As it becomes clearer that the terrorists involved in the attempted attacks in London and Glagow were all doctors and working for the NHS, it is interesting that just about a month earlier Muslim doctors and conservatives met to discuss their problems.
The Conservative Muslim Forum organised a meeting between Muslim doctors and the Conservative Shadow ministers on May 16. The meeting discussed the "current crisis in the NHS" and what needed to be done to "stop the growing disillusionment of people working in the Public Health sector."
Conservative Shadow Secretary of State for Health, Andrew Lansley, told the 60 Muslim doctors that "doctors from the Asian subcontinent make a terrific contribution to the NHS." He then lashed out at Health Secretary, Patricia Hewitt's allegation in March that some Muslim GPs are guilty of breaking the confidentiality of their patients. She told Pulse magazine, "I have had Muslim women give me chapter and verse on very distressing breaches of confidentiality by Muslim GPs. Some women patients feel they cannot trust their own GP, who knows the patient's extended families." Her comments were condemned by the Muslim community.
Dr Reefat Drabu, a GP in Hampshire and Chair of the Muslim Council of Britain's Social and Family Affairs Committee, told The Muslim News, "The allegations are serious and so far there has been no evidence to back them."
Lansley said at the meeting, "The last thing we should do is question their professional integrity. I was shocked that Patricia Hewitt - without providing evidence - described Muslim doctors as being prone to disclosing confidential information."
Chairman of the Conservative Muslim Forum, Lord Mohammed Sheikh, in his welcome speech, said his Party was "engaging with all sections of British society and is willing to listen and learn. If we all work together there will be better progress for all society."
The meeting was welcomed by the Muslim doctors. "It was a useful meeting as we had direct interaction with the Conservative Secretary of State. Normally we don't get a chance to meet and discuss about our concerns with ministers. It helped us to clear misconceptions about the Tory Party's issues on the NHS," Chairman of British Pakistani Physician Association, Dr Khalid Khan, told The Muslim News.
Those attending the meeting from the Conservatives' Health team included: Tim Loughton MP, John Baron MP, Dr Andrew Murrison MP, Stephen O'Brien MP, Lord Howe and Lord McCol.
Source: Muslim News (English)
UK: A plea to fellow Muslims
The title of this article is "My plea to fellow Muslims: You must renounce terror", but Hassan Butt is saying much more than this. He is asking Muslims to recognize that Islamist terrorism exists and to deal with it on a religious level. This is a long article, but is worth every word.
As the bombers return to Britain, Hassan Butt, who was once a member of radical group Al-Muhajiroun, raising funds for extremists and calling for attacks on British citizens, explains why he was wrong
When I was still a member of what is probably best termed the British Jihadi Network, a series of semi-autonomous British Muslim terrorist groups linked by a single ideology, I remember how we used to laugh in celebration whenever people on TV proclaimed that the sole cause for Islamic acts of terror like 9/11, the Madrid bombings and 7/7 was Western foreign policy.
By blaming the government for our actions, those who pushed the 'Blair's bombs' line did our propaganda work for us. More important, they also helped to draw away any critical examination from the real engine of our violence: Islamic theology.
Friday's attempt to cause mass destruction in London with strategically placed car bombs is so reminiscent of other recent British Islamic extremist plots that it is likely to have been carried out by my former peers.
And as with previous terror attacks, people are again articulating the line that violence carried out by Muslims is all to do with foreign policy. For example, yesterday on Radio 4's Today programme, the mayor of London, Ken Livingstone, said: 'What all our intelligence shows about the opinions of disaffected young Muslims is the main driving force is not Afghanistan, it is mainly Iraq.'
He then refused to acknowledge the role of Islamist ideology in terrorism and said that the Muslim Brotherhood and those who give a religious mandate to suicide bombings in Palestine were genuinely representative of Islam.
I left the BJN in February 2006, but if I were still fighting for their cause, I'd be laughing once again. Mohammad Sidique Khan, the leader of the 7 July bombings, and I were both part of the BJN - I met him on two occasions - and though many British extremists are angered by the deaths of fellow Muslim across the world, what drove me and many of my peers to plot acts of extreme terror within Britain, our own homeland and abroad, was a sense that we were fighting for the creation of a revolutionary state that would eventually bring Islamic justice to the world .
How did this continuing violence come to be the means of promoting this (flawed) utopian goal? How do Islamic radicals justify such terror in the name of their religion? There isn't enough room to outline everything here, but the foundation of extremist reasoning rests upon a dualistic model of the world. Many Muslims may or may not agree with secularism but at the moment, formal Islamic theology, unlike Christian theology, does not allow for the separation of state and religion. There is no 'rendering unto Caesar' in Islamic theology because state and religion are considered to be one and the same. The centuries-old reasoning of Islamic jurists also extends to the world stage where the rules of interaction between Dar ul-Islam (the Land of Islam) and Dar ul-Kufr (the Land of Unbelief) have been set down to cover almost every matter of trade, peace and war.
What radicals and extremists do is to take these premises two steps further. Their first step has been to reason that since there is no Islamic state in existence, the whole world must be Dar ul-Kufr. Step two: since Islam must declare war on unbelief, they have declared war upon the whole world . Many of my former peers, myself included, were taught by Pakistani and British radical preachers that this reclassification of the globe as a Land of War (Dar ul-Harb) allows any Muslim to destroy the sanctity of the five rights that every human is granted under Islam: life, wealth, land, mind and belief. In Dar ul-Harb, anything goes, including the treachery and cowardice of attacking civilians.
This understanding of the global battlefield has been a source of friction for Muslims living in Britain. For decades, radicals have been exploiting these tensions between Islamic theology and the modern secular state for their benefit, typically by starting debate with the question: 'Are you British or Muslim?' But the main reason why radicals have managed to increase their following is because most Islamic institutions in Britain just don't want to talk about theology. They refuse to broach the difficult and often complex topic of violence within Islam and instead repeat the mantra that Islam is peace, focus on Islam as personal, and hope that all of this debate will go away.
This has left the territory of ideas open for radicals to claim as their own. I should know because, as a former extremist recruiter, every time mosque authorities banned us from their grounds, it felt like a moral and religious victory.
Outside Britain, there are those who try to reverse this two-step revisionism. A handful of scholars from the Middle East has tried to put radicalism back in the box by saying that the rules of war devised by Islamic jurists were always conceived with the existence of an Islamic state in mind, a state which would supposedly regulate jihad in a responsible Islamic fashion. In other words, individual Muslims don't have the authority to go around declaring global war in the name of Islam.
But there is a more fundamental reasoning that has struck me and a number of other people who have recently left radical Islamic networks as a far more potent argument because it involves stepping out of this dogmatic paradigm and recognising the reality of the world: Muslims don't actually live in the bipolar world of the Middle Ages any more.
The fact is that Muslims in Britain are citizens of this country. We are no longer migrants in a Land of Unbelief. For my generation, we were born here, raised here, schooled here, we work here and we'll stay here. But more than that, on a historically unprecedented scale, Muslims in Britain have been allowed to assert their religious identity through clothing, the construction of mosques, the building of cemeteries and equal rights in law.
However, it isn't enough for Muslims to say that because they feel at home in Britain they can simply ignore those passages of the Koran which instruct on killing unbelievers. By refusing to challenge centuries-old theological arguments, the tensions between Islamic theology and the modern world grow larger every day. It may be difficult to swallow but the reason why Abu Qatada - the Islamic scholar whom Palestinian militants recently called to be released in exchange for the kidnapped BBC journalist Alan Johnston - has a following is because he is extremely learned and his religious rulings are well argued. His opinions, though I now thoroughly disagree with them, have validity within the broad canon of Islam.
Since leaving the BJN, many Muslims have accused me of being a traitor. If I knew of any impending attack, then I would have no hesitation in going to the police, but I have not gone to the authorities, as some reports have suggested, and become an informer.
I believe that the issue of terrorism can be easily demystified if Muslims and non-Muslims start openly to discuss the ideas that fuel terrorism. (The Muslim community in Britain must slap itself awake from this state of denial and realise there is no shame in admitting the extremism within our families, communities and worldwide co-religionists.) However, demystification will not be achieved if the only bridges of engagement that are formed are between the BJN and the security services.
If our country is going to take on radicals and violent extremists, Muslim scholars must go back to the books and come forward with a refashioned set of rules and a revised understanding of the rights and responsibilities of Muslims whose homes and souls are firmly planted in what I'd like to term the Land of Co-existence. And when this new theological territory is opened up, Western Muslims will be able to liberate themselves from defunct models of the world, rewrite the rules of interaction and perhaps we will discover that the concept of killing in the name of Islam is no more than an anachronism.
Source: Guardian (English)
As the bombers return to Britain, Hassan Butt, who was once a member of radical group Al-Muhajiroun, raising funds for extremists and calling for attacks on British citizens, explains why he was wrong
When I was still a member of what is probably best termed the British Jihadi Network, a series of semi-autonomous British Muslim terrorist groups linked by a single ideology, I remember how we used to laugh in celebration whenever people on TV proclaimed that the sole cause for Islamic acts of terror like 9/11, the Madrid bombings and 7/7 was Western foreign policy.
By blaming the government for our actions, those who pushed the 'Blair's bombs' line did our propaganda work for us. More important, they also helped to draw away any critical examination from the real engine of our violence: Islamic theology.
Friday's attempt to cause mass destruction in London with strategically placed car bombs is so reminiscent of other recent British Islamic extremist plots that it is likely to have been carried out by my former peers.
And as with previous terror attacks, people are again articulating the line that violence carried out by Muslims is all to do with foreign policy. For example, yesterday on Radio 4's Today programme, the mayor of London, Ken Livingstone, said: 'What all our intelligence shows about the opinions of disaffected young Muslims is the main driving force is not Afghanistan, it is mainly Iraq.'
He then refused to acknowledge the role of Islamist ideology in terrorism and said that the Muslim Brotherhood and those who give a religious mandate to suicide bombings in Palestine were genuinely representative of Islam.
I left the BJN in February 2006, but if I were still fighting for their cause, I'd be laughing once again. Mohammad Sidique Khan, the leader of the 7 July bombings, and I were both part of the BJN - I met him on two occasions - and though many British extremists are angered by the deaths of fellow Muslim across the world, what drove me and many of my peers to plot acts of extreme terror within Britain, our own homeland and abroad, was a sense that we were fighting for the creation of a revolutionary state that would eventually bring Islamic justice to the world .
How did this continuing violence come to be the means of promoting this (flawed) utopian goal? How do Islamic radicals justify such terror in the name of their religion? There isn't enough room to outline everything here, but the foundation of extremist reasoning rests upon a dualistic model of the world. Many Muslims may or may not agree with secularism but at the moment, formal Islamic theology, unlike Christian theology, does not allow for the separation of state and religion. There is no 'rendering unto Caesar' in Islamic theology because state and religion are considered to be one and the same. The centuries-old reasoning of Islamic jurists also extends to the world stage where the rules of interaction between Dar ul-Islam (the Land of Islam) and Dar ul-Kufr (the Land of Unbelief) have been set down to cover almost every matter of trade, peace and war.
What radicals and extremists do is to take these premises two steps further. Their first step has been to reason that since there is no Islamic state in existence, the whole world must be Dar ul-Kufr. Step two: since Islam must declare war on unbelief, they have declared war upon the whole world . Many of my former peers, myself included, were taught by Pakistani and British radical preachers that this reclassification of the globe as a Land of War (Dar ul-Harb) allows any Muslim to destroy the sanctity of the five rights that every human is granted under Islam: life, wealth, land, mind and belief. In Dar ul-Harb, anything goes, including the treachery and cowardice of attacking civilians.
This understanding of the global battlefield has been a source of friction for Muslims living in Britain. For decades, radicals have been exploiting these tensions between Islamic theology and the modern secular state for their benefit, typically by starting debate with the question: 'Are you British or Muslim?' But the main reason why radicals have managed to increase their following is because most Islamic institutions in Britain just don't want to talk about theology. They refuse to broach the difficult and often complex topic of violence within Islam and instead repeat the mantra that Islam is peace, focus on Islam as personal, and hope that all of this debate will go away.
This has left the territory of ideas open for radicals to claim as their own. I should know because, as a former extremist recruiter, every time mosque authorities banned us from their grounds, it felt like a moral and religious victory.
Outside Britain, there are those who try to reverse this two-step revisionism. A handful of scholars from the Middle East has tried to put radicalism back in the box by saying that the rules of war devised by Islamic jurists were always conceived with the existence of an Islamic state in mind, a state which would supposedly regulate jihad in a responsible Islamic fashion. In other words, individual Muslims don't have the authority to go around declaring global war in the name of Islam.
But there is a more fundamental reasoning that has struck me and a number of other people who have recently left radical Islamic networks as a far more potent argument because it involves stepping out of this dogmatic paradigm and recognising the reality of the world: Muslims don't actually live in the bipolar world of the Middle Ages any more.
The fact is that Muslims in Britain are citizens of this country. We are no longer migrants in a Land of Unbelief. For my generation, we were born here, raised here, schooled here, we work here and we'll stay here. But more than that, on a historically unprecedented scale, Muslims in Britain have been allowed to assert their religious identity through clothing, the construction of mosques, the building of cemeteries and equal rights in law.
However, it isn't enough for Muslims to say that because they feel at home in Britain they can simply ignore those passages of the Koran which instruct on killing unbelievers. By refusing to challenge centuries-old theological arguments, the tensions between Islamic theology and the modern world grow larger every day. It may be difficult to swallow but the reason why Abu Qatada - the Islamic scholar whom Palestinian militants recently called to be released in exchange for the kidnapped BBC journalist Alan Johnston - has a following is because he is extremely learned and his religious rulings are well argued. His opinions, though I now thoroughly disagree with them, have validity within the broad canon of Islam.
Since leaving the BJN, many Muslims have accused me of being a traitor. If I knew of any impending attack, then I would have no hesitation in going to the police, but I have not gone to the authorities, as some reports have suggested, and become an informer.
I believe that the issue of terrorism can be easily demystified if Muslims and non-Muslims start openly to discuss the ideas that fuel terrorism. (The Muslim community in Britain must slap itself awake from this state of denial and realise there is no shame in admitting the extremism within our families, communities and worldwide co-religionists.) However, demystification will not be achieved if the only bridges of engagement that are formed are between the BJN and the security services.
If our country is going to take on radicals and violent extremists, Muslim scholars must go back to the books and come forward with a refashioned set of rules and a revised understanding of the rights and responsibilities of Muslims whose homes and souls are firmly planted in what I'd like to term the Land of Co-existence. And when this new theological territory is opened up, Western Muslims will be able to liberate themselves from defunct models of the world, rewrite the rules of interaction and perhaps we will discover that the concept of killing in the name of Islam is no more than an anachronism.
Source: Guardian (English)
Labels:
West vs. Islam
Amsterdam: Students to move to more religious school
Three elementary schools in Amsterdam-Oost belonging to the Muslim SIBA organization will be shut down at the end of august following a decision by State Secretary of Education Dijksma. Now Amsterdam alderman Buyne announced that the students, about 400 kids, will be able to go to the As-Siddieq school.
The municipality will check whether the As-Siddieq school can use the SIBA buildings.
SIBA Schools El Faroeq Omar, Abraham El Khaliel and At Taqwa will be shut down after years of financial problems, fraud and low educational achievements. Earlier attempts to bring the school into the Esprit group failed after the parents insisted on having a Muslim administration.
After Dijksma's decision at the end of May, the parents of 100 children signed them up to the As-Siddieq school. This school, which is knows as more orthodox than the SIBA schools, is also being watched by the education inspection due to earlier critical reports about quality and lack of citizenship education.
Alderman Buyne says she is worried about the quick growth of the As-Siddieq school, and is asking the State Secretary for extra supervision. It is not clear yet whether the teachers of the SIBA schools will continue to work in the new location.
Buyne says she is happy that a solution was found after much deliberation.
Source: Volkskrant (Dutch)
See also: Amsterdam: Three Muslim schools to close, Amsterdam: Dijksma against As-Siddieq school, Muslim school given last warning
The municipality will check whether the As-Siddieq school can use the SIBA buildings.
SIBA Schools El Faroeq Omar, Abraham El Khaliel and At Taqwa will be shut down after years of financial problems, fraud and low educational achievements. Earlier attempts to bring the school into the Esprit group failed after the parents insisted on having a Muslim administration.
After Dijksma's decision at the end of May, the parents of 100 children signed them up to the As-Siddieq school. This school, which is knows as more orthodox than the SIBA schools, is also being watched by the education inspection due to earlier critical reports about quality and lack of citizenship education.
Alderman Buyne says she is worried about the quick growth of the As-Siddieq school, and is asking the State Secretary for extra supervision. It is not clear yet whether the teachers of the SIBA schools will continue to work in the new location.
Buyne says she is happy that a solution was found after much deliberation.
Source: Volkskrant (Dutch)
See also: Amsterdam: Three Muslim schools to close, Amsterdam: Dijksma against As-Siddieq school, Muslim school given last warning
Labels:
School and Education
Belgium: No terror threat
There is currently no terror threat for Belgium. However, the federal police will be more vigilant on the Eurostar and the national and regional airports. This according to Jaak Raes of the crisis center of the Interior Ministry after the two foiled attack in London and the incident at the Glasgow airport.
Last night the Coordination body for threat analysis (OCAD) made an evaluation of the situation in Great Britain and investigated whether a possible threat exists for Belgium. Out of the analysis it appears that at the moment there is not.
"We did ask the federal police to be especially vigilant on the Eurostar, Brussels Airport and the regional airports, among which are Oostende, Wevelgem, Deurne and Gosselies," according to Raes. The heightened awareness means that more police will be present in the departures and arrivals halls of the airports. There will also be heightened supervision on the Eurostar.
Additionally there will be stricter border controls for passengers coming from the UK and either passing through Belgium or having Belgium as their final destination. Raes added that earlier investigation had shown that in such cases terrorists are likely to try and leave the UK and either come to Belgium, or try to travel to the rest of Europe through Belgium.
Source: HLN (Dutch)
See also: Belgium: Terror report
Last night the Coordination body for threat analysis (OCAD) made an evaluation of the situation in Great Britain and investigated whether a possible threat exists for Belgium. Out of the analysis it appears that at the moment there is not.
"We did ask the federal police to be especially vigilant on the Eurostar, Brussels Airport and the regional airports, among which are Oostende, Wevelgem, Deurne and Gosselies," according to Raes. The heightened awareness means that more police will be present in the departures and arrivals halls of the airports. There will also be heightened supervision on the Eurostar.
Additionally there will be stricter border controls for passengers coming from the UK and either passing through Belgium or having Belgium as their final destination. Raes added that earlier investigation had shown that in such cases terrorists are likely to try and leave the UK and either come to Belgium, or try to travel to the rest of Europe through Belgium.
Source: HLN (Dutch)
See also: Belgium: Terror report
Labels:
terrorism
The danger of political correctness
The past few weeks have seen demonstrations in Cologne for and against what will be Germany's largest mosque, with the right wingers drawing the most attention.
Of all the articles I've read about it, I found this quote to be the best representative of the trouble with political correctness . Nobody can deny that fundamentalist Muslims are a threat which needs to be addressed, but when people feel they can't even voice this fear, it is a sign that political correctness has become dangerous in itself.
"I'm just afraid of fundamentalist Muslims gaining more and more ground," says one female shop assistant. But it's hardly possible to voice this fear because of the risk of immediately being labeled right-wing, she says.
Source: Spiegel (English)
Of all the articles I've read about it, I found this quote to be the best representative of the trouble with political correctness . Nobody can deny that fundamentalist Muslims are a threat which needs to be addressed, but when people feel they can't even voice this fear, it is a sign that political correctness has become dangerous in itself.
"I'm just afraid of fundamentalist Muslims gaining more and more ground," says one female shop assistant. But it's hardly possible to voice this fear because of the risk of immediately being labeled right-wing, she says.
Source: Spiegel (English)
Labels:
Opinion,
West vs. Islam
UK: A note about working with extremists
Two months ago Robert Lambert, a senior London police official, told terrorism professionals in Denmark how the British approach terror. The Salafist extremists are not terrorists, he said, but rather people who share a different point of view. It is impossible to fight terrorism without working together with them and it would be cowardice not to seize the opportunity to do so.
This seemed to me to be an extremely lop-sided view. After all, police don't "cooperate" with Neo-Nazis in order to find out who the "real" extremists are. They don't cooperate with the mafia in order to find out who the contract killers are. They don't cooperate with people smugglers just because they happen to practice a trade that the country thinks is illegal. Why should it cooperate with subversives who openly call for the destruction of the state? Infiltrate, maybe, but actually cooperate?
Looking at the news reports about the attacks in London and Glasgow, and the fact that they were averted mostly by luck, I am therefore left to wonder: didn't the London police know about these attacks in advance? There are reports that the London attack was advertised on a Jihadi website just hours before it took place. With all the strong bonds forged between the London Police and the extremist Muslim community - didn't somebody notify the police?
See also: UK police: you can't fight terror without working with extremist Muslims
This seemed to me to be an extremely lop-sided view. After all, police don't "cooperate" with Neo-Nazis in order to find out who the "real" extremists are. They don't cooperate with the mafia in order to find out who the contract killers are. They don't cooperate with people smugglers just because they happen to practice a trade that the country thinks is illegal. Why should it cooperate with subversives who openly call for the destruction of the state? Infiltrate, maybe, but actually cooperate?
Looking at the news reports about the attacks in London and Glasgow, and the fact that they were averted mostly by luck, I am therefore left to wonder: didn't the London police know about these attacks in advance? There are reports that the London attack was advertised on a Jihadi website just hours before it took place. With all the strong bonds forged between the London Police and the extremist Muslim community - didn't somebody notify the police?
See also: UK police: you can't fight terror without working with extremist Muslims
Labels:
Radicalism,
terrorism,
West vs. Islam
UK: Confusion over hijab
Even the Muslim representatives in this article insist on calling the veil a "hijab" when it is obviously a niqab which covered the entire face.
It is also interesting to note that the Ramadhan Foundation is an organization set up to combat extremism and terrorism in the UK. This might be why they prefer to bungle up the terms between the more common Muslim veil and the hard-liner more Islamist niqab.
However, they are right at one point. England and Wale's judicial system does indeed see nothing wrong with a woman wearing a niqab in court: Guidance on the wearing of the full veil, or niqab, in court (they don't even bother to address a hijab).
A magistrate is facing an inquiry after refusing to deal with a defendant wearing a full Muslim veil, the Judiciary of England and Wales said yesterday.
Ian Murray walked out of the case at Manchester magistrates' court yesterday because Zoobia Hussain, 32, of Crumpsall, Manchester, was covered by a hijab.
Hussain's lawyer, Judith Hawkins, said her client was "shocked and distressed" and found Mr Murray's treatment of her "insensitive and unacceptable".
Miss Hawkins said she would submit a formal written complaint to the court on Monday. When the complaint is received, the judiciary will launch an internal investigation into Mr Murray's behaviour, a spokesman said.
Miss Hawkins said yesterday: "She [Hussain] remains shocked and distressed. She suffered hurt feelings and felt intimidated and deeply embarrassed by the treatment she received at court.
"She is also concerned for the feelings of others who were present in court.
"She feels that the court's treatment of her was insensitive, unacceptable and against the traditions of fairness and equality that we have come to expect from our system of justice.
"She is angry that, as a result of the ensuing publicity, she has now had to explain to her children what happened."
Hussain, who is charged with criminal damage, covered her entire face apart from her eyes when she faced the three magistrates.
Mr Murray, a taxi driver from Cheadle Hulme, Stockport, who has served on the bench for 12 years, felt the way she was dressed raised identity issues but left the hearing without explaining why.
Before he walked out, Miss Hawkins told the bench that her client, as a practising Muslim, covered herself in public places where men were present.
A statement from the Judiciary of England and Wales said: "Mr Murray is concerned about questions of identity when the full veil is worn in court.
"However, he agrees that he acted unwisely in disqualifying himself without giving reasons, and acknowledges that he should have sought the advice of his legal adviser in court, and discussed the provisions of the national guidelines with his colleagues on the bench, before taking action.
"Mr Murray is supportive of those of different faiths and cultural traditions and acknowledges and regrets his action could be misinterpreted."
The judiciary's guidelines indicate situations should be judged on a case-by-case basis. But they state there should be a "willingness to accommodate different practices and approaches to religious and cultural observance", provided "justice can be properly served".
A spokesman for the Ramadhan Foundation said: "It is despicable that the judiciary is ignoring the guidelines about the wearing of the hijab set out only in February by the Judicial Studies Board.
"They require that magistrates and judges be 'sensitive' to a woman's religious requirement to wear the hijab and work around it when possible."
Hussain's case was adjourned until July 18.
Source: Telegraph (English)
It is also interesting to note that the Ramadhan Foundation is an organization set up to combat extremism and terrorism in the UK. This might be why they prefer to bungle up the terms between the more common Muslim veil and the hard-liner more Islamist niqab.
However, they are right at one point. England and Wale's judicial system does indeed see nothing wrong with a woman wearing a niqab in court: Guidance on the wearing of the full veil, or niqab, in court (they don't even bother to address a hijab).
A magistrate is facing an inquiry after refusing to deal with a defendant wearing a full Muslim veil, the Judiciary of England and Wales said yesterday.
Ian Murray walked out of the case at Manchester magistrates' court yesterday because Zoobia Hussain, 32, of Crumpsall, Manchester, was covered by a hijab.
Hussain's lawyer, Judith Hawkins, said her client was "shocked and distressed" and found Mr Murray's treatment of her "insensitive and unacceptable".
Miss Hawkins said she would submit a formal written complaint to the court on Monday. When the complaint is received, the judiciary will launch an internal investigation into Mr Murray's behaviour, a spokesman said.
Miss Hawkins said yesterday: "She [Hussain] remains shocked and distressed. She suffered hurt feelings and felt intimidated and deeply embarrassed by the treatment she received at court.
"She is also concerned for the feelings of others who were present in court.
"She feels that the court's treatment of her was insensitive, unacceptable and against the traditions of fairness and equality that we have come to expect from our system of justice.
"She is angry that, as a result of the ensuing publicity, she has now had to explain to her children what happened."
Hussain, who is charged with criminal damage, covered her entire face apart from her eyes when she faced the three magistrates.
Mr Murray, a taxi driver from Cheadle Hulme, Stockport, who has served on the bench for 12 years, felt the way she was dressed raised identity issues but left the hearing without explaining why.
Before he walked out, Miss Hawkins told the bench that her client, as a practising Muslim, covered herself in public places where men were present.
A statement from the Judiciary of England and Wales said: "Mr Murray is concerned about questions of identity when the full veil is worn in court.
"However, he agrees that he acted unwisely in disqualifying himself without giving reasons, and acknowledges that he should have sought the advice of his legal adviser in court, and discussed the provisions of the national guidelines with his colleagues on the bench, before taking action.
"Mr Murray is supportive of those of different faiths and cultural traditions and acknowledges and regrets his action could be misinterpreted."
The judiciary's guidelines indicate situations should be judged on a case-by-case basis. But they state there should be a "willingness to accommodate different practices and approaches to religious and cultural observance", provided "justice can be properly served".
A spokesman for the Ramadhan Foundation said: "It is despicable that the judiciary is ignoring the guidelines about the wearing of the hijab set out only in February by the Judicial Studies Board.
"They require that magistrates and judges be 'sensitive' to a woman's religious requirement to wear the hijab and work around it when possible."
Hussain's case was adjourned until July 18.
Source: Telegraph (English)
Labels:
Muslim veil
Hague: Imam wants censorship committee
Imam Fawaz Jneid has Dutch nationality, but cannot speak Dutch. In the past he's been investigated for cursing Van Gogh just weeks before he was murdered.
The Netherlands does have double morals. Lying on an asylum form, as Hirsi Ali did, is grounds for losing your passport no questions asked, but being part of a radicalization network for Dutch Muslim terrorists is cause for debate.
The deputy national coordinator for anti-terrorism Lidewijde Ongering said this week that the Dutch anti-terror approach is unique since it is devoted both to combating terror and to preventing it. Ongering said that Islamist websites were being shut down. However this should also be applied to "live" radicals who hide behind the "freedom of speech" while they prepare the next generation of terrorists.
--
Imam Sheik Fawaz Jneid of the As-Soennah mosque in the Hague had asked for a committe which would decide which words can and can't be used in columns. He said that in a reaction to the commotion caused after the website of the mosque published harsh statements about professor and publicist Afshin Ellian.
The curses on the publicist were a reaction to a column by Ellian in which he wrote that Salafism, a radical and ultra-orthodox movement in Islam, should be destroyed root and branch ( in Dutch). "The statements of this man are too crazy for words. I ask for a committee which would examine what can and cannot be said in such columns," according to the imam.
Fawaz Jneid was himself under fire in the parliament on Wednesday. The VVD and PVV parties were upset that Ellian was described on the website of the mosque as a "vicious tumor" that "thanks to the double moral of the Netherlands can pump his poison in our society undisturbed." They demanded the resignation of the imam and would prefer to see his Dutch nationality removed.
The imam denies that he made these statements, which which were attributed to him. "I was indeed aware of the response, but not of its contents. I support the fact that there's a response to Ellian's piece, but I would have chosen other words myself. Ellian plays with fire, he calls for terrible things, and then it is best to call something back."
According to Fawaz Jneid he's the subject of a "witch hunt". "Nobody had problems with the statements of Ellian. Politicians and media attack me together while I did not make this response at all. There are people who want to make use of this type of incidents to get rid of me."
The imam says he will not start legal proceedings to fight the accusations against him. "I know that a court case from me can never be won. In the past I've started a case against two journalists, but nothing was heard from it."The Netherlands does have double morals. Lying on an asylum form, as Hirsi Ali did, is grounds for losing your passport no questions asked, but being part of a radicalization network for Dutch Muslim terrorists is cause for debate.
The deputy national coordinator for anti-terrorism Lidewijde Ongering said this week that the Dutch anti-terror approach is unique since it is devoted both to combating terror and to preventing it. Ongering said that Islamist websites were being shut down. However this should also be applied to "live" radicals who hide behind the "freedom of speech" while they prepare the next generation of terrorists.
--
Imam Sheik Fawaz Jneid of the As-Soennah mosque in the Hague had asked for a committe which would decide which words can and can't be used in columns. He said that in a reaction to the commotion caused after the website of the mosque published harsh statements about professor and publicist Afshin Ellian.
The curses on the publicist were a reaction to a column by Ellian in which he wrote that Salafism, a radical and ultra-orthodox movement in Islam, should be destroyed root and branch ( in Dutch). "The statements of this man are too crazy for words. I ask for a committee which would examine what can and cannot be said in such columns," according to the imam.
Fawaz Jneid was himself under fire in the parliament on Wednesday. The VVD and PVV parties were upset that Ellian was described on the website of the mosque as a "vicious tumor" that "thanks to the double moral of the Netherlands can pump his poison in our society undisturbed." They demanded the resignation of the imam and would prefer to see his Dutch nationality removed.
The imam denies that he made these statements, which which were attributed to him. "I was indeed aware of the response, but not of its contents. I support the fact that there's a response to Ellian's piece, but I would have chosen other words myself. Ellian plays with fire, he calls for terrible things, and then it is best to call something back."
According to Fawaz Jneid he's the subject of a "witch hunt". "Nobody had problems with the statements of Ellian. Politicians and media attack me together while I did not make this response at all. There are people who want to make use of this type of incidents to get rid of me."
Source: Telegraaf (Dutch)
See also: The Hague: Imam claims he's being threatened, Sheikh Fawaz Jneid of the As Soennah Mosque wants the state to prosecute parliament member Geert Wilders
Labels:
Mosques and Imams,
West vs. Islam
Norway: Measures against female circumcision
A 24-hour crisis line, an information campaign at the airport, passport denial and planned health screenings of young girls at risk are among steps being taken by Norwegian officials to prevent female genital mutilation. Norway's center-left government unveiled a list of 14 emergency measures they're putting into place immediately, in an effort to keep girls from being sent out of the country for the procedure many describe as barbaric. The measures come after state television channel NRK broadcast a shocking report last weekend that nearly 200 girls living in Norway have been sent by their own families to Somalia in recent years, to undergo female circumcision. The practice is illegal in Norway and the country has had a law for years preventing it. Prosecution has been minimal, however, with only a handful of cases brought to court. Now officials are trying to crack down and enforce the law. That can include preventing girls at risk from leaving the country, if their families are suspected of sending them abroad to be circumcised. "Skin color and travel destinations won't be enough," Justice Minister Knut Storberget of the Labour Party was quick to point out. "The authorities must have concrete suspicions that circumcision is planned, in order for the family to be denied passports." Storberget promises, tough, "more binding" cooperation between the police and local township officials. The government will also launch a public information campaign in local taxis and on the local public transport system. A 24-hour phone line is being set up to take calls from potential victims or members of the public wanting to report cases of suspected circumcision. The number is 02800. Mandatory genital screenings for girls at risk are proposed, but that must be approved by Parliament, which is currently on summer recess. Source: Aftenposten (English)
See also: Norway: Responses to female circumcision, Norway: Somali circumcisers admit circumcising Norwegian girls
See also: Norway: Responses to female circumcision, Norway: Somali circumcisers admit circumcising Norwegian girls
Labels:
Health
Norway: Responses to female circumcision
NRK's segment on female circumcisions on Norwegian-Somali girls in Somalia has caused a stir in Norway. I have collected the response which appeared in the online press the past few days and summarized them according to the various ideas.
"I had never thought that there were so many. This goes against the indications I get from Somali mothers," says midwife Sara Kahsai.
Kahsai works at the Norwegian Center for Minority Health Research (NAKMI) and has conducted a study in the past about complications and treatment after female genital mutilation.
"We had hoped the attitude towards circumcision was changing and when I speak with Somali mothers they say that they will not expose their children to this. The reports of NRK are a setback for us," she says.
Kahsai stresses that she cannot confirm the numbers that were presented and thinks there's reason to be skeptical about them, saying it is difficult to remember all the people who had been circumcised several years back.
Religious Approach
Bashe Musse of the Somali Network (Somalisk Netwerk) would like to see stricter regulations and better information campaign. He suggests a fatwa against circumcision.
"We need a fatwa, which is a Muslim law, against circumcision. With such a law people will stop it," says Musse to Aftenposten. He thinks Somalis must take responsibility and show greater engagement in the issue.
"The Somalis must understand that they don't own their children, but that children are protected by Norwegian law. They must also clearly understand that there are consequences for those who break the law," says Musse.
He would like to see immediate measures for girls who go on vacation to Somalia and who are in danger of being circumcised. He suggests speaking with the parents and explaining to them how much unnecessary pain they inflict on their daughters and that they can be punished when they return to Norway.
Safia Yusuf Abdi, Norwegian Somali, says that imams should be approached. She does not like the fact that the "lighter" form of female circumcision, clitoridectomy , is called 'Sunna' and says it has nothing to do with Muhammad's life. She is right, but that name has nothing to do with the Muslim sunna and does not come from Muslim tradition.
Abdi thinks that an imam who knows that Koran should use the religion to protect the girls, but that instead they stay quiet. "Why don't the imams react when the religion they lead is being abused to legitimize female circumcision," asks Abdi. She also supports gynecological examinations.
Sociologist Katrine Fangen has worked with Somalis in Norway and she thinks religious leaders are the only ones who can turn back the positive attitudes towards circumcision. "These women listen to what the imams say," she thinks.
Informative Campaign
Erna Solberg (Conservative party) suggests that all Somali families with children under 18 should be called in for a discussion about female circumcision, either by local or school health authorities, where the consequences of such actions will be clearly explained to them.
"They will be informed about the punishment framework, about the possibility of being deported and of course about what consequences they will be for the girls," says Solberg. She wants to encourage the government to do so in their action plan against female circumcision.
"A translator, and preferably one competent with their culture, should be present," says Solberg. She thinks that also other immigrant communities who come from countries where female circumcision is common should be called in to such talks.
She says Norway already has a arrangement where all asylum seekers are informed of Norway's attitudes towards female circumcision, but till now this has not been done for those who come on family reunifications, which is common by Somalis.
Solberg had in the past voiced her opposition to the Parliament's decision to gynecologically examine all girls, saying it was degrading.
Minister of Children and Equality Affairs Karita Bekkemellem says that the problem is that the information doesn't reach the people who need it. "That means that we must increase the effort and inform what Norwegian laws say on this type of attack," says .
Stricter Measures
Prime Minister Jens Stoltenberg says he feels personally responsible for these girls. "We will have lots of tolerance for ethnic and cultural multitude, but we shall have zero-tolerance towards such a breaking of laws and human rights that this is," says Stoltenberg.
"To circumcise your child is totally and completely unacceptable. It is doubly criminal. It is a violation of Norwegian law and it is a violation of basic human rights," says Stoltenberg, adding that he'll need to learn more on the subject.
The prime minister suggests that circumcision cases are difficult to investigate and points out that nobody are been convicted in Norway in the past 11 years in which the law against circumcision had been on the books. He is not happy with the efforts the police, the prosecution and child services have put in till now and adds that this will be given priority and that the government will increase its efforts against circumcision.
Gynecological examination
Annika Huitfeldt (Norwegian Labour Party), suggests that every family who comes from Somalia and other risk-countries must sign a contract stating that no family member will be circumcised. This contract will be legal and binding. Breaking the law would lead to criminal charges.
"Additionally girls with a background from counties in risk-zones must be followed up regularly and gynecologically examined." In this she diverts from the Parliament's decision on asking the government to perform such checks on all Norwegian girls.
Huitfeldt thinks it isn't appropriate, but stresses that she understands that the proposal can stigmatize specific groups. "It is a counter-argument. But is not good enough. We're talking here factually about measures against female circumcision," she says.
Safia Yusuf Abdi (see above) thinks that information about Norwegian law is not enough and that gynecological examinations are needed.
"Even if health personnel think it is a little unpleasant to examine a girl in this way, people should ask themselves what is worse: to examine somebody because of concern about them and their health, or to circumcise a young girl? We must react and endure some unpleasantness to get change," she says.
Sources: Dagbladet 1, 2 (Norwegian), Hardanger Folkeblad (Norwegian), Afternposten 1, 2 (Norwegian) 3, 4 (English)
"I had never thought that there were so many. This goes against the indications I get from Somali mothers," says midwife Sara Kahsai.
Kahsai works at the Norwegian Center for Minority Health Research (NAKMI) and has conducted a study in the past about complications and treatment after female genital mutilation.
"We had hoped the attitude towards circumcision was changing and when I speak with Somali mothers they say that they will not expose their children to this. The reports of NRK are a setback for us," she says.
Kahsai stresses that she cannot confirm the numbers that were presented and thinks there's reason to be skeptical about them, saying it is difficult to remember all the people who had been circumcised several years back.
Religious Approach
Bashe Musse of the Somali Network (Somalisk Netwerk) would like to see stricter regulations and better information campaign. He suggests a fatwa against circumcision.
"We need a fatwa, which is a Muslim law, against circumcision. With such a law people will stop it," says Musse to Aftenposten. He thinks Somalis must take responsibility and show greater engagement in the issue.
"The Somalis must understand that they don't own their children, but that children are protected by Norwegian law. They must also clearly understand that there are consequences for those who break the law," says Musse.
He would like to see immediate measures for girls who go on vacation to Somalia and who are in danger of being circumcised. He suggests speaking with the parents and explaining to them how much unnecessary pain they inflict on their daughters and that they can be punished when they return to Norway.
Safia Yusuf Abdi, Norwegian Somali, says that imams should be approached. She does not like the fact that the "lighter" form of female circumcision, clitoridectomy , is called 'Sunna' and says it has nothing to do with Muhammad's life. She is right, but that name has nothing to do with the Muslim sunna and does not come from Muslim tradition.
Abdi thinks that an imam who knows that Koran should use the religion to protect the girls, but that instead they stay quiet. "Why don't the imams react when the religion they lead is being abused to legitimize female circumcision," asks Abdi. She also supports gynecological examinations.
Sociologist Katrine Fangen has worked with Somalis in Norway and she thinks religious leaders are the only ones who can turn back the positive attitudes towards circumcision. "These women listen to what the imams say," she thinks.
Informative Campaign
Erna Solberg (Conservative party) suggests that all Somali families with children under 18 should be called in for a discussion about female circumcision, either by local or school health authorities, where the consequences of such actions will be clearly explained to them.
"They will be informed about the punishment framework, about the possibility of being deported and of course about what consequences they will be for the girls," says Solberg. She wants to encourage the government to do so in their action plan against female circumcision.
"A translator, and preferably one competent with their culture, should be present," says Solberg. She thinks that also other immigrant communities who come from countries where female circumcision is common should be called in to such talks.
She says Norway already has a arrangement where all asylum seekers are informed of Norway's attitudes towards female circumcision, but till now this has not been done for those who come on family reunifications, which is common by Somalis.
Solberg had in the past voiced her opposition to the Parliament's decision to gynecologically examine all girls, saying it was degrading.
Minister of Children and Equality Affairs Karita Bekkemellem says that the problem is that the information doesn't reach the people who need it. "That means that we must increase the effort and inform what Norwegian laws say on this type of attack," says .
Stricter Measures
Prime Minister Jens Stoltenberg says he feels personally responsible for these girls. "We will have lots of tolerance for ethnic and cultural multitude, but we shall have zero-tolerance towards such a breaking of laws and human rights that this is," says Stoltenberg.
"To circumcise your child is totally and completely unacceptable. It is doubly criminal. It is a violation of Norwegian law and it is a violation of basic human rights," says Stoltenberg, adding that he'll need to learn more on the subject.
The prime minister suggests that circumcision cases are difficult to investigate and points out that nobody are been convicted in Norway in the past 11 years in which the law against circumcision had been on the books. He is not happy with the efforts the police, the prosecution and child services have put in till now and adds that this will be given priority and that the government will increase its efforts against circumcision.
Gynecological examination
Annika Huitfeldt (Norwegian Labour Party), suggests that every family who comes from Somalia and other risk-countries must sign a contract stating that no family member will be circumcised. This contract will be legal and binding. Breaking the law would lead to criminal charges.
"Additionally girls with a background from counties in risk-zones must be followed up regularly and gynecologically examined." In this she diverts from the Parliament's decision on asking the government to perform such checks on all Norwegian girls.
Huitfeldt thinks it isn't appropriate, but stresses that she understands that the proposal can stigmatize specific groups. "It is a counter-argument. But is not good enough. We're talking here factually about measures against female circumcision," she says.
Safia Yusuf Abdi (see above) thinks that information about Norwegian law is not enough and that gynecological examinations are needed.
"Even if health personnel think it is a little unpleasant to examine a girl in this way, people should ask themselves what is worse: to examine somebody because of concern about them and their health, or to circumcise a young girl? We must react and endure some unpleasantness to get change," she says.
Sources: Dagbladet 1, 2 (Norwegian), Hardanger Folkeblad (Norwegian), Afternposten 1, 2 (Norwegian) 3, 4 (English)
Labels:
Health
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)