When are the Police going to arrest Abu Izzadeen on suspicion of incitement to murder?
This fellow, some of you may remember, is the loudmouth who heckled John Reid at an East London mosque, for daring to go to a ‘muslim area’ after many muslims had been arrested under this Government.
This deeply unpleasant man has reappeared in the news again, this time, advocating the beheading of any muslim who joins the British Army. He is seen on video uttering the following words to an apparently receptive audience:
“Whoever allies himself with the kaffirs [non-believers] against the believers, he is one of them. So those enemies to Allah who join the British Government - because remember, the British Government are crusaders who come to kill and rape Muslims - whoever joins them, he who joins the British Army, he is a mortal kaffir and his only hukum [punishment] is for his head to be removed.
…
“Whoever changes his deen [Muslim code of life]: Kill him.”
As expected, once confronted with the evidence, Izzadeen claimed that he was merely explaining islamic law to the audience.
Really? Does islamic law really say that, then? Not according to some other clerics who accuse Izzadeen of not speaking for islam. So which is it exactly? Does the koran ‘permit’ beheading in such circumstances, or does it not? Is it really just a question of interpretation? If Izzadeen is right, and the koran does say this, then we know that the problem is with the koran, first and foremost. Of course, legally speaking, whether or not the koran permits this, is immaterial. What matters is the law of the land. However, I feel we should still inquire into the source of all this confusion.
So what does the koran mean, and what does it not mean? I don’t know about you, but I am sick and tired of contradictory statements about what the koran does or does not mean. As a Bible scholar, I appreciate the challenges of interpretation that attend upon studying any scriptural text, but I think, in this case, enough is enough. It is one thing to debate leisurely the different interpretations of religious texts, but when that very interpretation is a matter of life and death, it is time to be serious. Arrest him and charge him, and let us see if he cites the koran in his defence.
UPDATE (8 February 2007). Sky News is reporting that he has been arrested, although this apparently relates to another speech he made, not the one mentioned above. The report says the arrest was made under the Terrorism Act. I would have thought the incitement charge was an easier one to handle, but I don’t know what other evidence the Police have.
February 7th, 2007 at 7:00 pm
I would say he is making up his own Islamic Law as he goes along, much as the Afrikaaners and others used Noah’s curse of Canaan to justify slavery.
But I agree, a nasty piece of work who can surely be charged with something.
February 7th, 2007 at 7:00 pm
After the current debacle concerning the schoolbooks with the derogatory language concerning Christians and Jews I wonder where and when will the line be drawn? Some have complained that my current post makes me sound like shaved head/tattoo/earring but while such leanings usually stem from ignorance - they often also stem from fear. I am starting to feel afraid and don’t know what to do.
February 7th, 2007 at 7:10 pm
Joe, are you stating unequivocally that these verses Abu Izzadeen is citing do not exist in the koran?
February 7th, 2007 at 7:42 pm
Bel: I entirely agree with you and these issues need to be addressed. Ann Widdecombe said on ‘Question Time’ last year that if she stood outside a mosque, chanting death to Muslims, she would be arrested. But is you stand outside Westminster Cathedral and chant death to the Pope, you get away with it. This has been going on too long. Any Muslim - or anyone for that matter - who incites death, should be arrested and tried before the courts. No exceptions. When are we going to get political leaders who are going to uphold the rule of law, fairly, and for everyone? I’ve put a link to your post on my blog.
February 7th, 2007 at 8:30 pm
It appears like a prima facea case of incitement to murder, IMHO.
February 7th, 2007 at 9:32 pm
Bel, I am sure the words ‘British Government’ and ‘British army do not appear in the koran. The first sentence of the quotation sounds genuine, the rest is his own interpretation. I cannot recall any passages in the Quran which call for decapitaton. The line at the end of your quote is more difficult; It almost certainly comes from a different part of the Quran from the first sentence and simply prescribes the death penalty for those muslims who break abrahamic law- similar to the same enjoinders in Leviticus. The two sentences are being falsely linked I’d say- I’ll dig the Quran out and see if I can find any such lines- you don’t know which suras?- as soon as this lackluste England game is over and let you know if I find anything close.
Either way, he is using his perversion of religion for foul ends.
February 7th, 2007 at 10:52 pm
OK Bel, I’ve scanned through all the Suras that might be relevant with no joy whatsoever. I’ve found plenty of passages about the judgement of Allah on unbelievers, but nothing close to this guy’s interpretation, so if there’s anything close it’s cunningly hidden somewhere not immediately apparent.
Either way, to accept his interpretation you have to accept;
1. That British Muslim soldiers are’enemies of Allah.
2 That the British government has endorsed a religously motivated campaign to rape and murder muslims.
3. That British Muslim soldiers are fighting to eliminate the faith as a whole. (To do that Britain would have to be at war with Islam, as a whole, in the sense that the Quran usually means it, that is the khalifat)
4. That decapitation is recommended for those who apostasise. It certainly does NOT say that in the Quran.
His explanation that he was explaining Islamic Law is patently silly; I would imagine the vast majority of respectable Sunni- or shia for that matter- Imams would agree.
February 8th, 2007 at 12:04 am
Joe,
The Qur’an tells believers to ’smite at the necks’ of unbelievers. Personally, I don’t want to find out if that’s tantamount to having my head removed from my shoulders but it looks a bit dicey to me.
A year or so ago, when the religious hatred laws were being framed (or slung together, to be more accurate) a delegation of Muslims - including, I believe Sir Iqbal Sacranie - visited the minister du jour (can’t recall who) and got government assurances that the Qur’an would be exempt from those very laws.
Those Muslims’ worries that their own holy texts could fall foul of laws against inciting religious hatred is revealing and at least suggests that nutters like Izzadeen might not be so far removed from some of the more colourful ideas expressed in the Qur’an.
The story appeared in the Muslim Weekly at that time (which is where I learnt about it).
February 8th, 2007 at 12:06 am
Oops - anonymous, above, was me.
I’m surprised Icould get away with forgetting to fill in any of the name/email/website fields!
Gary
February 8th, 2007 at 7:32 am
I say not: ‘When are they going to arrest?’ but when are they going to deport?
February 8th, 2007 at 8:03 am
Alas, deportation is not an option. Izzadeen is Hackney-born and bred.
February 8th, 2007 at 11:57 am
Personally, I have a problem with the offence of “incitement” as it assumes that the hearers are so weak-willed as to commit murder just because someone asks them. You could not incite me to murder. I am sure I could not incite you. Are this guys audience weaker than us?
These are all just words. Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me. Having said that, of course the law should be applied consistently so Ann Widdecombe’s point is essentially correct. Worse, the perception of Muslim privilege is causing inter-community tensions.
The Government has been caught short intellectually by the sudden collapse of multiculturalism. Guys like this are doing us a favour by expressing publically the views that have developed in the Muslim ghettos all unbeknown to us before 9/11 made them interesting.
Those ghettos arose because of the Government’s generosity with translators, social workers speaking immigrant languages, social security leaflets in those languages etc. etc. It is the host community’s fault that these people have not engaged with us. We, in our Guardian-reading naivety, facilitated it. We should always have expected everyone who become a citizen to sign up for our values. Sadly, no-one has told this guy what they are. Every time Postman Pat opens his mouth about what should be taught in our schools, we understand why.
Now we are all supposed to be shocked to find that many British Muslims have maintained the primitive, violent anti-Semitism of their countries of origin. By the logic of multiculturalism, that’s an “equally valid” point of view. Any of us who have pointed out in the last ten years that all points of view are NOT equally valid have been denounced as racists and sidelined.
As a country we have sown the wind and are now reaping the whirlwind.
February 8th, 2007 at 7:18 pm
I thought we are supposed to be at war against these sort of people, If they are an enemy should they not be eliminated? My biggest question is why the Muslim community does not stand up with extreme outrage when guys like this distort the Koran? I see the outrage among Christians when white supremacist’s distort the bible. I am starting to wonder if most Muslims believe this rhetoric.
February 8th, 2007 at 8:10 pm
The Qu’ran and Hadith certainly *do* justify beheading, but confusingly they also *do not* justify it at the same time. This is because nearly all Islamic doctrine has a duality about it, which we in the West do not easily understand. In ‘Jihad’, this dualism is used to support ‘al-Taqiyya’ or dissimulation, ie deceiving the enemy.
The confusing and stupid-sounding rhetoric we keep hearing from radical muslims is explained by this. For what its worth I wrote a piece on Taqiyya here:
There’s also a good (if slightly alarmist) piece on Islamic duallism here, which is illuminating:
Eric
February 8th, 2007 at 8:11 pm
. . not sure why I couldnt link but here goes again:
http://www.northwing.org/wp/?p=221
and: http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=26769
February 9th, 2007 at 1:53 am
Dear Friends.
There seems to be some confusion about the matter of Sharia law and the executing of one who changes his deen.
Sharia is built on 3 things.
1/ Quran
2/ Hadith
3/ Hitories.
Mainly the first 2. The ‘death for changing religion/deen’ is not found in the Quran but in the hadith.
Bukhari vol 4 book 52 number 260
Narrated ‘Ikrima: ‘Ali burnt some people and this news reached ibn ‘Abbas, who said, “Had I been in his place I would not have burnt them, as [Muhammad] said, ‘Don’t punish (anybody) with Allah’s Punishment.’ No doubt, I would have killed them, for [Muhammad] said, ‘If somebody (a Muslim) discards his religion, kill him.’”
http://www.masud.co.uk/ISLAM/misc/alshifa/pt4ch1sec2.htm
That web site seems to reflect the thinking of Abu Izzadeen.(its obnoxious)
I recommend all goto wikipedia on “Apostacy in Islam” for a good well documented treatment of the subject.
blessings all
February 9th, 2007 at 1:57 am
TWO MOST IMPORTANT THINGS
Yep.. the 2 most important things we in the West should do are:
1/ Gain an understanding of Islam, as per the REAL Islam of say Saudi Arabia and the such like. (As opposed to the sugar coated variety promoted by minority status Muslim communities living in the West.
2/ Begin to organize ourselves for the war which IS already going on.
-Pressure on Politicians
-Pressure on namby pamby ‘lets have a dialogue’ churches to get back to our own fundamentals.
-Be prepared to demonstrate EN MASSE against such things as the ‘cartoons protest’ which was in reality no less threatening than the German Blitz over London and a hell of a lot CLOSER.
“If any man would follow me, let him deny himself and take up his cross daily, and come after me” Jesus
February 18th, 2007 at 1:29 pm
Frankly, I do not care what the Koran says or not says, the man is of a type that has found a ‘role’ in life, and he wishes to enjoy that role. He may be a messenger, but those who listen to the message can either acept or reject the message, I suspect that a good majority just dismiss what he says without a second thought. The pandering to minority interests over and above the host community by ’social professionals, and the media ever in search of the sensational have given him a platform. If he is a foreign national he should be deported as not conducive to the public good. If he is Hackney born a bred, he can say what he likes, if he is found actively funding and taking part in terrorist activity he can be arrested. I am bit alarmed by somebody saying ’surely we can charge him with something’.
October 21st, 2007 at 10:28 pm
you had me suicidal, suicida. Liesbeth Kiki.