CentreRight

Jaw-dropping quote of the day: "At what point has Jihad equated to incitement to violence?" I am not sure if the person who wrote that, in response to my previous article Stop the preachers of hate, was being facetious, but if he wasn't, I am wondering what inter-galactic experience I have suddenly found myself in. Have I been accepted by Cape Canaveral and sent into orbit to another planet, unconsciously, or has he?

To him and other contributors, all I would say is read The Quilliam Foundation's report A Brief History of Islamism. It's only 16 pages, and I have just read it in half an hour. I would think that everyone who blogged responses to my previous post, even those whose remarks would win Nobel prizes for stupidity, could cope with 16 pages? But for those who would find such a task too onorous, here are a few extracts from the report.

A Brief History of Islamism provides an idiot's guide to the ideology of Islamism and a valuable refresher course and reminder for those who have already read around the subject. It describes the key players, recounting the background of Hassan al-Banna and the Muslim Brotherhood, the origins of  Hizb-ut-Tahrir, the story of Maulana Mawdudi and Jamaat-i-Islami, the influence of Sayyid Qutb,  all the way through to Ayman al-Zawahiri, Mullah Omar and bin Laden.

In 1927, Mawdudi said:

Islam wishes to destroy all states and governments anywhere on the face of the earth, which are opposed to the ideology and programme of Islam regardless of the country or the nation which rules it.

Some years later, Sayyid (Syed) Qutb said:

There is only one place on earth which can be called the home of Islam (Dar al-Islam), and it is that place where the Islamic state is established and the Shari'ah is the authority and God's limits are observed .... the rest of the word is the home of hostility (Dar al-Harb).

The author of A Brief History of Islamism, Ghaffar Hussain, himself a Muslim, concludes with these words:

Islamists remain frozen in an age of warring empires and cosmic wars. They desperately cling to their binary view of the world despite it not being supported by the reality around them. Dreams of an imperial future in which divinely-inspired warriors conquer and rule the world bring contentment to the hearts of some, but instil terror in the minds of others.

Please note, this report was written by a Muslim and published by an Islamic counter-extremism think-tank. Please also note, in almost everything I have ever written on the subject, I have gone to great lengths to distinguish between the political, radical ideology of Islamism and the religion of Islam. The religion of Islam is multi-faceted, like all religions, and there are a great many followers of Islam who choose an interpretation that is peaceful, spiritual, generous, hospitable, law-abiding and gracious. I have been working with Rohingya Muslims from Burma and Ahmadiya Muslims from Pakistan, Bangladesh and Indonesia. They have taught me much about kindness, hospitality, generosity and spirituality. They have also faced severe persecution, at the hands of a brutal military regime in the case of the Rohingya, and at the hands of extremist Islamists in the case of the Ahmadiyas. The caveats should not be needed, but they are, because the sad reality is that whenever one criticises the extreme, hate-filled radicals, in our uber-politically correct world there are people who think one is labelling all Muslims with the same brush. It isn't the case, and the sooner we woke up to the reality of Islamism the ideology - as distinct from other strands of Islam - the better. And we would do well to listen to those Muslims who themselves are fighting Islamism.

Once again, the alarm bell is ringing - yet still much of Britain sleeps. The news that the threat level has been raised to "severe" should not surprise us. And of course, it shows that while much of Britain sleeps, there are excellent people in our security services working night and day to protect us. They, at least, are awake to the threat. But even if policy makers are awake to the immediate threat of terrorism, large parts of society - including government, media and academia - have still not got to grips with the ideological underpinnings of these terrorist threats.

Audio tapes purport to carry warnings, by Osama bin Laden, of more attacks. Al-Qaeda has reportedly trained female suicide bombers, from "non-Arab" backgrounds, poised to launch attacks on western targets. A prominent Muslim businessman, Iqbal Wahhab, warns today that a new '7/7' is imminent. And what are we doing? We allow a hardline cleric, banned in the US, who believes Jews are "monkeys and pigs", to tour British university campuses.

It seems mind-bogglingly naive, not to mention stupid, to allow Yahya Ibrahim to speak at Birmingham University in March and the University of Wales Institute in Cardiff next month. He reportedly advocates conflict with the West, promotes Wahhabism and Salafi ideology, and has received funding to do so from the Government's anti-extremism Prevent strategy.

David Cameron has pointed out the blindingly obvious, and in doing so appears to have sparked a controversy.

The Daily Telegraph's headline today, "The battle rages over 'broken Britain'", caught my eye, because I did not think Cameron's observations were controversial - they were correct, factual, indisputable. A society which has the highest divorce rates in Europe, the highest rates of teenage pregnancy, the highest abortion rates, binge drinking and anti-social behaviour not just in the cities but in every market town in the country, can surely be described, in Cameron's words, as heading into a "social recession"? How is it even disputable?

The debate should not be about whether or not we live in a broken society, but about what to do about it. But because far too many people, not only government ministers, are like ostriches with their heads in the sand, clinging to Cool Britannia and refusing to accept the truth that we have profound social problems, we have to have a debate about whether it is broken before we can fix it. It is like a family standing around a dining table. Two of the legs of the table have broken and the table is only just about upright but at a strange angle. Plates slide off it and it's in serious danger of collapse. Does the family stand around debating whether or not the table is broken, or do they get the table fixed?

For Ed Balls to say that David Cameron's "broken Britain" analysis shows he is "completely irresponsible" and "out of touch with the reality" is the most ironic quote of today. It is the government, and others who refuse to see the problem, who are irresponsible and out of touch. If they carry on with their heads in the sand in this way, then the theme tune of their 1997 election campaign will have to be rewritten - for things can only get worse.

Last night I met a woman whose face will continue to haunt me for a long time.

At 10pm in Victoria Street, after saying goodbye to a friend after dinner, I was on my way to pick up some milk from Sainsbury's before taking the train home. As I was about to cross the road to the supermarket, a clearly deeply distraught young woman on the other side of the road called out to me: "Can you please help me? Please help me?"

I paused, and waited as she ran towards me. Pointing to a horrific, huge black-eye, and shaking, she told me her boyfriend had beaten her up, she had gone to the police station but no one would help, and that I was the first person to even listen to her story. She said she needed to get a bus home to Middlesex. "I have to get away. I just have to get away," she said, deeply agitated and not very coherent. I assured her I would help, tried to calm her down, and tried to work out precisely what kind of help she needed. It became apparent she wanted money for a bus fare.

Preparing to give her a couple of pounds, I then asked if she knew what number her bus was. I was going to walk her to the bus stop. She then told me she needed to get a bus and a coach. I gave her £10, but she looked at me pleadingly and asked if I could help her with the full fare. She offered to give me her address, her name, her number, so she could repay me, but I said that wasn't necessary. "How much is the coach fare?" I asked. "£24.90," she told me. "To Middlesex?" I enquired, puzzled. "No, I live in Middlesex, but I need to get to Middlesborough," she said. I gave her £30. "Are you sure you don't want my contact details?," she asked. I assured her I didn't. "God bless you," she said. "You're the only person who has even bothered to listen to me."

As I walked back to Victoria station and travelled home, my stomach churned with anger. First, it crossed my mind that this could have been a set-up, an elaborate act to deceive. Middlesex, Middlesborough, the police not helping - none of it made sense. It's possible to create a black-eye with make-up and act distraught, agitated, traumatised. Had I given £30 to someone who would go out and buy heroin or crack cocaine? I kicked myself. But then I felt anger that I should be so cynical, have so much distrust. Her story could have been true, and I believed it at the time. Thirdly, I felt anger at our broken society, for either way, something is wrong. If her story was true, then it is an illustration of social breakdown. It disgusts me that we could live in a society where a woman could be beaten so badly, and be so clearly terrified and traumatised. It disgusts me to think that the police didn't help her and that I was the first person who even listened to her story. Yet if it was a scam, then it disgusts me that someone - and perhaps a group of people - could be so deceptive and devious as to play on the compassion of others. If untrue, it is disturbing to think that I might have helped a drug addict fuel her habit, and that trust has been broken in the process.

All around me the signs of our broken society are obvious. In 2005, when I was Parliamentary Candidate in the City of Durham, I went out on the streets with the police and saw the ugly reality of binge-drinking up-close. I put out a campaign newspaper headlined "Fight North Road binge drinking says Ben Rogers". A few days later, I received an envelope in the post, with a piece of paper. On it were the words of my newspaper cut out and moved around. It read: "Fight Ben Rogers says North Road binge drinker." I framed it as an amusing memento of the campaign, but the underlying message is disturbing. Five years on, things have got worse.

A few months ago I went to visit Karen refugees from Burma who have been resettled in Sheffield. They have fled the brutality of the Burma Army. Many of them have been used for forced labour, tortured, raped and seen their villages burned down. They fled their country, to the restrictions and harship of a refugee camp on the Thailand-Burma border, before then being uprooted again and finding themselves in cold, wet Sheffield. I met one woman in her flat in a run-down council estate. On the stairway as I walked to her flat, I passed surly young English kinds, in hoodies, smoking. It was intimidating. As I sat in her sitting room, she told me how she had been shot by the Burma Army. But she also told me how just a few weeks before, her flat in this estate in Sheffield had been broken into. Again, a sickening feeling developed in my stomach. After all she had been through, now she faces the terror of inner-city gangs. Couldn't Britain offer her better? With remarkable grace, she smiled. "At least I am free," she said. Even that supreme value, freedom, however is being compromised and threatened by a combination of ultra-political correctness and radical Islamism.

These are small snapshots of our broken society. Others would have many more stories to tell - of knife crime, teenage pregnancies, debt, family breakdown, gang murders. Anyone who denies that we have a broken society is divorced from reality. Some would grumble that it is too negative to say society is broken. But it depends on what you mean. By "broken", don't hear the word "irreparable". The situation can be redeemed, our society can be rebuilt, life can be restored. But it will take courage, conviction and hard work. It will take a new approach, combining government, the voluntary sector, families, schools, the police, business and religious organisations. It will require government to listen to groups such as the Centre for Social Justice, whose excellent work is shaping the heart of a future Conservative government. As David Cameron says, we are all in this together. If we rediscover that value, of being in it together, perhaps trust can be rebuilt and it will become clearer to identify who is genuinely in need and who is simply part of a scam.