Belling the Islamist cat- tackling the rise of extremism in the UK

[temujin]

On the Politics Show yesterday, Theresa May, Home Secretary, revealed that Home Office estimates those thought to be 'at different points on what could be a path to violent extremism' to number in the 'thousands'. Referring to the past failings of the government's 'Prevent' strategy, she emphasised the need for more joined up work across departments, citing the recent rise in Islamist outfits in universities.

BBC News - Radicalisation a risk for 'thousands' - Theresa May

Radicalisation a risk for 'thousands' - Theresa May

Potentially "thousands" of people in the UK are at risk of radicalisation, Home Secretary Theresa May has told the BBC.

There is a sense that current government initiatives to address the extremist scourge are largely misconceived, likely to be regarded with suspicion by many Muslims and, in rare cases where they do find an audience, end up preaching to the converted. Beyond the public face of Islamist extremism embodied by the likes of Anjem Choudhary, the real threat lies in the influence of media outlets that are bringing a radical and intolerant version of Islam into the drawing rooms of Muslims across the country. Most such channels are ideologically aligned to extremist denominations of the Muslim faith and since their primary target audience is the Muslim diaspora from the subcontinent, much of the content is in regional languages, which confounds attempts by regulators to monitor and moderate content.


At last count, there are 14 Muslim channels that broadcast exclusively religious content in the UK, in addition to others that air the odd 'Khutba' and what not, 3 gospel channels whilst the Sikhs and Hindus have one channel each. From what I can see, none of the 14 Islamic channels have a viable business model and are therefore solely 'self funded'.


Out of sheer curiosity, I recently spent some time watching one of the more popular and slickly produced channels on the Sky platform, Peace TV, headed by the celebrity cleric, Zakir Naik. As many of you are aware, Zak was banned from visiting the UK in 2010 due to his extremist views but has since been allowed to address gatherings by satellite link, in addition to airing his venomous sermons on TV. To his credit, Zak does possess a degree of superficial eloquence and apparent knowledge on religious matters-which does not stand up to serious scrutiny but that's beyond the point- and the ostensible purpose of his organisation, IIRF, the 'comparative study of religions',means he does not fit the classic profile of a rabid mullah. But what is on offer on Peace TV is far removed from any critical debate on Islam and other faiths but rather a succession of 'Dais' eulogising Islam and, more importantly, slandering and belittling other faiths.

Concerns about these channels were raised earlier this year but Ofcom appears to have largely ignored it, allowing such outfits to continue their activities unfettered by any regulatory oversight.


Preachers of hate who spread their violent word on British TV channels - Telegraph

Preachers of hate who spread their violent word on British TV channels

Muslim fundamentalists have used British television channels to preach in favour of violent crime and killing “apostates”.

The communications watchdog, Ofcom, has made a series of rulings against channels which allowed “inflammatory” material to be broadcast in breach of rules which forbid extreme opinions gaining a platform on British television.
The cases, disclosed today, include examples of an imam telling viewers that those who disrespect the prophet Mohammed should be killed, and another broadcaster saying homosexuals should be beaten and tortured.
The stations were found to have committed serious breaches of the broadcasting code by allowing the extreme opinions to be aired unchallenged.
Last night experts warned that the extent and seriousness of the broadcasting breaches raises questions over whether extreme Muslim speakers who were previously confined to small audiences in mosques are able to reach thousands more people by broadcasting intolerant teachings on television.

Although Zak is a dad hand at deflecting any criticism of his sermons, typically resorting to deceit, high voltage rants or blaming the 'context' to talk down his critics, his underlying message and intolerant ideology can be gauged from the document produced by IIRF and authored by Zak called 'Answers to non Muslim's common questions about Islam'. Designed as an aide memoir for the faithful undertaking Dawa among infidels, Zak even advises readers to memorise the document, the contents of which he is confident will 'convince most non-Muslims (to revert to Islam)'.

Although Zak claims in the introduction that he merely aims to dispel misconceptions about Islam through application of reason and logic, it quickly becomes apparent that the document follows the well trodden Islamist path of rationalising uncomfortable aspects of the faith through cultural relativism, selective quoting, citing dubious figures, making sweeping generalisations and, most importantly, running down other faiths and perpetuating crass stereotypes of the West and the 'infidels' to promote a bigoted, supremacist view of the faith among the readers.

Among the many baseless claims put forth in the document are-

Hindus are more polygamous than Muslims (based on selective quoting of 50 year old census figures)

Women will turn promiscuous and become 'public property' if men are limited to one wife.

People in the West are inherently adulterous

Women would pass on venereal diseases to partners in a polyandrous relationship unlike men in an polygamous relationship- the fallacy of Zak's argument is immediately obvious to anyone with half a brain cell but such claims are in keeping with the general theme of the document, which tends to locate all vice and immorality in women.

Hijab prevents sexual assault since donning Western attire is an 'indirect invitation' for teasing and molestation (illustrated with a laughable twin analogy)

Western society exploits women in the guise of liberalisation- Western women are mostly mistresses, concubines, sex butterflies etc

Justifies violence and glorifies terrorism by offering social constructionist arguments

Alocholism causes rape and incest- incest in rife in America

Alcohol causes AIDS

Alcohol is the leading cause of death worldwide

Cultural relativist arguments to justify misogynist practices whilst failing to recognise that they have little relevance or place in contemporary society

Calling for implementation of Sharia across the world

There are many more to be found at the link...



http://www.thecommentator.com/ckeditor_assets/attachments/333/en_common_questions.pdf


Although he has been known to defend death penalty for apostasy, Zak is usually quick to contend that he does not explicitly espouse violent jihadist views. However, it is clear that the likes of him and violent political Islamists drink from the same ideological watering hole and his pronouncements have contributed significantly to promoting intolerance, hate and bigotry among his followers, which subsequently gives rise to the context in which those of a criminal bend feel justified in committing acts of terror against the 'disbelievers', including Muslims who do not agree with their warped version of Islam.

Zak has already been linked to two incidents involving Islamist radicals in the West, including the Woolwich incident, and he is just one of the many dozen clerics plying their trade on British TV.


Brainwashing via the Quran: The case of Faisal Shahzad and the blasphemy by the Taliban and Al Qaeda

Woolwich attack suspects' former university played host to extremists

The Telegraph has learnt that a pamphlet written by a preacher who was banned from entering Britain by the Home Secretary in 2010 was distributed during a freshers’ fair at Greenwich University in 2011. Dr Zakir Naik, the author, said in the booklet: “Every Muslim should be a terrorist.”

More than Anjem Choudhary its the likes of Zakir Naik, who use their reach and influence to engage in subtle subversion of their followers, that represent the biggest threat to the West and progressive Muslim nations alike in terms of violent extremism. However, for governments to be able to deny vermin such as Zak the 'oxygen of publicity' without being accused of racism, there needs to be recognition within the Muslim community of the damage such elements are doing to the faith, but sadly there appears to be little enthusiasm among Muslims in the UK to take on the radical minority within their fold.

 

[livingdead]

Its time India take Zakir Naik seriously and start proceeding against him for creating hatred. He is no better than the guy with hook.

 

[temujin]

Its time India take Zakir Naik seriously and start proceeding against him for creating hatred. He is no better than the guy with hook.

He is worse in many ways as his audience consists mostly of urban middle classes, his message is more subliminal and he commands more credibility on account of being a medical doctor etc..

 

[Safriz]

They are good at belling the wrong cat...
people have been jailed for driving too much in Jewish areas of Manchester.
people been jailed for driving remote control toy cars near a territorial army centre...while anjum Choudry is still free..
so I can only laugh at this government...

 

[Ayush]

the points in bold-

 

[somebozo]

Its a bit to late for britain as they had left the system open to all kind of hate preachers and fanatic mullahs..in hopes to one day use them as a driving force for their goals in the middle east by engineering salafacist revolutions. Ye shall sow what they reap..the move has backfired.

 

[illusion8]

Its a bit to late for britain as they had left the system open to all kind of hate preachers and fanatic mullahs..in hopes to one day use them as a driving force for their goals in the middle east by engineering salafacist revolutions. Ye shall sow what they reap..the move has backfired.

The English bother about money,
The saving grace for Muslims is that they haven't yet caused job losses or hoarded wealth taken from the Britons, most live on welfare, if the case was reverse one could have seen mass deportation orchestrated by the business elite who generally control everything.
The second generation Muslim Britons are getting radicalized more than the illegal immigrants which is another saving grace because as per their constitution they cannot restrict freedom of speech to their own citizens.

 

[temujin]

They are good at belling the wrong cat...
people have been jailed for driving too much in Jewish areas of Manchester.
people been jailed for driving remote control toy cars near a territorial army centre...while anjum Choudry is still free..
so I can only laugh at this government...

Although I can imagine certain individuals being stopped and questioned for their suspicious presence in a Jewish area, just as a group of EDL thugs would be if found in the vicinity of a mosque, I would be very surprised if this subsequently led to an arrest, let alone conviction. I cannot envisage any reason,other than wanton provocation, why someone would take a remote control car to a restricted military area but once again, its highly unlikely such behaviour would have led to a conviction.

Unless you can back up your statements with evidence from a credible source, I would be tempted to cosign them to the long last of half truths and rumours concocted by members of the Muslim community to validate their self induced persecutory complex.

As for Anjam Choudhary remaining free, Muslims should be asking themselves why such a vile character has been allowed to operate in their midst for so long without being challenged by saner members of the community? Had Muslims been more emphatic in their condemnation of such elements in the past, the government would have been able by now to formulate a more coherent and pragmatic strategy to tackle Islamism, not the Muslim faith but the ideology that seeks to impose a certain political order based on a skewed interpretation of scriptures, without the fear of offending religious and cultural sentiments.

What makes the state's job difficult is the fact that, apart from condemning Islamists as not representing 'real Islam', the 'silent majority' among Muslims has hitherto singularly failed to clearly define 'true Islam' and its place in modern society. The sad truth is that it is difficult to reconcile a literal reading of Islamic scriptures with secular, democratic values without a generous dose of allegory and interpretations of the faith that advocated such an approach, for instance sufism, have long since been branded heresies and relegated to the margins of contemporary Muslim discourse.

So when Muslim communities in the West fail to stand up to Wahabbis and terrorists who draw inspiration from them when they seek to justify their actions by citing scriptures it is partly down to the fact many Muslims, in the absence of a more inclusive and readily accessible interpretation of Islam, may themselves have come to accept the latter's enunciation of the faith as 'true Islam'.