Bigotry Shines Bright
March 24, 2007
Martin Bright, the political editor of the New Statesman — a New Labour rag, that mostly relies on the reputation of John Pilger to sell its otherwise dreary pages — seems to have an Arab-Muslim problem. He presumably impressed the editor, John Kampfner — himself part of dodgy initiatives like COMPASS, and a proponent of military intervention abroad – with his overt antipathy towards Muslims. Otherwise it is not clear why one would hire a discredited hack with a reputation for misrepresentation and falsehood to the position of political editor.
Here is the latest gem from Martin “I am not an Islamophobe” Bright:
The week ended with a distinctly shaky performance from David Cameron in Israel where he had felt it necessary to assure Foreign Office officials that he would try not to “screw up”. Yet by sticking to the script provided by the pro-Arab mandarins he provoked the disdain of the Israeli government by suggesting that it is standing in the way of peace by continuing to build settlements in the West Bank.
First revelation: the Foreign Office has “pro-Arab mandarins”! The same ones I presume whose policies have cost the Iraqi Arabs 655,000 – 1 million in lives so far? But the second sentence is even more telling: in this sage’s judgement, you “screw up” if you find something wrong with the construction of illegal settlements in occupied West Bank?
And this guy is the political editor of a British left-liberal publication!
Muslims in the Crosshair
Bright considers himself a leftist but his real obsession has always been Muslims. According to him “the relationship between the west and Islam is the defining issue of our times”. On his own blog, he has provided platform to members of Harry’s Place, a neocon website known for its rabidly Islamophobic output. Bright and Kampfner also gave one whole issue to the prowar Zionist network Euston Manifesto to launch their campaign. For a self-proclaimed “leftist”, he has great admiration for the antidemocratic Tony Blair.
The Con’s failed Koran trick
Bright’s antagonism towards Islam and muslims is not recent. In 2001 the New Statesman published an article by Bright provocatively titled “The great Koran con trick” which cited, among others, the work of Gerald Hawting, Patricia Crone and Michael Cook to attack the authenticity of the Quran. All three historians took exception to Bright’s interpretation of their work, but the most devastating reply came from Bright’s former teacher and SOAS professor Gerald Hawting:
- The spurious air of conspiracy and censorship conjured up in Martin Bright’s article is nonsense. All of the named scholars whose ‘conclusions’ are said to be so ‘devastating’ for Islam hold or held senior positions in front-rank universities and their books are published by leading university presses and other houses, freely available for anyone who cares to read them.
- I did not ‘warn’ (whatever that might mean) the journalist concerned not to publish the article, and the ‘decent obscurity’ I suggested was for the right-wing and fundamentalist websites by which he is so fascinated. Penguin Books has not ‘postponed’ the publication of ‘a controversial new history of Islam’ by me. I was never contracted to them to write such a work. The implication that John Wansbrough was the founder of SOAS was probably the result of slipshod editing*, but the suggestion that his decision to live in France following retirement reflects a desire to live in ‘obscurity’ (a faraway country of which we know little!) is mere embroidery.(New Statesman, December 17, 2001)
Sufis and Unicorns
In a documentary produced for Channel 4 Bright targets mainstream muslim organizations like the Muslim Council of Britain and the Muslim Association of Britain without presenting any evidence of their alleged contribution to rising extremism. The documentary starts with the line “the struggle against Islamic extremism is one of the most urgent issues we face as a country today”.
The leftist muckracker’s documentary features interviews with a Tory neocon Michael Gove of Policy Exchange. The documentary has the appearance of being put together as a quick hatchet job, since, among others, it also makes the fantastic claim that most British muslims are sufis! For good measure, he also interviewed a member from the neocon connected Sufi Muslim Council.
Bright wrote a pammphlet to accompany the documentary which was published by the Policy Exchange the neoconservative think tank, to which a number of his interviewees are attached. The pamphlet criticised the Blair administration for being too soft on muslims.
So my suggestion: If you buy the New Statesman for John Pilger’s articles alone, access them directly on Pilger’s website. Don’t waste your money.
John Kampfner was indeed a proponent of military action in Bosnia and Kosovo.
If you weren’t Muhammad then I suspect most of your readers will take Kampfners side.
Are you sure the documentary makes the claim of a Sufi majority.
Are you sure it didn’t describe them as part of a silent majority.
The MAB is mainstream if you consider the Muslim Brotherhood to be mainstream.
It is appalling that people try to stir up hatred by encouraging the idea that there is a clash of civilizations/cultures/religions in the world today, generally referring to Muslims v “the West”. By arguing there is a clash, many seem to imply that there can be only one winner. This is thinly veiled racism, which reminds me of arguments given by white supremacists. We must reign before other races “take us over”.
America has a long history of exceptionalism, and there are still many who seem convinced that everyone, deep down, wants to emulate their country. Any who deny this are simply not admitting it, or perhaps if they really won’t come round to America’s way of thinking they are simply evil, like those pesky Muslims.
Its not Muslims vs the West
Its Islamist death cult vs Other Muslims and their allies.
Islamist generally kill muslims
Speaking of SOAS,
SOAS Academic Shirin Akiner is Uzbekistan Regime Agent
Shocking revelations about a lecturer at the School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS), University of London.
Lecturer in Central Asian Studies at the School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS), University of London, Dr Shirin Akiner has been condemned by human rights groups, liberty campaigners and Craig Murray (ex-UK Ambassador in Tashkent) as an apologist for brutal Uzbek dictator President Karimov. This short report on the Andijan massacre concludes with an interview with Dr Akiner in which she attempts to downplay and justify the horrific murderers by Karimov’s regime.
Please watch the following Channel 4 News report and interview:
Readers may also wish to complain to her boss:
Professor Paul Webley, Director and Principal of SOAS
Email Address: pw2@soas.ac.uk
Telephone: 0207 898 4014
Fax: 0207 898 4019
Murray attacks SOAS lecturer over Karimov
By Fuad Ali
The Muslim Weekly, London
The reputation of the University of London’s School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS) has taken another knock after one of its lecturers was accused of being the “Western cheerleader” for the Uzbek brutal dictator Islom Karimov.
Craig Murray, former British Ambassador to Uzbekistan also accused the SOAS director of “arrogance”. The charge was levelled at SOAS director Mr Colin Bundy by Mr Murray in a dispute over one of the school’s lecturers accused of producing a “propagandist” report on the Massacre of Andijan.
The person in question, Shirin Akiner, (pictured) was accused by Mr Murray as well as human rights and liberty campaigners, of producing a report which is neither independent nor academically sound. The findings of the report, written by the SOAS lecturer in Central Asian Studies, seem to completely endorse the Uzbek government line, putting the blame squarely on whom she calls “Islamist insurgents”.
Dr Akiner recently went on a US tour promoting the report as a counter to what is known to have taken place on that fateful day in May. She accuses Western governments and, in particular, the media of false reporting and says the Uzbek government is right not to allow an independent international investigation into the events.
She has come under fierce attack from NGOs who questioned how she was allowed, by the Uzbek government, to conduct her own investigation at a time when no journalists or NGOs where given access. Dr Akiner refuted accusations that she was invited in by the Uzbek government to give support to their version of events.
The SOAS lecturer said she went to Uzbekistan to deal with the aftermath of the cancellation, due to the Andijan violence, of a NATO conference on religious extremism that she had organized. Once in Tashkent, Akiner said, “I squeezed out time for myself to go to Andijan.”
In his email to the SOAS director, Craig Murray stated that his qualm is not with Dr Akiner’s political views, but rather that an institution such as SOAS can have a lecturer in the affairs of such a volatile region, who admits to having ties to the Uzbek regime and actively acts as its “apologist”.
Mr Murray questioned the lecturer’s objectivity and called on the school’s ethics committee to investigate this case. “The idea that in a totalitarian state evidence of an alleged government atrocity can be gained by allowing the government to produce the witnesses, and interviewing them in the presence of government officials, is ludicrous, as any decent academic would recognise.” wrote Mr Murray.
In a responding email, Mr Bundy appeared to dismissed points raised by the ex-diplomat as “unsubstantiated” and ignored his calls for further investigate by the School. That prompted an angry response from Mr Murray who accused the director of being “arrogant” and of failing to realise the damage Dr Akiner is causing to the reputation of SOAS.
In a statement to The Muslim Weekly SOAS reiterated their stand and say they have not received further evidence from Mr Murray. “The allegations against Shirin Akiner contained in Craig Murray’s letter to Colin Bundy were unsubstantiated. Professor Bundy invited Mr Murray to supply verifiable evidence to support his assertions but none has been provided.”
They have also refuted other allegations that they have in the past been involved in sponsoring school text material including propaganda books by the regime.
“With regard to the mention of Islom Karimov’s publications in Mr Murray’s letter, SOAS has no financial or other involvement with these publications. (One of the books, published by Curzon Press in 1997 as a commercial venture, features comments by Dr Akiner on the dust jacket. The School understands that Dr Akiner was not paid for this contribution to the publication.)”
Highlighting what he sees as the double standards of the School he cites the case of Nasser Amin who was treated quite differently by the School. He says “Professor Colin Bundy, head of SOAS, is extremely keen to defend Shirin Akiner, Karimov’s Western cheerleader and a SOAS lecturer. But it seems that his defence of academic freedom only applies to those on one side of the argument.
“Akiner is perfectly at liberty to defend Karimov’s right to massacre the opposition, but Bundy just three months ago censured an Islamic student (Nasser Amin) who argued that the Palestinians have the right to use force to resist occupation. You don’t have to agree with the student’s view to find Bundy’s different approach to the two cases interesting…
Any suggestions as to the explanation of Bundy’s contradictory attitude in the Amin and Akiner cases would be interesting to hear. ”
The student in question, Nasser Amin, also accused the School’s director of double standards and again called for his resignation.
Mr Amin said “Bundy is not a neutral, disinterested moderator defending all points of view at the School. He is someone who defends free speech when it comes to savagery against Muslims, in Andijan and Gaza, and silences those who oppose this savagery, particularly it seems Muslim students. Shame on him.”
http://www.themuslimweekly.com/fullstoryview.aspx?NewsID=225181B233A180E202D0B292&MENUID=HOMENEWS&DESCRIPTION=UK%20News
Sounds like religious hatred of the worst kind.If Bright was writing about Judaism he’d be prosecuted in the time it takes to eat a bacon sandwich!
I apologize to muslim readers for that appallingly bad joke.
To Jewish readers I would say……..nothing.
Seriously,Pilger’s Statesman pieces are published every other Saturday in The Morning Star at 60p.You may buy it on the wrong Saturday and have to read the execrable blagard Livingstone’s column on all things poxy London….know what I mean?
I recently complained that the man who has posted Arbeit Mach Frei signage across his Congestion(read rip off)zone and been recently lauded in a Times editorial as an irrepressible capitalist trailblazer should still have access to (socialist?)Star column space.
I mean The Star is impugning its own leftie credentials so as to be barely credible.The idea that socialists can recapture their beating hearts by repossessing the Labour Party is dementia setting in methinks.
Goodness me. I am deeply flattered by the attention you have paid to my career. It’s difficult to know where to begin, but it might be an idea for you to guest on my blog as you seem to know more about me than most (perhaps even myself).
Martin
Well Martin, I am only returning the favour. With all the attention you have been paying us Muslims, it is only fair after all. Although my involvement with the British Muslim community is minimal, the discovery, nevertheless, comes as a surprise that most of them are followers of the Sufi tradition.
Idrees
P.s. The guesting idea is not entirely bad as I’d like to hear what makes you abandon your past reputation (I’m going by what I was told by David Miller here) of a muckraker to instead subject an already embattled minority to your scrutiny.
[...] Husain (next issue will offer Jordan’s biography I presume). The idea no doubt comes from the little turd Martin Bright, its political editor, whose disdain for Muslims is only matched by his admiration for [...]
[...] it also benefits from the pro-bono services of New Statesman’s own Islamophobic fabricator, Martin Bright, who gave Gove a starring role in his own Channel 4 attack on UK Muslims. As a quid pro quo [...]
[...] its wanton murder of men, women and children and continuous slow genocide of Palestinians in Gaza), Martin has this to say: The week ended with a distinctly shaky performance from David Cameron in Israel where he had felt [...]
[...] 21, 2008 Martin Bright, Islamophobic political editor of the New Statesman and all round turd, has just returned from a junket to Israel paid for by Zionist hasbara outfit BICOM — and [...]