Militant Islam Monitor > Satire > Al Qaeda linked Islamic Human Rights Commission & Muslim Council of Britain 'warn' that UK terror crackdown could produce martyrs
Al Qaeda linked Islamic Human Rights Commission & Muslim Council of Britain 'warn' that UK terror crackdown could produce martyrs
Islamic Human Rights Commission and journalist Faisal Bodi clashed with MCB over who represented Muslims in the UK
August 25, 2005
MIM: No wonder that Iqbal Sacranie the spokesman for the Muslim Council of Britain, and the Islamic Human Rights Commmission,are worried about the terror crackdown producing martyrs. The webmaster of both groups sites is none other than Asaria Iqbal, the MCB's economics and finance chairman who worked with Saad Al Fagih's terrorist organisation the Movement for Islamic Reform in Arabia. Al Fagih was accused by the US Department of the Treasury of being connected to Al Qaeda, the Taliban and meeting with Bin Laden. The website of the Islamic Human Rights Commission is listed to Iqbal Asaria who is the webmaster.
In another ironic twist the IHRC (and journalist Faisal Bodi) locked horns with the MCB in 2002 over who should represent the Muslim community. Bodi claimed that the MCB was too close to the government to feel a sense of Muslim victimhood and lambasted them for not condemning the 'war on terror' but just 'opposing' it. In 2004 they clashed over the issue of terrorism.
Crackdown will produce martyrs, Clarke is told
By Nigel Morris, Home Affairs Correspondent
Published: 25 August 2005
Charles Clarke has been warned that moves to expel radical preachers, which could begin by the weekend, could backfire by turning extremists into martyrs and increasing prejudice against law-abiding Muslims.
The Home Secretary set out a series of "unacceptable behaviours" yesterday that would be used to exclude foreign extremists from Britain and remove those already in the country. They include "fomenting, justifying or glorifying" terrorism, although he has dropped an earlier proposal to outlaw views "the Government considers to be extreme and that conflict with the UK's culture of tolerance".
The list of criteria foreshadows a new wave of expulsions from Britain under powers announced by Mr Clarke last month. He said yesterday: "The terrorist threat facing the UK remains real and significant and it is right the Government and law enforcement agencies do everything possible to counter it."
He won backing from the main opposition parties, but provoked alarm among Muslim leaders. Sir Iqbal Sacranie, the secretary general of the Muslim Council of Britain, said: "Sending [extremists] out may turn them into unwanted heroes who may then be free to export their vile thoughts, if such be the case, from exile." The Islamic Human Rights Commission said the plans were a "criminalisation of thought", adding: "The proposals do nothing but unleash further Islamophobia in British society."
Ian Macdonald, who resigned from the Special Immigration Appeal Court over anti-terrorism legislation, said the new criteria could make it even harder to remove suspected extremists and create a "field day for lawyers" . He told the BBC: "The Secretary of State would have been far better off sticking with powers which he has because these don't add to his powers ... They really aren't clear."
The United Nations special rapporteur on torture, Manfred Nowak, also accused the Government of trying to circumvent its duty not to deport people to countries where they could face torture or abuse. His comments drew a furious response from Mr Clarke, who said: "The human rights of those people who were blown up on the Tube in London on 7 July are, to be quite frank, more important than the human rights of the people who committed those acts." He said that the list of "unacceptable behaviours" would send a powerful deterrent message to extremists.
Asked whether some people could be excluded from Britain by the end of this week or the beginning of next week, Mr Clarke said: "I expect so."
The security services have drawn up a list of foreign-born extremists they want expelled, while British embassies are compiling a list of radicals they believe should be barred from this country.
Charles Clarke has been warned that moves to expel radical preachers, which could begin by the weekend, could backfire by turning extremists into martyrs and increasing prejudice against law-abiding Muslims.
The Home Secretary set out a series of "unacceptable behaviours" yesterday that would be used to exclude foreign extremists from Britain and remove those already in the country. They include "fomenting, justifying or glorifying" terrorism, although he has dropped an earlier proposal to outlaw views "the Government considers to be extreme and that conflict with the UK's culture of tolerance".
The list of criteria foreshadows a new wave of expulsions from Britain under powers announced by Mr Clarke last month. He said yesterday: "The terrorist threat facing the UK remains real and significant and it is right the Government and law enforcement agencies do everything possible to counter it."
He won backing from the main opposition parties, but provoked alarm among Muslim leaders. Sir Iqbal Sacranie, the secretary general of the Muslim Council of Britain, said: "Sending [extremists] out may turn them into unwanted heroes who may then be free to export their vile thoughts, if such be the case, from exile." The Islamic Human Rights Commission said the plans were a "criminalisation of thought", adding: "The proposals do nothing but unleash further Islamophobia in British society."
Ian Macdonald, who resigned from the Special Immigration Appeal Court over anti-terrorism legislation, said the new criteria could make it even harder to remove suspected extremists and create a "field day for lawyers" . He told the BBC: "The Secretary of State would have been far better off sticking with powers which he has because these don't add to his powers ... They really aren't clear."
The United Nations special rapporteur on torture, Manfred Nowak, also accused the Government of trying to circumvent its duty not to deport people to countries where they could face torture or abuse. His comments drew a furious response from Mr Clarke, who said: "The human rights of those people who were blown up on the Tube in London on 7 July are, to be quite frank, more important than the human rights of the people who committed those acts." He said that the list of "unacceptable behaviours" would send a powerful deterrent message to extremists.
Asked whether some people could be excluded from Britain by the end of this week or the beginning of next week, Mr Clarke said: "I expect so."
The security services have drawn up a list of foreign-born extremists they want expelled, while British embassies are compiling a list of radicals they believe should be barred from this country.
----------
MIM: The Muslim Council of Britain Press Release expressed concern that the terror crackdown would overburden security services - (especially if they would have to be arresting instead of consulting with Sacranie and other MCB in the if the UK is serious about stopping domestic terrorism).
Press Release MCB
Home Secretary's Guidelines on 'Unacceptable Behaviours'
| ||||
MIM: Webstar and the address 336 Pinner Road Harrow belong to Iqbal Asaria
Domain ID:D7253055-LROR
Domain Name:IHRC.ORG
Created On:15-Jun-1999 10:27:10 UTC
Last Updated On:15-Jun-2005 09:49:16 UTC
Expiration Date:15-Jun-2006 10:27:49 UTC
Sponsoring Registrar:Melbourne IT, Ltd. dba Internet Names Worldwide (R52-LROR)
Status:OK
Registrant ID:10686778658310
Registrant Name:Islamic Human Rights Commission
Registrant Street1:PO Box 598
Registrant Street2:_
Registrant Street3:
Registrant City:Weembley
Registrant State/Province:Middlesex
Registrant Postal Code:HA0 4XX
Registrant Country:GB
Registrant Phone:+99.999999999999
Registrant Phone Ext.:
Registrant FAX:
Registrant FAX Ext.:
Registrant Email:[email protected]
Admin ID:10686778662330
Admin Name:Domain Manager
Admin Street1:336 Pinner Road
Admin Street2:_
Admin Street3:
Admin City:Harrow
Admin State/Province:Middlesex
Admin Postal Code:HA1 4LB
Admin Country:GB
Admin Phone:+44.2088612012
Admin Phone Ext.:
Admin FAX:
Admin FAX Ext.:
Admin Email:[email protected]
Tech ID:10686778668840
Tech Name:Domain Manager
Tech Street1:336 Pinner Rd
Tech Street2:_
Tech Street3:
Tech City:Harrow
Tech State/Province:Middlesex
Tech Postal Code:HA1 4LB
Tech Country:GB
Tech Phone:+44.2088612012
Tech Phone Ext.:
Tech FAX:
Tech FAX Ext.:
Tech Email:[email protected]
Name Server:DIAMOND.WEBSTARUK.NET
Name Server:RUBY.WEBSTARUK.NET
Name Server:
Name Server:
Name Server:
Name Server:
Name Server:
Name Server:
Name Server:
Name Server:
Name Server:
Name Server:
Name Server:
-------------
http://forum.mpacuk.org/archive/index.php/t-1649.html
IslamicHope 17-06-2005, 10:28 AM URGENT MEDIA ALERT: Support journalist Faisal BodiIt has come to the (IHRC) Islamic Human Rights Commission's attention that the Muslim Council of Britain, like The Board of Deputies of British Jews before them, has written to The Guardian complaining that they have given a platform to journalist Faisal Bodi to write.
Feb/2002:
http://www.ihrc.org.uk/show.php?id=220
The MCB have every right to disagree with or even complain about what they feel to be inaccuracies in Bodi's or anyone else's articles. A more Islamic approach would have been to approach Bodi directly, rather than going behind his back to The Guardian.
In any instance, it is unacceptable that they should undermine and malign Bodi's integrity with a view to securing his removal from The Guardian. As they state in the final paragraph:
In short, we are very disappointed that the Guardian sees fit to give a platform to someone who is intent on abusing his position to maliciously peddle falsehoods and distortions to further a personal agenda.
Yours faithfully,
Mr Inayat Bunglawala
Secretary, Media Committee,
The Muslim Council of Britain
There is a difference between complaining that someone is incorrect and stating that he is unfit to hold the position he does. It is even more tragic that Bodi has in recent months been under intense pressure from the Zionist lobby because of his stance on the Palestinian issue.
Feb 2002: http://www.ihrc.org.uk/show.php?id=220
IHRC would like to once more state that we do not take issue with the MCB's right to disagree with Mr. Bodi's views or indeed challenge them. We take issue with the fact that they saw fit to request his removal as a contributor to The Guardian without settling this matter either directly with Mr. Bodi, or through mediation through other Muslims. We feel that it is Islamically unacceptable for the MCB or any other body to try and undermine and vilify fellow Muslims. We requested campaigners to contact the MCB and try and get this issue sorted out within the community.
It is an Islamic tradition to point out to those who act in our name when a mistake has been made and needs to be rectified. Indeed Hadrat Umar (r.a.) was challenged by a woman during his caliphate and he not only accepted this but established this to be worthy behaviour. In this case it seems only appropriate that an organisation that sees itself in a leadership position should be accountable for its actions.
We still hope and pray that this matter can be sorted out in a manner that behoves Muslims.
http://www.ihrc.org.uk/show.php?id=261 IslamicHope 17-06-2005, 10:31 AM Dear Mr Bhailok ( Secretary General - Muslim Council of Britain )
I have read with some sadness and consternation your organisationıs response to the complaints your letter to the Guardian dated 24 January 2002 has elicited.
It appears that instead of acknowledging your mistake your organisation has opted to dig a deeper hole for itself by deciding to tell lie upon lie.
I am particularly disturbed at your statement that having "personally
contacted him (Faisal Bodi) and requested him - unsuccessfully - to desist from such unIslamic behaviour, we took up our right to contact the editor of The Guardian and wrote a point by point rebuttal of these
misrepresentations".
If indeed such an approach has been made I challenge the MCB to produce the relevant record (conversations or letters). The real state of affairs is as follows:
On October 22 following my article in G2 criticising the mainstream media
for referring to unelected, government-friendly spokesmen I received a
telephone call from an irate Inayat Bunglawala, chair of the MCBıs media
committee.
Rather than raise whatever objections he had with my article in a civil
manner Mr Bunglawala attacked me for being "intellectually dishonest" and
challenged me to "name prominent regional organisations" which were not in the MCB. We exchanged what can best be described as "unpleasantries" before Mr Bunglawala slammed down the receiver.
This ear-bashing represents the only OIslamicı "request" I have ever
received from the MCB.
Furthermore, it is more than a little strange that while the MCB has chosen to write to the Guardian to express its concerns about my writing, it has failed to do likewise with me.
I donıt for one minute believe this is an accident. Rather, it represents a cynical, cloak and dagger apparent attempt to malign my reputation with the Guardian in the hope that it might remove a source of criticism of your organisation.
In fact were it not for the integrity of the Guardianıs editor, who passed to me a copy of the letter, I would still be in the dark about what the MCB was plotting behind my back.
It is also a matter of concern that while the MCB purports to champion
Muslim media it also seeks to undermine independent voices within that
media. The proper course of action for any person or group who feels that
they have been misrepresented in a newspaper article is to seek redress in the letters pages, or in a direct rebuttal in the editorial section of the newspaper itself. Far from being a Odirect point by point rebuttal" as your response states, it goes well beyond that to demanding that the Guardian remove a standing contributor.
It appears your intention was never to set the record straight. Your
intention was to try and secure the removal of a journalist who takes issue with your organisation on some important issues. Your actions belie all your claims to support Muslim journalism. The only kind of journalism you seem willing to tolerate is the non-critical kind that you receive in your government-sponsored mouthpiece, the Muslim News.
I am also disturbed by your suggestion that I have a personal agenda. As
somebody who has benefited personally from the MCBıs support in my dispute with the BBC I would have thought that I have personal interest in maintaining good relations with your organisation. With this in mind I seek clarification as to what my own agenda might be.
I have also taken the time to go through Mr Bunglawalaıs claims in his
letter of 24 January 2002. They are preposterous, exaggerated and downright deceitful and misleading. They illustrate just the domineering,
self-important attitude in the MCB that I have had criticised,
Mr Bungalwala claims:
a) that I am wrong to describe the MCB as unelected.
Mr Bunglawala is being disingenuous when he says that the MCB office holders are elected every two years. He knows full wee that this is not the kind of "election" to which I am referring.
The MCB does not have any direct mandate from even a significant section of the Muslim community to represent it.
True, it has 350 organisations (listed on its website), more than any other similar body. But a closer analysis reveals that:
(1) many of the MCBıs affiliated organisations do not operate any system of internal election.
(2) Many organisations affiliated to the MCB are local branches of a parent organisation, like the UK Islamic Mission, which has some 29 branches, ISB which has six, and Jamiat Ahl-e-Hadith which has seven. There are many other examples. This method of listing inflates the actual size and representativeness of the MCB.
(3) There is an overlap of membership and control of affiliated
organisations which also inflates the MCBıs size. Senior office holders in one organisation also hold office in other MCB affiliated organisations
(4) Yet other organisations are lame ducks or paper groups representing at best a handful of self-appointed individuals
b) that I am wrong to say that "prominent regional organisations have
shunned the MCB umbrella". In response may I simply refer you to the 2002
edition of the Muslim Directory in which there are listed hundreds national, regional and local organisations that have not joined the MCB.
c) that I have misrepresented the MCBıs stance on Sept 11 and the subsequent war on terror. Mr Bunglawala is bordering on telling untruths here. I stand fully behind my statement that the MCB was not as strong in its condemnation of the war on terror as it was of the Sept 11 attacks. It unequivocally "condemned" the latter while merely "opposing" the former. The statements are a matter of public record and I strongly urge anybody with any doubts to read them.
d) that I misrepresented the MCB in saying it refused to support the
national anti-war demonstration in October. This again is untrue. Several
Muslim organisations backed the demonstration and the MCB was not one of
them. The anti-war coalition, which includes CND, will confirm that the MCB never publicly backed the protest.
e) that I misrepresented the MCBıs position in my article of 24 January. I believe my criticism to be justified. The sentence Mr Bunglawala complains about is indeed a criticism of an MCB leadership which I believe is too close to government to be able to share the sense of victimhood felt by those it purports to represent. Mr Bhailokıs statements to BBC Online on 23 January do nothing to refute this charge. Incidentally my article was only submitted to the Guardian on this day so I did not have the benefit Mr Bhailokıs statements. But even if I had seen them it would not have changed my view that on balance the MCBıs position has been overwhelmingly more pro-government than pro-community.
It might be worth noting here that since Sept 11, I have received numerous letters and emails from ordinary members of the Muslim community praising me for highlighting the failures of Muslim leadership, which, it should be remembered, have not been confined to the MCB. Some of them have even been from your members, who have said the MCB, has failed to reflect Muslim opinion on Sept 11 and its aftermath. I have even received messages of support from the committee of the Jamea Mosque, Clarendon St, Preston, which nominated Mr Bhailok for office in the MCB. The mosque is concerned that it has not been consulted at all in the MCBıs stand on September 11 and its aftermath.
This raises the obvious question of just how many other MCB affiliates have not been consulted.
In conclusion I very much hope that the MCB will reflect on my comments on its behaviour and take the necessary remedial action. If there are points of disagreement then may I suggest a public forum in which we can discuss them in a civilised manner so that the Muslim community can make make up its own mind as to who is telling the truth and who, to paraphrase Mr Bunglawala, is "peddling malicious falsehoods".
Your sincerely
Faisal Bodi
http://www.ihrc.org.uk/show.php?id=26104 March 2002
Saturday August 21, 2004
Dear Inayat,
The road to hell, goes the saying, is paved with good intentions. Like the letter you sent out to mosques earlier this year. asking them to be vigilant in the phoney "war on terror", the Muslim Council of Britain's latest advice to British Muslims in its pamphlet, Know Your Rights and Responsibilities, may be sincere enough. But by appealing to Britain's Muslims to remember their duties vis a vis "terrorism", it is likely to fan the flames it seeks to extinguish.
Since well before the atrocities of 9/11, the trajectory of government legislation and policy has been to demonise and criminalise the Muslim community, a fact that the much-quoted discrepancy between arrest and conviction figures starkly illustrates. The focus of British Muslim organisations' work should be directed at undermining this cynical government agenda, not supporting it.
Yours, Faisal
Dear Faisal,
In a well-known hadith, the blessed Prophet Muhammad advised us that "actions are but by intention, and everyone shall be rewarded according to that which they intended". To be sure, intentions ought to be matched by practical actions if we are to build a cohesive society. So I am puzzled by your criticism of our letter to the mosques and now the guide to rights and responsibilities.
The guide points out that Muslims - especially children of Pakistani and Bangladeshi descent - are underachieving educationally, and urges greater parental interest and involvement. It notes the growing disaffection among Muslims and anger at their disenfranchisement over the Iraq war, and it calls for increased participation in the mainstream parties. Both the letter and the guide accept that, in the wake of the terrible Madrid train bombings last March, there is an increased terror threat to the UK. We reiterate that averting a terrorist attack in which innocents would be put in jeopardy is an Islamic imperative, and it is the duty of all - Muslims included - to help the authorities prevent such an atrocity.
The constant demonisation of British Muslims - often from pro-Israeli quarters - is wholly unacceptable, and I agree that the government's disastrous participation in Bush's wars have done our country - us included - immense harm. We have conveyed this forcefully to ministers on several occasions. I would welcome your thoughts on further measures we could take to halt the marginalisation of British Muslims.
Salaams, Inayat
Dear Inayat,
You appear to have misread my very specific criticism of your advice on terrorism, which - worryingly - seems to be based entirely on the government's unproven claims of an increased threat to the mainland. The approach might curry favour in Whitehall but, with Muslim distrust of officials running at an all-time high, whatever initiatives they may craft to tackle the community's exclusion risk being stillborn.
Wielding a club in one hand and a carrot in the other is not the answer. Muslim alienation is increasingly rooted in Islamophobia. One practical step would be to stop resisting calls for legislation outlawing religious discrimination, a move that would undermine this pernicious Muslim-bashing.
This is not to play the victim. The community has many problems, many of them the legacy of immigration and internal mismanagement. The government can play a part in the process of reform, but it cannot run the show.
Faisal
Dear Faisal
In fact, it was a key plank of the antiwar argument that - contrary to the government's assertions - our participation in an illegal, unjust war against Iraq would surely increase the threat of terrorism to our shores. A House of Commons select committee recently conceded that this was indeed now the case.
Anyway, I am heartened to see that the one practical measure you propose we take - to call on the government to enact legislation outlawing religious discrimination - is one the MCB has been vigorously pursuing since its inception in 1997! The Home Office-sponsored Derby Report (2000) also made the same call. Since December 2003, as the result of an EU directive, religious discrimination has been outlawed in employment and training. This should be welcomed, and acknowledged.
Still, as long as the government delays the comprehensive introduction of religious discrimination legislation - not only in relation to employment, but also in the provision of goods and services - there will remain a hierarchy of rights, with British Muslims, as a multi-ethnic minority, having less rights than racially distinct minoritiessuch as Jews and Sikhs, who are protected under existing racial discrimination laws.
Inayat
Dear Inayat
While we can both agree that the war on Iraq has not endeared the government to Muslims, it does not follow that this has raised the risk of terrorism to the level claimed by the government, let alone turned sections of the community into a near and present danger.
In fact, such a conclusion requires a huge leap of faith, as was pointed out by the most recent parliamentary review of anti-terrorism legislation. The joint committee on human rights (July 2004) said its members had "never been presented with the evidence which would enable us to be satisfied of the existence of a public emergency threatening the life of the nation but have proceeded on the basis that there might be such evidence".
You make an important point about the EU Employment Framework Directive 2003 employment law, but seem to assign credit where it is not due. Rather than being an uncharacteristic act of governmental goodwill, the equality laws were forced on London from Brussels.
I have no doubt that more mainstream political involvement is key to escaping the current quagmire. My concern is that the agendas of those speaking for the community should be coming from the bottom up, rather than top down.
Faisal
Dear Faisal
I had hoped that the words "EU directive" would have been a clear enough indication as to the origin of the legislation! Never mind.
Still, can we agree that it is possible for both of the following statements to be simultaneously true? a) In light of events since 9/11 (including Bali, Istanbul, Casablanca and Madrid) it is prudent to assume that there is an increased terror threat facing the UK, and b) numerous aspects of the government's response to this threat, including the detention without trial of foreign nationals, are unjust and unworthy of our democracy.
Certainly, the high-profile series of anti-terror raids (with many quietly released without charge), the large increase in the numbers of young Muslim men being stopped and searched, and the constant denigration of Islam and its followers in much of the UK media, has left many British Muslims unsettled and even fearful.
I am pleased you agree that mainstream political involvement is key to escaping this current quagmire. I did ask you what additional measures you think we should be taking, and you appeared somewhat flummoxed. It's still not too late ...
Inayat
Dear Inayat
I really don't mind being the one proposing all the practical measures here, but I would have expected an organisation that bills itself as the most representative of Muslims in the UK to have put forward at least a few of its own.
If organisations such as the MCB are to earn legitimacy, they must learn to carry the community with them. That can only come from adopting a more inclusive approach - something that will also serve as a more effective check against the temptation to accept an imposed agenda.
The priorities facing the Muslim community are evident: government action to roll back unemployment, investment in inner cities, better education, fair treatment in the allocation of goods and services for our organisations, removal of the bars to public participation, and greater sensitivity to Muslim concerns with foreign policy issues such as Palestine and Iraq.
Since this is not the forum for detail, and I am not a politician, the details of their implementation can be left to our legislators, executives and their consultants, provided, of course, they can bear to banish the bogey of terrorism from their minds.
Faisal
Dear Faisal
You appear to confuse listing a set of objectives - which is the easy bit - with providing practical suggestions on how to achieve those objectives. I would suggest that simply drawing up a list of demands on a piece of paper, and handing it to "legislators, executives and their consultants" may not be enough to deliver the results in the real world.
The pocket guide is a simple example of an attempt to help empower the grassroots of an ostracised community to exert greater efforts towards self-upliftment.
Still, I do hope you will try and develop your suggestions further. The MCB is always open to receiving advice. Advice given, we trust, with the best of intentions.
Salaam, Inayat
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1287655,00.html
Faisal Bodi is a British journalist and a senior editor for aljazeera.net; Inayat Bunglawala is media secretary at the Muslim Council of Britain, and former editor of the Muslim youth magazine Trends
Printer-friendly version 
Email this item to a friend