Mohammed Atif Siddique and ‘racism’

This is a cross-post of an article by Robin Simcox.

****

In September 2007, Mohammed Atif Siddique was jailed for eight years for various terror offences. The most serious of these charges – possession of an article for a purpose connected to terrorism – was quashed last week. The appeals judge, Lord Osborne, called the original verdict a ‘miscarriage of justice’, which is inevitably the headline that most of the press ran on. The impression given was that the British state was once again unfairly demonising its Muslim population.

What was missed in most of the reporting was that Lord Osborne was only referring to the main charge as a miscarriage of justice. Siddique’s convictions for providing instruction for the purposes of terrorism, circulating a terrorist publication and breach of the peace still stood. Looking through the court documents, it is clear that Siddique is an unapologetic admirer of al-Qaeda and its ideology. He amassed huge stocks of jihadist material and would regularly discuss his desire to become a suicide bomber. That he could be used as an example of how ‘discriminatory’ the British state is somewhat rankles, to say the least.

However the really depressing information to come out of the court documentation is how the Glasgow college Siddique attended utterly failed to deal with his increasingly extreme behaviour:

‘Stephen Aitken, who taught website development… had been concerned in the web design class that the appellant had been using the symbolism of black flags. He had sought, but failed to obtain, an explanation from the appellant as to why he was doing this, but the matter was taken no further.’‘Brian Glancey, who taught the use of information technology as a business resource, spoke of two occasions upon which he told the appellant to stop accessing the websites he was looking at, notably ones displaying images of Osama bin Laden and musings and exploits of suicide bombers. He had told the appellant that it was inappropriate to access what he called “terrorist websites”. He had reported that access to his line manager. Again nothing positive appeared to have been done about that…William Stein, who also taught aspects of desktop publishing, had also told the appellant to stop accessing what he considered to be “inappropriate sites” which contained the logo of a circle and a rifle, at about the time of Ken Bigley’s murder.’

So there were multiple occasions when Siddique’s tutors were aware of their pupil’s penchant for jihad. Yet nothing was done. Want to hazard a guess at to why?

‘The impression gained from the block of evidence concerned was that the staff were reluctant to do anything for fear of some accusation of racist conduct.’ [my emphasis]

This is textbook moral relativism. An unwillingness (or inability) to make a moral judgement results in college staff being afraid to act upon their student’s glorification of Osama bin Laden and other mass murderers because to do so would be ‘racist’. This is, ironically enough, about as racist as it gets. Assuming that Muslims can’t help themselves when it comes to supporting terrorist causes, pleasant, well-meaning people apply a much lower standard to their Muslim students then they would ever dream of applying to any other group.

It is precisely this kind of mindset that allowed Major Nidal Hassan’s erratic and extreme behaviour to go unnoticed in the US, and Umar Abdulmutallab’s here at UCL. It is also the mindset that still sees no problem with Islamic societies up and down the country to constantly host extremist speakers on university campus. It is prejudiced nonsense – and it needs to stop.

This entry was posted in Islamism, Moral relativism. Bookmark the permalink. Trackbacks are closed, but you can post a comment.

25 Comments

  1. abdullah
    Posted February 8, 2010 at 1:13 PM | Permalink

    Rather like people being afraid to condemn the Zionist states atrocities and genocide against the Palestinians out of fear of being called “anti-semitic” you mean?

    Or a certain commentator on here who condemns anyone who disagrees with him and his bull as being an anti-Bengali racist. LOL

    Given the amount of similiar name-calling of opponents Spitoon indulges in, this post is laughably hypocritical.

    This is textbook moral relativism.

  2. Posted February 8, 2010 at 1:19 PM | Permalink

    Or a certain commentator on here who condemns anyone who disagrees with him and his bull as being an anti-Bengali racist. LOL

    Yep, supporting the MCB/Jamaat nexus is pro-genocidalist, anti-Bengali and anti-Muslim. Even by the low standards set by the likes of yourself.

  3. abdullah
    Posted February 8, 2010 at 2:32 PM | Permalink

    Faisal

    Yep, supporting the MCB/Jamaat nexus is pro-genocidalist, anti-Bengali and anti-Muslim. Even by the low standards set by the likes of yourself.

    Says the supporter of those lovers of Muslims the zionists. LOL.

    Er are you aware that the current head of the MCB Dr Abdul Bari is Bengali?

  4. Posted February 8, 2010 at 2:34 PM | Permalink

    Abdullah

    You are living proof that Islamists are, in general, not very bright.

  5. Posted February 8, 2010 at 2:36 PM | Permalink

    “Er are you aware that the current head of the MCB Dr Abdul Bari is Bengali?”

    hilarious!

  6. abdullah
    Posted February 8, 2010 at 2:39 PM | Permalink

    Abu Faris

    Abdullah

    You are living proof that Islamists are, in general, not very bright.

    Abu Faris thanks for proving my earlier point:

    Given the amount of similiar name-calling of opponents Spitoon indulges in, this post is laughably hypocritical.

    And if they arent very bright why are you bothering arguing against them ?

  7. abdullah
    Posted February 8, 2010 at 2:43 PM | Permalink

    This article is from “Conservative Home”. Spitton is clearly a blog for right-wing anti-Muslim loonies.

  8. Posted February 8, 2010 at 2:43 PM | Permalink

    Abdullah,

    And if they arent very bright why are you bothering arguing against them?

    Oh, I wrote that Islamists, in general are not very bright. I did not write that no Islamist is bright. Your comprehension skills are severely lacking today, Abdullah.

    I argue against you because watching you tie yourself up into knots is actually vaguely amusing and rather proves my point about most Islamists not being very bright (re, yourt comment about Bari, above – which is, I agree with Faisal, utterly hilarious).

    I argue against a pernicious clerical fascist ideology (Islamism), promoted by some rather bright yet evil individuals, and conducted by dullards (such as yourself) who are either not so bright or too lazy to think for themselves.

    I do hope that is clear enough for you.

  9. Posted February 8, 2010 at 2:45 PM | Permalink

    “This article is from “Conservative Home”. Spitton is clearly a blog for right-wing anti-Muslim loonies.”

    You might want to reflect on the fact that the MCB was created during a Conservative government before you make a complete fool of yourself.

  10. Posted February 8, 2010 at 2:45 PM | Permalink

    Abdullah,

    If you think this is a blog for right-wing anti-Muslim loonies, would you not be better off making your points on a blog for right-wing Islamist loonies?

    You should feel right at home on somewhere like MPACuk – they have poor English comprehension skills and cannot achieve joined-up thinking either.

  11. Posted February 8, 2010 at 2:52 PM | Permalink

    What I find especially amusing, Abdullah, is your consistent critique directed at the source of any report carried here – combined with your complete refusal to engage with its content.

    This reaches its nadir over on Michael Ezra’s thread, where you complain that Michael’s sources are “Zionists” (code, as we all know, for Jewish) without a shred of evidence; and simultaneously fail to challenge a single one of Michael’s theses.

    This is fallacious reasoning, Abdullah – if “reasoning” is not too charitable a term for the extended ad homina in which you ceaselessly engage to cover up for your supreme ignorance about much of what you write.

  12. abdullah
    Posted February 8, 2010 at 2:53 PM | Permalink

    Abu Faris

    Abdullah,

    If you think this is a blog for right-wing anti-Muslim loonies, would you not be better off making your points on a blog for right-wing Islamist loonies?

    You should feel right at home on somewhere like MPACuk – they have poor English comprehension skills and cannot achieve joined-up thinking either.

    Nice try at silencing those who disagree with you. Id rather stand up to anti-Muslim bigots like the people on this site than run off to a Muslim-only site.

  13. abdullah
    Posted February 8, 2010 at 2:56 PM | Permalink

    Abu Faris

    What I find especially amusing, Abdullah, is your consistent critique directed at the source of any report carried here – combined with your complete refusal to engage with its content.

    Who in their right mind is going to engage with rabid Muslim hating sites such as Front Page which YOU Abu Faris linked to and based stories on ?

    This reaches its nadir over on Michael Ezra’s thread, where you complain that Michael’s sources are “Zionists” (code, as we all know, for Jewish) without a shred of evidence; and simultaneously fail to challenge a single one of Michael’s theses.

    Says the man who thinks Front Page magazine is a valid source for news about Muslims. LOL.

  14. Posted February 8, 2010 at 2:57 PM | Permalink

    “Id rather stand up to anti-Muslim bigots like the people on this site than run off to a Muslim-only site.”

    You need a compass. The road to Jamaate-Islam is splattered with the blood of Muslims.

  15. abdullah
    Posted February 8, 2010 at 3:05 PM | Permalink

    Faisal

    Yep, supporting the MCB/Jamaat nexus is pro-genocidalist, anti-Bengali and anti-Muslim. Even by the low standards set by the likes of yourself.

    Think this thread has a new title.

    Faisal Gazi and “racism”

  16. Posted February 8, 2010 at 3:15 PM | Permalink

    O Abdullah,

    How you prove my points for me!

    Who in their right mind is going to engage with rabid Muslim hating sites such as Front Page which YOU Abu Faris linked to and based stories on ?

    And then:

    Says the man who thinks Front Page magazine is a valid source for news about Muslims. LOL.

    Rather proves my point for me, Abdullah.

    Quod erat demonstrandum

    That’s Latin, you know.

  17. Posted February 8, 2010 at 3:17 PM | Permalink

    Oh, I am certainly not trying to silence you, Abdullah – I hang upon your every word, in point of fact.

    You are such a great advertisement for the anti-Islamist cause.

    A real treasure.

  18. Posted February 8, 2010 at 3:27 PM | Permalink

    Actually, I based a, singular, solitary, individual, lone, sole story (singular) on a Frontpage article. An article whose points I am still waiting for you to refute.

    I have based no other story on the same source, Abdullah. You need to check your facts, beloved.

  19. Posted February 8, 2010 at 3:30 PM | Permalink

    Abdullah

    Think this thread has a new title.

    Something like:

    “Whoops, I’ve done it again! More D’oh-isms from Abdullah”, perhaps?

  20. Posted February 8, 2010 at 3:30 PM | Permalink

    Abdullah: the Homer Simpson of Islamism.

  21. abdullah
    Posted February 8, 2010 at 10:07 PM | Permalink

    Abu Faris: The Nick Griffin of Islamophobia

  22. Boris
    Posted February 8, 2010 at 10:13 PM | Permalink

    abdullah, the commi chef of the East London Mosque Clerical Fascist Club canteen.

  23. Posted February 8, 2010 at 10:59 PM | Permalink

    Abdullah,

    You are pure comedy gold, darlink.

  24. Posted February 8, 2010 at 11:30 PM | Permalink

    Abdullah,

    How about addressing the content of my article to which you are so strangely obsessed?

    Perhaps you could get someone to read it to you and explain the big words, if that helps?

  25. Abu Wannabe Arab
    Posted February 9, 2010 at 9:17 AM | Permalink

    Guys this is a classic time honoured tactic of the brain dead Islamist followers.

    If anyone criticises Islamists then you call them anti-Muslim and dismiss them completely. Any publication or website which carries anti-Islamist articles is of course Islamophobic. This means you don’t have to worry about looking at the facts. Easy isn’t it.

    The educational system in Tower Hamlets is not what it used to be.

Post a Comment

Your email is never published nor shared. Required fields are marked *

*
*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Subscribe without commenting

  • Categories

  • Archives