Storbritannia står overfor et problem som er minst like alvorlig som gjeldskrisen, skriver Andrew Gilligan. Hvordan skal det behandle landets islamister? Et betydelig antall byåkrater og høyere embetsmenn mener å vite at de skal innlemmes i den offentlige samtalen for å demme opp for voldelige islamister. Det er en helt feilslått politikk. Islamister kan være ikke-voldelige, men er motstandere av demokratiet. Slike mennesker kan man ikke samarbeide med, de fungerer som rekrutteringsstasjoner for jihadister.
Det oppsiktsvekkende med Gilligans artikkel er at han navngir byråkrater som aktivt arbeider for en samarbeidslinje med islamister som utad er ikke-voldelige.
Den nye innenriksministeren, Theresa May, ønsker en klarere grensedragning, men blir motarbeidet av sin egen forvaltning.
Our new ministers appear to be moving towards a clear and obvious policy, of no official support for Islamism. But they face surprising resistance from the people supposed to carry out their wishes: the Civil Service.
There are, in Whitehall, a number of senior officials and paid ministerial advisers who are sympathisers of Islamism. One of them, Mohammed Abdul Aziz, is an honorary trustee of one of Britain’s most important Islamist-controlled institutions, the East London Mosque.
Mr Aziz wrote a paper – leaked to this newspaper – saying that the new administration should build closer ties with the East London Mosque. He recommended that ministers should consider appearing in public with Islamist organisations which promote «a message of divisiveness, expressing intolerance towards other communities in the UK». He said that officials should even deal privately with some organisations which may support «violent extremism in Britain».
Another leaked paper claimed that extreme Islamist groups such as al-Muhajiroun were not gateways to terrorism, but a «safety valve» for potential terrorists. Last week, a Home Office civil servant, Sabin Khan, was suspended after allegedly criticising the Home Secretary, Theresa May, for her «huge error of judgment» in banning an Islamist preacher, Zakir Naik. Miss Khan’s boss, Charles Farr, was allegedly «gutted and mortified» by the ban, too.
There is no suggestion that these officials are themselves revolutionaries, or that they support violence or terrorism. They believe that reaching out to non-violent Islamists reduces the security threat, and promotes broader community cohesion. This belief is fundamentally naïve and wrong.
At least 19 convicted British terrorists have links with al-Muhajiroun. Zakir Naik has said that «every Muslim should be a terrorist». The East London Mosque, though publicly condemning terrorism, has repeatedly hosted talks by Anwar al-Awlaki, a spiritual leader of al-Qaeda – the most recent of which was advertised with a poster showing New York under bombardment.
Islamism’s greater threat, though, is to community relations. Tomorrow, the East London Mosque is hosting Abdurraheem Green, who has stated that «democracy is antithetical to Islam». Even non-violent Islamists such as Green, the large majority, teach their followers to suspect, to reject or sometimes to despise the culture of this country – and to hold themselves apart from it. We, the taxpayers, are paying, as I write, for a number of Islamist schools in which a new generation is being raised to be much more radical than its parents.
Den illusjonen Gilligan påpeker deles i fullt monn, ikke bare av sterke krefter innen norsk forvaltning og akademia, men også av redaksjonene i landets aviser. Når VG skriver på lederplass at vi må tåle ekstremisme, er det samme forvirrede politikk.
VG har selv avdekket Islam Net, som er samme type ikke-voldelige islamisme. Abdurraheem Green var taler på Islam Nets møte i påsken.
Slike predikanter reiser rundt over hele Vesten. De har lært og tilpasset seg sikkerhetskontroller, overvåking og reglene i det politisk korrekte samfunn: de unngår å legitimere vold, men deres avvisning av demokratiet er prinsipiell og uforsonlig. Og disse menneskene tror apologetene at det går an å samarbeide med.
Gilligan drar en sammenligning med BNP.
The pity of it is that there is a highly successful model for quarantining extremism, sealing it off from respectable society. No civil servant would dream of talking to the BNP, or protesting if one of its speakers was denied an entry visa, or treating it as a legitimate representative of white people. Nobody would even think of funding, say, BNP schools. At the recent elections, the racists were routed. Islamism is the Muslim equivalent of the BNP. Like them, it shouldn’t be banned, or persecuted – just utterly shunned.
Our dangerous dalliance with radical Islam
Whitehall’s support only puts us at greater risk from the religious revolutionaries, says Andrew Gilligan.