Man bites dog

In the spirit of giving credit where credit is due, it’s good to see Inayat Bunglawala giving the truculent wierdness of Hizb ut-Tahrir a good kick.

Specifically, this is about HT’s use of the expenses scandal to underline the endemic “corruption, exploitation and treachery” at the heart of the democratic system and therefore the west. And naturally, for the Hizbis, any abuse of our political system is another nail in the coffin of democracy and only serves to demonstrate that the Khilafa, the Islamic Caliphate, must be the only viable and corruption-free alternative.

Bunglawala trashes this false dichotomy neatly:

Compare the handling of the expenses scandal with another one – this time a scandal which occurred in the Ottoman empire, at the height of its power and influence. In the year 1595, Mehmet III (or Muhammad III) succeeded his father Murad III to become the new sultan. To cement his authority he ordered the assassination of 19 of his brothers and 20 of his sisters. A few years later, when he sensed that his own son Mahmud was becoming a threat to his own power, he had him strangled to death too. How did the Ottoman caliphate hold Mehmet III to account for this terrible and horrific instance of fratricide? It did not.

One could argue that that was all a long time ago and that HT’s conception of an Islamic state would not allow such a crime to occur, but I am not so convinced. It is no coincidence in my view that today’s self-professed Islamic states, including Iran, Saudi Arabia and Sudan, are also home to some very unsavoury regimes with far too much power being concentrated in their governments.

…

The better response to the expenses scandal is surely not to withdraw from participation in disgust, but to work with other like-minded people to set up appropriate safeguards and help make our democratic system more transparent and accountable to us.

This is all very promising.

I really hope this means Inayat’s new-found respect for the democratic system and the need to ensure that institutions are “transparent and accountable to us” will extend to that most undemocratic institution of unelected representation, the Muslim Council of Britain.