Category Archives: Resisting Islamophobia

Inayat Bunglawala – apology

Posted on by Bob Pitt

“On March 1, 2008 we published a front-page article under the headline ‘TARGET HARRY – British fanatics threaten him‘ concerning Prince Harry’s active service in Afghanistan.

“The article made reference to Inayat Bunglawala, who is a spokesperson at the Muslim Council of Britain. He has also advised the British government on ways of combating extremism among young Muslims.

“We now accept our article may have been understood to allege that Mr Bunglawala was a fanatical extremist who was inciting or would condone a terrorist attack on Prince Harry.

“There was absolutely no truth in these allegations. Mr Bunglawala did not, and would not, condone any attack on Prince Harry; on the contrary, he consistently made clear to the media that he wanted to see the Prince and his colleagues brought home, out of harm’s way.

“We apologise unreservedly to Mr Bunglawala for the distress and embarrassment we have caused him.”

Daily Express, 4 July 2008

Muslims after police raid: ‘We feel betrayed’

Posted on by Bob Pitt

Two of the men at the centre of anti-terror raids say they feel “betrayed” by the police. Abu Bosher and Abu Saif had always thought they had a healthy relationship with the police, until their Stoke-on-Trent homes were raided on Tuesday. They are members of a group of young Muslims who have regularly manned stalls around the city for two years, preaching to passers-by and distributing leaflets and DVDs.

Police raided five homes this week as part of an investigation into a small group of people suspected of being involved in promoting violent extremist views, and radicalising vulnerable members of the community. But the men insist their activities have always been entirely legal and peaceful, and deny any links to terrorism or extremism. They say that as well as preaching Islam, they draw young people away from drugs and gangs, and encourage them to become better Muslims.

Abu Bosher, aged 24, of North Road, Cobridge, said he was shocked to find himself implicated with extremism. He said: “Why did they do this now? Why not two years ago? We have the same leaflets; we’re not doing anything different. So we’re asking them to produce the evidence.”

The group have become a familiar sight in Stoke Road, Shelton, and Waterloo Road, Cobridge, where they engage Muslims and non-Muslims in faith discussions. They say the fact they carry out their activities on busy main roads, in full view of CCTV, shows they have nothing to hide. Although they admit their discussions sometimes touch on controversial political issues, such as the war in Iraq, they deny preaching hatred or encouraging violence.

Mr Bosher added: “We disagree with the Government’s foreign policy, and we will debate with people on that, but they are free to disagree with us. We don’t want to force our views down anyone’s throat. The police come to our stalls regularly and take away our leaflets. I’m sure every police officer in Stoke-on-Trent has one. Some of them know us by our first names, so we don’t know why they’ve done this. We feel betrayed.”

Abu Saif, aged 17, whose sister’s Cobridge home was raided, said: “The police were welcome to come and speak to us at our stall, or come and look in my house. I would have invited them in for a chat and a cup of tea. But they came to my house at 7am, and knocked my door off its hinges. I think that’s disgusting.”

Fellow group member Abu Abdullah, aged 35, whose Cobridge home was not raided, said: “Muslims are being victimised and demonised in this country. We’re coming up to the anniversary of 7/7, and on previous anniversaries we found that Muslims were coming under increased scrutiny by the security services.”

Stoke Sentinel, 5 July 2008 

The enemy within? Fear of Islam: Britain’s new disease

Posted on by Bob Pitt

“Islamophobia – defined in 1997 by the landmark report from the Runnymede Trust as ‘an outlook or world-view involving an unfounded dread and dislike of Muslims, which results in practices of exclusion and discrimination’ – can be encountered in the best circles: among our most famous novelists, among newspaper columnists, and in the Church of England.

“Its appeal is wide-ranging. ‘I am an Islamophobe’, the Guardian columnist Polly Toynbee wrote in The Independent nearly 10 years ago. ‘Islamophobia?’ the Sunday Times columnist Rod Liddle asks rhetorically in the title of a recent speech, ‘Count me in’. Imagine Liddle declaring: ‘Anti-Semitism? Count me in’, or Toynbee claiming she was ‘an anti-Semite and proud of it’.

“Anti-Semitism is recognised as an evil, noxious creed, and its adherents are barred from mainstream society and respectable organs of opinion. Not so Islamophobia.”

Peter Oborne in the Independent, 4 July 2008

See also “Muslims feel like ‘Jews of Europe’“, also in today’s Independent.

And “Is post-war Britain anti-Muslim?” by Peter Oborne in the Daily Mail, 4 July 2008

Peter Oborne’s documentary “It Shouldn’t Happen to a Muslim” will be shown next Monday in Channel’s Dispatches slot – which, ironically, has in the past made a signficant contribution to the rise of Islamophobia in the UK.

The pamphlet Muslims Under Siege: Alienating Vulnerable Communities, by Peter Oborne and James Jones, be downloaded (pdf) here.

The study by the Cardiff School of Journalism, Media and Cultural Studies, Images of Islam in the UK: The Representation of British Muslims in the National Print News Media 2000-2008, can be downloaded (pdf) here.

‘Sharia law is backed by top judge’ shock

Posted on by Bob Pitt

Sharia law is backed by top judgeThe country’s most senior judge provoked outrage yesterday by saying that Islamic sharia law could play a role in Britain’s legal system. The Lord Chief Justice, Lord Phillips, was accused of handing Muslim extremists yet more ammunition.

Reopening the bitter row over the position of Islamic law, he said there was no reason why it could not be used for contractual agreements and mediation in areas such as family disputes and marriage. He claimed it was possible for people to have agreements “governed by a law other than English law”.

The Lord Chief Justice spoke out five months after the Archbishop of Canterbury faced calls to resign when he claimed that incorporating aspects of the Muslim legal system into British law was now “unavoidable” and “appropriate”. Lord Phillips last night faced a storm of protest as Downing Street appeared to immediately distance itself from his views.

Tory MP Philip Davies said: “This is totally unacceptable. There is no place for sharia law or any aspect of it in the legal system. We have our own legal system here and anyone in this country should accept our laws and the way we do things. The Lord Chief Justice does not understand how damaging these kind of remarks are to community cohesion.”

Daily Express, 4 July 2008

For a more balanced report, see the Guardian, 4 July 2008

See also Madeleine Bunting and Inayat Bunglawala at Comment is Free.

Racial profiling eyed for terror probes

Posted on by Bob Pitt

The Justice Department is considering letting the FBI investigate Americans without any evidence of wrongdoing, relying instead on a terrorist profile that could single out Muslims, Arabs or other racial and ethnic groups.

Law enforcement officials say the proposed policy would help them do exactly what Congress demanded after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks: root out terrorists before they strike.

Although President Bush has disavowed targeting suspects based on their race or ethnicity, the new rules would allow the FBI to consider those factors among a number of traits that could trigger a national security investigation.

Currently, FBI agents need specific reasons — like evidence or allegations that a law probably has been violated — to investigate U.S. citizens and legal residents. The new policy, law enforcement officials told The Associated Press, would let agents open preliminary terrorism investigations after mining public records and intelligence to build a profile of traits that, taken together, were deemed suspicious.

Among the factors that could make someone subject of an investigation is travel to regions of the world known for terrorist activity, access to weapons or military training, along with the person’s race or ethnicity.

Associated Press, 2 July 2008

See also “CAIR calls new FBI profiling policy ‘un-American'”, CAIR press release, 3 July 2008

‘Muslims outraged at police advert featuring cute puppy’

Posted on by Bob Pitt

PuppyA postcard featuring a cute puppy sitting in a policeman’s hat advertising a Scottish police force’s new telephone number has sparked outrage from Muslims.

Tayside Police’s new non-emergency phone number has prompted complaints from members of the Islamic community.

The choice of image on the Tayside Police cards – a black dog sitting in a police officer’s hat – has now been raised with Chief Constable John Vine.

The advert has upset Muslims because dogs are considered ritually unclean and has sparked such anger that some shopkeepers in Dundee have refused to display the advert.

Daily Mail, 1 July 2008

See also the Daily Telegraph, whose readers helpfully draw out the subtext to this story:

“Why are the police apologising for doing their job. This is just another case of kowtowing to people who do not understand the BRITISH way of life.”

“Stop all this namby pamby nonsence. As you say the British are a nation of dog lovers…. We are British and this is Britain. If you don’t like it leave.”

“what next no pictures of pigs in the butchers! We are supposedly living in a multi cultural country, but it seems that we are dominated by the views of the muslims and their communities.”

“OMG, im sorry but if you dont like what people in OUR country do then go away.”

“Who cares what the Muslims think/say. Really, what are they going to do about it? It’s our culture, our traditions, our beliefs.”

“This is absurd. Why should Britons change their culture to accomodate Muslims? … This political correctness will cause the downfall of your society. What happened to majority rule?”

“If muslims don’t like dogs – or any other facet of our national characteristics – then they should bugger off to Iran or some other Islamic wonderland. When will we stop pandering to these barbarians? Why have we let them in to our country at all?”

Update:  For Gabriele Marranci’s comments, see Islam, Muslims and an Anthropologist, 3 July 2008

Study suggests ‘turban effect’ as a source of Islamophobia

Posted on by Bob Pitt

A Muslim-style turban is perceived as a threat, according to a new study, even by people who don’t realize they hold the prejudice, dubbed “the turban effect” by researchers. Research volunteers played a computer game that showed apartment balconies on which different figures appeared, some wearing Muslim-style turbans or hijabs and others bare-headed. They were told to shoot at the targets carrying guns and spare those who were unarmed, with points awarded accordingly.

People were much more likely to shoot Muslim-looking characters – men or women – even if they were carrying an innocent item instead of a weapon, the researchers found. “Whether they’re holding a steel coffee mug or a gun, people are just more likely to shoot at someone who is wearing a turban,” says author Christian Unkelbach, a visiting scholar at Australia’s University of New South Wales. “Just putting on this piece of clothing changes people’s behaviour.”

Unkelbach largely blames one-sided media portrayals for the bias.

Continue reading →

Damned for trying to do some good

Posted on by Bob Pitt

Osama Saeed replies to the Centre for Social Cohesion.

Sunday Herald, 29 June 2008

Update:  For the full version of the article, see Rolled Up Trousers, 30 June 2008

Osama also reples to the hysterical nonsense posted by Melanie Phillips on her Spectator blog, where she warned of the danger of Scottish Muslims establishing a “Caledonian caliphate”. As Osama observes: “This conspiratorial nonsense is very reminiscent of how Jewish people have in years gone by been demonised, you could call it the ‘Protocols of the Elders of Caledonistan’.”

Muslim officers challenge police racism

Posted on by Bob Pitt

NAMP_logoThe home secretary is at the centre of the worst race row to engulf the police service for almost a decade as chief constables stand accused of blocking an inquiry into discrimination against Muslim officers. Jacqui Smith will be asked to intervene tomorrow after the damning revelation that at least 20 police forces refused to co-operate with the first audit into the treatment of Muslim and black officers. Information from those forces that did take part suggested there was routine racial discrimination against them.

Accusations that police forces refused to co-operate with the audit, which was conducted jointly by the National Association of Muslim Police and the think-tank Demos, is bound to cause consternation in government. Initially, only 11 of the 43 police forces in England and Wales replied to the questionnaire on the promotional prospects, rank and number of Muslim and black officers employed. As a result of this ‘poor rate of return’, the deadline was extended by another month. Even then barely half – only 23 – co-operated. The association condemned a seeming ‘widespread squeamishness’ on issues of race among a number of forces.

A letter sent to Smith and all chief constables in England and Wales by the association asks: ‘Why were some forces unable or unwilling to co-operate, while others completed in full and on time? Why did some forces refuse to complete on grounds of the pretext of the Data Protection Act, while others said they did not have the time to take part?’

Senior Muslim officers warned forces last night that they would lodge Freedom of Information requests if they continued to refuse to take part.

The letter says: ‘If the police are serious about ensuring that Muslim officers are able to rise through the ranks at the same speed as their fellow white officers, and ensuring that Muslims are deployed to counter-terrorism duties at a time of heightened national security, we must have reliable data to track progress and measure success.’ It adds that the ‘paucity’ of information ‘means that each individual case of discrimination, or alleged discrimination, can only be assumed to be symptomatic of the conditions facing Muslim officers across the UK’.

Observer, 29 June 2008