In my experience the far-Right comes in two types.
Category A: grunting, snarling illiterate morons whose eyes seem to about to disappear under the weight of their brows and whose pleasures in life involve drinking and attacking brown people/the police/each other. A typical conversation by them reads something like, “im a edl soldya!!!! n im gonna fkn kil ya trayta!!!!”, so you give them a bone and pat them on the head….well, sort of.
Category B: swivel-eyed crackpots of the Pamela Geller School, who can actually string sentences together, but whose output seems to consist of blogging paranoid rants about Muslims and secret conspiracies that try and silence anyone who criticises Islam. They just know Muslims are collectively up to no good, so they see cover-ups everywhere, and believe liberals and Marxists control the government, the media, the police, etc. “You think the Daily Mail is a Marxist newspaper and it won’t criticise Muslims? Yeah buddy, you keep taking your pills and no, I don’t need to take the red pill.”
I came across this fine example of Category B tin-foil-hattery.
First of all, to announce its totally biased approach, it uses this picture, not that there’s anything wrong with the sentiment expressed in the picture.
Then it proceeds from what is frankly a completely false assumption.
Only it is actually quite clear how big the contribution was.
“Of the 1.3 million Indians who constituted the volunteer force during the first world war, approximately 400,000 were Muslims.”
“India’s army grew from 200,000 in 1939 to 2.5 million in 1945, with Muslims making up about a third of the numbers at any one time. Most Muslim recruits came from what is now Pakistan.”
Well that was easy: 1.2 million Indian Muslims fought for the British in the two world wars and I found that in seconds. Why did anyone fight for us for that matter? It’s a silly question, but more on that later.
Not many Muslims fought for the British? Try over 1,200,000 from India, which doesn’t include the ones from Africa and the Middle East. Remind me: who exactly was T.E. Lawrence leading into battle? An outright assumption that well over a million Muslims decided to fight for Britain when they had no loyalty to the people they were fighting for. What is that based on? So is Christianity for that matter.
“There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.”
Apparently then Muslims have no love for their own countries and there’s no such thing as a Muslim nation-state!
The quote, “[Muslims] should fight for the Ummah; not for the nation state”, does not relate to anything I can find. The only examples of it all come from this article in its various reproductions, i.e. it appears to be a made up quote, probably created by the article’s author, Paul Austin Murphy, in order to prove his point.
Considering that Murphy does not appear to be reiterating anything, has apparently falsified his own evidence and gives no examples of what the “many Muslims” say, we can safely assume that the actual reason he is saying this is to slag off Muslims. Indeed, this little bit, “You would hardly expect anything else from Muslims”, utterly destroys any pretence of him being unbiased.
Moving on to the next section….
Yeah, well we’ve already covered this. The Sikh contribution actually came in third place after Hindus and Muslims as it happens: 130,000 in World War I and 300,000 in World War II.
Murphy is assuming, despite the absence of any evidence, that there were hardly any Muslims in the Indian Army because the Metro doesn’t give numbers.
So his entire argument for there being “very few” Muslims in the Indian Army is his single source (the Metro) not mentioning actually how many Muslims were in the Indian Army. I don’t know why based on the evidence he’s presented that this supposed lack of Muslim contribution was so clear to him.
Yes, but then again by that same measure there is not a single reference to the numbers of Hindus and Sikhs either, but the author doubtlessly would tell you that far more Sikhs were in the Indian Army than Muslims, which isn’t in fact true.
Which is really rich coming from the very same people who insist that any suspect wanted by the police who is described as being Asian; is in fact a Muslim and should be described as such even when their religion is unknown. Even more ironic is the author objecting to positive generalisations of Muslims when he himself is making negative generalisations!
We’ve already covered the numbers, so no further comment needed here.
This is a pointless and deliberately misleading paragraph. It says that because the Ottoman Empire was virtually the only Muslim state, Muslims either fought on the side of non-Muslim states or the Ottoman Empire. The Ottoman Empire was one of the Central Powers, as were the German Empire and the Austro-Hungarian Empire, who were both non-Muslim states.
Any Muslim fighting on the on the side of the Ottoman Empire would also be on the side of Germany and Austro-Hungary. See, pointless.
Wrong! The Indian Army in the Second World War was the largest volunteer army ever seen. Muslims fought in the Indian Army because they wanted to. Saying they had a choice between being soldiers and not being soldiers is extremely stupid, as the same could also apply to both Hindus and Sikhs. In fact as India didn’t have conscription and Britain did, Indian Muslims fought because they wanted to and vast numbers of Christian Britons fought because they were made to.
Aha, so having criticised the Metro for conflating Muslims with Indians, the author proceeds to do precisely that himself for his own ends! The Legion Freies Indien AKA Infanterie-Regiment 950 (indisches), was founded by Subhas Chandra Bose: a Hindu. There was actually a smaller percentage of Indian Muslims in the Legion Freies Indien than there was in the Indian Army.
(Hartog, Rudolf (2001). The Sign of the Tiger: Subhas Chandra Bose and His Indian Legion in Germany, 1941–45, p. 7) "Compared to the distribution in the Indian Army in the Classification Lists, where the Muslims were 34 per cent, the Hindus 41 per cent, the Sikhs 11 per cent and the Gurkhas and other races 14 per cent, this points to the fact that in the Indian Legion there were most Hindus and Sikhs and fewer Muslims than in the Indian Army."
Oops, that attempt at further heaping dishonour on Muslims backfired!
I’ve no idea what the random asterisk at the beginning referred to. There’s no note at the bottom of the page and it plus the parenthesis were detached from the previous paragraph..
Anyway, on to the next section we go….
None of which is actually untrue as it happens. Oh, but hang on, I thought that it was “not quite clear how big" the Muslim contribution to Britain’s war efforts was and it was "clear that of those ‘1 million troops in the Indian army’, very few of them would have been Muslims”. Muslims were 40% of the Indian Army in WWI using the information Murphy himself has provided! I wonder how many times he’s been knocked down crossing the street, because he thought it was “clear”?
It only sounded as if Bunglawala was talking about British Muslims, but he didn’t actually state that and when Bungawala said Muslims fighting for the British Empire/Commonwealth he only meant Indian Muslims, did he? That’s a big assumption.
OK, so Bunglawala was talking about Muslims who fought for Britain in the world wars, which could be several different groups of people including Arabs, Malays and Kenyans, but which Murphy immediately interprets as being Muslims in the British Indian Army. Then he suggests Bunglawala “gave the game away” by mentioning British promises to Muslims over the Levant. It does not appear to have occurred to Murphy that when Inayat Bunglawala was talking about the Muslims who were fighting for us that he was talking about Arabs, not Indians. The obvious clue is the author mentioning that Bunglawala spoke of promises made by the British to Muslims about Palestine, Iraq and Syria. Why would the British be making such promises to Indian Muslims? The British also made promises to Jews at the same time, which in conjunction with their promises to the Arabs properly cocked up the Levant.
Seriously it seems that to Murphy “Muslim” equals “Muslim Indian” and that every last Muslim Indian wouldn’t have fought for the British if they’d have known about the Balfour Declaration, which had absolutely nothing to do with India! And all of this is based entirely on Murphy’s assumption that Bunglawala was talking about Muslim Indians and not Muslim Arabs. Yes, that’s how nonsensical this is!
He apparently makes the foolish error of believing that the regionalised modern conflict between Arabs and Israelis; is a part of a global hatred of Jews by Muslims stretching back into antiquity, which isn’t in fact the case.
To put it simply, Muslim Arabs fighting for the British against the Ottoman Empire received certain assurances over Palestine, Iraq and Syria regarding their future autonomy. Then the British promised the Zionists that there’d also be a Jewish homeland in Palestine, which conflicted with the promises made to the Arabs. The Arabs probably wouldn’t have sided with the British if they’d have known that the British lied to them and had done a deal with the French to carve up the Middle East. Could you blame them?
I’ve absolutely no idea what Murphy is dribbling on about here. What Bunglawala said was that the Arabs, who were not citizens of the British Empire/Commonwealth, would probably not have fought for the British (a foreign power) against the Ottoman Empire (the foreign power occupying their lands) if they’d have realised that the British were going to stitch them up and replace one empire with another. If by “loyalty to fellow Muslims, and to Islam” and “if Muslims fought on anyone’s side, it was either on the side of a non-Muslim state or on the side of the Ottoman Empire”, Murphy is suggesting that the Arabs would’ve fought for the Ottomans, he is a total moron. The Arabs were being totally patriotic in wanting national independence. 800,000 Indian Muslims voluntarily joined up and fought for Britain in World War Two: what is that if not loyalty and patriotism? Why should the Arabs have had loyalty to the British state, a foreign power? Ah yes of course, the idiot Murphy still thinks Bunglawala was talking about Muslim Indians!
On we go….
Anyone using “vast majority” in a sentence has no idea of the actual figure and is bullshitting. Also Murphy deliberately doesn’t mention the fact that Britain secured the help of India’s Hindus and Sikhs by promising an independent India after the war. Britain declared war on Nazi Germany on behalf of India without seeking their approval, which understandably did not go down well and led to calls for independence. Britain then had to do a deal with the various Indian factions in order to get their help.
Yeah, Murphy totally ignores the fact that Stafford Cripps was also negotiating with Gandhi in 1942, promising an independent India if India fought for Britain, because Gandhi was campaigning for the British to leave India at that point. Hindus and Sikhs fought for Britain on a promise of independence just as much as Muslims did.
Jinnah was worried about a Hindu-dominated India, so he wanted a separate country and thus India underwent the Partition. The Unionists and Loyalists in Ireland feared a Catholic-dominated Ireland, which led to the partition of Ireland. The British far-Right is very supportive of Ulster Loyalists, but it would seem they are also critical of their Indian counterparts, Jinnah’s Muslim League. Go figure.
Yes, just as interestingly as Indian Hindu nationalists fought for the British to secure an independent India; Irish Catholic nationalists accepted that Home Rule had been delayed due to World War One and fought for the British; and Burmese Buddhist nationalists were promised independence by the British for helping fight the Japanese. Funny, all those people fighting because they’d been promised independence! Churchill also ordered £100,000 be spent on the establishment of the Central London Mosque in October 1940, as a mark of respect for the Muslim soldiers of the Empire.
….And Britain shafted the Arabs. The Arabs rose against the Turks on 5th June 1916 at Medina, before British military support arrived and would still have done so even if it never did. Arab nationalism stretched back several decades. General Allenby would’ve eventually taken Jerusalem and Damascus, and the Middle East would’ve been divided between Britain and France anyway. The Arabs rose up before they received any support from the British. Their objective was to tie down Turkish troops and to make it easier for the British to fight the Turks. They failed to achieve a pan-Arab state because Britain reneged on its promises.
No, you moved away from the British Indian Army as soon as you started discussing the Balfour Agreement, only you were too stupid to realise that you had.
Bearing in mind of course that not all Arabs are in fact Muslims and the “short time” they fought for us in World War One being from June 1916 to November 1918, i.e. over half the war and longer than the Americans were our allies for!
The Arabs had no intention of founding their own empire or “destroying Ottoman Islamic hegemony”, just destroying Ottoman hegemony over their own lands and establishing their own rule over their own lands. British High Commissioner Henry McMahon led Grand Sharif Hussein to believe he’d be the ruler of a vast empire if he sided with the Allies, which of course the British had no intention of giving him.
Most Arabs in WWI were against the British? Which battles did they fight against the British then? Between the wars and during WWII having been screwed out of their independence by the British and then having had their land colonised by Zionists with the support of the British, who were now in control of Palestine, Iraq and Jordan, the Arabs were not exactly pro-British. Again, can you blame them?
In Arab lands occupied by the French and British, their enemy Germany was viewed as a liberator. National Socialist politics had nothing to do with it; it was simply a case of “the enemy of my enemy is my friend”. Also there were huge numbers of Nazis in European countries occupied by Nazi Germany.
Newsflash: Bosnia is not an Arab country! Also about 98% of the SS were in fact non-Muslims: guess which religion they were? 20,000 Muslim SS out of 920,000 total SS is not exactly a huge number. The Bosnian Muslims were recruited because of the need to defeat Serb partisans without tying down large numbers of German troops in the process. The Orthodox Christian Serbs had massacred 100,000 Bosnian Muslims, so recruitment was easy. Yugoslavia was controlled by the Ustaše, Nazi Croats, who were Catholics and enemies of the Serbs. The Ustaše were responsible for the Holocaust in Yugoslavia and killed 60% of Yugoslavia’s Jews.
The Grand Mufti of Jerusalem was opposed to British rule in Palestine, opposed to Zionism, appealed to Hitler to stop Jewish immigration to Palestine (even if it meant sending Jews to their deaths) and was a disgusting anti-Semite. He was however merely a religious leader with no army, his country under British control and wielding significantly less power on the world stage than the Archbishop of Canterbury.
That’s unlike non-Muslim, pro-Nazi leaders such as Petain, Mussolini, Tojo and Quisling, who actually had political power and, excluding Quisling, had armies at their command. His role in the Holocaust and WWII generally is massively inflated by Islamophobes, ditto the Bosnian Muslim contribution to the SS.
In far-Right Islamophobic writings the Mufti becomes Hitler’s closest and most powerful ally, who designed the gas chambers, persuaded Hitler to start the Holocaust and toured Auschwitz, whilst the Bosnian Muslim SS were busy running the death camps and exterminating Yugoslavia’s Jews. None of that is remotely true: it’s all bullshit to deflect blame from European Christian society, from which those genuinely responsible for those crimes came from.
Not forgetting of course that most Nazi “labour camps” for Jews were in Europe.
Quisling was an Arab too was he? Petain? Laval? Most collaboration with the Nazis happened in non-Arab, Christian Europe. Vichy France even introduced anti-Semitic laws without even being told to do so by Nazi Germany.
Why not ask the same question about Christianity, whose persecution of Jews is far longer and far greater than that of Islam’s? Are Arabs not human beings and not capable of empathy?
OK, so how many Arabs fought for the Axis? No figures given. As pointed out above, the Arabs wanted an end to being a part of the British and French empires, and an end to Zionist colonialism. It’s worth mentioning that Jews and Arabs had lived peacefully side-by-side for centuries up until this point.
Those shared ideologies being Arab nationalism (which Muslims supposedly are incapable of), and opposition to the British Empire and Zionism. Or does Murphy believe that the Arabs shared the Nazis’ belief that that the Arabs were racially inferior? Sharing anti-Semitic beliefs does not mean a shared ideology. Britain was awash with anti-Semitism and the last anti-Jewish riot occurred in Manchester in 1947: was Britain Nazi in 1947? Essentially the Arabs (who aren’t all Muslims) saw Nazi Germany as a liberator. Just like the Ukrainian Cossacks and citizens of the Baltic States saw Nazi Germany as a liberator from the Soviet Union.
As for shared political views….
“Hitler said that the conquering Arabs, because of their racial inferiority, would in the long run have been unable to contend with the harsher climate of the country. They could not have kept down the more vigorous natives, so that ultimately not Arabs but Islamised Germans could have stood at the head of this Mohammedan Empire.” - Albert Speer
“We shall continue to make disturbances in the Far East and in Arabia. Let us think as men and let us see in these peoples at best lacquered half-apes who are anxious to experience the lash.” - Adolf Hitler
Oh yeah, old Adolf really thought highly of the Arabs!
The blog entry reveals that:
- Paul Austin Murphy suffers from that paranoid malaise of far-Right thinking: extreme polarisation. Everything must fit into two rival camps, the Muslim camp and the anti-Muslim camp. In this scenario Muslims are inherently evil and any claims that they’ve performed good deeds are either massively exaggerated or are total lies. Therefore Murphy has decided that Inayat Bunglawala is part of some sort of conspiracy to hide the “truth”.
- Murphy also falls into the standard far-Right thought pattern of believing that his own ideology, what he would term “nationalism and patriotism”, is something Muslims are incapable of. This is presumably because he does not want to believe that Muslims can share his loyalty to Britain, so he even fabricates evidence to back this up.
- Murphy also deliberately omits major evidence in order to show only half the picture, to deceive his readers and to show Muslims in a bad light. For example, there is no way he could know about British deals with Jinnah over Pakistani independence, but not know about similar British promises to Gandhi over a free India.
- The purpose of the blog seems to be because Murphy could not comprehend why Muslims would fight for King & Country, because he believes them incapable of patriotism or loyalty to Britain. So he draws the conclusion that they were bribed, deceived or forced into fighting for Britain, and that their natural instinct is to oppose Britain.
- Reading between the lines, Murphy by his omissions would appear to believe that all non-Muslim subjects of the Empire fought for it out of loyalty and patriotism. Because in ignoring Gandhi’s Quit India movement and focusing on Jinnah’s Muslim League, he is somewhat creating the impression that India’s non-Muslim population did not seek independence in return for fighting for Britain.
- Murphy does his best to reduce the Muslim war effort on Britain’s side to practically nothing, whilst exaggerating the Muslim war effort against Britain (including treason) at every opportunity. He attempts this by merely stating that hardly any Muslims fought for Britain and most fought against us, without providing figures and based entirely on his say-so.
- Murphy inexplicably misinterprets Inayat Bunglawala’s recounting of British promises to Arab Muslims over the Near East, as having been made to Indian Muslims. Murphy then uses his own misinterpretation as “evidence” of Indian Muslims’ inherent “disloyalty” to Britain.
- Also in keeping with standard far-Right practice, Murphy tries to inflate the connections between Muslims/Arabs and the Nazis, whilst utterly ignoring the far greater links between European Christians and the Nazis, which is after all what the Nazis were and what the modern far-Right (whose ideology is the same or similar to the Nazis’) are. Also he totally ignores the fact that many non-Muslim subjects of the British Empire, including British citizens, collaborated and even fought for the Nazis and Japanese.
In my opinion the blog entry attempts to sound clever and well-informed, but in fact proceeds from a collection of assumptions based on the author’s own anti-Muslim prejudice and then tries to make the facts fit those assumptions by either fabricating evidence, or by ignoring any that undermines Murphy’s argument. In fact the very first claim he makes, that Muslims have loyalty only to their religion and not to their country, the supposed truth on which his entire argument hangs, appears to have been invented by him in order to argue that Muslims have no loyalty to Britain. It’s supposed to be a “patriotic” and “counter-jihad” blog, yet it attacks the the memory of the war veterans of the British Empire and Commonwealth, and also that of its allies. A total Category B conspiracy theorist crackpot.