The New Nation - Internet Edition

Inayat Bunglawala

Several UK newspapers at the end of July 2008 published worrying news stories based upon a new report entitled 'Islam on Campus' by the Centre for Social Cohesion (CfSC) and a YouGov poll also commissioned by the CfSC. The website of the CfSC explains its purpose as trying to generate: "New thinking that can help bring Britain's ethnic and religious communities closer together while strengthening British traditions of openness, tolerance and democracy."

The newspaper headlines included: 'A third of Muslim students back killings' (Sunday Times); 'One third of British Muslim students say it's acceptable to kill for Islam' (London Evening Standard) and 'Killing for religion is justified, say third of Muslim students' (Sunday Telegraph).

You can see how these headlines are designed to bring people 'closer together' can't you?

Now I have written previously about my misgivings concerning the "findings" of several agenda-driven anti-Muslim outfits falsely posing as think tanks. And this particular case has proved to be no different. A look at the YouGov poll revealed that a far more ambiguous question was actually posed to the Muslim students who took part in the survey.

The question was: "Is it ever justifiable to kill in the name of religion?"

The responses were as follows:

Yes, in order to preserve and promote that religion (4%)

Yes, but only if that religion is under attack (28%)

No, it is never justifiable (53%)

Not sure (15%)

Are the results really that surprising given that, "Yes, but only if that religion is under attack" can bear so many different meanings? Now it is very likely that the vast majority of those who answered 'yes' to the above question were thinking of a scenario where Muslim majority countries were under attack by hostile forces. After all, Islam is not a pacifist religion and allows the use of violence to defend oneself and one's family, property and homeland. Would it be too cynical to suggest that the question may have been worded deliberately vaguely in order for the CfSC to obtain the results it wanted?

The Director of the Centre for Social Cohesion is an excitable chap called Douglas Murray. He wrote a book a couple of years back called Neoconservatism: Why We Need It. He has lavished praise on the 'ex-Islamist', Ed Husain, and more pertinent to this article, Murray has publicly expressed views about Muslims that give us a better idea of what he understands by "social cohesion".

In a February 2006 speech entitled 'What Are We To Do About Islam?' delivered at the Pim Fortuyn Memorial Conference in The Hague, Murray asked: "Why is it that time and again the liberal west is crumpling before the violence, intimidation and thuggery of Islam?"

Ah, those liberals, eh? So what did Murray propose to do about this then?

"I promised to propose some of the solutions to this problemt"

Oh good, so let's hear your number one option.

"All immigration into Europe from Muslim countries must stop."

Now we're getting somewhere! Are all black people to be excluded too, or would advocating that position more obviously contravene our racial discrimination laws? Yes, I think it might, so perhaps it is best to stick to Muslims. Anything else you have in mind?

"Conditions for Muslims in Europe must be made harder across the board: Europe must look like a less attractive proposition."

A prophet! You appear to have anticipated Martin Amis's outburst in which during a 'thought-experiment' he advocated that the Muslim community be made to suffer "until it gets its own house in order". And what sort of suffering did Amis have in mind? In his own words, "Not letting them travel. Deportation - further down the road. Curtailing of freedoms. Strip-searching people who look like they're from the Middle East or from PakistantDiscriminatory stuff, until it hurts the whole community and they start getting tough with their children."

Come on Mr Murray, surely you can match that?

"And of course it should go without saying that Muslims in Europe who for any reason take part in, plot, assist or condone violence against the West (not just the country they happen to have found sanctuary in, but any country in the West or Western troops) must be forcibly deported back to their place of origin."

But of course. And what about those Muslims who are born in Europe and have European citizenship but are convicted of terror-related acts, should we treat them like other criminals or can we be a little bit more stern?

"Where a person was born in the West, they should be deported to the country of origin of their parent or grandparent."

Mr Murray, you appear to have planned for everything! A solution for every eventuality. Almost a final solution one might say! How about those Muslims who are overseas though. Can't we do something about them too?

"Abroad we must continue our work at taking the war to the terrorists. We are winning that war, and we should extend that war."

Yes, social cohesion, you say. You know I think I understand just exactly what you mean.

(Source: Muslim News. Inayat Bunglawala is a well-known Muslim activist. He writes a regular blog column for the Guardian's Comment is Free website and is also a co-presenter of the Politics and Media Show on the Islam Channel.)