That's the headline to a report in the Daily Mail. Ever eager to alert its readers to the encroaching Muslim menace, the paper claims that "a gang claiming to be Islamic vigilantes have been confronting members of the public and demanding they give up alcohol and women cover their flesh in their 'Muslim area'". This is accompanied by a video, originally posted by its creators on YouTube, in which a self-styled "Muslim patrol" harasses passers-by over their un-Islamic behaviour. According to the Mail, the events took place in Waltham Forest.

The report is taken from a piece on The Commentator website, titled "'Muslim Patrol' vigilantes attempt to control London streets", which states that the video is "likely to have come from East London, where 'Shariah zones' were set up last year". It provides a link to a 2011 report in the Mail headlined "'No porn or prostitution': Islamic extremists set up Sharia law controlled zones in British cities", which was illustrated with photographs of one of Anjem Choudary's idiot supporters putting up stickers in Waltham Forest announcing that the borough was a "Shariah controlled zone". The Commentator adds that the individuals featured in the "Muslim patrol" video "are thought to be a part of an extremist network in East London", the implication being that they are members of Choudary's group.

In reality, it is clear that the video was shot in Tower Hamlets, near to the East London Mosque (which has issued a statement condemning the actions of the "Muslim patrol" and calling on anyone with information on the individuals involved to contact the police). There have in any case never been any sharia zones "set up" in Waltham Forest or anywhere else in East London. One dickhead putting stickers on lampposts doesn't bring a "Shariah controlled zone" into existence.

Nor is there a "gang" harassing the citizens of Tower Hamlets over their alcohol drinking or way of dressing. As Richard Bartholomew has pointed out, the "patrol" appears to consist of just two individuals, one of whom is holding the mobile phone with which the video is taken. There is moreover no evidence that they are connected to Choudary's minuscule band of nutters or indeed that they are part of any "extremist network" at all. Their behaviour was no doubt upsetting for the people they targeted, and hopefully they will be identified and charged with harassment, but if a couple of prats pulling a single Candid Camera type stunt constitutes a serious attempt by Islamist extremists to "control London streets" then words have lost all meaning.

This irresponsible reporting has of course had the predictable result of inflaming the far right, as it plays directly to their paranoid racist fantasies about the Islamification of Britain and the imposition of sharia law on non-Muslims. The English Defence posted a link to the Mail report on their Facebook page, provoking the usual outpouring of anti-Muslim hatred, threats of violence and calls for civil war. Not to be outdone, the EDL breakaway group Combined Ex Forces has announced that "members of CxF and other Patriots/Nationalists will be descending on London in the very near future to reclaim our streets".

View the Original article

Gisèle Littman (Bat Ye'or) and friendThe Jewish Chronicle has published a report on conflicts that arose during a one-day symposium sponsored by the Journal for the Study of Antisemitism which was held at the Wiener Library in London last weekend. 

The controversy was prompted by contributions from two of the speakers. One was Bat Ye'or (the pen name of Gisèle Littman) who informed her audience that the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation is "the source of antisemitism" and that "Islam is denying the root of Judaism and Christianity with a profound belief in Jihad". Another speaker, Manfred Gerstenfeld, asserted that Muslim culture is inferior to Western culture.

David Hirsh, editor of the pro-Israel, anti-boycott website Engage, was so outraged that he even "left the room during Dr Gerstenfeld's lecture". Hirsch told the JC that he was "appalled" by Gerstenfeld's views. Other participants who reportedly walked out were David Feldman, director of the Pears Institute, and Philip Spencer, director of research in politics at Kingston University.

Dave Rich of the Community Security Trust, who was also a speaker at the event, went so far as to offer the penetrating insight that Gisèle Littman's remarks "could be construed as Islamophobic". Another leading figure in the CST, Mark Gardner, stated at the conclusion of the seminar that "a minority of speakers said things about Britain, Europe and Muslims that we found to be incorrect, unacceptable and self-defeating", adding that "we made our concerns clear with a number of interventions". There is no indication that the CST representatives joined any walk-out.

However, Gisèle Littman was hardly some randomly invited speaker. She is on the editorial board of the Journal for the Study of Antisemitism (along with the likes of Daniel Pipes, Andrew Bostom – and Philip Spencer, for that matter). Nor can the views she expressed have come a surprise to the CST or any of the other participants at the seminar.

Littman is a notorious Islamophobe, one of the most signficant figures in the so-called counter-jihad movement. She is the author of the "Eurabia" thesis – a conspiracy theory according to which European governments have done a secret deal with the Arab world to facilitate the Islamic takeover of Europe, which will result in non-Muslims being reduced to a state of "dhimmitude", treated as second-class citizens subservient to their Muslim conquerors. This paranoid fantasy has been dubbed "The Protocols of the Elders of Mecca" and indeed the parallels with classic antisemitic conspiracy theories scarcely need underlining.

The Eurabia theory was a major source of inspiration to Norwegian mass murderer Anders Breivik, whose manifesto contains over 1,500 references to it. In fact Breivik includes "implementation of the EU's Eurabia project" on his list of the "recent and ongoing acts of treason" that led him to carry out the massacre on Utøya. (Typically, Littman's response was to issue a statement suggesting that Breivik's manifesto was likely to be a fabrication and that the police might well have allowed him to go ahead with his murders as part of some plot to suppress criticism of Islam.)

As for Manfred Gerstenfeld, his opinions are hardly a secret either. Earlier this year he contributed an op ed to the Israeli newspaper Yedioth Ahronoth in which he complained that it was regarded as "highly politically incorrect" to point out that "while Western culture is problematic, contemporary Islamic culture is inferior to it". He added that Western Muslims should be happy to accept his views on the inferiority of their culture:

"If the two cultures were equal, the West could theoretically act toward Muslims in their countries like many Muslim countries behaved toward their Jews in the decades after the Second World War. If the West acted in a similar way, it could restrict civil rights and confiscate the Muslims' passports and belongings. Thereafter, it could force them out. If the West followed the 1967 Libyan acts against Jews they could even kill some."

Yet Dave Rich, Mark Gardner, David Hirsch and others happily attended a seminar that included these speakers. It's not difficult to imagine how different their response would be to a seminar featuring individuals who asserted that Jews are conspiring to take over Europe or made claims about the inferiority of Jewish culture. The CST would demand that the speakers should be banned or that the institution hosting the event should cancel it. But when it's a case of Zionist extremists promoting bigotry against Muslims, then the CST evidently thinks it's enough to go along to the seminar and politely raise their "concerns" that such hate-speech is "incorrect, unacceptable and self-defeating".

Finally, let us note that the JC also reports that another speaker at the seminar, disgraced former MP Denis MacShane, was "given an award for his work in fighting antisemitism". MacShane is no stranger to Islamophobic fantasies himself. He was jointly responsible for the 2006 All-Party Parliamentary Inquiry into Antisemitism, which made the ridiculous claim that a dangerous alliance had been forged between fascists and Islamists on the basis of a common hatred of Jews and Zionists – at a time when it was clear that the far right in Britain was increasingly embracing Zionism and even proposing an alliance with right-wing Jews on the basis of a common hatred of Islam and Muslims.

View the Original article

Islamophobia Awareness Month launch event @ LSE

Tuesday, 20th November 2012, 6pm

At the Quad, East Building, LSE Students' Union, Houghton Street, WC2A 2AE

With Islamophobia entering the mainstream of politics across Europe and with increasing concerns over the penetration of Islamophobia in universities, the LSE Students' Union is providing a forum for discussion on the nature and extent of the problem and what can be done to challenge it.

Speakers:

• Myriam Francois-Cerrah: Journalist and Academic
• Dr Leon Moosavi: University of Liverpool
• Aaron Kiely: National Union of Students

There will also be an exhibition on Islamophobia in the Quad from Monday 19th November until Friday 23rd November.

View the Original article

English Defence League thugs marching through Walthamstow on 1 SeptemberA series of marches by the English Defence League has been banned amid fears of serious public disorder.

Policing minister Damian Green agreed to a police request for the ban ahead of marches on Saturday in Walthamstow and elsewhere in north-east London.

The ban prevents all marches in Waltham Forest and nearby boroughs Islington, Tower Hamlets and Newham for 30 days.

The Metropolitan Police wrote to Home Secretary Theresa May asking for the ban two days ago.

Mr Green said: "Having carefully considered the legal tests and balanced rights to protest against the need to ensure local communities and property are protected, I have given my consent to a ban on all marches in Waltham Forest and three nearby boroughs for a 30-day period.

"I know the Metropolitan Police are committed to using their powers to ensure communities and properties are protected."

Ch Supt Peter Terry, the force's gold commander for the planned march, said: "We have made this decision based on specific intelligence and information and our message is clear - we do not want people coming into the areas to attend these events."

BBC News, 25 October 2012

See also "Home Office bans EDL march", Waltham Forest Council news report, 25 October 2012

Update:  Local MP Stella Creasy has reported that the Met have told the EDL that they can hold Saturday's static protest outside parliament but nowhere else, i.e. not in Walthamstow at all.

If this is accurate, then it means that the police have finally responded to the threat from the EDL as they should have done all along – they have used Section 13 of the Public Order Act to secure a ban on the proposed march and then used their powers under Section 14 to impose conditions on the static demonstration to ensure that it causes the minimum disruption and intimidation to the community the EDL have targeted.

Update 2:  The EDL has confirmed that the Met have imposed restrictions under Section 14 and warns: "Please do not attend Walthamstow on Sat 27th Oct 2012 as you will be arrested."

View the Original article

The Daily Telegraph draws our attention to an open letter to London Metropolitan University's vice chancellor Prof Malcolm Gillies from the university's Islamic and Shia Muslim societies in response to press reports that Gillies in considering a ban on alcohol on some parts of the campus.

Dear Professor Gillies,

We are responding to your recent comments regarding the proposed alcohol ban within the university on religious grounds.

London Met is a diverse and multicultural university with approximately 30,000 students representing over 150 different countries. We, as Muslim students, value democracy and respect diversity and multiculturalism and we also acknowledge that we are able to practice our faith more freely here in the UK than in many Muslim countries around the world. We find your recent comments regarding banning alcohol on university premises being based on religious grounds, as an attack not only on the values we hold, but also on the values of the wider non-Muslim community. Your comments clearly showed that the alcohol ban you proposed is based on gross generalisation about the views of Muslim students.

We hold the view  that such a proposal should have been put forward to all students regardless of whether they are Muslim or not. Your failure to consult the Students’ Union (a democratically elected body representing students’ views) and the two Islamic societies at the university raise the question of how you came to the conclusion that the Muslim population at London Metropolitan are calling for an alcohol-free campus. More importantly there has never been a demand for an alcohol ban on campus from Muslim or non-Muslim students. The Muslim population at London Met stands at approximately 20%, so assuming all Muslims at the campus were in favour of the ban, this could not be imposed as it would go against the fundamental principal of democracy i.e. imposing the will of minority on 80% of non-Muslim majority.

We are aware that the current leases for the student bar located at City Campus is due to expire in the near future. All indications show that the university does not have any plan to renew the lease or replace it with a permanent licensed bar. Muslim students are being used as a scapegoat because it is deemed an easier way out than to explain to those students who use the bar that to renew the lease would be costly, and having to face backlash from the students who are paying for their ultimate ‘university experience’. To use Muslim students to justify cuts is not acceptable and certainly immoral.  If the university finds that running the bars is not economically viable then you should put forward a ‘business case’ and not a ‘religious case’  to justify the closure of bars and the creation of an alcohol-free campus.

We find your argument to ban alcohol on religious grounds baseless, divisive and irresponsible and we are concerned about the welfare of the students.  Your stance has already had negative impacts both within the university and in the wider society.  Internally it has initiated the process of polarisation of the student body and creating resentments towards Muslim students.  For example, there has already been anti-Muslim remarks appearing on various social media websites and there have also been actual incidences of student confrontations which have been reported to the Student Union, and it is only a matter of time before a Muslim student is physically assaulted.

If you are sincerely concerned about the Muslim students’ experiences at the university then we like to know why you have removed the Muslim Imam from the chaplaincy, and have not even attempted to replace him.

The media has always portrayed Islam and Muslims negatively and they would use any excuse to escalate this further. Such an unreasonable proposal which clearly many non-Muslims view as an attack by Muslims against their way of life, is absolutely of no benefit to the Muslim students and the wider Muslim community at all. In fact it demonises them even more and it will be used as baseless evidence to show how Britain is becoming a ‘shariastate’, particularly by far right groups such as the EDL who have already capitalised upon this and added it to their campaign against minority groups.

Your remark to ban alcohol on religious ground does not only undermine community cohesion, which the Home Office, CLG and numerous non-governmental organisations work hard to build post 9/11, but it also adds to the growing hostility towards Muslims. This only gives rise to Islamophobia, and incites religious hatred towards vulnerable Muslim communities across the country.

Students look up to you as a role model and a learned scholar who regularly contributes to debates in the higher education sector. We did not expect such an intellectually dishonest stance from a person of such calibre. Your undemocratic, ill devised and misleading remarks have caused tension within the university campus and in the wider society; therefore we demand a retraction of your comments and an unreserved apology.

Yours Sincerely,

LMU Islamic Society & Shia Muslim Society

View the Original article

Mayoral candidates Boris Johnson and Ken Livingston participated in a hustings in front of the Muslim community on Friday ahead of next Thursday's election. Both candidates were asked to cover issues ranging from Islamophobia to social deprivation within the Muslim community.

Muslim Voices was present at the hustings which was attended by representatives from Muslim organisations and activists. The event was chaired by Channel 4 news reporter Fatima Manji who allowed plenty of opportunities for both candidates to pitch their policy to the voters.

Boris was asked by the Chair to clarify if he thought "Islam is the problem" as he wrote in the Spectator in 2005. Boris also wrote the he found Islam "politically troublesome" in the Telegraph the same year.

Boris stuttered and stumbled unable to find a way to explain how he was asking the Muslim community to vote for him to represent them whilst he thought that their belief in Islam was a problem and politically troublesome.

The Chair gave him a lifeline and acknowledged that the article was written in 2005 and if his views had changed since then but Boris seemed to completely dodge the question saying he thought there were certain misguided youth who are easily impressionable by radical imams around the world and to this end he maintained that this is still a problem. There were cries from the audience asking for an apology which Boris Johnson chose to ignore. At this point Boris said that if this is how this debate would go on then he had better leave now.

Ken in contrast showed he was more in touch with the Muslim community when he was asked about engagement Ken said "When speaking about engagement, you only need to look at the Final Sermon of the Prophet Muhammed, peace be upon him, where he says in the Quran it says that 'We have made you into nations and tribes so that you may get to know one another'." Ken then went on to say that this is what Muslims believe, that we should get to know one another, not create enmity, discord or terrorise one another, which falls in line with what he also believes.

At a time where the UK has fallen into a double dip recession both candidates pledged to increase jobs and reduce the cost of living in the capital. Ken championed the cause of lowering fares on public transport which will put more money in the pockets of Londoners while Boris pledged to lower council tax. When pressed on the numbers it transpired that lowering fares amounted to an estimate of £900 in savings over the year whilst lowering council tax amounted to an estimated saving of £30 - £100 per year.

The 'Prevent' strategy employed by the Home Office and the metropolitan police to counter terrorism was also discussed. Boris Johnson maintained that the stop and search tactic should remain but should should be intelligence led rather than on profiling. However Ken Livingstone went further by saying that the Prevent strategy should concentrate on terrorism rather then just on Muslims, and the biggest threat was from the far right.

There was one issue where both the candidates agreed at the hustings, they both said they would press the government to review the 2003 Terrorism Act so that British citizens would be tried before the British judicial systems rather then be extradited to the USA. In turn both Mayoral candidates supported the fact the case of Babar Ahmad should be heard in front of a British judge and jury.

It was clear that throughout the hustings, Boris was playing catch up to Ken, which is a reflection on how both have engaged with the Muslim community during their terms in office. Boris showed he had no understanding or connection with the Muslim community and under his own admission says he has not engaged with the Muslim community.

Ken on the other whilst in office commissioned reports looking at Muslims in London, set up initiatives which have helped recognise Islamophobia as a hate crime by the metropolitan police; and kept in touch with community issues regularly. London needs a mayor that understands its communities. In Ken we can have a Mayor who understands the Muslim community, the Jewish community, the Christian community and those of no faith. In Ken we can have a Mayor for all Londoners.

It is important you elect a Mayor on May 3rd who represents you, so make sure you get out and vote!

Vote Ken livingstone on Thursday May 3rd as your first choice for Mayor of London.

Further Reading:

Is voting permitted in Islam?

Answer by Mufti Ibn Adam Al kawthari (UK based scholar with ijaza and known for Ifta and one of the the Scholar of Contemporary Shariah Resource centre www.alqalam.org.uk

The current mayor of London doesn't care about ordinary Londoners. He's not interested in their lives or their livelihoods

An Article written in the Guardian by Mehdi Hassan.

View the Original article

London Assembly member Murad Qureshi has written to complain about the election address from the British National Party that appears in the booklet distributed by London Elects to inform voters about the 3 May elections for the London Mayor and Assembly.

The BNP's appeal to voters features a quote from their phoney non-Reverend Robert West which reads: "I'm backing the British National Party because they support our traditional Christian faith. We need strong leadership to protect our national identity from the threat of Islam."

The booklet is sent to every household in Greater London. It is quite disgraceful that London Elects has allowed the BNP to include in it an outrageous slur on one of the major faiths in London, where 8% of the electorate is Muslim.

Does anyone imagine that the BNP would be allowed to include an equivalent attack on the Jewish community in its election address? But bigotry is apparently considered acceptable when it is directed against Muslims. It is a measure of how Islamophobia has entered the mainstream and is now widely regarded as legitimate.

It is too late to withdraw the booklet, but London Elects should issue a public apology to London's Muslim community along with an assurance that this will never happen again.

Update:  The quote from Robert West can also be found on the London Elects website, where the booklet itself is available for download. You can email them at info@londonelects.org.uk or phone 020 7983 4444 to complain.

View the Original article