A few weeks ago I mentioned an article by Patrick Sookhdeo director of the Institute for the Study of Islam and Christianity, that was published by the Telegraph on the same day they published the '40% of Muslims wan't Sharia Law' poll. In it he argued against Muslim ghettoisation, against Sharia and againts Muslim community leaders. It was later quoted by a columnist:
It's confirmation of what they believe to be a familiar pattern: if spokesmen for British Muslims threaten what they call 'adverse consequences' - violence to the rest of us - then the British Government will cave in. I think it is a very dangerous precedent."
Dr Sookhdeo adds that he believes that "in a decade, you will see parts of English cities which are controlled by Muslim clerics and which follow, not the common law, but aspects of Muslim sharia law.
"It is already starting to happen - and unless the Government changes the way it treats the so-called leaders of the Islamic community, it will continue."The online article and related articles were suspiciously removed from the website along with it's location in searchable archives as mentioned on Andrew Sullivan's blog today;
'The webpage first explained that: "This story has been removed for legal reasons." Now, there's a more generic message. But it has gone.'The woman who removed the 'offending' article, Sarah Sands it turns out, has now been fired. The campaign for removing the article was orchestrated by Islamic sites such as 'islamophobiawatch' amongst others. So who had 'legal issues' with the article? Why should there be legal issues with an article that correctly quoted Mr Sookhdeo?
Or is free speech now deemed to be...'Islamophobic'?
EDIT: God bless the staying power of the internet
The offending article can now be found here:
http://whataretheysaying.powerblogs.com/posts/1142024149.shtml
