Russell Brand getting chummy with Yaxley Lennon again
Posted by Ian M on October 1, 2025, 4:42 pm
Should be a health warning on this, as I felt my insides clenching the longer I listened to the IOF's poster child spout his bile about Islam and migrants and wildly implausible statistics about sexual assaults ('Muslims [...] raping at an uncontrollable rate' - 13:56) and other alleged crimes. Brand didn't meaningfully challenge him on any of it, only suggesting that there should be regional autonomy and freedom for different areas of the UK to self-govern how they saw fit. Otherwise it was praising the 'seizemically good' [sic pronunciation!] work he's done on rape gangs which has 'impacted the political direction of a country. Amazing' (5:20) asserting over and over again that Britain is a Christian country and he is Christian too, and that he even wants the 'whole world to be Christian' (4:11) albeit conceding that:
'as a Christian, I believe in free speech and I believe in the right to choose your faith and find your own way to God' (4:16)
I think I despise Brand even more than Talmud Tommy Ten-Names because we know he's not stupid enough to hear this shit and swallow it whole; he's doing it for money or due to coercion (TT is too but we know he probably believes the bile he spews). One thing's for sure; if Jesus came back and saw these two fuckers claiming "his" religion they'd be pillars of salt in no time.
I can't bring myself to watch it all so well done for suffering through it. The corporate media are complicit in the Gaza genocide. Never forget what they did. Never forgive them for it.
Re: Russell Brand getting chummy with Yaxley Lennon again
I just finished the book by Paul Kingsnorth .. 'Against the machine'. I commented a bit earlier to your post, but can't locate it.
In essence, he was a Wiccan at one point and discussed Alistair Crowley's 'Do what thou wilt' Thelema's message (which was a title to one of his chapters) and at some point turned to Orthodox Christianity (and lived for a spell in Athos monastery, Greece (I think)).
Ultimately admitted as being a 'radical reactionary' and proud of it.
I found out he was a writer for 'The Ecologist'.
I noticed you have commented a couple of years ago on his rightward turn.
Bit of a messy book. At the beginning he was waxing lyrical about his camper van that brought his family together for years, and then had a rant against the cars near the end .. i.e. not consistent.
Re: On a tangent ..
Posted by Ian M on October 1, 2025, 11:46 pm, in reply to "On a tangent .."
Thanks for the update, t, interesting to hear. I was loosely aware of the Wicca phase, though not of the Greek monastery. 'Radical reactionary' fits him quite well, even though it's a bit of a contradiction in terms, depending on how you define them. Don't know if I can be bothered with this one... maybe I'll just go to the source and finally read the Lewis Mumford books. I've been meaning to for ages...
Decent critique from a liberal Muslim perspective, unfortunately too many long words and too much academic-speak to be persuasive to Lennon's target audience, but the points stand.
Manufacturing Fear: A Critique of Tommy Robinson’s Islamophobia in World by V A Mohamad Ashrof 20/09/2025
On September 13, 2025, more than 110,000 people protesting against immigration marched through London in one of the country’s biggest right-wing demonstrations. The “Unite the Kingdom” march, organized by Tommy Robinson, saw some protesters clashing with police, wounding at least 26 officers. This violence occurred as police tried to keep the right-wing protesters separate from a group of some 5,000 rival demonstrators gathered at White Hall. The march, billed as a “festival of free speech,” ultimately amplified racist conspiracy theories and anti-Muslim hate speech across Whitehall, with marchers traveling to London by train and coach.
The contemporary global landscape is increasingly fraught with narratives of division, fear, and hostility, meticulously constructed and disseminated by figures who position themselves as guardians of national identity against perceived external threats. Among these, Tommy Robinson, born Stephen Yaxley-Lennon, stands out as a particularly potent and influential purveyor of Islamophobia. His trajectory, from co-founding the English Defence League (EDL), an extreme nationalist movement, to his current incarnation as an independent media personality, is characterized by a relentless campaign against Islam, framed as an existential threat to Western, and specifically British, values. This paper undertakes a comprehensive and critical examination of Robinson’s rhetoric, statements, and textual derivations, primarily as expressed in his autobiographical and polemical works: Enemy of the State (2015), SILENCED (2022), and Mohammed’s Koran Why Muslims Kill for Islam (2017). This analysis aims to expose how Robinson’s discourse systematically misrepresents Islam, undermines democratic principles, and actively threatens the fabric of a pluralistic global community. We contend that Robinson operates as a war-mongering extremist whose narratives fuel division, dehumanization, and ultimately imperil the potential for genuine coexistence and shared human flourishing.
Deconstructing Robinson’s “Enemy of the State”: The Foundations of Division
Robinson’s 2015 autobiography, Enemy of the State, serves as more than a personal recounting; it is a foundational text for understanding his ideological underpinnings and the rhetorical strategies he employs to cultivate an “us vs. them” narrative. Through critical discourse analysis, the text reveals how Robinson positions himself as a persecuted truth-teller, simultaneously demonizing Islam and the institutions of the state that he claims are complicit in its perceived encroachment.
A central pillar of Robinson’s narrative in Enemy of the State is the theme of victimhood. He meticulously constructs an image of himself as a lone warrior, an “enemy of the state,” targeted by a collusive “establishment”—comprising the police, courts, media, and political elites—for his courageous “truth-telling” about Islam. This “enemy of the state” trope is a classic populist strategy that inverts traditional power dynamics, positioning the dissenting individual or a perceived majority as the victim of a state-backed conspiracy, thereby delegitimizing established authority. For example, Robinson explicitly states, “The establishment doesn’t want to admit that there is a problem with Islam in the UK. They are so terrified of being called racist, so brainwashed by their own multicultural dogma, that they are willing to sacrifice our children, our freedom, and our very way of life on the altar of political correctness. They are enabling an ideology that wants to destroy us” (Robinson, 2015, p.4). This rhetoric is deeply intertwined with a secular paranoia, echoing Hobbesian anxieties about state overreach. However, Robinson twists this paranoia to vilify Muslims as state-favoured invaders, thereby fostering an acute “us-vs-them” polarization. This framing is particularly potent as it taps into a generalized distrust of elites, redirecting it into a specific anti-Muslim grievance.
From a democratic perspective, this conspiratorial framing is profoundly damaging, as it actively erodes trust in democratic institutions. A healthy democracy relies on transparency, accountability, and the robust protection of minority rights—principles that are fundamentally undermined by a narrative that consistently demonizes state actors as complicit in a grand deception. The allegation of a conscious cover-up by a corrupt elite, a common populist trope, serves to dismantle the very mechanisms designed to ensure justice and equality for all citizens. Furthermore, the claim that institutions are “brainwashed by their own multicultural dogma” not only delegitimizes inclusivity but presents pluralism itself not as a foundational value, but as a dangerous ideology that actively threatens national well-being. This creates a feedback loop where any attempt at inclusion or understanding is immediately dismissed as evidence of “brainwashing.”
Ecumenically and interfaith-wise, this victimhood narrative is deeply corrosive. It erects formidable barriers to dialogue and cooperation by suggesting that any attempt at inclusivity or understanding between faith communities is merely a façade for a sinister, anti-Western agenda. Islamic liberation theology unequivocally emphasizes the paramount importance of solidarity, dialogue, and working collaboratively across differences for social justice. Robinson’s zero-sum narrative, which explicitly posits Muslims as a “common enemy” (Robinson, 2015, p.50), directly precludes the formation of such vital interfaith alliances. Instead of fostering bridges of understanding and shared purpose, his rhetoric actively seeks to burn them, promoting an antagonistic view that is utterly antithetical to any genuine ecumenical or interfaith engagement.
Perhaps the most pervasive and ideologically dangerous discursive strategy employed by Robinson in Enemy of the State is the essentialization and subsequent monolithization of Islam. Robinson consistently portrays Islam as a singular, immutable, and inherently hostile ideology, devoid of any internal diversity, capacity for reform, or nuanced contextual interpretation. Phrases such as “Islam trumps everything” (Robinson, 2015, p. 44) or the categorical assertion “There’s no such thing as ‘moderate’ Islam” (Robinson, 2015, p.317) exemplify this reductionist and dangerously simplistic approach. He further generalizes, writing, “Whatever rivalries and tribal allegiances they had in their own communities, between different mosques and sects, there was one common enemy that united them every time – non-Muslims” (Robinson, 2015, p.50). This sweeping generalization functions to erase the vast and vibrant spectrum of Islamic thought and practice, which encompasses everything from Sufi mysticism to rationalist theology, from highly progressive interpretations to various traditional schools of thought.
This rigid binary construction—a monolithic, inherently radical Islam pitted against a non-existent or irrelevant “moderate” Islam—directly contradicts the foundational tenets of progressive and reformatory Islam. Influential thinkers like Muhammad Abduh, for instance, championed ijtihad (independent reasoning) as a crucial mechanism to adapt Islamic principles to evolving modern contexts (Abduh, 2004). Similarly, contemporary scholars such as Tariq Ramadan advocate for tafsir (contextual reinterpretation) to align Islamic values with democratic ideals and universal human rights (Ramadan, 2005). Islamic feminism, particularly through the pioneering work of figures like Amina Wadud, actively applies ijtihad to Quranic verses (e.g., Q. 4:34 concerning gender roles) to derive deeply egalitarian readings, thereby directly challenging the patriarchal interpretations that Robinson implicitly or explicitly amplifies (Wadud, 1999). Robinson’s derivations, which disingenuously link serious societal issues like child grooming scandals to a generalized “Koranic ideology” (Robinson, 2015, p. 397), fundamentally conflate cultural abuses with theological imperatives. This is a claim that reformatory Islam robustly counters through rigorous historical contextualization and nuanced textual analysis, demonstrating that such abuses are deviations from, not expressions of, core Islamic teachings.
From an Enlightenment secular perspective, this monolithization constitutes a profound violation of pluralism. It denies Muslims their fundamental agency for self-reform and treats Islam as an undemocratic, static bloc rather than a dynamic faith capable of adapting to egalitarian norms. The Enlightenment championed reason, critical inquiry, and individual autonomy as cornerstones of human progress. Yet, Robinson’s rhetoric effectively traps Muslims in a static, irredeemable past, denying them the capacity for intellectual and ethical evolution that is a hallmark of any living tradition. Democratically, this essentialism is deeply problematic because it categorizes an entire religious minority as inherently suspect, thereby undermining the cardinal principle of equal citizenship and paving a dangerous path towards widespread discrimination and marginalization.
Robinson’s discourse relies heavily on a strategy of selective derivations, extracting isolated incidents or decontextualized textual references to construct a pervasive narrative of inherent Muslim aggression and a looming “Muslim takeover.” The phrase “Meanwhile we are sleepwalking our way towards a Muslim takeover of the country” (Robinson, 2015, p.182) succinctly encapsulates this existential threat framing. This rhetoric nefariously transmutes legitimate demographic shifts into a conspiratorial narrative of conquest, portraying mosques not as cherished places of worship and community hubs, but rather as insidious “outposts of control” (Robinson, 2015, p.145). Such language is designed to instil fear and transform an entire community into an alien, hostile force.
He provocatively attributes child exploitation scandals, a grave societal issue, to “Islamic views on non-believers as permissible targets” (Robinson, 2015, p.397). This incendiary claim functions to dehumanize Muslim men and consciously echoes deeply ingrained Orientalist tropes that have historically depicted Muslim societies as barbaric, sexually predatory, and morally inferior (Said, 1979, p. 272). This selective focus egregiously ignores the complex systemic issues that contribute to such crimes and the undeniable fact that perpetrators of child exploitation come from all backgrounds, regardless of their faith. Islamic feminists, such as Asma Barlas, unequivocally leverage Quranic egalitarianism (e.g., Q.33:35) to condemn all forms of exploitation and violence, arguing forcefully that such acts are patriarchal deviations and not inherent to the ethical core of Islam (Barlas, 2002). Robinson’s narrative, however, cynically co-opts genuine feminist concerns not to address gender-based violence from a universal human rights perspective, but to demonize an entire religious community, thus distorting and undermining the very cause it pretends to champion.
From an Islamic standpoint, Robinson’s selective interpretations deliberately ignore the Quran’s profound and universal emphasis on adl (justice) and rahma (compassion, Q. 21:107), which serve to universalize human dignity across all peoples (Q. 17:70). His aggressive utterances, such as “You cannot reason with these people” (Robinson, 2015, p.315), deliberately foreclose any possibility of dialogue, rational engagement, or mutual understanding, instead favouring confrontation over any prospect of ecumenical reform or shared societal progress. This confrontational approach not only actively prevents understanding but also brazenly incites hostility, further eroding the fragile foundations of a truly pluralistic and egalitarian society.
Robinson’s rhetoric, while disingenuously cloaked in the language of defending “British values,” actively and systematically undermines the core pluralistic and egalitarian ideals central to Enlightenment thought and modern democracy. His appeals to “free speech” are paradoxically weaponized to justify speech that silences, marginalizes, and denigrates others. While Enlightenment secularism, epitomized by Voltaire’s impassioned arguments for tolerance, demands the critique of all forms of extremism equally, Robinson exhibits a pathological hyper-focus on Islam while selectively exempting other forms of radicalism or bigotry (Robinson, 2015, p.140), thereby revealing a stark and undeniable bias. This selective application of critique is fundamentally anti-Enlightenment, as it abandons universal reason and objective inquiry for a particularistic, ethnocentric, and ultimately discriminatory agenda.
The inflammatory nature of Robinson’s rhetoric carries a significant risk of inciting violence, as evidenced by the documented confrontational tactics frequently employed by groups like the English Defence League (EDL), with which he was formerly associated (Robinson, 2015, p.170). Such tactics clash directly with the principles of pluralistic egalitarianism, which unequivocally mandates the protection of minority rights and the fostering of a safe and secure environment for all citizens, irrespective of their background or beliefs. Ultimately, Enemy of the State serves as a potent exemplar of “secular hypocrisy”: claiming to champion and defend “British values” while simultaneously eroding them through persistent intolerance, relentless fear-mongering, and the systematic demonization of a minority group. Robinson’s sweeping generalizations, which deliberately ignore the vast majority of British Muslims’ demonstrated support for democracy and civic participation, betray the very ideals of mutual respect and active civic engagement that are cornerstones of a truly inclusive and democratic society.
Deconstructing “SILENCED” and “Mohammed’s Koran”: Escalation of Extremism
Following his initial autobiographical effort, Tommy Robinson escalated his activism, culminating in his 2022 work, SILENCED, and the highly controversial co-authored Mohammed’s Koran Why Muslims Kill for Islam (2017). These later publications consolidate and aggressively expand upon his foundational anti-Islam narratives, leveraging new platforms and increasingly aggressive rhetoric to paint a chilling picture of an existential threat.
In SILENCED, Robinson meticulously constructs a new, self-serving persona: that of an “independent journalist” and “truth-teller,” ostensibly persecuted for exposing “uncomfortable truths,” particularly concerning “radical Islam.” He chronicles numerous arrests, imprisonments, financial hardships, and bans from social media platforms, attributing these adversities to a concerted and malicious effort by the “State,” “Big Tech,” and “Far-Left” entities (Robinson, 2022, Introduction). This narrative strategically reframes the legitimate legal consequences of his actions as politically motivated censorship, rather than as due accountability within a democratic legal framework. For instance, his repeated and obsessive focus on “grooming gangs” (Robinson, 2022, p.75), which he asserts are predominantly perpetrated by Muslim men, serves a dual purpose: to validate his claims of state cover-ups due to “political correctness” and to further demonize an entire religious community.
From a democratic perspective, the “journalist” trope employed by Robinson is a sophisticated form of disingenuousness. Genuine journalism demands rigorous ethical reporting, unwavering factual accuracy, and an unshakeable commitment to the public interest, critically eschewing incitement or selective, misleading presentation of facts. Robinson’s approach, in stark contrast, frequently prioritizes provocation and raw emotional appeal over verifiable facts, thereby undermining the very principles of responsible media that are indispensable for an informed and healthy public discourse. His strident calls for “free speech” are, in practice, frequently weaponized to justify hate speech, while simultaneously seeking to silence his critics and opponents through legal means or by dismissively framing them as integral parts of the insidious “establishment” conspiracy (Lowles, 2018, p.110). This highly selective application of free speech principles is fundamentally antithetical to an inclusive democratic society, where freedom of expression is judiciously balanced with the profound responsibility not to incite hatred or discrimination against minority groups.
The co-authored Mohammed’s Koran Why Muslims Kill for Islam (2017) represents the zenith of Robinson’s essentialist and aggressive attack on Islam. Its central and highly contentious argument posits that Islam is inherently a “religion of war and subjugation.” This claim is predicated on a distorted application of the doctrine of “abrogation,” where the authors contend that later, supposedly more violent Quranic verses supersede earlier, more tolerant ones. In a deliberately provocative act, the authors controversially reorder the Quran to place the most “violent” verses first, audaciously claiming that this reveals Islam’s “true nature” (McLoughlin, p.1). They unequivocally state, “Islam is the very opposite of a religion of peace. You will see why Muslims kill, and you will see that those members of our own society who have a duty to inform us have been blatantly lying to us about Islam” (McLoughlin, Introduction). They proceed to define jihad solely as warfare (McLoughlin, p.5), argue that kuffar (non-Muslims) are “sub-human” (p. 7), and assert that “What the West has experienced with Jihad and sexual slavery is just authentic Islam” (McLoughlin, Appendix 12).
From an Enlightenment-inspired secular perspective, Mohammed’s Koran presents a monolithic, static, and utterly caricatured image of a profoundly complex and dynamic religious tradition, thereby denying its inherent diversity and its demonstrable capacity for internal ethical and intellectual development. By selectively quoting, reordering, and decontextualizing sacred texts, the authors engage in a blatant form of intellectual manipulation meticulously designed to confirm their deeply entrenched preconceived biases, rather than to foster genuine understanding or critical inquiry. This approach directly contradicts the Enlightenment’s emphasis on reason, open critical inquiry, and the rigorous pursuit of objective knowledge, replacing these foundational principles with a dogmatic, fear-mongering, and ultimately dangerous narrative.
Robinson’s activism is characterized by frequent, physically present “demonstrations” or “exposures” often staged in Muslim-majority areas, typically filmed and broadcast live across his platforms. These events, far from being peaceful acts of protest or genuine journalistic endeavours, often intentionally escalate into confrontational situations. They are meticulously designed to provoke reactions that can then be cynically used to further his narrative of inherent Muslim hostility or the fabricated existence of “no-go zones.” He explicitly frames these as necessary confrontations, stating, “Sometimes you have to confront the problem head-on to make people see” (Robinson, 2022, p.110). This aggressive, confrontational approach stands in stark contrast to the fundamental principles of a pluralistic society, which values peaceful assembly, constructive dialogue, and mutual respect.
From a democratic perspective, such tactics are deeply corrosive to social cohesion. They actively create an environment of pervasive fear and antagonism, rendering it exceedingly difficult for diverse communities to coexist peacefully. The incitement to hatred, even if it falls short of directly calling for physical violence, can have severe real-world consequences, demonstrably contributing to an alarming increase in Islamophobic hate crimes and fostering a pervasive climate of suspicion and division (Karim, 2000). Islam, emphasizing adl (justice) and ihsan (beneficence) in all social relations, actively seeks to build bridges of understanding and promote mutual respect between communities (Quran 5:8, 5:48, 5:69, 49:13, 6:108). Robinson’s actions, however, systematically dismantle these vital efforts, replacing them with a dangerous and intractable narrative of inevitable conflict.
Islamic liberation theology, fundamentally committed to dismantling systems of oppression, would unequivocally identify Robinson’s activism as an insidious form of ideological oppression specifically targeting a marginalized religious minority. By relentlessly portraying Muslims as an inherent and existential threat, he consciously creates a dangerous justification for discriminatory policies, social exclusion, and systemic marginalization. The confrontational nature of his activism, explicitly designed to elicit negative reactions, then serves to “prove” his initial premises, creating a self-fulfilling prophecy of division and discord. This insidious cycle of incitement and confirmation bias is profoundly antithetical to any vision of a truly just, equitable, and pluralistic society where all citizens feel safe, respected, and possess equal rights.
From an Enlightenment-inspired secular perspective, this constitutes a dangerous and systematic assault on the foundational principles of a liberal democracy: universal human rights, equality before the law, and freedom of religion. While secularism champions critical inquiry and open debate, it also unequivocally demands equal protection for all citizens, irrespective of their faith or background. Robinson’s rhetoric, by consistently demonizing one specific religious group, systematically undermines these crucial protections and risks paving the way for systemic discrimination and institutionalized prejudice (Said, 1997).
Pluralism, by its very definition, celebrates diversity and the peaceful coexistence of multiple cultures and faiths within a single society. Robinson’s manufactured crisis, conversely, seeks to eradicate or significantly marginalize one particular group, asserting that their very presence is inherently incompatible with idealized “British values.” Islamic liberation theology offers robust intellectual and ethical frameworks for Muslims to engage meaningfully and productively within diverse, democratic societies, powerfully demonstrating that Islam is not monolithic and can be a profound force for good. Robinson’s steadfast refusal to acknowledge this rich diversity, and his active promotion of a singular, hostile interpretation of Islam, reveals a fundamental rejection of pluralistic ideals and a dangerous commitment to an exclusionary vision of society. His activism, therefore, is not merely a critique of Islam; it is an active and insidious threat to the democratic fabric itself, eroding trust, fostering division, and undermining the very principles of a just society.
Robinson’s Transnational Network and the Normalization of Islamophobia
Tommy Robinson’s sphere of influence extends far beyond the geographical confines of the United Kingdom. He has painstakingly cultivated a transnational network comprising far-right activists, anti-Muslim propagandists, and sympathetic media outlets across the globe. This expansive global reach serves to amplify his divisive narratives, allowing his particular brand of Islamophobia to resonate in diverse political contexts and significantly contribute to a broader, insidious normalization of anti-Muslim sentiment. This analysis critically examines Robinson’s international connections, his opaque funding streams, and his ideological alignment with burgeoning global anti-Muslim movements. It will analyse how his transnational activities deleteriously impact democratic processes, pluralistic societies, and fundamental humanistic values, drawing extensively on critical Islamic humanism, Islamic feminism, progressive Islam, reformatory Islam, and Islamic liberation theology to underscore the universal and pervasive threat posed by such organized hatred.
Robinson has strategically aligned himself with a diverse array of international figures and organizations who unequivocally share his anti-Muslim ideology. This formidable network includes far-right politicians, influential alt-right media personalities, and anti-immigrant groups spanning Europe, North America, and beyond. He has frequently travelled to the United States, for example, to participate in conferences and speaking engagements meticulously organized by think tanks and activist groups with a well-documented history of anti-Islam stances. These international platforms provide him with a significantly larger audience and crucial financial support, as well as a thin veneer of intellectual legitimacy that his street-level activism often conspicuously lacked. As incisively reported by investigative journalists, “Robinson’s trips to the U.S. have been instrumental in solidifying his financial backing and broadcasting his message to an American audience often receptive to anti-immigrant and anti-Muslim rhetoric” (Hope, 2019). This strategic internationalization is a key component of his success in propagating his extremist views.
From a democratic perspective, the trans-nationalization of Islamophobia poses a significant and escalating threat to global cooperation and the shared values of universal human rights. When individuals like Robinson are deliberately platformed internationally, their divisive and hateful narratives gain dangerous traction in new contexts, actively fuelling xenophobia and undermining concerted efforts to build inclusive societies worldwide. The systematic exchange of tactics, rhetorical strategies, and ideological frameworks between these disparate groups creates a potent global echo chamber, where anti-Muslim sentiment is relentlessly reinforced, amplified, and normalized across national borders (Ogan et al., 2018).
From an ethical and egalitarian viewpoint, the direct funding of Islamophobia is unequivocally reprehensible. These considerable financial resources are purposefully deployed to perpetuate hatred, sow deep divisions within societies, and systematically marginalize a significant segment of the global population. Progressive Islam actively and passionately advocate for economic justice and transparency, viewing opaque funding mechanisms that promote bigotry as fundamentally antithetical to both core Islamic values and universal human rights.
The normalization of hate is one of the most perilous consequences of Robinson’s transnational influence. It stifles genuine civil discourse, replacing reasoned debate with emotionally charged slogans, fear-mongering, and divisive rhetoric. The public sphere, which should ideally be a space for respectful exchange of ideas, increasingly becomes a battleground where empathy is devalued, and prejudice is dangerously legitimized. Reformatory Islam, which advocates for rigorous internal self-critique while actively participating in building a just society, finds its tireless efforts fundamentally undermined by this pervasive environment of generalized suspicion and hostility. When an entire faith community is constantly under siege and attack, the vital space for nuance, meaningful reform, and internal dialogue inevitably shrinks, leading to further alienation and radicalization (Kundnani, 2014).
Democratically, the erosion of civil discourse weakens the very foundation of participatory governance. Democracy inherently relies on the ability of its citizens to engage in respectful debate, acknowledge and appreciate diverse perspectives, and work collaboratively towards common ground. When hate speech becomes normalized, it intimidates minority groups, actively silences dissenting voices, and polarizes society to such an extreme degree that genuine political consensus and cooperative governance become almost impossible. The transnational spread of Robinson’s ideology, therefore, not only exports Islamophobia as a hateful ideology but also actively undermines democratic health and stability in every country it touches, posing a direct threat to global peace and humanistic values.
Against this bleak backdrop of pervasive transnational Islamophobia, the urgent need for robust counter-narratives and unwavering global solidarity becomes paramount. Islamic liberation theology offers powerful and intellectually rigorous frameworks for challenging Robinson’s divisive narratives and promoting an alternative, compelling vision of inclusive and just societies. These interconnected frameworks emphasize several crucial strategies:
• Diversity within Islam: It is essential to actively showcase the vast, rich, and often overlooked spectrum of Islamic thought and practice, explicitly rejecting the dangerous and reductive monolithic portrayal perpetuated by Islamophobes. This involves highlighting the multitude of cultures, interpretations, and spiritual paths within the global Muslim community.
• Universal Human Rights: Arguments against Islamophobia must be firmly grounded in shared humanistic values that unequivocally protect the inherent dignity and rights of all individuals, regardless of their faith, ethnicity, gender, or background. This frames the fight against Islamophobia as a universal human rights issue.
• Interfaith Dialogue and Alliance Building: Fostering genuine cooperation and understanding between different faith traditions and secular groups is crucial to combat all forms of bigotry and demonstrate a united front against hatred. Building bridges, not walls, is the ethical imperative.
• Ethical Media Literacy: Promoting critical engagement with media is vital to empower individuals to discern propaganda and misinformation from genuine, factual journalism. This helps to inoculate audiences against the manipulative tactics of figures like Robinson.
• Advocacy for Justice: Actively campaigning against discriminatory policies and holding purveyors of hate speech accountable within robust legal frameworks is essential. This includes pushing for stronger hate crime legislation and challenging institutional biases.
The global reach of Islamophobia, epitomized by figures like Robinson, necessitates a similarly global, coordinated, and ethically grounded response that champions pluralism, humanism, and democratic values. Ultimately, combating transnational hate requires a fundamental recognition that an attack on one minority group, anywhere in the world, is an attack on the fundamental principles that uphold the dignity and rights of all humanity.
Counter-Narratives and the Struggle for Justice
One of the strongest tools against Islamophobia is the reclamation of Islamic narratives, moving beyond reductive caricatures promoted by figures like Tommy Robinson. Critical Islamic humanism provides an invaluable framework, highlighting Islam’s ethical traditions of justice, compassion, and human dignity. By emphasizing authentic teachings on pluralism, interfaith respect, and the common good, counter-narratives expose the hollowness of Islamophobic claims. This involves several components:
Educational Initiatives: Promoting accurate understandings of Islam through lectures, resources, and programs that reveal the diversity of Muslim cultures and beliefs (Esposito, 2010). Such efforts dismantle stereotypes and build bridges.
Artistic and Cultural Expression: Supporting Muslim artists, writers, and filmmakers who humanize Muslim life and challenge prejudice. Culture, through its aesthetic power, fosters empathy.
Historical Revisionism: Countering distorted accounts by highlighting Islam’s flourishing in science, philosophy, medicine, and interfaith cooperation (Nasr, 1996). Correcting Eurocentric histories demonstrates Islam’s contributions to civilization.
From a decolonial perspective, reclaiming narratives is an act of epistemic liberation. Islamophobia perpetuates colonial tropes portraying Islam as barbaric and antithetical to the West (Said, 1979). By asserting Islamic intellectual traditions and lived experiences, Muslims decolonize dominant discourse and challenge power structures that sustain prejudice. Islamic liberation theology underscores this as a justice struggle, empowering communities to define themselves free from external imposition (Aslan, 2005).
The Path Forward- Interfaith Solidarity and Coalition Building
Combating transnational Islamophobia requires broad-based coalitions. Interfaith solidarity shows that hatred against one group threatens all.
Joint Advocacy: Leaders across faiths and secular groups must publicly condemn Islamophobia, defend religious freedom, and champion inclusion through statements, protests, and lobbying.
Shared Dialogue Spaces: Platforms where diverse communities connect, share experiences, and build genuine relationships are antidotes to prejudice, moving beyond tolerance to affirmation.
Alliances with Other Marginalized Groups: Islamophobia intersects with racism, antisemitism, xenophobia, and anti-Blackness. Strategic alliances with Black Lives Matter, Jewish groups, LGBTQ+ advocates, immigrant rights, and Indigenous movements strengthen collective resistance.
From a democratic perspective, policy advocacy is crucial to safeguard civil liberties and equality. The funding of anti-Muslim agendas through opaque channels requires transparency and accountability (Lean, 2012). Reformatory Islam encourages civic participation to hold power accountable. Challenging structures that normalize hatred aims to create societies where rights are protected and celebrated.
The struggle against Robinson’s global Islamophobia demands sustained effort and long-term vision. Moving beyond “tolerance” towards affirmation of diversity requires:
Mainstreaming Diversity: Integrating Muslim histories and contributions into curricula, media, and public discourse ensures inclusion at the societal core.
Challenging Systemic Biases: Confronting discrimination in employment, housing, services, and politics requires sustained equity and anti-racist commitments.
Promoting Intercultural Competence: Education that equips people with skills to navigate cultural and religious differences nurtures empathy instead of fear.
Civic Engagement and Representation: Encouraging Muslim participation in politics and civic life ensures authentic representation and strengthens democracy.
From a pluralistic standpoint, an inclusive society is one where all feel belonging and recognition. Critical Islamic humanism envisions a community grounded in ta’aruf (mutual recognition) and adl (justice), celebrating differences as divine wisdom rather than sources of division. Progressive Islam stresses constant striving for equity, while Islamic feminism highlights intersectionality, addressing challenges faced by Muslim women and racialized groups.
The path forward is not about constant reaction to figures like Robinson, but about proactively building societies where such figures lose influence. Embedding justice, pluralism, dignity, and compassion ensures hatred finds no fertile ground. The ultimate vision is a global landscape where interconnected human worth is cherished, and organized hatred is marginalized through collective action, ethical commitment, and a just, compassionate community.
Bibliography
Abduh, M. The Theology of Unity. Translated by I. Musa’ad & K. Cragg. Kuala Lumpur: Islamic Book Trust, 2004.
Ahmed, L. Women and Gender in Islam: Historical Roots of a Modern Debate. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1992.
Allen, C. Islamophobia. Farnham: Ashgate Publishing, 2010.
An-Na’im, A. A. Toward an Islamic Reformation: Civil Liberties, Human Rights, and International Law. Syracuse: Syracuse University Press, 1990.
Aslan, R. No god but God: The Origins, Evolution, and Future of Islam. New York: Random House, 2005.
Barlas, A. Believing Women in Islam: Unreading Patriarchal Interpretations of the Qur’an. Austin: University of Texas Press, 2002.
Esposito, J. L. Islam: The Straight Path. New York: Oxford University Press, 2010.
Hope, C. “Revealed: Far-right figure Tommy Robinson received hundreds of thousands in donations from US benefactors.” The Independent, 16 June 2019.
Karim, K. H. Islamic Peril: Media and Global Violence. Montréal: Black Rose Books, 2000.
Kundnani, A. The Muslims Are Coming!: Islamophobia, Extremism, and the Domestic War on Terror. London: Verso Books, 2014.
Lean, N. The Islamophobia Industry: How the Right Manufactures Fear of Muslims. London: Pluto Press, 2012.
Lowles, N. Tommy Robinson: Enemy of the People? London: Searchlight Educational Trust, 2018.
McLoughlin, P., & Robinson, T. Mohammed’s Koran: Why Muslims Kill for Islam. United Kingdom: Peter McLoughlin, 2017.
Nasr, S. H. Religion and the Order of Nature. New York: Oxford University Press, 1996.
Ogan, C. L., et al. “The global digital divide and social media use: Examining the case of Facebook in the Arab Spring.” Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, vol. 23, no. 3, 2018, pp. 133-148.
Rahman, F. Islam and Modernity: Transformation of an Intellectual Tradition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1982.
Ramadan, T. Western Muslims and the Future of Islam. New York: Oxford University Press, 2005.
Robinson, T. Enemy of the State. The Press News Ltd, 2015.
Robinson, T. SILENCED. Independent Bookstore, 2022.
Said, E. W. Orientalism. New York: Vintage Books, 1979.
Said, E. W. Covering Islam: How the Media and the Experts Determine How We See the Rest of the World. New York: Vintage Books, 1997.
Wadud, A. Qur’an and Woman: Rereading the Sacred Text from a Woman’s Perspective. New York: Oxford University Press, 1999.Tell your story; Ask a question; Interpret generously http://storybythethroat.wordpress.com/tell-ask-listen/
An anti-Muslim hate march in the heart of London: The failure to protect Muslim citizens By 5Pillars (RMS) - 16th September 2025
Roshan Muhammed Salih argues that the British authorities should never have allowed Tommy Robinson’s mass anti-Muslim hate march in London to take place.
London, a city of more than one million Muslims, witnessed a shameful spectacle on Saturday when up to 150,000 demonstrators flooded its streets for the far-right “Unite the Kingdom” rally organised by the notorious Islamophobe and serial criminal Tommy Robinson, real name Stephen Yaxley-Lennon.
What was billed as a “free speech festival” was actually a platform for virulent anti-Muslim hatred, with Islamophobic chants and banners in the crowd, and with speakers spewing rhetoric that painted Muslims as invaders, rapists, and existential threats to British identity.
This was no mere protest; it was a calculated assault on the dignity of more than 13% of the city’s population — and the estimated four million Muslims across the UK.
The fact that such vitriol was allowed to echo on a stage with loudspeakers just outside Downing Street speaks volumes about the institutional indifference towards Muslim lives in our so-called multicultural society. As well as the inability of British Muslims to mobilise against such a provocation.
Anti-Muslim hate speech
The rally’s inflammatory tone was exemplified by the foreign extremists who took to the stage.
American Republican candidate Valentina Gomez, who jetted in from the U.S. to join the fray, urged the expulsion of Muslims from the UK and branded Prime Minister Keir Starmer “the biggest paedophile protector in history.”
Her presence alone underscores a glaring double standard: while foreign Muslim scholars have been routinely denied entry for views deemed incompatible with Western norms on issues like homosexuality, Gomez — a self-proclaimed firebrand known for burning Qurans and disrupting Muslim events — was welcomed with open arms.
“England belongs to the English. It’s either now or never, because if these rapists Muslims take over, they will not only rape your women, they will behead your sons, just like they did on October 7th in Israel,” she told the cheering crowd.
“So, we either fight now or we die. And we’re fighters, we are warriors of Jesus Christ. And in the words of the great Charlie Kirk, Islam is the sword that the left is using to destroy Christian nations and to destroy every Christian nation across the world. So, do not make peace with evil. Destroy it.
“And we need a new prime minister that has guts and that’s gonna stand up for the British and send all of these rapists Muslims and dirty rugs back to their Sharia nations.”
Similarly, Belgian far-right politician Filip Dewinter took the stage to declare: “At what time did London became Pakistan?”
He continued: “Mass immigration and multiculturalism are the Trojan horse of Islam. And Islam is the most dangerous thing for our society ever. It’s a threat for the freedom of speech. It’s a threat for the equality between man and woman. It’s a threat for the separation between this church and the state.
“It’s a threat for all of us. It’s a threat for our children. It’s a threat for what we stand for. Liberty, Europe, England, our kingdom. It has to be clear that Islam is our real enemy. We have to get rid of Islam. Islam doesn’t belong to Europe. Islam doesn’t belongs to the UK.”
Gomez and Dewinter’s warnings of a “Muslim takeover” and the imposition of Shariah law were not fringe mutterings; they were amplified to a massive crowd chanting “Send them back” and waving Union Jacks alongside anti-Islam banners.
Even tech billionaire Elon Musk contributed via video link, ominously stating, “Whether you choose violence or not, violence is coming to you. You either fight back or you die.”
Why wasn’t the march banned?
The British authorities’ decision to permit this march, despite its predictable descent into violence, is indefensible.
Over 1,600 Metropolitan Police officers were deployed, yet 26 were injured, and 25 arrests were made after protesters hurled bottles, flares and insults at officers and counter-demonstrators.
A stage was erected mere steps from the seat of government, broadcasting messages that dehumanise an entire faith community. People carrying flags and banners gather at STAMFORD-STREET to stage a demonstration, organised by Tommy Robinson called the FREE SPEECH FESTIVAL in London, United Kingdom on 13/09/25. (Stuart Brock – Anadolu Agency)
London’s Muslim mayor, Sadiq Khan, and Muslim Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood, oversaw an event that left communities “feeling deeply concerned,” as Khan later put it, accusing far-right leaders of hijacking the British flag.
But where was the proactive intervention? Would a mass antisemitic or anti-Hindu hate march be allowed on the streets of London? Of course it wouldn’t, and rightly so.
Foreign hate preachers like Gomez and Dewinter should have been stopped at the borders, just as Muslim activists and figures with far less incendiary rhetoric often are.
This selective enforcement reveals a troubling bias: Islamophobia is tolerated as “free speech,” while expressions of Muslim identity are scrutinised and suppressed as “divisive” and “disloyal”.
Muslim inaction
Equally disheartening was the muted response from the Muslim community itself.
While anti-racism groups like Stand Up to Racism mustered a counter-protest of about 5,000, broader Muslim-led mobilisation was conspicuously absent.
Organisations had urged vigilance beforehand, and police reassured Muslims to “maintain routines” despite “particular concerns” over anti-Muslim rhetoric. Post-event, calls for accountability echoed from advocacy groups, but where were the mass demonstrations or unified statements from mosques and community leaders?
The rally’s organisers clearly signalled what was coming, yet the community’s relative silence allowed this poison to spread unchecked.
This “hate march” is a wake-up call for British Muslims and their allies. It exposes the fragility of our place in a nation that claims to value tolerance and religious freedom, but permits the mainstreaming of bigotry.
With five million Muslims contributing to the UK’s economy, culture, and social fabric, the authorities must enforce consistent standards on hate speech and border controls.
And our community must strengthen its resolve — organising, mobilising, advocating and demanding accountability to ensure such events become relics of a shameful recent past.Tell your story; Ask a question; Interpret generously http://storybythethroat.wordpress.com/tell-ask-listen/
"the inability of British Muslims to mobilise against such a provocation"
How many children have been the victims of grooming gangs in the UK? 8 January 2025
What was claimed
One million children were sexually abused by grooming gangs.
Our verdict
This is not a reliable estimate. It was made in 2015 by extrapolating figures from Rotherham, but the MP who produced it has since told us it is “completely unreliable”. An inquiry in 2022 said “it is simply not possible to know the scale of child sexual exploitation by networks”.
Some widely shared posts on social media—including one shared on X by the platform’s owner, the businessman Elon Musk—have claimed that more than a million children have been victims of “grooming gangs” in the UK. We’ve also seen different estimates for the number of victims circulating, such as a figure of over 250,000.
We know that the sexual abuse of children is common, and often unreported. It is clear that thousands of children, many of them vulnerable, have been subject to appalling abuse by loosely defined networks of offenders, often known as “grooming gangs”, in cities and towns across the UK.
We have not been able to find a reliable estimate for the total number of victims, however. We therefore cannot say whether the figures quoted in these posts are right or wrong.
Full Fact first wrote about the one million estimate in 2020 and found then that it was not reliable. It was calculated in 2015 by the Labour MP for Rotherham, Sarah Champion, who told the Mirror: “There are hundreds of thousands and I think there could be up to a million victims of exploitation nationwide.” When we asked Ms Champion about the figure again this week she told us it was “completely unreliable”, and that it was based on an extrapolation.
The Jay inquiry into child sexual abuse said in 2022: “It is clear that the sexual exploitation of children by groups of associated abusers continues to be widespread, to a greater extent than official statistics indicate.”
In its section on prevalence, the inquiry said there were “fundamental flaws with both the criminal justice and children’s social care data sets” in this area. “As a consequence,” it said, “it is simply not possible to know the scale of child sexual exploitation by networks.”
Unreliable figures should not be shared as if they were authoritative estimates or facts. This may mislead people into believing that something is definitely known to be true, when in reality it is very uncertain.
Where does the one million figure come from?
The estimate of one million victims has been mentioned in a number of different social media posts, including a post on X last week that said “MORE THAN ONE MILLION CHILD VICTIM [sic]”, and cited Ms Champion and the Mirror as its source. This was reposted by Mr Musk.
When we contacted Ms Champion to ask about the figure in 2020, she told us: “I extrapolated that Rotherham is a town [of] 200,000 and had 1,400 known victims of CSE [child sexual exploitation] between 1997-2013 and 15% of women report their rape - so scaled up.”
We emailed her again to ask about the figure in 2025, and she told us that her extrapolation involved scaling up the figures for a “70 year period”, acknowledging that was a “completely unreliable” estimate.
We are not sure exactly how Ms Champion’s calculation produces an estimate of about one million, but as we said in 2020, it is not a reliable method anyway. We cannot simply extrapolate the level of abuse in Rotherham to the rest of the country, because the rate of victimisation in Rotherham may have been higher or lower than average, as may the rate of reporting.
In our 2020 article, we said we also thought that the 15% figure came from a government report from 2013. If so, it represented the proportion of women who reported the most recent incident of serious sexual assault they had experienced, which is not necessarily the same as the proportion of child exploitation victims identified in Rotherham. A different estimate
Mr Musk also reposted a video shared by the X account of the political activist Tommy Robinson, showing a speech made in 2018 by the former leader of the UK Independence Party, Lord Pearson of Rannoch.
The post from Mr Robinson’s account said: “Lord Pearson questioned the CONservatives [sic] over the upwards of 250,000 British children gang raped by predominantly Pakistani men across every major city of the UK, this century alone!”
In his 2018 speech, Lord Pearson said: “If we extrapolate nationally the Jay report on Rotherham and other reports from Telford and Oxford, there appear to have been upwards of 250,000 young white girls raped in this century, very largely by Muslim men.”
Later, in another contribution using the figure in 2019, he referred to “250,000 victims of radical Muslim grooming gangs” and claimed this was “probably an underestimate”, adding: “If you take the accepted figure of 1,400 victims in Rotherham alone and extend it across the country, you come to a much larger figure. Indeed, Rotherham’s MP, the courageous Sarah Champion, has put the figure at 1 million.”
We have attempted to contact Lord Pearson to ask about the 250,000 figure, but we have not yet heard back. It’s not clear if Lord Pearson himself was the original source of the estimate.
An inquiry into abuse in Rotherham did say that its “conservative estimate is that approximately 1,400 children were sexually exploited” between 1997 and 2013. It’s unclear from Lord Pearson’s remarks how the 250,000 figure was calculated, which means it’s difficult to say how reliable it is. But any national extrapolation from one place, or a group of places, is based on the potentially unreliable assumption that similar rates of offending and reporting occurred throughout the country.
What data do we have?
We’ve not found any authoritative estimate of the total number of victims of grooming gangs in the UK.
The 2022 Jay inquiry’s report into child sexual exploitation by organised networks set out some of the specific difficulties in calculating any total figure, including the fact that there is no specific offence of child sexual exploitation, and the “subjective and thus variable” nature of flagging these offences manually.
Similarly, a 2020 Home Office report into “Group-based child sexual exploitation” did not offer an estimate for the total number of victims and said “a consistent challenge has been the paucity of data”. It said group-based child sexual exploitation was probably under-reported, and said it had identified “over 70” live investigations at the time, adding that this figure very likely would have been higher had more police forces provided data.
We have asked the Home Office and the Ministry of Justice if they can direct us to any reliable estimates for the total number of victims. The Ministry of Justice told us that it did not publish any relevant data. We’ll update this article with any new information we receive.
Last year the government said a Grooming Gangs Taskforce set up in 2023 had helped police forces identify and protect “over 4,000 victims” in a 12-month period.
Although we cannot say how many children in total have been victims of grooming gangs, we can put the estimates circulating in recent days into context by giving a very rough idea of the total number of potential victims in the period in question.
Using Office for National Statistics (ONS) mid-year population estimates, we can say that between roughly eight and nine million people in the UK were girls aged 11-15 at some point between 2001 and 2018, when Lord Pearson made the speech being shared on X.
This number would be higher if we included girls who were younger than 11 or older than 15, or if we looked at a longer time period, or if we included boys. It would be lower if only white children were included, or only those considered vulnerable to exploitation.
A survey published by the ONS in 2020 found that about 7.5% of adults in England and Wales had experienced some form of sexual abuse before the age of 16, including about 3.5% of men and 11.5% of women, equivalent to around 3.1 million people.
We approached Mr Musk, Mr Robinson and the Mirror for comment.
Our thanks to Marcus O’Brien, a Royal Statistical Society Statistical Ambassador and a senior statistician at the ONS, for his help with the final section of this article.
on October 1, 2025, 4:42 pm