One of the most difficult challenges we have as a private political party is to explain why we even refer to Islam as a religious belief system. After all, why would religious belief have any meaning outside of its narrow expression in the lives of individual Muslims? If one were to look at our Five Principles, however, there would be no way to escape the fact that we were formed precisely to address Islam in the UK. If we were to ignore religion in Islam, which we rightly call Greater Jihad, and directly focused on Lesser Jihad, as a political fact, grounded in the life of Muhammed, thereafter expressed historically, and more importantly presently in the UK, that would have the effect of agreeing with what the Government calls terrorism, (when men who claim to be Muslim murder men, women and children), and we would have to say that such actions are not Islam. That is precisely what the Government wants and what the law aspires to. What many folks may not realise is that this approach was used in days of Empire in former British India (and other places). At that time, many Muslims expressed outrage at the term terrorism being used to describe Lesser Jihad. Today the same term is now used, and many Muslims are delighted. When other so-called Muslims commit acts of Lesser Jihad and murder innocent people, everyone applauds when they are called terrorists. What they are in truth, is obedient to Islam.
To give this context, Salman Ramadan Abedi is the man who is now defined as a terrorist for his bombing of the Manchester Arena, in which an eight-year-old child died – among many others. That this was an act of terror is self-evident. He is written up variously as not being a religious Muslim because he used alcohol sometime, and as such his actions were not Islamic. Numerous Muslims were asked to give their opinion, some experts, some not. One man said that this bombing was no more Muslim than burning crosses by the Ku Klux Klan, was Christian. This comment was not whispered in a corner; it was stated on national television. No one even blinked. Burning Crosses – Murdering Children?
In the UK, tolerance and equality are defined in specific protected characteristics of the individual, but once a person transgresses into criminal actions, then they may lose the protection they once had as far as the expressions that others can make of them. So one can call a so-called Islamist or Jihadist hateful and loathsome after his conviction, but one must hold to proper respect of his rights whilst he is being prosecuted. Until he is found guilty, one must refrain from directing one’s actions and words that give rise to a possibility of him not receiving a fair trial, and perhaps more importantly, to protect others who may share his faith, as he claims. We hold that this must be so. However, Islam as a religious belief is not protected in law. As a Christian, personally, or else as anyone at all, one can say what one wants about Islam, as long as one’s speech is not threatening. The same principle applies to all religious belief and none. We need to ask why that latter fact even exists. However, if we then say after his conviction, that the terrorist is a Muslim, we also come into conflict with those who promote tolerance and equality – even when he says that he is a Muslim. Every effort by those in authority will be used to deflect his faith, and give him a legal meaning, as a terrorist. Once convicted, his faith will cease to have any meaning publicly. Whilst under investigation, his faith will be protected. Islam is protected to such an extent that almost any criticism of Islam is held to be hate speech.
To make a point. THE CRŒSASID PARTY incorporates the work of RHUOMAI in order to use their faith position to define Islam, according to Islamic canonical books. We get taken to task by a small number of biblical Christians, who see this work as contrary to their faith. So they refuse to support us. Whereas, when RHUOMAI produce videos that set Islam in a canonical meaning, taken from the life of Muhammed, those who practise Lesser Jihad do not flinch because we are only stating what they believe. That Lesser Jihad meaning is so plain that the majority of people cannot cope with it. In short, if we address Islam religiously, and make real faith expressions canonical and therefore factual statements about Islam, many biblical Christians will stand up and be counted – yet those Muslims who practise Greater Jihad, object, and use every instrument on social media to abuse us by laying unwarranted claims to our being hateful people. Those Christians who object, despite receiving a canonical view of Islam that they recognise, do so because our presentations are too Islamic. The Videos below make the point. If that seems difficult, then that is because it is difficult. And that is just to speak of Christians and Muslims.
The law cannot and will not make sense of that. It is inherently religious on the face of it, but due to Lesser Jihad, it is very much political in its effect and meaning. Why would anyone living in the UK, have an issue with Greater Jihad? To express a clear faith position that necessarily rejects the entirety of Islam is no more than expressing ones canonical faith according to what Christianity means biblically. We do not, however, live in a theocracy. We live under common law. Some political parties have convoluted these distinctions so much whilst saying that they are Christians, that if we followed their direction, we would end up in a civil war with Islam, where Muslims, Christians, as well as all others, would have to take sides. That is utter madness. The same thing could be said for Islam grounded in Lesser Jihad.
Moreover, whilst all of this is happening the Greater Jihad of Islam, with its seeming peaceful meaning, is gaining ascendancy in the UK, and the Government, along with all others, who are afraid to be plain or else do not understand Islam, remain silent. Alternatively, else they say that when Islamic terrorism arrives and murders our children, that this murder is not Islamic, but a perversion of a great faith. To know whether that is true would, of course, require one to know what Muslims believe. One will not readily know that because Islam has studiously hidden its canonical books under a bushel of Empire.
Inner struggle – Muhammed’s struggle to convince others that he was the Prophet of God – Greater Jihad– reason – persuasion – personal rejection – ending in the Hijra. Greater Jihad is presented to western minds as inner purity – and denotes a sense of one’s personal struggle inwardly to conform to Islamic ideals and ordinances.
Outer struggle – Muhammed’s physical struggle to implement Islam – Lesser Jihad– political demands – war – subjugation – culminating in the Hajj. Lesser Jihad is presented as Noble – and means all that which promotes the implementation of Islamic Rule regardless of its moral character.
Jihad is both Theological and Political Islam – which together form the Shari’ah (شريعة) Surah 45:18 of Islam (الإِسْلاَمُ) Surah 5:3.
THE CRŒSASID PARTY