X

Create an account to continue reading.

Registered readers have access to our blogs and a limited number of magazine articles
For unlimited access to The Spectator, subscribe below

Registered readers have access to our blogs and a limited number of magazine articles

Sign in to continue

Already have an account?

What's my subscriber number?

Subscribe now from £1 a week

Online

Unlimited access to The Spectator including the full archive from 1828

Print

Weekly delivery of the magazine

App

Phone & tablet edition of the magazine

Spectator Club

Subscriber-only offers, events and discounts
 
View subscription offers

Already a subscriber?

or

Subscribe now for unlimited access

ALL FROM JUST £1 A WEEK

View subscription offers

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

Thank you for creating an account – Your subscriber number was not recognised though. To link your subscription visit the My Account page

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

X

Login

Don't have an account? Sign up
X

Subscription expired

Your subscription has expired. Please go to My Account to renew it or view subscription offers.

X

Forgot Password

Please check your email

If the email address you entered is associated with a web account on our system, you will receive an email from us with instructions for resetting your password.

If you don't receive this email, please check your junk mail folder.

X

It's time to subscribe.

You've read all your free Spectator magazine articles for this month.

Subscribe now for unlimited access – from just £1 a week

You've read all your free Spectator magazine articles for this month.

Subscribe now for unlimited access

Online

Unlimited access to The Spectator including the full archive from 1828

Print

Weekly delivery of the magazine

App

Phone & tablet edition of the magazine

Spectator Club

Subscriber-only offers, events and discounts
X

Sign up

What's my subscriber number? Already have an account?

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

Thank you for creating an account – Your subscriber number was not recognised though. To link your subscription visit the My Account page

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

X

Your subscriber number is the 8 digit number printed above your name on the address sheet sent with your magazine each week.

Entering your subscriber number will enable full access to all magazine articles on the site.

If you cannot find your subscriber number then please contact us on customerhelp@subscriptions.co.uk or call 0330 333 0050.

You can create an account in the meantime and link your subscription at a later time. Simply visit the My Account page, enter your subscriber number in the relevant field and click 'submit changes'.

Please note: Previously subscribers used a 'WebID' to log into the website. Your subscriber number is not the same as the WebID. Please ensure you use the subscriber number when you link your subscription.

Blogs Coffee House

Why does David Cameron refuse to admit that the terrorist attack in Nairobi is linked to Islam?

23 September 2013

3:51 PM

23 September 2013

3:51 PM

Do you know the name of Muhammed’s mother? No, me neither. I can manage the names of two of his wives and his Christian concubine, plus his daughter, but not his mother. The matter was, however, of more than academic interest when gunmen took over the Westgate shopping centre in Nairobi. According to witnesses, members of the public were lined up and then gunned down if they failed to name the mother of the founder of Islam or recite verses from the Koran. Those lucky enough to be able to speak Arabic — possibly passages from the Koran — were let go. The rest were fair game.

Now, whatever else you can say about these individuals, I think we can agree, can’t we, that religion looms quite large in their world view? I mean, if knowledge of the Koran or Muhammaed’s immediate family is a reason for them to shoot people or not, then I think we can assume that the Islamic faith is, rightly or wrongly, a factor in what they’re doing.

So why was it, do you think, that David Cameron, in making a statement today about the killings, observed:

‘These appalling terrorist attacks that take place where the perpetrators claim they do it in the name of a religion – they don’t. They do it in the name of terror, violence and extremism and their warped view of the world. They don’t represent Islam or Muslims in Britain or anywhere else in the world.’

[Alt-Text]


But that’s precisely what these men didn’t do. They didn’t declare that their motivation was terror, violence or unspecified extremism. What they did mention, besides references to mujahedeen and kaffirs, if the Twitter messages allegedly from them are authentic, is the presence of Kenyan soldiers in Somalia. ‘The attack at Westgate mall,’ went one of them, ‘is just a very tiny fraction of what Muslims in Somalia experience at the hands of Kenyan invaders.’ So, it may well be that they are Somali patriots resentful at the presence of African Union troops in their country, but this is not to exclude religion from the picture, since they themselves go out of their way to make a point of it.

And while it is undoubtedly true that their actions were, are, abhorrent to the great majority of Muslims in Britain and elsewhere — certainly all the ones I know — it’s really not the case, is it, that they don’t represent Islam or Muslims anywhere in the world. They represent, to their own satisfaction, a strand of Islam which is very unwelcome to many moderate Muslims but which does have a basis in the religion and their understanding of it.

Al Shabaab — ‘the youth’ — was originally the radical youth wing of Somalia’s Union of Islamic Courts in 2006. They fought Ethiopian forces that were backing the then-government. And in the areas under its control they imposed an extreme version of Sharia law to the point of stoning to death women accused of adultery and amputating the hands of thieves. This sort of thing is frowned on in moderate Muslim states, but whatever else you can say about it, it is intended to conform to the strictest precepts of Islam — there is an account in one reasonably reputable source about Muhammad approving the stoning of an adulteress and her lover.

So why does the PM pretend otherwise? Really we’re back in post 7/7 territory, when the Home Secretary, Jacqui Smith, declared that Islamic terrorism would henceforth be labelled ‘anti-Islamic activity’. Certainly, the actions of extremists had a grave effect on ordinary Muslims, but this was by any reckoning an abuse of language. It failed to catch on.

If the prime minister had merely observed that the actions of the Kenyan jihadists are abhorrent to the great majority of Muslims and certainly the great majority of British Muslims, no one would have disagreed. Indeed, we can take it as read, I think, that his remarks were motivated by an honourable wish to disassociate moderate Muslims from the actions of men whose actions revolt them, and to discourage those who might wish to take out their indignation about the Kenyan atrocities on some unfortunate newsagent in Hackney. But to say that al Shabaab and its representatives in the Westgate shopping mall don’t represent Muslims or Islam anywhere in the world is simply untrue and if we try to deal with jihadis on the basis that they are unspecified extremists rather than people with a very pronounced religious ideology, it’s not really adding to our understanding of what has happened or our ability to prevent something similar happening here.

Subscribe to The Spectator today for a quality of argument not found in any other publication. Get more Spectator for less – just £12 for 12 issues.


Show comments
Close