The Islamists at MPACUK

06 Jan


The Muslim Public Affairs Committee UK (MPACUK) claim to be a “grassroots civil liberties organisation that works to proactively expose and counter the sinister and toxic anti Muslim narrative that permeates mainstream politics and media.” Their representatives are often invited onto national media platforms when moderate Muslim commentary is required – usually in the wake of a terrorist attack or some other atrocity carried out by Muslims citing explicitly religious motivations. However, MPACUK are not moderate in either their views or their methodology. They are a group of insidious Islamic supremacists, extremists and conspiracy theorists.

They have a multipronged approach to achieving their goals of countering this supposed “anti Muslim narrative”, which consists of the following tactics:

  • Bullying and relentlessly abusive behaviour
  • Displaying overtly racist language and attitudes
  • Issuing justifications for terrorism
  • Making recommendations of surrender to the demands of Islamic terrorists
  • Blaming the state of Israel and ‘The West’ for Islamic terrorism
  • Inciting hatred towards non-Muslims
  • Lying about geopolitical history

Journalist Oliver Kamm summed them up deftly:

MPAC is an extremist pressure group that’s no more representative of British Muslims than I am.”

Their chief mouth-piece is a deeply unpleasant man named Asghar Bukhari who is apparently a founding member of the organisation. Anyone who has engaged in debate with him on social media (particularly Twitter) will be acutely aware of his insulting and obtuse conduct towards anyone that disagrees with one or more of his premises. The problem is that it’s incredibly difficult not to disagree with his premises or to take issue with his statements when those statements consist of foil-hat conspiracies such as this:

Virtually every single attack on Muslims in the West is due to the ideology of white supremacy funded and secretly backed by Zionists.”

Or apparent endorsements of religious violence such as this:

The concept of Jihad is a beautiful thing, and logical to those with a sincere heart. It tells the human being to stand up and fight against those who bring evil and oppression on this earth.”

At first glance, the above quote seems to be supportive of Holy War against unbelievers, which in the context of classical Islamic Law, is the meaning of the term ’Jihad’. However, perhaps Bukhari is one of those people that chooses to view Jihad as ‘waking up in the morning’ or ‘going to work’ or ‘eating your five a day’ or some other such activity that’s as divorced from religiously inspired warfare as you’re likely to get.

To clarify I am not one of those who says jihad is waking up in the morning/going to work…I am talking of Jihad against an enemy that sees to destroy you.” – Asghar Bukari

Ok, perhaps not then.

Bukhari helpfully clarifies his attitude towards Jihad on facebook during a discussion with ex-members of al-Muhajiroun, stating that he considered the actions of the late Al Qaeda operative Anwar al-Awlaki and the leader of terrorist organisation Hamas to be legitimate forms of Jihad.

Regardless of MPACUK’s official line in supporting only “non-violent Jihad”, Bukhari’s sympathy and support for Islamic violence becomes even more evident when you take into account the following remark he made on his facebook page, which was subsequently reported to the police by the Centre for Social Cohesion for a suspected breach of UK anti-terrorism law.

“Muslims who fight against the occupation of their lands are ‘Mujahadeen’ and are blessed by Allah. And any Muslim who fights and dies against Israel and dies is a martyr and will be granted paradise … There is no greater oppressor on this earth than the Zionists, who murder little children for sport.”

Anyone wishing to confront Bukhari over remarks of this kind is easily accommodated by Twitter, a platform on which Bukhari will often respond to most comments and criticisms. Unfortunately though, these responses will invariably take the form of a tirade of gratuitous abuse and accusations of Zionism, white supremacism and racism. Alternatively, he’ll just call you a prick and tell you to fuck off.

Charming interactions such as the following are common place on Bukhari’s sordid timeline, often in response to the mildest criticisms or simplest requests of clarification:

Twitter 1

Understandably, Bukhari chooses to soften his approach when invited onto various mainstream media platforms, but on social media one of his primary tactics of debate is to hurl gratuitous accusations of racial hatred at anyone who disagrees with him on any subject. This ridiculous way of arguing would be laughable if adopted by anybody, but is particularly so when the person using those arguments is himself a racist. Not only does Bukhari continually use “white” as an antonym for “Muslim”, implying that there are no white Muslims and that all ethnic minorities follow the same religion as him, but he has also made a number of what I consider to be overtly racist statements.


Taking exception to his sympathetic justifications of Michael Adebolajo, who murdered and attempted to behead Fusilier Lee Rigby in Woolwich, and whom Bukhari likened to a thoughtful revolutionary, will also result in you being subjected to a torrent of pathetic, infantile obscenities.

Aisha Patel of the New York Daily Sun had the following scathing criticism of the BBC’s accommodation of Bukhari’s views regarding the murder of Lee Rigby:

“The BBC should be ashamed. When an Islamist extremist atrocity has just occurred on Britain’s streets, Brits at home and abroad do not expect to turn on their televisions and watch a scraggy imp, who is an anti-Semitic Islamist extremist himself, justifying the atrocity.”

However, you don’t even need to go as far as to disagree with Bukhari’s extremist political opinions to be on the receiving end of his childish and demeaning sneers; simply objecting to his casual usage of the term “nigger” will suffice.

In this particular case, Bukhari attempts to absolve himself of the societal etiquette we would expect of anybody else by employing a racially offensive term and fatuously claiming a right to do so because he once saw Spike Lee’s biography of Malcom X. This is obviously an amazingly nonsensical justification but also an erroneous attribution – the movie quote he cites did not feature the term “nigger” at all, but then MPACUK seem entirely indifferent to the truth of their various claims in any case.

Bukhari’s claim that Zionists are the greatest oppressors on earth is similarly factually inaccurate and ignores data which suggests that Islamic forces may be able to claim this dubious honour, having killed over 250 million people.

Additionally it seems he has a problem acknowledging the genetic origins of European Jewry presumably because he believes it somehow undermines his rabidly pro-Palestinian cause.


It doesn’t stop there. MPACUK also seem to have an entirely self-serving and contradictory attitude towards Muslim solidarity, the role of Islam in political matters and the need for Muslims to act as a homogenous bloc.

Raza Nadim said:

“So many damn Muslim orgs coming out to apologise about Woolwich – why do I need to apologise? I didn’t do anything. Is the attack bad? Of course, but why have Muslims got to apologise?”

Asghar Bukhari had a similar response to Muslim condemnation in the wake of the Rotherham Child Abuse scandal, in saying that the Muslim Pakistani community have no requirement to do anything at all to prevent this kind of behaviour. Bukhari was also asked during a radio interview on Russia Today whether or not the UK Muslim community have a need to issue responses to terrorist atrocities carried out in the name of Islam. He responded as follows:

No I don’t think the Muslim community need to say anything. I’ve never heard any white non-Muslim say that he was sorry for what was happening in Iraq…”

Putting aside Bukhari’s standard tactic of introducing skin colour into the debate and his apparent obliviousness to the 56 separate Iraq War protests over the last decade comprising of millions of “white non-Muslims”, the position of MPACUK would seem to be that Muslims are not required to involve themselves in issues of politics and certainly have no necessity to denounce the crimes of their co-religionists.

But then MPACUK continually propagate the notion of The Ummah (global Islamic brotherhood) and ferociously advocate that political activism is a religious obligation among all Muslims. Here is Asghar Bukhari delicately explaining this Islamic responsibility to a fellow Muslim on Twitter:



Indeed, one of the items of MPACUK’s mission statement is the following:

  • To insure that Muslim institutions and the wider Muslim public understand the immediate need, importance and priority of civil and political engagement in the UK.

Their insistence that Islam is an overtly political ideology and that all of its adherents are obliged to treat it as such, seems to be the reason that on 9th September 2011 representatives from MPACUK raided the Masjid Al Tawhid in East London during Friday prayers and disrupted the service to demand that the imam spend more time delivering preachments on the conflict in Palestine. Yet when they are publically asked to address issues on Jihadist terrorism or Muslim gang-rapists, this political obligation of Muslims is conveniently discarded.

Essentially then, the aim of MPACUK is to urge Muslims to speak out only against Western Foreign Policy and Israel in the strongest possible terms but to also urge these same Muslims to do and say absolutely nothing about the myriad crimes committed on a daily basis by people that belong to their global ideological community and commit their crimes on that basis.

In a staggering example of hypocrisy, the same Raza Nadim who berated Muslim organisations for their apologies over Lee Rigby’s murder and refused to do likewise, can be seen in this video demanding that Jews apologise and speak out against the actions of the Israeli government. Interestingly he hints at the possibility that this supposed lack of willingness to do so is because the Jewish community “doesn’t have a problem with Israel bombing children.

In fact MPACUK’s pathological preoccupation with Israel has led to some extremely suspect statements and actions which frequently verge into explicitly anti-Semitic territory. They were reported to the Equalities watchdog in 2010 by The Community Security Trust for mounting campaigns of intimidation and demonization of election candidates that support Israel. The Communications Director of the CST, Mark Gardner had the following to say:

MPAC are notorious for viciously abusing and intimidating candidates whom they dislike. Knowing their track record, prior to the election campaign we raised our concerns with the Equalities and Human Rights Commission, which assured us that it would deal firmly with such behaviour.”

They are also described in the 2006 Report of the All-Party Parliamentary Inquiry into anti-Semitism as:

 “publishing material on its website promoting the idea of a worldwide Zionist conspiracy, including the reproduction of articles originally published on neo-Nazi and Holocaust Denial websites, and is currently banned from university campuses under the NUS’s ‘No Platform for Fascism and Racism’ policy.”

The report also noted that the word ‘Zionist’ is frequently used by MPACUK as a replacement for ‘Jewish’ which is evident in their website describing the Talmud as a “Zionist holy book”, a religious text which in fact predates the concept of Zionism by several centuries.

In April 2014, Asghar Bukhari decided once and for all to cement his reputation as a raving anti-Semite by writing an obscene blog post claiming that the actual sufferers of the Nazi holocaust against European Jewry were, in fact, Muslims. He claimed in this objectionable article, that the reason some Muslims either deny the holocaust took place or engage in disrespectful behaviour on Holocaust Memorial Day is that Muslims were not responsible for the holocaust and are the real victims in any case.

According to Bukhari, the Holocaust has been used as a political weapon to cover “the ethnic cleansing of Palestine” and asking Muslims to be respectful of the sensitivity that Jews and every other decent person feels towards the largest genocide in recent history is simply a step too far.

Perhaps this crass attitude towards the mass-murder of 11 million people is the reason the MPACUK facebook page carried the following statement on Holocaust Remembrance Day:


And this:


And maybe that’s why Bukhari tweets gestures of support for a renewed campaign of genocide against all inhabitants of a particular nation state:


Asghar Bukhari’s hatred of Jews is almost certainly the reason he donated money and wrote a supportive letter to WW2 revisionist David Irving in 2006, who had previously been found in a British court of law to be an anti-Semite and holocaust denier. It’s also very likely that this bigotry towards Jews is responsible for his compulsion to post a number of barely literate comments on his facebook page defending Nicolas Anelka’s decision to perform an inverted Nazi salute in the middle of a football match.


But then what are we to expect of a man whose predilection for vicious fascism dates back at least as far as his support for the Ayatollah Khomeini’s death sentence on Salman Rushdie and his vandalisation of a public library for stocking Rushdie’s novel The Satanic Verses?

Here he is on 22 July 2012 posing for a photo in the dubious company of Claire Khaw, the political blogger and former BNP member who was expelled for advocating infanticide against disabled children:


Here’s another interesting photo of Ms Khaw:


It would be unfair of me to assume that Bukhari was aware of exactly who this person is when she presumably approached him out of the blue and asked that he pose for a photo with her. It would also be unfair of me to imply some kind of guilt by association, but since I’m blocked from contacting him on Twitter I’ll have to leave it up to somebody else to ask him whether he knows this woman personally and agrees with her views.

Since the very public exposé of fraudulent bully Mohammmed Ansar has thankfully rendered his appearances in the media a thing of the past, I would hope that this article might contribute some small way towards securing a similar fate for Asghar Bukhari and his Islamist ilk at the Muslim Public Affairs Committee who I view in a similarly poor light to Ansar, albeit with far less comedic appeal. I believe that truly moderate Muslims deserve a lot better than to have these thinly-veiled supremacists and extremists speaking on their behalf, and we all deserve better than to have bigoted cretins like Bukhari making sycophantic comments about terrorists whilst publically displaying an utter contempt for the very country that has allowed them the means to do so.

1 Comment

Posted by on January 6, 2015 in Islam, Islamisim, Politics, Religion


One response to “The Islamists at MPACUK

  1. Wulfruna Heanetun

    February 1, 2015 at 11:26 pm

    An ugly job but someone had to do it. He really is a most unsavoury character.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: