Sunday, November 23, 2008

‘Tory lies’ about Hizb ut-Tahrir are ‘populist attempts to boost poll ratings’

Whilst it is doubtless true that all right-minded Conservatives are doing everything they can to ‘boost poll ratings’, it is not remotely likely that the strategy would include stirring sectarian strife or inflaming religious hatred. So when Hizb ut-Tahrir (‘Party of Liberation’) accuse Phillip Hammond MP of lying about their agenda on Question Time last Thursday in a ‘frantic attempt’ to boost the Conservative Party’s ‘diminishing ratings’, one may reasonably deduce that the lies emanate from Hizb ut-Tahrir.

Mr Hammond said Hizb ut-Tahrir is an organisation ‘committed to the murder of Jews’.

Hizb ut-Tahrir have responded that this has ‘no basis in fact’, and proceeds to deride David Cameron and his ‘young Turks’ (a rather ironic term in the present context) for their ‘relationships with Russian oligarchs’, and accuses them of jumping on the BNP bandwagon with their ‘anti-Muslim policies’ and ‘populist attacks on Muslims’.

One wonders how much time the representatives of Hizb ut-Tahrir have spent studying Islam, for their stated objective is a global Islamic caliphate, and, while there are important differences between the Shi’a and Sunni schools of theology on the origin and role of the Caliph (Imam al-Ummah), there is consensus that all citizens will live under Shari’a. The Caliphate – rule by Islamic clerics – ended in 1924 following the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire, but it had not exercised any real power since the thirteenth century. While Hizb ut-Tahrir professes to pursue a restoration through peaceful political action and intellectual engagement, others groups, like al-Qaeda, do so through force.

The problem that Hizb ut-Tahrir have is that there is that the concept of a Caliphate has a muddled and murky history, which is itself a cause of division between various schools of Islamic thought. None of the attempts to establish the ‘Rule of Allah’ on earth has succeeded, and all have caused bloodshed and led to the oppression of non-Muslims. The absolute power enjoyed by the Caliph leads to nepotism and dictatorship, which is invariably sustained by a corrupt army. Minorities are oppressed, and religions other than Islam are strictly limited or entirely prohibited, depending on their perceived level of subversion of the Islamic state.

While Mr Hammond could have phrased his criticism of Hizb ut-Tahrir a little more intelligently, his essential observation has historical validity. Jews have been slaughtered in the pursuit of a caliphate, and continue to be. And so have Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists and Christians. And where they are not slaughtered, they are dispossessed and driven out in the pursuit of the Dar al-Islam.

But Cranmer wishes to voice a concern:

The tendency of some sections of the media, some politicians and some political groups to portray Islam as a great military power or as constituting a considerable terror threat is absurdly exaggerated. In fact, Cranmer would go as far as to add this ‘fear’ to the others which have been hysterically induced in the masses, like ‘Bird Flu’, ‘Global Warming’, ‘Mad Cow Disease’ or the ‘Credit Crunch’. There is no easier mechanism by which governments may control their people and raise taxes than by inducing a perpetual state of fear.

The cultural challenge is manifest, simply because the mass migration of Muslims into Western Europe has created ‘ghettos’ of Muslims who are demanding increasing political and religious rights. There is a reluctance to integrate, and the ‘multiculturalism’ offered by liberal democracy is unfulfilling.

But this mass migration has also imported a strong and confident religio-political system at a time when Christianity has been diminishing in influence, morality has become relative, and politics has become insipid. The only way to address this is to end the notion of ‘multiculturalism’, place strict limits on immigration, and revive interest in the moral foundations of Christianity. While the first of these is being addressed - and by no less an individual than Trevor Phillips, head of the Commission for Racial Equality - the immigration question still proves a thorny issue – for fear of being accused of being racist – and the Christian dimension is not on the agenda of any political party, for pretty much the same reason.

And so instead of applying thought and political effort to creative ways of reinvigorating the state with sociological concepts and morality which have tried and tested Christian foundations, the politicians are busy eradicating all notions of the Christian tradition, and inhibiting all expression of it from the public sphere.

It is not so much the idea of permanent conflict against the Islamists and heightened security which should be blamed for the erosion of our traditions and liberties: the abandoning of our Christian heritage is doing far more damage to society and the institutions of government. If we are at war with the likes of Hizb ut-Tahrir and al-Qaeda, then we are fighting to defend our liberties. Yet what are our politicians content to make the casualties of this war? Our liberties.

Hizb ut-Tahrir ought to be proscribed on those grounds alone. It is antithetical to liberal democracy, and seeks to use its liberty to wrest liberty from all non-Muslims. Since Hizb ut-Tahrir cannot rationalise that, there is no place for the organisation or its adherents in the United Kingdom, and David Cameron has made that abundantly clear.


Blogger McKenzie said...

Totally disagree, the only hope is for people to vote BNP en mass!

He,he! Joking! (That got you laughing didn't it:-(

The trouble is that all this hysterically induced fear works rather well, and its not that the people are naive, or easily duped, that makes them behave like frightened sheep, its because they simply find it too horrible to consider that the people they have elected, and placed their trust in, are actually prepared to go to such lengths to betray them.

But there again, listening to Hazel Blears, the people, bless them, are finding it increasingly difficult to keep up with the intellectual language being used by our political sages.

23 November 2008 at 12:20  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

A Prayer to the persecuted church

From Romans Chapter 8:35-39NIV

35Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall trouble or hardship or persecution or famine or nakedness or danger or sword? 36As it is written:
"For your sake we face death all day long;
we are considered as sheep to be slaughtered."[a] 37No, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him who loved us. 38For I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons,[b] neither the present nor the future, nor any powers, 39neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord.


Romans 8:36 Psalm 44:22
Romans 8:38 Or nor heavenly rulers

23 November 2008 at 14:14  
Anonymous len said...

`Party of liberation'seems somewhat of a misnomer.

23 November 2008 at 15:37  
Anonymous Preacher said...

Without wishing to state the obvious the answer to world domination from any faction is for the church to wake up , get up and preach the gospel to the followers of other faiths. Jesus said "The truth will set you free" lets take Him at his word and stop being one day a week Christians while we still have the freedeom to do so, then those who are forgiven much will love much.

24 November 2008 at 10:45  
Blogger ENGLISHMAN said...

This is not just one country in isolation,your points would have some merit if it were so,this islamic threat is europe wide/world wide,it is beyond the laws of chance that EVERY government of the western world is cow-towing to the perrenially offended were there not some agreement/blueprint in operation.This war has been on-going for the past thousand years,there have been times of relative peace,but only for the muslim to re-group ready for the next offensive,if you think that the muslim has forgotten his dedication to our destruction ,we will all be sorely mistaken.As for cameron,he is just one of six-hundred and fifty who can not be trusted,one should remember that imortal phrase"manifest pledges are not subject to legitimate expectations"which reveals the truth of them all.

24 November 2008 at 11:10  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


Nulabor's fanatacism in it's deceitful onward march to totalitarianism is of far greater concern to the electorate ...

The government's hidden agenda when elected is clearly being evidenced as the abolition of free speech and free choice.

24 November 2008 at 13:20  
Anonymous no nonny said...

Sorry for the late post on this - but just want to comment on the non-language these franco-german-euro-marxists employ as part of their deconstructionism. I've been dealing with it for several years, and it's the biggest waste of time since computers!

So I say this 'neuSSR rhetoric' is not only claptrap, it's deliberate claptrap. The perpetrators are: Proud of being "beyond communication" - they think that's a sophisticated thing to be, because.... They intend:

i) to destroy all clarity so that we'll not know what they're up to;

ii) to look and feel as if they're more intelligent than us - makes us feel inferior, so we'll admire them (the gateau/cake syndrome, you know?);

iii) to create a 'cover of darkness' under which they get on with their criminal destruction;

iv) to destroy all things English or British.

I daresay there's more - but I need to shore up my own defences right now!!

29 November 2008 at 23:23  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older