In a declaration, leaders representing different strands of Islam also called on the Indian government to ensure that Muslims were not harassed in the name of terrorism, Maulana Shaukat said.

Shaukat was speaking from the 150-year-old Darul Uloom Deoband madrassa at Saharanpur in Uttar Pradesh, northern India.

That the gathering took place in a Wahabi setting is regarded as additionally significant, given the influence of this conservative movement on hard-line Islamist activists, including the Taleban.

Adil Siddiqui, another Deobandi representative, noted that “whenever there is any incident of terrorism, every possible attempt is made to link it to Muslims, particularly who have studied in madrassas. This is totally wrong.”

The declaration says: “Islam is a religion of mercy for all humanity. Islam sternly condemns all kinds of oppression, violence and terrorism.”

The post Terror, oppression and violence declared un-Islamic by scholars appeared first on Ekklesia.

Among the issues of contention raised are the use of torture, transparency, the status of evidence, and the illegality of procedures used.

Yesterday (11 Feberuary 2008), the US Secretary of Homeland Security, Michael Chertoff, promised the world that there would be fair trials for Guantanamo prisoners accused of organising the 9/11 assaults in New York and at the Pentagon in 2001.

Chertoff was speaking to the BBC after six men, including alleged plot mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, were indicted on charges for which they
could face the death penalty if convicted of murder and conspiracy by controversial military tribunals.

Respected human rights groups immediately responded by questioning whether such trials could really be both fair and transparent, claiming that there is substantial evidence that the defendants were tortured during teir detention.

Obserbers point out that a confession gained from Khalid Sheikh Mohammed will be inherently compromised because the CIA has admitted using “water-boarding” – or simulated drowning – as an interrogation technique.

Amnesty International, the global campaigning group based in London, says that ill treatment of prisoners was “just one flaw of a commission system set up precisely to obtain convictions under lower standards than would apply in normal courts”.

Human Rights Watch, a New York-based organisation, also said the system lacked credibility.

“Possibly putting someone to death based on evidence obtained through water-boarding, or after prolonged periods of sleep deprivation while being forced into painful stress positions, is not the answer,” declared Jennifer Daskal, a lawyer for Human Rights Watch.

The charges are the first for Guantanamo inmates directly related to the 9/11 attacks in 2001. Critics say that they will be used to try to justify the detention Camp on an occupied part of Cuba, which they claim is illegal under international law.

“The US is desperate for vindication of its policies on extra-judicial detention and terror, but many expect these charges and trials to slowly unravel in much the same way as other aspects of Washington’s policies in this whole are have fallen apart,” a commentator told Ekklesia.

Churches in the USA and throughout the world have been among those raising vocal questions and criticisms about both the treatment meted out to prisoners held at Guantanamo, extra-judicial proceedings, and the existence of the camp.

The post Rights groups question US 9/11 Guantanamo trial pledge appeared first on Ekklesia.

Critics immediately said that trying to police the web was a losing battle, that dangers to civil liberties were involved, that the authorities were out of touch with disaffected youth, that foreign policy must not be a no-go area, and that the alternative groups being funded by the authorities lacked credibility.

But Smith remained adamant today. “Because something is difficult, that is no reason not to have a go at it. The internet can’t be a no-go area for government,” she declared

Ms Smith is to discuss her plans with experts attached to the communications industry, internet service providers (ISPs) and leading Muslims to discuss measures to block websites which promote terrorism.

The problem is that sites showing violence and promoting terror tactics are often multiply sourced and mobile on remote and anonymous web servers. Plus the idea that the government is trying to ban them may make them more attractive to people already disenchanted with official policy – particularly on Iraq and Afghanistan, which remain key recruiters for militants.

Similarly, promoting “moderate” or “Europeanised” Islam with official resources will be seen as advocating tame and de-Islamicised “government controlled” Muslims.

The government’s definition of terror tactics as “anti-Islamic activity” was mocked by the right-wing Daily Mail newspaper as “appeasement” today, and its responses were termed too little, too late” by the opposition, indicating that it has a major task on its hand on all sides of a fractious “what to do?” debate.

“We must look at how you can filter out content, how you can work with internet service providers, how you can work internationally to get illegal stuff off the internet”, the Home Secretary told BBC News 24 yesterday, as part of a string of media interviews following a press conference at Kings College London.

She added: “It will be difficult but we’re determined, working with partners, to get rid of it.”

Earlier Ms Smith said tackling internet extremism was part of a “broad approach”, recognising the need to prevent people turning to terrorism in the long-term.

But the government remains granite-like in its resistance to suggestions that its international alignment with neocons in the US, with the invasion and occupation of Iraq, and with the denilal of statehood to Palestinians – all grievances cited by militants themselves – has anything decisive to do with the matter.

While critics acknowledge that such matters are no excuse for bombing and maiming civilians, they say that the government “has its head in the sand” over foreign policy, and the fact that injustice as well as ideology and religion are deeply implicated in the growth of hardline anti-Western feeling among people prepared to go beyond political struggle to armed action.

Ms Smith said she recognised the need to “debate, challenge and address those grievances”, but would be drawn no further, and did not indicate any likelihood of a change in policy on the contentious issues.

In 2009 the government says it will provide more than £500 million to fund security and counter-terrorism measures, rising to nearly £600 million over the following two years.

It has also given backing to national ‘road shows’ at which leading Muslim scholars and opinion formers talk about extremist ideology. But those in touch with disaffected Muslim youth say that this is a strategy which does not comprehend how they gather, what they think and who they listen to.

Ministers estimate that about 60,000 people have attended events so far and that an associated website gets 50,000 hits a month. In web terms, however, this is tiny.

The government says it hopes that by encouraging more interaction between opinion-formers in the UK and in predominantly Muslim countries, misunderstandings about Islam can be corrected, reports the BBC.

The post Government aims to tackle extremism with web monitoring and meetings appeared first on Ekklesia.

“We earnestly appeal to the national and global communities and specifically churches to pray for the welfare of the State of Pakistan which is passing through a very difficult period of its history and to encourage the nation to bear such a big loss,” the National Council of Churches in Pakistan said in a statement last week.

The grouping of four Protestant churches strongly condemned “the brutal assassination” of Bhutto, who was killed on 27 December near Islamabad while campaigning for national elections. Voting has been postponed from 8 January to 18 February 2008 following the violence triggered by the assassination.

The council further urged the “global communities to help the Pakistani nation and its government machinery to eradicate the terrorism which is playing havoc with the lives of the innocent people and disturbing the peace of Pakistan and a great hurdle in the restoration of true democracy in Pakistan”.

Describing Bhutto’s death as “a national loss”, the National Commission for Justice and Peace, a human-rights body of the Roman Catholic Church, said the assassination “raised questions about the effectiveness of the so-called war against extremism”.

“The re-occurrence of suicide bombing manifests the impunity available to terrorists to take lives of the innocent people,” said the commission.

Calling for respect for “a soul who fought courageously to bring down hatred and division”, the commission stated that “the tragedy should be properly investigated without delay and the culprits behind this should be brought to justice”.

Peter Jacob, executive secretary of the commission, told Ecumenical News International that Bhutto’s return from exile was a “big boost to the democratic forces” and that her assassination was “an onslaught on democracy itself”.

Video images and still photos that have emerged since the assassination show a man in sunglasses pointing a firearm at Bhutto and a man near her clad in white, believed to be a suicide bomber who detonated explosives just after shots were fired. Government agencies have denied any security lapse after the explosion that killed at least 20 people.

[With acknowledgements to ENI. Ecumenical News International is jointly sponsored by the World Council of Churches, the Lutheran World Federation, the World Alliance of Reformed Churches, and the Conference of European Churches.]

The post Pakistan churches seek international solidarity after Bhutto assassination appeared first on Ekklesia.

Shock, mourning, anger and rioting have been following in the wake of the tragic events, which took place when Ms Bhutto – the first woman PM in an Islamic state – was leaving an election rally in Rawalpindi.

A gunman shot her in the neck and set off a bomb, reports the BBC and press agencies. President Musharraf, who had placed Ms Bhutto under house arrest when she flew back into the country in October 2007, condemned the killing.

The authorities were tonight urging people to remain calm but furious protests have already gripped cities and neighbourhoods across Pakistan. Security forces have been placed on a state of “red alert” nationwide, and commentators say that the country is on “a knife edge”.

There were no immediate claims of responsibility for the attack. Analysts believe hardline Islamist militants to be the most likely suspects.

Ms Bhutto, leader of the Pakistan People’s Party (PPP), had served as prime minister from 1988-1990 and 1993-1996. She was seen as signalling a new kind of Pakistan with an emphasis on democracy, participation and women’s rights. But she also faced charges of corruption, manipulation and cosying up to the West.

The former PM and had been campaigning ahead of elections due on 8 January 2008. There is some likelihood that these may now be postponed or suspended, depending on how events unfold over the next few days.

The attack that killed Ms Bhutto was the second suicide assault against her in recent months and came amid a wave of bombings targeting security and government officials.

Speaking on Channel 4 TV in Britain, radical commentator Tariq Ali said that he was shocked and angered at the assassination, but suggested that there were “serious problems” with s Bhutto’s rule and said that history “should not be re-written” in the wake of sorrow and anger at her killing.

British PM Gordon Brown was among the many world leaders who united to condemn the killing. US President George W. Bush also broke from his vaction to make a statement.

The post Shock, sorrow and anger at Bhutto killing in Pakistan appeared first on Ekklesia.

The message came in a letter issued by the church to US Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice late last week.

It was signed by Bishop Thomas Wenski of Orlando, Florida, on behalf of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB).

The bishops are reacting to escalating political rhetoric and news accounts speculating about a potential pre-emptive use of force against Iran, supposedly to deter further possible nuclear weapons ambitions.

“From a moral perspective,” Bishop Wenski wrote, “in the absence of an immediate threat military action would constitute an act of preventative war.”

The Catholic Church, he noted, teaches that “engaging in a preventative war without clear proof that an attack is imminent cannot fail to raise serious moral and juridical questions.”

The bishops make clear their assessment that the Iranian situation does not presently constitute an immediate threat.

Under the ‘just war’ tradition of moral reasoning, before military action could be considered, say the bishops, all non-military alternatives must be exhausted.

Options, they suggest, range from diplomatic and economic incentives, increased international involvement and cooperation, to economic sanctions.

Catholic and other Christian peacemakers say that the churches’ stance should be for nonviolence, not for the justification of military action.

The bishops have also called on US leaders to change the nations’ current nuclear posture to ensure that nuclear weapons are never used against non-nuclear threats. They have appealed for greater, more sustained progress toward nuclear disarmament in the spirit of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.

The full text of the Catholic bishops’ letter is available at: http://www.usccb.org

The post US Catholic bishops warn against attack on Iran appeared first on Ekklesia.