Earlier today, I blogged about a new publication: Islamophobia and Anti Muslim Hate Crime. The report is produced by the European Muslim Research Centre at Exeter University: an institution run by Messrs Lambert and Githens-Mazer, and has ties to individuals and organisations with a history of support for extreme politics including terrorism.
I observed:
It should be clear by now that the function of the EMRC is not, in fact, to combat hatred against Muslims. Rather, it is to provide political cover – dressed up as academic research – for extremist Islamist political organisations.
Here is a case in point. Part V of the report is given over to a discussion of the career of the Islamic Forum Europe aligned Mayor of Tower Hamlets, Lutfur Rahman. The section is entitled “Barbarians at the gates of the City – a case study in the subversion of liberal democracy in the London Borough of Tower Hamlets” and claims to have been written by somebody who has “worked extensively in Tower Hamlets politics”. We’re not told who. [Although in the comments below, a possible candidate is identified: “Abdullah Faliq, an ELM, IFE and Cordoba Foundation groupie who fancies himself as a ‘thinker’ is thanked in the report’s introduction. I wonder if he wrote this chapter?”]
I recommend that you read Ted Jeory’s absolute demolition of the thesis of the chapter: that Lutfur Rahman was a “Left wing populist”, hated by the Labour establishment for that reason, and therefore smeared wholly without evidence as a man with close ties to the Islamic Forum Europe, which is in fact a benign grass roots anti racist community organisation. In reality, the Islamic Forum Europe is an organisation with close ties to the South Asian Islamist party, Jamaat-e-Islami. It operates from the East London Mosque, which a Department of Communities and Local Government publication identifies as the “key institution” of Jamaat-e-Islami.
It goes without saying that the account of Lutfur Rahman’s travails is significantly fantasy.
There is, however a very telling section, which discusses Lutfur Rahman’s difficuties with one particular vote on Hizb ut Tahrir. That section addresses a vote on a motion which condemned various anti-Semitic incidents that had taken place in Tower Hamlets, while calling on the Government to condemn Israel’s conduct in its war against Hamas in Gaza. Councillors Helal Abbas and Denise Jones – the villains of the story – introduce an amendment calling on the Government to “look again” at the proposal to ban the anti-Semitic totalitarian party, Hizb ut Tahrir.
The report attacks the inclusion of a reference to Hizb ut Tahrir, in a very strange manner. Here is what the relevant passage says:
Although Hizb ut Tahrir is a fringe group even in Tower Hamlets, it seems doubtful that Rahman’s New Labour opponents would not have realised that the issue of banning them is highly controversial in a borough with a large Muslim population, or that raising this issue placed Rahman in an impossible situation: if he proceeded in taking the motion forward with the amendment attached, he would risk alienating his largely Muslim core support; if he abandoned it, he would be left open to the accusation of failing to stand up to anti-Semitism in the borough – an accusation which could potentially destroy the career of a Muslim politician.
There is so much to say here. Where to start?
Hizb ut Tahrir is a party which is openly anti-Semitic, utterly opposed to democracy, which hopes to create a global Caliphate in which women and non-Muslims would be disenfranchised and discriminated against, and in which gays and Muslim dissenters would be executed.
First of all, there is the statement that opposition to an organisation like Hizb ut Tahrir is a “controversial” matter which “would risk alienating” Muslims. That is a quite remarkable thing to say about the Muslims of Tower Hamlets.
If it is true, then what the report uncovers is a level of support for extremist and racist politics in Tower Hamlets that should rightly be a matter of national concern.
Secondly, imagine any mainstream politician being unable to oppose Combat 18, the British National Party, or any other extremist racist party, because it “would risk alienating” White voters. That is unthinkable, isn’t it?
Thirdly, remember that this statement is contained in report which purports to oppose racism. Yet the argument that it makes is that Labour should be condemned for expecting Lutfur Rahman to oppose a racist party.
Fourthly, it is admitted that Lutfur Rahman’s “core support” is “largely Muslim”. That does indicate that Lutfur Rahman had become, at the very least, a sectarian candidate.
Fifthly, this argument is advanced in the context of demonstrating that Lutfur Rahman was not significantly aligned with Islamist politics. What better way to prove that point than, er, arguing that opposition to a totalitarian racist Islamist party was a tricky issue for the man.
Finally, however, there’s a bit of a back story to the Hizb ut Tahrir/Tower Hamlets scandal. Back in 2008, it emerged that Tower Hamlets Council had given a £38,000 Preventing Violent Extremism grant to the Cordoba Foundation. Cordoba, in turn used the money to put on a debate involving various controversial and problematic figures, including the leader of Hizb ut Tahrir, and one of the founders of Al Muhajiroun. The then Leader of the Opposition, David Cameron, called the Cordoba Foundation a “Muslim Brotherhood front”, and condemned the use of anti-extremism money on showcasing various extremists.
And who is one of the main funders of the European Muslim Research Centre which produced this report? Why, none other than the Cordoba Foundation.
This is political advocacy, masquerading as anti racism and academic research.
Abul Kalam in the comments below adds:
The idea that Lutfur would find impossibly difficult to criticise Hizb ut-Tahrir in Tower Hamlets is completely bogus and, as Lucy Lips has demonstrated, backfires badly against Lutfur even if it were true.
Most of the muslim residents of Bangladeshi origin in Tower Hamlets have no idea who the Hizb are. With the exclusion of a coterie of political activists from the broad sprectrum of the Islamic religious right – exclsuive to the Respect and the IFE – have any idea who the Hizb are or indeed what their relevance is to their lives.
But there is another reason why the “would not criticise Hizb for fear of offending Muslim sensibilities” is a lie.
Earlier this year, Azad Ali – a senior activist of the IFE, wrote aentry in the IFE blog in which he fiercely criticised the Hizb for rejecting democratic participation.
Azad Ali actually cites the real reason why Lutfur Rahman does not criticise the Hizb in this entry. He says: ” …our difference is political and one of ‘approach’ and not theological.”
The IFE do criticise the Hizb, but they are identical in their ideology. This comes straight from the horse’s mouth rather than from the pages of a dishonest “academic” treatise which seeks to excuse and legitimise religious right-wing Islamic politics.
