How many Muslims support Anjem Choudary

London is deporting radical Muslims

The wrecked underground car after the July 7th London attacks

No, he has absolutely nothing against Great Britain; neither against the trees nor against the livestock. "But when it comes to the authorities and the people who support the authorities - yes, we certainly have something against them," explains Anjem Choudary, spokesman for radical preacher Omar Bakri Mohammed. The BBC interviewer wants to know whether he felt like London pain when it happened on June 7th. "When what happened? When Muslims were killed in Palestine? When Muslims were killed in Iraq? When Muslims were killed in Chechnya?" If he had informed the police if he had known about the plans of the four suicide bombers. Choudary replies with a counter-question: "If the people who were on the train were still alive today, would they ask the British government to withdraw troops from Iraq?"

Ten foreigners in custody

Anjem Choudary, then leader of the Al Muhajiroun group, at a press conference on September 11, 2004, at which he extolled the attacks on the United States three years earlier

In the wake of the London attacks that killed more than fifty people, statements such as those in this recent interview caused concern among the British public. After the demand was raised that radical Islamists be charged with high treason, Choudary's teacher Omar Bakri Mohammed left for Lebanon. Mohammed is said to have referred to the London suicide bombers as the "fantastic four". In the meantime, the Home Office announced that the return of Mohammed, who has lived in Great Britain since 1986, should be prevented. In the course of the week, the radical cleric Abu Qatada will also be deported to Jordan. He is one of a total of ten foreigners who have been in custody since Thursday (August 16, 2005) last week because, according to Interior Minister Charles Clark, they pose a "threat to national security".

Concern in the Council of Muslims

Omar Bakri Mohammed described the assassins on September 11, 2001 as "the great 19"

"We welcome the fact that Omar Bakri is not allowed to return to Great Britain," says Shenaz Yusuf from the Council of Muslims in Great Britain. His presence had been a problem for years, to which the Council had pointed out several times. On the other hand, the planned deportations should be viewed with concern, especially since torture is taking place in countries like Jordan. The sense of the measure is also doubtful: "Bringing individuals from one country to another is not a means of combating terrorism."

The British Home Secretary Charles Clarke (left) and the London Police Chief Ian Blair declared on Monday (August 17, 2005) that new attacks were to be expected

"These people should have been deported a long time ago," says Bob Ayers from the Royal Institute for Foreign Policy. "The British government has a terrible problem: it has allowed radical Muslim clerics for years to preach a message of hatred - even though countries like Pakistan, France and the US have always warned that doing so would create problems." One interpretation behind this attitude is the hope that the militant Muslims would not carry out any attacks in Great Britain as long as they were allowed to live there in peace. "It is more likely, however, that the government was simply afraid of being seen as anti-Muslim and racist and thus alienating the 1.6 million Muslims," ​​believes the security expert. In the short term one can only try to identify the militant Islamists, such as those 1200 citizens who have attended training camps for terrorists in Afghanistan.

Counter Terrorism and Human Rights

Since the attacks, people with a South Asian or Arab appearance have been increasingly targeted by the police

For Paul Wilkinson of the Center for the Study of Terrorism and Political Violence at the University of St. Andrews, the assumption that the fight against terrorism requires the restriction of certain rights is wrong: "On the contrary, good anti-terrorism and security policy requires consistent respect for human rights ahead. " It must therefore be ensured that people who could pose a danger get a fair trial, while at the same time the laws are "adjusted". So far, the courts have had no way of dealing with "indirect incitement", for example through sermons. "As long as we can't prosecute these people, there shouldn't be a barrier to removing them," said Wilkinson. The argument that it exports terrorism is not wrong, but the primary responsibility of a government is to protect its own citizens.

Torture is used in more than 70 countries around the world. Here is the picture of a man who was beaten and shocked with electric batons in Egypt in 1987.

The most difficult question concerns deportation to countries that do not adhere to the international ban on torture, says the terrorist expert, referring to the agreement that the British government concluded with the Jordanian government last week. In it, Jordan undertakes to ensure that extradited persons do not face torture or the death penalty. London is currently negotiating similar agreements with a number of countries. Provided that compliance is monitored, these represent sufficient protection, says Wilkinson.

Agreement with torture states?

This is vehemently denied by James Dyson. "These agreements are not worth the paper on which they are written," said the spokesman for the International Secretariat of Amnesty International in London. Diplomatic assurances given by governments that deny that torture even exists in their country, even though the contrary has been clearly documented, cannot be believed. "Softening attitudes towards torture is not for safety," says Dyson. "If British decision-makers suspect people of a criminal act, they should prosecute them and bring them to justice."