.
That's a pattern seen throughout history. Typically, the only "progressive" group which can stand up to a big "oppressive" group, is one which must itself become increasingly repressive. In the French Revolution, for example, the revolutionaries rightfully stood up to the monarchs of Europe. This was progressive. The monarchs of Europe, however, ganged-up against the revolutionaries, forcing the revolutionaries to become increasingly paranoid and militant, leading directly to the dictatorship of Napoleon.
But notice the writer of the original poster's article talks about travelling to Egypt and of joining Hizb ut-Tahrir. He also talks about the "necessity of combating extremism". Notice that not once does he talk about where extremism comes from, what causes it, and who is arming or funding these groups.
Egypt overthrew its monarchs and became a secular, increasingly progressive democratic nation in the 1960s. The UK, France and Israel - especially from the infamous Protocol of Sevres onwards - henceforth set about deliberately screwing it up. They kept attacking President Nasser (who dismantled feudalism and monarchy in Egypt) and kept arming and funding the nascent Muslim Brotherhood and other extreme factions to take him out.
There was no such thing as "extremist caliphate pushing Islamic nutbags" in the 1960s and 1970s, anywhere in the Middle East. It is Western geo-political manoevering which created and funded these groups, just as France is today funding and backing Boko-Haram in Nigeria via Chad to get at Nigerian oil. None of these "terrorists" were around in the past. "Islam" didn't create them.
The infamous group pushing for a "muslim caliphate" today is ISIS (or IS or ISL), a tiny, irrelevent, insignificant handful of nutjobs armed and funded by the US through their puppet dictatorship, Saudi Arabia. Hizb ut-Tahrir is the British equivalent of ISIS, backed by England to usurp Assad in Syria. Assad himself is only in power because the US, from 1949 onwards, repeatedly couped the first democratically elected leaders of Syria.
If there was no western meddling in Islamic nations following World War 2, all these countries would have secular, modern, democratic nations. If the West didn't put Saddam in power and didnt arm him to attack Iran, Iraq would not be the hell-hole it is today. If the US and UK didn't bolster the Saudi monarchy for the past 90 years, Saudi Arabia would be an increasingly secular nation. Instead we sell them guns to crush any democratic movement that pops up. We are turning these countries into barbaric hellholes by subverting progress, not Islam. Left alone, Islam evolves just like Christianity; it bends to modern, liberal values.
People like Snoops who complain about "extremist muslims" are totally rediculous. The vast majority of muslims both detest extremists and are the ones who chiefly suffer at the hands of this extremism. What superficial moaning about "muslim extremists" really does is create a pretext for more meddling in foreign countries (to fix those unruly muslims, of course), which in turn only causes more crazy extremists.
I mean, really, what's the point of complaining about the behaviour of Islamic people in Iraq, Sryia and Somlia when these countries have been turned into mad war zones by outsiders? How do you expect these people to act? If you destroy law, order and government, of course people are going to act nuts.
The fastest way to "modernise" a religion is to set up a stable, democratic nation where the local religion is forced to abide by modern, secular, liberal laws. This is the opposite of what the West does. We DESTROY and DESTABALZE stable, democratic nations with Islamic majorities, thereby causing the problems we pretend to b**** about. The moment places like Egypt, Syria and Iraq became modern democracies we immediately f**ked them up. Don't b**** about your Karma.
