Today is International Women’s Day.
International Women’s Day (8 March) is a global day celebrating the economic, political and social achievements of women past, present and future.
But in some parts of Tower Hamlets, some things remain the same:
Shiria Khatun, 38, told the police that callers threatened to kill her and her four young children. In one call, they warned they would dig up parents’ graves and bury her there instead.
The Labour councillor in the controversial borough of Tower Hamlets is considered one of the area’s most progressive politicians. She was elected in 2006, worked for Ken Livingstone as a transport adviser at London’s City Hall and frequently campaigns for more Muslim women to enter politics.
However, over the past year she has been the victim of a “sick” harassment campaign.
At first she was “too embarrassed” to call the police, but when the threats, mostly made in the Bangladeshi dialect Sylheti, targeted her family she decided to act.
Video report from ITV.
In celebration of IWD and in solidarity with Ms Shiria Khatun, here is Maya Angelou reading her poem ‘And Still I Rise’:
hat/tip: Gauloise Blonde
41 Comments
A Muslim woman and her young children are on the receiving end of death threats and victimisation. She worked for the re-election of former Mayor Ken Livingstone. The matter makes it into national and international press. And yet not a peep from the keen recorders of “Islamophobia” at Islamophobia-Watch.com.
I wonder why.
Well done for highlighting this truly disturbing story. It would be good for the sort of bullying goons capable of this sort of harrasment to be caught but at the very least one hopes they should be scared off by the involvement of the police.
There are no shades of grey involved in this type of incident – Cllr Khatun – and all other residents of London – deserve the full protection of the law.
I appreciate the labyrynthine nature of Tower Hamlets politics gives cause for the writer to ask why the harrassment of this Councillor has not receieved more coverage, but in this case it is possible that this sort of questioning only muddies the water; what the public – particularly those eligible to vote in Tower Hamlets need is simple transparency – the media needs to ask of other councillors and people standing for election in the borough basic questions like do they condemn this sort of harrassment and support the rule or law or not?
In the long run, I would trust people to make their own minds up about anyone who can’t answer a truthful YES , dissembles or invites further follow up questions…
Faisal ‘Mujahid’ Gazi – From all the news reports I have read about this case I really do not think this has anything to do with the woman’s religion, so to class it as an islamophobic crime is incorrect. The people who have been calling her are Bengalis like your self, in fact sylhetis! They are cultural and do not like seeing a Bengali woman wearing western clothes as they prefer cultural clothing i.e. salwar kameez etc.
So this is hardly an attack on a ‘Muslim’ woman rather an attack by culturally minded men – thus being deemed sexist.
That reads as if you approve of sexism just in case it is “cultural”, Wiki.
How very P.C. of you.
I am making a point about the nebulous nature of the term “Islamophobic”. But more than that, about the duplicitous standards of those who seek to make political advantage out of “Islamophobic” attacks. And that is this: when the victims are Muslim women but the attackers are Muslim men, then we find, time and time again, that those who are supposedly keen to stand against Islamophobia suddenly find nothing to protest about.
I know that this is not, strictly speaking, an “Islamophobic” attack in the sense that this woman is not being harassed and victimised because she is a Muslim. But it should be noted that there are many who will try and excuse her attackers on the grounds that this is merely an example of “cultural” practice, and therefore not as bad as “Islamophobia” as such. Furthermore it should be borne in mind that this woman is being targeted because she is not being ‘Muslim enough’.
It’s remarkable that somebody like this – who used to work for Ken Livingstone – should be forced to go to the Express as the only paper likely to run this sort of story. It should be the Guardian – and it is worth making the point that the Guardian would now not run stories sympathetic to Asian British women who want to live ordinary lives in this country.
I wonder if the IFE will comment on this disgusting story. I suspect it won’t be that different from Wiki’s input here.
It certainly qualifies as Islamophobic under the seminal Runnymede Trust definition of that term.
This woman is only being threatened because she is Muslim. Those threatening her have a monolithic view of Islam and Muslims, and seek aggressively to impose that model on this woman.
David you are wrong as Faisal pointed out she is not being targeted because she is a Muslim. Rather she is being targeted because she is Bengali, and it seems that she is bringing some sort of shame on Bengalis (not what I think but what is inferred from the news reports). I do not condone sexism, racism or islamophobia, so I am not saying what the men; who threatened this woman and her family; were doing was right.
My main point is that it was not an Islamophobic attack/threat, and the threats had nothing to do with her beliefs.
wiki,
thank you for providing so neat an example of precisely what faisal is talking about.
b’shalom
bananabrain
No, It is more accurate to say the threats are racist more than anything else. This is because she was Bengali not because she was a Muslim. If you did not know there are Hindu and Christian Bengali’s too!
You’ve misunderstood Wiki; David is right. This woman has been made to face this victimisation because she is Muslim and because, as you say yourself,
“she is bringing some sort of shame on Bengalis”.
By the Runnymede Trust definition of the term, this attack is Islamophobic.
Perhaps I am not grasping matters fully here; but can anyone explain how attacks on a member of an ethnic community by other members of the same ethnic community be described as racist?
They were Sylheti speaking Bengali Muslims from the BNP.
Just as a matter of record, linguists agree that Sylheti is a separate language and not just a dialect of Bengali.
http://www.ethnologue.com/show_language.asp?code=syl
I don’t see what Muslim has to do with this. The title could have just as easily said ‘Sylheti men’, or ‘Bengali men’, or ‘evil men’, etc. Or ‘Bengali woman councillor’…does this councillor identify herself as first and foremost a ‘Muslim woman councillor’ or is it just you simply because you want to make a point?
The victim could very well have been threatened for dressing culturally different to other Bengalis. It doesn’t matter that she’s a Muslim, if she was a Hindu Bengali doing the same thing she would likewise probably be condemned by various members of the Sylheti society for merely breaking a cultural norm. Until being sure of it, I’m not sure why we’re jumping to conclusions before hand, unless of course we have an ulterior objective to meet.
Perhaps Islamaphobawatch doesn’t follow the Runnymeade definition (which part of it by the way shows the case is islamaphobic?), so to use this case and exploit and twist it to somehow throw a cheap shot at islamaphobiawatch is itself very cheap.
“I don’t see what Muslim has to do with this. The title could have just as easily said ‘Sylheti men’, or ‘Bengali men’, or ‘evil men’, etc.”
Surely that can be said of any “Islamophobic” incident in Tower Hamlets.
Respectabilia
Faisal put it perfectly up thread:
You’ve failed to prove it was islamaphobia. Mention has been made to the Runnymeade Trust’s definition but which part exactly shows this is Islamaphobia? Prove it is unequivocally Islamaphobia (not why it is merely so in your eyes, something that’s also not been done yet) first and then you can rightfully demand why Islamaphobia watch fails to write about it. But before then, we’re left with the question as to why this case is used to throw cheap shots based on pre-conceived conclusions.
The cheapest shot of all is trying to out-grievance this woman by willfully misunderstanding the term “Islamophobia”.
It is as if Respectabilia wilfully fails to read posts with which he might disagree – and so fails to engage with the same; instead simply repeating ad nauseum the same line, regardless of how many times it is demolished.
Let’s ignore the Runnymede definition of Islamophobia (which, in any case was not referenced by Faisal in the quote I made of his earlier post, above). How about addressing Faisal’s concern that when it is a case of Muslim on Muslim attack, the very people who play the Islamophobia card can find absolutely nothing to complain about?
Let’s not ignore the Runnymeade definition and change the subject, Faris. Or are you wilfully misreading all the posts above and ignoring them? Where is your proof that this is unequivocally Islamaphobia, so we can condemn Islamaphobia Watch?
Respectabilia
I am not ignoring the Runnymede definition, Respectabilia. It simply plays no role in the discussion as far as the particular comment from Faisal I quoted earlier was concerned.
I think you have to show that I am doing this – your case is not strengthened by simply parroting back without evidence at people accusations made against you with evidence. That is playground stuff.
This is not a thread about Islamophobia Watch or the Runnymede definition of Islamophobia. Nice try at diversion, however.
Are you (as is becoming tiresomely your pattern) simply going to repeat the same questions over and over again regardless of how anyone responds? Exactly how does this profit your position, Respectabilia?
Nice try at diversion? Are you sure it was you who posted from ‘up thread’ earlier? If so, you’d know fully well the place Islamaphobiawatch, islamaphobia and the Runnymeade definition had in this thread. Or are you wilfully misreading it all?
You’re very right, this is no playground, which is exactly why you can’t simply make claims about islamaphobia, islamaphobiawatch, and the runnymeade trust definition. Hence the request to see the evidences first before diving into a thread discussion based upon – as of yet – unsupported claims…
As per the Runnymede definition.
1) Islam is seen as a monolithic bloc, static and unresponsive to change.
2) Islam is seen as separate and ‘other’.
Ms Shiria Khatun’s attackers regard Islam as as a monolithic bloc and regard her observance to be below the standards set by their interpretation thereof (she chose to wear western clothes, no hijab). And she is seen by her attackers as a Muslim ‘other’ in this case a westernised Muslim woman.
So,
1) check
2) check
And as for Islamophobia-Watch, let us know when it covers this story. It won’t in this case, because though the victim is a Muslim woman and though it could be argued that she is being victimised for being a non-observant Muslim, the perpetrator is a Muslim man or men.
Faisal
Excellent debunking of the obfuscating tosh being put up as usual by the increasingly querulous Respectabilia.
And let’s not forget the Guardian. Wherefore the coverage of this story on its esteemed pages?
The story has now been picked up by ES’s This is London:
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23812965-western-dress-led-to-death-threats.do
I have to agree with those who say – wrong that it is – it hasn’t been proven as Islamaphobic. Not even the ES claims this.
“Ms Shiria Khatun’s attackers regard Islam as as a monolithic bloc and regard her observance to be below the standards set by their interpretation thereof.” – Faisal
Where did you get that part from?
It’s been mentioned in others’ posts above that it may very well be because ‘Ms Shiria Khatun’s attackers regard Bangladeshi culture as a monolithic bloc and regard her observance to be below the standards set by their interpretation thereof’. It is well known that even non-Muslim Bengalis or non-practising Muslim Bengali’s still have certain understandings regarding cultural observance of dress which most often does not include ‘jeans and skirts’.
Krogan
I attached the ES article because it added further details of the attacks to which this Muslim woman has been victim.
Faisal got “that part from” the Runnymede definition of Islamophobia that was being discussed by Respectabilia.
Nice try with the “cultural” gambit in order to deflect from the fact that a Muslim woman was being attacked by other Muslims (men) for not meeting their repellent standards.
Krogan, what you’re saying is that the perpetrators are guilty of “Banglaphobia” or “Westophobia” or hatred of Bengali Muslim women wearing western clothing. Well that must make it alright then!
Doesn’t change the fact that the victim is a Muslim woman of attacks by Muslim men. Doesn’t change the fact the issue has not been covered by the so-called Muslim-friendly media.
Given the number of IFE-friendly commenters rushing in to “contextualise” this issue, I wonder if there could be IFE involvement? After all, this is council-related.
Faisal, I am glad to see you agree it was possibly ‘Westopohobia’ or ‘Banglaphobia’ and not just islamaphobia which you appeared to be so ardently arguing earlier on. But from where do you insinuate that this is OK or that anyone said it is OK?
And given the above, I fully understand the point now as to why it was incorrect for you to lay blame on islamaphobiawatch earlier for not reporting it…it just isn’t proven islamaphobia for it to be reported as islamaphobia.
Don’t be silly krogan. That’s not what I said. Do you have problems understanding basic English idioms?
You are either did not read Faisal’s earlier comment properly, or you are being an obtuse troll. I observe that the latter appears to be the fall-back position of all Islamist-friendly commentators when cornered.
No where has it been mentioned that her attack is due to her being muslim, or the attackers hated her due to her not wearing hijab. Even she said it her self that she does not wear western clothing to cultural events, she wears cultural clohtes to them now. Also her point that the harrasment came from bengali men.
If this attack was due to her being muslim or not wearing hijab she would have openly said that. You guys are reading too much into her words and getting conclusions which are not there.
Just because a white man attacks a white female does it make it a christian thing or something else. No where has it been mentioned by the media or even the lady her slef that she is being attacked because she is a muslim, rather she is being attacked because she is a bengali.
And yes there have been cases were people have been racist against their own ethnicity. There even was a court case where a white man was convicted to being racist towards another white man. I will try and find the case details and provide you the links when I have them.
Respectabilia
Exactly. Its all about Muslim-bashing and nothing about concern for this lady.
David T
So do you and Harrys Place.
Why all the fuss, surprise and discussion. As someone who has studied the religion of Islam in detail, I can find nothing good to say about it. Genuine moderate Muslims know little about their religion (just like most Christians). Moderate Muslims genuinely believe Muhammad was an exceptionally nice individual who was trying to do good in the world.
In fact Islam’s own sources, the Quran, Sunnah and Sirahs, clearly show that Muhammad murdered all who spoke out against him and with the aid of his deluded, gullible, sex and booty motivated followers he lied, plotted, killed, tortured, robbed, ransomed and raped his way to total political and religious power.
Islam is a far greater threat to the well-being of mankind than Fascism and Communism ever were.
Apostates of Islam, and they should know, describe it as a ‘vile and evil religion’, ‘the biggest lie in history’, ‘which should be stricken from the face of the Earth’.
An afterthough about Islamophobia. The Runnymede trust definition was clearly draw up by those who know little about the REAL Islam. They were probably unaware the the Quran advises Muslims to not make friends with Infidels. Quran 3:28 does permit them to pretend to be friends (e.g in the U.K) until conditions are suitable for an Islamic takeover. Quran 8.39 calls upon Muslims to fight all non-Muslims until the only religion is Islam throughout the entire world. 9:29 tells Muslims to offer all non-Muslims three choices, death, conversion to Islam or to live as subjugated citizens under Muslim control….. and there are many other similar verses.
A phobia is an irrational fear. An aversion to Islam is NOT irrational. Anyone sane, reasonable and compassionate person who reads the Quran, Sunnah and Sirahs and looks at Sharia law will immediately have a strong aversion to all things Islamic. Many apostates of Islam say the main cause of their leaving the religion was that the found a copy of the Quran written in their own language and read and understood it for the first time. All members of Parliament should be compelled to study the Islamic religion….. using the Quran, Sunnah and Sirah. They might then wake up and realise what we face.
THERE ARE MANY GOOD MODERATE MUSLIMS. BUT THERE IS NO MODERATE ISLAM.
@Stuart Parsons
Mr. Parsons, is that all you got ? taking small passages from the Quran and mis quoting them out of context! You dont Believe in anything, but your own selfishness. you only make matters worse, when you make such unsubstantiated comments. You and your confused cronies are fighting an Imaginary threat in your head. you set back and launch Cowardly Attacks against Muslims ,make disparaging remarks and you expect, people from the Muslim community not to respond? and you wonder why people react the way they do!, you issued a challenge to me, to prove, you wrong! I say to you sir, with all do respect. I cannot reason with an irrational individual, who simply believes in nothing!
Insulting Muslims and other people of faith is your Passion! as well as the people who support your, psychopathical rants. you say these horrible things about the Prophet Muhammad(pbuh). Things that support your sick and dimented state of mind!. Their is absolutely nothing that I could say to a man with your mindset. You have been Academically trained, to see life in itself as a random act of chance. life itself has the meaning of a pebble to you! my only question to you is who hurt you?
I am glad, Prince Charles, does’nt feel the way, you do, about Islam! here’s his take on this phenominal solution to the Human condition.
Chancellor, ladies and gentlemen, if there is much misunderstanding in the West about the nature of Islam, there is also much ignorance about the debt our own culture and civilisation owe to the Islamic world. It is a failure which stems, I think, from the straitjacket of history which we have inherited. The medieval Islamic world, from Central Asia to the shores of the Atlantic, was a world where scholars and men of learning flourished. But because we have tended to see Islam as the enemy of the West, as an alien culture, society and system of belief, we have tended to ignore or erase its great relevance to our own history.
For example, we have underestimated the importance of 800 years of Islamic society and culture in Spain between the 8th and 15th centuries. The contribution of Muslim Spain to the preservation of classical learning during the Dark Ages, and to the first flowerings of the Renaissance, has long been recognised. But Islamic Spain was much more than a mere larder where Hellenistic knowledge was kept for later consumption by the emerging modern Western world. Not only did Muslim Spain gather and preserve the intellectual content of ancient Greek and Roman civilisation, it also interpreted and expanded upon that civilisation, and made a vital contribution of its own in so many fields of human endeavour – in science, astronomy, mathematics, algebra (itself an Arabic word), law, history, medicine, pharmacology, optics, agriculture, architecture, theology, music. Averroes and Avenzoor, like their counterparts Avicenna and Rhazes in the East, contributed to the study and practice of medicine in ways from which Europe benefited for centuries afterwards.
Islam nurtured and preserved the quest for learning. In the words of the tradition, ‘the ink of the scholar is more sacred than the blood of the martyr’. Cordoba in the 10th century was by far the most civilised city of Europe. We know of lending libraries in Spain at the time King Alfred was making terrible blunders with the culinary arts in this country. It is said that the 400,000 volumes in its ruler’s library amounted to more books than all the libraries of the rest of Europe put together. That was made possible because the Muslim world acquired from China the skill of making paper more than 400 years before the rest of non-Muslim Europe. Many of the traits on which modern Europe prides itself came to it from Muslim Spain. Diplomacy, free trade, open borders, the techniques of academic research, of anthropology, etiquette, fashion, various types of medicine, hospitals, all came from this great city of cities.
Medieval Islam was a religion of remarkable tolerance for its time, allowing Jews and Christians the right to practise their inherited beliefs, and setting an example which was not, unfortunately, copied for many centuries in the West. The surprise, ladies and gentlemen, is the extent to which Islam has been a part of Europe for so long, first in Spain, then in the Balkans, and the extent to which it has contributed so much towards the civilisation which we all too often think of, wrongly, as entirely Western. Islam is part of our past and our present, in all fields of human endeavour. It has helped to create modern Europe. It is part of our own inheritance, not a thing apart.
More than this, Islam can teach us today a way of understanding and living in the world which Christianity itself is the poorer for having lost. At the heart of Islam is its preservation of an integral view of the Universe. Islam – like Buddhism and Hinduism – refuses to separate man and nature, religion and science, mind and matter, and has preserved a metaphysical and unified view of ourselves and the world aruond us. At the core of Christianity there still lies an integral view of the sanctity of the world, and a clear sense of the trusteeship and responsibility given to us for our natural surroundings. In the words of that marvellous 17th century poet and hymn writer George Herbert:
‘A man that looks on glass.
That is now the third time Charlie’ speech has been posted on this site… by the same person.
Big Mo you believe the Quran to be the words of your God (I believe it to be the words of Muhammad with later interpolations). Please explain why I have quoted 3:28, 8:39 and 9:29 out of context. I am aware that it is the usual Islamic practice to obfucate by accusing one of quoting out of context.
Incidently, a reading of the Quran with its many mistakes makes it quite clear it was not written by an all powerful god. Indeed if such a thing as an omniscient deity were to exist, it would be the grossest of insults to credit him with the authorship of the Quran.
For example the Quran tells us that God created (sorry, I believe we evolved) man from dust, or clay or water or nothing or a clot of blood, depending upon which verse one chooses to believe. A genuine omniscient deity would have no difficulty in remembering what he created man from, but Muhammad was human and it was not unnatural that he forgot what he said months or years earlier.
Why is it impossible to reason with ‘an irrational individual who believes in nothing’. In fact I believe that sadly the majority of Muslims have unfortunately been raised from birth to believe in Allah and Muhammad or have been converted to the religion by disingenuous proselytising. I do not hate Muslims. I think it is to be greatly regretted that they were not given the chance to think for themselves. I possess a large amount of Islamic Dawa material and find it to be full of taqiyya and kitman. I was raised from birth as a Christian, but when later in life I read the Bible and studied the history of the religion, I realised it was false…… but nevertheless there is much about it that is good. It teaches, love thine enemy, turn the other cheek, do unto others as you would have them do unto you and parables such as the good Samaritan and they widows mite etc, all contribute to the general well-being of mankind. Christianity does not expect a raped women to provide four witnesses, or call for the cutting off of hands and feet and the death of apostates etc.
Reference your accusation that I say horrible things about the ‘Prophet’. I am merely repeating what Ibn Ishaq, Al-Tabari and Ibn Kathir your own Islamic historians wrote in their biographies of Muhammad. Have you read any of them ? The Sunnah and the Quran support the unpleasant picture of Muhammd given to us by Ishaq, Tabari and Kathir.
Reference Prince Charles. He was speaking publicly as a representitive of the Monarch. As such it is not for him to say things which might upset some of Her Majesty’s loyal subjects. (are you a loyal subject ? After all she is, like me, an infidel). Furthermore, I don’t think the Prince has read the Quran, studied the Sunnah and Sharia or read the Sirahs of Ishaq, Tabari and Kathir. He is therefore unlikely to be well informed concerning the beliefs, practices and aims of Islam.
I will not enter into a long discussion on the merits of Medieval Islam and Europe, but I would say that countless noted historians have stated the Islamic claims for tolerance and civilized behaviour throughout the whole of its history, are to say the least, greatly exaggerated. Certainly the expansion of Islam East and West out of Arabia was a bloodbath and an orgy of looting and raping. The history of and present day treatment of the dhimmi are greatly to the discredit of Islam. EVERY DAY, repeat EVERY DAY I read reaports of Muslims in countries where Islam holds sway, kidnapping, forcibly marrying and converting to Islam, falsely accusing of blasphemy and desecrations of the Quran, assualting, raping and killing Hindus, Sikhs, Christians and Buddhists. They also attack and burn to the ground their homes, businesses and places of worship. Oppression of non-Muslims occurs in all the 57 Nations of the Islamic Conference. Egypt, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Iraq, Iran, Sudan, Somalia, Saudi Arabia are noted for their severve oppression of non-Muslims. In addition Muslim supremacists and separatists kill many in non-Islamic countrys like Nigeria, Thailand and the Philippines. I am not aware that Hindus, Sikhs, Christians and Buddhist slaughter or oppress anyone.
I’ll leave you with couple of quotes. First the Ayatollah Khomeini.
“Islam makes it incumbent on all adult males, provided they are not disabled or incapacitated, to prepare for the conquest of countries so that the writ of Allah is obeyed in every country in the World. Those who study Islamic Holy War will understand why Islam wants to conquer the whole World.”
And now Muhammad Al Ghazoli, an apostate of Islam.
“As I read much on the subject, the picture slowly became clear. I became positive in a moment of calm that the Quran is a man-made book and Muhammad was not a messenger of God……. After reading the Quran and Muhammad’s Hadith and deeds, a strange picture about Islam was formed in my head. How could Muhammad control the minds of more than one billion people in this World ? Can’t they reason ? can’t they read ?
I must now await the questioning of Munka and Nakeer.