Have a read of this post:

http://www.hurryupharry.org/2009/12/22/a-radica...

Events like these are regular occurrences at the East London Mosque: which is Jamaat-e-Islami aligned.

What is going wrong here?

Any ideas for putting it right?”

The majority of events that take place at the London Muslim Centre are actually quite inoffensive.

A more usual location for the sort of extremism mentioned in Habibi’s article is not ‘Jamaat-e-Islami-aligned’ East London Mosque but Oxford House, a venue a mile or so away run by, er, Tower Hamlets Council.

Here is an account of a typical regular meeting there.

http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.com/2009/03/al-walaa-wal-baraa-in-bethnal-green.html

Any ideas for putting it right? Er – get in touch with the council?

“If over 50% of British people were in favour of suppressing Muslim religious practices, liberals would still oppose them.”

Firstly David, I appreciate that but my point was, that you cannot simply just say that belief in the Shariah is marginal amongst Muslims. That was merely what I was trying to show.

Secondly, perhaps a side issue, but how do you reconcile not appeasing the majority with Democracy? (i.e. the classic Liberalism vs Democracy dichotomy).

Liberals are also pragmatists: which leads us to oppose systems of government which a likely to prove disasterous.

Put it this way.

If over 50% of British people were in favour of suppressing Muslim religious practices, liberals would still oppose them.

A few days ago, you wrote this:

“In this country, polls show, saifuddin's and Al Andalusi's views are still marginal.”

Firstly, there is no study done that suggests this.

Secondly, the only study I think you might be talking about, is the one where Muslims were asked “Do you want to see shariah IN THE UK?”, of which 65% said “NO” (to which I would also concur), but it does not mean that we don't want Shariah for the Muslim world.

Thirdly, even if we were to assume that when UK Muslims answered 'they would not want to see shariah in the UK', they also meant EVERYWHERE else – another poll shows 40% of Muslims (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1510866/…) in the UK actually WANT to see Sharia implemented here (albeit for Muslims only) – hardly a marginal group, no?

Lastly, Stephen Gash's views are wrong, not only because he assumes the Muslim community is homogeneous (e.g. the fringe group BMSD are just lying about their secular beliefs), but also because he believes that there is a concerted effort by Muslims to 'takeover' Britain and establish Shariah on everyone. Just because Stephen Gash (correctly) understands Islam to mandate the shariah, does not mean that Muslims such as myself are 'sharing Gash's viewpoints towards Muslims', that is just generalising what is, in fact, a highly nuanced discourse occurring between Muslims, Liberals and Fascist-Ultra-Liberals (e.g. SIOE).

“I'm with Grant. Here's another BNP vote you just lost (and after I show this page to a few friends, I can guarantee they won't be voting BNP either). I was actually going to volunteer to go door-to-door canvassing for Nick Griffin.

In sucking up to the muslims, you've shown you're no better than them. You don't represent the British values of tolerance and respect for the individual.”

http://www.londonpatriot.org/2009/12/18/mr-jeff…

And in a similar spirit, please don't take any of my more extreme rants seriously either.

It is important that we – and I don't mean you and I – I mean everyone that subscribes to these general principles tries to move this agenda forward.

The question was rhetorical and your answer is the same as mine.

I think we've wasted years, with people who have very little between them arguing viciously about small differences. I am desperate to put that fighting to bed: because I think the situation is so desperate.

Can I start by apologising to you for all the times I've had a go at you?

At first blush, neither the ELM nor the SWP are honest brokers. It seems pretty odd that our government should provide funding to the ELM if the activities are typical of the preaching that goes on there. However, on a more personal note, I feel completely betrayed by the SWP who hijacked the anti War protest for political ends that I doubt more than a few people who marched on these days subscribed to.

Mark Thomas summed up my feelings about that a long time ago:

http://www.newstatesman.com/200305190007

The fly in the ointment is the surrender of the organisation of protest to extremists.

What is required, on the left, is not the rainbow coalition of communists and islamists, but something based around common values. To that extent I welcome the emergence of groups like BMSD with whom a realistic middle way could be created, although sensible and politicised muslims seem short on the ground. You probably know most of them personally.

The other issue, and I think it is real, is that the vast majority of all communities are really not protest orientated. I'd suggest that it is far more appealing to most people to go about their lives without feeling that they must take to the streets to make a difference. Perhaps, and I know this is weak, the only way forward is to argue through existing media and challenge extremism where we find it. One suggestion that seems to have some merit, is that newspapers in particular seem desperate for copy. A credible mouthpiece for the broad left that played the rebuttal game would probably get at least as many cites in the mainstream media as the likes of the Taxpayers Alliance, IFA and Policy Exchange. And probably a lot more than extremist islamist or communist mouthpieces.

I am not suggesting that that is the only way forward, but it does seem one step up from you and I arguing in a vacuum – clearly not on this thread though.

Have a read of this post:

http://www.hurryupharry.org/2009/12/22/a-radica…

Events like these are regular occurrences at the East London Mosque: which is Jamaat-e-Islami aligned.

Recall when you read this article, that the ELM has received nearly £1m in 'Prevent' funding. That it has been visited by Ken Livingstone, Prince Charles, the Lord Chief Justice, and Boris Johnson.

Now, compare the sorts of things that people are saying at public meetings – well presented, professionally advertised public meetings – with Stephen Gash, ranting in a car park with his 14 mates.

1000 people – me included – turned up to demonstrate against Stephen Gash and SIOE. The demonstration was organised by the SWP's Unite Against Fascism – whose partners in RESPECT were substantially based at the East London Mosque. You can therefore readily understand that UAF is most unlikely to organise a demonstration against this particular event.

But if you would attend a demonstration against Stephen Gash, why wouldn't you demonstrate against this event, and the other similar ones that take place at the ELM?

This same event, last year, was addressed by the Al Qaeda preacher, Anwar Al Awlaki. The man who inspired the jihadist, Major Hasan, to murder his army buddies.

Seriously: how does this sort of event compare with Stephen Gash and his 14 mates? Which is more serious?

What is going wrong here?

Any ideas for putting it right?

The same kind of mindset exists on the crazy left who regard the wettest Tories as basically fascists in disguise.

Mr Stephen Gash – or should I say ستيفن المهبل – is it true?

Are you in fact part of a FALSE FLAG OPERATION?

if i were the sort of paranoid conspiracy theorist that you commonly find over at mpac, i might well suggest that the logical concomitant of these comments:

The other thing that worries me is this. Gash's schtick is to claim that he's the only guy speaking out about the perils of jihadism etc.. He then peddles a conspiracy theory, in which all British Muslims are either dupes or, more likely, lying about being active participants in a grand jihad against this country.

would be to make the accusation that gash himself is actually a “false flag” operation run by the south asian/middle eastern islamists mentioned above – basically putting someone in play whose anti-muslim paranoia and hatred were so laughably over-the-top that they would be bound to provide even more well-meaning but misguided protection for these aforementioned parties under the label of combating islamophobia!

of course, i say nothing of the sort, we all know who the only group who are organised and sinister enough to do this sort of false-flagging, don't we, mpac? yes, it's your friendly neighbourhood zionist conspiracy!!!

b'shalom

bananabrain

I think you're overstating the issue, somewhat.

There are a number of institutions which are aligned specifically with particular political parties. For example, the ELM is Jamaat-e-Islami. The Finsbury Park Mosque is Hamas/Muslim Brotherhood. Then there are mosques which are funded by, most commonly, the Saudis: but are not aligned with any particular political party. A few have Imams who are progressive, but most do not.

However, you assume that a Muslim background means that you're aligned with that politics. It doesn't. Even attending a mosque controlled by, say, Jamaat-e-Islami doesn't mean that you buy into its politics.

Harrow Central Mosque, for example, has links with Jamaat-e-Islami and Hamas/Muslim Brotherhood groups. However that tells you something important about the people who run HCM, and not the worshippers at that institution.

Then there's the issue of Mosque attendance – although Muslims are a somewhat more devout than some other confessional groups, most people just don't bother to go.

The key problem here is of institutions, networks and structures. Islamist parties and their front organisations have been very good on this front. Anti-Islamist groups, including those which are led by Muslims, have been inefficient. In part, this has been because religious people tend to be more dynamic and motivated by their faith than secularists. But there are two other important factors too. First, people don't understand the politics and are frightened of being called racists. Secondly, groups like SIOE don't understand the politics and ARE bigots – and who wants to join forces with them?

It isn't the views of people who are just getting on with their lives that need to be challenged. It is the views of polarisers that seem unable to accept that there are more sides to a discussion then the perch they have elected to preen their feathers and sharpen their beak on.