Where “multiculturalism” fails with Islam

2/25/2013

Where “multiculturalism” fails with Islam

Babs Barron

I wrote here in August, 2011, about the dangers presented to citizens by successive UK governments’ misinterpretation (wilful or otherwise, because, as we have found out, many of them need the Muslim vote) of “multiculturalism.”   In a truly multicultural society, every culture and ethnicity would be awarded equal rights and privileges and have equal responsibility to contribute to the greater good.  None would be privileged over the others or be able to claim superiority over others. Thus, a truly multicultural society would be an embodiment of a gestalt, where the whole is more than the sum of its constituent parts.  Readers will note from the definition at the link that the elements of a true gestalt are unified as a whole and no constituent part can be teased out from that whole.

City University London said it needed to be sure of the “appropriateness” of sermons

I may well be preaching to the choir, but “multiculturalism as gestalt” is most definitely not the case as regards the influence of Islam in the UK.  Islam promotes itself (often belligerently) and as a result sticks out like the proverbial sore thumb and not only because the media are sensitised to it.  It is so belligerent when crossed that officialdom and the UK main stream media regularly bend themselves out of shape to privilege, excuse or at least protect Islam and UK Muslim communities even from well-deserved criticism – in the recent child abuse scandals by males from Pakistani communities in the UK, the perpetrators were referred to as “Asian”, thereby perpetrating libel against other Asian communities.  We could tell that they were Muslim males only when their names were finally published.

Since my 2011 article, little has been done, at local or national level, to undermine the influence of Islam in UK society or to bring about the true gestalt in multiculturalism here.   In Tower Hamlets, London, for example, in spite of regular attempts by the excellent Andrew Gilligan, senior reporter at The Telegraph to expose the distinctly shady activities of its mayor, one Lutfur Rahman (who has links with the Islamist organisation, IFE), the man is still in power, although many of his council members have resigned and it is doubtful that he can run the council.  All the while the government, Home Office and other official bodies persist in performing the proverbial three wise monkeys routine.

The UK and other European governments also continue to fund Islamist enterprises by way of “aid.”    Most disturbing of all, however, is the extent to which Islamism and its associated hatreds are allowed to spread themselves, (apparently unhindered, but see below) in UK universities, particularly in London.

One recent example of the discord spawned by Islam and allowed to be spread from allegedly reputable university campuses was the invitation to Shlomo Sands, an antisemitic Jewish history professor at Tel Aviv University, to the School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS) at London university.   In his latest address, reported by Richard Millett (who was himself attacked at an anti-Israel event at SOAS) Sands was allowed to promulgate his distinctly questionable views before an audience which seemed to agree with him utterly, in the accepted fashion at SOAS, which has a questionable history indeed when it comes to discrimination against Jews/Zionists.  Sands, of course, doctors history to suit himself and is the epitome of the person who bites the hand that feeds him.

In my 2011 article I noted the “pray-in”, in 2010, at London’s City University.  This followed the closure of a prayer room for Muslims there, at their own request because they felt unsafe, and their subsequent refusal to accept the temporary offer of a multi-faith space offered to them within the university campus, where it could have official security protection.  (There are mosques nearby where they could have prayed in the interim, and Muslims can pray alone almost anywhere, but these were determined to take offence regardless of what they were offered).    The Islamic society’s refusal was, of course, on the grounds that they could not pray in space used by kufar.  (Of course this was a pretext to try to cause trouble – see my original article).

The Islamic Society at City has a history of inviting extremists to address its members, among them Abu Usama, who was caught on film declaiming that homosexuals should be thrown off the tops of mountains.   A subsequent attempt by the society to hook up by satellite with Anwar al-Awlaki, was nipped in the bud by the university.  When the university’s newspaper ran an article criticising the Islamic society’s decision to invite Usama, the Islamic society warned newspaper and City staff to “submit to Allah” or face “severe and painful punishment” in the “next life”.

The Islamic society took even more offence when the university refused to let it hire university premises to celebrate Eidh.   For the university to have done so would have contravened its own statutes, since the celebrations would have been gender segregated.

Matters such as these tend to be a running sore and sure enough City University’s Islamic society, and the problems it poses for peace and quiet there, is in the news again (see also here).  The university has closed down the Muslim prayer room because the Islamic society refused to allow staff members to preview and authorise their sermons.   City University ordered the students to submit their weekly khutbah sermon in advance of the gatherings so that they could check “the quality and appropriateness of what is being delivered.”   As I mentioned in my previous article here, the Islamic society’s behaviour in the past hardly inspires confidence in its attitude:

The university had been requesting previews of sermons and speakers since last year, without success.  It has been very patient.  On the face of it, and given the recent convictions of three UK Muslims involved in terror planning, not to mention the Islamic society’s past history, this would seem a reasonable request.  It is also reasonable to conclude that if the Islamic society had nothing to hide it would comply.   However, these people are not exactly noted for their capability to put themselves in others’ shoes, much less to compromise.  Each could probably start an argument with himself in an empty room.  Their exaggerated and belligerent reaction to this refusal to allow them free rein is therefore not surprising.

As I mentioned in my previous article here, the Islamic society’s behaviour in the past hardly inspires confidence in its attitude:

According to the Independent, in 2010 the Quilliam Foundation, an anti-extremism think-tank, published a report accusing its members of intimidating other students, particularly those on the campus newspaper, as well as gay, Jewish and female students.

Instead they announced that they would use kufar democratic law against City and take legal advice about what they believe amounts to “censorship.”

However, given that in one sermon, which was recorded, the speaker said:

“The Islamic state teaches to cut the hand of the thief. Yes it does. And it also teaches us to stone the adulterer. When they tell us that, the Islamic state tells us and teaches us to kill the apostate, yes it does.”

it is difficult to imagine how they could succeed, particularly in the light of the City University statement to the BBC that it had suggested a number of alternative places for students to pray nearby.   I devoutly hope that a complaint about this by the City University Islamic society would be viewed as vexatious by any court and that that decision would set a legal precedent.