This is a story that would strike a cord in every persons heart who loves freedom (not just women) and will resound loudly in the hearts of women who are bound in cultural prisons and who long for freedom from them. (more…)
Edmund Burke was an Anglo-Irish statesman, author, orator, political theorist, and philosopher who served for many years in the British House of Commons as a member of the Whig party. He is mainly remembered for his support of the American colonies in the dispute with King George III and Great Britain that led to the American Revolution and for his strong opposition to the French Revolution…Burke worked on aesthetics and founded the Annual Register, a political review. He is often regarded by conservatives as the philosophical founder of Anglo-American conservatism.(more…)
Trump must allow CAIR to vet his appointments to his administration
The arrogance of CAIR knows no bounds. They believe that top appointments to president elects cabinet must have their approval and that those that do not meet their standard of supporting radical Islam should be disallowed from holding office:
“Senator Sessions’ past statements and troubling views on issues impacting American Muslims and other minority communities make him unfit to serve as attorney general,” said CAIR National Executive Director Nihad Awad.
Nihad Awad, a supporter of Hamas, has the audacity topass judgment on a long-standing public servant who has served his country with distinctionover the past 30 years.A Muslim supremacist, who actively supports terrorists,has the arrogant confidence to declare that if he finds a person wanting, then the person is wanting. What he does not realise is that the days when he has the ear of Presidents (including Bush) is over and a new sheriff is in town who will go after the criminals, bandits and supporters of Islamic terrorism.
Supporters of Islamic terrorists and the Muslim Brotherhood should feel fearful that Senator Sessions’ will become America’s AG. They should be quaking in their boots and Americans should rejoice that at last the world will have at least one administration that will go after radical Islam wherever it is found. Many of us in Europe are hoping that Trump’s victory (along with BREXIT) will bring in a sea change in thinking and policy where citizens are protected by their elected representatives and Western culture is robustly defended. We can only live in hope and work towards making this hope a reality.
The CAIR press release goes on to say:
Awad said CAIR is also calling on all Americans to urge members of the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee to question Sen. Sessions about his past anti-Muslim statements, current associations with anti-Muslim hate groups and his views on a number of civil rights issues during next week’s confirmation hearing.
CAIR has already expressed its concerns to members of the committee, and now the Washington-based civil rights organization is urging community members to do the same by contacting all members of that committee to urge that they question Sen. Sessions about the following issues of concern:
1. Question Sen. Sessions on His Support for Trump’s Religious Test to Ban Muslims Traveling to the United States
In December 2015, Sessions voted against and publicly lashed out at a nonbinding amendment seeking to prevent a religious litmus test for people entering into the United States. The amendment had been offered by ranking Senate Judiciary Committee Member Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT).
During that vote, Session said: “Many people are radicalized after they enter. How do we screen for that possibility, if we cannot even ask about an applicant’s views on religion? Would we forbid questions about politics? Or theology?”
Following the horrific shooting at an Orlando nightclub Sessions also warned Americans on FOX News Sunday in June 2016 to “slow down” on foreign born admissions into the United States, particularly those with Islamic backgrounds. “It’s a real part of the threat that we face and if we can’t address it openly and directly and say directly that there is an extremist element within Islam that’s dangerous to the world and has to be confronted.”
2. Question Sen. Sessions About Upholding the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA)
In the past 10 years, the DOJ has opened 51 Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons act (RLUIPA) investigations, filed seven lawsuits under RLUIPA’s land-use provisions and participated in 40 privately filed lawsuits. A number of these cases have been in support of the right of religious minorities, including Christians, Jews, Muslim, and Sikh communities. RLUIPA protects individuals, houses of worship, and other religious institutions from discrimination in zoning and landmarking laws.
In December 2016, the Center for Security Policy published “a practical primer for assessing mosque land use applications” entitled Mosques in America: A Guide to Accountable Permit Hearings and Continuing Citizen Oversight. Given Sen. Sessions close associations with the Center for Security Policy, CAIR questions Sessions ability as Attorney General to support the right of American Muslims to construct houses of worship in the same manner one would expect him to support other religious communities.
3. Question Sen. Sessions Over His Association with Anti-Muslim Hate Groups
In 2015, Sen. Sessions accepted the “Keeper of the Flame” award from the anti-Muslim hate group Center for Security Policy, whose leader Frank Gaffney has asserted his belief in the conspiracy theory that President Obama is Muslim, writing “. . .there is mounting evidence that the president not only identifies with Muslims, but actually may still be one himself.”
The FBI said a Center for Security Policy report is based on “outdated information” and “overstated” any threat Muslim observances pose to America.
Sen. Sessions has also accepted the “Annie Taylor Award” in 2014 from the anti-Muslim hate group the David Horwitz Freedom Center and attended the group’s annual “Restoration Weekend” Florida retreat events in 2008, 2010 and 2013.
The Southern Poverty Law Center, a group that tracks hate movements in the United States, labels David Horowitz “the godfather of the modern anti-Muslim movement.”
4. Question Why Sen. Sessions Sent a Letter to the National Endowment for the Humanities Demanding Their Justification for Funding the “Muslim Journeys Bookshelf” Program
In October 2013, Sen. Sessions as Ranking Member of the Senate Budget Committee sent a letter to the National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH) in part demanding a justification for why the NEH was “promoting” Islamic cultures at the expense of Christian and Jewish cultures.
The purpose of NEH’s Muslim Journeys program is to “offering resources for exploring new and diverse perspectives on the people, places, histories, beliefs, and cultures of Muslims in the United States and around the world.”
5. Question Sen. Sessions About Allegations of Racist Comments
In 1986, Sen. Sessions was accused of making racist comments while serving as a U.S. attorney in Alabama, including calling an African-American assistant U.S. attorney “boy.” Sessions has called the NAACP and the ACLU “un-American” and “communist-inspired.”
6. Question Sen. Sessions About Police Reform, Voting Rights, Civil Rights
Sen. Sessions should also be questioned about his views on other critical issues such as police-involved shootings, protection of voting rights, enforcement of hate crimes laws, discrimination in education, and immigration reform.
TAKE ACTION TODAY AND CALL MEMBERS OF THE SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE
“Hello, my name is [YOUR NAME] and I am calling to urge Senator [NAME OF SENATOR] to oppose the confirmation of Attorney General Nominee Senator Jeff Sessions and to strongly question him about his past anti-Muslim statements and current associations with anti-Muslim hate groups as well as alleged racist remarks during next week’s confirmation hearing taking place Tuesday, January 10.
Specifically, I urge the Senator to question Sen. Sessions about:
• His support for President-elect Trump’s religious test to ban Muslim travels to U.S.
• Whether or not he would uphold the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA)
• His association and acceptance of awards from the anti-Muslim hate groups Center for Security Policy and David Horwitz Freedom Center.
• As Ranking Member of the Senate Budget Committee, his demanding that the National Endowment for the Humanities justify why it supported educational programs about Muslims in the U.S.
• Allegations over his calling an African-American assistant U.S. attorney “boy” and him calling the NAACP and the ACLU “un-American” and “communist-inspired.”
• His views on other critical issues such as police-involved shootings, protection of voting rights, enforcement of hate crimes laws, discrimination in education, and immigration reform.
There are millions of American Muslims in the United States making innumerable contributions to our nation’s cultural fabric and economic well-being. The civil rights of all persons in the U.S., including Muslims, should be protected and preserved by the next attorney general.”
CAIR suggests that their supporters call members of the committee and encourage (pressurize them – Electoral Court anyone?). What all Trump supporters should do is call each member of the committee (thanks for the contact details CAIR) encouraging the confirmation of Attorney General Nominee Senator Jeff Sessions without further ado (especially if they are your representative).
What this release illustrates is CAIR’s hatred of anything to do with Present-elect Trump administration – because it is full of patriots that understand the danger of Islamic terrorism. It hates his administration because they know their time of undue influence over American politicians is over and a time of reckoning will shortly be upon them. The Muslim Brotherhood and its affiliate CAIR should be classified as supporters of Islamic terrorism.
How Islam seeks to pervert the things near and dear to us
Some would be delighted to see images like the cover image a permanent fixture in Australia, i.e. Australian culture replaced by the tolerance of Islam rather than the destructive Western heritage that dominates Australia and the Australian way of life. One such man is Reuben Brand who seems to hate everything to do with Australia’s heritage and loves everything to do with Islam the great religion of peace and tolerance. In his article Lest We Forget — #AustraliaDayCelebrations? No thank you. we see his view of Australia – there is nothing good or worth remembering in Australian history. Australian culture is corrupt and built on the abuse of the indigenous people.
Hardly a new view from the far left but what is disingenuous of Reuben Brand is that his real agenda is not highlighting the plight of the indigenous people of Australia but what he sees as the moral corruption of Western Civilisation as a whole. His agenda is to create a self-loathing of our Western Heritage as a whole so that we will be open to receiving the beauty of Islam as the perfect way for mankind to deal with all the ills of the world.
Today HOPE not hate launches a report into the Muslim extremist (and ‘media darling’) Anjem Choudary and his al-Muhajiroun network. Sixty pages long, the report, Gateway to Terror, is arguably the most detailed investigation into this Islamist extremist organisation, its structures and its terrorist connections.
Gateway to Terror reveals that at least 70 people who have been convicted of terrorism or terror-related offences, or who have actually participated in suicide attacks, have been linked to the group. We reveal that the man who narrated a recent 58-minute al-Shabaab video, threatening a number of moderate British Muslims, is from Tower Hamlets and has also been linked to the group (al-Shabaab is the militant Islamist group fighting for control of Somalia). We expose the growing connections between Choudary and the northern Iraqi Ansar al-Islam group, an affiliate of al-Qaeda, and name its British leader. We chart Choudary’s growing network of contacts across Europe and reveal that between 200-300 supporters from these groups have gone to fight in Syria.
This report nails the misguided view that we should tolerate Choudary’s outlandish antics. Behind his media-grabbing and provocative stunts lies a group that is a gateway to terrorism, at home and abroad.
While Choudary might not have been directly involved in terror plots, he helped shape the mindset of many of those behind them. He indoctrinated them and through his networks linked them up to terror groups and supporters across the world. Many of those convicted of terrorism were active supporters of his group at the time of their arrest. Habib Ahmed, who was convicted of being a member of al-Qaeda, was their Manchester branch organiser. Mohammed Chowdhury, the ringleader of the 2010 Christmas bomb plot, was filmed helping set up a Skype interview between Anjem Choudary and Omar Bakri (al-Muhajiroun’s founder, originally a member of radical sect Hiz ut-Tahrir) only three weeks before his arrest.
Anjem Choudary is perhaps the best-known Islamist extremist in Britain. His outlandish quotes and controversial demonstrations receive national and often international coverage.
Choudary will, on other occasions, say that people have left the group some time before their arrests so he cannot be blamed for their actions – but this conveniently ignores the fact that he and his network have played a crucial role in their radicalisation.
There will some people who will not be happy with our new report and consider it a departure from what we ‘do’ (historically we are better-known for opposing fascism and racism). There will be others who believe that by shining the light on Choudary and his gang we are inflaming hostility to Muslims.
They will be wrong.
Al-Mujahiroun is a hate group, pure and simple, and as such deserves our attention. Constantly feted by media yet treated as ‘clowns’ by many, it is by ignoring their threat that we let down the vast majority of Muslims who want nothing to do with Choudary.
The truth is the actions of this tiny minority of extremists leads to the stigmatisation of the entire Muslim community and the shameful idea of collective responsibility. The primary victim of al-Muhajiroun’s extremism is actually the wider Muslim community.
It is also important to mention that it was the actions of these people that not only led to the formation of the English Defence League (EDL) in Luton in 2009 (following al-Muhajiroun’s demonstrations against British soldiers returning from Afghanistan) but have continued to bolster its membership and helped the organisation off life support numerous times due to either violent or offensive acts. The two biggest spikes of support for the EDL occurred when Anjem Choudary’s supporters burnt poppies on the 2010 Remembrance Day and in the immediate aftermath of the killing of off-duty soldier, Lee Rigby, in May this year.
A more fundamental reason for opposing al-Muhajiroun is that we abhor their politics of hate. Al-Muhajiroun have a worldview that we do not share. They want to impose a system that is totally at odds with one that respects human rights, diversity and equality.
Its members have been known to engage in Holocaust denial and sell copies of the infamous antisemitic forgery the Protocols of Zion, as well as Hitler’s Mein Kampf. Some of their preachers celebrate 9/11 while others blame it on a Jewish conspiracy. They describe gay relationships as “perverted acts”, comparable to “rape and murder”, call for homosexuals to be put to death and have produced and disseminated leaflets called: “Gay Today, Paedophile Tomorrow?”
In addition, their sexist views call for the subjugation of and discrimination against women. Choudary has called for women to be forced to wear the veil and stated that women who commit adultery should be stoned to death.
Fundamentally, they seek to impose a system that is intolerant of difference, does not accept anyone or anything that fails to conform and that is totally opposed to democracy and free will.
All of this is on top of the fact that members of this group, influenced by these hateful ideas, have been involved in the 7/7 bombings and dozens of foiled terrorist plots aimed at killing and maiming innocent people.
That’s why this report is not only necessary but also 100% in keeping with Britain’s long anti-fascist tradition of fighting bigotry and prejudice. This report aims to contribute to that same fight.
Furthermore, al-Muhijaroun seeks to undermine something that HOPE not hate has worked hard to promote – the idea of communities. It tries to hammer a wedge between Muslims and the society in which they live by denouncing the idea of multiculturalism, as well as promoting and preaching the dogma of separatism and exclusion. To borrow a phrase from a recent al-Muhajiroun network pamphlet, they force people to choose between whether they are “British or Muslim”, when the two are by no means mutually exclusive.
Yet sadly, there are people on the right of the political spectrum plus those within the “Counter-Jihadist” movement, such as Islamophobes Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer in the USA, who use al-Muhajiroun to justify their own anti-Muslim hatred. By not speaking out against extremism across the board we are not only inconsistent in our actions but we leave the ground open to our opponents.
In November 2010, in the immediate aftermath of burning of poppies on Armistice Day, HOPE not hate said that Choudary’s group and the EDL were two sides of the two coin of hate. We called for a ‘Plague on both their houses’.
Plague on both their houses
This report will herald a more concerted campaign against extremism by HOPE not hate. Just as we will speak out against Islamophobia and racism wherever it emerges, so too we will begin to campaign against those extremists who justify their actions in the name of Islam.
Anjem Choudary might only have a few hundred supporters but their ability to cause terror and fear on our streets, bring a racist backlash down on mainstream Muslims and – ultimately – to divide communities is huge.
No matter under what banner the politics of hatred and intolerance raises its ugly head we must be prepared to greet it with organised and determined opposition. The face of hatred is the face of hatred and the mask it wears is irrelevant.
Gateway to Terror: Anjem Choudary and the al-Mulhajourn network. By Nick Lowles & Joe Mulhall
It has been a long time coming – but one of the most hardline Islamist groups ever to have organised in the UK is being banned.
For years al-Muhajiroun in various forms has set out to provoke a reaction from other Muslim groups, politicians and the media.
After months of testing the Home Office with increasingly provocative pronouncements on its
Not taking it lightly: Al-Muhajiroun denounce the decision on Tuesday
website and on the streets, the ban has come. The question is what practical effect will it have?
A ban might look symbolic – but it does have some weight to it. Under the law, anyone who is found to be a member of al-Muhajiroun, which is also known as Islam4UK, will face up to 10 years in jail.
Anyone who supports the organisation, such as in a street rally, could also face the same charge. The law also covers the wearing of a uniform, because it was originally devised to cover Northern Ireland’s paramilitaries.
If the police identify any financial assets, they will be seized – and its website will be shut down.
But the difficult question to answer is whether the law has any effect in stopping people from organising.
Republicans would organise honour guards of “volunteers” to carry coffins of their dead
If the police and security services are monitoring meetings involving former members of al-Muhajiroun, any charge will need to prove in court the individuals had all knowingly met as members of the group.
Of the 60 organisations proscribed under terrorism legislation in the UK, 14 of them are from Northern Ireland.
The most important and largest of these is the IRA. When membership became an offence, an organisation like the IRA was never going to simply break up because Parliament had banned it.
Instead, its members stopped organising in ways that would leave them open to a charge.
During the Troubles, this led to the legally curious situation where Republicans would organise honour guards of “volunteers” to carry coffins of their dead. They wore military fatigues, black berets and dark glasses.
There was nothing to officially say this was an IRA funeral – but everybody knew it was.
So what a ban comes down to is a situation where the government is trying to make it harder for a group to organise openly; proscription is just one weapon in the security armoury.
The only group to have challenged a ban and won is a small Iranian nationalist group, the People’s Mujahedeen Organisation of Iran.
Its supporters in the UK fought a long campaign to be taken off the terror list. What was clear at the time was the group’s supporters did not stop meeting just because the organisation was banned.
In fact, many of the members used the ban as a means of promoting their cause more widely. Eventually, they had a group of parliamentarians behind them willing to question the Home Office’s decision.
Omar Bakri Mohammad, founder of al-Muhajiroun, has already sought to capitalise on the ban. He told the BBC: “[The ban] will increase the popularity of al-Muhajiroun and increase the membership, and I think it is a grave mistake because it will force them underground and [Home Secretary Alan Johnson] is playing with fire.
“I think that it’s really a grave mistake because they will realise this war is against Islam in general and Muslim youths in particular.”
Inayat Bunglawala, of the Muslim Council of Britain, said:
“There’s a risk [that young Muslims will be radicalised]. We have already seen Anjem Choudary [the leader of al-Muhajiroun] saying, ‘look, that the government has had to resort to banning our group shows that democracy is just a charade’.
“What we should have been doing as a confident democracy is actually upholding those values of pluralism, that we can tolerate people whose views are so outlandish, so repulsive that providing they do not step over the line and break the laws, we will tolerate them.”
Breaking the law, rather than repulsive views, is at the heart of the ban, say officials.
The government is at pains to say the ban was not prompted by al-Muhajiroun’s planned protest in Wootton Bassett, Wiltshire, to honour Muslims killed in the Afghanistan conflict – although officials concede the timing does not look great.
But behind the scenes, the wheels of the security system have been turning. The BBC understands the Joint Terrorism Analysis Centre (JATC) has been leading the review of al-Muhajiroun ever since it declared it was “re-forming” earlier in 2009.
Al-Muhajiroun described the 9/11 hijackers as the “Magnificent 19”
This team within MI5 collates information and intelligence on threats, with the involvement of 16 government departments.
JTAC’s report was handed to the home secretary last week – and its secret contents led him to conclude a ban was necessary.
A group can be banned for planning acts of terrorism – but also for glorifying it. Al-Muhajiroun fall into the latter category because of its track record of celebrating acts of violence, including once describing the 9/11 hijackers as the “Magnificent 19”.
We do not know what the group will do next – but it does have the right to challenge the ban. It is perhaps worth looking at what al-Muhajiroun has done in the past. It officially disbanded in 2004 – only to reappear under different names a year later.
Omar Bakri Mohammad remains banned from the UK – but his regular internet broadcasts from Lebanon are easy to find and watch.
And Inayat Bunglawala warned: “This ban has been tried before. Al Ghurabaa and the Saved Sect [two of al-Muhajiroun’s related organisations] were also banned. All that happened was that the same faces reappeared under different names.”
In the above article the BBC asks a valid question but what it did not ask was why our laws allow these terrorists to reemerge in a different form? Surely there is something wrong with our laws that allow such people to just rebrand a terrorist group and the hands of the law are tied.
Muslims Against Crusades (MAC) hit the headlines in November 2011 after the Home Secretary, Theresa May, proscribed the organisation on the eve of Remembrance Sunday. The year before, MACcaused public outrage when they burned two large poppies outside the Royal Albert Hall. MAC was founded in 2010 by Abu Assadullah and acts under the guidance of former solicitor Anjem Choudary.
MAC was officially founded in 2010 but its true origins can be traced back to 1983 when Omar Bakri Mohammed, a radical Islamist cleric, founded Al-Muhajiroun (AM) in the wake of an internal schism of the pan-Islamic organisation Hizb ut-Tahrir (HT). Upon Bakri’s expulsion from Saudi Arabia he moved to England in early 1986 where he became the British leader of HT.
He simultaneously fostered Al-Muhajiroun until deciding to officially declare it as an independent organisation in 1996 with British born co-founder Anjem Choudary. Whereas HT only desired to establish the Khilafah (the creation of an Islamic state under sharia law) in Muslim countries, Bakri and Choudary wanted to establish it worldwide by twinning Daw’ah (the call to Islam) and Jihad (struggle).
Anjem Choudary turned from his life as a solicitor to embrace radical Islam.
Al-Muhajiroun pursued these aims by spreading hate on the streets of Britain and aiding terrorism both domestically and around the world.
Anjem Choudary, raised in a semi-detached house in Welling, Kent, turned from his life as a solicitor to embrace radical Islam. His infamous reputation grew when he came to public attention in 1999 after The Daily Telegraph identified his role in recruiting British Muslims to fight abroad for groups like the International Islamic Front. In 2003 Al-Muhajiroun gained worldwide notoriety when they publicly advertised a conference called “The Magnificent 19” to celebrate the second anniversary of 9/11. In response to international condemnation Choudary said “Those individuals are Muslims, they were carrying out their Islamic responsibility and duty, so in that respect they were magnificent, […].”
The following year, under new anti-terrorism laws, the government proscribed the organisation and it soon disbanded.
Despite the Home Office’s best attempts to stifle Al-Muhajiroun, the organisation has continually re-emerged under different aliases. Ahl ul-Sunnah Wa al-Jamma, Al Ghurabaa and The Saviour Sect all emerged in 2005 as splinter groups, only to be proscribed by then Home Secretary John Reid in 2006. In 2008 Choudary launched Islam4UK, which caused widespread disgust with its attempt to hold a protest in Wootton Bassett (where military funeral repatriations took place) in 2010. The march was subsequently cancelled and days later the organisation was also proscribed.
After Muslims Against Crusades (MAC) was proscribed in 2011, Choudary and his followers immediately established a new group, Izhar Ud-Deen-il-Haq.
While it is easy to dismiss Al-Muhajiroun and its related groups as irrelevant, its actions feed anti-Muslim sentiments in the press and it acts as a conveyor belt for terrorism.
Al-Muhajiroun: Terrorist Links
Several Al-Muhajiroun (AM) activists have been involved in terrorism, with one estimate claiming that 18% of Islamist-related convictions in Britain in the last decade have had links with supporters of the group or one of its successors. They include:
Royal Wootton Bassett bomb plot. Three men were convicted for plotting to bomb Royal Wootton Bassett. Richard Dart (Ealing), Jahangir Alom (Stratford), Imran Mahmood (Northolt) were jailed for between six and nine years. Dart was radicalized by Anjem Choudary and involved in Al-Muhajiroun.
TA bomb plotters. Zahid Iqbal, Mohammed Sharfaraz Ahmed, Umar Arshad, Syed Farhan Hussain, all from Luton, were convicted at Woolwich Crown Court for plotting to bomb a TA centre using remote controlled car. They were jailed for between five and eleven years. They were well known in Al-Muhajiroun circles in Luton.
The London Stock Exchange Bomb Plot Four men (Mohammed Chowdhury, Shah Rahman, Gurukanth Desai and Abdul Miah) pleaded guilty in January 2011 for their part in a plot to blow up a variety of targets including, the London Stock Exchange, two Rabbi’s, the US Embassy and London Mayor Boris Johnson. The group was inspired by the recently killed US-born radical extremist Anwar Al-Awlaki, whose inflammatory lectures are available to download on Al-Ghurabaa’s website (a successor group of Al-Muhajiroun). All four of the men had formal links with Al-Muhajiroun and are known to have attended Islam4UK and Muslims Against Crusades (MAC) demonstrations.
7/7 bombers Mohammad Sidique Khan, the leader of the group behind the 7/7 London underground bombings, which killed 52 people, was linked to Al-Muhajiroun. He also used Al-Muhajiroun safe houses before carrying out the bombing.
The Fertilizer Bomb Plot In 2004 the police foiled a plot by five terrorists to blow up a shopping centre, a night club and the gas network with a huge bomb made of 1,300 pounds of ammonium nitrate fertilizer. Four of the convicted terrorists had strong links with Al-Muhajiroun. Omar Khyam, leader of the foiled plot, was first introduced to extreme political Islam by Bakri Mohammed. He became involved with Al-Muhajiroun while studying for his A-levels and was reportedly sent by the group to fight in Kashmir in 2000.
Mike’s Place Suicide Bombing In April 2003 three died and 50 were injured when Asif Muhammad Hanif blew himself up in a suicide attack in a bar in Tel Aviv, Israel. A second bomb, strapped to Derby-born Omar Khan Sharif failed to detonate. Just two weeks before leaving for Israel, Omar Khan Sharif was seen on the streets of Derby leafleting for Al-Muhajiroun.
Bilal Mohammed Believed to be Britain’s first suicide bomber, Bilal was responsible for the killing of nine people in Kashmir on Christmas Day 2000. Bakri Mohammed admitted that Al-Muhajiroun was engaged in sending British fighters to Kashmir and proudly announced that Bilal had been one of his recruits.
Amer Mirza Mirza was the first Al-Muhajiroun supporter to be convicted of an Islamist-related terrorism offence. In March 1999 he was sentenced to six months’ imprisonment for petrol-bombing a West London Territorial Army base in protest at the resumed American bombing campaign in Iraq.
Al-Muhajiroun Key Politics
Al-Muhajiroun’s politics are based on an extreme fundamentalist interpretation of Islam that has little in common with the vast majority of British Muslims’ conception of their religion. At its core is a fervent desire for the revitalisation of an Ottoman Empire type caliphate (Islamic system of government), with the whole world united under Islamic law and leadership. This extremism manifests itself in a form of politics with discrimination and hate at its core.
The organisation has a long history of vocal antisemitism. At an Al-Muhajiroun conference in 1998, Yacub Zaki declared “Nobody was gassed to death in the concentration camps […] David Irving has the right idea, destroy the Holocaust myth and you have destroyed Israel.”
This visceral antisemitism has been promoted through poster and leaflet campaigns calling for a holy war against the Jews and has led to several convictions.
Al-Muhajiroun has also made both Hinduism and Sikhism the target of their hate with calls for followers of these religions to convert to Islam, and by condoning and encouraging the destruction of their religious icons and statues in India.
Homophobia is another integral part of the group’s belief system. They describe gay relationships as “perverted acts”, comparable to “rape and murder” and call for homosexuals to be put to death.
More generally, they completely condemn democracy, free speech and the many freedoms that result from such a system. This includes calls for the subjugation and segregation of women and the death penalty for those, such as Salman Rushdie, who they deem to have offended Islam.
Such a hate-filled belief system is unrecognisable to most British Muslims.
My dear liberal, feminist, anti-racist and otherwise progressive allies—
I want to talk about what we’ve been calling the ‘regressive left’, and invite you to a more critical humanistic attitude.
For an example one of the most egregious manifestations of the regressive left, let me quote Sarah Peace from her (very good) piece ‘Has it become racist to condemn FGM’ (if reading the full piece please be warned that it contains a graphic photograph and descriptions of FGM and violence done to women):
Leading Islamic charity told by watchdog to distance itself from extremism
A leading Islamic charity which penned an open letter criticising The Sunday Telegraph’s reports about its extreme speakers and filed numerous complaints to the press regulator has been warned by the Charities Commission it must distance itself from individuals who condone “violent extremism and acts of terrorism”.
The inquiry, which lasted almost three years, concluded that trustees must do more to prevent associating with organisations and individuals who “encourage or support terrorism and/or extremist views”.
The charities watchdog also criticised iERA over its partnership with Islamic University Online, an organisation founded by Dr Bilal Philips, who was banned from the UK for his extremist views by Theresa May in 2010 while she was Home Secretary.
The Charity Commission said it first became concerned about iERA after reports surfaced in March 2013 that the organisation had imposed gender segregation at an event held on a university campus, forcing women to sit at the back of the room.
A former aide to Barack Obama, who was due to speak at the debate, walked out of the event in protest and the University College London later banned the charity as a consequence.
The Commission launched a full-blown investigation the following year after identifying a number of “regulatory issues” over its organisation of events and how it chooses speakers and preachers for them.
The charities watchdog said their probe included assessing allegations raised in a dossier of evidence on iERA, compiled by the Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain (CEMB), an organisation set up to combat Islamist extremism.
The CEMB report, published in May 2014, noted that the charity’s founder and chairman, Abdurraheem Green, was filmed preaching at Hyde Park Corner, calling for a Jewish man to be removed from his sight. “Why don’t you take the Yahoudi [Jew] over there, far away so his stench doesn’t disturb us?” he can be heard to say.
iERA said that Mr Green’s comment was “aimed at a habitual heckler in Hyde Park Speakers Corner, in a highly charged forum of debate, who happened to be Jewish. It was not aimed at any community or meant to be anti-Semitic in any way. However, recognising that it could be misconstrued, he has apologised openly for such errors of judgement made more than 20 years ago.”
The CEMB report also says Mr Green, a Muslim convert, suggested in a blog that women who commit adultery should be subjected to a “slow and painful death by stoning”.
iERA later said that this was not meant literally, adding that it would be unlikely in practise for such a punishment to be dealt as the religious standard of proof for adultery requires a testimony by four reliable witnesses.
The Commission noted that a number of individuals, either currently or historically associated with the charity, who featured in the CEMB report had made comments in a personal capacity rather than on behalf of the charity or at a charity-run event.
It said that iERA must step up procedures to prevent organisations and individuals “who seek to encourage or support terrorism and /or extremist views from taking advantage of the charity’s status, reputation, facilities or assets”.
In its conclusion, it added that the trustees must take “additional steps to ensure that the charity not only distances itself from and is not associated with organisations and /or individuals which condone or appear to condone violent extremism and acts of terrorism”.
Turning to the charity’s links to Dr Bilal Philips, the regulator noted that it is “publicly known” that he has been banned from the UK due to his extremist views and deemed the relationship “high risk”.
Rupert Sutton, a research fellow at the Henry Jackson Society, a counter-extremism think tank, said the Charities Commission report is a vindication of those who raised concerns about IERA’s activities and speakers. He said the report “shows a robust regulatory attitude” towards organisations that associate with extremists.
The Commission’s misconduct findings vindicate those who raised concerns about IERA’s activities and speakersRupert Sutton, research fellow at the Henry Jackson Society
He added: “However, it remains a concern that a high risk partnership with an organisation founded by a man barred from entering the UK has not resulted in further sanctions, with IERA simply stating that the connections have been discontinued.”
Maryam Namazie, a spokesperson for CEMB, said: “The Charity Commission has rightly raised concerns regarding iERA’s extremist speakers and partnerships.
“However, it has addressed them procedurally and as an exercise in the ‘risk’ management of ‘guest speakers’. iERA > has invited hate-filled preachers linked to the Islamist movement regarding everything from the death penalty for apostates to hatred against Jewish and LGBT people. Yet the Charity Commission says that the speakers have somehow all managed to incite hatred in their ‘personal capacities’.”
In 2014, Saqib Sattar, the then vice chairman of iERA wrote an open letter to Ian MacGregor, The Sunday Telegraph’s editor, complaining about the newspaper’s reports on the charity and claiming that “the term extremism has become a political tool to demonise and censor normative Islamic beliefs”.
The charity also filed three complaints in the space of four months to the independent press regulator about The Sunday Telegraph’s reports on the charity and its speakers. None of the complaints were upheld.
Saqib Sattar, vice-Chairman at iERA, said: “The charity has robust policies and procedures in place to manage risk and has been able to demonstrate compliance. The Commission has provided further advice and guidance on this area which the charity has taken on board. >
“The Commission did not find any evidence within the CEMB’s report which substantiated the allegations against our organisation or our speakers to be ‘extremists’ or ‘hate preachers’. The issue of ‘extremism’ was never a concern throughout the period of the investigation. Most importantly, the Commission found no evidence of ‘extremism’ in its final report.”