The return of Adil does not disappoint – shocking, saddening and essential reading for all.

There are far too many non-Muslims who seem completely oblivious to the radicalisation that organisations such as Quilliam cause in the Muslim (and non-Muslim) community. As Adil ably shows, they are a form of state sanctioned intellectual terrorism undreamt of even by Orwell…

For those who are unfamiliar, the Quilliam foundation is:

The world’s first counter-extremism think tank set up to address the unique challenges of citizenship, identity, and belonging in a globalised world. Quilliam stands for religious freedom, equality, human rights and democracy

Sounds good right? And I wish it were true. I do consider myself a pluralistic Muslim who does believe in religious freedom, equality and human rights – yet I believe there is good reason to believe that Quilliam is not all that it seems. Whilst their official website is fairly general and with little immediately concerning material, the current actions of those in the Quilliam Foundation, particularly the head are somewhat concerning, and as we will see, even facilitate extremism. In a nutshell :

-Quilliam has helped promote false and alarmist stories which only serve to increase anti-Muslim sentiment

-Quilliam shows a lack of tolerance to people who ‘dare’ claim that Islam is inherently peaceful and tolerant, but instead supports people and organizations who insist that it is intrinsically violent and intolerant.

-The head of the Quilliam foundation has very little Islamic knowledge (and himself states that he doesn’t dabble in theology), yet is heralded as an expert by the media.

-Quilliam has many hard-line Islamophobic supporters who they consider allies.

-‘Quilliam’ is ironically named after a man who they would consider the epitome of extremism

-The head of the Quilliam foundation Maajid Nawaaz talks like a person who has knowingly renounced and denounced Islam, but says ‘I am a Muslim’ to give himself political credence (why do his beliefs even matter? I discuss this below). Even many of their fan base is unlikely to consider them Muslim (hence their support for them).

1) Their chairman and co-founder, who says he is a Muslim, when on TV talks like an ex-Muslim, and encourages people to leave Islam. To put it mildly.

One might rightly ask; surely ones religious affiliations or lack thereof are entirely a person’s own business? That is true but what if a person is claiming an identity for a particular end? According to one commenter, Maajid claiming to be a Muslim is:

”A bit like Cristiano Ronaldo still talking as a player of Man Utd when he has left the club and now plays for Real Madrid. Or Suarez now a Barcelona FC player but still talking to media as if he still plays for Liverpool.”

In other words, he is using it as a political tool. Why would claiming to be a Muslim fulfil such an objective? It would certainly convince well intentioned non-Muslims who see a Muslim standing up to extremism and claiming to promote pluralism. Surely if this person is a Muslim, any criticisms or calls for reform must be true and valid right? Surely if he is a Muslim, he would never bash Muslims if it were unnecessary?

By saying he is a Muslim, Maajid can continue to have credence in telling other Muslims what to do; and how important it is to reform Islam and so forth. Being an Islamophobe who remains Muslim has one advantage over being an ex-Muslim Islamophobe; you can get away with telling Muslims what to do (whereas some might see it as disingenuous for ex-Muslims to tell Muslims how they need to ‘reform’ Islam when of course all they really want is for them to leave it). It also allows one to appear more accessible to the general public and be able to ‘speak for’ the Muslim community; something which Maajid always disingenuously adds that ‘he cant do,‘ before making broad and usually false claims about the Muslim community and the ‘Muslim mindset,’ some of which I discuss later.

Please note; I am not ‘takfiring’ (excommunicating) anyone, nor holding up some sort of gold standard that one must meet in order to be judged a Muslim; I am a non-scholar and (relatively speaking) nobody and cannot even begin to judge what lies in another human beings heart. I am not claiming that Maajid is not a Muslim because he is a secularist or because his organisation was funded by the government, or because he is a member of the ‘Liberal Democrat Friends of Israel’ or because he is critical about parts of the Qur’an, or for that matter because of his ‘sharing’ of cartoons about the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh).

Rather, I am pointing out that Maajid has deliberately and knowingly said things which he knows are anti-Islam and which at least look like purposeful reminders to his true fans and followers that: ‘don’t worry, I’m not a real Muslim, I just need to say I am to pimp my cause’. This becomes apparent from his social media where he ‘likes’ posts where people talk about their apostasy and how they are proud of it; when every reference to Islam is a negative one, and he assures his fans that he ‘isn’t devout.’ Below; Maajid is asked ‘Why not just leave Islam and go straight for humanism,’ (An understandable question given his apparent opinions on Islam), and he replies

If that works for you, do it, I just have the burden of trying to bring others along with me

Yes you read that right. Not ‘because I believe in Islam.’ Not even ‘Each to their own but I prefer Islam.’ Just ‘I have the burden of bringing others along.’ Surely a Muslim would consider it (at least) preferable to be Muslim then not to be? This really does sound like Maajid as good as saying ‘The only reason I call myself a Muslim is to bring others along to believing in my political world-view.’

More ex-Muslim type statements can be seen in a ‘debate’ involving Maajid Nawaaz and Ayaan Hirsi Ali (the same lovely lady who thinks that Islam should be crushed, and when asked ‘militarily too?’ clarified by saying ‘in all forms.’). Maajid says people whose conscience makes them want to leave the faith MUST leave it at 1 hour 25 minutes. Really? Not look into it to see if Islam is the truth? Not to ask a scholar or several? Not to see if the questions giving you doubt have already been asked and addressed? Not to find other people who have struggled with faith and maintained it? Apparently not.

Ayaan also asks ‘what is your status Maajid’ and calls him an ‘almost ex-Muslim.’ Understandably, Ayaan has picked up on the same signs that I have (it doesn’t take a genius; though to viewers who just see him on the TV it may not be obvious) at 120:30. Maajid Laughs and says ‘are you trying to get me killed.’ Fine, I might have said the same. But I would at least follow it up by giving some sort of answer suggesting that I am….not an ex-Muslim! Unsurprisingly, Maajid gives no such response, nor even implicitly denies Ayaans’ statement.

Sure, context is everything, statements are subject to misinterpretation; I’m sure you could get a couple of phrases from me and use them in isolation to affiliate me to some world-view that clearly is not mine. So let’s observe some more gems from Maajid Nawaaz, which again, are indistinguishable from the sort of rhetoric projected by ex-Muslims, or critics of Islam who were never Muslim to begin with.

”If we accept, demographically speaking, that most people in the world today are not atheists, nor even like me – secular liberals – then we must grapple with the question of religion. There is simply no way to avoid it. I am not a religious leader, I do not issue religious edicts, nor do I claim to speak on behalf of Muslims. Rather, I am a political activist who speaks on behalf of my principles, by which I hope people will judge me. I have come to realise that the only way to unite us all is to focus on those secular liberal principles, rather than asking 1.5 billion Muslims to leave their religion (unrealistic). Finally, my soon to be published dialogue with US neo-atheist activist Sam Harris is on this very topic. We go through much of what you have asked. I’ll announce further details about its release via my social media as soon as I have them.”

Interesting. So what Maajid is essentially saying is that in an ideal world, it wouldn’t be so bad if every Muslim apostatised but we have to come to terms with the fact that they probably won’t, so we’d best secularise Islam while still calling it Islam (such that it becomes an irrelevant spiritual doctrine).

”There is no real or true Islam. Extremists cherry pick, and “moderates” (I dislike that term because it’s entirely relative) cherry pick. The choice ahead of extremists is that if they insist on following everything with vacuous literalism, they’ll have to accept slavery – as ISIL have done – and all sorts of other repugnant practices. If they do so, they’ll quickly deteriorate to Monty-Python style absurdities and factionalism – as all such dogmatic approaches are bound too – just like ISIL killing al-Qaeda now in Iraq. As for “moderates”, they”ll have to accept that extremists have some level of textual ground, and the only option ahead of them is to move towards a less legalistic and more spiritual relationship with their texts. sadly, I think we are generally quite far from this level of honesty in the debate at present.”

I do not think I have heard a Muslim say ‘there is no true Islam.’ Surely if Islam is true, there is definitely a true Islam! Sure, one might argue that no one truly follows Islam correctly in every way because as humans we can never reach the standards God aspires us to reach towards, but to say there is no ‘real’ Islam, really?

Maajid then demonstrates his sheer anti-Islam bias in saying that if extremists accept one ‘bad thing,’ they’ll have to follow another ‘bad thing,’ in order to be consistent! Why not instead say ‘If extremists follow everything with vacuous literalism, they’ll also have to accept that God is merciful and that Jews and Christians will go to heaven’ as the Qur’an states both? He further demonstrates his ignorance and Islamic history and jurisprudence by suggesting that Islam condones slavery (and in the way ISIL have done no less!).

Like myself, Maajid dislikes the term ‘moderate,’ but I suspect our reasons differ somewhat.

For me, ‘moderate’ is fairly non descriptive and plays into the ‘good Muslim, bad Muslim’ dichotomy, not to mention implies that only someone who follows a watered down (‘moderated’) version of Islam is a safe or viable human being. For Maajid however, being ‘moderate,’ whatever that means, is not enough. Muslims must pledge their allegiance to secular liberalism as we can see below.

”A big part of the solution is for ordinary every day people (Muslims included) to stand up, resist Islamist theocracy, and reassert secular liberalism openly, importantly by shattering all the taboos. Shake the tree.”

Many people who pimp their ideology often like to claim they are shattering taboos; to make their cause seem like a freethinking beleaguered force of reason and justice in a world of darkness. Maajid is no exception. If Maajid wants us to shatter taboos, what better way to go about it then reject secular liberalism, the dominant ideology of the Western world? Many people get what I can only describe as a sort of cringeworthy excitement by being ‘daring’ enough to shatter taboos; when they are actually following one of the most common narratives in the Western World! By Maajids’ gold standard of what a safe and acceptable Muslim is, I would certainly be considered an extremist; not because I could pose any material threat (and yes even ‘in an ideal Islamic world,’ I don’t believe Islam says apostates must be killed and all that jazz) but because I have issues with secular liberalism as a political philosophy; which is precisely what it is. I wonder if Maajid has studied the history of secular liberalism and its rich history of (in)tolerance to anything which wasn’t secular and liberal. Does this mean I support theocracy? No, but contrary to what Maajid Nawaaz dishonestly implies, these are not the only two political world views that exist. But that discussion is for another time.

Here’s what I suggest; ask Maajid if when he says ‘Muslim’ he means someone who believes in God and his Prophets (as opposed to something vague about ‘identity’). If he says yes, ask if he believes atheists are (honestly) mistaken. Then ask if he thinks it is unfortunate that some people leave Islam. If he answers all the questions in the affirmative (as a Muslim, by pretty logical necessity would have to) he’s going to lose fans; if he answers in the negative, at least he can’t pre fix his next gross or crazy generalisation or alarmist statement with ‘I am a Muslim,’ without being called out on it. That’s it. Not asking ‘do you pray,’ ‘do you believe in X,Y and Z part of the creed’ etc; that’s not our business. It is only our business if he is knowingly claiming to be a Muslim purely so he can get credibility when he speaks about the Muslim community.

*Please note; I am not trying to implicitly extrapolate this behaviour to all of the individual members of Quilliam. I have not have seen enough of the other members of Quilliam to make any judgements or allegations; on one occasion I have met Dr Usama Hassan who is a senior researcher at Quilliam who I found generally measured and reasonable; though I disagree with some of his views. However my point is, let us not speak of what we don’t know; for all I know, Dr Hassan might be trying to push for Quilliam to critique new atheism too. Who knows? I certainly don’t.

2) Much of their fan base does not consider the head of Quilliam to be Muslim

I do not speak of someone who flicks on the BBC, sees Maajid Nawaaz or Ghaffar Hussein speaking and likes them; I am sure many sincere non-Muslims admire what they hear when taken in isolation and see Quilliam as a moderating force within Islam and assume that Maajid is likely a sincere Muslim who wants to reclaim Islam from the clutches of extremism.

I am talking about their online and social media fan base – people who follow them and regularly praise them and share their posts and so forth. You will see very few Muslim fans, the occasional one here and there (who are usually well intentioned but know little of the Quilliam Foundation except that they profess to challenge extremism which of course is a laudable cause if done correctly) but an abundance of Ex-Muslims, and militant atheists. It seems apparent that many of these individuals do not actually perceive Maajid Nawaz et al to be consistent Muslims, or even Muslim at all (hence their admiration for them). An atheist who poses with a photo with Maajid here actually describes him as a fellow atheist on twitter and to the best of my knowledge there was no denial. As we saw above, Maajid has been asked before why he doesn’t just leave Islam and go straight for secular liberalism, but Maajid replied that he ‘still has the burden of bringing others with him.’ We also saw above that Ayaan Hirsi Ali also questioned Maajids’ status as a Muslim. Even the National Secular Society, a rampantly anti religious organisation have named Maajid Nawaaz as an Honorary Associate – a list which solely consists of atheists and perhaps a couple of agnostics.

3)They never criticise (gently) anti-Islam or new atheism, nor show any disagreement with it. They do not try to refute the claim that Islam is violent…but they criticise people who do!

There is nothing wrong with an organisation dedicated to counter extremism, or religious extremism, or even Islamic extremism. That’s fine and I am not arguing that Quilliam are therefore obliged to write hundreds of articles about and against the extremism of other religions or of secularists in order to be consistent.

However, given how much they work alongside atheists (not a problem), one would think that at some points in time, a Muslim would show at least some polite and gentle disagreement. Maajid Nawaaz who is usually the public face for Quilliam never does such a thing. Ever. Even when pushed and presented a ‘violent’ side of Islam he will, almost as a rule concede the point, never denying that Islam is violent or draconian; but he will add that as long as we stay secular or liberal, this won’t be an issue.

Again, the fact that Quilliam shares some common goals with people who are atheists and Islamophobes need not condemn them; for instance Maajid and Ayaan Hirsi Ali both oppose female genital mutilation. So do I. Maajid (let’s say) is a Muslim and Ayaan hates Islam and thinks it should be crushed ‘in all forms,’ including militarily (some might argue she is the more open of the two). Fine; but where’s the part where Maajid even suggests that it is unfortunate that Ayaan is an atheist, or even that he would prefer her to come back to Islam; or even that ex-Muslims and atheists might well have the best of intentions but are honestly mistaken? Does he ever argue that whilst her stance against FGM is praiseworthy, some of her comments are (to put it mildly) incendiary and anti-Muslim? Of course not.

But Maajid Nawaz goes further than merely refusing to argue that Islam is not violent, or even giving gentle critiques of the new atheism of his colleagues who consistently attack Islam; Maajid instead reserves his criticism for those who fail to meet his gold standard of a ‘safe’ Muslim; in other words, Muslims who have the audacity to argue that there is no room for violence or injustice in Islam! Such people are ‘apologists’ who cannot be trusted and deliberately distort the truth! For Maajid Nawaz, to be considered a safe and socially acceptable Muslim, you actually have to admit that parts of Islam really do condone what the likes of ISIS and Taliban do, but that thanks to secular liberalism, we can get rid of all that stuff.

4) Their chairman has very little Islamic knowledge

And I am no expert – but I’m not on TV empowering Islamophobes with my amateurish knowledge of Islam. According to Maajid Nawaaz himself, he wasn’t particularly practising, he never frequented a mosque, nor had read the Qur’an when he joined the ‘non-violent extremist group’ ‘Hizb-ut-Tahir’. Even now, Maajid states that he ‘doesn’t dabble in theology.’ Given that before and during his radicalisation, Maajid had nothing relevant or valid to say about Islam (something which I doubt even he denies), I am unsure as to why he can be considered any sort of authority now, just because he left Hizb-ut-Tahir. Had Maajid Nawaaz studied Islamic theology or jurisprudence seriously, he might have come to the conclusion that there is no textual validation for the actions of ISIS or Al Qaeda, that Islam does not allow slavery in any way comparable to slavery as we think of it, or for that matter that a Caliphate, regardless of whether you find it agreeable or not, is not a theocracy. A theocracy is a government where a clergy are the civil rulers and the policies made are considered divinely inspired. A Caliphate on the other hand does not entail a divinely chosen ruler but rather one who is elected and who rules using Islamic principles. A Caliph is not infallible nor divinely inspired and he is held accountable for his actions in this life. I take no issue with him criticising the concept of a Caliphate if he wants but it would be nice if he did it properly.

5)Their name is hilarious and couldn’t be more ironic

No, not the fact that they are named after a guy called ‘William Quilliam.’ Rather the irony that Quilliam have taken their name from a man who according to them would be a rampant extremist! William Quilliam himself was a British convert to Islam who supported the very antithesis of the Quilliam foundation; an Islamic state! William Quilliam also condemned British foreign policy in other countries prior to WWI on the grounds that they were ‘crusading with the pretext that they were civilizing the world!‘ He even went as far as to say that Muslims were forbidden to even give a ‘piece of bread or drink of water’ to those participating in wars against Muslims in the Sudan! The Quilliam foundation naming themselves after William Quilliam is rather like the KKK calling themselves ‘The Malcolm X foundation’, or the American government calling themselves the Bin Laden institute…oh wait…

I suspect that by now, the Quilliam foundation are aware of the irony of their poorly chosen name, and are keeping it quiet (changing your name because your namesake doesn’t fit the bill is rather embarrassing) but we can remind them. Often.

6)They help propagate alarmist ‘anti Jihad’ stories

One would think that an anti-extremist organisation would be especially vigilant to false narratives and scaremongering stories which could give rise to extremism. One would also think that they would be opposed to extremism in all shapes, sizes, colours and religions. A genuine anti-extremist organisation would; so naturally Quilliam has no qualms with both propagating stories which are proven false, nor does it take issue with cosying up to other extremists. For much more articulate accounts of how Quilliam has consistently done this then I could give, please see the links below.

Quilliam helps propagate the false rumour that Muslims are privileged with cheap football seats!

Maajid Nawaz declares that Muslims find respect and tolerance for others reprehensible

Quilliam continues to work with Ex leader of the EDL Tommy Robinson while Robinson maintains alliance with Robert Spencer and Pamela Geller (two genocidal anti Muslim lunatics)

Quilliam continues to defend Tommy Robinson after Robinson goes on numerous anti Muslim and racist (yes racist; I know Islam isnt a race blahblahblah, just read the tweets and make up your mind) tirades

7) They love and are loved by Islamophobes

The company someone keeps tells you a lot. Few if any Muslim organisations support the Quilliam Foundation, but there are several hard-line Islamophobes (a term which both they and Maajid Nawaaz deny actually exists), who take to them, and are shown similar love in turn. Take Bill Maher for instance who is a great fan of the Quilliam Foundation and thinks the head of the Quilliam foundation ‘should be awarded a medal.’ Loonwatch.com sums up Bill Maher perfectly:

Bill Maher, a self-proclaimed “9/11 Liberal” fits the above description. He has a history of Islamophobia and anti-Arab racism, claiming falsely that Islam and Muslims are: uniquely more violent than practitioners of other faiths, the Bible is less violent than the Qur’an, there are “too many Mohammads” in the West and he is fearful they will “takeover,” Arab men (who he interchanges with Muslims) are all horrible to women, and women cannot vote in 19 out of 22 Arab states. Maher is also a staunch supporter of Obama’s drone assassination program and is on record defending Geert Wilders.

But it gets worse, neo-atheist Sam Harris supports the Quilliam foundation too. Some of Sam Harris’ lovely views include: support for torture; support for ‘The Dutch Hitler’ Geert Wilders; racial profiling and ‘war against Islam’ (which sounds more palatable then ‘the war on practising Muslims,’ which of course is exactly what he means). For those unacquainted with Sam Harris and Bill Maher and are masochistic enough not to keep it that way, observe as Glenn Greenwald discusses and dissects both Bill Maher and Sam Harris. Continuing with the latter of Quilliams supporters, Harris goes onto say:

” It is not enough for moderate Muslims to say “not in our name.” They must now police their own communities. They must offer unreserved assistance to western governments in locating the extremists in their midst. They must tolerate, advocate, and even practice ethnic profiling”

”Islam is undeniably a religion of conquest. The only future devout Muslims can envisage—as Muslims—is one in which all infidels have been converted to Islam, politically subjugated, or killed”

Imagine if Sam Harris was instead a Muslim Imam named Shamir Haroon who said:

”Christianity is undeniably a religion of conquest. The only future devout Christians can envisage—as Christians—is one in which all Muslims have been converted to Christianity, politically subjugated, or killed”

Such a lunatic would be considered as credible as Anjem Choudary (the Muslim version of Fred Phelps from the Westboro Baptist Church), yet thousands of atheists mash their lips on Harris’ feet, heralding him as a heroic savour of free thought and human progress! Given Sam Harris’ views and that Sam Harris deems the Quilliam foundation suitable for his monetary aid; what does this suggest about the Quilliam foundation?

The list of Neocons, liberal extremists and anti Muslim bigots who love the Quilliam foundation goes on including:

-The aforementioned Ayaan Hirsi Ali who has shown sympathy for terrorist Anders Breivik and is on record saying that Islam needs to be crushed

– The neocon extremist Douglas Murray who unambiguously stated that ‘conditions must be made harder for Muslims in Europe’; imagine if he was a British Imam called Dawood Medhi who argued that ‘conditions must be made harder for Jews in Europe!’

-‘Student Rights’ (an anti-Islam and anti-Palestinian organisation which does not actually contain any students and has been exposed by ‘real student rights’ here). ‘Student Rights’ have even gone as far as promoting promoting material written by the American anti-Muslim propagandist Pamela Geller, whom the British Government’s Home Office has subsequently banned from entering the UK.

-The neocon and Islamophobic Henry Jackson society who Quilliam are in direct collaboration with.

Yet Quilliam still expects the Muslim community to give them credibility and ‘reform itself’ according to their wants? Right.

So what should we do?

I know what not to do; attack them, insult them, call them Kafir, hypocrites, the lot. Even my first point above was not ‘proving’ that Maajid Nawaaz is not a Muslim (God knows what’s in his heart) but rather that he’s been purposefully giving (or allowing) the impression that he is not one. The fact that aggression and ill manners are forbidden in Islam aside, nothing validates a person or makes them feel important then being given death threats! Giving an Islamophobe death threats is like giving a ‘rudeboy’ an ASBO; it’s a badge of honour. Why not instead, be generous enough to give them the same proposal that they give to the Muslim community; that they reform themselves (for the record, I do think the Muslim community has much reforming to do and that we do need to shed some common but so called Islamic paradigms; but Quilliam and their ilk aren’t the people to show us how to do it; I also take issue with the word ‘reform’ when it comes to Islam; the term has too much loaded baggage). Sure they can keep focussing on Islamic extremism; but just as many young Muslims blame *everything* Muslims do that is ‘bad’ on foreign policy and colonialism, Quilliam should step it up and realise just how large the role played by foreign policy is. This article What Really Radicalises Muslims (1) would be a good place to pick up from.

If Quilliam wants to be considered anti-extremist, it should stop siding with extremists! The likes of Sam Harris, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Student Rights et al are proven anti-Muslim bigots. If a Muslim said half the inflammatory things they do about non-Muslims, Quilliam would be all over them like a rash. Quilliam could also do with actually reading some Islamic scholarship before claiming that genocidal lunatics like ISIL have any Islamic grounds whatsoever for their depraved actions. Finally, they could do some research into their own much vaunted worldview; secular liberalism. Secular liberalism is not a default human position which is beyond question (according to Maajid; no idea should be beyond question, though of course he generally says this with reference to Islam), nor is its history sunshine and roses either. Some of John Grays critiques of liberalism and humanism would be a start.

Oh and one more thing we can do; share this article. A lot. My writing is nothing special but the accumulation of facts which I’ve gathered highlighting the inconsistencies and problems with the Quilliam foundation are pretty salient. So please share this.

Assalamualaikum and have a wonderful day

(1) The aforementioned article is an absolute must read (I didn’t write it!) for anyone interested in…funnily enough…what actually radicalises young Muslims. The author even considered like likes of the Quilliam Foundation to be one such factor as shown below:

Enemy Mine: Pretending that people like Ayan Hirsan Ali or the Quilliam Foundation are spokespeople for or impartial critics of Islam

This is much like getting Anjam Chaudhry or the North Korean Ministry of Information to represent American foreign policy on Sky News. And then taking them seriously.

Muslims can see it for what it is – caricaturing and the journalistic equivalent of ‘blackface’, and it makes them angry. And yes, do dumb stuff.

It also shows how badly out of touch with their Muslim compatriots other people in the UK sometimes are: virtually no practising British Muslim, including myself, is particularly confident of what religion Majid Nawaaz and most other members of Quillium are – though they may indeed be Muslims. They themselves often make deliberate provocations to make the Muslim community think that they are in fact closet non-Muslims and are using their self proclaimed Islamic identity as a shield against accusations of Islamophobia and thus get away with saying things that even the British press wouldn’t tolerate from a non-Muslim. Liberal Democrats and the media, by using such people, who are nearly universally reviled and seen as extremists, turncoats and traitors by the Muslim community are sending out a dangerous message to them.

Another writer compared poor sartorially challenged Majid Nawaaz to the character of Stephen, played by Samuel L. Jackson in the movie ‘Django Unchained’. But this was nonsense – Majid Nawaaz makes ‘Stephen’ look like Malcolm X.

Ayan Hirsan Ali merely represents an even more extreme evolution or perhaps even ‘apotheosis’ of the tendency, discussed above, to make the actions of some Muslims representative of the whole faith (a procedure nonetheless considered unconscionable in the case of the adherents of ‘Western Civilization’ though). It is merely generalising the unverifiable experiences of one person to all Muslims and likewise with her complaints. 

An entirely consistent rejoinder to Ayan Hirsan Ali would be finding a young English girl who was horribly sexually abused by her family and then ran away to Pakistan, embraced Fundamentalist Islam, studied at a Russian university (where Vladamir Putin personally paid her tuition and gave her Judo lessons) and then married an Afghan mullah at a ceremony officiated by Kim Jong Un. In Iran. And then getting her to do the speaking circuit around the world, lecturing about how hard Western Civilization sucked because she was abused by her uncle and did not get over it until she accepted Islam and ran away from the civilization that was indifferent to her suffering, in fact facilitated it, in fact facilitated the suffering of all women, and then saying offensive stuff about the Holocaust to offend Europeans as much as possible (as Hirsan Ali and her supporters go out of their way to do with Islam, the Prophet SAW and the Quran).

We would be rightly incandescent with rage at such a performance. But yet this is exactly what we expect young European Muslims to put up with.