Lincolnshire Police produce video extolling Islam

On 20th October James Peck of Lincolnshire Live reported on the controversy generated by a video released by Lincolnshire Police. Apparently titled “British Muslims” it was a clumsy attempt by the Force to counter anti-Muslim bigotry which in the opinion of this writer crossed the line into promotion of Islam as an idea. You can view the 13-minute video embedded below in the “Lincolnshire Live” link.


I am unsure of the law in the UK, but had this video been produced in the US I believe it would almost certainly be illegal. Accordingly, I wrote the following letter to the Deputy Chief Constable of the Force, Craig Naylor who robustly defended the video. I have not received a response.


Craig Naylor


Deputy Chief Constable Craig Naylor of Lincolnshire Police (photo courtesy:


“Dear Deputy Chief Constable Craig Naylor,


I refer to your recently released video which I assume is titled “British Muslims”, about which I saw this report.


It is commendable that the Force should be addressing anti-Muslim bigotry yet I have criticisms of the video and would like you to address them.


At 1:03 we read, “British Muslims. How are they portrayed? Terrorists? Jihadis? Islamic State?” It’s true that they are portrayed like this because some British Muslims are as described. It does not seem to be a good start to imply that a plain statement of fact is not true. No data is shown as to how Muslims are portrayed. We are being presented with anecdote rather than scientifically-determined fact.


At 2:12, Hafez Abusammad Mulla claims that, “Coins from Muslim countries dating back to the C8th were used in Great Britain.” (sic) This is not true. He refers to a coin minted in England as the British Museum link shows. It does not inspire confidence when the first substantive claim made in the video is untrue.


At 2:46, much is made of Muslim membership of the modern British Army. It is a sad fact that more British Muslims (ca. 850) joined IS than the 600 or so in the Army. This is quite a commonly-known statistic and it does no good to pretend that there is not a problem when quite clearly there is.


At 3:50 Hafez Abusammad Mulla states, “…’so-called’ Muslims have been responsible for terrorist attacks but these people do not represent the views of normal Muslims like me in this country or abroad.” There is no doubt that, say, IS are a Muslim group. Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi has a PhD in Islamic Studies and several Islamic clerics are embedded with their fighting groups. To call IS “so-called” is to privilege the wish over the fact. On terrorist attacks, according to Pew Research in 2013 8% of Muslims worldwide said that suicide bombing was often or sometimes justified: that makes about 128,000,000 worldwide. That is not insignificant. The numbers are here:


At 7:15 Yasmin Qureshi MP, states, “(I) try to disassociate these terrorist attacks away from Islam.” (sic) It is normal practice for IS terrorists to claim their allegiance to Islamic State and to give a Koranic verse as justification. There is no means in reason for asserting that they are any less Muslim than Ms. Qureshi. This is evangelizing on behalf of a religion.


At 7:59 Khalida Ashrafi says, “When the Charlie Hebdo attacks… happened, the number of hate crimes that were being talked about…were through the roof…” No statistics are produced to confirm the claim. This is anecdote. We know that TellMama’s statistics about serious hate-crimes following Islamist atrocities did not show spikes in the few weeks after. A professional approach to this claim would have detailed statistics, breaking them down into types: speech on social media, verbal attacks in the street, assault etc. A chance to produce firm data was lost.


At 8:30 Bana Kora of the Muslim Women’s Council declares, “For us our religion is a peaceful religion.” This may be a commendable wish, but it is not a statement of fact. Since 9/11 there have been approximately 31,000 jihadist attacks globally. As a matter of pure fact it is not true. The Koran itself contains at least 109 verses of violence and a distressing amount of anti-Semitic invective. Again, we have proselytizing on behalf of a religion.


At 11:45 Hafez Abusammad Mulla avers that “(Muhammad) said ‘The best of mankind are those who benefit mankind’”. A nice thought but again highly unlikely to be true. The quotation comes from al-Daraqutni who flourished in the tenth century, 300 years after Muhammad. Al-Daraqutni could not have known that Muhammad said it – and it sounds nothing like Muhammad as recorded in the Koran. Hafez Abusammad Mulla is making things up.


This was a most disappointing video. It features no statistics on anti-Muslim bigotry, no case studies apart from verbal anecdote, no numbers on the tolerance or otherwise of British society – nor does it compare it with other countries or with other groups such as Jews. It gives a platform to Muslims to deny the link between the scriptures of Islam and violence and to state historical untruths. I would suggest that it is not the role of the Police to produce, and presumably pay for, such da’wa – evangelizing for Islam.


I would suggest that you should make the case statistically and in a secular, professional manner for privileging the fight against anti-Muslim bigotry over other forms (anti-Semitism, anti-Polish, anti-Rumanian). The video does not address this. The case should rather be that one doesn’t attack Muslims because they are fellow humans, not because of any peculiarity of their religion. That is what equality under the law means.


I would be grateful if you could explain how this evangelizing on behalf of a religion is legal and what, if any, further research you have in place to measure the effectiveness of the video. While it is true that the role of the Police should be to promote cohesion, this should not be done at the expense of enabling groups to make up untruths on taxpayer-funded time. Social cohesion can only come if we talk openly and honestly about ideas. No serious security analyst on earth denies the link between Islam and violence: your video attempted to repudiate that. And there, I fear, is the video’s weakness: its editorial decisions render it untrustworthy in the public debate.


I invite you to comment, should you have the time to reply.


Yours sincerely etc….”


An ABC of Islamic State murders

I found this e-mail in my inbox: obviously, I got on some IS mailing list by accident. I think this guy used to run their European Branch from Syria.



Subject: European bombing campaign

Status: Top Secret

From: al-Shami

To: External Ops Council Members

Date: 8-Shawwal-1435 (08-04-2014)


As-salāmu ʿalaykum,


ISIS is settling in to a good few years of European bombing campaigns. I thought I’d save PR a few minutes. The boys from Raqqa are welcome to copy and paste a few excuses for the latest atrocity. Stop the War contacts may consider several hundred words around these themes with the usual stuff – Sykes-Picot, Balfour Declaration, western guilt, blah, blah, blah. Allah (pbuh) willing, we’ll bomb the countries below. But hey, beyond, Muslim ghettoization, mental illness, naff jails and intimidation by the spooks there are always grounds besides killing them all wherever you find them. (pbuh! Lol!)


When we suicide bomb the following countries, this is the line. Cc. all IS and StW – and Simon Jenkins – oh, and Peter Hitchens. (Any other suggestions?). (Apart from the mass-murder quotations from the Koran or the Hadith). For administrative purposes, we present Europe in alphabetical order.


  • Decapitate a few Albanians – the ‘Tirana, sore as necks’ op – point out that it was the only European country occupied by the Nazis ending up with more Jews at the end of WW2 than at the start. Unacceptable. Obviously. Duuurrhh!


  • Blow a few Andorrans to bits, and here’s the rub. Payback for 5,000 of the imperialist bastards bigging up Charlemagne in 788 (171 Islamic Calendar) in his ruck with the lads in the Vall de Carol. In Andorra.



Abderrahman Mechkah, suspect in the Turku stabbing attack with his lawyer (right). Photo courtesy  Newsweek.


  • Another Armenian genocide is a good idea. To encourage the others, as the old Islamophobe, Voltaire, used to say. Let’s have a few more of ‘em enslaved in our army. Just like the Ottoman Empire used to do. (Too serious? Tone?)


  • Austrian infidels stopped us conquering Europe at the gates of Vienna in 1683. Unforfuckingiveable. We never forget. (Won’t take comments on tone. This one’s serious).


  • Azerbaijani oil burning is gonna be apocalyptic: who founded the Caspian and Black Sea Oil Industry and Trade Society in 1883? The Rothschilds. Jews. Need I say more?


  • Run a truck down a Belarus High Street. The only country to jail a newspaper editor for publishing the Danish cartoons of Prophet Mohammed (pbu etc.). That’s our job. How dare they? (To discuss: maybe go easy on infidels doing our job for us? Come prepared with well-attested hadith, brothers. OTOH…jail?: bit liberal).


  • Belgian kufr. In 1974, they recognized Islam as one of the subsidized religions in Belgium. One of…? ONE OF…? Lob a Walloon off a roof-top.


  • Bosnian apostates: not acceptable. Too many Christianized after the Ottoman Empire was thrown out. Munafiq for youse lot: the kindling for the fires of hell. In the meantime we’ll help you along the way. Into the cage. Fire!


  • Bulgaria: this land is our land, as Woody Guthrie said. 5 centuries of Ottoman rule down the pan after the Russo-Turkish war. Choice: slavery, super-tax or a knife to the gizzard. (Video?)


  • Let’s bomb a few Croatian tweenies: settlement for all those Ottoman Croatian Pashas. Splitters.


  • Let’s rape a few Cypriots: the Prophet’s (pbuh) aunt fell off her mule and died there. Murdering bastards.


  • Wikipedia tells me that,” traditionally, influence of Islam on culture of Czech lands has been small.” This has to change. Bomb the Islamophobes.


(Discussion document: for Shura Council eyes only. Comments welcomed on excuses, pretexts, reasons). Remember, brothers, if you can’t think of a cover story, scripture will always provide. The brothers will provide alibis for Euro (E.) countries beginning with letters D to Z. Please come prepared with drafts for all countries. For list of E. states, Google is your friend.


Signed: Abu Mohammad al-Adnani (deceased) Chief of External Operations (IS).


From a certain angle, if Corbyn were being consistent, he might consider supporting the DUP. Yes, they are creationists, misogynists and have history in defending terrorism.


Portrush, Northern Ireland, everyone smiles as the semi-naked bathers drift past the scriptures. Photo courtesy, Alamy.


Rather like JC did in the House of Commons when he defended Imam Suliman Gani of the Tooting Islamic Centre against Cameron’s wrong allegation that the good Imam was an IS supporter.

The facts on Gani, who was the centre of the London mayoral elections in 2016, are that he is a woman-hater, apocalypticist, theological liar, sectarian, creationist, evolution-denier, anti-Semite, Caliphate supporter, defender of ‘Lady al-Qaeda’, friend of Jihadi John’s advocate and AQ supporter. I know because I spent a week researching him.

gani mcdonnell

The Islamist al-Qaeda supporter Gani and Labour Shadow Chancellor, John McDonnell. Courtesy, Socialist Worker.


JC led the attack on Cameron as some Labour backbenchers, to their shame and mine, as I have never not voted Labour, yelled, “Racist!” at the PM in the chamber.

There was a lot in the media during the recent election about JC’s defense of terrorists and dictators (as Shi’a countries are mainly clients of Russia, he saves his ire for Sunni countries and his labour power for the media of Shi’a régimes). But even when I laid out the evidence to left-wing sites, commenters simply weren’t prepared to accept the evidence or would find the lamest of excuses, and worse. It certainly taught me a lesson in the power of the political lens, as well as the theological, to blind oneself to the evidence in front of one’s eyes.

The political mind is still a powerful tool enabling one to ignore facts, to reconcile inconsistencies of principle and to project onto the leader the heroic purity one would wish to see in oneself. JC captures that essence rare.

Is Jeremy Corbyn a ‘Man of Peace’?

Michael Rosen, great children’s author, supporter of Stop the War even though he wishes to deny it, and former candidate for RESPECT, the party of George Galloway, who called Saddam Hussein ‘indefatigable’, posted 5 interesting questions tonight. Rather in the style of the conspiracist who asks questions (to which the answer is always ‘No’), he sought to affirm the Christ-like purity of Jeremy Corbyn’s integrity and ability to save lives. It’s part of the ‘always-on-the-right-side-of-history’ narrative. The problem is that one needs to look at the facts. These were my responses.

‘Good questions.

Rosen: How many lives lost because of who Corbyn met?

Me: Question 1 is almost impossible to answer but it is unlikely that it would have been less than it otherwise would have been because we have no record of JC ever brokering a peace.

Corb stw independent

Jeremy Corbyn, founder of Stop the War. Photo courtesy The Independent.


Rosen: How many lives lost from wars started or supported by the Tories?

Question 2. Let’s start at 1991, the Iraq War 1 which JC opposed. It is difficult to estimate how many Kuwaitis would have died had Saddam been allowed to annex the country. Based on his previous war and genocide records it would have been some large percentage of Kuwait’s 2 million population.

1999 Kosovo intervention, which JC opposed, stopped the genocide. 1.8 million lived in the area.

2000, Sierra Leone, which JC again opposed saved that country of 4 million from further civil war. Figures on how many lives were saved are hard to come by.

2001 Afghanistan which JC opposed. Had his advice been taken, the Taliban would still rule the country and AQ would have had a secure base from which to grow, train operatives, launder money and organize world-wide terrorist attacks in complete security.

2003 Iraq. Violent death figures are disputed between 100,000 and the high and generally disregarded estimates of 1 million. The war itself was very short and relatively low in death figures. The insurgency, organised by ex-Ba’athists and the precursor group to IS, then loosely linked to AQ, was the cause of the brutality which followed: Pilger said that western leftists had ‘no choice’ but to support the insurgency. The population of Iraq in 2003 was 26 million: today it is around 34 million. So, many more Iraqis are alive, highly likely because better conditions have been created in which Iraqis can live. The size of the diaspora pre-2003 would account for only half the rise in population. Violent deaths pre-2003 outnumber by an order of magnitude those after 2003.

2011 Libya I don’t have figures.

2013 Syria. JC opposed the no-fly zone suggestion for safe areas for civilians. Assad has since killed his own people in the hundreds of thousands. Exact numbers again are difficult in the fog of war. Ca. 500,000 is often quoted but the methodologically conservative SNHR numbers about 200,000. This is not to mention the internally and externally displaced who number ca. 10 million. It is highly likely that the no-fly zones would have saved Syrian lives, cowed Assad and deterred Iran and Russia from helping Assad and his Chemical Weapons and bombing of medical facilities campaigns. JC repeats the mantra of calling for ‘talks’, yet he knows that whenever Assad and Putin agree to them, there are spikes in Assadist violence and killing of the population. JC deliberately obfuscates this recurring fact.

Homs BBC

Homs, ‘capital’ of the Syrian revolution: not CGI but obliterated by Assad. Photo courtesy BBC.


Rosen: And Corbyn is the one who is supposedly ‘dangerous’?

On question 3 given that record, yes, there are thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands and more who would not exist if JC had been the decision-maker.

Rosen: How many dictators or terrorists have the Tories one moment been against, the next moment been for, the next moment against again! (sic)

On question 4, I can’t think off-hand of 1 terrorist group which the Tories have supported, although I am happy to be proved wrong. Repulsive régimes, yes. Yet instead of grandstanding in such a morally easy way about how revolting, say, KSA is, one does have to conduct a rational, informed discussion about the implications of withdrawing arms sales. Who would KSA go to for their arms? China, Russia, USA, France, Italy? What would be the foreign policy and balance of power implications, as well as those for the UK in terms of jobs and energy security?

Rosen: And Corbyn is the one who is supposedly dangerous?

On question 5 it is not fake news to describe JC as a fellow traveller with the IRA, a shill for Iran and a man who equates the murder of 3,000 people with the lack of a trial for Osama bin Laden. He does not, or pretends not to, understand the degrees in a moral compass. Nor does he comprehend that intention with regard to action tells us what we need to know about the actor. It is an awful fact that in the world bad people will continue to do appalling things if you leave them be. And their intention will be to continue killing because, weak as their polity is, that’s what they’re good at. Sometimes terrible things have to be done to them in order to stop them, but also in order to produce a better society. It’s a simple fact that the replacement of Assad with, say, Emmanuel Macron as President of Syria would immediately lead to better outcomes for Syria. Methods and intentions matter: JC always obfuscates them.’

I could have been harsher. I could have pointed out that JC always considers who has been murdered before determining his political response to it. But that would have been blindingly obvious. Perhaps I should have. If you have the misfortune to be tortured, killed or a member of a genocided group which is tortured, killed or genocided by a client of the Soviet Union, Russia, an Islamist or anybody vaguely anti-democratic, you are not worthy of effective support. It’s a pattern of behaviour and it’s as simple as that.

If a man, even before he obtains state power, is capable of thinking that, then he is capable of thinking anything. And that is why I cannot, and I hope you should not, support Jeremy Corbyn.

Orwell and how Iraq changed the left.


I have a memory that Marx once said that all his work was a footnote to Rousseau. Reading, D.J. Taylor’s ‘Orwell The Life’, I could conceive that all western political and moral thought is a footnote to Orwell: or rather a conversation with him.

Whether or not Marx said it I don’t know and have never bothered to find out. In much the same way, it is some 30 years since I read most of Orwell, his novels, essays and journalism, yet he remains, at least to me, the slave whispering in the triumphant Roman General’s ear, “Remember, you are mortal.”

We describe as ‘Orwellian’ any régime or movement of political terror which induces a dazed, mute numbness in its victim. It is a cliché which the best, and sometimes the worst, writers avoid. Yet the problem with them is that they are often true, just as stereotypes can be. Indeed, that benoughted destruction of resolve has another Orwellian sense: in 1937 we see his first wife Eileen in Barcelona abstracted from her ability to think by the menace of the Communist Party.

However much the ‘Orwellian’ epithet resonates around public discourse, one is reminded of one’s core impression of the man as in a most awkward way plain honest. His criticisms would not baulk at political or moral inconvenience. If one could compare the methods of the CP and Fascists, then it wasn’t decent to overlook the CP’s crimes; and of course it meant that they shared some mind-set. One thinks of the minute flaring of Orwell’s nostrils as he observed the grime-strewn floors of his working-class hosts in ‘The Road to Wigan Pier’. Did he recall his Burmese days when he chucked his fag butts around his living-room? Still, to marmalize the spirit of a people is not the same as inattention to the chores.

It was Orwell who pointed out, a tad embarrassingly for the head of the British CP in the 30s, Harry Pollitt, one of a long line of UK Stalinists who sound as if they formed part of a Middlesbrough centre-back partnership, that slatternliness could be ouvrierist: as if Marx was slapping his party descendants in the face with his favourite, and Terentian, aphorism, “Nothing human is alien to me” – or you or anyone.

If Terence and that anonymous Roman slave could susurrate our little and big temptations, surely Orwell was on to something when he spotted that obscure writers and clever proles, if unchecked, could transform a righteous battle into a Triumph of the Will. Christendom, smithereened by the Great War, fell to strong men, mini-gods of weedy totalitarianisms which lasted only from 12 to 72 years, naked apes who befoul drains just like the Wigan proletariat. Their Palme Dutts did not stamp on our faces forever but they did substitute the worship of God with that of a set of commonplace humans, often festooned in martial paraphernalia hinting at the loving God’s reversion to Yahwist psychopathy. Hitler, Stalin, Franco, Mussolini.

Orwell marked out the sado-masochism of the dictators’ rule. The sadism of the ruler: the masochism of the ruled. Yet he added love to it. Not only does the torturer need to be loved but he also ‘loves’ his victim object. There is more. The tormentor is not psychologically profound, the persecuted is. The problem is not that the species harvests so many who want to order but that there is a super-production of those who wish to obey. In the literature on business leadership there are about 3,000 titles: on followership, a handful. We still take for granted the urge to submit.

And submission – in Arabic, ‘Islam’ – remains a ubiquitous impulse in the political animal. As well as the refusal to recognize one’s own Janus face. For we all think that we stand for the good: liberals, socialists, communists, islamists. If I do not think that I am moral, my own inner conversation is irreparably divided against itself. Not only can my centre not hold, I do not even have one.

Orwell, in the semi-hysterical reaction of the left to Brexit and Trump’s presidency, has returned to the top of the best-seller lists. ‘1984’ rules. In the ever-so-slightly smug and definitely self-righteous response to the election of an Apprentice President, the left declares fascism imminent. Equality under the law has gone, a dark age beckons, all social norms discarded, I am the arbiter of the just. All bets are off and I fucking hate Big Brother. Let’s punch a Nazi.

Of course, Blair’s ‘1984’ was written just after the midnight in the twentieth century and it is suffused with the horror of one of the top 20 most destructive wars in history. How could it not reflect Eric’s awareness of human depravity?

Is Trump as depraved as Hitler and Stalin? Of course not. And nowhere near so: sooner or later, the left has to identify the spectrum of politicians with whom it disagrees. And to respond to them in a manner which does not mulishly and inaccurately lump them under the playground taunt of ‘fascist’. Remember, Lenin did differentiate between capitalists: why else write a pamphlet titled, ‘Left Wing Communism: an infantile disorder’, an uncharacteristically polite way of informing his followers of their relationship with guano and mental well-being?

Are we living in ‘1984’? No, we’re not, at least in the west. Culturally, the left has won, and enacted, all the moral arguments: the idea of equality under the law, the democratic impulse, respect for ideas – and those who propose them – in the public sphere, the irrelevance of one’s appearance or essence to the persuasiveness of your case. It’s over. In the future, the right might try, but will probably fail, to overturn that. In fact, a lot of the North European right agree with those ideas. In this sense, Orwell was wrong, but that is not what he was trying to forewarn in ‘1984’.

Most views of Orwell post-1945 see him as the voice of good old-fashioned, decent British common-sense socialism. His biographer, Taylor, as far as I recall, underplays his fascination, and intellectual argument, with the ex-Trotskyists Burnham and Shachtmann. In 1946, Orwell reviewed Burnham’s theories a mere 6 years after this conversation: in 1940 Hitler asked the Norwegian ambassador who he thought would win the war. The brave legate replied, “Trotsky”.

Orwell’s intellectual atmosphere reeked under Trotsky’s miasma: that’s why ‘Animal Farm’ and ‘1984’ are a conversation with, and, frankly, apology for Snowball/ Goldstein/Bronstein/Trotsky who could write like Shakespeare but act like Richard III.

Natheless, we all know that Orwell was a morally serious person: and so was Trotsky. One cannot possibly say the same about huge swathes of the modern left.

The most egregious example is the Second Iraq War. It was trivially simple to oppose it. The sole argument against it was the possibility of a bad outcome: which one can say about any war. The left – and it was the left in general – opposed it on the basis that it was imperialist, mainly because they, irrelevantly, thought that Dubya was a klutz: exactly how most British workers thought of Winston Churchill in 1939.

The 2nd Iraq war was obviously not an imperialist war and it differs from most other US interventions in that it attempted to, and did, install democracy in Iraq. The western left has utterly failed to notice this, preferring instead to focus on the trivial issue of George Bush’s rhetorical skills. That war ended disastrously, largely because of Bush’s hopeless Stage IV planning, and Saint Barack Obama’s withdrawal of American troops from the nascent Iraqi democracy.

If I were to turn the mulish leftist allegation-filled mind-set on its head, I’d point out that Obama left Iraqis to stand up for their own democracy. Let’s give Iraq 6 years to build a functioning democracy. While the US, 72 years after WWII and stationing troops in their countries, can’t rely on the Germans and Japanese to guarantee their own. This looks like US anti-white and anti-those-damned-clever-East-Asians racism. Any consistent western leftist might consider calling that racism – and they would still be wrong. Of course it ain’t true, but the thought could never even cross the mind of the bubble-primed modern western leftist desperate to spot US racism against a brownish Middle Eastern person.

Now we are left with the collapse of confidence in universal human values, largely as a result of the anti-Iraq war critique by the western left. What is noticeable is those critiques’ massive ignorance of the nature of Saddam’s régime. Largely, the left does not know anything about, or refuses to acknowledge its unfamiliarity with, Iraq 2003. And that is precisely the point that Orwell made about the USSR in 1948.

Of course, the big problem is that leftists think that any western intervention anywhere is immediately bad. Iraq is the go-to example. They fail to observe that Obama, by prematurely withdrawing US troops, sabotaged any possible good outcome in Iraq. They allege that the lesson is that the west – and the UN, which has played possum for 2 decades – should not intervene anywhere.

The word ‘Iraq’ is a short-hand for the unnecessary prosecution of a fight which should never have been started: it has become axiomatically the definition of a bad outcome. Yet, look at the statistics on Iraqi deaths pre- and post-2003. Saddam Hussein’s murderous efficiency makes IS look like amateurs. It outperforms IS by a magnitude of 10s or 100s.

As one tweeter expressed it, the left is suffering from “the awful ripple effects from the stigmatization of the Iraq intervention…” and particularly from its refusal to face Obama’s disastrous Middle East policy: his enabling of the growth of Iranian Shi’a theocracy and Ba’athist rule-by-torture.

In the short term this refusal by large swathes of the left has become a type of decadent grande bouffe at which it eats itself. Turn insular and isolationist and identify an identity from which you can indulge yourself in telling off the members of another group whose ideas, contrary to the rigour-free claims of your own ideology, you present as biologically determined: all white men are the same.

More seriously, in the medium and long term, the western left must take up a rigorous analysis of the Iraq war and its aftermath. I only see it being done to any extent in the security analysis sphere, among whom the facts really matter. We have a catastrophic long-term effect: the tiresome knee-jerk short-hand of ‘Iraq’ – all of it – being the definition of predictable failure.

If universal human rights are not worth defending everywhere and we become obsessed by who can have a dump where, this is the trivialisation of the left. This is how the useless western leftists – as Lenin said, useful idiots – enable theocracies, genocidalists and kleptocrats to determine the world order for the next generation. Because they have retreated from any beliefs without borders not even into the boudoir, but to the bathroom. And they are reduced to scuttling around in New York sucker-punching obscure, irrelevant and ineffective neo-Nazis like Richard Spencer and claiming world-historical class victory through a righteous clocking. How low and pathetically thuggish.

In some mood of exasperation, Marx once exclaimed, “Then I am not a Marxist.” In a zeitgeist where western leftist leaders openly excuse Islamo-fascists and others wibble on about punching right-wingers they don’t like, I know how he felt.

I will defend to your death your right not to say it

When rucking Nazis it’s good to see that the ‘left’ no longer draws the line at a punch. Why not a kick in the head? A knee-capping? Castration? Both sexes? Young and old? Time to bring back the Rack, the Judas Cradle, the Wheel, Dunking, Boiling, Exposure, Live Burial, Bastinado and the Iron Maiden.

Why not? All that Nazis need is public humiliation. That’s the argument.

We could add nunchucks, the axe, the long bow, the bodkin point, the mace (the modified grain flail), the lance. Sod it, let’s chuck in a few swords.

What about trepanning? I am told that the scraping sensation of the skull being cut away would be pretty scary, but apparently it’s not particularly painful.

Image result for the wheel torture device

The Wheel: dissatisfaction guaranteed. A splenetic time is guaranteed for all. Courtesy:


In that spirit, I have a serious proposal. Why not hire a school playground and invite the All-Star Righteous Clockers of Nazi Scum for a good punch-up? Dan Arel and his co-slugger Lexi Alexander can use either fist. Given our new familiarity with feudal torture implements and my willingness to undergo trepanning for the team, I invite anyone to bagsy me as tag-partner. You’d like a man like me on your side. Someone who won’t shy away from getting medieval on their asses, nor on mine.

Samuel L. Jackson will be umpire. Cheerleaders to dance ‘The Blair Peach Memorial Goose-Step’ and sing, “Fight! Fight! Fight!” To the winners, the Gold Medal in the Moral High Ground.

While we’re at it we can award Owen Jones of the Grauniad a Special Award for Services to Moral Contortionism.  He it was who joined Linda Sarsour’s DC March for Women and then whined, as is his wont, that he would not join an anti-Trump London march since it was organized by the Socialist Workers’ Party who condone rape within their organization (true). Owen would never march with promoters of rape culture: Sarsour, of course, being a Muslim ‘leftist’ and believer that Ayaan Hirsi Ali does not have a right to her own vagina, could not possibly fit that description.

Hell, it looks like young Owen is an apologist for crypto-Fascists like Sarsour. Why not pile in on him as well?

You have to get your laughs where you can nowadays: but they’re all bittersweet.

h/t gravelinspector-Aidan for the technical advice on 700 year-old evisceration techniques.




We, the people of Birmingham in England, ask the world to save us. Theresa May’s régime barrel-bombs our houses, our streets are rubble: her helicopters destroy our hospitals. These are our last moments. This is our last testament.

There is no way out. Our roads are cut off. May’s army, backed by US military might, and the militias of nine Western European countries have forced their way in to ninety per cent of the city. Dismembered bodies lie everywhere, limbs scattered, heads off, blood awash. Our heroic St. John’s Ambulance people describe it as ‘hell’. They have lost count of the dead. 

We have rebels and internal refugee civilians kettled in to 2 square kilometres of our ruined city. We await our death. The régime is murdering the men who leave: they accuse them of terrorism. May’s rape-and-death squads violate our women, they go among the refugees to pick out pro-democracy leaders.

The US planes bomb our suburbs, the régime drops chlorine gas on us, we flee to cower in bunkers. Our children wail in dust and dried blood. They don’t understand. They have no food. We have no medicine. We have nothing to give them.

We call again on the UN, on anyone, to help our women and children get out.  They must live. We have asked for this aid for five years. There has always been too little. President Putin, we wanted you to protect us: it was always too little. Now you say not a word as we see the end. Have you given up on us?

We face our midnight and close our eyes. This is our witness to those who closed theirs.

Things that the everyday folks leave behind



Jeremy Corbyn is a womble.  He recycles speeches rejected by the 5 Labour leaders since Kinnock.  The current US Vice-President Joe Biden notoriously borrowed word for word from a speech of Neil Kinnock.  Corbyn, rummaging in the former Labour leader’s bin, plagiarized his cast-offs.  Any old rubbish will do for Jeremy.

Yet that speech, from the 2015 Labour Conference, also contained Jeremy’s stirring call-to-arms for a kinder, gentler politics.


Let’s see how that worked out.  How do his followers, cult-like in their idolization of the worst speaker in British politics – reminiscent of Trotsky’s aghast opinion of the mundane Stalin – respond to criticism of the honest and principled JC?

From the Jeremy Corbyn for PM Facebook page, 01-07-16.

MR: And if he’s bullied into resignation, how many of us will leave? I know I will…I could never support a party of backstabbers, liars and bullies.

SLHB: Deselect all those self-serving MPs who stabbed him in the back and hold by-elections in every constituency.

RDH:  Another Murdoch parrot.

JG: You’re clearly very stupid, right-wing or racist or all of these.

BS: They (the PLP) are just a bunch of scheming bullies. Put up your candidate or crawl back into the shadows.

LT: First thing you do is get rid of all those backstabbing ministers.

PC: Behind you all the way Jeremy Corbyn, you can lead us out of this conspiratorial mess, keep going!

BQ: JR been trolling this page for days ………….That is an absolutely DISGUSTINGLY LOW DIG !!! Admin of the page need to remove this person !!!

JW: Traitor Eagle…

JW: lets get rid of the traitors now!

RM: Paxman is a tosspot.

GW: If you could come out of the fantasy place that you are and make a viable statement, maybe just maybe you could learn something. Until then keep quiet.

GJ: Why don’t you just run along and post on the UKIP, or other ultra-right wing pages where your comments will be appreciated?

CH: Don’t let the self-serving bastards bring you down Jeremy.

FD: The monster! Pathetic woman! (Referring to Jewish Labour MP, Ruth Smeeth)

LT: Better than his backstabbing comrades methinks, and the positively evil Tony Blair.

This is the standard of rhetoric on a page which calls for JC to be the Prime Minister of the UK.  Presumably, those are the norms they wish to see as Jeremy bestrides the world stage.

Well, you can include me out on that.

h/t Michael Wilkinson &


Jeremy Corbyn, a man fit to be a Secretary of a rural parish council, who signs his own apples, who declares, “I am not a personality”.  A leader tongue-tied during PMQs at the answers to his own questions: the Don Quixote, Oblomov, Charles Pooter, Chauncey Gardiner and Alan Partridge of the Labour Party; a man who permanently gives the impression of living behind a gauze of disengagement; a man who subtracts from the energy in a room by entering it; a man who exudes his deep unhappiness at the job he is in; a man who claims a kinder, gentler politics while his acolytes hurl abuse around worthy of Mao’s cultural revolution; a man happier holding a placard rather than a debate.

Yet a man with a reputation for honesty, sincerity and integrity.

The ‘Socialist’ whose surgery is in an Islamist mosque; the ‘leftist’ who supports the murdering IRA: who calls the genocidal anti-Semites Hamas his friends; and Hezbollah, the trainers of al-Qaeda in suicide bomb techniques; the man who thinks that the death of Osama bin Laden is morally equivalent to the murder of 3,000 people in 9/11; the man who works for Iranian Press TV; the man who celebrates the Khomeiniist regime at rallies (below); the man who defends Suliman Gani, the supporter of al-Qaeda; the man who responds to a caller proposing the killing of all Jews “Thank you for your call”; the man who fills in for George Galloway, the Saddam-worshipper, on Russian state-propaganda TV; the man who itched to oppose the first Gulf War after the UN had voted for it and after Saddam had bombed Israel and Saudi Arabia and annexed Kuwait; the man who dares to set up Stop the War and oleaginously imply that he is a pacifist; the man whose StW says nothing about the continuing genocide in Syria by Assad backed by Russia and Iran; the man whose StW organization publishes rabidly anti-Semitic posts and then deletes them as if they had never happened; the man who, on having his Labour Party exposed as secreting crazed anti-Semites, sets up an inquiry to root out the nonsensical Islamist meme ‘Islamophobia’ in the party; the man who surrounds himself with dumb posh boys flirting with the most repulsive régimes on the planet;  North Korea, the USSR, Iran, Syria, Gaza; people who are so supine and incompetent that they can’t even be bothered responding to daily political events; and whose animus against the MSM is so great that they prefer to snapchat among themselves rather than engage.

Honest, sincere, honourable, competent?

None of the above: it’s time we moved into the post-Corbyn Labour Party era.



, , , , , , , , , , , ,

sulima gani

Imam Suliman Gani, Tooting’s leading Islamic scholar: photo courtesy BBC.


The P.M. David Cameron affirmed in April during PMQs that the Tooting Imam Suliman Gani supported ISIS.  He did so as Labour MPs bellowed, “Racist!”  Why?  Because Cameron had questioned the wisdom of Labour’s candidate for Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, sharing a platform with Mr. Gani several times.

At the minimum this looked like carelessness on Khan’s part.

In the next few hours, the facts appeared to turn in favour of Mr. Gani’s story.  He spoke to BBC Radio 4 and cited his support for the Tory party itself.  The vehemence with which he condemned DAESH sounded credible.  And Mr. Gani had already tweeted a picture of himself standing next to Khan’s Tory rival for Mayor of London, Zac Goldsmith: he who, to the consternation of some elements of the Tory Party, was running this ‘racist’ campaign.

As some on the right expressed their queasiness at some rancid whiff in Goldsmith’s hustings, the left scented bigotry and Gani had provided the evidence for the smell of right-wing hypocrisy: and for the left, the revelation of rightist two-facedness is as spinach is to Popeye.  The conversational and political winds blew in Khan and Gani’s directions.  Khan won and Gani looked like an obscure Muslim leader horribly slandered by the P.M., no less, cowardly hiding behind parliamentary privilege.  Cameron even apologized to Gani a few days after his gaffe.

Yet the problem with the news narrative was that it was always viewed through the political lens, as through a glass darkly.  What follows may not be news but it is the engine which drove the whole Gani-Khan-Goldsmith-Cameron story in the first place.  If it is not true that Mr. Gani supports IS, we still know that he was backing some extremist causes.  A claim about Mr. Gani’s ideas was made before Cameron’s intervention.  Can’t we find out what they are?



According to, Imam Gani comes from a noble South African family.  I cannot find where he was born, but judging by the quality of his English, he was not born and raised in England: it is possible however that he had a sheltered British upbringing in the company of what sounds to me like an Indian sub-continent English accent.

If this CV is to be believed, he learned to recite the Koran (the hifz), when young.  Certainly his ability (to this non-Arabic speaker) to intone from memory the second worst book ever written, after Mein Kampf, is impressive for those who are impressed by that kind of thing.

He studied for 3 years in Pakistan and 2 at Cairo’s Al-Azhar University, the institution which inspired the first distribution of Islamist leaflets in Afghanistan in 1965.  The University does not appear in the list of top 700 global Universities.  Here he studied Sharia (Fiqh) and the dogma (Aqeeyah), as well as the Koran and the Hadith (the sayings of Mohammed).

He then moved onto the Salafist, men-only Islamic University of Medina, an institution which apparently does not merit a mention in the 4,338 institutions of the QS Top Universities guide. Hardly surprising, as one does not need A-levels or equivalent to apply.  It seems that the normal length of course is 4 years.

After a total of up to 9 years studying Islam, Mr. Gani was then sufficiently qualified to study for an M.A. at a reputable British University – the SOAS – where he ‘picked up’ a higher degree in Islamic Studies.  The current brief description of the course contains no reference to historical critiques of the Islamic holy texts.  It advertises itself as a translation exercise.  It looks like a course in theology: or as James Joyce said, a subject without an object.

That is Mr. Gani’s education.  He went on to become Imam at Tooting Islamic Centre.  If brevity is the soul of wit I could not possibly write three funnier words.

So we know that Imam Gani studied Islam to some ‘higher’ level in the three countries which have produced the most toxic and consequential versions of modern Islam: Deobandi Pakistan, Muslim Brotherhood Egypt and Wahhabi Saudi Arabia.  And even in London, his Islamic Studies betray no hint of a critical approach.  Indeed, we know that he studied in Medina where, by common western scholarly consensus, his prophet became the very model of a medieval Major-General such as Tamerlane and where the psychopathic later Koranic verses (ayat) abrogated the earlier, and marginally sane, Meccan ones.

It is conceivable that Mr. Gani survived his education equipped with ideas of universal human rights, equality under the law and a conviction of the reactionary nature of theocracy.  But it doesn’t look like that.

After up to twelve years of Islamic education, what did he decide to do next?  What was the judgment of Suliman?



If any sect could claim to be the Quakers of the umma – the Muslim world – it would be the Ahmadi.  They are the Muslims whom one always sees in Britain doing charitable works regardless of faith.  (One of the five pillars of Islam enjoins charity, but only towards fellow Muslims.)  Except that religious sectarians like Imam Gani would not admit that Ahmadi are part of the umma.  That is a very serious statement in Islam.  It is to say that they are apostates, for which the penalty, in an ideal Islamic state, is death.  Alternatively, if one feels like it, one could declare them ‘munafiq’, even worse than the infidel enemies of Islam.  The punishment for munafiq is to be the kindling for the fires of hell.  If one is happy to follow this logic, it is less of an offence to Allah to be an atheist than it is to be a liberal Muslim.

Suliman Gani does not like Ahmadis.

Why should he?  He is a Sunni.  There are about 1.2 billion of them.  And about 20 million Ahmadis.  This is not a game, and certainly not a game of two halves.

If you heard a Northern Irish Protestant call a minority Catholic a ‘Papist’, you would be fairly sure that the predicate will contain nothing good or reasonable.  So, when Sunnis label Ahmadis ‘Qadianis’ you get a hint of the measure of the analogy.  By 2010, Imam Gani of Tooting was doing just that.  And agitating against Ahmadis owning halal butcheries – that was a Sunni job.  It worked.  Tooting Ahmadi butchers were boycotted and called ‘Kafir’.  We all now know that the pejorative means that one is not Muslim: the sanction for that, depending on the social and political circumstances, can be left to the imagination.  To be clear, in this ideal Islamic state, it is curtains for the Ahmadis.

In normal circumstances, Mr. Gani delivers speeches in a flat and frankly, uninspiring style – the Andy Murray of Islamists (yet I have great admiration for the baseline Scot).  When it comes to sermons on the Ahmadis, much as the far left groupuscules save their particular heat and ire for each other rather than the class enemy, the sound wave of his voice oscillates rambunctiously, the volume rises and the words per minute increase from two-time hum-drum to drum ‘n’ bass.  This is the man, who says,

“If one of the (political) candidates is a Qadiani… people…may think that he’s a Muslim…we know what is the hidden agenda of these people…Who can challenge the divine laws of Allah?…(They) are God’s laws!”

He cannot abide Ahmadis.

To allow myself a parenthetical identity politics sneer.  I was born in Derry.  I have never found convincing the argument for one particular interpretation of an Iron Age doctrine over another: it does not entitle the winning theorist to determine the good society.

tooting butchers

No freedom for Tooting Ahmadi butchers: photo courtesy The Wimbledon Guardian



You will find members of the flat earth society all around the globe.  ‘Scholars’ who have studied Islamic ‘science’ are disproportionately well-represented in the club.  The SOAS alumnus Imam Gani is a leading scion.

At this point we need to meet Harun Yahya.  He is a rich Turkish chancer who published ‘The Atlas of Creation’, an incredibly handsome tome, ‘refuting’ evolution by natural selection.  With this book of Yahya’s out, he sent it to the world’s leading scientists (not in the Islamic sense).  Richard Dawkins remained unconvinced and publicly had a good laugh saying so.

Yet the consensus of the finest scientific minds on the planet does not suffice for Suliman whose alma mater considers entrants holding GCSEs as over-qualified.  On Mr. Yahya’s deeply funny self-publication he says,

“The style, the presentation…is something we cannot even understand.  How is it possible for such great quality work…give him congratulations and make lot of da’wa (evangelizing), let Allah to preserve him.”

You get the drift of his approval and I apologize for the transcript, for this is a man who is incapable of thinking in paragraphs.

I struggle at this point to elucidate the pun on his flat oratory and the metaphor of his geological flat-earthism, but we will struggle on to his flat-out worship of the Ottoman Empire.

“There should not even be any borders.  We are waiting for back where Turkey and the return of the Ottoman Empire…I mean looking at the history of Islam, it was whenever the Muslims were united, whenever there was peace in the world, then really, really in essence it meant that we had somebody who was able to take the umma forward.”

Imam Gani continues that there should be no borders in ‘occupied Palestine’, Lebanon, the Sharm area and “what do you call it?  Syria.”  He wants to see the ‘liberation’ of Palestine and the al-Aqsa mosque in Jerusalem.  With no borders.

That is an Imam who appears in the videos of the Islamist (but probably non-violent) Hizb ut-Tahrir: and this is how he calls for the dissolution of Israel and the revival of the Ottoman Empire – a Caliphate.  He leaves it to the listener to imagine what would happen to the Jews in this revival of an Islamic state in the Levant, but the poster of ‘The Portents of the End Times’ on the wall behind him during this interview does not fill one with confidence in his peaceful intentions, or sanity for that matter.  Still, at this point we should not confuse Mr. Gani’s support for an Islamic state in the Levant with his outright condemnation of Islamic State In The Levant.

suliman gani a9

Suliman Gani denies evolution and calls for an Islamic state in the Levant: photo courtesy



If you come across a young man with twisted, cropped hair, and a blind eye, you should be concerned.  If you listen to Imam Gani, it is already too late to make your will.  For this is the Dajjal, no different from the anti-Christ who comes before the Day of Judgement, of Resurrection, whatever your horror-fantasy wishes to call it.  One should always be wary of religionists who believe in Armageddon: for it is a short step from giving it credence to wanting to bring it on.  By 2013, Mr. Gani was speaking at meetings explaining precisely what to expect on that day when all shall be judged equally.  We do know that on the Glorious Day men and women will still have separate entrances.

The monotheisms are particularly exercised by women: Islam, nowadays, more than the other two.  Suliman is especially interested in the issues of the sisters.  But not in a good way.



Imam Gani is on the liberal wing of the Islamic Pro Wife-Beating Tendency.  Yes, it should be done but only so as not to cause pain or suffering.  At 22.40 in the video he does not explain how to reconcile the two.  It must be because Islam ‘elevates women to such high status’ that they are immune to physical pain.

On the question of whether to have sex with the lights on or off, the good theologian declares scripture agnostic.  But certainly one ought to consider the Environment: Islam’s flag is, after all, traditionally green.  Consider during foreplay: do you really need that electric light on?  The earth will move with or without it.

Suliman tells us that, “The prophet never raised his hand over a women”.  True enough: he punched her in the chest instead.  And that was his favourite wife, Aisha, the erm…young one. Now why would the pattern of human excellence do that?  Because, according to the Hadith Muslim (4:2127) young Aisha went out without the prophet’s say-so.  According to Aisha who obviously felt less inhibited after the great man’s death, “He struck me on the chest which caused me pain.”

Why would Imam Gani deliberately mislead the Tooting umma about the boxing skills of his favourite warlord?  Well, it’s a bit embarrassing isn’t it?  And one gets the distinct impression that the phone-in host is making things up as he goes along.

At 55.30, the South London Islamist addresses ‘sisters’ who dress immodestly, are seductresses, show off their figure and tempt men with their hair in a bun so that the hijab is ’in the shape of a camel’.  These exalted women are going to hell.

In the full hour of his show on domestic violence, Mr. Gani does not once mention the secular courts.  The ‘authority’ which Muslim women are to submit to is the father of the family: or unnamed other authorities which sound suspiciously like himself.  Or perhaps the UK Islamic Sharia Council which claims to have dealt with 9,000 cases since its founding in 1982.  We cannot know if he is a judge on the Council because the ISC website forgets to name any of its members.

We know of one woman whom Suliman Gani particularly exalts.  Her name is Aafia Siddiqui: otherwise known as ‘Lady al-Qaeda’.



In 2004, Lady al-Qaeda was one of the FBI’s seven most wanted terrorists.  In 2010, Aafia Siddiqui, the niece by marriage to Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the man who organized 9/11, was found guilty in a U.S. court of attempted murder and assault with a deadly weapon.  She got banged up for eighty-six years.

For Suliman Gani the fact of her rendition from Afghanistan to New York to stand trial is not a human rights issue or at least he does not say so in this rally for her support.  What is important for Gani is that, “We are concerned about our sister.”   For him she is being humiliated and her dignity attacked: her case is not one of Universal Human Rights and he is not interested in the question of the legality of her standing trial in the U.S.  In Gani’s theology it is a question of one’s duty under Islam.  Those who support her do so as an ‘act of kindness’ and their solidarity will be noted in the Book on Judgment Day.  The thought that those who do not rally to her banner are going to hell is implied.  But the sisters in the black niqabs and brothers in unkempt beards shuffling in front of him in varying degrees of interest are the human material whom Allah will eternally reward.

Gani declares that it is an Islamic duty to defend high-ranking members of al-Qaeda.

suliman gani JFAC rally

Imam Gani says it is a Muslim duty to defend ‘Lady al-Qaeda’ at a 2010 rally: photo courtesy



Gita Saghal was suspended by Amnesty International in 2010 for her criticism of its association with the Taliban-supporting Moazzem Begg of CAGE.  She took further aim at CAGE’s Asim Qureshi for his promotion of global jihad.

This is the same Asim Qureshi who called Jihadi John ‘a beautiful young man’ at this infamous and disastrous press conference on 26th February, 2015 – remember the date.  Why would the normally smooth-talking Mr. Qureshi have blundered so badly in public and ruined whatever reputation CAGE had?  Perhaps the answer lies here.  Qureshi and Mohammed Emwazi (aka ‘Jihadi John’) had been in irregular contact in London.  Emwazi left London to join al-Nusra, otherwise known as ‘al-Qaeda in the Levant’.  When Emwazi jumped ship and turned up as the ISIS YouTube guy to go to for a good guillotining, this would explain Qureshi’s faux- bewildered and regretful tone in his eulogy for the butcher of James Foley.

Asim Qureshi’s colleague from CAGE, Moazzem Begg defended Mohammed Ahmed and Yusuf Sarwar, declaring that they were not members of ISIS following their twelve year sentence after travelling to Syria.  The forgetful Mr. Begg omitted to mention that they had joined a group affiliated to al-Qaeda.  Qureshi and Begg are apologists for al-Qaeda.  They use the denial of links to ISIS to dishonestly imply that they have no truck with al-Qaeda.

Similarly, we started this search with Suliman Gani’s shock that he could be thought a supporter of ISIS.

On 8th February, 2015, eighteen days before Qureshi’s public meltdown, Gani posted to YouTube his meeting on the Security and Terrorism Bill, sharing a platform with none other than the fan of decapitation and close friend of Moazzem Begg, Asim Qureshi.  In fact Gani seems to have organized the affair.

The third speaker represented MEND – Muslim Engagement and Development.  The aim of the Islamist MEND is to influence political parties, to coordinate the Muslim vote, to bombard the media with complaints about ‘Islamophobia’ and generally to play on the widespread fear of being thought racist.  Labour and Tory politicians have spoken at their meetings.



…Wrote Christopher Hitchens riffing on a theme of Orwell’s.

We now know of Mr. Gani’s Islamist world-view.  One need only add MEND’s campaign to influence politicians of any party in order to explain the Tooting Imam’s self-confessed willingness to approve of whichever candidate advances best his Islamist agenda.  Now you will see him with Labour’s Sadiq Khan.  And now you will view his photograph with Tory Zac Goldsmith.  It matters little at this point whether the tactic will succeed.

The advantage for Gani is that he can embarrass whomever he wants with evidence that they appeared to support him.  And he really fooled some on the regressive left.  Hacks such as Owen Jones of The Guardian who, when forced to choose between an Islamist Imam and a Tory candidate, see a man asking pertinent questions on one side and a racist threat to civilization on the other: as usual, Owen got the wrong answer.

What would have happened if Cameron, instead of raising the ISIS issue, had labelled Mr. Gani a supporter of al-Qaeda?  Who knows?  But he would have been much closer to the truth.

We are left with Suliman Gani, the woman-hater, the apocalypticist, the theological liar, the sectarian, the creationist, the evolution-denier, the anti-Semite, the Caliphate supporter, the defender of ‘Lady al-Qaeda’, the friend of Jihadi John’s advocate.  On the plus side, he does not support ISIS.



SG’s CV, 2009

SG speaks at a rally in support of al-Qaeda’s Aafia Siddiqui, 2010

‘Worshippers told at Tooting Islamic Centre to boycott Ahmadiyya shops’, The Wimbledon Guardian, Omar Oakes, 2010

Channel A9 interview with SG, 2012

Promotion of SG’s speech on the Dajjal, Islamic eschatology, 2013

‘Revealed: The NHS imam who opposes organ transplants but has been employed in a hospital for three years’, Mail Online, Abul Taher, 2013

‘CAGE convenes Congress of Hate’, Ikhwan Info, 2014

Blog: The Syrian Intifada, ‘Mohammed Emwazi and al-Qaeda in Somalia’, Kyle W. Orton, 2015

‘Counter Terrorism and Security Bill’, SG, Asim Qureshi and MEND share platform, 2015

SG’s 2015 visit to al-Aqsa Mosque, Jerusalem

SG’s 2015 interview of John McDonnell, Shadow Chancellor

SG’s 2016 visit to Deobandi Jamiatur Rasheed School, Pakistan

SG at ‘Voting in Islam’ debate, 2016

Muslim leaders’ statement defending SG, 2016

‘Suliman Gani lives in fear after David Cameron’s lie’, Peter Oborne, Middle East Eye, 2016

‘Suliman Gani sues Michael Fallon over claim he backed ISIS’, The Guardian, Anushka Asthana and Heather Stewart, 2016

‘Muslim group with links to extremists boasts of influencing election’, Andrew Gilligan, The Telegraph, 2016

SG as public face of Helping Households Under Great Stress, nd

University of Southern California, Center for Muslim-Jewish Engagement, nd