It is becoming increasingly difficult to takes some of the more dogmatic left-wing commentators seriously these days, especially when it comes to foreign policy. Whether it be Seamus Milne at the Guardian, Robert Fisk at the Independent or Mehdi Hassan at the New Statesman, their op-ed pieces tend to follow the same predictable rules, which are:

a) The West is always wrong
b) Outspoken enemies of the west always deserve our sympathy
c) The vast majority are on our side

Take this latest piece from Mehdi states:

“The easiest and quickest way to expose the hypocrisy of our government’s, and the wider western world’s, professed support for democracy and freedom in the Arab world is to say just two words: Saudi Arabia.”

Then, after pasting an extract from the BBC’s website about the Saudi crackdown on internal protestors, Mehdi states:

“…in October, when Prince Nayif – the Interior Minister who has been behind much of this repression – was appointed Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia, the US government lauded the move and President Obama said:
The United States looks forward to continuing our close partnership with Crown Prince Nayif in his new capacity as we strengthen the deep and longstanding friendship between the United States and Saudi Arabia.

And here’s our premier, David Cameron, welcoming “the strength of the bilateral relationship between the UK and Saudi Arabia” in a meeting at Number 10 with Saudi foreign minister, Prince Saud al Faisal.

Depressing, isn’t it?”

I’m no fan of the Saudi regime but surely Mehdi must realise that foreign policy is never guided, in its entirety, by idealism. Saudi Arabia, despite its appalling human rights record, is the world’s largest oil exporter, a huge investor, a large export market and an important source of intelligence when it comes to counter-terrorism. This doesn’t mean we should never criticise it, but rather we can’t afford to completely cut if off.

Foreign policy is always a mix of idealism and realism. The fact that we maintain a relationship with the Saudi’s doesn’t mean we have completely abandoned supporting democracy abroad. Mehdi can see this when it comes to other countries but not when it comes to the US or the UK, because, of course, the west is always wrong.

But this line of argument is also a bit rich coming from someone who practically defends Iran’s right to nuclear weapons while simultaneously ignoring the Iranian regimes brutal crackdown on its internal critics. But we mustn’t forget, Iran is an enemy of the west so it deserves our full sympathy.

The fact that such dogmatic and predictable commentary is allowed to be printed in mainstream media outlets is shocking and indicative of a broader trend in British politics. Namely, commentators actually care very little for what is happening in the outside and have no sense of perspective. Everything they say and do is rooted in their own parochial political vendettas and aimed at boosting their credential within their own social circles.

Depressing, isn’t it?

Writing in today’s Daily Telegraph, she says: “We need to create a country where people don’t feel like they have to leave religion at the door. That means being proud of Christianity, not downgrading it. It means encouraging people to say that their faith inspires what they do.

Lady Warsi said it was a “mistake to assume that you compromise your identity the more you try to understand others”. “The stronger your understanding of your neighbour, the stronger your own religious identity becomes.

Warsi sounds quite sensible in print. But it is on televised appearances where she is not afraid to be  far more candid about what she really means:

Yesterday, I asked a question:

If a person denies clear evidence of racism, defends a racist, and attacks a leading anti-racist institution, is it fair to conclude that they are in fact a racist?

It is a genuine question. The answer in some cases will, undoubtedly, be yes. However, others may find themselves in the position of supporting a racist and denying their racism, and attacking anti-racist organisations: because they believe that a little racism is necessary, in furtherance of a greater political cause. Those people are not racists themselves. They are merely tolerating and facilitating racism, making it more difficult to challenge, giving it an alibi.

Yet others may honestly fail to recognise racism, or may not believe the evidence of racism. It is quite easy to tell who those innocent endorsers of racism are. They’re the ones who, once they realise their error, are the keenest to correct it, publicly.

Raed Salah is a racist. He is a hardline antisemite, who has admitted funding the genocidal racist terrorist group, Hamas. He is to be expelled from the United Kingdom because, in the words of the Tribunal.

We are satisfied that the appellant has engaged in the unacceptable behaviour of fostering hatred which might lead to intercommunity violence in the UK.

“We are satisfied that the appellant’s words and actions tend to be inflammatory, divisive, insulting and likely to foment tension and radicalism.

Let us recap, briefly, the reasons that we can be sure that Raed Salah is a racist and extremist.

• He has claimed that Jews baked “the blood of children” into their “holy bread” – the ancient and vicious blood libel.
• He has claimed that 4,000 Jews skipped work at the World Trade Centre on 9/11 and suggested that Israel carried out the 9/11 attacks.
• His political party published a paean to “the Martyr, Sheikh Osama Bin Laden“, whose killers had “sold their consciences to Satan”.
• He has cited so-called Franklin Prophecy: a Nazi forgery in which Benjamin Franklin supposedly warns America about Jews
• He attended the launch of the Mavi Marmara and incited violence on board. At the launch ceremony and on board Mavi Marmara passengers chanted a notorious extremist slogan, commemorating a massacre of Arabian Jews: “Khaybar! Khaybar! Oh Jews! The army of Mohammed will return!”.
• The Mavi Marmara escapade was organised by the Turkish charity IHH, one of the biggest and most keen material and political supporters of Hamas in the world. Salah is closely linked to IHH.
• He chuckled at the memory of taunting a Jewish teacher with a Swastika in a friendly chat with fellow extremist Azzam “Kaboom” Tamimi on Al-Hiwar TV, a TV channel based in London that serves the Muslim Brotherhood .
• He wrote an antisemitic poem which used various theological references to Jews, including: “The Creator meant for you to be monkeys and losers … you are the bacteria of all times”, which clearly refer to Jews generally.
• He has admitted funding Hamas, for which he served two years in prison. Hamas leaders have hailed him and rallied to his cause. Recently the terrorist group named a football pitch after him.
• He has been named as a trustee of the Union of Good, a Hamas funding organisation, and has worked closely with Interpal, the British charity that serves Hamas.
• His hosts in the UK have included some of the country’s worst extremists, such as Daud Abdullah and Ismail Patel, and a fellow speaker on his ill-fated tour was to be Ahmad Nofal of the Jordanian Muslim Brotherhood. Nofal too has been banned from the UK.
• He claims that homosexuality is a “great crime” which signals “the start of the collapse of every society”.

Now, if you are a racist, or a strategic facilitator of racism, I wouldn’t expect you to have any problem with any of this at all. Indeed, you probably support Raed Salah because this is what he believes.

However, if you found yourself backing Raed Salah because you’d been fooled into believing that none of the above was true: now is the time to tell us so. It is a horrifying thing to be tricked into becoming an aider and abetter of racism, and you must feel very angry with those who put you in this position.

The Labour MPs

Raed Salah attracted a good number of supporters who are Labour Members of Parliament. Let’s consider them, one by one.

Jeremy Corbyn MP

Corbyn was one of the scheduled speakers alongside Salah at an event in Parliament.  He knew of the evidence showing that Raed Salah was a racist, but dismissed it on the ground that Salah denied that he was:

We checked him out and he denied completely that he was an anti-Semite so we thought it was appropriate to bring him over.

The Parliamentary event went ahead without Salah, who had been arrested.  According to blogger Richard Millett, who attended the event, Corbyn told the audience he would help to challenge the exclusion of Salah.

Now that Jeremy Corbyn MP knows that Salah’s denial of racism was a lie, he should admit his error in backing him.

Yasmin Qureshi MP

Yasmin Qureshi was also one of the scheduled speakers at the Parliamentary meeting featuring Salah.  On her website, she has claimed that she “would not wish to share a platform if these allegations were true”.

I was recently informed of allegations made against one of the speakers invited by PSC to speak at the meeting. I do not personally know Raed Saleh but I have been closely observing the situation unfold.  I condemn any form of racism, fascism, anti-Semitism or Islamaphobia. I have made it clear that I would not wish to share a platform if these allegations were true.

However, Qureshi goes on to suggest she does not believe the allegations by republishing a statement from Middle East Monitor and the PSC which includes this line:

The Sheikh has appealed against the deportation in court. His team had already begun legal proceedings against Daily Telegraph and Jewish Chronicle journalists for printing false allegations about him last week.

There will be no libel case. Salah’s racism has been uncovered and verified, and his exclusion endorsed by a court.

Now that Yasmin Qureshi MP knows that Salah’s denial of racism was a lie, she should admit her error in backing him.

Richard Burden MP

Richard Burden is a regular promoter of Islamist extremists.  He was another scheduled speaker at the Parliamentary meeting featuring Salah.  He has issued a statement that is similar to Yasmin Qureshi’s.  He claims he would not share a platform with an antisemite.  He then proceeds to deny the evidence and complains about “innuendo”.

Two weeks ago allegations of anti-Semitism were made against Raed Salah, who I was told was one of the other people PSC had invited to speak at this meeting. To my knowledge I have never met Mr Salah. I have no truck for anti-Semitism and I made it clear that I would not be willing to share a platform with such a person if these allegations were true.

The organisers of the meeting put these allegations to Raed Salah. He denied the statements that had been attributed to him and asked lawyers to begin legal action against those spreading the allegations. I am not aware of any evidence being produced to back up the allegations.

…

The Home Secretary must urgently clarify this situation. It is important that everyone should be aware of what is fact and what is conjecture. Guilt should be on the basis of evidence and conviction, not by innuendo, allegation or association.

Richard Burden MP then turned up to the meeting which Raed Salah was to have addressed. This is what he said:

Let me put absolutely on the record what Jeremy [Corbyn] said.  Neither I nor anyone else on this panel has any truck with antisemitism, any truck with racism, whatsoever.  But I will say this: if I am going to see anybody convicted of those sorts of allegations, I want to see them convicted on the basis of evidence.  I don’t want to see them condemned and guilt assumed on the basis of innuendo, allegation, or association.  [audience applauds loudly]

Now the evidence has been examined in full. He can read it, through the links above. It has been tested by a court. Raed Salah’s exclusion has been confirmed.

Now that Richard Burden MP knows that Salah’s denial of racism was a lie, he should admit his error in backing him.

Martin “Tentacles” Linton

Martin Linton is no longer an MP. However, he runs Labour Friends of Palestine.

He too is a supporter of Raed Salah, and appeared on the Islamic Republic of Iran’s station, Press TV, to argue that Salah should have been admitted to Britain so that he could “speak his mind”.

We know that Salah’s “mind” contains unequivocal and extreme racist filth. That’s that Martin Linton supports.

There is no point in asking him to admit his error in backing Raed Salah. He’s proud of it.

Labour Friends of Palestine

All of the MPs listed above are supporters of Labour Friends of Palestine.

Rather than censure an outfit whose members are apologists for and defenders of this racist, extremist and supporter of terrorism, the Labour Party leader, Ed Miliband, thought it appropriate to honour them at the Labour party conference:

I want to pay tribute to Simon Danczuk, to Andy Slaughter, and to Richard Burden, first of all, as well as Martin Linton, who is here, for the work they do.

Make no mistake. The “work they do” is public defending racists, and attacking those who oppose racism and extremism.

Ed Miliband’s support of those within the Labour Party who have devoted themselves to the defence of racists is no different from the Tory Party, in the days that the racist Monday Club was considered an acceptable part of Tory politics.

The days of tolerating racism are long gone, for the Tories. Not so, sadly, for Labour.

I think that Labour Party members, and voters, have a right to expect a zero-tolerance approach to racism in the Labour Party. It is pretty outrageous that Labour MPs should have appeared in support of, and then in defence of, a man like Raed Salah: whose racism is a matter of record, and is simply undeniable.

Why not write to, or call these MPs. Ask them where they stand now, and if they are prepared to retract their support for Raed Salah, in public.

• Jeremy Corbyn: corbynj@parliament.uk,            020 7219 3545
• Yasmin Qureshi: yasmin.qureshi.mp@parliament.uk,            020 7219 7019
• Richard Burden: richard.burden.mp@parliament.uk,            020 7219 2318

Please be polite.

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

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

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

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

all comment and discussion welcome.

Here’s a brief excerpt:

Engage

ENGAGE or iENGAGE? On its website, all logos and related identity appear to favour ENGAGE whereas the APPG website states that the Secretariat is iENGAGE120. This might seem superficial but it raises a pertinent question about the outward-face of the organisation, namely that it is confusing. Acknowledging ENGAGE’s response to Goodman’s question about “who staffs” the organisation121, it is difficult to fully understand what the organisation does. Its website – its ‘public face’ – provides access to its aims and objectives, a Muslim-relevant media feed, information about its media monitoring, a section titled ‘Politics’ that provides information about some of its campaign work and a link providing access to Hansard. There are no details about ENGAGE’s current or forthcoming activities, no details of who works for or is behind ENGAGE, or indeed how it is funded albeit by charitable donations122. This lack of information could be misconstrued as suspicious. In the current environment where much has been made of the way in which some Muslim organisations are funded, who is behind them and who they have affiliations with, it might have been sensible for ENGAGE – having been appointed Secretariat – to have provided additional information: to ensure that its ‘public face’ to those who may want to know more following its appointment appeared open and transparent. It would also have reduced the opportunities for critics to exploit any lack of information or clarity for detrimental effect.

Little information is also readily available to support the view that ENGAGE has the specific expertise relating to the issue of Islamophobia excepting the media monitoring which is a mere part of the bigger issue. This is not to suggest they do not have the relevant expertise, but to observe that its ‘public face’ does not support this. Consequently, questions raised about the suitability of ENGAGE being appointed Secretariat of such an extraordinary and complex phenomenon may have some validity. Similar also is the way in which ENGAGE understands Islamophobia and uses the term – including as an accusation – in the public spaces, not least in the article referred to previously in relation to Martin Bright123. In its letter asking supporters to resist what it believed to be a concerted campaign against them, it described the main protagonists as right wing bloggers, the pro-Zionist lobby and Islamophobes124. In the various responses made by ENGAGE, there are times when they appear to conflate all of the criticisms made against them, irrespective of whether they might be legitimate or otherwise. And it is this point that is critical: ENGAGE rarely seem to differentiate between what might be legitimate criticism, what might be illegitimate criticism, and what might be rather more derogatory or Islamophobic. Without any critical differentiation, ENGAGE responded in exactly the same way, failing to recognise the difference between legitimate and illegitimate criticism but more crucially the difference between criticism and Islamophobia. As such its comment about the ‘right wing bloggers, the pro-Zionist lobby and Islamophobes’ might have some resonance with one of the allegations made against it.

Goodman describes the ENGAGE website – its public face – as an ‘attack’ website125. Goodman’s observation is clearly a criticism – not an Islamophobic attack – and if being objective, may have some legitimacy. Many of the responses that emerged after the appointment as Secretariat were polemical, maybe confrontational. Some might describe the tone as even being aggressive at times. Many are personalised and focus on individuals and their criticisms of ENGAGE or those associated with it. At times, the language and terminology used is incendiary and inflammatory. What message therefore has ENGAGE communicated about itself throughout this process? Has it acted like an organisation that is professional and credible with the necessary respect and standing that is required of the Secretariat? Does this support the decision to appoint ENGAGE as Secretariat or does it raise concerns and questions? Does the ENGAGE website reflect the ‘public face’ of other Secretariat organisations? As the Secretariat of the APPG, it might be reasonable to suggest that certain responsibilities. In engaging so publicly however, one question arises: did the actions of ENGAGE bring cause damage to the APPG and itself as Secretariat? Taking an objective viewpoint, it would be very difficult to suggest anything except causing damage when considering the public thanking of an anonymous blogger for suggesting the “…smears by an Israelite creature *are+ a badge of honour”.

Parliamentarians

Having noted the extraordinary events having occurred since the formation of the APPG, there remains some confusion about events and activities that took place before the formal launch. Considering the event that was convened at the House of Commons in March 2010 and the briefing document that was circulated during the summer of 2010, supported by a coalition of ten broadly different organisations or institutions, it remains unknown what happened to the briefing document, the coalition supporting it, or the Parliamentarians that offered support or attended the March event. Having made enquiries about this, very few appear able – or maybe willing – to provide answers. Most are unwilling to comment, but some have alleged skulduggery. Given that this is entirely anecdotal, such allegations are debateable. However it is worth noting as it may – or may not – have some relevance to the ensuing decision-making, events and activities.

As regards the Parliamentarians involved in the APPG, there are some very simple questions that need to be asked. First, to what extent was any investigation or screening undertaken in relation before appointing ENGAGE as Secretariat to the APPG? Were any decisions made about the allegations that have been made about ENGAGE and those associated with it in the past, were they reassured about these, and if so, why did they not unequivocally support ENGAGE in the face of criticism? What exactly was it that changed for those supporting the appointment of ENGAGE? Did they receive additional information or were they ‘influenced’ to change their minds? Did the APPG at any time pre-empt or expect any potential criticism or backlash following the launch of the APPG? If so, had any measures or strategies been put in place about how to respond and counter such criticisms and backlashes? If there were any strategies or indeed existing protocols for Secretariat bodies, were these communicated to ENGAGE? What differentiation do the members of the APPG see in terms of their collective voice and that of ENGAGE: are they one and the same? This report cannot provide answers to these questions, only the Parliamentarians can

One final point of consideration is the claim made by ENGAGE that outside commentators were exerting influence especially along party political lines. There would seem to be some evidence for this. Goodman had written a number of articles on Conservative Home and there had been a number of references made about MPs and Peers needing to consider their involvement. Gilligan had also suggested that MPs and Peers might be being “used”. The extent of the influence can only be speculative, although Bright did suggest that Kris Hopkins stood down following an online attack by Goodman. Bright also stated that Lord Janner stood down after taking advice from senior members of the Jewish community. However, is this evidence of a conspiracy or unfair influence or might it just be that a Conservative website is seeking to influence – and would appear to have been successful – people within its sphere of influence? Individuals, organisations and institutions all take advice and then choose to act accordingly. As such had Hopkins or Janner acted after having taken advice, such actions surely cannot be criticised or condemned. If however Hopkins and Janner did not stand down because of external influences, what was it that both became aware of that made them change their minds? As Goodman asked: who appointed ENGAGE?

Concluding thoughts

Most damning of all however is the realisation that Islamophobia – the very issue that the APPG was set up to consider – was completely removed from the frame within which all of the participants – commentators, ENGAGE and Parliamentarians – operated within. Islamophobia was lost. All overlooked or sidelined any focus on Islamophobia, some in preference of pursuing their own individual, organisational, political or other agendas, causes and campaigns. In truth, since its launch in November 2010 the APPG on Islamophobia has been little more than a sideshow: an unhelpful, unwanted and unnecessary distraction from giving Islamophobia the rightful, timely and necessary attention it so desperately needs. There can be no doubt whatsoever that the credibility of the APPG has been damaged.

MPs on the all-party group on Islamophobia have voted against using iEngage, the controversial Islamist group, as its secretariat.

The vote on Monday evening, by 60 to 2, followed the resignation in February of its Conservative chair Kris Hopkins and Labour vice-chair Lord Janner over an earlier decision to use iEngage.
Despite their resignations the group retained the link with iEngage. However it pledged to investigate fully concerns before iEngage was officially confirmed.

Lib Dem MP Simon Hughes, who took over as from Mr Hopkins and Lord Janner as one of the group’s chairmen, was tasked with considering iEngage’s record. In June he asked Birmingham University academic Chris Allen to compile a report to be sent to members of the group.

Mr Allen’s report into iEngage, which the Community Security Trust has described as having “a troubling attitude to antisemitism”, was circulated before yesterday’s vote.
In it Mr Allen concluded: “Since its launch in November 2010 the APPG on Islamophobia has been little more than a sideshow: an unhelpful, unwanted and unnecessary distraction from giving Islamophobia the rightful, timely and necessary attention it so desperately needs.

“There can be no doubt whatsoever that the credibility of the APPG has been damaged.”

Mr Bottomley, a Conservative MP and co-chair of the group, was absent from the vote, having voted in favour of using iEngage in February.

This is welcome news for anyone who want a valid and credible APPG group to oppose anti-Muslim bigotry but are opposed to the secretariat of such a group being dominated by Islamist extremists of the religious far-right, which would have been the case had IEngage been retained.

Lucy Lips adds:

This was the problem with iEngage all along. It is an organisation which is very closely tied to specific Islamist political parties, which both defends those political parties and associated hate preachers, while attacking Muslim liberals in the most personal terms. Indeed, iEngage operates from an office within the Islam Channel: a tv station which has been censured by OFCOM, and whose CEO Mohammed Ali Harrath is both a Trustee of iEngage, and a veteran of the Tunisian Islamist extremist scene.

Islam Channel CEO Harrath with Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh in Gaza last month. He was participating in an Interpal convoy for Hamas.

iEngage just couldn’t help itself. This is the nature of the organisation. It was inevitable that it would act this way.

However, this episode should cause those within Labour (and other parties) who form alliances with Islamist political organisations to think very carefully about doing so in future. They may do so for the best of reasons. They may think that it is important to reach out to such outfits, in order to “bring them into the mainstream”. They may think, outrageously and falsely, that Muslims are naturally politically extreme and therefore supporting Muslims necessitates supporting extremist Islamist institutions. I hope that they believe that they’re helping to combat hatred and suspicion of Muslims.

The trouble is that outfits like iEngage will always screw up. That is because they exist to defend hate preachers, promote Islamist political parties, and attack Muslim liberals. There is no “nice” way of doing that.

All of this foolishness could have ended, months ago, when iEngage was initially removed by the initial chair of the APPG. Instead, it was rescued by Jack Straw, Steven Timms and Sadiq Khan. Timms is Shadow Financial Secretary to the Treasury, and I understand that he was one of the two who voted to keep iEngage as the Secretariat. Sadiq Khan is Shadow Lord Chancellor. Both Labour Shadow Cabinet members.

This is just insane.

Promoting and protecting groups like iEngage which themselves support hate preachers will not diminish Islamophobia. Instead, such political misjudgements bolster the haters and bigots, provide them with ammunition, and more importantly, undermines the moral authority of the Labour Party in the fight against racism and intolerance.

This is not the only occasion in which Labour has been led astray by the idiotic alliances of some very senior Labour Party figures. It has to stop.

The News of the World on its last run tonight. Cheers!

Some people who objected to Cardiff City Hall hosting a Cageprisoners fundraiser last weekend received this message from the council:

Saleem Kidwai

The Cage Prisoners Event is being actively supported and promoted by the Muslim Council of Wales, an organisation who works in partnership with the Council and the Welsh Assembly Government to support the counter terrorism agenda.

Following receipt of your email the authority has sought further advice regarding this event, including from South Wales Police, and has been assured that Cage Prisoners organisation does not fall into a category that should be automatically rejected as they do not support radicalism but simply advocate justice and due process of law for those accused of it.

Let’s look at just a few episodes in the Cageprisoners record:

- Cageprisoners promoted “inspirational” Al Qaeda preacher and recruiter Anwar Al-Awlaki well into 2009, when it had been abundantly clear for months from Awlaki’s own blog, written in English, that he was an Al Qaeda operative. Moreover, anyone familiar with extremism, and this must include Cageprisoners, has known for years that Awlaki was a dangerous extremist. It has been seven years, for example, since the US named him as a “spiritual advisor” to two of the 9/11 hijackers.

- Cageprisoners published an article asking what on earth could be wrong with Muslims living in Britain going to Afghanistan to fight NATO forces alongside the Taliban.

- One Cageprisoners activist, Asim Qureshi, has assured young British Muslims that they can – of course – go to jihad. In fact, at a Hizb ut-Tahrir demonstration in London he said supporting “our brothers” in jihad all over the world, including in Iraq and Afghanistan, is “incumbent” on Muslims.

- Moazzam Begg, the figurehead of Cageprisoners, openly supports the Taliban. His multiple links with terrorism stretch back to the 1990s, when the police and MI5 first took an interest in him.

- The organisation tells Muslims not to help MI5 counter-terrorism officers in any way.

- Cageprisoners’ patron, Yvonne Ridley, who was one of the speakers at the Cardiff fundraiser, has told British Muslims they should “boycott” the police. She has also sought to justify horrific Al Qaeda bombings in Jordan, called Chechen mass murderer Basayev “a martyr” whose death made her “sad”, funded Hamas, and incited hatred with gross antisemitic rhetoric.

This is the kind of organisation all of us should challenge. Instead, the Muslim Council of Wales has sponsored it in its fundraising operations. This is why the Welsh government’s answer to a freedom of information request is so funny in a grim way:

MINABW / ADFYWIAD 3-Year Programme Total Cost: £102,782.92
Muslim Council of Wales was funded to develop a 3-year programme of work from August 2009 to March 2012 to build the capacity of mosques, as well as Muslim youth and women’s organisations, to increase the resilience of Muslim communities in Wales to Al Qa’ida influenced violent extremism.

Saleem Kidwai is the head of the Muslim Council of Wales (MCW). He is also one of four chairs of meetings of the Central Working Committee of the Muslim Council of Britain.

Mr Kidwai is really not the man to turn to in any anti-extremism campaign. In addition to the Cageprisoners sponsorship, consider his stance on hate preacher Zakir Naik back in 2006:

Saleem Kidwai, secretary general for the Muslim Council of Wales, invited Mr Davies to go to conference and listen to what Dr Naik had to say.

He said: ‘Dr Naik is one of the most uncontroversial Muslim speakers.

‘He talks about the similarities between religions and how we should work on the common ground between them.

‘It’s very important that he speaks in Cardiff because he is a great authority on various religions and has helped to bring people together – educating the educators – that is the name of the conference.

‘For Mr Davies to call him a hate-monger just shows his level of knowledge and expertise.’

Naik’s record demonstartes that this is an absurd stance to take. Naik has since been banned from the UK.

Kidwai is also a trustee of the Dar ul-Isra mosque in Cardiff, alongside Munir Ashi. Ashi is an imam at the mosque and a Hamas funder. He wants Israel to “disappear” in an onslaught by “Muslim armies”.

The mosque pushes some very intolerant ideas. For example, is your wife neglecting her prayers? You should “discipline” her. If that doesn’t work, don’t have kids with her! Get rid of her!

We share your anxiety about your wife and we advise you to delay having children with her and to try again with her. If you see that she is praying regularly on time and is serious about it, including first and foremost Fajr prayer, and she is obeying you and fulfilling the rights that you have over her, then be patient with her for a while and see how things go. Try to discipline her and teach her, and be patient in putting up with her crookedness and weakness, in the hope that Allah may guide her and set her straight.

But if you find that she is persisting in neglecting the prayer or trying to interfere with your religious commitment and objecting to your beard, then there is nothing good for you in her and we advise you to leave her before having children from her, which would only make the problem more complicated.

The mosque took that charming advice from Islam Online, the website of hate preacher Yusuf Al-Qaradawi. He too has been banned from the UK.

The mosque also has interesting guests. Next weekend it will welcome an Islamist group called iERA.

It was an iERA conference in London that prompted Peter Tatchell to condemn the hotel company Ibis for providing a venue for a meeting of vicious homophobes. Ibis and its parent company Accor have since stopped hosting extremists.

iERA is the outfit of Abdur Raheem Green. Green defends hate preachers and terrorists, engages in conspiracy theory denial about terrorism, says secular democracy is “antithetical to Islam”, and believes that gays and adulterers should be stoned. He will be a speaker at the Dar ul-Isra meeting.

Another speaker will be Abu Abdissalam. He says counter-terrorism officers are waging a war on Islam and must not be helped. He too stands up for terrorists and supports stoning under Islamic law. He is so extreme that even Tower Hamlets has banned him from council facilities.

Former Hizb ut-Tahrir activist Hamza Tzortzis is also scheduled to speak at the event. He despises freedom: “We as Muslims reject the idea of freedom of speech, and even the idea of freedom.”

Or consider iERA’s advisors. iERA took the page down recently, but the proof that they included three men who have been banned from the UK is shown here (click to enlarge). They are Zakir Naik, Bilal Philips and Hussein Yee. Other iERA advisors include Abdullah Hakim “death to gays” Quick and Hamas enthusiast Haitham Al-Haddad.

Mr Kidwai will also be a speaker at the FOSIS conference in Cardiff next weekend. Men attending the conference will be put up at Dar ul-Isra.

FOSIS is the Muslim student group with a long record of its own of promoting hate preachers and denial of the problem of extremism on campus. Kidwai’s fellow speakers at this event will include Hamza Tzortzis and Muhammed ibn Adam Al-Kawthari. Uthman Lateef, another “don’t help the police” extremist, was also on the original speaker list. Magically, his name disappeared on the day the government presented the Prevent review. But you can see the proof that he was billed here.

Mr Kidwai and the Dar ul-Isra mosque where he is a trustee are part of the problem, not the solution.

At the very least it is to be hoped that official Wales will learn the lessons from the record and stop funding his council.

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.

*************

Press Release: British Muslims for Israel condemns Jerusalem Bomb Plot

British Muslims for Israel condemns the terrorist attack in Jerusalem today. Such acts of indiscriminate violence are never justified, hurt the cause of Palestinians and harden public opinion in Israel.

Hasan Afzal, a spokesperson for British Muslims for Israel says “Today’s attacks seem to be of a piece with the extreme violence perpetrated against Israelis in the last few weeks. First we had the Itamar massacre, then a barrage of rocket attacks from Palestine into Israel and now the attack in Jerusalem. These attacks hurt all sides, and help no one.”

Afzal added “Recent events have shown that groups such as Hamas and the Al-Aqsa Martyrs’ Brigade are determined to kill indiscriminately and use ordinary Palestinians as hostages to their cause. We urge all British Muslims to condemn these senseless attacks which block any attempts for peace and ruin the lives of both Israelis and Palestinians”.

For further information, please call (+44) 7590 67 66 91 or email BritishMuslimsForIsrael@gmail.com

[ENDS]

Notes to editors:

1.       British Muslims for Israel is a Muslim pro-Israel advocacy group based in the United Kingdom founded in 2011.

2.       British Muslims for Israel is an independent, grassroots initiative.

It’s fair to say the Quilliam Foundation (later rebranded to ‘Quilliam’) has not been without its problems since launching in 2008. Since its launch, Quilliam expanded much too quickly, taking on too many staff, and has never stopped to really define its remit clearly enough.

The organisation is now facing closure after being told by the Home Office in December that it would no longer be eligible for core funding and would need to bid for specific projects instead. That is entirely understandable and reasonable, but Paul Goggins MP hit the nail on the head this morning when he said:

MPs are not opposed to the withdrawal of core funding from Quilliam – indeed greater use of independent funding will further strengthen their credibility. But the switch is happening too fast and risks the organisation going out of business altogether.

At a time when the security service continues to warn of ongoing threats to our security it is vital that ministers find the money to enable Quilliam’s work to continue.

David Cameron’s recent Munich speech – which I welcome and endorse – outlined the need for secular Muslim groups to help redefine the contours of debate in the British Muslim community. That Quilliam should be facing the prospect of closure just weeks after that speech is a disaster for all concerned.

After all, Quilliam’s more enduring contribution has been its ability to stretch the debate in new ways. It has already upset the Islamist applecart by ensuring that groups like the Muslim Council of Britain can no longer act as gatekeeper to the British Muslim community. They are now just one voice among many, with their monopoly effectively shattered.

There is also a wider point to consider; one which is sometimes lost on those who have not been involved in Islamist groups.

Like Quilliam’s director, Maajid Nawaz, I am also an erstwhile member of Hizb ut Tahrir. Indeed, I was the first senior defector from the group (in 2005) and started attacking its divisive message back then. The real difficulty in leaving the Hizb at that stage was not ideological – I knew the party was wrong – but finding the confidence to believe I could live an ordinary and productive life away from the organisation was very difficult. That fear is not untypical. Hizb ut Tahrir is a cult in many respects, an enveloping community of spiritual, emotional, intellectual and social support. When you leave, that support immediately turns into pressure. Friends become enemies overnight. For that reason, many who secretly despise the group have sometimes lacked the moral courage to leave.

When Maajid defected in 2007 and Ed Husain published the Islamist we all discussed the idea of a group like Quilliam. At the time I pointed out that their most important function would be to give others still in radical networks the confidence to leave. The momentum we subsequently created made an indisputable impact.

Consider this: in 2002 and 2003 when I was still a member of Hizb ut Tahrir we held conferences in London’s Wembley Arena and Birmingham’s National Indoor Arena. Both of these events attracted 10,000 delegates each. Beyond that we organised numerous rallies and demonstrations around the country mobilising similar numbers. Today the Hizb is lucky if it can attract 1000 people to its annual conference. In anyone’s book, that is a dramatic reduction.

There are other signs of the Hizb’s decline too. From 2002-2005 the party expanded rapidly and lots of new leaders were being promoted – the so-called ‘rising stars’. Today, most of those rising stars are nowhere to be seen. I was a regional director for the movement, overseeing all its activities and cells in northern England. In recent years I have taken great delight from learning about the number of people up there who have defected and left the organisation. They were among some of the best and most committed members in the north, and now they have eschewed radical Islam.

Instead, the party is led by the same old tired and hackneyed hands who have propped it up for so many years before: Taji Mustafa, Imran Waheed, Abdul Wahid, Sajjad Khan, and Jamal Harwood among others. They are the old guard who have invested everything into the movement for nearly two decades now. They will never leave. But what groups like Quilliam can ensure is that new recruits don’t join.

The work done by former members has dented much of the clandestine glamour associated with groups like Hizb ut Tahrir. It is no longer seen as an acceptable group for young Muslims to legitimately explore.

Retarding Hizb ut Tahrir’s growth in such a dramatic way would not have been possible without the outspokenness of former members. We have not all needed Quilliam to do so – I have supported it but never worked for it. Nonetheless, its existence is crucial to providing others with the confidence and cover needed to leave the organisation. This does not just apply to people in Hizb ut Tahrir. Over the years I have seen all kinds of other repentant extremists pass through its doors too. They come for any number of reasons – but it is foolish to ignore the psychological comfort a group like Quilliam can provide them.

I am not an uncritical friend of Quilliam. I have had my concerns and have raised these with Maajid in a spirit of camaraderie in the past. This is not the place to revisit those issues, but clearly Quilliam is not perfect. Yet, its imperfections must not be an excuse for its implosion. There is too much at stake for that, and to do so would be to overlook the meaningful impact it has made on aspects of British Muslim life.

Their work is not done yet, and Quilliam’s continued presence in the debate will remain necessary particularly at a time when the contours of British Islam are being so dramatically redefined.

In return Quilliam will need to adapt. It will need to redefine its aims much more sharply and work within clearer parameters. It will need to run a more streamlined operation and work with others in the field more effectively than it has in the past. Much more transparency is also needed.

There is much to suggest this reform can be achieved under Maajid Nawaz’s stewardship. In 2008 Quilliam embarked on a most necessary mission, what it needs now is a chance to see it through.

My investigations were originally centred on Jamaat’s links to Khaled Sheikh Mohammed and a charity front called KOMPAK which is based in Indonesia. Some of the al-Qaeda hijackers attended a final planning session for the 9/11 attacks in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia in 2000. Riduan Isamuddin (a.k.a. Hambali), a senior KOMPAK leader attended the conference. Intelligence officials now believe that the al-Qaeda attack on the USS Cole in Yemen was also planned at the meeting. The core leadership of KOMPAK have been arrested for having ties to al-Qaeda and Jemaah Islamiyah, a radical jihadi group which is believed to be behind the Bali bombings and other atrocities. KOMPAK was funded by Muslim Aid UK.

Muslim Aid is run by Jamaat sympathisers and former members of the movement from Pakistan and Bangladesh. It came as no surprise that after the 9/11 attacks Khaled Sheikh Mohammed, mastermind of the atrocities was arrested in Pakistan, which is over 3000 miles away from where the Malaysian summit was held in 2000. He was arrested in the home of a Jamaat-i-Islami figure. There have also been many other cases of al-Qaeda leaders being arrested from Jamaat safe-houses in Pakistan.[3]

So, it has not been a great surprise that since 2006, some of the UK’s leading commentators and journalists have been uncovering the links between radical Islamists in South Asia, and the Middle East, and organisations they have helped to setup in the UK. Nick Cohen, Andrew Gilligan, Melanie Phillips and Martin Bright have been slowly uncovering the Jamaat-i-Islami’s ties to high-profile figures within the British Muslim community.[4] They have made accusations that organisations such as the MCB and the East London Mosque are suffocating British Muslims who are not generally affiliated to Jamaat politics. Jamaat affiliates connected to the MCB portray themselves as mainstream rather than a minority movement both in the UK and South Asia.

Jamaat has powerful allies. They have been funded by the Pakistani Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) and have received money from the Gulf States, most notably Saudi Arabia.[5] The movement has been flush with petro-dollars allowing it to spend money on Dawah activities which have included public relations with academics, diplomats and senior politicians from the West who have been blinded by Jamaat’s duplicity. It has had a devastating effect on social cohesion and security policy. Academics such as John Esposito and Bob Lambert have even touted Jamaat as being a moderating solution to al-Qaeda/Salafists. Many have been misled to believe that Jamaat’s participation in elections as being a sign of the movement being committed to democracy.

Jamaat have been used by the Pakistani military as a recruiting agent for jihad. Hussain Haqqani, the Pakistani Ambassador to the USA’s made the following analysis of Jamaat’s ties to terrorism:

“Islamist liberation movements seeking redress of perceived and real grievances in places remote from Pakistan, such as Chechnya, Bosnia and Southern Philippines congregated in Pakistan. The Jamaat-e-Islami raised funds for these groups and provided military training for their members, in addition to allowing its own younger members to participate in Jihad around the world.”[6]

Haqqani is not the only Pakistani official to question the connections between Jamaat-i-Islami and global militancy. In 2004, Former Minister of the Interior of Pakistan, Faisal Saleh Hayat publicly asked Jamaat why their members were sheltering al-Qaeda leaders.[7]

Jamaat follows the programme of Maulana al-Mawdudi one of the godfathers of modern Islamism and fundamentalism in the Muslim world. Mawdudi wanted Pakistan to be the centre of a new Islamic Empire. It is, perhaps, contradictory or even hypocritical, that Jamaat has often run on a campaign of anti-Imperialism for the majority of its existence. However, the movement is not averse to being involved in conquest and domination. Jamaat wants its member and affiliates to be the vanguard of an Islamic revolution. Their leaders such as Qazi Hossain Ahmed and Prof. Khurshid Ahmed have recently called for a, “Glorious Islamic Revolution,” in Pakistan. Jamaat’s student wing the Islami Jamiat Talaba (IJT) has also been uncovered aiding and fighting alongside al-Qaeda and the Pakistani Taliban in North Waziristan.[8]

Muslim Aid trustees such as Tanzeem Wasti, Chowdhury Mueen Uddin, Ghulam Sarwar, Manazir Ahsan and Zahid Ali Parvez have connections to Jamaat figures and organisations. Wasti and Parvez are both connected to Muslim Aid and UKIM, which has been is described by Q News as, “…an organisation inspired by the Jamaati Islam party in Pakistan working with the Islamic revivalist teachings of Abul A’la Mawdudi and others.”[9] Tanzeem Wasti was even seen as Jamaat’s London figurehead by Pakistani newspapers in the 1990s.[10] He had previously served as the head of the Agency Afghan Press during the Soviet-Afghan war. In 1994, Tanzeem Wasti, who is also one of the founders of the UK Islamic Mission, gave the following interview where he believed governments in the Muslim world would be toppled by Islamic revolution:

“Today, Muslims have won the intellectual battle; Western intellectuals are afraid because they are seeing Islam rising all over the place… The West does not know how to tackle the march of Islam and is bankrupt morally and intellectually. The Muslim masses are changing and their un-Islamic governments cannot stay in power much longer. I am sure all over the world Islam will get much stronger…The Muslim community in Britain now has deep roots and the infrastructure to go forward. It is up to succeeding generations to pass on the message of the Prophet.” [11]

Jamaat-i-Islami’s Zarnoor Afridi (FATA) distributing Qurbani meat in front of a Muslim Aid and AKF banner

Muslim Aid UK is closely tied to the Al-Khidmat Foundation (AKF) which is based in Pakistan. AKF is a branch of the Jamaat-i-Islami movement which has its headquarters in Mansoorah, Lahore, Pakistan. In 2005, AKF listed its major donors as the Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA) and Muslim Aid UK. Muslim Aid has built schools and hospitals with AKF.[12] In 2007, Muslim Aid built a diagnostics centre in Chitral, Pakistan which is maintained by AKF.[13] Muslim Aid and UKIM have also donated ambulances to AKF. Muslim Aid is also instrumental in AKF’s annual Qurbani campaign to raise money.[14] AKF is controlled by Jamaat-i-Islami’s central working committee in Lahore. Masooda Bano recently published a paper on Jamaat’s welfare wings for the UK Department for International Development (DFID) he explained Al-Khidmat’s relationship with Jamaat and why they tried to hide the linkages:

“It did this in order to protect itself from international pressure after September 11 as international analysts suspect Jama’at of having links with fundamentalist groups… During interviews with the current board members of the Al-Khidmat Foundation, they were keen to present the Foundation as regular NGO, which no longer has a formal affiliation with the Jama’at, even though Jama’at members are still running the organisation.”[15]

Muslim Aid and Al-Khidmat’s Zabiha/Qurbani campaign in Pakistan, 2009

Muslim Aid Australia states that Al-Khidmat is a “non-political welfare entity,” on its website; however, its ties to Jamaat-i-Islami are apparent. [16]

Jamaat-i-Islami’s Qazi Hossain Ahmed at a wedding ceremony paid for by AKF

Muslim Aid, UKIM and AKF charitable work is generally good; they do provide services for the needy and the poor throughout the world- which is commendable. However, Jamaat designed their charitable fronts to bring political support to the Jamaat-i-Islami movement and their ideology. One senior leader of Al-Khidmat said the following:

“Members are also required to put forward the Jama’at philosophy to other people they know and to make those who are inclined towards this thinking join the Jama’at. Those who are inclined towards Jama’at thinking but are unable to take the full responsibility of a member should be encouraged to join the bigger pool of Jama’at sympathisers.”[17]

In hospitals which Al-Khidmat controls it indoctrinates its patients with DVDs of Maulana al-Mawdudi’s radical thought.[18] The fact that Muslim Aid helped finance KOMPAK in Indonesia raises serious questions that Jamaat’s charitable organisations are possibly overlapping with its support for global jihadi groups. Pakistan’s Ambassador to the USA, Hussain Haqqani, pointed out that Jamaat has a long history of providing military training to foreign jihadis. It even has a militant wing called the Hizb-ul-Mujahideen. Russia’s Supreme Court has already banned the Jamaat-i-Islami for its global support for terrorism. Which leads to the question- why hasn’t Jamaat been added to the UN Security Councils list of proscribed terrorist organisations?

Muslim Aid and Al-Khidmat opening a diagnostics centre in Chitral, Pakistan

The cross-pollination of religion/politics/social work is very common within revolutionary organisations. The Nazi Party in Germany had the Winter Aid (Winterhilfswerk) and the Nationalsozialistische Volkswohlfahrt/People’s Welfare Organization (NSV) which were designed to spread the message of the Nazi Party and Adolf Hitler’s ideals of an Aryan superior race. Josef Goebbels, the chief Nazi propagandist saw such organisations as being instrumental for furthering the aims of the Third Reich. Goebbels even made his wife, Madga, a patron of the charities. Mawdudi, the godfather of Jamaat, was known to have carefully studied the rise of the Nazi party in Germany. The comparisons between the Nazi Party and Jamaat-i-Islami’s charitable fronts are eerily similar; both ideologies also draft wild conspiracies theories about foreign and domestic threats which have often helped their supporters to practise genocide, violence and hate.

[2] Chris Blackburn and Carter-Ruck, Muslim Aid and Terror, Frontpagemag.com, February 14^th 2006, http://archive.frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=5556

[3] Syed Saleem Shahzad, Pakistani students prefer guns not books, Asia Times Online, July 27^th, 2010, http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/LG27Df01.html

[4] Andrew Gilligan, Muslim Aid: Hopeless Charity Commission whitewashes yet another Islamist group, The Telegraph Online, December 17^th 2010, http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/andrewgilligan/100068829/muslim-aid-hopeless-charity-commission-whitewashes-yet-another-islamist-group/

[5] Affidavit names politicians who took money from the ISI, The Daily Times (Pakistan), August 27^th 2009, http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=20098\27\story_27-8-2009_pg1_12

[6] Hussain Haqqani, The Ideologies of South Asian Jihadi Groups, The Hudson Institute, Current Trends in Islamist Ideology, http://www.currenttrends.org/research/detail/the-ideologies-of-south-asian-jihadi-groups

[7]Govt asks Jamaat to explain Qaeda links, The Peninsula, Qatar, http://archive.thepeninsulaqatar.com/component/content/article/347-pakistan-sub-continent/40847.html

http://www.ribt.org/nuke/html/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=153

[8] Syed Saleem Shahzad, Pakistani students prefer guns not books, Asia Times Online, July 27^th, 2010, http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/LG27Df01.html

[9] UK Islamic Mission Conference, British Muslims Monthly Survey for August 1994 Vol. II, No. 8,

http://artsweb.bham.ac.uk/bmms/1994/08August94.html

[10]Pakistani politicians in Britain condemn terrorism in Karachi, DAWN NEWS International, Karachi

31 August 1998, http://www.karachipage.com/news/aug98/083198.txt

[11] Peter Sookhdeo, Islamic Fundamentalism: Back to Basics, Vol. 17, No. 8, Third Way, October 1994, Pg. 9

[12] http://alkhidmathospital.com/milestones.htm

http://www.onlinenews.com.pk/details.php?id=89097

http://newtrendmag.org/ntma1349.htm

[13] Muslim Aid Pakistan will construct a Diagnostic Center in Chitral, Chitral Times, http://www.chitraltimes.com/english07/newsedetail86.htm

[14] Muslim Aid Asia, Qurban Campaign, http://muslimaidasia.com/content/view/45/9/lang,en/

Al-Khidmat Foundation, Qurban Page, Zabiha Project 2010, http://al-khidmatfoundation.org/qurban_page.php

[15]Masooda Bano, Marker of Identity: Religious Political Parties and Welfare Work- The Case of the Jama’iat Islami in Pakistan and Bangladesh, Religion and Development: Research Programme, Funded by the Department for International Development (DFID), http://www.religionsanddevelopment.org/files/resourcesmodule/@random454f80f60b3f4/1254137609_working_paper_34.pdf

[16]Jamaat-i-Islami Punjab, http://www.punjabjamaat.org.pk/home/dep_Detail/10

Jamaat-i-Islami Pakistan, showing that Al-Khidmat is Jamaat, http://www.jipvideos.com/?cat=102

Profile of Jamaat’s Dr. Fareed Ahmed Paracha, Pakistan Herald, http://pakistanherald.com/Profile/Dr-Fareed-Ahmed-Paracha-494

Qazi holds junta liable for miseries of quake-hit people, Pakistan Tribune, Lahore, http://www.paktribune.com/news/print.php?id=156566

[17] Masooda Bano, Marker of Identity: Religious Political Parties and Welfare Work- The Case of the Jama’iat Islami in Pakistan and Bangladesh, Religion and Development: Research Programme, Funded by the Department for International Development (DFID)

[18] What Is Pakistan Reading: An Alternative Tour of the Karachi International Book Fair, December 30 2010, http://pakistaniat.com/2010/12/30/books-karachi-book-fair/

The executive summary explains the depressing downside:

On one level it is not happy reading. It concludes that there is not a progressive majority in society and it reveals that there is a deep resentment to immigration, as well as scepticism towards multiculturalism. There is a widespread fear of the ‘Other’, particularly Muslims, and there is an appetite for a new right-wing political party that has none of the fascist trappings of the British National Party or the violence of the English Defence League. With a clear correlation between economic pessimism and negative views to immigration, the situation is likely to get worse over the next few years.

The key findings of the report:

A new politics of identity, culture, and nation has grown out of the politics of race and immigration, and is increasingly the opinion driver in modern British politics.

Six identity ‘tribes’ in modern British society. These are: Confident Multiculturalists (eight per cent of the population); Mainstream Liberals (16%); Identity Ambivalents (28%); Cultural Integrationists (24%); Latent Hostiles (10%); and Active Enmity (13%).

There is a clear correlation between economic pessimism and negative attitudes towards immigration. The more pessimistic people are about their own economic situation and their prospects for the future the more hostile their attitudes are to new and old immigrants.

There is a new middle ground of British politics that is defined by two groups of voters:Cultural Integrationists who are motived by authority and order; and Identity Ambivalents who are concerned about their economic security and social change. Together they make up 52% of the population.

‘Those identified as Identity Ambivalents could be pushed further towards the Right, unless mainstream political parties tackle the social and economic insecurity which dominates their attitudes. This is a challenge for the current Government – which is implementing deep spending cuts – and for the Labour Party, which is the traditional home of many of these voters. Almost half of all voters who do not identify with a party are Identity Ambivalents.

While more likely to consider ethnicity and religion to be important to their identity than nationality, Black and Asian minority groups share many other groups’ opinions on a range of issues, including the national and personal impact of immigration.

The British National Party (BNP) is in decline, entwined as it is with the old politics of race and immigration. Instead, groups such as the English Defence League (EDL), better adapted to the new politics of identity, are replacing them. However, there is a limit to the potential growth of this assertive and threatening form of nationalism.

There is popular support for a sanitised, non-violent and non-racist English nationalist political party. Britain has not experienced the successful far right parties that have swept across much of Western Europe. Our report shows this is not because British people are more moderate but simply because these views have not found a political articulation.

Hope Not Hate insists there is a positive side:

Political violence is strongly opposed by the vast majority of society and this is a ‘firewall’ between those concerned with immigration/multiculturalism and more open and hardline racists.

Over two-thirds of people view ‘English nationalist extremists’ and ‘Muslim extremists’ as bad as each other.

60% of respondents thought that positive approaches – community organising, education, and using celebrities and key communal movers and shakers – were the best way to defeat extremism in communities.

There is a real appetite for a positive campaigning organisation that opposes political extremism through bringing communities together. Over two-thirds of the population would either ‘definitely’ or ‘probably’ support such a group.

An interesting factoid picked up by the Guardian report on this:

According to the survey, 39% of Asian Britons, 34% of white Britons and 21% of black Britons wanted all immigration into the UK to be stopped permanently, or at least until the economy improved. And 43% of Asian Britons, 63% of white Britons and 17% of black Britons agreed with the statement that “immigration into Britain has been a bad thing for the country”. Just over half of respondents – 52% – agreed with the proposition that “Muslims create problems in the UK”.

A key question that we hope gets answered is this: if a British Muslim believes homosexuals should be punished by death, and demands England closes its the gates to further immigration, and wants more public money to be granted to British Islamic institutions, and donates to Muslim charities which fund Hamas, does that make them a member of the “Confident Multiculturalists”, the “Identity Ambivalents”, the “Latent Hostiles” or the “Active Enmity” tribe?

British Prime Minister David Cameron’s speech against “Islamist extremism” delivered recently at a security conference in Munich sparked an unnecessary controversy in the U.K., particularly among Muslims. Ramadhan Foundation, a Muslim youth group, described it as an attempt to “score cheap political points” in a way that would “rip communities apart.” And as the speech coincidentally came on the same day the right-wing English Defense League (EDL) demonstrated against the Muslims in Luton, Labour’s shadow justice secretary Sadiq Khan, a prominent Muslim MP, joined the chorus of protests to accuse Mr. Cameron of “writing propaganda material for the EDL.” Mr. Cameron on his part stood by his statements saying a “whole new way of thinking is needed.” He certainly has a point.

It would appear from the rather obtuse fulminations of Muslim leaders in Britain that they have either not heard Mr. Cameron’s speech fully or misunderstood it completely. Their reaction was perhaps based on newspaper reports which sensationalised the issue – maybe to capture the attention of Western audiences – by saying that Mr. Cameron wanted Muslims to adopt British values. A dispassionate reading of the full text of the Munich speech would reveal that Mr. Cameron, although he said his views were drawn from the “British experience”, spoke in terms of “universal rights” such as freedom of speech, freedom of worship, democracy, the rule of law and equal rights regardless of race, sex or sexuality. There was nothing in his speech that extolled the supremacy of Western values over Islamic values. On the contrary, Mr. Cameron censured the Islamophobes on the “hard right” for propagandising that Islam and the West were irreconcilable and expressed his firm belief, citing the example of the ongoing democratic protests in Tunisia and Egypt, that “Western values and Islam can be entirely compatible.”

One can hardly disagree with Mr. Cameron as the values mentioned by him have a lot in common with Islam. For instance, Quranic concepts such as lakum deenukum waliyadeen (to you your religion, to me mine), laa ikraaha fiddeen (there can be no compulsion in religion), laa taghlu fee deenikum (do not resort to extremism in religion), walahunna mislul lazee alaihinna bil ma’roof (women have rights similar those against them in a just manner) and kaanan naasu ummatan waahida (mankind is a single nation) were the basis of Islamic thought long before European nations came out of their dark ages and adopted them as their values. Therefore, if a handful of monomaniacal “Islamist” ideologues are trying to subvert these Quranic values now, and if a world leader points this out and advises the Muslims to remedy the situation from within it does not amount to scoring cheap political points

To be fair to Mr. Cameron he took pains to distinguish “Islamist extremism” from Islam which he called a peaceful religion. And he attacked European “right-wing fascist” parties saying that they were fuelling Islamophobia by seeking the forcible expatriation of Muslims and a ban on their mosques. No wonder Conservative Party chairman Baroness Warsi slammed Sadiq Khan’s accusation as outrageous. The Muslims would do well to realise that the motives of the British Prime Minister is a non- issue when compared to the threat of extremism in Muslim societies which is real. And Mr. Cameron is not the only person talking about it.

iEngage presents itself as a body which campaigns against Islamophobia. However, it spends its time attacking Muslim liberals and progressives, as well as journalists and politicians who oppose hate preachers and Islamist political parties.

It also engages in advocacy for Islamist terrorist organisations and their supporters, and demands various changes to Britain’s foreign policies. Here are a few examples.

Opposing the ban on Hezbollah activist, Ibrahim al-Musawi

Senior Hezbollah activist, Ibrahim al-Musawi, was banned from the United Kingdom in March 2009 by the Home Secretary, Jacqui Smith. Al Musawi had previously worked for the Hezbollah propaganda TV station, Al-Manar. When Al-Manar was banned from French satellite TV for airing a 29-part Ramadan special Ash-Shatat (Diaspora) during October–November 2003, which showed Jews drinking the blood of Christian children , and which quoted extensively from the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, Mousawi said the ban resulted from “political pressure by the Jewish lobby”.

ENGAGE condemned the exclusion in the strongest terms, and claimed that the Home Secretary had “caved into pressure from the pro-Israel lobby”.

Support for Daud Abdullah in relation to the “Istanbul Declaration”

In March 2009, it was revealed that, while attending a Hamas-aligned conference in Istanbul, the Deputy Secretary General had signed a declaration that the presence of “foreign warships” enforcing the Gaza ceasefire “must be rejected and fought by all means and ways”. Prime Minister Gordon Brown had promised British naval support for such action.

Abdullah refused to remove his name from the Istanbul Declaration. In response, the Labour government broke off contact with the Muslim Council of Britain. A similar position was taken by the Conservative Party and David Cameron.

iEngage claimed that the Government was trying to “intimidate” the MCB and argued:

It would appear that Hazel Blears, the Secretary of State for the Communities and Local Government (CLG) department clearly has delusions of grandeur. Latest news reports would suggest that she has started to treat Muslims as if she was still living in the days of the British Raj.

They also published Seumas Milne’s claim that the Government wanted to impose a “docile leadership” on British Muslims, and commented:

But if Blears’ high-handed actions towards the MCB are anything to go by, the government is not interested in responding to the consensus that exists. It is more concerned to impose a consensus orchestrated by hostile right-wing think tanks and the stooge Quilliam Foundation type bodies it has set up and funded. Muslim organisations should resist this interference and demand that Blears is sacked.

iEngage attacked David Cameron for his boycott of the MCB.

Iran and Ahmadinejad

In response to an article by William Hague, the Chief Executive Officer of iEngage, Mohammed Asif, wrote to the Foreign Secretary calling for sanctions on Israel instead, He argued:

As ENGAGE wrote to the former foreign secretary, there is a strong perception among British Muslims, and Muslims around the world, that our policy on issues pertaining to the Middle East and Iran are biased in favour of Israel. A perception that will only likely be reinforced by the

comments made in your article in The Times last Friday, and further emboldened by your claims that the EU act to reinforce the sanctions against Iran in demonstration of the benign effects of the Union’s collective political and economic weight.

iEngage readers were encouraged to write to the Foreign Secretary.

iEngage also criticised David Miliband when British diplomats walked out of Ahmadinejad’s speech in the United Nations

Support for engagement with Hamas

ENGAGE is also a strong advocate of the Government “engaging” with Hamas. For example, Mohammed Asif wrote to David Miliband in June 2010:

There is an urgent need for a rethink of our current policy on freezing Hamas out of any discussions on peace between Palestinians and Israelis. I hope you will agree that this forms an essential part of the ‘active and substantive top down political process’ that we must now pursue.

ENGAGE also promoted an IPPR Report entitled “Engaging with Islamists”. They concluded:

Let’s hope that Ivan Lewis, the Foreign Office Minister with responsibility for the Middle East, who so disgracefully criticised Ken Livingstone for interviewing Khalid Mish’al, is among those that take note of this new report and its sensible recommendations.

ENGAGE also promoted the controversial “softball” interview by Ken Livingstone with Khaled Mish’al, head of the political bureau of Hamas.

ENGAGE encouraged the Government to engage with Hamas, and objected to FCO criticism of a Clare Short meeting in the House of Commons featuring Khalid Mish’al, head of Hamas’ political bureau, again encouraging engagement with Hamas.

There is a simple explanation for iEngage’s support for Hamas, Hezbollah, and Ahmadinejad’s regime in Iran. They substantially share their politics.

More to the point, if Sadiq Khan, Jack Straw, Simon Hughes and Stephen Timms manage to install iEngage as the Secretariat to the APPG, it is likely that they will seek to define Islamophobia as opposition to Islamist political parties. Such an outcome will deeply undermine the fight against racism, sectarianism and bigotry.

Over the last few days, we’ve been considering the manner in which iEngage has conducted itself. iEngage hopes to be appointed the Secretariat of the APPG on Islamophobia. Despite the opposition of the APPG’s first chairs – Lord Janner and Kris Hopkins – who resigned when it became clear that Jack Straw, Sadiq Khan, Stephen Timms and Simon Hughes appear determined to retain this body’s services.

Yesterday, we demonstrated that iEngage’s major target is Muslim liberals and progressives, and opponents of hate preachers and Islamist political parties. Today we will consider some of those hate preachers and Islamist political parties which iEngage defends.

Before we start, let’s look very quickly at one of its “Trustees“: Mohammed Ali Harrath.

Mohammed Ali Harrath is a founder of the Tunisian Islamic Front, a radical Islamist group linked to An Nahda, a Tunisian Islamist party led by Rashed al-Ghannoushi, and aligned with the Muslim Brotherhood. He has told The Times:

“There is nothing wrong or criminal in trying to establish an Islamic state”

Harrath is the Chief Executive of the Islam Channel. The Islam Channel has recently been censured by OFCOM, which found that it broadcast views condoning marital rape, encouraging violence against women and describing women who wear perfume as ‘prostitutes’, and unbalanced support for Hamas.

Harrath believes that a Jewish conspiracy controls the United States:

“Look at the Zionists in the United States. There’s not that great number [sic]. The United States is nearly 300 million [sic]. But they have six million Jews living there. Every single one votes and every single one makes sure he influences many votes. And that’s how they command. That’s how it works.” (at 3:46)

It is plainly inappropriate that a group aligned with the worldview of a senior Muslim Brotherhood politician, with views such as these, should be empowered in this manner.

So, who else is iEngage batting for?

Campaigning against the ban on hate preacher, Zakir Naik

Zakir Naik is a hate preacher who was excluded from the United Kingdom by the Home Secretary, Theresa May. The ban was challenged by Naik, but was upheld by the High Court. The Chief Executive Officer of iEngage, Mohammed Asif, wrote to the Home Secretary to protest the exclusion. He sought to link the decision to exclude the hate preacher with Islamophobia:

We would further add that the exclusion order puts at risk the very notion of good community relations in whose defence this move has been justified. There are many Muslims who are appalled at the decision taken to exclude Dr Zakir Naik from the UK all the while groups like the English Defence League terrorise neighbourhoods across the UK chanting obscene anti-Muslim slogans.

Support for the Islamic Education and Research Academy

iEngage published an article promoting a publication by the Islamic Education and Research Academy (“IERA”) entitled “’Perceptions on Islam and Muslims: A study of the UK Population”.

The IERA is an extreme Salafi organisation, whose advisers include three hate preachers, banned from the United Kingdom: Bilal Philips, Hussein Yee and Zakir Naik

Andrew Gilligan has demonstrated that the data contained within the IERA report does not support its conclusions, and overstates hostility to

Islam and Muslims in the United Kingdom.

Defending Hizb ut Tahrir

The politics of iEngage are not precisely the same as those of Hizb ut Tahrir. It criticises the party for its opposition to voting in elections. However, it has also defended Hizb ut Tahrir on a number of occasions.

Ban at Queen Mary

iEngage objected to the banning of Hizb ut Tahrir speakers at Queen Mary, University of London.

Islamic Shakhsiyah Foundation

In October 2009, the Telegraph reported that two schools run by the Hizb ut Tahrir linked Islamic Shakhsiyah Foundation, were in receipt of £100,000 of public money. The Conservative Party asked the Government to examine the propriety of the funding.

iEngage argued:

The opposition leader David Cameron’s ill-informed remarks will aid only those given to scaremongering and inciting anti-Muslim prejudice. It is risible that David Cameron, Michael Gove, the shadow schools secretary, and Paul Goodman, shadow communities secretary, (see BBC Newsnight yesterday), should have engaged in their fishing expedition of ‘extremists’ on the same day that news broke that gravestones in the Muslim section of Southern Cemetery in Manchester were desecrated for the third time in as many months. Perhaps those in the Conservative Party so concerned with extremists and the threat to social cohesion might usefully turn their attention to those that actually are threatening community relations in the UK instead of manufacturing demons where none such exist.

It is clear that iEngage defines Islamophobia as opposition to hate preachers and Islamist political parties. This is certain to be the conclusion that iEngage will urge on members of the APPG on Islamophobia, if its services are retained as the Secretariat to the group.

The following politicians have led the charge to install iEngage as the Secretariat:

• Stephen Timms
• Sadiq Khan
• Jack Straw
• Lord Sheik
• Peter Bottomley
• Simon Hughes

If they allow iEngage to continue as Secretariat to the APPG, they will personally be betraying those Muslims and liberals who are the primary target of iEngage. iEngage is certain to use its authority to continue the attacks on Muslim liberals that have been the hallmark of its campaigning activity to date. The

iEngage puts a significant amount of energy into opposing the Quilliam Foundation and British Muslims for Secular Democracy (“BMSD”), while defending Islamist organisations which have been criticised by both organisations.

Islam Channel

iEngage has been at the forefront of organising opposition to Quilliam, in defence of the Islam Channel. This is unsurprising: considering that its ‘Trustees” include Mohammed Ali Harrath, a senior member of the minority Tunisian Islamist party, An Nadha/Muslim Brotherhood, who is also the CEO of the Islam Channel.

In April 2009, Quilliam published a report into the Islam Channel identifying presenters linked to extremist politics, some of whom were members of Hizb ut Tahrir. In March 2010, Quilliam produced a second report on the Islam Channel which identifies serious examples of “separatism, extremism, sexism and anti-Semitism”. In November 2010, OFCOM ruled that the Islam Channel has been in serious breach of the OFCOM Code in a number of respects.

iEngage CEO, Mohammed Asif wrote to Charles Farr at the OSCT, to object to a Quilliam Foundation report on the promotion of extremism by the Islam Channel. He stated:

What the OSCT and the Foreign Office, who fund the QF, surely need to now ask themselves in response to this latest smear campaign is whether their association with a body that British Muslims find abhorrent for its half-baked analysis and laughable policy prescriptions, and which derails the other benign efforts by government departments to fully engage British Muslims in debates on integration and belonging, is a price worth paying?

iEngage also criticised the second report.

In response to the first alert, ENGAGE called Quilliam “stooges” and claimed that they were engaged in a “quest to foster a craven Muslim identity submissive to the warmongers”

Al Muhajiroun

ENGAGE also opposed the ban on Al Muhajiroun and criticised both Quilliam and BMSD for supporting the Government’s decision. They argued

Given that QF and BMSD are both in receipt of government funding under the Prevent programme, their concurring with the ban on Islam4UK is perhaps not entirely unexpected. Noam Chomsky’s insightful phrase ‘manufacturing consent’ comes to mind.

The previous year, BMSD had organised a demonstration against Al Muhajiroun. Inayat Bunglawala responded by forming a now-defunct group, Muslims4UK, which was promoted on iEngage. Inayat Bunglawala explained his reasons for setting up a separate group in emails to his supporters:

I have received some emails from people concerned that British Muslims for Secular Democracy (whose chair [Yasmin Alibhai Brown] opposes the wearing of the hijab, openly admits to drinking alcohol etc) are also demonstrating. Muslims4UK will be completely separate from them and will have our own area and banners and placards, insha’ Allah.

Yasmin Alibhai Brown

Yasmin Alibhai Brown is repeatedly attacked by ENGAGE for her opposition to the niqab and burqa.

Green Lanes Mosque

In December 2009, the Quilliam Foundation reported that the Green Lanes Mosque, a Salafi institution connected to the IERA (see above), had invited hate preachers to speak at a conference. British Muslims for Secular Democracy put together a letter objecting to the presence of the hate speakers at the conference, which was backed by prominent Muslims, Jews, Christians and Humanists.

iEngage responded by posting articles defending the Green Lanes Mosque and attacking Quilliam and BMSD.

Martin Bright

iEngage opposed the presence of the political journalist, Martin Bright, on a panel organised by the Quilliam Foundation and Progress at the Labour Party Conference in 2009, and encouraged their reader to email John Denham MP to protest

They previously called Martin Bright an “Islamophobe”, and Ed Husain a “disgraced figure”

Extremism in Mosques

iEngage responded to a report by Quilliam that claimed that some mosques were failing to tackle extremism, by claiming that Quilliam was “Zionist” and by observing:

No, the QF’s true function has long been apparent. It is to lay the blame for ‘extremism’ on the Muslim community in Britain and its main institutions while covering up the key role played by thegovernment’s own misguided foreign policies. In return the QF are given large amounts of taxpayers money. How sweet.

“Thuggery and hooliganism”

iEngage denounced an article by Quilliam in the Labour Party magazine, Progress, promoting a report on the BNP’s attacks on Muslims

The Quilliam article also argued that street violence in clashes between the BNP and Unite Against Fascism were counterproductive. However, ENGAGE objected to the phrase “thuggery and hooliganism” in the article.

Redbridge Faith Forum on Quilliam

iEngage publicised a report by “Redbridge Faith Forum” which purported to demonstrate that the Quilliam Foundation has “no support amongst UK Muslims”. They neglected to mention that the wife of iEngage founder, Inayat Bunglawala, is the secretary of the body that produced the report.

Attacking other Muslim liberals

iEngage also frequently attacks other Muslim liberals, including Taj Hargey, the chair of the Muslim Educational Centre of Oxford and the Imam of the Summertown Islamic Congregation in Oxford. ENGAGE attacked Hargey for his opposition to the burqa, describing him as a “self publicist”

They earlier described him as a “fringe activist“.

iEngage attacked Haras Rafiq, who wrote a letter to the Evening Standard raising concerns about the Islam Channel sponsored conference, the Global Peace and Unity Event, and extremist politics more generally.

Panorama expose of racism and extremism in Saudi funded schools is a “witch hunt”

BBC Panorama broadcast a documentary on 22 November 2010, which exposed that a network of Saudi funded schools were teaching children anti-Semitic material and discussed the punishments that would be applied in an Islamic State to homosexuals

Concern about the content of the textbooks was expressed by prominent Muslim scholars, including Usama Hasan.

Before the programme had aired, iEngage called the documentary a “witch hunt” and encouraged its readers to “contact Panorama with your thoughts and comments on tonight’s programme”

Attacking the Community Security Trust

iEngage promoted an attack by the pro-Iranian pressure group, the Islamic Human Rights Commission on the Jewish organisation, the Community Security Trust which falsely claimed that it “demonises Muslims”.

It is very clear that iEngage, if retained as the secretariat of the APPG, will continue to attack Muslims, liberals and progressives who oppose Islamist political parties and hate preachers. This will not serve the important cause of fighting racism and anti-Muslim bigotry.

In what is becoming an increasingly bitter dispute, iEngage spokesperson Marjorie Thompson told the JC she did not believe Lord Janner had signed up to the APPG in good faith. “It strikes me that Greville Janner joined the group to directly sabotage it,” she said.

Labour peer Lord Gulam Noon, who is a trustee of the Coexistence Trust, set up by Lord Janner and Prince Hassan of Jordan to combat antisemitism and Islamophobia, said: “Greville Janner has always fought all forms of racism, including Islamophobia”

Ms Thompson was chair of CND in the early 1990s, but is now a prominent Conservative. Her words could prove deeply embarrassing to the Prime Minister; as chair of the Conservative Cooperative Movement.

There’s more.

There is an nasty antisemitic blog, London Muslim (to which I won’t link), which routinely uses the term “Israelite” to describe its opponents. In one such article, iEngage has posted a comment:

Beneath the blog, a comment apparently from iEngage thanks London Muslim for its “supportive post”; the iEngage website also carries a link to the post, endorsing it as ‘best of the blogs’.

Mohammad Asif, chief executive of iEngage, was unavailable for comment, but Ms Thompson said the organisation was merely thanking London Muslim for its support, not endorsing the language.

But Mr Gardner said: “The word Israelite was abused in a grotesque and hateful manner, but iEngage have endorsed it, further proving how unsuitable they are as a partner for tackling racism.”

Right.

iEngage wants to be the Secretariat for the APPG on Islamophobia? If it succeeds, it will link the fight against anti-Muslim bigotry to a defence of antisemitism and a vicious defamation on a veteran anti-racist. Not to mention iEngage’s record of attacking Muslim liberals, defending hate preachers, opposing sanctions on Iran, promoting dialogue with terrorist groups, and so on.

These features mark iEngage out is an Islamist attack organisation, which has nothing to do with defending ordinary Muslims from racism and hatred. If Straw, Khan, Timms and Hughes manage to retain this organisation as Secretariat, it will dog them until the end of their careers.

There is much to be alarmed about with the political background of the pro-Islamist pressure group, ENGAGE

• There is a real danger that ENGAGE will seek to prevent non or anti-Islamist Muslims from participating in the APPG.
• It could also use the APPG as a platform to attack not those who hate Muslims but those who are critical of Islamist political parties.
• Such developments would undermine the potentially important findings and recommendations of the APPG.
• In fact, the role of ENGAGE could make the APPG’s project backfire in a spectacular fashion: it could be painted in hostile press coverage as yet another example of politicians failing to spot extremism or even knowingly promoting divisive people and messages.

If you want to see an independent, credible and effective APPG on Islamophobia and not one that is deligitimised by the presence of an Islamist advocacy group and its well-documented support for sectarianism, anti-semitism and extremist political networks, then you can do your bit by calling and writing to your MP now and urging him/her to join the APPG and support the work of ENGAGE in documenting real anti-Muslim bigotry and hate crimes that affect ordinary Muslims without furthering the cause of Islamism and the personal and political ambitions of a coterie of well-organised, well-funded Muslim extremists. Don’t delay this and urge your friends to also get in touch with their own MPs.

You can find and write to your Member of Parliament, your Member of the European Parliament and your local councillors through the links provided below:

WriteToThem

Find Your MP

They Work For You

Concerns about the sectarian politics of iEngage (also known simply as Engage) led to the resignation of the group’s Conservative Chair Kris Hopkins MP and one of its vice-chairs, veteran Jewish Labour peer Greville Janner.

The appointment is a direct challenge to Prime Minister David Cameron, who called for Islamist groups to be given a wide berth in a recent speech to a security conference in Munich.

The group’s acting chair, Lib Dem President Simon Hughes, has consistently argued for keeping the link to iEngage. His position will cause embarrassment to Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg, who has been trying to build bridges with the Jewish community.

The iEngage website claims it is “dedicated to promoting greater media awareness, political participation and civic awareness among British MPs”.

Sadiq Khan’s name resurfaces again as the main enabler and champion of Engage in this analysis from Paul Goodman on ConservativeHome:

Three points stand out -

• Any enquiry organised by Engage is now discredited in advance.  To date,the former Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the group - the Conservative MP Kris Hopkins and the Labour peer Lord Janner – have resigned from their positions in protest at the involvement of Engage.  The matter has spilled on to the floor of the Commons twice – see here and here.  Now MPs have divided almost down the middle about the organisation.  All Party Groups are by nature the most consensual of Parliamentary creatures, relying on collegiality and co-operation.  If Engage wanted to see one on Islamophobia work properly, they’d have withdrawn from the project when Hopkins and Janner quit.  The effectiveness of the new group is clearly less important to them than their own presence.

• Downing Street should take a special interest in what happens next.  Backbench MPs should be free to do whatever they like in relation to all party groups.  So if Peter Bottomley wants to be an officer of this one, that’s a matter for him.  However, that’s not to say that the Government is obliged to take no view of what an all party group says and does – and the same goes for the Party.  I understand that Number 10 is seriously concerned about Engage, partly for reasons which have been set out on this site.  It should therefore have a serious word with Lord Sheik, the Chairman of the Conservative Ethnic Diversity Council, who didn’t vote to dismiss Engage: the Council, after all, is a body set up by the Party.

• Ed Miliband should be taking a special interest in Sadiq Khan’s position. Three very senior Labour MPs voted not to dismiss Engage – Jack Straw, Khan and Stephen Timms.  Timms is a member of Miliband’s front bench team, and no reference to him is complete without noting that he survived a terrible murder attempt by an Islamist fanatic.  So’s Khan, but he’s much more senior – a member of the Shadow Cabinet, a former Communities and Local Government Minister and – very recently – an intemperate critic of the Prime Minister’s Munich speech.  Miliband didn’t back Khan’s stance then.  So what’s his view now?  Does he think that his Shadow Justice Secretary should back so controversial a venture?  What’s the Labour Party’s view of Engage?