Here’s an encouraging story for a change, involving the Muslim community of Luton.
The latest violence erupted as arguments raged between fellow Muslims shortly after Friday morning prayers in the Bury Park area of the town.
Passing traffic ground to a halt as the large group of moderates confronted about a dozen extremists.
As the radical Muslims began to set up their stall, they were surrounded by a crowd shouting ‘we don’t want you here’ and ‘move on, move on’.
Angry words were exchanges and scuffles broke out. The extremists responded by shouting “Shame on you” and “Get back to your synagogue”.
Showdown in Bury Park
Mr [Farasat] Latif said: ‘We have been fighting these Muslim extremists for you. They represent nobody but themselves.
‘The community decided to move them on because the police won’t. We have asked them, but they did nothing.
‘I don’t know if they will be back. We have been the victims twice over – from the stupidity of Muslim extremists who metaphorically pour petrol and fan the flames of the right-wing extremists.
‘This was a peaceful demonstration and we hope they get the message that the law-abiding community is sick and tired of them.’
Damn straight.
3 Comments
I can’t see any comments to this post. Am I looking in the wrong place? Are they hidden away somewhere?
In the meantime, allow me to transcribe a lengthy comment posted on the equivalent thread over at Harry’s Place. The commenter is Joseph K. and the comment was posted on 30 May at 4:57 pm. Link:
http://www.hurryupharry.org/2009/05/30/where-are-the-moderate-muslims/
[Q uote] Gene, I don’t wish to criticise your post – I too was greatly cheered by the Daily Mail’s story – but the website of the apparent organisers of this counter-protest, the Luton Islamic Centre, carries some very, very dubious material that questions its leaders right to claim to represent the voice of moderation against the extremists. [hat tip: Schnippers, above]
Among articles published on the site are essays condemning homosexuals, stating that democracy is against Islam, and declaring that Muslims should never join a non-Muslim police force or army.
There is one that defends the “women are deficient in intellect” statement made in the infamous Undercover Mosque documentary, and a lengthy and disgusting essay defending the sentence of 90 lashes for adultery handed out to a 19-year-old Saudi gang-rape victim that has to be read to believed. The argument put forward is quite staggering in its awfulness. (Following international outrage, the punishment was overruled and the girl pardoned by Saudi’s King Abdullah.)
Worst of all, there is anti-Semitism too. Mildly, at first, in an article that refers to the mislabelling of Islam by the “Pro-Zion, Illuminati-run media” , using the heading “Among the Jews are those who distort words from their proper places”.
The worst example, however, is saved of a summary of an essay by Salafist Sheikh Saleem Al-Hilaalee, titled “The prophecy of the utter destruction of the Yahood (Jews) will only occur at the hands of the true worshippers of Allah”, a work that the website’s admin describes in his intro as “heart-warming” and “hope-instilling”.
The essay is an outpouring of anti-Jewish sentiment, declaring that:
“the future battle facing al-Islaam shall be with the Jews and that victory shall be for the Muslims.”
Describing efforts to bring peace to the Middle East, it states that:
“The Zionists strategy will not stop extending its
malicious hand, gesturing peace, while simultaneously plotting extermination of those it is courting. This has always been the attitude of the Jews, past and present.”
Writing of the establishment of modern Israel, it repeats the old slur of Jews being the secret force behind both communism and capitalism:
“The Zionist expansion grew with the aid of Communist manpower (European Jews) and Capitalist monetary reserves. The Jews suddenly became a formidable force and attained grandeur never before achieved by their predecessors.”
Chillingly, it ends by stating that:
“The Jews shall NEVER have peace of mind or feel secure, or arrive at the level of safety that they seek. This is a dream that shall remain unfulfilled because they do not seek to extend the same to others. All attempts at seeking to facilitate this unattainable peace shall end in failure. They shall continuously be under siege as has been ordained by Allaah as He has said…”
(Far from challenging this view, the admin signs off by guiding the reader to the full text, praising it as “highly beneficial” ).
Don’t get me wrong. I am not trying to do down the action reported in the Mail. By publicly confronting Al-Muhajiroun, Farasat Latif and his colleagues made a symbolic stand, and have done truly mainstream Muslims in both Luton and Britain as a whole a great service. However, having read through his organisation’s website, I do not agree that the brand of Islam it promotes should be considered either “moderate” or “mainstream”, nor do I believe that the majority of HP contributors and commenters would wish it to become established as such in the UK. [end quote]
I look forward to reading the Spittoon’s view in the light of this new information.
Thanks.
Joe Camel
Hey Joe,
That’s a valid point. Farasat Latif of the Luton Islamic Centre has said himself that he has and his group have been fighting al-Muhajiroon “for years” and even hold them responsible for inflaming public sentiment against the Muslims of Luton – which resulted, he claims, with the firebombing of the Luton Islamic Centre offices. This claim is reinforced by Bunglawala in this CIF article. From that article it should be understood that Farasat Latif is a spokesman for the al-Ghurabaa mosque of Luton not the entire Muslim population of Luton.
But none of this means that the Luton Islamic Centre will not have reactionary elements. There is always going to be reactionary values and sentiments not too far from the surface of “orthodox” Muslim beliefs, contributed by all sorts of weird and wonderful doctrinal and cultural vernacular. No one is expecting the folks from Luton Islamic Centre to be wearing tweed jackets and serving Earl Grey and Battenberg cake at high tea because they have made public their differences with al-Muhajiroon.
You’ll notice that I didn’t call the anti-extremist Muslims in this story “moderates”. What it means to be “moderate” is perhaps the subject of another discussion here on Spittoon. [Note to writers]
Why this incident is encouraging is because it shows *to the public* that the majority Muslim community is tackling and has been tackling the extremists ever since these extremists have existed in their midst. Rather than the obverse, which is that some fictional Muslim “Borg” endorses all expressions, no matter how extreme, as part of an homogeneous public-facing monolith.
That’s all right, Faisal, Earl Grey has never been one of my favourites either.
Your last two paragraphs seem to boil down to this – please correct me if I’m wrong:
1. The majority Muslim community is tackling the extremists
2. The majority Muslim community is therefore anti-extremist.
3. But you can be anti-extremist without being a moderate.
4. It would be a mistake to assume that the majority Muslim community is moderate.
It seems to be important to start work as soon as possible on defining, as you say, what it means to be “moderate”.