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.

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

You Can Judge a Person by the Company they Keep

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Chris Moos to Nicky Campbell:

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

LSS to Nicky Campbell

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

Nicky Campbell response to the above

@LawSecSos @ChrisMoos_ @JandMo have Dmd Chris

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

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

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

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

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

·         He had a prominent role in HT

·         He is fluent in Arabic

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

·         He set up an organisation called Khudi in Pakistan

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  

Update 01/09/2014

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

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

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

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