Brother Anjem Rocks!

Anjem Choudary is a Paki agitprop in Londonistan, who lives on social welfare and supports jihad. Choudary takes in a reported sum of £25,000 ($37,770) per year from the British welfare system while soldiers earn only $24,000 a year. Something is wrong  in once great Britain.

See here what he is up to these days:

MUSLIMS HOLD RALLY In Support of 9-11 Terrorists & World Trade Center Bombers (GWP)
Bk8_YaNIEAATuEd“Shia Rafidah you will pay”- that’s wonderful. (As always in this case, I’m rootin’  for both sides….)

What Max Boot Cannot Comprehend

by Hugh Fitzgerald

Max Boot and Matthew Doran proclaim in the New York Times that:

“There are five reasons to bring down President Bashar al-Assad sooner rather than later.”

Here is their Reason #1:

“First, American intervention would diminish Iran’s influence in the Arab world. Iran has showered aid on Syria and even sent advisers from its Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps to assist Mr. Assad. Iran knows that if his regime fell, it would lose its most important base in the Arab world and a supply line to pro-Iranian Hezbollah militants in Lebanon.

What exactly is meant by “Iran’s influence in the Arab world”? Iran has “influence” wherever there are Shi’a, or those who, like the Alawites, would like to pass as real Muslims and so do not object when others carelessly consider them to be Shi’a Muslims; indeed, they were glad to receive that description, some years ago, by an Iranian cleric. And no doubt the Alawites hope that the elements of their faith that are most obviously syncretistic, like the veneration of Mary – you can hardly visit an Alawite village without seeing pictures of Mary everywhere – will not be dwelled upon. That means Iran has influence among the Arab Shi’a in Iraq (though some of those Arab Shi’a are also Arab nationalists and suspicious of the Persian Shi’a), among the los-de-abajo Shi’a underclass that has been engaged in its slow demographic conquest of Lebanon, and among pockets of Shi’a elsewhere. But Sunni Muslims more and more hate and fear the Shi’a, now seen as hostile and treacherous elements claiming to be part of the Camp of Islam. In Egypt, the Ikhwan’s – Muslim Brotherhood’s – animosity is directed at the Shi’a, who are routinely denounced with ferocity.

It is much more likely that hatred toward Iran will grow and grow the longer the Syrian conflict goes on, and the more the evidence of Iran’s involvement is made known by the Sunnis in and out of Syria. The more Iranian money and weaponry and diplomatic support at the U.N. goes to the Assad regime, the more enraged become the Sunni Muslims, in Egypt, in the Gulf, in Pakistan (where Shi’a-bashing or even, when Sipah-e-Sahaba gets its way, Shi’a-murdering, is a Sunni sport and a pastime).

The war in Syria helps to divide and thus demoralize the Camp of Islam. Isn’t that a good thing? Why should the American government wish to bring that to a premature end?

Max Boot, and all those who think like Max Boot – such people as Senator McCain for example – the people who cannot bring themselves to admit what a fiasco the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have become because they supported them so stoutly at the outset, and they cannot allow themselves a glimmer of recognition that they were so wrong – have no sense because they do not think in the right terms. They do not think about Islam, the adherents of Islam, as a permanent menace, because they have never stopped to study Islam, its texts, its tenets, its attitudes, its atmospherics. They can’t even begin to recognize the damage being done to the wellbeing of Europeans by a large and growing Muslim population, they can’t allow themselves to understand the implications of the demographic conquest of that continent by Muslims, because that would require them to see, to admit to, the folly of the attempts to bring good government and prosperity to such Muslim states as Iraq and Afghanistan. They had, and have kept to, a policy that could make conceivable sense only if one pretends that Muslims can be won over, that Islam does not inculcate hatred toward Infidels, that Jihad does not mean what it means. They are stuck in the coils of their own nonsense.

We should wish the war in Syria to go on forever, or at least we should not wish to do anything to shorten it, or to prevent Shi’a Iran from further being drained of resources, and earning ever greater hatred from Sunni Muslims.

“Second, a more muscular American policy could keep the conflict from spreading. Syria’s civil war has already exacerbated sectarian strife in Lebanon and Iraq — and the Turkish government has accused Mr. Assad of supporting Kurdish militants in order to inflame tensions between the Kurds and Turkey.”

Why in God’s name would one wish to prevent “the conflict from spreading”? Why, when “Syria’s civil war has already exacerbated sectarian strife in Lebanon and Iraq”? Isn’t that “sectarian strife” pitting one brand of Muslims against another, a Good Thing? Why isn’t it? And if the regime of Erdogan is upset because, in a perfectly sensible strategy, the Assad regime has decided not to waste manpower in suppressing the Kurds in Syria, but allowing them to run their own region and even to worry the Turks so that many of them are now disenchanted with Erdogan’s foreign policy – thus weakening the regime of the PKP, weakening the hideous Erdogan, Gul, and Davutoglu, who just sentenced 300 senior military officers to long sentences, and who have been undercutting as well, by prosecution, and persecution, journalists, university rectors, and other pillars of Kemalism – the secular class without which Turkey would be like any of its Arab neighbors.

We should want the conflict in Syria “to spread” – that is, to have repercussions in Lebanon, with the Sunni Muslims becoming most alarmed about Hezbollah, as an agent of “Shi’a” Syria and Shi’a Iran, and in Iraq, with the Sunnis determined not to allow Maliki, or any other Shi’a, to consolidate power, and in Yemen, with the Sunnis – indeed, the Uber-Sunni Salafis – fighting the Houthis in northwestern Yemen, and in Saudi Arabia, with the government more alarmed about Iranian inroads among the Shi’a in the oil-bearing Eastern Province, and in Bahrain, and in Kuwait, and in…well, you get the idea.

When in the course of history has anyone advocated unifying one’s enemies, seeing division in the enemy camp as something to be avoided? Oh, that’s easy. When such people as Max Boot are running things, and trying, with great and expensive efforts, to prevent the Sunnis and Shi’a from fighting with each other in Iraq, to prevent the most fanatical Sunni Afghans (the Taliban) from attacking the Shi’a Hazara.

And that’s because Max Boot and those who think like Max Boot cannot see Islam, the Camp of Islam, as the enemy. And that’s what fatally vitiates their self-assured policy prescriptions.

Third, by training and equipping reliable partners within Syria’s internal opposition, America could create a bulwark against extremist groups like Al Qaeda, which are present and are seeking safe havens in ungoverned corners of Syria.

“Could create a bulwark against extremist groups like Al Qaeda”?

Look, Islam, the world of Islam, is full of “extremist groups” and this continued fixation by Max Boot and Matthew Doran on only one among them, and that one predictably Al Qaeda, by no means the most dangerous, but only the most sensational, is at this point tiresome and silly. Think of the names that have passed into your ken over the past decade: Ansar al-Islam, Ansar al-Sharia, Lashkar-e-Taiba, Hamas, Hezbollah, Sipah-e-Sahaba, Lashkar Jihad, Jaish-e-Mohammad, and so forth and so bloodily forth. I’ve left out dozens; you can google them up yourself from McElligot’s Wikipedia Pool any time you want. And then there are the groupuscules. And then there are the Muslims, raised on the same Qur’an and the same Hadith, who decide to participate directly in violent Jihad themselves, rather than serve as paymasters, or propagandists, or quiet supporters, or as people who, in denying that Islam teaches what it teaches, attempt – out of sinister self-interest or out of filial piety or out of embarrassment, it hardly matters to the poor misinformed Infidels — to discourage intelligent critical scrutiny of Islam.

Where, in what Muslim country, have the “extremists” been thrown into disarray by a “democratic” revolution? In Tunisia, where the Salafists have been smashing art exhibits, and threatening the secular class that formerly dominated in Tunisia? In Egypt, where the Muslim Brotherhood has menaced, and carried out attacks on, Christians and on Muslims it has decided are behaving un-Islamically? In Yemen — is that where Al Qaeda has been roundly or soundly defeated, because Ali Saleh is out of power, or is Yemen the very state where even the American government, even the Obama Administration, now says the greatest threat from Al Qaeda is to be found? Shall I go on? How is Al Qaeda, or how are “extremist groups,” rather — Sunni and Shi’a — doing in Iraq? Has Iraq become a place where Islam is more, or less constrained than it was under Saddam Hussein?

What’s wrong with Max Boot, and all the max-boots?

They don’t want to study. They don’t want to read the dozens of Western scholars who, before the Great Inhibition set in, wrote about Islam. They don’t want to read Goldizher, Zwemer, Schacht, Snouck Hurgronje. Lammens They don’t want to read Dufourcq. Fagnan, Bousquet or Sir William Muir,  K. S. Lal or the works of Bat Ye’or. They can’t sit still long enough – they’ve forgotten how to study – they don’t want to listen to Ibn Warraq, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, or Ali Sina. They don’t know the names of the ex-Muslims who signed the St. Petersburg Declaration, and they don’t even know what that St. Petersburg Declaration is. They’re too busy, writing articles for major newspapers, delivering lectures, showing up at meetings of the assorted foreign-affairs groups in major cities. They don’t have time to think. In this regard, they are exactly like the people in high office who, running around all day, having meetings, getting bullet-riddled executive summaries of what’s going on now in this country, and now in that, taking planes, having pictures taken as they smile with some fellow world leader or someone, as the business-speak would have it, “taking a leadership role” – oh, they have no time to study and think.

That’s Max Boot.

That’s dozens of max-boots.

“Fourth, American leadership on Syria could improve relations with key allies like Turkey and Qatar. Both the Turkish prime minister, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, and his Qatari counterpart have criticized the United States for offering only nonlethal support to the rebellion. Both favor establishing a no-fly zone and “safe zones” for civilians in Syrian territory.

Any improvement in relations with Turkey will only come about when those who have been busily dismantling the pillars of Kemalism, and making Turkey look more and more like a police state — and that means Erdogan, his cronies, and his party — have been discredited, have lost support and power and influence. And that will allow the secular class to reassert itself with a resurrected secular officer corps (and with those 300 kangaroo-court-railroaded high officers not only freed, but reinstated in their posts).

In Turkey, right now – which, pace Boot and Dolan, is not one of our “key allies” but, under Erdogan, has become the most worrisome and untrustworthy member of NATO – the public is disenchanted with Erdogan and his party. And the main reason for that is not the outrageous treatment of the officer corps and the threats to journalists, but the situation in Syria. The violence there has consequences for Turkey. There are tens of thousands of Syrians – Sunni Muslims mainly – who have fled to Turkey, and who are a weight on the Turkish economy. They are not grateful, they are not winning friends; they have outstayed their welcome. And the Alevis in Turkey, who have suffered from rough treatment by Sunnis, have been made aware that in Syria the Alawites, who are loosely linked to them, are fighting for their lives against Sunnis. And Kurds in Turkey, more than 15 million of them, have noticed that Kurds in Syria are not joining the insurgency, but are enjoying, instead, their new-found freedom from rule by the Syrian government and, as in northern Iraq, are making use of that semi-autonomy to exploit the pre-existing resentment against Turkish rule among the Kurds in Turkey. Oh, the Syrian situation is a mess for Erdogan, and may help to bring about his downfall. So why would Max Boot urge the American government to do the bidding, not of Turkey, but of Erdogan?

As for the urgings of the waddling emir of Qatar, he’s been making grand pronouncements all over the place. Despite all the publicity given – simply by putting its picture on every airport wall, and on many television stations – this thing called “the Qatar Foundation” is simply designed to make us forget that Qatar is a place, with 200,00 Qataris and 1.6 million others to wait, hand and foot, on those spoiled-beyond-belief Qataris who, furthermore, have done not a thing to deserve their riches. And we are expected to think highly of Qatar – but why? The “Qatar Foundation” plays the same role, in publicizing what is really, civilisationally,  a permanent Empty Quarter (“Money can buy everything — except civilisation” said my Parisian acquaintance after spending a few years in Saudi Arabia as an architect of military cities) as do those omnipresent tee-shirts that read “Emirates” – an ad for the airline, an ad for the country.

Does Max Boot think that the Americans have won favor in Qatar by intervening in Libya, for example? What kind of favor? And where such favor to be found, what would it matter? Has Qatar done anything, can Qatar do anything, for the West? And what about Erdogan’s Turkey? Has he been less inclined to create a police-state where Islam is fully unconstrained, instead it is Kemalism that is constrained, because he’s so grateful that the Americans and other NATO forces flew 5,000 sorties over Libya? No, he isn’t.

Why, given what a more powerful Sunni Islam in Syria would mean within that country, for its Christians, Druse, and Kurds, and how it would help resurrect Erdogan’s fortunes and domestic appeal, should the American government wish to follow what Turkey and Qatar want, in a vain attempt to “win” favor from the rulers and regimes of those countries? Why should the Americans be doing anything to help Sunni Muslims establish themselves in Syria, where they will ultimately only be a danger to the West (and of course to Israel as the most obvious part of, representative of, that non-Muslim West).

We want Erdogan to fail, or should. And therefore we should want the Syrian conflict to go on for as long as possible, and ideally, in the end, with the Alawites prevailing – but only just, so that they have their hands full in maintaining control of Syria, and have no time for helping Hezbollah in Lebanon, and even may find that their connection to Iran – which may in any case get sick of the drain on its resources supporting the Alawites – is not worth continuing if the West will, in an unstated understanding, refuse to act against the Alawites as long as the Alawites no longer act as an ally of Iran. An Alawite regime concentrated solely on maintaining itself in power – that would be the ideal outcome for Syria. Ideal, that is, for the West.

And isn’t the wellbeing of the West what should matter to the West?

“Finally, American action could end a terrible human-rights disaster within Syria and stop the exodus of refugees, which is creating a burden on neighboring states. Mr. Obama pledged earlier this year to strengthen the government’s ability “to foresee, prevent and respond to genocide and mass atrocities.”

What “terrible human-rights disaster”? Why are the Sunni Muslims who decided to flee to Turkey and Jordan more worthy of our sympathy and concern than the millions of refugees all over sub-Saharan Africa? Do the Syrian refugees in Turkey not live much better, from a material standpoint, even as refugees, than most people who are not refugees in sub-Saharan Africa, India, the Philippines, and in many other places? I never saw a single word, not in the last ten years, written by that great enthusiast for the Iraqi venture, Max Boot, about the Christian refugees who had to flee Iraq. Why not? Because even to mention them would be to start to question the rightness of that venture, and Max Boot doesn’t want to consider that the wellbeing of non-Muslims in Muslim lands ought to be the first priority for the West. Are the Copts in Egypt, more than ten million of them, better off under the Ikhwan rule of Mohammed Morsi, or were they better off under Mubarak? Are the Christians in a Syria under Alawite control better off, or worse, than under rule by Sunni Muslims? This is something Max Boot doesn’t want to touch. And he doesn’t want to touch it because his mindless enthusiasm for the ventures in Iraq and Afghanistan, not the initial support for a quick operation to smash Al Qaeda bases in one country, and to destroy or remove weapons of mass destruction (which turned out not to be found) in the other, has nothing to do with supporting another decade of expensive and vain attempts to make Afghanistan, to make Iraq, better places – which can’t be done until more people in those countries are forced to recognize, as Ataturk and those who supported him did, that Islam was the problem, Islam explained the many failures of their peoples and polities.

That’s not something Max Boot can comprehend — not now, and very likely, not ever.

 (October 2012)

2 thoughts on “Brother Anjem Rocks!”

    1. G-d forbid that something happens to brother Anjem!

      Chaudary is a national treasure. A Muslim who tells the truth, a rabid headbanger who makes no beef and no taqiyya about the cult of Islam is worth every penny of the dole he steals. Unforgettable, his interview with the incredibly ignorant and annoying Stephen Sackur on BBC:


      Choudary:“when we say ‘innocent people’ we mean Muslims … if you are a non-Muslim then you’re guilty of not believing in God” (3m 41s) In this video, Anjem Choudary talks about the Islamist terrorist attacks – 7/7 in London.

      INTRODUCTION BY STEPHEN SACKUR: The four young Muslim men believed to have conducted the suicide bomb attacks on London on July 7th (2005) were British – a homegrown cell. Who recruited them? Who convinced them of the righteousness of murdering innocent civilians? The British government is planning new measures against what they call ‘preachers of hate’, but defining the boundaries between free speech and incitement poses a massive challenge for the Police and for Muslim communities. HardTalk has interviewed a number of Muslim figures. My guest today was till last year the leader of the radical Islamist group Al-Muhajiroun in the UK.

      Stephen Sackur, Interviewer: Anjem Choudary, welcome to HARDTalk.

      Anjem Choudary: You’re welcome.

      Stephen Sackur, Interviewer: Let’s go back to July 7th. What was your first reaction when you heard of the bomb attacks in London?

      Anjem Choudary: Our first reaction as Muslims was – ‘why did this take place in London’. And er … ‘what have we done to make ourselves in a position where people are wanting to throw bombs or to detonate bombs in the heart of the city of Great Britain’.

      Stephen Sackur, Interviewer: Did you … did you assume from the beginning it had been done by Muslims?

      Anjem Choudary: Well we can’t make assumptions of … er … who carried out … er … er … bombings in London. Obviously the IRA were active until very recently. There are other people who have er … er … er grudges … who have axes to grind I’m sure against the British government, but at the end of the day … er … there was every likelihood that Muslims would retaliate against the atrocities that the British government was committing in Iraq and in Afghanistan and the support of the er … state of Israel, was always going to have some kind of repercussions.

      Stephen Sackur, Interviewer: Far from being surprised, you expected it?

      Anjem Choudary: Well we expected er … we, we said that there was always a possibility of there being retaliation from Muslims against Britain if Britain did not withdraw their forces from Iraq and if they did not stop meddling … if they did not … er … stop meddling in the affairs of Muslims.

      Stephen Sackur, Interviewer: See, when you look at what was said by for example Sheik Omar Bakri the leader of Muhajiroun, he said going back to 2004, in a Portuguese magazine and I quote “there are freelancers ready to launch Al Qaeda style attacks. I know they are on the verge of launching a big operation in London.” It sounds like he knew, he knew something.

      Anjem Choudary: No, the difference between er … judging the er … the political situation properly and obviously those people who are living in a cocoon. I mean you don’t need to be blind to appreciate that if you’re going to have a foreign policy where you’re occupying a country – let’s face it Baghdad doesn’t lie between London & Birmingham – it’s in another country. If you’re going to send forces over there, if you’re going to occupy someone’s land, if you’re going to support a state which is stealing the land of the Muslims, which is the state of Israel in Palestine, if you’re going to be carpet bombing a country …

      Stephen Sackur, Interviewer: [interruptions] I’ve allowed you … I’ve allowed you to lay out the case which links in your view the bombings with Iraq. But let me just ask you this question, before we get into all of that – will you unreservedly condemn what happened in London?

      Anjem Choudary: No we’re not in the business of condoning and condemning. I mean this question has been posed many times to Muslims over the last few weeks and it seems ironic that when er … er … over a hundred thousand, up to a million er … Muslims died in Iraq because of the sanctions …

      Stephen Sackur, Interviewer: Yeah but we are not talking about Iraq at this moment.

      Anjem Choudary: … but this is important because …

      Stephen Sackur, Interviewer: We are talking about the bomb attacks in London which killed over 50 civilians including Muslim civilians. Civilians from all over the world murdered, plain and simple. Will you condemn it?

      Anjem Choudary: What I will say is that er … you need to have a look at the whole picture. If you’re going to be running around asking for condemnations, if you’re going to be putting … if you’re going to be pointing the finger of responsibility towards Muslims, if you’re going to be introducing new laws and you’re going to then turn a blind eye to your own policies overseas and you’re not going to take any responsibility, and far more Muslims have died because of the British foreign policy in … er … in Muslim countries. You need to start condemning your own foreign policy … you can’t …

      Stephen Sackur, Interviewer: [interrupts] All right, I think we’ve established you will not condemn it. I just wonder why you won’t condemn it when your own leader Omar Bakri said quite simply, “I condemn the killing of innocent people” on the 20th of July. Why won’t you say what he says?

      Anjem Choudary: Look, at the end of the day innocent people, when we say “innocent people” we mean Muslims. As far as non-muslims are concerned they have er … they have not accepted Islam and as far as we are concerned that is a crime against God.

      Stephen Sackur, Interviewer: I want to be clear about what you’re saying. This is very important. You’re saying only Muslims count as innocent people.

      Anjem Choudary: As far as Muslims are concerned you’re innocent if you … if you are a Muslim then you’re innocent in the eyes of God. If you’re a non-Muslim then you’re guilty of not believing in God. Yes, there were many ‘victims’ …

      Stephen Sackur, Interviewer: You’re guilty, guilty. Are you seriously suggesting that everybody on those Tube trains and on that bus in London on July the 7th was in some way a legitimate target?

      Anjem Choudary: If you don’t allow me to answer the question fully Stephen, you’re never going to get to the bottom of it. Let me … let me begin by saying as a Muslim you must have allegiance where the Sharia says that you have allegiance. You must hate and love for the sake of Allah. You must praise and dispraise for what the Sharia says you praise and dispraise. So as a Muslim I must support my Muslim brothers and sisters, wherever they are in the world. I must have allegiance with them. I must co-operate with them. I must love them. And similarly on the other hand I must have hatred towards everything which is non-Islam …

      Stephen Sackur, Interviewer: [interrupts] And you know what, I’m trying not to interrupt you too much. But I still don’t feel you have addressed my question.

      [interruptions]Anjem Choudary: I’m going to come onto your point … I’m coming on to your point …


      Stephen Sackur, Interviewer: Were those people on the underground trains and on the bus legitimate targets because they were not Muslims?

      Anjem Choudary: I’m coming onto your point … I’m coming on to your point

      Stephen Sackur, Interviewer: … even though some of them actually were muslims …

      Anjem Choudary: You asked about two or three different questions … you’ve asked about innocence, you’ve asked about whether they were legitimate targets, you’ve asked about whether I’m condoning or condemning, you’ve asked about whether I praise [indecipherable …]


      Stephen Sackur, Interviewer: We’ve moved on from that. I’ve asked you a very simple question

      Anjem Choudary: All of those questions deserve to be answered and obviously we have the time to explore them, so if I just continue with this particular point. As far as Muslims are concerned their allegiance is always with the Muslims, so I will never condemn a muslim for what he does. Indeed I must stand with him whether he is an oppressor or oppressed. Now as far as those people who did the operation on 7/7 are concerned, if their actions were in line with the sharia and only God can judge that, then they will be er … they will get the reward for that. If they weren’t in line with the sharia then obviously they will get their … they will get the result of that on the day of judgement. As far I am concerned I can only see whether it is a legitimate one according to the sharia or illegitimate according to the sharia.

      Stephen Sackur, Interviewer: When you take that position you must accept that you are isolated from the world of muslim thinking and scholarship. If one looks at the statements made by 40 muslim clerics, leading clerics and scholars in the United Kingdom, if one looks at the statements made by, for example, one of the leading clerics in Pakistan, I can quote them all to you, they all say that what happened in London was absolutely against Islam.

      Anjem Choudary: You think that a hundred even a thousand government scholars, people who are doing the bidding of their own governments, people who are quite willing to sit with Tony Blair and to push his own domestic and foreign policies… as far as Islam is concerned …

      Stephen Sackur, Interviewer: What … what … what right do you have …?

      Anjem Choudary: Let me set out … let me set out the Islamic position because you want to know what Islam says … as far as Islam is concerned – on the issue of suicide, if someone were to take his own life because of depression or because he’s ill or because he cannot continue his life, this is something which is condemned in Islam. However, for someone who is fighting against people who are occupying their land. For someone whose house has been bombed for example in Afghanistan or in Iraq, they have a legitimate right to respond. Allah says in in the koran “fight those in the way of Allah who fight against you”. He said “do aggression against those people who do aggression against you …”

      Stephen Sackur, Interviewer: You know as well as I do we’re talking about civilians sitting on a train in London …

      Anjem Choudary: [interruptions] However, however, however I’m coming onto that point … however, as far as Great Britain is concerned Al Muhajoureen has been on record for the last eight years during which we’ve been in existence saying that the British … the people … the Muslims who are living in Britain are living in Britain under a covenant of security. In other words as long as the lives and the world of the muslims are not targeted then the muslims are not allowed to target the lives and the world of the people who they’re living with. However, what the British government did over the last year, er … particularly since they entered into Iraq, is that they breached that covenant of security.

      Stephen Sackur, Interviewer: I simply want to ask you whether you feel that you have any credibility in your own community given the statements, and I’ll read some of them, from UK muslim scholars – joint declaration on the 15th July, quote – “We regard these acts as totally reprehensible, absolutely unislamic. These killings had no sanction in Islam“. It could not be clearer. Mufti Rafi Usmani, one of Pakistan’s leading clerics said on July 23rd – “Islam does not allow killing of innocent civilians and non-combatants under any circumstances”. And to go back even further, the Grand Sheikh Mohamed Sayed Tantawi of Al-Azhar which as you know is the highest seat of Sunni Muslim learning in Egypt …

      Anjem Choudary: Nonsense, he’s a government scholar …

      Stephen Sackur, Interviewer: … he said “extremism is the enemy of islam”, he said “suicide bomb attacks on civilians had nothing to do with the Islamic concept of jihad …”

      Anjem Choudary: Yeh, but I don’t follow … I don’t follow any of these people …

      Stephen Sackur, Interviewer: You don’t follow any of these people …

      Anjem Choudary: No, none of them, of course, they’re government scholars. They are people who have sold out the muslims worldwide, they are people who are doing their government’s bidding. Talk to people like Abu Mohammed al Maqdisi … talk to people like [indecipherable ] Mohammed …. talk to people like Sheikh Abu Qatada … talk to people like [indecipherable]. There are many Ummah around the world, people who do not compromise their beliefs, people who only stick to the koran and the sumah the traditions of the message of Mohammed, according to the understanding of the sahaba. I can give you …

      Stephen Sackur, Interviewer: Do you regard … do you regard Osama bin Laden as a scholar? Do you regard Osama bin Laden as a legitimate scholar?

      Anjem Choudary: I can give you …

      Stephen Sackur, Interviewer: Do you regard Osama bin Laden as a scholar?

      Anjem Choudary: He’s a fighter … and he’s the emir of jihad worldwide and er … and he’s a … he’s a learner, he’s a learner …

      Stephen Sackur, Interviewer: You believe he has a sort of muslim credibility, do you?

      Anjem Choudary: Of course he does. If you talk to the muslims around the world I can guarantee you if you had an election in any country, any muslim country in the world today that … Sheikh Osama bin Laden would be more popular than the leaders that you have at the present time.

      Stephen Sackur, Interviewer: Let’s, let’s talk … no let’s talk …. let’s talk about your position and how it relates to the British muslim community. Polls have shown since July 7th, 9 out of 10 British Muslims believe violence has no place, absolutely no place in any political … [indecipherable] [interrupted]

      Anjem Choudary: [interrupts] I’ll just make a [indecipherable] point, I’m not going to for make it for very long but the point is as a Muslim your reference is not the majority or the minority, your reference is not those so-called Muftis or government scholars you’ve been quoting, your reference is the koran and the traditions of the message of Mohammed according to the understanding of the sahaba. That is the divine sahaba. And if you ask me about that, I will tell you that in the koran in chapter 9 of the koran verse 111, Allah says that Allah has bought from the believers their lives and their wealth and in return he is giving them paradise – ‘you will fight, you will kill and be killed’.

      Stephen Sackur, Interviewer: You were born in this country. You are British. Did it not cause you any personal pain when those bombs went off, when those people were killed?

      Anjem Choudary: Stephen, first of all if you are born somewhere that doesn’t make you have any kind of allegiance. If you were born in a barn it doesn’t make you a horse. I was born in Britain. I believe the whole of the world belongs to God. I believe that the law of Allah must be prevalent on the earth. So yes I’m … Great Britain …

      Stephen Sackur, Interviewer: You have no allegiance to Great Britain?

      Anjem Choudary: No, I have no allegiance to Great Britain whatsoever. I have no allegiance to the queen, I have no allegiance to the prime minister. As a muslim when you say “La ilaha illa-llah“, you say that ‘I obey, I serve, I submit, I follow no-one except for Allah”.

      Stephen Sackur, Interviewer: Do you … do you hate Britain? The country which has raised you, which has educated you?

      Anjem Choudary: No, this is not … it’s not right that the country raised me. The fact is I was raised by my parents and I learnt my Islam from scholars qualified in Islamic law.

      Stephen Sackur, Interviewer: When … when did you adopt the positions you have now? I mean you went to school here, you went to university in this country. When did you decide that you had absolutely no allegiance to Britain, that you would pursue a course which in many ways is absolutely antipathetic to Britain?

      Anjem Choudary: It’s not to Britain … you see you need to make a distinction between the … the country, the trees and … and the … and the er… the livestock here. We have nothing against the er … the country as far as Britain is concerned …

      Stephen Sackur, Interviewer: Never mind the trees and the livestock, you certainly have something against the people.

      Anjem Choudary: No but wait a second, wait a second … but as far as the authority is concerned and as far as the people who support the authority yes, certainly we have something against them. As muslims we must do because they are the people who are supporting the genocide in Muslim countries. As far as my own Islam is concerned yes I mean I met er … Sheikh Omah Bakri Mohammed, I studied at the sharia … er at the London School of Sharia. I learnt a lot of the things that I believe today from him and … er … he … he … not because he himself has his own personal opinions but because everything he says is based upon the koran and the traditions of the [messenger(?)] Mohammed.

      Stephen Sackur, Interviewer: I want you to get away from rehearsed answers. I want you to address me as a human being, as somebody who lives in London, who was born in London, I just want to get down to the personal feelings you have. Did you not have any pain in your heart when it happened on July 7th?

      Anjem Choudary: When what happened? When the Muslims in Palestine were killed?

      Stephen Sackur, Interviewer: [interrupts] No when the bombs off …

      Anjem Choudary: [interrupts] When the muslims in Iraq were killed?

      Stephen Sackur, Interviewer: [interrupts] … bombs went off in the underground trains and on the bus.

      Anjem Choudary: [interrupts] When the Muslims in Chechnya were killed? A lot of things happened on July 7th. Why is it that you are you only focussing on Great Britain? Why is it that when it comes to the British blood that is real blood and when it comes to the Muslims blood it can run like water. Where was the minute’s silence …

      Stephen Sackur, Interviewer: Do you think, do you think there are many muslims in this country who feel like you … do you


      Anjem Choudary: Stephen where was the minutes silence? How many minutes silence did you have for the one million muslims who were killed because of your sanctions in Iraq.

      Stephen Sackur, Interviewer: Do you think …?

      Anjem Choudary: How many minutes silence did you have for Chechnya?

      Stephen Sackur, Interviewer: Do you think, do you think…?

      Anjem Choudary: … if you cared so much about people then the answer to that would be that you did care, that you condemned your government’s policy in Chechnya and Palestine.

      Stephen Sackur, Interviewer: You may choose not to answer my questions but I will keep asking them.

      Anjem Choudary: Stephen I’m asking you …

      Stephen Sackur, Interviewer: I’m asking the questions. I will ask the same questions until you answer them. How many muslims in the United Kingdom do you believe feel like you?

      Anjem Choudary: I believe that there are many Muslims who refer only to the koran and the sumarah (?) and who have allegiance only with the Muslims. The fact is because of your draconian laws that you have in this country, because of the arbitrary arrest and detention of many people including some of the scholars, because of the raiding of the mosques, people are not going to speak up …

      Stephen Sackur, Interviewer: Let me ask you something, it’s a hypothetical question but let me ask you something …

      Anjem Choudary: [interrupts] … but the thing is it’s irrelevant, you know why because even if there was just one person, even if it was just me, the fact is that your allegiance and your emotions must be in line with the sharia, not in accordance with public opinion.

      Stephen Sackur, Interviewer: If you had met the four men who planted those bombs on the train and the bus, on the eve of their actions, what would you have said to them?

      Anjem Choudary: But this is irrelevant, isn’t it,

      Stephen Sackur, Interviewer: I’m asking you …

      Anjem Choudary: … because … it didn’t happen did it? it didn’t happen.

      Stephen Sackur, Interviewer: I’m asking … of course it’s hypothetical but I’m trying to get into your mindset. Would you have tried to stop them?

      Anjem Choudary: Yeh, well, I’ll answer that with a question. If those people who were on the trains were alive today do you think they’d ask the British government to withdraw their troops from Iraq? To stop occupying somebody else’s land?

      Stephen Sackur, Interviewer: That is nothing to do with the issue I’m trying to wrestle with.


      Anjem Choudary: To stop supporting the pirate state of Israel?

      Stephen Sackur, Interviewer: [interrupts] That is nothing to do with the desire to use violence in this country you have no interest in reporting that to the British police authorities ..

      Anjem Choudary: It’s got everything to do with it, because that is the cause. The fact is it’s irrelevant, because whatever I’d said to those people they probably would have done it anyway so it doesn’t matter does it. The fact is that unless you deal with the cause then you’re going to have the same effect. It’s only today that Ayman al Zawahari …

      Stephen Sackur, Interviewer: You feel no duty whatsoever to report what you hear about …

      Anjem Choudary: … it’s only today … only today .. it’s only today …


      Stephen Sackur, Interviewer: … people who may have the desire to use violence in this country, you have no interest in reporting that to the British police, the authorities …


      Anjem Choudary: We’re not going to have any kind of allegiance to the government or to the police. The fact is that we’ve been on record, Sheikh Omar Bakri Mohammed himself has said that he is willing to enter into a dialogue and debate with those so-called moderate and secular muslims in order to find a solution. The youth have been controlled in this country for a decade. Two generations were controlled by someone like Sheik Omar Bakri Mohammed, when he could function, when he was propagating Islam. But when the government started to clamp down on the so-called clerics and the so-called extremists, when they said that we’re going to ban your venues, when they started arresting people then those youths became loose, so they started refer to other people, they started going abroad. You find now that there’s a link between Ayman Zawahari … and what’s happening in the city of London.

      Stephen Sackur, Interviewer: Do your own … do your own … do your own parents feel the same way you do.

      Anjem Choudary: Of course my parents feel the same. My father […] passed away but my mother agrees with me 100%.

      Stephen Sackur, Interviewer: Let’s talk a little about Muhajiroun the organisation that you led in the UK. It’s dissolved isn’t it?

      Anjem Choudary: It’s dissolved, absolutely

      Stephen Sackur, Interviewer: But what was its role?

      Anjem Choudary: Its role was to call the muslims … to call the muslims and the non-muslims to embrace Islam as a way of life, to ask them to … to er … embrace the sharia as a divine [law & order?] …

      Stephen Sackur, Interviewer: You raised money. Where did that money go? What is it for?

      Anjem Choudary: Al-Muhajiroun was never a jihadi organisation that’s why it dissolved. When the British government breached the covenant of security under which Muslims were living in this country for decades, when they decided to murder muslims overseas, when they decided that muslims can’t practise their religion here any more … why is it that when muslims called for the sharia suddenly Tony Blair’s saying that our values are better than yours, that we need to stop these people calling for the [caliphate?] …

      Stephen Sackur, Interviewer: Why is it … why is it that no muslim organisation except your own seems to feel the way you do. The Muslim Council of Britain has never told me and I spoke to them the other day, they never told me they couldn’t practise islam in this country.

      Anjem Choudary: The Muslim Council of Britain although they’re [ … ] here and they’re lackeys of the British government, don’t make the British policy. Tony Blair was on record as saying a week ago that what these people really want is a Taliban type state. In other words what he’s saying is that he doesn’t want the muslims to implement the sharia on a state level …

      Stephen Sackur, Interviewer: Listen, I want to get back … I want to get back to …

      Anjem Choudary: … that is something that every muslim wishes.

      Stephen Sackur, Interviewer: I want to get back to Al-Muhajiroun and why it dissolved. I think the truth of its dissolution is simply that the leadership knew that the British government was going to move against your organisation …

      Anjem Choudary: No that’s rubbish …

      Stephen Sackur, Interviewer: … because you were inciting. Let me quote to you, let me quote to you something said by Omar Bakri on the 18th Jan 2005, he said “the market of jihad is open, now all we need is people who are the merchandise, the ones who want to buy paradise. If you can’t do it physically do it verbally, do it financially, but do it.” That was your leader in January of this year.

      Anjem Choudary: The sheikh talked about many different issues. But the fact is that he never said to people when they were living under a covenant of security to do any actions over here. People, peop … all kinds of people used to …

      Stephen Sackur, Interviewer: He abandoned the covenant of security and you know it.

      [cross talk]

      Anjem Choudary: … all kinds … no he didn’t … no this is wrong, this is wrong … wait a second …

      [cross talk]

      Stephen Sackur, Interviewer: … the covenant of security no longer applies.

      [cross talk]

      Anjem Choudary: No the fact is that you need to make a distinction. Look if I say to you that there are certain conditions …

      Stephen Sackur, Interviewer: … you came onto this programme two years ago you talked about the covenant of security. Earlier this year the covenant of security was declared to be dead.

      Anjem Choudary: The problem is, the problem is unless you hear it from our mouths, and we’re the only people at present in Britain who are willing to tell you the truth and tell you the way it is, that you’re never going to understand and I think the British public and even the people abroad have a right to know how [?] stand. The fact is that er … if a scholar or an Islamic activist tells you that these are the conditions which need to be fulfilled in order for example to cut the hand of the thief – if someone goes and steals something and his hand is cut it’s not the […?] of the courts.

      Stephen Sackur, Interviewer: I feel […?] we’ve been down this road before. I now want to ask you …

      Anjem Choudary: Similarly, Stephen, if he explained that this is the covenant of security and if it’s breached and the muslims don’t have a covenant of security and the government breaches it then they only have themselves to blame if there are repercussions.

      Stephen Sackur, Interviewer: … so it has been breached …

      Anjem Choudary: … it was breached by the government not because Sheikh Omar Bakri Mohammed said it’s been breached. He doesn’t have the right to make Islamic law up. This is revelation. Nobody can change revelation but you can change your policies based upon your own …

      Stephen Sackur, Interviewer: Sheikh Bakri declared … Sheikh Bakri declared Britain to be dar al-harb, which basically means a land of war, a land where …

      Anjem Choudary: Britain has always been dar al-harb. Britain has always been dar al-harb. Dar al-harb is a place where there is non-Islamic law. The whole world today is dar al-harb. Dar al-harb has …

      Stephen Sackur, Interviewer: The point about being a land which is dar al-harb is that you and your group therefore feel you have licence to conduct violent operations within it.

      Anjem Choudary: Fact is that the whole word is dar al-harb. There are certain areas where the muslims are actively {indecipherable] … there are other places …

      Stephen Sackur, Interviewer: So why on 18th January did Omar Bakri declare Britain to be dar al-harb? If it’s always been the case why did he choose to say it?

      Anjem Choudary: Yeh, because you never bothered to listen to him before but the fact is that Britain changed from being dar al-harb to being dar al-fitna . Dar al-fitna is a place where the muslims no longer have sanctity for their lives and their wealth. That was the change. Otherwise Britain’s always been dar al-harb.

      Stephen Sackur, Interviewer: What has happened to the people who were in your organisation Al Muhajaroun? What’s happened to them in the last few months?

      Anjem Choudary: Well I mean they’re getting on with their own lives, some of them are continuing, some of them joined […?] some of them joined the Saviour Sect, some of them are teaching Islam on an individual basis. There are many things happening within the muslim community. I don’t keep track of everyone within Al-Mujaharoun, but you know there is one thing that I should say that I think that instead of looking at those so-called clerics like Sheikh Omar Bakri Mohammed as a problem I think you need to start looking at them as a solution because we’re living in a global world today. You see if you want to know what is in the hearts and the minds of muslims in, for example Al Qaeda or in Iraq then you need to start talking to people like Sheikh Omar Bakri Mohammed who is going to give you the way that it is … not people like … [indecipherable]

      Stephen Sackur, Interviewer: The British government is putting forward a new raft of anti terrorist legislation. The plan is for a new offence of ‘Indirect Incitement to Terrorism’, and to quote Mr Clarke, he says it targets those who while not directly inciting, ‘glorify and condone terrorists acts … terrorist acts knowing full well that the effect on their listeners will be to encourage them to turn to terrorism’. That’s the right approach isn’t it?

      Anjem Choudary: Well the government can introduce all kinds of laws and most probably they’ll backdate them as well. I mean what kind of … er … er … legislative body has retrospective legislation? You do something perfectly legal today and tomorrow you are arrested for it. This is complete nonsense. That’s what they did with the Human Rights Act … that’s what they did with the [indecipherable] …

      Stephen Sackur, Interviewer: Do you still … do you still …

      [interruptions – cross talk]

      Anjem Choudary: … that’s what they did with the [indecipherable] …

      Stephen Sackur, Interviewer: Do you still … do you still … do you still glorify, do you still glorify 9/11?

      [interruptions – cross talk]

      Anjem Choudary: … we […?] glorify 9/11 … we …

      Stephen Sackur, Interviewer: Your organisaiton called it ‘magnificent’. You called the team who did it magnificent.

      Anjem Choudary: Stephen, you believe …

      Stephen Sackur, Interviewer: You called … you called Margaret Hassan the Irish aid worker who was murdered in Baghdad, you said that it was entirely her own fault. You said she only had herself to blame, the murder was legitimate. Do you still use these words, do you still glorify and condone the terrorist activity?

      Anjem Choudary: Stephen, my advice to you is not to believe everything you read in the papers. The er ..

      Stephen Sackur, Interviewer: So you deny, you deny …

      Anjem Choudary: I’m going to explain to you exactly what was said. As far as 9/11 is concerned, yes we had a number of conferences on the anniversary of 9/11. A way of attracting the media was to say ‘the magnificent 19 terrorists’. You see you missed that part out, we said they were “terrorists”. Yes, they were terrorists, and George Bush And Tony Blair [indecipherable] …

      Stephen Sackur, Interviewer: You called them “magnificent”

      Anjem Choudary: Yeh, but it was … it was an advertisement ..

      Stephen Sackur, Interviewer: I am reading to you what Charles Clarke’s intention is.

      Anjem Choudary: It was an advertisement ploy – to attract people. If you went to the conference … [indecipherable] …

      Stephen Sackur, Interviewer: I am telling you that Charles Clarke is going to move, wants to move, if he can pass his legislation through Westminster he wants to move against all of those who glorify and condone terrorist acts. You … you … are going to be in his sights.

      Anjem Choudary: Stephen, Stephen, we are not allowed as muslims to celebrate anything apart from Eid ul Adhar and Eid ul Fitr … the two eids that we have in in our calendar. We don’t glorify anything, we don’t celebrate anything apart from those two, and they are divine worship when we do. So we’re not in the business of glorifying, praising, dispraising. If someone does some action in accordance with the sharia, we will say that is in accordance with the sharia.

      Stephen Sackur, Interviewer: Ayman al-Zawahiri has said that he believes there will be, should be new operations in London, Insha’Allah, God willing? Do you feel the same way ?

      Anjem Choudary: Well I think that’s inevitable. If you don’t change the cause of what took place on 7/7 and what took place on 21/7 …

      Stephen Sackur, Interviewer: I’m not asking you if you feel it’s inevitable I’m asking you if, like him, you are calling for them?

      Anjem Choudary: No what we’re calling for, we’re calling for the British public and the British government to wake up. Withdraw your forces from Iraq …

      Stephen Sackur, Interviewer: I’m not asking you about the British government, I’m asking you to give me your opinion on Al Qaeda’s leader’s new calls for attacks in the United Kingdom and in London.

      Anjem Choudary: But that’s his … that’s his call, isn’t it? So obviously …

      Stephen Sackur, Interviewer: So I’m asking you, will you condemn it?

      Anjem Choudary: No I could never condemn a muslim brother, I will never condemn a muslim brother. I will always stand with my muslim brother ….

      Stephen Sackur, Interviewer: So you stand with him … you want those attacks to continue … you stand with him, you just said it.

      Anjem Choudary: … let me finish my sentence. I will stand with my Muslim brother whether he is an oppressor or oppressed. As far as what we are calling for in Britain, we are not saying that we want to call for more bombings over here. What we’re saying is that … er … the British government need to withdraw their forces from Muslim countries. They need to stop supporting the pirate state of Israel. They need to stop usurping the resources of Muslims. They need to allow the muslims in this country to get on and practise their religion …

      Stephen Sackur, Interviewer: Anjem Choudray, Anjem Choudary, do you …


      Anjem Choudary: … they need to release the people they’ve detained without any rights … people like Abu Hamza, people like Babar Ahmad…


      Stephen Sackur, Interviewer: Anjem Choudray, do you think you have …


      Anjem Choudary: … let me just finish the sentence … if they do all of that then there will be a covenant of security once more and we can once again propagate Islam and ask YOU to move on the sharia. We’re not saying we are going to force it upon you. We expect you to accept it as public opinion ….

      Stephen Sackur, Interviewer: Do you think you have got a future in this country?

      Anjem Choudary: It doesn’t matter to me whether I am in Britain or Pakistan I’m a muslim first, last and always. While I’m in Britain I will be a muslim practising my religion in Britain. If tomorrow I find myself in Abu Dhabi or in Pakistan or anywhere else in the world I’ll be a muslim practising my religion there. If I’m going to be incarcerated in Britain, then that is the price that I will pay for what I believe. But if it’s going to happen to me in Pakistan it could happen to me anywhere in the world. The whole world today is Dar al- harb. There is no sharia being implemented anywhere. There is no place in the world today where the lives and the wealth and the honour of the muslims is being protected.

      Stephen Sackur, Interviewer: Anjem Choudary, thank you for being on HardTalk.

      Anjem Choudary: You’re welcome.

Comments are closed.