A BBC program just aired tonight called ‘When Tommy met Mo’, it featured the leader of the far-right group, the English Defense League (EDL), Tommy Robinson, and his meetings with Mohammed Ansar, a Muslim community activist.
Mohammed Ansar tried his best to make Tommy Robinson change his mind about Islam, and dump his misconceptions and negative image about it. However, Tommy was insistent that Mohammed Ansar was not representing Islam, and that Islam’s original ‘7th century form’ was still believed and practiced by the Muslim community at large. Tommy had, from the beginning always insisted that the EDL’s purpose was to ‘pressure’ the Muslim community to change Islam, and ‘reform’ it, to ‘get rid’ of its ‘old laws’, and ‘problem’ verses in the Quran. However, Mohammed Ansar argued that the problems were only a matter of interpretation, not a problem with verses.
Tommy was unmoved by this, and continued his work in the EDL, until…
Tommy was then taken with Mohammed Ansar, to meet two ‘experts’ on Islam, the Atheist skeptic historian Tom Holland, and the former-UK government funded ‘anti-Islamist’ Quilliam Foundation’s Usama Hasan. The purpose of the meeting was to put Tommy’s misunderstandings of Islam as a so-called ‘violent barbaric’ religion to the test, and have his concerns answered by these ‘experts’. But to Tommy’s DELIGHT they AGREED with him – you should’ve seen the expression of joy on his face! To his credit Mohammed Ansar looked dejected at this turn of events – he had been spending a lot of time convincing Tommy that that wasn’t the way Islam was.
Tommy then wanted to know what should happen now, and Tom Holland suggested that the way forward was that Muslims should ‘historise’ the Quran, and leave its laws in the 7th century, only taking forward the [secular compliant] ‘universal’ spiritual values which all religions have anyways – a reformation. Usama Hasan agreed with Tom Holland [Quelle Surprise], leaving Mohammed Ansar to protest in vain, that Islam shouldn’t be reformed, only Muslims. His protests fell on deaf ears…
Tommy then was introduced to Maajid Nawaz, Khola Hasan and others, who all seemed to have similar views. Tommy was convinced, THESE were the Muslims he’d been waiting for, a glimpse into the future he had always wanted for Muslims to be like – believing in the same beliefs he did – ‘British Values’ (aka Liberalism).
I don’t know about you, it doesn’t surprise me to see a modernist, Usama Hasan, agreeing with the leader of a right-wing organisation, and an Atheist skeptic about changing Islam. But I’m glad that they admitted it in public, and this was evident for all to see.
I have no further comments to make beyond the ones I said in an earlier article I wrote, when I first heard of Tommy Robinson leaving the EDL to work with Quilliam. As Tommy said, Quilliam introduced him to ‘Muslims’ who would change their own religion to fit into the Western Liberal world – now his new [old] direction would be to make sure the rest of the Muslim community in the UK did the same…he left the EDL, and found a better group of people to work with, which he believed would better help him achieve his goal.
Mohammed Ansar, was left rejected by Tommy, as he dumped him for Maajid Nawaz, head of the Quilliam Foundation. Thus concludes the tale of when Tommy met Maajid..
P.S. Maajid Nawaz grilled Mohammed Ansar on whether or not he affirmed the Quranic punishment for theft was right or not. Maajid said that even if there were an Islamic state, and all the sharia conditions were fulfilled for the punishment to be done, it was still wrong! I’d be lying if I’d say I was surprised, but I was shocked at how publicly he grilled Mohammed Ansar, as if to force him to recant his Islamic beliefs into the Quran’s wisdom. Sad.
The video of the program can be watched on the youtube.
Categories: Islamophobia, Muslim Debate Initiative, NEWS COMMENTARY, The Muslim Debate Initiative, UK. Europe, North America & Muslim communities in the West, WRITINGS
Did you see the Daily Politics program the next day? Mo was asked if he supported hands being chopped off, and he said, no, it’s abhorrent. So does that mean he’s with Nawaz? Or did the interviewer not ask the correct question regarding “this society” versus a “Sharia compliant society” and Mo knew not to make the distinction?
Here’s a moral dilemma for Nawaz, Tommy and Co. – If the bankers that robbed entire societies, leaving many people struggling, were to be caught, found that they did not steal out of desperation/poverty, and found beyond a shadow of doubt that they were guilty (and all other shariah conditions required), would they still feel that the hadd punishment for theft was morally wrong? I suspect that, if they still stood by their objections, they would probably go against a large segment of society who would most likely prefer hadd punishment implemented on the bankers rather than a slap on the wrist and a bonus! This leads to another dilemma – would Nawaz then reform his reformation to comply with the change in public opinion?!! Any ideas?
That’s nowhere near a ‘moral dilema’. Many have called for the bankers to be jailed, which would be the correct punishment. Cutting off hands *is* morally wrong and barbaric. How anyone can equate it with ‘morality’ is beyond me.
Is America barbaric for the electrical chair and lethal injection? I don’t see the ‘civilised’ world come down so hard on them when it’s actually implemented and not theoretical as in this case? (ie – IF there was Islamic law etc). Where’s all the campaigners on ‘humanitarian’ grounds when it’s not just theoretical? Bear in mind, many inmates are on death row for years, waiting to die. Many are there with very questionable evidence against them… Mark, would you be so against harsh punishments if one of your family members was murdered/raped etc, or would you be like many others who when they’re family members are killed quite justifiably call for an real punishment?
Lets also not forget that the main purpose of punishment is to deter rather than just carry out and should not be carried out on a whim.. I would say harsh punishment is a mercy for those who want to live without fear for their lives, families and properties. The only people I can see wanting to object is those who want to harm, steal and oppress. I’m not going to be apologetic for feeling that punishments should be such that it actually deters crime! Just my opinion
Capital punishment has largely been abolished in the West, although some still call for it and always will. In the US, there are protests against it, and I wouldn’t recommend it at all, even with the attempts to make it more humane. As for the emotional reaction to a family death, perhaps many get that, but luckily, in a civilised world, common sense prevails, apart from those who take the law into their own hands, only to get put on trial themselves. That’s kind of trying to keep things civilised. And I would have thought the cutting off of hands is unlikely in many cases in the ‘ideal sharia’, unless they want to affect the labour force adversely, but it seems to be being pushed as ‘ideal’, and that’s why I argue against. However, if we got rid of capital punishment here, then there is no reason to take a step backwards to either that, or mutilation, as it’s taking a step back to barbarism. My opinion of course.
Is imprisonment barbaric? It has been and in many cases, still is, but here, it’s supposed to be (in most cases when it happens), punishment, as well as reformation. It’s a huge subject, because at one extent, some psychopaths will never be safe to be released, but most others can turn it all around – limbs intact!