Muslim birth rate expected to fall over next two decades, study shows

Fox News logoThis was the original title to a Fox News piece on the new Pew Research Center report, The Future of the Global Muslim Population.

As Pew’s own summary of the report states: “While the global Muslim population is expected to grow at a faster rate than the non-Muslim population, the Muslim population nevertheless is expected to grow at a slower pace in the next two decades than it did in the previous two decades. From 1990 to 2010, the global Muslim population increased at an average annual rate of 2.2%, compared with the projected rate of 1.5% for the period from 2010 to 2030.”

But that’s not the message Fox wants to convey to its readers is it? The amended headline now reads: “Muslim population expected to increase by 1 billion people by 2030, study shows.”

‘Socialists’ oppose broad alliance to democratise Tunisia

On Tuesday the Guardian pubished an excellent article by Soumaya Ghannouchi on the Tunisian revolution in which she outlined two alternative roads out of the current political crisis:

The first involves a recycling of the old regime with a few cosmetic amendments. That is the strategy of the so-called “unity government”, announced by Prime Minister Mohammed Ghannouchi today, a man who had served for years under the fallen dictator. It excludes the real forces on the ground, which genuinely reflect the Tunisian political landscape: independent socialists, Islamists and liberals. The unity government seems intent on turning the clock back, behaving as if the revolution had never been, reinstalling the loathed ruling party, the Constitutional Democratic Rally (RCD), with all the same faces – bar Ben Ali’s, of course – and the same security machine. That is why protests have erupted again in many cities, with “Ben Ali out” changed to “RCD out”.

The alternative strategy – and the task now facing the Tunisian people – is to build a wide coalition of the forces that can dismantle the legacy of the despotic post-colonial state and bring about the change their people have been yearning for decades. This has been the driving force for the alliance being forged between the Communist Workers’ Party, led by Hamma al-Hammami, the charismatic Moncef al-Marzouqi’s Congress Party for the Republic, and Ennahda, led by my father Rachid Ghannouchi, along with trade unionists, and civil society activists.

You might have thought that support for a broad alliance of those forces campaigning for the democratisation of Tunisia would be welcomed by anyone outside of the ranks of the ruling RCD. But you’d be wrong. Yesterday’s Guardian featured two two letters denouncing Soumaya Ghannouchi’s article, both of which were written by supporters of the Alliance for Workers’ Liberty, a far-left sect notorious for its obsessive hostility towards political Islam.

You’ll note that Soumaya’s AWL critics don’t make the slightest effort to analyse the actual political character of Ennahda. Indeed, an article in the latest issue of the AWL paper Solidarity entitled “Islamist threat in Tunisia?” begins: “We don’t know how strong the Islamist threat is in Tunisia.” In fact the AWL doesn’t know anything about Islamism in Tunisia full stop. But ignorance is no obstacle to such sectarian dogmatists. Mark Osborn and Sacha Ismail don’t need to acquire any actual knowledge of the Ennahda party, its history, its principles or its programme. Why should they? For the AWL, the idea of an alliance between the left and an Islamist party is excluded as a matter of principle, whether its purpose is to mobilise public opinion against imperialist war or to displace a corrupt one-party dictatorship. We can at least take consolation in the fact that there is not the remotest prospect of the AWL influencing political developments in Tunisia – or anywhere else for that matter.

Cameron puts HT ban on back burner

HizbAt Prime Minister’s Questions on Wednesday, Labour MP Clive Efford asked David Cameron, in connection with the government’s announcement that the Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan would be added to the list of proscribed terrorist groups, why he has “not fulfilled his manifesto commitment” to ban Hizb ut-Tahrir.

Cameron refused to answer the question, demanding instead: “why did the last Government have 13 years, yet the Pakistani Taliban were never banned? It has taken us eight months to do what they failed to do in 12 years.” (To which supporters of the last government might reply that Labour’s failure to proscribe the Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan immediately after taking office in May 1997 could possibly be explained by the fact that the TTP wasn’t founded until December 2007.)

But the Tory Party’s 2010 election manifesto did indeed contain an explicit commitment to “ban any organisations which advocate hate or the violent overthrow of our society, such as Hizb-ut-Tahrir”. And when he was leader of the opposition Cameron repeatedly called for the proscription of HT (see for example here, here, here,here), as did other prominent figures in the Tory Party such as Pauline Neville-Jones, Chris Grayling and Patrick Mercer.

It was explained to Cameron by spokespersons for the Labour government that, while they were keeping HT under review, an organisation cannot be proscribed under the 2000 Terrorism Act unless there is actual evidence that it is “concerned in terrorism”. And in the case of HT, which is a peaceful if highly sectarian organisation that rejects any involvement with or support for terrorist activities, no such evidence exists.

Challenged in the Commons on Wednesday evening over the government’s plans to ban HT, Damian Green stated only that “Hizb ut-Tahrir is an organisation about which we have real concerns, and I can confirm that its activities are kept under review”. And ENGAGE draws our attention to an article in Thursday’s Daily Express which reports that “Downing Street insiders” have “admitted that there was a lack of evidence of law-breaking for such a banning”.

In short, it would appear that Cameron has now adopted exactly the same position on the illegalisation of HT for which he vehemently denounced Labour when they were in office. In a letter to the prime minister, Ed Balls has written: “Isn’t it the case that the issue has turned out to be more complicated in government than the grandstanding and simple soundbites you made in opposition?”

Precisely so. Without any concern for the civil rights of an organisation that operates entirely within the law, Cameron used the demand for the proscription of HT in order to score party political points against the Labour government, he appealed to voters in the 2010 general election on the basis of a manifesto promise he couldn’t keep, and then quietly abandoned it once he was in power.

THE publishes study of ‘Islamic extremism’ on campuses

THE_coverThe current issue of the Times Higher Education magazine carries an article by one Matthew Reisz which asks whether college authorities should police the activities of Muslim students, given that “Islamic extremism and even terrorism have emanated from some of our campuses”.

The main sources cited are Douglas Murray and Hannah Stuart from the Centre for Social Cohesion, Lucy James from the Quilliam Foundation, Raheem Kassam of Student Rights, Anthony Glees and Nick Cohen. The only voices allowed to counter this Islamophobic chorus are those of Ruth Siddall, UCL’s dean of students (welfare), and FOSIS president Nabil Ahmed who is represented by one short quote. Some objective study!

In the comments, the Rev Stan Brown writes: “As a chaplain at a London University I would have to add a word of caution about the Quilliam and CSC documents cited in this article. Their research seems to be largely based on internet searches. I attend Islamic society meetings and have heard some of the ‘radical’ speakers cited in these reports. I don’t know what they said elsewhere but I do know what they said in my own institution.”

This has provoked a furious response at Harry’s Place from the appalling Edmund Standing, who claims that the Rev Brown is “all too typical of the kind of wooly-minded individuals who can be found on campuses up and down the country”. The speakers Brown heard at ISoc meetings were no different from neo-Nazis, according to Standing. And, as a clincher, Standing reveals that one of Brown’s colleagues actually sent a message of congratulation to the MCB when Iqbal Sacranie was awarded a knighthood. This is what passes for proof of extremism in the demented world of Harry’s Place.

Non-storm over Jeremy Clarkson’s ‘burka’ stunt

Prats in niqabsThe pathetic decision by Jeremy Clarkson and his co-host Richard Hammond to dress in niqabs during a Top Gear programme from Syria (this is what passes for humour in such circles) has provoked an outbreak of mass Muslim outrage, if the right-wing populist press is to be believed.

Yesterday’s Daily Mail featured a lengthy article headlined “Top Gear stars cause religious row after dressing up in burkas on Boxing Day special” and the Daily Star went with “Clarkson in Burka gear storm”, while the Daily Express warned of “Protest fears over Jeremy Clarkson and Top Gear stars in burkhas”.

Today the story has been taken up across the world, in countries where Top Gear presumably (if inexplicably) enjoys an audience. A report in Australia’s Herald Sun is headed “Top Gear burka sketch sparks outrage” and the Sydney Morning Herald has “Top Gear stars cause row after burqa-style stunt”. In South Africa the Independent Online covers the story as “Top Gear slammed for burka stunt”, while the Hindustan Times opts for “Top Gear stars spark religious row”.

But even a cursory examination of the Mail and Star reports reveals that this is an entirely confected controversy. Not a single leading Muslim organisation or individual in the UK has even bothered to comment on the issue, still less express outrage. The papers were reduced to approaching Anjem Choudary, the head of a tiny group of nutters who are repudiated by the entire British Muslim community, to ask for a quote. Needless to say, he obliged: “The burka is a symbol of our religion and people should not make jokes about it in any way.” And the story is padded out by citing a handful of comments culled from Twitter and internet discussion forums.

We had the same nonsense inflicted on us last July when the Mail carried a story headlined “Top Gear’s Jeremy Clarkson sparks fury over ‘burka babes’ underwear joke” (now amended to “Jeremy Clarkson outrages viewers by announcing on Top Gear he’d seen saucy underwear beneath Muslim woman’s burka”). In that case the “outrage” consisted of seven complaints to the BBC and a tweet by Lily Allen.

This is of course all part of a right-wing narrative about intolerant Muslims reacting with “fury” to any slight against their faith. In reality, it seems clear that the Muslim community, like the writer of this post, find it difficult to work themselves up into a state of indignation over the puerile antics of a man widely dismissed as a reactionary sexist bore.

Emails show Mayor Bloomberg’s office’s help and desire to get Ground Zero mosque built

The Daily Mail picks up on a story that has already done the rounds in the right-wing media in the US (the paper has in fact lifted it directly from the New York Post). It concerns the release of emails between Nazli Parvizi, commissioner of New York’s Community Affairs Unit, and Feisal Abdul Rauf and Daisy Khan, which reveal the assistance given by Parvizi with the planning application for the Park51 development – the so-called Ground Zero Mosque.

You have to read right to the end of the report before you find the information that counters the main thrust of the article. A spokesperson for Mayor Bloomberg is quoted as pointing out that Parvizi’s job is “to help groups navigate city government, and from helping prepare for a Papal visit to extending approval of a Sukkah in a midtown Manhattan park, this kind of assistance is typical of its regular work”.

But this is of course the Mail‘s usual procedure. It is able to claim that its reporting is balanced because it has quoted an opposing view, while relying on the fact that most readers won’t get beyond the scaremongering headline and the opening paragraphs.

Stand by for the usual outpouring of anti-Muslim vitriol in the comments section to the Mail‘s report.

Mail recycles old story about ‘killing for Islam’

“The latest WikiLeaks revelation: 1 in 3 British Muslim students back killing for Islam and 40% want Sharia law”, reads a typical shock-horror headline in today’s Daily Mail. The reference is to the findings in a July 2008 report by the right-wing anti-Muslim think-tank, the Centre for Social Cohesion, whose figures were quoted in a leaked diplomatic cable from the US embassy in London.

Regular readers of the Mail may have been struck by a feeling of déjà vu. And understandably so. The paper ran an article on the CSC report at the time, under the headline “One third of British Muslim students say it’s acceptable to kill for Islam”. The Mail has just seized the opportunity to recycle an old story. But then, you can never have too many scaremongering articles about Muslims, can you?

And this is hardly “the latest WikiLeaks revelation” anyway. TheMail‘s article quotes from two diplomatic cables, one dated 6 January 2009 and the other 5 February 2010. As you can see, they were released by Wikileaks back on 14 December.

Nor can the unnamed Daily Mail reporter claim that their belated exposé is based on any original research. In fact the article is clearly derived from a piece that appeared on the right-wing US website WorldNetDaily on 16 December.

See also “Daily Mail scaremongers about ‘Killing for Islam'”, ENGAGE, 22 December 2010

Update:  See Martin Robbins, “Mail’s Wikileaks ‘revelation’ about Muslim students is their own 2008 story”, The Lay Scientist, 22 December 2010

Is Terry Jones still coming to the UK?

Terry Jones cartoonWe know that Pastor Terry Jones of the Dove World Outreach Center was originally invited to speak at the English Defence League’s Luton demonstration on 5 February, then disinvited when the EDL leadership belatedly woke up to his record of racism and homophobia, and that the National Front promptly stepped into the breach, denouncing the “utter cave in” by the “pro multi-cult EDL” and inviting Jones to speak at one of their own events. Meanwhile, home secretary Theresa May was reported to be “actively looking at” imposing a ban on Jones entering the UK.

Since then the NF have suggested that Jones may have pulled out of their event. But the “Stand Up America with Dr Terry Jones”Facebook page and the Dove World Outreach Center website state that Jones will address a National Front rally on 5 February, where he will “speak against the evils and destructiveness of Islam in support of the continued fight against the Islamification of England and Europe”. This would presumably be the NF’s Forty-fourth Anniversary Rally, which is to be held on 5 February somewhere in West Yorksire and is advertised as featuring “a surprise speaker from overseas”. And still no word from Theresa May on whether Jones will be allowed into the country.

‘Unsubstantiated’ – it should be Andrew Gilligan’s middle name

ENGAGE reports that the Charity Commission has published the results of its investigation into Muslim Aid, and that it “found no evidence of irregular or improper use of the Charity’s funds or any evidence that the Charity had illegally funded any proscribed or designated entities”.

The investigation was prompted by Andrew Gilligan’s Dispatches programme broadcast in March this year. Needless to say, Gilligan is deeply unhappy that the Commission rejected his accusations against Muslim Aid as “unsubstantiated”. But you’d have thought Gilligan would be used to this sort of thing by now. Back in 2004 he was forced to resign from the BBC after the Hutton Inquiry found his accusations against Alastair Campell to be “unfounded”. And then there was Gilligan’s Evening Standard witch-hunt of Lee Jasper in the run-up to the May 2008 London Mayoral election. In July that year Boris Johnson’s Tory-dominated Forensic Audit Panel published its report which found that Jasper’s actions “did not breach any rules or protocols”. Are you beginning to see a pattern emerging here?

The only thing Gilligan seems to have learned from his sacking by the BBC was to frame his accusations in weasel words that would block a successful libel action by his victims. Hopefully that won’t be sufficient to prevent Muslim Aid suing him.

Update:  See also “Charity Commission rejects criticism over Muslim Aid investigation”, Third Sector, 20 December 2010