Last weekend the first defector ever from Hizb-ut-Tahrir in Denmark went public. In an interview with Jyllands-Posten he spoke in detail about his recruitment to the radical Islamist group in the middle of the 1990’s and how he left in 2004.

Leon Hee converted to Islam at age of 18 and took the name Muhammed. He did so in order to marry his fiancee Fatima. He was recruited to Hizb-ut-Tahrir at the local mosque.

Says Muhammed Hee:

”Typically Hizb-ut-Tahrir goes after young Muslims who have experienced racism or the feeling of being rejected by society or find themselves in an identity crisis. They are the most vulnerable. Hizb-ut-Tahrir in a cynical way exploits any sign of confrontation between Danish society and Islam in order to capture new members who will be taught to reject the basic values of Danish society.”

Muhammed Hee is still a Muslim and now he calls on moderate Muslims to go against Hizb-ut-Tahrir in the public debate. In doing so he is following in the footsteps of British Ed Husain and Maajid Nawaz who also left the organization and are campaigning among young Muslims in order to prevent them from joining radical Islamic groups.

Muhammed Hee was asigned a teacher who came to his home once a week. His wife and kids were told to leave the room.

“I was told that it’s completely wrong if Muslims see themselves as belonging to a nation, a fatherland or ethnic group. There is only one right identity for a Muslim: Islam within the Muslim community, the Umma.”

Muhammed Hee broke with Hizb-ut-Tahrir after he began studying Arabic at university. His radical views were challenged by co-students and he learned to ask critical questions.

People like Muhammed Hee represents a very important development. They want to make their faith compatible with a modern, secular democracy, and I can only wish them good luck, though my own point of view is closer to that of Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Ibn Warraq, Mina Ahadi, Necla Kelek and others who have left Islam, but both phenomena, radical Muslims turned moderate and Muslims leaving their religion, are crucial examples of what freedom of religion means.

Freedom Forum will publish its annual report on Tuesday April 29. The Economist has had a look at it in advance and writes that ”the ex-communist countries show the biggest relative decline in media freedom in the world.”

The drop is larger than in Asia, Africa and Latin America, not exactly strongholds of freedom.

Latvia’s score slips from 19 to 21, after the government put pressure on public television to cover Russia in a less critical manner. I wrote about one such example here.

Slovakia’s falls from 20 to 22, Poland’s from 22 to 24 and Slovenia’s from 21 to 23.

One important reason for this development is widening regulation of the media. Slovakia has just passed a law that will give anyone mentioned in an article the right to an equally prominent rebuttal, that cannot be accompanied by editorial comment.

Across the former Soviet bloc insult laws are being used to intimidate the media. In Bulgaria defamation of public figures is considered a crime. In Russia and other countries in the region journalists can be sued for offending somebody’s honour and dignity. When I was a correspondent in Russia dozens of this kind of proceedings took place every other week.

It was never ordinary people who pursued these actions, it was powerful politicians and business people.

In Bulgaria 60 cases went to court in 2006, and a further 100 in 2007.

The Economist writes that the constitutional court in Romania just restored a tough defamation law that criminalises ”insult”.

The paper quotes US ambassador to Romania Nicholas Taubman who has called on the legislators to ”strengthen their own accountability… rather than try to hamper the efforts of a free media to exercise its legitimate role in Romania, either through criminalising journalistic efforts or otherwise intimidating independent media.”

The development in Eastern Europe is another sign that we need a consolidated effort to fight ”insult” laws around the world. As the examples indicate these laws are being used to silence critical voices.

Russia’s President Vladimir Putin has denied rumours that he divorced his
wife Lyudmila and married the 24 year old former Olympic champion of gymnastics Alina Kabayeva.

Kabayeva is a member of Putin’s party United Russia and was elected to parliament last year.

The newspaper that published this juicy piece has been closed down for ”pure financial reasons” and the editor-in-chief has resigned.

At a press conference with Italy’s newly elected prime minister Silvio Berlusconi Putin answered a staged question by a Russian journalist touching upon the sensitive matter. There is every reason to believe that this was done to prevent more aggressive and intrusive questions from Italian reporters. Usually questions by Russian reporters are coordinated with the Kremlin’s press office.

Among other things Putin said:

”Society has the right to know how public figures live. But even in this case there is a limit: private life, which no one has the right to trepass. I have always disliked whose who, with their infected noses and erotic fantasies, break into other people’s private affairs.”

Well, this is exactly what Putin did back in the spring of 1999. As head of the security service FSB Putin was behind the broadcasting of a video on Russian state television showing prosecutor general Yuri Skuratov having sex with two prostitutes. This was done in order to discredit Skuratov who was leading an investigation into finanicial embezzlement and corruption by president Boris Yeltsin’s closest relatives and advisors. Skuratov was forced to leave his office and five months later Putin was named prime minister and annoited to take over the presidency after Yeltsin.

So Putin’s comment about respecting the private life of public figures is pure b….

How about the rumours surrounding Putin’s private life?

From a well informed source I heard about Putin’s alleged mistress a few months ago. She was said to be a former Olympic champion who had joined Putin’s party United Russia and was playing an important political role behind the scenes.

Sounds like Kabayeva.

Maybe the rumours about Putin’s divorce and new marriage are untrue, but stories about Putin’s adultery has been circulating for a long time.

Mark Ames, who has covered Russian politics for years, sees a conspiracy behind the publication of the intimate news concering the president’s private life.

He makes the point that the owner of the paper, Alexander Lebedev, is a former KGB-officer and member of parliament with close ties to the liberal camp in the Kremlin. Lebedev didn’t know about the story ahead of publication and Mark Ames suggests that the information was given to the paper by hard liners in the Kremlin in order to discredit Lebedev in the eyes of Putin. He writes:

”What’s more curious is why, in a country where information is hard to come by and wars over assets and power are often fought in the press, Lebedev’s lesser-known Moskovsky Korrespondent would publish such a scurrilous, not to mention dangerous, article about his buddy Vlad. Particularly in a country where The Leader’s private life is not open to scandal and mud-dragging.

Which leads us back to the seemingly bunk Putin rumor. It looks more and more likely that someone from the FSB planted it knowing it would make Lebedev and his paper look foolish. That would be a clear retaliation for Lebedev’s attempts to exonerate Storchak, the FSB’s most valuable captured chess piece in its battle against Putin and the liberals he’s propped up. The FSB’s message is simple: If you fuck with us, we’ll fuck with you, your paper, and Putin—in more ways than you know.”

On the arrest of deputy finance minister Sergei Storchak in November of 2007 as part of the struggle for Putin’s successor:

This may be true: I have heard from a well informed source that Putin was planning to suggest the liberal minister of finance Aleksei Kudrin as his candidate for president. The arrest of Kudrin’s deputy foiled this plan, and so Dmitri Medvedev was chosen as the compromise figure.

10 years after the Indonesian government lifted its control of the media the parliament has passed a law banning online pornography without bothering to define what constitutes pornography.

According to the UK based Index on Censorship (IOC) the ban may include paintings made in the tradition of eroticism such as the kama sutra style sculpture seen on the temple reliefs in Central Java.

IOC notes:

”Painters have incorporated elements of this into their work, but may now find themselves targeted with ”pornography” charges.”

The country’s leading information technology expert, Zatni Arbi, warns that the new law in the future might be used to shut down other websites carrying information and opinion deemed unacceptable by the government.

Index on Censorship comments:

“Providing for imprisonment and a fine equivalent to £60 million, the law comes into effect against a background of the creeping application of the Islamic sharia legal code. This has seen a growing number of local governments enforce bans of various kinds, such as the one on several performers of the hugely popular dangdut music in the city of Tangerang, west of Jakarta.”

What is dangdut?

Dangdut is a very popular Indonesian music genre derived from Indian, Arab and Malay styles, but it often incorporates a variety of other world influences as well. It has long been associated with the lower-classes of Indonesia (musik pinggiran), and consequently became seen as “the music of the people.” The lyrics often address issues of love, heartbreak, and poverty. Dangdut has long been ripe with sexual innuendos and suggestiveness, but “Inul’s physical portrayal of the words and their meaning was something never attempted by those who came before her” (Jakarta Eye, “Dangdut Comes of Age-Sex and the Village”).
In the 1970s and 1980s, Rhoma Irama popularized dangdut, tamed its sexual attitude, and began to use it to spread the message of Islam – collectively making it fit for mass commercial appeal. Later, “Politicians began using dangdut musicians… to court the lower classes. …the music of the people became the tool of the powerful” (TIME Asia Magazine, 24 March, 2003). By the late 1990s, Rhoma was using his talents to “delight thousands at pro-Suharto rallies… and was rewarded by being nominated for the legislature by Suharto’s Golkar party in 1997” (Christian Science Monitor, 9 May, 2003).
But in the villages, a rawer tradition of dangdut continued - this is the environment where Inul Daratista’s performances began. Her career started around the age of twelve, performing for local audiences in her home community and earning around $US 0.40 per show. By 2003, she had her commercial breakthrough and became Indonesia’s highest paid entertainer, reportedly earning around $US 78,000 per month (Latitudes, June, 2003). Inul had become a ‘rags to riches’ phenomenon.

Critics of the law fear that it might be used to curtail other forms of artistic expression that incorporate any form of eroticism whatsoever.

Feminists of Indonesia are divided: Some have welcomed the law because of the declared intention to protect children. Others like writer and activist Ratna Sarumpaet are critical.

Do you remember Andrei Zhdanov?

In 1946 the Soviet commissar initiated a vicious attack on the literary magazines Zvezda (The Star) and Leningrad which had published works by the great poet Anna Akhmatova and the satirical writer Mikhail Zoshchenko. Later followed similar attacks on great composers. Zhdanov denounced any disagreement and differing points of views within Soviet culture. As he put it an speech:

”The only conflict that is possible in Soviet culture is the conflict between good and best.”

I was reminded of this disgraceful figure when I learned that Sweden’s Press Ombudsman Yrsa Stenius – a better name would be Press Commissar – has called for a police investigation against Swedish bloggers with whom the commissar happens to disagree.

A few days ago she told Västerbottens Folkblad, a local newspaper, that she is worried about the development of the internet. Apparently she finds free speech to be a disturbing phenomena. In the words of the commissar everyone can say anything about anyone and nobody reacts. Things have gone to far. Yes, that’s really troubling. I am sure that Andrei Zhdanov would agree.

”At the moment I see no other solution than to report these cases to the police. We need to create a precedent.”

The commissar is of the opinion that some blogs and reader comments are lacking reflection and consideration.

Yrsa Stenius was born in Finland and belongs to the Swedish-speaking monority. She has been affiliated with Sweden’s largest newspaper Aftonbladet for the past 20 years. She was editor-in-chief from 1982-1987. She was appointed Press Ombudsman in 2007.

In 2006 she wrote a column about the publication of the cartoons depicting the prophet Muhammed. Any ideological boss in the Soviet Union would be proud to read her. Here is what she said:

”For natural reasons I didn’t see the caricatures published by Jyllands-Posten. But unanimous comments by informed publicists in the West indicate that they were insulting and lacked any serious use of free speech.

In other words it was a huge misjudgement on behalf of the editor-in-chief of Jyllands-Posten to publish those images. And it was an even bigger misjudgedment of Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen not to apologize on behalf of Denmark, when he was granted the opportunity. To apologize is not to introduce censorship.

How does the misunderstanding arise that people in the name of free speech are allowed to offend a culture and a civilization, and that the same freedom does not allow a prime minister to bear responsibility for the political consequenses of what happenend?

I don’t think that we in the name of free speech should be unconditionally loyal to the establishment of Denmark that has abused this freedom.”

Thank you, commissar, I think a lot of people beg that they will never receive your approval of anything. That would indeed make them uncomfortable.

Did the US promote the creation of the Taliban as some kind of Frankenstein’s monster when President Carter decided through the Pakistani Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) to arm the Afghan Mujaheddin movement that fought the Soviet occupation in the 1980ies?

It’s a fair question to ask, though the media may have accepted it as some kind of established non-disputable truth.

Zbigniew Brzezinski, the man responsible for this policy in his capacity as National Security Adviser to President Carter (1977-1981) is of another opinion. He denounces the question as ”crazy”. In an interview with the American Interest’s editor Adam Garfinkle Brzezinski insists that he doesn’t regret anything and that he would do exactly the same if he were confronted with the the same challenge once again.

Here are his comments on the historical context of the Cold War and the rise of the Taliban:

“In 1979 and 1980, when the decision was made, we were dealing with a powerful Soviet Union that was on a roll. The Soviet Union maintained terrorist training camps all over their country. If the Soviet Union had prevailed then, I can only imagine what the world would have been like subsequently. I am not at all regretful that the Soviet Union collapsed, and one of the reasons it collapsed was because of what we did in Afghanistan. I would not hesitate to do it again.”

“70 percent of the people in Afghanistan want our troops to stay despite the growing difficulties. That should focus our attention on an important point: namely, that we wouldn’t have that support today in Afghanistan if we hadn’t done what we did beginning in the Carter Administration. The support of the majority of the Afghan people greatly minimizes the threat from Islamist extremists confronting us today. Moreover, the al-Qaeda phenomenon has been much more a Middle Eastern phenomenon than an Afghan one. There are hardly any Afghans among the terrorists responsible for 9/11 and other attacks in Europe and elsewhere.”

“…the Taliban came into the region after ten years of sustained Soviet pulverization of Afghan society, and after at least half a decade of American indifference to Afghanistan after the Soviets left. That’s the backdrop against which to view the Taliban’s rise.”

“The arrival of al-Qaeda in Afghanistan took place, as you say, in the second half of the 1990s, 16 years after we initially decided to prevent the Soviets from prevailing in Afghanistan. So it is a totally ahistorical argument which seems to be premised on the notion, maybe implicitly, that it would be better if the Soviet Union still existed. That way we would not be waging “World War IV”, as some of the crazies among the neocons call it, against Islamofascism.”

Brzezinski is making a caricature of the neocons. As far as I understand they are just saying one should be careful not to ally oneself with the enemy of my enemy, especially if this kind of allies are non-democratic regimes.

Two ex-members of the islamist organization Hizb-ut-Tahrir, Ed Husain and Maajid Nawaz, visitied Copenhagen this past Friday. They were part of a panel at a public debate about Hizb-ut Tahrir that wants the institutions of democracy abolished and a caliphat ruled by sharia law established.

Asked by Jyllands-Posten if it makes sense to engage in a debate with islamists like members of Hizb-ut-Tahrir Ed Husain said:

”It’s important to understand that when you argue with Hizb-ut-Tahrir you are in fact talking to many young Muslims who feel attracted by the clear message of the islamists, but who are not part of the extremist community. That’s why we have to engage in public debates with these people.”

Last year Husain published the Islamist, his own story about joining radical Islam and quitting. In the book he calls for a ban on Hizb-ut-Tahrir, but now he has changed his mind, and I fully agree. Without being naive and appeasing the open society has to believe in its own values and moral foundation.

”If we ban these organizations, we acknowledge that democracy don’t have strong enough arguments to defeat religious fascists. A ban will only enlarge the gulf between them and us, and that debate is over in the UK. Muslims have to step forward and join the debate and it’s important that they are given access to the media.”

Jama’at-ud-Da’wah (JUD), an Islamic organization based in Pakistan, is conducting a poll on its website.

They ask:

What should be the response of Muslim Ummah to the blasphemous caricatures published in Denmark?

At the time of this writing 256 people have replied.

A majority - 56 percent - think the cartoonists and the editors behind the publication should be killed.

30 percent call for ignoring the publication and ask Muslims to keep preaching Islam with peace.

A minority calls for boycotting Danish products or expelling Denmark’s ambassadors from Muslim countries.

According to Wikikpedia JUD “is popular in Pakistan for providing free medical care and education for the poor. It has done a lot of relief work in natural disasters of Pakistan such as famine of “Thar”, flood of Sindh; after the 2005 Kashmir earthquake JUD was quick to donate tents, blankets and food and, according to many relief organizations, its camps were more professionally managed even than those run by the UN.”

Do we show too much deference to religious people?

The British stand-up comedian, novelist and sitcom writer Ben Elton says yes in an interview with the Christian magazine Third Way.

”I think it all starts with people nodding whenever anybody says, ”As a person of faith…” And I believe that part of it is due to the genuine fear that the authorities and the community have about provoking the radical elements of Islam. There’s no doubt about it, the BBC will let vicar gags pass but they would not let imam gags pass. They might pretend that it’s, you know, something to do with their moral sensibilities, but it isn’t. It’s because they are scared. I know these people.”

Excactly. Here is what a BBC spokeswoman answered to Elton’s criticism:

”The treatment (i.e. jokes) should not cause harm or offense as defined by the BBC’s Editorial Guidelines or breach other BBC Guidelines.”

This concession of course was preceded by the ritual phrase:

”No subject is off limits for BBC comedy.”

Contrary to BBC Ben Elton insists that no one has a right not to be offended, and he is pretty clear that the lack of jokes about Muslims is discriminating.

”It’s incredible. I’m quite certain that the average Muslim does not want everybody going around thinking, ”We can’t mention you. We’ve just got to pretend that you don’t exist because we’re scared that somebody who claims to represent you will threaten to kill us.”

What do you think: Who is guilty of discrimination?

Those who tell jokes about Muslims or whose who insist on not offending people of faith or religious minorities?