‘Britain’s phoney war on terror’

“After spending time recently with senior Pentagon officials and other Americans involved in counter-terrorism, I was struck by the global scope of their concerns. Above all I was reminded how different their attitudes are from those of their British counterparts, still obsessed with ‘community cohesion’ and the ‘radicalisation’ of young Muslims. In Britain the views of the non-Muslim majority are largely ignored – or lead to them being branded as potential ‘Islamophobes’. In the United States the unthinkable and unsayable are debated openly….

“Europe can be weak in combating terrorism at a political level, largely because of the effects of officially decreed multiculturalism and a failure to do much about the impact of population movements on the host culture and economy. Not surprisingly, the failure of European governments to get a grip on what are still relatively small Muslim minorities provokes exasperation in America.

“Many of the 1.6m Muslims living in Britain, for example, still do not seem fully to appreciate the outrage that a finger-jabbing minority causes at home and abroad with each escalating demand for Islamist enclaves. Like a perennial student, new Labour favours debate and dialogue. But in dealing with the Muslim Council of Britain, the government has unwittingly accepted as ‘community’ interlocutors men who have blamed Islamist terrorism primarily on British foreign policy, while failing to condemn suicide bombing outside the UK….

“The one British politician who grasps the need to be as frank as our American cousins about the threat from terrorists who are actively plotting indiscriminate slaughter is not the prime minister, who appears to be locked into the globalising vapidities that thrill Davos seminars, but David Cameron. The leader of the opposition understands the existential threat from jihadism and has comprehensive ideas about how to combat it…. He is fully conscious of the need to balance ancient liberties with the right to stay alive.”

Michael Burleigh in the Sunday Times, 25 May 2008

Update:  See Yusuf Smith’s comments at Indigo Jo Blogs, 27 May 2008

Nazir-Ali backs initiative to convert Muslims to Christianity

Nazir AliThe Church of England was accused by one of its most senior bishops yesterday of failing in its duty to convert British Muslims to Christianity.

The Bishop of Rochester, the Rt Rev Michael Nazir-Ali, said Church leaders had rightly shown sensitivity towards Muslims as part of efforts to welcome minority faiths. But he said: “I think it may have gone too far and what we need now is to recover our nerve.” “Our nation is rooted in the Christian faith, and that is the basis for welcoming people of other faiths,” he said.

The Pakistani-born bishop, who in 2002 was tipped to become Archbishop of Canterbury before Dr Rowan Williams took over from Dr George Carey, was echoing concerns that many Church leaders are abandoning attempts to spread Christianity among Muslims out of fear of a backlash.

Members of the Church’s “parliament” have now forced the highly sensitive issue on to the agenda of this summer’s General Synod – despite the efforts of liberal bishops to warn them off. A private members’ motion calling on the bishops to clarify their strategy has gathered so many signatures of support from Synod members that it has leapt over others in the queue for the July meeting in York.

Synod member Paul Eddy, who tabled the motion, said that the active recruitment of non-believers and adherents of other faiths had always been a Biblical injunction on Christians, commanded by Christ himself. But he claimed that many bishops were downplaying the missionary role of the Church and official documents often glossed over the requirement to convert Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs or followers of other religions. He warned that the central role of Christianity in Britain was being eroded, and by “allowing the rise of another religion in our country, all that Britain stands for is up for grabs”.

Mail on Sunday, 25 May 2008

Update:  See “Church of England row over Muslim conversion”, Daily Telegraph, 26 May 2008

Further update:  See also Sunny Hundal’s comments at Pickled Politics, 28 May 2008

Quebec’s culture clash

Is it likely that Hérouxville, set in Quebec’s overwhelmingly white and francophone heartland, will ever witness the stoning of a Muslim woman? Not really, mused Gérard Bouchard, the co-chair of a provincial commission looking into the reasonable accommodation of minorities at an October 2007 public hearing in Trois-Rivières, 30 minutes from the town. “We’re pretty far from stoning here,” he said.

Bouchard was speaking to Andre Drouin, a member of the Hérouxville town council which, in January 2007, created a national firestorm by adopting a code of conduct that banned the stoning of women and covering of faces, among other practices. Yet Drouin held his ground in the face of Bouchard’s skepticism. “Stoning takes place, and some of those people will want to come here. It’s important to be preventive.”

Exchanges like these have consumed the province since Premier Jean Charest formed the Bouchard-Taylor commission in February 2007, largely in response to the public firestorm over the Hérouxville news.

CBC News, 21 May 2008

Mosque plan gets go-ahead amid ‘racist’ row

Controversial plans for a new mosque in Fulwood have finally been given the green light. But at a heated planning meeting, some members were accused of being “bigots” and “racists” for opposing the scheme. Work on the new mosque at the Masjid-E-Salaam site on Watling Street Road in Fulwood will now begin within six months, after a planning saga lasting two years.

An angry Coun John Browne, who backed the plans, said: “The thing should have gone ahead last time, but a number of us differed and we are in the same situation. It was to differ for political reasons – it’s a misuse of the planning application process. They’re bigots, racists – that’s a terrible thing.”

Others spoke in favour of the mosque, such as Coun Terry Cartwright, who described the new mosque as a “beautiful building”. And Coun Alan Hackett said: “We want to recognise the patience of a large number of people who have put forward this application.”

Lancashire Evening Post, 20 May 2008

Pat Condell’s fascist friends

Pat CondellIslamophobia Watch has regularly covered the obnoxious anti-Muslim videos produced by Pat Condell.

The National Secularist Society’s favourite “comedian”, Condell has also been embraced by racists on the far right, who have enthusiastically promoted his Islamophobic rants.

Even though it clearly provides many of his admirers, Condell has formally dissociated himself from the fascist British National Party. Or has he? It turns out that many of Condell’s YouTube friends are in fact open supporters of the BNP.

See Why Pat Condell Isn’t Funny, 19 May 2008

‘The closer you get to Islam, the more hateful a personality you develop’

In an article based on the Channel 4 documentary In God’s Name, which examines the influence of right-wing evangelical Christianity, David Modell exposes the role of Andrea Williams and the Lawyers’ Christian Fellowship in inciting hatred of Islam:

“Andrea Williams has organised a conference called Understanding Islam. The key speaker is Sam Solomon, whom she describes as an ‘authority on Islam’. She introduces him by explaining how influential he has been to her understanding of the religion. The room is the kind of place you might expect to hear a dry academic seminar, but Mr Solomon delivers nothing of the sort. He’s suddenly saying that Islam is based only on hatred. ‘The closer you get to Islam, the more hateful a personality you develop.’ He goes on to say: ‘You may think I know my [Muslim] neighbours and they are the most loving hospitable people. [But] so they were in Nigeria until the day of jihad came and they slaughtered their neighbours.’ He says Muslims are practising deception and are ‘brainwashed into accepting that we are the enemies and must be liquidated and eradicated’.”

Sunday Telegraph, 18 May 2008

Update:  Watch video here. The whole programme can be viewed here. See also the end of part 4 which covers the protest organised by Christian Voice last year against the proposed so-called mega-mosque at Abbey Mills in East London.

Goodman hits out at Cordoba Foundation

Paul Goodman 2Paul Goodman, Tory shadow minister for communities, speaking in the House of Commons debate on antisemitism:

“We believe that it is wrong for institutions to participate in events that are hosted by anti-Semitic parties such as the British National party. It therefore follows that it is also wrong for them to participate in events hosted by other anti-Semitic organisations, such as Hizb ut-Tahrir. I make that point because it was reported this week that John Holmwood, a sociology professor at Birmingham university, which is an excellent institution, spoke at a local debate that was organised by Hizb ut-Tahrir.

“It should also be unacceptable for local authorities to support groups that are willing to engage actively with Hizb ut-Tahrir, such as the Cordoba Foundation; we understand that that is the case in Tower Hamlets. The Cordoba Foundation appears to be involved in Campusalam – a Government-sponsored programme to tackle extremism on campus – so we would welcome clarification from the Minister on that.”

Hansard, 15 May 2008

The Cordoba Foundation in fact organised a public debate (see here, here and here) at the London Muslim Centre in which Osama Saeed and Lord Ahmed argued against the HT view that Muslims should not participate in electoral politics in Britain. Goodman, along with David Cameron, evidently prefers that such views should be left unchallenged – and, moreover, that organisations like the Cordoba Foundation that do challenge these views should be denied government support.

We already know that Cameron wants to ban Hizb ut-Tahrir and, if he wins the next general election, will no doubt proceed to do so. Of course, the double standards that allow the racist thugs of the BNP to operate legally while a peaceful Islamist organisation like HT is banned can only strengthen the arguments of the real extremists who preach the futility of non-violence.

The stupidity and irresponsibility of the Tories evidently knows no bounds.

Danish government introduces headscarf ban

DF niqabi judge posterJudges in the nation’s courts will be banned from wearing headscarves and other religious apparel under a proposal put forward by the government on Wednesday.

The bill, which also stated that judges in all courts would be required to wear robes, has the support of a vast majority in parliament, including the Social Democrats, the largest opposition party.

The proposal comes after nearly a month of debate unleashed by a Court Administration decision that it had no legal grounds to exclude Muslim women who wore headscarves from becoming judges.

“Judges that make decisions in court cases, probate courts and county courts need to appear fair and neutral. And we are ready to pass legislation to ensure that,” Lene Espersen, the justice minister, said.

In a commentary in Politiken newspaper on Wednesday, Birthe Rønn Hornbeck, who serves as both immigration minister and minister for ecclesiastical affairs, stated her opposition to a ban, suggesting that doing so would put Denmark on the path towards a “dictatorship”. She also criticised “fanatic anti-Muslims” who had launched a misleading advertising campaign warning against permitting judges to wear headscarves.

Copenhagen Post, 15 May 2008

Via Islam in Europe

See also Associated Press, which reports: “The new legislation … was prompted by discussions over a set of dress code guidelines issued last year by the court administration, which noted that Danish law does not bar judges from wearing head scarves. The guidelines went largely unnoticed until the government’s ally, the nationalist Danish People’s Party, decided to politicize the issue last month. The party, known for its anti-Muslim rhetoric, created a poster showing a woman wearing an all-encompassing burqa and holding a judge’s gavel. The party urged the government to introduce legislation ensuring that courts remain ‘neutral instances in the Danish judiciary’.”

Update:  See also BBC News, 19 May 2008

Muslim group supports student’s right to service dog

A civil rights group is working again to debunk the myth that Muslims and dogs can’t get along. The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) today is clarifying Muslim beliefs about dogs and expressing support for a St. Cloud State University student who felt his service dog was threatened. CAIR-MN issued a statement following a May 12 article in the St. Cloud Times, which said that graduate student Tyler Hurd left the university because he feared for the safety of his dog.

Hurd told the St. Cloud Times that while many Muslim students grew to like his dog, the dog was threatened by a student at one of the schools where he was doing his field training.

The Times article falsely states that Islam “forbids the touching of dogs”. CAIR-MN clarifies that many Muslims are uncomfortable around dogs, as they believe the saliva of dogs invalidates the ritual ablution performed before prayer. For this reason, it has become a cultural norm for individuals not to have dogs in their homes. However, “the moral and legal need to accommodate individuals using service dogs far outweighs the discomfort an individual Muslim might feel about coming into contact with a dog, which is one of God’s creatures,” said CAIR-MN Communications Director Valerie Shirley.

One unfortunate result of the St. Cloud Times article is that threats have been turned on the larger Muslim community. By Wednesday, there were more than 300 comments on the St. Cloud Times website about Hurd’s story, many of them hostile.

Engage Minnesota, 14 May 2008


Sample comments on the St. Cloud Times website:

“This is another craven, left-wing college administration giving in to soft jihad. America is giving in to these Muslim monsters. We let them lie, libel, and threaten with impunity. they never have to face up to anything. We are too nice in this country to our enemies. They exploit this weakness.”

“Muslims are a foreign and vile presence in our country. How the hell is it that they murder Amercians and plot and dare to raise their foul voices against our citizens? We need grassroots support for a deportation law!”

“It’s sad we carter [sic] to the needs of these people , we bring them in, feed them, cloth them, and house them, and they still turn on us.”

“Ban this damned death cult/crime syndicate now! Islam is not a religion. It is an excuse, dreamed up by a pedophile moon-god worshipper, to justify his (Muhammeds’ – may pigs blood be upon him) every lust for child-rape and violence.”

‘We are sleep-walking into an Islamic caliphate’

“… there is an extraordinary passage when one of the most likeable and longest-serving members of the team, and a former radical Sixties firebrand to boot, turns on radical Islam and the fact that we are sleep-walking into an Islamic caliphate. He describes suicide bombers as ‘racists, fascists and bastards’, deplores the credulity of right-on, anti-American attitudes, and insists that ‘self-hatred is the cancer at the heart of our nation’.

“It’s always dangerous to assume that any character’s words represent the view of the playwright….. But this play seems to me to mark a defining moment on the English stage when the conventional liberal pieties that largely obtain in our theatre are finally put under fierce scrutiny, and Jihadist Islam is at last denounced as a malign evil.”

Charles Spencer reviews Richard Bean’s new play The English Game.

Daily Telegraph, 13 May 2008