Muslim Brotherhood rejects taxi cab slur

Islamist taxi cartoonIn the US over the past few days a popular anti-Muslim scare story has concerned the alleged refusal of Somali taxi drivers at Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport to pick up passengers carrying alcohol.

The right-wing blog Power Line opined that “the airport taxi controversy exposes one template for the Islamist imperial project forcing the acceptance of Sharia law by the infidels”. And, basing itself on an article in the Minneapolis Star-Tribune, Little Green Footballs announced: “Muslim Brotherhood behind airport taxi controversy.”

In response, the Muslim Brotherhood has issued a statement denying that it was in any way involved:

Continue reading

Muriel Grey on ‘Enlightenism’

Muriel Grey joins the massed ranks of those defending the Enlightenment against religious belief in general and Islam in particular. Apparently, Enlightenment values are compatible with describing the Aishah Azmi case in the following terms: “some woman (we think – for all we know it could have been Paul Gascoigne under that niquab [sic]) was claiming her right to mumble lessons at children while wearing a bag over her head.”

Sunday Herald, 29 October 2006

Continue reading

‘BBC deputy chief refuses to rule out letting a woman read news in a veil’ shock

One of the BBC’s most senior executives has defended the corporation against accusations that it is “crammed full of soft liberals” obsessed with pushing a politically correct agenda. In an exclusive interview, Mark Byford, the deputy director-general, has hit back at suggestions that the broadcaster is too sensitive to the feelings of Muslim viewers and that it has an inbuilt anti-Christian bias.

Sunday Telegraph, 29 October 2006

Mark Byford may be ambiguous about the possibility of the BBC hiring a niqab-wearing woman newsreader, but his boss Mark Thompson explicitly rules it out. See Mail on Sunday, 29 October 2006

Women who wear the niqab are the same as terrorist bombers, says Hirsi Ali

Ayaan Hirsi AliAnother plug for the provocateur Ayaan Hirsi Ali, currently pursuing her career in a right-wing US think-tank. She offers the following helpful contribution to the “debate” over the veil:

“… what increasingly alarms me is the emergence of a post 9/11 generation of young women in the West who are out to make a statement by wearing the niqab. They enjoy all the western freedoms but choose to flaunt the veil. They are the female equivalent of the radical young men who travel to Pakistan and come back wanting to blow up trains.”

Sunday Times, 29 October 2006

Secret Cabinet memo admits Iraq is fuelling UK terror

Tony Blair’s claim that there is no link between Britain’s foreign policy and terrorist attacks in this country is blown apart by a secret cabinet memo revealed today. A classified paper written by senior Downing Street officials says that everything Britain does overseas for the next decade must have the ultimate aim of reducing “terror activity, especially that in or directed against the UK”.

It admits that, in an ideal world, “the Muslim would not perceive the UK and its foreign policies as hostile” – effectively accepting the argument that Britain’s military action in Iraq and Afghanistan has served as a recruiting sergeant for Islamist terrorist groups. Publicly, Mr Blair has resisted this line fiercely. During his final speech as leader to Labour’s annual conference last month, he described such claims as “enemy propaganda”.

His cabinet allies have supported his position. Earlier this year, John Reid, the Home Secretary, said: “I think it is a dreadful misjudgment if we believe the foreign policy of this country should be shaped in part, or in whole, under the threat of terrorist activity, if we do not have a foreign policy with which the terrorists happen to agree.”

But the memo leaves no doubt that all foreign policy must be driven by the goal of thwarting terrorism in Britain. It demands a “significant reduction in the number and intensity of the regional conflicts that fuel terror activity”.

Sunday Telegraph, 29 October 2006

Posted in UK

‘Muslim anger’ over council school snub

Osama_SaeedScotland’s biggest council believes that a state-funded Islamic faith school would lead to the “social isolation” of young Scottish Muslims, a secret document has revealed. Despite publicly saying it would consider a school if community leaders could prove the demand, a memo obtained by Scotland on Sunday shows that Glasgow’s education chiefs have voiced “serious concerns” about any such plans.

Muslim leaders have reacted with concern to the memo. Osama Saeed, Scottish spokesman for the Muslim Association of Britain, said: “It’s disappointing that they haven’t raised these concerns with us up to now, the issue has always been one of proving the demand, which we are confident we can do. The concerns are completely misplaced, studies of pupils from Islamic schools in England have shown that they are more tolerant and open than those not in Islamic schools.”

Scotland on Sunday, 29 October 2006


You’ll note that a quote from Osama saying that the failure to consult was “disappointing” becomes translated in the headline into “Muslim anger”. It appears that Muslims can’t express disagreement with anything, however politely and reasonably, without being accused of aggressive hostility.

CPS rules out Forest Gate child porn charges

Prosecutors have advised police not to bring child pornography charges against the man who was shot by police during a counter-terrorist raid earlier this year, it was announced tonight. A Crown Prosecution Service spokesman said Mohammed Abdul Kahar would face no charges over allegations that 44 indecent images had been found on electronic equipment at his home.

Mr Kahar, 23, was shot in the shoulder when 250 police officers raided properties in Lansdown Road, Forest Gate, in east London, in June. He was freed without charge after a week of questioning by anti-terror officers at the high-security Paddington Green police station.

In a statement tonight, Mr Mohammed Kahar’s family said: “Kahar was first shot, and then very publicly accused of things he knew nothing of and of which he is completely innocent. We cannot help but observe that there was a never-ending avalanche of leaked stories to the press. We have the right to expect that a proper inquiry be made of who provided the stories and why.”

Guardian, 27 October 2006

See also Lenin’s Tomb, 27 October 2006

Lubbock mosque vandalized three times in one month

Lubbock mosque graffitiVandals have struck a Lubbock mosque three times in the past month, prompting fear and calls for understanding among some in the religious center’s community.

Most recently someone used black spray paint Tuesday night to write the misspelled word “Redemtion” on the building. Vandals have also trampled the mosque’s flower beds and smashed exterior lights within the past month.

“I don’t know what is the message they’re trying to give,” said Faiz Rahman, a member of the mosque and the adviser to Texas Tech University’s Muslim Students Association. “Given that it happened three times within the last month, we’re a little concerned.”

Continue reading

Faith schools – they’re no threat at all … unless they’re Muslim

Charles Moore 2Charles Moore argues that the history of Christian faith schools shows that they represent no threat at all to social cohesion, and that the government was mistaken in proposing a compulsory quota system. He continues:

“So what is behind all this anxiety? The answer, of course, is Islam…. There are said to be about 115 Muslims schools now seeking state money, on top of the half-dozen that already receive it. Most people do not like the idea of Muslim schools acquiring this status, but few, except Lord Baker, dare say so. In order to euphemise the problem, the Government thought up a general rule to apply to all religions, and so prevent the Muslim expansion that it fears. You could call it the veil wagging the dog.

“People are right to worry. Unlike church schools where, in the great majority of cases, the Government can deal with the clearly recognised command structures of bishops, Muslim schools have no such central authority. Sunni Islam is as fragmented as extreme Protestant sects: it will be very hard for the people paying out the taxpayers’ money to know with whom they are dealing.

“The more fundamental problem lies with the state of the religion itself. Just as, once upon a time, it was the case that being a Catholic in England put great strain upon your loyalty to the nation, so in Islam today. Although most Muslims seem pleased to be British, polls also show significant minorities who support or condone terrorism. Many repudiate the way of life, even the language, of the host nation.

“That is why the Archbishop of Canterbury is wrong to equate the wearing of a cross and of the veil. The first is not intended, in most cases, as an angry statement of difference. The veil is…. Inside Islam is a strong strand, currently growing stronger because of the propaganda of the radicals, which believes in ‘territoriality’. Such Muslims – for example, Sheikh Yusuf Qaradawi, whom Mayor Ken Livingstone greets as a hero – reject the legitimacy of all non-Islamic society. They regard what they call ‘man-made’ laws as non-operative. Only the laws of God apply, and these laws, expressed in the Sharia, should turn our land Muslim by imposition. It would seem mad that people who believe such things should get state money to teach our fellow citizens.”

Daily Telegraph, 28 October 2006

From which you can only conclude that Moore hasn’t hasn’t made the slightest effort to acquaint himself with Qaradawi’s views. But why go to the bother of studying a subject when it’s so much easier just to rely on ignorant bigotry?

Right wing Christians and secularists join in condemnation of Rowan Williams

Anger Over Church BackingThe Archbishop of Canterbury prompted anger yesterday by putting Muslim veils on an equal footing with Christian crosses.

Britain’s most senior churchman, Dr Williams, said talk of banning the full-face niqab reminded him of China, where the state controls all religious life. He said: “The ideal of a society where no visible public signs of religion would be seen – no crosses around necks, no sidelocks, turbans or veils – is a politically dangerous one.”

But Stephen Green, the national director of fundamentalist group Christian Voice, said Dr Williams appeared to be ranking Islam alongside Christianity. He said: “We Christians should be more ready to stand up and be counted. We have to say that our faith is a world view and it’s not just something we do on a Sunday.”

Alison Ruoff, a member of the CofE General Synod, said: “The Archbishop should be standing up for the Christian faith in a much more visible way. He should be making a more public stand for Christianity and not for other religions.” Roy McCloughry, director of evangelical think-tank the Kingdom Trust, said: “The veil is not a religious issue – it is a cultural issue.”

Terry Sanderson, vice-president of the National Secular Society, which campaigns against all religious interference in non-believers’ lives, said: “Minority religions are now demanding a place at the table. Dr Williams is using phony arguments. Comparing ministers’ criticism of veils in Britain with what goes on in China is ridiculous. He’s running a hare that does not exist. There is no ban on veils in this country.”

Daily Express, 28 October 2006