Matthew Cassel is a relatively new contributor to the Guardian's CiF. His first article in February tackled Iran and bemoaned attempts by the Western press "to demonise the Islamic Republic and ignore its widespread support". The second, today, is in praise of Lebanon's resistance movement, aka Hezbollah.
As an early commenter writes, "Welcome to Comment is Free! You'll fit right in!!"
Guardian Cif regularly publishes Islamist/Islam/Extremist friendly articles which with equal regularity are totally rubbished by the Cif readers. Now, it is either a cunning plan to generate web site traffic or the Cif editorial people are the most perverse bunch you can imagine.
See what Cif readers thought of Tariq Ramadan’s recent kind offer “Islam’s role in an ethical society” here:
http://libertyphile2.blogspot.com/2010/02/islams-role-in-ethical-society.html
LikeLike
Not sure about “totally rubbished”. I didn’t read all that many comments for this latest Matthew Cassel article, but a few I did see were of the “how refreshing to see a decent piece on Hezbollah at last…” kind. Certainly some criticism though. And lots of “this comment has been removed…”.
LikeLike
It’s the votes. (The number of reader recommendations given to comments.) In the case of Islam/Islamist friendly Cif articles*, the critical comments get overwhelmingly more votes than comments supporting the Islam/Islamist line.
Here are the results for a selection analysed over the last 12 months.
(1) Watch out: democratic Muslims about
“The Islamic Forum Europe has been criticised for ‘taking over’ a London council. But the case against it doesn’t stand up” Inayat Bunglawala 3 March 2010
Highly critical of Mr Bunglawala and disagreeing with him – 94% of readers’ votes (recommendations)
(2) Islam’s role in an ethical society
“Muslim teachings have a lot to offer when it comes to bringing personal values into public life and how best to live together” Tariq Ramadan 23 February 2010
Highly critical of Mr Ramadan and disagreeing with him – 97%
(3) Gove’s unprincipled mosque stand
“Michael Gove’s decision to oppose the building of a new mosque in his constituency is an attempt to silence political opponents.” Alan Hiliar 15 February 2010
For Michael Gove – doubtful or against the mosque – 73%
(4) Gain trust to stop terrorism
“Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab’s father warned authorities about him. It’s a good reminder of the best way to prevent terrorism” Inayat Bunglawala 21 January 2010
Critical or Strongly Critical of Mr Bunglawala’s views – 81%
(5) My compatriots’ vote to ban minarets is fuelled by fear
“The Swiss have voted not against towers, but Muslims. Across Europe, we must stand up to the flame-fanning populists” Tariq Ramadan 29 November 2009
For the Swiss, against Mr Ramadan 86%
(6)Lord Ahmed Redux
Who protested at Gert Wilders visit to the UK
Strongly Against Lord Ahmed, in favour of Mr Wilders entering the UK – 98%
(7) Reading the Qur’an in the dark
“Sebastian Faulks’ Qur’an remarks are symptomatic of a very British, blissfully self-assured ignorance” Ziauddin Sardar 27 August 2009
Against or Strongly Against the attack on Sebastian Faulks for his criticism of the Qur’an – 90%
(8) A committee against Islamophobia
“Anti-Muslim prejudice is finding expression in more hate crimes. We need to tackle the problem at a nationwide level ” Inayat Bunglawala 27 August 2009 –
Against or Strongly Against Mr Bunglawala’s views – 91%
(9) The mythical European Umma
“Given that only about 4% of the EU’s population is Muslim, why is the fear of a coming Eurabia so strong in certain quarters?” Khaled Diab 21 August 2009
Against or Strongly Against Mr Diab’s views – 84%
(10) Turkey is part of Europe. Fear keeps it out of the EU
Tariq Ramadan 6 August 2009
Against or Strongly Against Mr Ramadan’s views – 95%
(11) There really is no compulsion
“Islamic law on apostasy has been much misinterpreted, as the work of several prominent scholars shows.” Inayat Bunglawala 21 July 2009
Disbelief or complete disbelief in Mr Bunglawala’s opinion – 96%
(12) Western hostility to Islam is stoked by double standards and distortion
“The political and media bias is clear. But we Arabs and Muslims too must combat false, retrograde ideas around our religion” Alaa Al Aswany 20 July 2009
Views of Mr Al Aswany are Rubbish or Complete Rubbish – 93%
*Note, none of the articles concern the troubles in Palestine.
This is deliberate policy of LibertyPhile Research. “The (LibertyPhile) site does not cover terrorism, violent conflict and civil disorder, the Israeli-Palestinian problem, the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, or ongoing conflicts in Muslim countries. These are all issues of great concern. They are covered extensively elsewhere and sometimes crowd out the important issues we cover.
LikeLike
LibertyPhile — I work in something called Bibliometrics, and I have to tell you I find this fascinating. Although I’m a little surprised you can find the time to cover all this. Puts a new look on CiF.
LikeLike
Those figures are interesting. It suggests that against the vociferous minority who’ll keep on commenting in vaguely pro-Islamist terms there’s a huge silent majority of anti-Islamists. Which should be no surprise, I guess.
LikeLike
Counting the votes (recommendations) is easy and quick. Also, only the votes on the first fifty comments are counted. I found that the weight of voting falls off greatly after the first fifty or so comments.
Its not just the votes but the comments themselves (to a slightly lesser degree than the votes) that go against the articles.
The LibertyPhile analyses of these Cif articles also includes extracts from a selection of typical comments, and it is this reading, selecting and extracting of comments that is time consuming. But it is an eye-opener! I urge you to have a browse.
A very large number of educated, articulate, well-informed and fair minded people (Guardian readers!!) regularly tear to pieces the Islamic and Islamist propaganda churned out by “their newspaper”. Much of this comment is of considerably better quality than the original articles.
Somebody in the Guardian editorial department must have noticed this, so why is it ignored?
LikeLike
“Islamism: why the west gets it wrong – Islamism is widely misunderstood in the west. It has its roots in a reaction to the global politics of the 20th century”
Have a look at the first few commnents on this article.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2010/mar/16/islamism-west-muslim-brotherhood
They pull it to pieces.
LikeLike
True enough. And it’s instructive to see which comments get recommended most.
LikeLike
unfortunately, as much as i generally share Mick’s distaste for the Islamist cheerleading, distorting anti-americanism and one-eyed Israel obsession (etc) that often disfigures CiF, at least a couple of those articles sound – from the headline proposition – pretty fair, and i would hope they would be supported at the Guardian.
Tariq Ramadan is a disgusting man in many areas, granted, but fear does keep Turkey out of the EU in large part. sure, there are good reasons for opposing entry until the rights situation there improves drastically, but can we honestly say many Europeans (a lot of tabloid readers in the UK, many Austrian voters, and so on) don’t oppose it for atavistic anti-Islam reasons?
anyone who reads, for instance, the Daily Express, knows this to be the case for them, certainly, w their chief political editor opposing membership for the most base reasons (it would be fine if he expressed opposition to the Penal Code, etc, but he just spouts simplistic anti-Muslim trash).
and whoever Khaled Diab is, it just looks like he’s attempting to fisk the incorrect and pernicious Eurabia nonsense beloved of intellectually bankrupt north american right-wing loons like Mark Steyn.
and nobody can deny the Swiss minaret vote was very problematic, to say the least.
granted, the above to be taken w a big pinch of salt, as i haven’t read any of the articles concerned!! (and, to be fair, i’d be lying if i said i am zooming over to CiF to read them anon.)
LikeLike
Scott Neil,
The “headline propositions”, as you put it, were thoroughly rebuffed by a very large number of people who had actually read what the authors said.
Regarding the Swiss Minaret ban have a look at:
The Swiss Minaret Ban – The Yawning Gap between Politicians and People
http://libertyphile2.blogspot.com/2010/01/swiss-minaret-ban-yawning-gap-between.html
To save you the trouble of too much exertion, I summarise the results below.
Comments in favour of the Swiss ban could be classified as follows, with the number of votes each category got.
“Well done the Swiss” – 3522 votes
“Islam is intolerant and aggressive. Multi-culturalism doesn’t work” – 5895
“It’s democracy in action. Europe needs more democracy” – 4996
“Banning only minarets, not the religion” – 1197
“Little or no religious freedom in Muslim countries” – 2478
LikeLike
LibertyPhile,
i respect your work in summarising large amounts of information.
thanks.
i’ve now read the Charles Bremner article from The Times that is the basis of your post you link to yesterday (and the Ramadan in The Guardian on the same topic, which was a mixed article, though it finished very well in fairness, and made some sound points at the start too). i think it captures well the balance between right-leaning politicians who were urging caution in not criticising the vote so as not to offend Swiss sensibilities, and others – including left-leaning politicians, and some organisations – who did criticise it.
(i see far-right groups across the continent were loudly in favour!)
obviously there is little or no religious freedom in majority-Muslim countries, though that is a real red herring wrt a sensible discussion of this Swiss ban (by that, i mean, it should have nothing to do with it), and anyone who votes for that option in the context of debating this particular article needs to be answered loudly with ‘Yes? And? So What?’.
i also think that the present multi-culturalism should be junked (for the sorts of reasons Mick quotes Kenan Malik espousing) and that political Islam, and, of course, certain parts of Islam, is generally intolerant and aggressive (that said, w specific regard to the intolerance in parts of the Islamic book, we don’t judge all Jews by the Hebrew Bible, or denounce Christianity because of some denominational Christians who murder abortion doctors in the States, and who may have taken succour from certain Biblical passages), but neither do these things excuse the vote.
as for democracy in action, do we want more referendums? less? what do we need referendums on? and so on. all good questions, and worth arguing about, but still has little to do with the darker side of this vote’s result.
interesting.
but, bottom line, none of the comment voting categories get to the nub of the issue of this dispiriting vote.
and the most intelligent comment in that entire Times article came from that Swiss Muslim leader when they said “The most painful thing for us is not the ban on minarets, but the symbol sent by this vote”.
clearly, if some people cannot see what is distressing and a bit of a worry with the outcome of this vote, they probably have irreconcilable views on the matter with someone who can see cause for concern, and the two parties are wasting each other’s time discussing it, perhaps.
all told, i’d rather listen to the president of Zurich’s Association of Muslim Organisations, Tamir Hadjipolu.
he told the BBC that if the ban was implemented, Switzerland’s Muslim community would live in fear.
“This will cause major problems because during this campaign in the last two weeks different mosques were attacked, which we never experienced in 40 years in Switzerland.”
and who can forget the white sheep/black sheep anti-immigration poster the SVP put out in Switzerland a few years ago?
this is more of the same sort of thing.
i guess these trends in Switzerland are not a surprise, sadly.
LikeLike
Scott Neil
What, then, is the nub of the matter, in your opinion? You don’t say.
On my part, it is this:
Islam is an “in your face” religion, e.g., style of dress, mosques built with dominating minarets (which are not required by Islamic scriptures, and are not found on mosques everywhere). Also, I believe the present prime minister of Turkey referred to them as “the bayonets” of Islam.
This clashes starkly with how most Europeans view religion. In Europe, religion is a largely private matter for individuals who don’t feel they have go around displaying what they do or don’t believe in. And, churches and church buildings that stick out are a thing of the past.
This being the case the Swiss were perfectly entitled to vote against mosques with minarets.
In addition, minarets do stick out and look odd in, say, Camberley.
You should also read: “Gove’s unprincipled mosque stand”
http://libertyphile2.blogspot.com/2010/02/goves-unprincipled-mosque-stand.html
And: “The Camberley mosque should be stopped” (by Dr Taj Hargey, the chairman of the Muslim Educational Centre of Oxford and the imam of the Summertown Islamic Congregation in Oxford)
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article7055771.ece
In Camberley, you had an very very small minority, who were not representative of British Muslims anyway, who wanted to promote their presence, and change the look of Camberley. It was just as much political as religious.
And, yes, it is relevant, as far as I am concerned, that other religions are suppressed in Muslim majority countries. And, that a lot of the money to build mosques in Europe comes from extremist Saudi Arabia.
LikeLike
thanks for getting back to me LibertyPhile.
the nub? i think that religious leader said it best with their comment about the symbol this vote sent, not that anyone is necessarily bothered about the technicalities of the minarets (as i noted above, there are a mere four mosques in Switzerland, so the amount of disproportionate scare mongering on this issue seems quite a lot, to me), the symbol about one particular religion being singled out. i think i’ll quote Norm Geras of normblog at this stage
http://normblog.typepad.com/normblog/2009/11/minaret-ban.html
“Whether or not the projections are confirmed, this would be a grossly illiberal measure, a piece of rank religious discrimination…Argument to the effect that the ban is justified because of the subordinate position of women within Islam is misguided. It uses opposition to one form of unjustified discrimination to uphold another. Discrimination against women should be opposed with the full force of the law and by every other legitimate means; but discrimination against one religion – its beliefs, its symbols, or its buildings – isn’t one of these.”
for presumably cultural reasons and what have you (i don’t know why, but they look pretty to me, which is frankly good enough for this nominal Anglican), it is clear that many mosques have minarets (in fact, visiting an old friend in Stoke-on-Trent last week i noticed a beautiful mosque going up, which pleased me greatly from the aesthetic point of view *), so the fact that minarets are not scripturally justified is neither here nor there.
something idiotic the Turkish PM said is neither here nor there in terms of attempting to justify or applaud this vote. it may have played on the mind of someone voting, but it should not be used as some sort of nugget to retrospectively applaud this vote.
the fact that many Muslim majority countries, as you so rightly say, suppress other religions (i trust you have been as appalled as i have at recent attacks and moves against Christians in Malaysia, to name just one deeply sad and outrageous example of contemptible bigotry in the Muslim world against non-Muslims) should be neither here nor there in attempting to retrospectively justify this vote either. again, as with something stupid the Turkish PM said, it may have played on the minds of voters, but it isn’t a justification.
why should Switzerland, a proud democracy, stoop to the levels of so many of these Muslim majority countries which – as we all know – are often dictatorships?
(dictatorships or authoritarian countries whose governments often have firm friends in the traditionally Christian west, of course.)
fair play to the people of Camberley. if people don’t want a mosque in their backyard for any reason, they should oppose it; they certainly have the right to in a liberal democracy such as the UK. however, there is a world of difference between tackling things case by case, and a blanket measure at the national level.
i apologise for repeating myself in a variety of ways, but there are only so many ways to say this, which is that the vote is to be deplored, because the message it sends out diminishes any Swiss reputation for freedom and choice.
yes, it is a democratic vote, and it’s great the Swiss citizens exist in a democracy (not like, say, the poor Arabians crushed under the wicked Saudi heel with their disgusting exportation of clerical Islamism), but it was a deeply saddening result.
it is of a piece with the xenophobic rabble-rousing the SVP have been peddling in recent years (as i mentioned earlier), and – unfortunately – this is muddying the waters w specific regard to the right, indeed duty, of the Swiss to oppose Islamists, to risking implicating many good Swiss people with the sorts of far-right groups that have a general problem with what the Americans might call any ‘person of color’ actually residing in Europe.
scott n.
* i am a firmly secularist agnostic, for what it’s worth, strongly opposed to Whitehall’s courting of unrepresentative and sometimes bigoted community leaders in the name of Islamic outreach, and Whitehall’s sometime courting of completely reactionary Islamist groups whose politics are anathema to mine; though have a great respect for the best elements of religious imagination, in terms of good literature, Islamic calligraphy, Church architecture, Buddhist song, and so on
LikeLike
i didn’t note earlier about the amount of mosques in Switzerland. (i just read about it in that Ramadan article i mentioned reading.)
my apologies.
LikeLike
If, as you say, “fair play to the people of Camberley. if people don’t want a mosque in their backyard for any reason, they should oppose it; they certainly have the right to in a liberal democracy such as the UK.”
The Swiss can do the same on a national scale. The principles are exactly the same and it would avoid greater acrimony likely to be created by local debates across the country.
The Swiss, like you, may not be keen on multiculturalism as they can see the bad effect it has had in places like the UK*. Mosques with minarets are a powerful symbol of multiculturalism, at one level clashing with traditional or local architectures, and at another level reminding everyone of the differences, sometimes, fundamental and in the eyes of some, irreconcilable, between people.
The same might apply if Buddhists, or Hindus, or Mormons, or Jews wanted to build very distinct and striking religious buildings out of character with their surroundings.
The views of the Turkish Prime Minister are relevant and, in this case, ominous. He is the leader of 80m Muslims, and what he says is not of no account. He clearly sees by his analogy, that minarets are a powerful symbol representing the advance of Islam and its desire to hold sway.
I would like to ask the Swiss Muslim leader you quote who said “The most painful thing for us is not the ban on minarets, but the symbol sent by this vote”, what he thinks of the symbol about Islam sent to Europeans by these events:
A British businessman facing jail in Dubai after he was accused of kissing a woman in public ….
See: http://thelibertyphile.blogspot.com/2010/03/i-kissed-tourist-but-only-on-cheek-says.html
Over two dozen Saudi religious scholars have come out in support of a fatwa (which) called for the death of those who promote gender mixing in workplaces and educational institutes.
See: http://thelibertyphile.blogspot.com/2010/03/saudi-scholars-issue-statement-in.html
And, closer to home, the statement recorded on prime time TV of a senior official of the Islamic Forum of Europe in a programme about Islamist infiltration of the British Labour party.
“Democracy, if it means not implementing the sharia, no one’s going to agree with that.”
See: http://thelibertyphile.blogspot.com/2010/03/backlash-at-mosque.html
There is a continuous unremitting flow of events like this. Some of it trivial, and in isolation meaning little, but much of grave concern, and every reason for the Swiss not to give the benefit of the doubt to Swiss Muslims.
It is for Swiss Muslims to give the benefit of the doubt to their non-Muslim fellow citizens.
The Swiss were also very wise to bring in the minaret ban now while there were still as few as four minareted mosques in the country.
LikeLike
I recommend reading “From Fatwa to Jihad: The Rushdie Affair and its Legacy”, by Kenan Malik (who is referred to above in another post on this site). Atlantic Books, 2009.
LikeLike
thanks for your reading suggestion.
when you write the Turkish PM is the leader of 80m Muslims, don’t you think you’re treating everybody in Turkey as some sort of potential, Islamist fifth-columnist? can’t you see how that looks sweeping (and, indeed, offensive) to some people? even if everybody in Turkey were a devotional Muslim (which they’re not), this characterisation of yours would still be unnecessary.
you seem to keep skirting close to conflating Islam and worshipping Muslims (i know a handful of the latter, British-Asian Muslims FWIW, and none of them are in your face or divisive types, they are just ordinary people who happen to believe one set of religious things, just like my best friend’s mother is a firm church-going Catholic), with the project of political Islamism.
even by my writing this now, i myself are reducing people to the simplistic label of what religion they happen to believe in, which is wrong, as people are obviously far more than some crude, reductive label about which house of worship they go into once a week, or whatever.
the two – Islam and political Islamism – are different things, different people and different minds. (yes, the latter uses and abuses the former, but it is not the same.)
it’s getting close to conflating all worshipping Jews with the expansionist, reactionary right of Israeli politics, or all worshipping Hindus with some of the appalling sectarian violence India’s religious minorities have suffered in recent decades at the hands of Hindu nationalist Indian citizens (in some cases, egged on by the local authorities, it’s alleged).
the really bad Islamists, the really radical jihadists and so on, are relying on the ignorant misreading of the likes of bin-Laden to justify their heinous activities. i know there are some blood-thirsty passages in the Islamic holy book (as there are, in, say, the Old Testament), but i know of plenty of normal clerics at mosques in this country who don’t believe any of that (there are far more decent clerics in the UK than hatemongers at places like Green Lane, Birmingham).
who are we to trust more on Islamic jurisprudence?
plenty of reasonable, normal, educated people of various backgrounds in many different countries, including in the west, who know about Islamic theology without wishing to shove it in people’s faces?
or loons in caves in Yemen or faith schools in Pakistan, or oil-built palaces in Arabia, who are misusing a body of faith for their own hateful ends?
i am sure – i would hope anyway – that Swiss religious leader would be as horrified as you and i by the examples of Islamic intolerance that you cite, but, and this is a point i apologise for sort of making repeatedly earlier, so what anyway?
he has no sway over what goes on in, say, Dubai. Islam is not some monolithic bloc, any more than Christianity is.
(those news stories certainly demonstrate the sadness that goes hand in hand w a political system that chooses to incorporate religion at the highest level, no doubt, but it is not like Saudi Arabia is right on the verge of conquering much of Europe and introducing very strict sharia law in many countries, is it, now?)
things that occur in Switzerland, such as the rabble-rousing before this vote, that saw attacks on mosques (something which had not occurred in Switzerland for 40 years, as he said), do concern him, as they are happening under his nose.
as, technically, a nominal Christian, am i obliged to pass some sort of ideological purity test before i am allowed an opinion on the self-professed Christian militias who massacred hundreds of Nigerian Muslims in the town of Yelwa in May 2004? (this was during the period of the sectarian, tit-for-tat violence in Plateau State, granted.)
for all you and i know, he may believe in some sort of minority Islamic viewpoint, like Sufism, that would see him persecuted in the Middle East. perhaps he is in Europe for a reason.
you seem to keep implying that anyone of what you can call a ‘Muslim’ background is some sort of troublesome sort who all white, Anglo-Saxon (etc) Europeans must be keeping tabs on.
incidentally, i regret writing people should oppose a mosque if they want to. i should have left it at they have the right to. i personally know of quite a few people in the UK who, it saddens me to say, tend to blur an appropriate critique of Islamism into sorts of fantasies about all ‘Muslims’, and it saddens me to think – as i know people who are like this – that some might oppose a mosque for less than the noblest reasons, shall we say. opposing one just because you don’t like Pakistanis, for instance, and no more, no less.
i know people like this up in my native Manchester, believe me. (i also regret writing the Swiss have a duty to oppose Islamism. they have a right, certainly, and some will oppose it, but i don’t want to imply that Swiss citizens sitting on their backsides HAVE to oppose political Islamism, though of course if they want to, then by all means, do so.)
BTW local debates are surely one healthy source of a vital democracy. a discussion in one area about a potential mosque is good and could be very educational; people on both sides might learn something about the other, and so on. to have a national ban on an element of mosque architecture sends out a powerful message, it seems to me (and the Swiss central govt, who urged people to vote against the proposition to ban new-build minareted mosques, i note), that the faith of Islam is seen as lesser than other faiths, and, that, just perhaps, people who believe in that faith are too.
i know i said earlier religious believers are more than the label of what set of faiths they cling to, but at the same time, this sort of message would surely perhaps diminish the sense of worth and sense of belonging a person of faith might feel toward their country, certainly if they are strongly religious.
P.S.
they put up a new synagogue recently near where my parents live. there were some objections on various grounds in the area, and quite a lot of support too.
it is a striking building, and not technically in keeping w the street on which it resides, but it certainly enriches the road IMO.
LikeLike
BTW LibertyPhile i should retract a couple of things i write up above, as they are insulting to you. i should retract where i talk about it is almost as if you are conflating Islamism with Islam and Muslims, which i say a couple of times.
my apologies.
LikeLike
Not all Muslims are the same. This is a well-known fact even by those who criticise Islam and point out the threats that it poses and the troubles that it causes.
The (great) majority of Muslims are content to pursue their religion in way that fits in with modern times and poses no problems for democratic secular societies. Good luck to them.
But, there is a minority who are different. And it is not such minority that it is insignificant.
Look at “Living Apart Together – British Muslims and the paradox of multiculturalism” http://libertyphile2.blogspot.com/2010/01/living-apart-together-british-muslims.html
Policy Exchange, an independent think tank, published this report which included the results of a survey of 1003 Muslims conducted by Populus.
The survey results show that something like a quarter to a third of British Muslims hold beliefs that are completely at odds with western Christian and Enlightenment secular values and British culture in particular. These proportions are even higher amongst younger Muslims in the age range 16-34 years.
Policy Exchange is considered biased or anti-Muslim by some. Populus is a well-known and reputable market research organisation.
In any case, also have a look at the results of the Gallup Coexist survey analysed here: http://libertyphile2.blogspot.com/2010/01/gallup-coexist-study-2009-headlines-you.html
The Gallup Coexist project is managed by a Muslim, Dalia Mogahed (who is a Muslim affairs advisor to President Obama) but even this survey, which in my opinion was run and reported in a biased way, could not conceal the issues if you look at the results rather than just the PR that was put out.
LikeLike
Mick Hartley 
Leave a reply to LibertyPhile Cancel reply