September 23, 2022 - 4:00pm
In the digital age, conflict travels quickly. Last weekend’s Muslim-Hindu violence in Leicester later spilled into Birmingham, driven on by social media rumours, and amid claims that an incendiary Hindu preacher, Sadhvi Rithambara, was due to appear at a temple there. As it happened, Rithambara was too ill to attend, but the temple in question had already moved to cancel her appearance once local Muslims informed them about her record. But the rapid spread of violence through social media shows how sectarianism has evolved with technology.
Among those in the Leicester crowds were activists of the new generation such as Mohammed Hijab, who was filmed calling Hindus a “pathetic, weak, cowardly people” and saying that he would rather be reincarnated as an animal than as a Hindu. He is a well known figure at protests, having appeared at anti-Israel marches where he said, to chants of “Allahu Akbar”, that they would “get their vengeance” and “we love death”. Hijab is not your run-of-the-mill hate preacher, however, but an internet celebrity. His YouTube channel has 598,000 subscribers, with videos like “Dr. Jordan Peterson’s Inner Struggle” or “The Downfall of Andrew Tate and His Muslim Male Impersonators”.
Hijab is not the only one. Also present was Leicester resident and activist Majid Freeman, who filmed some of the events and alleged that it was a “very well coordinated attack by the RSS thugs in Leicester.” He has 17,000 followers on Instagram and 20,000 on Twitter, where he often shares Muslim news or religious projects. When Guardian journalist Aina J. Khan came to Leicester to report, she turned to Freeman as a guide, even though he often tweets extreme content, such as calling Israeli settlers “Zionist dogs” and saying “may these cockroaches get what’s coming to them” only a few months ago.
Meanwhile, YouTuber Smile2Jannah, with 611,000 subscribers, has quickly rushed out a video, “Exposing Leicester Hindutva Media Lies”. It’s not the first time he has made videos about Hindus. Earlier efforts include “Hindu feeding Cow Urine to Covid patient” and “Hindus throwing poop & New Indian variant?”. Shamima Begum’s lawyer Tasnime Akunjee, followed by 10,000 people on Twitter, also got involved, posting a TikTok alleging that the riots must be part of a “race baiting” plot to give new PM Liz Truss something to deal with.
Whereas Islamic extremism in the 2000s usually involved hate preachers, infamous figures such as Abu Hamza or Anjem Choudary, their likes have now receded in significance. Instead, many of the leading figures are grassroots content creators who use social media to reach their audience. Much like ISIS, they can harness the power of the internet to bypass mosques and get their videos into bedrooms globally. Controversial figures like Moazzem Begg of CAGE now find themselves as guest stars on videos filmed by this new generation of activists. It should come as a relief, then, that the majority of British Muslims reject these activists just as they did the old ones. The sight of protestors in Leicester challenging Mohammed Hijab when his rhetoric grew too heated should reassure us that the UK’s Muslim community will not let extremism go unchecked.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeSo this is ok on YouTube, but PayPal won’t let you pay for joining the Free Speech Union?
Didnt read the last paragraph properly, but this is sickening.
“It should come as a relief, then, that the majority of British Muslims reject these activists ”
If you had members of the White majority form grooming gangs targeting minority girls with impunity, carry out terror attacks on muslim mosques, join white Christian militia that murdered non Christians and form mobs and attack minority homes at the least provocation…..
Would you be making feeble excuses like this?
The problem, according to the British authorities, and even under a conservative leadership, is the response to Islamic fundamentalism, not the Islamic fundamentalism itself.
As such, they are quick to arrest figures like Tommy Robinson, but slow to arrest the grooming gangs and sharia clerics that brought him into existence.
The authorities in Labour-run Northern cities have for two decades acted as accessories to anti-white racist paedophilia.
I would expect that from labour but, in theory, not from a conservative government.
You would think that a conservative government would prioritise British values and law and order over Sharia law.
When will the LGBTQZ+ Thoughtpolice get to work its rainbow magic on these displays of Toxic Masculinity?
The number of followers and likes somewhat coflicts with the last paragraph which is trying to say that they have no support among British muslims. The fact that people went into Leicester from farther afield i.e. weren’t locals, is being rolled out in the media as mitigation when I would have thought it more concerning than if it was just a local fracas.
Secondly, more to the editors, can we get some ideas of the things that have happened to bring this to a head? In every media report it says issues have been simmering from either before or after a cricket match. The only thing that I have read has been Muslims burning and tearing down flags and reacting to social media reports that a muslim girl has been abducted by a group of hindu men which imams, police have confirmed is false. What are the hindu side meant to have done (looling for actions here, not speech)? That is the truly unheard voice and one that I would like to hear.
Thurdly, while it might be irresponsible is an unheard writer really criticising the free speech of these muslim personalities just because he disagrees with them? Calling another group “weak” and “cowardly”? You’ll hear worse on the terraces at the Emirates! Hardly the worst cases of extremism the writer could have used- I assume the stuff said about hindus/jews/Zionists is just the tip of the iceberg but why censor it if they have said worse?
‘What are the hindu side meant to have done”
Just what Hindus did in Pakistan: reduced to 1 % of the population, blasphemy laws, young Hindu girls being (legally, as per Pakistani law) abducted and converted.
Just what Hindus did in Bangladesh: hundreds of thousands raped and murdered in 1971
Just what Hindus did in Kashmir in 1990: wiped out completely by muslim “freedom fighters” .
Just being Hindu, being “unbelievers”, is enough reason.
Apparently, there was an incident between Indian and Pakistani cricket fans.
Turns out, Indian Hindu mobs did not then go on a rampage through muslim areas, they did not desecrate muslim mosques or attack random muslims.
“Calling another group “weak” and “cowardly”? You’ll hear worse on the terraces at the Emirates!”
True. Haven’t heard Arsenal fans commit terror attacks on Spurs fans following those chants though.
Read this by the same writer and see how he is over egging the hindutva terrorist angle. There is a desperate wish for non-islamic terrorism.
https://thecritic.co.uk/how-indian-politics-fuels-violence-in-leicester/
It takes a special kind of myopia to simply view events in Leicester as just events in Leicester. They are bringing together large numbers of people across the region, and follow a pattern of incidents over decades.
I think we are well versed in what cultural imperialism is after 2 decades of magic rainbow teaching. Well, a new imperialist culture arrived in town a while ago and it is now flexing its muscles. It is vigorous, comfortable with violence, has demographics on its side and our public guardians avoid any criticism of it.
We’re royally screwed, throw a supply chain / global food crises into the mix which ratchets up tensions even further (this isn’t even counting nationalist utube / bitchube / odessy and rumble channels) then the whole fracking world is a tinderbox
The last paragraph is exactly what Islamists have succeeded in arm twisting western thinkers into writing, pinning the responsibility of presenting Muslims as moderates on the observers and not the observed i.e. the people who follow the religion and how they operate in society (both as majority and minority depending on the country, and what rights they give non-Muslims when in majority); not just the interpersonal relations which most people would attest are cordial, but a very conspicuous tacit backing of political Islam which has far reaching ambitions that most democratic and secular countries are only waking up to. Breeding inordinately is not an innocent custom but stems from the idea of expansionism that their politics actively nurtures. India (infer Hindus) has had a millennium of experience of dealing with political Islam. West ignores her lessons and lampoons her struggle at its own peril.
Not my problem. Bourgeois liberal problem .