From the BBC:
A town council mayor has apologised after sending an email saying Muslims “cause mayhem with explosives”…
Mr Bennett sent the email after a request by the Huddersfield-based Ahmadiyya Muslim Association to appear before the town council to ask for funding.
It said: “I am aware Islamic organisations are keen to promote a view that they are peaceful, forward thinking individuals who wish to integrate into the British way of life.
“The policy of clothing the feminine population of Dewsbury in black sack-like clothing from head to toe, the occasional trip out to cause mayhem with explosives and the proposal that all those of homosexual persuasion should be killed by shooting or other means is adequate and practical testimony to the level of progress being made in this direction.”
He added: “I, for one, am not prepared to spend the time on something that can be dealt with elsewhere… We have enough non-religious problems to address in Mirfield at this time without adding a religious dimension to our discussions.”
After the email was leaked to the media, Mr Bennett’s comments were widely criticised by his party and the local Muslim group.
He said: “I apologise for any remarks I have made which may have caused offence.”
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Chase Park fair photos
Green and Lib Dem Southwark brings government closer to voters
A swamp of lies and disinformation
Doing better? The goal must be Sufficeincy
Michael Meadowcroft (1942-2026) - A Liberal to His Core
Tom Reeve
Peter Martin
David Wright
Iain Donaldson
43 Comments
If you don’t the way that either I or the Mayor is saying it, then that’s fine. But as Liberal Democrats, we have got to start saying something ourselves. The problem is simply not going to go away by ignoring it. If this was a private email, then I’m not sure there is much to object to here.
I don’t see anything wrong with what the mayor said. It’s true after all.
Totally agree with what the the Mayor’s saying.
nothing at all wrong with offending religious dolts.
I can’t think of a more transparent example of someone being “enslaved by ingnorance or conformity” than the mayors comments. If he has apologised then case closed but he definately should apologise. If he had made comments like these about an Irish group citing the historic actions of the IRA or the Catholic Church then therw ould quite rightly have been uproar as there should have been this time.
@David Morton
He wasn’t talking about past action, he was talking about present action. If he’d refused to work with Muslim groups because of the way they’d behaved during the crusades, I’d be equally outraged; yu can’t hold someone responsible for their ancestor’s actions; you can though for their own actions.
His comments are equivalent to saying that he sees no point dealing with Muslim groups while they continue to oppress women, demand the murder of gays and do nothing to discourage suicide bombers. Bit of a problem for Muslim groups, because they’d basically have to renounce their own holy book (or at least its interpretation) to accomplish that change; which is an insult to the prophet Mohammed.
You’d not have demanded an apology if he’d said he’d refuse to waste time talking to Sinn Fein while the IRA still actively oppressed neighbourhoods, bombed and murdered people.
Until the Muslim community groups renounce those passages in the Koran that require the murder or gays and apostates and the conversion of people of other faiths by violence then there’s no point wasting your time talking to them.
For example (source):
Anything Mohammed didn’t object to cannot be wrong it seems.
Most Muslims living in this country know all that is wrong and they don’t do any of those barbaric things. The problem is that none of them have the courage to say so; after all, by saying so they open themselves up for charges of apostasy and heresy and the death penalty those charges require.
The Mayor is right to demand they renounce barbaric practices before he deals with them.
Martin, your writing is just terrific, especially for a husky. Please give me a poke on Facebook.
So I have to apologise for the actions of the BNP because I’m White British? the Irish for the IRA ( 15 years ago not the Crusades )? All gay people are like Julian Clary performing? “Muslims” are a ethnically and theologically diverse group of people including many who are as westernised (what ever that means) as you and me.
The mayors comments fall into the trap that you have. You find a fault in a belief system and then transpose that failing onto a group of over a billion people. I don’t believe in thought crimes so if thats your view fine. But the mayors comments clearly show he went further. He was going to treat a group of people and an application differently because of there faith. I’m genuinely at a loss as to how anyone can defend these actions from a liberal perspective.
The Ahmadiyya are a group that has been persecuted by mainstream Muslims so I fail to see why they should be called upon to renounce practices they have never been involved in.
David, a poll last year indicated that 36% of young British Muslims think apostasy should be punishable by death. As a matter of interest, how high would that figure have to go before you and others are prepared to admit that Houston we have a problem?
8. You are moving the terms of debate and avoiding the rhetorical questions I asked at 7. You have I noticed picked the most sensational statistic from the poll and ignored some quite comforting ones. If you scroll down the Policy Exchange recommendations they don’t square very well with the Mayors Behaviour do they? and thats what we are debating.
Not that Lib Dem members of town councils don’t say bonkers things some times of course.
Well if you actually managed to draw any comfort from that poll, then you are clearly in an advanced state of denial. I guess 36% is nothing to get too worried about. It is, after all, a minority.
7. It’s very possible to defend these comments from a liberal perspective.
I don’t think that the Mayor is neccessarily saying all ‘Muslims’ propegate the sort of illiberal behaviour he talks about, but that within Muslim communities and in his own words “Islamic organisations”, it is a problem, and the fact is that such manifestations do hinder integration.
It’s refreshing to see there are some true liberals on this blog (particularly 5., great post) who are willing to criticise the ghastly displays of religious oppression within Islamic organisations, and id suggest he and all of us should do the same with any other religious movement – that isnt to say we tarr all Muslims with the same brush, but I dont think he is doing that here, he specifies the sort of behaviour he rightly finds objectionable.
If the party had any bollocks on this issue it would speak up louder against the oppressive excesses of religion particularly acute in the case of Islam.
That isnt the same as supporting an illegal war that used such a protext for more realpolitic aims, and it isnt the same as opposing Muslims ‘right’ to live in Britain, just this nonsence about ‘tolerance’ doesnt equate to not allowing ourselves to criticise religions where they clash with liberal, enlightenment values; that sort of lazy appeasement is a one way to cultural asymmetry and is completely counterproductive to the sort of integrated country we all strive for.
The question is not how you defend the Mayors comments from a liberal perspective, but how you cant defend them.
I strongly object to the negative stereotyping of muslims that I read here. You may be surprised to know that within Hackney Lib Dems both Muslims and orthodox Jews are perfectly happy to be colleagues with gay members of the party and support gay rights. They do not feel they have to justify themselves to their holy scriptures, which in any case has to be read in context that does not fit in easily to modern ways of thinking.
Some militant secularists (and I personally am a pragmatic secularist) give the impression they want to take away peoples religion. What they overlook is that if they succeed, then for many you will make their lives unbearable.
We should distinguish between the fundamentalists who are illiberal and we have to oppose, and the moderates who do not want to see their religion used for justifying acts of terror, and who if we are nice to them as they want to be with us can help us counter the extremists.
In fact not to take such a course would be an act of rank stupidity on our part.
Not a husky, it’s a Grey Wolf (Canis lupus), a species as misunderstood as I seem to be.
As I clearly said, I believe that most Muslims in this country have no problem with human rights for gays and the right to life for people of other faiths. The remaining 36% probably think those Muslims should be put to death for defying Mohammed.
The problem is that the groups that represent those people don’t take that view; they take a more strict (fundamental) view and that’s the view they express. Possibly because quite a lot of them get “donations” from Saudi Arabia and don’t want to upset their donors.
I don’t negatively stereotype Muslims. That’s like saying by critizing the BNP
I’m negatively stereotyping white people or British people; it’s errant nonsense.
Yes, you do have to apologise for the BNP. I do; they are a blight and an embarrassment on our country. Just as most Muslim organisation in this country should be an embarrassment to good people that happen to be Muslim. (Avoiding the term “good Muslim” since the lunatic suicide bombers consider themselves to be the “good” Muslims)
The difference between me vs. the BNP and Muslims vs. Muslim Council et al, is that I denounce the BNP and loudly proclaim it to be an organisation of scum-bags trying to attain some measure of acceptability that they don’t deserve.
I don’t hear the liberal Muslims denouncing the organisations that claim to represent them; the ones that fail to denounce death by stoning. The only group that seems prepared to stand up to them are the council of ex-Muslims; whose members all regularly receive death threats from “real” Muslims for no other reason than having given up a belief imposed on them by an accident of birth.
Either those “Muslim” organisations represent Muslims and we shouldn’t talk to them because their views are abhorrent, or they don’t represent Muslims and we shouldn’t talk to them for that reason. Either way, the Mayor is right to not talk to them.
I fail to see why they should be called upon to renounce practices they have never been involved in.
And I fail to see why they should get a penny of taxpayer’s money.
Great stuff Martin. I too would like to apologise profoundly for the BNP.
In this country, up to now, there has been a respected custom of freedom of speech, no matter how this may have upset or offended certain people. Certain sections of the Muslim community should accept that whilst they have freedom of speech, they have to accept that other people also have that privilege. No apology should have been issued. We are sleepwalking towards a total social disaster by burying our heads in the sand and not addressing such issues as were touched upon in that particular email. Open debate, transparency and equal opportunities should underpin all sections of our nation.
Can anyone reassure me that the views posted above aren’t representative of the “libertarian” wing of the party that seems to be in the ascendancy these days?
I know the party has changed, but surely it hasn’t changed that much?
Chris Phillips
Which comments in particular?
Had to go look up libertarianism on wikipedia. Do you mean the American definition or the non-American definition?
Better yet, define what you mean by libertarianism and I’ll give you my answer.
Help. I am trying to be a good Guardianista.
This means…
1/ Being pro-abortion
2/ Being in favour of equal rights for women..
3/ Standing up for the Universal Declaration for Human Rights.
4/ Not being homophobic
5/ Being in favour of civil liberties, and against inhuman and degrading punishment..
6/ Supporting equal opportunities and diversity
But it also appears to involve
7/ Not questioning the volume of migration from within Europe or without.
8/ Turning a blind eye to culural issues like ‘cousin marriage’
9/ Accepting the rights of religious communities to have views about sex equality that seem to contradict the earlier ones
10/ Not criticise ‘sharia law’, aspects of which again seem to be in direct contravention of the liberties and rights we are supposed to be in favour of.
Anyone got any pointers ?
Number 7 does not in any way contradict numbers 1-6.
The former IRA man, Ronan Bennett, goes one step further. According to Mr Bennett, ALL criticism of Islam is racist.
MartinSGill wrote:
“Which comments in particular?”
Well, your own comment – “I don’t see anything wrong with what the mayor said” – is one example. ColinW – “Totally agree with what the the Mayor’s saying” – is another. Christine Spencer – “No apology should have been issued” – is a third.
Of course, I realise not everyone posting here is a member of the party. But some evidently are.
Chris Phillips
“Can anyone reassure me that the views posted above aren’t representative of the “libertarian” wing of the party that seems to be in the ascendancy these days?
I know the party has changed, but surely it hasn’t changed that much?
Chris Phillips”
Hopefully they aren’t. I certainly find them hard to square with the fundamental values of the party. I’ve passed the relevant comments on to the Membership Department for their consideration if, as purported, they are made by party members.
Fascinating… so only someone that fits your views is allowed to be a member of the party?
So if I disagree with a point of policy, say nuclear submarines, nuclear power, or school vouchers, attitude to faith schools or whatever then I shouldn’t be in the party and you’d go so far as to report me to the membership department so that they prune me from your organisation? This isn’t the Soviet Union, people are allowed to object to the party line, whatever happend to tolerance?
I’m a strong believer in the rights of the individual, that is the right of freedom of expression and freedom of opinion. It also includes guarantees of basic human rights, regardless of whether it’s “cultural” to beat your wife, deny her access to education or ship your daughter off home to be married off to a total stranger as soon as she’s old enough.
I also believe in democracy and that if the mayor’s comments are that upsetting to the voter then he won’t be elected again.
I think he’s over-generalising, as I made clear in my other posts, but he raises the issue that faces us at this time. That people that come here (in recent times invariable muslim) and wish to blow us up and that the organisations that claim to represent them aren’t taking a clear and unambigious stand against it.
It’s like saying the libdem party constitution requires that we do everything possible to murder all conservatives, and while no one actually does it, everyone objects to criticising that point or denouncing it, instead pointing to another section that says be nice to everyone and argueing that there’s no discrepancy between the two. It’s insane, yet we seem to be asked to tolerate the insanity where muslim organisations are concerned and anyone that dares to point this out is vilified by the appeasement brigade.
Is it too much to ask that these organisations stand up and denounce the murder of aposates, infidels, gays; that they condemn stoning, and condemn the fact that under their law a woman’s tesimony counts for less than half that of a man’s?
Many muslims do stand up and denounce those organisations, saying that they should bring their faith in line with modern values, accepting that society and morality, actually gets better with time and I’m greatly heartened whenever I read that. Unfortunatly while I suspect those are the views of the majority those are not the views coming from the the lips of muslim organisations.
MartinSGill wrote:
“Fascinating… so only someone that fits your views is allowed to be a member of the party?”
Of course no one is saying any such thing. But obviously there are limits.
The preamble to the party constitution includes this statement of principle:
“Upholding these values of individual and social justice, we reject all prejudice and discrimination based on race, colour, religion, age, disability, sex or sexual orientation and oppose all forms of entrenched privilege and inequality.”
The comments of the Tory mayor relate to “Islamic organisations”. Not “some Islamic organisations” or “a minority of Muslim organisations”. They clearly reflect prejudice based on religion, and that is expressed in the most emotive and offensive language. I’m appalled that members of the party should be endorsing them.
And despite what you say now, you _did_ make the comment I quoted – “I don’t see anything wrong with what the mayor said”.
Chris Phillips
From the mayor’s own words:
AHMADIYYA
It strongly rejects violence and terrorism in any form and for any reason.
MartinSGill
When you compare “Islamic organisations” (in general) to the BNP and the KKK, you only demonstrate your prejudice more clearly.
Frankly, I can only assume these words have been chosen out of a childish desire to shock, so it would probably be a mistake to encourage you by commenting further.
But I do hope that the party does look into the matter, because material like this posted on the Internet is liable to be picked up and used by our opponents. In that sense, it’s fortunate that your views are so blatantly at odds with the clearly expressed fundamental principle I quoted above from the party constitution.
Chris Phillips
“Fascinating… so only someone that fits your views is allowed to be a member of the party?”
Not my views no. But the party – ie it’s members – have decided that party members should share the fundamental values and abide by certain rules.
I apologise for the generalisation, I applied democracy to muslim organisations, implying that the majority represented all of them, when I actually know that isn’t the case.
Islam has an image problem. It’s had an image problem for decades, but what’s really made people sit up and listen is 9/11 , 7/7; they’ve started targetting us, instead of just the poor and ignored people in asia and the middle-east. After that anything done in the name of Islam anywhere (especially saudi-arbia and iran) just hurts islam more. Statistics like of the young muslims in the UK that have no problems with murder for islam, the death of apostates or gays. Or honour killings. Or jailing women for being raped, or Sir Iqbal Sacranie (head of the BCM) telling the nation that “homosexuallity is harmful” and letting us imagine what he’d do to stop it.
Hate literature in muslim shops, hate preachers in mosques. Hate and intimidation campaigns against muslims that convert to other religions. Vast amounts of funding from the Saudis, hardly an endorsement of liberal values, you just need to ask the FBI and US state department invistigating muslim charities, charities that really do help the poor and the underpiviledged because they think it’s allah’s will, yet also think it’s allahs will to give money to terrorists to help support terror campaings who really truely, honestly believe that both of those things are right and good.
I don’t hold any position of authority in any party.. so if it makes you more comfortable you can write me off as lone nut-job and crawl back into your shell. Don’t forget to also write off the ex-muslim council of great britain and europe who basically say the same things, and get death threats and take their life in their hands for daring to speak up. Ask Theo Van Gogh who tried to expose much of this; ask denmark’s diplomats who were attacked and murdered over a cartoon… protests in london with muslims calling for murder, ask Salman Rushdie, I’ve never heard the MCB speak up for him.
Undercover mosque dared to speak the truth, to report what is really happening, and the police try to prosecute them. Hywel and Chris seem to be doing the same. Are we become that scared of muslims that we’d silence anyone that criticised it for fear of the backlash?
Since you obviously think i’m a bigot you probably won’t believe that I read muslim blogs. I actually read the blogs of moderate, decent, muslims that are thoroughly upset with the organisations that are supposed to represent them and resent that those organisations aren’t actually standing up for them and their values.
I want muslims to be able to live freely in this society, I want them to be able to go to their mosques and worship. I want them to be able to fly to the US without making the watch-list simply because of their name. I want them to not have to worry the police are going to shoot them in a tube station becaues they happen to have rucksack.
The reason they can’t is because the many many, muslim organisations in this country are not doing anything to help them. They should be making their positions crystal clear, they should be speaking up for the values of this country, the values that brought many of them here in the first place and the values that keep them here now, that allow them to live here with more freedom and tolerance and acceptance than they’d get in “islamic” countries.
Islam needs a revolution, a reformation. It needs muslims to stand up and accept that it has a problem, accept that it’s happening and take responsiblity for it and most of all take responsiblity for changing it, instead of brushing it under the carpet as fringe groups or not true islam.
The problem is that the few mulims that do speak up are drowned out by the organisations that are determined to walk a middle path that allows them to keep the vast sums of money they get from people like the saudis, who demand the hard line voice and ship iman’s over here to preach their message of hate, while not stepping too far off the path and actually breaking any laws.
They need to get muslims to believe that islam really isn’t about violence, if they don’t then how will anyone else believe it?
It might seems like an unfair burden, and it is, but muslims unfortunatly have to be seen to be whiter than white. They need to work hard to distance themselves from those countries and governments that claim to be true to the faith but have not a single value in common with us.
I don’t blame muslims for the terror, i don’t blame them for the actions of the few lunatics but I do blame muslim organisations for allowing the situation in this country to become as bad as it is, and worse for not appearing and seeming to appear to be doing anything about it.
The best solution is to have muslims and the muslim organisations sort this out, before we get to a situation where the public is so afraid of muslims that we’ll enact laws even more draconian and discriminatory than we already have.
How funny! I’m sure I used to say much the same when some almost any Christian group came up for grant funding at the city council. I also remember declaring an interest and absenting myself from the voting on a planning application by the local fundamentalist church of England branch on the grounds of their “bible believing” conviction that homosexuality was harmful, sinful or something similar.
I think I was applauded on both occasions. And I’m a Catholic too – the head of whose church regularly tells us poofters we’re going to hell with no dispensation, that we’re dangerous and that modern liberal democracy is a moraly relativist conspiracy. Hell, I’m sure I can still find a Catholic church in Oxford for Easter where I can go and blame the Jews for the murder of my saviour and hold each and every modern day Jew equally responsible if they do not convert.
So far as I can see the only thing Islam lacks in all of this is an over-riding doctrine of “he who is without sin” casting the first stone – but even that doesn’t seem to stop some “Christians.”
But the funniest thing is that this group, the Ahmadiyya Muslim Association, is itself regarded as apostate, it denies the concept of conversion by the sword, or the death (or any other) penalty for blasphemy or apostacy and they leave it up to a individual’s choice whether or not to wear any kind of veil and if so which style.
So yes, this Tory mayor has pandered to prejudice and stereotype in his email as this group clearly differs from his, and most others’, definition of muslim. He just may of course have saved his part of Dewsbury from some inter-muslim trouble by not entertaining a request from a group many feel is not muslim at all. I just hope he’s as rigourous in rooting out state funding of all other religious groups and that he’d be as dismissive of the Sally Anne if they ever turn up!
I’d not actually heard of Ahmadiyya Muslim Association before, possibly because they get drowned out by the major muslim organisations as I’ve been argueing all along, but I think I’m starting to like them.
I’ll need to keep an eye out for them, there’s hope yet it seems.
It sounds to me that they are the Muslim equivalent of the Mormons.
Really? I thought the 5 wives thing was mainstream Islam.
No! In the sense that most others claiming to be of the same religion don’t accept their claim to be one of them, and of being founded by a nineteenth century bloke somewhere far away from the cradle of the religion you claim to be a part of with some divine revelation that made him decide he was the reincarnation of Mohammed.
I’ve moderated a comment (and a response to it) as the original comment rather overstepped the mark in terms of personally abusing people the commenter disagreed with.
Here’s a handy hint by the way: personally insulting people you disagree with generally doesn’t make your point win the day 🙂
Mark Pack
Just out of interest, did you not see any need to moderate the following comment on this thread – just to pick one out of many?
“His comments are equivalent to saying that he sees no point dealing with Muslim groups while they continue to oppress women, demand the murder of gays and do nothing to discourage suicide bombers. Bit of a problem for Muslim groups, because they’d basically have to renounce their own holy book (or at least its interpretation) to accomplish that change; which is an insult to the prophet Mohammed.”
Chris Phillips
Chris: this is the site’s moderation policy (from the About Us page): “It is our policy that we will not remove or edit comments, other than in exceptional circumstances (eg, legal reasons), though we reserve the right to moderate abusive language and ‘trolls’ from other parties.”
The comment that was moderated was repeatedly personally abusive in its choice of nouns and adverbs.
Is Hywel Morgan some sort of Mad Mullah of the LibDem Taliban decreeing what can and can’t be said by members?
“Mad Mullah”? “Taliban”?
It’s interesting, isn’t it?
We’ve all agonised about how a civilised European country like Germany could have been seduced by anti-semitism in the 1930s.
But transpose the terminology, and it becomes apparent that exactly the same tactics are being used against the British Muslim community in the 2000s, and – irony of ironies – they are being used by some people who have the gall to describe themselves as Liberals. And even have the gall to say they would be willing to give their lives in the fight against prejudice!
I think the party should have no truck at all with this ugly prejudice. There should be no “freedom of speech” in this party for racist opinions, or for the expression of prejudice based on religion.
Chris Phillips
If I were to mention that I was born in Germany I’m sure Mr Phillips would take that as proof positive of his views of me. I’m not surprised that subject got dragged into this, far too much of the current situation has it’s parallels in the Germany of that time.
If anything I’ve agonised over what happened in Germany considerably more than I suspect he has, having relatives I know to be good people having been caught up in the popular sentiment of that time, unable themselves to understand why. Aside from the undoubted charisma of Germany’s leader of the time, for the most part I suspect because the groups that spoke for them didn’t actually reflect all of their views and they started to actually believe what those groups were saying was what they believed themselves, and not realising their beliefs were being compromised in the process. An imposition of beliefs from above.
I’ve had my background rubbed in often enough in this country, with its sometimes racist, anti-german tabloid comments and cartoons and the taunts of “two world wars and one world cup” (not to mention more even more offensive comments), still ringing in my ears from my days at school. The children no doubt voicing the views of their parents and maybe society as a whole; I doubt they evolved those view spontaneously.
One of the reasons I object so strongly to islam (and most other major religions) is because their rhetoric is no different to that of the 1940s Germany, in the case of a lot of islam, more so. The whole conversion by sword, death to dissenters, homophobes, the stifling of commentary on their views, working for extra privilege of those in their “party” etc.
If anything I feel for the Muslims and that’s why I am outraged at the continued antics of Muslim organisations (specifically the MCB, which is the largest and represents the most muslim organisations and hence the most Muslims) which sends out nothing but mixed signals about the Muslims of this country and their association with hate preachers and the other extremists (just look at recent comments made by the MCB on Sheikh Qaradawi, who has no problem glorifying terrorists as “martyrs for god”).
And until the majority of muslim organisations (as represented by the MCB) distance themselves (and hence their members) clearly and unequivocally from that rhetoric they will remain outcasts, and they shouldn’t be.
I doubt the majority of muslims in this country want anything to do with the hate preachers and the homophobes and the apostate killers, yet they are represented by organisations (specifcally the MCB), which do not clearly distance them from those sentiments.
I’ve apologised for my generalisation, and I will again. I also disagree with the attacks on Hywel Morgan, especially the one that was removed. I think Mr. Morgan was doing what he thought was right, and I can’t fault him for that; and he was right in so far as that I did over-generalise. I just happen to think Mr Morgan is speaking out against the wrong people.
cgp,
A perfect example of Godwin’s Law, well done!
But you should realise that comparing Britain in 2008 with Germany in the 1930s just won’t wash, not with intelligent people.
Hi, somewhat late in contributing to this debate, however here is some input (unofficial ofcourse) from a British Ahmadiyya Muslim.
I’m glad that the generalisations that were quite distasteful have been picked up for reasons already stated. I am also sorry to hear of MartinSGill tough childhood on account of his heritage.
As with all religions, there are divergent views in both the doctrinal and the historical sense. However, what has been in-directy picked up, (and rightly so) is that actions feed into perceptions. Indeed, many religious organisations, and there affiliates can claim to be torch bearers of liberty and justice, however in practice support illegimate governments and support abuse.
It is my firm belief that all true religions enjoin people to goodness, and any action contrary to this is not a reflection on a particular faith, it is simply the misguided or the mischievous distorting certain articles of faith for their own selfish ends.
What, perhaps, might inform this debate, and even MartinSGill’s views is that the Ahmadiyya Leadership are slightly puzzled as to this mayor’s comments, since we do not use government funds (we don’t need or feel it right to redirect funds of the British Taxpayer for our own religious affairs) for any internal initiatives or projects.
Secondly, the Mayors comments betrayed a high level of ignorance, regarding the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community, a community that has been in the UK since the Victorian era. It is not our words, which proclaim “love for all, hatred for none”, which make us a peaceable community, it is our actions. We fund and participate in numerous charitable causes raising hundreds of thousands of pounds every year, and engage in disaster relief work through our Charity Humanity First. It displays a very low level of sophistication on the part of the mayors team not have picked this up during his contact with us (if he had any regarding funding or otherwise).
Finally, a personal message to MartinSGill. I understand your opposition to Islam, based on your comments, however, the points you raise, with respect to women, gay-rights, terrorism, freedom-of-speech etc were probably rooted on the practices of Islam during it’s medieval period, not, say during the rule of Muslim Spain for example, where Muslim countries welcomed persecuted Jews from Europe.
If you wish to further enlighten yourself as to the Ahmadiyya Muslim view of the world go to our website http://www.alislam.org or just search in any of the major news papers (the times is the most recent).