Sunny Hundal website

  • Family

    • Liberal Conspiracy
    • Sunny Hundal
  • Comrades

    • Andy Worthington
    • Angela Saini
    • Bartholomew’s notes
    • Bleeding Heart Show
    • Bloggerheads
    • Blood & Treasure
    • Campaign against Honour Killings
    • Cath Elliott
    • Chicken Yoghurt
    • Daily Mail Watch
    • Dave Hill
    • Dr. Mitu Khurana
    • Europhobia
    • Faith in Society
    • Feminism for non-lefties
    • Feministing
    • Gender Bytes
    • Harry’s Place
    • IKWRO
    • MediaWatchWatch
    • Ministry of Truth
    • Natalie Bennett
    • New Statesman blogs
    • Operation Black Vote
    • Our Kingdom
    • Robert Sharp
    • Rupa Huq
    • Shiraz Socialist
    • Shuggy’s Blog
    • Stumbling and Mumbling
    • Ta-Nehisi Coates
    • The F Word
    • Though Cowards Flinch
    • Tory Troll
    • UK Polling Report
  • In-laws

    • Aaron Heath
    • Douglas Clark's saloon
    • Earwicga
    • Get There Steppin’
    • Incurable Hippie
    • Neha Viswanathan
    • Power of Choice
    • Rita Banerji
    • Sarah
    • Sepia Mutiny
    • Sonia Faleiro
    • Southall Black Sisters
    • The Langar Hall
    • Turban Head

  • Al-Ghurabaa to be banned

    by Sunny
    17th July, 2006 at 8:30 pm    

    They used to be called Al-Muhajiroun after they split from Hizb ut Tahrir under the “leadership” of Omar Bakri. They then disbanded and re-emerged as Al-Ghurabaa. With Sheikh Goat hiding in Lebanon, Anjem Choudhary has more lately been leading the so-called “saved sect”. The government has finally decided to ban them. Thank the lord.
    Though, Islamophobia Watch still calls it ‘state opression’.

    Update: David T think they should not be banned, but I disagree with him on CiF.

                  Post to

    Filed in: Muslim,Organisations

    34 Comments below   |  

    Reactions: Twitter, blogs

    1. Tilling — on 17th July, 2006 at 8:46 pm  

      Hmm - here’s the odious Anjem Choudary as quoted on BBC News: -

      Speaking on BBC News 24, Anjem Choudary, spokesman for Al-Ghurabaa, was asked whether his organisation would defend a suicide attack on British soil.

      “We’ve always been on record as saying that we have a covenant of security in Britain,” he said.

      “We are not allowed to target anyone in this country because we live with them. Our life and wealth is protected.

      “But I feel that with these new laws which are now being introduced, if you are going to ban ideological and political movements like Al-Ghurabaa and the Saved Sect, than that situation, I think, is going to be affected.”

      So Choudary makes a veiled threat, the Beeb reports it and…what…nothing? Shouldn’t this scumbag be in a cell by now?

    2. Sunny — on 17th July, 2006 at 9:17 pm  

      Probably because the idiots were never covered under a covenant of security in the first place.

      Al-M were always a bunch of publicity hungry morons. No potential suicide bomber is going to go around announcing his ideas is he. I bet all of them are tracked by the intelligence services anyway (or so I hope).

      So I bet he made the statement just as a threat with nothing to back it up.

    3. Kulvinder — on 17th July, 2006 at 9:25 pm  

      What good would banning them do? Obviously stopping destructive elements in a population is (usually) a good thing, but banning organisations won’t do anything. By banning the organisation you aren’t affecting the individuals in anyway. They’ll still think what they think and instead of staying in a known location will dissapear for a bit before popping back up under a different name. An organisation means nothing, its just a letterhead on a piece of paper, whats important is the people that interact around it.

      Keeping some kind of consistency is far more helpful in these situations than banning orders.

    4. Kulvinder — on 17th July, 2006 at 9:29 pm  

      Mr Reid said the move sent a signal that the UK would not tolerate people who supported terrorism.

      Id just like to publicly declare that i support and have always supported Nelson Mandela.

    5. Sunny — on 17th July, 2006 at 9:39 pm  

      It will stop the idiots being invited to Newsnight for one.

    6. Refresh — on 17th July, 2006 at 9:48 pm  

      I think Islamophobia Watch might be right. Read the link - and what they say is quite sober.

      “Quite what will be accomplished by banning the few dozen idiots who make up the membership of these groups is difficult to see. And an offence of “wearing clothes suggesting support” sounds open to abuse to say the least. However, it looks as though press reports that Hizb ut-Tahrir would be illegalised were inaccurate – for now. Asked about Hizb, a Home Office spokesman said: “This does remain a group about which we have real concerns and we are keeping the situation under review.”

      Am I missing something?

    7. raz — on 17th July, 2006 at 9:57 pm  

      Come to Pakistan, Mr Choudrey. ISI is waiting for you :)

    8. raz — on 17th July, 2006 at 9:59 pm  

      It really makes me laugh when these wannabe Muslim tough guys spend their whole lives living in comfort in the UK. Pathetic!

    9. Sunny — on 17th July, 2006 at 10:14 pm  

      Resfresh - the problem is Martin Sullivan cannot see past his narrow victim mentality and constant apologies for Jamaat e Islami and Muslim Brotherhood.

      The immediate impact of this will be that government institutions can stop entertaining these donkeys. For example they won’t be invited on Newsnight to give the impression Muslims think that way. They will not be allowed to march publicly and have posters that make ordinary Britons think all Muslims are loonies.

      And they will not be allowed to host discussions such as this.

      So yes, I do believe it is a positive move. Providing the government keep banning them as they change names.

    10. Refresh — on 17th July, 2006 at 10:25 pm  

      Sunny, you really have me confused on this.

      Martin Sullivan presumably is not a (direct) victim of Islamaphobia - as I presume he isn’t a muslim.

      I followed some of the stuff which they tackle head-on such as stuff from MEMRI and I was quite impressed, as their responses seem to be well researched. In fact so much so - I am inclined to cross-check Harry’s Place and MEMRI with them. In fact I am also tempted to cross-check some of the stuff that seems to be filtering on PP too.

      On the ban - I hear what you say - but surely that is no way to deal with these issues. Newsnight should themselves know better. On the one hand I can feel pleased I might not have to hear them or of them - on the other knowing that there is some sort of ban on any clothing which might be deemed in support of them.

      And by extension anyone else who might get banned. Don’t you find that a little odd?

    11. Sunny — on 17th July, 2006 at 10:31 pm  

      Just to add, sometimes I think Islamophobia Watch is run by racists.

      If Martin Sullivan spent less time reading Frontpage mag and Melanie Phillips’ diary, he may even see the amount of garbage Al-Muhajiroun and Ghurabaa have come out with.

      When there is a discussion on Muslim affairs some guy will always link to a picture with those idiots asking those who ‘insult Islam be massacred’, or ‘Islam will take over the world’ or ‘Britain will become the Khalifah’ etc (which I used to see at uni all the time).

      They might even see the impact those leaflets distributed by these idiots, offering 10,000 pounds to Muslim boys to get Sikh and Hindu girls convert to Islam had on inter-religious relationships.

      They might read the emails that went around with fictitious conferences of ten thousand Muslims where some former Hindu or Sikh girl publicly accepted Islam and cussed her former faith to the delight of the audience. You think all this shit has no impact? And you’re worried about Martin Sullivan’s cries of State opression? Pull the other one.

      If I was in charge, as Raz said, the intelligence services would be paying the boys a visit on a regular basis. Oh yeah.

    12. seekeroftruth — on 17th July, 2006 at 10:49 pm  

      Banning Almuhajiroon and the Saved Sec is the right action because they don’t just promote hatred but egg other vulnerable youngsters to violence, subversion and terrorism.

      However the phrase about ‘clothing which may show support’ is a bit spooky. I mean if some is wearing a tshirt ‘kill kafirs’, he should be arrested. However, the phrasing can even imply wearing a turban, a kaffiyeh etc.

      However these groups are clowns who are an extreme logical culmination of the ideology promoted by Hizb Tahrir, Ikhwan etc. No wonder both the banned groups are off shoots of Hizb Tahrir although HT would not accept that.

    13. Kulvinder — on 17th July, 2006 at 11:00 pm  

      It will stop the idiots being invited to Newsnight for one.

      For awhile, but it won’t stop the utterly mongish nature of newsnight and other news programmes. As you’ve commented above and before ‘tv people’ hold ‘balance’ above all. The only problem is to ensure that the ‘balance’ is visible to all you have to get two people with completely opposing views that are usually two sides of an extreme that represents noone.

      Person A: ‘Islam is terrorism’
      Person B: ‘Islam will take over the world!’

      *sigh* its why id rather read Chomsky et al who present an argument as opposed to a certain point of view.

    14. Refresh — on 17th July, 2006 at 11:09 pm  

      Sunny, I don’t wish to conflate the issues. On the point about banning this group - seekeroftruth has picked up about the spooky stuff, which is what I was referring to.

      Where is it going, where could it go? That’s always the question to ask on matters of civil liberties and censorship. Not now but in the future.

      I presume as for Martin Sullivan the clue is in the name of the website.

      For goodness sake I’ve seen so many hate sites - which make maximum use of what these turnips have to say - to the detriment of ordinary muslims it beggars belief.

      PP does a fine job of picking out the stuff. Harry’s Place propagandises about it - to the extent that is all it does. Directly and indirectly.

      I haven’t scoured the whole of the Islamophobia website but I am pleased it exists. It makes for very good reading.

      No, sorry I don’t understand your antipathy to IW.

    15. seekeroftruth — on 17th July, 2006 at 11:27 pm  

      Refresh: This might also be a subtle reference to the Niqab/Burqa which has been banned in some European countries. Personally I find uncomfy if I see any niqabi but I don’t think it will help matters in the current political climate if the Niqab is banned in the UK.

    16. Refresh — on 17th July, 2006 at 11:39 pm  

      SOT: Now that would be sneaky. With John Reid in charge anything is possible (or should I say probable?).

    17. David T — on 18th July, 2006 at 9:49 am  

      I am guessing that they mean dressing like this

      Needless to say, I’m opposed to the ban. I’ve a CiF piece which will be published shortly.

    18. David T — on 18th July, 2006 at 10:56 am  

      Here goes:

    19. sonia — on 18th July, 2006 at 12:39 pm  

      well david, i have to say i agree with you. Bans are a bit silly - and never do anyone any good, and are illiberal. people simply go underground and you can’t see what they’re upto. Instead of bans, free information is the way i’d go. With groups like HuT and this lot — ‘warning labels’ i’d say are more appropriate - i.e. so its a matter of open knowledge that a lot of people think they’re nutters etc. and I would say this is particularly crucial given the no.s of young muslims who don’t know much about ‘their religion’ and jump on any old bandwagon because it defines itself ‘islamic’. there’s never any substitute for discussion and free and widely available information.

      Also, banning usually has the effect of encouraging some people to become more interested in what’s being banned. this is simple social psychology and is usually ignored by authority.

    20. sonia — on 18th July, 2006 at 12:42 pm  

      does it matter if these people appear on Newsnight? no. what matters is if they do appear and people don’t realize that they represent an extreme interpretation of Islam. you can deal with that through knowledge dissemination and ordinary muslims realizing their religion isn’t as violent as they often imagine ( and can you then blame other ppl for thinking that too!) - but either which way, a ban isn’t going to achieve that.

    21. Kulvinder — on 18th July, 2006 at 1:00 pm  

      I am guessing that they mean dressing like this

      I really hope someone challenges that, theres a very strong argument imo that the man in question can’t be universally interpreted as dressing as a suicide bomber. He admitted to doing as much, but for the sake of argument (and to stop jobworth beauracrats in the future) id be interested to know why wearing a pair of thick winter gloves, a black headcovering and an army surplus webbing kit denoted you as a ‘suicide bomber’

    22. Sid — on 18th July, 2006 at 1:15 pm  

      If the precedent for the “clothes suggesting support” has a precedent with Mosley’s Blackshirts, then that would suggest that terrorists have regimented some kind of code for a “political uniform”. But they have done no such thing.

      If some tosser wears a pair of thick winter gloves, a black headcovering and an army surplus webbing kit on a silly march and his choice of clothes is now considered the “uniform of terrorists” as such and legally proscribed as the Mosely parallel, then I share the sentiments on some here that is rather spooky.

      Given that a man was shot on the Underground because he “looked like” a suicide bomber should have raised some alarm bells on this one.

    23. David T — on 18th July, 2006 at 1:26 pm  


      Oh, I have no idea at all what “clothes suggesting support” is supposed to mean. It is rubbish, really.


      no. what matters is if they do appear and people don’t realize that they represent an extreme interpretation of Islam.


      The truth is, most people tasked with interviewing the motley collection of nutters and mouth frothers who offer themselves up to Newsnight for interview haven’t the faintest idea about who they are, or what they stand for.

    24. Sid — on 18th July, 2006 at 1:29 pm  

      Having said that, I agree with david T’s sentiments for not banning these loons. If for only because banning them provides them even more unnecessary “anti-establishment” allure for attracting young, impressionable and conflicted Muslim lads who are looking for that kind of thing.

    25. Refresh — on 18th July, 2006 at 1:30 pm  


      “The truth is, most people tasked with interviewing the motley collection of nutters and mouth frothers who offer themselves up to Newsnight for interview haven’t the faintest idea about who they are, or what they stand for.”


    26. Refresh — on 18th July, 2006 at 1:32 pm  

      Ignore my offer of T. Hit the wrong key

      I was going to say I agree.

      I would like to know why they were and are wheeled in as a matter of course.

    27. David T — on 18th July, 2006 at 3:47 pm  

      1. Because they make for compelling viewing

      2. Because they will come on a programme at a drop of a hat

      3. Because - until recently - basically nobody had any idea at all about the way that theo-politics works in the UK. Journalists are keen to produce balance (or at least a set of contrasting views). In their mind, asians (and especially Muslims) fall into two categories:

      - sensible chaps, play cricket, son is an accountant, daughter an actuary, good types, nice food.


      - angry, elemental Caliban types who enjoy shouting and might chop your head off!!!

    28. Sunny — on 18th July, 2006 at 4:08 pm  

      Heh, I agree with Mr T, which is why I’ve just sent an article to dear Georgina Henry arguing for their banning! Hah!

    29. David T — on 18th July, 2006 at 4:26 pm  

      I’ll set Fatty Bodi onto you and he’ll EAT YOU UP!!!

    30. Sid — on 18th July, 2006 at 4:29 pm  

      Cum Mr Caliban
      Cali me Banana…

    31. Refresh — on 18th July, 2006 at 4:35 pm  

      You know I was thinking about Anjem Chowdrey - he is one fish that the secret services wouldn’t mind on their books. MI5, SIS and a few others.

    32. David T — on 18th July, 2006 at 4:44 pm  

      Yeah, but people have always said that about politicos who are too mad to be believed, haven’t they? In reality, though, some people are just really really mad.

      My view, as you know, is that Anjum smoked too much weed in the 1980s.

    33. Sid — on 18th July, 2006 at 5:03 pm  

      That would be letting Anjum off too lightly and demonising weed unnecasarily.

    34. Refresh — on 19th July, 2006 at 12:25 am  

      hahaha - I have to laugh because I’ve long pictured you so afflicted.

    Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

    Pickled Politics © Copyright 2005 - 2010. All rights reserved. Terms and conditions.
    With the help of PHP and Wordpress.