In FrontPage this morning I discuss whether the election of Sadiq Khan is a triumph of multiculturalism or of Islamic supremacist deception – or both:
Labour Party candidate Sadiq Khan, a Muslim, has been elected mayor of London, and the international Left is thrilled. “Son of a Pakistani bus driver, champion of workers’ rights and human rights, and now Mayor of London. Congrats, @SadiqKhan. –H,” tweeted Hillary Clinton. Likewise happy are Islamic supremacists worldwide: members of the Pakistan Muslim League (Nawaz), the party of Pakistan’s Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif and the majority party in the nation’s National Assembly, held up a sign emblazoned: “Heartiest Congratulation [sic] to Sadiq Khan 1st Muslim Mayor of London who defeated millionaire Jew Zec [sic] Goldsmith.”
Those two messages summed up the dichotomy that characterizes the response to Sadiq Khan, and his own associations and intentions. Khan himself has written about the necessity to “ensure that the perception of Islam is not tainted by those with extremist views.” But his concern about this “taint” is relatively newly-minted: back in 2004, Khan spoke at a gender-segregated event entitled “Palestine — the suffering still goes on.” Also on the bill was Daud Abdullah of the Muslim Council of Britain; who once led a boycott of Holocaust Memorial Day; Ibrahim Hewitt, the chairman of Interpal, which the U.S. Treasury Department has designated a “global terrorist” organization for funneling money to Hamas; Muslim leader Azzam Tamimi, who has called for the destruction of Israel and its replacement with an Islamic state; Muslim cleric Suliman Gani, who has echoed the Qur’an (4:34) in saying that women should be “subservient” to men; Ismail Adam Patel of Friends of Al-Aqsa, who has claimed that “Hamas is no terrorist organization”; and Church of England cleric Stephen Sizer, who has blamed Israel for the 9/11 jihad terror attacks.
Khan and his supporters have cried foul at Khan’s being held responsible for the views of these men. Their hypocrisy is evident, however, since the Left’s various dossiers against foes of jihad terror rely heavily on guilt by association, and then, even more tendentiously, on guilt by association built upon its earlier smears of others. Nonetheless, Khan’s appearance at that long-ago event should really only cause concern if Khan holds such views.
Does he? In a 2009 interview with Iran’s state-controlled Press TV, Khan criticized the British government for working with moderate Muslim organizations, saying: “I wish we only spoke to people who agree with us. I can tell you that I’ve spent the last months in this job speaking to all sorts of people. Not just leaders, not just organizations but ordinary rank and file citizens of Muslim faith and that’s what good government is about, it’s about engaging with all stakeholders. You can talk about articles in the newspapers about what an organization might get but the point is you can’t just pick and choose who you speak to, you can’t just speak to Uncle Toms.” The “Uncle Toms” in question were the Quilliam Foundation, which is a declared foe of Islamic “extremism.”
- A letter to the Guardian in the wake of the 7/7 terrorist bombings on London, blaming terrorism on British Government policy;
- His legal defence of Zacarias Moussaoui, a 9/11 terrorist who confessed to being a member of Al Qaeda;
- His chapter in a book, entitled ‘Actions Against the Police’ which advises on how to bring charges against the police for “racism”. This is the same police force that Mr. Khan as London mayor would exercise authority over;
- His defence of Islamist extremist Azzam Tamimi. When Dr. Tamimi told a crowd that the publication of cartoons of the Prophet Muhammed would “cause the world to tremble” and predicted “Fire… throughout the world if they don’t stop”, Mr. Khan, who shared a platform with him, dismissed the threats as “flowery language”;
- His platform-sharing with Suliman Gani, a south London imam who has urged female subservience to men, and called for the founding of an Islamic state.
All this raises genuine concerns that as mayor of London, Khan will be less than energetic in protecting Londoners against jihad terrorism, or challenging Muslim communities in the U.K. to clean house. But when Khan’s opponents in the UK raised these and other concerns, they were excoriated as “racist.” Even the clueless and compromised dhimmi David Cameron was accused of “racism” for noting Khan’s hospitable attitude toward Islamic supremacists and jihadists.
This is the way these things always work nowadays: if you dare to mention that there are reasons to believe that a Muslim may be involved in jihad activity or, as in this case, clearly positive toward jihadists, it’s your fault, and a clear sign of “racism” and “Islamophobia,” even if the charges are accurate.
Leftists and Islamic supremacists have used such charges for years, and have succeeded in stigmatizing any discussion of how jihadists use the texts and teachings of Islam to justify violence and make recruits among peaceful Muslims as “bigotry” — which is why such discussions are so seldom pursued, and never in mainstream fora.
And so this Reuters story is all about how the wicked Conservatives are “unapologetic” for raising Khan’s ties to “extremists.” Reuters publishes no articles about the possible implications of Khan’s ties to “extremists.” The only concern is how “racist” the Conservative Party is.
In this environment, London marches happily into its brave new multicultural future, led by its Muslim mayor. Let’s hope it doesn’t blow up on them. But it probably will.