This was not and has never been an EDL event, this action has been held by March For England over the last 5 years. We are not claiming any of the things you stated, we are infact there to support right-wing Iranian dissident Potkin Azarmehr,MFE are not an anti muslim organisation. The fact is the Al Quds march has been nothing more than a public display of anti western racist ideology.The protests have taken place annually since a 1979 decree by Iranian Islamist cleric Ayatollah Khomeini during that country’s counter-revolution. The Al Quds demonstration, supposedly in solidarity with Muslims in Palestine, was full of Hizbullah and Islamic Republic of Iran flags. Islamic clerics led the Al Quds demonstration: only two people both from George Galloway’s Respect Renewal – took part. “We are all Hizbullah”: the slogan popularised by the Socialist Workers’ Party at a demonstration against the 2006 Israel-Lebanon war. Many demonstrators carried pictures of Hizbullah leader Hassan Nasrallah which at best shows a certain amout of anti western ideals. Also involved were the Neturei Karta, an ultra-reactionary Jewish group who give cover for Holocaust-denying Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmedinejad. In opposition to this march were March for England working in conjunction with the Worker-Communist Party of Iran, followers of the late Mansoor Hekmat, protest the repression meted out by the Islamist regime in Tehran. MFE supported right-wing Iranian dissident Potkin Azarmehr and others who live in fear of the backlash from the humaniterian regime based in Terhan. Yes there were supporters of the EDL but they were not many and they had nothing to do with the organising of the counter protest. MFE have a good name even within the left wing organisations. So please stop giving credit to an organisation such as EDL because they are the target of the moment. MFE have been active over the last ten years and are the group behind most of the official organised actions held within the capital. Thank you MJ. Chairman For England Party

I will do my best to clarify as much as possible.

Whilst you correctly highlight that large sectors of the middle classes and the elderly hold such abhorrent views, the intended focus of this article, which was written over a year and a half ago, was on the violent manifestation of those views. As Muslims born and bred in this country, we have no problem with, and actually somewhat understand people’s negative on Muslims and indeed the foreigner in general. Every country has it’s own various forms of xenophobia, Britain is no different. What does cause us real concern is when Muslims come under violent attacks. The time since this article was written will prove those concerns were not unfounded as arson attacks on mosques and assaults on Muslims themselves have dramatically risen. It is interesting that you make your comments today, on the weekend when a rabidly Islamophobic christian terrorist with links to the EDL and other far-right groups massacres over 90 innocent people, many of whom were campaigning for the rights of Palestinian people.

Regarding putting the word Christian in quotation marks, part of that has to do with the secular political system which you mentioned, but mainly to do with the fact that I can personally attest to the fact that this claim has been made to me by the most irreligious, drunk football hooligans who it seems have no affiliation with the faith, but simply use the term Christian to score points against Muslims. I have no doubt that britain is nominally a Christian country but with an extremely secular populace, more so than in other Christian nations like Italy and Spain where at least some adherence to the religion remains. As such it seems somewhat insincere to invoke Christianity to whip up emotions, and then to have absolutely no knowledge of, or respect towards the faith itself.

I note your examples of historical hostility to outsiders but this is not relevant to the article. As Muslims, we do not take any comfort in knowing that this nation has been hostile to foreigners in the past. The issue is that, as mentioned in the article, we are being attacked in ways which are not acceptable for any other minority group. We want the same religious protection as Jews and Sikhs, and the same fair treatment in the media as black and LGBT people receive. We are subjected to the most rancid of slurs and the double standards are shocking. As it emerges that the killer in Norway isn’t a Muslim, the word ‘Terrorism’ is being subtly withdrawn from the narrative, replaced by the word ‘massacre’. Does the faith to which one subscribes change the reality of the act? Or does the act remain the same, regardless of who is performing it?

You make the claim that ‘not all Muslims are terrorists, but these days, almost all the terrorists are Muslim’. Even if we do not get into the definition of terrorism, which would should the Western nations to be the biggest terrorists, the narrow definition of terrorism which is limited non-state actors still shows that in fact, Muslims aren’t anywhere near the majority of Terrorists. I attach some link for your perusal. They themselves link to the original sources which show that even this perception is completely false, albeit fueled by the Media, as I mention above.
http://www.loonwatch.com/2010/01/not-all-terrorists-are-muslims/
http://www.loonwatch.com/2010/01/terrorism-in-europe/

That you made the claim tells me not that you are hostile or even ill-intentioned, but that the extent of the deception can reach even the most intelligent of us. It holds then that there is a deeper agenda behind this campaign to mis-represent muslims, one that is linked to the terrorist campaigns waged abroad by our governments. Dehumanising Muslims makes killing them more acceptable in the eyes of the general populace, as we are seeing.

Even the fact that the Irish were viewed in such a way shows the lack of accountability by the Media, establishment and populace here in Britain. Putting all the blame on the victim and acquitting the aggressor is thoroughly despicable. The IRA are called ‘terrorists’, while the loyalist forces are called ‘paramilitaries’. This is no accident.

Whilst we do not view the Armed services as heroic in any sense of the word, we also condemn the actions by the despicable group of extremists in Luton. They are a group of attention seeking sensationalists, with no concern for the well-being of anyone else but themselves. At the same time, it doesn’t wash to say that the majority of Brits are anti-war, when they have an uncompromising love for the soldiers who volunteer for that war. Putting on a uniform does not make a man heroic by default. If our armies were forced to fight (WW1) or were fighting a defensive war (WW2) then they are heroes. But if they voluntarily go to the other side of the world to fight on behalf of corporate interest, then sorry but they deserve nothing but disdain. Whether they have been fooled into it, or are going simply to kill Muslims (visit any of the EDL – Armed Forces pages on facebook to see the mask slipping) there is no excuse.

Regarding the British way of life being oppressed, I have to say I have no problem with christmas celebrations, pigs in adverts etc. Why should I? It’s not my right to be opposed to it, in fact I should embrace and understand the culture and beliefs of my fellow countrymen. I have never ever in my life spoken to a Muslim who said he was offended by a Christmas tree. If, however, some over-sensitive Muslim does register his concerns, the solution is simple. Ignore him. I find this excuse of ‘political correctness’ to be divisive and in fact brings more anger at Muslims than it brings people together, which is the stated intention of such policies. I would not put it past the authorities to deliberately uphold such policies to divide and rule us more efficiently.

Recently, the EDL have been visiting different stores, such as branches of KFC which serve Halal meat, intimidating members of staff in the process. They claim to be fighting the ‘Islamization’ of Europe. Call it stealth Jihad by chicken. The fact of the matter is, however, that this can be reduced to market economics. The companies of the UK will offer Halal and, where relevant, Kosher alternatives because it is in their interest. They can profit from tapping into a large market. There is no agenda in this, other than it making good business sense.

Now we reach your analysis of parts of the religion of Islam which are viewed with suspicion by segments of western society. Again, there are groups who call for extreme measures in the UK. Again, as mentioned above, the solution would have been to ignore them and make arrests where relevant. The followers of people such as Anjem Choudhary number no more than a few thousand at a maximum. Of a population of around 2.5 million, this represents a tiny proportion. Unfortunately however this fanatical minority make a better story than the peaceful overwhelming minority and they are given a disproportionately high profile. Everytime the Muslim community is in the news, we get treated to the spectacle of Anjem Choudhary being given wall-to-wall coverage to spread his poison. Why is this so? You say that the perception is that Muslims aren’t vocal enough in their opposition to radical groups. Many muslims have taken steps to oppose this trend, yet are given little to no coverage by the media. This may not be a conspiracy. It may just not be a very interesting story. ‘Muslims protest peacefully’ doesn’t catch the attention as much as ‘Muslim Extremists Call For Jihad’ or something to that end.

However I do not agree with Muslims being cajoled into doing this, as the principle behind it is oppressive in itself. Why aren’t Jewish people told to distance themselves from the excesses of the Israeli state? Are Norwegians being told to hold demonstrations to show they oppose the recent atrocities? It’s self-evident that the majority of any group are peaceful, law-abiding people. As such we do not need to prove our peacefulness, nor do we need to distance ourselves from any extremists. These demands aren’t foisted on any community except Muslims and we take exception to the very foundations under-pinning it, no less because there are no tangible targets. As such, no amount of ingratiating ourselves will ever be enough to prove our ‘loyalty’.

The last paragraph reads as a subtle warning, not quite a threat, but something close to that. We are civilised as it is, more civilised than people who drop Depleted Uranium on other human beings in the name of ‘Freedom’. We have extremists in our midst, as does the indigenous populace. We have our own internal debates with the extremists who claim allegiance to Islam. Our mosques already take measure to ban them from preaching, but we can do nothing to stop them setting up elsewhere. This is the role of the authorities.

On top of that, we can do nothing to stop the hatred against us (songs are sung about burning mosques, which results in a rise in arson attacks. How are we supposed to stop that?). We have tried showing how peaceful we are, we get ignored. As such, the onus falls on the wider society to pull back from the brink. The media is the single most responsible for causing this situation. They have to stop making it socially acceptable to dehumanise and vilify Muslim people. It is due to the open-minded and tolerant nature of the majority of people here, that the situation isn’t worse than it is. However a very violent and vocal minority are intent on causing us great harm. We categorically reject the assumption that this is controllable by us. We can only force out the extremists in our community, which we are doing. The rest is our of our hands.