Copenhagen had been the lighting rod of Muslim protests barely a year ago, but now these protests are not directed at the West. Or are they?
Here are a few select quote from the Hizb ut-Tahrir book "Dangerous Concepts to attack Islam and consolidate the Western Culture", which can be freely downloaded from the party site. The booklet was put out in the UK.
It is incumbent on Muslims to be clear that the task of the Islamic State after its establishment is restricted to Shar'a. Whether it is internal such as looking after the affairs of the people and implementing theHudood (penal code), or external such as conveying Islam though Jihad to the all mankind and destroying the material obstacles that are a barrier to the implementation of Islam.
This mercy [ed. The Koran] is clearly shown by the implementation of the rules of Islam. There is no difference between prayer (Salah) and Jihad, between Du'a and frightening the enemy. There is no difference between Zakah and cutting the hand of the thief, nor is there a difference between helping the grieved and killing those who commit aggression against the sanctities of the Muslims. All of them are Shara’i rules which the Muslims or the State will implement in practice and when its time comes.
They [ed. the Kufar] began adopting certain thoughts and promoting concepts, such as nationalism, socialism, democracy, pluralism, human rights,freedom and free-market policies, whose fallacy and danger have already been explained. (See book ‘The American Campaign to Destroy Islam’)
They painted certain capitalist thoughts in glowing tones to the Muslims and promoted them by claiming that they do not contradict Islam to such an extent that some Muslims considered them as part of Islam, such as democracy, freedom, pluralism, socialism and others. On the other hand, they denounced certain Islamic thoughts and described them as uncivilised and out of date, such as Jihad, the Hudood, polygyny and other Shara’i rules.
Therefore the Muslims must adopt and perfect the necessary tools of struggle, which are manifested in the re-establishment of the Khilafah State that will embark on an intellectual and material struggle to spread the sublime Islamic Hadharah [ed. civilization] and remove the false and corrupt Hadharahs.
This viewpoint [ed. supporting interfaith dialogue] supports the so-called peace process in the Middle East and the normalisation of relations with the Jews. This is to accept one part of the Jewish and Western conspiracy against Islam and the Muslims by usurping Palestine and al-Masjid al-Aqsa; and by implanting a poisoned dagger in the heart of the Islamic Ummah. This also justifies the participation of the Jews, Christians and Muslims in their guardianship over Jerusalem (Al-Quds), which contains the holy sites, in their capacity as Muslims who all belong to one religion - the religion of Abraham (peace be upon him), the fatherof the Prophets.
This term [ed. compromise] did not appear amongst the Muslims until the modern age. It is a foreign term whose source is the West and the Capitalist ideology, that ideology whose creed is based on the compromise solution.
Last time Muslims came out marching it was against those who insulted Islam. Now it's to protest the Israeli attacks in Lebanon. Is there a difference between the two?