You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Britain
Extremism Worries Muslims in Britain
2004-11-28
Hizb ut-Tahrir, a radical Muslim group banned in many countries, recently held a seminar here to denounce the "savage massacre" of Muslims in Fallujah, Iraq, by U.S. forces. In a demonstration in October, it called for the establishment of a caliphate, or Islamic state, in Pakistan and other Muslim countries. That message turned up in Egypt, where three British men were imprisoned in Cairo for trying revive the local outlawed Hizb ut-Tahrir chapter. Despite the arrest this year of Britain's best-known Islamic radical and police raids that have driven groups such as al-Muhajiroun underground, moderate Muslims are worried that the Iraq war is making it easier than ever for extremists to recruit this country's disillusioned Muslims youths. "At university, Muslims searching for the truth go to talks about the crises in Palestine, Iraq, Afghanistan, Chechnya, Kashmir," said Nazir Ahmed, a legislator in the House of Lords and one of Britain's best known Muslim moderates. "In poor areas, Muslim youths often believe they are second-class citizens and victims of Islamaphobia. They can be easy for extremists to ignite on issues such as the U.S. offensive in Fallujah, and its civilian death toll," Ahmed said.

Britain has as many as 2 million Muslims, many of them immigrants or descendants of immigrants, from countries such as Pakistan, Bangladesh, India and Turkey. A government report said working-age people from ethnic minorities are twice as likely to be unemployed as the overall population. Ahmed and Brighton-area imam Abduljalil Sajid believe those hardships make Muslim youths vulnerable to recruitment by groups such as Hizb ut-Tahrir. They also said Hizb ut-Tahrir is thriving in England by capitalizing on widespread opposition among Britons, including its Muslim minority, to the Iraq war. In addition, Britain's lenient asylum laws and strong free-speech protections have long made it a center for Islamic activist groups and Arab publications. Years ago, many of Osama bin Laden's fatwas, or religious edicts, were first publicized in London, earning it the nickname Londonistan. There are no reliable figures on the number of Muslims who have been recruited by radical groups in Britain. But in April, two young British Muslims allegedly conducted a suicide bombing at a bar in Tel Aviv, Israel, that killed three customers and wounded 50.

Prime Minister Tony Blair's government is trying to root out the extremists. Last week, it announced plans to introduce national identity cards for the first time since World War II. British authorities have arrested hundreds of suspects, sometimes in widespread raids. Abu Hamza al-Masri, the radical Muslim cleric and famous London street preacher, was jailed and will be tried for allegedly urging followers to kill non-Muslims.
Posted by:Fred

#10  We should make it clear that a core value of democracy is pluralism and respect for religion. That said, we should avoid all overtures that smack of carving out a special, corporatist role in western society for muslims. This dodges the issue and will satisfy no one, neither the non-muslim majority nor the muslims themselves. The best reachout program is the simple one: zero tolerance for hate, for incitement to violence, for support for terror, for fascist rallying of any sort. No dialogue's necessary. Jail the fascists where possible, or deport them where necessary.
Posted by: lex   2004-11-28 11:01:57 PM  

#9  It's pointless to view this as a "struggle for [muslim] hearts and minds." The enemy is not Islam, or "radical Islam", or "extremists," but a new and highly virulent strain of fascism. We know how fascists behave, and how they think, the essence of which is the attachment to suicidal violence for its own sake.

The signal we must send is, deomestically, zero tolerance for any kind of support for fascism, period, and internationally an uncompromising, instinting war that can only result in the complete annihilation of fascist warriors on battlefields of our choosing. The West's muslim "moderates" have a very simple choice to make: align with democracy and liberal western values, or be crushed along with the fascists.
Posted by: lex   2004-11-28 10:58:20 PM  

#8  If you're lookin' for a rematch, Zen, remember what happened to the last bunch that bit off too much at a time in that area. Not to mention wooing the wrong allies.

Unlikely to happen this time, but it pays to be careful. Even an old dog sometimes has one bite left.
Posted by: mojo   2004-11-28 10:32:44 PM  

#7  The point is, Zen, that "carefully explaining" isn't going to solve anything.

That's a gimmie, RA. I insist upon proper explanations only so that we will know that we have done our best. Not, so much, out of any obligation to anyone else. It would be nice if Islam took such gestures seriously. That they do not is merely one more reason to be done with them sooner than later. If there were such a thing as negative infinity, that would be the reading on my sympathy meter.

If Islam wants to survive, they can start acting like it. If they do not, no change is necessary.
Posted by: Zenster   2004-11-28 10:19:39 PM  

#6  The point is, Zen, that "carefully explaining" isn't going to solve anything. How anybody can think people can look at what is going on and not understand because they lack somebody's careful explanation is unbelievable.
The point is not the matter of getting the facts. The point is the worldview.
BTW, in the second to the last sentence in my earlier post, substitute "inconvenience" for "killing".
Posted by: Richard Aubrey   2004-11-28 9:59:57 PM  

#5  In other news, Moslem bites man.
Posted by: Kalle (kafir forever)   2004-11-28 8:18:13 PM  

#4  It's that Muslims get to kill infidels for any reason or none and infidels don't get to fight back. To defend oneself against a Muslim is an outrage and a violation of said Muslim's civil rights, and a crime against Allah, the penalty for which is death.

And your point is? [yawn]
Posted by: Zenster   2004-11-28 8:10:40 PM  

#3  Zen, the question is not Iraqi lives. It's that Muslims get to kill infidels for any reason or none and infidels don't get to fight back. To defend oneself against a Muslim is an outrage and a violation of said Muslim's civil rights, and a crime against Allah, the penalty for which is death.
Thus, you may save a thousand Muslim lives by killing one Muslim, and, if you are an infidel, you have insulted the faith, are battling against Muslims, and must, with your extended family, die.
Haven't you figured this out, yet?
Posted by: Richard Aubrey   2004-11-28 7:39:58 PM  

#2  They can be easy for extremists to ignite on issues such as the U.S. offensive in Fallujah, and its civilian death toll," Ahmed said.

Isn't it about time to dampen the extremist's powder by carefully explaining how the civilian death toll in Fallujah does not even remotely approach the total loss of life for similar periods under Saddam's regime? An honest breakdown of the casualties' age and gender would also be pretty useful in showing just who the participants are.

There also needs to be a careful distinction regarding those who are merely dissatisfied about the Iraqi insurgents getting their collective clocks cleaned versus others with more legitimate concerns. If the insurgency's death toll is their only gripe, then such people should be placed on a watch list immediately. They are nobody's friend exept the terrorists'.

By all statistics the Iraqi war has done nothing but save lives. Anyone who is less than pleased with such a notion needs monitoring.
Posted by: Zenster   2004-11-28 4:52:08 PM  

#1  "hellooooo? Soccer Hooligans©? We have a job for you"
Posted by: Frank G   2004-11-28 2:10:05 PM  

00:00