Muslim officer removed from guard duty -paper

[Isma'el]

LONDON (Reuters) - A Muslim firearms officer is taking legal action against the police after he was removed from a squad that guards senior officials, including Prime Minister Tony Blair, the Independent newspaper said on Tuesday.

A police spokeswoman confirmed that the Metropolitan Police had been notified of an employment tribunal claim by a policeman "alleging discrimination on the grounds of race and religious belief". She

Advertisement
declined to comment further.
The Independent said Amjad Farooq, 39, was told in 2003 he was a threat to national security because two of his five children -- then aged 9 and 11 -- had gone to a mosque associated with a suspected extremist group.

It said he was also told by colleagues that his presence on the protection squad might concern U.S. security officials if he was posted outside the U.S. embassy in London.

Farooq, who denied any extremist links or inappropriate behaviour, was transferred to a constabulary in west London.

His lawyer, Lawrence Davies, told the newspaper: "Muslims are labelled guilty by association. Doubt is insufficient to save them

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/07112006/32...uty-paper.html

[IzakHalevas]

If his sons are alleged to be having contact with an extremist group, it is something the goverment of any nation will of course look into. The man is probably innocent, but gaurding the highest official in the land requires 100% proof that the man has no extremist ties, or has any ill feelings towards the man. Not the other way around of needing 100% evidence.

[united]

his sons were 9 and 11.

[Bittersteel]

*rolling on the floor laughing*

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up

[IzakHalevas]

his sons were 9 and 11.

I realize, but if sons so young are getting involved in these groups then their must be surveillance. Are you really naive enough to believe that terrorists only target kids when they become adults? If so then you have a lot to learn about the recruitment of teens into extremists groups in all circles.

[GARY]

If his sons are alleged to be having contact with an extremist group, it is something the goverment of any nation will of course look into. The man is probably innocent, but gaurding the highest official in the land requires 100% proof that the man has no extremist ties, or has any ill feelings towards the man. Not the other way around of needing 100% evidence.

IzakHalevas is right about this point.
When it comes to heads of state, there is no room for concern for hurt feelings. There isn't a country in the world that wouldn't have handled it the same. What if the situation were similiar in say, Saudi Arabia, or Iran, do you think that the officer would even have the right to question his removal?

[mohammed farah]

come on, how can kids be terrorist theyre only 9 and 11 for heaven sake

[Trumble]

come on, how can kids be terrorist theyre only 9 and 11 for heaven sake

That's not the point. Nobody is saying the kids are terrorists, but why did they go to that particular mosque? Did whoever went with them have any extremist connection? Does whoever that was have any influence over the Officer concerned?

Yes, it's almost certain the whole thing was entirely innocent, but as Gary said from that particular role the Officer would be moved even if there was the slightest potential of anything even vaguely suspicious. There is simply no room for any sort of 'doubt', and you will find exactly the same would happen anywhere else in the world.

[syilla]

there is a mosque for terrorists? :rolleyes:

[Dawud_uk]

assalaamu alaykum,

to the non muslims peace be upon those who follow righteous guidence,

to the non-muslims here what is an extremist mosque? for example i know my own mosque is watched and is judged to be extremist because we have helped organise anti war demonstations, is this extreme?

the tablieghi jammat, an organisation that is almost pacifist and misinterprets the verses on going in the path of Allah, i.e Jihad and other acts rewardable and pleasing to Allah to mean exclusively doing their style of islamic propogation... and this islamic propogation only targetting existing muslims not non muslims.

now what is an extremist and what is an ok muslim?

because i will tell you about 40 or 50% of the Mosques in the UK anre tableighi jammat and yet they are called extremist so you see why we think this is a load of crap about his kids attending a mosque run by extremists?

assalaamu alaykum,

peace be upon those who follow righteous guidence,

Abu Abdullah

[InToTheRain]

As a muslim, I wouldn't do the Job anyway. Why should I guard these individuals who have supported the unjustified war against Iraq and The killing of Civillians by Israel?

I don't know why the brother is complaining, good riddance.

[Dawud_uk]

As a muslim, I wouldn't do the Job anyway. Why should I guard these individuals who have supported the unjustified war against Iraq and The killing of Civillians by Israel?

I don't know why the brother is complaining, good riddance.

assalaamu alaykum,

good point,

i once thought of joining the police and in principle their job is a good one for a muslim given that it means you can enjoin the good and forbid the evil on large scale but there are some parts of it i would not touch like this.

assalaamu alaykum,
Abu Abdullah

[Umar001]

Assalamu Aleykum,

Why do I feel so 'intolerant' as in, erm, I dont know, I mean why do we as muslims expect people to abide with our standard of moral conduct, the goverments are not the caliphs who didnt just act on suspicion, they are not muslims who believe what Allah wills will happen.

of course they would worry, and of course if they find or have a suspicion that a guard as any links to terrorist they would not keep that guard to look after vips.

I dont get it, is it not a logical thing?

Isnt it like if yo had a baby sitter, and you hear that he or she had previous accusations of child molestation, would yall seriously allow that baby sitter to look after your kids? You'd investigate before letting him or her come back.

Plus, Im saying all the above assuming that the people on top have got good information about this guy and taht its not just discrimination, if its jus discrimination then, thats wrong,

and I hope brother Farooq manages to do well and be happy inshaAllah and I hope his family will not be put in any pain or sorrow. Ameen

[aamirsaab]

:sl:
"The Independent said Amjad Farooq, 39, was told in 2003 he was a threat to national security because two of his five children -- then aged 9 and 11 -- had gone to a mosque associated with a suspected extremist group."
Association can mean many things. It could mean that another local of that masjid new someone who knew an associate of a suspected extremist group; a direct link hasn't even been proven yet so there's no reason for everyone to jump.
In fact, the last 5 or so words that I quoted could have so many alternative meanings: "suspected extremist group" - suspected means they don't have proof, but merely concern. And in anycase, why would Mr Farooq be a threat to national security? Oh yes, i forgot guilt by association aka take as many muslims out at the same time.

I don't know why I'm even bothering explaining this, it'll only fall on deaf ears (it's done so many times in the past, so forgive me If I sound a tad bit pessimistic!).
"Look, there's a muslim extremist on your ceiling"...gullible fool.

[Umar001]

:sl:
"The Independent said Amjad Farooq, 39, was told in 2003 he was a threat to national security because two of his five children -- then aged 9 and 11 -- had gone to a mosque associated with a suspected extremist group."
Association can mean many things. It could mean that another local of that masjid new someone who knew an associate of a suspected extremist group; a direct link hasn't even been proven yet so there's no reason for everyone to jump.
In fact, the last 5 or so words that I quoted could have so many alternative meanings: "suspected extremist group" - suspected means they don't have proof, but merely concern. And in anycase, why would Mr Farooq be a threat to national security? Oh yes, i forgot guilt by association aka take as many muslims out at the same time.

I don't know why I'm even bothering explaining this, it'll only fall on deaf ears (it's done so many times in the past, so forgive me If I sound a tad bit pessimistic!).
"Look, there's a muslim extremist on your ceiling"...gullible fool.

If you heard your baby sitter had suspect affiliation with peadophiles would you let her look after your children?

[aamirsaab]

:sl:

If you heard your baby sitter had suspect affiliation with peadophiles would you let her look after your children?

Though, this is not the most comparable situation, I'd certainly investigate the claim where I in that situation. Though, i'd have no intention of using a baby sitter, my sister or wife (inshallah!) would be perfectly capable of handling that job. Hearsay evidence is not evidence at all.

[Umar001]

:sl:

Though, this is not the most comparable situation,

Lol sorry only one I could think of

I'd certainly investigate the claim where I in that situation.

Ok, so you'd investigate, lets say I told you know she was a pedophile or that she had been seen accused to have been a pedophile camp or something. Would you allow her to look after your children tonight? you'd investigate now and later but you dont find a conclusion, would you let her look after your kids that night?

[aamirsaab]

:sl:

Lol sorry only one I could think of

For the sake of hypotheticality, i'll let it slip just this once :p.

Ok, so you'd investigate, lets say I told you know she was a pedophile or that she had been seen accused to have been a pedophile camp or something. Would you allow her to look after your children tonight? you'd investigate now and later but you dont find a conclusion, would you let her look after your kids that night?

In which case, i'd take the kids with me :). I'm not a fool and i'm not a gullible fool either. This action would only be taken were I given that additional information and only done for the sake of my children.

However, with the original article, it is the father who is being associated with guilt because his children were the ones who visited the masjid, so the context is very different to that of bro IsaAbdullah's hypothetical question. (This explanation is merely for clarifcation purposes. You may continue with the thread)

[Umar001]

However, with the original article, it is the father who is being associated with guilt because his children were the ones who visited the masjid, so the context is very different to that of bro IsaAbdullah's hypothetical question. (This explanation is merely for clarifcation purposes. You may continue with the thread)

Yes but the children were of young age, and who is responsible for where they go to learn or pray or what ever? the father.

The place where the children attend is the place the father chose.

If my children attended a Christian school I would be the one who would have put them there.

We choose what masjids to go to, if theres a divient sect masjid, we are the ones that choose not to go there because we might learn something bad, if theres a good masjid we choose to go there because we tend to agree with alot of the stuff.

Similarly if someone sends their kids to a masjid, and then it is shown that the masjid MIGHT have links with terrorism, then maybe the father knew about the links maybe he didnt, we dont know, but we dont want to take the risk.

also, if there was a chld minder who himself chose to go to houses, and then we hear that the houses he went to had links with peadpophiles then it is only common sense that we would FIRST investigate whilst not allowing the child minder to look after the kids then when we finish the investigation we either let him back with the kids or not.

Noone would jus let their kid be alone with someone who is suspected of going to houses/learning places that might have an affiliation with peadophiles.

Just as noone would let a man who chose a school for his kids which might have affiliations with terrorism, look after them as abody guard.

[Dawud_uk]

once again people are believing the kuffar as to what is extreme, what is acceptable, who are they to tell us our deen?

sorry when someone views TJ as extreme then they know nothing of islam and to continue the same analogy used here are in the terroritory of those idiots a couple of years ago who attacked a women's house because they had heard she was a paeditrition...

assalaamu alaykum,
Abu Abdullah

[Muezzin]

This situation is reminiscent of that Lebanese dude who requested to be transferred from guarding the Israeli officials. However, in that case Muslims were by and large on the police officer's side for requesting a transfer while just about everyone else was against him. In this case, the Muslim officer has not actively done anything - rather something was done to him. Hmm. This isn't to drive the topic off on a tangent, it's just an observation. History (kind of) repeated itself dang quick.

[aamirsaab]

:sl:

Noone would jus let their kid be alone with someone who is suspected of going to houses/learning places that might have an affiliation with peadophiles.

Just as noone would let a man who chose a school for his kids which might have affiliations with terrorism, look after them as abody guard.

However, with Mr farooq's case, in which he is not part of any organisation but his children are allegedly, he and his family are being moved (effectively, he's losing his job). With your hypothetical question, the father of the children isn't losing his job, the baby sitter is (and only the baby sitter, not anyone associated with her/him).
As I stated earlier, the hypothetical question wasn't comparable to the real event: two different situations. Though, I fully understand both of them.