Mehdi Hasan

Mehdi Hasan’s polemical take on politics, economics and foreign affairs

Why David Cameron is wrong about radicalisation and multiculturalism

Under the pernicious influence of Michael Gove and other neoconservatives, the Prime Minister is sin

By Mehdi Hasan Published 05 February 2011 13:32

Michael Gove has won. Late last month, writing in the Spectator, the Telegraph's chief political commentator, Peter Oborne, drew our attention to the "neconservative" faction inside the Conservative-led government:

This section of the coalition also takes a hard line on domestic security arrangements, supporting control orders and the divisive Prevent strategy for confronting its special interpretation of the Islamic terror threat. Its key cabinet supporters include George Osborne, Liam Fox, Oliver Letwin, Michael Gove (whose book Celsius 7/7 sought to define the domestic war on terror with astonishing success) and, crucially, the Home Secretary, Theresa May. Baroness Neville-Jones, the one-time Whitehall spook who sits on the fancily named Security Council, is another well-placed though bone-headed supporter.

Oborne singled out Nick Clegg, the Conservative Party chairman, Sayeeda Warsi, and the Attorney General, Dominic Grieve, as members of a smaller, rival faction of "One-Nation Tories and ineffectual Liberal Democrats". I would add Ken Clarke to this list.

But where does David Cameron, the Prime Minister, fit into all this? There have been reports over the years that the Tory leader has been torn between the neocons and the One-Nation types. In a much-discussed speech in September 2008, Cameron described himself as a "liberal Conservative, not a neoconservative". And a year and a half earlier, writing in the Observer of 13 May 2007 (in a piece entitled "What I learned from my stay with a Muslim family"), the then leader of the opposition rejected the Gove-esque obsession with "Islamism" and warned against the dangers of reckless rhetoric:

We must also be careful about the language we use . . . Our efforts are not helped by lazy use of language. Indeed, by using the word "Islamist" to describe the threat, we actually help do the terrorist ideologues' work for them.

But this morning's speech to the Munich Security Conference suggests that Gove has won the battle for the Prime Minister's heart and mind. In the middle of a speech that addressed segregation, radicalisation and "the doctrine of state multiculturalism", Cameron declared:

We need to be absolutely clear on where the origins of these terrorist attacks lie – and that is the existence of an ideology, "Islamist extremism".

He went on to argue:

Frankly, we need a lot less of the passive tolerance of recent years and much more active, muscular liberalism.

Strong stuff. To be honest, the content of Cameron's speech should have come as no surprise to us, as it has been trailed for weeks. And in recent days, I'm told, the Prime Minister has had meetings with Maajid Nawaz, the director of the "counter-extremism think tank" the Quilliam Foundation, which takes a hard line on engaging with so-called Islamists. (On a side note, Nawaz has a piece in this week's New Statesman on the revolt in Egypt and his own experiences as a prisoner in Hosni Mubarak's jails.)

Here are some of my thoughts on the speech, in no particular order:

1) How is this new, original or different? As I said, much of the Cameron speech fits in with a pre-existing, long-standing Gove/Quilliam/neoconservative agenda. And how is the "muscular liberalism" approach any different from the Tony Blair/John Reid/Charles Clarke/Hazel Blears approach? Cameron, for example, condemns those "soft-left" groups that "lump all Muslims together, compiling a list of grievances and arguing if only governments addressed them, this terrorism would stop". But so, too, did Blair. The former PM was as keen to hector Muslim groups about "integration" and "British values" as the current PM.

2) Perhaps Warsi should have a word with her party leader. Her recent speech on this subject may have been shown to No 10 in advance and Cameron's speech may have been shown in advance to the Conservative Party chair but Warsi and Cameron are now on different sides of this debate. The Tory peer, for example, condemned the media for dividing Muslims into "moderate" and "extremist" camps; the Prime Minister's provocative speech prompted this particularly odious headline in the Telegraph: "Muslims must embrace our British values, David Cameron says". (Why "odious"? Because it implies that the majority of Muslims don't embrace basic "British values" and aren't integrated, which, as Cameron knows, and I can attest, isn't true.)

3) We can have a debate on another day about whether a "doctrine of state multiculturalism" even exists, let alone whether or not it has "failed", but the key point here is to stress that the debate over multiculturalism has little to do with the debate over extremism and radicalisation. The two should be kept separate. Terrorism is a political problem; not a cultural problem. Extremists, violent or otherwise, come in all shapes and sizes, all colours and creeds. The English Defence League (see point five, below) is, in my view, made up of violent extremists and yet they are not a product of "multiculturalism", failed or otherwise. Some of the most high-profile terrorists in recent years have been "integrated" Muslims. Take Mohammad Sidique Khan, the ringleader of the London bombings in July 2005. He was a teaching assistant who impressed parents, colleagues and pupils at the school where he worked. As a teenager, he called himself "Sid" and spent most of his time playing football with white kids. Then there are the white, British-born people who convert to Islam and become terrorists, like Nicky Reilly or Oliver Savant – are they unaware of, or unfamiliar with, British values? Would teaching them to speak English help secure our airports or railway stations?

4) Cameron supported the invasion of Iraq in 2003 and, as Prime Minister, is overseeing an ongoing, futile and brutal war in Afghanistan. He has said little about the devastating Israeli/Egyptian blockade of Gaza. These foreign policy issues tend to be drivers of extremism and radicalisation. Don't believe me? As I pointed out on the Guardian's Comment Is Free site last July:

At the 12th and final public hearing of the 9/11 commission on 16 June 2004 in Washington, DC, a phalanx of senior law-enforcement and intelligence officials from the US government arrived to offer their testimonies. "You've looked [at] and examined the lives of these people as closely as anybody . . . What have you found out about why these men did what they did?" asked Lee Hamilton, the former congressman and vice-chair of the commission. "What motivated them to do it?"

The answers to these questions were provided by supervisory special agent James Fitzgerald of the FBI. "I believe they feel a sense of outrage against the United States," he said. "They identify with the Palestinian problem, they identify with people who oppose repressive regimes and I believe they tend to focus their anger on the United States."

No mention of religion. No mention of Islam. No mention of virgins in heaven, 72 or otherwise. For the lead investigators into the terrorist attacks of 11 September 2001, politics, not faith, was the key motivating factor. Terrorism, as even that notorious Islamist-baiter Martin Amis once conceded, "is political communication by other means".

5) The timing of Cameron's speech is awful. It comes on a day on which the far-right English Defence League is marching in Luton in protest against Islam. As Nick Lowles, editor of Searchlight, writes, "What began as a street movement to oppose Islamic fundamentalism has broadened its target to the religion itself." He adds: "The EDL protest is likely to further alienate the Muslim community. Many Muslims will be more nervous; others are likely to be attracted by the extremist message peddled by Anjem Choudary and his Islam4UK group."

Yet Cameron did not spare a single one of the 2,476 words in his speech for the EDL – or for other far-right groups such as the BNP. He mentioned the word "Islamophobia" just once and that, too, in passing. As Mohammed Shafiq of the Ramadan Foundation points out:

On the day we see fascists marching in Luton, we have seen no similar condemnation or leadership shown from the government.

Muslims and Muslim organisations, as the former Met police officer Robert Lambert argues on the Staggers blog, have a crucial role to play in the struggle against home-grown extremism and in the battle for the hearts and minds of young, angry, alienated Muslims. Cameron's simplistic speech has done more harm than good, and so have the predictable and depressing newspaper headlines that it provoked. It is a step backward rather than forward.

Special Offer: Get 12 issues of New Statesman magazine for just £12

Tags: islamism Islam David Cameron Afghanistan media Israel Iraq

More from Mehdi Hasan

View the discussion thread.

301 comments

Thu, 2012-04-26 04:53 — nike tn taille 47 (not verified)

bottes oxtar,bottes neige indiennes,neige belgique,bottes pataugasPortefeuille Motor Diesel Cuir Cartes Billets Identite

Bashir; More Muscular Liberalism??!!'s picture

Sun, 2011-02-06 02:14 — Bashir; More Muscular Liberalism??!! (not verified)

There needs to be more ’Muscular Liberalism’ – as though invading sovereign nations and murdering thousands of innocents to enforce liberalism isn’t ‘muscular’ enough.

Truth is that communities are getting on just fine; tensions are mostly to do with race, poverty and crime not religion. People from all communities including Muslim communities are trying hard to resolve these issues to make communities safer and better- this speech severely undermined their hard work.

The truth is Politics. To divert attention from real issues, such as the economy, jobs, social degradation and shameful foreign policy (as referenced to in the FBI extract) to name a few, the government needs scapegoats and right now, across Europe and the US at least, Muslims are the no.1 scapegoats.

Mon, 2011-02-07 10:42 — EnragedBrit (not verified)

Alsion - Teaching English to adults? Your pupils have my sympathy. What the hell are open "boarders" for instance?
When the English have taken over two thirds of Munich and made it a no-go area for Germans and are out-breeding the Bavarians you may have a point.
Until then you have nothing of any relevance to say.

Wed, 2011-02-09 22:58 — Claire (not verified)

K Kearns- you're right, I was writing on my Iphone and was being lazy. My family are from Belfast and most still live there. I actually support the aims of the Irish republicans although not the means. My point was supposed to come across that Islamic terrorism is, in my opinion and in the opinions of the 9/11 investigators mentioned in this piece who are far more knowledgeable than I, mainly political rather than religiously motivated. People are not blowing up buses in London because they wish to convert us. They hate us for a number of reasons, some of which are justified. Some are not. Their means are not justified. I say Islamic terrorism, not violence.

Islam is a violent religion, practised violently in many countries around the world. On that I agree. I am glad every day to be a woman in the UK rather than Iran. Lets not forget though, that 100 years ago, a blink of an eye culturally, women in the UK had no right to vote, people were hanged and homosexuals were imprisoned. The UK has moved on. The big question to me is why hasn't much of the Islamic world? I don't have an answer.

I personally think all religions suck, but I will defend your right to suck so long as you don't inflict your suckiness on anyone else. And here is where I differ from most people on these comment boards. Most Muslims who live in this country don't wish to convert or kill the non-believers. I know because I live amongst them. I have close Muslim friends. They don't want Sharia law here anymore than we do. They hate some of the things that the UK do around the world, but they generally are happy to live here. The EDL are trying to start a race war based on things that haven't happened and in all likelihood could never happen in the UK. The English way of life is not under threat. When it is, come get me, and maybe I'll change tact.

I am proud to come from a multicultural area of a multicultural country which for the most part all grinds along quite well together. Problems there are. We don't need to invent more.

Mon, 2011-02-07 10:47 — Indu Pendent (not verified)

I grew up in Oldham East - one of the first muslims there. What a disater. Back then my view was that Labour were white middle class graduates lacking real world experience never having held down proper jobs blindly pursing policies for their own satisfaction to recognise and promote differences amongst people. Overtime it has manifestested itself into the most ugly seggreation of communities in my town -- only Labour can be blamed for this but funnily enough they have selective amnesia. At least politics has evolved in the last 30 years and the parties are no longer inexperienced university graduate types focussed on scoring political points for their own career benefit at any cost.

Why is it Britain is such a badly run social experient and a toy of the self actualising policitcal elite?

Wed, 2011-02-09 00:11 — James (not verified)

@Des Demona

You wrote: "Ah yes, let's get rid of the non-English invaders. The Celts, the Norse, the Saxons, the Romans. Go back to your own countries"

They invaded, were stronger than us, and we became assimilated (the ones of us who were still alive). We are now them.

What was your point?

Wed, 2011-02-09 00:26 — Des Demona (not verified)

@James
My point was 'Who are WE'
After hundreds of years this country, known as the UK, with all its diverse ancestry, has devised a series of conventions that by and large everyone agrees is the best of the worst forms of government. We are living it large compared to most. Yes there are those who say what we are doing is against their wishes but that is part of what generations have suffered for- free speech and debate. A side effect is that extremists from every persuasion have the ability to speak - that doesn't mean they bhave to be listened to.
As far as I'm concerned if you are a card carying EDL member or an Islamist fanatic you have the right to speak. And I have the right to speak out against both. That is what this country stands for.

Fri, 2011-02-11 00:15 — triedeinsursE

"@Bucksins, you are the reason that inbreeding is illegal in the UK"

Alex, tell your Mom (my sister) the child support is in the mail.

Tue, 2011-02-08 08:49 — Gerard (not verified)

@Alice
I would say the most right-wing fascist on this portal is the author of the piece.Read this article again , then go over to http://hurryupharry.org/2009/07/27/mehdi-hasan-part-ii-musli... and hear what he REALLY thinks. If you are still confused then google Taqiyya to understand more about the underlying psychopathology of Mr Hasan.

Wed, 2011-02-09 23:08 — Claire (not verified)

To echo Lou, anyone who doubts the dangers of using a cultural/religious minority as a scapegoat in a country with a crippled economy and wounded sense of national pride would do well to visit Das Denkmal für die ermordeten Juden Europas in Berlin.

Sun, 2011-02-06 03:09 — Gerard (not verified)

I am no friend of Cameron but he has got it spot on with this.
This has been a long time coming. Shame we had to wait for a tory gov to do it but it needed doing.
Why would anyone who cherishes equality of genders,sexuality and races as good values and aims worthy of trying to achieve be against this? This is one in the eye for the bigots and they are squealing because they are finally being called upon to afford to everyone the rights they demand for their own world view. Of course if their world view is one that wouldnt allow others equality then it is right they are not funded ,supported or taken seriously. They should be shunted to the sidelines along with their fellow bigots such as the EDL ,BNP and other religous factions looking to foist their dogmatic nonsense on to others.

Wed, 2011-02-09 00:37 — Julia Harris (not verified)

@ lou,

Your an idiot. Go to Iran or Saudi or any other Islamic country and try to start your Hug a Burkha peace campaign between the west and Islam. They will string you up by your balls and chop your head off.

I am not comparing my relgion to Islam as I know that the ideals in the Judao Christiane West are better by a thousand fold.

Peace and our freedoms can only be achieved by understanding and then defeating our enemy. There is no compromise in Islam, the supremacists will continue to chip away at our freedoms.

Islam is the only religion that has people carry out act of terror and violence in its name. You cant compare, you dont have Jews quoting parts of the Torah blowing themselves in German Restaurants.

Again your an Idiot if you think we dont want peace, sometimes you have to fight for peace, i.e 1939-1945

Mon, 2011-02-07 11:20 — kafur (not verified)

The terrorists that kill us are MUSLIMS...full stop.
They shout "Allahu Akbar" before they murder us.
Islam is in their hearts.
Until Islam adherents DEAL with Islam and sort the factions out, islam needs removing from society, and returning only when they have sorted out whether Islam is violent or not, and if it IT found to be violent it should be removed from our shores, if it is found to be peaceful (whay a joke) then it can remain, but muslims must deal with the people who have it wrong.

Sun, 2011-02-13 13:57 — Alex (not verified)

Boanerges, you really cannot have a debate with bigots such as buckshite and that other idiot julia...why waste your time? Buckshite normally comes on Medhi's blog and says the same bollocks, he really does not sound like he has a life, which is why he is sounds so bitter.

Sun, 2011-02-06 03:33 — Jon Lishman (not verified)

Well said, Ibrahim (05 February 2011 at 13:39)

I completely agree. The timing could have been better but in the end Cameron is actually taking a long-overdue stand against those who have been doing a terrible disservice to British Muslims and Muslims in general. By separating the nutters (who are basically politically-motivated, extremist criminals who use, in this case, the religion of Islam as a front for their murderous totalitatarian ambition) from the vast majority of decent Muslims, he's started a cathartic process the import and scope of which people like Mehdi Hasan, honest and decent man though he certainly is, I feel doesn't really seem capable of grasping, (certainly not from what I've read of his superficial observations and commentary - this latest piece being no exception).

Wed, 2011-02-09 00:44 — Simon London (not verified)

@Des who said: My point was 'Who are WE'

The Celts, the Norse, the Saxons, the Romans, if you wish. Like the man said.

We are now under threat of being replaced by Somalis, Nigerians, Eritreans, Ethiopians, Pakistanis, Bangladeshis, Turks, Kurds, Iraqis, Haitians, and all manner of lesser third world sub-species that we have every right to repel. They are invaders. We don't want them here. They threaten our existence. They must leave.

Sun, 2011-02-06 03:35 — Mai (not verified)

Multiculturalism was an import from Canada, imposed on an unwilling British population. In Canada, it was a practical solution to the seemingly insoluble division between the French-speaking and English-speaking populations, and could be well justified. Both sides had a history of hundreds of years in Canada and thus an undivided loyalty, and both shared a European outlook and Western values.
What possible purpose could it serve in Britain and Europe apart from providing comfort to those who denigrate Western values and jobs in the industry it created?

Wed, 2011-02-09 00:49 — Des Demona (not verified)

Simon - sometimes it's better to keep quiet and let people think you're stupid than speak and prove it. You have proven it over several threads.

Tue, 2011-02-08 09:49 — James (not verified)

@Alice

Among many other similar pieces in this week's news from the Islamic world: a court in Afghanistan has condemned a man, Said Musa, to death for converting to Christianity. Similar things happen all over the Arab world - even in the relatively modern bits lke Egypt - all the time.

Are these people right-wing narrow-minded nutcases too? Where are they on the spectrum of such things, compared to the writers you've found on this thread?

Wed, 2011-02-09 23:55 — K J Kearns (not verified)

Or read a book about the plight of the Palestinian people since the 40s

Thu, 2011-02-10 00:00 — Lou (not verified)

Thank you Claire and I agree wholeheartedly with you and your 21.58 post particularly.

Mon, 2011-02-07 11:59 — Mr. Woggy (not verified)

If the product is so goo lets force via the UN. on Mecca and Medina and let the Jews have the right of return.

Sun, 2011-02-06 06:14 — laughable (not verified)

An Arab man is cleaning an old lamp and at the third rub out pops a Genie.

Genie: “For releasing me you are granted one wish” .

Man : “I wish to live forever”.

Genie: “Impossible master, 72 virgins would be disappointed “.

Man: “Oh well, then I wish to die AFTER an Arab nation gets a benevolent ruler who genuinely cares for the welfare of his people”.

Genie: “You cunning bastard!”.

Mon, 2011-02-07 11:59 — Mr. Woggy (not verified)

If the product is so goo lets force via the UN. on Mecca and Medina and let the Jews have the right of return.

Tue, 2011-02-08 10:30 — Bolshevik (not verified)

I remember when the NS was a world class leading 'liberal left' organ. Today it is run by apologists for islamofascism. People like Mehdi who are wholehearted supporters of groups such as Hamas, whose Article 7 unambiguously call for the killing of Jews. Can't anyone try to reclaim the NS from these Islamist bigots.

Fri, 2011-02-11 00:57 — Mr. Divine (not verified)

Don't bother trying to cash them Alex as they'll bounce.

Wed, 2011-02-09 01:38 — James (not verified)

@Des Demona

Simon was ranting, but there is a small valid point buried in there.

If such people come here in large numbers, as they have done, keep their own values and ways of life, want to replace our religions and civilisation (and have shown historical success in doing so in vast areas of the world) then: what do we do about it? They are not in any form becoming us, and we are probably better off not becoming them.

Islam's aim is to take over the world: their clerics do not hide this, except in target countries where they practice Taquia (deception in the cause of Allah).

They have had great success, with some minor setbacks over the centuries, and these only in Europe. If they had been slightly more successful after their armies reached Vienna in 1683, there would nowadays be a brisk trade in minor surgery at our magistrates courts, and homosexuals would be thinner on the ground. And women..

A major difficulty over the last few decades is that politically, the issue of mass immigration of people unlikely to assimilate was seen as so sensitive that laws were passed to prohibit discussion.

This has degraded intelligent life in this country to the point where, for example, the use of the expression "the jungle drums have it that NHS reforms are in the offing" has seriously hurt a blameless lady with many years of selfless public service behind her, because, in law, all anyone has to show is that they were offended.

So, because (see the R Honeyford case) all discussion became illegal or "racist", the problem has grown to the point where there are now quite large numbers of muslim Britons who would like to kill other Britons at random, and will probably do so.

Fri, 2011-02-11 00:59 — Grant (not verified)

“The kaffar, the disbelievers, the atheists who remain deaf and stubborn to the teachings of Islam, the rational message of the Quran; they are described in the Quran as, quote, “a people of no intelligence”, Allah describes them as; not of no morality, not as people of no belief – people of “no intelligence” – because they’re incapable of the intellectual effort it requires to shake off those blind prejudices, to shake off those easy assumptions about this world, about the existence of God. In this respect, the Quran describes the atheists as “cattle”, as cattle of those who grow the crops and do not stop and wonder about this world.”

Sound familiar Hasan? Fuck you. I dont care if you are even part of the left, i wont listen to anything you say until you publicly apologise and retract that statement. Thought you were a "moderate", liberal, wishwashy, multicultural Muslim? Guess not, perhaps your one of those Muslims who uses victimhood politics sheltered in leftism when really, you're giving a sympathetic ear to the extremre, bigoted and fundamentalist elements within Islam. Am i right? Feel free to e-mail me at granti1003@yahoo.co.uk

Sun, 2011-02-13 15:21 — EnragedBrit (not verified)

Thanks Julia. Everyone should make sure to watch Despatches tomorrow night on Channel 4 at 8pm for an insight into the real Islam that Mehdi and his mates don't want you to know about.
He'll already be working on an article trying to white-wash the disturbing but wholly unsurprising revelations, no doubt.
Maybe Channel 4 should put a hidden camera into Mehdi's office...or perhaps they already have!

Sun, 2011-02-06 08:51 — Jayantha (not verified)

Why does Cameron sound so like Blair? "We need to be absolutely clear on where the origins of these terrorist attacks lie - and that is the existence of an ideology, 'Islamist extremism".

Tue, 2011-02-08 10:42 — Stuart Eels (not verified)

Yes Bolshevik, it's time for him to be put out to pasture.

Fri, 2011-02-11 01:09 — paparazo (not verified)

Good article.Islam is not only a religion but a way of life hence the culture. My worry is there will come a time where we will be forced to conform to the majority and for the sake of fitting in (uniformity) which goes against freedom.
Saying no to multiculturalism is saying that we all need to be the same which beats the purpose of a democracy in the first place.

Fri, 2011-02-11 17:39 — H Rahman (not verified)

@James

I think it is pretty obvious that you've not been very fair in your choice of literature when trying to understand the religion. Nonetheless, I appreciate that you are attempting to do so. But you must understand that in order to this you have to be sincere in your intention in trying to understand the religion and not just look for sources which seem to provide some support to the prejudices you already hold.

To answer some of your questions (I shall try my best as i am no scholar on the subject)

'If the Koran is the word of God, why do we need to understand Mohammed's life in order to understand it?' One of the mail diseases in humans which prevents them from reaching God is arrogance. It's a characteristic of satan himself when he refused to bow down to Adam. We should assume that we have enough knowledge to fully comprehend the word of Allmighty God, Who is alone All-knowing. We are told to ponder on the Quran using our intellect. The Quran is not a story book, nor a manual, nor poetry... it s unlike anything you have ever read and will read. Certain points made which u refer to such as killings etc. were stated in specific contexts (ie battles) refering to specific circumstances at the time. Many verses also cannot be taken literally as God Himself says that he provides analogies for us to reflect upon. (i believe this is the same with other religious scriptures also, such as the bible). The reason why we need to look to the Prophet Muhammad for guidance is because he was sent as a Prophet, as a guide and a teacher. He was actually described by his wife Aisha, as a walking Qur'an. The Prophet holds much authority in Islam, and God Himself commands us to follow him as He has sent him as the perfect example.

And why did God change his mind in the Koran quite a lot, with frequent deletions and amendments ? (called abrogations by muslims). Hadiths (sayings of the Prophet) were abrogated due to changes in circumstances, but certainly not the Qur'an.

And why did God, in the Koran, tell muslims to deceive and kill or subjugate believers in other faiths (or "animals", as the political editor of the NS describes them)? refer to 1st point

And why did God change the whole tone of the Koran from conciliatory/peaceful to bloodthirsty/warlike, after Mohammed had made his first military victory? Again you have to understand the context.

And (this is a small point) why did Mohammed kill so many unarmed men (described in various places in your holy texts). Please Quote and ensure you have not misunderstood the quotes by reading also the commentary.

And why is the penalty for converting to another faith death? As others have pointed out, it's easy to get in, often fatal to try to leave. Bit like voting in an islamic government (Iran, Sudan etc). These rulings are not as simple and straightforward as you might think. There are many things which come into play. Again you need to research into this and not simply follow the conclusions, people who have left the faith have come to due to their own personal grievances and misconstrued views they hold based on unpleasant experiences.

Please don't describe it as a peaceful religion: that is clearly deceipt. Considering the fact that practising muslims make up a huge proportion of the population on Earth n considering the fact that 99.9% of them are peaceful, then I find it hard to understand how you can not 'clearly' see that it is peaceful. And if you were to actually understand the religion itself then you would again 'clearly' see that it is peaceful and nothing but peaceful.
I think it is only fair that after having heard the stories of the people who have left the faith, that you now listen to some of those who have joined it (you won't have difficulty finding them, since there are so many).

Hope what i've written has helped you understand a little better. But you must understand that to understand Islam fully it takes years of studying.

Thu, 2011-02-10 00:58 — Lou (not verified)

Going back to the original remit of the article, I think it's clear from some comments, the far right voice and the hatred from other religious persuasions, that radicalisation - favouring extreme, fundamental social and political change - is not confined to those purely of Islamic faith.

Marine Le Pen has just backed Cameron's multiculturalism view. Great, a National Front party leader with aspirations for the Presidency in 2012, a far right leader of the BNP, the EDL all giving credence to Cameron's speech. Speaks volumes doesn't it.

Thu, 2011-02-10 01:02 — Julia Harris (not verified)

@ Alex

Another Idiot, you seem like the biggist Idoit yet.

Israel is not a Murdering state, it defends itself. A burden to you and your lefty friends and islamists but its contributions to the world in medecine, science and technology, agriculture, the arts and many other fields are immense and far out wiegh the collective contributions by Islamic countrys and are amazing for such a small nation. Your computer - the chips, the operating system all developed in Israel...you've got a Zionist Computer !!! :) Dont tell me everytime you type an error its a Zionist conspiracys!!! LOL

Um there is no humanitarian crisis in Gaza if your talking about starvation, they live well and if they wanted peace there could be, but in Islam they are taught to hate Jews...just see what is broadcast on a daily basis on Islamic TV.

Turkish aid workers...ROFL - more like the Jihad Flottila, they wanted to be martyrs and they got part of there wish, they are dead but no virgins and they rot in a grave. If they came in peace, they would be alive...

Israel only acts in self defences, ask yourself , why has it got such a powerful army? Because it is surrounded by an Ocean of Muslim hate that would slaughter every Jew if they had there way, There is relative peace in the region as Israel knows this and its strength is what keeps the Islamists in check - including Iran. I cant believe you are defending Iran...your mind has obviously been infected with left wing clap trap, go live there and see how you get on.

Lets get another thing straight, there are no such thing as the palestinian people....they are basically Jordianian as this is where they land was captured from.

The United Nations proposed the creation of two states in the region – one Jewish, one Arab. The Jews accepted it gratefully. The Arabs rejected it with a vengeance and declared war.

It's a great big lie that the Israelis displaced anyone – one of a series of lies and myths that have the world on the verge of committing yet another great injustice to the Jews.

That's true. In the Six-Day War, Israel captured Judea, Samaria and East Jerusalem. But they didn't capture these territories from Yasser Arafat. They captured them from Jordan's King Hussein. I can't help but wonder why all these Palestinians suddenly discovered their national identity after Israel won the war.

Tue, 2011-02-08 10:58 — Warren (not verified)

'We need to be absolutely clear on where the origins of these terrorist attacks lie – and that is the existence of an ideology, "Islamist extremism".'

This is the fiction which the US has been peddling for years. It's not Islamic extremism or fundamentalism which is causing terrorism.

Terrorism is blowback from (largely) American behaviour towards Arab countries and especially Palestine (but also US treatment of Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Lebanon etc)and it's morally-indefensible support for Israel. Osama Bin Laden has told the US this quite unequivocally on more than one occasion. The cause of terrorism is American behaviour.

Islamic extremists are carrying out the terrorist acts but the CAUSE of the attacks is American foreign policy and to a lesser extent British and other "Western" foreign policies which are perceived (not without reason) to be attacking Muslim countries.

So if America wants to stop terrorism it has to change the way it treats other countries. Now this should be good news because it means that ending terrorism is within America's power. But it is not good news because America's foreign policy is predicated on the "big stick" principle which they don't want to give up. So they'll go on being the target of terrorists and so will those that support US policies.

Fri, 2011-02-11 01:17 — Mr. Divine (not verified)

@Buckskins: The important thing is that it's the thought that counts

Mon, 2011-02-07 12:26 — Libby Smith (not verified)

It is not multiculturalism that has failed, it is this neosocialist European mixed economy model being pushed by the liberal elite, ex-PPE Oxbridge students and those of vested or tribalist interests, who are not just Labour or Tory, but in all the major political parties.

I believe in freedom, in a true libertarian meritocracy based around private enterprise and the smallest possible state.

If you pay more than 50 percent of the gross pay you spend your entire life earning out to the government through either direct, or indirect taxes you are not free. How can anyone claim anything different?

I believe most people in this country believe in social and economic freedom based on libertarian values, yet we have no organized movement. No organized movement means no hope for true change.

In short, if a democracy offers the electorate three versions of exactly the same sh*t to eat, then the people are forced to eat that sh*t and argue about the minutest little detail. You either do that, or you starve.

We have definitely lost our way somewhere....... and the noesocialists in all the political parties have let each and every one of us down.

Thu, 2011-02-10 01:27 — Lou (not verified)

You clearly didn't get much of a history education did you. Talk about blinkered, distorted and factually incorrrect but hey, why let facts and truth get in the way of a good debate eh

I could rip your points to pieces and back them up but what's the point, you'll only ever see what you want to see.

Goodnight Julia.

Fri, 2011-02-11 17:47 — boanerges

Buckskin you have a very serious syndrome which could easily turn into a nasty disease-it is called IGNORANCE!

Since the Moors were driven out of Spain in 1492 the flower of Muslim culture died almost in that year. In dress, art,music, philosophy,science etc,etc Islam has become the most ignorant and backward so-called "religion/philosophy in modern history.

Across the Middle East live 330+ million Muslims. Their sworn enemy, Israel they are all determined to destroy-Israel- occupies a few thousand square miles of territory and about 7 million people. Since the Nobel prizes have been established some 130 of these hugely important and much-prized awards have gone the way of Israeli Jews for law,medicine, philosophy, art, music,the environment and in all other categories. A mere 7 have been awarded to Muslims!

It was definitely NOT the British who enslaved your fellows, in fact we disbanded much of our Empire after WW2 and Jinna presided over a Pakistan that has turned almost from the start an Islamic state whose
ultra fundamentalism is a curse not only on India but on all relatively moderate Islamic states,particularly on Britain and many other non-Muslim countries!

Buckskin, just remember if your knowledge of the Qu'ran is good enough that the Arabs were the greatest slave traders in history and that slavery is allowed in your so-called "holy book".

Mon, 2011-02-07 16:56 — DAULAT RAM

Mehdi Hasan has inadvertently given the Islamist game away.

How shatteringly innocent of him to assume that because Muslims might have grievances about British actions abroad or "repressive regimes" supported by the UK their resort to terrorism on British soil ought to be counteracted by meeting the exalted "justice" requirements of these distraught hard-done-by Muslim souls.....!!!!

Really? You don't say? Why are these noble chaps mum about the "repression" in MUSLIM countries of non-Muslims and any Muslim who dares to be unorthodox? Where is their anger about the countless killings of Muslims by other Muslims? Would any of that remotely excuse the setting off of bombs in Cairo, for instance? Incidentally, just who are rabid Muslim totalitarians to whine about "repression" anyway? What can be more repressive than THEIR outlook?

Cameron's attacking multiculturalism is certainly a bad case of barking up the wrong tree. No serious person considers that a few little old Chinese ladies, say, not speaking English and living in Liverpool threaten British security. No sensible person thinks Hindus carrying oin their religious observances is a dreadful problem for UK"national integration" or poses a threat of fomenting terrorism on British soil.

No.

But people DO accept that if you have a LARGE and growing religion on British soil that is militantly anti-liberal, that encourages its followers to assume that because British foreign policy in some part of the Middle East is "unjust" this justifies terrorist strikes in Britain, that DOES become one hell of a serious problem.

But that is a problem of ONE religion. Not Hinduism, Buddhism, etc. Let us be clear about this.

The Hindus are in the clear. Hindus have plenty of reason from history remote and recent to hate British foreign policy. The British went all out to create Pakistan, which led to the massacre of about three million Hindus as recently as 1971 in the Bangladesh War. The ruthless envcouragement of Islamic terrorism by Britain among other Western countries to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan had the terrible side-effect of starting a devastating series of Muslim terrorist strikes against Hindus and Sikhs in Kashmir......So, if Hindus assumed British foreign policy injustices justify terrorism in the UK by Hindus, they would have plenty of grievances to draw on.

They don't.

Thu, 2011-02-10 02:07 — Enough (not verified)

I was wondering if you are Sunni or Shiaa?

Tue, 2011-02-08 11:23 — James (not verified)

@Warren

Militant islam has been attacking the West for over a thousand years. After taking out the near East - all Christian countries - its armies reached - at different times - northern France and Austria. Its mission, given to it by its founder, was to take over the world. Some of its attempts, as noted above, have been fairly successful

Islamic leaders in France have called on muslims to outbreed the French, and foresee France as eventually becoming an islamic nation. I would be surprised if their leaders in other countries are not saying the same thing - just a little more quietly. It's the mission of the religion.

Extremists are just muslims who read and follow the Koran faithfully. Mainstream muslims are the ones who ignore large chunks of their holy books. Extremist muslims follow their founder's pattern: he was the only leader of a religion I can think of who killed large numbers of his religious opponents - often when they were unarmed. As pointed out in an earlier post (6 Feb 20:53) Mohammed taught 'Taquia - deception -meaning lull your enemies by saying what they want to hear until you have the strength to kill them.

America? Blowback? US policies? Try taking a slightly longer view of Islam's history..

Thu, 2011-02-10 02:57 — Lou (not verified)

To whom is that question directed Enough? If it is me, the last commenter, the answer is neither.

Fri, 2011-02-11 17:55 — H Rahman (not verified)

sorry typing error. what I meant to write with the 1st point is that 'we should NOT assume we have enough knowledge to fully comprehend the word of Almighty God...'

Sat, 2011-02-12 10:26 — boanerges

H Rahman and Buckskins

It is totally impossible for a non-Muslim to debate intelligently with a radical Islamist and/or a Muslim apologist. Both of you come across as masters of taqiyya!

Mr Rahman,I wonder how many VERSIONS of the Qu'ran you have in your possession? My take on you is that you have many each trying desperately to interpret a particularly unpleasant passage which Muhammad-one of the most heavily flawed human beings in history-has commented on in the Hadith.

Of course compared to the New Testament the Qu'ran is a joke in bad taste.The Qu'ran is definitely not from God as Muhammad claimed. He produced no miacles and when pressed he claimed that his miracle is the Qu'ran. Yet even a cursory look reveals that this book is chock full of glaring errors. It is replete with scientific heresies,historical blunders, mathematical mistakes,logical absurdities,grammatical errors and ethical fallacies. It is shoddily compiled and it contradicts itself. There is absolutely nothing intelligent in this book let alone miraculous.Muhammad challenged people like the Meccan teachers he later killed to produce " a sura like it" or find an error in it, yet Muslims would kill anyone who dares criticise it. In such a climate of hypocrisy and violence truth is the first casualty.

Finally, I quote the words of Ali Sina, the famous Iranian Muslim who fled to Canada to escape death. "Islam will become history once the asininity of it becomes so obvious that no intelligent person can believe in it or support it".

Sun, 2011-02-06 11:28 — Be honest (not verified)

wherever there are muslims and non muslims living side by side any where in the world there will be no chance of peace. Muslims become savage hard liners whenever it suits them they see things only one way. if any one critisises them they think they can legiimately kill them in the name of their religion. If any one wants to leave the religion they think they can legitimately kill them. the whole muslim thing is held together very well by the fear of death. its a relgion no free sensible person wants to live next to.

Tue, 2011-02-08 13:36 — soros (not verified)

Multiculturalism was a fantasy from the start. If you consider traditional patterns of immigration, assimilation has been the norm up to now. But then, most immigrants have not been politically radical nor religiously as engaged as some Muslims are today in the countries they migrate to. On the contrary, they were GRATEFUL for being allowed another chance at life in a new country. I see little gratitude coming form Muslims in any country, including the US, Canada, or Australia.

Typically, immigrants have done their best to blend in and become loyal citizens. But with too many Muslims, we dont see this at all, anywhere. Rather, we see arrogance and disrespect for their hosts, separation, and a the development of a siege mentality. But then, a lot depends on how secularized people are to begin with. Many Muslims, it seems, have little appreciation of a secular society; hence the disrespect. They also find our cultures so alien that they retreat into the fold. They are not the best at immigrating, that is for sure. It seems to me most of them would be better off back in the Mid East.

Sun, 2011-02-13 17:04 — Alex (not verified)

Enraged twit - actually that pretty much sums it up.

Mon, 2011-02-07 12:48 — kaz turner (not verified)

how can wearing a burka help you intagrate it doesnt muslims want their own communities, etc .and why do people shout racist if you disagree or say anything about muslim etc.that muslim guy on big questions who burnt the poppy is a bloody heathen , and people are shouting for edl to be banned . this country is pathetic.