Bright writes:

Inayat Bunglawala of the MCB defended his attacks on British Muslims for Secular Democracy because leading members of the organisation opposed the wearing of the hijab and believed drinking was permitted in Islam. The chair of the organisation is Independent columnist Yasmin Alibhai-Brown.

The row broke out over a demonstration to oppose the Islam4UK march by al-Muhajiroun, which was due to call for the introduction of an Islamic state and sharia law in Britain. The march was cancelled at the last moment on October 31.

Mr Bunglawala, who regularly appears in the British media as the representative of the MCB, was vocal in his condemnation of Islam4UK march. He even established a new organisation, Muslims4UK, to oppose the extremists. His actions were praised at the time by Ed Husain of the anti-extremist Quilliam Foundation.

[...]

On October 26 Mr Bunglawala sent an email to the Islamic Society of Britain and Young Muslims group on Yahoo which said: “I have received some emails from people concerned that British Muslims for Secular Democracy (whose chair 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, banners and placards, insh’Allah”.

Four days later he sent a second email said: “The BMSD — whose leading members advocate that Muslim schoolgirls should be forbidden from wearing the hijab and believe there is nothing wrong with drinking alcohol in Islam — have naturally attracted the support of Zionists like Mel P, Harry’s Place and the Spittoon blog [Mel P is a reference to the JC columnist Melanie Phillips; Harry’s Place and Spittoon are blogs which often cover the subject of radical Islam].

Mr Bunglawala continued: “Muslims4UK have spoiled that little plan of theirs, Alhamdulillah!”

Ms Alibhai-Brown said: “I do say young pre-pubescent girls should not be covered up, and that the fact that I drink wine is my own business.”

[...]

Mr Bunglawala confirmed to the JC that he had asked for a separate area to demonstrate, away from the BMSD.

He added: “BMSD have almost zero support in UK mosques and Islamic institutions which is not very surprising given that their chair openly drinks alcohol and sees nothing wrong with that! Even a young Muslim child is aware that drinking alcohol is forbidden in Islam.

“The only support BMSD appear to attract seems to be from pro-Israeli groups. That itself is very telling.”

Bungles should be ashamed of himself. What happened to that ‘I am such a liberal’ attitude he had going on at the Guardian’s Comment is Free for a while? There are plenty of Muslims who are against pre-pubescent girls wearing the hijab, and with good religious justification. As for drinking wine, Alibhai Brown is right – it is no one’s business what she does in her personal life.

This is what I hate the most – people like Bungle’s thinking they have the right to pass judgment on what others do, who is he to judge and decide what makes a good Muslim or not? God? Besides, what makes him think that his recently made up organisation ‘Muslims4UK’ (sounds very similar to Islam4UK) has any credibility for him to even dare to suggest that BMSD has none? At least they did not cancel their protest on the 31st (as Bungles did) and carried on defending liberalism, secularism and democracy in the UK. That is one more than what Bungles has so far achieved.

How disappointing.

And he is Ed Husain’s new best friend, according to whom, Bunglawala…

“has risked much among entrenched, dinosaur Muslim “leaders” by publicly supporting gay rights, freedom of speech for Salman Rushdie and Geert Wilders, and challenging conventional narratives on creationism.”

But in spite of Bunglawala’s so-called metamorphosis from hidebound Islamist to easy-mannered liberal, he has issued this astonishing statement on Yusuf al-Qaradawi, the spiritual leader of the Muslim Brotherhood:

It is very unfortunate that Sheikh Yusuf Al-Qaradawi has been barred from visiting the UK since early 2007 by the British government, following pressure from pro-Israeli lobbies. Sheikh Al-Qaradawi is an Islamic scholar who commands huge respect among millions of Muslims worldwide.

For those unfamiliar with the old scholar who “commands huge respect among millions of Muslims worldwide”, here is some context:

This statement is not a sign Bunglawala has regressed. This is the same old wine in new bottles. If we are frank, we have always known he was partial to al-Qaradawi. All he has has done is simply re-articulated himself.

If he has covered any ground in his personal and political growth, it is from being a young antisemitic Muslim public figure all the way to being an older antisemitic Muslim public figure. Which is why we should be concerned if this is the man, who is on the cusp of being positioned by the John Denham’s office, is to represent Muslims in Britain.

****

It is now clear US Army Major Nidal Hasan had a series of connections to the Islamist cleric, Anwar al-Awlaki . For those of us who have studied, with increasing concern, the extreme teachings of this cleric, this tragedy is the inevitable consequence of un-checked Islamist radicalisation. This situation has been made all the more distressing by the apparent lack of concern shown by the US Intelligence and Military authorities in taking Awlaki’s influence seriously.

Even before Major Nidal had fired a single bullet in Fort Hood, the US authorities knew about his increasingly vocal radicalisation and that he had attended the Dar al-Hijrah mosque in Virgina at the time Awlaki was its head Imam. Nidal had also been the subject of an FBI investigation after it was discovered that he made communication with Awlaki by email. There was certainly no lack of overt clues.

Inayat Bunglawala is right to say that most Islamic scholars, particularly in Britain, are opponents of the extremist fighting talk that is replete in Awlaki’s sermons. Even within political Islam, Awlaki’s teachings fall within the most extreme, Al Qaeda-aligned territory. Indeed, according to Charles E. Allen, the US Under Secretary for Intelligence and Analysis and Chief Intelligence Officer, Awlaki is the former spiritual leader to three of the 9/11 hijackers. He was also identified by the 9/11 Commission report as having provided advice to two of the 9/11 hijackers, Khaled Almihdar and Nawaf Alhazmi.

What should concern us most, however, is this. Awlaki has a huge internet following amongst Muslims, all over the world. His sermons, delivered in word perfect English and Arabic, are downloaded and shared by vast numbers of people in the Middle East and in the West. On his blog, which has now been taken down, his articles together with the stories of his scrapes with the FBI and his incarceration in Yemen, have earned him the status as the pre-eminent crossover Arabic-speaking theoretician of armed Jihad. 

Most disturbingly of all, Awlaki has been actively promoted by some of the United Kingdom’s most prominent Islamist organisations. Inayat Bunglawala’s description of Awlaki’s relationship with these organisations is an understatement of the seriousness of the problem. There are two points that are central to Bunglawala’s discussion of Awlaki’s connection in the UK. The first is that when Islamic organisations began inviting Awlaki to this country in the late 1990s, Awlaki was then still a mainstream, moderate imam with sensible views and showed “no hint of his later extremism”. The second, that Awlaki only became radicalised due to the US war against Iraq in 2003, and is therefore somehow the product of Western foreign policy. However, under greater scrutiny, neither of these claims stand up, even from the data available in the public domain on Awlaki.

A Washington Post report examined tax records from as early as 1998, which showed that Awlaki served as vice president of a charity (CSSW) founded by his then patron Abdul Majeed al-Zindani, a Yemeni politician who is named as an associate of Al-Qaeda. The CSSW has been described a “front organization to funnel money to terrorists”. The FBI also know that he was paid a visit in 2000 by an associate of Omar Abdel Rahman, known as the blind sheikh, who was convicted in connection with the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. The report also states that in 1999, Awlaki was investigdated by the FBI “when it learnt that he may have been visited by a “procurement agent” for bin Laden”.

In late 2002, Awlaki made a trip back to the USA, where he visited Ali al-Timimi, who was the time was accused by US prosecutors of recruiting Muslims to fight against US troops in Afghanistan. Timimi was convicted in 2005 and is now serving a life sentence for inciting followers to fight with the Taliban against Americans.

Inayat Bunglawala refers to an interview of Awlaki in the National Geographic from 2001, in which Awlaki’s responses are portrayed as reasonable and moderate. But what the interview doesn’t tell us is that in reality Awlaki had already been investigated twice by the FBI for his connections with Al-Qaeda. He was on his best behaviour. When Awlaki conducted another interview with IslamOnline – the website founded by the Muslim Brotherhood’s spiritual leader, Yusuf al-Qaradawi – he suggested that Mossad were behind the 9/11 attacks.

Therefore, by the time Awlaki was first invited to the UK by British Islamic organisations, he was, even by the Islamist standards, no moderate scholar. His actions show that he was a well known activist with a highly confrontational message for the cause of violent Jihad, long before the second Gulf War.

But it is what happened from 2002 onwards that is more important in the UK context. Since that date, Awlaki has been invited to speak in person, or via video link-up, by a large number of private Muslim organisations, university Islamic societies and registered charities which have benefited from government funding. They have promoted him, in spite of or perhaps because of, Awlaki’s track record and his increasingly explicit message exhorting Muslims to support violent Jihad.

Timeline

In June 2003, the Muslim Association of Britain (MAB), referred to as the official arm of the Muslim Brotherhood in the UK, organised a series of meetings with Awalki as guest speaker. 

Later that year, at an event organised by the East London Mosque (ELM) in December 2003, Awlaki addressed Muslims on the subject of terrorism arrests in the UK and urged them to never report on or turn over their fellow Muslims, under any circumstances. Two months prior in October 2003, the Islamic Forum Europe (IFE), an organisation closely associated with the ELM, invited Awlaki to speak at its ‘expoislamia’ event. In January 2009, the same ELM hosted  another event, entitled ‘The End of Time’, with Awlaki this time as delivering a video message. In spite of the fact that Awlaki’s “presence” at the event was reported in the national press, ELM refused to condemn Awlaki’s ideology or even cancel the meeting.

As late as 2005 Inayat Bunglawala and Awlaki were both listed as co- supporter of an organisation called ‘Stop Political Terror’ (SPT) which aimed to protect the civil rights of Muslims charged with extremism. One of individuals that SPT campaigned for was Babar Ahmad, who ran Azzam Publications, a pro-jihad website which, according to his indictment was “used to recruit individuals to be mujahideen and to solicit and raise funds and assistance for jihad”.

Osama Saeed, who now is poised to represent the Scottish National Party (SNP) for Glasgow Central in Parliament, wrote in his blog in 2006:

“Imam Anwar Al-Awlaki was originally hounded in the US because two of the 9/11 bombers happened to pray at his mosque. Many of my Muslim readers will either know him personally or have heard his lectures. He preached nothing but peace, and I pray he will be able to do so again.”

Saeed continues to cling on to the falsehood that Awlaki was a moderate when he praised his message of “nothing but peace” three years ago. He also references the National Geographic interview as proof of Awlaki’s moderateness, the citation of which is fast becoming the favoured get-out route for Islamists who want to justify their support of Awlaki.

Azad Ali is a civil servant in HM Treasury. He is the President of the Civil Service Islamic Society and sits on the council of Liberty. In January 2009, the Mail on Sunday reported Mr Ali’s extreme Islamist views in entries he had written on the IFE’s blog, ‘Between the Lines’ on which he has gushed about his “love” for the “Sheikh”, and then went on to justify Awlaki’s view that American Muslims who voted in elections were people who had “humiliated themselves by voting for candidates who have no serious concern for their issues”.

One of the directors of the MAB, Anas Altikriti, is now with the Cordoba Foundation which sponsored an event this summer in the Kensington and Chelsea Town Hall called ‘Beyond Guantanamo’ that was to feature an online video address by Awlaki.

Cage Prisoners (CP) is a successor organisation to Stop Political Terror, which also campaigns for Muslims who have been detained or imprisoned. They are also the most active supporters of Awlaki in the UK today. The CP website contains an extensive and friendly interview between Awlaki and Moazzam Begg, one of its directors and a former Guantanamo detainee. In August 2009, CP were the organisers of an event in the Kensington and Chelsea Town Hall in which guests were promised the treat of a live video link-up with Awlaki, who the CP regard as an “Inspirational Imam”. In the weeks before the event, CP were informed by the local council that their event could only go ahead if they cancelled the video address by Awlaki. CP complied with this, although they issued a statement on their site which refused to acknowledge Awlaki’s extremist nature.

The notion that Awlaki was previously a moderate imam whose public and personal journey to the extremes of violent Islamism happened relatively recently and long after British organisations endorsed and supported him is a false one. There are a host of organisations and individuals who operate within the Islamist landscape in this country who have, at one point or another, praised or defended Awlaki. I have listed only some of the British organisations which will have been aware of Awlaki’s views. Many of their leaders will have pored over every word and inflection he made in his articles and sermons. They will have been supporters of Awlaki’s rhetoric because of his message of violent Jihad and not in spite of it.

The US authorities are not the only ones who have been slow in responding to their own intelligence on Awlaki. British institutions have been equally lethargic, sometimes even supportive, in responding to organisations and individuals who have embraced and endorsed the ideology of Awlaki in their campaigns, seminars, public meetings and broadcasts. Whereas people who have pointed out the dangerous potential of Awlaki have been allowed to be defamed as Muslim-haters or self-loathing Muslim hypocrites.

Although the leadership of the Awlaki-supporting organisations cannot have mistaken him for a moderate, the same does not necessarily hold true for their rank and file. Ordinary Muslims, turning up at events at which Awlaki was promoted, may well have taken on trust the assertion that he is a religious authority with prodigious qualifications and a sincere and important message. It is these ordinary members who have been imperilled, by being exposed to jihadi theology in its purest form. They have been betrayed by their leadership.

The supporters of these organisations need to think long and hard about how their leadership came to champion Awlaki. We must also give serious consideration to the question on whether the leadership of these organisations should be trusted in the future.

Then AM abandoned their plan to march in central London and instead held a rally in Walthamstow. Predictably, the Express covered this protest and incendiary comments made at it by AM’s current leader Anjem Choudary (referred to by the article’s author, James Fielding as a “Sheikh” despite the fact that Anjem doesn’t even know basic Arabic) but omitted to mention any counter protests.

As covered here, British Muslims for Secular Democracy (BMSD) did turn up and organised a well-natured counter-protest against AM, bearing placards saying “Laugh at those who insult freedom/They are very silly people” and “Debate those who insult Islam/You might change a mind”. BMSD’s Shaaz Mahboob has today written a piece for Comment is Free looking back on a “A good day for democracy”, as he calls it. It is well worth a read.

Inayat Bunglawala has also written a piece for Comment is Free, but from a rather different perspective. He decided to call off the counter-protest his ‘Muslims4UK’ group were co-ordinating when AM announced they’d not be turning up. Revealingly, there are twelves mentions of “I” and “me” in this article but, like in the Express, none of the BMSD demo (even calling his article “The demo that wasn’t”.  What are we to think of Inayat Bunglawala on this matter, especially when put in the context of Shaaz Mahboob’s comments in his article?

Sadly, we were not joined by the Islamic Society of Britain and Inayat Bunglawala’s group, Muslims4UK, who called off their own counter-demonstration. Also, disappointingly, we discovered that Inayat Bunglawala had formally requested that the police set up a separate pen, so that they would not have to stand with pro-democracy and anti-sharia Muslim groups such as us. This sort of sectarianism is incredibly damaging, not only to Muslims, but Britain as a whole.

Inayat seems to be trying to claim credit for these counter protests despite the fact that, in his own article, it seems pretty obvious that others contacted the police at the same time as, or before, he was organising a protest.

The day after I handed in my official “notification to hold a procession” form to the police, they contacted me to say that a number of groups had registered to hold counter-protests against al-Muhajiroun.

If counter-demonstrations against AM are to be successful in grabbing press and public attention away from Anjem and co’s calculated craziness, those opposing them need to be united and organised, avoiding factionalism and one-upmanship. This Saturday Inayat let the side down. Hopefully, the next time AM organise a publicity stunt, he will behave better and help the cause, not divide it.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Progress Online carries details of a fringe meeting to be organised by the Quilliam Foundation at the Labour Party conference next month on ‘How should the Left engage with British Muslims’.

The speaker line up includes: Rt Hon John Denham MP, Secretary of State for Communities & Local Government; Ed Husain, Co-director, Quilliam Foundation; Martin Bright, Tahir Abbas, Birkbeck, University of London.

The choice of Martin Bright (pictured) is a very notable one. Martin Bright is, of course, an enthusiastic supporter of the Quilliam Foundation.

ENGAGE readers will be aware that Bright also happens to be the notorious author of the very ill-informed, highly offensive and deeply mischievous 2001 New Statesman cover story ‘The Great Koran Con Trick’. Bright’s arguments were openly ridiculed and debunked by the very scholars – including his own former SOAS tutor, Professor Gerald Hawting – whose work he drew upon to support his crude hatchet job on the Qur’an.

These is something particularly remarkable about Bungle’s attempted hatchet-job; he prioritises attacking the Quilliam Foundation over discussing the fact that this event is taking place at the Labour Party Conference and the Quilliam Foundation’s co-hosts are Progress – “Labour’s Progressives” as they like to call themselves.

Why does Bungle attack the Quilliam Foundation so vehemently for their role in organising an event with Martin Bright yet not bother to mention that it’s being held at the Labour Party Conference and Quilliam’s co-hosts are Progress, a Labour party organisation. Does he think that the governing Labour Party is less important in the lives of British Muslims than the Quilliam Foundation?

Most likely, Bungle found himself trying to reconcile a desperate desire not to undermine the MCB’s (for which he is spokesman) attempts to reestablish themselves in Westminster with the equally desperate desire to attack the Quilliam Foundation and the result is that he finds himself ranking the Quilliam Foundation as more important than the Labour Party. Not exactly the message one imagines he’s trying to propagate.

So, Inayat (and I know you read the Spittoon) would you care to explain why you are untroubled by Progress’s role in inviting Martin Bright, why you are untroubled that John Denham will happily share a platform with him and that the Labour Party will provide that platform – and why you have chosen to spend your time attacking a thinktank instead? And also, why – when we all know that it’s you running iEngage – do you try to keep your name away from it? I write anonymously because I like to keep my blogging life separate from my working and personal lives – but what’s anonymity got for you?

She wrote,

Last weekend the BNP’s annual shindig ‘Red, White and Blue’ took place in a small town in Derbyshire. Reports said that the number of attendees was only marginally more than the number of anti-fascist protesters who congregated outside the gate. Unfortunately, these anti-BNP protesters soon became violent – leading to a total of 19 protesters being arrested. Although it is good to see ordinary people protesting against the BNP, such protests become ineffective when they descend into thuggery and hooliganism. Just a week earlier, for example, violent clashes erupted between the English Defence League and Unite Against Fascism in Birmingham, leading to bottles, sticks and banners thrown, and brought police in riot gear onto the streets.

Bob, however, wilfully distorts Lucy’s words by cutting off that final sentence.

“Unfortunately, these anti-BNP protesters soon became violent – leading to a total of 19 protesters being arrested. Although it is good to see ordinary people protesting against the BNP, such protests become ineffective when they descend into thuggery and hooliganism.”

Lucy James, research fellow at the Quilliam Foundation, writes at Progress Online, 18 August 2009

No other account has alleged “thuggery and hooliganism” on the part of anti-BNP protestors at Codnor, so far as I’m aware. The worst that was reported was “minor scuffles” as some demonstrators tried to push through police lines.

Lucy did not allege the existence of “thuggery and hooliganism” at the Derbyshire protests, she was alleging its existence at the Birmingham protests. “Thuggery and hooliganism” was documented there by a multitude of sources so this crude attempt to discredit Quilliam (Bob concludes his article saying “How much lower can the creeps at Quilliam sink?”) completely fails to convince. Not least because even anti-fascist magazine Searchlight shares Lucy’s concerns.

[W]e also have to change our tactics on the streets. The hammer attack on a BNP activist in Leigh, Greater Manchester, in March was an unmitigated disaster. When we learnt about the BNP’s intention to hold a fundraising event in a local nightclub we got almost 5,000 people, including 400 from the local area, to sign an open letter from a local vicar calling for the event to be cancelled. Our pressure proved successful but what should have been a great media story, showing the strength of people power against the BNP, became three days of appallingly negative local headlines after an anti-fascist struck a BNP member in the head with a hammer. [...]

There is also a need for an honest debate about the use of rallies, marches and pickets. While one could argue that it is important continually to oppose the BNP gaining any legitimacy, such protests are increasingly ineffective and, probably more importantly, a distraction from the real work required in the communities.

But Bob is not concerned with the finer points of anti-fascist tactics; he just wants to attack Lucy and her employers, Quilliam. If he were genuinely concerned with beating the BNP then he would’ve mentioned what makes up the majority of Lucy’s article, discussion of her new paper dismantling the BNP’s attacks on Islam.

Violence is not the answer to countering the BNP. The BNP is best opposed through a systematic deconstruction of their slurs against ethnic and religious minorities. In a paper entitled In Defence of British Muslims: A response to BNP racist propaganda [pdf], I aimed to do just that. Since about 2006, particularly post-7/7, the BNP has consciously changed their rhetoric from being anti-Asian, -Black and -Jewish, to being ardently anti-Muslim. Released last week, the paper takes 10 of the key accusations thrown against Islam and British Muslims by the BNP, and points out their intellectual inconsistencies and factual weaknesses. Rather than simply dismissing the BNP’s ideology as racist or bigoted (an approach which the BNP’s steady popularity proves is not working), there needs to be a greater focus on intellectually undermining and countering their arguments.

Which would’ve been the end of the affair, but then Inayat Bunglawala jumped into the ring. Crediting Islamophobia Watch with first pointing this issue out, Bungle’s iEngage today also published an article under the title Quilliam accuses anti-BNP protestors of ‘thuggery and hooliganism’.

The way to challenge the BNP’s anti Muslim racism is certainly through a sustained, fact based critique of its wildly false ideas on Islam and Muslims and its exaggerated anti Muslim scaremongering, as Lucy James claims. But that would require an interest in accuracy and facts, something QF’s James appears to have lost sight of in her portrayal of anti fascist demonstrators in Codnor.

Laughably, Bungle seems completely unaware of Lucy’s “sustained, fact based critique” of the BNP and instead reiterates Bob’s flaky arguments which were based on a misunderstanding (and misquoting) of what Lucy wrote.

Bob and Bungle, what a pair. So desperate to attack Quilliam that they can’t even be bothered to read to the end of Lucy’s 614 word article. If they had bothered to do so then they would’ve realised that, far from slandering the name of anti-fascist protesters, she has put together a devastating attack on the BNP. She deserves applause, not condemnation.

Quite apart from this making no sense at all (How does he know what the silent majority are saying if they are silent?), it is a portentous claim. If the MCB know what all Muslims are thinking then, as discussed yesterday, it makes sense for the government to treat them as gatekeepers to British Muslims. Bunglawala clearly knows better than British Muslims themselves, only six percent of whom actually believe the MCB represents them.

To further bolster the MCB’s pretensions to represent British Muslims, Bunglawala stated that the MCB now has over 550 affiliated mosques, organisations and the like. This is another interesting claim and, fortunately for us, an easily verifiable one – the MCB has published a list of affiliates on its website.

I copied all of the organisations on the MCB’s list into a spreadsheet and, far from the “over 550” affiliates of which Inayat boasted, my list totalled 457.

And then something else struck me, I should do a little rough mathematics. There were quite a few duplicates on the list and, although some of them are probably innocent slips, there does appear to be a concerted effort to beef up the numbers. For several different organisations not only is the national organisation named as an affiliate but also the regional and local groups. For example, there are 12 different varieties of Islamic Forum Europe on the list, 16 of the Islamic Society of Britain, eight Jamiat Ahl-e-Hadith and no fewer than 35 different varieties of UK Islamic Mission.

Then there are some rather bizarre affiliates like ‘Muslim Directory’ and ‘Trends Magazine’ – how exactly can a directory of services and a magazine claim to be organisations? And Islam Expo (which appears twice, once purely as Islam Expo and once as Islam Expo Ltd) is an exhibition. In what sense is a four day Islamist extravaganza an affiliated organisation? And another one I found, ‘Save Chechnya Campaign’ seems very unlikely to still be active. This leads to the suspicion that several of the other organisations on the list may no longer be active but, unless somebody is prepared to spend hours seeking out Companies House records for each name on the list, the MCB will have to get the benefit of the doubt.

So, from my master list of 457 organisations I produced some sub-lists. Firstly, duplicates (111); then organisations which were not actually organisations, like Islam Expo and the Muslim Directory (8); then mosques (69) and schools (17). And finally, actual bona fide organisations (just 254). On the radio this morning, Inayat Bunglawala boasted that the MCB had started with 150 affiliated mosques and organisations, a number which had grown to over 550. My rough and ready analysis suggests that the MCB really only has about 340 affiliates – of which just 254 are actually organisations in the normal sense of the term (rather than a building) and several of those are probably one-man-bands. If you take a look in the (MCB-affiliated) ‘Muslim Directory’ you will find thousands and thousands of mosques, Islamic centres, organisations and the like, only a tiny (generally Islamist) fraction of which want to have anything to do with the MCB. So much for being representative.

Yet another reason for the government to disregard the MCB’s arrogant claim to be the voice of British Muslims.

This is a statement I personally was quite troubled by when I first read it, but then Bunglawala’s ramblings quickly demonstrated that Mahboob has a point – at least in the case of the Black Knight himself.

The condemnation of the Luton protestors had everything to do with their being unrepresentative of British Muslim opinion and nothing to do with fearing a public backlash. British Muslims are long accustomed to the views of the fringe minority being exaggerated out of all proportion and erroneously treated as ‘majority opinion’. To suggest that denouncing the protestors was some ruse to deflect criticism by the British public is patently wrong.

In trying to contradict Mahboob’s point all Bunglawala achieves is to reveal himself as one of the group Mahboob describes: a British Muslim who condemned the Luton protests not out of “love and respect for the British soldiers” but out of concern for what the protests would mean for British Muslims. This is even clearer in the iEngage article Bunglawala links to above.

It is a discredit to all those that opposed the invasion of Iraq to see individuals seeking to use the war in Iraq to deliberately polarise relations between communities in the UK.

Images such as these are a gift to the many Islamophobes in our newspapers and broadcast media. Have a look at these stories that have already been published and the readers’ comments they have elicited. Even the BBC’s George Alagiah referred to the hooligans as ‘Islamist protestors’ during the BBC1 6 o’Clock News.

While the tiny group of protestors might feel they have scored a small victory with the amount of news coverage they have generated, the wider consequences of their incendiary and irresponsible actions will unfortunately be felt by much greater numbers of ordinary innocent Muslims. [emphasis added]

No mention of love or respect for British soldiers; not even any concern shown about the al-Macaroon protests being “unrepresentative of British Muslim opinion”. No. All Bunglawala provides is a perfect demonstration of Mahboob’s point; Bunglawala condemned the Luton protests because he was concerned that “the wider consequences of their incendiary and irresponsible actions [would] unfortunately be felt by much greater numbers of ordinary innocent Muslims”.

Bunglawala shows no concern for how British soldiers (and their families) might feel so his attempts to discredit Mahboob’s case only end up strengthening it.  Yet more risible stuff from British Islamism’s Black Knight.

His Saudi-backed iEngage slime machine is accusing Ghaffar Hussain, of the Quilliam Foundation, of wanting to ban the burqa. Unfortunately for Bungle, this is not true. Have a look at Quilliam’s website – it’s very clear – “Quilliam Opposes Burkha Ban.” Poor Inayat, he’s bungled it all up. It’s easy to understand why – early versions of the Express story misquoted Mr Hussain, an error which they have now corrected.

Ghaffar Hussain, of the anti-extremist think-tank Quilliam, said that while not in favour of an outright ban, there was nothing on religious grounds that justified women having to wear burkhas.

The think tank said that people should be allowed to wear what they wanted.

Bungle really is running the gauntlet here. If he doesn’t correct the story as the Express has then he’ll risk being sued, and these kinds of legalities are rather close to Bungle’s heart. Yet more evidence of the depths to which Quilliam’s opponents will sink. If you can’t be bothered to counter your opponent’s arguments and instead resort to this kind of “tactic” then it’s fairly obvious who’s won.

**************
UPDATE:
iEngage have somewhat unbungled themselves by correcting their story – even if they have some strange usage of scare quotes.

Ghaffar Hussain of the QF argues that “wearing a burkha does limit a woman, restricting her in the jobs she can do” although a later ‘correction’ on the Express website sought to clarify that QF were opposed to an outright ban.

It’s something though.

The already microscopically minuscule credibility of the Quilliam Foundation has suffered yet another hugely embarrassing setback with the publication of a new report from the Redbridge Faith Forum.

The report produced by Redbridge Faith Forum (RFF) for Redbridge Safer Communities Partnership (RSCP), entitled, “Conversations with Muslim Community leaders in Redbridge about the Preventing Violent Extremism (PVE) Agenda”, finds that contrary to the views articulated by the anti-Muslim brigade at Harry’s Place, the QF has no following whatsoever among British Muslims.

According to the RFF report:

‘…negative view[s] towards the Quilliam Foundation [were] held almost universally by all participants and corroborated by attending meetings including Understanding Redbridge Communities (URC) meeting.’

Although Quilliam claim to have no aspirations to being a representative body and gaining mass support, this would still seem to be quite a damning indictment. If they really have “no following whatsoever among British Muslims” then it would appear that their work over the last year and a bit has achieved very little; at least this is the point Bungles wants to make.

Unfortunately for him, the evidence does not support his assertions. He claims the report shows no British Muslim support for Quilliam – but have a look at page six.

Limitations of the study
We were only able to interview 9 Muslim leaders

Given that part of Quilliam’s thesis is that dealing with self-appointed “Muslim leaders”, far from being the solution to the problem of Islamist extremism in the UK, actually contributes to it, it’s not so surprising that these nine “Muslim leaders” are not Quilliam fans.

He also gets a pop in at the Sufi Muslim Council and cites very approvingly one respondent’s views on Bunglawala’s own Muslim Council of Britain.

The Quilliam Foundation is not the only organisation criticised by participants for being out of touch with British Muslims:

“Representative grassroots organisations should be at the forefront of all this (consultative work with the government). The MCB (Muslim Council of Britain) were isolated by the government and the Sufi Council was promoted in their place. But people don’t accept the Sufi Council. The MCB should be representing Muslims nationally. We accept MCB at our Mosque. MCB say Holocaust Day should be for everybody and renamed the International Genocide Day and was disliked for saying this. The MCB does not go against the grain of the community. We work to consensus.”

The identification of many Muslims with the MCB is strongly evinced in the views of respondents. For example:

“As Muslim community leaders, we have to be realistic. We can’t deny true feelings of Muslim community. There has to be a responsibility from central government. Their policy has an impact on the inhabitants. The MP follows the whip’s line. This is dangerous and causes resentment. People will be disenfranchised.”

Bunglawala omits to mention one crucial detail (p14).

[This] was the only specifically mentioned support for the MCB amongst the interview participants

Whoops.

The flakiness of Bunglawala’s argument is extraordinary. Only he could consider nine one-hour long interviews with anonymous “Muslim leaders” representative of all British Muslims, especially when the report itself makes clear that it should not be taken as representative of Redbridge’s Muslims (pp6-7), let alone all the other Muslims in this country.

The views contained in this report do not represent the views of Redbridge Faith Forum, nor the views of the Muslim Community as a whole in Redbridge, but are accurately based on the interviews that were carried out during February and March 2009.

How contemptuous Bungles must be of Britain’s two million Muslims (and how desperate he must be to discredit Quilliam) to draw such wide conclusions from such a limited report, especially against its author’s explicit guidance. And his attempt to bolster the MCB’s exceedingly precarious position through quoting a single unnamed individual smacks of desperation. Risible stuff.

SHIKWA ADDS:

Bunglawala also failed to mention that his wife, Tahmina Saleem, works for Redbridge Council – the very people who conducted this report which her husband then used to attack his enemies. She describes herself as:

the Secretary of Redbridge Forum against Extremism and Islamophobia and currently works with Redbridge Council as a consultant Preventing Violent Extremism (PVE) Project Manager.

I wonder if Redbridge council know what this husband and wife duo are up to?

Specifically, this is about HT’s use of the expenses scandal to underline the endemic “corruption, exploitation and treachery” at the heart of the democratic system and therefore the west. And naturally, for the Hizbis, any abuse of our political system is another nail in the coffin of democracy and only serves to demonstrate that the Khilafa, the Islamic Caliphate, must be the only viable and corruption-free alternative.

Bunglawala trashes this false dichotomy neatly:

Compare the handling of the expenses scandal with another one – this time a scandal which occurred in the Ottoman empire, at the height of its power and influence. In the year 1595, Mehmet III (or Muhammad III) succeeded his father Murad III to become the new sultan. To cement his authority he ordered the assassination of 19 of his brothers and 20 of his sisters. A few years later, when he sensed that his own son Mahmud was becoming a threat to his own power, he had him strangled to death too. How did the Ottoman caliphate hold Mehmet III to account for this terrible and horrific instance of fratricide? It did not.

One could argue that that was all a long time ago and that HT’s conception of an Islamic state would not allow such a crime to occur, but I am not so convinced. It is no coincidence in my view that today’s self-professed Islamic states, including Iran, Saudi Arabia and Sudan, are also home to some very unsavoury regimes with far too much power being concentrated in their governments.

…

The better response to the expenses scandal is surely not to withdraw from participation in disgust, but to work with other like-minded people to set up appropriate safeguards and help make our democratic system more transparent and accountable to us.

This is all very promising.

I really hope this means Inayat’s new-found respect for the democratic system and the need to ensure that institutions are “transparent and accountable to us” will extend to that most undemocratic institution of unelected representation, the Muslim Council of Britain.