“I am equally if not more so angry that these people should do so through some misguided and warped grasp of my faith.”
Come on, Miqdaad, this is not convincing.
You really can’t make a case that it is a warped grasp of ‘your’ faith without being very explicit about what your faith is; and simply saying it’s ‘Islam’ is the nature of the problem. Because ‘your’ Islam is not ‘their’ Islam. What you take from Islam isn’t what they take form Islam. But let’s be honest here, what they take from Islam is right their in the ‘inerrant’ world of god, and in the examples of the life of your prophet: the stoning, the beheading, the demand for lashing for sex outside marriage. You have to ‘warp’ those words, with selectivity, the magic of ‘context’, or whatever else you do to take only love and peace from those texts.
“But there is also a real concern that in the days ahead, there will be those who will try to use the Parisian atrocity to divide the British society and as an excuse to launch attacks against Muslims, as happened after the Charlie Hebdo attacks earlier this year.”
I appreciate that concern. But let’s be honest, it will pale into insignificance compared to the threat that atheist bloggers in Bangladesh live under. Some perspective, please.
“With a number of horrific tweets talking about killing all Muslims …”
You know this is mostly bullshit, right? Let’s take a moment here to note that when ISIS say they want to kill infidels, they really mean it. They were real deaths in Paris, not empty threats. The killers of Lee Rigby really did kill him and didn’t merely post empty threats on twitter.
“… and with people such as Richard Dawkins equating Islam with Nazism, …”
Again, let’s be honest here. Dawkins is referring to the way Islam is presented to us by ISIS. This has many similarities to the surge of Nazism, including the persecution and genocidal treatment of whole groups of people based on their religious or political identity. And, again, the script for that can quite legitimately be taken from the Islamic texts – at least as legitimately as you take your watered down Islam of love and peace.
“Verbal assaults against Muslims have already begun to take place.”
Wow! Verbal assaults. Now that’s not nice, and we should object to it strongly. But hardly on a scale of the Paris attack is it.
“At a bus stop in the UK today, a man shouted, “They need to all die, these Muslims need to die. Look what they’re doing in Paris,” to a young Muslim woman.”
Take a moment, Miqdaad, and think about what has been said by Muslims around the world regarding non-Muslims. Look at the rhetoric used any time a cartoon of Muhammed is produced.
“British Muslims have also been rocked by suicide attacks devastating Beirut which killed over 40 people, and in Baghdad, which took over 20 lives.”
British Muslims have been rocked? Why mention British Muslims in the context of these killings? Suddenly the unity of Muslims is important, when Muslims are victims, but not so much when Muslims are the perpetrators?
I stand with you against the physical attacks on Muslims in the UK that you describe. However, when you list the attacks in Beruit and Baghdad, they have been attacked by Muslims, so making your point particularly decietful.
“These incidents come on the back of thousands being killed by Daesh in Iraq, Syria and Yemen, amongst others.”
Yes, we know that most victims of Muslim Islamists are Muslims. And we know that pious Muslims can become victim to the incitement to violence for merely having been supposed to have damaged a copy of the Quran.
“There are many who feel wary of trying to restate the fact that #MuslimsAreNotTerrorists…”
Dishonest again, Miqdaad. Try ‘#MostMuslimsAreNotTerrorists’, because some clearly are.
“Once again there will be a debate as to whether Muslims should be compelled to condemn those terrorists who kill in our name.”
Do you feel it needs to be debated whether Muslims should condemn those terrorists?
“Sadly, I feel we have no option but to make sure our voice is heard.”
And I feel the same too, though I suspect many of your fellow Muslims would call me an Islamophobe for doing so. And you know full well if you state it too loudly and clearly some of your fellow Muslims will call you a traitor, because, again, unity in the face of criticism of your religion is far more important than siding with infidels against the extremes of your religion.
“Muslim have come out in united condemnation to stand apart from this evil.”
Yes, and that is very welcome.
“There is also a desire to move beyond words and show solidarity through action.”
“As we all mourn the devastation caused by these terrorists, who try and claim legitimacy from the faith of Islam, …”
They do no more than you do, Miqdaad. You too claim legitimacy. And you and the terrorists deny it of each other. You play the Takfir game.
“… and as we all support effective methods to keep our nation safe and secure, we cannot let the terrorists win by dividing us. Together, we must stand united.”
This is the most heartening part of your piece. But it really doesn’t help when you hide from the facts. ISIS can claim Islamic legitimacy just as much as you can. You may not like that, and nor do I. I wish you and ISIS were of different religions. It would make life a lot simpler of all of us.
But you share the same ‘inerrant Quran and the texts of the Hadith; and the ISIS interpretation needs far fewer excuses and contexts to justify it.
If you really think that we should all stand together, then let’s do it for the liberal that allow us to criticise each others beliefs without fear of violence in the name of it, or without stifling dissent within your religion by persecution and even a sentence of death for leaving it.
Do you support what Maajid Nawaz is doing? Or is that asking too much? How about Asra Nomani? Or are you so stuck with the inerrancy of your tests that you must play the Takfir game with ISIS?