Islamophobia and the End of History

Islamophobia and the End of History
Spread the love

The following blog post about Islamophobia is syndicated from Alex Story The Aussie Wire News’ UK Correspondent

In their 2018 report “Islamophobia defined”, the All Party Parliamentary Group on British Muslims defined the term as being “rooted in racism and is a type of racism that targets expressions of Muslimness or perceived Muslimness”.

It is a surprising definition. Afterall, Race and Religion have nothing in common. 

Religion has underpinned every human civilisation since the Garden of Eden. In a very real way, it is the soul of a People. It determines cultures, habits, stories, taboos, sense of self, humour and love in any society. It is crucially important. 

Race, on the other hand, is a set of questionable observations which where much in vogue in fashionable circles from the mid-19th to the mid-20th century. 

To put it bluntly, “Race” is an artificial construct created to occupy “fools, knaves and firebrands”. Only to the morally bankrupt is race important.

However, the comingling of the two words is not an accident. The use of State resources to try to weld together these two awkward bedfellows should set alarm bells ringing.

As Eddie Hughes MP noted during the discussion in Parliament in September 2021: 

A poll by the organisation Muslim Census found that only 21% of Muslims polled agreed with the APPG definition, primarily due to the confusion it creates between race and religion.”

He added that the definition would lead to “a back-door blasphemy law, providing a shield for Islamists to espouse hatred, and to criticise or disregard anyone who challenges them as Islamophobic”.

Lord Stephen Greenhalgh was more succinct: Islamophobia is “a heckler’s veto to shut down alternative opinions,” he boomed.

The report shows no concern for the freedom of expression we so cherish. 

Indeed, two Race Experts, Nadya Ali and Ben Witham, are quoted approvingly: “there is no ‘good faith’ criticism of Islam”. 

They add: “free speech and a supposed right to criticise Islam results in nothing more than another subtle form of anti-Muslim racism”.

To their credit, the Tory government called the definition “not fit for purpose”. 

So far so good you might think. Well not quite. 

With Labour odds on favorite to win the forthcoming general election, the report will be official Party policy. 

As Anneliese Dodds confirmed: “Labour has adopted the APPG on British Muslims’ definition of Islamophobia”. 

Islam and Race will be brought together in a clumsy dance. 

The report doesn’t hide the aim behind this clownish number. 

It mocks British values, calling them nebulous and “a favourite trope of both the soft and hard right” and attacks the “nation-state” as Racist. 

By shifting Islamophobia from Religion to Race, the APPG is doing two things: first, criminalising Islamophobia; second, enabling it to be applied retrospectively. 

The text confirms that the adoption of the definition of Islamophobia as being “anti-Muslim racism” is crucial if “criminal law” is to be “invoked”. 

Further, it wants the term “Islamophobia” to be institutionalised as the word “genocide” has been so that “it can be used retrospectively and thus locate all similar crimes within the same category – a process that would be invaluable for identifying and tackling Islamophobic crimes”. 

On this definition hangs our entire history and its end.

The 1400 years from the rise of Mohammed will be interpreted from the perspective of “Islamophobia and Anti-Muslim Hatred”.

Every statesman, flag, monument, song, poem, celebration will become a target. 

No stone will be left unturned.

It won’t be long for the Cross of St George, the Crusader flag, to be targeted for a humiliating termination.

Churchill will be branded an Islamophobe for warning in 1899 that Islam was “as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog”. 

Conversely, Adolf Hitler could very well be re-invented as a victim of International Finance and an Islamophile – therefore, not a Racist. 

Afterall, from his perspective, Islam was a “Männerreligion”—a “religion of men” and much more suited to the “Germanic temperament” than the “Jewish filth and priestly twaddle” of Christianity.

As is often the case with such politicised reports, the definition came before the research needed to justify it. 

The cornerstone ideology for the report was Critical race theory.

Humanity and its complexity were thus reduced to “Race” overlaid with the archetypical Marxist social structure of oppressor versus oppressed.

As Özlem Sensoy and Robin DiAngelo declaim in their book “Is Everyone Really Equal?”, “dominant groups occupy the positions of power, their members receive social advantages, CisMen, whites, heterosexuals, the able-bodied, Christians and upper classes automatically receive privilege by being members of a dominant group”. 

From this perverted perspective, Christianity is White while Islam is BAME.

It follows that Christianity is the religion of the oppressor while Islam is that of the oppressed. 

Oppressors are forever denied victimhood status. 

It explains in part why the real time genocide of Christians across Africa is taking place in a total media interest vacuum. Black Christian African’s are “Whites” according to this philosophy, and therefore “oppressors”. 

The report, however, is curiously incurious about Islam – the first half of the word for which they spent so many resources trying to find a suitable definition. 

In fact, the report displays the deepest ignorance of religion in general and Islam in particular. 

Two things are crucial when thinking about Islam. 

Firstly, Mohammed is the best role model for mankind. Mohammed is in fact raised to parity with God in chapter 8:24 of the Koran: “Obey Allah, and the messenger when He calleth you”; secondly, the Koran is the perfect, unchangeable word of Allah. It cannot be improved upon. Man-made laws are seen as corruptible; Sharia, because of God, is pure. 

Both these points are fundamental and inseparable. 

As a result, Bertie Vidgen, an expert on Racism, much quoted in the report, reveals his supreme theological illiteracy. 

A few words among others on which the good expert gambled his authority, calling them “tropes used to justify Islamophobia” were: Paedophilia, Rape, Sexism and anti-feminism. 

On the first word, we read in the Al Bhukari, one of the greatest sources in Muslim scholarship, that “the Prophet (ﷺ) married her (Aisha) when she was six years old and he consummated his marriage when she was nine years old.”

Modern day apologists such as Mohammed Hijab, the greatest and most impressive of all Muslim “scholars”, confirms that sex with young children in Islam is permitted in their Holy Book, as he tells his followers in Speakers Corner: “If you look just at the Koran, you will get the indication that you can have sexual intercourse with a five year old”, quoting chapter 65.4 of the Koran.  

On the second word, we learn that slaves and female prisoners of war did not have the right to refuse the sexual advances of their owners, and likewise for women taken and distributed as booty for victorious Muslim warriors. 

Chapter 33:50 tells us “O Prophet! We have made lawful to thee thy wives to whom thou hast paid their dowers; and those whom thy right hand possesses (slaves) out of the prisoners of war whom Allah has assigned to thee”. 

On the third and fourth word, chapter 2:222 of the Holy Koran informs believers that “Women are your fields: go, then, into your fields whence you please.” The upshot is that wives are obliged to accept the sexual advances of their husband”. 

Indeed, Al Bukhari narrates that Mohammed said “when a man calls his wife to his bed, and she does not respond, the One Who is above the heaven becomes displeased with her until he (her husband) becomes pleased with her“.

That is not to suggests that all Muslims either believe, know, or live by these tenets, however, it is that these and much more are the incontestable justification for the actions of what some might call “Islamists”. 

Incredibly, the authors ignored Islam while trying to define Islamophobia. 

The underlying reason for seeking desperately to legalise the definition may stem from the rise of Muslim apostasy in across the world, putting paid to the idea that Islam and Muslims are a race. Ex-Muslim do not change their DNA because they walk away from their inherited faith. 

As cleric Bilal Philipps confirmed apostasy would hit Islam like “an avalanche” and “a Tsunami”, which “would knock us over”.  

An oft mentioned reason for this is the impact of Social media platforms. These enable Muslims to bypass Imams and access Islamic texts directly. Some like what they find; some don’t and walk away.

However, the reaction is a type of protectionism. Just like a nationalized industry in trouble, the Islamic Clerical Nomenklatura is lobbying overtime for the desperate creation of a legal protective barrier around their faith. 

In conclusion, the proper definition of Islamophobia is as follows: “wilfully ignoring Islamic texts and lying about them for perceived political gains.”

On that basis, the APPG on British Muslim is a deeply Islamophobic text.

In “Islamophobia defined”, the truth is a trope, and a trope is the truth. 

And if the truth sets you free, then this report is designed to enslave you.

Find more blogs by Alex here.

Spread the love