Reforming Islam

William Henry Quilliam was born on 10th April 1856 to a wealthy family in Liverpool. He was brought up as a Methodist and converted to Islam in 1887 after visiting Morocco. Quilliam opened Britain’s first mosque, on Christmas Day 1889, with funding he received from Nasrullah Khan, Crown Prince of Afghanistan.

He changed his name from William to Abdullah after converting to Islam and he argued for a global caliphate and swore allegiance to the Ottoman Empire. Nice guy, clearly.

In 2007, three former members of Hizb-ut Tahrir established a “think tank” called The Quilliam Foundation. For those who don’t know, Hizb-ut Tahrir is an Islamic supremacist group operating in dozens of countries around the world, and banned in some. They employ subversive tactics to infiltrate governments and military institutions in order to bring about an Islamic revolution, with the express ambition of turning the entire globe into a totalitarian Islamic caliphate, ruled under Sharia law. Presumably, this is something that Mr Quilliam would have approved of.

One has to ask exactly what “thinking” was going on, if any, when the founders of The Quilliam Foundation stumbled upon the idea of naming their think tank after a man who wanted a global caliphate. Was it in homage to what Mr Quilliam advocated? Or did the founders merely like the name?

I first heard about The Quilliam Foundation through one of its founders, the former Muslim extremist Maajid Nawaz, who I followed on Twitter. I purchased his book ‘Radical’ as I was interested in reading about the experience of other Pakistanis who had grown up in Britain.

Although our upbringings were different, I learnt that we had both experienced racism from white people. Nawaz was lucky that he did not receive any racism from Pakistani people, whereas I did, simply for being the white woman’s daughter.

I was inspired by Nawaz and believed that he could help bring about change. Like many others who placed their hopes in him and his foundation, though, I have been sorely disappointed. I have even come to dislike them and – worse still – distrust them.

It is not Nawaz’s fault that he is hated and loathed by his fellow Muslims and so I don’t dislike or distrust him for that reason; if anything I have sympathy with him on that front. It shows how difficult and futile his task is. No, I have come to question the priorities and even the motives of Nawaz and Quilliam.

To learn something of his background, let’s refer to a speech he gave on stage at Ted Talks.

“At the age of 16 I joined Hizb ut-Tahrir. At 17 I was recruiting people from Cambridge University to this organisation. At 19 I was on the national leadership of this organisation in the UK. At 21 I was co-founding this organisation in Pakistan. At 22 I was co-founding this organisation in Denmark. By the age of 24 I found myself convicted in prison in Egypt, being backlisted from three countries in the world for attempting to overthrow their governments, being subjected to torture in Egyptian jails and sentenced to five years as a prisoner of conscience.”

Prisoner of conscience?! What a pleasant, human rights-laden description of someone who sought to overthrow governments through coercion and espionage and usher in a global caliphate. How conscientious indeed. Describing his behaviour as a matter of conscience should tell you something of his character. How is that any different from terrorists sitting in prison cells right now? Perhaps we should sympathise with their predicament too?

His talk goes on:

“If we look at Islamists, if we look at the phenomenon of far right fascists, one thing they’ve been very good at is communicating across borders, using technologies to organise themselves, to propagate their message and to create a truly global phenomena.”

Although Quilliam’s focus is on “counter-extremism against Islamism”, strangely enough their most well-known and tangible “achievement” to date concerns Tommy Robinson, the founder and former leader of the English Defence League. Robinson established the English Defence League in response to the alarming Muslim extremism he witnessed in his hometown of Luton, England and many other areas.

Following a series of discussions with Robinson, in October of 2013 The Quilliam Foundation proudly boasted of its success in “decapitating” the English Defence League of its leader – which is a conspicuous choice of words considering only a few years previously Nawaz was devoted to implementing sharia which includes actual beheadings, and considering also that this “achievement” of Quilliam’s came shortly after the grisly, medieval butchering of the soldier Lee Rigby on the streets of London. Robinson’s head is metaphorically sitting in Nawaz’s trophy cabinet.

A think tank tackling ‘Islamism’ yet they tackle the ‘far right?’ Makes sense I guess when you see the number of far right churches and organisations calling for the death of Muslims. I mean they are opening up all over the UK.

When they’re not “decapitating” the most vocal anti-Islam group the West has seen to date, in their spare time I am told Quilliam are also looking to “reform” Islam. A think tank named after a convert who wanted a caliphate are hoping to reform Islam?

Consider this during the four years he spent in an Egyptian prison, Nawaz committed half the Koran to memory. Imagine the devotion necessary to memorise 40,000 words! Following his release he was quoted as saying, “I can now say that the more I learn about Islam, the more tolerant I become.”

Does that sound like someone who believes Islam is in need of urgent reformation? Does that sound like someone who can say clearly, unapologetically and unequivocally that the problem we face today is Islam?

Quilliam ask us to accept their preordained language, consisting of a never-ending list of definitions, -isms and –isations, and replete with euphemism and vague platitudes about the ‘need to reform,’ labelling anyone who strays outside of these definitions or dares to question the feasibility of reformation as bigots, racists, populists, white supremacists, fascists, xenophobes and far right extremists – which coincidentally is the very thing they accuse the so-called ‘regressive left’ of doing to stifle debate. These labels marginalise and discredit anyone with the audacity to hold Muslims accountable for their beliefs and who wish to point the finger directly at Islam, and indeed these labels also marginalise and discredit anyone with the audacity to ask Quilliam questions beyond kindergarten levels of difficulty.

As a matter of fact Nawaz applied this very tactic while a member of Hizb-ut Tahrir at university in Britain, as the following quote from his book ‘Radical’ verifies:

“We knowingly presented political demands disguised as religion and multiculturalism, and deliberately labelled any objections to our demands as racism and bigotry.”

Ask Nawaz or Quilliam the mildest probing questions, or politely query whether a 1,400 year old religion of war and conquest can indeed “reform”, or at least reform in a reasonable timeframe, and you will be treated by Nawaz to a masterclass in aggressive, petulant, narcissistic behaviour. You will be guilt-tripped into a reminder that Nawaz and Quilliam staff face physical risks in what they do (as though they are the only ones – just ask Tommy Robinson, Anne Marie Waters, or Robert Spencer), and they will conveniently lump you into the same category as the “Far Right” and Muslim extremists. It’s safe to say that Nawaz and Quilliam don’t take very kindly to criticism no matter how delicately or constructively it is put to them. It doesn’t take much to stoke them into playing their Muslim Victim Card.

Non-Muslims look at Nawaz and see a smartly dressed, well-spoken man, not displaying any overt signs of his Muslim faith. They see him rubbing shoulders with the likes of Sam Harris, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Douglas Murray and a host of other notable and respected public figures. They hear him speaking out against the myriad of Islamic terrorist groups and simply assume that he must be a trusted voice in the fight against Islamic extremism. What’s concerning to me is that they also see him as the unquestionable reference point of acceptability in this debate: “Saint Maajid said X, so X must be the reasonable position”; “Saint Maajid approves/disapproves of person X and so I will approve/disapprove of person X too”.

When exactly did everyone start thinking it was a good idea to let former Muslim extremists set the terms of debate for combatting Muslim extremism or speaking about Islam? Shall we also let former rapists set the rules for discussing the problems of rape?

Like the spoilt kid in the playground who shouts “My ball, my rules”, with the threat of taking it away and sulking in the corner, Nawaz has set a rigid and uncompromising strategy which is entirely reliant on decoupling Islam from its evil “political” twin “Islamism”. Whether intentional on his part or not, this exploits western liberals’ desperation, ignorance and gullibility to believe that Islam is inherently good and is being “misinterpreted” or at the very least is benign and merely in need of some nips and tucks by way of “reformation”, and that instead all the nasty things are attributable to “Islamism”. The general public comes away a bit bamboozled and punch-drunk from definitions and post-modern language games, with some Z-list celebrity stardust sprinkled upon them, with a warm glow in their stomach that Nawaz and Quilliam have set western civilisation on the right path to save itself, and that “Islam good/ok, Islamism bad”. Again, whatever Nawaz’s intentions, this hapless army of anaesthetised, clueless and desperate non-Muslims then go on to misinform more non-Muslims. And all this is supposed to be a good thing?

There are many Muslims and non-Muslims who publicly speak out against ISIS, but who profess that ISIS and similar groups have “nothing to do with Islam”. Nawaz’s rhetoric is different, and better (which isn’t exactly difficult). In fairness to him he does acknowledge the link between the holy texts and the actions of terrorists groups. However, he immediately rows back and then attempts to balance with one toe on a pinhead: Muslim terrorism isn’t “nothing” to do with Islam; nor is it “everything” to do with Islam, he will plead. No, it’s merely “something” to do with Islam according to Nawaz. His explanation is that extremism is simply one of an infinite number of possible “interpretations” of Islam, and that Islam is a bit like a slinky spring or jelly: you can play around with it and come up with whatever “interpretation” you want. If you want to use Islam as the basis to cut off heads, or gang-rape girls, or give gay people flying lessons from rooftops, then sure, you can do that – it’s a “plausible” interpretation of the texts. But if you want to interpret Islam in such a way as to be totally compatible with the 21st century liberal secular democracy then hey you can do that too so stop being a racist and get out of my lane while I do this reform thing.

On Quilliam’s website they ask the question, “What is Islamism?” and provide the following answer: “It is the belief that Islam is a political ideology, as well as faith. It is a modernist claim that political sovereignty belongs to God, that Shari’ah should be used as state law, that Muslims form a political rather than religious bloc around the world and that it is a religious duty for all Muslims to create a political entity that is governed as such.”

This isn’t an off the cuff remark. This is their official position. The premise of this definition is categorically false and misleading.

Everything about the words contained in the Koran and the example of Islam’s prophet Mohammed is the antithesis of free will, autonomy, freedom and democracy. If you sat down at a desk today to design an ideology with the express intention of being as hostile towards and incompatible with western civilisation as possible, you would produce Islam. The literal translation of the word Islam is “submission”.

Islam is a highly structured system of governance with roughly 6,000 sharia laws that dictate the actions and behaviours of its followers, both in public and private life. It’s a holistic system that commands Muslims to obey the will of Allah and follow the example of Mohammed as the path to eternal salvation.

Secularism is a betrayal of Islamic teachings, those teachings being unambiguously detailed in the Koran, Sura and Hadiths. Those instructions make clear that each and every Muslim should strive to live in accordance with Islamic law. To reject, criticise, or attempt to undo codified Islamic jurisprudence is considered highly blasphemous – a crime carrying the death penalty. This is the main reason the majority of Muslims are so hostile to any talk of reformation.

In essence Islamic “reformers” such as Nawaz are asking Muslims to denounce the life and teachings of the prophet of Islam and the words of the creator of the universe.

The Koran is believed to be the literal and perfect word of Allah. The text is said to be immutable (unchangeable), timeless.

Said to be God’s final messenger, Mohammed is revered by Muslims, and hailed as the exemplar for human behaviour. A man who coordinated 67 armed battles, beheaded 600 Jews in a single afternoon, raided towns and looted travelling caravans, raped the widows of his victims, had 15 wives in total, the youngest being six years old, sanctioned spousal necrophilia, and ordered the stoning to death of adulterers, apostates, homosexuals and blasphemers. This is the man Muslims are supposedly meant to emulate? This is the highest standard of human behaviour?

Mohammed is said to be an example for ALL times, not merely the pre-modern era. If his teachings aren’t fit for the 21st century and beyond, did Allah choose the wrong person?

This debate is far too important to concern ourselves with sparing Nawaz’s feelings. His proposals are counter productive and extremely dangerous. In effect we are being asked to place a huge bet: we are expected to bet western civilisation on the likelihood that a totalitarian ideology which has wrecked havoc for 1,400 years wherever it has gone and which has now positioned itself perfectly to conquer the West, will choose this moment in human history to “reform”. Nawaz in his narcissism believes he can bring this reformation about, and dumb desperate liberals are soothed into thinking that his plan will work because, well, Nawaz says so. These smug, dumb liberals will lecture you on the supposed differences between Islam and “Islamism” like a parrot sitting on Nawaz’s shoulder, while wearing Quilliam’s latest #solidarity t-shirt merchandise.

While Nawaz’s plans continue to fail spectacularly, thousand of sharia compliant Muslims flood into the West each week. Nawaz and Quilliam remain silent about and even hostile towards any de-Islamization policies, which might help stop the rot, such as restricting or stopping Muslim immigration to the West, or having a moratorium on the building of new mosques.

Using Nawaz’s definition “An Islamist is someone wanting to impose a version of Islam over society” would encompass anyone in favour of Sharia law. Polling data indicates two-thirds of Muslims globally want to live under Sharia law. This means there are roughly 1.1 billion Muslims who fall under Nawaz’s definition of an “Islamist”.

This idea that Muslims will quickly and en masse adopt Nawaz’s new age, spliff-smoking, liberal version of Islam is absurd – and dangerous. Considering the widespread hate and mistrust Muslims have for him and his organisation and the zero credibility he and Quilliam have amongst Muslims, unfortunately I have to reluctantly ask: who is his target audience?

Exactly what, or who, are you actually trying to reform, Mr Nawaz?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Shame on you

Watched a ten minute clip of a ‘discussion’ on some news channel featuring three Pakistani men, the voices of the Muslims in the UK. Forced myself to watch some more featuring others in the public eye. No wonder Islam is a laughing joke in the UK if these ‘discussions’ are what the mainstream media are showing. Most of what I have been watching is from a few years back and most of it is full of angry voices.

The men, who shall remain nameless, are a bloody disgrace. Shouting at each other, resorting to personal attacks that have absolutely nothing to do with the discussion and in turn turning the discussion into a farce. Nothing is resolved. The questions still remain unanswered and no solutions are forthcoming.

Pakistani men, from birth, are treated like kings at home, they are the much desired son, the ‘ladla’ – darling. The birth of a boy in a Pakistani home is a celebration. Mollycoddled and waited on hand and foot all their lives is the future for many of these darling sons.

That has to affect their mentality and their sense of worth, surely? Imagine a life where from birth you are treated as a king, everyone idolises you, growing up you are allowed more freedom than is given to your sisters sounds good doesn’t it?

I do have some sympathy for some of the Pakistani men though. The world must be a scary place for them, a world where their word is not gospel. A world where they are not treated as kings. The women at home may never question your judgement but in the real word people will disagree with you and not everyone will think you are wonderful.

Watching, some, Pakistani men discuss subjects they disagree on can be frustrating I have discovered, and after this article I may never do it again. I was actually embarrassed watching some clips and only managed five minutes or so before I had to switch off only because they sounded like little boys arguing in the playground. Treated like kings at home by their mothers and behaving like spoilt brats on the television. A chance to show that Islam is a religion of peace and they choose to argue showing instead that they cannot even get along, peacefully and respectfully.

The hate and resentment between Pakistani men in the public eye is embarrassing. You only have to log onto Twitter and follow some threads and cringe. Grown men interacting like angry teenagers for the entire world to see. The unhealthy sense of entitlement is easy to witness in many Pakistani men who are active on social media and who are in the public eye.

As a woman of Pakistani heritage I have witnessed first hand the difference in treatment shown towards boys and girls in Pakistani families and the wider community. So I know it is pointless to debate the boys on social media, they will rarely back down and admit a girl is making a valid point. They would rather slander and hurl abuse at those who dare to stand up to them and question their word.

Some of these men have grown up with mothers who have only ever cooked and cleaned and had babies. Any girls born into the family would have the same fate as the mother and their place would be at home. Their immediate family may also have similar traditions and cultures. They are not used to Pakistani women calling them out on their ‘bakwas’ – nonsense. The women in their family keep quiet, they have no voice and few rights and for men from these kinds of families dealing with a strong Pakistani woman is not something they are used to. Easier to show contempt and hate than have a reasonable debate and listen to a woman’s point of view.

The blame doesn’t lie entirely with Pakistani men though and mothers have to take their share. The sense of entitlement can only be erased when boys are raised as equals to girls and not treated like kings who can do no wrong.

 

 

 

Why I believe Tommy Robinson is a working class hero

Shame on everyone who has smeared Tommy Robinson – and made us feel too ashamed to listen to his warnings about grooming gangs. Yes, I believe he should be applauded for taking a stand against the grooming gangs when everyone else was silent. In a society where political correctness has gone mental, and we are all scared of being labelled racist or Far Right, for daring to have an opinion on Islam or mass immigration nobody else was speaking up.

The name Tommy Robinson for me has always conjured up images of skinheads, swastikas and Dr Marten boots. The EDL – I was led to believe – were similar to the BNP, and the BNP put the fear of god into me.

I am the child of an interfaith relationship, the daughter of an immigrant. I grew up with racism from both my Pakistani side and my white Scottish side. The racism from the Pakistani side was less frightening than the white, because it was verbal. On the white side it got physical. I remember occasions when I was out with my white mother. I remember being spat on with screams of ‘fucking paki lover’ at us. At school I fought the boys who dared call me and my siblings ‘smelly pakis.’ At home we had our windows smashed and graffiti painted on the garden walls saying ‘Niggers Out’ and ‘BNP.’

So you can see why the BNP scared me and why the EDL would scare me, given that I assumed they were just a new incarnation of the BNP. The EDL undoubtedly attracted some unsavoury characters with roots in the BNP, the National Front, Combat 18 and skinhead football casuals, even though Robinson repeatedly made it clear that he didn’t want them in any way associated with the EDL (he even received death threats from neo-Nazis). These EDL “supporters” were scary and frightening people, for those of us with brown skin. Unless you have grown up with racism then you cannot understand the fear of being picked on purely for the colour of your skin. You get used to the looks and you get used to subtle (and not so subtle) racial prejudice. You never get used to the fear though.

I have been told I am a whistle blower for writing my debut novel, The Gori’s Daughter, because the book exposes the flaws in the Pakistani community. Many in the community are not happy with my book but thankfully many more applaud me for having the courage to write about the community honestly.

Some in my community have also said said that I am a BNP/EDL dream, which filled me with self-loathing. How anyone could suggest that the BNP would love me when I had grown up being hated by these very people was strange and horrifying.

This is the reason I gave Tommy Robinson such a wide berth, and why I couldn’t even bring myself to follow him on Twitter – even though he was being retweeted onto my timeline on a daily basis often by people I felt were my allies. I was too scared to even read his tweets or watch any of the videos that he featured in. I didn’t follow him because I didn’t want to be labelled a white supremacist, bigot, racist or even patronising racist terms such as coconut. This is Twitter peer pressure at its strongest and its most pathetic.

I started researching him though and I started clicking on links to form my own opinion of him. But still I refrained from clicking on that dreaded “Follow” button on his profile. I viewed videos of him from as far back as 2007, in which he raised concerns about the Muslim street grooming gangs preying on vulnerable British girls.

And it was when I started watching these videos, that, I started to change my view of Tommy Robinson. Here he was, talking about the rape of vulnerable young girls and yet nobody was listening to him. On the contrary, all they were doing was calling him racist and trying to silence him.

Well, we now know there has been a huge cover up by politicians, police and the agencies who were responsible for the safety of the young girls. Today, many continue to call Tommy Robinson a racist instead of listening to his concerns – and his facts. He was talking about (or trying to anyway)

grooming gangs long before anybody else was. It feels more appropriate that we should be thanking him and acknowledging his bravery and honesty, rather than smearing him.

Maybe if Tommy Robinson was from a middle class background, went to University, wore tweed and voiced his concerns with a posh accent he would be listened to. Katie Hopkins is another who is hated as much as Robinson, if not more, for having similar views but being middle class and educated insulates her to an extent. She is given her own newspaper column and regularly appears on TV.

It’s the working class, “chav” and hooligan labels that make it so easy to call Robinson a racist, shut down any debate with him and refuse to give him any mainstream airtime. I have watched some videos where he is constantly called a racist but when he challenges his accusers to produce evidence, they are unable to.

We are quick, perhaps even desperate, to forgive terrorists who have turned their back on terror and they are often rewarded with jobs advising the government. They are flown all over the world meeting political leaders and they quickly find a home on the prestigious speaking circuits. It seems you can be forgiven quicker for being a terrorist than for being a football hooligan.

Anjem Choudary is allowed to vent his hatred for all things Western, on the streets of London, and there is less outrage at that than there is towards Tommy Robinson.  I have watched videos of Choudary demanding the death of non-Muslims, and British soldiers. I have watched as he has led marches calling for Sharia law. He did all this, for years, without any interruption from the police and without any fear of being arrested. Robinson, on the other hand, was arrested at Luton Airport on his way to give a talk on grooming gangs, long before the public was aware of the phenomenon. It is this double standard that seems unfair. This double standard where you can say whatever you like against the British but if you voice concerns about Sharia law or anything to do with Islam, you are shut down for being a racist, has to stop.

After much debating with myself I finally decided to click the ‘Follow’ button on Twitter and I joined the other 120,000+ followers of Tommy Robinson. He has more followers than UKIP and about the same as the Liberal Democrats. There are a number of his followers who are racist; you only have to read some of the comments his followers leave with regards to Pakistani people. It seems as though some of his followers are united in their hatred towards the Pakistani community because of the actions of some. The same can be said of many conservative Muslims though, and the way they speak to, and about, non-Muslims online. Aside from their derogatory attitude to non-Muslims they also speak to liberal Muslims in a sexist and vile manner and accuse them of not being ‘real’ Muslims. Yet there is an expectation that Robinson’s followers (whose behaviour he is not responsible for) have to be perfect and politically correct and that if they aren’t this is Robinson’s fault. The double standards at play over and over.

When Robinson formed the EDL, at the age of 21, within six months it had become the biggest street movement Europe had ever seen. If those in power had listened to his concerns then there would have been no need to form the EDL. Many of the people involved in the EDL were genuinely concerned about the issues affecting their towns and cities. Grooming gangs, forced marriages, FGM and Sharia law were issues concerning many of us, Muslim and non-Muslim alike and as we now know there has been a huge cover up and silence on these issues, so yes it is understandable that they would join the EDL to make theses issues public knowledge. There were a number of people who joined the EDL who were racist; there is no doubt about that. Robinson was one young man, not a politician, trying to make a change and doing his best with nothing but his anger and frustration at what he was seeing happening in his hometown of Luton.

The reason Robinson gave for finally turning his back on the EDL was the racist following, which he was ultimately unable to control, but again nobody wants to listen to that because it does not fit with the preconceived ideas they have of him. Robinson’s life has been threatened and he has received five “Osman Warnings” – these are real and immediate threats to his life and his family which warrant the police making him aware of those threats – but sadly, still not serious enough to protect him. The Government should be doing more to protect him; Robinson himself has accepted that he will be killed, and that it’s just a matter of time. The consequences of such a thing happening will be immense.

There are so many labels being hurled out there that they don’t really mean anything now. So, I no longer care what I am called for following Tommy Robinson and for agreeing with some of what he has to say.

So go ahead: call me, a white supremacist, racist, bigot or whatever else. At least try and be original. I’m beyond caring. I’ll just laugh at you and I’ll carry on following who the hell I want on Twitter, and I’ll carry on agreeing with whoever the hell I want based on the arguments and the facts they present to me. And I’ll always care more about the rape of young girls (regardless of their skin colour), FGM, forced marriage and Sharia law than any stupid name you will ever call me.

 

 

 

Stop raping our children

“Muslim manipulation of white guilt” https://twitter.com/TarekFatah

Once again Tommy Robinson has been arrested. At the time of writing this article the reasons are unclear and I understand he is due to appear in court on Monday 22nd May. It could be that those in power do not like his reporting, outside courtrooms, of the alleged grooming gangs that are regularly appearing in courts in towns across England. Social media has come out in support of Tommy Robinson and many are questioning, rightly so, why he has been arrested.

Some are saying it was to try and stop him from attending the #justiceforchelsey march in Northumberland on Saturday 12th May. Chelsey was allegedly gang raped by six Syrian and Iraqi refugee men, last year. Chelsey’s brother is in prison for going to the bedsit in which the refugees were living at the time. They have since been moved to a safe house. Others are saying it was to stop Tommy from reporting outside a Leeds court about the case of yet another alleged Muslim grooming gang.

It may be that Tommy infringed a law or prejudiced a trial. Who knows. Perhaps we will know more on Monday. But ask yourself this: would the law have been so rigorously applied to anyone else, who was reporting about a different issue?

It only highlights the wider double standards and discomfort in society today. If you talk about Muslim grooming gangs you will be accused of being a racist, of having an agenda, and of somehow disputing or not acknowledging that white rapists exist (“Yeh, but yeh but, what about Jimmy Savile?”)

The largest number of paedophiles and rapists in the UK are white; the largest number of rapists and paedophiles in jail and on the sex offender register in the UK are white. Hardly surprising in a country that is predominantly white. White men rape. There, I said it. Happy now? Now can I talk about Muslim rape gangs?

Grooming gangs are mostly made up of Pakistani men or, to be more specific, men from Mirpur, Azad Kashmir. Grooming gangs differ from your white rapists in that they pass underage girls round relatives to rape. It’s a bonding thing. A guy thing. It is rare to hear of this particular model of abuse with white rapists and paedophiles, perhaps it happens of course but not to the extent it does with Muslim grooming gangs.

Bearing in mind the particular model of Muslim grooming gangs – where girls are shared between brothers, fathers, uncles, grandfathers, cousins and friends – you get an idea of the number of people in that community that must be involved, or at least who must know about what is happening yet do nothing about it. Their own community, who ensure that more and more girls suffer, shields these men from the law. Typically, paedophiles in the non-Muslim community would not be given such refuge in the way Muslim rapists are.

At the last count there are something like 74 towns across the UK where grooming gangs operate. One way of finding out where there are grooming gangs raping underage girls is to see where there is a large population of Mirpuris. Unfortunately, wherever they are in the UK, hell wherever they are across the world, there will be grooming gangs operating. It’s like smoke and fire.

There are 59 ongoing investigations nationwide. Think about it, 59, how many little girls have been raped? I get why people don’t want to think about it. The thought of it makes me ill. But if we don’t talk about it then how will we stop it?

If you are on the ‘wrong side’ of the political divide it seems you cannot bring attention to it because people will accuse you of ‘scaremongering’ or of being ‘racist’ towards1.6 billion Muslims worldwide. And if you are on the side of the political divide that is seen as being acceptable then you won’t bring up the fact that the majority of men in the grooming gangs are Muslim and you will probably instinctively deflect to the horrific crimes committed by white paedophiles. Did I just hear someone say Jim’ll Fix It?

There are no mainstream media reporters outside the courts across the UK, there is little media coverage of these trials and you have to ask yourself why. Why are these Muslim grooming gangs given special treatment? Would the same treatment be given to say a gang of Jewish men gang raping Muslim children across the UK? I think not.

So we know for a fact that Muslim men have been raping underage white children for many years. I would guess this has been happening since they first arrived in the UK in the 60s. They didn’t wake up one day in the mid 80s and think ‘I know, let’s groom some underage girls for raping.’ This mentality has always been there.

Mirpuri men who arrived in the UK in the 60s must have thought they had landed in Heaven. Back home they are segregated from females once they reach a certain age and so many satisfy their sexual needs with other men, and many more with animals. The really depraved and sickest of them all rape little children.

They thought they had landed in Heaven because they had never seen women mixing freely with the opposite sex. They had never seen women showing so much bare skin. Many of these men started dating white ‘gori’ women and began to set up home with them. The majority of women who dated the men from Pakistan were Catholic; some of these women were from the care system.

Many of these men were taught that white women were easy; that white women were slags and would do anything the men wanted them to do. Some of them were in for a shock when they realised this was actually not true at all. Many of them were shocked that white women dared to stand up for themselves.

These beliefs that white women are slags hasn’t gone away, if anything the beliefs are much stronger than they ever were. 59 court cases involving mostly Pakistani men, charged with the grooming and rape of underage white girls, tells you all you need to know about their beliefs, their culture and their mindset.

Some Pakistani women are also just as guilty as the men in that they too think white women are slags and that the girls who have been raped by the Pakistani men in their communities should have been kept indoors instead of being allowed out. To those women I have only one question and that is ‘What about the Pakistani girls in your own homes, who have no freedom and are kept indoors, that are raped?’

The Muslim grooming gangs will also be raping girls in their own communities. To think that Muslim children are somehow magically protected from rape is a slap in the face of these children. I hear stories all the time. Stories where girls ARE slapped across the face by their mothers for finding the courage to tell of the sex abuse at the hands of whatever relative it might be, stories of grown men who were sexually abused by mullahs at the local mosque. Little boys who grow up to become angry young men with a real hatred towards women, because their mothers did not protect them from being sodomised, little boys who grow up to become men who beat their partners/wives because they have an anger that they have never dealt with.

Then you have the little girls in the community who are being anally raped. Anally raped because the Muslim rapist knows how valuable her virginity is and so as long as her hymen is intact then so too is the family honour. How thoughtful of them. And when this little girl grows up and is forced into a marriage her husband can rape her and the white cloth will have her blood on it to prove she was a virgin.

Talk of Muslim grooming gangs is strongly discouraged in our mainstream media. Any serious talk about it – beyond talking in wishy washy terms about ‘Asian grooming gangs’ (notice how it’s perfectly acceptable to tarnish an entire continent, composed of people of many faiths and none, rather than point to the religion of Islam), or beyond gently remarking that rape is, like, a really bad thing but it happens everywhere (remember Jimmy Savile?) – never takes place. But thanks to the bravery and moral clarity of people like Tommy Robinson, who even before reporting at these trials had been warning about Muslim rape gangs for years, the discussion is slowly being pushed into the mainstream, and there is even now a BBC series about it, Three Girls. If the public are ever educated about Muslim rape gangs it will be despite – and not because of – our media, police, social services, “feminists” and ivory tower-dwelling “liberals.”

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The stupid it burns

I deactivated my Twitter account. The news I read depresses me and the comments people make on the depressing news some times depresses me even more. Social media really shows how depressingly stupid the majority of people who use it are.

Another terrorist attack in Berlin this time, killing 12 innocent people and injuring many others and media, BBC and Sky, to name two reported it as ‘a truck has crashed into a German Christmas market.’ A truck? A fucking truck?

Before the identity of the truck driver was revealed, social media had already decided he was of Muslim heritage. Many were outraged that Muslims were once again being blamed for this carnage. Never mind that it was similar to the terrorist attack in Niece carried out by another truck, killing 86 people, many of them children and injuring 434! The driver of that truck was a Muslim and ISIS claimed responsibility.

Many, it seems, are always outraged, Muslims and non-Muslims alike, at the fear of Islam, acts like this, instil in us. The Islamophobia card comes straight out and is waved by all and sundry. The innocents who have been butchered in cold blood, while the killers cried ‘Allah Akbar’ – Allah is great,’ have been forgotten already and it is the Muslims we need to feel sorry for, the backlash they will receive. A backlash that never really materialises.

Bristol city officials have upped their police presence in their city centre to tackle any Islamophobia as a result of this attack. I can understand why people are disgusted by this response. The way our government is dealing with the problem of Islam is a laughing joke on social media; the way Muslims and non-Muslims interact with each other on social media is frustrating. Facts no longer mean anything and if someone disagrees with you then you are a racist. I was told I was a racist and when I pointed out that my father was Pakistani, I was asked so what. I laugh at the accusations of ‘racist’ because I am the proud daughter of a white woman and a Pakistani man and I love both sides of my heritage. I am a racist in the eyes of some because I criticised Islam, a religion, not a people. But hey these days it is possible to be racist towards Islam.

Islam has many privileges here in the UK, we are not allowed to insult, we are not allowed to host ‘Draw Mo’ competitions, we are made to feel scared if we dare to offend this special religion and its followers. People have anonymous accounts to enable them to speak freely because if their identity was known then they might lose their jobs, they fear for their safety, or they are Muslim and do not wish to be alienated in their communities.

We give hate preachers, who are banned from preaching their hate in Pakistan, a visa and allow them to preach their hate to Muslims here. Yet we stop people who want to talk about the evils of Islam, from entering the UK. We refer to all who dare criticise Islam as the ‘far-right’ and liken them to Hitler.

Saying that Islam is evil doesn’t mean all followers of Islam are evil. Islam is an idea, a religion, a thing that has no feelings, cannot be offended. People have feelings and people can be offended. If insulting an idea causes you offence and makes you want to kill and silence those who are criticising then the problem lies with you.

Some Muslims follow Islam and they are loving and peaceful people, I shouldn’t even have to say this but say I must because instead of focusing on the problem people will say ‘Not all Muslims.’ As easy as that the debate shuts down and smearing tactics continue and any reasonable solution to the problem of Muslims killing in the name of Islam doesn’t happen.

It doesn’t happen for a number of reasons and one of them is that Muslims are unable to criticise their religion, their prophet and their Allah. Strangely though there are many Muslims who would kill you for insulting their prophet and not bother so much when you insult Allah. For these Muslims the prophet is given more respect than the creator who supposedly created him. Madness. But then again many of these Muslims are mad. You have to be mad to take a lorry and drive it into people, causing utter terror and carnage. You have to be mad to video yourself with your two young daughters who you have brainwashed into thinking that blowing themselves up in a crowded place killing innocent people is what Allah desires, what makes him happy. They see no irony in their claim that their religion is peaceful while sending their small daughter to be blown up.

Growing up in a Muslim home I never questioned any doubts I may have had about Islam and religion. As a child I was never really allowed to question anything and so I believed the stories I was told and heard about the prophet and life in the 7th century. I left Islam in my early 20s when I was disowned for leaving a forced marriage. I created a new life for myself amongst the white people as my Pakistani father and community had decided I was no longer welcome. I wore Western clothes, I went clubbing, I smoked and drank and I dated. I would still tell people I was a Muslim, just not a very good one.

When white people criticised Islam in front of me it annoyed me and I was ‘offended.’ Laughable I know but the indoctrination runs deep. I wonder if people from other faiths who have left their religion feel the effects of indoctrination in the same way? Do Catholics get offended when you mock their Saints? Do Jews get offended when you eat non-kosher meat in front of them?

As a Muslim your duty since you were old enough to understand was to defend Islam against insults, you may not have been told it directly but it was just something you knew, subconsciously perhaps. Those around you, family, friends and those in the wider community spoke highly and respectfully about the prophet and Islam. Growing up I never hear a bad word uttered about the prophet, no one ever discussed whether there were parts of Islam that could be reformed. It was perfect as it was and needed no altering or changing. That’s not to say all Muslim families were like my family and I know there are families that debate the tenets of Islam. What people sometimes forget is that Muslims are human and like all other humans are unique. Idiots and evil people exist in all of the races as does goodness and kindness, and the Muslim race is no different.

I stared questioning Islam a few years ago and became aware of people leaving Islam, Ex-Muslims is what they called themselves. I had never heard of this way of describing yourself. I started reading blogs and connecting with people on social media. Finding other people who had the same questions as me. ‘Why would Allah create us to make us suffer in the hell fire forever more? Replacing our scorched skin with new skin so we may feel the pain for eternity?’ ‘Why is hell fire full of women?’

When I asked that question the Muslims in my life would say ‘because women are responsible for seducing men and because they are bad for gossiping.’ Women are the naughty ones while the poor men can hardly control themselves. No wonder Allah has 72 virgins waiting in heaven for them.

Even though I no longer say I am a Muslim, good or bad, a tiny part of me still gets ‘offended’ when Islam is insulted. Blame it on the indoctrination. I did say it runs deep. So when I see people demanding that Muslims, in the public eye and the media, say Islam is bad and their prophet is not a good role model, I can understand why they won’t. Even if they secretly have doubts, they will never do this. To insult the religion means, for some, that they will no longer be welcome in their family, their friends may shun them and their community most certainly will no longer welcome them. In the Muslim community people don’t generally sit around discussing the flaws of Mohammed or the flaws in the Quran, they sit and praise him and pray five times a day. The religious scholars say without five times a day prayer you are not a good Muslim.

In Muslim majority countries those who insult Islam are jailed, flogged and killed. Raif Badawi is a Saudi writer known for his blog, ‘Free Saudi Liberals’ and I, as have thousands of others, have signed many petitions to free him from jail and weekly lashes. His crime is that of insulting Islam and apostasy charges. How many others have signed the petition yet still believe Islam is peaceful? If Islam cannot be shown to be peaceful in Muslim majority countries what makes these people think it will be peaceful in the western countries? You can cry that this is not Islam all you like but when Muslim majority countries dish out the same punishment for ‘crimes’ then Islam is the problem. The rulers in Saudi Arabia have jailed Raif Badwai, the rulers in Pakistan would have done the same, and the rulers in Iran would have done the same. In Iran they hang gays from cranes, ISIS throw them off tall buildings. The atrocities are never ending and yet it is Islamophobic to bring light to them.

To refuse to name Islam, as the problem for fear of offending your fellow Muslims is dangerous and just makes you look stupid and the stupid it burns.

 

No more silence

Where is the hashtag, in solidarity, for the Pakistani and Mirpuri children being raped, here, in the UK? I say Pakistani and Mirpuri because child rape occurs in both communities, neither is immune. You only need to follow Pakistani journalists, the ones who are living in Pakistan, on social media to hear of the horrors involving child rape, that it seems are occurring every day. Pakistan, we are learning, has a huge problem with the rape of children, every day we hear and read stories of children being raped, gang raped, filmed and murdered. We know it goes on, we watch some documentary or another, get angry, feel sad, and join a hashtag to express your disgust at what goes on ‘back home’.

Pakistani and Mirpuri people living in the UK have a hate hate relationship; there is little love between the two. Pakistanis, generally, refuse to see Mirpuri people as fellow Pakistanis. The nickname given, to Mirpuris when they arrived along with many others to the UK in the 60s, by the Pakistanis was MPs, after the politicians because having lived amongst them in such large numbers for the first time, in towns and cities across the UK, the newly arriving Pakistanis were realising that many Mirpuri people were as they put it ‘dodgy as fuck,’ like their namesakes.

The tradition of first cousin marriages, forced marriages and child marriages, discouraging their girls from education and once married, discouraged from working outside the home are some of the many things Mirpuri people do that Pakistanis frown upon. Pakistani people are right to be annoyed when grooming gangs are described as Pakistanis as they are more than likely to be of Mirpuri origin.

I have heard, like many other Mirpuris, living in the UK, numerous stories of child sex abuse that occurs in the community, stories of children being sexually abused or raped. Stories, if we are honest, we will have heard, stories that are open secrets, stories that are whispered here and whispered there. The abuser never being confronted allows him to continue raping.

The biggest obstacle in tackling and raising awareness of child sex abuse in the community is the fear of what ‘others’ will think. Others can be anyone from members of the extended family, people from the community and also outside the community. This outweighs the moral and ethical thing to do; this is more valuable than the rape of children. That others might gossip about you because you have a paedophile in your family is enough for you to let it continue. It would be funny if it weren’t so pathetic especially when you consider most sex abusers are known in the community famous for its open secrets and nothing is ever said to them, not even a quiet word to make sure he stops. Fair enough you don’t want the wider community gossiping about you, fair enough you don’t want to involve the police at least do something as a community to stop it. But no the raping continues because people do not want to be the ones being openly gossiped about, when in reality they are being gossiped about anyway.

Raping children is a sickness in humanity, regardless of racial or religious backgrounds. But if we do not even begin to have these conversations, if we do not admit that the rape of Mirpuri children, past and present, is a crime that should no longer be avoided then how can we even begin to stop it? Raising awareness of child rape is avoided under the guise of honour and shame when we know fine well it is avoided to protect the Muslim men in our communities. Women have not be given a voice, hell they are denied an education so any voice they may have been brave enough to use as has been silenced. Many Mirpuri women are denied their rights in appalling ways while the Government looks the other way to keep the men, denying the women basic rights, happy.

For those who want to deny that Mirpuri children are being raped in the UK, ask yourself what makes our race of people so special that they have no paedophiles or sex pests?

Many stories have stayed with me, stories where mothers have walked into a room and witnessed their own sons raping, raping a helpless child, and closing the door on it. These mothers close the fucking door! What kind of mother closes the door on her son, allowing him to continue raping a niece, or a nephew or other close family relation?

Hannah Shah, author of The Imam’s Daughter, her name has been changed to protect her identity, writes about her life as the daughter of the imam, the leader of prayers at the local mosque, somewhere in England, location also changed to protect her. How he raped her from the age of five, with her own mother turning a blind eye, to the horrific, bloody rape and abuse of her little daughter. How even on Friday, Jummah prayers- the busiest time at the mosque, like church on a Sunday, he would rape her and go lead prayers. Where is the hashtag for Hannah Shah, raped from the age of 5 years old until she escaped at the age of 15. She hasn’t really escaped though has she? Replacing one fear for another, in hiding safe from rape but fearful of her life. Where is the hashtag for all the other Hannah’s, we know, five year old girls being raped by the Pakistani community? Nowhere because it is too much of a taboo subject, we have been conditioned to close our ears and eyes to the rape of little children.

The Imam’s Daughter is just one girl’s story and there will be many more like it, maybe not the imam, maybe a family member or friend. Mirpuri children, in the UK, are being sexually abused, raped and forced into lives of misery every single day and the debate we hear, the topics that make it into mainstream media are Islamfauxbia, to hijab or not to hijab or taking selfies at ‘Islamophobe’ events, while holding some sinister views yourself.

Look at Christianity before it reformed, Christian families were prudish when it came to any talk on sex. The very same things we see in Islam and sex, Christianity has experienced, and moved forward to a stage where sex is not the big taboo subject it once was, granted there are many Christian families who are conservative in their views, but on the whole progress has been made.

Such was the progress made that the sex abuse and the practice of protecting the abusers, by the Catholic Church is known worldwide. The scale and the length of time that the abuse was allowed to continue for was enough to destroy the reputation of the Catholic Church. Parents trusting their children, boys and girls, into the care of the church, into the care of priests, the men of God. Only for these priests, men of God, to repay that trust given to them, by raping and sodomising their children.

If I was a praying to god kind of person I would be praying every day that mosques are not going to be the next Catholic Church. Mosques where parents trust their children into the care of molvis, men who they really know nothing about, being a molvi is enough credentials for many trusting parents in the community. I doubt that my prayers would be answered and I fear that it is a scandal waiting to be exposed.

The rape of children, understandably, is a topic most of us stay away from preferring to live in a world where we pretend it doesn’t exist, on the scale that it does. Amongst many in the Mirpuri community the topic of sex and inappropriate touching is one that rarely takes place between parents and children.   Parents happily sending their children for extra prayers from the local friendly molvi. Mosques are a breeding ground, not only for the extremists that preach their hate but also for the monsters who rape the children, trusted to them by parents, to learn about Islam. And we wonder why, some, children and adults of Mirpuri origin are in turmoil. We should no longer be silent when it comes to the rape of children.

 

 

 

 

It has everything to do with Islam

Islam is never out of the news. If it wasn’t for bad news about Islam, there would be no news about Islam.

Never have I experienced a time when Islam and Muslims have been discussed daily in the news, social media sites, the water cooler and the hairdressers. There are atrocities being committed in the name of Islam right across the world, pretty much every single day, and probably as I write these very words.

Some say it has “nothing to do with Islam”; some cannily hedge their bets and say it has “something to do with Islam” and some say it has “everything to do with Islam”. The bickering continues with insults, threats and deaths to silence any honest and grown up discussion around Islam.

Well, sitting on the fence gives you a sore behind so I say it has everything to do with Islam and the Mullahs and Sheikhs who control their communities, and who tell us that all our problems can be solved by reading a 1,400 year old book about violence, conquest and intolerance.

There are over a billion Muslims in the world and many of them are angry that they are being tarred with the same brush as the ones who are not so peaceful, but unfortunately poll after poll demonstrates the at huge numbers of Muslims, in the Muslim world but also the West, hold views which are simply incompatible with civilisation, with humanity, with normality.

It’s important to observe countries where Muslims are the majority and where Sharia law is the only law. These are countries where the rulers and politicians think nothing of beheading someone for being gay, or stoning to death a victim of rape or jailing and lashing those who question Islam. The problem in these countries isn’t that the rulers and politicians are “misinterpreting” the Quran and Hadiths. The problem is that they are accurately interpreting them.

When I see the stories of injustice, brutality and total control and oppression of women, who in some Muslim majority countries must be veiled and are not allowed to drive or even to leave home without the permission of a male relative, I am sickened. When I see men hanging from cranes by their necks as punishment for being gay, I cry, at the senseless loss of life. I cry when I hear of children being raped and murdered and their rapists and killers escaping justice because men are rarely punished for crimes of rape in Muslim majority countries.

Adultery in these countries is for women punishable by stoning to death, buried up to the neck, stones and large boulders, thrown by a baying crowd of men; I even read one story where the woman’s own father threw the first rock. I guess that’s what European feminists call “male privilege”. Men can also be killed but not in exactly the same brutal way. They get the same stone and boulder shower, but they’re buried in the ground “only” to the stomach, not right up to the neck.

So why then is it “racist” to be scared of Islam? It seems entirely rational to be scared of Islam. Why is it that when someone like the commentator Douglas Murray speaks up about this kind of horror that is real life for many people in Islamic countries, he is called a far right extremist? Murray is gay, an atheist and a critic of Islam. In my book, he has three exceptionally good reasons to be scared of Islam.

I have even seen a petition calling for the BBC to issue an apology for having Murray on some programme or other. Seriously? Somebody has sat down and thought Douglas Murray is the real threat here, forget that in countries where Sharia law is the law, Douglas Murray would be one of the first people thrown off a tall building or swinging from a crane.

Muslims who live in the Western world and are protected by Western laws wouldn’t last long living under Sharia law either. In the West we can go where we want, with whom we want, when we want, wearing clothes we have chosen. We can go to pubs with friends and we can choose whether to drink or not, we can choose to date, study at school and learn to drive. Simple things in life we all take for granted but for women, especially, in countries where Sharia law is enforced, these things are not within reach. For many, they are not even a memory.

If Islam really is peaceful then my suggestion, for Muslims in the Western world, is to allow the ‘Draw Mohammed’ competitions to take place. These are cartoons, that’s all. And think about it: no one knows for sure what the prophet looks like, so technically it isn’t really a drawing of Mohammed.

When Muslims hear of the rape of children by Pakistani Muslim men in the UK, they are silent, other than to press their big shiny red RACISM buzzers when others bring up the subject. But when Muslims hear of children dying in Palestine they march in their thousands with ‘Free Palestine’ banners. When someone attempts to stage a ‘Draw Mohammed’ event, Muslims mobilise to protest in huge numbers and huge volume. But when ISIS drag the planet back to the Stone Age, or rather the Stoning Age, Muslims can barely fill a broom cupboard in protest – if they protest at all.

Here in the UK, grooming gangs have already raped thousands of children and there is no suggestion this phenomenon has stopped. Muslims are silent because they do not want to admit there is a cancer at the root of our community. Muslims have organised no marches to show they are disgusted at the way our men have behaved. On the contrary, Muslim groups asked the police to ban a recent Pegida march in Rotherham highlighting the abuse. Get that into your head: Muslims are trying to stop protests about children being raped by Muslims, but they’re not trying to stop actual rapes of children by Muslims.

Muslim men are also raping Muslim children in their communities and we as a community stay silent again. Organise a ‘Draw Mohammed’ competition though and we will take to the streets, lobby the right people, and instil such a fear into the hearts of the organisers that the competition has to be cancelled, due to safety reasons.

To show the world that everyone has got it wrong about Islam why don’t we direct that passion and anger towards the men who are raping our children and end it? Why don’t we gather in our thousands and march to Westminster and demand that action be taken to end the misery of thousands of children in the UK?

If we can stop people criticising and mocking Islam, if we can stop people drawing cartoons of the Mohammed then surely we can attempt to stop the rape of children, here in the UK, where Sharia law is not (yet) the law?

Ban the burka

Life today for Muslim women in the UK is completely different to when I was growing up in a Muslim home. You know you are getting old when you start saying ‘the good old days’ when talking about the past. But life in Glasgow, Scotland in the 70s and 80s for Muslim women was actually really good. Yes, there was racism, but other communities had to put up with that too. The Muslim community doesn’t have a monopoly on victim status.

It was frightening to have our windows smashed by young white men who were not pleased we had moved into their predominantly white area. It was frightening to have white men and women swear at you ‘fucking darkies’ or ‘smelly paki lover’ as you walked passed them, as I experienced when out with my mother, a white Catholic who had converted to Islam, when she married my father. Thankfully, the racism from children at school was less frightening and it didn’t take long for me to be accepted by my classmates. Children are better at integrating than most adults.

Back then the Pakistani community was decent. Everything was all new and exciting. The men had come over to earn a living and make a new life in the UK and in time called for their families to join them or created new families, the first generation to be born in the UK, my generation. Pakistani people, when they first arrived, were relaxed about their religion. There were few hijabs, and niqabs and burkas were fewer still. Men with long beards were generally only the very devout, such as an old uncle or perhaps the occasional eccentric teenager who took his religion far too seriously, and it often went hand in hand with regular praying and learning the Quran off by heart. The majority of Pakistani women and girls in the UK wore a headscarf, either round their neck or on their head, but not to cover their hair

Today Muslim girls face far less racism than when I was growing up, and again I would argue no worse than other ethnic minorities. The more serious problems they face are within their own communities, such as the dilemma of covering or not covering – assuming they have that choice. Everybody is interested in what a Muslim woman should wear and politicians in Europe are now discussing a ban on the burka.

The burka is a head to toe garment that has a piece of mesh to allow the women to see through. Seeing a woman wearing the burka makes me feel uneasy, and I am a woman of Muslim heritage. It makes me feel uneasy for a number of reasons, the main one being I cannot see the woman behind the burka, I cannot see her facial expressions. Is she happy, is she miserable, is she bored talking to me, is she up to no good? Who knows? When a woman wears a burka I am denied the ability to receive crucial non-verbal communication that is a natural part of everyday human interactions in open and free societies. These are simple things we all take for granted when conversing with one another and meeting people for the first time.

Deep down you just know, or at the very least suspect, that the women wearing the burkas will be married to, or are the daughters of, men with beards, long beards. Men who take their religion very seriously. Men who regularly pray at the mosques that preach hate. Men who teach their children to hate the kaffir and all things Western. To say families like this do not live in the UK is foolish.

Women can be seen in burkas at Islamic protests in the UK, protesting with banners calling for ‘Death to those who insult Islam,’ and ‘Sharia Law for the UK’ sometimes even accompanied by children in prams. Sadly, for too many people the burka symbolises something sinister and when you see burka clad women calling for Sharia Law, you can understand why.

Nowhere in the Quran does it say to cloak the women in a black bag with only a tiny piece of mesh to allow them to see where they are going. Nowhere in the Quran does it say to cover your hair, yet many Muslim women do, and they say it is their own free choice. The whole question of what is or is not in the Quran seems to me irrelevant here, though, because if burkas and hijabs are “nothing to do with Islam”, why then is it “Islamophobic” to object to them? And why are they always justified in the name of religious freedom? Which specific religion might that be?

Women in hijabs do not concern me as much as women in burkas, but I fear that our soft stance on the hijab, which like the burka is also a symbol and tool of women’s oppression, has helped lay the path for making the burka so acceptable in mainstream society. At least when someone is wearing a hijab, though, I can see their face and I can converse with them pretty much normally.

Some hijab wearers try to make non-hijab wearers feel guilty and shameful for not covering their head. There was one hijab wearing girl at my school in the 80s – yes just one. We all felt sorry for her, we the lucky Muslim girls who did not have to wear even a scarf to school, never mind the hijab. Now some Muslim girls are feeling sorry for those without a hijab.

I used to think that the hijab wearing girls and women who had a full face of make up done (I swear some of these girls have a make up artist on speed dial) – you know, the ones with skin tight clothes and high heels – were kind of defeating the purpose of the hijab. If it is to be worn to cover your hair and hide your attractiveness to the opposite sex, to make you look pious and protected in the eyes of Allah, then why draw attention to yourself? Now I view those girls as rebellious and mischievous, and I like that, even though they may not think that way of themselves. But even though I might like their own sassy interpretation of how a hijab is to be worn, the downside is that it makes the hijab more and more acceptable and “trendy”, which I think is bad news. This then encourages high street retailers to cater for this fashion trend, normalising the hijab even more.

The burka offers no such choices, and comes only in one style and perhaps two colours, black and dark blue. The burka is incredibly oppressive; it allows men to control the women in their families. How insecure does a man have to be that he will not allow his wife or daughters to leave the house until every part of her is covered up? These men claim their religion is compassionate yet they impose on their womenfolk an oppressive rule made by men to control women.

That we are even having a debate on whether the burka should be banned or not is pathetic. When you see the actions of many burka clad Muslim women on the high streets of towns and cities in certain parts of the UK, promoting death to all things British, to behead those who insult Islam and calling for Sharia Law, you wonder why the ban is not in place already.

If anything banning the burka is probably one of the simplest ways Britain could assert its culture and its values in the face of hostile and uncompromising Islamisation. Banning the burka should be low-hanging fruit. But Britain hasn’t even got the bottle to do that. This is not tolerance. It is weakness. If we can’t win the easy battles, we will never win the difficult ones.

Religion and the Politics of Distraction

 

“There is no significant far-right or nativist party in our politics; in January 2016, the noxious British National Party quietly slipped out of existence, crippled by internal feuding and financial debt (mostly brought about, I am pleased to say, by legal action I took as chair of the Equality and Human Rights Commission).” Trevor Philips – Race and Faith: The Deafening Silence.

I grew up in a home that was very much all about the Labour party, with political talk in the household dominated by the assumption of support for Labour and parents who attended the party’s events religiously. My father also hosted regular dinner parties where Labour party councillors would be invited, along with other men, to eat a variety of curries and to discuss politics.

There was a clear division at these parties: the women usually did the cooking and the men discussed politics. Maybe it was this that made me avoid politics. Maybe at some point I just accepted that all political discussions should be left to the men and that my role would be to attend to the chores, like life was back in the 70s and 80s for so many people.

Whatever the reason I am glad I didn’t waste my life following politics and watching as every political party lied and cheated its way through the latest scandals and accusations. Even if I had immersed myself in politics, though, I would still struggle, as I do now, to understand and keep up with all the labels that people give to themselves or to each other: left, right, far left, far right, progressive, (as though anyone would boast they’re not “progressive”), regressive, liberal (again who would boast they’re “illiberal?”), secular, moderate and extreme to name some of them. Having grown up with labels, such as ‘the gori’s daughter,’ ‘paki’, ‘coconut’ and ‘half caste,’ you can understand when I say the only labels I like these days are the ones of the designer variety. (Birkin is my favourite, if you must know.)

The Labour party have recently been in the headlines for all the wrong reasons, with a number of councillors and MPs suspended for anti-Semitism. There are other councillors who make remarks that are quite clearly racist and if it had been a white councillor making these comments then cries of ‘racist’ would forever follow them around, but because it‘s, say, a Muslim woman then it seems everyone just moves on once that person has reeled off a formulaic and unconvincing apology in the face of public pressure.

The issue of gender segregation at Labour party meetings is also well documented, with non-Muslim members bending over backwards to accommodate the wishes of their fellow Muslim members, usually male. These wishes (actually they’re not wishes at all but demands) have no place in a secular society and any political party that has the cheek to call itself “progressive” should not indulge them.

The Labour party, we now know, have also been part of a mass cover-up going back thirty years, of vulnerable underage girls being raped by gangs of Muslim men, in towns and cities across the UK.

The Conservative party is not free from scandal and corruption either, and there are numerous stories surrounding them. Theresa May has promised an independent inquiry into the operation of Sharia courts in the UK; this came about after concerns were raised that these “courts” discriminate against women. There are an estimated 30 to 85 Sharia “courts” operating in the UK. It will be interesting to see what is uncovered, or more to the point, what action is actually taken if the enquiry uncovers what any decent person already knows. We shouldn’t hold out too much hope for this enquiry given that Theresa May has been known to cover her head with a scarf when meeting with self appointed Muslim community leaders. In doing so, she is actually obeying sharia law.

The Conservative party are also guilty, more indirectly, of the cover-up of the grooming gangs scandal for fear of being labelled racist, even though the areas in which grooming was taking place were Labour majority areas. They are guilty because someone in the party had to know what was going on.

Zac Goldsmith stood as the Tory candidate for Mayor of London and when he challenged Sadiq Khan on his links to extremism, the race card came out and Zac Goldsmith was instantly accused of running a “racist” campaign. Goldsmith challenging Khan on his links to extremism was more serious than Khan’s links to extremism.

Just recently there have been serious concerns that a known terrorist sympathiser has been granted a visa to visit the UK from his home in Pakistan. If I, somebody with no real knowledge of politics, thinks that a terrorist sympathiser should be the last person to be given a visa then why are those in power allowing it? A terrorist sympathiser is being welcomed into this country and yet half a million signatures were gathered to ban Donald Trump from entering the UK. Trump holds some controversial views, there is no doubt about that, but it is because he challenges the ideology of Islam that he is smeared. Fear of being labelled racist shuts down debates amongst ‘normal people’ and the recent elections for the Mayor of London showed us how easy it is to silence people, and even to neuter the political process, with the word “racist.”

The Scottish National Party is Scotland’s largest political party and was formed in 1934, but it wasn’t until the 50s and 60s that their popularity started to grow thanks to resentment of Westminster’s control of Scottish affairs. In the late 90s the SNP ventured into the mainstream of Scottish politics and it was probably around this time that my staunch Labour supporting parents became SNP members, along with many other people living in Scotland, regardless of religious background. Like every other political party the SNP are not without their scandals and there have been stories involving finances, racism and marital affairs.

One of the differences between these three political parties is that the SNP have so far escaped a rape cover-up scandal. I say so far because I believe it is inevitable. We have seen the proof of the cover-up of grooming gangs which were operating in towns and cities in the UK, such as in Rotherham where at least 1,400 girls were raped because politicians, the police and everyone else with the responsibility for safeguarding children exchanged their moral and vocational obligations for a worthless badge proving they weren’t racist. To believe that Scotland has been immune from the Muslim grooming gangs phenomenon and that no such cover-up has taken place here is foolish and naïve in the extreme.

Then we have UKIP, a political party that I only heard about a few years ago. A party whose entire membership and voter base are racists and homophobes, every last one of them, according to mainstream media and therefore according to the general public who often believe whatever the media feed them. It makes no difference that UKIP have no actual racist policies and that they have members, supporters and elected officials from all ethnic backgrounds, gay and straight (how many people know that UKIP’s candidate for London Mayor, Peter Whittle, is openly gay?) If you even mention UKIP in conversation with friends instantly they will describe them as ‘racists and bigots and fascists.’ And don’t dare tell anyone you are voting for them because then you will be viewed as the lowest of the low. UKIP are deemed worse than the Labour and Conservative parties who turned a blind eye to the rape of children. Wanting to control immigration or even discuss immigration is a bigger crime than rape, for the deluded and virtue-signallers.

Also interesting to note is the treatment of UKIP’s Anne Marie Waters, who is the founder of Sharia Watch UK, (whose website is hacked on a regular basis). Many people smear Anne Marie as a racist or say she spends too much time criticising Islam, the same criticism Tommy Robinson receives. Anne Marie set up Sharia Watch to confront the growing influence of Sharia in the UK, such as Sharia Councils. Many women from Middle Eastern countries have emailed her and she has a huge support from women living in countries under Sharia law. These Muslim women do not care that Anne Marie is white, or that her party is UKIP. Living under barbaric, deathly rules with their every move controlled and perhaps every part of their bodies cloaked in black, they have slightly more important things to worry about. If anything should outrage them about the political behaviour in the UK, it should be the Labour party’s cowardly appeasement of the very ideology that makes these women’s lives so dreadful. For those that have witnessed the appalling smearing of Anne Marie, it should be very obvious that Sharia does not want to be watched in the UK.

For daring to discuss the problems with multiculturalism, Islam and mass immigration, Anne Marie is smeared as a racist and people, who may have otherwise listened to what she has to say, avoid her because, you know, she is racist – because she talks in actual facts.

I like facts and I like people who are honest and are not scared to tell the truth. Yes there is a problem with Islam, yes we have to talk about mass immigration and yes we need to look at the ways in which multiculturalism has failed and is still failing. Why are we so quick to say someone is a racist or holds bigoted views for wanting to discuss this? Anne Marie was an active member of the Labour party for 8 years before joining UKIP, at which point she realised very quickly how people who were once friends no longer wanted anything to do with her, all because of her new political leanings and mainly because she wanted to talk about immigration.

Anne Marie is also the Deputy Leader of Pegida UK, a street movement that is rarely given a fair hearing by the mainstream media with the result that Pegida is generally viewed as a nasty and thuggish organisation who hate Muslims. The fact that ex-Muslims and Muslims alike support what Pegida are trying to do makes no difference to those who have decided it is easier to call them racist than to admit that perhaps they have a point and are part of the solution rather than the problem.

“The Pegida UK event will be a peaceful, no-alcohol, silent march of protest. Families and people from all backgrounds are welcome to join patriots from all over the country in Rotherham on June 4th. Homophobes, Nazis, racists and anti-Semites, however, are not welcome. PEGIDA UK is in Rotherham to demand people’s rights are protected, that people receive justice, and that all are treated equally under one British law.”

When I first saw Pegida’s silent march for the raped and abused young girls of Rotherham advertised, I thought “I want to go, I want to march in silence for the girls but for the non-white girls.” Not because I didn’t care about the white girls who were undoubtedly the greatest victims of the grooming gangs – of course I do but perhaps I was just worried that people might overlook Muslim victims of these grooming gangs. I thought I would get up and join the speakers on stage and give a speech for the non-white girls and let them know they weren’t forgotten. I emailed Anne Marie and asked if it would be possible to give a speech for the girls nobody is speaking about, the forgotten victims of the grooming scandals, forgotten because the shame and honour surrounding rape in their community is placed higher than help and justice for the victims. She replied and said she would be marching for ALL the girls but that I was more than welcome to come along and march with her and also give a speech.

The date was changed from 28th May to 4th June but, sadly, having other commitments meant I could no longer attend. If I am honest I was somewhat pleased at the change of dates as the thought of publicly speaking, even for such an important cause, filled me with dread. But knowing that Anne Marie was going to be there for all the victims of the grooming gangs I didn’t feel too bad at letting them down.

We shouldn’t need Sharia Watch, UKIP or Pegida to tell us that many women are oppressed in the countries where Sharia is law, or in the UK where its influence is sadly growing.  It should be common knowledge and the only controversial thing should be failing to tackle it, rather than tackling it.

Yet when Anne Marie is vocal about these issues and writes about them she is a “racist” and if you associate with her in any way, then by default you too are a “racist”. Even if you’re Muslim. Go figure.

UKIP’s popularity has been increasing slowly over the years and the reasons for this are perhaps similar to the rise of the SNP’s popularity in the late 90s. With the SNP it was a desire to control Scottish affairs and with UKIP the desire is to keep Britain, British. Which means discussing immigration, discussing Islam, and discussing the real danger that Sharia law, one day, will be implemented into parts of Britain.

UKIP has its share of scandals involving racism, homophobia and sexism within the party and amongst its members, like every other political party. But because this particular party is willing to discuss taboo subjects such as immigration, Islam and British identity, that criticism lacks any sense of proportion, and often indeed any sense of truth, and so the one political party that is perhaps best placed to confront these crucial issues, and which is most willing to speak frankly, is constantly silenced and demonised – which means those crucial matters simply fester.

What happens after that? Well, if credible, mainstream organisations such as UKIP are not allowed to confront these issues then other organisations will, and they will not be pleasant. So, well done to all you ‘anti-racists’ for trying to silence and demonise UKIP. You’ve made it much more likely that actual racist organisations will flourish. What a wonderful achievement.

 

 

 

 

Muslims must focus on their own behaviour, not that of their fellow Muslims

 

Everyone, it seems, is interested in what religion you follow. In Glasgow you are usually asked what school you went to and if you reply Saint this or Our Ladies that then the person asking will know you are a Catholic. I have been asked many times if I am Muslim as I have a Muslim name. Am I a Muslim? I suppose I am, because I was born into a Muslim family, even though my mother is a Catholic. She gave up her religion when she met my father and converted to Islam. In Islam, the religion of the father trumps the religion of the mother and I have never felt an affiliation to Catholicism.

I never knew anything about the Catholic religion when I was growing up and even today I know little about it apart from confessions, Mass and Hail Marys.

Religion should be a private matter between individuals and their chosen God. All religions declare that ‘Only God can judge me’ yet its followers spend a huge amount of time judging each other. It’s a human trait no matter what religion you follow or don’t follow.

Many Muslims who leave their religion call themselves Ex Muslims. There was recently even a popular hashtag on Twitter #exmuslimbecause, where people were leaving comments as to why they left Islam. I also left a comment or two even though I do not see myself as Ex Muslim; I did this in solidarity with those who had left Islam and in solidarity with those who live in countries where it is punishable by lashings and death.

“I am of Muslim heritage” is how I describe myself to people who ask. I tell them my father is a Muslim and my mother a Catholic. I did not choose to be a Muslim it was forced upon me, at birth, by my parents. Why, then, do I hold onto the Muslim label, you may wonder, when I do not pray five times a day, I rarely eat halal meat, I drink alcohol and on rare occasions I even eat a bacon sandwich? And as crazy as it sounds I have no idea why I have this need to label myself as someone of Muslim heritage. I don’t go around shouting it for all to hear, just my answer when the discussion comes round to religion.

Growing up in a Muslim home the indoctrination runs deep, the fear of the hell fire never quite leaves you and also turning your back on the religion is a sure way of being shunned by your family and the community. For me the problem of being shunned is no big deal, as I was disowned many, many years ago. For other Muslims, though, it can be a matter of life and death in some countries and even in the UK, where it is relatively safer, the fear of losing contact with all that is familiar, your family and the community, means it is just easier to say you are still Muslim.

I am lucky that my Muslim friends don’t really care if I am religious or not, and they accept me for who I am. They themselves are not overly religious. Some drink alcohol but eat only halal meat; some pray only on Eid and at funerals. Some give nothing to charity and have not been on Hajj (something that all Muslims are encouraged to do in their lifetime, at least once). Many are Muslim by name only. Who decides if they are good enough Muslims or not? Not me. And it should certainly not be fellow Muslims or Mullahs, Sheikhs and self-proclaimed scholars of Islam. It’s between that individual and God.

Being Muslim is on a different level, today, to when I was growing up. Back then it was racism and ignorance from non-Muslims that was our biggest fear. Today the hatred towards Muslims from their fellow Muslims is, in my opinion, far worse than the racism I experienced growing up, which now actually seems quite trivial in comparison. Hatred from fellow Muslims is worse because it is so much more dangerous than the racism I grew up with, and also because it’s incredibly hypocritical too: how often do you hear Muslim ‘leaders’ take to the airwaves to tell us how compassionate and peaceful Islam is? Sadly, this compassion rarely extends to allowing fellow Muslims to practice Islam as they choose, as individuals, and it certainly doesn’t include letting Muslims leave Islam safely. All the other religions have no problems with their followers leaving and most family members still love and welcome their children if they choose to stop attending the church or the chapel. With Islam it is a different story and openly leaving Islam is dangerous for many, regardless of where you live in the world.

Maybe social media is partly to blame, as we can now connect with people from all over the world and not all connections are positive. There are so many different labels for Muslims: progressive, liberal, secular, moderate, ex, and depending which label you give yourself, your fellow Muslims will attack you for not, in their eyes, being a good enough Muslim. And if you are a liberal Muslim woman then the hate and vitriol aimed at you will be ten times worse than what the men have to put up with.

London now has a Muslim mayor and people are divided about how they feel about this. There are many Muslims and non-Muslims who are rightly questioning his links with extremists and then there are those who are claiming he is not Muslim enough.

Maybe if the Muslim community stopped gossiping about each other’s business, and also stopped playing the racism/Islamophobia card at the drop of a hat (something the new Mayor of London did when his extremism connections were questioned in the electoral campaign), and focus instead on their own individual relationship with God, rather than everyone else’s, our news wouldn’t be filled to bursting point with so many sickening stories whose common factor is Islam. Until Muslims, en masse, can get even a basic handle on the concept of personal liberty and freedom – something people of other faiths and no faith throughout Europe have generally managed to do- I fear that as far as the harm Islam can cause, we really ain’t seen nothing yet.