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.

“More precision needed. There should be a stamp for that. MPN should be like LOL or TMI.”

i agree. what narks me somewhat (and no doubt there are all sorts of reasons why i am wrong about this) is that this is *precisely* what bothers me about statements about a) religious people and b) the tendentious-as-feck word “judeo-christian”.

“But there again – that’s a matter of fact, not something that can just be declared from the armchair as if it were self-evident. Are Muslims as “diverse” as any other group of people living in the UK? Are all groups living in the UK exactly as diverse as each other, neither more nor less? I don’t see why that would be the case. It’s certainly not impossible that there is something about Islam and/or the history of people who emigrate from majority-Muslim countries that makes Muslims as a group tend to be different from other people as groups, including being less “diverse.” That’s something to find out, not just to announce as a necessary truth. Or a sacred cow…”

i would argue that this is exactly what annoys me about statements about religious people in which jews and judaism are included. jews in the uk are *extremely* diverse – this is an ongoing issue which pops up every time someone decides to say something about how we have a monolithic view, or “the community thinks”. in fact, the community, generally speaking, disagrees on nearly everything. on the other hand, it seems to me that the idea that muslims are somehow less diverse is equally mistaken. on the other hand, i am often attacked for suggesting that there is a “significant minority” (i usually quote 13%, based on a survey done some years back for channel 4) that are problematic particularly if you look at what they think about jews. the *real numbers* that can be attached to this, in this case 260,000 based on 2m muslims (again, if that’s correct) is still a very large number compared to the number of jews in this country. in other words, it is nonetheless possible that a) muslims are not monolithic in their views AND b) there is a significant minority of muslims whose views are problematic – and that one can therefore conclude that this minority is big enough to cause a sizeable problem. please note here that i am not intending to essentialise, demonise or whatever. this is just a numbers game. if 13% of these guys are arseheads, 13% of 2m people adds up to a LOT more arseheads than the corresponding number of jews, especially given that there is no evidence whatsoever that a “significant number of jews” hold views that are problematic for a) the UK b) liberal democracy or c) muslims. on the other hand, there *are*, i would say, a “significant number of jews” whose views on the middle east are problematic for a “significant number of so-called ‘progressives’ and muslims and people in the house of lords or the foreign office”. this, for me, is the source of the false equivalences.

the below the line comments are also quite revealing of the issues that are raised.

The East London’s Mosque laughable defence to accusations of this partnership includes this citation to an article on The Spittoon:

In order to do so, Mr Gilligan incorrectly said that the leaders of SREIslamic – one of the groups invited to speak – were also members of an extremist group, Hizb ut-Tahrir. They have very publicly left that group, as has been noted by the very sources which often supply Mr Gilligan with his “news”.

So ELM’s defence of hosting and partnering with the nasty homophobe Yusuf Patel is based on Andrew Gilligan’s error of referring to him as a member of Hizb-ut-Tahrir – which at the time of publication was incorrect.

This might have let ELM off the hook had Yusuf Patel disavowed his homophobic leanings since becoming an ex-Hizbie. But this is not the case, as Lucy Lips tells us by pinpointing exactly where Patel’s allegiances now lie:

The campaign has been run for the past few years by Yusuf Patel, a recently departed member of Hizb ut Tahrir whose brother formerly ran that party. He is now a supporter of the even more extreme hate preacher Haitham Al Haddad, and a fan of Muhammad “alhamdulillah I’m homophobic” Alshareef:

If anything, Haitham al-Haddad is more hardline and extremist on certain issues than the Hizb and is unlikely to be extending messages of goodwill to gays anytime soon. Do the ELM expect people to buy this horse manure?

Well, it looks like some have and very happy customers they seem to be too:

Over at Pickled Politics, ELM’s “rationalisation” is regurgitated by our favourite “brown progressive about town”, the incorrigible Sunny Hundal. Now Hundal is well known for his intermittent loss of bearings. In 2009, he was raising his concerns about the Hizb ut Tahrir’s Sex Education in Schools campaign. This month he is attacking Gilligan for doing the same and on the same points. And what is worse, arguing this as an exoneration of the East London Mosque’s institutional homophobia.

• LGBT, Feminist, Humanist and Muslim activists express their support for the East London Mosque’s significant statement promising to prevent its premises from being used as a platform for homophobic speakers.
• The Mosque’s statement is an important step in building trust and goodwill in the local community.
• We urge the Mosque to publicise its commitment through the local, Asian and religious media.
• We celebrate diversity in the community and stand united with our neighbours against anti-Muslim bigotry and homophobia.

In the Open Letter sent out 7 June regarding the Gay Free Zone case (Anti-Gay Hate Crime Up 21% in Tower Hamlets:UK Gay and Feminist Activists, Writers and Publishers Demand Investigation into Leaders of “Gay-Free Zone” Campaign; Call on East London Mosque to Stop Providing Platform for Anti-Gay Hate, link here), a number of gay and feminist activists closed by saying:

“The East London Mosque claims to have no responsibility over those who speak there. The East London Mosque also claims to be opposed to the ‘gay-free zone’ campaign and homophobia. We demand that the East London Mosque live up to its stated word, take ownership of its platform and stop allowing its premises to be used to promote gay-hate campaigns.”

Salman Farsi, Communications Officer from the East London Mosque, speaking to the Guardian (link here) responded by saying:

“Any speaker who is believed to have said something homophobic will not be allowed to use our premises, whether that is us organising an event or someone else. As for the condemnation of homophobia, our director has gone on the record on this.”

We, the undersigned, welcome the East London Mosque’s statement that they will no longer allow their premises to be used by homophobic speakers and take them at their word. Eliminating a platform for hate in such an influential institution as the East London Mosque is a strong, positive action and will have a very positive effect on both the local gay and Muslim communities.

Hate and division have no place in Tower Hamlets or anywhere else. Extremists, of both the religious and political variety, seek to keep us divided and at each others’ throats. Through this action, the East London Mosque will help to rebuild trust between and within communities and to thwart the attempts of those who would try to play us off against each other.

We request that the East London Mosque make this policy known on its website – and to the Muslim, Asian and East London media – so that the entire community can see their commitment to stopping homophobia and to improving community relations.

We also welcome Mr Farsi’s statement regarding Mr Hasnath’s sentencing: ”I can see where the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community is coming from. That £100 fine was a slap on the wrist.”

We celebrate East London’s diverse multicultural communities and affirm the need to tackle all intolerance. Both Muslims and LGBT people – especially LGBT Muslims – know the pain of prejudice, discrimination and hate crime. We stand together with our neighbours, united against all hate. Anti-Muslim bigotry and homophobia have no place in our communities.

Signed:

Elly Barnes, Diversity Leader – Stoke Newington School
Julie Bindel, Journalist and Feminist Campaigner
David Bridle, Managing Editor of London’s gay weekly Boyz Magazine
Paul Burston, Author, Journalist, Editor of Time Out’s Gay & Lesbian Section.
Gaby Charing, Chair, Southwark LGBT Network
Nicolas Chinardet, LBGT Activist
Eddie Clarke, Publisher
Darren Cooper, Senior Consultant at Out Now Consulting
Desiree Cooper, International development professional and human rights activist
Tony Fenwick, Co-Chair, Schools Out and LGBT History Month
Faisal Gazi, Software developer, anti-racism activist and blogger
Paul Harfleet, Artist, Founder of The Pansy Project: www.thepansyproject.com
Alex Hopkins, Journalist, Editor; Publisher, Dissident Musings blog
Adam Knowles, Chair, Gay and Lesbian Humanist Association
Colm Howard-Lloyd, Trustee, Pride London
Derek Lennard, IDAHO-UK (International Day Against Homophobia and Transphobia) Coordinator
Mandy McCartin, Artist and Resident of East London
Fiez Mughal, Oral Surgeon, Muslim LGBT advocate & human rights activist & blogger
Mac McDermott, Publisher, HOMOVISIONTV
Kylie Revels, Human Rights Activist
Linda Riley, Managing Director, Square Peg Media, Publishers of g3, Out in the City and Pride London Magazines
Sue Sanders, Co-Chair, Schools Out and LGBT History Month
Paul Shetler, Human Rights Activist, Coordinator of London 2011 Summer of Love Campaign
Ian Sinclair Romanis, Gay Man and Resident of Hackney
Gavin Simpson, Founder, discodamaged.com, London’s alternative gay clubbing and lifestyle site
Patrick Strudwick, Journalist
Peter Tatchell, Director, Peter Tatchell Foundation
Christian Taylor, Journalist: SameSame.com.au and GayTimes Magazine
Adrian Tippetts, Human Rights Campaigner and Journalist
Matthew Todd, Editor, Attitude Magazine
Marco Tranchino, Campaigns Officer, Central London Humanist Group

Homophobia justified by the EMQ

“Arise and warn [EMQ 74:2]”
“And Fear Allah. Verily Allah is severe in punishment [EMQ 59:7]“

Johann Hari has written a piece calling for zero-tolerance on the question of Muslim homophobia. Thankfully, he has voiced his opinion without paying deference to the thinking which demands acceptance of the notion that Muslims ought to be allowed to practice homophobia because that happens to be one of their religious norms. So kudos to Johann for avoiding that particular kind of racism which cannot be said of so many of the liberal Left:

No, Muslims are not the only homophobes among us. But the gap between them and the rest is startling. It’s zero percent of British Muslims vs. 58 percent of other Brits who say we are “acceptable.”

Why does nobody want to talk about this? No, it’s not because Muslims have “taken over” Europe, as ludicrous hysterics like Mark Steyn claim. I debunk that nonsense here: Muslims are 3 percent of the population of Europe.

So why the silence? It is true that British Muslims are themselves frequently the victims of bigotry. They are often harassed by the police, denied jobs, and abused in the street, and they are forced to watch as our government senselessly incinerates many Muslims abroad. (I have written many articles detailing and deploring these ugly facts.) So gay people are naturally reluctant to pile in onto minority who are being oppressed. We are rightly sympathetic. We know what it is like to be treated like this. We instinctively respond with solidarity, not suspicion.

But this can easily morph into excuse-making. When there was a wave of vicious gay-bashings in Amsterdam by Morroccan immigrants – ending the city’s easy, hand-holding culture – the gay spokesman for Human Rights Watch, Scott Long, said: “There’s still an extraordinary degree of racism in Dutch society. Gays often becomes victims of this when immigrants retaliate for the inequities they have had to suffer.” What? How is it a “retaliation” to beat up a gay couple? What have they done to Muslims? What other human rights abuse would Human Rights Watch make excuses for? Would they say the Burmese junta beats dissidents in order to “retaliate for the inequities they have had to suffer”?

When gay people were cruelly oppressed in Britain, we didn’t form gangs to beat up other minorities. We organized democratically and appealed to our fellow citizens’ sense of decency. It’s patronizing – and authentically racist – to treat Muslims as if they are children, or animals, who can only react to their oppression by jeering at or attacking people who have done them no harm, and who they object to because of a book written in the sixth century. Muslims are human beings who can choose not to this. The vast majority, of course, do not attack anyone. But they should go further. They should choose instead to see us as equal human beings, who live and love just like them, and do not deserve scorn and prejudice.

Yes, it is “Muslim culture” today to be bigoted against gay people. It was British culture to be anti-gay thirty years ago. Cultures change. They change all the time. They are not sacred and fixed. They are constantly in motion. But they only change if we admit there is a problem publicly and openly and search for solutions. We should not “respect” the bigotry of Muslims, any more than we would respect the bigotry of Christians or Jews or the Ku Klux Klan. The only consistent and reasonable position is to oppose bigotry against Muslims, and oppose bigotry by Muslims.

Johann is right to draw attention to Muslim attitudes to homophobia (ones that are backed up by Qur’anic quotes) but he didn’t draw out a crucial component of institutional homophobia which is practiced in Muslim communities, particularly in Tower Hamlets, and particularly by the East London Mosque.

East London Mosque director Dilowar Khan was quick to attack the Gay-free zone campaign in an statement issued in a Tower Hamlets council press release:

“We stand together with our fellow citizens against all forms of hatred, including homophobia. We are committed to building strong and cohesive communities in Tower Hamlets, and our strength is that we will not let incidents of hate divide us.”

But words are cheap when it comes to the East London Mosque because the reality is that the ELM and the London Muslim Centre have hosted the following homophobic Islamic preachers on their premises in the last few years:

• Abdul Karim Hattin
• Khalid Yasin
• Abdullah Hakim Quick
• Bilal Philips
• Abu Usamah at Thahabi
• Yasir Qadhi
• Mohammed Alshareef
• Murtaza Khan

Both the East London Mosque and the London Muslim Centre have recently issued publish statements claiming to be anti-extremist and the pains they’ve taken to improve their vetting process. They have admitted to hosting hate preachers in the past  but relinquished any responsibility altogether by claiming that these men were the guests of third party groups. More of the usual lies and untruths coming from the Mosque authorities because as the table of Friday khutbahs shows, four of the above homophobic hate preachers, namely Muhammad Alshareef, Yasir Qadhi, Abdullah Hakim Quick and Bilal Philip have all stood as Imam and delivered the Friday sermon at the mosque!

The question on whether homophobia practiced in the Bengali community in Tower Hamlets is a factor of  religious or cultural attitudes amongst Bengalis could be the premise of an anthropology PhD or a lively debate or two on the Big Question. But it is irrelevant to the bigger question on whether it is right to turn a blind eye to the institutional homophobia that is allowed to be practiced and desiminated by the East London Mosque and the London Muslim Centre.

If the East London Mosque really were opposed to homophobia, as it says it is, where is the formal statement condemning the hate preachers, by name? What has it done to stop any of this collective of hate preachers from attending the mosque again? These are not  unreasonable questions to ask a community institution which has, over the last five years, received public grants totalling £196,000 for “community cohesion” work and a further £28,500 for “preventing violent extremism”.

I was watching Question Time this evening and I had a revelation. I love Melanie Philips.

A controversial, some may say scandalous position, I grant you, but hear me out. What is the real danger that columnists like her present?

Is it their palaeolithic views? Nope. I defend to the death their right to hold them and express them – that is the way of a free society that they so abhor. Is it that they are given a forum to address others who are as impenetrably backward? Again nope. I like a Daily Mail reader. They are easy to spot, easy to upset – one knows exactly where one stands with them. Is it that they think all gay folk are involved in some perpetual, promiscuous, sleazy, sexual merry-go-round (and no straight folk are). They are entitled to their envy, aren’t they? Is it that they start sentences with “Part of the problem of being a liberal society, especially one obsessed with human rights” as if they are about to reveal the tip of an iceberg towards which we all are heading – like some homosexual, environmentally conscious, welfare-funded Titanic? Not in a country where political debate is encouraged. They are perpetually just a few seconds away from looking stupid.

The real danger is much subtler and stealthier. It rests on their ability to make otherwise rational men and women scream abuse at their television set. That elusive je-ne-sais-quoi that makes the most tolerant human being want to be violent in ways only fathomed by Apollinaire in his darkest moments. The bizarre and paradoxical desire they create in a peaceful man like me, to make them repeat their spiel into a hanky laced with Methoxyflurane.

And so, I have decided, no more. These people are as they are because of the hatred that surrounds them. In a twisted way, they probably feed off it. And so I say: Melanie, I love you. Jan, I love you. Liz, I love you. Daily Mail, I love you. I put my liberal, tree-hugging, petition-signing, metrosexual, hairy arms around you and have nothing but forgiveness, tolerance and undestanding for you.

Suck on that.

Islamic Research and Education Academy conference this Sunday
London – 14 January 2011

The Ibis international hotel group has been accused by lesbian and gay human rights  campaigners of “irresponsibly hosting conferences by extremist anti-gay hate preachers”.

The next conference by the Islamic Education and Research Academy (iERA) will be held on Sunday 16 January at the Ibis Hotel in Earl’s Court in London.

The Ibis group is being urged to cancel the iERA booking and “stop hosting speakers who variously incite homophobic hatred and the killing of gay people.”

The iERA has featured Muslim fundamentalist preachers who advocate the criminalisation of homosexuality and even the death penalty for same-sex acts. They argue that it is necessary to execute gays to keep society pure. They defend these extreme teachings about homosexuality as a model that should be followed by contemporary societies.

The headline speakers at Sunday’s conference are associates of the hate preachers Dr Zakir Naik and Bilal Phillips. Both banned from entering Britain by the Home Secretary, Theresa May, last year. Another iERA advisor, Hussein Yee is also banned from entering the UK.

The iERA speakers at the Ibis Hotel on Sunday are:

Shaykh Abdullah Hakim Quick
Abduraheem Green
Shaykh Ala El Sayed
Shaykh Yusuf Estes (tbc)
Shaykh Shady Suleiman,
Hamza Tzortzis
Yusuf Chambers

See below examples of their homophobic incitements against lesbian and gay people.

“The Ibis Hotel group should not facilitate speakers who promote homophobic discrimination and violence. They should cancel this booking,” said Peter Tatchell of the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender human rights group OutRage!

“Lesbian and gay people – and straight people of conscience – should not use Ibis Hotels while they continue to host extremist anti-gay preachers. A boycott campaign might be necessary if Ibis does not change its policy.

“Neither the government nor the police would allow an event with speakers who had called for the killing of Muslims to ‘keep society pure’ and stop the spread of their religion. Such extreme anti-Muslim hate speech would not be tolerated. The event would be stopped and the speakers arrested if they expressed those views. Why the double standards?

“Most Muslims in Britain do not believe that lesbian and gay people should be killed. These extremists are out of touch with the majority of Muslim opinion. They are divisive and they damage community cohesion. Their homophobic fanaticism is being exploited by the far right to unfairly tarnish the wider Muslim community,” Mr Tatchell said.

OutRage! urges you to protest to Thomas Dubaere, Managing Director, Economy Brands UK and Ireland, Ibis Hotels, via Loretta.MANSON@accor.com

You can also email your protest to the Ibis Hotel in Earl’s Court, where the conference is being hosted: H5623@accor.com

Brett Lock of OutRage! added:

“This is not the first time Ibis Hotels have hosted such extremist events. It is quite shocking. I doubt they would host racist and anti-Semitic conferences.

“We do not wish to ban people with religious convictions from expressing their moral opposition to homosexuality. People should have the freedom to say that they think homosexuality is a sin and incompatible with their religious beliefs. However, supporting the execution of lesbian and gay people and equating them with rapists and paedophiles is dangerous incitement. It crosses the line,” he said.

Below are samples of anti-gay incitements by Sunday’s speakers at the Islamic Research and Education Academy conference in London:

Abdullah Hakim Quick
Six years ago, Quick was condemned by New Zealand’s broadcasting authority for his fiery anti-gay broadcasts which included these claims:
- AIDS is caused by the “filthy practices” of homosexuals
- Homosexuals are dropping dead from AIDS and “they want to take us all down with them”
- The Islamic position on homosexuality is “death”
- Homosexuals are “sick” and “not natural”
- “Muslims are going to have to take a stand [against homosexuals] and it’s not enough to call names”.

Unrepentant, he continues to hold this position: “They said ‘what is the Islamic position [on homosexuality]?’ And I told them. Put my name in the paper. The punishment is death. And I’m not going to change this religion.”
http://www.hurryupharry.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/QuickDeath.mp3

Abdur-Raheem Green
In an essay on his website entitled, “Terrible and brutal Islamic punishments or wise and just guidance from Allah?”, Green argues that homosexuality and adultery are “inexcusable, and justly punished with severity.” For this he stipulates death: “a slow and painful death by stoning. It is indicative of just how harmful this crime is to society.”

He concludes by arguing that that people should not quibble about whether the Islamic punishments are too harsh or not according to their own cultural experiences, but should just accept that Islam has a long track record and trust that Islamic law works:
http://www.islamsgreen.org/islams_green/2006/02/terrible_and_br.html

Yusuf Estes
In an article on his website he says: “Scholars of Islam have already made it clear what the position is on those who engage in homosexual activities.” And he links to a fatwa ruling:

“In order to maintain the purity of the Muslim society, most Muslim scholars have ruled that the punishment for this act should be the same as for zina (i.e. one hundred whiplashes for the man who has never married, and death by stoning for the married man). Some have even ruled that it should be death for both partners, because the Prophet, sallallahu alayhe wa sallam, said: ‘Kill the doer and the one to whom it was done.’
http://www.islamtomorrow.com/gays/fatwa.htm

Estes further reprints and endorses an email on his website referring to gay people as “deviants” and “devils”.

Hamza Tzortzis
Hamza Tzortzis wants to criminalise homosexuality. He argues:
“Some people object to Islam making the public expression of homosexuality a criminal act. This is subjective and only strikes a chord amongst those who cannot escape the social constructs in their own societies. There are societies past and present which accepted paedophilia and cannibalism as normal parts of human life and they would find Western society oppressive preventing them from carrying out these practices.”

He concludes by stating: “Those who claim that making homosexuality a criminal act is wrong are totally inconsistent.” He suggests this would mean saying that God is wrong. He explicitly rejects the argument that the historical context is different to the modern context:  “Islam does not change with the tide or the fashion of the day,” he says.
http://hamzatzortzis.blogspot.com/search?q=homosexual

Yusuf Chambers
Yusuf Chambers, an associate of Abdur-Raheem Green, reportedly says that homosexuality is a sickness and can be cured. He interviews a Dr Zakir Naik (banned from Britain for hate preaching) for one of his broadcasts and specifically asks the scholar what the punishment for homosexuality should be (the answer is “death”) and to refute suggestions that homosexuality has any natural or genetic origins.
http://www.onlyislam.net/ramadhaan/fffff/Episode23.pdf

Shady Suleiman
He says: “Also homosexuality that’s spreading all these diseases. Let’s not deny the fact. Don’t call it the name of freedom. Don’t talk about freedom and, you know, this is the freedom of action and we could do whatever we want. It doesn’t mean that freedom of action you destroy a nation. These are evil actions that bring evil outcomes to our society… Remember that if there is an Islamic state the punishment of zina (sex outside marriage), the punishment of those who commit zina, if they have never been married before, they will be lashed 100 lashes. If they are married while they committed zina, or previously been married and divorced, and they committed zina, then their punishment is stoning to death.”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AJuSwwsAVHo

People wishing to protest to Ibis Hotels for allowing their venue to be used by homophobic extremists can write to Thomas Dubaere, Managing Director, Economy Brands UK & Ireland, via Loretta.MANSON@accor.com.

Iranian lesbian activist Kiana Firouz is currently seeking asylum in the United Kingdom after a controversy over the upcoming release of Cul de Sac. The film, which stars Firouz and includes explicit lesbian sex scenes, is based heavily on Firouz’s life and struggles as a lesbian in Iran.

Directors Ramin Goudarzi-Nejad and Mahshad Torkan posted the trailer on YouTube in December 2009 and since then, the Iranian government has attempted to deport Firouz back to Iran to be tried and punished for her crime of homosexuality. Firouz applied for refugee status in the UK, but was rejected.

If she is not granted asylum in the UK, she will be sent back to Iran, where the minimum punishment for homosexuality is 100 lashes. The punishment for “unrepentant” homosexuality, which Firouz’s LGBTQ activism clearly demonstrates, is public execution by hanging.

To sign a petition asking for asylum in the UK endorsed by Firouz herself, click here.

Send a letter asking for amnesty for Firouz here:

Minister of State (Borders and Immigration) -

Home Office, 2 Marsham Street

London SW1P 4DF

Fax: +44 870 336 9034

Secretary of State for the Home Department -

Home Office, 2 Marsham Street

London SW1P 4DF

Fax: +44 20 7035 0900

A form letter can be found here.

There is a Facebook support group here.

****

Fear mongering seems to have become a past time for some Muslims: the fear that the whole world is against Muslims and there are numerous forces out there wanting to undermine and destroy Islam. One of the chief instigators of this paranoid delusional mindset is an individual called Abdul Karim Hattin. This short biography of him appears on the Islamonline website:

Abdul Karim became a Muslim when he was 19 years old and now at 30, he has completed a degree in Media Studies at the University of Luton. He is the co-director and founder of Halaqah Media and Black Banner Media. He wrote the documentary From the Shadows…Exposing the New World Order.

Those who have listened to his recordings will know he is delusional in the extreme; there are great illogical leaps in his historical narrative and just about every war and revolution is linked to those evil people ‘the Freemasons’. In his recent ‘exposing the modernists’ lecture series he tries to explain how various UK based Muslim organisations, i.e. MPACUK, Quilliam, Radical Middle Way, MCB, Murabitun etc. are part of a grand western/Masonic conspiracy to dilute Islam. He speaks about an ‘Aryan Islam’ being promoted under the guise of Modernism. The evidence he presents is mainly from people he has spoken to and from his own analogical ‘deductions’.

One of the many problems with Abdul Karim Hattin’s theories is that they are not original, in fact they are re-hashed Nazi ideas with an Islamised vocabulary. He seems to take popular conspiracy theories and put his own warped twist on them. The other problem is that, after highlighting an issue, he fails to provide any solution. Just as his ‘shadows’ recording ended without presenting any solution at all, you are left wondering what solution there can be. He seems to be obsessed with courting controversy and making ridiculous claims, even upsetting the salafis (pdf) by making inaccurate historical claims in his ‘the arrival of Saudi Salafis’ lecture. If you have a spare half hour and want a real good chuckle just search him out on Youtube and read Salafi Manhaj’s ‘A Critique of Abdul-Karim Hattin and his Bizarre Lecture Series Entitled ‘Arrival of the Saudi Salafis’ exposing his conspiracy theory claptrap‘.

It makes one wonder what he is actually trying to achieve. By provoking fear of the mainstream he is implying that Muslim communities must isolate themselves from the mainstream – hardly the message young British Muslims need. And isn’t Islam about having hope? Even political Islamist movements offer the illusion of a future utopian state, he doesn’t even do that.

Verdict: Abdul Karim Hattin should stop reading nutcase conspiracy sites and seek medical help. If you do come into contact with him, avoid eye contact and back away slowly and safely.

****

You have seen Abdul Karim “Spot The Fag” Hattin in action in this post. Alas he is not unusual. Let’s take a look at what some of the other preachers who have been welcomed in recent years at the East London Mosque and its London Muslim Centre have to say about gays.

As reported in this documentary, Khalid Yasin is an extremist, a 9/11 troofer and a fraudster. This is what he makes of homosexuality:

There’s no such thing as a Muslim having a non-Muslim friend. If you prefer the clothing of the kafirs over the clothing of the Muslims, most of those names that’s on most of those clothings is faggots, homosexuals and lesbians. [opening of the documentary]

…

The Koran gives a very clear position regarding homosexuality, lesbianism and bestiality – that these are aberrations, they are immoralities and if they are tried, convicted, they are punishable by death. [15:30]

We have covered Abdullah Hakim Quick’s recent visit to City University, King’s College London and the University of East London. He wants people to have no doubts whatsoever about his view on gays:

They said “what is the Islamic position [on homosexuality]?” And I told them. Put my name in the paper. The punishment is death. And I’m not going to change this religion.

Listen to Quick’s speech (MP3)

Abdur Raheem Green runs “iERA”, a group that tours Islamists around the country. He has this to say about gays on his own blog – they should be stoned, like adulterers:

All this applies also to the matter of stoning the adulterer and adulteress to death.

…

There is another direction from which the wisdom of such a punishment can be understood, and that is the death of two criminals can prevent the death and agony of many innocents. There is no doubt that adultery has caused many a jilted partner to kill not only the partner but in some instances the children as well. This is the harm that we can measure and see. It is more than likely that the psychological effects on the jilted partner, the children and their families is extensive, and can lead to behavioural problems that ultimately effect the well being of the whole society! The “harm” of the punishment for adultery is offset by the need of the “benefit” and protects the wider society. All of this also goes some way to help understand way acts of homosexuality are simlarily treated so harshly.

Bilal Philips is a Saudi-trained Islamist who supports the marriage of girls at the age of nine and Islamic corporal punishments. He is an apologist for suicide bombers and linked to the 1993 New York bombing plots. He is banned in Australia. This is from a pamphlet (pdf, pp. 21-22) he wrote called “Contemporary Issues”:

The consequence of AIDS is enough to prove that homosexuality is evil and dangerous to society.

In fact, homosexuality is so bad, Philips wrote, that it merits corporal punishment in the name of Islam, just like robbery (see page 18 of the pdf).

In this video version of “Contemporary Issues”, he says:

As a consequence of this practice [homosexuality], AIDS spread through society and it spread beginning with the homosexual element. People wanted to say, well hey, this is, you know, divine retribution. This was thrown aside. “No, how can it be, no no no, we cannot say this. This is something which happened, we don’t blame it on, you know, God punishing people.” But from the Islamic perspective, yes. [9:00]

…

In Islamic law the punishment for homosexuality is no different from the punishment for adultery and fornication. It could be death. It’s looked at as a deviation, just as if somebody is involved in bestiality, sexual relations with animals. Death! This is a deviation. Adultery is death. So it’s not any special punishment, it is a punishment for deviant behaviour which threatens the family structure of a society. [12:00]

Abu Usamah at Thahabi is an imam at Green Lane Mosque in Birmingham. He is of course known for these quotes from Undercover Mosque:

Do you practice homosexuality with men? Take that homosexual man and throw him off the mountain.

…

They have given them [homosexuals] unprecedented rights, so that your child can be exposed and introduced to lesbians. Now they say “if you discriminate against that, you’re going to jail”. We’ll discriminate, but we’ll discriminate in a way where we don’t get in trouble. The Muslim is a dentist, one of those people come, you want to take a big, big needle and stick it in his gums. [13:30]

Uthman Lateef is an Islamist preacher from the Hittin Institute in London. It supports the annihilation of the state of Israel. Lateef said this to Queen Mary students in 2007:

“We don’t accept homosexuality … we hate it because Allah hates it”

Yasir Qadhi is a founder and leader of the Al Maghrib Institute, the Islamist training group that brought Abdullah Hakim Quick to London universities. He offers an exquisitely stupid and cruel “solution” to gay Muslim men: marry a woman.

And remember that marriage is a solution, so you should seriously consider it. The Prophet Lut ‘alayhis salam told his people, “These are my daughters, they are more pure for you.” Some scholars say that when he said “daughters”, he is also implying the women of the town and not just his own daughters. So he’s telling the men of his community who were guilty of this crime to go and marry women, for they are better and purer for them. Marriage is a solution, because sensuality and sexuality is something that can be satisfied – rather it should be satisfied – by the opposite gender within the confines of marriage.

Mohammed Alshareef is the director of the Al Maghrib Institute. He says Muslims should be proud to be homophobic. They should also follow the lead of Christians who harass gay pride rallies.

If people hear about a lecture like this at the masjid [mosque], they would say “homophobic”. Correct? They’re like “oh my God, they’re a bunch of homophobic people”. And I thought to myself, that’s an amazing word to be called. Alhamdulillah [praise to God] that you’re homophobic. Now notice the propaganda and the indoctrination that you’ve been – when I just said, alhamdulillah I’m homophobic, you’re thinking to yourself “How do you say alhamdulillah? That’s something bad.” These are words that they flipped in our minds. Homophobia means a fear of homosexuality. Alhamdulillah we have a fear of homosexuality. And then they will say it as if it is a derogatory term, but in fact it is a praiseworthy term.

…

Whenever there is a gay rally – isn’t it interesting that they call them gay, they’re happy people, right? – there are a type of people who go to these rallies and stand up for the truth. They have signs that tell them to stop what they’re doing or they will go to hellfire. Do you think they are Muslims? No, they are not Muslims, they are Christians. They are Christians who stand up for this. … I pray to Allah that you will join the ranks and start to stand up and speak against things like this. [from 25:00]

Murtaza Khan too is keen on “proper” Christians – he thinks they have a charter for killing gays, just like Muslims:

Now what is the punishment? According to the Bible, excuse me, this is a Christian country. Read the history of this country. Christian country. According to the Bible, the Bible says the person should be thrown down from a mountain and then stoned on top of that. That’s what Isa [Jesus] told you people. But they teach “no, you’re homophobic”. And those Christians who stand up against this abominable action, which goes against humanity, then they’re fundamentalists like us as well then.

…

I’m not homophobic. I believe in a natural way of life. I’m repeating you what your Bible tells you. In the hadith you find: “You find the people doing the action of Lot, kill the one who does the action and the one the action is being done to.” [4:40]

This is from the East London Mosque’s reaction to the Dispatches broadcast:

We try to ensure that those who use our facilities, including for speaking engagements, reflect the values of moderation and tolerance we hold and adhere to.

Ha ha. It continues:

On rare occasion it may be that someone, speaking at an event for which a room or hall has been hired for example, says something we neither agree with nor approve of.

I love the “may be”. Here’s the get-out clause:

It is not possible for any organisation in a position such as ours to vet and approve in advance every statement to be made by every speaker addressing audiences at the Mosque and Centre.

Well, a few speakers have been vetted right here. They preach vicious hatred against homosexuals. Why take the risk of hosting them? Why lend them any support at all? Will they be barred from the East London Mosque and the London Muslim Centre?

After all, the mosque does say that it holds to “values of moderation and tolerance”.

Harry’s Place has been playing a cat-and-mouse game with someone over the last two days to bring you this video of the homophobic lunatic Abdul Karim Hattin speaking at the East London Mosque.

The video has been removed from YouTube three times, each time reported to YouTube for “breach of copyright” or “terms of use violation”.

We can’t be bothered to fight with YouTube and explain that it is neither of these. It is legitimate criticism regarding a matter of public concern… so we’ve hosted the video privately.

In his address at the East London Mosque, Mr Hattin has a section of his PowerPoint presentation called “Spot The Fag”, which is – he says – a “game I like to play”.

We have no idea who is so desperate to make sure this video isn’t exposed to a wider audience, but we can understand that it must be profoundly embarrassing to the East London Mosque who hosted the event, or perhaps inconveniently attracting more attention than Mr Hattin wants to his hateful mission.

****

For good reason of course, there has been a lot of focus on the Islamist radicalisation and entryism around the East London Mosque (as exposed in Monday’s Dispatches on Channel4), so it is unsurprising that no one has yet made a fuss of the fact that obnoxious lectures take place there inciting hatred of the gay community – as seen in the image above.

So let me be the fist to kick up a fuss.

The slide on the screen has a picture of openly-gay singer Elton John next to a very butch-looking Tupac Shakur. The presenter tells the audience: “This is a little game I like to play called ‘Spot The Fag’.”

He then launches into a rant about the ‘fag’ lifestyle.

Had a lecture of this nature been hosted at a Christian or Jewish venue of similar stature and profile, there would have been an outcry, particularly if it had included an obnoxious audience participation game called “Spot The Fag””

Apologist will of course point out that both mainstream Christianity and Judaism have their fare share of homophobes. This is indisputably true. The Alpha Course started at Holy Trinity Brompton, for example, has come under heavy fire for it’s homophobic components. But I doubt even they would be so crass as to play a game of “Spot The Fag”.

There would quite rightly be a complete freakout if a mainstream religious venue hosted a BNP-sympathising vicar with a PowerPoint presentation called “Spot The Nigger”. Or how about some neo-Nazis at doing “Count the Kikes” at Westminster Abbey.

Racism is robustly confronted. Even antisemitism has its limits. But it seems there really is nothing so homophobic that otherwise liberal-minded people won’t ignore it – particularly if it isn’t coming from the lips of some old Tory colonel or an Archbishop.

So ”Spot The Fags”? Um, not much of a problem. At a Mosque? Meh, no problem at all.

Both Prince Charles and Mayor Boris Johnson have stood on that same ELM podium recently. I wonder if they feel a little dirty.

****

Jews, gays and kaffirs are “filth” says fanatical cleric

Universities fail to block “gateways” to fundamentalism and terrorism

Sheikh Quick

London – 24 February 2010

In defiance of its own equal opportunities policy, King’s College London (KCL) is hosting the Muslim fundamentalist fanatic, Sheikh Abdullah Hakim Quick, this Thursday, 25 February, at 6pm in the Raked Lecture Theatre, The Strand, London.

He is anti-Semitic and homophobic. He denounces the “filth” of Jews (Yahood) and kaffirs. See here (about 3.50 minutes into the video):

He says homosexuals should be executed (MP3).

Sheikh Abdullah Hakim Quick is on record as preaching:

• AIDS is caused by the “filthy practices” of homosexuals
• Homosexuals are dropping dead from AIDS and “they want to take us all down with them”
• The Islamic position on homosexuality is “death”
• Homosexuals are “sick” and “not natural”
• “Muslims are going to have to take a stand [against homosexuals] and it’s not enough to call names” (this last point comes close to an implied threat of violence).

See here:

“King’s College would not host a white supremacist who advocated racism or death to black people. Why the double standards?” queried human rights campaigner Peter Tatchell of the lesbian and gay rights group OutRage!

“The Islamic Society should not be promoting this fanatic. By giving him a platform it is complicit with homophobic and anti-Jewish hatred. It is colluding with intolerance.

“The complacent, hands-off attitude of the Vice Chancellor is appalling.

“King’s College has an equal opportunities policy that prohibits the promotion of hatred against minorities but it is not enforcing it. The university is not a safe place for Jewish and gay students when it facilitates a vicious homophobe and anti-Semite like Sheikh Abdullah Quick.

“Sheikh Quick was hosted last week by City University and is being given a platform by the University of East London this coming weekend.

King’s College on Thursday.

University of East London this weekend.

“Several London universities are hosting other fundamentalist clerics, such as Abu Usamah, who advocates the killing of gay people and of Muslims who abandon their faith. He also endorses the beating of young Muslim girls who refuse to wear the hijab. See here.

“Too many student Islamic Societies are promoting hate-mongering clerics. These clerics are much more extreme than the BNP. They are religious fascists.

“University authorities are complicit with the propagation of Islamist fundamentalism. They are allowing their campuses to be used for the promotion of extremist interpretations of Islam.

“Many Vice-Chancellors are too weak and cowardly to take a stand. They fear being branded racist and Islamophobic. Instead of challenging these false slurs, they cave in to the hate-preaching fundamentalists.

“The encouragement of homophobia and anti-Semitism is one of pathways to Muslim radicalisation. It helps create a fanatical, anti-human rights mindset that can later develop into support for jihadism and terrorism.

“Even though many Muslims who are homophobic and anti-Semitic do not sympathise with terrorism, all terrorist-supporting Muslims are strongly anti-gay and anti-Jewish. Many begin their radicalisation with hatred of women, gays and Jews. They then progress to hatred of kaffirs and apostates. These hatreds can be stepping stones to the eventual justification of holy war, terrorism and suicide bombing.

“The failure of many university authorities to take a stand against homophobic and anti-Semitic clerics is complicity with fundamentalism and radicalisation. It is collusion with the gateways to terrorism.

Sheikh Abdullah Hakim Quick has been also promoted by the so-called Islamic Human Rights Commission. The IHRC recently advertised one of his lectures,” added Mr Tatchell.

Here are details of Sheikh Quick’s Thursday lecture, hosted by the KCL Islamic Society:

***Sheikh Abdullah Hakim Quick at King’s on his UK tour!!!!***

Time: 6:00PM Thursday, February 25th

Location: K6.29 Raked Lecture Theatre, Strand

http://www.facebook.com/group.php?v=wall&gid=2324952901

Sheikh Abdullah Hakim Quick was featured in Voice of Islam, broadcast in New Zealand on 29 September 2003 on Triangle Television. During the programme, Quick addressed viewers about “Challenges Facing Muslims in the New Millennium”. Toward the conclusion of the lecture, Sheikh Quick expressed fanatical homophobic views.

Complaints about the programme were upheld by the Broadcasting Standards Authority of New Zealand.

Fuck the Pope, use protection

So here’s another useful petition worthy of your signature, from the National Secular Society:

We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to ask the Catholic Church to pay for the proposed visit of the Pope to the UK and relieve the taxpayer of the estimated £20 million cost. We accept the right of the Pope to visit his followers in Britain, but public money would be better spent on hard-pressed schools, hospitals and social services which are facing cuts.

I was selected as the Green Party candidate for Oxford East in April 2007. A month later, I was badly beaten around the head by neo-Nazis during an attempted Gay Pride parade in Moscow.

This exacerbated the brain damage caused when I was bashed unconscious by President Mugabe’s bodyguards in Brussels in 2001, after attempting to make a citizen’s arrest of the Zimbabwean leader on charges of torture.

Following the Moscow assault, I never rested and recuperated. I carried on campaigning, with a very heavy schedule of commitments in Oxford East. After several months, I was severely exhausted. This stress and exhaustion probably intensified the damage and thwarted my recovery.

[...]

I don’t regret a thing. Getting a thrashing and brain injuries was not what I had expected or wanted. But I was aware of the risks. Taking risks is sometimes necessary, in order to challenge injustice. My beatings had the positive effect of helping draw international attention to the violent, repressive nature of the Russian and Zimbabwean regimes. I’m glad of that.

My physical inconveniences are nothing by comparison to the far worse beatings inflicted on human rights defenders in countries like Russia, Iran, Zimbabwe, Saudi Arabia, Columbia, Sudan and Burma. These heroic activists often end up jailed or dead. I count myself lucky.

[...]

The brain damage caused by Mugabe’s thugs in Brussels in 2001 and by neo-Nazis in Moscow in 2007 has been compounded by head injuries in an accident while I was campaigning in Devon in July. A bus on which I was travelling swerved and braked sharply. I was thrown forward, hitting my head on a metal handrail.

The injuries don’t stop me from campaigning but I am slower, make more mistakes, get tired easily and take longer to do things. My memory, concentration, balance and coordination have been adversley affected. I can’t campaign at the pace I used to.

Who would have thought that in the 21st Century we would still have to campaign against this kind of bigotry? Thank God there are men like Peter still around who campaign for justice and equality.

We wish him all the best with whatever he does next.

Nemat Safavi, 21 years old, has been sentenced to death by the juvenile court in Ardebil, a city northwest Iran.

Queers in Iran are put to death and persecution by their government, simply for being who they are.  Now more than ever we need your help.

According to the Human Rights Activist Group in Iran, Nemat was detained by Iranian authorities when he was 16 years old because of his homosexual acts (Lavat).  He was sentenced to death after being tried in the court of Ardebil.  Mr. Safavi spent time since his arrest in a ‘rectification and education’ centre, and is now being kept in the division of youths in an Ardebil prison.

A final determination of Nemat’s fate will be made by Iran’s Supreme Court.  However, these sentences frequently stand as decided.

Iranian Railroad for Queer Refugees calls on all human rights organizations to take up this urgent cause. We ask that people write, fax, call, or email to Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, and any LGBT and/or international organizations to support Nemat and vigorously oppose his execution and the laws against homosexuals.

Your donation to IRQR helps us pursue every legal avenue to save the lives of people like Nemat Safavi.  The fight is far from over.

Please, donate now: http://irqr.net/donation.htm

—————————————
Arsham Parsi
Executive Director
Iranian Railroad for Queer Refugees – IRQR
www . irqr . net
info @ irqr . net
(001) 416-548-4171
414-477 Sherbourne St.
Toronto, On – M4X 1K5

In Muslim communities the issue of homosexuality is very rarely discussed in a candid manner and is all too often wished away as if it is an affliction that involves other groups, not them. Not far from the surface, however, are reports of gay Muslim men being pressurised into rushed marriages by parents desperate to avoid any social stigma. The woman’s family is never told the truth about her husband’s sexuality, of course, with the result that another soul has to endure unhappiness due to the initial failure to face up to the issue. It is a highly dishonest and unethical approach.

This is absolutely spot on. Yasir Qadhi has wickedly advised young Muslims who think they might be homosexual that “marriage is a solution”. I say “wickedly” because, as Inayat reminds us, such dishonesty about one’s own sexuality is not just destructive for the person concerned but everybody close to them, especially their wife and any children resulting from their union.

Inayat then enters into the powerful argument that one minority subjected to bigotry should not be propagating bigotry against another minority.

Islamic scholars and imams should ideally be performing a much-needed pastoral role by helping in these situations and providing guidance. At the very least they should insist that any intimidation or discrimination against gay Muslims is unacceptable.

Newson’s show makes mention of Nelson Mandela’s experiences in 1950s South Africa when the teachings of the Dutch Reformed Church were dominant. In order to get around the country and spread his message of black emancipation and freedom, Mandela used to disguise himself as a chauffeur, pretending to take with him a white passenger who happened to be a colleague in the anti-apartheid movement. That white colleague also happened to be gay, and during those many journeys they had the opportunity to discuss many issues. Mandela came to the conclusion that South Africa could not properly be described as a free and liberated country until all its communities, including the gay community, were freed from persecution.

Then, in discussing the Muslim Council of Britain’s support for the 2006 Equality Act, Inayat advocates a brave step forward for which, I fear, he is going to receive some flak.

The Equality Act brought the goal of a fairer society closer by proscribing – for the first time – discrimination in the provision of goods and services on the grounds of religious belief or sexuality.

The 2006 act did not in any way compel believers to change any view they had about the practice of homosexuality being against the teachings of their religion. However, it did rightly insist that if someone wanted to provide goods and services to the public, then they should do so without discrimination on grounds of ethnic background, faith or sexual orientation.

The MCB, by supporting the act in its entirely, had taken a positive step forward and had inevitably attracted some criticism from within, which I noted at the time.

Would it not be another positive step if the MCB – as a broad-based umbrella organisation – were to include a gay Muslim support group as an affiliate?

Apart from the claim that the MCB is a broad-based umbrella organisation, there is nothing to disagree with in what he writes, especially in his conclusion.

At its best, Islamic civilisation was more than willing to learn from other surrounding countries and cultures and adopt the best aspects as its own. Actively working to ensure that people are able to live free of discrimination based on one’s ethnicity, gender, religion or sexual orientation is a worthy goal and should be viewed as an Islamic goal.

Inayat on the right side of the argument, it’s almost worth a celebratory dance…

I have always attempted to square this circle by drawing a line between those who say we are all sinners and homosexuality is a sin like any other judged by their god on judgment day (generally speaking, the Anglican answer) and those who say that it is a sin worse than all others (Fred “God Hates Fags” Phelps, for example) and homosexuals deserve punishment in this world.

There is another way – and it is significantly more intellectually satisfying: to argue that religions can accept homosexuality. Dr Amanullah De Sondy does so today in the Sunday Times.

One of Scotland’s leading Muslim academics is challenging his religion’s orthodox opinion on homosexuality by suggesting Islam is compatible with a gay lifestyle.

Dr Amanullah De Sondy says there is evidence in Islamic history to support his claim but said conservative Muslims refuse to acknowledge it as they are “deeply homophobic”.

Rather than spend our time working out exactly what kinds of homophobia can be tolerated in modern British society, we should join De Sondy in making the positive case for accepting homosexuality.

The 29-year-old said his opponents often cite the story, which appears in both the Koran and the Bible, of God sending angels to destroy the sinful inhabitants of the valley of Sodom.

“It is often said to illustrate God’s disapproval of homosexuality. But on closer inspection it is about his disapproval of the rape of young boys. There is a big difference,” he said.

Intolerance is not necessarily part of Muslim tradition, De Sondy argues, pointing to examples of people living openly in same-sex relationships.

“In the 16th-century Punjab, there lived a Sufi [uslim mystic] saint and poet called Shah Hussain. He fell in love with a Hindu boy. They lived together and are buried in the same tomb. But some people want to rewrite history, saying the boy was in fact a girl.”

Then, inevitably, the Sunday Times goes to a couple of self-appointed Muslim “community leaders” for The Traditional View™.

Bashir Maan, a former councillor and a prominent member of the Glasgow Central Mosque, said many Muslims would be upset by De Sondy’s comments.

“Where is he getting his knowledge from?” he said. “Islam condemns homosexuality. He is quoting the saint out of context. He loved that boy but it wasn’t for sexual purposes, he just liked that boy as we all have our likes and dislikes.”

Maan also criticised De Sondy for asserting that many Muslims were homophobic.

“As one of the leaders in Scotland said some time ago, we don’t hate homosexuals —, we hate homosexuality.

“So it’s not that Muslims are homophobic, they just do not like lewdness. They do not like homosexuality. These people, homosexuals, they are human beings. They should be, I think, not hated, but we should try to put them off such practices.”

Apart from the fact that I consider homophobic the direct equation of homosexuality and lewdness, I am particularly troubled by the pathetic attempt to delegitimise De Sondy’s views by saying they would cause “upset”. Contradict if you will, but complaining about hurt feelings is a coward’s defence and one that is used far too much by self-appointed Muslim “community leaders” to suppress reformist and progressive Muslim voices.

The Sunday Times moves on to the views of the Scottish Islamic Foundation.

A spokesman for the Scottish-Islamic Foundation agreed that homosexuality is incompatible with Islam, adding: “The view of mainstream Muslim scholars and individuals is that it is against Islamic teachings.

“Like with everything, though, people are free to choose how to live their own lives.”

It is sad to see the Scottish Islamic Foundation backing away from its previous uncompromising defence of liberal values – as reported here. Both Maan and the Scottish Islamic Foundation’s spokesman are defending a deeply conservative position without bothering to formulate coherent arguments; they simply state it has always been that way in Islam.

Quite apart from the fact that De Sondy has shown this not to be the case, this is not as good an argument as they clearly believe. For many centuries, Islamic scholarship tolerated slavery; certainly it is (as it is in the Bible) accepted in the Qur’an. People who make the argument that homosexuality always has been and always will be completely unacceptable in Islam should also make their case for why slavery is a different matter – which went from being accepted to illegal.

De Sondy makes an important argument for the acceptability of homosexuality in Islam and the “community leaders” also interviewed by the Sunday Times can only answer with intellectual dishonesty and unthinking conservatism. Sad but unsurprising.

I am leading a national campaign against the plans to make SRE statutory. But I recognise that it does not start and end there.

*(see the facebook group “Rochdale Muslims against sex and relationship education for 5 year old’s“)

In this campaign, Patel lists his aims as being:

OUR VALUES

As Muslims we believe in the primacy of marriage, the prohibition of sexual relations outside marriage, the unacceptability of homosexuality which is often portrayed as a lifestyle choice. We also subscribe to the concept of Hayaa (modesty) which guides the interaction between men and women.

• We do not believe six year old children should be taught within a classroom setting to focus on intimate parts of their bodies, as the FPA comic ‘Let’s Grow With Nisha and Joe’ promotes.

• We cannot accept that our five year old children should be exposed to the Channel Four video ‘Living and Growing’ which encourages our children to explore their bodies through masturbation.

• We cannot accept that homosexuality is normalised in the minds of young children and that a normal family unit can involve two dads and two mums, as the storybook ‘And Tango Makes Three’ suggests.

• We cannot agree with the pragmatic acceptance of early sexual behaviour through the provision of contraception to children. Rather this behaviour needs to be challenged.It is unacceptable that a child of 13 becomes a dad or that there is a rise in promiscuous behaviour amongst the young with a knock on effect of a rise in the rate of teenage abortion.

• The sexualisation of children has become acceptable, promoted through television programmes, magazines and advertising. This lack of values needs to be challenged rather than accepted.

Of course, lots of parents (Muslim or otherwise) would agree with some of those points. Every parent adopts a slightly different approach to discussing sexual health and relationships with their children.

But, I have three major problems with this particular campaign.

The first is HT’s attempt to continue maligning and persecuting homosexuals, something Yusuf disingenuously (and repeatedly) describes as “a lifestyle choice” that is in danger of being “normalised”.

The second problem I have is with HT using this issue to further ingratiate itself to unsuspecting Muslims who might have their own objections to SRE classes. HT will use it to promote and market its ideas to these people and is seeking to make separatist demands for Muslim children on an issue that is not really Muslim-centric. As I’ve already said, many parents who are not Muslim would not want their children being taught about sexual health and relationships at a young age, or indeed by a school. Many think that, as parents, they’re best placed to do it themselves. So why is HT turning this into a sectarian issue?

Finally, and perhaps most worrying, is that HT is attempting to wage this campaign under the radar and not in its own name. I suspect this is because they know that any right-minded school and its parents would run a mile if they knew HT was lobbying it for concessions. This is particularly important when you consider that one of their strategies for thwarting the teaching of SRE is to encourage supporters to:

Become a governor at a local school

To achieve this they need to dupe and deceive people. So, let’s clarify any ambiguity that exists so people can be sure about this campaign.

Majed Iqbal, right, demanding no sex

Yusuf admits that he’s a member of Hizb ut Tahrir but insists the campaign is not being run by the group. Yet, everyone who seems to be driving this initiative forward on a national level is also a HT member. Just take a look at Majed’s blog (who is another member of the group) and you see the full extent of HT’s influence. He describes himself as one of the anti-SRE ‘organisers’, gave this interview to Islam Online about it and even produced this handy leaflet (pdf).

A few months ago Majed also arranged an event in Rochdale where another member of HT, Nasar Hanif, spoke about the campaign.

Nasar Hanif, a science teacher by profession and a member of the SRE Islamic team leading the campaign nationally presented the keynote speech highlighting what exactly the government was proposing.

In his PowerPoint presentation he detailed the ‘ill-devised’ thinking behind the plans and presented a range of points of activism for the audience on their role in how this can be counter-acted.

“Become governors of Primary Schools where you can have more of say in the education of your child and be a in a position to question such proposals and challenge them” he encouraged the audience with one of his proposals.

Nasar Hanif, indoctrinating kids at a school near you

Notice how Nasar is described as “a member of the SRE Islamic team leading the campaign nationally” and how he reiterates Yusuf’s suggestion that people should become school governors in order to influence them.

The PowerPoint presentation that Nasar used is available on the “Islamic SRE” website and is produced by Patel. For convenience, I’ve uploaded it here (pdf). Page 6 recommends that parents should “try and influence the SRE policy of your children’s school” before “opting out”, while page 9 helpfully suggests they should try and become governors themselves.

Another document (pdf) produced by Patel reveals just why this approach is emphasised so much. On page 27 it tells readers:

“Governors have a huge amount of leeway to mould the strategic direction of a school. Whether you are a parent, community, staff or LA governor, you can get involved to improve the educational experience of all children”.

But just in case you thought we might have been picking on the wrong man, click here to see Nasar addressing a HT rally in Bradford (see picture three). And, here’s Nasar writing back in 2003 when some Premiership footballers were questioned about an alleged rape:

…why should people be surprised at their lack of morality? Surely these players are just normal young men taken off the streets of Britain and they will therefore do what many other young men in Britain do. They are simply adhering to the same values of freedom and selfishness that have caused these types of action to become so common in the wider society. [My emphasis]

So, it seems that everyone we can find connected to the “SRE Islamic Campaign” is a member of HT with all the usual cult-based freakishness we’ve come to expect from that group.

Yusuf Patel and his mates clearly have major issues with sex, only fuelling Martin Amis’ famously Freudian theory of Islamist extremism – in essence, its less about religion and more about relief.

In a characteristic display of intolerance and misogyny, MPACuk proceeded to publish a series of private photos from the facebook account of Shifa Patel.

Shifa Patel, who dressed for work in a traditional hijab (head covering) and full-length robe, was targeted after photographs of her with short hair and wearing a shirt and trousers were copied from social networking site Facebook.

The photos were circulated among pupils at Al-Islah Muslim Girls’ School in Blackburn, Lancashire, by email before it reached parents, who began to complain.

When Fatima Patel, the acting head teacher, heard the gossip, she sent a letter reassuring parents of Miss Patel’s gender.

The secretary even underwent a medical examination to prove she was female and quell the rumours.

But when an angry mob of parents gathered at the school gates attempting to force their way in and demanding she be sacked, the secretary decided to hand in her resignation and the head also decided to quit in protest.

Miss Patel, who is 28, said: “I will never forgive those who did this to me and spread these lies.

“I have irrefutable medical evidence that I’m a woman. The people who have done this to me have hurt me so badly.”

In some of the pictures Miss Patel is pictured alongside the acting headteacher.

Fatima Patel said: “When some parents approached me I said to them I will take the Quran in my hand and swear to tell the truth.

“But they were more concerned with getting a GP’s certificate for Shifa. What does that say about some people?

“This incident has affected me and Shifa and it will take a lot to get her confidence back. We must add that some parents have come and supported us.”

Miss Patel was hounded out of her job by the parents of the school where she worked as a secretary. At work she wore a hijab to comply with the rules of the Al Islah Muslims girls school. In her private life, she is a gay woman. However Shifa Patel was compliant with her professional obligations to the school’s regulations. Information about her private life was leaked but the school’s headteacher, and some parents, stood by her.

MPACuk decided to wreck her life further by publishing Shifa Patel’s personal photos and this is how they justified it:

We have anonymously received copies of the pictures which we are publishing. We find it strange that the media failed to publish these images without which the Muslims are being portrayed simply as ignorant backward savages, which is pretty much what the right wing media want us to believe.

MPACuk are either ignorant about where to draw the editorial line or this kind of sadistic savagery comes from having no idea about personal boundaries and an individual’s right to a private life.

Bukhari clearly has no qualms whatsoever about destroying the life of the young woman involved because, in his mind, his decision to publish was motivated by the bogus notion of defending the ‘values of the Muslim community’.

I hope he knows the old maxim about revenge: it’s best served cold.