Clemency suggests

Email registration

Free weekly email update

Great products and special offers for Spectator readers

Click here for great value reader offers and events

Click here for the latest Spectator Wine Offers

The Spectator's notes

Charles Moore

Wednesday, 31st October 2007

Charles Moore's thoughts on the week

This week, Policy Exchange, of which I am the chairman, produced a survey, ‘The Hijacking of British Islam’, of literature found on the premises of more than 100 mosques. In about a quarter of the mosques, often ‘mainstream’ ones, some blessed by a visit from the Prince of Wales, the researchers found what could fairly be described as ‘hate’ literature — books with titles like Women Who Will Go to Hell (for, among another things, cutting their hair short), invitations to kill anyone who abandoned the Islamic faith, attacks on Jews, etc. Much of this material, about half of it published in English, comes from Saudi Arabia, whose King Abdullah has been having a rather edgy state visit here this week. The Muslim Council of Britain, the official umbrella organisation, says that the Policy Exchange report is ‘futile’ and ‘plumbs the depths’. The publications criticised are not illegal, it says. Sir Iqbal Sacranie, the MCB’s former boss, says, ‘These texts can be found not just in mosques, but in ordinary bookshops.’ I am struck by how strange these defences are. What is ‘futile’ about surveying such material, and why is it, even if true, a sufficient answer to objections to claim that the material is not against the law? Why is the fact that you can get this stuff outside mosques a justification for selling it inside? Suppose, by analogy, that Church bookshops were found to be selling literature that said it is a good thing to kill Christians who left the faith, or to hate all Muslims or Jews or to throw homosexuals off cliffs, would Church House or the Cardinal Archbishop of Westminster even attempt such defences, let alone get away with them? Another defence offered is that mosques are not always responsible for what is sold or handed out on their premises, but allow a sort of free-for-all. Why is this so? Does it not concern the MCB that such horrible things find sanctuary under a religious roof? ‘The MCB does not tolerate any messages of hate,’ it says on its website; yet that is precisely what is happening, and precisely what the MCB defends, saying it is the ‘pioneer in creating a space for the many rich traditions of Islam’.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 Next page