Yet again we have another round of reports targeting in the majority, Muslim faith schools in Birmingham. A number of reports published in the BBC, Telegraph Guardian, Sky News, and Independent, regurgitated Michael Wilshaw’s letter to Nicky Morgan parading his team’s hard work in failing faith schools which were formerly inspected by the now defunct Bridge Schools Inspectorate (BSI).
The issue is, in order to come to a decent headline typically scapegoating Muslims, the inspectors tried a little too hard, it seems. So hard that in the case of one school, it is alleged Ofsted not only acted outside its remit during its inspection, but littered its report with inaccuracies and misleading statements, based off compromised trademark Inquisitional-style extremism-based questioning of young children.
In 1946, Julius Striecher, editor-in-chief of the anti-Semitic tabloid newspaper Der Stürmer, was convicted by International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg. According to the Tribunal,
“Striecher’s incitement to murder and extermination at the time when Jews in the East were being killed under the most horrible conditions clearly constitutes persecution on political and racial ground in connection with war crimes… and constitutes a crime against humanity”.
What was crucial was the timing: at a time a minority was being persecuted, Der Stürmer was inciting hatred and murder. Their material accentuated and promoted stereotypes, myths and denigration of Jewish tradition, all aimed at demonising and dehumanising Jews.
The modern, slightly more tempered, right-wing British equivalents are the Daily Mail and the Sun. In April of this year, the Sun was slammed by UN’s human rights chief for publishing the bigoted Katie Hopkins column calling refugees “cockroaches” echoing the language used by Nazis and those behind the Rwandan genocide. The Daily Mail went a step further and published a cartoon depicting refugees, caricaturising Arab/Muslim features and showing them alongside rats.
This third and final part directly continues from the Part II:
Deforming Faith and History to Serve a Neocon Agenda Part I: Rashad Ali
Deforming Faith and History to Serve a Neocon Agenda Part II: Sara Khan
Also operating within the well-oil neocon counter-extremism machine is the Quilliam Foundation, which brings us to Adam Deen’s rather expected (see here also) announcement of joining the cold war-era style state-validator organisation. In his blog piece announcing the squandering of his faith, Deen convolutedly explains why he wants to fight “extremism” but fails to convincingly explain why he would join an organisation born in the lap of another extremism – neoconservatism – which continues to legitimise neoconservative policies.
This equivocation-ridden nucleus in his piece indicates to the pseudo-intellectualism which comes head way in the second paragraph. Deen is, like Sara Khan, a fan of the deconstructionist, Khaled Abou El Fadl. The fanboyism, though, is taken to a new level. He writes,
“It may not be coincidence that al-Hakim al-Jishumiyya al-Bayhaqi (a Hanafi Mu’tazili jurist from the 12th century) in his book ‘Satan’s Epistle’ asks: “if Satan were given the chance to speak on the Day of Judgment, whom would he pay tribute to?” Al Bayhaqi concludes that Satan would end up praising and thanking every Muslim who adapted ideas that attributed to God things that were irrational, unjust or hideous.”
This is lifted from Abou El Fadl’s The Search for Beauty in Islam: A Conference of Books almost verbatim:
Source: Twitter, @CityNews
Whilst the impassioned feelings after the attacks in Paris against civilian targets are one of sadness followed by rage, it would be safe to say that for the Muslim minorities in the West, the overall reaction is one of shock followed by continued anxiety.
This anxiety has varying sources and manifests itself in different ways. From Muslims feeling compelled to apologise for crimes they neither condone or have any part in, to being publically compelled to condemn such attacks. The anxiety is exasperated when Muslims witness the hypocrisy in such calls and take a principled stand in order to avoid political exploitation. Muslims are witnesses to similar atrocities against people of other faiths, geography and race, yet privileged elite in Parliament are not seen to issue a condemnation against such regular terrorism – as a matter of principle, why should public and vocal condemnation be forcibly extracted on certain violence as the state eye is rendered blind when the violence is born from Western policy? I am yet to see mass condemnatory statements for Palestinian babies being burned to death by Jewish settler terrorism, or Palestinian civilians shot to death “intentionally and unlawfully” by IDF terrorists (who also happen to run over two year old toddlers), from the Cameron government or the various state-authorised counter extremism organisations for that matter. And indeed, I do not see the Jewish community being asked to condemn or apologise. This suggests such calls are ideologically and politically driven rather than rooted in humanity. Only white/Westernised power-structures are worthy of solidarity.
The piece continues from the first part:
Deforming Faith and History to Serve a Neocon Agenda Part I: Rashad Ali
Whilst Ali is known amongst Islamic scholarly circles for twisting texts and now history to suit the views his paymasters demand of him, there are other characters who are willing accomplices in this project.
Sara Khan seems to have been on a bit of a mission to shake off the negativity surrounding her involvement as a human rights-touting feminist who confusingly promotes the human rights-violating PREVENT Strategy through the incredibly feminist “weaponisation” of Muslim women. The Guardian’s Alex Preston penned a piece late last month looking at Khan and her work. Of pertinence is the exploitation, like her human rights and feminism discourse, of Islam.
Ignoring the fact that Islam guides on all facets of life, Khan homes in on the “fascination” of “Muslim clerics and preachers” with women’s clothing. For her, removing the veil “was about removing the authority of religious clerics”. Of course, with statements like that, considering that the Prophet of Islam was a man who designated the status of the Ulama as “heirs of the Prophets”, she might as well absolve herself of the authority Allah, and His Messenger, peace be upon him.
Crosspost: Jahangir Mohammed
Like most people, I’m shocked and saddened by the events in Paris. My thoughts are with the victims and families of this horrific crime. But I’m not surprised. Some things are inevitable and predictable, writes Jahangir Mohammed of the Centre for Muslim Affairs.
If you go around the world inflicting violence on other people sooner or later it comes back to you. You don’t need security experts and complex theories of extremism and radicalisation to understand that. Even a schoolchild in a playground understands that simple logic.
At a time when people are suffering I don’t like to discuss causes of violence. However the reaction of the media, politicians and so-called experts pointing the finger at Muslims and Islam as if we are all somehow to blame requires a response, otherwise it will lead to more laws targeting Muslim communities and more Western violence in Muslim lands.
In response to the massacres on the streets of Paris, those warmongering political opportunists known for supporting the underlying causes of this horrendous attack were quick off the line to make their views known. The fascist neoconservative Douglas Murray, called for a “proper response” which is “to have the same response at home as we do abroad”:
“So far we have pretended we can tackle these people only by engaging them on foreign battlefields. And by having a half-hearted talk about ‘radicalisation’ here at home. That is quite wrong.”
Given Murray’s colourful views about Muslims, and is neocon analysis of Islam (“Islam is not a peaceful religion. No religion is, but Islam is especially not”), the above sounds incredibly like a call for a “Final Solution” for Muslims. Are we to start using drone strikes inside Britain like we do abroad? We seem to have become experts at extrajudicial assassinations, and Murray is quite warm to the concept and realities too.