Taj Hargey forms alliance with right-wing Christian fundamentalist to attack Tablighi Jamaat

Newham Tablighi mosque

An Islamic group fighting to keep its east London mosque, near to the Olympics site, has been described by opponents as a “supremacist movement” that encourages isolationism from wider British society.

Tablighi Jamaat, a global proselytising movement with tens of thousands of members in the UK, is trying to overturn an enforcement notice on its mosque, called the Riverine Centre, after temporary planning permission expired in 2006.

A planning inquiry at Newham town hall will determine whether the group can continue to use the modest collection of buildings. On Thursday it heard that followers of Tablighi Jamaat were taught to “shun integration with all unbelievers in order to be uncontaminated Muslims and to isolate themselves from wider society”.

According to evidence from Dr Taj Hargey, an imam who runs a progressive Islamic educational centre in Oxford, the “isolationist dynamic” of Tablighi Jamaat has caused the growth of a “separatist Muslim enclave” in the streets around its Dewsbury headquarters.

Hargey was called as a witness by Newham Concern, a local campaign group which has long opposed Tablighi Jamaat and its ambitions to expand its facilities. The group is behind plans to build a much larger facility at the site, dubbed a “megamosque” by the media, although it currently has no planning application in place.

Continue reading

Evening Standard witch-hunt of Lutfur Rahman is directed against Ken Livingstone

Last week the London Evening Standard devoted many column inches to attacking Lutfur Rahman, the mayor of Tower Hamlets. Wednesday’s issue had a report headlined “Mayor of poverty-hit council hires adviser in £1,000-a-day deal” – co-authored by Tom Harper, who has form on such issues, having previously witch-hunted Azad Ali for the Mail. It began:

One of the poorest boroughs in London today came under fire for spending £1,000 a day on a personal aide for its mayor.

Tony Winterbottom is an “executive adviser” on regeneration and development to Lutfur Rahman, the mayor of Tower Hamlets who was ousted from the Labour Party over alleged links to Islamic extremists.

Local government secretary Eric Pickles accused Mr Rahman of wasting taxpayer money. He said: “It is astonishing that one of the poorest boroughs in the country sees fit to squander such colossal amounts of public cash in this way.

“Tower Hamlets seems to be living the ultimate champagne socialist lifestyle, leaving taxpayers to pick up the tab. I fail to see the business case for shelling out this money, which should be diverted towards protecting frontline services.”

As is usual with witch-hunting articles in the right-wing press, you have to read to the end of the report to find information that completely contradicts the shock-horror headline and introduction. Tony Winterbottom is quoted as saying:

“I tendered a bid for £1,000 a day. In reality, I get paid £125 an hour but I have not yet put in an invoice. I wanted them to respect me as an individual so I asked them to pay me a proper price but I’m not going to charge them.

“I’m absolutely squeaky clean. This is not a money-making operation. This is about fighting for Lutfur Rahman who’s trying to do good work.”

So it turns out that, far from costing the citizens of Tower Hamlets £1,000 a day, Tony Winterbottom hasn’t charged a penny for his services. The real story here is that a former senior official at the London Development Agency whose expertise commands fees well in excess of that figure has provided his knowledge of regeneration and development to Lutfur Rahman for free, because of his admiration for the work the mayor is doing in the borough.

Continue reading

Jewish Chronicle returns to witch-hunting ENGAGE

Martin Bright and Simon Rocker weigh in with a piece entitled “Islamists get a key role in parliament“, while an editorial headed “Beyond the pale” (evidently the JC‘s concern for the sensitivities of the Jewish community doesn’t extend to the Irish community) calls for a boycott of the All-Party Parliamentary Committee on Islamophobia and follows Paul Goodman in extending the witch-hunt by proposing that supporters of ENGAGE should be disciplined by their respective political parties.

Predictably, that other voice of Zionist hostility towards politically engaged Muslims, the appalling Harry’s Place blog, has joined in the campaign (see here and here).

For the background, see “Pro-Israel lobby continues smear campaign against ENGAGE”, Inayat’s Corner, 16 February 2011

East London Mosque and mayor condemn anti-gay stickers

Homophobic sticker Tower Hamlets2The East London Mosque and the mayor of Tower Hamlets have condemned homophobic stickers placed around the borough.

In a joint statement with a local interfaith forum and a gay group, they said that matter was being treated as a homophobic hate crime. The statement said: “All lines of enquiry are being pursued by police both within Tower Hamlets and London wide to identify and prosecute those responsible.”

The stickers quoted the Koran and declared the area a “gay-free zone”.

Tower Hamlets mayor Lutfur Rahman said: “Tower Hamlets has a proud history of challenging prejudice and promoting equality. There is no place for hate in Tower Hamlets and we take a zero-tolerance approach to homophobia.

“People of faith in Tower Hamlets are proud to be part of this diverse and vibrant borough, in which mutual respect and tolerance are vital to social harmony. We oppose all who seek to undermine these values – homophobic hate has no place in Tower Hamlets.

“Whatever their backgrounds of the people they do not speak in the name of Islam, Christianity or the other religions represented here.”

He added that he had met gay group Rainbow Hamlets and was “committed” to working with them.

Dilwar Khan, director of the East London Mosque and the London Muslim Centre, said: “We stand together with our fellow citizens against all forms of hatred, including homophobia.

“We are committed to building strong and cohesive communities in Tower Hamlets, and our strength is that we will not let incidents of hate divide us.”

Reverend Alan Green, chair of the Tower Hamlets Inter Faith Forum said: “People of faith in Tower Hamlets are proud to be part of this diverse and vibrant borough, in which mutual respect and tolerance are vital to social harmony.

“We oppose all who seek to undermine these values – homophobic hate has no place in Tower Hamlets. Whatever their backgrounds of the people they do not speak in the name of Islam, Christianity or the other religions represented here.”

Rainbow Hamlets LGBT Community Forum said it welcomed the mayor and mosque’s comments.

Pink News, 17 February 2011


This report basically reproduces a Tower Hamlets Council press release. Unfortunately, it omits the statement by the chairs of Rainbow Hamlets LGBT Community Forum, which included a condemnation of “those who use these incidents to create a moral panic and stoke up racist or Islamaphobic sentiment”.

This is a pity, since an earlier report was followed by comments demonstrating that some Pink News readers were using the incidents to do precisely that. As one appalled critic observed: “I’m not sure if I’m more horrified by the article or some of the comments here. Don’t respond to hate crimes with mindless bigotry.”

Some examples of this mindless bigotry:

“Tower Hamlets council is lost to extremism – they are taking over as the indiginous people have voter apathy because politicians have lost touch with society.”

“U.K should be an Islam free zone. Oh wait it was. Oh and we were here first.”

“Islam, the religion of peace and tolerance. Blessing of the paedophile they call Muhammed upon us all.”

“Oh well, you let immigrants take over entire swathes of the city, what do you expect? You reap what you sow.”

“London is unfortunately not the safe place it once was for us …and it will only get worse as their numbers increase and their vile ideology and demonic book of hatred take root. This hatred is not something that can be eradicated or even tamed, as ‘apologists’ seem to naively think. Islam is locked in the 7th century, it has not reformed, accepted science or adapted as other regilions have.”

“Read the EDL website ‘mission statement’. Surprisingly, it’s actually quite hard to knock, as it openly stands up for gay, female, Jewish and other rights…. The Guardian just calls them Islamophobes and far-right nutters, but there’s very little that’s irrational in their statement. To be honest, it just epitomises all the failings of multiculturalism. It’s very easy to shout racist, but it’s ideology they are criticising, not skin colour or ethnic origin.”

“Nobody is advocating violence against Muslims. But we need a real debate on just how much freedom we give to Muslims to act on the teachings of the Koran.”

“I want to live in a Muslim Free Zone.”

“The word Islam translates as SUBMIT and yes islam is full of love and so cosy for us all, IF we repent and denounce who we are.”

“Why the refusal to comment and condemn the stickers from the muslim organisations.”

“I read ther the EDL were gay friendly as well.”

“Muslims in the uk believe lgbt people lead morally bereft lifestyles… some people have no grasp of what islam is about .it is a religion of bigotry that associates any non believers as satanic.”

“Perhaps we should ask Baroness Warsi to go and reason with them.”

“Face it folks. They hate us.”

“If Islam is so peaceful, why haven’t we heard any condemnation from the imams in the mosques up and down the country? Why the silence?”

“let’s face it, most muslims are homophobic and fanatic.”

“who is Allah? homophobic primitive child molesting pervert?”

“Islam belongs in the Middle East. It has no place in Europe and it is incompatible with our Western values.”

Finally, to quote another critic of this rampant Islamophobia:

“I am appalled that the debate on this post is so horribly inflammatory. One would think that the more oppressed a group of individuals is then the more likely they are to be able to recognise it when they see it elsewhere. The truth is the complete opposite.

“It like the majority of the posters on here are simply using the issue of these disgusting stickers as a springboard to air their own deeply held prejudices. With the outcome that very few people are actually talking about the stickers or the message at all – and instead slagging off all Muslims in the most inflammatory terms.

“I am shocked that Pink News is allowing this to happen and have reported several of the posts here and asked for them to be removed.”

With limited results, it would seem.

Civitas-inspired campaign against speaker at York University ISoc

The invitation of Islamic Scholar Mufti Muhammad ibn Adam al-Kawthari to speak at the University on Wednesday has sparked controversy across campus. Several campus societies, including StandforPeace, Amnesty International, Jewish Society, Freedom Society and York Conservatives, have collectively launched an official complaint, claiming that al-Kawthari “poses a threat to social cohesion at York” and that “his views are out of place in a civilised, free and equal society”.

The concern is centred on a report by the thinktank CIVITAS, profiling the Mufti, which explicitly states: “he places severe restrictions on male doctors treating female patients; he rules that women may not swim (even for medical reasons) where a male lifeguard is present, or where there are non-Muslim women; using tampons is ‘disliked’; a woman may not travel beyond 48 miles without her husband or a close relative accompanying her; a female is encouraged to remain within the confines of her house as much as possible; polygamy is permissible.”

Sam Westrop of StandforPeace, who has led the campaign against him speaking at York, has also pointed out that al Kawthari “legitimises rape” in his claim that “the narrations of the beloved of Allah clearly signify the importance of the wife obeying her husband in his request for sexual intimacy. It will be a grave sin (in normal circumstances) for the wife to refuse her husband, and even more, if this leads the husband into the unlawful.”

Speaking to Nouse, Westrop added: “It is a terrifying state of affairs that persons such as al-Kawthari are allowed to propagate their views on university campuses, and that the Union and University should so blithely approve such a speaker. We would all be up in arms if the far right popped up on campus stating that homosexuals have no rights and that capital punishment is suitable for adultery; so why should we hold back with people such as al-Kawthari? We urge the Islamic Society to change the speaker for this event, to someone far less disgusting.”

However, Dinah Salah, President of the York Islamic Society who organised for al Kawthari to speak at York as part of Islam Week, has spoken out against the allegations. She stated that the societies had been “recklessly sensationalising” his views and that they are being taken “bizarrely out of context”.

Salah continued: “It is important to note that socially conservative views should not be confused with violent extreme views. We find it deeply problematic that individuals seek to tarnish the good name and reputation of Muslim scholars under the premise of ‘extremism’ and ‘‘islamism’ based on misquotes of a very serious issue.

“We feel that such an approach is not cohesive to good campus relations and seeks to alienate Muslim students from engaging properly in their Students’ Union and hindering their development of a strong Islamic identity. The Islamic Society stands in favour of freedom of expression, with the only exception being when it incites hatred or violence. How can there be meaningful progression in our society, when individuals seek to restrict opinions and prevent constructive challenges of diverse views?”

Nouse, 14 February 2011

See also The Yorker, 13 February 2011


It might be noted that Sam Westrop’s views on freedom of expression are somewhat contradictory, to say the least. Last year he condemned the exclusion of Douglas Murray, director of the Civitas-funded Centre for Social Cohesion, from the platform of a fringe event at NUS conference following complaints by FOSIS. According to Westrop, Murray should have been welcomed as a speaker because of the “importance to uphold freedom of speech”.

Murray, it may be recalled, addresed the Pim Fortuyn Memorial conference in 2006 on the subject “What are we to do about Islam?” He demanded “Why is it that time and again the liberal West is crumpling before the violence, intimidation and thuggery of Islam?” and offered the following solution: “It is late in the day, but Europe still has time to turn around the demographic time-bomb which will soon see a number of our largest cities fall to Muslim majorities. It has to. All immigration into Europe from Muslim countries must stop…. Conditions for Muslims in Europe must be made harder across the board.”

More recently, Murray welcomed the formation of the EDL as “a grassroots response from non-Muslims to Islamism”.

Westrop, it seems, is in fully in favour of free speech for anti-Muslim hate preachers like Murray, but not for socially conservative Deobandi scholars like Muhammad ibn Adam al-Kawthari.

It is also interesting to see Westrop putting himself forward as a defender of women’s rights. In May 2009 he invited UKIP MEP Godfrey Bloom to address the university’s Freedom Society, despite Bloom’s notoriously reactionary views on that issue. Bloom is on record as stating that “no self-respecting small businessman with a brain in the right place would ever employ a lady of child-bearing age”, that he doesn’t think women “clean behind the fridge enough”, and that his role as MEP is “to represent Yorkshire women who always have dinner on the table when you get home”.

Daily Star backpedals on support for EDL

Daily Star BBC Puts Muslims Before YouOnly last Wednesday an editorial in the Daily Star was claiming that there was “visibly growing support” for the English Defence League, which was “attracting people across Britain to its ranks”.

EDL leader Stephen Lennon (“Tommy Robinson”) was quoted as saying that EDL members “have no problems with race” and that their only objection is to “barbaric” Islam.

Commenting on the EDL’s supposed threat to field candidates in parliamentary and council elections, the Star observed that the organisation “could soon become a political force”, in which case “Tommy and his followers will have to be taken very seriously”.

What a difference four days can make.

The Star has now done a 180-degree turn on the EDL. An editorial in today’s issue attacks the EDL’s claim to be “non-racist, non-violent and the voice of reason against the spread of Islamic fundamentalism in this country”. It dismisses the EDL as an organisation whose “membership is tiny” and refers to the criminal records of some of its leading figures.

The editorial concludes that “blaming all our problems on innocent God-fearing Muslims is not the answer” and pledges that “we’ll never stop making that clear to the rag-tag bunch of thugs called the EDL”.

Could it be that Star‘s owner Richard Desmond was seriously embarrassed by the adverse publicity he received over his paper’s backing for the EDL and has ordered a change of line?

The transformation of the Star‘s editorial line on the EDL extends to its reporting.

The front page of last Wednesday’s issue notoriously featured a headline declaring “English Defence League to form political party”. The accompanying article included a sympathetic interview with Stephen Lennon, who was given a platform to claim that the EDL would soon have more Facebook followers than the Tories or Lib Dems, outline his organisation’s plan to ban the Qur’an and reveal his ambition to appear on the BBC’s Question Time.

The previous day the Star had given a boost to the EDL’s planned protest in Birmingham next month (which has since been postponed). An article headlined “English Defence League: We’ll stand up and fight for Britain’s brave heros” began:

“The English Defence League (EDL) is planning a huge march after two Muslim councillors snubbed a British war hero given the George Cross. Councillors Salma Yaqoob and Mohammed Ishtiaq caused fury by sitting down as more than 100 other politicians gave L/Cpl Matthew Croucher a standing ovation at a civic event.”

However, it was obvious even from the Star‘s own report that Lennon had no immediate plans to set up a political party, while the EDL’s publicity for its Birmingham protest did not include any reference to Salma Yaqoob and Mohammed Ishtiaq’s so-called “snub” of L/Cpl Croucher. It appeared that it was the Star itself that was putting pressure on the EDL to stand for elections and to target the two Respect councillors. The paper was not merely championing the EDL – it was proposing their political tactics to them.

What a contrast the coverage of the EDL in today’s Star presents.

One article reports that “Lennon admits that the group, made up of football hooligans and other hoodlums, has no hope of becoming a political party”. No mention is made of the fact that it was the Staritself, rather than Lennon, who was pushing the line that the EDL was about to enter electoral politics and posed a serious threat to the established parties.

On the matter of Matthew Croucher, the Star now reports: “A hero Marine has slammed far-right extremists who claim they will be marching in his name at an anti-Muslim demonstration. The English Defence League say they will parade on behalf of George Cross winner Matt Croucher in Birmingham next month. They claim to be outraged after Muslim councillors failed to join in a standing ovation for the Royal Marines Reserve…. He said: ‘They won’t be marching in my name and I won’t be joining them’.”

The Star even accuses Lennon of attempting to “hijack the issue by announcing a March 19 demo on behalf of Matt”. Again, no mention is made of the fact that it was the Star itself rather than the EDL who was pushing the idea that the proposed demo should concentrate on that particular issue.

As for the EDL leader’s claim that his organisation is not racist, theStar is now prepared to accept the well-known fact that “Lennon has experience of far-right politics dating back several years. He joined the British National Party in 2004 and attended at least one BNP meeting in Luton in 2007.” (For a photo of Lennon at the 2007 BNP meeting, which was addressed by the veteran fascist Richard Edmonds, see here.)

Today’s paper also features an article headlined “Paedo rap for EDL leader”, which reports the now rather old news that the EDL’s Richard Price has been convicted on child porn charges and that he was initially backed by Lennon, who claimed Price had been framed. The Star quotes an unnamed EDL member as having quit the EDL on the grounds that it “has a paedo in its leadership ranks”.

Of course, it is good that the Star‘s “Hurrah for the Blackshirts” moment appears to have passed and that the EDL will not have a daily paper acting as its cheerleader, but there are grounds for scepticism about the paper’s change of line.

For one thing, this isn’t the first time that the Star has promoted the EDL and then backed off. As I pointed out in an earlier post, in September 2009 the paper published an article under the headline “Case for the defence“, which gave credence to the EDL’s claim that they “oppose Nazis and racists”, and the next day published a follow-up piece which uncritically repeated the EDL’s assertion that they had been “swamped with messages of support from all races” as a result of the Star‘s original report. The Star then retreated from this position in the face of criticism, only to return to its promotion of the EDL last week.

Secondly, there is no sign that Star is going to change its obsessive and invariably inaccurate scaremongering against the same “innocent God-fearing Muslims” who it now claims to be defending from the EDL. Yesterday’s attack on Zakir Naik is repeated in today’s paper, which also continues the Star‘s familiar practice of publicising the rantings of Anjem Choudary with the evident aim of misleading its readers into believing that this irrelevant idiot with his few dozen followers represents a significant force within British Islam.

Even if the Star refrains from giving the EDL its official seal of approval and takes to describing them as “far-right extremists”, the fact remains that it is the misrepresentation of British Muslims by the Star and the rest of the right-wing popular press that provides the conditions in which far-right racist organisations like the EDL can thrive and grow.


How the Daily Star changed its line on the EDL

Daily Star editorial, 9 February 2011

Critics say the English Defence League is a racist, extremist organisation that’s filled with hate. The group’s leader Tommy Robinson strongly denies this. He says members have no problems with race. But he admits he is against “barbaric” Islam and the way it affects Britain.

Whatever side of the fence you fall, one thing’s for sure. There is a visibly growing support for the EDL. It is attracting people across Britain to its ranks who feel the same way.

This should be a warning to the major political parties. Key voters are so fed up with them that they are looking elsewhere. And there are real underlying issues here with Brits who feel abandoned by their leaders.

The EDL are now planning to field election candidates. If the Tories, Labour and Lib Dems don’t heed this and address key issues they could soon become a political force. Then, whether you like them or not, Tommy and his followers will have to be taken very seriously.

Daily Star editorial, 13 February 2011

The English Defence League reckon they are on the march. They claim to be non-racist, non-violent and the voice of reason against the spread of Islamic fundamentalism in this country.

It’s time for a few facts.

Their membership is tiny. Police said last week’s demo, supposed to be the biggest event in the group’s history, attracted just 1,500 supporters.

The voice of reason, they say. Really? We’ve already revealed how one member was a people smuggler. They’ve defended another who is a convicted sex offender and drug user.

These are tough times and no one supports Britain’s working class more than us. And no one has been harder on Islamic extremists than this newspaper.

Don’t worry – we’ll continue to hold Britain’s main political parties to account to ensure they get us all a better deal. And we’ll keep a close and critical eye on their immigration policies too.

But blaming all our problems on innocent God-fearing Muslims is not the answer.

And we’ll never stop making that clear to the rag-tag bunch of thugs called the EDL too.

More Mail nonsense about halal meat

The Church of England has told its schools to ensure they are serving non-halal food after concerns that a number are only providing meat slaughtered according to Islamic law.

The official guidance was issued after Church members complained that the use of halal meat was effectively “spreading sharia law” across Britain. The Church’s financial arm has also come under pressure to withdraw its investments – worth millions of pounds – in supermarkets that do not clearly label halal food.

The moves follow disclosures by The Mail on Sunday last year that halal products were widespread in schools, hospitals, pubs and sporting venues but members of the public were not informed.

More than 10,000 Christians, many of whom have reservations about eating meat from animals that are bled to death while an Islamic prayer is recited, have signed a petition calling for proper labelling.

Animal rights campaigners have also expressed anger because animals are often not stunned before their throats are cut with a sharp knife.

Alison Ruoff, a long-standing member of the Church’s “parliament”, the General Synod, said:

“The Church is only just waking up to this. We have been pathetic and mealy-mouthed but we should be really concerned about this. There is a lot of fear about upsetting Muslims but as a Christian you have to stand up for Christian values. Because we are unwittingly eating halal meat, we are spreading the practice of sharia law.”

Mrs Ruoff has challenged the Church Commissioners, who manage the Church’s £4 billion assets, to sell its shares in supermarkets that did not clearly label halal food.

The Rev Patrick Sookhdeo, an Anglican cleric who runs the international Barnabas Fund charity for Christians facing persecution, said some extremist Muslims viewed the growing  use of halal food as part of their efforts to “impose” sharia law on the West.

Mail on Sunday, 13 February 2011


The Mail‘s campaign last year featured headlines such as “How 70% of New Zealand lamb imports to Britain are halal… but this is NOT put on the label”. Readers were invited to believe that halal slaughter inflicts unnecessary suffering on animals, although in reality all halal lamb from New Zealand has been stunned before slaughter. The objection to halal meat by Christian right-wingers has nothing to do with alleged animal cruelty. It boils down to the fact that “an Islamic prayer is recited” while the animal is killed.

Hate preacher beats ban by beaming vile rants to your telly

Zakir NaikA hate preacher banned from entering Britain has been broadcasting messages into people’s homes via satellite TV.

Zakir Naik, 45, claims “every Muslim should be a terrorist” and was prevented from visiting the UK by Home Secretary Theresa May, 54, last year. Eight months on and the Islamic loudmouth is a key figure in poisonous satellite channel Peace TV, which is being shown in the UK.

Yesterday broadcasting watchdog Ofcom revealed it was investigating the channel after a complaint from a viewer about its extremist messages. Programmes on Peace TV have praised Mujahideen fighters in Iraq, labelled Jews an “enemy of Islam” and claimed 9/11 was an “inside job”.

Tory MP Patrick Mercer said: “The Home Secretary dealt with Naik extremely effectively. I think she will be furious to discover he still has a licence to spread his poison on satellite television. Ofcom should revoke it immediately.”

Naik was banned from entering the country after it was judged his presence was “not conducive to the public good”. During the British court case, Home Office officials also suggested his sermons acted as inspiration for the 2008 Mumbai terrorist attacks.

During his appeal, lawyers for the firebrand revealed he was chairman of Universal Broadcasting Corporation Ltd, a company registered in Britain. UBCL has held the broadcasting licence for Peace TV since 2007.

Naik was also named as chairman of the Islamic Research Foundation International, which appears to have given £1.5million to the channel in 2009.

Hannah Stuart, of the Centre of Social Cohesion, said: “Zakir Naik has been excluded from the UK. To allow him to continue to broadcast here makes a mockery of that decision.”

An Ofcom spokesman said: “We are in the middle of an investigation about Peace TV. Ofcom will not tolerate extremism on British television and transgressors will be dealt with.” But Peace TV was defiant, with a spokesman for the channel saying: “We have received no complaints in the last two years.”

Daily Star, 12 February 2011


See also Evening Standard, 11 February 2011

The “every Muslim should be a terrorist” quote is taken from Naik’s response to a 2003 Times of India report about a group of police officers, including an Inspector Angre, “who between them, have gunned down more than 300 alleged criminals in the past five years. The very mention of their names evokes terror in the underworld”. Dr Naik stated: “The moment the underworld hear the name of Inspector Angre, they are terrified, so Inspector Angre of the Mumbai Police Force is a terrorist for the underworld of Mumbai.”

He continued: “As far as terrorist is concerned, I tell the Muslims that every Muslim should be a terrorist…. What is the meaning of the word terrorist? Terrorist by definition means a person who terrorises. When a robber sees a policeman he’s terrified. So for a robber, a policeman is a terrorist. So in this context every Muslim should be a terrorist to the robber…. Every Muslim should be a terrorist to each and every anti-social element. I’m aware that terrorist more commonly is used for a person who terrorises an innocent person. In this context, no Muslim should even terrorise a single innocent human being.”

It is quite clear that the “every Muslim should be a terrorist quote” is taken out of context in order to attribute to Naik a position that is the opposite of the one he actually holds.

As for Naik having “labelled Jews an ‘enemy of Islam'”, that would appear to refer to a speech in which he quoted from the Qur’anic verse stating that “strongest in enmity towards the Muslims are the Jews and the pagans” and continued: “[The Qur’an] does not say that the Muslims should fight with the Jews … the Jews, by nature as a whole, will be against Muslims … there are many Jews who are good to Muslims, but as a whole … the Qur’an tells us, as whole, they will be our staunchest enemy.”

Quite aside from the fact that this is a crudely literalist intepretation of verse 5.82 of the Qur’an (as Qaradawi points out, “this verse talks about an historical position” – it refers to a specific conflict between Muslims and Jews in seventh-century Arabia) Naik’s position is clearly objectionable. While he emphasises that the Qur’an “does not say that Muslims should fight with the Jews” and points out that “there are many Jews who are good to Muslims”, he does promote a stereotypical view of Jewish attitudes towards Muslims.

But Naik is hardly alone in this. Earlier this week Roy Greenslade got into trouble with the Jewish Chronicle over a piece on his Guardian blog. Criticising the Daily Star‘s proprietor Richard Desmond over the paper’s support for the EDL, Greenslade wrote: “As a Jew, he may well have negative views of Muslims.” However, nobody is actually arguing that Greenslade should be banned from blogging for the Guardian.

It might be added that Naik’s views on Jews’ attitudes towards Muslims are significantly less offensive that Melanie Phillips’s views on Muslims’ attitudes towards Jews. Phillips is of course a well-known media commentator in the UK, regularly appearing for example on Radio 4’s Moral Maze. Yet we don’t hear anyone demanding that the BBC should have its broadcasting licence withdrawn.

Finally, the spectacle of a spokesperson for the Centre for Social Cohesion supporting a ban on Naik and Peace TV sets a new standard in chutzpah. The CSC’s director is Douglas Murray, who is an admirer of the EDL, an organisation dedicated to whipping up hostility towards Muslims, and has himself openly called for the persecution of Muslim communities living in Europe. If people are to be banned from travelling to other countries on the grounds that they could incite hatred, countries outside the UK might like to consider imposing a ban on Douglas Murray.

Muslim immigrants spread sharia law, claims Tancredo

Though CPAC ruffled some feathers by bringing pro-gay GOProud into the tent, such social inclusiveness didn’t extend very far. Taking center stage on immigration were the Republicans’ biggest flamethrowers, who issued dire warnings about the evils that immigrants could inflict upon the US. “I’m worried, because most of them are lawbreakers – in fact, most of them are criminals,” Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) told conference-goers on Thursday. But former Colorado Rep. Tom Tancredo upped the ante even further. Speaking to Mother Jones on Friday after his CPAC speech, he warned that Muslim immigrants would never be able to assimilate and posed a perilous threat by bringing Sharia law to America:

Then you got the issue of Muslim immigration. In every other case I’ve described, you can assimilate. If you come here as an atheist or a Christian or a Jew or a Hindu – there’s no inherent … conflict between that person and what it means to be an American, because the Constitution is the kind of document that wraps up all up.

But what do you do with people coming for the purpose of advancing sharia law, which is not compatible in any way with the constitution of the United States? How do you deal with that? That’s another very scary thing because demographically the numbers are on their side.

Tancredo’s warnings echoed recent efforts by right-wingers to ban sharia law in states like Oklahoma, and he drove home the link between immigrants, deadly crime, and terrorism in his CPAC speech as well – going so far as to equate open borders with treason. “Plenty of people coming across that border want to do very bad things to us – we know it’s been an entry point for terrorists. Why would that not be a cause for impeachment? I think it’s treasonous to not secure your border,” he told the crowd, to wild applause. Tancredo also denounced multiculturalism and ethnic enclaves as “the dagger pointed at the heart of Western civilization.”

Mother Jones, 12 February 2011


You’d think that US Islamophobes would all be enthusiastically supporting CPAC, but you’d be wrong. Frank Gaffney has alreadymade the bizarre claim that CPAC has been infiltrated by the Muslim Brotherhood and now he has been joined by David Horowitz and Robert Spencer.

Daily Star gives free publicity to the EDL … again

EDL to become political partyENGAGE draws our attention to the front page of today’s Daily Star which reports the EDL’s supposed threat to contest parliamentary and council elections, under the headline “English Defence League to become political party”.

As you might expect, this being the Daily Star, the headline is not entirely accurate. The report begins breathlessly: “The English Defence League is set to break into mainstream politics with a bid to get MPs in Parliament. It wants to field official EDL candidates in national and council elections.”

But it goes on to quote EDL leader Stephen Lennon as saying something rather less dramatic about the EDL’s plans to transform itself into a political party:

“We aren’t ruling it out. I think this country needs a party that’s not afraid to say things some would consider unpopular. My hope is still that the Tories will take a tougher stance. We are a single issue group and at the moment we would rather have a dialogue with the other political parties – but that could change.”

Continue reading