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 →

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 →

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”.

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.

A 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.