FREE SPEECH

‘Add to this the voices of Christian extermists whose interpretation of the Bible dreamt of Christ’s (pbuh) after the establishment of an extended Israel and the picture emerges of a cross Atlantic state of mind where the desire for control of universal resources and religious vision were coming together to accept a happening that would pave the way for realising this dream. It is a pity that thousands of people, whose only fault lay in their desire to earn a livelihood for their families, had to suffer a horrendous death to satisfy such dreams.

The question arises, how far people with power would go to achieve their desired goal, ie a terrorist outrage to create a perception of threat? There is one precedent which may help one’s thinking. Wiles Copeland in his autobiography ‘The Game Player’ (pages 68-69) confirms that President Roosevelt allowed the Japanese to destroy America’s fleet and hundreds of his own people. In a meeting between CIA Admiral Sydney Sauers and President Trueman, information was given that President Roosevelt got the intelligence and decided to let the Pearl Harbour attack happen as a way of arousing the otherwise apathetic population.

It would not be out of place to look at the happenings of 11th September in the light of what happened at the time of the Pearl Harbour tragedy. Our political establishment is not concerned with morality or principles. Such considerations are only used to make contemplated ventures acceptable to the general public ...

The people with motives in this crime have never been questioned. What we have instead is the names of a few unknowns who after 14 hours of flight training became so skilful that they could accomplish an aerial feat of such precision. What we have instead is the name of a loner, a known CIA recruit, sitting in a remote hiding place in Afghanistan where one is lucky to have electricity for two hours in a day, but who is able to control a worldwide organisation with precise information and direction, provides logistic support, moves financial resources through institutions which are fully controlled by the superpowers and their allies.

One has to be extremely naive to accept such a story. We are told that Al-Qaida is a threat to the world. Obviously this is an organisation by the Muslims for the Muslims but the strange fact is that we - the Muslims - have never heard of it. We have never been approached by its operators; it does not seem to need our help. It must be a very self-contained, self-supporting unit. It must be the most exclusive miracle of all times.

The 11th September tragedy has a particular poignancy for us Muslims. It has brought us under suspicion; it has opened the way for racist and religious hatred to express itself. Thousands of our co-religionists are rotting in jails in the most uncivilised conditions.

The rules of international law have been suspended, democracy is being eroded and dictatorship is on the march.

What should we do? We must not lose heart. Our strength is our ideology; our commitment is to human good.

We must come out of our seclusion. We must engage ourselves in the socio-political process. We must join forces with like minded people and work for freedom of choice, freedom of expression and freedom of action and the right to self-development to everyone’s maximum potential without any charge. Let us bear witness to the legacy of the Prophet (pbuh) who was a blessing to mankind and prove ourselves to be a blessing for our fellow beings.’

Dr Mohammad Naseem, writing in September 2004

‘"A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes”, said Mark Twain. Modern communications help the lie travel even further, although Velcro having replaced lace-ups, the truth is not all that slow anymore in getting ready –– mainly thanks to the internet.

After 9/11 it took months before any meaningful discussion got under way to piece together what really happened. After 7/7 in London this discussion is already in full swing. Many lies have travelled the world in the run-up to the “War on Terror”, itself a grand smokescreen for land grabs, geopolitical advances and social control. It should not be a surprise to our security services to find people sceptical of their integrity after they sold us the imminent threat of weapons of mass destruction, then told us to be constantly on guard because an attack was inevitable and now tell us how shocked they were when it actually happened. Nor should it surprise them that any serious investigator would include them amongst the suspects ...

Governments take a natural liking to propaganda. Nazi Germany’s propaganda minister, Joseph Goebbels taught them: “If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State." And George Orwell, the great predictor of the times of double-speak and thought-control we now live in, agreed: “During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act."

Now you would think that this applies to fascist and other dictatorships, not a democracy. But what is fascism, if not the unholy trinity of government, corporate, and media power? The Project for the American Century contains a useful list of tell-tale signs of fascism.

Qui Bono?

One way of getting to the truth is to ask: Qui bono? Who benefits? To any impartial observer it must be evident that Muslims, whether in the West or the East, have not been net beneficiaries of recent events. Western governments and companies, particularly arms manufacturers and security service providers, on the other hand, have, as have the oil cartels and their bankers who were also the first to cash in on the tragedy.

Besides unilateral military action, 9/11 brought us the various stages of the Patriot Act, Guantanamo Bay and other cancellations of democratic rights and due process. But it did not, ultimately, stifle debate nor were people willing to fully surrender their freedom of speech. There have been endless attempts to control the internet and reduce all people living in the West to a diet of CNN infotainment, just as there have been attempts to ban the satellite broadcast of information not fit to be served to the American public by the likes of Al-Jazeera, but to date they have not overcome a still strong and determined civil rights movement. Hopes are high that London 7/7 will change this. The interception of email is high on the priority list of Tony Blair’’s counter-terror measures, for example, and it is also on the agenda of the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) ...

Hitherto the British government had thought that scaring people of an inevitable terrorist attack was good enough, but received ridicule and accusations of fear-mongering in return. A television series, The Power of Nightmares, questioned whether these security warnings were politically motivated. During the recent British general election the anti-war movement seriously dented the government’s majority and scored an extra-ordinary victory with the election of anti-war candidate George Galloway who, not one ever to mince his words, even flew to the USA and took on the American Senate’s committee.

London needed a real terror attack in order to numb people sufficiently for the government to push through legislation that they had not been able to push through even before their electoral fiasco. Immediately following the attack there were raids and city centre evacuations, and France and Italy likewise moved quickly to round up alleged suspects. The farce of democracy could be suspended and government and opposition could pull together. Policymakers in the US, too, are hoping that these events will stop that European trend of permitting opposition and unite them in support for the American Enterprise. Sacrificing a few of their own people is not too high a price; former US secretary of state Madeleine Albright thought even the death of half a million Iraqi children a price worth paying.

Unfortunately for US and UK policymakers, critical voices were not as easily silenced this time as after 9/11. Some even squarely laid the blame at the government’s door and their illegal foreign exploits. Just as after the Madrid bombing the electorate did not swing behind the government but behind the opposition who called for a pull-out of Spanish troops from Iraq, the majority of Brits have no inclination to throw their support behind the government’’s favoured identity card scheme ...

Here are some interesting leads for any budding Sherlock Holmes:

Peter Powers, an ex-Scotland Yard anti-terrorist officer, admitted on BBC Radio 5 and ITN News that his PR firm were running a terror attack simulation exercise on the morning of the explosions at precisely the same locations where the bombs went off. Coincidence? Impossible. Collusion? Improbable. Well done, Watson, collusion it must be then, which would also explain why the evidence was removed. I am referring to the broken cameras on the no. 30 bus belonging to London Transport.

One of the problems of modern propaganda is the fast-moving flow of information. Little time to sort things out, leading to inevitable contradictions. For example, al-Qaidah was, of course, going to be responsible, but al-Qaidah would have targeted us because of our involvement in Iraq, yet, we are told by our politicians that this attack had nothing at all to do with Iraq but was an attempt to interfere with our values and way of life. Not al-Qaidah then, home-grown bombers. As the above cited blogger observes cynically, however: watch for the 'mastermind' to eventually be connected to the governments of Syria or Iran. But at least for now the alleged bombers are dead and not likely to put up a defence. If the new anti-terrorism laws were extended to British citizens, things would be easier, of course: they could be arrested and wouldn’t have to stand trial either.

Then there is the timing and method of the blasts. First the various explosions were spread out over more than an hour, until people began to ask why, seeing that the Israeli intelligence service Mossad had been able to warn Netanyahu (who was conveniently on location) not to leave his hotel, why couldn’t the British public be warned after the first bomb had gone off instead of being told lies about a perceived power failure? To fix this nagging problem it was then announced that the bombs were set off simultaneously using timers. A day later, however, we are told that Yorkshire-based suicide bombers (fanatical Muslims, like the one of them who was married to a Hindu lady) and now also a Jamaican were responsible for the carnage. Now have you ever heard of a suicide bomber using a timer on his charge of explosives and then waiting around for it to go off? Stupid and impossible. So there were no timers? But the police can’’t just have made it all up, can they? Improbable. The truth is: someone is lying to us somewhere.

The Truth

What is more, in a multi-million people city like London there are inevitably people who see things they were not meant to see, like station closures before the event, for example, or the shooting of alleged perpetrators by police in Canary Wharf which was hushed up very quickly. As the saying goes: you can fool all of the people some of the time, and some of the people all of the time, but you can never fool all of the people all of the time.

The aftermath of 7/7 is filled with moving speeches by politicians who make us believe that the suffering of the London public is unique in the world and in history. Within a few days of the bombs going off in London the casualty figure was matched by the death of innocent civilians in Baghdad, where bombs are a daily occurrence, not to mention the rest of Iraq. A train collision in Pakistan brought three times the death toll of the London bombings. But lives are cheap elsewhere. Yet, no amount of fancy talking is going to stop the truth from slowly emerging and the finger being pointed at the real perpetrators sitting in high office.’

Dr Sahib M Bleher, writing in 15 July 2005 and posted on the Islamic Party of Britain website

‘So the industrial nations have remained in dispute regarding the main issues of the summit but despite this they have agreed to attack the Muslim issues. In their communiquéé they agreed to support the PA in fighting what they called terrorism against the Jews and approved the legitimacy of the Jewish state which has usurped Palestine. Also, they have agreed to support the government in Iraq which is under American occupation. Also they supported the solutions proposed for Darfur leading to separation or (at least) an autonomous rule. It is clear that all their agreements are on those issues that attack the Muslims' interests.

O Muslims:

You can see these states, especially the colonialist states and those which have ambitions over our countries, may disagree on everything but they are united against you and against your Deen. Here they all move in one direction; they want to keep the issue of the Muslims in a state of crisis, separated and disconnected; they want the Muslims to be under their sphere of influence and under Jewish influence, so that, as they themselves admit, they can prevent the Muslims from returning as one Ummah in one state; the Khilafah Rashidah which will put the world in its right place and give back the rights to its people, and spread goodness to all corners of the world.

The Kafir colonialists, especially America and Britain harbour a hidden hatred against Islam and the Muslims, and at the first opportunity show their hatred but what their breasts conceal is far worse. They forget their differences when it comes to Islam and the Muslims. The London explosions, which took place at the time of the G8 summit, revealed this crusader viewpoint and hatred of Islam and the Muslims to the extent that every Muslim in Britain, even British citizens, have come under suspicion where even some British organisations have begun calling openly for 'waging a crusader war to expel Muslims from the streets of Europe.' Also there have been revenge attacks against Muslim men and women who show any adherence to Islam, such as women wearing Hijab or men with beards and even attacks against some mosques.

A few hours after the bombings on Thursday 7/7/2005; before any investigation and before revealing even the reality of the bombings as to whether they were planted or human bombs, the hateful crusader comments began to be made: Blair immediately pointed to 'extremist' values while hinting at Islam. Others declared that Islam is, "an evil and brutal religion." In this manner their crusader hatred of Islam and the Muslims has appeared. They know that many explosions have been carried out by extremists from their own countrymen though they did not describe them in this way nor did they describe their religion, values or culture in an inappropriate way but confined their discussion to the individuals involved ...

Why is it that the Muslims killed in Palestine, the Muslims killed in Iraq, the Muslims killed in Afghanistan, the Muslims killed in Chechnya, the Muslims killed in Kashmir, the Muslims killed in Fatani in Thailand, the Muslims killed in the Moroland in the Philippines, the Muslims killed here and there, whose blood is unjustly spilled day and night by the Jewish state, America, Britain, Russia, the Hindus, Thailand and the Philippines, at the hands of the tyrants of all nationalities is justified? Why is it that those whose blood has been spilled unjustly are said to have been killed in self defence by the G8 countries! However, when Americans, British, Jews, Russians, Hindus and others are killed, the world is turned upside down for their sake!

Why do those Kuffar in the West and the Jews expect that the massacre of Muslims will not result in violent reactions from Muslims?

Why do they not expect that the violation of honour, desecration of Qur'ans and the sanctities, the brutal crimes in occupied Muslim countries such as Palestine, Iraq, Afghanistan, Kashmir and Chechnya will push some people to take revenge, to meet killing with killing. Why do they not expect this?

Why do they not solve the problem by stopping their aggression against the Muslims and stop spilling their blood? Why do they not look at the reason for the problems and remove it rather than focussing on the effect and leaving the cause?

O Muslims:

It is a clear fact that the Kafir colonialists differ greatly in their conferences except when the matter relates to attacking Islam and its followers, whereupon they unite. At the first opportunity they show their aggression and hatred publicly. What happened after the London explosions in terms of the hateful and extreme statements of Bush, Blair, Putin, Chirac, Schroeder, Berlusconi and even Japan, Canada and then Australia from afar; all of this exposes the hidden hatred against Islam and the Muslims even before they clarified the reality of what happened or investigated the matter.

O Muslims, we know that such material actions, such as explosions and the like in cities among civilians will not solve the problem of the aggression of Kuffar against the Muslims, let alone the fact that is not allowed inside the cities or among civilians. What will solve the problem is the creation of a state for the Muslims, the Khilafah Rashidah, which will return the Ummah to the situation with which Allah will be pleased; the position of the best Ummah brought forth for mankind. It will bring back her glory and power and cut the hand of every Kafir colonialist who extends his hand (to harm) the Muslim countries and it will protect Islam, the honour of Muslims and their sanctities. It will begin the conquests and spread goodness to all corners of the world.

Hizb ut-tahrir is steady in following this path, it will not undertake material actions nor does it view that as a correct solution. It does not accept the killing of civilians or the harming of those who have security. But despite this, it takes the view that because the powerful nations spill the blood of Muslims, violate their honour and desecrate their sanctities, that these are the real reasons which produce these material reactions. If the big nations wanted to put a stop to these actions they would have thought and reflected on the questions that we mention above - but we know that the arrogance of these states will stop them from thinking in a sound manner and following the correct path.

O Muslims

The world is in distress, and the big powers are more disturbed and are actually the reason for the disturbance. Only Islam can lead the world, save it and spread goodness throughout the world. All of this will begin, O Muslims, by the serious and sincere work with Hizb ut-Tahrir to resume the Islamic way of life by establishing the Khilafah Rashidah state.’

Hizh ut-Tahrir website, 9 July 2005

Most English people would regard the above 3 quotes with some alarm. The horror of 9/11 and the sight of planes crashing into the twin towers is an image many can still remember, along with the pictures of those jumping to their deaths in order to avoid being burned alive.

In the above quotes it is averred that the British government is itself responsible for the 7/7 terrorist bombings, in the same way, apparently the US government is responsible for 9/11, or that the terrorist bombings have been brought upon the English and the West by their acts of aggression towards Islam and Muslims around the world.

Dr Naseem caused a row shortly after the July 2005 terror attacks for his extremist comments. A report dated the 6 August 2005 from the BBC website states:

‘Following the anti-terrorism proposals unveiled on Friday Dr Naseem told the BBC's Radio 4 Today programme that he saw "similarities" between Mr Blair's approach to Britain's Muslim community and Hitler's demonisation of Jews early in his time as German Chancellor.

"I think he is not very wise in the way he did it. I am saying he is not handling the situation wisely, because he says one thing at one time and another at another," he said.

'Dangerous times'

"He [Hitler] was democratically elected and gradually he created a bogey identity, that is, the Jewish people, and posed to the Germans that they were a threat to the country.

"On that basis, he started a process of elimination of Jewish people.

"I see the similarities. Everything moves step by step. I am saying these are dangerous times and we must take note of this."

He added that the measures proposed by Mr Blair would be "appropriate" if there was evidence that foreign nationals were in the country fomenting terrorism.

'Abusing hospitality'

"A government is entitled to take measures to safeguard the country and the nation, but the problem is that the government speaks with so many tongues that one is confused.

"Up to last week, we were given to believe that the terrorists were home-grown, 'clean-skinned' and Muslim.

"The measures being taken are against those who come to this country who are asylum-seekers and they are supposed to be misusing or abusing hospitality.

"Mr Blair told the Cabinet last week that people blame anything but faith, including poverty, discrimination and the war on terror for the bombings, so the message seemed to be that they are blaming everything else, but they should be blaming faith".’

Dr Naseem is also a major doner to the Respect Party, which had a representative, Salma Yaqoob, on the BBC Question Time programme this last week. Furthermore Dr Naseem is also connected to the Islamic Party of Britain. A report from the Guardian dated the 25 November 2005 states:

‘Gay activists have called on George Galloway's Respect party to dissociate itself from a donor amid claims he is linked to a party that advocates homophobia.

Dr Mohammed Naseem stood for Respect in Perry Barr, Birmingham, at the last election and donated £15,457 to the party - 29% of its campaign budget.

But Dr Naseem is also an executive member of, and home affairs spokesman for, the Islamic Party of Britain, whose website says: "Islam condemns and outlaws homosexuality. As far as Islamic law is concerned, the state does not interfere in the privacy of people's homes, but it would need to safeguard public decency by preventing any public advocacy for homosexuality." Lewd public displays would attract the death penalty.

Peter Tatchell of the gay and lesbian campaign group OutRage! said: "Proof of the homophobic rot at the heart of Respect is the party's open embrace of people and organisations that support the death penalty for homosexuality."

But the attack was rebuffed by Dr Naseem, who said the Islamic party was now little more than a thinktank. "These things are a matter of personal choice," he said. "I am not concerned with what people do in their bedrooms."

A Respect spokesman claimed that OutRage! was trying "to score a rather shallow and political point".’

This does not mean to say that the comments in the above quotes should not be made in a free society that recognises free speech. But the tolerance of free speech can be eroded in an emergency, such as war or a breakdown in society.

Originally, Labour intended to ban the organisation Hizh ut-Tahrir, which is already banned in other Western countries. It has since changed its mind.

The above views concern acts of Muslim terrorism at a time when there had been one bloody day of terrorism [7/7], when there had been another failed day of terrorism 14 days later, and when there have been several attempted acts of terrorism since - albeit foiled by the police. The impact of such comments upon those Muslims who already hate this country and mean us harm, can only be imagined.

The tolerance of free speech must apply to all. It cannot apply only to those who peddle, or advocate views deemed fashionable by, political correctness. It cannot only apply to those who attack this country.

A more pertinent question might be to ask why it is that those who hate Britain and the West so much, and dismiss us as ‘Kafir colonialists’ in our own country, are allowed to remain here?

Meanwhile two members of the BNP [a legal party which the English Rights Campaign does not support] have been prosecuted for comments made at a BNP meeting, and face up to a 7 year jail sentence if convicted.