Tolerant Muslim Preaching and Complaints of Misrepresentation in ‘Among the Mosques’

I’ve started reading Ed Hussein’s Among the Mosques, his account of his journey through Muslim Britain looking at its culture, differences, and values. He did so by going to the mosques and other Muslim cultural and religious centres in Dewsbury, Manchester, Blackburn, Bradford, Birmingham, Cardiff, Belfast, Edinburgh, Glasgow and London. While there, he met and talked to ordinary local people as well as the worshippers at the mosques, hearing their views and concerns. It was met with a storm of controversy when it came out because he talked about the conversations he’d had with Whites,, who’d suffered from racism, bullying and assault from Muslims in their areas. This was angrily denied, and a people went on Twitter to claim that the area he was talking about wasn’t Muslim but a posh White district. But the critics were talking about a different area from that visited by Hussein, and the book states this. The controversy seems to show the inability of some on the left to deal with the reality of anti-White racism by ethnic minorities.

But I don’t think the book does present a biased image of British Islam. Yes, in some areas, such as Dewsbury, the Islam practised – Deobandi – is austere and based on a theology of cultural separatism, in which Muslims are called to create and maintain a separate cultural and religious identity in preparation for the emergence of the caliphate. In other areas and mosques, the preaching and observance is more relaxed. Manchester’s Central Mosque is Barelwi, a sect based on the teachings of a 13th century Indian Sufi preacher. Their worship includes music, song and dance and the imam’s address was about interfaith tolerance as shown by Mohammed’s example.

Hussein writes

‘The imam continues to develop his theme of the need to change and improve ourselves based on our love for the Prophet. He encourages us to study the life of the Prophet Mohammed and how he acted towards people, even his enemies. Each time his name is mentioned the congregation again kiss their thumbs. The imam talks about the Prophet’s compassion, his kindness to his enemies, his message of co-existence with the Jews, Christians and pagans in seventh century Medina.

‘Are we such model citizens? Do we make our Prophet proud? he asks rhetorically, raising his hands with an exaggerated shrug like an Italian.

He quotes:

‘Qad ja’akun nur. Certainly a light has come to you.

That light is the prophet and the Qur’an, asserts the imam. ‘Are we radiating this light? Do our neighbours and friends in this country see us as carriers of love? The Prophet is shifa, he is healing. Has he healed our lives?’ (p. 46.) This isn’t that far from the various Anglican and other Christian clergymen in this country also preaching about the need for tolerance and love to heal ‘broken Britain’.

Earlier in the chapter he meets with a Muslim woman, Faiza, and her husband, who has come to the meeting as a chaperone as Muslim women may not meet strange men unaccompanied. She wears the niqub, and tells Hussein that she has reported three of her work colleagues to the HR department because they think she’s an extremist for doing so. She also talks about how the Muslim community in Manchester has been misrepresented thanks to the wretched suicide bomber at the Ariane Grande concert.

”One of the suicide bombers, Salman Abedi, was from a mosque in Didsbury here in Manchester,’ Faiza explains, adding in exasperation: ‘We have almost seventy mosques in this city. Yes, twenty-nine innocent kids died. And over a hundred were injured. For what crime?’ she shrugs. ‘One suicide bomber – one salafi – caused the incident, but what about the hundreds of Muslim taxi drivers who immediately took the injured to hospital? The drivers didn’t charge for this, but just offered their compassion and help. And why do we forget all the Muslim doctors and nurses at the hospital>’ Faiza is speaking passionately but intelligently.’ (p. 38). Elsewhere in the chapter he describes how all the mosques in the area condemned the bombing, but this wasn’t reported in the press coverage. And other Muslims tell him that they tried to warn the authorities six times about Abedi but were ignored. It’s a familiar story I’ve heard about other Muslim extremists – the congregation at the local mosque were worried, and attempted to alert the authorities only to be ignored.

I haven’t finished the book yet, but it seems to me that Hussein is trying to present a fair picture of British Islam. Islam, like most other religious, isn’t a monolith but composed of a number of sects, which may differ considerably in their theology and practise. Indeed, the title of one book we had in the library at College on Islam was The Sectarian Milieu. There are serious issues and challenges from some of the more austere sects, which reject mainstream cultural values and integration. And Muslims are like everyone else – human beings -, and so may have their own prejudices and biases. And some are no doubt racist thugs and bullies, just like some Whites.

These issues have to be squarely addressed, not denied, or distorted so that all British Muslims become tainted due to the actions of violent extremists. If we don’t do this, then it’ll be left to the real bigots and Islamophobes like Tommy Robinson and the EDL.

Jewish Chronicle Attacks Katie Hopkin’s Islamophobic, pro-Israel Movie

Here’s a turn-up for the books. Katie Hopkins, the racist motormouth with a particular hatred of Islam, has found herself and her film, Homelands, panned by the Jewish Chronicle. Which was also shocked and disturbed by the growth of Fascism in the Jewish community, as shown by the far right sympathies of the mostly, but not exclusively Jewish audience.

Hopkins has been hawking her film around for a little time now. It’s about how decent Jewish and Christian Brits are being forced out of Britain by Muslims. It celebrates Israel as a sanctuary to which Jews can flee, while lamenting that no similar place exists for Christians. Obviously, it’s an immensely controversial flick. As Zelo Street described in an article a few days ago, she had a bit of difficulty finding a venue that would screen it in Israel: three venues turned her down, and the Board of Deputies of British Jews also severely criticised it. But she and her fellow islamophobe, the former kipper MEP Janice Atkinson, succeeded in getting it shown last night at the Pillar Hotel in Hendon. Hopkins was there, along with Ambrosine Shitrit and Sharon Klaff, two members of the ultra-Zionist Jewish right mentioned very frequently by Tony Greenstein in his articles. Also in attendance were Ros Pine and Anne-Marie Waters. Ros Pine is a member of the Board of Deputies, who was suspended last year for six years for describing Muslims as ‘the vilest of animals’. Anne-Marie Water is the founder of the islamophobic party, For Britain. And the JC’s correspondence, Ben Weich, was also there. And not remotely impressed.

According to Weich, the film opened with sepia-toned footage of wartime Britain, described as the ‘Britain our grandparents used to know’. This had a ‘shared sense of British pride’, to which people from across our colonies ‘flooded to partake’. Then Hopkins was shown visiting Savile Town, a suburb of Dewsbury which is 90 per cent Muslim. The film finally moved to Israel, with the woman nicknamed Hatey Katie expressing her envy for Jews, because ‘Brits don’t have an Israel to flee Europe to.’

Weich stated that the film was laughable propaganda, but the atmosphere during the Q&A session that followed was febrile and no joke. He said that for about an hour, members of the 100-strong audience, which was mostly but not exclusively Jewish, announced in turn that they were ‘devout islamophobes’ and followers of Meir Kahane, an ultra-right wing convicted terrorist, whose Kach organisation was banned by the Israeli authorities. After the film was over, the Jewish attendees denied that the film was islamophobic. All of them insisted that there was a difference between ‘racism and the truth’. But none of them wanted to give their names.

Weich ended his article with the words

“Jewish flirtation with the far right and extreme nationalism – less than a century removed from the Holocaust – is nauseating and ironic in equal measure”.

And the Zelo Street article itself concludes

Katie Hopkins is playing to extremists. wherever she goes. Well called out by the JC.

See: https://zelo-street.blogspot.com/2019/07/jewish-chronicle-slams-katie-hopkins.html

While the Jewish Chronicle is to be congratulated for attacking Hopkins, her wretched film, and the islamophobia and Fascism of its mostly Jewish audience, the rag is still responsible for vilely smearing Jeremy Corbyn and his supporters, including Mike, simply because they’re critical of Israel’s barbarous treatment of the Palestinians, or dare to defend those who do. Stephen Pollard, its editor, is himself an islamophobe, who considers Muslims and socialists to be a threat to western civilisation. And the Board fully supports these smears and vilifications in defence of the apartheid state. The former Chief Rabbi, Jonathan Sachs, also shares extreme Israeli nationalist sympathies. He took a party of British Jews to participate in the March of the Flags, in which ultra-nationalist Israelis march through the Muslim quarter of Jerusalem vandalising property and intimidating the residents. This was despite British Jewish organisations appealing to Sachs not to go. And at all the pro-Israel, anti-Corbyn demonstrations there have been a young couple wearing T-shirts with the Kach symbol, expressing their sympathies for the Israeli Fascist right.

And I also wonder how many of the audience for Hatey Katie’s wretched flick were members of the Campaign Against Anti-Semitism, which itself is viciously islamophobic, as well as smearing decent people as anti-Semites simply because they want the Israeli state to stop persecuting the Palestinians.

Weich is right to be disturbed about islamophobia and Fascism in the Jewish community. But the Jewish Chronicle, Board of Deputies and Chief Rabbis are also responsible for its growth due to their uncritical support for Israel and zealous smearing of its critics.

 

Hope Not Hate on Another Split in the National Front

A few minutes ago I put up a piece about the report on Mike’s blog that the BNP had been pushing one of their vile leaflets through people’s doors in Dewsbury, accusing the murdered MP Jo Cox of being ‘misguided’ and aiding people, who could join ISIS. I suggested in my post that this was an attempt by the BNP to show that it’s still relevant, having lost membership through various splits and leadership coups.

This factionalism and bitter infighting is also shared by the various other corpuscules forming this country’s Fascist fringe. Hope Not Hate, the anti-racist, anti-religious extremism organisation reported yesterday that another group had emerged from the noxious stew of British Fascism. The stormtroopers holding the banner in Newcastle on Saturday proclaiming ‘Stop Immigration Start Repatriation’ were the Northern Patriotic Front, who have merged with some of the bootboys from the NF to another grouplet, Northern Nationalists. The stormtrooper holding the banner was one Simon Biggs, who has been accused by his former National Comrades in the NF of stealing their banner, an accusation which Biggs denies.

Hope Not Hate concludes by saying it’s a case of ‘Same old rubbish. Just a different name.’

See: http://www.hopenothate.org.uk/blog/insider/national-front-splits-again-4933

Vox Political: BNP Accusing Jo Cox of Aiding Potential Muslim Terrorists

Racism, and racist incidents in Britain has increased as a result of the Brexit campaign, and it seems the BNP is trying to do its best to capitalise on this. It’s particularly trying to exploit the assassination of Jo Cox, who was killed after holding a constituency surgery in Birstall. She had particularly angered the racists and Islamophobes in West Yorkshire for her work supporting immigrants and anti-racist campaigns. And now, after her death, the BNP are trying to smear her.

According to Mike over at Vox Political, Paula Sherriff, the Labour MP for Dewsbury, has complained about leaflets shoved through her constituents doors by the stormtroopers. This accuses Cox of taking ‘misguided action’ by helping Muslims, who may then go on to join ISIS. She also states that it includes other vile claims. She also has complained that many of her constituents have also been racially abused. She mentions in particular a case where a seven year old girl was told by someone that the Leave vote ‘was the best day of my life’ and that the girl and people like her should all go home. Actually, those weren’t the exact words used, as Sherriff was taking out the expletives so it could be decently repeated in the House.

See: http://voxpoliticalonline.com/2016/06/30/bnp-posts-jo-cox-muslim-slur-through-neighbours-letterboxes-as-racist-attacks-soar/

It’s almost predictable that the BNP would try something to smear Cox and try to promote itself on the back of her murder. This also shows how desperate the BNP are. The party’s been the subject of various splits and leadership disputes, with former Fuehrer Griffin having been ousted. He is now running around eastern Europe trying to get the squadristi there to give him free meals and publicity. The far right in this country has shrunk down to a very few, split between a number of squabbling grouplets, all desperate to steal each others’ members. This looks like a sordid attempt by the BNP to show it can take the lead and still has some relevance in the politics of hate. It also shows how vile and pathetic the group has become, now it’s fallen from the threat it was eight or so years ago. This is it’s true face – racist, mean-spirited, slanderous and desperate. Their leaflets are only fit to be slung in the bin, as is the party itself.

Vox Political: Six MPs Explain Why They’re Voting against Bombing Syria

Mike over at Vox Political has posted six individual pieces about Labour MPs, who are against bombing Syria, in which they give their reasons for opposing the government’s policy.

They are

Cat Smith, the MP for Lancaster and Fleetwood,
http://voxpoliticalonline.com/2015/12/01/cat-smith-labours-lancaster-and-fleetwood-mp-will-not-support-air-strikes/

Jo Stevens, the MP for Cardiff Central
http://voxpoliticalonline.com/2015/12/01/cardiff-central-mp-will-vote-against-air-strikes-in-syria/

Matthew Pennycook, the MP for Greenwich and Woolwich
http://voxpoliticalonline.com/2015/12/01/greenwich-and-woolwich-mp-weighs-in-against-air-strikes-in-syria/

Paula Sheriff, the MP for Dewsbury and Mirfield
http://voxpoliticalonline.com/2015/12/01/paula-sheriff-labours-dewsbury-and-mirfield-mp-opposes-air-strikes/

John Mann. Mann has criticised Corbyn about the way he handled setting out Labour’s policy, putting his own beliefs ahead of everyone else’s. But he is also going to vote against bombing Syria.

http://voxpoliticalonline.com/2015/12/01/john-mann-is-a-corbyn-critic-but-like-corbyn-he-opposes-air-strikes-in-syria/

And Keir Starmer, the Labour MP for Holbourne and St. Pancras, formerly Director of Public Prosecutions
http://voxpoliticalonline.com/2015/12/01/former-dpp-keir-starmer-is-no-pacifist-but-he-wont-support-air-strikes-in-syria/.

These give various reasons for not supporting Cameron’s decision. These include the lack of UN and international support, concern for the ordinary people caught up in the bombing and the further destabilisation that will occur, and the belief that bombing alone will not solve the problem. Starmer in particular makes it clear that Cameron’s statement that there are 70,000 fighters already in Syria willing to take our side is wholly unrealistic.

Mike has also written another long piece observing that the media seems desperate to make Labour seem responsible for Britain’s bombing of Syria, if this goes ahead, despite Corbyn and the majority of Labour members opposing it.

http://voxpoliticalonline.com/2015/12/01/syria-have-the-uk-news-media-ever-been-as-desperate-to-convince-the-public-of-a-lie/

This bias is shared not just by newspapers like the Metro, but also by the Beeb’s own Newsnight programme. The narrative being spun here is that if some Labour MPs do vote with the government, the bombing will be due to division in the Labour party. Mike observes that they’re desperate for a war and more blood spilt, but want to blame it on the Labour party instead of with the government.

I can’t say I’m surprised at the tactic. When Thatcher and Major were in power, the constant refrain from the Tories was that Labour was divided by factionalism, and hence a shambolic mess that shouldn’t be in power. Quite different from the confident and monolithic Tories, whipped into line by Maggie. This changed with the control-freakery of New Labour, but now that Cameron has emerged from the Left of the party – actually, the traditional centre ground before Bliar took it to the right – they’ve simply dusted off and revived that bit of Tory rhetoric. They’ve also remembered how unpopular the invasion of Iraq was, and how deeply Bliar and his crew have been resented for that. And so they’re determined to pin this on Corbyn’s Labour. Even though they’ve been loudly denouncing Corbyn for being somehow unpatriotic and openly supporting terrorism from the IRA to Osama bin Laden.

It’s unsurprising that most of the Tory media are against Labour. It’s also almost to be expected that Newsnight would follow suit. The Beeb is currently fending off Tory plans to strip it of the licence fee, or privatise it. Their response has been to roll over and adopt a fawningly pro-government position in the hope that it will somehow appease them. It won’t.

It’s also a strategy by which the media can hide their own volte face in supporting the bombing. Nearly a decade and a half ago, many Conservative MPs opposed the invasion of Iraq, and various Tory rags like the Spectator also took an anti-War line. Now they’re pro-war, in contrast to the grassroots of the Labour party, which is opposed to it. But it’s clearly an uncomfortable position. After all, Private Eye and other consistent critics of humbug by the great and good make a point of showing up cases where MPs and the media have changed their opinions when it’s been convenient. Their support for bombing now could cause people to question whether their opposition to the Iraq invasion came from genuine conviction, or simply because this time the calls for military action came from the Labour party. So they have to pass responsibility for bombing onto Labour, in order to avoid criticising their favoured party, the Tories, or appearing to contradict themselves by supporting military action in circumstances similar to Bliar’s invasion of Iraq.