You are here:   Features > Where the Far-Left Joins the Far-Right
 

I had a small warning that UCL was not the centre of enlightenment thinking it seemed when I went there to interview the urbane geneticist Steve Jones a couple of years ago. At the end of a discussion of the dangers of holding an unquestioning faith in the power of genetics to deliver miracle cures, he started to worry about creationism. I thought he would criticise the American religious Right, as all liberals were doing at the time. Instead, his urbanity cracked slightly and he began to talk about Islamist anti-Darwinism. When the publishers of a Turkish edition of Almost like a Whale — his updating of The Origin of the Species — flew him out to Istanbul, he was astonished when they told him that the Islamists saw evolutionary theory as a threat and then introduced him to his bodyguards. Back at the university in London, he heard more and more Muslim science students insisting that evolution could not be true.

"What do you say to them?"

"At the end of the course, I ask, ‘Was I lying to you about chromosome structure?' and they say no. Then I say, ‘Was I lying to you about cell structure?' and they say no. So I ask why on earth they think I'm lying to them about evolution, and of course they can't answer, because they're not allowed to'."

John Sutherland, a UCL English professor, remembers that at about the same time I was interviewing Jones, the Islamic Society was putting on a show of Islamic art. "A friend of mine strolled in to take a look. Was he a believer, asked an obviously Muslim student. No, replied my friend, he didn't believe in any God, as it happened. ‘Then,' the young man confidently informed him, ‘we shall have to execute you.' He wasn't joking; he was predicting. He wasn't going to draw a scimitar that minute and lop off the Godless one's head, but he implied that at some future point such things would happen. My friend laughed it off after lodging a mild complaint."

I do not believe I am reading too much into Sutherland's description when I guess that his friend's laughter was of the high and nervous variety. Nor is it unfair to say that a few academics knew that radical Islam was on campus long before Abdulmutallab attempted to kill himself and everyone flying with him. Once he had, any academic reading the story of how he went from Nigeria to Britain to Yemen to America should have noted and worried about the following details:

Abdulmutallab was not a tribune of the oppressed but yet another of radical Islam's poor little rich boys. The son of a Nigerian banker, he did not live in squalid student digs when he was at UCL, but in a West End apartment between the Wigmore Hall and Regent's Park. He was religious when he was in Nigeria, but his radicalisation began in supposedly secular London. His cousin recalled that after reaching Britain, "He changed. He was saying: ‘Islam, Islam, Islam'; he was saying we should all try to change and be more Islamic." He attended mosques that our tolerant intelligence services watch but do not close down. One intelligence source told the New York Times that he was "reaching out" to known extremists, but no one thought to bring him in for questioning.

As president of UCL Islamic Society, he organised an "anti-terror week", which featured a promotional video of clips of violence, accompanied by a soundtrack of hypnotic music. He inserted footage of George Galloway saying that the West believed that Palestinian blood was cheaper than Israeli blood and Amnesty International's poster boy Moazzam Begg alleging that the Americans tortured him at Guantanamo Bay. "When we sat down, they played a video that opened with shots of the twin towers after they'd been hit, then moved on to images of mujahedeen fighting, firing rockets in Afghanistan," one member of the audience said. "It was quite tense in the theatre, because I think lots of people were shocked by how extreme it was. It seemed to me like it was brainwashing, like they were trying to indoctrinate people."

View Full Article
 
Share/Save
 
 
 
 
Charles
April 10th, 2010
1:04 AM
The left no longer includes a significant number of craftsmen and foremen from industry who wish to improve he conditions of the working class. Consequently the left no longer includes those who are strong in body and spirit as result of undertaking physically tough work in harsh conditions. The left largely comprises the middle class government employee who are the children of parents from a similar back ground. Consequently the left have no drive to improve the quality of life of the working class instead they are driven by cultural and indentity politics. Most labour middle class politicians are not physically tough. If one looks at labour politicians immediatly post WW2 , far more Tories appear to have been awarded awards for gallantry. The left increasingly is like the guilt wridden child of wealthy parents who complain they are not allowed to stay out out late but also complains their allowance is not large enough: espouses socialist views but then gets beaten up by working class toughs whom they have angered by their patronising ways. The left is guilt wridden by it's affluent and easy life yet full of self hatred because of it's physical and spiritual enfeeblement. The left seeks an escape in identity politics. Perhaps the left respects the certainty and strength of character in Islamism in a similar way it did with communism in the 30s because of it's own enfeeblement; the way the bullied sometimes venerates the bully.

Hamid
March 27th, 2010
3:03 AM
The left has dropped all pretensions to liberalism and is now in bed with Islamic fascists. Its not so much their guilt feelings but the left and the fascist right's affinity for totalitarianism. As a muslim apostate I find it disgusting how leftists defend Islam and Islamic supremacy and Islamic racism.

Expedient
March 26th, 2010
7:03 PM
The point about fear and cowardice is well taken. But fear is not inherently cowardly, nor is realism. Islamic imperialist reaction is a real threat. But it is a long war, decades or centuries. And it may be necessary to lose some battles to win the war. The west may sacrifice Israel, the Jewish state, to appease militant Islam, for a while. And, for a while, it may work. Not forever, but long enough to regroup and win the war. That is tough on Israeli Jews, and has little to do with morality over expediency. But at least that is an honest and open position. The question is, does this make me an Islamophobe, anti-Zionist, or both?

Larry70
March 26th, 2010
1:03 PM
As always Cohen makes some telling points, except as always Cohen does not go far enough. It's obvious that in the years that Cohen has been regaling us with the horror stories of the Left's alliance and apologetics with the jihadists, he still fails to understand the religious dynamics and roots of the Jihad. Cohen still speaks of Islamists and extremists as divorced and removed from what he elsewhere calls "traditional Islam", and has dismissed those (ie usually rightwingers) who say Islam is inherently extremist as "dumb". Fact is Islam is inherently extremist, Cohen's denials to the contrary, this talk of Islamist and extremist is a Western construct, it is a false duality re extremists and Islam. There are moderate Muslims, plenty of them, but Islam is not moderate. How hard is it recognise this difference? Anybody (that is hardly anybody) with a basic knowledge of real Islam, its dogma and history knows that much, that Islam is inherently radical. A terrible truth, but one Cohen can no more face than the Left that he criticises for hopping into bed with the jihadists. I challenge Cohen to do something he never has, actually read up on the academic history and seriously scholarly writings on Islam (and apologists and liars like Karen Armstrong and J Esposito do not count). I'm not holding my breath though...

Stephen Fox
March 20th, 2010
9:03 PM
As you are a self-confessed Christian and Guardian reader, Humphrey Reader, I understand that your comments on Islamic extremism must necessarily be phrased in non-judgmental tones of gentle tolerance. But I take issue with the elision you make between bigotry, as demonstrated by your 'nutcase bishop' story, and Islamism. I actually could not care less what either bigoted Christians or Muslims think of me, or anyone else. What I object to is being murdered or threatened with murder. Currently, I know of no Christians killing or threatening to kill others for not sharing their faith. The same is not true of Islamists. Mr Cohen makes the difference perfectly clear. You seem to agree with his proposition, but in so mild a fashion that you might equally well disagree.

windter
March 18th, 2010
2:03 PM
it is not a libel to say that Murray is an islamophobe. He's on record in 2006 saying that all immigration from muslim countries must stop, and he even suggested that muslims granted asylum should be removed from the country. In an article which bemoans left-wing Europeans having become blind to exremism, to ally one's self with Murray in this way is strange to say the least.

Phil
March 18th, 2010
1:03 PM
'What is the fifth word in the phrase "jefu wiboquw ewono ebun gip"?' I don't know, but it makes more sense than this article.

hexagone
March 12th, 2010
8:03 AM
Cameron: is this supposed to be funny? windter : denying immigration to someone is hardly on a par with stoning them to death.

Humphrey Reader
March 9th, 2010
8:03 PM
I don't know about Mr Cohen's 'anti-Muslim fanaticism' but I think there's little doubt there are strands in Islam that are highly illiberal (as there are in most if not all religions, mine (Christian) included). A pity, given the Islamic Enlightenment of mediaeval times which gave us 'algebra' amongst many other things - what happened to that? Islamic deniers of evolution need to be answered, fearlessly, in the same way as Christian ones - with the facts. Bigotry needs to be challenged whatever religious clothing it may be wearing. And that goes for Islamic bigotry just as much as Christian. Sorry, but I think a lot of Guardian readers, in their heart of hearts, know perfectly well this is true. At least, this Guardian reader does. The other problem of course is that religious extremists of whatever allegiance are always news. 'Christian nutcase bishop claims Cumbrian floods are God's judgement on homosexuality' - that's news. 'Christian teacher quietly and selflessly devotes life to kids with severe behaviour problems' - we have one such in our congregation - not news. Unfortunately.

Anonymous
March 2nd, 2010
11:03 AM
"The remainder of this piece is available in the magazine, out in the shops now" Nah, it's alright, I read his two latest books, and read his ob column - I've read it before

Post your comment

CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.