Monthly Archives: July 2008

UK Muslims and dogs … what’s the fuss?

Posted on by Bob Pitt

As the frenzy over Muslims’ stance from a police plan to use sniffing dogs in public places keeps making headlines across the UK, British Muslims affirmed that the fuss is actually about nothing, since their religion does not forbid using dogs for security reasons. “There is no harm in using trained dogs for security purposes,” Mufti Dr Shah Sadruddin, of Jamiatul Ulama UK (the Council of Muslim Scholars), told IslamOnline.net.

The controversy erupted late last month, with the newspapers reporting that some Muslims had raised objections over being searched by the explosive-detecting animals at train stations. The issue turned into a public debate a week later, with reports that Scottish Muslims are protesting an advert publicizing the police’s new non-emergency telephone number for picturing a puppy. Scottish Muslims have rebuffed the report, stressing that a picture a dog is not offensive to their religion.

Massoud Shadjareh, chairman of the Islamic Human Rights Commission in the UK, believes the issue of sniffer dogs “can be resolved with sensitivity. Some people might have problems praying after being sniffed,” Shadjareh said. “But I understand that trained dogs don’t need to actually make physical contact.”

For many Britons, the uproar over Muslims’ stance from dogs is totally taken out of proportion. “I’ve read some real bile aimed at Muslims over this – the internet is full of it,” Sandy Shaughnessy, 23, told IOL. “Everyone is asking why the rest of the white, civilised, free world has to accommodate these hateful Muslims. The reality is so different.” Shaughnessy says that the media has whipped up hatred against Muslims over the issue, while Muslims did not have the chance to explain their position. “Muslims don’t have the right wing media to magnify and manipulate a situation to such an extent. I don’t think it’s a massive problem, but it has escalated.”

Emdad Rahman reports. Islam Online, 6 July 2008

Inayat Bunglawala – apology

Posted on by Bob Pitt

“On March 1, 2008 we published a front-page article under the headline ‘TARGET HARRY – British fanatics threaten him‘ concerning Prince Harry’s active service in Afghanistan.

“The article made reference to Inayat Bunglawala, who is a spokesperson at the Muslim Council of Britain. He has also advised the British government on ways of combating extremism among young Muslims.

“We now accept our article may have been understood to allege that Mr Bunglawala was a fanatical extremist who was inciting or would condone a terrorist attack on Prince Harry.

“There was absolutely no truth in these allegations. Mr Bunglawala did not, and would not, condone any attack on Prince Harry; on the contrary, he consistently made clear to the media that he wanted to see the Prince and his colleagues brought home, out of harm’s way.

“We apologise unreservedly to Mr Bunglawala for the distress and embarrassment we have caused him.”

Daily Express, 4 July 2008

Muslims after police raid: ‘We feel betrayed’

Posted on by Bob Pitt

Two of the men at the centre of anti-terror raids say they feel “betrayed” by the police. Abu Bosher and Abu Saif had always thought they had a healthy relationship with the police, until their Stoke-on-Trent homes were raided on Tuesday. They are members of a group of young Muslims who have regularly manned stalls around the city for two years, preaching to passers-by and distributing leaflets and DVDs.

Police raided five homes this week as part of an investigation into a small group of people suspected of being involved in promoting violent extremist views, and radicalising vulnerable members of the community. But the men insist their activities have always been entirely legal and peaceful, and deny any links to terrorism or extremism. They say that as well as preaching Islam, they draw young people away from drugs and gangs, and encourage them to become better Muslims.

Abu Bosher, aged 24, of North Road, Cobridge, said he was shocked to find himself implicated with extremism. He said: “Why did they do this now? Why not two years ago? We have the same leaflets; we’re not doing anything different. So we’re asking them to produce the evidence.”

The group have become a familiar sight in Stoke Road, Shelton, and Waterloo Road, Cobridge, where they engage Muslims and non-Muslims in faith discussions. They say the fact they carry out their activities on busy main roads, in full view of CCTV, shows they have nothing to hide. Although they admit their discussions sometimes touch on controversial political issues, such as the war in Iraq, they deny preaching hatred or encouraging violence.

Mr Bosher added: “We disagree with the Government’s foreign policy, and we will debate with people on that, but they are free to disagree with us. We don’t want to force our views down anyone’s throat. The police come to our stalls regularly and take away our leaflets. I’m sure every police officer in Stoke-on-Trent has one. Some of them know us by our first names, so we don’t know why they’ve done this. We feel betrayed.”

Abu Saif, aged 17, whose sister’s Cobridge home was raided, said: “The police were welcome to come and speak to us at our stall, or come and look in my house. I would have invited them in for a chat and a cup of tea. But they came to my house at 7am, and knocked my door off its hinges. I think that’s disgusting.”

Fellow group member Abu Abdullah, aged 35, whose Cobridge home was not raided, said: “Muslims are being victimised and demonised in this country. We’re coming up to the anniversary of 7/7, and on previous anniversaries we found that Muslims were coming under increased scrutiny by the security services.”

Stoke Sentinel, 5 July 2008 

‘Is cosying up to Muslim extremists the best way to defeat terrorism?’

Posted on by Bob Pitt

Charles Moore 2The question is posed by Charles Moore, writing in the Daily Telegraph in response to the Lord Chief Justice’s recent speech on sharia law.

In the category of “Islamist extremists” who he claims have mistakenly been accorded respectability Moore includes the East London Mosque, the Mosques and Imams Advisory Board, Osama Saeed, Islam Expo … and even Shahid Malik MP!

He concludes: “So the solution to extremism is that extremists become the official representatives of Islam in this country. Islamist mosques, organisations and spokesmen will be treated as the true voice of Muslims (and woe betide those Muslims who disagree). Then we shall get a lot more sharia than Lord Phillips has bargained for.”

The enemy within? Fear of Islam: Britain’s new disease

Posted on by Bob Pitt

“Islamophobia – defined in 1997 by the landmark report from the Runnymede Trust as ‘an outlook or world-view involving an unfounded dread and dislike of Muslims, which results in practices of exclusion and discrimination’ – can be encountered in the best circles: among our most famous novelists, among newspaper columnists, and in the Church of England.

“Its appeal is wide-ranging. ‘I am an Islamophobe’, the Guardian columnist Polly Toynbee wrote in The Independent nearly 10 years ago. ‘Islamophobia?’ the Sunday Times columnist Rod Liddle asks rhetorically in the title of a recent speech, ‘Count me in’. Imagine Liddle declaring: ‘Anti-Semitism? Count me in’, or Toynbee claiming she was ‘an anti-Semite and proud of it’.

“Anti-Semitism is recognised as an evil, noxious creed, and its adherents are barred from mainstream society and respectable organs of opinion. Not so Islamophobia.”

Peter Oborne in the Independent, 4 July 2008

See also “Muslims feel like ‘Jews of Europe’“, also in today’s Independent.

And “Is post-war Britain anti-Muslim?” by Peter Oborne in the Daily Mail, 4 July 2008

Peter Oborne’s documentary “It Shouldn’t Happen to a Muslim” will be shown next Monday in Channel’s Dispatches slot – which, ironically, has in the past made a signficant contribution to the rise of Islamophobia in the UK.

The pamphlet Muslims Under Siege: Alienating Vulnerable Communities, by Peter Oborne and James Jones, be downloaded (pdf) here.

The study by the Cardiff School of Journalism, Media and Cultural Studies, Images of Islam in the UK: The Representation of British Muslims in the National Print News Media 2000-2008, can be downloaded (pdf) here.

‘Sharia law is backed by top judge’ shock

Posted on by Bob Pitt

Sharia law is backed by top judgeThe country’s most senior judge provoked outrage yesterday by saying that Islamic sharia law could play a role in Britain’s legal system. The Lord Chief Justice, Lord Phillips, was accused of handing Muslim extremists yet more ammunition.

Reopening the bitter row over the position of Islamic law, he said there was no reason why it could not be used for contractual agreements and mediation in areas such as family disputes and marriage. He claimed it was possible for people to have agreements “governed by a law other than English law”.

The Lord Chief Justice spoke out five months after the Archbishop of Canterbury faced calls to resign when he claimed that incorporating aspects of the Muslim legal system into British law was now “unavoidable” and “appropriate”. Lord Phillips last night faced a storm of protest as Downing Street appeared to immediately distance itself from his views.

Tory MP Philip Davies said: “This is totally unacceptable. There is no place for sharia law or any aspect of it in the legal system. We have our own legal system here and anyone in this country should accept our laws and the way we do things. The Lord Chief Justice does not understand how damaging these kind of remarks are to community cohesion.”

Daily Express, 4 July 2008

For a more balanced report, see the Guardian, 4 July 2008

See also Madeleine Bunting and Inayat Bunglawala at Comment is Free.

Racial profiling eyed for terror probes

Posted on by Bob Pitt

The Justice Department is considering letting the FBI investigate Americans without any evidence of wrongdoing, relying instead on a terrorist profile that could single out Muslims, Arabs or other racial and ethnic groups.

Law enforcement officials say the proposed policy would help them do exactly what Congress demanded after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks: root out terrorists before they strike.

Although President Bush has disavowed targeting suspects based on their race or ethnicity, the new rules would allow the FBI to consider those factors among a number of traits that could trigger a national security investigation.

Currently, FBI agents need specific reasons — like evidence or allegations that a law probably has been violated — to investigate U.S. citizens and legal residents. The new policy, law enforcement officials told The Associated Press, would let agents open preliminary terrorism investigations after mining public records and intelligence to build a profile of traits that, taken together, were deemed suspicious.

Among the factors that could make someone subject of an investigation is travel to regions of the world known for terrorist activity, access to weapons or military training, along with the person’s race or ethnicity.

Associated Press, 2 July 2008

See also “CAIR calls new FBI profiling policy ‘un-American'”, CAIR press release, 3 July 2008

‘Muslims outraged at police advert featuring cute puppy’

Posted on by Bob Pitt

PuppyA postcard featuring a cute puppy sitting in a policeman’s hat advertising a Scottish police force’s new telephone number has sparked outrage from Muslims.

Tayside Police’s new non-emergency phone number has prompted complaints from members of the Islamic community.

The choice of image on the Tayside Police cards – a black dog sitting in a police officer’s hat – has now been raised with Chief Constable John Vine.

The advert has upset Muslims because dogs are considered ritually unclean and has sparked such anger that some shopkeepers in Dundee have refused to display the advert.

Daily Mail, 1 July 2008

See also the Daily Telegraph, whose readers helpfully draw out the subtext to this story:

“Why are the police apologising for doing their job. This is just another case of kowtowing to people who do not understand the BRITISH way of life.”

“Stop all this namby pamby nonsence. As you say the British are a nation of dog lovers…. We are British and this is Britain. If you don’t like it leave.”

“what next no pictures of pigs in the butchers! We are supposedly living in a multi cultural country, but it seems that we are dominated by the views of the muslims and their communities.”

“OMG, im sorry but if you dont like what people in OUR country do then go away.”

“Who cares what the Muslims think/say. Really, what are they going to do about it? It’s our culture, our traditions, our beliefs.”

“This is absurd. Why should Britons change their culture to accomodate Muslims? … This political correctness will cause the downfall of your society. What happened to majority rule?”

“If muslims don’t like dogs – or any other facet of our national characteristics – then they should bugger off to Iran or some other Islamic wonderland. When will we stop pandering to these barbarians? Why have we let them in to our country at all?”

Update:  For Gabriele Marranci’s comments, see Islam, Muslims and an Anthropologist, 3 July 2008