Mark Steel: The Nation of Islam may be based on a Chris Morris prank

If the Nation of Islam want to take off in this country, they'll have to change the uniform. Because, to the British, it makes their followers look like nightclub bouncers. Potential supporters must think their founding document begins: "All praise to Allah, for he lets no one, I said no one, come in here wearing jeans. And let the unwise man stand laden with drink at the gates of heaven begging for entrance, for the Almighty will stare coldly and repeat: 'You're not on the guest list'."

But there are plenty of people ready to go berserk at the prospect of a visit by the Nation's erstwhile banned leader Louis Farrakhan. The Daily Mail, for example, describes him in a headline as a "Racist rabble-rouser". Is the ranting of an anti-white Muslim any different from anti-black racism, ask such people, feeling hard done by. As if the two are the same. As if a speech along the lines of "Brothers, we have been the victims of colonialism and of imperialism, and been subjugated under centuries of domination from the white man who has terrorised and brutalised and paralysed our people" is the same as someone in Dagenham going "There's another one moved in over the road, it's getting like bleedin' Calcutta round here".

See, one is a response, however misguided, to the problem, and the other is a continuation of the problem. The argument that equates the two treats the history of racism as if it was all a silly feud.

It's as if they're saying: "All right mate, maybe your folks did get dragged from their homeland and bent around metal bars in the hulls of boats, then dumped on the other side of the world, forbidden to keep their names or their children and given the legal status of a lizard – no need to keep on about it though, is it? I got done for a fiver by a bloke selling dodgy lighters. You don't catch ME being miserable."

Even less convincing is the intervention by Home Office minister Beverley Hughes, who said the decision to permit Farrakhan's visit is "very disappointing". This is the same woman who splendidly revealed, mid-rant, that she hadn't seen the Brass Eye programme she was screaming about. So her whole speech was probably: "It's very disappointing that we're allowing this disgusting man into the country. I've no idea who he is, presuming it is a 'he'. But I don't need to know. Apparently he's awful and that's enough to make all decent people feel sick."

And while he may have said some diabolical nonsense, Farrakhan has not done quite as much damage as Vladimir Putin or Ariel Sharon, who have both been received here recently like long-lost heroes. I bet that the Palestinians wish that all Sharon had done was stand on the Golan Heights making silly speeches in a bow tie.

Those who object to the decision to allow his visit quote Farrakhan's remark that "The Jews don't like Farrakhan so they call me Hitler. Well, that's a good name. Hitler was a very great man. He rose Germany up from the ashes". Which is a little lacking in history.

Or they quote Farrakhan's belief that white people are little devils, the result of an experiment by one Doctor Yacub on an island 6,000 years ago. True, this is a little lacking in science, but this idea derives from the founder of his movement, Elijah Muhammed.

Maybe it began when Elijah was a minor celebrity and fell for a Chris Morris prank. But all religion can sound just as daft. When Tony Blair announced his trip to Argentina, I wonder whether their press complained: "This lunatic is from the bizarre sect known as the Church of England, who follow the writings of a book called The Bible. This book claims that women are unclean during menstruation, they have been made out of a man's rib and, if one of them sees God at work, they deserve to be turned into a pillar of salt. He will mostly be discussing ways of increasing trade between the two countries."

Just as all religion can sound irrational, all of it is based on a reality that is rational. When you read about the life of Malcolm X, of the teachers who said his "kind" could never be lawyers, of the racist firebombing of his home, of the judges who sentenced him to jail for five times longer than white burglars on the same charge, you can see how the idea that white people were devils made by a mad doctor must have seemed utterly plausible.

The problem is that separatism can end up condoning the same cobblers that the racists argue in the first place. Marcus Garvey ended up like this, on friendly terms with the Ku Klux Klan, and so has Farrakhan, which is why one of his fans appears to be David Irving.

It's the hypocrisy of those who object to Louis Farrakhan that provides the real case for allowing him in. The argument of his followers, that he has "mellowed" since making the point that Hitler was a great man, is not quite so convincing.

So what does he say now – merely that Hitler was not so bad when you got to know him and very handy around the house?