This third and final part directly continues from the Part II:
Deforming Faith and History to Serve a Neocon Agenda Part I: Rashad Ali
Deforming Faith and History to Serve a Neocon Agenda Part II: Sara Khan
Also operating within the well-oil neocon counter-extremism machine is the Quilliam Foundation, which brings us to Adam Deen’s rather expected (see here also) announcement of joining the cold war-era style state-validator organisation. In his blog piece announcing the squandering of his faith, Deen convolutedly explains why he wants to fight “extremism” but fails to convincingly explain why he would join an organisation born in the lap of another extremism – neoconservatism – which continues to legitimise neoconservative policies.
This equivocation-ridden nucleus in his piece indicates to the pseudo-intellectualism which comes head way in the second paragraph. Deen is, like Sara Khan, a fan of the deconstructionist, Khaled Abou El Fadl. The fanboyism, though, is taken to a new level. He writes,
“It may not be coincidence that al-Hakim al-Jishumiyya al-Bayhaqi (a Hanafi Mu’tazili jurist from the 12th century) in his book ‘Satan’s Epistle’ asks: “if Satan were given the chance to speak on the Day of Judgment, whom would he pay tribute to?” Al Bayhaqi concludes that Satan would end up praising and thanking every Muslim who adapted ideas that attributed to God things that were irrational, unjust or hideous.”
This is lifted from Abou El Fadl’s The Search for Beauty in Islam: A Conference of Books almost verbatim:
John Ware’s content suggests he is an establishment journalist who makes the facts fit the government agenda. However, in order to grasp an idea of his political outlook one needs to examine some of his work.
In an article for the Jewish Chronicle (JC), Ware praises Douglas Murray as a “titan of the commentariat”, and defends his trivialisation of Islamophobia, who calls it a “crock” to the sharp criticism of another JC writer, David Aaronovitch. Douglas Murray needs no introduction. An ardent neocon, he has called Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, a “very bad man”, and Islam along with the Qur’an, “bad”. He translates this hate into calls for special negative treatment of Muslims, by making conditions for them in Europe “harder across the board”. According to Murray, even “universal” human rights are tiered, with the rights of “West’s people [overriding] those of the Islamist’s in their midst.”
His Henry Jackson Society is funded by a transnational Islamophobia-pumping industry. In the discussion between Aaronovitch and Murray, Ware sides with Murray and echoes him in “rationalising” away his exceptional treatment of Muslims, justifying his position by stating that anti-Semitism is “entirely irrational” whilst Islamophobia is “reactive”. He then attempts to give credence to his position by highlighting that Jewish integration has been a “success story”. The success of “Jewish integration” has been addressed in previous articles, and it is not entirely as it is made out to be. Muslims are demarcated, however, because they,
“cite foreign policy as the reason for terrorism here, which suggests they identify more closely with other Muslims in far-off lands than with fellow Britons.”
In all honesty, I did not want to write on the banal, stereotypical, anti-Muslim, “Halal hysteria”. There has already been a cogent piece written on this topic which deserves a read.
The thing is when something like this becomes current again you wonder what runs through the minds of neocons, liberals and anti-Muslim hate-mongers. Really. It has happened before. And it is only convenient (for the neocons and the right-wing extremists), to regurgitate the same. This time around the Sun sensationally claimed that chickens are slaughtered alive! Even Russell Brand picked up on the inherent prejudiced attack on the Muslim minority. As per the neocon demonisation formula, a report about food chains “secretly” feeding halal meat to the unsuspecting public is revealed. Perhaps a few reports by apologetic Muslims who do not follow Islam is published stating that they have no real concern about eating halal food.
The “Devout Muslim Scholar”!
And then you have the “devout Muslim scholar”, Taj Hargey. When a “devout Muslim” feels the need to express his (unqualified) opinion in the diatribe-churning, neocon-serving Daily Mail which produces less news and more Goebells-inspired war propaganda, then his credibility will come in for some serious scrutiny. He has of course attacked Muslims before. For instance, he called the niqab and burka a “cultural monstrosity”, calling for it to be banned.
Another reason for me necessitating the placing of my fingers to keyboard is the gratuitous maligning of the Muslim minority and Islam through Hargey’s deviousness. Had Taj Hargey, instead of misleading his readers to the false notion that he is a “devout Muslim scholar”, clearly highlighted that he does not represent normative Islamic thought and instead represents a fringe group then certainly, it would have been more honest of him. That is not the case.