John Kerry truly is the gift that keeps on giving, but when it comes to saying dumb thing on public, he has a ways to go before he could even be within sighting distance of Australia's Mufti Sheikh Taj al-Din al-Hilali. The latest furor was triggered by this little bon mot on the subject of female fashions, during his post-Ramadan sermon this year:
"If you take uncovered meat and put it on the street, on the pavement, in a garden, in a park, or in the backyard, without a cover and the cats eat it, then whose fault will it be, the cat's, or the uncovered meat's? The uncovered meat is the disaster. If the meat was covered the cats wouldn't roam around it. If the meat is inside the fridge, they won't get it."
Now there's a twist on "she was asking for it" you probably hadn't heard before. One with special import given the trends in France, in Sweden et. al. that display at the very least a permissive attitude toward rape in Muslim communities - and at worst the use of rape as an deliberate Islamist weapon designed to impose gender and community apartheid. This t-shirt response is funny, but the clear threat is not - and as Tim Blair notes, the generally recognized leader of the Religion of Peace™ in Australia has in the past voiced support for terrorism, said he'd apologize for the rape comment "After we clean the world of the White House first," and offered up other revealing gems.
Of course, the Left can't work hard enough to shill and spin on his behalf - and why shouldn't they?
After all, he shares their goals. Good co-belligerents are hard to find.
So yeah, it's just another brick in the wall of evidence that the global Left will spin any story, shill for any bad guy, abandon any group or principle it had ever championed at the drop of a hat, in the offense on liberty and Western Civ. There are no other principles left since the utter destruction of Marxism as a viable political or economic approach, and nothing else matters except exacting punishment for destroying the idols of their worship. No wonder the Euston Manifesto crowd yearns without irony for a "Decent Left." And yearns largely in vain, however much I applaud and support their efforts.
On the other hand, this latest brouhaha also showcasing another long-term trend, and this one is more welcome. The old game of Muslim silence in the face of public leaders like CAIR (and see here), the American Muslim Council, Skeikh Hilali, et. al. - people who consistently support terrorism, and/or consider the society they live in to be an alien entity from which they will be 'apart held' - is fraying a lot of patience. Enough that it's now triggering public demands on the community as a whole.
This is a very positive development, because without this pressure the calculus for opposing Islamists within the Muslim community is very poor. Give the community as a whole something real to lose from tolerating this conduct, however, and the calculus changes.
In Australia, see these words from a former Australian hostage in Iraq on whose behalf the Mufti intervened. Note especially that last bit:
"Despite Sheik Hilaly's recent statements about uncovered meat, Mr Wood said the mufti could return to his position of influence.
"It's possible, if he goes back to the role of supporting Australia and Australian values."
Which seems to fall into the "not bloody likely" category, but note that even someone favourably disposed toward the Sheikh is giving that out as a mandatory requirement. A much more straightforward set of demands, and elaboration of what "Australian values" means, was set out by Piers Akerman in the Daily Telegraph, "Fixing Shaky Footings":
"The only convoy getting ready to roll is that of the Sheik's supporters who have been asked to gather in Sydney's Western suburbs this weekend in a show of support.
Support for ignorance, intolerance, bigotry, sexism and hate.... The Sheik has presented this routine so often that it has worn thin.
It is interesting that his comparison of women to meat was the final straw, and not his outrageous and disgusting remarks about Jews and Christians, or support for suicide bombers and the terrorist organisations, Hamas and Hezbollah. No one can say this nation is not tolerant. Or not idiotically complacent.
When the Islamic community starts thinking of a replacement to be given the privilege of preaching from the bully pulpit of Australia's largest mosque, it would do well to remember that Lakemba accommodates one of the largest populations of the unemployed and least educated in the nation.
They don't need someone like Western Australian imam Abdul Jalil Ahmad, who says women should cover-up and not venture out alone if they wish to avoid being raped.
They don't need a firebrand - they need a helping hand - someone to show them that their future lies in integration not isolation. They must stop promoting themselves as victims and their society as the Other.
They need to embrace the broader culture, including gender equality, even our beach culture, and other aspects of Australian life such as the English language and the heritage of common law.
The next imam shouldn't preach the superiority of Islam over all other religions - he should teach that followers of all religions or followers of no religion must be shown the same respect.
Mohammed may have separated the believers from the non-believers but Australians separate only the bad from the good.
The next imam should understand that Arabic is not the sole language in the world and he should preach in English to help his congregation better integrate into society.
As a matter of common courtesy, he should avoid those sections of the Koran which refer disparagingly to "cow worshippers" and make other outrageous references to those of other faiths.
This language is not only hugely disrespectful to other Australians, it also constitutes religious vilification.
He should see his role as facilitating Muslim acceptance of the best aspects of Australian life and making a contribution to the nation, as have previous waves of migrants.
He must also inform non-Muslim Australians of his view of certain Koranic principles which foster division, such as the notion of al-Taqiyya, the concept understood by both Shias and Sunnis, that it is permissible to lie or dissemble to both Muslims and non-Muslims in various situations.
He would do well to take a lead from Ameer Ali, chairman of Prime Minister John Howard's Muslim advisory board, who four weeks ago attacked those Muslims who "blindly" followed their faith and failed to question the veracity of the Koran and acknowledged that even Mohammed had "flaws".
This might seem like heresy, but it served to show that, refreshingly, there are Australian Muslims brave enough to challenge the mediaeval view that the Koran must be interpreted literally.
He might also encourage young women like Iktimal Hage-Ali, a former member of the advisory board, who challenged the content of the Sheik's sermons and doesn't feel compelled to wear a hijab to demonstrate her commitment to Islam.
And he might examine those Koranic verses which exhort Muslims not to befriend non-Muslims and those which proclaim non-Muslims to be inferior.
They are clearly at odds with Australia's multicultural society, which should promote inclusion, not exclusion.
Should Australian Muslims be upset at this time?
Yes, and Hilaly and his redneck supporters have given them plenty to be upset about."
Bang. On. Fortunately, there are folks out there like Waleed Aly of the Islamic Council of Victoria. Unfortunately, there may not be enough of them. We'll see.
Meanwhile, in Britain, there may be some self-examination beginning. You can't do any better than Ali Eteraz' primer on Britain's Muslim community and its challenges, and I recommend it highly. But the thing that made me go "hmmmm..." was this email, which crossed my desk about a week ago - sent from Omar Hashimi:
Voluntary Apartheid? An Emergency Debate on the Muslim Community in Britain
The focus on the Muslim community in Britain has genuinely escalated in recent weeks with numerous comments and news-stories across the mass media. The shadow home secretary, David Davis, attacked Muslim leaders for risking " voluntary apartheid" in Britain, Prime Minister Blair described the wearing of the niqab as "a mark of separation " and Trevor Phillips, Head of the Commission of Racial Equality warned the defensiveness of some in the Muslim communities …could be the trigger for the grim spiral that produced riots in the north of England five years ago. Only this time the conflict would be much worse ".
See the TCS article "The Straw That Broke the Multi-Culti Camel's Back" for direct background on some of the latest triggering incidents. These include:
- Aishah Azmi, a teacher's assistant in an Episcopalian school who was tasked with helping recently arrived Urdu-speaking children to learn English, was asked to remove her niqab (full facial veil) in the classroom so the children could see her lips and mouth as she pronounced the English words they were supposed to be learning. She refused on religious grounds. She was fired and even the local Labour MP, a Muslim, has backed the school.
- A worker at a British Airways' check-in counter who wore a small cross was sent home for refusing to remove it. Ms Nadia Eweida noted that Sikh male employees are allowed to wear religious items like turbans, and Muslim women can wear headscarves. She's suing BA on grounds of religious discrimination.
- Tony Blair, Jack Straw, and even noted collaborator with Islamists "Red Ken" Livingstone have gone public opining against the veil, which is beginning to be seen correctly as a passive-aggressive weapon as well as a symbol of womens' subjugation.
Back to the Political Philosophy Society event. Speakers:
Yvonne Ridley
Political Editor - Islam Channel
Stop the War CoalitionVs
David Aaronovitch
Columnist for The Times
and The Jewish Chronicle- Are Muslims guilty of wilfully segregating themselves from wider society?
- Does the wearing of the full-face veil signify disrespect to others?
- Should minorities abandon their cultural practices if wider society disapproves?
- Is freedom of expression under threat?
- Does Islam oppress women?Tuesday 31st October 6:00pm
Lecture Theatre 2,
Sir Alexander Fleming Building
Imperial College London
Closest Tube station: South Kensington
Now, once again it's unsurprising to find a well known leftist doing the shilling for all manifestations of Islamofascist theocracy, as political editor of the Islam Channel no less. That isn't mere co-belligerence, that's REPECT Party style alliance. And hardly rare these days, either - all that stuff about women's rights is so yesterday, anyway (just ask the Left in Australia). But again, the thing that strikes me isn't the red-green (and often brown) alliance - it the fact that this has risen to BE a lead-off debate issue.
Which means some of the domestic trends and tipping points discussed in my March 2006 "Postcards from the Edge" post are making themselves felt.
So long as society's response contains both a hand reached out in friendship to its Muslim communities, and a hand raised in a clear stop sign that denotes the limits of acceptable conduct, those trends can exert pressures that will end up having very positive effects. But the longer this kind of friction goes on and the more "Islam" is seen as fundamentally incompatible with Western values and even our exercise of freedom and tolerance, the less we'll see of that hand reached out in friendship. That would truly be a shame, for multiple reasons and on multiple levels.
But then, there are many things coming down the pipe that would be a shame, and many more to be found looking at history - and if Lady History has demonstrated any tendencies at all over the centuries, it's that she really doesn't give a damn.
These next few years are a time of major choices for us all, and those choices will shape our futures and our childrens' futures. Which means the biggest service one can offer is honesty about the nature of those choices.
And THAT is why the trends and anecdotes above cheer me up, rather than depressing me.