Tuesday, October 17, 2006

The question: To kill or not to kill

The Philosophical Society of Trinity College Dublin has organised for Thursday a debate on the use of violence for religious/political ends. Speaking for the affirmative will be Anjem Choudary, Sulayman Keeler, Omar Brooks and Mohammed Shamsuddin.

Anjem Choudary is the former leader of the Islamist group Al-Muhajiroun (now banned in the UK), someone who described the 9/11 19 as "magnificent" and that attack as a justifiable reaction to 70 years of oppression and a part of the battle for the Law of God.

Sulayman Keeler is from al-Ghurabaa, a successor group to Al-Muhajiroun.

I don't believe in democracy. It's man made. You're talking about a government that taxes the people to death. It oppresses many millions of people in the world. It wouldn't be such a shame to have them overturned. You're talking about one man, Tony Blair, sends a bunch of aircraft into Iraq, bombs a bunch of people. You're talking about another man, Osama Bin Laden, who sends a bunch of aeroplanes into America and bombs a bunch of people - what is the difference? You tell me.
Omar Brooks is from the Saviour Sect, another descendent of Al-Muhajiroun.
They are so opposed to the British state that they see it as their duty to make no economic contribution to the nation. One member warned our undercover reporter against getting a job because it would be contributing to the kuffar (non-Muslim) system.

Instead, the young follower, Nasser, who receives £44 job seekers’ allowance a week, said it was permissible to “live off benefits”, just as the prophet Mohammed had lived off the state while attacking it at the same time. Even paying car insurance was seen as supporting the system. “All the (Saviour Sect) brothers drive without insurance,” he said.

Speaking to a group of teenagers and families, [Omar Brooks] declared it was imperative for Muslims to “instil terror into the hearts of the kuffar” and added: “I am a terrorist. As a Muslim of course I am a terrorist.”
Speaking against will be Berki Dibek, the Turkish ambassador, David Pidcock, of the UK Islamic party, and Shaheed Satardien, of the Supreme Muslim Council of Ireland.

I feel a sort of ghoulish fascination for this debate, one which derives entirely from the certainty that the speakers For have at the very least supported acts of violence against us and will more than likely do so again. I compare them to the revolutionaries I heard speak at university and marvel at how completely unserious they were in comparison with this lot. I do wonder how many of the impressionable, the weak-minded and the yearners for great gestures will look on the clarity of such folk and be enthralled. That dreadful simplicity of certainty.

No comments: