Last Friday, the Charity Commission announced the creation of a new Faith and Social Cohesion Unit to lead its work with faith-based charities.
In the first instance, it announced, the new unit will focus on Muslim charities and communities. Directing its work will be a newly created Project Board the members of which, we were told, will include representatives from MINAB, the Mosques and Imams Advisory Board.
Thus, the public watchdog supposed to ensure registered charities engage only in benign charitable activity, and neither political lobbying nor anything more nefarious, has appointed as its advisor on Muslim matters representatives from the Muslim Council of Britain and the Muslim Association of Britain, two of the four Muslim organisations currently on MINAB.
As was pointed out in a posting on the CSC blog at the end of last month, MAB is practically the British arm of the Muslim Brotherhood and the MCB is also equally suspect in terms of its leadership and policies.
The current leader of the MCB is Dr Muhammad Abdul Bari. Last week he dismissed as scare-mongering the Policy Exchange report ‘The hijacking of British Islam’ which revealed how widespread and easily available extremist literature is at British mosques, including Dr Bari’s own East London mosque of which he is the chairman, and the Finsbury Park mosque which is under the control of the leadership of the MAB.
Dr Bari said of the Policy Exchange report:
"The plain fact is that if you deliberately go looking for controversial material you will be guaranteed to find it somewhere in a bookshop. Muslim bookshops [attached to mosques] are no exception…. I would urge everyone to guard against the shrill hysteria generated by divisive organisations such as the Policy Exchange who provide succour to the far right."
I would like to suggest to Dr Bari that it is organisations like his own that provide succour to the far right by pursuing a belligerent agenda that aims to prevent full Muslim integration in Britain.
As for the Charity Commission, I find it amazing that another body supposed to act on behalf of the British state should once again have turned for advice on Muslim related matters to those among that faith community who are clearly part of the problem not the solution.
At the end of last month, Hazel Blears, the communities secretary, made a self-congratulatory speech on behalf of the government at a conference in London on preventing extremism. In that speech, Ms Blears spoke about how the government had learned from past mistakes in engaging on Muslim matters with those not truly committed to moderation. She said:
‘‘Nationally, we've also seen big changes for the better. In the past, Government made the mistake of relying too much on national leadership organisations, seeking to act as gatekeepers to the Muslim community. We had not done enough to engage and listen to the broad range of opinion across the UK's different communities and support work direct in communities.
"Just over a year ago, we took the decisive step of rebalancing our engagement. We made it clear that we would give priority to those most actively working to tackle violent extremism and promote shared values.
"We were right to take that decision. It has made a real difference, with new voices emerging from across our diverse Muslim communities….
"[S]imply paying lip-service to tackling violent extremism is not enough. It is unacceptable to make positive noises but fail to back that up with enough long-term action and commitment.
"Responsible leadership is about delivering enhanced standards for our mosques and religious leaders - and that must include, for example, ensuring appropriate monitoring of what is preached in our mosques and the literature and other material distributed in our religious institutions.
"So let me be blunt. If you're serious about taking practical, long-term steps to counter violent extremism, Government will support you and will work with you. Simple as that. [W]e're getting better at understanding who is best placed to make a difference….
"Take for example the publication last week of the draft constitution of the Mosques and Imams National Advisory Board. I'm pleased to see real practical progress on this body that could do so much for communities to bring the same high standards we see in some places brought to every area. Mosques that are not just places of learning and worship, but centres for the whole community, bringing together advice and services for the vulnerable, getting young people and women involved, and reaching out to the local neighbourhood. And well-run mosques, which have proper checks and balances, are also a bulwark against the tiny minority who preach violent messages."
In light of the extremist hate-filled literature that Policy Exchange has revealed on sale in bookshops at London mosques controlled by the leadership of both the MCB and the MAB, I would like to offer the government the following piece of blunt advice. If it is truly serious about wishing to disengage with extremists, should it not withdraw its support for MINAB as well as instruct, or at least strongly urge, the Charity Commission to look elsewhere than to that organisation for advice on Muslim-related matters?
Comments (2)
We seem to have a unique approach to religion in this country, namely that the more primitive, irredentist and pathological the belief system is- for example, the MCB- the greater the need to accommodate, to welcome, and to shelter from insult. This has been going on for at least 40 years and pre-dates the idea of multiculturalism by probably at least a generation. Witness Ray Honeyford, the Rushdie fatwa, etc.
This is (unfortunately, especially) the case with Muslims because, unlike Indian Sikhs and Hindus, the Pakistanis and Bengalis in this country predominantly originate from rural backward provinces which are ruled by tribes and extended castes and clans, which in turn allow for very little individual autonomy and especially female freedom. I think it was a disaster importing this culture into Britain in large numbers. We should never have done it and are paying a predictable price.
The only solution now is to *insist* that the same rules apply equally. No more full veils and headscarfs in schools, offices etc with uniform policy. No more UK Government meetings with the MCB, MAB etc. No special rules that allow for religion to be exempted from criticism and hurt. End the charitable subsidy to faith schools. Stop the steady flow of priests, imams and rabbis into Downing Street for good.
In short, make a religion a private and not a public interest.
Posted by Chris Harkin | November 14, 2007 4:21 PM
Posted on November 14, 2007 16:21
Cast another way, what Hazel Blears actually admitted was that past Government has spend a lot of time and effort courting, tolerating and appeasing extremists.
It really just shows the utter disintegration of commonly accepted values and the gaping disconnect between Government and ordinary people, which means this type of news passes with barely a blink these days.
People have long given up expectations of public bodies demonstrating fairness, striving to uphold a common sense of right or wrong, protecting principles of freedom and moderation. Or even simply representing them. It is now expected public bodies will hold an unquestioned, partisan, dogmatic agenda which holds that anyone other than the white Western British are fair-minded victims; deserving of their unquestioned protection and special support.
So, we expect and get public bodies to hold their view without rational basis. With blistering irony, we have come to expect and accept that they will treat individuals as if all possessing the traits which they "pre-judge" as being associated with different faith or ethnic groups; as if faith or ethnicity are some ultimate commonality.
This is another face of the same mindset as exists in the Public Policy Research Institute; their recent report advocating the downgrade of Xmas and deeming the UK "largely a white place"; which automatically meant there was "much still to do" {in changing this situation}.
The stereotyping and social engineering is audacious discrimination, which has unfortunately become so commonplace, the senses are deadened. This policy – and the agenda is belongs to - is, of course, a pernicious and vacuous folly.
Posted by steve | November 13, 2007 7:53 PM
Posted on November 13, 2007 19:53