Category Archives: Secular

Contradictions of the Enlightenment

Posted on by Bob Pitt

Tariq Ali provides a corrective to those secularist Islamophobes who uncritically uphold the contribution of “Enlightenment values” to European civilisation:

“How many citizens have any real idea of what the Enlightenment really was? French philosophers did take humanity forward by recognising no external authority of any kind, but there was a darker side. Voltaire: ‘Blacks are inferior to Europeans, but superior to apes.’ Hume: ‘The black might develop certain attributes of human beings, the way the parrot manages to speak a few words.’ There is much more in a similar vein from their colleagues. It is this aspect of the Enlightenment that appears to be more in tune with some of the generalised anti-Muslim ravings in the media.”

Guardian, 13 February 2006

‘How can we have respect for Islam?’ Muriel Gray asks

Posted on by Bob Pitt

Muriel Gray writes: “… what of moderate Islam? British Muslims are represented by the unelected Sir Iqbal Sacranie, a man at the forefront of the book-burning mob who threatened Rushdie’s life, when Sacranie declared: ‘Death, I think, is too easy for him.’ For this part in incitement to murder, Sacranie was awarded not the stiff custodial sentence one might expect, but a knighthood.”

Sunday Herald, 5 February 2006

I particularly liked Gray’s reference to “the Western values so vigorously and courageously fought for over two bloody world wars”. So World War I was fought in defence of “western values”, was it? Although, on reflection, she does have a point here. “Western values” do indeed include a tendency to heap up vast piles of corpses as imperialist powers pursue their interests through military aggression without the slightest concern for the human consequences.

Elsewhere in the same paper, Torcuil Crichton writes: “Yesterday Hizb ut-Tahrir, an extremist organisation that believes in a Muslim Caliphate, demanded that European governments exert pressure on their media outlets to retract the offensive caricatures of the Prophet Mohammad, apologise for the offence caused and guarantee no further repetition of such abuse. The demands reflect those of the gunmen in Gaza who threatened to bomb the EU presence in Palestinian Authority.” Which of course omits to mention the minor difference that Hizb didn’t threaten to bomb anyone.

Sunday Herald, 5 February 2006

AWL lines up with NSS bigots

Posted on by Bob Pitt

I was tempted to write that the response to the Danish cartoons controversy from the Alliance for Workers’ Liberty is entirely predictable. But, in fact, their statement on the issue goes further than I would have imagined in solidarising with anti-Muslim racism. While a recommendation for a new blog by the appalling Maryam Namazie might be expected, even I was taken aback by the AWL linking to an editorial on the National Secular Society website, presumably written by Terry Sanderson.

Continue reading →

‘What’s at stake is the right to insult and cause offence’

Posted on by Bob Pitt

Polly ToynbeeSo Polly Toynbee claims in a Guardian article attacking the Racial and Religious Hatred Bill. In fact, what’s actually at stake is the right to incite hatred.

Toynbee criticises the “free speech” clauses in the government’s amendment (which as we have already pointed out make dangerous concessions to the opposition). She asserts that these legal guarantees “would not protect Rowan Atkinson’s sketch showing men bowed down praying in a mosque with the voiceover intoning: ‘And the search goes on for the Ayatollah Khomeini’s contact lens.’ Many were insulted. It would not protect Salman Rushdie’s The Satanic Verses, let alone Christ in nappies on the cross in Jerry Springer – the Opera. Nor would it stop Behzti being closed down by angry Sikh mobs.”

There is nothing in the Bill that would prevent Rowan Atkinson from taking the piss out of the Ayatollah Khomeini, or Salman Rushdie from publishing The Satanic Verses or any theatre from staging Jerry Springer – the Opera. What the proposed legislation criminalises is not ridicule or insult but incitement to hatred. As for Bezhti, Sikhs are defined as a mono-ethnic faith group and are therefore already covered by the law against racial hatred. The new legislation won’t make the slightest difference to the legal position in relation to the incitement of hatred against Sikhs.

Continue reading →

Religious hate bill changes urged

Posted on by Bob Pitt

A coalition of politicians, writers and artists is trying to persuade ministers to accept changes made by peers to the Racial and Religious Hatred Bill. The bill will return to the Commons on Tuesday after being substantially amended in the House of Lords.

BBC News, 30 January 2006

See also “Atkinson in last-gasp bid to bury religious hate bill”, Observer, 29 January 2006

Needless to say, these democrats are not worried about the clause in the government’s amendment that recognises the right to incite hatred against religion, which could strengthen the hand of the BNP. Rather, they support the Lords amendment that would restrict the offence of inciting religious hatred to “threatening” words and behaviour and would moreover require the prosecution to prove intent – which would, of course, destroy the possibility of ever securing a conviction.

Muriel Gray on the dangers of Islamic education

Posted on by Bob Pitt

“To conduct oneself properly as an adherent Muslim, one must obey the Koran and guidance of the prophet Muhammed. With regard to artistic endeavours, he was unambiguous about Allah’s will. It is haram (forbidden) for a Muslim to make a drawn or modelled representation of any animate living thing, as Allah’s creations must not be imitated by the hand of man. Trees, flowers and landscape are fine, say the scholars, but humans, birds and animals are out. It is also haram to make or listen to music for pleasure, or to dance for pleasure or artistic expression. It is haram to view filmed or theatrical images of entertainment or read ‘un-Islamic’ literature.”

Muriel Gray explains why a state-funded Catholic primary school in Glasgow, 90% of whose pupils are from Muslim families, should not be allowed to become a state-funded Muslim school.

Sunday Herald, 22 January 2006

Update:  For Osama Saeed’s response, See Rolled Up Trousers, 23 January 2006

The witch-hunt against Adam Yosef

Posted on by Bob Pitt

Adam YosefWhat with Outrage, the Gay & Lesbian Humanist Association and (even further to the right) Flame Out all dedicated to attacking Muslims’ attitudes to LGBT rights, you might think that the market for gay Islamophobia was already a bit crowded. But the new year has brought us yet another organisation, the previously unheard-of Gay Action Media Watch.

GAMW launched itself on 5 January with a campaign against Adam Yosef, who writes for the Asian entertainment magazine Desi Xpress. In a statement posted on Indymedia and headed “Muslim journalist attacks Gays – please complain!“, GAMW objected to an article Yosef had written for Desi Xpress containing the following passage: “Hmmm… gay weddings… Gay people and commitment? I don’t think so… They’ll be shagg*ng the neighbours before they even cut the cake. Bad idea I’m afraid. Great way of evading tax though…” GAMW called for letters of protest to be sent to local papers in Birmingham where Desi Xpress is based, and for formal complaints to be made to the Press Complaints Commission.

On the face of it (allowing for the fact that we are dependent on an edited extract from Yosef’s article) this does look like a clear example of anti-gay stereotyping. However, it falls well short of “bigotry and hate against gay people eminating from the words of young Muslims”, which was how GAMW characterised Yosef’s remarks. Furthermore, as a contributor to Indymedia immediately pointed out, GAMW’s portrayal of Adam Yosef as a hate-filled homophobic bigot was rather undermined by the fact that he had posted an article on Indymedia in June 2005, headed “Pride – The Real Rainbow“, that offered a glowing review of Birmingham Pride. In the article, Yosef had written:

Birmingham Pride“I saw a lot of ordinary-looking people – that is, without elaborate costumes, gay and straight, people of all races and all ages – just relaxing, enjoying the weekend and having fun. I saw adults, children, families, couples and pets. I saw black and white and young and old alike. I saw a trustee of a major city mosque cheer with glee as the procession of dancers and drag queens paraded into the heart of Hurst Street. I saw Sikh men with beards and turbans browsing through the stalls and loving the atmosphere, I saw Muslim girls with hijabs shouting ‘Gay, Muslim and Proud’ as part of Asian lesbian project SAFRA, there were black and Asian youngsters, people of all backgrounds and origins, OAPs, students – heck, I even saw Darth Vader! … In all my experience of attending cultural or diverse festivals, Pride is the only event where I have really seen such a diverse range of people from so many social and ethnic backgrounds. To have streets crammed with so many different people all enjoying themselves and accepting each other is, to me, what Pride represents.”

As one commentator on the GAMW post observed: “If it wasn’t for the pride article, maybe I would say Adam Yosef is a little homophobic but it’s hard to once you read the article.” Others were equally critical of GAMW’s attack on Yosef. One commentator asked: “Of all the journo’s and celebrities that have recently said dodgy stuff about gay marriage why have you selected Adam Yosef?” Another agreed: “Yes, why Adam Yosef? Would attacking a non-Muslim NOT have been in keeping with the current political climate? Are you more likely to get press coverage if you attack a Muslim?”

Continue reading →

‘The hypocrisy of the Muslim Council is beyond belief’

Posted on by Bob Pitt

Joan SmithThus the title to an article by Joan Smith in yesterday’s Independent on Sunday.

She condemns a letter from Muslim leaders in Saturday’s Times supporting the view of homosexuality expressed by Iqbal Sacranie of the Muslim Council of Britain. She goes on to point out that the MCB “has supported Section 28, opposed lowering the age of consent for gay sex and has worked with evangelical Christians to oppose gay adoption”. She quotes Peter Tatchell’s statement: “How can the MCB expect to secure respect for Muslims when it shows such obvious disrespect to other people because of their sexual orientation?”

As we have already pointed out (see here) the views of Iqbal Sacranie and the MCB on homosexuality are not easily distinguishable from those of the Chief Rabbi, Jonathan Sacks, and the Orthodox Jewish community. Indeed, a statement issued by Dr Sacks’ office – “There is no prospect of the mainstream Orthodox community permitting same-sex commitment or marriage ceremonies. Orthodox Jews are bound by biblical and rabbinic law, which only condones sexual relationships between a man and a woman who are married” – is identical to the position taken by the Muslim signatories to the Times letter.

Would Tatchell think it appropriate, then, to issue a statement such as: “How can the Chief Rabbi’s office expect to secure respect for Jews when it shows such obvious disrespect to other people because of their sexual orientation?” And would Joan Smith feel happy about publishing an article headlined “The hypocrisy of Orthodox Jewry is beyond belief”?

Smith argues that the MCB is guilty of hypocrisy because it wants to criticise homosexuality while at the same time supporting the Racial and Religious Hatred Bill, which she claims “would open critics of religion to the threat of a prison sentence”. This is of course a complete misrepresentation of the proposed legislation (see, for example, here). What the new law would do is illegalise incitement to hatred. Liberal secularist bigots like Smith could continue to express their prejudices against Muslims without hindrance.