Last night I debated Mohammed Shafiq from the Ramadan Foundation on BBC Radio Five Live. The topic was Jacqui Smith's rebranding of Islamic Terrorism as "anti-Islamic activity". I naturally decried this politically correct example of Orwellian Newspeak.Mr Shafiq - who chose to defend the hateful Hizb-ut-Tahrir and the extremist cleric Yusuf Al-Qaradawi during our debate - also failed to condemn Hamas or Hezbollah. When I asked him if they were terrorists because they killed innocent people (which, in his attempt to sound moderate, he argued was what terrorists did) he responded by whining about Israel being a state sponsor of terrorism. It's this kind of evasive moral equivalence that makes it so hard to take protestations of moderation from self-proclaimed Islamic spokesmen seriously.
The debate unfortunately moved away from the specific topic of "anti-Islamic activity" into a wider debate about integration. I argued that Trevor Phillips and Bishop Nazir-Ali were right to decry multiculturalism, cultural apartheid and ghettoisation. Mr Shafiq felt that ALL muslims were victimised and viewing in a hostile manner by wider British society and the use of phrases such as Islamic Terrorism or even Islamism contributed to that.
I cannot help but feel that Mohammed Shafiq, who seems to have encounted some considerable difficulties with his own LibDem leadership this past month, is a far from persuasive or moderate voice for his cause. Most of us are intelligent enough to realise that Islamic Terrorism is not the same thing as the peaceful practice of Islam. Most muslims are not terrorists and most thoroughly oppose terrorism.
If groups like the Ramadan Foundation spent less time wallowing in victim status and whipping up young muslim men into a fervour of bitterness, victimhood and revenge and instead concentrated on finding ways to promote integration rather than cultural apartheid, we would all be better off - muslims and non-muslims alike.
2 comments:
I think the root causes of voilence need to be identified before we jump on the bandwagon of politcally charged terms of terrorism and extremism. Israel is a state build over the land of the palestinians. Their right to state is denied to them and it is only natural for them to resist the occupation. Similarly, Western support to dictators in the Middle East fuels anger towards the west and current occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan fueling voilence.
Unless we address British Foreign Policy and stop supporting countries who do state terrorism e.g. Israel. The present situation is going to continue.
I have to say that I have read some nonsense in my time but this is undoubtedly the most wrong-headed comment I have seen on my blog for some time.
The Palestinian people (so called) had a state: Jordan.
The right to statehood is not denied to them at all. President Bush made it clear that he favours a two-state solution but Hamas and Hezbollah only want a one-state solution.
Western support for dictators is to blame? Usually it's western support for democracy and our infidel lifestyles that are to blame.
9/11 happened before Iraq and Afghanistan were liberated from tyranny (assuming you agree Saddam and the Taliban were tyrannical - which I appreciate you probably do not). In fact Islamic terrorism happened long before Israel was created in 1948. The Grand Mufti of Jerusalem was an ally of Hitler and Islamists didn't spring up from nowhere in 1948.
British foreign policy is right to support Israel against the murderous attacks of Hamas and Hezbollah. Fifth columnists in Britain with a loyalty to other nations are the problem.
Post a Comment