The disgraced former Civil Servant Phillip Rutnam is now pursuing legal action on the grounds of ‘Constructive Dismissal’ following his resignation from the Home Office after claiming he was bullied by Home Secretary Priti Patel.
This is absolute nonsense and let me tell you why.
Priti Patel simply told Rutnam to “do his f****** job” after Rutnam blocked the release of a report in to ‘the characteristics of the grooming gang rapists’. Patel was obviously frustrated because she had been long awaiting this report, as we all have been, despite us already knowing the characteristics of the grooming gang rapists, or at least the vast majority of them.
It is thus argued that Rutnam’s resignation from his £190,000 job is a ‘deflective PR stunt’.
The Establishment have always tried to cover up the grooming gang scandal and in particular what religious/national origin the groomers tend to have. Everyone knows that, that’s old news, but why Rutnam blocked this particular individual report is unknown. Some people thinks it is because of affiliation and influence from Imam Mohammed Mahmoud (pictured with Rutnam below).
This blocking by Rutnam of this individual case in particular is part of the bigger picture of the political elite covering up the grooming gang scandal. Rutnam lied about Patel bullying him- he just didn’t like her standing up to his bureaucratic propensities.
Civil servants of course have never been put in their place but we are now entering a new age of populist politics- Brexit, Donald Trump and Dominic Cummings (who I in fact do not like but he’s right in the fact that the Civil Service needs reform). Priti Patel has a populist vision and the liberal Establishment along with the remainstream media do not like it (the Guardian drew a pretty offensive cartoon of Priti Patel and Boris Johnson last weekend which was considered to be anti-Hindu and even racist).
To conclude, I do not think that Philip Rutnam was bullied by Priti Patel I just think that he can not accept that the democratic electorate and their representatives in the new Conservative government are taking back control; not from the EU but with the new age of populist politics that I mentioned earlier.
With this new age of populism we see dirty tactics from the liberal establishment. It reminds me of what’s going on over the pond in the fact that the Democrats know they can’t beat Donald Trump in the debating room so they try to oust him with false claims of Russian collusion and impeach him because he wanted corruption in the Biden family investigated. Dirty tactics.
So far i’ve been a big fan of Boris Johnson and his Conservative government, despite me not voting for them. We will see if that drastically changes pending on the government’s debate into whether it is in ‘the public’s interest’ as to whether we do or don’t know the characteristic tendencies of the grooming gangs in the next few days.
Populism is on the rise throughout the West- first we voted to leave the EU here in Britain and then Donald Trump defeated the Queen of Corruption Hilary Clinton. Since we’ve seen a growing tide of Euroscepticism throughout EU member states, most evidently in France with Marine Le Pen’s National Rally, in Italy with Matteo Salvini’s Northern League and in Holland with Geert Wilders’ Party for Freedom.
Of course the Establishment and the remainstream media dismiss the contemporary wave of populism as ‘far-right’. Utter nonsense. Outlets such as the Guardian label anyone right of centre ‘far-right’, and this of course plays into the actual far-right’s hands, albeit them being a tiny minority of people.
So the reason i’ve been discussing politics with my Dutch friends is because I have lately took an interest into the possibility of Holland holding an EU referendum. The ever growing likelihood of a Dutch referendum runs parallel to the increasing popularity of nationalist-populist Geert Wilders. Wilders is the main advocate for a Dutch referendum as he has been for many years; similar to Nigel Farage.
Wilders like myself is a big critic of Islam and this is the reason the liberal media falsely label him as far-right. Again, like myself, Wilders’ criticism of Islam does not come from irrational bigoted opinions it comes from years of study. Geert actually travelled to and studied in the Middle-East and he is now a supporter of the Jewish homeland Israel. Imagine far-right fascists supporting a Jewish homeland!
Out of all the conversations with my Dutch pals (5 to be precise) i’m going to pick two in particular- the two most contrasting opinions.
Mariska says that she hopes that Holland stays within the EU and she is also not a fan of Geert Wilders. Mariska says that she loves her country yet she also identifies as a European and World citizen. She thinks Wilders is a charismatic man who’s personality is able to manipulate the fears of Dutch citizens and he simply “says what people want to hear”, and she contradicts me in the fact that she thinks Geert’s popularity is actually declining.
Armin on the other hand (that is not this person’s real name but he/she specifically asked not to have his/her name mentioned) is a big fan of Geert Wilders and he says that he would love to see Holland become an independent sovereign state. We talked about the Dutch problem of Moroccan raping gangs grooming underage children and how this relates to the English problem of Pakistani raping gangs grooming our children. Me and Armin both worry about the influence of Islam on our children’s future.
The feeling and general atmosphere amongst the Dutch feels very similar to the one we had here in Britain leading up to our EU referendum in 2016. There are valid arguments for both in and out sides and it seems reasonable that a vote should be put to the people.
As for Geert Wilders, amongst the Dutch he is like Marmite; similar to Nigel Farage or perhaps more precisely Tommy Robinson (because that bitch Farage stays silent when it comes to Islam).
However I don’t think that a vote will be put to the people for one simple reason- the geographical location of Holland. If you look at the UK, it is much easier for the British Isles to leave the EU simply because we are separated from the continent as it is as an Island. Holland however is in the middle of central Europe. Thinking back to the numerous times i’ve taken the Eurostar to Holland.. I had to pass through four EU countries to get to Amsterdam!
Ok so this is going to be a short piece no videos no photos I am angry and frustrated I feel the need to rant so much so that I’m probably not even going to use the correct grammar and punctuation.
So following President Trump’s state visit to our previously proud and glorious nation of the United Kingdom, I feel embarrassed and sad by the actions of counter-protesters that were here to meet him.
Some of these counter-protesters, defining themselves as anti-fascists, behaved in what can only be described as a fascist like manner. Simply because there were a few pro-Trump demonstrators, and I mean very few, the anti-fascist counter-protestors behaved like animals, throwing milkshakes at pro-Trump attendants and violently attacking and pushing pensioners to the floor.
Not only was Donald Trump called a Nazi by these immature childish disrespectful wombles, but his supporters were as well.
Did any of these stupid utter nesbits not even realise why Donald Trump was here? To commemorate the 75th anniversary where our brave allied heroes defeated ACTUAL Nazis!? If wasn’t for those brave heroes 75 years ago those anti-Trump protestors wouldn’t even have the right to take to the streets in Whitehall because of, erm.. ACTUAL Nazism.
I understand that people have the right to protest Donald Trumps visit just like they were in Parliament Square protesting the visit of Saudi Arabian leader King Salman and the visit of Chinese President Xi Jinping (hahaha no of course they weren’t i’m being sarcastic because the left are unbelievably hypocritical and naively swayed by the anti-Trump narrative perpetuated to them by the mainstream media) but choose the right words to insult him with when you protest his visit, especially on the D-day anniversary.
Of course its not just the stupid middle-class white vegan Independent reading idiots in Parliament Square who embarrassed our nation the past few days, but those in power Sadiq Khan and Jeremy Corbyn too.
Of course Khan falsely called Trump are far-right fascist, the only time Khan ever showing his face is when Trump comes to the former British capital city of London. He never speaks out about the substantial increase in knife crime in London. He’s happy for mass-immigrants to descent on London with their kitchen blades but no not Donald Trump the leader of the free world, the leader of a country with current record low unemployment and a booming economy.
As for Jeremy Corbyn he boycotted the visit of Trump even though he was never invited; Trump specifically saying he had no intention in meeting him yet. By Corbyn’s logic, I myself also boycotted the state visit of Donald Trump, as did my 8 month year old daughter and my pet dog Spot.
Right rant over i’m aware that i’ve typed a lot more words on this piece than I initially intended to.
To end on a serious note, I am embarrassed and ashamed because the past few days the American President has visited our shores to commemorate the defeat of fascism and he’s been met by anti-fascists behaving like fascists instead of joining him in remembering the defeat of fascists. Its been a joke and the world our laughing at us right now, once again.
For many years not just the last three Farage has been the main face of Brexit, thus before and after the referendum in 2016 the thought of Great Britain potentially leaving the EU brought Farage’s face to mind. However I firmly believe Farage is the wrong man to lead us Brexiteers through our battle of achieving what we democratically voted for in 2016 with his Brexit Party. Farage is part of the Establishment and the political elite, the upper-class people in power who have betrayed 17.4 million ordinary people, and I think it is hilarious that people are jumping on his Brexit Party bandwagon and thinking that he can successfully represent us ordinary people who have been betrayed by the Establishment.
The reason Farage supposedly left UKIP was because he “didn’t like the direction the party was going in”. By this Farage meant that he thought UKIP was becoming more of an ‘anti-Islam street movement’, in his words “becoming obsessed with Islam” rather than a respectable acknowledged political party. Firstly, UKIP has not become an anti-Islam party, it has instead promoted ‘free speech’ as a fundamental importance that needs to be maintained in British society; free speech in British society where Islam can always be open to criticism. Of course however the Establishment and those in power do not want people to criticise Islam, they are in fact now passing laws to stop people from doing so. Farage is now adhering to that narrative. UKIP is not obsessed with Islam as Farage says it is, UKIP is instead obsessed with free speech.
Its funny how Farage is now criticising the criticisers of Islam when he himself has done exactly that, ironically in a somewhat obsessional manner:
Above is a link to an article on Left Foot Forward; a hard-left political blog who lets be fair I fundamentally disagree with on just about everything. However, interestingly on this article in question, five different examples are raised in which Farage has previously been obsessed himself with Islam (raging against immigration from Muslim countries, defending Donald Trump’s anti-Muslim policies, accusing British Muslims of having split loyalties, telling Fox News that London is full of Muslim gangs and endorsing a photo of Sadiq Khan/Londonistan)
Again I shall point out that UKIP is not obsessed with Islam, it is instead obsessed with the importance of free speech. But even if it was a fundamental critic of Islam, who is Farage to criticise them for that? I think in actual fact Farage has no problem with UKIP in anyway criticising Islam but he has a problem with UKIP and UKIP’s leader Gerard Batten associating themselves with Tommy Robinson. This is not because Farage necessarily disagrees with what Tommy Robinson says; in fact I think he is more likely to agree with everything he does say, it is because where ever Tommy goes or whatever Tommy does, he always draws lots of followers and people, and he is always the centre of attention. Letting someone else have the limelight of course does not suit Nigel Farage’s ego.
The reason Farage is no longer part of UKIP is because I believe the democratic process of a political party like UKIP does not suit Farage’s egoistic nature. He had the opportunity to lead UKIP early last year when Gerard Batten took the reigns, the only reason Batten did so was because no one else wanted to. Farage could have been leading UKIP into the up and coming European Elections (not that Great Britain should be taking part in these elections) but instead he has chosen to form the Brexit Party, a party that has no National Executive Committee or any members but instead subscribers. Farage didn’t want to remain a member of UKIP simply because of the democratic process of UKIP, he instead wanted to lead a party that was all about him.
With relation to Farage’s super-ego, I don’t even fully believe that Nigel wanted the Brexit that people democratically voted for. I know it sounds stupid and its only a small theory, but if Britain had achieved the unilateral withdrawal from the EU immediately where would Farage be now? What amount of attention would he be getting from the press three years later? Barely none! And Farage would not like that.
Look at the court case for example filed by the English Democrats and its leader Robin Tilbrook arguing that we legally HAVE ALREADY LEFT the EU on March 29th; we are no longer a member. You will not hear about this court case in the press or the mainstream media however it is a sound challenge, leading retired lord of justice Sir Richard Aikens has looked into the case and said it has merit. However Farage has downplayed and dismissed it telling not to take this court case seriously saying it is a waste of time! Why? Is it because it is not a Farage operation? It was not his idea so he doesn’t want to support it? Surely any of the 17.4 million leave voters including myself would be hopeful and optimistic about a court case which could potentially result in the fact that Britain has already left the EU!
Also there is a strong allegation (but it is only an allegation) written in a memo by Stewart Agnew MEP, that in a meeting at European Parliament off camera, Nigel Farage, leader of the EFDD Group stated that he wanted an extension of Britain’s EU membership so that he had time to parade his new candidates of his new political party. Unfortunately this memo is not in the public domain I know of it because it was given to YouTuber Mark Collett, but if it is true it summarises how selfish and arrogant Nigel Farage is.
Just think, Nigel Farage could be leading UKIP right now (Gerard Batten has already said he would have stepped down to a secondary role if Farage had came back) and he could be potentially uniting all leave voters under one party name. Instead he has formed a different party which will divide leaver’s votes, and that plays right into the Establishment’s hands in particular the remainer political parties.
Back to the Brexit Party/UKIP debate, and I think the debate as a whole fundamentally relates to social class. The press and the MSM love Farage’s Brexit Party, him getting airtime on Question Time, Good Morning Britain and The Andrew Marr Show unlike Gerard Batten. The Brexit party is glamorised with celebrity subscribers and popular with the rich, Farage himself being a privately educated ex-banker from the city. Compare that to Batten who grew up on the Isle of Dogs East London. The press and MSM are constantly pounding on UKIP and Batten and I think it is simply because UKIP are a party that represents the working-class.
The fact that UKIP are labelled as far-right is utterly ridiculous. Batten has already said he would like to see the railways and utility services nationalised, him and Jeremy Corbyn agreeing on many economic policies. The reason UKIP are constantly criticised and smeared by the press is because they are a party representative of ordinary working people and they are the only party who dare to criticise the problems of Islamism and Muslim grooming gangs. The Establishment have always feared and tried to silence the working-class and this is evident now with UKIP, Gerard Batten, Tommy Robinson and their working-class supporters. Those in power don’t want the truth to get out.
As an ordinary working-class leave voter, I feel UKIP represent my concerns 1000x more so than the Brexit Party.
Throughout this piece I shall outline the 1400 year history of the religion of war and terror, or what we are taught here in the West to be known as the religion of peace. The history of Islam needs to be understood; a history forever themed by fighting and fascism.
610 was the year Prophet Muhammad first starting preaching Islam and at that time Islam was a new peaceful and spiritual religion. This was after Muhammad claimed that revelations were revealed to him by Angel Gabriel. For 12-13 years Muhammad preached in his home town of Mecca trying to recruit followers, but unfortunately he struggled to influence Islam in Mecca; he only persuaded his friends and family.
This meant that Muhammad needed to change his tactics. In 622 he decided to travel from Mecca to Medina with his few followers in order to target the Jews, because whilst at that time Mecca was multi-cultural consisting of Jews, Christians and Pagans (Quraysh tribe), Medina was the Jewish hub of Arabia. Muhammad thought that if he could persuade the Jews in Medina he could then easily return and persuade people in Mecca and the rest of Arabia. The migration by Muhammad from Mecca to Medina is known as The Hijrah.
To do this Muhammad adopted many aspects from the Old Testament to try and persuade the Jews which is why today you see many similarities between the ideologies of Judaism and Islam. For example, fasting in Yom Kippur and Ramadan, Kosher and Halal meat, circumcision and the pig being a dirty animal. This is why at the beginning of the Qur’an (by the beginning of the Qur’an I mean by in terms of the chapters in chronological order not chapters 1, 2, 3 etc.) you see much praise for people of the book/scripture (Jews).
However unfortunately Muhammad still failed to persuade the Jews in Medina just like he did the people back home in Mecca. This time he snapped and turned violent. Muhammad started killing the people in Medina (a minority of Christians as well as the Jewish majority) because they wouldn’t accept his new religion of Islam. Therefore 622 was the year that Islam transitioned from a spiritual religion into a violent movement. Note that 622; the start of violent Islam, is also the start of the Islamic calendar. The Islamic calendar ignores the first 12 years of Islam when Islam was seen to be a peaceful religion.
Now that Islam had turned violent and followers were striving for Allah (jihad), the number of Muslims in Arabia increased expeditiously.
Therefore after the year of The Hijrah, Prophet Muhammad and his rapidly increasing group of Muslim followers colonised that part of Arabia, and Jews and Christians within Medina became the dhimmi (2nd class non-believer citizens within an Islamic community). This meant that Jews and Christians had to then pay jizyah in Medina (a tax for non-Muslims within an Islamic State) unless they were going to convert to Islam. These were the only two options otherwise they would be killed.
As time went on following Muhammad’s death and descending Caliphs ruled the Islamic State in Arabia, the Kuffar (non-believers), in particular people of the book, were seen to suffer more and more oppression. In the 8th century Caliph Umar Ibn Abdal-Aziz brought tighter regulations of the jizyah, and monthly ceremonies would take place where Jews and Christians would have to get on their knees in front of a Muslim crowd and pay their ‘protection tax’.
Jews and Christians would also have to wear distinct items in order to be identified differently from Muslims. Umar Ibn Abdal-Aziz made Jews wear yellow stars on a necklace, a tactic copied 1200 years later by Adolf Hitler in Nazi Germany. Hitler was known to base much of his Nazi ideology on that of Prophet Muhammad and his descending caliphs in the latter part of the first millennium. In 8th century Arabia it was law that Jews had to cross over a street in order to avoid walking past a Muslim so that Muslims were not ‘dirtied’ by a passing Jew.
Christians were also as much victims of Islamic fascism than Jews were. In 9th century Arabia caliph Al-Mutawakkil forced Christians to wear a zunnar (a belt) so that they could then be identified. The Pact of Umar contains a long list of prohibitions which oppressed Christians (easily found online); prohibitions that included the building of churches and celebrations of Easter.
From the time of Prophet Muhammad’s fascist rule from 622 through the descending caliphs up to the 11th century, Islam was seen to spread from its starting point in Arabia up through the Middle-East to Southern Europe, across North Africa and Spain and also across Asia. This was all achieved by military conquests and Muslim armies colonising areas over three continents by spreading hate and terror.
It wasn’t until just before the start of the 11th century that the Pope finally said enough is enough. Pope Urban II wanted to stop the Islamic military spreading their ‘religion’ through violent means, so he called out to European Christians and pleaded for them to form an army in order to take back their Holy Land, Jerusalem; having been colonised by Muslim imperialists for 300 years. This was the start of the Crusades.
The Crusades did regain control of the Holy Land, a sacred part of the world previously taken from Christians and Jews, but only for another century. Salah ad-Din Yusuf victoriously led the Muslims into war against the Crusades at the end of the 12th Century, and this meant that the Holy Land remained Muslim territory until Israeli liberation 800 years later in 1967. The halt to the spread of Islam thanks to the Crusades may have only been brief, but difference it made is thought to have made a massive difference to what we now know as contemporary civilisation.
So after Salah ad-Din Yusuf victoriously led an Islamic army in the 12th century, the spread of Islam through North Africa, West Asia and Southern Europe exploded through the use of forcing the dhimmi to pay protection tax in the form of jizyah. This caliphate was the Islamic State and the Islamic State was led by caliphs who were all ‘religious’ successors to the founder of Islam Prophet Muhammad.
The caliphate of the Islamic State reigned by spreading fear and terror throughout most of the 2nd millennium, the only setback they had was on 9/11 in the Battle of Vienna at the end of the 17th century when the Commonwealth and the Holy Roman empire joined forces to defeat the Ottoman Turks.
This is why 9/11 is a significant date in the Islamic calendar. The terrorist attack on the World Trade Centre in 2001 wasn’t carried out on any random day.
The Islamic State caliphate finally ended in 1924, meaning that the Islamic empire had been active for 1302 years ever since Prophet Muhammad first started murdering the kuffar in Medina. Turkish leader Mustafa Kemal Ataturk was the man we need to thank for the ending of the Islamic State. He ended the caliphate when the Ottoman Empire became the independent country of Turkey, and with this transition ‘Western like’ reforms were put in place such as a women’s right to education, a woman’s right to work, a woman’s right to choose her own husband (notice a pattern? It still baffles me as to why feminists sympathise with Islam), and the ban on women wearing a hijab. To this day, Muslims hate Kemal Ataturk and many believe that Ataturk was a secret Jewish agent.
Either way, 1924 was the year that Islam was thought to have ended, and in that 1302 years Islam killed 270 million people. All butchered and killed by the sword.
Unfortunately Islam has since well and truly been resurrected despite the ending of the Islamic State in 1924. The discovery of oil in The Gulf meant that Saudi Arabia and America ultimately became best friends and the world’s biggest oil trading partners. This is why ever since the discovery of oil in The Gulf people in The West have continuously been taught ‘the grand lie’ by the establishment, political elite and the media; ‘the grand lie’ being that Islam is a religion of peace.
Before the discovery of oil in The Gulf, there was no denial of the truth regarding Islam, or ‘Muhammadism’ as it was referred to back then by those in power. For example, Winston Churchill knew the truth after he studied Islam at the end of the 19th century, and Churchill used to warn about the potential danger that the spread of ‘Muhammadism’ would bring. Hitler also knew about Islam and he chose to replicate the caliphate’s treatment of Jews. This is partly what led to Winston Churchill’s success in WW2 because he knew exactly who and what Hitler was replicating in his treatment of the Jews. It was the Islamic caliphate. But of course Churchill was the only man at that time in government who had sufficient knowledge regarding Islam/Muhammadism.
Therefore one could assume that without the discovery of oil in The Gulf Islam wouldn’t be so powerful on the world stage today. America and the West have allowed Islam to be re-born in the 20th century in order to benefit their financial interests. This is why you could ultimately say that ‘the left’ are missing the perfect opportunity to criticise capitalism by sympathising with Islam.
When looking at the world today, we can now see that ISIS (or the ‘so called’ Islamic State as referred to by the BBC) are not new, they have simply been resurrected. The reason ISIS have been growing and succeeding is because people are unaware of the history of Islam.
Now let me point out a concept you should know regarding Islam which I feel is incredibly important:
The doctrine of Taqiyya is simply a law allowing Muslims to lie, and Muslims have historically had to lie in order to protect themselves- in particular Shia Muslims when confronted with Sunni Muslims; lying by denying their faith. However the Law of Taqiyya is also a lie used to spread Islam. A Muslim can literally place his/her hand on the Qur’an and swear that he/she is telling the truth but yet tell a complete lie, knowing that Allah will forgive him/her because the lie being told is for the greater good of Islam. If Muslims are outnumbered by non-Muslims, Muslims can use taqiyya to befriend non-Muslims and thus slaughter them at a later time when the non-Muslims are least expecting it. In other words, Muslims can befriend non-Muslims outwardly but yet they do not inwardly. A summary of taqiyya is when Abu ad-Darda (a close companion of Prophet Muhammad) said “we smile in the face of some people although our hearts curse them”.
The best example of taqiyya being used in my opinion is the Treaty of Hudaybiyyah, which was a false peace treaty Muslims used whilst lying and deceiving to benefit the causes of Islam. The Treaty of Hudaybiyyah derives from a short time after the Hijrah when Prophet Muhammad had imperialised Medina. At that time Muhammad wanted to travel back and colonise Mecca but his army wasn’t strong enough, so Muhammad signed a 10 year peace treaty; the Treaty of Hudaybiyyah, with the Quraysh tribe in Mecca. Then Prophet Muhammad built his Islamic army recruiting members by storming different Arabian tribes and stealing their goods, and then spreading those goods amongst his men. The ‘peace’ Treaty of Hudaybiyyah gave Muhammad time to build a strong enough army to invade Mecca, and after just 2 years of the 10 year treaty Muhammad returned to Mecca catching the Meccans by surprise. Muhammad and his Muslim army butchered the Quraysh people with the sword. By using taqiyya, Prophet Muhammad never actually intended on fulfilling the ten year peace treaty of Hudaybiyyah; he just waited until his army was strong enough to invade the Meccans.
Ever since, taqiyya has been a principle of Islam; Muslim fighters can agree peace with the kuffar before soon catching disbelievers by surprise with an attack. Examples of Prophet Muhammad’s actions regarding the Treaty of Hudaybiyyah have been copied by every caliph ever since Muhammad even right up to this day. Look at peace deals signed by America and Iran for example; the Treaty of Hudaybiyyah is still happening now!
The best example of taqiyya and a similarity of the Treaty of Hudaybiyyah being relevant in modern times is when looking at the failure of the Oslo Accords 1993. The Oslo Accords 1993 was a ten year peace treaty signed by Israel and Palestine. For seven of the ten years this peace treaty remained in place and in that seven years Yasser Arafat; the Palestinian leader, was able to use Israeli and American funds to finance his police and army. In the year 2000 violence erupted in the form of the second intifada breaking the Oslo Accords ten year peace treaty, and this saw mass fatalities of both Israeli and Palestinian people. When Yasser Arafat was asked by state run news channels in Egypt and Lebanon as to why he signed a peace treaty with the enemy in the first place (the Jews), his reply was simply “ahh but remember Hudaybiyyah…” (Yasser Arafat was using taqiyya). Muslims around the world knew exactly what Arafat was referring to, but here in the West it was straight over our heads we had no idea, as it was with the Jews in Israel.
Before I conclude this piece it is important to state that I do not believe all our Muslim friends here in England and the West are ‘pretending’ to be our friends whilst secretly planning to chop our heads off in the future. When Western culture mixes with Islamic culture, the former dilutes the latter and this means that Western Muslims are generally unaware of how evil their ‘religion’ actually is. For example, a typical British Muslim probably does generally believe that his/her ‘religion’ is peaceful, and so do the non-Muslims he/she is educated alongside. However in the Middle-East and the Islamic world Islam is real! There is no such diluted moderate Islam we have here in Europe. To prove this, a PEW research study which I covered in a post last year on my blog found that 77% of Muslims in Indonesia, Pakistan, Nigeria, Bangladesh and Egypt (the five countries in the world with the largest Muslim population) support the idea of sharia law and the return of the Islamic Caliphate. From this we can assume that 77% of people from the five biggest Muslim countries in the world support ISIS. I highly doubt over three quarters of British Muslims support ISIS.
By reading this piece you will have now noticed that I have not been talking about the 1400 year history of the religion of peace, or the 1400 year history of any religion for that matter. I have been talking about the 1400 year history of a violent fascist political movement that disguises itself as a religion. Throughout its existence the only way Islam has been able to spread is by oppressing and killing non-Muslims. When Prophet Muhammad first preached his peaceful religion to the Meccans back in 610 he had his chance to persuade and he failed miserably. After 12 years of failing to spread the peaceful religion of Islam, Muhammad should have given it up as a bad job but instead he punished those who didn’t listen. Unfortunately 1.7billion Muslims today reflect their lives on the life of Prophet Muhammad, and I say that it is unfortunate because in my opinion Prophet Muhammad was a dangerous insane psychopath. If Islam is to carry on existing in a potentially peaceful global civilisation, Islam needs a complete reformation for the first time in its existence. Immediately.
*Influence for this post taken from ex-Muslims Brigette Gabriel and Hamed Abdel-Samad as well as Peter Mcloughlin and Dr Bill Warner
Throughout this post I shall talk about Sadiq Khan and his career in law and politics. Khan is a controversial figure because whilst levels of crime and terrorism have increased during his role as Mayor of London, his previous career position as a human rights lawyer has never been ignored due to the Islamic extremists he represented. Obviously not all of Khan’s legal clients were Islamists or even Muslim at all, however I shall outline some of the radicals he sympathised with in courts; not all of them because there are so many, before reviewing him as the Mayor of London.
In 2001 Khan represented Louis Farrakhan, an Islamist banned from the UK who described white people as ‘devils’ and called a Hitler ‘a very great man’. This was because of Hitler’s genocide of Jews, with of course Hitler himself known to use Islam’s Prophet Muhammad as a role model in his treatment of Nazi Germany’s Jewish population. Khan’s legal role with Farrakhan was the attempt in getting his UK ban overturned. Funny how Khan wanted entry into the UK for a fascist anti-Semitic Jew hating Muslim, but yet he campaigned for a ban on Donald Trump coming to the UK earlier this year.
Sadiq Khan also defended one of the Islamists behind the 9/11 terrorist attacks on the World Trade Centre. Zacarias Moussaoui is currently serving 6 life sentences without parole in America due to his participation in 9/11, with Khan being a legal consultant for Moussaoui and the only practicing Muslim on Moussaoui’s defence team.
Whilst defending the extradition of convicted terrorist Babar Ahmed to America, Sadiq Khan was seen to attend four meetings with Stop Political Terror; a now defunct Islamist organisation who had strong connections with Al Qaeda and Anwar al-Awlaki. These meetings with Stop Political Terror saw Khan share a platform numerous times with Suliman Gani here at home in London. The Tooting based Imam is controversial because of his radical opinions, however the extent of how radical those opinions are debateable. David Cameron was once forced to apologise for claiming Gani had links to ISIS.
Next on the list is Sheikh Yousef al-Qawadari, a Qatar-based Egyptian Islamic scholar who is banned from The UK, the US and France. Sadiq Khan spoke out in support of this Islamist despite him decreeing that homosexuality is a crime as well as praising the work of suicide bombers, and himself travelling to Palestine to support the terrorist group Hamas. Not only has Sadiq Khan previously sympathised with al-Qawadari but he has before denied that al-Qawadari is an Islamist altogether, despite al-Qawadari often citing Islamic texts calling for Jews to be killed.
Finally we come to Sadiq Khan’s ex-brother in-law and the most prolific terrorist organisation based in Britain; Al-Muhajiroun. Khan’s ex-brother in-law Makbool Javaid is an Islamist who was a member of Al-Muhajiroun until the terror group was banned in Britain in 2005. He is most known for his speeches in Trafalgar Square in the late 1990’s where he issued a Fatwa calling on Muslims for a ‘Holy War’ against the UK and the US. Just because Al-Muhajiroun was a British terror group does not mean they were not extreme and unparalleled to those based in the Middle-East. They were formerly led by Anjem Choudary; the UK’s most infamous Islamic cleric, and they have connections with Lee Rigby’s slaughterers. Sadiq Khan has tried to distance himself from his former brother in-law and Al-Muhajiroun since joining the Labour Party and subsequently gaining more power in politics. However, he has been known to share a platform with Sajeel Abu Ibrahim in more recent times numerously; another Islamist with previous connections to Al-Muhajiroun.
The examples I have used of the Islamists and extremists who Sadiq Khan has previously associated himself with; including his brother in-law, are just a few examples from a long list of many. That long list of many can be found at Zerohedge if you wish to see further proof of Khan’s sympathy with Muslim extremists. However since Khan’s days of representing Islamists as a lawyer, his career in politics has progressed meaning that he has had to distance himself from the extremists he associated with, including his brother in-law who he hasn’t seen for ten years.
This brings us on to Sadiq Khan’s role as London Mayor. The fact is that for the 2 and a half years that Khan has been Mayor, crime and terror in London have disproportionately increased. Since last year, murder was reported to have risen by 44%, gun crime 23%, knife crime 21% and an 18% increase in the number of rapes have been recorded. For the first time ever this year there was more murders committed in London than New York City. On top of that, the number of acid attacks in London has increased massively, with more acid attacks in the borough of Newham, East London, than anywhere else in London. Newham is thought to have roughly a 30% Muslim population and an 80% ethnic minority population as a whole (80% ethnic minority kind of contradicts itself). The number of people arrested for terror related offences also rose by 60% in 2017 compared with 2016, with MI5 General Director Andrew Parker saying that the threat of Jihadists in Britain “is the highest he’s seen in his 34 year career”. The London Met are also now resorting to ramming fleeing criminals on mopeds. Criminals on mopeds has been a huge problem since Sadiq Khan has been Mayor of London, and the fact that the police are now resorting to ramming criminals off their mopeds shows how desperate they are to start regaining control of crime in the capital.
The way Sadiq Khan has handled the crime wave in London has been poor to say the least. Khan has wasted the Police’s limited resources of time and money on the ludicrous attempt of combatting so-called ‘hate speech’’. Hate speech is just simply a way of protecting ‘snowflakes’ from being offended by any opinion that differs from their own. People are getting arrested throughout London for posts they put on social media which are deemed offensive to some people. It does not matter if those posts on social media in question are the general opinion of those who are posting them, or even if they are facts. People are still locked up and silenced. The concept of hate speech simply contradicts the freedom us Westerners enjoy in democratic countries.
One example of hate speech is Islamophobia (in my opinion ‘Islamophobia’ is not actually a word because a phobia is an irrational fear, and fear of Islam as a fascist political ideology is not irrational). Islamophobia has been defined as racist by a recent government report, and the EU say criticism of Islam is no longer protected by Freedom of Speech, meaning I can no longer criticise Islam even with facts. For example, it is now illegal to refer to Prophet Muhammad as a rapist or a paedophile, even though the fact is he married A’ishah when she was 6 years old and raped her when she was 9. He also raped the wives of the thousands of Jews, Pagans and Christians he slaughtered in 7th century Arabia. I expect the Old Bill to knock on my door anytime now.
Hate speech is being used by Sadiq Khan to silence anyone who criticises his ‘religion’. One example is by him referring to ex-Muslim Shazia Hobbs as a hate preacher. Shazia Hobbs is actually quite the opposite of anything hateful. Her Story of escaping from Islam after a forced-marriage and now working to help victims of child abuse in the form of FGM is somewhat inspirational (the video link below of a short interview with Shazia Hobbs is a *MUST WATCH*). Shame on you Khan you utterly pathetic man.
Of course you can’t blame all of London’s rapid increase in crime on Sadiq Khan; that would be unfair seen as he’s only been Mayor for two and a half years. London was already a wreck before Khan took over as Mayor and the fact that London was a wreck before Khan took over as a Mayor is the reason he was elected. London has been on a downwards spiral for decades due to successive Conservative and Labour governments allowing consistent mass migration into the capital at the attempt of a liberal utopia. The expanding multi-cultural society in London has paved the way for an increase in crime, terrorism and a new-wave of gang warfare.
It was of course the multi-cultural demographic that Sadiq Khan aimed for during his Mayor campaign, or more precisely the single-cultural demographic areas of London where Muslims have segregated themselves into high profile Islamic areas. The Muslim population of London was just over 600,000 people in 2001 and ten years later the Muslim population of London had nearly doubled to over a million people. It is hard to say what the Muslim population of London is now because it has been 7 years since the last census, however one can assume that London’s Muslims must now be somewhere between 1.5 and 2million people. The increase in the number of London’s Muslims made it easier for Khan to win the Mayor election, which is why Khan played on the fact that he is Muslim himself in order to win votes.
For the first time this decade, white Britons are a minority in London. Non-white skin colour and foreign nationality does not mean people are more likely to commit crime; that is a racist and xenophobic assumption. However, the poverty and cultural influences that come with non-white and foreign people means that they are more likely to have a criminal identity. It is no coincidence that crime in London is now worse than ever at a time when white Britons are a minority. However, no doubt that Sadiq Khan will be re-elected again for a second term as Mayor if he stands, what with his guaranteed votes in London’s ever expanding foreign Muslim communities.
The freedom of the press should be appreciated throughout the West because it is part of Western democracy and free speech. With a free press there will always be media bias, however the bias the mainstream media have shown when reporting on Donald Trump’s presidential actions have reached a level beyond ridiculousness which can only result in sincere counter-productivity to the democracy of American people.
This week I switched on the news and saw Donald Trump shaking hands with Vladimir Putin at their summit in Helsinki and my immediate reaction was along the lines of “wow what a moment in history, two leaders of staunch rival nation-states; two countries that have hated one another ever since WW2, making friends making allies… what does this mean for the future opportunities of world peace (excited emoji face inserted here)”
Then I saw newspaper headlines from around the world…
Coward, traitor, and non-patriotic are the words used to describe Trump in his meeting with Vladimir Putin (non-patriotic? seriously? It was the American patriots who voted Trump into power!). All this because Trump and Putin had a healthy and friendly summit. Its as if critics from the press want America to go to war with Russia rather than be at peace!
Trump and Putin are trying to start off fresh relations between the two countries, relations that have previously involved dangerous high tension ever since former KGB agent Vladimir Putin first came to power. Imagine this; a future bi-polar world order dominated by two nuclear ALLIES of America and Russia, opposite to the bi-polar world order experienced during the Cold War.
Maybe its true that Putin interfered in the American elections, although Putin staunchly denies it. But even if so, was Trump meant to call Putin a liar on global TV? That would have ended any chance of a future relationship between America and Russia, and that would have sufficed even harsher criticism for Trump from the mainstream media.
Trump outlined examples of how America and Russia could work together, for instance on tackling terrorism and sharing future anti-terror information, with Russia having been repeatedly attacked by Islamic extremists for the previous two decades. In 2004 Islamists held 1000 people hostage at a school in North Caucasas, Russia, resulting in more than 300 people dead 186 of which were school children. In 2010, 40 people were killed by suicide bombers on the Moscow underground system, as were on the St Petersburg underground system last year.
If only the mainstream media/Western Islamic sympathisers put more effort into reporting actual news stories like these instead of trying to undermine the democratic American vote.
When the mainstream media reported on the Trump-Putin summit with their inherent determination at smearing Donald Trump, they failed to notice the future opportunities that an American-Russian alliance could bring. Russia could have a major influence on the abandonment of North Korea’s nuclear weapon programme, with Russia being important on the basis of North Korea’s economic survival, but yet having nothing to gain from North Korea’s nuclear weapons.
Trump could also acquire Putin’s help in withdrawing American troops from Syria, as well as Putin potentially being able to convince Iran to withdraw their troops. The exchange would result in Bashar Al Assad remaining in power of Syria, which is more than fair seen as the Syrian people overwhelmingly democratically elected Assad.
Media bias has always been a part of democratic politics with media outlets; newspapers in particular, always aligning to certain political parties or certain sides of the political spectrum. However since Donald Trump became President Media bias has reached a whole new level with constant criticism of every policy Trump carries out and constant smearing by the American press, headed of course by CNN. Fake news. It is not only in America, all British news channels and the vast majority of British newspapers are anti-Trump and now Sky TV no longer have any right-wing news channels on their package after dropping Fox News. So much for democracy.
In Britain last week thousands of people were out on the streets of London protesting at the arrival of Donald Trump in Britain ahead of a summit with Theresa May. The effort the press went into to cover the story of these anti-Trump protesters was ‘over the top’ to say the least. Live coverage of the protests all day long. Funny how the news channels couldn’t do the same when similar numbers of people from Football Lads Alliance marched in protest of Islamic Extremism, also in London. Not even 30 seconds of coverage on the news for the FLA. It was exactly the same with the Free Tommy Robinson protests THE DAY AFTER the anti-Trump protests, also in London.
As for the anti-Trump protests in London last week, where were they when Saudi Arabian leader Mohammed Bin Salman visited Great Britain this year, a man who governs a regime where women aren’t allowed to leave their house without a male companion and where woman are tortured in prison for removing their hijabs? Where were they when Turkey’s leader Recep Tayyip Erdogan visited Britain in May, a man who imprisons journalists for writing news reports criticising his opinion? Where were they when Chinese leader Xi Jinping visited the UK recently, a man who wants to make himself ‘dictator for life’ by eliminating any future democratic elections in China?
I’ll tell you where they were- they were at home not giving a shit. The only reason these protesters were in London last week was because they’ve jumped on the anti-Trump bandwagon, a bandwagon which was made fashionable by hypocrite political commentator Owen Jones, hypocrite Mayor of London Sadiq Khan, and of course the hypocrite mainstream media.
Just look at the result of Donald Trump’s approach to the Korean conflict. Controversial at times yes of course, but look whats happening now; North Korea are set to abandon their nuclear weapons programme, and North and South Korea are going through the process of peace talks for the first time in the history of modern civilisation! Worthy of a Nobel Peace Prize for Donald Trump in my opinion. Before you start laughing, I bet if it was the exact same situation regarding the Korean peace talks 5 years ago with Obama as American President he would have won a Nobel Peace Prize. Yes I know he’s already won one I can’t remember what for though. Because he is black? It surely wasn’t because of the thousands of innocent middle-eastern civilians Obama killed with drone attacks? No? Probably because he is black.
I know that through reading this article it may seem that I am against the freedom of the press. Well I am not. I am not a communist and I am not a fascist, I believe that free press and free speech are both important aspects of a healthy democracy. Even media bias is good, people will favour certain media outlets based on their own political opinions. However I feel that since Donald Trump became President, media bias is no longer restricted to different certain media outlets, whether they be newspapers or news channels. It is instead bias seen throughout the mainstream media and the general press. This needs to change because as the way things are, the free press in which the mainstream media has always embraced is starting to look like the press seen within an authoritarian state-ruled society. Propaganda corrupting people’s political knowledge.
The Syrian war is unique and remarkably bizarre in the fact that the countries and religious movements involved are fighting each other, but yet are supporting one another at the same time. They are enemies and yet share even greater enemies.
America and its Western allies want to overthrow the Syrian Shia government and the best way to do this would be with support from Sunni military groups. i.e. the Syrian Rebels: the Free Syrian Army, ISIS and Al-Nusra. This is because Sunnis and Shias do not like each other they haven’t done so since Islam was formed 1400 years ago. Syria is fighting these Islamist terror groups backed by Russia and Iran. America is also fighting these Islamist terror groups but America supports the Syrian rebels. This means that America is in Syria fighting ISIS, but America also wants ISIS to win because ISIS are also fighting the Syrian government, and America wants the Syrian government to lose.
How confused are you right now!
America wants to imperialise Syria to construct a pipeline which would thus allow America to sell gas to Europe and take away the gas market from Russia. This would essentially cripple Russia’s economy because 80% of Europe’s gas is currently provided by Russia. Syria wants its friend Russia to construct a different pipeline through its territory which would thus maintain European dependence on Russian gas.
Where does religion come into this pipeline conflict?
Well, Sunni Islamist groups are bad, Shia governments not as much so, but Syria’s Shia government needs to be defeated in order to enhance America’s economic power, and the best way for Syria’s Shia government to be defeated is with the support of Sunni militants.
But America and its Western allies still need to be seen opposing Sunni militants of course.
As for the chemical attacks in Syria last week, I think it could be every possibility that Assad DID NOT use chemical weapons and nerve agents on his own people, the very same people whom 89% of voted Assad into power.
I think the chemical weapons would have been more likely to have been used by Syrian rebels, after all, the Syrian rebels are partly made up of ISIS and ISIS have used the banned chemical weapon ‘mustard gas’ before when attacking Kurdish fighters.
This means that blaming Assad for the use of chemical weapons could simply be a set up by America and its friend/enemy ISIS in order to make Assad and his government look bad, and justify military action against his ‘regime’.
I might come across as a conspiracy theorist (that’s because I am), but ask yourself, was it definitely Russia who shot down the Air Malaysia flight back in 2014 or could it have been a joint American-Ukrainian secret operation in order to make Russia look bad. The same goes for the nerve agents used on the Russian man and his daughter in Salisbury, Great Britain last month, and of course the previous chemical attacks in Syria that were assumed to have been carried out by the Assad ‘regime’.
The Syrian rebels have embraced Islamism and Islamic fundamentalism. Surely the rebels are more likely to use chemical weapons. Investigations need to be made properly.
Why would Assad launch a chemical attack on civilians when the end of the war is nigh? ISIS have retreated and Al-Nusra have been defeated, and Donald Trump wants to withdraw American troops from Syria. Assad is winning so why would he decide now to gas his people?
There is also wonder if a chemical attack even happened at all? Locals have said that it didn’t, and in the video and photographs of the supposed chemical attack there is evidence that the scenarios in which ‘victims’ are being treated by medics are staged.
This video from “rebels’” held area in Syria is one of the reasons why you don’t rush into war based on YouTube videos pic.twitter.com/OB2aGXQP4y
All you need to know is that the Syrian war is a war on proposed pipelines. America needs to take control of Syrian territory, and in order to do this it has orchestrated a rebellion against Assad’s government along with its allies in Europe and the Middle-East. This rebellion has involved ISIS and Al-Nusra, the types of people who Western liberal democracies are supposed to oppose.
This essentially means that the reason half a million people have died in a war is because America wants to colonise Syria in order to construct a pipeline and sell gas to Europe. As for the chemical attacks, it will be unlikely to ever know for certain who used the chemical weapons, that’s if they were used at all, meaning that you can not assume it was Assad who used them just because that’s what Western media are telling you so.
“Islam is not a religion of peace, it is a political theory of conquest that seeks domination by any means it can”– ex-Muslim Ayaan Hirsi Ali.
Islamism is a concept that; despite occasionally being said throughout history, has come to surface in recent years since 9/11 in an effort to differentiate the religion of Islam with the Muslim extremists who act in the name of Islam.
Basically it is because of the politically correct west. To lesson the risk of generalising all 1.8billion Muslims with the same status, people thought it would be a good idea to divide Muslims into Muslims and Islamists, and Islam into Islam and Islamism.
This way, Islam can be kept just as a religion, and Islamism is the political aspect of Islam.
Islamism doesn’t have to be violent. It could involve terrorism and the killing of infidels, or just simply a Muslim preacher trying to influence his religion to non-believers on a street corner.
Islamism is just simply an effort in recent years to distinguish the regular and genuine practice of Islam, from the actual enforcement of Islam onto dibelievers.
The only problem is that politics has been a big part of Islam ever since its existence, so there’s no need to try and politicise it now with Islamism, Islam is already political. Islam is not just a religion. It is also a political ideology that primarily distinguishes between Muslims and the kafir (non-believers). Muslims go to paradise if they live without sin, the kafir are destined for hell no matter how they live their life.
Let me tell you a little story about Prophet Muhammad. Muhammad was born and lived in Mecca and it was there he lived as a spiritual leader, influencing Islam attempting to gain followers to his religion. In the space of 13 years he gained very little followers, most scholars appear to agree on a number of 150. Therefore Muhammad moved to Medina after 13 years along with his 150 followers and he chose to politicise Islam himself, changing his role as a spiritual leader into a political leader/warrior using jihad. From this the growth of Islam exploded. By the time Muhammad died, just about everyone in Arabia was a Muslim. Politics and Islamic jihad were maintained after Muhammad’s death, seen with the caliph Abu Bakr declaring war on those that left Islam (apostates), leaving thousands dead.
Before Muhammad moved to Medina from Mecca he saw the people of the book (Jews and Christians) as allies. Once he moved to Medina, Muhammad demanded political loyalty from the Jews in return for religious and cultural autonomy. The Jews rejected this leading to Muhammad holding a more radical view of the Jews from then on. This is probably why Jewish people ended up either enslaved or dead during Muhammad’s political reign.
Therefore as you can see, there is no need to politicise Islam now with ‘Islamism’ because Islam itself has been political ever since Muhammad moved to Medina 1395 years ago. Prior to Medina there was seen to be moderate Islam. In Medina Islam involved politics, power and war. So just keep them two words in your head, power and war.
Oh by the way, after Medina, Muhammad went back to conquest Mecca, ultimately resulting in himself becoming the King of Arabia. Power. War.
Now lets get back to the present day and talk about some problems with the concept of ‘Islamism’.
For a start, Islamism is not recognised as a concept by Muslims in the Islamic world. If you ever come across a jihad (I hope you don’t) ask him if he commits jihad in the name of Islam or in the name of Islamism: his reply to your question will be “what the f*** is Islamism?!”
Islamists call themselves Muslims, and guess what… Islamists and Muslims follow the same religion! A blood thirsty jihad and a liberal secular moderate are both Muslim. The fact is, if there was nothing wrong with Islam there’d be no need for the concept ‘Islamism’ to be thought of in the first place! What will we have in the future, moderate Islamism?
How come Islam is the only religion that gets itself an extended ‘ism’? You don’t hear of Catholicists terrorising with acts of Catholicism. When the IRA were planting bombs in Britain were they referred to as Irishists? Were they conducting acts of Irishism?
Islamism is a politically correct invention because people are now too scared to criticise Islam or Muslims. People don’t want to be labelled as racist or Islamophobic. (I don’t believe that ‘Islamophobic’ is a word, because a phobia is an irrational fear, and a fear/disliking of Islam as a political ideology is not irrational).
Political Islam means that non-believers can never get away from Islam, and the best example of this is Sharia Law, an Islamic legal system which is essentially a political ideology. See what I mean? Sharia Law is an Islamic legal system not an Islamist legal system! Sharia Law is an example of how politics is part of Islam…
THEREFORE ISLAM AND ISLAMISM ARE THE SAME THING!
‘Islamists’ such as Anjem Choudary believe that political-economic systems of government that are not Islamic; western democracy being the prime example, oppress Muslims; meaning that Sharia Law is the only answer. Democracy isn’t perfect, but it is by far the best political system of government the world has got. However Islamists such as Anjem Choudary pick out the worst aspects of democracy and use it to justify Sharia Law. Sharia Law in any society would of course mean no freedom and no liberty, and it would involve the enforcement of Islam on the kafir. That is what you call ‘Islamism’, or what I prefer to call Islam.
Moderate Muslims such as Dr Tofik Ahmed accept that politics is a major part of Islam, hence why Islam needs reforming. Dr Tofik Ahmed says that “the politics needs to be taken out of Islam and certain verses of the Qur’an need to be reinterpreted”. However this means that the more ‘Islamist’ Muslims such as Anjem Choudary accuse Dr Tofik Ahmed of not being a real Muslim. Radicals and Moderates often argue in contemporary society as to what makes a Muslim a real Muslim. Nothing new seen as Muslims have been fighting amongst themselves for nearly 1400 years since the death of prophet Muhammad. It is no surprise then that the 1.8billion Muslims living today can’t seem to get together and form a stable government.
Unfortunately, the fact is Islam is more of a political ideology than a religion. I’m not saying that all Muslims are political, there are good and bad Muslims just as there is good and bad Christians and good and bad atheists. Islamism is a concept invented by the PC in order to give more justification for labelling any critic of ‘Muslims’ and ‘Islam’ a racist. Can Islamism even exist when there is difficulty defining exactly what it is amongst the Muslim community?. To solve the world’s problems caused by Islam you need to reform the religion itself; take out the politics whilst maintaining the religious and spiritual practices. In order to do this the Qur’an will need to be drastically reinterpreted. The world’s problems caused by Islam cannot be solved with an ‘ism’.
*Influence for this post taken from the work of Dr Bill Warner and Charlie Klendijan at Law Secular Society
Of course it is generally agreed that the world would be a more peaceful and better place if it wasn’t for religion, but there’s no denying that the religion most associated with violence, terrorism and extremism is Islam.
All religions and their scriptures need reforming to coincide with present day moderation, and believers of any religion can be defined as radical or moderate based on the extent of their acceptance of their religion’s reformation; from the original holy text. So first, lets outline examples of the basic differences between radical and moderate Muslims:
Radical Muslims hate non-believers of Islam (infidels), moderate Muslims think that the hatred of non-believers is unacceptable
Radical Muslims want the caliphate to return, moderate Muslims do not
Radical Muslims support Sharia Law, moderate Muslims do not
Moderate Muslims accept the renewal and reform of Islam that comes with Westernisation, radical Muslims do not
Radical Muslims support violence in the name of jihad, moderate Muslims do not
Moderate Muslims accept criticism of Islam because of the freedom of speech, radical Muslims do not
Radical Muslims think that apostasy should result in punishment, moderate Muslims do not
Moderate Muslims tend to believe in democracy, radical Muslims do not
Radical Muslims tend to have a hatred of Jewish people, moderate Muslims do not
Moderate Muslims believe in gender equality, radical Muslims do not
Radical Muslims believe that the Qu’ran should come before a state’s constitution, moderate Muslims do not
Moderate Muslims believe in religious equality, radical Muslims do not
Radical Muslims believe it is necessary for women to wear Islamic face wear such as the burka or the hijab, moderate Muslims do not
Radical Muslims believe that adultery should be punishable by death, but only women (where’s the feminist outrage!?), moderate Muslims do not
Radical Muslims believe that women should not be allowed to choose their own partners, moderate Muslims think women are allowed to have relationships before marriage
Radical Muslims agree with Female Genital Mutilation, moderate Muslims do not
Radical Muslims reject universal human rights, even the most basic human rights that are commonplace in the west, e.g. homosexuality. Moderate Muslims welcome universal human rights
Finally, what I feel is the easiest way to differentiate radical Muslims and moderate Muslims:
Radical Muslims are more loyal to Islam, moderate Muslims are more loyal to the state
Obviously there is an irrational stereotype that every individual Muslim themselves are violent extremists who commit terror, which is naive and completely untrue. This is why here in the liberated West, it is genuine common knowledge that radical Muslims are only a tiny minority and Islam is followed by a vast majority of moderate and peaceful Muslims.
However, are radical Muslims really that much of a minority? Statistics gathered by Pure Research, 2011 suggest not. Lets start by looking at the proportion of Muslims in some middle-eastern, Asian and African countries who support strict Sharia Law:
50% of Indonesian Muslims (the largest Muslim population in the world) support strict Sharia Law
76% of Pakistani Muslims support strict Sharia Law
65% of Egyptian Muslims support strict Sharia Law
82% of Bangladeshi Muslims support strict Sharia Law
71% of Nigerian Muslims support strict Sharia Law
83% of Iranian Muslims support strict Sharia Law
75% of Moroccan Muslims support strict Sharia Law
99% of Afghan Muslims support strict Sharia Law
89% of Palestinian Muslims support strict Sharia Law
You don’t have to be a terrorist to be a radical Muslim, supporting strict Sharia Law is enough. Countries that do incorporate Sharia Law only do so to an extent with a lot of the legislation reformed and moderated, but strict Sharia Law would involve punishments such as the amputation of someones hands for theft, or the death penalty to anyone who criticises Prophet Muhammad or Allah.
Aside from Sharia Law, there are other statistics gathered from the same study that show perhaps that radical Muslims are NOT a minority in certain Muslim countries:
78% of Iraqi Muslims think that the honour killings of women can be justified
60% of Jordanian Muslims support the terrorist group Hamas
70% of Indonesian Muslims blame America and/or Israel for 9/11
70% of Egyptian Muslims supported Osama Bin Laden
25% of Bangladeshi Muslims think that suicide bombing can be justified
67% of Bangladeshi Muslims also think that the honour killings of women can be justified
32% of Turkish Muslims think that the honour killings of women can be justified (that’s coming from what is thought to be the most moderate Muslim country)
76% of Afghan Muslims think that the honour killings of women can be justified
78% of Palestinian Muslims supported Osama Bin Laden
89% of Palestinian Muslims also support terrorist attacks on Israel
And then there’s in the West!
52% of British Muslims think that homosexuality should be illegal
78% of British Muslims also think that people who draw Prophet Muhammad in a cartoon should be prosecuted
35% of French Muslims think that suicide bombing can be justified
19% of American Muslims are favourable to Al Qaeda
13% of American Muslims also think violence towards civilians can be justified
The alarming statistics above collected by Pure Research (don’t ask me how the research was carried out I can’t find the original results, I’ve gained these results from a second source; Ben Shapiro) only include 942 million Muslims from a possible 1.6 billion. This is because the study wasn’t carried out in many Muslim countries, for example Yemen, Libya, or of course; Saudi Arabia.
I say “of course” when it comes to Saudi Arabia because SA is the home country of ‘Wahhabism’; an ultra-conservative Islamic doctrine that influences the original readings of Islam, i.e. making it the most radical interpretation of Islam. This is why Wahhabism is known as ‘Pure Islam’; no deviation from Sharia Law whatsoever. If you want to find yourself a radical Muslim, the best place to look is Saudi Arabia. SA is known as ‘the breeding ground for terrorism’, with ISIS, Boko Haram and Al Qaeda gaining influence from Wahhabism.
The sad thing is that Britain is an ally of Saudi Arabia. They trade arms with one another and Saudi Arabia funds some of the British mosques; meaning that the evils of Wahhabism is taught to British children here in our own country.
Outside of Saudi Arabia, Muslims are divided primarily between Sunni and Shia Muslims, both having been fighting each other for 1400 years. Sunnis are thought to be the most radical of the two, which is a shame seen as 90% of the world’s Muslim population are Sunnis. Shias are less associated with radicalism, extremism or terrorism, but unfortunately both Wahhabis and Sunnis oppose the Shia interpretation of Islam. The Shia branch of Islam isn’t completely free of radicalism however. There’s Hezbollah and Shia militias funded by Iran.
In conclusion, the alarming fact is that the world’s radical Muslim population are not the minority that they are assumed to be here in Britain and the rest of the liberated West. I have Muslim friends and I am fairly sure that they are all moderate Muslims without radical opinions. Come to think of it however, I wouldn’t say they are ‘proper Muslims’. The Muslim women I know don’t wear Islamic face wear, and one chap I have in mind likes to have a night out on the booze with a bacon sandwich the next morning.
Moderate Muslims accept a reformed Islam that differs from the original writing of the Qu’ran, radical Muslims do not. So next time there’s a terrorist attack and you hear liberals say: “they’re not real Muslims they’ve read the Qu’ran wrong, Islam is the religion of peace”, remember the terrorists have actually correctly read the Qu’ran word for word, its moderate Muslims who read the Qu’ran wrong.