Information about the high levels of interwoven activity between Labour Party councillors working for Tower Hamlets council and Islamist activists in East London Mosque (London Muslim Centre) appears to be reaching the public domain.
An article in the Sunday Express yesterday, by Ted Jeory, details the extent to which the Labour party in Tower Hamlets is infiltrated by members of the Saudi-backed hardline Islamist group, the Islamic Forum Europe (IFE):
The growing influence of the East London Mosque, whose education wing was built with Saudi money, on the Labour party is causing concern in Downing Street.
Gordon Brown, Justice Secretary Jack Straw and new Communities Secretary John Denham have been briefed on Islamic groups based there.
Party officials have held crisis talks about one group in particular, the Islamic Forum of Europe.
Senior party members fear it has infiltrated Labour and exerts too much power over MPs and councillors in areas with large Muslim populations.
Politicians fear that IFE can persuade imams to direct bloc votes at elections.
Labour insiders are particularly concerned about events in Tower Hamlets in east London, a £1billion authority that is home to parts of the City, Canary Wharf and the Olympics.
Ten days ago, Labour council leader Lutfur Rahman sparked outrage after asking the authority’s highly respected chief executive, Martin Smith, to go on leave because he had lost confidence in him.
His move came just days after he, three other councillors and an IFE official returned from a privately funded delegation to Saudi Arabia.
It is understood that they went to be blessed by Sheikh Adil al-Kalbani, a controversial and high-ranking imam in Mecca who said recently that Jews and Christians should only be allowed to live in the Arabian Peninsular “if their presence is essential”.
Cllr Rahman also held talks with Sheikh al-Kalbani in Tower Hamlets last October.
The East London Mosque is currently on an international fundraising drive to finance a large extension that would house new teaching facilities.
Mr Smith is understood to have had concerns about a request by the mosque to buy the council’s share in its freehold.
A spokesman for the IFE denied deliberate “infiltration” of political parties saying its supporters were free to follow any party they liked.
“We support the work of anyone who progresses the work of Islam,” he added.
A spokesman for the London Labour party conceded there were concerns about latest developments.
He said: “We’re keeping a close eye on things. The local party is in special measures because of concerns with membership. It means the regional director of the party will be managing the selection process for candidates for next year’s elections. We want to ensure candidates have the best intentions for the party.”
The Express report raises some questions that need to be urgently addressed by the London Labour party:
1) Why was Martin Smith suspended by Cllr Lutfor Rahman?
2) What was discussed by Cllr Lutfor Rahman and Sheikh Adil al-Kalbani when the latter visited Tower Hamlets in October?
3) Who are the three other councillors and the “IFE official” who travelled to Saudi Arabia to meet Sheikh Adil al-Kalbani?
4) In what official capacity did they travel to Saudi Arabia?
A clue towards an answer to the first question about the suspension of chief executive Martin Smith is found in an article from last year, also by Ted Jeory, in the East London Advertiser. It shows how Lutfor Rahman has been trying to oust Martin Smith and replace him with his crony Lutfor Rahman Ali since at least last year, despite doubts about Ali’s qualifications and credibility.
Opposition politicians on the council believe Lutfur Rahman is trying to oust Martin Smith to make way for assistant chief executive Lutfur Rahman Ali (aka Lutfur Ali, and no relation to the above).
Ali was controversially appointed to the £125,000 a year post last year. Headhunters apparently thought him a marginal candidate at best, but Lutfur Rahman backed him and his name was added to the shortlist.
Despite doubts over his suitability and questions over his CV, the seven-strong appointments sub-committee chose him for the job, in a narrow 4-3 decision. The four councillors who voted for him were fellow Bengalis and East London Mosque bigwigs Lutfur Rahman, his deputy Siraj Islam, Ohid Ahmed and local Respect leader Abjol Miah.
Imam al-Kalbani is the first black imam of the Grand Mosque in Mecca and also happens to be a sectarian hate-preacher and a racist. He spoke at the Global Peace and Unity event last year. As far as his “peace and unity” credentials are concerned, al-Kalbani regards the Shi’ite sect as heretical and Shi’a imams as apostates. Last month, 600 Saudi clerics called for Imam al-Kalbani to be prosecuted for inciting hatred against the Shi’a. His racist statements concerning Jewish inhabitants of Saudi Arabia are captured here.
The Prophet’s guidance, by which we act, dictates: “Drive the Jews and the Christians out of the Arabian Peninsula.” Driving them out is undoubtedly the prerogative of the ruler, but they should be allowed to live here only if their presence is essential.
Cllr Abjol Miah is the George Galloway understudy for the disgraced Respect Party in Tower Hamlets.
Cllr Lutfor Rahman is backed by Islamic Forum Europe (IFE), an Islamist group run out of the London Muslim Centre/East London Mosque. The IFE has strong links to Jamaat-e-Islami – a clerical-fascist party which operates with only marginal support in Bangladesh but which is disproportionately over-represented in Tower Hamlets Council.
63 Comments
I note, Mark, that you failed to respond to criticisms of your arguments (made earlier by Faisal, Ibn Khaldun and others) in favour of the IFE in Tower Hamlets. I will register here some scepticism about your depiction of yourself as a concerned but naive non-Muslim who finds himself oddly in agreement with Islamists.
Apologies if I am wrong, but I do find your interventions too pat and convenient for my liking.
In response to this, Nothing odd about it. As the quote goes ” great minds think alike ” so where is yours ?
By examining the evidence as presented here and elsewhere that the Islamists of the IFE are acting in a manner that is both deceitful and not in the best interests of the wider community in Tower Hamlets. This is hardly a “secret agenda”, the IFE and other Islamists are fortunately less than discreet in their ambitions.
That would be the IFE and other Islamists, of course.
Agreed. However, what has this to do with my comment?
I was unaware that I was doing either.
I am pointing out to you that the extremists in the Muslim community have a morally repellent platform – and that these extremists are the Islamists; including the IFE.
This is the progress that the Islamists in the IFE seek to undo. However, your point for this rather odd diatribe is?
I think you have completely misunderstood my position. Go back and re-read my posts. I think you will find that one of my objections to the IFE and other Islamists is that they are reactionaries.
On the other hand, if you think work is possible with the very extremists that you claim you want to see squeezed out by the Muslim community, I have to argue that this is a very bizarre and self-contradictory position for you to hold.
I think that empty abuse speaks volumes, actually. You are even more plausibly an imposter.
With respect, although Islamists portray themselves as concerned with, to use your terms, the stemming of alleged “moral decay”, theirs is a deeply sinister political agenda, which includes amongst other morally unworthy projects, the subjugation of women, as thorough an anti-Semitism as that witnessed in the heyday of European fascism, the prosecution of campaigns against other religious believers, a deep-seated racism towards certain ethnic minorities, a deep contempt for the norms of democracy, the denial of universal human rights, the encouragement of homophobic intolerance. These are certainly symptoms of moral decay that I would be concerned about in the agenda of groups like IFE in Tower Hamlets.
And yes Abu, I would agree with you in all of what you say here. Quite a few of us at some time have been guilty of all these charges. So should it be that the sins of the father visit the son ?
M
Mark,
This is the distinction between motes and beams – which, as a Christian, you should be perfectly aware.
Firstly, I think that is questionable. Secondly, even if it was the case, we are not talking about historical wrongs – wrongs that have both ended and have, in many cases been righted; rather, we are concerned with present wrongs that are being committed now by Islamists.
Disagreement with this position leads to moral paralysis, where one does not act as pretexted by putative prior misdemeanour on one’s own part. Shortly – one does not act against moral wrong because one believes one has committed similar moral wrong oneself. That is, of course, an entirely immoral position to hold.
Incidentally, I am not sure how the religious-ethical principle of the sins of the father not being visited upon the son is relevant in this case.
with respect Abu,what your saying is that there is a secret agenda here with IFE, that could well be the case, but how does one the sort the wheat from the chaff ?
By examining the evidence as presented here and elsewhere that the Islamists of the IFE are acting in a manner that is both deceitful and not in the best interests of the wider community in Tower Hamlets. This is hardly a “secret agenda”, the IFE and other Islamists are fortunately less than discreet in their ambitions.
This is why I ask that all good muslims give up the extremist within thier communty.
That would be the IFE and other Islamists, of course.
As far as women go, why would it take women like Emily Pankhurst to die ?, I’ll tell you why….stubborness and the lack of will to trust that a woman can task as good as a man.
Agreed. However, what has this to do with my comment?
Don’t try to split hairs here and confuse the issue.
I was unaware that I was doing either.
I am pointing out to you that the extremists in the Muslim community have a morally repellent platform – and that these extremists are the Islamists; including the IFE.
In western society it was once deemed that a womans place was behind the kitchen sink, since then we had a female PM, ( Margaret Thatcher) so what does that say to you. It is just a progression in society.
This is the progress that the Islamists in the IFE seek to undo. However, your point for this rather odd diatribe is?
I say, stop living in the past, the past is where it should be, in the past. Move on, stop prejudicing your mind with arguement and think of what can be achieved by a working together.
I think you have completely misunderstood my position. Go back and re-read my posts. I think you will find that one of my objections to the IFE and other Islamists is that they are reactionaries.
On the other hand, if you think work is possible with the very extremists that you claim you want to see squeezed out by the Muslim community, I have to argue that this is a very bizarre and self-contradictory position for you to hold.
In response to this, Nothing odd about it. As the quote goes ” great minds think alike ” so where is yours ?
I think that empty abuse speaks volumes, actually. You are even more plausibly an imposter.
Hmmm, you round me off as if I am some kind of verse from the bible, LOL. take the whole of what I said in context instead of splitting it into groups and you may get the gist of it.
M
Mark, you are now making absolutely no sense whatsoever. Please try to.
Can I also suggest that you either learn to blockquote, or selectively quote, as your posts largely consist of re-pastings of previous posts made by others followed by increasingly incomprehensible comments.
Abu Faris
Posted March 9, 2010 at 6:26 AM | Permalink
Incidentally, I am not sure how the religious-ethical principle of the sins of the father not being visited upon the son is relevant in this case.
Thats because my friend you don’t understand the principle of continuity.
M
O I think I understand the principle of continuity, Mark. I must admit that I am somewhat baffled by how it applies in this example of a Judeo-Christian moral principle, however. Might I suggest that if you are to masquerade as a Christian you at least learn about the meanings of the principles of that faith when you chose to float them publicly? Your cover will be less easily blown.
It is an example of the “principle of continuity”, however, that you are not making much sense at all.
As you are becoming increasingly querulous and bizarre (as do all Islamists) in your arguments, I think we will leave it there.
Happy trolling, Mark.
hello folks,
So what is a abomination ? many things are…firstly ask your self. Do we give birth via our anus ? ….no, so why put a penus up one. Abominations are something that goes against the natural order. Still, people have their own way.
This is why people like Abu will never get on life, they have no natural order.
So those who have a pendulam state of mind don’t listen him as you may be one day have babies from your rectum.
M<
Yup, rather confirms my view that this is a repeat-offending Islamist troll. Caught out here comes the usual deranged and highly offensive abuse.
Completely and utterly stark, raving bat shit crazy.
Abu Faris
Posted March 9, 2010 at 7:08 AM | Permalink
Yup, rather confirms my view that this is a repeat-offending Islamist troll. Caught out here comes the usual deranged and highly offensive abuse.
Completely and utterly stark, raving bat shit crazy.
Mark says,
No Abu, your just one of those people who live in fear. Am I a bit crazy?…yes, a muslim…no, I am who I said I am. It’s people like you who would undermine any process to progresss through your paranoid agenda.
M
Whatever, Mark.
Let’s examine, for what it is worth and to the degree that it can be deciphered, your arguments so far:
(1) Questioning the strong evidence that IFE are undermining democratic governance in Tower Hamlets. No counter-evidence presented.
(2) (Here it gets odd) – Claiming that Muslims should be squeezing out extremists from their community. Agreeing that Islamists are extremists (including presumably the Islamist IFE, therefore). Then directly claiming that people should be working with these extremists!
(3) Making reference to a Biblical maxim (“sins of the Father” – note the capital “F”, Mark – most Christians don’t miss that one – you did). Berating the allusion to another Biblical maxim (“motes and beams”) as treating prior argument to a sort of Biblical treatment. If this is not odd, it gets even odder. Now, I spoon-fed you, Mark a means by which to beat me over the head with my own reference (“motes and beams”) – you might have replied: “Ah, that’s exactly my point!”. However, you did not, which is strange. Stranger still is that althougn you recognised it (or, I suspect, guessed it) as being from the Bible, you clearly did not understand the reference – which is very, very strange as it is possibly one of Jesus’ most famous comments anywhere in the New Testament.
(3) We are treated to a range of obtuse and basically faulty moral arguments, including the fantastical view that because one sins one is released or incapable of acting against the moral wrongs of others. Very convenient.
(4) Elsewhere you argue that women used to be treated badly – although we never actually learn why you raise this issue in the first place.
(5) We are treated to a comment about the “rpinciple of continuity” – a phrase that you clearly do not understand and procede to bizarrely misapply.
(6) Finally, we are exposed to the usual Islamist obsessing about bottoms, penises, anal sex and homosexuality, mixed in with the equally predictable ad hominem attacks.
In all, incomprehensible gibberish served up by an imposter with an odd line in homophobic abuse.
Have you considered a career in surrealist writing?