Which Far Right? White Spremacy or Islamic Supremacy?

There has been an attempt by successive UK governments, as well as ‘progressive’ activists and press, to boost the narrative that White Supremacism’s “far right” terrorism is a greater threat than Islamic Supremacism’s terrorism.

This post looks at that narrative, why it is an inadequate perspective, and then covers a Channel 4 programme from 2022 that tries to put the freighteners on the public, with the help of some dubious characters. The programme makes fair points about a particularly nasty group of racists, but the agenda of the participants in the programme becomes clearer with a bit more background information.

Which Far Right?

The first slight of hand here is the name, “far right”. Historically in the West we have distinguished far right and far left by the nature of the dominant politics: Fascism is far right, Marxism is far left.

But where does Islam and Islamic extremism fit into this? Well, by Islam’s own definition it is far right: ultra conservative, highly political (Sharia), misogynistic, homophobic, brutal punishments … it has more in common with Fascism than Marxism.

This becomes more obvious when we look at the history of Muslim Palestinians during and after WWII. There was a Muslim SS division. The Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, in Germany during the war, encouraged Hitler to exterminate Jews rather than let them expel Jews to Palestine. Many Muslim Palestinians have made it clear they supported Hitler’s ‘solution’ and that they intend to finish the job.

The Fastest Growing

With a majority white non-Muslim population, the UK certainly has a greater potential for growth in white supremacist ‘far right’ terrorism, but the figures don’t match up. This Guardian piece from 2019 tried to pull a fast one: Fastest-growing UK terrorist threat is from far right, say police

What the headline neglects to tell you is that in the article the Islamic extremism remains the far greater risk to the UK. The ‘fastest rising’ claim is based on a very low starting point.

Racism In The UK

While we’re concerend with white racism here, it’s important to point out that there is plenty of non-white racism in the UK. Darcus Howe made the Channel 4 documentary in 2004, primarily about racism in the UK Asian community towards bglack people.

In 2004 Darcus Howe investigated the changing face of racial politics in Britain, predicting trouble ahead for Britain’s ethnic population. In this authored film, he travelled the country expressing his views on a netherworld of unreported violence and prejudice, not between blacks and whites, but between Britain’s increasingly divided ethnic minority groups.

There are a few clips of the programme online:

This is another topic in itself, so here we’re only looking at white racism.

Channel 4 Dispatches: Inside Britain’s Far Right

The title is misleading. The programme puts an under cover journalist into one particular group, Patriotic Alternative (Wikipedia). While I accept much of what the Wiki page has to say about the group, care needs to be taken when considering who is criticising them.

This 2022 Channel 4 Dispatches programme is mostly a good one, exposing a specific racist far right group.

The racial aspect of “white replacement theory” is stupid. It not only racializes the problem, it makes it too easy to oppose a genuine active replacement theory: the Islamization of the West … which has nothing to do with race and everything to do with the problems of Islamic extremism.

The main subject group, “Patriotic Alternative” is one that should be monitored. It may put on a face of simply protecting white culture, but from the programme we can see that there are definitely racist aspects to the movement that could turn violent. The Wiki page makes specific claims abut Neo Nazism links to the group.

The Three Stooges of Islamic Apologetics

However, the programme is tarnished by the use of Nick Lowles, Julia Ebner, Dame Sara Khan.. They are all known for their opposition to anyone criticising Islam – they declare such people far right, whether they are or not.

Lowles (of Hope Not Hate – you see their banners at all the trendy marches, even pro Hamas marches) is the one that produced this false claim that there were reports of acid attacks on a Muslim woman. Not a black women, not a far east woman, … not even an Asian women (Asian Christian?). No, a Muslim woman. It’s important to make sure that Muslims are under attack because for the left, Muslims are a (convenient) protected minority. The point being that the anti-Islam was a significant factor following the Middlesborough riots.

As posted on X

Ebner has been stirring this “far right” labelling of critics of Islam since at least 2017, with lies in her hit piece while at Quilliam .

As with the other two, Khan will not be found criticizing Islamic extremism too much … it’s far more likely that if an Islamic terrorist attack occurs, her first thoughts will be for the violent backlash against Muslims … that rarely happens. Muslims feel unsafe because other Muslims have committed a terrorist attack … perpetual victims.

It’s ironic that the three stooges here focus on the far right, when Islam is far right by design. It’s a conservative political ideology that has Sharia at its core, that if implemented as the governance of a state (Caliphate) would see many of the horrors we see in many Islamic states: homophobia, misogyny, apartheid (dhimmi status), brutal punishments.

In the programme Khan says that although Patriotic Alternative claim to be non-violent, they have the same ideology as far right extremists. … Hilarious. Every moderate Muslim follows the ideology that Islamic terrorists follow – Islam.

So, can we say the same of Muslims that Khan says of PA, “.. the fact that they are promoting the same ideology, the same dangerous anti-non-Muslim narrative (read the Quran) as extreme Islamic terrorists, they are fundamentally helping to create a climate that is conducive to terrorism and violence. The law in this country at the moment is not adequate to deal with hateful religious political ideologies like Islam.“

The Far Left Appear

There is further irony in the programme after Khan’s words, when the PA are delivering leaflets in Rotherham and are attacked by a group of masked men. “PA blame the attack on far left anti-fascists.” … Nick Lowles, do you know anything about that? Bit of a coincidence.

Indoctrination of Children

Ebner is on screen again looking at the ‘educational’ material of PA, which is clearly promoting racist indoctrination.

Indoctrination in Islamic is far greater, as many ex-Muslims will attest. And if you look at how Muslim Palestinians are raised to hate Jews, you might understand the ME troubles more clearly. You won’t find the three stooges covering that indoctrination.

The programme goes on to make legitimate claims about the links of PA members to other more dangerous far right groups. It’s reminiscent of the way we see many ‘moderate’ Muslims in the UK and US have links to more extreme Islamic groups.

Batley & Spen

Along with showing the far right links to people like the killer of MP Jo Cox, Thomas Mair, the programme moves on to the 2021 Batley & Spen by election, where Kim Leadbeater, Jo Cox’s sister is standing.

We hear that Leadbeater won the seat, and much is made of her being the sister of Cox.

The purpose of this part of the programme is to point out the illegal activities of PA in putting out fake leaflets supposedly from a Labour union, and then again with a fake leaflet, mimicing Conservatives, in the constituency of murdered David Amess.

What the programme neglects to mention is that

In Batley a school teacher had to go into hiding because of death threats from Islamic extremist (he’s drawn a picture of Mohammed in class to about free speech).
Amess had been killed by an Islamic terrorist.

I appreciate that the programme was about a specific white racist far right group, but what they don’t say is often significant. It’s a common tactic to deflect from or ignore Islamic extremism: Owen Jones – Missing In Action – The Battle of Batley

Summer Camp

The programme turns next to the summer camp held by PA.

The undercover reported has been invited to their mass national gathering. … About a hundred and fifty people are descending on the Peak District.

That’s fewer than many a single extremist mosque. The programme are certainly continuing to hype up the far right influence in the UK.

The summer camp recording certainly exposes nasty racist ideas. PA is definitely a group of racists. The links to other more dangerous “far right” groups is a legitimate concern. There’s also plenty of evidence on X that this is definitely a hateful group.

Avoid them like the plague.

Sadly, useful programmes like this don’t help, because many non-racist Brits know the three stooges for what they are and that will diminish the imapct of a programme like this.

The BBC made a similar programme.

Sara Khan appears again …

There is no good reason why we should allow hateful extremist groups like PA to operate, and I believe there’s an obligation on our Parliament, on our government, to outlaw the activity of groups like Patriotic Alternative. To not do so I think would be a failure.

There are plenty of mosques and Islamic groups that spout just as much hatred, but aimed at unbelievers, homosexuals, … and Jews (they have that in common).

The Three Dangers

These are the ideologies that threaten the West:

Islam, because it is anti Western democracy and freedom. It is an explicitly far right ideology. While many ‘moderate’ Muslims are not themselves extreme, like Sara Khan they enable extremism by opposing criticism of Islam and trying to pass such criticism off as racism.

White racism, because it is infecting fair criticism of ideologies with racism and conflating ideology and race. It’s stupid, because it alienates so many great non-white opponents of Islam and far left extremism.

Marxism and far left activists and apologists for Islam, like Hope Not Hate, and governments that follow their line of criminalising criticism of Islam.

The Red Green Alliance

The Red Green Alliance is one between the far left Marxists and Socialists, and the far right Islamists, both of which hate Western democracy, free markets and capitalism.

This is why we see such bias from our politicians, press and other media, that pust a lot of effort into demonising people as far right, whether they are or not, and neglect as far as is possible extremists of Islam and the far left.

Two Tier Hate Crimes – Nissar Hussain Attacked In 2015

Now in 2024, we see a lot of evidence that the police and the justice system engage in two-tier policing and justince. But this has been the case for many years.

Not only have we seen the failure of several UK police forces to investigate Muslim Grooming Gangs, there have also been incodents of violence where the police are reluctant to investigate crimes that are related to religion.

This systemic two-tier approach is not so evidence in other crimes, such as drugs gangs, where, as far as I am aware, there is no preferential or tame policing.

One example of the failure of the police to properly protect a victim of hate crimes, and a failure to investigate, is that of Nissar Hussain, a man who lived in Bradford, UK, converted from Islam to Christianity, along with his family.

In 2008, British citizen Nissar Hussain appeared along with the rest of his family in a documentary film about mistreatment of Muslim converts to Christianity, a group to which Nissar himself belongs. Since then, according to Nissar, their life had been unduly difficult. As he tells it, because of his family’s departure from Islam for a new religion, they faced an atmosphere of fear and intimidation, including sustained threats and harassment. This intimidation came to fruition in November 2015 when Nissar was physically attacked.

https://persecution.exmuslims.org/cases/ex-muslim-nissar-hussain-brutalized-by-pickaxe-handle-wielding-jihadists

Such a conversion carries the death penalty in Islam. Those Muslims in Bradford that persecuted and attacked Mr Hussain didn’t go that far. Nevertheless, the police failed him.

The Muslim community are largely decent people but because of the taboo of converting to Christianity we are classed by them as scum and second-class citizens … If we were living in Pakistan or the Middle East I would probably [be] looking at prison or a death sentence for my beliefs. – Nissar Hussain

Mr Hussain was had his his kneecap and hand broken in the attack.

A police investigation was launched following the incidents, but the case was ‘complex’ and ‘sensitive’ due to the religious dynamics involved – not an unusual excuse for police being afraid of offending Muslim communities for simply doing what police are supposed to do. Despite this, the police supposedly took the matter seriously, with efforts made to investigate the assaults and threats against Hussain. However, the investigation was not without controversy, as Hussain and his family felt that the authorities could have done more to protect them and ensure justice.

Oct 7 – Testimonies

The horrors of October 7 are there for all to see (though many that are fools or anti-Semites, or both, look away and even deny they happened).

Those that survived as and escaped on the daya, or as returning hostages that are eventually released (in deals where many more terrorists are released from Israel than hostages from Hamas), tell their stories.

But first, the first responders tell you what they found.

First Responders

Post-atrocities Testimonies

Hostage Stories

Freed Israeli Hostages Tell Their Stories. Youtube video.

Some of the hostages speak of their religious convictions, and of the prayers they say contributed to their god’s assistance. It’s natural for the religious to pray in such circumstances, and to think their god has decided to spare them (or as one puts it, has placed them in captivity for a reason). This is not different from similar prayers by Muslims in Gaza, or mothers of terrorists who tank god for taking their children as martyrs. There are many reasons for these wars that have raged for millennia, but religion plays its part.

Sexual Assault of Hostages

Accounts of sexual assault.

The trauma of 9 year old Emily, who was released from Hamas captivity

In captivity in Gaza with a 6 year old girl

Daniel Aloni was kidnapped by Hamas and taken to Gaza with her 6-year-old daughter Emelia and was released after 49 days in captivity.

I am Israel’s Lady in Red and this is how I survived Nova festival massacre

Terror Survivor Details Horrors of Israel Attack

What many people don’t realise is that on October 7 there was a massive barrage of rocket fire from Hamas; and what’s significant for those ignorant of the lives of Israelis, is that rocket attacks are so ‘normal’, that this one was only unusual because of its intensity.

Another fact of life is the casual talk of ‘safe rooms’, which many communities have in hteir homes, Hamas rocket and mortor attacks are so common.

So, Londoners, marching for a Ceasefire, ask your grandparents and greatgrandparents, if they are still alive, when they were sheltering in their Anderson shelters during the Blitz, how would they have responded to demands from them for a ceasefire, while allowing the Nazis to continue the Blitz.

Adele Raemer here also talks about the facebook group for those living near the border with Gaza, that she had posted in September about Hamas practicing their attack. There are questions about why October 7 was such a surprise for Israel, but when you live with constant Hamas rocket attacks, terror attacks through the tunnels, a degree of ‘normality’ sets in. I can’t imagine Isralis being so unprepared in the future.

These are stories I hear when I was a child about the Holocaust. I’m living in my own coutry, in the Land of Israel, we have an army, we’re in 2023. How is it I am hiding in my safe room, from the Nazis of 2023, who are coming to kill me because I’m a Jew. When they say, “From the riover to the sea”, that’s a genocidal war cryt, and I take them at their word.
Adele Raemer, survivor of Islamic terrorism of October 7

Survivors Recount Harrowing October 7th battle at Nahal Oz base

Inside the Kibbutz Be’eri Massacre: Hamas war on Israel

Yarin Levin | Survivor of the Hamas Terrorist Attack | USC Shoah Foundation

Nitzan Ezra’s testimony of October 7, 2023

Hamas Atrocities

For those of you that still doubt the events of October 7 2023, there is ample evidence provided by the terrorists themselves, in their own words, in their own videos:

Oct 7 – Alluah Akbar Atrocities

Hamas Makes Terrorist Kids

Questions are often raise about why Israel has so many children in custedy. Here’s why. I don’t need to say any more.

Pisgat Ze’ev stabbings

Hamas have kids indoctrinated. Tell me Gazans are not Hamas

Hamas Indoctrinate Children

Meet Umm Osama the wife of a senior Hamas leader. Thinks Palestinian mothers should sacrifice their children’s souls as martyrs for the sake of Allah, and that mothers need to teach their children to kill Jews.

“Mother must instill in her children the love of Jihad [Killing infidels for Allah] and martyrdom for the sake of Allah. If every mother were to prevent her son from waging Jihad against Jews for the sake of Allah, who would wage Jihad?”

The Marxist and Islamist Alliance

Marxists (Socialists) + Islamists. An alliance? What’s the Deal?

The alliance between Marxists and Islamists seems a strange one, superficially. Far Left Marxists + Far Right Conservative Political Islam?

The alliance is aimed at opposing Western democracy: “by any means necessary”.

Marxists are anti-capitalists (anti-‘imperialists’), so they hate the successes of capitalism more than they hate its problems, because Communism has only problems.

The Islamists want a Caliphate, so they oppose secular democracies.

Both see Jews scoring high on this alliance’s perceived evils.

Secular Jews and Zionists in particular are hated more than far right fundamentalist Jews (who have some religious supremacist tendencies in common with Muslims). Left wing Jews are tolerated in Marxism, while convenient.

The antisemitic perception of the Capitalist Jew controlling the global economy and military appears often enough in the far left’s propaganda. ‘Inadvertantly’, and ‘with regret’ it is often claimed; so often one might think the antisemtism is subconscious.

“Anti-zionism is not Racism”

Let’s check the claim that antizionism is not racism; by comparing it to the claim the left often use, that Islamophobia IS racism.

Zionism and the re-creation of a state of Israel has a very sepcific purpose: it is at its core the creation of a state of Israel, primarily to provide a safe homeland for an ethnic group: Jews (religious or secular). And this is precisely because that group has not only been persecuted for centuries in their ancient homeland*, but the diaspora** of Jews in exile have been persecuted near everywhere, but espacially in Europe, with the Nazi’s Holocaust, and the Soviet Union being particulary horrific. And, despite common claims of ‘semitic brotherhood’ and ‘people of the book’ by many Muslims, Jews have been persecuted in man Islamic states, to the point of zero or near zero Jews remaining (looking at you Pakistan). It is indisputable that Jews are one of, if not the most oppressed minorities – certain most when one accounts for how wide spread it is. Hitler made it very clear that antisemtism was racist, because the crucial factor in determining whether someone counted as a Jew was one’s ‘bloodline’. What would Hitler have done with today’s DNA analysis?

*Disclosure: I’m an atheist an so I think the “God given” claims about Israel are bogus nonsense. My support for Israel is entirely for the secular reasons described.

** Diaspora: the dispersion or spread of a people from their original homeland, a homeland they may continue to acknowledge, and to which they hope to return. How convenient it is for critics of Zionism and Israel to point out that many returning Jews have less right to the land than ‘Palestinians’, as if all Muslim so called ‘Palestinians’ were born there.

And IslamoPHOBIA? A duplicitous word. Islam is very specifically not a race – one ‘grace’ of Islam is that it is not a racist religion; expansionist, so therefore necessarily not racist. However, that’s not to say there are no racists Muslims, for there are plenty. Further more, with death for apostasy and blasphemy, the ill treatment of women, the wide spread use of terrorism, being fearful of Islam is not a phobia (irrational fear); and opposing the self-defined political and judicial Islam is perfectly rational and legitimate. Since Islam is by nature poltical there are even valid reasons for not wanting more Muslims in one’s own country, just as one might not want any more Communists or Nazis, whataver their ‘race’.

So, antisemtic antizionism is racist, but Islamophobia is not, even if one were to accept that Islamophobia was a legitimate term (I do not).

Izabella Tabarovsky‘s article, The Cult of ‘Antizionism’, describes the activities and members of the Institute for the Critical Study of Zionism and the general infection of US campuses with the old Soviet breed of antisemtism.

The ICSZ’s founders are known figures in the BDS movement and the movement for the academic boycott of Israel. They include Rabab Abdulhadi of San Francisco State University, who tried to bring convicted PFLP terrorist and airline hijacker Leila Khaled to SFSU; Lau Barrios, who has served as campaign manager at Linda Sarsour’s MPower Change and as a co-organizer of the “No Tech for Apartheid” campaign geared at pressuring Google and Amazon to end their work with Israel; and Emmaia Gelman, ICSZ’s founding director, who serves as a trustee of the Sparkplug Foundation, a funder of IfNotNow and Palestinian Youth Movement, and also a co-sponsor of the ICSZ conference.

Izabella Tabarovsky‘s article, The Cult of ‘Antizionism’

Dangerous Alliance

Both political persuasions of the alliance are extremist dogmatic authoritarian ideologies – our way or death had been proven to be their approach to political differences a number of times.

To the antisemitic alliance, Israel, one more Western democracy, and a predominantly Jewish, one is an easy political target, if not so much a military one, as antizionist Islamic states have found to their cost.

If the alliance succeeds, as in Iran, one will win and kill the other. Not that it’s unusual for Marxists or Islamists to kill members of other factions within each ideology.

Eastern Europe, China, Iran, Africa, India have all suffered these ideologies. It takes far longer to get from under their thumb than to be oppressed by them.

This alliance has been covered elsewhere, but here are a couple of books that give examples:

These books describe times when this alliance was increasing in strength in Europe in the late 20th and early 21st century. Malik, a bit of a lefty himself, though happily more rational than many, even describes his meeting with one of his old far left acquatnances, now turned Islamists, while covering the Bradford riots. Abdel-Samad’s book covers the fascist nature of far-right conservative Islam, including the Iranian revolution.

Nothing to do with Islam – Stella Creasy

Labour’s Stella Creasy gave a very good speech on the crisis in Afghanistan in Parliament today (18th August 2021), where she emphasised that the duty of this nation (UK) now was to help those that helped us, and the women and girls, and that we should play our part in an international effort to monitor the actions of the Taliban that have now become the rulers of Afghanistan.

This is good stuff from a Labour MP – poles apart from the previous leader, Jeremy Corbyn, who can only manage to take the opportunity to chide the foreign policies of the USA and the UK (not that he’s wrong) but never seems to manage to point out how much worse are Islamic extremists that are in the habit of killing women for the slightest ‘immodest’ behaviour. None of that evasion from Stella.

Stella Creasy, 18th August, 2021, speaking in the House of Commons

However, she couldn’t resist making a “Nothing to do with Islam” claim. Her actual words were:

We must also say, this is not Islam. Islam is not the reason why people are clinging to planes to save their lives. That is brutalism and terrorism., and we must not let people divide us here or overseas in that fight for those values.
Stella Creasy, 18th August, 2021 – UK House of Commons speech on Afghanistan.

This is utter nonsense. And, this is divisive, the opposite of what she wants, because while this will appease the Muslim Council of Britain and 5 Pillars and similar organisations, it is flying in the face of reality and insulting the many ex-Muslims, Muslims and non-Muslims that can see very clearly it all has a lot to do with Islam.

Here, I have to inject the necessary “NOT ALL MUSLIMS“. It seems stupid having to do so, but of course that is exactly what is necessary to attempt to avoid the cursed Islamophobia charge, along with “Why do you hate all Muslims?“, though it will come anyway. It’s an odd charge, since most victims of Islam are Muslims, and if I really hated Muslims I’d be all for these murderous examples of it.

The Taliban have been very clear throughout their existence that their justification for their brutality is Islamic. They will cite the texts that demand the punishments they mete out.

The same has been true of those other “nothing to do with Islam” Islamists and extremists: ISIS, al Qaeda, Boko Haram.

Pakistan

We also have Islamic states like Pakistan, where the famous cricketer and now Prime Minister of Pakistan supports blasphemy laws, laws that saw Christian Asia Bibi flee Pakistan for her life, after a ten year sentence in prison, chased by the baying mobs led by Islamic preachers demanding she be hanged.

Pakistan is also the location from which Saira Khan tried to present a piece for the BBC, on the celebration of the birthday of the prophet Mohamed. She convinced here minders and producer that she would be safe down on the ground among the many men (only men) enjoying the celebrations. But, she was groped and mobbed to the point where she feared that had she remained or been there alone, she would have been raped.

See The Enlightenment of the Brave Saira Khan. Of course, Saira too, at that time, along with her co-presenters, insisted it was “Nothing to do with Islam“, but rather “Pakistani culture“. The latter is actually a racist claim because it implicates all the women in Pakistan too, and the Pakistani Christians, non-Muslims, … Jews (are there any left in Pakistan?). It’s culture, sure enough: Islamic culture – just not for all Muslims.

Saira Khan, on Loose Women, reporting on the sexual abuse she received in Pakistan

That post covers many other examples presented by Saira on several Loose Women shows. You’d have to be thoroughly insane to miss the point that all her examples are from Muslims, in many cases justifying their actions from Islam.

Poor brave Saira stuck with Islam as long as she could, but because of all the abuse she received from her ‘Muslim community’, she eventually declared she was no longer a ‘practicing Muslim‘. This was a wise choice of words, and I suspect intended. She did not declare she was no longer a Muslim, for then she would be an apostate, punishable by death in much of Islam. Death for apostasy exists as a sentence in some Islamic states.

Iran

In Iran we have seen the perpetual persecution of women that refuse to wear the hijab, required for ‘modesty’ purposes, as prescribed by the Islamic regime: #WhiteWednesdays, #FreeFromHijab, #NoHijabday.

While Stella laments the suffering of men too under the Taliban, how on earth can she declare “Nothing to do with Islam” when ISIS (Sunni Islam) have been throwing gay men of buildings (“from a high place” in the Islamic texts) and the Iranian regime (Shia) has been hanging gay men.

Afghanistan

In Afghanistan it’s not just the Taliban that have been persecuting and killing women. Farkhunda Malikzada was killed by a mob (beaten, run over by a car, stoned, then set on fire – when she actually died nobody knows). Why? Because she was believed (mistakenly) to have damage a copy of the Quran. You can’t get a more Islamic example of Islamic brutality.

Islam IS the reason so many Muslims are fleeing the Taliban (and maybe ex-Muslims – it’s not always wise to reveal your real metaphysical position in Islamic dominated states and communities). Of course, for the feeing Muslims it may not be THEIR Islam – we are often reminded by the very same people that declare “Nothing to do with Islam“, that “Islam is not a monolith“. Surely they wouldn’t have to keep making the latter statement if the former were true. They make the latter because they too know that all this Islamic extremism really does have much to do with Islam, and that thankfully, not being a monolith, not all Muslims follow all aspects of Islam to the letter.

The fleeing Muslims are fleeing from the type of Islam they don’t want. That’s a far more honest claim than Stella’s “this is not Islam“.

The Wider Islamic World

Throughout the Islamic world there are countless examples of the brutality of the punishments prescribed in Islam. The chopping of limbs and heads in Saudi. One hundred lashes (Quran 24:2) for sex outside marriage in the in Indonesia, and for a Filipino maid in the UAE.

And, the UAE has had several cases where rape victims have been prosecuted for having sex outside marriage. This is particularly egregious. Islamic apologists insist that such cases are rare because several witnesses to sex outside marriage are required, and who would bear witness to their own ‘sin’? Well, rape victims, apparently.

The UK

Muslims in Western states aren’t free from Islam. The UK has more than its share of Islamic extremists. No wonder Asia Bibi didn’t come to the UK – wise move. Unfortunately, for those living here, Islam can be very unforgiving.

Asad Shah, a British Ahmadi Muslim (Ahmadis are denied their rights in Pakistan) was killed by a British Sunni Muslim for ‘disrespecting Islam’. How very Islamic.

Nissar Hussain was a Bradford Muslim who converted to Christianity – apostasy. He was lucky not to be killed, but was beaten brutally be local Muslims and driven out of Bradford. How very Islamic.

British Labour Apologists

Besides Stella Creasy we have many more British MPs that want to declare “Nothing to do with Islam”. Following the Manchester Area bombing by an Islamic terrorist, Manchester Mayor “Shaykh” Andy Burnham had something to say, though he was put in his place by Muslim Haras Rafiq.

Then we have Owen Jones and Jeremy Corbyn, never shy of ‘sticking up for Muslim’, which, ‘coincidentally’ includes them going missing in action when Islamic states do wrong. Not much from either of them on the hanging of gay men in Iran, or the horrors of ISIS or the Taliban. And, eager to tell us how close we were to WWIII when Trump took out terrorism promoter Soleimani, they both coincidentally went very quiet when Iran shot down a passenger jet killing all on board.

Iran – Missing In Action – Jeremy Corbyn

Iran – Missing In Action – Owen Jones

Ex-Muslim Minority

Whenever I hear “Nothing to do with Islam” it’s mostly coming from people that don’t seem to be aware of the many ex-Muslims and ex-Muslim organisations that have been trying to tell Western progressives how little they know about Islam.

Ex-Muslims are are often dismissed with, “Oh, well, they would say that wouldn’t they,” as if they are criticising Islam BECAUSE they are ex-Muslims, rather than the reality: many very pious Muslims, indoctrinated into Islam, eventually wake up to the fact that not only are many atrocities committed in the name of their religion, they too learn the texts that prescribe these atrocities. No! Many ex-Muslims are ex-Muslims and criticise Islam BECAUSE they are familiar with Islam.

The irony in all this is that Labour think they are protecting a minority, Muslims, when they declare, “Nothing to do with Islam.” But of course Islam isn’t a minority. It’s the second largest religion in the world, with several states dedicated to upholding Islamic values, just as are the Taliban.

Who are the actual persecuted minorities throughout the Islamic world, and in Islamic communities in the West? Jews, ex-Muslims, Christians, atheists … and the “wrong type of Muslim”. Where are Labour for those minorities. (Yes, OK, we have learned what a large part of Labour thinks of Jews).

Perhaps Stella could start engaging with more ex-Muslims.

And, perhaps Labour would have a greater opportunity to return to power if they didn’t make such stupid claims.

Separated at High School – the curious case of Tommy Jones and Owen Robinson

Poor Tommy and Owen are from not too dissimilar backgrounds – at least that’s what Owen says. Tommy’s mother worked in a bakery, and apparently left Tommy with no particular political education or affiliation. Owen’s parents were a shop steward and a lecturer, so basically aspiring middle class with plenty of political awareness. Dead similar.

Tommy went to a local school in Luton, while Owen attended a sixth form college, equal opportunities being what they are. So, let’s hear no more about Owen’s privileged background.

But their paths changed after leaving high school.

Owen received a top education in one of the most prestigious universities in the world.

Tommy left school and had various jobs.

Nevertheless, they retain an uncannily similar campaigning style. [Credit to someone else for spotting the similarity – but I’m blocked by Owen and can’t find them now]

The following is from Owen, here

Every single day, the British media, and the media elsewhere, whips up racism and bigotry against Muslims, against migrants, against refugees, and against other minorities, those people being a particular favourite target right now. Now there are some consequences. It fuels, it drives, it legitimises street level abuse, harassment, bullying, in the playground, the workplace. It fuels overtly racist attacks. It drives violence, and it drives the rise of the far right. After Christchurch, the massacre of dozens of Muslims, there can be no more tolerance, and no more silence within the media industry, about the role of the media, effectively acting like hate preachers, with megaphones that reach tens of millions of people, every single day. Now there are some that get very angry in the media when it’s called out, how dare you call out the media, as though they’re being victimised and attacked and insulted, rather than using their platform to speak out and challenge the racism and the bigotry which has consequences for people. Now the media is an industry which is overwhelmingly dominated by those from those from those privileged backgrounds who do not suffer the consequences of the bigotry and racism that the media fans. But it has to now be called out. And, to fail to use one’s platform, if you have a platform, to speak out against racism and bigotry by the most powerful institutions, or some of them, in the country, is to be complicit. So, enough of people responding in this defensive way, or being silent, or themselves peddling racism and bigotry. Call it out.

And the following wouldn’t be out of place in a video from Tommy …

Every single day, the British media, and the media elsewhere, whips up hatred and bigotry against those that criticise Islam, those people being a particular favourite target right now. Now there are some consequences. It fuels, it drives, it legitimises street level abuse, harassment, bullying, in the playground, the workplace, of Islamic supremacism. It fuels overtly Islamic attacks. It excuses Islamic violence, and it drives the rise of the far right Islam. After Manchester, the massacre of dozens of victims, or Rotherham and the 1400+ child victims, there can be no more tolerance, and no more silence within the media industry, about the role of the media, acting like cowards, more afraid of being called racist hate preachers themselves, with megaphones that could expose the Islamism to millions of people, every single day. Now there are some that get very angry in the media when it’s called out, how dare you call out the media, as though they’re being victimised and attacked and insulted, rather than using their platform to speak out and challenge the grooming gangs and the consequences for children. Now the media is an industry which is overwhelmingly dominated by those from those from those privileged backgrounds, like Owen Jones, who do not suffer the consequences of the Islamic terrorism and grooming gangs, that the media fans, by screaming ‘Islamophobia’. But it has to now be called out. And, to fail to use one’s platform, if you have a platform, to speak out against grooming gangs, which Andrew Norfolk eventually did. The most powerful institutions, or some of them, like the police, politicians, and media, that say “Nothing to do with Islam” is to be complicit. So, enough of people responding in this defensive way, or being silent, or themselves peddling excuses for Islamic homophobic bigotry. Call it out.

The thing is, there WAS silence in the media, on Muslim grooming gangs, from Owen, and especially from Corbyn, who sacked (sorry, managed to ‘persuade’) Sarah Champion from the opposition front bench for daring to talk about Pakistani Muslim Grooming Gangs. There has been collusion in the silence from press, police and politicians, specifically many Labour councils.

For over a decade any attempt to raise the issue found the media hunting down those that complained and labelling them as racists – teachers that saw the grooming happening outside the school gates were demonised and hounded out of office if they expressed any concern in too explicit terms.

Maggie Oliver, of the eventually infamous case of Three Girls in Rochdale, which came only after she had been thwarted in her attempts to investigate the problem in Manchester, has been campaigning for more awareness, and for investigations into the neglectful and complicit senior police and social services that shut down anyone trying to expose the problem.

Even Times writer, Andrew Norfolk, admitted he sat on a story of grooming gangs for a couple of years, for fear of being called racist. A self-censoring press! You’d actually think Norfolk would have been sacked for NOT getting the story out sooner. Instead he was honoured as the brave soul that eventually did publish. Let that sink in. The problem is so bad, you’re more of a hero for publishing what should be a straight forward crime story, than a demon for covering it up for a couple of years while who knows how many girls continued to be abused by those eventually prosecuted.

And don’t get me started on the mind boggling utter nonsense of Islamic terrorism being “Nothing to do with Islam”, which we have heard countless times from politicians, when Islamic terrorists tell you explicitly they are doing it FOR Islam, and cite Quran and Hadith in detail as justification.

Hot head Tommy has his issues. He says things that are too close to the edge of anti-Muslim bigotry, but if confronted he’ll generally walk it back. On many occasions he’s been very explicit about how he has no problem with most Muslims – he even talks of a local Muslim who he finds to a better example of a decent person than anyone else he knows. His issue is always with Islamism, Islamic extremism, Muslim grooming gangs, and the attacks on free speech that are targeted at speech against Islam specifically. You may not like the way he goes about things – fine. You may reject him for his criminal record – fine – except let’s not see double standards where other ex-cons are deemed to have been redeemed. But if you dismiss what he has to say in totality for who he is, rather than listening to what he has to say first, then, guess what, you’re a bigot.

Owen has no excuses, other than he’s been indoctrinated into a political class that searches for victims that they can make their next project … until the victims no longer want to be saved. You won’t see much concern for the working class if they happen not to like one particular religion.

Why has there been a Labour failure to make any criticism of Islam in practice? Where have Corbyn and Owen been on LBGT issues while the Parkfield Islamic homophobia has been going on?

If you want to see the utter hypocrisy of Owen, look no further than this race baiting tweet of his (don’t forget, Islamophobia=racism). [H/T Damo – @Concretemilk for these images]

There is absolutely no chance a newspaper would splash a childhood photo of an Islamic terrorist who murdered 49 Christians in a church as an “angelic boy”. Displacing focus from the victims to oh how could a sweet WHITE boy become a terrorist.

Funnily enough, the Mail and the Sun, had already displayed such a sentiment, using the term “angelic schoolboy”. This is what you get when you’re so biased in your political ideology you refuse to read anything that opposes your views. This is how dogmatic bigoted ideologues like Owen survive.

Let’s go back a bit further to look at what Owen had to tweet about Jihadi John:

Now there’s a surprise. The guy who complained about someone using Jihadi John as “a pop at Corbyn”, then four years later he’s using a newspaper front page to have a pop at what he perceives ‘Islamophobia’ in the press.

When he’s not throwing a tantrum and stomping off interviews that aren’t going his way, despite his persistent rude and entitled interruptions when it’s time for another guest to speak, and when he’s not spending his day blocking people on Twitter, he’s writing bigoted two faced pieces in The Guardian (“my newspaper”) that exhibit his own bigotry towards the ‘working class’ – no wonder Labour struggles for their support when they have mouth pieces like Owen.

This is where you get to with Grievance Politics that has infested Labour. Not that grievances shouldn’t be exposed, but that bigot Owen will be very selective about which he exposes, erring on the side of not exposing grievances by Islam, and conjuring up grievances even when there are none to be found.

For all Robinson’s antics, his ‘reporting’ actually has more credibility than Owen’s. That is deeply worrying, that an activist like Robinson that shouts about genuine grievances is an outcast that’s driven out of social media, while Owen Jones is, to a vocal yet gullible number on the left, is a heroic voice for the underdog. You won’t find much from Owen Jones on FGM (though he endorses “my newspaper’s campaign” – hardly a campaign, but rather too few articles); and when he writes about homophobia he won’t comment how much more of it there is in Muslim communities – because, of course, that would make him a racist … against a political religious far right homophobic ideology.

Killers for Religion and Atheism?

So, an atheist kills a bunch of religious people, and the religious can now cite an example that shows that their religion isn’t that bad after all.

Not so fast.

Atheism vs Theism

Both Atheism and Theism are simply opposing philosophical positions. Any other system’s metaphysical philosophy is ‘atheistic’ if it rejects theism.

A particular theism might be vary vague – “I believe there is one, and possibly more gods, but I don’t know whether any of the religions are true …”.

Or it might be specific yet still ‘other worldly’ – “I believe that there must have been a creator god, but I have no idea what he intends for us, and I offer no moral guidance based on my belief that there is a god.”

Or it might be committed to the variable claims about the god or gods of a particular religion, which may have many sects.

Atheism is pretty much opposition to these sorts of theism, usually on the grounds that there is no evidence or reason to believe specific claims, or support the level of hopefulness that the ‘spiritual’ seem to be clinging onto. In this respect Atheism is a negative position: it simply rejects the claim that there are gods.

Note that Atheism does not assert that there are definitely no gods.

Some atheists might assert that there are absolutely no gods, but that isn’t much better than asserting absolutely that there are gods. You might call such an atheism a ‘faith’ based atheism. But if you take the trouble to pin atheists down they generally agree that they do not hold such a strong opinion, but merely act as if they do because that’s often easier to express.

But this acting as if there are no gods is a fair position to take. Christians act as if there are no Norse gods. They act as if there are no fairies or Santa. (Note that playing along with such fantasies for the fun they provide for children isn’t acting with true belief.)

Religions

Religions are a subset of Theism …

Atheism-Theism-Religion

[Agnostics may not deny the existence of god, but they don’t positively assert there are gods either.]

Religions take the basic philosophical position of theism, thinking there are some teleological entities that created our universe, and add many more specific claims:

Our god is the only god.
Our god cares about us.
Our god dictates our moral codes.
Our god wants us to punish people that don’t follow his codes.
Our god wants us to punish people that don’t believe in him.
Our god doesn’t want us to eat pig meat and thinks it a moral obligation that we don’t.
Our god wants us to punish people that have sex outside the specific type of union sanctioned by our god (monogamy for Christians, up to four wives, but one husband for Muslims)
Our god will not remarry divorcees – old school Catholic; god changes his mind sometimes; he’s fickle; or humans decide he changed his mind.

Most religious people are born into, indoctrinated into, their religion. And the religion may provide many social benefits if it’s a large religious community.

But there can also be great costs for those that simply cannot continue to believe. In some more fundamentalist communities, ex-believers can be ostracised, might suffer social and economic hardship if rejected by the community, and might even risk death. If the religion prescribes death for apostates, as is the case for Islam, then even if the religion isn’t the state authority, believers are easily persuaded to take it upon themselves.

The list of additional beliefs on top of basic theism, including the many moral prescriptions and proscriptions, is long. It depends on the religion, the sect within the religion, and the personal willingness of individuals to follow the rules of the religion.

This becomes a little tricky for the religious that try to divert criticism away from their religion, when opinions differ so widely within:

God changes his mind often, it seems, judging by how religious opinions change.
Individuals make up their own minds what they take from their religion … you’d think the religious would therefore appreciate how atheists make up their own minds about morality.
The greatest opponents to a particular religious believer’s views are … other religious people. Islamic terrorism? Many victims are other Muslims, for being the wrong type of Muslim.

The variety of religious belief is often greater than the difference between Atheism and a particular Religion. Modern Anglicans that accept secular liberal democracy, have no problem with homosexuality, even in the church, are for full gender equality, and gender identity. They have much more in common with the social and political leanings of many atheists, than with even their fundamentalist Christian brethren, let alone than with people of other faiths.

And yet, the religious stick together. It only takes the whiff of an atheist with a strong opinion for the ‘interfaith’ community to band together in offended outrage. And let anyone speak out about the Islam of the Islamic extremists and even moderate Muslims will come to Islam’s defence as much as agree with an atheist that there might be a problem with the religion.

[Update 5/12/2017] There was greater outrage that Trump retweeted a lead figure one of Britain First’s outspoken anti-Islam activists than at the content of the videos the activist posted. One was ‘fake news’, but the other two were of Muslims persecuting others. Despite the acts of the Muslims, this was actually seen as anti-Muslim bigotry. Take a moment. Here’s the upshot: every tweet condemning German neo-Nazis is anti-German bigotry; every tweet showing and condemning videos of Britain First are anti-British bigotry, and by extension, anti-Muslim bigotry, since, as is belaboured painfully, British Muslims are British. This is the state of play in 2017, where any criticism of Islam is interpreted as ‘Islamophobia’, ‘anti-Muslim bigotry’ … and yes, ‘racism’.

Political Ideologies of Hitler, Stalin, Mao, …

Whenever an atheist argues with Christians or Muslims, it’s not long before we get the Hitler, Stalin, Fascism, Nazism, Communism line thrown at us. And no matter how often it’s pointed out that this isn’t a valid argument, it still keeps on coming up. Often from the same people that have had this pointed out before.

Political ideologies can of course cross boundaries of Atheism-Theism. Christians can be socialists. In the 70s it was quite common for Islamists to lean towards socialism … maybe they hadn’t realised how far right Islam really is … or maybe they had.

And, Hitler was not an atheist. He might not have favoured the established churches that opposed his thugs, but that doesn’t mean he wasn’t religious. Many Nazi ideas were based on the old Teutonic ideals of religiously motivated knights.

Communism? Don’t think that political ideology stops you believing in a personal god … it just becomes less convenient and maybe a little dangerous to admit to one, but Communism does not preclude theism.

These political ideologies tell us little about the wide variety of atheists. The Atheism that some political ideologies might embrace informs the ideology with nothing other than the fact that there is no evidence for any god.

Religious Political Ideologies

Some political ideologies are religious ones.

And most religious ideologies are political – they are inherently so because they dictate the behaviours of people, and that’s a very political thing to do. And they usually have a lot to say on social issues … not all good. Homophobia, sex outside marriage, modesty, … religions can be obsessed with sex, particularly with regard to women, and if feminism isn’t a political matter I’m not sure what is.

It is possible to believe in a religion and treat it as an entirely personal belief system that determines how you live your own life, without you making any claims about what it implies for anyone else.

But this is rare. Most religions, and especially religious organisations, are very keen on telling: religious believers how they should act; non-believers that they are anything from misguided to evil; the religious what they should do to the non-believers: killing apostates, bombing abortion clinics, punishing people for blasphemy (the modern version is imprisoning people for ‘hate speech’).

Christianity, as supposedly expressed by Jesus, is a “render unto Caesar” kind of religion – a reasonable basis of separation of church and state. However, the Catholic church in Rome put a swift stop to that. Christianity, especially through many bishops and popes, made state business very much church business. The US continues this tradition by distorting the intentions of the founding fathers and making it the godly nation the founding fathers tried to avoid – they’d seen enough of that in Europe.

Islam is very specifically, inherently, by design, a political ideology. Only Muslims can hold certain offices of state. Muslims and non-Muslims are taxed differently.

Many Muslims will try to pull a fast one by telling you that Islam insists that Muslims follow the laws of the the land in which they find themselves … where Muslims are a minority that does not hold power. But Islam also requires Muslims to spread Islam … which means it would eventually become a majority. This is why many opponents of Islam also oppose too much immigration from Muslim countries.

Of course many Muslims don’t want a dominant Islam any more than non-Muslims do. Many escape the domination of Islam of their homelands, and are quite happy to live in secular democracies where they can practice their religion in peace.

But then we also see a lot of duplicitous language from supposedly ‘moderate’ Muslims that think homosexuality should be illegal, and make excuses for their more extreme brothers and sisters (“Nothing to do with Islam”).

In Europe the atheists and secularists have been opposing the power of the church for centuries, letting the humanistic principles take precedence. There’s still plenty of religious protectionism that goes on – a refusal to give up the reigns of power, as diminished as they are. Why the heck do Bishops get seats in the UK House of Lords – and why is there even such an unelected house still?

But I’ve seen and heard much more of the stranglehold religion has in some parts of the US, where the mark of a good plumber is whether he’s a good Christian or not. “In God We Trust” – indeed they do.

So, religions are political, and as such are as fair game for criticism and ridicule as any non-religious political ideology.

And being offended when religions are criticised is just one more political tool the religious try to pull. It may be a genuine feeling, and so they try to give it moral weight. Hence, critics of Islam are labelled haters of Muslims.

But, realising that atheists tend not to be impressed by the special pleading for the religion, that atheists aren’t taken in by the piety, the hurt feelings, what are the religious to do? Compare their religion to atheism? They can’t. They are not comparable.

Humanism

So, religious friends, you can’t really compare Atheism with your religion.

You can compare Atheism with Theism, if you’re talking only about the philosophy, reason, evidence, to support either case.

But you can’t compare Atheism as such with Christianity or Islam. Yes, I know that atheists argue against Christianity and Islam, but they do so on two quite separate grounds:

1 – A disagreement with the underlying theistic claims of your religion. If your religion relies on a claim that there is one or more gods, and there isn’t, then 2 is irrelevant. But, we humour you anyway and so …

2 – A disagreement with the moral assertions that you think your imaginary god has prescribed. It’s not like we disagree with all your moral positions, we just hold those we agree on for different reasons, for which we don’t need an imaginary god. But those Humanist atheists also find many of the moral guides of religion to be immoral, barbaric at times, and remnants of ancient codes of conduct prescribed at the time of the religion’s inception.

The thing is, Atheism prescribes no moral position whatsoever. It really is merely the rejection of your unsubstantiated claims about your god.

And this, of course, leads to another failure to understand atheism: “Atheists have no morals. They are nihilists.” Not so.

We have morals. We just don’t think some imaginary friend dictates them; and we very specifically reject many of the immoral codes that gods supposedly do dictate.

But you’re nearly right. it’s not our atheism that determines our morals, it’s something else.

Many atheists find other reasons for their morality – many simply acknowledging that harming others isn’t nice. People and animals don’t like to suffer harm, so we prefer to minimise that. It seems a very simple idea, but it’s amazing how far you can go with just that basic starting point. And it also avoids the need to punish people for daft reasons – such as for having sex outside marriage, for not being heterosexual, for drinking, for working on the Sabbath.

[In the UK the Shops Bill 1986 was defeated; the Sunday Trading Act 1994 eventually introduced limited Sunday trading … so strong was Christianity’s hold over British life. Now we’re finding we have to start again, with Islam.]

Many atheists want to live by their own moral ideals, and many collect these ideas about living a moral life into a set of codes. It’s not that these codes are necessary, but they are helpful in declaring some minimal set of behaviours we agree to abide by.

And one example of such a guide is the Humanist Manifesto. Take a look at it. You’ll find no diktats about women being lesser than men, or how to deal with the evil of homosexuality, or what the best way is to kill apostates. Humanists don’t have to look for ‘nuance’ and ‘scholarship’ to explain away inconvenient passages ‘revealed’ through some desert warlord or hippy.

So, if you want to carry out any comparisons I’d suggest you try these:
– Atheism vs Theism
– Humansim vs Christianity, Islam, …

You might find that many atheists tell you they don’t belong to any Humanist organisation, because they would rather not belong to any group that sets their ethical standards for them, as they can figure it out for themselves. They have a point. We are free to decide our own moral codes, and put them to the test in our societies.

My personal subscription to Humanism is one of convenience, and support for many of the programs of Humanists UK (formerly British Humanist Association).

Other atheists might join other groups of common interest, such as the many secular and skeptical societies around the world. Ex-Muslims have a shared experience that brings them together in various groups – often with the added benefit of providing a safe community to those ex-Muslims that are still at risk from their families.

Let that sink in, and imagine a child of Humanists being ostracised, forced into marriage, threatened with death, killed. I don’t know of any such incident. Has one ever made the news?

The next time you’re arguing with atheists on Twitter, they are unlikely to be Nazis. So when you pull the “What about Hitler, Stalin ..” it’s a Straw Man. If you want to argue for your religion, why don’t you try coming up with good reasons for it, not excusing the bad stuff by dragging in some irrelevant comparison.

And for pities sake, give up on trying to defend the indefensible. Your religious texts are full of ancient stuff that really doesn’t stand up to our moral standards today. Some religious passages are outright contraventions of the human rights that most people would want to sign up to. Stop defending that crap with ‘nuance’ and ‘scholarship’ – it makes you look like damned fools that are fooling no one but themselves.

Atheist Terrorists

And that atheist killer you want to call a terrorist because you’re sick of hearing about Islamic terrorists? Could be they are genuinely crazy, or have some motive other than their hate for religion.

And even if they carried out the heinous act because they hate religion and religious believers, there’s no Atheist Bible, and nothing in the Humanist Manifesto to suggest they should … unlike your religious books. Not even The God Delusion, Letter to a Christian Nation, or any of the New Atheist books.

If some killers that are atheists really are killing for atheism, there’s nothing in atheism, or Humanism, that can be removed that would stop them. There are no doctrines we can reject. There’s no “Believers are children of Satan” sermons going on. Pointing out the problems with religion doesn’t automatically create Atheist Killers. Sadly it does all too often create killers of atheists.

But, hey, if someone has a terrorist agenda, against believers, for atheism, then pretty much all humanist atheists will oppose them. I’ll happily denounce any such terrorists. But I won’t be able to point to any atheist texts that has incited them. I can only point to Humanist texts that are very short and very explicit in their opposition to doing harm. There is no Humanist Prophet whose example I should follow that includes his beheading of enemies.

The Humanist Manifesto is so clear in rejecting doing harm to others there’s no way you can mistakenly or otherwise derive some crazy idea that it’s a good idea to kill believers.

This cannot be said of the books of Christianity and Islam. Alongside all the lovely stuff is some seriously dark and immoral doctrine.

Look, if you want to call some atheist killer an atheist terrorist, knock yourself out. Any disagreement from atheists will be on a technicality, not for some fear of having to explain away our inconvenient texts. Let me help you out with A Guide To Terrorists For Idiots.

Yes Mehdi Hasan, I Condem Those Atheists Texts Calling for Lashes, Stoning, Death

Mehdi Hasan is up to his usual rhetorical tricks.

On his Facebook page he links to the Richard Dawkins comments in the Huffington Post piece: Atheist Richard Dawkins Condemns Chapel Hill Shootings Of Three Muslim Students.

His comment accompanying the post:

Will we now see lots of pieces calling for ‘reform’ of New Atheism and a search for ‘moderate’ New Atheists? ‪#‎justasking‬

So, Mehdi, if you think New Atheism is in need of reform, can you point to the New Atheist scriptures that Craig Hicks might have followed in order to justify the killing?

Can you point to New Atheist scripture that demands lashes for sex outside marriage, or stoning of adulterers? Can you point to any New Atheist scriptures that denounce atheists for apostasy, for those converting to Islam or Christianity? Continue reading “Yes Mehdi Hasan, I Condem Those Atheists Texts Calling for Lashes, Stoning, Death” →