Cameron: We must stop using Islamic and Islamist to describe the terrorist threat we face

David Cameron writes (as he frequently does) for 'The Guardian on Sunday' this morning - The Observer.  The choice of The Guardian/ The Observer is all part of his BBC strategy.

The Conservative leader reflects on his two days with a Muslim family in Birmingham.  His top conclusion is that we need to be more careful about our choice of language when discussing the nature of the current terrorist threat:

"By using the word 'Islamist' to describe the threat, we actually help do the terrorist ideologues' work for them, confirming to many impressionable young Muslim men that to be a 'good Muslim', you have to support their evil campaign."

Mr Cameron does not suggest an alternative way of describing a terrorist worldview that is deeply, if perversely, connected with the Muslim faith.

Mr Cameron also defends faith schools in his article as a positive force for integration.

At the end of the Conservative leader's thoughtful article he makes what is, for me, the most important of points about integration.  Why would Muslim and other minority communities want to integrate with British society when, despite all its strengths, it is increasingly decadent?  David Cameron:

"'To make men love their country,' said Edmund Burke, 'their country ought to be lovable.' Integration has to be about more than immigrant communities, 'their' responsibilities and 'their' duties. It has to be about 'us' too - the quality of life that we offer, our society and our values.  Here the picture is bleak: family breakdown, drugs, crime and incivility are part of the normal experience of modern Britain. Many British Asians see a society that hardly inspires them to integrate. Indeed, they see aspects of modern Britain which are a threat to the values they hold dear - values which we should all hold dear. Asian families and communities are incredibly strong and cohesive, and have a sense of civic responsibility which puts the rest of us to shame. Not for the first time, I found myself thinking that it is mainstream Britain which needs to integrate more with the British Asian way of life, not the other way around."

There are, of course, aspects of the Islamic faith that many of us find deeply objectionable but the debate about integration cannot be isolated from questions about the fragmenting and coarsening nature of too much of British society.

Related link: David Cameron stays with British Muslims in Birmingham

12.45pm: Cranmer's take can be read here.

1.15pm: 18DoughtyStreet.com's Donal Blaney gave his thoughts on this topic on Friday:

Comments

[Jennifer Wells]

Mr C needs to have a word with Michael Gove. His Celsius 7/7 book constantly refers to Islamism.

[Reality check]

It seems that Mr Cameron is losing his mind; this is a classic example of trying to evade a highly serious problem by adjusting language rather than by confronting reality.

The terrorist threat does not come from any other religious grouping and it is grounded in a political ideology expressly rooted and justified in the name of that religion.

How should we distinguish the new terrorist threat? "Jihadist" is the only accurate alternative I could suggest; but it is also clearly linked to Islam. That's because the problem is clearly linked to Islam.

"Islamist" is perfectly distinct from "Islamic", distinguishing between a political ideology rooted in religion and a purely religious ideology.

At a time when we are encouraging Muslim leaders to DO MORE to reign in the extremists, it is counter-productive folly to suggest that we start linguistically shifting the debate away from the Muslim community, the vast majority of which, is of course, in no way in thrall to Islamism.

[Alexander Drake]

Tim, I think the wrong sentence is highlighted in this article. The one that should be in bold is:

The choice of The Guardian/ The Observer is all part of his BBC strategy.

Let's recap. David Cameron has been living with a prosperous Birmingham family in order to lustre to his credibility with AB social progressives, with whom he communicates through their Sunday paper of choice.

The rest of the content in his article is background static. Mood music. It's the gesture here that is the key, rather than any supposed detail, and makes good political sense.

[John Moss]

Give Cameron his due. He has recognised that the ordinary Muslim on the stret doesn't understand the nuance of Islamic/Islamist and he is trying to do something about it.

However, what we need to attack is the substance of the "fundamentalist" message, which is racist, sexist, homophobic and barbaric to animals. Four things the left in this country campaign against ceaslessly and which all the Tories I know find distasteful as well.

I personally believe that we have to turn the tables on those who defend and campaign for the strict application of Sharia Law on the grounds that it represent the words of their Prophet and as such cannot be challenged. Isn't the interpretation of the words of the Koran by extremists and fundamentalist Imams not of itself a re-interpretation of the words of their Prophet?

We can also appeal to moderate muslims on the simple expedient that life now is different and trying to live by reference to a document hundreds of years old is simply impractical in most areas beyond personal morality and spiritual devotion.

[Maltheus]

I like Cameron but he really is going a few steps too far. I won't be suprised if he's marching down Mayfair with a hammer and sickle flag next...maybe the muslim community should stop worrying about words and try to tackle the ingrained hatred and irrationality within their own communities

[Editor]

That's unfair Maltheus. He has in articles he has written about his Birmingham trip and through his Security policy group directly challenged Muslim extremism.

[simon]

Oh God. Much more of this and Labour will win the next GElec....

[Richard]

"Indeed, they see aspects of modern Britain which are a threat to the values they hold dear - values which we should all hold dear. Asian families and communities are incredibly strong and cohesive, and have a sense of civic responsibility which puts the rest of us to shame. Not for the first time, I found myself thinking that it is mainstream Britain which needs to integrate more with the British Asian way of life, not the other way around."

I can imagine many right-wing columnists coming up with something like this. Cameron's use of the word "decadent" is also good conservative rhetoric. Am I the only one who finds his speech, at least in relation to modern British society, impressively conservative?

[EML]

Indeed Richard, I find Cameron's approach impressively conservative and liberal. He can appeal to the Times readers by attempting to get to the cause of society's problems, whilst at the same time making Telegraph readers salivate at his interpretation of these findings: that society is decadent, that the state doesn't hold all the answers, and that families and friends should be at the core of all that is good in this country.

[malcolm]

I thought it was a thoughtful article. I am wholly in agreement with DC on the sentiments he expresses.

[michael mcgough]

"Mr Cameron does not suggest an alternative way of describing a terrorist worldview that is deeply, if perversely, connected with the Muslim faith"

I wonder what he calls a duck.

[TomTom]

Why would Muslim and other minority communities want to integrate with British society when, despite all its strengths, it is increasingly decadent?

If I thought Cameron was sincere in this statement I shgould laugh.

Does he really think his support for civil partnerships appeals to "the Muslim community", and which Conservative "policies" and "positions" does he think most alienate Muslims from British society ?

[Sean Fear]

"Why would Muslim and other minority communities want to integrate with British society when, despite all its strengths, it is increasingly decadent?"

A fair point, but hard to reconcile with the Modernisers' belief that we must accept Britain as it is, not as we would like it to be.

As to terrorism, I don't see how it's possible to use any other term than "Islamist terrorism." The reason why we didn't use the term "Catholic terrorism" wrt Northern Ireland was that the IRA's aims were exclusively political.

[ToMTom]

I don't see how it's possible to use any other term than "Islamist terrorism.

Maybe he's going to rename it Liberation Theology ?

[TomTom]

When a suicide bomber uses the doctrine of Shaheed to celebrate the action.....just how does Cameron propose to comprehend it ?

[Scotty]

I just want to echo the comments of Richard, EML and Malcolm.
I think that Cameron "gets it" and he is trying to address in some ways a wider problem in British society which goes further than along the lines of different ethnic communities.
Over the last couple of years we have seen a rise in home grown terrorism which is following a bigger and wider bandwagon across the world. But equally we are seeing a fracturing of Britain along many other lines as well which are equally racial or religious but have nothing to do with a terrorist threat. I think a lot of people have to stand back and look at their own atttitudes towards certain groups of people and WHY they resent them.
One thing struck me about David Cameron's visit, he highlighted the fact that a good faith school attracts families from different backgrounds and religions because of the ethos that many of these school possess. In Northern Ireland faith schools have been used to polarise and divide while in the UK they often have the opposite effect. So what happens, Labour have been hell bent on destroying them.
The present Labour governments whole attitude towards cohesion or multiculturalism has created resentment and anger because of the poorly thought out and managed policies they have implemented.
Foreign policy, immigration, devolution and their view of removing religion completely from anywhere involved in society, they continue to move the goalposts on responsibility taking it away from parents, school and even the local community. Just look at how badly damaged everyone has been by this.

[DrFoxNews]

It seems that Mr Cameron is losing his mind; this is a classic example of trying to evade a highly serious problem by adjusting language rather than by confronting reality. - 'Reality Check'

If anything, I'd say David Cameron's remarks demonstrate that he isn't losing his mind. Language is a truly powerful weapon indeed, and anybody who does not recognise this is a fool.

There can be little doubt that the deliberate underscoring of 'Islam', when referring to the extremist Moslems (a tiny minority of followers of what is a peaceful faith) involved in terrorism, by those with an agenda of their own to follow (whether it's the BNP or evangelical hard-right commentators on FOXNews or whoever) is feeding a sense of alienation and insecurity amongst the Moslem community as a whole, playing into the hands of the extremists.

Your suggested alternative - 'Jihadist' - is a sensible and appropriate description for the extremists involved with terrorism.

[simon]

Scotty- WHAT! Faith Schools have not polarised and divided in other parts of the UK?! Can you tell me how many 'christian' children attend Muslim run schools? Faith schools ARE divisive and should be closed ASAP. There is NO place for 'organised' religion in any school environment. Religion is a personal individual choice and should remain as such. What is required are good quality public/private schools with an ethos of discipline, high educational standards, and 'community' service.

[Rachel Joyce]

I absolutely agree that their is a real problem with the way the media portrays muslims to muslims - although it goes on about only a "minority" support extremist beliefs, it continues to interview as representative people with extreme views. Moderate muslim voices are not heard (those painted as moderate are clearly not). It is hardly surprising that the youth of today, suffering from Brown/ Blair dumbed down education, are not able to see a moderate course of muslim life that can live happily alongside democracy and women's rights.

What I am disappointed in is that he hasn't coined an alternative phrase. The media are like parrots and repeat the phrase that everyone else uses. We need to recoin a phrase for DC to start using - suggestions?

[Scotty]

""Catholic terrorism" wrt Northern Ireland was that the IRA's aims were exclusively political."
I am sorry Sean, but I think the reasons for young Muslim men becoming more radicalised is no different today than what happened in Ireland in the 70's. Look at what happened then, internment or a badly bungled street search during the night did as much as a recruitment drive for the IRA as 90 day detention without arrest or trial and raids with the whole media circus we saw in Birmingham does for terrorist groups today.
Being a young Catholic in the 70's in Britain is no different to being a young muslim today. I remember being one of only two Catholics in my class and someone asking us to justify the behaviour of the IRA, there were surprised that we felt insulted
and angry that just by virtue of being Catholic they should assume that we would automatically feel sympathy and have support for the aims of the IRA!
Attitudes and behaviour on all sides need to be addressed on this.

[ToMTom]

Religion is a personal individual choice and should remain as such

Yes it is a personal choice as to how you live your life, how you interact with others, whom you trust, and sharing a common belief about how things are in this world and the next

[Sue, Leicestershire]

I would venture to suggest that if Mr. Cameron had stayed with with a similarly placed indigenous British family, he would have heard much the same sentiments expressed. I too deplore the fact that standards and family values have been eroded in Britain but see no need to be told this by muslims. Our own Christian faith upheld these values, but the secularists deride it, even our Churches have become weak. I would add the Left inspired propaganda and the influence of the media -particularly TV -into the mix over many years. It has happened insidiously, so much so that the majority of us take it for granted.
I am always puzzled by muslims' desire to live here, as they disapprove of our decadence; they had the choice, we do not, but we do have the choice of returning to those British values by our own actions. Not by the example of a religion which has shown itself to have so many violent followers; that is unnecessary in my view.

[Cranmer]

Ms Sue,

That is precisly the point that His Grace has raised.

The British values Mr Cameron identifies – ‘hospitality, tolerance and generosity’ – are intrinsic to 'religious conservatism', generally and may therefore be found in households of all faiths (and none). To denigrate the 'mainstream' (by which he must mean the Judeo-Christian majority) and to insist that the British-Asian model should become society's template is potentially offensive to that mainstream and may itself be considered to be verging on 'racism'. It is certainly sloppy sociology, and even more certainly is it superficial theology.

[EdR]

Cameron is right.

"Islamic" and "Islamist" are distinct, but only subtly to a casual eye. I always thought "jihadist" seemed more specific myself.

And language is important. Britain, the country of the great example of Shakespeare and the cautionary tale from Orwell, should know this better than most.

We shouldn't be afraid of finding new, more precise terms of political engagement. When dealing with hot-button topics, topics where we need to rally and move people to action, it is imperative that the words we use must convey precisely what we mean. I see no political upside whatsoever in persistently using language we know will be misinterpreted, just for the sake of blind dogma.

[mark]

Perhaps he could line up Alan Duncan for a return visit to this family.

[Scotty]

"What is required are good quality public/private schools with an ethos of discipline, high educational standards, and 'community' service."
Simon, the point I was trying to make is that when you USE a faith school to divide and polarise different religions it highly damaging. I used the example of N.Ireland but have seen the similar damaging results in parts of Scotland over many years.
But it would be unfair and wrong to ignore what many faith schools have successfully achieved by doing the exact opposite.
Why do we always try to throw the baby out with the bathwater when we are trying to achieve a better result for all.

[ToMTom]

I am always puzzled by muslims' desire to live here, as they disapprove of our decadence;

They are frightened. Over half the Muslims in Britain come from Kashmir, in particular very backward hill villages - others come from Sylhet over on the India/Bangladesh border which was once East Pakistan.

They are afraid of losing control. The village structure has been replicated in Britain; the Elders expect deference because of their status in Pakistan and the politics in Britain are intertwined with politics back in the home areas.....all sorts of interactions, money-lending, car sales, arranged marriages take place as if England were an extension of Pakistan village politics.

The younger generation has the conflict between the absence of discipline in British comprehensive schools and the conservatism of the Muslim home. So the conflict is exacerbated as two cultures clash and the fear of losing control of women leads younger men to import brides from "back home" without exposure to Western decadence and preferably no capacity with English.

It is not simply a question of values, but of societal control. A group within society is frightened of secularism penetrating its culture and corroding its family structures as with the Christian population in Britain; or of the assault on family and religion waged in The Guardian, Indepedent, BBC, and a variety of outlets.

Muslims have simply retreated into their skins to resist the bombardment that has weakened Christianity and tries to stop religion being expressed or displayed. Muslims do not wish to be absorbed by a secular society that is all.

[Christina]

The term 'Jihadist' would have the same problems as 'Islamist'. I'm surprised to find people here recommendng it. A better understanding of Islam is needed b4 deciding on terminology and language is very important.

Every true Muslim engages in Jihad. If you think that is an extreme statement, it is because you don't know what Jihad means.

Jihad means 'struggle.' It's an inward battle against the evil within us. In Christian terms it equates to the fight against inward corruption by God's grace to produce holiness.

So, you will offend Muslims if you suggest 'Jihadist' for Muslim extremists and terrorists.

The best way to change the language used is to ask the people affected to suggest what extremists should be called. In this case, the Muslim communities.

The term 'people with learning disablities' is used today because those people did not like 'mentally handicapped' so they came up with a term they approved of.

If Muslims don't like Islamist, then they should be responsible for providing the new terminology, because they are the experts in their faith. We are not, and we will fail.

[Sue, Leicestershire]

Cranmer:
Your post led me to look at your blog and, indeed, we do seem to be of one mind! i think we may infer from that that many people will have silently picked up the same points and looked rather askance at Mr. Cameron's rationale!

p.s.: I'm not a 'Ms', I don't buy into the feminist thing! No problem though!

[mark]

While he's on the subject, perhaps Cameron could ask the Australians to stop calling us Poms and Muslims from calling us infidels and kafirs. I'm so sorry, I forgot the indigenous British don't deserve any consideration of their requirements.

[Cranmer]

Dear Miss/Mrs Sue (in) Leicestershire,

His Grace apologises for deploying the incorrect term of address, and meant no offence with his use of 'Ms'. It is simply that he is not sufficiently acquianted with you to use your Christian name (which he would consider awfully familiar and impolite) and since you gave no surname, he would have had to guess your marital status and attach it to a geographical area, the presumption of which may have caused further offence.

The correct addressing of women is becoming a politically-correct hot potato in itself...

[A H Matlock]

This is utter nonsense. I have always been supportive of David as our Leader and I will continue to be so, but there are times in politics when critical issues cannot be dolled up in moderate language and it is necessary to call a spade a spade. The sooner David becomes comfortable with this the better.

[Oberon Houston]

I think this is part of his clever strategy to build trust rapidly with the electorate. By simply saying “we have changed, so trust me” he won't get very far. What he is instead doing is part of a much more sophisticated, but high-risk plan. By continually exposing himself to scrutiny he can win people over much more effectively, provided of course he stands up to it, and internal scrutiny is even better for him, so everyone here taking a plug at him, hold the thought that you are actually helping him :-o.

This has been cleverly combined with a strategy that puts him above the need for approval from Murdoch’s tabloids. WebCameron & YouTube etc. are being cleverly employed to leapfrog the need for an endorsement from the Sun and even the BBC to gain popularity. One example of just how effectively his strategy can function is with the drug-use issue. I was at the fringe event where it happened and we all thought his response was the result of inexperience and a bad move, how wrong we were. By not giving the usual reply that he wouldn’t discuss it, he invited scrutiny by his answer, but coupled it with a traditional stance on it’s detrimental effects and a standard deterrent policy, and combined with the compassionate response to the relative in rehab story, he managed to take on the Daily Mail from a seemingly impossible position, but as public opinion gradually sided with him the Mail had to concede defeat. Cameron actually took what would be seen as a damaging disclosure and turned it into a positive, that’s political ability at it’s very best. The muslim story in today’s paper should be viewed in this context I think.

[Stephen Tolkinghorne]

It's very disappointing, but not at all surprising, to see people, in their blissful naivety, referring to Islam as 'moderate' and 'non-violent'. Clearly these people have never studied the Koran - it is inherently violent, encourages violence against those of other faiths. As Winston Churchill said: "Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith." - that is not "radical" Islam, not "political" Islam, not "Islamo-fascism." It is traditional, normative, orthodox Islam.

David Cameron is ignorant of Islam and its very basic tenents. Its followers would hold him in contempt, but smile at how well Taqyaa plays with the Infidel. And here Cameron is, effectively defending the continuing imposition of millions of Muslims upon the British people. We weren't even asked whether we wanted this, as we'd have said 'No'.

As for Sue in Leicestershire 13:30 - you're absolutely right. Cameron would regard those Christians with disdain and derision; however, when Muslims express a morally conservative message he lauds them as wonderful people. We used to have a Christian lady named Mary Whitehouse, a campaigner for decency and morality in the broadcast media - she was derided and scorned by the likes of Cameron - but they've all the time in the world to listen to the demands by Muslims for even more austere standards.

[Vote Freedom]

And so the Tories are trying to change.

Any thoughts on the talks with ex-BNP councillor Mark Leat from Longton North Stoke on Trent. Bribing him with a pay rise and a departmental seat to come and join the Tories. He has this week become a non aligned independent and likly to become a tory soon.

So you can play with words as much as you like. You can mimic Blair as much as you like for delivery but the British public will still see your party as a party of gravy train chancers who will do anything to get back into power so you can get hold of the freebies again.

[Vote Freedom]

And if we don't call these terrorists Islamic terrorists how will all the other faiths feel, as it is not Sikh, hindu or Jewish terrorists which attacked the UK in London or fight in Iraq.

It is just playing into the hands of those communities by being able to do as they wish and not getting the blame. Like now the police have to send community officers into areas as not to upset the muslim communities yet it is these very communities which hide and harbour the bombers.

Will burglars or any other criminal families and comunities be able to cry persecution and end up with community officers looking after families when the father or mother of a family is dragged away from early morning raids for drugs offences.

No they don't look after the innocent members of families they leave them to fend for themselves, as they should really so why should muslims get special treatment.

[Scotty]

Oberon, I think that we came to the same conclusion about what Cameron is trying to achieve but from different angles.
I do think that he took his experiences from this visit to a particular community and has tried to widen the concerns and observations he saw and heard into the whole fracturing of society in the UK.
That is why I made the point about people having to stand back and look at their own attitudes towards certain groups of people and WHY they blame or resent them for something they see as wrong with the country.
Some comments on this thread make that point very clearly.

[leonjamespage]

This article by David Cameron was absolutely appalling.

Appalling. Infuriating. Embarrassing.

He writes, "Not for the first time, I found myself thinking that it is mainstream Britain which needs to integrate more with the British Asian way of life, not the other way around."

Does Cameron really believe that mainstream Britain is composed of uneducated bigots?

Let's review the history. The World Trade Center in New York is destroyed by Islamic Jihadists, killing almost 3,000 people, the London Underground is bombed, a nightclub in Bali is bombed, the trains in Spain are bombed, American embassies are bombed, the USS Cole is bombed, but the problem, per Cameron, is not radical Islamic theology but, instead, "mainsteam Britain."

How absurd. How myopic.

The Islamic Jihadists do not hate the West because we don't "understand" them. They hate the West because of our traditions and values. They hate the West because we believe in the rule of law, individual liberty, secular government, political equality, and the free press.

This article by Cameron is most definitely not the way to win the next election. If the Tories are unwilling to defend mainstream Britain, some other party will.

Mark my words: Some Other Party Will.

I can only hope that Cameron does not actually believe what he wrote.

What an embarrassment. Victory, in both the next General Election, and in the war against Islamic Jihadism, will come from the belief in the value and goodness of British institutions and British traditions, and in the decency of British people.

It won't come by insulting the people that Cameron hopes to lead.

What a disaster.

[Patsy Sergeant]

TomTom @ 14.37 - 'Muslims do not wish to be absorbed by a secular society that is all'.

That may be all but it has vast implications and complications. The situation as it exists at the moment between the conservative mostly older Muslim population, often direct immigrants, living in closeknit communities in this country and the indigineous or other communities living around them, is rather like the San Andreas Fault - it exists, but at some time inexorably there is movement which causes an upheaval of some kind. This situation has been allowed to grow, by a lax, disinterested government, over a number of years. They have been warned by intelligent people who have some background, that unlimited immigration DOES have consequencies, leasst of all for provision of housing, medical care and policing, but they have chosen to ignore everybody. Well as discontent manifests itself at both ends of the spectrum, even if it is sparked off by self-interest or self-pity, these self-serving MP's shouold face up to their uselessness in this sphere, and ask for help from professional people who might have sensible ideas, instead of burying their heads until an explosion occurs, which unfortunately affects innocents and not MP's!!

[Paul Oakley]

The point about not using "Islamic" in connection with terrorism is a thoughtful one. However, the phrase "Islamist terrorism" must not be dropped for fear of causing offence. Indeed, that would be the more helpful term to use.

Verbal or physical assaults on different religious groups are unacceptable in any circumstances, but let us not forget the experience of Hindus, Sikhs, Jains and Parsees in the aftermath of 9/11.

The same kind of Trisha Trash who are incapable of distinguishing between a paediatrician and paedophile may again decide that anyone Asian is a fair target for their "anti-Osama" prejudices if the type of threat we face is not specified.

[TomTom]

Jihad means 'struggle.' It's an inward battle against the evil within us. In Christian terms it equates to the fight against inward corruption by God's grace to produce holiness.

It is analogous to crusade.......

[TomTom]

I'm so sorry, I forgot the indigenous British don't deserve any consideration of their requirements.

The term "Brit" is offensive since it denotes a small fish

[Vote Freedom]

Paul Oakley.

Why not ask why the murder of Kriss Donald did not get the same media coverage as any other racial attacks. He was tortured and killed simply for the colour of his skin. The only reason it was not covered and widely reported and spoken in great depth by politicians and media alike. Is because he was white and he was murdered by Asians.

[malcolm]

Have you actually read what DC wrote or said leonjamespage? It appears not.

[David Sergeant]

One big problem on Conservativehome is that every time Cameron does something many contributions are more concerned with knocking him than conducting a rational discussion.

Donal Blaney "misunderstands" Cameron's attempt to creat a public distinction between muslims that want to bomb us and muslims that don't. And leonjamespage 16;42 seems to mix up the two separate points Cameron made to release his subconscious inhibitions, Cameron was relating "mainstream Britain" to lack of enthusiasm for integration not bombing New York. Can we calm down.

[Paul Oakley]

"Vote Fredom" (sic). I presume that there is some link between your comment and my earlier post although I am at a loss to understand what it is.

On the specific issue you raise, it is up to editors what they publish. You may however recall that there have been other disparities of media coverage, notably with the murders of Tom Ap Rhys Pryce and Balbir Mathura on the same day.

If you are saying that racial murders of non-whites do not deserve to receive press coverage then I am afraid that most people using this site would disagree with you.

[Dontmakemelaugh]

"I can only hope that Cameron does not actually believe what he wrote".

If he doesn't believe what he has written then he is guilty of spinning. If he does believe what he is saying then he is in an even worse state than we suspected.

I object to the use of the word "decadent" to describe British society. If we follow Cameron's reasoning as applied to the word Islamism then the use of that word decadent can only upset those that are not decadent.
It will encourage them to become decadent by using the BBC more often and reading the Guardian and Observer - to find out what else Cameron has proclaimed (when are the men in white coats comimg, never mind those in grey suits). When is Cameron going to spend some time with a family fearful of being labelled "decadent".

Instead of the word Islamism we could use the word, "Noncomformist" as in a report stating that today several Nonconformists have been arrested by police suspected of being involved in a bomb plot. Nonconformistism has only slight religious undertones and it could refer to members of the Salvation Army (have they been norminated yet for being responsible for 9/11/)

You only have to read the comments above to realise how offended some are by Cameron's use of the word "decadent" when referring to British society. It is only too obvious that the word must be removed and replaced. I suggest the words to be used instead, so that only the right people are offended and deservedly so, are the words "Institutional Leftism" for it is the Left that is responsible for what Cameron describes as being decadent. I get the impression that Cameron does not know his Left from his Right.

.

[Goldie]

If this is the way a prime minister Cameron would tackle the main problems of our time --by ignoring their existence and advancing linguistic obfuscations in doing so-- then I think I'd rather have another term of Labour, thank you very much.

This sentence in particular: "Not for the first time, I found myself thinking that it is mainstream Britain which needs to integrate more with the British Asian way of life, not the other way around" is deeply, deeply troubling.

Because if he really means that sentence that his official policies should basically be a massive program of having the decadent Brits leave the country to be replaced by virtuous muslims from Pakistan.

[Goldie]

He misquoted Burke, by the way, another grave error. The actual quote is "To make us love our country, our country ought to be lovely", from the Reflections.

[DrFoxNews]

It's very disappointing, but not at all surprising, to see people, in their blissful naivety, referring to Islam as 'moderate' and 'non-violent'. Clearly these people have never studied the Koran - it is inherently violent, encourages violence against those of other faiths... - Stephen Tolkinghorne

It's a question of interpretation, Stephen. The same messages of violence and intolerance can be found in the scriptures of other religions too, in one chooses to read them as such.

I note you go on to talk about Christian values, so I assume (and apologise if I'm mistaken) you are a Christian? How do you feel about the despicable deeds carried out in the name of Christianity in the past? The long history of persecution and enforced conversion of followers of other religions, for example. How would you feel if vile acts like the Crusades or the Spanish Inquisition were branded 'Christian terrorism' and cited every time Christianity and/or Christian communities were the subject of discussions like this?

The same kind of Trisha Trash who are incapable of distinguishing between a paediatrician and paedophile may again decide that anyone Asian is a fair target for their "anti-Osama" prejudices if the type of threat we face is not specified. - Paul Oakley

The implication of this comment is that Jihadist terrorism should be branded as Islamist/Islamic, in order to ensure that Moslems (as opposed to anyone Asian, as you put it) are the target of the 'anti-Osama' prejudices of Trisha Trash. Unacceptable and absurd - should all Moslems be required to wear a badge with a crescent moon on to make identification by marauding gangs of vigilante chavs easier too?

[Philip]

DC’s welcome comments about decadence of British society, evidenced by things such as family breakdown, drugs, crime and incivility making it difficult for Muslims to integrate make sense. However perhaps he needs to reflect further on a couple of points:

Is Stephen Tolkinghorne (1614) correct about the link between Islam and violence? (even though most British Muslims are peaceful)

TomTom asks (1209) whether DC really thinks his support for civil partnerships appeals to "the Muslim community” Might this type of thing (one could add his support for Labour legislation on gay adoption and so on) be part of the “decadence” that is said to alienate Muslims, making it difficult for them to integrate? It seems he and other politicians refuse to act on concerns of Christians on such matters, so perhaps they’ll be more responsive to Muslims.

[Goldie]

I note parenthetically the extremely important results of the YouGov poll mentioned in the stories below: 60% of Britons want Brown to reduce immigration.

Only if the mass immigration into this country ceases, is there any chance at all that the Muslims could be assimilated. Why doesn't Cameron say something about that?

Not politically correct enough of course.

[Tanuki]

As an apathetic-atheist, it really gets my goat to see David Cameron or anyone else sucking up to the Moslems [or as I prefer to call them, Mohammedans]. We don't need to seek to 'understand' their delusions; we don't need faith schools of any persuasion - surely we need Reason-based schools. Education should be about truth and reality and facts not outdated superstitions, whatever creed peddles them. Mohammedanism is a belief-system that's largely ignored the last few centuries and the Enlightenment; we need to work round it not with it, just as we need to work round the fundamentalists in Africa who refuse to accept condoms as an AIDS-preventive measure, or the 'religious right' in the USA who accept nothing-but-abstinence as the approach to preventing teen-pregnancy.

This is the third millennium: come on - religious dogma of all kinds is something humanity has surely grown out of!

[Lorraine Kenter]

So the Muslims are upset with decadent Britain. Here's a simple suggestion: Don't come to Britain if you don't like the culture and if you are already here get out!

[Paul Oakley]

Dr Fox at 18.45: obviously not (rolls eyes). However, I am unaware of a general wish amongst all Asian communities to act as Spartacus for the sake of a politically correct refusal to be specific.

[Peter]

Decadent Britain, see Bullingdon Club.

[Donal Blaney]

David Sargeant (17.47): I am not interested in knocking David Cameron and I am interested in a rational discussion about the difference between Islam (a religion) and Islamism (a nasty, intolerant expansionist creed). I can see that distinction as, I expect, can most people on here. I am puzzled why David Cameron cannot or will not. Quite how that makes me interested in knocking Cameron is beyond me. Would you prefer it if we all simply bowed down and paid homage and never discussed anything critically again..?

[RodS]

Cameron has lost the plot big-time. Yes we are breeding a growing dependent underclass that must be anathema to muslim/islamic sensitivities, but the cause of that is simple . The Welfare State - and that is what Cameron should be attacking

[TomTom]

How would you feel if vile acts like the Crusades

What a highly politicised statement. What do you think was virtuous about Moslem armies sweeping from The Hejaz into Christian Syria having captured Jerusalem and seized Christian Holy Places ?

Why should Christian Churches and Cathedrals be turned into mosques and Christians forced to become Muslims or be murdered ?

The Crusades were just as "vile" as D-Day in 1944

[TomTom]

How would you feel if vile acts like the Crusades or the Spanish Inquisition were branded 'Christian terrorism'

The Spanish Inquisition was unique in that it was NOT under the control of the Church in Rome, but under direct control of Ferdinand and Isabella, King and Queen of Spain
]

The Inquisition was Castilian and designed to remove threats to the country which had just expelled the Mohammedan Occupiers. It was Ferdinand and Isabella which removed the Moors from Andalusia and liberated their country from foreign occupation

We can think of Charles Martel and Jan Sobieski who also had to keep the invaders at bay.

Just how the hordes from The Hejaz got to Tours or Vienna is a matter for some thought

[Vincent Bate]

So we should adapt to fit in with Asians should we, Dave? Where does the 'conserve' part of Conservativism come into play these days? What exactly are the traditional (indigenous) parts of British life you wish to do away with and how much do you want to destroy forever to welcome our newcomers?

[Ash Faulkner]

""Islamist" is perfectly distinct from "Islamic", distinguishing between a political ideology rooted in religion and a purely religious ideology."

I'm not sure it is. Someone mentioned Orwell, and they're right. Language is important. We here may be able to make the distinction between Islam and Islamist, but we're politically aware and interested, far more so I'd wager than the average citizen nowadays. Ask someone on the street what the difference between Islam and Islamism is and I'm not sure you'd get a satisfactory answer.

And that is a worrying proposition, because if it is true, it could, and probably would, have serious connotations for community relations and moderate Muslims (yikes, I sound like a lefty there... :P) Anyone recall the story about the paediatrician getting his house egged or something?

I agree with Christina, jihadist is equally inappropriate - if not moreso. Though I think the term has been hijacked beyond all true recognition, so perhaps we might as well give ground and use it as it is now seen? (See: liberal :P)

[DrFoxNews]

However, I am unaware of a general wish amongst all Asian communities to act as Spartacus for the sake of a politically correct refusal to be specific. - Paul Oakley

And I am unaware of a general wish amongst the majority of the Moslem community to act as Spartacus for the sake of pig-headed ignorance of the fact that extremist Jihadist terrorists are not representative of mainstream Islam.

[Alan S]

There is no way that British society can be made to appeal to Islamic fundamentalists by tackling what the Editor calls "decadence". In order to satisfy the extremists we must outlaw homosexuality, heavily restrict women's freedoms and make Christian worship almost impossible.

[Martin Wright]

Rod Liddle had a pithy riposte in the Sunday Times along the lines of: "what should we call them then, "Methodist terrorists?".

Don't people understand that the function of an adjective is to limit a larger group e.g. Islamist terrorists from Irish terrorists or Tamil terrorists.

Any one has even the most rudimentary knowledge of grammar and logic would know that using the term "Islamist (or even Muslim) terrorist" does not mean that we think all Muslims are terrorists.

Cameron's stance is yet another example of the modern trend of avoiding plain speech and resorting to euphemism. It is ridiculous to think that avoiding the term "Islamic/ist terrorism" is suddenly going to improve community relations or the internal security situation. That is just a cosmetic matter;the problems are far more deep rooted.

[Sean Fear]

" am sorry Sean, but I think the reasons for young Muslim men becoming more radicalised is no different today than what happened in Ireland in the 70's. Look at what happened then, internment or a badly bungled street search during the night did as much as a recruitment drive for the IRA as 90 day detention without arrest or trial and raids with the whole media circus we saw in Birmingham does for terrorist groups today."

I'm afraid that's just making excuses for terrorism. There is no moral equivalence between being detained for a while by the police, OTOH, and blowing up a restaurant on the other. The security forces did not create the IRA, and they aren't creating Islamist terrorism today. Neither Catholics in the Seventies, nor Muslims today, were/are oppressed groups.

[Paul Oakley]

Dr Fox @ 20.50.

Calm down dear.

[Ash Faulkner]

Martin Wright, I empathise with where you're coming from, and of course, logically speaking, you're absolutely right. But words aren't just a combination of letters: some are indescribably important to people (witness how Jews omit the 'o' from the name 'God'). Islam is one such word.

It's difficult for someone who isn't a Muslim to appreciate, but just imagine for a moment that there is one word that epitomises everything you believe and stand for, that can define your character and your beliefs, that explains your way of life and teaches you how to live in what you view as a good manner. Let's call that word...I don't know, Thatcherism? *chuckles*

To then see that word connected with terrorism is surely hugely offensive to anyone that considers themselves a moderate - and there are millions of them that we should be getting on board, not pushing away.

For many Muslims, the words 'Islam' and 'terrorism' are completely incompatable, so in fact, it is not logical in the slightest: the term 'Islamic terrorism' is an oxymoron.

We need to appreciate this. I'm not saying we should get a new phrase (I personally have used the term 'Islamofascist' on regular occasions), but what I am saying is that we need to understand that the words we choose are important.

I'm all for speaking plainly, and am certainly a practioner of it myself. But one has to appreciate that different words and phrases carry different meanings for different people. If this is a war of ideas, we need to outline what those ideas are - and what they're called does matter.

[Bernard]

Does anyone think that a muslim knowing what they say to cameron will be in print, will really tell him what is in thier heart. A muslim that recently converted to Christianity wrote and article recently. He said that when 9/11 happened, they told Christians how awful and barbaric it was and to not lay the blame on the average Muslim. then on the way home he remembers all of them Praised Alla for the victory. Mr Cameron is simply a pawn. these people are fanatics but not STUPID !

[Editor]

Melanie Phillips' take on the issue: The soft brainlessness of denying ‘Islamist terror’.

You are right, Alan (2055), that some concessions to what some Islamists want are too much but a liberal society should still be concerned that it remains a decent society, able to be welcoming to moderate Muslims.

[V]

David Cameron is right that the terrorists need to be disassociated from the religion they claim. However, that’s not within a British politician's power.

If Republican or Loyalist terrorists had claimed to be acting in the name of the Catholic or Protestant religions, their churches would have swiftly disowned them. The Muslim religion is currently too divided to do the same thing.

Moderate Muslims have to fight the likes of Abu Hamza for possession of their religion. Until that battle is fought and won, they cannot satisfactorily disown the terrorists that claim their name.

[Scotty]

"I'm afraid that's just making excuses for terrorism."
Rubbish, I am trying to point out that we have a problem with home grown terrorism and we are in danger of making the same mistakes as we did in N.Ireland in the 70's when our methods of combating this ended up with the opposite of what we intended. I do not think that ignoring the problem of why some youngsters become more radicalised instead of addressing those problems is in any way making excuses for terrorism.
I think what happened recently in Birmingham and the whole way the media were involved because they were being briefed was damaging.

[Simon Newman]

This is all very depressing, both for what it says about Cameron and for what it says about the people he was staying with.

[Lorraine]

It IS Islam itself which is mired in violence, hatred of all others, repression of women, and out for global conquest. Those Muslims who have a revisionist view of this doctrine are themselves afraid to speak out lest their vastly more numerous co-religionists seek THEIR deaths along along with the others these fanatics have marked for extermination (which is basically the entire rest of the world).
Now these fanatics want to dictate the language of the struggle in order to further confuse their addled Western appologists. Shame on you Mr Cameron. How much Saudi oil money has been contributed to your campaign?

[Andrew Lilico]

Let's distinguish between four models of dealing with immigrants. First, there is separate development, the old South African model - in this case, the immigrants are never accepted as fully part of the host country.

Second, assimilation - in this model immigrants can become part of the host, but only if they take on the host country culture. This, as we all know, is the French model - unlike in South Africa, any immigrant (regardless of race) can come to be accepted as French, but only by learning to speak elegant French, wearing Parisian fashions and recognising roquefort as the greatest of all cheeses.

Third, multiculturalism. This has been the British model at least since the 1950s. Immigrants can be accepted as fully part of the host country without adopting the indigenous culture, instead pursuing their own separate cultures. This is in some ways close to the South African model (cultural development is separate) but without (at least in principle) differing civic status.

Fourth, synthesis. This was the traditional American model - immigrants entered into the "melting pots" of the great US cities, where their incoming cultures blended with the indigenous culture, neither dominating the other, but still producing a final culture that is vastly more homogenous than the multi-cultural model.

Personally, in terms of an ideal I am torn between the multicultural and synthesis models, probably tending towards the latter.

Now Cameron says that the indigenous culture should adapt to make itself loveable by immigrant communities. He notes that indigenous communities are easily caricatured as being dominated by decadent elements that immigrants should rightly fear being tainted by (drugs, crime, divorce, etc.). But if he is right in this (as I think he is), isn't he really being much too generous to the indigenous culture? Insofar as materialist secular consumerism ends in these expressions of nihilism, isn't its proper doom just simply unlamented extinction? It isn't that we should adapt ourselves to devout disciplined loving stable muslim immigrants. Rather, we should want to be like them! If we can use an injection of muslim piety to re-circumscribe and re-focus our own lot, then great! Let's do it. Let's synthesize our cultures with theirs to produce something superior to either.

But on the other hand, insofar as we find elements of immigrant communities not an improvement on our own, we should again not adapt ourselves. We should not treat women as property, or circumcise young girls, or pursue honour degradation (or murder). We ought not to adapt ourselves to these things. Instead, they should adapt themselves to us - synthesis includes both parties.

Thus I feel that this urging to adapt needs to come with more caveats and unpacking than Cameron has offered so far. If he is telling us to synthesize with them, ok, I can understand the thought. But there is a bit more to it than just being polite and hospitable - which is all he made clear he had in mind...

[TomTom]

Second, assimilation - in this model immigrants can become part of the host, but only if they take on the host country culture. This, as we all know, is the French model -

It is actually the model which worked effectively in Great Britain until the absorption of large groups of illiterate peasants from Kashmir who failed to learn English, failed to adapt to the culture, and bunkered down in village ghettoes isolating themselves like colonists.

No other group has been so difficult to socialise into this country as Pakistani and North African Muslims.

Their "community leaders" did not want to lose power over their tribe and in return for public funding ie. pork barrel they delivered votes en-bloc

I fully expect henceforth David Cameron to preface his remarks by saying terrorists whose aim is the imposition of an Islamic Caliphate throughout the earth

or simply terrorists whose political aims are the imposition of a theocratic regime dedicated to Allah and the imposition of Sharia

That is so much more precise.

[Adam]

Hmmm. The thrust of a lot of comments on this thread seems to be that words don't matter. That, alas, is garbage.

Words are massively important. They're why Gordon Brown doesn't hand out means-tested state benefits, he gives you tax credits. Labour hasn't doubled spending on the NHS, it's doubled investment. It's why in 2005 no-one talked about limiting the number of refugees admitted to Britain, but only about immigrants.

[Sean Fear]

Your argument is one of moral equivocation, Scotty. The security forces are bound to make mistakes in combatting terrorism - it's in the nature of people to make mistakes. Their mistakes don't create the terrorists though, or give any justification for their actions.

WRT naming, we use terms such as Republican or Loyalist terrorism, notwithstanding that many Republicans and Loyalists disavow terrorism.

[TomTom]

Labour hasn't doubled spending on the NHS, it's doubled investment.

The funny bit is that The Treasury transferred the NHS Pension fUnd from the Treasury to the NHS directly and that showed up in the Accounts as an "increase" in payroll costs.

Gordon is a master of dodgy accounting....I think I know which former Treasury Minister taught him too

[tired and emotional]

DC is making a terrible mistake by adopting this attitude towards Muslim violence and aggression.

He can try and pretend - along with CH's well-meaning but ill-informed apologists for Muslim terror tactics - that the source of Muslim violence is not Muhummad's teachings. But he is wrong.

He can try and pretend that the revelations Muhammad claimed to have had from Allah, which are described in the Koran, elaborated in the sira and backed up by centuries of mainstream Islamic jurisprudence still very much in force today, do not, variously, describe non-Muslims as of lesser value than Muslims, legitimise and indeed prescribe acts of violence against non-Muslims that further the cause of Allah, forbid friendship between Muslims and non-Muslims and mandate death for those that dare to leave the Islamic faith.

None of those realities can be addressed by falsely moderating the language the victims of Muslim violence might use to describe the violence they have suffered.

Furthermore, those who attempt to lump all religions into the same pot by pointing to, for example, parts of the Old Testament conveniently ignore the fact that Jesus came as the 'prince of peace' eschewing violence and turning the other cheek to it.

Muhammad came as a war leader explicitly exhorting his followers to fight and kill those who not only oppose them but simply opt not to accept Islam or an Islamic overlord.

The difference should be plain to anyone. Christians may have made mistakes and misplaced their zeal at times in the last 2000 years but that just makes them bad Christians, as they have failed to live up to the ideals of their inspiration, Jesus.

But when Muslims commit acts of violence and oppression, when they lie and cheat to trick gullible non-Muslims while consolidating their strength, and while they view the world as the site of an unceasing struggle between Islam and the kuffar they are merely following the direct instructions and orders of their inspiration Muhammad. They are behaving as good Muslims should do, and are instructed to by every mainstream Islamic religious text available – emulating the man they believe to be a prophet and the exemplar of their faith, Muhammad.

That is why the problem we face is so serious and DC's comments are so very foolish.

[Sean Fear]

There have been many Muslim states that have been enlightened and tolerant towards unbelievers, T & E, and they presumably thought they were acting in accordance with the principles of Islam. So, although I'm not Islamic scholar myself, I'd suggest your interpretation is wrong.

But it is undoubtedly the case now that the majority of states in which you'll be severely persecuted for your religious beliefs are Islamic ones.

[tired and emotional]

Which enlighted Muslim states did you have in mind, Sean?

[tired and emotional]

Which enlightened Muslim states did you have in mind, Sean?

[Sean Fear]

At varying periods in the history, the Abbasid and Ummayed Caliphates, the Ottoman and Moghul Empires, and Muslim Spain were (by the standards of the day) tolerant towards non-Muslims.

[tired and emotional]

It may be true that the Islamic empires and states you mention did not, at times in their history, kill and oppress their non-Muslim citizens as a matter of policy. My grasp of the history of those states is not in depth, I admit.

But the problem I have is that even if that is true it does not invalidate one iota of what I have already written about Islam and Muhammad's teaching.

The fact that Islamic empires went through peaceful periods while they consolidated their hold on their lands and peoples they had conquered (decadent or not) is in accordance with Muhammad's teaching that Muslims do not always need to fight war against the kuffar, when Islam is weak or over-extended it is permitted to make treaties and consolidate. Those treaties of course do not bind Muslims, they are merely a ruse to be abandoned when expedient (Iran, anyone?).

Further, Muhammad also made it quite clear that conquered non-Muslims were not automatically to be killed. After all, slaves are valuable and empires and conquest are expensive.

Conquered non-Muslims would be offered three choices by Muhammad

1. Convert to Islam
2. Accept the low rank status of dhimmi and pay a special poll tax
3. Be killed

So the fact that Muslim empires have paused in their slaughter and oppression when it has suited them, and have needed to maintain a cowed populace to operate economically does not change or conflict wtih the views that lie at the heart of Islam. The views I mention above. Views for which you and I could be imprisoned if we were to propagate today.

My interpretation is not wrong, sad to say.

[Stephen Tolkinghorne]

"the Ottoman (Empire)"

Would that be the same enlightened Ottoman Empire who under took genocide against the Christian Armenians ? Very 'enlightened' indeed !

As for these other 'enlightened' Islamic cultures, they still made all non-believers live in Dhimmitude - thus, they had far fewer rights and protection in law than the Muslims. I don't think I'd be too keen to live under them, being a Kuffa.

[Adam]

So, Tired & Emotional, what's your solution to the problem you think you've identified?

Round up all the Muslims and deport them?

Fines for not attending Eucharist on Sundays?

Reintroduction of the Test Act?

[TomTom]

Reintroduction of the Test Act?

That has distinct merit. Which one are you thinking of - 1661, 1672, or 1678 ?

How do you think it should be introduced, as a Private Member's Bill or a manifesto commitment ?

[TomTom]

There have been many Muslim states that have been enlightened and tolerant towards unbelievers,

Living in the 21st Century as we must...name a good example of this tolerance today

[tired and emotional]

Adam, any solution has to begin with an acceptance and understanding of the true nature of the problem. This thread is about Cameron’s apparent failure to do either.

Any attempt to decouple the terrorism we see being carried out by non-state actors and by states from Islam is, as Melanie Phillips has said, ‘soft-headed brainlessness’.

Just because accepting the truth about the Islamic faith leaves one facing choices that seem very stark does not mean we can afford to close our eyes to that reality.

And, in fact, there are many things we can do once we move past pretending. Things that do not involve deporting people on the basis of their religion. This is not yet an Islamic state.

I do however have no problem with stopping further people from entering based on their religion, this we must do if we do not want this country to become an Islamic state.

I would say that one key element of our response would be not to accept any immigrants from outside of the EU for, say, ten years. This would chime with the feelings of many UK citizens of all faiths.

If we want to allow a tiny number of immigrants from outside the EU then they should be subject to a tight points system based on any requirements our economy has, not on ‘fairness’ or any other spurious post-imperial guilt motive.

I would also envisage a tough security filter that would also be overlaid on to any visitor applying for either a tourist visa or a work-related visa or applying to immigrate. The terms of this filter would be related to national security and therefore secret.

The trick is to stop imagining that we are helpless and must begin persecuting people who are already here. We do not, nor should we. But we have a duty to make sure that the malign influence present among Muslims in Britain is not allowed to grow in number and strength. Those Muslims who reject the notion that Islam requires them to ignore their common humanity with non-Muslims will never shout down those who regard non-Muslims as less than human. Waiting for Muslims to police themselves is, for the reasons I have outlined at length, expecting them to reject thirteen hundred years of dogma and tradition and risk death to boot. Ain’t gonna happen.

We must show some resolve and find the backbone to make unpopular choices now before the situation becomes impossible.

[Ross]

Cameron is a disgrace. Why should mainstream Brits have to 'integrate' with uninvited foreigners who clearly should be sent packing? If they can't integrate with Britain, or don't wish to, they should never have come. And they'd do us a favour of they took Cameron with them. His kind have dragged us down so far. Immigrants, street-louts, deviants, all panderd to if not lionised, and he sticks the boot into the grammar schools just for good measure.

[Christopher]

Circa 1938:
"Mmm..perhaps we ought not to use terms like 'Nazi'...or even German??...Quite right, it only does their work for them...after all..it's not only Nazis or ..pardon me..GERMANS..that are the threat...Quite so, old boy...perhaps we might say..."Trans-Rhenish Extremists?...or..dear me.. is 'extremist' a bit too..well...extreme?"

[kiveErevY]

Действительно полезняк! А то сколько не лазишь по нету сплошное бла бла бла. Но не тут, и это радует!