Author Archives: Bob Pitt

‘Muslim laws must come to Britain’ – Express whips up hysteria over Rowan Williams’ speech

Posted on by Bob Pitt

Muslim Laws Must Come to BritainThe Archbishop of Canterbury was accused of surrendering to Muslim extremists last night by calling for Islamic sharia law to rule in parts of Britain.

Dr Rowan Williams claimed incorporating aspects of the Muslim legal system into UK law was now “unavoidable” and “appropriate” and said believers should not have to choose between “the stark alternatives of cultural loyalty or state loyalty”.

The Church of England’s most senior cleric also backed demands for Islamic courts to settle divorces and other disputes between Muslims living in Britain.

But his remarks sparked a storm of protest. Sharia law has been used to justify stoning, beheadings and other brutal punishments in many Muslim countries. In extreme cases, Islamic courts have even put people to death for converting to Christianity.

Tory MP Mark Pritchard called the Archbishop’s remarks naive and shocking. “He may want to run up the white flag of surrender over Lambeth Palace, but there are many who do not.”

Mike Judge, of the Christian Institute, said: “The fact that we all obey the same law, whatever our religion, is an important principle of the British way of life.”

And Stephen Green, national director of Christian Voice said: “This is a Christian country with Christian laws. If Muslims want to live under sharia law then they are free to emigrate to a country where sharia law is already in operation.”

Daily Express, 8 February 2008

Government bans Qaradawi

Posted on by Bob Pitt

YusufalQaradawiThe government has been criticised by moderate Muslim groups for banning a controversial Muslim scholar from entering Britain and branding him an extremist.

The government confirmed to the Guardian that Yusuf al-Qaradawi had applied to come to the UK but had been refused.

The decision could hand the Tories a small political victory as the Conservative leader, David Cameron, last week called for his exclusion from the UK, saying Qaradawi was a “dangerous and divisive” preacher of hate.

But moderate British Muslim groups, including the Muslim Council of Britain (MCB), are upset with the ban. Muhammad Abdul Bari, the secretary-general of the MCB, condemned the ban. He said the UK government had bowed to Zionist and neo-con pressure and pointed out that a Tory government had allowed Qaradawi to enter Britain several times.

Bari said Qaradawi was respected as a scholar throughout the Muslim world: “It is regrettable that the government has finally given way to these unreasonable demands spearheaded by the Tory leader whose government had, in fact, allowed Dr Qaradawi to visit the UK five times between 1995-97.

“I am afraid this decision will send the wrong message to Muslims everywhere about the state of British society and culture. Britain has had a long and established tradition of free speech, debate and intellectual pursuit. These principles are worth defending, especially if we would like to see them spread throughout the world.”

The Home Office said: “We can confirm that Al-Qaradawi has been refused a visa to visit the UK. The UK will not tolerate the presence of those who seek to justify any acts of terrorist violence or express views that could foster inter-community violence.”

Guardian, 7 February 2008

The Sun, on the other hand goes with “PM bans hate cleric’s UK visit“.

See also MCB press release, 6 February 2008 and Inayat Bunglawala’s piece at Comment is Free

And for Tim Montgomerie’s response see Tory Diary, 7 February 2008

Imaan opposes ban on Qaradawi

Posted on by Bob Pitt

LGBT Muslims concerned that ban on scholar could contribute to Islamophobia

Imaan, the LGBT Muslim support group, joins those in the Muslim community who are concerned at the Home Office decision to ban Sheikh Yusuf Al-Qaradawi. The Home Office is reported to have refused a visa for medical treatment on the grounds that: “the UK will not tolerate the presence of those who seek to justify any acts of terrorist violence or express views that could foster inter-community violence.”

This flies in the face of advice from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office which states that acting “against Qaradawi would alienate significant and influential members of the global Muslim community … (and) give grist to Al-Qaeda propaganda of a western vendetta against Muslims…”

This advice, given in 2005 by its Islamic Affairs Advisor, clearly outlines that Qaradawi has made authoritative statements condemning the London bombings, the 9-11 attacks and other acts of terrorism, which he has stated are against the beliefs of Islam (see editor’s notes below for link).

Regarding his views on homosexuality, Imaan makes clear its disagreements with all faiths that are regressive on this issue.

However, we believe that all religious leaders should be treated equally and just as we would not support a ban on the Pope, so we are concerned that by banning Qaradawi, the Home Office is contributing to a climate of Islamophobia, which impacts on all Muslims, including our LGBT members.

Continue reading →

Archbishop backs sharia law for British Muslims

Posted on by Bob Pitt

Rowan_WilliamsThe Archbishop of Canterbury sparked controversy today when he said the introduction of sharia law for British Muslims was “unavoidable”. Rowan Williams told BBC Radio 4’s World at One that Muslims should be able to choose whether to have matters such as marital disputes dealt with under sharia law or the British legal system. His comments were strongly criticised by the National Secular Society but welcomed by the Muslim Council of Britain (MCB), which stressed it did not back the introduction of sharia criminal law. Williams said his proposal would only work if sharia law was properly understood, rather than seen through the eyes of biased media reports.

Guardian, 7 February 2008

See also BBC News, 7 February 2008

Meanwhile, over at Harry’s Place, the inimitable David Toube calls for Williams to be sacked. “Isn’t there something particularly pathetic”, he asks, “about a Bishop in a church which – in theory – exists to evangelise, shilling on behalf of the theocratic politics of another religion, which wishes to write their version of ‘god’s will’ into law?”

Damian Thompson agrees: “Williams is lending his support to the establishment of a non-Christian theocracy in Britain. The Church of England must think seriously about his suitability for the ancient office he occupies. And then get rid of him.”

At Dhimmi Watch, Robert Spencer is appalled: “Rowan Williams has utterly forgotten, if he ever knew, that the idea of ‘one law for everybody’ was one of the great achievements of Judeo-Christian civilization…. I wonder if Rowan Williams is aware that if Muslims ever came to power in Britain, they themselves would enforce one law for everybody – a law that would reduce him to dhimmitude.”

Over at Stormfront the fascists take much the same line.

And if “the idea of ‘one law for everybody’ was one of the great achievements of Judeo-Christian civilization”, how does Spencer explain the existence of Beth Din courts?

For the Archbishop’s actual views, see here.

Veil to be banned on Dutch buses?

Posted on by Bob Pitt

De Volkskrant has the latest on the continuing political saga of whether, and to what extent, burqas should be banned in the Netherlands. Despite the fact that there’s only a limited number of women wearing this type of garment, the issue keeps stirring up strong political sentiments.

Earlier, the cabinet agreed that burqas would be banned for government workers and at schools. On Friday, the government is expected to announce that burqas will also be banned from public transport. And for those of you cynical enough to believe that all of this has anything to do with Islamophobia, the ban, if introduced, will also apply to balaclavas and crash helmets.

De Volkskrant writes that a ban on burqas was first proposed by Freedom Party leader Geert Wilders in 2005, but the previous cabinet never got round to it as a result of internal divisions.

The current government coalition has decided against a general ban on burqas, arguing that a ban is only justified when the garment in question “seriously hampers integration and communication”.

However, when this is the case, societal interests outweigh religious freedoms such as the wearing of burqas. It will come as no surprise that the Freedom Party does not think the ban is going far enough, and has submitted a bill banning the wearing of burqas not only in all public spaces, but also at home.

Expatica, 7 February 2008

Islamophobia: resisting prejudice

Posted on by Bob Pitt

“Most of us do not need to read the many reports coming out of the European Union, government departments and think-tanks to tell us there has been a rise in Islamophobia in Britain since 9/11 and the beginning of the ‘war on terror’…. Islamophobia seems to be replacing antisemitism as the principal Western statement of bigotry against the ‘other’…. This isn’t to say that we didn’t have racism pre 9/11. I’ve been called a ‘Paki’ for as long as I can remember – but now it is about being a Muslim. ‘Polite society’ no longer has to worry about seeming racist, or sounding like the BNP, if they are talking about Muslims.”

Nahella Ashraf in Socialist Worker, 9 February 2008

‘When religion means death’ (according to Maryam Namazie)

Posted on by Bob Pitt

namazie and racist placards 2Maryam Namazie of the Worker-Communist Party of Iran offers her thoughts (we use the word in its loosest possible sense) on the death sentence imposed on Parwiz Kambakhsh in Afghanistan. She writes:

“Many have rightly come to his defence and must keep the pressure on. But to defend Parwiz by saying he did not ‘intend’ to blaspheme misses the entire point. This is exactly what the likes of the Muslim Council of Britain say in order to conceal the responsibility of their political Islamic movement. For example, the MCB ‘greeted’ the release of Gillian Gibbons (the British schoolteacher who was imprisoned in Sudan for allowing her 7 year old students to name their class teddy bear Mohammad) by saying she had not ‘intended to deliberately insult the Islamic faith’.

“What they are basically saying is that victims and their ‘intentions’ are to blame for the injustices and barbarity of Islamic law. Moreover, they are implying that if someone knew they were blaspheming, or if their actions or statements were so clearly blasphemous that they should have known better, then the death penalty or calls for their death are permissible – or at the very least understandable. The smokescreen of ‘intent’ aims to conceal the real issue at hand, which is Islam in power….”

New Statesman blog, 5 February 2008

In fact, the MCB did not merely “greet” the release of Gillian Gibbons but declared that her prosecution was “a disgraceful decision and defies common sense” and called for the charges to be dropped. Like many self-styled defenders of the Enlightenment, Namazie doesn’t allow objective evidence to interfere with her own prejudices.

Islam expert not forced out, congresswoman says

Posted on by Bob Pitt

A Pentagon anti-terrorism specialist was not ousted because his superiors thought he was too critical of Islam, a congresswoman who investigated the matter said Tuesday. Stephen Coughlin, an expert on Islamic law for the Department of Defense, was not pushed out of his job because he offended Muslim employees of the Pentagon, as many had suspected, said Rep. Sue Myrick (R-N.C.), co-chair of the bipartisan House Anti-Terrorism Caucus.

Much of the controversy surrounding Coughlin – an attorney, former Army intelligence officer, and major in the Army Reserves – emerged from his 333-page thesis, “To Our Great Detriment: Ignoring What Extremists Say About Jihad.” The report was accepted last year by the National Defense Intelligence College. The report describes an Islamic culture that teaches violence from an early age.

Though Myrick doesn’t believe there was political chicanery involved, she does think the Pentagon should have paid more attention to Coughlin’s thesis. “He states we have not listened to our enemies – Osama Bin Laden and his ilk – that they are acting in accordance with Islam,” she said.

She added that the government must be aware of radical jihadists trying to infiltrate American organizations. “I know that some people will refuse to admit there is a subversive movement going on here, but let me remind you that we have underestimated the will and capability of our enemy for more than 30 years,” Myrick said. “They are patient and determined to achieve their radical agenda.”

CNSNews.com, 6 February 2008

UK government acts on hoax e-mail

Posted on by Bob Pitt

The UK government is taking the unprecedented step of writing to every embassy to stop a false e-mail rumour about Holocaust teaching being banned. A widely-circulated e-mail has falsely claimed that schools in the UK will stop teaching the Holocaust because it might cause offence to Muslims. Schools Secretary Ed Balls says he wants to “put an end once and for all to the myth” spread by the e-mail.

BBC News, 4 February 2008

This email has been circulating for months now. See here.