Translate

Showing posts with label Hizb-ut-Tahrir. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Hizb-ut-Tahrir. Show all posts

Thursday, 1 November 2018

The boys at Hizb ut Tahrir answer just one of my many questions



From 46:00

I asked about #MeToo.

My answer would have been:

If quran.com/24/2 were in force under a Caliphate governed by the principles of Secular Koranism, we wouldn't have any of that nonsense because most women of child-bearing age in the workplace would either be looking for a husband without being allowed to fornicate with them to prevent unwanted pregnancy and widespread illegitimacy, or at home looking after hearth, home, husband, children and their local community. 



at No comments:
Labels: , , ,

Thursday, 2 August 2018

How I propose to foster better Jew and gentile relations



at No comments:
Labels: , , , ,

Thursday, 8 March 2018

Hizb ut Tahrir, Western imperialism, Clive of India, youth offending and Merchant Taylors' College


After viewing the HT video on the Caliphate, I have the following questions for them. I do hope they will not be deliberately ignoring me because I am neither male nor Muslim. If so, that does not bode well because it smacks of male and Muslim chauvinism. Neither would it be consistent with their policy of dawah.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dawah



1.  Does Hizb ut Tahrir believe it can just abolish the nation state and live in a global Muslim village without engaging in debate with non-Muslims?

2.  Is HT confusing nationalism with Western imperialism?

3.  Is it impossible in your minds to separate nationalism from Western imperialism?

4.  First, tribes must be able to form a city-state before it can form a nation. Do you disagree?

5.  Secondly, a city-state must control its surrounding territory before it can become a nation. Do you disagree?

6.  Thirdly, a nation must be able to successfully conquer territories outside its own borders to become an empire. Do you disagree?

7.  Jews were a tribe of wandering former slaves who through following Judaism conquered enough territory to become a kingdom. Do you disagree?

8.  Islam was what first united the Arab tribes which then enabled Islamic imperialism. Do you disagree?
   
9.  Ummah also means nation in Arabic. Would you agree? http://www1.cbn.com/onlinediscipleship/what-is-the-muslim-understanding-of-%22ummah%22%3F
   
10.  Nationhood is a natural aspiration for all those who live in a defined piece of territory.  Would you agree?

11.  Apparently, HT are Muslims who want to abolish nation states and borders who cannot understand that uncontrolled immigration upsets the locals. Such denial and naivete is not a secure basis upon which to embark on a global Caliphate. Would you agree?

12.  HT seem to think nationalism is some wicked modern Western imperialist invention, apparently ignorant of the fact that the Jewish revolts against the Romans of the second century was also a form of nationalism. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationalism#History Would you confirm that this is indeed the position of HT on nationalism?

13.  We all have to start somewhere. Individuals exist in bodies, and countries as nation states. To call nationalism evil is to call the nation state evil, which makes about as much sense as denouncing individuals for necessarily existing as a physical being inhabiting a human body. Would you agree? https://www.facebook.com/claire.khaw.92/posts/1845229085551716?comment_id=1846060515468573&reply_comment_id=1846861275388497&notif_id=1520365865757713&notif_t=feed_comment&ref=notif
   
14.  The Ottoman Empire ended because it could not reform itself before it was dominated then divided by the European powers. Was this because the Gate of Interpretation was closed?  https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/3114/muslims-ijtihad

15.  God if He exists is a nationalist. http://Quran.com/3/104  is conclusive evidence that God approves of nations who promote their national interest by following His laws. Would you agree?
16.  It is surely possible to defend the national interest without descending to xenophobia. Why do Muslims, like liberals and the left, assume nationalism is synonymous with evil? We all live in nation states, so why should we as loyal citizens not defend the national interest or expect our political leaders to do so?
   
17.  en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rectification_of_names is a philosophy of calling things by their proper names or things will go awry. If you mean the policies of divide and rule used by Western imperialism, call it that and don't confuse it with nationalism. Is this a subject you are prepared to discuss?
   
19.  Do you really think a transnational Caliphate can spontaneously come into being without first establishing an imperialistic Islamic State? If so, please explain your reasoning.

20.  Have you considered putting it to nationalists and imperialists that running their governments under a one party theocracy would be in the national interest as well as good for Western imperialism and world peace?
at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , ,

Wednesday, 7 March 2018

Hizb ut Tahrir equate nationalism with evil and then refuse to answer my questions - because I am neither a man nor a Muslim?


Taji Mustafa says:

Can you guess the answer to this question?


Can you guess the answer to this question?


Can you guess the answer to this question?

But how will they spread the message of Islam by arrogantly refusing to engage in any discussion?

These unfortunate Muslims who want a Caliphate seem to be as lost as everyone else talking to each other in their own echo chambers disdaining to discuss anything with outsiders.

www.hizb.org.uk/media/press-releases/lost-khilafah-nationalism-must-reject-get-khilafah-back/

http://www.hizb.org.uk/viewpoint/disease-nationalism-continues-tear-world-apart/

From the 19th minute
Abdul Wahid talks about the degeneracy of the Ottoman Empire. He claims the success of the military invasion of Turkey would not have been successful but for "the evil of nationalism affecting the Arab world". He calls Mustafa Kemal "the ugly face of Turkish nationalism".

He mentions the Treaty of Sevres and Lausanne, but does not mention that Turkey supported the wrong losing side in WW1 ie Germany.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottoman%E2%80%93German_alliance
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Sèvres
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Lausanne

He does not mention the Eastern Question.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Question

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sick_man_of_Europe

Can Muslims Reopen the Gates of Ijtihad?

https://www.usnews.com/news/world/articles/2017-09-26/study-finds-saudi-government-still-tolerates-hate-speech

37:37
Abdul Wahid:

Bernard Lewis is the Islamic scholar beloved by neocons.

Taji Mustafa wants Assad destroyed and says an Islamic financial system would be fairer for the poor and poor nations. He has not heard of adverse possession in English law, clearly. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adverse_possession

http://quillette.com/2018/02/19/one-state-delusion/ makes a lot of things on Western foreign policy and

Yahya Nisbet denounces nationalism and peppers his speech with so many Arabisms in an ostentatious Arabic accent that he must think his Arabisms will get him to Janah more quickly. It is just annoying for non-Muslims who want them to understand whatever they are saying quickly, but what the hell do they care as long as they can wear their piety ostentatiously on their sleeve?

QUESTIONS I HAVE EMAILED TO HIZB UT TAHRIR TODAY

1.  Does Hizb ut Tahrir believe it can just abolish the nation state and live in a global Muslim village without engaging in debate with non-Muslims?

2.  Is HT confusing nationalism with Western imperialism?

3.  Is it impossible in your minds to separate nationalism from Western imperialism?

4.  First, tribes must be able to form a city-state before it can form a nation. Do you disagree?

5.  Secondly, a city-state must control its surrounding territory before it can become a nation. Do you disagree?

6.  Thirdly, a nation must be able to successfully conquer territories outside its own borders to become an empire. Do you disagree?

7.  Jews were a tribe of wandering former slaves who through following Judaism conquered enough territory to become a kingdom. Do you disagree?

8.  Islam was what first united the Arab tribes which then enabled Islamic imperialism. Do you disagree?
   
9.  Ummah also means nation in Arabic. Would you agree? http://www1.cbn.com/onlinediscipleship/what-is-the-muslim-understanding-of-%22ummah%22%3F
   
10.  Nationhood is a natural aspiration for all those who live in a defined piece of territory.  Would you agree?

11.  Apparently, HT are Muslims who want to abolish nation states and borders who cannot understand that uncontrolled immigration upsets the locals. Such denial and naivete is not a secure basis upon which to embark on a global Caliphate. Would you agree?

12.  HT seem to think nationalism is some wicked modern Western imperialist invention, apparently ignorant of the fact that the Jewish revolts against the Romans of the second century was also a form of nationalism. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationalism#History Would you confirm that this is indeed the position of HT on nationalism?

13.  We all have to start somewhere. Individuals exist in bodies, and countries as nation states. To call nationalism evil is to call the nation state evil, which makes about as much sense as denouncing individuals for necessarily existing as a physical being inhabiting a human body. Would you agree? https://www.facebook.com/claire.khaw.92/posts/1845229085551716?comment_id=1846060515468573&reply_comment_id=1846861275388497&notif_id=1520365865757713&notif_t=feed_comment&ref=notif
   
14.  The Ottoman Empire ended because it could not reform itself before it was dominated then divided by the European powers. Was this because the Gate of Interpretation was closed?  https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/3114/muslims-ijtihad

15.  God if He exists is a nationalist. http://Quran.com/3/104  is conclusive evidence that God approves of nations who promote their national interest by following His laws. Would you agree?

16.  It is surely possible to defend the national interest without descending to xenophobia. Why do Muslims, like liberals and the left, assume nationalism is synonymous with evil? We all live in nation states, so why should we as loyal citizens not defend the national interest or expect our political leaders to do so?
   
17.  en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rectification_of_names is a philosophy of calling things by their proper names or things will go awry. If you mean the policies of divide and rule used by Western imperialism, call it that and don't confuse it with nationalism. Is this a subject you are prepared to discuss?
   
19.  Do you really think a transnational Caliphate can spontaneously come into being without first establishing an imperialistic Islamic State? If so, please explain your reasoning.

20.  Will you be ignoring my questions because I am neither male nor Muslim?
at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , ,

Friday, 3 March 2017

The Caliphate: a vision of the future?












It's a constitutional dictatorship.




http://www.hizb.org.uk/current-affairs/ten-features-of-the-islamic-khilafah



We can default on our debts - yay!























God will be the policeman inside people's heads. 









A curious proposal. If that happens, will we become like America and fill up with Mexicans criminals? Perhaps the sharia will deal very firmly with them. 
 


http://www.hizb-ut-tahrir.info/en/index.php/women-s-section/articles/12543.html#sthash.8fY9JJYF.dpufhttp://www.hizb-ut-tahrir.info/en/index.php/women-s-section/articles/12543.html



http://5pillarsuk.com/2017/03/02/muslims-should-be-confident-in-discussing-the-khilafah-in-todays-britain/

It seems fair enough, and I have had it up to here fretting about the deep state and Trump, to the extent of losing sleep because I worry so much. Have you too had enough of wondering if your politicians are up to the job of governing? (We already know they are fools and knaves and the puppets of our deep state, don't we?) I just want to know someone competent is in charge. It seems the Caliphate offers us peace of mind.

Instead of MPs, we could have mini-Caliphs, who have to satisfy a residential qualification in their constituency as well as pass a three hour exam consisting of five questions concerning

1) Koranic principles
2) their principles
3) what they understand by the national interest.
4) why they think they they should be Caliph
5) who else they think should be Caliph other than themselves and why

These mini-Caliphs who want to be Caliph can then choose the Caliph under the Papal Conclave rules, and Bob's your uncle, we will have a Britannic Caliphate. (NB: Women will be disqualified from being Caliphs because they are women.)
at No comments:
Labels: , , ,

Thursday, 19 May 2016

What have neocons ever done to Muslims?



http://www.hizb.org.uk/current-affairs/camerons-counter-extremism-strategy-another-nail-in-democracys-coffin

Cameron’s ‘counter-extremism’ strategy – another nail in democracy’s coffin
 
Prime Minister David Cameron has outlined proposed new ‘counter-extremism’ laws in the Queen’s Speech, at the state opening of parliament. He has, once again, talked about ‘the introduction of a new civil order regime to restrict extremist activity’ and banning ‘extremists’ from working with children. He might use this muscular rhetoric to portray himself as the defender of democracy. And whether these laws are passed or not, he has managed yet again to demonise Islam – radicalising ‘middle England’ against Muslims with these proposal. But in reality, he has put another nail in democracy’s coffin. There are several factors that illustrate this.

Firstly, not defining ‘extremism’ precisely gives the government a free hand to use such laws against any person or any organisation that can be made to fit into the vague and broad definition of ‘extremist’. This would not be new (existing anti-terrorism laws and counter-extremism policies have already been used against Walter Wolfgang for heckling Jack Straw, and anti-fracking protestors) but it would extend state powers such that it will be even easier to suppress dissenting political and ideological views – even those expressed solely in terms of rational argument. By doing this, Cameron and Putin don’t differ in principle, only in degrees of totalitarianism.


Secondly, he is not simply using a security policy to silence political opinions, but to interfere, clamp down and even redefine religious orthodoxy – forcing believers to conform to today’s liberal capitalist norms. The endless focus on relations between men and women, Muslims not integrating enough and any manner of issues that are unrelated to violent actions proves again and again that this is nothing but an attempt at a forced conversion to liberal values where argument has failed to convince.

Thirdly, there remains no pretence that this is about ‘extremism’ or a strand of opinion amongst Muslims. There is a systematic attempt to bully orthodox practicing believers in a manner that would be called persecution if the subject of the bullying were any other community. The draconian plans to intervene in ’unregulated education settings’ (Muslim religious instruction Madrassas for children) is a clear example of this.

For those who hold different values or dissenting views and are attempting to persuade others, a confident answer would not be to ban them but to win the argument – unless of course they cannot win the argument, in which case the strong-arm tactics of the despot become the norm.

They are in a lose-lose situation. If they persist with these plans they will expose the weakness of democracy. If they desist, and leave Muslims to adhere to their own beliefs and bring about the Islamic system in the Muslim world, they surely will see that humanity will have a far better model of governance than democracy can ever give to people.

Our message is clear. We will continue to advocate that Muslims embrace Islam completely in their lives. This means a Muslim world coming out of darkness and chaos into justice and security for all its citizens under Islam. And it means Muslims in the west exemplifying the noble Islamic values and inviting others to look at them. As for Cameron and his anti-extremism rhetoric, this is no different to the rhetoric of the Quraysh. They too initiated measures like Prevent and the silencing of Muslims. They failed miserably and Islam was implemented throughout the Arab peninsula. Cameron and democracy are upon the same trajectory as the Quraysh.
at No comments:
Labels: , , ,

Thursday, 28 May 2015

What was the government response on being told in 2006 that Muslim terrorism caused by foreign policy? (Now 2015.)

Two Muslims discuss UK foreign policy in 2006.

Has there been any progress since then?

Are the media facilitating a discussion about UK foreign policy?

Of course not. Those who speak out of turn tend to lose their jobs and saying anything found to be objectionable by Jews will have you labelled as an antisemite, and antisemites are of course evil nasty Nazis whose views must either be suppressed or ignored.

This is why no one ever listens to Paul Craig Roberts, because he has been labelled as such, even if he is a wise old man and was once adviser to Ronald Reagan. In the West the young despise the old. Anyone who is not attractive enough for them to think of having sex with is automatically dismissed as worthless and even immoral. In any dispute a social conservative might have with a libtard the subject of how much sex one has had will arise as if the number of sex partners one has had in one's life is indicative of one's moral probity and intellectual respectability.

Paul Craig Roberts: "Britain never makes a decision without asking America."


Most people who consider themselves educated and well-informed in this country have never heard of the Wolfowitz Doctrine, as I discovered to my horror recently.

Which rules are more likely to discourage war - the Wolfowitz Doctrine or the Koranic rules of warfare?

Does the BBC have a moral and national responsibility to discuss UK foreign policy?

Is the BBC morally rotten because it no longer has any journalistic integrity?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1349506/Left-wing-bias-Its-written-BBCs-DNA-says-Peter-Sissons.html

I would say so. You would have thought the media would like to challenge my views but the collective consensus amongst libtards is not to give me the oxygen of publicity before they can think of any counter-arguments to my arguments. I am not even complaining about bad publicity being a sporting kind of woman and prepared to let them do their worst. My touted appearance on the Channel 5 hatchet job on UKIP suddenly came to nothing after filming me over two days for a total of six hours. It was probably because I did not seem to them to be mad and hate-filled enough to fit into the usual mould of what the left like to think of as UKIP supporters. http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.co.uk/2015/03/why-i-was-omitted-from-channel-5-ukip.html

These people no longer play by the rules and will bend and break them if it suits, and they are so shameless they see nothing wrong with this.

I know what the problem is and I have the solution, but no one wants to hear it, even the people who are in government supposedly promoting the national interest and those who are expected to have a professional interest in reporting news with impartiality.

So, what we know now is that UK foreign policy is not about to be discussed because the government has no plans to change it at the behest of its citizens. They also know that virtually no voter will vote for any party on the basis of its foreign policy, and they think they can continue to get away with it.

Those who will not listen to reason are implicitly saying they will only be moved by force. Muslims who come to realise this are radicalised, creating a pool of radicalised people who will take the next leap of thinking: deciding to act logically on this conclusion in an extra-legal way ie become terrorists.

In the meantime both the government and the media continues to close its eyes and shut its ears, for this is now the way of the West.

In the meantime, Muslims will continue to be targeted by the police and security services while being told that only religious fanatics take what their scripture says literally.


It is laughable the way Western governments thinks they can stop radicalisation. Even if Anjem Choudary were forbidden to appear on TV or from using Twitter, there will be others who hold his views and others who will logically act on the conclusion they have formed.

The only way of peaceful protest I can think of is to form a group of Muslims and non-Muslims who make a point of refusing to condemn terrorism because condemning terrorism is a distraction from condemning UK foreign policy.

Condemning terrorism is condemning the symptoms while refusing to cure the disease that is government policy because, without exception, all terrorism is caused by bad government policy. Those who disagree with me about this are invited to think of just one act of terrorism that was not caused by bad government policy and to remind themselves that that late world statesman Nelson Mandela was imprisoned for terrorist offences.

Will the BBC facilitate an honest debate about Western foreign policy with SMS voting and will the government undertake to change it if enough people vote against it?

Can you imagine such a television event ever being broadcast?

If it were being proposed by anyone at all, it would soon be shelved after being put on the back burner. Britain is a vassal state of the EU and the US because our politicians simply have not got a visionary alternative. Only Muslims have an alternative vision.

THE PROCESS OF RADICALISATION
Radicalisation does not only happens to Muslims. Breivk was radicalised and he was an Islamophobe. Radicalisation is when you come to the conclusion that the democratic process is an exercise in futility because it will never give you what you sincerely believe is moral and what you ought to have.

THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN RADICALISATION AND COMMITTING TERRORISM
The radicalised person knows that the democratic process is an exercise in futility as regards what he believes it is moral and just for him to have while the terrorist is someone who is radicalised and knows that only force will move those who have ignored and marginalised him, and is prepared to use violence. The more you antagonise someone, the more he is likely to use violence against you, even if the use of force turns out to be suicidal, if that is the only way he is ever going to get his revenge.

The state should remember what happened to the Austro-Hungarian Empire when its response to the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand ended its existence.

As they say, it ain't what happens to you, it is how you deal with it.

Those who refuse to be moved by reason are by implication saying they will only be moved by force. When you implicitly transmit this message, you should not be surprised when war and terrorism and perhaps revolution and defeat will be the consequence.

Muslims worship and fear an omnipotent and morally perfect God whom they believe will come to their assistance if they obey His laws. What do Islamophobes believe in? They worship and fear the fornicating slut who is the embodiment of the sexual liberation they are addicted to.

What Westerner can make the connection between respecting marriage and forbidding extramarital sex? No Western politician will speak up for marriage by denouncing those who allow and encourage extramarital sex. The almost universal practice of extramarital sex in the West is the sacrament of Westerners and what they would call their way of life and their liberty. That is really all they mean when they so grandiosely elevate fornication and widespread bastardy as their national identity and national tradition.

God if He exists sent Muslim terrorists to punish errant Christians and Jews, who really should know better, being the senior branches of the Abrahamic faith.


These days, just listening to the Today Programme, even when it does not mention Muslims or ISIS at all, is a radicalising act.

Every time you hear some stupid policy eg gay marraige, being proposed and turned into law, it is a radicalising act.

When the SNP have 56 seats with 4.7% of the vote while UKIP get only 1 seat with 12.6% of the vote, it is a radicalising act.

When your government bombs another country with no good reason at the behest of the Americans, it is a radicalising act.

You are radicalised when you know that your government and your media are the bad guys who will always ignore and smear you even if you have command of all the arguments.

You are radicalised when you hear Andy Burnham telling the Pope to accept gay marriage thinking this will make him more likely to become Labout leader.

I am sure I do not need to belabour the point.

at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , ,

Tuesday, 28 April 2015

Anjem Choudary and his followers speak fondly of Omar Bakri Mohammed

at No comments:
Labels: , , ,
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)

Mark Parker entertains doubts

26:00  Psyop is just another word for state propaganda. 35:39 @DigitalGnosis ​​I dont believe Homer was a person Homer was a pagan. There wi...