Tuesday, 18 February 2014
Bob Pitt's Islamophobia Watch on Muslim Uncle Toms
First posted: 17th March, 2013
In a recent article for a national newspaper, the Muslim writer Usama Hasan wrote about Lord Ahmed’s most recent expression of his Jew-hatred. (For which he was “suspended” from the Labour Party.)
Because of articles like this, and previous misdemeanours which have offended the Trotskyist take on Islam (see link below), Islamophobia Watch has severely chastised Usama Hasan for not being a Proper Muslim – for being a Muslim Uncle Tom.
The fact that Islamophobia Watch - the Trotskyist-run website which uses Muslim anger and ostensible persecution to further its own cause of “radicalisation” - has run critical posts on Usama Hasan helps us see things clearly.
It seems that on the very rare occasions in which Muslims do indeed speak out against Islamism, Islamic terrorism, Hamas, Hezbollah, etc., their doing so means that they are Muslim Uncle Toms. (Just as when blacks aren’t rappers, gangsters or members of the Black Panthers/Nation of Islam, etc. they are also Uncle Toms… again, to similar white, middle-class Leftists.)
Bob Pitt and Martin Sullivan (who could actually be Bob Pitt’s “sock puppet”), two atheist Trotskyists, believe that certain Muslims are Uncle Toms because they are not Islamic enough for them. Yes, that’s right! Two formerly anti-religious atheist (philosophical) materialists think that certain Muslims are not Islamic enough.
Such Muslim softies (‘reformists’, ‘liberals’, etc.) aren’t liked by Pitt and Sullivan because they don’t contribute to Islamophobia Watch’s very own cause of Trotskyist radicalisation. That cause, they think, is helped not by defending Islam and Muslims – but by defending Islamism and radical Muslims – no matter what they do and say. (“By any means necessary.”)
Indeed I shouldn’t defend Usama Hasan because that would mean, to Islamophobia Watch, that he’s definitely a “Zionist” who secretly wants to kill all Muslims.
There are other examples of this phenomenon. That is, of white, middle-class (often upper-middle-class) Leftists or Left-liberals accusing reformist Muslims of not being Proper Muslims.
Take the cases of Oxford academic and writer for the Guardian, Timothy Garton Ash and the journalist Ian Burma. Both accused Ayaan Hirsi Ali (the Somalian activist against Islamism) of being an “infidel fundamentalist” for speaking out against genital mutilation, Somali women being kept permanently at home by their husbands (in Holland) and suchlike. They also called her an “Enlightenment fundamentalist” - or of not being a Proper Muslim. For not believing what the Islamists believe and for not acting the way fundamentalist Muslims act. She is, in Leftist (“progressive”) fact, a Muslim Uncle Tom.
Timothy Garton Ash (what a posh name: what a posh guy) even indulged in a bit of old-fashioned sexism to denigrate Hirsi Ali. Leftism allows such a thing if the cause – the fight against “Islamophobia” – justifies it. Garton Ash said:
“It is no disrespect to Ms Ali to suggest that if she had been short, squat and squinting, her story and views might not have been so closely attended to.”
[Note the sarcastic or condescending “Ms”.]
You see, according to white, middle-class Leftists like Garton Ash, only white working class males can be sexist. Not black people. Not brown people and certainly not middle-class people like himself. (Their being left-wing means that they simply can’t be sexist.) His own sexism is either not sexism at all or it is legitimated because it was done on behalf of a great cause – the fight against "Islamophobia". When the EDL’s Tommy Robinson, on the other hand, used the very common term “bird” for someone’s girlfriend, George Galloway accused him of being a sexist. It seems, then, that FGM and keeping wives at home are not sexist ("it's their culture"), but using the word "bird" is. I wonder if this has anything to do with Tommy Robinson being white and the female victims of Islamic oppression being brown. Well, you know how deeply racist white, middle-class Leftists are. And that racism being "positive" or "inverted" doesn't change a thing.
Posted by Paul Austin Murphy at 06:11