Spencer on mosque closures and "truth to power"
One of Robert Spencer's minions has come close to delivering the "wimp" taunt that politicians seem to fear these days, whether it is on the death penalty or on the so-called War on Terror. This time Tony Blair is the target, the subject being the decision not to allow police to "shut down extremist mosques".
The problem with shutting down such mosques is twofold. First, there are no extremist mosques in the UK. The only mosque which ever came close to being one was in fact built by the community, and the extremists were never elected by anyone; they just took over. And the state did indeed use its powers to expel the extremists and, after a time when it was closed (and the community used the mosque across the road), restore it to its original management. This has not been necessary anywhere else. As is fairly well-known, the rabble-rousers of which we all know preached in community centres, not mosques (Abu Hamza being the only exception).
The second is that, if the extremists are centred on a particular mosque, it's much easier to keep an eye on them than if they are scattered among the community. It also means that they cause less trouble and are less likely to lead the youth astray at the mosques which are still in the hands of the traditional communities. People who want to find the nutcases know where they should go; people who want to mind their own business usually need not worry about them, or worry about their relatives being led astray, or attacked, by them.
On Dhimmi Watch, Robert hails the "courageous Muslim" Tashbih Sayyed for "speaking truth to power" regarding anti-Semitism in the Muslim community. A brief examination reveals that Sayyed is part of the neo-con Benador gang along with Amir Taheri, Kanan Makiya and Charles Krauthammer (full list here). So he may well be talking to "power", but not as Spencer would have us believe in this entry; he is on the side of "power" and telling them what they want to hear!
Comments
Does Spencer have a real job? He might want to learn what a semite is before complaining about "anti-semetism."
Posted by: DrM | December 17, 2005 8:46 PM
Does Spencer have a real job?
If I am not mistaken, he wrote for a Catholic magazine for sometimes before 9/11, now hes a self-procalimed expert on Islam. Yet strangely, he wrote nothing of Islam before that.
Anyway its funny hes coming off as the defender of Israel all the time, Israel and his 'mother church' don't have much love for eachother.
Im not just raking over old coals either; the Vatican didn't even exchange ambassadors with Israel until Pope John Paul II.
Also Popes condemmed some of Israels actions in the past, etc.
Posted by: Ben | December 18, 2005 3:25 PM
He is one of the man self professed media experts on Islam that have come about since 9/11. Had Hindus done the attack I am sure he would be an expert on Hindus.
As to closing "radical mosques" who defines what is radical? In secular Europe almost anything that smacks of religion is "radical." What about "radical" Hindi, Sikh and Christian churches? Are they going to be closed as well?
Posted by: Abu Sinan | December 19, 2005 12:19 PM
Abu Sinan wrote: "He is one of the man self professed media experts on Islam that have come about since 9/11."
In other words, a so-called "Insta-Expert."™ Yes, there are many of them around (and a few hang around this blog). BTW, be sure to send me a royalty whenever you use the above term. ;)
Posted by: JD
|
December 19, 2005 12:57 PM
On the MPACUK forum "babak zadeh amin" claimed that Amir Taheri was an exiled Iranian Jew. Is this the case, or is he a Muslim "house nigger"?
Posted by: George Carty
|
December 21, 2005 6:59 PM
As to closing "radical mosques" who defines what is radical? In secular Europe almost anything that smacks of religion is "radical." What about "radical" Hindi, Sikh and Christian churches? Are they going to be closed as well?
Well, one leetle symptom of radicalism might be flying a plane into a tall building and killing thousands 'in the name of Allah'. When Hindus start doing that, rest assured, their temples will be monitored.
Yusuf responds: the point was about extremist mosques, not individuals. We all know about the individuals and groups, but in this country at least, they have only ever gained control of one mosque and that, if my memory serves me right, was by force, and the people responsible were eventually driven out by the police, who used existing powers to do it. I suspect that this is precisely why the idea of giving the state more power than it really needs to shut them down was dropped, in fact.
Posted by: Old Pickler | December 24, 2005 12:03 AM
Well, one leetle symptom of radicalism might be flying a plane into a tall building and killing thousands 'in the name of Allah'. When Hindus start doing that, rest assured, their temples will be monitored.
They are known for causing violence in India.
Buddhists were behind the Japanese gas attack in the Tokyo subways, and the group was planning similar attacks in America.
Communists in Sri Lanka perfected modern suicide bombing.
Posted by: Ben | December 24, 2005 12:34 AM
OK, fair point. The Finsbury Park Mosque was, as you say, taken over by force against the wishes of the regulars. In fact the Charity Commission had to get involved, saying Captain Hook's preaching was political and incompatible with the aims of the mosque as a charity.(If that's the mosque you mean.) I think it has re-opened 'under new management'.
Posted by: Old Pickler | December 24, 2005 1:37 AM