Author Archives: Bob Pitt

The Clash of Civilizations doesn’t exist … yet

Posted on by Bob Pitt

“‘Seriousness’ has become the word of the day for the Islamophobic set. According to some of our more serious hawks, anyone who doesn’t buy that the liberal democracies of the West are engaged in a death-match with hordes of dusky Muslim fanatics is ‘unserious’ about America’s security and can’t be trusted. It’s the latest in a series of attempts to forestall any meaningful discussion of the causes of violent Islamist ideologies, much less how the United States should respond to them. It locks us into the global ‘war on terror’.

“Unfortunately, all too many otherwise sane people seem to accept the terms. But it’s hard to imagine anything more profoundly unserious than taking a dozen complex conflicts that originated in a dozen countries, stripping them of all historical and political context and lumping them together in an amorphous blob called the ‘Clash of Civilizations’. But that’s exactly what we’re talking about.”

Joshua Holland at AlterNet, 1 September 2006

Aussie Islamophobe defends Howard

Posted on by Bob Pitt

“Here, as in Britain and the US, Muslim organisations have deliberately installed themselves as permanent aliens and adapted a culture of constant carping about the majority, from whom they maintain their isolation with such bitter determination. Language, culture and secular values unite the English-speaking West. These values have been an attraction to millions.

“But not since World War II have those values been under such sustained attack. This time, it’s coming from the very migrants who might have been expected to show gratitude for being generously received in the nation of their choice – and finding solace in the protection of the system they say they despise. John Howard was at his most diplomatic when he said: ‘There is a section, a small section of the Islamic population, and I say a small section … which is very resistant to integration. Fully integrating means accepting Australian values’.”

Piers Akerman in the Daily Telegraph (Australia), 3 September 2006

The Danish and Iranian cartoon controversies

Posted on by Bob Pitt

In an article on US-Iranian relations Haroon Siddiqui takes up the antisemitic cartoon contest in Iran:

“Conspicuous by their silence in all this are those who during the Danish cartoon controversy had mounted a noisy defence of the right to offend. They are neither lining up to reprint the cartoons from Tehran nor are they criticizing the exhibit. It is a predicament of their own making. If they condemn the show, as they should, they’ll open themselves to accusations of double standards, namely, that their defence of freedom of speech last spring was meant only to protect their right to malign Muslims and Islam.

“But anti-Islamic prejudice alone does not explain the West’s conflicting emotions. Some people do believe freedom of speech is absolute. But it is not. It is constrained by the laws of libel and hate. It must be balanced against the right to freedom of religion. It is subject to self-restraint, dictated by our evolving understanding of what is and is not acceptable. The Danish and Iranian cartoon controversies have added another element to this complex equation. The global village demands of us a broadened outlook, one that avoids needless needling across all religious divides in these troubled times.”

Toronto Star, 3 September 2006

‘My vote’s for Trevor, not Ken’

Posted on by Bob Pitt

Joan SmithJoan Smith takes sides in the dispute between the Mayor of London and Trevor Phillips, the newly appointed head of the CEHR who is of course a great favourite of Robert Spencer at Jihad Watch. In particular, and predictably, she endorses Phillips’s views on multiculturalism:

“Phillips’s pronouncements on the subject are robust – earlier this year he suggested that Muslims who want to live under Islamic law (sharia) should leave the country – but more coherent than anything the Mayor of London has come up with. Livingstone’s take on multiculturalism certainly isn’t mine. It’s a form of relativism that allows him to park his values when they’re inconvenient and embrace religious extremists with repellent views on women and homosexuals. Living in a society that has abolished the death penalty, Livingstone welcomes to London a Muslim cleric whose website discusses whether death is the appropriate penalty for gay men, and appears at public events with an academic who refuses to call for a ban on the hideous practice of lapidation….

“In fact, the biggest threat to multiculturalism comes not from organisations such as the BNP but politicians such as Livingstone who refuse to have this debate, seeking to close it down with accusations of racism and Islamophobia. The UK is a diverse society, but it won’t remain so if millions of ordinary people feel they’re not allowed to criticise the minority who hate gay people, treat women as second-class citizens and support political or religious violence.”

Independent on Sunday, 3 September 2006

The “academic who refuses to call for a ban on the hideous practice of lapidation” is of course Tariq Ramadan. As I think we’ve observed before, rejecting engagement with an influential Muslim liberal like Professor Ramadan is a sign that Islamophobia has reached the point of dementia. It can only be a matter of time before Joan Smith joins the likes of Melanie Phillips in ranting on about “Eurabia” and the Muslim plot to destroy western civilisation.

Robert Fisk at the Chicago Muslim convention

Posted on by Bob Pitt

“Daniel Pipes is a bête noire, as is Steven Emerson, a freelance journalist who grinds out article after article about the ‘American jihad’ for such august papers as The Wall Street Journal, which, by the way, more and more reads like The Jerusalem Post. Emerson and his work are taken apart by al-Marati and his colleagues in a widely circulated booklet entitled Counterproductive Terrorism: How Anti-Islamic Rhetoric is Impeding America’s Homeland Security. ‘Those representing pro-Israeli groups continue to intimidate and marginalise those who are critical of Israeli policies by claiming this is pro-terrorism’, al-Marati says with a mixture of anger and weariness. ‘This is to the detriment of America, to the detriment of countering terrorism’.”‘

Robert Fisk speaks to Salam al-Marati, director of the Muslim Public Affairs Council, at the Chicago Muslim convention.

Independent on Sunday, 3 September 2006

US Muslims face growing suspicion

Posted on by Bob Pitt

American Muslims have blamed politicians and the media for the US public’s increasing hatred and fear of Islam in the five years since the September 11 attacks.

“The trends of Islamophobia unfortunately are worsening,” Abdul Malik Mujahid, chairman of the Council of Islamic Organisations of Greater Chicago, said at the start on the annual meeting of the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) on Friday. “During the last five years the Muslim community has been scrutinized by almost all branches of the government and the media to the extent that more than half a million Muslims have been directly touched by this process.”

“They continue to face dehumanization and a great trend of Islamophobia,” Mujahid said. Mujahid cited George Bush’s recent remark that if terrorism is not beaten in Baghdad then Americans will have to fight it in their own streets as a remark that casts suspicions on Muslims in their own country.

Al-Jazeera, 1 September 2006

Bush backs off ‘Islamic fascists’

Posted on by Bob Pitt

bush legion speech“President Bush has toned down his war rhetoric after Muslim-rights groups complained his description of the enemy as ‘Islamic fascists’ unfairly equates Islam with terrorism. In his speech to the American Legion Thursday, Bush backed away from the term, defining the enemy simply as ‘fascists’ and ‘totalitarians’.

“He said the war on terror was an ‘ideological struggle’ with terrorists who ‘kill those who stand in the way of their totalitarian ideology,’ but he did not identify the source of the ideology. His only reference to Islam during the speech was in noting that the Muslim terrorists are distorting the tenets of the religion. ‘Free societies are a threat to their twisted view of Islam,’ he said….

“While the White House declined to comment officially about the dropping of the term ‘Islamic fascists,’ a White House insider explained that the president is sensitive to concerns raised by Muslim leaders. ‘The president never meant to imply we’re at war with Islam, but some took it that way,’ the official said. ‘It’s not a climb-down as much as a recognition of the concerns of the Muslim community.’ …  Washington officials have been careful during the war on terror to distinguish between Islam and the terrorists so as not to offend Muslims. The distinction has rankled many conservatives who see little difference.”

World Net Daily, 1 September 2006

Though it may have pissed off the neocons, it seems to me that Bush’s American Legion speech represented only a marginal shift in his rhetoric. True, he avoided using the precise phrase “Islamic fascists”, but the thrust of his argment was the same. He outlined the familiar claim that the US is not engaged in wars of imperialist conquest but rather in a global battle to defend freedom against Muslim totalitarians. According to Bush’s paranoid fantasy, groups as different as Hezbollah and al-Qaida form “a single movement – a worldwide network of radicals who use terror to kill those who stand in the way of their totalitarian ideology”. This is, Bush opined, “the decisive ideological struggle of the 21st century”.

Australian PM stands by call on Muslims to integrate

Posted on by Bob Pitt

John Howard says he has no need to apologise for telling Muslims they need to embrace Australian values. Mr Howard sparked controversy yesterday after singling out Muslim migrants for refusing to embrace Australian values and urged them to fully integrate by treating women as equals and learning to speak English.

The call for a shift in attitude among some Muslims infuriated community leaders and comes as The Australian revealed the Prime Minister’s own Islamic advisers have already accused Mr Howard and senior ministers of fuelling hatred and mistrust by using “inflammatory and derogatory” language.

But Mr Howard today stood by his comments. “I don’t apologise,” he told reporters.

The Australian, 1 September 2006

Howard’s colleague Peter Costello is also sticking by his view that Muslims who put Islamic law above Australian law are not welcome in Australia.

‘This prejudice is forcing me to leave Britain’

Posted on by Bob Pitt

“Ever since the London bombings I have been more and more disquieted by the attitude of so many people towards the Asian community, in particular the Muslim section. The fact that there are few visible differences to most people between a Hindu, Sikh or Muslim has meant that everyone in this community is now suffering from increased, negative, racially motivated attention.

“Finally I have come to the conclusion that for most liberally minded British Asians like myself, the answer is to get out. I am weary of prolonged searches at airports, ferry ports and the like. My last encounter at the Eurostar terminal in Paris involved being asked: ‘What is the purpose of your visit to the UK?’ Bearing in mind that I have a UK passport which shows my place of birth as Glasgow, I was puzzled by this question.”

Nadeem Butt in the Independent, 1 September 2006

‘Muslims feel like victims. The West feels guilty. Is the world going mad?’

Posted on by Bob Pitt

Gerard Baker supports racial/religious profiling as long as it is “carried out properly and indeed respectfully”. He continues:

“But to argue, as is now common, that it is another example of harassment of and discrimination against Muslims by an increasingly aggressive and hostile State and society, is not only a bit rich. It sounds disturbing like another example of what is becoming a dangerous pathology among many Muslims – to wallow in a self-imposed and eagerly embraced status of victimhood. This condition places the blame for every ill in their lives, in their communities, in the West and in the countries of the Middle East, on the imperialist oppression of the white man, the American and, of course, the Jew, never once stopping to consider even the possibility that their plight might be, in part at least, their own making….

“The failure of Palestinians to create an orderly and successful society is blamed on ‘the occupation’. The failure of many Muslims in Europe, especially in Britain, to integrate effectively is laid at the feet of a white racist society that excludes them…. Of course, this celebration of victimhood plays to the West’s deep sense of guilt, producing a fearful complementarity that makes today’s crisis so potent – a civilisation all too willing to accept the blame for the woes of a people all too willing to blame them.”

Times, 1 September 2006