Displaying items by tag: Islamophobia

In the last hours of Theresa May's administration, the Government appointed Imam Qari Asim as an adviser on Islamophobia. Earlier this year he indicated that he would support laws banning speech that Muslims find offensive. He argued that although Muslims should obey the law of the land most of the time, he would like the law to accommodate Islamic ideas. For example, he would like to see polygamy legalised, and inheritance to favour male heirs in line with sharia principles. He also supports Islamic finance with its radical view that interest should be banned, and has backed Pakistani radical cleric Khadim Rizvi who supported the death penalty for Aasia Bibi. Although the government has ruled out adopting the Islamophobia definition, many believe his appointment raises even more concerns for free speech.

Over forty representatives from a wide range of religious and non-religious backgrounds have written an open letter to the Home Secretary, warning against adopting a proposed definition of Islamophobia. They say the definition is ‘deeply problematic’ and ‘flawed’, and that officially adopting it could create ‘a backdoor blasphemy law’, restricting anyone from legitimately criticising Islamic beliefs or practices. Yet it has already been adopted by several political parties and local councils. One signatory, Tim Dieppe of Christian Concern, said, ‘The problem with the term “Islamophobia” is that it inevitably conflates the religion with the people. It may be that attempting to define this term in ways that will not restrict free speech turns out to be extremely difficult, if not impossible.’

The senior member of the world’s biggest Muslim organisation has insisted that Islamophobia is not rooted in racism and that the distrust of Muslims in many countries is a result of Islamist extremism and terrorism throughout the world.

Yahya CholilStaquf, the secretary-general of Indonesia’s Nahdlatul Ulama movement, which claims to have more than 90 million adherents, wrote in an article in Britain’s Daily Telegraph saying that the traditional Muslim mindset needed to change.

He called for a rejection of Islamic orthodoxy, condemning it as “obsolete and problematic” and “fuelling violence on both sides”.

 The influential cleric wrote that the All-Party Parliamentary Group on British Muslims was “factually incorrect” in linking the definition of the word “Islamophobia” to racism, and that it was “counter-productive” to do so.

“The truth, we recognise, is that jihadist doctrine, goals and strategy can be traced to specific tenets of orthodox, authoritative Islam and its historic practice. This includes those portions of sharia that promote Islamic supremacy, encourage enmity towards non-Muslims and require the establishment of a caliphate. It is these elements – still taught by most Sunni and Shiite institutions – that constitute a summons to perpetual conflict,” he wrote.

Staquf stated that Brenton Tarrant’s murder spree, which killed 50 people at two mosques in Christchurch, New Zealand, on 15 March, was part of an “ancient cycle of violence” and that the killer shared a “historical framework” with many Muslims that went back almost 1,400 years. He explained the traditional Islamic teaching that “Muslims and non-Muslims are and shall remain in a state of permanent conflict, until the end of time (according to Islamists) or the disappearance of Islam (according to advocates of a ‘counter-jihad’).”

“If Muslims do not address the key tenets of Islamic tradition that encourage this violence, anyone – at any time – can harness them to defy what they claim to be illegitimate laws and butcher their fellow citizens, whether they live in the Islamic world or the West. This is what links so many current events, from Syria to the streets of London,” he added.

More:https://barnabasfund.org/en/news/leading-muslim-cleric-says-islamophobia-a-result-of-islamic-extremism-and-not-racism

Pray with many others globally for 30 Days - for the Muslim world this Ramadan. See the article.

ACT for America, an Islamophobic lobby group, has published a 129-page booklet ‘The Art of Chapter Leadership’ which includes advice on how to ‘map’ kindergarten to 12th grade school boards for suspected Islamists, and how to monitor Muslim activities in universities, particularly in political science departments and Middle East studies departments which they say ‘have a real likelihood of being funded by the Saudis and have professors who are pro-Sharia, anti-America and anti-Israel.’ A former FBI agent, who provides counterterrorism training to US law enforcement, was secretly filmed telling police officers that Muslim students in universities pose a threat of ‘jihad’ and that a prominent civil rights group is a front for ‘terrorist’ organisations. He also stated publicly that Muslim Americans should not have the same rights as other citizens, and claimed he was in direct and regular contact with attorney-general Jeff Sessions, who serves under Donald Trump.

The commanding victory of populist parties in the national election will reverberate beyond Austria. Sebastian Kurz, when foreign minister, closed routes through the Balkans for immigrants, and his party spearheaded laws banning full-face Muslim veils in public spaces. His political rise follows the far right gaining influence in Germany last month. Nationalist and anti-immigrant forces across the EU are feeling emboldened by the vote, which could bring the Islamophobic Freedom Party to power in a coalition government in Vienna. The People's Party want to fine migrants who refuse to attend integration and language classes, but the Freedom Party calls for dropping such classes completely. It has also pledged to deny migrants access to welfare payments altogether. If the two parties became coalition partners, Austrian politics would take a seismic shift to the right.

Right-wing extremists have defended the attack in London on 19 June, in which a man deliberately drove a van into a group of Muslim worshippers after late-night Ramadan prayers, by claiming: ‘This is war: we have the right to fight back’. There are concerns that British authorities are ‘way behind’ the increasingly sophisticated tactics used by such extremists to radicalise followers online. They now cover their tracks by using untraceable mobile phones and services that conceal their computer’s location - leaving the police unable to find them. They have also used less regulated social networks like the Russian-based VKontakte (VK) service to build up ‘spider’s web’ groups of like-minded individuals who then support and radicalise each other. Meanwhile, many Muslims have expressed fears that they are not safe, and the Muslim Council of Great Britain has called for extra security around mosques, describing the attack as ‘the most violent manifestation’ of Islamophobia.

Shaykh Dr Umar Al-Qadri, head imam of an educational and cultural centre in Eire, said there would be ‘a backlash’ against a new European Court of Justice (ECJ) ruling allowing employers to ban staff from wearing hijabs and other religious symbols in the workplace. He was responding to the ruling on the EU directive on equal treatment in employment and occupation. A Muslim woman in Belgium had challenged a company policy prohibiting the wearing of a hijab, on grounds of discrimination. However, the ECJ ruled that an internal rule prohibiting the visible wearing of any political, philosophical or religious sign does not constitute direct discrimination. Dr Al-Qadri said the ruling was ‘a very serious threat to the principles of tolerance, equality and religious freedom in Europe’. He warned that Islamophobia is increasing, especially in Belgium, France, and the Netherlands.

Motions against ‘Islamophobia’ are not legally binding but extremists are demanding them as laws. Shutting out any criticism against hardliner behaviour in the West actually means giving extremists a license to commit atrocities. Resolution M-103, seeking to condemn ‘Islamophobia,’ was introduced recently in Canada’s House of Commons, sparking a controversy. A similar motion, labelled M-37, was later tabled in the Ontario provincial legislature and was passed. Like its predecessor it demanded that lawmakers condemn all forms of Islamophobia and reaffirm support for the Anti-Racism Directorate, in order to address and prevent systemic racism across government policy, programmes and services. It is feared that hardliners supporting this form of censorship and other restrictions required by Islamic sharia law aim to blur the line between genuine bigotry and criticism of core problems such as anti-Semitism, violence against women and minors, female genital mutilation, child marriage, etc. Canada already has laws to curb any discrimination or abuse against individuals or groups.