No, I have not gone insane or over to the dark side.
Yes I know Ben Shapiro is the darling scion of the alt-right, acolyte of Andrew Breitbart, anti-Islam campaigner, apologist for continued American oppression of BME’s at home in his country, ardent Zionist-Jew and a crusader for the continued American occupation and exploitation of the rest of the planet but…
From watching him I’ve learnt a great deal and it’s sometimes from our opponents we can learn new tactics, new arguments and I see nothing wrong in respecting those who oppose so we can better meet them in debates and defeat them.
For those at the sharp end there is always an arms race when we come to dialogue with non-Muslims and the arguments and techniques used by Ben Shapiro are top range latest American missile tech.
Now when it comes to debates from the right some of this stuff will be hitting you soon if you are involved in Da’wah work at a higher-up public level. Learn it, learn to counter it. That way you’ll Insha’Allah avoid being done over in your own discussions if someone hits you with this later on.
I’m now going to post a link… unless you’ve got a strong stomach and a strong sense of emaan don’t click it, but if like me you want to learn where the enemies of Islam and basic human decency are coming from next then have a listen.
His advise is only useful for when you are actually debating someone, not for general Da’wah conversations. As Allah states in the Quran:
Invite to the way of your Lord with wisdom and good instruction, and argue with them in a way that is best. Indeed, your Lord is most knowing of who has strayed from His way, and He is most knowing of who is [rightly] guided.
Quran Translation, Surah An-Nahl, 16:125
OK, not the best application of that verse. But the principle is sound to some degree if you’ll follow my reasoning.
First off in Da’wah we approach people from a point of view of kind words, wisdom, good instruction, being firm with the truth but kind in the delivery, something Shapiro seems incapable of doing. But then when they step up a level and become argumentative we come back at them a different method again and defeat them on that ground whilst not being aggressive or angry.
Shapiro does this part very well, he uses humour to deflect hatred and bring the audience on side, then well reasoned and rehearsed arguments to destroy the arguments of his enemies.
And BTW, he’s right about leftists…
Yes I know they are part of some great ‘progressive alliance’ against the neo-facism which is coming out of western capitals but the idea that the enemy of my enemy is my friend is not true.
They are just as much enemies of Islam as the right, and the hijab and halal meat bans coming out of Europe are just as much a product of these progressive types as they are from the right.
Muslims need to remember Islam is not Socialism, or Liberalism, or even democratic. These are all materialist ideologies different to our deen and we can learn how to combat these ideologies also from looking into their other enemies like the slightly less rabid right wing ideologues like Shapiro who use reason rather than emotion.
Have a listen to some of his other debates also, though sometimes it’s against female / feminist opponents so if you’re a brother reading this just open the link and listen rather than watching the video to make it easier for you to lower your gaze.
This one in particular is excellent (brothers lower your gaze) – Ben Shapiro Destroys Transgenderism And Pro-Abortion Arguments – Youtube Video
I’ve actually used these arguments against transgender / homosexual rights campaigners as well as those who wish to promote abortion as some sort of lifestyle choice rather than callous discarding of a potential human being.
There is a tenancy to look to the left as our allies and this has led to many Muslims being seduced by these arguments which is wrong and will slowly and surely destroy the Muslim community from the inside out just as surely as the right will attempt to destroy us from the outside by more overt oppression.
So there it is, my admiration for Ben Shapiro.
Feel free to agree or disagree, vent your hatred of the man here if you like, I’ll join you but learn from him if you’re in the field of Da’wah because his arguments will be coming to Da’wah table or formal debate near you soon enough.
Not that I’d encourage cross dressing but… Wonder what would happen if a deviant put on a hijab and took HIS case to the European Court?
That would be a difficult case for them, wouldn’t it?
Which would win out – the enforced normalization of gender confusion across society or their closet hatred of Islam?
RE the sister getting told to remove her hijab by the armed Nice Police in France, no I won’t be sharing the image and shame on those who have done so already.
Where is your protective jealously for our sister? What if it was your wife, daughter, mother or sister, would you be happy with her image being shared and looked at by all these men on social media?
Yes the oppression in this case is terrible, part of the wider oppression felt by the Muslims in France, especially our sisters who are being literally forced by gun-toting cops to uncover themselves and take clothing off in public, but that in no way justifies you sharing such images.
Given the background of the image with semi-naked men and women do you even think it’s appropriate or even permissible to share such an image anyway even if the sisters face is not clear / blocked out?
It’s like all the people sharing images of models in Burkinis to show a visual image of the French ban on this item of clothing and claiming you are sharing such images to defend modesty… Stupid doesn’t even begin to cover such people.
Here is a Fatwah from Sheikh Muhammad Saalih al-Munajjid at Islam Q&A on women sharing their image on social media, I hope the intelligent among you would realize if this applies to sisters sharing images of themselves, it applies doubly to men sharing these pictures of sisters in hijab or even worst actual indecent images.
We need to remember such dhulm is a test, a trial and yes sometimes a punishment from Allaah and that to end such oppression doesn’t just mean denouncing it, but that as Muslims we need to wake up and return to our deen and that Allaah informs us in the Quran:
For each one are successive [angels] before and behind him who protect him by the decree of Allah . Indeed, Allah will not change the condition of a people until they change what is in themselves. And when Allah intends for a people ill, there is no repelling it. And there is not for them besides Him any patron.
Quran translation, Surah ar-Ra’d, 13:11
The humble toilet; a place of privacy, a place of personal grooming, and a place to relieve yourself. Well, not for many schools inspired by the LGBT movement. A number of schools that have undergone new build programmes or are planning to do so in the future are taking the opportunity to remove their segregated male and female toilets and replace them with ‘unisex toilets’. The usual form of these toilets is not literally a communal bathroom shared by both sexes – that would be too outrageous for the majority of parents. The usual form is a communal wash-basin area which is not an enclosed room and is largely visible to the main corridor of the school. The toilet cubicles themselves are fully enclosed from the ceiling to the floor but can be used by either gender.
The reasons for this change are often couched by schools in terms of cost savings exercises and improvements to behaviour. Of course the floor space needed for a ‘unisex toilet’ is considerably lower than the floor space required for two separate, enclosed toilets. It is claimed that having a wash-basin area visible to the corridor will reduce incidents of bullying and vandalism by virtue of staff walking past in the corridors. It is also claimed that forcing girls to share facilities with the generally more rowdy and messy boys will encourage boys to be cleaner and better behaved. But one of the main drivers, if not the main driver, is the relentless onslaught of the LGBT movement in schools to impose their outlook on sexuality on the rest of the community. They consider that having segregated toilets clearly demarked as male or female creates anxiety for transgender students who do not want to be assigned to the sex they were born as. The LGBT movement is not even prepared to tolerate separate male, female, and ‘unisex toilets’ for the fear that embarrassment will be caused to transgender students who are seen walking into the ‘unisex toilets’.
The argument that ‘unisex toilets’ improve behaviour in schools is a very lazy one. Putting boys next to girls does not automatically improve their behaviour and cleanliness. All it does is lead girls to feel more vulnerable and intimidated. If schools have a problem with vandalism or bullying in segregated toilets it is their responsibility to deal with it as it is their responsibility to deal with it in any part of the school through an effective behaviour policy supported by sanctions and rewards. CCTV cameras can be positioned to monitor behaviour around the wash basin areas of segregated toilets and regular cleaning of toilets should occur throughout the day where cleaners can report problems and CCTV images can be checked for culprits of vandalism. If schools have an effective anti-bullying policy all students will know who to talk to if they are targeted in an enclosed segregated toilet. The idea that having a unisex wash basin area open to the corridor that can be effectively supervised by staff casually walking pass from time to time and peering over is naïve.
The reality is that little thought has been given to the well-being of children when considering this proposal. The founder of Childline, Esther Rantzen, described the proposals as a ‘recipe for disaster’ and stated unequivocally, ‘Unisex toilets in schools should be avoided at all costs’. Children in secondary schools in particular are often extremely self-conscious over the changes their bodies are going through during puberty. Menstruating girls in particular need their privacy and the last thing they need is to feel fear and anxiety in heading towards a shared facility. Consider an 11 year old girl having to negotiate her way past a group of strapping 16 year old lads in full swing with their bad language and banter. Imagine the humiliation she would feel if she needs to deal with some facial blemish like acne or readjust her blouse at the mixed wash basin. Now consider an 11 year old boy dying to relieve himself and finding a group of cackling 16 year old girls applying make-up and resenting his presence. In both cases there are likely to be large numbers of boys and particularly girls who refuse to use the shared facility and would rather wait until they reach home. This will be extremely unhealthy for them, as well as leading to lack of concentration in class and greatly reduced participation in after school activities. We have not even begun to discuss how ‘unisex toilets’ completely ignore the need of Muslim women to wash before the prayer and remove their covering. They will now be faced with the intolerable choice of exposing themselves to the opposite gender in clear contradiction with their faith or, worse still, abandoning the prayer, again in clear contradiction with their faith. The problems it creates are numerous and the only perceived benefit is that the extremely rare case of a student who is struggling to come to terms with their sex or gender will no longer have to feel the slight unease before walking into a segregated toilet.
The segregated toilet is one of the last places in our society where the natural desire for certain types of separation of men and women is still tolerated. It allows men and women to relieve themselves in comfort without the embarrassment of having to share a facility with the opposite sex. At the heart of this proposal is a strong desire by the LGBT movement to blur the lines between the sexes and remove any sense of mysticism which exists about the opposite sex. They want to blur the distinction between sex and gender, and transform sex into a spectrum rather than its binary division and what better place to start than the young, impressionable minds of our children?
It is the responsibility of every parent to take an active interest in the conduct of their school and vehemently oppose unisex toilets. Parents should join forces with other parents and raise their objections directly with the Headteacher. This is an issue which pans across different groups in society: men and women who want to preserve their dignity; different religious groups with a faith or value-based objection; people who see these proposals as morally objectionable and an attack on the social fabric of society; or just people who feel that some in the LGBT movement are imposing their views on sexuality in an aggressive, uncompromising manner.
DISCLAIMER: All material found on Islam21c.com is for free and is for information purposes only. All material may be freely copied & shared on condition that it is clearly attributed to Islam21c.com [hyperlinked] as the original source. The views expressed on this site or on any linked sites do not necessarily represent those of Islam21c.com
A report commissioned by 5Pillarsuk.com reveals some interesting insights into the beliefs and views of Muslims in Britain. One hundred and fifty “influential” Muslim respondents across the Islamic spectrum were queried. The results demonstrate a problematic curve ball for neoconservatives and their endless efforts to target Islam and Muslims.
The questions revolved around normative Islamic beliefs, and across the board a generally high level of agreement with these beliefs was achieved. Participants rebutted dominant propaganda against Islam and Muslims. For instance, 100% agreed or strongly agreed that forced marriages are forbidden, and 100% agreed or strongly agreed that British Muslims are an “integral part of the UK”. It also established a high rate of agreement upon those beliefs and practices which are typically attacked by politicians in concert with the media, analysts and commentators:
- Segregation of men and women in closed public, or religious settings – over 80% agreed or strongly agreed
- There is no compulsion in Islam, no one can be forced to become Muslim – over 95% agreed/strongly agreed
- Hijab is an obligation in Islam – over 95% agreed or strongly agreed
- Niqab is a legitimate piece of Islamic clothing – over 90% agreed or strongly agreed (chart 16 is somewhat unclear)
- Islam is a holistic comprehensive way of life – over 97% agreed or strongly agreed
- Jihad as is mandated in the Qur’an is used to maintain or restore order, peace and security or to remove oppression and injustice – over 95% agreed or strongly agreed.
The above, of course, must be caveated. Whilst the variance in theological background was broad (46% for instance, belonged to the Hanafi School of jurisprudence), extrapolating the views of one hundred and fifty “influential Muslims” to the general Muslim populace is somewhat problematic. However, this is not a significant concern from an Islamic perspective. What is a concern is that only 9% of the respondents categorised themselves as “Islamic scholar/teacher”, with most of the respondents being “self-taught”. To be clear, were the results the complete opposite, it would have no bearing whatsoever on what constitutes Islam. The authority of determining various beliefs and practices undoubtedly lies with those who have dedicated their lives to studying the various branches of Islamic sciences, from both the legalistic to the spiritual, thus imbuing the quality of transcendentalism in obtaining sacred knowledge. They are the Ulama – i.e. jurisconsults, scholars, the relied upon and righteous among this class.
Having said that, it is also positive to view such broad spread agreement amongst the laity on issues which have been the butt of every joke, the fodder for every political deflection and the pretext for draconian policies.
Taking the above methodological caveats into account, and enjoining the purpose of the research which is to “facilitate discussion”, it is worth deliberating upon the number one obsession for neoconservatives and their funded group of brown validators. The findings present a problem for the “reform” deform project which has been engaged post-War on Terror on the pretext that there is, in the words of Douglas Murray, a “problem with Islam” because a Muslim has behaved in an (ironically, un-Islamic) unsavoury manner. This is exasperated by the fact that a mere 5.3% disagreed or strongly disagreed that “Islam is in no need of reformation”, 100% agreed or strongly agreed that “Islam is the final, true religion” revealed to mankind, and nearly 100% agreed or strongly agreed that Islam is a “holistic and comprehensive way of life”.
Despite Muslims feeling integral to Britain alongside their normative Islamic beliefs, the call to deform Islam into one which is concomitantly subservient to Western hegemonic interests continues unabated.
The Intellectual Failure of Deconstructing Islam
Neocons and various deformists normally associated with the counter-extremism organisations project a concerted effort to inject uncertainty in Islam through postmodernist deconstructionism, which has given rise to free-for-all hermeneutical gymnastics of Islamic source texts. Thus, established legal doctrines are undermined, creedal discourses are distorted and conflated with legal views, or, taking the Ayaan Hirsi Ali approach, calls are made to drop verses of the Qur’an because some choose to interpret them in their own destructive way (i.e. in precisely the same way deformists encourage).
The dominant Western narrative is that Islam should undergo deformation in order to comply with secular liberalism, modernity and progressivism.
In addition to the abject failure to convince Muslims of such a need, there are a series of fatal flaws with the deform notion, some of which have already been addressed on this blog. The first is that this requires twisting and distorting Islamic texts (as highlighted above) which no credible jurist will permit. Secondly, the demand of Islam to contort or “convert” to the “universality” of human rights – being rooted in Western, Christian, Eurocentric and liberal conception of “human rights” – is hollow. As I have aptly demonstrated, such a demand is fraught with problems of a non-universal, ambivalent nature.
It would suffice here to quote political scientist Professor Joseph Massad’s pertinent comment:
“The liberal project is in effect a missionary project to convert Islam to the “highest stage” of Christianity reigning in the West [i.e. secularism rooted from Protestant Christianity], even if this is carried out under the banner of a “reformed” Islam.”
Thirdly, uncertainty is also born from the associated “progressivism” as espoused by the likes of Nawaz (see recently here in his attacks on the Left) and the born-again neoconservative “Muslim Reform Movement”. Constitutive of modernity and Enlightenment rationalism is the doctrine of progressivism, i.e. a movement towards “civilisation”. In its blind desire to run from history – its own history of problems which did not afflict the Islamic world – it posits science and reason as the modes by which to attain and designate the “truth” of the present. Yet this truth of the present is to be superseded by a further set of truths establishing perpetuity of ever repealing truths, never fully justifying whether the forgoing truths were superior or inferior from a moral perspective. In other words, “progress” is ultimately self-referencing – its own god – which is uncertain, fluid and ultimately docile and vulnerable to the intellectual repression of the pre-reform Church variety as demonstrated by neoconservative/Quilliam attitude towards mainstream Muslims vis-à-vis the intolerant “muscular liberalism” policy, and the imposed extreme secular liberalism of the equally dogmatic counter-extremism strategy. It is, in the words of the German philosopher Max Scheler, “the Western thought-structure of domination”. Such dogmatism (contrary to Nawaz’s claim of “non-dogmatism”) intrinsically enables supremacy, thus arriving at the precipice of an undeniable reality: that the intellectual justification for imperial colonialism, which destroyed the Islamic paradigmatic structures of society unsettling the unprecedented stability in the lands it governed, are resurgent once more. The doctrine continues to destroy the natural order, from nations through past and present day imperial colonialism and the “arms race” which has brought forth devastating technology to kill, to the deregulation and unfettered growth of corporations at the expense of society, environment and wildlife. Islam was never a barrier to the pursuit of worldly, scientific knowledge, but, in stark contrast with progressivism, its moral grounding in divine scriptures ensured boundaries were maintained.
Conforming to what Neocons Reject
Perhaps the greatest of ironies in the deform project is that it is driven primarily by neoconservatives who categorically reject liberalism, modernity and progressivism. It is a spectacular display of deception and hypocrisy.
Leo Strauss, the intellectual figurehead of neocons, laments John Locke’s conception of rights as rooted in the “individual”. Following Strauss, the “godfather of neoconservatism”, Irving Kristol categorically stated,
“…liberals were wrong, liberals are wrong, because they are liberals. What is wrong with liberalism is liberalism…”
The following provides for an elucidative comment:
“Secular rationalism has been unable to produce a compelling, self-justifying moral code… and with this failure, the whole enterprise of secular humanism – the idea that man can define his humanity and shape the human future by reason and will alone – begins to lose its legitimacy.”
His son, William Kristol has also stated that neoconservatism’s “more fundamental mandate is to take on the sacred cow of liberalism – choice”. Following Strauss and Kristol senior, Douglas Murray calls equality – including racial equality – a “piece of false or bad logic”.
As for the doctrine of progress, neoconservatives advocate a return to a closed society based upon fascist, imperial principles, governed by pre-modern ideas. Kristol argued that America was required to start the “long trek back” explicitly towards “pre-modern political philosophy”. And by “pre-modern political philosophy” he meant the Straussian-Platonic conception of the ideal state as encapsulated in the oligarchic society marked by immanent inequality as alluded to in the allegory of the cave.
Why should Islam then be forced by neoconservatives to undergo a deformation in line with those ideologies which neocons themselves regard as obsolete? If neoconservatives see modern ideologies as producing a society which they believe is philosophically bankrupt, then by implication the call to deform Islam concordant to modernity, liberalism and progressivism, is a deliberate call to trigger failure in the faith.
Deform and Fostering Hatred of Islam
If the deform project is a failure amongst mainstream Muslims, who then is the aim of the rhetoric of the likes of Nawaz, Hasan et al? Indeed, what purpose does this deform project serve?
A brief look down the social media timelines of the deformists show that their supporters include those who hate Islam such as the far-right and hawkish pseudo-secular liberals who require affirmation of their own insecurity, superiority trips and prejudices. In short, deformists seem to be fulfilling a very neoconservative objective as we shall now see.
Put simply, in order to manufacture the Machiavellian enemy of the West, neocons have for years attempted to create hatred of Islam. Deform efforts reinforce the suggestion that there is a problem with Islam itself.
Of pertinence is the fact that Quilliam was founded under the “advisory” of Michael Gove, who sees normative Islam as “Islamism”, and therefore an enemy open to securitisation and discrimination. Githens-Mazer and Lambert explaining the function of organisations like Quilliam state that according to Charles Moore and Dean Godson of Policy Exchange, such organisations are a “re-make of a 1980s Thatcherite counter-subversion strategy in which [Quilliam’s Ed] Husain is cast in the role of Frank Chapple the “moderate” trade union leader who was, they suggest, used to discredit and undermine the “extremist” miner’s trade union leader Arthur Scargill.”
The general themes found in the rhetoric of Quilliam and neoconservative assumptions in books like Celsius 7/7 are shared with US neoconservatives like Daniel Pipes. Githens-Mazer and Lambert noting that the focus on ideology has “no credible evidence”, state,
“…it is one that Husain shares with influential thinktanks including [Gove’s] Policy Exchange and [Douglas Murray’s] Centre for Social Cohesion in the UK and Daniel Pipes’ Middle East Forum in the US.”
In a revealing passage from a 2005 interview with Pipes, the aim is made clear:
“According to Daniel Pipes, it is now important to find alternative leaders and ideas that can take up the fight against militant Islam. “In the confrontations with fascism and communism, we were victorious because we managed to marginalize the enemy’s ideology, making it look repulsive in the eyes of the majority.””
This is the neoconservative objective. To make Islam look repulsive in society. The façade of Quilliam and various other deformists as representatives of the “alternative leaders and ideas” which Pipes speaks of, are the tools to achieve this purpose.
Disconcertingly, neocons have achieved the aim of creating a “repulsion” of Islam. In the 5Pillars report, the statement “Islam teaches love for human beings what we love for ourselves” produced no disagreement at all. Yet, according to a Yougov poll last year, 56% of Britons regarded Islam as a “major” or “some” threat to Western liberal democracy – a ten percent increase from the figure taken soon after the 7/7 bombings. Now is a climate of anti-Muslim animus, where the press and politicians can freely associate crime with Islam in a manner echoing Nazi propaganda about Jews. The manifestation of this hatred of Islam and association of criminality now sees women in Hijabs brutally attacked, and a defenceless pensioner on his way to the mosque killed by a white man as he citesstereotypes which have been endorsed at the highest level of government. In short, neoconservatives and pro-Israel activists have successfully conditioned xenophobia, anti-Muslim hate and discrimination of the Muslim minority at the policy level, which has, to a large extent, permeated society.
Questions must be asked.
Is argumentum ad metum as a tool of persuasion advocated by neocons, which results in fostering prejudices against a minority that result in violence against the vulnerable, a benefit or threat to social cohesion?
Indeed, are those who advocate totalitarian, closed-society policies, are subverting democracy and are actively promoting a clash of civilisations from the pulpits in Parliament a threat to Britain, or Muslims who believe themselves to be an integral part of Britain despite experiencing cold-war era subversion strategies of repression?
The report on normative Islam is a small indication to the resilience of the Muslim minority. Despite the attempts to dissect the hearts of Muslims, Islam will survive these culturalist attacks to the dislike of neocons. Introducing uncertainty into any system, be it one grounded in physics or the metaphysics of modern law would undoubtedly lead to anarchy and ultimately destruction. How then can Muslims accept such uncertainty in their faith?
The message is clear: Islam is not up for negotiation.
“[This is] the revelation of the Book about which there is no doubt from the Lord of the worlds.” (Qur’an, 32:2)
“This day I have perfected for you your religion and completed My favour upon you and have approved for you Islam as religion.” (Qur’an, 5:3).
And We sent you (O Muhammad) not but as a Mercy for all creation (Qur’an, 21:108).
“The best of people are those who bring the most benefit to the rest of mankind.” (Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, Daraqutni)
 Massad, J.A, Islam in Liberalism, The University of Chicago Press: London, 2015, p.106
 As quoted by Hallaq, W.B., The Impossible State, New York: Columbia University Press, 2013, p.17
 Strauss L., Natural Right and History, London: The University of Chicago Press, 1965, p.248
 Kristol I., Neoconservatism: The Autobiography of an Idea, New York: Free Press, 1996, p.486
 Ibid., p.132-133
 Murray D., Neoconservatism: Why We Need It, Encounter Books: New York, 2006, p.37
 Kristol I., Reflections of Neoconservative, p.76, as referenced in Thompson/Yaron, Neoconservatism: An Obituary for an Idea, Boulder: Paradigm, 2010, p.87
In the Name of Allah, Praise be to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon his final Messenger Muhammad.
Imagine, for a moment, that a Muslim country forced women to wear hijābs or prevented men from shaving their beards. How would western media corporations react? Anyone remotely familiar with our press can almost hear the rolling news bulletins and see the enraged headline writers’ mourning and primitive chanting about ‘extremism’ and ‘terrorism’. The usual rent-a-quotes from political parties and right-wing think tanks would be continuously wheeled out of one studio, straight into the next, warning us of the threat this posed to “our values”.
Perhaps surprisingly to some, hardly a peep has been heard until recently of the Tajikistani government bragging of removing headscarves from 1,700 women and forcefully shaving off of the beards of 13,000 men in the last year. Impressively, it has instead been described as a “move towards tackling Jihadism” in many western media outlets. It seems that forcing people to conform to practices or norms that happen to be Islamic is extremism which, according to one imaginary narrative then causes terrorism. And on the other hand forcing anti-Islamic practices or norms is not just not a sign of extremism, but farfetched mitigations are entertained such as it being seen as a step towards fighting extremism! When reporting this albeit briefly, the most one BBC journalist could offer as a response to such absurdity was, shockingly:
“It is not clear whether these policies will have an impact on preventing radicalism.”
One would be forgiven for concluding from this that extremism is not to force someone to abide by your way of life, but rather depends on whose way of life one is being forced to abide by. Sensationalist terms like ‘radicalisation’ and ‘extremism’ seem only to be attached to Islamic practices generally speaking, despite the anti-religious, militant secularism of the former Soviet Republic nation-states that is now being forced having a far more destructive trail through modern history.
It seems that Tajikistani policy makers have justified such repression by borrowing Donald Trump and David Cameron’s favourite superstitious narratives about ideology causing terrorism, as a result clamping down on expressions of ideology to allegedly prevent terrorism. However nothing could be further from the truth. Despite this imaginary narrative being disproven comprehensively by the peer-reviewed academic community, it is empirically (and rationally) proven that such oppression and the apparent, blatant double-standards with which it is being reported, is far more likely to push people towards violence and make them susceptible to ISIS propaganda!
Furthermore, it is actually those who legitimise forcing other human beings to abandon their own identity and embrace theirs, that are exhibiting the real extremist mind-set that is used to justify terrorism; irrespective of the actual practice they are forcing. Once that mind-set is there, such people will easily behave in an extreme way, wherever they fall along the political spectrum. That type of mind-set is far more likely an indicator for one’s propensity to violence than a religious belief.
It is surprising for many if any Western Muslims joins ISIS despite growing up in a so-called ‘liberal’ society. Those who wish not to face up to the truth try and use scapegoats and divert attention away from the real causes. Mosques, madrassas, schools and universities are smeared as ‘hotbeds of radicalisation’, whilst the inconvenient facts show otherwise. Not just reports by academics or even mi5 itself, but the cases we see plastered all over the news highlight the fact that the vast majority (if not all) of those Western Muslims that went to join ISIS or committed an act of so-called “terrorism” in fact did not receive an Islamic upbringing and education. Many weren’t even Muslims in their childhood, whilst others owned bars and nightclubs, whilst yet others drank alcohol and used drugs. In some cases their recent Amazon purchase history even included the book, Islam for Dummies!
In fact, if one were to apply a similar standard of ‘research’ as those who created and propagated the now discredited ‘conveyor-belt theory’, one could easily make the argument that what these individuals had more in common was not an Islamic upbringing but a “western” liberal one. So is “extremism” then linked to a “liberal” upbringing rather than an Islamic one? People would argue: if that were the case then why do the millions of other liberals not become terrorists? If only they would apply that level of critical thinking to those that suggest some kind of Islamic ideology causes terrorism! However, an important point to note is that not all liberals develop the mind-set that legitimises forcing others to adopt their values; it is those who I would argue are more likely to cause havoc, whatever their exact values or beliefs they are happy to force on others.
Thankfully, most of those with liberal values that develop the mind-set that legitimises coercing others to adopt their values and cultural norms, have not yet had the chance to act according to their burgeoning extremist mind-set. Once they have the chance, such as finding a legal justification to act in such a draconian way, they will take that opportunity. We have seen this with the raft of draconian measures and legislation that has restricted civil liberties across the board, including the cyclical attempts at stirring up a debate about banning niqābs or halal meat. Like those who use twisted understandings of Islam to justify their desires, likewise these people are laying in wait for the final push to act out their desires for forcing others to adopt their ways.
Having a quick look at the comments on any article talking about banning any Islamic practice—however benign—confirms that there are unfortunately many non-Muslims that have beenradicalised and fuelled with hatred towards Muslims. In an article on the most popular British tabloid site highlighting the Tajikistani government’s banning of hijabs and forcefully shaving of beards, the highest rated comments are:
Well done and very brave, one small step to show the world at least you are trying, the rest of the world should follow!
Good. The world needs to be at war with radial Islam until there is only winner and it won’t be the intolerant belief
Should adopt this world wide
What an excellent idea! Ataturk, the founder of modern secular Turkey, did the same many decades ago. Better late than never.. Will the UK be next?”
They should do that in UK
Good start? See how is goes? Could be a model for other countries?
“Hopefully the UK will do the same…” and the response was: “No chance we are too weak.”
Do not you see the ISIS mind-set hiding within these comments? It is not all doom and gloom, but one has to go to the ‘worst rated’ comments to see a word of sense:
“What a stupid idea!! Is persecuting people and forcibly attacking them the way to make them agree with you? These methods sound like ISIS!!!”
As of writing this there were 136 comments and growing, almost all of the first nature with less than a handful of intelligent responses. What does this reveal? Firstly, the claimed “superior” western values such as tolerance are just claims, far from representative of the whole society. Tolerance is apparently merely applied to some western values not others.
What this also reveals is that some Establishment media corporations and ideologically anti-Muslim politicians have successfully radicalised many non-Muslims in Britain. They are playing with fire. Many wonder whether they genuinely want to turn Britain into a country where sectarianism and religious hatred is the norm, or whether this is a necessary side-effect of scapegoating Muslims (as well as immigrants, refugees, the disabled, those on welfare, and so on) to divert public outrage away from the crimes of the powerful elite. Either way, once this happens it is inevitable for the whole of society to burn, not just the scapegoats; not just the Muslims.
Among the very few voices of reason on the comments threads, one reads:
“Ok, so I am born and bred in Glasgow….I’ve lived there all my life…I watch Eastenders and Coronation Street. I like to go to the pub most night, hang out with the lads, play 5-a-sides. I teach in a school to children of all nationalities. I drive a Nissan. I pay taxes and celebrate Christmas. I donate to local charities and shop in Tesco. I probably know more about UK, culture and history than you do. Oh, and I am Indian (brown) and I grew a beard because it’s in fashion. The majority of my white friends have also grown beards. Would you now make me shave it off as you think it will reduce all the trouble that Europe and the UK are facing with migrants? I really worry about the intelligence of some of the people reading this tabloid!”
This is a call to those wise people among the policy-making classes to be intelligent enough not to let something like this happen. Despite the short-term gains they may make in disempowering masses and offloading blame, guilt and public outrage onto scapegoats, it is not sustainable and they will one day be brought to account. The worrying question is: what will happen if these radicalised non-Muslims find a way to act out their rage and bigotry? To know the answer, look at what happened in areas where Muslims lived next to extreme non-Muslims such as in Burma, Central African Republic, Bosnia, India, and other instances in modern history.
To conclude, the direction we are headed now in the West is very worrying as certain ideologically-driven politicians and media corporations are working hand-in-glove in waging their promised ‘cold war against orthodox Islam’. They are in fact radicalising swathes of society against Muslims, fuelling the rise in attacks against Muslims. Their plot may in fact work against them and those radicalised people may turn their attention towards those that radicalised them.
Allāh promised to establish the way of life He chose for the best of prophets and the best of nations. However He has instructed those whom He chooses to be firm upon what He entrusted them with, who must be willing to sacrifice for His sake.
“Allāh has promised those who have believed among you and done righteous deeds that He will surely grant them succession [to authority] upon the earth just as He granted it to those before them and that He will surely establish for them [therein] their religion which He has preferred for them and that He will surely substitute for them, after their fear, security, [for] they worship Me, not associating anything with Me. But whoever disbelieves after that – then those are the defiantly disobedient.”
We need to be vigilant, vocal and united, otherwise another genocide may take place in Europe.
And Allāh knows best.
 Cf. Prof Arun Kundani’s report, excerpt and link available here:http://www.islam21c.com/politics/new-study-extremism-does-not-cause-terrorism-2/
 Al-Qur’ān 24:55
DISCLAIMER: All material found on Islam21c.com is for free and is for information purposes only. All material may be freely copied & shared on condition that it is clearly attributed to Islam21c.com [hyperlinked] as the original source. The views expressed on this site or on any linked sites do not necessarily represent those of Islam21c.com
“Look, the Izlamists are so cunning, they’ve even gone back in time, in Burnley of all places, encouraging their backwards savagery upon those people also. Was bad enough when they had Muslamic ray-guns, now they’ve got Muslamic time machines also!”
Actually this is a picture from Burnley at the end of the 19th Century, as you can see the English women are covered modestly in long dresses, their hair covered with a scarf, and nor can this be said because it is cold or raining as you can clearly see none of them are wearing coats.
It is not possible that it is the British people who are going backwards into savagery of being undressed whilst at the same time criticizing Muslims for maintaining basic civilized standards given to us by our Creator?
Tawakkul Karman was the first Arab Woman to win the Nobel Peace prize and when asked about her Hijab By Journalists and how it is not proportionate with her level of intellect and education, she replied, “Man in The early times was almost naked, and as his intellect evolved he started wearing clothes. What I am today and what I’m wearing represents the highest level of thought and civilization that man has achieved, and is not regressive. It’s the removal of clothes again that is regressive back to ancient times.”
“Who is GINGERBEARDMAN? What does he stand for? Where does he come from? And why is he cluttering up the internet with his inane babbling masquerading as a blog?”
I am a Muslim from the UK, a revert (convert) to Islam, someone trying his best to be a good father, son and husband to those I love, an aspiring writer and a campaigner for ginger rights!
OK one of the above is not serious, strictly speaking it’s untrue. I don’t really do much campaigning for ginger rights at all, well other than the odd meme posted here or elsewhere online.
In fact I didn’t even know I was ginger until I got to about age of 11 and started growing my beard out to intimidate other school level rugby players and found that my beard grew a different colour to the rest the hair on my head.
Does that even make me ginger at all? Or am I half ginger? Does it make a difference if I shave my balding sweed and so the only hair people see is my huge ginger beard and don’t know I secretly have brown hair? (ok sort of greyish brown with bald bits)
It does annoy me a great deal though that the mockery of ginger people is the last socially acceptable form of prejudice (outside of far right social circles). I mean everyone is allowed to have a go, not just comedians. Comedians are expected to mock that which is different to the societal norm but us ginger folk just can’t catch a break even from regular people.
To make matters worse, given the number of people accepting Islam the ‘ginger Muslim convert’ is actually becoming a stereotype in the UK society with Tommy Robinson, the EDL’s former leader even noticing and joking about it on national TV, that every revert seems to be ginger, that Islam accepts ginger people and so we only become Muslim for some form of acceptance.
I mean I became Muslim fourteen years ago, there were not that many of us around back then but even I saw four other ginger bearded reverts just whilst doing tawaf when I went on Umrah a couple of years ago and makes you envy the ginger revert sisters out there who get to hide themselves away under the Hijab.
The thing is if you complain about all this evil prejudice you get accused of having a chip on your shoulder, of just being another angry ginger, like being angry and ginger are synonymous or something but I am actually quite mellow and chilled out when people meet me and very rarely get angry, even when being mocked for being ginger.
There is of-course a perfectly logical explanation as to why so many ginger Muslim converts / reverts out there, Islam has always appealed to the poor and marginalized in society around the world who have less to lose by looking at such a radically different way of life. In the UK that’s often people from the Celtic nations and it is these peoples who have a greater propensity towards being ginger.
And being Irish by decent by my fathers side of the family, and red haired English genes being present in some parts of my mothers side of the family I didn’t really have much hope of being anything but ginger, or half ginger anyway.