Further to yesterday’s post and my observation that “Since 9/11, Muslim after Muslim after Muslim organisation have fell over themselves to apologise and distance themselves from a whole raft of incidents that have been perpetrated by other Muslims with whom they have no association with whatsoever except that they hold the same yet differently interpreted set of beliefs”, I opened my inbox this morning to find that the Quilliam Foundation – the world’s first self-proclaimed counter-extremism think tank – had decided to go one further.
Instead of disassociating themselves from the events in Texas – something that they clearly have no association with – they have named and shamed a handful of Muslim organisations that have failed to disassociate themselves from either the actions of Major Nidal Hassan or “the engineer-cum-cleric, Anwar al-Awlaki” who has apparently been outspoken in his support of Hassan.
Whilst Quilliam begrudgingly praises the disassociation offered by Jamiat Ihya Minhaj al-Sunnah (JIMAS) and the Islamic Society of Britain (ISB) from al-Awlaki, they declare that the Islamic Forum of Europe (IFE), the London Muslim Centre, the Islam Channel, the Federation of Student Islamic Societies (FOSIS), the Muslim Association of Britain (MAB) and the Cordoba Foundation through their lack of vocal disassociation from al-Awlaki are sending “a message of hostility towards our country, armed forces and American allies”.
Are all those ordinary Brits that are not disassociating themselves from the BNP sending a message of hostility to Britain’s minority communities…? Of course not, it’s total nonsense.
Disassociation makes no difference whatsoever.
The average British person, doesn’t know the difference between FOSIS, Quilliam, ISB or indeed any other Muslim organisation and doesn’t care. As I wrote in my chapter ‘From race to religion: the new face of discrimination’ (Abbas, 2004), the old racist adage ‘all blacks look the same’ has for Muslims become ‘all Muslims ARE the same’.
Doesn’t constant disassociation imply a sense of unfounded guilt if not outright blame?
Who is the Quilliam Foundation doing this for?
Who does the Quilliam Foundation believe stands to benefit from a host of Muslim organisations making previously unacknowledged and irrelevant statements?
As I argued in my response yesterday, for some of those Muslim organisations (not all) that fall over themselves to condemn and denounce – as well as some of the well-known Muslim commentators that do the same – they do so because they are lured by the Government ‘incentives’: incentives that are available for the ‘right type’ of Muslim. Consequently see and are driven by the prize rather than the problem.
Might it be that by disassociating themselves from the non-disassociaters as well as the disasociators the Quilliam Foundation are setting themselves up to be the ‘right type’ of Muslim? In doing so, might they be rewarded with an incentive or prize?
Maybe I’m being too cynical…maybe.
Everything on this site by Chris Allen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial 2.0 UK: England & Wales License. www.chris-allen.co.uk.