Zakir Naik was asked to help combat extremism … then banned from the UK as an extremist

Zakir NaikA controversial Islamic preacher who was banned from entering the country by the Home Secretary Theresa May has claimed that he was twice approached by security officials who wanted him to help educate disaffected young British Muslims.

The Mumbai-based evangelist and scholar Dr Zakir Naik – who was barred from entering the UK in June, a few days before he was due to give talks to thousands of Muslims in London, Birmingham and Sheffield – said that before the general election he was twice approached by British security officials to help reform those in danger of becoming extremists.

But, following the change of government, Ms May banned him from entering the country, highlighting contentious quotes he had given as justification. Dr Naik is to challenge her decision in the High Court this month, claiming that his comments have been taken out of context.

Dr Naik said: “In 2009, I was sounded out by government officials representing the Home Office and the anti-terrorism department to see if I would co-operate with them to reach out to misguided young Muslims.

“They said I would make an ideal envoy. I told them I would be happy to co-operate. Now after the change of government, the attitude has changed. Only last year the Government wanted me to help tackle terrorism; this year they are calling me a terrorist.”

Independent, 5 October 2010

Lies from Gilligan about Qaradawi

Qaradawi and MandelaContinuing his witch-hunt of Lutfur Rahman, Andrew Gilligan has directed his fire against Ken Livingstone, who in an appeal for unity has attempted to repair some of the damage caused by the Labour Party NEC’s shameful decision to override a democratic decision by party members in Tower Hamlets and deselect Lutfur as Labour’s mayoral candidate.

According to Gilligan, Ken “has been an ally of Islamic fundamentalism for far longer than Lutfur Rahman”, and as evidence he offers Ken’s “embrace of Yusuf al-Qaradawi, a man who has justified rape and suicide bombing”.

For Qaradawi’s position on suicide bombing Gilligan refers us to a BBC News report dating from Qaradawi’s visit to London in July 2004, which states: “Defending suicide bombings that target Israeli civilians Sheikh Al-Qaradawi told the BBC programme Newsnight that ‘an Israeli woman is not like women in our societies, because she is a soldier. I consider this type of martyrdom operation as an evidence of God’s justice. Allah Almighty is just; through his infinite wisdom he has given the weak a weapon the strong do not have and and that is their ability to turn their bodies into bombs as Palestinians do’.”

But if you check out the Newsnight report you can see that Qaradawi was talking generally about the legitimacy of suicide bombing as a military tactic in the context of the Israel-Palestine conflict. And while he addressed the issue of civilian casualties, there is no indication that he was responding to a specific question about Palestinian suicide bombers targeting Israeli non-combatants. In fact Qaradawi has avoided justifying such attacks.

In a Guardian interview with Madeleine Bunting in 2005, for example, Qaradawi made it clear that when he defended the legitimacy of suicide bombing he was talking about attacks on members of the Israeli armed forces: “Sometimes they kill a child or a woman. Provided they don’t mean to, that’s OK, but they shouldn’t aim to kill them. In every war, mistakes are made and non-combatants get killed…”.

In an interview in Asharq Al-Awsat in 2001, Qaradawi made the same point: “Some children, old people, and women may get hurt in such operations. This is not deliberate. However, we must all realize that the Israeli society is a military society, men and women. We cannot say that the casualties were innocent civilians…” (emphasis added).

So, while Qaradawi holds the view that there is no clear dividing line between civilians and non-civilians in Israel, he does not present this as an argument in favour of suicide bombers deliberately targeting non-combatants. The deaths of the latter, he says, are justifiable only if they are a side-effect of attacks on members of the Israeli military.

As for the ludicrous charge that Qaradawi has “justified rape”, Gilligan directs us to a Daily Telegraph article, published as part of the hysterical right-wing campaign against Qaradawi during his 2004 visit to London, which claimed that Qaradawi “believes that female rape victims should be punished if dressed ‘immodestly’ when assaulted”. (The article, which concludes with a quote from Peter Tatchell, was in fact inspired by an OutRage! press release.)

Leaving aside the fact that the main thrust of the IslamOnline article was to counter the view, widespread in some backward rural societies, that women who are the victims of rape are guilty of damaging the “honour” of the family or community, the article wasn’t by Qaradawi anyway. Nor was it written by “a panel, headed by Mr al-Qaradawi” (an invention lifted by the Telegraph from the OutRage! press release). The author of the IslamOnline was an individual named Kamal Badr.

Even the Israeli-American academic Martin Kramer, a hardline Zionist who is associated with Daniel Pipes’ Middle East Forum and is a vehement opponent of Qaradawi, balked at this particular stitch-up.

“I abhor the views of Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi”, Kramer wrote, “… but I’m not happy with what the London Telegraph did to him this morning. It attributed to Qaradawi an accusatory view of rape victims: ‘To be absolved from guilt, the raped woman must have shown some sort of good conduct.’ These words actually belong to someone else, a consultant to the website Islamonline. Even if Qaradawi is ostensible head of the committee that oversees this website, a Muslim jurist can only be deemed responsible for his ownfatwas… Today’s Telegraph article establishes nothing.” (“Qaradawi non-quote”, Sandbox, 11 July 2004)

If Gilligan can find a quotation from Qaradawi himself implying that women deserve to be raped if they dress immodestly, we would be happy to reproduce it here at Islamophobia Watch. We can guarantee that he won’t be able to come up with a single one.

Deal with Wilders comes under fire in VVD

Prominent members of the conservative VVD party have renewed their criticism of the party’s intended cooperation with the anti-Islam PVV party of Geert Wilders. At a party meeting, senior leaders condemned the populist politician as “repugnant”. Among them were former parliament speaker Frans Weisglas and former cabinet ministers Frits Korthals Altes and Pieter Winsemius.

A majority, however, voiced support for party leader Mark Rutte, who is expected to become the new prime minister of a coalition cabinet with the Christian Democrats (CDA). With the support of the PVV the two parties will have a one-vote majority in parliament. It is not yet clear, however, if two or even more CDA MPs will refuse to support the agreement when the parliamentary party takes a vote next week.

RNW, 2 October 2010

Park51 designs revealed

Park51 design4

Visitors to the upper floors of the Muslim community center planned for near ground zero would walk through lofty spaces – for art exhibitions, for contemplation and prayer, for programs on interreligious dialogue, for a 9/11 memorial – as sunlight streams through irregularly shaped windows between white crisscrossing beams.

That is the image presented in the tentative architectural renderings that the planners of the center, called , have been showing at community meetings in recent weeks, and which were revealed to the wider public for the first time last week.

A sketch of the façade shows a latticework of white starlike designs, echoing patterns that can be seen in Islamic architecture and decorative tiles across the Middle East.

The design was meant to show “hints of tradition,” while the use of modern materials and glass panels would give an impression of translucence and “moving toward the future”, Sharif el-Gamal, the project’s developer, said in an interview last week.

An image of the façade has been in circulation since early this year, but last week the planners revealed renderings of how some interior spaces might look and how the center’s many amenities — including a restaurant, theater, day care center, gym and pool – might be stacked in a building of up to 15 stories.

There would also be a 9/11 memorial and a space open to people of “all faiths and of no faith” for prayer, contemplation and meditation, Mr. Gamal said.

New York Times, 2 October 2010


Over at the New York Post readers offer their views. Some examples:

“Wake up America, we have let the enemy in the gates. Only the return of Jesus Christ can save this doomed planet now. Mayor Bloomburg you self-hating Jew, take a stand AGAINST this travesty.”

“And new Yorkers did nothing. Disgusting.”

“I THINK I AM GONNA BE SICK!!!”

“what a slap in the face to all newyorkers. our city is doomed !”

“To be sure this is nothing more than a camel-humper’s wet dream that is never going to get built, all one has to do is take note of the burqaless, mini-skirted female in the 1st picture accompanying this article. That’s a complete pipedream with absolutely NO basis in muslim reality whatsoever.”

“Peculiar. It looks like the STAR OF DAVID crumbling from the top on down. Imagine that.”

“IF this provocative shaft for target pratice ever gets built, it will be proof that the politically correct idiots of New York have surrendered”

“Perfect place to hide WMD’s”

“‘We want to have a marriage between Islamic architecture and New York City.’ El-Gamal said. Hey… You already got that once, you jerk. It was a giant pile of rubble where the WTC once stood”

“Gee, which floor will house the ‘Muslim Women’s Issues Pavillion’? You know, the room where the forced cl1torectomies will take place? Anyone?”

“shortly after its completion, there will be more reports than you can count of radicals preaching death to infidels and ties to terrorist groups all over the world … as more and more mislams move closer to the mecca mosque, more and more people will move away including wall street taking NY’s brightest minds with them lower manhattan will become a no go zone like many places in europe … it will be a stark and depressing reminder of what happens when multicultural progressives are allowed to vote in your neighborhood”

“Osama Bin Laden and his boys must be very pleased to see a victory mosque rise from one of the buildings they damaged on 9/11”

“NO mosques, NO Muslims, NO exceptions”

“Note the falling Stars of David in the facade. Exactly the intended impression. Three cheers for Bloomberg.”

The rantings of ignorant bigots and anti-Muslim racists? Not according to Pamela Geller who advises her readers: “The comments over at the NY Post are the money.”

More halal hysteria – Mail claims victory over Waitrose

Britain Goes Halal headline

Waitrose is to introduce a range of non-halal lamb products as a  response to customers’ concerns about its meat supplies. Until now, all lamb sold by the store has been slaughtered in accordance with Islamic law, with a Muslim reciting a prayer in Arabic over the meat. But Waitrose said last night that, from now on, organic Welsh lamb from its Duchy Originals range – established by Prince Charles to market produce from his estates – will no longer be halal.

Waitrose said they made their decision in order to give customers “more choice”. But their reversal of policy comes a week after The Mail on Sunday revealed how most British supermarkets were secretly selling halal meat – especially lamb – without telling customers.

The investigation found that most New Zealand lamb sold in major British supermarkets was halal, meaning that the prayer “In the name of Allah, who is the greatest” is said at the time of slaughter. Stores selling lamb slaughtered according to Islamic law included Waitrose, Marks & Spencer, Tesco and Sainsbury’s.

After inquiries by The Mail on Sunday last week, Waitrose said: “We have decided to offer our customers an option to buy lamb which has not received the halal blessing.” Waitrose said that all their other lamb produced in the UK and New Zealand will continue to be halal without being described as such on the packaging.

Patricia Dunton, 67, from Totteridge, North London, said she had been shopping in Waitrose for more than 30 years. Speaking before the Waitrose announcement, she said: “As a devout Christian, I won’t buy Duchy Originals lamb ever again, and I won’t buy lamb from Waitrose. I don’t like the fact that an Islamic prayer has been said over it. It should have been labelled so that I know what I am buying.”

Mail on Sunday, 3 October 2010

This is the third weekend in succession that the Mail has pursued its campaign against halal meat. See here and here.

Torygraph discovers three – yes, three – schools in which pupils wear the niqab

“Hundreds of girls are bring forced by British schools to wear the Islamic veil in a move which has been heavily criticised by mainstream Muslims”, the Sunday Telegraph reports.

And who are these “mainstream Muslims”? Yes, as you might expect, the two men asked for their opinions on the subject are Ed Husain and Taj Hargey.

Husain is quoted as saying: “It is absurd that schools are enforcing this outdated ritual – one that which sends out a damaging message that Muslims do not want to fully partake in British society. Although it is not the government’s job to dictate how its citizens dress, it should nonetheless ensure that such schools are not bankrolled or subsidised by the British taxpayer.”

Hargey says: “This is very disturbing and sets a dangerous precedent. It means that Muslim children are being brainwashed into thinking they must segregate and separate themselves from mainstream society. The use of taxpayers’ money for such institutions should be absolutely opposed.”

But the three schools the Telegraph identifies are all fee-paying private schools, none of which receives state funding. The accusation about the use of taxpayers’ money hinges exclusively on Tower Hamlets council having sold one of the named schools its premises in 2008 at below the property’s then market value. As the Telegraph admits, this was because the price had been agreed in 2004 when the market value was lower.

As for causing divisions between non-Muslims and Muslims, scaremongering articles like this – and irresponsible comments by malicious and unrepresentative attention-seekers like Ed Husain and Taj Hargey – have a far more damaging impact than the sight of veil-wearing pupils entering the gates of a few socially and religiously conservative Muslim schools.

Update:  Predictably, the story has been picked up by the Daily Express (“British girls forced to wear burkhas as part of school uniform”) and the Daily Mail (“The British Muslim schools where EVERY pupil is forced to to wear the veil – and Ofsted inspectors have approved them”). The Mail chips in with an editorial that accuses the schools of being “committed to secrecy and complete isolation from the rest of society” and opines that the situation “should be deeply disturbing to anyone concerned about racial harmony and social cohesion”.

Democrat backs Muslims’ right to cemetery

Sidney grave site

The former Democratic opponent of the town supervisor who wants a Muslim group to dig up two bodies they buried on private property says she thinks the reaction might have been different if the group wasn’t Islamic.

“I do wonder what the reaction would have been if a different group of people had owned the property,” Dawn Rivers Baker, Chair of the Town of Sidney Democratic Committee, told TPMMuckraker.

Baker ran against Bob McCarthy, the now-town supervisor for the village of Sidney, NY. He said in an interview earlier this week that the controversy over the town’s decision to consult a lawyer on whether they could have the Muslim Osmanli Naksibendi Hakkani Sufi Order dig up the graves located in town was ginned by the the “liberal media.”

“It’s kind of weird for me to be sitting here espousing property rights when I’m the Democrat and he’s the Republican, but it’s private property,” Baker said. “And it’s not even like these little private cemeteries are even unusual in rural areas because they’re not, because it’s not illegal, they’re not bothering anybody, and I don’t know why the town board has to bother them.”

The Muslim group is well liked and people don’t have a problem with the Muslim group, Baker said.

“There’s not a whole lot in the way of racial diversity here in Sidney, and there are certainly some people who are unpleasant about that, about race. It’s not a perfect place,” Baker said. “But at the same time, I know that I haven’t had any crosses burned on my lawn since I moved up here.”

Baker said that there were some initial plans to stage a protest at the next town board meeting, and Baker said she has heard the board is talking about moving the date or postponing the meeting because they want to avoid a media circus.

She said there are a lot of people concerned that the town is getting a bad rap because of the controversy. Stephen Colbert even joked this week about Sidney residents being scared of “Muslim vampires” in “sleeper-in-coffin” cells.

“They would very much like to set the record straight and let the world know, ‘Well the town supervisor might be a jerk, but the rest of us aren’t’,” Baker said.

TPM, 1 October 2010

Israel: Kadima MK proposes ‘banning the burqa’

A member of the current Knesset is proposing a law that would prohibit the wearing of any garment that obscures the face and prevents identification, in any government office, at any entertainment venue, and on any means of public transportation. According to the legislator proposing the law, Kadima MK Marina Solodkin, its primary purpose is to liberate women from irrational religious restrictions. The bill mainly targets devout Muslims.

Solodkin explained, “This past Passover vacation I was in southern France. And in this French province, I saw for myself, women in full burqa. I said, enough! For me, as a former Soviet citizen and believing Jew, I will never allow it in Israel.”

Solodkin continued, “When I followed the campaign in France, I started asking questions. But not questions about why the ban on the burqa was being proposed. Rather, I asked why it was not proposed beforehand! So late… Where were the Western liberals when they saw what was going on in their own countries, to their own citizens?”

Two days after France’s lower house of parliament banned the burqa, Solodkin proposed her own anti-burqa bill to the Israeli Knesset.

Haaretz, 2 October 2010

Dutch Christian Democrats vote in favour of Wilders-backed coalition

A majority of Dutch Christian Democrats have voted in support of forming a coalition government backed in parliament by Geert Wilders’ anti-Islam Freedom Party (PVV). At a party conference, 68 percent voted in favour of cooperation with the PVV, 32 percent against. A record 4,500 members attended the gathering.

The Christian Democrats intend to form a minority coalition with the right-wing VVD with parliamentary support by the PVV.

A number of prominent Christian Democrats spoke out against any form of cooperation with the PVV. They include two former prime ministers, past and present cabinet ministers and two current MPs. They argued that the PVV discriminates people for their religion and skin colour whereas the CDA aims to bring people together.

A definitive vote on the coalition agreement will be taken next week by the CDA parliamentary party. Under the constitution, MPs are free to vote without any constraints. It is not yet clear how two MPs who voted against the coalition agreement at the party conference will vote when the vote is taken by the parliamentary party.

RNW, 2 October 2010

See also Reuters, 2 October 2010

Massachusetts businessman who says ‘Muslims will destroy us from within’ takes offence at being called a bigot

Muslims will destroy us from withinRussell G. Baker says he’s just speaking his mind when it comes to the controversial messages about the president and Muslims that he posts outside his Route 20 business, Baker’s Auto Body and Self-Storage.

But a recent sign – “Muslims will destroy us from within” – has sparked anger from some Muslims who say Baker is spreading hate and “Islamophobia.”

Baker, an intense 60-year-old man who can barely stand to utter the president’s name, takes offense that he’s been called a bigot, racist and other negative words by critics.

He said he started posting messages on the sign before President Barack H. Obama took office. “I did a little research through his background and I wasn’t a happy camper. In a nutshell, number one, he’s not who he claims to be and number two, he’s a Muslim,” Baker said.

MassLive.com, 2 October 2010


But let’s be fair to Baker. After complaints, he replaced the “Muslims will destroy us from within” sign with another reading “We’re on the eve of destruction”. On the other side, it says “Mosque at Ground Zero 73% say no! I’m 1.”