Since 9/11 and the subsequent terrorist attacks which have taken place in the West, Muslims have been entrapped in a vicious circus show called "Not in my name". This circus show entails guilt by association of faith, and the never-ending apologies and condemnations that Muslims are forced to make for crimes allegedly committed in the name of Islam.
Anjum Chaudary is a radical ideologue who professes to interpret Islam yet like most radicals he has never actually studied religion. He dresses in a beard and Islamic garb to give the impression that he is a cleric but he is nothing but a masterly self-publicist, preaching a distorted message of hate and violence.
British Prime Minister, David Cameron, commented: "We have to redouble our efforts to confront the poisonous narrative of extremism and violence that lay behind this." Is Mr Cameron against violence? He supports wars abroad - they are most definitely violent, in a highly organised fashion. Does violence somehow change by location?
Instead of focusing on whether Islam was at fault, it is more helpful to look at the specific ideology at play...
Last night I came across an extraordinary piece by Earl Cox in the Jerusalem Post: "Radical Islam is, in truth, the Normative Islam". Mr Cox cites h...
One positive story to come out of the tragedy of Woolwich in May took place at the East London mosque, in Tower Hamlets, when leaders of the Christian...
As with other horrible tragedies, when the glare of media has dissipated, the effects remain and are added to a long list of issues that we must confront. It will always be a challenge, but with the right kind of leadership the challenge will be easier to overcome.
As an army wife, I think of Lee's death in the way that I think of all 444 service personnel that have died on operations in Afghanistan, with a heavy heart and a nagging thought that it was a tragic waste of a young and promising life.
Every time Islamophobia is mentioned in the media, certain professional naysayers immediately leap into action to dismiss, detract and wag the accusatory finger. What they refuse to acknowledge is that in doing so, they repeatedly ignore the very real people who experience harm, pain and suffering.
For our own protection, we must discuss the security implications of our actions, not because the consequences are our fault, but because it would be irresponsible not too, perhaps dangerously so.
It is a sign of political degradation when a former national leader cannot write a piece in a Sunday newspaper, about an issue with which he is intimately involved, without attracting a huge amount of venom, by people who have either not even read the article in question, and just attack Blair for being Blair.
There is no shortage of innovative ways government and others can fight the battle of ideas online, but in order to win this battle government must take to the field in a serious way.
When I first saw the distressing news reports on television networks that a man thought to be a British soldier had been brutally murdered on the streets of London by two men in what was suspected to be an act of terrorism I immediately had a strong feeling that the killers would claim to be Muslims.
Following the awful murder of Drummer Lee Rigby in Woolwich last week, the political securocrats who claim to represent the interests of the British intelligence services have swung into action, demanding yet further surveillance powers for MI5 and MI6 "in order to prevent future Woolwich-style attacks".
Some people say Britain is a responsible, tolerant country, proud of its multicultural heritage. I don't see it. I see the national press and an alarming amount of people willing to demonize the faith of 1.4 billion people because of the actions of a very small minority.
Having researched Islamophobia and anti-Muslim phenomena for more than a decade, I've come to realise that for some people the 'number' of incidents are far more important than the reality of the lives of those affected.