Dr. Daud Abdullah, deputy director-general of the Muslim Council of Britain has been found to have signed a public declaration authorising violence and war in the fight against enemy occupation of foreign navies in ‘Islamic waters’. One of those foreign navies just happens to be the British navy.

Is anyone surprised?

No not really. Dr. Abdullah is the second moderate muslim in as many months who has been linked to extremist behaviour.

Dr. Abdullah supports jihad against the British navy

At the centre of the declaration is a call for muslims to see “foreign warships into Muslim waters, claiming to control the borders and prevent the smuggling of arms to Gaza, as a declaration of war, a new occupation, sinful aggression, and a clear violation of the sovereignty of the Nation. This must be rejected and fought by all means and ways.”

The declaration states that“the closure of the crossings, or the prevention of the entry of weapons through them, should be regarded as high treason in the Islamic Nation, and clear support for the Zionist enemy.”

Given that Britain is one of the countries committing high treason against the Islamic Nation if the declaration is to be taken seriously, one can only wonder where Dr. Abdullah’s allegiance lies when he signs such a declaration.

The partially government funded Muslim Council of Britain states it’s objectives on it’s website as;


• To promote co-operation, consensus and unity on Muslim affairs in the UK

• To encourage and strengthen all existing efforts being made for the benefit of the Muslim community

• To work for a more enlightened appreciation of Islam and Muslims in wider society

• To establish a position for the Muslim community within British society that is fair and based on due rights

• To work for the eradication of disadvantages and forms of discrimination faced by Muslims

• To foster better community relations and work for the good of society as a whole

• To promote inter and extra faith dialogues in the promotion of tolerance and mutual respect in a diverse society.

Given that supporting jihad against your own countries navy would appear to be at odds with these aims, it isn’t surprising that there have been calls for Dr. Abdullah’s resignation. What I find myself asking is how did someone who supports this kind of extremism get to such a prominent position in a council with polar opposite views in the first place?

Again I turn to the Council’s website;

Every two years, the General Assembly, comprising delegates from all affiliated organisations, meets to elect members of the Central Working Committee (CWC); the decision making and oversight body of the MCB. Twenty-five delegates are elected as ‘national representatives’ and each zone elects one ‘zonal representative’. There are thus 37 elected members on the CWC.

he CWC elects three office-bearers and four auxiliaries for a two year-term. The office-bearers, those charged with leading the organization, are the Secretary General, the Deputy Secretary General and the Treasurer.

The obvious question here is that if a two stage voting process comprising of delegates from affiliated organisations of the council, and then a central working committee voting again to elect office bearers have failed to weed out extremists in the upper ranks what hope do non-muslims have in distinguishing extremist muslims from moderates in society?

David T. from Harry’s Place goes one step further;


The “moderate Muslim Brotherhood” thesis holds that, if only we “make nice” with the fluffier sort of Islamist, they’ll “make nice” with us. The actions of Abdullah, Sawalha and Ghannoushi show that the moment they’re in front of an Islamist audience, the talk immediately turns to jihad. If Britain disagrees – well, then we are fair game for them. There is no way to ride this tiger.

Not only are we facing an uphill battle in identifying extremists in society, but incidents like this utterly blur the line so of mutual tolerance and cast an unfortunate shadow on all islamic moderates. Following on from that, if Dr. Abdullah was elected by his peers, what are the chances they too potentially foster extremist views?

Instead of publicly condemning the actions of it’s deputy secretary-general and expelling a radical from within its ranks, the council has chosen stereotypical silence;


A spokesman for the MCB, which says it speaks for about 400 mosques and Muslim organisations, declined to comment. Abdullah did not respond to repeated requests for an interview.

It appears flag burning, public condemnation and street protests are only used when the west does something Islam doesn’t like. Even if we are to give Dr. Abdullah the benefit of the doubt in that he might not have read every obligation contained in the declaration he signed he himself has chosen not to clear his name. Probably until he’s had time to either resign himself or come up with a plausible excuse as to how his signature found it’s way onto the document.

I wonder at what point the government steps in and declares treason. Here we have a partially government funded organization’s deputy secretary-general signing documents in support of waging jihad against the navy of the country supporting it. Why is this tolerated in the UK?

Squashed asks the same question;


A UK leader advocating attacks on his own country’s navy if it tries to stop arms smuggling seems like a criminal (or near-criminal) incitation to violence

Whether it’s classified as treason or inciting violence I wholeheartedly agree that it definitely constitutes some kind of criminal action beyond ‘resign please, but only if you feel like it’.

If anyone tried to pull this sort of stuff in Australia there would be outrage. Sadly it appears that no matter how much time passes, how many bridges are mended and foundations of co-operation strengthened, radicals in the highest ranks of involved organisations are all too willing to throw their support behind the very type of extremist beliefs the foundations they are apart of are actively working against.