Tuesday, October 24, 2006

Muslim Action Committee Representative Supports Political Violence

In the comments to this post, Ismaeel-Hanif Hijazi, a representative and spokesman for the allegedly moderate Muslim Action Committee, made the following comment:

Ismaeel said...

I believe people shouldn't be threatened or attacked if they make reasoned and informed criticisms. However when they are gratuitiously insulting and provoking, my stance is somewhat less rigid. After all isn't a provocation a defence in English law? And we are after all discussing about freedom of expression within the context of obeying the law. In case you are in any doubt by the way i uphold obeying the law of the land in which you are a citizen with rights and duties.
(Emphasis added).

There's no getting round it. Ismaeel thinks that criticism is sufficient provocation for violence. The fact that he tries to argue this is within the law makes absolutely no difference.

The Muslim Action Committee was formed to organise demonstrations over the Danish cartoons controversy and made much of their "peaceful" and "non-violent" stance. They plainly retain the right to be violent if they consider it appropriate. They are closely allied with the Khomeinist Islamic Human Rights Committee and have been trying to stake a claim to public recognition on the back of that crisis and that organisation.


Ismaeel said...

3 Things

1) I made a general point about the law of this land, unsuprisingly you leapt on it as an opportunity for your now totally predictable sensationalism.
2)Political violence takes many forms- a just war is one of them, so of course i don't disavow every type of political violence.
3)The MAC was and is a non-violent non-political organisation and will remain as such, we are actually utterly uninterested in gaining some sort of prominence, you may have noticed we have made hardly any posts since we finished off your march, we only get involved when necessary
4) (i know i said 3) I'm not discussing with you as a spokesperson of MAC, i'm talking to you as a private individual.

Please grow up Peter and stop with the schoolyard oneupmanship

Peter Risdon said...

1. No, you made a specific assertion about violence in the face of criticism, and backed it up with a generalised claim that this would have the legal defense of provocation.

2. You were talking about responses to criticism, not just war. That is, if someone criticises your religion it constitutes provocation that justifies violence. Of course, it's just that kind of lock-down on reasonable and democratic debate that MAC campaigned for.

3. So why write an article here trying to raise your profile because: "There is also an element of attempting to dismiss us and play down our significance in favour of other Muslim organizations that are active in the Stop the War Coalition and Respect party such as MAB (Muslim Association of Britain)."

4. I think it's just that the mask slipped, Ismaeel.

Ismaeel said...

1. i made it quite clear that it was not in response to criticism of Islam but to provocation
2.as above
3.Long time ago, we've got bigger fish to fry
4.yes yours

Ismaeel said...

"dialogue" updated on my blog.

Peter Risdon said...

But not here, I notice. Unintended irony is the best kind.

Ismaeel said...

just as u didnt add urs to mine, i give people the benefit of the doubt of being able to move from one blog to another without too much mental exertion.