And the hypocrisy of the UK media.

First of all, let me clearly define my terms – Islamism is essentially synonymous with terrorism in my mind, because their goals are the same. Islamism is the political element of Islam which seeks to establish a global caliphate that sees everyone living under sharia. Sharia, as we know, in spite of the lies that are continually told by the Muslim darlings of the UK’s media, does not take kindly to gays, women, and people of other faiths.

Maajid Nawaz was once part of Hizb ut-Tahrir, which I consider to be a terrorist organization for the reasons given above. Hizb ut-Tahrir is banned in all Arab Muslim countries, with the exception of Yemen, the UAE, and Lebanon. It is also banned in some other countries, too: Germany, China, Russia, Egypt, Turkey, etc. Yet Hizb ut-Tahrir still holds demonstrations in Central London to this day. This is a terrorist organization that Mr. Nawaz was part of, promoted, and helped grow to its size today. Nawaz also allegedly spent time in jail because of his participation with Hizb ut-Tahrir and his other Islamist activities.

Today Maajid is the darling of the UK’s media. Apparently being an ex-member of a terrorist organization makes one an expert on how best to spread Islam peacefully across the UK. Maajid is still a fierce promoter of Islam. He is still looking to spread it worldwide, but he’s hoping that he can reform Islam and give us the soft version, the version without all the calls to violence and the need to establish a caliphate. To that I say, good luck, and, further, you can keep it, because I’m not buying into it. I do not want Islam in any of its guises.

Why are people such as Maajid Nawaz, Mo Ansar (who was involved in a controversy over an unpaid bank loan and an alleged degree in theology), and Medhi Hasan (the HuffPo and Al Jazeera journalist who is noted for having been caught on hidden camera in a mosque telling the audience that non-Muslims are “animals”), and Fiyaz Mughal of TellMama (who has twice lied about Islamophobic hate crimes in order to keep getting funded by the government, and who now advises the London Met Police’s CPS unit about what constitutes Islamophobic hate crimes, and who should be punished for them) so celebrated in the media? All four of these men have very questionable pasts.

Maajid seems to be the most intelligent of these four, and that is why I think of him as a snake-oil salesman. He claims to be a literary man, well-read, and yet he remains a practicing Muslim (so far as I am aware) and stands by the Quran. Any well-read person would surely be aware of all of the tropes that go into the compilation of a text. Texts are like machines — they have component parts and are built and structured in particular and different ways, depending on the nature of the text. The Old Testament, for example, is a wonderful example of virtually every form of literature there is. It also makes use of every kind of trope. In the Old Testament we see the use of parable, allegory, symbolism, metaphor, diary, epic, poetry, romance, genealogy, authorial intent and so forth. Students of the Bible take classes in The Bible As Literature, and with this academic study comes the linguistic task of deciphering the meaning of a disputed word (at which point the author will put a footnote as to historical context, and also include a couple of other potentially different meanings for the reader to make up his own mind). We pore over these texts in order to get at any underlying truths. We dispute the authenticity of a text, or the authenticity of the inclusion of a paragraph or sentence. We look at the literacy levels of the days in which these texts were written and of all the mistakes that the one and only semi-literate person in the village might have made when recording them. We also look at the social and political climates of the eras in which these books were written. We don’t, as Muslims generally do when they read the Quran, read them literally and without investigation.

Multiple scholars have pored over the Quran, in all of its versions, and the consensus seems to be that it is unimaginative, boring, and unintelligible in some instances. Why would a literary person such as Maajid overlook all of the irregularities in relation to the Quran and Muhammad? A German university professor and convert to Islam publicly states that it’s very unlikely that Muhammad as a real historical person ever existed. The Quran and Islam could not exist without Judaism and Christianity. As a text, the Quran is bad and lazy. The Quran is nothing more than an intertextual theft of Jewish and Christian writings. Any literary person would be aware of this. Islam took Jewish laws and locations and Christian characters and mixed them together into an incredibly unimaginative new ideology, and then told us all that everyone else had gotten it wrong and that Muhammad had finally got it right. I would have more respect for Islam if it had been able to come up with something, anything unique. Instead, it takes Lent, a period in which historically Christians abstained from meat, alcohol, etc., and during which now we generally give up one thing – chocolate or cigarettes, for example – and it gives us Ramadan, a period in which people are doing nothing more than binge-eating. They starve all day, putting us all at risk (especially on the roads or if they’re operating dangerous machinery) because Muslims are light-headed, dehydrated, and their blood-sugar levels are dropping. Then, when the sun goes down, the fast suddenly ends and a Muslim can thrown any and all things down his throat.

Why do these four people with highly dubious pasts get to be the darlings of the UK’s media while Tommy Robinson languishes in jail for reporting on Muslim misdeeds? Tommy isn’t hosting LBC radio; nor is he writing weekly and regularly for high profile newspapers. He isn’t doing the worldwide debating tours either. He’s being silenced. After the Lee Rigby killing, Fiyaz Mughal was brought out by the media as being the voice of the British community, if you can believe that. The one thing that unites these people is that they are brown-skinned and Muslim. Untouchable, in other words, in the UK today.

Maajid claims that he turned to a terrorist group because he had been called some mean words when he was younger. That terrorist organization still shuts down Central London’s traffic today whenever they want to hold a demonstration. Tommy Robinson’s crime was that his cousin was gang-raped by Muslim men, and he saw his town being taken over by not only the radical element of Islam who spit on our soldiers, but also by the everyday “peaceful” Muslims who would set up religious divides in his town, and who would not integrate. Mr. Robinson’s crime was simply wanting everyone to get along and live in peace, and for Muslim grooming gangs to be brought to justice. He also wanted our armed forces to be respected, and for this he has been and continues to be punished.

When will non-Muslim men and women who speak out against atrocities be afforded the same media platforms that their Muslim counterparts enjoy? The EDL is no more. Any EDL members who exist today are on the outskirts of society. At the last EDL rally in London, there were no more than perhaps 20 members in attendance, and none of the speakers had anything noteworthy to say. Tommy’s baby is dead. Maajid’s former group Hizb ut-Tahrir, however, is very much still alive and growing.