This willful ignorance and wishful thinking is not Neil Coyle’s alone; it is dominant among the British political and media elites. But it is based on no evidence whatsoever. The jihadis certainly believe that they are Muslims, and justify their actions by reference to Islamic texts and teachings.
Take, for example, the Islamic State (ISIS). ISIS quoted the Qur’an extensively in threats to blow up the White House and conquer Rome and Spain; in explaining its priorities in the nations it is targeting in jihad; in preaching to Christians after collecting the jizya (a Qur’an-based tax, cf. Qur’an 9:29); in justifying the execution of accused spies; and in its various videos.
ISIS also awarded $10,000 prizes and sex slaves in Qur’an memorization contests. One of its underground lairs was found littered with weapons and copies of the Qur’an. Children in the Islamic State study the Qur’an and get weapons training. One Malaysian Muslim said that the Qur’an led him to join the Islamic State. A Muslima in the U.S. promoted the Islamic State by quoting the Qur’an. An Islamic State propagandist’s parents said of him: “Our son is a devout Muslim. He had learnt the Quran by heart.” A Muslim politician from Jordan said that the Islamic State’s “doctrine stems from the Qur’an and Sunnah.”
Coyle said: “We should not forget that the attackers at London Bridge and Borough market chose to commit their atrocity at the very time when real Muslims were breaking fast. They were not Muslims, and it is not Islamophobic to try to prevent such men from committing atrocities.” Yet this does not establish what Coyle wishes it to establish. As the Pakistani jihad leader Maulana Bashir recently said, “Ramadan is the pious month of ‘Jihad-o-Qital’ (Jihad and killing).” The London Bridge and Borough market jihadis likely agreed, and considered their attacks to be pious acts, even more pleasing to Allah than breaking the Ramadan fast would have been.
But Neil Coyle and the rest of the British establishment refuse to consider any of this. The implications would be, for them, too terrible.
“Retention of biometric data for counter-terrorism purposes etc,” They Work For You, July 3, 2018 (thanks to Ian):
Neil Coyle Labour, Bermondsey and Old Southwark
I wish to echo some of what my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth said. I share some of the concerns of my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing Central and Acton about the materials, although I suspect some of them have been updated. If simply having a beard made one a suspect, Father Christmas would be in trouble—were he to exist.
As co-chair of the all-party group on counter-extremism and someone who represents a constituency that has been attacked, I recognise the benefits of Prevent. After last year’s attack at London Bridge and Borough market, I spoke to the five mosques in my constituency, which frankly wanted to open their doors. They wanted to know that their sons and daughters—in particular their sons—would not be targeted by those who seek to groom the innocent and turn them into people who seek to attack and undermine our way of life. They also wanted engagement, to counter the Islamophobia that grows when attacks occur. There is a role for Prevent in such situations. We should not forget that the attackers at London Bridge and Borough market chose to commit their atrocity at the very time when real Muslims were breaking fast. They were not Muslims, and it is not Islamophobic to try to prevent such men from committing atrocities.