things going in our direction. My favourite story was "Major takes charge of campaign". Where the hell had he been up to now? Meanwhile, TB was getting stronger all the time. I got there just before 7 and he stunned me straight out with the boldest plan yet. "How would people feel if I gave Paddy a place in the Cabinet and started merger talks?" **** me. I loved the boldness of it, but doubted he could get it through the key players. He had the Clause 4 glint in his eye. He'd hinted at it...in the past, but this sounded like a plan. He was making a cup of tea, and chuckling. "We could put the Tories out of business for a generation." On the death of Diana Saturday August 30 1997 I got to bed, and at around two I was paged by media monitoring: "Car crash in Paris. Dodi killed. Di hurt. This is not a joke." Then TB came on. He was really shocked. He said she was in a coma and the chances are she'd die. I don't think I'd ever heard him like this. He was full of pauses, then gabbling a little. We started to prepare a statement. By now the phones were starting from the press, and I didn't sleep. Then about an hour later Nick, the duty clerk, called and said simply: "She's dead. The prime minister is being told now." I went through on the call. Angus Lapsley was duty private secretary and was taking him through what we knew. "I can't believe this. I just can't believe it," said TB. "You just can't take it in, can you?" On Labour values Wednesday August 30 2000 TB said it was important I understood why parts of Thatcherism were right. Later in the day he came up with another belter when Peter Hyman [strategist and speechwriter] asked what gave him real edge as a politician and TB said: "What gives me real edge is that I'm not as Labour as you lot." I pointed out that was a rather discomfiting observation. He said it was true. He felt he was in the same position he had always been and we were the people who had changed. On 9/11 Tuesday September 11 2001 TB was straight onto the diplomatic side...he said that we had to help the US, that they could not go it all on their own, that they felt beleaguered and that this would be tantamount to a military attack in their minds. We had to decide whether we should cancel the speech [to TUC conference]. There was always a moment in these terrorist outrages where governments said we must not let the terrorists change what we do, but it was meaningless. Of course they changed what we did. . On Blair's departure plans Thursday July 11 2002 TB called me through and we went out for a chat on the terrace. Philip [Gould] had briefed him on how his trust ratings had really dipped. He said: "In truth I've never really wanted to do more than two full terms." It was pretty clear to me that he had just about settled his view. The big question was the same as before - does it give him an authority of sorts, or does it erode that authority, and do people just move automatically towards GB?