Which Islamists to talk to

Posted on by Bob Pitt

Marc Lynch takes up US-Israeli academic Martin Kramer’s analysis of which Islamists are worth talking to and which aren’t.

“I would differ with Kramer’s assertion that dialogue advocates do not discriminate among different Islamist groups – I haven’t seen many calls for a dialogue with al-Qaeda, for example, and I at least have been all about making distinctions. It is conservatives who lump all Islamists together as ‘Islamofascists’, in my experience – and attack people like me for making distinctions between, say, Qaradawi and Bin Laden. But set that aside, because there are some really interesting moves here. First, simply admitting that there are politically meaningful distinctions among Islamist groups is an important step forward for folks on Kramer’s side of the aisle. Not all Islamists are the enemy anymore….”

Abu Aardvark blog, 24 October 2005

House of Lords asked to reject amendments to Religious Hatred Bill

Posted on by Bob Pitt

The Muslim Council of Britain calls on the House of Lords to reject the amendments proposed today by those opposed to the Racial and Religious Hatred Bill.

“These proposed amendments will allow the current unfair situation whereby we have a hierarchy of rights for members of different faith groups to continue. The amendments – if accepted – will mean that British Muslims will continue to remain second-class citizens and denied the same level of legal protection that is given to some racial and religious groups including Jews and Sikhs under existing racial incitement laws,” said Sir Iqbal Sacranie, Secretary-General of the Muslim Council of Britain.

The MCB believes that some opponents of the Racial and Religious Hatred Bill have been engaged in a campaign to misrepresent its purpose and have misleadingly claimed that it will prevent criticism or ridicule of religion. This is demonstrably untrue as will be clear to anyone who has read the actual wording of the Bill.

“The opponents of the Racial and Religious Hatred Bill have yet to provide a credible answer as to why we can trust our judicial system to be able to make a distinction between criticism of the Jewish and Sikh religions and incitement to hatred against Jews and Sikhs, while not being able to do the same in the case of other faith groups, including Muslims,” added Sir Iqbal.

Without the proposed extension of the existing incitement law, Muslims and other faith groups remain unprotected, since they do not fall into a single racial group. The purpose of the proposed law is to protect people belonging to a particular faith identity and not the faith itself. Existing incitement laws in England and Wales and Northern Ireland have proved that it is possible to give protection to people without infringing on the right to free speech and the right to criticize religious beliefs.

MCB press release, 25 October 2005

CRE on Racial and Religious Hatred Bill

Posted on by Bob Pitt

bnp-islam-poster“… in May 2004, following the receipt of complaints from members of the public, the CRE wrote to the West Yorkshire Police Constabulary to ask that it investigate the distribution of a BNP leaflet, ‘The Truth About Islam: Intolerance, Slaughter, Looting, Arson, Molestation of Women’, in Dewsbury where there is a sizeable Pakistani community, locally referred to as ‘the Muslims’.

“We received the following reply from the West Yorkshire branch of the CPS: ‘[T]he leaflet is quite clearly insulting and abusive and arguably, in its talk of war and crusades, threatening too. The stirring up of fear and hatred against Muslims is … a likely result of its publication given the strength of the language used. Muslims are not, however, a racial group … and the hatred stirred up could not therefore be defined as racial hatred … [I]t might be that evidence could be gathered to establish whether or not the term “Muslim” is generally understood to mean “Pakistani” or “Indian”. The difficulty in relation to this particular leaflet … is that [it states] “This problem is not a matter of race. Those Muslims oppressing and murdering infidels and women have included Arabs, Pakistanis, Black Nigerian and White Bosnians”. Given this specific statement it would not be possible to infer incitement to racial hatred’.”

The Commission for Racial Equality explains why it is necessary to extend the present laws against incitement to racial hatred to cover religious hatred.

CRE briefing, 11 October 2005

Perhaps someone might explain this to James Jones and Joan Smith.

Islamophobia? Nah, says Daniel Pipes

Posted on by Bob Pitt

Pipes 9-11“Muslims should dispense with this discredited term and instead engage in some earnest introspection. Rather than blame the potential victim for fearing his would-be executioner, they would do better to ponder how Islamists have transformed their faith into an ideology celebrating murder (Al-Qaeda: ‘You love life, we love death’) and develop strategies to redeem their religion by combating this morbid totalitarianism.”

Daniel Pipes rejects the term “Islamophobia”. He takes particular exception to the fact that he himself is regularly described as an Islamophobe. (“What I really am is an ‘Islamism-ophobe’.”)

Note the ludicrous claim that “Muslims acting in the name of Islam today make up the premier source of worldwide aggression”! Whereas US imperialism is of course a source of peace and harmony.

Note too that Kenan Malik (described as a “British Muslim”!), Yasmin Alibhai-Brown and Irshad Manji get favourable name-checks.

New York Sun, 25 October 2005

Robert Spencer for his part applauds Pipes’ “cogent and much-needed observations about the spurious phenomenon of ‘Islamophobia'”. Dhimmi Watch, 25 October 2005

Times attacks Racial and Religious Hatred Bill (again)

Posted on by Bob Pitt

The level of argument by opponents of the Racial and Religious Hatred Bill is quite unbelievably low. A case in point is the editorial in today’s Times.

The Bill has nothing to do with the blasphemy laws, as the Times implies. And Salman Rushdie would be no more likely find himself prosecuted for publishing The Satanic Verses than the Birmingham Rep was for staging Behzti (Sikhs as a mono-ethnic faith are already protected against incitement to hatred under Part 3 of the 1986 Public Order Act). The idea that people choose their religion but not their race ignores the obvious fact that culture (which includes religious belief) is an integral part of a minority community’s ethnic identity.

Nor is the government “proposing a law that would allow people to ridicule ideas as long as they were not religious ideas”, as the Times quotes Rowan Atkinson as saying. The new law wouldn’t ban ridicule of people on the basis of their religion any more than earlier race relations legislation criminalised ridicule of people on the basis of their ethnicity (if it did, Bernard Manning would have been locked up long ago). In both cases what is made illegal is the incitement of hatred.

The Times is, however, correct to point out that the amendment to the Bill proposed by Lords Lester, Hunt, Carey and Plant would make an “important distinction between laws against racism and those that seek to protect the religious from persecution”. Their lordships aim to introduce a new Part 3A to the Public Order Act, the result of which would be to make it much more difficult to succcessfully prosecute someone for inciting hatred against Muslims or Hindus than it is to prosecute them for inciting hatred against Jews or Sikhs. In other words, it would preserve the injustice, inequality and discrimination embodied in current race relations law which the Bill seeks to rectify.

Postscript:  For another example of the ignorance demonstrated by opponents of the Bill, see Harry’s Place where we are referred to the Times editorial for “a succinct and persuasive argument against the proposed Racial and Religious Hatred legislation”!

More echoes of the ‘Baa Baa Black Sheep’ ban

Posted on by Bob Pitt

HogwashThe Express (24 October) reports that piggy banks have been banned in high street banks in order to avoid offending Muslim customers.

A leader in the same issue pontificates:

“This is nonsense, piffling nonsense but dangerous nonsense, too. It is unhealthy to indulge in the sort of political correctness that makes us trim our popular culture in ludicrous ways.”

Hogwash: Now the PC brigade bans piggy banks in case they upset Muslims

By Tony Brooks

Daily Express, 24 October 2005

Piggy banks are being banned in case they offend Muslim customers, it emerged last night.

The decision by high street banks was condemned as “barmy” and “bonkers” by critics. They warned that such moves would only fuel inter-community tensions. Branch bosses imposed the ban because they fear the time-honoured symbol for thriftiness could upset ethnic customers.

All promotional material bearing the figure has now been scrapped because the Koran forbids Muslims from eating pork and pigs are considered by them to be unclean. Muslim leaders in East Lancashire, where there is a large immigrant community and the first bans were imposed, applauded the action by the Halifax and NatWest.

But the move was condemned by critics headed by a leading Church of England clergyman. The Dean of Blackburn, the Very Reverend Christopher Armstrong, said: “This is petty and political correctness gone mad. The next thing we will be banning Christmas trees and cribs and the logical result of that process is a bland uniformity. We should learn to celebrate our differences, not be fearful of them.”

He was supported by Andrew Rosindell, Tory MP for Romford, who said: “Those responsible for this decision are making themselves look extremely foolish. It is quite absurd. In no way can piggy banks be termed offensive. I cannot believe the majority of Muslims genuinely object to seeing a picture of a piggy bank on a wall or in a leaflet. This is the sort of political correctness that makes normal-thinking people very angry. It’s barmy.”

Mike Penning, Tory MP for Hemel Hempstead, described the decision as “bonkers”. He said: “I have never met a single Muslim, and I know many, who would be offended by the image of a piggy bank. It is sheer stupidity.”

But the plan was backed by Salim Mulla, secretary of the Lancashire Council of Mosques, who said: “Within our faith there are strict rules about not consuming pork or coming into contact with pigs. “This is a sensitive issue and I think the banks are simply being courteous to their customers.”

The Halifax will base future promotions around Howard Brown, the customer services adviser who fronts their “Who gives you extra?” TV ads.

A spokesman said: “We no longer have any advertising that features piggy banks or is piggy bank related.” NatWest admitted that piggy banks had been removed from branches in the area but insisted there had been no direction from head office. “The decision has been taken at local branch level, ” said a spokesman.

Qaradawi under attack again

Posted on by Bob Pitt

Qaradawi2Marc Lynch comments on the latest attack on Yusuf al-Qaradawi. No, it doesn’t come from Nick Cohen, Outrage or the Alliance for Workers Liberty, but from supporters of Al-Qaida:

“Yusuf al-Qaradawi, the much maligned and embattled Islamist face of al-Jazeera, is under attack again. Fierce, nasty, personal attack. He gave an interview with Der Spiegel in which he called Abu Musab al-Zarqawi ‘a criminal in our view.’  The jihadi message boards were not amused. The al-Farouq board offers some typical language:

“‘Doesn’t Qaradawi by this divide the Umma?  … Osama will establish the legitimate court for passing judgement…’ ‘God’s curse on Qaradawi the American agent, God’s curse on him, he has been inciting against the mujahideen since the attack on New York and Washington and has attacked the Shaykh Osama bin Laden, may God preserve him.’ ‘He is the lowest of the low, and the most despicable of the despicable.’

“It goes on in that vein for a while. As I’ve said many times, I’ve got all kinds of problems with Qaradawi – especially his social views – but, at least in the real world of Islamism, he’s got the right enemies…”

Abu Aardvark blog, 24 October 2005

For the Spiegel interview with Dr al-Qaradawi see here.

Dolly Parton defends Yusuf Islam

Posted on by Bob Pitt

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

Hate wave hits Muslim women in Australia

Posted on by Bob Pitt

Muslim women in Australia are enduring a rising wave of violence and intimidation. Women wearing headscarfs have been spat on, sworn at and assaulted while hate graffiti such as “Kill Muslims” and “Muslims Out” has appeared in Melbourne’s northern suburbs. In the past two weeks, two Muslim women have been attacked in daylight.

In one, a milkshake was hurled at a Muslim woman as she waited at a Sydney Rd tram stop with her three children. In the other a man swerved at a Muslim woman and shouted: “F— off terrorist” while she was crossing the road carrying her baby. There are also reports of Muslim girls being spat at and abused by drivers.

Herald Sun, 21 October 2005

Muslim prayer room in parliament? NSS is not pleased

Posted on by Bob Pitt

sadiqkhan“Sadiq Khan, Labour MP for Tooting, is calling for a Muslim prayer centre to be installed in the House of Commons. His idea is being ‘seriously considered’ by the powerful all-party Commons Administration Committee. Mr Khan said: ‘The Anglicans are the only people among the staff and politicians at Westminster who have a place to pray. Even the Roman Catholics do not have somewhere they can use all the time. The place needs to be dragged into the 21st Century. It is only right that Parliament should provide a prayer room for people of other faiths.’ A spokesman for the Administration Committee said that they were ‘seriously considering’ the proposal, but that a multi-faith prayer room would be more appropriate. Someone needs to tell them, though, that Muslims often refuse to share prayer facilities, regarding other faiths as having ‘polluted’ them.”

National Secular Society news report, 21 October 2005