- All Contents of Site – Index
- Are you a civilised dhimmi?
- Slavery in Islam – 14 centuries old – and still ongoing
- Former Afghan PM: “I am in favour of his death” (Journalist facing charges for translating and distributing an “unacceptable” version of Koran) – FREEDOM UNDER ISLAM?
- British Islamists launch PR war against Western Values
- What did Liberty’s Chakrabarti think of Blair’s plans re Hizb ut-Tahrir?
- Blair: “Rules of game changing”; Chakrabarti: “Anathema to ban HuT”. THEIR rights are greater than OUR freedom! MAD woman!
- Blair attends interfaith meeting in Madrid
- 13 – Unlucky for some – Terrorist Networks Disrupted
- See Community Secretary’s efforts & wonder why!
Comment at end
22nd July, 2008
ISLAMISM OR DEMOCRACY? DEMOCRACY RULES – OK?
The Stopping of Hearts
I had no intention of using Geert Wilders’ video again as it is already posted at my site. But I have just received a reminder of this man’s work. It seemed appropriate to use it right here, right now. As I watched the planes hitting the Twin Towers I was moved and haunted by the thought of hundreds of terrorised beating hearts about to be stopped in an instant by this outrage. As well as the thousands in the buildings and on the ground, for most of whom the ending of the terror would not be so instantaneous.
Never let us forget the sudden stopping of innocent, terrified, pounding hearts.
THE REAL ‘MEN OF GOD’
Despite George Bush and Tony Blair being devout men of God, a factor which one might imagine would make them more acceptable to devout Muslims, fundamentalists or not, in fact their belief in God is of no relevance to radical fundamentalist Islamists determined to fight to the death for their religion.
Why? Because terrorists’ reasons for this fight are distortions, lies, or to be generous, a misinterpretation of God’s word.
How could it possibly be anything other?
MUSLIMS BELIEVE THERE IS ‘WAR ON ISLAM’
In the Widers video, the extremists declare that THEY are AT WAR with the rest of us. But war has not (yet) been declared from the side of non-Muslims. The video below urges moderate Muslims to challenge the inexcusable elements within their religion which permit and even encourage acts of murder.
In the video below the question is asked:
WHY THE CONTINUAL DENIAL FROM MODERATE MUSLIMS?
And, perhaps, ‘WHAT’S GOD GOT TO DO WITH ME, AN ATHEIST?’
I have frequently called for Islam to sort itself out, from the bottom up AND top down. They need to re-interpret their good books in a modern setting and not allow certain extremists to do it for them. Today there are many of us who are pushing for this re-visiting. When moderate Muslims too push for it, seriously and vocally, ‘Islamophobia’ will disappear. (If you think the above video from an atheist – [’what’s God/Allah got to do with me’] – is an eye-opener, there’s worse to follow below.)
9/11 the catalyst, not the cause
Terrorists’ willingness to kill and to die for their faith is NOT a response to Iraq and/or Afghanistan, since their doctrines of jihad, sharia punishments and worldwide caliphate have been around for decades, if not centuries. They did not appear as a result of President Bush’s response to 9/11. The 9/11 outrage, in which America was attacked, was the catalyst which brought these issues to the fore.
In years to come it may be recognised the 9/11 terrorists had ONE useful purpose in life: to make the rest of us aware that fundamentalist Islamism needed to be tackled and beaten. Better that it is beaten NOW than that it grows exponentially for ensuing generations. That’s responsible leadership. I’m proud that our generation has decided to stand and fight rather than crawl hopefully under the nearest bush (no pun intended … although then again … we need to watch Obama’s Iraq policy mature.)
The Islamist ideology has in reality little to do with Islamists’ belief in the rightness of their religion. although that rightness is often cited as its core strength.
It has to do with another facet of society entirely, in my humble opinion. One which has no place in the Jihadist vision.
Today’s struggles against “religious” fundamentalism is NOT a battle between Christianity/Judaism and Islam, despite the irrational arguments of Islamists. It is a struggle for the survival or death of DEMOCRACY itself. Religion is being used as the platform upon which the battle is being fought. The major difference between other religions and radical Islamism is that Islam allows NO prior loyalty to one’s country over one’s religion in. In fact the opposite is the case. No “land” or “country” is king, only radical Islam as the overall world power. Thus the dreams of worldwide caliphate.
By default, recent history, long-standing ambition or misinterpretation of POLITICAL motives, Islamists conspire to twist the facts for the gullible in ALL lands, ours included. We are led to believe that radical fundamentalism which aims to kill indiscriminately is all our fault. Or rather the faults of politicians.
The group that Tony Blair set out to ban after 7/7. It was formed the year BEFORE Blair was born! It didn’t sprout up from nowhere because of 9/11 or the war on terror. Its “caliphate” aims are long-standing, NOT a result of the west’s “attacks” on Islam! THAT is patent rubbish.
Mr Blair was prevented from banning this subservient group by several other subservient groupings – mainly the Civil Liberty Extremists in this country, as well as some in the Police who feared civil unrest. Add to that the oft disloyal legal profession who argued alongside the civil righters that the government would lose on appeal to ban HuT on Human Rights grounds! If HuT did not win in our courts, then the government would surely lose in the European Courts, he was told. The government could not be seen to lose against radical extremists. Better, Blair was also told, to back down than fight and lose. I’ll bet he found this advice hard to swallow. To go down fighting is more Blair’s style. And Britain’s too.
In August 2005, Tony Blair announced that he wished to ban Hizb ut-Tahrir. His then-friends at the Muslim Council of Britain argued that they would only support the banning of the group if the government banned the British National Party. Hizb ut-Tahrir also responded with threats to bring young Muslims onto the streets to riot, should the group be banned.
Blair still wanted the group banned, and wanted a clause in his Terrorism Act 2006 to outlaw the group. However, in November last year, the Association of Chief Police Officers argued that four of the Bill’s fourteen clauses, including the plan to ban Hizb ut-Tahrir and successors to the group Al-Muhajiroun, should not become law. The Association argued that these would “risk alienating Muslims”.
The clause to ban Hizb ut-Tahrir was never included in the final bill, which was made law in March this year.
Tony Blair faced innumerable foes, many home-grown, in his fight against terrorism. But never let it be said that he did not feel deeply that HuT should be banned. HuT’s agenda is to pursue the caliphate through stealth. They mean to USE democracy, then abuse and dispose of it. This site gives some figures as to the creeping nature of this ideology.
How did we get into this state? An ambitious belief in multi-culturalism which started with the Conservatives, NOT Labour. We left the policy to its own devices, as freedom-loving peoples are wont to do. Our faith in democracy would ensure its success, we believed. But it went awry. We watched as little was done to force the incomers to conform. In fact the incomers had their umpteen languages catered for in order that they could claim our benefits. It was too illiberal to do other. It continued to go wrong. By the time we had a Prime Minister with the necessary to stand up against it, albeit late in his premiership, the civil righters had taken over the courts!
Our only hope is that fellow Europeans are also noticing the issues that we are facing here. The law might, MUST be re-visited. This Dutch article sounds as though it shares our very own problems.
The gist of the article is this (part translated, part paraphrased):
“A major source of the problem is the group of unrestrained high-school youth known as Generation Geenstijl, which is used to reacting strongly to anything that doesn’t sit well with them. Many of these kids, when confronted, don’t acknowledge the seriousness of their actions. Apparently, ‘making threats has become normal’. In other words, flaming has arrived in parliament. The issue is familiar enough – youth are numbed to acts of violence through media, whether it’s film, TV or video games – but now there’s a twist.
Serious about being unserious, passionate about being unimpressed, the only real commitment is to cultural destructivity – tearing down any form of cultural authority in sight (up to and including would-be heroes like Geert Wilders) …”
‘RADICAL Islamic group Hizb ut-Tahrir has launched a campaign to stop young Muslims being corrupted by Western “liberal values”.
The organisation, which Tony Blair wanted to ban in Britain, has planned a summer PR campaign against Western “attacks” on the religion.
The move comes as Hizb ut-Tahrir’s British arm slammed Government plans to combat Islamic extremism and to take on the preachers of hate.’
Mr Blair was right to recognise that Islam itself has a raging battle within. And he is right that it is a battle where tolerant Christians, Jews and non-believers need to take the side of tolerant Muslims. Democracy, tolerance of others, the inclusion of women at the top of government and society as equal partners, the eradication of extreme Sharia punishments, the acceptance of apostasy by Islamists, the allowance for human differences, the banishment of corporal and capital punishments. ALL of these are easily identifiable as placing today’s western Christianity centuries ahead of Islam, even forward-looking Islam.
So WHY on earth do we keep holding out olive branches to such backward-looking, primitive ideologues?
Are we afraid? Have we in our tolerance let it go too far? Do we think the fears are exaggerated?
Possibly all of those. But there is more to it than that – and it is NOT the Iraq war and the exceptions that many Muslims have taken to our policy there. You can believe that if it suits your anti-war stance or anti-Iraq war in particular. But I believe you are fooling yourselves, if that is your analysis.
That “anti” argument is a fig leaf to cover a thousand distortions.
And now, five British Muslim videos. Hope you’re ready for this!
VIDEOS INVESTIGATING THE RADICALISATION OF BRITISH MUSLIMS
1. This first film asks: “While Britain is at war in Islamic lands can British Muslims be loyal to both their homeland and their faith? “
The answer was clearly “NO”.
Main points of above video:
The graph shows that 15% of British Muslims either support, sympathise or empathise with suicide bombers. And it can take as little as ten days for Muslims to move from “empathy” to “support”.
MI5 is investigating 2000 British Muslims from 200 terrorist cells actively promoting violence in our country. Update to this – Scotland Yard report on 181 terrorist incidents in the last year!
Quote: “The UMMAH – faith identity – is much stronger than identity with a nation or country. Defending another Muslim is compulsory.”
MONOTHEISM: I WONDER – DO WE BELIEVE IN THE ‘SAME’ GOD? REALLY?
It has long been a safety valve to say that “we all believe in the same God”. Patently a catch-all device for closing down debate and disputes, and hoping for religious tolerance to infuse religious blood groups. But the Christian God tells us to turn the other cheek, even if we don’t always listen. Islamic Jihadists’ God tells them to search out and kill all who do not accept the word and ways of Islam’s Allah. And moderate Islam? What does God say about one’s enemies?
Well, I’m not at all sure. Are you? The fact that we are not sure is a block to future inter-religious co-existence.
Is the idea of monotheism even sensible? Some parts of Islam even say that it is fine to lie about one’s motives in order to get one’s way. So, are we being lied to even by some moderate Muslims? The possibility that we may be being paranoid doesn’t mean that they are not out to get us! (See “Taqiyya” – Muslims permitted to lie for their beliefs).
Islam, despite its evident strictures and discipline is leaderless, without an equivalent Pope or Archbishops. Thus it is open to interpretation. And so, interpreted it surely is. CONSTANTLY. And in any number of ways. On the other hand, Judaism too has no one leading voice as such. Yet somehow Jews manage to worship and survive in their separate groupings without threatening the rest of us with death.
JESUS – PROPHET OR GOD’S ONLY SON?
Many aspects of religion have always got in the way of tolerant co-existence, and been brushed aside as just interpretation, or not fundamental to religious belief. For instance, to Muslims Jesus is a prophet like Mohammed. But to Christians he is the Son of God. I don’t know about you, but to me THAT seems quite a discrepancy of view. Quite, er, fundamental.
But it IS possible to live with those differences. Or it is in times of relative peace. Disagreement between Islam and Christianity over Jesus’s paternity are not confined to Muslims. Jews too do not accept that premise. Nor do many secular “Christians” who do not believe in a deity, but accept that Jesus existed, was a good man, and was someone worth “believing” in.
Despite a full blown determination to prove that there is an evil western empire, possibly even above governments, out to get us all, many Islamist fundamentalists choose to ignore this issue. They choose NOT to deal with it, as, of course, do the rest of us. There has been an unspoken Pact of Silence on this basic issue. Today’s tolerant Christians are just as incapable of questioning this, for fear of being accused of waging a war against Islam or Islam’s God.
Asked in which ways he thought the Ummah was very dangerous, Sheikh Musa Admani, University chaplain and British Government Adviser said: “The way it has been politicised”
The film’s narrator: ‘When British Muslims joined the jihad in Bosnia in 1994, their cause had the sympathy of most of the west and the British military.’
Moazzam Begg, former Guantanamo detainee, 2003 – 2005: “Today it is called terrorism but at that time it was called and recognised as a noble concept of self-defence, i.e. jihad.”
Narrator: ‘Jihad is an obligation for Muslims. It means to struggle. If Muslims are under military attack from non-believers they must take up arms. The idea of a global military jihad had been dormant for decades until the CIA and others revived it after the soviet invasion of Afghanistan (1987).’
Admani: “There’s an issue which many Muslim scholars hold it to be true – that fighting the west would be right.”
Begg: “When it comes to the concept of justice, what’s right and what’s wrong, Islam tells us to stand up with justice. In the case of Afghanistan and of Iraq the wars are unjust, they’re illegal, the right to resist that occupation according to international law and according to Islamic law is something that’s intrinsically part of the rights of the people there that people like me and others support. The British soldiers who are there are there for occupation, they’re not defending British land, they are occupying other people’s land.”
Narrator: In lslam covenants are central to the faith. Many scholars set importance on a Covenant of Security. In return for their safety and freedom Muslims are not allowed to attack the nation that is their home.
‘Abu Mohammed’, a man linked to Al Qaeda: “A Muslim in the UK should realise that we are in a state of war and that covenant has been broken by the British government and the western allies.”
On the theological justifications for the 7/7 bombings:
Abu Mohammed: “Of course it was very justified because Allah says that if someone commits aggression against you, you transgress against them the same way.”
Asked if this kind of thinking is the true faith, he said: “No that is not true, that is what people say who live off British handouts. Is it really possible for you to live in harmony with them? No, because Allah said No. You have a choice to make – calling Allah a liar or calling the British government a liar. I would be very careful in calling Allah a liar.”
SUDDENLY I TRUST ALL OF OUR DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED POLITICIANS – ALL OF THEM
NO WAR AGAINST ISLAM – NOT FROM THIS SIDE, ANYWAY
The picture that is drawn by intolerant Islamists is that there is a crusade against Islam. Patently untrue, even if some on both sides would like there to be such a war. We are many centuries away from the eight “crusades” of the 11th – 13th Centuries.
Blair argued that this is a sprawled-out civil war within Islam, a battle between moderate Muslims who seek democracy and co-operation like everyone else, and reactionary Muslims who seek to impose a medieval reading of shariah and a caliphate empire of their own. (read more here, though I do not concur with ALL of this article’s diagnosis of Blair, as you might expect.)
For me, democracy itself is the issue. It is clearly at risk. If you treat democracy as a take-it-or-leave-it add-on to your life, THINK AGAIN. Please. And next election, go out and vote. But if our reaction to the Islamist problem is important to you at home and in the world, insist that our politicians clarify where they stand on this. Since Mr Blair left office they have been shamefully unwilling or unable to let us know.
Leadership lacking is leadership lost.
Right now in the USA presidential race there is a debate as to whether Barak Obama is still a Muslim (12% of both Democrats and Republicans think he still is). The reason is to do with – guess what – confusion over the interpretation of Islam’s doctrines. This writer provides a telling response to this question:
‘So, is there any sense in which Obama is a Muslim? I suppose the answer depends, at least in part, on what the meaning of “is” is.’
Couldn’t have put it better myself.
Interpretation is everything, and therein lies Islam’s problems today.
3. Third video on British Muslims: Suicide bomber, Mohammed Siddique Khan: “We are at war and I’m a soldier”
WHAT’S ALL THIS ‘COVENANT‘ BUSINESS they keep on about?
IS THAT WHAT IMMIGRANTS SIGN when we’re good enough to allow them into our free lands?
Omar Bakri Muhammad, founder of Al-Muhajiroun, (now disbanded and banned by the British government) declared in early 2005 that the “covenant” had been broken due to anti-terrorist legislation that resulted in Muslims being detained without trial. Now barred from this country and their organisation banned after London bombings, he has now retracted his ruling over the breached covenant . But his followers say individuals can make up their own minds. Anjem Choudary, his deputy says “that covenant is intact but it’s an individual covenant, it’s for each individual to assess for himself.”
[NOTE, Ed: That's NOT a covenant. It is the tyranny of the individual! Keep in mind the words of many on this page: "Islam allows you to decide for yourself if you have a covenant, or how to respond to perceived "injustice". I repeat - the TYRANNY of the INDIVIDUAL.]
Khalid Kelly (an Irish sounding Muslim) says:
“Where do we go from here? I have two choices. I join the Muhadadin and fight British soldiers in Afghaistan and Iraq. No problem. Or I stay here and I wait for this man to enter with his muddy boots to dishonour, to humiliate me in my own household Islamic principles says that if you raid a Muslim’s house you take your life in your own hands. It’s allowed for me to kill him.”
Asked if the covenant’s in danger of being broken again, he replied, “Very much in danger, I mean .. how are you going to know when the covenant’s broken? You’ll know when you wake up and there’s blood on the streets of London”
Abu Mohammed: “Muslims need to identify the enemy of their religion and take real action not demonstration. They need to arm themselves to prevent the kafir from coming into their homes, frightening their children and terrorising their families. You are not going to come to my home … if I’m going down I’m taking you down with me.”
4. Fourth video on de-radicalising those who support political Islam
A MUSLIM ‘COVENANT’! AGAIN!? I’VE HEARD ENOUGH OF THIS.
WHAT THE H**L IS THIS ALL ABOUT?
[Note, Ed:There's a covenant all right. Muslims and/or immigrants of any religious persuasion or none make an unwritten 'covenant' with the locals on landing. You will not attack us or one another for religious reasons, or ANY group-based reason. Not now, not ever!]
Narrator: ‘While there is no Islamic state or single scholar interpreting the faith he [Dr Muhammed Al-Massari] says individuals have to seek their own guidance on the validity of The Covenant (the WHAT? We do not use that kind of language in modern secular states. Send it back to the 7th century.) His opinion is respected by radicals.
Muhammed Al-Massari, Saudi dissident: “In Islam there is no Pope or infallible authority to decide which point of view you have to comply with. You have to make your own point of view. Evidently many people decided the covenant is broken for them and they are at war. Others decided, no still that the covenant is valid I’m abstaining from war action.
Before they do any action they set meticulously analysing the legality of (indecipherable) then the practicality.
Narrator: There is Islamic Justification for 7/7?
Dr Muhammed Al-Massari: In the view of some, Yes, and it’s a weighty one. It’s not as weak and flimsy as some people claim to appease the British government. (NOTE. This is from a respected authority.)
As for giving back one’s passport if a Muslim decides the “covenant” is broken … What COVENANT!? What right have these British citizens – if that’s what they are – to expect an extra favour or several from MY government than I get!? It’s a downright insult. And the government is permitting it with the connivance of the other main political parties. WE should be up in arms.]
Abu Mohammed: “That is nonsense to say you have to give your passport back. We are in a state of war, no covenant exists and even if you need to deceive the British government and get a visa to get into the country to perform your duties as a Muslim, that’s allowed. If Allah orders us to terrorise the kafir and if I am doing something that will be labelled as terrorising them then I would be the first one to be happy to have a label on my forehead saying a terrorist because that mean I’m doing my job as Allah asked me to do”.
HEARTS AND MINDS BATTLE – GOVERNMENT STRATEGY – DE-RADICALISING
At a Royal United Services Institute conference – “Understanding Radicalisation” – speakers tired to answer the question ‘what makes a man born and bred in Britain BOMB AND MURDER FELLOW CITIZENS’.
Some speakers’ suggestions: Indoctrination … they are being targeted … fantasists … wannabe terrorists … looking for some meaning in their lives are joining onto some concept of some global Ummah and some jihad … they are being preyed on by those who want to harm us … Islam has become the new rock ‘n’ roll.
Muslim Government Adviser: “It’s a cancer … highly contagious … caught when you don’t know the difference between your emotion and your reason”.
Irfan Chishti, Islamic Scholar and Teacher, on the FATWAH RULING:“Back in 1998 the ruling to kill the Americans and their allies, civilian and military, is an individual duty.”
He says radicals have been “programmed by distorted philosophy”. It is the “legal legitimisation that has been put into these people’s minds that makes them tick.”
The central debate is whether Islam taught without distortion can make Muslims loyal to both Britain and their faith. For some, there is a vacuum of understanding Islam.
There are government programmes now to deradicalise Muslims. Their methods are very secret, and leaders are not willing to discuss the methods. It seems the majority have rejected the motives as not acceptable.
5th (last) Video on British Muslims
Includes thoughts on the government’s curriculum on teaching “moderate Islam”. Apparently the curriculum hasn’t gone down well. Also a chart of the various radical groupings within Islam in Britain and the extent of their direction or ambitions.
Mohammed Zubair-Butt, Institute of Islamic Jurisprudence, Bradford on curriculum:
“The majority have questioned the motives. Is this s government initiative to make the Muslims pliant … and just to follow the government agenda and not question what the government have to say. It seems to be very skewed towards being subservient to what the government want and I don’t think that’s going to be helpful. People that you want to teach this curriculum to, I don’t think they are going to accept it.”
Comparing the various groupings:
‘These are “political organisations which claim to be religious”. (Some) would say we’re going to have a war but it’s not now. Let’s get into the situation where we can have a certain amount of critical mass before we can fight. These people aren’t dangerous but the ideology is. They are moving into an angry violent space.’
CONSPIRACY HAS TAKEN HOLD OF THE MUSLIM MIND … A VICTIM MENTALITY”
Jihad Watch says this: “You will not meet a young Muslim man in the world who is not angry about something”.
In response to this: “Just because he supports them (violent jihadists) in theory is not actually proof of his involvement as such.”
Indeed. But if they want to survive (which cannot be said to be completely clear at this point), Canada and other Western countries are sooner or later going to have to shift focus away from “terrorism” to the ideology that drives that terrorism, which is jihad and Islamic supremacism. And that ideology is not being spread today solely by bombs and terror attacks, but also by numerous other initiatives that have nothing to do with violence at all.
BRITISH MUSLIM SURVEY ON 7/7 LONDON BOMBINGS
In this Channel 4 survey 25% of Muslims said that the government set up 7/7 and fabricated evidence. And 52% believe the Police fabricated evidence to convict terrorist suspects – even the DEAD ones! Come on! The DEAD ones? The Intelligence Services are supposed to have fabricated their suicide videos?
But you won’t shut me up for long.
I’m British … FREE … and proud of it. And staying that way.
All right, David Davis I have a question for you. (He was the Conservative front-bencher – YES, Tory MP – who resigned to fight his own seat on the question of “civil rights”. Luckily, not a lot of people noticed, so it wasn’t TOO embarrassing for him or the Conservative party.)
Mr Davis – THESE people are with you on the nonsense that the government is taking away people’s rights. And yet for me no mainstream party is tough enough on civil rights for civilised people. I am presently disenfranchised.
- (March 2005): Islamic Human Rights Commission – YES!!! – condemns Community Secretary
- (June 2008): Community Secretary Blears says it’s “common sense to sideline Christianity”
- (July 13th 2008): Hazel Blears hopes to ‘PREVENT’ extremism, since ‘RESPECT’ didn’t work
- Comment on “PREVENT” project: Blears’s search for Moderate Islam
- (July 21st 2008): Blears Interfaith community projects for Muslims & Christians
- August 2005 – Blair announces summary deportation for extremists & those inciting radicalism
- Blair shelves ban on Hizb-ut Tahrir – November 2006
- Why Hizb-ut Tahrir Should be Banned – Dominic Whiteman, November 2006
- Petition by Hizb-ut Tahrir against Blair’s proposals to ban them – still open for signatures! Hasn’t anyone told them they won?
American video – “Thank A Soldier”
“It is the soldier, not the reporter, who has given us freedom of the press.” We should never forget that today as the press vilifies political decisions.
Freedom Alliance Foundation provides scholarships to children whose parents have fallen or become permanently disabled from military service.
And just in case you’d rather NOT thank a soldier, take a look at this crowd of wastes of good free air. Watch it and weep.
Santa Barbara Anti-War America Demonstration
“Not a peace-maker”? Have they asked the thousands of Iraqis soldiers (update: see report on Iraqi soldiers assault) and police now grateful for coalition training to fight terror in their own land? Have they asked the people who are seeing the ending of murder by insurgents?
Still, I was proud of the British guy interviewed. At least he didn’t want to hang Blair! These days, with dhimmi culture widespread in Britain, THAT’S something to be pleased and even surprised about!
Hizb ut-Tahrir (Arabic: حزب التحرير; English: Party of Liberation) is a internationalist Sunni, anti-nationalist, pan-Islamist vanguard political party whose goal is to unite all Muslim countries in a unitary Islamic state or caliphate, ruled by Islamic law and headed by an elected head of state (caliph).
Taqiuddin al-Nabhani, an Islamic scholar and appeals court judge (Qadi) from Haifa, founded the organization in 1953. Since then Hizb ut-Tahrir has spread to more than 40 countries, and is estimated to have about one million members. Hizb ut-Tahrir is banned, but still active in, several Arab and Central Asian countries, is very active in the west, particularly in the United Kingdom.
The party promotes “an elaborate and detailed program for instituting an Islamist state” which will “establish the laws of the Islamic Shariah and to carry the Da’wah of Islam to the world.” It believes this “comprehensive solution” will provide “sincere leadership that cares for and protects its citizens from the colonial foreign policies of Bush and Blair” and bring an end to “US interventions, energy inspired wars, puppet (Muslim) governments and western values forced by the barrel of a gun.” HT is strongly anti-Zionist and calls for “the dismantling of the illegal entity of Israel,” whose leadership “has never concealed its hatred of Muslims and have been calling for the destruction of Muslims since the very beginning.” HT believes a caliphate “will provide stability and security to all the people of the region, Muslims and Non-Muslims”.
Observers differ as to whether HT is a victim of unjust and untrue allegations of connections to terrorism, or is only opposed to “the use of violence now,” not to “violence as such.”
Ends Wikipedia excerpt. Here for more
It is breathtaking that these people have the shamefaced gall to refer to Bush & Blair as colonialists – a figleaf of an accusation to cover HuT’s evil intent. The west, including America & Britain, have been responsible for more worldwide charitable giving than would ever be received at the end of a Sharia weapon.
My thoughts: Democracy is many faceted. From war and peace, from religion to humanism, from politician to press. One thing it does not and cannot include is a creed which espouses “religion”, but denounces democracy and believes its *God* supports terrorism or brutal acts in His Name.
THAT is the way to hell on earth. Sort it out all you people of God (see Blair’s recent religious gathering). But make it speedy. Some of us do NOT believe in an afterlife in which we can repent at our leisure. THIS life is not a dry run.
Tags: 1. Tony Blair, 7/7, banning HuT, British Muslims, chakrabarti, channel 4, civil rights, Conspiracy theories on London bombings, covenant, democracy rules ok, extremists, fundamentalism, Geert Wilders, Dutch MP, "Fitna" Video, hazel blears, Hizb ut-Tahrir, Human Rights and HR Act, Civil Rights, Civil Liberties, Iraq, Islam, islamisation by stealth, islamists, jihad, jihadists, Liberty, Muslims, radicals, sharia law, YouTube video