The Troubling Reality of Mo Ansar (with update)

I have been rather drawn into the world of twitter as of late, focused on one individual from the UK who I feel is an interesting subject to focus on. His name is Mo Ansar, a self proclaimed twitter celebrity. You can follow the big guy on twitter here.  He is a "commentator" on Muslim issues, which is something that can't be argued. However, he lists off a whole variety of other titles on his website and twitter bio, the vast majority of which are unsubstantiated. Evidence for most of his claims, including visiting lecturer, Imam, and theologian just doesn't seem to exist in the slightest. No evidence. None. Zero. Nada. Complete goose egg.

This bio from his website SOUNDS incredibly impressive. "A theologian, public speaker and visiting lecturer on Islam in contemporary Britain, Theology and Islamophobia; Mohammed is a civil rights activist and legal advocate working with a number of organisations in the fields of politics, diversity and education. With a wealth of experience tackling extremism and radicalisation, Mohammed has lead and delivered cutting-edge local and national initiatives." So, where is the proof? Where is the evidence? Civil rights activist? Fine, we'll give him that. Anyone can be a civil rights activist. Legal advocate?  Questionable. Theologian? Zero proof of this. Basically, he's good at writing an impressive sounding paragraph. But, as you will see with links to articles below, there is plenty of gaps in some of the claims he makes.

So, why am I so fascinated by this guy? Because he is such an outrageous personality who HAS come up with all of these grand claims of who he is. He has developed this bizarre persona as a grand expert on all issues related to Islam. He wears this utterly pointless outfit all the time to show just how darn Muslim he is, dammit, and it just doesn't make sense. This long thobe, scarf and little hat look like a combined mess of cultural images tossed together to create some kind of official costume. It's mostly Arab in characteristics, which is odd for a Pakistani man who was born in Britain. It's rather farcical, to be quite honest. It smacks of trying too hard. But, it has been very successful and beneficial for him. I think part of the reason that TV stations love to call on Mo at an almost scary level is the fact that he comes out as a prepackaged Muslim complete with costume, who can speak well with no accent, and who can be called at a seconds notice and he will rush down to the TV station and give them exactly what they want. He is an interesting case study that anyone interested in psychology would be fascinated to look at. The type of person he is brings to mind are the ones focused on in John Ronson's brilliantly humorous and interesting "The Psychopath Test". I'm not saying Mo is a psychopath. Not at all. But, just like Ronson meets with these bizarre and interesting characters, I see Mo as a character that is bizarre and interesting that I wish to focus on. What is the point in focusing on a "normal", well adjusted person when you can track down a bizarre and interesting person. Right? Am I right?

I am right, and a number of others seem to be keen on studying him as well. For all intent and purposes, he appears to be nothing but an arrogant fraud as outlined well in this article at a blog called Harry's Place. Mo and his followers have written it off as just some right wing, "neo con" BS smear tactic, but it does raise some important questions that Mo himself doesn't seem willing to come clean about. Another great article questioning his credentials is this one by Adrian Hilton. Someone else, I'm not sure who, has done an excellent job of compiling information about our friend Mo here at Anarchopedia. Basically, we have people across the spectrum, from the left to the right questioning Mo Ansar. Sadly, Mo doesn't seem to want to give many answers, hence his nickname "No Answer". The only people who don't seem to be asking questions about his claims are the media outlets that keep calling on him to be on their shows. Why are they dropping the ball on this? Why are they continually giving a platform to a person, and putting up CG's under his name telling the public about grand titles (like theologian), who has little proof of what he claims to be. What does this say about these news organizations? Can anyone just walk in off the street, claim to be an expert in something and be tossed on air with a list of claims under their name they have no proof of having? It appears this is the way the media is working when it comes to our dearest Mo. How is this helping anyone? It seems like a giant insult to all viewers who depend on the media for truth.

A good insight into the brain of Mo Ansar can be found here in the report and results on a court case he was involved in where he took a former employer, Lloyd's Bank, to court over what he deemed to be discrimination based on race. He lost. Section 14 of the summary is uncannily accurate in it's assessment of the man and is worth reading. The court notices what so many of his critics have also noticed, including his manipulative ways, his lying and his arrogance.

Based on all of this information presented above, it appears that we have a fraud on our hands. "So what?", you may ask. Fair enough, if that doesn't bug you, then that's up to you. But a man who is regularly paraded on the TV as some kind of an expert on Islam and Muslim issues who has got there, not by merit or by proven knowledge or understanding of almost any subject, but by what appears to be lying deserves to be scrutinized. When you turn on your TV and there is Mo giving his views on everything from segregated seating at University lectures (which he is for) and the banning of Halal meat in the Netherlands (which he is against), you would hope that these views were coming from a position of understanding and knowledge. They aren't. They are coming from just another dude on the street who has an opinion. And you know what they say about opinions. They are like assholes. Everyone has one. So, why exactly is his opinion worth more than the average layman? It isn't quite frankly. It isn't in the slightest. And, generally speaking, he doesn't just address the issues, he tends to do it in the most dramatic way possible, using over the top, inflammatory rhetoric that easily riles people up. So, that makes it extra concerning. His twitter time line (his main way of interacting with the public) is filled with overly dramatic tweets like this recent one that I randomly selected:  "The US funded it, the UK supported it. Innocent people, children, massacred in #Egypt for our coup d'etat. The sheer inhumanity of it all." Wow, not only does this show an extreme lack of understanding of the very complex situation in Egypt and the rock and hard place reality of diplomacy between the West and a country that has had a few massive, bipolar swings in leadership changes in a short amount of time, but it further highlights his ever present contempt of "The West", in particular the US and his own country, Britain. He fails to have paid any attention to the fact that many Egyptians called for the ouster of Mohamed Morsi, and bristled at the very notion it was a military coup, saying that it was the continuation of the revolution that led to the downfall of Hosni Mubarek. A good number of Egyptians even showed up in front of CNN headquarters in New York City to protest the fact that CNN dared use the term "coup" to describe the events of the military overthrowing Morsi. That isn't to say most Egyptians are happy with the results, including the recent death sentences of hundreds of Muslim Brotherhood members and supporters. So, he rejects all this and presents his view, as you can see, in the most dramatic, over the top fashion he could muster in less than 140 characters. And this is but one of thousands upon thousands of examples that he is pumping out to 22,000 followers.To me, this is scary.

What is particularly bothersome about Mo is that he is an utter hypocrite who thinks that people cannot see what he is up to. I think he really looks at people as being stupid. I really believe this. I think he sees us all as too stupid to see through him. Well, maybe some are, but it is clear that many aren't and they are becoming more vocal about it, both on twitter and through blog posts and articles. Here is a man who screams Islamophobia on a daily basis who talks about love, peace, unity and tolerance. Then, he pulls crap like being part of a very public lynch mob against Maajid Nawaz over a tweet by Nawaz featuring Jesus and Mo, (one of my all time favourite web comics). You can read all about the infamous incident here. You can also read about it here. And here. Basically, you can find no shortage of information on this very public spat. But, here is what it boils down to. Mo HATES Maajid Nawaz. All of Mo's great talk about love, peace and unity seems to come completely derailed as soon as the subject of Maajid Nawaz comes up. There is no peace and love from Mo when it comes to Maajid and it renders his grand talks about it impotent. It is clear that he holds a grudge against Maajid. The reasons are many. After Mo Ansar did a documentary where he and EDL leader Tommy Robinson hung out and were little buddies, Mo thought he was the one who drew Tommy away from the EDL. So, when Tommy joined Maajid's controversial Quillium foundation (an anti-extremism think tank) Mo felt pretty slighted, as has been publicly evident. And Mo has held a deep grudge over this (and other things) and constantly runs down Maajid. The fact that Mo was one of those that led the drive to have Maajid removed as a Liberal Democrat candidate (supposedly) over the Jesus and Mo tweet shows just how far Mo is willing to go down a deep, dark path. What is particularly odd is that Mo himself said he wasn't offended by the tweet, yet, he wants to publicly lynch Maajid? I just don't get it. But, that's the mystery of Mo. But beyond Nawaz, he has had very public spats with LBC radio personality Iain Dale, who Mo reported to the police over what was an honest, open tweet asking Mo his views on homosexuality in the wake of Mo supporting an imam at a mosque that refused a BBC show on Free Speech because it discussed homosexuality...basically, homophobia. Why Mo wouldn't answer Iain is beyond me. But, somehow it ended with Mo reporting Iain to the police in a ridiculous fashion. Peace, love and unity? Out the window. Furthermore, his seeming hate of historian Tom Holland, who is, without a doubt, a brilliant and passionate historian, is very public. Again...where is the peace, love and unity? Mo constantly takes shots at Tom, and his most recent disgusting attack came in the form of suggesting that Tom Holland should be put on a poster of people who cause a "clash of cultures" which included famed mass murdering ultra nationalist Anders Breviek. What? Wha? Huh?? Wow. That shows a level of contempt and hate that is head scratchingly bold. And, it is the exact kind of thing that if done to Mo would result in Mo possibly calling the police in. Hypocrisy? Yes. Peace, love and unity? Not in the slightest.

Mo's central focus is his religion. He loves his religion, Islam. Can't fault him on that. He has his religion and it gives him something. Good. Great. Wonderful. Is he an expert in his religion? Hell no. Even though he claims to be a theologian and Imam, (again, no evidence of it), people are often scratching their heads as to what version of Islam he is even following, and what understanding of Islam he actually has. He has gone on the record as saying some bizarre things, like Muslims were the first to discover the "New World" and mingled very peacefully with the native population. What? Seriously? Yes, seriously he seems to believe this. He has gone on the record as saying there is no homophobia in Islam. What? Seriously? Well, depends on your interpretation of Islam, but the way it is too often practised we see no shortage of institutionalized homophobia. Basically, he wants to put Islam in the brightest light possible. He will go to seeming no lengths to point out how great Islam is....while at the same time spending no shortage of time completely running down the UK, and especially the US. His contempt of the US is strong. But, it is his contempt of Britian which raises some hackles. Recently, Al Shabab, the infamous Islam terrorist group, issued credible death threats towards Mo. Britain, his home, offered him police protection. So, Islamic extremists, who he rarely talks about and often downplays, threaten his life and the country he regularly condemns offers him....police protection? Wow. Someone has something backwards.

He recently was in a video put together using Parrell William's song "Happy" featuring British Muslims being, you know, happy. They dance, they sang, they had fun. Mo was in the video for a very short time, yet seems to think the thing revolves around him. He has been lambasted by conservative Muslims who point out in the Quran where it specifically says no dancing or singing. Mo, who says that the Quran is perfect, 100 percent the word of god, not changed, ever, not even a single period or comma seems to have missed this part of it. I do however back him on this one, with the idea that the Quran is open to interpretation and Mo's interpretation allows for dancing in a video...especially if it gives him a few precious seconds on screen. I wonder, however, what he would say if Maajid Nawaz was in the video and faced criticism for it?

So, in almost every context, we are dealing with someone who appears to be a fraud. He can't seem to tell a straight story on who he is, his qualifications or back up the vast majority of his outlandish claims. We have a man who cries Islamophobia, who contacts the police over ridiculous reasons, who stoops low when it comes to attacking his critics and who then turns around and talks about tolerance and love. Basically, we have someone that I cannot figure out how anyone can trust, and who should not be paraded around by the media as some grand expert on Islam and Muslim issues. But, the media insist on calling on him. Again, it's because he is the perfect little package. He has the costume, he is articulate, has a perfect British accent, and can be called on at anytime of the day and night to show up for an interview. He LOVES attention. He thrives on it. This is why I believe that he seems to have created this persona. He wants to be a big shot. He wants to be validated. He wants to by someone. What he doesn't want is to have to actually work to be that someone. This is what I have observed in him. That's what many have observed about him.

It bothers me personally that a man like this gets away with it. No one likes a con. No one likes a fraud. No one likes to be manipulated. I feel that he manipulates. He manipulates the media. He manipulates the public.He manipulates the Quran. He manipulates his religion. His lack of true knowledge and understanding pose a problem on a number of fronts. It means that we really aren't getting the truth. We are getting opinions from a guy who doesn't seem to really have much knowledge of most of the subjects he approaches, which does no one any favours. We have a man that constantly tries to silence criticism of his religion (and himself) by smearing everyone who does as being part of the English Defence League, and being a neo-con Islamaphobe. How is this helping anyone, exactly? What kind of peace, love and unity allows for the silencing of critics of Islam (and himself) by calling everyone who does an Islamophobe? Not helpful. Not useful. It's divisive. It's childish. There is no doubt that Mo has attracted the ire of many nationalists, racists and right wingers, and some of them say some scary things to Mo that are steeped in utter and complete ignorance. But, Mo isn't exactly showing a lack of ignorance himself. With Mo we have a man that is using his religion as a way to fame. He wants to be someone. His Mo Ansar character, which is essentially what he is, is offering him this fame. And people are buying into it. On the surface, he comes across quite charming, nice, kind and intelligent. Scratch the surface and we see a lottery ticket that doesn't pay out. And it is doing no one any good to keep holding on to it.

UPDATE: Iain Dale, who I referred to above, has been cleared by the police saying there was no reason for them to pursue the issue. Tell Mama said the same thing. In response, Iain Dale wrote an excellent blog post talking about this experience. You can read it here. It is an intelligent, interesting and insightful bit of writing that gives a good analysis of how Mo operates.

It is worth challenging Mo, much to Mo's chagrin. Mo wants to be in a position of power, a leader, an authority. Part of his persona revolves around the idea of challenging authority as a "civil rights activist" and "community leader". This also puts him into a position where he needs to be challenged as well. He seems wholly against the idea of being challenged, and resorts to attacks and accusations towards those asking questions, claiming they are merely right wing, neo con Islamophobes. If he wants to be in a position of power and authority, he must understand that people have every right to challenge him and ask questions, and given his dubious record, his shady claims of experience and his over the top rhetoric it is doubly important to challenge him. Iain has done just this. His blog is worth a read.

Egyptians slaughter Egyptians, and Somehow, it is America's fault?

Today has been a brutal and bloody day in Egypt, as the military rulers who ousted the democratically elected leader of Egypt, Mohamed Morsi, slaughtered Muslim Brotherhood supporters who have built protest camps. It ended in up to 240 death (more, many more if you believe some reports).

Now, as I do, I have been reading the comment sections on news stories, on Facebook, and various tweets. What I see is something that infuriates me. Somehow, this has turned into yet another reason for too many in the MENA to blame America for everything. Apparently, far too many people today say that the "American backed military" slaughtered unarmed, peaceful protesters. How dare the US back this military!

Okay, wait....isn't this the same military that had thousands upon thousands of people in Egypt flowing into the streets in support for, when ousting Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood from power? And, when anyone dared call what happened a coup, anti-Morsi folks would scream, "It's not a coup, it's a continuation of the revolution! The Military is on our side and doing what we want them to do!" CNN in the states made the mistake of calling it a coup and had angry Egyptians picketing their studios and organizing an online campaign to tell them it wasn't a coup. The hash tag #notacoup was used in social media by people furious that an obvious coup was being called a coup.

Interestingly enough, the US has been blamed for supporting Mohamed Morsi and backing the Muslim Brotherhood. What? Say that again? Yes, frankly, too many rather disillusioned folks seem to believe that the West is on the side of the MB. What? You know what the great mistake the US made was? Working with the democratically elected president of Egypt. The people put Morsi in power, and the US reluctantly went to work with him because it was the will of the people. They didn't exactly embrace Morsi, and when asked, Obama even said that Egypt wasn't necessarily an ally as a result of Morsi taking power, which got Obama in hot water with many Republicans in the US who feel that Obama ended up losing Egypt as an ally under his watch.

So, the US and other "Western" governments worked with Morsi. Then, bam, Morsi gets overthrown by the military in a coup that wasn't a coup. Now, Morsi supporters are blaming the US for supporting the military. Well, yes, the US has a long history of working with Egypt's military, and understandably so. Egypt is the world's most populated Arab country. It is a major powerhouse in the MENA, and stability there is vitally important for the entire region, if not the world. It is advantageous for the US to have a good working relationship with whatever government is leading Egypt.

And then, today happens. After Morsi was overthrown to the cheers of millions of Egyptians, the military that they were so excited about, who they felt was working for them turned around and slaughtered a few hundred Morsi supporters. Oddly enough, I have seen little online comments or commentary from those folks who cheered for the military just a few weeks ago. But, what I do see over and over is that the military that is killing these people...is backed by the US. Wait...hello....remember how the military taking power was the will of the people and the continuation of the revolution? YOU put these guys in power. YOU validated their power grab by showing support. YOU wanted these guys! Look what you got! Don't start blaming any other entity or country for this. This is all you guys.

I'm not saying the US is some innocent nation that has never done wrong. In fact, I used to be highly cynical and distrusting of the US, particularly when it came to Middle East politics. Then I moved to the Middle East and saw how the US (and of course Israel) is used as a scapegoat and a way to manipulate emotion. If a group doesn't like another group, aligning them with the US or even worse Israel, is a huge insult and makes that other group look bad. It's too often crying wolf.

Scapegoating the US for BAD domestic decisions does not help anyone or anything. Take responsibility! If you said you were happy the military took power, ADMIT IT and stand by what you said. Don't turn around and put the blame on the US or anyone else.You facilitated this just as much as anyone. It wasn't the US that caused all of this. It was Egypt. It wasn't the US that killed anyone today, it was the anti-Morsi, pro-Military backed Army that slaughtered those people, no one else.

Why The West Must Stay Out of Libya (And The Whole Middle East)

Face it. No matter what the US and "The West" does when it comes to Libya, it will get criticized harshly. Libya is in a difficult region where people are already pretty pissed off with "The West" for support of Israel and, of course, colonialism. Anti-Western sentiment runs very high, justifiably or not. The US/West getting further involved in the region would be, frankly, quite stupid. And there is no reason to.

What is happening right now in Libya is bloody, horrific and brutal. But, it is what Libya needs. It is a true, grassroots uprising. It is change from within. Many lives have been lost, and many more will be lost. But, with defections happening amongst Gaddafi's regime, more and more areas of the country falling out of his control, and a more determined than ever population, it is fair to say that those who want freedom and democracy are winning. This is good. If outside forces get involved militarily, even more lives or going to get lost and there will be a distraction from the real cause. Those who oppose Gaddafi but are equally defiant against The West will be stuck in the middle, those who are sitting on the fence not sure who to support could be emboldened to jump in with the pro-Gaddafi side to try and oust the "occupiers" and pro-Gaddafi fighters could get a new lease on life with a new reason to fight. It will, once again, be perceived in the same way as colonialism, an invasion of sovereignty, a spit in the eye of proud Arab people, and as an expansion of the great American empire (as it is seen). All around, it doesn't sound like a good scenario. There have been talk of sanctions already, and the concern is that the people being affected by them are going to be the population of Libya, not Gaddafi and his friends. So, even this attempt at action has the potential to backfire tremendously.

US President Obama has been hammered for not coming out quick enough with condemnation of Gaddafi or the violence. I think that Obama has made a number of very wise moves with this approach. Throughout the change in the Middle East, he and his government have not been quick to jump in. Good! That's exactly the way it should be. Revolution is happening. The people are taking to the streets and demanding change, and it is coming, slowly but surely, from within. This is the way it should have been in Iraq, and the way it would be optimal to have happened in Afghanistan. There is no doubt that those two wars have been pretty disastrous. The US became further hated around the world, hundreds of thousands of lives have been lost, and trillions of dollars have been spent. Already, there is so much anger because the regimes that are falling are seen as being "US backed" (a point that Al Jazeera LOVES to point out over and over again, but I digress). So, any new regimes will be dealt with pretty suspiciously if the US endorses them, or shows too much of a preference. The US will be seen as interfering if, on the surface, it appears to have too much of an opinion on how these revolutions should transpire.

So, like I said off the top, no matter WHAT the US, and it's Western friends do, it's going to get blasted from someone, somewhere. So stay out, let the revolutions unfold and hope for a much better future for the citizens of those countries and a better, more trusting and solid relationships with "The West" in the years to come.

TV is a Powerful Tool!

COME ON Al Jazeera Arabic! What the heck kind of "reporting" was THAT! What am I speaking of? I was just at the barber's, got a haircut from a nice Turkish gentleman. The whole time I waited and the whole time I had my haircut, about 45 minutes in total, the SAME loop of images kept rolling over and over and over on the TV they had hanging in the shop. It was like A Clockwork Orange! Police beating on protesters, protesters beating on other protesters, police torturing subjects, a dead and mutilated body, simulated torture scenes, a police truck running over protesters. Over and over and over the same images kept going and going. And, in the background, an "interviewee" screaming at the top of his lungs (there may have been a couple over the span of time, but it was hard to tell because it was just plain screaming!) The only break was when three promos for Al Jazeera ran which were all filled with MORE images of unrest in Egypt. This wasn't reporting! This was sheer incitement and provocation! I wanted to go break stuff after watching 45 minutes solid of these brutal images played over and over...and over...and OVER. Man, that was brutally horrible and terribly irresponsible. Thank goodness Al Jazeera English is not quite like that, although I have had my complaints about them, and my list is growing. I will probably write about that tomorrow.

Back Off, Al Jazeera.

I am growing increasingly frustrated with Al Jazeera's coverage of what is going on in Egypt. They have gained a lot of viewers and attention over the last 11 days and have a new found power. I generally like Al Jazeera, and am pleased to see that they have done well, BUT, I am also disappointed with a number of issues, particularly when it comes to how it reports on US/Israeli involvement. Face it, Al Jazeera is hardly unbiased when it comes to these countries. It continually rails against them. That isn't saying there aren't legitimate grievances. There are. But, when watching Al Jazeera, I can't help but get the sense that the US and Israel are the most evil, horrible countries on the planet. They wait with bated breath on what the US and Israel are going to say about what is going on, and then slam them when they do make a comment. They seem obsessed with the US and Israel, while getting angry because American media is not reporting the situation from the same vantage point as Al Jazeera. Bizarre, really.

I have been watching CNN quite a bit during this crisis and am finding them to be a bit better in their coverage. They have been looking at the crisis from a broader perspective, I find. They have been accused of looking at the crisis from and American perspective, which I have not found to be completely true. They are an American based channel, so of COURSE they will often look at the situation from an American perspective to a good degree.  However, they have also looked at the greater reality of what is going on in Egypt and how it is being seen in the rest of the world and what the impact of this revolution will be, something Al Jazeera is less concerned with. Egypt is a very important country in the region. The uprising there has MASSIVE consequences for the rest of the Middle East and the world. But, for trying to report this, Al Jazeera slams them. Why? I don't live in Egypt. Most of us watching do not. We see what is happening and wonder how it will affect us all. It is an uprising among Egyptians, and that is being acknowledged and reported on. BUT, there is uncertainty and plenty of it. There doesn't seem to be a clear leader ready to step in if Mubarak steps down now. That is concerning for both Egypt and the world. Al Jazeera doesn't seem to get that point. The Muslim Brotherhood? A lot of people have a lot of questions about them. CNN is giving a range of opinions on that group. And, although those in Tahrir Square is made up of people from all walks of Egyptian life, the Muslim Brotherhood is the largest opposition group involved in politics. Of COURSE people want to know about them. I don't think they should be feared, but I understand people's desire to know about them, and to get to understand them.

This isn't to say that Al Jazeera is not doing a good job. In many ways, they are. They are providing a great service. So, I am not anti-Al Jazeera. I suppose I became far more frustrated after I saw this report, which I felt was particularly low:



After watching this, I wanted to stick up for American networks, which is not something I usually rush to do. But, in this case, I think the US is getting a bad rap. Their main target, of course, is Fox News, which is a given. I can't say they are a reliable voice for much, so they deserve their fair share of criticism. However, other networks are doing their very best, as far as I am concerned, just as Al Jazeera is. By taking a Fox News approach to reporting on American media, they have stooped to a Fox News level, which is pretty low. I expect more from Al Jazeera, and hope they focus on the news and stories, and focus less on beating up their peers, and lay off a bit more on the US and Israel (again, something I never imagined myself saying).