We have previously noted that extremist elements in the UK Muslim community work to undermine society with the ultimate aim of converting the UK into a Muslim state (see “The Muhammad cartoons controversy — the context” essay, also accessed from the Analysis section of the Comment and Analysis page).
Now a 10 month undercover investigation by television Channel 4 has provided further evidence (15th January 2007, 8 pm. “Dispatches. Undercover Mosque”):
“An examination of religious intolerance in the UK as an undercover reporter observes the preaching of segregation and extremism in several mosques run by organisations that claim to advocate moderation”.
“A Dispatches reporter attends mosques run by organisations whose public faces are presented as moderate and finds preachers condemning integration into British society, condemning democracy and praising the Taliban for killing British soldiers”.
“Dispatches has investigated a number of mosques run by high profile national organisations that claim to be dedicated to moderation and dialogue with other faiths. But an undercover reporter joined worshippers to find a message of religious bigotry and extremism being preached”.
The reporter “captures chilling sermons in which Saudi–trained preachers proclaim the supremacy of Islam, preach hatred for non–Muslims and for Muslims who do not follow their extreme beliefs — and predict a coming jihad. 'An army of Muslims will arise', announces one preacher. Another preacher said British Muslims must 'dismantle' British democracy — they must 'live like a state within a state' until they are 'strong enough to take over'”.
The investigation showed that universities in Saudi Arabia are recruiting young Muslims from western countries, training them in their extreme theology, and then sending them back to the west to spreads the word. And such Saudi–trained preachers were also promoted in books and DVDs on sale in religious centres, and in website broadcast sermons.
Viewers of the Channel 4 programme again and again saw and heard Muslim preachers declaiming hatred for, and violent action against non–Muslims, the imperative of the jihad to turn Britain into a Muslim State, the inferiority of women, and the demand for Sharia law to be introduced into Britain. Again and again listeners heard a word they had probably never heard before — Kuffaar, a term embracing Christians, Jews and members of other religions and persons who have no religion, indeed everyone who is not a Muslim. Kuffar's are dogs, they should be killed, they will go to hell.
One is uncomfortably reminded of the derogatory contemptuous term Kaffir used by many South African White people in the past for Black Africans. Yet if one looks up the meaning of the word according to Muslim scholars, we are told that Kuffaar, singular Kaafir, means simply anyone who rejects Allah and does not believe in Muhammad as the final messenger from Allah.
When leaders of mosques or other institutions were interviewed, most either denied any knowledge of such preacher activities, asserting that on the contrary, their places promote inter–faith dialogue and harmony in society, or they claimed that they cannot be expected to know about everything that is preached inside their institutions. For example, Green Lane Mosque in Birmingham. Here the main preacher is Abu Usamah. He has said Jews and Christians were “enemies”of Muslims, “we hate the Kuffaar” and “Muslims shouldn't be satisfied with living in anything other than a total Islamic State”. Yet the mosque claims it is a centre for “interfaith communication and dialogue”. This mosque has been praised by Lord Nazir Ahmed, the labour party's first Muslim peer. Yet when interviewed he said that it would be ludicrous to suggest that by visiting an institution he became responsible for, or aware of, every word spoken at the establishment.
Then again, consider Abu Hasnayn Murtaza Khan, a graduate of an Islamic university in Islamabad. He gives lectures around Britain and teaches at the AL–Noor Primary School . The Channel 4 programme recorded him making very derogatory remarks about non–Muslims and noted he also made such remarks on Audio CDs. But the Al–Noor school said Khan had never expressed religiously or racially intolerant views while teaching at their school.
The image of Islam projected by Islamic leaders in Britain then, is a distortion, because it deliberately leaves out a significant component, namely strong moves by many Muslims to subvert the state of Britain, destroy key British values and eventually take over the country for Islam. We are reminded here of one BBC investigation, the results of which were given in its Panorama programme on the 30th July 2006. This showed another aspect of 'cover up' — some Muslim organisations and influential Muslim individuals claiming they were against terrorism when they were in fact aiding and abetting terrorist activity elsewhere in the world.
All this must be seen against the background of three matters we reported on in our essay on the Muhammad cartoons controversy. First, the massive network of Muslim organisations in Britain that serves as a conduit for ideas and action (covert or otherwise). Second, the significance of certain Islamic ideas, namely Umma, Islamism and Jihad. Taken together these ideas can and have produced a cocktail promoting Muslim action to convert the whole world to Islam and to institutionalize Islamic (Sharia) law. Third, the Islamic movement in Europe to 'make space' for Islamic influence through the transgression of traditional separations of religion from politics and between public and private spheres.
In relation to this idea of 'making space', a recent event is very relevant. It concerns the arrests of a number of Muslims in Birmingham suspected of promoting terrorism. Three were released without charge but later six of the suspects were charged with specific offences (see our News item for 10th February 2007). Abu Bakr, one person released, told the BBC that the UK was “a police state for Muslims”. “It's not a police state for everybody else because these terror laws are designed specifically for Muslims and that's quite an open fact”. The BBC also reported comments made by Muslim residents in the areas where the arrests were made which showed support for the released man's allegations and hostility towards the police (of course the allegations have been denied by the government. And Muslim Labour MP Shahid Malik said “I can understand Abu Bakr's anger and hurt but it definitely doesn't lead to the conclusion that we're in a police state”). And after the first two of the freed men were released, The Muslim Council of Britain put its oar in: BBC News reported that Dr. Muhammad Abdul Bari, Secretary General of the Muslim Council had met relatives of the nine arrested men. He warned the investigation could become divisive. “Everybody universally accepts that anyone engaged in a criminal activity should be subject to the law of the land”. “But that has to be done in a way that doesn't divide society, that doesn't alienate the community; that doesn't put unnecessary burden on the communities who are struggling to cope with the burden”.
Note the implication that the police were not treating the Muslim community in a respectful way. Yet the police seem to have bent over backwards not to alienate the local populace. Such events and comments help to create the idea that Muslims are victimized, promoting in effect special treatment for Muslims and hence contributing to 'making space' for the Muslim community (on how 'victimisation' claims by different groups in society are undermining our culture see D. G. Green “We're (nearly) all victims now!” Civitas).
How extensively are radical and extremist views held by the Muslim population of Britain? A recent Policy Exchange report “Living apart together. British Muslims and the paradox of multiculturalism” (see our News Page item for 29th January) provides an interesting insight. The report concludes that there is a growing religiosity amongst the younger generation of Muslims and that they feel they have less in common with non-Muslims than do their parents.
Only 62% of 16–24 year olds feel they have as much in common with non–Muslims as Muslims, compared to 71% of 55+ year olds. 37% of 16–24 year olds would prefer to live under sharia law rather than under British law, compared with 17% of 55+ year olds. 13% of 16–24 year olds admire organisations like Al–Qaeda that are prepared to fight the West, compared with 3% of 55 + year olds.
Now remember that it is the present younger members of the Muslim population that will dominate the Muslim population in the future. So the Policy Exchange report suggests to us that radical or extremist views, while they may not be held by a majority of the Muslim population, are held by a significantly large and growing minority of that population.
All of the above considerations need to be viewed in the context of likely future population trends. It is clear that the Muslim population of Britain will increase considerably in coming years, and is very likely to become a much larger proportion of the total population (see the UK section of our Population Trends page, also the paper by David Coleman, Professor of Demography at Oxford University reported on in our Other Literature page).
And consider the News item we posted 11th June 2006 (now to be found in the
News section on the Archive page). We reported in that item that:
“one of
Britain 's most senior military strategists, Rear Admiral Chris Parry, has
warned that western civilisation faces a threat on a par with the barbarian
invasions that destroyed the Roman empire . Parry is head of the development,
concepts and doctrine centre at the Ministry of Defence, and he gave his warning
to senior officers and industry experts at a conference last week.
In an apocalyptic vision of security dangers, Rear Admiral Chris Parry said future migrations would be comparable to the Goths and Vandals while north African 'barbary' pirates could be attacking yachts and beaches in the Mediterranean within 10 years.
Europe, including Britain, could be undermined by large immigrant groups with little allegiance to their host countries — a 'reverse colonisation' as Parry described it. These groups would stay connected to their homelands by the internet and cheap flights. The idea of assimilation was becoming redundant, he said.
If a security breakdown occurred, he said, it was likely to be brought on by environmental destruction and a population boom, coupled with technology and radical Islam. The result for Britain and Europe, Parry warned, could be 'like the 5th century Roman empire facing the Goths and the Vandals'”.
Now we think that Muslim extremism is a serious threat to social cohesion, a cohesion we think depends upon the acceptance by all religious and ethnic groups of core values of European and British Society. And if social cohesion breaks down, efforts to ensure sustainable development will fail.
Finally, it has become customary, for any person or organisation who/that ventures to criticize elements of the Muslim community in Britain to say, with great placatory emphasis, that of course, the vast majority of Muslims are law abiding citizens who have no truck with extremism. We think this underestimates the extent of sympathy for extremist views and action in the Muslim community. And by giving this assessment such commentators encourage the public to underestimate the real threat to our country from what we think may be termed undercover Islamism.