Man admits firebombing Swindon mosque

Swindon mosque vandalismMuslim leaders say the town’s Islamic community should still be alert for backlashes stemming from incidents around the world.

The warning comes after racist firebomber Mark Bulman admitted attacking the Broad Street mosque in August following terror alerts at UK airports in the same month. The 22-year-old admitted throwing a petrol bomb through the window of the building and daubing swastikas and anti-Islamic abuse on its walls.

Azim Khan, of the Thamesdown Islamic Association, said: “It is a great relief to the whole community that this man’s actions have been brought to court and dealt with swiftly, and that his actions were his own and not backed by others or an organisation, as that would be very dangerous.

“But we still have to be alert. If anything happens anywhere in the world, we must consider that we could be a target, even though we have no interest in what goes on elsewhere.

“We are part and parcel of the community in Swindon. We are Swindonians and we want everyone to know that we have nothing to do with international incidents or politics. We just want to get on with our busy lives in this country.”

Continue reading

Veiled prejudice

Veiled prejudice

By Jamil Hussain

Morning Star, 23 October 2006

LET’S face it, Muslim-bashing is newsworthy. Politicians now feel that it’s a sure-fire way of getting noticed

In the last month, MPs have pumped out timely and much-publicised polemics about Muslims, packaged as a “new and honest debate” about multiculturalism.

Jack Straw kicked off the latest furore with his veil comments, the timing and subject of which seemed opportune.

He could have talked of other pressing issues, such as the report by the equal opportunities commission which found that Muslim girls have fewer job opportunities, despite overtaking white boys at GCSE level.

Instead, Straw picked on the minuscule number of Muslim women wearing the veil, attacking an iconic Islamic image to gain maximum exposure.

He has reason to distance himself from Muslim opinion, especially if he wants to become the new deputy Labour leader.

Four weeks after Condoleezza Rice’s visit to his Blackburn constituency, which was overshadowed by protests by Muslims against the US Secretary of State, Straw was dismissed as foreign secretary. Rumours suggest that President Bush put pressure on Tony Blair because of Straw’s perceived reliance on Muslim opinion and votes.

Straw’s comments were also backed by other Cabinet colleagues, including Harriet Harman, another candidate vying for the deputy leadership role.

As a feminist, Harman would, presumably, abhor Muslim men dictating what women should wear, but she saw no irony in backing a non-Muslim man doing the same. Had Straw asked a woman to cover up, would Harman have given him the same support?

She voiced regret that women “whose mothers fought against the veil now see their daughters taking it up as a symbol of commitment to their religion.”

Continue reading

Zoo stirs up trouble as it follows Star with ‘Muslim’ spread

Emap’s lads weekly Zoo magazine will this week publish a double-page spread making fun of Muslim law following the Daily Star, which was last week forced to drop a similar idea.

Last week, action by journalists, who threatened a walk out, halted a Daily Star-planned Islamic spoof called Daily Fatwa. The Daily Star idea was overseen by new deputy editor Ben Knowles, who joined the paper from Zoo magazine, and was to have included a “Page 3 Burkha Babes Special”, a reader competition to “burn a flag, win a Corsa”, and a leader column headed “Allah is Great”, entirely blank save for a “censored” stamp. “No news, no goss, no fun” was to be the page’s strapline.

Former colleagues of Knowles liked the idea so much they have imported it to the pages of this week’s Zoo with a spoof headlined “Your all-new veil-friendly Zoo!” As well as throwing itself into the veil debate, other headlines include “Public stonings!”, “Beheadings!” and “Absolutely nobody having any fun whatsoever”. The spread also features a woman in a burqa, covered head to toe with only her eyes showing alongside the headline, “A girl! As you’ve never seen her before!”

It goes on to read: “Maybe shariah law isn’t so controversial after all. Muslims who practise it to the letter are able to divorce their wives (up to four allowed) by text message. Wives are banned from being in a car with a man who is not a blood relative. And – common sense a-go-go – women aren’t allowed to drive cars anyway!”

Brand Republic, 23 October 2006

Thugs in mosque attack

Salford Islamic CentreThugs burst into a mosque and savagely attacked the imam and several others as they prayed. One man was taken to hospital and at least three others were also hurt at the Eccles and Salford Islamic Centre.

The attack happened as members of the mosque were taking part in prayers for Ramadan, the holiest month of the Islamic year. The thugs shouted racist abuse as they lashed out at the congregation – punching and kicking anyone they came across.

Manchester Evening News, 23 October 2006

Mohammed Shafiq, from the Ramadhan Foundation, said: “This is another example of Muslims being attacked and persecuted – and the responsiblity lies with the politicians who have been on a feeding frenzy attacking Muslims and giving ammunition to thugs’ hatred towards us. The responsibility for this lies with the likes of Jack Straw, Phil Woolas and others who believe it’s open season on Muslims.”

24dash.com, 22 October 2006

‘The veiled conceit of multiculturalism’

The Australian offers its contribution to the veil “debate”:

“Religious beliefs are by definition sacred, and as much as possible they should be a private matter. But when an individual or a community feels that their personal practices should trump widely held values while also setting themselves apart, the question arises as to whether those people would not be more comfortable in a place where such behaviour is the norm.

“At its heart is the question of where tolerance should end and the old adage, ‘When in Rome, do as the Romans’, should kick in. While tolerance is certainly a positive virtue that should be strived for, it cannot be a cultural suicide pact…. Disappointingly, those who have traditionally been a positive force for the liberation of women against oppression in other spheres have here largely been silent on the question of Islam’s beliefs concerning half of humanity.

“… what confronts the West today is not so much a clash of civilisations as a clash of centuries. The jumbo jets that have enabled the mass immigration from Muslim countries to the West are, in effect, time machines that have brought millions of people from a pre-Enlightenment world – where men are the unquestioned bosses, stoning and forced amputation are punishments rather than crimes, and sectarian differences are worth dying over – to secular, liberal and postmodern democracies such as ours.”

Editorial in The Australian, 24 October 2006

Muslims challenged by gynaecologists

“France’s leading gynaecologists have challenged hard-line [sic] Muslims to bow to France’s secular, ‘modern’ rules of society, and to stop insisting that their wives are examined by female doctors. The heads of the French National College of Gynaecologists and Obstetricians issued a public declaration, rejecting any moves to undermine the principle that public hospitals are part of a secular state, in which patients must accept being examined by a doctor of the opposite sex.”

Daily Telegraph, 23 October 2006

Want to wear the niqab? Go and live in Afghanistan says Tony Parsons

“It is barmy to claim that the veil is no different from other religious accessories such as Hindu bangles, the Jewish skull cap, the Christian cross or the Muslim headscarf. The veil separates the wearer from the rest of society, and acts as a rebuke. The veil says – I refuse to be contaminated by your stinking world. The veil sticks two fingers up at the rest of us, and the idea of a woman wearing it while teaching children makes my flesh crawl…. Aishah Azmi doesn’t need legal aid – she needs a one-way ticket to Afghanistan.”

Tony Parsons in the Daily Mirror, 23 October 2006

Martin Bright backs Kelly

“When, in last May’s reshuffle, Tony Blair appointed Ruth Kelly to deal with Islamism, I was sceptical, I admit…. I have been forced to reconsider. Kelly’s recent statements show a sea change in government policy, driven by her determination to tackle the ideology of radical Islam head-on. Her speech on 11 October to groups representing British Muslims was a wake-up call not just to them, but to Britain at large….

“The MCB will receive no more state funding, she says, until it can show that it shares the common values of a democratic society: freedom of speech, equality of opportunity, tolerance, and respect for the rule of law…. Kelly has made a bold decision to take the ideological battle to radical Islam…. I am told that she spent recent months reading widely on the history of modern political Islam and that she has become fascinated by the subject. One publication she has read is a short pamphlet I wrote for the think-tank Policy Exchange, When Progressives Treat With Reactionaries.”

Martin Bright in the New Statesman, 23 October 2006

Bright must be really pleased with himself. He has helped persuade Kelly to sideline the most representative Muslim organisation in Britain and turn instead to the fraudulent pro-government Sufi Muslim Council.

Cardinal calls for Muslims to apologise for 9/11 and 7/7

Cardinal O'BrienThe leader of Scotland’s Roman Catholics, Cardinal Keith O’Brien, has called for Muslims to apologise for the 9/11 and 7/7 bomb attacks, declaring that the public should not have to live “in fear of attack” from believers of the Islamic faith.

In a move that has provoked a storm of outrage, the cardinal claims that, as the Pope apologised for the offence caused last month by his comments on the Islamic faith, so Muslims should now step up and say sorry for the attacks carried out in the name of their faith.

O’Brien said: “There have been no apologies for the shooting of the nun [in Somalia after the Pope made his remarks], let alone for 9/11 or the London bombings. I would like to see some reciprocal moves from the Islamic side. We shouldn’t have to live in fear of attack from Muslims.”

Scotland on Sunday, 22 October 2006

Via Rolled Up Trousers

BBC ‘biased in favour of Muslims’

“It was the day that a host of BBC executives and star presenters admitted what critics have been telling them for years: the BBC is dominated by trendy, Left-leaning liberals who are biased against Christianity and in favour of multiculturalism.

“A leaked account of an ‘impartiality summit’ called by BBC chairman Michael Grade, is certain to lead to a new row about the BBC and its reporting on key issues, especially concerning Muslims and the war on terror. It reveals that executives would let the Bible be thrown into a dustbin on a TV comedy show, but not the Koran, and that they would broadcast an interview with Osama Bin Laden if given the opportunity. Further, it discloses that the BBC’s ‘diversity tsar’, wants Muslim women newsreaders to be allowed to wear veils when on air.

“At the secret meeting in London last month, which was hosted by veteran broadcaster Sue Lawley, BBC executives admitted the corporation is dominated by homosexuals and people from ethnic minorities, deliberately promotes multiculturalism, is anti-American, anti-countryside and more sensitive to the feelings of Muslims than Christians.

“One veteran BBC executive said: ‘There was widespread acknowledgement that we may have gone too far in the direction of political correctness. Unfortunately, much of it is so deeply embedded in the BBC’s culture, that it is very hard to change it’.”

Mail on Sunday, 22 October 2006