Reformation and Enlightenment

David T over at Harry’s Place has discovered a Muslim he’s prepared to do business with. It’s Abdel Nour Brado, Secretary of the Islamic Commission of Spain, who wants to open a discussion among Muslims about the possibility of recognising same-sex marriages. Brado and his co-thinkers are the sort of “religious political progressives within Islam” to whom the left can relate, David T argues.

Harry’s Place, 7 April 2005

Unfortunately, by this definition progressives probably amount to somewhat less than 1% of the Muslim world. The remaining 99% who would reject same-sex marriages are all categorised by David T as “religious and political conservatives”, and no distinctions are made between them.

Thus the reformist Yusuf al-Qaradawi is described by David T as a “qutbist”, i.e. a supporter of the Egyptian Islamist Sayyid Qutb who was executed by Nasser in 1966. Qutb’s denunciation of the entire Muslim world as “jahiliyya” (pagan ignorance and barbarism), his call for armed struggle against every existing regime in the Islamic world and his condemnation of all those Muslims who decline to participate in this struggle as apostates have nothing in common with Qaradawi’s views whatsoever. Indeed, Qaradawi has accused Qutb of promoting an extremist ideology “which justified the takfir (excommunication) of (whole) societies … and the announcement of a destructive jihad against the whole of mankind”. Some Qutbist!

But this is the method adopted by “left” Islamophobes like those at Harry’s Place. They issue a formal declaration that Islam is not a monolithic bloc and proclaim their support for progressive, reformist Muslims – but they define this category so narrowly that only a minuscule minority of actually existing Muslims qualify, and they then dismiss the remainder as one reactionary, undifferentiated mass.

Religious hatred incitement law: British Muslims let down again

The Muslim Council of Britain is deeply disappointed by yesterday’s announcement that the Government was dropping the Incitement to Religious Hatred section from the Serious and Organised Crime Bill due to opposition from the Liberal Democrats and the Conservative Party.

“Sadly, British Muslims will now continue to remain second-class citizens and denied the legal protection that is given to some racial and religious groups such as Jews and Sikhs under existing racial incitement laws. We deplore the position of the Liberal Democrats – who had proposed an amendment backed by the Tory Party – that would have regarded Muslims as a racial group, notwithstanding the fact that Muslims transcend racial boundaries. We regarded this as a vital piece of equality legislation that would have accorded Muslims and other faith groups protection from those who are deliberately inciting hatred against them,” said Iqbal Sacranie, Secretary-General of the Muslim Council of Britain.

MCB press release, 8 April 2005

For MAB’s response, see MAB news report, 6 April 2005 and Islam Online, 6 April 2005

Muslims reject results of inquiry into stop and search

The Muslim Council of Britain rejected MPs’ claims yesterday that Asians were not being targeted by draconian police stop and search powers.

After an inquiry lasting five months, the home affairs select committee declared that “we do not believe that the Asian community is being unreasonably targeted by the police in their application of the Terrorism Act or of the other legislation enabling stops and searches”. However, it accepted that “there is a clear perception among all our Muslim witnesses that Muslims are being stigmatised” and called for “special efforts” by police and government to ensure that they are not singled out.

MCB secretary-general Iqbal Sacranie said that there was clear evidence that there was a disproportionate tendency to stop and search Muslims. “We believe that the problem is more than that of mere perception”, he said, accusing the committee’s report of being flawed because it only identified Muslims by race. Mr Sacranie said that a true picture could only be obtained if the statistics took account of non-Asian Muslims.

Morning Star, 7 April 2005

See also BLINK news report, 6 April 2005

40 reasons why Tariq Ramadan is a reactionary bigot (according to the AWL)

“Behind Ramadan – urbane, reasonable sounding – stand the Islamists of the MAB/Muslim Brothers. Ramadan is the reasonable face of Islamic politics, and he is the thin end of the wedge…. we need to understand that attempts to shout down Marxist critics of Ramadan with demagogic accusations of ‘Islamophobia’ and even ‘racism’ are absurd.”

The Alliance for Workers Liberty resumes its campaign against Tariq Ramadan – not entirely unconnected with the fact that Professor Ramadan was addressing a meeting at NUS conference this week.

AWL website, 4 April 2005

Predictably, the Islamophobic warmongers at Harry’s Place are eager to endorse the AWL’s attack on Professor Ramadan – even though it’s quite obvious that most of them have only the barest idea who Tariq Ramadan is or what he stands for. He’s an “Islamist”, after all, so he must be a reactionary bigot, mustn’t he?

See here.

(It is, however, worth scrolling through the comments for some more reasoned posts, notably by “sonic” and Stephen Marks.)

Tatchell hails religious opposition to oppression

In a statement that surprised those of us who know him as a secularist opposed to the intrusion of religion into politics, Peter Tatchell of Outrage! said yesterday: “While I normally have little sympathy for Islam, the Muslim Association of Britain has taken a courageous, defiant stand against the invasion and occupation of Iraq.”

Outrage! press release, 31 March 2005

Continue reading

Calls mount for Australian state to rescind religious hatred law

A campaign to rescind a law against religious hatred in the Australian state of Victoria is winning growing support from churches since two evangelical Christians were found guilty of vilifying Muslims.

CNS News, 31 March 2005

For the background, see here.

No prizes for guessing Robert Spencer’s views on this. See here and here.

And worth noting that evangelical Christian groups have come out against a religious hatred law in Britain. See here.

‘Terrible disease spreading in Britain!’ sneers Spencer

“A new epidemic is spreading in the British Isles, and no one can find the cause! It’s called (gasp) ‘Islamophobia’! Children as young as 13 are displaying signs of Islamophobia and are voicing their support for the British National Party, researchers have found. Horror of horrors! As young as 13???? Can’t they be inoculated against this dread disease? Why, of course they can. A good dose of multiculturalism is doubtless in the offing.”

Robert Spencer takes a relaxed view of the report that British teenagers are drawn towards racism and fascism.

Dhimmi Watch, 3 April 2005

It’s all French to Livingstone

Letter in Morning Star, 2 April 2005

I know that Yasmin Qureshi came to Paris on behalf of her boss, the Mayor of London (Morning Star, March 23), but I don’t know why she bothered to cross the Channel.

Convinced, like Mayor Livingstone, that the one-hundred-year-old ban on the wearing of religious clothing or symbols in state schools is a bad thing, she only talked, as far as one can deduce from her article, with those who share the same point of view.

But the law insisting on strict secularity in schools and public agencies has the support of the large majority of French people.

And before this is dismissed as an indication of racism amongst the French, it should be understood that the law is supported by a majority of French Muslims, many of whom, particularly women, are the most fervent supporters of secular education.

It seems clear that Ms Qureshi didn’t find it worth her while to talk to anyone from the French Socialist Party, the trade unions, anti-racist organisations, to teachers, representatives of parent-teacher organisations, or from French women’s organisations, in particular Ni Putes Ni Soumises, all of which overwhelmingly back the law.

If she had, she probably wouldn’t have agreed with them, but she would at least have understood the reasoning of French progressives, and have been able to explain in her article the cultural and historical differences which lead French anti-racists and feminists to regard the stance of those like Ken Livingstone as ignorant and reactionary.

Her visit would also have been more useful to mutual understanding if she had talked not only to those close to Tariq Ramadan, hardly representative of French Muslims, but to the Rector of the Paris Mosque, or from the French Council of Muslims, who, though unhappy with the law, advised students to comply with it.

If so, readers might in future be spared the shrill, confused, but smug article by her boss (Morning Star, March 19) which verges on xenophobia in its regard of the French.

The London approach is neither the only nor necessarily the best way to encourage and celebrate multiculturalism.

Peter Duffy
Choisy le Roi, France