Stop relying on the Brotherhood bogeyman 

In his heavily redacted government review, Sir John Jenkins claims that my organisation, the Muslim Council of Britain, is dominated by the Muslim Brotherhood. He repeats the claim in the Jewish Chronicle (Security will not be enough, February1), where he worries that the authorities might “reconsider the decisions by previous governments not to engage”.

My experience of the Muslim Council of Britain as a young volunteer for the last few years is very different. It is a broad-based, inclusive and cross-sectarian umbrella body representing Britain’s diverse Muslim communities. It campaigns for interfaith harmony (including the forthcoming Visit My Mosque Day on March 3), for the rights of women and for British Muslims to be equal and contributory participants to our society.

The Muslim Brotherhood bogeyman is used and abused by bigots and those eager to deny the right of Muslims to organise themselves on their own terms. Sadly, it is used also by those like Sir John who oppose the current proposed definition of Islamophobia.

We are told that our Jewish cousins should have the right to define antisemitism on their own terms. Why aren’t Muslims afforded the same opportunity in defining Islamophobia without being accused of following some phantom Muslim Brotherhood conspiracy?

I am quite clear where I stand as a Briton and a Muslim. I am sick and tired of having my loyalty to this country and motives questioned at every turn.

Hassan Joudi
Deputy Secretary General, 
Muslim Council of Britain

I agree with Sir John Jenkins that Islamism is an ideology that targets the foundations of Western society, even so-called moderate Islamism. 

Islamism (which is virulently antisemitic) calls for the implementation of sharia law and the establishment of a caliphate — with violence if necessary — and is based on a perverted interpretation of the Quran that threatens all the freedoms our liberal democracy stands for. It must be vigorously challenged by government,in schools and university campuses and by freedom-loving Muslims themselves — not indulged or negotiated with.

Stan Labovitch
Windsor

Essex chutzpah

In his attack on Ami Ayalon, Martin Rankoff (Letters, January 25) bemoans the fact that Israel’s withdrawal from Lebanon and Gaza has not brought security.

Perhaps Mr Rankoff knows that in the 18 years Israel occupied South Lebanon, more than 1500 Israelis were killed. In the 28 years since the withdrawal only a 10th of that number has perished. 

Far too many, but still far fewer than when Israel occupied the territory.

As for Gaza, during the last years of the physical occupation, an average of 25 Israelis were killed there. Since the unilateral withdrawal, very few Israelis have been hurt, let alone killed. Too many again, but that’s one of the consequences of acting unilaterally.

I note, and admire, however, Mr Rankoff’s chutzpah. While he is a deputy for an Essex synagogue, Mr Ayalon has been acting like a typical anti-Zionist by being commander of the Shayetet (Israel’s navy commandos), commander of the navy and head of the Shin Bet.

Revital Kochavi
London N12 

You don’t look Jewish

It was interesting to read of the number of Arthur Miller plays that are to be performed in London this year. Readers may not be aware that in addition to the many plays Arthur Miller wrote, he also published just one novel, Focus, which dealt directly with antisemitism.

The main character is a personnel manager in a large New York corporation.

At the beginning of the novel his eyesight deteriorates and he engages a young lady whom he does not realise is Jewish,  much to his employer’s annoyance. He then decides that he has to wear glasses.

The unexpected result is that he himself begins to “look Jewish” and  becomes a victim of antisemitism in the company, and is made to move to an office where fewer people will see him. Then things get worse.

It was later made into a film starring William H. Macy.

Michael Zaidner
Bushey Heath

Message from the Almighty

When I received a friendly rebuttal from Mr Baum (Letters, passim) of my assertion that the Exodus from Egypt was a good analogy, I wobbled a bit....

However talking to a Christian leader this weekend I got independent confirmation that it is actually a pretty good analogy of Brexit.

He said that, in his view, we are out of Egypt (the Referendum) and we are now at the Red Sea.

“Pharoah” is pursuing us and we Brexiteers are prone to being distressed.

The Almighty then gives Moshe a message and it is “Stand still and see the salvation of the Lord!”

Jeff Riches
Leeds

Israeli liver is better

Can an authority rationally explain how and why in Israel kosher butchers are permitted to sell fresh, succulent and gleaming chicken livers, while in the UK purveyors of kosher meat can sell only what can be described as half-cooked livers — chicken and ox — that has the unattractive appearance and inedible consistency akin to boot leather?

Leila Cumber 
Finchley N3 

Puntastic

Dr Stanley Jacobs (Letters, February 1) need not be so astonished at the young man seen keeping his shoes on while crouching on a food-laden table. Clearly, the young Chasid in question had faith in the purity of his sole.

Mike Fligg
Moortown, Leeds