“The resignation of Michael Nazir-Ali as Bishop of Rochester is a terrible blow, not just for the Church of England but for Britain.

“…. when Dr Nazir-Ali warned last year that Islamic extremists had created ‘no-go areas’ across Britain where non-Muslims faced intimidation, he was disowned by his fellow churchmen who all but declared that he was a liar – even though he was telling the truth….

“Dr Nazir-Ali is one of the very few inside the church to make explicit the link between Christian and British values, and to warn publicly that they are being destroyed through the prevailing doctrine of multiculturalism….

“With the church refusing to assert itself, this vacuum has allowed radical Islam to promote itself as an influential force in public life. Indeed it is rubbing its hands at the opportunity. And in the longer term that risks destroying our basic values of individual freedom and equality – and with them the identity of Britain itself.

“Dr Nazir-Ali understands this very clearly…. Back in the Eighties, he warned of the rise of radical Islamism. No-one listened. Now he urges an ‘ideological battle’ against fundamentalist Islam, which he likens to the Western struggle against Marxism. But the church still isn’t listening, and is falling over itself to accommodate it instead. Thus Dr Williams’s lamentable statement that there was no reason why sharia law should not be accepted in Britain over certain areas of Muslim life….

“Dr Nazir-Ali’s outspoken opposition to such developments has made him powerful enemies within the church. Last summer, a group of influential churchmen met to work out how to sideline those ‘aggressive’ Christians who were ‘increasing the level of fear’ by talking about the threat from radical Islam. Among those in their sights was the Bishop of Rochester.

“In any sane world, Michael Nazir-Ali – a church leader whose intellect is matched by his courage and insight – should be appointed Archbishop of Canterbury to defend our society at this most dangerous time. Instead, he is out.”

Melanie Phillips in the Daily Mail, 30 March 2009

See also “The resignation of Bishop Michael Nazir-Ali is a victory for Islamism” by Damian Thompson.

For a rather different take on the issue, see Sunny Hundal’s comments at Pickled Politics.

Yusuf Smith replies to the ludicrous charge by the Barnabas Fund that he has placed Patrick Sookhdeo and his family in danger.

Indigo Jo Blogs, 28 February 2009

The controversy arose from the exchange between Ben White and the Barnabas Fund over White’s critical review of Sookhdeo’s book Global Jihad. In response, the Barnabus Fund accused White of “glorifying” Osama bin Laden and presenting him in a “heroic light”, of accepting “the racist Islamist view that anything said or written by Jews or Israelis, no matter how scholarly, cannot be credible simply because of who they inherently are”, and compared him to “those in Britain in the 1930s that were sympathetic to Hitler and the Nazi party” who “totally ignored Mein Kampf and all other clear Nazi racist and anti-Semitic statements and actions, or else applauded them”.

Interestingly, though not entirely unexpectedly, Harry’s Place sided with Sookhdeo in the dispute.

“Given that much of the controversy surrounding the government’s falling out with the MCB has focused on the mistaken presumption that the MCB receives government funding (it has not for several years), we thought wed inject some accuracy and argument into the debate. Daud Abdullah of the MCB, in his Newsnight interview, clarified what public funding the MCB has actually received – none – except project funding….

“More interesting is the comparison to be made in government interaction with those Muslim organisations who have received substantial public funding….

“The British Muslim Forum – whose funds allocation totals £194,200 – supported the government’s planned extension of the detention period without charge to 42 days last year despite widespread opposition amongst British Muslims.

“As for the Quilliam Foundation which received around £1 million according to this investigation in The Times, its legitimacy as an organization has always been non-existent. The organization is widely recognised to be nothing more than a government funded social engineering project designed to depoliticize Muslims.

“Not only does money talk, it would seem that it many cases it only speaks the language of the government.”

ENGAGE, 27 March 2009

A standoff between the communities secretary, Hazel Blears, and the Muslim Council of Britain was said last night to “cut to the heart” of the government’s revised counter-terror strategy to challenge those who defend terrorism and violent extremism.

Blears has suspended official links with the MCB over allegations that its deputy general secretary endorsed a Hamas call for attacks on foreign troops, including possibly British troops, if they try to intercept arms smuggled into Gaza.

Blears last night pressed the MCB for further clarification after it distanced itself from a declaration calling for a new jihad over Gaza made by the Hamas-backed “global anti-aggression campaign” in Istanbul last month. The cabinet minister is still pressing the MCB’s deputy general secretary, Dr Daud Abdullah, who attended and signed the Istanbul declaration, to clarify his own position.

The dispute, involving a senior government minister and one of the most significant Muslim “umbrella” organisations, coincided with the launch of the Contest 2 counter-terror strategy and illustrated the determination of ministers to challenge radical views that fall short of support for violence but reject and undermine “our shared values”.

Guardian, 25 March 2009

See also “The government may be the only loser in this untimely dispute” by Madeleine Bunting.

Meanwhile the Daily Mail seizes the opportunity to attack the MCB:

Following the recent muddle over Hezbollah, the British government continues to dig itself deeper into the mire with its “anti-extremism” policy.

Hazel Blears, secretary of state for communities and local government, is trying to engineer the resignation of Daud Abdullah, deputy secretary general of the Muslim Council of Britain. She may not like Abdullah or agree with his views but, frankly, it’s none of her business. The MCB is not a government body and can appoint whoever it wants as its deputy secretary general.

This sort of government interference is condemned by human rights organisations when it happens under dictatorial regimes such as that in Egypt where authorities vet the board members of NGOs and even tell them how they must conduct their meetings.

Of course, the government can choose whether or not to talk to the MCB but, by choosing not to, it will seriously undermine its own policy of engaging with the British Muslim community.

The MCB is an umbrella organisation that claims the support of more than 500 affiliated national, regional and local organisations, mosques, charities and schools. By definition it needs to include as many strands of British Muslim opinion as possible. In the past it has been criticised for not being representative enough, and now Blears seems determined to make it less representative as a condition of being recognised by the government.

Brian Whitaker at Comment is Free, 24 March 2009

Update:  See also “Hazel Blears must back down” by, of all people, Geoffrey Alderman, who writes:

The extraordinary action taken against the Muslim Council of Britain by communities minister Hazel Blears has rightly aroused widespread condemnation. As Brian Whitaker has already pointed out, Blears’s 13 March letter to the MCB, suspending ‘engagement’ with it pending the outcome of its investigation into the conduct of its deputy general secretary, Daud Abdullah, amounts to a piece of quite unwarranted Whitehall interference in the internal working of an independent body operating entirely legally in this country. In principle, whom the MCB chooses as its office-holders is none of Blears’s business. The very unfortunate precedent she is trying to set reflects the practices of a totalitarian state – China perhaps, or Zimbabwe. I am shocked that such a mindset could emerge in the UK.

The Muslim Council of Britain reports on a meeting at the weekend which “voiced serious alarm that the government may be in danger of adopting misguided notions of extremism as dictated by xenophobic commentators who profit from creating a hostile atmosphere from which bigots of all shades can draw. A definition of ‘extremism’ that would classify the overwhelming majority of loyal and law abiding British citizens as extremists would be of no value in our common fight against terrorism. The speakers also highlighted the abuse of current anti-terrorism legislation as it is so broad that anyone and everyone can be booked under the pretext of terrorism and therefore it has failed to focus on or tackle extremism.”

MCB news release, 23 March 2009