Comment by Inayat Bunglawala:
Labour's cricket test for British Muslims
The latest talk of a crackdown on 'extreme' ideas fails to distinguish between beliefs and actions.
So, almost 20 years after Norman Tebbit devised his famous
cricket test for immigrants to the UK, we learn that the
Labour government is seriously discussing how to set up its own modern version for British Muslims.
According to a
report in yesterday's edition of the Guardian the government – as part of its Contest 2 counter-terrorism strategy – is considering proposals that would classify British Muslims as being extremists if:
• They advocate a caliphate, a pan-Islamic state encompassing many countries.
• They promote sharia law.
• They believe in jihad, or armed resistance, anywhere in the world. This would include armed resistance by Palestinians against the Israeli military.
• They argue that
Islam bans homosexuality and that it is a sin against Allah.
• They fail to condemn the killing of British soldiers in Iraq or Afghanistan.
As Richard Seymour wryly
notes:
This raises some interesting questions: how observant would you have to be with the condemnations? Would it be adequate to issue a single generic condemnation, or would it need to be a daily ritual? Perhaps it is an oath to take before meals - but then, how would you keep your food down?
Asim Siddiqui observed
yesterday on Cif that the government's "tests" were nonsensical and if pursued would destroy the already precious little credibility that its Preventing Violent Extremism (soon to be simply Preventing Extremism) agenda has. I would go even further and say that if these foolish proposals are adopted by our politicians then it will result in the government being viewed by the majority of UK Muslims as trying to actively undermine Islam and will do fatal damage to the hard work that has gone on in the last few years to try and build trust between Muslim
communities and the police.
I am a subscriber to a number of Muslim email discussion groups in the UK and the following is a typical response to the government's not so bright idea that was posted on the IG-SOC (IG is the postcode for Ilford in Essex) group:
One point that is becoming clearer by the day is that the "extremists" as defined by Contest 2 are no longer a fringe element but rather those who believe in the fundamental aspects of Islam, ie the majority. Rather than engaging the Muslim community in dialogue, a ban on ideas is being proposed. Sounds like the traits of a police state.
Similar sentiments can also be viewed in the response to this story on the internationally popular
Islam Online website and on
Deenport, a UK Muslim portal.
The proposals are essentially foolish because they utterly fail to distinguish between what a person may believe and how that same person actually acts. It is perfectly possible for people to believe in the desirability of a caliphate in Muslim countries, the superiority of sharia law and to regard the practice of homosexuality as a sin, but as long as they are prepared to abide by UK law while they reside here and do not discriminate against gays, why on earth should the government classify them as extremists?
As Paul at A Progressive Viewpoint
remarks:
... the government's proposed definition of extremism stigmatises mainstream Muslim beliefs and hands ammunition to those very Islamists who claim that Muslim beliefs and customs are inherently incompatible with western society.
Still, the government's proposals have been warmly
welcomed by Melanie Phillips. Says it all really.
Source
Inayat Bunglawala is the former media secretary of the Muslim Council of Britain an Advisor on Policy and Research at ENGAGE, an initiative designed to encourage British Muslims to interact more effectively in politics and the media in the UK.