Social Items

TPQ
Showing posts with label Islamism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Islamism. Show all posts
National Secular Society ✏ After a councillor was denied mayoralty for criticising Islam, Jack Rivington warns politicians are playing into the hands of Islamist fundamentalists.


Last week, members of Boston Borough Council decided that the principle of free expression, and the traditions of their mayoralty, were less important than potentially offended religious feelings.

By convention as the longest serving member, Councillor Mike Gilbert was due to be appointed mayor of Boston for a one year term. However, following an intervention by several fellow councillors, he was blocked from taking up the position last month on the grounds that he had made past comments criticising aspects of Islamic religious doctrine.

These comments, posted on social media during the football World Cup in Qatar, drew attention to several features of Islam which Cllr Gilbert considered to be in conflict with the rights of women and LGBT people. Namely that in Islam, homosexuality is punishable by death, and women are considered to be of a lower status than men.

Despite Cllr Gilbert very clearly stating that his criticisms were not of Muslims themselves but of particular religious doctrines, a number of borough councillors saw fit to denounce him for what they characterised as 'hate speech'.

Continue reading @ National Secular Society.

Why Are Councillors Doing Islamists’ Work For Them?

Maryam Namazie ✒ Translation of Interview in Charlie Hebdo.


She fled the Iran of the Mullahs and founded, in Great Britain, the Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain. We caught up with Maryam Namazie at the big gathering of atheists – many of them ex-Muslims – Celebrating Dissent, which she organized in Cologne on August 21-22. A few days after Salman Rushdie’s attack, Namazie says she is more combative and optimistic than ever: this attack is proof that atheists are dangerous for Islamists.

Charlie Hebdo: This event must have a special connotation for you, a few days after the attack on Salman Rushdie?

Maryam Namazie: I would say that there are so many Islamist attacks that each time there is a gathering of this kind it is a singular moment. But of course it has a special meaning after the attack on Salman Rushdie. We know who is responsible; it was Iran that issued this fatwa. With this demonstration, atheists and freethinkers want to show that there is a great resistance movement against the Islamists.

CH: Were you surprised by the attack?

MN: I think anyone who knows Islamism is not surprised. Salman Rushdie is not the first and will not be the last to be threatened by a fatwa. He is known in the West, but there are so many other brave people fighting for freedom of expression who are under threat. During this rally, we will also pay tribute to Soheil Arabi, accused of blasphemy and sentenced to eight years in prison, and now under house arrest.

CH: The Islamists do not seem to be losing ground, are you afraid?

MN: On the contrary, we must remember that this attack means how much the Islamists are afraid of us! They want to silence us, because they know how loud our voices are and how many we are. They are more afraid of us than we are of them. And the reason is that we are dangerous for them: there is a tsunami of atheism in Iran today, especially among the younger generations. Because the vast majority of the Iranian population is young, there will one day be a clash with the fundamentalists. No one understands the need for secularism better than someone who lives in a theocracy. And these young people want secularism. When we look at history, there are always two camps, those who want to submit and those who resist, and who advance society. We are on this side of history. This will be the advent of dissidents.

CH: Are you sufficiently supported by Western countries? What about left-wing parties?

MN: That’s a problem: many western countries support the oppressors, support the Iranian regime, and don’t give a damn about human rights. As for left-wing political parties – I am a communist myself – the fight against religions remains a left-wing fight. There is a part of the left which has become pro-Islamist, it is a betrayal. Yet they do not understand that the Islamists have swept away the workers’ movement. But fortunately, there are also many on the left who continue this anticlerical discourse and defend secularism. Sometimes this focus on the left is a way to attack him. In reality, much support for Islamist movements comes from right-wing governments.

CH: How do you respond to those who accuse you of having the same discourse as the extreme right in your criticism of Islam?

MN: The far right criticizes Islam because it hates immigrants and Muslims. We criticize Islam because we fight for a society in which believers and non-believers can live freely. This fight is not against Muslims, but against fundamentalism. Let’s not forget that the Islamists are on the far right too! Why not fight these two far-rights head-on? It is possible to defend the reception of refugees, the opening of borders, and to denounce fundamentalism.

⏩Maryam Namazie is an Iranian-born activist and Spokesperson of the Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain and One Law for All.

The Islamists Are Afraid Of Us

Atheist Republic ✒ The decision of the United Kingdom's Department of Education to prohibit a Salafi activist from spreading his hateful teachings was welcomed by the National Secular Society (NSS). 


This ruling notes that several harmful sermons were published. This decision prevents the former faith school proprietor from managing private or state school teachings.

As publicly declared by the Department of Education (DfE), self-ascribed Salafi, Abu Khadeejah (his most recognized name) was banned from officiating school teachings or engaging in conduct that is "aimed at undermining the fundamental value of individual liberty."

Abu Khadeejah, aka Waheed Alam (his real name), once managed the teachings at Islamic Redstone Educational Academy in Birmingham, UK.

Alam produced several sermons using an online platform and writings between 2015 & 2019 that reflected his aversion to the LGBTQ population and distaste for women's rights. His works, as the Department of Education, describes, "fail to show tolerance of, and respect for, the rights of others." The publishings included his views seeking to "restrict the activities of women" and "denigrate and demonize gay men."

Continue reading @ Atheist Republic.

Islamic Leader Banned By UK Dept of Education For Homophobia & Misogyny

Atheist Republic ✒ On May 23, 2022, the Charity Commission for England and Wales ordered Islamic Research Foundation International (IRFI) to shut down after an inquiry found that it had funded TV programming that promoted violence.



The National Secular Society (NSS) has expressed its concerns about IRFI since 2018 while questioning the involvement of Zakir Naik, founder and president of the IRFI, in an open letter to the charity commission.

The NSS specified the IRFI's record in its 2019 report, “For the public benefit?”, which calls for reform of charity law to remove 'the advancement of religion' from being listed as a ‘charitable purpose.’

PeaceTV, a television program involved with the IRFI, was reprimanded in 2012 by the Broadcasting regulator Ofcom after Naik said he "tended to agree" that Muslims should be executed if they leave Islam and tried to proselytize a different religion "against Islam."

In 2020, Naik’s Peace TV and Peace TV Urdu were fined £300,000 for “broadcasting hate speech and incitement to commit murder.”

According to the NSS, they also had a long line of very controversial speakers like Bilal Philips, who the US government named as a co-conspirator in the 9/11 attacks.

Continue reading @ Atheist Republic.

Islamic Charity Shut Down By UK Government For Promoting Violence

Maryam Namazie ✒ Interviewed by Emma Park for The Freethinker.


Maryam Namazie is the founder of the Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain and a founding member of One Law for All. Born in Iran, she moved to the US in 1983 after the revolution of 1979, and to the UK in 2000. She is a tireless campaigner for women’s rights and against both Islamism and racism. In 2005, she was named Secularist of the Year by the National Secular Society. She has received many other awards, including the International Secularism Prize of the Comité Laïcité République in 2016.

Maryam’s uncompromising stance, such as in her topless protests, and her refusal to censor her views, have caused controversy in some quarters. For instance, in 2020, she spoke at Warwick University for a TedX event. Her title was ‘Creativity in Protesting Religious Fundamentalism’. TedX waited a year before publishing a video of her talk, but refused to publish her slides and accompanied the video with a trigger warning.

I met Maryam in the office of the CEMB, King’s Cross, on 23rd February 2022. She spoke to me about the CEMB and its work, the experience of not ‘belonging’ in the UK, and why the radical Left seems to have allied itself with the Islamist movement. Other topics included the Iranian tradition of political protest, the relationship between religious freedom and freedom of speech, and more. Below are extracts from our interview, edited for clarity and concision, with occasional glosses inserted in square brackets.~ Emma Park.

Maryam Namazie In Her Office In King’s Cross.
Photo: Emma Park

EP: Let’s start with the Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain. How large an operation is it?

MN: It started quite small in the sense that very few people were willing to call themselves ex-Muslims or to come out publicly and do that. The idea behind the organisation was that having people come out publicly normalises it and breaks the taboo, and makes it accessible to all. When there’s all this discrimination and pressure and intimidation, coming out publicly is a way of resisting the status quo and trying to change things.

When we started it [in 2007], people were saying that we were being absurd, there are no ex-Muslims around, and we were trying to get attention. It was hard initially. For example, at our first conference at Conway Hall, there were very few ex-Muslims there, and those that were there were hiding on the balcony, up where they couldn’t be photographed or filmed. People were like, “You’re talking about ex-Muslims – where are they?” Now, fifteen years on, things have changed incredibly in favour of this visibility and presence, and there are many ex-Muslims.

So I would say, yes, we are a small, a relatively new movement. We are not as established as other freethought, atheist, humanist, secularist movements in Europe and Britain, partly because a lot of us are refugees, new migrants, and we don’t have access to the same resources. CEMB is largely a volunteer-run organisation. All our funding comes from individual donors primarily, but people have been hit hard by Covid, so it’s really gone down, to the point where we are not sure we’ll be able to carry on next year. But somehow people are helping every time we’re about to close down. Our costs are quite minimal. It’s the rent, the website, publicity, stipend, and volunteer support and assistance. I’m the only paid person, on £10,000 a year.

EP: Where would you put yourself on the political spectrum?

MN: I’m a communist – so basically as far left as it goes. But not a communist that supports the Soviet Union or China or all of these so-called communist groups out there. I’m on the left spectrum of pro-refugees, pro-open borders, pro-freedom of expression. And also anti-racist and against bigotry against Muslims, or placing collective blame on all Muslims because of the religious right amongst them.

EP: In your view, is bigotry against Muslims a form of racism, or is it analogous to racism?

MN: I think it’s a form of racism. Of course there are all different races of Muslims. We all hear, whenever there is any criticism of ‘bigotry against Muslims’, they all say, well, Muslims are not a race, therefore we can’t be bigoted against Muslims, because there are also white Muslims, and so on. That’s the argument you often hear. But the reality is that it is seen as a brown religion, a black religion, a minority religion, and one that’s alien to Western societies.

EP: What are the CEMB’s biggest achievements over the last fifteen years?

I think the greatest achievement has been to highlight the fact that there are non-believers in the so-called Muslim community. I think that’s an important thing to do, because very often, the Left that supports Islam and sees Islamism as a revolutionary or anti-imperialist force, also sees Muslims as homogenous, and therefore, if you criticise Islam, you’re seen to be attacking an entire community of people. And for the far Right, anyone who is a Muslim is bringing in a foreign ideology into the country, and they’re destroying Western civilisation and that sort of thing. So both Left and Right look at the Muslim community or Muslim society, so-called, as homogenous.

EP: So they’re just generalising?  

MN: Yes, but what happens when you generalise about something is that you recognise those in power as its authentic representatives. Given the fact that we are living in a period of the rise of the [Islamist] religious Right, it’s they who are seen to be representatives and authentic Muslims, and therefore women who don’t wear the veil are viewed as westernised, or self-hating, and the veil is viewed as the authentic dress of those who come from a Muslim background. What the Left does is that it maintains the demands of the religious Right on the population. So the Left says you shouldn’t blaspheme, because it hurts sentiments, even if it’s people from Muslim backgrounds doing it.
So I think that achievement is something that’s quite valuable, and over the long run I think we will recognise it as such: the fact that we have shown that Muslim communities and societies are not homogenous. I think this is key in humanising people and in making them see that any given community or society is not reactionary, or progressive, all at the same time. There are differences of politics and opinions. People can see that in Britain, they can’t see it when it comes to the Muslim community.

EP: How far have the radical Left got into bed with the Islamist religious Right?

MN: This is something that I’ve had to deal with a lot: progressive student unions barring me from speaking, and saying I’m inflammatory and inciting hatred against Muslims. I think it comes from a good place, in general, because it’s the attitude that you want to not tolerate racism where you see it. I think that’s a good thing. But conflating criticism of the Islamic Right with an attack on Muslims in general is very problematic.

And not everything comes from a good place. There is also political self-interest for some of these groups: they are anti-imperialist, and they see Islamism as an anti-imperialist force, and therefore they side with it versus US or UK imperialism.

EP: Is Islamism anti-imperialist?

MN: It is an imperialist force in and of itself. It has eradicated cultures and art, music, dress – it’s destroyed so much in all of the countries that it has gained access to and power over. The Left that supports it doesn’t see that it’s a counter-revolutionary force. It has eradicated Left and working-class movements in those societies.

EP: How did the Iranian revolution of 1979 affect you?

MN: I was born in 1966. When the Islamic regime was established in 1980 after the revolution, we left the country. We didn’t all leave together, because we couldn’t. My mum brought me to India to go to school, because they shut the schools down in Iran, and then my dad told her not to come back, so we stayed, and then my dad joined us later. We came to the UK in 1982, but we weren’t allowed to stay here, so we went to the US in 1983. I came back to the UK in 2000. My family is still in the US.

EP: What made you move to the UK?

MN: To be closer to Iran and my political party, which used to be the Worker-Communist Party. I left it a few years ago. Basically, I just got fed up.

EP: Are you affiliated to any political party now?

MN: No.

EP: What was it like growing up in Iran before the revolution?

MN: The Shah’s regime was a dictatorship, and the revolution was against this. There was a period when there was a lot of freedom, before the Islamic regime took complete power, which it did by massacring lots of people. I went to a mixed school, I wasn’t veiled, my family’s quite secular. Religion wasn’t really an issue for me. We didn’t fast during Ramadan. Some people in our family did, some didn’t. My grandmother sometimes wore the veil, sometimes didn’t. The first time I came across in-your-face religion was when the Islamic regime took over.

EP: Did you grow up as a believing Muslim?

MN: I was born a Muslim, the way people are out of no choice of their own, because of where you’re born. My father had a very strict Muslim upbringing. He still doesn’t eat pork, drink or gamble, and my grandfather was a cleric. My last name, Namazie, means ‘prayer’. But my father never required us to pray, to wear the veil, so I never felt that I was less because I was a girl. It’s also my family’s background. My mum is from Nepal. She was Christian, and she converted to Islam to marry my dad. All of my aunts and uncles from Iran, they’ve married Indians, Iranians, different types of people, so we’ve got quite a mixed family. Some prayed, some didn’t. I think it was like that in quite a lot of countries in the Middle East at that time. It was much more relaxed, and now it’s much more forced. Before, you could eat in front of someone who was fasting. Now, out of respect, you’re not supposed to. What happens with the religious Right is that it changes the demarcation line, makes it stricter and more difficult for people to pick and choose as they want.

EP: Would you be able to go back to Iran now?

No. I’ve had threats from the Iranian government, and also – it’s a long story. There is the possibility of being kidnapped. [Compare the alleged plot against the Iranian-born journalist Masih Alinejad.]

EP: In terms of your identity, how do you see yourself?

MN: I always believe that you are from where you live and that home is where you work and struggle. But the older I get, the more I miss Iran. It’s very strange, I can’t explain it – it’s very nostalgic and emotional.

EP: How did you become an ex-Muslim?

MN: I became an atheist many years ago, I don’t remember exactly when. It was gradual, for sure. By university I was an atheist. I never called myself ex-Muslim, I don’t even like the term. It’s just an idea that came up about being able to promote the idea that there is freethought and freethinkers amongst Muslims.

EP: How many people would you estimate are ex-Muslims around the world?

MN: We don’t really know the scale of it, but I do think that every family has an ex-Muslim. I think it’s much stronger where Islam is in power. You don’t see it as much because of the lack of freedom to express yourself. But if people said in the UK what they say in Iran about Islam, it would be considered very Islamophobic. One of the trending hashtags in Iran is #IShitOnIslam. Imagine having that here – it would be considered so inappropriate. That rage… You can see even from the response of government officials. The Egyptian government set up a partnership with the Ministry of Youth and Sports to combat atheism. Saudi Arabia considers atheism a form of terrorism. When Deeyah Khan did her documentary about us [Exposure: Islam’s Non-Believers, 2016], there were texts being sent to Muslims in Britain, warning them not to let their children see the film. Atheism is a real threat to these states.
Wall Above Maryam’s Desk In Her Office. Photo: Emma Park

EP: How connected are the different Islamist movements in different countries around the world, including the UK?

MN: They have their rivalries. There are some who are more supportive of Assad and the Islamic regime, or pro-Saudi, or the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. There are divisions, in the same way that you have far Right groups in the West that have differences of opinion and divisions. But they are one movement, because despite the differences, they fundamentally want very much the same thing.

EP: What do they want?

MN: They are nostalgic for some golden age of Islam. They want a Caliphate and sharia law, they want the ideal Islamic state as was the case when Mohammed was alive. What that means to them is the idea that doubt and freethought cannot be allowed. Women need to know their place in society. In Britain, they will say, we’re not for the execution of apostates, but they are for it in an ideal Islamic state. There’s a lot of doublespeak and propaganda to dupe people into thinking that they’re the nice version in Britain.

EP: How strong is the Islamist movement in Britain today?

MN: Britain is one of its strongholds. In a country where they’re not in state power, Britain is one of those countries where they are well-established. If we look at Islamists who have got access to positions of power in the UK, and if you look at the whole idea of sharia law, how we have so many sharia courts in this country, and despite various Parliamentary groups looking into this issue, there has never been a decision made on it. The government is always justifying it as people’s choice of religion, whereas it’s something very different and very sinister – it’s part of the political wing of the Islamist movement.

EP: Roughly how many sharia courts are there in the UK at present?

MN: There’s no set number, because they’re not registered. Not that I think they should be registered – it would be like registering FGM clinics. In some reports there have been up to a hundred. A lot of them are ad hoc, in mosques. It’s not like a registered court, where you would know the exact number. Sharia courts were only established in this country in the mid-80s. It goes back to our argument that it’s part of the religious Right movement. There were Muslims before in this country, none of them needed to go to sharia courts, they did not have to go.

EP: Not being a Muslim in terms of your religious beliefs, how do you see your Iranian side?

MN: For me, it’s the protest and the resistance. That makes me proudest to be Iranian. I think it’s a continuation of the original Iranian revolution, that was never allowed to achieve its goals. Look at the French revolution. It happened so long ago, but we still feel the effects of it today, when we talk about laïcité, or secularism in the proper sense, not in the wishy-washy British sense. So I think the revolution and its politicisation of society in Iran, to the extent that a majority of people were born under an Islamic regime, and are fighting it tooth and nail. I see that as a really proud history, and one that I am a part of.

EP: Do you have any favourite Iranian authors?

MN: I’m going to sound like a party hack, I’m not in the Worker Communist Party any more, but – the leader of that, Mansoor Hekmat, I became a communist because of him. I find his writing so human, and seeing the world in such a fundamental way. But there are also many great poets in Iran. There’s Ahmad Shamlou, who was very critical of the state, or a woman poet, Forough Farrokhzad, who was such a taboo-breaker.

EP: Is there a long history in Iran of criticising the state?

MN: Yes, definitely. And also a history of freethought. There is Sadegh Hedayat, he’s a well-known writer who is an atheist, very critical of religion. Also there’s a very funny character, it’s called Molla Nasreddin, which is famous in Iran, but also in Azerbaijan and other countries, and it’s a bumbling clergyman – all the cartoons are making fun of religion and religious rule. For example, he’s following a group of donkeys and they’re going to Mecca, that sort of anti-clericalism, like in Charlie Hebdo.

EP: Talking of Charlie Hebdo and laïcité, you mentioned that British secularism seems ‘wishy-washy’ by comparison to the French version. Would you be in favour of a more French approach over here?

MN: I think that’s the only approach. Not to say that I am completely supportive of the French government, I don’t think it is completely promoting laïcité, I think there’s a lot of politics as well involved. But the idea of the state being incompetent, where it has no position on religion, it’s separate completely, is hugely important. It’s not enough to be neutral.

EP: The idea that the state should not have any influence on politics?

MN: Any influence, but also on the educational system, in public policy. Faith schools, for example, are not good for children.

EP: Why should religion not have any influence on education or public policy?

MN: Faith and education seem to be antithetical to each other. Education should promote freethought, doubt, questioning. Faith is the opposite of that. Is it the role of an educational system, to teach people to be submissive, or to learn about dogma? I think not. Also religion shouldn’t have a place, for example, in a court of law or when making public policy. Why should there be faith-based health services? We all bleed the same. It’s just a way of helping to bring the religious right more into the public space, whereas it shouldn’t really have any space. That’s different from being neutral. A state should be playing an active role in combating religion. Yes, you have the right to your religion, but that’s very different from having a right to a religious school, or a right to faith-based services. Those are separate things.

EP: So, in your view, religious freedom should have certain limits?

MN: Yes, because religion is a private matter. That’s where there’s a problem, that for some reason, it’s as if religious freedom means you can shove your religion down everybody’s throat. You may have the freedom to believe in what you want, but when it comes to the public space, it’s not about a personal right any more, it’s about a right that imposes on society. If we recognise it as a private belief, it becomes a lot easier to manage it.

EP: Talking about Charlie Hebdo: how important are laughter and satire in promoting free speech?

MN: Charlie Hebdo is really important not just for French society but for all of us. I spoke at the third anniversary of the attacks on Charlie Hebdo. I was the only English speaker there, because you know how it’s been over here in supporting them: if there have been any media reports on the attacks, they don’t show the cartoons, they don’t show any of the images – that’s the whole point, isn’t it? They [Charlie Hebdo] have been left alone to a large extent, because it is that same idea that criticising Islam is detrimental to Muslims. The argument I made was that what Charlie Hebdo does is important for freethinkers from Muslim backgrounds, because it’s opening the space up for us as well. It means a lot to Islam’s non-believers, as well as its benefits for free speech in European countries.

EP: What is the best way in Britain of countering Islamist fundamentalism, while at the same time not promoting anti-Muslim bigotry?

MN: Islamism is part of UK foreign and domestic policy. How can you have relations with the Saudi government, or with the Pakistani or Iranian government, and then address Islamism in your own country? It’s impossible, because in order to justify your relationship with those countries, you’ve justified Islamism, so it makes it easier for it to grow roots here as well.

At the same time, the idea that we foreigners are never British citizens… The jihadi bride, Shamima Begum – the fact that her citizenship can be taken away says a lot about how this government views the ‘other’ and minorities. Even if you are born here, because your parents happen to be from Bangladesh you’re never part of this country. This idea is that you belong to the Muslim umma [the worldwide Muslim community] – the Muslim community, a Muslim country, you’re never really British. It gives people the feeling that they don’t belong, and also, the government itself is saying ‘You don’t belong’ with this policy.

EP: Since being in the UK, have you experienced racism yourself?

MN: Yes. The first time I experienced it was when we left India in 1982. We went to Bournemouth, because my dad knew someone there. We were walking down the street, and some lady was saying something, and my mum was waving to her, she thought she was just saying hello, and she was like, “You fucking foreigners, get out of this country!” So that was the first time. Since 2000, it’s, you know, the looks you get if you’re talking in another language – on the train, for example. It’s constantly being told, if you disagree with anything the UK government says, “Why don’t you just go home?” You never belong.

Since I’ve got a son now, my idea was always, “You’re British, you were born here, you’re not Iranian.” This was always my propaganda to him. Then he’s grown up, and he’s faced so much racism at school [in London]. I feel very sorry for him, because it affects him quite a lot. I guess you then feel like, who are you? You don’t belong anywhere. I can see why people feel so disillusioned, that they’re not part of British society.

EP:  Have you had women in stricter Muslim communities telling you of some of the problems they have had, or what it’s like being in that very repressive sort of environment in the UK?

MN: In the work I do with One Law for All, we have been talking to lots of women, gathering testimonies. We did quite a bit of that for the Parliamentary Committee that was going to be looking into sharia courts, that never did. [See Parliamentary discussion in May 2019.] It was before lockdown. We gathered testimonies, and I provided evidence to the Committee, and we did written submissions. In those situations, there are women who talk about the awful things that have happened to them in the sharia courts. People say, “The sharia courts are not stoning anyone to death, they’re not amputating them, they’re just dealing with marriage and divorce and child custody.” But those are pillars of women’s oppression in the family. So it trivialises what happens to women.

EP: Is it difficult for these women to integrate with other British people, non-Muslims, or into wider society?

MN: It is difficult, partly because some of the problems include the fact that men may have only married women in a nikah (an Islamic marriage), and so when there’s violence or divorce, the women don’t have any rights, because it was never a proper marriage – they were led to believe that it was. Plus if you’re looking at relationships where there’s coercion and violence, women are also kept very isolated. They may not even be able to speak the language, or have many friends outside, who the husband has given them permission to have relationships with. We’re talking about some of the most vulnerable people in society. They’re not protected and they’ve been left at the mercy of these sort of kangaroo courts.

EP: What’s the attitude of the Left?

MN: I think they think it’s people’s right to religion. But again, the counter-argument is, religion is a private matter.

We’ve talked of the way that racism and criticism of religion may be associated in some people’s minds. Is one of the problems with the approach of the Left that they’re so worried about racism that they are not able to tackle these issues of abuse within Muslim communities?

MN: It’s not all the Left. Practically everyone I work with is on the Left. A lot of ex-Muslim groups are also Left-leaning, though there are other groups too – and a lot of the women’s groups I work with are Left-leaning. A lot of the protest movements that we’re seeing in Iran or Afghanistan, they are Left-leaning as well. There is a very vibrant Left that is opposed to both fundamentalism and racism.
But there is that section of the Left that hides behind the idea of racism and bigotry, as a way of saying, we’re so concerned about racism, we’re going to support sharia courts and so on. But they’re not very concerned with the racism that ex-Muslims face, for example. If freethinkers are killed, suddenly they’re not so vocal about human rights. They see Islamism as a revolutionary and anti-imperialist force. It’s an uncomfortable ally, but one that they want.

EP: Where does the CEMB fit in with other freethought movements in the UK?

MN: With the National Secular Society we have very good relations. They are also seen to be a bit more upfront with this criticism of religion. Most of our relationships in the UK are with minority and women’s groups, such as Southall Black Sisters, or Centre for Secular Space, or Iranian and Kurdish women’s rights organisations. I can’t think of any freethought groups we work with. I think we are seen to be a bit much, in the sense of going too far. But I think you need to go too far, especially with what they’re doing [in Islamism] – for goodness’ sake, they’re decapitating people.

EP: Topless protests: why?

MN: Topless protest is the most difficult thing I have ever done. The first time I did it, I didn’t get my period for six months, that’s how stressed I felt. I still feel really embarrassed when my parents come and see pictures of it. The reason I did it is because Aliaa Magda Elmahdy in Egypt did it in 2012. She was under a lot of attacks and pressure, and I said, “Let’s do something in support of her, let’s do a topless calendar.” And of course, suggesting it, I had to do it myself. The idea is that a woman’s body is considered to be the source of chaos and fitna [‘Islam. Unrest or rebellion, esp. against a rightful ruler,’ S.O.E.D.], that’s why we have to be veiled. Therefore owning your body and using it as a tool for protest and liberation is really a great way of challenging this view that a woman’s body is obscene and shouldn’t be seen and heard.

EP: Final question: what limits should be set to free speech in the law?

MN: I don’t think there should be any limits. Hate speech is really subjective. A lot of what I say is considered hate speech. Even saying that the Holocaust didn’t happen, let people say that ridiculous, absurd thing, and let others be able to challenge it. The best way to combat bad speech is with good speech. You have to have the freedom to be able to listen to various views and to be able to challenge them. We’re living in an age where speech is considered akin to causing physical harm. We need to push for a period where you could say anything, you could have very challenging conversations with one another, and manage to still be friends, families, and move on with your life without getting your head chopped off.

Of course there’s a difference between hate speech and inciting violence. That’s where we should be drawing the line. But otherwise, I think we should let people talk. And it would be good for people to learn to listen as well. You don’t have to agree with everything you hear – that’s fine. This whole thing of safe spaces, of things being so harmful that you can’t say it anywhere, is problematic for society. It feeds into this idea that that’s why they have to cut your head off, because you’ve upset them so much. I’m upset by a lot of things I hear, but nobody would say I have a right to go and attack someone physically.

⏩Maryam Namazie is an Iranian-born activist and Spokesperson of the Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain and One Law for All.

‘The Best Way To Combat Bad Speech Is With Good Speech’

National Secular Society ✒ The national conversation following the brutal killing of David Amess suggests an unwillingness to tackle the Islamic extremism behind it, argues Stephen Evans.

The brutal killing of David Amess, stabbed to death at his Essex constituency surgery last week, was a vile, cowardly attack on decency and democracy.

The utter senselessness and callousness of this killing makes it hard to comprehend.

MPs and commentators have understandably expressed shock and grief, taken time to remember a man who dedicated his life to public service, and reflected on his legacy.

But the national conversation around Sir David's killing has also taken a bizarre turn on the issue of what caused it.

In no time at all commentators were blaming the "toxic political discourse" and "social media internet trolls" who hide behind anonymity while spreading hate.

This certainly is an issue, but it doesn't appear to be the issue, not as far as this murder is concerned.

The crime is being investigated as a terrorist incident. The suspect, Ali Harbi Ali, a Briton of Somali heritage, appears to have links to Islamic extremism, and was previously referred to the counterterrorist Prevent scheme. The Crown Prosecution Service will submit to the court that the murder had both religious and ideological motivations.

Continue reading @ National Secular Society.

Islamist Extremism Won’t Be Addressed By Ignoring It

Anthony McIntyre ✒ Last week the Swedish cartoonist Lars Vilks died in a car crash along with his two police bodyguards. 

He had lived under police protection since 2007 when one of his cartoons depicted Islam's prophet, Mohammed, as a hybrid composition of human and dog. The cartoon itself seemed to suggest an Islamic attack dog, the head of which was Mohammed. Just one take amongst many, it achieved what it presumably set out to - annoy the perpetually offended, who it never takes much to rile. 

Distasteful as it might have been in the eyes of some, it hardly amounted to such a diabolical abomination that the death penalty should be suggested as a suitable and proportionate response. 

Photo: Times
Still, this is what Vilks faced: ‘due to the fact that he made use of his freedom of expression and his artistic freedom’, theocrats in Iraq moved to put a bounty on his head, emulating the murder mission initiated by Iranian clerics when Salman Rushdie published his novel Satanic Verses. In 2009 and 2015 he had escaped murder attempts launched by religious zealots. During his time under siege other cartoonists were murdered by theocrats, most notably the staff of French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo.

This type of religious thuggery is what led to him travelling along a Swedish motorway with a police accompaniment.  

The artist and two bodyguards were travelling in an unmarked, bulletproof car that collided with a truck and burst into a fireball from which none of them escaped — a denouement as conclusive as the finale to any Scandi noir TV drama.

His death was reportedly greeted with online religious hatred from his critics along with conspiracy theories suggesting that he might have been the victim of murder. Swedish police have dismissed the murder suggestions while his partner suspects excessive police speed on a motorway, a habit the police there seem not averse to. 

That aside, his death has helped focus attention on the role of cartoonists in Sweden and the malevolence they come up against from hate theology. A number of figures in the Swedish cultural world told the Times of the fear that has crept into Swedish society. Artists and writers have found themselves on the receiving end of theocratic violence and other acts of intimidation designed to suppress their artistic expression.

The partner of Vilks, using a pseudonym for fear of what could happen to her, said “Sweden has changed a lot … It’s more and more difficult today to say what you think and feel. You have to be very careful.”

Supporters of Vilks felt that he did not get the support he felt he should have. According to the Times Sweden’s left-leaning political and cultural establishment had abandoned him. According to a friend “It was as if he had some disease ... If you touched him, you got it as well — became a persona non grata or a pariah.” This was the outworking of Sweden’s “politically correct appeasement mentality: defeatism in the face of zealots, people who play the ‘we are the oppressed’ card”.

As for Vilks, he defended himself against accusations that he had it in for Muslims and was a purveyor of what is termed Islamophobia:

I’m actually not interested in offending the prophet. The point is actually to show that you can. There is nothing so holy you can’t offend it.

This is at the heart of the matter and typical of a healthy secular outlook. If society cannot mock ideas of whatever hue then it will inexorably be corroded and cornered by those behind the ideas that cannot be mocked.

Not what we would want from a society that prioritises secularism and democracy over obscurantism and which allows the profane to co-exist with the sacred without having to defer to it.

⏩ Follow on Twitter @AnthonyMcIntyre.

Death Of A Cartoonist

UnHerd ✒ This week the Manchester Arena inquiry heard that the bomber was seen “praying” before his attack which claimed 22 innocent lives.

Liam Duffy
10-Sep-2020

Reporting of this detail caused a stir on social media, and some headlines were changed as a result.

The concern was that reporting on Abedi praying would lead to ordinary Muslim prayer being seen as a “predictor” or “indicator” of terrorism, and therefore increased suspicion and profiling of Muslims.

So is it relevant that Salman Abedi was praying? The obvious answer is — as someone about to kill themselves and others in exchange for eternal reward — yes, because every action Abedi took in the lead-up to his attack is relevant.

Prayer alone, of course, would predict no such thing and be no reason for suspicion. But security professionals are trained to be alert to behavioural patterns that are outside the norms of a given situation. A young male loitering unaccompanied by a busy music venue for over an hour with an oversized backpack amid a heightened jihadist terror threat would have been well outside typical crowd behaviour at the time, even without praying.  

Continue reading @ UnHerd.

Why Is The Manchester Bomber’s Praying Not Relevant?

UnHerd ✒ The political ideology that feeds terrorist violence cannot be explained away by religion or colonial history.

Liam Duffy 

President Macron’s hate affair with the American media continues, if a recent New York Times article is anything to go by. The president is not happy, and thinks the Anglo-Saxon press fails to understand French laïcité and the universalist model, as opposed to the Anglosphere model of multiculturalism, with its distinct roots in the British Empire. While this is undoubtedly true, the more pressing issue might be the gulf in understanding of Islamism, the target of Macron’s campaign.

France’s introduction of new measures to combat so-called “Islamist separatism” and the decisions to raid Islamist organisations and dissolve others in the aftermath of Samuel Paty’s murder have caused consternation among Western elites. Over the weekend, Twitter was awash with comparisons between France’s policies and the plight of Jews in 1930s Germany. 

These conspiratorial takes not only demonstrate a deep moral and intellectual confusion, but at this point they are actively endangering French citizens — almost 300 of whom have been slaughtered in the streets by Islamist murderers in the last few years. 

Continue reading @ UnHerd.

Macron Is Right About Islamism

Kenan Malik ✒ The French president’s response to Islam is shot through with hypocrisy and illiberalism.
 
Letters complaining about newspaper articles are unexceptional. Not so letters from the Élysée Palace. Last week, the Financial Times published, after the killing of teacher Samuel Paty in Paris and of churchgoers in Nice, an article by its Europe correspondent, Mehreen Khan, critical of French president Emmanuel Macron’s policies towards Islam. Macron’s desire to “use the state to prescribe a ‘correct’ religion”, she wrote, has “more in common with authoritarian Muslim leaders than enlightenment values of separating church and state”.

Macron responded with a letter-cum-article defending himself and his policies and accusing Khan of “misquoting” him – he insisted he had never talked of “Islamic separatism”, as Khan suggested, only of “Islamist separatism”. By the time the FT published Macron’s letter, however, it had removed Khan’s article for “factual inaccuracies”. One could read the criticism but not what was being criticised.

Newspapers do sometimes excise articles – I’m sure the Observer has done so. But they should do so only in truly exceptional circumstances, and then give a full account as to why. The removal of offending articles after criticism is, however, becoming a more acceptable part of our culture.

 Continue reading @ The Guardian.

Fanatics Have No Right To Censor Critics ➖ But Neither Does Emmanuel Macron

Matt Treacy ✒ As I write, the news media is reporting that at least 4 people have died and 17 more have been injured as a result of what has been declared to be a terror attack by Islamist terrorists in Vienna last night. 

 
This comes after the recent murders of a teacher in Paris and 3 people attending a Catholic Church in Nice, and ends a month of a sustained Islamist offensive that has continued to claim Christian victims in Nigeria and other African countries. In the last 30 days, over 800 people have been murdered in 153 separate attacks in 22 countries.

 
There are fears that Europe may be at the beginning of an organised attempt to escalate terror at the current time. Of course, European states and the political elite will wring their hands over all of this but what will be the response?

In relation to Ireland, will there be a proposal this week to have a minute’s silence in remembrance of the latest victims? Not just in Europe but across the globe. There was a minute’s silence on June 3 in following the death of George Floyd in custody of police in Minneapolis.

On that occasion, a debate on Covid-19 of all things on the same day led to a litany of self-aggrandizing speeches by TDs from all sides, and of course as in the case of the Greens, Sinn Féin and the communists linking it to racism in Ireland. Mary Lou McDonald even declared later that anyone who opposed allowing asylum seekers to enter the country without the inconvenience of being processed in Direct Provision was “no good at all.”

Mattie McGrath rightly described the whole thing as “jumping on the bandwagon, showboating and nonsense.” He also contrasted the virtue signalling with the fact that the same people were supporting the closing down of the country during the first Covid lockdown.

All of this, however, goes well beyond the usual gesturing by the liberals of all parties. Since then we have had the same people, as reported here, raising a similar hue and cry in the Dáil because this state did not take an unspecified number of people from the refugee camp on Lesbos after the refugees themselves had burned it down.

The Islamist who murdered the three people in Nice had arrived there from the refugee camp on the Italian island of Lampedusa. He is Tunisian. Tunisia is not recognised as a state from which it is valid for its citizens to claim asylum. Indeed, it is experiencing its own problems with migrants who come to Tunisia from other African countries as a stopping off point en route to the free stuff in Europe.

Our Pollyannas think that people like Brahim Aouissaoui, the Nice Islamist murderer, should be allowed leave the camps and travel to wherever takes their fancy. Matteo Salvini of the Italian Lega Nord said that Italy must recognise its culpability in allowing Aouissiaoui and others to land in Lampedusa and then leave.

Will our advocates for “unaccompanied minors” recognise that they too bear a moral responsibility for facilitating the unchecked entry of illegal migrants into Europe? Will they even say anything about the latest attacks and perhaps recognise the connection between what they support and its consequences?


Matt Treacy has published a number of books including histories of the Republican Movement and of the Communist Party of Ireland.
He is currently working on a number of other books; His latest one is a novel entitled Houses of Pain. It is based on real events in the Dublin underworld. Houses of Pain is published by MTP and is currently available online as paperback and kindle while book shops remain closed.

Will There Be A Minute’s Silence In The Dáil For The Latest Victims Of Islamic Terror?

France 24 ✒ ‘Islam is being hyper-politicised in France, but Muslims are not in the debate'.

Benjamin Dodman

The resurgence in attacks by radical Islamists on French soil has rekindled fierce debates on Islam, secularism and discrimination in France, home to Europe’s largest Muslim population. But Muslim voices are largely kept out of the conversation. 

On October 2, the day President Emmanuel Macron unveiled his plan to fight “Islamist separatism” in France, the mayor of the Paris suburb of Trappes, 35-year-old Ali Rabeh, was invited by French broadcaster CNews to discuss Macron’s proposed measures to root out radical Islam from France’s most stricken banlieues.

Rabeh began by calling for more police officers and public services in his town of 32,000 inhabitants, a working-class and ethnically diverse municipality with the unwanted distinction of having seen more homegrown jihadists travel to Syria, per capita, than any other in France.

The conversation soon veered into acrimony when one of the channel’s regular commentators quizzed the mayor about the prevalence of political Islam in Trappes, “a territory lost to the Republic”. He asked Rabeh whether he was even aware that Sharia law was applied there.

“There is no Sharia law in Trappes, nor anywhere in France,” a flustered Rabeh hit back. 

Continue reading @ France 24.

Islam Is Being Hyper-Politicised In France

UnHerd ✒ Targeted by fundamentalists, the French are shocked by the lack of support from their American and British friends.

Liam Duffy 

When Charlie Hebdo was struck in 2015, France was defiant. When blood soaked the floors of the Bataclan later that year, France despaired. Now, after seeing a schoolteacher assassinated for simply doing his job, for doing what the Republic asked of him, France is furious.

For France, the time of hashtag solidarity and “Don’t Look Back in Anger” has passed. After years of terrible bloodshed on its streets, the usual lines and excuses are well worn out among French audiences. Now, France is clearly staking out its position: that the jihadist terror they’ve endured — more than any country in Europe — is a product of the growth of Islamist ideology inside its own borders, and the cultural chasm it creates.

In a speech to honour the slain schoolteacher, the French President himself could barely hold back his emotions, while in private he is said to be ready for a “fight to the death” with Islamists. His interior minister has denounced “Islamist barbarism” and said it’s time for Islamists to feel the fear and shock of France’s actions, not the other way around. The public, too, wants real action.

Continue reading @ UnHerd.

Why Is The Anglo Media Portraying France As The Villain?

Maryam Namazie speaks out against the theocratic murder of a French school teacher. 

The focus on limits to free speech when a teacher has been decapitated is like focusing on a woman’s skirt when she has been raped. One does not cause the other.

Your focus on speech offends me – the difference is I don’t threaten or kill for my offended sensibilities.

The problem is murder not speech.

 
⏩Maryam Namazie is an Iranian-born activist and Spokesperson of the Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain and One Law for All.

The Problem Is Murder Not Speech

UnHerd ✈ Samuel Paty, slaughtered for a lesson in tolerance, has become a martyr for the Republic.
 
John Lichfield

Samuel Paty’s lesson for 13 and-14 year-old pupils on tolerance and freedom of speech is a lesson for the whole of France. It’s a lesson for all of us.

The facts are appalling. They are grindingly familiar and disturbingly novel – a collision between the murderous certainties of fundamentalist Islam; a well-meaning school lecture; and the mendacious, conflagratory power of the internet. On October 6, Mr Paty, 47, a much-liked history and geography teacher in a dull Paris suburb, produced for his middle school civics class a pair of the cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed which provoked the attack on Charlie Hebdo magazine five years ago.

How can publishing such cartoons be justified, he asked the teenagers, if they offend people of the Islamic faith? Where does the freedom of expression end and respect for others’ feelings begin?

These questions are not easy, Mr Paty explained. That is why fundamental principles exist in democratic states such as France to help people of different faiths and opinions to get along without murdering one another (as they have in not-so-distant parts of French history). The complexities are the lesson. But this lesson cost Mr Paty his life. Ten days later he was dead – decapitated by a 19-year-old Chechen refugee to France as he walked home from school.

Continue reading @ UnHerd. 

Is France’s Secularism Worth Dying For?

Washington Post ➨ A high school teacher in a Paris suburb was decapitated Friday afternoon, French authorities said, in an attack that occurred after the teacher had allegedly shown caricatures of the prophet Muhammad to his students … 


... Police shot the suspect in a nearby town, killing him, said French police sources cited in news reports. 

France’s national anti-terror prosecutor immediately opened an investigation for “murder in connection with a terrorist enterprise” and “criminal terrorist association.” French President Emmanuel Macron later visited the crime scene, and Interior Minister Gerard Darmanin returned to Paris from an official visit to Morocco.

“They will not pass,” Macron said, speaking at the scene. “Obscurantism and the violence that goes with it will not win. They won’t divide us.”

The victim was identified as a high school history and geography teacher. Parents in the area had recently complained that a local teacher had shown students caricatures of the prophet Muhammad as part of a lesson on freedom of expression, France’s BFM television reported.

Continue reading @ Washington Post.

Teacher In Paris Suburb Decapitated


From The Times Police have told a French teenager to go into hiding after she received death threats for insulting Islam.

By Adam Sage
The 16-year-old told French media agencies that at one point, she “was receiving 200 messages of pure hatred a minute” after getting involved in an online spat.

The 16-year-old has been advised to stay away from her lycée (sixth-form college) in southeast France after calls on the internet for her to be killed, raped or attacked.

The girl, named only as Mila, is understood to have been told by officials that she should avoid being seen in public until the controversy fades. She is being given psychological support by the local prosecutor’s office.

Prosecutors said two separate criminal inquiries were under way, the first to track the authors of threats to kill and rape the teenager, the second to determine whether her comments amounted to the offence of hate speech.

The case risks widening the gulf between mainstream French society and the country’s five to six million Muslims who often claim they suffer discrimination on a greater scale than their counterparts in the UK.

Read more @  The Times.

French Teenager In Hiding After Insulting Islam Online

Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)