Douglas Murray’s hateful, vile views are well-known to Muslims. But every so often, we need reminding of just how bad his views are to show the continuity of his later tantrums.
Over the years, Murray has:
- Promoted anti-Muslim conspiracy theories cited by far-right mass-murderers Anders Breivik and Breton Tarrant,
- Claimed European cities would “fall” to Muslims,
- Called for conditions for Muslims to be made difficult “across the board”,
- Called for discriminatory policies for Muslim schools,
- Advocated for Muslim second-class citizenry in the form of a reduction of rights,
- Suggested that Muslim immigration should be halted, and Muslims living here should all deform their faith.
Incestuously tied to an entire network of pro-Israeli, pro-Jewish-settlement, anti-Islam and Muslim organisations, financiers and propagandists, Murray’s noxious statements well forth from a particularly anti-Islam, pro-Israeli cesspit. (Links to all this can be found here and here.)
Murray and NGO Monitor
These connections have continued.
Most are aware of Murray’s past involvement as associate director of the Henry Jackson Society. However, his recent cosplaying as a journalist in the territory of the Zionist entity sheds light on a lesser-known connection. One interview by Israeli online media outlet Mako mentions Murray’s association with NGO Monitor, noting the organisation “advises the Israeli government”.
NGO Monitor is a Jerusalem-based pro-Israel lobby group with connections to the Israeli government. It attacks charities and organisations within Palestine and in the Western world that criticise Israel. In pursuit of such efforts, the Dutch Foreign Minister Stef Blok noted in 2020 that NGO Monitor’s accusations are “based on selective citations, half-facts and insinuations, but not necessarily on hard evidence”.
Its international advisory board is made up of rabid Israel activists such as Harvey Weinstein and Jeffrey Epstein defender and someone who had an “important role” in the Abraham Accords, Alan Dershowitz, seasoned warmongering pro-Israeli neocons former CIA Director James Woolsey and director of Zionist propaganda outfit MEMRI, Elliot Abrams, and British neocons Col. Richard Kemp and Douglas Murray.
Given this milieu, it is unsurprising to see that NGO Monitor defends illegal settlement building in the Occupied West Bank and has hosted the anti-Muslim and racist Danish People’s Party to place pressure on the European Union’s funding of human rights organisations.
Significantly, a number of the funding streams that pump money into pro-Israeli anti-Muslim propagandist organisations, such as the Henry Jackson Society, Middle East Forum, Jihad Watch, Clarion Fund, and the David Horowitz Freedom Center, have also financed NGO Monitor (source, pp.66-67, p.72). One donor, the Orion Foundation, gives money to Elad, a group that “seizes Palestinian homes in occupied East Jerusalem so that they can be taken over by Israelis”.
Source, p.16.
Since 7th October, Malignant Murray has gone into overdrive, screeching, frothing, and fulminating his innermost hatred more expressly.
We have documented some of this already, detailing how Murray incited mobs that led to mayhem at the Cenotaph in London during a pro-Palestinian protest, injuring several police officers.
In this piece, we capture Murray’s most deplorable statements that dehumanise Palestinians, justify their mass slaughter and ethnic cleansing, call for the deportation of pro-Palestinian supporters, reinforce white supremacy, and demonise Islam and Muslims. We also highlight how Murray appears to diminish the crimes of Nazi killing squads to the outrage of members of the Jewish community.
In his frequent media appearances, particularly on TalkTV, Murray is often introduced to audiences without the acknowledgment of his controversial associations and hateful mindset. It is imperative for readers to ensure that these viewers are informed about the toxic nature of Murray’s beliefs and affiliations when watching these presentations. So, at the very least, be sure to share his views in the comment sections and related social media.
“Their only desire is to see you suffer. Their malice has become evident from what they say—and what their hearts hide is far worse.” – Al-Qurʾān, 3:118.
Douglas Murray’s Statements
Preventing the killing of civilians is bad morality
The principle of proportionality is a fundamental principle of international humanitarian law. It prohibits attacks against military objectives which are “expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated”.
In the following quote, Murray justifies Zionist war crimes, which have included indiscriminate bombardment of residential areas and targeting of hospitals, masajid, churches, bakeries, and water wells. Murray argues that during WWII, soldiers killed captured enemy combatants, and the Zionist entity was simply winning “at any price”. He then attacks the principle of proportionality as “bad ethical thinking”:
“What do you think the letters back from World War II were to their families when they mentioned their beloved comrade dying in battle and their mentioning capturing Germans, and people saying in their postcards sent back to their families’ we didn’t take that many prisoners that day’? What did that mean? It meant they committed a war crime… But they wanted to win, at any price, which is what Churchill said. At any price. But Israel, whenever it begins to win, its told it must stop… All of the commentators are talking about proportionality. This is such bad ethical thinking that it must be chucked from a first grader”.
He has repeated this justification for war crimes elsewhere:
“We showed no proportionality in conflicts we’ve had in the UK in the past. And whenever Britain has been attacked, what do you think it meant in the Second World War when people sent home postcards saying, ‘We didn’t take many prisoners today’? So no, the endless urging of restraint on Israel is an endless urging that the International Community does because Israel is the only country in the world never allowed to win a war.”
In the following quote, Murray downplays the mass Palestinian civilian killing (at that time, more than 2,200 people had been murdered – a quarter of them children – and nearly 10,000 wounded), fabricates Hamas atrocities, and falsely frames proportionality as an equivalence of war crimes, arguing the Zionist entity’s occupation soldiers would have to do the same to be proportional:
“I don’t agree with the proposition that Israel does anything significant or significantly bloody to date, and I can certainly say with absolute certainty that no Israeli soldier has yet gone in and mass gang raped and then stabbed and beheaded women in the Gaza... If there was proportionality and conflict, then it would seem that we would have to allow the Israelis to go and gang rape and behead the same number of women and children as the so-called fighters and militants, the terrorists of Hamas did in Israel. So, Israel hasn’t responded with 1% of the barbarism that was shown on Israeli territory…”
The claims of mass gang rapes (see here and here) and beheading of women (no such claim has been made) and children (see here and here) are unsubstantiated and false.
Murray implies that Israel should be allowed to do whatever it wants in the pursuit of restoring its reputation:
“The most important thing I should think that Israel would need to do is to build those things [reputation for impenetrability, technological prowess], even if they are myths, back up, and it should be allowed to do so. That might well include doing things which people sitting comfortably in other Western democracies think they oughtn’t to do.”
All this is tantamount to a justification of mass-civilian murder.
Justifying the killing of Palestinian civilians
In a podcast with former deputy prime minister of Australia, John Anderson, Murray justifies the killing of Palestinian civilians by confirming that all Palestinians are to blame for the Zionist entity’s indiscriminate attack on Gaza.
Anderson: We had the call for proportionality, and then we call for pause for humanitarian purposes… but I just wonder how much sympathy can be extended to the Palestinian people – who have not only harboured, perhaps sometimes at the point of a gun, they voted for them they’ve supported them – can they really be excused for blame for what they’ve helped bring on themselves?
Douglas: No, I don’t think they can be.
Grotesque Genocide Denialism
Increasingly, experts agree that what is taking place in Gaza represents the latter stages of genocide. For example, The former director of the New York office of the UN High Commissioner, Craig Mokhiber, wrote, “We are seeing a genocide unfolding before our eyes”.
More recently, Raz Segal, an Israeli associate professor of Holocaust and genocide studies at Stockton University, US, asserted that what is unfolding in Gaza is “a textbook case of Genocide” (he elaborates this claim further here). A whole raft of Special Rapporteurs, Independent Experts and Working Groups have “raised the alarm about the risk of genocide in Gaza”.
However, Murray has sought to downplay and rebut this risk in the most inflammatory and obnoxious way, absurdly arguing there is no genocide occurring since Gaza’s population has been growing over the past several years.
“We have to hit on the head the idea that Israel are committing genocide, which is rife out there. It would be the only genocide in history in which the population massively expanded during said alleged genocide. The population of Gaza has shot up in the last 18 years since Israel withdrew, so you could say that they are extremely unsuccessful genocidists.”
In a conversation with Piers Morgan, he reiterated a comparable assertion, effectively contending that there is no genocide since the Palestinian population grows faster than the rate at which Israelis kill them:
“I’ll tell you what’s unique about the population of Gaza. It’s the only population in the world where people routinely claim Israelis are committing genocide but which has a population boom all of the time.”
Pro-Ethnic Cleansing: Palestinians should be in Egypt
Writing for the Spectator:
“The Israelis will respond as they see fit… Maybe Israel will cut off Gaza and starve Hamas out. Maybe they will have a full-scale military operation to rescue the Israeli captives. Or maybe they will finally put an end to this insoluble nightmare, raze Hamas to the ground, or clear all the Palestinians from that benighted strip. A strip which Egypt owned but nobody wants. It could be a good time to do it… Why should the Palestinians forever be Israel’s problem?… The Israelis should do whatever the Israelis have to do.”
“Egyptians loathe the Palestinians, the authorities of keeping the border between Egypt and Gaza closed because they hate the Palestinians…If Egypt wanted to solve the Gaza problem, it could do so tomorrow by taking control of Gaza or allowing the people of Gaza to go into Egypt where they should be.”
Dehumanising Gazans
When Labour MP Jeremy Corbyn called for an urgent ceasefire, stating “Gaza is full of creativity, learning and joy” and that all this was being destroyed, Murray proceeded to attack Corbyn and dehumanise Palestinians in the process.
Pro-Palestine protestors don’t care about Palestinians because no one except Israelis cares about them
“You could claim that the people who’ve come out in recent weekends, on the Saturdays, care about Palestinian lives. I don’t think they do… I’ll tell you one reason why is that nobody in the Middle East apart from the Israelis cares about the Palestinians a jot.”
Deport “Hamas Supporters”
“I do not want to live in a country with Hamas supporters. I want them deported. I want them chucked out. Simple. And I will do everything I can to ensure that happens.”
(Link)
The tyrannical pronouncement is most disconcerting given that Murray has called pro-Palestine activists “Hamas supporters”:
In the video clip linked in the above post, Murray attempts to manufacture outrage against a pro-Palestine “million-man” march (for more on Murray’s incitement that led to officers becoming injured, read here). He labels pro-Palestine activists “Islamists” and “Hamas-niks”:
“I think it’s going to be a great mistake, a great overreach by the Islamists, by the Hamas-niks, and their fellow traveller fools.”
The protest was organised by the Palestine Solidarity Campaign.
Other posts label pro-Palestine activists as “Hamas supporters”:
White supremacy
In the past, Murray has stated that the abolition of “white Britons” was due to the “startling rise in Muslim infants”. As one commentator later noted, “It appears that for Murray, the principal threat to white supremacy in London is the astronomical birthrate of non-white Muslims.” This theme appeared once again, implying protests and chants in support of Palestine were due to London becoming a “foreign city”:
His problem with the Muslim demographic was confirmed elsewhere when he put up a post stating that the names of Labour councillors who resigned due to Keir Starmer’s continued opposition to a ceasefire were “suggestive”:
Ironically, this was called out as racist by Sunder Katwala, director of British Future, which has worked to push for a reconstituted, deformist Muslim identity:
Anti-Muslim Trojan Horse Trope
Invoking the neoconservative anti-Muslim “trojan horse” trope, Murray accused (see also, here) Scotland’s elected First Minster Hamza Yousaf of “infiltration”:
“People like Humza Yousaf, I say it carefully, have infiltrated our system.”
Muslims don’t care about other Muslims and hate Jews
Murray perpetuates anti-Muslim, dehumanising rhetoric asserting that Muslims do not love other Muslims, they have a problem with “Jews living”, and this hatred has been imported [in the West]:
“Muslims in Yemen. Their co-religionists we’re always told about, [that they] care so much about their co-religionists, don’t give a damn about their co-religionist. They really don’t. Muslims do not love other Muslims. They have no love for them. They have no love for the Palestinian peoples. None. If they had any, the Jordanians would have taken in the West Bank Palestinians, Egyptians would have taken in the territory they used to run, the Gaza, and own the Gaza, and they would have taken in the Palestinians from the Gaza…
“What do they mind? One thing. Jews living. Jews living and Jews winning. It hits them deep in their soul, in their psyche. It’s an ancient hatred, perhaps the most ancient among the monotheisms, and the deepest and the ugliest, the nastiest and the one that has been least addressed, and we’ve imported it.”
We can find a similar statement in another podcast:
“The idea that Muslims care about their brother Muslims is absolute rubbish.”
Muslims protest because Islam and Muslims hate Jews
“The idea that Muslims actually care about their fellow Muslims is insane. They don’t. What they care about is Jews. There is something at the very root of Islam and followers of the Muslim religion who cannot bear any war in which Israel is fighting and, most of all, loathes any war in which Israel is winning. And you can see it. It’s at the absolute core of their being. This is why they are on the streets of this city and others marching. It’s not because they love fellow Muslims. It’s because they hate Jews.”
We have exposed the falsehoods and distortions upon which Murray relies to justify the above hate here.
Muslim immigration is the leading cause of antisemitism:
“The main driver of antisemitism in the West in Europe in countries like Britain and Germany in recent years has been from the importing of millions of people from the Muslim world.”
The statement is all the more questionable given Murray’s support for Hungarian leader Victor Orbán, who is accused of fuelling antisemitism.
Source of Islam -> ISIS
“For Islam to have a kind of Reformation or a change, an updating would mean Muslims discard chunks of their tradition, and I see that as being unlikely. If they return to the source, you get ISIS.”
Islam is “more bloody” than Christianity
Murray uses shoddy theology,[1] citing examples that undermine his argument to posit that Islam is exceptionally violent:
“So, history of Christianity more bloody or less bloody if Jesus was more like Muhammad? I think everyone would say likely to be more bloody.”
Such a hypothetical is unnecessary since research has compared the two civilisations (amongst others) in this regard. In a comparative quantitative study of mass killings in history, one study found that Christian and antitheist violence accounted for the highest number of deaths for the period 0-2008. Deaths resulting from Christian violence were 5.7 times that of the Islamic civilisation.[2]
“Hamas worse than Nazis”: Nazi Apologia?
The trope that Hamas are worse than Nazis functions as a dehumanisation tactic that enables genocide to take place.
Murray has sought to portray Hamas as worse than Nazis. Having viewed footage prepared by the IDF, which has not been independently verified, he claimed that some of the atrocities were worse than “average members of the SS and other killing units of Hitler”:
“That some people are worse than the Nazis is not hyperbole… Average members of the SS and other killing units of Hitler’s were rarely proud of their average days’ work… Compare this with the behaviour of Hamas on October 7.”
Aside from the dehumanising function of this atrocity propaganda, these statements outraged members of the Jewish community. Jessica Simor, a public and human rights lawyer and associate professor of law, posted her concerns about the statements. Simor explained that her father’s family were killed in Auschwitz and that she was disturbed by what Murray had said about the SS. Murray proceeded to sue her:
Even pro-Israel lobby members were in dismay. The Board of Deputies (BoD) is linked to anti-Palestine and anti-Muslim activities. In 2022, its senior VP, Gary Mond, was suspended for declaring that “all civilisation” was “at war with these evil bastards, and I have to say it at war with Islam.” During the ongoing genocide of Palestinians in Gaza, the BoD issued a statement against a ceasefire in Gaza.
Daniel Sugarman is the Director of Public Affairs at the BoD, leads the Board’s policy, strategic relations, advocacy, and communications, and manages the Board’s Public Affairs Team.
Sugarman took to ‘X’ to assert that Murray’s depiction of the SS was “misleading” and “grotesque”:
Murray has since doubled down on his propaganda by enlisting the support of Andrew Roberts.
Roberts has given a speech at a racist white supremacist organisation, defended “the crimes of a white man’s empire”, and is a neocon and Iraq War advocate who has shockingly whitewashed and defended Guantanamo Bay.[3]
References:
[1] Murray commits a false equivalence fallacy by comparing the Prophet Jesus (upon him be peace), who was not given any political or military authority, with the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ. But even if one were to make the comparison, Murray’s argument quickly collapses.
In the first example, he contrasts the treatment of adultery in each tradition.
From a Biblical perspective, he cites the case of a Jewish woman brought by men accused of adultery to be judged by Prophet Jesus (upon him be peace). Murray argues that Prophet Jesus (upon him be peace) averted the punishment. He then claims, “A woman is brought to Muhammad ﷺ, and he has her stoned”. (Link)
Firstly, as the Biblical commentaries explain, in the Biblical incident, which is not present in some Greek manuscripts, the accusers were using the woman as a pawn to trap Prophet Jesus (upon him be piece). The status of the crime itself is not known.
Secondly, in the Islamic example, a woman was not brought to the Prophet ﷺ. Murray’s account is factually incorrect. She presented herself to the Prophet ﷺ to be punished on three separate occasions, having been sent back each time (Muwaṭṭa). A similar incident occurred with a man, and the Prophet ﷺ physically turned away from him on multiple occasions (Tirmidhī).
In the second example, Murray claims Prophet Jesus (peace be upon him) only became angry once, whilst the Prophet ﷺ “beheaded hundreds and hundreds of Jews with his own hands”. (Link)
As we have already addressed in detail, this claim is false. Furthermore, the incident involved treachery by a Jewish tribe, which posed an existential threat to Muslims. However, instead of seeking revenge, the Prophet ﷺ accepted the terms of the Jewish tribe for arbitration to be conducted by a friendly, formerly allied tribe.
The two examples could not be more dissimilar and antithetical to the image of “violence” and “rage” Murray attempts to portray.
[2] Kamali, H., Kalin, I., Muhammad, G., War and Peace in Islam, 2019, pp.198-99.
[3] Roberts writes, “Capturing and detaining enemy combatants has been the practice of the United States, Great Britain and their allies in every modern war. Under the law of war, there is no requirement that a detaining power charge enemy combatants with crimes or give them access to lawyers. The English-speaking peoples certainly did not do so in the First or Second World Wars. Under American law, the authority to detain enemy combatants exists independently of the judicial or criminal law system. It is rather a function of the President’s role as Commander-in-Chief under the Constitution. Since Al-Queda is a terrorist organisation rather than a state, and therefore neither a signatory nor covered by the Geneva Conventions, their members are not entitled to POW status. And even if they were covered by the Conventions, they would still not be considered POWs, since they do not carry weapons openly, wear uniforms, follow responsible command or comply with the laws of war, as required under Article 4. Detainees at Guantanamo Bay are provided with shelter, clothing, the means to send and receive mail, reading materials, three meals a day that meet cultural dietary requirements, medical care, prayer beads and rugs and copies of the Koran. Over twenty senators, no representatives, 150 congressional staffers and more than 1,000 American and international journalists have visited the prison, which was certainly not allowed in previous wars. Furthermore, 180 detainees have been released in the period to February 2006, at least twelve of whom returned to the fight against ‘the Great Satan’ America. Around 300 remain there, including self-confessed enemy combatants, terrorist trainers, recruiters, bomb-makers, would-be suicide bombers and terrorist financiers. America is right to keep them there.” Roberts, A. A History of the English-Speaking Peoples Since 1900. 2006, pp.628-629.
CoolnessofHind 