Den britiske organisasjonen med det malplasserte navnet Islamsk Menneskerettighetskommisjon (IHRC) har utnevnt Charlie Hebdos massakrerte redaksjon til «Årets Internasjonale Islamofob». På hjemmebane gikk prisen «Årets Islamofob» til Maajid Nawaz.
Nawaz er medgrunnlegger av den liberale og anti-islamistiske Quilliamstiftelsen. I 2013 fikk han flere dødstrusler fra islamister etter å ha retwitret en Jesus og Mo-tegning, mens en partikollega i Liberaldemokratene, Mohammed Shafiq, iverksatte en kampanje for å få ham fjernet fra partiet.
– Jeg har alltid behandlet arrangementet «Årets Islamofob» med den forakten det fortjener, skriver Douglas Murray, som selv er blitt nominert flere ganger, i The Spectator.
I have always treated the ‘Islamophobe of the Year’ event with the scorn it deserves. Not least because each year this fantasy prize for a fantasy concept is run by a British Khomeinist organisation laughably named the ‘Islamic Human Rights Commission.’ The nominees include anybody opposed to the agenda of Islamic extremists, including Muslims. Of course each year, whilst laughing at it, those of us who are regular nominees also regard it as being to our great good fortune that the IHRC is a British charity operating in the United Kingdom rather than an Islamic charity operating in an Islamic country. If the latter were the case then rather than laughing at the IHRC every year, those of us who it annually attacks would be hanging from cranes.
Murray finner det imidlertid vanskeligere å le denne gangen. Årsaken er at pristildelingen ser ut til å vinne terreng i det omgivende samfunn og nå støttes av navn som tidligere erkebiskop Rowan Williams og The Telegraphs Peter Oborne.
However, readers will perhaps excuse me if the laughter is slightly quieter this year. The first reason is that the ‘Islamophobe of the Year’ award seems to be gaining ‘mainstream’ ground. This year the awards were not only endorsed by Islamic extremists on the one hand and pseudo-academics like Arun Kundnani on the other, but also by a number of more prominent public figures including the former Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams and former Telegraph journalist Peter Oborne.
Det er lite som bedre avslører IHRCs agenda enn det faktum at de utnevner Nawaz til islamofob, mener Murray. IHRC og deres tilhengere later nemlig til å ha mye til felles med ekstreme muslimer når det gjelder liberale muslimer som Nawaz:
However the UK award for ‘Islamophobe of the Year’ did go to Maajid Nawaz. It would be hard to invent a better display of the agenda of the IHRC and the people involved with it. Because of course Maajid has devoted his life to, and risks his life by, attacking the extremists within the Islamic faith – his faith. The IHRC and their supporters seem to have much in common with fundamentalist and extremist Muslims, in that both are deeply irritated by the few brave Muslims like Nawaz. Indeed they hate him even more than they hate people like me. Readers will have to guess what variety of Islamic group might choose to attack liberal Muslims, what this says about their agenda and what it tells us about the intelligence of the people who support them.
Den andre grunnen til at det er vanskelig å le er selvfølgelig det mildt sagt smakløse i å ha en seremoni der man utnevner en redaksjon hvis 12 medlemmer ble myrdet av islamister til islamofob. Men dette er et vanlig mønster, skriver Murray:
Islamske terrorister trenger seg gjennom hovedinngangen med kalashnikov-rifler, mens et helt nettverk av sympatisører forsøker å snike seg inn bakdøren for å forklare hvorfor tegnere og journalister egentlig fortjente det.
But there is another reason why my laughter is lessened this year. Although I am assured that the laughter at the IHRC’s ‘ceremony’ in London on Saturday was as raucous as ever, this weekend the IHRC gave their international ‘Islamophobe of the Year’ award to the left-wing French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo. This might be thought laughable in any other circumstances. The IHRC, one should remember, is a registered British charity. But of course it is not very funny, because only two months ago another group of people who thought Charlie Hebdo is ‘Islamophobic’ went into the magazine’s offices and gunned down their journalists and cartoonists. This is the way the pattern works now – the Islamic terrorists break through the front door with Kalashnikovs and then a whole network of fellow travellers try to sneak in through the back door and explain why the cartoonists and journalists might have had it coming.
Of course the IHRC and their supporters like to pretend that Muslims in Europe are being ‘otherised’ in the manner of Jews in Nazi Germany. But nothing could be further from the truth. Not just because it was concentration camps rather than ‘othering’ which was the main issue in Germany in the middle of the last century. But also because Muslims in Europe enjoy full equal rights – far more so than in any Islamic country in the world today or ever. If there are any negative feelings towards elements of the Muslim community it is towards the extremists. And why shouldn’t people hate those who blow up trains and buses, crash planes into buildings, shoot at free speech seminars and synagogues and target Christians, Hindus, Jews and liberal Muslims around the world?
Hvis de negative holdningene skulle ende opp med å bli mer utbredt og i større grad rettet mot det muslimske miljøet som helhet, vil årsaken være at et økende antall ikke-muslimer begynner å legge merke til at det samme miljøet later til å være kapable til ikke bare å produsere den typen mennesker som er villige til å slakte journalister og tegnere, men også i ettertid bidra med en rekke pseudoliberale organisasjoner som sammenligner ofrene – istedet for gjerningsmennene – med nazister, skriver Murray og avslutter:
– Jeg håper IHRC og deres tilhengere hadde det morsomt under prisutdelingen i helgen, leende mens de svertet og hånet døde journalister. For mitt vedkommende er dette en god påminnelse om hva den sivilierte verden står overfor, ute såvel som hjemme.