Author Archives: Bob Pitt

Target Muslims says Daniel Pipes

Posted on by Bob Pitt

Pipes“The detailed texture of Mr. Bush’s speech transforms the official American understanding of who the enemy is, moving it from the superficial and inadequate notion of ‘terrorism’ to the far deeper concept of ‘Islamic radicalism’. This change has potentially enduring importance if finally … it convinces polite society to name the enemy. Doing so means, for example, that immigration authorities and law enforcement can take Islam into account when deciding whom to let into the country or whom to investigate for terrorism offenses. Focusing on Muslims as the exclusive source of Islamists permits them finally to do their job adequately.”

Daniel Pipes in the New York Sun, 11 October 2005

Marc Lynch reports on Pipes’ performance on al-Jazeera: “Bush’s speech, according to Pipes, indicates that the American government is worried about what is in the Arab media, and that the governments and institutions running those media should expect greater American pressure to behave responsibly. (He does have a point, you know: it’s hard to argue that al-Jazeera doesn’t give a platform to extremists when Pipes keeps getting invited back…)”

Abu Aardvark blog, 12 October 2005

US neocons embrace Nick Cohen

Posted on by Bob Pitt

Nick Cohen holds forth about the supposed rise of anti-semitism on the left. As an example he offers the observation that “Ken Livingstone embraced a Muslim cleric who favoured the blowing up of Israeli women and children, along with wife-beating and the murder of homosexuals and apostates”. Even leaving aside the predictable lies about Dr al-Qaradawi’s views, it’s difficult to see how welcoming a leading Muslim figure to a conference, and defending him against attacks by the right-wing press, constitutes anti-semitism.

It’s also worth noting that not so long ago Jonathan Freedland interviewed Chief Rabbi Jonathan Sacks for the Guardian. The interview featured the following exchange: “But aren’t there some differences too wide to bridge? Could Sacks ‘hear the voice of God’ from the mouth of a Muslim extremist who approved of terrorist violence? Could he even bring himself to meet such a man? ‘Yes’.  Would he meet, say, Abu Hamza, the sheikh of Finsbury Park, a Taliban sympathiser who admits to sharing the views of Osama bin Laden? ‘Yes’.”

I don’t recall Cohen denouncing Dr Sacks for expressing such views, yet when the Mayor of London welcomes one of the leading opponents of Al-Qaida to City Hall, Cohen presents this as evidence of anti-semitism.

And where, I hear you ask, does Cohen’s article appear? Well, it was originally published in the New Statesman, but the folks at Front Page Magazine were so impressed by his arguments that they reproduced his piece on their site. See here

For a detailed reply to Cohen, see Indigo Jo Blogs, 9 October 2005

‘The sick face of Islam’ – GALHA

Posted on by Bob Pitt

Sick Face of IslamThe latest issue of GALHA’s Gay and Lesbian Humanist magazine contains a feature on what they call “The sick face of Islam”.

Editor Andy Armitage explains: “Our front-page headline this quarter is deliberately ambiguous: it could be saying this is only the sickening face of this religion called Islam (implying that there is possibly another face); or it could be saying this is the face of Islam, and its face is sickening. Interpret it as you will. But I suspect that many who thought the former some years ago may well now be thinking the latter…”

The issue includes quotes such as: “There are two terms that, increasingly, annoy us: Islamophobia and moderate Muslims. What we’d like to know is, first, what’s wrong with being fearful of Islam (there’s a lot to fear); and, second, what does a moderate Muslim do, other than excuse the real nutters by adhering to this barmy doctrine?” … “for homosexuals, it is doubtful that there is any such thing as a ‘moderate’ practising Muslim, or that the Koran can be regarded as anything more than just a squalid murder manual” … “it is not racist to be anti-immigration or anti-Islam” … “the reckless and mismanaged immigration polices of successive governments have led to the demographics of our major towns and cites being for ever changed by huge numbers of foreign settlers” … “Legal or illegal, many of these Third World and Eastern European newcomers are criminals of the worst kind, and many more are hopelessly ill equipped to live in a complex Western democracy, unable even to speak English in some cases. A parasitic few are bent on the destruction of Western civilisation” … “Redundant churches are sprouting onion domes and minarets. We are becoming strangers in our own land” … “the fastest-growing religion is Islam. Chillingly, it continues to grow like a canker, both through immigration and through … unrestrained and irresponsible breeding” … “In the Netherlands, the warnings of popular gay politician Pim Fortuyn were tragically snuffed out by a left-wing assassin before he could sufficiently alert people to the damage the influx of Muslims is doing to his own native land”. And these are just a sample.

I believe Brett Lock of Outrage is a member of GALHA. Perhaps he’d care to comment on these articles on his blog?

‘Danger signs’ of Islamic extremism

Posted on by Bob Pitt

The United American Committee, which describes itself as “a federation of concerned Americans, promoting awareness of Islamic extremist threats in the US”, have asked Robert Spencer of Jihad Watch for a list of warning signs that a given Muslim spokesperson may be a terrorist supporter. He has supplied them with a 7-point summary which features such self-evident indications of Al-Qaida sympathies as “demanding that Americans accommodate Islamic customs and practices”, “denying that Sharia forbids equal rights for women” and “complaints of Muslims being unfairly targeted in the War On Terror”. The UAC have included Spencer’s list in a draft statement which they intend to distribute among US Muslims, and have appended the following helpful advice: “If you hear or see any of these danger signs in your Mosque or neighborhood, leave the area immediately. Do not speak with anyone and call the local authorities right away.”

See Jihad Watch, 10 October 2005

Muslims rate alongside fascists as threat to Jews – Mad Mel

Posted on by Bob Pitt

Mad Mel takes issue with a Radio 4 programme claiming that the Community Security Trust (whose leading light is Mike Whine) has exaggerated the current level of anti-semitism in Britain: “Anyone who talks to the police will know that the Jewish community in Britain has to be guarded against the very real threat of attack from both Muslims and neo-Nazis.” She is particularly outraged that Inayat Bunglawala of the Muslim Council of Britain was among those interviewed on the programme.

Melanie Phillips’s Diary, 10 October 2005

Maryam Namazie – ‘secularist of the year’

Posted on by Bob Pitt

Maryam NamazieMaryam Namazie of the Worker Communist Party of Iran has been awarded the National Secular Society’s Irwin Prize for “Secularist of the Year”. The £5,000 annual prize was presented by Guardian columnist Polly Toynbee at a lunch at the Montcalm Hotel in London. Introducing Namazie, Keith Porteous Wood of the NSS explained that “she has been roundly criticised by Islamists, the Islamic Republic of Iran and even Ken Livingstone after his invitation to this country of Yusuf Al Qaradawi. So she must be doing something right.”

In her speech, comrade Namazie stated: “And don’t get me started on Islamophobia. It is now even deemed racist to criticise beliefs and ideas and movements associated with them. And – silly me – all along I thought racism was aimed at individuals and groups of people not beliefs and political movements.”

Butterflies and Wheels, 9 October 2005

This would be the same Mayam Namazie who offered the following thoughtful comment on the issue of the hijab: “I suppose if it were to be compared with anyone’s clothing it would be comparable to the Star of David pinned on Jews by the Nazis to segregate, control, repress and to commit genocide.” So perhaps it’s just as well they didn’t get her started on Islamophobia.

For a succinct demolition of Namazie’s hysterical line on Islam (“The innocence with which Namazie claims not to know what Islamophobia is recalls the neo-Nazi party official who, challenged on TV, declares: ‘Racist? Me?'”) see Peyvand Khorsandi in The Iranian, 4 February 2003

Sharia and women’s rights

Posted on by Bob Pitt

Charles Levinson provides an interesting account of how Moroccan feminist Latifa Jbabdi won Muslim support for a new family law granting women equal rights in marriage and divorce: “For years Islamists opposed any change to the family law, on the grounds that the old family law was based on Sharia and Sharia was sacred. Well versed in these issues, Jbabdi helped lead a campaign to convince Moroccans that the new law did not contradict Islam. She succeeded and Islamic politicians voted unanimously on her side.”

Jbabdi herself is quoted as saying: “We started asking, is Islam truly against the rights of women? … We undertook a sort of repossession of our Islamic heritage, and read the texts from a feminist perspective. We found that there were many verses that stress equality, and we discovered that Islamic Sharia is not based on ready-made judgments, but rather it is based on a set of guiding principals and ijtihad.”

Women’s eNews, 9 October 2005

Egyptian reveals fresh Guantánamo horrors

Posted on by Bob Pitt

An Egyptian man freed from Guantanamo detention camp has revealed that US guards in the notorious facility “took pleasure” in torturing the inmates, who have been held for over four years without charge or trial. “The torture I suffered in the military camp left me crippled in a wheelchair,” Agence France-Presse (AFP) quoted Sami Al-Leithy as telling the Egyptian television Sunday, October 9, night. “They used to grab me by the arms and then hurl me on the floor, on my back. They took pleasure in torturing us,” he said.

Islam Online, 10 October 2005

Stephen Schwartz on the whingeing Wahhabis

Posted on by Bob Pitt

Stephen SchwartzStephen Schwartz offers his assessment of a recent OSCE conference in Poland.

CBS News, 8 October 2005

In Schwartz’s world-view, of course, virtually all non-Sufi strands of Sunni Islam qualify as “Wahhabism”. Note also that the original version in the Weekly Standard carries the strap: “Extremists get together to worry about intolerance”! CBS evidently baulked at describing an OSCE meeting in such terms.

Schwartz writes: “The OSCE is, to put it bluntly, political correctness personified. Its agenda for combating intolerance and discrimination includes everyone from prostitutes to victims of schoolyard bullying.” After all, why should anyone waste their time worrying about the exploitation of sex workers or the victims of school bullies?

Continue reading →