A Hijab Protector 'Honors' London's Dead

Rajnaara C. Akhtar, a British Muslim activist and the acting chair of the Assembly for the Protection of Hijab, has an op-ed article in The Independent that follows an all-too-familiar pattern. At some length, she pays lip service to the horror of the London bombings. Muslims and non-Muslims are in this together, Akhtar assures us. So far so good, and she could have graciously left it at that. But alas. Akhtar then focuses on her real concerns by alleging that the bombings are — wait for it — twice as terrible for her and her fellow believers as for anyone else, because Muslims now must fear the terrorists in their midst as well as reprisals from 'white' Brits.

I'm still waiting for an Islamic spokesperson who can, with a modicum of respect, acknowledge the casualties of a terrorist attack without following that statement with the word but, and without protesting that Muslims are the real victims here.

No dice. Once Akhtar gets going, there's no stopping her:

Ironically, the universally respected scholars such as Tariq Ramadan are being targeted as extremists although merely scratching the surface of the accusations against him reveal their acute flaws. By creating a villain out of the voices of reason and reconciliation, Muslims are being deprived of their most eloquent spokespeople and subsequently the ability to adequately defend against false accusations. The mainstream media needs to take responsibility for its actions and seriously consider the incitement that misrepresentation of Islam and Muslims in Britain can set in motion. By sensationalising this tragedy, our communities are being torn apart.

It's a paragraph short on facts and logic, and otherwise notable for its oddly violent imagery.

It apparently hasn't dawned on Ms. Akhtar that the "torn apart" comment, in particular, might not be in the best of taste considering the July 7 explosions that blew dozens of perfectly innocent Londoners to actual, not metaphorical, smithereens. A few unrestrained newspaper articles are hardly the equivalent of a ten-pound bomb detonated in a crowded subway car.

As for Tariq Ramadan, he cannot be both "universally respected" and frequently "targeted as an extremist"; one statement rules out the other. More to the point, the "universally respected" scholar, this "voice of reason and reconciliation," is on record as saying that Osama Bin Laden may not have been behind 9/11, and that every Muslim must strive for the worldwide implementation of Sharia law (Mr. Ramadan until recently supported stoning for Sharia violators). This is perhaps not overly surprising from a man whose grandfather founded the radical Muslim Brotherhood. Lineage aside, Ramadan is also on record as calling the terrorist bombings on Bali and in Madrid, as well as the horrors of 9/11, mere "interventions," instead of, oh I don't know — craven thuggery and unmitigated mass murder.

Why someone with his viewpoints is invoked in a newspaper article purporting to honor the dead and wounded in London is a question only Rajnaara Akhtar can answer. Perhaps she'll grace us with her insight when her hijab-protecting duties let up for a few moments.

Comments

[Martin Owens]

Here's a quote from Kipling which I think covers the situation quite nicely:

"It is cheaper to induce your enemy to cut his own throat for what you have persuaded him are lofty motives than to do it for him against his will. And this is the essence of the New Model War—to create ill-will, which is the mother of despair, and through that ill-will to exploit the damnable streak in each of us .... The rest follows by itself."

It's from a speech he made in 1925.