.... So, if you believe Islam is inferior to Christianity; or that Islamic society and culture are inferior to “the West”, you may be arrested for Islamophobia. If you believe Islam is “sexist”, you may be arrested for Islamophobia. If you believe Islam is “violent” or “aggressive”, you may be arrested for Islamophobia. Astonishingly, if you believe Islam to be an expression of political ideology (or is used for “political advantage”), you may be arrested for Islamophobia.
The Met police appear to be oblivious of what’s been going on in Tower Hamlets. Do not all religions agitate for political advantage? Why should it be Islamophobic to point out specific examples of Muslims doing so?
The Met may make appeal to the definition of the Runnymede Trust, but there is a world of difference between a think-tank developing guidelines for community and fraternity, and an agency of law enforcement incorporating these definitions into a definition of criminal activity. How many police officers are aware of the history of Islam? How many grasp the theology of the long-prophesied Caliphate?
How many understand the theo-political differences and divergences between its multiple sects? (May one say ‘theo-political’ or does that fall foul of equating the religion with a political ideology?) Is Wahhabism or Saudi Salafism an expression of Islam? If so, how can it be Islamophobic to articulate the bald truth of its violent, aggressive “clash of civilisations” theological genesis and political nature? [Archbishop Cranmer] Read more
