Islamism

Daud Abdullah Twists and Turns

So, Daud Abdullah is on CiF, trying to get himself out of trouble.  His line is that this statement:

7. The obligation of the Islamic Nation to regard everyone standing with the Zionist entity, whether countries, institutions or individuals, as providing a substantial contribution to the crimes and brutality of this entity; the position towards him is the same as towards this usurping entity.

does not call for attacks on Jews, as Hazel Blears has observed it does. 

Come off it, Daud!

The Istanbul Declaration was a product of a conference, organised by Hamas/Muslim Brotherhood, which deliberately echoed and amplified Hamas’s threat a few weeks earlier:

 “They have legitimised the killing of their people all over the world by killing our people.”

It isn’t just a threat against Jews: it is a threat against anybody, any institution, and any country who a terrorist believes is “standing with” Israel. 

Then there’s his attempt to sidestep this paragraph:

8. The obligation of the Islamic Nation to regard the sending of foreign warships into Muslim waters, claiming to control the borders and prevent the smuggling of arms to Gaza, as a declaration of war, a new occupation, sinful aggression, and a clear violation of the sovereignty of the Nation. This must be rejected and fought by all means and ways 

What is Daud Abdullah’s defence?  Sophistry, that’s what:

I did not call for or support attacks on British troops anywhere in the world. As a British citizen, I have the right to criticise and campaign against government political decisions that embroil young British soldiers in illegal occupations and interventions. One of the reasons I joined the demonstrations against the war in Iraq was to prevent the sacrifice of young soldiers in an illegal war. For this reason I was the first to go to Baghdad in 2004 to seek the release of the British hostage, Ken Bigley, despite threats to my life in Iraq and here in the UK after I returned. This move was welcomed by the government at the time, but it seems some have a short memory.

2. Unlike his predecessor, prime minister Brown has promised that any such future intervention would only be carried out after it is endorsed by parliament. All the assertions made by the secretary of state are based on conjecture and totally hypothetical scenarios.

In other words, because British troops are not yet in “Muslim waters”, the situation is merely “hypothetical”. Of course, he doesn’t address the question of whether he’d rescind his support for the declaration, once British troops are deployed in peacekeeping operations in the Med. 

Wouldn’t it be refreshing to discover that Daud Abdullah had the courage of his convictions, and actually stood up for his beliefs, rather than squirming and wriggling pathetically, like a lugworm on the end of a hook? Why didn’t he simply write a single sentence response:

I’m a traitor – so what?

At least that would leave him with an element of dignity.

Share this article.

shares