Category Archives: Liberal

Joan Smith tells Muslim women how to dress

Posted on by Bob Pitt

Joan_Smith“Islam doesn’t demand that men cover their faces before they go out, but its more extreme advocates place special conditions on how women dress outside the home. It’s a typical example of patriarchal practice, based on the notion that women should be under the control of their male relatives at all times, and it’s incompatible with any notion of universal human rights….

“In effect, a woman in a niqab is wearing a mask, signalling her deliberate separation from people unlike herself. It’s hard to think of another form of dress which is so highly politicised – or so rejectionist of mainstream culture. This is the point missed by liberal defenders of the niqab and the burka.”

Joan Smith in the Independent, 19 January 2010

Last week the Independent itself published an article in which Muslim women were given space to explain their own understanding of why they wore hijab (and, in one case, didn’t). But Joan Smith doesn’t bother herself with that sort of nonsense. She thinks she knows more about the motives and meaning of Muslim women’s preferred form of dress than Muslim women themselves do.

You might have thought that an avowed feminist would have some sensitivity to the idea that women could legitimately prefer to cover themselves because they find it demeaning to have men judging them by their physical appearance. Back in the day, there was tendency within the women’s movement, much derided by the anti-feminist political right, who preferred to dress in overalls and boots as a stand against the commodification of women’s bodies. But then, those women were mainly of Western origin and white, so obviously that was different.

Update:  See also ENGAGE, 19 January 2009

Ed Balls accused of ‘double standards’ over mosque schools

Posted on by Bob Pitt

Schools Secretary Ed Balls has been accused of refusing to ban Islamic schools from smacking children for fear of upsetting Muslim “sensitivities”.

Mr Balls was last week urged to close a legal loophole which gives teachers in Britain’s estimated 1,600 schools associated with mosques the right to smack children – even though it is banned in other schools. He refused, prompting claims that he is allowing an alleged “culture of physical abuse” in some of the mosque schools – or madrasahs – go unchecked.

Smacking is banned in all State and private schools. However, it does not apply to madrasahs, where pupils usually study in the evenings or at weekends, because the ban exempts schools where children attend for less than 12.5 hours per week.

Lib Dem schools spokesman David Laws, who is spearheading the campaign to close the smacking loophole, said: “The Government needs to legislate to protect children – not leave an opt-out simply because it fears some ethnic or religious backlash.”

He was supported by Labour MP Ann Cryer, who said it would be “bonkers” if the Government did not act. She said: “I suspect people are frightened of upsetting the sensitivities of certain members of the Muslim faith.” She denied she was biased against Islamic schools and said classes run by “strange Christian sects” should also be covered by the smacking ban.

A spokesman for Mr Balls’ department denied that his refusal to change the law was based on fears of upsetting Muslim opinion. “We have no evidence the law is being abused or that children are being abused in these circumstances,” he said.

Mail on Sunday, 17 January 2010

If there are any double standards here, they are on the part of Ann Cryer, who is not proposing that the law should be extended to cover Sunday schools run by the Church of England, for example – only to classes run by mosques and “strange Christian sects”, which she evidently regards at the religious equivalent of Islam.

As you might expect, the Mail article has been approvingly reproduced over at Jihad Watch.

Weekend witch-hunts

Posted on by Bob Pitt

In the Observer, with the assistance of such reliable informants as Irfan al-Alawi (of Stephen Schwartz’s Center for Islamic Pluralism), Haras Rafiq (formerly of the Sufi Muslim Council and now of the “counter-extremism consultancy” Centri) and Maajid Nawaz (co-director of the Quilliam Foundation), Jamie Doward reveals that the Islam Channel is “linked to al-Qaida cleric al-Awlaki”.

Meanwhile, over at the Sunday Express, Paul Goodman MP accuses Wakkas Khan, the former FOSIS president who is part of Communities Secretary John Denham’s panel of faith advisers, of having “links to hardline Islamist party Hizb ut-Tahrir”.

You might not have thought it possible, but it does seem that anti-Muslim witch-hunts are becoming even more stupid and baseless than before.

Nigerian in aircraft attack linked to London mosque

Posted on by Bob Pitt

Thus the headline to report in the Independent. And what exactly is the link between Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab and the mosque in question? The Independent explains that “associates claim he visited the East London Mosque, which has attracted criticism for hosting Muslim hardline preachers, three times”.

Yup, that’s what “link” between Abdulmutallab and the East London Mosque consists of. While he was studying mechanical engineering at University College London between 2005 and 2008, Abdulmutallab visited the East London Mosque three times! This really is investigative journalism at its best.

The East London Mosque has issued a statement saying that it is “appalled that it should be associated with such heinous acts”. The statement continues:

“The Mosque cannot comment as to whether this individual attended the mosque. Over 20,000 people, of Muslim and other faiths, visit the Mosque every week. They use the mosque for many different purposes including worship, weddings, and to use any of the 30 different projects and services that are based at our institution.”

Update:  The Telegraph (29 December) quotes security sources as saying that Abdulmutallab had “attended the East London Mosque in Whitechapel” and heads its report “Suspect’s link to mosque confirmed”! Unlike the Independent, the Telegraph avoids undermining its scaremongering story by mentioning that Abdulmutallab attended the mosque on three occasions over three years.

This report has now been withdrawn from the Telegraph website. It has been replaced by one headed “East London mosque condemns Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab“.

Sunday Times exposes Labour MP’s links with Islamic extremism

Posted on by Bob Pitt

And the Labour MP is none other than Jack Straw! The Liberal Democrats are apparently the source of an attempt, taken up by the Sunday Times, to make an issue of Straw’s role in gaining a donation from the Emir of Qatar towards the construction of a mosque in his Blackburn constituency.

Haras Rafiq of the Sufi Muslim Council steps forward to claim that “Some of the biggest mosques and institutions in the UK have been funded by foreign money and have been proven to be portraying extremist viewpoints”. And Anthony Glees and Patrick Mercer also weigh in with warnings about the threat from foreign donations.

The Sunday Times concedes that the Emir of Qatar has a reputation of being “a pro-western reformist and moderniser”, which does rather undermine this scaremongering campaign. But that doesn’t prevent the paper trying to make a case that the emir is some sort of extremist.

After all, he helped to establish Al-Jazeera in Qatar, and one of the TV station’s regular presenters is Yusuf al-Qaradawi, who “has praised suicide bombings in Iraq”. Whereas of course Qaradawi has in reality opposed suicide bombings in Iraq.

See also “Jack Straw ‘too close’ to pro-Hamas faction”, Sunday Times, 4 October 2009

And Alexander Meleagrou-Hitchens, “Times exposes Jack Straw links with Blackburn radicals”, ‘Focus on Islamism’ Standpoint blog, 4 October 2009

‘Why do we tolerate this shameful gender separation?’

Posted on by Bob Pitt

“Two countries, two weddings, two outcomes. In the first instance, a minister in the British government has been accused of bad manners for leaving a Muslim wedding in east London when he was asked to sit in a separate room from his wife. In the second, 41 women and children died when fire broke out in the women’s marquee at a wedding party in Kuwait….

“Muslim organisations have attacked Fitzpatrick, saying he should have respected the wishes of the bridal couple, and they defend gender-segregation at weddings and social events as a matter of ‘personal choice’. It isn’t. As the ghastly fire in the Gulf state demonstrates, insisting that men and women occupy different spaces is common in states where Islamic law is in operation. At last weekend’s wedding, male and female guests were directed to different tents and children sent to sit among the women, which is why no men died in the conflagration.”

Joan Smith – who else? – in the Independent, 19 August 2009

Update:  See letters in the Independent, 20 August 2009

‘No to sharia law in Britain’

Posted on by Bob Pitt

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.