Can a radical Secular Koranist shed light on why people join ISIS?

None of us can claim to have an insight into why radicalised young people are joining Islamist terrorist groups like ISIS. That’s because most of us don’t have an understanding of political Islam or extremism. However, antifeminist radical blogger Claire Khaw just might be able to have a go at some tentative speculation.

To be clear, she isn’t an ISIS supporter nor does she condone violence. But there are broad ideological similarities between ISIS’ Islamism and Khaw’s Secular Koranism, a one-party Islam-based political and legal system which she apparently invented and hopes to eventually see implemented in Britain.This theocracy would involve abolishing welfare and the NHS and the reintroduction of slavery, public executions and public whippings of “Slut Single Mums”. (I previously interviewed Khaw and her views are also summarised here. She also runs a political blog.) Claire reportedly counts many prominent politicians as Facebook friends and was previously a BNP member. Secular Koranism is a state run on Koranic principles and laws- just like the ‘Islamic State’- but without belief in a deity. This secularist aspect, and (relative to ISIS) lack of violence appear to be the only differences between the ideology of Secular Koranism and that of the ‘Islamic State’. Both ISIS and Khaw, unlike Islam-based theocracies such as Saudi Arabia, openly state a wish for the UK and other countries to adopt their systems.

So, let’s see what Claire Khaw has to say about ISIS’ appeal.


What is it about ISIS’ ideology that attracts British people?

ISIS is like what the French Foreign Legion used to be, giving men the chance to fight and then acquire French citizenship.
The French Foreign Legion is still in existence and is used to recruit foreign mercenaries because most Frenchmen are not prepared to risk their lives in foreign wars for something they already have: French citizenship. ISIS does the same thing, but for Islamic reasons. Many men enjoy fighting and know they must fight to prove themselves in any case, eg to acquire access to women so they can have offspring, status and income. In peacetime, they will still join gangs to fight each other.


In your opinion, why do women join ISIS when they could have more freedom and rights in almost every other territory?

Muslim women are more interested in their immortal souls and getting to heaven than in clubbing, sex and shopping.

All I can do is speculate and try to imagine myself to be a Muslim wanting to become a jihadi bride.

If I wanted to be a jihadi bride, it would be because I would want my children’s father to be a jihadi warrior and have the characteristics of one. Women would be expected to spend most of their time with each other helping each other out and also to keep an eye on each other. There is possibly a chance of becoming queen bee if one showed sufficient ability and authority to keep the others in line, or if one’s jihadi husband were the most high-ranking.

Perhaps these women are happy to be in wife/mother roles if they find a husband they consider worthy of them.

I have seen videos of women toting guns, so that might attract some women who actually like the idea of fighting…Whatever bad things happen to other jihadi brides, they do not expect it to happen to them.

Jihadi brides have already rejected feminism because it is the religion of the infidels. Perhaps they see it as leading themselves and their men into temptation and sin, to the ruin of themselves as Muslims and robbing themselves of their opportunity to enter Paradise.



Is social conservatism a big or small part of the appeal of ISIS?

I doubt that if you asked any ISIS fighter they would say it was the social conservatism that appealed. Indeed, I would be surprised if any of them understood the concept of social conservatism in the first place. Killing people for a divine purpose has a certain appeal to men who want to fight and enjoy fighting. Young men who want to fight in order to make their fortune come from a pool of unemployed Muslim men in the West disgruntled with their lot and government. If social mobility is virtually non-existent because state education is no longer fit for purpose, the problem will be worse. The less the social mobility, the greater the pool of Muslim men in the West prepared to join ISIS.
To what extent does opposition to “Western” culture contribute to radicalisation?

Western culture is fueled by feminist ideas of sexual liberation. The principle tenet of feminism is liberation from the most important rule of traditional marriage: no sex outside marriage. This means that as well as no adultery, there is to be no fornication and no sodomy. It is this moral restraint that will prevent feminists from taking over society and running government against the interests of men, the elderly, children and the next generation. This moral restraint no longer exists and feminazis are now in power.

Everything about feminism undermines marriage and the family, and undermining marriage and the family means we increasingly have lower standards of behaviour and education, leading to degeneracy and civilisational decline.

Feminism can only take over your society by bribing heterosexual men with fornication and gay men with laws that protect gay men from discrimination. Think of feminism as a drug dealer giving his potential customer free samples of drugs until he is well and truly hooked and will pay good money, or beg, borrow, steal, rob or kill for the drugs he is now addicted to. This is now the state of Western Man.

No senior Western politician will now talk about supporting marriage, and even talking about making life just a little bit difficult for fornicating sluts who find themselves in need of an abortion will get politicians like Trump into trouble with female voters and the men who wish to have extramarital sex with them.

The Bible and Koran support patriarchal moral values. Since people who call themselves Muslims do read their holy book, unlike people who call themselves Christians, they have noticed that Western values are feminist and are therefore diametrically opposed to the patriarchy, which Islam supports. They have noticed that Western culture and British values do not support marriage and the family and have concluded that the West is degenerate and indeed now too degenerate to remove itself from the Road to Perdition. Muslim radicals like Anjem Choudary have concluded that if social reform will not come from above because our political system is too sclerotic to correct itself and our politicians too cowardly, enfeebled, disorganised and uncooperative to undertake the project of political and social reform, the revolution would have to come from below. Revolutions from below are always bloodier than ones that come from above because revolutionaries already in government are already experienced in government and know how to use the apparatus of state to bring about change swiftly and effectively with the minimum of bloodshed and suffering, while revolutions from below mean that things have been allowed to deteriorate so badly that the people violently rebel, and rebels who are inexperienced in government will make more mistakes and cause more suffering as a result of their inexperience.

You don’t even have to be a Muslim radical to come to this conclusion. The fact that mainstream media will not discuss my ideas or even challenge them suggests they are no longer fit for the purpose of reporting what is newsworthy, but more interested in suppressing ideas whose conclusions make them uneasy for the future of feminism, democracy, neoconservatism, neoliberalism and usury.

Let us examine the now officially stated British values. There are four of them and they are virtually the same in US vassal states such as Canada and Australia.


This means parliamentary democracy. The democracy of Ancient Athens did not last very long, nor did the political system of Republican Rome. Do classical historians such as Tom Holland and Mary Beard discuss these subjects? Of course not. They would soon lose their scholarly eminence if they dared to do such a thing.

It is just a fact of life that most people are stupid and there is nothing clever about doing what the majority of stupid people want.

If the policies and parties the voters may choose from are deliberately narrow, voters will get tired of being asked what they want and then not being given it. Eventually, they will cease to vote or only start voting again when someone really interesting like Trump comes along.

If the whole process of parliamentary government is just a performance that no one but politicians want to watch eg Prime Minister’s Question Time, then trust and respect in government and the political classes will become its opposite: disgust and suspicion with an increase in the frequency of assassination in particularly despised politicians who go against the will of the people, such as Jo Cox, who was both a neoliberal and neocon.

Over-promoted female mediocrities have infested the body politic of the West and it is these cowardly, hypocritical and out of touch women who are now most hated. After Jo Cox, can Angela Merkel – who actually invited migrants into Germany – be far behind? European men must have noticed how enthusiastic white middle class female graduates were in welcoming migrant men, and will form their own conclusions about the treachery of their women. Not content with destroying the masculinity of the men of their own race, they now want to invite men of other races into their country so that they can destroy theirs too.


There can be no rule of law if the rules keep changing, particularly when the game is still in play, favouring only one side.


Individual liberty does not mean free speech, freedom of association or even freedom of contract now (because exercising these rights often means a visit from the police), only sexual liberation with its attendant degenerative consequences.


In practice, only those without faith are protected from being offended by those who believe in the obeying the laws of God.

Faced with such double standards it is no wonder that young and radicalised Muslims would wish to fight their government who implement policies that so blatantly flout the principles of the Bible and Koran. They must also have noticed that the Christian clergy of the established church are now too fearful, weak and corrupt or infested with women and feminists to point out the evils of fornication leading to widespread bastardy and ultimately the feminazi takeover of their society, which has of course taken place. The evidence I cite of feminazi takeover is our Prime Ministrix, our Directrix of Public Prosecutions, our Home Secretary, our Justice Secretary and our Chair of the Bar Council.


What needs to be done to prevent young people being radicalised?

Young people need to trust the government to govern in the national interest once again, but the government appears not to understand what the national interest is nor is it prepared to discuss it. Instead, it behaves like someone suffering from mental illness to whom a long list of subjects must not be discussed in its presence for fear of triggering some psychotic episode. If the West is proud of its liberties, then Westerners must be seen to enjoy free speech and the free exchange of ideas, without suffering adverse consequences such as loss of employment, loss of status, loss of income or even imprisonment. If Western media wish to reform themselves, then they will have to be seen to discussing me and my ideas instead of only the feminist-approved subjects they currently allow to be discussed.


How does your politics differ from ISIS?
My interpretation of the Koran called Secular Koranism interprets Koranic principles permissively striving to be humane and rational while also effectively discouraging the undesirable behaviour the Koran has forbidden.

Secular Koranism ignores the Hadith while ISIS use the Hadith as authority to impose punishments not mentioned in the Koran eg throwing gay men off tall buildings.

Muslims are stated in the Koran to have a duty to fight oppression so Islam was never a pacific religion nor indeed was Judaism and Christianity. Liberals seem not to have noticed that “liberal interventionism” is an euphemism for “neoconservative military aggression against oil- and resource-rich Muslim countries on trumped-up charges of harbouring Osama bin Laden, human rights abuses or having WMD”.

The theatrical atrocity of ISIS executions is not a good way of making friends or influencing people and world opinion, I would suggest. The best way of fighting the scourge of Muslim terrorism is to have the best interpretation and selection of Koranic laws that is consisting with the good life and human flourishing. This is what I claim for Secular Koranism. Secular Koranism is intended to be the middle way between the ISIS interpretation of the Koran and the demented feminism we now have. My hope is that Secular Koranism will eventually become a Western interpretation of the Koran. I hope I will be helped in this project by the many Muslims who hate the idea of Secular Koranism so much they will not discuss it at all, thus distinguishing it from their Islam.



If Claire Khaw is right, it means that the freedom valued by most of the population means nothing to radicalised individuals. Like Claire, they prefer theocracy to democracy, do not want equality for women- even if they are women- and, unlike Khaw, they’re happy to use violence to achieve those goals.