"Ed" pulls out of BBC Radio programme - because HT rep to be invited!

[Ali Abdullah]

I was under the impression that the Quilliam Foundation was going to debate with HT etc. Ed now doesn't think so! For background on the programme read what Rashad had to say:

http://worldhaveyoursay.wordpress.co...ist-extremism/


Are there some people we shouldn’t invite onto WHYS?
By Ros Atkins

http://worldhaveyoursay.wordpress.co...#comment-19518

Ed Husain was booked to host the show with me today. Along with a colleague at the newly-formed Quilliam Foundation, he was going to discuss with you how he became attracted to radical Islam and turned his back on it. And how he’s trying to stop other young Muslim men becoming radicalised. But today he cancelled for a variety of reasons, the main one being that he wasn’t prepared to take part in the show if certain people (whose organisations he has been critical of) were invited on.

In a half hour conversation with me yesterday and another today, he argued strongly that there are some people who don’t warrant an invitation onto a BBC News programme. He says the publicity it gives them and the damage this can cause outweigh the benefits of remaining committed to objectivity and to free speech.

‘Sometimes it’s as simple as some people being wrong, and some being right. I’ve better things to do than argue with these people.’ This was in response to me saying that we would have to offer the organisation Hizb ut-Tahrir a right of reply as I knew he would criticise them on the programme.

He went on, ‘I suppose you’ll be asking the British National Party on next’. We did just that last year I replied. ‘Well congratulations,’ he replied clearly unimpressed.

He was also disgusted that we invited Dr Azzam Tamimi onto yesterday’s discussion about the Middle East. To give Hamas or people who sympathise with Hamas air-time was again something he opposed.

I mentioned that yesterday’s programme had for the most part been civil and constructive and while there was a clear tension on occasions, I felt that most WHYS listeners were glad that we had invited the guests who took part.

‘It’s fine for you to create nice comfortable conversations in your studio but I know the real impact. It can consolidate radical opinion. It offers publicuity and kudos. i can remember when I was in Hizb ut-Tahrir, we got a real kick whenever one of our guys got attention in the media.’

I’d be curious to read your thoughts on this. If Osama bin Laden picked up the phone and rang WHYS (unlikely I know), I’m pretty sure we would put him on the air. Here’s another example. Robert Mugabe has been accused of serious and widespread repression of political opponents. If he rang us up, he’d get on the air.

Is that right? Are there some people who we shouldn’t allow to speak?

It’s a real shame Ed Husain has decided not to come in but he has started a very interesting conversation.

[yorkshire observer]

It is an interesting point. Many on the left believe there should be no platform for the BNP and you don't debate with them on the same platform because you are giving them the oxygen of publicity.
The same argument would go for HT but I tend to believe that you should argue with extremists to show them up for what they are.

[Illuminate]

Originally Posted by yorkshire observer

It is an interesting point. Many on the left believe there should be no platform for the BNP and you don't debate with them on the same platform because you are giving them the oxygen of publicity.
The same argument would go for HT but I tend to believe that you should argue with extremists to show them up for what they are.

the issue is, that Ed hussian and his org. - openly challenge HT for a debate - any time, any place they said - if they were sincere - they would have jumped at this opportunity, the BBC is offering the perfect platform for this debate to take place to a public audience....

[yorkshire observer]

No, the issue is, as was explained, whether you give groups like HT and the BNP time on the airwaves or on public platforms or whether you deny them that publicity.

[Illuminate]

Originally Posted by yorkshire observer

No, the issue is, as was explained, whether you give groups like HT and the BNP time on the airwaves or on public platforms or whether you deny them that publicity.

what a load of twaddle.... why make statement like any place any time - Ed hussian is a coward, opportunist - that what he is...

[yorkshire observer]

Of course Illuminate, what a coward for writing his book, holding moderate views you don't like etc, what a jelly-belly, what a wuss.
Must be fun in your parallel universe.
I take it you would have the same view if someone refused to debate with the BNP?

[Illuminate]

Originally Posted by yorkshire observer

Of course Illuminate, what a coward for writing his book, holding moderate views you don't like etc, what a jelly-belly, what a wuss.

who ever said he is a coward for writing a book - not me but you...
moderate views, according whom - one day, ppl like you class ppl as moderate, tomorrow there are radical, fundamenatalist, liberal.... so such phases/terms are meaningless

Originally Posted by yorkshire observer

Must be fun in your parallel universe.
I take it you would have the same view if someone refused to debate with the BNP?

indeed - I believe in challenging idea's - dialogue, discourse... which is different from giving someone the airwaves to rant and rave..

To proof to you, I have no problem with BNP, engaging a discussion and debates - read this thread:
http://forum.mpacuk.org/showthread.php?t=32802

post # 2 was mine post # 3 yours...

Clear for everyone to see, 'your' double standards.... and who is in some parallel universe..



This is about discussion, debate between Eddy and HT - which eddy wanted... he is coward for turning away from it, based on not giving ppl a platform..

It is usually HT who run away from discussion, debate - it seems eddy still hasn't totally overcome from his HT metality...

[Ali Abdullah]

This is what the QF website says:

http://www.quilliamfoundation.org/openchallenge.html

Our Open Challenge

The Quilliam Foundation openly challenges Islamist groups to public debates. Our first challenge is to Hizb ut-Tahrir (HT), the group that influenced Syed Qutb in prison and is thus the ideological inspiration to al-Qaeda. While HT may disagree with Osama bin Laden's methods, they both aspire to the same end: the creation of a theocratic, expansionist dictatorship.

Our contention is that Hizb ut-Tahrir's Islamism is a post-colonial ideology, at odds with fourteen centuries of Muslim scholarship. As a 'political party' they draw much from the Bolsheviks and, like Stalin, they remain committed, in their literature, to the killing of millions of people to advance their ideology.

Islam, like other world faiths, is a religion, not a political ideology. As such, it makes no specific, monolithic prescription of an 'Islamic state', 'economic system', or 'foreign policy'. Hizb ut-Tahrir, and by extension al-Qaeda, have rejected mainstream Muslim tradition and are an aberration of global Muslim discourse. Their neo-Wahhabite Islamism is the backbone of jihadism, as illustrated by the history of Islamist movements in Algeria, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and other countries.

We openly challenge Ata Abu Rishta, the current global leader of HT to debate with us in any country. We further challenge HT's Europe leader, also known as Osama, to respond to our invitation. As a last resort, we are willing to accept a response from our former comrades in HT Britain's leadership: Dr Nasim Ghani and/or Dr Abdul Wahid.

[yorkshire observer]

Originally Posted by Illuminate

who ever said he is a coward for writing a book - not me but you...
moderate views, according whom - one day, ppl like you class ppl as moderate, tomorrow there are radical, fundamenatalist, liberal.... so such phases/terms are meaningless


indeed - I believe in challenging idea's - dialogue, discourse... which is different from giving someone the airwaves to rant and rave..

To proof to you, I have no problem with BNP, engaging a discussion and debates - read this thread:
http://forum.mpacuk.org/showthread.php?t=32802

post # 2 was mine post # 3 yours...

Clear for everyone to see, 'your' double standards.... and who is in some parallel universe..



This is about discussion, debate between Eddy and HT - which eddy wanted... he is coward for turning away from it, based on not giving ppl a platform..

It is usually HT who run away from discussion, debate - it seems eddy still hasn't totally overcome from his HT metality...

If he's continually been challenging HT to live debate it would be churlish for him to now deny them unless he's changed his position. I didn't see anything in the story above suggesting he has always wanted to debate with them.
You called him a coward, not me, unless you can't read your own posts.
I stated above and in this thread I think it is best to tackle extremists head on but I do understand and appreciate the argument for not giving groups like HT and the BNP airtime.
Are you saying you don't consider Husain moderate - that you think he's an extremist?

[AgtBauer]

You can take Ed out of HT, but not the HT out of Ed.

[yorkshire observer]

Originally Posted by Ali Abdullah

This is what the QF website says:

http://www.quilliamfoundation.org/openchallenge.html

Our Open Challenge

The Quilliam Foundation openly challenges Islamist groups to public debates. Our first challenge is to Hizb ut-Tahrir (HT), the group that influenced Syed Qutb in prison and is thus the ideological inspiration to al-Qaeda. While HT may disagree with Osama bin Laden's methods, they both aspire to the same end: the creation of a theocratic, expansionist dictatorship.

Our contention is that Hizb ut-Tahrir's Islamism is a post-colonial ideology, at odds with fourteen centuries of Muslim scholarship. As a 'political party' they draw much from the Bolsheviks and, like Stalin, they remain committed, in their literature, to the killing of millions of people to advance their ideology.

Islam, like other world faiths, is a religion, not a political ideology. As such, it makes no specific, monolithic prescription of an 'Islamic state', 'economic system', or 'foreign policy'. Hizb ut-Tahrir, and by extension al-Qaeda, have rejected mainstream Muslim tradition and are an aberration of global Muslim discourse. Their neo-Wahhabite Islamism is the backbone of jihadism, as illustrated by the history of Islamist movements in Algeria, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and other countries.

We openly challenge Ata Abu Rishta, the current global leader of HT to debate with us in any country. We further challenge HT's Europe leader, also known as Osama, to respond to our invitation. As a last resort, we are willing to accept a response from our former comrades in HT Britain's leadership: Dr Nasim Ghani and/or Dr Abdul Wahid.

That's fair comment. In that case, unless they mean some kind of more structured debate and not a few soundbites on the BBC, he should have been prepared to debate with HT.

[europa]

Debate HT ????

That's one thing HT are seemingly incapable of, preferring instead to behave like loud-mouthed belligerents, shouting down everyone else. To debate requires a presentation of views. Their Trinity College Dublin screamfest by HT, was a typical example of HT's attempt to to hog the headlines. Ed Hussein was correct in this instance, since he professes to be representing a literate , moral and humane view of Islam, which would have been derailed by HT's attention hogs.

[Illuminate]

Originally Posted by yorkshire observer

If he's continually been challenging HT to live debate it would be churlish for him to now deny them unless he's changed his position. I didn't see anything in the story above suggesting he has always wanted to debate with them.

LOL - excuse's - excuse's...... the invitation for a debate was given by eddy and mates - during the launch of Q-foundation.... prefect opportunity, turned down - on the pretence of we don't to give a platform to HT - LOL... when HT have appeared on BBC on number of occassions..

You called him a coward, not me, unless you can't read your own posts.

I called him a coward for not taking the opportunity to debate on a perfect platform - which eddy and Q-foundation asked for... You delibrately putting words into my mouth - obviously you turned to desperation - as your double standards are there for all to be seen..

Originally Posted by yorkshire observer

I stated above and in this thread I think it is best to tackle extremists head on but I do understand and appreciate the argument for not giving groups like HT and the BNP airtime.

you changed your position - lol - after being wacked for six..... your double standards are there for all to see.... I have come to the conclusion - your aim, is to try and undermine muslim and islam......

Originally Posted by yorkshire observer

Are you saying you don't consider Husain moderate - that you think he's an extremist?

you putting words into my mouth - yet again - desperation leads to underhand tactics...

You have truely exposed your self - this time YO.... your double standards - and the constant excuse's to wiggle your way out of the deep hole you dug for yourself.....

[Ali Abdullah]

Originally Posted by europa

Debate HT ???? That's one thing HT are seemingly incapable of, preferring instead to behave like loud-mouthed belligerents, shouting down everyone else. To debate requires a presentation of views. Their Trinity College Dublin screamfest by HT, was a typical example of HT's attempt to to hog the headlines.

But if the HT rep behaved like that live on the radio, wouldn't Ed have proved his point? I don't see why he didn't agree, particularly as debating HT is supposedly one of the QF's reasons to exist!

[TRUREL]

Originally Posted by europa

Debate HT ????

That's one thing HT are seemingly incapable of, preferring instead to behave like loud-mouthed belligerents, shouting down everyone else. To debate requires a presentation of views. Their Trinity College Dublin screamfest by HT, was a typical example of HT's attempt to to hog the headlines. Ed Hussein was correct in this instance, since he professes to be representing a literate , moral and humane view of Islam, which would have been derailed by HT's attention hogs.

I think he should have let listeners make up their own minds. If they shout they come across badly.

[Illuminate]

Originally Posted by europa

Debate HT ????

That's one thing HT are seemingly incapable of, preferring instead to behave like loud-mouthed belligerents, shouting down everyone else. To debate requires a presentation of views. Their Trinity College Dublin screamfest by HT, was a typical example of HT's attempt to to hog the headlines. Ed Hussein was correct in this instance, since he professes to be representing a literate , moral and humane view of Islam, which would have been derailed by HT's attention hogs.

HT have been on the media numerous occassion - even former member of Q-Foundation majid nawaaz, reprsenting them - BBC hardtalk, newsnight, news24 even had HT members on - MPACUK on news24 debated with HT........... HT didn't behave like a derail attention seeking hogs - but highly professionally.... The debate between HT and eddy - I have no doubt, would have been conducted in a similar professional way....

I believe Q-foundation and eddy - bluff has been called....

[iraniboy]

Ros Atkin had invited me for Have Your Say BBC Radio World Service last month or later. I just had a chance to talk for one minute.

[Illuminate]

Originally Posted by yorkshire observer

That's fair comment. In that case, unless they mean some kind of more structured debate and not a few soundbites on the BBC, he should have been prepared to debate with HT.

I take my comment of your double standards back - indeed he should be rubbing his hand and licking his lips - as the opportunity has turned up, for what he wanted - and preparing himself for a debate - not making excuse's...

There are many muslim who would like to debate HT - but HT don't.... I do believe HT will wipe the floor with eddy..... Eddy doesn't have the sophistication to debate with HT..... on the matters that will be discussed...

[yorkshire observer]

Originally Posted by Illuminate

I take my comment of your double standards back - indeed he should be rubbing his hand and licking his lips - as the opportunity has turned up, for what he wanted - and preparing himself for a debate - not making excuse's...

There are many muslim who would like to debate HT - but HT don't.... I do believe HT will wipe the floor with eddy..... Eddy doesn't have the sophistication to debate with HT..... on the matters that will be discussed...

Are you a member of HT Illuminate?

[Illuminate]

Originally Posted by yorkshire observer

Are you a member of HT Illuminate?

- YO, you should read what I said about HT in some of my previous post on the forum.... ALM. HT and their ilk - as br ash has thought me

I am just stating the way it is - calling a spade a spade....