(December 27, 2015 at 7:35 pm)Pandæmonium Wrote: So, what, is the entire Quilliam foundation also a rouse?
Good question.
Quote:http://www.jihadwatch.org/2013/10/beheading-the-edl
The Quilliam Foundation was founded by former members of the Islamic supremacist group Hizb ut-Tahrir, which calls for a worldwide caliphate. The Quilliam founders say they’ve rejected all that and are “moderates” now, but there are warning signs that they aren’t. The Quilliam Foundation is named after a 19th-century British convert to Islam, Abdullah (formerly William) Quilliam, who was hardly a “moderate.” In warning Muslims not to aid a British expedition into Sudan in 1896, he wrote: “For any True Believer to take up arms and fight against another Muslim is contrary to the Shariat, and against the law of God and his holy prophet. I warn every True-Believer that if he gives the slightest assistance in this projected expedition against the Muslims of the Soudan, even to the extent of carrying a parcel, or giving a bite of bread to eat or a drink of water to any person taking part in the expedition against these Muslims that he thereby helps the Giaour [Infidels] against the Muslim, and his name will be unworthy to be continued upon the roll of the faithful.”
And he called for a worldwide Islamic caliphate, saying: “At the present time, union is more than ever necessary among Muslims. The Christian powers are preparing a new crusade in order to shatter the Muslim powers, under the pretext that they desire to civilise the world.”
So Quilliam was not a good name for a supposedly moderate Muslim organization, and the organization is a classically deceptive enterprise. It showed that it was not genuinely opposed to jihad when it came out in favor of the “Palestinian” jihad against Israel and the ending of Israeli defensive operations. Also, when the Quilliam Foundation began, its founder Ed Husain attacked Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Ibn Warraq and Robert Spencer — would a real opponent of jihad and Islamic supremacism do that? I don’t think so. Spencer noted then that Husain “wrote disingenuously about Islamic teaching on apostasy and other matters, and ignored the deep scriptural, theological and legal foundations of Islamic violence and supremacism. Hardly a promising performance for a genuine reformer.”
