Western Resistance

« US: Islamist Convert On Treason Charges | | France: Lower House Pases "Armenia Genocide Law", European Commission Condemns Move »

October 12, 2006

UK: Muslims Angry At Government's Warning On Funding

Yesterday, Ruth Kelly (pictured left), the communities minister, made a speech which warned Muslim groups that if they were not active in fighting extremism, they would forfeit their government funding. The fact that any Muslim groups, none of which are elected, receive funding from taxpayers is perhaps a scandal in itself, but the reactions of Muslim groups to this threat to their free handouts is enlightening.

The news is carried by numerous sources, most prominently by the Guardian, the Times, the Telegraph, AFP via Qatar's Peninsula, Bloomberg and 24 Dash.com. The Mirror and Daily Mail also cover the story, with an additional article from the Times.

Kelly, a member of the intense Catholic group Opus Dei appears to be developing a no-nonsense approach to the less responsible members of the Muslim community. One wonders if the negative reactions to Benedict XVI after his Regensburg address are starting to make her realize that not all Muslim groups in Britain are as wholesome as they have been treated.

She was talking yesterday in London to a gathering of Muslims, and in her speech she delivered a strong warning of a "fundamental rebalancing" of the government's relationship with Muslim groups.

She said: "I do not come here to say that tackling extremists is your problem as Muslims alone. This is a shared problem. It is a shared battle for the kind of society we want to be and the values that we all hold dear. But I do say that without you fully on side we will fail. Your voice is more powerful than mine and your actions can be more effective."

She said that the government had a commitment to working with Muslim groups who demonstrate that they are "determined to take on the extremists and defend values that the vast majority of us share."

She continued: "It is not good enough to merely sit on the sidelines or pay lip service to fighting extremism. That is why I want a fundamental rebalancing of our relationship with Muslim organisations from now on. In future, I am clear that our strategy of funding and engagement must shift significantly towards those organisations that are taking a proactive leadership role in tackling extremism and defending our shared values."

"It is only by defending our values that we will prevent extremists radicalising future generations of terrorists. We will judge them by their words and their actions. We know Muslim organisations have a particular role they can play. Over time we will support those that stand up for our shared values and not support those who don't."

On the extremely divisive issue of the veil, which has brought Muslim anger, she said that wearing the item was a matter of "informed personal choice". But there were things that needed to be held in common by Muslims and non-Muslim citizens.

She said: "There is more that holds us together than divides us. "I believe there are some cultural aspects we should share - speaking English and having a sense of British history and traditions for example. And all of this needs to be grounded in a set of non-negotiable values. They belong to us all. They are found in Islam as much as in Christian, Sikh, Hindu, Jewish and other traditions: respect for the law; freedom of speech; equality of opportunity; respect for others and responsibility towards others."

She warned that there were elements such as the "far right" who were trying to drive a wedge between Muslims and the rest of society. She said: "The far-Right is still with us. Still poisonous, still trying to create and exploit divisions. Their aim this time is to drive a wedge between British Muslims and wider society. We need to stand together to expose their lies and challenge their hate-fuelled message."

The far-right is not spreading half as many lies as the government and its Muslim cronies have done recently, maintaining the biggest lie of all, that Islam is inherently peaceful.

Another part of her speech made a veiled reference to the Muslim Council for Britain, and its constant opposition to the celebration of Holocaust Memorial Day. As we reported in September last year, members of MCB along with individuals such as faux moderate Tariq Ramadan, wanted the Holocaust Memorial Day banned as it made Muslims feel "left out". In January the then-secretary general of the MCB, Iqbal Sacranie said the group would not accept the commemoration, after earlier teasing with promises that it might.

The current fuehrer at the MCB, Dr Muhammad Abdul Bari, had been invited to the talk, but had refused to attend. It is likely that he had been leaked a copy of the speech before it was delivered. He was angered by mention of Holocaust Memorial Day, but seemed further irked by comments that Kelly made about the fight against terrorism. Bari had criticised the June 2 raid in Forest Gate, which had caused one Muslim, Mohammed Abdul Kahar, (who was later accused on child pornography charges) to become shot when his brother Abul Koyair tried to grab a police officer's gun.

Kelly said: "The police and security services have disrupted a number of further attacks. And we know that followers of al-Qaeda are planning others. The scale of the threat means great urgency. And this can produce mistakes. But these mistakes have sometimes been seized on by some to falsely suggest that the police are the enemy rather than the terrorists. They aren't - they deserve all of our support. A serious and tough security response is inevitable for all of our safety."

Bari whined later that Kelly's comments were a "veiled threat" about who would be eligible for funding. He said: "Every organisation has the right to apply for government funding - but agreeing with government policy should not be a criteria for receiving that money. For sometime now, mainstream Muslim organisations have not been consulted. We have been talked to, we have not been talked with."

Inayat Bunglawala, assistant general of the MCB, carped: "We have the sense that the Government only wants to speak to organisations that mirror its own views. It is untenable to continue to deny that Iraq and Afghanistan have not undermined our security."

I would say that if Muslims were all loyal citizens like the vast majority of non-Muslim citizens, even if they disagreed with foreign policy, Britain would never have "undermined security" as a result of a policy which was unpopular. Only Muslims justify terrorism in this way.

Bunglawala, a former open supporter of terrorism, said: "If the Government is planning to merely seek out those organisations who will be less critical or parrot its policies, then this is not a strategy that will succeed. If that happens, the Government will lose credibility with the Muslim community."

Governments lose credibility with the public all the time. Bunglawala's comment, considering Muslims comprise only 3% of the population seems to show that his group thinks it has the right to dictate government policy by blackmail.

The MCB has received money from the taxpayer for its "charity status". The MCB has been registered as a UK charity, under the name "The Muslim Council of Britain Charitable Foundation" (number 1084651) since 23 January 2001. It has not completed its financial returns to the Charity Commission since it became registered as a charity five yeas ago, and its last statement of expenditure was made more than three years ago.

MCB has received government funding of at least £500,000 ($951,714) from the Home Office. Last February it was awarded £150,000 ($285,555) from the Home Office's "cohesion and faiths unit" for the financial year that ended in March 2006.

And in July this year, Dr Bari, secretary general of the MCB entertained the extremist Bangladeshi Islamist Delwar Hossein Sayeedi at the East London Mosque, where he is the chairman. The MCB deserves NO taxpayers' money.

But the issue of the veil has brought more division between members of the government and the Muslim "community" than it already has, with two ministers adding their voices of disapproval to the veil. Harriet Harman, constitutional affairs minister, said to the New Statesman newspaper, that the nikab was an obstacle to female participation in society, and would hinder such women's ambitions to enter Parliament. She said: "If you want equality, you have to be in society, not hidden away from it."

The issues of the face-veil were also brought up by Bill Rammell, higher education minister. We wrote on November 22 last year that the prestigious university and research establishment, Imperial College, had banned the wearing of Islamic veils, and also the hooded top called a "hoody", in the interest of security.

K.A. Mitcheson, college secretary, wrote to all students stating that "the ability of members of staff and students to confirm the identity of any stranger ... they find in a building is an essential element of the security process."

Bill Rammell, according to Reuters confirmed his support for Imperial College's decision. He said to the London Evening Standard newspaper: "Imperial College recently banned the face veil and I think that this is arguably the best decision. I'm not dictating hard and fast rules, as dress codes are a matter for university authorities."

He said that many teachers in higher education felt "uncomfortable" teaching students who wore the full veil, or nikab.

But the reactions from extremist groups to Ruth Kelly's speech is informative. We have written on the pro-terrorist support given out by members of the so-called "Islamic Human Rights Commission" (IHRC), which has as its adviser the Saudi asylum-seeker Dr Muhammad al-Massari. Last November, Massari urged Muslims in Europe, via his website Tajdeed.net, to riot in imitation of the Muslims who were then rioting in Paris.

The head of IHRC is Massoud Shadjareh (pictured, above right), whom we justifiably described as an "Islamic Fascist" for his open support for the terrorist grop Hizbollah, and his calls for Muslims to fund Hizbollah and to work towards wiping out Israel.

His reactions to Ruth Kelly's comments are enlightening. He said: "The deliberate confusion surrounding the word extremism is a ploy by the Government to use its financial muscle to socially engineer a new brand of Islam which will be subservient to its foreign policy."

"Ms Kelly should be genuinely honest and recognise that there is a tremendous commitment to a multicultural multi-religious Britain throughout the Muslim community, irrespective of its diverse views on foreign and domestic policy."

In Shadjareh's case, there is no "confusion" about the word "extremism". Anyone who calls for Muslims to support the overthrow of a sovereign state (Israel) is either an extremist, or a supporter of terrorism. There should be no taxpayers' money given to the misleadlingly-titled "Human Rights Commission" until it accepts the "human rights" of Israeli civilians to live without the threat of Iranian-funded terror groups trying to destroy them.

The group Hizb ut-Tahrir, which seeks to overthrow governments to form a Caliphate, and is consequently banned in virtually every Muslim country in the Middle East, was also contemptuous of Kelly's comments.

The obese UK spokesman for Hizb ut-Tahrir, Imran Waheed (pictured, left), said: "Ruth Kelly tried to deny that the Government is shifting the blame to the Muslim community by talking of a 'shared problem'."

"However, John Reid's demand that Muslim parents spy on their children, Straw's comments on the veil causing 'separation and difference' and Kelly's previous comments on Islamic schools promoting extremism and isolationism show clearly that the Government is intent on shifting the blame from foreign policy to the Muslim community."

"Her talk of supporting 'deradicalisation programmes' seemed to be lifted from a Communist Party manifesto. This was further evidenced by the threat that the Government will only fund those organisations that toe the Government line."

"In essence, we are seeing the creation of a new Labour state-sponsored Islam, akin to that adopted by the dictators of the Muslim world."

Considering Hizb ut-Tahrir's open contempt for democracy, its calling of Westminster ""the infidel parliament", its calls in its literature for Jews to be exterminated, and on its website, its desire to see ultimate world domination by Islamism, and its violent forcing of Muslim women who are university students to wear the hijab (Muslim headscarf), Hizb ut-Tahrir have forfeited any right to criticize any government policy.

Hizb ut-Tahrir are internationalized extremists who, despite their constant renaming of their activist cells to avoid suspicion, have no place within any democratic framework.

Posted by Giraldus Cambrensis at October 12, 2006 5:00 AM

Comments

Post a comment