Resisting the Khilafah State

Hizb ut-Tahrir DK

I wrote last week about the Hizb ut-Tahrir conference that was held in Copenhagen on October 3. Pia Kjærsgaard, the leader of Dansk Folkeparti (the Danish People’s Party), has some choice words to say about the menace of Hizb ut-Tahrir’s open provocations in the heart of Denmark.

Many thanks to Anne-Kit for translating this piece from the Danish People’s Party website:

From Pia Kjærsgaard’s Weekly Newsletter:

4th October 2010

Islamists must be met with bans

For the past few weekends the [Danish] political parties have held their annual conferences, putting forward their views on the current political challenges. Perhaps it is with this in mind that the fanatical international Muslim “party” Hizb ut-Tahrir, which is banned in countries like Germany and Sweden, chose to hold their recruiting convention last Sunday at the Bella Centre [in Copenhagen].

Hizb ut-Tahrir DKIn Denmark Hizb ut-Tahrir is mainly notorious for distributing fliers calling for the killing of local Jews and Western government leaders who supported the war in Iraq. The party’s goal is the establishment of the Muslim “Khilafa”, or state, governed according to the Koran, complete with Sharia specialities such as stoning, lashing and chopping off of hands — plus of course oppression of women and the abolition of democracy.

If you went looking for celebration and happy delegates you would have looked in vain. The title “The role of Muslims in the West” set the tone for the proceedings in a strictly gender-segregated hall. Among other grievances, Hizb ut-Tahrir is angry that Western countries are trying to integrate Muslims and that Western women are “for sale” because they live as free individuals.

Hizb ut-Tahrir banner

Hizb ut-Tahrir’s Danish spokesman, Chadi Freigeh, claims that Muslim women are taken hostage by Western countries, and he unequivocally warns Muslims against integrating in the West. And like so many other fanatical Muslims before him he refused to answer critical questions from TV news reporters — perhaps because he didn’t like the sight of protesters outside the Bella Centre.

I do not intend to delve deeper into the substance of Hizb ut-Tahrir’s politics but will say only that the appearance and rhetoric of the party conjure up uncanny echoes of the fascist movements of the twentieth century. The Nazis too knew exactly what was best for women and had enormous “respect” for them. They were to be used as incubators to build the Third Reich — a precise analogy to the Khilafah state of Hizb ut-Tahrir.

Another Nazi analogy is the cultivation of violence — whether in the shape of exhortations to violence or direct violence. This brings us to the crux of the matter: As early as 2002, when Hizb ut-Tahrir was distributing fliers with Koran verses calling for the killing of Jews, Dansk Folkeparti (DF) [the Danish People’s Party] proposed a Bill to ban the party with reference to the Danish Constitution’s clause on “associations which operate by or encourage violence”. We repeated this proposal in 2008, but in vain.

Coincidentally it was in 2008 that Villy Søvndal kick-started the marked progress of Socialistisk Folkeparti (SF) [The Socialist People’s Party] with his declaration that Hizb ut-Tahrir should “go to hell” — but unfortunately his Party did not back up DF’s proposal; it was just hollow speech. What went wrong? The proposal failed because the State Prosecutor did not find evidence to suggest that Hizb ut-Tahrir was violent. Perhaps not, but is it not also violence to encourage and exhort to violence?

Hizb ut-Tahrir DKThat Hizb ut-Tahrir in 2010 can run a public meeting in Copenhagen, and to top it off has the blatant cheek to invite members of parliament and other public representatives to a gender-segregated Khilafah meeting at the Bella Centre, can only be interpreted as a complete mockery of Danish democracy.

But unfortunately this kind of mockery is a logical extension of another event organised by fanatics: A Ramadan dinner at Christiansborg [Parliament House] where SF’s Social Affairs spokesperson, Özlem Sara Cekic, offered herself up as a useful idiot for the Islamic/Turkish newspaper “Zaman”. After all, if these Islamists successfully invited themselves into the home of [Danish] democracy, why shouldn’t Hizb ut-Tahrir also try to invite politicians? What if even one of them swallowed the bait …?

But apart from Villy Søvndal’s solitary remark addressed to Hizb ut-Tahrir, SF don’t want to tangle with the Islamists. During a radio debate on freedom of expression last Sunday a member of SF’s National Leadership Committee, Mattias Tesfaye, declared that he was unwilling to take Hizb ut-Tahrir to task because he and his family live in Nørrebro [a heavily culture-enriched district of Copenhagen]. He much preferred traipsing around the country declaring that many employees are too scared to criticise their employers — something which can only be described as relatively risk-free, given that Danish bosses rarely employ the same methods as the Islamists.

No, in reality only Dansk Folkeparti has called for a ban on Hizb ut-Tahrir. As long as the party is legal it can hold public recruiting drives, and it is obvious that the Islamists have set their sights on rootless immigrant youths, among others. Opponents of a ban say that it won’t help and that it will make it harder to monitor activities if they are hidden. This is of course nonsense. When Hizb ut-Tahrir is banned any recruiting drives and leaflet distribution can be stopped immediately, and punishments implemented.

The conclusive argument is this: A ban on Hizb ut-Tahrir would constitute a signal to all that Denmark neither tolerates parallel societies with their own rules, nor silently accepts exhortations to violence and murder. A signal that the limits to freedom of expression have been exceeded when a party is allowed to encourage the killing of other people. Islamists should not be met with dialogue — they should be met with refusals and bans.


Pia Kjærsgaard

11 thoughts on “Resisting the Khilafah State

  1. It occured to me as I read this article that the goernment has no loyalty to its own native citizens a government presumably designed and made by them and for them. The situation has changed though, now with the importation of immigrants of a different identity and cultural belief system that is unashamedly and openly hostile to the native host people and culture, the government has deemed to continue with its equality philosophy. That means the government recognizes no rights above anothers and that includes a native population that would feel that this is their country and their house but this form of democracy breaks that down.
    If a person like a mulsim is a citizen and even if not but simply garunteed protection and equality then their no longer is a native family of people their is no longer a host and a guest they are all equally hosts and in a way guests, equal in every way, so that the law in the eyes of these wise ones cannot distinguish between or give an priority to a native culture because that would be racist, according to their philosophy.
    How do you escape the snare of this logic? Besides simply pointing out the repercussions and resuluts of such a policy which would mean the wiling destruction of the house itself and treating guests as equal to the host thereby neutralising any claim to ownership or more fundamental right? I mean it is logical and consistent in a purely logical way but it obviously is scary and unjust to some at the same time it is trechnically speaking just to all. I know it is wrong but I just would like some insights into how you untangle that knot. Is it by sheer will, is it a battle of will and raw want right now? Must it be by force? Because anything that one points to as a reason is automatically viewed as unwillingness to treat all eqaully and as racist or biased but even so , so what? I think then that the terms equal and equality and such need to be re-examined and redefined accordingly or else subsequent ideas must be developed and presented to deal with this issue.

  2. By what insight do you drive a wedge into this tight logic of the liberal? I look at the liberal as a person who is so simple that when they are presneted with an idea such as liberty and equality, its truth and beauty dazzles them and bewitches them, they latch onto it in a frenzy because of its clear and intuitive truth and then are unable to hold back. They are driven on in a mad frenzy by one idea that must be mitigated by other considerations but they are truly incapable of it, incapable of moderation. I’ll be honest with you, this has led me to think that aristotle was correct when he said that some men or slaves by constitution and nature and some are masters. I do not make any claim to genius but I don’t have such a low, slow and simply nature that I cannot make and understand fine distinctions of thought. I truly believe that those who are libs have a character, constitutional or mental or personality problem that disables them mentally from going fuirther than being good at and devoted fanatically to one concept at a time.The slaves are runiing the house now and the masters are under their power.

  3. Moral and cultural relativism is the key. That is where the attack should be waged, where the wedge should be driven.

    That is so much a fallacy, it cannot stand. The evidence is so thick, and it flies in the face of universal truth, which even liberals/Leftwingers claim to uphold via human rights.

    And example of the wedge, Islam’s female oppression vs women’s rights.

  4. EscapeVelocity: Moral and cultural relativism is the key. That is where the attack should be waged, where the wedge should be driven.

    That is so much a fallacy, it cannot stand. The evidence is so thick, and it flies in the face of universal truth, which even liberals/Leftwingers claim to uphold via human rights.

    And example of the wedge, Islam’s female oppression vs women’s rights.

    Your entire point bears repeating. The arguments of moral and cultural relativism are so threadbare that they must be demolished in front of those who are stupid enough to uphold them.

    Only the most hardcore Liberals will try to argue that a culture like Saudi Arabia’s, which chops off heads and hands, is equivalent to American culture. Such idiocy is rather easy to expose and rip several bright and shiny new ones.

    All who oppose Islam should continue to use the issue of women’s rights as a major way of forcing Liberals and feminists to repudiate their support for Muslims. Abject gender apartheid is so objectionable that is becomes quite difficult to defend under any conditions.

  5. And not just the rights of women – we must also highlight the fate of many Muslim apostates, and those that convert them. We must consider the fate of the non-Muslims who live in Muslim dominated lands – the Copts, Assyrians, Maronites, Druze, Baha’is, Zoroastrians and Jews. We must make mention of the chilling effect all of this has on debate on anything.

    There is much to work with. We need only shout it from the blogtops of cyberspace.

  6. LAW Wells: We must consider the fate of the non-Muslims…

    Unfortunately, two of Islam’s biggest targets are Jews and Christians. Since these are among the Left’s most despised enemies, there is little hope of garnering much sympathy for these victims of Islamic predation.

    As noted by EscapeVelocity, the situation with women’s rights is much different. Even though there are gender traitors like Germain Greer, far too many feminists are militant in their refusal to countenance spousal abuse and violence against women in general.

    What must be overcome is the taqiyya involving Islam’s supposed respect for women. Once a majority of feminists fully comprehend the profound iniquity of abject gender apartheid as practiced in Islam, little will be able to alter the subsequent and tremendously negative perception.

    If that one fundamental lie can be exposed, it will pull a significant keystone out of Islam’s overarching tangle of lies, deceit and mistruths. The rest will be a downhill battle by comparison, save for the bloodshed that still remains as certain as the sun’s rising in the east.

  7. Michael Servetus said…
    “It occurred to me as I read this article that the government has no loyalty to its own native citizens a government presumably designed and made by them and for them.”

    This actually applies to almost every government in “The West” at present. Once elected (whether by fair votes or fraud is immaterial) they go off and do their own thing. Britain is just finding that out after an election earlier this year.

    The ground is being prepared … [go read Revelation, Daniel, the later chapters of Isaiah, Ezekiel, and the Gospels]

Comments are closed.