9/11 and Other Anniversaries

Another anniversary of the 9/11 has passed with another President of the US using the occasion to declare another war. The terminology and the rhetoric of evil, barbaric, genocidal, etc is also back. There is no change in the belief of exceptionalism of the America and the Americans in particular and the west in general. It seems no lessons have been learnt from the tragic events of the 9/11 and the actions prior to and after the event.

Like most people my day on 9/11 began as normal, a bus journey followed by train ride and a walk to work. As usual I had a scone and cup of tea for breakfast at my desk. Just before I was to go out for a sandwich a colleague approached me and said that he had heard the news on the radio that a plane had crashed into one of the high rise buildings of the World Trade Centre. We were both anxious about the safety of the passengers and the people in the building. That was just the start and as the second plane hit the second tower we started to wonder if this was accidental or deliberate act. When towers fell we were aghast like everyone else in the world. Everyone was saying that they didn’t expect towers to crumble the way they did.

Whatever the motives of the people who allegedly carried out the attacks, it has had a lasting effect on all but especially the lives of Muslims settled in the West and the Muslim in the world at large.

While we don’t know the motives of the alleged hijackers what we know from the information available is that the majority were from Saudi Arabia and all were Arabs. There is no evidence that they had visited Afghanistan or Pakistan. They were students who had studied in the Europe and had freely visited US. They were from well off backgrounds and there were no signs of any disaffection from society. Furthermore, there were no signs of any abnormal affiliation with so called extremism. Everything points to a political motive not the alleged religious extremism.

It is often said that the attack on the twin towers was an unprovoked attack. Furthermore, it’s claimed that it is more to do with religion than politics. I don’t see this in these simplistic terms.

Because the West continues to blame Muslims and their religion, Let us look at the Muslim world before 9/11 and what had happened in years preceding. The US and the West had interfered in the internal affairs of many countries and supported the suppression of people by unelected dictators. They had used countries like Pakistan and Iraq to fight proxy wars without caring about the effects of such wars on the ordinary people. No consideration is given to the lasting effects of wars on the population in terms of social, economic and the loss of life.

In Afghanistan, during the proxy war between Russia and US 1979-1989, an estimated 1,500,000 civilians plus 100,000 fighters were killed. Furthermore, around 3 million Afghan civilians were wounded, most of them children. Also 7 million Afghans had been displaced of which 5 million refugees are hosted by Pakistan to this day.

This proxy war also set the precedent of using religion, private funding and the use of foreign fighters / Mujahidin, sponsored by US and Saudi Arabia.  

Afghanistan historically had been closer to the USSR than the US. USSR had heavily invested in Afghanistan during the 70’s, building Kabul University, civil infrastructure, power plants and local schools. They also established universities in other provinces. In contrast when the proxy war ended in 1989, the US and their allies left Afghanistan in the hands of warring warlords. There was no development or rebuilding. The foreign fighters were not encouraged to go back to their countries. There was no help for them to go back and readjust to normal life. The void was filled by the Taliban who had come out of the religious madrassas (A form of basic schooling) in the refugee camps, only form of education available to the refugees..  

Let us not forget the ongoing impact of this war on Pakistan, economic, political and social. Before the Afghan war Pakistan’s elected Prime Minister, Zulifqar Ali Bhutto had started to distance Pakistan from the West by leaving SEATO (an equivalent treaty to NATO in the Asia) and the Common Wealth. He looked towards East and the Middle East. He had laid the foundation for a movement of united Muslim block with economic and political power. He was instrumental in the use of oil power of the Middle Eastern OPEC to resolve the outstanding disputes in the Middle East between Israel and the neighbouring countries. Furthermore, he supported the idea of punishing the US and other Western powers for their military support of Israel and their failure to resolve the Palestine issue. This resulted in the 1973 stoppage of the oil supply to the US. This forced West to arrange the evacuation of Israeli forces from the Sinai and promise to facilitate return of the Golan Heights to Syria 

Soon West resorted to the old tactics of divide and rule and find ways to remove obstacle. Bhutto had said that the “white elephant” was after him for not cooperating with them. The white elephant had a long memory and soon engineered the removal of Bhutto from his elected position. The military dictator who removed Bhutto not only supported the US’s proxy war in the Afghanistan, he divided the nation. He fuelled the communal politics in the country and sowed the seeds of sectarian violence. He also experimented with Saudi and Taliban style government in Pakistan. The Middle Eastern Unity was fractured by the peace treaty between Egypt and Israel.       

The Iran/ Iraq war which began on 22^nd September 1980, may have started as a dispute between the two countries but  by 1982 US openly came to support Iraq. The US support to Iraq came in the form of technological, intelligence, the sale of chemical and biological warfare technology and satellite intelligence. No objections were raised at the use of such chemical and biological weapons by Iraq during this war. By the time the war ended, in 1988, there were between 1,000,000 and 1,500,000 casualties on both sides. Furthermore, the economies of both countries had suffered an approximately $1,000 billion loss. No wonder Iraq invaded Kuwait to make up for the losses. We know that US ambassador had given a nod to this invasion but it seems that Kuwait’s wealth had a bigger allure and soon US switched sides, which lead to the first Iraq war.

The first Iraq war in 1991 was seen as humiliation of the Iraqi people and massacre of its armed forces described as Turkey shoot, only added to the frustration of Middle Eastern population. The Saudi population was unhappy about the use of their territory to attack Iraq. Their anger got worse when US forces were allowed to station at a base in the Kingdom. While the war was over in days, what followed had a profound effect on the populations of the Middle East. While the people had little objections to the dismantling of the chemical weaponry, they objected to the crippling sanctions which had reduced the oil rich modern developing society to a poor third world country.

The sanctions are nothing but a modern version of the medieval siege of people to force them surrender. This siege of Iraq caused deaths of 5000,000 children from malnutrition and curable diseases.  

Then came Bosnia conflict, from 1992-95, which resulted in loss of life of a minimum of 2,000,000 including 12,000 children. Deaths include victims of genocide and massacres as well as starvation and exposure to the elements due to living in hiding.  At least 50,000 Muslim women were the victims of organised campaign of rape. Mass graves are still being discovered and this year remains of 284 victims have been discovered and 10,000 people are still missing. The conflict forced 2,200,000 to flee their homes. There was resistance to Muslims being given refuge in the West. Suggestions were made to ship them to Pakistan and the Middle East but eventually they were allowed in.

The Bosnian conflict had a profound effect on the young Muslims living in the West including students. They saw how the West was treating the European Muslims and they wanted to help. The Second and third generation Muslims who were trying to find their identity, found a cause they could relate to and in the process found their identity. They became active in raising funds, visited Bosnia and helped refugees to settle in the West.

Then there is the ongoing plight of the Palestinians who have now lived under occupation for more than 60 years. Israel has massacred Palestinians, not only in Palestine but in the refugee camps in other countries. Anniversary of one such massacre has just passed. This massacre also happened in September in 1982, in the camps of Sabra and shatila, Lebanon.  In just 3 days, from 9/16-18 appr. 3,500 men women and children were massacred by Israel. Israeli forces were lead by Aerial Sharon, who was never brought to Justice for the inhumane war crimes. Instead he held ministerial posts and became Israeli Prime Minister. He was welcomed with open arms in the US. This is just one example of the most heinous monstrosities committed against the Palestinians by Israel supported by the West in general and the US in particular.  Despite continuous suppression of Palestinian and other minorities in Israel and medieval style siege of Gaza, there are no sanctions against Israel.

Apart from the above there are other conflicts where Muslims face suppression, oppression, murder and rape. They include Kashmir, Philippine, China, Burma, Sri Lanka but find no support from the West. On the other hand Muslim countries are forced to relinquish territory e.g. East Timor, South Sudan. Since the 9/11 rise in Islamophobia and attacks on Muslims and mosques has made life difficult in the West. The term terrorist has lost its original meaning and now every country is using it to suppress political opponents, freedom fighters, insurgents and more. Apart from the West, where its used to curtail freedoms and justify draconian legislation, prime example are Palestinian and Kashmiri resistance.    

If there is anybody who has benefited from the tragedy of 9/11 it is Israel. This has been stated by none other than the Likud leader and the current Prime Minister of Israel. Netanyahu is of course right and its evident from the actions of Israel. Israel has, grabbed more and more land from the Palestinians, build more settlements, killed more civilians, demolished more Palestinian homes, waged wars on PA and Gaza, scuppered all attempts to reach a peace deal, etc. More importantly Israel has developed an Islamophobic narrative and spread it through alliances. These alliances include the normal suspects like AIPAC and new alliances with the neo-Nazi, nationalist, racist, atheist and neocon groups in the US and the West. While spreading hate of Muslims and Islam, Israel has openly promoted Judaism and used the first Testament to recruit Christians on her side. Israel has declared itself as a Jewish state that mean all new laws are influenced by the Jewish Law which is used to apply the two tier Judicial system.

While spreading lies about the Mosques, Israel has successfully used Synagogues in the West to recruit young men to enlist in its armed forces. These young men are radicalised in Israel and sent back to spread the hate and intimidate the dissenting voices in the Jewish community. We are already seeing the effects of this on the streets of Britain in form of attack on George Galloway MP and intimidation of a Rabbi in Manchester .      

Tony Blair often speaks about the Kosovo conflict and how he saved Muslims from ethnic cleansing and possible genocide. He was fully aware of the resistance in the Europe to Muslim refugees from Bosnia. He acted in self preservation and wallowed in the popularity he received in the bargain.

Coming back to 9/11 and its aftermath, I don’t think I need to talk about the occupation of Iraq or Afghanistan, Guantanamo Bay, Human rights abuses, war crimes, torture and loss of over 1,000,000 lives. I don’t need to mention millions of refugees and its impact on the region. I don’t need to highlight the emergence of sectarian, communal and divisive politics and conflicts. I don’t need to remind people about the creation of failed state in Libya and economic impact on the neighbouring African nations. I don’t need to state the rise and fall of the Arab Spring and Democracy and the military coup in Egypt. Syria is an ongoing problem for the last 3 years with a death toll nearing 200,000 and millions of refugees and now another conflict in Iraq.   

I don’t even want to question the flimsy and false evidence used to wage wars in the Afghanistan and Iraq. You all know about the false evidence used to invade Iraq but generally believe that Afghanistan was responsible because it hosted former friend of the US Osama bin Laden. Question is whether any evidence exists of his involvement. All we know is that the crime was pinned on him on the flimsy line in a conversation in a wedding video. The line was “we didn’t expect the towers to fall”. As I said at the beginning that everyone was asking the same question. The media spent a great deal of time in analysing and speculating about the same question.

Finally, on the basis of the list of suspects provided by the US and the evidence pointing to the political motives of the alleged perpetrators. The evidence also suggests that, neither Afghanistan nor Iraq had anything to do with 9/11. Why then both countries were attacked, invaded and  occupied. It is clear that US acted in own interest to make an example but not because they were guilty but because taking action against the Saudi Arabia and its citizens, was not in her interest. Instead both Saudi Arabia and the US had worked jointly in Afghanistan and were aware of the devastation they had left behind. Saudi Arabia and possibly Israel persuaded US and the West about the danger of perceived influence of Osama Bin Laden in the Muslim world. This was then used to attack and occupation. However, they didn’t expect this adventure to turn into a nightmare. Attack on Iraq was also part of the strategy to protect allies Saudi Arabia and Israel.  

It seems to me that diplomacy and negotiations are dead and every dispute is resolved by threat or actual use of force. Even so called alliances of the willing are created by threats like, "you are with us against us". There are no thinking political leaders and we and the politicians are being lead by the mainly incompetent media with their own interests. Everyday more and more people are falling victim to this policy which says I will let my fist do the talking. Everyday more children, women, men are being killed and everyday is an anniversary of the increasing number of victims of the new reality.       

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.
      

The Rise of the Ignorant Intellectuals

What the H**k is Cultural Relativism?

 You are well educated, good with words and regard yourself a bit of intellectual. So what you do with your talent? Do you explore variety of things, spread positivity through your talents or do you limit your talents to spread poison and hatred. Unfortunately some people do limit their talents to attacking everything, which doesn’t fit into their small minded view of the world. They use their talent to attack and bully people who have a wider perspective, principals and opinions based on their experiences.  

 One such person writes and tweets anonymously under the name of Unrepentant Jacobin, thereafter referred to as UJ. We don’t know if the person is a she, he or it (an alien). This person's blog is headed “Poison Pamphleteer”. UJ's main subjects include Islam, Multiculturalism (mainly related to Muslims) & criticism of mainstream left (for opposing Islamophobia).The twitter profile of UJ states, I defend the West including Israel. Previously UJ's profile included Zionist, although UJ says he is non Jewish. UJ doesn't clarify, what does defending West mean and from what?. However, its clear that UJ's form of defence is to attack.

 On 9th January 2014, I spotted UJ attacking someone from The Feminist wire, on twitter. UJ had tagged in couple of people for reinforcement or to show off, just like a bully in playground. As usual some troll accounts joined in too. I am not saying UJ was a bully at school; chances are he was a victim of bullying. It’s not unusual to come across such behaviour by UJ and his twitter buddies. I rarely intervene as more often than not UJ and co would try to shut people down, by labelling and name calling. However, on this occasion I did and was immediately labelled “racist”.

 As I said it’s not uncommon for UJ and co. to attack and ridicule people who have a differing point of view, particularly on issues to do with Muslims/ Islam and Islamophobia. I remember the tirade of abuse from UJ and Clique, against Victoria Coren, for writing  "My veil epiphany"  .Then there was Priyamvada Gopal for writing  this article criticising the activities of "Student Rights" an offshoot of Henry Jackson Society. Another victim of their attack was the Writers of Colour for publishing Shohana Khan's article on their website. Then there was attack on Laurie Penny for writing this article .This is just a sample of their victims but what is concerning is that, they not only target people who stand against Islamophobia.

 I was shocked to be labelled racist by UJ so I decided to check what was going on between him and the Feminist wire. I learned that the Feminist Wire is a multi ethnic and inclusive website . Here is an extract from their Mission statement:

 "The mission of The Feminist Wire is to provide socio-political and cultural critique of anti-feminist, racist, and imperialist politics pervasive in all forms and spaces of private and public lives of individuals globally". 

 It turns out that some 21 months ago in April 2012 Adele Wilde-Blavatsky had a written an article titled 'To be Anti-Racist is to Feminist: The Hoodie and the Hijab are not Equals'. The article was published on the Feminist Wire website. Adele had written the article in response to the united protest held, under the banner of ‘1 million Hoodie and Hijab March’ held across America. The protest was held to show solidarity with the victims of allegedly racially and islamophobic murders of Trayvon Martin, a 17 year old African American boy and Shamim Alawadi and Iraqi American woman.

 Adele's article proved to be controversial and received criticism from a wide ranging feminist community and attracted abusive comments from the readership. After careful consideration and consultation, the Feminist wire decided to remove Adele's article and also decided to part with Adele. I should point out that the Feminist wire is run by a collective of writers who voluntarily donate their time on part time basis.

Let us examine what was so controversial about the article that nearly 80 feminists wrote a joint letter criticising the article.

 The article was written and published when emotions were running high and black and white Americans were united against the alleged racial and Islamophobic motives behind the murders. Adele wrote:

A `One Million Hoodies' march was organised to demand justice for Martin.  As Brendan O'Neill argued, this use of the hoodie is questionable enough.  The wearing of `One million hijabs' to show public solidarity and outrage at the murder of Alawadi? I cannot think of anything more ironic and counter-productive.

 I searched, without success, for the above quote attributed to of Brandan O’Neill. I did, however, find this article . The article was criticised by Ophilia Benson who wrote  Vile Brandan O'Neill. However, the same Ophilia Benson later came out in support of Adele.

Adele also wrote:

What I take issue with here is the equating of the hoodie and the hijab as sources of ethnic identity and pride. The hijab, which is discriminatory and rooted in men's desire to control women's appearance and sexuality, is not a choice for the majority of women who wear it. The hoodie, on the other hand, is a choice for everyone who wears it. The history and origin of these two items of clothing and what they represent could not be more different; like comparing the crippling footbindings of Chinese women with a `Made in China' Nike trainer.

 Adele’s comparison of a harmless piece of clothing to footbindings in ancient china, is this the kind of exaggerated analogy we should expect from today’s intellectuals. Despite the evidence to the contrary, even if you accept her premise that hijab is mainly worn by women, because of men’s desire to control women, aren’t those women entitled to protection from violence. Is it wrong to show solidarity with those who suffer abuse, threats and violence because they wear hijab.  Adel's understanding of both the Hoodie and Hijab is nothing more than stereotypical prejudice. 

 She doesn’t  know that the origins of both forms of head gear are in Africa and the Middle East. She doesn’t understand that headgear is worn by men and women all around the world. As well as being practical and religious, headwear is a symbol of fashion, status and prosperity. It is also part of culture and is symbol of national dress and pride of many nations.

 The point is neither the hoodie is exclusively worn by black Americans nor is hijab an exclusive head wear of Muslims. It’s all about other people's perceptions. Question is why hoodie has become symbol of black men and why Hijab has become symbol of pride of Muslim women. In my view the answer lies in the wrong perceptions of wider society to link hoodies and black men crime and disorder. Similarly, hijab is maliciously being symbolised as oppression. The fact is that Muslim girls and women are making it a symbol of their identity and respect for their beliefs. They are standing up to the false propaganda that they are oppressed by their fathers, brothers and sons. They have the confidence to stand up to the bigots and say, we are Muslim, we are here, deal with it.  

 Why do some feminists feel they can ignore views of Muslim feminists like Camillia Khan who wrote this The 'Segregation' Debate and Muslim Female Empowerment |.  Why do they generalise that hijab is forced on women but offer no evidence to support their claims. The findings of a study survey report on the opinions of people in seven, predominantly Muslim countries can be found here . The survey shows 85% support for hijab across a sample made up of men and women. These are just two examples of differing view ignored by feminists like Adele Wilde-Balavatsky and UJ and co. They forget that most young women of today, both in the west and the east, are better educated than their mothers. They make their own choices and they do not need someone else telling them how to live their lives.  

On the issue of race hate crimes Adele wrote:

Racism is not skin-deep: white vs. non-white. If that were the case, then Why has there been centuries of caste discrimination and violence in countries like India? Why are Muslim women beaten and murdered by Muslim men for refusing to wear the hijab? How did both these deaths occur in a country that is led by a black male President? How does it explain the fact that about 150 black men are killed every week in the U.S. - and 94 percent of them by other black men?

UJ's explanation of the above is:

 What was needed, she argued, was a reframing of the whole conversation about the defence of women's rights and the need for a feminism that was, if not blind to cultural difference, then at least not subordinate to it.

 Neither the above extract from Adele Wilde-Blawatsky's piece nor the explanation of UJ makes makes any sense. Are they saying that victims of caste system, women murdered by men and black on black violence, while there is a black president, are all victims of racism.If that is what they are saying then in one swoop they have  changed the definition of racism and racist violence. The other explanation could be that, all of the above violence is cultural. In other words non white races are culturally prone to violence. I, however,  fail to see the connection between black male president and Murders of Martin Trayvon and Shamim Alawadi. 

 It seems to me that this is an attempt to link violent, race hate and ani-muslim crimes to culture of minorities and not real factors. To dismiss these crimes as result of patriarchal power, is ignoring the real factors. It’s an attempt to exempt western societies from any culpability. It suggests that if minorities do not wish to suffer racial violence, they should change and accept western culture/  dress, this race hate will stop. Therefore, it implies, that minorities should not protest as their problems are of their own making.

In light of the above, I am not surprised that the Feminist Wire collective made an entirely rational decision to remove Adele’s article and abusive comments from their website. They had no choice but to part company with her, they could not afford to associate with someone who was judgemental, exaggerator and who acted against unity and sowed seeds of division. Their side of story can be found here . 

 Adele seems to be unable to comprehend the reasons for the removal of her article and her removal from the collective. The matter continues to cloud her judgements and she has failed to see the motives of people, like UJ and Maryam Namazie, who are using her to pursue their own agenda. Furthermore, Two weeks after her removal from the TFW collective she wrote, an article titled "When Anti-Racism becomes Anti-Women: The 'Privileging' of Race above Gender, which you can read it here .

 If Adele and UJ wish to promote unity among feminists then why continue to write about it. Some 21 months later Adele wrote, 'Stop bashing White Women in the name of Beyonce': We need unity not division' . You can read this  here . Both articles show her inability to forget the incident with feminist wire and to move on.

She wrote:

Sadly, this is not the first time I have come across such a 'white women bashing' message from women in the media. Last year, the Feminist Wire collective published an article I wrote on the burqa and hijab in the wake of the tragic killing of Trayvon Martin: 'To Be Anti-Racist Is To Be Feminist: The Hoodie and the Hijab Are Not Equals'. The FW collective then backtracked after a backlash from their readership and after publishing a letter signed by over 80 feminists denouncing it. I subsequently published a follow up to the article 'When Anti-Racism becomes Anti-Woman'. I and other women who tried to defend the article online (including women of colour from Third World countries) were attacked as either white imperialist racists or suffering from false consciousness. The clear message was that if you're white you cannot criticise anything that is done or said by non-white people unless it follows a certain kind of left liberal 'post-colonial' strain of thought. In any case, white women cannot win on this issue. As Swati Parahsar stated in 'Where are the feminists to defend Indian women?' if white women do not speak up about the oppression of women of colour they are accused of white indifference, if they do they are accused of white imperialism. We're damned if we do damned if we don't.

  Note the absence of mention of Shamim Alawadi’s murder. It is true that some seven month after her death, her husband was arrested in connection with the matter. However, at the time of her death everyone believed it to be a racist and Islamophobic murder. Even if the murder was not a hate crime, Shamim Alawadi was still a victim of heinous crime. As a feminist shouldn’t Adele be concerned about the number of women killed by their partners in the United States. Has Shamim Alawadi death just become a statistic, which is not worth commenting. Shouldn’t feminists like Adele be concerned about the high number of women killed in US by their partners, the figure could be as high as 1000 a year, and highlighting it in their writings? May be they don’t want to acknowledge that the anti women violence is as prevalent in the global north as it is in the global south.

 What I found particularly distasteful was, after learning about the arrest of Shamim's huband in connection of her murder, the smugness and gloating in the exchange of tweets between Adele and her supporters.

 When Adel says that she received support from women of colour, from third world countries, she is actually talking about women mainly resident in the west. She doesn’t know that in today’s global world terms like “third world” are offensive and are not used. Furthermore, all of these supporters seem to belong to one organisation with a specific agenda. One of the people who supported her is Maryam Namazie. One of the "feminists" listed in his article is Maryam Namazie. Her identity is really confusing as she wears so many hats:

1.    Humanist; 2.    Human rights worker; 3.    Secularist; 4.    Liberal; 5.    Communist; 6.    Head of One law for all; 7.    Head of Ex-Muslims; 8.    Editor of Fitna; 9.    Editor of free thoughts website; 10. Women living under Islamic Law; 11. Atheist; 12. Immigration Advisor;

 I am sure I missed a few. She is either a control freak or it's just a one women show. She recently published a report titled "Political and Legal Status of Apostates in Islam". The report is supported and sponsored by none other than Richard Dawkins, once a man of reason and science, who noadys spends his time tweeting news about criminal acts in far flung countries and links them to Islam. He also considers himself a satrist. The report by Maryam Namazie researched laws and prosecutions for apostasy in 29 Muslim majority countries. It did not find a single case of prosecution under so called apostasy law. However, this didn’t stop the author from inferring that, because these countries were Islamic and regarded Islamic law as superior, any one leaving Islam in all 29 countries faced death penalty. This shows that people like Maryam Namazie, Richard Dawkins and their fellow Islamophobes will not let facts stop their hateful propaganda. A recently declared ex-Muslim, summed up motives behind such reports as muslimphobic propaganda. You can read her tweet below:

 

Layla Murad Tweet

 I can understand why Unrepentant Jacobin decided to exploit the dispute between the Feminist Wire and Adele Wilde-Blavatsky and wrote this article titled "Racism, Censorship, Disunity, on the hounding of Adele Wilde-Blavatsky".   It fits neatly into the narrow narrative he and his clique are pursuing. The article has been hailed as an intellectual piece by his clique but I will leave that others to judge.

 Unrepentant Jacobin picked up the baton from Adele and questions the very definition of racism. UJ feels that the minority communities, living in the west, have been exempted from the norms of the western behaviour/ culture. He quotes the following from a speech by Martin Luther King :

"I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal."

 First of all I am surprised that UJ, as an atheist, quoted something which contains the word “created”. Secondly, UJ doesn’t  believe that Muslims are equal to the westerners unless they have an x before their belief. Thirdly, a question, why the anti Muslim community (Islamophobia is not recognised by UJ and co) feel, they have the right to use these symbols and icons, of the civil rights, human rights and anti-apartheid movements, as tools of oppression of the minorities in the west. Furthermore, what right they have to argue that the minority communities should be denied rights under the equality, diversity and human rights legislation. They forget that it was the minority groups including Muslims who had campaigned and fought to get these legislation enacted. To deny people rights is akin to fascism than freedom and democracy.

 While I agree with UJ that humans of all colours and creed are capable of being racists, but to say that power and supremacy ideologies do not play a role is just denying the historic facts. Take slavery, why is it that the westerners only took Africans as slaves, why not Europeans. It’s not that there was no rivalry between European countries or that there a shortage of people in Europe. This trend continues today, as modern slavery and human trafficking mainly targets non Europeans. This superiority complex of some westerners is still the cause of racism at home and abroad. When was the last time you heard stories of non westerners waving their passports abroad and saying they can’t be touched. Same people readily flout and criticise local laws, while advocating that western laws should apply everywhere in the world. They abduct people from their homes, rendition them, torture them and keep them in interned camps, without charge or trial. 

 The undeniable fact is that racism in the west mainly affects the minority and non white communities. To deny this is to deny the Lord Scarman's report and findings and every subsequent report confirming the existence of institutional racism.

 If there is doubt then I suggest UJ and Adele should read this article in the Independent, which shows that children of minority communities, experience racism and racial & Islamophobic abuse at an early age. We are all aware of the increase in anti Muslim hate crimes in the UK, including Murder and arson, as shown in this report in the Guardian . Increasing trends in anti Muslim attacks are highlighted in this report  published by  the FBI , the report shows 50% increase in anti muslim attacks in the US. This Al-Jazeerah report show disturbing trends of attacks on people who look like a Muslims. In other words people who may not be Muslims but they fit the stereo typical image, because of their Asian and Arab descent. If this doesn’t show link between racism and Islamophobia then I don’t know what will.  

 While I agree with both UJ and Adele that feminists, black or white, on the left or the right , should be able to raise issues affecting women both in the global north & global south. What I don’t agree with is, that there is an hierarchy of violence against women and children based on who is doing it or who the victims are. Victims of violence whether in Pakistan, Afghanistan, India, Palestine, Syria, Iraqi etc. are all victims. Violence through arms and ammunition is as bad as violent rape on a Delhi bus. Furthermore, violence against women is not just a global South Issue, it is global North issue too. There may be different factors, causes and forms in the global North than global south but outcomes are the same.

 Challenging so called crimes of passion and child sex abuse and paedophilia in the global North is as important as child marriages, honour killings in the global south. We need to challenge sexual abuse associated with the cult of celebrity in the global north as much as feudalism in the global south. Bonded labour is as bad as human trafficking for sex industry. Tackling gun and gang crime (in the last ten years more lives have been lost in the US through gun crime than terrorism and soldiers killed in action together) is as important as tackling terrorism. It is a shameful day when you see 4 grandees of British media appearing in the court, all on the same day, on charges of sexual abuse and sexual harassment. At the same time two senior politicians were suspended from their Political Party for alleged sexual misconduct. This doesn’t bode well for advances in tackling sexual harassment in our society.

 Feminists shouldn’t just highlight the problems, they should also look at the causes and possible solutions and strategies to tackle . Lack of education,  poverty, suppression by powerful and culture, all play their part. Wars often affects education, increases poverty and dependency on the powerful which leads to exploitation. Government policies such as one child policy in China and forced sterilisation in India has also lead to the gap in male female ration in these countries. Recently, media and feminists have been making a big hoo-ha,, without any substantive evidence, about foetus selection and abortions in the UK. The media and feminists, however, have failed to criticise these practices prevalent in India. Instead what we find is that they are demonising minority communities with pre-formed prejudices.  

 Intellect and intelligent are closely linked, you can’t be a great thinker and producer of reasoned arguments without the intelligence. You also need to be well informed and be able to process the information available and use facts to support your arguments. If you don’t have the information then you must seek it, before commenting and making ignorant remarks. However, modern intellectuals seem to think that because they are famous, they don’t need to follow this rule. They feel that their opinion, no matter how flawed, be accepted as intellectually reasoned statement.

 This, flawed 21^st century phenomenon, is not limited to certain academics, it has spread to the Journalistic, Political and other sectors. It has become the bases of creating so called think tanks, institutes and various other organisations. These organisations have names which are opposite to their activity, e.g. Centre for Community Cohesion, Human Rights Watch, Foundation for Science and Reason, Quilliam Foundation, English Defence League, Free Thoughts, Student Rights, etc. You might wonder why I have included EDL in the list, well it is to show the depravity of intellectual claims by these organisations. Most of them have the same Islamophobic and  ignorant views and a shared agenda. They use the same arguments, same thread in their tweets and retweets. They have the same message with the same aims and impact. 

We must expose such ignorance, wherever it exists, and restore the integrity of real intellectuals.

 I admit that I do not understand in what context these people are using the phrase "cultural relativism". So what is culture? As there are no written rules which defines culture and because it is ever changing, we need to use our imagination. Although from time to there is revival of culture, as we have seen it on British Isles. especially in Wales. Different people interpret culture differently, however, in my humble opinion culture is all about life, living and lifestyle. It encompasses food, clothing, fashion, art, language, literature, music, sport, pastimes, relationships, to list the few items which may come under culture. As humanity develops and grows culture develop and evolve too. In today's global world cultures are global too. As we travel and emigrate our culture travels with us but it doesn't stay the same. For example Tea drinking was important tradition in ancient china but today it is linked to the English Culture. However, with the invasion of American coffee firms, this is under threat.

 Sometimes, however, custom and Prentice and tradition is mistaken as culture. While culture continues to evolve, customs and traditional practices developed over long periods remain static. Therefore, opponents of the concept of multiculturalism should reflect on their position. While culture often travels with people, custom and traditional practises are often left behind. People also try to link culture to the belief systems when nothing could be further from the truth. However, this topic is for another day. 

 As far as the UK is concerned, Multi culturalism means understanding and celebrating diversity, which not only includes racial minorities but also other minority groups. These groups include Travellers, mainland European communities, Disabled and LGBT.  Even before the arrival of the minority communities from the non white countries, the United Kingdom was a diverse and multi cultural country. England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland had their own cultures, values and languages. Furthermore, there were regional variation within England and other parts.  Cultural festivals celebrating this diversity continue to be held. Only difference is that such cultural events are now enhanced with colour, spice, music, different foods and tastes of new comers.

To suggest that the non white communities should absorb themselves fully and become invisible is a laughable idea. Non white communities will always remain visible to racists and bigots.

 Those opposing the multiculturalism are mainly Islamophobic and Racist groups. It will be a great shame if they succeed in creating divisions because of their narrow minded views of the world and humanity.