The IEC's statement on Harrow Mosque

The ex-IEC Mohammed Kozbar wrote a letter to the Charity Commission (CC) on Harrow Mosque. This is my response to some of his remarks (I am in NO way associated with the Harrow Mosque Your Masjid team or any committee):

Contention 1 of Kozbar:
The 61 additional voters that were not on the membership register were allowed to vote in the elections because they produced a receipt and photo ID.

Refutation of contention 1:
The verification done by Kozbar was not sufficient. Just because a person has a receipt and proof of ID, it doesn't mean that the person was eligible to vote. Being eligible to vote is determined by being a member before the membership deadline. This is clear for anyone without bias.
Another critical flaw in Kozbar's methodology is that he or anyone else did not check that the 61 additional voters lived in the area which the constitution specifies as a criteria for valid membership and voting.
Furthermore receipts can be forged, or people can bring in the receipts of other family or friends and claim that it is their own. Thus again the receipts aren't sufficient proof for eligibility to vote.
Kozbar however admitted to trying to agree these receipts to the receipts of payment held by HCM but he couldn't agree them. He laid the blame on HCM being slow to provide the documentation and it not being in date order. However the slowness and lack of date order was not deliberate but was due to the large amount of members meaning that there was a large amount of documentation. Furthermore the documentation wasn't kept in order and is the reason why it wasn't presented in date order. It is not the job of HCM to do the IEC's work. It is the IEC's job to verify the membership.

Contention 2 of Kozbar:
Kozbar asks a question about why the 61 additional voters weren't on the membership list.

Refutation of contention 2:
Maybe the answer is because they weren't members.
Furthermore the HCM committee team was not involved in the election process. They also could not know who people will vote for. If they were to take people off, they would risk losing votes! Thus they couldn't have deliberately taken people off the membership list.

Contention 3 of Kozbar:
The key control to prevent 116 rejected voters was removed due to the temperature and the long queue reasons. Security only let people who were members in.

Refutation of contention 3:
Javed Kamal designed the election process and Kozbar was briefed on the process the night before. Due to Kozbar not knowing the full election process, he had checkpoint 1 (which was the key control to prevent 116 rejected voters) removed.
It is a fact from the event and witnesses that security was not checking that the people were members. That was neither their role nor their action. One wonders from where Kozbar managed to imagine that the security replaced the key control.
In fact if security was only allowing members to cast votes, then they would not have allowed the 61 additional voters in.
Furthermore the security staff were not given training on elections and thus were not qualified in the matter.

Contention 4 of Kozbar:
A member from the HCM Committee accepted the additional 61 voters.

Refutation of contention 4:
It is not the role of the HCM to accept or reject the additional voters on the day. That was the role, job and decision of the IEC.

Additional points:

Point 1
The IEC mentioned that the panel he appointed included Javed Kamal. In the AGM, Javed Kamal completely refuted the IEC on his CC letter.

Point 2
Why was the IEC having secret meetings with the living masjid/United Ummah team? (livingmasjid / unitedummah)
Wasn't he supposed to be independent?
Was he colluding?
http://livingmasjid.blogspot.co.uk/2015/01/collusion-in-harrow-mosque-elections.html
http://livingmasjid.blogspot.co.uk/2015/01/further-collusion-in-hcm-elections.html

Point 3
Why did the IEC not ban the living masjid team after clear offers of bribes by the living masjid group on their own facebook group? One example is seen here:
http://livingmasjid.blogspot.co.uk/2015/01/collusion-in-harrow-mosque-elections.html

Point 4
Kozbar closed his CC letter with the title "IEC of Harrow Mosque" on the 26th of January 2015. However he seized his role as IEC on the 13th of January 2015 and thus has no authority to claim to be an IEC of Harrow Mosque. One wonders why he has so obviously lied in the letter again?

Conclusion
It is concluded that the failure of the Harrow Mosque election process is heavily due to Mohammed Kozbar (the ex-IEC), his bias, and non-factual letter that he wrote to the CC. It is also significantly due to his letter that a lot of disputes were started by the living masjid group in the AGM, so it can be said that part of the quagmire that HCM is currently in is due to him. The ex-IEC should be held accountable for his grave errors and aggravation of the delicate situation.


Links:
The AGM where the living masjid group disrespected the Mosque is shown here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xq87JSn5aZM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EuxHNP8c9oY
And here is the living masjid group disrespecting Juma:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T8M0yet6x-g

I also posted some refutations of the living masjid election rigging in:
http://www.harrowtimes.co.uk/news/11765724.Row_over_mosque_elections/

However my comments were deleted for some reason. It seems like freedom of speech isn't possible.

Is the living masjid team wahabi?

Some people ask if the living masjid (LM)/"United Ummah" (UU) team that has tried to take over Harrow Mosque are wahabis?

The fact is summarised as follows:
The LM and UU team consists of a number of individuals. Many of them are wahabi, some are HT (Hizb ur tahrir) and some are unknown or Sunni.

Ask the LM and UU team the following questions:

1) Why are your members associated with wahabi institutes, for example Abid Khan- A full and well known wahabi who is part of Qiblah Foundation, a purely wahabi organisation with Yusuf Chambers.

2) Why do you have wahabis like Adnan Rashid and Yusuf Chambers supporting the livingmasjid team, and the livingmasjid (also called "United Ummah") twitter keeps posting on their wall and retweeting their messages? Adnan Rashid is the opposite of "openness" and "masjid4all" that the livingmasjid group keeps promoting.
For example:

3) Before the elections, the livingmasjid campaigners were sending texts and videos arguing that Harrow Mosque is "peeri", "doing shirk", etc. On the livingmasjid twitter, they promoted the video accusing Harrow Mosque of "shirk" (the video has been taken down since I exposed them a few days ago). Why did they do that if they're not wahabi? Such acts are the trademarks of wahabism.

4) They also openly supported the unauthorised wahabi sisters circle that was occurring in Harrow Mosque. When the Harrow Mosque Sunni committee asked the wahabi sisters leader to show her credentials, identity, obtain permission to teach in the Mosque and go through the proper permissions, she became rude, refused to cooperate and didn't go through the proper procedures of teaching. The livingmasjid team took her side and presented lies to support her case, falsely accused the committee of trying to ban sisters. Why did they support a wahabi teaching?

5) All the wahabi Mosques in the Harrow area were openly supporting the livingmasjid group. Why would wahabis support livingmasjid if they're not furthering the wahabi agenda? 

6) Why did livingmasjid condemn doing Mawlid in Harrow Mosque and accuse the Mosque of using donation money (even though the donations were given specifically for Mawlid)?

This all shows that the livingmasjid group is full of wahabis, no matter how much they may try to lie about that fact (this group has been known to lie, as also witnessed by some of the defections from their side). Whilst some may not be wahabi in the livingmasjid group, it is clear that the group is wahabi and has a wahabi agenda.