“Invaded” apparently now means to walk into an open building and give a few leaflets.
If the secularists, liberals, right-wing and neocons have distorted and attacked the noble Shar’ia of Islam then the likes of al-Muhajiroun in certain circumstances have certainly acted as a catalyst for those attacks.
In 2011, his little posse plastered “Sharia Zone” stickers around East London. The media picked it up straight away claiming it was “Islamic” extremists. In doing so, the noble Shar’ia was maligned and demonised and the various rulings within Islam also became, by association, “extreme”. The only people who benefited from the actions were the government, the far-right and neocon policy-makers as it reinforced their dubious Blairite narrative of “Islamist extremism” being the most evil thing ever known to humanity, forgetting of course that the massacres in World Word II and Sebrenica had secularist foundations and the perpetrators happened to be Christian.
David Selborne advised John Kerry to a similar narrative, with more than tinge of “we are the high and mighty with the moral high ground”. Blaming the violence of the Middle East on Islam, he regards it as the enemy. Iraq and Afghanistan were not a sufficient enough destruction to iron out this threat, clearly, as he mopes the fickle victories of the US. Of course, he ignores the fact that the violence today is a result of the rejection of the Western colonialist shackles which physically, spiritually, culturally and economically raped much of the Middle Eastern and Eastern lands. He also ignores the present day imperialism of his own country and her allies which has exasperated, not calmed the violence and violent mentalities around the world. It is the absence of Islam, not the presence, and unethical interventionism – black or otherwise, supporting of dictatorship regimes, currently routed in neoconservative thought and plaguing British politicians as well, which has caused much of the present day chaos and loss of innocent life. As Arun Kundnani states,
…the neoconservatives who shaped his foreign policy in the early years of the terror war did have a culturalist analysis of the Muslim problem. It was their analysis that was reflected in Bush’s characterization of the war on terror as a “crusade”. Bernard Lewis himself was a key adviser to the administration. And among members of the Christian Right, a key base of Bush’s support, the idea of an apocalyptic crusade against Islam was prevalent… In 2003, William Boysin, Bush’s deputy undersecretary of defence for intelligence and an evangelical Christian, told a meeting in Oregon that the war on terror is a battle against Satan fought by “the army of God”. (Kundnani, 2014)
Which neatly brings us to the discussion of Britain First’s latest “crusade”. Britain First, like EDL came to prominence with their response to al-Muhajiroun’s activities, for which they were sentenced and imprisoned. An offshoot of the BNP, Britain First conducted “Christian Patrols” which Christian themselves rejected, fuelling tension and undermining community cohesion. Britain First has engaged in “activist” combat training. One wonders what type of “activism” they wish to engage in. And the recent report of Britain First’s “invasion of mosques” answers that question.