Author Archives: Bob Pitt

Indy stitches up Hizb

Posted on by Bob Pitt

The lead story in the Independent on Sunday is headlined: “Islamic group in secret plan to recruit UK students.” Yes, it’s the Independent pursuing its vendetta against Hizb ut-Tahrir.

The article seeks to make an amalgam between Hizb and the now defunct al-Muhajiroun, stating that they “both deny supporting violence”. This was clearly not true of al-Muhajiroun, who under Omar Bakri’s buffoonish leadership held provocative rallies celebrating 9/11, whereas Hizb has repudiated terrorism.

The article, which mixes in references to al-Qaida and the London bombings, is clearly intended to present Hizb as some sort of terrorist threat – a charge rejected even by those, including the MCB, who strongly oppose Hizb’s sectarian interpretation of Islam – and to provide backing for the government’s undemocratic plans to proscribe the organisation.

Update:  Read Hizb ut-Tahrir’s response here.

Straight talk about Tariq Ramadan

Posted on by Bob Pitt

Re Tariq Ramadan’s appointment to a government taskforce on tackling extremism (Blair backs banned Muslim scholar, August 31): we feel it is important to make clear there are a multiplicity of views in the UK Jewish community. More importantly, a multiplicity of views are what is required on a task force.

Professor Ramadan’s views appear to concentrate on the complexity of issues, rather than alleged extremism. In his book Western Muslims and the Future of Islam, he argues for a new understanding of Islamic principles within a western context, calling for dialogue with non-Muslims. Following the London bombings, Professor Ramadan published an opinion piece in the Guardian entitled “Living together takes effort” (July 9).

We agree. In particular, we urge leaders of all communities to avoid hearsay and to renew efforts to seek common ground, thereby opening avenues for honest dialogue. The effort is worth it.

Jonathan Colman
Dr Edie Friedman
Reva Klein
Dr Brian Klug
Francesca Klug
Tony Lerman
Jewish Council for Racial Equality

Letter in Guardian, 2 September 2005

Western view of Islam: A troubled history

Posted on by Bob Pitt

“Why are negative images of Islam more prevalent than any others? Why is it still acceptable to say things about Muslims that would simply be deemed unacceptable of Jews, Christians, or Buddhists? That years of inter-faith dialogue have done little to advance a better understanding of the Islamic faith in the western world is an indication of how profoundly entrenched in the Western psyche crude misrepresentations and vulgar stereotypes of Islam are.”

Soumayya Ghannoushi examines the historical origins of Islamophobia.

Aljazeera, 1 September 2005

‘Moslems censor American speech’

Posted on by Bob Pitt

“Recently, the Mohammedans won a coup getting a conservative talk show host, Michael Graham, fired from WMAL-AM, an ABC Radio affiliate…. The Muslims got Graham for telling the truth. It’s going to get a lot worse. More Americans must speak in public with a lot more of the painful truth of Islam. This historical truth is so politically incorrect it shouts down the public pandering from the President down to not dare offend oh-so-sensitive Muslims. Like, Islam is a (or do they insist it is ‘the’?) Religion of Peace. If Islam is a Religion of Peace then Aztec Paganism was the Religion of Mercy…. Muslim armies killed, raped, and destroyed more in their conquests against Christians, Pagans and Hindus than all the Crusades put together…. And Islamic Civilization is 800 years behind Western Civilization. By any measure that you mark Islam is as far behind the West as the Germanic Tribes were behind Rome. Islamic Civilization is barbaric compared to West. Truth isn’t Islamophobia.”

James A. Bowden rallies to the defence of poor victimised Michael Graham. Mind you, on this evidence he probably regards Graham as a bit of a liberal Islamophile.

MichNews.com, 31 August 2005

Defend civil liberties

Posted on by Bob Pitt

March for Peace and LibertyThe so-called “War on Terror” has made our world a more dangerous place. 85 percent of the British people believe that there is a link between the dreadful bombings in London and the illegal invasion of Iraq. This link is acknowledged by the Joint Terrorism Analysis Centre and the Chatham House think-tank.

The policy is seen by many as a war on Islam with constant rhetoric by Bush and Blair about “fighting evil ideology”, “sharing our values” and demonising any organisation or person who speaks out against injustice. As a result, an atmosphere of hate and fear is created, attacks on Muslims have recently increased by 600 percent. Furthermore, the onslaught by right-wing extremists on Islam as a religion has crossed every boundary.

Muslims are not in denial, we are in the forefront of fighting terror against innocent civilians which ever the form or shape it takes. But our government is turning a blind eye to continuous oppression, occupation and state-sponsored terrorism around the world.

The first casualty of the “War on Terror” is our own freedom and liberties. We say “don’t take liberties with our liberties”. The new measures proposed by the Prime Minster will remove fundamental freedoms in British society and will not make our country safer.

MAB press release, 1 September 2005

Religion’s political role

Posted on by Bob Pitt

George Galloway (1)Andrew Anthony (G2, August 31) accuses me of inconsistency, even hypocrisy. But that charge rebounds. By his own casuistry, the anti-religious Anthony must surely be inconsistent in celebrating the passing of the atheist Soviet Union. The inconsistency mounts when, in the name of liberal values, he equates all expression of political Islam with fascism. Those Muslim activists who draw on their traditions in the fight against the BNP are, in his eyes, of a piece with Mussolini and Hitler.

Movements against oppression and exploitation have fought under many different banners. For many it has been a version of socialism or radical nationalism. For many others today it is through radical interpretations of religion. Are the Latin American liberation theologists to be considered part of Anthony’s fascist menace? Or is he, as seems apparent, slandering Islam as a uniquely evil religion?

The grotesque intolerance of self-appointed “liberal” defenders of tolerance stands bare. They should come clean. Their problem is not with religion over secularism; it is with the increasing numbers of people – religious and non-religious – who are coming together in political movements to challenge corporate power and the Bush/Blair doctrine of permanent war.

George Galloway MP
Respect, Bethnal Green and Bow

Letter in Guardian, 1 September 2005