|
How jihadist sentiments are spread in Britain. "I know how these terrorists are inspired," by Ed Husain in the Telegraph, with thanks to Sr. Soph:
...In 1995, at college in east London, I was part of the secret cell structure of Hizb ut-Tahrir, an extremist organisation banned in most Muslim countries and rejected by most mosques in Britain. Yet the group had a free rein on university and college campuses, where it advocated that British Muslims were a community whose allegiance lay not with Queen and country, but to a coming caliph in the Middle East.This caliph would instruct us to act as agents of the caliphate in Britain, and open a "home front" by assisting the expansionist state. We believed that all Arab governments were not sufficiently "Islamic" and were liable to removal; entire populations would submit to the army of the caliph, or face extinction.
I was part of a generation of young British Muslim teenagers who were raised in mono-cultural ghettoes, disconnected from mainstream Britain and receptive to the message of separatism preached by Arab political asylum seekers. I was indoctrinated in my cell meetings as I studied the books written by Islamist ideologues such as Taqiuddin al-Nabhani and Syed Qutb, angry men struggling in a post-colonial Middle East to find meaning in a new world.
We brought al-Nabhani's teachings to life in my secret meetings: Britain, France, America and Russia were enemies and the army of the Islamist state would "march on Downing Street and raise the Islamist flag above Westminster". All this can easily be dismissed as extremist claptrap. But the mindset and ideology that spouts this worldview - Islamism - is entrenched in certain sections of the Muslim community in Britain....
As long as it remains legal for extremists in Britain to plan and finance Islamist attempts to mobilise the Muslim masses in the Middle East, and prepare an army for "jihad as foreign policy", there will always be a segment of this movement that will take jihad to its logical conclusion and act immediately, without leadership.
The rhetoric of jihad introduced by Hizb ut-Tahrir in my days was the preamble to 7/7 and several other attempted attacks. By proscribing Hizb ut-Tahrir, we would send a strong message to extremists that Britain will not tolerate intolerance. Yes, we are a free country with a proud tradition of liberty, but it has always had limits.
In 1991, Omar Bakri, then leader of Hizb ut-Tahrir, called for the assassination of John Major - we ignored it. In 1997, Osama bin Laden declared a jihad against the West - we ignored it.
Today, in our midst, Hizb ut-Tahrir calls for an expansionist, violent, totalitarian Islamist state - and we continue to ignore it. There is no quick fix to the problem of home-grown terrorism, but banning Hizb ut-Tahrir would be an excellent first step, sending a strong signal to aspiring terrorists that Britain has not changed the rules of game. We no longer play that game.
Posted by Robert at May 2, 2007 7:37 AM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
"there will always be a segment of this movement that will take jihad to its logical conclusion and act immediately, without leadership."
Im not aware that act of jihad require the prior direction from a leader, Ones submission is ones personal responsibility.
The terrorists are blinded by Islam, they no longer see the world in any other way...
Posted by: exsgtbrown at May 2, 2007 8:30 AMNow if only Sir Simon Jenkins could open up about how he was recruited.
Comment is free: Simon Jenkins
Posted by: Old Atlantic at May 2, 2007 8:43 AMEXSGTBROWN sez: The terrorists are blinded by Islam, they no longer see the world in any other way...
There has never been a time when jihadi's were not blinded by Islam, and they have never seen the world in any other way.
Posted by: duh_swami at May 2, 2007 8:48 AM"Europe's Islamic self"
"The boundaries of western identity are not neutral, they are constructed by culture and politics and deliberately exclude Islam's contribution."
Soumaya Ghannoushi
Old Atlantic was banned from Comment is Free. Comments that did it are reposted below:
Re: Catherine Johnson “Out on the streets, the kids are scared too”
""oldatlantic", why would you pinpoint immigration as the cause of this problem? It has little to do with it."
is how the thread now starts that I was banned from. But there is no OldAtlantic above it, link to that thread is at reposting above and below. There are several responses in the Comment is Free Thread, search OldAtlantic to various comments I made. All were removed.
Catherine Johnson
Out on the streets, the kids are scared too
Further in the Telegraph article-interview, spoken by Mr. Husain:
"Wahhabism and segments of Islamism are defined by their rejection of mainstream Muslim teachings and age-old spiritual practices, literalist readings of scripture devoid of scholarly guidance, and a hell-bent commitment to confronting the West. Moderate Muslims have common cause with the West to extinguish extremism in our midst."
Mr. Husain makes some encouraging statements in this interview (and in a prior one about his life in Saudi Arabia). However, the above quote demonstrates that he is still part of the problem.
He propagates the apparent fantasy that "mainstream muslim teachings" put forward by "moderate muslims" actually oppose the current global jihad, and oppose muslim supremacism in general.
If so, it should be easy and obvious to find muslim theological arguments and arguers opposing this "wahhabi fringe". Where are they? Both the muslims (ok, Husain is one, although he lacks clerical prestige) and the argument? Has Mr. Husain ever provided a cogent argument, from muslim source texts, which convincingly (to muslims) demonstrates the errors of Syed Qutb et alia, and as Robert Spencer phrases it, encourages muslims "to live together in peace on an indefinite basis as equals" with non-muslims?
Posted by: del at May 2, 2007 10:24 AMThe boundaries of western identity are not neutral, they are constructed by culture and politics and deliberately exclude Islam's contribution.What does Islam contribute? Murder? Rape? Repression of thought? Why should we want such contributions? Posted by: aynrandgirl at May 2, 2007 10:33 AM
May 5th people, May 5th and we can stand united or fall divided.
it's your choice, to either vote in people that truly care about british, culture, language and borders or to continue with the lab/con/lib regime and the eventually dissolution of the union and civil strife.
Posted by: leonthepigfarmer at May 2, 2007 10:35 AMI think you meant May 3rd, leon.
Posted by: watling at May 2, 2007 11:32 AMThis Muslim is not the problem because:
Who set up the policy to in Europe and America to exterminate babies in aborticide, make it higher taxed to be married and have children from the cultures already in place?
Who set the policy to import all of these colonials or illegals?
Who set the policy which kept all these immigrants in hell holes and induced the type of "teachings" which promoted war against the host nation?
Who set this all up to foment intra and interstate war so they are benefitting from it financially and in siezing power?
Islam is the proxy.......find the solution in who is behind setting this up to drain western resources and destroy Islam.
Posted by: Lame Cherry at May 2, 2007 1:08 PMLame Cherry...a muslim who straps on a bomb and blows up an Israeli pizza parlor, is the problem, and what ideology he carries, is the root problem.
The ideology of Islam is not affected by what you call 'proxy'. If it is, it is not Islam. I mentioned this before, most muslims wont believe that it is possible to 'proxy' Allah. To even contemplate that would be blasphemy supreme. Any muslim, of any rank who is in voluntary comliance with this, is not a muslim at all, but an apostate. Only an apostate or a filthy kufar could concieve of such a thing. Of course, there is more than one wolf, in sheeps clothing, fooling many people...some of then are undoubtably who you say, but I dont buy the Islam 'proxy' part.
"there will always be a segment of this movement that will take jihad to its logical conclusion and act immediately, without leadership."
When I hear some conservative talk show hosts say that thanks to Bush, there have been no terrorist acts on US soil since 911, I come to the same conclusion as stated above.
What about the eight or so, solo, independant jihadists, who shoot up malls and run over people in the name of Allah? We all have seen this list, it appeared here on JW. There have been at least eight of these attacts and maybe others, that are not known, and others that are known, but we wont hear about it. In every such case the authorities deny everything, just clam up, or lie.
If these eight made a big splash, imagine how many jihadists are operating under the cover of darkness, making smaller spashes, and no one is the wiser. Except maybe the victims who are in no shape to talk...
Ok Lame,
Who? Who is machinating and pulling the strings? Please share.
Posted by: del at May 2, 2007 3:36 PM"Who? Who is machinating and pulling the strings?"
Who?...or What? Belief in "Allah" maybe?
There's no "Allah" and everybody knows it! Stop being so shy about this and rationally work the facts out. What's it gonna take people? Multiple and constant suicide attacks on US soil to take the gloves off?!?
Only the most deluded believe in this vapid and misanthropic mythology. The totality of the "Ummah" should have reigned in their suicidal believers by way of advanced morality (that's a joke BTW) but they have not so like any immature child - we need to take this silly little Allah toy away from them.
I keep pushing the relevance of Allahs existence as a superior target to defeating Islamic supremacism but I seem to be the only one.
Imagine a world where no-one really believes they will end up in a 7th century whorehouse in the sky for murdering in the name of "Allah".
Had it been the Nazi ideology, we would be attacking and shaming their belief system into extinction in the most public manor possible.
People will remain passive and ignorant "sheople" as long as they cling to the belief that this sky god will actually retaliate. Once people come to the conclusion that Allah is about as powerful as a fart in the wind, maybe then we will engage Militant Muslims and ripe the fight out of them.
War over.
Posted by: Quantum Infidel at May 2, 2007 6:29 PMQuantum Infidel,
Umm...Most readers of JW/DW realize that islam is the problem. The lunatic "fringe", assumed by many on this planet to be the source of jihad, is really the main stream in islam.
An exception, apparently, is "Lame Cherry", who, in his (or her) post suggests above that islam is a "proxy", for some dark force which supposedly encourages abortion and controls immigration policy in western countries (among other things). Clearly belief in "allah" is not the stringpuller to which "Lame Cherry" alludes.
I would simply like "Lame Cherry" to explicitly state who it believes is the dark force, which is using islam and muslims as proxies, "so they are benefitting from it financially and in siezing power".
Lame?
Give it a shot, eh? Name the conspirators in your theory. Show us how smart you really are. In the past, you have made cryptic references to the "Judeans". Is that "group" your pullers-of-the-strings?
Posted by: del at May 2, 2007 7:07 PMLame Cherry’s postings are becoming more and more bizarre. Whereas I used to just disagree with him/her, I now find it increasingly difficult to even understand them. Has somebody hijacked his/her identity?
Posted by: JFGR at May 2, 2007 7:12 PMMore important and interesting then the article itself in the DT are the comments. A large number now openly advocate the forcible repatriation of Muslims. Absolute must read.
Posted by: DP111 at May 2, 2007 7:33 PMComments are turned off and archived for this entry.
(Note: Comments on articles are unmoderated, and do not necessarily reflect the views of Jihad Watch or Robert Spencer. Comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying may be summarily deleted. However, the fact that particular comments remain on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Robert Spencer of the views expressed therein.)