Tuesday, July 23, 2024
HomeCulture WarThe invention of Islamophobia, Part 2

The invention of Islamophobia, Part 2


THOSE of us who are critical of the advancing population, cultural and political Jihad of Islam in the UK and dare highlight the probable consequences, courageous people such as Douglas Murray, author of The Strange Death of Europe: Immigration, Identity and Islam, have been actively censored for years. Back in 2014 under a nominally liberal government he found himself banned from speaking at LSE. I don’t remember an outcry. Now, that already punitive censorship has been given extra ammunition with the definition of Islamophobia put forward by the All Party Parliamentary Group on British Muslims (APPG): Islamophobia is rooted in racism and is a type of racism that targets expressions of Muslimness or perceived Muslimness, a report that I examined in the first part of this series

As I pointed out it speciously but cleverly merges Islam (the ideology) with Muslim (the person), transforming criticism of Islam into a racist attack, ripe for legal prosecution.

Though not (yet) written into the law, its application as an accusation has been in common usage for some time; and the proffered definition has been adopted across the UK, by political parties, councils, businesses and other organisations, already compromising people’s careers and futures. Take these accusations against NHS Trust leaders in Bradford for example. Or Lee Anderson MP, who was suspended by the Tories over accusations of Islamophobia.

But who on the APPG was behind this convenient conflation of ideas which has now been all-but institutionalised? The wording of the definition appears to have come from Professor Salman Sayyid, one of the key contributors to the APPG report, and an academic who  the Henry Jackson Society has pointed to having a close association with Islamic Human Rights Commission (IHRC).* This in turn it  describes as an ‘institutionally pro-terrorist and anti-Semitic organisation’. Its alarming and very detailed report of this organisation, its extremist leadership and its terrorist and proscribed group associations can be read here

The IHRC was founded in 1997 by Islamist activists inspired by the theocratic ideology of the Iranian Ayatollah Khomeini. It has a long history of promoting victim-narratives and was amongst those who attacked Sara Khan’s appointment as Commissioner for Countering Extremism. The Henry Jackson Society has effectively accused it of advocating for the values of the Iranian government: ‘senior figures have espoused support for violent jihad, expressed sympathy for convicted terrorists, and advocated for the extraction and eradication of ‘Zionists’. In March 2015, such sympathies couldn’t have been made clearer when the IHRC gave the French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo its ‘International Islamophobe of the Year’ award. This was less than two months after 12 members of staff at the magazine had been killed by Islamist extremists. It is not good company for any law-abiding British academic to keep.

The definition without doubt strengthens the position of Muslim politicians, Islamic organisations and groups, and their woke apologists, who assert Islamic culture, beliefs and rights even if they contradict our existing law, culture and freedoms. It gives our weak and cowed politicians the excuse to justify their giving in to this on the grounds of being Islamophobic if they do not, no doubt parroting the APPG lie given in a statement on September 20 2023 ‘that the agreed definition does not in any way infringe on freedom of speech’. 

They cannot be serious! How else do they categorise the censorship, deplatforming and demonetisation of free speech of those who dare give their opinions – to say nothing of self-censorship and two-tier policing which is already endemic in society seen in the policing of the pro Hamas demonstrations – if not as a threat to freedom of speech and even of movement? How else do they explain the Speaker of the House of Commons caving in to those voicing implicit or explicit threats for a debate about supporting a ceasefire in Gaza? 

The tragedy in all this is that most Muslims are not overtly pushing Islam’s dominance in the UK and many actively do not want it and genuinely believe in British values as articulated by Zia Yusuf last Sunday

It is not, as he made crystal clear, why they came here. But as the recent local council elections indicated, many Muslims will be pressured by activists to vote en bloc for Islamic fundamentalist politicians. 

Truth often hurts. It hurts the Islamic fundamentalists, because it threatens their ambitions and exposes from where their ambitions originate. Sadly, other Muslims will be hurt by what they perceive to be a criticism of Islam, of their personal faith in which Jihadism does not play a part. The truth that cannot however be avoided is that (theocratic) Islamism is incompatible with democracy. Respect for others’ beliefs cannot mean we turn a blind eye to the very real threat Islamism poses to our Western Judeo-Christian heritage and culture, and to the rights and freedoms that come from them and have been painstakingly fought for over centuries.

I don’t know about you, but I don’t want the culture and traditions of my country of birth, its norms of social interaction, and my right of freedom of expression, given up by cowering, self-serving politicians to Islamo-fascists and the Woke Stupid; and I certainly will not give up my grandchildren’s freedoms by lying down to them.

In her book The #Islamophobia Industry Diane Weber Bederman quotes Thomas Mann: ‘Tolerance becomes a crime when applied to evil’. Mann also said: ‘A harmful truth is better than a useful lie’.

The evils of Islamic fundamentalism are seen across the globe, not least in the persecution of Christians in Africa today, as well on our own streets. Those who deny it, or wish to placate it, are part of the problem. We are approaching a kind of Islamic version of Animal Farm. We need to say out loud that the APPG definition of Islamophobia is an artificial construct designed to further a lie by making its discussion illegal.

From next month, emboldened by a Labour government, it will likely be used as a cudgel by politicians and Muslim groups to stifle debate about or criticism of Islam in all its various manifestations; raising persecution of dissenters to a higher level and adding power to Islamism’s core ambition of political and societal supremacy. It will embolden its fundamentalist devotees, while we as a society become inured to its stifling, authoritarian and often violent oppression – remember, to paraphrase Sadiq Khan, we must get used to terrorism.

The result will be a two-tier and very unequal society – between those who can push Islamic ideology, and the rest of us who cannot oppose it.

  • For the detailed evidence see pages 6, 38-39, 40 and 44 of the Henry Jackson Society report.

If you appreciated this article, perhaps you might consider making a donation to The Conservative Woman. Unlike most other websites, we receive no independent funding. Our editors are unpaid and work entirely voluntarily as do the majority of our contributors but there are inevitable costs associated with running a website. We depend on our readers to help us, either with regular or one-off payments. You can donate here. Thank you.
If you have not already signed up to a daily email alert of new articles please do so. It is here and free! Thank you.

John Hale
John Hale
A semi-retired would-be poet, with a keen interest in politics and a love of the countryside, over 35 years of world-wide business development experience, and most importantly nine grandchildren. His substack, Driving Out the Money Changers, is here.

Sign up for TCW Daily

Each morning we send The ConWom Daily with links to our latest news. This is a free service and we will never share your details.