Mel P: Is it Islam or Islamism?

This is Melanie Phillips on the government's approach to the Muslim community on extremism in the Daily Mail (July 8, 2008):

'The problem, however, is that it doesn’t understand what Muslim extremism is. Believing that Islamic terrorism is motivated by an ideology which has ‘hijacked’ and distorted Islam, it will not acknowledge the extremism within mainstream Islam itself.

The reason so many older British Muslims are traditionally moderate is that they were brought up in the Asian subcontinent under a tamed form of Islam, deriving from centuries of colonial rule, which glossed over much of the teaching of the religion.

The Government believes that Islamic radicalism can be countered by teaching authentic Islam to Muslims. But since Islamic radicalism is based upon those very authentic religious precepts, this will undoubtedly have the effect of radicalising people who otherwise would never have thought in this way'.

And this is Melanie Phillips with Asghar Bukhari on Sky News when her book was launched. And just to make it absolutely clear, this is a correction to an article by Melanie Phillips from the Observer (May 28, 2006):

'The extract below may have given the impression that Ms Phillips's book connects all British Muslims to a campaign of violence, whereas she stresses that the vast majority are peaceful and law-abiding. She also draws a distinction between Islam, which should be respected, and Islamism, which, she believes, is the use of that religion for violent ends'.

So which is it?

Mel P on the Moral Maze

I blame Douglas Murray. He shouldn't have called us opportunists. I was reading Melanie Phillips' article on 'Sleepwalking into Islamisation' in which she has asserted that the problem with the government's counter-extremism approach is that it does not recognise that the problem is with Islam itself. You can read the article here. She states that :

"The reason so many older British Muslims are traditionally moderate is that they were brought up in the Asian subcontinent under a tamed form of Islam, deriving from centuries of colonial rule, which glossed over much of the teaching of the religion".

This is appalling. The Daily Mail, as a private organisation, is free to employ her services. However, she also appears on the Moral Maze for radio 4. So I have sent the following questions to the BBC and await a reply:

How much are members of the Moral Maze team paid for each of their appearances on the Moral Maze?

How many times has the Moral Maze covered Islam and/or Muslims as the main topic since September 2001?

How many times has Melanie Phillips appeared on the Moral Maze as a member of the Moral Maze team since September 2001?

How many times has Melanie Phillips appeared on the Moral Maze (as a member of the Moral Maze team) when the main topic of discussion has been Islam and/or Muslims since September 2001?

Douglas Murray on opportunism

The recent Dispatches investigation into the level of anti-Muslim prejudice in British society is a reminder, if the Daily Mail needed one, that journalists should be careful about the stories they use to peddle prejudice. The danger is that some of these stories may not even be true and then people will cease to believe what they read in the tabloids. And what will we do then, turn to wikipedia for the latest correction?

The Daily Mail has splashed with several stories this year which have been followed by other papers as well which have turned out to be either untrue or heavily exaggerated. This includes the 'hundreds of forced marriages' story, the 'Muslim no-go area' story and another story that I might have made up when nobody was looking.

Douglas Murray turned up on the Islam channel last week to defend the anti-Muslim position. The programme was chaired by Anas Altakriti. Peter Oborne, who presented the Dispatches programme, and a Muslim journalist, who worked on the progamme, debated with the Murray. I am only recording it here for posterity's sake because some important points were raised, including about Murray himself.

First of all, Murray made his statement that he is of course against any violence against Muslims and would be upset if any of his writings would have encouraged such tendencies. Then he said, however, that he agreed with Trevor Kavanagh, the former political editor of the Sun, who said that the only reason the Sun went with numerous untrue stories about Muslims was that it was only Muslims and not any other religious or ethnic minority that were intent on terrorism.

Murray was countered here by the Muslim journalist who reminded him that the majority of the anti-Muslim stories about Muslims were not about terrorism but about Muslim culture - the hijab, Muslim schools, family life, religiosity etc. If the focus on Muslims was specifically to do with terrorism, then this could form the basis of a defendable position. But as the Cardiff university study on media reporting since 9/11 has found, this is not the case (this issue is examined in detail in the study). This is about the pathologisation of one group of people.

Next point. The Dispatches programme asserted that what was being said about Muslims could not be said about anyone else. The Murray refused this and asked for examples. The Muslim journalist in a moment of inspiration which must have come from the heavens reminded him that he himself had described Islam as 'an opportunistic infection'. The Murray initially refused to accept that he could have said anything so unacceptable. But was then reminded that he had said this in his speech to the Pim Fortuyn Memorial Conference in February 2006, a speech which is still publicly available. The Murray then, astonishingly, defended his statement. Theorists of culture and prejudice, and amateur ones like myself, can quite clearly see that we are living through a time in which the culture of one community is being singled out for particular denigration. Douglas Murray is a part of this. He is influential on the right. One hopes that the right will reconsider their association with someone like this. Why is he calling us opportunistic?