****

When the authorities seized the North London Central Mosque from hate preacher Abu Hamza in 2005, the bright idea of some of the not so great and good was to hand the mosque over to a group with close links to the Muslim Brotherhood.

Last month, as reported here, it all went wrong when trustee Khalid Mahmood said his signature on legal documents of the mosque had been forged.

Here is the background from Andrew Gilligan:

As we reported last month, a London mosque has been reported to the Charity Commission by one of its own trustees, a Muslim Labour MP, after he said it forged his signature on key legal documents.

In a letter obtained by The Sunday Telegraph, Khalid Mahmood said he had become “seriously concerned” about actions taken by his fellow trustees at the North London Central Mosque and called for a “full investigation” into what he called “a serious criminal offence.”

The mosque, which became notorious as the home of hate preacher Abu Hamza, was closed down by police in 2005 and reconstituted with a new board of trustees, including Mr Mahmood and another Muslim Labour MP, Mohammed Sarwar.

However, an alleged extremist and supporter of the banned terrorist group Hamas, Mohammed Sawalha, was also given a prominent place on the new board, causing tensions with moderate trustees such as Mr Mahmood and Mr Sarwar.

Mr Sawalha is described by the BBC as a former senior figure in Hamas who “is said to have masterminded much of Hamas’s political and military strategy” from his perch in London. Last year, Mr Sawalha also signed the Istanbul Declaration, which calls for attacks against the allies of Israel, which include the UK.

Lawfare is the issue:

Conflict has come to a head over a libel action launched by the mosque against the centre-right thinktank Policy Exchange, which claimed that extremist literature was found on the premises. In his complaint to the mosque and the Charity Commission, Mr Mahmood says that the libel case was launched without his or Mr Sarwar’s knowledge or consent.

“Neither I nor Mr Sarwar have been consulted with regards to the legal action against Policy Exchange,” he said. “To spend what I apprehend to be very substantial sums of money on libel proceedings is not in accordance with the charity’s governing document.” The case was thrown out by the judge, Mr Justice Eady, who ordered the mosque to pay Policy Exchange’s costs, but the mosque is appealing.

Mr Mahmood also said that his signature on a key legal document was forged by another trustee of the mosque, not Mr Sawalha. In his letter, he says: “My signature is said to appear on that document. That signature is a forgery. I understand another trustee to claim on oath that he forged my signature but did so with my authority. I have never given any such authority. I understand his actions constitute an offence under the Forgery and Counterfeiting Act… It appears that a serious criminal offence has occurred.”

Oh what a surprise.

A spokesman for the mosque made this counter-claim when the story surfaced:

“As far as we know, he asked someone to sign on his behalf. I wasn’t aware he denies that. If he does, we need to find out who’s right.”

The mosque is standing by that line, and Mahmood by his:

Now the mosque has replied in similar terms to Mr Mahmood’s complaint – prompting the MP to write back a further stiff letter. “I do not believe that I was sent minutes of the trustees’ meetings,” he says. And: “I have read and re-read your explanation for my forged signature on the Trust Deed… Your letter provides no explanation as to why my signature is forged, which is a serious criminal offence.”

Meanwhile, as reported here, at present Mr Sawalha is busy with the criminal enterprise of funding Hamas in partnership with the Turkish Islamist charity IHH, just as he has been in the recent past with George Galloway’s Viva Palestina.

Those who advocate domestic promotion of the Muslim Brotherhood, sometimes in the name of nothing less than law enforcement, while citing this mosque as a model, do have an interesting record.

Hendrik Hertzberg in the New Yorker:

It is not “anti-Catholic” to hypothesize that these things may have something to do with the Church’s extraordinary difficulty in coming to terms with clerical sexual abuse. The iniquities now roiling the Catholic Church are more shocking than the ones that so outraged Martin Luther. But the broader society in which the Church is embedded has grown incomparably freer. To the extent that the Church manages to purge itself of its shame—its sins, its crimes—it will owe a debt of gratitude to the lawyers, the journalists, and, above all, the victims and families who have had the courage to persevere, against formidable resistance, in holding it to account. Without their efforts, the suffering of tens of thousands of children would still be a secret. Our largely democratic, secularist, liberal, pluralist modern world, against which the Church has so often set its face, turns out to be its best teacher—and the savior, you might say, of its most vulnerable, most trusting communicants.

Shamso Miah, 25, of Redbridge, east London, broke a man’s jaw following a row in a bank queue.
Sitting as a judge, Ms Booth – wife of former Prime Minister Tony Blair – said she would suspend his sentence on the basis of his religious belief.

Also in the Telegraph:

Shamso Miah had left a mosque when he grabbed Mohammed Furcan and punched him. The thug ran outside but Furcan chased after him and demanded to know why he had been struck. Miah punched him again.

The National Secular Society claims her attitude was discriminatory and unjust:

Terry Sanderson, the president of the National Secular Society, which has protested to the Office for Judicial Complaints, says: “This seems to indicate that she would not have treated a non-religious person with the same latitude. We think this is discriminatory and unjust.”

Does it also show that Blair judged against the victim, Mohammed Furcan, because she deemed him to be less religious than the thug who broke his jaw?

More findings include:

• Sexual harassment by men was experienced by 83% of Egyptian women.

• Sexual harassment by men experienced by 98% of foreign women visitors in Egypt.

• 62% of Egyptian men admitted to sexually harassing women.

• More than 60% of both male and female respondents suggested that a ‘scantily clad woman’ was most at risk.

• 53% of Egyptian men blame women for ‘bringing it on’ [typical disgusting male attitude].

• The attitudes of Western respondents differed to Egyptian respondents: Western women strongly believed in their entitlement to personal safety and freedom of movement whereas Egyptian respondent did not mention freedom of choice, movement or the right to legal protection, nor were they aware that harassment is a criminal behaviour, regardless of what clothes the victim is wearing.

From my experience, it does not matter what a women wears. In the Gulf, when I used to wear the the abaya, hijab and sometimes niqab I was still harassed by men.  When I made the holy pilgrimage to Mecca, obviously covered, I was again harassed. When I wore a top and jeans, I was harassed. Even when I wore no make-up and went out, I was harassed. Over here, I am still harassed by perverts. The point: if men want to be perverts, they will be perverts regardless of what you wear. The problem does not actually lie with what women wear but with men who think they have the right to treat women with disrespect.

So why should women define modesty based on what men think? Why am I any less modest than a woman who does wear the hijab and abaya? This report suggests that it makes no difference whatsoever! Modesty lies with a woman’s respect for herself regardless of what she wears. And for the men out there reading this, respect women instead of treating them as sexual objects ready to be screwed around with, groped or harassed whenever it pleases you, and then think you have done nothing wrong.

Radical cleric Abu Hamza al-Masri was jailed for seven years in 2004 for soliciting murder and inciting racial hatred. It is possible that his three sons will be joining their old man in prison for their involvement in the theft of “luxury cars”.

Hamza’s sons, Hamza Kamel, 22, and Mohammed Mostafa, 27, helped to run the two-year operation with the cleric’s stepson Mohssin Ghailam, 28.

…

Mostafa, of West London, was jailed for three years in Yemen in 1999 for links with a terrorist group. He has admitted two counts of fraud over the use of a false identity to secure a £12,000 loan against a BMW and to get keys for another BMW on April 26 and May 28 last year.

Kamel, also from West London, admitted five counts of handling stolen goods — four Mercedes and a Range Rover Vogue — and laundering £14,975 between October 19, 2007, and May 8 last year. He has six GCSEs and three A levels and had hoped to study computer science.

Ghailam, of Shepherd’s Bush, West London, admitted conspiracy to defraud between January 1, 2007, and November 5 last year. He has also admitted using false identity to secure a loan of £11,004 against a BMW.

Well done boys.

The 14 and 15-year-old girls thought they were visiting Pakistan on holiday. Instead, they were married off in a joint ceremony. The mother married her children off in order to ‘defend’ the family’s honour within Muslim and Pakistani communities, as her eldest daughter supposedly had an affair with an older man, got pregnant and then had an abortion. When the same daughter got married, the mother told her that if she did not consummate the marriage, she would ‘tie her to the bed, blindfold her and strip her’, and then watch to make sure her daughter had sex with her new husband.

When the girls returned to the UK, they told their teacher, who in turn informed the police. The mother was charged and convicted for inciting or causing a child to engage in sexual activity, arranging or facilitating the commission of a child sex offence, and intending to pervert the course of justice. She pleaded not guilty.

On sentencing the mother, the Judge sends a clear message that forcing people to marry without their consent, and at such a young age, should not and will not be tolerated in Britain’s liberal culture and society. The Judge said:

‘Everyone is entitled to his or her beliefs and is to be encouraged to practise in accordance with those beliefs and to live a life which embraces the culture of those beliefs.’

‘But those who choose to live in this country and who, like you, are British subjects, must not abandon our laws in the practice of those beliefs and that culture.’

‘Forced marriage is cruel. It deprives children, your children, of their basic human rights.’

New laws were introduced in 2008 to ensure that no one is forced into marriage and to help those already in a forced marriage. The police, friend or victim can apply for a Forced Marriage Protection Order under the Forced Marriage (Civil Protection) Act 2007, which forbids family members taking anyone abroad for marriage or intimidating victims to get married. If the protection orders are breached, an individual can face up to two years imprisonment. The legislation is the first to tackle the problem of forced marriages. However, the onus is on the victim or someone close to them to apply for a protection order.

In 2004 there were plans to make forced marriages a criminal offence in it self. However, MPs dropped the plans for fear of a backlash, admitting that any such law would be ‘resented as an intrusion into minority cultures and religions’.

The Muslim Council of Britain (MCB), an umbrella organisation often claiming to represent Muslims in Britain, opposed plans to create new laws specifically targeting forced marriages citing current laws as adequate. They argued that new laws would be seen as targeting minority ethnic and religious communities, leading to, for example, Muslim communities feeling further ‘stigmatised’. In its 2005 response to the government’s Forced Marriage Unit consultation paper, FORCED MARRIAGE – A Wrong not a Right (2005), the MCB wrote (doc file):

‘Any law in this regard which is promoted as a tool to help the victims and deter the offenders is most unlikely to be effective because of the nature of the problem and the cultural as well as familial sensitivities involved. A coercive tool in a family and cultural setting is rarely, if ever successful.

‘The family bond and loyalty will deter many from using the law. The tool when used will in effect tear the family unit and create division and distress.

‘The MCB believes that the only way to eradicate this criminal cultural practice is through education and empowerment. The change has to be community led and appropriately resourced.’

The MCB further said that ‘a “forced marriage” has no religious, moral or legal validity.’

According to the government’s Forced Marriage Unit, 65% of all known cases of forced marriages in the UK involve individuals of Pakistani origin – the mother convicted is of Pakistani origin – though this practice is known to exist amongst other cultural and religious groups. From personal observation, familial ties, bonds and loyalties are particularly strong amongst families of South Asian or Middle Eastern backgrounds. It would be extremely difficult for the victim to break such familial ties by seeking a Protection Order, for example.

Contrary to the MCB’s insight on forced marriages, new laws were made to tackle this issue. The practice should (and is) first and foremost be made illegal. Those who think it’s normal must be made aware that they will face the consequences if they break the law. The MCB were wrong in saying that this very problematic and unfortunately widespread issue should just be tackled through ‘education and empowerment’ – who in the ‘community’ will be doing the educating? Those who break the law should and must face the consequences for their actions – that’s why the conviction of the 39-year-old mother is so important – it sets the precedence.

Beheshti, Mirza, Taj

Three men, Ali Beheshti (41), Abrar Mirza (23) and Abbas Taj (31) who conspired to firebomb the residence of publisher Martin Rynja in September 2008, have been found guilty of recklessly damaging property and endangering life.

Rynja had been planning to publish a novel by US author Shelley Jones called the Jewel of Medina.

Fortunately all three men, who possessed the collective IQ of a cabbage, had been under police surveillance. Officers followed them on the night of the attack and arrested Beheshti, a former member of al-Mouhajiroun and Mirza at the scene. The fire was quickly put out. Taj was the driver of the getaway car.

The men were under surveillance by police who had warned Martin Rynja, 43, and his partner, to move out of their four-storey townhouse, which had an office in the basement.

Taj’s car, a Honda Accord, had been bugged by officers and their conversation was recorded as they drove to the square.

Beheshti was heard asking Taj: “You wanna be the emir [leader], yeh?” and Taj replied: “That would be you.”

“You know what we gotta do, anyway, innit?” Beheshti added.

In the early hours of September 27 last year the three men were observed driving twice through the square in Islington before Beheshti and Mirza approached the front door with a petrol can in a white plastic bag, poured diesel fuel through the letter box and used a disposable lighter to set it on fire.

Taj, the driver, tried to plead not guilty, claiming to have just given his two friends a lift without any idea what they were up to. The jury were not convinced.

Though it is imperative to denounce braindead crimes like these used to intimidate artists, the unfortunate fact is they work:

Publishers Random House decided not to put out the book because of fears it could offend Muslims, while another major US publisher also pulled out. Gibson Square delayed publication of the book following the attack.

Hat tip: DavidMWW