Gay Muslims clash with Tatchell

OutragePeter Tatchell has been caught up in a war of words with British Muslims, who have accused him of “Islamophobia”.

In an article written for Guardian Unlimited, Tatchell argued that Muslims often failed to make the distinction between legitimate criticism of Islam and insults against their faith. He singled out hardline groups such as Hizb ut-Tahrir (HuT), which “used to openly call for the killing of gay people” and said that HuT’s agenda was one “for clerical fascism”.

Citing a Channel 4 poll, where two-thirds of British Muslims said they oppose free speech if it offends their faith, Tatchell wrote: “They want to make it a crime to cause them offence they want privileged legal protection against criticism of their beliefs.”

Tatchell’s comments were attacked by the LGBT Muslim group Imaam. Farzana from the group told GT: “We feel that OutRage! doesn’t understand our cultural and religious sensitivities. Often, the way they word and phrase their press releases can and does antagonise Muslims. Much as we’ve invited them to meetings so we can talk about the best way to tackle Muslim LGBT issues, they insist on doing things their way.”

The debate was addressed on a strand on Imaan’s messageboard, titled “Homophobia & Islamophobia”. One posting reads: “Why is it that we, as gay Muslims, are so willing to attack the people that stand up against the homophobic Islamic clerics, who call for our death, by calling them Islamophobic, yet are too afraid to go out there and stand up and be counted?”

Gay Times, December 2006

Continue reading

Profiling Muslims is like profiling the Ku Klux Klan says Coulter

Right-wing US buffoon Ann Coulter expresses surprise that the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) has “piped in to complain about racial profiling of Muslims. The only reason Americans feel guilty about ‘racial profiling’ against blacks is because of the history of discrimination against blacks in this country. What did we do to the Arabs? I believe Americans are the victims in that relationship. After the attacks of 9/11, profiling Muslims is more like profiling the Klan.”

Front Page Magazine, 30 November 2006

Council mosque decision ‘flawed’

A council which refused to sell land for a new mosque has been criticised for its handling of the case. Ribble Valley Borough Council provoked anger when it refused the application in Clitheroe, Lancashire, in 2004. Local Government Ombudsman Anne Seex investigated a claim that the decision was taken in response to racially motivated opposition in the area.

An application was made to buy some council-owned land for a mosque in September 2004, but was met with opposition. The British National Party was active in the area and two Muslim men were racially abused by members of the public at a council meeting on the issue. Lancashire Police apologised after its officers failed to intervene and paid £5,000 to the town’s Medina Islamic Education Centre, which the men represented.

The council deferred a decision until it had received a report on the impact of the proposal on the “social well-being” of local residents. But the planning committee decided to use the entire site for elderly people’s accommodation – even though the district valuer said the authority would make more money through the mosque plan.

Mrs Seex criticised the council for not following accepted good practice and reaching a decision that was not supported by the information the committee was supplied with.

BBC News, 30 November 2006

Babar Ahmad loses High Court appeal against extradition

Ashfaq AhmadTwo terrorist suspects today lost their high court battle to avoid extradition to the United States.

Lawyers for Haroon Rashid Aswat and Babar Ahmad argued that, despite US assurances to the contrary, there was “a real risk” that the men would be mistreated, or tried and sentenced as enemy combatants if sent to America.

Dismissing their appeal, Lord Justice Laws, sitting in London with Mr Justice Walker, said the allegation that the US might violate undertakings given to the UK “would require proof of a quality entirely lacking here”.

The judges said they would take time to consider whether both men should be given permission to take their case to the House of Lords, the highest court in the UK, for a final ruling. They will announce their decision at a later date.

Guardian, 30 November 2006

The Islamic Human Rights Commission has stated: “The decision highlights the manifest injustice of the Extradition Treaty whereby innocent British citizens can be extradited to the US on the flimsiest of evidence. To date, not a shred of evidence has been produced against these men which would warrant charges being brought against them in the UK. In light of claims of the highest level of intelligence-sharing, IHRC finds it puzzling why evidence against the men, if it does exist, has not been passed on to British authorities in order to charge them in Britain.”

IHRC Chair Massoud Shadjareh said: “Since Britain has some of the most comprehensive terrorism laws in the world, if there is any evidence against these men, they should be charged and tried in a British court. Without any evidence being produced, innocent British citizens will be subjected to an American criminal justice system which has done away with due process and legitimized torture in its ‘war on terror’.”

IHRC press release, 30 November 2006

Dutch Muslims protest against face veil ban

About 80 people protested outside the Dutch parliament on Thursday against a recent government decision to ban Muslim burqas and face veils, the toughest ban thus far in Europe.

Seven women clad in niqabs – a veil concealing the face except the eyes – and loose robes that covered them from neck to toes, and 20 women in headscarves gathered in front of parliament, which was to convene on Thursday for the first time after national elections were held last week. Around 50 supporters carried banners written with the phrases: “Before you judge me, try hard to know me” and “The first lesson of integration: the constitution is for everyone.”

Earlier this month, the outgoing government agreed to a total ban on burqas and other Muslim face veils in public, citing security concerns. Critics said the move was likely to alienate and victimise the country’s 1 million Muslims.

“Every time there is an election, the thing with the burqa comes up,” said Aishah Bayrat, a 41-year-old teacher and mother of five. “The burqa is a religious thing, nobody should interfere with it.”

Clad in a black and blue niqab, 17-year-old Tamara dismissed official concerns that the robe would make it hard for people to identify the wearer or serve as a cover for criminals and terrorists. “What about Santa Claus? He can go out on the streets with his long beard and we can’t recognise him.”

Reuters, 30 November 2006

‘Muslim law reaches Britain’

Muslim Law is HereSecret courts imposing draconian Islamic justice are operating across Britain.

Last night politicians and religious leaders expressed outrage that sharia law is gaining an increasing foothold in our society. The hardline Islamic law allows people to be stoned to death, beheaded or have their limbs amputated.

Critics insisted Labour was allowing a chaotic two-tier legal system to flourish in the name of political correctness. And legal experts warned that it meant the authority of British justice was being undermined.

Sharia law dates back to the 10th century. In some countries women are stoned to death for adultery or giving birth out of wedlock and thieves can have both arms amputated. In Saudi Arabia, murderers, rapists and drug traffickers are publicly beheaded with a sword. The Islamic law also deals in all aspects of daily life including marriage and divorce.

Yesterday experts insisted the Government had already allowed elements of sharia law to be introduced. The Treasury has brought in measures including interest-free loans and mortgages which comply with the Islamic law. But it was also alleged unofficial criminal courts are meting out their own justice.

The scandal was outlined on BBC Radio 4’s Law in Action programme which uncovered evidence that Muslims are using their own laws here.

Daily Express, 30 November 2006

For Osama Saeed’s comments, see Rolled Up Trousers, 30 November 2006

Residents use pig races to deter building of mosque

There’s an awful lot of exciting news when you round the corner on Baker Road. One of two big yellow signs announces a new neighbor is coming soon. K.I.A., that’s the Katy Islamic Association, plan to build a mosque here. Craig Baker owns pigs. He’s the guy behind the second big yellow sign on Baker Road. That’s the one announcing Friday night pig races.

But aren’t pigs on the property line racing on a Friday night a little offensive to a Muslim neighbor? “The meat of a pig is prohibited in the religion of Islam,” said Katy Islamic Association member Youssof Allam. “It’s looked upon as a dirty creature.” Yeah, there’s that and also that Friday night is a Muslim holy day. “That is definitely a slap in the face,” said Allam.

abc13.com, 29 November 2006

UK Muslim leaders support grand mosque

British Muslim leaders have expressed their full support for plans to build a grand mosque beside the Olympic Park in East London.

IslamOnline, 27 November 2006

Mad Mel, on the other hand, takes heart from reports that “Muslims themselves have now spoken out against the proposal and warned that the mosque will be a site for Islamist extremism”.

Melanie Phillips’s Diary, 28 November 2006