A couple of weeks ago, the Guardian published an article by one of its trainee journalists, Dilpazier Aslam, on the reaction of Muslim youth in Yorkshire to the London bombings. David T at Harry's Place called it "pretty close in tone to so the sort of stuff that Hizb'ut Tahrir say when they're pretending not to be Hizb'ut Tahrir", although to me the piece's tone seems more reminiscent of some of MPAC UK's writers when they tone down their rhetoric for a mainstream audience rather than their website or their mail shots.
Trouble is, Dilpazier Aslam is a member of HT, something which can be ascertained by a simple Google search. After much criticism in the blogosphere, which attracted mention by Mark Steyn in the Telegraph earlier this week in a typically belligerent piece (which, to honour a request for a comment on it earlier this week, is also shoddy with its facts - the reason Ted Heath redrew the county boundaries in the 1970s is because it doesn't make sense to have a city in two separate counties, as Bristol was, or boundaries reflecting nothing that would make sense to anyone unfamiliar with the state of marcher lordships and other aspects of 13th-century Welsh politics which you might learn from a history degree in Aberystwyth), the Guardian has decided to let Mr Aslam go after he refused to leave HT.
Not everyone at the Guardian is happy with this - there is an article in the Media section, Aslam targeted by bloggers (free registration required, Samizdata offers a login and password here), by an un-named staff reporter, which traces this incident to a campaign by right-wing American bloggers:
The story is a demonstration of the way the 'blogosphere' can be used to mount obsessively personalised attacks at high speed. Within hours, Dilpazier Aslam was being accused on the internet of "violence" and belonging to a "terrorist organisation" - both completely untrue charges. One blogger appealed for "some loyal Briton to saw off your head and ship it to me". Another accused Aslam of being guilty of "accessory before the fact to murder." These ravings were posted alongside more legitimate questions as to whether a newspaper should employ a reporter who belongs to a controversial political group linked to the promotion of anti-semitic views.
I did a Technorati search for blog pieces on the Aslam controversy and I discovered that some of the articles were indeed false and libellous - most obviously the accusations of violence. Democracy Guy has an article headed "The Guardian Fires Its Al Queda Columnist", which is simply untrue. HT are not al-Qa'ida; they are a political party, with a fundamentally different methodology and set of beliefs from al-Qa'ida and the Wahhabi fringe in general. Their vision of a caliphate is different as well, including a permanent Parliament for example. Also mentioned in the above-quoted article is the fact that one of the critics is known for relentless attacks on the Guardian: "[he] spends his time indoors posting repeated attacks on the Guardian for its stance on the environment, its columnists such as Polly Toynbee, and its recent intervention in the US presidential election campaign".
Much has been made of HT's hostility to Jews, and Abiola of Foreign Dispatches links to a HT communique on Islamic-State.org (also cited in the Guardian's background article) - an anonymously-written article of the sort that used to be handed out to people coming out of Friday prayers. Whether this piece came from the leadership or from some other elements in HT is therefore not known. Bear in mind that HT is based in Jordan and its founder was Palestinian. Europeans have particular sensitivities when talking about Jews which Arabs may not have, and which Europeans often don't have about other groups. If the Guardian had employed a Polish trainee who belonged to an organisation in whose publications similar sentiments about Russians had been expressed, for example, it's unlikely that such a controversy would have ensued.
The fact that HT is banned on university campuses, partly due to anti-Semitism, has also been widely mentioned. The HT groups concerned were those led by Omar Bakri Muhammad, who as is well-known, left (or was expelled from) HT, and set up his own organisation. The bans on HT in countries in Europe, which often have lesser standards of freedom of speech than are enjoyed here, may not be entirely relevant.
The Guardian is understandably concerned that an opinion piece by one of its staff was published without the author's interest being declared. "Astroturfing" (political activists pretending to be ordinary people in order to give the impression of a popular movement) is a real problem, particularly on the radio, but Aslam's piece does not appear to me like "turf" for HT. The article is about how young Muslims are more concerned about politics and about Muslims in other parts of the world than their fathers and immigrant grandparents are or were; the politicised youth are not all HT or Muhajiroun, but there is wide frustration with the attitudes of the elders who run mosques in the north in particular.
And the points made in the article are valid ones, and the article is not the only place in the British media where such opinions have been expressed since the 7th of July. It's highly likely that Mr Aslam was attracted to HT by its political program, which (particularly among English speakers) is expressed in terms familiar to western ears, and not by the hostility of elements in the party to Jews. Aslam has said he is not an anti-Semite, and such a case of someone being attracted to an ideology, or other belief system, rather than to some people who propound it who are bigots or have other ugly opinions would hardly be unique.
Salaam,
Good riddance, I say. It's a slippery slope: one minute you're saying that blowing up 50 innocent civilians in the name of Islam is "rocking the boat" (yes, it tipped it over too, you retard), and the next you're blowing up 50 innocent civilians in the name of Islam.
HT are a group of retarded post-modern utopian neanderthals, wishing for some hypothetical heaven of khilafa that existed in Ottoman Turkey (don't these fools read history?), and are part of the problem. Get rid of them, lock them up, or, better still, send them all to their founder's land, Jordan, where our Muslim brothers will deal with them the old-fashioned way, and we won't hear from them again.
Same with Mr. Bakri - one week in Jordan, and I'm sure we won't have to worry about that idiot mouthing off any of his crap ever again.
Ma as-salaama,
AT
At Webbey,
Hee Hee! Youre a threat to our democracy and our civil liberties. I agree with you that they should be deported, which isnt unlike what Musharef and Prince Turki al Faisal said recently.
I haven't read the full post yet, but one thing I cannot leave unchallenged: you make a brave attempt to defend the 1974 county "reorganisations", but as a proud Yorkshireman I can never accept that the destruction of Yorkshire and the other historic counties was a good thing. ;-)
JH: I agree regarding such things as the destruction of the East Riding, but the real destruction of Yorkshire was done under Thatcher and Major with the abolition of the South and West Yorkshire county councils, and later with the abolition of the counties themselves, resulting in just a series of petty boroughs. And some of the old counties were unviable (like Radnorshire) or just plain stupid (like the orphaned bit of Flintshire east of Wrexham).
Salaam 'Alaikum
What sort of Muslim wishes torture upon another Muslim simply because he has views that are unpalatable or at odds with one's own? I don't like HT at all (they had a brief period of campus popularity here in the late 90's), but I wouldn't want to see some guy who joined up with them in the UK or anywhere else in the hands of Jordan's mukhkhabarat -- anymore than I'd want to see Representative Tancredo of Colorado (who recently called for the bombing of Makkah in "retaliation" for nuclear terrorist attacks) tortured or harassed for expressing his view (odious and ugly as it is).
The Guardian is understandably concerned that an opinion piece by one of its staff was published without the authorâÂÂs interest being declared.
Worse, he didn't disclose his Hizb affiliation in a news item he wrote- the interview with Hizb-backed Shabina Begum of jilbab fame. The Guardian ignored this in their apologia. The article is here.
Whether or not one perceives Hizb propaganda in the news piece or the opinion piece is subjective. You say you don't, but I definitely do.
A note on blogging etiquette: you trackbacked one of my posts without linking to it. This is bad form.
The jilbab is not just a HT issue; the view that jilbab of some sort is compulsory, and that the shalwar-kameez the school permitted is not up to Islamic standards, is widespread beyond HT. I'm personally very glad of what was achieved in the Shabina Begum case.
The interview might be criticised for being less challenging than it might have been, but that does not make it HT propaganda. It allows Shabina to put across her side of the story - hardly unusual.
Wa 'alaykum as-salaam,
UmmZaid: What kind of Muslim? How about pretty much every right thinking caliph/sultan/emir that we've ever had. Read and see how they dealt with the Khawarij, Azarika, 'Assasins' et al. Civil liberties? Freedom of speech? They never heard of such a thing. They realised that being a member of the Ummah meant you had your rights as long as you didn't commit treason against the Muslims.
And this is what these bunch of misfits have done. They have commited treason by bringing the Prophet and Islam into disrepute, and they have actively and knowingly pursued activities that have harmed the Ummah. Their only goal is to have an Islamic state, but not for the good that it will bring: they are excited because it will allow them to live out their fascist fantasies and enforce the hadd punishment inappropriately, without mercy, and as they see fit.
Do you really think that they want a world of Andalucia, of Baghdad, of libraries and learning, art, and love and praise of God? Absolutely not. The things that excite them are cutting off limbs for thieves, stoning adulterers, executing prostitutes, waging war against sects, waging war against the west, blood: Jewish blood, western blood, kaafir (say it with force!) blood and, if necessary (and they deem it constantly necessary), Muslim blood. Doesn't sound very appealing, does it?
They are fascists, and Muslims, in the past, knew how to deal with them. Now that we've been infested with the liberal project, thinking that every viewpoint has equal validity, tolerating the intolerant, do we feel that we should allow these band of brigands, hypocrites and fools a platform to speak.
Ask yourself, how did the Prophet deal with individuals who commited treason against him? Then ask yourself, find the examples, from each Caliph after that, and carry on, through the Ummayads, the Abbasids, ll the way to the Ottomans--that these blood-hungry imbeciles so love--how did they deal with dissidents and those that caused discord and disharmony within the ummah?
Ma as-salaama,
AT
Asalaamualaikum wa rahmatullah,
I have to second that At Webby, with all do respect to my noble sister UmmZaid. Wa Allahu Alim but you seem more concerned UmmZaid than with us, thier potential victims (though I dont live in England). These people dont care who they kill similar to them not caring when they killed Utham and Ali (radiyallahu an hum) Those were our leaders Amirul Muninoon, companions of the Rasululah (salallahu alaihi wa salam) his trusted companions. If thier ideology had such disregard for those esteemed brothers how much do they value our lives and our blood? What about the children, below the age of discernment who are upon the fitrah? If anyone is innocent in this world it is them yet they dont care about thier life.
UmmZaid I hope I dont misrepresent your position and I apologize now but this isnt about the views of HT but of the actions of people who dont care about UmmZaid or Zaid.
The jilbab is a wonderful, liberating garment, and a great victory for human rights was won.
The jilbab is, in fact, so very liberating that, in the interests of freedom, all women, Muslim and non-Muslim, should be made to wear it.
If they don't, they are just asking to be raped, after all, and then they can't really complain if they get stoned for adultery.
The jilbab is not just a HT issue; the view that jilbab of some sort is compulsory, and that the shalwar-kameez the school permitted is not up to Islamic standards, is widespread beyond HT.
It's not that HT believed in the cause (whether or not others did) that makes this an HT issue; it's that they actively advised Shabina Begum. Some say Hizb drove the whole thing from the beginning, but it doesn't matter from the Aslam/Guardian perspective.
If you don't see a problem with a Hizb writer writing on a story in which Hizb is involved without disclosing the fact, then there's no point in discussing this. I'll leave you totalitarians to your own devices.
AS usual, the right wing losers have nothing better to do. Just looke kitty litter, a fine example of a pathetic half-wit attempting to comment on issues beyond its understanding.
How predictable.
Meeeow! Crawling back in me basket.
Will not be back here - next door's garden better anyway..
Struts off, tail and ears erect....
In an effort to counter the Guardian's libelous attack upon my post about Dilpazier Aslam, below is a link to the article that the anonymous Guardian writer deliberately mischaracterized:
http://dreadpundit.blogspot.com/2005/07/bring-me-head-of-dilpazier-aslam.html
It is rather gratifying though, that the Guardian staffer has tacitly admitted to being a forceps baby.