The Banning Of Islam4UK

From tomorrow, the extremist Islamic society Islam4UK will be banned. Alan Johnson, Home Secretary, said it was “not a cause we take lightly”. The group recently sparked media attention with their planned protest in the town of Wotton Bassett, infamous for the processions of hearses that pass through the town from RAF Lyneham.

In reaction to the ban, Islam4UK’s website stated that

It is the duty of all Muslims to rise up and call for the Khilafah wherever they may be.

[...]

When one looks at the terrorism act one can see that the majority of the organisations that have been proscribed under it are Muslim based, in other words, terrorism for the British regime translates as anyone calling for the implementation of the Shari'ah and the liberation of Muslim land.

This call for the new caliphate is one that should disturb the minds of all decent people. The restoration of an oppressive totalitarian regime under sharia is a serious threat to global peace and freethought. Apostasy, the ability to de-convert, or in other words, think for yourself, is commonly punished by Nigerian sharia courts with stoning.

The Archbishop of Canterbury controversially last year, and with plenty of hostile reaction, stated that he felt the implementation of sharia law was inevitable. The archbishop’s website states that

When the question was put to him that: “the application of sharia in certain circumstances – if we want to achieve this cohesion and take seriously peoples’ religion – seems unavoidable?”, he indicated his assent.

The idea that one standard of justice can apply to one set of people and not to the rest, simply because of poor medieval pseudo-ethical belief systems, is simply not how a liberal democracy can function. Everyone is equal before the eyes of the law, regardless of thier beliefs - correct or incorrect. The Archbishop clearly bent too far backwards trying to make moves towards building bridges between communities of different faiths.

The banning of Islam4UK, a branch of Al-Muhajiroun, under the 2006 Terrorism act, though it seems supported across the UK Parliament, has not been well-received by others. Comedian David Mitchell, writing in the Guardian before the announcement, criticized Home Secretary Alan Johnson’s initial support for the ban.

The thing about freedom of speech is that people are allowed to say offensive, indefensible things; that we needn't fear that because we're sure that wiser counsels are more likely to convince. "Let the idiots and bullies speak openly and they will be revealed for what they are!" is the idea. It's a brilliant one and, in confident, educated societies, it almost always works – certainly much more often than any of the alternatives. Why has Alan Johnson lost confidence in this principle?

[...]

We don't have to show the slightest respect for other people's views – just for their right to hold them. Respect, after all, must be earned. It's only freedom of speech that's a right. When someone says something which you find stupid or offensive, you can say something back. You can tell them to fuck off. They don't have to, but they've still been told.

Maybe that's not your idea of utopia – millions of people screaming: "Fuck off" at each other – but it beats banning it, making an opinion against the law.

Unfortunately for Mitchell, in the society advocated by Islam4UK, his pronouncements would get him killed - he would be screaming “fuck off”, but his Islamic counterpart would likely be wielding a weapon. It is the paradox of tolerance – should we grant it to those who would deny it to us? The risk is too great in this case.

Islam4UK leader Anjem Choudary stated on a Sky news interview, defending the memory of innocent victims of the ‘war on terror’ that "you’re talking about a violation of ordinary rights of individuals”. (Unfortunately, this video was uploaded by a supporter of the equally disgusting political party the BNP. It seems that a good deal of the criticism of Islam4UK is coming from the extreme right wing – a lamentable affair) This is coming from the lips of a man who supports “Sheik” Osama Bin Laden and the erection of a law that allows arcane punishments (thieves are liable to amputation), who supports slavery as advocated by sharia and would will the establishment of a tyrannical global Islamic empire.

Threats to civil discourse, democracy and freedom of thought like this should be oppressed at the quickest opportunity since they deny those very same rights to others. A paradox, but one we must be satisfied with.