My Roman Empire: Meghan Markle, The HJS, and the Article That Shouldn't Have Been Published P2

The Answers to My Questions About the 2018 Meghan Markle Telegraph Article

(If you missed part 1, go back and read here)

If I told November 2022 me that I would receive a series of direct messages from The Telegraph associate editor, Camilla Tominey, in December 2023, younger Meredith probably would have replied, “I don’t know her” (a la the Mariah Carey gif) followed up with, “what have you gotten us into now?”

After a series of events led Camilla Tominey to engage with a commenter on an Instagram video I made about two of her Telegraph commentaries that showed clear unconscious biases, I decided to shoot my shot and ask her the question I had been dying to ask—and failed up to that point to get a response—since I first read her Meghan Cookbook Mosque article: What research from the HJS was the basis of that November 2018 piece?

Ahh, all of us “uninhibited, overconfident American(s)”

A few hours later, the answer was in my inbox.

Well…kind of.

First, she told me the information wasn’t from extremist David Vance, who took credit for the article on Twitter. On that we agree. It always seemed like the attempt of a man on the outskirts to take credit for a woman’s mainstream work. But, if a far right ideologue is co-signing you, perhaps that’s something to reflect on. She followed up with that, upon viewing the video of Imam Samer Darwish preaching, she felt the sermon wasn’t compatible with, “Meghan’s women’s empowerment agenda.” Ah, there’s the real angle of the piece. After inquiring again about the research, she replied that she asked the HJS for whatever they had on Al Maanar. Oh.

It was bleaker then I originally imagined.

Image Source: The Telegraph

I’ve come back again and again to whether this was intellectually lazy journalism, purposefully misleading or designed to advance anti-immigrant sentiment post-Brexit. Maybe it’s a combo. Either way, an article determined to show the Duchess of Sussexes feminist hypocrisy ended up blanketing victims of a horrible tragedy as linked to terrorism, along with the kitchen located in a Mosque/Community Centre they cooked from.

This article attempts to make two main arguments that it correctly predicts its readers will gobble right up, already accustomed to gluttonous meals of terrorism served up alongside anti-immigration, pro-Brexit feelings, racism, and an opportunity to find yet another thing wrong with a Black, American-born Duchess. The first argument is that there are established links between Al Maanar, terrorists and, while not explicitly stated, the women of Hubb Community Kitchen. The second argument is that one of the Imam’s of Al Manaar made comments on a YouTube channel that reflected poorly on Meghan Markle. These are tenuous arguments and if you gently tug on any one thread, the whole thing quickly unravels.

Let’s pull some threads, shall we?

Al Manaar | The Muslim Cultural Heritage Centre Facts

It cannot be overstated that Meghan was volunteering with Hubb Community Kitchen, who were using the centre’s kitchen twice a week. So, while Dr. Alan Mendoza, Executive Director of the HJS, is quoted in the article stating a simple google search would have highlighted concerns about the mosque and halted this poorly advised venture, the same reasoning could be applied to the article itself.

A simple google search, or a 5 mile trek to the centre from The Telegraph’s Victoria, London offices, would have showed that Al Manaar is a massive mosque AND cultural center. Also, that the kitchen and the mosque have separate entrances.

Al Maanar

The white arrow points to a side entrance the women use to access the kitchen. The white square is roughly the size of the kitchen, which is located on the lower ground/basement level. The mosque has a separate entrance in a different area of the building. I spoke at length with Dr. Heidi–who requested I leave out her last name–a woman born to an Irish-Catholic mother and a Muslim father, with a Masters in Islamic Studies and a PhD in Psychology, who explained to me that the separate entrance to the kitchen is because it is a space for women, not men. This makes it a safe, secure space for women to remove their hijabs (head coverings) while cooking in a hot kitchen without having to worry about a man who is not their husband seeing them. The Imam would never be in the kitchen. This makes it even less likely that Meghan would have come into contact with Imam Samer Darwish. (Interestingly, The Telegraph covered Prince Harry and William’s visit to the mosque to meet with victims was met with nary a mention of terrorism.) According to Al Maanar’s website, “the kitchen is mainly used to provide catering services to the community.” Different groups use the facility to support the homeless, learn vocational skills, or rent it out for cooking served in or outside the centre. Olisa Okwousa, who grew up near Al Manaar, told me it used to be a very rough area, so there were, “lots of communities helping young teens stay out of trouble.” That included local mosques and centres like Al Maanar.

So, is everyone who rents out the kitchen tied to terrorism as well?

Already the title—“Meghan cookbook mosque linked to 19 terror suspects including 'Jihadi John' in group's investigation”—does not make sense, which is a reflection of the copy editor or whoever chose the headline. It’s a misleading word salad with inflammatory words like “Jihadi”, “terror suspects”, and “Meghan Markle” thrown in for SEO purposes (search engine optimization) and a chance at viral moment on social media.

The Terrorism Connections

Ms. Tominey writes that, as a result of an HJS investigation, the mosque is linked to 19 jihadists. HJS’s main page is hyperlinked in the article, but not the actual investigation. As we know now, Ms. Tominey asked the HJS for whatever they had and they sent her something back. We know a little more because of a 2018 piece from the SW Londoner, where the HJS commented on what they sent to Ms. Tominey:

“A Henry Jackson Society spokesman said: ‘The investigation upon which the Telegraph article was partially based, included 63 evidential sources, findings from two prior peer-reviewed reports and hours of Imam Darwish’s public comments.’”

I contacted the SW Londoner about this piece, but they couldn’t provide further details.

Back to the original piece which goes on to say,

“Research by the HJS suggests the mosque was once attended by three of the four ‘Beatles’, the Isil terror cell charged with guarding, torturing and killing hostages in Syria and Iraq.”

Note the word suggests. Do we know for sure? In what way does it suggest? (I’ll answer that, we don’t know because we aren’t shown any of the research.) Even the phrase “once attended” does not mean these were regular, integrated members of the community. Muslims pray 5 times a day and there are many mosques in the area. What about the other mosques, or is it only when Meghan is involved, so one can write an article about it that brings in clicks? Another issue; some of these men died way before 2018. Choukri Ellekhlifi, for example, was killed in 2013. Why write an article including men who died prior to 2018?

Important note, there are no connections cited between any of the women of Hubb Community Kitchen and the extremists listed. This isn’t spelled out because that would hinder the purpose of the article. The dog whistles are clear for those looking to receive them. Dr. Mendoza stresses the fact that this is not just a few former congregants that went on to commit terrorist acts, “but 19 separate individuals.” For what it’s worth, the article only names 5 people. 19 seems like a big number until you learn the number of people who visit Al Maanar. The mosque, which takes up roughly a fourth of the building, is visited by, according to the figures in the 2018 SW Londoner piece, around 3,000 people a week. 19 individuals, 5 of whom are listed, that may have visited the mosque is not indicative of a training ground for jihadists. We never see this this kind of monolithic thinking applied to majority white churches because white people get to be individuals, while marginalized people represent everyone who looks like them. That is racism.

But the larger point is there is no reason to tie these survivors of a tragedy and Meghan Markle to terrorism. Did the jihadists also attend a nearby McDonald’s and will we get a breathless report on that? It’s a flimsy argument that wouldn’t hold up in a Speech & Debate Tournament (former speechie here, trust me on this one). This article depends on the low media literacy of its audience and a distrust of Muslims—fueled by think tanks like the HJS and papers like The Telegraph—to sell this piece. It’s creating vs. reporting on a story driven by an agenda and a narrative of who Meghan Markle is.

Let’s get into what the Imam said that, according to Ms. Tominey, was “likely to shock the Duchess, who has described herself as a feminist and is committed to championing gender equality.”

What the Imam Allegedly Said Vs. How It’s Described

Multiple things can exist at the same time. The Imam Samer Darwish could hold conservative beliefs and his words could have been taken out of context to fit the parameters of this piece. I want to be extremely clear: I am not saying Meghan Markle would or would not agree with the Imam’s statements. It’s a moot point. As we’ve established, Meghan was working with the women of Hubb Community Kitchen, born out of the Grenfell tragedy, in the kitchen space housed in the centre. What an Imam says on a YouTube channel has no bearing on her feminist beliefs. In fact, supporting an effort of immigrant women building community and coming together after a tragedy would fall under her suggested, “women’s empowerment agenda.”

I am not a Muslim, so I spoke to practicing Muslims from the USA and the UK to fill in some knowledge gaps. We’re not going to get into every claim in this article’s obvious attempt to profit off what Black and British author David Olusoga coined “the outrage industrial complex.”

“Anger sells. That hysteria elicits clicks, which elicits engagement, which elicits money. […] And racialized anger is just another step down the same pathway.”

Zaina, a practicing Muslim in the US, told me that, “like in all religions, Islam has a very conservative radical right wing that relies on the subjugation of women and will also use Quranic context to justify their arguments.” (Sounds like white Christian Nationalism in the US.) Dr. Heidi elaborated that there are different sects of Islam. Al Manaar is a Sunni practice and Sunni’s commonly look for interpretation of sacred text rather than the literal meaning. For example, in a 2023 video from Mr. Darwish, a caller from Scotland asks him if he can eat at a restaurant that isn’t halal (it serves pork, alcohol, etc). To sum it up, he says it’s fine as long as you are practicing your religion. He goes on to say:

"We are proud to be British and living in a country where they accept multi-culture, multi-faith culture. This is a very beautiful place to practice whatever we believe in."

Near the beginning of her piece, Ms. Tominey claims Imam Samer Darwish of Al Maanar said in a YouTube video on The Islam Channel that he, “condoned bigamy, suggested women should not pray while on their periods, claimed girls who listen to music risk becoming strippers and said women should not cry when visiting graves.” In the second half of the piece she appears to quote directly from the video. Unfortunately this is all we have to go off of since I cannot locate the original video. That means we are left without the full context, which makes it difficult to discuss.

Women Praying On Their Periods

Ms. Tominey writes further down in her article (when most people have probably stopped reading—unfortunate side effect of our ever shortening attention spans) that the Imam said, “Bleeding, no praying. Stop bleeding, just pray. I’ve seen some of our sisters holding Koran* using glove, which is a good idea.”

This is an instance where, as we find in every religion, there are differences of opinion. Some believe a woman can pray on her period, but she should use a barrier, like a cloth, when holding the Quran. Others believe she should be allowed to abstain during this time. What every Muslim woman I spoke to agreed on is that it isn’t an exclusion, it’s a reprieve. As Shim, a practicing Muslim in the UK told me, “Why would I want to do ablution (pre-prayer washing of body parts) and then pray (physically demanding movements) five times a day when my body is cramping? Surely I deserve rest.” It’s not an act of oppression. What was framed as antithetical to Meghan’s women’s empowerment agenda, is in fact just willful ignorance of an entire religion.

Girls Listening to Music and Dancing

Ms. Tominey quotes Mr. Darwish writing, “he also says listening to music or dancing is haram (sinful) except as reward for memorising the Koran, adding: ‘Those who are uncovering up some parts of their body and you will have no control in your daughter.’” (I know that reads strangely, but I do not believe English is Mr. Darwish’s first language.) Shim told me it wouldn’t make sense for him to say dancing and listening to music is a reward for memorizing the Quran, because in this description, “music is forbidden, then something that is haram cannot be used as a reward.” She went on to explain that if music is considered haram to this Imam, it would apply to men and women. Several Muslim women I spoke to told me that, like any religion, there are extreme sects that believe all music is haram, or that instruments are haram, but singing is ok. Many believe that music and dancing is permissible, dependent on the content of the songs, a view shared among other faiths. A lot of regular families like Akilah’s**, born and raised in Iraq, now living and working in the US, are practicing Muslims who list music like Frank Sinatra, Bob Marley, and pop music among their favorites. Dr. Heidi added that even in Saudi Arabia, where they practice a very conservative Islam, they have dancing at weddings in separate rooms for men and women, similar to some Orthodox Jewish weddings. Everyone I spoke with agreed that reducing this to the Imam saying, “girls who listen to music become strippers” was incorrect.

At the end of the piece there is a seemingly half-hearted attempt at both sides: a brief statement from Abdulrahman Sayed, chief executive of the Al Manaar Muslim Cultural Heritage Centre, condemning terrorism and pledging to look at what Mr. Darwish said outside of the mosque. But the damage had already been done.

Final Thoughts

This piece attempts to show the hypocrisy of Meghan Markle’s “women’s empowerment agenda”, but ultimately reveals an ignorance towards an entire religion and unwillingness to learn anything that may negate the basis of the article. For someone who claims to write fairly about Meghan solely based on her “bad behavior”, this is a clear-cut example of creating rather than reporting on a story.

This article didn’t stop with The Telegraph. It became the basis of several stories picked up by other outlets in the UK like The Sun and the Daily Mail. A trending moment on social media perhaps, but at what cost?

Image Source: The Sun and The Daily Mail

This is a larger problem than one journalist or one paper. We can no longer allow the media to ignore—and profit off of—the biases baked into their reporting. They have real world consequences for innocent people like Munira. As mentioned in part 1, after the Grenfell Tower fire people were already trying to link victims to the terrorist attacks on the London Bridge and in Manchester from the previous month. A Home Office report showed that hate crimes doubled in the UK from 2012/2013 to 2018/2019 with religious based hate crimes nearly octupling from 2011/2012 to 2018/2019. That’s only including crimes reported to police. That was the status of the world that The Telegraph decided to push this half-baked story into the ether.

That is why I find this article particularly egregious. This is why it is my Roman Empire. I am repeatedly told that naturally tabloids are full of lies and I shouldn’t examine them. The Telegraph is supposed to be a serious paper. How are these journalistic standards different from that of a tabloid? (The fact that it was written and approved by higher ups is another story.) While comparisons of Meghan and Kate eating avocados or touching their bumps shows an obvious double-standard, this article put a target on Meghan, these women, and an entire community. It’s reckless and nothing has really changed since this piece was published in 2018.

This story should not have been published.

But it goes back to that “outrage industrial complex.” Brown Immigrants + A Mosque + A Black American Duchess + Islamic Terrorism = a win for the outrage industrial complex. A massive loss for journalism and the public at large. 

This won’t be the last time she’ll rely on HJS research for pieces about Muslims. But the next time will have very different results. More to come in part 3.

-Meredith

(I've tried contacting the HJS several times about this research and have not heard back.)

*I was told that between Koran and Quran that Quran is the preferred spelling. I use Koran when citing a direct quote.

**Some names have been changed to protect identities.

(Huge thank you to my assistant sleuth, Amy)