Jews help Muslims fight for right to build mosque in Missouri

When Rick Isserman found out last month that St. Louis County wouldn’t allow a group of Muslims to build a new mosque in south St. Louis County, the story sounded too familiar.

Forty-eight years earlier, Isserman’s grandfather, Rabbi Ferdinand Isserman, fought to move his congregation, Temple Israel, from the city to the county, where the Jewish population had been relocating for some years. The city of Creve Coeur cited zoning problems and tried to block the move, but the rabbi and his flock took the case to the Missouri Supreme Court and prevailed.

The case, Congregation Temple Israel v. City of Creve Coeur, produced what is considered a landmark religious-freedom decision that says Missouri municipalities can invoke only health or safety issues in denying a religious group the zoning required to build houses of worship.

In the spring, the St. Louis County Council refused the Islamic Community Center’s request to rezone a 4.7-acre parcel it bought a year before for $1.25 million. The Muslims – mostly Bosnian immigrants – planned to build a second mosque and community center in addition to the current mosque and center off South Kingshighway in St. Louis.

When Khalid Shah, a member of the mosque and a friend of Isserman’s, told him about the council’s decision, the 53-year-old Department of Agriculture employee began making the connection to his family’s legal legacy. “I’m fighting the same battle as my grandfather 50 years ago,” Isserman said. “It’s a different community and a different place, but it’s the same issue.”

St Louis Post-Dispatch, 16 July 2007

So, farewell then, David T

Over at Comment is Free yesterday, Madeleine Bunting posted a reasoned response to Martin Bright and David T of Harry’s Place over their attacks on an earlier piece she had published on CiF. She wrote:

“I simply cannot see the point of a witch-hunt against anyone who has ever read Qutb or Mawdudi. This is McCarthyism of the worst kind. We might as well hound out of British politics anyone who has read Lenin. The kind of scenario David T paints of an entryist Islamism trying to establish a ‘perfect Islamic state’ is a fantasyland and I can’t understand why a serious journalist such as Martin Bright endorses it.”

David T then proceeded to post his own “reasoned response” to Bunting, which concluded: “you, Madeleine Bunting, are an absolute disgrace. Your participation in this debate has been entirely malign. You seem to see your role as being to cover up for, and whitewash, political extremists and bigots of the worst sort. You should be ashamed of yourself.”

Then, when the CiF moderators deleted this, David T started bleating about censorship. (And this from a man whose website repeatedly blocks links from Islamophobia Watch, with the result that we have to redirect them via tinylink.com.)

Eventually CiF editor Georgina Henry was forced to step in and close the thread down because of the repeated posting of “abusive attacks on the original author” – no doubt by the same right-wing bigots who frequent the comments section at Harry’s Place.

And now David T has announced that he will no longer be blogging at CiF. He objects to the fact that CiF allows Azzam Tamimi of the British Muslim Initiative and Taji Mustafa of Hizb ut-Tahrir to post there but not far-right white racists like Nick Griffin or David Duke: “Islamists and jihadists are part of the ‘big debate’, but other fascists are not.”

Well, I imagine most CiF readers will be breathing a sigh of relief. David T will now be free to wallow in his own hatred of liberals and the Left at Harry’s Place, along with his co-thinkers drawn from the racist right who enthusiastically back him up with their vile anti-Muslim rants. Frankly, they deserve each other.

Another day, another ex-Islamist calling for a ban on HT

“By focusing almost exclusively on violent extremism, the government has got it wrong. It has failed to appreciate how the general culture of extreme Islamist dissent can, and often does, give rise to terrorism itself. Islamist groups thrive on preaching a separatist message of Islamic supremacy, which concerns itself with reversing the temporal decline of Islam and challenging the ascendancy of the west by reviving a puritanical caliphate….

“Although groups like Hizb insist that their activities are merely intellectual, the movement is no paper tiger. It is an active revolutionary organisation with tentacles spread across the world. And its culpability in inspiring terrorists cannot be denied. Hizb has consistently raised the temperature of Islamist anger across Britain by issuing inflammatory leaflets aimed to agitate and provoke.”

Shiraz Maher in the New Statesman, 13 July 2007

There appears to be an ever-expanding market for former members of HT who are willing to endorse a right-wing agenda about the supposed threat from non-violent Islamism and encourage the state repression of their former associates.

For an alternative view, see Rolled Up Trousers, 12 July 2007

The MCB and Rushdie’s knighthood

Salman_RushdieCritics of Salman Rushdie’s knighthood as diverse as Ayman al-Zawahiri, Muhammad Ijaz ul-Haq, Lord Ahmed and the Muslim Council of Britain are happily lumped together by Jo Glanville in her defence of Rushdie at Comment is Free. All are guilty of “driving a wedge between east and west, between Muslim and non-Muslim”. Glanville concludes: “This level of intimidation against writers and intellectuals who wish to explore, criticise or pass comment on Islam is anathema to free speech.”

And how exactly has the Muslim Council of Britain “intimidated” Salman Rushdie, pray tell? This is the MCB’s reasoned response to the announcement of Rushdie’s knighthood. Indeed, as Salma Yaqoob has pointed out, the reaction of British Muslims has in general been extremely restrained, as exemplified by the fact that “the Muslim Council of Britain did not rally a protest, but sent out a message of calm (which duly received very little interest in the mainstream media)”.

Meanwhile, over at the Alliance for Workers’ Liberty, Sean Matgamna joins in the attack on the MCB over the Rushdie case. He quotes the entirely reasonable statement by MCB secretary-general Dr Muhammad Abdul Bari:

“Salman Rushdie earned notoriety amongst Muslims for the highly insulting and blasphemous manner in which he portrayed early Islamic figures. The granting of a knighthood to him can only do harm to the image of our country in the eyes of hundreds of millions of Muslims across the world. Many will interpret the knighthood as a final contemptuous parting gift from Tony Blair to the Muslim world.”

This, Matgamna asserts, is merely “a soft-voiced version of the demand that non-Muslims comply with the rules and judgements of the most bigoted Muslims”.

He concludes with an ultimatum to those on the Left arguing against rewarding a provocateur like Rushdie who has made such a negative contribution to community relations: “break with your Islamic clerical-fascist allies, or again be the mouthpiece and outrider in Britain for extreme political and religious reaction”.

Combating terrorism – conference at Islamic Cultural Centre

Dr Muhammad Abdul Bari, secretary-general of the Muslim Council of Britain, delivered the opening address at the Islamic Cultural Centre conference on Saturday.

MCB news report, 9 July 2007

See also BBC News, 7 July 2007

Over at the Sunday Telegraph Alasdair Palmer informs his readers that the conference’s call for co-operation with the police and security services came as “a surprise because, in the past, the MCB has seemed to be somewhat lukewarm about encouraging British Muslims to go to the police or security services with any suspicions they might have about friends or acquaintances who they think might be involved in terrorism. It is, after all, only nine months since Mr Bari issued a scarcely veiled threat to the authorities: he said that if the Government and ‘some police officers and sections of the media’ continued to ‘demonise Muslims… Britain will have to deal with two million Muslim terrorists, 700,000 of them in London’.”

Of course, the MCB has repeatedly urged the community to co-operate with the police in countering terrorism. As for the “two million Muslim terrorists” nonsense, which is based on the Sunday Telegraph‘s own distorted presentation of a September 2006 interview with Dr Bari, the MCB replied to this at the time. But never let facts get in the way of an anti-Muslim story, eh Alasdair?

Faiths unite in rally against terror

Scotland UnitedMore than 2000 people gathered yesterday to deliver the message that Scotland says no to terrorism.

Deputy First Minister Nicola Sturgeon told the mixed race and faith crowd in George Square, Glasgow, Scots had responded “magnificently” to the airport attack last weekend.

Glasgow Central MP Mohammed Sarwar was among the demonstrators. He told the mainly Muslim crowd: “The message from Scotland is loud and clear that we stand united…against the terrorists and criminals who want to kill innocent men, women and children. Whatever colour, faith or background they come from, we condemn them.”

Reported in Sunday Mail

Martin Sullivan adds: See also the report by Osama Saeed, one of the organisers of the rally, at Rolled Up Trousers

Bomb plot sparks attacks on Muslims in Bristol

Muslims in Bristol have been racially abused and assaulted following the attempted terrorist attacks in London and Glasgow. The Bristol Muslim Cultural Society (BMCS) has reported several incidents – the latest of which occurred on Wednesday night when two people were arrested outside a mosque in St Jude’s on suspicion of racially-aggravated offences.

BMCS director Farooq Siddique said: “People were arrested outside for shouting verbal abuse. People have had their hijabs ripped and there have been verbal and physical acts against women. There have been three or four incidents reported through the Hate Crime Unit but our concern is that not enough people are reporting it. They just say it’s the times we live in.”

Police spokesman Wayne Baker confirmed that a man and woman were arrested outside the mosque on Wade Street. The 19-year-old woman was released on police bail pending further inquiries while the man is still being questioned by police officers.

Bristol Evening Post, 7 July 2007

Don’t vote for Boris

Boris Johnson“While I know some Muslims will disagree with me about this, I don’t mind whether the mayor of London is pro-Israel or supported the Iraq war. The mayoralty isn’t about that, it’s about things like transport (with Ken Livingstone having been mayor for as long as the position has existed, it’s hard to think of what else it’s about).

“It’s important, however, that the mayor is not a bigot, which on the strength of his coverage of Muslim affairs while editor of the Spectator, Boris Johnson is. In that position, Johnson reacted to the July 2005 London bombings and the Paris slum riots of that year with horrendously unbalanced coverage, commissioning articles from the likes of Patrick Sookhdeo, full of sweeping generalisations, plain falsehoods and outright absurdities. The tone was that Islam itself, not an extremist movement, or the western policies off which it thrives, was to blame.”

Yusuf Smith responds to reports that Boris Johnson MP is considering standing for selection as the Tory candidate in the 2008 London mayoral election.

Indigo Jo Blogs, 5 July 2007

See also Yusuf’s comments on articles in the current issue of the (post-Johnson) Spectator.

More on the Cologne Mosque controversy

Pro Koln demoCOLOGNE, Germany – In a city with the greatest Gothic cathedral in Germany and no fewer than a dozen Romanesque churches, adding a pair of slender fluted minarets would scarcely alter the skyline. Yet plans for a new mosque are rattling this ancient city to its foundations.

Cologne’s Muslim population, largely Turkish, is pushing for approval to build what would be one of Germany’s largest mosques, in a working-class district across town from the cathedral’s mighty spires.

Predictably, an extreme-right local political party has waged a noisy, xenophobic protest campaign, drumming up support from its far-right allies in Austria and Belgium. But the proposal has also drawn fierce criticism from a respected German-Jewish writer, Ralph Giordano, who said the mosque would be “an expression of the creeping Islamization of our land.”

The far-right party Pro Cologne, which holds 5 of the 90 seats in the city council, collected 23,000 signatures on a petition demanding the halting of the project. The city says only 15,000 of them were genuine. On June 16, Pro Cologne mobilized 200 people at a rally to protest the mosque. Among those on hand were the leaders of Austria’s Freedom Party, which was founded by Jörg Haider, and the extremist party Vlaams Belang, or Flemish Interest, from Antwerp. Both advocate the deportation of immigrants.

Manfred Rouhs, a leader of Pro Cologne, said the mosque would reinforce the development of a parallel Muslim society, and encourage the subjugation of women, which he said was embedded in Islam. “This is not a social model that has any place in the middle of Europe,” he said.

In this, he has found common ground with Mr Giordano, an 84-year-old Jew who eluded the Nazis in World War II by hiding in a cellar. Mr Giordano, who dismisses Pro Cologne as a “local chapter of contemporary National Socialists,” nonetheless agrees that the mosque is a threat. “There are people who say this mosque could be a step toward integration,” Mr Giordano said in an interview. “I say, ‘No, no, and three times no.’ Mosques are a symbol of a parallel world.”

“I don’t want to see women on the street wearing burqas,” said Mr Giordano, a nattily dressed man with the flowing white hair of an 18th-century German romantic. “I’m insulted by that – not by the women themselves, but by the people who turned them into human penguins.”

Henryk M. Broder, a Jewish journalist who is a friend of Mr Giordano’s, said he should have avoided the phrase “human penguins.” But Mr Broder said that his underlying message was valid, and that his stature as a writer gave him the standing to say it. “A mosque is more than a church or a synagogue,” he said. “It is a political statement.”

New York Times, 5 July 2007


Despite reporting that “public opinion about the project seems guardedly supportive, with a majority of residents saying they favor it”, the NYT devotes most of its coverage to the views of the bigoted minority.

See also David Vickrey’s comments at Dialog International, 5 July 2007

Lords urged to defend justice

Lords urged to defend justiceLords urged to defend justice

By Louise Nousratpour

Morning Star, 6 July 2007

Civil rights campaigners urged Law Lords to “prosecute, not persecute” terror suspects on Thursday at the start of a six-day hearing into the legality of the repressive control orders regime.

A panel of five Law Lords headed by Lord Bingham began hearing appeals from 10 people placed under control orders – including “house arrest,” tagging, curfews and restricted access to phones and the internet – without charge or trial. They argue that the measures introduced under the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005 violate their right to liberty and a fair trial.

The hearing includes Home Secretary Jacqui Smith’s appeal against a ruling last year by the High Court and Court of Appeal that control orders breached the European convention on human rights.

Amnesty International UK urged Britain’s legal authorities to commit themselves to “prosecuting rather than persecuting” anyone accused of terrorism. It condemned the control order regime as running “counter to the principle of equality before the law,” adding: “It is intrinsically inimical to the rule of law, the independence of the judiciary and human rights protection in the UK.”

Labour MP Jeremy Corbyn urged the Law Lords to use their powers to ensure that the right to a “fair and independent” legal process is protected.

“The control orders are a form of executive detention and a denial of access to an independent judicial system and I opposed it in Parliament for those reasons,” he said. “I hope the Law Lords will use their authority to ensure that we maintain the separation between the judiciary and political powers.”

Continue reading