I’ve just completed writing a report for the CSC, Hizb ut-Tahrir: Ideology and Strategy. The full report can be accessed here and an executive summary here. Our report covers Hizb ut-Tahrir’s (HT) violent ideology, its perspective of the West and its strategy in the UK.
Having gone through HT’s literature of its ideology, my colleague Hannah and I were actually worried about how sophisticated its tactics in the West have become.
Despite having a violent ideology, our report found that HT deliberately and successfully downplays many aspects of its intolerant beliefs to the wider public in order to present and mainstream its fascist Islamist ideology as ‘true’ Islam. Seeing it self as ‘representative’ of Islam, HT presents any attacks on the party as part of a wider conspiracy by the West against Muslims – the West is supposadely engaged with a ‘war on Islam’.
Adopting a victim mentality, HT aims to legitimate its ideology and present itself as the vanguard for Islam. Our report found that HT attempts to do this through grassroots activities, such as operating front groups in order to indoctrinate young Muslims. Some front groups have even received support by local councilors. As the Spittoon has previously blogged, HT members are trustees of a charity which runs two primary schools in London and has received Government funding (which has now been suspended). An HT member wrote the schools’ curriculum. This is no doubt a worrying new tactic and revels the hypocritical extent this group will go to in order to mainstream its beliefs – it hates democracy and Western systems, so why accept Government money?
HT is divisive and seperarist. It is un-Islamic and propagates an Islamist supremacist violent ideology. Its Caliphate aims to implement a totalitarian and abusive government that wants to expand by annexing and colonizing all Muslim and non-Muslim majority countries – even if this meant killing ‘millions’ of civilians.
HT should be viewed as intolerant as the BNP and white supremacist groups. Our report offers a recommendations for government on how to best tackle HT’s tactics, which are pretty much designed to circumvent proscription. It is about time that this group is completely condemned and rejected by British Muslim communities and wider society.
27 Comments
No need to worry, it has already been widely condemned and rejected by British Muslims. Not a single mosque in this country allows them to stage events on its premises. Their annual conference in the Midlands last year attracted 800 people when over 500,000 Muslims live in the Midlands area.
HT is so wacky that even the most ardent of the Left’s pro-Islamist ‘useful idiots’ (like Conflicts Forum, George Galloway, Seamus Milne for instance) steer well clear of it.
This is a timely and important report. I hope it’s findings continue to have an atrophying effect on the ideological gangrene of Hizb ut-Tahrir.
Tank Warfare: CSC and QF compete for the anti-Islamist crown
HT and Islam4UK compete for the ‘nutters of the year’ crown.
Houriya,
Most Muslims are aware of your slavish like desire to impress the neo conservative ideologues that are your pay masters.
Most readers are well aware of the dogmatic and violent neo conservative ideology you follow and use to write with, which legitimizes the killing of 10s of miilions around the world, as can be seen today.
This is why the launch of your report has been a non-event and will have very little impact apart from securing you a Christmas bonus from your pay master general, probably at tax payers expense.
Abdul Rehman
At least she has the courage to state where she works and uses her real name, which cannot be said of you. Incidentally, if you are offered a Christmas bonus this year will you be refusing it based on your Hizbi principles?
No, I didn’t think so.
This content of this particular allegation was answered at #2, by Houriya, here: http://www.spittoon.org/archives/3456
Clearly you have neither read that article – nor it would appear your own party’s commentary to which Houriya addressed her remarks.
Dealt with directly below the point above, in the same article up elsewhere on this site.
Dear, oh dear, AR – do try to keep up. Simply repeating the same discredited HT mantras over and over will not make the problems go away.
You clearly understand very little about such matters. Such reports do not usually herald their entrance into the world with pomp and circumstance. You know about Christmas bonuses or the sources of revenue at CSC, do you? Do tell.
At least you are not calling Houriya a prostitute this time, Abdul Rehman. At least not yet. Now, there is progress of sorts.
You might like to consider taking extra English lessons, however. Your spelling, punctuation and grasp of sentence structure remain quite atrocious.
AR – why does the killing of millions for the sake of an ideology bother you, isn’t that what you believe. Isn’t that what HT aspire too. Such hypocrisy. Again stick to banking at UBS and leave the politics to us.
Love
Your old friend who has lost count of the amount of times he has spanked you silly.
AR was in a truly foul mood at the shops this evening. I could tell that even from the six feet behind him where I usually shop.
When we got home, he was knocking back the ” Khalifah brand free range halaal non-alcoholic beer” like there was no tomorrow. One can after another. Another night of haraam trouser coughs, I suppose… and then he’ll get frisky and ask me to tug on his beard. Oh dear.
“Wife”, he bellowed, “look at the hem of these trousers!.” He held up his favourite pair of stay-presses. “How can I show up at the halaqa around at Ibrahim’s gaff without my ankles showing?” He has a point.
I’ve had enough of this. “What is wrong, O husband?”
“It’s that bloody Ahmed woman again!”
Here we go. Once he gets started on “that bloody houri”, there is no stopping him. Like when he got fixated on Mrs Khan… and we know where that ended up. Brothers turning up in the middle of the night. Shouting and screaming. Lucky I wear a niqab, I couldn’t have shown my face in the street for a month, otherwise.
“She’s done it again! Why or why can’t she leave us alone? All we want is peace…”
Yes, I thought a little piece of Asia, a little piece of Europe and perhaps a little piece of Houriya, eh AR?
My mother told me to marry my cousin. I should have listened.
Could do without such personal abuse against posters thank you.
I agree, Abu Wannabe Arab. Posters should not be allowed to call other posters prostitutes.
HT seem to now be thoroughly discredited both in Muslim communities and in wider society. And the more their ideology is revealed, the harder it will become for them to bounce back.
It’s really saying something that even far-left, pro-Islamist types like Seamus Milne and George Galloway won’t have anything to do with HT.
HT’s media guru, Fumbling Fombo, really need to get his act together and do some damage limitation!
One Love, One Heart, Lets get together and feel alright.
Abdel Rahman, old buddy, I’ve had just about enough of your lousy, no-good, thieving, reptile-talk about the Caliphate.
They then uses tabloid style interpretations to make statements e.g. on Page 14 they write:
This report has been co-written by Houriya Ahmed, who is a follower of the violent and hate filled ideology of neo-conservatism. Proponents of neo-conservatism include her employer Douglas Murray, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz and George W Bush . We all know about the way these people “look at the world”. The latter were signatories of PNAC (Project for the New American Century), which promotes American “hegemony” and “full-spectrum” dominance. They have the blood of innocent people on their hands.
Douglas Murray is a well known bigot.
In many places, the 2 neo-conservatives behind this report, use borrowed secondary research from multiple sources. They then uses tabloid style interpretations to make statements e.g. on Page 14 they write:
They quote reference 10: Suha Taji-Farouki, A Fundamental Quest page 2.
Lets look at what Suha Taji actually wrote bottom of Page 1 to top of Page 2:
Firstly, this paragraph does not say that Nabhani was “closely” associated with Hajj Al-Amin. It says
Secondly, Suha does not reference this “well placed source.” Surely as “researchers” you should be looking for references to back up claims about a person’s associations? Surely you should not be relying on a secondary source of unreferenced material? This is just the first example of the amateurish nature of this reports research and using any means necessary to form conclusions which fit their neo-conservative ideological view.
In fact pages 14, 15, 16, 28, 33, 36, 45, 49, 50, 51, 53, 54, 61, 65, 66, 72, 83, 93, 123, 147 all quote from works by Suha Taji Farouqi as a secondary source without checking the root source.
They even quote the well known reference inventor Maajid Nawaz on pages 19, 46, 53, 56,61,67,93,110,117. The TraditionalIslamism and abu-ibrahim blogs have ample referenced evidences of Maajid Nawaz’s false attributions and constructions.
Shockingly, blinded by desperation, they mention and quote a VAT fraudster, convicted criminal and serial reference inventor, Rashad Ali, on pages 63,67,93, whose lies have also been exposed on the TraditionalIslamism blog many times.
Clearly, this is very lazy research. In fact, borrowing from serial reference inventors and petty criminals, without actually checking and confirming the source, is amateurish research.
Evidence of selective quoting is also on display.
At the end of page 17, the neo-conservatives write:
They selectively reference Article 35 of the Draft Constitution to backup their statement that
In the Princeton dictionary, a dictatorship is defined as:
The same dictionary defines a theocracy as:
Article 24 of HTs draft constitution states:
Article 26 states:
Article 28 states:
Article 36 states:
Article 101 states:
Each article is backed by Islamic sources; including Article 26 which states that “non-Muslims have no right in this regard”. Please ask the “CSC research staff [who according to the csc website] are trained in Islamic affairs” to provide Islamic evidences which contradict any of these cannons.
Clearly, “HTs state” is not a theocratic dictatorship as the Khaleef cannot assume power by claiming to be appointed by God, but can only attain power through an election by an elected majority. According to the cited cannons, he is clearly accountable to the people and is entirely restricted in what he adopts by the Ahkam Shari’ah.
Therefore, by definition, “HTs state” is not a theocratic dictatorship.
A researcher is usually qualified to make interpretations about a particular subject, since it is assumed they are well read. But these neo-conservative researchers show their lack of depth and reading on page 18, when they state:
Of course such policies will be “unclear” if one does not read about them. This is yet more evidence of lazy research, selective quoting and a desire to re-run second hand arguments to win brownie points.
Apart from “The Economic System” there are countless articles and books written by members of HT, which talk about revenue generation, funding and investment within the Islamic state. To name but a few easily found sources missed by these neo-conservative – so-called – researchers:
Abdul-Qadeem Zalloom’s “Funds in the Khilafah State”, talks about the rules governing the funds, their sources and types, from where they are collected, the time of their collection and the way they are collected and the sections in which they are kept.
Adnan Khan has written a book about “Constructing an Industrialised Muslim world”.
More recently HT has written “Towards a Tranquil Safe World under the Shade of the Economic System of Islam” where they clearly state Economic policy regarding funding and wealth generation using Islamic Juristic principles.
Pandering to their neo-conservative paymasters is also on clear display.
Without references, on pages 4 they state:
On page 7 they state:
on page 52 they state:
on Page 141 they state:
The use of the term “perceived” shows their desperate desire to manifest political correctness and legitimacy in neo-conservative circles that condemn Islamic shariah and justify the wars which have killed millions of innocent people around the world. This desperation clearly blinded their ability to make conclusive points, as statements are made about HT propagating the notion of a “perceived ‘War on Islam’” without actually stating *exactly* where HT say this.
I can go on and on about the amateurish nature of this report but I guess it is expected. It is actually not very difficult to rebut every point using contextualisation, legitimately referenced reality and Islamic sources. But I will savour that for another day Inshallah.
“shallow”… “amateurish”…
Not again, Abdul Rehman!
“sincere”… oh no, please no!
Given your previously demonstrated inability to spell, punctuate, let alone form a proper sentence in English, I very much doubt if you wrote this paragraph. On the other hand, what “legitimately referenced reality” is will undoubtedly remain one of those mysteries of the universe for which we will never arrive at a satisfactory answer.
Incidentally, you are simply repeating the very arguments with which the authors of the report have already dealt – and at some considerable length. In short, putting your fingers in your ears, shutting tight your eyes and standing in the middle of the room, shouting “nah, nah, nah” is not a convincing argument, Abdul Rehman.
I can’t be bothered to fisk your comments. I recommend you read the report for yourself rather than simply acting as the postman for your leadership.
As mentioned, these neo-cons quote the quilliam foundation, which can’t even manage simple accounts!
http://wck2.companieshouse.gov.uk/48115f40ffef3998338bce4ebaaa1557/compdetails
They are blatently trying to hide their accounts. For sure they will reveal first class travel, buying new cars, staying at luxurious hotels – all in the name of combating terrorism – at tax payers expense!
What are you raving about now, AR?
The document you produce is perfectly in order. This is meant to be evidence of what? That you do not understand the difference between a private business and a non-profit organisation?
What on Earth does your last post have to do with any of the previous comments, or even the above-the-line piece?
Might I suggest that you retract the allegations that you have just made – as they are entirely irrelevant and possibly actionable.
Incidentally, QF are not quoted in the report. At least one person who works for QF (and used to be in HT) is mentioned in the same.
More evidence that you have not actually read the report at all.
Abdul Rehman.
Two quick questions:
- Will Muslims and non-Muslims have equal rights under the Khilafah state?
- Will men and women have equal rights under the Khilafah state?
And if not, why not?
You also might want to start looking up the definition of ‘apartheid’.
so i don’t even get to vote? nice one, abdul rehman. no vote, extra taxes for “protection”? what a fantastic future this is for me!
so what’s HuT’s position on the pact of umar, then? will i be prohibited from building a house that’s higher than a muslim’s? from riding a horse? will you prohibit the repair of damaged churches, synagogues, temples and gurdwaras and the construction of new ones?
noooo, not a “theocratic dictatorship”, clearly – but obviously a golden age that i just can’t *wait* to experience!
b’shalom
bananabrain
Although I have profound disagreements with Rashad Ali I shouldnt have called him a convicted criminal in the above post. Please accept my apologies. I obviously got sucked in and stooped to the level of others on this site, which was a mistake.
That said, I stand by everything else that has been written.
Good Bye
Abdul Rehman
Good of you to admit (albeit unwittingly) that you cut and pasted your posts from others elsewhere.
Ha!
Have had complaints on my blog about my comments. So to be clear I wanted to apologise for the things above written about Rashad and anyone else.
Apologies if offended anyone here. I dont believe in the right to say what one likes at the cost of someone else so was a mistake.
For the record i am not a member of HTB or any similar organisation, although I agree with their principles but in no way speak for them.
We can agree to disagree.
What is your blog?