Subject: FOSIS leadership's decision failed Muslim student interest.

In the name of Allah, the most Beneficent the most Merciful.

Asalamu Alaykum,

I hope you read this email in the best of health and imaan.

Last week, FOSIS participated in the NUS Conference to represent the muslim student voice at a national level. In the aftermath of the NUS Conference, FOSIS members and Isocs must form an accurate assessment of the decisions made by the FOSIS leadership. This is my balance sheet.

I believe the FOSIS leadership made serious errors regarding the NUS President election, which led to the election of Gemma Tummelty, and that this has very negative consequences for Muslims.

Wakkas Khan, FOSIS President.

Yet in emails since conference Wakkas Khan, President of FOSIS says 'Truth be told we knew exactly what we were doing when we decided to vote for Sian and not Pav. I knew that Gemma was going to win.'

Br. Jamal El- Shayyal says he is "not necessarily convinced that things have gone wrong."

The FOSIS leadership made a deal with Sian Davies to support her for NUS President in return for her support for Jamal El-Shayyal in the election for National Secretary.

FOSIS leadership decided to then not even give second preferences to Pav Akhtar in the President election.

The entirely predictable result of this was that Gemma Tummelty – a candidate backed by Labour Students, UJS, and others who FOSIS fundamentally disagrees with on Palestine amongst other issues - won the Presidency.

Had FOSIS' leadership chosen to support Pav Akhtar, a Muslim, with a real record of fighting Islamophobia, defending Palestinian rights and opposing war, we would have won.

So the starting point for our discussion needs to be why did FOSIS' leadership act in a way that led to the election of Gemma Tummelty as NUS President?

When Br. Wakkas says 'Truth be told we knew exactly what we were doing when we decided to vote for Sian and not Pav. I knew that Gemma was going to win' and Jamal says he is "not necessarily convinced things have gone wrong" I find this extraordinary!

How can this decision have been the right thing to do for Muslim students? Or any students that wants to fight Islamophobia or support Palestinian rights? It was not, that is why there is no explanation from Jamal or Wakkas of how this was in the interests of Muslims.

If Br.Wakkas knew this would happen, why did he not tell people this would be the outcome and argue the case within FOSIS on this basis? I had many discussions at Conference and not one Muslim student shared the view that Gemma was the candidate to take forward Muslim students' interest. Not once did any Muslim student tell me that they knew that their actions would allow Gemma to win.

We did have a choice.

Brother Wakkas says this "was the only choice we had."

The choice, as he explained, was that in return for the promise of votes for Jamal in his desire to become a full-time officer of NUS, FOSIS' leadership would support Sian Davies and not Pav Akhtar for President, even though he knew this would allow Gemma to win.

Leaving aside the naivety of this, as evidenced in the actual result – Jamal was smashed in his election gaining only 26% of the vote – it would not have been the best thing for Muslim students even if it had worked.

Given the positions of Gemma, I cannot imagine any situation in which it would be the right decision for FOSIS to enable her to become President. Even if Jamal had won National Secretary it would have been a small victory up against a major defeat.

Brother Wakkas is also wrong when he implies there was no an alternative.

If FOSIS' leadership had called for first, or even second preferences for Pav, he would have won. By rejecting either option, FOSIS' leadership have criminally delivered the NUS a president who will not defend Muslim students' interests.

Never was the difference clearer than in hustings and speeches. Pav was the only candidate to make any mention at all of Muslim students, and the discrimination we have faced. In his leaving speech, Pav made the first and only reference to the Palestinian people by any member of the NEC at the entire conference.

Anyone who is not clear of the choice has entirely lost their political bearings and has lost sight of what is in the best interests of Muslim students.

The way forward

We need to be clear. For years the forces backing Gemma, including Labour Student and UJS have created an NUS, totally opposed to the Palestinian cause and other issues our community values. Muslim students have felt Islamophobia is rife in the NUS. That is why Muslim students have given such
prominence to trying to change NUS.

In reality there is no chance that Gemma and her supporters will support Muslim students.

FOSIS' leadership engaged in a deal based on the naïve belief that Jamal could win his election. Doing deals instead of making principled alliances can only damage Muslim students. It means FOSIS is now seen to be just like nearly every other group in NUS – effectively offering our votes to the highest bidder.

This will make it more difficult for Muslim students to form genuine alliances with broader sections of the student movement and beyond. Already, it is clear that we have alienated allies both inside and outside of the student movement.

The decision on who to elect as NUS President was the most important issue FOSIS faced at NUS Conference. The leadership got it very badly wrong. Any other 'successes' pale into insignificance in comparison.

I believe the next step is for FOSIS members to hold an open forum to discuss how and why these errors at NUS Conference came about and the way forward.

Wasalaam,

Ruqayyah
Leeds University

{moscomment}

---