BBC R4 Today Programme invites Islamist extremist to define Muslim political priorities

The BBC Radio 4 Today programme has really excelled itself today. I've already posted about their intervew with the Right Reverend Bishop Richard Harries, Bishop of Oxford, on the Bishops' proposal for the Church of England to apologise to Muslims for the Iraq War.

At 8:48 they featured a discussion on whether the Liberal Democrat Party should be adjusting its policies to take more account of Muslim views. The advocate invited on, presumably to represent Muslim views, was a Mr Zulfi Bukhari. He is a member of the Muslim Public Affairs Committee (MPACUK).

As this link from Harry's Place shows, the MPACUK is not just an Islamist organization. It has a long standing track record of using far right anti-semitic materials on its web site. These include:

open support for Holocaust denier David Irving, accusations of Zionist media and political control, lists of Jewish donors to New Labour and an investigation into whether the Talmud is "the most Powerful and Racist book in the world". In one example which neatly illustrates the growing commonalities between political extremes, the Islamist Muslim Public Affairs Committee published an article by Professor Kevin MacDonald - who appeared as a witness for David Irving in his failed libel action against Professor Deborah Lipstadt - on the subject which is currently of so much interest to the far left and the anti-war movement: the "International Jewish Origins of Neoconservatism".

Mr Bukhari claimed that many British Muslims are unhappy about the Iraq war and feel alienated by the government's anti-terror legislation. He advocated the Liberal Democrat Party altering its policies to accommodate these supposed views. Mr Bukhari also advocated the Liberal Democrat Party change its policies to accommodate what he claims are Muslim demands around Palestine. These were not discussed in detail

Whilst a Liberal Democrat Party spokesperson invited on did not support Mr Bukhari's views, neither she nor the programme's presenters said anything at all about the disreputable anti-semitic track record of MPACUK. No-one challenged Mr Bukhari about the basis on which he was making his claims or what right he had to speak for all Muslims in the UK.

But it's best to get the measure of the MPACUK from its own web site. This link shows you the way they sought to influence the May 2005 General Election, including targeting the constituencies of MPs they deemed pro-Israel. You need to read some of the examples to get a flavour of their tactics.

There was a Channel 4 programme on May 16th called Operation Muslim Vote. The link shows how proud MPACUK was of its achievements as portrayed in the programme. It particularly featured evident collusion between a northern Liberal Democrat candidate and MPACUK activists from London which helped to swing the vote against a sitting Labour pro Iraq War MP. The methods used by the MPACUK activists included a great deal of hectoring and pressuring of bemused local Muslims, by stressing that they needed to vote the way MPACUK thought they should in order to demonstrate they were good Muslims. Where the local Labour party activists including Muslim activists were well organized, MPACUK made relatively little impact. Where they were not, MPACUK clearly made more headway, especially given direct assistance by a particular Liberal Democrat candidate who was seen to be helping with accommodation for the group.

And here's how the MPACUK covered the recent Panorama "A Question of Leadership" programme which showed the presence of extremist attitudes amongst some of the leadership of the mainstream Muslim Council of Britain. This is the chilling approach taken to "persuading" mosque leaders to support their campaign to defend one of those exposed in the programme:

MPACUK Comment: The well known MCB Spokesman was today under attack from Zionist MP's trying to stop the Pro Palestinian activist from getting a job in Government. MPACUK has been making calls on behalf of Inayat and demanding Muslim Leaders defend him openly and publicly. Any Muslim Leader that refuses will be named on this website so the public are aware of who these men are. Over the weekend Inayat defended Mosque Leaders who were affiliates of the MCB in the MPAC Talk in London , we hope he now realises that the very leaders who he defended are now in his time of need the very Leaders who are so silent. Not a single one of the MCB Mosques have issued an ALERT to their congregation, less then a handful have issued a press release, and none have demanded a meeting with the BBC. Defending the men who run our Mosques today is failing to hold to account and thus improve those who will betray you tomorrow.

But of course the real disgrace is that the flagship BBC Radio 4 Today programme should present a representative of this unrepresentative and nasty pressure group unchallenged and unexplained as if it spoke for all Muslims.

HAT TIP: AC

Comments

[Al-Hack]

I think you mean Asghar Bukhari. He is their spokesperson usually. But yeah, they're a right bunch of twats.

[Judy]

The name is as given on the BBC web site. It maybe Asghar Bukhari or a relative, perhaps.

[Luke]

MPACUK also published a cartoon depicting a Jew as a Baboon with claws, fangs, and the horns of the Devil, standing beside the American flag. The image was sourced from a German Neo-Nazi website - they were forced to take it down but stated that they were not aware of the source of the picture - implying that they thought the picture was fine, as long as it had not been published originally at the German Neo Nazi website.

If you want to see the picture and the screenshot of the jpeg let me know - I wrote to the producers of BBC Newsnight about this because they had used Bukhari as a commenter in the studio discussion the day before I noticed the cartoon - but I did not receive a reply.

[Yusuf]

Typical Zinoists crying wolf. You have cried wolf one too many times now and nobody believs the crap about anti-semitism they can see it for what it is, namely to silence and smear the legitimate criticsim of groups and organisations who speak out against Facist Zionist crimes and Islamaphobes. Your hatred of Muslims and Islam knows no bounds.

[Luke]

Yusuf

Did you see the CCTV pictures of the 7/7 lads doing their dummy run? Rumours are that they are Zionist forgeries. These damn Islamophobes.

You have a lot of anger in you Yusuf - try Yoga.

[oliver]

It is in reality the benighted Islamic spokesmen in our midst that seek to 'silence and smear' their critics by using phrases like 'fascist zionist' and 'islamophobic'. I would add that any remnant of national goodwill towards these soi-disant Islamic leaders is tattered and threadbare. Frankly, my position is now that 'Islamic leaders' should be actively seeking the approval of the majority host community, rather than expecting the host community to forever capitulate to their demands. I'd say they owe it to the nation after the vile acts of terrorism recently committed by Muslims in the UK.

[Judy]

Yusuf, your comment is as gross and off the mark as it is misspelled. I leave it on this site in order to provide an example of what gets you banned as a commenter here. You clearly do not read the content of this blog.

[Judy]

Luke -- I don't think it's worth getting into any dialogue with a commenter who is not interested in what the blog actually has to say.

Oliver-- I don't think it helps to conflate MPACUK types and their allies in mainstream Muslim organizations with all Muslim leaders. The extract from the MPACUK web site which I included in my post indicates very clearly that the overwhelming majority of the leaders of mosques do not fall into line with their calls to back the extremists. We did not say anything about what the RC hierarchy owed to the nation when acts of terrorism were committed in London by members of the Roman Catholic church from Northern Ireland. Forming blanket prejudices about Muslims and their leaders on the basis of those in the headlines is going down the same path of bigotry as MPACUK. I have been proud to work with both a nationally reputed Muslim leader and a Muslim school. I found both experiences wholly positive and life-enhancing. I hope to blog about them at some point.

[oliver]

I take your point and accept that in diplomatic spirit I should have said that there is no real consensus in the Islamic British world. But there is a critical tranche of Islamic opinion - arguably over-represented by the media - that is antagnostic to the institutions of the UK to the point of self-exclusion. Sorry, but I see that as reality, rather than the blanket prejudice of which you speak.

I don't buy the RC hierarchy argument. Although Catholic, the IRA - as has been noted many times - was (is?) primarily engaged in a territorial dispute, with a sectarian underbelly. The priesthood were insignificant in the conflict. There was no aim to influence policy in the UK, bar achieving the IRA's goal of reclaiming the province.

Thanks!

[maven]

An item on MPAC a few weeks ago used the pharse "Michael Howard, the Zionist leader of the Conservative Party". There was noi context in the article that related to Israel in any way. It was his comments that Chechen's were terrorists.

Any media author, irrespective of their known politics, is automatically labelled "Zionist". The site IS antisemitic since you will find many articles where the natural and contextual word would be Jews, but the simply edit-in zionists.

[maven]

To Yusuf,

I was not aware that all Islamaphobes were Zionists. It would be great if they were.

I think Islamaphobia is an easily explained and acceptable phobia to have. I am phobic about being killed on the underground, phobic in case I accidentally draw a squiggle that when rotated by 117 degrees resembles the arabic script for Allah, I am phobic about showing remembrance for Holocaust victims in case I offend a muslim. Get my drift? And Islampahobia is a 'feebie' becaus eit isn't racist to be Islamaphobic.

[steve]

i think that if you start labeling organisations such as MPAC as extremists, given that they are non violent, pro free speech and pro democracy then your just going to look silly.

I suggest that intead of silencing and banning people (this isnt Israel after all) they should be engaged with rationally and their view heard.

It is a characteristic of fascists that they attempt to silence thos who disagree with the.

I for one value British principles freedom of speech and pro-Israelis and their opposites should be free to make their voice.

There shouldnt be one rule for one and one rule for another.

We will not accept Israeli methods of dealing with free speech here in the UK.

[Judy]

Anti-semitic commenters, such as Steve, with his gratuitous and coded references to "Israel" and "Israeli methods" have been and will be promptly barred from further comments.

I will also delete without any discussion any comments which make racist and otherwise offensive remarks.

Note to any commenter of this type: review the conditions you signed up to with your ISP...

[AK]

Right, let me get one thing straight here. I don't understand why when one claims that someone is a Zionist in even a slightly negative tone, he is labelled "anit-semitic"? Don't you people know the difference between anti-zionist and anti-semitic? If you call people calling against Israel as anti-semitic, then you are actual advocating for most of the Palestinian and Arab population, because in today's world, less than 2% of the Jews are of a semitic origin, where as a larger population of the Arabs are. So, the Zionists technically don't have a rightful claim to the Biblical right of the Semites to the land of Palestine, or Filistine (as stated in the Bible), since the Jews of today are not even of semitic origin. And this has not been proven by any Muslim or Christian scholar, but by Jewish scholars and doctors (e.g. Dr. Maurice Fishberg). And yet you babble on about being anti-semitic. So, technically, all you claim when you shout "anti-semitic" is actually "anti-Arab", since more Arabs are of a semitic origin than the Jews.

Now, about the extremist and moderate Muslim. Well, the whole problem that the "west" are encountering with the Muslims, is that they are applying their rule and social laws on a different lifestyle, and expect the other to compromise, without making any real compromise themselves. See, the problem is that, unlike moderate Christians and Jews, where they don't follow the religion os rigorously, a moderate Muslim does not mean the same thing. A Muslim who is not that religious and doesn't follow that rigorously is considered a poor Muslim, not a "moderate" muslim. A "moderate" Muslim would be one who has quite an extensive knowledge of his religion, but not enough to actually pass any sort of law or "fatwa", not as much as a scholar would have. In other words, a "moderate" muslim would directly fall into the "west's" category of "extremist" no questions asked, and the poor Muslims labelled as "moderate". Moderate does not mean being "open-minded". A real moderate Muslim would need to be open-minded anyway, as enforced by Islam. Not to say that there are no extremists in the Muslim World, there are, but the way the "western" media are categorising extermism, Moderate Muslims fall into that sector too, leaving the poorly educated Muslims in the "moderate" category, who don't have enough knowledge to actually give a proper Islamic perspective on events, and when they screw up, which they do, the media will high-light it like "oh my god, we are being attacked by Marsians!!". But they still won't listen with an "open-mind" to the "moderate" Muslims, which they are so in favour of.

[Judy]

AK: The term anti-semitic is a term first coined in nineteenth century Germany to make plain old traditional Jew-hating sound more scientific than it is. It was first coined by the anti-semitic
German scholar, Wilhelm Marr, in his pamphlet, "Der Sieg des
Judentums ueber das Germanentum" in 1873. [my trans: The Victory of Judaism over German Culture] (See
"Anti-Semitism and the Christian Mind" Alan T. Davies, p.
24).

Your claims about Jews having no historic claim to present day Israel are nonsense, as is your citation of a totally irrelevant nonetity in support of your claim. There is an enormous corpus of scholarly literature, linguistic and archaeological evidence that proves otherwise.

Arguing that this nonentity proves your proposition because he is Jewish is racist nonsense.

To all commenters: I don't want Adloyada to a space for the equivalent of bar room brawling. If you want that, go to Harry's Place or some other similar forum. So if you can't make reasonable, constructive comments, don't bother. And please don't feel you need to give in to the urge to insult other commenters....

[AK]

Ok, no - I never said that the JEws didn't have claim to the present day Israel. What I said was that the Jews of TODAY (21st Century) don't have a Biblical claim anymore to the present day Israel, because they are not even from the tribe of Bani-Israel that was promised the land. The promised Jews, or Bani-Israel were of a Semitic Origin, not most of the Jews today - as most of the Jews of today have European origins anyway, where as Bani-Israel was definitely not European. About Dr. Maurice Fishberg - well, try getting his Book - The Jews: A study of Race and Environment, it's still in print in the States.

Zionism is not Judaism. Period. So if I hate Zionists, doesn't mean I hate Jews. The same way Jihad doesn't mean KILL THE KUFFAR! Just another one of those words skewed by the media to give a narrow meaning, when it has a braoder effect in context.

You seem to be very learned and seem to hold quite a grasp on written literature, compared to my amature attempts, and yet you are falling into the same traps set up by the media in the "West". Muslims are supposed to be pro-active - and this is incumbent on "moderate" Muslims. All this while, where Muslims hardly took any active interest in the political system, it was because we were lacking in following our own religion completely. Now that we are, you put us down? I won't counter-argue about what would have happened if the Jews had responded in a similar way and the repurcussions of that scenario because that would just lead into a familiar circle of useless debate. The fact of the matter is that we are Muslims, they are Jews. We are not like them, and they are not like us, we have different histories, linked together no doubt, but different. We have different priorities, different goals, but does that legitimise a different use of law for us? First we were pointed at because we didn't "integrate" with the British society, now that we are, we still have more fingers pointed at us? I don't think integrating with the society means forgetting your own culture or "yes-bossing" all community laws, does it? If we are expressing our opinion, then hear out with an open-mind. If we give a different picture of the Middle East, then it doesn't necassarily mean that it is wrong, does it, just because it is different from what you have been hearing for so long? MPACUK doesn't incite any sort of physical violence, the whole jist of their message to the muslims is take more interest in the political system in the UK, as a duty of being a UK citizen, if you go on the nationalist tune, and to serve and integrate with the community on the religious note. Political Jihad doesn't mean we're coming into Downing Street with ammunition or bombs - no. Jihad only means the fight against injustice, and in this case, Political Jihad only symbolises fight against unjust political laws, as I know countless of Christian and Jewish UK citizens do as well. AS can be seen from article, you don't really have a sweet spot for MPACUK, so who would you consider represented the Muslim Community in the UK, and who should be called to represent the Muslim Community? If MPACUK promotes the idea of the common, bemused Muslim to hold accountable their Masjid leaders and other representatives, provided on the information given, is that so wrong? I've never seen a posting by MPACUK proposing to hate the Christians or Jews, so why the "nasty" pressure group labeling? All this for a simple Public Affairs group, and no mention of the people on the other side of the fence, why? If we have cons, so do the others, but why only highlight ours and not theirs? The Zionists are not angels washed in honey and milk, they too are a pressure group, why no tag for them?

[Raquib]

Maven - It's OK to be Islamophobic?
It's OK to hate Muslims, to abuse them, to spit on them in the streets, to beat them and hospitalise them. And in the final extreme, to murder them ?
That is what's happening in the streets of Britain today.

Is this what zionism has come to ? Those who use the horror of the holocaust to excuse the horror they wreak on others for personal and national gain ?

Racism, of any kind is unacceptable, whether it's white against black, Nazi against Jew, Jew against Palestinian or Maven against Muslim.

[Judy]

AK- you draw on pseudo-"research" which has no standing of any sort in serious academic discussion. Attempts to demonstrate that Ashkenazi Jews are not "really" Jews, and don't originate from their ancestral origins in the middle east are the stuff of holocaust denial and openly anti-semitic web sites. Unfortunately, junk "research" like this has been all too often used in anti-zionist propaganda circulating in Islamic countries. Its origin however is in the brains of sundry European crackpots. If you doubt this, apply for enlightenment to any UK university department of anthropology.

And your statement that zionism is not the same as Judaism does not justify your statement that if you hate zionists, you don't hate Jews. Statistically, the vast majority of people who define themselves as Jews also identify on some level as sympathetic to zionism. Then there's also the issue of Jewish religious practice. Those of us who are observant pray for the Jews of Jerusalem and Israel, the restoration of the Temple etc etc up to five times a day. In almost all Jewish synagogues, prayers are said in each service for the state of Israel as well as for the peace and welfare of whatever country the congregation is in.

The issue of who represents Muslims is for Muslims rather than me to state. But I do note that there are some hundreds of mosques who have congregations.

Any group of Muslims can presumably set themselves up to run a particular campaign in favour of particular forms of political participation. The issue of how representative that pressure group is is another matter. But any group that then claims to speak "for Muslims" in my view can only do so where it can demonstrate its legitimacy in terms of majority Muslim support through votes or membership.

Raquib-- you don't appear to answer points Maven actually made.
You appear to attribute attitudes to him and to "zionism", undefined, for which the evidence is wholly against you. Your statement about "using the horror of the holocaust [etc] for personal and national gain" is racist and not acceptable on this site.

[Raquib]

Judy,

I am not attributing attitudes to Maven.
I took great exception to him saying Islamophobia is acceptable. The acts I described are not made up, but actual acts of Islamophobia being played out in the streets of Britain daily. I hope that all readers of this site will find such acts as repugnant inflicted on Muslims as they would be inflicted on Jews.

To do so otherwise is racist and unacceptable, on this site, or anywhere else.

[oliver]

Raquib: "It's OK to hate Muslims, to abuse them, to spit on them in the streets, to beat them and hospitalise them. And in the final extreme, to murder them ?"

Projection and lies, as ever. For it was four MUSLIMS that spent 7 July murdering 52 innocents and maiming 700 more in the Tubes and buses of London. Two weeks later, it was MUSLIMS that tried to do it again. In the future - who knows?

I for one will never forget or forgive the disgusting sectarian murder that your co-religionists have wrought in this country - and the rank apologists who have tried to blame everyone or anyone else for Islamist hate crimes.

[AK]

I can't believe how you got the idea that I said the Jews of today are not "Jews"? What I am trying to refute is the Biblical claim that the Israeli government claim to have over Filistine. All I'm saying is that the only Jews who have a Biblical claim to the land of Filistine are those from the tribe of Bani Israel - how many of their descendants are alive today? The way you put it, it infers I want the Jews to be kicked out of Palastine - no - the Jews are welcome, Jews have always been present in Jerusalem, even during the time of Omar (RA), the second Khalifah of the Muslim Ummah. Jews, sorry, Bani Israel were not the only ones with semitic origins - most of the Arabs are also of semitic origin, so to then attribute semitic only to the Jews based on the fact that Bani Israel was semitic is a little off the truth, isn't it? Coz, are the European Jews descendants of Bani Israel? I think not.

When I say I hate Zionists and not Jews - I mean those zionists who are hell bent on getting Jerusalem on whatever human cost and those who support these acts. In other words, or the media's words, I hate the extremists of zionism. If Jews are sympathetic with zionISM at some level, than that is a disagreement between me and him, I would have expected you, of all people, to understand that better, since you have interacted with so many muslims. It's the same sort of disagreement that I have with some Muslim brothers on the fact of how many times do you raise your forefinger when reciting the Tashahood. I don't go hating them and disliking them just for that one reason. We are still brothers in the Ummah and as mankind. WE as Muslims pray everyday, atleast five times a day that Allah protect and have mercy on the Muslims of the world and to defeat the enemies of Islam and to free Palestine from them. SO, according to your argument, then are all Muslims terrorists, because they are all sympathetic to the Palestinian cause at some level? Please, spare me.

About the representation of Muslims depending on a vote, if we did have a vote, you'd find that quite a few people have the same ideas and are in support of much of what MPACUK have to say. IF they say that muslims are unhappy with the Iraq war and Palestinian state, then they are not wrong, believe me, whether they really are the majority muslim vote holders for representing them or not. But otherwise, the way you are so finnicky about anything to do with anti-semtism and anti-zionist, so are muslims constantly worried and upset about Islamophobia, and the equation of muslims and terrorism.

To Oliver, we as a global Muslim community condemned both the 9/11 attacks, and the 7/7 attcks, the attacks 7/7 one more vehemently, and yet we are to take on a collective blame for the actions of those individuals we have already condemned? Where is the logic in that? As if there are no fanatics in the Christian and other communities? Your remark reminds of the behaviour of the Americans towards the Japanese resident in America fter Pearl Harbor. Get some brains - if muslims were all such terrorists, we have existed for 1400 years, the west would have been destroyed a long time ago. The very fact that these "terrorists" upsurge is very recent in association with the Muslim community should be proof enough that it is a miniscule minority that have gone astray from the Muslims. Be the civilised person you claim to be, and look beyond the immediate picture painted by the more than biased media.

[Raquib]

"Projection and lies, as ever."

Thank you for that witty and informative reposte Oliver. It speaks volumes about you as an analyst and a human being.

That racist attacks on Muslims (and non-white people in general) have increased dramatically in recent years is a matter of record. Sadly I have been a victim of one such attack and witness to two more. These crimes have been fuelled by the same hatred evident in your post.

That is not acceptable in a civilised society.

By way of comparison, we now know that both Americans and Israelis were involved in the abuses taking place across Iraq and Afghanistan, including Abu Ghraib. I do not, however, hold you or all Jews and Christians responsible for the disgusting acts of sexual depravity. The blame lies with those that carried out the acts, those that commanded them.

[Judy]

AK-- you remain underinformed about the origins of the Jewish people of today. It is simply not true in terms of reputable genetic research that the only Jews who originate from the Middle East are those from the communities which went on living there.

I refer you to the internationally academically recognised genetic research discussed here by Rabbi Kleiman:

http://chareidi.shemayisrael.com/archives5760/chukas/features.htm

[Judy]

Raquib-- the sources for the so called Israeli involvement in Abu Ghraib are non-reliable ones such as Al-Jazeera and far white racist and anti-semitic web sites like those of David Duke.

For a considered, scholarly analysis of what was and wasn't done wrong at Abu Ghraib, see this extended analysis from the New York Review of Books, which doesn't hesitate to finger US personnel for torturing a specified numbr of prisoners.

http://www.markdanner.com/nyreview/100704_abu.htm

I am sorry to learn that you suffered and witnessed attacks. I personally have seen an East End mosque under attack by white racists some years ago, and it was a terrifying sight.

[Oliver]

AK: "The very fact that these "terrorists" upsurge is very recent in association with the Muslim community should be proof enough that it is a miniscule minority that have gone astray from the Muslims."

Yes AK, of course it is a minuscule minority. But the fact that you choose to call them "terrorists" in quote marks betrays your position - that you do not really believe them to be so, leading one to the inescapable conclusion that you think they've got a point. So by nuance and inference you do the very thing you purport to be against: you side with the bombers.

Raquib, I regret that you have been a victim of violence but completely resist your conflation of anti-Islamic attacks with my post. I have never assaulted anyone - nor by any logical extension can my comments be accused of being 'fuelled' by the 'same hatred'. Don't be so lazy, man.

Then the fact that you then bring on a statement of dubious provenance shows your attachment to misinformation that in itself could be said to be 'fuelling hatred'. It "speaks volumes about you as an analyst", doesn't it?