As we know Spittoon head Faisal Gazi ,a self-declared apostate ,hates the religion of Islam. Fair enough you may say,he is entitled to his opinion on a religion,though it does make his claim to be a “secularist Muslim intellectual” extremely hypocritical.
However what is less acceptable is Mr Gazi’s extreme hatred of Muslims.
But surely Mr Gazi only hates radical anti-Western/anti-neocon/anti-Israel Muslims who preach opposition to the New World Order? (despite the fact that Mr Gazi himself is capable of extreme anti-American rhetoric). Answer:Nope
This hatred has reached a new nadir with his latest caption competition attacking Jahan Mahmood described as a “pseudo-historian and first rate quack”. Jahan Mahmood is respected historian and “a former university lecturer, (who) read theology and history at the University of Birmingham”
So why on earth does Mr Gazi attack him? Perhaps he is an anti-western “Islamist” always condemning the evil west?
Er no..Mr Mahmood does noble work on the history of Muslim soldiers fighting for the British army in World War 1 and 2!!!
Mr Gazi’s attacking him as “pseudo-historian and first rate quack”. is thus incredibly hypocritical,especially as Mr Gazi, a software developer, is himself a quack of the highest order,arrogated himself the right to do Quranic tafsir, despite having no qualifications!!!!
Just when we think Faisal Gazi cannot get any lower he attacks a Muslim who spends his life promoting dialogue and integration! As a Muslim WWII veteran Mr Mahmood quotes on one of his articles says: “We fought imperialism, Nazism and fascism. All forms of extremism must be defeated.” This includes the extreme anti-Muslim hatred of Faisal Gazi and Spittoon!!!
After all,who but an extreme anti-Muslim hater would oppose Jahan Mehmood’s stated aims to:
i) create a stronger British Muslim identity
ii) forge better cross-community relations
iii) counter radical sentiments (as part of a wider programme)
iv) encourage active citizenship
v) promote history and learning
Some of the commentators on Spittoon rush to his defence:
“Jahan Mahmood, British Muslim Historian who has researched the contribution of Muslim Sepoys to World War One and Two. Well done for doing something useful for Muslim living in the UK!”
“Jahan, keep up the good work. At least you are doing stuff that is benefiting Muslims and enhancing the understanding of Muslims in the West. Pay no mind to such idiots.”
“Jahan Mahmood is doing a lot of good pioneering work in this field, and this sounds like sour grapes from a Johnny-come-lately rival in the area of looking into the contribution and sacrifice of Muslims, Sikhs and others as part of the British Indian Army in the First and Second World Wars. It can be safely ignored”
Oh wait but these three well-known Sufis are “Islamists”(i.e Muslims). But then little nige ,a nonMuslim comments: “i find some of the blog comments very disrespectful however as i value freedom of speech i respect the authors views even if i dont agree. However it is from the sacrifces of many, who did not have the option of writing on bloggs like myelf but who had to stare death in the face by choice, who Jahan Mahmood has so emphatically covered, that such freedom is given. I for one (as a non Muslim and who you rightly would consider ignorant) was not aware and certainly was not taught at school around the diversity of sacrifice that so many made. ( I certainly would not ahve been encouredged to research Islam or Muslim / Hindu / Sikh contributions to the fight agianst Nazism) My small and perocial consultation with young Muslims and adults also indicated they too were not aware of these sacrifices and were both suprised and proud of just a fraction of their history linked to the UK. If Jahan has instigated that feeling of pride then i only deem that as positive and something we should always support not try and attack.”
However another non-Muslim Z. Rothstein hits the nail on the head as to the REAL reason for the post:
” I am struggling to comprehend the nature of this debate. Jahan is mentioned in the acknowledgements on page 5 of the report by P.Exchange & his Shared War exhibition is then cited on page 93. If he’s a quack why would Shiraz Maher reference his work? Strangely the P.Exchange report is confined to a British Muslim narrative – Jahan on the other hand extends his project to incorporate Jews, Sikhs, Hindus, African Caribbreans etc On closer inspection hes not the lone author but part of a larger team of historians teachers and youth workers.”