On Saturday I referred on Centre-Right to Brian Paddick the Lib-Dem candidate for London mayor, who immediately after the 7/7 London bombings very publiclly rejected the link between Islam and terrorism. In response a certain Brian Paddick rejects this claiming that he merely said that "the term 'Islamic terrorism' - is a contradiction in terms as (according to Mr Paddick) there is nothing in Islam to justify the murder of innocent people."
In fact, Brian Paddick's latest comments simply illustrate the very point I was making. When Mr Paddick speaks about Islam and terrorism he simply doesn't know what he is talking about....When public figures such as Brian Paddick do that, it only takes a few more terrorist plots for the man in the street to see that such claims are demonstrably false. A situation which then unfortuantely allows racist parties to tell ordinary British people that they have been lied to - and then twist that to further their own vile racist agenda by implying that all Muslims are potential terrorists - which is emphatically not true.
Now if Mr Paddick really is the expert on Islam that both his 7/7 comments and his response to my article imply, then I would be interested to know how he explains the interpretation of Q9:29
Fight those who do not belive in Allah nor the Last Day, not hold forbidden that which hath been forbidden by Allah, nor acknowledge the religion of truth...until they pay the jizya (additional tax levied on non Muslims under Islamic law) with willing submission and feel themselves subdued.
Or, how he explains the 150 pages in the Islamic Hadith (part of the Islamic scriptures) on jihad - the majority of which refer to violent jihad to impose an Islamic government on non Muslims.
As to the hair splitting point that the Lib-Dem candidate for London mayor makes that he merely said that "Islamic terrorism is a contradiction in terms as there is nothing in Islam to justify the murder of innocent people" - yet again Mr Paddick is making emphatic public pronouncements about a subject that he clearly knows little about. In classical Islam, the interpretation of both the Qur'anic verse and the Hadith I have quoted above plainly contradict even his most recent statement. Consider the following quotations from the Hedaya - which is the main textbook on Islamic law in the Darz-i-Nizami curriculum that is followed by almost all Sunni madrassas in the Indian sub continent. This states that jihad:
is established as a divine ordinance, by the word of God, who said in the Qur'an, 'Slay the infidels' and also by a saying of the prophet 'War is permanently established until the Day of Judgement'.
Another section of the Hedaya specifically justifies killing innocent Muslims in order to subject a non Islamic territory to Islamic law and government, arguing that killing such innocents is a lesser evil compared to removing the greater evil of a land not being subject to Islamic law:
It is no objection to shooting arrows or other missiles against infidels that there may chance be among them a Muslim in the way either of bondage or of traffic, because the shooting of arrows and so forth among the infidels remedies a general evil in the replusion thereof from the whole body of Muslims, whereas the slaying of a Muslim slave or a trader is only a particular evil, and to repel a general evil a particular evil must be adopted, and also because it seldom happens that the strongholds of the infidels are destitute of Muslims, since it is most probable that there are Muslims residing in them, either in the way of bondage or of traffic, and hence, if the use of missile weapons were prohibited on account of these Muslims, war would be obstructed.
Claiming, as Brian Paddick even now does, that Islamist terrorists cannot justify their deeds with reference to the Islamic scriptures (Qur'an and Hadith) is not only wrong - it is also increasingly being seen as wrong by the ordinary man and woman in the street as they hear yet more Islamist terrorists cite verses from the Qur'an to justify their actions as legitimate jihad. This, as I argued on saturday, creates the fertile soil in which racist groups can tell ordinary people that they have been lied to - and then twist this to imply that all Muslims are poential terrorists - which is emphatically not true.
What Brian Paddick even now should be saying - as I argued all responsible politicians should be saying - is that:
The vast majority of ordinary Muslims in the UK are deeply peace loving and as shocked at the terrorist bombings as the rest of us.
However, making comments that are simply wrong, as Brian Paddick continues to do, ultimately provides fertile soil for racists to tell ordinary people that they have been lied to - and that is profoundly dangerous.
Mr Paddick in his campaign to become London mayor has made much of his experience as a senior London policeman, although his time at the Met was certainly not without its controversies. However, it is very clear from Mr Paddick's remarks in response to my article on Centre-Right, that he simply doesn't understand the motivations of those who have tried and continue to try to bomb innocent people in London and the rest of the UK.
Ignorance is one thing - I am ignorant of how to fly an airliner - but I don't have any intention of pretending to be a pilot. However, Mr Paddick claims to be able to tell British people what Islam is - and isn't, despite having so little apparent knowledge of it. That for a man who wants to be in charge of our capital city does not exactly inspire confidence.
