[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]Radical Imam Anjem Choudary, who resides in London, was recently on Fox News’ Hannity to debate Pamela Geller following the attempted terrorist attack on her free speech event “Draw Muhammad” and the fatwa, death threat, put on her life as a result. He believes that Geller should be put before a court, as according to Sharia Law, and punished for her actions. That punishment would be death. He is a long time advocate of worldwide Sharia Law and has appeared on Hannity’s show many times and said so. He is a strong supporter of ISIS and believes the 9/11 Muslim terrorists are “magnificent martyrs.” Given his violent and radical views, it is dumbfounding that the BBC, British Broadcasting Corporation, would compare him favorably to both Gandhi and Nelson Mandela.
[/vc_column_text][banner300 banner=”5517620b381df”][vc_column_text]Theresa May, the UK Home Secretary, has vowed to clamp down on extremism in her country. This determination followed the heinous attack and murder of a British solider, Fusilier Lee Rigby. Rigby was ran over by a car, then beheaded and butchered by two Muslim terrorists in broad daylight near the British Artillery Barracks. Choudary said that Rigby would “burn in hellfire.” In response to this ongoing clamping down on Muslim extremists, Home Affairs Editor Mark Easton, made the favorable comparison between Choudary, Gandhi, and Mandela.
The Daily Mail reports on this disturbing comparison of two non-violent leaders to the radical Imam Choudary who not only advocates for the death of those who go against Islam, but is also seen as a recruiting sergeant for Britain’s radical Muslims. He is no stranger to terrorism having himself 20 years ago founded radical Islamic group Al-Muhajiroun. This group was later banned.
Speaking after a ‘special report’ which gave further airtime to Choudary and his radical views, Mr Easton said: ‘It’s one thing to ban someone for inciting hatred or violence, but quite another to pass a law that silences anyone who challenges established values.
‘I was in Parliament Square today – a statue of Gandhi looking down at me who was jailed for being extremist; Mandela who was jailed for being an extremist.
‘History tells us that extreme views are sometimes needed to challenge very established values that people at the time hold so dear.’
[/vc_column_text][banner300 banner=”553157113d3ff”][vc_column_text]So is Easton condoning the actions done and supported by Choudary with his statement that ‘extreme views’ are needed to challenge established values? Is he condoning the beheading and butchering of Rigby? Is he saying that he agrees with Choudary that Rigby will burn in hellfire?
Does this BBC editor believe that the 9/11 terrorists were magnificent martyrs? Does he support Choudary’s work recruiting the youth in the UK to fight alongside Muslim terrorists, including ISIS?
Such a comparison of Choudary to Mandela and Gandhi is not only insulting to the legacy and memory of those two leaders, it is extremely dangerous. Opposition to this viewpoint espoused by the BBC is perhaps best refuted by Michael Deen, who founded the Muslim debating think-tank The Deen Institute.
Mr Deen said: ‘I think the journalist’s point is underpinned by the view that dissenting views are important for a democracy and that these voices can highlight areas where a society may have gone wrong.
‘But the error is that he is assuming that Anjem is arguing in the same way or dissenting in the same way as the likes of Mandela or Gandhi, both of whom were dissenting with a backdrop of views that the establishment already held.
‘Unlike Mandela and Gandhi, Choudary completely rejects those values of democracy and tolerance which makes the comparison completely false.
‘Anjem rejects democracy, is very anti non-Muslim and is very much anti-western. So to regard Anjem as a legitimate dissenting voice – and to open up this topic, saying that “maybe we’ve got it wrong to clamp down on his organisation” – is absurd.’
He added: ‘Anjem does not behave in the way that he does because he believes in the value of democracy and freedom of speech. It is because he is an extremist Muslim who believes that ‘The Good’ can only be derived from scripture.’
h/t Pamela Geller[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]