Michael Portillo wrote in Times Online Muslim complaints about being victimised are perversely directed. Muslims are victims of the bombers, not of the state or the police. It is the terrorists who make Muslims potential objects of suspicion and fear because the bombers murder in the name of Islam. Muslims have every right to be outraged, but their fury should focus on the men of violence.
Absolutely. And it is not us that are pointing out they are Muslims, They identify themselves as Muslim, and they say the Quran tells them to do what they do. If moderate Muslims do not feel the terrorists are acting in an Islamic way, they should say so, and as loudly as the Islamoterrorists cry out, and if they believe they are acting against the instructions in the Quran they should say so, and provide a counter examplle when the Islamoterrorists quote the Quran.The police action in Forest Gate was cack-handed and the shooting of one of the “suspects” was indefensible. But given the profile of the terrorists, Muslims are bound to be more affected. By analogy, when police are looking for a rapist they interview males without anyone believing them to be institutional men haters.
And if someone says their car was stolen by someone of a particular color, they will stop cars with that make, driven by people of that color, without being racist.There are those who in the interests of community relations denounce linking the word Islamic to “violence” or “extremism”. They object that we did not call the IRA “Catholic terrorists”, nor do we speak of “Christian extremism” or link Christian fundamentalism to violence. There are good reasons for that. Although the IRA is rooted in the Catholic community, its aims are political and secular. Although there certainly are Christian extremists today, just now they are not murdering people in the name of purifying the world. By contrast, across the globe human beings are being slaughtered in large numbers by Muslims quoting from the Koran and vowing death to infidels, including other Muslim sects. Their objectives are political and religious.
And the religion they are hijacking is Islam, so it is up to real Muslims to challenge them anytime they say they are acting as Allah would have them act.So to try to condemn the expression “Islamic violence” is a dangerous attempt at censorship that would hamper our understanding of the threat we face. The term is certainly offensive to Muslims, but the offence is caused by the bombers, not by those who describe the process.
Last week Tony Blair caused a furore by calling on Muslims to do more to control, denounce or deliver up the men who preach and practise violence. Some Muslim spokesmen said that was a divisive remark that stigmatised Muslims instead of recognising that the problem was one for British society as a whole. The prime minister’s exhortation was valid. The bombers are not casualties of British society. Shehzad Tanweer, the Aldgate murderer, was only 22 yet left £121,000 after tax. The bombers’ grievances cannot be bought off with more money for schools or a new youth centre. They were corrupted, I assume, by theoreticians of annihilation from within their community. Their training was probably perfected in an Al-Qaeda camp in Pakistan.
Wisbang blogged Airport screeners are told to search airline passengers randomly. As a result, our screeners waste their time searching four year old children and 83 year old grandmothers instead of being purposeful and searching those who fit the terrorist profile. Yes, the terrorists my try to recruit members who are outside the profile to blow themselves up and kill innocents in the name of Islam, but the argument that these recruits could be children and grandmothers is pretty weak.... As Mr. Portillo points out, many Britons disapprove of Prime Minister Blair's Iraq and Afghanistan policies, but it is only the Muslim extremists who are blowing themselves up in subways and on busses.