Woolwich, Media and Politicians

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Is Richard Dawkins Sincere?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

UPDATE 

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

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