It was from the British Telegraph newspaper and the reporter was Aislinn Simpson (21 Apr 2008)

Ken Livingstone defended his decision to share a platform with a homophobic Islamic preacher as he and his challenger, Boris Johnson, were neck and neck in the race for the capital yesterday 

Yusuf al-Qaradawi has described homosexuality as an “unnatural and evil practice” and said the Koran permitted wife-beating in certain circumstances.

The Qatar-based Egyptian cleric has also advocated the use of Palestinian children as suicide bombers and once claimed that Asian tsunami victims were punished by Allah because their countries were centres of perversion.

But speaking on BBC1’s Politics Show yesterday, the London Mayor insisted he was right to welcome the cleric to City Hall as an “honoured guest” in July 2004. He said that while he did not agree with some of his views, al-Qaradawi did not support terrorism against the West. “He is a man who is prepared to say al-Qa’eda is wrong and to be very strong in that condemnation,” he said.

Mr Livingstone’s liberal approach to controversial figures such as al-Qaradawi has won him a friend in Azzam Tamimi, a Palestinian supporter of Hamas, which is dedicated to the destruction of Israel.



The following revealing extract is also from The Telegraph and is by Nick Allen (16 Apr 2008)

A Palestinian apologist for suicide bombing is among the leaders of a group trying to win Muslim votes for Ken Livingstone in the London mayoral election.

Dr Azzam Tamimi, a supporter of Hamas which is dedicated to the destruction of Israel, is part of a group called Muslims 4 Ken which is aiming to mobilise hundreds of thousands of Muslim voters to help re-elect Mr Livingstone for a third term on May 1.

A website set up by the group vilifies Mr Livingstone’s Conservative opponent Boris Johnson, portraying him as an Islamaphobe.

It states: “Boris Johnson would be a disaster for London.



Now I wonder if anyone will ask Ken about his views of what his friend Sheikh Qaradawi said here about the Holocaust in this sermon last Friday which was aired on Qatar TV?

The governments must be pressured to demand that the U.N. adopt a clear resolution or law that categorically prohibits affronts to prophets – to the prophets of the Lord and His messengers, to His holy books, and to the religious holy places. This is so that nobody can cause them harm. They enacted such laws in order to protect the Jews and Judaism. Like some Danes have said: ‘We can mock Jesus and his mother.’ They were asked: ‘Can you mock the Jews?’ Here they stopped. The Jews are protected by laws – the laws that protect Semitism, and nobody can say even one word about the number [of victims] in the alleged Holocaust. Nobody can do so, even if he is writing an M.A. or Ph.D. thesis, and discussing it scientifically. Such claims are not acceptable. When Roger Garaudy talked about it, he was sentenced to jail, according to the laws. We want laws protecting the holy places, the prophets, and Allah’s messengers.”

Roger Garaudy is of course one of the most notorious of Holocaust deniers, whose claims inter alia that the gas chambers did not exist have repeatedly been demonstrated to be pseudo-scientific nonsense.

We all know that Ken regards the Holocaust as “the worst crime in history”.

So what does he think about his friend Sheikh Qaradawi only regarding it as alleged? And what does he think of his friend suggesting that no-one is allowed to question the number of victims? And of his choice of Roger Garaudy as his reference point?

ABOVE can be found on

This small paragraph, an extract from much more, is enough to show the irony involved in Livingstone defending Qaratawi:

Dr al-Qaradawi sanctions domestic violence in certain circumstances.

“If the husband senses that feelings of disobedience and rebelliousness are rising against him in his wife, he should try his best to rectify her attitude by kind words, gentle persuasion, and reasoning with her. If this is not helpful, he should sleep apart from her, trying to awaken her agreeable feminine nature so that serenity may be restored and she may respond to him in a harmonious fashion. If this approach fails, it is permissible for him to admonish her lightly with his hands, avoiding her face and other sensitive areas.”


The following article is from the ever expert Jihadwatch.

I think it needs to be considered in the same sense as our other articles which deal with the hatred of Jews as expressed by the Fascist “leftists” such as the Irish Palestine Solidarity Campaign.

Also in relation to the lies against Pamela Geller and the English Defence League, see harry’s Place for the latest in this.

There is no doubt at all that these so called “Lefties” are really joining with the Capitalist media and the Capitalist State Machine and it must be acknowledged their ability to tell lies knows no bounds.

Very often these lies are lies of omission. They edit the News. They edit reality. They chose what their listeners will hear.

This was the story over and over again in relation to what was happening in Yugoslavia in the 1990s. It was the exact same. The similarity is amazing.

The English Defence League is a very progressive movement for one simple reason. If British workers are going to do anything in the world that is developing around therm then they first must feel themselves as being proud to be English.

If they are not proud to be English then they will be steamrollered by political correctness.

That is the strength of the EDL and people like Ed Carroll, an Irish name actually, so his background must be Irish. people like Carroll obviously could not care a shit what the Media writes about them. That is the beginning of the English socialist revolution, because until there are people like that then you can do nothing in life.

Please read the following. it is most illuminating:

Osbourne and Yusuf Islam: Take off that cross, you uppity kaffir

This is an example of the Leftist/Jihadist Alliance, or perhaps of the cluelessness of the Left, or perhaps of its indifference to the freedom of speech that Islamic supremacists wish so ardently to extinguish. Take your pick. “Stewart-Colbert ‘sanity’ rally draws thousands,” by Hope Yen and Calvin Woodward for the Associated Press, October 30 (thanks to Weasel Zippers):

WASHINGTON — In the shadow of the Capitol and the election, comedians Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert entertained a huge throng Saturday at a “sanity” rally poking fun at the nation’s ill-tempered politics, fear-mongers and doomsayers. […]Ozzy Osbourne and Yusuf Islam, formerly known as Cat Stevens, engaged in something of a battle of the bands as the heavy-metal rocker barged in on the folkie’s hit, “Peace Train,” in a mock clash of music and cultures….


“Cat Stevens Gives Support To Call for Death of Rushdie,” by Craig R. Whitney in the New York Times, May 23, 1989:

TONDON [sic], May 22 — The musician known as Cat Stevens said in a British television program to be broadcast next week that rather than go to a demonstration to burn an effigy of the author Salman Rushdie, ”I would have hoped that it’d be the real thing.”The singer, who adopted the name Yusuf Islam when he converted to Islam, made the remark during a panel discussion of British reactions to Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini’s call for Mr. Rushdie to be killed for allegedly blaspheming Islam in his best-selling novel ”The Satanic Verses.” He also said that if Mr. Rushdie turned up at his doorstep looking for help, ”I might ring somebody who might do more damage to him than he would like.”

”I’d try to phone the Ayatollah Khomeini and tell him exactly where this man is,” said Mr. Islam, who watched a preview of the program today and said in an interview that he stood by his comments….


Yes, now he denies having said it. But considering that he has been an ardent orthodox believer ever since his conversion, and that all the schools of Islamic jurisprudence do mandate a death penalty for blasphemy, I find his denials unconvincing.

I have previously linked to the video of Yusuf Islam saying what he now denies, but this morning I found this notice where it had once been at YouTube: “This video is no longer available due to a copyright claim by Yusuf Islam.” Interestingly enough, however, old Joe Islam doesn’t seem troubled by YouTube postings trampling on the copyright for his jahiliyya hippie songs.



An international hate campaign by Islamic fundamentalists against a minority sect has spread to Britain and is causing a dangerous rift in south London’s Muslim community.

The situation has been likened to the “beginnings of the Holocaust” by a leading expert who is urging the police to act.

Lord Avebury, the long-serving vice-chairman of the Parliamentary Human Rights Group, said the extremist views were being imported from Pakistan and compared the vilification of Ahmadiyya Muslims with the beginnings of the Holocaust.

Our investigation has revealed shocking examples of Ahmadi residents, businessmen and politicians being demonised and ostracised by UK Islamic fundamentalist group Khatme Nabuwat (KN).

Ahmadi-owned businesses have been boycotted and face ruin, while employers have been pressurised into sacking Ahmadi workers.

The hate campaign even infected the General Election result after a campaign to discourage Muslims voting for an Ahmadi Liberal Democrat candidate in Tooting.

There are an estimated 13,000 Ahmadi Muslims living and working in south west London, who were drawn to the area after its first mosque was built in Southfields.

Ahmadiyya Muslims differ from mainstream Islam by believing the second coming of the Messiah has already happened and is embodied by their founder, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad.

Their two main mosques are the London Mosque, built in 1926 in Gressenhall Road, Southfields, and the massive Bait-ul-Fatah mosque in Morden, built in 2003 – which their website claims is the largest mosque in Western Europe.

Since then, many Ahmadis who have fled religious persecution in Pakistan have come to live in Merton, Wandsworth, Kingston and Lambeth.

Since being established in 1884, the movement is followed by 160m people in 190 countries worldwide and actively promotes humanitarian efforts under the motto: “Love for all, hatred for none”.

They have a highly active public relations team, which within the past year has promoted community initiatives on behalf of the entire Muslim community, such as an advertising campaign launched in February on London’s bus network.

Inflammatory leaflets have been distributed across south London as part of a targeted ideological campaign against the Ahmadiyya community.

Some of the literature is produced by anti-Ahmadi group KN, whose spokesmen delivered speeches at the TIC in Tooting, Streatham mosque and the Kingston mosque.

One KN leaflet, Deception of the Qadiyani, was recently displayed in the window of the Sabina Hair and Cosmetic shop in Mitcham Road, Tooting.

When we confronted staff to ask why they had put up these leaflets, a worker said: “These people are not Muslims. I did it myself.

“They don’t believe that prophet Mohammed is the last prophet.”

In August, Kingston police launched an investigation into suspected Ahmadi hate crime after leaflets were allegedly distributed in Kingston on July 6.

Kingston police confirmed a teenage Ahmadi girl, who did not want to be named, gave them a statement claiming the leaflet, which was written in Urdu, said: “Kill a Qadiyani and doors to heaven will be open to you”.

Police said they were appealing for information, but were not in possession of the leaflet, which was allegedly handed to the girl outside the Bentall Centre in Kingston town centre.


There are Sharia Courts all over Britain and they try cases, even though the Government, and no doubt the Anglican Archbishop of England, say that they do not conflict with the law. But what happens if a Muslim man demands sex from his wife and his wife does not want to engage in sex? What then ? The answer is very involved, also interesting, and shows that you cannot have Sharia Law in a country based on the laws brought about by the Enlightenment, by the French and American Revolutions, as exist in countries like America and Britain. This has come up recently in an interview which the head of these Sharia Courts of Britain has given in which he spells this out. “The Samosa” has interviewed said leader of the Islamic Courts. It is fascinating and shows the impasse in which the British ruling class has got themselves into with Islam, even as they attempt to infiltrate and batter down the oppositionist English Defence League, as shown in London on Sunday last:



Wednesday, 06 October 2010 15:13
AddThis Social Bookmark Button

Chaminda Jayanetti speaks to the president of Britain’s main Islamic law court about rape within marriage.


It is hardly the most obviously controversial of statements:


The husband undertake not to abuse his wife/child(ren) verbally, emotionally, physically, or sexually.



This statement is from the London-based Muslim Institute’s Muslim Marriage Contract, published in 2008 as an attempt to modernise the contract governing many Islamic marriages in Britain. But few within the British Muslim establishment were impressed. Britain’s main Islamic sharia court, the Islamic Sharia Council, produced a swift rebuttal of the contract, including the statement on sexual abuse (page 6 here).


Sheikh Maulana Abu Sayeed is the president of the Islamic Sharia Council. A softly spoken elderly man with the manner of a kindly grandfather, he is far removed from a firebrand radical Islamic preacher – indeed, he is nothing of the sort.


But sitting in a small office at the al-Tawhid Mosque in East London, where the Council’s sessions had been relocated while its nearby headquarters were renovated (the Council has now moved back), I asked Sheikh Sayeed whether he considered non-consensual marital sex to be rape.


“No,” he replied. “Clearly there cannot be any ‘rape’ within the marriage. Maybe ‘aggression’, maybe ‘indecent activity’.”


He said it was “not Islamic” to classify non-consensual marital sex as rape and prosecute offenders, adding that “to make it exactly as the Western culture demands is as if we are compromising Islamic religion with secular non-Islamic values.”


The Islamic Sharia Council handles very few cases of alleged marital rape – Sheikh Sayeed said there had only been two or three such cases since the Council was founded in 1982. It is therefore unlikely that the Council’s views on this issue, or those of Sheikh Sayeed himself, directly impact upon a significant number of marital rape victims.


Sheikh Sayeed made his opposition to non-consensual marital sex absolutely clear – “of course it is bad, one should not jump on his wife as and when he desires” – but he said that it was wrong to prosecute it as rape:


“It is not an aggression, it is not an assault, it is not some kind of jumping on somebody’s individual right. Because when they got married, the understanding was that sexual intercourse was part of the marriage, so there cannot be anything against sex in marriage. Of course, if it happened without her desire, that is no good, that is not desirable. But that man can be disciplined and can be reprimanded.”


Rather than pursuing miscreants through the criminal justice system, Sheikh Sayeed felt the sharia court was better placed to handle such cases by policing offenders by “Islamic means”. He explained the Council’s approach:


“If such a man comes to us, to ask him not to repeat the same, ask forgiveness from his wife, ask forgiveness from Allah as well, and make a new contract that he would never do it, otherwise his wife will have the liberty to finish the marriage unilaterally. This sort of relief is available.”


By contrast, he said the prosecution of marital rape was due to misguided Western values: “Why it is happening in this society is because they have got this idea of so-called equality, equal rights. And they are misusing these equal rights in every single aspect of human conduct. That’s why. It is one aggression against another, and that is bigger aggression against minor one.


I asked Sheikh Sayeed what he considered to be the “bigger aggression”.


“To call it rape. Rape is a criminal offence in this country; man will end up in prison for three, five years or more.”


So the non-consensual sex is the minor aggression, and calling it rape is the major aggression?




Why is calling it rape a major aggression?


“Because within the marriage contract it is inherent there that man will have sexual intercourse with his wife. Of course, if he does something against her wish or in a bad time etc, then he is not fulfilling the etiquettes, not that he is breaching any code of sharia – he is not coming to that point. He may be disciplined, and he may be made to ask forgiveness. That should be enough.”


Sheikh Sayeed said he would not immediately advise a wife who claimed her husband had raped her to go to the police. “Not in the beginning, unless we establish that it really happened. Because in most of the cases, wives, as they have been advised by their solicitors that one of the four reasons for which a wife can get a divorce is rape, so they are encouraged to say things like this that may not be the true picture of the situation.”


I asked if this meant he felt some women were falsely alleging rape.


“Yes, yes, in the most cases. A lady who came to us with this sort of idea, after some time, after a few months, she said it was only to expedite the procedure of divorce.


On this occasion, the Council had already granted the wife a divorce. “We were talking to both sides – one side is in denial, and the wife has been insisting. But later she has given up her claim and then admitted that it was only to expedite the procedure of divorce.”


While this specific case may have been a false allegation, it is not at all representative of alleged rape cases nationally. Research indicates that only eight percent of rape cases reported to the police are classified as false allegations (page 63 of this PDF file).


While nearly 60 percent of rape cases that reach court end in a conviction, a huge proportion of alleged rape incidents never reach court due to problems securing evidence or victims being unwilling to endure the added emotional trauma of a court case. As a result, only around six percent of rape incidents reported to the police end in a conviction, while the previous government estimated that 75-95 percent of all rapes were never even reported to the police at all.


“If nothing helps,” said Sheikh Sayeed, “at the end she may call the police if it is genuine, and unless she can prove from DNA and other tests, she cannot succeed there.” On that point, the statistics bear him out.





by Jim Stephens

June 7, 2010

As so often happens on Harry´sPlace this is a very good analysis of the way that Islam has taken over many of the government offices in Britain.

The following actually gives a clue to the role that Cameron and Clegg are playing on behalf of Iran, Hamas and Hizbullah against Israel.

But Harry´s Place are part of the capitalist establishment in Britain and of course since capitalism is in league with Islam they have no answer. The writer describes it well but has no programme to answer it

This is a guest post by a brother from East London

Mohammad Abdul Aziz is a Senior Muslim Advisor at DCLG. He is also a honary trustee of East London mosque (ELM) and the London Muslim Centre (LMC), as well as having been an advisor to the MCB. He was formerly an executive committee member of YMO, which is the youth wing of Islamic Forum of Europe (IFE) – an Islamist entryist group. After spending years in YMO propagating the teachings of the Islamist ideologue Maulana Mawdudi, Mohammad Aziz resigned to follow a stricter and more conservative form of Islam known as ‘Salafism’. As a student he attended UCL to study Law, grew a lengthy beard and would roll his trousers up over his ankles to conform to his new stricter interpretation of Islam. During his time as a Salafi he influenced a whole generation of young Bangladeshis in East London. He later came under the influence of a senior Jamaati Islami member Khurram Murad who eventually convinced him to once again join entryist Islamism. Mohammad Aziz then went onto represent the MCB at a number of events. For example, he was the MCB’s official representative on the Equality and Diversity Forum (EDF) and also represented the MCB in a meeting with Charles Kennedy (Lib Dems) in 2004. He even caused controversy in 2006 by trying to discuss the MCB’s stance on Homosexuality. Before joining DCLG he was a researcher at the Islamic Foundation, a Jamaati Islami linked group based in Leicester and run by Dilwar Hussain. It is believed that several of Mohammad Aziz’s family members are involved in ELM & IFE, notably his younger brother Abdul Jalil who is a member of IFE.

Mohammad Aziz also co-owns an equality research and consultancy company called Faithwise. It has been revealed that Faithwise would secure contracts from the MCB without even having to bid for them. It was also reported that in 2005:

“Faithwise secured another contract from the Crown Prosecution Service – again untendered – for a pilot programme to help key staff gain a more detailed understanding of the Muslim community. Faithwise was part of a successful joint application with, you’ve guessed it, the MCB.

It would be wrong to reduce this controversy to a question of who is getting what, and how. Mohamed Abdul Aziz is also a commissioner on the Commission for Racial Equality and on the steering group of the Commission for Equality and Human Rights. Holding all these positions makes him the single most important driver of the Muslim equality agenda in the country at a critical time when a new rights framework is being erected that will govern the community in the years ahead. That responsibility sits rather uncomfortably with his private business interests. It’s something the MCB has known for a long time, but has either seen as unproblematic or inexpedient to bring out”.

Last week the Journalist Andrew Gilligan exposed Abdul Aziz’s latest attempts at trying to gain direct support for IFE & ELM from the government:

“.. Islamist sympathisers in Whitehall are working to shape the policies of the new administration. Inside the Department of Communities and Local Government there is a paid ministerial adviser called Mohammed Abdul Aziz, who is also an honorary trustee of the East London Mosque.

At an internal government event during the election campaign, while the politicians were safely out of the way, Mr Aziz and another man launched a paper, ‘Winning Hearts and Minds: Understanding and Engaging British Muslim Communities’, a copy of which has been leaked to The Spectator. The document is a sophisticated argument, couched in pseudo-scientific terms, for the new government to work more closely with Islamists and even terrorist sympathisers.

Mr Aziz’s paper condemns what he calls a ‘veto approach’ which has, he says, meant too little engagement with many of the ‘most significant organisations across [Britain’s] Muslim communities’. By this, it turns out, he means the East London Mosque. The paper ranks a number of Muslim organisations, with the East London Mosque scoring the highest marks and anti-fundamentalist bodies such as British Muslims for Secular Democracy scoring very low indeed.

Mr Aziz claims, absurdly, that the IFE is now primarily a ‘community organisation’ with an ‘emphasis on service delivery… rather than political or ideological programmes’. He says that ministers should consider appearing in public with organisations which promote ‘a message of divisiveness, expressing intolerance towards other communities in the UK’. He says that officials should even deal privately with some organisations which may support ‘violent extremism in Britain’.

I’ll be watching to see whether the new government takes any notice of these terrible ideas; one should never underestimate the power of people like Mr Aziz whispering in ministers’ ears”

The question that needs to be asked is why does DCLG employ a trustee of East London Mosque as a senior advisor on Muslim affairs? Surely there is a conflict of interest for Mohammed Aziz considering the fact that he has also been an MCB advisor? It is no surprise then that his policy recommendations support ELM, MCB, IFE and call for the government to privately deal with organisations which may support ‘violent extremism’. How much longer will senior civil servants at DCLG rely on such people? Let’s hope the new government will see through these Islamist entryist tactics, remove the infiltrators from their posts and trash their policy recommendations.


You can sense the utter bankruptcy of HP with the second comment to above which shows how pro the system is Harry´s Place

We do need a clean-out, but not just of the infiltrators, also of the senior civil servants who are prepared to sell out some groups in our society in order to appease others. The civil service is a blight on this country, its freedoms and its finances, and needs hacking back.

Unfortunately I don’t think either the Tories or the Lib Dems have the guts or sense to take it on. There should be widespread sackings in the upper ranks of the public sector. In some cases there should be prosecutions.