The Myth of Islamophobia - A critical Analysis

So I'm working my way through the videos that Pat Condell has posted, when I'm struck by the title of 'The Myth of Islamophobia'.  What a great title.  I mean, surely, this video must be full of intelligent debate and statistical proofs.  Combine that with Condells' dead pan delivery, and we have a recipe for a great 5 minutes of vitriol. I'm almost looking forward to it. Almost.

"I've had a lot of e-mails from people who seem to think that I hate Muslims, when nothing could be further from the truth..."

This is a great start. A metaphorical olive branch. I'm left wondering for a few seconds if Condell has turned over a new leaf.

"...we tend to read into a thing what we want to see there rather than what's actually there..."

On this issue, I couldn't agree more. This is one of the biggest problems which Islam faces. Many people just don't take the time to misunderstand Islam in the indefatigable way that Pat Condell does. Instead, they rely upon nuggets of information handed down by the media, and YouTube rants.

"I have no problem with Islam. With the Islam where people just get on with their lives and pray everyday and don't bother anybody else, nor do I have a problem with any religion that has the common decency to mind it's own business..."

Oh dear. He lost me there. He reminds me of those people, you know the ones, they start off a conversation with "I'm not racist, but..." and it all goes downhill from there.

There is only one type of Islam, you know. It's written down, in Black and White, in the Qur'an. You might call it a tertiary source. What is written in the Qur'an is Islam. And what isn't written in the Qur'an, well, isn't kosher, so to speak.

"I don't hate anyone. Because hate is for losers. Hate is just fear with attitude."

What an insightful, kindly gentleman. So far so good.

"...whatever you hate and fear, well, you know your' going to attract it, because if you invest that much emotion in something, it's coming your way..."

Well, yes. I can see his point here. This, by definition, must mean that Pat Condell really has it in for fascist racist bigoted ill-educated ignorant idiots, because there are, literally, so many coming in his direction.

"... this week the Queen of England was burned in effigy on the streets of Pakistan. Why? Because she gave a knighthood, a pretty worthless bauble at the best of times, to an author better known for his nuisance value than for his actual writing..."

Yes, but fortunately for us Pat, this is a demonstration of healthy freedom of speech in Pakistan. While we might consider it bad taste, no doubt, to burn an effigy of Her Madge, I'm sure they are well within their rights to do so. Who are we to deny them that right? 

Pat Condell famously has no respect for any religion, and yet, he can't stand an affront to the Queen - who, after all, holds the title 'Defender of the Faith and Supreme Governor of the Church of England' - even though it is, in fact, part and parcel of free speech? One wonders what Pat Condell thought about the portrayal of the Queen on Spitting Image in the 1980s. I'm sure he sent in a stern letter of complaint.

"... The [Pakistani] government has declared this an insult to Islam. Well, I mean, what isn't these days?"

Lost me again. Which of the Islams you know of has been insulted? The 'good' Islam, or the 'bad 'Islam'? Oh dear. I'm so confused. Can anybody else please explain this to me? I must say, that it never ceases to amaze me how the actions of a country can be taken to represent the 'hive mind' of Islam.

"...I do find it difficult to take seriously this moral outrage in Pakistan... a country whose attitude to women degrades the entire human race..."

I see. You'd much rather watch the bitches n' ho's on MTV? Or maybe catch snaps of female celebrities having drug problems and mental breakdowns? Maybe the trafficking of sex slaves into the UK is more to your taste? Is it not degrading that the so-called empowered women of the west can't walk the streets alone at night or receive a comparable wage to men for the same type of work? What is it they say about people in glass houses? If Muslim governments have the excuse of being medieval throwbacks, what , then, is the excuse of the most enlightened, secular, developed countries in the world for the way they treat women?

He is right though. The fact that European countries can treat women shamefully does not negate any ill treatment of women by Pakistan. But you must remember that Pakistan is a country. Pakistan is not Islam. Islam, as I'm sure you know, is not a country.

"The real insult to Islam is the fact that in Pakistan a woman can be murdered for the crime of being raped..."

I do wish Condell would have the decency to show his sources on this on this issue, I really don't have the time to reverse engineer every statement he makes. And it does seem to be YouTube etiquette to give sources to your claims in the information box to your videos.

But I do agree, it is an insult to Islam. And to Christianity. And no doubt to Judaism, Sikhism, Hinduism, Buddhism, and, yes, even Atheism. See. Something we can agree on. Thank heavens that there is no justification within Islam to murder a rape victim.

"Every year in Pakistan, thousands of women are murdered by members of thier own family, and yet nobody is insulted by that, nobody is demanding an apology for that. Instead what do we get, a deafening silence from Muslims. Almost a miracle in itself."

Again, Condell should show his sources, and again, I'd agree that it is insulting to any decent human being regardless of race, religion, or lack therof. In this spirit of apology, why is nobody demanding that Atheists apologise for all the things that Atheists have done wrong over the years? Why don't we ask all the black people of the world to apologise for all the wrongs that black people have done? Shall I give you a clue? Because it is the ridiculous, fatuous proposition of somebody with no reasonable reserves left in their intellectual arsenal. 

You see. If everybody had to apologise for the sins of everybody else who claimed to belong to their race, religion, or belief system, (and for the sake of argument, I'm including Atheism here) we would all be apologising for something or other.  All the time. Frankly, that much politeness is just unhealthy. But regardless, why should a Muslim, or anyone, apoligise for something of which they were never complicit in?

People condemn illegal actions by not taking part in them.  Is it not enough for Pat Condell that the majority of Muslims do not take part in terrorism or wife-beating, that he must make them all apologise? Muslims can't even get to a wedding on time and you think that they could organise some sort of trans-global apology? What would happen? Should somebody send out a memo?

"Dear Fellow Muslims, 

It has come our attention that some of you have been very, very naughty. For the sake of global harmony, after Friday prayers,  please go out onto the street and say, "I must apoligise for the behaviour of Muslims during the War on Terror". 

Maybe that would do it for Condell and his crowd? Maybe. But I doubt it.  What else does Condell have to say about Pakistan?

"According to the human rights commision of Pakistan, 80 per cent of Pakistani women are regularly beaten by their husbands. I mean come on guys shape up. You can't blame your culture for everything."

Sorry. Lost me again. It seems that here, Condell is implying that Islam is responsible for the beating of women in Pakistan. This is in direct contradiction to his original statement that he has no trouble with the Islam "where people just get on with their lives and pray everyday and don't bother anybody else". But here, he implies that, well, 80 percent of all Pakistani Muslim husbands beat their wife as an integral part of their religion?

Does this argument even merit a serious reply?

"... And yet these are the people who have accused the British Government of Islamophobia. [The Government has] ... already done so much to accommodate Islamic sensibilities. Even legitimising crackpot pressure groups like the Muslim Council of Britain, who recently issued a list of demands that would impose Islamic values on all children in British schools."

We've heard this all before from Condell.  He complains that the British Government bends over backwards to appease Muslims, and yet, he offers up no examples to prove his point.  Surely, this line of reasoning would produce rich and deep seams of 'comedy' for Pat?  But no.  I've yet to hear him give a single example of the UK Government appeasing those Muslims.

Moving on from that though, The Muslim Council of Great Britain was never an illegitimate organisation, so the government has never had to legitimise it.  I have to hand it to him. Condell demonstrates a flair for language.  His smoke-and-mirrors tricks are designed to stop us from even lightly probing his postulations, but if you get past the pseudo-Neuro-Linguistic Programming his arguments are very transparent.

Pat Condell is always mentioning this 'list of demands', so I thought I'd finally take the time to find it, being as Condell doesn't have the nerve to link to it in the information box for his videos. 

This 'list of demands' is called 'Meeting the needs of Muslim pupils in state schools' Page two of the document states that it is an 'information and guidance booklet'. Far from imposing Islamic values on 'all children in British schools', the document is designed to highlight the specific needs of Muslim pupils. It is actually a good guide for teachers who may know nothing about Islam, and importantly, reduces the scope for Muslim pupils to try to pull the wool over a teachers' eyes by playing the 'my religion says so' card. If a teacher is aware of the requirements of Islam, they are less likely to be taken for a ride, or cause offence through ignorance. Lets have a look at a tidbit of this guide:

"Muslim pupils are allowed to take part in educational visits to all places of worship, including churches, synagogues and temples."

Sounds reasonable to me. Not really an earth shattering demand. 

It seems that Pat Condell took his opinions about this document from the Daily Express who ran what can only be described as an inflammatory article, with comments like this nugget from Terry Sanderson of that bastion of intelligent and rational secularism, the National Secular Society (of which Condell is a fully paid up member):

“Schools with even just a handful of Muslim kids will find they have to follow these guidelines because there aren’t the staff to have one set of classes for Muslims and another for the rest. The MCB shouldn’t try to force its religious agenda on children who may not want it. The Government needs to send the MCB packing. Schools should be about teaching, not preaching. ”

The document was launched on the MCB website on 20th February, one day before the article came out. It seems that Terry Sanderson read and digested a 72 page report before the copy deadline for the newspaper. I doubt he spent a full 24 minutes, never mind 24 hours analysing it, because if he had, he would have realised that the publication is not at all about 'forcing a religious agenda on children who may not want it', but it sets out to be an advisory document which schools can refer to for good practice. 

If the best the NSS can do is get manipulated like a puppet by the national media, it is small wonder Pat Condell frets about the political nouse of the Muslim Council of Britain.

Unsurprisingly, the MCB wrote a letter to the Press Complaints Commission about this report, wonder what the result was?

A more balanced synopsis of the document could be found at the BBC four days after it became available. Mike Baker, an Education Correspondant (so, pretty well qualified to judge a document aimed at schools then) asks the right questions:-

"How reasonable were these requests? Were they, in fact, demands?"

Baker at least passes fair comment on the language of the document, particularly, he seems to wonder why the word 'should' appears so many times.  He also points out that schools have the right to 'expect willingness to conform, whether it is to school uniform codes, curriculum requirements, behaviour policies or parental co-operation', and that makes absolute sense.  

Baker goes on to say that "...telling schools what they 'should' do for one particular group, without necassarily considering the impact on others, may not be the most persuasive approach."  He has a point, but it is not in the remit of the Muslim Council of Britain to vouch for the requirements of non-Muslim children.  That is for the schools themselves to balance, given the information they have. 

The purpose of the document was so that schools could create even-handed policy that includes Muslims are far as possible, not for 'special treatment'.

Race Equality Teaching published a great article dissecting not only the story, but the comments to be found on the Daily Express website regarding the story. And, finally on this subject, it seems even atheists can see that we have entered storm-in-a-teacup territory with this one.

So, we return now to Condell, who is still bleating on about the Muslim Council of Great Britain.

"The Muslim Council of Britain sounds like an official body but in fact it's just another extremist group of fanatics who want to turn Britain into an Islamic republic. They'd never admit this publiclly of course, any more than the British National Party would admit that they want to repatriate the blacks and gas the Jews, but we all know thats' where they are really coming from."

The Muslim Council of Britain are no more or less extreme than, say, the National Secular Society, and as I've pointed out before, the NSS have more political and media clout. Who then, should we be more wary of?  Also, is it ironic that he mentions the BNP, who absolutely find everything that Condell has to say about Islam right on.  Funny though, that they don't seem to support his views on Catholicism.  Still, every cloud has a silver lining, eh?

Condell never tires of 'dissing' the MCB:-

"...they love accusing people of Islamophobia. A totally made up word and a blatent lie."

Hold on a cotton picking minute! People accusing other people of stuff when they have no basis for it? Gee whizz. Pat, I've got a feeling we're not in Kansas no more!

NEWSFLASH. THIS JUST IN.... All words are made up. But seriously. Lets' nail this lie once and for all. Pat Condell is a rational man. I feel sure that when he is presented with overwhelming evidence to disprove his theories, he'll undoubtedly change has rhetoric. Well, I can but try.

Way before 9/11 and 7/7, far back in the mists of 1997, even before Pat Condell had heard of the Internet, the Commission on British Muslims and Islamophobia issued a report entitled 'Islamophobia: a challenge for us all' . The report contained 60 recommendations, by the time of the follow-up report in 2004 progress on the original 60 recommendations was minimal. Here is an example of Islamophobia:

"During the war in Iraq in 2003 a student at a secondary school in central England approached one of the staff. She was of Pakistani heritage, as was the member of staff. She was being teased, she told the teacher, by other students in the playground and on journeys to and from school. 'We killed hundreds of your lot yesterday … Saddam's your dad, you love him, don't you … we're getting our revenge for what you Pakis did to us on 11 September…' The teacher asked if she had told her form tutor. Yes, she had told her tutor, and her tutor had said: 'Never mind, it's not serious. It'll soon pass. You'll have to expect a bit of teasing at a time like this.'"

Confronting Islamophobia in the Education System, page 1)

But that is just the UK. It is recognised that a European wide initiative to tackle Islamophobia is required.

"EU member states must also accept their responsibility towards all ethnic and other minority communities. To do this, measures must be taken and new initiatives implemented. Those such as the Irish government's anti-racism awareness programme, that is now to include Islamophobia as well, is a good case in point."

Undeterred by the truth though, Condell gives us the skinny on Islamophobia

"...A phobia is defined as an irrational fear or dread of something, and its' true that many people fear and dread the growth of Islam but there's nothing irrational about that when you look at the evidence. In countries where islam has control there is repression there's torture there's precious few human rights and there's no free speech..."

Great point. I would contest that the countries of which Condell speaks are not implementing Islamic law at all, or not implementing it correctly, or at least, are adhering to an ultra-strict interpretation which a moderate Muslim (yes, they do exist!) would not recognise, and where in fact, there could be a more lenient interpretations of Islamic jurisprudence.

I do find Pat Condell quite naive in his outlook, especially for a man of his years. There may be free speech in Britain, but, funnily enough, not in Westminster, the heart of UK democracy. How very embarrassing.

"... if the Muslim Council of Britain had it's way this would be one of those [oppressive] countries and I'd be arrested and tortured for making this video. This is not a belief system that I want to see encouraged, but there's nothing phobic about it, it's just common sense."

Ladies and Gentlemen... I give you Islamophobia in action. I hope that I've pointed out the holes in the arguments that Condell raises. If, like Pat Condell, you don't take the time to learn about a subject, and simply regurgitate what the media force-feed you, then maybe you could get away with thinking that Islamophobia is common sense. If, however, you have a modicum of intelligence, or bother to do some research for yourself, you might come to the conclusion that Islamophobia is not a belief system you would want to see encouraged.

"...The real phobia lies with Islam itself, and with all religions with their pathological fear of reason, which they know can evaporate all their delusions in an instant, because reason to religion is like sunlight to a vampire. Thats where the real fear is, and that's where the real hate is."

And so, we come to the end of the rant. Condell delivers a closing statement that is diametrically opposed to his opening one. How we got from "I have no problem with Islam" to discussing pathological fear of reason, and insinuations that that is where hate lies within Islam. I should hope this response to Pat Condell is full of reason, and backed up with clear evidence to support what I say.

I'm willing to debate these issues with anyone, I may even learn something in the process. I get the feeling that Pat Condell thinks he already knows it all. Pat Condell delivers good diatribe, but when you actually probe deeper, a less than scholarly approach is evident in his videos. And yet, his word is taken as gospel.

Go figure.

Stats Update

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

re: The Trouble With Islam, by Pat Condell

I saw this Pat Condell video (The Trouble  With Islam) some time ago. At the time I ignored it. But the content of it has been niggling away at me. I mean, it purports to be The Truth. But is it? So I found myself writing a rebuttal, looking at each of his points and debating them. He has a lot to say, so it took me a while. But I think I've done OK. Let me know what you think.

Condell starts off with this:-

“... here in the UK religion was always pretty dormant until the Muslims came along and started burning books and passing death sentances and generally demanding special treatment for no good reason...”

Religion, dormant, in the UK? Is Condell referring to before, or after the English Reformation? I don’t know about you, but from where I’m sitting, splitting away from the Pope and the Roman Catholic Church is not a ‘dormant’ activity. Neither was Dissolution of the Monasteries and confiscation of their property. Anybody else want to discuss Catholic Emancipation?.

But I’m being facetious. Let us fast forward to more recent events.

Let us look no further than the Catholic Vs Protestant grudge match that had been played out for a long time on the shores of the UK. Condell looks old enough to remember things like this, and, my personal favourite, this. When, in 2001, Catholic parents and children couldn’t walk through a Protestant area without the British Army to escort them, would you say that religion was ‘dormant’ in the UK?

These examples demonstrate a fine tradition of religious upheaval in the UK, going back centuries. Why single out the Muslims? They are just the latest in a long line.

“... they’ve shown everybody else what can be achieved by bullying and intimidation so now every crackpot in the country feels entitled to respect for their precious beliefs, beliefs often lifted wholesale from the ramblings of an ancient desert nomad with a psychological disorder...”

What? What, prey tell, have Muslims achieved by bullying and intimidation, exactly? An example or two would have been nice. Interestingly, Condell speaks as if all Muslims have benefited from something, he doesn’t state what, but apparently, this homogenous group we call ‘the Muslims’ are all better off nowadays. It seems Condell believes that Muslims are like the Borg from Star Trek, that is to say, a bunch of bad guys with no individualism at all.

The next part of what Condell says is quite telling. Let us split it into 2 parts. Firstly, his assertion that ‘every crackpot in the country feels entitled to respect for their precious beliefs’. I wonder, has he read Article 18 of the UN Declaration of Human Rights? Even if you are a ‘crackpot’, you are legally entitled to respect for your religious beliefs. A right that Condell is freely exercising at will, but which, seemingly, he thinks other people should not have. Secondly, his assertion that these beliefs are ‘lifted wholesale from a desert nomad with a psychological disorder...’ I can only presume that Condell is here referring to Mohammed, the central prophet of Islam. The phrasing of this sentence is intriguing. Is Condell saying that all followers of Islam are crackpots? And what, specifically, is this psychological disorder Condell speaks of? Condell lists himself as a ‘comedian’, does this skill set extend to psychiatric evaluations of long dead religious figures?

“... it does seem quite ironic to me that the very people who have clearly made no attempt to think for themselves are always the most vocal in demanding respect for their ideas.."

I’ve already pointed out that everybody is entitled, under international law, to respect for their ideas. So, not content with being a comic and psychiatrist, I can only assume that Condell is also gifted in the practice of Law, otherwise, how could he possibly dream up a way to legally deny someone their fundamental human rights? I note the head tilt towards the camera at the end of this sentence. Was this the bit that was meant to be funny? Condell, who does not seem a man who lacks ideas, or words to express them, gives no explanation as to why he thinks Muslims don’t think for themselves, clearly, we must figure that out for ourselves.

“... some Muslims go further than this and claim that they are being victimised in British society, but I don’t really believe that’s true.”

Again Condell gives his view, but fails to support it with any hard evidence. One wonders if he has heard of institutional racism? Apparently it exists in our Police force and our schools, the army, fire service, Parliment and judiciary. And thats’ before we take a look at the representation of Muslims in the media. Ethnic minorities in general, not just Muslims, get a raw deal in the UK. Does a Muslim run a FTSE 100 company, for instance? In 2005, 22 of the FTSE 100 companies still had no female board members. That to me seems like institutionalised sexism! Good grief, how hard would it be if you are Muslim and female to get onto a FTSE 100 board?

“I do think a lot of people are getting fed up of hearing about Muslims all the time and the wish that Muslims would just shut up and get on with their lives instead of constantly bellyaching about nothing, but that’s not the same as being victimised”

Here, I couldn’t agree more with Condell about people being fed up about hearing about Muslims all the time. But I’d hazard a guess that chief among those fed up people are, wait for it... the Muslims themselves. Condell again lumps all the Muslims into that Borg-like group. As if they are all bellyaching, all the time, when, patently, there is a silent majority of Muslims. I even see them, occasionally. They are people who work in shops, play in the park with their children, go out for a meal, and all manner of other well-balanced and normal activities. These people do get on with their lives as best they can, and, in all likelihood, would take offence at a white, middle aged man badgering them, one might say for no good reason, from the media temple that is YouTube.

“...we live in a liberal democracy and therefore have certain double standards to maintain...”

What a great statement, apparently, in the UK, we live in a liberal democracy. If you call leading the country to an illegal war, despite mass public protests against it, ‘liberal’, then yes, we live in a liberal democracy. If you call the planned introduction of ID cards ‘liberal’, then yes, we live in a liberal democracy. If you call imprisonment without trial 'liberal', then yes, we live in a liberal democracy. If you believe that allowing UK citizens to be tortured in Guantanamo Bay ‘liberal', then yes, we live in a ‘liberal’ democracy. I'm not so convinced.

What Condell means by ‘double standards’ I don’t know. If he feels that Muslims get special treatment, Condell might do well to recall the incident of BA banning crosses.

“...any criticisms of Islam or Muslims always draws the immediate accusation of Islamophobia, a dishonest word which seeks to portray legitimate comment as some kind of hate crime....”

Interesting that Condell should raise this point, considering that the title of this video bears more than a passing resemblance to the title of a book by Irshad Manji, ‘The Trouble with Islam Today: A Wake-up Call for Honesty and Change’. Controversially, Manji addresses some of the basic problems with Islam today, a job made easier by the fact that she is a Muslim. Manji tells of the Islamic tradition of independent thinking, or Ijtihad (pronounced “ij-tee-had”). I’d ask Condell to read this book, it might give him a more balanced view of Islam. Put bluntly. Manji knows her shit, and she knows the weak spots of Islam, and the historical reasons (legitimate or not) for them. Not something one could honestly say of Condell.

Once again I find myself agreeing with Condell with regards to his thoughts on the accusations of Islamophobia. Not wholly though. You see, unlike Condell, I don’t think the word ‘Islamophobia’ in itself is dishonest. Islamophobia exists. Some commentators even say Condell is guilty of it. Yes. Some Muslims abuse the term for their own reasons. The same as some women cry ‘sexism’ for their own reasons, and yet other people might cry ‘agism’ for their own gain. Quite frankly, It is tiring that Condell consistently lumps all Muslims into the same group, as if they have no mind of their own, but then, by his own mouth, Condell calls all Muslims crackpots.

“... the truth is that Islam has a chip on it’s shoulder the size of a mosque and it looks to take offence at every opportunity...”

The terminology Condell uses here is interesting. He purports that Islam, as a religion, is inherently designed so as to “take offence at every opportunity”. It never occurs to him that, just perhaps, it might be that some people who are ‘practicing’ the religion, do not understand the true meaning of what they are practicing. That they are applying an interpretation of the Qu’ran that is simply not correct. Either because they are ignorant of the true meaning of the Qur’an, or because they are deliberately using Islam as a guise to meet their own goals. Some people call this ‘Islamism’. Some might use the term ‘ignorant’, others might just see that Islam is being used by a few people to further their own political or personal agenda. Condell, however, actually believes that Islam itself “has a chip on it’s shoulder”. Now. Condell certainly looks old enough to have studied the Qur’an, and the myriad Hadith, and no doubt you would call me crazy if I were to suggest that Condell had come to his conclusions without doing his background research, but that is indeed what I’m suggesting.

“... you never hear a peep out of any of these people when some young girl is murdered for bringing dishonuor upon her insane family. Suddenly, everyone is looking at the floor then...”

Really? What about this? Or this? In 2003, Adab Saoud, a Muslim woman sitting in the Jordan Parliment said this:-

“Obviously these killings are wrong and against our religion. But the notion of honour is a very important one in our society. And we need to accept that.”

A Muslim woman. Sitting on a Muslim Parliment. In a Muslim country. Denoucing honour killings as “against our religion”. It doesn’t get any clearer than that really, does it? Condell refers to an “insane family”, I sincerely hope he means this just in relation to their murderous intent, but I fear that he is actually talking about their practice of Islam.

“They keep telling us that Islam is a religion of peace, but all the evidence points to a religion of war. It’s holy book urges Muslims to conquer the world and subjugate everyone to the rule of God. If Islam had it’s way, elections would become a thing of the past and the rest of us would be living in the past, for the forseeable future”

Again, I’m sure Condell has studied the Qur’an and Hadith to such an extent that he is a reliable source of information on this. But he gives no examples as to how he draws these conclusions. Personally, I’d bypass reading the Qur’an on this issue, and just take a look at Turkey. Today. How Condell can ignore a secular Muslim state on the world stage is beyond comprehension. I’ve heard they have a great McDonalds in Istanbul. And let us not forget that Turkey has proved a strategic military ally by allowing the US to build air bases from which they can pound Iraq and Afghanistan from the air. Turkey does hold free and fair elections. Currently, Turkey bans the wearing of headscarves in schools, and this is still a hot issue. Turkey is something like 99% Muslim. I don’t get the impression that as a country it is trying to conquer the world and subjugate everyone to the rule of God. Do you?

“... some people are very keen to bring this situation about. Especially the loud-mouthed rabble rousing clerics who we always hear praising the suicide bombers as glorious martyrs...”

Ahh yes. Those one-eyed-hook-for-a-hand clerics, eh? Permit me an indulgence, dear reader. No. Permit me two, if you will. Firstly, orthodox Islam does not recognise any form of formal preisthood. There is no formal religious hierarchy in Islam. If we accept this to be true (and, dear reader, it is), it doesn’t matter what a cleric says about suicide bombers, the modern Muslim is left to their own devices when it comes to interpreting the actions of others in relation to Islam. Secondly. If you will allow it. I would submit that not all Muslim clerics are ‘loud-mouthed’ or indeed ‘rabble rousing’. Some of them want to just lead prayers and serve the community even. But, you see, we don’t get to see those ones on TV very often, but we are ‘always’ seeing those crazy clerics with wide-eyes, because, well, they, they make better news, don’t they?

Going on to question why these clerics don’t blow themselves up for martyrdom, Condell says

“... despite the guarantee of all those luscious virgins waiting for them in heaven, these guys are so selfless that they can always find somebody more deserving...”

Again, Condell, unwittingly I’m sure, picks up on several sore points for many Muslims. Firstly. Suicide is forbidden in Islam. It is like an affront to God. Then, the issue of virgins in the afterlife. There is a school of thought that supposes that ‘virgins’ is not the correct interpretation of what is available to Muslims in heaven, but that actually, they can look forward to a bountiful supply of raisins. Also, why blow yourself up anyway? The reward (be it virgins or raisins) to Muslims is apparently available regardless of how you pop your clogs. Why even tempt the wrath of God by committing suicide?

“... the whole 72 virgins scenario has become comedy staple, and with good reason...”

Again, must I bow to Condells’ superior knowledge of Islam, but the classic Arabic meaning of the passage in the Qu'ran that Condell refers to

"Companions pure, most beautiful of eye."

The spectrum of translations of this passage range from "virgins" all the way to a typical winged angel as you might expect to find in the Christian tradition. Condell skirts over this though.

“... the virgins are likely to be good wholesome Islamic virgins because there won’t be any infidel rif-raf in heaven...”

Condell, I'm sure, is well versed in the Qur’an. But maybe he missed the bit about Allah judging all the different people on the Day of Judgement (22:17). In fact, Islam recognises Jesus as a prophet of God. This surely means that Jews, Christians and Muslims are all following the same God? Just through different practices. If so, would this God cast all his children out, apart from the Muslims? Funny that Condell uses the word ‘infidel’. It is in fact an English word, with no basis in Islam, although it provides as a rough translation for the Arabic word ‘Kafir’.

“...[about the virgins in heaven] presumably they will have brothers and cousins and uncles who are all determined to defend their honour by killing anyone who makes eye contact with them...”

I’ve already looked at how the concept of ‘honour killing’ (lets face it, murder has no honour) is not a belief of Islam, but something which society has dreamed up. Therefore Condell has no basis for this statement. Also, the issue of wether it’s ‘virgins’ or ‘raisins’ on offer in the afterlife could have an impact. I’ll reserve my judgement on this issue until after I know the outcome of that particular debate.

“They haven’t really thought this whole thing through it seems to me. For this they blow themselves up? Wouldn’t it be easier to get an inflatable woman and blow her up, and then if one of your friends happens to glance at her with lustful eyes, why you can simply stone her to death and get another one in the usual way...”

Is this really the pinnacle of Condells’ comedy? Note that he doesn’t mention how the concept of stoning is not peculiar to Islam, it is referred to in both Christian and Jewish religious texts. But that doesn’t make it right. Regardless, the Qur’an is very clear:-

‘The adulterer shall not marry save an adulteress or an idolatress, and the adulteress none shall marry save an adulterer or an idolater. All that is forbidden unto believers.” (24:3)

Why would an adulterer or adulteress be able to marry anybody if they were to be stoned to death? I also would draw Condells’ attention to Turkey. You remember, don’t you, that democratic state that is 99% Muslim? If Islam can exist in a secular country, where religious rulings and the law can be kept seperate, what exactly is Condells’ issue here?

Next, Condell moves on to Muslim women covering themselves in Britain:-

“... I think Muslim women in Britain who cover their faces are mentally ill...”

A bold statement indeed. At least though, he seems to recognise that not all Muslim women cover their faces. Some scant recognition that there is a choice available here. Some Muslim women are happy with a head scarf. Others are happy to wear the fashion of the day. My only problem with Condells’ view on this issue is that it is my belief that men and women, of any race or religion, should be entitled to wear what they want. As long as they don’t potter about the streets naked, it’s fine by me. It follows, therefore, that if she so chooses, a Muslim women should be able to cover herself from head to toe without fear of being called ‘mentally ill’. What about Burqinis? I’d not be phased if I saw a Muslim lady wearing a Burqini at my local swimming pool. They are modest, but note that they don’t cover the face, and appear to be selling like the proverbial hot-cakes. One could say that wearing a shell suit, or maybe MC Hammer pants, or even a mullet might indicate a slight personality imbalance, but then, as with the niqab (face veil), I would defend the right of someone to wear those styles if they so wanted to, even if they are not quite to my liking.

“...I realise that in some parts of the world women don’t actually have any choice in this matter, governed as they are by primitive pigs whose only achievement in life is to be born with a penis in one hand and a Qur’an in the other...”

A scathing attack indeed. I wonder if Condell is attempting a double insult by calling the Muslim men of which he speaks ‘pigs’. Can we credit him with knowing that pigs are forbidden to Muslims? I think so. In fact, the illustrations of pigs on Condells' personal home page serve to ram his point home. No need to get personal Condell! But the rebuttal of this argument is simple. 

There are two schools of thought within Islam on covering of the face. The first is that it is ‘compulsory’ to do so. The second that it is ‘recommended’ to do so, as the wives of Mohammed covered their faces around men they did not know. As I’ve already said, there is no formal priesthood within Islam, so this leaves Muslim woman to - and get this - make up their own mind on the matter. Freedom of choice. No Muslim man has the right to require any Muslim woman to wear or do anything she does not want to. Condell, on the other hand, obviously feels that he should be able to write the rule book on which types of clothing women should wear.

As for Condells’ comments about “penis in one hand and Qur’an in the other”. Well, he was doing OK up until that point. Fairly reasoned debate, even. But really, there was no need for that.

“...if God had intended you to cover your face then, in his wisdom, he would have provided you with a flap of skin for the purpose. Of course, if it gave you any sexual pleasure it would have to be removed...”

Oh dear. Now Condell has simply degenerated into uneducated slurring. In fact. Islam is one of the least sexually repressed religions. Certainly, if Condell consults the hadith, he might find this:-

“In three matters, the weakness of a male is disclosed. Firstly if a lover meets his beloved, and then they separate without enquiring into their mutual condition and health; secondly, rejecting the honour which someone wishes to pay him; thirdly to engage in sexual intercourse with the wife or the female who is legally permitted, without talking to her or kissing her or by being unable to restrain the ejaculation of semen before that of his wife." (Related by Daylami)

Hold on there. Is it really the duty of a Muslim man to sweet talk his wife into bed and ensure she has an orgasm before him??? Cripes. I bet a lot of Muslim men need to buck up their ideas.

“...I think years from now a lot of intelligent Muslims will be looking back on all this medievalism and jihad nonsense with embarrassment and shame...”

Well, at least Condell recognises that there can be intelligent Muslims. Maybe not right now. But sometime in the future. Interesting choice of words again from Condell. I wonder if he is aware of the debate around the meaning of the word ‘jihad’. There are two possible meanings, one is that jihad is a physical military struggle, the other that jihad is an internal struggle with oneself, a struggle against vice and ignorance, for instance. Once again, Muslims are split on this issue, and so, without guidance from a formal priesthood, each Muslim must decide for themselves the type of jihad they want to promote.

So, that basically tackles the major gripes against Islam that Condell elucidates in his video.

But what about my gripe with him?

You see, I find Condell very offensive. Not for what he says mind. I’m not against freedom of speech. I’m mildly offended that he is blatently ignorant of the internal politics of Islam, blurting out, what I would label, the typical bigots’ view of Islam, and yet purporting to be a free thinker with a firm handle on the way things are.

But do you want to know what really gets my goat? What really winds me up about Condell? He says he is a comedian. And yet, I found nothing of what he said even mildly amusing.  Where are the punch lines? Good grief, Islam provides such a wealth of material to poke fun at, and the guy didn’t raise even a smirk from me. Am I the only on who finds him deeply unfunny?

I'm not the only one that thinks the comedy of Condell leaves something to be desired.  His YouTube videos seem to be an extension of his 'Faith, Hope & Sanity' stand up show, but there was at least one reviewer who didn't think much of the act in 2006-

"... when you joke about religion, you’re judged against the very best there is. And, disappointingly, Condell is not quite up to the job."

Well, the material hasn't aged well, thats for sure.  The reviewer goes on:-

"There’s no structure, no building up to a passionate, climactic conclusion, no ebb and flow of storytelling."

Phew.  At least this guy knows how I feel!

Then there is Ian Shuttleworth, a Theatre critic for the Financial Times, who had this to say of 'Barry Sorts It Out', a play by Condell:-

"...a sordid East End comedy written by stand-up Pat Condell. It repeats ad nauseam the same gag, in which Barry's narrative recounts his calm, reasonable thoughts followed with a "so I..." by his crassly Neanderthal actions. Andy Linden looks as if at any moment he is going to ask the audience menacingly who they are looking at, but this is a play with all the bite of a set of joke-shop fangs".

Ouch.  Speaks for itself really.

But I think I know what the problem is.  Condell is, in fact, only one half of a double act.  He is a straight man, without the aid of a funny sidekick. like Bob Mortimer without Vic Reeves.  Tommy Cannon without Bobby Ball.  For the non-UK readers, he is like Tommy Lee Jones without Will Smith. That is to say. Just. Not. Funny.

Is there meant to be some irony in that he has called his video 'The Trouble With Islam', but it is in fact nothing but an ill-researched rant, based largely upon common misconceptions about Islam?  Is that the joke I'm not getting?

If you are going to be telling jokes about Islam, why not take a leaf out of Omid Djalilis’ book? Eh? Something like this perhaps. Or this. If you want a general ethnic minirity view, Chis Rock does a nice line, following in the fine tradition of Eddie Murphy and Richard Pryor. Or what about Russell Peters who manages to get laughs all the way across the ethnic spectrum? Who would have thought that Muslims in America can have a laugh about Islam? Even random Muslim kids on the Internet and relative unknowns do a better job of poking fun at Islam than this guy. How does that work, exactly?

I’ll tell you how it works.

They, unlike Condell, know what they are talking about.