Top Menu

Half of Britain’s Mosques Have Been Attacked Since 9/11

8.pa

Perspective on anti-Muslim animus in Britain. Half of mosques and Muslim centres have been attacked.:

The Independent

Around half of mosques and Muslim centres in Britain have been subjected to Islamophobic attacks since 9/11, academics have warned as the far-right English Defence League prepares to march to the south-London scene of Drummer Lee Rigby’s murder.

The figures are highlighted in a report which also found that the number of anti-Islamic attacks increased by as much as tenfold in the days following the Woolwich attack.

Meanwhile, research by The Independent shows Islamophobic attacks spreading across Britain, with mosques being set alight and Muslims targeted at home in the past month.

Despite the warning signs, a senior Government adviser told The Independent that there remains a “lack of political will” to take on the rise of Islamophobic attacks in Britain. The adviser, who did not want to be named, said that attempts to “tackle this issue – even before Woolwich – struggled to attract buy-in,” with the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, Eric Pickles, identified as the primary source of frustration.

The Muslim community was warned yesterday of the dangers it faces from hate groups in a sermon delivered at 500 mosques. The piece said that high-profile cases of sexual grooming of children by small groups of Muslim men “hitting the headlines in a short space of time and the fallout from the Woolwich case will create a major challenge for the Muslim community”.

The trial date for the two men accused of murdering Drummer Rigby, Michael Adebolajo, 28, and Michael Adebowale, 22, will begin on 18 November, it was announced yesterday.

Professor Nigel Copsey, of Teesside University, the author of the new report which showed that between 40 and 60 per cent of mosques and other Islamic centres (around 700)  had been targeted since 9/11 – said: “There has undoubtedly been a spike in anti-Muslim incidents since the Woolwich murder. An obvious concern now is whether the number of hate crime incidents return to ‘normal’ levels or whether Woolwich has been a game-changer in terms of increasing the underlying incidence of anti-Muslim hate over the longer term.”

His report is based largely on figures from the Islamophobia watchdog Tell Mama. It shows an increase of attacks to nearly nine per day in the immediate aftermath of the Woolwich killing, but settling back to around two per day over in the following weeks. Prof- essor Copsey added: “What is significant about our analysis is the extent to which the far right is implicated in anti-Muslim hate crime.”

Read the rest…

, , , , , , ,

  • Seeker

    The British were leaving India. They didn’t have to deal with any group.
    That reasoning would make sense if they were trying to continue to hold India. ‘Lets make peace with the non-violent group, so we can rule this place with their support’, which was something they had anyway tried previously. Pretend to accede to the demands when they really weren’t giving anything away.

    There is a lot of conjecture on what could have been if only Gandhiji this and if only Gandhiji that. But I find them hard to ascribe to the character of the man that he was. Saying things like Gandhiji threw the others under the bus assumes that he had greater clout with the British which I do not find to be the case.

    In my view, everyone of the freedom fighters who fought for India’s independence is noble in their own ways and it’s not my place to judge what they did or criticise the methods they employed.
    It’s always easy to be wise after the event. But for the people facing these drastic events in their life, it’s not an easy deal.

  • Seeker

    I don’t agree that Gandhi needed the HRA and Bose to be successful.
    If you read up on the Quit India Movement, I think you will get the idea that although the movement was non-violent, and seems to have been marked as a failure, it definitely made an impact on the colonialists.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quit_India_movement
    Head to the section – ”
    Suppression of the movement”
    and you will find the extreme measures the British had to take to suppress this movement.
    Even if this movement had failed as many say, Gandhiji’s scheme for non-violence would still remain a major force the British would have to contend with if they tried to continue to rule in India.

  • Jon Diamond

    A better statement would be that the British government tolerated him. March all you want.

    After WW2, they had no choice but to deal with him. Britain was decimated and could not afford a war against the Indians. So, they finally brought the peaceful guy in.

    South Asians respect Gandhi, but he is not universally liked. He threw Bhagat Singh under the bus along with other revolutionaries. He never spoke out to try to save their lives. He could have said that the English had no right to use their laws in other people’s countries. He never did and people like Bhagat Singh were executed.

  • Leftwing_Muslim_Alliance

    Still not convinced by your agrument . Firstly the British Govt had been dealing with Ghandhi since the 30’s he did not just appear post WWII secondly the effectivness of Bose and his ilk is questionable compared to the sheer numbers involved in the congress .It was not just Ghandhi
    I would like to hear the thoughts of “Seeker” or some other Indian based writer on this issue .
    I am still waiting for some evidence that the Black Panthers were needed by MLK
    Sir David

  • Jon Diamond

    Let me explain. The reason why the American and British governments negotiated with them was they knew the other option would be bloodier. Deal with the docile non-violence guys or deal with the “we are willing to kill or die for our cause” guys.

    For instance Bose worked with Hitler to arm his men to overthrow the British colonial government. He was trying to raise an army and the Germans felt this was a great way to destabilize British control of South Asia.

    After WW2, Britain would have been in no position to fight an Indian resistance army. They had to rebuild on the home front. Dealing with Gandhi gave them an easy way out with the least amount of casualties.

  • Leftwing_Muslim_Alliance

    I beg to differ .
    How did Martin Luther King need the Black Panthers ?
    Gandhi would have been offended to be told he needed the help of HRA and Bose I suspect .
    Sir David

  • Jon Diamond

    In order for Martin Luther King to be successful, he needed the Black Panthers.

    In order for Gandhi to be successful, he needed the HRA and Bose.

  • Leftwing_Muslim_Alliance

    not sure if that contribution is helpful . Fighting hate with violence seldom works
    Sir David

  • mindy1

    XD

  • Jon Diamond

    This is how you clobber EDL scum.

  • mindy1

    Aww love the peace picture-shows how things should be. Hate should NOT be common

Powered by Loon Watchers