The Rise of the Ignorant Intellectuals

What the H**k is Cultural Relativism?

 You are well educated, good with words and regard yourself a bit of intellectual. So what you do with your talent? Do you explore variety of things, spread positivity through your talents or do you limit your talents to spread poison and hatred. Unfortunately some people do limit their talents to attacking everything, which doesn’t fit into their small minded view of the world. They use their talent to attack and bully people who have a wider perspective, principals and opinions based on their experiences.  

 One such person writes and tweets anonymously under the name of Unrepentant Jacobin, thereafter referred to as UJ. We don’t know if the person is a she, he or it (an alien). This person's blog is headed “Poison Pamphleteer”. UJ's main subjects include Islam, Multiculturalism (mainly related to Muslims) & criticism of mainstream left (for opposing Islamophobia).The twitter profile of UJ states, I defend the West including Israel. Previously UJ's profile included Zionist, although UJ says he is non Jewish. UJ doesn't clarify, what does defending West mean and from what?. However, its clear that UJ's form of defence is to attack.

 On 9th January 2014, I spotted UJ attacking someone from The Feminist wire, on twitter. UJ had tagged in couple of people for reinforcement or to show off, just like a bully in playground. As usual some troll accounts joined in too. I am not saying UJ was a bully at school; chances are he was a victim of bullying. It’s not unusual to come across such behaviour by UJ and his twitter buddies. I rarely intervene as more often than not UJ and co would try to shut people down, by labelling and name calling. However, on this occasion I did and was immediately labelled “racist”.

 As I said it’s not uncommon for UJ and co. to attack and ridicule people who have a differing point of view, particularly on issues to do with Muslims/ Islam and Islamophobia. I remember the tirade of abuse from UJ and Clique, against Victoria Coren, for writing  "My veil epiphany"  .Then there was Priyamvada Gopal for writing  this article criticising the activities of "Student Rights" an offshoot of Henry Jackson Society. Another victim of their attack was the Writers of Colour for publishing Shohana Khan's article on their website. Then there was attack on Laurie Penny for writing this article .This is just a sample of their victims but what is concerning is that, they not only target people who stand against Islamophobia.

 I was shocked to be labelled racist by UJ so I decided to check what was going on between him and the Feminist wire. I learned that the Feminist Wire is a multi ethnic and inclusive website . Here is an extract from their Mission statement:

 "The mission of The Feminist Wire is to provide socio-political and cultural critique of anti-feminist, racist, and imperialist politics pervasive in all forms and spaces of private and public lives of individuals globally". 

 It turns out that some 21 months ago in April 2012 Adele Wilde-Blavatsky had a written an article titled 'To be Anti-Racist is to Feminist: The Hoodie and the Hijab are not Equals'. The article was published on the Feminist Wire website. Adele had written the article in response to the united protest held, under the banner of ‘1 million Hoodie and Hijab March’ held across America. The protest was held to show solidarity with the victims of allegedly racially and islamophobic murders of Trayvon Martin, a 17 year old African American boy and Shamim Alawadi and Iraqi American woman.

 Adele's article proved to be controversial and received criticism from a wide ranging feminist community and attracted abusive comments from the readership. After careful consideration and consultation, the Feminist wire decided to remove Adele's article and also decided to part with Adele. I should point out that the Feminist wire is run by a collective of writers who voluntarily donate their time on part time basis.

Let us examine what was so controversial about the article that nearly 80 feminists wrote a joint letter criticising the article.

 The article was written and published when emotions were running high and black and white Americans were united against the alleged racial and Islamophobic motives behind the murders. Adele wrote:

A `One Million Hoodies' march was organised to demand justice for Martin.  As Brendan O'Neill argued, this use of the hoodie is questionable enough.  The wearing of `One million hijabs' to show public solidarity and outrage at the murder of Alawadi? I cannot think of anything more ironic and counter-productive.

 I searched, without success, for the above quote attributed to of Brandan O’Neill. I did, however, find this article . The article was criticised by Ophilia Benson who wrote  Vile Brandan O'Neill. However, the same Ophilia Benson later came out in support of Adele.

Adele also wrote:

What I take issue with here is the equating of the hoodie and the hijab as sources of ethnic identity and pride. The hijab, which is discriminatory and rooted in men's desire to control women's appearance and sexuality, is not a choice for the majority of women who wear it. The hoodie, on the other hand, is a choice for everyone who wears it. The history and origin of these two items of clothing and what they represent could not be more different; like comparing the crippling footbindings of Chinese women with a `Made in China' Nike trainer.

 Adele’s comparison of a harmless piece of clothing to footbindings in ancient china, is this the kind of exaggerated analogy we should expect from today’s intellectuals. Despite the evidence to the contrary, even if you accept her premise that hijab is mainly worn by women, because of men’s desire to control women, aren’t those women entitled to protection from violence. Is it wrong to show solidarity with those who suffer abuse, threats and violence because they wear hijab.  Adel's understanding of both the Hoodie and Hijab is nothing more than stereotypical prejudice. 

 She doesn’t  know that the origins of both forms of head gear are in Africa and the Middle East. She doesn’t understand that headgear is worn by men and women all around the world. As well as being practical and religious, headwear is a symbol of fashion, status and prosperity. It is also part of culture and is symbol of national dress and pride of many nations.

 The point is neither the hoodie is exclusively worn by black Americans nor is hijab an exclusive head wear of Muslims. It’s all about other people's perceptions. Question is why hoodie has become symbol of black men and why Hijab has become symbol of pride of Muslim women. In my view the answer lies in the wrong perceptions of wider society to link hoodies and black men crime and disorder. Similarly, hijab is maliciously being symbolised as oppression. The fact is that Muslim girls and women are making it a symbol of their identity and respect for their beliefs. They are standing up to the false propaganda that they are oppressed by their fathers, brothers and sons. They have the confidence to stand up to the bigots and say, we are Muslim, we are here, deal with it.  

 Why do some feminists feel they can ignore views of Muslim feminists like Camillia Khan who wrote this The 'Segregation' Debate and Muslim Female Empowerment |.  Why do they generalise that hijab is forced on women but offer no evidence to support their claims. The findings of a study survey report on the opinions of people in seven, predominantly Muslim countries can be found here . The survey shows 85% support for hijab across a sample made up of men and women. These are just two examples of differing view ignored by feminists like Adele Wilde-Balavatsky and UJ and co. They forget that most young women of today, both in the west and the east, are better educated than their mothers. They make their own choices and they do not need someone else telling them how to live their lives.  

On the issue of race hate crimes Adele wrote:

Racism is not skin-deep: white vs. non-white. If that were the case, then Why has there been centuries of caste discrimination and violence in countries like India? Why are Muslim women beaten and murdered by Muslim men for refusing to wear the hijab? How did both these deaths occur in a country that is led by a black male President? How does it explain the fact that about 150 black men are killed every week in the U.S. - and 94 percent of them by other black men?

UJ's explanation of the above is:

 What was needed, she argued, was a reframing of the whole conversation about the defence of women's rights and the need for a feminism that was, if not blind to cultural difference, then at least not subordinate to it.

 Neither the above extract from Adele Wilde-Blawatsky's piece nor the explanation of UJ makes makes any sense. Are they saying that victims of caste system, women murdered by men and black on black violence, while there is a black president, are all victims of racism.If that is what they are saying then in one swoop they have  changed the definition of racism and racist violence. The other explanation could be that, all of the above violence is cultural. In other words non white races are culturally prone to violence. I, however,  fail to see the connection between black male president and Murders of Martin Trayvon and Shamim Alawadi. 

 It seems to me that this is an attempt to link violent, race hate and ani-muslim crimes to culture of minorities and not real factors. To dismiss these crimes as result of patriarchal power, is ignoring the real factors. It’s an attempt to exempt western societies from any culpability. It suggests that if minorities do not wish to suffer racial violence, they should change and accept western culture/  dress, this race hate will stop. Therefore, it implies, that minorities should not protest as their problems are of their own making.

In light of the above, I am not surprised that the Feminist Wire collective made an entirely rational decision to remove Adele’s article and abusive comments from their website. They had no choice but to part company with her, they could not afford to associate with someone who was judgemental, exaggerator and who acted against unity and sowed seeds of division. Their side of story can be found here . 

 Adele seems to be unable to comprehend the reasons for the removal of her article and her removal from the collective. The matter continues to cloud her judgements and she has failed to see the motives of people, like UJ and Maryam Namazie, who are using her to pursue their own agenda. Furthermore, Two weeks after her removal from the TFW collective she wrote, an article titled "When Anti-Racism becomes Anti-Women: The 'Privileging' of Race above Gender, which you can read it here .

 If Adele and UJ wish to promote unity among feminists then why continue to write about it. Some 21 months later Adele wrote, 'Stop bashing White Women in the name of Beyonce': We need unity not division' . You can read this  here . Both articles show her inability to forget the incident with feminist wire and to move on.

She wrote:

Sadly, this is not the first time I have come across such a 'white women bashing' message from women in the media. Last year, the Feminist Wire collective published an article I wrote on the burqa and hijab in the wake of the tragic killing of Trayvon Martin: 'To Be Anti-Racist Is To Be Feminist: The Hoodie and the Hijab Are Not Equals'. The FW collective then backtracked after a backlash from their readership and after publishing a letter signed by over 80 feminists denouncing it. I subsequently published a follow up to the article 'When Anti-Racism becomes Anti-Woman'. I and other women who tried to defend the article online (including women of colour from Third World countries) were attacked as either white imperialist racists or suffering from false consciousness. The clear message was that if you're white you cannot criticise anything that is done or said by non-white people unless it follows a certain kind of left liberal 'post-colonial' strain of thought. In any case, white women cannot win on this issue. As Swati Parahsar stated in 'Where are the feminists to defend Indian women?' if white women do not speak up about the oppression of women of colour they are accused of white indifference, if they do they are accused of white imperialism. We're damned if we do damned if we don't.

  Note the absence of mention of Shamim Alawadi’s murder. It is true that some seven month after her death, her husband was arrested in connection with the matter. However, at the time of her death everyone believed it to be a racist and Islamophobic murder. Even if the murder was not a hate crime, Shamim Alawadi was still a victim of heinous crime. As a feminist shouldn’t Adele be concerned about the number of women killed by their partners in the United States. Has Shamim Alawadi death just become a statistic, which is not worth commenting. Shouldn’t feminists like Adele be concerned about the high number of women killed in US by their partners, the figure could be as high as 1000 a year, and highlighting it in their writings? May be they don’t want to acknowledge that the anti women violence is as prevalent in the global north as it is in the global south.

 What I found particularly distasteful was, after learning about the arrest of Shamim's huband in connection of her murder, the smugness and gloating in the exchange of tweets between Adele and her supporters.

 When Adel says that she received support from women of colour, from third world countries, she is actually talking about women mainly resident in the west. She doesn’t know that in today’s global world terms like “third world” are offensive and are not used. Furthermore, all of these supporters seem to belong to one organisation with a specific agenda. One of the people who supported her is Maryam Namazie. One of the "feminists" listed in his article is Maryam Namazie. Her identity is really confusing as she wears so many hats:

1.    Humanist; 2.    Human rights worker; 3.    Secularist; 4.    Liberal; 5.    Communist; 6.    Head of One law for all; 7.    Head of Ex-Muslims; 8.    Editor of Fitna; 9.    Editor of free thoughts website; 10. Women living under Islamic Law; 11. Atheist; 12. Immigration Advisor;

 I am sure I missed a few. She is either a control freak or it's just a one women show. She recently published a report titled "Political and Legal Status of Apostates in Islam". The report is supported and sponsored by none other than Richard Dawkins, once a man of reason and science, who noadys spends his time tweeting news about criminal acts in far flung countries and links them to Islam. He also considers himself a satrist. The report by Maryam Namazie researched laws and prosecutions for apostasy in 29 Muslim majority countries. It did not find a single case of prosecution under so called apostasy law. However, this didn’t stop the author from inferring that, because these countries were Islamic and regarded Islamic law as superior, any one leaving Islam in all 29 countries faced death penalty. This shows that people like Maryam Namazie, Richard Dawkins and their fellow Islamophobes will not let facts stop their hateful propaganda. A recently declared ex-Muslim, summed up motives behind such reports as muslimphobic propaganda. You can read her tweet below:

 

Layla Murad Tweet

 I can understand why Unrepentant Jacobin decided to exploit the dispute between the Feminist Wire and Adele Wilde-Blavatsky and wrote this article titled "Racism, Censorship, Disunity, on the hounding of Adele Wilde-Blavatsky".   It fits neatly into the narrow narrative he and his clique are pursuing. The article has been hailed as an intellectual piece by his clique but I will leave that others to judge.

 Unrepentant Jacobin picked up the baton from Adele and questions the very definition of racism. UJ feels that the minority communities, living in the west, have been exempted from the norms of the western behaviour/ culture. He quotes the following from a speech by Martin Luther King :

"I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal."

 First of all I am surprised that UJ, as an atheist, quoted something which contains the word “created”. Secondly, UJ doesn’t  believe that Muslims are equal to the westerners unless they have an x before their belief. Thirdly, a question, why the anti Muslim community (Islamophobia is not recognised by UJ and co) feel, they have the right to use these symbols and icons, of the civil rights, human rights and anti-apartheid movements, as tools of oppression of the minorities in the west. Furthermore, what right they have to argue that the minority communities should be denied rights under the equality, diversity and human rights legislation. They forget that it was the minority groups including Muslims who had campaigned and fought to get these legislation enacted. To deny people rights is akin to fascism than freedom and democracy.

 While I agree with UJ that humans of all colours and creed are capable of being racists, but to say that power and supremacy ideologies do not play a role is just denying the historic facts. Take slavery, why is it that the westerners only took Africans as slaves, why not Europeans. It’s not that there was no rivalry between European countries or that there a shortage of people in Europe. This trend continues today, as modern slavery and human trafficking mainly targets non Europeans. This superiority complex of some westerners is still the cause of racism at home and abroad. When was the last time you heard stories of non westerners waving their passports abroad and saying they can’t be touched. Same people readily flout and criticise local laws, while advocating that western laws should apply everywhere in the world. They abduct people from their homes, rendition them, torture them and keep them in interned camps, without charge or trial. 

 The undeniable fact is that racism in the west mainly affects the minority and non white communities. To deny this is to deny the Lord Scarman's report and findings and every subsequent report confirming the existence of institutional racism.

 If there is doubt then I suggest UJ and Adele should read this article in the Independent, which shows that children of minority communities, experience racism and racial & Islamophobic abuse at an early age. We are all aware of the increase in anti Muslim hate crimes in the UK, including Murder and arson, as shown in this report in the Guardian . Increasing trends in anti Muslim attacks are highlighted in this report  published by  the FBI , the report shows 50% increase in anti muslim attacks in the US. This Al-Jazeerah report show disturbing trends of attacks on people who look like a Muslims. In other words people who may not be Muslims but they fit the stereo typical image, because of their Asian and Arab descent. If this doesn’t show link between racism and Islamophobia then I don’t know what will.  

 While I agree with both UJ and Adele that feminists, black or white, on the left or the right , should be able to raise issues affecting women both in the global north & global south. What I don’t agree with is, that there is an hierarchy of violence against women and children based on who is doing it or who the victims are. Victims of violence whether in Pakistan, Afghanistan, India, Palestine, Syria, Iraqi etc. are all victims. Violence through arms and ammunition is as bad as violent rape on a Delhi bus. Furthermore, violence against women is not just a global South Issue, it is global North issue too. There may be different factors, causes and forms in the global North than global south but outcomes are the same.

 Challenging so called crimes of passion and child sex abuse and paedophilia in the global North is as important as child marriages, honour killings in the global south. We need to challenge sexual abuse associated with the cult of celebrity in the global north as much as feudalism in the global south. Bonded labour is as bad as human trafficking for sex industry. Tackling gun and gang crime (in the last ten years more lives have been lost in the US through gun crime than terrorism and soldiers killed in action together) is as important as tackling terrorism. It is a shameful day when you see 4 grandees of British media appearing in the court, all on the same day, on charges of sexual abuse and sexual harassment. At the same time two senior politicians were suspended from their Political Party for alleged sexual misconduct. This doesn’t bode well for advances in tackling sexual harassment in our society.

 Feminists shouldn’t just highlight the problems, they should also look at the causes and possible solutions and strategies to tackle . Lack of education,  poverty, suppression by powerful and culture, all play their part. Wars often affects education, increases poverty and dependency on the powerful which leads to exploitation. Government policies such as one child policy in China and forced sterilisation in India has also lead to the gap in male female ration in these countries. Recently, media and feminists have been making a big hoo-ha,, without any substantive evidence, about foetus selection and abortions in the UK. The media and feminists, however, have failed to criticise these practices prevalent in India. Instead what we find is that they are demonising minority communities with pre-formed prejudices.  

 Intellect and intelligent are closely linked, you can’t be a great thinker and producer of reasoned arguments without the intelligence. You also need to be well informed and be able to process the information available and use facts to support your arguments. If you don’t have the information then you must seek it, before commenting and making ignorant remarks. However, modern intellectuals seem to think that because they are famous, they don’t need to follow this rule. They feel that their opinion, no matter how flawed, be accepted as intellectually reasoned statement.

 This, flawed 21^st century phenomenon, is not limited to certain academics, it has spread to the Journalistic, Political and other sectors. It has become the bases of creating so called think tanks, institutes and various other organisations. These organisations have names which are opposite to their activity, e.g. Centre for Community Cohesion, Human Rights Watch, Foundation for Science and Reason, Quilliam Foundation, English Defence League, Free Thoughts, Student Rights, etc. You might wonder why I have included EDL in the list, well it is to show the depravity of intellectual claims by these organisations. Most of them have the same Islamophobic and  ignorant views and a shared agenda. They use the same arguments, same thread in their tweets and retweets. They have the same message with the same aims and impact. 

We must expose such ignorance, wherever it exists, and restore the integrity of real intellectuals.

 I admit that I do not understand in what context these people are using the phrase "cultural relativism". So what is culture? As there are no written rules which defines culture and because it is ever changing, we need to use our imagination. Although from time to there is revival of culture, as we have seen it on British Isles. especially in Wales. Different people interpret culture differently, however, in my humble opinion culture is all about life, living and lifestyle. It encompasses food, clothing, fashion, art, language, literature, music, sport, pastimes, relationships, to list the few items which may come under culture. As humanity develops and grows culture develop and evolve too. In today's global world cultures are global too. As we travel and emigrate our culture travels with us but it doesn't stay the same. For example Tea drinking was important tradition in ancient china but today it is linked to the English Culture. However, with the invasion of American coffee firms, this is under threat.

 Sometimes, however, custom and Prentice and tradition is mistaken as culture. While culture continues to evolve, customs and traditional practices developed over long periods remain static. Therefore, opponents of the concept of multiculturalism should reflect on their position. While culture often travels with people, custom and traditional practises are often left behind. People also try to link culture to the belief systems when nothing could be further from the truth. However, this topic is for another day. 

 As far as the UK is concerned, Multi culturalism means understanding and celebrating diversity, which not only includes racial minorities but also other minority groups. These groups include Travellers, mainland European communities, Disabled and LGBT.  Even before the arrival of the minority communities from the non white countries, the United Kingdom was a diverse and multi cultural country. England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland had their own cultures, values and languages. Furthermore, there were regional variation within England and other parts.  Cultural festivals celebrating this diversity continue to be held. Only difference is that such cultural events are now enhanced with colour, spice, music, different foods and tastes of new comers.

To suggest that the non white communities should absorb themselves fully and become invisible is a laughable idea. Non white communities will always remain visible to racists and bigots.

 Those opposing the multiculturalism are mainly Islamophobic and Racist groups. It will be a great shame if they succeed in creating divisions because of their narrow minded views of the world and humanity.

Woolwich, Media and Politicians

Finally the killers of Fusilier Lee Rigby have been convicted of his barbaric murder. Whole nation is with Lee Rigby’s family who remained dignified throughout this time of difficulty. We hope and pray that they will have a sort of closure. This, unfortunately, is not the end of the matter, as sentencing will be in January 2014. 

Understandably, there has been a lot of media interest and major time allocated to the story on the news bulletins. There were also special Panorama programmes on BBC. Unfortunately, news programmes gave too much time to people like Omar Bakri. There was an attempt to piece together Michael Adebolajo and Michael Adebowali’s “path to radicalisation” (that was waste of license payers’ money). If they had paid attention to the trial and case notes, they would have found everything they needed.

From Prime Minister to pundits talked about radicalisation and extremism. With the exception of couple of sane voices of Mo Ansar and Kirsty Wark everyone was trying to emphasize that there was a major problem of radicalisation. They ignored the facts of the case from the statements of Michael Adebolajo and the prosecution case. Adebolajo had claimed both in statements to the Police, the Court and in the video at the scene of the crime that he had acted because of the foreign policy and deaths of innocent children. It was apparent they had no intention of harming any civilians or the Police. Their target was purely military as they had, mistakenly, decided that they were soldiers themselves.

Some have suggested that both were influenced and brainwashed. However, In light of the statements by the defendants, this argument does not hold. They were both adults of sound mind and have been tried as such. They knew what they were doing and had planned to get shot by the Police. These are not acts of an insane person.

As far as the radicalisation is concerned, it is possible that people like Omar Bakri, and for that matter Michael Adebolajo, concentrate on certain parts of faith more than the whole message. In this case even Omar Bakri was shocked at the transformation of Michael Adebolajo from a shy quiet man turned murderer.

Question is whether in a time of peace, both men have acted the way they did in May. I do not believe they would have. Muslims including those who converted to the faith have lived in peace for centuries and were often praised as law abiding citizens. There role models were people like Yusuf Islam (formerly Cat Stevens), Muhammad Ali, Arafat & Rabin, Mandela, Sports personalities. In fact they still have same/ similar role models but with so much Islamophobia, death and destructions they sometimes are compelled to listen to the alternative narrative.   

Unfortunately we are living in constant war like atmosphere and our television screens are bringing us scenes of death and destruction. The social media is full of same images and war of words raging on twitter. While some of it is justified, deliberate acts of incitement to hate are a major concern.  

It is not surprising that in times of war certain narratives and rhetoric develops to inspire armies and public in general. Rhetoric such as, Queen and country, freedom and democracy. In reality, the very things, used to inspire people, are being lost. This is evident from leaks by whistleblowers like Snowden and Chelsea Manning. It seems that in a desire to have an upper hand, we have forgotten who is a friend and who is a foe. Population is looked upon with suspicion and even foreign leaders are spied on. I do hope that the recent leaks will lead to something good. Hopefully our leaders, instead of spying on each other, may start talking to each other and good old diplomacy will prevail.  

I digress; I wanted to talk about radicalisation and the causes of it. Is it just due to people like Omar Bakri who is sitting thousands of miles away? Should we just blame it on belief, ideology and clerics? I believe it is more complicated than that. We must look at it with a more rounded approach.

We cannot ignore the role of the media, politicians, social media and the Islamophobic industry in radicalisation. 

Problem with the media is that it abuses the public interest argument and goes overboard. For example the Woolwich murder, even before the identity of the killers was known, commentators were saying that the perpetrators looked like Muslim. It seems that Muslim terrorist attack is the default position for our media. The fact is that 99% of terrorist attacks in the Europe and US are not by Muslims. Only thing is that they do not get same attention as an incident involving a Muslim.

The media not only allocates too much time incidents involving Muslims, it brings out same old characters to discuss and debate. I say debate, when people are neither questioned nor challenged. Some commentators go as far to quote verses of Quran as though they had actually read the Quran. They use the same material, used by the EDL, BNP, Robert Spencer, etc. They do not question the authenticity and source of the material. They do not question how Robinson, Griffin, Spencer, etc., became such an expert on Islam.

Another thing media is good at is, to quickly pick up a local issue, highlighted by certain pressure, islamophobic groups, and turns it into a national catastrophe. Issues like Veil/ Niqab and seating arrangements at an Islamic society event. Recently, while discussing Woolwich incident, Jon Snow turned towards Mo Ansar and said seating arrangement was extremist act. I did not expect Mr Snow to lose the perspective and make such a comment while discussing Woolwich. Most disappointing act by media this week was, going to Lebanon and interviewing a foreign national, Omar Bakri. They don’t respond to Northern Irish terrorist acts, by running to Rome or to Arch Bishop for comments.

Finally when media brings “experts” to the studios or contact them for comments, they do not talk to the ordinary public or people affected by the issue such as students from Muslim society. They contact people with extreme views like Henry Jackson Society or their offshoots, Quilliam, Hizb-Tehrir, Ex-Muslims, etc. These people and organisations have pre-formed views. The media never question, their reasons and motives. They might as well cut and paste material from their websites or read it on their show.   

What can I say about the politicians, they like the media, are unable to stand up to the pressure groups. Some of these groups masquerade as journalists and their personal prejudicial views can be found on the social media. Politicians make statements which or either ill judged or not thought through. I sometimes wonder that would we be better off, if we chose more experienced and principled politicians than the camera loving youthful ones. Politicians will do well to accept that there is Islamophobia out there and that we need to counter it. Furthermore, they need to counter the narrative that portrays Muslims as outsiders and aliens. They need to involve Muslims in politics and listen to their views and concerns.     

Government’s position seems to be that the Social media plays an important role in radicalising Muslim youth. It is true that over 50% of British Muslims are under 25 year old and these young Muslims are prolific users of social media. Of course they do come across videos and lectures posted by Muslims around the world. However, they also come across videos and lectures posted by Islamophobes too. If they are radicalised, then, it is not just Islamic videos which are responsible, it is the combination of both.

Governments and politicians can not stop people from sympathising with people subject to injustices and atrocities, whether in Palestine, Syria, Kashmir, Sudan, Kenya, UK, US, etc. As they could not stop people, from sympathising and supporting people subjected to apartheid, in South Africa. While there are no guarantees that there will not be violent incidents by people like Michael Adebolajo, government should take comfort that 99.9% Muslims in the UK are peaceful law abiding citizens. They show their support for the oppressed through charitable deeds and not the violent actions. If the government wish to help young Muslims to not get involved in violent acts then they should not just rely on polished professional outfits, like the Quilliam, which has no grass root base or support.. They should support grass root projects like the street, mentioned in the BBC Panorama programme,which provides opportunity for youngsters to channel their emotions through positive means.

The Woolwich issue is not over yet, as apart from sentencing, there is an ongoing investigation into the failures of the security services and their role in the alleged harassment of Michael Adebolajo and his family. I hope that, when reporting on these investigations, the media will leave Lee Rigby’s family in peace and deal with the ongoing issues with professionalism and not in an alarmist manner.

Is Richard Dawkins Sincere?

This blog was originally published on Friday, 9 August 2013 on a different site

On 7th August 2013, Richard Dawkins tweeted about an article by Steven Pinkler titled "Science is not your enemy". Mr Dawkins was clearly impressed and exited about the article. Within hours Mr Dawkins tweeted that Mr Pinkler had accepted to receive 2013 Richard Dawkins Award.

In between the above tweets, Mr Dawkins also tweeted the following:
 "Double standards so palpable as to be embarrassing. But to point this out makes me racist of course".

The tweet  had a link to an article by Samuel Westrop, titled Freedom to Criticise". The article, published on the Gatestone Institute website, criticised British government for banning Mr Robert Spencer, a self proclaimed expert on Islam and known Islamophobe. The article is also critical of educational institutions for allowing Muslim students to invite scholars on the campuses. The Article is also critical of student unions and educational establishments. There crime, opposing Islamophobic propaganda.

The Chairman of the Gatestone Institute is a well known hawkish neocon, John R Bolton, a former US ambassador to UN. Mr Bolton, in his biography, boasts that his many accomplishments included, the rescission of the UN's 1975 "Zionism is Racism" resolution and US renunciation of International Criminal Court. He is also a Fox News Contributor.

The board members of the Gatestone Institute include a Britain, Douglas Murray, another well known critic of Islam. Douglas Murray had previously called for demolition of mosques in Europe. He is another person who claims that there is no such thing as Islamophobia. Mr Dawkins often tweets links to Douglas Murray’s article against Islam, Muslims, United Against Fascism (UAF) and Mehdi Hasan. Since his encounter with Mehdi Hasan on Aljazeerah, Richard Dawkins has made several comments ridiculing him. He even suggested that Mehdi Hasan shouldn't be allowed to work in public service. 

Clearly Mr Dawkins is opposed to the entry ban imposed on Mr Robert Spencer. Question is why? He knows that Mr Spencer, who has declared himself as a crusader against Islam, only want to spread hate.

Mr Spencer, in his biography, says he is a catholic and admits that catholic church does not want anything to do with him. Mr Spencer has neither any specific qualifications of subject of Islam nor of Arabic language. He claims to be self taught expert on Islam. What I can make out is that he cites selected texts of Quran and Hidith (sayings attributed to the prophet). The fact is that Mr Spencer and racist organisations like EDL BNP and Douglas Murray, etc. get these selected translated materials from suppliers in Israel. In the last twenty years, a whole industry has developed around Islamophobic agenda and Robert Spencer, Douglas Murray, etc. are beneficiaries of it.

Let’s go back to Mr Dawkins tweets. Later, on 7th August,  he tweeted:
 ""Muslims gave you Alchemy and Algebra!!!!!!". Indeed where we be without alchemy? Dark Age achievements undoubted. But since then?"

On 8th August Mr Dawkins tweeted:
"All the worlds Muslims have fewer Nobel Prizes than Trinity College, Cambridge."

Later on, he grudgingly admitted that Muslims had achieved great things and retreated a little on the Noble Peace Prize. He accepted that the Noble Prize committee needed to change their criteria. It’s not the first time Mr Dawkins has said something and then back tracked.

On 9th August Mr Dawkins wrote an article on his website, defending his position on the Noble prize controversy, he fails miserably. He acknowledged that Noble Peace Prize has a history of awarding prizes to undeserving people.

As far as the Noble Prize is concerned, it commenced in 1901 to promote peace in Europe. It did not prevent two deadly wars which engulfed whole world. The second world war saw atrocities of kind not seen before. This included the genocide of Jews in Europe and Genocide of Japanese in Asia.

In 1901 most of world, including Muslim world, was under colonial rule. Although it seems most of the word is free of colonial tyranny, it is still trying to recover from the trauma. Furthermore, there is continuous interference by colonial powers hindering progress. Don't forget it took US 250 years to get to the position she is now.

It may be that there were no significant advances by Muslims after the 11th century but it does not mean that Muslim did not contribute to the development of humanity. We must not forget Islamic contributions to Art, Culture, Philosophy, Architecture, Literature, Civil Society, Waterways, Trade and Trade Routes, etc. Ironically Mr Pinkler's Article, mentioned above, admits that science does not have all the answers and offers an olive branch to Arts and Humanities.

Back to the Mr Dawkins and people he defends and quotes:

• Robert Spencer has MA in religious Studies with a thesis on history of Catholicism. That means he is an expert on Catholicism. He says his writings on Islam have been influenced by a catholic priest. How does that make him an expert on Islam?
• Douglas Murray attended Eaton and Oxford but we don't know if he actually attained any qualifications. Mr Murray’s expertise in religion are like his qualifications, ambiguous.

Richard Dawkins has admitted that he has not read much about Islam or Quran but he has read the Bible. I believe he has read, both the first and second testament. If he had read the Quran, he would have realised that all three Ibrahamic religions have same/ similar texts, teachings and laws. As an academic he owes to himself to read on the subject before commenting. He should not rely on tit bits of information provided by people, who have their own agenda.

 I have tried to confront some of the people often used by Mr Dawkins as source on Islam, with facts and their hypocrisy but they blocked me. I also confronted a Jewish writer with teachings of Torah, Jewish law and Rabbinic teachings and she blocked me too.

So what are the reason for Mr Dawkins obsession with Islam and Muslims? Is it purely from scientific and atheist point of view or is it something sinister? Who is he targeting? Muslims in far flung places, with little or no access to technology, or those living in the west.

Finally to my question Is Mr Dawkins Sincere? Is he sincere when he says he is simply criticising Islam as religion like other religions? Is he sincerely telling the whole truth or is he deliberately telling half truths and creating tensions? Is he sincere when he says his comments are not racist? Is he sincere when he says there is no such thing as islamophobia? Is he sincere when he uses sources with questionable motives? Is he sincere when he uses criminal acts, in remote places to criticise Muslims, while ignoring similar practices in other countries? Is he sincere when he refuses to acknowledge life and culture in deprived and illiterate communities?  Is he simply an English nationalist (His Wikipedia entry states he is English not British, although he was born in Kenya)? Is he sincere when he says he criticises all religions but:

• He finds church bells soothing but opposes Muslim adhan on Channel 4
• He says, he met CoE Priests and found them pleasant, but he has never met any Muslim Imam/ scholar. He, however, endorses view that all Muslim scholars are hate preachers.
• He admires recent Jewish achievements but ridicules Islamic history and achievements over 1400 years.
• He finds all crimes in far flung "Islamic" countries barbaric but does not comment on similar crimes/ practices in other countries.
• He agrees with EDL, Douglas Murray, Zionists, Neo-Cons that no such thing as Islamophobia.
• He tweets links to videos/ articles also tweeted by EDL and other Islamophobes.

Please feel free to ask your own questions and of course leave your comments.

Ban this, Ban that - Are they "Liberals", "Lefties" or Fascists?

There is a new breed of so called "activists", journalists and "experts", who continuously call for ban on various freedoms. They claim to be Liberals and Lefties and are often critical of the left. They say that the left is siding with the oppressors. Fact is that these so called Liberals and Lefties are actually wolves in sheep's clothing. They oppose freedom of choice and want to impose their twisted ideology on others. They seems to have political ideology of promoting division, spreading hate and misdirect from real issues of our times. Their views are in fact more akin to fascism than that of the left or Liberalism.

They often pick a topic, an incident, a criminal act and exaggerate, manipulate and twist it to suit their agenda. They ignore all reasonable arguments, in pursuit of their selfish goals and to further their business. While criticising the Left and Liberals, these groups of strange alliances of self proclaimed zionists, ex-muslims, atheists, right wing and new-cons, pursue an agenda of suppression and intimidation.

Let us examine their business, yes it is a business, of being "experts" in "anti extremism", "foreign policy, defence and Islamophobic alarmist. While some are pursuing their agenda anonymously on social media, others are vocal and part of the mainstream. They, however, claim their is no such thing as Islamophobia and that no such word exists. However, David Aaronovitch disagrees with them. .

Following are couple of examples of manipulation of facts by one such group. In a recent case, they manipulated certain words of Arabic, to claim it meant death threats. However, common sense prevailed and exaggerated claims were dismissed by cool heads. In another case they produced a report on "apostasy" in Islamic countries. They inferred that all of the countries listed in the report had death penalty for apostasy, in fact their was no such law in those countries. They did not find any cases of where death penalty had been handed for apostasy. They listed cases of blasphemy, criminal acts and mob rule. They claimed that apostasy and blasphemy meant the same thing and same punishment. This report is a deliberate attempt to distort the facts and to cause alarm and to suppress. They ignored the fact that the apostasy is an English word associated with Christianity and existence of such laws in many non muslim countries. There is no equivalent word for apostasy in Islam.

These groups and individuals want to ban freedom of choice, whether it is of speech, clothing or gathering of people. They even want the Universities to act in breach of the legislation  and want to force people to abide by their rules.

With this suppression agenda, they have the audacity to call themselves liberals and lefties. They use words like segregation, apartheid and try to compare their agenda with the movement of civil rights. They claim to want to promote debate, but are quick to shut down people by labelling them Islamists, extremists and even antisemitic.

They compare themselves with the movements against apartheid, for civil rights, and liberalism, but they never praise those who lead those movements. They ignore modern day atrocities, apartheid and suppression of people by states like Israel and are quick to label people, antisemitic. They support neocon agenda and often advocate and support military intervention. They are quick to justify civil casualties in wars and by drones. The increasingly cooperate with the right wing and fascist groups in Europe, Mid East, Africa and South Asia. This cooperation is not for peace but to continue to sow the seeds of division, hatred and anarchy.

Clearly they have political agenda but it is not of promoting peace and harmony between religions and other ideologies. It is not about highlighting the atrocities and injustices and condemning massacres, like those committed in Burma. It is not about condemning the occupation of Palestine and suffering of people. It is not about condemning torture and illegal imprisonment in Guantanamo Bay and other such prisons. It is rather to misdirect us from real issues of the day and cause alarm about non issues. It is about giving cover to atrocities and to justify deaths of children and civilians by war machines.

Their mantra of banning freedoms and dark agenda of Islamophobia is neither liberal nor leftist but more like a new form of fascism.

UPDATE 

Now that the demo against so called "gender sgregation" has taken place it has become clear the forces behind the propaganda and their agenda. Following are some facts about the demonstartion:

• Barely couple of dozen people attended;
• Committed Islamophbes including Maryam Namazie were present;
• No students could be found at the demo;
• Quilliam foundation was represented;
• Yasmin Ali Bhai-Brown was present;
• Speaches included criticism of foreign students, mainly Muslim from the Gulf region, and alleged money from Gulf countries. Thses speches not only had Islamophobic tones, they had racist tones too.
• Yasmin Ali Bhai-Brown's problem seems to be alleged Saudi money and she lost all sence of rational during her debate on Channel 4  .

Zionism, Anti-Semitism and Islamophobia

David Aaronovitch wrote an article on Zionism and Anti-semitism, published in The Times on 26 September 2013. He tweeted: 

On feeling worn down by the drip, drip,of anti Jewish prejudice. My Times column this morning

Unfortunately his column was behind the pay wall but the article title ("Even without Israel, Jews would be a target"), however, his tweets, several promotional tweets by Unrepentant Jacobin and comments by Lucy Lips on Harry's Place , gave me the gist of the article contents.

In the article David Aaronovitch credits an Austrian Jewish journalist, called Theodore Herzl, as founder of Zionism. Apparently, after witnessing a "show" trial in Paris, Herzel came to the conclusion that Jews were not safe in non-Jewish countries.

David Aaronovitch wrote:

So all the things said about Jews when they were “stateless” is now said about them — about us, about me — in relation to Israel. Only now you say “Zionist” not “Jew”. But you apply it in exactly the same way. Divided loyalties, unwonted use of money and influence (beyond that exerted by any other group, natch).

David Aaronovith feels that the Jews and Israel are targeted by some people who hide their anti-semitism behind the term Zionist. I can empathise with his feelings of being picked upon because of his religion, be that he claims to be a Jew in name only. Few years back I myself would have agreed with him. However, today calling someone a Zionist, is not anti-Semitic. The answer lies in the final part of Simon Schama's series "The Story of the Jews", which David also mentions in the article. He probably missed the following statement from Simon Schama, "from the humble beginnings of a desire to live in a place called Jewish home where there was justice and peace, today Zionism is associated with extremist aggressive and expansionist designs of conquering Iraq, Syria and Jordan".

Zionism is no longer a Jewish term, today it has been hijacked by by non Jewish extremists, an amalgamation of New Atheists, New Sacularists, Racists, Neo-cons, Fundamentalist Christians, Islamophobes, Extremist Hindus, ... etc. They have their own sinister agenda, not dissimilar to that which targeted the Jews. Some of these new Zionists, who are also committed Islamophobes, claim to be on the left side of the politics. If they move away from the mirror, they will realise that they have gone so far to the right that they are in Fascist territory.

David Aaronovitch has every right to be offended if he is wrongly associated with the groups listed above. However, if he is aligned with these extremist groups, no matter how remotely, then he should take it on the chin and accept the genuine criticism of his views and not muddy the waters by calling it Anti-Semitic. The real vile propaganda in today's world is Islamophobia and it is not drip drip it is like a Hurricane. Its depressing, demoralising and deadly.

I think David Aaronovitch should watch Simon Schama's final part of " The story of the Jews" to understand the plight of the Palestinians and the Israeli/ Palestine conflict. He will also learn what real secularism looks like. Talking of history, starting with Romans 2000 years ago, Jews have been victims of Europeans. They have been exiled, expelled and massacred in all parts of Europe, Eastern and Western. At the same time they were protected in the lands where Muslims ruled, in Asia, Africa, Middle East and even some parts of Europe.

History is for historians to tell but what I have learnt is that Israeli history is littered with terrorism, expulsions, detentions, show trials and blood of innocents. With such history, there bound to be criticisms from the world. Such legitimate criticism can not be dismissed as anti semitism. David Aaronovitch should listen more to the secular and orthodox Jews who want to live in peace and oppose resorting to the Biblical and ancestral claims to occupy and colonise. Incidentally, Orthodox and secular Jews are the most outspoken critics of Zionism and aggressive policies of the West and Israel.

David Aaronovitch finishes his article with the following:

As for me, I have never been a Zionist. Nor committed to Israel. But I can tell you this. Every time I get one of those comments, or those e-mails, or those tweets or hear those insinuations, I begin to think, why not, David, why not? Why not wear the cap that so many are so keen to fit you out with?

All I say to that is, if few tweets, emails and comments can radicalise him, what will happen to those who face Islamophobic propaganda and those living with bloodshed, bombs and bullets day in day out.