Main

March 25, 2008

Omar Bakri expresses dim view of Amir Khan

Today's Sun (Murdoch-owned London tabloid) led with a front-page story about something Omar Bakri said about Amir Khan. Omar Bakri is the former leader of the disbanded al-Muhajiroun, who ran noisy demonstrations and street-corner stalls until they were banned in 2005; Amir Khan is a British Pakistani boxer. Apparently, "in an internet exchange with other extremists", Omar Bakri said that Khan was jahil, meaning ignorant:

Asked if Amir was setting a bad example by draping himself in the flag, he replied: "I don't think somebody should really look to Amir Khan as a good example for the youth.

"So now for him to be wrapping himself in British flag is another sign of somebody who is completely jahil. You give him the excuse of ignorance for living among the kuffar. So you can't call him kuffar but you can call him jahil and deviant person."

Continue reading "Omar Bakri expresses dim view of Amir Khan" »

February 28, 2008

Nazir-Ali's unsatisfying explanation

Yesterday afternoon, I dropped a line to the Bishop of Rochester's public email box (bishop.rochester at rochester.anglican.org) questioning the claims he made in last Sunday's Telegraph. I included my home address and mobile number. This is what I wrote:

Dear Rt Revd Dr Nazir-Ali,

I am writing in regard to your recent interview in the Sunday Telegraph, in which you repeated your claim regarding "no-go areas" in England. I twice attempted to submit a comment to the online version of the article which appeared out of that interview, but the Telegraph's web team would admit only supportive comments.

Continue reading "Nazir-Ali's unsatisfying explanation" »

February 24, 2008

Put up or shut up, Nazir-Ali

Michael Nazir-Ali ([1], [2]) has been lent yet another adulatory interview by the Sunday Torygraph, with the same claims about death threats and one about his claim of no-go areas being "based on evidence", but it appears that his interviewer did not press him on what that evidence was and he has still not offered any, other than the incident where Omar Brookes heckled the former Home Secretary during a visit to Leyton in 2007, and then they only printed one part of Brooks's sentence.

I submitted a comment which made the point that Nazir-Ali had not addressed the complaints about his claim, namely that it's false and that he had not bothered to offer any evidence, but free speech is not much in vogue on the Torygraph's moderated comment box, whose editors prefer only to let readers cheer Nazir-Ali on and claim he's the only one with the "courage" to speak the "truth" (well, except for Richard Desmond's Daily Spew!). And it is not as if I insulted his religion or insinuated that his mother is also his half-sister.

Give us one single example, Nazir-Ali! Put up or shut up.

February 2, 2008

Nazir-Ali complains of death threats

BBC NEWS: Threats to 'no-go areas' bishop

Michael Nazir-Ali, Anglican bishop of Rochester, has complained of receiving death threats in response to his accusations about no-go areas defined by adherence to Islamic ideology in the Telegraph last month. His chaplain claims that the phoned-in threat came from somewhere in England, but the man himself says that his postbag has been overwhelmingly positive (I wonder if that came from mostly within England, or mostly from Anglicans).

He also laughably claims that he had been surprised at the scale of the debate his article caused. Pull the other one, bish. You made the claims in a major national Sunday newspaper, and it was promoted from the front page and also, prominently, on the paper's website. People who cause a controversy on this scale often get death threats, particularly when they cause offence related to religion or, less commonly, politics; these threats have never, in recent British history, led to someone actually being murdered. And when you cause controversy by using your position to make unfounded accusations about an entire religious community in a national newspaper, you really only have yourself to blame if this is the result.

That is, of course, assuming that the threat came from people offended, and not by one of his supporters ...

January 30, 2008

Muslims in London: Challenge Boris Johnson tonight!

Boris Johnson will be answering questions on the BBC London (94.9FM) drive-time show at 5pm this evening. If it follows the same pattern as Ken Livingstone's last week, the interview will happen at 6pm. The hosts are Eddie Nestor and Kath Melandri.

Boris Johnson has been challenged many times about his remarks about Africans (piccaninnies etc) and on one occasion told the interviewer he was sick of talking about it. However, nobody has challenged him about his record as editor of the Spectator. In response to the July 2005 bombings and to the riots in Paris and elsewhere later that year, he printed articles only from non-Muslims hostile to Islam: himself, Mark Steyn and Patrick Sookhdeo.

In particular, there was this one from Patrick Sookhdeo, on 30th July, this one, by the same author on 12th November 2005 after the riots, and this one by Johnson himself, published 16th July (the most offensive sections are on page 5):

Chief issues:

(1) "To any non-Muslim reader of the Koran, Islamophobia -- fear of Islam -- seems a natural reaction, and, indeed, exactly what that text is intended to provoke. Judged purely on its scripture -- to say nothing of what is preached in the mosques -- it is the most viciously sectarian of all religions in its heartlessness towards unbelievers. As the killer of Theo Van Gogh told his victim's mother this week in a Dutch courtroom, he could not care for her, could not sympathise, because she was not a Muslim." (Johnson, 16th July) So he generalises the extreme attitude of one murderer in Amsterdam and assumes that we all might think this way.

(2) In "The Myth of Moderate Islam", Sookhdeo alleges that one can pick and mix from the Qur'an to find peaceful or bellicose verses depending on what suits one. He alleges that the bellicose verses abrogate the peaceful ones as they were revealed later. He also suggested that the bombers might have been following a mainstream version of Islam rather than an extreme one.

(3) Sookhdeo, in the November article, claimed:

"Islam is a territorial religion. Any space once gained is considered sacred and should belong to the umma for ever. Any lost space must be regained -- even by force if necessary. Migrant Muslim communities in the West are constantly engaged in sacralising new areas -- first the inner private spaces of their homes and mosques, and latterly whole neighbourhoods (e.g., Birmingham) by means of marches and processions. So the ultimate end of sacred space theology is autonomy for Muslims of the UK under Islamic law."

The claim about marches and processions is a plain falsehood, since the streets marched on become normal streets within hours of the march ending. On top of this, only Bareilawis march for religious reasons, namely mawlid, which is not a central part of Islam. Only dedicated mosques are sacred space. So Boris allowed someone to print falsehoods about Muslims in order to incite alarm and hostility to the whole community.

This man must be challenged! The number for the station is 020 7224 2000; email eddieandkath at bbc.co.uk or text 07786 200 949.

January 6, 2008

Why Rochester is not a no-go area for Michael Nazir-Ali

Michael Nazir-Ali, bishop of Rochester (previously: [1], [2], [3]), has been given another bit of space in the Sunday Telegraph to write an Islamophobic article (also see front-page feature here). This time, he's alleging that Muslims have set out "'no-go' areas where adherence to this ideology has become a mark of acceptability". This is not the first time a publication of the Telegraph group has made this accusation: it is part of Patrick Sookhdeo's stock-in-trade of accusations. Nazir-Ali today claimed that this resurgence of "the ideology of Islamic extremism" accompanied the loss of "confidence in the Christian vision which underlay most of the achievements and values of the culture" and a "novel philosophy of 'multiculturalism'". (More: Osama Saeed, Abu Eesa, Kashif @ Peace, Bruv, Suspect Paki.)

Continue reading "Why Rochester is not a no-go area for Michael Nazir-Ali" »

September 25, 2007

Nick Cohen on Saudi money power

Nick Cohen, in last Sunday's Observer, posted an extraordinarily conspiracy-minded article about the Saudis' financial muscle supposedly inhibits any investigation into their activities in the UK. He starts off on the subject of the investigation into British-Saudi arms deals, which was dropped a few months back on government orders, and also claims that public criticism of Saudi activities are inhibited by fear of being sued. According to one lawyer friend of his, "school fees and second homes depend" on Saudi libel actions. However, he also brings in the recent criticism of Channel 4 for their Undercover Mosque documentary, which provoked a police investigation into those featured in it, which turned on the programme-makers themselves once the police actually saw the tapes on which the documentary was based.

Continue reading "Nick Cohen on Saudi money power" »

August 27, 2007

A born-again American idiot

Technorati Tags:

No, not George Bush: Christopher Hitchens, who became an idiot in 2001 (well, some would say earlier!) and an American more recently than that.

He wrote this article in yesterday's Observer, taking apart George Bush's comparison of Iraq with Vietnam. Hitchens outlines a number of differences between Iraq and Vietnam, among them the fact that the Viet Minh were on the Allied side during World War II, unlike the Baathists, that the Vietnamese were the victims of chemical warfare, not its perpetrators as were the Baathists, and that the Iraqi Communists supported the Americans, unlike (obviously) those in Vietnam. He also notes that Ho Chi Minh invoked Thomas Jefferson in his country's Declaration of Independence, "a note that has hardly been struck in Baathist or jihadist propaganda". (More: Umar Lee.)

Continue reading "A born-again American idiot" »

June 20, 2007

Rushdie's knighthood and "courage"

Self-pitying, pretentious and ungrateful - so why has Rushdie been knighted? | the Daily Mail

This is an article by Ruth Dudley-Edwards, criticising the decision to give a knighthood to the infamous Salman Rushdie. The contention is a familiar one - that his books, including Midnight's Children, which won him the 1981 Booker prize - aren't much good, and that he basked in the admiration of literary London after writing a gratuitously offensive book which led to him costing the taxpayer a huge amount of money for protection, and then went off to New York and started slagging off the UK, including that same literary community:

In his official citation, Rushdie gets his gong for "services to literature". To which the only sensible response is, "what services and what literature?". Like many who have attempted to read his work, I have never yet managed to make it to the end of one of Rushdie's books. I've tried, I honestly have. When he won the Booker Prize in 1981 with Midnight's Children, I conscientiously attempted to read it three or four times, but struggle as I might, I could never get past page 50: there was something about its portentous tone and an absence of simple humanity that irritated me profoundly. So too did the way he banged on relentlessly in public about his sufferings as a post-colonial expatriate. It seemed to me that he didn't like India, his birthplace, and he certainly didn't like the United Kingdom, his host country. But he was, of course, a wow with the masochistic liberal intelligentsia who loved his savaging of British values as insufficiently cosmopolitan. Yet, as a taxpayer, I never grudged a penny of the £10 million or so spent on protecting Rushdie for a decade after Iran's Ayatollah Khomeini issued a fatwa calling for his murder because he considered The Satanic Verses blasphemous towards Mohammed.

Continue reading "Rushdie's knighthood and "courage"" »

May 25, 2007

Bye bye, Faisal

Abdullah Faisal, the extremist Muslim preacher who was jailed in 2003 for delivering speeches which incited murder and racial hatred, has been deported to Jamaica after serving a large part of his sentence. I do not object in the least to his deportation, because he was guilty of what he was charged with, and worse. His lectures did indeed incite murder, and I listened to a few of them.

His lectures have been cited as an influence on the London tube bomber Germaine Lindsey, also of Jamaican origin, which goes to show that a taped, and widely distributed, lecture can have influence beyond what was intended when it was delivered. I do not know if Faisal approved of the London bombings or was aware of Lindsey's existence, but his lectures make it clear that he approves of terrorist acts and violence far beyond what is accepted by orthodox Islam.

However, the BBC news story I linked above repeats the same pattern of media coverage of the Faisal case, which is to mention what he said about Jews and Hindus but not what he said about his fellow Muslims. He issues takfir - pronunciations of disbelief against another - on numerous occasions, on one occasion telling his audience to repeat the words "kill him!" in regard to the US "salafi" preacher Abu Usama, and tells his followers "you kill the Bareilawi before you kill the Christian", Bareilawis being a large proportion of the Muslim population of India and Pakistan. Notwithstanding his occasional offensive anti-Jewish joke, my guess is that Jews, Christians and Hindus have far less to fear from those influenced by Faisal than the average Muslim, which makes the media's blindness to their threat to us somewhat galling.

The Devil's Deception of "Shaikh" Abdullah Faisal

March 10, 2007

Johann Hari reviews Mark Steyn's hate novel

New Statesman - Apocalypse now?

Johann Hari reviews America Alone, the quasi-novel by Mark Steyn recently published by Regnery (the same publishing house behind a lot of Robert Spencer's dross) which gives a warning of an Islamist-dominated "Eurabia" which will supposedly be in existence by about 2020, when Muslim birth rates in Europe have caused the continent's Muslim population to dominate the decadent whites; the USA will be the only holdout, he thinks. Hari calls Islamism a "fascistic menace" (I would expect him to call it a menace; calling it fascistic is pretty typical of his section of the western secular left's continual misuse of the term), but notices that Mark Steyn basically shares most of its critique of the west, and displays racism and contradicts himself also.

Technorati Tags: , , ,

March 7, 2007

Wafa Sultan's skeletons rattled

Southern California InFocus - WAFA SULTAN: Reformist or opportunist?

Thanks to Dr Maxtor, who reproduced the whole thing (with some of his usual acerbic commentary), this article exposes the various claims Wafa Sultan has made to embellish her claim to be a "Muslim reformer" (she is Alawite), including her supposed witness of the assassination which, if it happened at all, happened well away from her - and the means by which she obtained a Green Card. Let's see if she finds a think tank anywhere but America to flee to ...

Also: sister Danya (yep I'm with her if you're reading this in Florida, JK) has a few posts on the "Secular Islam summit", in which Wafa is participating, and its connections with the "Intelligence Summit": [1], [2], [3], [4].

February 5, 2007

Ayaan's all over the place

Technorati Tags:

Ayaan Hirsi Magan's been all over the media like a rash this past week, with a series of adulatory articles and soft interviews. Nobody seems to be willing to take her up on her ludicrous claims that, for example, "the 74 per cent of Muslims under 24 who said in a survey that women should wear the veil and want Sharia law to be introduced have gone for the consistency that Bin Laden offers", which appears in this Metro interview today. Another example is in yesterday's Observer, with an accompanying piece here at Comment Is Free, and this inteview on the Radio 4 Woman's Hour (MP3 - may not be available after this week).

Quite apart from the ludicrous claim I quote above, Ayaan Hirsi Ali is far from the only woman in the world to have experienced FGM and witnessed or experienced domestic violence; not all of them, by any means, have renounced Islam and then used these experiences as ammunition. Why has nobody put this to her? The verses she claims Osama bin Laden uses to justify his terrorist campaign do not, in the mainstream Islamic understanding, justify such behaviour at all. Why has nobody put this to her? No doubt she would not agree to be interviewed by a Muslim lest he or she produce a weapon of some sort (as if we all carry weapons when most of us live in countries where it is illegal to do so), but surely someone could take this woman up on her plainly ludicrous, specious claims about Islam and her fatuous comparisons?

February 3, 2007

Anti-Muslim bigot goes into the oil biz

The BBC reports that an outfit calling itself the "Terror Free Oil Initiative" has set up a filling station in Omaha, Nebraska, touting oil not imported from countries which "support terror" - meaning just about any Muslim country, in the Middle East or anywhere else. At the moment, they only use American and Canadian oil. (Clearly, they're only talking about one sort of terror.)

A few paragraphs into the report and we find out who their spokesman is: Joe Kaufman, the bigot behind "Americans Against Hate", a group which dedicates itself to smearing Muslims and Muslim organisations. In this article on Front Page Magazine, he insinuates that Congressman Keith Ellison might be swearing to protect "his friends, our enemies" rather than the American public; you might like to see this piece from last April in which he smeared a whole lot of Muslim bloggers (not including me, but including a lot of those I'm fond of).

Happily, one of TFO's nearby rivals has cut their rates, which according to the BBC has led to a "quiet start" for the station.

January 4, 2007

Is Ken really the man for this job?

In a couple of weeks' time there will be a conference in London, "A World Civilisation or a Clash of Civilisations", featuring a long list of speakers including Ken Livingstone (the mayor of London), Christina Odone, Tariq Ali, Tariq Ramadan, Bruce Kent, Oliver Kamm and David Aaronovitch. Among the supposed highlights of the conference will be a debate between Livingstone and Daniel Pipes, whom the site quotes as saying that "there is not so much a clash of civilisations as there is one of civilisations vs. barbarism".

Continue reading "Is Ken really the man for this job?" »