Islamophobia Watch

Paul Richards, former advisor to Hazel Blears at DCLG, and defender of Blears' disgraceful decision to sever links with the Muslim Council of Britain, now takes issue with the reinstatement of suspended civil servant Azad Ali, which Richards takes as "further proof that there are sections of the British establishment that simply fail to comprehend the true nature and intent of some of the organisations of political Islam".

Jewish Chronicle, 2 July 2009

Over at his Lionheart blog, Paul Ray relates the sad tale of the mass anti-Muslim demo that wasn't. It seems that one Dave Shaw had summoned like-minded patriots to join an "anti-extremist protest through the heart of Londonistan" last Saturday.

Alas, it was not to be. Members of Ray's grandly titled English and Welsh Defence League turned up at the appointed meeting place for the demonstration, outside a pub at Trafalgar Square (see picture), only to find that they were the sole participants at the event.

According to Paul Ray: "With a no-show from 'Dave Shaw' and his group members, who all said they were going to be turning up on the day to protest for the sake of their country, no one really knew what we should do next, or where we should go to protest because it was not our organised event. After a few conversations it was decided that we would travel to Whitechapel and protest outside the East London Mosque, and take some group photographs."

Unfortunately, backward elements within the English and Welsh Defence League proved inadequate to the task. As Ray recounts indignantly:

"At this point sadly, there were deserters amongst the ranks, who chose to entertain themselves in Covent Garden rather than sticking in the ranks with their brothers, and entering enemy territory with the rest of us, as part of the group who had travelled in to protest against Islamic extremists for the sake of their country.

"Desertion is one of the very worst forms of betrayal in the armed forces, with a prison sentence for those who choose to take that path and if we look back to the First World War, deserters were shot for their betrayal against their countrymen."

So poor Paul Ray was left to march through the East End with what appears to be about a dozen of his mates.

Update:  See also Barthlomew's Notes on Religion

Thus the headline to a piece by John Humphrys in the Daily Mail. In fact, Humphrys presents no evidence whatsoever that the Jamia Binoria madrassa he visited in Karachi, and whose hospitality he has abused, is brainwashing its pupils into becoming terrorists.

Last year a CNN investigation into Jamia Binoria quoted a US State Department spokesperson as saying that the madrassa was "known to U.S. officials as a moderate institution, favored by Pakistani-Americans for its moderate and tolerant Islamic instruction".

It is clear that Humphrys hasn't bothered to carry out the most basic background research into a subject of which he knows nothing. This is a man who blithely informs his readers that there are "relatively few Wahhabis compared to the Sunnis and Shias", evidently oblivious to the fact that Wahhabism is a variant of Sunni Islam.

On Sunday about 120 Muslims protested in Antwerp against the headscarf ban in the Royal Athenaeums of Antwerp and Hoboken. They carried signs saying: "Everybody free, except us," "Democracy, not discrimination" and "You are the oppressors, not us." They demanded to rescind the headscarf ban by the two schools.

Parent Mina Cheeba said in a speech that the representatives of the parents in the school council haven't heard of any social pressure to wear a headscarf and that if there are actual complaints, then they would like to take a look at them so they could come to a solution together.

Cheeba says the decision to ban the headscarf was made without asking the parents' advice. The school regulations shouldn't be changed autonomously, but by consultation with the parents.

Several students also expressed their displeasure. One said that they're supposedly under pressure to wear a headscarf, but that's nonsense. They are not feather-brains who accept everything without thinking.

Ayoub Aazzouti said that he's fed up of the men being portrayed as machos who force girls to wear headscarves, because it's not like that. "For us boys and girls are equal. We have a lot of respect for them and they are intelligent enough to decide on their own if they wear a headscarf or not. Stop using us as an excuse."

On Monday about 40 Muslim women showed up to protest in front of the Royal Athenaeum of Hoboken. Some of the slogans included: "distressed by the lack of understanding", "why a ban on my character", and "lies in order to discriminate".

One of the students spoke: "We have a right to study and to a headscarf. It's not one or the other, we have a right to both."

Islam in Europe, 2 July 2009

Zahed Amanullah interviews Osama Saeed.

altmuslim, 1 July 2009

"Last week French President Nicolas Sarkozy announced his support for legislation to ban the burka, the dark, heavy and not-too-comfortable garment worn by many Muslim women. The question arises: Is this forcible French secularism run amok, or a prohibition that Americans, who often believe we have struck a better balance between church and state, might entertain? I would say the latter....

"It is quite plainly designed by men for the subjugation of women. One cannot be absolutely sure that no woman has ever donned it voluntarily, but one can certainly say that, in countries where women can choose not to wear it, then not wearing it is the choice they generally make. This disposes right away of the phony argument that religious attire is worn as a matter of 'right'. ... Western masochism about other people's 'culture' often obscures this obvious fact.

"Think of the things that we all have to do now, like submitting to humiliating searches at airports, or showing our ID to people who have no 'probable cause' for demanding it. Can we turn up at airport security wearing a bag over our heads? Can we produce a photograph that shows only our eyes through a slit? Of course not....

"And don't force me to say this, even though I will: One reason we have to undergo such indignities is because of faith-based suicide attacks on our civil aviation, and so far the perpetrators of this nightmare have not been caught wearing crucifixes or Stars of David around their necks....

"It is depressing that our President, in addressing the Muslim world, takes the most reactionary religious practice as the symbol of rights and identity. The klansman's hood, remember, is also the symbol of a white Protestant religious 'identity' movement."

Christopher Hitchens in the Daily News, 1 July 2009

Two pupils and their teacher were ordered to remove their face veils before they could make an official visit to a Roman Catholic school. The party were from an Islamic school in Great Harwood, Lancs and were visiting St Mary's College in nearby Blackburn, which was staging its annual open day.

The two schoolgirls agreed to take off their niqab veils. However, their teacher refused and was taken into an office at the sixth form college and told she would not be allowed on the premises.

St Mary's College yesterday defended the move, claiming that staff had requested that the trio remove the traditional Islamic veils because they are against the school's dress policy.

Its principal Kevin McMahon said: "At the start of one of our 'taster days' for prospective students last week, some visitors did arrive wearing the veil. When the policy was explained to them, all except one were willing to remove it. This lady – a member of staff at the school – refused, and opted to leave the premises."

Daily Telegraph, 30 June 2009

See also the Times, Daily Mail and Daily Mirror.

The Guardian for some reason sees fit to provide the discredited Denis MacEoin with a platform.

Meanwhile, over at the Independent, a generally balanced article, entitled "How do Britain's sharia courts work, and are they a good thing?", nevertheless includes the following bizarre assertion:

"On International Women's Day, in March, there was a huge demonstration in London, backed by feminists, supporters of gay rights and others – including a substantial number of Muslims – who marched under a banner saying: 'No sharia and faith-based laws – one law for all'."

A huge demonstration? Give us a break. This is a reference to a sectarian stunt organised by the loopy Worker Communist Party of Iran which turned out to be a complete flop.

Update:  Inayat Bunglawala replies to Denis MacEoin.

Spare a thought for poor, maligned David Toube. Today he posts an indignant article complaining that Lindsey German of the Stop the War Coalition has misrepresented him and his fellow bloggers at Harry's Place. She can only get away with this, Toube writes piously, because she knows that "as a matter of principle, I will not sue for defamation". Given that Toube regularly denounces Muslim activists he disagrees with as racists and fascists, and once described Inayat Bunglawala and myself as the "ideological wing" of the terrorists responsible for the attempted car bombing of Glasgow airport, perhaps he should be grateful that his opponents apply the same principle when responding to his attacks on them.

Click to read more ...

At least 85 Islamic sharia courts are operating in Britain, a study claimed yesterday. The astonishing figure is 17 times higher than previously accepted.

The tribunals, working mainly from mosques, settle financial and family disputes according to religious principles. They lay down judgments which can be given full legal status if approved in national law courts. However, they operate behind doors that are closed to independent observers and their decisions are likely to be unfair to women and backed by intimidation, a report by independent think-tank Civitas said.

The Civitas study said the Islamic courts should no longer be recognised under British law. Its director Dr David Green said: "The reality is that for many Muslims, sharia courts are in practice part of an institutionalised atmosphere of intimidation, backed by the ultimate sanction of a death threat."

The Muslim Council in Britain condemned the study for "stirring up hatred". A spokesman said: "Sharia councils are perfectly legitimate. There is no evidence they are intimidating or discriminatory against women. The system is purely voluntary so if people don't like it they can go elsewhere."

Daily Mail, 29 June 2009

It comes as no surprise to find that the"expert" behind the Civitas report is our old friend Denis MacEoin, author of the notorious and discredited Policy Exchange report The Hijacking of British Islam.

We were about to suggest that if MacEoin wants to write fiction he should stick to his day job as a novelist, but apparently that hasn't been going too well either.

Update:  See also ENGAGE, 29 June 2009

Further update:  Predictably, MacEoin's report finds favour with both the British National Party ("Get your sensational copy of Sharia Law or 'One Law For All'? from Excalibur now!") and the National Secular Society.