Exposing Anti-Islam Author Ayaan Hirsi Ali’s Latest Deception

One of America’s most prominent Islam bashers has a long history of making things up.

Crosspost: Max Blumenthal

While promoting her new book, Heretic, on a March 23 episode of “The Daily Show,” Somali-born author and anti-Islam activist Ayaan Hirsi Ali made a staggering claim: “If you look at 70 percent of the violence in the world today, Muslims are responsible,” she told host Jon Stewart.

Stewart did not demand any evidence and Hirsi Ali provided no citation. However, she made a strikingly similar statement in a March 20 essay previewing her new book for the Wall Street Journal: “According to the International Institute for Strategic Studies,” Hirsi Ali wrote in WSJ’s Saturday Essay, “at least 70% of all the fatalities in armed conflicts around the world last year were in wars involving Muslims.”

I contacted the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS), a leading British foreign policy think tank, to inquire about the source of Hirsi Ali’s statistic. According to IISS Media Relations and Communications Officer Kat Slowe, IISS did not explicitly state such a figure in its research.

Continue reading

Theresa May’s Neoconservative Cold War Against Islam and Muslims (2)

BritishValuesMusimOnly

A Look at Theresa May’s Responses

The blind-spot for far-right and Zionist “extremism” extends to Theresa May’s pathetic response to critics.  She responds to the argument that “Islamist extremism” is social conservatism, stating that it is invalid because if anybody else discriminated against women, and rejected the democratic process on the basis of beliefs then they would be challenged.

There are a number of points being conflated.  Firstly “discrimination against women” for instance, is tolerated in other communities.  The Beth Din courts have “discriminated” against women in their judgments for over a century.  Yet it has never warranted the label of “extremism” let alone an independent inquiry which is called for in the context of Shari’ah courts. In fact, as per my previous blog specifically on this topic, the Home Office has effectively approved “discrimination” as a result of “Jewishist extremism”.  Moreover, previous versions of the London Beth Din website have clearly stated the Halachic position that it is prohibited  for Jews from take their legal matters to a “secular” civil court (rule of law anyone?).

Continue reading

Anti-Muslim Home Office: Shari’ah Courts Investigated but “Beth Din Courts are Safe”

homeofficeboardofdeputies

My intention was to cover this aspect in the second part of my analysis of Theresa May’s anti-Muslim, discriminatory, hypocritical speech. However, given the outrageous Muslim minority discrimination exhibited by the Home Office, the issue needs to be separately.

May announced that Shari’ah courts are to be investigated, because she “knows there is a problem”.  As an example she states that,

“there is evidence of women being “divorced” under Shari’ah law and left in penury”

However, there is also “evidence” of Jewish women being left in marriage limbo due to the abuse by the husband issuing a “get” (divorce).  The Beth Din courts govern Halacha (Jewish law).  A “get” is required for either of the couple to remarry. Where the husband refuses a “get”, the wife is left in the status of “agunah”, or “chained woman”. If the wife then remarries in this state, her subsequent children (“mamzer”), which are religiously regarded as illegitimate, are treated as outcasts as they cannot marry a fellow Jew and the stigma remains down the line.

Continue reading

Theresa May’s Neoconservative Cold War Against Islam and Muslims (1)

BritishValuesMusimOnly

“Irving Kristol came up with the solution that has become the cornerstone of neoconservative politics: use democracy to defeat liberty. Turn the people against their own liberty… if you can convince people that liberty undermines security, they will gladly renounce it.”[1]

 

The principles of democracy, human rights and rule of law have been “hijacked” and torn down by neoconservatives in government.

Theresa May, an “extremist” by her own criteria of “British values”, has outlined some truly shocking measures to “counter” the notoriously nebulous “extremism”.  Before delving into the McCarthy-May Measures speech, there are few overarching points to keep in my mind.

There is a fundamental flaw which runs straight through her speech.  The flaw is the underpinning conveyor-belt theory of radicalisation i.e. that one begins disaffected, starts practising Islam, becomes politicised and then blows things up.  The professoriate in the counter-extremism and terrorism field have slammed the theory as no longer maintaining any credibility. From sociologists to former CIA operations officer, the focus on ideology, or in this case “Islamism”, has been placed on its head, with it being characterised as incidental as opposed to pivotal.

The second point of note is moral supremacy afforded to liberalism, which has been posited as the zenith of societal values, yet it has been thoroughly shackled, gagged and torn up in pursuit of its preservation, as though it is too weak to stand up to scrutiny.

The final point to keep in mind is the issue of definition.  I am not one to labour this point, as I have addressed this in several blogs in detail (see here).  The issue is defining “Islamist extremism” and “extremism” itself.  The bottom line is, part of rule of law, an ascribed “British value”, is that the law being applied is just, and a law cannot be just if it references vaguely defined terms, especially where the impact is such that it effectively socially cripples one’s life. What are the boundaries of critique and vocal opposition? What is the fault line which demarcates traditional religious beliefs shared across the Abrahamic faiths for instance, and “extremism”? Simply stating they are clear is political-speak with no real meaning. Indeed, the social experiment in which the Muslim minority has been the guinea pig for the PREVENT Strategy has already evidenced miscarriages of justice.

Continue reading

Speaking at Henry Jackson Society Event: Is Amnesty International Losing the Plot?

henryJacksonSocietyTearingapartDemocracyAmnesty

It has to be an epic form of hypocrisy. Amnesty International, after shamelessly being bludgeoned into publically distancing themselves from CAGE, now have their name on the Henry Jackson Society website. Abbas Faiz, senior research at Amnesty International South Asia is a listed speaker alongside neocon Haras Rafiq of Quilliam Foundation, and HJS’s very own Rupert Sutton at an upcoming event.

Gita Sahgal was paraded in the papers as the person who challenged Amnesty’s association with CAGE. Sahgal’s attack on Moazzam Begg was rooted in her bigotry toward Islam and Muslim in particular. The essence of her attack was ideological; Begg, she argued, subscribed to “a set of ideologies” which supported discrimination and violence. These were all responded at that time and are covered in my blog in detail.

It did not matter that CAGE advocated due process and rule of law. Neither did it matter that it campaigned against detention without trial and torture. Amnesty suffered amnesia regarding these aims when it decided to distance itself. What mattered was reputation under the façade of a defence of human rights. It sent an unequivocal message: a Muslim cannot campaign within the human rights paradigm, even if his calls support the causes of this very paradigm.

What acutely demonstrates the utmost bigotry of the faux liberals is the ear-drum-bursting silence on the “association” between HJS and Amnesty. As I argued early last year, human rights is often a stick used to beat the Muslim minority with. Islam is singled out and indeed, this is even “rationalised” by the likes of Sahgal and co.

Continue reading

Hard-hitting Statement by MEND on Sunday Telegraph article and Andrew Gilligan

Andrew GilliganLiar

Crosspost: Mend

Peter Oborne, former chief political commentator at the Daily Telegraph, in a sequence of articles for Open Democracy has shed significant light on the demise of standards at the Telegraph titles drawing attention to the paper’s refusal to publish his investigative pieces on the behaviour of the Charity Commission towards British Muslim charities and the paper’s woeful neglect in coverage of the banking scandal engulfing HSBC allegedly to avoid losing valuable advertising revenue.

In our view, Andrew Gilligan and his derisory brand of ‘investigative’ journalism is further evidence of the “fraud” by the Telegraph titles on its readers who are fed a regular diet of shoddy journalism. Gilligan’s mudslinging at British Muslim organisations is well known. Lesser attention, however, has been paid to the number of times his ‘investigative’ pieces have been shown to be lacking in substance. Unfortunately, British Muslim organisations do not possess the kind of financial clout that large business corporations may be able to exercise over the Telegraph’s print output and so spurious allegations and unfounded accusations continue to be printed.

Gilligan’s form of non-violent extremism takes the curious shape of paradox peppered with paranoia. For example, in light of the Education select committee’s report this week on the so called ‘Trojan horse plot’ in Birmingham schools, it is useful to reflect on the number of articles Gilligan wrote elaborating on the ‘extremism‘ present in the schools, the actors involved and how the Sunday Telegraph “revealed the truth behind the plot”. Contrast this to the important finding by the select committee, and affirmed by the Education Secretary, Nicky Morgan, in an interview with The Muslim News last year, that “ No evidence of extremism or radicalisation, apart from a single isolated incident, was found by any of the inquiries and there was no evidence of a sustained plot nor of a similar situation pertaining elsewhere in the country.” Have we seen a retraction of the specious allegations Gilligan made in relation to the schools? Of course not. Have we seen an apology from the Telegraph for allowing articles without substance to be published and thereby committing a “fraud” on its readers? Of course not.

Continue reading

Andrew Gilligan’s False Propaganda Against Muslim Head Teacher and Small Heath School Exposed

GilliganSmallHeathSchool

One of the incidental effects of the conclusions drawn by the Education Select Committee inquiry into the Trojan Hoax allegations, is the further exposure of establishment propagandist, Andrew Gilligan’s deceit and anti-Muslim bigotry. His last piece attacking a Muslim head teacher at Small Heath School, in Birmingham, on the most spurious of grounds continued the now officially disproven “takeover” theme. His one-sided diatribe was comprehensively exposed on this blog.

The blog was written prior to the publication of the Ofsted report. However, the report for the school has now been revealed, and so has the extent of Gilligan’s proliferation of lies and spin designed to discredit the Muslim head teacher at Small Heath School. It is time revisit his anti-Muslim propaganda.

Gilligan wrote that the school was to be placed into special measures “as fears grow of a resurgence of the ‘Trojan Horse’ plot”.  As already mentioned, the Select Committee found no evidence of a plot; the sentence amounts to nothing more than fear-mongering.

Continue reading