Timothy Garton Ash has written a comment piece for the Guardian discussing the Swiss ban on mosque minarets. I agree with all that he says except for the Islamic Shakhsiya Foundation point.

I have looked at the curriculum that they were teaching at the time they received government funding. And yes, they do promote Hizb ut-Tahrir (HT) ideology to the core. And as many of us know, HT ideology mandates Muslims to lead segregated lives from the rest of society and to only follow HT’s version of Islam. It is not exactly rocket science to know that HT run schools with HT teachers and a headmistress that was HT at the time of funding and writing the school’s curriculum would be teaching HT ideology to children. Anyway, the rest of the article is good. Have a read:

So Nicolas Sarkozy, responding to the minaret ban in Switzerland, admonishes us to practise our faiths with “humble discretion”. To be recommended humble discretion by President Sarkozy is like being counselled modesty in dress by Lady Gaga, or self-denial by a banker.

But France’s mercurial president does have a point when he says, in his recent article in Le Monde, that it is not enough simply to condemn the Swiss referendum vote; we should try to understand what motivated so many Swiss, and what this tells us about Europe today. How is it possible that, in a country with just four minarets, 57% of those who voted, on a turnout of 53% – in other words, more than a quarter of the Swiss electorate – could vote for the constitution to be changed to include a blanket ban on the building of minarets?

Were they responding to inflammatory posters showing minarets that looked like missiles all over the Swiss flag, together with the threatening figure of a woman in a niqab? Or to ludicrous arguments like that of the Swiss People’s party representative Oskar Freysinger, who said “the minute you have minarets in Europe it means Islam will have taken over”? By which logic, Spain and Britain are already Islamic countries. Was this an expression of rampant “Islamophobia”, finding different targets from country to country but basically the same poison under the skin? Or was it merely anxious people crying “this change in our societies has come so fast – tell us where it is all going to end”?

Sarkozy writes blithely that the vote has nothing to do with putting in question the freedom of religion, but then almost contradicts himself by saying “one does not respect people when one obliges them to practise their religion in caves or in hangars”.

Let us be clear: this vote was wrong both in principle and politically. The European court of human rights would almost certainly find that it does violate the principle of religious freedom, as we interpret it in 21st-century Europe. Religious freedom cannot consist of saying: “We, Christians and Jews, have our churches and synagogues, but you, Muslims, cannot have your mosques. Your religion is tolerable so long as it is practised only by consenting adults in private.”

That is to put the clock of religious toleration back 300 years, to a time when even protestants in Catholic France could not worship in public. Of course, planning regulations and the local townscape must be respected. Architectural tact and syncretic innovation are desirable, as brilliantly exemplified in the new buildings of the Oxford Centre for Islamic Studies or Boston’s Islamic Cultural Centre. But this vote was not about urban planning.

Some retort that many Islamic countries don’t allow Christians to build churches, so why should European countries allow Muslims to erect minarets?

This argument is completely back to front. It is like saying: well, the US has the death sentence so why shouldn’t Italy put Amanda Knox to death in an electric chair? Or: well, Saudi Arabia has women stoned for adultery so why shouldn’t we torture Arab men? In many majority Muslim countries, there is pervasive religious intolerance towards Christians, Jews, other religious groups (Bahai, Ahmadiyya) and, not least, atheists, but we can only be credible in criticising that intolerance if we practise at home the universal principles that we preach abroad. As someone once said: do as you would be done by.

The vote to ban minarets is not a mistake because there are no problems in relation to Muslims in Europe; it is a mistake because there are so many problems in relation to Muslims in Europe. We have to decide which of them really matter, and which are secondary.

On the Muslim side there is the problem of radical extremism and the rather different one of reactionary illiberalism (for example, the treatment of women in some conservative Muslim communities). On the non-Muslim side there is the problem of people lumping together worries about terrorists, immigrants, asylum seekers, job losses and crime, putting a big wrapper around them all and marking the package “Islam”. The worst thing that could happen is a polarisation around purely symbolic issues, with one side, consisting almost entirely of non-Muslims, shouting “Islam!” and the other, consisting almost entirely of Muslims, shouting back “Islamophobia!”

Switzerland shows us the danger of sliding into a culture war, a Kulturkampf, which does not even go to the heart of the matter. At the heart of the matter is not Islam or anti-Islam, minarets or headscarves, but the things essential to maintain a free society: free speech; human rights; personal security against terrorism, crime and arbitrary state power; the equality before the law of men and women, rich and poor, believers in all faiths and none; schools in which the rules and values of a free country are learned and internalised by children of all backgrounds, whatever they are taught or not taught at home.

In Britain, too, we must beware the Swiss danger of slipping into a Kulturkampf about secondary, symbolic issues. Whether a mosque gets a minaret should be a subject for local planning. What an adult woman wears should be her free choice. (The obvious exceptions, in some workplaces, for instance, do not falsify the basic rule.) Whether this or that preacher or organisation is banned should not become the test case for the whole position of Muslims in Britain.

David Cameron’s Conservatives will have to watch out that a security-led agenda does not impair the larger cause of integration in freedom. To this, schools are vital. Cameron was left with egg on his face a couple of weeks ago, because he got the facts wrong about government funding for an Islamic faith school. But the debate revolved around too narrow a question: was this school promoting extremism while receiving government money aimed at preventing it?

The larger question to ask, of that and all other schools, is: are they teaching the language, history, civics and values that will equip their pupils to be full, participating citizens of a free country? An unintended consequence of the Tory emphasis on localism, and on giving more autonomy to schools, may be to make that more difficult. For the purposes of civic integration, we need more nationwide curriculum, standards and inspection, not less.

Not all Muslims, all of the time, will be able to support all these minimum essentials of a modern free society. There is a real tension between some of the essentials (for instance, the equal rights and dignity of homosexuals) and what is habitually taught even in mainstream, conservative Muslim communities. But most British Muslims, most of the time, will support most of them. In my view, the absolute star of the BBC Question Time confrontation with BNP leader Nick Griffin was the Conservative Muslim politician Sayeeda Warsi. She gave him hell, while speaking up for British traditions of openness, fair play and tolerance. I felt she spoke for me, for Britain, and for freedom. We must not let totemic dust-ups about minarets or headscarves obscure the battles that really count.

****

Many people are not aware that Hizb-ut-Tahrir is split into two groups. Both groups oppose each other but go by the same name. So how did this situation come about?

In 1997 some members of Hizb ut-Tahrir (HT) claimed to have removed the then leader Abdul Qadeem Zalloom from the Imara (leadership) of the party. In his place they had elected a new Amir (supreme leader) and were now going to correct the mistakes of the previous leadership. This incident led to HT splitting into two groups, the first being those who continued following Zalloom as the leader and the second being those who broke off and formed their own party, also known as Hizb ut-Tahrir. This incident is referred to as the 1997 ‘Redress’.

In this article I will be looking at the reasons why the split occurred and the key differences between the two groups.

Background

From 1986 to 1996, Omar Bakri Mohammad was the head of the British branch of Hizb ut-Tahrir. In 1996 Bakri was expelled from the party for not strictly adhering to the party methodology. Another reason for his expulsion was that he had become too much of a liability: amongst other things he had called for the assassination of Tory PM John Major and expressed a desire to see the flag of Islam flying over Downing Street. He also seemed to love courting the media; his attention seeking tactics were perceived to be giving HT a bad name and damaging its image. HT wanted to project itself as a serious political party but Bakri was doing the opposite, his tactics eventually leading to HT being banned by the NUS. After being expelled from HT, Bakri went on to found al-Muhajiroun and continued where he had left off from. HT then started a process of recanting his books and removing some of the more hate-filled literature from its website. It also began to review its whole strategy in Britain. During this period new editions of party books appeared and there was a change in the accountability structure.

Whilst this ‘reviewing’ process was going on, some members of HT thought that the party had been infiltrated by Mossad. They said concerns of the party activists (shabab) were being ignored and party literature was being moderated. References to Jihad were removed from party books and the party now claimed to be at a stage of readiness to take power (Nusrah). These same members accused Omar Bakri of being an MI5 agent. They also said Zionists had finally infiltrated HT and were now trying to destroy the party from within. They therefore felt that it was incumbent upon them to remove the corrupt leadership that had been infiltrated and work to save the party from destruction. These are the issues that led to the splinter group breaking off and forming HT2.

The split occurred at the leadership level in Jordan. The man to initiate the split was a senior Hizb ut-Tahrir member called Abu Raami. The most prominent member of HT in Britain to follow Raami was Farid Kassim. Kassim had been a founding member of the British branch of HT and was also the party’s national spokesman in the UK. At the time of the split it was believed that 30% of the party had joined the splinter group with 70% still being loyal to Zalloom.

HT1, or Hizb ut-Tahrir Britain (HTB) as it prefers to be known is the main party today and is presently loyal to the global leader Ata Abu Rishta, the successor of Abdul Qadeem Zalloom. The splinter group was initially led by Abu Raami (a senior HT member) who died shortly after the split. It is not known who currently leads this group as they don’t disclose this information to the public.

HT1 have referred to the splinter group as renegades (nakitoun) in the past. The splinter group refers to HT1 as the ‘Zalloomis/Rishtis’ or the ‘Zalloom Faction’.

I will now highlight some of the reasons for the split and the key differences between the two groups.

Some reasons for the split:

HT2 believed that HT 1 changed several key party books hence diluting the party’s original message. They also believe AQZ deviated from the party method and therefore they had no choice but to dismiss him.

HT2 also believed that some members of HT1 indulged in unseen matters like dealing with the jinn (supernatural beings) for a long time. Despite knowing this, Zalloom never reprimanded them and even tried to justify what they did.

HT2 believe Zalloom ignored questions from party activists, changed admin rules and requested members not to attack Saddam Hussein, despite the fact he was clearly acting upon kufr (unbelief).

HT2 claim Zalloom had broken the oath in Hizb ut-Tahrir between the activists and the Amir by not abiding by the idea and method of the party

Key differences between the two groups:

HT believes in a three stage revolution to realise their goal of establishing an Islamist state. The three stages are: the private stage, the public stage (also known as the interaction stage) and the Nusrah stage (the stage of taking power). HT1 claim to be in the Nusrah stage whereas HT2 believe they are in the earlier “interaction stage” which they accuse HT1 of skipping.

HT2 believes HT1 is no longer following the party thought and method. They believe HT1 has deviated in order to remain a legal group in the UK, in that they seek political recognition throughkufr legal systems.

HT1 believes Muslims are allowed to follow the “Shariah” (meaning methodology in this context) of previous prophets. HT2 believe this is not allowed.

Since the split occurred, both groups have continued their work in the UK. They study the same books with slight amendments. Both groups also have their own websites:

HT 1 website: http://www.hizb.org.uk/hizb/index.php

HT 2 website: http://english.hizbuttahrir.org/

Conclusion

For a party whose goal it is to unite Muslims all over the world, this type of split is a devastating blow. Not only do we now have two parties in the UK but we also have another splinter group in the US and also one in Central Asia.

When will HT realise that political paradigms of the 7^th century will not work in the 21^st century? Political systems, social structures and economic systems have changed over the centuries. Today dreams of global Muslim unity are laughable especially when a small group like HT can’t even stay united. Furthermore, the founder of Hizb-ut-Tahrir had hoped to establish his Islamist state within 13 years but this didn’t happen. The party then predicted it would happen within 30 years, this also didn’t happen. After that many members left the party and HT lost many key members.

HT is a failed movement with a bankrupt ideology that is no longer relevant in the 21^st century.

They could not be less correct, as a Bangladeshi news site reports:

The Dhaka University’s vice chancellor received death threats on Sunday from banned Islamist outfit Hizb ut-Tahrir.

The organisation in two letters asked A A M S Arefin Siddique to reinstate central coordinator of the outfit and spokesman professor Mohiuddin Ahmed to his position in the university without delay.

He has also been asked to take steps for releasing arrested relatives of some of the convicts in the Bangabandhu murder case.

The university’s assistant registrar Munshi Shamsuddin told bdnews24.com the letters arrived between 1pm and 1:30pm on Sunday; one was posted on Nov 10 and the other on Nov 11.

One letter reads: “Don’t involve Hizb ut-Tahrir’s Mohiuddin in any trouble. And reinstate the three teachers sent on forced leave within three days. Or else, we will kill you and your family. No one can save you.”

The letter is undersigned as Abdul Hamid, president of Hizb ut-Tahrir’s committee of registrar building officials.

As the Spittoon reported, HT was banned in Bangladesh last month for reasons of national security. This seems to have been a good call, at least if HT’s apparent allies are anything to go by.

The letters claimed that Hizb ut Tahrir has 200 trained members.

The other letter under signed by the same asked for removal of all barriers regarding admission of madrasa students in the university. It also asked the vice-chancellor to get the government to release Mehnaz Rashid, Kamrul Haque Swapan and Harkat-ul-Jihad-al-Islami leader Mufti Abdul Hannan.
[...]
Mehnaz Rashid, daughter of death convict Abdur Rashid in the Bangabandhu murder case, and Swapan, brother of another fugitive death convict Shariful Haque Dalim, were arrested recently over alleged involvements in the bomb attack on Awami League MP Sheikh Fazle Noor Taposh.

HuJi Leader Mufti Hannan is standing trial for bombing prime minister Sheikh Hasina’s meeting on Aug 21, 2004.

Assuming this is correct, HT Bangladesh is making death-threats to try and force the release of terrorists implicated in bombings and murders. If this is HT’s idea of a non-violent “exclusively political method”, what they would mean by “violent” doesn’t bear thinking about.

****

Regular readers don’t need us to tell them about Hizb ut-Tahrir (HT). However, as authors of the Centre for Social Cohesion’s recent report, Hizb ut-Tahrir: Ideology & Strategy, we feel obliged to respond to HT’s ‘smear aimed at distracting our organisation from
its work’.

HT’s statement lays out six allegations against the Centre for Social Cohesion (CSC) and our report:

#1. ‘The report is little more than a rehash of the same old and tired allegations that have been disproved on many previous occasions’.

Yeah, sure, it’s the same old allegations… hijacking planes and killing Jews…

If the plane belongs to a country at war with the Muslims, like Israel, it is allowed to hijack it, for there is no sanctity for Israel nor for the Jews in it and their property and we should treat them as being at war with us

- ‘The Islamic Rule on Hijacking Aeroplanes’, HT, 8 April 1988 [See pp.31-32 of our report]

There can be no peaceful relations with the Jews: this is prohibited by Islamic Law. It is also prohibited to settle for only part of Palestine. There can be neither negotiations, co-existence nor normalization of relations with the Jews in Palestine. None of the Jews in Palestine who arrived after the destruction of the Ottoman Empire have the right to remain there. The Islamic legal rule requires that those of whom are capable of fighting be killed until none survive.

- Ata Abu Rishta, HT’s current global leader, 1994 [see pp.27-29 of our report]

The questions we put to HT are: when have these allegations been disproven? And more importantly, when is HT going to retract these statements?

#2. ‘This report comes from the CSC, an organisation that purports to be a think tank but which has a track record of anti-Muslim papers and articles. Douglas Murray, its director and self confessed neoconservative famously said “Conditions for Muslims in Europe must be made harder across the board.”’

In fact, Murray – who did not author this report – argued for no special treatment for any minority, or majority. He advocated equal rights – and treatment – for all. By contrast, HT believes conditions for non-Muslims, women, gays, fellow Islamists that advocate democracy (basically anyone who disagrees with HT) should be made harder across the world.

‘Neoconservatives who openly support violence and the ideology which was the conveyor belt to the Iraq and Afghanistan wars which have led to the mass murder of hundreds of thousands of Muslims.’

The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have undoubtedly led to the death of thousands of Muslims, mainly perpetrated by al-Qaeda operatives. But this is nothing compared to the ‘millions’ of Muslims HT are prepared to kill to expand their Caliphate in Muslim-majority countries:

Therefore, it is imperative to put back this issue in its rightful place and consider it to be a vital issue, by killing every apostate even if they numbered millions.

Thus the rule by a Kufr system would be prevented even if this led to several years of fighting and even if it led to the killing of millions of Muslims and to the martyrdom of millions of believers.

- Abdul Qadeem Zallum, HT’s second global leader, How the Khilafah was Destroyed [see p.43 of our report]

‘The CSC is a subsidiary of Civitas…’

CSC is not a subsidiary of CIVITAS – nor has it been since June 2008.

3. ‘Hizb ut-Tahrir works openly and has never hidden its work or objectives.’

Since 7/7 HT have operated a ‘keep your ideology in your heart’ strategy. After Tony Blair’s proposed proscription, HT took all inflammatory material off their website and later said they were worried people may have taken the group’s views out of context. At the time HT members even burned party books because they feared a government crackdown on their extremist material. [See p.110 of our report]

‘After 7/7 we held open meetings and debates with non-Muslims – including leading intellectuals, politicians and journalists in the UK such as Tim Sebastian, Adam Boulton, David Goodhart, AC Grayling, Roger Mosey, Norman Lamont and many others – where our views were challenged and scrutinised […] We have challenged Ministers and front bench Tory politicians to debate their threats to ban Hizb ut-Tahrir, but none have engaged in debate.’

No surprise there. Maybe it’s because they know HT will use their names to bolster the party’s claimed legitimacy…

#4. ‘We believe the reason for this smear campaign is that Hizb ut-Tahrir offers an agenda for Muslims in the west to engage confidently in society whilst preserving their Islamic identity and values.’

HT is responsible for smearing itself with it antisemitic, pro-offensive jihad, anti-Western, homophobic and terrorist-supporting statements. Enough said! [See pp. 20-23, 28-33, 38-40 of our report]

‘This message is gaining clear support amongst Muslims and this directly contradicts the agenda of aggressive assimilationists like the CSC.’

Yes, we apologise, we do wish to aggressively campaign for the rights of British Muslims – freedom of belief, the right to practice one’s religion without fear, and the right to vote. We do believe in the availability of such rights, just as people have the right not to use them.

#5. ‘Hizb ut-Tahrir’s support for the Caliphate in the Muslim world as a way to liberate the Muslim world from occupation and colonialism also flies in the face of imperialist neoconservative thinking.’

HT does not believe in jihad as a “defensive” doctrine:

Jihad is not a defensive war; it is in fact a war to raise the Word of Allah (swt) and it is compulsory originally in order to spread Islam and to carry its message even if the disbelievers did not attack us.

- Hizb ut-Tahrir, Hizb ut-Tahrir [see p.22 of our report]

6. ‘The report’s characterisation of the Khilafah (Caliphate) as a state out to destroy the world is laughable when we see in truth that it is western governments that have had an aggressive policy in the Muslim world. Its claim that Hizb ut-Tahrir is committed to “mass murder” is a joke. […] Indeed, the CSC report contradicts itself saying “HT is not a terrorist organisation”.’

Yes, HT is not a terrorist organisation. But it will do its damn best to establish a terrorist state:

This terror cannot take place without preparation, and preparation requires the presence of factories. Thus the verse [a Quranic verse] indicates obligation of establishing the military factories through the meaning of necessity…

- Hizb ut-Tahrir, The Institutions of State in the Khilafah in Ruling and Administration [see p.33 of our report]

‘The characterisation that Hizb ut-Tahrir supports “violent jihad” is hysterical. The well known Islamic stance is that those who are under occupation have the right to resist occupation, and this is Hizb ut-Tahrir’s stance as well.’

…[T]hey [the West and “weak” Muslims] interpreted jihad as a defensive rather than offensive war. They contradicted the reality of jihad, for jihad is a war against anyone who stands in the face of the Islamic Da’wah whether he is an aggressor or not. In other words it is the removal of any obstacle standing in the face of the Da’wah…

- Hizb ut-Tahrir Hizb ut-Tahrir [see p.22 of our report]

In summary, HT’s statement is ‘not a sincere or objective attempt to analyse’ Hizb ut-Tahrir: Ideology & Strategy.

Despite such smears and attacks we remain committed to our efforts to work to establish liberal democracy in the Muslim world, and encourage the British Muslim communities to preserve our liberal values!

Now, for the good news: Within seven days of this information going public, Haringey Council has axed funding to the Shakhsiyah Foundation:

The public money – from the Government’s Early Years Fund – was paid to help run the nursery school and two Islamic primary schools where children are taught key elements of Hizb’s ideology from the age of five. It was administered by the local authority, Haringey.

In a statement, the Home Office said: “Haringey Council has decided to suspend its allocation of Early Years Funding, to the schools concerned, pending an investigation.”

The most pressing question that remains is how did three “legitimate Muslim schools” become the cover for Hizb ut-Tahrir operations under the noses of the schools authorities in Haringey?

Other trustees of the Shakhsiyah Foundation who are Hizb members or activists include Farah Ahmed, the head teacher of the Slough school, who has written in a Hizb journal condemning the “corrupt Western concepts of materialism and freedom”.

On their website, the schools say their “ultimate goal” and “foremost work” is the creation of an “Islamic personality” in children. The creation of an “Islamic personality” is a key tenet of Hizb’s ideology. The schools’ history curriculum states that children are taught that “there must be one ruler of the khilafah [caliphate]“. The schools’ website says that “in the glorious history of Islam… the Sharia was the norm”. Children are taught Arabic from the age of three.

A former teacher at one of the schools told yesterday how they were set up as a “great way of creating Hizb ut-Tahrir propaganda”. She said the schools were started by a group of female Hizb members and activists but that the group had also brought in some non-Hizb staff.

The former teacher said: “The concept behind it was to allow the school to speak for itself and then to lure [pupils] in through that doorway.”

The information on the Shakhsiyah Foundation was uncovered in a new report published by the Centre for Social Cohesion, authored by Hannah Stewart and Houriya Ahmed (who also blogs here at The Spittoon).

Well, now Hizb ut-Tahrir have admitted (pdf) to the duplicitous tricks they have been using to insinuate their way into British mosques, from which they have long been banned.

Members of Hizb ut-Tahrir have also started raising awareness around the country on government plans to promote compulsory Sex and Relationship Education to children aged 5 years old and above, and encouraged parents to question the implementation of this policy in their children’s schools.

Now she has written another defence of her appearance, this time for the Huffington Post.

At Gallup, where I direct the Center for Muslim Studies, we do precisely this every day–measure and report what the world is thinking. While what we discover is not what some expect–or want to hear, denying these findings may help some score points with their ideological base, but only weakens our ability to meet our goals as a nation.

[...]

I experienced this first hand a few weeks ago when I spoke by phone on a UK based TV program called Muslimah Dilema. To my unpleasant surprise, I found out on air that I was joined by a member of Hizbul Tahrir (HT), a marginal but controversial group which denounces Western Democracy and calls for the creation of a pan-Islamic state in the Muslim world. The reaction to my reporting of Gallup’s findings on Muslim views of democracy, gender and Shari’a (Islam’s ethical and legal code) by both the HT representative and later the bloggers who’ve parsed my interview showed just how little either side was willing to understand the very people they so prolifically discuss.

The HT representative on the program dismissed or “reinterpreted” findings I presented so as to not challenge the group’s simplistic utopian ideology which holds liberty in contempt as morally decadent. For example, as I regularly report, our research shows that far from denouncing democracy, Muslims around the world say it is among the things they most admire about the West, specifically mentioning “liberty” as a desirable attribute. Around the world, from Morocco to Malaysia, Muslim respondents described their respect for much of what the West holds dear: freedom of the press, the rule of law, and transparency and accountability of government.

As much as HT selectively ignored and exploited these findings to push their propaganda, many conservative pundits who diametrically oppose HT’s vision of the world, did much the same. To them, my crime was that I reported that many Muslim women wanted sharia as a source of legislation. I also explained that Muslim women surveyed by Gallup said they believed they should have access to equal legal rights, free employment, voting without family influence, and even leadership positions in government. This suggests that many Muslim women see Sharia differently from those who use it to deny women rights. For simply stating results of survey research, I stood accused of “endorsing” Taliban-like rule, and downplaying the abuses done in the name of sharia.

Measuring and reporting what people believe does not mean agreement or endorsement. What it does mean is seeing the world as it is, not as we wish it to be. Factoring in this reality makes leaders stronger–their decisions are better informed, their communication is better targeted, and their outcomes are better anticipated. While some may find the facts inconvenient, the rest of us can benefit from our ability to engage in authentic dialogue, even when we disagree.

Read this transcript (pdf) of her appearance or watch the video and judge for yourself whether she was the wronged party as she tries to portray herself. Or will you agree with me and al-Qanaas al-Masri that Dalia messed up by failing to contradict the HT members she appeared alongside when they used her research to support HT’s ideology?

Dalia Mogahed’s foolish appearance on Islam Channel handed Hizb ut-Tahrir a massive propaganda coup – time for a mea culpa, not excuses.

It is indisputable that HT’s rejection of free speech, democracy, equal rights, secularism (and on and on and on) is deeply unhelpful in British society. Their rejection of the key values (and democratic institutions) which bind our society together is certainly not something that should go unchallenged, but is this enough reason to ban them?

Well, this week the argument for banning has got that little bit stronger. Pakistan’s Daily Times reports:

Nuclear scientist among held Hizbut Tahrir activists

The recently arrested Hizbut Tahrir activists from Islamabad include a nuclear scientist, a private TV channel reported on Monday.

According to the channel, the arrested men include the scientist, a USAID official and an environmental scientist. The activists who are being interrogated by the Islamabad police include: Rizwan Aleem, a nuclear scientist and currently a PhD student at the Ghulam Ishaq Khan Institute of Engineering Sciences and Technology; Abid Mehmood, an officer of a United States Agency for International Development; and Aman Hamza, an environmental scientist. Sources say the Hizbut Tahrir activists were likely to be handed over to intelligence agencies for further interrogation. Nearly, all the 32 arrested activists belonged to educated families, the channel reported.

When Maajid Nawaz first left HT he spoke about how HT first took an interest in Pakistan when it became a nuclear power. Nawaz traveled there from Britain to help set up an HT branch there in the hope that it could infiltrate Pakistan’s military to wrest control of Pakistan and its nuclear weapons from the Pakistani people. The arrest of a Hizb ut-Tahrir member who had infiltrated the Pakistani nuclear establishment is terrifying proof that HT has not given up on this bellicose ambition.

HT Pakistan was set up by British HT member Imtiaz Malik with the help of other HT activists based in London; the group that organises spectacularly ill-attended conferences in Birmingham is the same group as the one in Pakistan lusting after nuclear weapons. The only reason HT has mounted no similar attempts to undermine British national security is due to lack of numbers, not ambition.

****

UPDATE: As David from Media Watch Watch observes below, Hizb ut-Tahrir has just been banned in Bangladesh. The only Arab countries that it can operate in are Yemen, Lebanon and the UAE [and Sudan, thank you Abu Faris]. It is also banned across Central Asia, Russia and Turkey, whilst Germany has banned it from public activity.

****

Through a source, who must for obvious reasons remain anonymous, I have received a copy of a letter that Dalia Mogahed, an advisor to Obama, wrote to The Telegraph in response to their coverage of her decision to appear on the Islam Channel on a programme run and hosted by Hizb ut-Tahrir. The letter reads:

Dear Sirs;

I am writing in response to the 8 October article “Barack Obama adviser says Sharia Law is misunderstood” by Mr. Gilligan and Mr. Spillius.

I was on the Muslimah Dilemma program as a pollster, not a pundit. I did not take issue with the objectionable remarks of the host or the guest because as a Gallup analyst my job is to explain the opinions of others, in this case Muslims around the world, and not to present my personal opinions. I do not in any way endorse Hizb ul Tahrir.  My participation in the program does not serve as endorsement of any group or cause.

My staff and I did not find out the affiliation of the host or other guest until she was introduced on air during the program, and would not have agreed to the interview had we known ahead of time. I suspect the host knew this and therefore deliberately mislead us to score propaganda points for an ideological movement.  Unfortunately the Telegraph’s publicity and misrepresentation of my appearance may have delivered to the group exactly this victory.

Sincerely,

DALIA MOGAHED

Director and Senior Analyst

Center for Muslim Studies

202.715.3206

901 F Street, NW.

Washington, DC. 20004

USA

GALLUP

So in other words:

1. Damn. I’ve been caught out.
2. It’s not my job to challenge fascist movements – even when I see my research being (mis)used by them to justify their totalitarian ambitions.
3. It wasn’t my fault. How could I, “Executive Director of the Gallup Center for Muslim Studies”, or my staff know that this was a programme directed and hosted by HT members?
4. It’s all the Telegraph’s fault anyway. By reporting this, they’ve allowed HT to “score propaganda points”!

I think it is notable that the Telegraph didn’t bother publishing this letter.

I also think that it’s worth noting that Dalia Mogahed did not mention any of the problems, which I pointed out in my initial blog on this subject, of appearing on the Islam Channel in the first place (one problem being that the channel’s CEO, Mohammed Ali Harrath, is a convicted terrorist who is wanted by Interpol).

****

Since taking office, President Obama’s administration has tried hard to break with Bush-era ‘them and us’ rhetoric and reach out to ordinary Muslims around the world.

However, I don’t think that anyone thought this policy would include publicly sucking up to Hizb ut-Tahrir, a group which, much like al-Qaeda, aspires to create a global, totalitarian and expansionist Caliphate.

And yet, as Counter Terrorism News website reveals, this is precisely what has now happened.

On Sunday, Dalia Mogahed (pronounced ‘mujahid’), a high-profile member of President Barack Obama’s Faith Advisory Council, spent 45-minutes on the Islam Channel’s programme ‘Muslimah Dilemma’ alongside fellow guest, Nasreen Nawaz, HT’s national women’s media representative (the video is available here).

There are some initial problems with this:

-          The Islam Channel is a hardline wahhabi/Islamist outfit run by Mohammed Ali Harrath, a convicted terrorist who is wanted by Interpol.

-          The ‘Muslimah Dilemma’ programme is an HT-run programme whose producer, Casa Sharif, and host, Ibtihal Bsis Ismail, are all active members of HT.

-          The appearance of such high-profile member of the US government alongside an HT guest risks legitimising HT in the eyes of ordinary Muslims.

Even more problematic, however, is that Mogahed, best known for her work with the pro-Islamist, Saudi-funded academic John Esposito, did not once challenge HT’s speakers during the 45-minute discussion.

This was despite the fact that Nawaz was introduced as “the Women’s Media Representative for the pan-Islamic political party Hizb ut-Tahrir” and that during the programme, Nawaz openly:

-   Called for the re-creation of “Islamic Khilafah state” in which women are “not permitted to hold a position of leadership in government”.

-  Called for Sharia law to be “the source of legislation” and for “strict regulation in terms of social laws” (explicitly saying that “men and women cannot socialize” and “they cannot be alone together”).

-  Attacked secular “man-made law” and the west’s “lethal cocktail” of “liberty” and “capitalism” which they blamed for “promiscuity”, “pornography”, “teenage pregnancies” and “adultery”.

In addition to not directly challenging HT on a single one of these issues, Mogahed additionally cited evidence from surveys that neatly backed up HT’s regular claim that “the Muslims” are calling for the implementation of a hard-line version of Sharia law and the creation of a despotic and repressive Caliphate. For instance, at one point, Nawaz explaining how HT’s Caliphate will work, saying:

For example, you have political parties underneath an Islamic Khilafah state. This is all defined by the Islamic state—this is all defined by the Islamic texts. You have political parties where women again are encouraged to be a part of. You have a mechanism called the majlis al-ummah, which is the consultative body that holds the ruler to account and advises the ruler. You have the Qadi Muthalim, the court of unjust acts, where a woman can directly account the rulers of her society. These are some examples of the issue of governance and the principles of governance in Islam.

Mogahed responds, not by challenging Nawaz’s laughable claims that HT’s various absurd inventions like the “Majlis al-Ummah” are “all defined by the Islamic texts” but by saying:

I think the solutions are many and quite complicated. [In] certain societies the issue is around the lack of money and [in] other societies resources are plentiful. What Muslims around the world tell us that they believe is a key to progress is attachment to their spiritual and moral values. They really do see, many of them, that Islam offers a solution for their problems and that they see Islam as their society’s greatest asset. When we asked people what they admire most about the Muslim world, what they tell us is their attachment to Islam, Islamic values, even the value of hospitality, the value of family. So I think that whereas people around the world do feel that the problems are diverse, many many of them do mention Islam as a as a part of that solution. When we asked people what Muslims can do to help themselves, one of the most frequent responses is for them to unify and another is for them to follow Islam and and make it a greater, more authentic part of their lives.

So, in other words, Dalia Mogahed, advisor to Barack Obama, by failing to clearly say that very few Muslims actually agree with HT’s aims instead implies that HT are not only right but their ideology is also popular among Muslims around the world. Ibtihal Bsis Ismail, the HT presenter of the programme, loved this response so much that she ended the show by inviting Mogahed to talk about her future reports on the ‘Muslimah Dilemma’ show:

I think we’d love to have you on personally to discuss the findings of those surveys once they come out. I want to say Jazakallah kheir to my guest Dahlia Mogahed from the United States of America and Jazakallah kheir to Nasreen Nawaz, women’s media representative for Hizb ut-Tahrir.

This interview has already been a massive boost to HT. HT’s main UK website has put the youtube clip on the front-page of its website – as has HT’s branch in Australia. Good work Dalia!

How the hell are ordinary Muslims meant to challenge Islamist groups like HT (as they are constantly being urged to do) when the very same groups are simultaneously being promoted and empowered by those in positions of power in the Whitehouse and elsewhere?

****

The Home Office has another key responsibility.

The security of our people and of our nation.

To take the lead in the battle against terrorism.

And the fight against an ideology of hate and violence.

An ideology that damages the reputation of decent, law abiding British Muslims as well as threatening life and limb.

And let’s be clear. That ideology wants to destroy the civil liberties that make this country what it is. No Government should allow them to do so, and the way this Government has eroded those liberties is shameful and must be reversed.

Our police and security services have done a magnificent job in protecting us against the terrorist threat.

We owe them a huge debt of gratitude.

But we are still not tough enough on those who spread a doctrine of hate in Britain.

So I will immediately ban Hiz b’ut Tahrir, and any other group that actively incites hatred and violence.

We also have extremists using video links to hold meetings with banned preachers of hate from overseas who urge violence against our society.

If I am Home Secretary the people who organise those meetings will be arrested and prosecuted.

Under this Government the extremists have been free to protest on our streets and incite violence and hatred in the most blatant ways.

We cannot and we will not allow this to continue.

****

This November, the School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS) will be holding its course on political Islam and, like the last one, it is not without its controversial speakers.

I don’t have many fans in the SOAS political Islam Course; this is mainly because the think tank for which I work was instrumental in preventing the entry into the UK of one of its prominent invitees, Ibrahim el Moussawi.  Moussawi, the head of Hezbollah’s propaganda station al Manar TV, was due to address the same course in March of this year until the Home Secretary refused him an entry visa at the last minute.  SOAS, for their part, were more than happy to play host to a man who heads a TV channel which is banned in most of Europe because of its extreme antisemitism and promotion and incitement of violence.

The course, which is priced at just under £2000 per person, is aimed at police and civil servants who wish to learn more about Islamism.  In the coming years, having police and members of the security services who are well versed on the history and ideology of political Islam will be absolutely crucial and the SOAS course is, in principle, a very important programme.  It is a pity therefore, that the course convenors have wasted this opportunity by showcasing and paying a number of speakers who will be unable to provide an objective view on the subject.

Although this year SOAS have not attempted to hire a member of a terrorist group, and there are a number of very good lecturers, such as Joas Wanamakers, there are two speakers who should not be paid to teach government staff.  The first is Kemal Helbawy, the former spokesman for the Muslim Brotherhood (MB) in Europe, who has played a pivotal role in establishing the MB network in the UK.  He founded both the Muslim Association of Britain (MAB) and the Muslim Welfare House (MWH) in the 90s, with both groups seeing substantial success in propagating the MB ideology in the UK.  He is also known for his support for Hamas terrorism and a month after 7/7, when Tony Blair stated that suicide bombing was wrong under any circumstances, including in Israel, Helbawy condemned him: “Well he is wrong. It is as simple as that! He is not a Mufti. He is a British Statesman.”  More recently, he told a BBC Arabic interviewer that Israeli children were legitimate targets for terrorist attacks.

Helbawy will be joined this time by Noman Haneef, who is advertised on the SOAS site as undertaking a PHD on Hizb ut Tahrir (HT) and as a lecturer at Birbeck College and Royal Holloway.  What the synopsis fails to mention is that Haneef is also, at best, an apologist for HT and their ideology.  Formerly involved with the group himself, he is heavily critical of former HT members who have identified the HT ideology as a potential security and societal threat.  On his blog he has also written a number of rambling and long-winded articles explaining that HT represent nothing more than harmless exponents of classical Islam.

In his paranoid attack on my co blogger Shiraz Maher, Haneef criticises him for writing that “Islamist terrorism does not exist in a vacuum. Like other social phenomena, it operates within a wider infrastructure, designed to achieve specific ends. In this case, that is the political ideology of Islamism, an idea distinct and different from Islam the religion.”  Haneef’s response to this concise and correct identification of the root of jihadist terror is that “The issue is not terrorism but a concerted attack on the ideas of political Islam and specifically those concerning the Caliphate, Islamic Universalism and jihad.”  For him, attempts to re establish the Caliphate and the concept of jihad are completely disconnected from jihadist terrorism; a claim that could only be conjured up by an apologist for a sectarian and supremacist ideology.  What use then, is a man who refuses to accept the ideological underpinnings of Islamist terror?  If anyone attending Haneef’s lecture at SOAS thinks they may not be able to make it, here is my synopsis of what I think he will say: “Political Islam, and in particular the perceived duty of re establishing the Caliphate, are the products of pure Islamic teachings and pose no threat to the secular world.  Those who connect the terror threat with the Islamist ideology are Mi5 stooges and Islamophobes .”

As exponents and supporters of Islamism, Helbawy and Haneef are no doubt in a good position to teach about the subject and I suppose we could learn something from them.  Using tax payer money to pay them for this service, as will be the case with many of the attendees, is absurd, as is the notion that their lectures will be of a balanced and objective nature.

****

Hizb ut-Tahrir claims to be a non-violent political party. Its members publically state this, however critics are not convinced. In this article I will be looking at some of its literature and its stance on the use of violence.  All quotes appear in their correct contexts and all references used in this article can be supplied upon request.

Background

Hizb ut-Tahrir (HT) is a political party established by Taqiuddin al-Nabhani in 1952. Being a former Ba’athist, Nabhani incorporated the organizational principles of Marxism-Leninism into the structure of his new party. The central aim of HT is to unite all Muslim-majority countries into a super-expansionist Islamist state. This is to be done by seizing power in a Muslim-majority country through infiltration of the army and then initiating a military coup, a war by proxy. Once the state is established it will invite other Muslim-majority countries to join, but if they refuse then a war (jihad) will be declared against them and they will be taken over by force. Failed coup attempts by HT in the 1960s led to the loss of much support and membership and today it is banned or viewed with suspicion in all Muslim-majority countries.

So what exactly are its views on the use of violence and is HT dangerous?

Violence and Anti-Semitism

I will begin with a statement issued by Ata Abu Rishta as the official spokesperson of HT (and now its global leader) in Jordan in May 1994, a few weeks before the Cairo Agreement;

There can be no peaceful relations with the Jews: this is prohibited by Islamic Law. It is also prohibited to settle for only part of Palestine. There can be neither negotiations, co-existence nor normalization of relations with the Jews in Palestine. None of the Jews in Palestine who arrived after the destruction of the Ottoman Empire have the right to remain there. The Islamic legal rule requires that those of whom are capable of fighting be killed until none survive. Any others should be forced to leave. Individual Jews who lived in Palestine (as part of a dhimma community) before the end of the (Ottoman) empire and are not guilty of any violent act against the Muslims can be allowed to stay… however, it is anticipated that none belong in this category. It is impossible to solve the problem of Palestine by peaceful means: what is required is actual war, in the form of Jihad.

(A Fundamental Quest: Hizb al-Tahrir and the search for the Islamic Caliphate, page 162, Suha Taji-Farouki Grey Seal London)

This is a pretty shocking statement from a supposedly non-violent party.  It isn’t just calling for the killing of Zionists- but all Jews in Israel who moved there after the collapse of the Ottoman Empire. HT believes that the Israel/Palestine conflict will never be resolved using peaceful means; the only solution is an aggressive war (jihad). According to HT it is also an obligation for Muslims to fight and abolish the state of Israel:

Fighting and exterminating Israel is an obligation even if the Muslims fighting are Arab armies loyal to regimes of unbelief, like the Egyptian soldiers when they fought Israel during the Sinai war

(Khilafah Mag U.S edition, Volume 2, Issue 4 – August 1991)

Another interesting dimension in HT’s violent jihad is that it believes terrorist tactics may be employed against countries it is at war with.  Their official ruling on the permissibility of hijacking planes states:

If the plane belongs to a country at war with Muslims, like Israel, it is allowed to hijack it, for there is no sanctity for Israel or for the Jews in it.

(‘The Islamic rule on hijacking aeroplanes’ – 8^th April 1988)

It’s important to note here that it’s not just Zionists who have “no sanctity” but all Jews (who happen to be on the aircraft). HT has often been accused of being anti-Semitic, and it’s not difficult to see why. Another official HT leaflet entitled The Only place between the Muslims and the Jews is the battlefield, also calls for a violent jihad against all Jews in Israel:

Clearly, the scandalous and treacherous negotiations must end, the door that leads to the treacherous peace with the Jews must be slammed shut, we must rid ourselves from their bragging, arrogance and contempt of Muslims, and destroy their existence by the lawful Jihad until they are wiped out, and their survivors are left senseless, scattered and despised the world over.

(Leaflet issued on 25 December 1992)

Again, it doesn’t make a distinction between Zionists and Jews because HT believes in killing ‘all’ Jews of fighting age within Israel. I remember asking a senior HT member whether the above leaflet was referring to Zionists or all Jews. He told me: “In the Qur’an Allah doesn’t call Jews Zionists but just Jews, so when we say Jews we mean Jews”.

What type of State?

The Islamist state that HT seeks to create will be a violent expansionist state and jihad, defined by HT as a religiously justified war, will be used to achieve the aims of its foreign policy (i.e. expanding its borders). This is outlined in party literature:

Islam has defined the material action. This action will remove all physical obstacles to the attainment of the noble foreign policy objectives of the Khilafah State. This is Jihad.

(Jihad- Foreign Policy of the Khilafah State,  Zahid-Ivan Salaam, Pg 51, Khilafah Publications, London, 2001)

And it’s not just Jews whom HT would like to kill; even fellow Muslims who reject their form of Islamist governance are believed to deserve death.  This point was elaborated upon by the second global leader of HT, Abdul Qadeem Zallum, who stated:

..thus, he who does not rule by Islam and rules by a Kufr system should either retract or be killed. Thus, the rule by a Kufr system would be prevented even if this led to several years of fighting and even if it led to the killing of millions of Muslims and to the martyrdom of millions of believers.

(How the Khilafah Was Destroyed, Pg 199, Al-Khilafah Publications: London, 2000)

Killing millions of people will be a natural occurrence in HT’s proposed Khilafah state because it will be in a state of permanent war (jihad):

The foreign policy of the Khilafah state is determined by the call to Islam.  As the call (dawa) is conveyed by Jihad, the Khilafah state is in the situation of permanent Jihad.

(AL-FAJR, Issue 14, March 1989 –Pg 13)

Affiliations

Another point which often gets overlooked is that prior to the establishment of HT as a party, its founder Taqiuddin al-Nabhani was an associate of the Grand Mufti of Palestine, Sheikh Muhammad Hajj Al-Amin Hosseini.  Hosseini was a Nazi war collaborator who visited Nazi Germany and Hitler during WW2. This fact has been highlighted by various researchers:

While one cannot ascertain exactly how they met, it is evident that a relationship of sorts developed between the two men: according to well placed sources in Amman al-Nabhani was considered to belong to Hajj Amin’s camp during the period from 1945 to 1948.

(A Fundamental Quest and the search for the Islamic Caliphate, Suha Taji Farouqi, Pg 2, Grey Seal 1^st Edition)

Yet in the party’s early days, al-Nabhani was influenced by Shiekh Muhammad Hajj Al-Amin Husseni, Grand Mufti of Jerusalem and Nazi war collaborator. Party Members have often denied the holocaust, calling it a “tool used by Jews to justify their own hegemony over Muslims in Palestine. (Hizb ut-Tahrir, Islam’s Political Insurgency, Zayno Baran, Pg 28, The Nixon Center)

This may explain why there is so much hatred for Jews in HT publications.

Conclusion

HT is not a terrorist organisation and it does not plan terrorist operations. However, as we have seen, its method of taking power is through military coups – an inherently violent method and after the establishment of the Khilafah, it would be happy to use force and even terrorism against its enemies.

If you read Hizb ut-Tahrir books, you will have the impression that it is a political party that works to assume power, and not an association that confronts the battlefield of life with the goal of actualizing God’s vice regency on earth….This has lost it considerable weight in the struggle.

(Ghazi al Tawba, al Fikr Islami al Muassir: Dirasah wa Taqwim Beirut: n.p 1969, 311)

HT is an anti-Semitic extremist Islamist party that believes political violence is justified. It seeks to create a super-expansionist State (khilafah). They will then seek to take over the world, firstly by inviting countries to join them, but if they resist, they will be taken over by force. In their own words:

The aim of Hizb ut-Tahrir is to resume the Islamic way of life and to carry the Islamic Da’wah, i.e. to achieve the objective of solving the vital issue concerning the Muslims……This would be under the shadow of an Islamic State which is the Khilafah, where Muslims would appoint a Khalifah and pledge to listen to and obey him on the condition that he governs them with the Book of Allah and the  Sunnah of His Messenger, and on condition that he carries Islam as a message to the world by invitation and Jihad.

(The Methodology of Hizb ut-Tahrir for change, Al-Khilafah Publications, Pg 24, 1999)

Despite its claims to the contrary, HT’s message is one of violence, not peace.

UPDATE:

If anybody had any doubt as to the accuracy of Raziq’s summary of HT’s violent and Antisemitic ideology, here is proof. Somebody decided to upload this article to the forum on Hizb ut-Tahrir’s official website. This is the very first response it received.

Taken from ‘The only place is the battlefield between the Muslims and the Jews’ (an official Hizb ut-Tahrir leaflet published by al-Khilafah Publications).

****

The recent event of the imprisonment and the killing of a Jewish soldier by Hamas is lawful, for it is a means of resistance against the occupiers according to the Islamic Shari`ah, for the Jews are belligerent enemies and we are in a state of war with them. They have violated the land and driven away its people, they constantly aggress the people of Palestine, killing, injuring, destroying properties, arresting, expelling and breaking the Palestinians’ bones; Islam considers their blood and their property as violable; thus their property and their lives have no sanctity; [..]

Only the Muslims can deliver the decisive and firm response to these criminal Jews, the kind of response which would make them forget the satanic insinuations and turn them into contemptible and humiliated people in this world, just as they were in the past. [...]

The Muslims can do this by intensifying resistance and declaring Jihad on them by rallying behind a faithful leadership founded on the Islamic Aqeeda and ruling by what Allah has revealed; then will fear seize them and death stare them in the eyes. Their ugly entity will be destroyed and the prophecy of their prophets will be realised (confirmed), so would the hadith of the Messenger of Allah (SAW) in which he said, ‘Jews  will fight you and you will be imposed upon them, until the rock will say, “O Muslim, A Jew is here behind me, kill him!”‘ This was reported by Ibn Umar; in another narration of Ibn Umar, mentioned in Sahih Muslim, the Messenger of Allah (SAW) is reported to have said, “You will fight the Jews, you will keep on killing them until the rock will say, “O Muslim! A Jew is here behind me! Come and kill him.”‘

Clearly, the scandalous and treacherous negotiations must end, the door that leads to the treacherous peace with the Jews must be slammed shut, we must rid ourselves from their bragging, arrogance and contempt of Muslims, and destroy their existence by the lawful Jihad until they are wiped out, and their survivors are left senseless, scattered and despised the world over.

It has also become a favourite tactic for Islamists. Shikwa recently documented the efforts of one Majed Iqbal, a Hizb ut-Tahrir member from Rochdale, to use his role as a writer at the ‘Asian Leader’ to push HT’s agenda. He has even managed to appear on Sky News and the BBC’s ‘The Big Questions’ passing himself off as an impartial observer.

But Iqbal’s entryism goes further. On his blog he happily boasts of his writing for the Asian News, a reasonably reputable newspaper serving people of Asian background in the north of England. For example, on his blog he has an entry entitled ‘ASIAN NEWS ARTICLE- Manchester Muslim Women gather to discuss challenges in Britain today‘. This entry reveals that he is the author of an article which appeared in the Asian News on 26th June this year without a named author and under the title ‘Muslim women stand for Islam‘.

Over a 150 Muslim women gathered in Manchester do [sic] discuss the challenges facing them in modern day Britian calling for an Islamic state as the solution to the world’s global problems.

The seminar organised by the women branch of Hizb ut-Tahrir Britain, Dr Nazreen Nawaz, was held at the Pakistani Community Centre on Stockport Road, Longsight.

Women’s media representative of Hizb ut-Tahrir Britain told the audience Muslim women were under pressure to constantly re-evaluate their Islamic identity and to question whether their Islamic beliefs fit into British society and to adopt values that are at odds with their religious convictions.

That the Asian News thought it best not to name Iqbal as the author of this ‘report’ can be understood when you realise just how blatantly this is HT propaganda; “Stand for Islam” is the name of an HT campaign. No wonder Iqbal rather coyly changed the report’s title on his own blog lest anybody notice the way in which he is using the Asian News to evangelise for a global Islamist party.

Another egregious example of Iqbal using the Asian News to propagate HT’s ideology can be found in an article contributed by Iqbal in February last year. ‘If elections in Pakistan ever changed anything -they’d be abolished‘ is standard HT anti-democratic propaganda. Laughably, Iqbal even tries to enlist Winston Churchill in his quest against democracy (and for the caliphate).

Pakistan needs systemic change not cosmetics. It requires sound structural ideas based on its History, Heritage and Faith.

The power for the people, by the people and over the people remains as an absurd concept and a joke. This could not be put into any better words than those of the famous British Political personality, Winston Churchill: “Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government.” (1874 – 1965), Hansard, November 11, 1947.

Changing the deck chairs on the Titanic would not have saved it from drowning.

The complete contempt Iqbal has for the Asian News’ readers is evidenced not just by his shameless propagandising, but also by his assumption that they would be unable to identify this butchering of one of the most famous quotations in the English language. Does he really think that northern Muslims are too stupid to know that it concludes “…except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time”? Sorry Majed, that does include the Caliphate.

Other articles contributed by Iqbal for the Asian News include ‘This is a goodbye kiss from the Iraqi people, dog‘; ‘The Jewel of Medina- Is this Sherry Jone’s idea of ‘honouring’ Islam?‘; ‘Are British Muslims ‘attention seekers?’‘; ‘Can Muslims take a joke?‘; ‘Dutch MP’s anti- Quran film: Is this the road to integration?‘ and he even managed to get the HT-esque line “We live in a society where “Prophets” are sidelined to pub jokes and their messages caricatured while “Profits” remain the benchmark of any activity in life” into a piece about ‘The obesity epidemic – cashing in on the problems‘.

More blatantly, an article contributed by Iqbal and entitled ‘Rochdale residents make a stand against Musharraf’s UK visit‘ is accompanied by photos of what is clearly an HT rally.

HT rally Iqbal tries to pass of as being representative of Rochdale's residents.

There are plenty of other examples of Iqbal using the Asian News to further HT’s interests. Here an Asian News article shamelessly plugs Iqbal’s SRE Islamic campaign (previously shown here to be an HT front) and here is a plug for an event he organised about extremism and Islam. Here he is quoted in an Asian News article and here, here, here and here are letters from Iqbal which were published by the Asian News.

At no point in any of these examples does the Asian News acknowledge that their contributor, interviewee and correspondent, Majed Iqbal, is a member of Hizb ut-Tahrir. When it is explained who he is, he is described only as a “local Muslim activist and blogger”.

This cannot continue. The Asian News must not accept another contribution from him unless it is clearly disclaimered as being a contribution from an HT member. No newspaper should allow itself to be used as the mouth piece for any group, certainly not one as deeply unpleasant as Hizb ut-Tahrir, unless the readers are clearly warned of this fact.

What I am advocating here is not “McCarthyism”. If Iqbal had maintained a commitment to journalistic standards of impartiality along with his involvement in HT then I would not be concerned with his case, but he has been taking his readers for a ride for over two years now and it must stop.

Under the title “In London, Turkey’s Hizb ut-Tahrir protests secularism“, Press TV publishes an article which clearly demonstrates that they have no idea who Hizb ut-Tahrir are and, despite sending a reporter to their protest, can’t be bothered to find out; they think Hizb ut-Tahrir is a Turkish political party not a global Islamist movement.

Protesters from Turkey’s banned Islamic political group Hizb ut-Tahrir have staged a demonstration in front of the Turkish embassy in London.

Sucks to be Hizb ut-Tahrir – the only people writing about them are their own members, critics like us and the discredited media arm of a totalitarian regime which can’t even get basic details right.

For example, its 2003 Birmingham conference was held at the prestigious National Indoor Arena (where ‘Gladiators‘ used to be filmed) and over 7,000 delegates were reported – by independent sources – to have attended.

Now look what’s happened to them. Going on the 2001 census figures (which must inevitably underestimate the numbers) there are 1,591,000 Muslims in the UK, of which 607,083 are in London.  This leaves at least 983,917 Muslims outside London and potential attendees at HT’s Birmingham (actually West Bromwich) conference. How many of them turned up to HT’s recent Birmingham conference?

Although HT claim to have convinced “thousands” to attend, the pictures on their own website tell a different story.

Large numbers of empty seats (especially at the far left, but also in the middle)

Hardly a great turn out – looks like a few hundred (say 800, if we’re being generous). An estimation which is confirmed when you look at the details of the hall booked by HT. This event was held at the Bethel Convention Centre in West Bromwich; as their website confirms, the main auditorium (if the back lounges are closed – which they were) can hold a maximum of 1,830 – HT clearly wasn’t expecting a mass turnout and, given the multitude of empty seats, even the smaller numbers HT had expected failed to turn up.

So I thought I’d give the reception at Bethel Convention Centre a call – they confirmed that HT’s headline “Thousands attend Hizb ut-Tahrir’s Birmingham Conference” was a lie. In fact, the nice lady on reception confirmed, there had been less than a thousand – confirming my rough estimations from the pictures.

Sad stuff, Hizbies.

And it gets even worse. People who went to the conference (and, again, the pictures kindly provided by HT on their website) confirm that many of the people at the conference were party loyalists who had come up from London for the day. This makes my estimation of 800 look overly generous. Clearly, out of a target audience of 983,917 Muslims outside London, only 550-700 are interested in what HT have to say.

Yet more evidence of the total bankruptcy of Hizb ut-Tahrir as a movement and ideology. Perhaps, in a couple of years, they’ll be holding their events here.

UPDATE:

It seems that this little article may have disturbed Hizb ut-Tahrir. They have now updated their website. Unfortunately for them, they may have edited the text of the page but they haven’t updated its URL. So, here is a screenshot before they realise what they’ve done.

The URL (highlighted) still reveals the original title of this article

****

A lot has recently been made (particularly in Muslim circles) of the idea that the government is attempting to introduce sex education to 5 year olds. Some Muslim parents are up in arms at the idea of their children being taught about sex at the age of five. Islamist groups have also jumped on the bandwagon, spotting an opportunity to spread their propaganda to unwitting Muslim parents. But what is the truth?

Firstly, the Department for Children, Schools and Families (DCSF) has yet to approve any plans, i.e. it is merely being discussed.

Secondly, it is not about ‘sex education’ but rather ‘relationship lessons’, which are a part of a wider initiative to promote Personal, Social and Health Education (PSHE).

Thirdly, there are no plans whatsoever to teach ‘sex education’ until ages 11 onwards at the earliest. Schools Minister Jim Knight has been very clear on this matter and was quoted on the BBC website as saying:

We are not suggesting that five and six-year-olds should be taught sex, What we are saying is we need to improve in particular the relationship education, improve the moral framework and moral understanding around which we then talk about sex later on in a child’s education

Fourthly, individual schools would still have autonomy about what they wanted to teach, i.e. no school would be forced to teach material deemed unsuitable for their children and they would be encouraged to tailor the classes to suit their pupils. Whilst discussions are taking place about making PSHE compulsory, the details of what and how it would be taught will be left to the schools to decide; the government would merely provide guidance.

Fifthly, the sensitivities of faith communities have already been taken into account. Mr Knight continued by saying:

Faith groups for example will want to produce supplementary guidance on top of our guidance, in order to say to their own schools … how they should then deliver that programme of study in a way that’s sympathetic to their moral beliefs, their faith beliefs in those schools

Lessons covering different types of relationships, contraception, pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections and risky behaviours will almost certainly be taught in secondary schools only.

So it is quite clear that there are no attempts to force 5 year olds to learn intimate details about sex and gay relationships, as alarmist and opportunistic Islamists groups are claiming. Groups like HT merely view this as another opportunity to recruit and push their anti-western, anti-liberal, anti-secular and anti-democratic agenda. By creating trashy-tabloid headlines which ignore the facts they show that they are no better than the BNP and its lies.

For what it’s worth, as a Muslim I think teaching Sex education in secondary schools is a good thing. It will help children develop a healthy attitude towards sex and help them to avoid risky behaviours, unwanted pregnancies and sexually transmitted diseases. Traditionally many Muslims would marry at ages 11, 12 or 13 and even engage in sexual behaviour from earlier adolescence onwards, hence that is the right time to introduce such education and I would be happy for my children to learn about such matters from that age.

In reality, Hizb ut-Tahrir is a peaceful if highly sectarian organisation that poses no threat whatsoever to the people of East London. But what can you expect from the Tories, given that David Cameron is on record as calling for HT to be made illegal?

Needless to say, Cameron isn’t calling for a ban on the far-right British National Party, even though no HT members have been convicted of the sort of violent crimes that BNP members have. Clearly the Tories apply different standards to white fascists than they do to brown Islamists.

In a spectacular bit of whataboutery, Martin Sullivan implies the Tories are racist because they have not called for the BNP to be banned even though they are a political party which officially eschews violence whilst Hizb ut-Tahrir look forward to a war which will kill millions. I suspect the Tories might have something to say about this (a lawyer’s letter, perhaps) but, as I’m no fan of the Tories myself, let’s move on to something rather more fundamental.

What planet is Sullivan living on if he thinks that HT are peaceful and present no threat to the people of East London? And does he really think that the non-violent “Islamophobes” he smears on Islamophobia Watch are not a threat to Muslims in Britain? That is the logical conclusion of what he writes yet, I suspect, he would never accept it.

Some would be unforgiving and suggest that he is guilty of the racism of lower expectations – you just can’t expect those Muslims not to subscribe to deeply unpleasant views. I would reject this conclusion; I think it’s much more likely that Sullivan, poor chap, is simply incapable of advancing a logically coherent argument.

HT Malaysia Khilafah Conference

A beheaded Statue of Liberty. A burning and ruined Financial District in Manhattan.  Conveniently using this clip image from the film Cloverfield, Hizb ut-Tahrir uses it to epitomise everything the party loathes and despises: democracy, freedom, capitalism, secularsim (values many of us cherish) – and generally the West. And they want to do what? Take over the world?

Viva la Islamist revolución!