Fresh from comparing secular progressive Muslims to ISIS, Mo has made a new comparison which bears some scrutiny. He compares J. Edgar Hoover’s FBI criticism of Martin Luther King (MLK) to his own perceived Twitter persecution. In so doing, he is comparing himself to MLK. If this is true, and there really is an equivalence between the actions of the FBI 50 years ago and his ‘detractors’ now, then his ‘detractors’ should be ashamed. Let’s take a look.

Here’s the letter (click to expend):

MLK Letter

This letter was accompanied by surveillance recordings of extramarital relationships MLK was having. A clear case of blackmail. This was written in 1964 (4 years before his assassination) and the inference is for him to commit suicide before these recordings are released and he is shamed.

This letter contains:

  • Insults (fraud, beast, abnormal, evil, etc)
  • Accusations of immorality (lower than a beast)
  • Accusation of atheism
  • Accusation he isn’t a clergyman
  • Accusations of adultery
  • Probable incitement to suicide

Utterly abhorrent.

What is the commonality in the language of the letter and the language “applied liberally” by Mo’s ‘detractors’?

I stand to be corrected, but I can only see:

  1. Accusation re clergyman – No real clergy in Islam, but ‘detractors’ claim Mo isn’t an Imam (actually Mo has claimed to both be one, and not)
  2. The term ‘fraud’ – I’ve seen this used regarding Mo and certainly used liberally in the letter above.

1 is just too nebulous and Mo has backed away from claims he’s an actual Imam and more towards a metaphorical Imam, head of household, etc.

I’ll compare Mo and MLK in a few of the areas where Mo thinks they have commonality and apply a ‘truth star rating’. 5 stars – I think ‘fraud’ is an unjustified term, 1 star – I think the label is justified.

Civil Rights Crisis

MLK said there was one in 1964. In the same year as the above letter was sent, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed in the US ending segregation in public spaces. The 1965 Voting Rights Act which ensured fair representation for all minorities in elections was still a year away. Eventually, spearheading civil rights for minorities in the US would cost MLK his life.

Mo asserted this is the UK in 2014:


Feel free to read the article. That Muslims have equal legal rights in the UK in 2014 is not questionable. It is also true that institutionalised racism hasn’t entirely left our society. This however is applicable to all racial minorities and not Muslims per se.

MLK Truth rating: 5 star

Mo Truth rating: 2 star

Qualifications, Education & Awards 


  • Degree in Sociology – Morehouse College
  • Degree in Theology –  Crozer Theological Seminary
  • PhD in Systematic Theology – Boston University
  • Nobel Peace prize – 1964
  • Presidential Medal of Freedom – 1977 (posthumous)
  • Congressional Gold Medal – 2004

All seems legitimate. There were some (upheld) accusations of plagiarism is his doctoral thesis, however. This thesis now contains reference to lack of quotations and citations.


Mo’s never been that forthcoming with details on his education and qualifications.

There is this:


And this from his website:

Mo award

So my best guess is:

  • Law degree – Unknown university (unknown result)
  • Unknown Award for Equalities, Diversity and Inclusion for FTSE 100 companies
  • Legal advocate / Lawyer – Qualifications unknown
  • Theologian – Qualifications unknown
  • Lecturer / Visiting Lecturer / Educationalist – Unknown / Member of Hampshire Standing Advisory Committee for Religious Education (SACRE).

MLK Truth rating (loses one star for plagiarism): 4 star

Mo Truth rating (lack of verifiable claims): 1 star

Public Speaking

Mo claims to be “an accomplished public speaker”. Not sure what MLK’s self-assessment of his oratory skills were, but feel free to compare below:



MLK Truth rating (spine-tingling isn’t it?) : 5 star

Mo Truth rating (3 stars for style, less 1 for the joke and 1 for the bogus history at 5min): 1 star

General Honesty

In his dealings with civil rights issues and the public, MLK was a tolerant and honest man. His messages were equality under law for all people, non-violence and fair reparation for slavery. It’s pretty certain MLK had a few extra-marital affairs, an action not really befitting a ‘man of God’ image, but generally an honest, honourable and principled man.

Mo has been shown, with a marked degree of certainty, to have used anonymous Twitter account to attack his ‘detractors‘. He has lied about being a lawyer, apologised for it, deleted the apology, and started using the term again.


He fails to answer simple questions from respected commentators on the qualifications highlighted above, and shouts ‘white privilege’ when asked.


He’s not averse to the odd insult himself either:


With all this weighed up:

MLK (if his wife forgave him, so should I!): 5 star


Mo (for refusal to clarify genuine issues): 1 star


This is not just a throwaway comparison. Mo repeated the comparison a second time:


It’s one thing to falsely accuse someone, who has become the paragon of civil rights leadership, of these fallacies; it’s quite another to push someone with a public platform to show their credentials (especially when they’ve been liberally boasted about).

The truth is, there is no comparison between Martin Luther King and Mo Ansar outside of both of their first names starting with ‘M’.

I’ll leave you with Mo’s LinkedIn page. An example of an unfalsifiable document. Perhaps this says it all about his claims and obscurantism regarding people genuinely questioning them.