“The well worn narrative is that media commentators, the self described experts on terrorism and Islam alike, will find the roots of violence in Islam and the Quran itself. …. there isn’t a single one of us who hasn’t groaned when we see Islamic texts being purposefully twisted and misrepresented to arrive at the above conclusions.”
After that we can cite a laughable quasi-Marxist analysis of all Muslim violence (as once found on MPACUK's Facebook page, which has now been erased); all of which faithfully concurs with what Trotskyist (or Trotskyist-run) groups say about the same issues:
“Muslims are the most oppressed people on earth, we have been denied our freedom, we have been denied our equality, we have been denied any justice, we have even been denied the right to tell the world our own story.”
As you can imagine, MPACUK can't exactly praise the savage murder of Lee Rigby, the Paris killings, 7/7, 9/11, etc.; as well as all the other atrocities committed by Muslims in the name of Islam. Nonetheless, it can – and often does - rationalise, justify, excuse and explicate them. And this is what it does here:
“.... [the killing of Lee Rigby] was an extreme reaction to an extreme situation. These people did what they did because they wanted to get a message across, a message that tells the world that they are sick of being oppressed, colonised, demonised, killed and murdered, simply for being Muslim.”
Now how does all that rhetoric tie in with Muslim sexual-grooming gangs in the UK, female genital mutilation (FGM), and, more relevantly, Muslim-on-Muslim violence? How is all that a result of Muslims being “oppressed, colonised, demonised,killed”? How do the Buddhists of southern Thailand - the victims of random jihadist violence - fit into this quasi-Marxist package of Islam? What about the millions of animists and Christians of Sudan who were killed and enslaved (in accordance with Islam and the Koran) by jihadists in the period 1991 to 2005? Or what about thousands of white working-class girls who were the victims of the Muslim sexual-grooming gangs of England? What has all that to do with the "oppression” of Muslims?
What's happening here is painfully obvious.
Muslims can't - by definition - blame Islam. As Muslims, they must completely deny (at least to non-Muslims) that Islam has any influence on all this violence and sexual abuse . Muslims must do this quite simply because they are Muslims. Yes, they do indeed tart up their Muslim tribalism with Marxist, quasi-Marxist and even interfaith gobbledegook. Nonetheless, it all still remains thoroughly Islamic in nature and origin.
Asghar Bukhari himself tarts up his own Muslim tribalism with the help of the language of the Left. He does so because he knows full well that talk of “oppression”, “demonisation” and “colonization” will sound extremely appealing (as well as politically correct) to his Leftist/Marxist enablers.
So what Bukhari and MPACUK are doing is gilding (e.g., with Leftist jargon) the ancient Muslim habit of blaming others for their own violence, intolerance and supremacism.