Fraudelent Refugee Ayaan Hirsi Ali Calls For The Persecution of Real Refugees (If Muslim)

A Muslim Refugee

It’s 1992, the Somalian central Government has failed. Famine is looming, civilians are being massacred and disease is rampant as a bloody civil-war rips the State apart in  what Human Rights Watch designates “The worst humanitarian disaster in the world today”.

The Netherlands responds by opening its borders to the fleeing refugees. Ayaan Hirsi Ali responds by exploiting the humanitarian crisis for personal gain.

She fraudently applies for asylum in Holland under a fake name, date of birth and country of origin.

The reality is far from the absurd revisionist claims made in her article:


As the descendant of The Darod’s (Somalia’s second largest clan)  ruling-class and daughter of a Western educated writer Hirsi Ali was living a middle-class life in Kenya; not Somalia when she made her fraudelent application. She claims to have fled an arranged marriage.

aha102Her unsubstantiated claims were roundly rejected by her own family in Kenya; including her own brother.  Having lived a lie in Holland for over a decade her lies were finally exposed in 2006 Wit her own party had pledged to investigate her fraud Ali fled Holland and was immediately given employment with the pro-Israel and pro-War think-tank The American Enterprise Institute (AEI).

This is how once again she distorts her history. Fraud is not protected “free speech”.

aha203Using her embroidered background she then unironically argues that non-violent religious Muslims should be discriminated against for their beliefs as they are “a threat to us all” – When she shared these same beliefs at the time of her fraudelent asylum application.aha205Hirsi Ali’s currency derives from her background. Without it she’s just a Dick Cheney/Bill Kristol hybrid. The mass-murdering terrorist Anders Breivik understood the propaganda value of Hirsi Ali’s questionable background well. In a chapter of his Manifesto titled “Give The Nobel Peace Prize To Ayaan Hirsi Ali” he wrote:

“Because of her background she has made criticism of Islam acceptable to people who would otherwise find it difficult to digest the arguments she presents…She is an invaluable asset to the fight against global Jihad and as worthy of the Prize as any other living person”

The Neocons at AEI agreed and from her new perch she pushed their pro-war/anti-Muslim propaganda. As the War On Terror raged she called to “crush Islam militarily” and disgracefully championed the changing of the US Constitution to persecute Muslims exclusively.

The role of AEI– who are heavily patronised by the same Conservative foundations bankrolling the “Islamophobia Industry” (and war profiteers) —  in selling the illegal Iraq War cannot be overstated.  From it’s Washington corridors emerged warmongering Neocon ideologues such as Perle, Feith, Wurmser, Cheney, Wolfowitz and Bolton. They were to convince Bush to set the Middle-East in flames and the refugee crisis is a natural consequence of this.

As time progressed she was rewarded with a mystery $425,000 grant to establish The AHA Foundation – Which she promptly staffed with fellow Neocon warmongers.including AEI’s Bush era President Chris DeMuth. So successful was her media campaign against Muslims that she received a $250,000 award from the Bradley Foundation; the ultra-conservative central donors of the Anti-Muslim Lobby.

She’s abandoned religion; not extremism – She just changed hats and was rightly listed by the SPLC as an “anti-Muslim extremist”. Her article defending Trump’s Muslim Ban can be found here.


Sam Harris’ Key Role In Making America Great Again

As decent people recoil in disgust at the religious persecution of innocent Muslims they must also reserve some disgust for the  reactionary  demagogue  Sam Harris and his demented underlings. In concert with a deeply Islamophobic tabloid media they have created a climate of hate from which a proto-fascist has risen to become the most powerful man in the world.  Through their promotion of far-right ideals hidden behind a liberal and intellectual veneer they have shifted the equilibrilium of acceptable discourse where self-declared liberals now passionately defend the torture (of Muslims) and the racial-profiling (of Muslims).  Fringe ideas have become mainstream. Once unthinkable religious persecution has become the reality.  Sam Harris has been softening the American public up to this persecution for a decade. His rhetoric is remarkably similar to Trump’s.



TRUMP: They were chopping off the heads of everybody but more so the Christians. And I thought it was very, very unfair. So we are going to help them.

HARRIS: Is it crazy to express, as Ted Cruz did, a preference for Christians over Muslims in this process?Of course not. What percentage of Christians will be jihadists or want to live under Sharia law? Zero. And this is a massive, in fact the only, concern when talking about security. We know that some percentage of Muslims will be jihadists inevitably… So it is not mere bigotry or mere xenophobia to express that preference

HARRIS: And one of the problems we have is that many Muslims, for understandable reasons and some for really deplorable reasons, are playing hide the ball with the articles of faith, and are eager to have the conversations of the sort you have had from a very cynical and manipulative perspective. We’re just going to keep having big families, and eventually it’s going to be Eurabia, and the war will be won. There are people who really think in those terms, and they’re not necessarily just the people in the center of the bull’s-eye of Islamic infatuation.

HARRIS; When I search my heart, I discover that I want to keep the barbarians beyond the city walls as much as my conservative neighbors do.

HARRIS: Islam is the fastest growing religion in Europe. The demographic trends are ominous: Given current birthrates, France could be a majority Muslim country in 25 years, and that is if immigration were to stop tomorrow. Throughout Western Europe, Muslim immigrants show little inclination to acquire the secular and civil values of their host countries, and yet exploit these values to the utmost—demanding tolerance for their backwardness, their misogyny, their anti-Semitism, and the genocidal hatred that is regularly preached in their mosques.

HARRIS (impersonating the perfect Clinton): No one will be brought into this country without proper screening. No one will be brought in who seems unlikely to embrace the values of freedom and tolerance that we hold dear.


TRUMP We should declare war with ISIS

HARRIS: There really are some circumstances where war is the answer. …It would be much, much better if Muslim armies were turning their guns on this death cult. In the absence of that effort non-Muslim armies are clearly going to have to do this, until that’s done, until the jihadists have suffered a defeat so resounding that noone can even pretend their cause is still viable we are going to continue to see the violent machinations of religious lunatics against us.

TRUMP: I would absolutely go after the wives of terrorists

Harris: Advocates war against his “enemy” which includes non-violent and non-threatening “cloth-bag” wearing Muslim women who have emigrated to the “Islamic State”


TRUMP: We have no choice

HARRIS   They must tolerate, advocate, and even practice ethnic profiling

TRUMP: But we have to be, you know, you have a woman who is 87 years old in a wheelchair from Sweden, and we have to look at her. We have to look at somebody else. It’s ridiculous what’s going on there.

HARRIS: “We’re not looking for 80-year-old women from Okinawa,”… “We’re not looking for little girls from Norway


Trump: And we have to be sure that Muslims come in and report when they see something going on. When they see hatred going on, they have to report it.

HARRIS:  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.

TRUMP: It’s very hard to define. It’s very hard to separate. Because you don’t know who’s who.

HARRIS: Wherever “moderate Islam” does announce itself, one often discovers frank Islamism lurking just a euphemism or two beneath the surface.


TRUMP: The U.S. should “go a lot further than waterboarding

HARRIS: If we are willing to drop bombs, or even risk that rifle rounds might go astray, we should be willing to torture a certain class of criminal suspects and military prisoners; if we are unwilling to torture, we should be unwilling to wage modern war.


TRUMP: They have put political correctness above common sense, above your safety, and above all else

HARRIS: Political correctness and fears of racism have rendered many secular Europeans incapable of opposing the terrifying religious commitments of the extremists in their midst.


TRUMP: I think Islam hates us

HARRIS: the world’s most important culture war: the zero-sum conflict between civil society and traditional Islam.

HARRIS: All civilized nations must unite in condemnation of a theology  (Islam) that now threatens to destabilize much of the earth.

HARRIS: It is time we admitted that we are not at war with “terrorism”; we are at war with precisely the vision of life that is prescribed to all Muslims in the Koran

HARRIS: the basic thrust of the (Islamic) doctrine is undeniable: convert, subjugate, or kill unbelievers; kill apostates; and conquer the world.

HARRIS: It is clear that the doctrine of Islam poses unique problems for the emergence of a global civilization.

HARRIS: 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.


TRUMP: President Obama won’t say the name. But the name is there. It’s radical Islamic terror. And before you solve it, you have to say the name.

HARRIS: Only Trump has expressed moral clarity on this issue, and he did it in the following sentence in his speech: America must unite the whole civilized world in the fight against Islamic terrorism. Why can’t Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama say that?

In short, Sam Harris believes “most Muslims are utterly deranged” and “the people who speak most sensibly about the threat that Islam poses to Europe are actually fascists“. To resist Trump you must also resist Sam Harris and his New Atheist Cult.

Stephen Knight: The Enemy of My Enemy Is a Nazi

H.L. Mencken you say? This  H.L. Mencken?

The educated Negro of today is a failure, not because he meets insuperable difficulties in life, but because he is a Negro. He is, in brief, a low-caste man, to the manner born, and he will remain inert and inefficient until fifty generations of him have lived in civilization. And even then, the superior white race will be fifty generations ahead of him

Oh how deliciously illustrative it is for you to close by quoting a white racist! Demonstrating at once your (i) softness for white supremacists and/or (ii) your abject ignorance in these matters. Oh how wonderfully ironic that  Spencer, the Nazi you defend, is a founder of and Director of the  H.L. Mencken  Club! The White Nationalist organisation whose creation was”inspired”  by the late Sage of Baltimore himself!

You’ll notice I referred to Spencer as a Nazi; as that is what he is. You didn’t quite have the heart to do so yourself. You limit yourself to a single sarcastic remark – “see terrible human being”. Your obscurantism is most illuminating.  You are avoiding the crux of the issue and caping for a Nazi in the process. You reduce the real threat to all non-white minorities of the rise of neo-Nazism to “someone speaking their mind”.  Eugenics, forced sterilisation of blacks, ethnic-cleansing and actively working towards creating a white ethnostate are not “speech” and certainly shouldn’t come for “free”. Spencer’s speech is calculated propaganda engineered to recruit and advance his racist agenda.

Not that you need concern yourself Stephen.  As a white atheist and European male you’ll be last in line for the ovens. That’s if you’re not herding the minorities in yourself.  You’ll be OK though, you can show Spencer your zero attacks on Neo-Nazism versus your attack on the “suspicious” Black Lives Matter. You even have more in common with the dapper Nazi than a shared love of Mencken. You both share an obsessive fixation on the “regressive left”/SJWs. You and Spencer have mutual friends. You find anti-Muslim hate-group leader Tommy Robinson “likeable” while Spencer holds a deep admiration.

Which reminds me, given your supposed objections to “thuggery” you never did justify a) Your platforming of convicted violent criminal and football hooligan Tommy Robinson and b) Your failure to criticise him over this or his public threatening of all British Muslim with the violent retribution of his ultra-nationalist followers baying for blood.

In fact, it’s not just your blind-spot for the far-right, there is a lot you don’t say. While your own Government is month-after-month literally fuelling horrendous war crimes in Yemen as blockaded children are starving to death you reserve your ire for Mo Ansar, CJ Werleman,  Malia Bouattia and Black Lives Matter. Where are your priorities?

Your empty protestations for defending Nazis on liberal principles are betrayed by your own past. It shows that you pick and choose whose right to speech to defend. Which makes your passioned defenses of Le Pen, Milo and now Spencer troubling. For example:

Bias firmly established, there can be no doubt that you are comfortable with violence (with the exception of violence against neo-Nazis) — And coincidence or not this comfort hasn’t extended beyond the targets of this violence being in majority-Muslim nations.

You are a member of the Quilliam Foundation: Warmongers. Your heroes (some of whom you have platformed yet never challenged on their violence) are warmongers. Sam Harris: Warmonger. Ayaan Hirsi Ali: Warmonger. Douglas Murray: Warmonger. Christopher Hitchens: Warmonger and War Propagandist. Nick Cohen: Warmonger and on and on we go.

I see no reason to respond to your idiotic claims of “misrepresentation” by using your own words verbatim against you. Though its curious that you insist Bukhari (a Muslim) never be offered a platform on television again for relatively trivial reasons all the while you’ve neglected to demand the same for Spencer, who was being filmed by mainstream Australian news at the time of his assault. Telling.

You’d do well to heed the words of the ironically intolerant Hirsi Ali: “Tolerance of intolerance is cowardice”. You’re a coward.

The Regressive Left Hook

Trump Inaguration Day: With the most  controversial right hook since Ali’s 1965 “phantom punch” KO of Sonny Liston a masked protester connected his fist side-on with Alt-Right founder Richard B. Spencer’s jaw. The openly-racist ethnic cleansing advocate Spencer was recording a TV interview at the time and can be seen wobbling back visibly dazed and embarrassed as he merged into the larger gathered circus of anti-Trump protesters and revellers in MAGA baseball caps.


Predictably, the white new atheist bottom-feeders (with associated Patreon accounts) passionately leaped to the defense of the staggering Nazi with Dave Rubin and Stephen Knight leading the charge; ostensibly on freedom of speech and anti-violence grounds.

Knight aka “The Godless Spellchecker” aka “30-year-old office worker from Manchester” has developed a particular penchant for defending populists, nativists, misogynists and Islamophobes. His Pavlovion urges to defend the “freedoms” of extremists such as Hirsi Ali, Le Pen, Tommy Robinson and Milo seems to overcome him.  He claims to be a liberal but habitually punches left at his phantom nemesis the “regressive left” and his critcisms of the the (non-Muslim) Right don’t ever move beyond lip-service.

Dave Rubin is apparently a failed comedian who first appeared on my radar as a Sam Harris for idiots on The Rubin Report. His audience – The dregs of the new atheist cult – dovetailed seamlessly with the emerging “Alt Right” and  for relevance the self-described liberal Rubin rebranded but not openly. The Rubin Report’s guest-list reads like  The Deploraball’s VIP list.

“Those who ‘abjure’ violence can do so only because others are committing violence on their behalf.” – George Orwell

Rubin certainly has no problem with violence – He is a passionate defender of the IDF bombing a UN protected school in Gaza.

“Liberal” Dave again almost exclusively punches left. He declared the “regressive left” to be more dangerous than the “Alt Right” i.e. Richard Spencer’s Sieg Heiling followers. He was shamefully silent last December as (his fellow) Jewish families were forced out their Montana town in fear of reprisals from Spencer’s Alt-Right mob.

He also platformed convicted violent criminal and hate-group leader Tommy Robinson who threatened “every British Muslim” with violence. He never challenged Robinson on his violence; neither did Knight who also interviewed him on his podcast.

Scratch the surface of Knight and you’ll see the comfort he has with violence (primarily against Muslims). He worships warmongering Neocons such as Douglas “make conditions harder for Muslims” Murray, Ayaan “crush Islam militarily” Hirsi Ali and Christopher Hitchens – An actual Neocon war propagandist.

To him,  a regretful Iraq War protestor, his misjudgement was based on  “naive commitment to pacifism” he continues “I’ve since grown up to discover that the world is a scary place and that pacifism just won’t do if you wish to prevent scary people from getting their way.”…But don’t punch Nazis…???

Knight’s exposes his own hypocrisy and pretense of commitment to freedom of speech in his treatment of Muslims whose views he insists we silence:

Organised atheism’s (anti-theism) relationship with white supremacy traces back a full four decades prior to Ali’s rematch with Liston. Founded in 1925 by white supremacist Charles Lee Smith, the American Association for the Advancement of Atheism (AAAA) in association with its publication The Truth Seeker published atheist/racist propaganda until long after the Ali-Liston rematch. Smith was succeeded as head of AAAA and Editor of The Truth Seeker by racist/atheist ideologue James Hervey Johnson.



The white supremacist-atheist convergence crystalised in the 1970s with the formation of The Creativity Movement Cult. Founder (and “Pontifex”) Ben Klassen was influenced by Hervey Johnson and The Truth Seeker and his neo-Nazi cult rejected all supernatural beliefs while worshipping the white race. Klassen coined the term “RaHoWa” meaning “Racial Holy War” and following his suicide was succeeded as Pontifex by nomad neo-Nazi Matt Hale in 1996.  Hale is currently serving a forty-year sentence for soliciting the murder of a judge.

A decade of Islamophobia denial has softened new atheists on the oppressors of minorities – Their worn-out slogan of “Islam isn’t a race” can’t excuse Nazis of their racism.    New Atheist critic CJ Werleman asked “Is New Atheism a White Supremacy Movement?” and considering Stephen Knight clearly has little interest in “anti violence” nor “freedom of speech” then why is he defending white supremacists?



Maajid Nawaz: Which Side Are You On?

“Those guys [have] to be killed. Their buildings need to be burnt down”

Robert Doggart, anti-Muslim terrorist


Robert Doggart planned to “annihilate” every Muslim he encountered and burn the idyllic Muslim enclave in rural Hancock, New York, to the ground.  He revealed his plans to carry out  the vigilante massacre to a confidante. From the FBI wiretap:

“We’re gonna be carrying an M4 with 500 rounds of ammunition, light armor piercing. A pistol with three extra magazines, and a machete. And if it gets down to the machete, we will cut them to shreds.

‘When we meet in this state, the people we seek will know who we are. We will be cruel to them. And we will burn down their buildings (and) if anyone attempts to, uh, harm us in any way, our stand gunner will take them down from 350 yards away.”

So why, as the children of Islamberg reasonably ask,  did Robert Doggart want to kill them?  The answer can be found in Doggart’s plea agreement – “The defendant justified his attack on lslamberg by claiming that the residents of Islamberg were planning a terrorist attack.”. So who then created Doggart’s fear?

The Islamberg community’s attorney Tahirah H Clark attributes the foiled attack to fear-mongering disinformation by Fox News, the disgraced fraudster Wayne Simmons and Clarion’s own “expert” Ryan Mauro – One of the other 15  SLPC-listed anti-Muslim extremists. Viewing Mauro on Fox it’s not difficult to see why.

Mauro and O’Reilly between them essentially describe Islamberg as an Al Qaeda training “compound” in New York; one in which law enforcement are powerless to resist. Naturally, this encourages “patriot” vigilantism.

The reality at Islamberg however, is entirely different reveals Capt. James Barnes of the New York State, who has had a 12-year personal relationship with the residents of Islamberg and who slams the fabricated threat. “I think there is a lot of misinformation that is out there, certainly on the Internet“, he says. Islamberg residents describe a peaceful and tolerant refuge for Muslims to escape from bigotry.

Craig Dumond, from the Delaware County Sheriff’s office (interview below) completely refutes the claims by Clarion’s Mauro on Fox.  His office has been dealing with Muslim community there for decades and not once have they received a single complaint regarding armed guards. He also reveals that the after viewing the Clarion Project video his office believes that the footage doesn’t come from anywhere near Hancock. “It’s a non-issue” Dumond says.

Like Maajid Nawaz, the SLPC-listed anti-Muslim extremist, these children of Islamberg were also on a list – A Clarion Project list. Unlike Nawaz, they were objectively and completely innocent. The”non-Muslim American whites” at the SPLC have been covering the case while Nawaz has been silent. For all the lip-service Nawaz pays to “countering” anti-Muslim bigotry he has embraced The Clarion Fund with open arms- Clarion are habitual promoters of his work and he returns the favour. His Quillam Foundation and Clarion are also partners in “reforming Islam”.


If Maajid Nawaz is so naive that he sincerely thinks that Clarion’s founder, the Aish HaTorah Rabbi Raphael Shore, or its Director Ilan, Sharon, an ex-IDF Officer and current Jewish liason for John Hagee’s Christians United For Israel have an interest in helping progressive Muslims “reform” Islam then he should step-aside. Anyone so gullible is not fit for purpose and occupying the space of a competent reformer.

The Atlantics Jeffrey Goldberg describes Aish Hatorah.

Torossian’s attitude toward Arabs and toward the peace process are echoed in the approach of Aish HaTorah, which is just about the most fundamentalist movement in Judaism today. Its operatives flourish in the radical belt of Jewish settlements just south of Nablus, in the northern West Bank, and their outposts across the world propagandize on behalf of a particularly sterile, sexist and revanchist brand of Judaism. Which is amusing, of course, because “Obsession” is meant to expose a particularly sterile, sexist and racist brand of Islam.

Does Nawaz really want to be the British Zuhdi Jasser – The Muslim who is showered in cash by the Israel/anti-Islam Lobby for being the Muslim who stays on-message? If so, he is more than deserving of his place on the SPLC list.

If not, and is a genuine “counter-extremist” and Muslim Reformer he needs not only to disassociate but to publically condemn all of the extremists and Extremist Orgs he currently validates, amplifies and ultimately serves the agendas of.  He doesn’t have to look far; some of his best friends are extremists.

Post Brexit/Trump lives of Muslims are at stake. If you’re truly as “brave” as everyone tells me you are condemn your extremist friends peddling hate.  What you’ll lose in ego and speaking fees you’ll gain in integrity.

 Part 1 –Why Is Nobody Asking Muslims If Maajid Nawaz and Ayaan Hirsi Ali are Anti-Muslim Extremists

Why Is Nobody Asking Muslims If Maajid Nawaz and Ayaan Hirsi Ali Are “Anti Muslim Extremists”?

In 2004 the British National Party (BNP), antisemitic and racist Holocaust deniers, ran a Jewish candidate in London’s local elections.  Mrs Pat Robertson’s (nee Feldman) candidacy was branded a “sick stunt” by Jewish community leaders and revealed to be a “gimmick” by the racist BNP ideologue and editor of the BNP’s Spearhead magazine John Tyndall, who describes the process from the inside:

And here is where it is time to examine the latest ‘gimmick’ employed by the current BNP leadership by its adoption of a Jewish candidate to contest a local government election in the Epping Forest area. I use the word ‘gimmick’ deliberately for that is precisely what it is – just as previous gimmicks have been used, notably the adoption of a candidate in Cumbria who was reported as rejoicing in his black son-in-law and half-black grandchild and the granting of a regular column to a Sikh writer in the party newspaper.

Whether unwitting tools or amoral and self-serving opportunists these “gimmicks” who are rich in propaganda value have routinely been hurried to the foreground using the same tried and tested formula: Fringe members of  a discriminated against and/or minority community are elevated and prioritised above the mainstream and grassroots community to front the oppressive agendas of the majority and/or powerful. Examples include

The rewards can be plentiful. William Keyes, the black American apartheid lobbyist earned $390,000 per year in the 1980s from the anti-black South African State. Similarly, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a black Somali, accepted a $250,000 award in 2015 from the ultra-Conservative Bradley Foundation (also Quilliam Foundation donors) who had financed the “race realist” Charles Murray’s The Bell Curve – A debunked study, widely denounced as racist, which explored supposed racial differences  in IQ.

The Islamophobic terrorist and mass-murderer Anders Breivik understood this dynamic well and he worshipped Hirsi Ali. From Breivik’s manifesto:

Because of her background she has made criticism of Islam acceptable to people who would otherwise find it difficult to digest the arguments she presents…She is an invaluable asset to the fight against global Jihad and as worthy of the Prize as any other living person

A prime example of this dynamic at work was the anti-Islam Gatestone Institute and Clarion Project’s so-called “Muslim Reform Movement”.  Gatestone were founded in 2011 by Sears fortune heiress and committed Zionist Nina “The Sugar Mama of Anti-Muslim Hate” Rosenwald.  Breivik’s manifesto – which is an attempt to incite a legion of Islamophobes into terrorism – mentions/cites 25 of their authors, some such as “Fjordman”, an “especially central witness” repeatedly.

The  Clarion Project are tied at the hip to the Israeli-Government backed pro-settler and Jewish fundamentalist organisation Aish Hatorah.  Both groups propagate a singular anti-Islam/pro-Israel agenda with their respective stable of anti-Muslim extremists. The notion that they are sincere in their desire in reforming Islam is absurd yet they had 14 Muslims front their campaign, one of these being Quilliam’s Usama Hasan.

Hasan’s presence at the Dec 4th launch exposed the duplicitious nature of Nawaz’s Quilliam foundation. Just 3 days prior, Haras Rafiq, Quilliam’s Managing Director was being scolded by the Home Affairs Select Committee for Quilliam’s associations with the anti-Islam organisation The Gatestone Institute. He pleaded ignorance, appealed to plausible deniability but acknowledged the mistake. Rafiq vowed to discontinue any future associations (while Usama Hasan was presumably preparing for his Washington Trip to play a leading role in Gatestone’s event days later).

This Quilliam-Gatestone alliance continues up to the present day.  Below, we  have the darling of the New Atheist circuit Maajid Nawaz with Raheel Raza and Douglas Murray; both of Gatestone, at a Sept 2016 NSS event.


To fully understand the workings of the Quilliam Foundation you need to peer behind the surface of its liberal facade.

Depending on which side of Nawaz’s mouth you listen to determines which side of the argument of his SLPC-listing you fall down on. Nawaz is largely despised by the Muslim community but it’s a myth that it’s due to his identification as a “liberal Muslim”. Rula Jebreal, Mehdi Hassan and Reza Aslan are all liberal Muslims  but are largely respected by the Community. Nawaz’s friction with British Muslims and beyond is due to his repeated validation and empowerment of anti-Islam extremists who in a climate of ever-rising  anti-Muslim hysteria increase the daily hardships faced by the already persecuted Muslim minority community.

Nawaz’s caping for anti-Muslim extremists like Hirsi Ali, Tarek Fatah, Douglas Murray (who has called to “make conditions for Muslims harder across the board” and Sam Harris (who has declared “Most Muslims are utterly deranged“) if not making Maajid Nawaz a clear-cut anti-Muslim extremist outright renders him at least their handmaiden.

Murray’s anti-Muslim extremism was deemed too exteme for the Conservative Party front-benchers and he was removed.  Yet his  extremism is validated by a supposed liberal Muslim countering-extremism.

This explains the anti-Muslim bigot/New Atheist pushback onto the SPLC.  Nawaz, whatever his intentions, is the prized asset of the “liberal” anti-Islam movement. The Muslim who denies the existence of Islamophobia is the goose that laid the golden egg. His embracing of the xenophobic and Islamophobia-denying new atheist movement gifts them the “some of my best friends are Muslim” card

The New Atheist currently leading the charge, having initiated a petition ironically to demand the SPLC self-censor is blogger Jerry Coyne. It’s an incredible act of chutzpah from Coyne who on his blog rails time-and-again against Christian Orgs receiving Templeton Funding; or as Coyne calls it a “bribe“. However, has been completely silent on Nawaz’s foundation having being in receipt of a Million dollars from the same foundation. It’s rank hypocrisy.

While Nawaz’s listing is complex Ayaan Hirsi Ali’s is rather more straightforward. While mitigating circumstances exist there is simply no refutation that a woman who wants to “crush Islam militarily” and calls for changing the US Constitution purely to discriminate against US Muslims is an extremist.


Hirsi Ali is a lost cause, firmly embedded within the Neoconservative Lobby. She considers fascist junta leader Sisi a “reformer” and racist war criminal Netanyahu a “man of peace”. Her AHA Foundation was set up with a mysterious $425,000 gift from an anonymous donor – which she promptly staffed with war-hungry neocons and Zionists. She has little-to-no interest in “reforming” Islam. Her preference is to “crush” it.

While Nawaz has no traction within the Muslim community and the wounds are probably too deep to even consider any reconciliation he is uniquely positioned to counter the extremism of his anti-Islam financiers, friends, associates and new atheist followers.

Sadly, I suspect he’ll choose jetting all over the world in his three-piece-suits picking up cheques for confirming the biases of white and middle-class non-Muslims over making a positive impact on the lives of ordinary and decent persecuted Muslims. I hope to be proved wrong.

Part 2- Maajid Nawaz: Which Side Are You On?

The Benghazi Attacks And The Quilliam Connection

September 12, 2012

Four Americans, including  US Ambassador Stevens  are brutally murdered in Benghazi in a terrorist attack co-ordinated by Ansar-al-Sharia


September 6, 2016

The House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee published the findings of its examination into the the UK’s 2011 intervention in Libya and the role this played into Libya’s subsequent collapse into a failed state.  Regarding UK intervention empowering Libyan jihadists then Chief of Staff of The Defence Staff Lord Richards confirmed that the Foreign Office had been misled by “respectable Libyans”.

We asked Lord Richards whether he knew that Abdelhakim Belhadj and other members of the al-Qaeda affiliated Libyan Islamic Fighting Group were participating in the rebellion in March 2011. He replied that that “was a grey area”.62 He added that “a quorum of respectable Libyans were assuring the Foreign Office” that militant Islamist militias would not benefit from the rebellion.63 He acknowledged that “with the benefit of hindsight, that was wishful thinking at best.”

One of these “respectable Libyans” was almost certainly the Quilliam Foundation’s President Noman Benotman. Quilliam’s Maajid Nawaz had boasted of the influence both he and Benotman had over the Government.

Benotman is a veteran of the Cold War era Afghan jihad and one time member of the Shura Council (leadership) of the Al Qaeda-affiliated Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG). The LIFG’s primary goal has been the overthrow of the “Infidel” Gadaffi regime  but they have been strongly linked to international terrorist attacks such as in Madrid and Casablanca. By most reports Benotman left the LIFG in 2003 – The same year as the Casablanca suicide attacks. While Benotman has renounced terrorism he remains “proud” to have fought alongside Osama Bin Laden whom he describes as “kind” and “humble”.

Proving Kissinger’s claim of there being “no permanent enemies only interests” true the British Government has had a murky on-off love affair with the LIFG since its founding – It granted  US Embassy Bombings suspect and leading LIFG and Al Qaeda operative Anas al-Libi asylum where he lived in Manchester from 1995-2000.

According to MI5 and MI6 whistleblowers the UK Government were behind a  failed 1996 plot to assasinate Gadaffi –  with LIFG members as the assasins. Later the the UK was complicit in the rendition of the LIFG’s Emir Sadeq/Belhadj to Libya. Through the intercession of (Government funded) Quilliam the “deradicalised” Belhadj was to be released from Libya’s Abu Selim prison in time to spearhead (with Al Qaeda fighters) the UK’s Libyan regime-change as Military Commander for the National Transitional Council and today is a leading member of the Salafist Al Wattan Party who are demanding Shariah Law in Libya.

In 2007 Benotman gave evidence before a Special Immigrations Appeal concerning the fates of two LIFG-linked Libyans seeking asylum in Britain where he played down the links between Al Qaeda and the LIFG. His claims were countered by a UK Security official identified only as “Witness D” who said this of Benotman:

Witness D did not accept that this was entirely honest: there were strong connections going back to Afghanistan between the LIFG and the Taleban, and between the Taleban and Bin Laden. There were connections between significant portions of the LIFG and Al Qa’eda in Afghanistan and elsewhere, although in 1992 the LIFG as a group would have been focused on Libya. Benotman’s criticism of 9/11 was not on moral grounds

Later in 2007 Witness D’s assertion  that Benotman wasn’t “entirely honest” was to be proven correct as the  LIFG swore loyalty to Al Qaeda.

Another to level the “not entirely honest” accusation against Quilliam was their much vaunted supposed success-story and then (and current) far-right leader Tommy Robinson who describes an “I use you. You use me deal” whereby Robinson would receive large monthly cash payments from Quilliam whilst incarcerated in return for being paraded around by Maajid Nawaz as a “reformed” extremist.

Quilliam’s deal with Robinson was to echo the earlier deals Quilliam were to help broker in Libya in the “deradicalisation” and subsequent release of hundreds of Muslim Brotherhood and LIFG jihadists from Libya’s notorious Abu Selim prison. As a symbol of reconciliation Muanmar Gadaffi’s son Saif initiated dialogue between the State and jihadist leaders, with Quilliam’s Benotman and Muslim Brotherhood ideologue Ali al-Sallabi acting as intermediaries.

To much fanfare the jihadists, while not renouncing violence did ostensibly revise their jihad “code” and were released in stages. All three parties, Quilliam, al-Sallabi and the MB/LIFG jihadists were to stab Saif Gadaffi in the back metaphorically and his father literally. Al-Sallabi was to be the conduit for the Qatari’s 2 Billion dollar regime-change investment, the jihadists were to fight on the front-lines while Benotman was in London  portraying the jihadists as liberators and lobbying intensively for UK intervention in the media. As Quilliam founder Maajid Nawaz explains in his auto-biography, Radical:


Quilliam were “exposing crimes” that weren’t happening as  The House of Commons investigation made clear.

The proposition that Muammar Gaddafi would have ordered the massacre of civilians in Benghazi was not supported by the available evidence.

Exactly why the “anti-Islamist” Quilliam Foundation were such fervent supporters of a jihadist regime-change of a stable and secular police state remains a mystery. Yet they demand regime-change they did, even issuing a press release calling for the targetted assasinations of Gadaffi family members.  All the while falsely assuring the public and apparently behind closed-doors the Government ” that militant Islamist militias would not benefit from the rebellion”. Quilliam assured us that:

Most LIFG members have genuinely renounced global jihadism and extreme Islamism, and are unlikely to re-adopt anti-western militancy.

Noman Benotman, James Brandon, Quilliam Foundation, Mar 24 20111

While Quilliam’s list of “deradicalised” radicals includes Islamist extremists such as the LIFG’s Emir Belhadj, the elder brother of Abu Yahya al-Libi, a leading Al Qaeda figure and the LIFG’s spiritual leader Shaykh Abu al-Mundhir  who currently issues “deradicalised” fatwas on topics as diverse as if it’s “permissable to blow up Synagogues in European countries”,  “The investigation into the sanctity of burning” and “What is the ruling on a pregnant woman doing a martyrdom operation” arguably its most catastrophic “deradicalisation” was the case of Sufyan Ben Qumu/Sofiane Ibrahim Gammu – Bin Laden’s former driver and current leader of the Islamic terrorist organisation Ansar-al-Sharia.

Reuters reported the Al Qaeda trained Bin Qumu’s release  through the Saif Gadaffi/Quilliam initiative on August 31, 2010. Less than two years later, four Americans were to brutally murdered in Benghazi by Ansar al-Sharia – A group Benotman would have us believe doesn’t exist

The US State Department disagreed. On January 10, 2014 it registered Ansar-al-Sharia and its leader Bin Qumu as specially designated global terrorists for its role in the Benghazi attacks.

Created separately after the fall of the Qadhafi regime, Ansar al-Shari’a in Benghazi and Ansar al-Shari’a in Darnah have been involved in terrorist attacks against civilian targets, frequent assassinations, and attempted assassinations of security officials and political actors in eastern Libya, and the September 11, 2012 attacks against the U.S. Special Mission and Annex in Benghazi, Libya. Members of both organizations continue to pose a threat to U.S. interests in Libya.Ahmed Abu Khattalah is a senior leader of Ansar al-Shari’a in Benghazi and Sufian bin Qumu is the leader of Ansar al-Shari’a in Darnah.

Having being directly involved in the “deradicalisation” Quilliam’s response to the Benghazi terrorist attacks of 2012 were predictably self-serving and duplicitious.  Libyan jihadists, who according to Benotman were “unlikely to re-adopt anti-Western militancy were now ” uncontrollable jihadist groups. “.

The Quilliam Foundation have never been held to account for their disastrous “wishful thinking at best”.