Category Archives: Analysis & comment

Klinghoffer killed by ‘Islamic terrorists’

Posted on by Bob Pitt

Debbie Schlussel marks the twentieth anniversary of the murder of Leon Klinghoffer on the hijacked cruise ship Achille Lauro by accusing “Islamic terrorists” of responsibility for his death. Schlussel concludes:

“Klinghoffer’s murderers weren’t Christians. And they weren’t from Samoa or Fiji, either. They were Arab Muslims. The same group we keep denying is after us, today. WAKE UP, AMERICA!”

Front Page Magazine, 11 October 2005

Which of course rather overlooks the fact that Klinghoffer was killed by members of the Abu Abbas faction of the Palestine Liberation Front, a secular nationalist organisation.

Christian group may seek ban on Qur’an

Posted on by Bob Pitt

A Protestant evangelical pressure group has warned that it will try to use the government’s racial and religious hatred law to prosecute bookshops selling the Qur’an for inciting religious hatred.

Christian Voice, a fringe fundamentalist group which first came to public prominence this year when it campaigned against the BBC’s broadcasting of Jerry Springer The Opera, was among the evangelical organisations taking part in a 1,000-strong demonstration against the bill outside parliament yesterday as the House of Lords held a second reading debate on the measure.

Its director, Stephen Green, said the organisation would consider taking out prosecutions against shops selling the Islamic holy book. He told the Guardian: “If the Qur’an is not hate speech, I don’t know what is. We will report staff who sell it. Nowhere in the Bible does it say that unbelievers must be killed.”

Guardian, 12 October 2005

It seems to have escaped Green’s attention that under the provisions of the Racial and Religious Hatred Bill it would be necessary for the Attorney General to initiate a prosecution. And what are the prospects of the Attorney General acceding to demands from a nutty Christian sect that Muslim bookshops should be prosecuted for selling the Qur’an? Precisely nil.

What is more worthy of comment is the fact that yesterday’s protest against the bill involved a block between right-wing evangelical Christians and militant secularists. According to reports in the Morning Star and the Metro, the former group brandished placards reading “Freedom to Preach” and “Don’t Let Terrorism Win”, and joined together in singing “In the Name of Jesus We Have the Victory”, while Keith Porteous Wood of the National Secular Society hailed the demonstration (which had the official backing of the NSS) as “a measure of the breadth of the opposition to this bill”.

You might wonder what such disparate groups have in common. An interest in fomenting hatred against Muslims free from state interference, perhaps?

’60 percent of British Muslims support Al-Qaida’ claim

Posted on by Bob Pitt

“I happened to hear President Bush’s speech last week in its entirety. It was a pretty mixed bag. Some of what he had to say obviously needed to be said – that there is no compromising or appeasing Islamic fascism is obvious. But he again either chose to ignore or was simply unwilling to bring up the fact that it’s not just Osama and al Qaeda we’re up against – it’s a substantial part of Islam. In Britain, after the 7/7 bombings, over 60 percent of British Muslims polled said they would not help the British government against al Qaeda or other Islamic terrorists.”

Robert Miller in the Jewish Weekly, 11 October 2005

And where exactly did Miller get that figure from? A YouGov poll conducted for the Daily Telegraph in the immediate aftermath of 7/7 asked British Muslims who they would tell if they suspected someone they knew might be planning a similar attack. 73% said they would inform the police, others said they would tell their family, friends or the local council, and only 3% said they wouldn’t tell anyone. I imagine this compares favourably with the percentage of non-Muslims prepared to inform on someone they suspected was planning a violent attack on Muslims.

Miller has an equally informed opinion on US foreign policy, where he suggests that the appropriate response to the current dispute with the government of Iran would be “a devastating raid on the Iranian oil fields”.

This only goes to prove that the US is the undisputed world leader when it comes to pop-eyed Islamophobia. By comparison, Melanie Phillips, Nick Cohen or GALHA appear almost level-headed.

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?

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 →

Islamism – two views

Posted on by Bob Pitt

“Islamism, like socialism, is not a uniform entity. It is a colourful sociopolitical phenomenon with many strategies and discourses. This enormously diverse movement ranges from liberal to conservative, from modern to traditional, from moderate to radical, from democratic to theocratic, and from peaceful to violent. What these trends have in common is that they derive their source of legitimacy from Islam, just as Latin American anarchist guerrillas, communists, social democrats and third-way Blairites base theirs on socialism. To view such a broad canvas through the lens of Bin Laden or Zarqawi is absurd.”

Soumaya Ghannoushi in the Guardian, 5 October 2005

“… who will get the blame if the rucksacks start exploding at the Gare du Nord? Will the liberal world look Islamism in the face and see a cult of slaughter and self-slaughter powered by messianic faith, the Jewish conspiracy theory of European fascism, imperialist dreams of world domination and a loathing of democracy, pluralism, religious tolerance and the emancipation of women?”

Nick Cohen in the Observer, 9 October 2005

It’s also worth comparing Soumaya Ghannoushi’s understanding of the causes of Islamist terrorism (see here) with Cohen’s. She offers a nuanced analysis which places ideology in its social context, whereas Cohen – the self-styled upholder of Enlightenment values and secular rationalism – produces only an ignorant, bigoted rant which denies that terrorism has any material basis at all.

Egypt may allow first Islamist party

Posted on by Bob Pitt

An Islamist party in Egypt – which says a Christian can be head of state in a Muslim society – may become the country’s first legal religious party before the end of the year, if a court rules in its favour. Founders of the al-Wasat party have been trying for nearly 10 years to get a permission to operate. The party has already had its application turned down twice. The Egyptian constitution bans political parties with a religious agenda.

BBC News, 6 October 2005

Could this be the same al-Wasat party whose formation was welcomed by Yusuf al-Qaradawi, even though it was opposed by the Muslim Brotherhood? Yup, it’s the same al-Wasat party. And could that be the same Yusuf al-Qaradawi who is denounced by David T over at Harry’s Place as “THE ideologue of the Muslim Brotherhood”? Yup, it’s the same Qaradawi.

Raymond Baker’s analysis (Islam Without Fear, pp.198-9) of the formation of the al-Wasat Party in 1996 is worth quoting:

“The Islamist reaction proved the most interesting and least predictable. Although the press initially described the party initiative as the work of the Muslim Brothers, the leadership of the Brothers strongly attacked the party and worked actively to undermine it. The aging leadership of the Brotherhood regarded the work of the young activists as a breach of discipline that threatened the bureaucratic and hierarchical organizational structure of the Brotherhood. They expelled the party founders for arrogance and disobedience that threatened to undermine the movement. They also instructed those members of the Brotherhood who had responded positively to the initiative to withdraw their support….

“In sharp contrast, the New Islamists welcomed this bold initiative of the young as a sign of vitality and hope. In their public responses, they chose to pay attention to the most progressive and forward-looking aspects of the party platform, taking them as hopeful signs that the Islamist body could act in moderate ways that fully engaged the energies and talents of the younger generation. Yusuf al Qaradawy lent the full weight of his prestige to support of the Wassat party, sharply criticizing the Brotherhood leadership for its disavowal.”

Guardian to interview Qaradawi?

Posted on by Bob Pitt

Sheikh QaradawiReports that Madeleine Bunting may be interviewing Yusuf al-Qaradawi for the Guardian have not pleased some people. See Harry’s Place, 6 October 2005

You can understand why David T and the mellifluously-named “Drink-soaked Trotskyite Popinjays for War” might have a problem with this. They fear that Madeleine Bunting may present the same favourable view of Dr al-Qaradawi that is held by John Esposito, Karen Armstrong, Noah Feldman, Marc Lynch, Hugh Miles, Mockbul Ali of the FCO – and, indeed, by anyone of reasonably progressive views who actually knows something about the subject. On this issue, David T et al prefer the company of frothing-at-the-mouth right-wingers like Daniel Pipes and Robert Spencer.