Dawkins Endorses Anti-Muslim Twitter Account

20140705-112417-41057667.jpg

Richard Dawkins promotes following @jihadistjoe on twitter. The following screen grabs are from the same day Dawkins endorsed, but just before he tweeted his endorsement.

20140705-112537-41137609.jpg

20140705-112608-41168384.jpg

20140705-112646-41206265.jpg

20140705-112717-41237953.jpg

Jesus and Mo cartoons strike the balance between humour and biting satire by tackling outrages religious ideas and thinking with irreverence. @JihadistJoe however plays on Muslim streotypes, using far right propaganda that all Muslims are a danger to society. Regrettably the cartoons @jihadistjoe uses hark back to the dark days of caricature designed to make bigotry and prejudice acceptable by being regularly seen.

Treating Muslims as extremists or their supporters because they follow Islam is anti-Muslim bigotry. The insidious suggestion is secretly (without being honest or duped) they work to undermine democracy and society. To point out believing this is a crazy conspiracy mindset that goes against everyday experience with Muslims in the UK, is to be met with the suggestion you are a willing dhimmi or a useful idiot.

Secularism is about promoting rights for all as equal citizens. Religion does not have preferential treatment in public space over others, citizens are free to believe or disbelieve without penalty or favour. The state does not control faith, and promotes a pluralistic society where individual rights are paramount. We are truly free to think for ourselves and understand God or the world around us, and form our own moral compass, as law abiding citizens.

People deliberately overlook the contributions against extremism by Muslims who champion secularism. Dismissing the concern secularists have against anti-Muslim bigotry. Just two examples of pluralism and secularism in action: Maajid Nawaz chairman of Quilliam anti-extremist think tank, has recently mean made an honorary associate of the National Secular Society. While atheist Peter Tatchell has become a patron of Tell Mama, the anti-Muslim bigotry charity.

When Richard Dawkins endorsed the account, he accused one person that pointed out how bad the account was of lacking humour and judgment. Yes Richard, humour might be down to personal taste, but if you cannot see what the account is promoting (at odds with secularism) then your own judgment has to be called into question.

We cannot let the extremists define us nor should we side with them. We can stand for human rights without using prejudice and bigotry.

    Update 6 July 2014:

Whilst most people seemed to get that suggesting Muslims “breeding” and having places to worship as part of “Jihadist support team” (the iceberg beneath the surface) are anti Muslim sentiments in line with extreme right wing views on Muslims, a few remain unconvinced or see this as isolated bum notes of an otherwise funny account. Whose aim is to use humour to target hatred at terrorists not Muslims. The other is how dare I be concerned about this account when people are being killed and oppressed in the name of Islam?

We need to fight bigotry and dehumanization of people by anyone.

On that note here are a few more tweets to see the focus is not on terrorism by islamists but Muslims too.

When discussing these things with @jihadistjoe online he said the context was “The Project” by the Muslim Brotherhood. A coordinated effort, to penetrate all levels of society with a “cultural invasion” with the aim “to progressively infiltrate, confront, and eventually establish Islamic domination over the West.” [Link he provided via twitter]

@Jihadistjoe did not explain where he was getting the cartoons from or where they were originally published. He also declined to reply on this blog.

A global conspiracy believer who uses it to justify his use of bigotry against Muslims has been promoted by Richard Dawkins. That saddens me as a fan of his work and as someone that writes about secular issues.

Article written by John Sargeant on Homo economicus’ Weblog

Follow @JPSargeant78

My Huffington Post Blog

Advertisements

60 Comments

Filed under British Society, Dawkins, Humour, Richard Dawkins, secular

60 responses to “Dawkins Endorses Anti-Muslim Twitter Account

  1. Alex

    Decades of pedo gang rape grooming gangs, composed virtually exclusively of muslim males targeting again almost exclusively non-muslim children for savage sexual brutality, and this is what floats your moral indignation scow.

    So selective in your outrage, you disgusting fossil.

    • Oh I write on lots of things including on Dawkins. Operation YewTree revealing pedophillia has to be tackled throughout society. No one should be exempt or treated with kid gloves.

    • Decades of pedo gang rape grooming gangs, composed virtually exclusively of muslim males

      How do you know they were muslims?

    • Alex’s implication that John does not care about ‘pedo rape grooming gangs’ is just a typically silly ‘counter-jihadist’ slur. It does not merit any serious consideration or discussion.

    • Catherine matthews

      Ok Alex – So when exactly did Jimmy Saville and Rolf Harris convert to Islam? Or the abusing priests in the RC church? Or perhaps the MPs whose names have been covered up for years? And of course a fair few elderly white British teachers and care workers?

      What about the non Muslim gangs targeting young children? Also getting away with it for years. And what about the non Muslim police officers and social workers ignoring the cries for help of all the children involved? We know the Muslim gangs were reported but we also know Saville was reported, we also know priests were reported and we know that a host of other British male pedos were also reported.

      Go read a paper, ain’t just one society or religion that harbours it is all of them. So save your righteous indignation for ALL of the above not just the ones satisfying your racist views.

      • TenTimesTen

        Go read a paper, ain’t just one society or religion that harbours it is all of them. So save your righteous indignation for ALL of the above not just the ones satisfying your racist views.

        Hear, hear! It’s a basic principle of criminology that all groups commit all crimes at the same rate. For example, if a knuckle-dragging bigot tries to claim that men commit murder and rape more often than women, just point out that WOMEN COMMIT MURDER AND RAPE TOO, YOU SEXIST THROWBACK!!! Now let’s suppose that someone points out that, say, murder and rape rates are higher in Muslim nations than in the UK, therefore mass immigration from those Muslim nations will increase the murder and rape rate in the UK. Just point out that MURDER AND RAPE HAPPENED THE UK CENTURIES BEFORE MASS IMMIGRATION BY MUSLIMS, YOU EVIL RACIST AND XENOPHOBE!!! And if someone points out that female rights aren’t so healthy in Muslim nations, just say: PATRIARCHAL OPPRESSION IS FOUND EVERYWHERE, etc, etc.

        You see how to do it? Racists and other bigots are of very low intelligence and are historically and biologically illiterate, so never miss a chance to crush their spittle-flecked rants with unanswerable logic and finely honed statistical awareness.

      • @TenTimesTen

        It’s really no more illogical or a case of whatabouttery than bringing the completely irrelevant issue of Muslim ‘rape gangs’ into this discussion in the first place. It’s pure whatabouttery of the lowest order.

      • TenTimesTen

        @Suada It’s really no more illogical or a case of whatabouttery than bringing the completely irrelevant issue of Muslim ‘rape gangs’ into this discussion in the first place. It’s pure whatabouttery of the lowest order.

        How can the treatment of women by Muslims be irrelevant to discussion of Islamophobia and of the effects of Muslim immigration into non-Muslim countries? I think Dawkins is right to be an Islamophobe, though I’m not sure his endorsement of JihadistJoe was wise.

        If we were discussing western foreign policy, would it be irrelevant to raise the question of how many Muslims have died in wars launched by the west to serve the interests of gentlemen like Tony Blair?

      • @TenTimesTen

        Of course, because it’s an attempt to justify bigotry by tarring all Muslims with the same brush. It’s like saying that racism is acceptable because Black people are disproportionately represented in crime (more so than Pakistani Muslims in the West are over-represented in rape/pedophilia). If that’s the intention, it’s not irrelevant to point out that the majority of rapists and pedophiles in Western Europe are not Muslims, and that the vast majority of Muslims are not rapists or pedophiles, that not all Muslim demographics are over-represented in these statistics. That might give some picture of rape and pedophilia in these two countries, if that is your real concern.

        I don’t think that Dawkins is a raging bigot that some have tried to paint him as, and I have no real problem with his criticisms of Islam and other religions, but I agree that it was stupid of him to endorse this account.

        On Western foreign policy – I think you are comparing two completely different things. But I think for the record it needs to be treated on a case by case basis. I wouldn’t oppose a genuinely good western policy just because of what Blair did in Iraq for example.

      • If we were discussing western foreign policy, would it be irrelevant to raise the question of how many Muslims have died in wars launched by the west to serve the interests of gentlemen like Tony Blair?

        Yes it would be irrelevant considering he’s launched wars against non-muslim countries, and even his wars against muslim countries were supported by many muslims in and outside of these countries.

      • @ ortega

        Exactly.

      • TenTimesTen

        @suada Of course, because it’s an attempt to justify bigotry by tarring all Muslims with the same brush.

        Point out where anyone has said “all Muslims commit sex-crimes” or “all Muslims are X, Y and Z”. You can’t, because no-one has said. In other words, you’re not being honest.

        It’s like saying that racism is acceptable because Black people are disproportionately represented in crime (more so than Pakistani Muslims in the West are over-represented in rape/pedophilia).

        No, it’s like saying that Muslims will have an effect on a society when they enter it in large numbers. Which is clearly true. The effect they’ve had in the UK is (among other things) to restrict free speech, particularly on religion.

        If that’s the intention, it’s not irrelevant to point out that the majority of rapists and pedophiles in Western Europe are not Muslims,

        The majority of people in Western Europe are not Muslims. So the question is one of proportion. And in fact, in some countries the majority of rapists may indeed be Muslims. Sweden has an extremely high rape-rate. And it’s not native Swedish males who are responsible for that unpleasant fact.

  2. The obvious similarities between the above images and this ( http://tinyurl.com/qb8elhh ) sort thing really ought to give people pause for thought, and leave them with a nasty taste in the mouth.

  3. Some tweets of @jihadistjoe if there is *still* any doubt Muslims are the target can be found via:

    He tries to provide context to his account via the world conspiracy “The Project” providing this link to me:

    http://archive.frontpagemag.com/readarticle.aspx?artid=4476

    As I mention using a conspiracy theory to justify anti-Muslim bigotry does not cut it.

    After talking on twitter and not revealing where the cartoons came from or who by originally, he decided not to take up my right reply on the blog.

  4. I couldn’t see where in any of @jihadistjoe’s tweets that you’ve posted here that they refer to “all” Muslims as being dangerous. They certainly make a very strong argument that Islamism is dangerous, and that’s a view that people can agree or disagree with, but that’s not the same as claiming that all Muslims are dangerous.

  5. Hamid Mazlum

    What nonsense John. You really are out to smear Dawkins, because he is not a leftwing ideologue to your liking, I assume.

    If you had an ounce of integrity John, you would see that Joseph’s iceberg is titled “Muslimic Jihadist”. If you don’t know the difference between a Muslim and an Islamic Jihadist, then you have no business commenting on Joseph or in this matter on Dawkins. Shame for slagging people who you disagree with ideologically.

    As a Muslim, I must agree with Joseph about Islamic Jihadists.

    • So as a Muslim if you “breed” no problem being part of the “Jihadist support team” as the iceberg below the surface is titled?

      Reading comprehension is more useful than claims of ability to judge other’s integrity. For example, I am not the one conflating Muslims with Nazis here:

      • Hamid Mazlum

        Comprehension must have failed you, John. Where does JihadistJoe say that the Jihadist support team are all Muslims? Are all Muslims on benefit, and are financing Jihad? Do all Muslims belong to grooming gangs? Even the least informed of his audience will know that is not the case.

        Regarding the Nazi similarities, it should be noted that the Left (deliberately and dishonestly) conflates Islam with Muslims. Under this scenario, who are you to claim that he means Muslim and not Islamists or Islamics? You can’t use one standard on others that you refuse to apply to yourself. If anti-Islam or anti-Mohammad means anti-Muslim, then be prepared when others use Islam or Islamist and Muslim interchangeably.

        In other tweets, JJ has explicitly said that his beef is with Islam and not Muslims. His comments/satire are about terrorists and their enablers. So are you insinuating that all Muslims are either terrorists or are enablers? That is racist. Otherwise why would you claim that his attack on terrorism is an attack on Muslims in general?

  6. John – your experience with your antagonists mirrors mine (having identified myself as the cross-poster of your piece over on Harry’s Place.) Here is a link to a comment with more examples of tweets I used to try to convince people the account was offensive.

    http://hurryupharry.org/2014/07/05/dawkins-endorses-anti-muslim-twitter-account/#comment-1469425658

    Some unbelievable straw men objections to your post (and to my own arguments) from the Jihadist Joe fan club

    • It’s incredible how people wilfully do not see the bigotry or condone as a way to antagonise Muslims … appalling and intolerable. They ignore we can expose and tackle extremists and theocratic regimes who harm mainly Muslims, without prejudice aimed at the main victims of terrorism.

      • This is from the latest comment on HP.

        “You are an enabler of Jihadist terrorism Sarah, and you know it.”

      • Soon we will be able to get a group discount on that t-shirt …

      • Hamid Mazlum

        Jihad Joe’s audience is not Muslims. They will never follow him. His audience and focus of attack is the ideological left who deliberately and dishonestly conflate Muslims with Islam and Mohammad.

    • I admire your perseverance on HP, given all the abuse that people regularly direct towards you. Another notable thing in that thread is the sheer amount of whatabouttery.

      I’m afraid I have to agree with Left-liberal Hawk. To be honest, if it weren’t for you and a few other commentators, Harry’s Place would be something approaching a hate site. I know people who have left the site because of this; I myself came very close to leaving after the disgraceful responses to the article on the Rohingya, but I stayed largely because there are enough intelligent commenters to make it worthwhile.

      The problem is that Harry’s Place meticulously goes through the work of left-liberal journalists, academics and politicians for the vaguest hint of softness towards Muslim wrongdoing, bias against Israel or anti-Semitic implications, Often these criticisms are justified, though sometimes they come across as a little over the top. But in the comments section, the most blood-curdling expressions of chauvinistic hatred against Muslims (and Arabs/Palestinians), pass without any challenge, and get massively upvoted. Hence why Damon gets (justly) run off every thread, but the incomparably more vicious and unpleasant James Lovelance is treated with kid gloves.

      • I agree Sarah does an excellent job – learnt not to read the comments now.

      • Thank you, and I sympathise with your experience there. What I would really like is a non-anonymous downvote facility in Disqus so I could quickly signal disapproval without having to compose a comment or go quite so far as deletion. I probably do zone things out a bit too much, get inured to it, and there are some commenters I just skim over because they are boring as well as bigoted.

        To be fair, although above the line we seek out subtler kinds of Muslim illiberalism and antisemitism, there are also posts about subtler as well as gross examples of anti-Muslim bigotry – for example I did a post criticising something Stephen Fry said about Muslims even though it was comparatively marginal.

        It’s actually the bigots, not me, who are enablers of extremism, if anything, because they contaminate the ATL position and encourage the perception that those of us with concerns about theocratic and illiberal views must be bigots.

      • Hamid Mazlum

        Suada – Is your prognosis due to a certain lack of strength in your arguments against those in the comment section of HarryP? I have a feeling that your emotional and ideologically prejudicial reaction against commenters has more to do with your inability to argue against logic and evidence presented there?

      • @Hamid Mazlum

        I’m afraid you’re quite mistaken about me. My views about certain HP threads and commenters (by no means all, or even a majority) comes from a cold analysis after spending several months at the site, not an emotional reaction. That’s why I try to be as fair as I can and I do believe that the claims that HP is an Islamophobic website to be totally unjustified.

        A few months ago, I did quite frequently challenge bigots on the site, and I felt I held my ground quite well. But now I just can’t be bothered; I don’t have the time, the energy or the patience to do so. I still comment over there and have a good relationship with most people there, but I tend to avoid topics relating to Islam or Muslims.

      • Hamid Mazlum

        @Suada

        Who are these “bigots” you claim at Harrys Place? Since monikers are anonymous, name me a few, and let me observe for myself. I don’t know if you are left leaning, but the left does not have rigorous arguments to present in this matter (as well as most others) and hence has to deal with the issue with emotion, ad hominem, or with political correctness (like John here).

        And the reason Muslims avoid discussion of Allah, Quran, Mohammad, jinns, fairies, satan, etc., is that they invariably lose the arguments and then doubt enters their mind and produces hell-anxiety – an unbearable condition. Are you a Muslim by any chance?

      • @Hamid Mazlum

        I don’t feel comfortable talking about HP posters behind their backs like this, and I feel I have already said too much. But I already named one – even more than this user’s murderous bigotry – his comments are interspersed with disgusting and violent personal attacks against those that disagree with him.

        I’d consider myself a centrist more than a leftist, and I’ve criticized extreme left-wing behavior quite strongly in the past. But I have never resorted to ad hominem; only on one occasion have I ever lost my temper with another user – not something I’m terribly proud about. But your insinuation about me is unfounded. I think John has advanced good arguments; his opponents on this have – almost without exception – responded with either whatabouttery, straw man arguments, or ad hominem attacks.

        As for your last question, yes you are correct, though I’m not very religious.

    • Hamid Mazlum

      I have looked at the examples you list as anti-Muslim on Howard’s Place. Although quite anti-Islam, I fail to see where it riles against ALL Muslims. It does rile against all Muslims for failing in general to criticize Islam and terrorism. But that is hardly anti-Muslim.

      Care to backup your wave-of-the-hand assertion by examining one of the supposedly offending cartoons? This despite the fact that JihadJoe has expressly said he is not anti-Muslim?

      • I’m assuming the first paragraph was directed towards me? The formal positions of HP on Islam/Muslims is fine, and one I broadly agree with. And HP had made numerous posts combatting anti-Muslim bigotry and criticisng ‘counter-jihadists’ like Robert Spencer and Pamela Geller. It’s the comment sections that I am specifically referring to.

  7. Hamid Mazlum

    It is really sad that when John Sargeant meets a criticism of Islam (or Mohammad the slave owner), due to his leftist ideological prejudices, and calls that anti-Muslim racism. This is typical for the Left that claims Islam is a race and assert that Islam, Mohammad, or the Quran should never be criticized or parodied as they are sacred, and Muslim believers should remain in their stupor, which itself is racist and paternalistic. The impetus for this lack of empathy for Muslims is the impulse to counter-enlightenment we see in today’s cultural and intellectually emaciated left.

  8. Al

    Me am fan of Jihadist Joe and me think John is a secret muslimist and a politicall correct cultural marxist liberal apologist. He seem to think it bigotry to criticise ideology. He accuse Joe of hating Muslims and that is unfair. Joe is just concerned about Muslim women who need saving from Muslim men. If want real hatred, read Koran which has spooky magic powers.

    I think Islam is evil and barbaric and needs wiping off planet, but i don’t hate muslims. I also hate fascism and communism but i think the communists and fascists are a decent bunch. Anyway, it is not racist to criticise Islam because muslims and arabs are not a race. I have arab/muslim friends and they said to me they was planning to outbreed all non muslims. So that proof of Muslim plans to take over by breeding. Now, if you’ll excuse me, I am late for an EDL meeting.

    • Promoting duty of all Muslims is to destroy democracy & breed as global conspiracy is bigoted and drives hatred whether done by a “parody” or by terrorists.

      • Ah John, I think “Al” is pretty obviously trying to do a parody of the type of people you’re discussing. I mean come on, “I think the communists and fascists are a decent bunch”. I think “Hamid Mazlum” is trolling as well considering he started off by saying he was a muslim.

      • Yes we discussed on twitter that 😉 – but hey it beats doing housework!

  9. Yes, AI is being satirical. Mazlum is not trolling – at least not if he also comments on HP using another name. He identifies as ‘Muslim’ even though he is an atheist. Obviously if he wanted to identify as ex-Muslim or culturally Muslim that would be fine – but as it is, he just confuses people.

  10. Obviously if he wanted to identify as ex-Muslim or culturally Muslim that would be fine

    I don’t understand this whole “culturally” religious thing, especially when it comes to universal religions that have spread to many different cultures. There is no generic Muslim or Christian “culture”.

  11. jihadistjoe is implicating Muslims only to the extent they represent Islam, and criticizing all Muslims in that way is a valid attack on ideology, not people or culture. The satire account on twitter is clearly anti-Islam, not anti-Muslim. It’s anti-theism, not bigotry. The vague arguments offered in this article do nothing to alter my perception. The author is basically advocating censorship based on oversensitivity to the possibility of interpreting something as bigotry. That is the attitude that helps Islamism flourish.

    • Nowhere do I call for censorship at all in the article – I’ve written opposing censorship for example banning Robert Spencer from entering UK or not showing the Jesus and Mo cartoon in media that Maajid Nawaz tweeted.

      On contrary argued against censorship here

      http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/john-sargeant/maajid-nawaz-free-speech_b_4671018.html

      So no – the only censorship you might argue I have advocated was actually denying a public platform for an Islamist at the Sydney Opera House to give a talk on “Honour killings Are Morally Justified”

      https://homoeconomicusnet.wordpress.com/2014/06/28/justifying-honour-killings-deserve-no-public-platform/

      Just as Jihadistjoeis free to tweet what he is I am free to point out the issue with the language he has used, the cartoons and memes he has used, comparisons he has made, and his conspiracy world view.

      Free speech – you get to decide who you agree with.

      • This ‘censorship’ business is something of a trope in such discussions. Of course some people do want censorship and blasphemy legislation, but I’ve often seen people do just what Otis Idli does to you – take your criticism of something, your criticism of someone’s endorsement of it – and transform that into a call for censorship. It’s the equivalent of ‘you are trying to close down criticism of Israel’ when people express concerns over certain manifestations of antisemitism.

    • The satire account on twitter is clearly anti-Islam, not anti-Muslim.

      What do talking about “grooming gangs”, “draining benefits” and “intimidating the indigenous population” have to do with criticizing Islam and being anti-theism?

  12. It is good that secularists have finally spotted this, been going on for weeks.

  13. Mark

    Dawkins wrote a few good books once.
    One thing has become clear over some years, in his Twitterings and one-on-one debates, (not least his appearance on the Bill Maher show where he thought he had to be the funny one (embarrassingly), without realising he needed to be normal and leave that to Maher).

    He has a crap sense of humour.

    His favourite retort is “stupid” in all its variants. He suffers no fools and it seems to enclose his outlook.
    An audience giggles when he makes an unintended funny comment (Australian Question Time type show), and instead of acknowledging it with self-depreciating wit, he retorts assertively, “What’s funny about that?!”
    His favourite “wit” is the John Cleese, Basil Fawlty style, “Oh silly me!” which he all too frequently uses.
    There’s not much more.

    He sees Jihadist Joe as Private Eye type satire. I’m sure there might be one here and there, that Joe puts out, that might hit a mark near that respect, but most miss, and many are as described above. I can’t speak for Dawkins as to how much he has scrutinsed that account, but by now, you’d have thought he’d have got the message.

    But overall, he does have a rubbish sense of humour.

  14. Pingback: Why Have An Issue With @JihadistJoe tweets? | Homo economicus' Weblog

  15. You seem to like Tell Mama, the anti-Muslim bigotry charity. Please tell me, is there an anti-Kafir bigotry charity in your country? Or do Muslims in your country get special privileges? Are Muslims in your country more important than the Kafir? And what are you doing as a secularist to even up the human rights of all people?

  16. Pingback: Countering Extremism and Extreme Responses | Homo economicus' Weblog

  17. “dawkins-bashing has become quite the cottage industry for the untalented and the uninspired.” — joe ho disq.us/8o59u5

    The word Muslims does not mean “all muslims”.
    Only “all muslims” means “all muslims”.
    As several polls have clearly shown, there is a high percentage in muslim countries and a significant percentage in western countries who agree with the ideas and practices of those you call “islamists”.
    Expecting someone to start every tweet or meme with the phrase “islamists and muslims who agree with them but not all muslims” in order not to be accused of “islamophobia” (as if the word means anything) is plain stupid.
    When we talk about the issue of pedophilia in the catholic church and we referred to priests who abused boys, everyone knew we didn’t mean all priests. Also, the cartoons and jokes that deal with the subject are not carrying a disclaimer saying *not all priests are pedophiles*.
    All of you pseudo-liberal islamic apologists should get a life.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s