So what is this threat Martin? Do tell us

Martin Bright 2Martin Bright responds to Soumaya Ghannoushi. According to Mart, the UK media have generally been very fair in their coverage of Muslims, which will certainly come as news to the overwhelming majority of Muslims.

He concludes: “It is true that not all Islamists are violent. Nor should al-Qaida be put in the same category as the Muslim Brotherhood, the Egyptian parent organisation of Hamas. There are important distinctions to be made here. But the Islamist ideology promoted by the British manifestations of the Brotherhood, such as the Federation of Student Islamic Societies, the British Muslim Initiative, the Muslim Association of Britain and IslamExpo itself brings its own dangers. These do not threaten British democracy but they do have a pernicious effect, especially on young Muslims in this country who fall under their influence. This is where the danger lies and the threat is very real.”

Of course, Bright doesn’t feel under any obligation to spell out precisely what that danger and threat might be. As Inayat Bunglawala observes in the comments:

“The Muslim Brotherhood have good and bad points but I am curious to know what you identify here as their negative influence on UK Muslims. Whenever I have spoken with their members they always seem to encourage British Muslims to play an active role in British society and also to learn more about their own faith. Please do expand on your own views.”

Answer came there none.

Update:  Over at Harry’s Place, in an attack on Demos for agreeing to participate at IslamExpo, the inimitable Nick Cohen helpfully provides an explanation of the threat posed by the Muslim Brotherhood. It is “a far right movement”, according to Cohen, “which was founded by the admirers of European fascism, which propagates the theories of Adolf Hitler, and wishes to suppress the women, murder the Jews, homosexuals, socialists and apostates and establish an inquisitorial dictatorship”. So, thanks to Nick, next time you meet a member of the British Muslim Initiative or FOSIS you’ll know what their objectives really are.

‘Dangerous company’

Osama and Alex“This is Alex Salmond, First Minister of the devolved Scottish Executive embracing Osama Saeed, CEO of the Scottish Islamic Foundation (recent recipient of £215,000 from the Scottish executive) and SNP candidate for Glasgow Central.

“Mr Saeed is also an Islamic fundamentalist (read: EXTREMIST)…. Mr Saeed suggests that there is no reason the West should oppose the creation of a united Islamic state – the caliphate….

“It’s no surprise that Mr Saeed’s choice of political party is the SNP. What do the SNP want? To name but a few – Unilateral disarmament, pacifism (read – appeasement beyond ridicule) and the breaking of the greatest Western democracy, the only one in Europe that stood alone against Fascism, survived and won – the UK. From the mind of an extremist – it must make complete sense….

“Scotland has a First Minister that embraces a person whose very intention is to oppose Western Power.”

SNP Watch, 15 July 2008


And, disgracefully, this right-wing drivel is partially reproduced over at Labourhome, under the heading “Alex Salmond and Islamic Extremism“. As one critic points out in the comments: “this is politics of the gutter and gives our party a bad name…. It’s disgusting and I’m ashamed to see it on a Labour website”.

Nor is the “politics of the gutter” restricted to Labourhome. Over at Chris Paul’s Labour of Love blog the SIF is described as a “Salmond-funded ginger group for the Caliphate”. See also Glasgow South Labour MP Tom Harris’s blog, which approvingly quotes raving right-wing Islamophobe Dean Godson’s attack on Osama Saeed.

Update:  It has since been claimed that SNP Watch is run by one Ricky Simpson, who stood as a Labour candidate in Aberdeen in the 2007 council elections. Simpson himself has objected to our describing his attack on Osama Saeed as “right-wing drivel”, stating that he is in favour of “social democracy and redistribution”.

The paranoid ravings of Bat Ye’or

batyeorThe Jerusalem Post interviews Gisèle Littman, aka Bat Ye’or, who expounds her familiar conspiracy fantasy about the Islamic takeover of Europe, with the Organisation of the Islamic Conference playing the role of the Learned Elders of Zion:

“As for OIC influence on Europe: It is visible in immigration policy toward Muslims, and in the Muslims’ refusal to integrate into European societies. The OIC considers nationalist-European movements, European history, European culture, European religions and European languages as Islamophobic. Why? Because Europeans have begun to feel that they are losing their own identity, due to their efforts to welcome immigrants who don’t want to integrate….

“Europeans fear losing their historical and cultural assets – particularly those of democracy and human rights – to Shari’a law. They want one law for everybody – and it’s not Shari’a, which involves things like honor killings. It is thus that in all international forums, the OIC attacks Europe and demands that it apply multiculturalism.

“Now, Europeans do not want multiculturalism. But this is a problem, because European governments – and especially the European Union – do not want to fight the OIC, and so they collaborate with it…. The environment is one of jihad on the one hand and of dhimmitude on the other. European countries are becoming dhimmi countries…. Muslim politics are conducted in Europe by Europeans themselves, based on the interests of Muslim lobbyists.”

The tentacles of these Muslim lobbyists apparently reach into all areas of society, including the education system: “European universities – like those in America – are totally controlled by the Arab-Islamic lobby, as are the schools.”

Still, all is not lost: “Look what Europe has given to the world: democracy and human rights, the love of peace. Look at its achievements in the field of literature, music, law, architecture. There is a tremendous richness. But we have to fight for all those values and accomplishments. Otherwise, we will be living as dhimmis in barbarity.”

‘Please can I have some money Boris?’ – Ed Husain marks 7/7

Ed HusainJust when you thought that opinion might be shifting towards a recognition of the existence of widespread and atrocious media bigotry against the Muslim community, in steps Ed Husain to assure everyone that Islamophobia is just a myth promoted by Islamist extremists.

In an article in today’s Evening Standard marking the third anniversary of the July 2005 London bombings, he writes:

“What has changed since 7/7 is the tactics and the public rhetoric of the extremists. Under pressure from Muslim activists, ‘Islamophobia’ has become accepted as a phenomenon on a par with racism, as examined in tonight’s Channel 4 documentary by political journalist Peter Oborne, for example.”

But it’s all nonsense, according to Ed:

“Outside a few flashpoints where the BNP is at work, most Muslims would be hard-pressed to identify Islamophobia in their lives. Yet that is the charge every time the extremists press for new ‘rights’ – over dress in the workplace, for example. If there is anti-Muslim sentiment, we Muslims have to ask what some of us have done to provoke such feelings in a country that is proudly multi-cultural. Islamist extremism might be a good starting point.”

And who are the proponents of “Islamist extremism”? Well, the people organising Islam Expo later this week are among them, according to Ed Husain. Because some of those involved in the event are supporters of the Palestinian resistance they are no different from the 7/7 bombers, in Husain’s analysis. And worse still, supposedly as a result of “a Ken Livingstone commitment to his friends”, the London Development Agency is one of the sponsors of Islam Expo.

Husain concludes with an appeal to the current Mayor of London: “Boris Johnson has a fresh mandate. He knows the organisers behind this week’s event are those that cry Islamophobia. Will he co-opt them, appease or oppose them? His starting point could be to expose their Westophobia, and empower the right side in this battle of ideas.”

Which I think could be translated as: “Please can I have some GLA funding for the Quilliam Foundation?”

BNP leader Nick Griffin pays respect to killed activist

BNP Islam Out of BritainBritish National Party leader Nick Griffin visited North Staffordshire yesterday to pay his respects to the partner of activist Keith Brown. His visit marked one year since Mr Brown was killed by a neighbour.

And after commiserating with Julia Barker, he spent time with local party officials planning a national BNP rally scheduled for Stoke-on-Trent next month. Mr Griffin also thanked them for turning the city into “the jewel in the crown of the BNP”.

Mr Barker, of Uttoxeter Road, in Normacot, was stabbed to death on July 6 last year, by his Muslim neighbour Habib Khan, following a long-running dispute. Khan was convicted of manslaughter by reason of lack of intent and is still awaiting sentence.

Mr Griffin said: “Despite the manslaughter verdict we still regard Keith’s death as murder and we need to highlight how the police and criminal justice system fails to properly investigate such racially-motivated crime. We are expecting large numbers of people from around the country to converge on the city for the rally on August 9 when we shall be touring the estates and visiting large parts of Stoke-on-Trent.”

Stoke Sentinel, 7 July 2008


It is quite clear that racism – and anti-Muslim racism in particular – is absolutely central to the BNP’s political appeal across the country. Consequently, anti-racism has to be equally central to the anti-fascist movement.

Yet there are still those who try to avoid recognising this self-evident fact. A discussion article by Nick Lowles in the June 2008 issue of the anti-fascist magazine Searchlight, for example, argues that: “A cursory look at where the BNP is gaining support shows that race is not necessarily the dominant issue that it was in Oldham, Burnley and Bradford. There are very small non-white communities in Stoke-on-Trent, Barnsley and Nuneaton and Bedworth.”

How does this in any way demonstrate that racism is not still the defining factor in the rise of the BNP in those towns? It’s well known that le Pen’s Front National won support in areas where a high proportion of the inhabitants were of North African origin – Marseilles notably – but also in areas where the white “indigenous” French population was in a large majority. In both areas the FN campaigned on the basis of racism, winning votes by inciting hatred and fear of migrants.

Similarly in the UK, just because there is a small proportion of non-white people in a particular area it doesn’t mean that racism ceases to be central to the BNP’s appeal there. Indeed, in such areas racism can sometimes become a more effective mobilising ideology for the far right than it is in multi-ethnic towns and cities, because the white majority, having little direct experience of social interaction with members of minority non-white communities, are more susceptible to racist stereotypes and can be convinced that their culture and identity are under threat from an influx of “aliens”. Five years ago the BNP managed to get a councillor elected in Broxbourne on the basis of a scaremongering campaign about the town “filling up” with asylum seekers, when in reality there wasn’t a single asylum seeker living in Broxbourne.

Stoke-on-Trent may well contain “very small non-white communities” (at the time of the 2001 census, 95% of the population was white and only 5% non-white, while even the most ethnically mixed ward – Hanley – had a 76% white population). However, as is detailed in Peter Oborne and James Jones’ excellent new pamphlet (pdf) Muslims Under Siege, this hasn’t prevented the BNP from acquiring its base of political support and nine councillors …

“… in large part by fighting a vicious anti-Muslim campaign. Stoke has one of the lowest employment rates in the country since the pottery industry collapsed. The BNP have sought to link this decline to Muslim immigration. Their leaflets have shown a montage of pottery kilns, smiling white housewives and a church tower, with the caption, ‘HANLEY 70 YEARS AGO’. A second montage alongside showed silhouettes of mosques and a photograph of women in veils (taken in Birmingham) – one giving a V-sign – with the caption, ‘Is this what you want for our city centre?’

“Other campaigns have focused on planning issues over mosques – a flash point elsewhere too. The BNP accuse the Labour council of cutting special deals with Muslim groups in exchange for support. The BNP protested that the Labour majority council was renting a plot of land to Muslim developers for just £1 a year, amid suggestions that it could be sold to them for £72,000. The BNP even made an offer of £100,000 on the land. The mayor of Stoke, Mark Meredith, told us that these peppercorn rent deals are done with all community groups, and that in this case a plot of land that has been lying idle for decades will be put to good use and regenerate the area….

“The determination to scapegoat Muslims has meant they even champion animal rights, targeting halal food as inhumane in a campaign that BNP Councillor Michael Coleman admitted to us was not their natural territory.

“The BNP told us on our recent visit that they are about to launch a new nationwide anti-Muslim campaign from Stoke. The launch pad for this new era of hostility will be the sentencing of Habib Khan, who was charged with murdering his neighbour, Keith Brown, a BNP activist. Brown is to be promoted as the first ‘BNP martyr’.”

And this, according to Searchlight‘s leading theoretician, is a town where “race is not necessarily the dominant issue” in the rise of the BNP!

What explains this peculiar blind spot on the part of Nick Lowles? Some of us might point to Searchlight‘s traditional reluctance to mount an ideological and cultural challenge to racism within the white majority community. Plus, of course, the Zionist politics of Searchlight‘s leadership makes them resistant to campaigning against anti-Muslim bigotry in co-operation with the representative organisations of the community who are the victims of that bigotry.

‘Is cosying up to Muslim extremists the best way to defeat terrorism?’

Charles Moore 2The question is posed by Charles Moore, writing in the Daily Telegraph in response to the Lord Chief Justice’s recent speech on sharia law.

In the category of “Islamist extremists” who he claims have mistakenly been accorded respectability Moore includes the East London Mosque, the Mosques and Imams Advisory Board, Osama Saeed, Islam Expo … and even Shahid Malik MP!

He concludes: “So the solution to extremism is that extremists become the official representatives of Islam in this country. Islamist mosques, organisations and spokesmen will be treated as the true voice of Muslims (and woe betide those Muslims who disagree). Then we shall get a lot more sharia than Lord Phillips has bargained for.”

Cummins was right about Islam says Liddle

Rod LiddleWriting in this week’s Spectator Rod Liddle rallies to the defence of poor Harry Cummins – “the British Council employee who dared to speak the truth about Islamic ideology”, as the standfirst to Liddle’s article puts it.

Apparently Cummins has been bombarding journalists with an email demanding the right of reply to the Guardian, of a character that leads Liddle to describe him as a paid-up member of the “green ink brigade”.

This, you may recall, was the Harry Cummins who contributed a series of articles to the Telegraph back in 2004 bearing titles such as “Muslims are a threat to our way of life“, and who assured his readers that “Christians are the original inhabitants and rightful owners of almost every Muslim land, and behave with a humility quite unlike the menacing behaviour we have come to expect from the Muslims who have forced themselves on Christendom, a bullying ingratitude that culminates in a terrorist threat to their unconsulted host”.

In response to a critic who accused him of underestimating the diversity of Islam and pointed out that extremists were a minority within the faith, Cummins opined that “all Muslims, like all dogs, share certain characteristics”. Understandably, Cummins denounced the proposal to introduce a law against incitement to religious hatred, which he said had been adopted “at the behest of Muslim foreigners who have forced themselves on us”, and he defended the right to express “a virulent hatred of Muslims”.

Liddle, however, is indignant that Cummins’ employers at the British Council sacked him on the basis that he had made “ignorant” and “hateful” comments about Muslims. According to Liddle, notwithstanding the eccentricity of his emails, Cummins “was certainly not a racist, whatever else he was. He made it clear that his beef was with the ideology, not the people”!

On the other hand we are obliged to Liddle for the revelation that “the more barking mad the letter I receive, the more likely it is that they fervently agree with whatever it is I’ve written”. Well, that would figure, wouldn’t it?

Nazis recommend Harry’s Place

Yes, when it comes to hysterical articles about the supposed threat posed by shariah law, the white supremacist forum Stormfront evidently finds much to admire at the self-styled voice of the “decent left”. Given the readiness of the increasingly unbalanced David T to label political activists from the Muslim communities as fascists, it’s interesting to see how much common ground he and his friends at HP have with actual fascists.

Murad Qureshi on the Brian Donegan trial

Murad and Mohamed Al Salamouni“Last week I was at Southwark Crown Court to observe the harrowing trial of Brian Donegan who last August launched a vicious unprovoked attack on the Imam of Regent’s Park mosque, Sheikh Mohammed El-Salamouni. Sheikh El-Salamouni was left lying on the floor of the mosque with horrific injuries and is now blind for life. In its symbolism to those in the Muslim community, the attack would be comparable for Roman Catholics to an attack on an archbishop at Westminster Cathedral. To add to the local community’s distress, the fall-out from the attack is that Imams from Al-Azhar University who have provided us with the Imams at Regent’s Park for many years could now leave London if the Egyptian authorities do not feel they will be adequately protected in London.

“It is of scant consolation to Sheikh El-Salamouni, but Brian Donegan will be imprisoned indefinitely in a secure hospital after he was declared insane by the court. His punishment and the fact he will spend the rest of life behind bars needs needs to be properly explained to the local community and users of the mosque, some of whom are concerned that the lack of a traditional ‘guilty’ verdict means Mr Donegan has somehow got off lightly. This of course is not the case. It would take the intervention of the Home Secretary for Mr Donegan’s sentence ever to be revisited – something I do not envisage happening and something I will do everything in my gift to prevent.

“I have written to Jacqui Smith the present Home Secretary to press home this fact and to emphasise to her that the likes of Mr Donegan must not be allowed to harm our excellent record of harmonious community relations here in London.”

The Qureshi Report, 11 June 2008


It is worth examining the context to the attack on the sheikh.

On 8 August the West Midlands Police and the Crown Prosecution Service accused the makers of the Channel 4 documentary “Undercover Mosque” of distorting evidence in order to portray UK mosques as centres of extremism. One of the mosques so portrayed was the London Central Mosque at Regent’s Park.

On 9 August the right-wing press denounced the police and CPS and weighed in behind “Undercover Mosque”. An angry editorial in the Sun declared that the programme was “in tune with authoritative surveys showing how young Muslims are being persuaded by imams and preachers to sympathise with terrorists” and called on the police to “crack down on the fanatics who really are trying to stir up murderous feelings by turning gullible young Muslims into killing machines”.

On 10 August Brian Donegan launched his vicious attack on Sheikh Salamouni.

‘Hazel Blears says sidelining of Christianity is common sense’

It is “common sense” for Christianity to be sidelined at the expense of Islam, a Government minister claimed on Sunday. Hazel Blears, the Communities Secretary, defended Labour’s policy on religion after a report backed by the Church of England claimed that Muslims receive a disproportionate amount of attention.

She said it was right that more money and effort was spent on Islam than Christianity because of the threat from extremism and home-grown terrorism.

Ms Blears told BBC Radio 4’s Sunday programme: “That’s just common sense. If we’ve got an issue where we have to build resilience of young Muslim men and women to withstand an extremist message.”

She added: “We live in a secular democracy. That’s a precious thing. We don’t live in a theocracy, but we’ve always accepted that hundreds of thousands of people are motivated by faith. We live in a secular democracy but we want to recognise the role of faith.”

The Church of England bishop responsible for the report, the Rt Rev Stephen Lowe, Bishop for Urban Life and Faith, said afterwards: “She said we live in a secular democracy. That comes as news to me – we have an established Church, but the Government can’t deal with Christianity.”

As The Daily Telegraph reported on Saturday, the landmark report commissioned by the Church and written by academics at the Von Hugel Institute accuses ministers of paying only “lip service” to Christianity and marginalising the Anglican and Roman Catholic churches, while focusing “intently” on Islam.

Daily Telegraph, 9 June 2008


The idea that Blears’ targeting of British Muslims as a suspect community amounts to discriminating in favour of Islam against Christianity is of course laughable.

Nevertheless, Mad Mel is appalled:

“Here is a government minister endorsing the sidelining of the founding faith of her country by an aggressively colonising religion whose adherents are determined that it should supplant that founding faith – and boasting that she is giving it British taxpayers’ money to do so in the name of defeating religious extremism…. The root of this madness is the government’s refusal to acknowledge the essence of the problem. Crippled by tunnel vision in which it sees al Qaeda alone as beyond the pale because the only threat the government recognises is terrorism, it fails to see that the other half of the attack is the attempt by Islamists to colonise the cultural sphere and transform Britain into an Islamic state.”

Melanie Phillip’s blog, 9 June 2008