Wednesday, December 22, 2010

U.K. Terror Plot Aimed at Landmarks and Public Places

Is anyone starting to notice a pattern?

LONDON – A large-scale terror attack was aimed at British landmarks and public spaces, security officials said Tuesday as more details emerged and police searched the homes of 12 British suspects being held for questioning.

The men — whose ages range from 17 to 28 — were arrested Monday in the largest counterterrorism raid in nearly two years. At least five were of Bangladeshi origin.

Lord Carlile, the government's independent watchdog for terror legislation, said Tuesday the alleged plot appeared significant and involved several British cities, but he did not identify the targets. Police have up to 28 days to either charge the men or release them.

Possible targets that were scouted include the Houses of Parliament in London and shopping areas around the U.K., according to a security official who spoke to The Associated Press on condition of anonymity because the investigation was ongoing.

The plot, however, was unconnected to a larger European plot uncovered in the fall involving a Mumbai-style shooting spree in cities across Britain, France or Germany, the official said. Monday's arrests were also unrelated to last week's suicide bombing in Sweden and the plot did not appear to be timed for the holidays, he said. (Read more.)


hugh watt said...

Guess this wouldn't be worth those guys time reading this then.

The Western European view of religion, achieved after
centuries of bloodshed, conflict and division, is that religion is
a matter of private belief and conscience. Islamic
fundamentalists do not share this view. They do not believe in the
nation state, democracy, the equality of women, or tolerance. They believe in Islamic theocracy, a universal Muslim society, the Umma, based on political rule according to the Qur’an and Sunnah.

Such views are simply incompatible with Western liberal democracy, and we have seen where such extremist beliefs can lead, for example in Afghanistan and Iran. The West has been amazingly lax in recognising the threat posed to its security, freedoms, values and the cohesiveness of society by Islamic fundamentalism. The terrorist atrocities in London of July 2005 showed just how dangerous these beliefs can be. The threat posed by Islamic terrorism is one common to most, if not all, European countries.

Islamic fundamentalists have however made great gains in the
propaganda war by convincing many non-Muslims that they are the true representatives of Islam, whereas they are not. The vast majority of Muslims that non-Muslims meet in every-day life are decent, respectable, law-abiding and hardworking. Western governments and societies have to offer them their support while standing firm against the extremists.

A great step forward in this process is Sam Solomon’s
Proposed Charter of Muslim Understanding. The Charter
allows Muslims from all strands of belief to make it plain that they reject those extremist interpretations of their religious
texts that promote or excuse violence and bring Islam into
conflict with the modern world. It affirms that they want to enjoy the freedoms of the West and live as law-abiding and peace-loving people. I very much hope that those groups claiming to represent Muslims will decide to sign and embrace it.

Gerard Batten MEP
December 2006

<a href=">A Proposed Charter of Muslim Understanding</a> By Sam Solomon

hugh watt said...


If Islam is a religion of peace, as portrayed by the Muslim
community and its clergy, and those acts of terrorism committed
in its name are the acts of few misguided individuals who have
misunderstood and misinterpreted its teaching, then Islam is
completely innocent of the violence and the terrorism that is
sometimes attributed to it.

Consequently, in extrapolating from this premise, one should
expect that in the light of the current terrorist threat perpetrated by some in the name of Islam that the faithful ones and the authorised scholars and experts call a general conference of its Ulema, the learned scholars of Islamic religion, to discuss
provisions such as laid out in this Charter. They should have no
objection to being signatories to it, and upholding its content
both in letter and spirit in the name of Islam and for the welfare
of their host societies and that of humanity at large.

We call on organisations representing the Islamic faith such as the European Council of Fatwa, the Muslim Council of Britain, the Al-Azhar, the Organisation of Islamic Conference, the Muslim World League and all its affiliates, national and international Islamic bodies, to endorse and sign this proposed Charter as an example to all European Muslims.

It is hoped that the Muslim leaders would agree that whosoever
deviates from the path of this Charter would have gone on an unIslamic path and thus such a person would be regarded as
outcast from the religion of Islam; hence a non-Muslim.

It is hoped that at least all European Muslim leaders and their
institutions both national and Europe-wide will be signatories to this Charter as the first expression of their desire to live in peace within their host countries, as law-abiding and peace-loving and peace-promoting communities alongside their non-Muslim neighbours.

Whatever their real or perceived grievances these need to be
addressed through proper channels and not through violence and terrorism.

hugh watt said...

Sounds good; but why aren't we seeing the Islamic community embracing this wholeheartedly? Perhaps this is a Q the Muslim visitors to this site would like to address.

hugh watt said...

Anyone explain what I'm doing wrong on these links?

Koala Bear said...

Hugh - that is very nice but the quran DOES tell muslims to kill non-believers and keep killing until there is no more fitna (disbelief) so they will effectively have to give up their entire religion if they sign that and I doubt that would ever happen. Have you read the quran because it has never been a "religion of peace" and never will be.

Quran 9.29 "Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Messenger have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection."

They love to say verses are "misquoted" but they aren't.

hugh watt said...


K Bear:

This is what the moderates want all Muslims to sign-up to. There's more to the Charter, hope I got this figured, again:
A Proposed Charter of Muslim Understanding By Sam Solomon

We the undersigned as the representatives of Muslim
communities in our capacity as leaders at various levels as
Muftis, Ulemas, Imams, community leaders, heads of Islamic
madrassas, Muezzins, Mazuns and all other Islamic relevant
offices including those of free thinkers and leaders of NGOs as
well as NOPs (Non-Profit Organisations), the leaders of youth and women’s groups, and leaders at all levels of Islamic
institutions commit to uphold, promote, propagate and abide by
these articles in letter and spirit of this Charter of Muslim

As you quite rightly say, if they hold to this charter, they'd have to deny Islam!

"We commit to the fostering and promotion of peaceful coexistence
across Europe in the spirit of one brotherhood amongst all humanity treating all as equals in accordance with the principles proclaimed in the charter of the United Nations, the United Nations’ Universal Declaration of Human Rights (General Assembly resolution 217A(III) of 1948), and the United Nations’ International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1966).

Whosoever breaches any of the articles stated and detailed below
will be regarded as a person outside the House of Islam, and
shall be denounced as a non-Muslim, and will find no protection in the Muslim community."

Well, this applies to them too.
The Charter makes interesting reading.

"Article 1
We will respect all other non-Muslim religions in word and deed
by issuing a clear fatwa with an immediate effect prohibiting:
a) The use of force and violence of any kind against the
followers of any[1] or all non-Muslim religions.

End note [1]

1 Refers to and includes Muslims of all factions. Thus from
the stance of Islamic jurisprudence it covers the various warring factions within the House of Islam."

So a fatwa has been declared against the 'radicals!'

hugh watt said...


"b) The issue of threats through any religious fatwa threatening with violence against institutions or assassination of
individuals or groups and followers of other religions who
may be domiciled in the affected localities or any other
country be it a Muslim majority or a otherwise

c) The use of any force in any form for whatever grievances
felt or actual
d) The killing or targeting of any civilian or civil institutions[2]
in Islamic and non-Islamic countries as a way and means
of addressing any of our grievances.

End note [2]

[2] Islam as expounded by its scholars is an all-encompassing
system (socio-political, socio-religious, socio-economical,
socio-educational, legislative, judiciary and military), cloaked and garbed in religious terminology. It does not
distinguish between sacred and secular. Fatwas by leading
scholars such as Yousif Al Qardawi have been issued legitimising the targeting of all, whether civilian or military personnel, as well as their institutions. It is important to note that there is a clear distinction between (a) and (d) in this article."

It's all good and well saying this, but the Qardawi's aren't buying it. Sura 9 does spoil the intention, somewhat. And just how did Muhammad express his grievances against the infidel?

"Article 2
We will respect and honour all civilisations, cultures, and
traditions of other nations and people irrespective of their ethnic or religious backgrounds.
This will be achieved by introducing a clear educational
programme through all Islamic institutions and outlets, as well
as organising special meetings to address youth:
a) By promoting brotherhood of all mankind without any religious or ethnic discrimination or differentiation
b) By declaring the equality of all men and women and the
profanity[3] of none
c) By insisting on the validity and the viability of national
domestic law; that it shall be fully adhered to and takes
precedence over the Shari’ah."

hugh watt said...


End note [3]

"3 The concept and the doctrine that all non-Muslims are profane (known as najees) is stated in Sura 9:28. This impurity is not only ceremonial but has practical implications, resulting in devaluation of and discrimination against non-Muslims."

Did Muhammad set such a precedence? Did he "respect and honour all" others, no matter their background? Will the Imams be teaching this along with the Koran any time soon? It sounds good but, many politicians do also.

S.3:110 “Ye are the best of peoples, evolved for mankind, enjoining what is right, forbidding what is wrong, and believing in Allah. If only the People of the Book had faith, it were best for them: among them are some who have faith, but most of them are perverted transgressors”. The Tafsir of Ibn Kathir explains the meaning in this way:

“You are the best of peoples ever raised up for mankind; you enjoin Al-Ma`ruf (all that Islam has ordained) and forbid Al-Munkar (all that Islam has forbidden), and you believe in Allah. And had the People of the Scripture (Jews and Christians) believed, it would have been better for them; among them are some who have faith, but most of them are Fasiqun (rebellious).”

"..equality of all men and women and profanity of none." Women are not "mentally deficient then? Jews and +ians are not, "the worst of creatures?" [S.98:6]

As for domestic law taking precedence over sharia, they say this, but in practise...

"Article 3
In the spirit of the saying, “Let there be no compulsion in
religion” (Sura 2:256), we commit to the upholding the value of
freedom, and in particular freedom of belief and expression. The
signatories hereby declare that religion is a private and personal
matter and a personal choice. It is neither a right of a community
nor a state’s right to dictate or interfere with a person’s personal
choice of faith.
a) As such there will be no recriminations against any Muslim
or non-Muslim who chooses to change, discard, or adopt
another faith be it within the House of Islam, from any Islamic faction, or to a non-Islamic religion or faith.
b) This concept will be re-issued as a binding fatwa across
Europe and offered for publication in national and local
newspapers in order to avoid any misinterpretations."

Well so much for Miss interpretation, she sure gets around.

goethechosemercy said...

The Western European view of religion, achieved after
centuries of bloodshed, conflict and division, is that religion is
a matter of private belief and conscience. Islamic
fundamentalists do not share this view.
end quote.

And they don't share it because they never fought the Wars of Religion.
The West earned its peace.
Islam has not.
And if Islam is truly profane, Muslims will never indeed know a moment's peace.