People are still asking what fuels Islamophobia. Where do people think the peddlers of Islamophobia get their fuel from? Just click the link and watch the clip below and see why some people feel Muslims are a threat to the West. This is the kind of propaganda that spreads fear and hatred among the public, and creates a hostile environment for Muslims in the UK.
A lesson we should learn from the past is that Anjem Choudary had a lot of influence and charisma in his time, and many people like myself who grew up Watching or reading about him in the media and never saw him questioned or challenged on his views or arguments. He created a sense of division, and it was easy to fall into that trap of the ‘US and THEM’ narrative coming from a white town like mine, Especially once I was in the echo chambers I perceived AC was the voice of the UK Muslim community.
The Muslim community needs to been seen challenging this kind of rhetoric in Mosques and speaking out about it, as do we all. I have experienced radicalisation first-hand and I know how dangerous it can be. That’s why I share my story with others, to help them understand the root causes of hatred and how to prevent it from taking over. I think it’s important to address the factors that make people vulnerable to extremist ideologies, such as social isolation, trauma, injustice, or resentment. These are the things that we often ignore or neglect until it’s too late and someone has already been radicalised.
The Rise of Protest Fashion: A Cause for Concern?
In recent weeks, we have witnessed a surge of protests across the world, sparked by various social and political issues. Some of these protests have been peaceful and well-organized, while others have turned violent and chaotic. But what is the motivation behind these protesters? Do they really care about the causes they are fighting for, or are they just following a trend?
A worrying phenomenon that has emerged from the online coverage of these protests is the apparent lack of awareness and knowledge among some of the participants. Many of them seem to have joined the protests without doing any research or critical thinking about the issues at stake. They simply follow the crowd, wear the slogans, and chant the slogans, without understanding what they mean or what they imply.
This is what I call “protest fashion”: a superficial and shallow engagement with social movements that is driven by peer pressure, social media influence, or personal gratification, rather than by genuine conviction, passion, or solidarity. Protest fashion is dangerous because it undermines the credibility and legitimacy of the movements, dilutes their messages, and exposes the protesters to manipulation and radicalization by extremist groups.
Protest fashion is not a new phenomenon. It has been observed in previous historical periods, such as the 1960s counterculture, the 1980s punk scene, or the 1990s grunge movement. However, in the age of the internet and social media, protest fashion has become more widespread and accessible than ever before. Anyone can join a protest with a few clicks, without having to invest time, effort, or money in learning about the issues or getting involved in the organizations.
This is not to say that all protesters are ignorant or insincere. There are many people who are genuinely committed to the causes they support, who have done their homework, for their beliefs.
But we should also be aware of the dangers of protest fashion, and how it can harm both the protesters and the movements they claim to represent. We should encourage critical thinking, informed debate, and responsible activism among ourselves and others. We should not let protest fashion become a substitute for real engagement with social change.
National Interfaith Week
I had the opportunity to share my personal story of how I overcame hate and embraced change with a group of people from different faiths and backgrounds. This was part of the Waveney Interfaith Circle’s program for the National Interfaith Week, which aims to promote dialogue and understanding among different religions.
I was invited by a local Muslim revert lady who I had been chatting with online for about a year. She was interested in hearing about my journey from being involved in Hate to becoming an advocate for peace and tolerance. We had to postpone our meeting twice because of my health issues and the passing of my mother in September.
But finally, I was able to fulfill my promise and give my talk to her interfaith group. I was warmly welcomed by the participants, who listened attentively and asked thoughtful questions. I felt a sense of connection and respect with them, despite our different beliefs and experiences. I hope that my talk inspired them to challenge hate and prejudice in their own communities and to seek out more opportunities for interfaith dialogue and cooperation.
Does de-platforming really work?
De-platforming is a controversial topic that has sparked a lot of debate in recent years. Some argue that it is an effective way to prevent the spread of harmful or hateful messages, while others claim that it is a form of censorship that violates free speech and pushes people to more radical platforms.
One of the main arguments in favor of de-platforming is that it reduces the exposure and influence of controversial figures, such as Tommy Robinson, who was banned from Twitter in 2018 for violating its rules on hateful conduct. Robinson had a large following and a lot of engagement on Twitter, so losing his platform must have been a significant setback for him. But now he is back on X the rebrand of Twitter, the call to De platform him again has begun.
However, does de-platforming really work? Or does it simply shift the problem from one platform to another, and create more isolated and extreme echo chambers, where there is no challenge or diversity of opinion, and where it is harder to leave or change one’s views?
A possible counterargument to de-platforming is that it does not stop the supporters of banned figures from sharing their content or following them elsewhere. For example, Robinson has still been trending on Twitter several times since his ban, and he has also moved to other platforms, such as Telegram, where he has over 130,000 subscribers. Moreover, some studies have suggested that de-platforming can actually increase the popularity and sympathy for banned figures, as they can portray themselves as victims of oppression or persecution.
Therefore, de-platforming may not be the best solution to deal with harmful or hateful messages. Instead, some alternatives could be to engage with them in a civil and rational way, to expose their flaws and inconsistencies, to provide accurate and reliable information, and to promote positive and constructive messages that counteract their narratives. These strategies may be more effective in changing minds and hearts, rather than silencing voices and creating resentment.
I think de-platforming is a superficial and ineffective way of dealing with the problem of online radicalisation. It only shifts the problem from one platform to another, without addressing the root causes of why people are drawn from the Pre- ideology mindset to the more extremist ideologies. In the meantime, some of the most vulnerable people in our society are exposed to hateful and violent propaganda in online spaces where there is no diversity of opinion or critical thinking.
I speak from personal experience, I know how easy it is to get trapped in an echo chamber of hate, where you only hear what you want to hear and you are constantly fed with misinformation and conspiracy theories. I also know how powerful it is to have your views challenged by someone who can offer a different perspective and a more nuanced understanding of the issues. That was the turning point for me, when I started to question what I was taught and what I believed, and I began my journey out of hate.
‘increased community tensions’, My thoughts.
I believe the root cause of ‘increased community tensions’ is the ‘Pick A Side’ mentality that divides people based on their opinions or race. Instead of respecting and listening to different perspectives, we demonize and reject those who disagree with us. This leads to more polarization and conflict in our society. We need to stop labeling and blaming others for our problems and start engaging in constructive dialogue and cooperation.
To effectively address the root causes of hatred, we need to examine its sources and origins, not just its manifestations and consequences. We should avoid labeling and blaming people who have been influenced by hateful ideologies, as this may only reinforce their resentment and hostility. Instead, we should seek to understand the factors that make them vulnerable to such influences, and offer them alternative perspectives and opportunities for positive change.
