Nicola Smith in Lahore
British militants are pushing for the overthrow of the Pakistani state. Followers of the fundamentalist group Hizb ut-Tahrir have called for a "bloodless military coup" in Islamabad and the creation of the caliphate in which strict Islamic laws would be rigorously enforced.
Members of the group, which describes itself as the Liberation party in Britain but is banned in Pakistan, revealed last week that it had targeted the country as a base from which to spread Islamic rule across the world.
The Sunday Times has obtained the names of a dozen British Hizb ut-Tahrir activists based in Lahore and Karachi, or commuting between Britain and Pakistan. There are believed to be many more.
Tayyib Muqeem, an English teacher from Stoke-on-Trent, said he had moved to Lahore to convert Pakistanis to the movement.
At Lahore's Superior College, where Muqeem has set up a Hizb ut-Tahrir student group, he said the organisation's aim was to subject Muslim and western countries to Islamic rule under sharia law, "by force" if necessary.
In a caliphate, "every woman would have to cover up" and stoning to death for adultery and the chopping off of thieves' hands would be the law, he said.
He added that Islamic rule would be spread through "indoctrination" and by "military means" if non-Muslim countries refused to bow to it. "Waging war" would be part of the caliphate's foreign policy.
One of Hizb ut-Tahrir's strategies in Pakistan is to influence military officers, he revealed.
Shahzad Sheikh, a Pakistani recruit and the group's official spokesman in Karachi, talked openly about persuading the army to instigate a "bloodless coup" against the present government who, he said, were "worse than the Taliban".
"It is the military who hold the power (in Pakistan) and we are asking them to give their allegiance to Hizb ut-Tahrir," he said. "I can't explain to you in detail how we are trying to influence the military . . . We never disclose our methodology of change. You may say it's a coup."
In 2003 four army officers were arrested in Pakistan on suspicion of being linked to extremist groups, although the groups and men have not been named. A Hizb ut-Tahrir insider at the time claims they were recruited by the organisation's "Pakistan team" while training at Sandhurst.
The group is believed to have been set up in Pakistan in the early 1990s by Imtiaz Malik, a British-born Pakistani who may still be operating underground as its leader in the country. In 1999 a call was sent to British Hizb ut-Tahrir members to move to Pakistan. This prompted the movement of some of the UK's "top quality" activists to south Asia.
"Pakistan was neglected and ignored until it had a nuclear bomb and then the global leader realised it would be a good strategic base for the caliphate," said Maajid Nawaz, one of the organisation's pioneers in Pakistan, who has since renounced the group.
Nawaz claimed at least 10 British activists were planted in each of Pakistan's main cities. "The traffic has been increasing ever since and people are always going back and forth (to the UK)," he added.
"Hizb ut-Tahrir sets the mood music for suicide bombers to dance to," said Nawaz, who has now started an initiative to "claim Pakistan back" from extremists.
Hasan-Askari Rizvi, a former professor in Lahore who is now a security analyst, said: "This organisation was brought to Pakistan by Pakistani Britishers. People were impressed that these young, educated Brits were so committed to Islam that they came to Pakistan."
The group spreads its message through a secretive network of small groups. Its recruitment campaigns among students are clearly bearing fruit: evidence was found of cells in Lahore's major universities and private colleges.
TrackBack URI for this entry
Subscribe to this comment's feed
Ali
said:
 |
Is it true that Hizb got its intrest in Pakistan After Nuke testing. ?? its what former pioneer member of HT is saying |
|
report abuse
vote down
vote up
|
Golam Haider Rasul
said:
 |
In the modern world, most countries do not have universal conscription or national service. Hence, the armed forces are comprised of people who are enlisted voluntarily. In fact, apart from the fear of an early death, there are other reasons why in this age, people do not like to serve in the armed forces, including discipline enforced based on concepts other than Islam -- such as beatings, cursings, punishment duties, and so on. The culture of the armed forces in many Muslim countries retains aspects of the colonial forces -- such as encouragement for the consumption of alcohol. Currently, the balance of power in a state may be said to reside within three groups -- the politicians, the armed forces and the people. Accepting that nusrah cannot be given by the common people as they only act en masse and after strong stimulus, that leaves the other two centres of power -- civil and armed. From within this balance of power comes out the leadership, which may dominate but cannot entirely act without the consent of the other two arenas. Nowadays, especially, with the US trumpeting the virtues of democracy, and destabilizing those countries which go against their wishes, in most places we see a form of civilian rule, invariably corrupt. At the time of the Prophet (PBUH) there was no such distinction between civilian and military rule as the ruler(s) had to be militarily competent. Therefore, nusrah was given to the Prophet by people who both ruled and fought. In the modern world, however, it is conceivable for there to be a civilian ruler who may be able to ensure that the armed forces of his country would not readily revolt against his rule, either by checks and balances or by inducements. An example of this might be Mahathir Mohammed of Malaysia. Again, we must remember that the size of most modern armies precludes that one or a few men could easily force a change in govvernment without opposition from other, ambiitious leaders. If the call for nusrah is made to the armed forces to the exclusion of the civilian leaders, with the hope of there being a bloodless coup, then automatically the political leadership becomes an enemy of those giving the nusrah as well as those seeking to implement the deen of Allah. There is no incentive on the part of the civilian leadership (apart from faith in Allah) to come on board the party for change. Therefore, is it not more acceptable in light of the seerah of the Prophet, to call for nusrah to be given by the political and military leadership of a country (in whatever combination or permutation it comes) rather than simply the military? That is, in effect, to ask for a concerned group of leaders (both civilian and military) in the Islamic world, to throw off the shackles of this flawed Western concept of democracy, and change the direction of that state, then ultimately the World, towards the Rule of Allah? |
|
report abuse
vote down
vote up
|
maruf
said:
 |
Coup is must! No doubt about it. but we should make sure that it will not become any Iranian type of revolution where some years later a so-called Musabi can desolve it! If ummah is not ready, coup will not last! Counter coup will hapend & of course America will not sit idle. And of course Allah sub will not sit idle as well....Ummah is waiting for da moment & inshallah it will hapen soon in Bangladesh. Though we dont have any large army but 150 million people with AK47 & with a just khalif & of course the help Allah sub, no one can defeat us inshallah. No one! Allahu Akbar |
|
report abuse
vote down
vote up
|
Zeital
said:
 |
British intelligence has had many contacts with militants (supposedly whom both British and American governments are trying to discourage). What is strange is how funding and support is actually provided by Britain and America to militants and groups. In Yugoslavia, the C.I.A sponsored secessionist activities of the (Kosova Liberation Army) K.L.A, and Washington and London were supportive (if not encouraging) the K.L.A in illegal activities (involving drugs to finance operations, human trafficking, and attacks against other ethnic groups; mainly Serbs). Chechnya did not escape the attention of Europe and America, and the intelligence agencies were supportive of Chechen groups using illicit activities to fund the war against Russia. It is increasingly convoluted to understand who is genuinely fighting Russian occupation and who is on the payroll of foreign states seeking to undermine Russian influence in the Caucasus. The civilians such as Chechens and Ingush have little control over the Russian occupation forces and numerous guerrillas claiming to fight for independence. The Anglo-American war machine undermined Yugoslavia’s vulnerable economy (which had lasted for decades as an alternative socialist model) to break up that state. Just as ‘militants’ or nationalist movements posed a use in Afghanistan, similarly these secessionist groups (with a ‘religious’ affiliation) were put to work destabilising Bosnia-Herzegovina, Kosova, and Macedonia. The Orthodox Serbs and their backlash was predictably brutal, and supposed ‘humanitarian’ bombing by N.A.T.O provided a cover for more ethnic cleansing of Kosovan Albanians caught up between criminal drug lords/traffickers and the Serb paramilitaries. The Serbs minority of Kosova also fallen victim to counter reprisals. Hence the cycle continues. The issues of Kashmir has seen a similar problem emerge, with India and Pakistan (sometimes launching ‘false flag’ operations of their own), and even supporting/funding militants whom they claim to be fighting. India in turn can used ‘international’ opinion to isolate Pakistan and garner support from allies as diverse as China, Russia, U.S.A, Britain and Israel. Finally these activities allow countries like China to get away with repression in Tibet and West Turkistan; Russia in Dagestan and Chechnya; Georgia in South Ossetia and Abkhazia, Turkey in Kurdistan; Burma against pro democracy activists, and Israel in Gaza and the West Bank. Meanwhile depending on the state in question, sometimes the repression is raised as human rights abuses and at other times it is supported at fighting ‘terror’. Note the way countries like Burma, Zimbabwe, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, Pakistan, Iran, and Serbia were singled out, whilst Ethiopia, Indonesia, Israel, Russia, India, and the Democratic Republic of Congo were ignored. Depending on the interests of competing power blocs, really determined which states atrocities gets put under the spotlight or instead a ‘green light’. Russia; depending on its relations with Europe and America, either gets approval or disapproval, when the Anglo-American war machine manoeuvres in Eastern Europe or Central Asia. ARTICLE: India's 9/11. Who was Behind the Mumbai Attacks? by Professor Michel Chossudovsky http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=11217 ARTICLE: The Destabilization of Pakistan by Professor Michel Chossudovsky http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=7705 |
|
report abuse
vote down
vote up
|
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|