“In an interview with Fortune, Republican presidential candidate John McCain was asked what the single gravest long term threat to the U.S. economy was. This is not an easy question, with so many choices and all. Is it the housing crisis or the credit crisis? What about the huge deficit the country is running, or the rising cost of energy? How about Social Security? McCain didn’t select any of those options; instead, he said that radical Islam was the single biggest threat to the U.S. economy. Pardon me a moment while I let this sink in a bit…nope, still don’t see it…”
Category Archives: Resisting Islamophobia
Sharia courts – not such a threat after all
Remember this hysterical report in the Daily Express warning that “Muslim radicals have established their own draconian court systems in Britain. Controversial Sharia courts have been set up in major towns and cities to impose Islamic law and enable Muslims to shun the legitimate British legal system” and announcing the shocking discovery that “the Sharia court system has been set up in the heart of Dewsbury, West Yorkshire”?
Tory MP Philip Davies was quoted as saying: “I am absolutely appalled and find the prospect of such courts totally terrifying. Places like this should be closed down…. It simply can’t be tolerated.”
Well, here’s an interesting article from the Seattle Times which provides a more balanced view of the role of that very same Shariah council in Dewsbury. It’s about time the media in the UK started practising this sort of informed and reasoned reporting.
‘I despise Islamism’ says Ian McEwan
The award-winning novelist Ian McEwan has launched an outspoken attack on militant Islam, accusing it of “wanting to create a society that I detest”. The author said he “despises Islamism” because of its views on women and homosexuality. The writer of Atonement and Enduring Love condemned religious hardliners as he defended his friend, the writer Martin Amis, against charges of racism.
Amis was accused last year of being Islamaphobic after he said that “the Muslim community will have to suffer until it gets its house in order”. In an essay written the day before the fifth anniversary of the bombing of New York’s Twin Towers [it was in fact in an interview with the Times], the novelist suggested “strip-searching people who look like they’re from the Middle East or from Pakistan”, preventing Muslims from travelling, and further down the road, deportation.
McEwan, 60, said it was “logically absurd and morally unacceptable” that writers who speak out against militant Islam are immediately branded racist. “As soon as a writer expresses an opinion against Islamism, immediately someone on the left leaps to his feet and claims that because the majority of Muslims are dark-skinned, he who criticises it is racist,” he said in an interview in Corriere della Sera.
Inayat Bunglawala, a spokesman for the Muslim Council of Britain, criticised McEwan’s defence of Amis.
“Mr McEwan is being rather disingenuous about his friend, Martin Amis’s remarks. Of course you should be allowed to criticise the tenets of any religion. However, Amis went much further than that,” he said. “He was advocating that the Muslim community be made to suffer ‘until it gets its own house in order’. And what sort of suffering did Amis have in mind? In his own words, ‘Not letting them travel. Deportation – further down the road. Curtailing of freedoms. Strip-searching people who look like they’re from the Middle East or from Pakistan … Discriminatory stuff, until it hurts the whole community and they start getting tough with their children.'”
He added: “Those were clearly very bigoted remarks and the fact that McEwan prefers to whitewash them tells us much about his own views too.”
Sunday Telegraph, 22 June 2008
See also “‘I despise Islamism’: Ian McEwan faces backlash over press interview”, Independent On Sunday, 22 June 2008
Also Islam Online, 22 June 2008 and Lenin’s Tomb, 22 June 2008
The ‘politics of inclusion’ takes a hit
A disgraceful thing happened at Detroit’s Joe Louis Arena earlier this week.
Americans were discriminated against by other Americans who thought head scarves would send the wrong message about their candidate’s religious affiliation. In other words – the soft bigotry of Islamophobia is finally ready for its close-up in the Obama campaign.
Hebba Aref was born in the United States 25 years ago to Egyptian immigrants. She is a lawyer and a taxpaying citizen. Ms. Aref is also an American Muslim, though there is some debate in this country whether her religious affiliation undermines her claim to be a “loyal American.”
Ms. Aref and her friend, Shimaa Abdelfadeel, were among the 20,000 Americans who made the pilgrimage to downtown Detroit to cheer for presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama in person.
For months, Mr. Obama has been traveling the country, assuring audiences that the success of his campaign is proof America is turning the corner on the politics of racial and religious suspicion. Mr. Obama promises that he’ll be an exemplar of a more inclusive politics. He insists that the old divisions of race, gender and religion that polarize our politics today will not find favor during an Obama administration.
So the question must be asked: Why were two Muslim women wearing hijabs told by Obama campaign workers that they couldn’t sit behind the candidate during a televised speech because of the “sensitive political climate”? On what planet would such cowardice and discrimination be consistent with a politics of inclusion?
The Obama campaign issued an apology as soon as the incident was reported: “It is offensive and counter to [our] commitment to bring Americans together and simply not the kind of campaign we run,” the campaign statement read. “We sincerely apologize for this behavior.”
Fair enough, but how did lowly campaign workers decide that Muslim head scarves weren’t ready for prime time with Barack Obama? Could it be that the Obama campaign’s almost pathological fear of being associated with Islam when so many Americans continue to believe the candidate is a “secret Muslim” has trickled down to the ushers?
Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, 20 June 2008
See also “Obama calls 2 Muslim women to apologize for snub at rally” in the Detroit Free Press.
Meanwhile the inimitable Debbie Schlussel is witch-hunting Hebba Aref and Shimaa Abdelfadeel with accusations of terrorist sympathies and antisemitism.
Pa. lawmaker’s anti-Muslim comment derails measure
HARRISBURG, Pa. — State lawmakers Wednesday held up voting on a resolution in recognition of a Muslim group’s upcoming convention after a legislator protested that “the Muslims do not recognize Jesus Christ as God.”
Rep. Daryl Metcalfe, a Republican from Butler County, north of Pittsburgh, said he opposed the House’s formal recognition of this weekend’s 60th annual convention in Harrisburg of the U.S. chapter of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community. “The Muslims do not recognize Jesus Christ as God and I will be voting negative,” he said on the House floor.
The two-page resolution, sponsored by Speaker Dennis O’Brien, a Republican from Philadelphia, noted that the convention’s mission was to “increase faith and harmony and introduce various humanitarian, social and religious services.”
The remarks by Metcalfe drew a rebuke from Democratic Rep. Jewell Williams of Philadelphia. “We should be careful in making these remarks and we should support all people in America,” Williams said.
A Jewish lawmaker, Democratic Rep. Babette Josephs of Philadelphia, also protested and said she would seek to have Metcalfe’s remarks stricken from the official record. She said Metcalfe’s position places a religious test on House resolutions, which generally clear the chamber quickly and unanimously.
“I wonder what I would not also qualify for – being on the floor myself?” she said later. “Having the right to vote? Having the right to practice my religion? That’s what I was responding to. And we have other people who are not Jewish and not Christian on the floor – some elected, some not.”
Associated Press, 19 June 2008
See also “CAIR: Penn. Muslims ask legislature to reject religious ‘litmus test'”, CAIR press release, 19 June 2008
Bushra wins!
“Discrimination in all its forms is unacceptable. The Zeitgeist is Islamophobia and given this fact we applaud young Bushra Noah’s determination to seek justice.
“A lot of nonsense has been said by people who ‘wouldn’t get their hair cut from a hairdresser who’s hair you can’t see’. Well there are a lot of bald hair dressers out there such as Trevor Sorbie and you don’t see customers fearing they are about to shave their heads.
“The attacks on Bushra are nothing other than Islamophobia unleashed against a young Muslim female trying to earn an honest living.”
Over at the increasingly demented Harry’s Place Brett Lock of OutRage! offers his entirely predictable take on the case:
“Why should a hairdressing salon carry even the risk of losing business because an irrational third party who as [sic] decided that showing hair is sinful and thus must be covered up at all times wants to work in the trade? Surely the the person making bizarre lifestyle choices based on their irrational fears and superstitions should carry the consequent risks and inconveniences – and and not expect someone else to?”
Lenin’s Tomb hails Bushra’s victory as “a boost for workers everywhere, particularly female workers who are often the target of sexist dress code policies that insist they wear a skirt and so forth. Previous challenges to such policies have been difficult to sustain, but this lays down a precedent. So, not just a victory against blatant employer Islamophobia, but also something that working people will find useful if they want to challenge their employers on discriminatory dress codes.”
Muslim stylist wins £4,000 payout
The owner of a hair salon has been ordered to pay £4,000 compensation to a Muslim stylist who was turned down for a job because she wears a headscarf.
Bushra Noah accused Sarah Desrosiers of religious discrimination when she failed to offer her a job at her Wedge salon in King’s Cross, central London. An employment tribunal panel dismissed the 19-year-old’s claim but upheld her complaint of indirect discrimination.
Ms Desrosiers said she needed stylists to showcase alternative hairstyles.
During the hearing Ms Noah, who lives in Acton, west London, told the tribunal that she was “devastated” that she was not offered the job of assistant stylist “due to my headscarf”.
Ms Desrosiers, 32, told the panel that Ms Noah lived too far away, but was persuaded to give her an interview in May last year.
When the applicant arrived for the interview she claimed the Canadian salon owner was clearly shocked by the fact she wore a headscarf. Ms Desrosiers told the tribunal she was surprised it had not been mentioned earlier and expected her staff to reflect the “funky, urban” image of her salon.
The panel found that Ms Noah had been badly upset by the 15-minute interview. She was awarded £4,000 damages for “injury to feelings”.
In its judgment, the panel stated: “We were satisfied by the respondent’s evidence that the claimant was not treated less favourably than the respondent would have treated a woman who, whether Muslim or not, for a reason other than religious belief wears a hair covering at all times when at work.”
It added: “There was no specific evidence before us as to what would (for sure) have been the actual impact of the claimant working in her salon with her head covered at all times.”
Speaking after the ruling the salon owner said: “I never in a million years dreamt that somebody would be completely against the display of hair and be in this industry. I don’t feel I deserve it.”
Ms Noah refused to comment on the matter.
Christian Right intervenes in Birmingham ‘no go’ area
Christians from all over the country were gathering in Birmingham today following claims that two ministers were ejected by police for preaching the word of Jesus. Followers from Christian Voice have accused West Midlands Police for turning the predominately Muslim area of Alum Rock into a no-go zone for non-Muslims.
The Carmarthen-based group was heading into Alum Rock today to distribute Christian leaflets and share the Gospel with passers-by. Stephen Green, national director of Christian Voice, said: “We are coming to preach the Gospel and to show West Midlands Police that they cannot create a Muslim ghetto for the Gospel.”
A spokeswoman said: “West Midlands Police would like to reiterate its reassurance to all communities that there are not any ‘no go’ areas in the West Midlands Police area and we will defend the rights of all individuals’ lawful rights to freedom of expression and religion.”
Faith leaders also stood side by side to deny that Alum Rock had become a no-go area for non-Muslims. Members of the Church of England, Catholic and Islamic faiths issued a message of solidarity to say a lot of work had been done to bring the communities together. Diane Dawson, a volunteer at Our Lady of the Rosary and St Therese Church, said: “We live in a community of different beliefs.”
Ireland: the Hijab ‘controversy’ that isn’t
RTE’s Education and Science Correspondent Emma O Kelly finds that the recent ‘controversy’ over the Hijab in schools is a media creation.
Atheism as a cover for racism
“I don’t much care if people think I’m thick because I believe in God. But what’s really nasty here – and it’s a part of a growing phenomenon – is the way religion is being used as a subtle code for race.
“Belief in God is alive and well in Africa and in the Middle East and declining in western Europe. Writing about the intelligence of religious believers has, for some, become a roundabout way of commenting on the intelligence of those with darker skins whilst seeking to avoid the charge of racism. Religion is being used with a nod and a wink, cover for some rather dodgy and dangerous politics.
“The BNP, for example, has started using religion as a category of racial designation so as to deflect charges of racism. For instance, they seek to defend something called ‘Christian Britain’. But what they really mean is ‘no Muslims’ – and that really means ‘no Asians’. The fact that these categories are not in any way equivalent does not detract from the message the BNP is sending by using them in the way they do….
“The debate between believers and non-believers – a debate that gets terribly hot on this site sometimes – is not made any more civil by the addition of this unpleasant inflection. Which is why believers and unbelievers (even those who think people like me are idiotic enough to have given their life to the great flying spaghetti monster) ought to unite against this way of thinking about our differences. ”
Giles Fraser at Comment is Free, 12 June 2008