The Problem With So-called ‘Moderate’ Muslims: Part 2

British Freedom 30 June 2012
By Adam K. M.

In Part 1 I focused on the one-eyed nature of Nooruddean Choudry’s moan about the attire of English fans enjoying Euro 2012. In this part I will underline his pathologically narrow outlook and the problems of fractured allegiances in Britain.

Nooruddean Choudry in The Guardian:

I wonder how England supporters would react to scenes at the 2022 World Cup in Qatar, were masses of Arab fans to dress up in Saladin turbans and brandish Saracen swords emblazoned with Qu’ranic verse. I’m not sure it would be seen as friendly high jinx.

To answer his question, if England fans saw masses of Arabs in Qatar dressed as Saracens they would probably do two things: firstly they would observe and then they would take it in jest. Some might even compliment the Arab fans on the accuracy of their reincarnation of ancient attire.

As for the Qu’ranic verse though, well that would probably get a different reaction. Whereas Templar Knights have long relinquished their swords and horses many Muslims still hold an affinity with the same untamed Islam that killed and subjugated so many people hundreds of years ago and still does today.

Depending on the verse displayed some England fans might be reminded of the inspiration for a mass murder that accounted for 52 of their compatriots on 7th of July 2005, or maybe the current Jihad, the aim of which is to plunge the non-Muslim world into either death or dhimmitude. How nice of them to offer us such a wonderful choice.

The problem is Mr Choudry, I can overlook the Saracen dress all day, every day, but the expansionism mandated by the Koran is something that cannot and will not be ignored, hence the counter-Jihad movement.

Whereas Templar dress is rooted to a context of ancient war, Qu’ranic verse is rooted in a past, present and future war, therefore it is not something to shrug one’s shoulders over.

Mr Choudry’s umbrage is axiomatic of a failure on the part of some Muslims to share in the virtue of humour. Just ask Trey Parker or Matt Stone. The creators of South Park were met with death threats by Jesse Curtis Morton, a Muslim convert, and Zachary Chesser.

Parker and Stone didn’t make any malign threats that provoked a response of strength; all they did was depict Muhammad in a bear suit. Thankfully Chesser and Morton are behind bars, but how many people are free and willing to exact the bloodlust they encouraged?

I would advise any Muslims who are offended by things they see on TV to take it on the chin like most of us. A caricature of Jesus on South Park hosts a Jerry Springer type show called Jesus and Pals. Some Christians might find this offensive but I don’t hear of Christians calling for the beheading of cartoon creators.

The reason for this is that by and large Christians seem to have a more balanced rationale, typified by the saying "an eye for an eye”. Some of their Muslim counterparts however follow an adage something like, "say or do something I don’t like and I will murder you”.

Getting back to Mr Choudry, in his article he goes beyond expressing disdain at the harmless antics of football fans.

As a British Asian, moreover, I find it very difficult to get behind Team England because I abhor the fact that it includes an individual facing criminal charges for racist abuse in the workplace.

He goes on to say, "the John Terry issue is the obstacle for me in getting behind the England team”.

I, like many people, feel the protraction of the Terry/ Ferdinand saga is a bad thing. I also understand why people are annoyed with it, but to refuse or doubt your allegiance to England because of the alleged actions of one individual is tantamount to treason. Instead of siding with England’s largely non-racist population and the non-implicated England players Mr Choudry has decided to distance himself from the whole country.

All because of the alleged transgression of one person, he has intimated he may sever his loyalty (if it ever truly existed) from millions of decent people who share love for a common identity. How come the alleged comments of one England player can bring into question his support for England, but Muslims who murder innocent people on a daily basis don’t bring into question his adherence to Islam?

If his affinity to England can be totally denuded by what one man may have done, then obviously being a part of this country doesn’t quite course through his veins the way it does for most of us. Imagine if most of us had an innate tendency to renounce our loyalty to England because one compatriot said or did something we didn’t like. How would we remain together in troubled times? Mr Choudry’s words undergird the problematic connotations certain fractured allegiances pose to the ideal of a unified country.

For all my criticism of Nooruddean Choudry I do empathize with him to a degree. How does he balance his ancestral roots with the nation he resides in to create a positive identity? In England we value things like tolerance, freedom of religion, equality for women and compassion. Alternately, in parts of the Muslim world intolerance, oppression, misogyny and malice prevail. How can one blend these cultures together to create a commendable amalgam when the two sets of standards are polar opposites?

In reality I feel his self-professed upset is a smokescreen. His struggle to align himself with England has little or nothing to do with John Terry or what clothes England fans wear. His impervious allegiance to Islam is the real barrier to embracing the host society. Instead of appreciating the altruistic values of the British he chooses to borrow a grievance from lands that he may have never been to. The John Terry issue is just thrown into the mix for good measure.

Islam demands such a rigorous allegiance to it from its subjects that any minor slur against it trumps all notions of common sense. This manifests in Choudry’s article and in the actions of those who threatened Matt Stone and Trey Parker.

For Mr Choudry to support England he must grasp a different perspective and look at the world around him to decide which values and laws best suit his moral compass. But the problem is that the British government sanctions Sharia Law and Madrassa schools, which gives Muslims the impression that their cultural norms are congruent with ours when they are clearly not. Many young Muslims may want to integrate and do their best for the country but when they are exposed to educational and judiciary ways that are the antithesis of traditional British values, they are simply ill-equipped to do so.

Mr Choudry’s article is a reminder of why the burgeoning Muslim demographic is such an issue. When people cite it as a cause for concern critics may sneer and say, "You can tell me to what levels their community will grow but how can you tell the number of extremists who will wish to do us harm?” The answer to that question is that no one truly knows. But what is clear is that Mr Choudry is one of those who, if forced to choose, would probably line up with the enemy.

If shared British culture was the salient narrative and multiculturalism wasn’t then chances are he would be as able as anyone else to defend our way of life and our heritage. But multiculturalism seeks to constantly aggrandize overseas cultures and hence the upending of everything we hold dear is a force that must be stopped.

No Surrender!