Posted from The Centre For Social Cohesion
Since it emerged that the attempted Glasgow and London attacks were carried out by men with links to Hizb ut-Tahrir, a global Islamic movement, calls for the government to ban the group have grown ever louder.
However supporters of a ban have given conflicting – and often less than convincing - reasons for the ban.
Patrick Mercer, the former Conservative spokesman on security, told the BBC's Today programme that a ban was needed because the group “supports terrorism” and claimed that several of its former members are suspected of carrying out terrorist attacks:
“Major terrorist figures like Khalid Sheikh Muhammad and Abu Musab al-Zarqawi – who have been at the centre of campaigns in Iraq and other places - are people who’ve been at the have been through this organisation,” he said.
Shiraz Maher, himself a former member of HT, meanwhile argued that the group should be banned because they increase ethnic and religious tensions in the UK – which he believes in turn increases the likelihood of future attacks.
“Its culpability in inspiring terrorists cannot be denied. Hizb has consistently raised the temperature of Islamist anger across Britain by issuing inflammatory leaflets aimed to agitate and provoke," he wrote in the New Statesman.
“One leaflet distributed at British mosques urged: "O Muslims! Hizb ut-Tahrir calls upon you to mobilise your forces to help and support it in its work to establish the [caliphate] state, by which you will restore your glory . . . and destroy your enemy . . . the enemies of Allah and His Messenger, namely America, Britain, the Jews and their allies."”
However there is another option for banning HT which does not involve either trying to tenuously link the group’s ideology to major al-Qaeda figures or arguing that the group might threaten social cohesion. Rather, this other option is to examine HT’s ideology and to declare that it's ideas and proscriptions should not be tolerated any more than racism or homophobia are tolerated.
The group’s draft constitution for example says that once an Islamic state is established a discriminatory tax should be paid by all non-Muslims living there:
“Article 140 - Jizyah (head-tax) is collected from the non-Muslims (dhimmis). It is to be taken from the mature men if they are financially capable of paying it. It is not taken from women or children.”
The constitution’s Article 105 adds that only Muslims will be able to vote for the Caliphate’s Shuras or referendums.
“All citizens, Muslim or not, may express their views, but Shoora is a right for the Muslims only.”
Article 102 likewise forbids the creation of non-Muslim or secular political parties:
“Any party not established on the basis of Islam is prohibited.”
The same constitution also effectively bars women from all role in public life:
“Segregation of the sexes is fundamental, they should not meet together except for a need that the sharia allows or for a purpose the sharia’ allows men and women to meet for, such as trading or pilgrimage.”
Moreover, senior Hizb ut-Tahrir leaders say that after the Caliphate is established it will seek to convert the whole world to Islam – using force if necessary. In 2006 ‘Abu Muhammad’, one of the group’s leaders in Jordan explained how this would happen:
"In the beginning, the Caliphate would strengthen itself internally and it wouldn't initiate jihad,” he said.
"But after that we would carry Islam as an intellectual call to all the world. And we will make people bordering the Caliphate believe in Islam. Or if they refuse then we'll ask them to be ruled by Islam."
"And if after all discussions and negotiations they still refuse, then the last resort will be a jihad
to spread the spirit of Islam and the rule of Islam."
There is no doubt that if a similar party in the UK called, for example, for the creation of a global, aggressive, expansionist Christian state which systematically denied full political, legal and social rights to all women and non-Christians, the government would not hesitate to ban it.
So why not ban HT on the same grounds?
>There is no doubt that if a similar >party in the UK called, for example, >for the creation of a global, >aggressive, expansionist Christian >state which systematically denied >full political, legal and social >rights to all women and >non-Christians, the government would >not hesitate to ban it.
ReplyDeleteActually this is ironic, because in the US this is perfectly legal and we call them by a respectable name -- "the Christian right". It is their belief that god gave Israel to the Jews and that all non christians are trash, hence blanket support for the state of Israel along with more warmongering so as to make the world safe for the return of Jesus and his kingdom.
Seems that the more things change the more things stay the same.
I’m afraid there are those among us who want to silence Hizb ut-Tahrir and their pointing finger at the wrongdoer that killed ten’s of thousands of their brothers and sisters.
ReplyDeleteClearly, Hizb ut-Tahrir is not so stupid that it would have distributed at British mosques leaflets of the nature shown on this website. Nor would they have been so simple minded that they would associate their name
with a call to mobilise forcers to “destroy” us!
(4) "The commitment of Hizb ut-Tahrir not to be involved in any violent or militant activity is based on its faith and understanding of the revelation of God, which makes its involvement in any terrorist or violent activity impossible, either in theory and practice. No person can join Hizb ut-Tahrir until he or she adopts this political and intellectual methodology and approach."
Vigil, a shadowy network of retired spies, senior military personnel, anti-terrorism specialists and banking experts and perhaps Patrick Mercer MP turned its sights on two groups prominent in Britain: Tablighi Jamaat, a missionary organisation that is planning to build Britain's largest mosque in east London, and Hizb ut-Tahrir (HT)
Go to this so-called evil website and judge for yourselves if it should be banned.
In the context of freedom of expression, the Court has stated that it is applicable not only to "information" or "ideas" that are favourably received or regarded as inoffensive or as a matter of indifference, "but also to those that offend, shock or disturb the State or any section of the population!"