Double standards on Islamist extremism?
I've written before here about extremist politics and the oxygen of publicity when the BNP capitalised on the 40th anniversary of the 'Rivers of Blood' speech to put across their dubious creed. But there are worse groups than the BNP.
Earlier this week at Birmingham University, there was a bit of a kerfuffle when an officer elect for the students guild promoted an event organised by the extremist group Hizb-ut-Tahrir. (Post article here, thanks to the excellent Ministry of Truth blog where I heard about it first)
Now self-styled 'Islamic political group' Hizb-ut-Tahrir (HuT) is a particularly nasty bunch of fascists, who call for, among other things, a global Islamic caliphate, the killing of any Muslim who converts, and a constant state of war against Israel, regardless of any peace or armistice deals. They were hounded out of Germany, Russia and Pakistan, accused of anti-semitism and violent threats.
Unfortunately, as Pete saw in a comment on the West Brom Blog, there's no political group so ludicrously extreme that someone out there won't support them. But take my word for it. Or if you like, take HuT's own word for it in their constitution. This includes such gems as:
"Those who are guilty of apostasy (murtadd) from Islam are to be executed according to the rule of apostasy, provided they have by themselves renounced Islam."
and
"With states that are actually belligerent states, like Israel, a state of war must be taken as the basis for all measures and dealings with them. They must be dealt with as if a real war existed between us - whether an armistice exists or not - and all their subjects are prevented from entering the State."
Makes the BNP seem quite warm and fuzzy doesn't it? But would a student body ever promote an event held by the BNP? Unlikely. So why are our home-grown fascists so much more of a bugbear for criticism when there are far more heinous groups out there? Of course there is the fact that the BNP has far more of a footprint on legitimate UK politics.
But Hizb-ut-Tahrir have a growing impact on the social and political development of people in this country, especially on students on campuses.
Is it political correctness? The fear of being branded Islamophobic?
And more to the point why are a political group that not only condone, but support murder allowed to exist in this country? Tony Blair openly considered banning the group in the wake of the July 7 bombings, but later changed his mind after being warned suppressing the group would drive it underground.
What a wishy-washy decision. Letting people openly call for violence and killing so they don't talk about it in whispers.
Let's see someone in power show the bravery to condemn a bunch of true fascists.
Older/Newer
1 Comments
News authors
Jonathan Walker - The Birmingham Post's political editor
My postings |
My feed
Roshan Doug - Poet and freelance journalist
My postings
Alister Scott - Professor of Spatial Planning and Governance, Birmingham City University
My postings
Latest Birmingham Post Business blog
Birmingham Post staff and guest bloggers from Birmingham and the midlands inform and entertain on all business matters.
Latest Birmingham Post Lifestyle blog
Birmingham Post staff and guest bloggers from the midlands give you the lowdown on what's happening in your region and some musings on culture in the UK and beyond.
Latest Birmingham Post Science blog
Birmingham Post staff and guest bloggers from Birmingham and the midlands inform and entertain on all science matters.
Latest Birmingham Post Sport blog
Birmingham Post staff and guest bloggers from Birmingham and the midlands inform and entertain on all sporting matters.
Tom, Interesting piece. Like you, but as a Muslim, I too am uncomfortable with the motives of groups like Hizb ut-Tahrir. Their mission is dangerous and tone quite worrying. They have been active around the world attracting not just vulnerable, impressionable minds but also sophisticated, well educated people to join their ranks. They also give the impression of being a highly organised and professional organisation standing up for Muslim interests. Your point about the caliphate is also intriguing, as the very idea of re-establishing this system of leadership sends shockwaves across the world. The problem here though is the perception of the caliphate as a totalitarian theocracy ruled by one man with one vision - global Islamic hegemony. This is the way caliphate is understood both in the West and many parts of the Muslim world. However, I myself belong to a community in Islam (the Ahmadi Muslims) which this year in fact is celebrating 100 years of the return of the caliphate - not a political or military system of governance, but a spiritual office that guides and inspires Muslims to inculcate in them good morals, progressive integration in society and service to humanity regardless of people's faiths and backgrounds. It is because Ahmadi Muslims are not seen as part of mainstream Islam (they are even classified as a non-Muslim minority in countries like Pakistan and Saudi Arabia) that other Muslims (like HuT) do not accept the Ahmadiyya caliphate, and promote a completely different notion of this system as one that is interested only in domination and supremacy. Hence it is not caliphate that is the problem, but the motives of extremists who wish to employ it as a means of spreading terror. Quite the opposite of Ahmadiyya which has as its motto 'Love for All, Hatred for None'. Imagine if all Muslims stuck to that principle...