Monday, August 01, 2005

Peaceful and non-violent bombing in London 

The lawyer representing Hussain Osman, the London bomb suspect, said that he had denied that the failed attacks on July 21 had anything to do with the bombings a fortnight earlier.

Antonietta Sonnessa said last night: "My client says his action was purely demonstrative. In fact, all four attempts did not result in any injury or damage at all. Moreover, he maintains that he was nothing to do with the events of July 7.

"He has justified his actions as a form of protest against the fact that civilians are suffering in wars at the present time. He has taken part in many peace marches and has never had any contact whatsoever with any terrorist organisation," she continued.

"He is not at all a violent person and made sure he would not cause any damage, injuries or deaths. There wasn't a very clearly defined plan, the whole thing was set the day before, in a meeting with this group of friends."
Meanwhile, a Hizb ut-Tahrir conference (just like Al Qaeda, only less crunchy) in London is sending some mixed messages:
The group has condemned the suicide bombings in London and urged Muslims to be "decent citizens" under Islamic law and to co-operate with police investigations.
Muslims were told to reject calls for them to "defeat the extremists" and were told to stand united on the path to establishing a true state of Islam.
It is logical though, since HuT are "extremists", in a sense of wanting to see an Islamic government established in Great Britain (and around the world) - though ostensibly through peaceful means. For Caliphate enthusiasts, HuT, however, are quite keen on the idea of freedom of speech and political participation (but presumably only until the Caliphate is established):
A senior member of the party, Abdul Waheed, told the delegates to speak out against British and American foreign policy. "Foreign policy anger is there. There is an attempt here to silence Muslims," he said.

"Go back to your communities and go to your mosques and ask the leaders do they not think there is going to be more frustration in the Muslim community, young and old alike, if the mosques cannot be used to discuss these issues in a calm and rational way.

"If we are not allowed to discuss the actions in Iraq and Afghanistan . . . I fear the frustration builds up more, not less."
There is, of course, a difference on the one hand between having an opinion, discussing it, engaging in peaceful political action and supporting your candidates at the election, and on the other hand advocating violence. Muslim community has as much right to put their view about Iraq across as, say, the anti-war movement. But no more.

Dr Waheed had also this to say:
"If a non-Muslim, innocent electrician can be killed on a mere hunch . . . what fate awaits Muslims if a man with a beard runs on to a Tube with a rucksack?"
My advice to a man with a beard (whether or Muslim) or otherwise: don't. Unfortunately, one victory that the terrorists have already achieved is to make running late to catch a train too dangerous an idea to contemplate.

Lastly, this:
The party campaigns for a government based on Islamic Sharia across the Muslim world but says that this would not be an oppressive regime such as the Taleban.
Well, firstly, not just across the Muslim world but the world generally, and secondly, thanks, but I'll pass anyway.


This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?