Has CCHQ taken all necessary measures to ensure the Conservative Muslim Forum cannot be infiltrated?

This open letter has been sent to the Party Chairman today:

"Dear Caroline,

You will be aware of the recent controversy caused by the Conservative Muslim Forum's response to Pauline Neville-Jones' national security report, 'An Unquiet World'.  The CMF, which is headquartered at CCHQ and uses the party's logo, took issue with a number of The Unquiet World's conclusions.  You will remember that it opposed the proposal that preachers who campaign against our nation's democratic institutions be refused entry to Britain.  It also called for full engagement with the MCB, an organisation that Baroness Neville-Jones said "uses identity politics to pursue a domestic and international policy agenda sympathetic to Islamists.”

It is, of course, vital that free speech flourishes within the Conservative Party but I would value your reassurance as to what steps have been taken to ensure that the CMF has not been - and cannot be - infiltrated by groups or individuals with hostile agendas.  Given its privileged place inside Conservative HQ I hope you agree that these are reasonable concerns.

For example:

• I understand that Lord Sheikh is Chairman of the CMF but does the Forum have a governing board?  If so, who sits on the CMF's board?
• How often does the CMF meet?
• Are any of its meetings minuted?  Who has access to those minutes, if they exist?
• Is it a democratic body?
• Who exactly wrote the CMF's recent paper and its criticisms of the policy group report?
• Is the CMF part-sponsored by Conservative Party funds?  Who, for example, pays for its website?
• Do you know if its leading players are attached to some of the groups that Baroness Neville-Jones has criticised?

Thank you for your time.

I will be publishing this letter on ConservativeHome.

Yours sincerely,

Tim Montgomerie"

Comments

[James Maskell]

Well said Editor.

[Umbrella man]

Do you have information Editor that suggests CMF has been infiltrated or are these entirely open questions?

[Cranmer]

Quite so, Mr Montgomerie.

His Grace raised these very concerns some weeks ago, and is delighted that a member of the CCF has found the teeth to gnaw at the issue. This is not a question of religious bigotry or 'Islamophobia', but of policy and politics, and these pertinent questions must be answered.

[Traditional Tory]

Years ago there was a Conservative Asian Forum which was alleged to have been infiltrated by militant Sikhs. It was instantly shut down.

This was about the same time as FCS was closed, presaging the authoritarian methods common in today's party.

[expat returnee]

Why is there a "Conservative Muslim Forum"?

I have recently returned to England after several years living and working abroad and am baffled and more than a little disturbed at the profound changes that have taken place in that time.

It is not a country I recognise.

[Editor]

I have been passed information, Umbrella man, but it is too insubstantial at present. The important thing is not what has been but about putting accountability in place now.

[Paul Oakley]

In principle there should be no taboo areas for discussion within the Tory diaspora. Further, the existence of the Conservative Muslim forum is long overdue, subject of course to Tim's caveats.

Nevertheless, the rapid reaction force of the party leadership needs to show some consistency of approach. Calls for tax cuts and grammar schools; support for BOO and advocacy of Enoch have been immediately stamped-upon.

Perhaps I missed it, but I do not recall any criticism from a senior level of CMF opposition to Zionism or of its neutrality (at best) over the Iranian bomb. Silence on these matters as a consequence of white metrosexual political correctness is not acceptable. Indeed, it is patronising.

[Bring Back Greg Dyke]

COMMENT OVERRIDDEN FOR BEING TOO PERSONAL

[Richard Dolby]

expat returnee - well, if you don't like it over here, and you won't integrate into our diverse society and to the way we do things around here, you can bugger off back to where you came from - no one asked you to come here...

[Fifth Column]

COMMENT OVERRIDDEN FOR SAME REASON AS ABOVE

[Edward]

I salute you for this, Tim, but if you have information which is substantial enough to refer to and comment on then, assuming it's not libellous, why not tell us what?

[HF]

Tim, I do wonder if the better step may have been to have sent the letter and then waited a week to see what the reply was.

That is why I post anonymously, what I say cannot easily be used by our opponents but it gives CCHQ fair warning to address certain concerns.

[Frank McGarry]

How to deal effectively with Islamism is the biggest political problem of our age.
Global Wahhabism is a more immediate threat to the world than global warming. But because of political correctness this issue has not been properly addressed - in fact it has barely been debated at all.

One writer has predicted that, on present demographic trends, of immigration and birth rate, that the whole of Europe could be Islamified in about another fifty years.

As the radical Islamic creed is openly anti-Semitic, sexist, homophobic, anti-Christian and anti-democratic, should we tolerate it in our midst?

As someone said, "The real enemy is not Islamism but our own passivity."

I don't believe there is a way of ensuring that the Conservative Muslim Forum cannot be infiltrated.

[George Hinton]

Well done Tim.

Unfortunately no-one seems to understand, that democracy and Islam are not compatable.
Islam is not so much a faith, as a way of life, an ordered hierarchal society, a socio-religio-political body, with a very strong agenda, driven by the literal interpretation of the Koran. That book espouses the total subjection of the follower to the faith and to the leadership. Those of the faith are to recognise no other leadership, recognise no other nation state than that of the Caliphate and their fellow co-religionists.
I have to say that i am uneasy with the CMF, unless it has very robust measures to prevent take-over/infiltration, which may damage its ability to project a message.

[David]

"Unfortunately no-one seems to understand, that democracy and Islam are not compatable."

I must have imagined my politically active Muslim friends then, or the chap telling with me in Leicester in 2001, speaking passionately about his belief in democracy to a bunch of fundies (he was tellign for Labour, but you can't have everything).

[Cranmer]

"Unfortunately no-one seems to understand, that democracy and Islam are not compatable."

Nonsense. Firstly, there is an important distinction to be drawn between the perceived and pervasive 'orthodox' Islam - which is invariably forged by a warped media intent on promoting the likes of Abu Hamza as the authoritative voice of this orthodoxy - and individual Muslims, many of whom have seamlessly syncretised their faith to the political culture of the United Kingdom, and many of whom discover in Conservative philosophy the essence of their religious and ethical worldview.

Islam has the amorphous capacity to find compatibilty with democracy as any religion has. It simply needs theologians and Islamic scholars to expound a hermeneutic which will challenge the media portrayal of Islam as a unified, monolithic Ummah, and individual Muslims brave enough to confront their co-religionists who may have been possessed by the dream of a caliphate. Democracy, after all, is not explicit in the Bible, but developed out of what is implicit (and denominations continue to disagree).

Contrary to superficial but popular belief, not all Muslims want Shari'a law in the UK, not all Muslims accord with the MCB, and not all Conservative Muslims endow Lord Sheikh or the Conservative Muslim Forum with any authority or credibility whatsoever.

[expat returnee]

Richard Dolby

Is it the case that people like myself, born and brought up in Britain, no longer have the right to criticise aspects of our society that we don't like?

Is this Tory Party policy now or are you one of Gordon Brown's thought police?

[Michael McGowan]

Cranmer is correct but politicians are not giving enough vocal and practical support to the kind of Muslim referred to in Cranmer's last paragraph.

[expat returnee]

Richard Dolby

On second thoughts, perhaps you were being ironic?

It's hard to tell sometimes nowadays.

[Sally Roberts]

Well done for raising this, Tim!

[Patsy Sergeant]

Richard Dolby

I think your post @ 10.30 was incredibly racist - yes it is possible to be racist the other way round! And although it seems unlikely that you know 'expat returnee' AND he seems very reasonable in the face of your APPARENT intolerance, to berate him the way that you did for saying that - '(I) am baffled and more than a little disturbed at the profound changes that have taken place in that time.' He could have meant that there are windfarms all over the landscape, or that all the towns shops look alike nowadays, there are hundreds of things that sentence could mean.

I spent ten years living in Malaysia in the 70's and 80's, and I have never been back and don't really want to, because I am sure it will have changed enormously, and I might well be able to make exactly the same comment if I DID return there! I think that your comment says more about you than 'expat returnee'.

[Londoner]

Expat returnee asks: "Why is there a "Conservative Muslim Forum"?"

I think you may find that there is also a Conservative Christian Fellowship (or some similar title), if that makes you feel better. I think our Editor may have been involved in it and that it also has house room at Conservative HQ. I don't think it is yet a requirement for Conservative Party involvement to be an atheist or to regard ones faith as irrelevant to ones politics.

It is entirely right that the party should seek to reach out to faith groups and/or cultural minorities through such organisations. It is also important that participants in these organisations regard them as supplementary, rather than as an alternative, to involvement in the mainstream party organisation, constituency parties etc. And if there is infiltration then it must be dealt with.

Expat is of course entirely entitled to voice his views but, in some ways, it would be a pretty stagnant country if, having been away for many years, an expat were to return and find that nothing had changed. I also think he/she should be careful about jumping to conclusions that may not, as yet, be based on first hand experience. For instance, as a Londoner I find many non-Londoners from other parts of the south of England often say how much they feel London has changed, basically because of the higher proportions of non-white faces they see on the streets. But what they often don't realise is that, in London at least, a significant proportion of these are normal working, often professional, people who, if you get past what they might look like, are very similar in outlook and way of life to the average Londoner. But this is because such out-of-towners have not come across many of these people personally in their daily work or local residential communities. Even more so this must be the case if one has been an expat for a great many years.

[Mash]

The Conservative Party Interim Report regarding the Muslim community and Muslim organisations was unfair and unsubstantiated. I fully support what the Conservative Muslim Forum has done.

Dame Paul-Neville claimed that the "MCB’s initiatives to engage with public policy as ‘intellectual entryism’ and states that ‘respectability is thus gained for the attack on democratic values."

In reality, the Muslim Council of Britain encourages British Muslims to play a full part in the democratic process and additionally is fully committed to democratic politics: it is notable that the Report fails to substantiate in any way its outrageous claim that the MCB is involved in an ‘attack on democratic values’?

The Party's Report misrepresents the MCB’s stance on foreign affairs by stating: ‘It has argued that the government “should change foreign policy” in a direction with which the terrorists would agree in order to deny them a cause’.

The full quote from the open letter – which the Report incorrectly describes as an ‘MCB Open Letter’, but was in fact signed by over forty Muslim organisations, including the MCB, members of parliament and the House of Lords - is as follows: “We urge the Prime Minister to redouble his efforts to tackle terror and extremism and change our foreign policy to show the world that we value the lives of civilians wherever they live and whatever their religion. Such a move would make us all safer.” This letter was issued in the context of the Government’s refusal to call for an immediate ceasefire during the massive Israeli bombardment of Lebanon in the summer of 2006. All signatories to the open letter concurred that some of the Government’s foreign policy decisions were making us less and not more safe. It is an argument defended robustly by academic and intelligence reports that claim the same.

It should also be added here that the MCB has been consistently uncompromising in its condemnation of any attack on civilians, wherever they may be. In their engagement on foreign policy with policymakers, the MCB has never maintained that a change in foreign policy would ward off extremists alone. The argument advanced by the MCB is that proper democratic governance, where public opinion matters and leaders are held accountable for their foreign policy disasters, is the only way to exterminate the fodder used by extremists on impressionable young minds. What we make the case for is wholesale engagement and rigorous democracy.

The Report tells us that the MCB has “hardline members promulgating the teachings of Maududi and Qutb, who tend to dominate policy and crowd out moderate voices." The Report does not identify who these hardline members of the MCB are, nor does it give evidence of an internal struggle in which ‘moderates’ feel themselves outnumbered? More importantly, we are given no references to substantiate the claim of the sway of Maududi and Qutb on principal actors in the MCB.
Through its paradigm, the Report chooses to make additional broadsides on the integrity of the MCB. The Report accuses the MCB of harbouring a ‘Qardawist’ ideology, named after the Islamic scholar Shaykh Yusuf Al-Qaradawi. Again, no evidence is provided to show that the MCB follows a ‘Qaradawist’ ideology. As evidenced through the range of its affiliates (Annex 2), the MCB creates a space for all schools of thought to be represented, Sufi and Salafi, Shi’a and Sunni. The MCB is not beholden to any one Islamic scholar. The MCB comprises of an enormously diverse range of affiliated organisations representing many different strands of thought that are present among British Muslims.

The MCB does not necessarily agree with all that Shaykh Al-Qaradawi has to say, but neither does it deny that he is an important figure and contributor within Islamic theological circles.

Dame Paul Neville stated: “The MCB have to decide their position: do they endorse Qaradawi or do they, as they claim, want to advance integration? These two things are not compatible.”

The MCB defended Shaykh al-Qaradawi’s right to visit Britain in 2004 when he was subjected to a clearly orchestrated hate campaign in the media. Our position was vindicated when the Crown Prosecution Service rejected the ‘dossier’ given to it by the Board of Deputies of British Jews urging that Shaykh al-Qaradawi be prosecuted for some of his pronouncements. Again, we are puzzled as to why the MCB’s position should be misconstrued as ‘endorsing’ al-Qaradawi. We do not ‘endorse’ any Islamic scholar: we have the right to agree and disagree with some of the opinions of all Islamic scholars.
The MCB does wish to advance the cause of integration and has a proven track record for doing so. However, they will not be bullied into a corner where we submit to the grandstanding of vested interests and a trial by media.

The Conservative Muslim Forum is a democratic organisation from what I understand and has made quite open statements. I agree with most of it. Additionally, they are part and parcel of the party and should have the democratic right to express their opinion and feed into the democratic party process when formulating our policies. Why should they be told to shut up? Because certain section of our party disagree. That is not democracy, thats is a dictatorship. Where the dictator only wants people that agree with him, and tells those that disagree to take a jump etc etc.

Furthermore, what evidence is available to suggest that MCB has hardline members? Who are these hardline members. Iqbal Sacranie, who was knighted by Her Majesty the Queen, or Inayat Bunglawala, who speaks at many conventions, events and is notable for his contribution for CIF. I would not want an extremist to contribute to CIF if i was the editor of the Guardian, so why was Inayat given that chance. Maybe because he is respected for what he does, which is to help work for the common good.

The MCB in my opinion represents a broad range of opinion within the British Muslim community and therefore the Government should and must engage with it. Organisations such as the Sufi Muslim Council has no clear membership structure and nor have they made clear who funds them. Furthermore, how many members do they have and why do they refuse to disclose the number of mosque affiliated to them? The MCB proudly states that it has over 500 Muslim affiated organisations and many Muslim volunteers throughout the country.

If the MCB is so extreme, why is the Board of Deputies and many interfaith organisation eager to work with MCB? It makes no common sense.

Additionally, why are we trying to silence Muslim voices within our party. We should be encouraging all sections of our party to express their opinion, in an environment which is free of fear or intimidation. Despite not being a member of the Forum myself, I feel they should be able to articulate the concerns of many British Muslim voters, especially those hailing from many inner city counties. Why should they be silenced for doing so?

Thanks

Mash

[George Hinton]

Why do we have a CMF?

Surely we should be all-inclusive, not divisive by allowing separate groupings. Inclusiveness then meets the comments and challenges of CRANMER.

[Cllr Francis Lankester]

Having met several of the CMF leading lights the problem is not that it has been infiltrated. That would be easy to solve. The CMF in effect propses a Muslim Foreign Policy for this country-an impossibility as why should other faith communities not demand the same. The really worrying thing is the sectarian self identification with co-religionists no matter if they are right or wrong. This comes fron educated, integrated and seemingly reasonable people from the ones known.

As for the MCB; Qaradawi is the spokesman for the Muslim Brotherhood, a clerical fascist organisation. The dossier about him was spot on and we will never make progress until we stop treating extremists as moderates. We simply undermine the real moderates.

I attended the London debate between Ken Livingstone/the awful Salma Yaqoob and Daniel Pipes/Charles Murray (points victory to Pipes). In the afternoon I heard Linda Bellos (described herself as getting an MBE for "being a lesbian" and how she would talk to anyone to get peace, including the Muslim Brotherhood-but not to the BNP in this country), Oliver Kamm and Inayat Bunglawala (MCB). The latter agreed with Livingstone's morning comment that founding Israel was a mistake, then he paused. I thought he had finished his answer, but he continued; "perhaps the worst mistake of the last century." Being in the company of Bruce Kent and mostly members of the Liberal Left Tendency, I felt like commenting, "what, worse than electing Mrs Thatcher?" But it shows the Anti-Semitism not so far under the surface, and why the MCB is not a proper partner for government.

I used to be an ethnic minority support teacher in Gravesend (large Sikh community) and Birmingham (Lozells, Saltley, Alum Rock). Originally, this was a city-wide unified service with teachers and classroom assistants dedicated to a multiculutural Britain in which we celebrate our cultural/religious heritages but the most important things are those we share-our common humanity and rights as British people. This was split up because head teachers wanted control of the budget. Plus councillors on governing bodies wanted to be the gatekeepers of resources to "their" communities. This was a disaster, as it destroyed good education practice and changed multiculuturalism to basically equal sectarianism. Moreover, heads were notorious for cheating the funding system by claiming for more "need" than their schools had. I was part of a seconded audit team to check the assessments sent in to the council to get this funding. We easily uncovered gross "errors" and I was kicked out of the school I worked at because they thought I had shopped them (I hadn't, the situation was obvious to colleagues). One case where devolving power and funding was a catastrophe.

[Mr Angry]

Thank you Tim for raising this issue again. The silence from our Leadership over the unacceptable demands of the CMF has been both deafening and disgraceful and there needs to be a full and frank response to your letter. Otherwise we shall have to assume that CCHQ either agrees with the CMF (in which case I for one will be resigning from the Party) or that they are so politically correct and scared of addressing this most important of issues that they cannot be trusted to do what is actually right.The contrast with the treament of others who have expressed unaccetable views, e.g. Hastilow, couldn't be more extreme and we cannot allow there to be one law for our Muslim members and another for everyone else.

[Traditional Tory]

'Mash' seems to have a lot of time on his hands when the rest of us are working. That screed should be one for the Guinness Book of Records.

If I remember this is the poster who was telling us, a few days ago, what a great guy 'Sir' Ian Blair is.

Clearly Mash has a refined sense of judgment.

Despite not being a member of the Forum myself

Er...yes. Well you would know all about it then, wouldn't you?

[Mash]

Cllr Francis Lankester,

I will attempt to address all your points. Including the point made by George Hinton, about the introduction of the Conservative Muslim Forum. Although I am not a member of the Forum, the purpose of the forum from what is understand is to encourage more members of the British Muslim community to play a more proactive role in party politics. Additionally, it also seeks to increase political awareness among the Muslim community. We have a similar group called the British Asian Conservative Link, which specifically aims to encourage people from a broad range of communities to participate in party politics. However, this group wants to involve Asians who subscribe to our principles and policies of the Conservative party.

Secondly, the above speaker is precise that we should not require separate groups within the party. Whether they be the Conservative Friends of Israel, Conservative Friends of Bangladesh or any other internal group. Rather as a collective party, we should respond to the needs and views of the electorate. Furthermore, we should focus our efforts in encouraging more women, ethnic minorities, people from LGBT communities and disabled people to get involved and stand for seats whether locally or during general elections. We need to be seen as a party for all, not a party with certain vested interest.

Cllr Lankester, you advance the argument that "The dossier about him {Sheikh Yusuf Al Qaradawi} was spot on and we will never make progress until we stop treating extremists as moderates. We simply undermine the real moderates."

There is absolutely nothing of substance in this your argument and also some very significant and telling omissions. Why, for example, did you not mention that the Crown Prosecution Service had publicly stated that despite the media furore, Dr Yusuf al-Qaradawi had committed no crime and there was therefore no case for him to answer? Furthermore, a dossier was indeed presented to the police by the Board of Deputies of British Jews, however, this was simply thrown out by the CPS. If Sheikh Qaradawi was indeed some fascist criminal, inciting hatred and violence, why was he not prosecuted by the CPS?

The MCB are a representative organisation who speak to many Muslim organisations, individuals and acquire the expertise. If you know any Muslims, please feel free to contact MCB and explain that you would like to help work for the common good of the Muslim community in Britain.

Although I think your article has many holes and lacks any real substance, I would like you to prove all your assertions. You have levelled several assertions about the MCB, without providing adequate evidence.

Furthermore, I am not a member and nor do I subscribe to the MCB. However, I support any organisation which advances democratic principles and eager to work for the common good of our society. In a democratic society, I believe people should have the right to work for the common good and achieve some kind of community consensus and the MCB do exactly that. Unless you have any evidence to disapprove this, I suggest you try to tackle my initial concerns.

Thanks and all the best for now

Mash

[Mash]

A party spokesman, according to articles online, explained that: “This is simply one of many submissions received and does not represent Conservative Party policy." So what is there to worry about, even if it is a submission from some of our members. Do you expect them to only agree with all your views. In a democratic society, we are all likely to hold views, which each of us may or may not agree with. This is what makes the concept of democracy unique. I therefore thing resigning simply because of a group's submission simply demonstrates you are not a passionate Tory who believes in Conservative ideals.

Thanks

Mash

[Mash]

I won't get personal with you Traditional Tory, if you have anything interesting to say about current affairs and the party, I suggest you engage in a proper discussion or simply stay silent.

Thanks

Mash

[Cllr Francis Lankester]

That someone with objectionable, Muslim supremacist views is not recommended for prosecution by the CPS is hardly a recommendation for being a consultee partner of government.

[Mash]

Then why exactly did the Board of Deputies of British Jews pass the dossier to the police? Was it because they wanted the police to have a look and then throw it in the bin, like most newspapers once you have finished with them

[expat returnee]

That's interesting.

First I'm told to keep my mouth shut or leave the country by someone who appears to regard political correctness as an unarguable dogma and now "traditional tory" is told to shut up by someone from, what appears to be, the muslim wing of the party.

Why are certain people/factions trying to close down debate in the Tory party? I thought that was the sort of thing that only happened within Labour.

[Comstock]

I begun the week arguing with Editor and I'm going to end it agreeing with him.

But (there always seems to be a but) I'd also object to the idea of the CCF (sorry ed!) and the entryist tactics used in Brentwood by a Christian organisation there.

All three major, and most minor (the only possible exception being the DUP) parties in the UK are overwhelmingly secular affairs, and I think that is a very good thing indeed. IMHO neither the church, nor the mosque, nor the gurdwara has any place in politics.

[Patsy Sergeant]

Are we 'trying to silence Muslim voices within our party'?

[Traditional Tory]

All three major, and most minor (the only possible exception being the DUP) parties in the UK are overwhelmingly secular affairs, and I think that is a very good thing indeed.

Why should that concern you? You're a socialist!

I have long believed that what this country needs is something like the US 'religious right' and as Conservative associations continue to dwindle this could become a real and exciting possibility in the future.

[Common Sense]

"Mash" - hmm, not a Conservative, I suspect. Judging by his phraseology and taqiyya tenor I would guess that he's a gentleman not a million miles from the MCB.

Dear M - don't waste your time acting as an apologist for Islamists like Bunglawala (the praiser of 9/11). No one here is interested. Try Jack Straw - he might buy your deception.

[Will]

Can we have a Conservative Agnostic Fellowship supported by CCHQ? Otherwise I am being excluded. I'm guessing we have more agnostics and atheists in the party than muslims. Why is one minority view given such support and prominence by the party, compared to others?

[Cranmer]

IMHO neither the church, nor the mosque, nor the gurdwara has any place in politics

There will be no peace between nations of the world until there is peace between the religions of the world. To assert that there is no place for church, mosque or gurdwara (you missed synagogue, mandir and vihara!) in politics is to offer very little hope of achieving anything political. Just as people are more than flesh and blood, so politics is concerned with more than functionality, order and process.

To believe that 'secularism' can resolve the problems of Iraq, Israel and Kashmir is to set aside the empirical: Northern Ireland was resolved only by engaging with the churches, and a party espousing an overt Christian allegiance is now in power. The pattern is mirrored in the Christian Democratic parties all over the Continent. They are in power because they beat with the heart of their electorate.

Thankfully, there is something 'deeper' than politics, and the most successful politicians and political parties recognise this, and keenly embrace the spiritual reality.

[Comstock]

"Why should that concern you? You're a socialist!"

I don't ever recall using that word to describe myself, but OK.

Why should it concern me? Well at least one of the 3 main parties is likely to be in power for some time to come.

"There will be no peace between nations of the world until there is peace between the religions of the world"

And since they all claim the other is wrong, I wouldn't hold my breath. A peaceful world is likely to be a secular world.

[Deputy Editor]

Eloquently put as usual, Your Grace. (thanks Comstock)

[Michael McGowan]

Cranmer, I see that the secular fundamentalists are out in force spouting their pharisaic dogma! Like all fanatics, they cannot grasp that their beliefs are a a demented form of religion too. Secularism has of course been such a runaway success over the years: just think of the careers of M. Robespierre, J. Stalin, A. Hitler and M. Tse Tung...

[Mash]

Expat Returnee: Firstly, there is not a shred of evidence to prove that I am from the Muslim wing of the Conservative party. Unless you can produce a piece of evidence to support your absurd assertion, I suggest you stop making these sweeping statements.

I have questioned the Interim Report by Dame Pauline-Neville, as there are a number of inaccurate claims about the Muslim community and the Muslim Council of Britain. I am within my rights to question the credibility of these assertions.

Dr al-Qaradawi has been visiting the UK for over twenty years and in fact visited the UK 'five times between 1995 and 1997' when the former Tory leader Michael Howard was
Home Secretary as is widely publicised and reported.

It is certainly true that the Board of Deputies of British Jews tried to prevent Dr al-Qaradawi from entering the country and indeed sent the police a 'dossier' in 2004 of his remarks. The Crown Prosecution Service took just two days to dismiss the 'dossier' and issued a statement saying there was no evidence of any offence having been committed by Dr al-Qaradawi. I therefore do not agree with any of the absurd suggestions being made.

Traditional Tory, I am not a member of the MCB, although, yes, I certainly agree that they are able to articulate the views of their affiliates. We should accept the enormous feelings amongst the Muslim community on the ground on this issue.

Thanks

Mash

[Comstock]

"(thanks Comstock)"

No problems, Sam.

Michael said "Like all fanatics, they cannot grasp that their beliefs are a a demented form of religion too."

If you take 'religion' to mean 'something you believe in' ,then yes I suppose you have a point. My own belief is that whether one believes in God or creation or an afterlife should be a matter of personal choice rather than organised religion. It is certainly not a matter for the state.

"secularism has of course been such a runaway success over the years: just think of the careers of M. Robespierre, J. Stalin, A. Hitler and M. Tse Tung..."

Well Hitler was a 'Christian'(albeit a very warped one), and I guess Communism was effectively a 'religion' to Stalin and Mao.

Robsepierre I don't know much about (To be honest I'd never heard of him before I just looked him up)

[David]

The common denominator is that they were all human. Essentially, humans are bastards, and if they don't have religion to excuse horrendous behaviour, they'll use politics.

Religion and politics mixing isn't a problem, so long as there is a level of pragmatism and a proper sense of the personal and the public.

So for G-d's sake the last thing we need is a version of the US Christian right.

[FedUp]

I don't have any objection to a Conservative Muslim Forum in principle, although I can't see why it's 'long overdue'. I was frankly appalled at its utterances, but hey! that's free speech, I'm not going to lose a lot of sleep over it. However, I am puzzled. Where is the forum that I could join? I may like a Sikh Forum, a Jewish Forum, a Hindu Forum, a Ba'hai Forum, a Jedai Forum - even a Gay Forum, Lesbian Forum, Heterosexual Forum, Vegan Forum, Ravenous-meat-eating Forum - don't all these special interests have as much right to their Conservative Forum as Muslims? I stand to be corrected - they may exist - does anyone have details?

[Graeme Archer]

Comstock, don't get sucked into the "Stalin was an atheist therefore atheism is bad" debate -- Michael is far too bright to believe that! Anyway it's illogical (all stalinists may be atheists; it does not follow at all that all atheists are stalinists). Nor do we lack counter-examples of religiously-inspired butchery, though when that happens, we're usually told that it's not the religion's fault per se, just those pesky humans with their interpretation of it. In the absence of some sort of second coming, of course, all we have are those pesky humans and their various interpretations. Forgive my liberal atheism, but my best Occam-ite summary would be "human beings are capable of constructing political systems that deliver evil, whether or not they possess a religious underpinning".

What I think Michael and others do believe, sincerely, is that stalinist outrages are less likely to occur in a society which submits to religious dogma. I think that's a respectable view, I think most Tories would. I don't agree with it at all. Since no proof is possible, either way, I don't even know why I enjoy thinking about it so much! The western "itch"!

What is profoundly, profoundly, worth-repeating-endlessly profoundly important is the difference between a post-enlightenment faith, which admits of doubt and welcomes intellectual discourse (or even sub-intellectual, for I am no theological expert), and a fundamentalist dogma which permits of no discussion, no inquiry concerning human understanding. It is those religious sects which remind one of Maoism, I believe.

[Mash]

If we endow no credibility on the Muslim Conservative Forum, then we do we need to designate blogs to have lengthy discussion about their report and views. Surely, we should offer them no credibility or authority, but we are by making your concerns known publicly voices. Again, despite not being a member of any forum within the party, I certainly support the right of any association whether the Conservative Muslim Forum or any Friends Groups should have the right to exist.

Dame Paul-Neville claimed that the "MCB’s initiatives to engage with public policy as ‘intellectual entryism’ and states that ‘respectability is thus gained for the attack on democratic values."

In reality, the Muslim Council of Britain encourages British Muslims to play a full part in the democratic process and additionally is fully committed to democratic politics: it is notable that the Report fails to substantiate in any way its outrageous claim that the MCB is involved in an ‘attack on democratic values’?

Nobody has seem to support this claim in our own party report, why not? Why can we criticise the report of the Conservative Muslim Forum, but not our Security Forum for the Tory party?

Please will someone within the party explain how the MCB is involved in an attack on democracy? I am quite clearly interested.

The Party's Report misrepresents the MCB’s stance on foreign affairs by stating: ‘It has argued that the government “should change foreign policy” in a direction with which the terrorists would agree in order to deny them a cause’.

When did the MCB claim this? Again another scrutiny of our security report? If we want to be in Government, we need to make accurate statements about organisations and bodies in order that we do not become a discredited party.

The full quote from the open letter – which the Report incorrectly describes as an ‘MCB Open Letter’, but was in fact signed by over forty Muslim organisations, including the MCB, members of parliament and the House of Lords - is as follows: “We urge the Prime Minister to redouble his efforts to tackle terror and extremism and change our foreign policy to show the world that we value the lives of civilians wherever they live and whatever their religion. Such a move would make us all safer.” This letter was issued in the context of the Government’s refusal to call for an immediate ceasefire during the massive Israeli bombardment of Lebanon in the summer of 2006. All signatories to the open letter concurred that some of the Government’s foreign policy decisions were making us less and not more safe. It is an argument defended robustly by academic and intelligence reports that claim the same.

The MCB is frequently attacked due to its position on Foreign Policy and Israel. However, the MCB has been consistently uncompromising in its condemnation of any attack on civilians, wherever they may be. In their engagement on foreign policy with policymakers, the MCB has never maintained that a change in foreign policy would ward off extremists alone. The argument advanced by the MCB is that proper democratic governance, where public opinion matters and leaders are held accountable for their foreign policy disasters, is the only way to exterminate the fodder used by extremists on impressionable young minds. What we make the case for is wholesale engagement and rigorous democracy.

As a party, we should support the call by Rachel North and other victims of 7/7 and the MCB for a public inquiry into the events of 7th July. I agree with the analysis advanced by some sections of our society that, "We as a society need to better understand what factors led to the four 7/7 bombers becoming radicalised and how many others may have come under the influence of similar extremist ideas." I further want the public inquiry to investigate how simplistic anti-western messages of extremist organisations and hostile views, could be regarded as attractive of vulnerable young people. What drives them towards extremism? Is it our Foreign Policy, or any other factor. For instance, Mohammed Sidique Khan, one of the men behind 7/7 stated in his video speech, "Your democratically elected governments continuously perpetuate atrocities against my people all over the world. And your support of them makes you directly responsible, just as I am directly responsible for protecting and avenging my Muslim brothers and sisters."

What can make an educated man so vulnerable to using violence as a response to what he perceives to be oppression against Palestinians, Iraqis and others.

The Report tells us that the MCB has “hardline members promulgating the teachings of Maududi and Qutb, who tend to dominate policy and crowd out moderate voices." The Report does not identify who these hardline members of the MCB are, nor does it give evidence of an internal struggle in which ‘moderates’ feel themselves outnumbered? More importantly, we are given no references to substantiate the claim of the sway of Maududi and Qutb on principal actors in the MCB.

Dame Paul Neville stated: “The MCB have to decide their position: do they endorse Qaradawi or do they, as they claim, want to advance integration? These two things are not compatible.”

The MCB defended Shaykh al-Qaradawi’s right to visit Britain in 2004 when he was subjected to a clearly orchestrated hate campaign in the media. Our position was vindicated when the Crown Prosecution Service rejected the ‘dossier’ given to it by the Board of Deputies of British Jews urging that Shaykh al-Qaradawi be prosecuted for some of his pronouncements. Again, we are puzzled as to why the MCB’s position should be misconstrued as ‘endorsing’ al-Qaradawi. We do not ‘endorse’ any Islamic scholar: we have the right to agree and disagree with some of the opinions of all Islamic scholars.
The MCB does wish to advance the cause of integration and has a proven track record for doing so. However, they will not be bullied into a corner where we submit to the grandstanding of vested interests and a trial by media.

Why is this never stated by our politicans when debating MCB members? It makes no logical sense.

The Conservative Muslim Forum is a democratic organisation from what I understand and has made quite open statements. I agree with most of it. Additionally, they are part and parcel of the party and should have the democratic right to express their opinion and feed into the democratic party process when formulating our policies. Why should they be told to shut up? Because certain section of our party disagree. That is not democracy, thats is a dictatorship. Where the dictator only wants people that agree with him, and tells those that disagree to take a jump etc etc.

Furthermore, what evidence is available to suggest that MCB has hardline members? Who are these hardline members. Iqbal Sacranie, who was knighted by Her Majesty the Queen, or Inayat Bunglawala, who speaks at many conventions, events and is notable for his contribution for CIF. I would not want an extremist to contribute to CIF if i was the editor of the Guardian, so why was Inayat given that chance. Maybe because he is respected for what he does, which is to help work for the common good.

The MCB in my opinion represents a broad range of opinion within the British Muslim community and therefore the Government should and must engage with it. Organisations such as the Sufi Muslim Council has no clear membership structure and nor have they made clear who funds them. Furthermore, how many members do they have and why do they refuse to disclose the number of mosque affiliated to them? The MCB proudly states that it has over 500 Muslim affiated organisations and many Muslim volunteers throughout the country.

If the MCB is so extreme, why is the Board of Deputies and many interfaith organisation eager to work with MCB? It makes no common sense.

Still waiting for an answer to this?

Thanks

Mash

[Graeme Archer]

Mash, I think you've lost it mate.

The MCB defended Shaykh al-Qaradawi’s right to visit Britain in 2004 when he was subjected to a clearly orchestrated hate campaign in the media.

Anyone who defends Qaradawi's right to proselytise his message of hate in Britain has lost their right to demand I pay them any serious attention. I'm not interested in the balkanising politics of hate, which are the forte of our leftwing political enemies. Livingstone supported the visit and physically embraced Qaradawi. Frankly, that neither surprises me nor makes me particularly hungry to hear any more from the latter or from his supporters.

The Conservative Muslim Forum is a democratic organisation from what I understand

Oh? When was the election? I must have missed it.

[Graeme Archer]

By the way, this guy Qaradawi, whom Mash thinks was the target of an orchestrated campaign of hate, doesn't just support the beating of women and the execution of homosexuals. He's also completely happy to admit his support for suicide bombing. Here's a link to the Newsnight transcript where he affirmed this: link.

[Mash]

Graeme,

Sheikh Yusuf Al Qaradawi committed no crime, nor did he break the law. Within a democratic society, we are likely to come across views we abhor as there are many different opinions. However, Sheikh Yusuf Al Qaradawi has never had this kind of campaign against him, and he has been visiting Britain for the last twenty years or more. Even under Tory Home Secretary, Michael Howard, there was no campaign against Sheikh Qaradawi. This campaign was only orchestrated by the Board of Deputies of British Jews, however, according to the CPS, there was no crime and therefore Sheikh Qaradawi had nothing to answer to. The MCB invited a man who is well regarded in the Muslim community and has condemned the sectarian violence in various parts of the world, including condemning the Taliban and other terrorist groups. Furthermore, Sheikh Qaradawi was warmly received at City Hall by the present Mayor of London and told that this is a city for all "welcome to London"........

Well, maybe you should contact the Conservative Muslim Forum and ask them when it was. Is that not logical enough for you?

Thanks

[Malcolm Dunn]

Quite agree Graeme. I see the leader of the MCB has made a fool of himself (again)today by his comments on police tactics dealing with terrorism. What does he expect the police to do? Nothing?

[Mash]

Malcolm,

Many British Muslims feel let down and victimised by the police, media and establishment. This is not only my view, many of the people of other ethnic and faith communities I have spoken to also feel the Muslim community, which the majority are law-abiding citizens, are facing an unprecendented level of violence and hatred. Even recently, a Muslim woman was verbally abused, followed and her car kicked several times, by someone screaming "take that thing off your face!" Here is a sample of the story - http://www.asianimage.co.uk/display.var.1813570.0.take_your_bloody_veil_off.php

This is what is happening to innocent Muslims. What did she do to deserve this kind of unacceptable treatment. No citizen of this country should feel victimised or on the receiving end of harassment. Hate crime is a crime, and a crime the police take very seriously.

I certainly agree that comments made by Ministers and MPs, such as Jack Straw about the veil and other topics can have a detrimental impact upon law-abiding innocent citizens. The head of the Muslim Council of Britain has said the government's approach to terrorism is creating an atmosphere of suspicion and unease. He is absolutely correct.

I fully agree we need to fight terror, but we also need the confidence of British Muslims and all communities in order to collectively defeat this problem.

[Graeme Archer]

Mash: This campaign was only orchestrated by the Board of Deputies of British Jews

What an unpleasant and untrue comment. Were it to be true - were it the case that only the Board of Deputies find Qaradawi execrable - your point would be, what, exactly? We're not that far, are we Mash, from you saying that which I expect you're really itching to say.

The MCB invited a man who is well regarded in the Muslim community

"Well regarded"? By whom? What community? I live here, so presumably I'm part of it? I think he's abhorrent and I abhor anyone who takes succour from his utterences. As does every politically aware person I'm aware of. Ergo he's not well-regarded by our community, is he? Do you well-regard him, Mash? So you're happy to well-regard wife-beating, suicide-bombing and the execution of gay people?

It's clear from re-reading your posts that there's not a Tory bone in your body, Mash, so like many others I suggest you fly off and talk to those who are interested in your unpleasant brand of sectarianism.

[Mash]

Mash: This campaign was only orchestrated by the Board of Deputies of British Jews.

Dr al-Qaradawi has been visiting the UK for over twenty years and in fact visited the UK 'five times between 1995 and 1997' when the former Tory leader was Home Secretary. Why was there no campaign back then, when Dr Qaradawi held the same opinions. Unless, you believe, quite clearly, she changed his opinions over a short period of time.

It is certainly true that the Board of Deputies of British Jews tried to prevent Dr al-Qaradawi from entering the country and indeed sent the police a 'dossier' in 2004 of his remarks. The Muslim Council of Britain affirmed in a statement: 'The Crown Prosecution Service took just two days to dismiss the 'dossier' and issued a statement saying there was no evidence of any offence having been committed by Dr al-Qaradawi.'

If you get your facts correct, you will find it was the BOD who pass the dossier to the police. Although, there was other people who quite rightly disagreed with Dr Qaradawi publicly, in a democratic society, people are welcomed to hold any opinion they want.

What an unpleasant and untrue comment.

Actually it is true.

Excuse me, I do not endorse Al Qaradawi and nor do I agree with his opinions. So please do not say I do. All I have stated for the record is, Dr Yusuf Al Qaradawi was welcomed to London at City Hall by the Mayor of London. There was a dossier presented to the police by the BOD, but this dossier was dismissed after two days. Secondly, if you get your facts correct, I have never said I support the views of Al Qaradawi. However, within a democratic society, everyone should have the basic right to express their opinion, in an environment which is free of fear and intimidation. As Voltaire once affirmed, "" 'I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

The MCB invited a man who is well regarded in the Muslim community

"Well regarded"? By whom? What community? I live here, so presumably I'm part of it? I think he's abhorrent and I abhor anyone who takes succour from his utterences. As does every politically aware person I'm aware of. Ergo he's not well-regarded by our community, is he? Do you well-regard him, Mash? So you're happy to well-regard wife-beating, suicide-bombing and the execution of gay people?

Again, please get your facts correct, I disagree with the views held by Dr Al Qaradawi. And if he does express any views which incite, he should be quite rightly prosecuted. However, the CPS have stated pubicly there is no evidence to prosecute him, because he has done nothing wrong.

I as most politicians of all parties condemn strongly and utterly all forms of discrimination, whether homophobic, Islamophobic, racism, anti-semitism or any other form of unacceptable discrimination. However, we must also understand that within our society there will always be different views on many issues.

"It's clear from re-reading your posts that there's not a Tory bone in your body, Mash, so like many others I suggest you fly off and talk to those who are interested in your unpleasant brand of sectarianism."

Who are you to say that? I am a proud Tory and you are in no position to judge whether I am a Tory or not. I suggest you grow up and come back when you have something grown up to say.

[Dave Smith]

The CMF response was given after consulting with the wider Muslim community within the UK.

We live in a democracy, in which everyone has the right to express their opinions. Whether these opinions are good, bad or indifferent! We may not always agree with what we hear from others but sometimes the truth can be very, very difficult to agree with.

There is no doubt that we are facing difficult and dark times within our country. However, we should remember one very important fact. The problems that we all face are due to a direct result of incompetent policy failures overseas and a high level of ignorance!

Until the direct source of the problem is dealt with, then the threat and danger will always remain to our country. For anyone to ignore the root causes to our problems, would be extremely foolish!

Lord Sheikh is the chairman of CMF and is a frequent speaker at the House of Lords. Lord Sheikh, has made numerous speeches on a whole range of issues, covering a wide and varied number of subjects. (www.parliament.uk)

This also includes a speech regarding the Palestinian conflict, which is also of great concern to our Muslim community within the UK. Lord Sheikh has made his views very clear and has stated so in public.

Lord Sheikh supports a two state solution in order to resolve the Palestinian conflict and to bring peace to that region!

[Realist]

I think that whenever Islam is being discussed, it must be born in mind that Islam prohibits integration. Muslims are not to have non-Muslims as protectors or friends and their primary loyalty is to Islam, not the nation state. Muslims are obliged to fight until all religion is for Allah.

If you read Lord Sheikh`s speeches you will see that he wants more Muslim MPs, irrespective of which party. This may sound reasonable but whenever there is going to be debate which may involve Muslim interests, either at home or abroad, the Muslims will all vote for Muslim interests instead of Britain`s interests. He is suggesting that there should be at least thirty-five Muslim MPs on a pro-rata basis. You can imagine what effect that will have on future Government policies, especially as the numbers will continue to increase.

This is how Islam insidiously takes control. I suggest that there should be a full, open and public scrutiny of Islam so that all misunderstandings are cleared and everyone fully understands what Islam means for Britain and the world. There is no substitute for truth and transparency.