Women only Jihad


by Sunny
30th October, 2006 at 2:43 pm    

Tonight at 8pm on Channel 4, Women Only Jihad:

“Women in mosques will change the nature of Muslim community in Britain,” a woman tells the camera. Is there a battle of sexes going on within British Islam?

There are around 1600 mosques in Britain. Well over a half do not allow women access to worship and hardly any allow women a say on how they are managed and run.

In a special film for Channel 4, to be broadcast later today, journalist Tazeen Ahmad follows a group of young Muslim women who are waging a determined campaign to force these mosques to open up.

“A mosque would go beyond a place of worship and transform into something close to a thriving community centre, where men and women can access all kinds of services – counselling, education, employment advice – and that’s just for starters. But based on the resistance I witnessed, which was at times pretty shocking, it still seems as if there’s a long road ahead til we get to that point.”

Jihad, by the way, has many meanings. Opinions on the programme welcome.


              Post to del.icio.us


Filed in: Media,Religion






85 Comments below   |  

Reactions: Twitter, blogs


  1. Sukhjit Singh — on 30th October, 2006 at 3:39 pm  

    Good thing about Gurdwaras is that they are like community centres with sports clubs, libraries, facilities for elders, children running around in the halls, and of course, men and women worship side by side.

  2. Leon — on 30th October, 2006 at 3:57 pm  

    Jihad, by the way, has many meanings.

    That should be a standard disclaimer used next to every mention of the word Jihad…

  3. Sukhjit Singh — on 30th October, 2006 at 4:15 pm  

    But its a scary word too….

  4. Genghis — on 30th October, 2006 at 4:30 pm  

    Bit of weird issue this. Mosques are s’posed to be more than just a place to pray, its s’posed to have libraries, halls, other facilities etc. Women, at least where islam is concerned are not meant to banned.

    Problem in hte UK has been a historical and cultural one. When the first muslim immigrants arrived from pakistan, it was mainly the men that arrived without their spouses. They setup mosques and since it was only men that were around, the facilities didnt allow for women. And ever since the people who run the mosques have simply been men, as have imams etc. Simply women have been marginalised in pakistani masjids.

    Newer mosques are far inclusive. That and younger generation of muslims being more assertive are now fighting for their rights.

    Good for them. Them paki old men need to change!

    One thing to note. The genders wont be able to mix in the mosques.

  5. Sajn — on 30th October, 2006 at 4:39 pm  

    I find the casual use of “Paki” offensive.

    Your comments also show your ignorance about Mosques as well. Most of the Mosques that I know (mainly run by Pakistani British Muslims have never restricted access for women. The only ones that I have heard of that do restrict access have tended to be the smaller mosques where space was limited.

    My local Mosque has men praying outside and in the corridors every Friday and yet a room is set aside for women.

  6. Electro — on 30th October, 2006 at 5:28 pm  

    Have any of these young woemn ever bothered to read Islam’s core texts?

  7. James — on 30th October, 2006 at 5:30 pm  

    By the looks of it, this is a campaign by MPACUK.

    http://www.mpacuk.org/content/view/2919/35/

    “When MPACUK started over 6 years ago we knew that one of the many reasons why the Muslim Ummah hadn’t progressed was because we had marginalised half of our population by divorcing them from active social participation.

    As MPACUK grew and our effectiveness increased, it didn’t take rocket-scientist to realise that the most productive, sincere and dedicated members were women. And then (being rocket scientists), we worked out if over 70% of our successes came from the work of the women then how much potential was being wasted by excluding women from the public debate? That debate for MPACUK has moved away from the patronising “women’s” issues into the more real and relevant topics that includes foreign policy, politics, mosque reform, Zionism and Islamic leadership. Over the last 6 years MPACUK have pioneered the rights of women in Islamic institutions not only as recipients of services, but also as decision-makers and leaders in their own right. “

  8. William — on 30th October, 2006 at 5:32 pm  

    But is the room set aside like somewhere on the side apart from the main room and a bit smaller as if it’s a second room if you know what I mean.

    Having said that there is a big new Mosque where I live which seems to have all kinds of stuff attached including a college.

  9. ChickFlakes — on 30th October, 2006 at 5:38 pm  

    —————-That debate for MPACUK has moved away from the patronising “women’s” issues into the more real and relevant topics that includes foreign policy, politics, mosque reform, Zionism and Islamic leadership———-

    Zionism! Zionism! ZiOnIsM!

    ZIONISM ZIONISM ZIONISM!

    Just in case you missed the point!

    The most real and relevant topic of ZIONISM!

  10. raz — on 30th October, 2006 at 5:44 pm  

    I’ve never heard of a mosque not allowing access to women. I wonder if this is a regional or sectarian issue.

  11. genghis — on 30th October, 2006 at 5:53 pm  

    sajn,

    Im pakistani, and for short i term my fellow pakistanis as ‘paki’. Aussies use it, as does most of the world. Take the word in the spirit its used in, instead of sticking to your negative connotations that have been attached to it by the Rascists in the 60′s!

    Anyhow. Paki mosques are run by men for men…generally speaking! And its a cultural issue. The arab mosques, the ones ive attended eg Regents Park, dont seem to the same issue!

    They do let women in, but hardly provision and facilitate them!

  12. Abu Jafaar — on 30th October, 2006 at 6:19 pm  

    There is a hadith: “Do not forbid the maidservants of Allah (SWT) from visiting the masjid” which is accepted by all scholars. The second part of the hadith which reads “but the best place for a woman to pray is in her home” has been disputed with regards to it’s authenticity. However one of the four Sunni schools- the Hanafi (the one that is prevelant in Indo-Pak, Indonesia, Turkey and Central Asia) accepts it. This is the basis by which some Asians justify excluding womenen from the mosque, but to do so they have to deny the first part of the hadith. Doesn’t work, it’s really a cultural thing and many mosques have got women’s sections/ rooms etc now.

    The question of access and participation in committees is an even more deep rooted problem than the exclusion of women. Some committees are exclusivley from one family or one clan, village or tribe. I know places where two mosques following the exact same beliefs have been set up within a street of each other based on which part of Indo-Pak they were from.

  13. Clairwil — on 30th October, 2006 at 6:37 pm  

    I had no idea there was a problem with women attending some mosques. I’m quite shocked. I shall watch the programme with interest. Last time I was in a mosque I was allowed in the boys bit and they didn’t make me take my shoes off. Am I going to hell?

  14. genghis — on 30th October, 2006 at 7:40 pm  

    Everyone, grab that clairwil, lest she starts a debate attacking them ‘terrorists’ what are also sexist’

    Off with her head!

  15. Sunny — on 30th October, 2006 at 7:58 pm  

    Good thing about Gurdwaras is that they are like community centres with sports clubs, libraries, facilities for elders, children running around in the halls, and of course, men and women worship side by side.

    Sukhjit Singh keep wishing! How many millions spent on the Southall Havelock Road Gurudwara? About 19 million I think. They still haven’t got a library sorted. There was supposed to be a creche but no one has bothered to do anything about it. There are no sports facilities. The management politics are a sham. And this is the UK’s biggest Sikh Gurudwara.

    The idea that sikhs are in a better state, just because they allow women in, is a sham. All the management committees are completely male and 50+ age dominated. I went to a meeting about 2 years ago of London gurudwaras, called after the controversy of the play Behzti, and there was 1 old woman in a room of 50 men, and she wasn’t even part of any committee. Egalitarian my ass.

  16. raz — on 30th October, 2006 at 8:06 pm  

    Actually Sunny, one of the funniest things about the Behzti incident was an interview which some of the complainers gave to TV. The entire room was stuffed with old male Sikhs, and they had one token woman to read out the statement. They probably thought they were going to give a really progressive and modern image when in fact such crude and cynical tactics exposed them as idiots.

  17. Sukhjit Singh — on 30th October, 2006 at 8:17 pm  

    Sunny

    Men and Women pray to God side by side in the Gurdwara. That was my point. That is the norm. The gender composition of the commitees is a different issue altogether. But no woman can ever or will ever be refused entry to pray inside a gurdwara.

    This contrasts with some mosques, where it seems many women are not even allowed entry to pray.

    I don’t know anything about your local Gurdwara in Southall, but where we go we have a library, a facility for the elders, as well as the usual sports club, football, gym, Punjabi school, and so on. I understand you need to appear to be impartial Sunny, and claim that there is little difference in practice, but really, there is a significant difference in that respect.

  18. Sajn — on 30th October, 2006 at 8:29 pm  

    Genghis, if you frequent the Regents Park Mosque then I would deduce that you live in the UK in which case what does it matter how this word is used in Australia? The reality is that it is used as an offensive term by racists in this country to this day. The fact that some Pakistanis and Indians also use this term does not make it any less offensive.

    As for the Mosque issue, do you actually know of any Mosque that does stop women from praying there?

  19. Sajn — on 30th October, 2006 at 8:33 pm  

    This is just a party political broadcast for MPAC or am I being too cynical? The first Mosque they tried to access didn’t appear to stop them from entering until they noticed the cameras.

    If these people were serious about this as an issue then wouldn’t a more sensible approach be for them to either write or meet with the relevant committees beforehand rather than try and ambush them?

  20. Sajn — on 30th October, 2006 at 8:36 pm  

    The presenter also claimed that women were not allowed to be an Imam.

    She is half right because women can and have been Imams but only for female congregations.

  21. Clairwil — on 30th October, 2006 at 8:40 pm  

    Everyone, grab that clairwil, lest she starts a debate attacking them ‘terrorists’ what are also sexist’

    Off with her head!

    I had no intention of starting a debate at that level. Just so you know though it’ll be a brave man that ‘grab(s)’ me. Silly boy!

  22. Clairwil — on 30th October, 2006 at 8:47 pm  

    Everyone, grab that clairwil, lest she starts a debate attacking them ‘terrorists’ what are also sexist’

    Off with her head!

    Well it would take everyone and an army to ‘grab’ me, you silly boy. I had no intention of starting a debate at that level, not least because I do have a grasp of basic grammar.

  23. genghis — on 30th October, 2006 at 9:05 pm  

    Clairwil,

    Oh yes i forget this site has people that have somewhat an insecurity about their grammar and how it might be seen as ‘inferior’ or ‘superior’. Snobbery! Sillee me!

    sajn.

    Dude i really couldnt care less that you see it as offensive. Its only offensive if its taken in a rascist spirit. In the meantime my mates and i continually use it as term for pakistanis.

  24. genghis — on 30th October, 2006 at 9:07 pm  

    The documentary, i thought it was quite good and highlighted the sexist attitudes at mosques. It hinders British muslims as if we already dont have issues to deal with! fuckwits!

  25. genghis — on 30th October, 2006 at 9:09 pm  

    ps, that rotund hijabi, i liked her…

  26. Sunny — on 30th October, 2006 at 9:09 pm  

    Yeah it was a bit of a party politcal broadcast for MPAC, which is most annoying. The programme certainly was not sold like that by Channel 4.

    Sukhjit Singh – Sure, I haven’t disputed the fact that women are allowed to pray side by side and have never been refused entry. Though, they were refused entry into the inner sanctum of Harminder Sahib (or atleast not allowed to clean it) until very recently. I’m not “comparing” this issue per se because it’s blatant there is more sexism against women in praying within Mosques compared to Gurudwaras.

    But just because they are allowed to pray does not mean they have access to the power or are allowed to have a say. There is still a serious short-coming. More on this very soon actually.

  27. Clairwil — on 30th October, 2006 at 9:15 pm  

    I found the programme an interesting insight into the views of one particular organisation (MPAC). It would have been better if a broader range of opinion had been shown, though it appeared that the male only mosques shown did not wish to participate.

    It would also have been interesting to know how long the women’s campaign had been running. Their approach was very confrontational however I wonder if this is a response to being ignored.

    With no central organisation in charge of all mosques it’s hard to see widespread reform happening. I wonder if we might see a Muslim version of the Christian feminist theology movement develop.

  28. genghis — on 30th October, 2006 at 10:01 pm  

    Clairwil,

    Welldone, actually, you’ve captured the most important aspect of the whole debate of what is lacking in contemporary British Islam. Leadership and direction. We have several national organizations, all of them claim to legitimatly represent muslims in britain:

    MAB: Muslim Association of Britain
    MCB: Muslim Council of Britian
    MPAC: Muslim Public Affairs Committee
    Muslim Parliament etc etc

    Non of which have been voted in by the muslims. Simply self appointed.

    I like MPAC. I like the fact that they confront issues head on. This issues has been running for years and years, just being highlighted by the media now.

    And you’re spot on we need to elect British Muslim Leadership who would decide muslim affairs etc and be the spokespeople for muslims. Furthermore this organization should have representation at regional and then local level.

    Lets vote for a leader: Miss England! Wots her name that muslim gal?Kohammistani or something!

  29. Utbah — on 30th October, 2006 at 10:15 pm  

    “Non of which have been voted in by the muslims. Simply self appointed.”

    Excuse me? These organisations are just like The Jewish Board of Deputies. Fighting for the Community.

    Does teh JBOD represent the entire views of the Jewish People? Seriously, is it? Mark Elf is a Jew but JBOD does not represent his entire views.

    As far as I know MPAC does not say it represent Muslims but fights to protect the liberties of the Muslims.

  30. raz — on 30th October, 2006 at 10:18 pm  

    “Yeah it was a bit of a party politcal broadcast for MPAC, which is most annoying”

    Given that MPAC have been one of your chief targets this must have been a bit of a shock to you!

  31. Utbah — on 30th October, 2006 at 10:19 pm  

    “Yeah it was a bit of a party politcal broadcast for MPAC, which is most annoying. The programme certainly was not sold like that by Channel 4.”

    And may I ask what exactly is wrong with that? I applaud MPAC for raising the issue, I may disagree with it’s methods but the revival of Islamic rulings teachings I totally back.

  32. Utbah — on 30th October, 2006 at 10:20 pm  

    “Given that MPAC have been one of your chief targets this must have been a bit of a shock to you!”

    hehe, oh Sunny must had a mini-heart attack. There was Sunny thinking it was “his kind” of secular Muslims doing it.

  33. PFM — on 30th October, 2006 at 10:22 pm  

    mpac raise good issues but does asghar bukhari have to be so aggressive.

    we have to remember though that the program was reporting based therefore was not subjective.

    but i do feel that women are important, considering;

    a woman was the first person to accept islam
    and a woman was the most knowledgable person about islam.

  34. Utbah — on 30th October, 2006 at 10:23 pm  

    PFM, I agree. Asghar just needs to sit back and relax. I’ll probably give him a call and give my feedback. One of which was his behaviour.

  35. Anas — on 30th October, 2006 at 10:49 pm  

    Did I really hear someone in the program say that the veil was being seen by some women as a symbol of female empowerment?

    BTW, Sunny, what’s your major problem with MPAC? Sure they might not be as representative as they claim or as their name suggests, but at least they’re bringing up issues like this and putting them on the agenda.

  36. genghis — on 30th October, 2006 at 10:54 pm  

    Utbah,

    Read my post again. ‘I Like MPAC’ in fact you may find me defending MPAC on the ‘Gilligan Thread’, against Sunnys vitriolic diatribe against MPAC.

    Personally i think sunny might be jealous of MPAC.

    I have alot of time Asghar, I met him at Bolton in September and discussed the very issue of muslim representation at the National/Regional level. We do need eloquent politically savvy representation.

    Those girls didnt represent all that well. I also liked MPAC standing their ground given that women should have an automatic right to mosques! They risk life limb literally speaking (at from what we saw on the program) those fuckers in mosque took a very aggressive stance. Threatening the camera crews etc.

  37. genghis — on 30th October, 2006 at 10:55 pm  

    Anas,

    You heard right? is that an issue?

  38. Sunny — on 30th October, 2006 at 11:01 pm  

    Well, firstly MPAC do claim to represent Muslims. Otherwise Asghar Bukhari would not be declaring that everytime he decides to start screaming and shouting on Sky News.

    MPAC are admittedly sane on most issues apart from this stupid and racist obsession with Zionism and conspiracy theories. Exactly like Mad Mel and her ilk, they see a Zionist conspiracy everywhere. They try and smear anyone who disagrees with them (incl myself) and label them as Islamophobes. And when in retaliation people call them anti-semites, then they publish these big articles on their website saying they don’t hate Jews only Zionism.

    That is like Robert Spencer of Jihad Watch stating he doesn’t hate Muslims, he just hates “Islamists who threaten his way of life” (meaning all Muslims).

    Every journalist I have spoken to, incl those who invite MPAc on TV, know he starts foaming at the mouth when you mention the word Israel. In fact that’s why he gets invited on television so many times, because they know he fits the ‘angry Muslim’ caricature quite well. It’s too bad his supporters don’t realise how behind the scenes people laugh at them and develop the impression that all Muslims are constantly angry like him.

  39. Anas — on 30th October, 2006 at 11:03 pm  

    Yes, it is an issue, given the wealth of self-proclaimed authorities like Melanie Philips who’ve claimed over the last few weeks that it’s either a symbol of political affiliation with ‘Islamism’ or of female oppression — either without consulting or completely ignoring the thoughts of the veil wearers themselves.

  40. Sajn — on 30th October, 2006 at 11:05 pm  

    If the issue of women’s access to Mosques is such a vital one then why did they not provide a more informative picture of what the situation is like rather than focus on two relatively small and obscure Mosques?

    What about the biggest Mosques like Regents Park, East London, Birmingham Central, Bradford etc?

  41. Clairwil — on 30th October, 2006 at 11:08 pm  

    Did I really hear someone in the program say that the veil was being seen by some women as a symbol of female empowerment?

    Yes you did. I have no interest in whether women veil or not. I think in the context of British society the veil can be seen as an empowering assertion of cultural identity. I think veiling can also be viewed as a legitimate, female response to a highly sexualised culture. Certainly a far healthier response than anorexia, self-mutilation and bulimia. I think the veil issue was almost ‘tacked on’ to the programme. It would have been better to stick to the central issues of access and female representation.

    One stereotype I think the programme did it’s bit to tackle was the notion of UK Muslim woman as cowering, abused, victims.

  42. Anas — on 30th October, 2006 at 11:08 pm  

    Are there any specific articles that go into more depth on this or online examples of MPAC’s tactics, Sunny?

  43. Clairwil — on 30th October, 2006 at 11:10 pm  

    Sain,
    That’s a good point. The programme failed to give much of a flavour of how much of a problem lack of access is. I would have liked to have seen a wider representation of opinion and experience.

  44. Sunny — on 30th October, 2006 at 11:15 pm  

    ans, you want examples of MPAC thinking everything is a Zionist conspiracy? Have you read their website lately? I find it bizarre that people think MPAC are empowering British Muslims when they spend 95% of their time on their website going on about Zionism and it’s tentacles. Lots of websites (like this) use examples of Muslim extremists and suicide bombing to spread conspiracy theories about Muslims too. Would you guys not consider that to be “Islamophobic”? Or do these rules only apply to one side?

    Or am I going to hear that tired old excuse that because Palestinians are being killed (by the way I’ve never denied that and am very pro-Palestinian state) then MPAC are allowed to be racist but others are not?

    Sajn – as far as I remember it did show the good mosques too, including how things have changed at Finsbury Park.

  45. Utbah — on 30th October, 2006 at 11:24 pm  

    Sunny: Again you go on your tirade against MPAC.

    Your pissed with them because they gave you a bad time on Islam Channel a long time back.

    Let’s look at you. I am still waiitng for this reply. Where the hell did you get the statistics to say Muslims are turning to asian channels.

    http://jihadandthecity.wordpress.com/2006/10/20/need-statistics-sunny/

    I’ve just seen MPAC’s website and guess what. There’s nothing on Zionism but something about Mosque’s tackling Global Warming.

    Sunny, seriously grow up. You say MPAC bang on and on about Zionism and you go on and on and on about Muslim Organisations. Your fucking worse then them.

  46. Clairwil — on 30th October, 2006 at 11:24 pm  

    In fairness the programme had a fairly short time slot to do justice to the subject. As far as I remember the more progressive mosques were only briefly dealt with. From a non-Muslim perspective it would have been helpful to compare and contrast the approaches and founding principles of the men only mosques and the more progressive mosques.

  47. genghis — on 30th October, 2006 at 11:26 pm  

    Thank god for MPAC they’re representing quite apporpriately, especially if its with indignation and anger, cos the reflect the feelings of muslims.Accurately.

    They are not rascist. and are anti-zionism. All good from what i can see. And sunny can you post up their rascist stuff that you keep on saying their website has, ive been their nothing rascist there!

  48. genghis — on 30th October, 2006 at 11:29 pm  

    Sunny,

    You keep banging on about MPAC, i detect something quite personal between you and them? pray please tell.

  49. Sunny — on 30th October, 2006 at 11:30 pm  

    Utbah – I quite enjoyed that debate. Asghar Bukhari was defending Hizb ut Tahrir, how instructive. I was sitting alongside a HuT member and two MPAC members. Only the Islam Channel would call that balanced. I did offer to come back again (ask Miriyam) but they never ask. What can I do?

    Being ‘jealous’ of MPAC? Does this look like a playground to you? I have bigger things in mind than going on going on TV and screaming like a rabid maniac about these Zionists taking over the world.

    And in case you didn’t look at their website clearly, here are some links from the front page with “Zionist” stories.

    http://www.mpacuk.org/content/view/2831/34/
    http://www.mpacuk.org/content/view/2879/35/
    http://www.mpacuk.org/content/view/2872/35/
    http://www.mpacuk.org/content/view/2870/34/
    http://www.mpacuk.org/content/view/2892/34/
    http://www.mpacuk.org/content/view/2906/34/
    http://www.mpacuk.org/content/view/2917/35/

  50. Anas — on 30th October, 2006 at 11:31 pm  

    MPAC’s emphasis on Zionism is as understandable as a British Black anti-Racism group’s emphasis on the ideology that lay behind South African apartheid would have been in the for much of the last century. I have to repeat this, although it should be obvious, anti-Zionism is not synonymous with anti-Semitism.

    And I can’t believe you’d compare MPAC’s website with justifythis.

  51. Sunny — on 30th October, 2006 at 11:32 pm  

    As ever neither Genghis nor Utbah actually respond to my points. Boys I don’t care if you like MPAC, you are welcome to. I’ve also explained why I think they’re racist. You can either engage with the points I make or you can keep repeating the mantra that they are doing “a great job”. I’m not fussed. I stick to my views you stick to yours. Everyone’s happy.

    Anas: I have to repeat this, although it should be obvious, anti-Zionism is not synonymous with anti-Semitism.

    Who said it was? Most of the times I mention Israel here, it is while I’m being critical. But I don’t foam at the mouth about global Zionist conspiracies all the time. If you think that’s normal then you’re entitled to that point. I see it no different to Mad Mel’s rantings.

  52. Utbah — on 30th October, 2006 at 11:38 pm  

    hehe, Sunny you still have not answered my question.

    Where did you get the statistics from for your statement?

    Sunny, most of those links are articles submitted by a member of the public.

    Also, what the hell has this got to do with Zionism? http://www.mpacuk.org/content/view/2917/35/ This is an article showing that Smearers have falsely accused them of something they did not do.

    I can go on about other articles as I know people have a brain to make their own conclusion.

  53. Utbah — on 30th October, 2006 at 11:40 pm  

    “As ever neither Genghis nor Utbah actually respond to my points.”

    Eh, what the hell. I asked the question and I got no reply from you and I get accused of not responding to my own question which is directed at Mr Hundal.

    Is this a debate between me and you, or am I 2 in 1. Sunny & Utbah?

  54. Utbah — on 30th October, 2006 at 11:45 pm  

    Sunny on the Palestinian State:

    What do you believe in? A 2 State solution or a 1 State solution.

    If you believe in a 2 state solution, whats your views on the apartheid wall which not going to have a hell chance of allowing a free palestinian state.

  55. Anas — on 30th October, 2006 at 11:47 pm  

    Sunny one of those MPAC articles you’ve linked to is a reposting of a Jonathan Freedland article describing how he would feel as a Jew if his community was being targeted like the Muslim community has been recently, another one of them is entitled, Jewish Brother stands with MPAC.

  56. Sunny — on 30th October, 2006 at 11:49 pm  

    Utbah,

    You want to see stats on Muslims turning to the web? How bizarre? Are you not on the web? Is the MPAC website or Islamonline not popular?

    You want evidence of Muslims turning to Asian channels? See this: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,7-1196470,00.html

    Sunny, most of those links are articles submitted by a member of the public.

    What a lame excuse. So you’re saying anyone can submit articles to the MPAC website without any editorial website? Sure, I believe that.

  57. Clairwil — on 30th October, 2006 at 11:54 pm  

    Now, now people Kismet isn’t here let’s stay on topic.

  58. Luke — on 30th October, 2006 at 11:56 pm  

    MPACUK are racist and anti semitic to the tips of their toes.

    They have in the past linked to German neo Nazi websites and published cartoons depicting a Jewish person as a baboon with claws and horns underneath the American flag – Jews, they’re apes and animals, dont you know?

    That the hysterical bed-wetting yahoos of MPACUK feel so at home in the iconography of holocaust denying, Jewish conspiracy theorising Nazi websites says everything you need to know about their prejudice and mindset.

    This is a screenshot taken before they took the racist Nazi anti-semitic cartoon down:

    The Jews as a baboon cartoon from MPACUK

    The cartoon was sourced from this German Neo Nazi website:

    Global Fire

    The day after this racist iconography and link to a German Neo Nazi website was published on the website of MPACUK last summer, Ashgar Bukhari appeared on Newsnight, ostensibly as a representative of mainstream and moderate Islamic thought in Britain. I sent the following e-mail to the editor of Newsnight, but I received no reply:

    =====

    I am bringing this to your attention because on Monday 1st August you invited Mr Asghar Bukhari, a leader of MPACUK, to join a studio discussion on Islamic extremism in the Newsnight studio. I have a number of questions for you:

    (1) Were you aware that MPACUK is an organization that publishes cartoons depicting Jews as baboons with the horns of Satan on their head?

    (2) Were you aware that MPACUK links to a German Neo Nazi website that engages in Holocaust revisionism and denial?

    (3) Are you intending to invite Mr Bukhari or any other members of MPACUK onto Newsnight to comment on issues pertaining to current affairs in the near future?

    (4) If you do so, will your journalists be briefed on the fact that Mr Bukhari is the leader of an organization that publishes cartoons depicting Jews as beasts with the sign of the Devil growing from their head sourced from a Neo Nazi website and will your questioning of his stance on various issues reflect this?

    (5) What is the BBC’s policy on inviting into studio discussions individuals representing organizations that publish cartoons depicting Jews as Satanic animals?

    (6) If using such individuals as commentators violates the ethics of the BBC Newsnight production team, what steps will you be taking to ensure that such individuals are not used again and afforded the credibility of the BBC by legitimizing their rhetoric and discourse in the Newsnight studio?

    (7) On a personal level, do you think it was good idea to invite into a studio discussion on how the Muslim community can oppose the growing influence of extreme right wing Islamist organization the leader of a pressure group that publishes anti-semitic cartoons and links to a Neo Nazi website? On a personal level, do you see any irony in inviting such an individual onto Newsnight to discuss what can be done to ‘save’ vulnerable Muslim youth from the enchantments of Islamic extremists?

    =====

    Bukhari has appeared on Newsnight since then. MPACUK has not changed.

  59. Sunny — on 30th October, 2006 at 11:59 pm  

    Utbah, some more research for you: http://www.starfishresearch.com/minority_report_sample.html

    Anas, you seem to have ignored the other articles I posted. I simply posted some of the articles on the front page obsessed with Jews. You said there was no evidence.

  60. Anas — on 31st October, 2006 at 12:00 am  

    They took it down, right?

  61. Utbah — on 31st October, 2006 at 12:03 am  

    Fucking hell Sunny, your bloody worse than the goverment getting false intelligence for the dodgy dossier.

    You based your analysis on a “poll” 2 years back.

    On the subject of me turning to the web? Your worse than David Hirch trying to prove Israel isn’t a racist state.

    Also, Who made him the representative of the Muslim youth?

    “Is the MPAC website or Islamonline not popular?” Popular with who? Paki’s, Guji’s, Arabs? Muslims, Christians? Where is the statistics.

    “What a lame excuse. So you’re saying anyone can submit articles to the MPAC website without any editorial website? Sure, I believe that. ”

    I don’t know try it. Also, Can I become an editor here?

    I seriously don’t know why you have a problem with a Muslim organisation with Zionism. Just like you have a problem with Asian leadership, so what? What gives you the right to attack others just because you don’t like what angle they are coming from.

    What right do you have to demonise an organisation which is fighting for a Muslim women to have a better representation in the Muslim Community. Do you not agree with them on this issue, or you just found out that this documentary was done by MPAC that everything is bad.

    Are you not happy that for once they have not concentrated on Zionism and on more important issues such as Women Rights?

    I see MPAC as moving forward not just a organisation only fighting against Zionism but taking other more important issue’s, such as global warming, women rights, and channeling the anger of the young Muslims into a poltical response.

  62. Anas — on 31st October, 2006 at 12:04 am  

    Sunny, at least two of those articles are positive about Jews. The Freedland article has zilch to do with Zionism.

    The rest focus on Zionism which like I said earlier is understandable given the continuing injustice in Palestine and the Western support for it.

  63. Clairwil — on 31st October, 2006 at 12:06 am  

    What gives you the right to attack others just because you don’t like what angle they are coming from.

    That’s easy democracy, free speech and all that jazz.

  64. Anas — on 31st October, 2006 at 12:07 am  

    Saying all this, I think Muslims in general might be overly obsessed with Zionism. But again it’s eminently understandable given the symbolic role that Palestine plays in the Muslim psyche and the power of the pro-Israeli lobby in the US and UK.

  65. Utbah — on 31st October, 2006 at 12:08 am  

    Oh the bullshit of the anti-semitism card has been bought out.

    Sunny’s Zionist crew has just come out of the closet.

    Have a read of this false allegation of Anti-Semitism http://jihadandthecity.wordpress.com/2006/10/28/the-dirty-smear-campaign-of-david-hirsh-against-mpacuk/

    Or for the fact that they are halocauste deniers

    http://jihadandthecity.wordpress.com/2006/10/23/mpacuk-holocaust-deniers/

  66. raz — on 31st October, 2006 at 12:08 am  

    Sorry Anas, I don’t agree the focus on Zionism is understandable. There are far worse injustices suffered by Muslims all over the world (some at the hands of other Muslims) which don’t seem to get anything like the attention that Israel does.

  67. Anas — on 31st October, 2006 at 12:09 am  

    Norman Finkelstein’s Beyond Chutzpah gives an excellent account of the reality behind pro-Israeli smears against critics of Israel.

  68. Utbah — on 31st October, 2006 at 12:11 am  

    Or They Dare to Speak Out

  69. Luke — on 31st October, 2006 at 12:11 am  

    Anas

    Whether they took it down or not is not the point. They took it down after they were sussed. That they saw nothing wrong with publishing cartoons depicting Jews as monkeys with horns and claws salivating by a flag of America, which was sourced from a German Neo Nazi website, and saw nothing wrong with that, that they considered linking to German Neo Nazi websites was a legitimate and reasonable act, that they saw a deep kinship with that source and endorsed classical racist anti-semitic iconography depicting Jews not as humans, but as ANIMALS, tells you all you need to know about the true face of MPACUK.

    That you support them is duly noted.

  70. Utbah — on 31st October, 2006 at 12:13 am  

    Is there a problem with someone channeling their anger be it a Green Peace Acitist or a Muslim youth who is fed up with our foreign policy into a driving force of change?

    Or as a matter of another example, Sunny hundal always bashing on about leaders while there are many other issue’s? Why isn’t sunny concentrating on other issues as well? Such as Global Warming, or the injustices happening in the world?

  71. Sunny — on 31st October, 2006 at 12:13 am  

    What gives you the right to attack others just because you don’t like what angle they are coming from.

    Possibly the stupidest thing you’ve ever written Utbah, and that is difficult to achieve. What gives MPAC the right to label others Islamophobes then? What gives MPAC to criticise the Masajids and the mosque leaders? What gives MPAC the right to criticise Israel? We all have a right to criticise who we want. Not just your mates.

    The poll may be two years old but the stats are there. As are the other stats I posted. Who visits the MPAC website? I don’t know! They have “Britain’s most popular Muslim website” stated on top and say their mailing list goes to 65,000 people. Does that give you any indication? I know you want to argue for the sake of arguing but you’re just digging a hole. And frankly I can’t be asked to waste my time with you anymore. I’ve provided all the stats.

    Such as Global Warming, or the injustices happening in the world?
    Have you seen the front page of Pickled Politics today? Environmentalism and women’s rights in India right on top! Fuck off if you can’t read English.

    Anas: The rest focus on Zionism which like I said earlier is understandable given the continuing injustice in Palestine and the Western support for it.

    Anas I thought you’d say that. So we’re back to square one. MPAC is racist, and Luke has just mentioned what I was going to. You’re welcome to your views I’ve justified mine.

  72. Anas — on 31st October, 2006 at 12:15 am  

    Raz, I use the south africa analogy.

    If you were a concerned and political black person in the West in the 80s you’d likely have a very strong, maybe overly strong interest in South Africa and apartheid — even though Black Africans were doing horrible things to other Black Africans elsewhere on the continent.

    It wasn’t a sign of anti-white racism, it was because of the strong symbolic potency of that struggle, and because of the sympathy the white south african establishment had amongst much of the white establishment in the West.

  73. Clairwil — on 31st October, 2006 at 12:17 am  

    Once again all the chaps steering off a feminist issue to get on their own hobby horses.

    Happy willy waving, I’m off to sleep perchance to dream.

  74. Anas — on 31st October, 2006 at 12:18 am  

    I’m sorry, Sunny, but your charge of racism against MPAC is way off. Sure they perhaps a little obsessed with Zionism, but to call them racist is unjustified.

  75. Anas — on 31st October, 2006 at 12:19 am  

    LOL, Clarwill.

  76. Utbah — on 31st October, 2006 at 12:19 am  

    “Anas

    Whether they took it down or not is not the point. They took it down after they were sussed. That they saw nothing wrong with publishing cartoons depicting Jews as monkeys with horns and claws salivating by a flag of America, which was sourced from a German Neo Nazi website, and saw nothing wrong with that, that they considered linking to German Neo Nazi websites was a legitimate and reasonable act, that they saw a deep kinship with that source and endorsed classical racist anti-semitic iconography depicting Jews not as humans, but as ANIMALS, tells you all you need to know about the true face of MPACUK.

    That you support them is duly noted. ”

    Hehe what a load of bullshit. Should brush the whole Jewish community as Manufactueres of Anti-Semitism by making false charges of anti-semitism http://jewssansfrontieres.blogspot.com ?

    Don’t you Zionists have an ounse of forgivness if someone asks you for forgivness?

    They took it down because they were sussed? Or maybe they took it down because they were alerted to it source of originality. The image itself could have come from any where. I usually get images from google sometimes it turns up images from racists sits or some dodgy sites, does that make me an anti-semitic?

    The Anti-Semitic card is just getting fucking out of control. If a Zionist believes an apple is an orange and I say No it’s a apple, I bet you I’ll be called a fucking anti-semitic.

  77. Sunny — on 31st October, 2006 at 12:21 am  

    but to call them racist is unjustified.

    That is your opinion not mine. All I’m doing is applying standards equally here. Anyone non-Muslim doing the same about Muslims would be labelled the same. The fact that you apply your standards differently is an old story.

    The Anti-Semitic card is just getting fucking out of control

    As is the Islamophobic card. MPAC are simply getting a taste of their own medicine.

    Anyway, I’m out too. Have work to do. I’ve justified my stance. If you don’t like it I’m not fussed.

  78. Utbah — on 31st October, 2006 at 12:25 am  

    “Have you seen the front page of Pickled Politics today? Environmentalism and women’s rights in India right on top! Fuck off if you can’t read English.”

    Why are you not talking about whats happening in Burma, China, or the top up fee’s.

    If you want a debate answer the questions, don’t answer by not answering it and then asking me a question.

    If Jewish people such as Mark Elf or DesertPeace don’t believe MPAC to be anti-semitic (WHO ARE JEWS THEMSELVES), it seriously makes me wonder if you are just playing the Zionist Anti-Semitic card.

    label those who raise the issue of Palestine as anti-semitic.

    Here’s an image which sums it up:

    http://www.deviantart.com/deviation/40660857/?qo=20&q=by%3Alatuff2&qh=sort%3Atime+-in%3Ascraps

  79. Utbah — on 31st October, 2006 at 12:26 am  

    Sunny, when did MPAC call you an Islamophobic?

    If the same rule applies to them surelt the same rule can apply to you?

  80. Utbah — on 31st October, 2006 at 12:27 am  
  81. Utbah — on 31st October, 2006 at 12:30 am  

    I don’t see your outrage agianst this shit:

    Some of these children are as young as 4 years old, they take a number of buses, sometimes traveling up to 20 hours, with checkpoints, searches, etc. for a 45 minute visit with dad.

    http://sabbah.biz/mt/archives/2006/10/30/palestinian-child-visit-dad-in-prison-family-cant/

    Can I lable you as a racist because you don’t like to cover such issue’s?

  82. Anas — on 31st October, 2006 at 12:30 am  

    Sunny, calling an organisation racist is very serious allegation, it’s not something you do frivolously. Therefore it’s a claim you have to substantiate properly, which you clearly haven’t done here — neither have you directed me to other sources that do so.

    I’m not a particularly big supporter of MPAC, but I am puzzled at the hostilty they attract from you and others here.

  83. Anas — on 31st October, 2006 at 12:38 am  

    Luke, your words remind me of that scene in Dad’s Army:

    German U-boat Captain: I am making notes, Captain, and your name will go on the list; and when we win the war you will be brought to account.
    Captain Mainwaring: You can write what you like, You’re not going to win the war!
    U-boat Captain: Oh yes we are.
    Mainwaring: Oh no you’re not.
    U-boat Captain: Oh yes we are!
    Pvt. Pike: [Singing] Whistle while you work, Hitler is a twerp, he’s half-barmy, so is his army, whistle while you work!
    U-boat Captain: Your name will also go on the list! What is it?
    Mainwaring: Don’t tell him, Pike!
    U-boat Captain: Pike!

  84. Utbah — on 31st October, 2006 at 12:40 am  

    Anas, if you look at these allegations. They are from Pro-Israeli or Pro-Zionist supporters.

    Just google them and see for yourself. If those who accuse MPACUK of being anti-semitic are not Pro-Israeli, I’ll send you early christmas presents :p

  85. Sunny — on 31st October, 2006 at 12:49 am  

    So I’m a racist for not writing about issues you specifically think I should be writing about? Great logic Utbah. On ‘Islamophobic’, see their forums.

    Anas: Therefore it’s a claim you have to substantiate properly, which you clearly haven’t done here

    I’ve already done that above. It’s not my fault if you want to remain oblivious to it.

    I’m now closing this thread it’s gone way off track.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Pickled Politics © Copyright 2005 - 2010. All rights reserved. Terms and conditions.
With the help of PHP and Wordpress.