Greg Sheridan gets it (sort of)

In a piece on the ongoing Sheikh Taj debacle in tomorrow’s Australian (not online yet), Greg Sheridan makes the following points about the government’s engagement with the Muslim community over the last few years.

The reference group and the action plan reinforced several other utterly destructive messages. One is that Islam has a special relationship with the state, different from any other religion, that the state has to negotiate a compromise with Islam, beyond the compromise of the ballot box, whereas other religions have no such status.

The reference group and the action plan also legitimised and empowered the unrepresentative individuals selected by these programs.

And finally, nothing has contributed more to internal tensions among Muslims as they try to gain government funds and patronage. It also gave every Muslim group an incentive to send out a double message: we are entirely non-violent and non-threatening but there is another group in our community that is potentially dangerous and only by giving us money can you prevent this danger from being realised.

The effectiveness of this nonsense in preventing terrorism?

Absolutely nil.

Its effectiveness in reinforcing some of the worst tendencies and some of the worst people among conservative Muslims?

Quite substantial.

However, is it really the “conservative Muslims” who have benefited most from the Muslim Community Reference Group and government funding?