with this in mind, i thought it was worth setting out a few of the principles that i think are fairly basic to pursuing both the more aggressive and the more peace-loving sides without compromising the integrity of either. i believe we can both aspire to a more peaceful future at the same time as defending ourselves against those who threaten our society; i think these might be the things that we hold in common and the things which we believe are not held in common by those we oppose:

1. the belief that muslims have the potential to integrate into british (and other western) society as productively as jews have.
2. the belief that eventually mainstream islam will decisively reject the path of taking practical steps to take over the world and relegate this safely to the realm of the eschatological – at present the islamist movement still actually thinks it can win over this debate.
3. the belief that peaceful coexistence is possible even in the middleeast, given goodwill and a real desire to find a workable solution.
4. the acceptance that, islamism aside, there are a lot of people out there who have an unreasonable prejudice against any and all muslims, not just the fundamentalist sort – and that if we can only get the mainstream communities committed to a pluralistic, polycultural modern world rather than a salafist 7th century cloud-cuckoo-land, a commitment to standing shoulder-to-shoulder with muslims in fighting those islamophobes for their rights to be a part of that future.
5. the acceptance that 1, 3 and 4 also have ethnic dimensions and that we have nothing against arabs, persians, turks, pakistanis, bangladeshis etc qua arabs, persians, turks, pakistanis and bangladeshis etc.

if these can be accepted, without significant reservation, then we can begin to accept and deal with the following challenges that we believe to be real:

• a. that there are some muslims, whether individuals, groups, sects, parties or tendencies, that have the downfall of our society in mind and consequently hold what we consider to be unacceptable points of view – let’s say 13%, for argument’s sake; not even a particularly sizeable minority in relative terms, but in absolute terms, given the number of muslims there actually are, enough to cause problems for both their own communities and wider society.
• b. that some of these groups are busily trying to co-opt and own all the islamic community structures that presently exist, as well as present their narrative as that of “all” muslims.
• c. that these people have, over the years, received large amounts of funding and inspiration (with strings attached) from saudi and other insalubrious middle eastern places, as well as from credulous, starry-eyed orientalists in the guardianista / multiculti camp – without strings attached.
• d. that these people are busily engaged in not only political entryism a la tower hamlets, but in hoodwinking well-meaning liberals into acting as figleaves for their disingenuous political and religious programme and thereby bolstering their own credibility.
• e. that if you take a look into the history of many of these socalled respectable “community leaders”, you don’t have to look very hard before you start finding the bloody trail of the bangladeshi genocide as well as the knuckle-prints of the global islamist movements like the ikhwaan and hizb ut-tahrir, let alone all the dodgy things that get said in arabic, farsi, urdu and so on compared to what gets said in english for the benefit of the western media.

if one can accept all of these things, perhaps dialogue can get beyond the ceremonial and cynical to the meaningful and productive. i myself have to do some serious thinking about where i stand on “platform-sharing” issues in particular. on one hand, i try and follow mandela’s excellent principle of “talking to anyone that will talk to me”, but on the other, my deep distrust of certain people and groups, not to mention 16 years of experience, have led me to conclude that there are some people that it is not worth engaging with, like, say, the al-muhajigoonies of this world, who deserve nothing but merciless lampooning in the most liberal of terms (of late the ahmadis have been added to this list – so i saw with displeasure this morning an advert for them on the side of a bus). similarly, i have to consider the rabin principle – that it is one’s enemies that one makes peace with, not one’s friends and that platforms for dialogue will sooner or later have to address the points that i raise above – but you have to suspend certain questions until trust has been established; you can’t jump straight into a conversation about israel, for instance.

i would be most interested in whether people think i have the basis of the argument down correctly. alternatively, you can all call me an islamophobic racist or something.

This is a cross-post by Robin Simcox

It seems increasingly trendy to believe that ‘non violent’ Islamists can be a bulwark against al-Qaeda in preventing terrorism in the west. Chief proponent of this thesis is Robert Lambert, director of the European Research Muslim Centre (ERMC). Along with Jonathan Githens-Mazer, his co-director at the EMRC, Lambert believes that Salafi and Ikhwani ‘street’ legitimacy and religious knowledge work as a safety valve in reducing the threat.

This is convenient, considering the ERMC receives all of its funding from Ikhwani-sympathetic organisations. The Cordoba Foundation, described by the Prime Minister in March 2008 as a ‘front for the Muslim Brotherhood’, donated £50,000 to the ERMC for the year 2009/10; and Islam Expo, whose registered directors and companies secretaries have a variety of links to the Brotherhood, another £50,000.

Director General of the OSCT, Charles Farr, appears to have bought into ‘Lambertism’. There is little other explanation for Farr’s attempt to reverse the government’s decision to ban foreign advocate of terrorism Zakir Naik coming into the UK (it is also significant that helping him come to this decision was another individual of dubious merits, Inayat Bunglawala, owner of the website domain Muslims4UK).

Yet once Lambert and Githens-Mazer’s ideas are held up to any proper scrutiny, their thesis quickly falls apart – for example, see their recent article for International Affairs titled ‘Why conventional wisdom on radicalization fails’. In an attempt to prove that ‘conventional wisdom’ (defined as either ‘a lack of integration, a lack of secularism, the existential threat posed by Islam to the West, or external influences from Saudi Arabia and the Middle East’ being the root causes) on radicalism has failed, Lambert and Githens-Mazer use a case study of three ideologically extreme brothers – Lamine, Ibrahim and Rahman Adam (aka Anthony Garcia).

According to Lambert and Githens-Mazer, ‘there was little doubt that Lamine Adam was the leader of the three, with Rahman and younger brother Ibrahim tagging along’. Compared to the highly ideological Lamine, who regularly proselytized jihadist rhetoric, the only notable thing about Rahman ‘was his silence…Rahman was far less vocal’. Yet it was Rahman who was sentenced to life for his role in the ‘fertiliser bomb’ cell, which discussed attacking a variety of targets, including shopping centres and nightclubs. Lambert and Githens-Mazer ask:

[W]hy should it have been someone [Rahman]…who was directly implicated in a terrorist plot, rather than his overtly ideological sibling?

It appears that Lamine posed the greatest threat; yet it wasn’t Lamine who would go on to commit a terrorist attack…Lamine could be drawn into lengthy discussions about Islamic practice and belief, whereas Rahman was drawn instead to “doing”, not “talking” or “thinking”…If conventional wisdom cannot properly explain the differences between the Adam brothers, then what explanatory value does conventional wisdom have in understanding terrorist violence?

Clearly then, they regard Lamine Adam as proof that ideology does not cause terrorism.

Yet there is a slight problem with all this.

Both Lamine and Ibrahim Adam were placed under control orders in February 2006 because the Security Service assessed that ‘there were reasonable grounds to suspect that they were intending to engage in terrorism-related activities [that] involve assisting in fighting against western forces in Iraq or Afghanistan or training for such fighting’. Both men escaped their control order in May 2007, and neither has been re-captured.

It gets worse. Lamine actually introduced Rahman to Omar Khyam – head of the ‘fertiliser’ cell – and was repeatedly mentioned as an associate of those convicted during the trial. Al-Qaeda supergrass Mohammed Junaid Babar testified that Khyam gave Lamine bomb-making instructions, and that:

[Lamine] said he wanted the formula because he wanted to do an operation himself in the UK. He didn’t know how to make a bomb. He said he wanted to do something with someone else as far as making a bomb and hitting a nightclub. [source available from the author]

Babar also said that Lamine shipped camping equipment to a terrorist training camp in Pakistan in 2003.

So Lambert and Githens-Mazer’s poster-boy turns out to be a suspected terrorist on the run from the authorities, who has been identified by a member of al-Qaeda as connected to one of the largest terrorism plots the UK has ever faced. As far as disclaimers go, these seem like awfully big ones to miss out.

Ibrahim, meanwhile, has turned up again recently – though not in a way that Lambert and Githens-Mazer may hope. He was recently identified by the Security Services as part of a significant terrorist network, and is currently in Pakistan attempting to obtain a false passport to return to the UK. Passport photographs of Ibrahim were discovered in an Oslo flat, following the arrest of an alleged terrorist cell in Norway. Security sources told the Daily Telegraph that they ‘have been aware of his involvement in terrorist circles’ and ‘there are concerns about his desire to return to Britain and engage in terrorist activity’.

Lambert and Githens-Mazer are quick to get excited when others apparently fail to offer ‘no evidence base’ for the argument that ideology may just have something to do with terrorism. But they have a pretty significant ‘evidence base’ problem here themselves.

If ‘Lambertism’ is OSCT’s answer to the terrorist threat, it is hard to fathom what the question was.

Apparently Qazi Hussain Ahmed, the former leader of the South Asian Islamist party Jamaat-e-Islami, has been banned from the UK. He had a visa that was valid until 2015. It has reportedly been revoked.

PRESS STATEMENT FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

TOWER HAMELTS COMMUNITY STANDS UP TO FIGHT FASCISM IN ALL ITS COLOURS:

The entry of the English Defence League (EDL) into Tower Hamlets to protest against a meeting at the Troxy in East London is a direct provocation to stir up racial tensions, foment dissent among faiths and attempt to bring disunity amongst the communities of the borough. We condemn the fascist EDL whose sole objective is to act as storm troopers for the British National Party (BNP) and pick up the pieces for them after their miserable rout in the local and national elections in neighbouring Barking and Dagenham Council. Under the guise of being non-political and upholding “English” values they are propagating a virulent form of naked Islamophobia which is rejected by the communities of Tower Hamlets. We will do everything in our power to defend the peace in the borough, protect the lives of Muslims and ensure that the unity amongst all is maintained.

This borough has a rich tradition of successful challenge to fascist forces of the Blackshirts and the National Front. The Battle of Cable Street in the 30,s and the Struggle for Brick Lane following Altab Ali’s murder in the 70’s and the move to oust Derek Beackon in the 90’s is part of our common history. The values of universalism, anti-racism and no compromise with fascism inform our thinking and has become part of our existence. We will build on this rich tradition as we face Oswald Mosley’s grandchildren. The irony is those who attacked the Jewish community in the 30’s have tried to usurp the flag of Israel to mount their challenge today. United with the Jewish community we condemn such blasphemy.

As we confront the fascist thugs of EDL we in the Bengali and the Muslim community are being asked to stand side by side with Islamic Forum in Europe (IFE). This we refuse to do. The IFE does not represent the Muslim community in Tower Hamlets. They do not uphold the glorious tradition of Cable Street, Altab Ali and the anti racist movement. Under the patronage of an exclusivist Islam emanating from Saudi Arabia they are attempting to impose it amongst the Bengalis in this borough. Just as the EDL takes the guise of being ordinary English citizen to hide their true identity of  fronting the fascist BNP so do IFE act as the sole representatives of ordinary Muslims but are in fact operating under the direction of their parent organization Jamaat Islam in Bangladesh. It is Jamaat that was party to the massacre of innocent Bangladeshis in the 1971 war of independence that establish the independent state of Bangladesh. A war Tribunal has been established in Bangladesh to try leaders of Jaamat Islam who are IFE’s real ideological and organizational gurus. In other words IFE represent a virulent form of political Islam that is fascistic in nature like Jaamat Islam and verges on the anti-Semitic and is very exclusivist and undemocratic.

In defending the people of Tower Hamlets and especially the ordinary Muslims we do not have to defend IFE. EDL is attacking the Muslims of this borough and we must protect them. IFE must not be allowed to use this occasion to propagate their very reactionary version of political Islam.  

We must also alert the entire community about the opportunist and divisive politics of IFE. Using this latest EDL threat to the local community, it is clear to us that the IFE brigade is trying to terrify the most vulnerable in our community – the Bangladeshi women and children into joining their ranks under the banner of ‘defending the Ummah’. It has come to our knowledge that IFE and its operatives have sent out mass e-mails, text messages and visited members of the community including young children in primary schools to ask them to join forces and defend Muslims and East London Mosque from imminent threat of destruction.

All progressive forces must realize that the gut reaction to EDL is to defend everybody including IFE because they might be accused of being Islamophobic. But we boldly proclaim that it is not Islamophobic to have no trucks with the heirs of Fascist Jaamat? It is not Islamophobic to denounce the anti democratic credentials of IFE and their Saudi patrons? It is not Islamophobic to show solidarity with the Muslims of Tower Hamlets and their diverse representative organizations without marching under the leadership of IFE? We cannot be consistent in fighting the fascist EDL if we elect the “fascist” IFE as our Imam. In line with the best in the Islamic and Bengali tradition we reject the siren calls of IFE as we prepare to organise against EDL.

On behalf of:

Harmuz Ali (Bangladesh Welfare Association (BWA), Ataur Rahman Chowdhury (Brick Lane Mosque), Shamsuddin Shams (Altab Ali Foundation), Badrul Islam (Centre for Citizenship and Development (CCD), Akikur Rahman (Bangladesh Youth Association), Rajonuddin Jalal (London Bangladeshi Association), Ansar Ahmed Ullah (Nirmul Committee), Mahmoud Rauf (Brick Lane Business Association), Abdus Subhan Gedu (Banglatown Restaurant Association), Ethnic Minority Enterprise Project (EMEP), Abdul Ali Rauf (Chicksand Citizen’s Forum), Collective of Bangladeshi School Governors, Tower Hamlets Parents Centre, Tower Hamlets Parents Association, APASENTH, BYM, Nurul Islam (Kendrio Shaheed Minar Committee), Sundar Miah (Tarling Tenants & Residents Association),Nooruddin Ahmed (Bangladesh Youth League), Ruhul Amin (Progressive Youth Association), Taimus Ali (Bangladesh Youth Front), Shahab Uddin Ahmed Belal (Human Rights Secretary (Awami League), Cathy Forrester, Claire Murphy, Phil Maxwell, Terry Fitzpatrick (Blair Peach Project), Syed Sad Ahmed, Fanu Miah (Golden Moon Youth Project), Altafur Rahman, Sheikh Noor, Sirajul Islam, Shofiq Ahmed, Tanu Miah and others.

For further details:

On behalf of UNITY PLATFORM AGAINST RACISM AND FASCISM

C/O  Centre for Citizenship and Development, Business Development Centre, 7-15 Greatorex Street, London E1 5NF

The begining of the end for IFE : )

recently, i gave up posting on pickled politics, partly because of the level of personal animosity i was facing, but mostly just in frustration at my apparent inability to get my point across. now, i suppose i have nobody very much to blame for that apart from myself, but i’ve never felt that was a problem before now. now, i think i’m starting to work out what it is that is bothering me; certainly, it’s not about the denizens of one blog, or even the blogosphere, or even the media. it’s not any one set of views, not any one person, but a set of trends, a collective movement i sense in wider society.

one of the things i like about the spittoon and my co-contributors is that they take a robust approach towards the cosy relationship between the left and the various apologists for, supporters of and partisans of islamist extremism. they take, of course, an equally dim view of other forms of clerical fascism, whether it be jewish, christian, or hindu, although, of course, we are often excoriated for not writing sufficiently on these subjects. and why is that? well, the answer that “they’re not as big a problem” simply won’t do. clearly, the activities of the likes of rss/shiv sena in india, or hardcore fundamentalists in the american south ultimately affect all of us. for me personally, the behaviour of both the extreme west bank settlers and that of rejectionist ultra-orthodoxy evokes both profound heartache and deep anger – just as the “as-a-jew” clique that only appear as jews in order to display their preening self-importance whenever an opportunity to attack israel arises. however, i would nonetheless argue that, from the perspective of wider UK society, these concerns are less immediate, in that these groups have no meaningful accommodation with either our government or the UK media, however influential they may be in the communities they come from. what bothers me, really, is what the effects of ongoing and intensifying fundamentalism on me, my family and community and wider society – in this, locally speaking, islamists are in the vanguard, as the leading proponents and practitioners of violence against my community specifically and, generally, against UK civil society.

the question inevitably arises – who’s really worse? well, i think i would on balance come down in favour of the idea that wherever a particular group becomes influential and the closer they come to the levers of power, the more of a problem they are in a particular country. thus, in the UK, the utterly misguided, racism-of-lower-expectations the-west-is-ultimately-responsible-for-everything-bad-y’know attitude has allowed the entryism of islamist organisations and sympathisers everywhere from the police to government to the left-wing media. but would it be any different anywhere else? i expect not – militant fundamentalist christians are busily inching closer to the levers of power in washington, india has had already had one bjp government and i think we’re all aware of the subversion of mainstream democracy and the processes of civil society in israel by the religious parties and the settler lobby. we’ve got a lot of muslim fundamentalists here in the UK and, in a profound act of ignorance and credulity, we’ve allowed islamic education to be systematically outsourced to salafi and wahhabi dawa organisations for a generation, with entirely predictable results – i think we can say the same of many european countries, although i would fall well short of the apocalyptic and hysterical “eurabia” scenario – in fact, i’d be more worried personally about the behaviour of the catholic party in poland led by an anti-semitic priest and any prospective alliance of a russian political party with the orthodox church – not trend anyone jewish can afford to ignore.

of course, in europe particularly, this isn’t the first time we’ve been here. there was of course an “enlightenment”, which consisted in large part of reaction against the authoritarianism of various forms of christianity, whether by trying to eliminate it altogether and replace it with a sort of ersatz state paganism, as in france, or whether to regulate it as a sort of national industry, as in germany and scandinavia, or whether to simply satirise and philosophise it into a manageable social pressure and community support lobby, as in britain. the enlightenment taught that religion was nothing but a corrupt power structure which only the mad, the bad and the deluded would indulge. as we also know, removing religion simply forced the mad, the bad and the deluded to find other channels for their unpleasant attitudes and activities. we still see this outdated and reductionist position being reinvented for modern times using all the tools of modern cultural influence, from popular science to childrens’ books to comedy. religious people are portrayed as knaves or fools. there appears to be no middle ground, no compromise possible – religion must be rooted out, cleansed and exterminated.

of course, we’ve been there before too – modern fundamentalism, as karen armstrong (before she started to become part of the problem by sucking up to the goons at MPAC-UK) pointed out in her still masterful study of fundamentalism “the battle for G!D” evolved largely as a reaction against the enforced, clumsy and often brutal imposition of modernity on societies all around the world. the fundamentalisms we have today have reached their current forms because of the political, technological and social realities of the societies in which they evolved. their priorities and obsessions are driven by the battles they originally fought, against pluralism, liberalisation of dress, behaviour, increased social equality (or inequality), against practically irreversible geopolitical realities, against the aftereffects of wars and economic dislocation. those who give aid and comfort to fundamentalists are inevitably picking and choosing where they have shared priorities and obsessions – anti-imperialism, anti-abortion, anti-homosexuality, anti-israel, social breakdown, the emancipation of women, the legacy of slavery – but they are always at odds with fundamental features of the societies they criticise.

what i see developing, however, is a sort of multi-lateral polarisation in which the first casualty is moderation, the second is tolerance and the third is social consensus. the effects of this, however, touch all of us, but the effects are peculiarly corrosive on those of us who are able to combine amd integrate reason and religion and deal with the subtleties of creation, revelation and evolution. we are frequently at odds with obscurantists and bigots within our faith, but we are now fighting a rearguard defence against anti-religious forces, without any letup in the attack on reasonableness, complexity and dialogue that continues from reactionary fanatics. both sides, naturally, accuse us of giving aid and comfort to the other in its mission to destroy them – if we’re not with them, we’re against them – and no prisoners will be taken.

so, on one hand, we have the forces of militant anti-religion mounting attacks on everything from headgear to faith schools, on the other we have the walls of the ghetto being built anew, only with gun-ports this time. we can also see the social contract of the enlightenment renewed; previously, the deal was “give up your difference and you’ll get rights as a citizen” – this time, it’s “you’ve abused your rights as a citizen, we can no longer tolerate your differences”. the behaviour of religious fanatics, in their quest to dominate their own communities, has destroyed the delicate balance which allowed religion to be an integrated part of civil society. naturally, comes the response: they want all or nothing? fine – let them have nothing. but what of those of us who always wanted to co-exist? who prize our cultural and spiritual distincitiveness? oh no, distinctiveness is still allowed – but religion will no longer be a valid reason for it. diversity in sexuality, gender, disability, intelligence, talent, wealth – all these are permitted, but not religion. we are offered the choice – everything or nothing. well, we want neither.

i refuse to hide in the ghetto. i contribute to this society. i work. i pay my taxes. i don’t walk about naked, nor do i hide my face from the world. i will not assimilate, nor will i act as if i am living in another country or another century. i refuse to eat foods that are forbidden to me and i refuse to forbid those foods to others who may want them. i refuse to give up the sabbath, the festivals, the Torah and my other sacred texts – and i refuse to impose my vision of them on those who do not share my perspective. if i am attacked, i will defend myself. if i am insulted, i will respond in kind. i am not looking for a fight, but i will not shrink from one. i will not allow others to define what i am. the search for social consensus has been a long and painful one – and now it has been destroyed again, by the hubris and arrogance of religious and anti-religious fanatics. i do not know if we can put the pieces back together again, but there has to be a basis for us to live together – both enforced segregation and enforced assimilation are fascistic responses.

judaism has always been not so much a culture or a religion as it has been a 3000+ year-old argument. there is nothing so boring as loads of people violently agreeing with each other – except perhaps two groups of people refusing to concede anything that the other is saying has any value or validity. the counter-enlightenment is in full swing, without any sign that it has learnt anything from the enlightenment.

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!

Dispatches Islamophobic documentary

Channel 4’s Dispatches is due to broadcast a damaging and misleading programme on Monday 1st March at 8pm. For nearly a year the programme had undercover reporters attending events (including private meetings) of Islamic Forum of Europe (IFE) and passing themselves off as Muslims and friends, but acting as agents provocateurs to solicit replies to use against IFE.

IFE is a mainstream community organisation with members hailing from different walks of life. Its activities and events are open to the public and publicised widely. No request was made by Dispatches to gain access to IFE’s activities or projects. Instead by using undercover reporters and ‘covert filming’, Dispatches has portrayed IFE as a secretive organisation, arousing much suspicion.

The Dispatches programme on 1st March is set to falsely portray IFE as an extremist and sinister organisation, and undo the years of good work in the community. The programme wrote to IFE few days ago asking for their response/comment on around 23 different issues and allegations, including links to Al-Qaeda  and engaging in “entryism” in an attempt to bring about an Islamic ‘coup’ within mainstream British politics, or achieve political domination.

As concerned citizens of this country, we strongly condemn this demonization of an organisation with a track record of transparency, integration and engagement. Moreover this programme is not only politically-motivated due to the upcoming elections, it is also Islamophobic in nature – preying on public fears about extremism.

Please protest against this divisive programme by registering your complaints to the producers of Dispatches, Channel 4, Ofcom (regulatory body) and John Fitzptrick MP who has been feeding drivel to Dispatches.

following the links to register complaints appears the template letter to register a complaint:

TEMPLATE LETTER AND POINTS

Please use the letter below as a template to register your complaint to Channel 4’s Dispatches:                                     

Date…

Dear Sir/Madam,

I write to express my utter disgust and disappointment at Channel 4’s Dispatches “Britain’s Islamic Republic”, which levels wholly inaccurate and defamatory accusations on the Islamic Forum of Europe (IFE).

The documentary is not only Islamophobic in nature but it preys on public fears about extremism. The programme utilises emotive and provocative language and misleading information to create an impression that IFE is a sinister, secretive and anti-democratic organisation which condones and promotes violent extremism.

At a time of rising far right activism and an increased reporting of Islamophobic and racist attacks on Muslims, Channel 4 has acted wholly irresponsibly. The IFE is a mainstream Muslim organisation which has for many years worked to encourage active citizenship and community development. It is reprehensible that the Dispatches programme has made such a crude attempt at defaming the IFE. It appears that Dispatches has joined those in society who are hell bent on creating division, paranoia and distrust amongst communities.

Yours faithfully

[insert here your name and city]

even more helpfully, the following are also included:

Additional Points for Individualised Letters and Points to Raise When Making Telephone Complaints.

You may also choose to incorporate some of the following in your letter of complaint If you are able to, please consider using the following points in your letter of complaint:

1. Coming so close to a general election, the documentary is politically motivated.  
2. The programme will undoubtedly increase community tension and harm genuine attempts at community cohesion.
3. The documentary is a dishonest attempt at scaremongering and vilifying Muslim communities and religious institutions.
4. The documentary panders to the BNP and the Far Right
5. It begs the question; what is wrong with Muslims being politically engaged and active in civic society and the politics of the common good?
6. This dishonest portrayal of a mainstream Muslim organisation like the IFE will only contribute to further alienating young Muslims and draw them towards extremism.
7. Similar claims were made in the not so distant past against the Irish and Jewish communities.
8. This is part of a series of organised, vindictive and orchestrated witch hunts against Muslim personalities, institutions and organisations which aims at undoing the excellent work done by these.
9. This is irresponsible and reprehensible journalism by Channel 4, which makes a mockery of its stated aim of representing and celebrating Britain’s diversity and multi-culturalism.
10. The picture painted of IFE is contrary to our knowledge and experience of the organisation and indeed its track record.

but not, i fear to ours. jolly well organised, though – i’m sure this is an excellent way to strike back against jewish zionist control of the media and, y’know, how islamists muslims are denied a voice and that. anyway, i’d like to thank naeem for showing me how to complain about this programme, which i’ll undoubtedly want to do, of course.

scary kiruv cartoon

on reading it, i didn’t know whether to laugh or cry. on one hand, it’s a caricature of the position of the kiruv (“outreach”) organisations, but on the other hand, once you start digging into their theology, their internal politics, their fundraising activities and their influence on the jewish community and israeli politics, it’s hard not to find them scary.

i’ve been thinking about this for a good long time, because as an observant jew, albeit one who was became observant as an adult, i am constantly aware of the phenomenon of the ba’al teshuvah, the “penitent”, the returner-to-traditional-judaism. when you’re trying to do this, the kiruv organisations are the first to stand up and say they’ll help. however, i never took them up on their offers, because i could see where it led and i had seen its effect on friends and family when conflict arose. i won’t say that i’ve never met fantastic rabbis from chabad, project seed, aish or the jewish learning exchange – but i was always aware of the kiruv undercurrent and kept my involvement at arm’s length. it would appear, however, that not everyone is in possession of the requisite confidence and critical faculties to counter the half-truths, mendacious reasoning, tendentious interpretation and evangelistic love-bombing; people want their outer message of family values, Torah and a truly integrated lifestyle to be true – and so it is.  and, yes, of course these people are often more amusing than scary:

Lubavitch Sends T-800 Back in Time to Protect Holy Temple (thanks, the Knish)

but that’s not all it is.

what i truly find sinister about these organisations is their monolithic nature. like all fundamentalisms, they take a mythologised golden age (which may or may not have happened) and posit a fall from that state, which can only be regained by a return to the actions, behaviours and values espoused by the organisations which claim to represent the legacy of that golden age. whether this is an idealised picture of the yeshivas of lithuania, the shtetls of poland, or indeed the era of the prophets, patriarchs and classical rabbinic sages. if only we all attained that standard, they claim, it would all be different – the world would be transformed and us with it.

well, the world would be transformed all right, but something vital would be lost – and that is the vitality of religious biodiversity. there has always, *always*, *always* been variation in both belief and practice, there has *never* been a time in which we all did exactly the same thing and observed a uniform code of dress, behaviour, ritual and belief. maimonides’ “13 principles of faith” divided the community for a century. the hasidim and mitnagdim fought like cats and dogs (and continue to do so) – the accommodators of modernism and the NAY-SORRENDUR vanguard, the rationalists and mystics, the scholars and the businessmen – we’re all necessary just as much as we always have been. what i really, deeply object to is this idea – shared either overtly or covertly by all kiruv organisations, is the concept that we must all dress like this:

and spend all our time doing this:

hevruta study in a yeshiva

and everyone else should just be happy to pay for us to do this, because after all – we’re doing the world a favour by sitting and studying Torah all day. now, actually, i don’t entirely disagree that studying Torah a lot is a good thing for the world, but i also note that the sages expected us to Get A Job and Pay Our Taxes as well. rashi had a job. rabbi akiva had a job. maimonides had three jobs. now, suddenly, we’re expected to all wear the black-hat uniform and aspire to a life of Torah study?

i’m sorry, it’s never been like that and, hopefully, it’ll never be like that. but of course, we must remember what the consequences of not being like that are, in the view of the people in the ultra-orthodox world who fund the kiruv organisations. i was not entirely surprised, of course, to find that these cartoons are supposed to have caused the haitian earthquake – that’s right, because G!D Is bound to kill thousands of people in the caribbean just to get the jewish community’s attention.

this sort of thing is a wake-up call. these people are not the future of judaism – they are our wahhabis, generous, well-funded, well-organised and intelligently marketed – and puritanical, intolerant and disingenuous. just as we outsourced islamic education to the saudi international dawah programme a generation ago and are now reaping the dubious benefits, we are in the process of handing these people the future of jewish education. we should take ownership of our own Torah back before it’s too late.

Majed Iqbal, Hizb ut Tahrir entryist

He’s a busy boy in his hometown of Rochdale these days – what with trying to create a Caliphate and all that, it’s remarkable he has time for anything else. But he does. By night Majed moonlights as a journalist, trying to pass off his wildly racist views as dispassionate and objective reporting.

Now then, he doesn’t exactly write for a major broadsheet (or, dare I say, a weekly political magazine) but instead peddles his nonsense in the ‘Asian Leader’ newspaper in Rochdale. Does it really matter then? I think it does.

Rochdale has a large Muslim population and is one of the areas where the government is concerned about the spread of radical Islamism. Majed is effectively being allowed to spread his message there under the guise of an impartial journalism.

For example, the Spittoon first revealed how Hizb ut Tahrir is waging a campaign (known as the SRE Islamic Campaign) against the teaching of sex and relationship education in schools. Majed is an active member of that campaign in Rochdale. Naturally, he also wrote about it for the Asian Leader under the headline: “Muslim community says NO to sex education for five year olds”. He writes:

Yusuf Patel and Farhad Khodabaksh, both Muslim activists from London, initiated a campaign against the government proposals after coming across information on plans to begin teaching Sex and relationship education to five year old primary school children in October last year.

Majed Iqbal, on the right, running the SRE campaign in Rochdale

Majed is even kind enough to give us a link to their website and tell us about upcoming ‘SRE Islamic’ events. What he omits to tell his reads is that both Patel and Khodabaksh are members of Hizb ut Tahrir – and, so is he. Instead he happily paints a picture of a monolithic Muslim community all marching along in unison to the beat of HuT’s Islamist agenda.

In another article he propagates the usual HuT rubbish about democracy being doomed to failure, presenting democracy and dictatorship as being ‘two sides of the same coin’. He writes:

Both Democracy and Dictatorship have wreaked havoc for Pakistan.

Those parties that [have] questioned Dictatorship and contested it under Musharraf’s rule, are they now willing to challenge democracy and ask for its removal after witnessing its fruits?

But what’s the alternative Majed? Won’t you please tell us?

His tawdry website is littered with countless more examples of standard HuT agitprop. In another article Majed attacks Imam Irfan Chisti, a local Sufi cleric who works on PVE initiatives with the government. After Chisti told Hazel Blears of his concerns about the rise of extremism in Rochdale, Majed lambasted him in the pages of ‘Asian Image’ writing:

Imam Irfan Chisti’s report plays perfectly into the hands of the government agenda of validating the need for Citizenship courses which are an attempt to create a new version of Islam where a Muslim is silent on international affairs, pacifist with freedom of speech and divorces Islam to personal affairs only like diet and worships.

At the end of the piece Majed described himself as:

a writer and commentator based in Rochdale.

Again, no mention of his HuT membership.

The issue is clear. Can you imagine the uproar if members of the BNP were given space to propagate their views in local community newspapers? And, even if they were given the occasional comment piece, we would expect the author’s membership of a racist outfit to be clearly flagged up for the benefit of readers. None of that has happened with Majed who is simply allowed to tout himself as an independent commentator on events.

Don’t think it’s that bad? Well, just consider that when Pervez Musharraf declared a state of emergency in Pakistan a few years ago who did Sky News go to for comment? Yup, there was Majed speaking away from Rochdale telling everyone how much the people of Pakistan ‘yearned for a return to Islam’! He obviously missed the recent election results from Pakistan’s most conservative region, the NWFP, where all the Islamist parties were utterly obliterated at the polls in favour of their secular counterparts.

The whole issue reminds me of the Dilpazier Aslam fiasco when the Guardian employed him. Ok, that was a bigger paper with national reach – but if Press TV and the Islam Channel have taught us anything, it is that we should not underestimate the power of community media targeting minority audiences.

I wrote to the ‘Asian Leader’ asking three simple questions about this matter:

1. Was the newspaper aware of Majed’s membership of Hizb ut Tahrir?

2. If so, why did it not alert readers of his column to this?

3. If the paper did not know, what steps will be taken to rectify this in the future?

Those are natural questions and you’d imagine the paper would be rushing to clarify the situation. Alas, so far nothing but radio silence.

Baffled by this lack of contact I decided to do some research into the ‘Asian Leader’ and discovered that it had recently been sued by former Rochdale MP, Lorna Fitzsimons. The Manchester Evening News explains:

Ms Fitzsimons sued for libel over a front-page article in the Asian Leader in November. Her photograph appeared alongside the Star of David and the headline: “Is she a star liar?”

Aah, maybe that explains it then.

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.