Muslim police say Islam not to blame for terror attacks

Muslim police officers have rebelled openly against the Government’s anti-terrorism strategy, warning that it is an “affront to British values” which threatens to trigger ethnic unrest.

The National Association of Muslim Police (NAMP) claimed that ministers were wrong to blame Islam for being the “driver” behind recent terrorist attacks.

Far-Right extremists were a more dangerous threat to national security, it said.

The officers told MPs that Muslims were being “stigmatised” by the Government’s attempts to tackle terrorism, which was adding to “hatred” against entire communities.

In the official intervention, the association said the Government’s anti-terrorism policies could not “continue unchecked”.

The comments, made in a seven-page memorandum to a parliamentary committee investigating extremism, are embarrassing for Gordon Brown. They indicated that Muslim officers may be reluctant to take part in “hearts and minds” anti-terrorism campaigns.

The organisation, which represents more than 2,000 officers, was previously publicly backed by Mr Brown. The Prime Minister said the association was crucial to bridge the historic divide between Muslims and the police.

Read more @

Oh come on Admin, give us an opinion.

  • It can never be satisfied, the mind, never. -- Wallace Stevens

I read the full article.

I wonder what the NAMP think is the "driver" behind the recent terrorist attacks?

And how has funding moderate organisations through Prevent caused the stigmatisation of entire communities? Is it not rather because there has been a consistent failure, throughout all countries in the West, of any moderate and encompassing Muslim voice to be heard?

Non-muslims are crying out for a moderate Islamic voice, but it just is not appearing. Where moderate voices are raised they are drowned out by the non-moderate majority or, if they exist in any numbers, by the moderates' silence.

I'm studying Islam and I don't like the conclusions I'm arriving at.

Joie de Vivre wrote:
Oh come on Admin, give us an opinion.

Lol - but then I pollute others' opinion, which I am more interested in reading. Also, I have many opinions on this, not just the one.

Yes, there is a problem with violent extremism, but looking at recent arrests and court cases, it seems the balance is tipping away from Muslim extremists and back towards violent racist extremism, native supremacy etc. (which is all expected - people are nicer when the economy is doing well. When it isn't, the knives are more likely to come out.)

Just focussing on Muslim extremists has the problem that it gives it a focus, where some Muslims will feel unfairly targeted and also it feeds into the native supremacists violent rhetoric, a constant barrage of news, focus on people they can define as an enemy when recruiting new blood.

So that is two negatives there - one for the Muslims and one for the non Muslims.

A third problem is that police resources may be focussed on one type of violent group while another is amassing an arsenal of weapons and recruits and they are not restricted until it is too late.

"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.

That argument relies on a comparison between Al Qaeda and a disorganised assortment of racists. And the BNP and other nationalist groups do bear keeping close tabs on. But that argument is much more relevant in the US where anti-government armed militia movements are . So I am suspicious to find a relatively new Muslim police body using that argument against the British government.

  • It can never be satisfied, the mind, never. -- Wallace Stevens

Why suspicious? what are you suspicious about?

The article suggests that previously, the body has agreed with the government, (but it does not specify clearly if it was the same organisation, or some other muslim police organisation).

Even though the article suggests that the organisation is atleast three years old, why would it be a problem if it was less old? It is a valid way for groups to form - people within the police force see something they disagree with, find it counter intuitive and then find like minded individuals in order to present a clear and well put together case.

I don't see anything to be suspicious about.

"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.