Talk:Ahmad Thomson

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Portal:Biography
 Biography Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ]
(If you rated the article, please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

Contents

[edit] Warning, Good News, My Thanks and a Prayer

Since the discussion is becoming rather lengthy, I thought this should come at the beginning rather than at the end:

Warning: Let anyone who has the time to read what is below and to trace the chequered history of the Article itself take note that for the time being freedom of speech does not extend to anyone who explores the history of Zionism or criticizes it. Anyone who does so will be harassed, misrepresented and ridiculed by the press which for the time being has the freedom to do so. If you do not have sufficient time or money to be able to institute legal proceedings, do not even attempt to put the record straight, because you will not be permitted to do so for very long. And remember, to defend yourself or to attack those who attack you in the media is a distraction: what is written against you is the matador’s cape, not the matador.

Good News: Allah is present. Allah sees. Allah knows. The curse of Allah is on those who lie deliberately and the mercy of Allah is on those who strive to speak truthfully – which means, in the next world, some for the Fire and some for the Garden.

My Thanks: are due unreservedly to those who have deliberately misrepresented my views and attacked me: without your animosity and sophistry, I could not possibly have realised what a blessing it is to be a Muslim. Thank you so much, al-hamdulillahi wa shukrulillah, praise and thanks to Allah – Who has created all of us and what we do. Were it not for the smoke and the bee sting, the sweetness of the honey would not be perfect.

My Prayer: for those who attack me (including jucifer whose warning follows shortly) is that if you are not really happy being who you are, then may Allah expand your hearts to Islam and illuminate your beings and grant you the Garden in the next world, where there is neither ill feeling nor idle talk, only a peace sweeter than honey. Amin.

He was told, ‘Enter the Garden!’ He said, ‘If my people only knew how my Lord has forgiven me and placed me among the honoured ones!’ (Qur’an: 36. 25-26)

Ahmad Thomson Ahmad Thomson 01:55, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Warning

The polemic below appears to be a respose to the article by it's subject. Readers may find the use of classic antisemitic conspiracies offensive, however they do neatly illustrate this man's eccentric views on race, leaving him hoisted by his own petard, so to speak. jucifer 05:27, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Response

Ahmad Thomson's response to these allegations is as follows :

Although Thomson is alleged to be an adviser to Tony Blair, in fact the two have never met.

Although Thomson is alleged to be a conspiracy theorist he has in fact always rejected conspiracy theory, whilst recognising that implementation of the publicly proclaimed Zionist aspiration to establish a Greater Eretz between the Nile and the Euphrates has inevitably shaped events and policies in the Middle East, from before the Balfour Declaration up until the present, including the invasion of Iraq. Thomson observes that if the Zionist dream of a Greater Eretz which stretches from the Nile to the Euphrates is to be realised, this means that parts of Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Kuwait, Arabia and possibly Iran will have to be subdued in a manner similar to Palestine – which inevitably means an escalation in conflict in the Middle East.

Although Thomson is alleged to have denied the holocaust, he has in fact never done so, although he has queried the accuracy of the actual number of Jews murdered, since the figure of 6 million would mean that approximately 2,700 Jews would have to have been murdered on every single day of the war, the equivalent of approximately two Srebreniza massacres per week for approximately 300 weeks. While observing that this does seem to be a very high murder rate to sustain uninterruptedly for six years, while also simultaneously waging a war on three fronts, Thomson has always maintained that whatever the actual figure, however much more or less, the holocaust remains a terrible, but not the only, example of man's inhumanity to man. He has always said that even one unjust death is one too many.

The "big lie" to which Thomson does actually refer in his book written in 1994 is the assertion that it is a big lie for the descendants of the Khazars who embraced Judaism in the 7th century CE to claim that the land they have lived in from time immemorial is Palestine, when in fact as Arthur Koestler, the author of "The Thirteenth Tribe" so interestingly points out in his consideration of the Khazar Correspondence, the land from which they originate is the land between the Caspian and Black seas. Koestler confirms that King Joseph could not, and did not, claim for them Semitic descent since he traces their ancestry not to Shem (from whose name the word 'Semitic' derives), but to Noah’s third son, Japheth; or more precisely to Japheth’s grandson, Togarma, the ancestor of all Turkish tribes.

Thomson observes that since the genealogy of the Khazar Jews is turkic not semitic and since their original homeland lies between the Caspian and Black seas, not Palestine, they were not legally entitled to drive out the Palestinians from their land by force. He also observes that modern Israel is administered on apartheid principles - while championing democracy for Israelis, the Israeli government has always denied what is left of the Palestinians the right to vote in Israeli elections. He concludes that to criticise turkic Zionist strategy is not anti-semitic; that to criticise the denial of democratic rights by the Israeli government is not anti-semitic; and that to attack without just cause Jews descended from any of the original twelve tribes of Israel, indigenous Palestinians and Arabs is anti-semitic, since these three groups of people are semitic.

The main concluding paragraph of the book written in 1994 (which has been out of print since 2001) is in fact this:

"And perhaps if these authors and reporters had emptied their minds of all the images of the froth and the waves of phenomenal existence contained in them, and had reflected calmly, for one clear moment, deep in the ocean of Reality, then they might have realised that all the opposites in Creation are from One and the same Source; that the froth and the waves are not separate from the ocean; that everything in existence is from Allah, Who has Power over everything; that it is Allah Who exalts, and Allah Who abases; that it is Allah Who creates, and Allah Who destroys; that it is Allah Who gives life, and Allah Who gives death; and that whatever the situation, and whatever the outcome, it is from Allah."

Thomson has always maintained that this view of existence, which is his view of existence, is incompatible with conspiracy theory for it confirms that Allah is One in His Essence and in His Attributes and in His Actions and that Allah is the First without any beginning and the Last without any ending and the Inwardly Hidden and the Outwardly Manifest – so where does that leave you, or me, Ahmad Thomson?

[edit] Comment

And these are just some of the hyperlinks that Juicifer has edited out of the main article. In the name of being objective, she gives greater credence to false allegations made by journalists who have never even talked to Ahmad Thomson than to what he has actually said or written. Ahmad Thomson firmly repudiates any statement attributed to him which he has not in fact made. Please keep your dignity, Juicifer, and verify the accuracy of the words you seek to present as being truthful before exercising your power of censorship to promote inaccuracies and misrepresentations. May the blessing of Allah be on whoever speaks the truth. "Something truthful in the sea - your lies will find you." (Joni Mitchell). And may you arrive safely with those whom you love and those who love you in the Garden in the next world.

  • Lawyer Ahmad Thomson (London) defends Al Taqwa Bookshop August 2005
  • Why Ahmad Thomson was attacked by Associated Newspapers excerpt from Islam Magazine, p. 24, published December 2005
  • Being Ahmad Thomson published by Al-Risala magazine, p.22, Summer 2005
  • Radical Islam? – No Such Thing by Ahmad Thomson, published in The Muslim Weekly February 2005
  • Written and verbal submissions to the House of Lords by Ahmad Thomson in 2002, published by the United Kingdom Parliament

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahmad_Thomson" (Live hyperlinks are currently available in the history section of the article [ 03:14, 1 January 2006 Ahmad Thomson m ] but are liable to be edited out in the name of objectivity)

[edit] Corrections to Article

Whenever Ahmad Thomson attempts to correct inaccuracies in the Article, they are removed by Wikipedia editors in the name of maintaining encyclopedic neutrality, preference being given to the Toby Helm version, even though Helm and Thomson have never met or talked to each other.

Napoleon observed that history is a myth which is agreed upon, but in this age it appears to have become a myth which is disagreed upon!

The Article would be more accurate if it read as follows :

Ahmad Thomson is an English barrister and convert to Islam who is alleged to have advised Prime Minister Tony Blair on matters relating to Islam and Britain's Muslim community although in fact he has only advised the Home Office on these matters. Thomson is a member of the Association of Muslim lawyers and was born in Northern Rhodesia (now Zambia) and educated in Southern Rhodesia (now Zimbabwe) and England.

Thomson's alleged role as adviser to Blair attracted controversy in September, 2005, when Thomson was alleged to have claimed that a conspiracy orchestrated by Zionists, Jews and Freemasons had pressured Blair into waging war on Saddam Hussein. Also attracting attention was a book written by Thomson in 1994 which is alleged to have claimed that the Holocaust was a "myth" and a "big lie".

Thomson converted to Islam on 13 August 1973. He is the author of several books including The Difficult Journey, The Way Back, Making History, the revised editions of Jesus, Prophet of Islam and Blood on the Cross (in two volumes, For Christ’s Sake and Islam in Andalus), Dajjal, the AntiChrist, The Last Prophet and co-author with Abdalhaqq Bewley and Aisha Bewley of The Islamic Will.

Thomson claims that his views on Zionism have been misrepresented by the pro-Zionist media – which neatly illustrates part of his thesis which is that any attempt to seriously analyse or criticise Zionist strategy is predictably misrepresented and then attacked whenever it happens in order to deflect and neutralise any serious analysis or criticism, usually by branding the analyst as an irrational racist anti-semitic conspiracy (and therefore paranoid or psychotic) theorist."

As TS Eliot observed in "The Rock" :

"Where is the wisdom we have lost in knowledge? Where is the knowledge we have lost in information?"

[edit] Mr. Thomson, a source, por favor?

Mr. Thomson, can you point us toward something published on the internet that argues your position here? Because right now we are basically taking the word of the BBC and Guardian against the argument of one person on the article talkpage. If you can show us a source, we can incoporate that info into the article. Thanks. Babajobu 12:04, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Muchas gracias, Babajobu. It hardly needs to be pointed out in the present context that neither the BBC nor the Guardian have spoken to me about any of my positions (other than my brief appearance in the BBC documentary "My name is Ahmed" which was broadcast in August 2001) – which means that the words of theirs which you are taking as Gospel truth are more in the nature of cyber space Chinese whispers. My article in reply to last September's media attack is I hope about to be published and the relevant link will be pointed out as soon as I am aware of it, insh'Allah. Hasta la scripta. Ahmad Thomson 01:50, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Okay, well that's perfect, then. As soon as you have published the article we will link to it and add some of your criticisms of the coverage to the article. As for the BBC and Guardian...Wikipedia generally treats them as Wikipedia:reliable sources, even though they of course sometimes get things wrong. Babajobu 02:01, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I have posted on the article page the link to my considered response to last September's media attack in the form of an article, "Where angels fear to tread" published by Islam Magazine, February 2006. Ahmad Thomson 02:27, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mr. Thomson's sources, con favor

As before, it was not long after I had provided the links from which quotes were inserted in the Article that both the quotes and the links were deleted in their entirety, presumably on the basis either that only those who have not met me are qualified to write about me, or that my actual views are too different to the views which I am alleged to hold to be able to sustain the allegations, or that freedom of speech is not permitted if it involves criticism of Zionism.

Accordingly, for those who are interested, I have copied and pasted below what was removed soon after the 17th March 2006, anticipating that those who only believe in the freedom of speech if they agree with what is said will probably soon edit it out again in the name of the freedom of censorship. Ahmad Thomson 02:33, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

The following was originally part of the Article, following directly on after the quote from Radical Islam? No such thing! inserted by Spiny Norman:

In an article entitled Shahid or Suicide – Martyr or Murderer? The Muslims' Rules of Engagement, after quoting from the Qur’an and the Hadith, Thomson wrote:

"I cannot see, in the light of these verses of Qur’an and hadith, how any well-informed Muslim can believe that blowing him or her self up and killing and maiming anyone in the vicinity will take him or her to the Garden. Historically only certain members of the Ismaili sect have held this kind of view – and they are not accepted as being Muslims or as representing Islam by the main body of Muslims. These acts have nothing to do with the Sunna.

I can understand how someone whose home and family and friends have been annihilated by laser precision bomb or rocket attacks may be driven in anger to carry out such a nihilistic act against civilian targets – using the rationale, “If they are killing our families, we will kill their families,” – but both indiscriminate bombing (whether by land, sea or air) and suicide bombing remain nevertheless unacceptable from a balanced Islamic perspective and neither course of action can be condoned. They have nothing to do with the Sunna. They cannot possibly have positive consequences either in this world or in the next.

In the Palestinian conflict, both sides are blowing each other up, each claiming that it is retaliation – and ascertaining at this stage who committed the first act of aggression (possibly the massacre of some 250 civilian inhabitants, mostly women and children, of Deir Yaseen by the Stern Gang and Irgun Zvai Leumi terrorists on the 9th April 1948) will not in itself halt this chain reaction which appears to be out of control and leading ineluctably to fulfilment of the prophecies in chapters 38 and 39 of Ezekiel."

In an article entitled Where Angels Fear to Tread, Thomson wrote:

"Most people who are anti-Zionist are anti-Zionist because of all of the suffering that the continued attempts to realise Zionist aspirations have caused. As Jabotinsky declared in 1923, “Zionism is a colonisation adventure and therefore it stands or falls by the question of armed force. It is important … to speak Hebrew, but, unfortunately, it is even more important to be able to shoot.” "

and:

"Since the Israelis deny – on the basis of their race – resident Palestinians the democratic right to Israeli citizenship and the democratic right to vote in Israeli elections, it is clear that Israel is administered in a manner similar to the former apartheid regime in South Africa or to North America before blacks were granted the same rights as whites."

and:

"Since I am a critic of Zionism, it has been alleged that I am a conspiracy theorist. In fact I have always rejected conspiracy theory – “How can an open norm be described as a conspiracy?”– whilst recognising that implementation of the publicly proclaimed Zionist aspiration to establish a Greater Eretz between the Nile and the Euphrates has inevitably shaped events and policies in the Middle East, from before the Balfour Declaration up until the present, including the invasion of Iraq.

If the Zionist dream of a Greater Eretz which stretches from the Nile to the Euphrates is to be realised, this means that parts of Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Kuwait, Arabia and possibly Iran will have to be (and are being) subdued in a manner similar to Palestine – which inevitably means an escalation in conflict in the Middle East. Who will be next, we all wonder, as the pro-Zionist media prepares the general public for what they will eventually be programmed to regard as part of the inevitable process of establishing “democracy” in the Middle East – in spite of the Attorney-General’s considered legal opinion (7th March 2003) that as regards international law, “regime change cannot be the objective of military action,” – Iran or Syria?"

and:

"If the eleventh commandment is, “Don’t get caught,” the twelfth commandment has probably become, “Thou shalt not deny the holocaust.” In some countries it has been made illegal to even question how records of Jews murdered in European concentration camps could have been so accurately kept during the tumult and fog of war.

Since I am a critic of Zionism, it has been alleged that I have denied the holocaust. In fact I have never denied the holocaust, although I have queried the accuracy of the precise number of Jews murdered, since the figure of 6 million would mean that approximately 2,700 Jews would have to have been murdered on every single day of the second world war, the equivalent of approximately two Srebreniza massacres per week for approximately 300 weeks. While observing that this does seem to be a very high murder rate to sustain uninterruptedly for six years, while also simultaneously waging a war on three fronts, I have always maintained that whatever the actual figure is, however much less or more, the holocaust remains a terrible, but not the only, example of man’s inhumanity to man. I have always said that even one unjust death is one too many, quoting these words of Allah:

So We decreed for the tribe of Israel
that if someone kills another person –
unless it is in retaliation for someone else
or for causing corruption in the earth –
it is as if he had murdered all mankind.
And if anyone gives life to another person,
it is as if he had given life to all mankind.
Our Messengers came to them with Clear Signs
but even after that many of them
committed outrages in the earth. (Qur’an: 5.32)"

One of Thomson's best known poems is :

Golden Days

Every one has their golden days,
It's more than just a phrase, or phase,
We've all tasted love in some way or other,
More or less, from time to time.

Perhaps they only linger in our memories now,
Those golden days that disappeared somehow,
Only sometimes sharply reappearing
In the open vistas of our minds.

Or maybe golden days are here right now,
Swimming without effort with the tao,
As we live our lives from moment
To moment, from time to time.

And sitting in the stillness of the night
I see our life in its true light:
There are so many ways to be in love,
As you live your golden days.

Ahmad Thomson


[edit] External links

[edit] Comment

I have a comment on these pages. But first, I should say that I had never heard of Ahmad Thomson before reading the article - I came here to see examples of Jucifer's editing and have no position on the issues of Mr. Thomson's views, the claims of others about those views or whether or not the user who identifies themselves here as "Ahmad Thomson" is the person who is the subject of the article. However, I am alarmed by what I see here in the comment pages and the edit history.

At first glance, this article has much the appearance of a "hatchet job" on someone whose opinions are considered offensive by the wielder of the aforementioned hatchet.

Proceeding on the assumption that the user here is the subject of the article, I offer the following suggestions:

Since you evidently feel your position on The Holocaust has been misrepresented, I would encourage you to post quotes from the book mentioned in the article. For example, the claim by journalist Toby Helm in The Telegraph "Mr Thomson wrote a book in 1994 in which he said Freemasons and Jews controlled the governments of Europe and America and described the claim that six million Jews died in the Holocaust as a "big lie". If you believe that this is a misrepresentation of your views, it should be a simple matter indeed for you to quote a passage or two from the book to refute the claim. It also seems to me that if the reporters statement was indeed inaccurate, that you have every right to expect an apology from the publisher and possibly the opportunity to pursue legal action against the report and the paper for libel. If such an apology were published, it would serve as an excellent reference in this article to repudiate claims about your position.

Sadly, wikipedia is sometimes a place where idealogical axes are ground and those with controversial views sometimes find those views being misrepresented or shouted down by the biased, the ignorant and the uninformed (witness the recent to-do over the spelling of "Kiev" and the triumph of popular ignorance over fact). Unfortunately, one must sometimes adopt the "innocence must be proven" approach no matter how incomprehensible and objectionable that view might be to someone in the legal profession.

Perhaps you could start a biography web page at some official site (a professional organization of which you are a member, for example) and that would give you the opportunity to address these misconceptions directly. And then use the site as a reference - again, allowing you to repudiate those specific claims made here for which a simple, formal denial by you would be sufficient (e.g. the question of whether or not you advise Tony Blair).

Anyway, those are my thoughts. --SpinyNorman 20:29, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

SpinyNorman, I disagree with your characterization of this article as a "hatchetjob" on Mr. Thomson by people with ideological axes to grind. All of the information from the article was taken from the Guardian, the BBC, and the Telegraph. You've now characterized the reporting of the Guardian, the BBC, et cetera as "a reporter claimed...(but provided no evidence)." These different institutions do not collectively comprise "a reporter" whose "opinions don't matter", and you've constructed the paragraph so as to suggest that the reporting was shoddy. I'd appreciate it if you would modify your changes and additions so that they are more NPOV, please. Your suggestions to Mr. Thomson as to how to go about providing means for his viewpoint to be added to the article are good, however. Babajobu 03:18, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for taking the time to express your concerns. I will try to address them. I changed the paragraph because the article does not actually contain any quotes by Thomson that support the reporter's characterization of his statements. I'm not sure I would call that "shoddy" reporting but it is definitely careless and creates the impression of an editorial comment rather than straight reporting. Claiming Thomson had been quoted as saying that Blair was improperly influenced by a "sinister" group of Jews and Freemasons is a very serious charge indeed. In a situation like this, it was the reporters responsibility to report the actual quote and he did not. He also characterized Thomason as a holocaust denier with no direct quote and insufficient evidence to support the allegation. I don't know if Thomson is a holocaust denier or not but I do know that is a very serious claim to make about someone (on the level of calling someone a paedophile) and, as such, the person making the charge must provide evidence to support the claim. The links posted here rise nowhere near the level necessary to make such an allegation. If Thomson is indeed a holocause denier, it should be simple to provide references to actual statements by him that support this claim. I hope this answers your questions. If you have any others, please feel free to ask and I will do my best to answer. Cheers! --SpinyNorman 04:16, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
Except that we did not claim that he was a holocaust denier. We cited the Guardian and the Telegraph as claiming that he described the holocaust as a "big lie". And that claim is factually true and verifiable, in that both the Guardian and the Telegraph really did state that. It's not Wikipedia's job or place to conduct an investigation to determine the truth of those allegations. Babajobu 04:27, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
But they provided no evidence to support their claim. They didn't quote Thomson, they just put the phrase "big lie" in quotes and then claimed that Thomson had described The Holocaust as such. That's simply not good enough. If you can find a quote from Thomson in which he specifically says that "The Holocaust is a big lie", then that would be something else entirely. But as it stands, it it just a case of second-hand innuendo. You're reporting what a second party claims a third party said without actually quoting him. And I disagree with your last statement, any person who wants to report facts has a responsibility to vet those facts before reporting them. Take a look at the situation with the "Radical Islam? No such thing!" article. Looking at the title, one could easily conclude that Thomson is denying the existence of radicals who claim to be Muslims. In fact, he is doing the opposite. He is saying that they do exist, but they're not really Muslims. This is what happens when people are quoted out of context or without understanding of what they're saying. I am going to restore the statements of about the lack of support for Helm's claims about Thomson. They are factual and objective. Nowhere in my text did I say that the reporter had a responsibility to do anything, I'm simply reporting what the reporter didn't do and it is absolutely relevant to the validity of the reporter's claim. --SpinyNorman 04:48, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
SpinyNorman, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, a secondary source. It contains no original research at all. It only synthesizes or describes information provided by sources that as per Wikipedia guidelines are regarded as "reliable sources". Both The Guardian and The Telegraph are regarded as reliable sources. You are absolutely right that we are "reporting what a second party claims a third party said". That's precisely what Wikipedia does. We do not receive quotes directly from any source, a policy we have bent a bit in incorporating a few of User:Ahmad Thomson's claims into the article. As for our responsibility to "vet those facts before reporting them", we are not reporting that Mr. Thomson is a holocaust denier or that he claimed that the holocaust was a big lie. Wikipedia can have no position on these issues. The fact that we must vet is whether these things were claimed by The Guardian and the Daily Telegraph. And in fact they were, as per the external links below. Fact vetted. You may be unhappy with the reporting practices used by those papers, but that is between you and those papers. However, if other verifiable sources challenge the views presented by those two papers, then we can report those challenges, attributing them to those who made the challenge. Babajobu 05:12, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
Here was the edit summary from my last edit: "the papers didn't do lots of things; no pictures of him, no comments from him; by singling out 'no direct quotes you suggest they should have done this, which is personal POV". This is why I removed that clause. And I don't understand why you repeatedly remove the Guardian as a source of the claims, even though we have an external link to the Guardian article in which the claim is made. Babajobu 06:29, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
As to the issue of direct quotes, in the article I make no statement as to whether they should have or not, I simply point out the fact that they didn't. Regarding the Guardian link, it isn't a link to a news story but to an editorial. The difference in a situation like this is critical. Editorials, by their nature, do not claim to be fact but represent the opinion of the author. They are, biased and POV by definition. --SpinyNorman 08:49, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
And why did you reverse the order of the paragraphs again, to put Thomson's biographical data before the notable information, the stuff that actually got him into the papers? Wikipedia articles aren't written that way...primary sources of notability come first. And why did you include the phrase: "Nor did it provide any evidence that...Thomson had any specialised information regarding the Prime Minister's motivations with regard to the invasion of Iraq." The articles don't claim that he had any "specialised info", so why would you have expected them to provide evidence to this effect? This is the problem with including information about what someone doesn't do. There is always an infinitely long list of things people don't do, if you want to list some of those things, it should be readily apparent why those particular "didn't"s are relevant. Please explain at least this latter case, as it's the most jarring of the ones you added. Babajobu 09:28, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
To answer your questions... Biographical information should come first. The article is about Ahmad Thomson, discussions of why he is noteworthy are secondary to discussions of the man. I included that phrase because the Telegraph had specifically states that Thomson said "Tony Blair decided to wage war on Iraq after coming under the influence of a 'sinister' group of Jews and Freemasons" and then declined to report any specific information Thomson had regarding Blairs motivation. In other words, they made a claim and then failed to back it up. --SpinyNorman 21:25, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
You also deleted the Guardian piece from the external links??? My goodness...you've got a lot to learn about Wikipedia. Babajobu 09:39, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps you want to examine the policy on incivility. If you can't be civil, then perhaps you should consider limiting your contact with Wikipedia to that of "reader". --SpinyNorman 21:25, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you

Thank you, Spiny Norman, for defending in a measured and reasoned manner my right not to be misrepresented by hurried hatchet jobbers and back stubbers. As is quoted elsewhere in Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Islam:SIIEG) where the Request for an Article (No. 24) on me was first made :

"Hey, check it out! After Klonimus put up this request I threw together a quick stub on Ahmad Thomson. Now Ahmad Thomson himself (or someone claiming to be him) has now created an account on Wikipedia and is edit warring over the content! He seems to have stopped for now, you'll have to go through the history to see his first person additions and apologetics. Babajobu 08:40, 2 November 2005 (UTC)"

my response, in January 2006, was:

"Yes, Ahmad Thomson himself has been taking exception to his views being misrepresented by Toby Helm, Babajobu and Juicifer - none of whom have even met him or talked with him. He's not even allowed to enter the correct country of his birth for more than a few hours. He has added some hyperlinks to the Article (including an article written by someone who has actually met him and interviewed him) but Juicifer couldn't bear to see this and edited them out again. They are accessible via the discussion page as of the 1st January 2006, but of course they may get censored out again. I'm a great believer in the freedom of speech, but it is sad to see such a totalitarian approach. Anyway, like waves we appear for a few moments before disappearing back into the ocean, so it doesn't matter much to me. Allah knows. Allah sees. Allah has power over everything – in Him I put my trust and He is enough for me. As Shaykh Moulay al-Arabi ad-Darqawi wrote : " Do not say I am something. Do not say I am nothing. Say Allah! – and you will see wonders." – Allah! – Peace."

As regards your suggestion to post quotes, it is difficult to summarise in a few quotes the contents of an 800 page book which was 10 years in the writing, and especially when their meaning will probably be twisted out of context and almost beyond recognition by those who have no wish to understand them in the first place. These matters require a deep and detached study of sources which have often been so stifled or distorted that multi-dimensional holograms are masked by two dimensional concepts. So if I am to be remembered for anything, let it be for my comparing the way in which the native Semitic people of Palestine have been treated by people from Europe with the way in which the native Indian people of America have been treated by people from Europe:

Chief See-at-hl’s Words

“My words are like stars – they do not set.”

As we witness the current ravages wrought in the name of establishing democracy and peace by means of intimidation and mass slaughter, it is clear that the forces which drive the President of America do not appear to have changed much in the last 150 years. It would perhaps not be inappropriate, within this context, to consider the following words of Chief See-at-hl, delivered in a speech directed at the President of America, in 1855. At first glance, they may appear outwardly to be part of a different story, but it is in essence the same story:

“The Great Chief in Washington sends word that he wishes to buy our land. The Great Chief also sends us words of friendship and good will. This is kind of him since we know he has little need of our friendship in return. But we will consider your offer for we know that if we do not do so, the white man may come with guns and take our land. What Chief See-at-hl says, the Great Chief in Washington can count on, as truly as our white brothers can count on the return of the seasons. My words are like stars – they do not set.

How can you buy or sell the sky – the warmth of the land? The idea is strange to us. Yet we do not own the freshness of the air or the sparkle of the water. How can you buy them from us? We will decide in our time. Every part of this earth is sacred to my people. Every shining pine needle, every sandy shore, every mist in the dark woods, every clearing and humming insect is holy in the memory and experience of my people. The sap which courses through the trees carries the memories of the red men.

The white man’s dead forget the country of their birth when they go to walk among the stars. Our dead never forget this beautiful planet for it is the mother of the red man. We are part of the earth and it is part of us. The perfumed flowers are our sisters; the deer, the horse, the great eagle, these are our brothers; the rocky crests, the juices in the meadows, the body heat of the pony, and man – all belong to the same family. So when the Great Chief in Washington sends word that he wishes to buy our land, he asks much of us.

The Great Chief sends word he will reserve us a place so that we can live comfortably to ourselves. He will be our father and we will be his children. But can that ever be? God loves your people, but has abandoned his red children. He sends machines to help the white man with his work, and builds great villages for him. He makes your people stronger every day. Soon you will flood the land like the rivers which crash down the canyons after a sudden rain. But my people are an ebbing tide. We will never return. No, we are separate races. Our children do not play together, and our old men tell different stories. God favours you, and we are orphans.

So we will consider your offer to buy our land. But it will not be easy. For this land is sacred to us. We take our pleasure in these woods. I do not know. Our ways are different from your ways.

This shining water that moves in the streams and the rivers is not just water but the blood of our ancestors. If we sell you land, you must remember that it is sacred, and you must teach your children that it is sacred, and that each ghostly reflection in the clear water of the lakes tells of events and memories in the life of my people. The water’s murmur is the voice of my father’s father. The rivers are our brothers, they quench our thirst. The rivers carry our canoes, and feed our children. If we sell you our land, you must remember, and teach your children, that the rivers are our brothers, and yours, and you must henceforth give the rivers the kindness you would give any brother.

The red man has always retreated before the advancing white man, as the mist of the mountains runs before the morning sun. But the ashes of our fathers are sacred. Their graves are holy ground; and so these hills, these trees, this portion of the earth is consecrated to us. We know that the white man does not understand our ways. One portion of the land is the same to him as the next, for he is a stranger who comes in the night and takes from the land whatever he needs. The earth is not his brother but his enemy, and when he has conquered it he moves on. He leaves his fathers’ graves behind and he does not care. His fathers’ graves and his children’s birthrights are forgotten. He treats his mother, the earth, and his brother, the sky, as things to be bought, plundered, sold like sheep or bright beads. His appetite will devour the earth and leave behind only a desert.

I do not know. Our ways are different from your ways. The sight of your cities pains the eyes of the red man. But perhaps it is because the red man is a savage and does not understand. There is no quiet place in the white man’s cities, no place to hear the unfurling of the leaves in spring, or the rustle of insects’ wings. But because perhaps I am a savage and do not understand – the clatter only seems to insult the ears. And what is there to life if a man cannot hear the lovely cry of the whippoorwill, or the argument of the frogs around a pond at night? I am a red man and do not understand.

The Indian prefers the soft sound of the wind darting over the face of the pond, and the smell of the wind itself cleansed by a midday rain, or scented with pinion pine. The air is precious to the red man. For all things share the same breath – the beasts, the trees, the man. They all share the same breath. The white man does not seem to notice the air he breathes. Like a man dying for many days, he is numb to the smell of his own stench. But if we sell you our land, you must remember that the air is precious to us, that the air shares its spirit with all the life it supports. The wind that gave our grandfather his first breath also receives his last sigh. And the wind must also give our children the spirit of life. And if we sell you our land, you must keep it apart and sacred, as a place where even the white man can go to taste the wind that is sweetened by the meadow’s flowers.

So we will consider your offer to buy our land. If I decide to accept, I will make one condition. The white man must treat the beasts of this land as his brothers. I am a savage and do not understand any other way. I have seen a thousand rotting buffalos on the prairies, left by the white man who shot them from a passing train. I am a savage and do not understand how the smoking iron horse can be more important than the buffalo that we kill only to live. What is man without the beasts? If all the beasts were gone, men would die from a great loneliness of spirit, for whatever happens to the beast also happens to man. All things are connected. Whatever befalls the earth befalls the sons of the earth.

You must teach your children that the ground beneath their feet is the ashes of our grandfathers. So that they will respect the land, tell your children that the earth is rich with the lives of our kin. Teach your children what we have taught our children, that the earth is our mother. Whatever befalls the earth, befalls the sons of the earth. If men spit upon the ground, they spit upon themselves. This we know. The earth does not belong to man; man belongs to the earth. This we know. All things are connected like the blood which unites one family. All things are connected. Whatever befalls the earth befalls the sons of the earth. Man did not weave the web of life; he is merely a strand in it. Whatever he does to the web, he does to himself.

No, day and night cannot live together. Our dead go to live in the earth’s sweet rivers, they return with the silent footsteps of spring, and it is their spirit, running in the wind, that ripples the surface of the ponds.

We will consider why the white man wishes to buy the land. What is it that the white man wishes to buy, my people ask me. The idea is strange to us. How can you buy or sell the sky, the warmth of the land, the swiftness of the antelope? How can we sell these things to you and how can you buy them? Is the earth yours to do with as you will, merely because the red man signs a piece of paper and gives it to the white man? If we do not own the freshness of the air and the sparkle of the water, how can you buy them from us? Can you buy back the buffalo, once the last one has been killed? But we will consider your offer, for we know that if we do not sell, the white man may come with guns and take our land. But we are primitive, and in his passing moment of strength, the white man thinks that he is a god who already owns the earth. How can a man own his mother?

But we will consider your offer to buy our land. Day and night cannot live together. We will consider your offer to go to the reservation you have for my people. We will live apart, and in peace. It matters little where we spend the rest of our days. Our children have seen their fathers humbled in defeat. Our warriors have felt shame. And after defeat, they turn their days in idleness and contaminate their bodies with sweet food and strong drink. It matters little where we pass the rest of our days – they are not many. A few more hours, a few more winters, and none of the children of the great tribes that once lived on this earth, or that roamed in small bands in the woods, will be left to mourn the graves of a people once as powerful and hopeful as yours. But why should I mourn the passing of my people? Tribes are made of men, nothing more. Men come and go like the waves of the sea. Even the white man, whose God walks and talks with him as friend to friend, cannot be exempt from the common destiny. We may be brothers after all; we shall see.

One thing we know which the white man may one day discover. Our God is the same God. You may think now that you own Him as you wish to own our land. But you cannot. He is the God of man. And His compassion is equal for the red man and the white. This earth is precious to Him, and to harm the earth is to heap contempt on its Creator. The whites too shall pass – perhaps sooner than other tribes. Continue to contaminate your bed, and you will one night suffocate in your own waste.

But in your perishing you will shine brightly, fired by the strength of the God Who brought you to this land and for some special purpose gave you dominion over this land and over the red man. That destiny is a mystery to us, for we do not understand. When the buffalo are all slaughtered, the wild horses are tamed, the secret corners of the forest heavy with the scent of many men, and the view of the ripe hills blotted by talking wires, where is the thicket? Gone. Where is the eagle? Gone. And what is it to say goodbye to the swift pony, and the hunt? The end of living and the beginning of survival.

God gave you dominion over the beasts, the woods, and the red man, and for some special purpose, but that destiny is a mystery to the red man. We might understand if we knew what it was that the white man dreams, what hopes he describes to his children on long winter nights, what visions he burns into their minds so that they will wish for tomorrow. But we are savages. The white man’s dreams are hidden from us. And because they are hidden we will go our own way. For above all else, we cherish the right of each man to live as he wishes, however different from his brothers. There is little in common between us.

So we will consider your offer to buy our land. If we agree, it will be to secure the reservation you have promised. There, perhaps, we may live out our brief days as we wish. When the last red man has vanished from the earth, and the memory is only the shadow of a cloud moving across the prairie, these shores and forests will still hold the spirits of my people, for they love this earth as the newborn loves its mother’s heartbeat.

If we sell you our land, love it as we have loved it. Care for it as we have cared for it. Hold in your mind the memory of the land as it is when you take it. And with all your strength, with all your might, and with all your heart – preserve it for your children, and love it as God loves us all. One thing we know – our God is the same God. This earth is precious to Him. Even the white man cannot be exempt from the common destiny. We may be brothers after all. We shall see.”

And in the words of Virgil:

Sunt lacrimae rerum et mentem mortalia tangunt.

Tears are in the nature of things, in the awareness of human transitoriness.

[Quoted in The Next World Order by Ahmad Thomson (pp.493-499), Al-Aqsa Press, 1994, Beirut]

And since it happens to be St Valentine's Day today, let me quote if I may be permitted, my favourite quotes from "The Magus" by John Fowles :

"Quid bibet – undam at aquam?" – "From which do you wish to drink – the wave or the ocean?"

"Cras amet qui nunquam amavit – quique amavit cras amet." – "Let whoever has never loved, love tomorrow – let whoever has loved, love tomorrow."

Ahmad Thomson 03:39, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

The Chief Seattle speech you reproduce above is apocryphal. Babajobu 05:02, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
The speech may be apocryphal, but its words ring true and resonate in the heart and bring tears of recognition to the eyes, reminding us of how precious a gift life is. The sources on which you relied when first posting the stub concerning yours truly were also apocryphal (none of the journalists concerned had either met me or read my book and they relied on hearsay) but unlike Chief Seattle they do not appear to have tasted the sweetness of life to the full as well as its bitterness. Ahmad Thomson 03:03, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
And in the still of the night here's my latest haiku :
The breathe of the breeze caressing the lake at dawn,
The sighing of the wind stirring the leaves in the afternoon,
The whisper of the embers glowing in the night,
These are the sounds I still remember and hear
Caught in the rush hour on the underground.
Ahmad Thomson 19:37, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] External links

I'm restoring the Guardian op-ed piece that SpinyNorman removed from External links. Norman, please read Wikipedia:External links. The external links section is not just for "news", it's for any sort of relevant coverage of whatever POV; Mr. Thomson's sites in external links are not "news" either. Babajobu 13:25, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV

Removed SpinyNorman's editorial comments about verious things the Telegraph did not do. Wikipedia cannot assert that these various "didn't do"s are relevant to the topic. If you can find a reliable source that comments on the fact that these things weren't done, and assigns some relevance to them, then we can include those comments and attribute them. Also, restuctured article so as to be consistent with Wikipedia guidelines: info on what makes the subject relevant is included toward beginning of article, rather than buried after all the biographical data. Babajobu 13:31, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] BLP

This article needs to conform to WP:BLP. At the moment, the implied criticism takes up a bit too much of the article. I'll take another look at it tomorrow, but some of it may need to be removed. SlimVirgin (talk) 07:16, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Source

Do we know where Thomson said that Saddam Hussein was used as an excuse for U.S. troops, "including thousands of Jews," to occupy Saudi Arabia? The Telegraph reported it, but it's not clear whether it was in an interview with the Telegraph or whether they're reporting that he said it elsewhere. SlimVirgin (talk) 16:57, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Next World Order section

SpinyNorman, why do you keep removing the "Next World Order" section? Everything in it appears to be properly cited from reliable sources. Jayjg (talk) 18:26, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

If so, you're not looking closely enough at the sources. They're not news articles but rather editorial comments - and completely unsupported in their claims. In addition they contradict one another - one says he's advised Tony Blair when another says he hasn't and Thomson himself has said that he's never met Tony Blair. These editorials show more than an appearance of impropriety here and, as such, it is better to be safe than sorry. This is an article about Ahmad Thomson, not about a what a handful of people who evidently don't know him and haven't even spoken to him might choose to write about him. Let's keep the crap out of the article, shall we? --SpinyNorman 18:46, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Those are respected newspapers which qualify as reliable sources. They have fact checkers, can be sued if incorrect, etc. Please stop removing relevant, well-written, and properly cited information from the article. Thanks. Jayjg (talk) 18:52, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Let me see if I can make this simpler: they aren't news articles, they are editorials. They're not fact-checked, they're just the brain-dump of the writer. If they had been fact-checked, the one by Toby Helm wouldn't have incorrectly described Thomason as an advisor to Tony Blair. If you don't understand the difference between news and editorial, maybe you should stop editing. --SpinyNorman 19:48, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
First, how do you know they're editorials? Secondly, so what if they are? Those newspapers count as reliable sources. Toby Helm is a well-known journalist. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:50, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
First of all, the Daily Telegraph isn't exactly the most respected paper in England. Yet you're talking about it like it were The Times. It is the print equivalent of Fox News - a right-wing soapbox noted for its anti-Muslim sentiment. Do you seriously think that a hatchet-job from such a source is noteworthy in a biographical article about an outspoken English Muslim? To answer your other question, I have considerable experience in print and broadcast media; I know an editorial when I see one. It certainly wasn't fact-checked - if it had been, it would have correctly described Thomson as an advisor to the Home Office rather than Number Ten. The next question is, if Helm can't be bothered to get a major detail like that right, how can he expect anyone to take the rest of the article seriously? This is a typical case of one uninformed jackass publishing outrageous mischaracterizations of a person he's never met or bothered to interview, and then other like-minded fools eagerly swallowing the nonsense whole and without question before regurgitating it to their audience. It is a favorite tactic of Fox News: to report on some outrageous editorial as if it were news. It is yellow journalism at its lowest. --SpinyNorman 20:26, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
You're making all sorts of unsourced claims, and on top of that they don't appear to be relevant. See SV's comment above. Jayjg (talk) 19:55, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Your "considerable experience in print and broadcast media" notwithstanding, you're showing your ignorance about the press by comparing the Telegraph to Fox News. The former is one of the UK's most authoritative newspapers, and even if the story had been an editorial, we could still have used it as a source, but it wasn't, it was a news story. We're not allowed to question what authoritative sources have said, and by doing so, you're engaging in original research, as you often do. All we do is report what reliable sources have said. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:11, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

SpinyNorman, you have considerably worsened the article, inserting your own original research ("The Helm editorial incorrectly described Thomson as an advisor to Tony Blair."), and inserting two copies of Thomson's statement that "I have not denied the Holocaust, I have always said that one unjust death is one too many." Second, The Daily Telegraph, while right-of-center, is perhaps the most respected newspaper in England. It was also published in The Guardian, which is a highly respected left-of-center British newspaper. In addition, you have also violated WP:3RR. Perhaps you should try to work through the talk page to propose any further changes. Jayjg (talk) 20:29, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

First, I have NOT violate the 3RR. I have reverted twice in the last 24 hours. Second, your attempt to characterize the DT as "perhaps the most respected newspaper in England" is... amusing. How did you reach that conclusion? --SpinyNorman 20:48, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Helm's article is factually incorrect. I'm removing it and all references to it. --SpinyNorman 20:29, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
First you claimed it was an editorial, which it obviously is not. Now you're claiming it's factually incorrect. Please read WP:RS: "bear in mind that we only report what reliable publications publish... In accordance with Wikipedia's No original research policy, we do not add our own opinion or in any other way attempt to investigate or evaluate whether they are right or wrong." Jayjg (talk) 20:32, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
So you're going to hide behind "policy" and insist on including information that is verifiably false. Interesting. The fact is that Thomson is not an advisor to Number Ten. The man himself has specifically said this. Yet you insist on including an arguably libellous rant about the man from a paper with a history of antipathy to British Muslims. Why is that? Why is it relevant what the DT has to say about Thomson? Is it an interview with Thomson? Has Helm got some special knowledge of Thomson? What am I missing? --SpinyNorman 20:43, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
"Hide behind policy"? No, I'm going to insist on policy, regardless of your opinions about whether or not Helm is right. By the way, another policy is WP:3RR, which you have violated, as mentioned above. Please revert yourself before you get blocked. Jayjg (talk) 20:50, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
First, I did NOT violate 3RR policy. I have only made two reverts in the last 24 hours. Any statements to the contracy are simply wrong. Second, with regard to policy, you're missing the forest for the trees. There is no policy that REQUIRES Thomson's bio to cite the Toby Helm article and since it has been established as incorrect (a matter of fact, not opinion) that is sufficient reason to not include it in this article. --SpinyNorman 20:58, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Actually, you did. Complex reverts count. As for the Helm article, it's highly relevant, interesting, informative, and from a reliable source. Your current original research claims about its veracity are irrelevant, as were your previous false claims that it was an "editorial", or that The Daily Telegraph practiced "yellow journalism". Jayjg (talk) 21:06, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thank You once again

Thank you, Spiny Norman, once again for your courageous, principled and perceptive defence. Clever people can make rules mean whatever they want them to mean, even though the seeing heart knows the truth of the matter. I think we’ll just have to resign ourselves to the fact that the heads will keep hammering away at the hearts until they have their way.

And should they eventually decide to make a Wicker Man of me, if my body is found one day at the edge of a field with the wrists cut and not much blood, you can be absolutely certain it was not suicide.

Anyway for the sake of posterity and completeness, copied and pasted below are the amendments I have just made to the Article, because you can bet your bottom dollar that they will not be permitted to stay as part of the Article for very long.

The nightingale sings more sweetly when free – but still sings when caged.

Peace.

These are the changes I made to the Article on the 5th July 2006 Ahmad Thomson Ahmad Thomson 01:41, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ahmad Thomson

Ahmad Thomson is a British barrister and writer. He is the author of several books, including the revised edition of Dajjal: the AntiChrist (1997); Making History (1997); the revised editions of Jesus, Prophet of Islam and Blood on the Cross (in two volumes, For Christ's Sake and Islam in Andalus) with Muhammad Ata Ur-Rahim (1996); The Next World Order (1994); The Difficult Journey and The Way Back (1994). [1] He was called to the Bar of England and Wales in 1979, and is a member of the Association of Muslim Lawyers. [2] He is co-author of The Islamic Will with Hajj Abdalhaqq and Aisha Bewley (1995). [3] He has acted as an informal advisor to 10 Downing Street on matters related to Muslims, [2] although he has never set foot inside No. 10 or met any Prime Minister except Kenneth Kaunda in Zambia, in 1965. He made both written and oral representations to the House of Lords Select Committee on Religious Offences in 2002, arguing that different religious groups including Jews, Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists and Sikhs should have equal rights and equal protection under English law. [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9]

[edit] Background

He was born as Martin Thomson [2] in Northern Rhodesia, now Zambia, and educated in Southern Rhodesia, now Zimbabwe, and England. He converted to Islam on August 13, 1973, [10] although you may choose not to believe this last piece of information because Thomson himself supplied it and it appears that only sources who have not met him and do not particularly like him are considered neutral and reliable.

[edit] British Media and The Next World Order

Thomson first came to public attention in 2001 when he featured in an award winning documentary My Name is Ahmed broadcast on BBC2 on the 14th August 2001 and in Prince Naseem's Guide to Islam broadcast on BBC2 on the 15th August 2001. He subsequently appeared in the first two Shariah TV series [11] broadcast on Channel 4 on the 18th May 2004 [12] and 25th May 2004 [13] and in April 2005. [14] He has been a regular guest on the Hassan & Habibah show broadcast on Islam Channel.

Following his support of Dar Al-Taqwa’s successful complaint to the Press Complaints Commission [15] concerning a deliberately inflammatory attack by the Evening Standard in July 2005, [16] [17] a group of British journalists (including Toby Helm, David Cesarani and Daniel Kahtan) who had never even met Mr Thomson retaliated by alleging that Thomson's 1994 book, The Next World Order (which had been out of print for several years), contained allegations that Freemasons and Jews control the governments of Europe and America, and that it was a "big lie" that six million Jews died in the Holocaust. [2] [18] In fact Thomson had simply stated that it is a “big lie” to assert that those whom Arthur Koestler has described as “the thirteenth tribe” are descended from the Tribe of Israel (the Prophet Jacob, peace be on him and on his twelve sons) when in fact they are not descended from Shem, the son of Noah, but from Yapheth, the son of Noah (peace be on him and on his sons).

It was also alleged that Thomson had written that Jews have no right to live in what he called "the Holy Land," because they are not a "pure race," and are therefore not the biblical Israelites. In fact Thomson had simply pointed out the historical fact that the descendants of the Khazar Jews are turkic, not semitic, and that their original homeland lies between the Black and Caspian seas, not in occupied Palestine.

Elsewhere it was alleged that he has said that Saddam Hussein was used as an excuse for U.S. troops, "including thousands of Jews," to occupy Saudi Arabia and [2] that the invasion of Iraq was "part of a Zionist plan," [19] to realise the publicly declared Zionist aim of establishing the Greater Eretz between the Nile and the Euphrates.

By using each other as their sources, these journalists created the impression that their articles were thoroughly researched and were therefore eligible to be regarded as “reliable sources” by newspapers and internet bloggers alike.

Asked about Thomson's role as an informal advisor to the government, a government spokesperson told the Daily Telegraph: "We talk to a lot of people, including many whose views we do not necessarily agree with," [2] – and some whose views are deliberately distorted by the media in order to encourage involuntary disagreement with them from the outset, just in case they might possibly have something worthwhile to say.

Thomson responded to the reports by saying that the story was "grossly distorted." He said that he had not denied the Holocaust and that: "I have always said that one unjust death is one too many." [19] At present only the slaughter of Muslim civilians requires independent verification. He also wrote, “To be anti-Zionism is not to be racist or anti-Jewish”, and, “To be anti-Zionism is not to be anti-Semitic”, and, “To be anti-Zionism is not to be a conspiracy theorist.” [20]

To the credit of Dominic Kennedy of the Times newspaper, when Thomson emailed him, on the 11th September 2005, copies of the written advice which he had sent to the Home Office on being appointed as a member of the Working Group concerned with Security, Islamophobia, Protecting Muslims from Extremism and Community Confidence in Policing, Mr Kennedy chose not to attack him in the Times.

Of course what Thomson has just added to this section will not be allowed to remain for very long, because in today’s brave new world anyone whose words contradict the official Zionist version or anyone who quotes such words accurately without distortion are regarded as biased and unreliable sources for Wikipedia purposes. This applies especially to anyone who criticizes the occupation by force of Palestine and the methodical expulsion and slaughter of its native semitic (descended from Shem, the son of Noah, peace be on them both, from which the word “Semitic” derives) inhabitants for more than the last sixty years. To speak in the Palestinians' defence is repugnant to "right minded people" and therefore censorship and media manipulation are necessary so that Israeli forces can continue business as usual. Of course those who finance the Zionists should not even be mentioned at all, let alone assessed or discussed. This is definitely beyond the pale. May the bankers forgive Thomson for having the temerity to even allude to them!

The difference between Thomson and his critics is that while Thomson leaves inaccurate allegations in the Article for all to see, his corrections and additions are swiftly removed by his detractors. Vive la tolérance!

If the editors of Wikipedia have any sense of integrity or impartiality, however, then they should at least restore the notice at the start of this article that has been removed recently – namely that most of the content supplied by those journalists who have never even met Thomson is disputed – and therefore the statements which are used in this Article to make an introduction and a link to their articles are disputed. Thank you.

[edit] Views on Islam

Thomson has written that "radical Islam" is a contradiction in terms. "It is not possible to be a true Muslim and simultaneously a violent terrorist." [21] He has also written unequivocally against any form of military-industrial-complex dictated, bank authorized, state sponsored, indiscriminate laser precision bombing (whether this involves the collective punishment of civilians or their decimation or their genocide) or suicide bombing. [22]

Thomson has also been quoted as saying (by someone who has actually met him): “Islam is not just a matter of words. As the Prophet said, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, ‘The Shahada is easy on the tongue, but much flows from it.’ Ever since I said Shahada, I have lived every moment of my life finding out what it entails. It is a process that never ends.” [23] The Shahada is to bear witness that there is no god other than Allah and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace.

When describing his first pilgrimage to Makka, Thomson wrote: “When I had first embraced Islam some four years earlier, I had known next to nothing about it, other than the fact that the community of Muslims whom I had joined were more knowledgeable and radiant and better behaved than any other human beings that I had ever met during my life up until then. I had embraced Islam in the hope of acquiring that knowledge and radiance and courteous behaviour, and as time passed my hopes were gradually fulfilled, as, little by little I learned about and tried to embody the teachings of the Prophet Muhammad, may the Blessings and Peace of Allah be on him. [24]

Thomson has also been quoted as saying (again by someone who has actually met him): “Islam is the solution, not the problem. It’s a wonderful time to be Muslim because we’re at the beginning of a new chapter. Never be afraid to be who you are. Have trust in Allah and He will protect you,” and, “Islam is safety and salvation. It provides us with the courtesy and generosity to step back from such petty disputes in this world, to live our brief lives with nobility and wisdom – and to connect our hearts to Allah and the certain promise of something ever lasting, the peace of the Garden in the next world.” [25]

[edit] Notes

  1. ^ Books by Ahmad Thomson Ta-Ha Publishers
  2. ^ a b c d e f Helm, Toby. "Jews and Freemasons controlled war on Iraq, says No 10 adviser", Daily Telegraph, September 12, 2005
  3. ^ Books by Ahmad Thomson Dar Al-Taqwa
  4. ^ Thomson, Ahmad. 1st Memorandum from The Association of Muslim Lawyers written by Ahmad Thomson, published by the United Kingdom Parliament
  5. ^ Thomson, Ahmad. 2nd Memorandum from The Association of Muslim Lawyers written by Ahmad Thomson, published by the United Kingdom Parliament
  6. ^ Thomson, Ahmad. Part 1, Examination of Ahmad Thomson by the House of Lords Select Committee on Religious Offences, published by the United Kingdom Parliament
  7. ^ Thomson, Ahmad. Part 2, Examination of Ahmad Thomson by the House of Lords Select Committee on Religious Offences, published by the United Kingdom Parliament
  8. ^ Thomson, Ahmad. Part 3, Examination of Ahmad Thomson by the House of Lords Select Committee on Religious Offences, published by the United Kingdom Parliament
  9. ^ Thomson, Ahmad. Supplementary Memorandum from The Association of Muslim Lawyers written by Ahmad Thomson, published by the United Kingdom Parliament
  10. ^ Thomson, Ahmad – Author Information Ibooks
  11. ^ Shariah TV Shariah TV Leading Lights
  12. ^ Shariah TV Shariah TV Citizen Islam
  13. ^ Shariah TV Shariah TV Living Together
  14. ^ Shariah TV Shariah TV A Clash of Civilisations
  15. ^ Press Complaints Commission Adjudication: Dar Al-Taqwa –v- Evening Standard
  16. ^ Muslim Lawyers(Europe) Lawyer Ahmad Thomson (London) defends Al Taqwa Bookshop
  17. ^ Islam Magazine Why Ahmad Thomson was attacked by Associated Newspapers
  18. ^ Cesarani, David. A way out of this dead end, in The Guardian, September 16, 2005
  19. ^ a b Kahtan, Daniel. "Government Urged To Sever Ties With Barrister", TotallyJewish, September 14, 2005
  20. ^ Thomson, Ahmad. Where Angels Fear to Tread, Islam Magazine
  21. ^ Thomson, Ahmad. Debate: Radical Islam? – No Such Thing, The Muslim Weekly, March 16, 2005
  22. ^ Thomson, Ahmad. Shahid or Suicide – Martyr or Murderer? The Muslims' Rules of Engagement
  23. ^ Ahmad Thomson – Profile Hajj Ahmad Thomson
  24. ^ Thomson, Ahmad. Intention excerpts from The Difficult Journey by Ahmad Thomson, published in Meeting Point March 2000
  25. ^ Al-Risala Magazine Being Ahmad Thomson published by 'Al-Risala magazine, p.22, Summer 2005

[edit] References

[edit] Further reading

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/h/m/Talk%7EAhmad_Thomson_a7ec.html"