Roshan Muhammed Salih argues that the famous comedian John Cleese should be de-platformed by respectable institutions because he has crossed the line from criticising Islam to using his enormous public platform to spread misinformation, caricature Muslims as violent and backward, and legitimise some of Britain’s most prominent anti-Muslim political figures.
If John Cleese, 86, had died a year ago, he would have been remembered as a national treasure.
He was a star of Britain’s most influential comedy group, Monty Python, and the creator of arguably its greatest-ever sitcom, Fawlty Towers.
But instead of basking in the glory of his stellar career, Cleese has chosen to spend the twilight of his life hate-mongering against Muslims.
And if he were to die tomorrow, that hate-mongering would form a significant part of his legacy.
The receipts
The evidence is all there on his own X account, followed by over five million people.
Subscribe to our newsletter and stay updated on the latest news and updates from around the Muslim world!
In one of his most inflammatory posts, he claimed that the Qur’an is “ALL about acquiring power, killing ‘infidels’ and imposing Islam on everyone.”
That is not serious criticism of Islamic theology. It is crude misinformation about a religion followed by nearly two billion people.
Cleese has also repeatedly associated Islam with beheading, suggesting that life would be easier for Muslims if they stopped talking about beheading people who refused to convert to Islam. He has also referred to an “infidel’s fear of being beheaded” while discussing Islam.
The veteran actor has described Islam as a “mediaeval woman-hating religion”, claimed that it has a “superiority complex”, argued that Islam does not want multiculturalism but “uniculturalism”, and said that traditional British values are under attack from Muslim belief systems.
He has also raised the construction of mosques in the context of what he calls the “Islamification” of Britain.
Any one of these comments might be dismissed by his defenders as an ill-informed joke, provocation or clumsy criticism. But taken together, over a sustained period, they form a very clear picture.
Muslims are repeatedly presented to Cleese’s enormous audience as followers of a violent, intolerant, misogynistic and expansionist ideology which supposedly threatens British society.
This cannot simply be brushed aside as legitimate criticism of religion.
Endorsement of the far-right
There is also an increasingly obvious political context to Cleese’s rhetoric.
He has publicly endorsed Rupert Lowe, the anti-Islam leader of Restore Britain, saying: “I trust this man more than any of the other leaders.”
And then there is Tommy Robinson, arguably the most prominent anti-Muslim activist in Britain. For years, his political identity has been built around portraying Islam and Muslims as a threat, yet Cleese has amplified material associated with Robinson.
Of course, Cleese is legally entitled to support Rupert Lowe and to amplify Tommy Robinson. And he is legally entitled to say offensive things about Islam.
But the cumulative picture matters, and at this point it becomes very difficult to maintain the fiction that we are simply dealing with a harmless old comedian making philosophical observations about religion.
No threats have been made against Cleese
There have been suggestions online that 5Pillars’ criticism of Cleese, and my personal criticism of him, somehow amount to a threat, with some even insinuating the possibility of violence. That is complete nonsense.
So let me state this unequivocally: we are not threatening John Cleese, nor do we want any physical harm to come to him.
But we are advocating peaceful, lawful and democratic opposition to his rhetoric. Cleese speaks, we answer. Cleese campaigns against our religion, we expose what he says. Cleese appears at venues, and we are entitled to contact those venues, complain, protest peacefully and ask them why they are providing him with a platform.
That is not intimidation; that is free speech. And free speech works in both directions.
John Cleese does not possess some special right to speak without being criticised because he created brilliant comedy 50 years ago. Nor does he have a right to appear in every theatre that will have him.
Cleese’s UK tour
What we are saying is that respectable institutions should decide if sustained anti-Muslim hate-mongering is compatible with their values. That is particularly relevant as Cleese tours cities and towns with significant Muslim communities.
His September tour includes Birmingham, Manchester, Leeds, Bradford and Bedford, among other places. Muslims live, work, pay taxes and contribute to the cultural and economic life of those communities.
So those venues should ask themselves a simple question: what message are they sending to their Muslim neighbours when they provide a prestigious stage to somebody who routinely portrays their religion as violent, backward and threatening?
Many of these same institutions will have diversity policies; they will issue statements against racism; they will celebrate inclusion; they will talk endlessly about making minority communities feel welcome.
But principles only mean something when they are applied consistently.
Would the reaction really be so relaxed if an internationally famous comedian spent months making similarly sweeping and hostile generalisations about Jews?
Would prestigious theatres simply say that this was all part of free debate? Would public broadcasters continue treating him as an untouchable national treasure if he repeatedly characterised Judaism through crude stereotypes about violence, conspiracy or disloyalty?
I doubt very much that institutions would be so sanguine.
Yet Muslims are apparently expected to tolerate almost anything. That double standard is impossible to ignore.
A safe target
Ultimately, Cleese has picked a relatively safe target.
Anti-Muslim sentiment is so normalised in parts of British media and politics that statements which would cause outrage if aimed at other minorities are routinely repackaged as “courageous commentary” when aimed at Muslims.
And people with enormous platforms are allowed to contribute to an atmosphere of hate while facing remarkably few professional consequences.
Cleese himself has chosen what he wants to say, and he has chosen who he wants to support. He has chosen to endorse Rupert Lowe; he has chosen to amplify Tommy Robinson; he has chosen to portray Islam again and again as violent, barbaric and hostile to Britain.
Those are his choices. And Muslims, venues, broadcasters and audiences are entitled to make choices of their own.
So yes John Cleese is free to despise Islam in modern, secular Britain. But he is not entitled to our silence.
Islamophobia implies that someone is afraid of Muslims (like being afraid of spiders or dogs), which John certainly isn’t. Most British people in UK are not afraid of Muslims or Islam despite what you may wish to believe. We are simply curious why you come to a non-muslim country when there are over 50 muslim countries to choose from. Is it for the our generous benefit system? Or maybe our free healthcare? Whatever it is, we really hope you all piss off back to any muslim country, and soon. You’re not wanted here.