Majed Iqbal is a typical Hizb ut Tahrir entryist.
Majed Iqbal, Hizb ut Tahrir entryist
He’s a busy boy in his hometown of Rochdale these days – what with trying to create a Caliphate and all that, it’s remarkable he has time for anything else. But he does. By night Majed moonlights as a journalist, trying to pass off his wildly racist views as dispassionate and objective reporting.
Now then, he doesn’t exactly write for a major broadsheet (or, dare I say, a weekly political magazine) but instead peddles his nonsense in the ‘Asian Leader’ newspaper in Rochdale. Does it really matter then? I think it does.
Rochdale has a large Muslim population and is one of the areas where the government is concerned about the spread of radical Islamism. Majed is effectively being allowed to spread his message there under the guise of an impartial journalism.
For example, the Spittoon first revealed how Hizb ut Tahrir is waging a campaign (known as the SRE Islamic Campaign) against the teaching of sex and relationship education in schools. Majed is an active member of that campaign in Rochdale. Naturally, he also wrote about it for the Asian Leader under the headline: “Muslim community says NO to sex education for five year olds”. He writes:
Yusuf Patel and Farhad Khodabaksh, both Muslim activists from London, initiated a campaign against the government proposals after coming across information on plans to begin teaching Sex and relationship education to five year old primary school children in October last year.
Majed Iqbal, on the right, running the SRE campaign in Rochdale
Majed is even kind enough to give us a link to their website and tell us about upcoming ‘SRE Islamic’ events. What he omits to tell his reads is that both Patel and Khodabaksh are members of Hizb ut Tahrir – and, so is he. Instead he happily paints a picture of a monolithic Muslim community all marching along in unison to the beat of HuT’s Islamist agenda.
In another article he propagates the usual HuT rubbish about democracy being doomed to failure, presenting democracy and dictatorship as being ‘two sides of the same coin’. He writes:
Both Democracy and Dictatorship have wreaked havoc for Pakistan.
Those parties that [have] questioned Dictatorship and contested it under Musharraf’s rule, are they now willing to challenge democracy and ask for its removal after witnessing its fruits?
But what’s the alternative Majed? Won’t you please tell us?
His tawdry website is littered with countless more examples of standard HuT agitprop. In another article Majed attacks Imam Irfan Chisti, a local Sufi cleric who works on PVE initiatives with the government. After Chisti told Hazel Blears of his concerns about the rise of extremism in Rochdale, Majed lambasted him in the pages of ‘Asian Image’ writing:
Imam Irfan Chisti’s report plays perfectly into the hands of the government agenda of validating the need for Citizenship courses which are an attempt to create a new version of Islam where a Muslim is silent on international affairs, pacifist with freedom of speech and divorces Islam to personal affairs only like diet and worships.
At the end of the piece Majed described himself as:
a writer and commentator based in Rochdale.
Again, no mention of his HuT membership.
The issue is clear. Can you imagine the uproar if members of the BNP were given space to propagate their views in local community newspapers? And, even if they were given the occasional comment piece, we would expect the author’s membership of a racist outfit to be clearly flagged up for the benefit of readers. None of that has happened with Majed who is simply allowed to tout himself as an independent commentator on events.
Don’t think it’s that bad? Well, just consider that when Pervez Musharraf declared a state of emergency in Pakistan a few years ago who did Sky News go to for comment? Yup, there was Majed speaking away from Rochdale telling everyone how much the people of Pakistan ‘yearned for a return to Islam’! He obviously missed the recent election results from Pakistan’s most conservative region, the NWFP, where all the Islamist parties were utterly obliterated at the polls in favour of their secular counterparts.
The whole issue reminds me of the Dilpazier Aslam fiasco when the Guardian employed him. Ok, that was a bigger paper with national reach – but if Press TV and the Islam Channel have taught us anything, it is that we should not underestimate the power of community media targeting minority audiences.
I wrote to the ‘Asian Leader’ asking three simple questions about this matter:
1. Was the newspaper aware of Majed’s membership of Hizb ut Tahrir?
2. If so, why did it not alert readers of his column to this?
3. If the paper did not know, what steps will be taken to rectify this in the future?
Those are natural questions and you’d imagine the paper would be rushing to clarify the situation. Alas, so far nothing but radio silence.
Baffled by this lack of contact I decided to do some research into the ‘Asian Leader’ and discovered that it had recently been sued by former Rochdale MP, Lorna Fitzsimons. The Manchester Evening News explains:
Ms Fitzsimons sued for libel over a front-page article in the Asian Leader in November. Her photograph appeared alongside the Star of David and the headline: “Is she a star liar?”
Aah, maybe that explains it then.
66 Comments
Shikwa,
You silly silly person. Yusuf and Farhad are clearly mentioned as members of HT on their website:
http://sreislamic.wordpress.com/about-us/
“Farhad Khodabaksh is a member of Hizb ut-Tahrir, a pharmacist by profession, a father of three children and an LEA governor of a primary school in Newham.”
“Yusuf Patel is a member of Hizb ut-Tahrir, an adult education trainer, a father of two and a community governor of a primary school in Newham.”
Majed has no need to mention his affiliation to any group in the context of the article. He was not writing it in his capacity as a member of HT.
You guys are full of nonsense.
Yet again, more evidence that Spittoon is all about baseless false slander. I know Majed very well. Mashallah he is a sincere Dawah carrier who is more transparent than any of you, cowarding behind your PC’s, will ever be.
Inshallah Majed, Yusuf and Farhad will have a case to take your good deeds on the day of judgement, if you do not retract your slander.
But obviously you do not care about what happens on the Day of Judgement as you have consistently mocked, slandered and arrived deliberately at false conclusions to no ones benefit.
The point is two fold
a) the first two hid the fact that these were Hizb events organized by the Hizb in their mahalliya – local committees etc.
b) he has not stated his Political affilliation when doing his HIzb Dawa.
We are not stupid, we know how this works. FACT – this a part of his “Dawa”.
Stop your accusations. If there is something here false say so, instead of diversionary tatics, and elusive nonesense.
Shamir,
You guys have an old school conspiratorial thought process.
a) Like me and millions of non-Muslim, Muslim parents, Yusuf and Farhad are concerned parents. They have enacted their right as concerned parents to fight this important campaign. Yes HT has endorsed the campaing as it is something that affects us at a grass roots level, but there are a myriad of individuals representing different groups, where no one group is taking the lead as the individuals are doing this out of sincere concern for their kids.
b) Read my previous comment.
FACT – you have your unsubstantiated implications factually incorrect.
Abdul Rehman, I’ve never denied that Yusuf Patel and Farhad Khodabaksh are members of Hizb ut Tahrir. Just look through this website and you’ll see that we link to the SRE website where it states that those silly, silly guys are members of that silly, silly organisation.
The issue is, Majed hid that from his readers. He never mentioned that. Instead, all he did was refer to Patel and Khodabaksh as “Muslim activists” – why do you think he did that? Why didn’t he reveal their link to HuT? I would LOVE an answer to that question.
While you’re at it, perhaps you could explain why Majed has to hide his own membership of HuT. He describes himself as a ‘writer and commentator’ but again omits his membership of HuT. Why? Perhaps you would care to explain this. I could understand the case for him not mentioning it if this was an article about something like the molecular structure of Swine Flu for an academic audience or something else like that. But, lets be honest here, Majed is writing about politics and, in that respect, this is entirely linked to his ‘”dawah”. You say he didn’t write it in his ‘HuT capacity’ but we all know what Majed is trying to do – ‘pass concepts’ is what they call it? Right? Come on, admit it…
Anyway, shouldn’t Majed’s readers have a right to know about his ideological stand when reading his work? Why is he so ashamed of it that he has to hide it?
It’s like I’ve said in the article – would you be happy to read articles written by BNP members? And, how angry would you be if a newspaper published the views of their members without clarifying the affiliation of the author to a racist movement?
Finally, you say my claims are unsubstantiated. Do you know what that word means? Everything here is referenced and clearly linked. How is it unsubstantiated? I know you Islamists love to use new and big words when you hear them (makes you sound like all intellectual, ennit?) but at least use them correctly!
We are not stupid, it was a Hizb event; why lie? Why deny it?
Doesn’t the Hizb tell you in the books to be open as members in Party Structuring?
Why are they not explicitly mentioning that they are members and doing activity in the name of the Hizb?
Answer this? We know that it is Hizb activity that is how they do things, organize them by their activities boards and through the hizb bodies and so forth.
There is no conspiracy, these guys are too stupid but they are trying to hide their affiliation; why?
“Concerned parents” when we know that they are doing ideological hizbi dawa! Give us a break!
This is a part of their strategy, we know this.
Sex education at 5 is not a problem for them, they believe that marrying and having sex when a girl hits puberty is fine, even at 9! So I guess you should give them some education before that!
Sikwa, Viking
Majed hid nothing. You are insinuating that he hid something using conspiratorial thinking and unsubstantiated statements.
Mashallah, all brothers mentioned are indeed sincere Muslim activists. You seem to have a problem with HT, which is why you would want them to mention their affiliation. That is your opinion and you are entitled to it – however wrong it may be.
But the vast majority of the Muslim Ummah embrace the members of HT as their sisters and brothers and work with HT at the grassroots and societal level to build model Muslim communities here in the west. the SRE Campaign is an excellent example of Members of HT openly working on a grass roots issue which is on the minds of many non-Muslim and Muslim parents.
They are open, transparent, sincere and active in the community. You sit behind a PC, cowering behind a pseudonym and slander with falsly implied insinuations that benefit no one.
You mock the sincere work of Dawah carriers who call to Islam in a peaceful way and use the method of Muhammad (SAW) to bring much needed non-violent change to the Islamic Lands.
HT, like other Islamic groups, affirm their basis from the Quran and Sunnah. Clearly, you reject many aspects of Islam by embracing secularism, man made legislation and perpetuating political disunity by accepting the western imposed Nation State Theory.
If you continue to do the bidding of the shayateen, who try to twist the purity of Islam by stating it allows homosexuality, drinking beer, having sex before marriage etc, then you will dig your hole deeper and deeper in the pit of Hell, as Allah (SWT) clearly condemns those who spread falsehood
“Woe to every sinful liar” (Al Jathiya:7)
Who is the ‘sinful liar’? Everything here is printed openly but Majed and his HuT chums seem to be the only ones guilty of deception.
The problem is Abdul-Rehman, all you do is come here and condemn everyone to hell. You don’t actually get on with discussing the matter at hand.
So, let me ask you the following:
1. Why does Majed repeatedly hide his affiliation to HuT? After all, you say HuT is ‘open and sincere’ in its work. We could point to many other examples of HuT hiding behind pseudonyms, at university for example.
2. You say that “he vast majority of the Muslim Ummah embrace the members of HT as their sisters and brothers and work with HT at the grassroots and societal level” – where? Prove this claim. To be clear, saying “the vast majority” you would need to prove that at least the majority support them, which is more than 50% of Muslims. So, where is this happening? Give me concrete examples, not HuT folklore that half of the Muslim world is ready for Khilafah, blah, blah, blah. Lets talk with concrete examples here. As far as I can see, HuT is declining fast. They used to have conferences with around 10,000 people but now they can only manage 2000. Around the world, Islamist parties have been utterly rejected in favour of secular groups in Iraq, Pakistan, and Bangladesh. Don’t give me the usual rubbish that those groups are not ‘real’ Islamist parties. The bottom line is, people don’t want your ilk in power. So, where is this massive support coming from?
3 – Which mosques in Britain give HuT official sanctuary to preach inside their premises? Where are their members welcome to do ‘dawah’?
4 – Doesn’t HuT teach its members that the ‘dawah’ is constant, ongoing and pervasive in every facet of their life? So, it doesn’t work for you to then say ‘that wasn’t in their HuT capacity’.
5 – Why is it that whenever we expose Islamist deceit you accuse us of ‘slander’ or ‘mocking’
That’s all for now. If you answer that, we can have a full and frank discussion can’t we. Otherwise you’re usual rubbish pronouncements that we’re all going to hell blah, blah, blah just doesn’t work around here.
Also,
You mock the brothers above who are sincere and have sacrificed much in the cause of Islam.
But you forget those who you are affiliated with. Rashad Ali is a convicted criminal, exposed reference inventor and wanabe acadamic whose intellectual idiosyncracies have been exposed in public many times, evidenced by his inability to hold down a proper job.
You affiliate yourselves with the Quilliam Foundation, which is a cult that has no grass roots support. They have support from the British government, but no sincere Muslim or Scholar supports them in any shape or form. I personally know renowned British and Mid Eastern scholars who asked to be removed from their list when more information came to light about their secular and twisted views. Majjed Nawaz, yes was with HT for a long period of time. But his current thought process is full of holes and alot of his actions clearly show he is doing all he can to attract funding from the British Tax Payer to fund the likes of payments for his brand new Mini Cooper, 5 star hotel escapades and publicly exposed clubbing activities.
Ed Hussain – Notorious liar. Wrote a book and stabbed the hearts of those close to him for a cheap price. He will get what he deserves on the day of judgement Inshallah.
You allie yourselves with the workers of shaitaan who uses “nuances” and “narratives” to form a twisted, mutazalite view of Islam who use their ideology to justify the killing of millions of Muslims around the world. They use their ideology to justify the western occupation and oppression in the Islamic Lands.
Alhamdolillah, they and you are failing as there will always be good in the Ummah.
The members of HT , with members of many other Islamic groups will continue to co0perate on the good on levels of society, in the west and around the world. They with the Ummah are the guardians of Islam for they enjoin the good and forbid the evil.
Clearly, You enjoin evil and forbid the good.
Ofocurse You will invoke condemnation when you mock and slander with false insinuations, sincere dawah carriers.
The very basis of all you write is inconclusive and has no ayota of academic value. So like a desperate tabloid, you pick on brothers who do good and have given their lives to this deen. Unlike you, who has given nothing but mockery and slander. Any neutral reader can see this clearly.
You do not deserve debate for such mockery, so yes, you deserve clear condemnation.
Aah, so not engaging with the issues again eh?
For the record, we are not ‘affiliated’ to the Quilliam Foundation or any of the people you mention above.
So, now that I’ve clarified that. Back to the matter at hand – will you be answering any of my questions raised in the previous post? Or do you just want to stick to more baseless and wild accusations?
Let me replicate the question here for your benefit (I have added one new one):
1. Why does Majed repeatedly hide his affiliation to HuT? After all, you say HuT is ‘open and sincere’ in its work. We could point to many other examples of HuT hiding behind pseudonyms, at university for example.
2. You say that “he vast majority of the Muslim Ummah embrace the members of HT as their sisters and brothers and work with HT at the grassroots and societal level” – where? Prove this claim. To be clear, saying “the vast majority” you would need to prove that at least the majority support them, which is more than 50% of Muslims. So, where is this happening? Give me concrete examples, not HuT folklore that half of the Muslim world is ready for Khilafah, blah, blah, blah. Lets talk with concrete examples here. As far as I can see, HuT is declining fast. They used to have conferences with around 10,000 people but now they can only manage 2000. Around the world, Islamist parties have been utterly rejected in favour of secular groups in Iraq, Pakistan, and Bangladesh. Don’t give me the usual rubbish that those groups are not ‘real’ Islamist parties. The bottom line is, people don’t want your ilk in power. So, where is this massive support coming from?
3 – Which mosques in Britain give HuT official sanctuary to preach inside their premises? Where are their members welcome to do ‘dawah’?
4 – Doesn’t HuT teach its members that the ‘dawah’ is constant, ongoing and pervasive in every facet of their life? So, it doesn’t work for you to then say ‘that wasn’t in their HuT capacity’.
5 – Why is it that whenever we expose Islamist deceit you accuse us of ’slander’ or ‘mocking’
6 – You say my article has ‘mocked’ the ‘brothers’ above, by which I assume you mean Majed. Please explain how my post does that.
I look forward to you (eventually) engaging with the issue at hand.
You know Abdul Rehman sometimes I wonder if you are actually on our side and are here to make yourself look deliberately stupid, thereby discrediting yourself (and by extension those who subscribe to Islamist views). If so, thanks – you’re doing a great job! Because, I can assure you, anyone neutral reading this blog just sees you moaning and crying foul without actually ever engaging with anything. The second your friends are attacked, the red mist descends and that’s it. You condemn everyone to hell but you don’t actually have anything substantive to say. This is typical amongst you Islamists.
Shikwa,
You and your colleagues have exposed your insincere nature many times. Evidence for this are your Friday captions, which are designed to mock, denegrade and slander Muslims and none-Muslims in the name of freedom of speech.
Any neutral reader can observe that all you deserve is condemnation for your slander, mocking and shallow tabloid articles.
Have you still got your knickers in a twist about the Friday Caption Competition? For God’s sake, its meant as a bit of fun and light hearted relief. Get over it.
Regardless of that – why won’t you answer my questions? Just tell me that.
Also, if this place is full of ‘tabloid’ articles, that makes you a very keen and avid reader of the tabloid press doesn’t it? I hope you don’t spend too much time looking at those naughty pictures.
Abdul Rehman – you are not debating or discussing the points at all but throwing around the usual HT stock responses. That is exactly what you did when we debated last time, refused to focus on the issues and just made general statements. In fact that is what Taji Mustafa did when he debated Abdul Wahab Effendi on the Islam Channel. Effendi made some very solid points and Taji just ignored them and repeated the usual slogans. A case of the brain refusing to engage or too arrogant to admit that what he has been promoting for years had major and obvious flaws.
Abdur Rahman
HT has been accusing and slandering Muslims for decades. They have slandered the Brelwis, Deobandis, Salafis and various Muslim scholars/leaders. This is why all these groups consider HT to be deviant heretics. If you think i’m wrong then just name me one Brelwi, Deobandi or Salafi Imam/scholar who supports HT?
You accuse us of having a mutazilite view of Islam when it is actually HT who has this view. HT’s works and books constantly have a fixation with the word “rational”. It seems to be Nabhani’s favourite word.
You are arguing for the sake of it and not discussing the issues put to you.
I think Khwarijite is a more appropriate term for HT.
Abdul Rehman has been back and posting today – but surprise, surprise, not here. Seriously, he is incapable of answering any substantive questions. He’s so good at spouting nonsense without addressing the matter at hand that I suspect soon he’ll be elevated to HuT’s national leadership.
The brain just refuses to engage with that guy and after a brief conversation you begin to understand why so many HT members leave. But at least he is maintaining some decorum and not resorting to swearing like most HT people. So credit to you for that Mr Rehman.
There is no difference between being in HuT and being in the BNP, both want to implement a totalitarean state, the former based on muslim supremicism and the latter on a racial basis with whites on top.
Both are contemptable.
Not one comment made on this whole page actually addresses any single idea. Accusations simply and purely made on personal experiences and the media. There were companions who had drinking problems and the number of people who left Islam when he (saw) passed away, did that mean everything the Prophet stood for, was some how rhetoric. Even if every Muslim in the Ummah of Mohammad (saw) didn’t practice Islam then Islam would still be the truth. I’ll admit the individuals in the Hizb have made mistakes in the past, I emphasise individuals but that doesn’t affect the ideas they hold as an organisation in the slightest.
If the Hizb are wrong then destroy what it calls for, destroy its method and destroy its ideas through discussion, debate and intellect. The Hizb will be finished and you can get on with your lives. Majed or whoever weather they say who they are or not, what has to be addressed is what he’s written, the fact that your writing him off because he’s involved with the Hizb is sad. If I said you talk rubbish because I don’t like the look of your face, would be pathetic. The truth and the strongest idea will always prevail, we understand this as Muslims by default.
To put all this in to context, the fact that as Muslims were arguing amongst ourselves says everything to be honest instead of focusing on what is important, we’ve already lost. Can you imagine the Prophet (saw) reading this blog and what his reaction would be.
Love you all my brothers and sisters for Allah (swt) sake and may He (swt) protect you and this whole Ummah.
PS: I am apart of the Hizb, destroy its ideas and method and I promise with Allah (swt) as my witness I will leave. But if you’re just going to call the Hizb names then let’s not waste anyone’s time. What I don’t understand is why the government or anyone doesn’t just engage with the Hizb and at least show people how ridiculous their ideas are. I have no problem with engaging with the BNP, let ideas, intellect and the truth do the talking for itself, This society claims to stand for freedom expression, engagement and debate but do we see this? No. instead its such slanging matches which mean nothing.
Love you all my brothers and sisters for Allah (swt) sake and may He (swt) protect you and this whole Ummah.
sic? this guy writes professionally?
and you, abdul rehman and revolution begins – do you have driving licences? i’d like to know, because if you do, you’re “embracing man-made legislation” as you’ve signed a contract with the UK government and have, consequently, then, “embraced secularism”. don’t let’s even get started on whether you pay tax or not.
b’shalom
bananabrain
Yet it is not the mistakes of individuals which is the target of the criticism. Rather, it is the ideology, the political theology of HT itself that is at issue. Principally, it is the politicised Islam of Islamism and HT’s adherence to a brand of the same that is subject to criticism.
It is the persistent attempt to identify Islamism with Islam in total to which many object. It is the illiberal, reactionary and authoritarian content of these Islamist ideas which is being rejected. It is the close identities between the clerical ideology of Islamism and HT’s brand in particular and the content of fascist ideology that disturbs many and is overwhelmingly rejected by most.
In practice, it is the duplicitous and devious entryism, the sharp dysfunction between words and deeds, the struggle against integration of the Muslim community into the broader community of believers and non-believers, the drive to systematically belittle and undermine the benefits and advances of democracy and liberal politics – to all of these underhand and dishonest practices many object.
As persistent as HT’s attempts to introduce their warped and innovatory take on Islamic theology as pretext for their totalitarian and anti-democratic political agenda, so is also the HT line that all criticisms of their organisation and its deeply reactionary ideology are, in reality, simply unwarranted criticisms of individual members of HT.
No, it is to HT and Islamism that I object. HT’s tiresome recourse to illegitimate and fallacious argumentation is annoying but certainly is not the target. The more you wiggle, the more you are caught on a hook of your own making.
Actually, Abdul Rehman, I had a sustained conversation with both these HT members on the SRE issue on a teachers’ forum – and at no time did they mention (even in passing) that they were HT members.
On the other hand, this became so clear, as the conversation continued, that it could have been spotted – as it is sometimes put – by a blind man riding backwards on a horse.
Again no idea has been addressed Abu Faris because he has presented not one evidence to back up any of his claims. You have used terms “Islam” and “Islamism” why? For some reason you assume that these words actually have different meanings, based on what? You then go on talk about it being this and that, can I ask what criteria you have used to make that judgement?
Bananabrain undertaking in actions such as paying tax or having a drving lisence is okay for the follwong reasons:
1. The actions themselves do not contradict Islamic principles
2. It is Islam that orders us to obey the law of the land except when it contradicts Islam. No obedience in the disobedience of God.
3. Paying tax or having a driving license are not concepts that came about due to the creed of Secularism, your argument is nonsensical. If I was to buy from a Jew or Hindu would that some how now mean I believe in Judaism or Hinduism now by default, all because we share a contract.
4. Taking part in the creation of legislation is different to following rules that you believe permits. The basis of my actions is still Islam because if it was illegal for me to have a driving license in Islam then I wouldn’t have one
Revolution Begins
Go back and read what I wrote.
The use of the terms “Islam” and “Islamism” are fairly clear, should you choose to actually read what I wrote.
What I find utterly fantastic about HT and its drones: hmmm, where to start? Well, how about: for a quasi-Leninist intellectual “vanguard”, you are not half short of brain cells.
“What I find utterly fantastic about HT and its drones, is that for a quasi-Leninist intellectual “vanguard”, you are not half short of brain cells.”
Mashallah. You’ve got you insult game on. The fact that you resort to this shows where the weaknesses really lie.
The terms suddenly come in the last few years. You explained what you think the terms are, I never said that. I’m saying the terms do not exist unless you can prove to me otherwise. I’m open to listen to what you have to say. I have said before, I don’t care about styles and means the Hizb do things. Why are the Hizb incorrect?
In your post you go on to talk and discuss the warped understanding that Hizb have of theology and everything else they moan about. But not once you have shown why this is the case.
Ps: I love you Abu Faris for Allah (swt) sake. Please don’t take this to heart.
Actually, if you re-read what I previously read, you would understand how absolutely ridiculous such an accusation actually makes you read.
Utter tosh. “Islam” is a recent term? Don’t be ridiculous. As for Islamism: if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck… You are simply reiterating what I wrote: Everywhere Islamism attempts to negotiate an equation between itself and Islam in toto. Address my points, not your poor grasp of history and – in particular – the history of political Islam.
So a term does not exist unless I can prove to you it does not (exist)? What are you babbling about?
Clearly, you are not.
Would you care to explain what this rather odd sentence actually means? Presently it makes no sense whatsoever. Hence, incidentally, my comment about “intellectual vanguards” and lack of brain cells (in case you missed my point there).
I addressed this, above. I suggest you actually read what I wrote before responding.
Actually, I did – and at some length. Try comprehending, or in simpler words, reading for meaning. You might find it profits you enormously.
A shame you cannot do it out of common humanity – I think you would find that Allah would approve more if you did.
Unless you missed the last point, I commend you to the writings of the truly wonderful Rabbi of the Misheneh, Hillel:
“What is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow: this is the whole Torah; the rest is the explanation; go and learn”
Do I have to teach this to you as well?
More on the common love of humanity as the condition and expression of the love of God and God’s love:
“And one of the scribes came, and having heard them reasoning together, and perceiving that he had answered them well, asked him, Which is the first commandment of all?
And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord:
And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment.
And the second is like, namely this, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these.
And the scribe said unto him, Well, Master, thou hast said the truth: for there is one God; and there is none other but he:
And to love him with all the heart, and with all the understanding, and with all the soul, and with all the strength, and to love his neighbour as himself, is more than all whole burnt offerings and sacrifices.
And when Jesus saw that he answered discreetly, he said unto him, Thou art not far from the kingdom of God. And no man after that durst ask him any question. ”
I think the response to this is “Amen”.
Revolution Begins,
Read deeply of the wisdom of the prophets and their exalted followers. Recognise their peculiar as being an inextinguishable love of humanity – and thusly a love of God.
ok:
but this is in clear contradiction to what abdul rehman said above, that “accepting the western imposed Nation State Theory” is to “reject many aspects of Islam”. the sovereignty of the nation-state is the basis of the law of the land. if you don’t accept this sovereignty then you cannot but view the law of the land as illegitimate. if you view the law of the land as illegitimate are you not being disingenuous by entering into contractual relationships under it? it seems, however, that the real crime, to people like yourself, is this:
clearly, you lot seem to think that all muslims should agree and, moreover, should follow your party line. this is totalitarian in the extreme. no wonder your ideology is considered as scary and dangerous. i certainly wouldn’t want to live under it.
ah, that standard HuT phrase. in order to get the driving licence you had to accept the authority of the DVLA to set the terms and conditions by which your compliance with it is to be judged. that’s what you signed. if you don’t believe that the DVLA has legitimate authority, that’s a little hypocritical, wouldn’t you say? furthermore what you have to say about “the creed of Secularism” – i never said it was a “creed”. secular authority is a fact. you either accept it as such and agree that it constitutes legitimate authority or you don’t. you don’t need to “embrace” anything.
but that is abdul rehman’s argument, that the muslims here “embrace secularism”, but he hasn’t given any way in which they do this other than their acceptance of the legitimacy of the nation-state and i am arguing that you do the same thing every time you enter into a voluntary interaction with one of its agencies.
i’m not sure i follow your point here – you say it’s OK to follow the rules, but not to “create legislation”? is that what you mean?
b’shalom
bananabrain
Revolution Begins – which aspect of HT ideology would you like us to de-construct? Their desire for a totalitarian theocracy? Their blatant lies and deception? Imposition of shariah against the will of the people? Mis-construing traditional Islamic theology?
Mr Fombo start where ever you would like to.
All everyone does on this blog is make bold staetments as if they were experts. Warped understanding of Theology why? According to who? Modern scholars, find me classical scholars who disagree with what the Hizb call for.
Abu Faris your good with words but not ideas. You make blanket statements which have no credibility behind them. I may not have your writing skills, partly because I have a life and don’t spend all my time attached to a computer screen.
Bananabrain I will reply to you as soon as I can. I’m a medical student and have a hell of a lot of work to do at the moment.
Actually, I was rather largely quoting from the Gospel of St Mark. I would recommend you takeany objections you have up with him, not me.
My earlier post remains entirely unaddressed by you.
Looks like the myth of the “peaceful” HT is coming unstuck:
http://www.kyivpost.com/news/nation/detail/51344/
Well, fancy that.
Care to comment on this?
As-salam alaikum
The article above doesnt actually mean anything, rheteric again, as there is no evidence in there to state HT are involved in any sort of violence. If you want to critisize HT, like Revolution Begins has stated, focus on the ideas that HT present.
If someone says, “racism” is wrong, does it matter whether he is black or white or even if he is a racist?? The statement is judged according to the its own merits not according to the source. If someone says, “Islam is the truth” its irrelevant if Bush says it or a scholar says it, Islam is judged by its ability to authenticate itself.
Similarly if an individual says “secularlism is wrong” whether they are HT or not, you address the statement. If they say “No sex education for five your olds”, you again address the statement.
When people focus on the source, it just shows how weak their ideas are. You would not discuss the BNP, you would discuss the idea BNP presents. Ideas are not patented, they are not exclusive to a group. But it is something which a group firstly adopts and then names themselves. Just because the devil is called the devil or God is called God doesnt mean anything, it is the attributes and ideas related to both the devil and God which say anything.
So lets get down to discuss the idea that HT presents, rather than a argument about the name of HT.
Ps. Im also part of HT
“Dont judge a book by its cover”….any ideas on who said that?? Does it really matter??
really? you said you were a medical student. from what i remember, they a) don’t have much of a life and b) can spell and use apostrophes. writing skills are often important for a doctor, as for example in the case of writing prescriptions, medical notes and so on. but then you’d know that, wouldn’t you?
abdullah:
in fact, there’s nothing in this article that accuses the HuT of violence. this article, that is. you might find quite a lot of evidence elsewhere, however.
really? so if i tell you i’m jewish will you judge my arguments on their merit, or will you play the man, not the ball?
actually, in the case of that statement, we’d need a mutually agreed definition of “truth” (which you have not supplied) – the assertions of islamists are not the same as islam, nor is the assertion that this sort of question can be resolved by an appeal to the authority of islamic sources themselves. that, in the world of critical thought, is known as “circular reasoning”. perhaps if you supplied an instance of something that authenticates the “truth” of islam, we might examine it and see if it stands up to a mutually agreed definition.
yes. the first thing i say is “do you mean secularism?” and the second thing is “how do you define it?”
yes, let’s. let’s have an idea, then, shall we?
b’shalom
bananabrain
ok so why post the article?
Yes id play the ball
It was a general statement about Islam and truth, and for this discussion lets leave it like that because we need to get a few previous topics discussed first.
Il re-emphasize the point shall i? Lets not stray from it this time. You can use whaterver example you want, i gave a few in my previous comment namely “Racism”, “Islam is the truth”, “Secularism is wrong” and “sex education for five yr olds”
seeing as you are not able to draw parallels, lets stick to a topic which im sure we both agree on, racism.
The discussion is if a white, black, chinese, muslim, jew, member of BNP or anyone else in the world says “Racism is wrong” does their status in society have any affect on the statement made ie does it falsefy that statement?
Or do you want me to go through the definitions of white, black, chinese, muslim, jew, member of BNP and any other words i used here?
Jzk for the spell checker
I realized my mistake of using terms which you would use to divert the discussion so i thought id rephrase the key paragraph,
The discussion is if a white, black, chinese or anyone else in the world says “Racism is wrong” does their status in society have any affect on the statement made ie does it falsefy that statement?
ie without muslim, jew, member of BNP
just to make things easier for you to understand!
for me, the answer is yes, it does have some effect on the statement, whether to falsify it or not would depend. generally, this can be clarified by means of a shared definition. for example, i agree that “racism is wrong”, you agree that “racism is wrong”, no problem – but we haven’t defined what we mean by “racism”. can you provide a definition that i would agree with? also, you must be able to see that there’s a pretty obvious question being begged by the following statement if it occurred: suppose nick griffin (to pick a random example) says “i’m not a racist – racism is wrong”. the logical response to that would be to say “well, define racism, because i don’t know how it can be defined in such a way as to exclude your opinions”.
the thing is, i suspect that you and i wouldn’t have much difficulty agreeing a shared definition of racism. where we would come unstuck is on something like “islam is truth” – because i’d want to understand how you defined all three words in the statement and, in particular, i would be extremely surprised if you were able to do so in a way that i would consider adequate or unequivocal.
b’shalom
bananabrain
Bananabrain,
I agree with what you have said. Just as an addition, however, I do think that it is important to separate, as much as possible, the specific views of an individual, from the person who articulates them.
For instance, I find Noam Chomsky’s revisionist approach to history (Cambodia, Bosnia etc) deeply unsettling. His critique of media manipulation, on the other hand, is devastatingly accurate and something I can readily subscribe to. In this sense, I find myself agreeing and disagreeing with the esteemed linguist based on the specific opinions he holds.
Others, however, will discount/endorse anything a person says or does, based on a dislike/like for one or more of the opinions he holds. This is not the correct way to go about things. Once, as you said, a correct understanding of a view has been reached (racism for me, is the same as racism for you), the views can be judged on merit.
—
I’m not really sure what I added to the conversation. Meh.
Yep i think we finally come to an agreement
we need to discuss the statement, ie racism in this specific subject. The author of the subject is irrelevant it is the idea he holds of that subject. So whether he is from the Hizb or not, you would not accept nor disregard the point being made based on this. Rather you would look to understand the topic being discussed, and tackle the ideas presented by this individual regardless of being from HT or not.
So instead of looking at the author, lets look at the articles that Majed has written and try to come to some sort of conclusion as to whether the point being made is correct or not. You can have digs at the author all you like, it still doesnt challenge the idea he presented.
So next step i guess is challenging one of the articles he has written? what do you think? This is not to say that the an individual or a group is always right or always wrong but to judge each thing accordingly and insha Allah coming to a correct rational conclusion.
May Allah forgive us for any of our short comings and may He also make the Ummah one which would correct each other in times when correction is needed and would support each other at times when support is required. Ameen
Yes, Abdullah – let’s entirely overlook the dissembling, dishonest, disingenuous, duplicitous manner in which HuT everywhere conduct themselves. Let’s conveniently forget the way in which its cadres attempt to smuggle HuT policies across to people, knowing full-well that if they were exp[osed as HuT, they would be rejected out of hand by the vast majority. Let’s forget the lies, deceit and down-right underhand, dirty and dishonest dealings that HuT has as its approach to the Ummah – a collective that HuT clearly regard with open contempt as little better than sheep to be manipulated and misled by the creeps of HuT.
Yes, let’s forget all that and concentrate on HuT’s “ideas”.
Do one.
I see youve gone back to name calling game….
I didnt expect you to be able to challenge the ideas presented by the Hizb. If you want the long and short of it, even if you believe that is what members of the Hizb do, which i can gurantee is mainly false accusation, why does that change the matter.
It goes back to my previous point, even if a racist said “racism is wrong” his actions, his approach, his mistreatment of people does not have any affect on the statement made. So you can attack the members of the Hizb as much as you want, were quite used to the arrogant insults from the people, but from this discussion its clear you cannot touch the ideas the Hizb was founded on.
Its like the non-muslims can insult and complain about the muslims all they want, but theyve not got a leg to stand on when it comes to Islam. Any rational being would understand that to disaprove Islam, you discuss the principles of Islam, of tawhid etc etc not discuss the behaviour of the muslims because this does not hold any weight whats so ever.
Theres no point in responding to this message because its clear, that your never going to accept or even discuss an idea for an idea. For future advice, if your going into a discussion try being open minded rather than having an approcah of utter sterness in your opinion.
Wsalams
I would recommend you address the issues raised in the article, Abdullah – and stop attempting to divert attention from the two-faced, underhand entryism used by your comrades in Hizb ut-Tahrir.
I am hardly name-calling. I would suggest you consult a dictionary if you have difficulty with some of the words I used. When you have done that, perhaps you might reflect on the accuracy of the adjectives I used above to describe your disgusting fascist cult, HuT.
TO make it crystal clear: This is not a thread discussing the (de)merits of HuT’s particularly perverse brand of clerical fascism. It concerned the disgusting and dishonest methods by which HuT seek to promote its views.
For your advice: I think advice about debate from a member of hopefully soon to be proscribed fascist gang of racists, bigots and frauds such as Hizb ut-Tahrir is laughable, as well as simultaneously pitiful and contemptible.
In all, Abdullah: clear off.
Your last comment about the advice, kinda backfired. It just proved my point.
The advice itself, would be considered a valid point, ie narrowmindedness in a discussion wont achieve anything.
If you agreed with it, it would have shown some existance of rational sense, rather again you focused on the source ie someone from the Hizb, and dismissed it.
Abdullah, as with all Hizbies, you think you sound ever so clever – but actually you make precious little sense whatsoever. It just comes over to the non-interested as the sort of mindless, gibberish filled, cultish slogans and painfully twisted syntax one used to associated with people who had spent too much time reading Soviet-era propaganda. Strip[ out the references to Allah and replace them with a few hurrahs for Lenin and you lot could be any old tankies from before 1991.
Now, how about addressing my criticisms of your evasions, the content of the article, or simply clearing off, now there’s a good boy?
seriously!!!! the article was about sex education for 5 year olds and which person would actually want their child to learn it so young, the priority here is the children and what we can do to help them. is it not possible to put your differences aside and think about the best for the children because they need someone to fight for their innocence because they can’t fight for it themselves. in this situation who cares if the guy is HT he is doing something we all should be apart of HELPING THE CHILDREN!!!
I did address your criticism but il restate it and reword it for your benefit,
Im sure you must have watched the debate on Question Time with Nick Griffin? Did you agree or disagree with his views of homosexuality? He is against the idea for your reference
If you did agree, then its a problem because hes from the BNP, and if you didnt agree then its a problem because that means your in favour of homosexuality (by your viewpoint about authors MUST say their affiliation)
My response is that, it is irrelevant who says it, if the statement made, makes rational sense then it should be agreed upon as with this example, the example of racism etc etc
ie it is irrelevant if an author states his affiliation or not.
Now to respond first answer the question about accepting or rejecting Nick Griffins views on homosexuality and show how this is directly linked with the one who says it which sways your acceptance or dismissal either way.
I think Banan got it one
This article was not about “sex education for five year olds”. This article was about how HuT members have been imposing themselves as “concerned parents”, etc, setting up front organisations and generally acting in an underhand manner in order to push their views.
Incidentally, the attempt to portray the revised orders for PHSE as “sex education for five-year-olds” would be hilarious, were it not so bloody malicious and inaccurate. Actually, the vast majority of educationalists regard your hopeless self-serving clerical fascist campaign with the contempt with which it deserves.
Glad to see you are now talking to yourself, though, Abdullah.
It is also useful to observe how Abdullah (or his sockpuppets) repeatedly refuses to address the issue of the honesty or otherwise of a political organisation (HuT) which consistently uses divisive, devious and dishonest means to project its views.
you still didnt get the point, if something is irrelevant than why should stating ir or not stating it be an issue?
if it is irrelevant then your article is irrelevant.
show me its relevance by answering the question i stated in my last comment
Oh, I get the point very well, thank you, Abdullah:
you and your sockpuppets do not want to in anyway discuss the entrism, dishonesty of approach and total opportunism of your vile clerical fascist cult.
To remind you, these were the topics of the above the line article. The fact that you are incredibly uncomfortable with that is not our problem.
Incidentally,
Abdullah – it wasn’t “my article”. I did not write it. Have you actually read it?
One more thing, Abdullah, your last comment simply makes you come across as unhinged.
Abdullah,
Ok, lets discuss ideas then. Which Hizb concept do you want to start with?
How about the idea Abu Faris is still refusing to answer?
I said the article is irrelevant till he proves the relevance of the status of the author in accepting or rejecting an idea.
I think this is the first discussion because if we cant come to an agreement with this then whats the point of future discussions, if every discussion is entered with a closed mind because it is a discussion with a Hizbi?
What on earth does any of that mean? It makes precious little sense.
Reads to me like Abdullah wants to discuss the person who wrote the article, not the content of the same. That’s called ad hominem, Abdullah.
Next.
thanks hassan, you seem to get it.
abdullah:
er – that last sentence doesn’t make any sense. the author of the subject is relevant precisely *because* of the idea that he holds of the subject – which was the point of the examples i gave.
i might if he and i disagreed on what constituted racism in a specific instance.
could you *be* more obvious? the strategy here, of course, is to do the following:
1. hizb clone #1 makes pronouncement on subject X that nobody reasonable could disagree with, e.g. “racism is bad, m’kay”
2. hizb clone #2 then argues that because what hizb clone #1 said was reasonable, that therefore all arguments made by hizb clones ought to be treated as merely reasonable responses to the subjects concerned
3. hizb clones #1, #2 then treat their inherent “reasonableness” as somehow established and go on to introduce hizb solution #1 (which is also, of course, hizb solution #2 and every solution up to #999999) namely, the introduction of shari’a and a caliphate.
you can be as reasonable as you like on any subject you like, but as long as the “elephant in the room” remains “we want khalifa now and you’re all going to be dhimmis or dead”, the fact that you’re trying to use the school curriculum to infiltrate civil society and establish your influence will continue to constitute the turd in the swimming pool of discourse. this, of course, is not dissimilar to the methods employed by the bnp, who will continue to maintain that their own elephant has not dropped one right in the middle of the 200m freestyle lane.
the trouble is that sooner or later the author of the subject is, in fact, relevant – as i have argued from the beginning and as, of course, abu faris has already called you on.
i assume we’re looking for an argument more complicated than “i haven’t actually had to use my mind yet, only the intellectual equivalent of a crowbar” or “to the closed mind, all other minds appear similarly closed”.
look, the most straightforward way of lifting the hizb elephant’s tail, as it were, is probably to discuss a “hizb idea” in which their ideology is inextricably intertwined. how about “islam is the truth”? i’ve given you the opportunity to raise it – now i’m asking you straight out. what do you understand by this idea?
b’shalom
bananabrain
“i might if he and i DISAGREED ON WHAT CONSTITUTED RACISM in a
specific instance.”
My point exactly, got nothing to do with the fact that hes Hizbi, everything to do with what he says regarding the topic/idea.
Since we agree on that, il bid my farewell, got exams to revise for
Salamz!
except, of course, that what he says regarding the topic / idea might perhaps be affected by his hizbeology, which might well result in my disagreeing with what he says…which was my point from the beginning.
so no, we don’t agree on that.
i note you fail to address any of my other points.
go on, then, off to your “exams”. don’t let the door hit you on the arse.
b’shalom
bananabrain