AMSTERDAM — Maxime Verhagen, the parliamentary party leader of the Christian Democrat Party (CDA), and MP Geert Wilders have angrily rejected a claim they are guilty of rabble-rousing in the debate over Islam and Sharia Law.
The accusation has been levelled against them by researcher Jan Schoonenboom of the Netherlands Scientific Council for Government Policy (WRR). Schoonenboom has spoken out against Verhagen’s call to ban any political parties that advocate Sharia in the Netherlands.
Madeleine Bunting on how the Enlightenment has been mythologised by those intent on waging a clash-of-civilisations campaign against Islam.
Letter in Tribune, 7 April 2006
It is ironic that, only a week after Peter Tatchell’s article attacking the anti-fascist movement in Tribune, he appeared on the platform at the “Freedom of Expression” rally which had the support of the British National Party and Civil Liberty, whose director is Kevin Scott, a BNP organiser and candidate at the 2005 general election.
I am shocked at Tatchell’s decision to speak on this platform. The BNP exists in the tradition of the Nazis, who not only opposed freedom of speech in the abstract, but exterminated millions of people in the death camps. The BNP denies the reality of the Holocaust and calls for an all-white Britain.
As the secretary of the National Assembly Against Racism, I will unite with everyone who will fight against fascism so that such murderous policies can never be pursued in Britain, even if I profoundly differ with them on many other questions.
Had he attended the Unite Against Fascism conference he would know that this very point was made by almost every speaker, including the Muslim Council of Britain.
Lee Jasper
“Faced with a possible disaster in Iraq, the political establishment has closed ranks to scapegoat Islam. On the day of the London bombings in July 2005, Blair’s foreign secretary Jack Straw set the tone for a renewed onslaught, crudely dismissing any connection with Iraq. Solidarity with Muslims in the anti-war movement has been pilloried by the right’s most effective allies – critics with left-liberal credentials. The response to the racist cartoons published in European newspapers has highlighted the extent of Islamophobia in so called liberal circles – and confusion on the left.”
Dave Crouch in International Socialism No.110, Spring 2006
Regarding the Bolsheviks’ practice in government, Crouch writes:
“Sharia law had been a central demand of Muslims during the February Revolution of 1917 and, as the civil war drew to a close in 1920-1921, a parallel court system was created in Central Asia and the Caucasus, with Islamic courts administering justice in accordance with sharia law side by side with Soviet legal institutions. The aim was for people to have a choice between religious and revolutionary justice.
“A Sharia Commission was established in the Soviet Commissariat of Justice to oversee the system. In 1921 a series of commissions were attached to regional units of the Soviet administration with the purpose of adapting the Russian legal code to the conditions of Central Asia, allowing for compromise between the two systems on questions such as under-age marriage and polygamy.”
A million miles away from the Islamophobic absurdities of Maryam Namazie, Homa Arjomand and their fellow sectarians in the Worker Communist Party of Iran, you’d have to agree.
A new entrance test for would-be immigrants to the Netherlands has been condemned by some as Islamophobic and detrimental to the country’s economy. The “civic integration” test, part of a broader government policy shift on immigration, came into effect in February.
It includes the compulsory viewing of a film which includes scenes of gay men kissing and topless women. Critics say the film, which forms part of a study pack for would-be immigrants, is designed to discourage applicants from Muslim countries who may be offended by its content.
Arzu Merali, spokeswoman for the London-based Islamic Human Rights Commission, says the test indicates that Muslims are not welcome. People seeking entrance from other EU countries, the US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Japan do not have to take it.
“Sadly the Dutch authorities are now openly exhibiting the type of Islamophobia that sends a very clear message to wider society,” Merali said. She said the message is that new Muslim immigrants are unwelcome, as are those already present who do not conform to a uniform idea of a Dutch citizen.
Soumaya Ghannoushi, writing for Al Jazeera, has an extremely astute analysis of the world in the early 21st century. The whole article is worth reading but there is one section that is particularly pertinent to the analysis that Islamophobia Watch has carried of the trajectory of some on the socialist left:
“Some from the Left have deserted their old positions and have moved to the side of power and big business, turning into cheerleaders for wars of aggression and the trampling of the principle of national sovereignty and norms of international law. While speaking the language of liberalism and tolerance, these have recycled rightwing racist clichés about Islam to dismiss the rapprochement with Muslims as an ‘unholy alliance’.”
A debate has been heating up among Danish viewers over the appearance of the first hijab-clad talk show presenter on the Danish television.
Asmaa Abdol-Hamid, a 24-year-old Danish Muslim of Palestinian origin, appeared last week on the DR2 network to host an eight-part programme on the fallout of Danish cartoons lampooning Prophet Muhammad. The female Muslim host has been selected to co-present the talk show with Danish reporter Adam Holm, an ardent proponent of press freedom, debating on Danish society’s pressing issues.
The appearance of hijab-wearing Asmaa has drawn mixed reactions from Danish women’s groups. Feminist Forum, a Danish women’s organization, said Abdol-Hamid’s TV presence “strengthens ethnic and gender equality in Denmark”. But another feminist group, the Women for Freedom association, echoed a different stance. “The choice of Asmsa Abdol-Hamid (…) is an insult to both Danish and Muslim women,” claimed Vibeke Manniche, the association’s head. “She sends the signal that an honourable woman cannot go out unless her head is covered.”
But DR2 network defended its decision to allow Asmaa’s TV presence, saying “headscarf-wearing women are part of Danish society and we need to accept this fact”.
See also Daily Times, 5 April 2006
We recently gave coverage to the controversy over Patrick Sookhdeo’s interview with the Telegraph, and his reported claim that a well-known translation of the Qur’an by Abdalhaqq and Aisha Bewley calls for “the killing of Jews and Christians, and … sets out a strategy for killing the infidels and for warfare against them”. The Telegraph eventually apologised to the Bewleys. (See here, here, here and here.)
However, the paper failed to print a letter by Ahmad Thomson or his review of the Bewleys’ translation that he asked to be published as a corrective to the Sookhdeo accusation. Ahmad kindly sent us a copy of the letter and review along with an introduction outlining the dispute between the Bewleys and the Telegraph. You can read it here.
In February, in response to the Danish cartoons crisis, Deepa Kumar published an excellent critique of the way in which a section of left and liberal opinion in the US had “accepted and internalized right-wing arguments like Samuel Huntington’s ‘clash of civilizations’ thesis which sees the West as a force for enlightenment and the East as barbaric”.
She has just published “Fighting Islamophobia: A Response to Critics” in which she writes:
“I have received dozens of emails supportive of my argument that racism has no place on the left. Additionally, comments on the article posted on MRZine show that there are people willing to stand up against anti-Muslim bigotry. However, what is deeply troubling is that the majority of comments, presumably from progressives, are hostile to Islam and to Muslims.
“In what follows, I respond to these comments for reasons that should be obvious to any person of conscience: the wholesale demonization of Arabs and Muslims is racist and unacceptable, it serves to bolster US foreign policy goals in the Middle East, and giving even an inch to Islamophobia divides us and weakens our ability to build an effective opposition to the war in Iraq and the potential war on Iran.”
“Kaufman’s malice leaves no Muslim out of its reach. He has condemned Muslims that any regular reader of their writings would know are peaceful people solely on the grounds that they articulate normative Muslim doctrine and participate in mainstream Muslim organisations. In some ways it is par for Front Page’s biased and often malicious course; much of its content consists of diatribes against Muslims and other immigrants, but Kaufman’s practice of flagrantly twisting people’s words, apparently not caring if his claims can be easily debunked, bring it to a new low.”
Yusuf Smith takes apart right-wing US blogger Joe Kaufman.