by Charles
Last week, the Englishman in New York outlined three "gratuitous admissions" in the wake of the 7/7 terrorist attacks:
- I have been on two anti-war/anti-Bush marches in New York (2003/2004)
- I believed that the September 11 attacks on America were the ghosts of US foreign policy coming back to haunt it.
- On September 11, 2001, and on July 8, 2005, (and on all the bombings in between) I acted as though it had nothing to do with me.
What struck me, beyond his new awakening to the al Qaeda terrorist threat, was how the British media had influenced his worldview. It took a stay in the United States to see it for what it was.
If living in New York has had one major effect during the past year and a half, it is to open my eyes to a different world view. To put it another way. When I immersed myself in Russia for five years between 1995 and 2000, it opened my left eye. Living in America is opening my right eye. And my vision is still pretty much a blur.
The BBC that I used to love for its impartiality, I have “discovered,” is far from impartial. I don’t love it any less for this. And I think that the license fee is the surest way keep the world’s greatest (and I mean this) news/current affairs institution at its best. But I do wish that they would admit that news output is only as impartial as the people who produce it. And I am yet to meet an impartial human being—especially an impartial journalist.
Likewise, the great British Press, the envy of the world, contains a mass of half-truths, deliberate omissions, undeclared interests, and regurgitated press releases. It chases its tail to produce almost a dozen national newspapers that carry the same story, albeit of varying lengths, each and every day. And regional journalism, at least as I knew it, has been reduced to filling space.
The result is not a lie on the scale of Pravda. But it is still a false world view masquerading as the truth.
The latest example of this masquerade was an appeasing piece in the Guardian by trainee journalist Dilpazier Aslam (also picked up by the Melbourne Age and who knows where else), apologizing for the 7/7 terrorist attacks.
Perhaps now is the time to be honest with each other and to stop labelling the enemy with simplistic terms such as "young", "underprivileged", "undereducated" and perhaps even "fringe". The don’t-rock-the-boat attitude of elders doesn’t mean the agitation wanes; it means it builds till it can be contained no more.
As noted by way of Tim Worstall, a fellow Guardian trainee journalist was murdered in the terrorist attacks.
It’s no good bleating quietly that you’re a good citizen, a nice person who rather likes the human race and doesn’t mind its silly face.
Not when random citizens of London have been violently blown into ugly pieces. Not when (to name only one) a 22-year-old Guardian trainee journalist, David Foulkes, whose future on the morning of July 7 was rose-coloured, smiles out of my paper under the heading: Missing.
No word on Aslam’s "rock-the-boat" attitude toward his murdered co-worker. Scott Burgess at Daily Ablutions did a little searching and found that Aslam is a member of the extremist Islamic group Hizb ut Tahrir (HT).
Mr. Aslam makes much of pointing out that he, like the terrorists, is "a Yorkshire lad, born and bred," and is careful to preempt accusations of support for terror by saying that indiscriminate killing is "sad," and "not the way to express your political anger."
Although the Guardian article unaccountably omits the fact (presumably for reasons of space), Mr. Aslam is on record as supporting a world-dominant Islamic state, notably in his writings for London based site khilafah.com ("Khilafa" translates as "Caliphate". The site’s tagline expresses its aim: "then there will be khilafah rashida [a righteous Caliphate] on the method of Prophethood [i.e., sharia]"). As he puts it, in an article he co-authored there:
"… we will have to run an Islamic state which must lead the world, economically, militarily and politically"
As the establishment of the state that he hopes to help run seems unlikely without the implementation of violent measures such as those we’ve seen, and also considering the fact that the Caliphate that Mr. Aslam so keenly anticipates is the stated goal of many such terrorists, readers can’t help but question the sincerity of his thinly-voiced disapproval of inappropriate "sass."
In fact, his stated fear of "being labelled a terrorist-lover" seems particularly justified, in light of another of his khilafah.com articles – in which he specifically calls for violence:
"The establishment of Khilafah is our only solution, to fight fire with fire, the state of Israel versus the Khilafah State"
Incidentally, it should be pointed out that there’s no question whatever about this "Yorkshire lad’s" loyalty to Britain. He has made it quite clear that:
"Muslims grant their loyalty and allegiance to their deen and the Ummah, not to a football team or nation state."
Neither should there be any questions concerning the Guardian’s use of columnists who advocate "fighting fire with fire" to bring about the establishment of a sharia-based Caliphate. After all, it’s not the first time they’ve done so.
Burgess follows up here, here and here regarding the terrorist sympathizer on the Guardian’s payroll. So far, the Guardian has been in stonewall mode. All I can say is, thank God for the blogosphere. Without it, who knows how long Aslam’s tripe would have gone unchallenged and unscrutinized.
Tangentially, fifteen months ago I wrote a post on HT and its MO. Its most famous alumnus is none other than Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. While claiming to be a peaceful organization, it is an ideological conveyor belt for terrorism. Interestingly, I got a couple of harsh e-mails from British Hizb members (involved with this site it turns out) in response to the Tacitus post, but they refused to answer my questions about why they deserve "freedom" if their purpose is to oppress people who are not like them.
As the Guardian imbroglio illustrates, Berger captured the challenge the United States faces in a nutshell. We are every bit engaged in an information war as a physical one. While getting better of late, George W. Bush is hurting his chances for success by being an Occasional Communicator, making big public speeches only when the polls get too low for comfort. We need to get more fully engaged on this front. Bloggers can only do so much.
(also at Redstate.org)
Oh lord, more Bird.
Charles, I think you’re getting close to articulating the problem but you haven’t yet realizeed what it is.
We’re engaged in a clash of ideologies and goals, yes. The physical and military conflicts are both a result of and fuel for the idological conflict. Thus far, however, Bush has not only communicated infrequently but incorrectly.
If we are truly engaged in a war of ideologies, it is necessary to truly understand the goals, beliefs, and purposes of those willing to harm us. To this day, many on the right — yourself included — dismiss those attempts at understanding as ‘sympathizing.’ While there may well be people in the US and UK who are confused about whether they want terrorists to win this war of ideologies, the ‘sympathizer’ label is thrown at anyone who treats the question as more complex than ‘Freedom Versus Hatred.’
Distinguishing between “People whose goals we oppose” and “People willing to blow up our civilians to achieve their goals” is one very important distinction.
And also, wow, my typing was terrible.
Try a smaller Brush CB, that barn brush your weilding isn’t able to pick out the fine detail work I would hope lies beneath the to thick layer of leadbased.
Jeff- not to mention distinguishing “people who hate us” from “people who are willing to take violent action against us.” The failure to make this distinction is one of the more irritating features of the right wing blogosphere. Not freaking out over how much the theofascist jihadis hate us is not a sign that I don’t take the threat seriously. It’s a sign that I recognize their limited ability to strike at western targets, and the relative ease with which they can be defeated by undermining their support within the large community of Islam. Frankly I’m more freaked out about the failure to take effective action to undermine their base of support than I am about the terrorists themselves.
This post seems to weld three rather separate arguments together: 1)the Englishman’s reflections on how even British regionalism can limit one’s viewpoint, 2) the Guardian writer’s “secret” writings for a website devoted to a radicial, politicized Islam, and 3) a call for Bush to articulate more clearly his side in the “information wars.”
I’m not sure how these all relate are meant to each other, and that’s largely because I disagree with the premiss of section 2, which I take to be that people expressing the viewpoint of radical Islam should be exposed and silenced.
Everything I’ve read in history books suggests that when revolutionary movements get some degree of public accountability–when their spokepersons become public figures, when their ideology is aired for mass consumption, when the people they presumed to speak for start holding them to their promises–they become more political (open to compromise) than revolutionary. I would much rather have this Aslam writing in the Guardian, where the majority of readers can curl their lips and call him a wanker, than reinforcing his idiocy on some islamist website somewhere.
You’ll let me know where I went wrong, of course, but I’m left unsure of exactly what I’m supposed to denounce, here.
Jeez, this post get’s a A+ for cherrypicking one liners out of context from columns.
“If we are truly engaged in a war of ideologies, it is necessary to truly understand the goals, beliefs, and purposes of those willing to harm us. To this day, many on the right — yourself included — dismiss those attempts at understanding as ‘sympathizing.’ While there may well be people in the US and UK who are confused about whether they want terrorists to win this war of ideologies, the ‘sympathizer’ label is thrown at anyone who treats the question as more complex than ‘Freedom Versus Hatred.'”
I think the problem is that the ideologies are to be understood for the sake of destroying them (the ideologies) something which many people are very uncomfortable with in a religious context.
Another point which gets lost in the fracas is that we are trying to win the hearts and minds of the bulk of the muslim world. Many of whom are not in AQ but who sympathise to some degree. Destroying AQ and it’s franchises is a worthy goal. We need to understand to destroy.
But we are not trying to destroy the bulk of the muslim world. we might actully have to give them things that they want and be respected and trusted by those peeps.
We need to understand the potential sympathisers, wavering goverments, etc who we want to win over. That is a seperate task that will take a different appraoch.
SH: when Xtians complain vociferously that the US is anti-Christian, you should understand that we atheists/agnostics end up just shaking our heads. motes and beams and all that.
sure, the british and the us govts should do more to expose and ridicule violent ideologies. This will mean doing unpopular things like pursuing Xtian lunatics for encouraging terror, in order to avoid legitimate arguments about selective prosection.
now, what’s the president’s base again?
here’s the odd thing, and maybe some of the more religous can explain it to me. Why is it that so many people are so anxious for the end-of-times to get here?
Francis- Christians are eager for the end times because afterwards Jesus comes again and makes it all good. The modern day Pharisees and hypocrits are eager for the end times because they are in a hurry to see the wicked punished.
(Amusing since the wicked are them.)
Chas, why is this
As noted by way of Tim Worstall, a fellow Guardian trainee journalist was murdered in the terrorist attacks.
linked to an essay by Vicki Woods in the Telegraph? Worstall does mention it in his post, but I am at a loss to see how it relates to being a fellow Guardian trainee. I would also note that there seems to be some backstory here, link and link that may make all this not as straightforward as possible. Again, I appreciate the links, but please take a bit of time to research exactly what they are saying. (hint: the urge to put two links in a row is basically the same as using two words that have the same meaning in a row, so make sure that you have a very good reason for doing it)
Furthermore, your added links to Scott Burgess post undercut his assertions. If you want to take the name kalifah.com as ‘proof’ that anyone who writes there advocates islam as a world wide religion, you shouldn’t make the link to an essay that says
We should never confuse tradition and Islam. It is Islam that we must follow, not traditions that contradict it and often emanate from Hinduism and other religions. We should never assume that something is Islamic because it is commonly practiced. We should always question and find out – where practices come from, are they based on evidence from the Quran and Sunnah?
Here is what you (or Scott Burgess) thinks it means.
Mr. Aslam is on record as supporting a world-dominant Islamic state, notably in his writings for London based site khilafah.com (“Khilafa” translates as “Caliphate”. The site’s tagline expresses its aim: “then there will be khilafah rashida [a righteous Caliphate] on the method of Prophethood [i.e., sharia]”).
Change Islamic to Christiand and Quran and Sunnah to the Bible, I don’t think it would be out of place in a Watchtower magazine. Either this is evidence of an unreasoning prejudice on your part, or you aren’t actually reading what you link to.
Furthermore, the article ‘about’ valuing the Muslim faith higher than a football team was one decrying hooliganism.
You would realize this if you just read the comments. Daniel Davies
writes:
The passage “Muslims grant their loyalty and allegiance to their deen and the Ummah” is in the context of an article about football hooliganism, suggesting that Muslim’s shouldn’t do it. Again it’s not about being a fifth column within the UK; it’s boilerplate “there are no nations under God” stuff of the kind you can hear in any CoE pulpit of a weekend.
The second excerpt above is nearest the knuckle and does look like an endorsement of violence but it is in the context of an article about the Israeli operation to take al-Aqsa in 2001 (four years ago, before 9/11, when the author was a teenager). It’s again not at all obvious that “Khilafah” in this context means the medieval caliphate.
Finally, the last Burgess link, to a translation of Bin Laden’s recording, is suggested by Burgess as the Guardian hiring a columnist to express just such a viewpoint. It would be funny, if it weren’t so pathetic.
Again, maybe you are just copying the links that Scott Burgess used, but it is rather embarassing to see you swallow the hook, the line and the sinker.
Why is this…linked to an essay by Vicki Woods in the Telegraph? Worstall does mention it in his post, but I am at a loss to see how it relates to being a fellow Guardian trainee
Because Worstall is where I saw the news about Foulkes first, LJ, then I linked to the actual Telegraph article which discussed Foulkes. The link to Worstall was a hat tip. I put a link on Foulkes’ name because I later stumbled on the Guardian piece about him. I don’t understand why you think Tim’s previous references to Woods would mean anything, one way or the other.
Either this is evidence of an unreasoning prejudice on your part, or you aren’t actually reading what you link to.
Go to the definitions, LJ. Caliph:
HT is one of those Islamist organizations. Then go to Hizb ut Tahrir:
Aslam is a member of a group whose ultimate goal is uniting all Muslims, all 1.2 billion of them spread across the planet, under a single Islamic state. If that’s not world dominant, I don’t know what is.
He is writing this material in a magazine devoted to this cause. BTW, Scott answered Dsquared’s objections in a later comment. In Aslam’s article: “Islam demands that we are leaders in science; we will have to run an Islamic state which must lead the world, economically, militarily and politically.”
I agree that Burgess’ last link was unnecessary and gratuitous. I was unable to open this article before hitting the post button, so I didn’t see it until just now. His other links I’ve seen.
Change Islamic to Christiand and Quran and Sunnah to the Bible, I don’t think it would be out of place in a Watchtower magazin
I don’t know that that’s the best example, lj. Jehovah’s Witnesses are — along with Christian Scientists and, in some circles, LDS — one of the sects which mainstream Christians (Catholics, Episcopals and mainline Protestants) often feel (despite paying lip service) aren’t “really Christian.” And fundamentalists and evangelicals will say so outright, along with often tossing Catholics in that pile.
I don’t think it would be out of place in a Watchtower magazine
I think a better analogy would be a Christian Reconstruction tract.
Which brings up another question. Would it diminish a reporter’s (say the WSJ) credibility if they were publishing their religious views in a CR publication?
Mr. Aslam’s “We Rock the Boat” column seems to imply that the 7/7 bombers were provoked by the war in Iraq, and the “flattening” of Fallujah specifically. And although he issues a pro forma denunciation of the bombings in the first paragraph, the spirit of his column is that they were justified in their outrage. And I would suspect his views are shared by many Muslims in the United States and (especially) in Europe.
This leads me to make a politically incorrect observation about the War on Terror (or to be accurate, the War on Islamist Terrorists): One of the things that would help us tremendously in this struggle would be for the concept of the Ummah, or global community of Muslims, to be overshadowed by national identification. When Muslims in Pakistan could care less about the sufferings of the Palestinians, when Arabs in Egypt and Saudi Arabia decide that the fact that Iraq is occupied by an infidel power isn’t nearly as important as paying the rent next month, then we will be well on our way toward victory.
In the West, what we really need is for Muslims to consider themselves English (or American, or French, or whatever) first, and Muslims second. Again, I realize that’s a terribly un-PC thing to say, but it’s still true. This means, of course, that Western nations must make efforts to truly assimilate Muslims into their societies, rather than confining them to ghettoes. If I may pat my own country on the back, I think that this is something the US has been better at than Western Europe.
I dunno, maybe I’m not making much sense. It’s late and I’m tired. To tell the truth, I think we could all use a little less religion these days. I used to sympathize with the religious Right in my own country, until I saw how they acted when they got their hands on a little bit of power. Thank God (heh) for all those 18th-century secular humanists who laid the groundwork for that ultimate expression of rationalism and the Enlightenment, the US Constitution. Here’s hoping their counterparts in the Islamic world are coming soon.
I don’t understand why you think Tim’s previous references to Woods would mean anything, one way or the other.
It just seems that there is a back story. At any rate, I don’t understand it, but it’s not important enough to waste more bytes over.
What is a major point is:
BTW, Scott answered Dsquared’s objections in a later comment.
Yes, and Davies (rather mildly, to my surprse, he has a wicked wit) pointed out further problems, such as the fact that one of the pages on the site was published when the writer in question was a teenager and was written pre 9/11. While it is fun to range over time and pull out what appear to be apropos quotes, the fact that the site and the article was there before 9/11 is a hell of an unmarked caveat. Unless this is a star trek episode where 9/11 opened a rift in time.
And that “quote” of Aslam (the page is co-authored) occurs right after making the point that Islam and technology are compatible. Context does matter. In fact, Sullywatch provides even more context.
Furthermore, you write [Burgess] found that Aslam is a member of the extremist Islamic group Hizb ut Tahrir (HT). is only given if you click thru, and his ‘proof’ is an article entitled “Family Life Crisis in the West” and the fact that he has a 1924.org email address. Pretty thin gruel to make a meal of the accusations both you and he are casting. Of course, if you google “Dilpazier Aslam”, you get a whole bunch of blog sites excorciating him as a ‘known Islamic radical’. He’s what, 22, 23 years old, and already people have got him outfitted with an orange jumpsuit. Like no one has ever had difficulties making their points exactly.
The silver lining is that you think the last link is inappropriate, but I wonder how you decided to include it in. Oh, I’m sure that he must have linked to the Guardian making some indefensible statement, it doesn’t come thru when I clik, but I’ll toss it in anyway’? Don’t you think that you should put a strikethru on that at least?
Finally, Phil, Watchtower was the first thing that popped into my head, and I couldn’t think of another publication. Though I am sure there must be some Christian publication entitled “The Kingdom”. I hope it doesn’t frighten Muslims as much as a website with the title of “The Caliphate” frightens Charles.
One problem with the WatchTower analogy is that Jehovah’s Witnesses are a pretty minor cult (or a major cult but pretty minor religion?). As mentioned above there are lots of Christians who would say that Jehovah’s Witnesses are definitely not Christian (any of the religous members of my family for instance). Would a large percentage of Muslims openly state that “Hizb ut Tahrir” is not Islamic? I can’t prove it, but I seriously doubt it.
Me and Vicki Woods? No massive back story. Just I know she reads my blog, that’s all, and she’s mentioned it a couple of times. She’s one of the few UK journos (Nick Cohen is another) who are really reading blogs and integrating material into the newspapers.
Me and Vicki Woods? No massive back story.
OK, then can you explain what the two links are? Chas says one is a hat tip, so the other is what? I really didn’t understand what I was supposed to be getting from the link. Obviously, you might not know either, but if you do have an idea, let it fly. I’m thinking that I’m missing some important point.
Seb, Watchtower was the nearest thing I could think of as a publication associated with organized religion. I wonder how many Muslims do know what Hizb ut Tahrir is. I’d bet that a lot of Christians think that Christian Science is a basic run of the mill Christian denomination.
OK, then can you explain what the two links are?
Sorry, that came off a bit too sharp. Just trying to figure out what Chas is getting at. As I said, it’s not a major point. Also, thanx for stopping by to comment, Tim, it certainly adds spice to the whole thread.
his ‘proof’ is an article entitled “Family Life Crisis in the West” and the fact that he has a 1924.org email address. Pretty thin gruel to make a meal of the accusations both you and he are casting.
The Guardian has admitted as much to rival lefty broadsheet The Independent.
Dilpazier Aslam is a member of Hizb ut-Tahrir, an organisation which is legal in this country. We are keeping the matter under review.
The “gruel” is thicker than you suppose.
Well it didn’t take us long to get around to the Christians. What exactly is a xtian or xian though? Is it anything like a xew or xuslim,perhaps xeftist or xberal? And why is it so hard to stay focused,you have twelve hundred years of history to study the religion of peace,Islam of course,not Christianity. Time to drag out the Inquisition although if the terrorists,excuse me,insurgents fly a 747 into the Democratic National headquarters all hell will break loose. Maybe I can draw up a flight plan for them but then all they need do is follow the smell.
Finally getting to the further links that Chas provided. From wikipedia
Contemporary Muslim Attitudes toward the Caliphate
Once the subject of intense conflict and rivalry amongst Muslim rulers, the Caliphate has lain dormant and largely unclaimed for much of the past 81 years. The reasons for this are varied and complex. (snip)
Though Islam is still a dominant influence in most Muslim societies and many Muslims remain in favor of a Caliphate, tight restrictions on political activity in many Muslim countries coupled with the tremendous practical obstacles to uniting over fifty disparate nation-states under a single institution have prevented efforts to revive the Caliphate from garnering much active support, even amongst devout Muslims. Popular apolitical Islamic movements such as the Tablighi Jamaat identify a lack of spirituality and decline in religious observance as the root cause of the Muslim World’s problems, and claim that the Caliphate cannot be successfully revived until these deficiencies are addressed. No attempts at rebuilding a power structure based on Islam were successful anywhere in the Muslim World until the Iranian Revolution in 1979, which was based on Shia principles and did not deal with the issue of a global Caliphate. Though Islamist movements have gained momentum in recent years, most are locally oriented and do not outwardly call for a restoration of the Caliphate. Furthermore, such movements have as yet been unable to agree on a roadmap or a coherent model of Islamic governance, and dialog on this issue amongst Muslim intellectuals has been characterized by uncertainty and confusion amidst a broad range of viewpoints on what a modern Islamic state should look like. Mainstream Islamic institutions in Muslim countries today have generally not made the restoration of the Caliphate a top priority and have instead focused on other issues.
OK, so this group has solved all the internal tensions that plague any kind of transnational application of a caliphate? I somehow doubt it, especially if one of its cadres is writing things like
Many have grown up being smacked unnecessarily by their parents at home and by the ‘Maulana’ at the mosque. Some have been forced to marry from amongst their relatives or tribe. Not knowing whether this comes from Islam or from tradition. Technology and anything modern is seen as anti-Islamic and the image of a good Muslim is portrayed as someone who denies the world and sits in the mosque all day.
Wow, teenage rebellion and a plan to conquer the world. What a combo.
Also note the bold. I’ve complained about your apparent ignoring of the Shia/Sunni split, which I think offers a creative tension that might permit Islam to evolve out of its current problems, and I believe that this is another example.
From your second wikipedia link
Despite the claims of several Muslim governments the group has always publicly maintained a policy of political rather than violent change. Indeed, its public positions is that it adheres to the Shari’ah (Islamic law) in all aspects of its work and considers violence or armed struggle against the regime, as a method to re-establish the Islamic State, to be forbidden by the Shari’ah (despite pressure from American conservative groups, the State Department of the United States has not designated Hizb ut-Tahrir as a terrorist organization, though the Russian government accuses the Islamist group of having connections with terrorist organizations such as Al-Qaeda).
The party’s stated mission in the Western world, is “to explain Islamic ideology to Muslims, to create a dialogue with Western thinkers about Capitalism and its ills and to present Islam as an ideological alternative.”
Horrors! Of course, they must be committed to the overthrow of Western civilization because , shadowy group that they are, they have their own website. Not even Al Queda has that! How will we ever stop them?
Of course, this website lays out the Salafi case against the organization (It all gets so confusing, cause I thought that you said that Salafi was intertwined with Wahhabism, which, getting money from Saudi Arabia, thus endangering us, but now, the groups that Salafists are against are also our enemies)
Of course, you are probably on the same wavelength as the Heritage Foundation, when they say:
Hizb ut-Tahrir’s spread around the globe, in Western Europe and often in authoritarian states with strong secret police organizations, is impressive. It could be accomplished only by applying 20th century totalitarian political “technology” melded with Islamic notions of the 7th and 8th centuries, as interpreted by medieval Islamic scholars. The genius of Hizb founder an-Nabhani was marrying Orthodox Islamist ideology to Leninist strategy and tactics.
Wow, a two-fer!
Hizb ut-Tahrir is a totalitarian organization, akin to a disciplined Marxist-Leninist party, in which internal dissent is neither encouraged nor tolerated.
So this Aslam wrote the article because he was specifically ordered to, right?
Because its goal is global revolution, a leading Islamic scholar has compared it to the Trotskyite wing of the international communist movement.15 Its candidate members become well-versed in party literature during a two-year indoctrination course in a study circle, supervised by a party member. Only when a member “matures in Party culture,” “adopts the thoughts and opinions of the party,” and “melts with the Party” can he or she become a full-fledged member.16 Women are organized in cells supervised by a female cadre or a male relative. After joining the party, the new recruit may be requested (or ordered) to relocate to start a new cell.
Remember, that trainee journalist is argued to be a committed member of this organization on the basis of one article and an email address. I want to be a trainee journalist for the Guardian if they give the kind of time-off that this sort of thing would take. Of course, the Independent article has the following:
Speculation is mounting that it may have been a sting by Hizb ut-Tahrir to infiltrate the mainstream media.
Another plot to dominate the mainstream media has been foiled?
When a critical mass of cells is achieved, according to its doctrine, Hizb may move to take over a country in preparation for the establishment of the Caliphate. Such a takeover would likely be bloody and violent. Moreover, its strategy and tactics show that, while the party is currently circumspect in preaching violence, it will justify its use–just as Lenin and the Bolsheviks did–when a critical mass is achieved.
Not preaching violence is a sure sign that they can’t be trusted, don’t you know.
For those of you in for a laugh, check out the footnotes as well. It’s either personal interviews or stuff they found on their English website. Talk about shadowy!
The Independent also notes:
Though Hizb ut-Tahrir is a legal organisation in this country, the group is outlawed in nearly every other country it operates in, including Germany and Holland. It is thought to have between 2,000 and 3,000 members in the UK.
Here’s what the wikipedia says
Hizb ut-Tahrir is considered a criminal organization in several countries, and in February 2003 the Russian Supreme Court banned Hizb ut-Tahrir as a terrorist organization. A month before, Hizb ut-Tahrir was also outlawed in Germany on charges of anti-Jewish propaganda. This ruling is currently being challenged in the German courts. Denmark is currently also considering to outlaw the organization, because of recent threats from the organization, against the non-Muslim population of Denmark.
I seem to remember that you (i.e. Chas) have a big problem with hate crime legislation, so I hope you will note that the group is being outlawed based on legislation that you are opposed to. But even setting that aside, a group being outlawed should not be taken, as it seems to by the Independent, as proof that the organization is connected with terrorism.
On 27 December 2004 several public figures of Russia’s Tatarstan republic — including the Tatar writer Aydar Halim — signed an open letter, in which they accused Russia’s police and special forces of mass arrests of about 400 Muslims under a “far-fetched pretext of their alleged ties with Hizb ut-Tahrir”.
Now, this is not to say that I know what Hizb ut-Tahrir is. But I really doubt that you know either. I do get nervous when I hear people describe, without a trace of self awareness or irony, plots to take over the world.
Of course, some have wondered why they haven’t been declared a terrorist organization in the US or the UK
For Washington, Hizb ut-Tahrir has become a most convenient plaything. In certain situations, the organization-despite its apparent opposition to the US-acts in complete accord with the plans of the White House. And so, in one of its regular manifestoes, published in Caliphate, the organization calls on the Muslims of Iran not to wait upon further destabilizing efforts by the US but to overturn the regime in Teheran themselves. In this connection, Hizb ut-Tahrir is not averse to using Iranian Azerbaijanis. . .
Hizb ut-Tahrir is not on Washington’s list of international terrorism but is held in reserve. Whenever convenient, war can be declared against the new foe, which the State Department has, till then, been closely ‘monitoring.’ If it becomes necessary, active measures might be taken near the borders of Russia-be that in Central Asia or Azerbaijan-in the struggle with Hizb ut-Tahrir–enemy of democracy, the rights of man and the other moral underpinnings of civilization.
link
Of course, if HT does emerge as a threat, what a threat it will be.
The group was not allied to any political regime, it was not operating on the basis of personal or financial motivation, it didn’t have a sectarian approach. So it had a very open approach. As long as you are a Muslim and are committed to its beliefs, and its causes, you are welcome to join the party.link
Now, maybe HT is a terrorist organization, despite the fact that there are no links to any other organizations and their whole raison d’etre would make them an anathema to any actual national government. Maybe they have recruited a cadre of young Westernized muslims to infiltrate mainstream media and they are working their evil magic even as we speak. If that is the case, why did this Aslam choose to blow his cover so spectacularly?
Would any of the folks here claim that Roman Catholicism is inherently “fascistic” Most fascist parties of Europe and Latin America (past and present) have a “religious zeal” for the Christian faith?
The Evangelical private schools I attended, for a few years, taught us that Roman Catholicism led to totalitarian philosophies.
Many Orthodox Protestants think Roman Catholicism is the soil Fascism grows from.
Ever heard of the Inquisition, from 1200 A.D. to 1800 A.D. . . ? It’s never mentioned any longer. We hear a lot about the Jewish Holocaust when 6 million Jews perished under Hitler. But most people don’t know that Hitler was a Roman Catholic and an instrument of the Holy Office. Hitler was never excommunicated for his crimes against humanity and causing the deaths of millions of people; whereas Martin Luther was excommunicated for translating the Bible into German.
From:
http://www.reformation.org/inquisit.html
——————————————–
Just thought I would put a little perspective on the whole “ideas have consequences” school of thought. Why would some of you deny the link between certain Christian faiths and repression and lumping Islam with same impulses?
And many don’t. What’s your point, here? That because some people believe it to be true, that must mean something about it? Many orthodox protestants believe homosexuals will roast in hell; is there some conclusion you’d like to draw from this belief, too?
There seems to be a tone, when “reviewing/examining” other religions, that suggests that the rules we review/examine our own will not be used to examine others.
I think Juan Cole articulated this better than I have.
Christian Terrorist Rudolph Sentenced
What the Rightwing Press Will not Say
From
posted by Juan @ 7/18/2005 06:34:00 PM
Ah, yes, the likening of the domestic wackos to the foreign ones. Cole seems to have no regard at all for scale, or for the fact that these wackos are our own. And the implication that there are nearly 140k Eric Rudolphs just waiting for the opportunity to strike…ridiculous.
People aren’t writing the articles he says won’t be written for a good reason: because they’d be stupid to do so. Right-wing terrorism is a domestic law enforcement issue, not a global intelligence issue. No countries are harboring right-wing terrorists. It’s not that this is not a problem so much as that it’s not a problem that’s worthy of much regard in comparison to a ranked list of other problems we’re faced with.
Should we paint ALL Orthodox Protestants with the Dominion brush?
The Royal Race of the Redeemed: Jesus’ New Race
Dunno what the Dominion brush is, nor what sort of paint it’s designed for. So: dunno. I rather think the law would take a dim view of any unauthorized painting of citizens, regardless of their belief system.
If that was intended to question whether orthodox protestants (not even sure how you define that, so maybe you ought to get that out of the way first) as a group hold the beliefs that you link to, again: dunno.
Slartibartfast,
Remember the last society that looked upon their “right-wing wackos” lightly.
If we know certain religio-political views lead down the The Final Solution path, then shouldn’t we unilaterally and preemptively nip that evil and dangerous impulse in the bud? Especially, considering all the easily duped minds that cannot defend themselves against the seductive call of the “passionate” Right?
I’m worried, I haven’t heard the “moderate” Christians denounce Rudolph sufficiently enough…so I am going to assume that they really endorse his views.
The “moderate” Christians were practically luke warm on the man, they should be showing more passion so as to convince us of their moderation.
Just an observation…how many times have you passionately denounced Rudolph, Slartibartfast?
I’ve lost count. Is there some reason why you’re taking this up with me, and why the sudden change of subject from Roman Catholicism to some fringe sect?
The silver lining is that you think the last link is inappropriate, but I wonder how you decided to include it in.
The link to Burgess’ post was not inappropriate, but Burgess’ final link in his post was.
Noted that you don’t believe HT is a threat, and that Aslam’s membership in this extremist group is no big deal. We differ. I’ve been to the HT website and read some of it, and I understand that they desire to effect change politically, not militarily. But whether political or military, their ultimate goals remain disgusting and extremist, and not terribly different from what bin Laden himself has outlined. Their philosophy is inimical to human freedom and all things democratic. Not only that, it’s not a little disturbing that too many terrorists pass through HT before moving on to more militant and terroristic groups. There’s more than one threat out there, LJ. Al Qaeda members are a major. So are the neo-Salafis. So would a nuclear theocracy like Iran. HT may proclaim non-violence, but it is a virulent ideology that must be exposed and confronted. Really, I’m sorry that you don’t think it’s a big deal. I’m also sorry that you’re so confused about my previous statements about Wahabism, Salafism and Iranian theocrats.
I seem to remember that you (i.e. Chas) have a big problem with hate crime legislation
That’s a cheap shot, LJ. A group that incites violence by making threats has committed a crime. The phrase “hate crime” has nothing to do with it.
Well it didn’t take us long to get around to the Christians. What exactly is a xtian or xian though
It’s a well-established abbreviation based on the early churches’ own adoption of the Greek letter chi, or X, which is the first character of Christos, to stand for “Christ.” Just so you’re not under the misimpression that it’s the nasty, rotten secularists trying to use a slur. For the same reason, the Church itself is responsible for the abbreviation “Xmas,” not those horrible non-Christians.
Kind of OT, John Cole has an excellent post on the whole Rudolph business.
The link to Burgess’ post was not inappropriate, but Burgess’ final link in his post was.
So why is it still in your reposting of his post? I realize that it is just an opinion, but you acknowledge there’s a problem, but then you don’t fix it?
Noted that you don’t believe HT is a threat, and that Aslam’s membership in this extremist group is no big deal.
No, that’s not correct. I am saying that I don’t know and neither do you. But if they are an extremist organization, then the people who are really in charge should be dealt with, rather than dragging 22 year old trainee journalists around the streets of the blogosphere.
I’m also sorry that you’re so confused about my previous statements about Wahabism, Salafism and Iranian theocrats.
It’s not that I’m confused, it’s that you prefer to dump them all in a big bag and whack them with a stick. Islam has to reform itself, but you are intent on providing these disparate groups with a common enemy. Eventually (if it already hasn’t) Islamic terror is going to turn into a franchise, and it’s not really going to be important whether they are made about US troops in SA, or I/P or no hijab rules. The logical end of your argumentation is the kind of rhetoric that you condemn from Tancredo.
That’s a cheap shot, LJ. A group that incites violence by making threats has committed a crime. The phrase “hate crime” has nothing to do with it.
Sorry you feel this is a cheap shot. If you could point to threats that HT has made, I certainly would retract this, but, as the wikipedia link said in case you missed it
Despite the claims of several Muslim governments the group has always publicly maintained a policy of political rather than violent change. Indeed, its public positions is that it adheres to the Shari’ah (Islamic law) in all aspects of its work and considers violence or armed struggle against the regime, as a method to re-establish the Islamic State, to be forbidden by the Shari’ah
I realize that it is just an opinion, but you acknowledge there’s a problem, but then you don’t fix it?
Because it’s too small potatoes, LJ. Let it go.
But if they are an extremist organization, then the people who are really in charge should be dealt with, rather than dragging 22 year old trainee journalists around the streets of the blogosphere.
His words were written in one of the most prominent newspapers in Britain, with worldwide exposure courtesy of the Internet. His piece was picked up by the LA Times. Of course Aslam and the Guardian are going to held accountable. What are we supposed to do, let these questionable behaviors and affiliations slide? No can do. Aslam is responsible for not disclosing his alliance and the Guardian is responsible for negligence and misleading reporting.
If you could point to threats that HT has made, I certainly would retract this…
The BBC has a piece here: “But Newsnight has discovered that its website promotes racism and anti-Semitic hatred, calls suicide bombers martyrs, and urges Muslims to kill Jewish people.” I would consider the urging of Muslims to kill Jewish people an incitement to violence. George Galloway was attacked by Hizb fanatics: “Anti-war campaigner Mr Galloway was forced to take refuge from Islamic militants who denounced him as a “false prophet”. The former Labour MP said “the police saved my life” after supporters of radical group Hizb-Ut-Tahrir clashed with members of his Respect party last night.”
It’s not that I’m confused, it’s that you prefer to dump them all in a big bag and whack them with a stick.
Actually, it does sound like you’re confused because that is not my preference.
Because it’s too small potatoes, LJ.
Ahh, Chas, all those potatoes begin to add up to quite a pile. And it is your approach to all these small potatoes that has people question your approach to the bigger potatoes. You’ve obviously got time to write long comments defending your position, but to write:
“Update: on some reflection, the accusation that because the Guardian published a excerpt from a Bin Laden speech and placed it in the op-ed section, they are using columnists to advocate jihad is incorrect, and I certainly believe that exposing this philosophy to the light of day is much more effective than trying to censor it”
is so painful to include as to be unbearable. If it is small potatoes, why is it so difficult to do? You admit that didn’t even click thru to see who it was linked to. It’s all too embarrassing.
The BBC has a piece here:
Ahh, you mean the one I linked to. You do follow the links in order to have an informed discussion, don’t you?
Oh, and that Evening Standard article? What does one make of this
In response to erroneous allegations in today’s Evening Standard (20 April 2005) by George Galloway, the global Islamic political party Hizb ut-Tahrir Britain has commenced legal action
and
In a statement the party said”…In discussions with concerned members of the Muslim community, the police authorities have also confirmed that Hizb ut-Tahrir Britain had no involvement in these events.”
Again, I don’t know what happened, but neither do you. Of course, errors like this are small potatoes, right. As I have noted previously, you argue like a college freshman, staking out some big position and then, when closer examination reveals all sorts of holes and misinterpretations, you frantically patch them up, all the time arguing that you were right all along. The scurrying to find links that support what you say after you post is always going to bite you on the ass because you pick up these controversies second or third hand. To me, it’s the most disturbing characteristic not only of your posts, but of the blogosphere, which is the ability to pick up a fight where you aren’t really sure who is on which side and wade in. But, as you mentioned to Phil in an earlier thread, you view this as your contribution to the War on Terror. That some objective distance on these controversies, if only to provide a space for potential consensus, might be needed never crosses your mind. It must be terrible to be locked into a worldview that doesn’t let you process information that might contradict your doctrines.
Actually, it does sound like you’re confused because that is not my preference.
Yes, your preference is freedom. It certainly covers a multitude of sins.
Because it’s too small potatoes, LJ. Let it go.
How much time have you spent defending it? How small are these potatoes?
Phil,keep it under your hat but we don’t live in the catacombs anymore either. “Trying to use a slur”,read the posts,they must follow the old saying,”try,try,try again”.
Oh, sorry, I didn’t realize I was dealing with a differently-abled person. Well, bully for you for overcoming your obvious limitations, kind sir!
Ahh, Chas, all those potatoes begin to add up to quite a pile.
Well no, just one potato, LJ, and a pretty small one. Or maybe we can use another metaphor, such as making mountains out of molehills.
Oh, and that Evening Standard article?
OK, I’ll set the Evening Standard piece aside even though I’ve never heard of redhotcurry.com until you linked to it. England has stringent laws pertaining to libel, etc. We’ll see if the Hizb folks have a case, or whether the Evening Standard or Galloway retracts. As for my “scurrying”, well, another misimpression.
Yes, your preference is freedom. It certainly covers a multitude of sins.
Which of the multitude have I covered?
How much time have you spent defending it? How small are these potatoes?
The frequency of LJ bringing it up does not make the potatoes, or potato that is, any bigger, Anarch.
Chas, if you can’t understand how stupid it looks to quote something you claim you don’t agree with because you say that you didn’t read it and then leave it up in your post because it is ‘too small potatoes”, then I can’t really explain it to you. Of course, at this point, it would be a huge climbdown for you to admit this, so you can’t. This reminds me of something…
For an interesting article on HT from a Russian journalist on the ground, go here.
This article describes how HT operates.
While Hizb ut Tahrir’s views are so extreme it is unlikely that it will ever achieve mass popularity, and they will continue to be criticised by other Muslim groups, even those that are Islamist.
In a totalitarian society, where there is no political opposition, Hizb ut Tahrir will seek to occupy the vacuum thus left. It will thereby be seen as both subversive and possibly terrorist. However it seems unlikely, on the evidence, that it would engage in terrorism, and there is no credible evidence that this has been the case in Uzbekistan or Egypt.
In reality Hizb ut Tahrir represents a long-term threat of subversion. It is a gradualist ideology and although it has generally failed to confront the reality of its ultimate aim, that of the violent overthrow of the established order, its elitist recruitment policies are unlikely to allow it to achieve its mission.
For an analysis of HT that is far more interesting than the one note cry of terror, terror, go here
The party does indeed reject violence, since its ideology is centered on the restoration of the legitimate caliphate, and it regards the rightful caliph as the only one authorized to wage jihad. This advocacy of inaction, coupled with the party’s extreme rhetoric, is precisely what makes it so attractive to disaffected young Britons. Like Muslim youths elsewhere, British Muslims are disturbed by the crises gripping the Muslim umma and would like to do something about it.
The party offers a recipe that allows adherents to express their anger, denounce everybody and pose as extreme radicals, without, in fact, committing themselves to any concrete action. The reason is that all meaningful action must await the utopian dream of the re-established caliphate. In the meantime, members can lead a very British life, advance themselves professionally and raise their very British families on the slogans of being Muslim, not British. It certainly beats the retreat to the caves of Afghanistan or the Guantanamo Bay concentration camp.
Here is an interview that may also be of interest.
To my way of thinking, by imprisoning and persecuting the members of the party, the authorities are, in effect, providing substantial assistance to the Hizb ut-Tahrir, which, as a result, enjoys the aura of martyrdom. Recently the head of the Committee of National Security of Kyrgyzstan stated that the Hizb ut-Tahrir is the fourth force in the struggle for power. I wish you could have seen what kind of euphoria this statement caused among the members of the Hizb ut-Tahrir. It seems to me that the authorities advertise this organization, and if they were to pay less attention to it, the popularity of Hizb ut-Tahrir would begin to fall.
Of course, if HT does become a force that has to be dealt with, you will probably point back at your Tacitus post and claim that you had the insight back then and if we’d just listened to you, we could have crushed them then.
Liberal J. Me and Vicki Woods. I’ve been blogging some 18 months, 5-10 posts a day. She is one of the long term journos in the UK, currently writing for the Telegraph. She’s also one of the few such who take an interest in blogs, read what they’re saying and incorporate them into their pieces in the MSM.
Yes, she’s used information from my blog. Yes, we have swapped emails.
You can call that a back story if you wish. Personally I wouldn’t make too much of it. I would be surprised actually if one of the top 20 UK bloggers were not in contact with one of the few journalists who take an interest in UK blogs.
I am, horror, in touch with a number of UK journalists, even ones on the other side of the ideological divide…yes yes! I have been known to swap emails with people who write for the Guardian! Even the Observer!
Over the decades of my life I’ve been to school with, had lunch with, (I can’t quite recall whether sex has ever been involved) got drunk with, people who write for the Spectator, New Statesman, Guardian, Observer, Times, Telegraph, WSJ Europe, NYT, Washington Times, SF Chronicle, ITN, CNN, BBC, well, the list goes on. No, this doesn’t mean that I am well connected at all. It’s just a reflection of the way that British and British expatriate life is.
No, this doesn’t mean that I am well connected at all. It’s just a reflection of the way that British and British expatriate life is.
Interesting! A friend of mine that I knew in Japan went back to the UK to be a journalist who reviewed TV shows and she married another journalist so there might only be one degree of separation here. Small world.
I have to admit, the 5 posts a day is a rather daunting figure. I wish I could do that.
At any rate, I’ll keep an eye on your blog about the UT libel suit against Galloway, since that came up. I apologize in advance, I’m a one blog commenter, but I hope you’ll not hesitate to put your 2p here.
Phil, brilliant post,right to the issues,differntly-abled,might not that mean superior? Of course it might. Let’s see,muslim murderers are killing men,women,children in London and damm near everywhere else and you’re worried about the Christians, you gotta stay on your toes Phil. Keep your eyes on the skies. If you see any 747’s diving for their target and you spot the cross on their wings you will at least have the grim saisfaction of knowing you were right and everyone else wrong. But be careful,you might fall thru a open sewer manhole and find you like it. Sorry Phil baby,but I thought,too hopefully,I might get a little more substance to your response but I guess I overrated you,promise I won’t do that again,kind sir. A nice chidish touch that.
Chas, if you can’t understand how stupid it looks to quote something you claim you don’t agree with because you say that you didn’t read it and then leave it up in your post because it is ‘too small potatoes”, then I can’t really explain it to you.
LJ, if you can’t understand how silly it looks to protest one link out of five to a blog that makes one single gratuitous link in one single post, and then continue to harp on about it as if the entire link–the entire blog–is sullied beyond redemption, then I can’t really explain it to you.
On Hizb ut Tahrir inciting violence, from the Hizb website: “It should be expressed in the form of serious and sincere work to establish the Khilafah state, which will openly fight the Jews in Palestine in the name of Allah, and with the blessing of Allah, and continue until the Jewish entity is destroyed and the whole of Palestine is returned back to the lands of Islam.”
Note that HT wants to “openly fight…until the Jewish entity is destroyed”. Then there’s this:
Think conveyor belts, but give them credit generally for good intra-party discipline. Hizb has an approach that appeals to the left, but its ultimate goal is every bit as repugnant as bin Laden’s. Its ideology is a threat, and this is an ideological war. Who leads HT? Who knows:
We don’t know who their central leadership is, yet they do not hide? Where does their money come from? How can afford all these lawsuits they keep threatening folks with? Quite a mystery.
I hate doing hypotheticals, but if an offshoot of the KKK emerges and carries out a philosophy of worldwide white power but does so through political non-violent means, does that mean you will not challenge and expose them? What if the Peaceful KKK (or the Stalinist Peaceniks for another example) turn out to be a conveyor belt for more violent organizations that still believe lynchings and mass Jew-killings are good ideas? Aren’t some ideologies–no matter how well they conduct themselves in process–abhorrent and condemnable if they share the same ends as their more violent brethren? Therein lies my objection to HT and its vile dogma. Their primary means of influence is “ideological propaganda”, therefore the primary means of tossing them into the dustbin of history is by challenging their propaganda.
Phil, brilliant post,right to the issues,differntly-abled,might not that mean superior?
Out of context, it might, but given that you write with all the apparent skill, talent, and grasp of the language as a six-year-old child, I’m going to guess “No.”
Of course it might. Let’s see,muslim murderers are killing men,women,children in London and damm near everywhere else and you’re worried about the Christians,
Please quote any sentence of mine which indicates any such thing, or retract immediately; or I will ask the blog owners that you be banned.
you gotta stay on your toes Phil. Keep your eyes on the skies. If you see any 747’s diving for their target and you spot the cross on their wings you will at least have the grim saisfaction of knowing you were right and everyone else wrong.
Again, quote a sentence of mine where I have implied any such thing, or retract; or I will ask the blog owners to ban you.
But be careful,you might fall thru a open sewer manhole and find you like it.
Again, retraction or ban request, your choice.
If we ban johnt, we’re also going to have to ban you, Phil, for the same reasons. I’ve got a better idea: can it, you kids. Don’t make me come back there.
On second thought, I should never post before the first major caffeine infusion. More politely, then: please stop this pissing contest.
OK, Slarti, but while I have certainly insulted johnt, he has accused me of believing in a cadre of Christian terrorists and of not caring about real terrorism, which is a much more serious charge. Nevertheless, your blog, your rules.
Actually, no. I may be overruled by hilzoy, who has far more patience and a far longer attention span than I do, or one of the others. Just consider this a polite request to tone it down. Please.
Slartibartfast, Your post noted and will be honored.
Thanks, both of you.
LJ, if you can’t understand how silly it looks to protest one link out of five to a blog that makes one single gratuitous link in one single post, and then continue to harp on about it as if the entire link–the entire blog–is sullied beyond redemption, then I can’t really explain it to you.
Sorry if I gave you the impression that you sullied the entire blog beyond redemption. In fact, I seem to recall that I just defended your inclusion here. If you could point me to where I did that in this thread, I could take note and try to avoid it. I’m looking over what I wrote and I thought that I gave your post a careful reading and cliked thru all the links to see what they were saying. If you don’t want people to actually read what you write, please let us know.
As for HT, I am not trying to defend them, just pointing out that you call them a worldwide terrorist organization with very little proof, which, because a 22 year old has been accused of being a member of a particular branch in a particular country of which you have no idea of the particulars, you choose to condemn that person. I realize that the idea of a worldwide conspiracy of figures aimed at making the entire world fall under Islam rule really gets you where you live, but the links I provided suggest that the philosophy of the group is ultimately self-defeating and your cries that how they are the next danger on the horizon are misplaced. Unfortunately, you pull the web page of HT-Pakistan to ‘prove’ that HT-UK advocates violence and ignore points in the pages you link to. Like this one
This correspondent has spoken to senior Pakistani officials on the reason for the HT being banned, but none of them appears to have a clue – especially as the HT does not espouse violence or militancy.link
Careful reading of the source material always pays benefits.
Instead of trying to get in the obligatory digs like “Hizb has an approach that appeals to the left”, maybe a nuanced discussion of what HT is and why it seems to be gaining strength might be more appropriate.
…just pointing out that you call them a worldwide terrorist organization with very little proof…
Except I didn’t call them a “worldwide terrorist organization”, LJ. In the Tacitus post, I wrote that they were “not a terrorist group per se”, but I did write that they and Wahhabis were blamed for suicide attacks in Uzbekistan, and it looks like there’s an update here. In this post, I wrote that they are an “extremist Islamic group” and that they are an “ideological conveyor belt for terrorism”.
FTR, I have read the links, including what you have italicized.
BTW, I appreciate your defense in von’s post. I didn’t read the thread until just now.
Let me take a step back here to try and restate. The first thing I am objecting to is the backhanded slur of the Guardian. When I pointed it out, you agreed and said you hadn’t read it. Now, you might point me to Scott Burgess’s blog and have me take it up with him. Fair enough, but you quoted him here. Also, I tend to make a difference between an individual’s blog (which is his ‘private’ space) and a group blog like this (in which the space is shared). You are welcome to say sod off, I’ll quote what I like, but I don’t understand why you would want to have something that you don’t agree with go out under your name.
As for the questions about HT as it relates to Aslam, what I want to point out is that the linkage from a trainee journalist (writing a single article on the family in Islam and having a 1924.org email) to HT-UK over to HT-PK is a tenuous one. I think that when we deal with specific accusations against specific people, we should exercise a degree of caution. If a blogger wants to put it on their personal space, and call him an Islamic extremist, that’s their opinion. But in a public space, I think one should proceed cautiously. I believe that I’ve been pretty consistent about this point, and not just here.
As for HT as an organization (which is not the topic of the post, I realize, but what we have moved to) if I were a realpolitik kind of guy, the rise of a westernized elite trying to remold islam in a way that challenges current national governments like Pakistan, SA, Uzbekistan, might be something to consider. However, not being a realpolitik type, I don’t have a particular opinion about HT, but I do think we should think long and hard before we try to demonize the group. I certainly don’t feel like I have the standing to express an opinion on how people of Muslim faith resolve the conflict between obedience to God and obidience to the state. However, if the state collapses (which is the concern in places like Uzbekistan, Tajikistan and Iraq, where HT is growing stronger), we certainly have a problem. But just trying to clamp down, or propping up dictators is simply going to postpone the problem. And the link you give to suggestions that HT is linked to explosions in Uzbekistan, well, the reportage seems to make it clear that the assignment of responsibility is not all that straightforward:
But what exactly happened in Uzbekistan during those four days? The government of President Islam Karimov, as one would expect, promptly condemned “international terrorism” as being responsible for all the explosions, which reportedly killed 47 people in total. Uzbek officials have endeavored assiduously to tie these “terrorist” events to Hizb-ut-Tahrir, a London-based network whose goal is to establish a supra-national Islamic caliphate with an anti-Western stance across Central Asia. Meanwhile, a previously unknown group calling itself Islamic Jihad issued a statement claiming some of the bombings as its revenge for the thousands of Uzbek Muslims who have died or still rot in Karimov’s jails, and its warning to the regime to break its fast-growing alliance with the United States. Media reports have been little help in sorting out these claims, let alone in establishing the basic facts, due largely to restrictions on access to information that have become familiar in a country where freedom of expression exists only in the speeches of the president. During the first three days, most of the state-controlled media limited itself to rhetorical appeals for the vigilance of the citizenry. Even weeks after the events, the fragmented media reports leave the picture far from complete.
and
In general, the Uzbek media, like regime officials, were very generous with their conclusions about the provenance of the explosions, but very miserly with supporting facts. Only three times did officials organize briefings to present evidence for their theories. On April 2, Prosecutor General Rashid Kadyrov limited his evidentiary presentation to enumerating the liters of explosive chemicals and the weapons the police had confiscated during their operations. Yet at all these briefings, the regime spokesmen were quick to name Hizb-ut-Tahrir, as well as the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan (IMU) and unspecified “Wahhabis,” as the prime suspects in the violence.
This graf makes for frightening reading
Karimov, it seems, has found his answer to such critics: let us deal first with the challenge of terrorism, and then we will come back to democratization. The regime effort to tie Hizb-ut-Tahrir to the bombings, coupled with the arrest campaign, indicates its plan to tie all forms of protest to terrorism. With this argument, autocratic rule in Uzbekistan may have gained some time.
The article’s conclusion seems to be exactly the opposite of what you suggest
If the explosions in Tashkent are part of an insurgency, it was predetermined long ago that the Uzbek police would be the insurgents’ main target. Islamic slogans and rhetoric may only be the means for a despairing people to express their disaffection. One Russian kiosk owner ridden down by the heavy hand of state agencies, and not a Muslim, confessed to an interviewer in a survey long before the incidents: “I would accept the rule of Islamists. Should they put things in order, I would then urge my wife to wear a hijab.” Recent reportage in the New York Times indicates that people in Tashkent, both Russian-speaking and Uzbek-speaking, understand the bombings and shootouts as forms of protest against a deeply disliked government.
As the regime loses more and more legitimacy in the eyes of the population, it can do little but rely more and more on mechanisms of repression. Surely this is why Karimov, in a speech after bombs had ceased to shake Tashkent, effused: “First of all, I would like to say that I am hundreds and thousands of times thankful to our law enforcement bodies. On the whole, you know, I am really very delighted with the job carried out by these bodies, which are our pillar and are securing our peace.”
I think it is important to note that HT seems to have emerged as an offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood, which is a similar organization that has taken on different appearances in different countries in response to differing local conditions, but got its start demanding political reform. The notion of a ‘conveyer belt for terrorism’ is interesting, but given that there is no evidence for anyone moving from HT to commit acts of terror, it seems to me to be simply scaremongering.
You are welcome to say sod off, I’ll quote what I like, but I don’t understand why you would want to have something that you don’t agree with go out under your name.
Like I said numerous times before, it’s still small potatoes, LJ. In my opinion, it is sufficient to expressly state in comments that I didn’t agree with Burgess’ gratuitous reference. If it were a bigger issue, I would’ve front-paged an update. It was even small potatoes in Burgess’ own post, a toss-off at the very end and a side issue to the central theme.
But in a public space, I think one should proceed cautiously. I believe that I’ve been pretty consistent about this point, and not just here.
The fact is that Aslam is a member of an extremist Islamic group. This was confirmed. If a person is going to go so far as joining such an organization, then it’s reasonable to conclude that the fellow supports its central tenents, and HT’s central tenets are extreme and condemnable. Aslam is responsible both for his writings and for not disclosing his HT ties to the Guardian, and the Guardian is responsible for eagerly seeking an “alternative” opinion without checking the credibility and background of the writer. The party that should get more of the blame is the Guardian for putting this crackpot on its pages.
You seem to be making a big deal that Aslam is 22 years old. So what. I’m not going to age-discriminate anyone who’s old enough to vote and drink. He wrote the piece intending to have it published, and he should be held to account for his words just like any other adult.
However, not being a realpolitik type, I don’t have a particular opinion about HT, but I do think we should think long and hard before we try to demonize the group. I certainly don’t feel like I have the standing to express an opinion on how people of Muslim faith resolve the conflict between obedience to God and obidience to the state.
What makes you think I haven’t thought long and hard? Is it possible to think just as long and hard as you but come to a different conclusion? I think you know my answer. But be that as it may, isn’t its basic dogma enough? Their goal isn’t just to change a few Soviet spin-offs, but to bring about a global Caliphate. Their “solution” is to basically trade one form of repression for another, or possibly worse. The issue with HT isn’t the Muslim struggle between obedience to Allah and obedience to state, it’s about their quest for Muslim imperialism. I don’t understand why you would not be opposed to such a philosophy, particularly since it directly conflicts with how democratic societies operate. While I commend their desire to achieve their disgusting ends through political non-violent means, it does not make their ends any less disgusting. Their being an offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood is not a tidbit that goes in their plus column.
The notion of a ‘conveyer belt for terrorism’ is interesting, but given that there is no evidence for anyone moving from HT to commit acts of terror, it seems to me to be simply scaremongering.
One word: Zarqawi:
There’s a reason why they’re likened to a “farm team” for other terrorist groups.
Just so you know, I don’t favor banning HT. I want them out there in the public arena stating the things they state, because responding to their radicalism is the best way to marginalize them.
Abdullah Modmarov was in the middle of a soccer game when Uzbek police waving their rifles hauled him off the field and arrested the 33-year-old on charges of belonging to an outlawed radical Islamic party.
Despite the general unease in the Dublin as news broke of the killings by the IRA the previous day, a war-weary populace continued with life. Approximately 10,000 spectators went to Croke Park for the match. However within minutes of the start of the game, an airplane flew over the ground and a red flare was shot from the cockpit. Auxiliaries began raiding the ground while an officer on top of the wall fired a revolver shot. After a burst of gunfire, the crowd began to stampede away from the gunfire. Two football players, Michael Hogan and Jim Egan, were shot; Hogan died from his injuries. A young Wexford man who attempted to whisper an (Click link for more info and facts about Act of Contrition) Act of Contrition into the dying Hogan’s ear was also shot dead.
The casualties included Jeannie Boyle, who had gone to the match with her fiancée and was due to be married five days later, and John Scott, who was fourteen and so mutilated that it was initially thought that he had been savagely bayoneted. The youngest victims were aged 10 and 11.
The actions of the Auxiliaries, like many of their actions and the actions of the Black and Tans, were officially unauthorised and were greeted with public horror by the (Click link for more info and facts about Dublin Castle) Dublin Castle-based British authorities. In an effort to cover up the nature of the behaviour by forces of the Crown, a press release was issued which claimed:
A number of men came to Dublin on Saturday under the guise of asking to attend a football match between Tipperary and Dublin. But their real intention was to take part in the series of murderous outrages which took place in Dublin that morning. Learning on Saturday that a number of these gunmen were present in Croke Park, the crown forces went to raid the field. It was the original intention that an officer would go to the centre of the field and speaking from a megaphone, invite the assassins to come forward. But on their approach, armed pickets gave warning. Shots were fired to warn the wanted men, who caused a stampede and escaped in the confusion.link
plus ca change…
From your link
Either way, the ban on the group that authorities see as a “farm team” for terrorist organizations like al-Qaida hasn’t stopped its expansion across volatile Central Asia, where it wants to overthrow secular governments and replace them by Islamic rule, but through nonviolent means. It is not on the U.S. list of terrorist organization because it eschews violence.
There is a reason that “farm team” is placed in quotations.