Muslims in police will rise up, Bakri insists
By Mike Hirst and Adam Lusher, Sunday Telegraph
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/01/21/nhate21.xml
Moderate British Muslims in the police, Armed Forces and Civil Service will one day revolt against the system to "crush it from within", according to Omar Bakri Mohammed, the notorious Islamic extremist.
Omar Bakri Mohammed claimed that the world was a better place after the July 7 bombings in London
In claims condemned as a cynical attempt to create division, the co-founder of the extremist al-Muhajiroun group said that Britain was "digging a deep hole" for itself by allowing Muslims into the Services and Whitehall.
Speaking exclusively to The Sunday Telegraph in Lebanon, where he moved in August 2005 — at about the time it emerged the British authorities might charge him with incitement to treason — he claimed police officers, soldiers and civil servants would one day become radicalised.
"When you start to ask Muslims to join your Army and your police you are making a grave mistake. That British Muslim who joins the police today will one day read the Koran and will have an awakening," he said.
"Those moderates are one day going to be practising Muslims. Now what happens if they are British police or in the Army and they have weapons? How much information do they have about you that they will use to serve the global struggle?
"They will revolt against the system if they have been failed by your foreign policy which is oppressive against Islam, or have been contacted by people who believe Britain is a domain of war."
In remarks almost certain to cause widespread anger among the survivors and relatives of victims, he also claimed that the world was a better place after the July 7 bombings in London. "I believe it is a better place for Islam and Muslims… but not for non-Muslims. What's happening around the world is good and positive for Islam."
The comments were condemned by moderate Muslim leaders. Ibrahim Mogra, the chairman of the Interfaith Relations Committee of the Muslim Council of Britain, said: "This is part of an attempt to create divisions both within the Muslim community and the wider society.
"On the contrary, the more a Muslim police officer becomes a practising Muslim, the more loyal he will become, the more he will realise his duty to his country and the need to contribute to its well-being."
He added: "People are entitled to their views, but we actually have our own scholars and imams, who are still in this country, not abroad, and who talk about contributing to Britain and the responsibilities that we have to it."
Bakri Mohammed came to Britain in 1985 after being expelled from Saudi Arabia. He was rapidly derided as "the Tottenham Ayatollah". His inflammatory pronouncements have included calling the September 11 terrorists the "Magnificent 19".
He disbanded al-Muhajiroun in 2004. Shortly after the July 7 attacks Tony Blair announced the group would be banned as part of a series of measures against condoning or glorifying terrorism.
After Bakri Mohammed left for Beirut he was banned from returning to Britain. The Government deemed his presence "no longer conducive to the public good".
In Beirut last week, a relaxed Bakri Mohammed sipped freshly-squeezed strawberry juice in an upmarket restaurant overlooking the Mediterranean.
He took pleasure in hearing media reports about Abid Javaid, 41, of Thornton Heath, Surrey, a civil servant in the Immigration and Nationality Directorate, who was exposed late last year as a leading member of the extremist organisation Hizb ut-Tahrir (HT), which Mr Blair had wanted to ban.
This was despite Bakri Mohammed's admission: "I left HT in 1996 and they condemn what I stand for."
Bakri Mohammed readily confirmed that he had officiated at the wedding of Pc Alexander Omar Basha, his relative by marriage.
In October, however, when the diplomatic protection officer faced controversy after being excused guard duties at the Israeli embassy, Bakri Mohammed admitted Pc Basha's views were far more moderate than his own and even complained: "If I'd have known [he was a policeman at the time of the wedding] I would never have married them. My advice to all Muslims in the police is to leave their jobs.
Comment:
Interesting views from Sheikh Omar and a very clever attempt to stop the recruitment of Muslims into the British army, but i'm sure that this is something which they are aware of and will keep Muslims in certain menial positions only. In my opinion this is just a publicity stunt to show that Muslims are integrated into British society and nothing more..
LOL at Ibrahim Mogra for saying the more a Muslim reads the Quran the more he will want to be loyal to Britain, i wonder which version of the Quran he has, most certainly not the one I and the rest of the ummah read and follow.
Since when has he been a sheikh?
Very clever. Increasing fear and suspicion of Muslims is right way to go.
Yeah you're right. We don't need Omar Bakri to keep us down.
If only we weren't integtrated into British society and lived in the most deprived areas, had the lowest paid jobs, had the lowest eductional attainment, and were most likely to be victims of crime. That would be great. But alas... we are integrated into British society.
Are you saying that we don't have a duty to this country? Are you saying we shouldn't contribute to it's well-being?
I supose we should all form sleeper cells and do exactly what Melanie Phillips would have us do and become fifth columnists.
Salams beast
Sheikh is a respectful term in arabic, as for him being a sheikh of Islam its debateable.
Integration is fine, but not at the cost of losing our identity. Some things we can and should do, whilst other things we should avoid.
Yes we should contribute to this society but not in the way Ibrahim Mogra means by joining the army and killing fellow Muslims.
[url]www.7cgen.com[/url], the place to be
What are some of the arguments in favour of him being a sheikh of Islam?
What identity is Omar Bakri giving us that Sheikh Ibrahim Mogra is trying to take away? Where did Ibrahim Mogra say that we should join the British army and kill fellow Muslims?He has a beard?
He calls himself a sheikh of Islam?
The newspapers call him a cleric?
He speaks broken English?
Why do you refer to remarks that will increase fear and suspicion of Muslims as "clever"?
Ok for the sake of argument i wil extend it to Ibrahim Mogra and call him a Sheikh although to my knowldege he has never used that title.
As For Omar Being a sheikh that is another separate discussion and not for me to prove that he is or isn't, except that he refers to himself as a Sheikh and his followeres rgeard as being one.
I think u have understood my comments to mean that I am Pro Sheikh Omar, in fact i am not.
Ibrahim Mogra mentioned that we should be loyal to this country and part of being loyal is joining the army, dont u agree? or perhaps u have a different understanding of what loyalty means, in which case please elaborate?
[url]www.7cgen.com[/url], the place to be
Sorry. My mistake. I thought you reffered to his remarks as "clever" and "interesting".
So, you are reading between the lines of what Ibrahim Mogra said. Just like I can read between the lines of what Omar Bakri said. he told us to become sucide bombers and kill all these non-Muslims.
Loyalty does not mean that we should sign up to the army. Many people would consider themselves to be loyal to this country, but that doesn't mean that there are 60 million soldiers in the British army.
Loyalty can mean fulfilling obligations such as looking out for the well-being of neigbours. Participating in community events. Taking part in politics - making sure politicians are held to account. Doing well in your job - be it as a doctor, teacher, or binman.
Salaams Beast
I am going out now, to another city for a few days for my teacher training course, i will respond inshAllah when i get back if not sooner, just thought i would let u know.
[url]www.7cgen.com[/url], the place to be
There is a degree of truth in what Bakri says. It is unfortunate and one hopes it doesn't reflect on all serving Muslims, but some Muslims loudly sneer at public service in the west, and there is a real problem of active subversion by mujahideen. In my view Showkat's persistence in blaming everything on the media and intolerant western norms (for which there is of course some evidence), which I know is reflected more politely in Beast's disdain of most British newspapers, is a large part of the problem. While one naturally treats reports with some scepticism, total whitewashing or re-spinning of all such reports amounts not to mere denial but to tacit complicity.
This is a difficult issue because one wouldn't want to fan the flames of intolerance, yet unquestionably it is right to recognise enmity. In this instance the enmity is from the horse's mouth. Muslims who are decent (and I do count Beast among those), rather than deflecting criticism, should find it always appropriate to oppose such remarks as Bakri's.
If the issue is strictly one of generalised language, such as overuse of the term "Muslim" where the term "mujahid" or somesuch is preferred, that is a specific objection the addressing of which would clear up a lot of uncertainties for Muslim and non-Muslim alike. The other approach, of bemoaning some impending Nazi-like hysteria, serves only the mujahideen and the BNP.
More than other right- or left-wing media, The Telegraph treads that line particularly well and with equanimity. In the same vein I consider the C4 programme, on the Saudi Wahhabi agenda in Britain, an important service.
(I cannot vouch for the blog but [url=http://the-daily-pundit.blogspot.com/2007/01/muslim-groups-organised-cam... link documents what I consider are foolhardy reactions to the C4 programme.)
[size=10]The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts.[/size]
[size=9]Bertrand Russell (1872 - 1970)[/size]
But not much more truth than in the possibility that officers in the British army will rise up in a coup d'etat in defence of internation law and an independent foreign policy or the possibilty that white civil servants will rise up in a Daily Mail-inspired anti-PC revolt.
I don't have a disdain for the British press per se. I take issue with some of their chosen methods of discourse. They do not appropriately fulfill their function of [i]telling us what is happening in the world[/i] on many issues - be it issues related to women, minorities, foreign affairs, celebrities, house prices.
But I don't see how my attempts to critique the British press are a problem.
Scepticism, whitewashing, re-spinning, or un-spinning has to happen on a case-by-case basis.
Whilst many media reports on Muslims are appropretly treated with scepticism, not all are worthy of whitewashing or un-spinning.
Replacing "Muslim" with "Mujahideen" still doesn't resolve this particular problem.
A Mujahid is someone who fights in the way of Allah. Saying that terrorists are fighting in the way of Allah doesn't help the matter: I wouldn't call bin Laden a Mujahid.
It's better to call Al Qaeda operatives Al Qaeda operatives, Al Muhajiroon members Al Muhajiroon members, and Muslim Brotherhood members Muslim Brotherhood members. However, the Muslim Brothers have a "rich" history. There are various factions and wings within the org - this has to be taken into account.
The Telegraph is not very good when it comes to Muslim issues. They have Malise Ruthven as their resident Islam expert, who is actually quite good. But they often refer to Patrick Sookhdeo. And Charles Moore always takes a pot-shot at Muslims. The Telegraph even had someone who compared Muslims to dogs.
The Ch4 docu featured many speakers saying many things. Some of the statements were taken out of context some were not. Those comments which were genuinely disconcerting should be addressed but that does not mean everything that was in Ch4 docu was accurate or that all the statements featured in it should lead to criminal charges.
[list=1].
I find The Telegraph quite responsible. If they are not giving enough detail into the provenance of terrorists that is media-wide and less political (in the UK at least) than through difficulties understanding the peculiar, often archaic politics of those groups. Perhaps a history lesson would be appreciated. I admit that what I have read on the ideologies of various jihadi factions is often confusingly partisan, especially when written by Muslims.
Please could you show me what you are referring to with the dogs comment?
.
That is true, however very often links are uncovered to groups that are not well known. I understand what you are saying, that a generic name does not convey the complexity of the situation and the differences between these groups.
However as much as there is difference and sometimes enmity between some groups of mujahideen or whatever I should call those who claim to fight for Islamic causes, their common rallying cry is hatred of kufar and unity of Islam. While the differences may seem blinding to you, groups shouting Allahu Akbar who raise unpallatable slogans in the UK seem similar in the eyes of most. At the heart of it is whether intolerance has recourse to common human rights.
I agree that often a more accurate moniker is appropriate, but this is complicated. Many Muslim lobbyists have a tendency to complain when some specific charge is pressed that Muslims as a whole are suffering discrimination. In the absence of genuinely anti-Muslim legislation it would obviously be appropriate to lay this complaint primarily at the feet of Al Qaeda, Al Muhajiroun, various Muslim Brotherhood factions and so on, such as Bakri in the above article, claiming to speak for Muslims in the police.
btw please if you ever have the time do help me with a low-down on these various factions. In fact I have recently begun making notes establishing where, primarily in language, unfair, useless or destructive mistakes are being made in the area of classifying groups of people. I imagine your view might be quite helpful. When I am done I will give it exposure in some appropriate medium. I am pretty sure that many Muslims and many ardently pro-western westerners, Israelis, Americans etc. will find plenty of plain human common understanding above and beyond politicking and that a bigger dialogue to distinguish the communications breakdown would be helpful to establish this. As well as villains there are Muslims and non-Muslims who advocate for their "side" without being extremist but who commonly get mistaken and dehumanised. This happens both when Daily Mail columnists refer to a Muslim campaign of domination and when Muslims object to the treatment of prisoners in Guantanemo.
.
OK. In my opinion the context is far more damning from a security perspective than anything C4 showed, which was lightweight and failed to convey the obsession of these groups with animosity.
.
I disagree. Bakri and many other mujahideen, or self-proclaimed mujahideen, have followers with intense training in all manner of warfare and various deceitful behaviours. Where we would agree is in opposing his suggestion that all Muslims are prone to such intentions and behaviours, and this ought to be made clear to Bakri and perhaps to readers of this article. A letter to the editor in opposition to Bakri - rather than in opposition to the media - might be in order.
.
Fair comment ßeast. Please accept my apologies.
.
OK. In fairness by then I was not primarily referring to you. As I have said you seem to have a pretty decent approach even if you do routinely write off articles in certain newspapers without providing much counter-comment.[/list:o]
(With apologies to people who dislike long posts.)
[size=10]The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts.[/size]
[size=9]Bertrand Russell (1872 - 1970)[/size]
No need to apologise. I just don't read them.
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
But the whole thing was about you! For your birthday! You have to read it.
[size=10]The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts.[/size]
[size=9]Bertrand Russell (1872 - 1970)[/size]
For who? The BNP?
If Bakri's opinion is that an awakening will make people becime militirised and start killing within their sphere of influence then I wonder which copy of The Qur'an [i]he[/i] is reading.
The man is a puppet and he doesn't realise it. Britain has aroud 2,000,000 Muslims living here, and a paper flies to Beirut to interview one? People in power find his spiel amusing thats why it getting aired.
Gentleness and kindness were never a part of anything except that it made it beautiful, and harshness was never a part of anything except that it made it ugly.
Through cheating, stealing, and lying, one may get required results but finally one becomes
http://www.adrian.warnock.info/2004/08/will-cummins-or-is-that-will-cumm... Are links uncovered or are they assumed? Shouting Allahu Akbar is not an extremist trait. All Muslims shout, say, whisper, think Allahu Akbar.
Siphoning it off and giving it to the terrorists doesn't help matters.
I agree there is no genuinely anti-Muslim legislation. But that does not mean that the law wil not discriminate against Muslims when it comes to issues such as being held for up to 14 days without charge, 'incting' and glorifying' terrorism, or 'holding info that may be useful to terrorists'.
I wouldn't know where to start. You may as well ask me to outline the various ideologies and politics of Northern Ireland's parties and orgs.
Are you suggeting there's some sort of parity between the Daily Mail's anti-Muslim "domination" columnists and the campaign against Guantanamo Bay? Which groups featured by Ch4 are obsessed with animosity which was not conveyed in the docu?
I think you might be giving Al Muhajiroon too much credit. They are not as scary and dangerous as they make out to be. The ideas expressed by them are dangerpus, but as far as their members being trained fighters is just bravado.
[url=http://www.therevival.co.uk/forums/viewtopic.php?t=2778]For instance[/url]:
Some stories are not worth dignifying with much of a response. For example "Muslims asylum seekers pestering" soldiers returning from Iraq or a Somali "police killer escaping in a veil."
[list].
Both I suppose. I am deliberately holding off posting any links to odious sources but I have in mind extensive essays which I have read denouncing not the aim to subjugate non-Muslims but the methodology of this or that group. That is a grey area. In any event there is also a certain unity of judgement. Are there not many Muslims supportive of every point a jihadi scores against Israel or the USA?
Have we not, when a stranger wanders onto these boards, quite often heard outright vilifications of the west, and far worse on other less responsible forums? The situation seems to be improving with moderate Muslims distancing themselves from radical views, and even radicals apologetically stating (or claiming) that of course they didn't support the 7/7 bombings, but I fear in many cases that is a pretext for complaints of Islamophobia. At the same time I recognise that Islamophobia, or the feeling among Muslims that they are unfairly vilified themselves, is real. I emphasise that where there is radical racism such as from the BNP one should give them no quarter, and when it is more subtle it needs to be corrected. I also continue to assert that it is blatantly obvious that the onslaught of radicalism in the ummah is a serious problem. From your general stance I don't suppose you disagree, and if I seem crude no offence is intended. I believe the general public and people such as myself will better both understand and believe that the majority of Muslims are against terror when they speak with as formidable a voice. Again I remind you that we have met a great deal of ambivalence and mixed views on these and other forums. I am sure efforts are underway to combat this - if Livingstone is right about one thing it is that any sort of reform cannot be imposed.
Thank you for linking the offensive article in The Telegraph. It is offensive, and also I believe the view that Muslims coherently support efforts to become a dominant force has some merit. I don't think that warrants describing Muslims as a massive enemy, however tempting, and categorically it doesn't support such a dehumanising comparison. You have extended my consciousness somewhat to how many Muslims must feel, especially those who tolerate no radicalism.
.
Again probably both. What does the public know of Tablighi Jamaat for example, who propose to build a huge mosque in London but who are accused of being run by radicals? Are these claims entirely fatuous or is something amiss? There probably is some assumption and misunderstanding because the most hardcore radicals maintain necessary denial.
.
You have missed this point. The point is not about Allahu Akbar, it is about the scale of the extremist problem and whether these groups share the kalifah agenda and intend to weaken the west unceasingly. Why I suggested you can educate me is to understand the value of particular distinctions beyond moderate and radical, because as you clearly underline, many innocent Muslims are caught in the crosshairs and the majority of Muslims fear this. Very clearly and as has been put by people of all political persuasions, this leaves the disenfranchised open to radicalisation. That is why I draw comparisons between the anti-Guantanemo theme and the crude assessments of Islam. I apologise for speaking about Muslims in the abstract btw, and it obviously grates, but it is in the nature of the discussion.
.
What I mean to say is that I have evidenced myself the worst of this rhetoric, and the snippets in the program, as has been stated here, had the impression of being out of context. Similarly the focus on the mosque bookshop seemed a weak way of presenting it, although I suppose their point was that radicalism is in evidence in a trusted environment. I have met with Muslims who received since long before 9/11 radical materials from the madrassah and you well know how common this is as well as the interdependency of Muslim activists with subversive anarchists and communists disseminating agitprop.
.
In his case, too little too late, in court. I don't think the charges were ideal though - he was not soliciting murder in a conventional sense or stirring up racial hatred, although surely there must be some kind of law against such behaviour.[/list:u]
[size=10]The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts.[/size]
[size=9]Bertrand Russell (1872 - 1970)[/size]
However, radicalism for the most part does not appear out of nowhere. There are politico-socio-economic issues driving people to radicalism. Once these issues are dealt with the violent radicalism will die down.
Sometimes radicalism does pop out of nowhere - or at least it's origins are not clearly visible. The case of Mohammed Siddique Khan is a case in point. He had no ancestral links to Iraq, Afghanistan, Palestine, nor any political or financial links. He was not a physical victim of these conflicts yet he blew himself thinking he was acting for these causes. This radicalism in many way has no clear solutions. People who take it to be representative of wider radicalism, I think, are skewing the debate and adding to misunderstanding.
Your view that radicals maintain necessary denial is preventing you from being as open-minded about this issue as you can be.This suspicion at the back of your mind about anything that a Muslim might say is not helping you to appreciate genuine nuances and differences of opinion.
I may as well be a raving wannabe-suicide bomber maintaining necessary denial and adopting a facade of naivity and uncertainty.
Whilst you might find anarchists, communists and Muslims at anti-war demos you'll also find socialists, Christians and CND members. But that's because they find common cause in opposing an unjust war. There's also common cause in supporting Palestinians and opposing US military power.I don't necesarily see anything bad in this. (BTW doesn't it show Muslims integrating? lol)
You know what I think...
I think that the police ARE A SYSTEM OF [i][u]OPPRESSION[/u][/i], that [b]"THE MAN,"[/b] is using [size=18][u]TO HOLD YOU DOWN!!!!!!
[/u][/size]
DONT LET [b]"THE MAN"[/b] [size=18][u]HOLD YOU DOWN![/u][/size]
YEA!!!
STICK IT TO [b]"THE MAN!!!"[/b] @!$!@#$ [b]"THE MAN!!!"[/b]