FBI detains Muslims praying at football game

Five Muslim football fans were detained and questioned during a game at Giants Stadium because they were congregating near an air duct on a night former President Bush was in the stadium, the FBI said Wednesday.

Some of the Muslims said they did not know they were in a sensitive area, and they complained that they were subjected to racial profiling while they were praying, as their faith requires five times a day.

“I’m as American as apple pie and I’m sitting there and now I’m made to feel like I’m an outsider, for no reason other than I have a long beard or that I prayed,” said Sami Shaban, a 27-year-old Seton Hall Law School student who lives in Piscataway.

At a news conference Wednesday, Shaban said he and four friends had just gotten to the September 19 New York Giants-New Orleans Saints game when they left their seats to pray. Around halftime, 10 security officers and three state troopers approached the men and told them to come with them, Shaban said.

The men were questioned and then were not allowed to return to their seats, but were instead assigned to seats in another section, Shaban said. Three guards stood near them, and escorted them to their cars when they left the stadium, he said.

Associated Press, 2 November 2005

British Anti-Terrorism: A Modern Day Witch-hunt

Islamophobia Awards“Must Read – ‘British Anti-Terrorism: A Modern Day Witch-hunt’, new report by IHRC. Fahad Ansari revisits Britain’s anti-terrorism policies a year after his report, ‘Terror in the Name of Anti-Terrorism’. From Control Orders, proposals to ban Hizb ut-Tahrir and other Muslim organisations, new legislation and police powers, this report covers the gamut of the British government’s latest anti-terrorism proposals.”

IHRC alert, 27 October 2005

And the IHRC’s famous annual Islamophobia Awards are due to be presented on 17 December. Click here to vote now!

Ayaan Hirsi Ali supports Netherlands ban on veil

Dutch Immigration Minister Rita Verdonk has proposed a ban on the wearing of Muslim burkas – full-length veils covering the face – in certain public places, to prevent people avoiding identification. Alarm about Islamist terror has increased in the Netherlands since the Van Gogh murder.

A Dutch MP who campaigned with him against radical Islam, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, defended Mrs Verdonk’s plans in a BBC interview. She told the World Today programme that CCTV cameras, used to help track down terrorists, must continue to reveal suspects’ faces. The CCTV operators “need to see their faces and if you cover your face you cannot be identified”.

She said Muslim women were not obliged to wear the burka, and denied that some burka wearers would be confined to the home.

BBC News, 14 October 2005

See also “Women in burkas face benefit cuts”, Times, 14 October 2005

Continue reading

Dolly Parton defends Yusuf Islam

Patriotic DollyCountry superstar Dolly Parton was thrilled when Yusuf Islam agreed to collaborate with her on her new covers album because she wanted to show fans he’s a “really sweet man.”

Parton has been a longtime friend and fan of the folk icon, formerly Cat Stevens, and was horrified when she learned he had been refused entry to America last year for his Muslim beliefs.

Islam was turned back when his name appeared on a mysterious list of potential terrorist sympathisers. He has been fighting the humiliating immigration mess ever since. And, by including him on her new album, Those Were The Days, patriotic Parton felt she was doing him a great service because her fans would never expect her to collaborate with anyone who meant to harm Americans.

Contactmusic.com, 22 October 2005

Hunger strikers allege ‘force feed torture’ at Guantánamo

Prisoners on hunger strike at Guantánamo Bay have alleged US troops punished them by repeatedly inserting and removing dirty feeding tubes until the detainees vomited blood. Declassified notes released by defence lawyers for three men being held at the prison camp on Cuba said the prisoners came to view the large feeding tubes – described as the thickness of a finger – as objects of torture. “They were forcibly shoved up the detainees’ noses and down into their stomachs,” the lawyers reported to a federal judge in August. “No anaesthesia or sedative was provided.”

Guardian, 21 October 2005

Tolerance and diversity defeats separatism

By Murad Qureshi

Tribune, 21 October 2005

Among the stalls at this summer’s Camden Bangladesh Mela in London’s Regent’s Park, I came across one run – rather sheepishly – by Hizb ut-Tahrir. This is an Islamist political party that the Government is now proposing to ban. I found myself involved in an argument with them.

This is a battle of ideas that my family has been fighting for many years. In 1947 at the time of the partition of India my grandfather argued against the creation of religious states. Now it was my turn to argue against a cult that believes voting is haram, an act of disbelief, and that the return of the khalifah – an Islamic state headed by the caliph, the “successor” to the prophet Muhammad – is the only answer to every problem faced by Muslims in the modern world.

How can voting be an act of disbelief? Those such as members of Hizb ut-Tahrir, who insist that it is, claim it means participating in a democratic system that upholds the will of man over the will of Allah. For them, Islamic government is “God’s rule” and they reject democracy as “people’s rule”. They look to the political system established in seventh-century Mecca after the death of the prophet as the model that Muslims should aspire to and seek to recreate.

However, while Muslims regard the period of rule under the “rightly-guided caliphs” in idealised terms, as the best that human endeavours can achieve, it was also a period of dissent, rebellions and wars. Let us not forget that three of the four caliphs who succeeded the prophet were murdered.

Organisations like Hizb ut-Tahrir which forget this historical context are similar to those religious classes on the Qur’an where the sole emphasis is on the rote learning of Arabic letters. It is a method that leads to closed minds.

The formula that the only solution to the Muslim world’s problems is a return to the early days of Islam living under just rule through the khilafa state is of no help to Muslims confronted by the problems of today. The issues of contemporary politics are too complex to be simplified in this manner.

Even in the case of Muslim-majority countries, Hizb is vague about how existing nation states can be persuaded to cede power to their proposed supra-national khilafa state. Its programme is even more abstract in the UK, where Muslims are a small minority and prospects for the establishment of an Islamic state are non-existent.

Therefore, in practice, Hizb operates as a sect, making propaganda in order to recruit Muslims to their ideas so they can make more propaganda in order to win further recruits. Members are encouraged to turn their backs on mainstream politics in Britain and to reject the struggle for realistic reforms that will improve the lives of British Muslims.

Continue reading

Dutch ban on veil – ‘a victory for secularism and women’s rights’

“In a move applauded by all those seeking an end to religious influence in society the Dutch government has started the process of banning the burkha from all public places in the Netherlands. This follows on from similar rulings in Belgium. France enacted laws late last year to prevent religious symbology in schools and despite early objection from fundamentalist groups this has now become universal. Margret De Cuyper of the Den Haag women’s forum hailed it as a victory for a secular Dutch society and for women’s liberation from male formulated clothes of control. She said, ‘Women have lived for too long with clothes and standards decided for them by men, this is a victory’.”

Indymedia, 18 October 2005

Mad Mel backs Blair

madmelMelanie Phillips complains that objections to the new anti-terrorism bill “betray more than a touch of hysteria and irrationality”. In contrast to her own balanced and reasoned contributions the debate, that is. According to Mel:

“The unpalatable fact is that this country has left itself wide open to terrorism. The judges pose as our society’s bulwark against tyranny. But frankly, they are the very last people upon whom we can rely. For with their obsession with ‘human rights’, it is the judges who have imperilled our safety by turning Britain into a magnet for terrorists and subversives. Through their interpretation of human rights law they have destroyed our border controls so that extremists could pour into the country knowing they would never be pursued.

“The judges frustrated all attempts to deal with illegal immigration, thwarted other countries’ desperate attempts to get Britain to extradite terrorist suspects, produced the lunatic situation where people who are a danger to this country cannot be deported in case they may be ill-treated, and when the government tried to lock them up instead to safeguard the public ruled that this too was contrary to human rights law….

“Other countries are far more robust. France has recently thrown out a number of Islamist extremists without demur. Even ultra-liberal Holland is planning to ban the burka in public places – following the example of several towns in Belgium and Italy – because a garment which conceals everything except the eyes obviously makes identification impossible and is therefore an unacceptable security risk.”

Daily Mail, 17 October 2005

Holland fears killings over ‘ban on burqa’

Rita VerdonkYes, seriously, that’s the headline to a report in the Sunday Times. Matthew Campbell writes: “Holland’s Muslims have responded with outrage to government proposals to ban the burqa [in fact, any form of Islamic veil covering the face], and there are fears that Rita Verdonk, the minister behind the move, will be added to a list of ‘enemies of Islam’ targeted for assassination.”

Campbell adds: “For a country that has legalised gay marriage, prostitution, euthanasia and cannabis, Holland seems in no mood for compromise when it comes to applying tough laws on immigration.” This argument, notoriously promoted by Pim Fortuyn, that it is necessary to crack down on Muslim migrants in order to defend “our” progressive values, is becoming increasingly common. Even the BNP use it on occasion.