Hizb ut-Tahrir caught with pants down


by Sunny
17th October, 2005 at 4:52 am    

The brainwashed followers of Hizb ut-Tahrir have been recruiting under the name Stop Islamophobia, Sunday Times’ Ali Hussain revealed yesterday. He found their stalls in freshers fairs at Luton University, SOAS, Queen Mary and London Metropolitan University.

He met Shazad Ali from UCL who, in his infinite wisdom, said: “You definitely can’t have (Jews) as close friends.” Foolio. Then he meets Razaq who recently asked a HuT ‘sheikh’ about suicide bombings. The reply was:

I can strap a bomb to myself and kill as many people as I can. I’m going to die shahid (martyr) and go to jannah (heaven).

Ban them already, please! Then Razaq says:

Stop Islamophobia is set up by us. But we don’t actually push it like that. The moment they link Hizb ut-Tahrir with Stop Islamophobia, they’ll bring the whole campaign down.

… and mess it up for Muslims who are genuinely (and without a sinister agenda) working to stop Islamophobia. HuT’s rebranding isn’t surprising, but their audacity to piggy-back on other issues is well, typical I guess. What next, using a stall supposedly raising money for Kashmir?


              Post to del.icio.us


Filed in: Religion






30 Comments below   |  

Reactions: Twitter, blogs


  1. nukh — on 17th October, 2005 at 5:29 am  
  2. Yusuf Smith — on 17th October, 2005 at 6:06 am  

    You might also like to read my reply:

    Worker Communists as Liberals!

  3. leon — on 17th October, 2005 at 9:27 am  

    Dear me thos HuT guys dont quite do they? Aren’t the MCB big fans of HuT’s rebranded ways?

  4. Jai Singh — on 17th October, 2005 at 11:14 am  

    =>”What next, using a stall supposedly raising money for Kashmir? ”

    For God’s sake, don’t give them any ideas. Assuming, of course, that they’re not doing this already……

  5. Sunny — on 17th October, 2005 at 2:21 pm  

    Nukh – I’ve read that lame article by Cohen and replied in the discussion on Harry’s Place quite extensively. Yusuf’s post on it is also worth reading.

  6. Al-Hack — on 17th October, 2005 at 4:03 pm  

    I see some blogs are calling this a witch-hunt *snort*

  7. Nosemonkeyb3ta — on 17th October, 2005 at 4:10 pm  

    The UCL thing is bizarre. That university was set up on an entirely secular basis, and any kind of religious recruiting/worship is banned there under rules more than a century old (it doesn’t even have a chapel or church attached to it). Via the Student Union there are religious societies, but they always used to be fairly strictly controlled. The one exception when I was there (a few years back now, way before any of the recent unpleasantness) was the Islamic Society, which – technically in breach of university rules, but with the assent of the Union – took over a room every week for prayers.

    So the thing that gets me – and sod the allegations of nutty types recruiting – is why the hell did UCL ever deem the Islamic Society a special case in the first place? It’s the one university in the country with a ban on all religions, and a ban for entirely liberal reasons. Very odd…

  8. Nosemonkey — on 17th October, 2005 at 4:12 pm  

    That was odd – some kind of alternate username stored in my autocomplete…

  9. j0nz — on 17th October, 2005 at 4:14 pm  

    I went to Metropolitan University and met five people outwardly expressing support for Bin Laden. SWP were crawling around outside like a swarm of locusts with their sodding megaphones and their Bush is no.1 Terrorist rhetoric

  10. BevanKieran — on 17th October, 2005 at 4:25 pm  

    Weird things are going on at UCL. The following document includes a motion which described hiz but tahrir
    as NOT an extremist party, and one which REJECTS all forms of racism and discrimination.

    Union policy

    In my third year at UCL (2001-2002) I went to a meeting of the Muslim media forum. At least one of the members (the president of the society) was member of Hizb but tahrir. Stop Islamophobia seems to be the second rebranding.

    I think there may be a good case, both historically and practically for UCL, to ban religous societies full stop.

  11. Sunny — on 17th October, 2005 at 4:26 pm  

    At least the SWP are relatively harmless. HuT, I’m not so sure with.

  12. j0nz — on 17th October, 2005 at 4:43 pm  

    Both groups advocate terrorism in Iraq or Israel. But middle class highly strung girls from Surrey with multi-coloured dreadlocks can be quite endearing, whereas the shear hairy beardedness of HuT is a sure loser, IMO.

  13. Al-Hack — on 17th October, 2005 at 4:52 pm  

    j0nz, you could atleast make a decision between opposing ‘shock and awe’ and supporting al-Qaeda terrorists.
    Is this what you call liberation?

  14. leon — on 17th October, 2005 at 4:58 pm  

    “At least the SWP are relatively harmless. HuT, I’m not so sure with.”

    I wouldn’t agree with that tbh, they hijack legit campaigns/protests to sell papers and generally neutor any political potency. They may not be fundy in a religious sense but they are in a political sense!

  15. j0nz — on 17th October, 2005 at 7:27 pm  

    Quote from the BBC article “said all the dead were militants”. (no comment on Lenin’s tomb!)

    So yes, that’s what I call liberation, Al-hacker! So they got some civilians? Yes, absolutley tragic, but this is inevitable, an evil of war. Especially when your loverrly ‘freedom fighters’ use human shields. How quaint!

    One minor technical detail you seem to have forgotten in the difference between the US military and Al-Qaeda — Al-Qaeda officially targets civilians whereas the US military targets, well terrorists! I know it’s only a minor point, so sorry to waste your time!

  16. Siddharth — on 17th October, 2005 at 8:21 pm  

    PP readers are being asked to defend Burkhas which are evil garments which have slits for eyes and a funny nose-shaped metal piece that makes the wearer look like Darth Vader’s mother.

    The Nick Cohenists are being asked to defend a Golden and Magical War which will make Iraqis shiny happy prosperous people living in a fully formed Democracy with rainbows and bunny rabbits galore by next summer.

    …Make mine a size XXL :-D

  17. j0nz — on 17th October, 2005 at 8:33 pm  

    LOL. Do we get to see you in a XXL burkha then?!

  18. Al-Hack — on 17th October, 2005 at 9:08 pm  

    J0nz – correction. The military says it killed mostly terrorists, but people on the ground say differently. Given how much the British and American military have lied over the past 2 years over Iraq, I know who I’d like to believe. The question is, how long are you willing to tow that line (because you support the war presumably) until you realise it it is all a facade?

  19. j0nz — on 17th October, 2005 at 9:42 pm  

    Al-hack – what is your point?

    That they should immediatley withdraw allied forces? Ooh Ive been lied to! Ooh Ive been lied to! Bliar!! Change the record, mate. Facade?! What on earth are you talking about?

    Do you have any actual constructive suggestions for the progession of Iraq, or would you rather perpetually whine about your morbid pessimism? Que: “Ive been lied to! Bliar! No1. Terrorist! “

  20. leon — on 17th October, 2005 at 9:54 pm  

    We weren’t all lied too. Some of us knew Bliar was full of shit from the get go. Iraq was nothing more than a move in the Great Game. As usual its ordinary people that pay the price…

  21. Al-Hack — on 17th October, 2005 at 10:05 pm  

    Just because letting the soldiers stay there and keep the peace is the best option does not mean I will always swallow whatever the military throw at me. That is my point. I have been lied to enough not to take their word for it.

    Ever heard that phrase: The first time I fall for your lies, it is your fault. The second time I fall for your lies, it is my fault.

    Well, I’ve learnt from my mistakes thanks.

  22. Siddharth — on 17th October, 2005 at 11:21 pm  

    j0nz: I’ll gladly wear the XXL burkha if you and yours successfully bomb Iraq into a happy secular liberal democracy, ever. Be sure though to have the Nick Cohen anthem playing loud and proud as you look at the shitty news coming back from Iraq, and you can sing-along the lie with him. Its all been worth it

    Cue Nick croon Iraq Be a Lady

  23. douglas — on 18th October, 2005 at 10:28 am  

    Sunny,

    I have now read the thread at Harrys Place. I think both sides of that arguement miss the fact that there is an international UN Declaration of Human Rights. Whilst OP is hung up on Darth Vader kit it seems to me that requiring governments, all governments, to at least stand up to the standards of the UN Declaration is something everyone, everywhere, should be allowed and encouraged to address. Due to the theme of the thread it certainly looked like Muslim bashing bigotry, however I think most of the same people would stand against the BNP and it’s outrageous viewpoints too. In my view, it is completely wrong to believe in cultural relativism where that cuts across human rights. I’d quite like to know where you stand on that. For the record I am a white, atheist, Scot, as colour, (non) religion and place of birth now seem to be seen as relevant to discussing things like this, which is frankly, a shame.

    douglas

  24. j0nz — on 18th October, 2005 at 1:34 pm  

    Al-Hack;

    Ever heard that phrase: The first time I fall for your lies, it is your fault. The second time I fall for your lies, it is my fault.

    Well I don’t think I have, but it’s a very good phrase.

    Siddarth + Al-Hack -

    Why is it that only non-iraqis are against the Iraq war?! (I’m assuming neither of our are Iraqi).

  25. j0nz — on 18th October, 2005 at 1:35 pm  

    *should read: I’m assuming neither of you are Iraqi

  26. Siddharth — on 18th October, 2005 at 2:10 pm  

    Why is it that only non-iraqis are against the Iraq war?!

    If we continue down that line of logic, you’re saying Nick Cohen and David Aaranovitch are Iraqi? Don’t tell me, they’re both from the tribe of Bani al-Schmuck.

  27. Al-Hack — on 18th October, 2005 at 5:41 pm  

    j0nz, I never liked Saddam Hussain and never will do. But I think it is short-sighted of pro-war to couch everything in that way. The heads of North Korea, China, Liberia, Nigeria are also nasty people, but the USA isn’t looking at pre-emptive action there. The WMD theory has been blown out of the water.

    Now I’m not happy they went to war on false grounds, but its done now. They need to clean up the mess, kill the al-qaeda, empower the Shias and have some semblance of democracy established.

    My point here is that we both know they lied before going to war to achieve their aims and try and get our support for that. What makes you sure they are still not lying over how well their “war on terror” is going, specially the American govt? You’re taking their word at face value when recent history suggests they are not always so forthcoming with their facts to the public.

  28. Yusuf Smith — on 19th October, 2005 at 1:08 am  

    The heads of North Korea, China, Liberia, Nigeria are also nasty people

    Can you really compare Obasanjo to Kim Jong-Il?

  29. Al-Hack — on 19th October, 2005 at 1:26 am  

    Oh crap. I meant Mugabe from Zimbabwe.

  30. Jack — on 19th October, 2005 at 11:21 pm  

    He is right, you never know what you are going to to get with those crazy Jews. Oh brother.

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.