Is a senior Home Office ‘Prevent’ employee an Islamist?
This is a guest post by a Concerned Whistleblower
Asim Hafeez, the head of the ‘Prevent Interventions Unit’ at the Office of Security and Counter-Terrorism, has recently been profiled by Martin Bright of the Jewish Chronicle, who quoted Home Office officials as describing him as a ‘hardcore salafi’.
A number of Hafeez’s talks are available online which appear to not only back up Bright’s accusations but also to suggest that Hafeez might additionally be a hard-line Islamist who wishes to replace the British constitution with ‘the Quran and the Sunnah’.
One of the most alarming lectures available online is one called ‘Jesus in Islam’ which Hafeez gave in November 2008 to the Islamic Society of the University of Glamorgan.
Although most of the lecture is devoted to attacking Christian beliefs, which is troubling enough in itself, the most alarming part occurs towards the end of the talk (from 05:45 onwards) when he tells his audience:
“Why is it taking such a long time to show the beauty of the message of al-Islam? Because we are not practicing Islam as it is meant to be practiced. In lecture which I gave to a humanist society, which I was mentioning to some brothers earlier, all of them were shocked by this, [they said]: ‘You are giving us this picture of Islam and we don’t see it anywhere in the world’. And I can’t turn around and say, ‘Yes it is prevalent in every Muslim country’ because it’s not, because we’ve drifted from the Quran and the Sunnah. We’ve left our deen [religion] behind us and adopted ’-isms’, communism, capitalism, bengalism, pakistanism, Saudi-ism, whatever-isms’, nationalism. Hizbiya and Asabiyya. We’ve adopted them instead of the Quran and the Sunnah as our constitution. This is the problem.”
Let’s un-pack this and see what Asim Hafeez saying.
Hafeez initially says ‘we are not practicing Islam as it is meant to be practiced’ and that Muslims have drifted ‘from the Quran and Sunnah’. While such phrases are widely used by Muslims of all persuasions in order to give a religious hue to their respective causes, the context that is provided by Hafeez’s following sentences makes this platitude a rather greater matter of concern.
In particularly, Hafeez goes on to say this reliance ‘on the Quran and Sunnah’ has been replaced by belief in a range of different ideologies and specifically Hizbiya which means party-ism and Asabiyya means roughly nationalism or patriotism, such the ‘Bengalism’ and ‘Pakistanism’ which he references.
This raises some important questions.
Why does Hafeez believe that adopting ideas like capitalism equate to leaving ‘our deen behind us? Likewise, why is a person who apparently rejects the concept of nationalism and patriotism, working in a government department which is explicitly aiming to strengthen the identification of British people who are Muslim with the UK and its institutions?
It gets worse, however, when Hafeez says that ‘We’ve adopted them instead of the Quran and the Sunnah as our constitution.’
This phrase is, of course, an exact echo of the Muslim Brotherhood’s famous slogan: ‘The Quran is our constitution’.
What is a British government employee, especially one who is head of a key counter-extremism programme, doing lecturing Muslim students using the words and slogans of the hard-line Islamist groups like the Muslim Brotherhood?
And, most importantly of all, what does a British Muslim like Hafeez mean who he tells other British Muslims that ‘We’ve adopted them instead of the Quran and the Sunnah as our constitution. This is the problem’?
Is Hafeez talking about the British constitution (such as it is)? Does he think that the British constitutional arrangement should be replaced with ‘the Quran and the Sunnah’? If not, then which constitution is he talking about when he says ‘our constitution’?
This all raises a bigger question, however, which is why has a ‘hardcore salafi’ like Asim Hafeez been made head of the Home Office’s ‘Interventions Unit’, a unit which was specifically created to identify Islamist individual and groups and find ways to challenge their Islamist ideology – when he appears to have himself preached the very same ideology on British university campuses?
Comments
| 26 November 2009, 3:34 pm |
Yes, it does seem as if he is a Muslim, but at least that’s now been exposed.
| 26 November 2009, 3:35 pm |
My God why is this freak not sacked. They may as well employ Bin Laden in community cohesion.
| 26 November 2009, 3:39 pm |
Even if they recognised the problem, who in a government department under Labour would dare mention it? Accusations of racism and immediate career termination would swiftly follow. Similar concerns probably allowed the Fort Hood massacre because in many Western institutions discussion of some subjects has become taboo.
B
| 26 November 2009, 3:39 pm |
Are all Muslims are the same to you, Blanked?
You seem unable to distinguish between an outright theocrat like Hafeez and the vast majority of democratic UK Muslims.
Some might say that’s a slightly racist attitude.
| 26 November 2009, 3:42 pm |
Mark,
Sorry to be a pedant but Islam is a religion, not a race. Its adherents come from many races. Comments about Islam and Muslims cannot therefore be racist per se.
B
| 26 November 2009, 3:43 pm |
This all raises a bigger question, however, which is why has a ‘hardcore salafi’ like Asim Hafeez been made head of the Home Office’s ‘Interventions Unit’
Possibly because, when the government decided that Muslims were a “community” who needed reaching out to after four of their co-religionists blew themselves up on London’s transport system, most ordinary Muslims were too busy having a life to want to get involved. This left the self-appointed “community leaders” and professional whiners to fill the void, some of whom (some? Maybe most) were Islamists, seeing an opportunity to slither into the heart of the British establishment.
These kind of exposes are so common nowadays, it surprises me when a Muslim government adviser ISN’T an Islamist
| 26 November 2009, 3:47 pm |
‘Although most of the lecture is devoted to attacking Christian beliefs’
Hardly ‘attacking’, sounded like a reasonable take on the trinity.
| 26 November 2009, 3:49 pm |
Barad, granted – perhaps I should have chosen the word ‘bigoted’ instead.
I would still maintain that racists can and do object to Islam for racist reasons, not theological ones.
| 26 November 2009, 3:52 pm |
When will we be having a night of the Long Knives? Why do we roll-over for 3% of the population? Why do we work with people who seem to prefer their own theocracy to our democracy?
Why don’t the go and find what they are looking for elsewhere rather than try and work for those changes to our Judaeo-Christian society?
| 26 November 2009, 3:55 pm |
Shared values
The Government is committed to promoting cohesion and our shared values more clearly and strongly across society. The Government regards the promotion of shared values – including fairness, respect and tolerance, democracy and the rule of law – as a key element of building strong, empowered and resilient communities; tackling all forms of hate crime; and promoting equal opportunities.
From the Home Office’s ‘Prevent’ strategy guidance, here.
It would be interesting to know where Hafeez stands on these criteria – I’m thinking particularly of the promotion of ’shared values’ like respect, tolerance and democracy.
| 26 November 2009, 4:08 pm |
guys– I think you’ve done a lot of good work pointing out the growth of communalist politics and the disreputable roots of the MCB.
But this textual analysis of this guys speech sounds like a lot of paranoid hooey. Maybe the guy is an Islamist nutter? Here though he is just very boring.
| 26 November 2009, 4:09 pm |
I’m expecting to read tomorrow that Hafeez has been dismissed from his post. Or has the Labour leadership become clinically insane?
| 26 November 2009, 4:52 pm |
I want you to consider someone who is employed (I am not certain if this is paid or voluntary work) by the Office of Security and Counter-Terrorism who lectures against Islam and core Islamic belief. How long do you suppose she or he would remain ‘on the strength’? I would be grateful if someone could furnish me with a detailed example.
I come to Harry’s Place and each and every day (so it seems) I learn about yet another Islamic adviser, insider, consultant or some such who has been embraced by government or an arm of government only to be exposed as a propagandist or errand boy for intolerance.
How many of these people are there advising government? What, incidentally, is their advice? Can the public know of it?
I am one very fed up life long Labour voter who is going to write to the party about this and demand action to remove people who have clearly and unequivocally distanced themselves from the open society.
| 26 November 2009, 5:06 pm |
Another sacking in the offing, courtesy of Harrys Place – responsible for more job losses than the recession
Keep up the great work!
| 26 November 2009, 5:18 pm |
Larkers,
very well put.
| 26 November 2009, 5:26 pm |
Mark T
“I would still maintain that racists can and do object to Islam for racist reasons,not theological ones.”
I object to Islam,and I am not a racist (white supreamacist).
I do it in the same way that I would object to 14th century Christianity.I believe that both are totally incompatible with modern western democracy and human rights.
I criticise Islam in the same way that if I were a soldier in the trenches in WW2,and the enemy is charging towards me,I don’t get infatuated with some hedonistic indulgence as to not all Germans are nasty chaps.Infact some of them are just obeying orders,so I’ll have to make sure before firing my rifle that I dont hit any “innocent ” Germans.
One would be bound to get killed.The best favour one can do for ones own society and Muslims,is to treat the entire religion with contempt,becáuse it has strived so much to earn it.
On the other hand if you wish to continue humouring it as one would as lunatic in a mental institution–be my guest.
All that your “racíst”comment does is paralyse a healthy abhorance to Islam,which is “surpreamacist”to its core.In might well be in the noble,honourable interest of sporting fair play and tolerance,but I believe it to be be an obssesive compulsion with “Nuance”,to a suicidal degree.
Apparently,western civilization is expected to be so invunerable and omnipotent that we can afford to treat Muslims on a case by case individual basis.
We have indoctrinated ourselves into believing we have the resouces to deal with each threat with some kind of surgical smart weapon that will target no more than the indivdual in question,while leaving the surroundings unscathed.
This is where the racism of “lower expectations “comes into play.
The subliminal message,is that Muslims are children and not responsible for being Muslims.And “Muslim”is not a “uniform”declaring where ones alligance lies.
In other words,total lack of responsibilty for being a member of the Islamic “club”is granted.As if one could somehow by means of mental acrobatics,divorce any connection between Muslims and Islam.One of the most famous “cliches of desperation”being “Islam is not a Monolith”.Repeat phrase/dose.–when required.
One day,you may have to decide between democracy or your “anti-racism “.
Otherwise known as, “miserable options”.And guess who gave birth to these impending miserable options that await us.I suggest it was the denial of tribal,cultural,national,traditional natural human instinct to be surrounded by commmon shared,understood norms and values,justified by the “tyranny of western anti-racist dogma”
This all pervading dogma is a “unillateral European cultural disarmament”,that few other cultures would be ignorant enough to permit themselves to be suicidally mesmerised by.
It is a “meme”.A ” mind virus.But we can’t see it,because we are inside it.
The last remake of “Invasion of the Body Snatchers”.We need to force people who use the expression “racist”at every available opportunity to explain “their ” definiton of the word.And suggest other “culturist”as a possible alternative.
Although I’m smart enough to predict that the Campus Radical Left,will say”—Ahhh nah,nah….thats just dressing “racism”up in fancy garb,to legitimize it “.
So around and around in circles we go.Campus radical left multicultural surgical nuanced tolerance,should be seen for what it is.It is a dedicated,unswervable,ideological fanatacism.And as Churchill said “You cannot reason with a fanatic.you can only disagree with him”.
We must now consider the insidious,incremental Islamification and Sharia Compliance of the West,as the full and total responsibility of Marxist,Leftist,Fabian,Governing Elite in their corrupt mercenary quest for power.
“Those whom the Gods wish to destroy,they first make mad”.
| 26 November 2009, 5:42 pm |
One of the more famous bon mots from the the german student movement
is Rudi Dutchke’s ‘Lange Marsch durch die Institutionen’ ( originates from Gramsci) , could be that the islamists has learned some from the new left.
And the institutions has learned/changed some since, in the seventies it was unthinkable that that anyone with associations with the left could have got a job like hafeez’s.
| 26 November 2009, 6:01 pm |
Niels C
Looks like Daniel Cohn Bendit long-marched all the way from the barricades on the streets of Paris, through the institutions to the top of the E.U-Commision.
| 26 November 2009, 8:18 pm |
It pays to be a thug then, eh, journeyman?
| 26 November 2009, 8:20 pm |
Mesquito, this government has been fucked up for years. It’s a fucking nightmare. But one thing it is NOT is ‘Labour’.
| 26 November 2009, 8:44 pm |
Gordon Bennet
“It pays to be a thug then,eh,journeyman?”
Your (reply)is ,I’m afraid,not self-explainatory.
It has come to my attention that the (left)have a cowardly,lazy habit of coming out with “supposed decimating one-liners”in response to my and other peoples considerably more extensive and demanding attempts to argue the case.
It is literally a trade mark of poly-tech,intellectuality.And all to easy to drive by snipe,and fuck off,never to be heard of again.
Are you a fan of Daniel Cohen Bendit perhaps?
| 27 November 2009, 12:54 am |
I think history will judge very harshly New Labour’s devil’s dealings with Islamists in an attempt to secure votes. People will look back and ask why a supposedly progressive, secular, liberalish party courted and even hired people who were so clearly not merely religious conservatives but actual religious extremists and even supporters of terrorism who were completely at odds with the government claimed to stand for, and certianly against the democratic values of this nation.
If there is a happier climate for social cohesion in this country in, say, forty years time, it will have been not because of but greatly despite the cynical, cowardly and stupid ’strategies’ of Brown, Balls, Denham and co.
| 27 November 2009, 7:11 am |
Larkers @ 26 November 2009, 4:52 pm
“I am one very fed up life long Labour voter who is going to write to the party about this and demand action to remove people who have clearly and unequivocally distanced themselves from the open society.”
You’d be better off writing to the Permanent Secretary of the relevant Government Department. Ministers don’t hire & fire Civil Servants. You know, in the same way that Ministers don’t hire & fire Superintendents of Police or Majors in the Army.
| 27 November 2009, 10:12 am |
“You’d be better off writing to the Permanent Secretary of the relevant Government Department.” – Alan Ji 27th November 7.11 p.m.
I am having difficulty posting and this is a re-post which must be brief.
This is a political matter. My vote is not going to support inflitration by extremists.
Best Wishes.
P.S. journeyman. You made a good point and well. Ignore the weasels.
| 27 November 2009, 12:58 pm |
Your government is completely fucked up in its priorities and strategies in dealing with its muslim ‘problems’.
It fetes and funds the crazy and dangerous elements like the MCB and amazingly, even the Hizbi school (all too often represented by swaggering macho figures) and cuts off crucial funding to the organisations doing truly valuable work aiding the most vulnerable muslims, which turn out to be, unsurprisingly, women’s groups like IkWRO helping other muslim women and children at risk of forced marriage, domestic violence and honour killing. Yours is a government that ‘respects’ lodmouth fundamentalists and rewards extremism and violence. It regards people as Hafeez as the normal, default muslim with whom it can do business.
Read this :
And after gnashing your teeth, at least sign and circulate the petition :
| 27 November 2009, 9:59 pm |
University of Glamorgan,is that on a par with the university of my grandad’s cabbage patch?
On a lighter note,I am reminded of the days at the height of the cold war when our
saturday high streets were populated by cretins selling ‘Socialist Worker’.When asked why the communist bloc wasn’t performing as well as the free world,I was told on many occassions that this was due to the fact that they had never really embraced true communism.
How about The University Of Bloxwich?
| 28 November 2009, 11:54 am |
Felix,
the Labour leadership has been clinically insane for years. You can’t really think that Brown, Mandelson, Straw and Harman are sane, can you?
journeyman,
don’t talk such rot. I am as far from being a fan of Bendit-Cohen as it is possible to be, and I have never had anything to do with polytechnical leftism.
I do, in fact, agree with your post of 26.11, 5:26.
| 28 November 2009, 11:55 am |
Stanislaw,
These people have quite literally betrayed this country for sleazy reasons, namely personal advancement.
| 29 November 2009, 12:15 am |
Gordon Bennet
28 November 2009, 11:55 am
Stanislaw,
These people have quite literally betrayed this country for sleazy reasons, namely personal advancement.
———–
I would agree with that summary.
I don’t know how we stop the next government doing it. They will, if they possibly can.
| 29 November 2009, 3:18 pm |
Is this video the only “evidence” of Hafeez being a “hardcore salafi” or “hardcore Islamist”? It does indeed portray Hafeez in an Islamist light, though Bright doesn’t present anything to support this description of Hafeez other than citing another (yet unnamed) Muslim “adviser”. Don’t we have any other source on this man?
| 29 November 2009, 6:32 pm |
Larkers @ 27 November 2009, 10:12 am
“This is a political matter. My vote is not going to support inflitration by extremists.”
Indeed it isn’t however or whether you cast it.
Civil Service recruitment and promition is every bit as arms length from Ministers as Police recruitment and promotion. Its the Civil Service management you need to influence; that does not include Ministers.
In terms of dubious infiltration of political parties, your concerns would be better addressed to Conservatives and even more to Liberal Democrats. They don’t even expect their members to give a genuine address.
Your government is seriously fucked up. But at least it’s Labour.