Dr Martin Parsons: Gordon Brown’s hypocrisy in condemning the Archbishop's sharia comments

Dr Martin Parsons negotiated with the Taliban and other radical Islamist groups in Afghanistan as an aid worker there and in Pakistan. He has a PhD in Islam and Christian Muslim Relations and is on the Party's candidates list. Here, he outlines ways in which the Labour government has gone too far in appeasing Muslim groups.

On Thursday Gordon Brown’s spokesman denounced Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams’ claim that the introduction of sharia to the UK was inevitable. However, Gordon Brown himself has been quietly seeking to appease certain aspects of the agenda of 'peaceful' Islamist groups in the UK - including what amounts to a partial implementation of sharia. 

In the 2005 general election Labour’s share of the Muslim vote collapsed from its normally rock solid 85% down to around 70%. It lost safe Labour seats to the Lib-Dems like Rochdale (5,650 maj), Hornsey and Wood Green (10,600 maj)  – not to mention losing Bethnal Green and Bow (10,000 maj) to George Galloway – and nearly lost several other Labour seats. This was partly due to a Muslim Vote card campaign run by the Muslim Council of Britain (MCB), a Muslim umbrella organisation whose leadership was largely taken over by Islamists as soon as it was formed. Candidates of all parties were told to sign up to a range of Islamic issues – public funding Muslim schools, changes in UK foreign policy etc the MCB told Muslims told to vote against candidates who refused to do so. The MCB claimed it could swing the vote in at least 20 constituencies – as the Muslim majority was greater than that of the sitting MP – who was almost always Labour.

So whilst Labour’s record of appeasement may disappoint us, it perhaps shouldn’t surprise us. Labour has a similar relationship with Islamic organisations as it had with the trade unions in the nineties. It wants their votes – but doesn’t agree with all of their agenda. So, it appeases them by giving them some of what they want.

Labour’s appeasement of Islamism in the UK – including sharia:

1. Immediately after the 2005 election, which saw Labour share of the Muslim vote collapse – the government announced the incitement to religious hatred legislation. This was widely seen by Islamic organisations as the ‘Muslim blasphemy law’ they had campaigned 18 long years for since the Rushdie affair. Blasphemy against Muhammad is THE most serious offence in sharia – and carries the automatic death penalty in countries such as Pakistan.
2. August 2006 Ruth Kelly and John Prescott met Islamic leaders immediately after the Heathrow terrorist arrests. They were asked for a partial implementation of sharia for family law in the UK and Muslim festival to become bank holidays. Ruth Kelly then set up a commission to look into implementing the first.
3. June 2007 (Brown now Labour leader and as PM in waiting making joint decisions with Blair) – a government sponsored report on the teaching of Islam in British universities was published. One may well ask exactly what the Labour government was doing asking a senior member of the Islamic Foundation – the UK’s largest overtly Islamist group - to write this government sponsored report ON HIS OWN? The report recommended that non Muslims should be banned from teaching the main Islamic subjects in British universities! The PM publicly welcomed this report! (99)
4. Gordon Brown appointed David Milliband as the new Foreign Secretary. Almost the very first public statement Milliband made was to publicly praise Hamas – the Islamist terrorist group that is ideologically committed to the complete annihilation of the state of Israel – the ONLY state in the entire Middle East that even remotely resembles a liberal democracy.
5. In September 2007 Ed Balls - Gordon Brown’s chief lieutenant, and newly promoted to be Secretary of state for families, children and schools - offered state funding to Islamic schools – again part of the Muslim Vote Card agenda (However, many ordinary Muslims recognise Islamic schools as part of the Islamist agenda and won’t send their children to them).
6. September 2007 (remember Brown’s team had really seriously whipped up election fever now!) Des Browne, Labour’s part time Defence Secretary, told the Labour Party conference that we should negotiate with the Taliban! (Why exactly have 87 British soldiers given their lives and hundreds of others paid the ‘daily living sacrifice’ of the wounded and disabled?)
7. Des Browne ALSO told the Labour Conference that the future government of Afghanistan MUST include Islamic law. Actually apart from during the Taliban era, Afghanistan has since the early twentieth century had a western style constitution – with sharia courts having a much more informal, non constitutional role. As a former aid worker in Afghanistan, I KNOW that there are hundreds of thousands of people in the towns and cities of Afghanistan that DESPERATELY DON’T’ want government imposed Islamic law – they just want the Afghan constitution).
8. THEN – in November 2007 Treasury minister Kitty Ussher (and let’s not suppose anything significant has ever happened at the treasury since Labour came to power in 1997 - without Gordon Brown’s explicit say so!) announced a 3 month consultation on the Treasury introducing Islamic sukkuk bonds that are compliant with sharia. Now if we do that - we effectively create a whole area of government and economics that can ONLY be governed by Islamic lawyers and sharia courts – and guess what..?/ sharia forbids any non Muslim from sitting as a judge in a sharia court. Moreover, the commercial law aspects of sharia ALWAYS favour Muslims when there is any deal between Muslims and non Muslims. In fact this is a principle of sharia because sharia fundamentally assumes that Muslims – as the people in submission to Allah – must always govern non Muslims…).
9. Then in February 2008 (yes only a week ago!) – the Department for Work and Pensions announced that where there was a ‘valid’ polygamous marriage it would pay extra benefits. The government admitted this would mainly benefit Muslims (as sharia allows men to have 4 wives). Quite how a polygamous marriage in the UK could in any sense be ‘valid’ when bigamy is a criminal offence in the UK beats me…! but perhaps the government was intending to legalise bigamy to make it ‘sharia compliant’

So, Gordon Brown has been at it all along appeasing the agenda of ‘peaceful’ Islamist groups in the UK, who reject violence, but have stated they want to see a gradual move towards an Islamic state in Britain by means of a step by step alignment of British law with sharia.

Now what’s that word for someone who criticises someone else for suggesting something that they are actually covertly doing themselves……?

Conservative MPs rightly condemned Rowan Williams for his extraordinarily ill judged, naïve and wrong headed comments, but we must also hold Gordon Brown to account for the way he is playing fast and loose with the Islamist agenda.      

Comments

[Teck]

Well said, Martin.

In a peverse sort of way, the Archbishop of Canterbury's statements have brought to the fore the alarming rate with which Islamism is undermining the integrity and stability of our country.

All these facts should now remain focused at the forefront of public consciousness, especially as a means of reminding them of the unsavoury behaviour of the Labour government. The Christians and other groups who value our democracy and civil liberties should not have any compunction on this matter alone to galvanise behind a party that safeguards the Judeo-Christian values which underpins our success and freedoms.

Step forward the Conservative Party with unequivocal denunciation of infiltration and subversion by Islamic fundamentalism.

[Justin Hinchcliffe]

Hornsey and Wood Green does NOT have a large Muslim vote. It does, though, have a large left-wing Guardian-reading vote.

[englandism.com]

Islam by stealth, rightly, needs to be challenged and the challenge is to do this without attracting the default response of racism. Rowan Williams has revealed himself to be somewhat politically dim-witted but some of the more colourful counter attacks have played into the hands of the would-be appeasers. We must be careful not to add to the victimhood and to highlight the threat rather than slipping into generalisations.

The MCB does not speak for one unified political bloc vote. It cannot dictate how every single Muslim voter behaves in a secret ballot any more than the BNP, as an ethnically specific political brand, can dictate the voting behaviour of its target demographic. Would we suggest that the BNP has absolute control of a bloc vote?

The author highlights the opposition to sharia in Afghanistan. There is opposition to sharia and the more provocative manifestations of Islam in the UK Muslim community too. In this context the appeasement of radical Islam would seem counterproductive in that a significant proportion of the Muslim electoral base does not, necessarily, want a radically Islamic outcome.

Any more than every single white working class voter wants the agenda of the BNP.

[Tony Makara]

I do not believe we should ever consider adopting parallel laws in our country. That of itself would create a state within a state and completely destroy community relations. I do however believe that we need to build bridges with the Muslim community and understand their sense of grievance, the reasons why they feel alienated, why some even chose to be fifth columnists. The talk of 'appeasing' certain Islamic groups is not helpful, while we cannot, under any circumstances countenance the idea of a state within a state, we must recognize that those who follow the Islamic faith have a different set of values, quite often re-enforced as a reaction against some of the moral excess that exists in the western lifestyle.

The great catalyst that crystalized all these emotions and gave them outlet was Tony Blair's war in Iraq. People need to understand the nexus of cause and effect here. Without that war, radical Islam would not have so readily found a platform and a binding cause, a rallying point for resentment. The London bombers stated on clearly on video that their actions were a response to the British public re-electing a Blair government. The invasion of Iraq was the prime recruiting tool for militant Islam. People need to understand that.

We need to try and repair the damage caused by that war and forge good relations with the Muslim community. Not by a naive re-evaluation of our laws, but by trying to understand why so many young Muslims in particular feel repulsed by the western lifestyle and the lack of morals in our society.

[Bexie]

There are a large number of Muslims living here who have fled their home countries because of the somehwat mercurial interpretations that can be made of Sharia law, which in their case has made life intolerable.

Is Brown saying that fleeing a Muslim country, who's "lawyers" say you should die for some non crime such as homosexuality, should no longer be grounds for asylum?

[Malcolm Dunn]

I'm interested to know Martin what you think government policy on all these issues shouls be?

[Ian Parker]

There is a simple solution to the problems caused by minority block votes where those minority groups are making unreasonable demands as a result. In this case, that is to expose and campaign directly against the demands of these Islamists.

There can be little doubt that the threat is perceived generally. At the moment, only the BNP offer well defined, if distasteful, opposition to the steady march of Islam in this country. So, I say to the Tories, make it clear that there will be no appeasement of such minorities. Multiple marriages will not be tolerated, nor will any aspects of Sharia law be countenanced. That, people, is a vote winner (presumably attracting the so-called moderate Muslim vote, based upon others’ comments here). The BNP know this full well and are likely to exploit the situation in the forthcoming London Assembly elections. Only slight problem is that it requires Cameron et al to get a backbone.

Tony, I find your statement, “trying to understand why so many young Muslims in particular feel repulsed by the western lifestyle and the lack of morals in our society” quite ridiculous. If they are so disenchanted with our society, then let them go elsewhere. Your implied appeasement is no solution at all; indeed it is dangerous.

[Nizhinsky]

the Department for Work and Pensions announced that where there was a ‘valid’ polygamous marriage it would pay extra benefits. The government admitted this would mainly benefit Muslims (as sharia allows men to have 4 wives). Quite how a polygamous marriage in the UK could in any sense be ‘valid’ when bigamy is a criminal offence in the UK beats me…!

So now we're undermining the rule of law (hell, throwing it out of the window) to suit a tiny minority of people who are at best at odds with our culture and society. Bigamy no longer applies to muslims now?

'Appeasing' a minority group in this way who are already unpopular could very plausibly lead to the kind of backlash Jews experienced in Germany in the inter-war years - especially if the economy were to take a turn for the worst. And we all know where that leads.

Labour has to stop making special cases for people and (literally) lay down the law on what our modern British state was founded on - ONE LAW FOR EVERYONE.

The great thing about freedom of movement is that if you don't like that rule you can go somewhere else.

[Northern Wok]

Brown has boasted on sevaral occasions that he wants the UK to be 'the world centre for Islamic finance' - I assume that aspects of sharia law must be implemented for this to happen

[Tony Makara]

"the world centre for Islamic finance"

Northern Wok, bit difficult to see how there could be an Islamic financial community as they don't believe in usury!

[Patsy Sergeant]

So, as usual, especially with this government, it comes down to the possibility of political gain and financial gain. And there is a certain person in this government who has demonstrated that he cannot tell the difference between the real thing, and dross or fool's gold.

It would be interesting if the Dept: for Work and Pensions, could define precisely what is meant by 'valid', with reference to polygamous marriages. Does it mean that if a group of Mormons settled here that the marital habits of some of their members, would be acceptable by the Dept:??

[Winchester whisperer]

Another anomaly is that Muslims are allowed to marry close relations eg uncles and first cousins. There's been much publicity recently about the number of disabled children being born in Bradford as a result of this.

[Buckinghamshire Tory]

"There can be little doubt that the threat is perceived generally. At the moment, only the BNP offer well defined, if distasteful, opposition to the steady march of Islam in this country. So, I say to the Tories, make it clear that there will be no appeasement of such minorities."

I agree with Ian Parker. Most importantly it would be to the benefit of the country to face up to the advance of radical Islamism.
But it could also be to the benefit of the party. Just look at UMP (France's main centre-right party) under Nicholas Sarkozy. They refused to reject peoples unease about islamism and immigration, while they did not use the language of Jean Marie Le Pen, nor do they share his racist believes.

The result was that a large voting block moved from Front Nationale to UMP. From the radical-right to the center-right.
These were not racist thugs, but ordinary people who were concerned about what was happening to their country.

[Northern Wok]

Tony Makara - Try Google for Gordon's introduction of Sharia into UK law
http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&ned=uk&q=%22gordon+brown%22+%22islamic+finance%22

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/feb/10/religion.law
"Last year Gordon Brown as Chancellor changed the law to introduce sharia mortgages because Islam forbids the charging of interest."

http://www.arabtimesonline.com/kuwaitnews/pagesdetails.asp?nid=11923&ccid=12

"The Governor also highlighted that British Prime Minister Gordon Brown has said when he was the Chancellor of the Exchequer (Finance Secretary) that the UK wished to become 'a gateway for Islamic trade and finance.' Therefore the value of Islamic finance has risen sharply in recent years in the UK as many of its mainstream banks have Sharia-compliant offerings, he suggested."

[Tony Makara]

Northern Wok, thanks for that. Gordon Brown wants to make the UK foreign owned that's for sure. He has completely given up on us creating wealth for ourselves and hope we can exist by living of the wealth foreigners create in our country. Rather like a dog living off the blood of the ticks on its back.

[Lindsay Jenkins]

May I say thank you to the Archbishiop of Canterbury for (inadvertently) opening up to public debate the one issue that is guaranteed to be discussed heatedly at any social event or meeting I have been part of for the last several years.

And most of us thought we were virtually prohibited from discussing in public.

Equally a big thank you to Dr Parsons, the voice of sanity and commonsense.

Nor is it just a question of winning votes as some have mentioned above but of principle. If we go on as we have been going we will no longer be a country.

[David Lindsay]

How about the hypocrisy of those who pretend to object to floggings, amputations and the like when in fact they fanatically support them, which is of a piece with their support for torture and with their positions on Kosovo, Turkey, Pakistan, Chechnya, and an economic system dependent on unrestricted immigration?

[upset and angry]

I am absolutely astonished that conservative home is giving a platform to one of the most baseless and islamaphobic articles I have ever read.

1. Anti terror and religious hatred laws introduced after 2005 have been opposed rather then welcomed by muslims. Who welcomes a law which is aimed specifically for them?
2. Do you have any factual information for this and what were the conclusions of the commission that Ruth Kelly set up. Have they implemented anything of the sort into British Law?
3. University campus are used to teach and brainwash impressionable young Muslims. While I do not agree with this particular approach, I do think that we need to put into place safeguard at university with tighter control on what goes on in campuses.
4. Could you quote the praise Miliband (of Jewish decent) heaped on Hamas? As for the Israel/Palestine dispute, that goes back centuries and we could sit here for hours arguing about occupied territory and suicide bombings. The sooner there is a settlement, the better for all of us.
5. Was that state funding for Islamic schools or faith schools? Important distinction don't you think.
6. Remember we eventually did have to talk to the IRA.
7. If Des Browne did say this, and given Dr Parsons track record so far, I am not so sure, then I would totally agree with him on this.
8. Again I ask what was the outcome of the consultation on these Bonds? Have they been introduced and have Muslims been given the upper hand on all transactions in this country. In fact for 1400 years Muslim and non Muslims have carried out trade between them. And just for your information, the Islam I practice favours fairness in transactions irrespective of religion.
9. Bigamy is a criminal offence, 99% of Muslims in this country do not break that law and again for your information we are not all on benefits.

At a time when the Muslim vote is turning away from Labour, we need to be there to welcome it. Instead this article will do anything but that.

[Teck Khong]

upset and angry [February 12, 2008 at 18:21], I think the main concern centres on extremists, including terrorists, but not law-abiding Muslims and I too would be upset if those who have total allegiance and loyalty to the Crown and country are ostracised solely for their private beliefs.

The problem seems to be the way the government has handled its relationships with Muslims with respect to the others.

[David Sergeant]

Upset and Angry, assuming what has been said is true I don't think the article is "islamaphobic". It sure is Brownphobic and in this so delicate atmosphere it is utterly vital that we don't confuse a statement of a fact we don't like with an intended insult. Whole chunks of this issue have been off limits for discussion for years and that is a main reason for the mess.

Another reason is a media assumption that only leftwingers and muslims have the experience and good intentions to make observations. When someone who doesn't fit this description makes a serious attempt to enter this discussion it should be treated with particular care.

[Very upset and angry]

Upset and Angry

But not nearly as upset and angry as we British who are constantly gagged with the terms 'racist' and 'islamaphobic', whilst our county, laws and culture are trashed!!

[Dontmakemelaugh]

This is an excellent post:
Posted by: Ian Parker | February 12, 2008 at 10:33.

Well stated Ian Parker. Unless Cameron and the rest of the Tories develope some back backbone, instead of grovelling for Muslim votes the BNP will, eventually (if not now) be the party we will have to vote for to preserve England from Brown's Revenge for Thatcher/Culloden/Polygamy Party.
Only a fool believes that the majority of Muslims are going to vote Conservative. Which would indicate that the Tories have more that their fair share of fools.

As for Iraq being the cause of Islamism it goes back much futher - speaking from memory 633 would be the date.

Again, well written Ian Parker. You raised a question mark against the Tories that Dr Martin Parsons, after all his effort, failed to address.

[Patsy Sergeant]

David Sergeant @ 19.19 - You are absolutely right in your observations. If you recollect it was really only about this time last year that people who had the temerity to try to comment on too much immigration, were called 'racists' in the media and on TV, and Migrationwatch aligned to the BNP. Well some people still harangue MigrationWatch, but it can only be a good thing if these tricky problems are being discussed much more openly now!

[Tapestry]

There is a Sharia punishment for bigamy - multiple mothers-in-law.

[Ronan Friel]

Martin, an interesting article and as ever I agree with some of your points and others less so due to my inherent liberalism!

I am sorry I was not around after work today and I shall miss talking to you about politics and other such......great working with you sir, you shall be missed!!!!

Ronan

[Chris Hossack]

God help us - accusations of islamaphobia again!
If Martin Parsons (one of the most unassuming and intelligent men in this field) can't address the issue of the islamization of Britain without being accused of a phobia, then no body can.
Hate to point out the obvious but if he really had a fear of Islamic people, then he wouldn't have spent several years of his life working with and helping Muslims in Islamic states.
Such accusations made against reasonable people are precisly why so few address the issues head on and leave the task to the BNP.

[Hugh Jabutt]

I agree with you totally Martin I feel the current restrictions on Islamic members of society are too tight.