Anjem Choudary: A Face of Radical Islamism With a Psychotic Twist

Those of you whom live in Britain will know this name more than most.  Anjem Choudary is a British-born Islamist leader of the now banned Islam4UK organisation and co-founder of an also outlawed Al-Muhajiroun.  A lawyer by trade, active supporter for the “war of terror” by various Islamist groups including Al Qaeda, anti-integrationist and a leading figure calling for the islamification of Europe – in the format of his own radical religious version of Islam.  

Choudary’s views are so extreme and he has time and time again proven that he is willing to act out his agenda.   Be it fund-raising, organising demonstrations, recruiting terrorists and radicalizing vulnerable immigrant communities – he does it all.   The question that comes into mind is – who does he represent?

Choudary is most certainly, but neither confirms nor denies, being Wahhabi.  He is closely associated with another extreme radical Islamist Omar Bakri Muhammad, a Syrian born Wahhabi with ties to Al Qaeda.   Wahhabis like Omar Bakri simply have their version of Islam and are willing to openly denounce other Muslims as heretics – which was his case, walking out and not finishing his studies at the most important Islamic School of jurisprudence in Cairo – Al Azhar.

There is also questioning of the motives and psychological motivation for Choudary’s extremism.  His younger life was that of a beer-drinking, open-sex, Cannabis and LSD-using past.   Studies of combined Cannabis and LSD use show a higher proportion of schizophrenia and bi-polar or lost focus in users and perhaps that is a sign of the massive turn-around.  The instant over-the-top devotion to an ideal is a typical sign of schizophrenia and the commonly told story of his outrage after the “Satanic Versus” affair may be a clue. 

Choudary’s vision of Islam is not only typically Wahhabi but also distinctly Western.  Sounding contradictory it is in fact not.   An ever more common term of little “e” euro-muslim reflects an over-the-top level of extremism amongst certain Muslim groups in Western Europe that seek radical version of Islam doctrine, Sharia Law and arguably Arab-cultural standards that are not accepted in the real and existing Muslim World.   Examples include the goal of a world-wide (or at least European-wide) Caliphate.   That the governments of all 56 Muslim countries in the world and the five Schools of Islamic jurisprudence do not seek or call for it obviously has no effect, let alone the question of under which school of Islam or sect.  We can assume they mean a Wahhabi Caliphate.   The idea that Europe must become Muslim, if necessary by force and control even though Islam is still a significant minority religion appears to not bother or seem a bit ridiculous to them. 

Religious radicalism is said to be willing to subvert its faith to support its political agenda and not the other way around and Choudary and even Wahhabism is willing to do so.  Though Wahhabis will argue they are purists, no other Islamic variant agrees.   The simplest and best example of this is the use of the Burqa (the head to foot covering of the female with only eyes showing and even then perhaps that is through a net.  Gloves and socks as well).   It has been proven time and time again that the Burqa is a cultural-tribal item and cannot be even argued to have been present in 7th century southern Saudi Arabia at the time of Mohammed but two centuries later.   Historians have shown that face veils – called the Niqab was not even present there at that time.  Simply put, later male-dominated tribal customs infiltrated and dominated and have become merged with doctrine of certain factions within Islam, particularly by radicals who will not only demand it from others but are willing to “enforce” it.    The recently deceased leader of the Al Azhar University – the number one and most respected Islamic School of jurisprudence banned the Burqa from the University and called it a cultural item without link nor support in Islam and that he had no respect for.   Choudary said that he will not respect or acknowledge the sovereignty of the British Monarch Queen Elizabeth II because she does not wear one – as if she has any link at all to 9th century Arab tribal customs……….

What is clear is that Choudary is dangerous.  Not because of his unrealistic, unwanted and unique radical views that can be dismissed as lunatic, but because of his control over a large uneducated and radical-prone community coinciding with his links and willingness  to support terrorism.  He is a dangerous radical with a great amount of hate and considering his potential mental/personality issues – in the end he is willing to kill and be killed for his goals, a very high risk position.

The other side of the dangers and risk associated with Choudary is the battle between him (and his followers) and the radical far-right, racists and nationalists in Britain (and abroad).   They simply feed off each other and with all sides making more and more radical condemnations of each other along with other unacceptable rhetoric, they will all publish the others’ racial comments and say “see, I told you so” justifying their own increasing radical stance.   A nasty circle which a good friend of mine calls a “Möbius strip”.

About donny2811
Trots Nederlands, goed gereist en een begerige politieke centrist met een speciale afkeer voor basissen.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: