Home Secretary: "My friend"

Gathering a few threads together:

1. July 2006: Just before the anniversary of the London bombings, Abu Izzadeen made a number of remarks, which "allegedly" glorify terrorism. Glorification of terrorism is a criminal offence.

2. September 2006: Home Secretary John Reid addressed a gathering of Muslims, with the aim of asking them to co-operate with the war on terror within Britain. He was heckled for some time by Abu Izzadeen. During the heckling, the Home Secretary repeatedly referred to him as "My friend".

3. January 2007: The Conservatives produced a document with the title: "Uniting the Country". (In fact, it has no title, but the file name is "unitingthecountry.pdf") This is the interim report of the Policy Group on National and International
Security.

4. February 2007: Abu Izzadeen was arrested for "allegedly" glorifying terrorism, and released on bail pending trial.


The most curious aspect of this is why was he not arrested shortly after making his remarks in July 2006?

Also, why was he permitted to disrupt a meeting presided over by the Home Secretary, the purpose of which was aimed at rooting out extremists such as him?

Is it merely a coincidence that he was arrested not long after the Conservatives produced their document?

Regarding the glorification of terrorism law, the document states:

"The Government has recently passed laws to prevent the spread of racial hatred and the glorification of terrorism. It has objectionable features but as it is on the statute book, it should be used actively to combat the instances of abuse of tolerance and free speech which are known to occur or else it should be removed from the statute book. Dead letter legislation induces contempt for the law."

I have made it my task to spread the truth about the bloodthirsty verses in the Quran, which abrogate the chronologically earlier verses. The earlier verses tend to be more tolerant. As part of this task, I have posted a number of messages onto the Conservative's "Security Policy" message board, together with links to my blog and other websites of relevance.

One of the points that I made was:

"In my own opinion, it is very clear that the Quran does indeed glorify terrorism. Should the British legal system therefore ban the Quran? The legislation is relatively recent, and was enacted in response to 9/11. It is not some archaic law (such as the obligation to do weekly archery practice) which has simply not been repealed. It is very much a law of our time.

I would suggest that given that we have this law now which makes illegal the glorification of terrorism, and also to anyone of sound mind, it would appear that the Quran does in fact glorify terrorism, then surely we should as a minimum have a legal enquiry into the status of the Quran in this respect. The legal process must take its course.

Doing only half a job, i.e. producing this legislation, and then failing to follow it through to its logical conclusion indicates that the present government is incompetent at the least. Perhaps they understood what they were doing, but now are too afraid to carry it through. In either case, whether they are stupid, or whether they are cowards, they are not fit to govern.
.............
It is the current Labour government that has created the law banning the glorification of terrorism. However, it is patently clear that they are completely lacking in courage to follow through with the task. They must realise that the Quran is the single most significant document that glorifies terrorism."


Now that Abu Izzadeen is the first person to be charged under the glorification of terrorism act, perhaps some truths will come out. What sort of arguments could his lawyers put forward in his defence? Since he appears on video making these remarks, it is hardly likely that the lawyers can argue that his words are misunderstood. The meaning of his words are plain and obvious for all to see and hear.

The lawyers may try to get him off on some legal technicality. However, there would be such a public outcry if that were to happen, that such a course would seem unlikely. A re-trial would be almost inevitable in that case.

The only other realistic possibility that I can see would be for the defendant to plead some sort of insanity or undue influence. Where would such influence originate? Err .. the Quran perhaps?

If that is the defence given, the next logical step would be to have a judicial enquiry into whether the Quran itself glorifies terrorism. We live in interesting times.

We who feel the urgency to enlighten our fellow humans about the inhumanity of the Quran, often feel that we are shouting into an empty cave to no avail. However, I do wonder if my efforts have played some part in the chain of events that have led to the arrest of Abu Izzadeen. It is probable that there are several hundred thousand more like him. It is unlikely that the Home Secretary can provide accommodation for all of his new-found friends however!

Very regretably, it really is a vain hope to believe that Muslims can live peacefully alongside non-Muslims. I truly wish that it were not so, however, the Quran itself makes this point very unambiguously:

"Let not the believers take the unbelievers for friends rather than believers; and whoever does this, he shall have nothing of (the guardianship of) Allah, but you should guard yourselves against them, guarding carefully; and Allah makes you cautious of (retribution from) Himself; and to Allah is the eventual coming." Quran 3.28

"O you who believe! fight those of the unbelievers who are near to you and let them find in you hardness; and know that Allah is with those who guard (against evil)." Quran 9.123

It is a sign of weak leadership by our politicians (both Labour and Conservative) that they are unable, or unwilling to confront the truth of this reality. It is not possible even to begin to solve a problem until it is properly understood. Do they not understand why, despite the best efforts of Ghandi, it was necessary to partition India? If someone of the stature and moral courage of Ghandi was unable to effect a workable cohesion for "Uniting the Country", what hope have Blair, Brown or Cameron?


Humanity needs peace not Islam.