Paris Tragedy, Clichés and Cycle of Backlash

Two weeks ago Paris was hit by the massacre of its inhabitants who were enjoying the start of weekend. A total of 130 people lost their lives and hundreds were injured. The loss of innocent life said to be the highest since the world war. Most of us were in a shock and were trying to get our heads round the extent of the tragedy and feeling sorry for the friends and families of the victims. A group of people, however, could not wait for the blood of the victims to dry and started to exploit the tragedy for their twisted agendas. They were firing up tweets, blogs and rants on the media, generally spouting hate. Their behaviour was against all human values of sympathy and respect for the dead. Following is a sample of their tweets:

Barefoot Syrian refugees with
her 3 young children in Europe

 The target of these tweets, refugees fleeing war zone of Syria and other conflict zones. These people have been criticising European Governments for allowing Brown Muslim Refugees into the white Judeo- Christian West. These hate preachers and fear mongers have been opposing the policies of the European Union, in particular the German Chancellor Angela Merkel. Threy cheered countries like Hungry for putting obstacles in the miserably hard journey of refugees, which has taken lives of thousands. This exploitation of Paris tragedy shows the depravity of these people. Despite their hateful views, they are the respectable face of the racism/ Islamophbia. In fact some of them are part of a network of Islamophobic industry including the Gatestone Institute and their subsidiaries like the Henry Jackson society and supporters of sub-subsidiaries such as the Quilliam foundation. These are the respectable faces of the hate mongering fraternity. Together they inspire, incite and radicalise ordinary people who don’t just tweet vile abusive and threatening tweets but put that in practice. The inflammatory language used by our media and Politicians doesn't help. The use of words like hoards, swarms and swamping doesn’t help.

When something like Paris tragedy happens clichés such as “they hate the West“ are banded about. However, no one explains that why the large parts of the West like, Germany, Italy, Switzerland, Sweden, Norway, etc are spared of such attacks. Why only countries involved in the conflicts have been targeted by these people? Of course there are other clichés like “they hate our values”, “they hate our lifestyle” and “they love death while we love life”. This message is reinforced with “they are barbarians and savages”. This language stems from the feelings of superiority and racist attitudes that are prevalent on both sides of the Atlantic. The attitudes which have been responsible for deaths of unarmed black people in the US and gave rise to the black lives matter movement. This kind of language is also designed to cover up the failures to integrate generations of descendants of migrants who are the main culprits in Paris like tragedies. Furthermore, it is easier to blame people far away for the atrocities than accept the circumstances leading to the enfranchisement of own citizens.

Denial seems to be the name of the game when comes to wars and its consequences. It has been used by the Pentagon after bombing weddings and hospitals etc. Denial of the motives of attacks on the westerners and on the western soil is also part of the same strategy. Recently, Ken Livingston made remarks about 7/7 bombers on a tv programme, saying that they (bombers) gave their life because of a political cause and our actions in Iraq and Afghanistan. Blair supporter Matt Forde, who was also a panelist on the same programme, tried to shut Ken Livingston by claiming that it was offenssive to the victims of 7/7 bombing. It is this kind of bullying which is keeping us from discussing the real issues, which are keeping us in a cycle of unending violence. The reality is that only one of the mass murderers of Paris was known for his IS supporting activities. The rest were not known to be religious or known for any extremist tendencies. Some of them ran a bar which was closed for illegal activities, couple of months before the atrocity. It seems that they had become radicalised within that short period of time. Furthermore, at the time of their murderous activity they were high on drugs, not on any kind of religious fervour.      

It is the people like Maajid Nawaz and the sponsors of Quilliam Foundation with their rhetoric of ideology, who have been spreading fear of Islam and Muslims. Then they turn around and claim that there is no such thing as Islamophobia. Over the years, they have been casting increasingly wider net to label all Muslims as Islamists, non violent extremists, etc. The reality is that apart from a cultish group of approx. 200 to 300, which doesn’t believe in the democratic society, the vast majority of Muslims have always taken part in the democratic processes. There have been Muslim councillors and lord mayors going as far back as 1970s and 1980s. There are number of Muslim MPs and ministers in the cabinet and shadow cabinets. The reality is that Quilliam, their sponsors and so called prevent programme is doing real damage to the active participation of Muslims in Politics, Education, Employment, Media, etc. Maybe that is the goal of their sponsors; to undermine, disenfranchise, and suppress the voice of the Muslim community.  

Coming back to the Paris tragedy, there was an immediate backlash from the French in the form of bombing of the alleged capital of Daesh, Raqqa. Bearing in mind that France is already bombing in Syria, why didn't they bomb Raqqa before? Is it because the risk to the civilian population is greater in Raqqa than in other places? If that is the case then how bombing Raqqa civilians will improve their security? Now France has asked UK to join them in the bombing campaign over Syria, where risk of killing civilian population is greater. Although our Government has made an unconvincing case to join France in the bombing campaign in Syria, they may still get approval from the parliament. There is however a concern about the alleged remarks attributed to the PM David Cameron, that people opposing the proposed action in Syria are terrorist sympthisers. This unfortunately confirms that debate is suppressed at the highest level.

After the Paris attacks media talked about backlash against the Muslim citizens of the West. It was an odd prediction as they had nothing to do with what had happened in Paris. However, the backlash has happened, mainly due to the media rhetoric and headlines like in the Sun below. We must not forget the wide spread incitement and abuse on the social media.

The results are painfully clear to the victims of Islamophobic/ racist attacks. Although victims of such abuse are people of all ages, often it is the women who bear the brunt of this hate crime. Most victims are targeted because of their obvious visibility as Arabic/ Asian appearance and this sometimes results in attacks on other brown coloured non Muslim communities too. Women are targeted for such abuse as they are doubly visible as Muslims because of their colour and dress/ hijab and because, like the terrorists, they are probably considered a soft target.

Politicians are no better in addressing the problem. Only the Labour MPs have raised the issue in the Parliament. Shadow equalities minister Kate Green MP raised her concerns about the staggering 300% increase in, already high, Islamophobic attacks. As far as the Government is concerned, they have been busy enacting/ introducing annual instalments of counter terrorism/ extremism legislation / regulations. The Prime Minister has been making major speeches on the prevention strategy. PM and his minister's strong statements and so called prevent programme, has created an atmosphere of suspicion affecting whole of the Muslim community. The role of this approach in the increasing number of Islamophobic attacks and discrimination, affecting daily life from education, employment, public service to charitable activities, can not be denied. Government's reliance on selected individuals and organisations for advice and consultation and not the mainstream communities is responsible for some of its ill thought policies. Unfortunately some of the advisors are motivated by their own agendas. This became clear in the saga of the Cage UK, an organisation named by the Prime Minister in one of his speeches. As it happens the courts disagreed with the assessments made by the people advising him and attacking the charitable status of the organisation.

During the debate on Syria, conservative MP Rahman Chishti raised his concerns about the use of the words Islamic State, which have been abandoned by the UN, US, EU, France and many more, in favour of the Arabic name Daesh.  He said to the PM that the using Islamic State instead of Daesh was giving rise to Islamophobia. PM David Cameron’s response was that dropping Islamic State in favour of Daesh would risk losing the public. Obviously what he was more concerned about losing public support to extend bombing strikes in Syria. Furthermore, he was probably worried about the loss of support from the right wing press and organisations. This supports the idea that such terms are often used for political purposes which is a reckless attitude as it has devastating consequences.

 PM has at many times said that the UK government operates strong anti extremism policies, which he says are the toughest in the world (even Gatestone Institute calls it draconian). However, it seems the government has failed to conduct a thorough impact assessment. Apart from paying lip service, the government has shown no enthusiasm to tackle the scourge of Islamophbia. During the attack on Gaza in 2014, criticism of Israel was described as anti-semitic, by people like Douglas Murray. This is not to say that their weren’t anti-Semitic incidents, there were. This resulted in a robust response by the government to reassure the Jewish community and a parliamentary report on the issue was published.

Now that the parliament has voted to extend the bombing campaign into Syria, there is a risk that any negative implications will undoubtedly result in backlash against the Muslims. Therefore, it is imparitive that the Government reassures the community by acknowledging the existence of the problem of Islamophobia and take steps to reassure the community. Furthermore, it should consult mainstream Muslims to develop strategy to counter and safeguard Muslim citizens. This is important as anti-Muslim hate crime can only lead to disenfranchisement, which is believed to be a major factor in so called radicalisation. 

Dying to be Safe, The Refugee Crisis

Since I wrote this piece the migrant/ refugee story has escalated into a serious crisis. Thousands of refugees are taking a risky journey on overcrowded boats which are not designed for this purpose.  They fled their homes due to the wars, death and destruction to unsafe, overcrowded and badly funded refugee camps. So flee again in search of stable safe and secure life. They have paid their life savings to smugglers  to get them to safety. The tragedies of hundreds of deaths, in the sea and on the European soil, including babies, children, men women and the infirm are piling up. However, this doesn’t deter desperate people as what they left behind is worse than perceived peaceful existence ahead. Instead what they are finding is razor wired fences, army/ police patrols, helicopters, baton charges and tear gas, etc. Thousands are being held in inhumane conditions in camps reminiscent of camps in the early 20^th century. Thousands are sleeping in the fields after Hungry closed her border. 

While the European leaders were concentrating on the hazardous sea journeys between Libya and Italy and the British were preoccupied by the migrants living in the “Jungle”, humanitarian crisis were developing in Greece. War wary refugees were landing in their thousands at the shores of Greece islands. Recession hit Greece but no one came to their help, they hired Ferries to move these people to land. These people then walked hundreds of miles on foot with their children, pregnant women, old and the infirm. However, one European country decided took upon itself to be the Guardian of the European Law and the Christian culture of Europe and decided to block their passage.

Only European leader who kept her head and showed compassion is the German Leader Angela Merkel. It is not the first time Merkel has shown leadership as she is the only European leader who has spoken out against neo Nazi hate groups such as Pagida and other anti immigrant and anti Muslim hate groups. On Wednesday 2^nd September came the news of drowning of a young Kurdish Syrian family including 2 year old Aylan Kurdi hit our TV screens and front pages. However, If there wasn’t a striking picture of the two year old Aylan’s body washing up on shore, this incident would have remained another one of those non important drowning of migrants. How insensitive it might seem to be but the image awakened the humanity which has been lacking for years. The problem has been the brainwashing of our population by our media which has been portraying migrants as spongers and benefit and health tourists. This propaganda continued unabated, despite clear evidence that the migration, recent and historic, has been good for the economy and helped UK and other European economies.

The treatment of refugees in Hungry and other Eastern European countries shows a clear divide between old EU and the new EU countries. In their desire to expand the European and US influence in these countries and to expand their influence in countries bordering Russia, they were fast tracked into the European Union and the NATO. No one considered that these countries, which had been separated from the European civilisation by not only walls of the cold war era but also the development of civilised society. And that they were clinging onto the old historic events with deep held prejudices.

Our politicians and journalists, who lecture their minority communities about integration and values of Europe, failed to educate new comer nations about the values of humanity, human rights and other European values. While old European Union allowed new Europeans to travel freely and showered them with Billions of dollars of aid, it took eye of the important issues and let the scourge of far right develop and spread through partnerships throughout Europe. These partnerships not only developed previous rhetoric of anti-Semitism and racism, it added Islamophobic  rhetoric to their hate programme.

It is this failure, to integrate and educate new members about European values, which is undermining the European unity, culture, and values, resulting in the human rights abuses. While Hungry, currently ruled by a far right party, is taking the lead in demonising Syrian refugees, other Eastern European countries like Poland, Check republic, etc are also refusing to settle some of these refugees in their countries. UK is also refusing to help these refugees, already on the European soil. Europe is clearly going backwards not forward. Only Angela Merkel is upholding the European values but her decision to accommodated hundreds of thousands refugees may also prove to be the most pragmatic.

The same people, who often complain about the economic power of Germans, are attacking her decision to give refuge to these often young, educated and ambitious people. They question her statements about Germany’s ability to absorb Hundreds of thousands refugees and to say Syrian refugees were welcome. Journalists ask Germans silly questions, such as are you welcoming migrants because of the guilt of what happened in the past. They can not comprehend the genuine humanity and compassion.  

The open racism of the Hungarian government, which Nigel Farage described as moderate, shouldn’t be a surprise as 64% of Hungarians hold anti-Semitic views. Now it has become clear that they also hold serious Islamophobic views too. Nigel Farage and Hungarian Ministers say that these refugees aren’t destitute and are from the middle classes, as though only poor classes are affected by wars. Yes these people seems to have the means to pay the people smugglers to reach place of safety but that shouldn’t detract us from the fact that they are fleeing war and struggles they are enduring to reach place of safety. Because these refugees are educated, middle class, UKIP is unable to use the rhetoric of spongers and attraction of the Benefit systems, so they resort to attacking them for being middle class and false claims that it would dilute Christian culture. The reality is that even if 250,000 are accepted in Europe it will only add 0.05% to the existing 3.5% Muslim population of Europe.

People like Nick Cohen and other Eutsonites, Maajid Nawaz, Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris and other so called Liberal Left, should be pleased that their Islamophobic rhetoric has much in common with the Far right Anti-Semitic Hungary and other Eastern Europeans. They also have a commonality with the hate spreading messages of Douglas Murray of the Henry Jackson Society and the Gatestone institute. It seems that these champions of Human Rights, Freedoms including Freedom of Speech, Secularism, etc agree that 0.05% addition to the population of Europe threaten European culture and values. I must add that these people, from time to time write about the misery faced by the refugees/ migrants but then go on to support the Government line on this issue. The media including BBC uses suspect surveys to show that majority of the public is against helping the refugees/migrants

Another “liberal left” journalist David Aaronovitch has written about the plight of the Syrian refugees but then he uses this crisis/ tragedy to make a case for intervention. One thing for sure that he is a consistent in his warmongering agenda. He talks about 200,000 deaths in Syria conflict but fails to admit that half of them are caused by the forces opposed to the Assad regime. Furthermore, further military intervention will not only increase the death toll, refugee crisis, it will turn Syria into Libya like lawless country. The only solution is a negotiated settlement but these warmongers don’t want any role by Turkey, Iran and Russia. They previously opposed and undermined UN’s efforts to find a negotiated settlement through Ban Ki Moon’s envoys, Kofi Annan and Lakhdar Brahimi.

The right wing media and people like Nick Cohen, Maajid Nawaz, etc use red herrings such as why aren’t Gulf states taking in the refugees. The same rhetoric was repeated by the English Democrats leader, who was given platform by the BBC’s Andrew Neil, on the daily politics show. These are the same people who constantly attack these states for alleged human rights abuses but, because these refugees happen to be Muslim, it is ok for them to go there. In any case majority of Syrian, Afghan and other Muslim refugees are being hosted by the neighbouring Muslim countries. In any case these refugees have spent years in warzones and refugee camps where lives have been stood still. Their children’s education has stalled and often these children are forced to work to earn to put food on table.

Soon headlines and breaking news about refugees will disappear from the front pages and our screens. It is paramount that we keep telling our main stream politicians and governments to show humanity and to put in practice the values they like to talk about. They should show leadership and, as Jeremy Corbyn said, stand up to the menace of far right, hidden right in the cloak of Liberalism and racism and find a European solution to these humanitarian crises on the European land. They should also work to find a peaceful negotiated settlement of the conflicts and they will find many of these refugees will return to rebuild their country.              

Pesky Migrants knocking on our shores

Once again the lead story on all news channels is the migrants. Today it is the turn of the Calais and all of the TV crews are there. Due to the strike of the ferry workers, desperate humans fleeing from conflicts like in Syria or poverty, tried to board trucks and cars to escape the inhumane conditions. Our TV crews were there to film their desperation. Our politicians talked tough and the PM promised more resources not to help or feed but to prevent them from entering. These included sniffer dogs, scanners and personnel. Everyone is claiming that it is not their responsibility to help and it should be UNHCR or the first country these people had entered. In the meantime these people must live like animals in shanty town in the jungle, where there are no facilities or basics such as food or water.

These desperate people are often dismissed as economic migrants as though search for better life for themselves and their families is a bad thing. However, not all are economic migrants and have escaped with their lives from conflicts, wars and natural disasters. Yes, some of them have also been victims of the traffickers, to whom they may have paid money. But that only makes them victims of greedy and often cruel and brutal criminals. These criminals do not hesitate to torture and even kill for their own protection.   

With the prominence given to the coverage you would think there are tens of thousands of migrants waiting to invade our island country. The fact is that there are only 3000 people who are living in the shanty town in the Calais. Compare that to the tens of thousands arriving in Italy from Libya, via the Mediterranean sea. So far this year approximately 60,000 people have been rescued from the sea. The rescue only started after incidents of drowning including drowning of 800 in one incident. So where are these 60,000 people? They are obviously in Europe but not in the UK. Clearly, other European countries are doing their fair share of helping these people except the UK.

It is often said that we are an island nation and we can’t help everyone. The reality is that we are not the only island nation as every country considers itself to be an island within their borders. No country has flexible borders which expand or contract according to rise or reduction in the population. Even Australia, a country of whole continent, claims to be an Island.

 A recent report by the United Nations said that there are nearly 60 million displaced people in the world. When this figure is mentioned politicians and pundits often say that Britain can’t take 60 million people. They miss the point that majority of these people are internally displaced in their countries, due to war and natural disasters. Others are mainly living in the neighbouring countries. Like Syrians in Turkey and Afghans in Pakistan, the two countries with highest number of refugees in the world.

The reality is that the vast majority of refugees stay in or around their country. Same applies to the economic migrants that they tend to stay in the neighbourhood. Only a small number venture far afield and they mostly do that on the invitation of the host countries. There is a myth that there are vast numbers of illegal migrants. Often it is assumed to be migrants from non white countries, in reality there are probably Austarlians, Newzelanders, Americans and Canadians but raids are mainly carried out on non white businesses and areas. Fact is that there is no concrete evidence of the kind of numbers banded about by the media and the politicians.

Unfortunately, immigration discussion has taken over the previously common topic of weather. Furthermore, colour, ethnicity, race and more recently religion has become a factor in the migration debate and policies in Australia, EU and North America. Those presenting the endless programmes and debates on the immigration do not bother to look behind the headlines. There are no explanations given beyond the recent past. As I stated earlier that even the economic migrants prefer to stay in the neighbourhood. No one is willing to say what’s gone wrong, why are these migrants risking life and treasure to travel to strange lands.

We need to look back and consider what has changed. What happened to the economies of the regions from which these people are fleeing from? What happened to the jobs previously available to migrants?

If we look back, in 1992 Iraq employed more than a million foreign workers. Libya at the time of western intervention employed as many as 2.5 million foreign workers, a vast majority from Africa but also from South Asia. Libya also provided economic support to African nations in the African Union. Syria, while not employing as many foreign workers, nonetheless had thousands of domestic workers. Syria had also hosted Palestinian refugees and Iraqi refugees during the Iraq occupation. The sanctions in Iran, which also hosts a sizeable community of Afghan refugees, meant Iranians seeking work elsewhere while they could have been providing jobs for the foreign workers.

Clearly the wars and conflicts in the Middle East and Africa and natural disasters such as famine, droughts have had a devastating effect on the local economies. Millions of Jobs have disappeared from the region. No wonder desperate people are risking all for work, better life and security. The remaining economies of the Gulf region could pick and choose labour and get away with low wages and unsafe and unhealthy conditions for workers. Israel, “the only democracy in the Middle East”, refuses to accept African migrants but continues to invite well off westerners to settle in the country. The rich are also welcomed by the western economies. While rich are good for the economy and growth, you need people to fill jobs created by such investment.

The fact is that many of the people knocking on our shores are educated and professional people. Like the Syrian teacher, interviewed by Krishnan Guru Murthy of channel 4 news. He was English Literature teacher in Aleppo. Now he is living in the Jungle in Calais in France. He unsuccessfully tried to get on to a lorry yesterday and alleged that he had been beaten by the French Police. There was also a 65 year old man who got injured while being removed from the lorry; he had previously worked in the Middle East and now desperate to find a job.

The reality is that Europe needs migrants for economic growth but political considerations come in the way. It is time to have a sensible immigration policy to assess status of migrants and to recruit foreign workers needed to grow our economy. Such a policy will stop exploitation and misery of fellow human beings. It is time to stop talking about humans as statistics and to start seeing them as human beings.

The media, which criticises other countries for mistreatment of migrant workers, should start providing public information about the real factors behind immigration. It should also stop giving false myths that the immigrants are only after benefits. Helping immigrants with sensible and thought through policies, without consideration of their colour, race and religion will be mutually beneficial. It will also return Calais to what it should be, a day trippers haven for purchase of booze and fags.  Find Update Here

False Equations

In the recent days a well known Islamophobe joined the Social Media’s mass medium of Twitter. This has been welcomed by the so called man of science and reason, Richard Dawkins, who no longer promotes either the science or involves himself in a reasoned debate. Instead his mission in life seems to be to acquire funding from suspect funders and then to distribute those funds to groups and individuals actively promoting Islamophobia. Why wouldn’t Richard Dawkins welcome Ayaan H Ali to Twitter, the medium he has exploited to make inflammatory and hateful sometimes racial statements. The 140 characters limit is also an excuse to not to make a reasoned argument. He also supports anonymous troll accounts which are overtly and crudely racist and Islamophobic but he calls them satirical.

The other person who welcomed Ayaan is Maajid Nawaz, a PPC for the Liberal Democrats and the Chair of Quilliam foundation. He responded to the tweet by Sam Harris, encouraging people to follow her and Maajid quickly obliged. Maajid also endorsed Ayaan H Ali’s article in the Wall Street Journal and the forthcoming book. Some people believe that Ayaan H Ali already had an account under the name of Secular African. This account had Islamophobic, hate and racist agenda. It openly promoted hate of Muslims and especially of Arabs and supported Israel, especially during the attack on Gaza, when it relayed IDF propaganda. No wonder she has voiced her desire to convert to Judaism. This account also incited Hindus against Muslims, during the Indian election, and supported Narender Modi with a desire to get him to follow back.

Ayaan H Ali has been criticised for her comments that incite violence against Muslims and support suppression of their rights in Europe and North America. This criticism hasn’t just come from Muslims, but Atheiests and Academics alike. In light of the above mentioned, her desires to convert to Judaism is understandable. This, however, conflates with her stated position of being an atheist. We, however, shouldn’t be surprised as other New Atheists like Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins, have also shown soft spot for Judaism, Christianity and Israel.  While Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris may have a chance of being accepted in the Jewish state, Ayaan H Ali, however has no chance of being accepted. She should look at the racist attitudes of Israelis towards African Jews and immigrants and the recent comments by Bibi Netanyahu in the Israeli elections.

In her article in the Wall Street Journal Ayaan H Ali promotes her book and gives the impression that she is arguing about the reformation in Islam. She claims that the Christianity and Judaism had already gone through this process of reformation and that it has only brought good to the humanity. About the Christian and Jewish reformation in Europe she says:

“because their faiths went through a long, meaningful process of Reformation and Enlightenment, the vast majority of Jews and Christians have come to dismiss religious scripture that urges intolerance or violence”

She also says that

Their religious beliefs exist in an uneasy tension with modernity—the complex of economic, cultural and political innovations that not only reshaped the Western world but also dramatically transformed the developing world as the West exported it. The rational, secular and individualistic values of modernity are fundamentally corrosive of traditional societies, especially hierarchies based on gender, age and inherited status.

The reformation is something Maajid Nawaz has also been talking about. He also wants a debate in the Muslim communities and argues for a British Islam. However, most of his debates have been with the New Atheist community and he ends up agreeing with them. He promotes Quilliam’s Osama Hasan as a scholar who even issued a Fatwa on the issue of British Muslims going to help or fight in the Syria conflict. If anything, this tactic has backfired as the number going there have increased not decreased. It seems that most of these travelers were neither religious nor previously known for extreme or violent behavior. This undermines his claims of Islamism and ideology being behind this trend.

Anyway coming back to the issue at hand, has the reformation really stopped the violence and is it the driver behind the modernity. The history suggests that there is little evidence in support of such claims. While it did bring some periods of stability and peace, in the long run it caused more death and destruction then any time before. It replaced religious fervor with nationalistic jingoism and superiority politics. The debate about reformation was really about the power of the established church and personal and nationalistic views of the ruling classes. There were some sincere reformists like the German reformist, Martin Luther of the protestant movement, his views were rejected by the English king who wanted his own reform and head the Church.     

As far as the violence and religious intolerance is concerned, the reformation did not stop the Spanish inquisition, which lasted for nearly 440 years. It seems that non violence and religious intolerance only applied to the various factions of Christianity not the Muslims or Jews, who were forced to convert to Christianity.  Those who didn’t convert were killed or expelled. That is just one example of religious violence and religious intolerance that has continued after the reformation.  

This intolerance and violence continued during the colonialism era, which subjugated people of other religion, race and colour. This was fully supported by the Church and sometimes even the scientific community. The reformation did not stop the slavery of Africans and all the brutality which came with the trade or stopped transportation of Indians to other continents. It did not stop the brutal treatment and genocides of the indigenous people of Americas or the Australia.

The reformation and enlightenment did not prevent the world WWI or WWII or the genocide of the Jews in Europe. The Jews in Europe had experienced massacres and expulsion throughout the reformation and enlightened period. The only safe place they ever had was in the Muslim communities in and outside of Europe. The wars against communism were also tinged with the religious zealot as wars against the unbelievers who had closed churches. The same rhetoric was applied to support Afghans against Russia and which formed the basis for establishing the Mujaheddin army which later turned into Taliban and Al-Qaida.

History tells us that in the newly independent countries, after breaking the shackles of colonialism, from Algeria to Yemen, enlightened, secular and socialism leaning leaders emerged. However, one by one those leaders were got rid of. These leaders were undermined by the west by overtures to the military and by supporting religious parties, saying to them socialism conflicted with Islam and religion. Leaders such as Nasser, Bhutto, Sukarno to name few. Lets look at Pakistan, which gets special mention in Ayaan H Ali's article and probably the book. In 1960's and seventies Zulifqar Ali Bhutto established a political party which overtly said in its manifesto that Islam is our religion and Socialism is our politics. The party won by landslide in open and fair elections. During the elections and the party rule, US and other western countries supported the religious parties. Their was a queue of western ambassadors, lead by US,  to visit his the humble residence of Jamat Islami scholar and leader Mowdudi. Bhutto was replaced with a Military ruler, who did introduce some Islamic law.  
  

Lets not forget the war, which in the absence of proof of sated reason, can only be described as a war motivated by religious beliefs of Tony Blair and George Bush. The other recent examples are the Apartheid in South Africa and the current occupation and siege of Palestine by Israel and her apartheid and racist systems. Even the Prime Minister of Israel made openly racist comments to scare his fellow Jews and to get votes. Netanyahu and his administration is known for making anti Muslim and anti Arab statements to justify their wars on Gaza. These attitudes of intolerance, racism and religious hatred are inherited from their homeland of enlightened Europe and the North America. I sometimes wonder if today’s Jewish community is being used by the Zionists, be that Jews/ cultural Jews, atheists or Christians to cause havoc in the Muslim countries.

In Europe these Zionists of all kind are building alliances with the neo-cons and neo-Nazis against the minorities and the Muslim communities of Europe and the North America as well as against Russia. This has created the atmosphere of fear and uncertainty in the migrant and Muslim communities. However, I remain fearful that if the history is to repeat itself the Jewish community will be as much of a target as the other minorities and Muslims. This fear is based on the perceptions, as pointed out by Trevor Phillips, of Jews being rich and powerful. Such myths had previously resulted in massacres and genocide in Europe.  The most intolerant of Muslims are the New Atheists also known as the new Humanists and secularists. They suppose to be the enlightened and reasoned ones but most of their rhetoric is neither reasoned nor enlightened. 

Ayaan H Ali’s article gives an idea about her forthcoming book. She claims that she is not against all Muslims and hope that Muslims will reform the religion themselves. She, like the President of the United States, wants to keep all options on the table to confront Islam/ Muslims. This includes the option of force, in other words option of violence which is not very tolerant, reformed or enlightened. Other new Atheists, like Sam Harris, also hold the same views.

The reality of the reformation is that all Christian sects agreed on the divinity, Christ and Bible being untouchable. In other words the foundations of the Christianity remained out of bounds of the reformists. The same applies to the claimed Judaism reformation. However, Ayaan want to attack the core foundations of Islam by attacking the Prophet (pbuh). Without whom there would be no Islam and Muslims today. Anyone who is attacking the core foundations of a religion is not sincere about discussion dialogue or considered reform but purveyor of doom and violence.

The other crazy thing she has come up with is the ‘Madina Muslims’ and ‘Mecca Muslims’. She claims that the Mecca Muslims are more peaceful than the Madina Muslims. The reasons she gives for this is that the Madina Muslims were involved in wars while the Mecca Muslims were peaceful. This shows her total ignorance of the beginnings of the Islam and the life of the prophet (pbuh). She seems to have swallowed the scripts provided to her by the Islamophobe Industry. The facts are as below:

The Prophet (pbuh) emigrated to Madina, due to the violence and threats to him by the idol worshippers of Mecca. He was invited by the Muslims of Madina and other Muslims who had migrated on his advice. When the idol worshipers plotted to assassinate him, he also migrated to Madina. When the leaders of the idol worshippers learnt of the failure of assassination attempt they felt humiliated. They then attacked Madina in their attempt to assassinate the Prophet (pbuh). They attacked Madina on several occasions but every time they failed. This does not fit her description of peaceful and non aggressive people.  

Clearly Ayaan H Ali’s narrative does not fit the facts. By her logic the people and tribes of Mecca, who tried to assassinate the Prophet (pbuh) and attacked Madina on several occasions were docile and pacifists. The fact is that before they embraced Islam, the Meccan Tribes were aggressive warriors. They became peaceful and devout because of Islam not despite of Islam. The people of Madina were always peaceful and provided sanctuary to the migrants including the Prophet (pbuh). Today there is no difference between Muslims of Mecca and the Muslims of Madina. Like 1.6 billion Muslims of the world of all colours, races and nationality, they all try to practice their faith peacefully.

Ayaan H Ali, in her piece for WSJ, states that the Christians and Jewish communities of Madina were told that they could retain their faith if they paid a special tax. She alleges that all others were told either to convert or die. This is a pure fiction. The tax applied to all non Muslim communities. The fact is that the initial attacks by Meccans on Madina did not affect the others as Muslim numbers were low and could easily be targeted. However, as Muslim numbers grew, due to the conversions, the attacks started to affect all communities. However, as only Muslims were defending against these attacks and Meccans had started to approach other groups to spy and collaborate, there was need both for funds and to counter these tricks. Therefore, non Muslims were asked to pay a tax as contribution to the cost of defending and as a declaration of loyalty.     

Ayaan H Ali's, like many other, is trying to rewrite the history of Islam and create another label to divide Muslims. She says that she was raised as a Meccan Muslim. Her hostility towards Islam and Muslims and her rhetoric of inciting wars and violence belittles her own argument and factitious and facile theory.