David Myatt and Islam

This guy has been posting this self same message, full of inaccuracies, on forums all over the world in the last few months using a variety of usernames.

Anyone who's seriously interested in the relationship that may exist between some Muslims and the far Right would have found and read Professor Michael's book about the subject - The Enemy of My Enemy: The Alarming Convergence of Militant Islam and the Extreme Right - which provides some good info.

Anyone who's seriously interested in David Myatt would have found the Wikipedia article about him

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Myatt

which provides a fairly balanced overview of the man, and gives references for further research.

Instead, this poster refers to a conspiracy site - run by a conspiracy nut - as an "independent source", and gives a link to an old article about Myatt which makes some allegations without providing any evidence for them.

Also, the poster makes some glaring errors as well. Myatt never "announced to the world that he was converting" to Islam. Instead, he kept quiet about it for years.. The poster also states "since then I have heard nothing..." Well, he must have missed the full page article that The Times newspaper printed about Myatt about two years ago, and Myatt's question and answer session with Sheikh Qaradawi's website, among many other things.

So, it seems that the purpose of the poster is - under the guise of pretending to ask for info about Myatt - to spread rumours and allegations and giving links to what are clearly biased sources.

Anyone of any sagacity can see right through your "polite request" for info - as I pointed out in my first reply to your initial post.

Instead of answering the points I made about your post being just a trick to spread malicious rumors and allegations about Myatt, you just use the tired old Usenet-type tactic of making accusations against me, of trying to shift the focus away from your factual errors, of which there are many.

So, what about the many factual errors contained in your original short post?

Thus, I repeat my points:

1) If you really are doing some serious research, then you would have found far more than the two spurious so-called "independent" items you linked to. Items such as books by Professor Kaplan, and Professor Michael.

2) If you had done even some preliminary, elementary research you would have found that Myatt did not "announce his conversion" to the world, as you claimed.

3) What about your error that "It made quite an impact in the UK press at the time..."? It went unnoticed for almost two years.

4) What about your error that "since then I have heard nothing..." ? Like I wrote, you missed the full page story in The Times newspaper; you missed Myatt's question and answer session on Sheikh Qaradawi's website. You missed an awful lot more.

5) What about your erroneous claim that the two sources you could find (obviously your Google or Yahoo searches are very different from mine) are "independent"? There are not independent in any shape or form. One is a conspiracy site, run by a conspiracy nut (who claims Myatt was/is an MI5 agent), and one is a political organization which even many on the Left in Britain find somewhat dubious because of its (alleged) links with MI5 and its past divisive actions within the Left. These people do not deal in facts, but in innuendo, smear, allegations and assumptions. Rather like most of The Fourth Estate.

So, the conclusion is - due to all these errors and mistakes - that your post is just a ruse to spread unsubstantiated allegations about Myatt. If it was not, you would at the very least have given some other links which balanced the biased view of Searchlight - which, BTW, never presented any evidence for their allegations, ever. Check out:

http://aboutmyatt.wordpress.com/2008/04/20/david-myatt-and-searchlight-rumors/

Instead of addressing the issue of the many factual errors in your initial post, you resort to the weird claim that somehow I am stalking you, which is a bit of projectionism and obfustication at work.

You claim that you didn't mention The Times article "because it was so common" - which is quite farcical. I suppose the many other links weren't mentioned because they also were "so common" - while the ones you did give were "not so common"?

As for your ludicrous claim that I am trying to foist "my" definition of what an independent source is onto others, it it just ludicrous, because it was you who claimed your two sources were "independent" and therefore it was and is for you to define what you mean by independent, which you have failed to do.

You seem to fail to notice (or maybe only pretend not to so notice) that I gave no definition, just queried your claim of your "sources" being "independent".

If you are really serious about "doing some research", go to the Islamic Awakening forum and make your post and your claims there.

But I think your illogic and attempts at obfustication and your resorting to argumentum ad hominem will enable readers here to make up their own minds about your intent.

Therefore, please continue with such replies. As for me, a golden silence falls. Caeca invidia est.

http://libcom.org/sites/all/themes/libcomz/images/smileys/wink.gif

Don't worry treeofjudas, we are both having our afternoon nap now, so no more noise.