, , ,


The sickening, and at this time ongoing, events in Paris are a full frontal assault on liberal, democratic values and, furthermore, an affront to reason itself.

12 people woke up on Wednesday 6th January and didn’t live to see the sun set that day. The waves of the effects of this through the families and friends of those innocents who died at the hands of Islamist terror will be lengthy and awful. Senselessness in a very true sense.

As those who fight for Secular (Big S), liberal values have come to expect, it didn’t take long for apologists to lose their initial veneer of sorrow and condemnation, and turn their attentions to protectionism and deflections of any blame away from the ideology of Islam.

As I’d previously predicted, Mo Ansar’s blog was reborn. He proceeded to analyse the events described above. Mo’s blog post is here. The opening paragraph is “It was terrible news from France.” and 13 paragraphs follow. Here is my summary of the blog post:


  1. Agreed.
  2. Starts off well, yet ends suspiciously with “…the vultures came to gloat and peck over the carcass of our freedoms.” Who are these vultures? What are ‘our freedoms’? Let’s hope he’s explicit…..
  3. Mo had a think and a pray. Another reference to ‘those that divide us’ and ‘our freedoms’. Still nothing explicit on who and what these are.
  4. Islam isn’t to blame. Something weird about “Khawarij” and how they’ve rejected Islam and (as it’s been foretold) will leave Islam like “an arrow shot from a bow”. A Prophecy as a justification as to why Islam isn’t to blame. All very reasonable.
  5. At last we get to the ‘vultures’. 5 paragraphs in and Mo forgets the issue at hand and attacks people ‘like Maajid Nawaz’. Of course, it’s people ‘like’ Maajid Nawaz, not Maajid Nawaz alone. Nawaz’s actions were ‘stomach churning’ to Mo, and an equivalent to those showing sympathy for the attackers. Not the first time Mo has drawn false equivalences between Nawaz and others. Here is the ‘vulture’ in action:  Of course Mo’s hatred of Maajid Nawaz and the Quilliam Foundation as Islamic reformers is well known. That Nawaz, a Muslim, has the temerity to think that Islam isn’t perfect is just beyond the pale to Mo. As many have said, and I agree with, Nawaz and Quilliam, at great risk to themselves personally, promote a reformist agenda which could very well save Islam in the future. They are truly brave. And they’re also on TV and we know how that affects Mo…..
  6. Mo equivocates on whether he agrees with, or is offended by, Charlie Hebdo. Islam is better than the West. Muhammed upheld free speech, apparently. Read the story of ‘Asma’ bint Marwan. I accept this story may not be true, but if Mo’s justification in paragraph 4 is allowable, I’ll take this! “There is never a recourse to violence” – agreed (in the case of people exercising freedom of expression in a peaceful manner).
  7. Have you always stated that you do not like the cartoons? Really? This paragraph quickly descends into self pity. Mo asserts his freedom of speech is being affected (the irony he’s claiming this in a published blog has passed him by) by not being allowed on TV. You have free speech, Mo. You have no entitlement to a wider platform than your views and expertise warrant. Back to Hebdo – an inference that they disproportionately pick on Muslims. Here he conflates Muslims and Islam. That Charlie Hebdo satirise Islam more than, say, Anglicanism is hardly surprising. Satire is almost required to have some offence taken against it. It’s the fact people have taken offence which makes the satire necessary and, indeed, funny. Lastly, social conditions had a cause in the radicalization and turn to violence of the terrorists.
  8. A decent paragraph with some ‘Islam is perfect’ thrown in.
  9. Mo attempts to answer his own ‘what did the killer achieve?’ question – Made Marine Le Pen stronger – maybe, people at Charlie Hebdo slaughtered – definitely (I hope this list isn’t in order of importance), more hate, fear and anger against Muslims – so far no Muslim has been injured in response to this. And this is consistent how people living in secular, liberal democracies have reacted to atrocities in the past. I hope it remains so.
  10. A reminder of Ahmed Merabet, the policeman who gave his life in protection of liberty and French law. Mo asserts “This is Islam”. No. This is secularism. He was a policeman tasked with upholding French law and the law alone. And he did it in the most courageous way possible.
  11. On to the solution to the problems that caused this atrocity. Mo’s answer – More Islam. We should spend public funds on better Islamic education of both Muslims and non-Muslims. This suggestion comes before another attack on Sam Harris, Quilliam, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Tom Holland, etc. Finished with some pseudo-profundities regarding the heart having consciousness. Nice.
  12. Anyone who doesn’t agree with Mo’s solution above is arrogant, and is indirectly killing people. Then we stray into a conspiratorial thread of Western funded mass slaughter and ethnic cleansing to oppress the people of the Middle East. Not sure what that’s got to do with two men who grew up in Paris.
  13. A conciliatory paragraph in which Mo defends those in the West (having just attacked them) and asks us to put peace above self-interest. I will if you will, Mo.
  14. As above

There you have it. Mo’s first blog post in 18 months.

I’ve edited Mo’s post to remove his attacks, apologia, pseudo-profundities, speculation, West hating and self-interest:

It was terrible news from France.

The attacks on the Charlie Hebdo offices in Paris, with so many dead and injured, shocked people around the world.

There is never a recourse to violence. Never.

The fact is no-one was ‘avenged’ today. The killers of innocent people…. are utterly offensive….. and against the morality of all good people everywhere of all race, religion and belief.

Ahmed Merabet was one of the brave policemen who gave his life to defend Charlie Hebdo.

This cannot be an excuse to put pressure on Muslims. This cannot be an excuse to put pressure on the West.

…. peace….

I hope you agree, that this is a better version.

Mo’s twitter interactions were interesting after this tragedy too.

There’s this (in a response to a tweet asking for all newspapers to show solidarity with Charlie Hebdo and print one of CH’s covers as their own):


That will be a no. Appease, do not inflame.

There’s this (possibly the most ironic Twitter exchange of all time):


Defend free speech –> Joke –> Censor or I’ll call the police. I mean, really? Now deleted.

There’s this:


Comparing liberal values of free speech with Nazi anti-Semitism. Although, he likes to compare himself to MLK, I’m not sure he really understands the context of this quote.

And there’s this:


Suggesting that the utopian golden age of yesteryear has disappeared as God is more and more taking a back seat in deciding ethical and moral issues.

Lastly, Mo should show contrition for the danger that he (and others) put Maajid Nawaz in a year ago (dealt with about half way down, here). No-one now needs reminding that irrational offense can lead have have disastrous real world consequences.

I’ll post this as a reply link on Ansar’s on a Postcard……