Is this a picture of transformative success or the success of backwardness? I vote for the latter.

the latest blethering from the egregious dr miller is that the “conservative thinktanks” policy exchange and the centre for social cohesion are soft-pedalling the racism and violence of groups like the bnp and edl because it “might deflect attention” from islamism – defined by him as:

“the catch-all term for politically active muslims”

now i carry no particular brief for either of the thinktanks he mentions, but this is breathtakingly brazen doublespeak: come on, dr miller – everyone knows what is meant by the term “islamist”. are the muslim brotherhood, jamaat-i-islami, tablighi jamaat islamists? of course they bloody are! are the quilliam foundation, of british muslims for secular democracy “islamists”? are the muslims who work for csc or policy exchange, “islamists”? or, for that matter, the muslim authors at the spittoon? of course not. there is no reason muslims shouldn’t be politically active – either as muslims, or as british citizens, but there’s plenty of reason to be rude about people who are pushing extremist, clerical fascist, racist and homophobic agendas – unless you’re a doctrinaire leftie, that is.

it gets worse – dr miller now appears to be attempting to suggest that by attacks on islamists bolster islamophobia, which ultimately results in things like the breivik atrocity in norway. this is an outrageous caricature – the sort of thing we’d normally expect to see coming out of exeter, not strathclyde! as any regular reader will know, we are not exactly fans of the bnp or the edl.

on the other hand, as we know very well here at the spittoon, “spinwatch” is not exactly careful with its analysis:

http://www.spittoon.org/archives/9428

perhaps we should not be surprised that dr miller can’t tell the difference between islamists and liberals; it seems to be a bit of a theme on the left these days.

i have for some time been aware of the powerful analytical frameworks for bio-psycho-social systems developed by the american psychologist dr clare graves and systematised for practical application by don beck and chris cowan in the excellent book “spiral dynamics” (i’m not affiliated with anyone concerned, incidentally). at the risk of sounding like somewhat of a “fanboy”, as i believe it is called on teh interwebs, i am convinced it constitutes an important piece of intellectual real estate for the understanding of complex socio-political systems, particularly in behavioural terms.

you can read more about the basics of spiral dynamics here and here - and i strongly encourage you to do so, but perhaps the easiest way to demonstrate its unique way of enabling insight into human nature is by a review of the various behaviours that have been exhibited during the riots. in the table below you will see a number of different types of responses and the messages associated with them, which you will have seen reflected by the proponents of these value systems in the various media channels. the vast majority of these types of response can present in either healthy or unhealthy forms – thus “C-P” (“red”) behaviours and messages were used both destructively (wanton destruction) and constructively (arresting looters) – in both cases, the behaviour was the demonstration of dominance and power, with corresponding public messages (a cartmanesque “RESPECT MY AUTHORITAAH!”) sent to the media.

you’ll see that whilst most of the operational trouble has functioned at C-P/red systems level, most of the discussion and analysis has been conducted by politicians and the media at blue (mostly “societal breakdown”, good-and-evil) orange (intellectual, opportunistic and tactical) and green (communitarian, progressive and inclusive) levels – and if the reactions are to be systematic, they will have to be a combination of green, blue and orange solutions appropriate to the situation, just as identifying looters using website photos (orange), communally organised clean-up squads (green) and attempts to strengthen traditional family structures (blue) have already been used. i note that ed miliband (who i usually have little time for) has supposedly come out against knee-jerk reactions and i think he’s correct in this at least; david cameron will not get very far if all his responses are couched in “blue” terms to appeal to the “respect for society must be restored” brigade and executed in “orange” technocratic action plans by community workers who are uncomfortable with anything which doesn’t take account of “green” inclusion. if he is serious about the “big society”, he will need to understand that the big society needs *all* these things, it is not a blue, orange or green concept, just as it needs “red” defences and alternative “purple” clan and kin affiliations than those of gang, patois and skin colour – and that includes the purple affiliations of the non-rioters, too! the “big society” could be second-order policy thinking and leadership, but that needs a shift in both our understanding of the situation and the strategies we use to manage it.

in all these cases i would say: if you want to find a constructive, insightful way of discussing the value systems that led to the events of the last couple of weeks, you would do worse than to look at how spiral dynamics sheds light on the tensions, relationships, structures and messages involved.

all comment and discussion welcome.

Last week, The Times carried a piece on its front page that discussed the seemingly growing phenomenon of Asian gangs, of predominantly Pakistani heritage, sexually exploiting young and vulnerable white girls in the Midlands and the North. The BNP have been openly using this issue for propaganda purposes for a number of years and have aimed at transforming it into an ‘Islam’ issue. The Times, however, have been much more balanced and focused on the importance of discussing the issue out in the open whilst simultaneously challenging the culture of silence that pervades such sensitive issues in this country.

The startling facts of this phenomenon are: There have been 17 court cases across 13 different towns and cities in the UK, predominantly northern towns with strong Northern Pakistani populations. In total, 56 men with an average age of 28 have been found guilty of crimes ranging from abduction to sex with a minor. Three of the 56 were white, 53 were Asian and 50 were Muslims of Pakistani heritage.

So what the hell is going on? I know from personal experience that this does happen and the scale of the problem is much larger than the above statistics would have you believe. I have seen this taking place in the Midlands and heard young men talking about it. Young Asian gangs drive around in flashy cars, they pick up young girls who are hanging around, they offer them cigarettes, alcohol, food and in some cases jewellery and before long sexual abuse is taking place. Many of the young women involved do go along voluntarily up until a certain stage and assume that they are just having fun with new friends. But they are simply too young and immature to see how they are being abused and often it’s too late before they realise what is going on.

I don’t think this has much to do with faith in a direct way nor should it be discussed as a ‘Muslim’ issue. But it has everything to do with a British Pakistani sub-culture that has developed in many decaying northern towns and cities in this country. In these places, certain young Asian men are disconnected from mainstream society; they develop their own lingo, their own traditions and sub-culture. This sub-culture is often an amalgamation of rural Punjabi values and US hip-hop culture.  This sub-culture, in turn, has a deviant offshoot, a sub-culture of a sub-culture if you like, that is anti-establishment, rebellious, crime-prone and deeply ignorant. Petty crime, racism, sexism and homophobia are standard.

These are the kind of people that wouldn’t feel comfortable meeting women of their own age group in normal settings. They simply don’t have the social skills or manners to engage with members of the opposite sex in that way. So they prefer to exploit younger and much more vulnerable white women, who they view as easy targets with fewer repercussions for their actions.  If they targeted young Asian girls in this way, they would have brothers and uncles chasing them out of town.

In some cases, their Pakistani heritage and their socio-economic conditions contribute to the problem. They are raised in communities that are quite monocultural and ignorant stereotypes about other people are promoted, distrust between different ethnic groups is the norm and positive social interaction is not facilitated. This allows a macho Asian street gang culture to flourish which views white women as ‘loose’ or ‘easy’, hence to be used and abused by any means necessary.

In order to combat this behaviour much more needs to be done at a community level. Community activists need to be working to challenge negative stereotypes of other ethnic groups and discouraging young men from participating in such criminal gangs. This should involve facilitating positive interaction between different communities. The Police also need to be monitoring this type of behaviour much more closely and keeping tabs on known offenders and their accomplices.  Young and vulnerable teenagers also need to educated about the risks of associating with gangs of men who are seeking to exploit them after plying them with cigarettes, drugs and alcohol. But all of the above is not possible unless people feel comfortable discussing the issue openly. But this also needs to be done sensitively and all the necessary caveats, as Jack Straw recently learned to his cost. We need to challenge the culture of silence around sensitive topics in this country in order to allow a mature debate to take place. If we don’t then such issues become fodder for extremists.

The writer is the Pakistani Executive Director of the Center for Research and Security Studies, a think tank established in 2007, and an Islamabad-based freelance columnist.

There are only 14 million Jews in the world; seven million in the Americas, five million in Asia, two million in Europe and 100,000 in Africa. For every single Jew in the world there are 100 Muslims. Yet, Jews are more than a hundred times more powerful than all the Muslims put together. Ever wondered why?

Jesus was Jewish. Albert Einstein, the most influential scientist of all time and TIME magazine’s ‘Person of the Century’, was a Jew. Sigmund Freud – ego, superego – the father of psychoanalysis was a Jew. So were Karl Marx, Paul Samuelson and Milton Friedman.

Here are a few other Jews whose intellectual output has enriched the whole of humanity: Benjamin Rubin gave humanity the vaccinating needle. Jonas Salk developed the first polio vaccine. Albert Sabin developed the improved live polio vaccine. Gertrude Elion gave us a leukemia-fighting drug. Baruch Blumberg developed the vaccination for Hepatitis B. Paul Ehrlich discovered a treatment for syphilis (a sexually transmitted disease). Elie Metchnikoff won a Nobel Prize in infectious diseases.

Bernard Katz won a Nobel Prize in neuromuscular transmission. Andrew Schally won a Nobel in endocrinology (disorders of the endocrine system; diabetes, hyperthyroidism). Aaron Beck founded Cognitive Therapy (psychotherapy to treat mental disorders, depression and phobias). Gregory Pincus developed the first oral contraceptive pill. George Wald won a Nobel for furthering our understanding of the human eye. Stanley Cohen won a Nobel in embryology (study of embryos and their development). Willem Kolff came up with the kidney dialysis machine.

Over the past 105 years, 14 million Jews have won 180 Nobel Prizes while only 3 Nobel Prizes have been won by 1.4 billion Muslims (other than Peace Prizes).

Why are Jews so powerful? Stanley Mezor invented the first micro-processing chip. Leo Szilard developed the first nuclear chain reactor; Peter Schultz, the optical fiber cable; Charles Adler – traffic lights; Benno Strauss – stainless steel; Isador Kisee – sound movies; Emile Berliner – the telephone microphone and Charles Ginsburg – the videotape recorder.

Famous financiers in the business world who belong to the Jewish faith include Ralph Lauren (Polo), Levis Strauss (Levi’s Jeans), Howard Schultz (Starbuck’s) , Sergey Brin (Google), Michael Dell (Dell Computers), Larry Ellison (Oracle), Donna Karan (DKNY), Irv Robbins (Baskins & Robbins) and Bill Rosenberg (Dunkin Donuts).

Richard Levin, President of Yale University, is a Jew. So are Henry Kissinger (American secretary of state), Alan Greenspan (Federal Chairman of Banking under Reagan, Bush, Clinton and Bush, Jr.), Joseph Lieberman, Senator, Madeleine Albright (former Secretary of State), Maxim Litvinov (USSR Foreign Minister), David Marshal (Singapore’s first Chief Minister), Issac Isaacs (Governor-General of Australia), Benjamin Disraeli (British statesman and author), Yevgeny Primakov (Russian Prime Minister), Jorge Sampaio (President of Portugal), Herb Gray (Canadian Deputy Prime Minister), Pierre Mendes (French Prime Minister), Michael Howard (British Home Secretary), Bruno Kreisky (Chancellor of Austria) and Robert Rubin (former Secretary of the Treasury).

In the media, famous Jews include Wolf Blitzer (CNN), Barbara Walters (ABC News), Eugene Meyer (Washington Post), Henry Grunwald (Editor-in-Chief of Time Magazine), Katherine Graham (publisher of The Washington Post), Joseph Lelyyeld (Executive Editor, The New York Times), and Max Frankel (New York Times).

Can you name the most beneficent philanthropist in the history of the world? The name is George Soros, a Jew, who has so far donated a colossal $4 billion; most of which has gone as aid to scientists and universities around the world. Second to George Soros is Walter Annenberg, another Jew, who has built a hundred libraries by donating an estimated $2 billion.

At the Olympics, Mark Spitz set a record of sorts by wining seven gold medals. Lenny Krayzelburg is a three-time Olympic gold medalist. Spitz, Krayzelburg and Boris Becker (Tennis) are all Jewish.

Did you know that Harrison Ford, George Burns, Tony Curtis, Charles Bronson, Sandra Bullock, Barbra Streisand, Billy Crystal, Woody Allen, Paul Newman, Peter Sellers, Dustin Hoffman, Michael Douglas, Ben Kingsley, Kirk Douglas, William Shatner, Jerry Lewis and Peter Falk are all Jewish?

So, why are Jews so powerful? Answer: Education.

As a matter of fact, Hollywood itself was founded by a Jew. Among directors and producers, Steven Spielberg, Mel Brooks, Oliver Stone, Aaron Spelling (Beverly Hills 90210), Neil Simon (The Odd Couple), Andrew Vaina (Rambo’s 1, 2 and 3), Michael Mann (Starsky and Hutch), Milos Forman (One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest), Douglas Fairbanks (The Thief of Baghdad) and Ivan Reitman (Ghostbusters) are all Jewish.

To be certain, Washington is the capital that matters and in Washington the lobby that matters is The American Israel Public Affairs Committee, or AIPAC. Washington knows that if PM Ehud Olmert were to discover that the earth is flat, AIPAC will make the 109th Congress pass a resolution congratulating Olmert on his discovery.

William James Sidis, with an IQ of 250-300, is the brightest human who ever existed. Guess what faith did he belong to?

So, why are Jews so powerful?

Answer: Education.

Why are Muslims so powerless?

There are an estimated 1,476,233,470 Muslims on the face of the planet: one billion in Asia, 400 million in Africa, 44 million in Europe and six million in the Americas. Every fifth human being is a Muslim. For every single Hindu there are two Muslims, for every Buddhist there are two Muslims and for every Jew there are one hundred Muslims. Ever wondered why Muslims are so powerless?

Here is why: There are 57 member-countries of the Organization of Islamic Conference (OIC), and all of them put together have around 500 universities; one university for every three million Muslims. The United States has 5,758 universities (1 for every 57,000 Americans) and India has 8,407. In 2004, Shanghai Jiao Tong University compiled an ‘Academic Ranking of World Universities’, and intriguingly, not one university from Muslim-majority states was in the top 500.

As per data collected by the UNDP, literacy in the Christian world stands at nearly 90 per cent and 15 Christian-majority states have a literacy rate of 100 per cent. A Muslim-majority state, as a sharp contrast, has an average literacy rate of around 40 per cent and there is no Muslim-majority state with a literacy rate of 100 per cent. Some 98 per cent of the ‘literates’ in the Christian world had completed primary school, while less than 50 per cent of the ‘literates’ in the Muslim world did the same. Around 40 per cent of the ‘literates’ in the Christian world attended university while no more than two per cent of the ‘literates’ in the Muslim world did the same.

Why are Muslims powerless? Because we aren’t producing and applying knowledge.

Muslim-majority countries have 230 scientists per one million Muslims. The U.S. has 4,000 scientists per million and Japan has 5,000 per million. In the entire Arab world, the total number of full-time researchers is 35,000 and there are only 50 technicians per one million Arabs (in the Christian world there are up to 1,000 technicians per one million). Furthermore, the Muslim world spends 0.2 per cent of its GDP on research and development, while the Christian world spends around five per cent of its GDP.

Conclusion: The Muslim world lacks the capacity to produce knowledge.

Daily newspapers per 1,000 people and number of book titles per million are two indicators of whether knowledge is being diffused in a society. In Pakistan, there are 23 daily newspapers per 1,000 Pakistanis while the same ratio in Singapore is 360. In the UK, the number of book titles per million stands at 2,000 while the same in Egypt is 20.

Conclusion: The Muslim world is failing to diffuse knowledge.

Exports of high technology products as a percentage of total exports are an important indicator of knowledge application. Pakistan’s exports of high technology products as a percentage of total exports stands at one per cent. The same for Saudi Arabia, Kuwait , Morocco, and Algeria (are all at 0.3 per cent) while Singapore is at 58 per cent.

Conclusion: The Muslim world is failing to apply knowledge.

Why are Muslims powerless?

Because we aren’t producing knowledge.

Why are Muslims powerless?
Because we aren’t diffusing knowledge.

Why are Muslims powerless?
Because we aren’t applying knowledge.

And, the future belongs to knowledge-based societies.

Interestingly, the combined annual GDP of 57 OIC-countries is under $2 trillion. America, just by herself, produces goods and services worth $12 trillion; China – $8 trillion, Japan – $3.8 trillion and Germany – $2.4 trillion (purchasing power parity basis).

Oil rich Saudi Arabia, UAE, Kuwait and Qatar collectively produce goods and services (mostly oil) worth $500 billion; Spain alone produces goods and services worth over $1 trillion; Catholic Poland – $489 billion and Buddhist Thailand – $545 billion. Muslim GDP, as a percentage of worlds GDP, is fast declining.

So, why are Muslims so powerless?

Answer: Lack of education.

All we do is shouting to Allah the whole day and blame everyone else for our multiple failures.

This is a re-post of an article by Raziq first posted in January 2010

****

Islamist groups such as Hizb ut-Tahrir, Al-Muhajiroun and the Muslim Brotherhood claim that Muslims were ruled by a single political leadership which started from the time of the Prophet Muhammad in the 6th century and lasted until the last days of the Ottoman Empire in 1924. According to Islamists, this political leadership looked after the interests of all Muslims worldwide. The central aim of Islamist groups today is to recreate this leadership by uniting the 52 or so Muslim-majority countries in the world into a single state ruled by a single ruler (Caliph). They refer to this totalitarian system as the Khilafah (or the caliphate).

A basic study of Muslim history tells us that various Muslim empires existed in various parts of the world at the same time. In the 10th century, for example, there were three different Muslim empires in the world; the Umayyads in Spain, the Abbasids in Baghdad and the Fatimids in Egypt. Each of these Empires had their own Caliphs and they were independent of each other. Again in the 17th century, three different Muslim empires existed; the Ottomans in Central Asia, the Safavids in Persia and the Mughals in the Indian sub-continent. As well as these empires many parts of the Muslim world were not ruled by any of these empires at all, i.e. South East Asia, Sub-Saharan Africa and parts of central Asia.

The Mughals considered themselves even more worthy Caliphs than the Ottomans because they were descendants of Tamerlane (Timur). In the 14th century Tamerlane had defeated the Ottoman army and imprisoned their Sultan Bayezid in a cage. He later had him tortured, beaten and starved to death. However Islamists groups have totally ignored the Mughal claim to the caliphate. Furthermore, many of these empires were often at war with one another, the Ottomans and Safavids fought many wars and eventually agreed on a border.

India was conquered by the first Mughal Emperor Babur in 1526 but the Mughal claim to the Caliphate began with the Emperor Akbar in 1556:

The Mughal Emperors, from the reign of Akbar onwards, called their domains ‘Dar ul Khilafat’ (the abode of caliphate). In Akbar’s reign gold coins were minted that bore the inscription ‘the great Sultan, the exalted khilafah’ (The Mughal Emperors, catalogue of Indian Gold Coins in the British Museum, by S. Lane-Poole, p.159).

In official correspondence with the Ottomans, the Mughals made clear their claim to be the true Caliphate:

In the reign of Mughal Emperor Shah Jahan … his minister wrote a letter to a Turkish ambassador. In the letter he describes Shah Jahan as ‘his exalted majesty, who occupies the dignity of caliphate, the khaqan of the world, the shahinshah of the Sultans of the whole earth, the shadow of god’ (Dastur ul-Insha, Abdi Sari Effendi, National Bibliothek, Vienna, pg 161).

Most of the Mughal emperors saw themselves as Caliphs of India.  The Mughal Emperor Shah Alam 11 (1759-1806) is also called ‘Khalifah and Shadow of God’ by his biographer. (Shah Alam Nameh, p.16 – Calcutta, 1912)

So the Islamist assertion of there only being one caliphate which united all Muslims across the world under a single ruler is utterly false. It is a misrepresentation of history inspired by the Arab nationalist movements of the 1930s and 40s. The aim of constructing such a myth is to inspire confidence in their insane totalitarian project which attempts to apply medieval political paradigms to a modern globalised world. Let’s hope they don’t intend on replacing SUVs with diesel driven camels.

Schools with a significant number of Muslim pupils should try to avoid scheduling swimming lessons during Ramadan to remove unnecessary barriers to full participation.”

Nor does it end with restrictions to swimming lessons:

It also suggests re-scheduling sex education classes during the holy lunar month, as Muslim followers who have reached puberty are required to avoid sexual thoughts during this period.

But who is behind this ‘advice’ imposed on schools, delivered in the manner of a religious edict or a ‘fatwa’? Who else but the excitable people at the Muslim Council of Britain:

“The council said the document, produced by its Standing Advisory Council on Religious Education, was based on information from the Muslim Council of Great Britain”

Time was when traditional pious Muslims ‘not so very long ago’ would observe the Ramadan fast by going about their normal worldly business without extracting special privileges, importuning for concessions or paying heed to “information from the Muslim Council of Great Britain” to relieve the burden of the fast.

And if school children cannot cope with lessons because they cannot observe the fast, they should not be fasting at all. It is as simple as that.

But if Muslim pupils must observe the fast, they should be taken out of classes which they do not wish to participate in. Rearranging the entire school day for everyone else, simply to satisfy the needs of a few pupils who are Muslim and who observe Ramadan, is an exaggerated over-reaction and completely unorthodox.

From the article, Muslim women going to college:

Hazrat maulana Masihullah (ra) said: I take oath by Allah and say: Give women Deeni education and then see their superiority. You will then witness in them intelligence, understanding and even accomplishment in such worldly affairs which pertain to them. Women who possess degrees of B.A. and M.A. cannot compete in understanding and intelligence with women who have acquired Deeni knowledge. Yes, in deception and schemes the Western educated woman may be ahead. But, remember that words of intelligence will only come from a woman of piety.“

He believes in practising the shari’ah in toto. But is reticent when it comes to stating the shari’ah penalty for apostasy in a public televised debate. When pushed, he relents and speaks his mind:

“If it’s an Islamic country, then the Shari’a is very clear. Apostasy is dealt with the death penalty. But what’s the relevance between what happens in an Islamic country and Great Britain. I fail to see the connection.”

Personally, I agree that there should not even be a notional connection between the shari’ah in an Islamic country and public law affecting muslims in Britain. I would go further and state that even in most Muslim-majority countries, administrations have been sensible enough not to institutionalise the shar’iah applied as state legislature, but rather confined it to matters of personal ethics.

What is interesting in the video is the assertion made by Dr Mukadam, that it is possible to disengage aspects of the shari’ah, in this case the penalty of apostasy, from the canon of law. This is coming from a man who is in charge of the umbrella organisation for Muslim schools which states the following as its one of its aims.

“The AMS is guided by the central goal and principle of abiding by the Qur’an and the Sunnah in all our affairs.”

So it would be relevant to ask, ‘what are children in Muslim schools taught about the significance of the shari’ah for British muslims’? And since the chairman of the AMS suggests that there is no relevance for the penalty of apostasy for muslims living in Britain, why is there a need for children in muslim schools to be taught the importance of living by the totality of the shari’ah?

Why not go the whole nine yards and state the obvious: the shari’ah as a lived experience is a pick-and-choose matter. The notion of the shari’ah as ‘Absolute’ is incorrect and judging by its in-adherence as a public legal constitution, has long been irrelevant.

hat tip: Billy

1. transparency at the jewish leadership council

ok, we know who the board of deputies are. we know what it’s for. we know how it’s funded. we know how you get to be on it. we know who it represents. now, we have this new organisation called the “jewish leadership council”. on it, you have various movers and shakers, you’ve got the vc/banking/property tycoons, you’ve got the charity/safety/israel activists, you’ve got synagogue movement machers, you’ve got access, you’ve got international connections, you’ve got lords, baronesses, knights and the chair of ujs – you’ve got two women and no rabbis, for some reason. you’ve got no haredim, for some other reason. you’ve got leaders from the most broad-based and influential organisations in the community – but what are they for? clearly, this is an influential bunch of people, but who chooses them? who decided that there should be a jewish leadership council in the first place? how are they accountable? what is their strategy? what is their relationship with the board? how is it funded? i for one would like to know.

2. promote jewish (especially sephardic) cultural literacy

we are not short, for good or ill, of jewish education organisations, from the controversial chabad to the inestimable limmud and all points beyond. however, for the most part, systematic approaches aimed at enhancing jewish identity are without exception entirely religious-based. more worryingly, they seem to be ignoring the question of cultural literacy. whilst there are instances of successful specific initiatives, like the yiddish summer school run by the jewish music institute, or the various ulpanim run by israel-focused organisations, there is a distinct lack of provision for the sephardic and oriental communities to promote the learning of ladino and judeo-arabic – essentially, globalisation is being driven by majority tastes, hence the largest groups attract the most funding and if one didn’t learn it at one’s mother’s knee, one might struggle to gain familiarity with anything from cookery to piyyutim, history to dress. there are organisations, including musical groups and individual tutors, who are promoting and disseminating the results of their knowledge and expertise in specific areas, normally as a result of academic research, but there is no-one who can teach you about the culture of, say, an “indian iraqi”, everything from how to make sambusak and sehug to singing shbahoth pronounced correctly – in other words, the customs, the language, the music, the food, the history. and the same goes for the different ashkenazi traditions, with the possible exception of chabad, who integrate their cultural traditions such as “farbrengen” as part of their outreach programmes. it is possible that this may be the result of a hundred years of zionist shelilat ha-galut (“negation of diaspora behaviours”) or an enlightenment/modernist hangover against the backward ways of “ghetto culture”, or simply the influence of organisations whose sole concern is increasing religious observance, but surely one can no longer argue that diaspora jewish is simply something to be outgrown. yet we have thrown the baby out with the bathwater on this one – and forgotten much of what made being jewish interesting. this is something i believe where we can learn something from how other diasporas have preserved their cultures, the various south asian communities being a case in point.

3. take a lead on environmental frumness

something was said about making Shabbat the “greenest day of the week” – now, i am the first to expound on the benefits of one day with no driving, tv or communications, but i worry about the effects on the planet of copious use of tinfoil, urns, hot-plates, leaving lights on and most of all the use of disposable plates, cutlery, glasses and so on for ease of clear-up at synagogue kiddushim or on other communal occasions. i was less than underwhelmed at chiefy’s “green shabbat” damp squib and am regularly appalled at the environmental disaster area that most community functions seem to be. there is an opportunity for the community to change this – it is 100% wrong that correct religious observance should be in breach of Torah prohibitions on wastefulness and the destruction of natural resources. i would be delighted if religious organisations could take a lead in this department – the progressive movements have already made steps in this direction and organisations like limmud have made concrete moves to make policy into reality on its conferences. there are organisations such as hazon that are focused specifically on doing this in a jewish way – it is about time that the religious establishment, particularly within the traditional communities, does the same. a set of guidelines would be a start.

4. break the stranglehold of fiftysomething personal fiefdoms

i lose count at the number of community organisations in this country whose leadership and patronage is controlled by middle-aged people who run them as if they were their own personal kingdoms. sometimes, these people have some claim to expertise, or have built the organisations up, but more often than not, they have simply prevented the organisations from developing by hanging on to all the levers of power, dispensing patronage with the help of compliant boards of part-time trustees, picked for their names, contact books, relations and fat wallets. how many of these organisations have executive scrutiny from anyone under 35, let alone under 30? how many of these boards provide an effective check on the power of the chief executive or director? more worryingly, what happens when an organisation which has no competition begins to stifle innovation in its key area of focus and actively prevent other organisations challenging its dominance, or even block activities in its area which are not under its control? i propose that all community organisations adopt a code of practice which includes a commitment to the future planning of the organisation, specifically to succession planning and provides for some kind of non-executive checks and balances. not being an expert in charity law, i’m not sure what the actual rules are, but enough charity scandals have made it into the papers (and i know of some which haven’t even got that far) to suggest that there is something to address here, perhaps through the board?

5. shul and mosque twinning

although there are a plethora of opportunities for the ceremonial activities associated with interfaith dialogue (i’m thinking here of the likes of the indefatigable and admirable sir sigmund sternberg) and quite a few effective practical collaborations amongst communal professionals and academics (i’m thinking here of the leo baeck college jewish-christian-muslim conferences in germany and the tireless liaison work done by the cst) there are still far too few grass-roots initiatives (here, i’m thinking of the likes of radio salaam-shalom or the alif-aleph student dialogue activities) in the mainstream synagogue movements. i would propose a simple solution – a programme of twinning between synagogues and mosques, perhaps trilaterally including churches if it helps. by the same token, i think jewish-sikh dialogue has long been neglected and, particularly in view of our similarities as religions with a partly ethnic element, it would be extremely helpful to bring gurdwaras into the mix. a programme of working together on uncontroversial and useful community projects such as litter collection or redecorating local facilities would enable the building of links which would contribute strongly to community cohesion.

6. transparency in the tzedakah industry

every day, hundreds of thousands, if not millions of pounds are donated by religious jews to the needy. the giving of “tzedakah” (not exactly the same thing as charity) is a religious obligation that is taken extremely seriously by both observant and non-observant jews. however, this system lacks transparency. every traditional morning service includes a point at which money is ceremonially donated, usually into a collection box. usually this money is given as coins or even notes, but there are a number of schemes, widely used in the strictly orthodox community, whereby tzedakah vouchers are purchased en masse, donated by the purchasers and then redeemed by the recipients. however, these cashflows, which are then collected and redistributed by either communal officials or charitable networks, undeniably place significant amounts of patronage in the hands of synagogues, rabbis and charities. there is little transparency about these donations, how they are used or what strings may or may not be attached.

on the other side of the transaction, a huge industry has built up around getting money donated for tzedakah to “the needy” or “for Torah study” – however, a sizeable (though who knows how much?) amount is directed towards ultra-orthodox institutions both here and in israel. similarly, the communities for whom “Torah is their profession” (in other words, they don’t work for a living, but live off these donations whilst studying full-time) are disproportionately benefited. i’m not saying they live in the lap of luxury, but they certainly have a lot of children, don’t pay a lot of tax (or, in israel, serve in the army) and don’t seem to pay much attention to the talmudic maxim, which is part of the normative halakhah of the shulhan arukh, that “he who does not teach his son a trade, teaches him to be a thief” (BT qiddushin 29a). moreover, if you spend any time in the strictly orthodox community, you will become aware of the number of people who come asking directly for money from the community during prayers, in most cases waving a laminated note under your nose about the operation they need to pay for, the medication they need to take, the institution of Torah learning that they are supporting or even the wedding they need to make for one of their 12 children. all of them seem to be able to afford plane tickets and most of them seem to think if you are collecting in the UK, you have no obligation to ask in english or provide any kind of english explanation of what you’re asking for, which is just plain rude.

now, i don’t deny that some of these are worthy causes, but some of them definitely aren’t. the money isn’t audited at either end. the tax authorities certainly aren’t consulted. money often goes missing, is diverted, is used to gain undue influence or ends up funding things of which i certainly do not approve (like illegal settlements) and we are all aware of the recent scandals in america over money-laundering. there is a secondary industry (well known in stamford hill) whereby you can hire a driver for a couple of days who has a list of addresses where people live who give to good causes live and the amount they are likely to give and he will shuttle you round from door to door in return for a cut. one person of my acquaintance used to keep a wodge of five pound notes by the door for when anyone rang – and, apparently, a lot of them complained about how little he gave! now it is all very praiseworthy that the jewish obligation for charitable giving is so powerful, but it is currently driving a lot of very, very questionable behaviours and practices.

the authorities have long been interested in the hawala system by which muslims raise money for good (and some not so good) causes and a focus on this is part of most anti-money-laundering computer systems. it is only a matter of time before the tzedakah system comes under scrutiny as a racketeering practice. in fact, it probably already is. my advice, particularly to the strictly-orthodox communities is this: clean house. do something about the lack of transparency. get audit trails and control systems in place – or you will live to regret it when this augean stable is eventually cleaned. there is an opportunity for, among other things, a cashless system to be introduced whereby people seeking donations can be issued a portable card reading device. similarly, if we can issue hechshers (stamps of kashrut) for food, there is no reason why we cannot do the same at the UK end for reputable collectors of funds – that way, we who wish to fulfil our obligation to donate can be assured that our funds are going to someone or a cause who really deserves it and not to anywhere else.

7. call the kiruv industry to account and combat the influence of artscroll

regular readers of the spittoon will be aware of my opinions on the kiruv or “outreach” industry and the organisations that are engaged in it. many of these organisations worry me. not because i object to bagels and speed-dating, but because i object to the hidden agendas of these organisations and the power they are increasingly gaining within the communal mainstream. at least one major united synagogue has outsourced its jewish education to a kiruv organisation in the past, which has been a source of some controversy. the ideology that drives these people comes straight from the haredi world. that is not to say that it is necessarily such a bad thing, but it’s simply not healthy that it is allowed to infiltrate and take over the mainstream of jewish education. the stalking-horse of this entryism is the powerful “mesorah publications” publishing house, home of the artscroll series of books. now i don’t know of one jewish house that doesn’t have at least one of their books, including mine, but i for one worry about allowing the hashkafah (“worldview”) of this part of the community to become dominant. both artscroll and the kiruv movements push a monolithic, heavily edited, selective, prudish, intolerant and above all doctrinaire view of judaism which flies in the face both of our history and the jaw-dropping complexity of jewish thought, theology, law and culture. people like simplicity and for things to be set out for them to understand – that’s fine. but what goes with this, both in the publications and the programmes, is an ideology – and it’s not an ideology that we should be comfortable or complacent about. the traditionalist mainstream has been supine in the face of this onslaught, in many cases sympathising with its negation of non-orthodox communities and streams of thought and, in many cases, actively encouraged by the power players in the religious leadership. it is time we fully understood what these organisations stand for, what their political aims are, what links they have to israeli political parties on the [ultra]religious right and what influence they have over the community in this country. they have been able to buy silence so far with what is in many places entirely praiseworthy community work, but it is time we had some transparent scrutiny of these organisations.

all suggestions are welcome!

in such an environment, it’s extremely helpful to be able to point to people who can stand up and say in no uncertain terms: this isn’t right. excusing it is even worse. as it says in the Mishnah: where there are no men, at least you should try and act like a man. i am encouraged to see at least some orthodox rabbis swimming against the tide of denial although, of course, not that surprised to see the perennial awkward squad-nik and contrarian (and my own much revered teacher) rabbi jeremy rosen, writing in haaretz:

“I am tired of making excuses. Once I would argue that 2,000 years of oppression, hatred and exclusion had taught the Jews to do whatever they needed to survive. Or, I would note that much of Orthodox Jewry nowadays is barely a generation removed from life in an Eastern Europe where the state was an enemy and everyone had to break the rules in order to evade the discriminatory regimes. In Israel, one could put the blame on David Ben-Gurion, for not having separated religion and state, which in effect encouraged the Orthodox to indulge in all the temptations that accompany political power.
 
But as with attempts to rationalize terrorism, you go through the obvious list of justifications – poverty, alienation, discrimination – and then you find perpetrators who have suffered none of the above. Daily, we Orthodox repeat mantras about justice, charity and kindness in our prayers, and the more we seem to spout them, the less many of us seem to pay any attention to translating the words into actions.”

you can read the rest of the article here, but i think it’s worth pointing at this particular point:

“Wherever you have a self-perpetuating oligarchy, its members come to see themselves as above the law. Just as a regime of men usually discriminates against women. This is why the unfair laws of divorce in Judaism have still not been modified to remove the disgrace of male chauvinists who can blackmail their wives over a get. When a majority of rabbis turn a blind eye, claiming they can do nothing, they are really encouraging the process of coercion, providing easy outs to the men while refusing to budge for the women. Add to that the superstition factor – and a tendency to attribute superhuman powers to certain rabbis, so that many then fear crossing them – and you have additional opportunities for corruption.”

i think there’s probably a lesson there that the catholic church has been learning – hard – recently. with that said, i was astounded to see this article in this week’s jc (now it’s been retrieved from pro-palestinian hackers) written by two of the most forward-thinking of the rabbis of the united synagogue in connection with the jfs admissions fiasco:

“What is required, therefore, is work for a change in the law that will put the determination of Jewish identity back where it belongs — in the hands of the Jewish community. Since there is no prospect of a change in the law without broad consensus across the Jewish community in favour of change, this involves all the denominations working together. This, in turn, requires realism and a willingness to compromise on the part of the Orthodox community.”

yes, you heard right: orthodox rabbis realising they have to be realistic, compromise and work with non-orthodox rabbis and proposing détente.

good G!D. i sincerely hope this is the thin end of the wedge – it is genuinely astounding to see something so overtly challenging to the “NO SORRENDOR!!” paisleyist orthodox establishment stated so clearly, succinctly and without ambiguity.

the two rabbis concerned, naftali brawer and michael harris, have long been known as pragmatic, open-minded, individuals. let’s hope it doesn’t stand in the way of their further advancement.

[Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab] is the fourth president of a London student Islamic society to face terrorist charges in three years. One is facing a retrial on charges that he was involved in the 2006 liquid bomb plot to blow up airliners. Two others have been convicted of terrorist offences since 2007.

In light of this, compare two pieces by two Muslim commentators on solving Islamic radicalisation in UK universities.

The first by CiF’s favourite faux-liberal Muslim and former Islam Channel “pundit”, Inayat Bunglawala:

Rather than trying to demonise student Islamic societies for their supposed radicalism, our counter-terrorism efforts will surely bear greater fruit if they focused more on building genuine partnerships with local communities and gaining their trust.

The second by Rashad Ali, formerly a senior member of Hizb ut Tahrir:

Our role was to nurture those who showed an interest in jihadist movements and win them over to our beliefs. Given what was happening in the world – the war on terror, the Israel-Palestine conflict, the growing Islamaphobia across the western world – this was surprisingly easy to do. We knew that we were being watched by the security services on campus, but we were not scared of them – it did not seem real, for some reason. We felt that we could spot anyone from the security services, and frankly we were open enough about our views not to care. We were more concerned that we were being watched by foreign governments, which might punish our supporters once they had returned to their countries of origin.

The level of radicalisation that is taking place on campus needs to be acknowledged by the university authorities. Organisations such as the Federation of Student Islamic Societies still do not want to recognise that groups such as Hizb, which support suicide bombings, are extreme.

The government and the university authorities need to become more aware of the tactics being used by extreme groups and gain the confidence to use the powers they already possess to stop radical preachers from being allowed to preach and prevent radical activists from running Islamic societies. If they fail to do so, we will see more Umar Farouk Abdulmutallabs.

Rashad Ali was responsible for Hizbi activities in London university campuses. His article is an ex-insider’s firsthand account of how entryist tactics are practised in university ISOCs by groups like the Hizb. He offers hands-on advice on how the government might use its powers to clamp down on jihadi influence to avoid further terrorist incidents involving British students.

Bunglawala alludes to the “supposed radicalism” of Islamic societies, and then obfuscates the whole issue by suggesting that the only way to solve radicalisation in university ISOCs is by, wait for it, “building genuine partnerships with local communities”.

One of these commentators isn’t quite telling the truth. But, gentle reader, which one can it be?

It really is time for the Government to act.

How did OFSTED miss what was obvious to anybody with any knowledge of this dangerous jihadist cult?

****
This is cross-posted from Harry’s Place:

****

Who actually benefits from obscuring the facts on the Islam Shakhsiyah Foundation (ISF)? If this were a BNP-run foundation overseeing two schools, there is no way any Secretary of State for Education could have contemplated scoring political points at the expense of the oppostion’s fumbling research. But when it is Hizb-ut-Tahrir in the spotlight, the government plays the “divisive smears” race card and the Tories run meekly for cover.

But when the facts are ineveitably going to surface concerning the direct links between the Hizb and ISF, there will be no place to hide for those who doing their best to deny them; step forward Ed Balls, ISF and the Hizb.

Andrew Gilligan hits all the right notes on Ed Balls’ role in the Islamic Shakhsiyah Foundation scandal:

The headteacher of one of the schools, Farah Ahmed, who remains a trustee to this day, refuses to deny that she was a Hizb member and has written in a Hizb journal condemning the “corrupt western concepts of materialism and freedom.”

And Ofsted – far from “satisfying themselves that there were no problems” – actually condemned one of the two schools as “inadequate,” questioned the suitability of the staff, and said that it could do more “to promote cultural tolerance and harmony.” That was in November 2007.

And Ofsted – far from “satisfying themselves that there were no problems” – actually condemned one of the two schools as “inadequate,” questioned the suitability of the staff, and said that it could do more “to promote cultural tolerance and harmony.” That was in November 2007.

By May 2008, according to a follow-up report, the school had been magically transformed, and was now “good”. That second report, however, was written by an inspector with, at the very least, personal connections to Islamic groups.

I fear Mr Balls’s heavy reliance on these Ofsted reports to defend the schools is about to make him look pretty silly. Ofsted is also, of course, the body that rated children’s services in Haringey “good” – in the same year that the borough was comprehensively failing Baby P.

But there’s a broader point. If taxpayer-funded schools were run by supporters of the BNP, there would be an outcry. Hizb ut Tahrir is an Islamic version of the BNP: not actually violent, but openly anti-Semitic, racist, and an enemy of liberal society.

Do Ed Balls and New Labour really want to be the friends and defenders of such people? Does Balls really think it’s good politics to be the Minister for Hizb ut Tahrir?

Not for the first time, the minister has allowed his thirst for a quick hit on the Tories to overcome his common sense. And not for the first time, he has scored a tactical victory, but dropped a massive strategic clanger.

****

In today’s Prime Minister’s Questions, Conservative Party Leader David Cameron challenged Prime Minister Gordon Brown on the findings of the Centre for Social Cohesion’s (CSC) latest report, Hizb ut-Tahrir: Ideology and Strategy.
Cameron, who has promised to ban Hizb ut-Tahrir (HT), asked the Prime Minister why the Islamic Shakhsiyah Foundation (ISF), a charity run by HT members that manages two primary schools and a nursery in London, has received over £113,000 in government grants – a fact revealed by the CSC in the last month. Following the revelations, Haringey Council suspended ISF’s funding.

As the CSC report shows, HT is a revolutionary Islamist group that supports violent jihad and is using front groups to embed its divisive ideology into local communities. Cameron stated today that HT is a group that says

“Jews should be killed wherever you find them.”

Cameron added that the Opposition has been voicing its concern over the ISF to the Prime Minister for the past month and demanded to know again why HT has still not been banned. Furthermore, since the CSC’s publication the Shadow Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families, Michael Gove MP, has written to Ed Balls MP, Secretary of State, Department for Children, Schools and Families (DCSF), asking why the ISF had received public money.
In response, the Prime Minister stated that the two schools have been subject to Ofsted inspections. However, the CSC can confirm that only the ISF school in Slough, Berkshire, has been inspected. Its school in Haringey – the Council providing government funding – has never been inspected.

On 9 November 2009, Vernon Coaker MP, Minister of State (Schools and Learners), stated that schools or nurseries can only receive public funding once they have been registered with the DCSF. However, neither the ISF nursery nor school in Haringey have a DCSF registration number.

The Prime Minister promised that Cameron’s concerns will be investigated. The CSC as well as the report’s authors, Houriya Ahmed and Hannah Stuart, welcome these timely and important questions by David Cameron and look forward to the results of the Prime Minister’s inquiry into the matter.

Notes to editors:
- For more details of the CSC’s report, an executive summary can be read here and the full report here. The ISF Trustees’ Report and Financial Statements (2007/08) revealed that the organisation received £113,411 in government grants that year. ISF confirmed that the money came from the government’s ‘Free Entitlement’ and ‘Pathfinder’ programmes. – In 2005, HT members set up the ISF, a registered charity which runs two primary schools; one in Slough, Berkshire and one in Haringey, North London. Two of the ISF’s four trustees are HT members: Yusra Hamilton is a member of HT and the wife of Taji Mustafa, Media Representative; Farah Ahmed, an ISF trustee and author of the ISF religious curriculum, is also a member of HT. A 2009 Ofsted inspection of the ISF Slough school lists Yusra Hamilton as the school’s proprietor and Farah Ahmed the Head teacher.

****

The merits of Columbia University hosting Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in 2007 have always been somewhat dubious. So it is interesting that it has now emerged that the university was paid $100,000 by the Alavi Foundation, an alleged Iranian front group, two months before agreeing to host the dictator.

The Alavi Foundation – an organisation based in the United States which declares itself ‘devoted to the promotion and support of Islamic culture and Persian language, literature and civilization’ – is accused by the US government of funnelling money to Iranian spies based in Europe and Islamic schools backed by the Iranian government. Federal prosecutors are currently attempting to seize up to $650m in assets from the foundation, with Adam Kaufmann, investigations chief at the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office, saying that they have ‘found evidence that the government of Iran really controlled everything about the foundation’. Alavi also regularly donated to Harvard, Portland State and Rutgers. The latter received $351,600 from the foundation between 2005-2007 to fund its Persian Studies Program.

The concept that top US universities are being funded by an Iranian front is troubling enough. However the possibility that Iranian money is influencing academia is not only restricted to America, but is a problem in the UK as well.

The Iranian government announced last year that it was in talks with ‘several British universities’ in order to fund Islamic studies programmes which would ‘train and educate experts on Islam’. It barely needs pointing out that the Iranian government’s understandings of Islam have not been working out too well for those being forced to live under it.

Furthermore, the Institute for Iranian Studies at the University of St Andrews was founded after a 2006 donation of over £100,000 by the former Iranian deputy foreign minister. Its opening lecture was delivered by former leader Mohammed Khatami, the supposed ‘moderate’ whose government still managed to rack up over 200 executions and the torture of thousands of Iranians.

Another university to receive money from Iran is the School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS) who, within weeks of receiving a donation from the Iranian Government, ran a conference celebrating the life of Ayatollah Khomeini. The event featured a keynote speech by the Iranian Supreme Leader’s representative to the UK.

The issue of huge cash donations from foreign tyrannies to UK universities, and the pernicious impact this can have, is one that I covered in a report earlier this year. I am somewhat skeptical of the impact that these donations have on the way students are actually taught – many academics don’t need the incentive of a huge donation to proselytise on how, for example, western foreign policy is the source of all the world’s evils – but the trend of top universities relying on dictatorships’ foreign aid programmes in order to sustain their running contains obvious problems.

Neither the Government or the Conservatives have offered much on how such problems can be rectified. The legalities of the matter are admittedly complex. However an acknowledgement that universities should be setting their standards a little higher than donations from Iran is a simple enough start.

Now, for the good news: Within seven days of this information going public, Haringey Council has axed funding to the Shakhsiyah Foundation:

The public money – from the Government’s Early Years Fund – was paid to help run the nursery school and two Islamic primary schools where children are taught key elements of Hizb’s ideology from the age of five. It was administered by the local authority, Haringey.

In a statement, the Home Office said: “Haringey Council has decided to suspend its allocation of Early Years Funding, to the schools concerned, pending an investigation.”

The most pressing question that remains is how did three “legitimate Muslim schools” become the cover for Hizb ut-Tahrir operations under the noses of the schools authorities in Haringey?

Other trustees of the Shakhsiyah Foundation who are Hizb members or activists include Farah Ahmed, the head teacher of the Slough school, who has written in a Hizb journal condemning the “corrupt Western concepts of materialism and freedom”.

On their website, the schools say their “ultimate goal” and “foremost work” is the creation of an “Islamic personality” in children. The creation of an “Islamic personality” is a key tenet of Hizb’s ideology. The schools’ history curriculum states that children are taught that “there must be one ruler of the khilafah [caliphate]“. The schools’ website says that “in the glorious history of Islam… the Sharia was the norm”. Children are taught Arabic from the age of three.

A former teacher at one of the schools told yesterday how they were set up as a “great way of creating Hizb ut-Tahrir propaganda”. She said the schools were started by a group of female Hizb members and activists but that the group had also brought in some non-Hizb staff.

The former teacher said: “The concept behind it was to allow the school to speak for itself and then to lure [pupils] in through that doorway.”

The information on the Shakhsiyah Foundation was uncovered in a new report published by the Centre for Social Cohesion, authored by Hannah Stewart and Houriya Ahmed (who also blogs here at The Spittoon).

Accounts filed at the Charity Commission show that the Government paid a total of £113,411 last year to a foundation run by senior members and activists of Hizb ut-Tahrir — a notorious Islamic extremist group that ministers promised to ban.

The article focuses attention on three Hizb-ut-Tahrir dominated schools in which pupils are being indoctrinated into Hizbi ideology from the age of three. The Islamic Shakhsiyah Foundation, which runs the three schools in question, has been responsible for securing the public funding. The foundation’s lead trustee is Yusra Hamilton, a leading Hizb activist who is married to Taji Mustafa (real name Urutajirinere Fombo), the group’s chief spokesman in Britain.

At least three of the four trustees are Hizb members or activists, including Farah Ahmed, the head teacher of the Slough school, who has written in a Hizb journal condemning the “corrupt Western concepts of materialism and freedom”.

The three schools — in Tottenham, north London, and Slough, Berks — are run by the Islamic Shakhsiyah Foundation, a registered charity. The foundation’s lead trustee is Yusra Hamilton, a leading Hizb activist who is married to Taji Mustafa, the group’s chief spokesman in Britain.

At least three of the four trustees are Hizb members or activists, including Farah Ahmed, the head teacher of the Slough school, who has written in a Hizb journal condemning the “corrupt Western concepts of materialism and freedom”.

On their website, the schools say their “ultimate goal” and “foremost work” is the creation of an “Islamic personality” in children The creation of an “Islamic personality” is a key tenet of Hizb’s ideology.

The schools’ history curriculum states that children are taught that “there must be one ruler of the khilafah [caliphate]”. The schools’ website says that “in the glorious history of Islam… the Sharia was the norm”.

Children learn Arabic from the age of three. A spokesman for the foundation insisted that it was not a Hizb ut-Tahrir operation but involved “Muslim women from a wide variety of backgrounds”.

Members of the Hizbut Tahrir are free to indoctrinate their children in the confines of their own homes in any way they see fit. And if they wish to delude themselves into thinking that a predominantly religious education based on a doctrine of supremacism and non-integration with the wider community offers their children adequate preparation for a competitive world, that is certainly their right. But it is difficult to know how this clerical-fascist fringe, which is largely reviled and discredited in the British Muslim community, has managed to secure such huge amounts of public funding without recourse to subterfuge. Certainly the Department for Children, Schools and Families has been “played”.

These facts, uncovered in a report authored by the Centre of Social Cohesion, which is out next week, says that Hizb is creating a number of similar “front organisations” to win public funding and enlist support from mainstream politicians. We look forward to more revelations in the forthcoming report.