Search the Community

(salam) This is a public service message to the community at large in regards to an individual who is purporting to be a scholar of the howza. I am aware of the sensitive nature of these types of subjects, and I am only doing this as a duty for the believers to not become misguided by such individuals. This particular individual has been warned by others about his behavior but thus far has not heeded these words. His own statements and behavior actually expose him on their own, and when reading the things that he writes one can see clearly already that he is not a person who carries the akhlaq and wisdom of Ahlulbayt (as). However what is important here is he is damaging the institution and the Maraja in the eyes of the people. This individual is going by the name of "Brother Tawheedi". He has set up for him self a facebook page: http://www.facebook.com/BrotherTawhidi As well as a twitter page: https://twitter.com/BrotherTawhidi He is also in the process of starting his own website, which (alhamdulillah) at this point is not functional: http://www.tawhidi.com/ He has been speaking at various venues internationally.

This is a link to some emails that were hacked out of the email account of Joe Ricketts. For those are unfamilar with him, he is a U.S. billionaire that made his money by starting one of the first online trading companies in the U.S. He also is the father of the owners of the Chicago Cubs baseball team, he essentially bankrolled the purchase of the team for $845 million. https://splinternews.com/here-are-the-racist-conspiracy-emails-rotting-right-win-1831199766 If you scroll through you will find some despicably evil emails regarding his opinion of Muslims in the U.S. Here are some points to note... Look at this... This quote really disturbed me. Look at the critical thought and researched opinions he used to formulate his ideas. This reminds of the mindset that Hitler used in Mein Kampf against Jews. Some more researched fears... but this one is equally frightening... The other emails bash Barack Obama for being a secret Muslim, he spreads some more racist opinions. Bottom line is that these are the opinions of a major donor to the Republican Party as well as for Donald Trump's 2016 campaign. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Ricketts His son is the Governor of the state of Nebraska, his other two sons are involved on the Board of Directors of TD Ameritrade and his daughter is a Lesbian and the Chairwoman of a Gay Rights Super PAC (she's a Democrat, while the rest of the family are Republicans. Sadly, this is not only the views of one wealthy Christian American. He confirms the fear that many Wealthy American have that America is going away from being a Christian nation with Christian values. They view Muslims as a threat to the Christian way of life. As you'll see many of not only his emails but the comments on news agencies online posts are supporting his mindset. Disturbing, just distrubing.

The International Humanist and Ethical Union (IHEU), which promotes a culture of atheism and which takes a strong stance against Islam and religion in general, has published a condemnation of the treatment of atheists and the non-religious mainly in Muslim countries: https://freethoughtreport.com/download-the-report/ Predictably,the IHEU displays complete ignorance of Islam in its hate-filled and ignorant attack on "freedom of thought" and human rights in these Muslims countries, notably Iran. A list of just some of the misleading false statements that the report makes, including about Shariah, is attached. Please complain to Bob Churchill who "edited" the report: bob.churchill@iheu.org There is a Persian saying, "sokoot alamate rezaast" (staying silent is agreeing with). Complaint to IHEU.pdf

https://www.milestonesjournal.net/articles/2018/3/19/the-tariq-ramadan-case-a-comprehensive-review By Alain Gabon Tariq Ramadan, Europe’s most influential Muslim intellectual and an international Islamic institution all by himself, has been in preventive detention and solitary confinement in France since February 2nd, 2018. Ramadan’s incarceration followed two charges of rape—allegations he has fully denied, calling them a “a smear campaign” coordinated by his old French enemies. Due to inadequate medical care in Fleury-Mérogis prison (Ramadan has multiple sclerosis and another neurobiological disease that requires substantial daily treatment), his health has rapidly deteriorated in jail. It was in an ambulance, under medical escort, that he arrived to his first appeal hearing. On February 17th, we learned from an Agence France Presse (AFP) news release that Ramadan’s first medical examination in prison concluded that his health condition was "incompatible with detention." The medical document specified: “Since his arrival, this patient has been experiencing unbearable pain in his lower limbs with permanent sensory trouble,” for which the treatments available in jail are drastically insufficient. This official document directly corroborated assessments by Ramadan’s private physicians (one in London, the other in Geneva). Despite this, the judge decided to prolong Ramadan’s detention and solitary confinement. Further, his wifeand children were again denied visitation rights with neither explanation nor justification, a radical measure that falls well outside of French judicial norms, as even confirmed murderers are routinely granted visitation rights. For these reasons, the handling of Tariq Ramadan’s case involves not only the denial of basic legal rights (how could anyone properly prepare a legal defense in such conditions?); it also represents a case of human rights abuse. In what follows, I suggest that the truly odd legislative developments in the Ramadan case—the justice of exception we are witnessing at work, which will be addressed in the second half of this article—may be explained at least partially by the national (and to a lesser extent European) context in which they are occurring: a culture characterized by intense and pervasive Islamophobia in general (whose varied manifestations and links to France’s colonial history are beyond the scope of this piece) and more specifically, an already old French campaign to eliminate Ramadan from the intellectual, social, political and religious landscape of the nation. That campaign long predates the recent charges of rape for which Ramadan is in detention. Anyone familiar with the French political landscape knows that for years, since at least 2003, the Swiss Islamic philosopher has been the ruling elites’ Muslim Enemy Number One. This being said, none of what follows implies in any way that Ramadan is either innocent or guilty. It is actually important that the accusations of Henda Ayari and “Christelle” have been fully considered and heard empathically by all—media and the courts included (though one may question how they are already being treated as proven facts). While allegations of rape are frequently disregarded or taken lightly, this case has demonstrated a rare exception to the rule: the charges against Ramadan have become the center of global attention— for Islamists, Islamophobes, and everyone in between. The French Context In order to understand the Ramadan case, it is essential to contextualize it without assuming either innocence or guilt. At this point, anyone doing otherwise can only do so out of bad faith, prejudice, or disingenuity. The passions around Ramadan, both positive and negative, friendly and hostile, admiring and heinous, are most intense in France. For this reason it may be surprising for a non-French audience to witness the combination of contradictory emotions and reactions elicited by the Swiss Islamic intellectual: on the one hand, the immense clout, awe, gratitude and admiration he has for years enjoyed in France among much of the Muslim youth (and many of the not-so-young as well), especially the so-called “reislamized” third-generation, which often gravitates around the Union of French Islamic Organizations (UOIF)—France’s biggest umbrella federation, which hosts Europe’s largest annual Islamic Fair, where Ramadan is every year the star speaker for impressively packed audiences in the thousands. On the other hand, we observe visceral hatred against him from the quasi totality of France’s ruling establishment including governments (both left and right), political parties (all of them, from the far right of Marine le Pen to the far left of Jean-Luc Mélenchon), state institutions, mainstream media, talking heads, and influential public intellectuals, with rare exceptions. In the past several decades, few individuals have been the object of such spite and hatred, the target of such violent hostility by the ruling elites, the bête noire of so many individuals and sworn enemies. The worst of whom being Caroline Fourest, a freelance journalist, essayist, media figure, and laïcist activist-feminist. Since at least the early 2000s, Fourest has made it her mission in life to discredit Ramadan by whatever means possible. Fourest has built her media notoriety and presence almost entirely around her personal crusade against Ramadan, and is herself a favorite of the political and media establishment, which has been generous in providing her with talk show host positions on public radio channels and a columnist position at the daily newspaper Le Monde (as well as commissioned work such as documentaries for the public channel Arte). In France, the violence against Ramadan has reached such a level that if one wishes to discredit someone else, say, a political opponent, all one has to do is claim that the adversary is a friend or “ally” of Tariq Ramadan, that s/he has talked to, worked with, or simply shared a stage, forum, or seat in a debate with Ramadan, or that s/he has signed a petition also signed by Ramadan. This is no exaggeration and three examples, gleaned from what are now hundreds of similar cases, aptly illustrate this reality: In 2013, Prime Minister Manuel Valls and Minister of Education Najat Vallaud-Belkacem withdrew their participation in a European forum in Italy after they learned Ramadan had also been invited. In 2003, three top leaders of the Socialist Party, all ministers at some point (Jean-Luc Mélenchon, Vincent Peillon, and again Manuel Valls), published an open call to the organizers of the European Social Forum to cancel their invitation to the theologian, accusing him of antisemitism on the basis of ludicrous pseudo-evidence from an article he had published about a few well-known Jewish intellectuals.[1] In 2011, the pressure and intimidation tactics of conservative party leader Jean-François Copé pushed Socialist leaders and former ministers Martine Aubry and Laurent Fabius to withdraw their signatures from a petition denouncing the conservative party’s Islamophobia. The only thing Copé had to do to force them to cancel their support for that campaign was point out that Ramadan too had signed the petition. His two political opponents did not even argue, they simply quit—sheepishly and effectively shamed. Outside of such examples, even having a photo taken with Ramadan on a stage (even if one were debating him as an opponent) is in France enough to seriously discredit one’s reputation. These few cases are enough to demonstrate that many years before the two recent accusations, but also long before the emergence of ISIL or the first jihadist attacks of Mohammed Merah in 2012 and Charlie Hebdo in 2015, Ramadan had already been turned, through systematic vilification, relentless conspiracism, and smear campaigns (Fourest looms large here), into a toxic figure—a “dangerous Islamist,” a “radical fundamentalist,” an insidious “preacher” practicing “double language,” a stealth agent of the “global Islamist plot”—that mere proof of contacts of any type with him has been enough to scare away even the most established and powerful politicians. Ramadan’s Powerful Adversaries In 2016, Ramadan made public his decision to apply for French citizenship. Given his stunning accomplishments, marriage to a French citizen, French children, permanent activities in France where he has offices—but also his superb mastery of the French language, history, literature and philosophy—he fully deserved it. Further, he has demonstrated respect for France's institutions throughout this whole ordeal (despite his inhumane treatment by the French state). Yet, as soon as he made his intention to apply for citizenship known, France's Prime Minister Manuel Valls (a notorious islamophobe obsessed with banning hijabs everywhere) himself went public, red with rage, to declare that Ramadan’s application for naturalization was “a provocation against the French Republic” and that he would “personally make sure it gets rejected”—not hesitating, incidentally, to violate French institutions since it was not in his prerogatives as PM to do so. Ramadan responded by emphasizing how ironic it was for Valls to describe his citizenship application as being incompatible with “the values of the French Republic” shortly after giving the Legion of Honor (France’s highest official state honor) to the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia, an absolute monarchy which does not recognize the core values France claims to uphold: freedom of religion, gender equality, and freedom of expression. Ramadan’s rhetorical acumen silenced Manuel Valls, who had nothing with which to respond. In 2003, in another epic “Ramadan vs. French State” confrontation, it was Nicolas Sarkozy himself, then Minister of the Interior and soon-to-be Presidential candidate, who personally took the theologian head-on, making it his personal business to demonize Ramadan’s international call for a moratorium on “corporal punishment, stoning, and the death penalty in the Islamic world” on prime time live. One could forever multiply such examples. In short, France’s most powerful government members, Prime Ministers and Presidents like Sarkozy and Valls, backed by the mainstream media and its cohort of “anti-Islamist” columnists and talking heads, have escalated their permanent anti-Ramadan campaign, moving from mere vilification or simply avoiding any contact with him to active attempts to take him down, put him out of business for good, and destroy him politically, socially and even religiously. But, time and again, they were not able to best him in intellectual debate.[2] It is also important to understand that Ramadan’s critics also seek to delegitimize anything they associate with him: “Islamism,” “Salafism,” “political Islam,” the Muslim Brotherhood, the Union of Islamic Organisations of France, independent and critical journalists like Mediapart’s Edwy Plenel. In a recent column, Algerian writer and journalist Kamel Daoud[3] even claims the allegations of rape against Ramadan (which he takes for granted as proven facts) are “symptomatic of the miserable humanity of all preachers,” who “dissimulate” a similar predatory sexual perversity “behind their religious commerce.” Unlike Ramadan, Daoud is the kind of Arab intellectual the French media and political establishment absolutely adore: the easily instrumentalized type who thinks naively that he is paraded and celebrated on all television, newspaper and radio forums because of his smarts and literary talent, rather than the function he serves (that of a useful tool for Islamophobes). In particular, by discrediting Ramadan, by putting and keeping him in jail for as long as they can by whatever means possible, they want to end his whole project for European Muslims and roll the clocks back to the 1970s, a time when, as the French sometimes say with nostalgia, “les musulmans rasaient les murs” (Muslims would lower their heads, try not to be seen, out of shame and intimidation). More than anyone, Ramadan has incarnated this groundbreaking tide of the Euro-Islam “Muslim Pride” movement, especially among the youth. Adam Shatz aptly summarizes his powerful message: In the nineteen-nineties, Tariq Ramadan attracted a following among French Muslims, both in the banlieues and in the professional middle classes. His message was simple, revolutionary, and electrifying: Islam was already a part of France, and so Muslim citizens were under no obligation to choose between their identities. They could practice their faith freely, even strictly, and still be French, so long as they respected the country’s laws. French Muslims, he argued, should overcome their “victim mentality” and embrace both their faith and their Frenchness. By the same token, France should recognize that Islam is a French faith; Muslim citizens are scarcely in need of “assimilation” into a country to which they already belong, a paternalist notion with roots in France’s colonial history. In a nutshell: Ramadan has been cast as the Devil. The AntiChrist of the French Republic, declared by many a supreme danger to State and Nation. He has been in the crosshairs of the powerful since at least 2003 (the key moment of his first frontal confrontation with Nicolas Sarkozy). Ramadan has no friend or ally in any state institution, only hostile enemies who would be thrilled to see him disappear for good—preferably in shame.[4]From this standpoint, it is clear that the castigation of Ramadan has been less about supporting victims of rape, and more about disempowering European Muslim populations. Even France’s publishing industry has made it its mission to destroy Ramadan: recently, the journalist Ian Hamel, himself a sworn adversary of Ramadan who wrote a book against him, revealed during an interviewhow Flammarion (France’s famed publishing house) commissioned a book from him about Ramadan, which was supposed to be a fierce attack against the theologian. Hamel wrote the book, but when he sent his manuscript to the publisher, they declined it: they wanted him to describe Ramadan as a terrorist, too. Hamel declined as he did not want to publish outright and obvious lies. For that reason, Flammarion rejected his manuscript, which he had to publish elsewhere. The fact that one of France’s oldest, largest and most prestigious publishing houses would commission a book to an author with the specific objective to attack Ramadan and lie about him being a terrorist speaks volumes too. The Legal Process Due to the decision to keep Ramadan in prison despite a medical record demonstrating he was in no condition to sustain incarceration even for a few days (and it has been a month since February 2), Ramadan has for weeks been rendered unable to adequately tend to his own defense. That should have been reason enough to release him on February 22nd, when his case came again under review. Further, Ramadan has been denied the possibility of bail. This decision even surprised some of Ramadan’s adversaries, since incarceration is supposed to be a measure of last resort when other options including house arrest, or the wearing of an electronic bracelet are not available or realistic. Ramadan and his lawyers themselves suggested such alternative options, but they never were considered. The authorities justified this by arguing it would keep Ramadan from pressuring his accusers—a ridiculous excuse, as it would be foolish for Ramadan to do so, knowing full well this would further aggravate his case. Authorities also claimed Ramadan may be trying to escape to some foreign country—an even more ludicrous excuse, considering Ramadan’s full cooperation with the state (something no one denies), however awful and inhumane it has been to him. Outside of these factors, Ramadan has also been confined to an isolation cell, and denied visitation rights and calls from his wife and children, another gratuitously cruel measure for which the authorities have provided no explanations. Then there is the incomprehensible fact that although the first complaint against Ramadan was filed at the Public Prosecutor’s office of the provincial city of Rouen, the case was sent to the Paris Prosecutor's office and transferred to Prosecutor François Molins, who typically works on cases of Islamic terrorism with national jurisdiction. Molins, now in charge of Ramadan’s case, has become a familiar figure to the French through his live updates on the Charlie Hebdo case, the Nice attack, and a few less deadly cases that followed. For the French, François Molins has thus become the main face of counter-terrorism—the “Prosecutor of French Jihadists” as some fondly call him. Lost Alibi In a further aggravation of these legal injustices: on December 6, 2017, Ramadan’s lawyers filed a key piece of evidence with the Paris Prosecutor’s office. This legal item was actually Ramadan’s hard alibi against one of the two charges. It contained travel documents including a London-Lyon plane ticket showing that around the time the second accuser (the anonymous “Christelle”) stated Ramadan was raping her in his Lyon hotel room shortly before a conference, the man was not even on French soil. If formally validated, this may have called into question at least one of the women’s accounts. The problem, however, is that this crucial piece of evidence, Ramadan’s hard alibi for one of the two cases, was “lost” as soon as it was filed, and disappeared for two months while the investigation was being conducted. It was only on February 1st, 2018 that Ramadan’s lawyers realized that this most important piece of exculpatory evidence had actually never been added to his court file nor transmitted to the investigators, and had therefore never been considered and verified, despite the fact the Paris Prosecutor’s office did formally confirm on December 6 (the same day they filed it) that it had indeed been sent to the proper authorities for inclusion in the investigation. Clearly, the document was never actually lost, since it resurfaced on February 1st, immediately after the lawyers realized it was missing and asked what had happened over the past two months. But the harm was done: it was too late for formal judicial consideration of the travel document and verification of Ramadan’s alibi. The next day, Ramadan was incarcerated. To this day, no explanation for that prolonged “loss” has been offered by the Paris Prosecutor’s office. Though the document was added (again) to his file on February 1st, to this day, it has still not been verified by the police and court authorities! This so far unexplained disappearance also does not square well with the fact that the authorities in charge of the case have repeatedly declared they are aware of the sensitive character of this affair, adding that this was even the reason why they put three judges on the case. A Travesty of Justice The French judicial process, here a travesty of justice, has been so unusual that even some of Ramadan’s adversaries are worried this may durably affect the integrity of the institution and the confidence people can place in it. Take for example French attorney Régis de Castelnau, by no means a friend or ally of Ramadan, who disparagingly and contemptuously calls him “a preacher” and a “guru.” He has been one of Ramadan’s consistent political opponents and a man very much engaged in France’s crusade against “Islamism.” His concern, however, has been that the extreme perversion of the judicial procedure in this case might actually backfire against those who, like him, want and need to keep using this institution to fight so-called “radical Islamism.” His legal analysis of the Ramadan case is sobering and concludes—upon close examination of all the documentation and data available so far—that the denial of due process has been severe and constant. And he came to that conclusion on February 9, before recent developments, such as the news of Ramadan’s collapsing health under state custody. In his article, “Ramadan in Prison: What Now?” De Castelnau begins by reminding us that according to French law, the preliminary “investigation” (the one that never considered Ramadan’s alibi for one of the two alleged rapes) was mandated by executive powers, and that investigators are actually in no way obligated to follow standards and protocols of impartiality. De Castelnau concludes that the entire investigation leading to Ramadan’s preventive detention on February 2nd was conducted entirely and exclusively “à charge” (meaning exclusively against the defendant), and “severely so.” He also observes with surprise that none of the inconsistencies and contradictions in the testimonies of the plaintiffs were raised by the judges, while Ramadan’s lawyers, who at that time still did not have access to those court files, were thus not able to use them for his defense. Henda Ayari and “Christelle” At no point were the judges interested in some frankly surprising declarations by alleged victims Henda Ayari and “Christelle”—especially their own admissions (reiterated to the press and now proven further by documentation including e-mails) that long after the alleged rapes, they pursued Ramadan with great insistence on Facebook. They also traveled from conference to conference seeking encounters with Ramadan. Henda Ayari declared to the press that she had “a sexual epistolary relationship” with Ramadan for at least a year, and that in June 2013, fifteen months after her alleged rape, she herself attempted to resume a relationship with him through a cordial and warm e-mail starting with “Hey it’s been a while I wanted to have some news of you.” Ramadan, surprised, blocked her from his Facebook page but on June 6, 2013, she reopened a second account and reached out to him once more, asking (begging actually, from the transcript) that he “let her in,” stop blocking her, and refrain from depriving her of at least “his Facebook page and his beautiful books.” While Ayari testified to having finally stopped all attempts to contact Ramadan in mid-2013, Ramadan’s lawyers uncovered and formally submitted nearly 300 e-mails sent by Ayari to Ramadan between June and August 2014. Furthermore, none of that—now admitted by Ayari herself and her lawyers—squares in any way with her initial testimonies of being so traumatized and scared of Ramadan that she remains unable to even pronounce his name—a claim she made in her first high-profile interview in 2017. Ayari, who now has her own “laïcist and anti-Islamist” association, declares at every opportunity that “for Ramadan, women must either be veiled or raped”—a crude and cynical account, since the Islamic theologian certainly never said, wrote, or suggested anything of the sort. Rather, he has consistently spoken forcefully against violence done to women, which he has repeatedly presented as unjustifiable under any circumstances. The second alleged victim (“Christelle”) declared that after being raped, she stayed in the room all night, waiting for Ramadan to return after he left for his conference. After being asked why, first she claimed he had taken her clothes and phone with him and left her dress on top of the room’s closet. Due to her handicap, she could not grab it as it was too high. Then, though that is hardly a point of detail, she changed her story in her testimony to the judge and declared that Ramadan had also taken her dress with him “in a large white bag”—the dress that she initially said he had “suspended too high” for her to grab. Even assuming she was traumatized and in shock following her rape, it is difficult to see how one might be confused about such a thing. This, incidentally, also contradicts Caroline Fourest’s affirmation that “Christelle never deviated from her initial declarations including in the most sordid details of her story.” Further, the two women first stated they did not previously know each other. Then, when faced with evidencefrom Ramadan’s lawyers, they suddenly remembered that they had talked to each other years ago. Apparently they both forgot. In addition, both have admitted to having long and sustained contact with Ramadan’s greatest adversaries—especially his worst one, Caroline Fourest (see above), who actually “coached” Christelle and presented her to the judge. Fourest herself has since been formally charged with witness tampering after she readily admitted prolonged and sustained contact with both women. Both accusers were also in close contact with Fiammetta Venner, whom they called hundreds of times, as phone records now demonstrate. Fiammetta Venner is the founder/manager of a “laïcist and anti-islamist” website, Ikhwan Info, a conspiracist blog dedicated to exposing the “Islamization” of Europe and the so-called global “Islamist plot.” The website especially demonizes the Muslim Brotherhood, but also other Islamic organizations including benign Islamic feminist associations like Lallab. The Fourest/Venner dynamic duo also blacklists anyone—journalists, intellectuals, or scholars—they deem to be a “collaborator” of the “Islamofascists” (namely anyone not trying to destroy Ramadan as they themselves have tried for 15 years). Besides being a declared adversary of Ramadan, Fiammetta Venner is also Caroline Fourest’s lover and companion in life, as well as her book's co-author and personal photographer. Even more troubling, it appears that “Christelle” may be using forged evidence. After losing her cell phone (which supposedly contained incriminating evidence) for three months, she claimed to have found it. She then showed a text thread between her and Ramadan on the talk show of star journalist Patrick Cohen, one of the worst enemies of Ramadan, who, among other things, declared on television that Ramadan should never be invited by any media and then proceeded to attack anyone still inviting him on their own shows. The "incriminating" text thread produced from "Christelle's" newly-found cell was shown on the Cohen show, and can clearly be seen here. Yet, this thread is more than a little problematic. Far from incriminating Ramadan in any way, it actually contains clear proof that it is forged: Ramadan could not possibly have called her "Christelle" as he supposedly writes here on October 10, 2009, since as is now well known, "Christelle" is a pseudonym that was given to her by the French media like BFM TV on November 2017 (8 years after that thread) to protect her identity when she pressed charges against Ramadan. But none of this seems to bother the judges or the media. Of course, none of that adds up to discrediting the two women’s testimonies. The possibility they were indeed raped remains despite all of the above (which is only a partial exposé). But at the very least, those facts, now fully confirmed and publicly admitted by both women, should raise some serious eyebrows from any judge. Yet, at no point so far have any authorities in charge of the case been bothered by any of it. Double Standards in Justice and Government The exceptionalism with which Ramadan has been treated, itself a violation of France’s constitutional obligation to guarantee equality before the law (especially for a country whose elites pompously brag 24/7 about “the values of the Republic”) becomes even more obvious when we compare it to similar charges against other high-profile figures. Among dozens of such cases of rape that have come out in France (and elsewhere) during the Ramadan case and in the wake of the #MeToo movement, Ramadan’s has been the only one to result in jail time in the conditions outlined earlier in this essay.[5] The most blatant examples of France’s differential treatment and two-tier justice system (one quick, zealous, merciless and cruel against people like Ramadan, another slow, gentle, merciful, and soft against the real Powers that Be) has been on display for weeks through the cases of two star ministers of the Macron government similarly accused of rapes (each by two women, like Ramadan): Budget minister Gérald “The New Sarkozy” Darmanin and Minister of the Environment Nicolas Hulot, a former ecological activist, journalist and immensely popular television figure (in France a true cultural icon since the 1980s). Besides some embarrassing media attention, about which they complained at length in deeply empathic and compassionate interviews, during which they could also defend themselves (unlike Ramadan), the worst for them has been a brief police interrogation as is obligatory in such cases. In these cases, as soon as the rape charges were made public and the normal legal procedure began, the totality of the Macron government including Prime Minister Edouard Philippe and President Emmanuel Macron himself immediately rallied around Darmanin, then Hulot. The most striking moment in this unanimous show of support was without a doubt when Darmanin entered the French National Assembly the day after the first preliminary investigation against him was opened. There, the MPs of the Macron majority even gave him a standing ovation (after the man had actually admitted he had sex with the “call-girl” accusing him of rape, in exchange for granting her a legal favor)! The Case of Marlène Schiappa But the most hypocritical behavior has been that of France’s “Minister of Women’s Rights and the Family,’ Marlène Schiappa. While before the Darmanin and Hulot cases, Schiappa was ceaselessly praising the #MeToo movement every chance she got, celebrating the “liberation of women’s voices,” lamenting the lack of mediatization around related issues, and exhorting other women to “break the law of silence,” she suddenly performed a spectacular and radical about-face the second charges of rape targeted two of her governmental peers. While earlier, she denounced how women are doubted when they disclose instances of sexual assault, now she articulates her “full confidence” in her male colleagues’ words (who were denying the accusations) over those of their accusers. Before, Schiappa declared: One can no longer tell women how they should express themselves…if social networks can help in this liberation of the victims’ voices, it’s extremely positive. Of course Twitter is not a justice court and can not replace tribunals, but you have to encourage all initiatives who favor exposing these problems…the social networks are an echo chamber that can also become a weapon for us. Besides, I myself use them that way. Now, it is Schiappa herself who is leading a campaign against the media for having outed Darmanin and Hulot, calling the magazine who published the first initial investigative report “irresponsible,” and asking this “excessive mediatization” be stopped on the grounds that this “media lynching may condemn innocent men.” In her account, the cause of women is not served in the media but “in secure places” far from the limelight, where alleged victims’ words can be heard by “specially trained professionals.” Schiappa is now even attacking as “abject” those who are encouraging the victims to contact the media, as she herself was enthusiastically doing a few weeks ago. Double Standards in Media Reporting The same double standard can be observed in the media’s treatment of Ramadan compared to that of Darmanin/Hulot. While the best Ramadan got was feeble and occasional lip service to the presumption of innocence, since the Darmanin affair emerged, popular media has suddenly switched to a much more “embarrassed” tone, and to a new theme: that of “media ethics” that need to be reaffirmed to avoid the “excess” of the “out-of-control” coverage of the Hulot case. French mainstream media is suddenly practicing a critical self-examination, deploring the unjust “lynching” of Hulot, describing as “dérapage” (a bad mistake) the coverage of that affair (already so mild, cautious and “professional” compared to what Ramadan got), and forcefully reasserting Hulot’s presumption of innocence. They are now even campaigning against the "tyranny of transparency." In apparent opposition to the #MeToo movement, sensationalist magazine covers and headlines are everywhere asking: “Should we expose everything” in our “media tribunals"? Oddly enough, Ramadan is never evoked in these debates and remains utterly absent from such crises of conscience, which seem to benefit only Hulot, Darmanin, and a few others. And the same national news media that yesterday were featuring Ramadan’s accusers in the most empathetic, compassionate (and of course uncritical) manner are now using various methods of character assassination against the women who pressed charges against the two ministers! None of this is to suggest Ramadan is either guilty or innocent. What all of these inconsistencies do suggest, however, is that the public intellectual cannot and will not receive fair judicial, political, or media treatment in France, and that the abuse of power and differential treatment against him have been great, and systematic. Conclusion Beyond Tariq Ramadan himself, three other things are being gravely damaged in this case: first, the justice system itself, since in addition to the highly variable and flexible justice demonstrated above, the whole burden of proof—the cornerstone of “freedom” in the French Republic—has been turned upside down, replacing innocent until proven guilty with guilty until you prove yourself innocent. Second, the public perception of Islam. French commentators now cite unproven information as fact, and more freely present Islam as “a religion of rapists.” Third, the #MeToo/BalanceTonPorc movement is being derailed and hijacked. The long overdue and valuable campaign against sexual violence is being instrumentalized as a means of stirring hatred against Islam and Muslims. Popular discourse surrounding Ramadan’s case assumes and forces a dichotomy between the critique of sexual violence on one hand, and critiques of Islamophobia and racism on the other. It is our responsibility as critical thinkers to consider what is being effaced and (re)produced in these unidimensional narratives. Alain Gabon is a French citizen and Associate Professor of French Studies based in the United States. He is the head of the Department of Foreign Languages and Literatures at Virginia Wesleyan University and has written numerous papers and articles on contemporary France and Islam in Europe for academic journals and think tanks, including Britain's Cordoba Foundation and mainstream media outlets, such as Saphirnews and Les cahiers de l'Islam . Postscript On February 22nd, a French appeals court denied Tariq Ramadan’s request to be released on medical grounds. The court solely considered the assessment of a physician whom that court had itself appointed and who declared after a 15-minute examination (and without Ramadan’s medical record) that he could sustain further detention. That physician’s note also seemed to deny the reality of Ramadan’s multiple sclerosis and neuropathy, for which he has been treated for years by numerous physicians in France, London, Geneva and elsewhere. The court decided to ignore four other medical records, including one from prison medical services themselves, which had all concluded that Ramadan could not sustain incarceration. The judge ordered Ramadan, who had refused to come to court after being denied a medical escort, to remain incarcerated for an indeterminate amount of time. The court denied his lawyers’ requests to end the preventive detention and rejected all alternative options they offered, including daily appearances at the police station, surrendering his passport, a substantial bail, wearing an electronic bracelet, and living in a communal house under police surveillance. The judge justified these decisions, which are well outside French judicial norms, by saying that even under these conditions, there was “a real risk” he would rape again. On February 27th, Ramadan was re-hospitalized again. He had already spent the previous weekend at the prison hospital. After he was taken back to his cell, a prison psychiatrist diagnosed “a grave anxiety-depression syndrome,” on February 20th. The justice has since asked for yet another medical report, which should be available by the end of March. On March 7, 2018, a third woman (pseudonym: “Marie”) pressed charges against Ramadan for multiple rapes in various European cities between 2013 and 2014. She also accused Ramadan of blackmail. Her extremely graphic descriptions are a cut-and-paste, quasi word-for-word account of those from the second anonymous accuser (“Christelle”), themselves widely circulated in mainstream media. Like “Christelle” before her, “Marie” declared she has abundant “material evidence.” Yet, something needs to be noted here: despite those repeated claims, to this day, not a single piece of evidence of rape (or for that matter, wrongdoing of any kind) has been shared by anyone. As a matter of fact, though those media outlets claimed for weeks that “Christelle” had some hard proof and a “medical certificate,” they are now admitting reluctantly they actually have nothing. Endnotes [1] In France, merely describing a writer, intellectual or other public figure as “Jewish” is enough to expose you to accusations of antisemitism, even when those public figures present themselves as “Jewish,” as was the case here! Ramadan pointed that out in his defense, also emphasizing it was never a problem to describe him, and others as “Islamic” intellectuals, that he had relentlessly denounced anti-semitism every chance he got, but no one listened and the harm intended was done—Ramadan was from now on a raging “anti-Semite”, which was evidently the goal of the whole operation. [2] See here the full Ramadan vs. Caroline Fourest 2011 debate, the only time Fourest tried to debate Ramadan fairly and was miserably defeated. [3] Daoud became a household name after writing a crudely racist and Islamophobic op-ed describing all Arab men as real or potential pathological rapists, rendered sick in their sexuality and dangerous towards women by the “disease of Islam.” [4] For more on Ramadan’s history in France see Slate’s excellent 3-part series. [5] See the new wave of accusations of sexual aggressions with formal rape charges against the leaders of France’s main student union, a powerful organization over there.

This is sickening!

Dear Brothers and Sisters Salams In the thread titled “Who is Syed B Ali,” in the General Discussions forum, a SC member by the name of “Digital Ummah” has asked for some more information on my book. So I have decided to explain a few things here. As the SC ad says, the book is essentially a response to critics of Islam. If you read some anti-Islam books, of which there has been a deluge in the last 40 years, there are two weapons in the critic's arsenal: Quran- they distort the meanings of the verses and Hadith- where they endlessly quote the same offensive hadiths. I came to realize that I had to do two things for my message to be effective. I had to disavow the common acceptance by our Muslim brothers and sisters of those hadiths and historical accounts, which help critics slander Islam and our Holy Prophet (pbuh). And I had to demonstrate that their arguments were based mainly on malice. But I have not emphasised the word ‘malice.’ Instead, I have given them the benefit of doubt and called it ‘misinformation’. Since I am not a graduate of a hawza school and therefore cannot technically claim to be a scholar, I had to develop my strategy very carefully. And after careful examination of the pros and cons, I decided on the following: Distancing myself from the hadith books that are the cause of so much strife. I have argued that they need to be reviewed and revised. But I have not done this in the very beginning as it may put off some of my non-Shia Muslim readers. Explaining why the Quran is not a literal book. And explain the teachings of Islam in the examples of three of our Imams. Now please let me tell you what the different chapters do: The introductory chapter clearly tells the reader what the book is all about, that being, a response to criticisms of Islam. In chapter I, I have picked two specific anti-Islam books and tried to show how irrationally they arrive at their conclusions. In chapter II, I respond to a specific book that tries to show that Muhammad did not exist and at the same time tries to slander him. Double game! Chapter III is intended to be a rebuttal to atheism. Chapter IV consists of two parts. The first part explains the drift of the Quran without going into the details and the second why it is so difficult to understand it. Chapter V is a thematic collection of verses of the Quran. In chapter VI, I discuss the problems with hadith and history, which critics of Islam so avidly use to slander Islam. Chapter VII – IX show the high ideals of Islam in the example of three of our Imams. Chapter X is the closing chapter following by the Appendices, with some more Islamic teachings. Before you decide to buy, it might be a good idea to go through the preview which is given in the link to the ad I have placed. And should you decide to buy, I would also request you to buy through www.amazon.com. The reason is that if you write a review, which I would very much encourage you to do, Amazon reviews have a very high market effect. If you buy the book through another retailer, you can also write reviews but it does not have the same value as an Amazon review. Please note that I am not asking that you necessarily praise the book in your reviews but I am sure that whatever you write will help counter the effect of negative reviews If you have any questions, I will try to answer them to the best of my ability, for the next few days, after which I will be away for a while. I must again thank brother Ali, for his kind help in creating the ad that you see on the SC home page. It is an exquisite banner and it was indeed very kind of him. Thank you all kindly. Was Salam

Charlie Hebdo May Now Be Criticized Because It Mocked White Texans Rather Than Muslims by Glenn Greenwald THE NEWFOUND FREE SPEECH crusaders borne of the January 2015 murders of 10 Charlie Hebdo cartoonists in Paris sought to promulgate a new and quite dangerous standard. It was no longer enough to defend someone’s right to express their ideas while being free to condemn those ideas themselves — long the central tenet of the free speech movement (I defend their right to free speech even while finding them and their ideas repugnant). In the wake of the Hebdo killings, one had to go much further than that: It was a moral imperative to embrace and celebrate the ideas under attack and to glorify those who were expressing them, even to declare ourselves to be them (#JeSuisCharlie). As a result, criticizing the content of Charlie Hebdo’s often-vile cartoons became virtually blasphemous. It became common to demand that one not only defend the right of the cartoonists to publish them but also, to show “solidarity,” one had to republish those cartoons no matter how much one objected to their content — thus adopting that speech as one’s own. Opposition to lavishing these cartoonists with honors and prizes was depicted as some sort of moral failure or at least insufficient commitment to free speech rights, as evidenced by the widespread, intense scornheaped on the writers who spoke out in opposition to bestowing Charlie Hebdo with an award at a PEN America gala. A dangerous conflation was thus imposed between the right to express Idea X and one’s opinion of Idea X. Of all the articles I’ve written in the last several years, perhaps the most polarizing and anger-generating were the ones I wrote in the wake of the Charlie Hebdo killings: one article that rejected the demand that one must celebrate and even republish Charlie Hebdo’s cartoons by criticizing those cartoons and illustrating the results of applying this new, dangerous standard (celebrate offensive and blasphemous cartoons by republishing them) universally; and then a series of articles defending the PEN America writers who objected to the Charlie Hebdo award on the ground that one could simultaneously defend free speech while refusing to praise, honor, and glorify those whose speech rights were under attack. The most dishonest and confused commentators distorted my critique (and others) of the content of Charlie Hebdo’s speech into an opposition to free speech itself. “When Glenn Greenwald castigates the dead Charlie Hebdo cartoonists for racism,” decreed the anti-Islam high priest of New Atheism, Sam Harris, “he’s not only proving that he’s a moral imbecile; he’s participating in a global war of ideas over free speech — and he’s on the wrong side of it.” Similarly confusing these distinct concepts was Quillette’s Jamie Palmer, who, after surveying my years of work defending free speech rights for everyone both as a lawyer and a journalist, somehow concluded that “it would seem logical to suppose that Greenwald’s solidarity with the staff of Charlie Hebdo could be taken for granted.” What was clear all along, and what I argued repeatedly, was that it was not a belief in free speech that was driving these demands that Charlie Hebdo cartoonists be honored and revered and their cartoons be celebrated. Free speech was just the pretense, the costume. Indeed, most of the political leaders who led the “free speech parade” in Paris (pictured above) had long records of suppressing free speech, and few of these new free speech crusaders uttered a word as the free speech rights of Muslims have been assaulted and eroded throughout the West in the name of the war on terror. What was driving this love of Charlie Hebdo was approval of the content of its cartoons: specifically, glee that it was attacking, mocking, and angering Muslims, one of the most marginalized, vulnerable, and despised groups in the West. THE PROOF OF THIS was delivered yesterday. Charlie Hebdo published a characteristically vile cartoon depicting drowning victims of Hurricane Harvey in Houston as being neo-Nazis, with the banner that declared “God Exists”: because, needless to say, white people in Texas love Hitler, and it’s thus a form of divine justice if they drown. That led to a virtually unanimous tidal wave of condemnation of Charlie Hebdo, including from many quarters that, just two years ago, were sanctifying the same magazine for its identical mockery of Muslims. Yesterday’s assault on white sensibilities also led many people to suddenly rediscover the principle that one can simultaneously defend a person’s free speech rights while expressing revulsion for the content of their speech. The examples are far too numerous to comprehensively cite; some representative samplings will have to suffice. Here was Piers Morgan in January 2015, with a beloved tweet that was re-tweeted by almost 24,000 people: View image on Twitter Twitter Ads info and privacy Here was the same Piers Morgan yesterday: View image on Twitter Twitter Ads info and privacy For the crime of mocking white Americans, vehement scorn for Charlie Hedbo was commonplace yesterday. “An evil, despicable cover,” opinedNational Review’s Tiana Lowe, who nonetheless added that “the losers at Charlie Hebdo have a God-given right to publish it.” Infowars’ Paul Joseph Watson, long a fan of Charlie Hebdo’s anti-Muslim cartoons and an advocate of the duty to republish its content, yesterday announced that, actually, one may hate and denounce the cartoons while still supporting the cartoonists’ free speech rights: “The Charlie Hebdo cover is offensive & dumb, and I fully support their right to be as offensive & dumb as they like.” The right-wing actor James Woods announced: “So much for ‘Je Suis Charlie,’ I guess,” calling the cartoonists “French traitors” in a hastag he added. National Review’s Byron York, showing a picture of the new cover, was similarly candid: “Today, we are not all Charlie Hebdo.” One popular tweet, from journalist Jason Howerton of the conservative Independent Journal Review — who previously mocked news outlets for not showingthe full Charlie Hebdo anti-Islam cartoons — declared that one should not, after all, share Charlie Hebdo cartoons that one finds objectionable: “Was going to go off on Charlie Hebdo for that sick Texas cover. But then I realized that’s what they want. [Edited Out] you. I’m not sharing it.” It’s almost as if the glorification and praise for Charlie Hebdo that became morally mandatory in 2015 had nothing to do with free speech and everything to do with love of the anti-Islam content of Charlie Hebdo’s cartoons. This new rule that one must not only defend Charlie Hebdo’s free speech rights but also honor and praise its work seems to have disappeared rather instantly, violently even, as soon as its targets stopped being Muslims and began being white Americans. This person put it best: Twitter Ads info and privacy What happened here is beyond obvious: Charlie Hebdo was fun, delightfully provocative, bold, and deserving of awards when it was publishing mockery of Muslims. When its cartoonists began publishing exactly the same sort of thing aimed at white Americans, they became “vile,” “evil,” “despicable,” “losers,” and “traitors.” As the author Robert Wright put it this morning: “I’m guessing PEN won’t be giving Charlie Hebdo an award this time around.” The viral 2015 Twitter hashtag campaign would have been much more honest had it read: “#JeSuisCharlie (*pour les bandes dessinées sur les musulmans”): “#IAmCharlie (*for cartoons about Muslims).” Whatever else is true, let this episode bring about the full and permanent death to the new, warped principle that to defend free speech, one must celebrate the ideas under attack and honor those expressing them. It should have never been difficult to grasp the basic yet vital distinction between defending the right of ideas to be expressed and celebrating those ideas. Now that a Charlie Hebdo cartoon has been aimed at white Americans, offending white Westerners, it seems the wisdom of this principle has been rediscovered. Top photo: Prime Minister David Cameron joined other world leaders at the start of the defiant march through Paris, France, in the wake of the terror attacks at the offices of Charlie Hebdo. Glenn Greenwaldglenn.greenwald@theintercept.com@ggreenwald

Australian Senator Wears Burqa in Parliament to Push for Ban By JACQUELINE WILLIAMSAUG. 17, 2017 Photo Senator Pauline Hanson wore a burqa in the Senate at Parliament House in Canberra, the capital, on Thursday. She said that she wanted to draw attention to her party’s push to ban full-face coverings in public.CreditEuropean Pressphoto Agency SYDNEY, Australia — Australia’s Senate is rowdy and raucous, and often compared to a schoolyard. But after the leader of the anti-immigrant One Nation party walked into the chamber on Thursday wearing a burqa, the room went silent. Then came the stunned responses: “oh” and “what on earth.” The party leader, Pauline Hanson, took her seat as political rivals watched astounded. Senators from her party laughed. Removing the garment, Ms. Hanson, who is not Muslim, said that the burqa, a full-body and face covering, should be banned in Australia. She said that she wore the veil to draw attention to her party’s push to ban full-face coverings in public. “I’m quite happy to remove this because this is not what should belong in this Parliament,” she said as the Senate met during parliamentary sitting week, in which lawmakers debate legislation and other matters. Photo Ms. Hanson. CreditReuters In a speech in the chamber last year, Ms. Hanson said that Australia was “in danger of being swamped by Muslims.” A recent report from the Trump administration referred to Ms. Hanson in listing her party as a threat to religious freedom. Critics say that Ms. Hanson, who represents Queensland, seeks to make Australia a country where only English is spoken and where non-Christian religions are invisible. Ms. Hanson said in a statement that she wore the burqa because she thought that banning full-face coverings in public “was an important issue facing modern Australia that needed to be discussed.” Such coverings, she said, were “oppressive, presented barriers to assimilation, disadvantaged women from finding employment” and “had no place in modern Western society.” Ms. Hanson’s actions drew strong criticism in the Senate. Attorney General George Brandis, a member of the conservative Liberal Party, denounced the move in an emotional speech in which his voice broke. He said that Australia would not ban burqas. “To ridicule that community, to drive it into a corner, to mock its religious garments is an appalling thing to do, and I would ask you to reflect on what you have done,” he said, referring to Muslims. Photo Senators applauding after Attorney General George Brandis, not pictured, criticized Ms. Hanson for wearing a burqa. CreditLukas Coch/European Pressphoto Agency His response elicited a standing ovation from one side of the floor. “I would caution and counsel you with respect to be very, very careful of the offense you may do to the religious sensibilities of other Australians,” he said. Mr. Brandis said that about half a million people practice Islam in Australia, the vast majority of whom are law-abiding “good Australians.” Ms. Hanson used her speech on Thursday to address terrorism. She said that the police had uncovered 13 significant threats since Australia raised its terrorist threat level to probable in 2014, calling terrorism “a true threat to our country” and saying that “many Australians are very much in fear of it.” Clive Bean, a political-science professor at Queensland University of Technology, said he “was not aware of a stunt quite like this happening in Parliament before.” He said that he was surprised that the president of the Senate, Stephen Parry, let it occur. “The danger of such a strong stunt as that is that it has the opposite of the desired effect,” he said. “The fallout is stronger against than in favor.” https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/17/world/australia/pauline-hanson-burqa-australia-senate.html

The man correcting stories about Muslims By Catrin NyeVictoria Derbyshire programme 19 January 2017 From the sectionUK Share Image captionEvery day, Miqdaad Versi searches newspapers looking for errors concerning Muslims and Islam When one newspaper reported last year that "enclaves of Islam see UK as 75% Muslim" last year, Miqdaad Versi's instinct was to challenge it. He believes errors in the reporting of Muslims have become all too common, and has made it his mission to fight for corrections. Miqdaad Versi sits in front of a rather geeky-looking spreadsheet at the offices of the Muslim Council of Britain in east London. He is the organisation's assistant secretary general, but the task in front of him is a personal project. The spreadsheet has on it every story published concerning Muslims and Islam that day in the British media - and he is going through them looking for inaccuracies. If he finds one, he will put in a complaint or a request for a correction with the news organisation, the press regulator Ipso, or both. Mr Versi has been doing this thoroughly since November, and before that on a more casual basis. He has so far complained more than 50 times, and the results are visible. He was personally behind eight corrections in December and another four so far this month. Image captionMiqdaad Versi tweets diagrams showing corrections and apologies made following his complaints In the past, corrections to stories were mostly printed when individuals were the victims of inaccurate reporting, but Mr Versi is looking at a whole topic. "Nobody else was doing this," he tells the BBC's Victoria Derbyshire programme. "There have been so many articles about Muslims overall that have been entirely inaccurate, and they create this idea within many Muslim communities that the media is out to get them. "The reason that's the case is because nobody is challenging these newspapers and saying, 'That's not true.'" Find out more Watch the Victoria Derbyshire programme on weekdays between 09:00 and 11:00 on BBC Two and the BBC News channel. See Catrin Nye's full film on this issue here. Mr Versi goes through some of the corrections from December. Five of them concerned a review into integration by Dame Louise Casey. The Sunday Times reported that "Enclaves of Islam see UK as 75% Muslim" in a preview of the review. This was incorrect, with the review actually citing a survey of pupils in one largely Asian school who thought 50-90% of the population in Britain were Asian. The paper corrected the article, and later apologised. As the same story was reported in other publications, it led to five corrections. Mr Versi highlights another article, concerning the Muslim president of the National Union of Students (NUS). She was accused on Mail Online of refusing to condemn so-called Islamic State, when she had openly done so. Also in December, he points out a report in the Sun on Sunday confused the identities of two Muslim individuals - one fighting against extremism and one accused of extremism. "Quite a mix-up," says Mr Versi. He has met several newspaper editors and has been pleased with the quick corrections he has received in some cases. But he is concerned that these revisions are not obvious enough to the reader. "Sometimes the corrections lack a clear acknowledgement of the error they made and often do not include an apology. In addition, they are rarely given the prominence of the original article," he says. He adds that while he is concerned with "significant failings" in the reporting of Muslims, the same issues "might also be replicated for refugee, migrant or other groups". 'No middle ground' One particularly high-profile correction in December last year - that Mr Versi was not behind - involved a 2015 article in which Mail Online columnist Katie Hopkins wrongly suggested Zahid Mahmood and his brother were extremists with links to al-Qaeda, after they had not been allowed to board a plane to the US. The paper and Ms Hopkins apologised and paid £150,000 in damages. At his home in Walthamstow, north-east London, Mr Mahmood says he has forgiven her. He now says it is not her original false accusations that he finds the most upsetting, but the public reaction. "First they were all against us when Katie Hopkins published the article, and then when she made the apology a year later - then they all turn against her. "There's no middle ground. It's not just about Katie Hopkins, it's the mindset of people - how they can very easily be led against somebody, or in favour of somebody." Image captionZahid Mahmood says he holds "no grudge" against Daily Mail columnist Katie Hopkins Mr Mahmood says he feels this kind of reaction is causing divisions in society, and - keen to do his bit for unity - tells the BBC he is formally inviting Katie Hopkins to his home for tea and coffee. "We have no grudge against her, and we would like her to learn and know that we are as British as she is. "In fact, my wife's grandfather and great-grandfather both fought in World War One and World War Two. They fought for the very freedom of this country." Mr Versi says he wants to improve community relations too. He thinks inaccurate reporting has far-reaching consequences, especially because negative stories are often widely circulated by far-right groups and then the corrections are not. Some free speech campaigners, however, are concerned about this kind of work. Tom Slater, deputy editor of Spiked Online, says these complaints could create a fear of reporting certain issues. "I, like anyone else, want a press that's going to be accurate... but what we're seeing here is quite concerted attempts to try and often ring-fence Islam from criticism." Mr Slater says he found a recent correction to a story about a suspected "honour killing" particularly problematic. Image captionTom Slater worries such complaints are attempts to "ring-fence Islam from criticism." In May 2016, the Mail Online and the Sun used the phrase "Islamic honour killing" in their headline. Mr Versi successfully complained to Ipso that Islam does not condone honour killings and that the phrase incorrectly suggested it was motivated by religion. The word "Islamic" was removed from the papers' headlines, and at the bottom of the articles they wrote: "We are happy to make clear that Islam as a religion does not support so-called 'honour killings.'" Mr Slater says he found that statement added by the papers "absolutely staggering". "We all know a religion is just an assortment of ideas and principles. What these papers were effectively asked to do, and what they did do, was to print one accepted interpretation of a religion - and to me this was just like backdoor blasphemy law." Mr Versi, however, insists his work is about ensuring the facts are right - not silencing critics. He says there are many examples where Muslims can be rightly criticised and he is not complaining about those. "All I'm asking for is responsible reporting." http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-38655760

http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/upfront/2016/10/islam-myth-french-secularism-161007131555990.html [video]

Follow Ahmed Shihab-EldinVerified account‏@ASE #France's women's rights minister said Muslim women who wear the headscarf are like "negroes who accepted slavery" I can't load the video, here is the link:

Ever since, Graeme Wood, well known Islamophobe and anti theist, published his article "What ISIS Really Wants", the Western Media has been raving like mad dogs of how inherently violent Muslims are and have based their assumptions on this article. In this post I will examine the error filled logic behind this theory and how the Western Media seeks to delegitimize the voices of 1.6 billion Muslims while subsequently promoting their own "scholars on Islam" to a general audience that is ignorant ,lacks critical thinking and is uninformed on Islam. Additionally, before this article came out there was a tension in the air in which various organizations critical of religion and conservatives who hate Islam were awaiting for such a theory to arise so they could come to the occasion and have their own sentiments fulfilled hence confirming their own confirmation-bias. Additionally, this article came at a time when sensationalism and reactionary sentiments towards Muslims were at an all time high, and hence sought to reinforce these views. In this post I will be dissecting such arguments, disproving them with my own thoughts on the matter, providing links to scholars who provide a unique and informed view to the conversation, and showing how these types of arguments have no real substance but rely upon the ignorance of their audience, and sensationalism and reactionary like opinions to validate themselves. Also, I will be exposing the agenda of Graeme Wood against all religions, as he posted an article criticizing Buddhists in Myanmar who were perpetuating violence against Muslims, while subsequently instead of coming to the defense of Muslims, reinforcing negative stereotypes and also criticizing Islam and Muslims in the same article, all the while assuming that Buddhism promotes such violence which we all know is untrue, however, sell it to the right audience and they will believe it. As the great propagandist Adolf Hitler once said: “But the most brilliant propagandist technique will yield no success unless one fundamental principle is borne in mind constantly and with unflagging attention. It must confine itself to a few points and repeat them over and over. Here, as so often in this world, persistence is the first and most important requirement for success.” ― Adolf Hitler As also was emphasized in George Orwell's novel, 1984, say a lie enough times and it will become true.

When Marco Rubio delivered his response to Donald Trump's comments saying "Islam hates us", he responded by saying his comments were outrageous, however, he delivered a purposely weakened defense of Muslims. Which was hardly even a defense considering he said "Islam has a problem" as I have written in my previous post. For anyone needing to catch up to speed here is a link to my previous post in which I fact check the debate: He only came to defend Muslims when in Bangladesh Christian Missionaries experienced hostility when trying to convert Muslims to Christianity, and gleefully remarked there were many Muslims interested in converting to Christianity in Bangladesh. As if he couldn't give a defense for the basic human dignity Muslims deserve he only chimes in his defense when it was advantageous to him. For instance, he said we need to build a coalition of Sunni Arabs against ISIS in other words if it wasn't for the support he needed from Sunni Arabs or if there were no Christian missionaries in Muslim countries he wouldn't have came to the defense of Muslims. In sum, on certain issues it seems the scathing hypocrisy from the Republican side is too much.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XEXl_sYwW8U

I've had to deal with racial issues aplenty, but I've never been Muslim and we've never had Muslims around " in the family" before. My husband has had his ears out since San Bernardino and is worried. He doesn't know how to judge the possible danger to SG and,by extension, our daughter. He is still uneasy since the past threatened shenanigans a couple of months ago. I heard him giving our daughter a talk on staying safe " you can't forget you walk around with a middle eastern Muslim man. I don't want anything to happen to either of you. Please be extra-careful and I think you might want to stay out of certain situations for a while."He really worried about them attending, even with her brothers, some of the gatherings on campus and that a lot of the Muslim guys hang out together very conspicuously. He thinks DD and SG are still at the age where they think they are pretty indestructible. DD , for her part, is sympathetic to our concerns but still thinks that we are over-protective. If anybody has any wisdom on this, I'd be grateful.

Salams all, MashAllah, i'm so glad there are people willing to stand up to this sort of thing! http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/nov/24/train-passengers-stand-up-against-racial-abuse-muslim-woman-newcastle-metro I know it doesnt always turn out like that, so well done the Geordies!

Salam everyone, I made a blog with the intention to "answer" the common criticisms of Islam by Islamophobes using evidence, rationality, and references. It has answers to the following questions so far: Does Islam promote violence towards peaceful non-Muslims?Are there verses in the Quran that allow violence towards peaceful non-Muslims?Was Islam spread by the sword?What's the Jizya?Does Islam say all non-Muslims will go to hell?What's the penalty for apostasy in Islam?Is Islam misogynistic?Does Islam promote domestic violence?Does Islam allow pedophilia? I provided evidence for my answers using evidence from Quran and hadiths. If you have any further evidences (hadiths/Quran/statistics/science) that may be helpful in answering such questions, or other common questions that should be addressed, please tell me! Any feedback would be much appreciated! I hope this blog is helpful to anyone defending Islam against common criticisms and accusations. Please feel free to use any content in it.

MARK STEEL's the man :) Thursday 25 June 2015 I'm still waiting for white people to start apologising for Dylann Roof When will they finally condemn their own people's extremist tendencies? The Americans who make comments loudly after a major incident have been unusually quiet since the shooting in Charleston, so they must be preparing for an even grander screaming session than normal. For example, after the shooting rampage in a school in Connecticut, the National Rifle Association declared the solution is to arm teachers. So as black people are being shot at regularly, presumably the gun lobby will announce all black people must be given sub-automatic machine guns to protect themselves. Sarah Palin will insist that as poor black teenagers are most likely to be fired at, it’s the duty of the Republican Party to offer flame throwers to young blacks in Harlem, free with an ice cream to encourage as many as possible to arm themselves. CHARLESTON SHOOTING: THE NINE VICTIMS WERE MURDERED BY A TERRORIST, NOT A 'WHACKED OUT KID' The senators and news reporters have also been slow to demand all white people apologise for the shooting. But I expect soon there will be special investigations in which random white people are stopped in a garden centre and asked to condemn the murders, and asked why they did so little to stop it happening. And if they say ‘‘it was difficult to do much as I live a thousand miles away in Chicago’’, all non-whites can tut and say ‘‘how many excuses can they come up with?" Then there will be documentaries to find out where people like the gunman Dylann Roof get radicalised. A presenter will tell us ‘‘I’ve discovered the shocking truth, that there are hundreds of bars and golf clubs where people say blacks are criminals and all take drugs, and this is where the fanatics learn their crazy ideas full of hate’’, and decent folk across the land will scream they should all be shut down. Yet still the West allows white people to keep flowing into our countries. Surely the time has come to say enough is enough, and if we’re to protect the right of citizens to go innocently to church, we must eliminate these breeding grounds of white terror, by sending drones to bomb white countries such as Finland and Andorra. Some so-called ‘‘moderate’’ white people might say Dylann Roof was not representative of all whites, but we need to ask why they’re not doing more to integrate the terrorists into civilised black ways. Universities such as Harvard or Yale, where most students are white and therefore susceptible to the radicals’ message, should stop teaching yachting and rowing, and make everyone play basketball on a court with potholes, in a block where police sirens never stop wailing. Many figures in the white community seem to be in denial about the crazy views of the people they sit next to. After the shooting in Charleston, Jeb Bush said: “I don’t know if the attack was racially motivated.” To be fair to him, there weren’t many clues, except for the gunman’s confession that he was a white supremacist with a manifesto for creating a white America, and the way he screamed “you’re taking over our country” to a church full of black people. But that’s not much to go on, and we can hardly expect a presidential candidate to be Inspector Morse. Another Republican candidate, Rick Santorum, said the shooting was an attack on Christians, adding “What other rationale could there be?” And indeed, faced with the scant evidence at hand, it’s clear the gunman hated Christians and hardly noticed the coincidence that everyone he was firing at was black. Similarly when the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbour, the motivation was that they really hated harbours. They were sick of them, with their annoying jetties and boats that can’t sit still without bobbing up and down. Another candidate, Senator Lindsey Graham agreed the target was “Christians, not African-Americans”, and added his own theory, “Dylann Roof was just one of those whacked-out kids”. It’s the same with the Ku Klux Klan. So many people jump to the conclusion that racism plays some part in their ideology, while ignoring the more obvious conclusion that they’re all a bit whacked out, probably as a result of stress from exams. Fox News presenters pursued the line that the shooting wasn’t motivated by race and was “not a hate crime”. But that’s the trouble these days, you can’t even gun down a crowd of black people in a black church, screaming you’re doing this because they’re black, without someone deciding you’re being racist. That’s where political correctness has taken us. One sign that there are other people in South Carolina who retain some sense of white superiority, is that the cities are full of Confederate flags and statues. The argument for keeping the flag has always been that it represents all sorts of things, such as the scent of the magnolia flower and paddle steamers up the Mississippi, but unfortunately some people ignore all this and make an issue of how it was the flag of the war to keep slavery. How petty, to let one little incident spoil the image of a pretty flag with lovely shapes. It’s the same with Bin Laden, he made all those entertaining short films and sported a charming beard but he’s only remembered for the times he lost his temper. If only someone had understood that Bin Laden had no long-term aims, he was just one of those whacked-out kids. Many Southern states also have statues of Confederate generals such as Robert E Lee, but instead of making a fuss about everything, perhaps black people should learn to accept statues of people who raised armies to keep them as slaves, just as in England we’d be perfectly happy for anyone to erect a statue of Hitler in Trafalgar Square. So the Republicans and US networks will soon get round to demanding the whole white population is guilty for this shooting. Or one of them will tell us Dylann Roof was an idiot, because if he’d said he thought everyone in the church was armed and he was only acting in self-defence, he’d have been found not guilty and given a job in the South Carolina police. http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/a-black-church-shooting-proves-its-not-terrorism-if-its-a-white-murderer-10345907.html

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i3iGYcfi3hI

Salaam, Im a graduate student & need to work to cover my univ expenses. Im not a hijabi & dress very modern but more modest than western women, but most ppl can tell Im Muslim / middle eastern from my name. so I was recently working as a street canvasser for the past 3+ months for a human rights org that preaches racial equality and equal representation of all workers & bull[Edited Out] like that. Ive been facing some racism at this job and i think its cuz of my name? my coworkers were super nice when I first started but later started changing towards me & ive been getting this vibe that they want me to leave. its a close knit circle of all "american white folks" w/ few blacks & i feel that they try to make job standards harder for other ethnicities so they quit. its such a load of bull[Edited Out] Im fed up w/ it and feeling they all downright FAKE 100%. they talk non-stop about human rights and racial equality BUT I DON'T SEE IT !! after the 1st month they insisted to know where Im from, so I just said 'Western Asia' and swore I wudnt tell anyone cuz i wanna escape this discrimination problem. after that I think one person from the office found out I was Muslim & middle eastern & probably told everyone then their attitude towards me changed. they started excluding me from morning activities which i used to take part in and not let me validate credit cards & stuff like that. then I realised they wud give higher positions to new members (americans) who just started the job, & dismiss me even tho I been there for 3+ months. what kind of bull[Edited Out] hipocrisy is this??? and to make worse, I realise they kept assigning me to harder locations & neighbourhoods where I wud end up not making enough money to cover my requirements as a canvasser. Also, right now the weather is crazy in my state and ppl on the street are freaking cold nobody wanna stop and bother w/ canvassers. but at the office, the directors act like its my fault for not making enough money & blame me for poor skills !!!! I dont see them doing that to my other american coworkers who also dont get enough money either, its not just me bringing low profits. I feel like they trying to prevent me from staying on the team, like I realised twice at canvassing that the manager wud pull us out for long 10 min breaks during our shifts for no apparent reason. I figured they doing this to waste my time so I only have few mins left at the shift and preventing me from getting potential donors who wud possibly give me money. Today they told me this was my last week to raise a certain amount & if I dont they fire me!! this is really unfair, on many days I actually make more than my american counterparts, I dont get why Im being put on review?? Shud I leave for good before they let me leave? What do u guys think? Im so fed up, this isnt the 1st time Ive faced racial & religious discrimination at the workplace in the US. ppl are sooo racist here, they prefer their own kind (Americans/Europeans) and bull[Edited Out] to all other species. I stopped telling ppl where Im exactly from for a VERY GOOD reason but somehow they inevitably find out or "realise" it. Before this job, last yr, I got into deep trouble where I worked at a cafe/restaurant & even tho most of the coworkers were Muslim & eastern, I wasn't getting along with this Christian Arab guy who chose to piss ME off on a daily basis for no reason. i was soo mad so I started talking bull[Edited Out] about him to one of my "sister" coworkers about how even in a 97% Muslim workplace, we still find racist ppl who bother us ! Then the boss actually confronted me about it and claimed I was the one discriminating against the Christian Arab guy !! I was speechless . Turns out, this "sister" ended up telling on me & the boss twisted the whole story to his liking & I got fired. It's sad how Muslims today back stab each other like that :no: I was wondering if you guys have experienced or gone thru racial/ religious discrimination like that in a workplace in Western societies?? How did you know it was cuz of ur ethnic/ religious background? (Maybe Im being overly sensitive?) And how did you guys deal or cope w/ such issues?? Thanks, salaam alaikum

You Don't Like the Niqab? Get Over Ithttp://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/robin-lustig/niqab-ban_b_3959671.html?utm_hp_ref=tw Give me one good reason why a woman shouldn't be allowed to cover her face in public if that's what she wants to do. You don't object to her covering her buttocks, do you, or her breasts? Do you find it offensive if a woman wears sunglasses? And anyway, what's it got to do with you? Yes, I deliberately phrase the questions provocatively. I do so because I find the amount of cant that's been spoken and written on the subject of the "Muslim face veil" (note the first adjective, to which we shall return) frankly ridiculous. Oh, and before you ask, yes, I do think this is an important issue, even though only a tiny, tiny number of women in Britain choose to wear the niqab, or face veil. It's important because it's about what kind of society Britain wants to be in the 21st century. There'll be other opportunities to return to Syria, Iran, Germany, and even the Lib Dems. This week, I want to write about women's faces. Here goes. Reason one: "It's not acceptable for people to cover their faces in public so that they can't be recognised." Really? So should we ban men wearing hoodies or face-concealing crash helmets? Women wearing outsize sunglasses even in the pouring rain? Anyone wearing a face mask because they're scared of catching flu from someone on the bus? I think not. Reason two: "It's a symbol of male oppression of women and often imposed on women by fathers and/or husbands as a means of control." Well, yes, sometimes it is, but sometimes it isn't. Some women's fathers/husbands insist that they wear skirts below the knee, or long sleeves -- but is clothing choice really a matter for legislation? And if you argue that even when women choose to cover their faces of their own free will, it's only because they wish to avoid lascivious male attention -- well, isn't that why women cover their breasts? Reason three: "It makes me feel uncomfortable because it's entirely alien to who we British are." Hmm. Who's "we" in that sentence, I wonder? We, the British Hasidic Jews of Stamford Hill, where the women wear wigs and woollen stockings, and the men wear long frock coats, wide-brimmed hats and side-curls? We, the British Sikhs of Coventry or Leicester, who wear turbans? Or we, the British Catholic nuns who wear cowls and wimples? I'm old enough to remember the rows over whether Sikh bus conductors should be allowed to wear turbans instead of peaked caps, and whether Sikh motor-cyclists should be allowed to roar around the streets without crash helmets. I remember the debates over whether schoolgirls from Pakistani backgrounds should be allowed to wear trousers to school, or special swimming costumes for their swimming lessons. I thought we'd moved on, and that Britain had learned to accept that minorities have rights too. Reason four: "It's important to be able to identify people, and you can't do that if you can't see their face." True, so in those circumstances -- in airports or police stations or court-rooms, for example -- where identities need to be checked, you can easily make arrangements to enable women with covered faces to reveal themselves in a private place. (We don't expect women travellers at airports to be body-checked by men, so if their wishes can be met, why not those of niqab-wearers?) As for teachers, doctors or nurses, or others whose jobs entail dealing with members of the public, if it's an issue, write it into their contract. The vast majority of Muslim women do not cover their faces, so I see no problem with religious discrimination legislation in saying: "You want to work as a teacher, or a doctor? Fine, no face veil." (By the way, even in ultra-strict Iran, contrary to mythology, women are not required to cover their faces.) I find it intriguing that most of the people who sound off on this issue are men. Why do they feel so threatened by women who don't want their faces to be looked at? Why do they think it's any of their business? Personally, I'm not wildly keen on women with metal studs in their lips, or men whose low-hanging underwear reveals far more than I would ever wish to see -- but I wouldn't dream of banning items of clothing simply because I don't like them. When a man says: "Women shouldn't be allowed to cover their faces in public", what I hear is: "I'm a man, and I have the right to tell you, a woman, how to dress." Sorry, not acceptable. Ah yes, I nearly forgot. Muslim. It's that word again. The word that seems to be inextricably linked in so many people's minds to other words like extremism, fundamentalism, terrorism. So if the niqab is Muslim, then, in the blink of an eye, the women who wear it must be extremists, fundamentalists or terrorists. No, actually. Most of them are simply women who, for reasons of their own, whether good or bad, have decided to cover their faces. Would I be happy if my daughter wore a niqab? No, I wouldn't -- but then what I want her to wear has rarely been a major factor in her thinking. Nor should it be. Because what other people choose to wear is nothing to do with me, or with you. You don't like the niqab? Get over it.

Half of Britain’s mosques have been attacked since 9/11There remains ‘a lack of political will’ to tackle Islamophobia, warns Government adviser Around half of mosques and Muslim centres in Britain have been subjected to Islamophobic attacks since 9/11, academics have warned as the far-right English Defence League prepares to march to the south-London scene of Drummer Lee Rigby’s murder. The figures are highlighted in a report which also found that the number of anti-Islamic attacks increased by as much as tenfold in the days following the Woolwich attack. Meanwhile, research by The Independent shows Islamophobic attacks spreading across Britain, with mosques being set alight and Muslims targeted at home in the past month. Despite the warning signs, a senior Government adviser told The Independent that there remains a “lack of political will” to take on the rise of Islamophobic attacks in Britain. The adviser, who did not want to be named, said that attempts to “tackle this issue – even before Woolwich – struggled to attract buy-in,” with the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, Eric Pickles, identified as the primary source of frustration. The Muslim community was warned yesterday of the dangers it faces from hate groups in a sermon delivered at 500 mosques. The piece said that high-profile cases of sexual grooming of children by small groups of Muslim men “hitting the headlines in a short space of time and the fallout from the Woolwich case will create a major challenge for the Muslim community”. The trial date for the two men accused of murdering Drummer Rigby, Michael Adebolajo, 28, and Michael Adebowale, 22, will begin on 18 November, it was announced yesterday. Professor Nigel Copsey, of Teesside University, the author of the new report which showed that between 40 and 60 per cent of mosques and other Islamic centres (around 700) had been targeted since 9/11 – said: “There has undoubtedly been a spike in anti-Muslim incidents since the Woolwich murder. An obvious concern now is whether the number of hate crime incidents return to ‘normal’ levels or whether Woolwich has been a game-changer in terms of increasing the underlying incidence of anti-Muslim hate over the longer term.” His report is based largely on figures from the Islamophobia watchdog Tell Mama. It shows an increase of attacks to nearly nine per day in the immediate aftermath of the Woolwich killing, but settling back to around two per day over in the following weeks. Prof- essor Copsey added: “What is significant about our analysis is the extent to which the far right is implicated in anti-Muslim hate crime.” Just this week, swastikas and the letters “EDL”, “KKK” and “NF” were sprayed on the walls of a mosque in Redditch. There were also reports of pigs’ heads being left at Muslim families’ homes and other attacks against individuals. There was also a attack on an Islamic centre in north London. But Dr Matthew Goodwin, associate fellow at Chatham House and an expert on extremist groups, said that “the broader picture is more positive than we think. Young people are more at ease accepting Muslims in society.” A spokesman for the Department for Communities and Local Government said: “There is no place for anti-Muslim hatred or any kind of hatred in Britain, and we are committed to tackling this unacceptable scourge.” http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/half-of-britains-mosques-have-been-attacked-since-911-8679304.html

It's time to face up to the problem of sexual abuse in the white community Every day across Britain, it seems, there's a new and horrific revelation of sexual abuse: last week we had the guilty plea of veteran TV presenter Stuart Hall, who confessed to 14 cases of indecent assault against 13 girls, the youngest only nine years old. Days earlier the possible scale of child abuse in north Wales children's homes was revealed. We now know there were 140 allegations of historical abuse between 1963 and 1992. A total of 84 suspected offenders have been named, and it's claimed the abuse took place across 18 children's homes. But after the shock has subsided and we have time to reflect on these revolting crimes, the main question in most reasonable people's minds must surely be: what is it about white people that makes them do this? Jimmy Savile is alleged to have abused 300 young people, and in his case and in north Wales, the abuse could not have happened without a wide range of co-conspirators either grooming children or ensuring the truth never got out. Hardly a week goes by without another white man being arrested in connection with sexual abuse. I'm beginning to feel sorry for whites. I have many white friends and I know most of them are wholly opposed to sexual abuse. But they must be worried that their whole community is getting a bad name. I can imagine that, every day, with each unfolding case, they must be hiding their face behind their hands, pleading: "Please, God, don't let it be a white person this time." And with so many senior community figures implicated, many of us are starting to wonder what will happen to the next generation of whites. How will today's young whites learn that abuse is wrong when their role models are so tarnished? First, though, we need to find out what's causing the problem. Is it something to do with white people's culture? Is it something to do with their loss of empire, and their new role in the world, as a diminished state desperately clinging to its glorious past? Do they seek to impose their last vestiges of power on the most vulnerable in society? Or is it that, having spent so much of their history waging wars against each other, they cannot cope with the relative peace of the last half-century, and their frustration at not fighting is taken out on the weakest? I may have no evidence for this, but that's not going to stop me putting it out there as a cause. Or maybe it's their religion? Child abuse in the priesthood has, of course, also been tolerated for decades, allowed to continue unpunished through a conspiracy of silence among the church hierarchy. And despite the recent falls in attendance, Christianity still dominates European culture. And the Bible, which many whites still look to, has such verses as: "Do not withhold discipline from a child; if you strike him with a rod, he will not die. If you strike him with the rod, you will save his soul from Sheol [hell]." (Proverbs 23:13-14) It hardly fits with white society's claims to care for children. And even those who don't believe, such as Richard Dawkins, a senior cleric in the atheist community, have sought to downplay the gravity of child abuse, believing it's no worse than religion itself. As he wrote: "Horrible as sexual abuse no doubt was, the damage was arguably less than the long-term psychological damage inflicted by bringing the child up Catholic in the first place." Of course, what we really need now is for brave white community leaders to come out and distance themselves from the abusers. Maybe, say, the new head of the Equality and Human Rights Commission should come out and admit the issue is "racial and cultural" and that she fears that "in those communities there were people who knew what was going on and didn't say anything, either because they're frightened or they're so separated from the rest of the communities". Or a white cabinet member could say: "There is a small minority of white men who believe that young children are fair game. And we have to be prepared to say that. You can only start solving a problem if you acknowledge it first." Or the head of a leading children's charity could say: "There is very troubling evidence that whites are overwhelmingly represented in the prosecutions for such offences." Yet none of this has happened. And this saddens me. Because until we hear those brave voices speaking out against abuse, what are we meant to think? I urge white people to break this conspiracy of silence. Call on your leaders to show leadership. To show us all that you're not like the people who dominate the news headlines. That you really do care about protecting children. You may think all the above is ridiculous; that I'm stirring ethnic tensions on an issue that is clearly about individuals and small groups of people and has nothing to do with race or religion. And that by making this spurious case I'm ignoring the core issue, which is that children, many of them in vulnerable situations, were terrorised and physically harmed by opportunistic men who were able to get away with their crimes for years. You'd be right. But all of the above arguments were made within various parts of our print and broadcast media when similarly small numbers of Muslim men were revealed to be grooming young girls for sex. If you think the claims about white people are wrong, then so is the stereotyping of Britain's Muslims, and the widespread questioning of their culture and their religion, because of the perverted actions of a few. Since the "black crime shock" tabloid stories of the 1980s, editors have known that stoking fears about misunderstood minorities is good for sales. If you object to this article, then you should understand how it feels to be a Muslim reading similar pieces pandering to Islamophobia day after day – and you should object to those too. http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/may/06/sexual-abuse-in-white-community READ THE WHOLE ARTICLE BEFORE YOU COMMENT