We will be, in the near future God Willing, be addressing the compounded ignorance being disseminated at the Quilliam Foundation and dissecting relevant aspects to the world of the Islamic paradigm and its counter paradigm, in this case, the western one. Let us brief you on its mission statement
The Quilliam Foundation is the world’s first counter-extremism think tank. Located in London, our founders are former leading ideologues of UK-based extremist Islamist organizations – organizations that are still active today.
1. We highly doubt that the Quilliam foundation is actually the “first” for we have had faith freedom for much longer which serves as a “type” of think tank and more so an anti academic propaganda machine.
2. One has to put to light the very nature of extremism; we mean a detailed based study of its subject. We have touched on this topic before but we will be doing a full blown study of this topic of extremism and what is viewed as extremism according to which people, as we have found that since there is no validly laid out format on defining what extremism is, the entire academic community from the non Islamic side exploited the opportunity of its being obscure to the public as a means of hermeneutical manipulations in the process of their “studies” and thus causing a void and state of flux in how and what constitutes extremism and more importantly, what are its causes, along with the fact that each issue differs from one individual or group from the next, in that one may view something to be extreme whereas in reality it is only the biased information of false research that landed them to such a view. In other cases it is that people’s views are warped, which is mainly the case where every advocated group is dedicated to their own campaign as if its view is the ultimate mode of thought on the subject.
Not least because religious rigidity and extremism are products of the failures of wider society to foster a shared sense of belonging and to advance liberal democratic values among all sections of society.
You see dear readers. Reflect on the above statement one more, or several more times. Allow us to break this down for you in more emphatic terms. Instead of interpreting the realities of what has been defined as “extremism” to be the by-product of social upheaval which in turn was fueled by foreign policies of colonial powers, the inaccuracy of this foundation lays blame regarding the existence of extremism in the hands of the “wider society” (that means the west) to foster a shared sense of belonging (which actually means to assimilate in western society and culture which means to incorporate their ideals, some of which is outright blasphemies according to the prophets that they themselves haphazardly claim to follow as Christians and Jews) and to “advance liberal democratic values” among all sections of society. What that means is to wage the physical jihad where necessary and ideological jihad against all other voices in opposition to theirs. In other words, for them, the entire subjugation of the deemed “third” world and the oppression it suffered in the palm of their hands was not enough of a suppression of “extremism” but rather what was needed was a far more dense dose of imperialism than what we as a nation had experienced in the name of democratizing the world.
That said, we believe a more self-critical approach must be adopted by Muslim leaders to free communities from Westophobic ideological influences, escape social insularity and facilitate the organic growth of Western Islam.
1. Westophobic ideological influences: Allow us to clear one of the greatest misnomers on the market of Islamaphobia today. That is the idea that Islam, or Muslims, are “westophobic”. We are not westophobic. We Muslims are “kufr phobic” We fear kufr (disbelief) because that was the methodologies of all the prophets sent to humanity. Kufr is detrimental to humans and societies at large. It is the decay of a society (along with liberal thought). So if we fear “kufr” it is because we, as a human race, naturally fear what is bad and negative to us. Those who have not feared and have lusted for kufr cannot in essence be viewed as those who opine to human values. So on the basis of our fear of kufr making us kufrphobic, then that entails that we show the same attitude towards those who advance, lust for, propagate, become the embodiment of, and fight for the sake of kufr (disbelief).
2. Insularity: Such “insularity” is twofold. Insularity in itself cannot be a concept that is negative or positive unless and until the object for which triggers the concept is of sound reason. The reason of insularity on our part are due to Divine reasons, among them, to isolate and differ from those who love what Allah hates and hate what Allah loves, who cherish kufr, who promote vices, who encourage animosity for everything that is prophetically correct (in terms of their beliefs), and a moral that has gone below the depths of backwardness. However, insularity in the case of Islam is not one sided. The history of Islam in the times of Noah, to Abraham, and from Moses to Jesus and to the time of Muhammad and up until the end, has been, is now, and will always be viewed in an isolated format according to the view of those who foster opinions away from the totality of prophetic guidance embodied by the messenger Muhammad alaihi salatu salam. In other words those who have become antagonists to Islam have by default isolated the Muslims and will only accept them on the basis of their retreating from the only thing that is upright in this world today i.e. Islam.
3. Western Islam- Western Muslims, for he most part do not care for, nor do they encourage and more importantly, view as negative the emergence of a “western Islam”. There is no “eastern Islam” or “western” or “Chinese” or “European” or “Indonesian” any other Islam. There is only Islam and our backgrounds in these transnational divides only serve as a platform for the further empowerment of Islam and its already laid out tradition. Anyone who comes forth with the emergence of any Islam outside of the Islam that has already been established will quickly be noticed as ineffective, useless, and a defunct methodology and condemned into the annuls of our Muslim heresiology as have every other faction that previous antagonists of Islam had tried to perform the feat of in their attempt to “destroy” Islam and which never saw the light of day. The most successful of such endeavors was the creation of the shi’a Judeo religion whose founder was a Jew who reconverted back to Judaism.
Secondly, the so called ”organic” growth of western Muslims is in traditional Islam and not some heretical offshoot of the religion with its own objectives, goals, desires, and body.
Thirdly, the mere mention of “organic growth” is absurd to begin with because the purpose of conversion in any religion is to submit to “its” goals and ideals and not that it submit itself to your personal endeavors and views. In Islam that is even more so stressed simply on the basis that the religion itself is based on “following” due to the inherent aspect of the worshipper to be one who “submits”. There is no “organic growth” in something that has already organically grown from a Divine source and was perfected by that source. The equation of an “organic growth” from something that has already organically grown is an entirely new religion itself.
Fourthly, and quite frankly, we have already witnessed the emergence of a “western Islam” and that is the representation of “progressive Islam” which has shown that it is anything but progressive. Rather they are nothing more than a modern transformation of a bunch of Stalinist who cannot tolerate the viewpoints of other than their own and vehemently attack their opponents without any merit. The difference between us (Muslims) and representatives of “western Islam” is that when we attack, we attack with merit and bring forth either overwhelming proofs or irrefutable proofs or both.
The Quilliam Foundation seeks to challenge what we think, and the way we think. It aims to generate creative thought paradigms through informed and inclusive discussion to counter the Islamist ideology behind terrorism, whilst simultaneously providing evidence-based recommendations to governments for related policy measures. Our strategic communications work involves research projects, public events, specialist roundtables and media campaigns to empower civil society to work towards improved community cohesion, Muslim integration through respect for scriptural diversity, and encouragement of political pluralism.
1. We will see and would like for our readers, whoever wishes to take up the task to, in the future, when we bring forth analysis and dissect your “studies” to challenge what you think and the manner of your thinking, to present such relevant information to your institute to see whether the spirit of your words have actually lived up to the articulation of it.
2. Respect for scriptural diversity-. Another Islamaphobic tactic is to promote the idea that “scriptural diversity” as good on all levels in absolute form. From the standpoint of logic, this is nothing more than a recipe for disaster because when there is “diversity” particularly in creedal aspects or doctrine, then that equals ‘division” and ‘disunity” which are two concepts that are negatively spoken of in Islam and warned against, and quite frankly are concepts that are not advocated in western cells of democracy and capitalists societies. In Islam, when there is scriptural diversity in terms of key methodological aspects of morality and doctrine, that is a recipe for disunity and decay which is why we have now realized why such advocates of these anti-Islamic sites care so much for pluralism and diversity, because they understand it is the key to our defeat and exploitation. Victory comes to unity and unity is the effort of sunnah and defeat, backwardness, and despotism comes from disunity which is due to the opposition of sunnah, which is bida (innovation) and thus brings forth decay in our society. We have already experienced this in our own history multiple times and are going through the apex of it in modern times as well. In fact to show the effectiveness and factuality of our statement allow us to bring one of the rabid extremists of our times, a neo-con propagandist
March 19th 2008 5:43pm eastern standard time on the Sean Hannity radio program, he had guest speaker Oliver North. In the discussion about the 08 elections with regard to geo-political analysis, Oliver North said that “we (America) did not start 9-11. It was a war launched against us that we did not provoke”
Later on at 5:46pm he said “I don’t think America wants a new Caliphate stretching from Morocco to the Middle East”
So in other words, part of the political maneuverings and international espionage objectives of the west is to ensure the divided lands of the Muslims. Ideologically that can only be done on the basis of the promotion of diversity of scriptural interpretations and through the initiation of the “national identity” that for several centuries the Muslims were blessed with the absence of this most abhorrent divide and conquer tactic.