Category Archives: UK

FBI pays $2 million to US Muslim in terror-suspect case

Posted on by Bob Pitt

The Federal Bureau of Investigation has agreed to pay Oregon lawyer Brandon Mayfield $2 million as part of a settlement for wrongfully arresting him in connection with the 2004 Madrid terror attacks.

The New York Times reports that the FBI also apologized for its actions and agreed to destroy all materials collected during its electronic surveillance of Mr. Mayfield and secret searches of his home and office. Mayfield is also allowed to continue his lawsuit that challenges the constitutionality of the Patriot Act. He charges that the antiterrorism law violates the Fourth Amendment because is allows for government searches without first establishing “probable cause” of a crime.

Mayfield, an American-born convert to Islam, was put under government surveillance after the FBI mistakenly linked him to the March bombings. He was arrested in May 2004 and held for two weeks as a terrorist suspect, despite evidence from the Spanish government that he was not connected to the attack.

“The horrific pain, torture and humiliation that this has caused myself and my family is hard to put into words,” said Mr. Mayfield, an American-born convert to Islam and a former lieutenant in the Army.

“The days, weeks and months following my arrest,” he said, “were some of the darkest we have had to endure. I personally was subject to lockdown, strip searches, sleep deprivation, unsanitary living conditions, shackles and chains, threats, physical pain and humiliation.”

Christian Science Monitor, 30 November 2006

‘Islam and Christianity? There is no comparison’

Posted on by Bob Pitt

“You’ve undoubtedly heard the expression, ‘comparing apples to oranges’. The expression is used when someone attempts an invalid comparison of things. This is exactly what today’s Christian-bashing world does when it attempts to compare militant Islam with biblical Christianity. The two are clearly incomparable.

“Recently, the stark differences between Mohammed’s Religion of the Sword and Christ’s Golden Rule have been clearly displayed. When Amish school children were murdered in Pennsylvania, prayers and forgiveness were the order of the day. How different was this from flying ‘fatwas’ and exploding suicide bombers, which our world has become accustomed to expect every time some Muslim gets looked at sideways?”

Florida Baptist Witness, 30 November 2006

‘Shocking secrets of sharia courts’

Posted on by Bob Pitt

“A shocking report today exposes the grip Islamic law now has on British society. Honour killings, polygamy, child marriages and mutilation are revealed in the study by Islam expert Dr Patrick Sookhdeo, director of the Institute for the Study of Islam and Christianity. The findings come after the Daily Express told yesterday how secret courts are meting out Islamic justice and creating a two-tier legal system.

“The report outlines areas where hardline sharia law conflicts with Britain’s justice system and warns of attempts to include parts of Islamic law in British law. It says: ‘Since sharia has some regulations which relate to non-Muslims such changes in British law could impinge on non-Muslims too. They would affect individual human rights of freedom of choice and the religious freedoms of both Muslims and non-Muslims’.”

Daily Express, 1 December 2006

As we’ve noted before, you’d have thought the media would steer well clear of Sookhdeo since this self-proclaimed “expert” on Islam got the Sunday Telegraph into legal trouble by calling for one of the most reputable English translations of the Qur’an to be banned (see here, here and here). But there is evidently no end to the demand for ignorant bigots who are prepared to feed the anti-Muslim frenzy of the right-wing press.

A school with a progressive attitude to the veil

Posted on by Bob Pitt

Last month Tony Blair said the veil row was part of a necessary debate about the way the Muslim community integrates into British society. He said the veil was a “mark of separation” which makes people feel uncomfortable. But Charlie Taylor, deputy head of Turton high school arts and media college, Bolton, does not share the politicians’ concerns. “I should know about face covering,” he laughs from behind a generous beard. “Communication is more than just facial expression; mostly you know whether pupils are taking something in from what they say and how they say it. We don’t see the veil as an issue here.”

For the past two or three years, a small but growing number of Turton’s female Muslim sixth formers have chosen to wear the niqab – which covers the face – and staff have chosen to respect their choice. These students are not retiring violets. Indeed, they are among the feistiest students in the sixth form. Like many young women who have taken up the niqab in the UK, they wear it proudly, an outward sign, they say, of their deep faith, and a statement of their cultural identity.

Turton, in the largely white, northern suburbs of Bolton, close to the Pennine foothills, is the last place one would expect to find students wearing the niqab, given that most schools in northern towns, even those with a largely Muslim intake, allow students to wear the hijab (the headscarf), but stop short of the veil. But Turton’s sixth form of 500 draws from diverse cultures, and John Porteous, the head, is proud of the mix: “I think, increasingly, Asian heritage students and particularly Muslim girls are attracted to the sixth form because they find it a sympathetic place to be.”

All of Turton’s upper sixth Muslim girls – whether veiled, headscarf wearers, or bare-headed – who agreed to speak to The TES regard themselves as fully integrated into British society. They also respect each other’s choice of dress, believing it expresses their differing piety. They were all taking A-levels and plan to study for careers ranging from optometry to politics. Their dress, they say, is about their faith and cultural identity, not about wanting to be separate.

TES, 1 December 2006

Fascists jump on ‘sharia law’ bandwagon

Posted on by Bob Pitt

“The BNP says make no mistake: the spread of Sharia law into the urban badlands where police have lost control of the streets is the thin end of the wedge for first creating a parallel legal system for Muslims, who will then consider themselves above the law of the land, and then attempting to terrorise the rest of the country into accepting its imposition on them.”

BNP news article, 30 November 2006

Rally against the BNP in Barking and Dagenham

Unite Against Fascism (UAF) is calling a counter rally and protest against the fascist British National Party’s (BNP) rally in Central Park on Saturday 9 December. We need as many anti-fascists as possible to show opposition to the BNP. The BNP will be hoping that the acquittal of Nick Griffin and Mark Collett earlier in November will galvanise their activists. The BNP has 12 councillors in Barking and Dagenham.

Further details on UAF website.

Civil servants allowed to join non-violent political group shock

Posted on by Bob Pitt

Hizb“Home Office staff are free to be members of the Islamic extremist group Hizb ut-Tahrir, it was revealed yesterday. Those working in the department responsible for immigration and homeland security do not even have to declare membership of the fanatical organisation, the Government admitted. This means Home Secretary John Reid has no idea how many of his staff hold the group’s radical views and he has no means of monitoring their activities.

“The revelation – in a written parliamentary answer – comes after Home Office IT manager Abid Javaid, 41, was found to be a member of Hizb ut-Tahrir, which supports a worldwide Islamic state run under hardline Sharia law and has refused to condemn last year’s London bombings [sic – see below]. Shadow Immigration Minister Damian Green said: ‘This is really shocking. It is a dereliction of duty for them not to find out how many more Hizb ut-Tahrir members are on the Home Office payroll’.”

Daily Mail, 1 December 2006

“We would like to make it absolutely clear that we believe there was no justification whatsoever for the attacks on civilians in London on July 7th 2005. Islam does not allow the killing of innocent civilians as occurred in London.”

Hizb ut-Tahrir press conference statement, 31 July 2005

BNP on banning the ‘burka’

Posted on by Bob Pitt

The British National Party has posted the resolutions adopted at its conference in Blackpool last weekend. This is the one on the “burka” – presumably it is directed at the niqab too – which was “passed by a large majority”:

“The British National Party is the party of freedom and democracy. We are also, however, the party of the British people, of British culture, of British heritage, of British traditions and of the British way of life. The wearing of the burka is not a religious requirement and is not stipulated in the Koran; it is, instead, a symbol of the wearer’s repudiation of traditional Britain. Furthermore, the burka has been used as a disguise which has enabled suspects wanted by the police in connection with serious terrorist offences to evade capture. The wearing of the burka is therefore both a political act of hostility to Britain and a serious security risk. Banning the burka will not inconvenience the indigenous British people and will increase their security and freedom from terrorism. We therefore believe this is an entirely sensible and proportionate policy.”

BNP news article, 29 November 2006

Blair considering veil ban, Mirror claims

Posted on by Bob Pitt

Tony Blair has held secret talks about banning Muslim women wearing veils in public.

Leaked documents seen by the Mirror reveal the Prime Minister has already had meetings with Islamic scholars about the controversial issue. He is considering new measures to stop the Niqab – the full face veil – being worn in public buildings such as schools, courts and hospitals.

It comes as a survey published yesterday revealed one in three people supports a total ban on veils which completely cover womens’ faces. The BBC survey said 60 per cent of people backed a ban in airports and at passport control, 53 per cent in schools and 40 per cent in the workplace.

Zareen Roohi Ahmed, chief executive of the British Muslim Forum, said there was no religious reason for a full veil to be worn. She added: “If security is at stake, then yes, the veil should be removed.”

Daily Mirror, 30 November

‘Brave Trevor makes so much sense on race’

Posted on by Bob Pitt

“There are quite a few useful rules of thumb in life. If something seems too good to be true, it almost certainly is too good to be true. If a book is still boring after 100 pages, it’s not going to improve. And if Ken Livingstone violently disapproves of someone, the chances are that they are an admirable person. The London mayor keeps company with Jew-hating, gay-baiting Muslim extremists such as Dr Yusuf al-Qaradawi. But he can’t bear the black, liberal chairman of the Commission for Racial Equality, Trevor Phillips. Which is odd, as Phillips has so many brave and sensible things to say….

“It would have been easy for the chairman of the CRE to stay in the comfort zone of ‘diversity policy’ and the unquestioning defence of minority rights. Instead, Phillips supported Jack Straw’s expression of concern about Muslim women covering their faces in his constituency surgery. He criticised ‘so-called Muslim leaders’ for attacking Straw: ‘They were overly defensive and need to accept that in a diverse society we should be free to make polite requests of this kind.’ And he called on the teaching assistant Aishah Azmi to drop her discrimination case after she was suspended for refusing to remove her veil during lessons. Most of all, Phillips wants us to be able to talk about race freely, to bust the last taboo….

“Forget Ken Livingstone: Phillips talks a lot of sense. And it is not just ‘so-called Muslim leaders’ who should be listening to him. We all should.”

Mary Ann Sieghart in the Times, 30 November 2006

Gay Muslims clash with Tatchell

Posted on by Bob Pitt

OutragePeter Tatchell has been caught up in a war of words with British Muslims, who have accused him of “Islamophobia”.

In an article written for Guardian Unlimited, Tatchell argued that Muslims often failed to make the distinction between legitimate criticism of Islam and insults against their faith. He singled out hardline groups such as Hizb ut-Tahrir (HuT), which “used to openly call for the killing of gay people” and said that HuT’s agenda was one “for clerical fascism”.

Citing a Channel 4 poll, where two-thirds of British Muslims said they oppose free speech if it offends their faith, Tatchell wrote: “They want to make it a crime to cause them offence they want privileged legal protection against criticism of their beliefs.”

Tatchell’s comments were attacked by the LGBT Muslim group Imaam. Farzana from the group told GT: “We feel that OutRage! doesn’t understand our cultural and religious sensitivities. Often, the way they word and phrase their press releases can and does antagonise Muslims. Much as we’ve invited them to meetings so we can talk about the best way to tackle Muslim LGBT issues, they insist on doing things their way.”

The debate was addressed on a strand on Imaan’s messageboard, titled “Homophobia & Islamophobia”. One posting reads: “Why is it that we, as gay Muslims, are so willing to attack the people that stand up against the homophobic Islamic clerics, who call for our death, by calling them Islamophobic, yet are too afraid to go out there and stand up and be counted?”

Gay Times, December 2006

Continue reading →