Loon Watch

Islamophobic hoax exposed

Tahir Alam – who has been the target of an Islamophobic campaign, originating in the Sunday Times and subsequently taken up by a number of other media outlets including BBC News, which claimed that there was a “Islamic plot” to take over Birmingham schools and even that this was a case of “terrorism in the UK” – has issued a press statement refuting the allegations.

Responding to the “leaked” letter outlining the supposed plot, Tahir Alam condemns “the baseless and false assertions that have been made in this anonymous, unsigned and undated document, the authenticity of which any decent and fair-minded person would question and quite quickly conclude as a hoax”.

Indeed, as even the most cursory read through the document will confirm, it is quite obviously faked. The fact that it has been taken seriously in the news media is a worrying reflection of the extent to which anti-Muslim prejudice in the UK today has destroyed journalists’ capacity for critical thinking when it comes to evaluating spurious Islamophobic propaganda.

Original Guest Post

By Mehdi

More than three years ago the Arab world was plunged into turmoil by Mohamed Bouazizi’s self-immolation. The flames from Bouazizi’s act of despair set the region ablaze in revolt; a signal for Tunisians and Arabs in general to take to the streets and let their voices be heard.

The Arab world is no longer the same, and yet, the complex chain of events (traversing social movements, uprisings and a civil war in Syria) that swept across the region was not a surprise. Warning signs had long been in evidence, leading many Arabs to express surprise, not about the fact that all of this happened, but about that it took so long.  The Arab spring or chain of uprisings has not been, and was never going to be, a quiet journey ending in happy democracies. The journey has been difficult and its outcome looks uncertain, even depressing in some cases like Egypt or Syria.

The point of this article is not to predict the future but to analyze the dynamics of what has happened and look to what could lie ahead. To be clear, it is too early to draw conclusions, there is a long process ahead that could last decades, but before looking ahead, one has to understand the reasons for the Arab spring.

A complex region and historical legacy

Beginning with colonialism, an era that drew the current borders, for example the infamous, Sykes-Picot agreement following World War I, and sometimes left them unclear, as for instance between Morocco and Algeria (explaining partly the bad relations between both regimes despite close cultural ties between the people). Colonialism also assembled conflicting identities and communities into countries that did not have a common national identity beforehand as in Syria, Iraq, or Lebanon.

The independence of most Arab countries happened along with the creation of Israel and the cold war, resulting in tensions and rivalries, clearly supported and manipulated by the Western superpowers and the USSR. The Arab people did not accept these neocolonial involvements and often challenged them, the Arab nationalist movements are an example of such reactions, but the tense post-independence context ended with most Arab regimes gradually becoming dictatorships, some leaning to the West, some to the East, most of them repressing any opposition movement, whether communist or socialist, or Muslim conservative.

The regional rivalries were used and encouraged by Western powers, Israel, Russia (or the USSR during the cold war), and the emerging regional powers such as Israel, the KSA, Iran or Turkey, as “divide and conquer” measures: to protect their own security and economic interests, natural resources, commercial contracts, or other strategic goals. In the end, it resulted in a deep interdependency between Arab rulers and their external sponsors.

The context of the 911 attacks in 2001 and the so-called “war on terror” was also an important factor, the security collaboration between the United States and Arab states was central, and included exchange of intelligence information, and even arrangements to outsource interrogations to mukhabarat services; it was easy for Arab rulers to push back on limited Western “pressures” to implement democratization measures, emphasizing the risk of “Islamists” winning elections. All parties were thus content to keep this status quo going, and too cowardly to openly question it, any change was considered too risky. This view is a recycling of the racist theory that Arabs are not able to support democracy and manage their own destiny.

Despite the weight of this status quo, the regional earthquake of 2011 did not come out of nowhere, warning signs occurred beforehand. Every single Arab country has had its moments of instability,

• Egypt was in state of emergency since 1980, experienced riots back in the 1980s, faced an armed insurgency in the 1990s, and massive strikes and social protests in 2008
• Algeria experienced an important cultural movement in 1980, important riots in 1988 followed by a chaotic electoral process that was stopped by the army, then faced a horrendous civil war during the 1990s that is still haunting every Algerian’s memory
• The 1991 and 2003 wars in Iraq were moments of tension in most Arab countries, especially for the ones that supported directly or indirectly the US interventions
• Morocco and Tunisia faced important riots in the 1980s that were brutally repressed

There are many more examples, along with many wars (Lebanon, Iran-Iraq, Yemen, Oman, etc.), the Palestinian intifadas that explain why the mix of political rivalries between regimes, authoritarianism and external interventions gave the feeling that most countries were “sitting on a volcano” that could erupt through some local event: a demonstration or strike getting out of control, a football derby turning into a street battle, or a Tunisian municipal officer slapping a street vendor in December 2010.

Very different regimes

This overall regional picture, while already complex, involves many differences across the Arab countries and political regimes.

First, Arab countries did not become independent while having the same sense of history or identity: countries like Morocco, Yemen or Egypt, have century-old national identities that go back to many founding events. The gulf states, Lebanon, Syria or Iraq built up a national identity in the 20th century on top of communities, other states gradually built a national identity, while Libya or the KSA are countries whose foundation relies on personal and tribal allegiances.

Beyond the differences between monarchies and republics, proximity with the USA or the USSR during the cold war, Arab countries also have different social structures; societies can be tribal, rural, urban or mixed. Arab countries also include many different minorities with different aspirations, from Berber cultural and linguistic movements in North Africa, to the Kurdish movements across Syria, Turkey, Iran and Iraq, and the different Middle Eastern religious communities, all of whom have a long history of coexistence and deals with their countries’ authorities, mixed-in with foreign manipulations (just in Lebanon, France had close ties and manipulated the Christian Maronite while Great Britain was the self-proclaimed protector of the Druze).

As a consequence, when facing crisis situations, Arab regimes have very different approaches in settling conflicts, while most of them repressed opposition movements, all of them worked hard to maintain order and their social basis. This was a “carrot and stick” model with specific arrangements and agreements with tribe leaders, protection measures for religious communities (for instance in Syria and Lebanon), arbitration of land conflicts (for instance in Jordan), redistribution of subsidies or lands seized from colonial settlers (as was the case in Egypt or Morocco). These measures were important buffers that were activated to prevent economic explosions.

Societies under transformation

While Arab leaders were working hard to hold their grip on the countries and keep them stable, the societies changed silently but radically.

After independence, most Arab societies were either tribal or rural, they are now mainly urban, very young on average, much more educated (despite significant regional gaps), which results in different aspirations in terms of jobs, economic needs, wish to travel. The young Arab generation also tends to have more autonomy towards their communities or families, for instance statistics have shown a strong decline in endogamy (the practice of marrying within a specific ethnic group, class, or social group, rejecting others on such basis as being unsuitable for marriage or other close personal relationships), or the tendency not to live with them anymore after their marriage.

Women’s role in Arab societies, while traditionally very present through the role of “Rabbat el bayt,” (lord of the house) has also increased, it is not limited anymore to their presence at home, and their active presence in education or the job market is now a fact, this can be seen everywhere. Many observers tend to analyze women’s status in Arab societies by focusing on the concentration of veils, or over-focusing on real issues around harassment or violence (while not comparing them with violence in other regions), but they tend to miss the point: While many issues remain in the whole Arab world (from traditional machismo supported by appalling and often un-Islamic laws, unpunished sexual harassment, glass ceilings at work, etc.), a calm and thorough analysis of the evolutions shows that the glass is at least half full and keeps filling.

In general, women have never had as much autonomy as they do today, they are much more educated, politically active, tend to marry much later than their mothers did (from under 20 in many countries in the mid-20th century to 28.8 in Lebanon in 2006, the same trend can be seen in Morocco with differences between rural and urban areas), the possibility to live by themselves now is a reality in many Arab countries (while not all), and they also have much less children.

Birth rate is rarely debated but is a very important factor, for instance in Morocco, a demographic study by Youssef Courbage and Emmanuel Todd, dating back to 2007 showed that it went from 5.5 to 2.5 per women between 1982 and 2004, the same happened between 1760 and 1910 in France! While this change is not uniform for all Arab societies, it highlights a radical transformation, societies changed as much with one generation as the European ones did during the entire 19th century, all the while political parties and rulers were incapable of understanding the dynamics under way. This picture alone obviously cannot explain the Arab uprisings, but the correlation between demography and revolutions has always been analyzed by experts and historians and it seems that the Arab uprisings will not be an exception.

The economic structure of Arab societies

From a macro-economic point of view, one of the main trends is their over-reliance of Arab economies on natural resources, especially oil, which, while not available in all Arab countries, has a major political impact as it is at the center of all alliances and corruption schemes. Petrodollars, their impact on global and local economies, and on US foreign policy-making is well known. From the perspective of Arab economies, they are an asset but also a long term challenge, as few countries have diversified their economies and built enough skills and productive capabilities for the future.

Turkey is often brought up as an example for Arabs to aspire to, Muslim conservative parties tend to refer to Turkey’s AKP as a political model, but there lies an important difference; Turkey already was a diversified and innovative economy before Erdogan came to power. Turkey could rely on a strong network of companies (based in Istanbul and also in other smaller conservative Turkish cities) to build its soft power, this network of entrepreneurs was key to building Erdogan’s success, on the political and economic side. Unfortunately, such a basis is missing in the Arab world.

Resulting in the fact that most Arab economies are overly reliant on natural resources and in other cases on tourism, diaspora money transfers, textile industry, construction, or agriculture. In general, their job creation records are not impressive, unemployment being high; in the best of cases, they managed to create a few added-value jobs in IT services (e.g. Egypt, Tunisia, Morocco, or the UAE). Thus, the perspectives for young Arabs are often low qualified badly paid jobs.

These economies are also under the tight control of the regime leaders and their relatives or allies, resulting in patrimonial systems where they literally own lands, shares in profitable businesses, receive important commissions during sales and privatizations, or award important markets to their allies and relatives (as Ben Ali did for instance with his family-in-law in Tunisia). In most Arab countries, armies and security services also benefit from this “legal looting”.

Up until the 1990s, this form of enrichment was mostly focused on “smaller transactions” (commissions on sales, lands etc.). Things changed with the wave of globalization that started then, under the pressure of institutions such as the IMF, it involved privatizations, and massive international capital investments, and opened the way for a new group of decision makers handling and collecting massive commissions and shares.

Since their relatives and allies were involved in the negotiations and in the creation of such new entities, it is no wonder why many Arab leaders accumulated fortunes that are often estimated in billions of dollars. These practices do not only happen in the Arab world, this pattern has been seen in most emerging economies. One of the main examples of such “transactions” is the sale of mobile telecommunication licenses, which did benefit the countries’ infrastructures, but made a happy few people extremely rich.

In summary, the Arab economies are overly reliant on natural resources, late in terms of innovation, and involve massive wealth concentration in the hands of a few. The effects on society are massive unemployment, and the tendency of regimes to try to address these challenges by “purchasing peace” through subsidies and low quality job programs (for instance when Ben Ali tried to hire 300,000 young people into public administration, to try to stop the emerging revolution from expanding).

Next part in the series: “What about Islam? And Looking Forward”…

Milton Keynes mosque arson: Man charged

A 30-year-old man has been charged with arson and a “racially aggravated” offence after a fire at a mosque in Milton Keynes.

Thames Valley Police said a fire was started at the back of the mosque on Manor Road, Bletchley, at about 01:00 GMT on Saturday. Richard Bevington, of North Street, Bletchley, has been charged with arson with intent to endanger life and has been remanded in custody. No-one was hurt in the incident.

Mr Bevington has also been charged with a “racially and religiously aggravated section five public order offence”, possession of cocaine and possession of cannabis. He is due to appear at Milton Keynes Magistrates’ court on Monday.

The mosque was created out of a former pub two years ago.

BBC News, 9 March 2014

Update:  See “Man charged with arson of Milton Keynes mosque remanded in custody, Milton Keynes MKWeb, 10 March 2014

Montreal rally unites faiths against ‘secularism’ charter

With his fuchsia skullcap and sash, Catholic Bishop Thomas Dowd stood out in the crowd at Shaare Zedek Congregation on Sunday. Speaking to nearly 500 people at the synagogue in Notre-Dame-de-Grâce, Dowd said he purposely wore his most ostentatious outfit to the multi-faith rally against the Parti Québécois government’s proposed secular charter.

Bill 60, which would bar all public sector workers from wearing “ostentatious” religious symbols like the Muslim head scarf, Jewish skullcap or Sikh turban, died on the order paper last week when Premier Pauline Marois dissolved the National Assembly to call an election. But speakers, who included local politicians and representatives of six faiths, said that was no reason to stop protesting, since the PQ has vowed to adopt the charter if it wins a majority on April 7.

The rally was “a chance to show to the world that religion does not need to be seen as a source of division,” but can also be a source of unity, said Dowd, who added he had come “to build bridges with all of you.”

Organized by Norman Simon, a retired teacher who founded a Facebook group called Canadians for Coexistence, the event also included members of the Sikh, Muslim, Hindu and Buddhist communities. Liberal MNAs Lawrence Bergman and Kathleen Weil, N.D.G. Mayor Russell Copeman and Pierrefonds-Roxboro Mayor Jim Beis attended, along with representatives of the English Montreal School Board.

Rabbi Lisa Grushcow of Temple Emanu-El-Beth-Sholom said the silver lining of the divisive charter debate is the way it has brought people of different faiths together and highlighted Quebec’s rich cultural diversity.

Grushcow quoted former Quebec cabinet minister and physician Victor Goldbloom, 90, who, at hearings on the proposed charter, responded to the suggestion by Democratic Institutions Minister Bernard Drainville that children need to be protected from the sight of people wearing religious garb. Goldbloom replied: “I believe that every child has a right to learn to live in a world in which there is difference,” Grushcow said. “We are here to protect that right,” she added.

Grushcow pointed playfully to the kippah on her head as an example of the fact that religious garb is not always a sign of female oppression. “I don’t think they were imagining me,” she said as the audience erupted in laughter and applause.

Côte-St-Luc Mayor Anthony Housefather accused the government of using the charter to divide Quebecers and slammed the “draconian and loathsome” proposal to amend the Quebec Charter of Rights in accordance with the secularism charter. He vowed to challenge the measure in court if it ever becomes law. “We will not enforce this law because we believe it to be unconstitutional,” he told the cheering audience.

Montreal Gazette, 9 March 2014

Establishment American Zionists have been evading debating Max Blumenthal, author of the groundbreaking work Goliath: Life and Loathing in Greater Israel since his book was published.

In a unique twist to this pattern of evasion, Islamophobe Richard Landes upon hearing that Blumenthal would be speaking at Boston University’s, Israel Apartheid Week, and messaged Blumenthal to set up a debate. Landes was joined by Simon Deng (frequently lectures with Geller, Spencer and SIOA) while Blumenthal was joined by Palestinian Sa’ed Atshan a post-doctoral student in International Studies.

Here is Blumenthal’s report on the debate. Hopefully the debate organizers will post the video soon!:

By Max Blumenthal (MondoWeiss)

Over the years, I have experienced a barrage of attacks from a virtual who’s who of pro-Israel activists and intellectuals. Yet none of my assailants have ever accepted an invitation to engage with me in a public conversation. The most notable example of the phenomenon was provided in recent months by Eric Alterman, who attacked me in nine separate posts on the Nation website but vehemently refused to debate me, though he solicited a $10,000 fee to do so under the table.

Alterman was not alone. The Nation Institute invited Peter Beinart to engage with me in a moderated discussion in October in New York City at the opening event of my book tour, but Beinart refused without explanation. Gershom Gorenberg, the liberal Zionist author and journalist who has scathingly attacked my work, refused an invitation from the journalist Robert Wright to engage with me in a discussion on the online debating site, Bloggingheads. So did Eli Lake, the passionately neoconservative correspondent who busies himself during lunch breaks and throughout the workday by lobbying insults at me on Twitter. They were cowed, and understandably so.

It is increasingly clear that the struggle over the future of Israel-Palestine will be decided through a conflict between Zionists and anti-Zionists, with Jews and Arabs aligned on both sides of the divide. However, American Zionists have stringently avoided sharing any intellectual space with their real adversaries. Beinart was eager to debate Alan Dershowitz; Jeremy Ben Ami has jousted with Bill Kristol; and Daniel Gordis argued the merits of boycotting settlements with Lara Friedman. But few of these figures have ever dared to expose their ideas to the interrogation of a Palestinian or an anti-Zionist Jew. Instead, liberal and Likudnik Zionists stage one mock debate after another, aiming to conceal their fundamentally anti-Palestinian ideological alignment behind a smokescreen of rancorous dispute.

When Zionists debate, they do so over the only issue over which they disagree: Which size cage should Palestinians inhabit?

Last week, I announced plans to appear at an Israel Apartheid Week event at Boston University alongside Sa’ed Atshan, a Palestinian-American Postdoctoral Fellow in International Studies at Brown University. Hours after the announcement, I received an message on Twitter from Richard Landes that offered a unique opportunity: he wanted to debate me.

Landes is a professor of history at Boston University with a specialization in millennialism. Despite his lack of academic credentials on Israel-Palestine and the Middle East, he has made a name for himself on the rightward edge of the pro-Israel advocacy world by denying Israeli human rights crimes – he has branded images of Palestinian victimhood as examples of “Pallywood.” Through his involvement in front groups like Scholars for Peace in the Middle East, Landes has received substantial support from big pro-Israel donors like the Fairbrook Foundation and from the right-wing Koch Brothers.

I accepted Landes’ invitation primarily because I reasoned that exposing his reactionary line of thinking would be productive for a university audience. Since Atshan was to join me as a debating partner, Landes invited a former South Sudanese refugee named Simon Deng to round out the field. Deng is trained as a lifeguard, not an academic or journalist, and works on the beaches of Coney Island, not the Middle East. But his sectarian views on Arabs and Muslims attracted the attention and support of Charles Jacobs, the David Project founder who has called Europeans “neopagans” and described mosques as “victory markers.” Thanks to Jacobs and his allies, Deng has been junketed around the world to counter Palestine solidarity events, denigrating Muslims and “so-called Palestinian refugees” while arguing that accusations that Israel practices of apartheid are insulting to Africans like him.

The debate proceeded almost exactly as I expected it would. With the discussion framed around the topic of Palestinian resistance, Landes spent much of his time blaming Palestinians for their own suffering, accusing children of faking injuries and arguing that their resistance to Zionism was a ploy designed to distract from the cultural failings of the Arab world. His rhetoric echoed an op-ed he published in the Wall Street Journal in which he argued that Palestinians enjoyed higher standards of living in areas settled by Jews like Jerusalem and the occupied West Bank than in areas like Gaza that were exclusively Palestinian. As devoid of context and nakedly colonialist as the claim might have been, it mirrored Beinart’s argument in his book,The Crisis of Zionism, that the advancement of Zionism in historic Palestine had cured Palestinians of their illiteracy (p. 15). Indeed, right-wing Israel advocates like Landes were not unique in their celebration of Zionism as a mission civilisatrise.

Atshan and I spent much of our time outlining the myriad obstacles Palestinians faced in their struggle for basic rights, from military occupation to a regime of legal apartheid to the crusade of intellectual suppression and intimidation guided by Israel advocates like Charles Jacobs, who was seated in the audience. With Washington closed off to anyone to the left of AIPAC, I argued, the only available recourse was a campaign of massive external pressure against Israel organized among global civil society, with BDS as its central tactic.

Deng did not attempt to counter any of our points. Instead, he spent much of his time rambling about the misdeeds and devious machinations of Muslims and Arabs. As soon as his turn for a rebuttal arrived, Landes reverted to type, branding me a “Jewish supremacist” because I held “the Jews” to unfairly high standards. Landes later turned to the crowd and proclaimed, “The Palestinians are ginned up on jihad.” The audience was practically rolling in the aisles, but they were not laughing with him.

Next, Landes homed in on Atshan, who happens to be gay, opening up a line of homophobic bullying. Landes told Atshan that because of his “gender choices” he could not safely travel to the Islamist-ruled Gaza Strip. Not only had Landes suggested that homosexuality was a choice, recycling a myth more familiar to the tongue talking bigots of the Christian Right than the obsessively pinkwashing Israel lobby, he had inadvertently invoked the specter of anti-gay violence against Atshan. On a college campus in a cosmopolitan urban center, this was not exactly a winning argument.

During the debate’s question and answer session, a gay pro-Israel student activist named Raphael Fils picked up where Landes left off. Fils, a founder of the Safe Hillel movement, recounted a tour he took to Hebron, an occupied city in the West Bank plagued by a suffocating regime of settler terror and army repression, and complained to Atshan about the greatest horror he witnessed there: When he logged onto Grindr, a popular geosocial hook-up application for gay and bisexual men, he could not find any available men.

“What’s up with that?” Fils asked Atshan in a deadly serious tone.

Atshan was stunned. He asked Fils why the only thing that outraged him during his visit to Hebron was the absence of Grindr dates. Then he launched into a devastating explanation of how sexual colonialism had been deployed to silence and denigrate Palestinians, branding them as culturally inferior in order to justify their continued occupation. Though words can hardly convey the power of Atshan’s response, unfortunately, I have not been able secure permission from the event’s planners to release video of the debate.

At this point in the debate, Landes, Deng, and their supporters in the audience seemed utterly demoralized. With the event drawing to a close, one of Landes’ supporters rose from the crowd to deliver a barely coherent tirade about Hajj Al-Amin Husseini, the long-dead Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, and his ties to Nazi Germany during World War Two. Minutes later, as Atshan and I left the stage, we found ourselves momentarily surrounded by a cast of geriatric Zionists demanding to know how we could overlook the Palestinians’ direct involvement in the Holocaust.

“They Palestinians aren’t the new Nazis,” one of them barked at me, “they’re the old Nazis!”

The rhetoric from the other side had rapidly degenerated from ahistorical to bigoted to bizarre to downright beserk. It had become painfully clear that this was all Zionists had left. No wonder events like our debate were so rare, and why they will become increasingly so.

FIU’s Muslim Students Say They Found a Listening Device in a Campus Prayer Room

By Kyle Swenson

The evening was sliding toward midnight, but the students were still hanging out. It was February 9, 2013, and the five members of Florida International University’s Muslim Student Association had finished their evening prayers in the room they used daily at the Graham Center, the student union on the school’s Modesto Maidique Campus.

They were lounging like any group of college kids, prayer mats spread out on the room’s ugly blue-green-brown industrial shag, when one noticed a bump in the weave. It was just smaller than the volume button on an iPhone, with three holes in the top. As the group gathered around, the student pulled it up. A wire was attached to the bump. It looked like a listening device, they decided.

“We were just shocked,” one of the students, who like the others in the room asked to remain anonymous, tells New Times. “I knew that the same thing happened in New York, but we were just surprised it was here.”

Surveillance operations on Muslim students at American college campuses have been an unfortunate byproduct of the War on Terror. A 2012 investigation by the Associated Press revealed the NYPD had monitored campus Muslim groups across the Northeast.

But now, FIU students were possibly holding evidence that they too were being watched.

“We’ve learned about many, many stories of students being picked up at colleges and spied on,” says Aman Muqeet, a former FIU graduate student who is familiar with the situation. “We really don’t know how many other Muslim students are being tracked. This could be related.”

The students quickly contacted Nezar Hamze, the regional operations director for the Council of American-Islamic Relations (CAIR). Hamze says he contacted the U.S. Attorney’s Office, the Department of Justice, and FIU’s campus police. He also says he took the device to a spy store, where a clerk confirmed the gadget was the kind of expensive surveillance device used by the government.

When Hamze met with school officials, he laid out his concern. “If someone put in this equipment, someone had to know about it,” he says. “They promised they had no idea what was going on.” The device was turned over to the FIU Police Department, according to Hamze.

Now, a year later, the students still have no answers or explanation for why the device was in their prayer space. Muqeet speculates the surveillance might be linked to the Flagler Mosque, the closest mosque to the FIU campus. In 2011, federal authorities arrested the center’s imam, Hafiz Khan, and two of his sons for funneling money to the Pakistani Taliban.

Charges were dropped against the latter two, but in August 2013 the elder Khan was convicted and sentenced to 25 years. A handful of FIU Muslims worshiped at the mosque, Muqeet says.

Neither FIU President Mark Rosenberg nor the FIU police department returned calls to comment on the case.

That radio silence on the issue — now going on more than a year — is what troubles the students. “I guess spying on Muslims is acceptable today,” Hamze says.

Follow Miami New Times on Facebook and Twitter @MiamiNewTimes.

This is the Fox News show called “The Five,” known for its racism and hatemongering of various groups. Usually, only Islam and Muslims bring this kind of unified hatred out of the fake, token liberals and conservatives.

In this clip the hosts of “The Five” rant about Islam and Muslims in quite disgusting and disparaging terms, it remains to be seen when they will just put on their KKK hoodies.

Video:

A monument in Cordoba, Spain, Maimonides’ birthplace, honoring its famous resident.

March 30 marks the birthday of Moses Maimonides. As such, it seemed to be a good time to discuss two of his quotes that have been used in discussions of Islam and Islamophobia in part due to the range of views that seem to be expressed in them by the same author.

From Moses to Moses: Traversing two Maimonides Quotes on Muslims

Original Guest Post by JustStoppingBy

Recently, Robert Spencer tried to make a distinction between Allah and God, arguing that “even though they may share a name, any examination of the particulars of Christian and Islamic theology reveals that the deities in question are quite different in character.”

Note that Spencer does not say that Christians and Muslims have “different views of the same deity” but discusses “the deities in question.” In doing this, he invites the reader to reach the conclusion that the “Muslim Allah” is not the same as the “Christian God.” Danios has already provided a thorough explanation on the use of the term Allah by Jews and Christians in pre-Islamic times. As Danios points out, a common Islamophobic response is to claim that Muslims appropriated the term Allah while referring to a different entity, perhaps a moon god, but not to the god that Jews and Christians worship.

To further create a distinction between Allah and the Christian God, Spencer has asked whether the hajj is an act of apostasy based on his claims that the rites involved in the hajj are of Hindu origin. Of course, it is widely accepted that polytheists made pilgrimages to Mecca and that the Ka’bah was a pagan shrine that contained idols before the advent of Islam, including a belief that pre-Islamic pilgrims to Mecca, “[w]ith all their polytheism and idolatry, they too used to circle the Ka’bah and kiss the Black Stone.” So, even if Spencer were right, that would not seem to be a particularly Earth-shattering revelation.

Since many who propound this “deities” theory won’t listen to Danios perhaps they will listen to some other views. We can start by moving a little away from the Christian-Muslim deity distinction that Spencer wants to draw and referring to a statement by perhaps the most renowned post-Biblical Jewish scholar, Rabbi Moses Maimonides (Rambam). In Responsa #448, Maimonides writes as follows (ellipses in Wikipedia, bolding added; alternate translation also available):

The Ishmaelites are not at all idolaters; [idolatry] has long been severed from their mouths and hearts; and they attribute to God a proper unity, a unity concerning which there is no doubt. And because they lie about us, and falsely attribute to us the statement that God has a son, is no reason for us to lie about them and say that they are idolaters … And should anyone say that the house that they honor [the Kaaba] is a house of idolatry and an idol is hidden within it, which their ancestors used to worship,then what of it? The hearts of those who bow down toward it today are [directed] only toward Heaven … [Regarding] the Ishmaelites today – idolatry has been severed from the mouths of all of them [including] women and children. Their error and foolishness is in other things which cannot be put into writing because of the renegades and wicked among Israel [i.e., apostates]. But as regards the unity of God they have no error at all.

Maimonides’ life covered various phases of Muslim-Jewish relations. Maimonides was born in Córdoba in 1135, at the tail end of the longest potential extent of the “Golden Age” of Spanish Jewry, which saw the blossoming of Jewish culture and the attainment by individual Jews of high positions in commercial and public life. As a result of the Arab political dominance, Maimonides knew Arabic, read many texts in Arabic, and composed many of his most famous works in Arabic and referred to God as Allah in his Arabic writing.

In 1148, Córdoba was conquered by the Almohads, an Arab-Muslim dynasty that revoked the dhimmi status of Jews. There is, no doubt, much debate about the quality of the life of a dhimmi, but scholars have noted that “in any historical case, these relatively abstract and general provisions of the dhimma could and did materialize as either a tolerant and even liberating arrangement, or at the other extreme, a culturally repressive policy within which religious freedom is a hollow formality.” (María Rosa Monocal, The Ornament of the World: How Muslims, Jews and Christians Created a Culture of Tolerance in Medieval Spain,” p. 73. Garibaldi reviews the book here.) Life for Jews under the Almohads went from the previous tolerant and liberating arrangement to the other extreme, with the result that “[m]any Jews were forced to convert, but due to suspicion by the authorities of fake conversions, the new converts had to wear identifying clothing that set them apart and made them available to public scrutiny with many forced to convert or go into exile.” The point of this is not to dwell on history, but to put Maimonides’ responsa into context. It was written not by someone who had experienced only positive relations between Muslims and Jews, but who had also witnessed among the harshest of relations. And one should note that after fleeing Córdoba, Maimonides eventually again found himself in a place where he could establish good relations with Muslim authorities, becoming court physician to Saladin.

So, what does Maimonides have to say about how Muslims view God? Returning to the quote, we see that Maimonides says that “[idolatry] has long been severed from their mouths and hearts.” This, is in fact the same story told in Islam’s view of its own history: before Muhammad, the Ishmaelites (as Maimonides refers to them) in and around Mecca were idolaters. But, since the advent of Islam, “they attribute to God a proper unity.” The Islamic term for a “proper unity” is tawhid, which, in essence, is not just a superficial form of “unity” but a “proper unity” that has an influence on Islamic philosophy and jurisprudence. It is also possible that Maimonides was even distinguishing between the “proper” Jewish and Muslim view of God’s unity and what he would consider the “improper” Christian view of a trinitarian unity. Nowhere does Maimonides even suggest that Muslims are worshiping some different deity or that they do not share the Jewish view of God’s character.

Maimonides further argues that “should anyone say … [the Kaba’a] is a house of idolatry and an idol is hidden within it, which their ancestors used to worship, then what of it? The hearts of those who bow down toward it today are [directed] only toward Heaven.” This can be read as a pre-rebuttal to arguments made by Robert Spencer about the Kaba’a and the hajj based on views, true or not, about their pre-Islamic origins. As Maimonides points out, if Muslims view Allah as the same god Jews view in Heaven and direct their prayers accordingly, pre-Islamic history does not affect their monotheism. Say what you want about any possible idol remnant in the Ka’bah or the etymology of the term Allah, it is clear that the “hearts of [Muslims] today are only toward Heaven.”

Now, why is Maimonides such an interesting person to quote from when countering Spencer’s Islamophobic rhetoric? For one thing, Spencer’s polemical partner Pamela Geller has also quoted from Maimonides, believing that it helps the position that she and Spencer take in general and in her fights about her ads about a choice “between the civilized man and the savage” in particular. Here is a quote she uses, from Maimonides’ Epistle to Yemen:

Let Ye understand, my brothers, the Holy One Blessed HE through the trap created by our iniquities cast us amongst this nation, the people of Ishmael [Muslims] whose oppressiveness is firmly upon us and they connive to do us wrong and despicably downgrade us as the Almighty decreed against us (Deuteronomy 32:31, “Your enemies shall judge you”).

There never came against Israel a more antagonistic nation. They oppress us with the most oppressive measures to lessen our number, reduce us, and make us as despicable as they themselves are [Psalms 120:5].

Geller, misleadingly introduces this quote by saying that Maimonides “said this of Islam.” She further introduces the purely religious term Muslims in brackets where Maimonides referred to the “people of Ishmael,” a term that could have ethnic, political, and/or religious connotations.

On the religious aspect, while Maimonides did not accept Islam, it is clear from the earlier quote that he fully accepted that Muslims, or Ishmaelites, were monotheists whose hearts are directed only toward heaven in prayer. Instead, the conflict he describes is a political one, in particular with the Yemeni Shi’a of the time. Ultimately, “Maimonides interceded with Saladin in Egypt, and shortly thereafter the persecution came to an end.”

There are a few additional points worth noting in this quote from Maimonides. First, the reference to “the people of Ishmael” may sound like a form of generalization today, but no more so than the positive references to Ishmaelites in the first Maimonides quote or his reference to Jews as Israel in the second.

Second, unlike Geller, Maimonides does not attempt to create a picture in which one side is civilized and the other savage. Indeed, Maimonides describes Israel’s exile as a “trap created by our iniquities.” Traditionally, this referred to the “baseless hatred,” or the religious and political disputes, mistakes, violence, and venom that existed at the time of the destruction of the Second Temple and the onset of the Exile. Thus, Maimonides’ approach was not to turn a political dispute or suffering persecution into a basis for misrepresenting the religious views of others. Nor did he argue that those of his religion were pure and those of another religion were not; rather, he pointed out sinful behavior in both. In Maimonides’ view, monotheism was a good quality, and, from the first quote, we see that he was able to acknowledge what he saw as the good in his political opponents rather than feeling the need to suppress any of those qualities or actions as if his entire position would fall apart if his political adversaries had any good side. In addition, when Maimonides corresponded with a community of Jews who were being persecuted by a Muslim majority, he made a point of noting that even the Jews who then felt persecuted should not ignore their group’s own history of hatred and violence, including political mistakes that were part of the reason for their exile.

While there are aspects to the two quotes from Maimonides that one can agree or disagree with, they do reflect an overall attitude that contrasts sharply with those of Spencer and Geller.

While Maimonides had political differences with various Muslim groups, he did not seek to mischaracterize their religion or their religious beliefs. For there can be no true peace with the Other without recognition of the truth of their beliefs and behavior and honest dialogue based on those truths, a sharp contrast to the insidious Spencer/Geller policy of no peace, no truthful recognition, and no honest dialogue. Compare Maimonides’ recognition of Islam’s positive monotheistic quality, even when he disagreed politically with Muslims, with Spencer, who has argued that “the only good Muslim is a bad Muslim,” meaning that in his view, the only morally good Muslim is one who is not an Islamically good Muslim.

In terms of lessons for today, it may be helpful to see how Maimonides separated the political battles he faced from the opportunities to engage in religious prejudice against the beliefs of the Other. This did not mean that he refrained from political activity, as seen by his appeal to Saladin. But, neither did he refrain from standing up for the truth about another group’s religious beliefs. In viewing how Maimonides conducted these two fights, perhaps it can be said that the lesson is that we should fight our political battles as if there were no religious prejudice, and we should fight religious prejudice as if there were no political battles.

U.N. says west of Central African Republic ‘cleansed’ of Muslims

(Reuters) – Most Muslims have been driven out of the western half of conflict-torn Central African Republic, where thousands of civilians risk of being killed “right before our eyes,” the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees said on Thursday.

The bleak warning came as the country’s foreign minister pleaded with the U.N. Security Council to urgently approve a U.N. peacekeeping force to stop the killing.

Widespread violence in the former French colony has claimed thousands of lives since Seleka, a coalition of mostly Muslim northern rebels, seized power a year ago. Attacks intensified in December when “anti-Balaka” militias drawn from the majority Christian population stepped up reprisals on Muslims.

“Since early December we have effectively witnessed a ‘cleansing’ of the majority of the Muslim population in western CAR,” U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees Antonio Guterres told a meeting of the 15-nation U.N. Security Council on the crisis in the impoverished and landlocked country.

“Tens of thousands of them (Muslims) have left the country, the second refugee outflow of the current crisis, and most of those remaining are under permanent threat,” he said.

The council is considering a U.N. proposal for a nearly 12,000-strong peacekeeping force to stop the country from sliding toward what a top U.N. rights official called “ethnic-religious cleansing.” If approved, the U.N. force would likely not be operational before late summer.

“Just last week, there were about 15,000 people trapped in 18 locations in western CAR, surrounded by anti-Balaka elements and at very high risk of attack,” Guterres said.

“International forces are present in some of these sites, but if more security is not made available immediately, many of these civilians risk being killed right before our eyes.”

Guterres said that until last year CAR “was largely a stranger to religious conflict.” But the worsening bloodshed has enabled armed groups to use religion as a pretext for violence.

“The demon of religious cleansing must be stopped – now,” he said. Guterres’ spokeswoman Melissa Fleming said western CAR was roughly half the country.

‘SURGE’ OF PEACEKEEPERS NEEDED

Central African Republic’s Foreign Minister Toussaint Kongo-Doudou told the council that his country’s survival depended on the urgent deployment of a U.N. force. U.N. peacekeeping chief Herve Ladsous also spoke about the dire need for U.N. troops.

“The state has virtually no capacity to manage the massive array of threats it is facing,” Ladsous said. “There is no national army and the remnants of the police and gendarmerie lack the basic equipment and means to exercise their duties, while state administration is largely absent.”

The European Union is already deploying 1,000 soldiers to join 6,000 African and 2,000 French troops. Those forces have so far not been able to halt the killings and restore stability.

U.N. humanitarian chief Valerie Amos told the council that there are more than 650,000 people internally displaced in CAR due to the conflict, over 232,000 in the capital Bangui alone. Nearly 300,000 people have fled to neighboring countries.

“The violence has led to the total breakdown of the state, locally and nationally,” she said.

Ladsous said he hoped to include as many of the African contingents as possible in a future U.N. force. U.N. officials have told Reuters on condition of anonymity that few of the African contingents are trained and equipped to U.N. standards.

Ladsous said the initial phase of a peacekeeping operation would have to focus on helping to establish security.

“This will require an initial surge of military personnel and corresponding military enablers,” he said. “Alongside this initial military surge, essential civilian capacities will be deployed, phased in gradually as the situation stabilizes.”

Ladsous said it will cost hundreds of millions of dollars.

The force will need to be approved by the Security Council. Diplomats said France will submit within the next few weeks a draft resolution to authorize a peacekeeping force in line with U.N. recommendations.

French Ambassador Gerard Araud said Paris supports Ladsous’ call for some 10,000 troops and 1,820 police but he predicted a “very difficult negotiation” on the resolution. Diplomats say the United States and Britain are especially concerned about costs due to national requirements for legislative approval.

But U.S. Ambassador Samantha Power voiced support for U.N. chief Ban Ki-moon’s call for a U.N. force in CAR. “We are prepared to work closely with partners starting immediately to move forward in developing a peacekeeping operation that can meet the challenges in the Central African Republic,” she said.

(Additional reporting by Stephanie Nebehay in Geneva; Editing by Tom Brown)

Six arrested after firework thrown at Whitley Bay Islamic Centre

A firework has been thrown at an Islamic centre in Tyneside.

Around eight people were inside the Whitley Bay Islamic Cultural Centre, on Hillheads Road, and were praying at the time of the attack just before 2.30pm on Wednesday afternoon.

Six men have been arrested for criminal damage. No one was injured.

Abdul Hannan, leader of the centre, said: “We were praying at the time of the incident and got such a shock as it sounded like a bomb had gone off. We could see smoke and fire at the window. We would never expect anything like this to happen and we don’t think that we were deliberately targeted as people in the area are very friendly and we get on well in the community. I think it’s just one of these things that could happen anywhere at any time.”

Police have arrested two men aged 29, and four other men aged 27, 25, 23 and 19, who are now helping police with their enquiries.

Dad-of-two Keith Beckman, 47, owns a newsagents nearby, and saw a number of the men get arrested. He said: “When something like this happens it comes out of the blue as we don’t get a lot of trouble.” Whitley Bay Ice Rink owner, Francis Smith, added: “I’ve not been aware of any problems with the centre.”

Police insist that it is an isolated incident. Supt Paul Orchard, from North Tyneside Area Command, said “We have arrested a number of people following this incident and extra officers are on patrol to reassure communities. Anyone with concerns should talk to them.”

Anyone with information can contact police on 101, extension 69191 or Crimestoppers on 0800 555111.

Evening Chronicle, 7 March 2014

By Garibaldi

Der Spiegel, a prominent weekly German news magazine has covered the boom in Islamophobia in Germany (h/t: Stürzenbergers “Freiheit” stoppen). The article written by Hubert Gude, Maximillian Popp,  JÖrg Schindler and Fidelus Schmid notes jarring trends in German society and the extent of Islamophobia’s reach in the political, cultural and social sphere.

The article highlights the success of the Islamophobic German website, “Politically Incorrect,” which gets up to 120,000 visitors daily, the foundation of another anti-Muslim political party, Pro-Deutschland (Pro-Germany), a study by the Friedrich Ebert Foundation showing that,

56 percent of Germans consider Islam to be an “archaic religion, incapable of fitting into modern life” and many believe religious freedom for Muslims should be “substantially restricted.”

The article also points out particular anecdotes involving attacks on mosques which have increased in the past several years and the increase in neo-nazis stirring up hatred of Muslims and Islam.

There were a few glaring issues with the article. While the title included the term “Islamophobia,” the body of the article did not include the word once though in fairness it did use “anti-Muslim” three times. Instead, for some odd reason, the writers relied on the term “anti-Islam,” using it 9 times to describe the activities and or to characterize the activists of Far-Right groups.

This is in fact an adoption of the terminology (and underlying narratives) of Islamophobes who claim they are only “critiquing” a religion. The information provided by the writers themselves should have been enough to challenge this odd editorial decision. It’s clear that Islamophobes oppose Muslims and also hold a whole host of irrational, bigoted and hateful beliefs about Islam.

The only problematic paragraph in the article is when the writers give some reasons which they claim may explain the rise in Islamophobia. In doing so they describe “third generation Germans” as “immigrants,” such a mindset is part of the problem. The  most troubling portion of the paragraph is that it passes off bold assertions as fact:

There are several potential explanations for the rising skepticism of Islam in Germany. For one, many third-generation Muslim immigrants are living more strictly than their parents did, making them more conspicuous. Also, in some neighborhoods in large German cities, Muslim girls are afraid of going outside without wearing a headscarf. There have also been several reports in the German media recently of ethnic-German men converting to Islam, radicalizing and going to Pakistan for terror training. Just this past week, the Minister of the Interior warned that a total of 300 German Jihadists have left Germany to fight in Syria.

The rest of the article is rather good and is enough of a rebuttal to the above explanations: the rise in Islamophobia has to do with propaganda and far-right movements fearing the “new visibility” of Muslim institutions and symbols in society.

Right-Wing Extremism: Germany’s New Islamophobia Boom

Der Spiegel

Stachus is one of Munich’s nicest squares. It is rich in tradition and filled with pedestrians — and perfect for Michael Stürzenberger’s purposes. Hand balled into a fist, he paces back and forth and screams, “The Koran is the most dangerous book in the world.” Because a couple dozen people have come to demonstrate against Stürzenberger, police officers in bullet-proof vests are watching over the area.

A decade ago, Stürzenberger, 49, was the spokesperson for the Munich office of the Christian Social Union (CSU), the Bavarian sister party of Chancellor Angela Merkel’s Christian Democratic Union. But since 2012 he has been active in a splinter party called Die Freiheit (“The Freedom”), of which he was elected federal chairman three months ago. He preaches hate against Islam and compares the Koran to Hitler’s “Mein Kampf.” For two years now, he’s been collecting signatures opposing the planned construction of an Islamic center in Munich. He has already held over one hundred anti-Islam rallies.The Freiheit leader isn’t alone. Several supporters, have joined him on Stachus, some carrying signs such as “No mosque on Stachus,” or “Stop the enemies of democracy.” Stürzenberger screams that Sharia instructs men to hit women. His voice cracks. “We don’t want that in Bavaria!” A retiree asks where he can sign “against Islam.”For most Munich residents, Stürzenberger’s verbal assaults are an embarrassment. CSU city councilwoman Marian Hoffman compares his incitements to the “droning speeches of the Nazis.” The city government of Mayor Christian Ude, a member of the center-left Social Democrats, is worried about possible conflict during the upcoming local elections. Munich, he says, has become the focus of “experimentation” by radical anti-Islamists with the right-wing populists from Die Freiheit testing whether or not their attacks on the Muslim minority have majority appeal. If Stürzenberger gathers enough signatures for a citizens’ initiative against the mosque, it would send a signal across Bavaria and beyond that Muslims are not welcome.Growing Anti-Islam MovementThere have been plenty of movements such as Stürzenberger’s in Germany in recent years. They generally begin in response to the construction of a mosque: Reluctance turns into resistance, then hate and violence. Over the last two years, there have been arson attacks against Muslim prayer houses in Berlin, Hanau and Hannover. Politically Incorrect, the most prominent German-speaking anti-Islam website, has up to 120,000 visitors per day.

In addition to Die Freiheit, radical anti-Islamists have founded the political party Pro Deutschland (“Pro Germany”) and the citizens’ movement Pax Europa. They are currently attempting to gain influence over the euro-skeptic Alternative for Germany Party (AfD) — the former federal chairman of Die Freiheit has called for his followers to support the AfD in this May’s European elections.

According to a study by the Friedrich Ebert Foundation, 56 percent of Germans consider Islam to be an “archaic religion, incapable of fitting into modern life” and many believe religious freedom for Muslims should be “substantially restricted.”

There are several potential explanations for the rising skepticism of Islam in Germany. For one, many third-generation Muslim immigrants are living more strictly than their parents did, making them more conspicuous. Also, in some neighborhoods in large German cities, Muslim girls are afraid of going outside without wearing a headscarf. There have also been several reports in the German media recently of ethnic-German men converting to Islam, radicalizing and going to Pakistan for terror training. Just this past week, the Minister of the Interior warned that a total of 300 German Jihadists have left Germany to fight in Syria.

Hans-Georg Maassen, president of the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution (BfV), Germany’s domestic intelligence agency, sees a “correlation” between the activities of the radical Salafists and far-right agitation.

There are about four million Muslims in Germany, almost half of which have a German passport. The BfV estimates that about 42,000 (or 1 percent) of them are fundamentalists and 1,000 are potentially violent.

Anti-Islamists generally don’t differentiate between Sunnis, Shiites and Alevi, or between militant Islamists and peaceful believers. In their imagination, Islam isn’t a religion but a political ideology that must be fought. Muslims are accused of trying to take over the world, undermining the sovereignty of democratic states, infiltrating their legal systems. The Politically Incorrect internet platform reads: “The spread of Islam means that our descendants — and probably us too — will live in an Islam-dominated social order oriented towards the Sharia and the Koran and no longer towards the constitution and human rights.”

The website of the “Nürnberg 2.0″ project shows wanted posters of supposed Muslim supporters — judges, journalists, politicians — who are to be brought to justice for the “Islamification of Germany” in the vein of “the Nuremberg War Crimes Trials of 1945.”

In the summer of 2013, a video by a self-described “Anti Islam Faction” made the rounds via Politically Incorrect. It showed a Koran being burned on a tree stump followed by the appearance of three men in aluminum foil masks who then burn another Koran and address Muslims in a distorted voice: “You are the most fascist and hate-filled religion in existence.” Then the video shows images of decapitations, blood-smeared fanatics, mutilated women’s bodies and faces that have been eaten away. It ends with the words: “Don’t give Islam a chance!” The Munich State Prosecutor has begun proceedings against the video’s creators.

Numerous Attacks

Politically Incorrect (PI for short) was founded by Stefan Herre, a teacher from Cologne. Herre’s influence stretches beyond the Internet: He’s acquainted with right-wing populists like the Geert Wilders in Holland and Islamophobes such as the American pastor Terry Jones. Local PI groups have formed in many German cities, as well as in Austria and Switzerland; the Munich PI branch is being monitored by Bavarian state intelligence officials.

When Matthias Rohe, a Bavarian Islam scholar who argues for a more nuanced understanding of the religion, gives a talk, he is often booed and insulted by anti-Islamists. One PI comment reads: “In the future, people attending Mr. Rohe’s speeches should make sure to bring the appropriate equipment: a mop and a bucket, a camera, a nice big cross … and a nice sharp knife.”

In mid-November, the Leipzig fire department was called to the property of the Muslim Ahmadiyya congregation, where a garbage can was on fire. Next to it, emergency responders found five bloody pig heads impaled on wooden stakes. The floor had been covered with a blood-red liquid. The police suspects radical right-wingers were responsible.

The Ahmadiyya congregation is planning a mosque with two decorative minarets and prayer rooms for about one-hundred worshippers in the Gohlis quarter of Leipzig. Two weeks before the attack, the right-wing extremist National Democratic Party (NPD) had held a demonstration. By the end of last week, over 10,000 citizens had signed a petition called “Gohlis Says No!”. A CDU politician was instrumental in launching the signature drive; organizers insist that a mosque would “destroy” the quarter’s character.

Increased Visibility Spurring Hate

There’s no doubt that Islam has become more visible in Germany in recent years. Muslims now have risen to higher positions in politics and the economy. Mosques are no longer just being built in industrial areas on the edges of cities, but, as in Leipzig, downtown. But according to Yasemin Shooman from the Academy of the Jewish Museum in Berlin, this continuing Muslim integration is, paradoxically, one of the reasons anti-Muslim prejudice has become stronger.

The NPD has recognized how to transform skepticism and hatred of Islam into political capital. In their party newspaper, Deutsche Stimme(“German Voice”), an article describes how anti-Muslim campaigns can be used to “open doors for much broader anti-immigration sentiments”: “The Muslims — with their foreign origins, customs and religiosity — create unease, fear and resistance among most Germans. The NPD is therefore well-advised from an electoral tactical perspective to focus the immigrant question on the Muslim question and to offer up Muslims as a space on which to project everything the average German doesn’t like about immigrants.”

Maren Brandenburger, the head of the Lower-Saxony intelligence service, confirms that neo-Nazis are increasingly stirring up hatred against Muslims, a phenomenon she sees as a “strategic reorientation of organized right-wing extremism.” Anti-Islamic sentiment now comes in the guise of the average German man or woman.

‘Let That Melt in Your Mouth’

In the civic center of Bonn-Bad Godesberg, about 50 older men and women are listening to a talk by Marie-Luise Hoffmann-Polzoni, the chairperson of the Womenforfreedom association. Her subject: “Sharia vs. Human Rights.” On a table there are German books with titles like “The Jihad System” and “Endangered Freedom.” On the wall there’s a photo of a man whose back is covered in cuts, supposedly having been flogged because he converted from Islam to Christianity.

Hoffmann-Polzoni wears a black frilled dress and speaks with a tempered voice. The vision of Islam she paints is a grim one: stonings, crucifixions and decapitations are expected by Muslims as penalties for purported crimes like adultery. “Just imagine that,” she whispers.

Anti-Muslim speech has found its way into the center of society, stoked by politicians like Hans-Jürgen Irmer, the deputy floor leader for the CDU in Hesse. He warned state parliament that “Islam is set on global domination,” and that “we don’t need more Muslims, we need fewer.” Muslim groups, he said, could not be trusted — because deceiving non-Muslims is a central part of Islam.

Merely the expression of an opinion? From a legal standpoint, Islam can be criticized just as harshly as Christianity in Germany, says Maassen. In the case of Politically Incorrect, authorities are unsure whether to consider it a digital platform or an organization with leaders. Monitoring a blog for its opinions is considered legally questionable. Intelligence officials speak of a “gray area.”

Solution: American-Style Hate-Crimes Laws?

But perhaps gray areas can be eliminated. Last Tuesday, the anti-racism commission of the Council of Europe rebuked the German government for not following through on an initiative to include a provision in the penal code that “makes racist motivations an aggravating factor” in crimes. Countries like the United Kingdom and the United States are further along on this path: They have laws against so-called hate crimes largely to protect immigrants.Ender Çetin, 37, is a victim of hate and racism. The head of Berlin’s Sehitlik Mosque Association has been attacked several times in the past three years. In addition, there have been four arson attacks against the mosque, balloons filled with paint were flung against the walls, tombstones were covered in swastikas and, one time, there was a pig’s head in front of the door. In April, Cetin received a letter: If he doesn’t immediately leave Germany, he will be shot.

Çetin asked for police protection, but the authorities played down the issue. Many members of his congregation are afraid, he says, particularly after murder spree undertaken by the neo-Nazi trio NSU. Now he has installed security cameras, paid for with private donations, at the entrance of the mosque.

BY HUBERT GUDE, MAXIMILIAN POPP, JÖRG SCHINDLER and FIDELIUS SCHMID

Translated from the German by Thomas Rogers

Call for ‘solidarity’ after Stevenage mosque attack

(The Comet)

Salman Lone, from the Stevenage Muslim Community Centre, spoke at a meeting with the police on Friday – three days after a flammable liquid was poured inside the mosque in Vardon Road and set alight.

A toilet extractor fan was smashed before the liquid was poured in at some point between the evening of Tuesday, February 25, and the following morning.

The toilets had a tiled floor and walls, preventing the fire from spreading. However the smoke caused extensive damage throughout the building.

Chief Inspector Richard Harbon and Inspector Simon Tabert, head of the Stevenage Safer Neighbourhood initiative, chaired a discussion with congregation members on Friday, when Mr Lone also spoke.

“This is a major incident and it’s the worst thing that has ever happened to the mosque since it was set up 14 years ago,” said Mr Lone, executive committee member for the mosque.

“People are concerned, confused and cross about the whole thing because a lot of them cannot understand why this has happened. We want to show solidarity with everyone in the community and demonstrate that this sort of thing is wrong.”

Stevenage Muslim Community Centre chairman Sarfraz Awan added: “I was very pleased to see the police come here today and strengthen our members’ confidence in the work they are doing. We are a peace-loving community but, of course, some people felt this was a sign that we were under attack and were unsure of the best way to react.

“I would invite anyone who holds prejudiced views towards our people to come down to the centre and learn more about our way of life. I have lived here for more than 20 years and know Stevenage to be a very peaceful area. We will try to reach out to the wider community and let people know that we are a force for good.”

Addressing the congregation, Ch Insp Harbon said: “We will do everything we can, working with the community, to ensure whoever is responsible is brought to justice. We believe this to be an isolated incident of wreckless vandalism rather than a targeted religious attack. It is important to me that you know you are welcome in this town and we do not want you to be driven away by these kind of foolish one-off incidents.”

Anyone with information is asked to contact Hertfordshire Constabulary on the non-emergency number 101.

Vile Britain First group visits Lancashire mosque

A group seen abusing Muslims outside a London mosque have now launched an ‘anti-grooming campaign’ in a Lancashire Town.

In the video members of the Britain First group, can be seen driving through a predominantly Asian area of Blackburn in what it states is a “new direct action campaign against the scourge of Muslim paedophile grooming gangs”.

In London there was widespread condemnation of the actions of the group with members swigging beer and seen abusing Muslims as they left the East London mosque. In the film, one man says: “This is our country. You want to live here, you adhere by our laws.”

Last year members of the equally vile ‘Muslim patrols’ who threatened strangers for holding hands, drinking alcohol and other behaviour they deemed ‘un-Islamic’ were jailed.

In the new video, Britain First Group chairman Paul Golding is seen spouting, “We have gone through some areas which are exclusively Muslim. Everyone has been told that we are the minority in this town. These areas we are going through now are 100% colonised by Muslims. We have been visiting establishments, bed and breakfasts and takeaways. We hope it will put a dent in the Muslim grooming in this town.”

In the video the group visits a Premier Inn and a Travel lodge. They visit a supposed ‘mega mosque’ where an elderly man welcomes them inside not realising who they are. They simply hand the literature and walk off. He doesn’t seem to understand what they are saying. They then visit the mayor of Blackburn with Darwen’s house. He is not home and they post the offensive literature through his door.

Councillor Salim Mulla was shocked that members of the group visited his house, “Luckily, no-one opened the door. I have seen the literature in question and I am appalled by it. I am going to hand the literature to the police.

“This is a fascist group and no-one should entertain them. I am going to be asking the LCM (Lancashire Council of Mosques) to write to all the mosques and asking them to be aware of this group. If they appear on their doorstep that they should pick up the phone and call the police.

“If someone breaks the law it is the job of the police force to investigate not vigilante groups such as this.”

Asian Image, 3 March 2014

Wilders helps to launch anti-Islam party in Australia

An anti-Islam party based on the hardline views of Dutch politician Geert Wilders plans to field candidates at the next federal election, raising fears among moderate Muslims of a rise in extremism.

Mr Wilders, an influential far-right figure expected to shape the results of this year’s European elections, told followers in a video message that the Australian Liberty Alliance was being formed to “offer civil minded Australians fresh political vision and better policies”. Policies advocated by Wilders’ Party for Freedom include deporting immigrants convicted of a crime and stopping all immigration from Islamic countries.

“Many of you are disappointed by current political parties and have had enough of politicians who sell our Western civilisation,” Mr Wilders said in his video. “Like you, good people in Europe, America, Canada have had enough of politicians who don’t share our values and foolishly declare all cultures are equal, and who lack the courage to speak the truth and say that Islam is the biggest threat to freedom today.”

Australian Liberty Alliance was registered as a not-for-profit business last month by Debbie Robinson, the president of the Q Society, an anti-Islam think tank that was responsible for bringing Mr Wilders to Australia last year. The party will be headquartered in Western Australia and is expected to be launched by Mr Wilders early next year. It is yet to be registered as a political party with the Australian Electoral Commission. Ms Robinson said she intended to stand as a candidate.

Islamic Friendship Association of Australia spokesman Keysar Trad urged Muslims to ignore the fledgling party, warning it would “galvanise hardliners” on both sides of the debate. “The extremists within our community love to see something like this,” Mr Trad said. “All this does is create further division.”

Human Rights Commissioner Tim Wilson said despite Australia’s implied constitutional protection of political speech, any party had a responsibility not to “inflame prejudice”. “Australia had Hansonism and saw it for its shallowness and flaws, and I think people will see exactly the same thing with Wilders,” Mr Wilson said.

Q Society spokesman Andrew Horwood said the party would have no formal relationship with either the Q Society or Mr Wilders. He said the party would be secular, conservative and campaign openly against Islam. “Australia is a different country to The Netherlands but we will be absolutely fearless in saying we don’t believe Islam is good for this country,” Mr Horwood said.

The Australian, 5 March 2014

See also “Australian Liberty Alliance, backed by anti-Islam Dutch MP Geert Wilders, set for launch”, News.com, 4 March 2014

Marine Le Pen calls for strict application of secularism … to defend France’s ‘Christian roots’

Marine Le Pen, whose party is riding a wave of anti-immigration and anti-Muslim voter sentiment around Europe, says it will cut public funds to religious groups in towns where it wins municipal elections this month.

Le Pen told The Associated Press in an interview Monday that secularism will be strictly applied in towns where her far-right National Front prevails on March 23 and 30, and that referendums will be held on major issues.

Le Pen, 45, praised the recent Swiss decision, in a referendum, to cap immigration, saying countries have an “inalienable right” to control their borders. Le Pen claimed the Swiss decision, passed by a razor-thin 50.3 percent “yes” vote, would have sailed through France with a 65 percent approval rating if such a referendum held here.

Le Pen – who took the helm from her father, party founder Jean-Marie Le Pen, in 2010 – has worked to remove the stigma that has kept the party out of mainstream politics by giving it a kinder, more politically correct face. But the National Front has forged ahead with its anti-immigrant stance, especially regarding Muslims.

In towns the National Front might win, Le Pen said that local taxes would be lowered and public funds would be denied to any association with a religious character. Current law forbids funding religious organizations, but they can receive money if their work also addresses the general interest. In reality, that means many associations would risk losing public funds.

A strict application of the principle of secularism could mean removing halal food in school cafeterias, forbidding Muslim women in scarves to accompany children on class trips, and prevent Muslim women from renting public swimming pools after hours.

“I’m absolutely not afraid to be called anti-Muslim because I’m not,” Le Pen said.

Le Pen – who calls herself a “patriot” rather than a member of the extreme right – claims that her party neither deals in nor encourages the rising Islamophobia in France. She blames “political-religious groups” who want to install Muslim Sharia law in France and use “massive immigration” to do so.

“We don’t have problems with Islam,” she said. But “France has Christian roots. They (the French) want to recognize their own country, recognize their lifestyle, their habits, their traditions.”

Associated Press, 3 March 2014

Original guest post by Jai Singh

Headed by Nigel Farage, a Member of the European Parliament, the UK Independence Party (known as “UKIP”) has made huge gains in local government elections in the UK, and may achieve the support of up to 20% of voters during the impending European elections. UKIP has of course also received scrutiny due to the extreme right-wing (and often explicitly Far-Right) views of far too many of its politicians. These views have received publicity via a combination of media exposure and blunders by UKIP politicians themselves.

Such incidents are continuing to occur. For example, during a recent UKIP conference in Torquay, Nigel Farage was caught enthusiastically applauding racist “jokes” about South Asians along with similarly derogatory “humour” at the expense of Muslims. Furthermore, during the same conference, UKIP tried to ban journalists from a meeting ostensibly to discuss sharia law; the very first question at that meeting was “How can you be both a Muslim and an Englishman ?” Farage himself has also become increasingly outspoken about expressing highly offensive views; in fact, even traditionally right-wing British news outlets such as The Telegraph are now publishing articles describing UKIP as “an overtly racist and extremist party”.

UKIP’S “DECLARATION FORM” FOR CANDIDATES

According to BBC deputy political editor James Landale, writing on 28 February 2014:

If you want evidence of how UKIP is trying to become more professional, look no further than the form potential candidates have to fill out, a copy of which I have obtained at the party’s conference in Torquay.

Wannabe UKIP candidates have to declare the following:

“I never engaged in, advocated or condoned racist, violent, criminal or anti democratic activity.

“I have never been a member of or had links with any organisation, group or association which the national executive committee considers is liable to bring the party into disrepute.

“I have never been convicted of any offence punishable by a custodial sentence, whether or not a custodial sentence was actually imposed. I shall notify the Party Chairman and General Secretary immediately upon being interviewed under caution.”

Later the form asks specifically: “Are you or have you ever been a member of the BNP, EDL or any other organisation that might be of public interest?”

And this is my favourite: “I do not have any ‘skeletons in my cupboard’ that may cause me or UKIP embarrassment if they were to come out during the election.”

Unfortunately for UKIP, the ramifications of this will become clearer immediately below, although not in the way UKIP’s leadership intended.

UKIP MEP GERARD BATTEN AND THE ANTI-MUSLIM PROPAGANDA NETWORK

Another very senior UKIP politician who has recently featured in the British news is Gerard Batten, UKIP’s immigration spokesman. A founder member of UKIP in 1993, he has also been UKIP’s Chief Whip since 2009, and was personally appointed by Nigel Farage. Furthermore, Batten is currently UKIP’s MEP for London and a member of UKIP’s National Executive Committee. Batten was appointed a member of the European Parliament’s Subcommittee on Security and Defence in 2004; he was appointed UKIP’s spokesman on Security and Defence soon afterwards.

In February 2014, Batten appeared as one of the main participants in several televised political debates on Channel 4 and the BBC, primarily in his capacity as UKIP’s immigration spokesman. As discussed in The Guardian, Batten has also recently received some publicity due to his proposed “Muslim Charter” requiring British Muslims to sign a “code of conduct”; despite the outcry, Batten has refused to withdraw his proposal. (Nigel Farage subsequently disowned Batten’s proposal).

Furthermore, the same Guardian article confirms that Batten is also on record as suggesting a ban on new mosques in British cities; Batten justified this by repeatedly referring to the prohibition on non-Muslim places of worship in Saudi Arabia, which he kept describing as “the heartland” of Islam. Batten is therefore proposing that British citizens who are Muslims should effectively be held hostage to the actions of foreign governments. Bear in mind that the majority of British Muslims do not have Saudi Arabian (or Middle-Eastern) backgrounds and do not even belong to the same religious “denomination” as state-sponsored Saudi Wahhabism.

On 28 February 2014, during an interview with Sky News anchor Adam Boulton, Nigel Farage insisted that UKIP had already “got rid of” everyone with any links to extremism. During his speech at the recent UKIP conference discussed above, Farage similarly claimed that “We’ve had one or two bad people. We’ve got rid of them”. However, Farage’s claims are demonstrably false: It turns out that Gerard Batten himself has a history of direct involvement with the core extremist international anti-Muslim propaganda network.

For example, in 2007, Gerard Batten personally represented the UK at a major anti-Muslim conference held in Brussels by the aforementioned propagandists. The conference brought together dozens of organisations and individuals to inaugurate the “Counterjihad Europa” network; participants included a number of the main writers at the virulently anti-Muslim website Gates of Vienna, along with Robert Spencer, who is the main writer of the Jihad Watch website and a foreign extremist whom the British Government’s Home Office has now banned from entering the UK. Full details on the conference here and here; Gerard Batten is explicitly named.

Regular readers will recognise the names of many of the people listed, including sources cited by the mass-murdering terrorist Anders Breivik in his manifesto; Gates of Vienna owner Edward May (aka “Baron Bodissey”) is on record as explicitly describing himself as a “propagandist” and admitting that his agenda is to deliberately promote highly distorted information about Islam in order to stereotype and demonise the religion. Subsequent annual conferences have included high-profile participation from the English Defence League leadership.

Gerard Batten is also directly linked to the Dutch Far-Right politician Geert Wilders, and has even held joint press conferences with him. Wilders’ extremely bigoted views on Islam are well-known (see examples via Wikipedia and the Institute for Policy Studies). Batten is on record as describing Wilders as “a brave man trying to defend western civilisation in the face of its own loss of the most basic instinct of self preservation”.

Furthermore, Gerard Batten also has a history of assisting the extremely anti-Muslim “Stop Islamisation of Europe” (SIOE) organisation. He even handed in a petition on behalf of SIOE head Anders Gravers to the mayor of Brussels. SIOE is part of Robert Spencer & Pamela Geller’s SION (“Stop Islamization of Nations”) organisation, and Gravers himself is currently a member of SION’s Presidents Council.

For the UKIP leadership’s benefit and for the public record, it is worth reiterating the following key facts. Robert Spencer is:

(a) an individual with precisely zero academic, professional or linguistic qualifications on the subject of Islam;
(b) an individual whose own alma mater, the University of North Carolina, have publicly condemned his writings;
(c) formally allied to racist white supremacists and European neo-Nazis, and has even organised joint public demonstrations with then;
(d) on record as demonising the entire Muslim population and demonising the religion of Islam as a whole;
(e) on record as repeatedly making false statements about Islam and Muslims, and repeatedly trying to hide the evidence when his actions were exposed;
(f) on record as making false statements about historical Popes and major Jewish figures, and then trying to hide the evidence when his actions were exposed;
(g) one of the most heavily cited sources in the terrorist Anders Breivik’s manifesto;
(h) an ordained Catholic deacon who has publicly admitted that his anti-Islam propaganda campaign is heavily motivated by his [unilateral] agenda for the dominance of the Catholic Church, despite the fact that his actions are in violation of both official Vatican policy and the extensive interfaith bridge-building efforts of the global leaders of his own Catholic sect;
(i) closely linked to influential American Catholic religious leaders affiliated with “Dominionism”, an extreme interpretation of fundamentalist Christianity deriving from “Christian Reconstructionism”, which involves the belief that rule by non-Christians anywhere in the world is sacrilege, explicitly approves of the historical slavery of African-Americans, and openly advocates the replacement of American law with Old Testament injunctions including the death penalty for apostasy and homosexuality; furthermore, according to Dominionism, its adherents have a God-given mandate to infiltrate the highest echelons of power and subsequently impose their beliefs on the entire world;
(j) closely linked to multiple figures who are extremely anti-Semitic as well as anti-Muslim;
(k) on record as denying the Srebrenica genocide, explicitly describing it as “the-genocide-that-never-was” and proposing “the possibility that Muslims could have carried out any deceptive atrocity-manufacturing in the Balkans”;
(l) on record as repeatedly promoting the work & writings of Serge Trifkovic, former spokesman for the Serbian war criminal Radovan Karadzic; Karadzic is currently charged with genocide during the ethnic cleansing of Muslims in Bosnia. Spencer and Trifkovic have even held joint interviews and collaborated on an anti-Islam documentary film. Trifkovic openly supports and defends Ratko Mladic, whom the United Nations Tribunal has indicted on 16 counts of genocide and war crimes. Furthermore, Trifkovic has also appeared as a defence witness during the trials of several Serbian war criminals subsequently convicted of multiple crimes against humanity, including genocide, exterminations, persecution and deportations;
(m) on record as joining a genocidal white nationalist Facebook group called the “Campaign for the Reconquest of Anatolia”, whose mission statement openly advocates the ethnic cleansing, mass sterilisation and euthanasia of Turkey’s entire Muslim population, targeting “up to 150 million people”;
(n) on record as making extremely disparaging statements about the prestigious West Point military institution and has described Far-Right terrorists in the US as “ordinary Americans who believe in individual rights”.
(o) an individual whose SION/SIOA/AFDI organisations’ leadership is directly assisted by David Yerushalmi, the head of an organisation whose mission statement explicitly declares that its (currently unidentified) members are “dedicated to the rejection of democracy”.
[Note: Extensive further information regarding these facts along with a range of other matters involving Robert Spencer and his inner circle is available in this recent article.]

EDL ex-leader Stephen Yaxley-Lennon (aka “Tommy Robinson”) was a member of SION’s Presidents Council until his unconvincing “defection” to the Quilliam Foundation in October 2013. Speaking to various international outlets, especially a Far-Right source, Yaxley-Lennon has admitted the real reasons for his involvement with Quilliam. It is worth noting that Yaxley-Lennon has repeatedly stated that there has actually been zero change in his extremist views, and that he continues to support Robert Spencer. Yaxley-Lennon is also on record as publicly endorsing UKIP.

*********************************************************************************

UKIP’S LINKS TO INTERNATIONAL FAR-RIGHT PARTIES

As confirmed by the New Statesman:

Ukip is part of the group Europe of Freedom and Democracy (EFD). The group includes representatives of the Danish People’s Party, the True Finns Party, the Dutch SGP and the infamous Italian Lega Nord – all of them far-right. Nigel Farage is co-President of the group along with Lega Nord’s Francesco Speroni, who described multiple murderer Anders Breivik as someone whose “ideas are in defence of western civilisation.”

Mario Borghezio, another member of the group, declared in a radio interview that Breivik had some “excellent” ideas. Farage’s reaction was to write a strongly-worded letter to Borghezio, asking him to withdraw his comments or Ukip would pull out of the EFD. Borghezio not only did not apologise, but responded with an extraordinary speech in which he raged: “Long live the Whites of Europe, long live our identity, our ethnicity, our race… our blue sky, like the eyes of our women. Blue, in a people who want to stay white.”

Nigel Farage did not withdraw from the EFD. He continues to co-preside over it, along with the leader of the Lega Nord. MEP Nikki Sinclaire, however, was expelled from Ukip for refusing to take part in the EFD because of their “extreme views”.

UKIP AND BRITISH FAR-RIGHT PARTIES

Via the aforementioned New Statesman article:

“Ukip has no links to the BNP,” explained Farage in 2007. The first line of any description of Ukip calls it “a libertarian, non-racist party”. What party, other than one skating close to the lines of taste and decency, needs to describe itself as “non-racist”? Farage boasted on The Andrew Marr Show (20 January 2013) that “Ukip is the only UK party to explicitly ban BNP members from joining”. What party, other than a party whose policies are attractive to such organisations, would need to do that?

…..More recently, however, Farage refused to vote to oppose moves for the European Union to fund the BNP.

The founder of the party, Alan Sked, says it has become “extraordinarily right-wing” and is now devoted to “creating a fuss, via Islam and immigrants”.

Furthermore, as confirmed by the Huffington Post on 28 February 2014, it turns out that UKIP’s “new” “Love Britain, Vote Ukip” campaign slogan is actually a rehash of the Far-Right BNP’s own slogan. A BNP spokesman subsequently complained “They’ve stolen our policies and now they’ve stolen our slogan”.

*********************************************************************************

FURTHER INFORMATION

1. For interested readers, UKIP leader Nigel Farage’s Twitter address is @Nigel_Farage.

2. UKIP “immigration spokesman” and “Chief Whip” Gerard Batten’s Twitter address is @GerardBattenMEP.

3. BBC deputy political editor James Landale’s Twitter address is @BBCJLandale.

4. Sky News anchor Adam Boulton’s Twitter address is @adamboultonSKY.

5. Huffington Post UK Political Director / New Statesman contributor Mehdi Hasan’s Twitter address is @mehdirhasan.

We are dealing with a bright bunch, regular Einsteins apparently:

 

via. Al-Kanz.

The event was first a go, then it was reported to be cancelled. I found out today that it might have never been cancelled to begin with.

Conspiracy Theorist Trains Police On ‘Counterterrorism’ By Michael Allen, (Opposing Views)

Culpeper County, Va. deputies and staff members recently received a three-day “counterterrorism” training course from John Guandolo, a former FBI agent.

The training took place last week at Germanna Community College in Fredericksburg, Va.

“Everything went smoothly,” Sheriff Scott Jenkins told Fredericksburg.com.

However, Guandolo is a conspiracy theorist who has made a number of extraordinary claims, such as the head of the CIA, John Brennan, being a secret Muslim who brought “known Hamas and Muslim Brotherhood leaders into the government and into advisory positions” and American Muslims not having “a First Amendment right to do anything,” according to the Southern Poverty Law Center.

Guandolo also claims that an advisor to President Clinton was a senior al-Qaeda supporter, noted the Star Exponent.

Sheriff Jenkins claimed he was flooded with emails in support of Guandolo’s training.

“It’s hard to believe that the Culpeper County Sheriff’s Office would knowingly associate itself with such a disreputable character,” Josh Glasstetter, of the Southern Poverty Law Center, told Watchdog.org.

EDL member charged with terrorism offences is Michael Piggin

A judge has lifted an order banning the naming of an 18-year-old man charged with terror offences.

Michael Piggin, of Loughborough, is accused of possession of items for the purpose of terrorism, including partially-constructed pipe bombs. He is also charged with possessing a document containing information likely to be useful for a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism.

Mr Piggin denies the two charges and his trial is due to begin on Tuesday.

Mr Piggin is alleged to have possessed nine partially-assembled petrol bombs, firework powder, partially-constructed improvised explosive devices, a crossbow, a variety of air rifles, a gas mask and stab proof vest. He is also charged with having a notebook containing information about the planning of attacks and the construction of explosive devices.

Mr Piggin, whose name could not previously be reported owing to his age, is due to stand trial at the Old Bailey in London.

BBC News, 3 March 2014

Tatars at a protest on Feb. 26. In the Ukrainian uprising, those who favor closer ties with Europe are struggling with ethnic Russians and their desire to be closer to Russia. Caught in between are the Tatars, Crimea’s indigenous minority.Reuters

Crimean Tatars feel pressure from all sides

by Sam Narod, AlJazeera America

They survived Stalin’s attempt to destroy them, but Muslim minority is now caught in the middle of Ukraine’s uprising

SIMFEROPOL, Ukraine — Ali Aliev was a 9-year-old when German troops occupied Crimea during World War II, and he still remembers the day he and others in his village in the southeastern Sudak region of the peninsula gathered in a schoolyard to wait for their liberators, the returning Soviets.

There he learned that the indigenous Crimean Tatar population was being rounded up and sent away.

“We didn’t know where, just somewhere,” he said, now in his 80s and living in Simferopol, the capital of Crimea.

His people were loaded onto empty train carriages — women, children and elders crammed together. When the train stopped, the Soviets opened the doors, threw dead bodies over the side of the platform and restarted the train.

After 22 days on board, Aliev ended up at a labor camp in the Ural region in the center of the USSR. This was Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin’s punishment for the Crimean Tatars, citing Tatar collaboration with the Nazi invaders, despite the fact that many had served in the Red Army.

Descendants of the Golden Horde of Genghis Khan, the Crimean Tatars are Turkic-speaking Muslims and the peninsula’s indigenous inhabitants. The Soviets left them scattered in labor camps across the barren steppes of Central Asia. Thought to number approximately 200,000 at the time, almost half the population died from hunger, thirst and disease in their first year of exile.

“They threw us aside to exterminate us from the earth,” Aliev said. “But despite what we lived through, the people never forgot their homeland. We went to sleep at night dreaming of Crimea.”

Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, the Crimean Tatar population has slowly returned to an entirely different homeland from the one they were forced to leave, one dominated by ethnic Russians and Ukrainians. Since the Tatars’ homecoming, they have been fighting for their rights, but with the newest Russian incursion, the Crimean Tatars here says they feel hemmed in from all sides.

With Russian troops on their streets and Russian president Vladimir Putin’s warning that he will use force to secure Crimea and eastern Ukraine, anxiety is mounting among the minority, which supported the uprising against now ousted President Viktor Yanukovich. The embattled Tatars, who make up 12 percent of the multiethnic peninsula, according to a 2001 census, look unlikely to get their way.

On Saturday, Putin requested and received authorization from the upper house of Russia’s parliament to use military force in Ukraine. On a call with U.S. President Barack Obama, Putin “stressed that in case of any further spread of violence to eastern Ukraine and Crimea, Russia retains the right to protect its interests and the Russian-speaking population of those areas,” the Kremlin announced. On Sunday, Ukraine responded by calling up its military reservists, while Russian troops continued to surround Ukrainian military bases on the peninsula.

A return from exile

“Other ethnic groups here have governments that protect their future, but we don’t have a homeland other than Crimea,” said Abduraman Egiz, a deputy with the Mejlis, a representative body for the Crimean Tatars.

Russians make up almost 60 percent of the peninsula’s populations, and Ukrainians compose 24 percent according to the 2001 census.

“We want to protect our language, history and historical figures, but the legacy of the USSR lives, and people don’t understand these basic rights need to be guaranteed,” Egiz said.

Return from exile in Central Asia was a slow process. “All the adults told us stories about our homeland. They pounded us with them so we would never forget,” Zulfere Memetova, a 30-year-old accountant who grew up in Uzbekistan, remembered.

Crimean Tatar activists at a protest in front of the parliament building in Simferopol, Feb. 26, 2014. Arthur Shvarts/EPA

Her relatives spoke their native language at home, and Memetova said she used to tell her friends at the end of every school term that she wouldn’t be back next year because she would return to Crimea. She ended up finishing her degrees in Uzbekistan.

When the Tatars were finally allowed to return in the late 1980s, they found ethnic Russians living in their houses. They started building their own settlements from scratch. When Memetova’s mother-in-law Zarema Nasibolaeva, a 57-year-old doctor, returned to Crimea in 1993, the family members had sold all their belongings to pay for their homecoming. She remembered finding her ethnic brethren living in tents and ramshackle structures while struggling to build permanent housing. “Some people had even dug holes in the earth and were living there,” she said.

Interacting with the rest of the population proved challenging as well. “The Russians were terrified of us because of the Soviet propaganda. I used to argue with people on public transportation, but after a while we got used to each other,” Nasibolaeva said.

Even before the current crisis, Egiz, who is also a founding member of Bizim Qirim, a youth organization focused on Tatar identity retention, said Crimean Tatars were worried about losing their culture and their linguistic roots. In exile many spoke the Tatar language at home in secret to keep traditions and as a challenge to Soviet rule, but the modern world has come crashing down on the minority.

Bizim Qirim sponsors cultural events, appears on television to support Tatar rights and holds workshops in universities to promote Tatar issues. “Our main challenge is assimilation,” Egiz explained. Bizim Qirim started a petition to return village and street names to their historical Tatar names. “In our return to Crimea, one of our main goals was to retain the identity of our nation,” he said, “but as a minority, our rights are lacking. There are no strong laws protecting minority rights.”

Today Memetova and Nasibolaeva live in an apartment compound financed by the Ukrainian government that was reserved for Tatars. The streets outside the blocs are unpaved and muddy, and the school that the government was supposed to construct for children has been frozen since 1992.

Memetova’s children do not speak the Tatar language because they spend all day in Russian-language schools while she is at work. “When my daughter started day care, she spoke Tatar. Within a month she started speaking to me in Russian,” Memetova said. They worry that their the language and culture is slowly being eroded.

These days, cultural concerns have taken a backseat to developments in Kiev and Moscow. The Tatars came out in Simferopol on Feb. 26 to support the Kiev protests after Yanukovich was ousted. So far, the Tatars say they have not seen signs of support from the government in Kiev. “Just as we’ve had to do everything ourselves, so it will continue,” Memetova said.

Over sweet tea and chocolate in the family’s home, the chance of a better life under Russian control seemed slim, and the prospect of help from the West seemed even further. “Maybe they won’t find a place to export us, but they’ll find a way to extinguish us. We’re afraid of Russia. We’ve never had anything good from them,” Nasibolaeva said.