A few months ago I blogged a piece called something like “The Price of Vilification”, regarding incidents of attacks against Muslims in the USA, one of which turned out to be a hoax and the other may have been. Three incidents which have happened, or come to light, in the last few days, aren’t hoaxes at all but real acts of violence which have caused loss of life in one case and damage to property in two others, namely:
- The murder of an Egyptian Muslim woman in a German court by a local racist, whom she had sued after he harassed her for wearing hijab
- An arson attack on the Glasgow Islamic Relief shop, leaving it badly damaged
- Another arson attack in Loughton, Essex, on the house of the leader of a local Islamic community group
All these linked off Islamophobia Watch.
David T over at Harry’s Place has a bit of a ramble about why she would have worn hijab, insisting that:
Like yarmulkes, or the handkerchieves in the pack pockets of gay men in the 1970s, there is a code in the wearing of a head covering. What that code means, however, is not always clear to the casual observer.
So, the fact that she might have been wearing it because her religion told her to wear it, or because she had been doing so since she was about 12 and didn’t feel comfortable in public without it, or both, aren’t accepted as reasons to cover her hair. Why she wore it hardly matters, however; she was attacked in a part of Germany notorious for bigotry — not only against Muslims, the latest target of European bigotry, but also Poles, Jews, Gypsies, and anyone else the local NEETs can blame for the fact that they are poor. Eastern Germany was introduced to democracy for the first time in most people’s memory in 1991; before that, they had known nothing except totalitarianism since 1933. Most of Saxony was also beyond the reach of western radio broadcasts during the Cold War and had the nickname “valley of the clueless”.
The witterings of white middle-class intellectuals about hijab and why women don’t just cast it off don’t directly contribute to murder, even if stories which appear on Harry’s Place one day turn up on the front page of the Times or Telegraph a few days later. The popular press, however, often prints inflammatory stories about Muslims and other “foreigners” which are much more likely to be read by the sort of people who’d stab an imam in the eye at morning prayer. Surely we should be pressing for political action against bigotry for profit? The role of the media in fomenting violence among, and against, ethnic and religious communities in the past is well-known; it should be appreciated, and acted against before anyone else gets killed.
Possibly Related Posts:
- Tabloid feeding frenzy over Venables
- Jon Gaunt: gatekeepers and free speech
- Slow news day: Muslim kids and music
- WordPress 3.0, and why WordPress stole MT’s thunder
- Me @ MuslimMatters: How should we respond to the EDL?
If those crimes were done by people affiliated to the Muslim community whether they escaped a mental institution or not, they would had been branded as “Jihadists”. However, since it is the usual Muslim haters their crimes are repackaged as only “disturbing” committed by minors or mentally sick people.
Leaving aside people like Nicky Reilly- apparently recruited as a jihadist because he was mentally ill- mentally ill people affiliated to the Muslim community often express their illness in religious terms, especially anti-jewish ones; Nabil Ouldeddine for example.
It’s curious that you should post on the murderous effects of bigotry on the day that a monumant to 52 victims of religious bigotry killed four years was opened in London. The arson attacks need not necessarily be actual arson attacks; it seems to be the natural assumption now to attribute any fire to arson until we know otherwise- the Cutty Sark is an obvious example. Nor- given the record of arson attacks on churches- does the fact that the attacks were on obviously muslim premises mean that it was non-muslims who made them.
“Most of Saxony was also beyond the reach of western radio broadcasts during the Cold War”, so should have been most exposed to the rhetoric of universal brotherhood of the K.P.D. and its media. Is there any reason to suppose that capitalist media in Britain have any more effect? However, the fact that the alleged attacker was reported to be Russian-born znd mentally ill suggests that the reasons for the attack are more complex than simple incitement by unspecified media sources. After all, even if “The role of the media in fomenting violence among, and against, ethnic and religious communities in the past is well-known”, the role of religion and religious books is even better known.
When Muslims were machine gunning down German tourist in Egypt some years back the Muslims made every exscuse (many considered them heroes) in the book for the perpetrators. If this lady was such a pious Muslims she would have stayed in Egypt, and not lived in kafir Germany. Can we consider this murder for a murder, an Islamic belief?
I think some Muslims are (understandably) prone to hyperbole and reactionary politics, but even the more cautious Muslims are now stating that Europe - including the UK - has crossed a threshhold where it is now widely legitimate to view all Muslims with suspicion and hatred. Sadly, some Muslims who belong to the media elites, cacooned in their 50K+ lifestyles, haven’t woken up to it. All we need now is a period of social disruption brought on by climate change or more neoliberal avarice, and things could turn nasty, God forbid.
Salaams Yusuf,
Allowing unmoderated comments on your blog sadly is attracting all sorts of scum to leave their repugnant remarks. Allahyarhamah Marwa is a Hijab Martyr. I am so badly shaken by this barbaric killing (a pregnant lady gets stabbed 18 times in a so-called court of law in a so-called civilized country for the crime of wearing a headscarf and nobody even utters a word).
Sadly, we can expect more murders of helpless Muslim women in the streets of Europe with the likes of that demagogue (sarkozy)choosing the niqab (for this is what he must mean since, as has been pointed out already, there are no burka wearing women in France)to turn the attention of the French away from the serious issues facing their country.
Sarkozy’s speech demonising the niqab (French TV crews have had a tough time locating any niqabis -that’s how negligible they are as an issue of national import)was the equivalent of Gordon Brown launching a major initiative for British people to eat grey squirrel in order to save England’s red indigenous squirrel on the week the MPs expenses scandal broke. Except in the U.K, at least that’s what I like to think, the public would have been more outraged. Apparently, Europeans in other countries think differently and just dance to their leaders tune (Italy a case in point -the Prime Minister bribes a lawyer (David Mills) and stays in office. Again, I like to think this would not be allowed to happen in Britain. But then again if more politicians become fixated with Hijab who knows what might happen in Britain? Harriet Harman went on anti-hijab tirade to lift her national profile when she ran for deputy leader of NuLab and it worked -She got lots of news coverage.
Al-Fatiha for Marwa.
Saggal: I agree about the scum. I will probably start using a registration system here soon, so that only trusted people can comment without moderation. That was easy on MT as it was built-in.
Muslims need respect, and we cannot get it until we all defend our women and children with nuclear weapons of our own. With Saudis investing in America weapons groups rather than developing their own, ignoring support to Iran and continuing to give legitimacy to the ugly UN; nothing will change for the better except a downward spiral and loss.
All this is because the Muslim world has been divided up by race with Arabs assuming themselves to be Caucasians hence brothers with their nemesis. King of Saud is a regular punter of the Bilderberg meetings, and what do “Islam” get in return because “Judaism” certainly gets a lot out of those meetings?
“Sarkozy’s speech demonising the niqab (French TV crews have had a tough time locating any niqabis -that’s how negligible they are as an issue of national import)” …or perhaps it shows how effective Sarkozy’s speech was.
Even if niqab-wearers were common they would still be negligible as an issue of national import. What is imoprtant is that there is evidence that in parts of France the male members of the muslim “community” feel entitled to force the women to dress and behave according to what the men think are proper standards, including niqabs. However, the niqab itself is only one symptomamtic aspect of a larger problem affecting muslims in France- and in much of Europe- and the larger communities they live among. However, banning niqab would restrict the ability of women to leave their homes and so would increase the power of the men.
>However, banning niqab would restrict the ability of women to leave their homes and so would increase the power of the men.
Agreed. It would also ‘empower’ european alex ws (inherent evil in the German character it seems) to go out and murder any woman wearing a headscarf…so men, which ever way one looks at this, are still dictating to women from all directions, and now women are paying with their lives.
“alex w… (inherent evil in the German character it seems) ” Actually, he is also an immigrant, so there’s a better argument against letting all these damned foreigners in in the forst place.
Saggal: he is not German, but a Russian immigrant.
I very much doubt the House of Saud wants functional armed forces, because a competent army in Saudi Arabia would be very likely to launch a coup.
Odd, considering I’ve seen plenty of right-wing American sites attacking the UN for not being pro-Israel enough…