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!
Anyone who has ever tried reading the Qur’an will know how hard that book is to read. Its boring, confusing and makes absolute no sense. I read the Qur’an two-three times and my frustration at the senseless narrative failed to ease. There are no story lines and the chapters do not follow on from each other, and the level of sophistication and imagination when compared with the Bible for example is abysmal.
It is fairly obvious when reading the Qur’an that the chapters are not in chronological order, but when the chapters are read in chronological order the book is so much easier to understand, as is Islam as a whole.
The Qur’an was supposedly revealed to Prophet Muhammad in 610 by Allah via Angel Gabriel whilst Muhammad was conducting one of his regular meditation practices in the caves of Mount Hira. Muhammad would then spend the remaining 22 years of his life after this revelation preaching and teaching what was revealed unto him; primarily in the two Arabian cities of Mecca and Medina. You will see why those two cities, and how Muhammad’s differing experiences in his attempt at spreading Islam in Mecca and Medina, define what Islam is.
Most of the Qur’an is based on Muhammad’s time in Mecca between 610-622 where he tried to spread his peaceful and spiritual religion of Islam with little success. He converted very few, the vast majority of Jews, Pagans and Christians in Mecca were not interested in what Muhammad had to say. Therefore the first three quarters of the Qur’an (chronologically) are irrelevant.
The final quarter of the Qur’an chronologically covers the time from the Hijra, where Prophet Muhammad and his companions migrated from Mecca to Medina, 622-632. The reason they moved was to target the Jews in Medina seen as Medina was the Jewish hub city, and this is why even to this day you see similarities between the customs of Judaism and Islam, e.g. Circumcision, Kosher/halal meat and pigs being dirty animals. This time instead of preaching Islam in a peaceful spiritual manner, Muhammad slaughtered the Jews who didn’t convert to Islam.
Therefore you need to think of the Qur’an as two sections, the first three quarters being of a time when Muhammad was preaching peacefully at home in Mecca, and the final quarter being after the Hijra in Medina when the Prophet turned violent and started using Jihad.
This is a list I made of the chapters of the Qur’an in chronological order, and I inserted this list inside the front cover of my copy of the Qur’an
For does who do not know, the term ‘abrogation’ comes from law and it refers to when two pieces of legislature written at different times contradict each other, and thus the piece of legislature wrote at the latter time overrides and cancels out the former piece of legislature. It is important in the Qur’an because there are many contradicting verses.
There is actually two verses in the Qur’an stating
the rules of abrogation
The most commonly used example of abrogation relates to alcohol. First Muslims were simply discouraged from drinking alcohol (2: 219), then Muslims were banned from being intoxicated whilst praying (4: 43), before finally being banned from consuming alcohol and gambling at all times (5:90).
You will notice from the chronological list of chapters above that chapter 9 is the penultimate chapter (and the final chapter 110 is irrelevant because it is only three verses long). This is very important because chapter 9 is the most violent and brutal chapter, and Islamic extremists use 9:5 (verse of the sword) to justify terrorism because that verse calls on Muslims to kill disbelievers.
Unfortunately Western studies of Islam have failed to notice the importance of abrogation. Peter McLoughlin has recently wrote a book, Mohammed’s Koran, with a copy of the Qur’an and verses in reverse chronological order, and this is the first re-ordering of the verses of the Qu’ran written since Anwural Haqq wrote Abrogation in the Qur’an in 1926.
Peter McLoughlin told me that although Haqq’s work being the only material in reference to abrogating the Qur’an, none of the world’s biggest universities had a copy of the book! This was mind boggling to Peter and in his words because “we live in a world where the elite are cowed by Islamic terrorism; an elite bought off by the state and by Islamic donors”. Fortunately Haqq’s work can be found online at http://www.muhammadanism.org/Quran/abrogation_koran.pdf
Abrogation in the Qur’an raises questions about the book and Muhammad and the religion as a whole. Did Allah change his mind about things or realise earlier mistakes? No that is theologically impossible because Allah is God and God doesn’t make mistakes. Its pretty obvious to me why there is abrogation in the Qur’an when reflecting on Muhammad’s different methods of preaching in Mecca and Medina. Peace and spirituality does not help the growth of Islam. Violence and jihad does.
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.
There was a time when Medina was a Jewish city
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.
The Hijrah was when Prophet Muhammad and his men started using jihad
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’.
Paying jizyah meant utter humiliation for the dhimmi
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.
The humiliating oppression of Jews in Nazi Germany was simply history repeating itself
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!
Barack Obama was far too trustworthy of Iran
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.
Farrakhan blames the Jews for all the World’s problems
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.
Khan was naïve to speak at demonstrations organised by SPT
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.
al-Qawadari believes that homosexuality is a punishable crime
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.
Al-Muhajiroun was formerly led by Anjem Choudary
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.
Moped crime is a recent epidemic in London
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.
The first image shows the areas of London where Muslims live, the second image shows the boroughs of London where Khan won the Mayor vote (in red)
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 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.
Different Islamic texts contradict the extent of the punishment for ‘leaving Islam’, however these were thought to be the laws across Muslim countries 4 years ago
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.
Snapshot of Dr Tofik Ahmed and Dr Bill Warner debating ‘Islamism’. Video found on YouTube (Anjem Choudary also took part in the debate)
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.
“I meet people in the street who don’t like me, and they don’t know why they don’t like me” – Tommy Robinson.
I can see why people do not like Tommy Robinson.
Follow the media’s coverage of Tommy Robinson, particularly the press from left-wing platforms, and you’ll understand why. It’s because he is racist, a fascist, a bigot, a neo-Nazi and a white supremacist.
Of course you should understand from the previous articles I have wrote on this blog that the press is genuinely full of s**t, lies, lies, more lies, exploiting the minds of the politically uneducated in order to spread their own opinion.
Tommy Robinson is not a racist, a fascist, a bigot, a neo-Nazi, or a white supremacist, he is simply a political activist against Islamic extremism (like the rest of us), and a harsh critique of Islam and the Qu’ran as a whole.
To put Robinson’s role as an activist into the fewest words possible, he first created and led the EDL from 2009-2013. He created the EDL as a reaction to a Muslim protest against British soldiers marching through his home town of Luton. Robinson said that the Muslims in this protest held signs saying “Death to British Soldiers” and were seen spitting in the soldier’s faces as they marched through Luton in front of their wives and kids. He was angered by the protection these Muslim protesters received from the police. Robinson left the EDL because he didn’t like the association that the EDL had with fascism and racism, and he didn’t like the fact that the EDL was attracting racists and neo-Nazis, something which he had always tried to prevent. After the EDL Robinson worked with Quilliam; a counter-extremist government funded think tank who basically paid Robinson in order to take credit for him leaving the EDL. An inevitable spat arose between Robinson and Quilliam and he is now seen working with Rebel Media and Pegida.
The most evidential argument to disassociate Tommy Robinson from Nazism is his support for the Jewish community within Luton and Britain as a whole, and the fact that Robinson defines himself as a Zionist.
Robinson is a supporter of the sovereign nation-state of Israel, describing it as a “perfect homeland for Jewish people”. Ask yourself this, what is the one religious/ethnic group most associated with being hated by fascists and Nazis? Jewish people of course! So would Tommy Robinson really wear a badge on his suit with the writing “I am a Zionist” if he was a neo-Nazi? That’s why him and Nick Griffin have previously had spats. Griffin of course is a ‘hater’ of Jewish people, an anti-Semitic neo-Nazi leader of the British National Party who calls Robinson a “traitor”.
This brings up the BNP, and yes, Tommy Robinson did join the BNP when he was younger and somewhat naive. But he soon withdrew his BNP membership after realising how racist the politically party actually were. He didn’t initially realise that Nick Griffin used to be a part of the National Front, and he didn’t initially realise that black people weren’t allowed to join the BNP. “I joined, I saw what it was about, it was not for me”, which is why Griffin calls Robinson a traitor.
Unlike a white supremacist, Tommy Robinson has had many positive interactions with people of ethnic and religious minority besides Jewish people; black people, Asian people, Sikhs, Hindus and Muslims. Robinson most noticeably has found it easy to befriend Sikhs and visa-versa, due to his admiration of the fact that Sikhs in general are courageous. He visited a Sikh temple in Manchester after the terrorist attack earlier in the year to stand in unity with Sikhs who held a candlelit vigil for the victims of the Manchester terrorist attack. Robinson said that Sikhs had always been “wrongly identified as problematic”, and he wanted to educate people because “Sikhs have been fighting Islamic extremism ever since their existence”.
The press have always created a stigma against Tommy Robinson portraying him as a racist purely because of his previous leadership of the EDL (most notably by the Guardian); the EDL being a protest movement also portrayed as racist by the press (most notably by the Guardian).
Recently through Rebel Media, Robinson has set up Trollwatch; videos that see him challenge the people who have wrongfully labelled him a racist through the press or social media, to try and get them to explain their bull***t. Not once in any of the Trollwatch videos are any of the people Robinson challenges able to explain why they called him a racist, a fascist or a white supremacist. Below is a link to an example of Tommy Robinson challenging Tim Fenton, asking the journalist to explain why he called Robinson a racist in the Guardian, with Tim Fenton seen to be hiding away like a coward and unable to answer Robinson’s questions:
The most noticeable slandering of Tommy Robinson; portraying him as a white supremacist, was written in an article by Julia Ebner, a Quilliam researcher writing for the Guardian (there was no need to tell you which newspaper, by now you could have easily worked that out yourselves). Ebner didn’t directly call Tommy a white supremacist, her argument was that she “didn’t specifically call Robinson a white supremacist she wrote that Robinson attracted people from all kinds of far-right extremist groups”. Here is an excerpt from the article below where Tommy Robinson’s name was mentioned:
I am now going to write that paragraph out where Robinson’s name is mentioned below word for word, except for the small change of 2 of them 51 words:
“That the far right has moved from the fringe into the mainstream demonstrates the massive support that the white supremacist movements have attracted from digital natives. Their online followership often exceeds that of mainstream political parties: with over 200,000 followers, Diane Abbott’s twitter account has almost the same number of followers as Theresa May’s.”
Now you’re thinking that’s funny or that’s stupid or both because Diane Abbott is obviously not a white supremacist. But hang on a minute, I didn’t call Diane Abbott a white supremacist, just like Julia Ebner didn’t call Tommy Robinson a white supremacist.
With the press you get lies and a stigma when it comes to Tommy Robinson, and it is the same with social media, allowing liberals and even celebrities to jump on the ‘racist Tommy Robinson’ bandwagon (type in Tommy Robinson V Lily Allen on Google. It was quite amusing to see Lily Allen lose a debate on Twitter to Tommy Robinson and thus therefore throw the racist card at him, threaten him with legal action and block him on twitter). One thing I have noticed is that the people in general who criticise Robinson on Twitter, appear to come from a privileged middle-class background which makes them see only a tiny impact from immigration or Islam. They could never understand Robinson’s working-class background in a town as multicultural as Luton. Here’s an example of another Trollwatch video from Rebel Media below:
It should be stated (although it shouldn’t really only the naive would assume…) that Tommy Robinson is not against all Muslims or any average Muslim he may happen to come across, after all, he has always came across many Muslims because he’s lived alongside them all his life. “I’m not against all 1 billion Muslims because I think Muslims themselves are victims of Islam, so I’m not against all Muslims”. He is against Violent Muslims who commit terrorist acts in the name of Islam. Now you’re thinking, “yeah but aren’t we all against Islamic extremism?” Well yes of course! Meaning that Tommy Robinson ain’t that different to the rest of us!
“No one from the EDL would care about a Muslim living their life peacefully, doing Ramadan, if we didn’t see all the hate”.
This is why Tommy went on an 18 month ‘journey’ with Mohammed ‘Mo’ Ansar in an effort for the both of them to understand each others opposing opinions on Islam, filmed as a documentary titled “When Tommy met Mo” for the BBC.
Throughout this documentary both Tommy Robinson and Mo Ansar were seen to have respect for each other and make friends with one another. Mo was seen to invite Tommy into his mosque so that Robinson could have discussions with Muslim scholars (criticised by Nick Griffin BNP because Tommy politely took his shoes off in the mosque), and Tommy invited Mo to speak with fellow EDL members; the first ever Muslim to do as such. It didn’t end two well for the pair though however. The leader of Quilliam Maajid Nawaz interviewed Mo, and Mo was seen to be unable to show support for some of the basic human rights, human rights that are contradictory to certain verses written in the Qu’ran; chopping women’s hands off as punishment for theft. It was after this that Tommy Robinson joined Maajid Nawaz at Quilliam after leaving the EDL, and Mo Ansar was not allowed to attend the press conference where this was announced because Tommy didn’t want him taking credit for him leaving the EDL.
Tommy Robinson doesn’t hate Muslims that should be fairly obvious by now, he hates the religion they follow. The difference is is that when Tommy tried to speak out about the problems of Islamism in his hometown no one would listen. Mainstream politicians have always refused to engage with Robinson, setting the platform for the media to scrutinise his political activism and label him as a fascist. Islamism is a problem in Luton. There are 25 mosques in Luton, how many of them mosques promote the Saudi Arabian doctrine of Wahhabism I do not know, but you can understand why the growth of Islamic fundamentalism in Tommy Robinson’s hometown is dangerous.
Therefore Robinson had, and still has, a right to speak out about the problem of Islamism he has done nothing wrong by doing that. Unfortunately he has always been hammered by the left and the press for doing so. He knows more about Islam than any other average Englishman, and I wouldn’t be surprised if he knew more about Islam than the average British Muslim. He often gets challenged and confronted by Muslims in the street and Robinson will then teach those Muslims aspects of their faith that they did not know themselves. This is because Tommy Robinson has read the Qu’ran, he has read the biography of prophet Muhammad written by Ibn Ishaq and he does know the ins and outs of Islam. This is what Robinson’s political activism is based on, a teaching of the Qu’ran and the prophet Muhammad, or more precisely; a teaching of everything that is wrong with the Qu’ran and everything that is wrong with the prophet Muhammad. But yes if any religious text, including the bible, is interpreted word for word, then there would always be more hate fuelled because all religious texts are backwards and have no place in contemporary society. However, Wahhabism is a literal interpretation of the Qu’ran being taught in British mosques to British children as young as 7. There are no British children in christian churches as young as 7, being taught to commit genocide against neighbouring people (1 Samuel 15:3).
One example of the knowledge Tommy Robinson has regarding Islam, and perhaps why you should trust him more than the media, is seen with Didsbury mosque in Manchester and the related terrorist attacks in May this year.
In the image above you can see a picture of a spokesman representing Didsbury mosque which is the mosque in which the Manchester suicide bomber attended. I remember seeing the press conference on Sky news in which the Didsbury mosque spokesperson above spoke, with him condemning the terrorist attack and him putting division between the mosque and the attacker. He made it clear that the mosque did not promote hatred or Islamic terrorism, and he made it clear that the attacker did not have his terrorist actions influenced on him with his attendance at Didsbury mosque. At the time watching the press conference I thought to myself “oh well that’s good then at least the mosque ain’t to blame for the attack”.
Fast forward two months, whilst doing research on Tommy Robinson in preparation for this article I learnt the truth about Didsbury mosque. I learned about the clerics that have previously spoken and taught there and the potential hatred preached that could have influenced the Manchester suicide bomber into his actions. Here’s a list of the Islamists who have spoken at Didsbury mosque and some of the Muslims who are associated with Didsbury mosque, also known as the Manchester Islamic centre:
Abdur Raheem Green
1) Abdur Raheem Green- a British Muslim convert who stresses the fact that men are superior to women “simply because it says so in the Qu’ran”. He is chairman of the iERA, an Islamic hate group who have promoted anti-Semitism and called for homosexuals and female adulterers to be stoned to death. He also has links to the Portsmouth Jihadis.
Muhammad Ibn Adam
2) Muhammad Ibn Adam- a cleric who justified the Charlie Hebdo attacks, saying “it was the right thing to do”. He says that Muslims should not make friends with non-Muslims, and if a Muslim was to bump into a non-Muslim on the pavement they should make that non-Muslim cross over the road. Adam said that cheating wives should be stoned to death, unless they are pregnant where they should be stoned to death after the baby is born. He also said that women should not leave their homes unnecessarily (“WHERE ARE ALL THE FEMINISTS ON THESE ISSUES!?”- Tommy Robinson).
Abu Qatada
3) Abu Qatada- probably the most well know Islamist jihad to have lived in Britain. He said that “the wives and children of those who leave Islam should be killed”. A court statement said that Qatada was “providing advice that gave religious legitimacy to those who wish to further the aims of Islamic extremism and to engage in terrorist attacks, including suicide bombings”.
Abdullah Hakim Quick
4) Abdullah Hakim Quick- a Canadian Imam who said that “in Islam, gays should be executed. Homosexuality goes with Zionism”.
Abu Eesa Niamatullah
5) Abu Eesa Niamatullah- This cleric, who happens to live in Manchester, says that anyone who insults the prophet Muhammad should be given the death penalty. Also, one for the feminists to pick up on (but I bet they won’t), Niamatullah also said that women should not be in the workplace whatsoever, they should stay home and play housewife instead.
Ramadan Abedi
6) Ramadan Abedi- This man is the father of the Manchester suicide bomber Salman Abedi. Ramadan Abedi fought for the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, a group which had links with Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda and were designated by America as a foreign terrorist organisation in 2004.
Farzi Haffar
7) Farzi Haffar- You may or may not recognise this man above from a previous image, but yes it is the spokesperson who was asked to talk on behalf of Didsbury mosque at the press conference after the Manchester terrorist attack. Quite bizarre they asked him to do the speech really since he has been previously caught out on social media being offensive to Jewish people, calling all Israeli Jews Nazis! Suppose he was the best of a bad bunch asked to talk at the press conference out of all the possible representatives of Didsbury Mosque.
Now to the main topic of this article which is not a criticism of Didsbury mosque or Muslim Jihadis or even Islam, but the highlighting of Tommy Robinson consistently being denied the freedom of speech during his time as a political activist. So now I’ll review how the police and the establishment have consistently stitched Robinson up and tried to stop him speaking his opinion, in our British police state.
The police have never wanted Tommy Robinson to speak because their jobs would be easier if possible tensions weren’t created between him, the EDL and Muslim communities. The old bill have consistently used tactics to try and stop Tommy Robinson speaking as a political activist; house raids, petty arrests, and the general attempt at scaring him and his family.
The police have had a pattern of arresting Robinson on a made up charge only so they could bail him on restrictions of where he could and couldn’t go and what he could and couldn’t say. These patterns of arrest were most noticeable at the timings of planned EDL marches, with charges being dropped after the EDL march had taken place. There are numerous examples of these petty arrests I could use. One is when the police pulled Robinson’s car over and arrested him on suspicion of driving a stolen vehicle, even though the vehicle that Tommy was driving had been bought on finance from Vauxhall. Another is when 15 coppers raided Tommy Robinson’s mum’s house with machine guns. This was because a man ‘fitting Tommy’s description’ had been seen causing £30’s worth of damage in a hotel!
The police also once arrested Tommy Robinson and his wife, interviewing his wife for 8 hours whilst she was 6 months pregnant, for tax evasion and money laundering. The bail conditions meant that Tommy’s assets were frozen and his businesses were closed, and him and his wife had to live on no more than £250 a week for four years otherwise they would have to serve 18 month prison sentences. Sounds bizarre doesn’t it? These restraining orders given in Britain; a land of freedom and opportunity? Of course the charges were in the end dropped.
After the arrests for tax evasion and money laundering, the police were seen to arrest Tommy and convict him for swearing at a football match. Of course the press picked up on this and made Robinson out to be a notorious football hooligan involved in a 150 man strong brawl.
Meanwhile, the police were forensically investigating Tommy Robinson and all his family for any possible crime of the previous ten years, petty crimes such as not paying VAT on items bought off Ebay…
By this time Robinson had had 6 different warnings from the government warning him that 6 different people wanted to kill him, and so him and family were offered new identities in a different countries. What for? Because he had originally spoke out criticising Islam!
In 2011 Tommy Robinson was jailed for 10 months for using a false passport (his friends). The reason he used a false passport was because a year earlier, Robinson travelled to America after the world’s 3rd biggest PR company set up a meeting with him and members of congress. Tommy described how that was the difference between Britain and America, Britain is drowned with excess political correctness and therefore the freedom of speech is denied, but in America those in power want to hear what people had to say. No one powerful in Britain cared about what Robinson ever had to say ever since he formed the EDL. However on his arrival that time, Tommy was arrested as soon as he landed at JFK airport because the British police had told America to do that. They didn’t want Tommy Robinson’s message to go mainstream in America. This is why Robinson went to the lengths he did a year later by using his friend’s passport.
Whilst Tommy Robinson was in prison the EDL on the outside had attracted racists and far-right neo-Nazis, something which Robinson had always tried to keep out. This led to his decision to leave the EDL but he didn’t stop campaigning. During his time campaigning, he noticed that the police seemed to offer Muslims and Muslim communities more protection than they did him and his family. The examples I will highlight are incidents in Birmingham, East London and at his parents house.
In Birmingham, Robinson read online that a Muslim was arrested for ‘bricking’ a police officer, but afterwards the he was let go because the local Imam plus 200 other Muslims stormed the police station demanding that the attacker be released. Tommy asked a police officer in Birmingham if this was true, and the PO said it was because they didn’t want any Muslim riots to start in Birmingham which would have spread nationwide. This effectively means that the Imam of that certain Birmingham community had more power than the local police.
In Tower Hamlets, Robinson and his cousin Kevin were arrested for ‘walking’ on Armed Forces Day. The police knew they would be walking through that densely Muslim populated area of London but had asked them not to because they were scared of the possible Muslim reaction. Tommy and his cousin did so anyway because they weren’t breaking any law. They were both attacked by what Tommy believed were undercover policemen, and they were arrested for defending themselves.
An incident occurred in Luton after a number of Muslims got knowledge of who Tommy Robinson’s family were and thus followed his family in a car back to their house, eventually standing in the front garden with weapons threatening the family. Robinson rushed to the house when he heard what was happening and was therefore.. arrested by the police! The Muslims in his family’s front garden with weapons were not even searched, never mind arrested.
Now, back to the point where the police had been forensically investigating Tommy and all his family looking for anything they could get an arrest for. I’m not going to go into all the details you’ll have to listen to Tommy Robinson’s speech on the ‘British Police State’. Basically the old bill couldn’t get anything on Tommy, however they did have possible charges on the rest of his family. So they did a deal with Tommy. His brother in law many years ago had filled in a mortgage form incorrectly, and Robinson had happened to lend that brother in law the money for the mortgage deposit. Therefore the police said to Tommy; “if you do an 18 month sentence for mortgage fraud, we’ll let all your family go free of charge”. Also, Tommy’s assets which had been frozen would again be allowed to be accessed.
Of course the press had a field day when they found out that Tommy Robinson had been sent down for fraud.
In prison for the 2nd time, Tommy was again being shown to be stitched up by the system with the governor of that prison failing to protect his safety. Before all this had happened with the supposed mortgage fraud, 6 Muslims were arrested and sent down for 30 years after being caught on their way to blow up an EDL march with explosives, an EDL march where Tommy was present. Tommy Robinson happened to be in the same prison this time as those 6 Muslims, and the governor had ordered Tommy to be put on to the same wing as them. If it wasn’t for a certain prison guard- ex-royal marine getting Tommy to safety before he was put on that wing, he would have been 100% guaranteed to have been killed by those 6 Muslims. There were still times during that prison sentence where Tommy Robinson was savagely beaten by Muslim inmates, simply because he was Tommy Robinson.
When Tommy got towards the end of his prison sentence, he was approached by two members of the Metropolitan Investigation Bureau; a secretive organisation at Scotland Yard, who wanted Robinson to work for them after he got out by being a grass. DESPITE TOMMY ROBINSON BEING AGAINST THE FAR-RIGHT, the MIB wanted Tommy to unite the far-right; Britain First, the National Front etc., and inform them of any potential far-right terrorist attack. When Tommy did get out, he found that his assets were still frozen and that the MIB were trying to blackmail him.
Shortly after Tommy Robinson got out of the nick, an incident occurred on Twitter when a neo-Nazi threatened to rape his mum (Robinson often got threats and abuse on social media from the far-right as well as from leftys and Muslims). Tommy decided to take this threat into his own hands seen as the old bill had done absolutely nothing about the 100’s of death threats him and his family had received over the years. When he went to meet this neo-Nazi at the designated time and place that had been arranged, the police were waiting for Tommy, and of course, this resulted in Tommy once again being arrested and back in prison.
Surely now you are all seeing a pattern with the police stitching Tommy Robinson up, keeping him locked up for as long as possible for absolutely ‘nothing crimes’, all so he can’t voice his democratic opinion.
Once inside, Tommy’s safety was again failed to be protected by the prison. On this occurrence, Robinson got a tip off from a fellow inmate that a Somalian inmate was planning on throwing boiling water on Tommy. Therefore, Tommy attacked this Somalian inmate first, for his own safety because he knew what was coming.
To cut a long story short, after Robinson got out of jail this time, he was again arrested because of the incident that occurred with the Somalian prisoner before. Tommy was set to get locked up again. The video evidence of Robinson attacking the Somalian inmate had been edited and parts deleted, so that you couldn’t see the inmate before tipping Tommy off letting him know that he was about to be attacked.
Luckily this time, one of Tommy’s Canadian friends got involved in the situation and got Tommy the best legal representation that money could buy. This time, the judge in court dismissed the case, and finally Tommy Robinson was able to break free from the cycle of getting locked up for doing naff all, being released, getting locked up again for doing naff all and again being released.
Now that this cycle was over with however, it didn’t stop the police’s tactics what had plagued Tommy Robinson and his family for years; harassing them, stalking them and criminalising every move they made.
Just last year Tommy was eating a meal with friends and family, including his three children, at a pub in Cambridge. For no reason at all, 12 police officers went to that pub and ordered Tommy and his family to leave, with the argument that the group he was sitting with having a meal were violent troublemakers and fighting would inevitably occur. After arguing with these 12 police officers for half hour, being backed up by the pub staff who were trying to explain to the officers that Robinson and his family had done nothing wrong, they were still made to leave. Once Tommy and his family had left the pub, the police officers unnecessarily followed them down the street in an intimidating manner. They were being absolute bullies. By this time, Tommy’s children were crying because they felt so scared by the following police officers, and even Tommy’s son tried to run away from the officers running into a busy road nearly getting himself killed.
Therefore after that day, every time Tommy Robinson’s children saw a police officer in the street or in the car or anywhere possible, they would get frightened and start crying. It took three police officers, two in uniform and one in a suit, to call at Tommy’s house and give him a football banning order (no reason for that banning order, the old bill just doing their regular job of enforcing unnecessary power and control over Tommy Robinson’s life). Its bad enough that his children were frightened of the police when they saw them in the street, but deliberately going to his home in order to scare his family!? Because that was just another one of the many tactics used by the police in order to try and silence Tommy Robinson. Make his children cry.
All this bullying, all this intimidating, all these lies from the police were for the sole purpose of stopping Tommy Robinson voicing his democratic opinion on Islam. Link to Tommy Robinson’s full ‘Police State’ speech below:
Throughout this article you can see that Tommy Robinson has never been properly listened to because of the power that the press and the police have had in denying his freedom of speech. A democracy is not just about having the right to vote because political activism is also one of the many elements of a healthy democracy. Therefore you could argue that judging by Tommy Robinson consistently being stopped from acting as a political activist, Great Britain is not democratic at all. It is wrong that a free press is able to have the power to belittle an individual’s genuine concerns in a society where working-class opinions aren’t taken seriously anyway, and it is wrong that the authorities are allowed to go to so much effort in bringing down a man and his family all for the name of political correctness.
This weekend we have seen the news that the European People’s Party, the European parliament’s biggest political grouping, has said that it would support a EU wide ban on women wearing Islamic face veils.
The idea of women not being allowed to wear a niqab or a burqa in the west and non-Islamic countries, now seems to be a popular thought amongst people. With the EPP now stating it would support a ban, the proposed ban is shown to be no longer a ‘far-right’ policy proposed by ‘racists’ who could not be taken seriously.
The left of course do not agree with such a ban with the argument that “freedom and liberty is found within western nations”, and therefore women should have the right to wear whatever they want to wear in order to fulfil their religious obligations, especially within a land of freedom and equality.
However is seeing a woman in a Western country wearing an Islamic face veil, a sign of the freedom and equality found within the west? Or is it a sign of the complete opposite; the oppression of women and the patriarchy found within Islam.
I am not even going to try and pretend I know the extent of oppression that is put upon Muslim women. I could easily read articles in the Daily Mail and assume them to be 100% true, but the valid way to judge the extent of Islamic patriarchy would be to read Islamic texts themselves, of which I am unlikely to ever find motivation to do.
Although one must ask, why is it only Muslim women who have to cover their faces? Why not Muslim Men as well? Why are Muslim women not allowed to pray whilst they are on their period (I know that’s absolutely bizarre!)? Why did the Taliban ban education for Muslim women but not Muslim men (yes I know the vast majority of Muslims aren’t as radical as the Taliban but lets face it, the Taliban aren’t exactly Buddhists are they!? They still act under the name of Islam. They are still Muslims)? Why does the Qur’an permit Muslim men to have four wives but not vice-versa? Why are women in Islamic societies expected to stay at home and not participate in public life? Why are Muslim wives in Islamic societies expected to cook, clean and look after the children while their husbands work? Why are Muslim women not allowed to drive in certain Islamic countries such as Saudi Arabia? Why were Muslim women only given the right to vote in Saudi Arabia as late as 2015? Why do Muslim women have to endure Female Genital Mutilation? Why are Muslim women (and men to be fair) forced to marry?
Western societies such as that of Britain are still patriarchal in the twenty first century with issues such as equal pay between men and women (after reading the last paragraph do you really think that is such an issue). Of course it is no issue to me if feminists carry on with their ‘warheads’ pointed at Western society; outraged at the pure and utter evil fact that builders like to ‘wolf whistle’ at pretty blonde women walking by wearing short skirts. But just have a minute and take a look at Islam. That is gender inequality at another level. If Muslim women are continuously covering their faces and not being allowed to show their beauty whilst in Western society, then that contradicts the freedom and equality that the West is proud to have.
My Opinions 