****

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.

****

The head of the Civil Service Islamic Society, Azad Ali, has today sought to clarify his long-standing support for Anwar Awlaki, the pro-jihadi preacher who apparently inspired, and possibly orchestrated, the recent Fort Hood shootings in the US.

The Times has quoted Ali as saying of Awlaki’s views: “I reject them and disassociate myself from them completely”. The Islamic Forum Europe’s website additionally reports that Ali additionally said that:

My article talking about Mr Awlaki was specifically referring to his lectures on Companions of the Prophet and other similar lectures. I am not aware of his comments regarding Major Nidal Hasan other than the text you sent below. If these comments are indeed Mr Awlaki’s then I reject them and disassociate myself from them completely.

One could argue that Azad Ali’s latest statements have not been entirely true – as they given the impression that he only ever supported Awlaki’s earlier talks.

Five months prior to Azad Ali’s notorious November 2008 blog entries which described Awlaki as “one of my favourite speakers” and which empathised with “his frustration at the constant denial of legitimate Islamic principles” such as violent jihad, Azad Ali made other controversial comments on the blog of his ‘Easy Talk’ radio programme which have so far not been reported.

These were made by Azad Ali specifically in response to an Awlaki lecture given in May 2008 which was entitled ‘The battle of the hearts and minds’. This lecture contained a fine cross-section of Awlaki’s more repugnant beliefs. Although the original link on the Easy Talk forum is now dead, the talk is also available on Youtube.

At one point, for instance, Awlaki attacked Cheryl Bernard, a Rand Corporation analyst, for being Jewish:

In this report, titled ‘Civil, democratic Islam’, and it’s by Cheryl Bernard – she’s a Jew, married to a murtad [apostate] – it can’t get any worse – her husband is Zalmay Khalilzad, the murtad if he ever was a Muslim who held some very high posts, as you know, in the US administration.
[00:45, part 2]

Soon afterwards, Awlaki described democracy as “not Islamic”:

Democracy isn’t Islamic. Democracy is a system and Islam has brought us a completely different system. And if you, in reality, believe in the system of the Islamic state and Shurah [lit. consultation], then say Shurah. Call it what it is. Don’t call it democracy.
[03.50, part 2]

Awlaki also rails against the Rand definitions of extremism which seek to categorise as ‘extremists’ those who reject religious freedom and equal rights:

And then the questionnaire carries on. “Does it believe that members of religious minorities should be entitled to the same rights as Muslims? Does it believe that a member of a religious minority could hold high political office in a Muslim-majority country?” And we answer, “no” to that question They cannot hold high office.

Awlaki then quotes verses from the Quran and says this ayah does not allow us to take al-yehud [Jews] and an-nasara [Christians] as bitana, advisors, or to put them in high office.
[02:50, part 3]

He then continues his rant, saying that Muslims should reject all pre-Islamic civilisations (he specifically cites the Ancient Egyptians, Mesopotamian civilisations and the Ancient Greeks and Romans):

We should not have any pride in our pre-Islamic history, it is all jahiliyah [state of ignorance of Islam], and it shouldn’t even be called a civilisation because it’s not: it is the path to jahanam [hell]. It is zulumat, darkness upon darkness,
[07:45, part 3]

Inevitably Awlaki gets more and more stirred up as his talking continues, saying that he cannot understand why jihadists in Iraq and elsewhere are described as cowards:

And the American heroic soldiers, fighting from the comfort of their armoured Bradleys and Strykers, but nevertheless boiling inside layers of bullet-proof gear in the boiling heat of the Iraqi summer are courageous while the Iraqi mujahideen armed with nothing but the light weapons of guerrilla warfare are cowards. And what I really fail to understand is how can the martyr, the shaheed, who willingly and happily hands over his soul to Allah, who walks towards  his fate with pleasure and faces death with a smile – what I fail to understand is how can you call such a person a coward? But that is what they have been called and that is what the parents in the Muslim world have been repeating – that these people are cowards.
[05:50, part 4]

He later refers to Al-Qaeda’s ‘Islamic State of Iraq’ as a “monumental event” which is struggling against “the immense conspiracy [that is] against the rise of any Islamic state”.
[03:00 onwards, part 6]

He then says:

[W]hether it succeeds or not, it represents a move of the idea from the theoretical realm to the real world, the idea of establishing the Islamic rule and establishing Khilafah on earth now is not any more talk, it is action … [Al-Qaeda] possess a project of an Islamic state followed by the return to this system of Khilafah. Brothers and sisters we are inching forward to the final stage of the hadith of al-rasool [Mohammed] … ‘finally it will be Khilafah, on the path of prophethood’.
[04:40 onwards, part 6]

So what does Azad Ali, head of the Civil Service Islamic Society, have to say about Awlaki’s anti-Semitism, his support for the Iraqi ‘mujahideen’, his support for al-Qaeda’s vision of an expansionist Caliphate and his advocacy of violent, intolerant Islamism as outlined in this talk?

In response to Awlaki’s above lecture, ‘The battle of the hearts and minds’, Azad wrote:

Mashallah good presentation. Much of it is known very extensively but he has a way of presenting things that makes it clear! Some of it I hope people don’t take out of context and the generality that they are meant in specifically the last 5 minutes.

None of Awlaki’s above quotes were taken from the last five minutes of Awlaki’s talk. There is also no obvious way that any of these quotes (for example, “she’s a Jew, married to a murtad – it can’t get any worse”, “democracy is not Islamic”) can conceivably be justified by their context. How on earth can any sane person regard this as a ‘good presentation’?

Gus O’Donnell, the head of the Civil Service and a prominent defender of Azad Ali, should immediately sack Azad Ali from his job at the Treasury and from his position as head of the Civil Service Islamic Society. Individuals who support pro-al-Qaeda anti-Semites like Anwar Awlaki should have no place in the British civil service.

NB: Since my last post about the Easy Talk blog, the website’s administrators have sought to hide the website’s embarrassing contents. Fortunately, this webpage is still available here. And the Spittoon has saved screenshots anyway.

****

Last week, a blogger on the website of Islamic Forum Europe, a Jamaat-e-Islami front organisation based in East London, weighed into the debate about the ethics of assisted suicide. Unfortunately the writer, one Nahid Mortuza, only showed succeeded in showing themselves hopelessly confused about what secularism is. Mortuza wrote:

“The news of Sir Edward Downes’ and his wife’s decision to end their lives at an assisted suicide clinic in Switzerland has once more brought forward a discussion on whether an individual should have the freedom and right to die at a time of their choosing, with assistance from others. Although I disagree with the notion, I understand the basis of the argument that the right to die should be as fundamental as the right to live.

“This argument is usually put forward within a completely secular logic with no concept of a Giver/Taker of life, and no belief in an afterlife – where people are rewarded or punished, forgiven or chastised, elevated or debased according to the trials, tribulations and actions in this life. Theology aside, even those with their secular hats on have to admit that it’s difficult to see beyond the problems any change in the current law would cause.”

It looks to me as if Nahid Mortuza has confused secularism (the separation of religion from politics) with atheism (disbelief in God). Mortuza clearly seems to think that a secular person is one with “ no concept of a Giver/Taker of life, and no belief in an afterlife” and to imply that “those with their secular hats on” are likely have difficulties comprehending any difficulties in the practice of “assisted suicide”.

It is possible that Mortuza genuinely does not understand the difference between atheism and secularism. Alternatively, however, it is possible that Nahid Mortuza does understand the difference but has deliberately conflated and confused the two in order to pursue Jamaat-e-Islami’s goal of persuading Muslims that it is impossible to be a practicing both Muslim and to be secular (i.e. to believe in the separation of religion and state).

Such deliberate deception, if that is what it is, would be yet more evidence of the desperation of Jamaat-e-Islami and its front groups.

British Islamists are aware that more and more Muslims are now saying that Islam is not a political ideology but rather a religion that is best lived through a secular public space. They also know that increasing numbers of Muslims are now also increasingly thinking that the sharia is simply a guide to Islamic behaviour and not a manual for persecuting others – and that ‘forbidding wrong and encouraging right’ is better done through writing newspaper columns than through Saudi-style ministries staffed by ill-educated thugs.

If Jamaat-e-Islam think it is necessary to start lying about secularism, this is a sign that they know that they’re in trouble. This is something that we should all celebrate.

The ways the government can eradicate extremism is by acknowledging that their foreign policy and their draconian laws against Muslims play an immense part in radicalising Muslims. They need to work with mainstream Muslim organisations such as MCB, IFE, MAB etc. These organisations are working at the grassroots level and have the support of many Muslims. They need to be provided more resources and room to carry out their work. They also need to allow the existing mainstream Imams in Britain to do their job effectively by providing them resources and platforms to preach a balanced Islam.

Hasan’s views are not particulalry novel or unique or even mildly groundbreaking. His statement is important, however, because Hasan is himself a textbook Islamist and here he is articulating an Islamist’s view of the political lay of the land. His explanation of how “extremism” can be eliminated, if deconstructed, amounts to:

1) Islamist extremism is caused by the government’s foreign and domestic policies and laws directed at Muslims both here and abroad.
2) This extremism can be eradicated by upgrading radical extremist organisations from their current level of minority status to bear on government policy making on civil society.

Of the first of these, there is no doubt that a sense of grievance and victimisation is widespread amongst Muslims, coupled with a belief that consecutive governments, particularly the Labour party, at best no longer cares about them and at worst conspires against them. Islamists will be the first and the loudest to play on this sense of grievance with little or no nuance about the actualities of their motivations other than to claim they represent mainstream Muslim views. Many Muslims buy into the illusion that Islamists share their language and, worse, speak on their behalf.

But the question that must be asked is, ‘Will radical Muslim extremists suddenly abandon their ideology of religious supremacism and communal exceptionalism if the British government were to align foreign policy to their way of thinking’? Doubtful.

A useful analogy can be drawn here with the BNP. For BNP voters, immigration remains the dominant issue of failed government policy. They too feel a deep-rooted sense of victimisation and abandonment by the government, coupled with feelings of economic insecurity. However, there is no getting away from the fact that their alienation from mainstream politics is nurtured by shocking levels of racism and white supremacism. A new survey into the attitudes of BNP voters showed that 31% of them believed there was a difference in intelligence between the average black Briton and the average white Briton. Only 4% of BNP voters believed that recent immigration had benefited the country. And most startling of all, 44% (compared to 12% of all voters) disagreed with the statement: “non-white British citizens who were born in this country are just as ‘British’ as white citizens born in this country”. The BNP now have two elected members in the European Parliament.

This being the case, does that mean that the BNP should hold the government to ransom over it’s extremist views on immigration policy? Would it be a justfiable strategy for tackling the BNP for the government to shut down immigration to zero levels and begin a program of repatriation of Blacks and Asians?

Likewise when Islamists, like Abdullah Hasan, claims that Islamic extremism will diminish if British foreign policy is changed to suit their views is fallacious nonsense.

On the second of Hasan’s agenda points of the need for “acknowledgement” of certain Islamist organisations and their representative-ness of mainstream and grassroots Muslim viewpoints, nothing could be further from the truth. Specifically he suggests the Muslim Council of Britain (MCB), the Islamic Fourm Europe (IFE) and the Muslim Association of Britain (MAB). Why these particular organisation and what do they represent exactly?

The MCB, once the darling of the British political establishment, set up under the aegis of the Conservatives and funded by consecutive governments, fell from grace after Daud Abdullah, in a bout of group-hysteria and radical ennui, unwisely signed-up to the pro-Hamas and anti-British document known as the Istanbul Declaration. Coupled with the advent of the directive of PVE funding, developed by its own network of mosque committees, the government now has multiple agencies and departments it uses to interface with Muslim communities at grassroots level, making the MCB appear for what it is: a redundant relic from a bygone age of Muslim policy making. The irony is that if it were not for the government-funded structure known as MINAB, architected by the dearly departed Hazel Blears, whom Islamists revile, the MCB wouldn’t have a credible leg to stand on.

The IFE are a front for the Southasian clerical fascist organisation of Jamaati Islami. Currently jostling for community representation in Tower Hamlets, they are a very nasty little group of entryists. The IFE and its affiliates, the East London Mosque and the London Muslim Centre (LMC) shares the ideology of the Jamaat. The mosque is no fringe organisation; it was at the centre of the campaign that helped elect the local Respect party candidate, George Galloway, in the 2005 general election.

The MAB was set up in 1997 by Kemal al-Helbawy who was then the London-based spokesman for the Muslim Brotherhood thus making the MAB directly linked to the Islamist tradition of the Muslim Brotherhood founded in 1928 by Hassan al-Banna. Today the Brotherhood claims more than 70 affiliations with branches in Jordan, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Sudan etc. Yusuf al-Qaradawi is the spiritual leader of the Muslim Brotherhood and is presented as a “moderate” scholar but has supported the religious necessity of putting homosexuals to death. They are still affiliated to the Jamaati-Islami. However, they distance themselves from al-Muhajiroon and Hizb-ut-Tahrir not because they are particuarly less radical than these amateur nutters, just much more politically canny. The MAB are religious supremacists who endorse the notion of the ideal Muslim society and state based on what they consider to be true Islamic culture, true Islamic philosophy and true Islamic custom.

Anas Altikriti replying in The Times (17 August 2004) to allegations that MAB is linked to the Muslim Brotherhood replied:

“MAB is an independent British organisation. Links with others extend simply to shared ideas, values and expertise, in which the Brotherhood is indeed rich, with around eight decades of experience”.

In short, the MAB is blessed by Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi and contexualised by the PR skills of  Anas Altikriti.

None of these organisations are either “mainstream” or representative of British Muslims any more than the BNP is representative of the white population of Britain. And nor should they ever be no matter how much they claim to be.

If the BNP were to say:

“In order to reduce racial attacks of Muslims and Jews and the fire-bombing of mosques and synagogues, the government needs to work with mainstream British organisations such as the BNP, the National Socialist Movement, Combat 18 and the White Nationalist Party. These organisations are working at the grassroots level and have the support of many Britons.”

We would know that for the blatant and dangerous lie that it is. It should not be any different when radical Muslims claim the mainstream respectability they crave for Islamist organisations.

I discussed Azad Ali’s pro-jihadi views which were published in an article called “Defeating extremism by promoting balance”. In that blog entry, Ali promoted the ideologies of two violent-jihadi extremists, Abdullah Azzam and Anwar al-Awlaki. Ali’s thesis is very simple: Terrorism is not jihad. However, fighting British troops where they are occupying ‘Muslims lands’ such as Iraq and Afghanistan represents a proper and “balanced” form of justice and therefore a justified execution of the jihad doctrine.

This was glorification of  jihad, pure and simple. The fact that his article (which is still up by the way) enjoined Muslims to fight British troops on a blog hosted by the IFE, a Jamaati Islami front organisation, while in the capacity of a British civil servant raised enough alarm bells within government to the point where he was suspended. Let’s not forget Azad Ali has huge influence in radicalised muslim circles within the Bangladeshi community in the East End.

At the time, Azad Ali’s other capacities were consultative roles with the Metropolitan Police on the strength of his involvement with organisations such as the Muslim Safety Forum.

He was also a senior member of the Civil Service Islamic Society who remained silent on the matter of his suspension.

Of course, being “back at work” is not the same as having your name cleared of expounding dangerous jihadi, anti-semitic and anti-state views. It could simply mean the period of suspension is over.

The fact that an individual with his views is still allowed to work for government is disasppointing. If there was a situation whereby a BNP thug held a job in HM Treasury, whilst blogging on the BNP site about the efficacy of compulsory deportation and the use of violence against racial minorities, I wonder whether the protaganist would have recieved a more serious form of punishment than a mere suspension.

We await to see if Azad is reinstated in his previous roles in the Civil Service Islamic Society and the Muslim Safety Forum.

We also look forward to more pearls of muddle-headed Islamist wisdom in his capacity as a blogger for the Islamic Forum Europe.

An article in the Sunday Express yesterday, by Ted Jeory, details the extent to which the Labour party in Tower Hamlets is infiltrated by members of the Saudi-backed hardline Islamist group, the Islamic Forum Europe (IFE):

The growing influence of the East London Mosque, whose education wing was built with Saudi money, on the Labour party is causing concern in Downing Street.

Gordon Brown, Justice Secretary Jack Straw and new Communities Secretary John Denham have been briefed on Islamic groups based there.

Party officials have held crisis talks about one group in particular, the Islamic Forum of Europe.

Senior party members fear it has infiltrated Labour and exerts too much power over MPs and councillors in areas with large Muslim populations.

Politicians fear that IFE can persuade imams to direct bloc votes at elections.

Labour insiders are particularly concerned about events in Tower Hamlets in east London, a £1billion authority that is home to parts of the City, Canary Wharf and the Olympics.

Ten days ago, Labour council leader Lutfur Rahman sparked outrage after asking the authority’s highly respected chief executive, Martin Smith, to go on leave because he had lost confidence in him.

His move came just days after he, three other councillors and an IFE official returned from a privately funded delegation to Saudi Arabia.

It is understood that they went to be blessed by Sheikh Adil al-Kalbani, a controversial and high-ranking imam in Mecca who said recently that Jews and Christians should only be allowed to live in the Arabian Peninsular “if their presence is essential”.

Cllr Rahman also held talks with Sheikh al-Kalbani in Tower Hamlets last October.

The East London Mosque is currently on an international fundraising drive to finance a large extension that would house new teaching facilities.

Mr Smith is understood to have had concerns about a request by the mosque to buy the council’s share in its freehold.

A spokesman for the IFE denied deliberate “infiltration” of political parties saying its supporters were free to follow any party they liked.

“We support the work of anyone who progresses the work of Islam,” he added.

A spokesman for the London Labour party conceded there were concerns about latest developments.

He said: “We’re keeping a close eye on things. The local party is in special measures because of concerns with membership. It means the regional director of the party will be managing the selection process for candidates for next year’s elections. We want to ensure candidates have the best intentions for the party.”

The Express report raises some questions that need to be urgently addressed by the London Labour party:
1) Why was Martin Smith suspended by Cllr Lutfor Rahman?
2) What was discussed by Cllr Lutfor Rahman and Sheikh Adil al-Kalbani when the latter visited Tower Hamlets in October?
3) Who are the three other councillors and the “IFE official” who travelled to Saudi Arabia to meet Sheikh Adil al-Kalbani?
4) In what official capacity did they travel to Saudi Arabia?

A clue towards an answer to the first question about the suspension of chief executive Martin Smith is found in an article from last year, also by Ted Jeory, in the East London Advertiser. It shows how Lutfor Rahman has been trying to oust Martin Smith and replace him with his crony Lutfor Rahman Ali since at least last year, despite doubts about Ali’s qualifications and credibility.

Opposition politicians on the council believe Lutfur Rahman is trying to oust Martin Smith to make way for assistant chief executive Lutfur Rahman Ali (aka Lutfur Ali, and no relation to the above).
Ali was controversially appointed to the £125,000 a year post last year. Headhunters apparently thought him a marginal candidate at best, but Lutfur Rahman backed him and his name was added to the shortlist.
Despite doubts over his suitability and questions over his CV, the seven-strong appointments sub-committee chose him for the job, in a narrow 4-3 decision. The four councillors who voted for him were fellow Bengalis and East London Mosque bigwigs Lutfur Rahman, his deputy Siraj Islam, Ohid Ahmed and local Respect leader Abjol Miah.

Imam al-Kalbani is the first black imam of the Grand Mosque in Mecca and also happens to be a sectarian hate-preacher and a racist. He spoke at the Global Peace and Unity event last year. As far as his “peace and unity” credentials are concerned, al-Kalbani regards the Shi’ite sect as heretical and Shi’a imams as apostates. Last month, 600 Saudi clerics called for Imam al-Kalbani to be prosecuted for inciting hatred against the Shi’a. His racist statements concerning Jewish inhabitants of Saudi Arabia are captured here.

The Prophet’s guidance, by which we act, dictates: “Drive the Jews and the Christians out of the Arabian Peninsula.” Driving them out is undoubtedly the prerogative of the ruler, but they should be allowed to live here only if their presence is essential.

Cllr Abjol Miah is the George Galloway understudy for the disgraced Respect Party in Tower Hamlets.

Cllr Lutfor Rahman is backed by Islamic Forum Europe (IFE), an Islamist group run out of the London Muslim Centre/East London Mosque. The IFE has strong links to Jamaat-e-Islami – a clerical-fascist party which operates with only marginal support in Bangladesh but which is disproportionately over-represented in Tower Hamlets Council.