Category Archives: Analysis & comment

Liberal Islamophobia panders to racism

Posted on by Bob Pitt

“Why is it that a significant section of liberal and left-leaning opinion has signed up with such relish to the ‘clash of civilisations’ argument? Its champions in the media may not phrase it as such, but you can hear the creak of the drawbridge being pulled up: they believe they are surrounded by enemies – Muslims and their dastardly non-Muslim apologists – and must defend to the last man the checklist of universal Enlightenment values that sustain their mission. Their most ferocious firepower is directed at former allies on the left whom they regard as yet to see the light.”

Madeleine Bunting takes on Nick Cohen et al in the Guardian, 12 September 2005

Over at Nick Cohen’s favourite blog, Marcus complains: “She fails to mention that the ‘thorn in the side of the muscular liberals’ as she approvingly describes al-Qaradawi incited the murder of a gay person because of his sexuality as recently as last month according to gay rights group Outrage. ‘The scholars of Islam, such as Malik, Ash-Shafi`i, Ahmad and Ishaaq said that (the person guilty of this crime) should be stoned.”

Harry’s Place, 12 September 2005

Meanwhile, the obscure “Aljazeera” magazine that was the source of this fairytale has removed the report from their website, GALHA have withdrawn their press release based on the “Aljazeera” story – but Outrage and Harry’s Place continue repeating the slander unencumbered by any concern for the facts.

Jihad Watch applauds Peter Tatchell

Posted on by Bob Pitt

A UK supporter of Jihad Watch reports on a protest in London against the proposed introduction of Islamic arbitration bodies in Ontario: “there were only about 15-16 people, mostly men, including a reporter from Canadian television”.

Dhimmi Watch, 10 September 2005

Not to worry, though – they took turns to address each other on the iniquities of the Ontario proposal: “representatives from Sharia.com, the International Committee against Stoning, the British Humanist Association, the International Humanist and Ethical Union, and Peter Tatchell made speeches. There was also a guy from a gay and lesbian association there. They basically made the same objections to Sharia law that we’ve all seen here at Jihad Watch/Dhimmi Watch”.

Perhaps Outrage, GALHA and their co-thinkers might consider organising a UK visit for Robert Spencer? After all, they have so much in common.

Ultra-left sectarians against sharia

Posted on by Bob Pitt

Sharia protestMore than 300 demonstrators converged in front of the Ontario legislature Thursday in a protest against the allowance of Islamic Shariah law in the province. “Shame! Shame!” chanted members of the crowd, angry at the prospect of Ontario becoming the first Western jurisdiction to allow the use of Shariah law to settle family disputes.

Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty said his Liberal government will decide “shortly” on whether to permit Islamic law to be used in the province’s family arbitration cases. He has insisted that the rights of women will not be compromised if Shariah tribunals get the go-ahead to settle marital disputes for Muslims in the province. “Whatever we do, it will be in keeping with the values of Canadians and Ontarians,” he told reporters Wednesday.

But critics consider the religious rules an affront to human rights. “What Mr. McGuinty is doing is simply flirting with political Islam,” said Homa Arjomand, co-ordinator of the International Campaign Against Shariah Court on Thursday. “And that dangerous game is putting the lives and safety of women and children in danger. Shame.”

Billed as a global campaign against Shariah law, demonstrations took place in 11 cities across Canada and Europe — including one in London, England in front of the Canadian High Commission.

“The leader of Ontario’s government – shame on you!” said Mahmoud Ahmadi, spokesperson for the Federation of Iranian Refugees. “Shame on you!”

CTV, 9 September 2005

It would be interesting to know what the political composition of the demonstration was. I note that of the three anti-sharia demonstrators interviewed by CTV, two – Homa Arjomand and Shiva Mahbobi – are central committee members of that bizarre ultra-left sect, the Worker Communist Party of Iran. The third interviewee, Mahmoud Ahmadi, is a leading figure in the International Federation of Iranian Refugees, whose director Mina Ahadi is – yes, you guessed it – a central committee member of the WPI.

Outrage! in ignorant attack on Islam shock

Posted on by Bob Pitt

“Human rights campaigners and refugees from Islamist persecution will protest against the introduction of Sharia law in Canada, outside the Canadian High Commission, in London on Thursday 8 September 2005 from 12 noon – 2 PM. The protest is being supported by gay human rights group OutRage! and one of the keynote speakers will be OutRage! organiser, Peter Tatchell.”

Outrage! press release, 7 September 2005

Outrage! appends articles by Maryam Namazie, Azar Majedi and Homa Arjomand – all central committee members of the Worker Communist Party of Iran. Namazie attributes the Canadian proposal to “the racist concepts of multi-culturalism and cultural relativism. It promotes tolerance and respect for so-called minority opinions and beliefs”. And we can’t be having that, can we?

In fact, as anyone who has studied the subject will be aware, the proposal is not to introduce Sharia law but to amend Ontario’s Arbitration Act, which already allows Jews and Christians to choose religious arbitration if they like, in order to extend the same opportunity to Muslims. Oddly enough, I can’t remember Tatchell protesting outside the Canadian High Commission when Jews and Christians in Ontario were accorded that right. But then, I was forgetting, for Tatchell and Outrage! Islam is a uniquely evil religion.

Mad Mel and Robert Spencer denounce FO memo on Qaradawi

Posted on by Bob Pitt

Melanie Phillips (“Britain’s Foreign Office fifth column”) has a rant at the Foreign Office memorandum recommending that Yusuf al-Qaradawi should not be banned from Britain, as Mel and her mates have been demanding.

As always when reading Phillips’s tirades, you have the sense of stepping into a parallel universe – one in which Britain’s “own Foreign Office is acting as a kind of appeasement fifth column in the very heart of government”; one in which “there has never been a single authoritative challenge to the veracity or integrity of MEMRI’s authoritative translations, which have opened the eyes of the west to what the Arab and Muslim world is really saying”.

As for Mockbul Ali, the author of the FO’s document, with its accurate characterisation of MEMRI’s role, Mel comments: “when Ali gets to the Jews, his guard slips and he endorses the conspiracy theory which is the signature of the Islamic extremist.”

But Mel does have a good word for one person. Yes, it’s our old friend Nick Cohen, whose “fine polemic in the Observer” receives her enthusiastic endorsement.

Melanie Phillips’s Diary, 5 September 2005

Meanwhile over at Jihad Watch, Robert Spencer too rallies to the defence of Yigal Carmon and his associates: “What did MEMRI do? It printed what Qaradawi said. And once again doing so has been characterized by jihadist Muslims and their allies as ‘hatred’.” As for the memo’s point that Qaradawi’s view on Palestine and Iraq are not unusual amongst mainstream Muslims, Spencer retorts: “That’s true: they’re not unusual. Neither was Nazism among Germans.”

In the comments section to this post we have the usual paranoid ravings about how the FO’s policy on Qaradawi “will grant the jihadists every single thing that they wish for, without having to fire a shot, and reduce us all to dhimmi servitude” … plus declarations of support for Peter Tatchell and the Worker Communist Party of Iran.

Dhimmi Watch, 5 September 2005

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.

Creating Islamist phantoms

Posted on by Bob Pitt

“Modern Islamism is a complex political movement with a history that goes back more than 50 years…. It is only a tiny minority in the Islamist movement who have developed … a politics that advocates terrorism against the west…. We must be aware of this distinction so as to avoid a witch-hunt against the whole Islamist movement.”

Adam Curtis (who wrote and produced BBC2 documentary The Power of Nightmares) writing in the Guardian, 30 August 2005

A bit confused, to be frank. Contrary to Curtis’s claim, not all Islamists are Qutbists, or indeed revolutionaries. Yusuf al-Qaradawi, for example, has condemned Sayyid Qutb’s later writings for promoting an extremist ideology “which justified the takfir (excommunication) of (whole) societies … and the announcement of a destructive jihad against the whole of mankind”. The “New Islamist” current in Egypt of which Qaradawi is part are democratic reformists. Rachid Al-Ghannouchi of the Tunisian Renaissance party is another prominent representative of democratic Islamism.

However, Curtis does at least recognise that there are different tendencies within the social and political movements that fall into the broad category of “Islamism”. (Which is more than can be said for most liberal commentators – or for that matter certain self-styled Marxists such as the Worker Communist Parties of Iran and Iraq.)

Continue reading →

Observer attacks Qaradawi … with the assistance of MEMRI

Posted on by Bob Pitt

Qaradawi at conferenceUnder the headline “suicide bombs are a duty, says Islamic scholar”, Anthony Barnett claims that Yusuf al-Qaradawi “has said it is a duty of Muslims in Iraq to become suicide bombers”.

Observer, 28 August 2005

The report is taken from the Middle East Media Research Institute, which is of course notorious for producing selective translations designed to discredit supporters of the Palestinian cause. If you watch the video on MEMRI TV #822 you’ll see that it’s been carefully edited to bring out the points that serve MEMRI’s political agenda.

However, even judging by MEMRI’s selected extracts, it is clear that Qaradawi was responding to an earlier speaker who had, he noted, “stressed the legitimacy of defense, saying it is a legitimate right in Palestine and Iraq. I think that saying it is a legitimate right is not enough, because a right is something that can be relinquished. This is a duty. All scholars say that defending an occupied homeland is an individual duty applying to every Muslim”. So Qaradawi was clearly referring to the general duty to resist an occupying power, not to suicide bombings as such.

Qaradawi also reiterated his frequently stated view that these bombings are not in fact suicide, because the bomber “does not want to commit suicide, but rather to cause great damage to the enemy, and this is the only method he can use to cause such damage. Since this method did not exist in the past, we cannot find rulings about it in the ancient jurisprudence”. But that is rather different from arguing that everyone resisting Israeli and US occupation forces has a duty to become a suicide bomber.

Anthony Barnett’s confusion is due to the fact that MEMRI’s version of Qaradawi’s speech consists of three separate sections spliced together. There is an obvious splice after the section that ends “I am amazed by what Dr. Muhammad Rafat ‘Othman said” and before the next one, beginning “This has nothing to do with suicide”. There is no indication of this in MEMRI’s transcript of Qaradawi’s speech, which does not use ellipses, thus obscuring the editing that has taken place.

The (presumably intentional) result of this is to suggest that when Q was referring to resistance he was equating this with suicide bombing. Hence the Observer‘s headline stating that Q claimed suicide bombing was a duty.

However, MEMRI is at least prepared to admit that Qaradawi’s speech was delivered at a conference of religious scholars called to oppose terrorism – which is more than the Observer is prepared to do. (For a report of the conference, see Islam Online, 23 August 2005.)

Brett Lock is dead chuffed that the liberal press has uncritically reproduced MEMRI’s propaganda: “Well, this is progress! Finally The Guardian [sic – wrong paper, Brett] is reporting that Dr Qaradawi is indeed a supporter of suicide bombers.” (See Lock & Load blog, 28 August 2005.) But this is par for the course for Brett and his chums in Outrage!, who adopt material provided by right-wing Isamophobic bigots without a moment’s hesitation. And why not? They have so much in common.

The return of Mad Mel

Posted on by Bob Pitt

No doubt you were hoping that Melanie Phillips, like Omar Bakri, would make her holiday a long one. But she’s back, with a series of rants that indicate she’s had difficulty bottling up her rage over the past three weeks or so. Here’s the short version: the government’s crackdown on civil liberties doesn’t go nearly far enough, Inayat Bunglawala’s statement that the Panorama attack on the MCB was motivated by a pro-Israel agenda betrays “the signature obsession of the Muslim fanatic”, Patrick Sookhdeo’s Institute for the Study of Islam and Christianity is an admirable source of information and analysis and so is Daniel Pipes, the Mayor London is a “groupie for Sheikh Yusuf Quaradawi”, there’s the usual swipe at “the anti-Israel bigotry of the British left”, and so on and so on.

Melanie Phillips’s Diary, 26 August 2005

I particularly liked the letter Mel reproduces from one of her admirers denouncing the decision to issue Nottinghamshire police with green ribbons: “Incensed upon reading how the Chief Constable has issued his 4,000 officers with badges pledging support to the Muslim community in the wake of the London bombings I phoned and was put through to his PA…. I was given the usual gumph about how we shouldn’t tar one entire community with the same brush etc etc etc – usual liberal/public sector clap-trap. I suggested that they should in fact wear badges showing solidarity with the community under attack by the fanatical Muslims and the poor devils killed and maimed in these latest attacks. Whereupon I was accused of being a racist.”

It’s political correctness gone mad, I tell you.

‘Progress’ attacks MAB and Qaradawi

Posted on by Bob Pitt

“That the Stop the War Coalition should have allowed the Muslim Association of Britain to be a partner organisation is disgraceful, given the MAB’s support for sharia law (with its disregard for women’s and gay rights), its belief that Muslims who renounce their faith should be put to death, and its calls for the state of Israel to be abolished.

“While we do not expect much better from the Stop the War Coalition, given its domination by the Socialist Workers party, others should know better. Ken Livingstone’s credibility as a spokesman for the rights of minorities and women, and his condemnation of terrorism in London, are severely undermined for so long as he continues to defend his decision last year to invite the radical Islamic cleric, Yusuf al-Qaradawi, to speak at a Greater London Authority event. On his website, al-Qaradawi advocates the killing of ‘perverted’ homosexuals, defends husbands who beats their wives and questions the innocence of rape victims. Al-Qaradawi is, furthermore, an out-and-out antisemite: defending not only the murder of Israeli civilians in suicide bombings but also looking forward to the day of judgement when ‘Muslims will fight the Jews and kill them’. Would the mayor be happy to host an American white supremacist who advocated the murder of African Americans?”

Editorial in Progress, September 2005

It’s rather ironic that this Islamophobic rant appears in the same issue of Progress that announces Sadiq Khan MP has just become one of its patrons (see here).