It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Silcone Synapse
I know that,and I am a UK citizen.
What I was trying to say is that it seems that we have a two tier justice system in the UK at the moment-If you are part of the Government you can pretty much expect to get away with the sorts of behaviour that the rest of us would be locked up for.
I am thinking along the lines of fraud(expenses claims),torture or the clandestine support and facilitation of torture,kidnap(rendition)along with the above financial support for extremists.
These are not(nor should they be)something the average UK citizen would get away with.
As we have seen,the government has got away with this and more.
Those in such positions of power should set an example to the rest of us I believe,not be given an easy ride for thier less than lawful behaviour,IMO.
Those who claim the moral high ground,whilst in government,should at the very least abide by the law of the land.
Is that too much to aim for in a so called "democracy?"
Originally posted by neformore
Come May/June next year the organisation will be banned, so its something of a non-story really.
That is unless Brown decides to cut fuel duty in half, stop taxing cigarettes and alchohol, bring every British serviceman overseas home and - miraculously - turns into Cheryl Cole and manages to get re-elected.
So as I said....they'll be banned
post by Cadbury
Because they're not something the average U.K. citizen is in a position to do, obviously. But on the subject of "above financial support for extremists," I notice you didn't reply to any of the points I raised and have just continued to say the same as before. Did you read the article you posted? It's £100,000 for schools run by a registered charity and pseudo-political party. Your point is null and void in relation to them because they're a registered charity and have obviously received many donations from the general public already.
post by Cadbury
Because they're not something the average U.K. citizen is in a position to do, obviously.
op by neformoreCome May/June next year the organisation will be banned, so its something of a non-story really.
Our Method 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.
The party is therefore proactive in disseminating the Islamic intellectual and political thoughts widely in Muslim societies so as to challenge the existing status quo that exists there. The party presents Islam as a comprehensive way of life that is capable of managing the affairs of state and society. The party also expresses its views on political events and analyses them from an Islamic perspective. The party disseminates its thoughts through discussion with the masses, study circles, lectures, seminars, leaflet distribution, publishing books and magazines and via the Internet. We encourage people to attend our demonstrations, marches and vigils.
Does Hizb ut-Tahrir advocate violence? Hizb-ut-Tahrir is convinced that the change we seek must start in the minds of people and we do not accept for people or societies to be forced to change by violence and terror. Consequently, Hizb ut-Tahrir does not advocate or engage in violence. The party strictly adheres to Islamic law in all aspects of its work. It is an Islamic intellectual and political entity that seeks to change people?s thoughts through intelligent discussion and debate. We consider that Islamic law forbids violence or armed struggle against the regime as a method to re-establish the Islamic State.
Hizb regards integration as “dangerous” and says that British Muslims should “fight assimilation” into British society. It wants to create a global Islamic superstate, or “caliphate”, initially in Muslim-majority countries and then across the rest of the world. It says that “those [Muslims] who believe in democracy are Kafir”, or apostates. It orders all Muslims to keep apart from non-believers
More recently, Sayyid Abul Ala Maududi, a noted 20th century Islamic Scholar argued that verses [Qur'an 9:11 ] of the Qur'an sanction death for apostasy.
Some prominent contemporary examples of death sentences threatened or issued for apostasy include Abdul Rahman, an Afghan convert to Christianity who was arrested and jailed on the charge of rejecting Islam in 2006 but later released as mentally incompetent
W. Heffening states that in Qur'an "the apostate is threatened with punishment in the next world only," adding that Shafi'is interpret verse [Qur'an 2:217 ] as adducing the main evidence for the death penalty in the Qur'an. Wael Hallaq holds that "nothing in the law governing apostate and apostasy derives from the letter of the holy text." The dissenting Shia jurist Grand Ayatollah Hossein-Ali Montazeri, a significant Shi'a religious authority, states that the above verses do not prescribe an earthly penalty for apostasy
Originally posted by Cadbury
Hah. Maybe, maybe... But are you not the least bit hesitant to put too much faith into the promises of Cameron and his future cabinet of turds? I'd be careful associating terms like "they will" with politics, if I were you.