The Territorial Spirit that is Puritanical Islam

The territorial spirit that underlies the Islamic faith has been playing on my mind for too long now and so I decided to share it with the wider world, enough of whom I feel are quite oblivious to it. It never ceases to amaze me when non-Muslims in particular gear up in defence of Islam regarding the territorial issue. Throwing aside the very mechanism through which Islam effectively spread globally and fast-tracking to present day, I cannot help but feel disgusted at the blatant ignorance displayed by these Muslim-sympathisers. To such people, unless Muslims are going round, in a land-grabbing surge then it is unjust to label Islam as territorial. These ignorant people have clearly missed the Islamic State story but that is not what this post will focus on.
The key word in my message is territorial spirit, not the physical seizing of property. The spirit behind Islam’s territorial nature is something I have experienced most of my recollected life. The name ‘Islam‘ itself means ‘submit’, with  the need to dominate, the need to maintain and preserve Islam. Utter tyranny. A creation of an Islamic State.
The territorial nature of Islam is entwined within politics also, where a zero sum game is played in Islam’s favour. Muslims are not expected to allow a non-believer to rule over them, let alone defy them. Puritanical Islam’s tyranny – a cruel and unjust application of force and power over those who do not adhere to its ideology has been slapped in the face over the course of 18 years as the Muslim neighbours have been unsuccessful in spreading their beliefs onto the Hussain family.
My family’s refusal to be intimidated like and our staunch stand for Christianity has shaken the very foundation of what such Literalist Muslims stand for. That is no exaggeration, I have felt it for too long now in my veins: the clenched teeth at the sight of us, the curls of fists, the hostile glares and bitter mutters, the spits and snarls, the threats to burn down our house and shoot us into the next life; has revealed to me just how territorial they are. The fact they are unwilling to let go of just the one family in non-compliance to Islam, the unforgiving and brutal attitude against my family shows just how desperately they need complete submission to their ideology. The sole ex-Muslim family living and breathing in the community they see as their own, threatens and yet evokes that territorial spirit.

Anjem Choudary: Britain's Internal Western Antithesis

After another week of hearing about the usual antics of Anjem Choudhary, enough of Britain’s law-abiding and morally upstanding citizens are sick to the back teeth of this Puritanical Islamic public figure. Back-tracking through Choudary’s well-documented past, it becomes increasingly impossible to justify why such a detrimental man, in fierce opposition to the very existence of the country he resides in, is entitled to the freedom he currently enjoys. Time and again. It becomes increasingly harder to accept the carefully constructed language that envelopes him. The level of sensitivity concerning this hate preacher and influential figure is beyond frustrating and incomprehensible.
Throughout the years Anjem Choudary has been repeatedly arrested on the suspicion of encouraging terrorism but always been released, ‘pending further inquiry’. This constant lack of action against Choudary, in order to safeguard British values, innocent citizens and to tackle Puritanical Islam directly is what will decimate this nation eventually. And sooner rather than later. One only has to pay attention to the anti-Western rhetoric spewing from this man’s mouth- in person, in interviews, on the internet and during his sermons and demonstrations to realise he is responsible for something more serious than simply ‘encouraging terrorism’. There are countless instances and plenty opportunities missed by UK authorities to prevent him spreading his pernicious ideology. I go by the assumption that our government is unaware of Choudary’s destructive nature and intentions, thus have included a few examples to provide the rationale behind detaining Anjem for purporting and enforcing his ideology above the law of the land.

Choudary has been instrumental in setting up Islamic organisations, such as Al-Muhajiroun and Al- Ghurabaa which are overtly anti-Western and wish to abide by Shari’a Law. Such organisations publish articles on their website, including one entitled ‘Kill those who insult the Prophet Muhammad’. This article stated: ‘the insulting of the Messenger Muhammad is something the Muslims can not and will not tolerate and the punishment in Islam for the one who does is death. This is the sunnah of the Prophet and the verdict of Islam upon such people, one that any Muslim is able to execute’.
In response to the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy, February 3 saw both groups march in protest from London Central Mosque to the Danish Embassy, holding placards reading: ‘Butcher those who mock Islam’, ‘Europe you will pay, your 9/11 is on its way’ , ‘Europe you’re 7/7 is on its way’, ‘Europe you will pay, Bin Laden is on his way’ and ‘Europe you’ll come crawling when the Muhajideen come roaring’. Choudary’s now banned organisation Ahlus Sunnah wal Jamaah called for Jihad frequently and recordings of Osama bin Laden, Ayman al-Zawahiri and Omar Bakri Muhammad were posted regularly.
He is a man who congratulated the 9/11 perpetrators as ‘magnificent martrys’, a man who refuses to condemn Lee Rigby’s murder nor the actions of Islamic State. Instead Choudary indirectly inspired Adebolja, one of Rigby’s killers and who attended and adhered to Choudary’s Islamic preaching.
Choudary in 2001 stated that he pledges allegiance to Islam not his country and that ‘for true Muslims, a British passport is no more than a travel document’. He does not shy away from pushing for Shari’a to be implemented in the UK, so much so that he claims the ‘flag of Shari’a’ will be flying over Downing Street by 2020. In an interview with Iran’s Press TV he stated: ‘As Muslims we reject democracy, we reject secularism and freedom and human rights. We reject all of the things that you espouse as being ideals. There is nothing called a republic in Islam.’
Fundamentally Anjem Choudary has been given a platform to inspire and orchestrate, indirectly and directly the demise of the West and its non-Muslims. He actively supports any Islamic figure and organisation working to spread Puritanical Islam as he believes in the primacy of Islam before all other faiths. The British government continue to facilitate a man who has open access to the streets and social media, in order to permeate and brainwash countless Muslims into accepting this barbaric ideology. A man that should have been arrested and detained years ago, has instead had many years to use his ‘travel document’ , opening and influencing Madrassas abroad and enabling the beheading of a soldier on a Woolwich street last year.

Enough has to be enough at some point. Anjem Choudary’s teachings do not need to travel far to impact thousands of people. His presence goes far beyond ‘encouraging terrorism’. He is synonymous with it to the point that the ideology he advocates so publically caused a mother to be robbed of a son in cold blood. Choudary has no intention of stopping nor slowing down and will continue to do so until he is dealt with according to the law. Let’s just hope it’s never Shari’a.

The Islamophobia Phenomenon is an Invalidated Irrelavancy

They say that in order to be an Islamophobe one must have a hatred or fear of Islam, particularly of its political culture. Political correctness emphasises the hate factor. However, as Islam continues to make headlines for its brutality and violence against others worldwide, the concept of Islamophobia fails to remain true to its definition.
Instead, for too long has it become a tool to strike fear and silence the mouths of anyone wanting to query Islam, debate or critique it. Globally, the political scene has cultivated and converted the definition of Islamophobia into an irrational hatred of Muslims. Islamophobes are people that supposedly blame and taint an entire religion for the actions of a few Muslims. To the point where any crime committed by Muslims can never be called an Islamic issue. Including violence waged against the non-believers. Including mistreatment of females. Such pandemic problems are but a few examples. My question is this: how do these crimes not pertain or represent aspects of Islam when instructions to mistreat women and wage holy war against the Infidel are sanctioned in the Qu’ran? Especially when there are 109 verses that call for violence?
Islamophobia is used to disallow any criticism, any progressive thinking into modernising and humanising Islam – which is irrational in itself. So-called Islamophobes are not irrational in condemning certain Islamic acts they have the right to be concerned about. Instead those who propagate the term are.
Is it not irrational to take a cartoon depiction of the Prophet Muhammad and stage violent protests all over the world, attacking and burning homes, shops and embassies and murdering scores of people? Is it not irrational to implement draconian Blasphemy Laws which are easily manipulated and falsely used to imprison and torture religious minorities? Is it not irrational to accuse innocent figures such as Raif Badawi (secular Saudi Arabian jailed for creating a liberal blog), of insulting Islam and sentencing them to 10 years and 1000 lashes? Is it not irrational to hunt down those who like Facebook pages, or attend and join organisations deemed contrary to Islamic beliefs? Is it not irrational to keep Aisai Bibi on death row for 5 years, denying her every chance for appeal and depriving her children of their mother? Is it not irrational to sexually groom young girls and women from Rotherham to Peshawar, raping and prostituting them, depraving them of a quality of life; preventing them from access to justice as the perpetrators manage to instill fear and lack of action into every level of authority? Is it not irrational to threaten to behead my own father, burn our home to the ground and rape the girls in my family due to our abandonment of Islam?
That is irrational and so much more. It is deeply inhumane. What point is Islamophobia trying to make? I fail to see it.
Islamophobia has lost its factual meaning and has long become dangerously misleading, dangerously deceptive. It is a pervasive instrument and agenda, designed to prevent reason, ownership and admission of guilt. It prevents imperfection and promotes perfection. The definition of Islamophobia is extremely fascist in itself. It discriminates against anybody holding genuine concerns about Islam, concerns that could substantially benefit the religion. Enough to lift it out of 7th Century Arabia and place it into the 21st.
Advocates of Islamophobia have succeeded in going too far. To the point where this culmination of fear of being labelled an Islamophobe has much of the social and political medium using carefully constructed language, depictions and rhetoric to ensure they never offend Islam -thus distorting the truth.
Islamophobia is fast becoming invalid and irrelavant. Criticising aspects of Qur’anically-endorsed Islam in order to release prisoners held in Islamic regimes or to stop the sexualisation of young female lives is not hateful at all but humane. It is the right thing to do. Any other religion and such crimes would be publically condemned with no abating. Islamophobia safeguards Islam from exposing its perils to the world. It protects Islam from its actions. It sees our leaders running to Mosques and Islamic leaders for forgiveness and appeasement, whenever there is an indication that an offence was committed in the name of Allah and Muhammad.
Islamophia was never a valid claim, or definition since such crimes are ordained by its very scriptures, but disallowing anybody non-Muslim to point this blatant truth out gets them labelled as such. In all honesty, those who coined the term Islamophobia have nothing to fear but Islam itself, which falsifies the very definition. All in all, Islamophobia is no longer of relevance I say.
Now all I need to do is sit back and wait for accusations of Islamophobia to come my way. It’s that easy.

The Islamism Neologism is a Misnomer

*This article is not written by me but a guest blogger who wishes to remain anonymous. A first guest-written piece and an interesting,  insightful perspective!*
Exponents of the term “Islamism” most commonly describe Islamism along the lines of “ohhh it’s just a warped interpretation of Islam that is about politics and nothing inherently to do with the religion of Islam” but there is no distinction at all made in Islamic doctrines between “Islam” and “Islamism” as being just a political interpretation of Islam that is not essential to Islam. Most crucially Mohammed didn’t describe himself as an “Islamist” and according to Islamic sources themselves he was the political/militant leader of the whole of the Arab peninsula by the end of his life.
So we see today Muslims who today desire to emulate Mohammed’s political and military legacy are erroneously misbranded “Islamists” by most people. The archetype “Islamist”Mohammed is (as you are probably aware of) the same person who is the founder of Islam and himself regarded his political and militant accomplishments as Islam and implementing Allah’s will then, yet embarrassingly some(including academics) categorise “Islamism” as something completely separate from mainstream Islam or what they regard as “True Islam”.
A lot of non Muslims and even some who call themselves Muslim use the term “Islamism” because they are afraid of being branded as Islamaphobes or Racists by Muslims and Guardian readers, yet despite going out of their way to mollify Muslims by using the term “Islamism” when criticising the negative effects of Islam they are still condemned as “Islamaphobes” and “racists”, so it has to be asked what purpose does it serve to continue this disingenuous expediency?
The narrative that Islamism is just a “distorted political/militant ideology that is separate from the true Islam” actually impedes addressing the doctrines of Islam used by fundamentalist Muslims. It’s perilous to not to precisely discern nefarious ideologies as it leads to them not being tackled holistically and any level of evasiveness in analysing the enemy’s ideology allows them to get away with even more iniquity than they could otherwise. To inoculate a dangerous strain of a virus, it must firstly be correctly diagnosed then it can be given the appropriate vaccination required to eliminate it as best as possible. Mollycoddling how Islam has been put into practise only helps those who desire to follow Islam thoroughly and seriously in the format it has expressed itself almost in its entirety since its inception when and where it has and had authority and governance.
There are thick books written about the political and militant components of Islam within Islamic doctrines, but here I will exhibit it briefly. The Verse known as the verse of the Istikhlaf ( elucidates the Islamic basis for a Caliphate(A Political Entity led by an Islamic leader) for the believers. This verse of ( digresses how political discourse amongst authority should refer to Allah and his messenger. There are countless verses validating conditional militancy against non-believers. This specific verse is the only verse ( that instructs an unconditional order to kill.
Being forthright is a virtue and it’s candour to call the Muslims who don’t for whatever reason bother following the political/militant aspects of Islamic doctrines as “apolitical Muslims” or “selective Muslims”. Putting it frankly there is no “Islamism”, the actions and views of those categorised as Islamists has always been part of normative/orthodox Islam unless you consider 1300 years of Militant/Political entities of Islamic Empires as mythology or folk tales that are as fictitious as the stories of Ali Baba and the 40 thieves.