| ||Disappointed, no doubt, that their quest to foster a craven Muslim identity submissive to the warmongers has fallen on its face, the Home Office-Foreign Office-funded outfit the Quilliam Foundation has gone on the offensive by getting all defensive. |
The ‘think tank’ has once again resorted to smearing reputations and engaging in scaremongering in its attempt to carve a place for itself in the British Muslim landscape. The QF appears to think it and it alone can be trusted on all matters pertaining to British Muslims.
Hot on the heels of the disgraceful QF alert sent out last week on the Scottish National Party’s endorsement of Osama Saeed, Director of the Scottish Islamic Foundation, as SNP candidate for Glasgow Central, comes an alert today about the Islam Channel and its presenters.
It is tedious to have to respond to QF’s nonsense, mostly because nonsense is all they seem to be in the business of producing. But, it is necessary to shine a light on the shallowness of their strategy if only for it to be well understood that their nonsense, whatever the volume of output, simply won’t wash.
QF has issued an alert about the Islam Channel claiming the channel in its choice of presenters is doing British Muslims a disservice. The alert claims:
‘Many of its [Islam Channel] speakers are Islamist extremists from organisations like Hizb ut-Tahrir who use the channel to promote intolerant and bigoted interpretations of Islam. Others are Wahhabi graduates of Saudi universities who have denied the Holocaust …. Other presenters are Islamists who have been suspended from their jobs in government due to their extremist statements or who are from organisations that the government has broken ties with due to their leading members’ alleged support for terrorism.’
The alert informs us that Azad Ali was suspended from his post as a civil servant for blog posts ‘which have been interpreted as condoning terrorist attacks on British troops in Iraq - as well as other blogs supporting Hamas and advocating the re-creation of the Caliphate.’
On Inayat Bunglawala, the alert mentions his Muslim Council of Britain affiliation and says:
‘The government recently broke off relations with the MCB after Daud Abdullah, its deputy-chairman, signed a statement that denounced the Palestinian National Authority as “not eligible to represent the Palestinian people” on account of “giving up” jihad against Israel and which also potentially authorizes jihadist attacks on the Royal Navy.’
The alert also mentions various other presenters that have affiliations to Hizb ut Tahrir, which it is claimed enjoys disproportionate coverage on the channel, and others who have allegedly made anti Semitic remarks.
The alert makes a pretence of its moral high ground by claiming that the Channel’s creation of a platform for ‘a range of views from across Britain’s Muslim and non-Muslim communities’, is a ‘laudable and broad-minded policy’, which fails because it has given ‘un-due prominence to Islamist voices that represent only a small minority of British Muslims’.
The QF’s logic is to be marvelled at. It appears to want to support Muslims who would thrive in a ‘secular, democratic and liberal country’, though its methods clearly pit it closer to authoritarianism and thought control, the very antithesis of the ‘democratic and liberal’ ideals they keep telling us that they espouse.
As for Azad Ali’s support for Hamas, might we conclude that those MPs that attended the recent parliamentary event hosted by Clare Short MP should also invite criticism for their willingness to lend an ear to Khalid Mish’al, one of Hamas's key leaders? Did not the FCO spokesperson quoted in the Independent say at the time, ‘It is, however, up to individual MPs to make decisions about the organization [Hamas] and people like Mr Meshal’?
Indeed. Except that according to QF logic, individuals cannot be entrusted to make their own decisions. These need to be made for them by QF itself. All very liberal and democratic, wouldn't you agree?
It appears QF does not quite comprehend the liberal ideology it is so keen to promote. It criticizes Inayat Bunglawala for belonging to an organization currently at odds with the government over a declaration signed by its deputy secretary general, Daud Abdullah.
One must ask what responsibility Inayat bears for the signature of a declaration by another. Any liberal would contend that individuals be held responsible for their own actions and not the actions of others. And more to the point, Hazel Blears’ attack on the MCB’s deputy secretary general is not without critical questions of interest to a liberal. Namely, what right, if any, does a government have to interfere in the internal workings of independent Muslim organisations? In any case, as we at ENGAGE have highlighted, Ms Blears appears to have made gravely defamatory remarks against Dr Abdullah and she is currently facing a libel suit as a result. Having the backbone to stand up when necessary to the government is a concept clearly lost on the Quilliam Foundation.
The alert’s contention of the HT exposure on Islam Channel falls into the same sphere. One may not agree with the politics and views of members of HT but even the government recognizes the problem and futility of proscribing the organization. It should be recalled that the one recommendation that Ed Husain's laughably inept book The Islamist contained was to ban HT. And intellectual giant that he is, Ed changed his mind about that too less than a year later! As for decrying the so called ‘undue prominence’ the organization receives, isn’t the argument a bit rich coming from an organization which too has been critiqued for its own ‘undue prominence’? Perhaps QF has forgotten that their ‘undue prominence’ comes courtesy of £1 million of taxpayers money and overwhelming support from the neo-con movement?
One can only assume from the alert and those targeted therein, that QF’s motive, more than just seeking to damage reputations – which it does because it does little else to justify its taxpayer funded existence - is to make a case for its own dominance of the airwaves.
It might well be time for Ed Husain and Maajid Nawaz to re-learn the liberal democratic ideals they peddle relentlessly but whose observance they fall far short of.
|< Prev||Next >|