Saturday, November 17, 2007

Islamist group challenges David Cameron

Hizb ut-Tahrir is a radical Islamic political group active in several countries in the Middle East, South and South East Asia, Central Asia and Europe. The group was established in the 1950s in Jerusalem and is widely considered to be the original voice of the Palestinian cause. The group is proscribed in most countries in the Middle East, Central and South Asia and Europe. But as the Islamic world turned against them for plotting against various Arab regimes, many sought refuge in Denmark, Germany and the United Kingdom, where they were granted asylum in the belief that national interests would not be harmed by the religious and political activism of the group. Denmark and Germany have since changed their minds, and banned the group on the basis of its anti-Semitic propaganda.

David Cameron has been demanding that the group be proscribed in the UK, but this Labour government, so intent on cosying up to the Muslim vote, is refusing to budge. There is, they say, ‘no evidence’ to justify such a draconian course of action. And so the UK is just about the only country on the planet where this group does not merely operate; it flourishes, and is at complete liberty to spout its vile message.

Hizb-ut-Tahrir is intimately related to groups like the Al Muhajiroun, and shares the ideology of the Al Qaeda and other religious terrorist groups. Their grievance is that the Ummah needs a Caliphate in order to unify Muslims globally, and which will resolve all disputes and conflicts. While there is no direct evidence of the Hizb-ut-Tahrir having taken recourse to violence to achieve their aims, there is no doubt that individual members have advocated such, and rendered vocal, ideological and even material support to jihadi terrorist groups.

There is also some evidence to suggest that after the Iraq war, many of its members have become disillusioned with the non violent tactics and have been advocating a more pro-active approach. Many of its splinter groups, including the Al Muhajiroun of Britain and the Akramiya and the Hizb-un-Nusra in Central Asia have called for a ‘more active’ involvement in the struggle against corrupt Islamic regimes and the hegemonic Western powers.

Yet this is still insufficient for HM Government, with whom Hizb ut-Tahrir is indeed pleased. But not with the Leader of HM Opposition. In an open letter to Mr Cameron, they say:

We have become accustomed to matters of security being cynically played by you for political point scoring. Your persistent call, with no evidence, for the criminalisation of Hizb ut-Tahrir and other Muslim groups and thinkers illustrates many things.

Firstly, you mislead the general public who expect their leaders to produce well informed arguments based on evidence. The complex issues that have created today's security environment have been reduced by you to the single issue of Islam's political ideas and its adherents. You, like Tony Blair and George W Bush before you, simply seek to divert any responsibility for creating today's security environment away from western government policies in the Muslim world.

Secondly, it confirms your party's credentials as an anti-Muslim party, who care little for community relations. You expose the promotion of a Muslim to the Shadow Cabinet as a veneer for your actual policies, by silencing her views on these matters (such that she utterly contradicts what she had argued for over two years) and by having her stalked in her brief by one of the most hawkish MPs.

Thirdly, the trail of your argument can be traced to various right wing neoconservative think tanks in Washington, via their sister organisations in the UK. It is well known that you have self declared neoconservatives in your front bench team and we are aware that some of your senior staff have been sent to Washington to consult with these people on these matters. These same people who have advised you on the matter of Hizb ut-Tahrir, also call for the bombing of Iran (as they called for the war in Iraq), the withdrawal of Britain from the European Convention on Human Rights and the termination of your relationship with the Conservative Muslim Forum (recently described by one supporter of yours at the Heritage Foundation as a flirtation with Islamic extremism). Such views merely illustrate the fragility of the so-called principles of freedom and tolerance that you claim to believe in.

You prefer to ban ideas rather than debate them. You believe that voices that confront the policies of this country in the Muslim world should be silenced. Your views on non-violent groups like ours simply reinforces the belief in the Muslim world that this war on terror is not about preventing violence but preventing Muslims from living in their lands according to their way of life - Islam - and seeking to impose your systems on them. This is a recognised pattern that we have seen under repressive regimes in the Muslim world.

We are willing to debate any of these matters with you in a public forum. The cowardice of making your accusations in Parliament - where you enjoy the cover of legal protection - is telling. Your persistent call for a ban and the censoring of debate and discussion on important issues, suggests to me that you would not accept this offer, because you have no arguments and no proofs to bring to the table. However, our challenge stands regardless.

Dr Abdul Wahid

Chairman UK Executive Committee
Hizb ut-Tahrir Britain

Cranmer has a few suggestions for a response to this, which must be forthcoming, and which should also be publicly disclosed.

Mr Cameron should agree to a debate (conducted in writing), and the Conservative Muslim Forum , Atta-Ur-Rehman Chishti (the Conservative candidate in Gilligham), and Baroness Warsi should all leap at the chance to publicly support their Leader in this, voluntarily, enthusiastically, with no compulsion whatsoever. The unified response of the Leader with these prominent Conservative Muslims would constitute an impressive riposte. The content should be based on thorough research and empirical evidence (with which Cranmer is prepared to assist), and eschew completely all historical generalisations, political misconceptions and theological ambiguities.

The focus should be the group’s deeply flawed ideology. Since this is the tool by which they recruit and exploit teenagers and young adults, it must be countered by discerning the inconsistencies and innate contradictions in their beliefs, which are abundant. The most obvious is their insistence on the founding of a Caliphate by non violent means, yet the revolution required to usher in the Islamic state would cause much bloodshed, and such a model could only be held together by further bloodshed. Hizb ut-Tahrir has no grounded theories on statecraft.

Mr Cameron should network with intelligence organisations in other countries; Germany and Denmark in particular. A sense of the group’s European strategy must be acquired and analysed. If the Conservative Party’s demands were consistent with the actions of other EU member states, it will make Prime Minister Brown appear ‘weak’ on terrorism, and ‘isolated’ in Europe.

As the Shadow Chancellor basks in the glory of his recent award, he should probe the Chancellor of the Exchequer on how Hizb-ut-Tahrir is financed in the UK. Do they receive donations from charities or individuals? Do these charities conform to the criteria laid down by the Charities Commission, or are they propagating a political ideology at variance with the stated aims of the charity?

And finally, Mr Cameron should acquire examples of Hizb-ut-Tahrir propaganda. Their publications and other audio and video materials speak for themselves, and manifestly incite hatred. The group should be asked to explain what it sees as the logical consequence of the message it preaches, and to justify the implications for national and international security. In particular, Mr Cameron should focus on the divisions within the UK’s Muslim communities that the group exacerbates.

All of this will raise public awareness through a strong intellectual campaign, and expose the ideological hollowness of the Hizb-ut-Tahrir agenda. And, as a very useful consequence, Mr Cameron will project an image which will put Prime Minister Brown somewhat in the penumbra. Mr Cameron thereby highlights the undeniable reality that the Muslim communities need politico-religious activism and leadership to address and articulate their genuine grievances. The Hizb-ut-Tahrir is not the solution; like the MCB, it is a part of the problem.


Anonymous Dr. Irene Lancaster FRSA said...

I cannot believe the hutzpah of this fascist group which used to terrorise Jewish students simply for being Jewish when I taught at Manchester University.

I cannot believe that any other country would even put up with this. Certainly if there must be a debate it should not be conducted in public, because in my experience, such verbal debates always end up with the Muslim side ranting.

But for Britain to have got to this state should be a cause of great concern.

Not surprising really though, given that the Royal Family fetes all things Saudi Arabian, but seems to be turning down an offer to visit Israel, the only democracy in the area, in which all its Arab populations flourish:

17 November 2007 at 18:05  
Anonymous najistani said...

When the Muslims finally establish the global Caliphate, will the Caliph be Shi'ite or Sunni?

Presumably, in the unlikely event of there being a disagreement, the issue will be settled non-violently.

17 November 2007 at 23:15  
Anonymous Morus said...

Your Grace,

If you will permit, I feel compelled to report a recent flirtation with unorthodoxy that afflicted me Thursday last.

I was discussing the political manifestations of Islam with a scholar from Oxford, who can claim great authority on such matters (he is not of that faith, but rather a thorough and even-handed student of Middle East affairs), and we decided to engage in a 'reductio ad absurdum' on an idea that had hit me between my sixth and seventh Scotch.

Take, as premises, that the State (as an institution) by its very nature corrupts any conception-of-the-good that it seeks to hold, and that the modern State is a creation of the Liberal-West and to a greater or lesser degree modelled around its values (emotivism), economic system (capitalism), and political machinations (democratic).


This, at first, seems extraordinary, but there may be some merit. There are scholars, including Marxists, who would claim that harnessing the corruptive power of the (inherently-moderno-Liberal) State with an 'alien' political philosophy was the downfall of Marxism in the form of the USSR. The modern State corrupts all "thick" conceptions of the good that it seeks to hold and enforce, particularly those that are alien to the sociology of its inception. Might not the cause of political Islam be similarly damaged by such a large-scale symbiosis? Many commentators on Iran believe this is precisely what is being enacted (at least economically) at the present in the Persian Gulf. The unholy alliance of the modern State with Islamic principles has produced a phiosophical chimaera, unable to sustain its authority (though not its leitimacy) in the eyes of its people.

Furthermore, by ascribing to the political Islamic movement the duties of Statecraft, do we not burden that movement with responsibilities that proscribe the excesses of their extremists? Were there to be a Palistinian State, it would be harder for Palestinian militias to fire rockets into Israel as there would be a sovereign body that would be responsible for such conduct. The weight of duty that accompanies Statehood in the eyes of the International Community could serve to act as leverage against a politicised movement over which we currently have little control. The absence of institutional hierarchies within (Sunni) Islam means we must deal only with self-appointed leaders who are accountable to no-one. Statehood would solve this problem.

I recognise the radical nature of this proposition, but an IR realist would recognise that an emasculated Caliphate (i.e. non-Nuclear, subject to the laws that bind states) might be significantly more controllable than the hydra of political Islam with which we are currently confronted.

I offer the floor to those who will explain why this should have been abandoned as an idea before the eighth Scotch. However, in parting, I raise the spectre of the Northern Ireland question. Few of us ever believed we would negotiate with Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness - is it likely that our weak and pragmatic leaders will forever abstain from negotiating with Al Quaida and their ilk? Why not pre-empt that inevitability by offering to the moderately extreme the aspirations of the ultras, if it could prove to be in our best interests?



18 November 2007 at 00:14  
Anonymous nagistani said...

Rump Caliphate? Been there. Done that. Google 'sick man of Europe' or take a look at

18 November 2007 at 00:30  
Anonymous Morus said...


That is a fascinating link - thank you!

Although the aspirations of those who desire a Caliphate stretch from Spain to China, claiming the great three cities of Jerusalem, Constantinople and Rome, in reality they would not get 'secular' Turkey or even Iran to join them, I do not think.

The Rump Caliphate I can imagine to be possible would be a predominantly-Sunni affair based around the Arabian peninsula. I would not see that as a (miltary) threat to the West in the same way that Attaturk or Sulieman the Magnificent posed, seated as they were at the gates of Vienna.

Is my modest proposal so absurd? I am prepared to acknowledge that it might be, but I am interested in how it might appear to others.

Dr Lancaster, I seem to remember you are resident in Israel. Do you believe the hostility to Israel might be lessened or emboldened by the establishment of such a rump Caliphate? Would Israel feel more threatened by a consolidated enemy, or relieved that no part of that alliance could act independently and recklessly - an unstable threat that currently exists?

As always, with my humble regards to all of His Grace's communicants,


18 November 2007 at 01:03  
Anonymous najistani said...

All Muslims are psychopaths. Some of them are devious psychopaths who attempt to appear as semi-normal while infiltrating and subverting Christendom, and others are raving headbangers who are so obviously a clear and present danger.

Since the civilised world needs to destroy and discredit Islam in all its guises, it is in our interests to let the raging overt psychopaths reveal the real nature of their rabid cult to the kuffar. Let Hizbut Terror and all the rest of them be allowed to spout their venom and be given maximum publicity.

This will not only discredit themselves but also discredit the far more insidious 'moderate' deceitful and creepy mobots.

To understand what makes Muslims tick, you need to understand how utterly slavishly they imitate the founder of their death-cult, the charlatan, liar and false prophet Mohammed.

Mohammed was a terrorist, murderer, sadist, rapist, pedophile, slaver, robber, extortionist, control-freak, liar and charlatan. Okay, so nobody's perfect. But that unfortunately is the problem. Muslims are brainwashed from infancy into believing that Mohammed was indeed the perfect man, 'al-insan al-kamil and uswa hasana' the model of behavior for all those wishing to be obedient to Allah.

So to be a good Muslim is to be a robotic clone of the original founder of the the cult, whom you must emulate in every way, and in the process destroy your own individuality, judgement and conscience. Muslims try to ape Mohammed's behavior down to the tiniest details. For example, one of the Four Imams, Abmad ibn Hanbal, was a great Traditionalist. It is stated that he would not eat water-melons because, although he knew that the 'Prophet' ate them, he could not learn whether the 'Prophet' ate them with or without the rind, or whether he broke, bit or cut them.

Islam is not about right and wrong thinking but correct behaviour. If one imitates the behaviours of Mohammed, then one is observant and submissive. Morality is not a part of Islam. If there is a more fundamental difference between Islam and all other creeds and religions I do not know of it. It is so alien that the reader will have to consider its implications for some time to grasp the full meaning of it.

Muslims often try to deceive Christians and Jews into believing that Islam, like Christianity and Judaism, is one of three closely related 'Abrahamic faiths'. But if we examine the ethical basis of Islam, and judge the tree by its fruits, we realise that Islam is totally alien. Judaism and Christianity have more in common with the unrelated Buddhism than they do with Islam.

For the devout Muslim there is no place for conscience, compassion or empathy, only mobotic behavior patterns programmed by a long-dead psychopath. There is no morality to be had in Islam. There is consequently no Golden Rule ('Do not do to another that which would be hurtful to you') or any other higher ethical principles. There is nothing apart from a huge number of prescribed regulations which must be obsessively and compulsively observed. Hence the lack of originality and creativity in the Muslim world. The Ummah has effectively only one brain for 1.2 billion people and that brain belongs to Mohammed.

The muslim has no need for a conscience, because Mohammed's example determines what is right or wrong. If he wants to rape a nine year old girl or slaughter a few hundred kuffar then he will not be bothered by a guilty conscience, because the 'perfect man' has set the precedents.

One of the principle characteristics of a psychopath is that he lacks any conscience . So does Islam actually attempt to turn its adherents into psychopaths? In current clinical use, psychopathy is most commonly diagnosed using the checklist devised by Emeritus Professor Robert Hare. He describes psychopaths as "intraspecies predators who use charm, manipulation, intimidation, and violence to control others and to satisfy their own selfish needs. Lacking in conscience and in feelings for others, they take what they want and do as they please, violating social norms and expectations without guilt or remorse". "What is missing, in other words, are the very qualities that allow a human being to live in social harmony.".

Islam produces swarms of mobotic clones programmed to emulate a seventh century psychopath. "It is so alien that the reader will have to consider its implications for some time to grasp the full meaning of it. "

18 November 2007 at 01:13  
Anonymous Dr. Irene Lancaster FRSA said...

Morus' idea is interesting. In fact, what we have now in Gaza is a Caliphate in theory at least. Unfortunately for them however, there are many who do not wish to live under sharia law. This includes many who support Fatah (not that they are more well disposed towards Israel, but that's another matter), various Christian groups, who know that if they moved - say - to Israel, they would be treated as first-class citizens and women, who if they aren't married by at least 23 are often regarded as lesbians (even if they aren't) and punished accordingly.

Israel could not allow a Caliphate next door, because the nature of Caliphates is to conquer surrounding nations and also because of trade agreements which might hinder democratic Israeli principles.

In this day and age, a Muslim empire is not on and might best be compared to Nazi expansionist policies.

For further reading, may I recommend Matthias Kuentzel's recently translated 'Jihad and Jew-Hate', which explains the links between 20th C and 20th C Islam and Naziism.

May I also recommend my own book, Deconstructing the Bible, which includes a very detailed description of Muslim approaches to the sacred text and everything else.

To finish on a positive note, I've met quite a few Arabs in Israel, some of them Muslim. None are like any I encountered in Britain. Even those who grumble (and who doesn't in Israel?) at least treat me as an equal, want to engage and some are even willing to be taught by me.

And all of them are exceedingly well off.

Maybe the answer then is not a Caliphate, but a democratic Jewish State for all?

If you access my blog, you will see a review of Matthias' book and also a description of the number of Christians who are moving to Israel, including one of my former adult students (we used to meet in a Church hall/communal library in Manchester) who has just bought a place in Haifa.

Isn't that great?

Blog details:

18 November 2007 at 09:31  
Anonymous Morus said...

Najistani - Respectfully, I cannot concur with your generalised depiction of Islam in that way. There are, of course, many to whom that description may be applicable, but I have many friends of the Islamic faith who are not psychopaths, but have found a way to live lives of quiet dignity within that faith. They do not seek to 'deceive' me that there are three Abrahamic faiths - rather they (as I) attempt to find ground upon which we can agree in the face of stark secular liberalims that denies the value of virtue and faith of any colour or creed. That does not involve ignoring the many fundamental areas of disagreement that separate us (the nature of logos, as touched upon by His Holiness in Regensburg). I recognise that there may be many Muslims who would act as you say, but avoiding the generalisation demonstrates our commitment to a nuanced and justicial approach to this particularly difficult debate.

Dr Lancaster - many thanks for the recommendations of reading. I will seek out your book with interest.

Interestingly, I work with a young Muslim at the moment. He is skilled, diligent, and although he eats only Halal meat and does not drink alcohol, he is not a regular attendee at the Mosque. He is a Liberal Democrat (of the soft-left variety) and utterly unassuming. Yet he, in a very mild way, would like to see the Ummah united in a Caliphate. He is no anti-semite, is ambivalent about Israel, irked by the war (but less than my other friends), and yet shares this particular aspiration with some highly-unsavoury people.

I was shocked, but do not hold this view against him. Rather, I began to wonder if he were to be presented with the political reality of Sharia Law in a Caliphate, whether he would turn from even this faintest allegiance to political Islam. Much like the Palestinians of Gaza, I wonder if the realisation of a Caliphate (firmly contained from Imperial Conquest, as was the USSR) might prove to be the death knell for strident political Islam. All of this would need to be accompaned by unequivocal support for Israel, to ensure that we were not imperilling a democratic state.



18 November 2007 at 16:05  
Anonymous najistani said...

No doubt there are many people who call themselves Muslim who do not go around calling for enslavement of Christians, and extermination of the Jews ( ) .

Some of these will be true Muslims who have hidden their aggressive intentions and are practising taqiyya, but others will be Muslim only by family tradition.

That latter group are not really Muslim at all, and if made aware of the full implications of their ancestral religion might be prompted to abandon it. This is why allowing the real Muslims to freely express their rage and fury is ultimately advantageous to the counterjihad.

Islam is an all-or-nothing religion. Either the Koran with its 'THOU SHALT KILL' commandments is the literal word of God, or else it is a hoax. Either Mohammed is the greatest of all the prophets, or else he is the greatest of all confidence tricksters. No intermediate positions are logically possible.

There may be Muslims who appear moderate, but there is no such thing as moderate Islam. Islam cannot abide the existence of unsubdued kuffars, and as long as there are kuffars who will not be subdued, conflict is inevitable. There is no possibility of a stable state of coexistence.

The true Muslim, in emulating Mohammed, is emulating a psychopath. Consequently, a person whose behaviour perfectly resembles this most perfect of men will himself become - for all intents and purposes - a psychopath.

"The Hour [Resurrection] will not take place until the Muslims fight the Jews, and kill them. And the Jews will hide behind the rock and tree, and the rock and tree will say: oh Muslim, oh servant of Allah, this is a Jew behind me, come and kill him!" - ({0B687559-B469-4F4F-B307-ACEC42C3F5E4} )"

18 November 2007 at 17:40  
Anonymous Dr Irene Lancaster said...

But there are other religions in Gaza. What are they going to do with them?

18 November 2007 at 17:50  
Anonymous najistani said...

Invite them to an interfaith dialog over afternoon tea.

18 November 2007 at 18:19  
Anonymous Dr. Irene Lancaster FRSA said...

My sentiments, exactly! You do know that synagogues and churches were destroyed as soon as Hamas took over.

18 November 2007 at 20:26  
Anonymous najistani said...

Dr Irene Lancaster said "You do know that synagogues and churches were destroyed as soon as Hamas took over."

This is standard Islamic practice - check out the section on cultural jihad, humiliation of the kuffar and Jahiliyya at

18 November 2007 at 21:15  
Anonymous Morus said...

I would remind you that I was suggesting this from the position of an IR realist - a tactical withdrawal, if you will, to allow the realisation of a doomed political order that invalidates its creed in the eyes of its less-ardent adherents. Whilst this is a position I find difficult to accept, I find it strange that no IR realists suggest it. I am not naive to the horrors that may ensue - indeed they are essential if the denigration of the concept of the Caliphate is to be realised.

I now understand (a little better, at least) what you meant, Najistani. I wouldn't share your terminology ('real' Muslims vs the rest): if one has to be ultra-orthodox to be described as a real Catholic/Jew/Muslim, then I am probably not a 'real' Catholic to many of my kind, and very few of the faithful (of any creed) could similarly be accepted as authentic. Whether you consider it theosophically coherent or not, Islam and other religions are often sociological manifestations, and plenty of people conduct their lives in irregular service to those faiths.

I am interested in our relations with Muslims as they are, not in fighting Muslims as they would be if they were all as theologically coherent as you suggest. Many are 'moderate' precisely because they lack the immanent coherence (as repugnant as I find it) of more strident political Islam. How can we realistically ameliorate the excessive demands of radical Islam to our favour, and show the more moderate that the path to political Islam is not what they truly desire? That was the reason I posed this question. This is not naivity, this is realism.


18 November 2007 at 21:26  
Anonymous najistani said...

Excerpt from an article at

which claims that if we can destroy or weaken the obsessive-compulsive Islamic wudu/voodoo practices, we will actually undermine the core of the entire Death-cult.

"Most Islamic Voodoos enunciated in this article reflect the traditions, customs, practices and beliefs of the illiterate, barbaric, and uncouth Bedouin Arabs leading a nomadic life in the harshness of desert.

Muhammad was a product of his time and traditions. He simply codified those Arab Bedouin voodoos as Allah’s commandment and empowered this voodoo system to regulate a Muslim’s life. A Muslim cannot escape Islamic Voodoos; he will have to live with them and die with them. From birth to death, in every phase and stages of his life he will be hunted down with Islamic voodoos.

Every action he does, he must ensure that that conforms to Islam—more precisely, with Islamic voodoos. He must not question those mindless Islamic rituals, he must not doubt even a word of the Qur'an, and he must not deviate even a millimetre from the Islamic specifications.

This means that the entire belief system in Islam is purely based on blind faith. In verse 3:32 Allah says that Muslims must not question Islam, they must blindly follow Muhammad, because following Muhammad is following Allah (3:31, 4:80, 5:48, 33:71).

In verse 24:51 Allah clarifies this further when He says: the blind believers are the true followers when they say, without any arguments, 'we hear and we obey'. This means Allah likes blind believers.

A hadis in Sunaan Abu Dawud (3.41.5112) says that Muhammad’s tongue is Allah’s tongue, and another hadis in Sahih Bukhari (4.52, 2004) writes that whoever obeys Muhammad obeys Allah, whoever disobeys Muhammad disobeys Allah.

Please note that these are words emanating from the unalterable words of Allah and Muhammad. No power on earth could ever change them.

Therefore, it is mandatory for all Muslims that they emulate Arab Bedouin customs, traditions, manners, dress, language, practices and their voodoos. A Muslim has no choice but to be an Arab Bedouin of Muhammad’s time.

This compulsory imposition of the desert Arabs’ beliefs and actions (read voodoos) is the most problematic part of Islam. If we separate these Islamic Voodoos (read Arab Bedouin Voodoos) Islam will die. Islam’s life blood is Arabism, precisely, Bedouinism.

Once non-Arab Muslims eschew this forced Arabism on them Islam will wither away from their society. That is why exposing the inane Islamic Voodoos is actually exposing Islam at its core—the ugly and the darker sides of Islam, which most Islamists (especially those living in the west) carefully attempt to hide."

18 November 2007 at 22:29  
Anonymous najistani said...

Is Islam an obsessive/compulsive disorder characterised by voodoos, especially the dreaded Joovoodoo?

18 November 2007 at 22:43  
Blogger gatesofvienna said...

Know that the Jews and their usurping state in Palestine will, by the Help and Mercy of Allah (swt), be destroyed ‘..until the stones and trees will say: O Muslim, O Slave of Allah. Here is a Jew behind me so come and kill him’. The signs indicate that this time is about to come In the forthcoming days the Muslims will conquer Rome and the dominion of the Ummah of Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him and his family) will reach the whole world and the rule of the Muslims will reach as far as the day and night. And the Deen of Muhammad (saw) will prevail over all other ways of life including Western Capitalism and the culture of Western Liberalism:

Allow Hizb-ut-tahrir to speak for themselves!

28 November 2009 at 09:42  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older