You Can't Judge a Book by Its Cover But....

You Can Judge a Person by the Company they Keep

I was away for couple of months and returned back home to UK towards the end of May. As I landed at the airport I could feel the change in the air. My first clue was the change of attitude of the UKBA staff at the airport. I was with a wheelchair bound person, therefore we were the last to leave the plane. When we got to the passport control I expected it to be empty but there was crowd still waiting. They were mainly relatives who had come to visit their families or retired who had come on a tourist visa. Some like us had returned after visiting family abroad. The staff which is normally friendly and professional were more harsh and unfriendly. There was a translator present, probably to help with UKBA questions. However, he was not standing by the officers but had been told to stand away and was only called after humiliating remarks about people not being able to speak/ understand English. This is clearly not a great advertisement for the Great Britain.  

I later learnt that I had missed the UKIP victory in the local and European Elections. Furthermore, UK media, especially the BBC, had been giving disproportionate amount of time to the UKIP and Nigel Farage and the racist and anti immigrant rhetoric. While Nigel Farage mainly talks about the European Union and the policy of freedom of movement, the real victims of his rhetoric are the settled non European communities. This is reinforced by our colour blind media, who doesn’t differentiate between European and non Europeans. Whenever, there is discussion about immigration, they always show clips showing long settled Asian communities.

Then came the so called “Trojan Horse” story giving media another chance to target the minority communities, not only in Birmingham but nationally. What I found interesting was that the Chairman Maajid Nawaz and Quilliam Foundation were getting exclusive air time on issues affecting the Muslim communities. Often it seems that Quilliam and Chairman Nawaz are mainly there to reinforce the government, media  and Henry Jackson Society line. There seems to be no room for the alternative point of view. In the recent conflict in Gaza the BBC insisted on having Israeli voice. At times it seemed that Mark Ragev worked for the BBC and other media, repeating the same lies without question. However, BBC doesn't apply the same principal of proportionality when it comes to the issues related to the minority communities in the Uk.  

• The question is that why Chair Nawaz, a prospective Parliamentary canditate for the Liberal Democrats, gets so much air time. We know when it comes to the Muslim and Asian immigrant communities, BBC and other media are in breach of their own code of conduct of impartiality and fair reporting. This is made worse by exclusively employing Quilliam and Chairman Nawaz to speak on issues affecting the Muslim and Pakistani communities. Furthermore by giving Chairman Nawaz air time, who is a prospective parliamentary candidate for the Liberal Democrats, BBC is probably in breach of the electoral rules.

Chairman Nawaz is neither a member of the government nor a spokes person for the Liberal democrats. He should either resign from the Quilliam Foundation or step down as the Prospective Parliamentary candidate. He neither speaks for the Muslim community nor does he represent their views. His and the Quilliam Foundation views are are more reflective of their supporter organisations like Henry Jackson Society, British Humanist (Atheist) Society and the Neocon- Gatestone Institute. The Liberal Democrats must also decide whether his views reflect the views of the Liberal Democrats. They were quick to punish David Ward for his support for Palestine but have failed to take action against Chairman Nawaz for his support for Israel and attacks on the Palestinian resistance movements. He showed no sympathy for the victims of indiscriminate and targeted bombings in Gaza. He probably agrees with Douglas Murray, who described vast number of people who protested in London, as anti-Semites.  

By the way Chairman Maajid Nawaz has been on a VIP trip to Israel while Palestinian Americans and Palestinian Britons are refused visas to visit their homeland.

It is no accident that Chairman Nawaz and the Quilliam Foundation got free reign in the media. They had a little help from his friends including David Aaronovitch, Ian Dale, Nicky Campbell, Nick Cohen, etc. and of course the Atheists, Humanists and Ex Muslims. These people have been hounding the few voices in the media and the social media including Mehdi Hasan, Mo Ansar, Salma Yaqub and Mo Shafiq. While this clique had been after these prominent Muslims for some time, they needed a brown face to front their agenda. When they saw Chairman Nawaz under pressure, after his ill judged remarks to change the wording of Quran, during the Tommy Robinson affair, they offered him help and a protocol which he gladly accepted. They however, wanted to judge his "liberal and secularist" credentials, which was tested during the cartoon affair in January.      

I want to understand that how a cartoon, which had been around for several years, suddenly became a symbol of freedom of speech. Was it really about freedom of speech and liberalism or there was a sinister agenda. It seems to me the whole thing was staged through the BBC programme the Big question and a deliberate provocation. The host of the programme, Nicky Campbell is often found involved in Islamophobic activity on twitter. He likes to quote, out of context, translated passages from Islamic text. Its not that he is a scholar of Islam, he is just reading from the selected texts, supplied by a cell in Israel. Such texts are often used by the anti Muslim organisations. I have asked him and Tommy Robinson to tell me where I can buy a copy of the books they quote from but to date I have had no response.   

Coming back to the cartoons and why I think the whole thing was staged. I want you to consider the following twitter conversation, on 3^rd February 2014, between Chris Moos (one of the t-shirt wearers), Nicky Campbell and LSS (Lawyers' Secular Society) :

Chris Moos to Nicky Campbell:

Hi @NickyAACampbell could you please clarify that u were aware we were wearing @JandMo t-shirts #bbcbq and, consented to us uncovering them?

LSS to Nicky Campbell

Nicky, LSS is also hoping you can clarify this asap, Thank you @ChrisMoos_ @NickyAACampbell @JandMo

Nicky Campbell response to the above

@LawSecSos @ChrisMoos_ @JandMo have Dmd Chris

In light of the above and on the balance of probabilities, I would say that the whole thing was staged.

Now you decide whether or not Chairman Maajid Nawaz also had an advance notice of the planned spectacle and whether his act of tweeting the cartoon was deliberate. Before you decide one more thing to consider, Chris Moos and his accomplice, who wore the cartoon bearing t-shirts, are both members of the humanist society and so is Chairman Nawaz.Furthermore, Chair Nawz is still following him on twitter.

Following are some of the statements and claims Chairman Maajid Nawaz has made:

·         He was not radicalised in any mosque and in fact he was forcefully removed from outside a mosque for distributing HT leaflets;

·         He joined HT in search of identity (due to severe racial harassment) and for the Political reasons (due to situation in Bosnia);

·         He had a prominent role in HT

·         He is fluent in Arabic

·         After the cartoon affair he claimed that he did it for Salmaan Taseer and Malala Yousufzai

·         He set up an organisation called Khudi in Pakistan

The question is if he knows that radicalisation doesn’t take place in mosques, why doesn’t he confront those who say it does?

If he joined HT in search of identity and for political reasons then why doesn’t he give benefit of doubt to the young people of today, who may be going through the same struggle. Why does he dismiss them as Islamists and extremists? Why does he say that situation in Gaza, Palestine, Syria, Iraq, Egypt etc. is not relevant?

His claims about his role in HT and his claims about fluency in Arabic language were exposed as lies by a young atheist called Layla Murad. 

His claims that he had tweeted cartoons for Salmaan Taseer and Malala is nothing but exploitation of his Pakistani heritage. The supporters of Salmaan Taseer and Malala don’t want anything to do with him.

As far as the establishment of “Khudi” is concerned, it was a back door revival of the failed organisation called "Laltain" and "Roshani", which were sponsored by Richard Dawkins. In any case, Khudi severed links with him after the cartoon affair.

Now consider, what his new friends and sponsors say about him:

• In a Richmond Forum organised debate Ayaan Hirsi Ali, who had nothing intellectual to contribute apart from attacking Quran and the prophet, she liked the “evolution Chairman Maajid Nawaz had gone through;

Another atheist, Taslima Nasreen tweeted (tweet now deleted on Maajid Nawaz’s request:

• It was nice to meet fellow Pakistani atheist Maajid Nawaz (It was only when others latched on to the tweet, Chairman Nawaz asked her to delete the tweet and stated that he had decided not to disassociate himself from Islam). Her next tweet doesn't clarify the situation but leaves it open to interpretation. She tweeted:

@auddin76 , @MaajidNawaz is probably a progressive Muslim, not an atheist. Thought he is as everyone is atheist in world humanist congress.



Whether or not Maajid is a Muslim is not the issue, it is his evolution which Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Taslima Nasreen are fan of that exposes his insincerity and hypocrisy. He says that he want to work from within to reinterpret Islam but he will not do the same to counter the Islamophobia and the hate preaching from his friends. I must admit I was a fan of Chairman Nawaz but as his “evolution”, language and ideology became closer to people like Tony Robinson and Douglas Murray, I became suspicious of his motives. 

The sad thing is that Chairman Nawaz and his colleagues do not understand the agenda of their new found friends. They don't see the effects of Islamophobia, hate speach and racism, all rolled into one strategy of his new chums, that causes severe damage to the community relations. As a man who claims to be a victim of brutal racial harassment, chairman Nawaz seem to be blind to the fuelling of hatred on a larger scale. He doesn't see the stereotypes he is promoting with a limited knowledge. He doesn't know that Pakistani Muslims are a minority in the South Asians living in the UK but this fuelling of hatred against brown Muslims effects all brown people, be it Hindu, Sikh, Christians, etc.

The atmosphere of fear created by these, mainly South based organisations and individuals, affects disadvantaged communities of all backgrounds in the country. It causes divisions in those disadvantaged white and migrant communities and gives rise to the ugly racism and Islamophobia. The result, people are abused attacked, children are bullied, women are subjected to molestation. People are threatened and are forced to install secure fences, cctv cameras for the safety of their children, Homes, businesses and places of worship are attacked. 

In light of the perceived increase in the extremism, I recently posed a question on twitter about the achievements of the Quilliam Foundation and Chair Nawaz. The only answer I received was from Jeremy Duns. He said:

I will name 3: exposing Mo Ansar, Ibrahim Hewit, Adnan Rashid   

I was surprised at the answer which made no sense as I did not see the relevance to the question posed. Chair Nawaz claims that the Quilliam Foundation is an Anti Extremism organisation. I am not familiar with all the names but understand none of them have been associated with any extremist activity. They are all articulate, intelligant and self assured people who expose Islamophobia. If they have no link to extremism then what the expose was all about. Jeremy Duns then sent me link to his website and an article he had written about Mo Ansar. During the of writing this, I also found articles by Ian Dale and Nick Cohen and it became clear that the Quilliam Foundation can't claim credit for the work of others. 

I am not familiar with Jeremy Duns's work but his profile says he is a writer of fictions but he is trying his hand to write non fiction. If his article, regarding Mo, is anything to go by, he be better of sticking to the non fiction. There is nothing in any of the articles about Mo which suggests that he has done anything wrong, apart from speaking up on the issues affecting the Muslim community. Nobody is questioning his intelligence or self assured assertiveness. The only thing they question is that how Mo rose to such prominence position in the Muslim community and in the media. It seems that these people can't stand that a man from the North, not educated at any prestigous institute and a Muslim broke through the fences.

• Ian Dale's gripe is that Mo Ansar made a complaint against him for his behaviour towards an old Imam. We know how he treats old men, we have seen him on live TV  wrestling an old man who came into the shot during a book promotion shoot.   

• Nick Cohen's writings are about supporting neocons and opposing liberal left. In particular he is angry with the liberal left for supporting Muslims against Islamophobia. He is an ardent supporter of Israel. He is also friends with many of the BBC's producers and editors.
• Nicky Campbell is a presenter with a gift of gab, he needs that as he has no qualifications. He was often involved in arguments with Mo Ansar mainly on twitter. He holds strong anti Muslim views and am surprised he is allowed to host programmes like the BBC's Big Question where he broadcasts his personal prejudices.

Coming back to the Chairman Nawaz and the Quilliam Foundation, I am astonished and amazed at the naivety of the government to use an organisation which has zero percent support in the Muslim community. I am less surprised at the BBC using Quilliam and Chairman Nawaz on issues related to the Muslim community. Their bias is abundantly clear to the public who demonstrated in their 1000's outside the BBC, during the Gaza conflict. Furthermore, you can not expect better from the organisation, which employs bigots like Jeremy Clarkson and Islamophobes like Nicky Campbell.

Due to the company he keeps and the view he holds, I have no hesitation in calling the Chairman Nawaz an Islamophobe. He follows people like Maryam Namazie, Tarek Fatah, Ex Muslims and other Islamophobes, who are alaways looking for negative stories in Muslim countries/ communities. Some of such stories are found to be untrue but are never withdrawn. They, including Quilliam associates, share and tweet these stories. He, increasingly reminds me of “Jaffar”, a character from the cartoon film Aladdin, who’s ambition seems to be power and gold and he would do anything to achieve his ambitions.   

  

Update 01/09/2014

On Sunday Maajid Nawa was busy publicising so called "British Fatwa" and bigging up his colleague Dr Usama Hasan as Islamic Scholar. Usama Hasan has no qualifications, apart from ability to translante Arabic into English, to qualify him as an Islamic scholar. How is this different from individual Taliban Imams issuing fatwas in Afghanistan. 

It seems that as more and more people are questioning Quilliam's claims of countering extremism and are seeking prooof and they in desparation are doing anything to get headlines. Unfortunately, these headlines raise more questions.

Its time for the Quilliam to come clean and explain, reasons for their failure to connect to the Muslim population of Britain, especially the younger generation. Could it be that they only rely on promotion of negative images of Muslims and Islam and perpetuate stereo types.

Whatever the reasons it is clear that Quilliam has failed to make an impact on the British Muslim population and the wider public.
      

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.