So, Abu Hamza’s off the streets
So, Abu Hamza’s finally been taken off the streets, not because of David Blunkett’s efforts to take his citizenship away so they can bury him alive in Belmarsh, but because the US government has filed a series of charges against him (and someone correct me if I’m wrong, but I don’t think Abu Hamza has ever set foot in the USA). One wonders if Bliar or Blunkett had a word in someone’s ear in Washington and suggested that they might bring these charges to relieve them of this nuisance. In any case, one expects that Abu Hamza will fight the extradition proceedings in the British courts, and that this may take years. I first heard of this when starting my job on Thursday morning. Jon Gaunt told us he couldn’t take our opinions on his phone-in due to legal reasons (there are laws here about what the media can say about cases which are currently undergoing legal action), but they broadcast an interview with “Lord” Nasir Ahmed (he’s a lord because he was given a seat in the House of Lords), and later, with Anas Altikriti of the Muslim Association of Britain. Both made some good points - Abu Hamza doesn’t represent our community and the community won’t miss him, but they need to take into account his right to fair treatment before the law. Nasir Ahmed also accused the police of harrassing Muslims for no good reason, including a group of Muslims who were coming for a meeting with him in London.
It was reported that Abu Hamza’s followers demonstrated against his arrest, and in the past I’ve spoken to Muslims of the H.T. persuasion who objected to the British authorities arresting people like “Shaikh” Faisal and Abu Hamza supposedly just for teaching Islam. While Abu Hamza was a British citizen, Abdullah Faisal and Omar Bakri Muhammad are not - the latter is a refugee who was given asylum in this country after claiming that he had been persecuted in Syria. All of these people knew when they came here that the Shari’ah was not in force here, and that it was a non-Muslim country with a non-Muslim government. I wonder why these people have not been told that, if they wish to stay in this country, they must stay quiet. Perhaps because they have actually caused very little damage to British society (though much offence, out of which the tabloids have made much capital), and a lot of damage to the Muslim community? It was even claimed that Abdullah Faisal was arrested just for reciting a sura of the Qur’an; in fact, he is an extremist who advocated the killing of Muslims (Breilawis) and not just Jews and Hindus, as was reported in the media. It is very likely that people like them would be locked up even if there was an Islamic state - and quicker, because part of the Islamic state’s job is to safeguard Islam and the Muslims.
Possibly Related Posts:
- Women need the mosque
- Tories show their repressive side with ban on HT
- On the Daniel Jou “virginity test” controversy
- Khalid Mahmood should lose the Labour whip
- Age like wine, age like milk?
