MPACUK: anti-Shiite ideology

The MPACUK gained some notoriety after being featured in the Channel 4 documentary, "Operation Muslim Vote", which focused in part, on the group's largely unsuccessful campaign to unseat pro-Zionist Labour MPs, such as the Foreign Secretary Jack Straw MP and Lorna Fitzsimons MP during the May 2005 election. The organisation is routinely castigated for its alleged anti-Semitism and militancy, and is engaged in a bitter rivalry, with it far more radical and much more popular rival, Hizb-ut-Tahrir.

In reality, the organisation is inconsequential in Islamic politics it run on a shoe string and has very little support even on the campuses, let alone in the mainstream Muslim community. The MCB is undeniably unpopular with British Muslims, but the MPACUK remains largely unheard of. The allegations of militancy against the MPACUK are not altogether unfounded: the organisation voices support for Islamic militant groups but this is the extent of their activities, they do not fund raise for militant groups nor have any connections to any. In fact, the group’s ideology is of ostensibly one of peaceful political Jihad, a concept borrowed from Hizb-ut-Tahrir, but unlike the latter they are engaged in the political process. The allegations of anti-Semitism always seem to relate to the Fitzsimons incident. MPACUK literature asserted that Lorna Fitzsimons MP was Jewish, when in actual fact she does not proclaim to follow the Jewish faith. However, she is a Zionist which was the point MPACUK where highlighting, therefore it is a semantic issue and in no way anti-Semitic. Logically a person who ascribes to a Jewish nationalist ideology can reasonable be defined as Jewish. Hence the reason Fitzsimons has not sued for libel – she would lose.

The MPACUK is a young indigenous British Muslim organisation: it is not a front for the Labour party nor is it sponsored by foreign Islamic parties. Hence, it is regretful that it has descended into a Sunni Chauvinist organisation, as a consequence with it pre-occupation with the absurd and venomous polemics of the former Hizb-ut-Tahrir grandee and now malcontent, Yamin Zakaria. Zakaria is described by the MPACUK as a Muslim intellectual, which is frankly laughable: he may be a Muslim but he is certainly not an intellectual, and as his primarily writes about Islamic politics, it is positively fraudulent that he should be so described. His lack of credentials or standing as an Islamic scholar or political scientist surely disqualify as being him regarded as an authority on Islam or Islamic politics.

Zakaria anti Shiite vitriol is staggering; his anti-Shia polemic is nothing short of incitement to sectarian hatred. In an article entitled, “A Price for Treachery”, Zakaria engages in flagrantly anti-Shia propaganda:

"Without sounding sectarian, large sections of the Shia leadership cooperated with the invaders during the early phase of the recent war…..The Sunnis (Arabs and Kurds) also betrayed, but the unlike the Shia leadership the Sunni leadership is far more accountable and their followers tend to exercise independent judgement. In contrast, the notion of blind following (Taqleed) is very prominent within the Shia school of thought. Under such climate when the leader falters its masses also falter."

“Most of the ordinary Shias and Sunnis generally agree on the causes and solutions with regards to Iraq, Palestine, Afghanistan and most of the problems facing the wider Islamic world. The real source of treachery has come from the Shia Scholars (Ulemas) rather than from the ordinary followers.”

“Ayatollah Sistani’s silence is astonishing, treasonous and disgusting; particularly after the revelations of the gruesome happenings inside Abu-Ghraib, which no one has certified that it has stopped. Before the fanatical blind following Shias jump like the Saudi-Salafis and highlight Sunni Ulemas betraying, please remember, one haram (forbidden act by Islamic law) action can never be used to justify another haram.”

“It seems as if there was a deal struck with Sistani as he has already shown overt signs of coexisting happily with the American-Zionist camp and their installed puppet regime.”

He takes his polemic even further in an article published by aljazeerah.info and republished by MPACUK “Is Shia Sistani the Judas of Iraq?”

“Ayatollah Sistani is the most influential and the most senior Scholar with the largest following inside the Shi'i community in Iraq. His silence has meant very little support from the Shi'i community to help the Sunnis.”

“The Shi'i followers revere Sistani for his knowledge and piety, but what good is that knowledge when it is not being used to defend the blood of the Muslims.”

“Imam Hussein was betrayed by the people who proclaimed their support, and it seems their descendents proclaiming to be the followers of Imam Hussein are once again engaged in betrayal. We witnessed the anti-US rhetoric coming from Iran for decades; should Iran not use their Grand Ayatollahs and bring Sistani into line and get the Shi'is to revolt openly? What about those from the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI) participating in the actual battle?”

“What is even more infuriating is that while claiming to be apolitical, Sistani is conserving his energy gearing up for election! A more cynical view would be that, his tacit approval of the US led onslaught is raising the Shi'is' strength at the expense of the Sunnis. This is not only promoting sectarianism but also contradicts the inherent Shi'i principles founded on Quran. Allowing foreign forces to kill your own people is clearly violating the Islamic texts unless of course if Sistani considers the Sunnis to be outside the fold of Islam, not part of his community. Otherwise, the actions of Ayatollah Sistani are no different to Judas.”

“This is a historic opportunity to show a united front, demolish this sectarian method of operating. It is clear the likes of Sistani hold the key to demonstrate this united front, as most of his followers are brain-dead. Our history will judge his silence to be the same as those who aided the previous crusaders but there is still some small window of opportunity for Sistani to alter the course of history.”

It is not so much the derogatory and inflammatory remarks that Zakaria makes about the Shia; it is his poisonous position towards Shiite Muslims, one which is identical to al-Qaeda’s stated position: either Shiites support the insurgency or they are to be regarded as traitors of the Muslim Ummah and Islam, the corollary of this is obvious to every Muslim. His support for the “Sunni insurgency” is not support for a popular indigenous insurgency but support for a minority Sunni tyranny. Therefore there is nothing compatible between his view and that of Shia who are opposed to the occupation.

In following this fanatic, the MPACUK has irreversible isolated themselves from the Shiite community and have given credence to a militant sectarian ideology, for which there is no place in British politics.