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.

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.

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.

Freedom of Speech and the Rhetoric of Blasphemy

Since the Charlie Hebdo Murders, freedom of speech has become the mantra of the phobic community. To add Muslim angle to the mantra and to stay on course for inciting hatred against Muslims, Blasphemy has been added into the mix. Maajid Nawaz even presented a motion for free speech and right to blaspheme, at the Liberal Democrat spring conference. Being a Prospective Parliamentary Candidate for the Liberal Democrats, he should have known that UK abolished the blasphemy law in 2008. Furthermore, the freedom of expression is enshrined in the law. Not surprisingly, Maajid’s motion and its adoption by the Liberal Democrat conference received praise from people like Nick Cohen .    

Anyone who has some knowledge of their faith or faiths in general knows that, no faith or faith scriptures mention blasphemy. Furthermore, all faiths support freedom of thought and speech because that's how faiths spread. So where does this term and idea comes from, if not from religion or faith. As far as I know the blasphemy was first constructed and introduced by the Christian or cannon law. In the UK it was adopted into the common law in the 17^th century and was only abolished in 2008. It was mainly introduced in common law to maintain the supremacy of the Church of England over other factions of Christianity.

A different form of blasphemy law was introduced in the colonies by Britain. The purpose of this law was more administrative than religious. As colonial rule expanded, it brought previously independent Hindu, Christian and Muslim areas under colonial administration. Furthermore, Britain needed to give protection to the missionary work by her clergy and newly converted subjects. So the aim of this legislation was to maintain order and to prevent communal violence. To date it remains on the statute books of these former colonies.

The reason such laws remained on the statuette books is that the newly independent countries were based on newly created borders which didn’t exist before the colonial rule. Furthermore, these new borders contained diverse communities, thus the need for this administrative tool to protect minorities not the majority religions. The prime example of this is the states of India and Pakistan. The laws in both countries protects, although not successfully, all religions not just the majority religions.

UK has abolished the blasphemy law, which mainly protected Christianity but it enacted new legislation with a view to protect minorities. The Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006, is similar to the version introduced in the former colonies and is an administration tool. The act also preserves the right to freedom of speech/ freedom of expression but outlaws hate speech. Similar laws can be found on statute books of most European countries. Even France, the bastion of secularism, maintains laws for freedom of religion and against hate speech. It is another thing that such laws are rarely enforced and are flouted by the Far Right and “New” Atheists or anti-theists, secularists, humanists, etc.

As well as introducing the motion at the Lib Dem conference, Maajid Nawaz has also written an essay on the topic of Blasphemy. He starts his essay with the claim that the religious Prophets had blasphemed against the prevailing social constructs of that time. In other words when prophet Muhammad (pbuh) told people that burying daughters alive was wrong or Jesus spoke against money changers for profiteering from misery or Moses preached against pharaohs brutal rule, they all committed blasphemy. By that logic, Martin Luther King, Nelson Mandela and today Palestinians, etc are blasphemers against the oppressive apartheid systems.

Maajid Nawaz’s convoluted arguments of cultural relativism, neo- oriental liberalism, can be summarised in few simple words. Western liberal society is monolithic and has no room for other cultures, identities, values or rights to equality. This attitude clearly ignores the fact that Majority of Muslim and other minorities in this country are born and bred here and regards themselves as British. When they go on holiday to Europe, North America, East or West they introduce themselves as British. Its people like him and other phobes and racists who want to give them the labels of their heritage. Hypocritically, Maajid Nawaz and co get on their high horse, when talking about other countries and protection of rights of minorities and cultures. Lecturing them to protect their religion, rights and cultures while doing the opposite here.

His position seems to be that minorities fighting for equality and maintaining their identity is a bad thing. On the other hand he claims, without providing any evidence, that there are minorities within the Muslim Minority who are experiencing victimisation. The fact is that himself and the so called ex-Muslims have aligned themselves with the powerful fascists, racists, New Atheists etc. They are deliberately provoking and attacking the Muslims and minorities. He includes himself in those minorities and hypocritically plays the victim card while criticising UK minorities for playing victim card. As usual he maintains that the majority of Muslims are extremists and are trying to impose Sharia and blasphemy on the liberal society. He is not interested in the socioeconomic situation and the attitude of some in the host community towards the minority communities, which has ghettoised some communities. Instead he claims that far right is profiting from the feeling of victimisation of the majority community. His attitude towards the orient and globalisation of the world ignores the fact that orient didn’t just provide the spices, silk, tea wealth; it also influenced and shaped the so called western values.

He talks about reformation but forgets that so called reformation came from within the Christian community not from outside. It is not the job of the so called ex-Muslims, Atheists or Quilliam to tell Muslims what to do. Muslims, for centuries both under Muslim rule and non Muslim rule co existed with various sects, cultures and religions. There were and still are inter religion, race, and sect marriages all around the world. There are no elected religious political parties anywhere in Muslim majority countries. Only countries where religiously influenced parties or persons are in power are India, Israel and the USA. People like Ayaan H Ali are not bothered by the election of fundamentalist religious party being in power in India. They are not bothered by the persecution of the low cast Hindus or religious minorities. They ignore the role of religion in Judicial and political systems in Israel or US.

As usual Maajid Nawaz is providing cover to his friends, who are involved in the racism, islamophobia and bigotry. The people, who have made a career out of their fascist activity by creating divisions and hate preaching. These people include Tommy Robinson, Sam Harris, Douglas Murray and Ayaan H Ali. Maajid and his friends use the rhetoric of freedom of speech to voice their bigoted views about the Muslim minorities in the west. They play the divisive games by praising some minorities while criticising the others. For example, Tommy Robinson would tweet praise about Sikh and Jewish minorities, while continuing his vile rhetoric against the Muslim minority. Recently Tommy Robinson tweeted guidance about recognising Sikhs by their turbans and to respect them. What this means is that everyone else of brown skin such as Sri Lankans, Arabs, South Americans, Indians, etc whether Christian, Hindu, Non Muslim, are a fair game. However, differentiating the Sikh women from Muslim women isn’t that simple so they remain open to the misogynistic attacks by his followers.  
  
The other thing Maajid and others say is that they have the right to offend. The question is what is the motive behind the offensive activity i.e. cartoons. Is it freedom of speech/ expression or there is sinister politics behind such cartoons. When Chris Moos and his partner appeared on a BBC programme and displayed their t-shirts bearing cartoons, what message were they relaying? Prior to their appearance on BBC Chris Moos and his partner had worn the same t-shirts at a university, during fresher’s week.  They had a stall purporting to promote atheism but their t-shirts had nothing to do with promotion of atheism. You don’t promote something by offending people, you antagonise them. If they wanted to promote the message of humanism and atheism then why didn’t they wear the t-shirts Richard Dawkins sells in his shops? Clearly their intentions were not about promotion of their ideology but to create divisions among students. Dawkins was so impressed by Chris Moos and his partner’s actions that he awarded him the humanist of the year award, but ignored his brown partner.

The fact is that such actions have nothing to do with freedom of expression. Neither are they satirical, as claimed by Richard Dawkins. They are deliberate attempts to stigmatise and dehumanise Muslim and minority communities. They are a copy of the Israeli rhetoric to dehumanise Palestinians by spreading lies i.e. Palestinians use their children as human shield. As it happens all of these groups and individuals are open supporters of Israel and her policies of suppressing the Palestinians. Sam Harris and Ayaan H Ali have openly agreed with IDF propaganda that Palestinians use human shields. Whether it is Tommy Robinson, Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Ayaan H Ali, Nick Cohen, Douglas Murray or Maajid Nawaz, they are all working with a clear political agenda. They give legitimacy to the war on terror which to date has claimed more than 2 million lives. Their role is to distract the populations of the West from what is happening around the world and keep them in a state of paranoia and fear.
     
A cursory look at the twitter activity of these people will tell you that neither of the above activity do anything to further their cause or belief. Instead you will find a common thread in their tweets. You won’t find Quilliam and Maajid addressing the Muslim youth with counter extremist message or Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris preaching atheism. You will not find Nick Cohen criticising Israel or Douglas Murray writing anything other than demonising of the Muslims and other minority communities and accusing them of anti-Semitism and homophobia. You won’t find Ayaan H Ali making civilised conversation about her rhetoric of reformation but inciting violence and supporting suppression of Muslims and minorities. You don’t even need to look at Tommy Robinson tweets to know his vile views, yet he has received admiration from all of the aforementioned.

Don’t be bamboozled by the rhetoric and sound bites by polished performers, always look beyond the glossy exterior and you may find the ugly truth of bigotry, Xenophobia, racism,Islamophobia, etc

Pushing Back Boundaries but, ....

In the Wrong Direction

Not a day goes by when a section of the British society is not in the news headlines. Even if there was a serious tragedy in the world affecting 100s, it would not trump the action / perceived actions of an individual from this community. Such coverage is deliberately normalising the issues which were made taboo by decades of struggle. This continuous highlighting of issues affecting the community is pushing back the boundaries but in the wrong direction. This is happening because every action and inaction of the community, is being looked through the tainted glass of prejudice. This prejudice is affecting more than the community in question.

Recently Channel Four broadcasted a documentary, presented by Trevor Phillips, a former head of the Equality and Human Rights Commission. The documentary titled “Things We Won’t Say About Race That Are True”, seems to be based on the old stereotypes. However, he failured to acknowledge, that the old stereotypes had in the past, given rise to hatred, violence and atrocities rarely seen in the human history. Therefore, it is important to fight old and the new stereotypes to prevent this happening again. While the documentry has been criticised by activists like Lee Jasper , it was welcomed by the right wing media such as the Daily Mail, which published this, incorporating his article. It is not surprising that only people they found to agree with him were couple of Tory MPs. The Mail, which is not a fan of the Equality or Human Rights, couldn’t help to have a dig on Trevor Phillips himself, stating that he received salary of £112,000 for 3.5 days work.

                                                           Cartoon by Operation Black Vote

Trevor Phillips’s only achievement was to merge the various branches of the Equality into one. I personally don’t think that this achieved the goals previously set by the various independent commissions. As the head of the EHRC, Trevor Phillips had started from the complacent belief that the equality, especially in the field of race had been achieved. His actions to merge various branches of equality commission were more to do with empire building than reality on the Ground. Since then we have seen case after case revealing institutionalised racism and discrimination not only in the field of race but also of gender, disability and the under privileged. The Rotherham case is as much, if not more, of institutionalised discrimination against the under privileged white community who’s complaints were ignored, of groomers being from a certain section of community. This is supported by the Oxford council’s admission, that their failures to investigate such cases properly had nothing to do with any political correctness.

Unfortunately, Trevor Phillips has allowed himself to fall into the trap of increasingly blurred lines made possible by the continuous headlines and reckless media coverage using inflammatory language. The mainstream media and the Politicians have muddled the equality issue with stereo types. It is now normal to hear Xenophobic language when discussing immigration, racism when discussing Islamophobia, macho attitudes when discussing sexism, derogatory remarks when discussing disability, label of anti-semitism when discussing Israel/ Palestine conflict and rhetoric of freedom of speech, while inciting hatred against Muslims.

The social media has also played a role in this normalisation of pushing boundaries in the wrong direction. People think that they can get away with typing their inner most dark thoughts in the anonymity of the Internet. We have seen threats of rape and violence against women, blatant lies and stereotypes to spread religious, racial and other forms of hatred. Unfortunately, the bigots take comfort in the knowledge that they have the support of respectable figures on the internet and in mainstream media. The trends on the twittersfield become headlines for the 24 hour media, hungry for more and more headline fillers. So tweets about halal/ kosher food become national headlines.

The recent example is the Clarkson fracas with an Irish producer, which turned out to be a serious unprovoked physical and verbal racial attack. For few days it looked that, like many times before, Clarkson would survive the latest mess of his own making. BBC did everything possible to keep Clarkson on their books but as more and more witnesses came forward, they had no choice but to ignore the tank carrying one million signature petition. The petition is the perfect indictment of the prevailing attitude in sections of the society. Despite the tragedy in the French Alps, BBC gave prominence to its decision to not to renew contract with Clarkson. BBC journalists gave his sacking disproportionate air time. They made arguments about his value, for bringing 50 million pounds, and made light of the physical assault, describing it as 30 second incident. It is this kind of attitude that minimises the gravity of similar actions against minorities.

The common thread, in majority of Clarkson's misdemeanours, is the race including the latest incident that included remarks about the victim being Irish. Although, he has been equally vile towards, women, disabled, etc. he receives admiration for not being PC, as though this is something to admire. Astonishingly, he received support from high profile people including our Prime Minister. It is this kind of support which normalises, racism, sexism, Islamophobia and victimisation of other disadvantaged groups, sick and the poor working classes. Such racism also affects the unity of the United Kingdom, as throw away remarks are made about the Scots, Welsh and the Irish for political gains.

I am not an expert on any of the issues listed above but as a member of ethnic minority group with migrant and Muslim heritage, I have views on these topics. We are witnessing the erosion of minority rights earned after long and hard struggles. I say earned as it took decades of fight with the overt, covert and institutionalised racism and discrimination. The equality Acts of 1977 did not work because of the reluctance of the establishment to implement them. This resulted in demonstrations, which were classified as riots despite it being reaction to provocation of discrimination and attacks by organisations like National Front and combat 18. Only after these “riots” and the Lord Scarman’s report, things started to improve. So from the passing of the Act in 1977, it took another decade to see changes especially in the public sector and the public services.  

Fast forward to the second decade of the 21st century and we find that all those prejudices, we thought had been left behind, have resurfaced. Only this time the problem has returned in a respectable form, in our politics, media and in the literati. It has spread like a virus from mainstream politics to the gutters of racist EDL and Britain First. An example of muddle alliances is Tommy Robinson, who still supports EDL, Pagida, Britain First and UKIP but is friends with the Islamophobic new Left, LibDem PPC Maajid Nawaz, and the disgraced Tory PPC Afzal Amin. He openly tweets Islamophobic and racist material on the internet but somehow keeps friendship with this diverse group of people. Maybe he is the new symbol of diversity.

The racist and fascist organisations always had the backing of powerful and influential people. It’s not different today as powerful members of the media, politics and literati, supporting the racist and Islamophobic individuals and groups. They are helping to undermine the progress in the equality field, by spreading fear through the xenophobic rhetoric of immigration and Islam. They cleverly use, all encompassing Islamophobic narrative, that includes all the traits of the Far right. It includes immigration, racism and misogyny . No wonder that people like Richard Dawkins, his followers and the organisations under his patronage claim that no such thing as Islamophobia. The same view expressed by others like Sam Harris and lately by Maajid Nawaz who even issued a Fatwa stating that there is no such thing as Islamophobia. If anyone thinks that the Islamophobia doesn’t affect others, they should read this SAALT report by the US Asian community highlighting the diversity of communities affected by Islamophobic attacks.    

Trevor Phillips, in his article attacked the idea of multiculturalism, and said that in multicultural Britain Muslim children may have a narrow view of the world. At the same time he blames France’s non multiculturalist system for the murder of Charlie Hebdo cartoonists. He can’t have both ways. Like many others he doesn’t want to acknowledge that children of migrants have a greater knowledge of the world than their white counterparts. There is a high chance that they are bilingual, they have visited developing countries of their  parents/ grandparents heritage. They probably have the first hand knowledge of struggles of people around the world. They are more likely to have a wider world view through the international media.

Trevor Phillips also talked about the young girls who had gone to the war torn Syria. Again his views seem to have been based on stereotypes rather than facts. It is clear that these girls had normal family life and were happy at school and were A grade students. The question to ask is about their experiences outside of school and home. What I have learnt from two groups of girls interviewed by the BBC News and BBC Newsnight. The first group interviewed was hijab wearing and they said that they had experienced racist, Islamophobic and Misogynistic attacks, because they way they dressed. The second group was interviewed by Evan Davis for Newsnight. They weren’t hijabis and they also said that they also feel that the society doesn’t accept them because of their colour and race. When they said they understood why girls would leave their comfortable life for a warzone, Evan Davis said that their comments could be interpreted as apology for terrorism. Not surprised that the BBC did not release these videos, while other videos like the interview with Ayaan H Ali were released immediately after the broadcast.

There are some people who have spoken out against the Islamophbia but not enough. In a recent appearance on the BBC Question Time, broadcasted on 18^th March, Will Self said that his students overwhelmingly think, that the Muslims are the most oppressed minority in the UK today. In the same week Matthew Parris wrote an article, in the Spectator, titled "Anti Muslim Prejudice is Real and Scary" . Unfortunately his lone voice is drowned by Douglas Murray’s weekly articles in the Spectator, who also wrote this and his other prejudicial gems include this vile article and this . 

It has become respectable to have Islamophobic prejudice and thanks to the false scandals such as Trojan Horse and the Cathy Neman tweets, it has spread from the mainstream media to the school playgrounds. Our universities are being monitored by the new humanists and the Henry Jackson Society supported group Student Rights. Their activity is not dissimilar to that of Hitler’s Nazi Youth. If we want to have a fair and equal society then we must confront this last respectable prejudice. Our failures to do so will have wider implications for all.  

False Equations

In the recent days a well known Islamophobe joined the Social Media’s mass medium of Twitter. This has been welcomed by the so called man of science and reason, Richard Dawkins, who no longer promotes either the science or involves himself in a reasoned debate. Instead his mission in life seems to be to acquire funding from suspect funders and then to distribute those funds to groups and individuals actively promoting Islamophobia. Why wouldn’t Richard Dawkins welcome Ayaan H Ali to Twitter, the medium he has exploited to make inflammatory and hateful sometimes racial statements. The 140 characters limit is also an excuse to not to make a reasoned argument. He also supports anonymous troll accounts which are overtly and crudely racist and Islamophobic but he calls them satirical.

The other person who welcomed Ayaan is Maajid Nawaz, a PPC for the Liberal Democrats and the Chair of Quilliam foundation. He responded to the tweet by Sam Harris, encouraging people to follow her and Maajid quickly obliged. Maajid also endorsed Ayaan H Ali’s article in the Wall Street Journal and the forthcoming book. Some people believe that Ayaan H Ali already had an account under the name of Secular African. This account had Islamophobic, hate and racist agenda. It openly promoted hate of Muslims and especially of Arabs and supported Israel, especially during the attack on Gaza, when it relayed IDF propaganda. No wonder she has voiced her desire to convert to Judaism. This account also incited Hindus against Muslims, during the Indian election, and supported Narender Modi with a desire to get him to follow back.

Ayaan H Ali has been criticised for her comments that incite violence against Muslims and support suppression of their rights in Europe and North America. This criticism hasn’t just come from Muslims, but Atheiests and Academics alike. In light of the above mentioned, her desires to convert to Judaism is understandable. This, however, conflates with her stated position of being an atheist. We, however, shouldn’t be surprised as other New Atheists like Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins, have also shown soft spot for Judaism, Christianity and Israel.  While Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris may have a chance of being accepted in the Jewish state, Ayaan H Ali, however has no chance of being accepted. She should look at the racist attitudes of Israelis towards African Jews and immigrants and the recent comments by Bibi Netanyahu in the Israeli elections.

In her article in the Wall Street Journal Ayaan H Ali promotes her book and gives the impression that she is arguing about the reformation in Islam. She claims that the Christianity and Judaism had already gone through this process of reformation and that it has only brought good to the humanity. About the Christian and Jewish reformation in Europe she says:

“because their faiths went through a long, meaningful process of Reformation and Enlightenment, the vast majority of Jews and Christians have come to dismiss religious scripture that urges intolerance or violence”

She also says that

Their religious beliefs exist in an uneasy tension with modernity—the complex of economic, cultural and political innovations that not only reshaped the Western world but also dramatically transformed the developing world as the West exported it. The rational, secular and individualistic values of modernity are fundamentally corrosive of traditional societies, especially hierarchies based on gender, age and inherited status.

The reformation is something Maajid Nawaz has also been talking about. He also wants a debate in the Muslim communities and argues for a British Islam. However, most of his debates have been with the New Atheist community and he ends up agreeing with them. He promotes Quilliam’s Osama Hasan as a scholar who even issued a Fatwa on the issue of British Muslims going to help or fight in the Syria conflict. If anything, this tactic has backfired as the number going there have increased not decreased. It seems that most of these travelers were neither religious nor previously known for extreme or violent behavior. This undermines his claims of Islamism and ideology being behind this trend.

Anyway coming back to the issue at hand, has the reformation really stopped the violence and is it the driver behind the modernity. The history suggests that there is little evidence in support of such claims. While it did bring some periods of stability and peace, in the long run it caused more death and destruction then any time before. It replaced religious fervor with nationalistic jingoism and superiority politics. The debate about reformation was really about the power of the established church and personal and nationalistic views of the ruling classes. There were some sincere reformists like the German reformist, Martin Luther of the protestant movement, his views were rejected by the English king who wanted his own reform and head the Church.     

As far as the violence and religious intolerance is concerned, the reformation did not stop the Spanish inquisition, which lasted for nearly 440 years. It seems that non violence and religious intolerance only applied to the various factions of Christianity not the Muslims or Jews, who were forced to convert to Christianity.  Those who didn’t convert were killed or expelled. That is just one example of religious violence and religious intolerance that has continued after the reformation.  

This intolerance and violence continued during the colonialism era, which subjugated people of other religion, race and colour. This was fully supported by the Church and sometimes even the scientific community. The reformation did not stop the slavery of Africans and all the brutality which came with the trade or stopped transportation of Indians to other continents. It did not stop the brutal treatment and genocides of the indigenous people of Americas or the Australia.

The reformation and enlightenment did not prevent the world WWI or WWII or the genocide of the Jews in Europe. The Jews in Europe had experienced massacres and expulsion throughout the reformation and enlightened period. The only safe place they ever had was in the Muslim communities in and outside of Europe. The wars against communism were also tinged with the religious zealot as wars against the unbelievers who had closed churches. The same rhetoric was applied to support Afghans against Russia and which formed the basis for establishing the Mujaheddin army which later turned into Taliban and Al-Qaida.

History tells us that in the newly independent countries, after breaking the shackles of colonialism, from Algeria to Yemen, enlightened, secular and socialism leaning leaders emerged. However, one by one those leaders were got rid of. These leaders were undermined by the west by overtures to the military and by supporting religious parties, saying to them socialism conflicted with Islam and religion. Leaders such as Nasser, Bhutto, Sukarno to name few. Lets look at Pakistan, which gets special mention in Ayaan H Ali's article and probably the book. In 1960's and seventies Zulifqar Ali Bhutto established a political party which overtly said in its manifesto that Islam is our religion and Socialism is our politics. The party won by landslide in open and fair elections. During the elections and the party rule, US and other western countries supported the religious parties. Their was a queue of western ambassadors, lead by US,  to visit his the humble residence of Jamat Islami scholar and leader Mowdudi. Bhutto was replaced with a Military ruler, who did introduce some Islamic law.  
  

Lets not forget the war, which in the absence of proof of sated reason, can only be described as a war motivated by religious beliefs of Tony Blair and George Bush. The other recent examples are the Apartheid in South Africa and the current occupation and siege of Palestine by Israel and her apartheid and racist systems. Even the Prime Minister of Israel made openly racist comments to scare his fellow Jews and to get votes. Netanyahu and his administration is known for making anti Muslim and anti Arab statements to justify their wars on Gaza. These attitudes of intolerance, racism and religious hatred are inherited from their homeland of enlightened Europe and the North America. I sometimes wonder if today’s Jewish community is being used by the Zionists, be that Jews/ cultural Jews, atheists or Christians to cause havoc in the Muslim countries.

In Europe these Zionists of all kind are building alliances with the neo-cons and neo-Nazis against the minorities and the Muslim communities of Europe and the North America as well as against Russia. This has created the atmosphere of fear and uncertainty in the migrant and Muslim communities. However, I remain fearful that if the history is to repeat itself the Jewish community will be as much of a target as the other minorities and Muslims. This fear is based on the perceptions, as pointed out by Trevor Phillips, of Jews being rich and powerful. Such myths had previously resulted in massacres and genocide in Europe.  The most intolerant of Muslims are the New Atheists also known as the new Humanists and secularists. They suppose to be the enlightened and reasoned ones but most of their rhetoric is neither reasoned nor enlightened. 

Ayaan H Ali’s article gives an idea about her forthcoming book. She claims that she is not against all Muslims and hope that Muslims will reform the religion themselves. She, like the President of the United States, wants to keep all options on the table to confront Islam/ Muslims. This includes the option of force, in other words option of violence which is not very tolerant, reformed or enlightened. Other new Atheists, like Sam Harris, also hold the same views.

The reality of the reformation is that all Christian sects agreed on the divinity, Christ and Bible being untouchable. In other words the foundations of the Christianity remained out of bounds of the reformists. The same applies to the claimed Judaism reformation. However, Ayaan want to attack the core foundations of Islam by attacking the Prophet (pbuh). Without whom there would be no Islam and Muslims today. Anyone who is attacking the core foundations of a religion is not sincere about discussion dialogue or considered reform but purveyor of doom and violence.

The other crazy thing she has come up with is the ‘Madina Muslims’ and ‘Mecca Muslims’. She claims that the Mecca Muslims are more peaceful than the Madina Muslims. The reasons she gives for this is that the Madina Muslims were involved in wars while the Mecca Muslims were peaceful. This shows her total ignorance of the beginnings of the Islam and the life of the prophet (pbuh). She seems to have swallowed the scripts provided to her by the Islamophobe Industry. The facts are as below:

The Prophet (pbuh) emigrated to Madina, due to the violence and threats to him by the idol worshippers of Mecca. He was invited by the Muslims of Madina and other Muslims who had migrated on his advice. When the idol worshipers plotted to assassinate him, he also migrated to Madina. When the leaders of the idol worshippers learnt of the failure of assassination attempt they felt humiliated. They then attacked Madina in their attempt to assassinate the Prophet (pbuh). They attacked Madina on several occasions but every time they failed. This does not fit her description of peaceful and non aggressive people.  

Clearly Ayaan H Ali’s narrative does not fit the facts. By her logic the people and tribes of Mecca, who tried to assassinate the Prophet (pbuh) and attacked Madina on several occasions were docile and pacifists. The fact is that before they embraced Islam, the Meccan Tribes were aggressive warriors. They became peaceful and devout because of Islam not despite of Islam. The people of Madina were always peaceful and provided sanctuary to the migrants including the Prophet (pbuh). Today there is no difference between Muslims of Mecca and the Muslims of Madina. Like 1.6 billion Muslims of the world of all colours, races and nationality, they all try to practice their faith peacefully.

Ayaan H Ali, in her piece for WSJ, states that the Christians and Jewish communities of Madina were told that they could retain their faith if they paid a special tax. She alleges that all others were told either to convert or die. This is a pure fiction. The tax applied to all non Muslim communities. The fact is that the initial attacks by Meccans on Madina did not affect the others as Muslim numbers were low and could easily be targeted. However, as Muslim numbers grew, due to the conversions, the attacks started to affect all communities. However, as only Muslims were defending against these attacks and Meccans had started to approach other groups to spy and collaborate, there was need both for funds and to counter these tricks. Therefore, non Muslims were asked to pay a tax as contribution to the cost of defending and as a declaration of loyalty.     

Ayaan H Ali's, like many other, is trying to rewrite the history of Islam and create another label to divide Muslims. She says that she was raised as a Meccan Muslim. Her hostility towards Islam and Muslims and her rhetoric of inciting wars and violence belittles her own argument and factitious and facile theory.     

  

                                                    

Freedom of Speech and Hypocritical Alliance

I had started to write this before the brutal, unnecessary and unjustified Murder of the French magazine Charlie Hebdo staff and 2 Police Officers. My thoughts are with the bereaved families and the French people of all persuasions. From the information available so far it seems that the attack by these criminals was motivated by revenge for the publication of cartoons of the Prophet Muhammed (pbuh).

From what I know about the life of the Prophet (pbuh), the perpetrators actions contravene the way he lived his life. He did not seek revenge or harm against those who had caused him pain and discomfort. I know that some of the Islamophobe Industry will disagree and will try to produce disputed texts, etc. However, that doesn’t change the fact that they are wrong.    

Speculations are a plenty on the mainstream media and of course the playground of the dark forces the Social media, to jump on the bandwagon and try to capitalise on the tragedy. The morality of these people and the hypocrisy of these people who demand that the Muslims community as a whole should condemn the actions of criminals, did not utter a word of sympathy towards the bereaved families. These are the people who would object to the abhorrent images published by the terrorist groups and then publish them on their websites and tweet them. These are the people who would claim a moral high ground but then defend the atrocities committed by governments. These are the people who create the fear of others and then claim that no such thing as Islamophobia

 That brings me to the topic I had originally started to write. On Friday 2nd January the Independent newspaper ran a front page article, about online Islamophobia and increasing Muslim hate incidents. After considering the matter over the weekend and it’s impact on the him, his organisation and his allies, on Monday 5^th January Maajid Nawaz  Tweeted. Bearing in mind that Monday was the day when anti Muslim demonstrations were bring held in Germany , organised by a Neo Nazi group called, Pegida. While the demonstrations did not achieve any significant numbers in most of Germany and a large number of Germans came out in opposition, they did achieve attendance of around 18,000 in Dresden, an area with little or no immigrant/ Muslim population. The Germen Chancellor Angela Merkel condemned Pagida as haters. Wish our leaders had shown such leadership.

The 'timely' tweet by Maajid Nawaz was retweeted by the usual suspects. They included  the Atheists fraternity, Secular Fraternity, Ex Muslim Fraternity and various Islamophobes including the star pupil of Quilliam's academy of Counter Extremism, Tommy Robinson. Although there are different Titles of these Fraternities, often it is the same people who appear under different banners. Tommy Robinson openly supported the Pegida organised demonstrations and encouraged his supporters to attend. From Tommy's tweets is clear that not only that his supporters and EDL members attend the demonstration but as he boasted 'the lads made contact with the leadership'. So we can safely assume that the Dresden demonstration was not just attended by locals but also their affiliates from across Europe. Maybe that is the reason for the high attendance numbers. Of course our media like the BBC is incapable of doing the simple deductions.  

After the signal from Maajid his comrades sprung into action, including the self declared master of 'sarcasm' Richard Dawkins, who tweeted . His subsequent tweets were about religion not being a race and so on. He, however, failed to elaborate what he was trying to say. Was he trying to say that being Islamophobic or Anti-Semitic wasn’t racist or that it was ok to be anti-Semitic or islamophobic as it wasn’t racist. Only he knows what he meant but whatever it was, it was in defence of people like Tommy Robinson and anonymous twitter trolls like Jihadi Joe and Spellchecker. In the recent days the twitter accounts of both of these trolls had been suspended by the Twitter. Mr Dawkins took up their case and despite clear evidence of their bigotry he claimed that they were brilliant satirists like him. While he was successful in getting their accounts (not sure if he deserves the credit) he was criticised by most of the Atheist community for his support of the bigoted anonymous trolls.

This point by Maajid and others that the criticism of Muslims/ Islam is not racist, xenophobic or Islamophobic, has no logic except that that is their point of view. The fact is that long before Maajids’s conversion, this has been the stated position of Mr Dawkins and others like Bill Maher, Sam Harris and their followers. So it is not an original thought of the Chair Maajid, it is the next stage in his evolution.  The Lawyers Secular Society also responded to Maajid Nawaz’s tweet and published this  tweet  and published an article on their website. If we apply the logic of these lawyers then the term anti-Semitism could also be said to mean nothing, as Semite mean a collection of races of Middle Eastern region. Therefore, to use it as a term for the hatred of Jews is as illogical as their claim about Islamophobia.
   
The fact is that the Islamophobia is now an internationally recognised term to define anti Muslim hate, propaganda and to spread fear of Islam and Muslims. The failure to acknowledge this suggests that these people do not accept any form of rights of Muslims of protection from harassment, intimidation and violence. It is this attitude along with suggestion that Islam is an alien religion not compatible with the secular democratic values of the west is not only bigoted but dangerous. Then we are living in strange times when with the aid of CGI anyone could become a star, when a karaoke singer could become pop star with the help of technology and no original material, any man could become journalist with autocue and plagiarised material and anyone become politician by learning to dodge questions and quick answers without thought.

I was very much heartened by the Journalists, commentators and members of the public, interviewed by the BBC. Despite attempts by the BBC presenters provocative and divisive questions the interviewees were calm and calculated and refused to blame the religion or the majority of Muslim community for the dreadful action of murderers responsible for Paris massacre. Instead they were worried about the exploitation of the event by the Far Right organisations and were opposed to the Islamophobic and xenophobic tendencies of these organisations. BBC's own cultural correspondent Tzvetan Todorove, who happened to be French was interviewed for the BBC Newsnight. He said that he was worried that the murders will strengthen Xenophobic and Islamophobic attitudes in some quarters. He also eloquently pointed out that there was no such thing as absolute freedom in a secular democracy and citizens have responsibilities to the society. Today on the Question time Liberal Democrat voiced the same sentiment and said that in our democracy people have freedoms within the law not absolute freedom as some have been suggesting.

Therefore, the notion of absolute freedom to cause offence and hurt is a basic right of secular society is contradictory to the principals of the secularism. Then the new Secularism and Atheism has mutated into something un recognisable from founding principle. The new values are extremist tinged with hate, bigotry, xenophobia and of course Islamophbia. Their hypocrisy becomes clear when they say they want to maintain a Judeo-Christian culture. Not surprising as it is the same crowd acting under different banners. The true secularism  protects all religions and does not allow people to discriminate people or denigrate their rights, on the basis of their beliefs, culture and race. Furthermore, the promotion of the idea that Islam is an alien religion is also a false propaganda. The Islam as a religion belongs to these lands and shore like as any other religion / belief and so do the Muslims. Any belief other than that is bigoted, racist xenophobic and yes Islamophobic.

On the day of the French Murders the Islamophobic fraternity was very busy on the social media, Hundreds of tweets a minute were being fired. They were not only spreading hate they were demanding that the media should defy normal procedures and publish show offending cartoons. Not surprisingly these included known suspects like Tommy Robinson, LSS, Ex Muslims forum, Secularists, Atheists and of course BBC's own Nicky Campbell. BBC and other news channels interviewed hundreds of experts commentators from all around the world and of course they included Quilliam’s, Maajid Nawaz and Douglas Murray of The Henry Jackson Society and Gatestone Institute. These three organisations and above mentioned are most active in the Islamophobic activities and spreading hate and fear of Islam Muslims and fear of persecution in the Muslim communities and then clam there no such things as Islam phobia. BBC allowed Nigel Farage to get away with remarks that there was a fifth column in the midst of us. It was only Jon Snow of Channel Four who confronted him and Geertt Wilders about their xenophobic and neo Nazi stand. 

Due to my addiction to the News, Current affairs and politics, I had the misfortune to watch the Daily Politics Show today, hosted by Andrew Neil and Joe Coburn. The guests included two “opposing and respectful specialists” Maajid Nawaz and Douglas Murray. As expected there was no considered discussion but regurgitation of old rhetoric of Islam being responsible all atrocities in the West and Maajid Nawaz begging for funds. Furthermore these supporters of freedom speech were upset that Media had been using Muhammad Shafiq to comment on the Paris events.

This hypocrisy of advocating free speech while seeking to ban others from speaking has stifled the debate within the society the Muslim community and has given Islamophobes a free hand to spread fear and hate. By supporting and demanding bans in the Educational establishments, media, and public life, these people have created a vacuum of positive role models and have suppressed the free thought. Yes some people will have a point of view or an interpretation of the holy scriptures which is perverted but by banning them and driving them underground you deny the Muslim Community to challenge and debate such notions. The state sponsored censorship of thoughts and views is creating an atmosphere of fear and helplessness in the Muslim Community and this pressurised bottling of emotion is and will result in the undesired outcomes which we all want to prevent.

As it happens I also watched the late programme this week on the BBC where I had to suffer the ridiculous analysis of the Paris event by Andrew Neil. I was, however, looking forward to some sense of balance from the announced guest, David Aaronovitch. However, I was disappointed, because while advocating freedom of speech, David Aaronovitch promoted the idea, that those who don’t agree with his interpretation of freedom of speech, they can move to different countries. The hypocrisy is that even if some people move to different part of the world, they will still be subject to his long standing support for the interventionist policies. In other words you are not allowed to live a peaceful life whether they are in the west or in any other part of the world.

Then he suggested that Muslim should hold large demonstrations like they do when Israel commits atrocities in Palestine as though atrocities committed by state are equal to the murders committed by criminals. I didn’t see him organising or attending such demonstrations against Israel, which by the way were multi racial, multi faith and non faith individuals. Neither it seems he had the ability to organise demonstration of any kind. The heart of matter is that all those who are vocal in criticism of Islam and Muslims happen to be extremist supporters of Israel. These are the people who labelled demonstrations against atrocities in Gaza as anti-Semitic. These are the people who instead of promoting unity as a nation are promoting divisions.

Andrew Neil and David Aaronovitch wanted British media to publish certain cartoons from Charlie Hebdo to “spread the fear”. It would definitely cause the offence and spread the fear in the Muslim communities. While it is acceptable for people to cause offence, it is clear that people has a right to take offence otherwise what is the point. If people are not allowed to air that they are offended without fear, intimidation and bullying then where will that bottled pressure go? Muslims do not need to apologise for their beliefs and certainly do not need to abandon their country on the say so of some Journalists like Andrew Neil, David, Nicky Campbell or Politicians like Nigel Farage.     

Following are some of the tweets to give you a flavour and you decide which are racist, bigoted, xenophobic or Islamophobic or all in one.
http://mobile.twitter.com/TRobinsonNewEra/status/552803726772420608?p=v
http://mobile.twitter.com/TRobinsonNewEra/status/552783220962787328?p=v
http://mobile.twitter.com/TRobinsonNewEra/status/552574856001507328?p=v