Officials do nothing about Islamic hardliners at university for fear of “Islamophobia” charges

The Daily Mail, as ridiculous as ever, here quotes as an authority the dishonest and discreditedIslamic supremacist victimhood propagandist Fiyaz Mughal, and so the report must be taken with a considerable amount of skepticism — particularly Mughal’s claim that the Islamic hardliners at the University of Westminster are very particular regarding Sharia rules on dress but don’t teach hatred of Jews or gays, despite the fact that both hatreds are deeply embedded in the Qur’an and Sharia. However, the assertion that authorities do nothing for fear of being accused of “Islamophobia” — that certainly rings true. That’s the epitaph of contemporary Britain.

“Radical alert at Jihadi John’s university after report finds its Islamic students’ society is dominated by hardline believers,” by Daniel Martin, Daily Mail, September 20, 2015:

The Islamic students’ society at Jihadi John’s former university is dominated by hardline, ultra-conservative believers who refuse to even speak to female Muslim staff, a report has found.

But, despite this, a series of complaints about the University of Westminster Islamic society – many from Muslims – were ignored or underplayed over fears of appearing Islamophobic.

University officials tacitly tolerated a ‘sometimes hostile or intimidatory’ attitude to women on the campus, a situation the report criticised as ‘totally unacceptable’.

Islamic society committee members would refuse to engage with female Muslim staff, the study concludes, obliging these to seek help from male colleagues to communicate with the group.

Members of the society acted as ‘apostles of a self-contained faith, concerned very largely with matters of religious orthodoxy and perceived heresy’, according to the four-strong inquiry panel, who included the historian Lord Kenneth Morgan and Fiyaz Mughal, a former adviser to Nick Clegg on interfaith matters.

The study, revealed by The Guardian just days after David Cameron announced that higher education institutions would have a legal duty to stop extremists seeking to radicalise students, or speaking to single-gender audiences.

The University of Westminster commissioned the report into its balance between free speech and diversity in the wake of concerns about extremism on its campuses.

It emerged in February that the British Islamic State militant Mohammed Emwazi – known as Jihadi John – was a graduate of the university.

Mr Emwazi was named as the masked figure who appeared in a series of Isis videos in which British, US and other hostages were beheaded.

Following his identification, the Westminster Islamic society cancelled a planned address by Sheikh Haitham al-Haddad, a preacher who has reportedly described homosexuality as a scourge and a criminal act.

But a recording emerged of Haddad addressing a 2013 event at the university, in which he talked of a future in which Islam was dominant. He said: ‘Once we as Muslims become one of the superpowers of the world, justice will prevail. Everyone will enjoy the benefits of Islam.’

Mr Mughal, who now runs the Faith Matters thinktank, said the Islamic society could not necessarily be called extremist, as there was no evidence that its members fomented hatred, for example against Jewish or gay students.

However, he said, it appeared dominated by men espousing very conservative views on matters like correct dress and faith.

‘It’s not a breeding ground for extremism, but it’s a breeding ground for very ultra-conservative views,’ he said. ‘The question has to be asked, in a modern pluralistic society where information is changing the way we think rapidly, how is that healthy and how will those students be able to relate in the world we are in?’

He said that University of Westminster staff were doing the best they could to balance the competing needs of an institution with more than 150 nationalities among its 20,000 students, but had clearly made mistakes, notably in allowing the ‘far too divisive’ al-Haddad to speak.

The report found the university tended to be wary of taking action against a particular group for fear of seeming prejudiced. It said: ‘For example, the panel heard repeatedly that action over concerns about the conduct of the Islamic society had not been taken for fear of appearing Islamophobic.’…