It was reported on Sunday that the Secretary General of the Muslim Council of Britain (MCB), Dr. Daud Abdullah, is facing calls to resign over his support for Hamas. He was one of 90 co-signatories to the Global Anti-Aggression Campaign statement which not only supports Hamas terrorist operations, but criticises any attempts at reaching a peaceful agreement. Another UK-based signatory to this statement was Mohammed Sawalha, a trustee of the supposedly reformed former pulpit of the hook-handed hate preacher Abu Hamza, the North London Central Mosque (AKA Finsbury Park Mosque) and the head of the British Muslim Initiative (BMI), one of the main organisers of the London protests against Israel's actions in Gaza.
The BMI and the MCB present themselves as the voice of moderate Islam in Britain and the MCB in particular have long been advisors to the government on issues of counter-terrorism and radicalisation, and recently advised the government during Israel's Operation Cast Lead. Both of these organisations have received heavy criticism from some circles who see them as representatives of the Islamist ideology.
This description was given a lot more validity upon the release of the statement to which the heads of these two organisations have put their names. It is an embodiment of much of what Islamism presently stands for; an ideology based on a narrow and puritanical interpretation of Islam presented as the voice of Muslims worldwide which often supports violence in order to attain Islamic supremacy. According to the statement, the Palestinian Authority is not fit to represent the Palestinians because it 'has given up the choice of jihad in the way of Allah Almighty', and 'the so-called peace initiative is a proven betrayal of the Islamic Nation'. The statement calls on the Islamic Nation to 'carry on with the jihad and Resistance against the occupier until the liberation of all Palestine'. Peace, it seems, is not an option - at least not until Israel is destroyed (the lack of any recommendation of a two-state solution and the reference to 'all Palestine' makes that very clear). The statement also contains a veiled threat to the UK and other countries allied with Israel, stating that the position of the signatories towards countries 'standing with the Zionist entity' is 'the same as towards this usurping entity [Israel].'
Despite repeated actions in support of terrorism, with this statement being only the latest example; Islamists are still seen by many as the best partners in the fight against terror. Former MI6 agent Alistair Crooke, now of the Conflicts Forum think-tank, for example, has repeatedly stated that he believes the government should work with Islamists to fight Islamist terrorism, and within the government there is a large camp that holds the same view. A newly released Policy Exchange report by Shiraz Maher and Martyn Frampton, clearly and comprehensively sets out this debate and why it is a dangerous mistake to take the Crooke line.
The MCB, BMI and North London Central Mosque now face a very stark choice; they can either support their leaders in their calls for Islamist violence, or force them out and begin a campaign to prove their moderation. They must now earn the right to call themselves representatives of moderate Islam and until then should be seen as marginal extremists with little to no influence.
The MCB could begin by reversing their decision to boycott Holocaust Memorial day, an action they took in response to recent events in Gaza. Regardless of one's view on Zionism and the state of Israel, boycotting the memorial of an event which saw the wholesale slaughter of Jews, not Zionists, seems like a fairly 'disproportionate' response.
The MCB and BMI are both supporters of Islamic scholar Yusuf al-Qaradawi, and were both heavily critical of the February 2008 Home Office decision not to grant him a visa to enter the UK due to, among other things, his support for suicide bombing. Qaradawi recently outdid himself when he stated on Al-Jazeera that, through the Holocaust, Hitler carried out a divine punishment against the Jews and his only wish is that the next time such mass killings take place, it happens at the hands of Muslims. This prompted a strong condemnation from the Islamic Council of Norway, who said that Qaradawi's comments were 'unacceptable from someone who is an important religious reference for many Muslims'. Considering their past support for Qaradawi, the MCB and BMI should emulate this type of criticism if they are serious about proving their moderation.
As a trustee of the North London Central Mosque, Sawalha claims to have removed all of the violent elements that were present during Abu Hamza's time there. This claim should now be subject to some measure of scrutiny. How can a man who supports the violent and civilian-targeting tactics of Hamas be trusted to ensure that radicals do not operate in one of the most influential mosques in Britain?
Sawalha and Abdullah's association with the Global Anti Aggression statement should demonstrate to the public and the government once and for all that these men and their organisations have no place in a strategy to combat the radicalisation of Muslim youth.
This description was given a lot more validity upon the release of the statement to which the heads of these two organisations have put their names. It is an embodiment of much of what Islamism presently stands for; an ideology based on a narrow and puritanical interpretation of Islam presented as the voice of Muslims worldwide which often supports violence in order to attain Islamic supremacy. According to the statement, the Palestinian Authority is not fit to represent the Palestinians because it 'has given up the choice of jihad in the way of Allah Almighty', and 'the so-called peace initiative is a proven betrayal of the Islamic Nation'. The statement calls on the Islamic Nation to 'carry on with the jihad and Resistance against the occupier until the liberation of all Palestine'. Peace, it seems, is not an option - at least not until Israel is destroyed (the lack of any recommendation of a two-state solution and the reference to 'all Palestine' makes that very clear). The statement also contains a veiled threat to the UK and other countries allied with Israel, stating that the position of the signatories towards countries 'standing with the Zionist entity' is 'the same as towards this usurping entity [Israel].'
Despite repeated actions in support of terrorism, with this statement being only the latest example; Islamists are still seen by many as the best partners in the fight against terror. Former MI6 agent Alistair Crooke, now of the Conflicts Forum think-tank, for example, has repeatedly stated that he believes the government should work with Islamists to fight Islamist terrorism, and within the government there is a large camp that holds the same view. A newly released Policy Exchange report by Shiraz Maher and Martyn Frampton, clearly and comprehensively sets out this debate and why it is a dangerous mistake to take the Crooke line.
The MCB, BMI and North London Central Mosque now face a very stark choice; they can either support their leaders in their calls for Islamist violence, or force them out and begin a campaign to prove their moderation. They must now earn the right to call themselves representatives of moderate Islam and until then should be seen as marginal extremists with little to no influence.
The MCB could begin by reversing their decision to boycott Holocaust Memorial day, an action they took in response to recent events in Gaza. Regardless of one's view on Zionism and the state of Israel, boycotting the memorial of an event which saw the wholesale slaughter of Jews, not Zionists, seems like a fairly 'disproportionate' response.
The MCB and BMI are both supporters of Islamic scholar Yusuf al-Qaradawi, and were both heavily critical of the February 2008 Home Office decision not to grant him a visa to enter the UK due to, among other things, his support for suicide bombing. Qaradawi recently outdid himself when he stated on Al-Jazeera that, through the Holocaust, Hitler carried out a divine punishment against the Jews and his only wish is that the next time such mass killings take place, it happens at the hands of Muslims. This prompted a strong condemnation from the Islamic Council of Norway, who said that Qaradawi's comments were 'unacceptable from someone who is an important religious reference for many Muslims'. Considering their past support for Qaradawi, the MCB and BMI should emulate this type of criticism if they are serious about proving their moderation.
As a trustee of the North London Central Mosque, Sawalha claims to have removed all of the violent elements that were present during Abu Hamza's time there. This claim should now be subject to some measure of scrutiny. How can a man who supports the violent and civilian-targeting tactics of Hamas be trusted to ensure that radicals do not operate in one of the most influential mosques in Britain?
Sawalha and Abdullah's association with the Global Anti Aggression statement should demonstrate to the public and the government once and for all that these men and their organisations have no place in a strategy to combat the radicalisation of Muslim youth.
