The Tax
Payer's Alliance (TPA) has released
figures today on every local authority that has received Preventing
Violent Extremism (PVE) funding and what organisations have benefited from
it. The PVE fund has so far given out £12 million in tax payer money to
projects aimed at preventing radicalisation.
One
organisation, the Muslim Welfare House (MWH), has received just under £50,000
in PVE funds over the last two years. The MWH is a member of the Federation of Islamic Organisations
in Europe (FIOE), which represents the Muslim Brotherhood (MB) in Europe.
The FIOE has very close ties with Holocaust promoter and leading MB scholar Yusuf
al-Qaradawi, and his European Council for Fatwa and Research (ECFR) was founded
by the FIOE. This year, the FOIE commissioned Qaradawi to author a report entitled
'The Nation and Citizenship in Light of the Origins of Islamic Doctrine and the
Intentions of Shari'ah'. On their website, the FIOE claims that it
wishes to ensure 'an accurate introduction of Islam' in Europe. That the
FIOE consider Qaradawi as the best candidate to represent an accurate picture
of Islam is a testament to how the organisation itself sees the religion.
The MB
connections with the MWH are strong and up until 2007, of the 5 registered
owners of the MWH, 3 were also directors of the Muslim Association of Britain
(MAB), the Brotherhood's main presence in the United Kingdom. Among them
was Mohammed Sawalha, described by IslamOnline's Arabic site as the "UK
head of the Political Committee of the International Muslim Brotherhood
organisation", identified by the BBC as a "fugitive Hamas
commander" and signatory to the now infamous Istanbul statement which
called for continued support for Hamas and indirectly sanctioned attacks on the
Royal Navy in the eastern Mediterranean. Joining Sawalha at the MWH until
2007 was Abdel Shaheed el-Ashaal, who is referred to by the pro-Brotherhood magazine Islamism
Digest as a senior member of the Muslim Brotherhood and who until 2000
was the company secretary for a company called the Hassan el-Banna [MB founder]
Foundation. One of the stated aims of the Foundation was "to give a
correct image of the thoughts, ideology and life of Imam Shaheed Hassan
el-Banna."
Since 2007,
the MWH has undergone something of a clean-up, with all of its MB connected
trustees and owners replaced with 'clean slates'. However, its connection
with the FIOE means that it continues to carry out the work of the MB in the
UK. Although the MB does not present a direct terrorist threat, it
promotes an ideology which helped create modern jihadist terrorism and is
fundamentally incompatible with western notions of statehood. French MB
expert and author of 'The Muslim Brothers in Europe: Roots and
Discourses', Brigitte Marechal, has written how the MB in Europe continues to
promote Islam not simply as a religion, but an all-encompassing framework which
"suggests that Islam should be understood as a complete system that
concerns state and nation, beliefs and legislation, cult and behaviour, and the
social, political and historical." This all-encompassing ideology,
which MB founder Hasan al-Banna referred to as shumuliyyat al-Islam and
1 of the 10 pillars of the MB project, is one of the driving forces for the
jihadist terrorists who are currently trying to enforce sharia in Afghanistan,
Iraq, Somalia, Indonesia, Malaysia and numerous other fronts. However,
the problem with the MB ideology does not lie only in its deep connections with
jihadism, but also in its subversive promotion of Islam as an actual
alternative system of governance.
The
intention of the MB in Europe, and particular in the UK, is not to recruit
suicide bombers, but rather to peacefully promote the shumuliyyat al-Islam
in the hope that it will gradually initiate a reform of society along Islamist
lines. Using front groups like the MWH and MAB, they disseminate their
ideology among British Muslims by organising events and lectures, and have seen
some success in creating 'ummah centric' mindsets, whereby young Muslims
feel a greater affinity with fellow Muslims around the globe than with their
non-Muslim next door neighbour.
Those who
may still insist that promoting the 'soft' Islamists of the MB is the only
effective way to counter the violence of al-Qaeda should ask themselves how a
band of reactionaries who either deny the existence of the threat, or openly
praise bin Laden, could possibly be of any use:
- The Egyptian MB's General
Guide, Mahdi Akef, only last year refused to label bin Laden a terrorist,
instead opting for the more cordial "jihad
fighter" who battles against "oppression and
corruption."
- In 2004, Ahmed al-Rawi, former
president of the MAB and president of the FIOE until 2007, signed a declaration supporting jihad in
Iraq.
- Yusuf al-Qaradawi co-signed a letter earlier this year which claims
"the events of the 11th of September 2001 were nothing but fabricated
drama by some influential forces in America in co-ordination with Israeli
Mossad."
- Upon the arrest of the recently
convicted transatlantic terrorists, former MAB spokesman and
Hamas cheerleader Azzam Tamimi (who was given an MWH platform last January) could only offer the
pathetic suggestion that the entire episode was
invented by the government so as to "smear the image of Islam and the
Muslims".
Of course,
there should be no attempts at censoring or criminalising MB members, activists
and supporters - giving them the right to speak freely and organise themselves
is a price worth paying to preserve our liberal society. However, this
does not mean that people should ignore the detrimental effects that the MB
belief system can have on national unity, integration, citizenship and
security. Rather than paying for its promotion, the government should be
providing more robust arguments against the politicised Islam of the MB.



Good piece as usual, but your final idea that we should not censor or criminalise MB members as a price worth paying to preserve our liberal society is confused.
I would not suggest censorship or criminalisation myself, but we simply have to understand some of the more fundamental aspects of nationality, liberalism and some of the other things you mention if Britain as we know it is to survive.
Arguing that we should accept colonisation and subversion as a way to protect liberalism is wrong-headed in the extreme. Our liberal society is the product of nationhood, and nationhood is the product of our shared history and a common outlook on the broad aspects of a society (identity, religion, secular ideals, political institutions etc). MB do not represent just another ideology, from which people can be argued out of like capitalism, communism, fascism, liberalism and the like. The MB represent something far greater, something that transcends mere ideology. They represent a fully comprehensive identity based on religion, politics and cultural heritage.
If they want to carry on this way, then fine, they can do it elsewhere, but to believe that the idea of a secular, liberal Britain can survive the identity rift that we are creating in the country is plain false. It cannot, and we are already seeing the coalescing of society along communal and identity lines. There is, quite frankly nothing we can do about it, unless we reverse the colonisation of this country.
Extreme? Perhaps, but I have no better way to describe what is going on. There is no middle way. This is a comprehensive struggle between our civilisation and another. And by thinking that we can tackle political and cultural Islam by our own rules is consigning us to the wrong side of history.