Islamophobia Watch

Concerns have been raised over whether a groundbreaking Arabic-themed school in New York, due to open next week, will be a model of coexistence or a conduit for extremism. Education Department officials have said that religion will not be taught at the Khalil Gibran International Academy, which is set to open on September 4 and will focus on Arab language and Arabic culture.

Such specialised schools are common in New York, and the city's Department of Education has continued to insist that the school will be no different from Chinese- or Hispanic-oriented public schools. But others fear that the academy may teach students extremist Islamic beliefs.

One local politician, State Assemblyman Dov Hikind, alleged that the school had been endorsed by "radical" groups. "Establishment of an Arab school is a misguided and dangerous idea," the Democratic politician – who represents a large Jewish constituency – told the JC. "It will not, as suggested, be a hope for peace; it is a blueprint for anti-Israel and anti-US extremism."

Conservative commentator Daniel Pipes has slammed the project as "a Public Jihad School" where "imbuing pan-Arabism and anti-Zionism, proselytising for Islam, and promoting Islamist sympathies will predictably make up the school's true curriculum".

Supporters of the school – named after a Lebanese Christian poet – have vigorously denied such allegations. In a recent demonstration supporting the school, a mix of Jews and Muslims carried signs that read "NYC needs multi-cultural education" and "The Torah and the Koran both teach peace". Speaking at the rally, Rabbi Michael Feinberg of the Greater NY Labour-Religion Coalition said elected officials should come forward to defend the school.

Jewish Chronicle, 31 August 2007

In many Western cities, plans to erect mosques often stir more passion than any other local issue – and politicians are leaping into the fray. The Economist reports.

In the US earlier this week a controversy broke out over the decision by the Washington Post not to publish (at least in its printed edition) Sunday's instalment of the cartoon strip "Opus," in which a character appears in a headscarf and explains to her boyfriend that she wants to become a radical Islamist. Reports have pointed out that a recent episode of the same cartoon strip ridiculed the late right-wing Christian fundamentalist Jerry Falwell, yet no attempt was made to ban it. Predictably, the right-wing blogosphere has leapt on this issue, accusing the media of applying double standards and discriminating in favour of Muslims ("Christians are fair game, Muslims aren't").

Whether the Washington Post was correct to spike the cartoon is a matter of debate (see for example Sheila Musaji's comments at The American Muslim). But what should be rejected outright is the stupid notion that reinforcing stereotypes about a minority ethno-religious community which is already the object of a poisonous right-wing propaganda campaign is the same as taking the piss out of a white Christian evangelist like Jerry Falwell.

Click to read more ...

NAIROBI – Kenyan Muslims marched on police headquarters in Nairobi on Thursday in protest against what they called the illegal detention and torture of fellow Muslims in an anti-terrorist drive urged on by the United States. The protest involving a few dozen people followed months of simmering tensions between the east African nation's Muslim community and authorities they accuse of persecuting and arresting them on U.S. government orders.

Reuters, 30 August 2007

A woman felt "violated" when a man pulled off her religious headscarf – hijab – as she walked along a north Wales street pushing a pushchair.

BBC News report

"The biggest risk to David Cameron's leadership to date has been his appointment of Sayeeda Warsi as the shadow minister for community cohesion.

"Warsi's rise makes Cameron's ascent from freshman MP to leader in four years look almost sedate. In just two years she has gone from failed parliamentary candidate to being responsible for, perhaps, the most sensitive portfolio in opposition politics. Add in her history of making injudicious statements about anti-terror laws, talking to extremists, and Iraq – combined with some distinctly unCameroon views on homosexuality – and you have a pretty volatile cocktail. Especially as having staked his reputation on her judgment, Cameron cannot sack her.

"Even among those who are normally sympathetic to the Cameron project, Warsi's appointment was viewed as a stunt too far. After all, she has observed that the government's anti-terror proposals were 'enough to tip any normal young man into the realms of a radicalised fanatic' and said that if 'terrorism is the use of violence against civilians, then where does that leave us in Iraq?' These concerns were assuaged, to an extent, by the naming of Paul Goodman as the Commons spokesman for her brief. Goodman, a former comment editor of the Daily Telegraph, has developed robust views on the need for the political class to wake up to the threat posed by extremist Islamist ideology."

Spectator, 1 September 2007

Actually "the shadow minister for militant Islam" refers to Goodman rather than Sayeeda Warsi ... I think.

The question is posed by the Christian Science Monitor. There's an informed article by Jocelyne Cesari, professor of Islamic studies at Harvard, who points out that "recent polls show that Muslims praise democracy as the best political system. At the same time, they acknowledge the importance that sharia, or Islamic law, plays in their lives. This is where misunderstanding often occurs. Sharia does not refer to actual laws but to a set of moral principles and norms that guide Muslims in their personal and social choices." However, in the interests of "balance" we also treated to the thoughts of one Bill Warner, director of the Center for the Study of Political Islam, who tells us that "Islam has two sets of ethics. One set is for Muslims and the other set is for kafirs; this is dualistic ethics. A Muslim should not harm another Muslim, but the kafir can be robbed, killed, or cheated to advance Islam."

On Radio 4's "The Message" last Friday there was yet another example of the media's incapacity to provide a balanced discussion of their own unbalanced depiction of Islam.

Click to read more ...

"Much as one hates to pre-empt the outcome of another of those famously sabre-toothed FA inquiries, the stench of inaction is already beginning to hover around the fact that a significant number of Newcastle supporters racially abused Mido during their side's 2-2 draw with Middlesbrough on Sunday.

"Soho Square has begun an investigation, and is talking of banning orders if the police identify the culprits, but Middlesbrough will not be demanding an apology. Quite unforgivably, meanwhile, Newcastle have refused to comment. And already, we have been treated to the views of apologists for the fans who persistently chanted 'Mido, he's got a bomb you know; Mido's got a bomb' at the Egyptian striker, along with other Islamophobic abuse that somehow contrived to be even less artful.

"Speaking to this newspaper, one Ian Cusack of the Newcastle fanzine True Faith described the chants as 'unsavoury'. 'But I don't think they were racist', he went on. 'Newcastle have Muslim players. Emre is a Muslim ... The chants should be placed in the context of local rivalry.' It takes a special sort of idiotic blindness, really, to downgrade racism to something that can be excused on account of geography....

"Newcastle's failure to issue a statement at the very least condemning Islamophobia in football speaks volumes. The FA making the chanting a police matter should not be used as an excuse to let the club's distasteful mulishness slide. It doesn't help that Mido was booked for holding his finger to his lips in front of the abusive fans, who will inevitably go largely unpunished...."

Marina Hyde in the Guardian, 30 August 2007

"Daniel Pipes is wrong, much as it pains me to say it. I wish, in fact, he wasn't. But in his article in the NY Sun, Ban Islam? he closes with: 'Islam is not the enemy, but Islamism is. Tolerate moderate Islam, but eradicate its radical variants.'

"What variant? The Koran is a violent document. The call to jihad, to kill non believers and Islamic Jew hatred in the Koran is well documented. This is not a variant, this is a tenet of Islam and Islamic jihad. To imply or state differently is simply inaccurate.

"I would like to feel all warm and fuzzy and embrace the moderate Muslim/ meme but they show no evidence of their existence – not in any real number anyway. The only voices of reason in the Muslim world are lapsed Muslims or apostates."

Pamela Geller at Atlas Shrugs, 29 August 2007