Category Archives: Resisting Islamophobia

What if all Muslims weren’t terrorists?

Posted on by Bob Pitt

“Each time there is an atrocity or outrage, Muslims are expected to apologise as if each and every one is somehow complicit. Given this it is not surprising that Muslims are lumped together in the public consciousness with illegal immigrants and asylum seekers to create one blurry unwelcome mass of people whose values are antithetical to mainstream liberal democracy. What I find most curious is that it is only Islam which tends to be criticised and condemned for being outdated and incompatible with modern society.”

Sarfraz Manzoor in the Guardian, 2 March 2005

IHRC condemns Hazel Blears’ Islamophobic politics of fear

Posted on by Bob Pitt

“IHRC condemns in the strongest terms the dangerous comments made by Home Office minister Hazel Blears that Muslims should be ready to be disproportionately targeted by anti-terror laws. Ms Blears stated that since the terror threat facing Britain is coming from ‘people associated with Islam’, it was only right that Muslims should become disproportionate victims of stop and search and other anti-terror powers.”

Islamic Human Rights Commission press release, 1 March 2005

‘Anti-Islamist’ crusader plants new seeds

Posted on by Bob Pitt

“Despite the apparent decision by President George W. Bush against re-nominating him to the board of the United States Institute of Peace (USIP), ‘anti-Islamist’ activist Daniel Pipes is working as diligently as ever to protect the United States and the Western world from the influence of radical Islamists.”

Daniel Pipes (the man who describes Muslims as “brown-skinned peoples cooking strange foods and not exactly maintaining Germanic standards of hygiene”) exposed by Jim Lobe.

Antiwar.com, 25 February 2005

Nick Cohen’s bloc with the right

Posted on by Bob Pitt

In the 20 February issue of the Observer, the paper’s resident Islamophobe Nick Cohen devotes his column to an attack on the dossier produced by the mayor of London in response to the campaign against Yusuf al-Qaradawi (“Ken Has a Lot to Be Sorry For“).

Cohen’s article is merely the latest episode in his long-running – and apparently unending – vendetta against those of us on the left who have retained our old-fashioned sympathies with the victims of imperialism and racism. In Cohen’s view we are all “pseudo-leftists” who have abandoned the gains of the Enlightenment and are “moving to the right, often to the far-right” to form a bloc with “obscurantists, theocrats and fascists”.

It seems to have escaped Cohen’s attention that on this issue he is the one who is in a bloc with the right. It is the extreme right-wingers in the field of Islamic studies such as Daniel Pipes and Robert Spencer with whom Cohen finds common ground over Qaradawi. Those on the liberal, progressive wing of western academia, such as John Esposito, Noah Feldman and Raymond Baker, all recognise Dr al-Qaradawi’s role as a reformer and democrat.

Meanwhile, the excellent Abu Aardvark recounts how Dr al-Qaradawi has been denounced on a jihadist chat room for his corrupting influence in promoting freedom, individual choice and tolerance.

As for the mayor’s dossier, it can be consulted online here, and readers can make up their own minds whether Cohen has answered it effectively.

MAB: No to Clarke’s house arrest plans

Posted on by Bob Pitt

MAB logoThe Muslim Association of Britain (MAB) strongly opposes the plans Home Secretary Charles Clarke intends to announce today to place certain individuals suspected of terrorism under house arrest. The measures are aimed at saving the face of the government and delivering it out of a predicament caused by illegally detaining suspects without trial for prolonged periods of time.

MAB believes that those suspected of offences should be brought before a court of law. If the eleven suspects held at Belmarsh prison cannot be tried in a court of law for lack of evidence then they are innocent until proven otherwise and should not be punished by incarcerating them in any way.

Ahmed Al-Shiekh, President of MAB commented today: “The idea of putting suspects under house arrest while no evidence has been brought against them is simply a violation of a basic value of democracy and a serious encroachment on their human rights. “If adopted, these measures will constitute a dangerous precedent. They will grant powers to the executive at the expense of the judiciary and will therefore compromise the carriage of justice. “MAB calls for the immediate release of every detainee suspected of terrorism so long as the government has no sufficient evidence to try him before a court of law”.

As the election is approaching MAB intends to call on the public to consider this issue, which is an issue of civil liberties and human rights, to be a priority according to which candidates are assessed for eligibility. Therefore, sitting members of parliament are urged to oppose the proposed plans and deny the government the opportunity to undermine the rule of law and the role of the judiciary.

MAB press release, 22 February 2005

Muslims on ijtihad and sharia

Posted on by Bob Pitt

“The survey asked some interesting questions which I haven’t often seen publicly reported before. They asked Muslim respondents whether they believed that ijtihad (interpretation) remains open – a key indicator of one’s attitude towards a more moderate or radical approach to religion: only 3% in Lebanon, 6% in Palestine, 5% in Egypt, 5% in Jordan, and 8% in Syria said that ijtihad was closed. Almost all Muslims surveyed thought that sharia should be a source of legislation, with almost two thirds in Egypt, Jordan and Palestine saying that sharia should be the only source of legislation. This suggests broad-based support for a moderate Islamism, with sharia viewed as mandatory but open to interpretation – essentially the position advocated by Yusuf al Qaradawi.”

The Centre for Strategic Studies at the University of Jordan has just released a major study of Arab public opinion, Abu Aardvark reports.