Some Preliminary Thoughts on the 19th February Press Release by the Right-Wing Neo-Con Think Tank

Some Preliminary Thoughts on the 19th February Press Release by the Right-Wing Neo-Con Think Tank
Hamza Andreas Tzortzis

On February 2009 the Right-Wing Neo-Conservative Think Tank, Centre for Social Cohesion (CSC), produced a press release entitled “New Government counter-radicalisation strategy undermined on UK campuses”. This press release mainly consists of misquotes from some of the well known and popular Muslim speaker’s including Uthman Lateef, Bilal Philips, Abdur-Raheem Green and Hamza Andreas Tzortzis.

Although it is not the intention to write a formal response to CSC’s intellectually redundant attempt to gain some popularity and credibility, however it is felt that some thoughts on the matter need to be expressed in the hope that they will clear up any misconceptions and deliberate attempts to malign the Islamic way of life and some of its intellectual activists and speakers.

The CSC Think Tank is directed by the self-proclaimed Neo-Conservative Douglas Murray. Douglas Murray agreed to chair the debate, entitled ‘Islam or Liberalism: Which is the Way Forward?’ between Hamza Andreas Tzortzis and International Author, and Reader in Modern History, Dr Alan Sked. The debate was held on the 23rd January 2009, however, Douglas Murray was asked to stand down due to potential unrest by certain students who were ‘upset’ by the siege of Gaza. From my personal conversations with Senior LSE staff it became clear that the main reason was because Douglas Murray would not be a impartial chair due to his previous venomous attacks against the Islamic way of life. Below are some preliminary thoughts on the press release:

1. How can Douglas Murray’s CSC be trusted as an impartial source of information if prestigious academic institutions would not even allow him to chair a debate on the topic he often writes about?

2. If speakers such as Hamza Andreas Tzortzis are so ‘extreme’ in their views and call for the implementation of the ‘medieval’ Shariah (Islamic Law) then why did Dr Alan Sked comment on the debate as something which he enjoyed and learnt a lot from?

3. Additionally why did not CSC put a reference of the debate on their press release? Is this because it was an intellectual debate that required a nuanced discussion? Or is it because Hamza Andreas Tzortzis said during the debate:

“I would like to end that it is a very important to time be having this discussion, I hope that you take the advice that I talked about in the beginning, transcending the hype and the rhetoric, sweeping statements and generalisations, we must have a nuanced discussion with evidences. Gone are the days of sideling issues and not having a constructive debate. Today is about a good debate and I end with the words of the Prophet Muhammad when he said ‘The cure to ignorance is to ask and learn’ and in this light I think we should proceed.”

4. The debate, which can be found here http://hamzatzortzis.blogspot.com/2009/02/debate-vide-islam-or-liberalism-which.html, was a successful debate with positive interaction between Muslims and non-Muslims, to the point where Dr Alan Sked suggested to Hamza Andreas Tzortzis that he would like to do something in the future again. Does this sound like extremism?

5. David Wardrop, a representative of the United Nations Association Westminster Branch (http:///www.unawestminister.org.uk) was at the event and as a result of the positive discussion and feedback he invited Hamza Andreas Tzortzis to the House of Lords for a public discussion on “Islam, Democracy and Human Rights” which is supposed to be held on the 18th March 2009 chaired by Lord Sheikh of Cornwall. Hamza has been invited due to his uncompromising stance that Islam must not be viewed or analysed via the liberal frame of reference, rather both traditions should be allowed to speak for themselves. Islamic orthodoxy will never be understood if one superimposes alien political values on the Islamic framework, Islamic orthodoxy must be allowed to speak for itself. In addition to this it does not do justice to debate and dialogue if the debate is skewed due to unnecessary intellectual baggage.

6. Why did Douglas Murray agree to chair the debate knowing that Hamza Andreas Tzortzis was one of the participants?

7. Why did CSC misquote Hamza Andreas Tzortzis from last year’s presentations, why have they ignored more current presentations which are all available on line and can be found here http://www.hamzatzortzis.com? In addition to this why don’t they quote the Dutch Constition or the Bible in this way? For example, if their thinking and approach were to be applied to these, then can not the following be taken as an excuse or justification for violence, oppression and hatred?

“If you hear it said about one of the towns the Lord your God is giving you to live in, that wicked men have arisen among you and have led the people of their town astray, saying, ‘Let us go and worship other gods’. Then you must enquire, probe and investigate it thoroughly. And if it is true and it has proved that this detestable thing has been done among you, you must certainly put to the sword all who live in that town. Destroy it completely both its people and its livestock. Gather all the plunder of the town into the middle of the public square and completely burn the town and all its plunder as a - whole burnt offering to the Lord your God.” Bible, Deuteronomy 13: 12-16

Dutch Constitution Article 97,

(1) All Dutch nationals who are capable of doing so shall have a duty to cooperate in maintaining the independence of the State and defending its territory.
(2) This duty may also be imposed on residents of the Netherlands who are not Dutch nationals.

However, the replies to this crude analysis of the Dutch constitution and the Bible would include ‘you are no law maker’, ‘do you have all the necessary tools to extract legislation?’, ‘you have ignored the context’. Muslims would agree, and this is how Islam and the Qur’an, and statements made by Muslim Intellectuals, should be viewed too.

8. Why didn’t CSC quote Hamza Andreas Tzortzis when he wrote about Jihad in an attempt to demystify the Islamic concept, for example he wrote:

“It has to be noted, that Muslims are simply human beings that believe in Islam, which is a comprehensive way of life that seeks to promote religious tolerance and social cohesion. The Islamic concept of Jihad is not indiscriminate terrorism, rather it is a mechanism that seeks to remove oppression and protect the innocent. In line with the teachings of classical Islam, Muslims do not – and should not – seek to violently attack fellow citizens. Muslims want to facilitate understanding and promote mutual peaceful coexistence. This however cannot be achieved without engaging in an open and honest discussion on what Islam really is. Outdated clichés of ‘Jihadi Terrorist’ can no longer quench the public’s intellectual thirst and a more nuanced and comprehensive discussion is now needed. It was intended that this article would achieve just that.”[i]

9. Why did’nt CSC mention that Hamza Andreas Tzortzis has been going up and down the country picking up the pieces that so-called Think Tanks such as themselves have created? Hamza Andreas Tzortzis has been giving talks at university campuses and on a government level trying de-mystify Islam. For example he delivered a presentation at Walthamstow Council in front of the Mayor and Senior Police officials. Hamza also delivered a presentation at the Ministry of Justice concerning Black and Ethnic Minorities.

10. Why have CSC deliberately ignored the international lectures Hamza has delivered at institutions such as Maastricht and Utrecht Universities, in front of hundreds of non-Muslim academics, in an attempt to promote social cohesion on an international level?

11. When CSC speak about Shariah law and its implementation why are they playing with current anti-Islamic sentiments and the media hype, why do they not mention what western academics have said on the topic or how the Shariah created social cohesion in the past? For example,

Professor of Law at Harvard University Noah Feldman states, “Today, when we invoke the harsh punishments prescribed by Shariah for a handful of offences, we rarely acknowledge the high standards of proof necessary for their implementation.”[ii]

Prolific Author and Professor of Arabic and Islam Kenneth Cragg, who studied the Qur’an, which is the basis for Shariah, stated that in order for humanity to deal with the challenges it faces today, “…multitudes of mankind…will need to be guided and persuaded Qur’anically.”[iii]

Richard W. Bulliet a Professor of history at Columbia University who specializes in the history of Islamic society and institutions, the positive effect of the Shariah in his book ‘The Case for Islamo-Christian Civilization’. “…minutely studying case after case, they have shown that justice was generally meted out impartially, irrespective of religion, official status, gender…Not being subject to the sharia, Jews and Christians were free to go to their own religious authorities for adjudication of disputes; but in many cases they went instead to the Qadi.” [iv]

The famous letter from a Rabbi, after Europe’s persecution of the Jews, found in the popular historian Phillip Mansel’s book “Constantinople ”, reflects this reality,

"Here in the land of the Turks we have nothing to complain of. We possess great fortunes; much gold and silver are in our hands. We are not oppressed with heavy taxes and our commerce is free and unhindered. Rich are the fruits of the earth. Everything is cheap and every one of us lives in peace and freedom..."[v]

Heinrich Graetz, a 19th century Jewish historian also expressed similar sentiments,

"It was in these favourable circumstances that the Spanish Jews came under the rule of Mahometans..."[vi]

Why do they not mention what Zion Zohar, a Jewish Historian, said about the Jews of Spain:

"Thus, when Muslims crossed the straits of Gibraltar from North Africa in 711 CE and invaded the Iberian Peninsula, Jews welcomed them as liberators from Christian Persecution."[vii]

It can be concluded that CSC have an anti-Islamic agenda and desire to serve their ideological leanings rather than their apparent purpose of social cohesion. If they truly want to facilitate social cohesion they would seek to find solutions rather than pointing the finger at Muslim intellectual activists who have been trying to pick up the pieces of our broken society. The political values of liberalism have caused the social decay being witnessed today.

In February 2009 the Children’s Society[viii] launched the ‘A Good Childhood: Searching for Values in a Competitive Age’[ix] report and it presented evidence that supports this. The reports states,

“Britain and the U.S. have more broken families than other countries, and our families are less cohesive in the way they live and eat together. British children are rougher with each other, and live more riskily in terms of alcohol, drugs and teenage pregnancy. And they are less inclined to stay in education. This come against a background of much greater income inequality: many more children live in relative poverty in Britain and the U.S.”[x]

The report also supports this conclusion that social breakdown and decay is due to the premise of liberalism – individualism.

“But we believe there is one common theme that links all these problems: excessive individualism. This was identified as the leading social evil in the Joseph Rowntree Foundation’s consultation on ‘social evils’.”[xi]

Striking examples and statistics support this essay’s conclusions. For example Liberalism’s political values have affected the way U.K. society treats women. According to Amnesty International (UK)[xii],

- 167 women are raped everyday in the UK
- Domestic violence accounts for nearly a quarter of all recorded violent crime in England and Wales - one in four women will be a victim of domestic violence in their lifetime
- One incident of domestic violence is reported to the police every minute
- On average, two women per week are killed by a male partner or former partner. Nearly half of all female murder victims are killed by a partner or ex-partner
- 74% of men would report a dog being beaten to the RSPCA or police, but only 53% would report domestic violence to the police
- On average, a woman is assaulted 35 times before her first call to the police
- One woman in nine is severely beaten by her male partner each year
- A Home Office report from 2002 found domestic violence to have a higher rate of repeat victimisation than any other crime

The effect of these non-cohesive values can also be seen in the following U.K. crime figures,

- 2,164,000 violent incidents during 2007/08 against adults in England and Wales[xiii]
- Approximately 47,000 rapes occur every year in the U.K.[xiv]
- Increase in murder rates. Metropolitan Police reported the most incidents, with 167 murders in 2007/8, up from 158.[xv]

Mr Justice Coleridge, a Family Division judge for England and Wales, comments on social and family breakdown, describing it as a,

“…never ending carnival of human misery - a ceaseless river of human distress.”[xvi]

So a question is raised to CSC and Douglas Murray, 'where are your reports on this?'. This question will remain unanswered because they are obviously intellectually bankrupt and political opportunists.

CSC are political opportunists with an agenda to misquote and create divisions. Hamza Andreas Tzortzis would personally challenge Douglas Murray to a debate, but its seems that he is not willing to have a honest and frank discussion, hiding behind press releases that facilitate social breakdown and that are full of misquotes, lies, generalisations and represents nothing but a desire to fuel the current media hype.

References

[i] http://www.hittininstitute.com/Article.aspx?ID=14
[ii] http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/16/magazine/16Shariah-t.html - This essay is adapted from his book “The Fall and Rise of the Islamic State”
[iii] K Cragg. 1994. The Event of the Qur’an. 2nd Edition. Oxford: One world, p. 23
[iv] Richard W. Bulliet. 2004. The Case for Islamo-Christian Civilization. New York: Columbia University Press.
[v] Philip Mansel. 1995. Constantinople: City of the World's desire, 1453-1924. Penguin Books, p. 15
[vi] H. Graetz, History of the Jews, London , 1892, Vol 3, P. 112.
[vii] Zion Zohar, Sephardic & Mizrahi Jewry, New York, 2005, P. 8-9.
[viii] http://www.childrenssociety.org.uk/
[ix] Richard Layard and Judy Dunn. A Good Childhood: Searching for Values in a Competitive Age. Penguin Books. 2009.
[x] Ibid. p 4
[xi] Ibid.
[xii] http://www.amnesty.org.uk/content.asp?CategoryID=10309
[xiii] http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs08/hosb0708chap3.pdf
[xiv] http://www.fawcettsociety.org.uk/documents/Rape%20-%20The%20Facts.doc
[xv] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2287360/Murder-rate-increasing-amid-epidemic-of-knife-and-gun-crime.html
[xvi] http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7331882.stm