Embellishment of Maajid Nawaz by Maajid Nawaz

In the world of Maajid Nawaz, he is the man of the moment. He has got a show with LBC radio and is one of the panellists on the Sky News programme the Pledge. He is sharing stage and appearing in blogs with Sam Harris, Ayaan H Ali, Douglas Murray, etc. He has co written a book with Sam Harris and has appeared in a movie, produced by Islamophobes, about his trip to Australia with Sam Harris. He has received a “humanitarian award” from “UN Watch”. He addressed a gathering of people who claimed to be Zionists against the annual Al-Quds March in support of Palestinians. The crowd included Tommy Robinson supporting Football Lads Association members who were also there to protest against the Al-Quds march. He claimed that he was outraged by the Hezbullah flags at the Al-Quds march. He has never spoken against Nazi flags, gestures and Israeli flags at anti Muslim rallies by EDL, Pagida, etc. organised by Tommy Robinson.  

On top of the above Maajid has been offered a settlement of 3.375 million dollars by the Southern Poverty Law Centre. SPLC says that they have been “persuaded” by some influential figures that Maajid has done some work countering anti Muslim bigotry. We are yet to learn of this compelling evidence.

What we know is that all the evidence points to Maajid Nawaz being associated with the Islamophobic activity. Let us start with his radio show on the LBC, he hasn’t presented a single show in which he hasn’t criticised Muslims calling them bigots, extremists, etc. and he promotes his show telling listeners to expect exactly that. that. His treatment of Muslim callers to the show is well rehearsed, his tone becomes aggressive, he talks about things not relevant to the subject i.e blasphemy, sharia, capital punishments, etc, etc. This also gives him opportunity to criticise “the left” for working supporting Muslims like Islamophobia. On the other hand pre arranged callers i.e. Ex Muslims, etc are given every opportunity to criticise Muslims/ Islam. Furthermore, Maajid Nawaz cleverly and shamelessly uses his racial, cultural and religious heritage as a licence to shut down his critics in the mainstream white community and other panellists on the programs such as the Pledge. Maajid doesn’t hesitate to compare Islamism and what he calls regressive left to Nazis.

Maajid Nawaz repeatedly tells exaggerated stories about himself and own importance. He claims that as a teenager he was chased by the Combat 18 thugs armed with knives and hammers but he never came to any harm. The combat 18 wasn’t a street fighting racist group but a highly secretive group with aims to target prominent politicians and other public figures, not teenagers. He claims that he went to Pakistan as a recruiter for Hizbul Tehrir but nothing is disclosed about his success. He also makes a lot about his arrest and time spent in prison in Egypt today. The reality is that he was part of a group of four British prisoners, one of whom was released. The other two were white British and because of them there was pressure on the authorities to do something. Their case was taken up by Amnesty International because they all made allegations of torture. Maajid now says that he wasn’t tortured and he has now fallen out with Amnesty over their criticism of the atrocities committed by the state of Israel against Palestinians in the occupied territories and Gaza. Furthermore, Maajid is a committed critic of those who were actually tortured and held without charge in Guantanamo Bay.

Maajid Nawaz is unashamedly associates, collaborates and supports those active in the field of anti Muslim bigotry, correct term for which is Islamophobia. Maajid Nawaz used to call himself a moderate Muslim and not a reformer. However, he now calls himself a reformer Muslim and claims that he is influencing people like Sam Harris and Ayaan etc. There is no evidence that supports his claims instead his own activities and rhetoric has become similar to his company and he seems to have adopted Islamophobic tropes. Furthermore, he consciously supports racist and far right figures like Tommy Robinson, etc. Maajid’s friend Douglas Murray calls European, far right, Islamophobes, racists, supremacists, like Geert Wilders, Victor Orban his friends. Geerat Wilders recently sent this message to Free Tommy Robinson rally in London. By the way the rally & Tommy Robinson's legal costs are being borne by an Islamophobic, anti Arab/ Palestinian, Zionist and anti refugee organisation called Middle East Forum . The Maajid himself sent a tweet to the British Prisons Minister re his concerns about the safety of Tommy Robinson. He says his concerns were on humanitarian grounds. Similar cconcerns were sent by Geert Wilders & Breitbats Raheem Kassem. Furthermore, he used the imprisonment of Tommy Robinson to blame Muslim and Pakistani communities for Tommy Robinson, ignoring the fact that Tommy has been a racist who turned #Islamophobe. Muslims are neither responsible for his xenophobia or repeated imprisonments for which he pleaded guilty.

Maajid Nawaz is quick to speak in support of white far right, racists, Islamophobes, and new Nazis but never in support of Brown Muslims subjected to the same treatment. Instead he calls Anti Fascist groups to be named as extremists. Recent example of his support for the far right is his at detention of Laura Southern by UK Border Force and subsequent denial of entry to UK. Without checking Maajid said that she was a Christian conservative. He claimed that she was being barred for distributing “blasphemous leaflet "blasphemous leaflet" during her previous visit to the country. Day before coming to the UK Laura Southern had posted a video about her friends being detained by the UK Border Force. She was talking about Generation Identity’s Austrian co founder Martin Sellner and his girlfriend. Generation Identity is a pan-European movement which is anti immigration and want to deport non whites from Europe. Laura Southern herself doesn’t claim to be Christian but says she is agnostic. Incidentally they were all coming to UK for a meeting with Tommy Robinson.

Both Maajid and the Quilliam foundation, which he says he founded, work to exaggerate negative stories about Muslims and undermine positive ones. Their work is more about self promotion for sake of keeping their backers, partners and followers happy and to give cover to anti Muslim rhetoric. Furthermore, financial rewards remain a motivator in their work. Initially they worked with the government and allegedly produced a list of Muslims for the security agencies. Then they worked with the Henry Jackson Society and Douglas Murray in return for financial support. Later Sam Harris enticed them with a donation of thousands of dollars. Sam them took Maajid to Australia so he could say he has a Muslim friend who agrees with him. Now Quilliam gets funding from the Templeton foundation and in return Israel gets full support from Maajid and Quilliam.    

You may say that Islamophobic rhetoric is in the DNA of the Quilliam Foundation and people working for it. It is not just Maajid who has alliances with the Islamophobic people and organisations but most people attached to the Quilliam have the same work ethics. Here is Haras Rafiq grovelling to notorious Islamophobe Tommy Robinson and saying that Tommy is not racist or white supremacist. Here is Maajid Nawaz statement on the issue. Haras Rafiq and Tommy Robinson were brought together by the BBC’s Daily Politics programme presenter Andrew Neil and Tim Marshal of Sky news , told Haras and Tommy that they need to sort out their issues by talking and shouldn't they be on the same side. Andrew Neil acts as media godfather for the right and has provided platform to many anti Muslim and other right wing activists including Britain First,BNP, UKIP, etc. Andrew Neil is also responsible for introducing Douglas Murray,  Maajid Nawaz to the British public. 

Maajid and Quilliam continue to attack Muslims by manipulating data and presenting as research.For example their report on so called grooming gangs has been debunked in this Twitter thread by Luke Wilson and this article byJ Spooner & J Stubbs. Now Maajid's own colleague at LBC radio Matthew Stadlen is asking why Maajid & Quilliam hasn't publicly responded to this criticism. They, however, continue to quote dodgy surveys as factual information. As far as I know Quilliam has never conducted any research or surveyed Muslims themselves and rely on third party work to make outrageous claims about Muslim minorities in the west. Maajid Only person who had conducted a genuine research at Quilliam was Julie Ebnar in the rise of the far right but she found that Maajid and Quilliam distanced themselves from her research. After the above mentioned Tommy Robinson affair Julia left Quilliam and wrote a book on the subject of the rise of the far right and racism disguised as criticism of Islam.    

Despite Maajid’s claims of working against anti Muslim Bigotry and apparent change in his twitter activity, he remains committed to his alliances with Islamophobes. He celebrated his “win” over SPLC with some of these people. He is like a teenager who wants to be with the clique of cool but cruel kids. To please the clique he says things which sometimes even surprise them. This can be seen in his podcasts with Sam Harris where he made a  joke at the expense of the Prophet. Maajid also agreed with Sam that like him Robert Spencer of Jihad Watch had suffered unjustified reputational damage and that he would have no trouble in working with him. His immaturity could be seen in the reaction on Twitter to the offer of settlement from SPLC.

Maajid Nawaz cleverly and shamelessly uses his racial, national, cultural and religious heritage as a licence to shut down his critics in the mainstream white community. He probably applied the same tactics with SPLC and used his friends such as those who gave him “humanitarian award” (I call it bribe) through UN watch, for his criticism of the UN Human Rights Council. UN Watch employs people who are anti Arab, anti Palestinian and Islamophobic. One such person is Richard Kemp, who was successfully sued for libel by Muslim politician, Baroness Sayeeda Warsi, for calling her supporter of extremists and Jihadists. Maajid Nawaz has also criticised Baroness for working with grassroots organizations& for asking for investigation of Islamophobia in the Conservative party. Fault of the Human Rights Council, criticism of Israel for the atrocities being committed in occupied territories and Gaza against the Palestinian people and continuous land grab for illegal settlements occupied by mainly by North American Jewish people. I sincerely hope that SPLC haven’t been hoodwinked as Maajid’s employer LBC radio had been who thought that Maajid had received humanitarian award from the UN. Although it is curious that Maajid received SPLC offer approximately a month after his speech after receiving the award. Notice the usual reference to Combat 18, etc.    

Only silver lining in this sorry affair is that the settlement money will be paid by SPLC insurers and comes with strings attached that money to be spent on fighting anti Muslim bigotry. Hope that means community based projects and not those sponsored by the establishment. It is probably the conditions of settlement which are making Quilliam and Maajid anxious and he is desperate to meet with Mr Cohen of the SPLC. After very public pressure he seems to have secured a meeting with the SPLC and he is taking director of Quilliam Haras Rafiq with him. Maajid has even started to tweet differently but it is not going down well with his followers and he started to losing twitter followers. He is back to his usual style of tweeting now.  

Despite Maajid’s claims of working against anti Muslim Bigotry and apparent change in his twitter activity, he remains committed to his alliances with Islamophobes. He celebrated his “win” over SPLC with some of these islamophbic people & tweeted "I don't fuck around". As usual he exaggerated (lied) about effects of his listing by Thompson Reuters. He is like school teenager who wants to be with the clique of cool but cruel kids and to please the clique he says things which even surprises them. This can be heard in his podcast with Sam Harris where he made fun of the Prophet of Islam and agreed that another Islamophobe, Robert Spencer of Jihad Watch wasn’t a bad man and he would have no trouble in working with him.

From the actions of Maajid Nawaz a reasonable person will conclude that he is involved in politics of distraction, deflection, division and destruction. He distracts people from real issues by making strawman arguments to protect Israel and her supporters, who happens to be all the people he associates with. He deflects people by providing cover for people like Sam Harris, Ayaan, Tommy, etc. by supporting their arguments and by saying no such thing as Islamophobia. He acts to destruct communal harmony in the Western society by sowing seeds of suspicion against minorities and their struggle for equality. 

I do hope that SPLC would see the ugly truth and reconsider their offer.

Rhetoric or Something Sinister

Fifth Column v Fourth Reich

Life had barely started to normalise after the dreadful tragedy in Manchester, we were faced with another horror in London, where three men went on rampage killing seven and injuring dozens more. This slaughter of innocents, who were going about their life has been condemned and sympathies offered by all, whatever their race, religion and political leanings. This incident has united people from all communities who showed defiance in  face of such horror and terror.

However, this condemnation is not universal and people have tried to make capital out of the tragedy and hurt of the families affected by this tragedy. These people neither condemned nor offered condolences or sympathies to the families of the victims. Families who despite loss of their precious loved ones refuse to adopt the hateful rhetoric and appeal for unity.

We saw their beautiful and emotional tributes to their lost family members. For example sister of James McMullen who lost his life in the London Attack said “hatred is the refuge of small minded individuals and will only breed more. This is not the course we will follow despite our loss." Such beautiful views only get one airing during the live broadcast. After that they are edited out by the Media like BBC, Sky etc. The printed press does not publish such views at all.

The people who do get airing and column inches are the one who incite and hate and divisive agenda. These people are like vultures who feed on the human misery and excrete poisonous bile. Their poisonous rhetoric doesn’t need any excuse as it has been going on for years. However, to make fun of the grieving families and communities for lighting candles and standing together is a new low even for these ultra right individuals and their sponsors.

Their rhetoric has now got traction and support from new faces as well as the usual quarters. The fully fledged attack on Islam and Muslims has moved from the internet based blogs and “magazines” to the mainstream print media. Richard Littlejoh, Rob Liddle are all writing about it. Their articles are heavy on rhetoric and full of inaccuracies and false rhetoric. They have been published in the Daily Mail, Spectator etc. some been copies and published in full on sites like exposingislam.blogspot.co.uk .     

People are openly talking about internment and British Guantanamo Bay. Even our political leaders like Theresa May are talking about removing Human Rights, liberties, disproportionate sentences and more. Then we have the intervention by the President of the United States criticising the Mayor of London. This intervention is not the first one as he did the same during the Westminster attack. As previously Trump did not offer any condolences to the families.

The question is why the President criticise the Prime Minister or the Mayor of London for terrorist attacks. The answer has to be that his extraordinary attack is based solely on the religion and race of the London Mayor. The other reason may be why Trump didn’t react in same manor to the Manchester tragedy was because he was away from his advisors like Steve Bannon and Sebastian Gorka who hold neo Nazi views.      

This rise of these purveyors of hate and white supremacy to the echelons of power should worry us all whatever your race religion. Anyone thinking that these people are simply criticising Islam should consider the associated rhetoric. When these people and their allies like Geerat Wilders talk about Moroccan scum and attack people on the bases of the ethnic or nationality heritage of their citizens they are not criticising a religion or any ideology but they are attacking wider ethnic minorities.

You expect religion based white supremacists like KKK to have disparaging views about the non whites but when new atheist’s views merge with such people, you know the dangers of their rhetoric. For example Sam Harris is currently promoting work that suggests that blacks have lower intelligence than the whites. He is not the first one to suggest such abhorrent “science”, Richard Dawkins has also made similar comparisons that Jews and Christians have won more Nobel prizes than Muslims. Richard Dawkins is of course talking about white Western and not African, South American, Middle Eastern or Asian Christians or Jews.  

Then there is the role of the media and Prime time airing of hateful views of people like Bill Maher. Here we have people like Douglas Murray of Henry Jackson Society and the Gatestone Institute and an ally of Geerat Wilders, who has secured a regular slot on BBC’S political and news programmes. He has made a career out of anti Muslim/ Islam rhetoric and writings. Then we have so called historian, Tom Holland, who is benefiting from a mixture of fiction and work of others to call himself a historian. These people are supported by organisations like Quilliam and so called reformer and ex Muslims, who in my view are victims of self interest and doesn’t realise the gravity of their naivety.

We must not forget people like Paul Nuttal, who propose including religion as aggravating factor for sexual crimes committed by minority communities and not the majority community or child abuse by priests These people talk about culture erosion of Western culture erosion which cant be based on 3% Muslims in the European Union or 1% Muslims in the US. It must be based on general non white population of these countries. The previous leader of the UKIP made it easier for people to refer to Islam and Muslims being a “Fifth Column” midst of the Western society. Nigel Farage also has the ear of the President of the United States.

Increasingly I am finding it difficult to ignore the rise of the far right and neo Nazi ideology and the rise of people near to the highest office of the Western world. I wonder if we are seeing the rise of the “Fourth Reich”, not in Germany but all over the Western world. What gives me comfort is that the ordinary people are not being fooled by this sinister ideology and are rejecting the hate from all quarters.

Please read this with the this which I wrote few days ago.

Why Not Be a Muslim for a Day, Mr Nick Cohen

When an outspoken Muslim gains some prominence, sooner or later they find themselves targeted by a campaign to discredit and undermine them. We have seen it time and time again. The list includes Journalists Mehdi Hasan, journalists and editorial staff of the Guardian and most recently Assed Baig of the Channel 4 News. Muslim Politicians and elected officials like Mayor of Tower Hamlet, MPs and Members of the House of Lords, etc also come under attack. Currently London's mayoral candidate Sadiq Khan MP is in the firing line from the opponents including the Prime Minister. Prime Minister used the parliamentary privilege to attack Sadiq Khan, the leader of the opposition and made unsubstantiated claims of extremism against an Imam Suliman Gani.

Then there are the Muslim student bodies which come under sustained attack. So when we see attacks on Malia Bauattia, newly elected president of the Student Union, it is neither shocking nor surprising. Furthermore, Muslim groups and individuals highlighting injustices, raising concerns about inequality and discrimination are constantly targeted in the mainstream and social media. Even Muslim children and their education doesn’t escape the scrutiny. Parents Teachers and school governing bodies have all come under attack on the whim of zealot officials and sensationalist media.

You don't need to say or do anything to be subjected to this scrutiny, just need to declare you are a Muslim. However, if you happen to be outspoken Muslim or in the public eye, you will be targeted by certain people to who would devote time and resources to find something incriminating, no matter how old or irrelvat. A recent example of this is the case of a 20 year old Muslim councillor, Aysegul Gurbaz, who may have posted 3-4 tweets between the age of 14 and 18. Another recent example was the attack on Assed Baig, again for 3- 4 tweets 2-5 year old and tweeted long before his employment with the Channel 4 News. In the first case the incriminating discovery was made by the campaign against anti-Semitism and in the second case by Guido Fauks, a right wing political blog. Both cases then appeared in the Daily Mail.

I am certain that I will be branded anti-Semite and not anti fascist for what I am about to say. In all of the above cases two things are prominent Israel lobby along with the right wing establishment supporting media. The question is why deploy resources, both human and in monitory terms, to try to dig dirt on Muslim individuals and organisations. They do not deploy these resources on every Journalist, politician, student body, education establishment, etc. Talking of students and educational bodies, when so called Trojan Horse story was in the news we saw helicopters flying around taking pictures of schools, teachers, governors, parents and pupils. The same situation occurred in the case of the Iqra school. There was no privacy and no concerns about the safety of the people being filmed. Compare that to the recent story of missing boys and the illegal and unsafe schools of the Jewish community. The reporters were prohibited from identifying students, teachers and the locations of schools. There was no interrogation of Jewish leaders instead the BBC Newsnight presenter had a very civilised almost jovial conversation with various Jewish leaders, politicians and educationalists. There was no outrage at their support for such schools.

Incidentally all these people who attack Muslims call themselves "liberals" but what does it really mean. One definition I found says "willing to respect or accept behaviour or opinions different from one's own". These so called liberals have closed minds and are not open to discussion and debate. They have scripted rhetoric and ideas which they want to enforce on others. They not only abuse and misuse the term liberal they also abuse other terms like moderate and medieval. To be moderate is to be average, modest and ordinary but these individuals have extreme views about monitoring activities of Muslims from birth to death, labelling them from Islamist to extremist and demonising them in a way that it restricts their opportunities.

As far as the term medieval is concerned, historically it refers to the era between year 500 to 1500 after the loss of Roman Empire. Everything related to this term relates to history of disarray in the European continent. It has nothing to do with the rest of the world's civilisation, culture, trade and inventions. Basically people are judging rest of the world with their own bad history. Their limited knowledge of the rest of the world and historyis not based on reality but tainted by own experiences.

Recently Nick Cohen wrote a piece titled Why I am becoming a Jew and Why you should, too . This piece is an attack on the left in particular the Labour Party and Jeremy Corbyn, Muslims of the West and alleged rise in the anti-Semitism. This is not the first time he has written on this subject, in fact the article is a rehash of his article written in 2009. There is a common thread in both articles warning left to stay away from Muslims in Europe and that Muslims and dark skinned people are the new fascists of Europe.

The Article doesn't mention of the modern day white far right and neo Nazi groups sweeping through Europe. This is probably because they have been persuaded that presence of the dark skinned minorities/ Muslims is the only threat to the Judeo-Christian Europe. Jist of the argument, in both articles, is the same, only thing which has changed is that Nick is no longer a member of the Labour party and there is more emphasis on the left in particular attacks on the Labour party and Jeremy Corbyn. Could it be that the party embraces true liberal principles and it is on the side of the ordinary people that provides minorities including Muslims; support and opportunity to participate in the democratic political process.

While Mr Cohen continuously talks about anti-Semitism, which by the way is more to do with his affinity with the state of Israel, he denies the existence of Islamophobia. He regularly criticises Muslims, Islam and Palestinians but says nothing about the excessive persecution and suppression of Palestinians. He doesn’t criticise the fundamentalist religious coalition which is in power in Israel and their two tier justice system. The fact that the state of Israel governs over as many Jews as Arab and Palestinians with Muslim and Christian faith, criticism of Israel can not be considered anti-Semitic. Only way it could be regarded as anti-Semitic if Israel is considered solely religious Jewish state which will be contrary to the position of her and her supporters that Israel is a modern democratic state.

Whether he admit or not Nick Cohen not only promotes a certain rhetoric which can only be described as racist Islamophobia. Furthermore, time and time again he comes to the defence of others involved in the same activity. A classic example is this article in the Spectator. The headline states that “Richard Dawkins attacks Christian bigots as well as Muslim”. But when you read the article he doesn't provide any example of attacks on Christians. Nick Cohen uses the classic form of defence by attacking Muslims and in a convoluted way he justifies Richard Dawkins racist and Islamophobic activity. He talks about Nahla Mehmoud and how she had suffered in Sudan. Would he do the same for Malia Bauattia, who had fled terror in Algeria, only to find herself facing racism, discrimination and accused of anti-Semitism and being supporter of terrorism. Would he criticise this article by Hannah Weisfeld which belittles NUS motion against anti-Semitism, passed with the support of Malia Bauattia

In the above article Hanna Weisfeld provides the clue to the Islamophbic rhetoric coming out of these people. She says that 93% of UK Jews say that Israel is part of their identity and have an afinity with Israelis. There is nothing wrong with that except when, it becomes obsessive as this tweet by Toby Young suggests, it becomes dangrous. In contrast poll after poll of British Muslims show that they have 80+% feel loyalty to Britain. Furthermore, despite being migrants, refugees or descendants of migrats and refugees and having relatives abroad, they show no such afinity with other countries. Yet their loyalty is questioned again and again, just because they want to voice an opinion about wars and devastation it brings to the lives of ordinary people. 

Nick Cohen, an atheist, has seen the light and has accepted that he is a Jew and want others to be the same. He is not alone to show such sentiment about his religeon. The reality is that New atheism is all about religion and most of its figure heads have affinity with their or their parents. Be it Richard Dawkins who has more than soft spot for Christianity or Sam Harris who supports Israel because of his Jewish roots.

For a Jewish man to become a Jew is not really a big step, and it hasn't made a slight bit of difference to his rhetoric. Nick Cohen should try to be a Muslim for a week or just for one day, may be then he would realise how hateful and hurtful his rhetoric really is.

Whiter than White or Upto Their Neck In It

When Guardian a Journalist wrote an article based on an interview with Maajid Nawaz, titled How a former- slamist became David Camerons anti extremism adviser? Maajid Nawaz was not happy and he & his friends resorted personal attacks on the writer. He looked for help and it it was Nick Cohen who came to the rescue. He wrote this this article in support of Maajid.

Nick Cohen also wrote this about Mo Ansar during campaign of harassment against him. The latest smear propaganda was directed at a Channel Four News reporter. The right wing Guido Media started the smear campaign which was, not unexpectedly, picked by the Daily Mail and others. Channel Four News is an independent programme which, compare to other mainstream news outlets, reflects the diverse nature of the British Society. Furthermore, Channel Four News anchor Jon Snow, for his support for the Palestinian cause, is a thorn in the sights of the Israeli lobby. So this non story provided a perfect opportunity to these people to attack both.

This attack on the Chanel Four reporter was based on up to five years old tweets, tweeted long before his current employment. The Tweet police must have time and resources to trawl through thousands of tweets to find it. The question is why spend this time and resource to find so called incriminating tweets. It seems these people are allergic to any opinion which is different from theirs and certainly the truth. Furthermore, they want to protect their assets like the Quilliam Foundation and the establishment policies such as Prevent. Judging by the association of the Quilliam Foundation with the Gatestone Institute, Henry Jackson Society etc and one of the trigger points for prevent intervention said to be expression of support for Palestine, these people are also protecting the interest of the state of Israel.

Thankfully story about the Channel 4 news reporter was a damp squib as was the programme headed by Trevor Phillips. However, these people are determined to continue even after seeing public disinterest in their propaganda. They endlessly accuse people of antisemitism while denying Islamophobia. Despite their false rhetoric of antisemitism, we have seen people electing the new Labour leader and recently saw students electing new President of NUS. The hypocrisy is that they themselves continue to spread Islamophobia and often dismiss peoples genuine grievances concerning racism and inequality.

Following was written some years ago.

Recently Tom Holland tweeted this:

but when asked about his own views he did not respond. These people with little islander mentality probably understand that Muslims are not going to change their religion so what they are indirectly saying is that no Muslim refugees and probably suggesting deportations. Would these people agree with China that Christianity isn’t compatible with communism or Muslim nations of Middle East saying that Christianity and Judaism isn’t compatible. Would these people accept brown Christians from the rest of the world who likely to have fundamental and conservative beliefs.I think not so why say these things which incite and encourage Islamophobia. 

While Tom claims to be expert on Islam and supports interventionalist policies, he says that he is not knowledgable enough to support investigation into the alleged abuse by French soldiers, in the Central African Republic. This issue including beasting of young girls has been covered by the News Channels and Papers. Even if he was ignorant of the issue, he could have googled it as he is always on the internet. This shows the double standards of these people. 

Tom Holland often come across as a bitter person who hold grudges against individuals and organisations for discrediting his book and documentary. He most definitely holds a grudge against Mo Ansar and accuses him of slander. However, he did not peruse any legal action, instead he is pursuing a hate campaign with his co conspirators and an army of trolls. Tom Holland claims that Mo Ansar compared him with Anders Breivik, the Norwegian terrorist. If Mo has said such a thing then I disagree with him. Breivik didn’t kill Muslims but he went after the government and the governing party members for allowing Muslims migrants and refugees into the country.   

Tom Holland’s Twitter activity includes daily tweets about Islam/ Muslims and of course about Mo Ansar. Such tweets are then retweeted, liked and commented by an army of trolls. Any objections/ comments on these and other Islamophobic rhetoric, coming from new atheists such as Sam Harris, Ayaan H Ali, Far right, is dismissed by these people as just words which don’t kill people. They claim they are just criticising a religion. The reality is that you can’t separate religion from the followers, thus this daily rhetoric encourages and incites hatred and violence against Muslims. This point that words don't kill people has been made by many public figures including Ian Dale of the LBC radio, BBC's Andrew Neil etc. Andrew Neil used it again in response to Ken Livingston's remarks that American Presidential candidate Ted Cruze is as fundamental as the Taliban. Incidentally same defence has been used by the Serb war criminal, Radovan Karadzic, that he wasn’t a violent person and that he did not kill anyone.  That is why I think that the alleged comparison of Tom Holland and other Islamophobes with Breivik was wrong. A better comparison would have been with Radovan Karadzic. 

It is not just the personal grievances that motivate Tom Holland and friends, they also want to protect people like Maajid Nawaz and want to give them unopposed platform to speak on matters of Islam/ Muslims. It doesn’t matter to them and the media broadcasters that these people have no credibility in the mainstream ordinary Muslim communities. Their support and protection of these assets doesn’t come without quid pro quo and Maajid dually obliged by declaring no such thing as Islamophbia.

In 2013 Maajid Nazwa’s Quilliam Foundation was in trouble as it had lost the government funding. In contrast Mo was filming a documentary for the BBC, with the ex head of the EDL, Tommy Robinson. Tom Holland and his co conspirators plotted to undermine this documentary. It is becoming clear that  financial incentives were used to lure Tommy Robinson away from the documentary. At the time Tommy was also experiencing financial difficulties and facing a criminal case for fraud. Next thing we saw was that Tom Holland sitting alongside Maajid Nawaz and Tommy Robinson claiming that Tommy had seen the light and Maajid seemed an uneasy participant in this charade. However, times have changed and despite Tommy now leading the Anti Muslim organisation Pagida UK, Maajid still follows him on Twitter. In my view Tom Holland is as much responsible for this failure to de-radicalise Tommy Robinson as Maajid and Quilliam are.I say that because you can’t expect Tommy Robinson to renounce his anti Muslim/ Islam rhetoric while Tom and others continue to spread the anti Islam/ Muslim rhetoric. Maybe de-radicalisation was just a smoke screen to make him look respectable. Otherwise, the Jewish Chronicle would be interviewing him or the Harry's Place presenting him at the Oxford Union and Douglas Murray writing supportive articles.

There are many co conspirators in the campaign of harassment against Mo including Maajid, David Aaronovitch, Nick Cohen,etc. but the following people are at the forefront; Tom Holland, Jeremy Duns and Nicky Campbell. Jeremy Duns has written couple of blogs which are popular with the Islamophobic community. This may turn out to be his most recognised fiction as its free. In recent days we have seen Jeremy and his followers back slapping after the blog got a mention in the satirical magazine, Private Eye. This is probably the only time his work has been mentioned in any reputable publication.

The tweets below show how they conspired and the “methodology” used to allege sock puppetry by Mo. As Paul Varity in his tweet says that the allegations are based on inference only as only twitter knows if people have more than one account and how many accounts from one IP address

Mo Ansar says that he has blocked all of these people for their abusive behaviour and sometime misogynistic comments about his wife. So question arises that despite being blocked, how Tom Holland, Jeremy Duns, Nicky Campbell and others are able to view and comment on Mo’s tweets. As it happens I have been blocked by most of the Quilliam lot, Tom Holland, Jeremy Duns, Nicky Campbell, etc. Twitter does not allow me to follow them or view and review their tweets. Only way round was to open a second account. Therefore, I opened a second account but left enough clues for people to identify me. Some people were able to work it out and blocked the second account as well. One person who failed to spot this was the spy fiction writer and self declared sleuth, Jeremy Duns. He thought my second account was another of fictional sock puppets of Mo. He is not the only one, Nick Cohen also accused me of being Mo Ansar. They are now using accusations of sock puppetry to silence others.  

Mo’s tweets also suggest that he has blocked countless trolls because of continuous harassment. Therefore, only people who could continue to monitor his twitter activity would be newly created accounts. So who is creating these egg/ anonymous accounts? Tom Holland says, and probably Jeremy Duns and Nicky would say the same, that only reason he is able to comment on Mo’s tweets is that other people forward him those tweets. This is a hypocritical defence, as only people supplying would be annonymous trolls or sock puppets. After making allegations of sock puppetry, as a matter of principle, they should not be entertaining anonymous troll accounts. They should not be communicating, following, retweeting or commending commending them for their harassment activities, but they do.

After the popularity of his blog about Mo and new found notoriety Jeremy Duns embarked on spreading rumours about other accounts as being sock puppets of Mo. One person, Anne Fields, has borne the brunt of his belief that she is Mo. She is pursued daily by Jeremy, his friends and an army of trolls with these accusations, without shread of evidence. This is not sleuthing but harassment, plain and simple. Often this harassment turns into ugly misogynistic comments. Sometimes you wonder that, in his pursuit of a confession from Ann that she is Mo, Jeremy will do anything including setting up sock accounts. I have come across several suspicious accounts but one anonymous twitter account under the handle of “That Flashing” looks and acts like a sock account. This account has followers including  Jeremy Duns. The account follows people suspected of being Mo that means it is following 4 accounts named Ann or Ann Fields. I believe other people followed by this account are suspected by the account holder as accounts of Mo. Probably because they interact with him or retweet him. Yours truly is also being followed by this account. This account boasts about having several accounts probably to follow Mo and others "suspected" of being Mo 

 There is another account in the name of Alan Walker and has 22 followers with Nicky Campbell being his first follower. This account also mainly concentrates on Mo and Ann’s twitter activity while following various other Muslim and anti Muslim accounts. Can I make a bold claim like Jeremy Duns and declare these accounts as being sock puppets of Jeremy Duns and Nicky Campbell. Yes I can, but I won’t and let others make their own inferences.

Guess Who is Defending Tommy Robinson!

I look forward to the articles by Douglas Murray of the Spectator and Henry Jackson society. My anxious wait is in a vein hope that maybe just maybe he will talk about something interesting and change his topic to something more akin to the title of his previous “think tank” named “the centre for community cohesion”. I am not talking about the work of this think tank, which was to create divisions rather than cohesion.  Alas week after week I am disappointed to see that his talent remains limited to calling people anti-Semitic and his rhetoric continues to be anti Muslim and anti migrant/ refugee.

He obviously is happy with this static state of intellectuality probably because it attract funders. He has found supporters of this limited talent in the UK, across the pond in the US and through the channel tunnel in the mainland Europe. Not to mention support from the Spectator and the BBC which provides opportunities for regular appearances on the News and ethics programmes. Such appearances often include his friends and fellow beneficiaries of funds from the Gatestone Institute, the Quilliam gang. I am not sure if the Quilliam lot could be classed as his friends, as they receive funds from organisations of which Douglas is a director. And it seems there is no limit to the funding for Quilliam and Henry Jackson Society activities, details here , here and here . Furthermore, quilliam also recieved funding from Sam Harris along with royalties for joint appearances and a joint book. 

Anyway his latest article/ blog ,published on 9^th of January, gives false headline as he did for his article on the anti war protest during the Israeli attack on Gaza in 2014. The current article headed “Cologne exposes a crisis in our continent, yet parliament is debating Donald Trump” is nothing more than a defense of Tommy Robinson. May be because, Tommy Robinson is setting up an English branch of the anti Muslim party Pegida. Tommy also attended a rally in Cologne where he declared, we are men, we protect our woman that’s what men do. Although his disparaging remarks about Mrs. Merkel did not go down well with the organisers. It seems Germans still respect their leaders.

This support for Tommy Robinson reminds me courting and grooming of Maajid Nawaz. He was also picked up, after he lost all support from the Muslim community,and propelled into the mainstream as a profit of reform (before you say it spelling mistake is deliberate). The reformist title was borrowed from Ayaan H Ali. It seems Tommy Robinson is another addition to their project. Because while the Quilliam and Maajid Nawaz etc. are projected as reformer to the educated and literati classes, Tommy Robinson would be a foot soldier to appeal to the disaffected lower classes. So, on the one hand Maajid Nawaz will spread the message that there is no such thing as Islamophobia and on the other, Tommy will spread the phobia through Pagida. Tommy has already been given all clear by the Jewish Chronicle for not being anti-Semitic. Now Douglas is asserting that the establishment has been mistreating Tommy while allegedly letting Muslims off the hook. This neatly fits into the narrative of discrimination against white lower classes and favoritism of BME communities.

At the time when Muslim and BME organizations including charities are coming under sustained attack on the recommendation of people like Quilliam, Nick Cohen and Eustonites, Harry’s Place, etc. this alleged victimhood of Tommy Robinson will be a good distraction. Today any organisation or individual who comments on or oppose the governments “Prevent” agenda is being attacked. Universities and other institutions who allow them onto their premises are set upon by the media. To borrow a phrase from Nick Cohen if they succeed silencing Muslim individuals and organisations then “What’s left” will be the Quilliam. That will give real meaning to the George W Bush’s misguided banner of “Mission Accomplished”.

Talking of Nick Cohen, another self proclaimed Liberal and leftist and the author of What’s Left, he has been busy. Did you know that there is a Wikipedia entry , created in December 2015, for the phrase "Regressive Left". If you read the entry, you will say Nick’s figure prints are all over it. Although he has given full credit for coining the phrase to Maajid Nawaz, a little research will show that the phrase has been borrowed from this site.. In any case the word regressive was first used in taxation to show variation of tax according to income. Regressive tax was a good thing though, as it dropped down if your income fell. In a recent interview about resignations and sackings of shadow ministers, Ken Livingston described the sacked and resignees as hard right. In my view this description of resignees/ sacked shadow ministers perfactly fits Nick Cohen and his politics.

The description of Tommy Robinson as a victim of the establishment will soon change to his right to free speech. That will be an hypocritical stand by Douglas Murray and co, who fund an army of snoopers in the false guise of "student rights". They criticise Universities, student unions and University staff for allowing discussion and debate on University premises. Our Universities are famous and admired for their ability to discuss and debate important issues of the day and produce tomorrow’s leaders. However, these people don’t care about the damage to the reputations to our Universities in the international market. They are happy to sacrifice peace and co existence in favour of maintaining purist and supremacist ideology of the far right. In short they want to undermine the community cohesion which took years to build.

Paris Tragedy, Clichés and Cycle of Backlash

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

Barefoot Syrian refugees with
her 3 young children in Europe

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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