region after the motorway bridge collapse in genoa, that killed at least 39 people. five million euros will be freed from centralfunds in response to public concern about more possible infrastructure failures. about 15 vehicles are still under the rubble, but there is little hope of more survivors. the former cia director john brennan, who has been a vocal critic of the white house, has had his security clearance removed on the orders of the president. a spokeman for mr trump also gave a list of other high—profile critics who may get the same treatment. luiz inacio lula da silva, has been registered as a candidate in prison for corruption. thousands of his supporters gathered , , outside the supreme electoral court in brasilia to show their support. now on bbc news, hardtalk. welcome to hardtalk, i'm stephen sackur.

a tiny proportion of muslim women in britain wear the burqa or niqab, forms of dress which keep the face partially or fully covered. nonetheless, those women find themselves at the heart of the sometimes bitter argument about religion, values and tolerance in western society. my guest today is a muslim scholar and imam taj hargey, who has long stirred controversy among fellow muslims by condemning the burqa and demanding a new form of islam, progressive, enlightened and gender—equal. will his ideas ever gain traction in the muslim community? taj hargey, welcome to hardtalk.

pleasure to be here. let's start with some definitions. you spent much of you life in south africa, you have founded two mosques, one in cape town, south africa and one in oxford in the uk. you are a student of islam. but how would you describe yourself? i would say i'm an enlightened, progressive, liberal muslim that sticks to the koran and doesn't allow secondary sources that are suspect to determine my manifestation of faith. ifeel the koran is enough, it says repeatedly the book is complete and detailed, god has not left out anything form the text, he doesn't forget and make mistakes or run out of words so the 6,236 verses should be enough for muslims because the creator says that and that human—manufactured sources like the hadith, the reputed sayings of the prophet,

the sharia, which is a mediaeval concoction and the fatwas like against salman rushdie and others, none of those have credence as far as i'm concerned. those people, that followed these other secondary sources, they should more accurately be described as mohammedans because they put far more emphasis on the messenger than the message. i want to pursue some of that. on the self—description, thing, you didn't describe yourself as a cleric. an imam or cleric has a bad reputation in the muslim world. a scholar, an academic, an intellectual. do you speak arabic? of course.

yes, i studied for many years in each it and it's notjust a matter of learning the language and the theology and the culture of the faith, and knowing the source of the religion. when you say you studied in egypt, perhaps al azhar is the greatest seat of islamic learning in the world. it used to be. i didn't want to go study there. it rests on its laurels of past accomplishments. it is no longer in the top 100, top 1,000 universities in the world. the reason i'm picking away at this is because you will be well aware, there are significant numbers of people inside the muslim community in the uk but become familiar with your thoughts and words who question your very credibility. dr sheikh ramzy, who like you based like is basted you at the islamic information centre in oxford, saying that taj hargey, you have refuted this, he is an imam but not a real imam,

nor a real islamic scholar. nobody takes him seriously in oxford or elsewhere. the point is, why shoot the messenger? my message is quite clear. let's get back to originally what islam is about, and that is the way to live in the west. if you are going to live in the west as an integrated citizen, you can't live on the basis of hadith, sharia and fatwas. you need to jettison these secondary sources manufactured by men. not women. these texts have a jaundiced view of islam. this is your concept, you're looking to set up a think—tank. we are launching in october in oxford. here is what you say about it. people will be fascinated by this concept. you say, we need to create an indigenous british islam that is integrated into its own environment. in a way, you strike me as somebody who is calling for something akin to the 16th century reformation in the christian religion where martin luther and others

in the end broke away from rome and from the catholic church but in essence, you can't have a reformation in islam because there is no rome, there is no pope, there is no central authority. so how can you have this sort of reformation? what we do have orthodoxy and traditionalism that doesn't provide answers for today. we need to have an islam reinterpreted from the koran that answers the problems and the questions of today. we can't rely on the views and opinions of people 500, 1,000 years ago. you think all that learning is irrelevant? no, but we need something that early muslims had during the first hundred years or so after, we had the freethinker is emerging, the mu?tazila, the rationalists of the day, pre—eminent freethinkers of the day and we need

a little bit of that. less about following blindly. it is fine about freethinkers and going back to the analogy with martin luther and the reformation, what martin luther had was a groundswell of opinion on his side. particularly in parts of northern europe. there were a lot of people deeply frustrated with the orthodoxies of the time. where is the groundswell of support that you claim? i think what you need to understand, no movement, including the luther movement, started with a majority of 5 million, 10 million, 20 million. never mind millions. let me... how many people really, really agree with you in the muslim community in britain today but that of 10%. 10%, about a00,000, 500,000 people. why haven't they put their heads above the parapet? the 90% are threatening and intimidating them. the 90% are saying they are heretics. that's the issue here. this is where we get to this long—running confrontation,

this ideological—theological war that you seem to have declared upon the muslim establishment both in britain and in the wider world too. if you don't mind me saying, sir, you seem to relish all—out permanent confrontation. i fought during apartheid times. i believe when there is injustice, you need to fight it. i fought the political injustice and now it's time to fight religious injustice and if the religious clergy, the orthodoxy and the establishment are saying, for example, the mosques are for men only and women are not welcome, and so forth that is a direct contradiction of the koran chapter 62 verse 9. when it says it is fine too stoned to death people for adultery and blasphemy, apostasy and homosexuality, and all that stuff, they can't quote you from the koran. they quote secondary sources. so here you are, the champion of openness and tolerance within the muslim religion

but when it comes to specifics, and let us get to the issue of the day in the uk, it was raised a ferw days ago by boris johnson, it has been a big topic of conversation, and that is the place of the burqa or more accurately, in most cases, the niqab, as clothing for women and whether it's acceptable in the uk, you, farfrom being open and tolerant, say things like this. you described them as hideous tribal ninja—like garments, fundamentally pre— islamic, therefore un—muslim. where is tolerance and understanding in the phrase "hideous, tribal, ninja garments?" i'll tell you. if these people say they are doing it for their own personal reasons, free choice, and never used one word of religion, never said it is to do with islam, the koran, their spiritual journey and religious requirement, i will be the first one to say they have that right to do so... surely they can say it

brings them closer to god? who are you to say what rights they have in their own personal religion? the koran is clear, they say do not make something haram that is halal. do not invent things. they are inventing things. they are saying facial coverings, facial masking as i call it, is part of islam. when they say that, that is a lie. repeating a lie ad infinitum does not make it the truth. i wonder how you reacted to the 100, count them, 100 women who wrote to the conservative party chairman to protest borisjohnson‘s remarks when he referred to the niqab and the covering of the face for a very few women in the uk, as looking like letterboxes. comparing them at one point to armed robbers. the 100 women wrote and said, "we are women who wear the niqab," and i quote, "we speak as free women who are able to speak for ourselves and make our own choices and we request that all personal choices be respected." and you won't respect that?

hang on. what they have done is shifted the goalposts, they always do it. when they are defeated theologically, there is nothing in the koran to say they have face masking, and you and your listeners need to be aware that no woman going to mecca and the pilgrimage is allowed to wear a face mask. that is refuted as well. lord sheikh, a leading muslim peer, says he has been to mecca and the kaaba has seen women wearing these face coverings. with due respect, lord sheikh is an insurance broker and an unelected politician. it doesn't mean he can't go to mecca. of course he can, but he's not an expert in the field. if one of two women are covering their faces, that's fine. the hadith says you are not supposed to cover yourself. you don't even rely on the hadith. he is quoting the hadith. there's no point quoting it. you can't have your cake and eat it.

i'm talking about the koran. let's get back to the women. theologically, they are defeated and then they talk about civil rights. that's defeated, because the european court of human rights and the national declaration of human rights and the un, no way they say that facial masking is part of human rights. the third one, individual choice. i have no issue if they are saying it's an choice but to strip it out of religious connotations. they haven't. now they are saying it is free individual choice. that is the issue here. you use, it seems to be, dehumanising language when it comes to this particular issue of the burqa and niqab. not only dehumanising language, but going back a few years, seven years, you held a demonstration in oxford, where your mosque is, burning, burning these garments. a tribal rag that has nothing to do with islam. a tribal rag? a tribal raga that has nothing to do with islam.

the language you use is dangerous. it may be uncomfortable for some people. it's not a question of that. think about the phrases you are throwing into the public debate and the impact they have... it's got nothing to do with islam and if you need some harsh language, i will use it. we should stop pussyfooting about this and give it some sort of islamic credence. it has no islamic credence. it may have a tribal credence, it may have an ethnic or cultural credence but it has no islamic, koranic credence. because you are a muslim, do you think that gives you a right to use language which, if it were used by a non—muslim in this contest, of discussing the place of particular garments or indeed muslim symbols in british society, if it were used by non—muslims, it would be described by the equality

and human rights commission as inflammatory and divisive. that is the phrase that commission has used when similar language is used by non—muslims. why are we now censoring people's language? either we've three speech and the right to offend. here at the bbc, there is a statue of george orwell and he says something like, if liberty is to mnean anything, it must mean the right to say things that people don't want to hear. and with freedom comes responsibility. is it responsible to use this kind of language? as we've seen in the last few days, since borisjohnson‘s remarks on the whole heated debate about the burqa in the uk, we've seen, according to tell mama, an organisation which monitors islamophobia in the uk, we've seen a very significant rise in the number of incidents, attacks directed at muslim women in the uk wearing burqa, hijab, niqab. an organisation that doesn't

have much credibility, with due respect to you. islamaphobia is real. let me refer to these statistics on the rise of islamophobic incidents in the uk. let go back to a point i want to make, islamaphobia is the wrong term, it isn't a phobia against islam. it's a resentment of muslim behaviour. muslims are... for example, i arrived in this country as a young student many, many years ago. there was no such thing as islamaphobia and muslim bigotry, this has now arisen in the last 20—30 years when muslims are now demanding exceptionalism. for example, you are the great defender of liberal rights, and other people here. here we've a double rule here. a man cannot walk down the street masked, but somehow a woman can in the united kingdom. so to be clear then... i'm saying... let's turn the temperature down a little bit, let's try and work through these issues one by one. are you saying to me therefore, given your logic, you want a complete ban on the niqab in the uk? all facial masking for everyone,

otherwise we should all be able to have the right to mask our face. for example, if i want to go to my bank tomorrow and in a facemask then i should be allowed that. if i'm not going to be allowed that, then we've inequality. why are we justifying social inequality? you pose as a new kind of muslim, seeking out a new form of your religion — liberal, open, progressive, tolerant — and yet one of the first things you want to do is issue a national ban, a new law banning women wearing the clothing they choose to wear? france has done it, belgium has done it, denmark has done it, austria has done it. amnesty international and a whole host of independent human rights groups... and the world hasn't collapsed there. no, the world hasn't collapsed but it's a question of what kind of society you want to live in. you talk about openness, tolerance... yes, openness, tolerance for people who actually saying they don't...

not for people that disagree with you? no, they disagree with the koran. you sound like a fundamentalist. you may say that. your view of what the koran allows and disallows is the only view accepted? no, if you say a protestant following the bible, you've got to provide the evidence from the bible. if you say you're a muslim, you have to provide evidence from the koran. so where in the koran, mr sackurm, is the evidence that facemasking is permitted and tolerated and encouraged by the koran? it's not a question of whether it's specifically permitted, you're implying that it is specifically ruled out of order by the koran, and i'm not sure where that verse is either. i'm not saying that, i'm saying these people defending the burqa, defending facial masking on the basis of a religion, they are lying. they are not being truthful. let's move onto a different aspect of the language you use, and i talked about the notion

of responsibility coming with the freedom of expression. you've used a phrase, fifth columnist. you've talked about muslims in this country who you say use issues like the burqa to go much further. you say their fifth columnists who will only be satisfied when they've brought this country into a full form of sharia law. are you serious about that? yes, i think this is a long—term objective. fifth columnist? you know that phrase very well? of course i do, general franco and all staff of that nature. let me explain, people like anjem choudary and these radical extremists, they are all that, they are talking specifically of the islamic republic... no, no, no. forgive me, that's not the point you were making, you were making a point about the muslim council for britain and other mainstream organisations which have been very angry about the comments of borisjohnson and others and you say, "0h, all of those people who enter this debate on the side of defending the freedom of women to wear the burqa are in essence this columnists. "

i put it to you that's the kind of language we normally hear from far—right extremist organisations. you are misrepresenting me, mr sackur. you are definitely misrepresenting tme. when i'm talking about a fifth column, i'm not talking about muslim organisations, i'm talking about the fringe element who will not be content with this, and their long—term aim is this. now, whether they're going to achieve that, i'm very doubtful. i've mentioned the fact that if, for some weird reason, god forbid, this country becomes an islamic republic of britain, i don't want to be part of it. i do not want to live... you know who else uses the phrase... i do not want to live under any type of sharia law, here, there or anywhere. there are groups around europe who talk about muslims being potential fifth columnists. they tend to be from the far—right, from parties in eastern europe, from germany, france, who will identify as being against the muslim religion. for example, the afp senior figure alexander gauland, he said the muslim religion "does

not belong in germany, its political doctrine is not compatible with that of a free country." your language sounds like his. no. if you'd listened to me right at the beginning, i'm talking about an islam based on the koran. then he and all other far right will have no issues. we're talking about a manifestation of islam based on culture, based on secondary sources that have perverted and deformed it. for example, wahhabi salafi islam, would you say that that's an authentic version of what the koran preaches? no! it is bad version of islam that is so dangerous everywhere, notjust in the middle east and, by the way, i don't care what they do in the middle east. i'm actually worried about what's happening in the united kingdom, which is my home. i do not want to see this type of poisonous toxic islam taking hold. it has taken hold here. may i stop you for a second? you have set up to mosques, one in cape town, one in oxford. in those mosques you have men and women pray together, there's no segregation. you have women lead prayers as well as men. you invite gay people to come just

the same as everybody else. am i right? no... i mean, partly. men and women don't pray together, they are in two rows, right to the front, there's no partition. they're not in the back. there's a little, sort of, invisible aisle between the two. women one side to the front of the pulpit. men on the other side to the front of the pulpit. we do that. regarding people's sexual orientation or their other proclivities, we don't care. if someone enters the mosque and he hasn't paid his child benefits or whatever, we don't care. my point is we began with discussing the number of people you've reached out to that are now in your movement, and the numbers are quite small... they're growing. i was going to say, i'd imagine you'd like those numbers to grow. they are growing. do you think it helps your cause, your reach—out, if one can say the broad majority of muslims in britain today, the mainstream is of muslims in britain today, when you use the language of "tribal rags" for the burqa, for example, when you talk about fift columnist.

do you think your approach to this very important issue is going to bring british muslims onto your side? i mentioned the figures before, 90% of the of orthodoxy. you can give them any proof, they don't believe you. my point is... are you genuinely trying to persuade them of your arguments... yes. ..or are you just looking for a fight? no, 10%, that's my target. we're talking about 400,000 to 500,000 people, that's the target. these are people who are fed up with cultural islam. fed up with mullah islam, fed up of saudi version of islam. the saudis bringing the four ms into this country and elsewhere — money, mullahs, mosques and madrasas, and through those institutions and means they've imposed on their perverted version of islam onto us. we want islam back to the original version of islam. i understand what you're against, i'm just trying to seek out how best you pursue your own vision.

a final thought for you, i've been thinking about different muslim communities and cultures around the world, billions of muslim people. let's take one example, indonesia. i'm glad you mentioned that because i've got another answer for you there. let's end with that then. in indonesia, i'm going to quote to you the general secretary of one of the main muslim organisations, the nahdlatul ulama. now, he says, "we've achieved a de facto consensus in indonesia that the islamic teachings must be co ntextualised to reflect the ever—changing circumstances of our time and place." 0k. exactly. but he does not go for this confrontational anti—wahhabi, anti—saudi line that you go for. he's not in the business of confrontation and warfare, he's in the business of evolution and drawing people in. right, 0k. why are you not? luther wasn't a person striking a deal with the pope. you started with that, i didn't make

that comparison, you did. he didn't make a deal with the pope. when you see injustice in the society, in islam. female repression, child custody, instant divorce, women not in the mosques, all of these things, blah, blah, blah, all of these things, where does that come from? indonesia, i'm glad you raised that, indonesia's the largest muslim country today. how did it become muslim in a span of 300 years? very short historical span. because when the early muslims, the merchants and the mystics arrived there, they integrated, adapted and adjusted to that society, and instead of foisting the culture from arabia and elswhere... they married local women, ate local food, and the first mosques were like temples. so that's the integrated islam that we need to have here. taj hargey, we could talk plenty more on this, but we've to end. thank you very much for being on hardtalk. thank you. thank you very much. hello there.

we're looking at quite a changeable spell of weather, really, over the next few days, with some rain around. we'll certainly get some rain as we go on through the next 2a hours. the satellite picture shows a band of cloud pushing in across the united kingdom for today, and this is rain—bearing cloud. now, we have seen three bands of rain that will tend to merge together into one as it moves its way in across england and wales as we go on through the next few hours. so there is some rain on the way for some of us. if you're out early a bit in the morning, a lot of cloud for england and wales, with bursts of heavy rain swinging across western england, wales, and on towards the midlands and central, southern england. add to that a lot of cloud and it will feel humid

for these areas. a fresher feel to the weather in the north—west, but a lot of cloud and widespread frequent heavy thundery showers working in here as we go through thursday morning. so, the forecast through thursday. we've got our band of rain that will begin to spread into east anglia and south—east england. as it pushes that bit further eastwards, it will tend to weaken at times, the rain becomes a little bit lighter as it swings into kent. further north and west, a cloudy morning coming up for scotland and northern ireland, with widespread heavy and at times thundery showers. it will be quite a breezy kind of day as well. there'll be some sunny spells between those showers as we head through the afternoon, with the showers becoming less widespread in northern ireland later in the day, and probably a bit more sunshine too for wales and south—west england later in the day too. for friday's chart, we've got another area of low pressure steaming in off the atlantic. this one's going to be bringing a belt of heavy rain into northern ireland, although there'll also be some rain for western scotland. after a dry and sunny start to the day on friday across eastern

counties of england, well, it'll cloud over, but it should stay dry. it will be quite a gusty kind of day, though, with gusts up to 30—odd mph in the north—west of the country, along with that band of rain. now, temperature—wise, we're looking at highs of around 16—18 degrees across the north and west, but temperatures near average. in london, highs of 23. now, looking ahead to the weekend, we have got some wet weather on the way. it's going to be quite breezy, the driest weather towards the south—east of england, particularly on saturday. but this area of low pressure has the remains of sub—tropical storm ernesto, and that's going to be bringing a belt of heavy rain that's probably going to be working in more really across northern ireland and scotland through sunday. so, in a bit more detail, across northern parts of the uk, scotland and northern ireland are likely to pick up a belt of very heavy rain on sunday. further south, meanwhile, we'll probably have drier conditions on saturday, but still the threat of rather cloudy skies on sunday, with some patchy bits and pieces of rain, especially in the west. that's your latest weather. bye for now. this is the briefing, i'm maryam moshiri. our top story: anger in italy, as hopes fade of finding more survivors from the bridge collapse.

39 people died. mystery surrounding the killing of the half—brother of north korea's leader. two women charged with last year's murder are due to find out if their trial will go on. we have got part two of a bbc investigation into rhino horn poaching in south africa, and how official corruption plays a part. uber narrows its losses, but is still burning through millions of dollars a day. so can the popular ride—hailing firm break even before going public?