Yesterday, the Foreign Secretary Jack Straw delivered a speech at the Muslim News awards. Now, whenever ministers address any minority group it is normal for them to utter cloying platitudes and to sidestep anything that might upset their audience. Such is politics. But even by these standards, Straw’s speech takes some beating for sheer unadulterated cravenness in the face of Islamic terrorism. Pondering the tension between Islam and the modern world, he said:

One explanation for this apparent singling out of Islam might be its reputation as a new European religion. In fact, of course, there have been Muslim communities in Europe for centuries. But it is true that in recent decades those communities have grown in size and that Islam is now the fastest growing religion here. Another reason might be the feeling that many people seem to have that Muslims are in some way more religious than followers of other faiths. Again, I think it is probably undeniable that for most of the Muslims whom I know their faith is more obviously apparent in their daily actions and rituals than it is in the daily lives of the majority of people in Britain.

If people want to argue that God does not exist and faith is not necessary, then that is absolutely their right and I respect that view – though I don't happen to agree with it. Besides, the major world faiths have shown remarkable resilience over the centuries. But what I will take issue with is the idea that any faith community here in Britain – and that includes the Muslim community – is in some way excluded from our modern society simply because of a profound and devout religious belief...

In other words, the responsibility for creating this tension lay not with the jihadists but with European society for its intolerance. One might have thought that the main reason for such tension was obviously Islamic terrorism. Yet at no point in his speech did he even mention Islamic terrorism. The nearest he got to it was a glancing reference to ‘criminal’ behaviour on the fringes. The world-wide outbreak of murder, kidnap, rioting and arson that followed the publication of the Danish cartoons was dismissed as merely a ‘distasteful and unacceptable’ reaction by a handful of Muslims, whose distorting impact upon the way Islam was viewed was to be wholly deplored, as was the publication of the cartoons themselves:

The right to freedom of expression is a broad one and something which this country has long held dear. It was the focus of our human rights work during our recent Presidency of the European Union. But the existence of such a right does not mean that it is right – morally right, politically right, socially right – to exercise that freedom without regard to the feelings of others. A large number of Muslims in this country were – understandably – upset by those cartoons being reprinted across Europe and at their deeply held beliefs being insulted. They expressed their hurt and outrage but did so in a way which epitomised the learned, peaceful religion of Islam. In doing so they were not being 'unreasonable' or 'un-European'. They were not threatening anyone’s values...

Thus Islamist violence is sanitised, excused and even airbrushed out of the picture altogether. The crisis in relations between the Islamic and Western worlds is entirely the fault of the West. The protest against clerical fascism represented by the Danish cartoons -- whose target was not Islam but the intimidation practised in its name -- was instead an insult to deeply held religious beliefs. And so it was that protest, rather than the clerical fascism, which should not be tolerated.

In the great fight in which we are engaged to defend life and liberty, just which side is the British Foreign Secretary on?

His speech also contained a further possibly ominous reference:

The release of the British hostage, Norman Kember, and two of his companions has been very prominent in the media over the past few days. I believe the calls by many Muslims in this country and fellow British citizens for the safe release of those kidnapped victims and showing their solidarity with their plight may have contributed to their survival.

Let us remind ourselves who these Muslims were who made these calls for the hostages’ safe release. After consultations with the Foreign Office, the Muslim Association of Britain – the British arm of the Muslim Brotherhood which works for the Islamisation of Britain and Europe -- dispatched its president, Anas al-Tikriti, to Iraq to negotiate with the kidnappers. The MAB also persuaded Sheikh al-Qaradawi, the Brotherhood’s mentor and supporter of human bombs in Iraq and Israel, as well as the leaders of Hamas, Hizbollah and 23 other Muslim organisations, to sign a press release calling for Kember and three other hostages to be freed. The al Qaeda leader Abu Qatada was also pressed into service to appeal for their release from his prison cell, as did Moazzam Begg, the British man who had previously been detained at Guantanamo Bay, while Muslims at Finsbury Park mosque -- now run once more by the Brotherhood -- said prayers for Kember’s safe return which were played on televisions across the world.

The British Foreign Secretary has now said, in effect, that the lives of Norman Kember and the other two hostages were saved thanks to the Muslim Brotherhood. What price will the Brotherhood now exact from Britain in return?