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.