The radicals, according to Maher, are the people who run the East London Mosque, which he describes as one of “Britain's most extreme Islamic institutions.” To qualify this statement, he says that the mosque hosted an event titled “The End of Time: A New Beginning.”

“One of the invited speakers, Khalid Yasin, described the beliefs of Christians and Jews as ‘filth.’ Most worryingly, the event also featured a live video question-and-answer session with Anwar Al Awlaki, the U.S.-born preacher aligned with al Qaeda.”

Does this sound familiar? It should do. The same argument against the ELM was peddled by Andrew Gilligan, which we deconstructed here, along with the other contention raised by Maher that the ELM hosted Awlaki for an event on policing in 2003.

Please also note that Khalid Yasin should now be added to the long line of Muslim speakers to whom certain views are attributed without any indication of when they expressed those views, what the subject matter was and in what context those views were expressed – a trend that is becoming more widespread, as recently seen during the BBC Panorama documentary, "British Schools, Islamic Rules."

One of the reasons behind this trend was excellently dissected by Arun Kundnani when he referred to the neoconservative tendency to reduce all discussions of Islam to the simplistic notions of “Islamist/extremist” and “moderate” – with the former label being an attempt to delegitimise expressions of activism, with Islam at their roots, that criticise government actions in matters such as foreign policy, and the latter being the label given to those that are ardently pro-Israel or are uncritical of unethical foreign policy decisions.

He further adds:

“Mr. Susman's visit illustrates the blunders Western politicians often make by reaching out to the wrong Muslim ‘dialogue partners.’”

“The visit by the US ambassador, according to Maher, was a bitter blow to those secular and genuinely progressive Muslims in East London who have been pushing back against the mosque's extremism. Mr. Susman's visit to the East London Mosque emboldened robed reactionaries at the expense of their more moderate counterparts.”

Anyone wondering just what Maher’s definition of “moderate” is may wish to refer to the Policy Exchange report, “Choosing Our Friends Wisely”, which he co-authored. The thrust of the report was to recommend supporting those Muslims individuals and institutions that are apolitical or hold pro-Israeli views, insuring that contentious issues in British politics remain unchallenged.

He then goes on to bizarrely state that the consequences of the ambassador’s visit are “already reverberating through Westminster. Prime Minister David Cameron has asked Lord Carlile, the government's independent reviewer of anti-terrorism laws, to oversee an exhaustive review of its "Preventing Violent Extremism" program, including the manner in which communal partners are selected.”

Perhaps we may be bold enough to highlight to Maher that the Prevent review was announced before the ambassador’s visit. A quick glance at a calendar may have helped.

He says, “Hopefully, the review will reject the dangerous thesis that political Islamists who claim to be non-violent should be bolstered in an attempt to divert angry young Muslim men away from terrorism.”

Presumably, Maher is the right type of Muslim for the US ambassador and the British government to be engaging – someone who has zero credibility within the Muslim community, but who will stand up and say anything on cue. For example, Maher’s assertion that Hamas, not Israel, should be criticised for Israel’s killing of 1,400 people during the Dec 2008-Jan 2009 assault on Gaza.

Comments

Add New Search

3.26 Copyright (C) 2008 Compojoom.com / Copyright (C) 2007 Alain Georgette / Copyright (C) 2006 Frantisek Hliva. All rights reserved."