When words mean the opposite of what they say
Prime Minister Gordon Brown keeps repeating that the attacks have nothing to do with Islam – but, at the same time, keeps inviting “Muslim community leaders” to Downing Street to discuss how to prevent attacks. If the attacks have nothing to do with Islam, why invite Muslim “leaders” rather than Buddhist monks?
Brown hasn’t deemed fit to tell it like it is: that Muslims in Britain, indeed all over the world, must come out and condemn terrorism in unambiguous terms.
Instead, we are hearing that the attacks may have been prompted by “Muslim bitterness” about Salman Rushdie’s knighting, the latest addition to the Islamist litany of woes. Some “moderate community leaders,” like a certain Baroness Uddin, drop hints that Muslims have “foreign-policy issues” that might make them unhappy. The barely coded message: Unless Britain reshapes its foreign policy to please al Qaeda, it must expect to be attacked.
The most that “the moderate community leaders” concede is a “yes, but” position: Yes, it is not quite right to blow up innocent people – but, then again, we must understand how anger at the policies of the government of those same innocent people might prompt some Muslim youths to want to slaughter everyone…
If Islam is the religion of peace, then the real Islamphobes are those who planted the car bombs in London and Glasgow – not the poor Brits who are censoring themselves and curbing their hard-won freedoms in order not to offend “the Muslim community.”
Regarding Taheri’s last paragraph, we note a similarity with the summary comments in a recent piece by Christopher Hitchens. Who are the minority, who are the majority?

July 3rd, 2007 at 9:25 am
I am reading Brown has forbidden cabinet members from saying Muslims are terrorists. The phrase, War on Terror, is also to be discontinued. I fear Brown may get a lot of Brits killed with that attitude.