Manchester Police Chief – extremism in his hands (Part 1)

Posted on May 29, 2017


This photo appeared on Tommy Robinson’s Twitter yesterday:

On the left is Muhammad Iqbal, Imam at UK Islamic Mission’s European Islamic Centre in Oldham. On the right, Ian Hopkins chief constable of Greater Manchester Police. The event they were speaking at was UK Islamic Mission’s Building a better Britain Together 2016 convention :

UK Islamic Mission do lots of good charity work. They’ve also met with police to tackle grooming gangs. They’re outspoken against terrorism (see here and here). And sometimes they invite nationalists into their mosques for tea, biscuits and discussion. So what’s the problem? Make yourself comfortable.

Let’s start with the book they’re holding in the photo.

It’s not just a translation of the Qur’an, it’s the abridged version of Sayyid Abul Ala Maududi’s Qur’an tafsir [exegesis] – Tafhim alQur’an (The Meaning of the Qur’an). I rarely use the term Islamofascists but I’ll make an exception in the case of Maududi and Jamaat-e-Islami, the Islamist party he founded in 1941. Here’s a few examples of Maududi’s commentary from the original translation of the tafsir:


“That is why, on the one hand, the moral weaknesses of the Jews, their wrong notions about religion, their wrong ways of thinking and living, have been pointed out, one by one, while, on the other, the demands of the true faith have been stated so that the Muslims are able to see the Right Way clearly and avoid wrong ways. The Holy Prophet knew by Divine inspiration that, by and by, the Muslims also would follow the same ways that had been pointed out in this discourse. Therefore, according to a Tradition, he forewarned that they would discard the Guidance and follow, step by step, the communities of the former Prophets, that is, the Jews and the Christians, in their wrong ways. It is a pity that they have not paid any heed to this warning and adopted the same ways of degeneration.”

It is an irony that the Jews, who possessed a Divine Book and the heritage of the Prophets, should not only have themselves discarded the way of God but also frequently stood in the way of God. It is a fact that they have always been opposing and placing obstacles in the way of those movements that have ever been started for the promulgation of the Truth and have been starting or helping start movements against the way of God. Their latest crime in this connection is Communism which has for the first time in history based a system of life and a system of government on the deliberate and explicit denial of God in open opposition to His Law for the eradication God-worship as its declared aims. The author of another perverted doctrine of the modern age, Freudianism, which has helped mislead the people from the way of Allah, is also a Jew.

Besides this, interest has also been prohibited at several other places in the Torah, but in spite of these prohibitive decrees, the Jews, who profess to believe in the same Torah, are the biggest usurers in the world and have become proverbially notorious for their narrow-mindedness and hard-heartedness.

History bears witness to the exemplary punishment that Allah has prepared for those Jews who have discarded the Divine Faith and given up obedience to Allah and adopted the attitude of disbelief and rebellion. For the last two thousand years, they have never possessed a place where they could live with honor. They have been scattered all over the world and are treated like foreigners and disgracefully, cruelly and oppressively in one country or the other, and there is no place in the world, where they are sincerely respected, in spite of their great wealth. Above all, this community has remained a living object lesson for the other nations, for it has been kept in existence in spite of its degradation, whereas other nations are exterminated when they become worthless. Thus Allah is causing them to taste in this very world a bit of the torment of Hell where the evil-doers “will neither be in a state of death nor in a state of life.” This is because they have been showing the audacity of rebelling against Allah while they were at the same time carrying the Book of Allah with them. As regards punishment in the Hereafter, it may safely be predicted that it shall be much more painful than this.

The warning that immediately follows the permission given to marry women from among the People of the Book is very significant. The Muslim who makes use of this permission has been warned to guard his faith and morality very cautiously against the influence of his unbelieving wife. There is a genuine danger that his deep love might -tender him a prey to wrong creeds and acts of his unbelieving wife and he might lose both his Faith and morality, or he might adopt a wrong moral and social attitude which might be against the spirit of his faith.

The scholars arc also agreed that Allah’s mentioning the believing women here in particular is actually meant to tell the Muslims that only the believing women are suitable for them. That is, although it is permissible for them to marry Jewish and Christian women, it is not proper and commendable. In other words, the Qur’an seems to impress that Allah expects that the believers would marry only the believing women.


The Qur’an makes it lawful to take the life of the one:

(1) who is proved guilty of the intentional murder of another person.

(2) who opposes Islam and obstructs its establishment so as to leave no other alternative than to fight with him,

(3) who spreads disorder within the Islamic territory or exerts to overthrow the established Islamic government.

Besides these, the Holy Prophet has made it lawful to .take the life of the one:

(4) who, in spite of being married, is proved guilty of adultery,

(5) who becomes an apostate and deserts the Islamic Community.


The second reason why Jihad should be waged against them is that they did not adopt the Law sent down by Allah through His Messenger.

This is the aim of Jihad with the Jews and the Christians and it is not to force them to become Muslims and adopt the ‘Islamic Way of Life.’ They should be forced to pay Jizyah in order to put an end to their independence and supremacy so that they should not remain rulers and sovereigns in the land. These powers should be wrested from them by the followers of the true Faith, who should assume the sovereignty and lead others towards the Right Way, while they should become their subjects and pay jizyah. jizyah is paid by those non-Muslims who live as Zimmis (proteges) in an Islamic State, in exchange for the security and protection granted to them by it. This is also symbolical of the fact that they themselves agree to live in it as its subjects. This is the significance of “….. they Pay jizyah with their own hands,” that is, “with full consent so that they willingly become the subjects of the Believers, who perform the duty of the vicegerents of Allah on the earth.


This is jizyah of which the Muslims have been feeling apologetic during the last two centuries of their degeneration and there are still some people who continue to apologize for it. But the Way of Allah is straight and clear and does not stand in need of any apology to the rebels against Allah. Instead of offering apologies on behalf of Islam for the measure that guarantees security of life, property and faith to those who choose to live under its protection, the Muslims should feel proud of such a humane law as that of jizyah. For it is obvious that the maximum freedom that can be allowed to those who do not adopt the Way of Allah but choose to tread the ways of error is that they should be tolerated to lead the life they like. That is why the Islamic State offers them protection, if they agree to live as its Zimmis by paying jizyah, but it cannot allow that they should remain supreme rulers in any place and establish wrong ways and impose them on others. As this state of things inevitably produces chaos and disorder, it is the duty of the true Muslims to exert their utmost to bring to an end their wicked rule and bring them under a righteous order.”


If we keep in view the preceding background, we can easily find out the problems that were confronting the Community at that time. They were:

  1. to make the whole of Arabia a perfect Dar-ul-Islam,
  2. to extend the influence of Islam to the adjoining countries,
  3. to crush the mischiefs of the hypocrites, and
  4. to prepare the Muslims for Jihad against the non-Muslim world.


In order to enable the Muslims to extend the influence of Islam outside Arabia, they were enjoined to crush with sword the non-Muslim powers and to force them to accept the sovereignty of the Islamic State. As the great Roman and Iranian Empires were the biggest hindrances in the way, a conflict with them was inevitable. The object of Jihad was not to coerce them to accept Islam they were free to accept or not to accept it-but to prevent them from thrusting forcibly their deviations upon others and the coming generations. The Muslims were enjoined to tolerate their misguidance only to the extent that they might have the freedom to remain misguided, if they chose to be so, provided that they paid Jizyah (v. 29) as a sign of their subjugation to the Islamic State.


In order to prepare the Muslims for Jihad against the whole non-Muslim world, it was necessary to cure them even of that slight weakness of faith from which they were still suffering. For there could be no greater internal danger to the Islamic Community than the weakness of faith, especially where it was going to engage itself single-handed in a’ conflict with the whole non-Muslim world. That is why those people who had lagged behind in the Campaign to Tabuk or had shown the least negligence were severely taken to task, and were considered as hypocrites if they had no plausible excuse for not fulfilling that obligation. Moreover, a clear declaration was made that in future the sole criterion of a Muslim’s faith shall be the exertions he makes for the uplift of the Word of Allah and the role he plays in the conflict between Islam and kufr. Therefore, if anyone will show any hesitation in sacrificing his life, money, time and energies, his faith shall not be regarded as genuine.

205  It does not wean that Islam incites the believers to go to war to force unbelievers at the point of sword to give up disbelief and polytheism and adopt the Way of Allah instead. War is to be waged only to make them give up fitnah. As a matter of fact, Islam allows freedom of belief to all non-Muslims. One may adopt any way of life that one chooses and may or may not worship anyone or anything. It exhorts the believers to preach and to persuade the unbelievers and the wrong doers by argument to give up their false faith and evil ways, but it does not allow the unbelievers the right to enforce on God’s earth any ungodly law and make the servants of Allah the servants of some one else. In order to remove such an unjust condition, Islam allows both preaching and fighting according to the requirements of the occasion. The believers, therefore, cannot rest content unless this fitnah, political domination and legal sovereignty of unbelievers, is eradicated and freedom for the Way of Allah is secured.

Moreover, the battlefield for Jihad is, in fact, the whole world, and Islam demands that one should exert one’s utmost against all the rebels of Allah and the wicked powers with all of one’s heart and mind and body and wealth.


According to Islam, a person who accepts any law made by another than Allah as authoritative and follows it and considers himself subject to the limits prescribed by it, is guilty of making that being partner with Allah. Both these are acts of shirk. One is guilty of shirk whether or not one gives the title of lord or god to those to whom one consecrates offerings or accepts and obeys the laws made by them.


As regards the punishment for adultery after marriage, the Qur’an does not mention it, but it has been prescribed in the Traditions. We learn from many authentic Traditions that not only did the Holy Prophet prescribe the punishment of stoning to death for it verbally but also enforced it practically in several cases. Then after him his successors not only enforced this punishment during their caliphates but also declared repeatedly that this was the legal punishment. The Companions and their followers were unanimous on this point and there is not a single saying of anyone to suggest that anybody doubted the authenticity of this law during that period. After them the jurists of all ages and countries have been unanimous that this is the legal punishment prescribed by the Sunnah, for there have been so many strong and continuous proofs of its authenticity that no scholar can refute them.


These few instances should suffice to prove the error in the reasoning of those who hold the Commandment of stoning to death as against the Qur’an. Nobody can deny the position and authority of the Prophet in the legal system of Islam. It is he alone who can explain the underlying intention of a Divine Command, its procedures and in what cases it will be applicable and in what there is another injunction. To deny this position and authority of the Prophet is not only against the principles of Islam but it also entails innumerable complications in practice.


Flogging should not be entrusted to uncouth, uncultured executioners, but it should be done by men of deep insight who understand how the flogging should be carried out in order to meet the requirements of the Shari `ah. Ibn Qayyim has cited in zad al-Ma ad that the Holy Prophet employed the services of such pious and respectable people as `Ali, Zubair, Miqdad bin `Amr, Muhammad bin Maslamah, `Asim bin Thabit and Dahak bin Sufyan for this purpose. (Vol. I, pp. 44, 45)


In the case of a pregnant woman, the flogging will be postponed till the delivery and the complete discharge of blood after childbirth. But if she is to be stoned to death, the punishment will not be given till the child has been weaned.

If zina is proved by evidence, the flogging will be initiated by the witnesses themselves. If the punishment is based on confession, the judge himself will initiate the punishment. This is to make the witnesses and the judge realize the seriousness of the matter. In the case of Shuraha, when Hadrat `Ali decided to stone her to death, he said, “Had there been any witness to this crime, he should have initiated the stoning, but as she is being punished on the basis of confession, I will initiate it myself. ” According to the Hanafis, this procedure is essential but according to the Shafi`is, it is not essential; it is, however, preferable according to all jurists.


It is a sin to inflict any other type of punishment instead of flogging even for the sake of compassion or pity. But` if any other type of punishment is inflicted on the ground that flogging with stripes is a barbarous type of punishment, it amounts to kufr ; which should never be tolerated even for a moment by a true Believer. To believe in the Divinity of Allah and then to call Him a barbarian, suits only those who are the meanest of hypocrites.

The punishment should be awarded publicly so that, on the one hand, the guilty one may feel disgraced and, on the other, it may serve as a deterrent for the other people.


“If the wife is defiant and does not obey her husband or does not guard his rights, three measures have been mentioned, but it does not mean that all the three are to be taken at one and the same time. Though these have been permitted, they are to be administered with a sense of proportion according to the nature and extent of the offense. if a mere light admonition proves effective, there is no need to resort to a severer step. As to a beating, the Holy Prophet allowed it very reluctantly and even then did not like it. But the fact is that there are certain women who do not mend their ways without a beating. In such a case, the Holy Prophet has instructed that she would not be beaten on the face, or cruelly, or with anything which might leave a mark on the body.”

“…if the wife of the man who has accepted Islam, is not a follower of the ‘earlier Books, and she adheres to her Faith, the Hanafis say that Islam will be presented before her; if she accepts it, the marriage will endure; if she refuses to accept it, separation will be effected between them…It is no interference to tell her that if she accepted Islam, she would continue to be her husband’s wife, otherwise she would be separated from him.

And if Islam has been accepted by the woman and the man remains an infidel. whether he is a follower of an earlier scripture or a non-follower, the Hanafis say that Islam will be presented before the husband whether consummation between them has taken place or not. If he accepts it, the woman will continue to be his wife; if he rejects it the qadi will effect separation between them. So long as the man does not refuse to accept Islam, the woman will remain his wife, but he will not have the right to have sexual relations with her. In case the husband refuses, separation will become effective just like an irrevocable divorce.

That is, “There is no harm if the other man is spoken to in case of a genuine need, but on such an occasion the woman’s tone and manner of speech should be such as does not let the other man think that he could cherish any false hope from her. There should be no undue softness in her tone, no allurement in her conversation, no consciously affected mellowness in her voice, which should excite the male hearer’s emotions and encourage him to make advances.

About such a manner of speech Allah clearly says that this does not behoove a woman who has any fear of God in her heart and desire to avoid evil. In other words, this is the way and manner of the wicked and unchaste woman’s speech and not of the believing pious woman’s speech: If this verse is read together with verse 31 of Surah An-Nur, in which Allah says: “They should not stamp the ground in walking lest their hidden decoration is revealed,” the intention of the Lord clearly seems to be that the women should not attract other men by their voice or the jingle of their ornaments unnecessarily and if at all they have to speak to the other men, they should speak to them in an un-affected tone and manner. That is why it is forbidden for the woman to pronounce the call to the Prayer. Moreover, if a woman is attending a congregational Prayer and the Imam commits a mistake, she is not permitted to say Subhan-Allah like the males but should only tap her hands to call the imam’s attention to the error.


This explanation makes it abundantly clear that what Allah forbids women is to move out of their houses showing off their physical charms and beauty. He instructs them to stay in their houses because their real sphere of activity is their home and not the world outside. However, if they have to move out of the house for an out-door duty, they should not move out as the women used to do in the pre-Islamic days of ignorance. For it does not behoove the women of a Muslim society to walk out fully embellished to make their face and figure conspicuous by adornments and tight-fitting or transparent dresses, and to walk coquettishly. These are the ways of ignorance which Islam does not approve. Now everybody can see for himself whether the culture which is being made popular in our country is the culture of Islam, according to the Qur’an, or the culture of ignorance.

Likewise the Shari’ah has allowed that the women who are captured in war and whose people do not exchange them for Muslim prisoners of war nor ransom them, may be kept as slave-girls, and gave the persons to whom they are assigned by the government the right to have conjugal relations with them so that they do not become a moral hazard for the society.

This verse explains why one is permitted to have conjugal relations with one’s slave-girls besides the wedded wives, and there is no restriction on their number. The same thing has also been stated in Surah An-Nisa’: 3, AI-Mu’minun: b, and AI-Ma’arij: 30. In all these verses the slave-girls have been mentioned as a separate class from the wedded wives, and conjugal relations with them have been permitted. Moreover, verse 3 of Surah An-Nisa’ lays down the number of the wives as four, but neither has Allah fixed the number of the slave-girls, in that verse nor made any allusion to their number in the other relevant verses.

That is, those women who become prisoners of war, while their unbelieving husbands are left behind in the War Zone, are not unlawful because their marriage ties are broken by the fact that they have come from the War Zone into the Islamic Zone. It is lawful to marry such women, and it is also lawful for those, in whose possession they are, to have sexual relations with them. There is, however, a difference of opinion as to whether such a woman is lawful, if her husband is also taken a prisoner along with her. Imam Abu Hanifah and those of his way of thinking are of the opinion that the marriage tie of such a pair would remain intact but Imam Malik and Shafi ‘i, are of the opinion that it would also break.

As there exist many misunderstandings in the minds of the people concerning the slave-girls taken as prisoners of war, the following should be carefully studied:

(1) It is not lawful for a soldier to have conjugal relations with a prisoner of war as soon as she falls into his hands. The Islamic Law requires that all such women should be handed over to the government, which has the right to set them free or to ransom them, or to exchange them with the Muslim prisoners in the hands of the enemy, or distribute them among the soldiers. A soldier can cohabit only with that woman who has been formally given to him by the government.

(2) Even then, he shall have to wait for one monthly course before he can cohabit with her in order to ensure whether she is pregnant or not; otherwise it shall be unlawful to cohabit with her before delivery.

(3) It does not matter whether the female prisoner of war belongs to the people of the Book or not. Whatever her religion, she becomes lawful for the man to whom she is formally given.

(4) None but the one to own the slave-girl is given has the right to “touch her.” The offspring of such a woman from his seed shall be his lawful children and shall have the same legal rights as are given by the Divine Law to the children from one’s loins. After the birth of a child she cannot be sold as a slave-girl and shall automatically become free after her master’s death.

(5) If the master marries his slave-girl with another man, he forfeits his conjugal rights over her, but retains other rights such as service from her.

(6) The maximum limit of four has not been prescribed for slave-girls as in the case of wives for the simple reason that the number of female prisoners of war is unpredictable. The lack of limit does by no means provide a license for the well-to-do people to buy any number of slave-girls for licentious purposes.

(7) The proprietary rights over a slave, male or female, as given to a person by the government are transferable like all other legal proprietary rights.

(8) The handing over of the proprietary rights over a slave-girl to a man formally by the government makes her as much lawful for him as the giving of the baud of a free woman to a man by her parents or guardian through nikah (marriage ceremony). Therefore, there is no reason why a man who does not hold marriage in detestation should hold sexual intercourse with a slave-girl in detestation.

(9) When once the government hands over the female prisoner of war to someone, it has no right whatever to take her back from him, just as the parent or guardian has no right to take back a woman after she is handed over to a man through nikah.


At other places, the Qur’an mentions some other crimes of these people, but here it mentions only their most heinous crime that brought about the scourge of Allah on them.

Although wicked people have always been committing this most heinous sin that has given the people of Sodom an everlasting notoriety, yet it has always been considered a filthy and detestable act. But the only people who have ever tried to raise it to a moral excellence, were the Greek philosophers in the ancient world, and the Europeans in the modern world. The latter are doing their utmost to make up the deficiency by making an open propaganda for it, and have succeeded in giving this filthy act a legal sanction. So much so that the legislatures of some countries have legalized it. It does not require elaborate argument to show that homo-sexuality is a horrible social crime and a heinous sin.


Here and at other places the Qur’an merely declares that sodomy is such a heinous sin that it brought the wrath of Allah on a people. Then we learn from the guidance of the Holy Prophet that it is the duty of the Islamic State to eradicate this crime and should punish those who are guilty of it. In regard to this there are traditions with wording to this effect: (a) “kill the sodomite and the object of sodomy”. (b) ” ……whether they are married or unmarried”. (e) “Stone to death the upper one and the lower one”. But no definite and specific punishment was prescribed for the criminals because during his time, no case of sodomy was ever brought before the Holy Prophet.

There are, however, some traditions from his successors regarding this. Hadrat ‘Ali is of the opinion that the criminals should be killed with sword and the dead bodies should not be buried but burnt to ashes. Hadrat Abu Bakr also agrees with it. Hadrat `Umar and Hadrat `Uthman arc of the opinion that they should be taken under the roof of a dilapidated building, which should be pulled down on them. lbn `Abbas has decreed that they should be thrown down headlong from the top of the highest building of the habitation and then stoned to death. Imam Shafi`i says that both the criminals involved in sodomy should be killed, whether married or unmarried. According to Shi`ibi” Zuhri, Malik and Ahmad they should be stoned to death. Said bin Musayyib, ‘Ata, Hasan Basri, Ibrahim Nakh`i, Sufyan Thauri and Auza`i are of the opinion that the punishment is the same as for adultery, that is, one hundred stripes and exile for the unmarried, and stoning to death for the married. Imam Abu Hanifah is of the opinion that the culprit should be punished in accordance with the circumstances of the crime with an exemplary punishment. There is also a saying of Imam Shafi`i to this effect.

Dr. Imam Mamadou Bocoum, a consultant at Faith Matters and Tell Mama, has said of the tafsir:

“The exclusiveness of Maududi, and indeed many other Quranic commentators’, arguably paved the way for many ill-informed Muslims to hold rather hostile views towards Christians and Jews.

The murder of Christians in Pakistan is arguably one consequence of Maududi’s poisonous interpretation of the Qur’an. Unfortunately, however, Christians are not the only religious minority murdered by extremists in Pakistan.”

UKIM’s back cover of the book describes Maududi’s tafsir as a“monumental and masterly Urdu translation of the Quran.” Zahid Parvez, the President of UK Islamic Mission, is, of course, a fan of the book too:

“…to write a tafsir you have to be a really top, top ranking scholar. Now this will not happen overnight. And if you look at all these, Sayyid Qutb was able to because he spent most of his time in prison. You need total resources and deep insights and so on. But when I read his tafsir it is really moving. It brings life to the Quranic verses whereas Mawlana Maududi’s tafsir is more intellectual. He explained the context and this and that, but it’s very very powerful.”

The other dead fascist that Parvez is gushing over, Sayyid Qutb, outdoes Maududi on antisemitism in his own Qur’an tafsir – In the shade of the Quran. Here’s a small selection that Goebbels would be proud of :

“Money, wealth and worldly aggrandizement have been the delight of the Jews since their early days.”

“They [Jews] have tended to look upon their race as separate from the rest of humanity. Indeed, they have often set themselves up against the rest, harbouring grudges and an insatiable desire for revenge, and exploiting other peoples’ misfortunes. It is not surprising, therefore, that they have historically been portrayed as conspiring troublemakers who are prepared to instigate war and bloodshed among nations in order to advance and safeguard their own interests.”

“This particular characteristic is typical of the Jews. It is they who make this statement and have, in moral and social dealings, double standards. When there is a transaction between one Jew and another, they are honest and trustworthy. When they deal with non-Jews, cheating, false pretences, deception and swindling become admissible practices which stir no conscience and cause no twinge of remorse.”

“Moreover, the atheistic, materialistic doctrine in our world was advanced by a Jew, and the permissive doctrine which is sometimes called, “the sexual revolution”, was advocated by a Jew. Indeed, most evil theories which try to destroy all values and all that is sacred to mankind are advocated by Jews.”

“really moving”?

What else does the UKIM President have to say? Here’s footage of a speech he gave on the Islamic Movement (the umbrella of traditional Islamist groups such as the Muslim Brotherhood, Jamaat-e-Islami and Hamas):

2:41 “From Egypt, Tunisia, Turkey, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Malaysia, everywhere you see there is a great effort made to discredit the Islamic Movement, to sideline it, to weaken it, to divide it, to make it appear that it is irrelevant, and to give it labels that they are fundamentalists and fanatics, and they will take us back to the dark ages.


So we have to pray for the Islamic movements and we have to also think about ourselves here today in the UK.”

In his book, The Islamic Movement: Dynamics of Values, Power and Change, Maududi described the objective of the movement as:

“…revolution in leadership. A leadership that has rebelled against God and His guidance and is responsible for the suffering of mankind has to be replaced by a leadership that is God-conscious, righteous and committed to following Divine guidance […] Only when power in society is in the hands of the Believers and the righteous, can the objectives of Islam be realised.”

UKIM sees itself as part of that movement:

“UKIM does not consider itself to be the Islamic Movement of Britain – rather it is part and parcel of the global Islamic Movement, with a comprehensive outlook: that seeks to make Islam the order of the day.”

And from a UKIM newsletter:

“Dr Zahid Parvez highlighted the key successes of UKIM over the last 50 years and emphasised that we must build on these successes and develop a broader Islamic Movement in the UK.”

At 6:39:

“I know most of the powerful Islamic movements they are following this lesson [the story of the Companions of the cave]. No matter what happens they will give their lives but they will not give into the system of society which is based on shirk [worship of anyone or anything other than the singular God, i.e. Allah], and kufr [disbelief in Allah], and exploitation. They would rather die or go to prison. But this is the stance which they’re taking. And I pray that Allah gives us the strength and the courage to follow in their footsteps because I can see very difficult times coming our way. Recently what has been happening is that the Charity Commission now, there has been changes in the leadership, and, through the MCB, I am getting the news and information they are now deliberately focusing their resources on Muslim organisations and charities. Recently what we saw in Birmingham about Tahir Alam and Parkview school, again we had a meeting last Tuesday, I called some of the headmasters, I called brother, I can’t mention some of the names…and many deep insights came out, you know, how the different departments of government are working. And we have to be extra careful, make sure our governance is up to the level which is required, our accounting, our procedures, our minutes taking, everything is done in a proper way because the full force of society is coming our way very soon.”

Notice he expressed no concern whatsoever over the findings of the investigation into the ‘Trojan Horse plot’? Here’s some of those findings:

“Ofsted expressed concerns about an exclusively Muslim culture in non-faith schools and children not being taught to “develop tolerant attitudes towards other faiths

Posters were found in the classrooms encouraging children to begin lessons with a Muslim prayer, one saying: “If you do not pray, you are worse than a kafir”

Abid Ali, the head of extra-curricular activities at the school, posted a flyer advertising a meeting in Birmingham in which “raising Muslim children in the West” was to be discussed. The flyer said that “it is only natural that as parents we seek to protect our children from the values of secular culture by inculcating within our children the pristine values of Islam.”

The Education Funding Agency (EFA) found that the school lacked a balanced and broad curriculum and saw several subjects marginalised. It found that non-Muslim staff were banned from assemblies in which the children were preached at and told that white women were “prostitutes”. Children were urged to join in anti-Christian chants. Exchange visits with nearby churches had been curtailed.

The contracts for the taxpayer-funded school trips never underwent a formal tender process, and instead a travel firm was used with close links to a current teacher and former director of the school. For three years running non-Muslim pupils and staff were excluded from these trips. Christmas events were cancelled and raffles and tombolas were banned at a recent school fete because they were considered un-Islamic.

In an incident that was referred to counter-terrorism police, a teacher told the pupils at the Golden Hillock school “not to listen to Christians as they were all liars”. Another teacher told the children that were “lucky to be Muslims and not ignorant like Christians and Jews.”

An Ofsted inspection found that the Islamic school, which shares its premises with a mosque, had books in its library with content that had “no place in British society”. The books contained fundamentalist views and promoted executions, stoning and lashing as appropriate punishments.

Why might Parvez not object to children learning about flogging and stoning? His bookBuilding a New Society – An Islamic Approach to Social Change, provides a clue:

“…Islamic laws regarding the punishment for fornication can only be enforced if a moral and God-conscious atmosphere is established, marriage is promoted and made easy, and all avenues, means and temptations that lead to such evil are removed from the social environment.”

“…Islamic guidance has prescribed particular kinds of punishments, some of which are very severe indeed so at to act as a deterrent, for murder (to protect life), theft and robbery (to protect property and wealth), adultery and fornication (to protect the family), slander (to protect honour) and intoxicants (to protect the intellect). In short, all human beings have a God-given right to justice and an Islamic state is commanded by the Quran to ensure that this is rooted in all social and economic policies and fully implemented.”

And why might he not object to the Islamisation of the schools investigated? If we return to the speech on the Islamic Movement, it’s there in black and white:

27:11 “…one of our challenges is we have a whole idea of the vision, we have a crude idea, you know, we want Islamisation and so on, but where we lack is the strategy. How are we going to work in this society, exactly? Where do we start? Do we build and spend the next twenty years building our community and then we focus on something else? We need to prioritise things. Without that, we want to produce ulema, we want to do dawah, we want to do political work, we want to train teachers, we want to do everything under the sun, it is becoming impossible.”

“Islamic movements have a bright future. We are going through difficulties and these are a natural part of our work. Success lies in Allah’s hands not in our hands.”

Here’s Parvez speaking at UKIM’s Khizra Masjid in Manchester:

1:47 “It is a widespread perception that Islamic shariah is barbaric…”

When non-Muslims hear people like Parvez talking about introducing draconian punishments for the ‘crimes’ of pre-marital and extra-marital sex, or explore the writings of Maududi and Qutb, who can blame them?

14:38 “I encourage the non-Muslims sitting here, please, for the sake of a better society, let us try to understand each other…come to our mosques, look at what we’re doing, let us open doors for dialogue, let us build bridges, let us try to understand each other so we can better work together for a better society.”

One of those to take Parvez up on the offer is the Mayor of Greater Manchester, Andy Burnham. Here he is at the same mosque after the recent terrorist attack:

Another visitor to UKIM’s Khizra Masjid is the Australian scholar, Shady Alsuleiman.

Christian celebrations get his blood pressure rising:

“It is the greatest gift to be in the house of Allah in a moment of corruption, in a moment of affliction, you being in the house of Allah worshipping Allah. That’s why the scholars said that in a moment of people committing corruption, a true believer will start worshipping Allah. A true believer will show Allah that he is there for him, worshipping him. Because all this is worship of Satan. A New Year’s party, it’s worship of Satan. A Christmas party, it’s worship of Satan. Any other events are worship of Satan.”

Alsuleiman must have gobbled up a handful of ‘shrooms the day he gave this next speech. He believes that non-Muslims (kuffar) want Muslims to carry out acts of terror against them in order to push through bans on items of Muslim women’s clothing:

“You know these attacks that place in the Western world? Walahi, I believe that our enemies love it so much because it gives them an excuse to attack Islam, the one that is spreading to the East and the West. They want us to do this. We are giving this service for the kuffar, to the enemies. They want us to do these things so they could have an excuse to stop, or at least restrict, the widespreading of Islam. They want this to happen. Believe me they want it to happen. You now these kuffar that some Muslims say ‘We are fighting against them, they are the enemies of Islam’? They are dying for you to do these actions. Walahi they can’t wait for the moment that so-called terrorist attacks take place in a country like this so they could have an excuse to stop these gatherings. Have an excuse to stop the hijab. Have an excuse to stop the niqab.”

Evil gay sex brings evil outcomes:

“Also homosexuality that is spreading all these diseases. You know lets not deny the fact. Don’t call it the name of freedom. Don’t talk about freedom and, you know, this is the freedom of action and we could do whatever we want. It doesn’t mean that freedom of action you destroy a nation. These are evil actions that bring evil outcomes to our society.”

As with most scholars from Alsuleiman’s stable, he says the leader of a legitimate Islamic state has the right to declare war on non-Muslims:

“Who can declare offensive jihad? The only one that can declare, there’s two types of jihad. There’s the jihad in which if Muslims were to be attacked then it’s obligatory upon the Muslims to protect their land. For Muslims to initiate attack that’s only declared by the Imam and the Amir, OK?”

And, in tune with Zahid Parvez, an Islamic state will dish out draconian punishments:

“…remember that if there is an Islamic state the punishment of zina, the punishment of those who commit zina, if they have never been married before, they will be lashed 100 lashes. And if they are married while they committed zina, or previously been married and divorced, and they committed zina, then their punishment is stoning to death.”

Alsuleiman doesn’t belong to either UKIM or the Islamic Movement. Instead, he follows a form of orthodox, or, as he would call it ‘normative’ Islam. Other scholars from the orthodox camp who have also spoken at UKIM events include: Abdurraheem Green, Murtaza Khan, Assim Al-Hakeem, Jalal Ibn SaeedAbdur Raheem McCarthyHamza TzortzisHaitham al-Haddad and Yasir Qadhi. Click the speakers names for their views on offensive jihad, female circumcision, Jews & Christians, women, ex-Muslims, female non-Muslim slaves, shirk and blasphemy.

Part 2 here.

Posted in: Uncategorized