Tuesday, May 23, 2006

You are kidding, right?

Over at Khalifah.com, I was intrigued to read this:

"The party (Hizb Ut-Tahrir) also works to project a positive image of Islam to Western society and engages in dialogue with Western thinkers, policymakers and academics."

I was intrigued because the actual method of 'projecting a positive image of Islam to Western Society', based on a perusal of this website, is to pour vitriol on our social life, institutions and principal political figures; lie about our policies; distort events from all around the world and tell us how our inferior societies will be much better off once they've been over-run and coerced into muslim observance.

But then we see this-

What is Hizb ut-Tahrir’s methodology?

Hizb ut-Tahrir adopts the methodology employed by the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) when he established the first Islamic State in Madinah. The Prophet Muhammad limited his struggle for the establishment of the Islamic State to intellectual and political work. He established this Islamic state without resorting to violence. He worked to mobilise public opinion in favour of Islam and endeavoured to sway the political and intellectual elites of the time. Despite the persecution and boycott of the Prophet Muhammad and the early Muslims, they never resorted to violence.

Islam, especially at the beginning, was established by military conquest. In particular, places that had humiliated or rejected Muhammed with contumely were conquered with particular viciousness. This H.u-T statement is a modulated, calculated lie. But thanks for the heads-up about subverting our self-proclaimed 'political and intellectual elites'. The great liars lying on behalf of islam have gone a great distance in persuading those so-called elites of the 'true' nature of islam: the religion of peace. Its not, of course, never has been, and for the duration of its existence (can't be long, methinks) will not be.

As Mark Steyn points out, if there is some hideous crime committed these days, the odds that the guy responsible will probably be called Mohammed are very good indeed.


Anonymous said...

Mohammed did not use violence in establishing an islamic state. It was only after the state was established that the state had an army and had the capacity to engage in war. Islam is not a religion in the western sense - it is a way of life - or an ideology if you like to call it such. All ideologies have the means to protect and convey their call and in this respect Capitalism, Communism and Islam are no different in their use of war.

Edmund Ironside said...

It is hard to have a war without an army, that true... but once you've defined yourself as an enemy of the English, don't expect us to just sit around. We don't lose wars.

Anonymous said...

OK the english won WWI but remember they got a pretty good hiding at Gallipolli and Kut-al-amara at the hands of the last Islamic Caliphate - the Ottoman state. If it weren't for T.E Lawrence + the arab revolt the English may well have lost. So what about a new Caliphate that would unite the whole Islamic world including the arabs? I wouldn't excpect it to be a "cake walk".

Edmund Ironside said...

Not only would a new Caliphate not be a 'cake walk', I can't imagine it ever happening. Where would it start from? Somalia? Yemen? France? Its hard to see how any soveriegn state would want to cede power to a Caliph in 2006.

Anonymous said...

Who said anything about ceding power? If you look at how Muhammad set up the first Islamic state in Medina (present data Saudi Arabia) he appointed 12 commanders who helped him take power away from the elites in a bloodless coup. I can easily imagine disaffected military officers in any of the Muslim world's armies going down the same route. For an example of this you don't have to look any further than how general Musharraf assumed power. Alternatively the transfer of power could happen the same way as the recent so-called color revolutions in the central asian states. The main point is that the Muslim world is boiling with anger and any number of routes could easily bring back the caliphate with popular support. The English need not be an enemy of a new Caliphate. In the 19th century Britain was allied with Turkey as a bulwark against Russian expansionism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimean_War). It signed numerous treaties with the Turkish Caliphate and so too did the Americans.

Edmund Ironside said...

Why is the muslim world boiling with anger? The consciousness that they live boring lives in hovels in crowded, boring cities. Whose fault is that? The Great Satan? Nope. I give you Iran. Huge young population, 99% of them TOTALLY BORED with living in a theocracy. Islamic states are fundamentally too dull to be sustainable.

Anonymous said...

And what kind of exitement do you have to offer to those poor boring sods? Maybe higher levels of suicide, drug addiction, murder, rape? Please enlighten us to your definition of hapiness.

Anonymous said...

They can't be a s bored as your fellow brits who are the biggest downloaders of porn in the world! (http://www.capetimes.co.za/index.php?fSectionId=272&fArticleId=3266949)