Rutte finally gets round to criticising Wilders’ description of mosques as ‘hate palaces’

Wilders and RuttePrime minister Mark Rutte on Friday condemned Geert Wilders, leader of the coalition’s PVV alliance partner, for describing mosques as “palaces of hate”.

Wilders used the term in an interview with the Telegraaf newspaper shortly after the Norwegian shootings. Rutte told a news conference that Wilders’ comment was “terrible” and went too far. It was an extremely inappropriate remark, the PM said.

The PVV leader was mentioned 30 times in the manifesto left behind by gunman Anders Breivik. In the interview, Wilders said the left is out to demonise him by trying to connect him to shootings.

Rutte told reporters it is wrong to try to connect Wilders to the shootings. And while calling for the debate to be carried out with respect, he said he had no intention of limiting anyone’s right to say what they want. “Every bird sings its own tune,” Rutte said.

Dutch News, 12 August 2011

Considering that Wilders made this disgraceful comment nearly two weeks ago, and that Rutte has been under pressure ever since to condemn it, you can only say – about time too.

US taxpayers to fund MEMRI

Yes, really. The US State Department has awarded a $200,000 grant to the right-wing Zionist propaganda organisation the Middle East Media Research Institute. What were they thinking? Even leaving aside its reputation for attacking Muslim critics of Israel, and the inspiration this provided for Anders Breivik, MEMRI notoriously intervened in the 2004 US presidential election with the baseless claim that Osama bin Laden was supporting the Democrats’ campaign by offering to refrain from attacking US states that voted for Kerry rather than Bush.

See Jim Lobe and Philip Weiss. Also Ali Gharib at Think Progress.

Republic of Ireland refuses Qaradawi entry visa

The Irish Independent reports: “immigration officials have been concerned about him for some time and have blocked his entry to Ireland for the past three years. A visa application made by Mr Al-Qaradawi in June 2008 was refused. Since then he has been ‘red flagged’. This means he would be arrested and immediately deported if he turned up at an Irish port of entry. The decision is believed to have been made after consultation with other governments who imposed similar bans. No official reason was given for the red flagging and it is unclear if other religious figures have been the subject of similar bans.”

Update:  Over at Harry’s Place the inimitable Edmund Standing predictably applauds the decision to exclude Qaradawi, under the headline “Ireland refuses entry to notorious fascist activist”. In support of the assertion that Qaradawi is a fascist, Standing provides a link to a 2004 article from Arab News and claims that “2,500 Muslim intellectuals from 23 countries” signed a petition attacking Qaradawi as a promoter of terrorism and asking the United Nations to take action against him.

What was the background to this petition? As HP’s favourite website MEMRI reported: “The idea to petition the U.N. with this request was raised by the Jordanian writer and researcher Dr. Shaker Al-Nabulsi in early September 2004, in response to the fatwa issued by Sheikh Yousef Al-Qaradhawi … which called for the abduction and killing of U.S. citizens in Iraq.”

But Qaradawi didn’t call for the abduction and killing of US civilians in Iraq – on the contrary, he vigorously opposed it. Qaradawi himself immediately denied that he had made the statement attributed to him, and this was confirmed by the leading Egyptian journalist Fahmi Huwaydi, who acquired a tape of the meeting where Qaradawi was supposed to have issued the call. After arguing that the people of Iraq were obliged to resist the US occupation by force of arms, Qaradawi continued: “the constitution of war in Islam is a constitution of ethics, and by those rules we must not kill except those who kill us, and therefore all of those who do not carry weapons it is not upon us to kill”.

Huwaydi condemned “the distortion which these words have received, and the clamour which it aroused in world capitals”. He pointed out that Qaradawi had held a press conference to refute the misrepresentation of his views “which was attended by some members of the American and French embassies at the side of a large number of journalists and media, where he said ‘Islam does not permit kidnapping of civilians or their killing’ … but his corrections have been completely ignored, and everyone continues to deal with the first position attributed to him rather than the truth”.

Shaker Al-Nabulsi was part of a tendency calling themselves “neo-liberals” who, in Nabulsi’s own words, advocated “freedom, democracy, and free markets” in the Middle East and, “in light of the inability of the domestic elite and the fragile political parties” to achieve these objectives, saw “no harm in asking for assistance from outside forces”.

Al-Jazeera journalist Faysal al-Qassem criticised Nabulsi and his co-thinkers as follows: “Are they not closer to the neo-conservative Americans who are destroying the world, than to the real liberals…? … Why do they lean blindly toward anything Western? … Why do they depict America as a benevolent angel who has come to save us from our evils? … How is it that the neo-liberal Arabs call for tolerance while taking the lead in accusing [others] of heresy? Doesn’t liberalism advocate acceptance of others and interaction with all factions? Why are they antagonistic to anyone who opposes them? Is this Liberalism or a repulsive Fundamentalism? Are they anything more than a fifth column?”

As Raymond Baker demonstrated in his book Islam Without Fear, Qaradawi is part of a reformist Islamist tendency which urges political change but, in contrast to the “neo-liberals”, rejects Western hegemony and seeks to promote an indigenous democratisation movement. Islam Online reported Qaradawi as saying in August 2004 that, whereas Washington “seeks a kind of change serving its own interests” in the Middle East, the reform that Muslims want is one “which is emanating from inside, and that serves their own interests and visions”.

This approach, which has of course borne fruit in the Arab Spring, brought Qaradawi into conflict with the pro-US perspectives of Nabulsi and the “neo-liberals”. After Qaradawi gave a talk in June 2004 stressing that “democracy is the essence of Islam”, rather than welcome this as a contribution to the struggle for democratisation Nabulsi instead launched a bitter attack on Qaradawi, declaring that “the term ‘democracy’ does not exist at all in Islam”.

The petition to the UN organised by Nabulsi was an integral part of this campaign to discredit Qaradawi and reformist currents within Islamism, by portraying them as no different from the supporters of Al-Qaeda. Thus the leading moderates Qaradawi, his fellow Egyptian “New Islamist” Mohammed al-Ghazali and the Tunisian democrat Rachid al-Ghannouchi were lumped together with two Saudi Wahhabists who were quoted as supporting the 9/11 attacks. All were categorised by the authors of the petition as “psychotic members of dogmatic Muslim groups encouraging the commission of terrorist acts in the name of and under the banner of Islam”.

(It is also worth mentioning that another of the individuals behind the petition against Qaradawi was Nabulsi’s friend Jawad Hashim, who was convicted in absentia in the United Arab Emirates of embezzlement from the Arab Monetary Fund. In a further court case in Britain he was ordered to repay over $130 million to the AMF. Before that, Hashim was Saddam Hussein’s minister of planning.)

As for Standing’s assertion that “2,500 Muslim intellectuals from 23 countries” signed the petition, by the end of 2004 the number of signatories reportedly came to 4,000. But these were just random individuals who had visited the website of the online journal Middle East Transparent which carried the petition. Since the publisher was claiming “2,000 to 3,000 visitors per day” to the site at the time, we would have to conclude that only a tiny minority of them actually supported the petition.

So the Arab News report that Standing quotes against Qaradawi is basically a load of nonsense. Standing knows nothing about the issues, hasn’t bothered to check his sources and just repeats slanders in an attempt to discredit a leading supporter of the Palestinian cause in order to promote HP’s Zionist agenda.

But what can you expect from Edmund Standing, other than ignorant idiocy? After all this is a man who has seriously argued that the BNP don’t really hate Muslims and recently presented a joke by Shahid Malik as evidence that the former Labour MP was plotting the Islamification of parliament.

‘Ayatollah of the RAF’: Mail on Sunday witch-hunts Joel Hayward

The Mail on Sunday has published an attack on Joel Hayward, dean of the Royal Air Force College at Cranwell (“Ayatollah of the RAF: Academic ‘university’ head is Muslim convert who claims Nazi gas chambers were British propaganda and criticises Libya air strikes”). The story has since been taken up by the Daily Star, under the bizarre headline “RAF pilot converts to Islam”.

The main source for the Mail‘s witch-hunt is a letter headed “The Air Force Ayatollah”, which was sent to the paper by anonymous RAF officers who would obviously rather have Robert Spencer running the college. Apparently students at Cranwell “are in fear” of expressing anti-Muslim sentiments in front of Hayward. Worst of all: “Anyone who fails to follow the line that Islam is a peace-loving religion is hauled into his office for re-education”.

The Mail concurs in finding it sinister that Hayward “has frequently challenged claims of Islamic aggressiveness”. In fact, his views on that subject are so off-the-wall that one of his articles, “The Qur’an and war: Observations on Islamic just war”, was published in the RAF’s own academic journal, Air Power Review.

Continue reading

Muslim Canadian Congress joins Jewish Defence League to fight Islamic prayers in Toronto schools

Toronto Stop Islamic Infiltration placardSome Muslim parents fear a handful of Toronto imams are turning their children into young radicals during Friday prayer services at some public schools.

“Who are these imams and what are their qualifications,” asked Sohail Raza, president of the Muslim Canadian Congress. “I am extremely concerned about what they are teaching our kids.” Raza was among 300 people who demonstrated outside the Toronto District School Board, on Yonge St., on Monday night.

Continue reading

More Sharia hysteria in the Torygraph

Birmingham Central Mosque sharia councilYes, it’s yet another report on the dangers of “Sharia courts” – this one (“Sharia: a law unto itself?”) in the Sunday Telegraph by Jonathan Wynne-Jones, the paper’s religious affairs correspondent.

Wynne-Jones was given the opportunity to observe the workings of a Sharia council at Birmingham Central Mosque and he interviewed a woman member of the council, Amra Bone. In addition, Sheikh Faiz Siddiqi spoke to Wynne-Jones on the role of Islamic arbitration tribunals in settling commercial disputes. Which you might think would provide the basis for an objective report that would counter the usual anti-Sharia scaremongering. You would of course be wrong. The informed views of two individuals who can provide an insight into the actual operation of “Sharia courts” are predictably outweighed by those of a bunch of ignorant Islamophobes.

So, along with the obligatory reference to the “Sharia controlled zones” publicity stunt by Anjem Choudary’s idiot micro-sect, we are treated to a succession of quotes on the Sharia threat from Michael “no go areas” Nazir-Ali (who opines that the existence of Sharia councils “threatens the fundamental values that underpin our society”); from Geert Wilders fan Baroness Cox (who declares that her objective is to “stop parallel legal, or quasi-legal, systems taking root in our nation”); from right-wing Christian fundamentalist Alan Craig (who complains that “I can no longer walk to my local shops and find anywhere to buy conventional, non-halal meat … The pavements are crowded with women wearing not just the face-veil, but black gloves to hide their hands”); and from that well-known expert on Sharia law, Jim Fitzpatrick MP (who is concerned that Sharia councils “are creating a cultural stranglehold over their communities and leading to the Islamification of our society”).

Time Magazine on the Italian veil ban

The thing about Italy’s proposed law to ban women from wearing veils that cover their faces is that it’s not clear what difference it would make.

Just like in France or Belgium, which have introduced similar measures, Italy does not have a large population of women who wear the burqa or the niqab, which cover almost the entire body and face. “In my 20 years in Italy, I don’t think I’ve seen ten women who wear the veil,” says Izzeddin Elzir, head of the Union of Islamic Communities in Italy (UCOII), the country’s largest Muslim organization. According to Elzir, most Muslims in Italy subscribe to a school of Islam that doesn’t require women to keep their faces covered. “In summer, there are more, because there are lots of tourists [from Arabic countries],” he says. “But here in Italy, we see few cases.”

The legislation, which was approved by a parliamentary commission on Tuesday, occupies a strange place in the Italian political spectrum, uniting the socially liberal left with the xenophobic right. (A similar measure was floated by the previous left-wing government.) If approved by parliament, it would close a religious exemption to previous legislation that prohibits anybody in Italy from donning garb that would make their identification impossible. The proposed law has the support of the Northern League, a populist political party that has built its electoral success by fanning fears in a country being changed rapidly by immigration.

The effort to ban the burqa has the support of human-rights groups, like the EveryOne Group, which campaigns for the protection of minorities. “The reason [the burqa] is worn is to hide the woman, to limit her expression,” says the activist group’s president Roberto Malini. But he acknowledges that on this matter, the group finds itself in strange accordance with the Northern League, which has sponsored similar legislation on the local level, including one in the city of Bergamo, where kebab shops were recently banned from the historic city center. “Everything they do is to seed the fear of Islam,” says Malini.

For Elzir of UCOII, to reject the bill is to stand for religious freedom – a devout woman should be free to cover herself if she wants. He adds that those women who are being forced to don a burqa by their husbands risk being confined to their homes if the proposal is made law. “We say we are for the liberty of all,” says Elzir. “If there’s a woman who is obliged to [wear the veil], let’s work together to help get her out of this situation. Let’s not make a law against her.” He believes the bill is more about politics than policy, a distraction from the bigger issues. “Our parliament should focus on issues that impact all citizens, not just one or two people,” he says. “The citizens of Italy need an answer to this economic crisis. And instead our parliament is studying whether our Islamic women should be covered or not.”

Time, 5 August 2011

Roberta Moore says journalists like Andrew Gilligan ‘deserve our respect’

Andrew-GilliganWe’ve been a bit remiss in not covering recent developments in the English Defence League.

Just to bring you up to speed, if you haven’t been following this, the EDL leadership have broken links with their millionaire financial backer Alan Lake following an Observer exposé of Lake that quoted his notorious article proposing the future execution of pro-Islamic “appeasers” like David Cameron, Nick Clegg and the Archbishop of Canterbury. The Jewish division of the EDL have since come out in support of Lake – and of the EDL’s Combined Ex-Forces (CxF) group who have also been expelled following an attack on a Plymouth kebab shop.

While scrolling through the discussion forum on Lake’s 4 Freedoms website in search of further information on these splits, one thing that caught my eye was an exchange earlier this week between a Paul Collings and one “Morrigan Emaleth” – a pseudonym used by former EDL Jewish division leader Roberta Moore.

Objecting to the way journalists have been pursuing Lake, Collingswrites: “when you think of the news storys they could report on, like the erosion of our freedoms, the deaths of child suicide bombers, the creation of muslim enclaves around europe. These are things they should, but are to scared to report on, so they instead chase their own tails. The media gives us with nothing but half truths and lies to read. All we,re left with is a choise of which lie to believe. Its hard to call them journalists.”

To which Emaleth/Moore replies: “Paul, There must be a very sinister reason why they are not reporting this. On the other hand I take my hat off to Andrew Gilligham and co. They report it. They deserve our respect.”

In view of the considerable assistance given by Andrew Gilligan to the cause of furthering far-right anti-Muslim hatred, you might have thought Moore would at least make the effort to spell his name correctly. It’s also a bit unfair not to mention the other journalists who are worthy of the “respect” of this vile Islamophobic bigot and her co-thinkers. Surely Martin Bright deserves a name-check too?