Hizb-ut-Tahrir Speak

[tangentlama]

I'll stfu because I don't want to get into a bitter feud, but I'll have my beady little eyes on you

beady is right
you seem to be attempting to intimidate me with your smears
it won't work, my zionist 'friend'

you can't substantiate any of your accusations, can you!

 

[energy]

you can't substantiate any of your accusations, can you!

There's a difference between being able to substantiate accusations and actually doing so.

 

[rghthrerightnow]

 

[james_walsh]

I just find it inexplicable that on one thread you moan about the treatment of gays in Palestinian society, and in another you seem to defend a notoriously anti-gay group by saying its a Jewish-Zionist conspiracy. You should be utterly ashamed of yourself.

I dont see a contradion in ,a; Thinks gays are badly treated in palestinian society. and ,b; thinking that Zionists engage in conspiracies to discredit there enemies.

There's alot of evidence to suggest both ideas are correct.

 

[Atan]

Renagadedog,

Yes, some moslems do find it offensive ( bugger if I know why ) ... Me I just accept it, O or U hardly shakes the earth for me. Its like the use of O for names like Omar, Osama, Osman which are also spelt Umar,Usma, Usman.

Going back to the reasons why I would prefer Al-Mahajouran banned foremost is simple self preservation instinct. Your average person in the street does not bother with long explanations or take the effort to find reasons behind anything. My safety depends on the goodwill of the majority and when bombs go off which are linked to a certain ethnic/religious group that goodwill/tolerance gets tested. If more bombs go off it will just play into the hands of far right groups like BNP. That makes life difficult for people like me - Not every Brit. is as understanding as some folks in this forum. I do not want this country going down the road where USA is.

At heart of this issue is the viewpoint the Jihadi's hold, which I understand and am even sympathetic to. They believe in the concept of 'Ummah' the global moslem community and how its been treated by the Western world in particular USA. The examples they gave are Isreal ( the last racist colonial settlement by the West in the centre of the 'Ummah' ) the oil politics, US intervention to the occupation of Iraq - The latest act of blatent criminality which has cost lives of tens of thousands of Iraqi's. As a moslem I agree with them in all this but I regard these as suffering of the weak at hands of the powerfull.

I know that as a minority in UK we are not in a position to change the policy of UK let alone USA. USA and UK will continue on the path that they are on despite what I or all my community might do. Furthermore the West is not going to change its policy on account of a few bombs here and there - The media will just use these acts to paint us as 'evil' and 'barbaric'. Blair had the friggin galls to say the London bombing had nothing to do with Iraq!!!

We had elections and Blair won again despite what he had done therefore in my opinion the moslem community has to A) Decide that Ummah is more important then their comfort in which case they leave UK and engage in battle inside Iraq against the occupiers or B) Accept the reality that they are a minority and are not going to change Western policy either by bombs or marches and get on with their lives.

I belong to the latter group.

PS. The Ummah according to moslem tradition is led by the Kaliph ( Caliph ) and the last Caliph whose role in the Ummah is similar to the Pope was the Sultan of Ottoman Turkey. The Caliphate as a institution ran from 7th Century all the way to the last Caliph Mehmet ( Sultan ) who was expelled by Kemal Mustafa when he declared the Turkish Republic in 1924.

 

[tangentlama]

an American journalist warned the audience that America, China and India would never tolerate an Islamic state "strung like a belt across the world. There would have to be a response."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,1348045,00.html

the statement from the american journalist concerns me

many of china's 55 ethnic minority groups are Islamic and have been for centuries (http://www.travelchinaguide.com/intro/nationality/uigur/index.htm)
the american journalist obviously knows very little about china.
its clear that chinese officials would not permit any "religion to interfere with administrative, judicial, marital, educational and other social affairs, especially those who take advantage of religious reasons to split the country .... Rule of law over all social affairs is one of the major characteristics for a modern society, and religious affairs are no exception." said State Councillor Ismail Amat and in china "all places of worship [must] register; to deal with difficult religious problems of public concern and to cultivate contingents of young, patriotic religious preachers". (http://origin1.amnesty.org/ailib/intcam/china/china96/rel2.htm)

 

[tangentlama]

Going back to the reasons why I would prefer Al-Mahajouran banned foremost is simple self preservation instinct. Your average person in the street does not bother with long explanations or take the effort to find reasons behind anything. My safety depends on the goodwill of the majority and when bombs go off which are linked to a certain ethnic/religious group that goodwill/tolerance gets tested. If more bombs go off it will just play into the hands of far right groups like BNP. That makes life difficult for people like me - Not every Brit. is as understanding as some folks in this forum. I do not want this country going down the road where USA is.

Al-Mujaharoun should certainly have been banned. Al-Mujaharoun made crass statements praisiing the 9/11 hijackers, and are alleged to have threatened Galloway at a tenants meeting in April 2005.

i am still undecided about the ban on Hizb-ut-Tahrir at present. They seem to be made up of non-violent Islamic intellectuals and scholars in the UK.
i'm trying to find out more about them before i make up my mind.
i believe they are not in the same league as the militant Al-Mujaharoun though individuals in other countries have made hateful statements from their position in Hizb-ut-Tahrir, i've seen no evidence that UK Hizb-ut-Tahrir members are making the same hateful generalisations about Jews which Muslims would not like to be made about them due to the actions of a small number of their adherents
i do find these few hateful statements disturbing and alarming, especially as i'm jewish, and especially as i don't support the illegal expansion and occupation of Palestine

i see the Ummah in the same way as Israel was before zionism (a global religious community, not physical, but ideologically united through religious observance and law) and the Khalifah is as the Pope is to Catholicism

so far, the existence of a global ummah and khalifah does not seem frightening or dangerous to me as a non-muslim, especially if the khalifah reinstates a global Ijtihad and ensures for reinterpretation and updating of Islamic law in the 21st Century - the Khalifah would have "temporal and spiritual authority over all Muslims" and given that there is such a cultural and legal difference between one Islamic country and another, it might actually be moderately beneficial

i'd also need some reassurance that the existence of hizb-ut-tahrir wouldn't affect the ordinary non-muslim in the street

as i said, i don't know enough yet, my mind is not decided

 

[tangentlama]

i found this press conference from hizb-ut-tahrir with all the news channels from around the world present - it is very informative http://www.hizb.org.uk/mediaints/pressconf60805.ram

 

[rghthrerightnow]

Al-Mujaharoun should certainly have been banned. Al-Mujaharoun made crass statements praisiing the 9/11 hijackers, and are alleged to have threatened Galloway at a tenants meeting in April 2005.

ok so on what basis would they be banned?

they go around and threaten people... they are arrested for threatening behaviour/assault/whatever.

as for the 9/11 comments how would you approach that in a law. i mean, is it ok to praise the invasion of aghanistan? the invasion of iraq? the bombings of hiroshima and nagasaki? one could argue these are all acts of violent aggression that killed civillians indiscriminately.

we have to be very careful about how we say a ban is justified, and who else it would have to apply to

btw i think it was Al Ghurabaa that attacked GG and also a respect meeting in luton in the run up to the last election

 

[scalyboy]

Ha Ha Ha ... Now this is funny. What do have to do to prove I am a mOslem? Take off my trousers and show I am circumcized? Then again you guy's will claim I am a Jew!

Check out Paktribune - Its a Pakistani political discussion forum full of India/Pak slugging matches - I am a Moderator there. I just hope that settles it

I wanted to contribute something positive here but instead I can't get beyond my bloody identity.

Atan, thanks for the Paktribune link - it's interesting reading, especially the UK section.
Did you see the lat Channel 4 Peter Taylor 'New Al-Qaeda' prog featuring extensive interview with Musharref? (sp.?) He came across as very candid and open I thought, more so than perhaps would have expected. Interested by his statement that Pakistan's helping the USA was in the national interest. Very pragmatic, or do you suppose he was trying to send a message to his domestic opposition?

Sorry you had to prove your credentials above - rather unnecessary I thought...

 

[peppery]

Renagadedog,

Yes, some moslems do find it offensive ( bugger if I know why ) ... Me I just accept it, O or U hardly shakes the earth for me. I

No muslim I know uses it. I'm a muslim and I don't use it. You're not a muslim at all........WHO ARE YOU?????????

 

[Atan]

Tangentlama,

If groups like H -T ever did manage to establish their khalifa I think it would be bad news for all non mOslems ( and moslems ) and that would include in particular Jews. I will once I get the time build up my case why I think these groups need to be banned and more robust action is needed to weed out the type of thinking that these groups spread.

The type of thinking these groups represent has already almost destroyed Pakistan - I have grown up in UK but the land from where I originate from still holds emotional pull on me and to see it in the state it is now in, is difficult to say the least. That USA and its cold war projects were responsibile for creating the monster that has taken hold in Pakistan hardly changes the ugly reality in Pakistan which even more alarming has infected my community here in UK - The effects of which we saw in London. Al-Mahajouan and H-T are part of this sickness.

I appreciate people here who mean good like r-rightnow but I fear they are not looking at the broader picture, they are looking at from a narrow UK perspective. BNP is dangerous to people like me but how dangerous would it be if say France was overran by the far right and BNP became the UK subsidiary of a Neo Nazi's in France?

Scalyboy thank you. Although Musharaf has done some good but he has to show more backbonethen has so far. All this war on terror is a joke, USA/UK invade Iraq .. What the hell far? Saddam was the antichrist for people like Bin Laden, his Arab secular Ba'ath Party hunted Mullah's down with more lust then a teenager on Viagara looking for his first lay.

The two countries that need sorting out ( no not Syria or Iran ) are Saudia Arabia and Pakistan. The first provides the finances and idealogy, the other manpower and terrorist incubating centres.

And Peppery .. I am a human being .. now toss off!!! Can you friggin come up with something more original then ask who am I? Who frigg are you? Anybody else doubting who I am piss off. I aleady provided a link to confirm my identity.

http://www.paktribune.com/forums/index.php?act=ST&f=34&t=6040

Ask the Admin there.
.

 

[scalyboy]

Anybody else doubting who I am piss off. I aleady provided a link to confirm my identity.

http://www.paktribune.com/forums/index.php?act=ST&f=34&t=6040

Ask the Admin there.
.

Atan - ignore them mate. They are just trying to provoke a reaction. Either that or you don't conform to their narrow definitions. Geeting back to less silly matters (and probablt getting off-topic) could you give a brief explanation of the Kashmir situation? It seems to get much less coverage than, say, Palestine-Israel. Indeed, as was pointed out on PakTribune, as an 'issue' of concern for Muslims (and others) worldwide, it features way down on the list compared with Palestine, Iraq, Afghanistan, Chechnya, Bosnia, US hegemony etc.

Cheers - I realise this may be a bit of a tall order asking you to sum Kashmir up in 1 or 2 paragraphs!

 

[rghthrerightnow]

I appreciate people here who mean good like r-rightnow but I fear they are not looking at the broader picture, they are looking at from a narrow UK perspective. BNP is dangerous to people like me but how dangerous would it be if say France was overran by the far right and BNP became the UK subsidiary of a Neo Nazi's in France?

and your point is? your position is that you think radical islamist groups should be banned, and not the BNP

you are saying that because there are islamists in power in the world, and you don't like islamists, their groups should be banned in the UK.

so if there was a neo-fascist government in rule, then we ban neo-fascists

it is you that are not looking at the big picture. people have struggled and died for thousands of years to afford us the right to organise, the freedom to speak, the space to protest.

"Those who would sacrifice freedom for security deserve neither"
Benjamin Franklin

 

[james_walsh]

you are saying that because there are islamists in power in the world, and you don't like islamists, their groups should be banned in the UK.

so if there was a neo-fascist government in rule, then we ban neo-fascists

Thats the way in it worked, during the second world war.

 

[Herbert Read]

and your point is? your position is that you think radical islamist groups should be banned, and not the BNP

you are saying that because there are islamists in power in the world, and you don't like islamists, their groups should be banned in the UK.

so if there was a neo-fascist government in rule, then we ban neo-fascists

it is you that are not looking at the big picture. people have struggled and died for thousands of years to afford us the right to organise, the freedom to speak, the space to protest.

"Those who would sacrifice freedom for security deserve neither"
Benjamin Franklin

You liberal apologist we should ban them, beat them and hunt them down and beat there fucking faces into a pulp, im talking about islamic extremists and the fash!

I dont think banning works but we can set them both back through consistent physical force. I think this will have to be done within the asian community as it would not look good if white anti fascist attack islamic extremists.

 

[rghthrerightnow]

Thats the way in it worked, during the second world war.

but that ignores the fact surely, that neo-fascists already have elected representatives in the UK, and significant electoral power in France.

if the lessons of hitler, driven into people from an early age(at the expense of most other history), still produce neo-nazis, we're doing something wrong.

the trouble with the supressing of the islamist tendency, is that it shares many *modern* conservative values. the examples of islamist regimes, in afghanistan, and iran, that manifest themselves in homophobic and sexist discrimination, are hardly eradicated in the west. there is still gender inequality, and it is more common to come across a homophobic straight man, in this country, than one that is accepting or indeed indifferent, to the sexual choices of others. i think many of the questions posed by the 'threat' of islamic rule are really questions that we continue (and must continue) to address within western societies, anyway.

the reality is that worldwide domination, hegemony, whatever you want to call it, is most likely to continue to come from the US. followed by China. neither of these are likely to set up a caliphate. the islamists are a handy tool/enemy for any superpower needing at once an evil enemy, and also a strong ideology, that can control and dominate those that might otherwise have notions of emancipation and even economic self-determination.

if in the process of demonising this evil enemy, our worthy leaders can take away our own capacities to challenge them. it is win:win, for them.

but for us?

 

[tangentlama]

ok so on what basis would they be banned?

they have been banned as well as all the successor groups, so that includes Al Ghurabaa too, which is the renamed Al Muhajaroun.

Hizb-ut-Tahrir have NOT, i repeat NOT been banned in Australia.

A spokesman for Islamic group Hizb Ut-Tahrir says he is pleased the Federal Government has decided against banning the organisation.

Attorney-General Philip Ruddock had asked ASIO to assess whether the Government should outlaw the group in Australia after the British Government announced its intention to ban the group last week.

Mr Ruddock says the group is not known to have planned, assisted or fostered any violent acts in Australia and there are no grounds for a ban.

Hizb Ut-Tahrir's Sydney-based spokesman, Wassim Dourehi, says the group will continue to get its message across through the use of non-violent methods.

"We've been banned in the Middle East and in other Muslim countries and our members have worked under some of the most horrendous conditions but that has not in any way altered our methodology," he said.

"We consider our methodology to be a product of divine law and we consider the use of violence as a means to achieve our aims a violation of those laws."

Mr Dourehi says the fact that ASIO has found no legal basis to ban the organisation in Australia shows that his group does not condone the use of violence.

"We are sure of the Islamic ideals and the strength of those ideals and it is just a matter of us conveying it as it is," he said.

"So on that basis we offer the advice to all Muslims that yes, your grievances are justified and yes, we can sympathise with your plight, but those grievances should be channelled through political means and channelled to change the hearts and minds through peaceful means."

 

[rghthrerightnow]

they have been banned as well as all the successor groups, so that includes Al Ghurabaa too, which is the renamed Al Muhajaroun.

ok, i wonder on what grounds do you know? the ban obviously wasnt working very well last time i saw them in action.

 

[banjo]

Atan said:

At heart of this issue is the viewpoint the Jihadi's hold, which I understand and am even sympathetic to. They believe in the concept of 'Ummah' the global moslem community and how its been treated by the Western world in particular USA. The examples they gave are Isreal ( the last racist colonial settlement by the West in the centre of the 'Ummah' )

And the solution to this is what? That Israel should be removed and the jews driven out? Do you think that Israel (in any form) should be allowed to exist?

Remember the nation-state is a modern invention. The area around the middle east (trans-jordan etc) was never one unit. It was populated by nomadic bedouin and jews. There have always been jews living in that area. That's their holy place (Jerusalem etc).

There's only 14 million jews in the world. They are almost an endangered species. I've always thought that (rather than persecuting and demonising them) we should honour them as living history and as the people who kickstarted two of the world's major religions (christianity and islam). If they want a bit of a country around Jerusalem then I don't really have a problem with that. It was all just desert before anyway. We create new countries all the time - the most recent one was East Timor. The nation-state idea is still new and is going through a state of flux before it settles down.

the oil politics,

What oil politics? The middle east supplies it and other countries pay them for it. What's the problem? In any case, America gets most of it's oil from Venezuela and up the western seaboard into Alaska not from the middle east. Even if America did get it's oil from the middle east, so what? Are you against the middle east profiting out of it's natural resources?

US intervention to the occupation of Iraq

You never had to live under Saddam so your opinion, whilst always interesting, is not really relevant. Any more than my opinion is or anyone else's.

I know that as a minority in UK we are not in a position to change the policy of UK let alone USA. USA and UK will continue on the path that they are on despite what I or all my community might do.

You're not a minority, you're an individual. Stand for parliament, become an MP, maybe become prime minister. Then you can affect the political process. Or else become a journalist or an activist in some other field, whatever. Don't give me this fatalist "I'm a minority, what can I do" bullshit.

We had elections and Blair won again despite what he had done therefore in my opinion the moslem community has to A) Decide that Ummah is more important then their comfort in which case they leave UK and engage in battle inside Iraq against the occupiers or B) Accept the reality that they are a minority and are not going to change Western policy either by bombs or marches and get on with their lives.

or

C) Attempt to change western policy (if they disagree with it) through the legitimate (non-violent) political channels provided.

or

D) Break out of the paranoid herd mentality that tries to link all conflicts around the world together and class them as one greater conflict eg Chechnya, Kashmir, Palestine etc. They're all different and are not part of a grand western/zionist conspiracy to destroy islam.

PS. The Ummah according to moslem tradition is led by the Kaliph ( Caliph ) and the last Caliph whose role in the Ummah is similar to the Pope was the Sultan of Ottoman Turkey. The Caliphate as a institution ran from 7th Century all the way to the last Caliph Mehmet ( Sultan ) who was expelled by Kemal Mustafa when he declared the Turkish Republic in 1924.

Well, kind of. The caliphate has never been one institution (uniting the whole islamic world) after the first four. There have always been different people at the same time proclaiming themselves caliph across the muslim world. There was never any clear caliph like with the pope. The Ottoman one became de facto caliph because he was the most powerful leader in the muslim world. The Ottoman caliphs rarely used the Caliph distinction except on some official documents.

The islamic world has grown since the days of those early caliphs. Uniting the whole muslim world now is a different proposition to back then when it was fairly small and homogenous. Syria and Egypt tried uniting back in the 50s but it only lasted 2 years before it all ended in acrimony. And that's two fairly similar arab countries.

 

[Louloubelle]

I've read this thread with interest

I was given some flyers to a protest last night by a Muslim woman who I don't really know but who I chatted to a couple of years ago on a bus.

I'm terrible at remembering names and faces but I remembered her as she has piercing blue green eyes and very pale skin and wears a hijab.

I originally got chatting with her on the bus IMMIC as a can speak a few words of arabic. She told me that her daughter is called Aisha (sp?) and explained the meaning of the name to me.

We also talked aboiut the hijab as she is very committed to wearing one and it's a subject I'm interested in.

She was clearly very enthusiastic about islam, (in the way that IME many western converts often are), and for me, having friends who have varying religious beliefs I'm always interested to hear more about people's faith. I'm not religious myself but I find religion and the psychology of religion fascinating.

Anyway, last night I saw her on the bus and said "ooh, is that Aisha?" and then we got chatting.

Turns out she lives quite near me and she told me about a protest march on 10th December.

I waited outside her home, holding her duagher's hand, while she went and got some flyers. She was really excitied about giving me the flyers and I told her that I would happily post up some info on the protest march here after she explained that the group is non violent.

anyway, when I got home I looked at the flyers and they are from this group, Hizb ut-Tahrir

I'm not very knowledgable about them and would really like to hear more opinions about them

I support the rights to non-violent protest but don't really want to get involved in anything that supports blowing people up. obviously.

I gave her the urban url and invited her to post here, I don't know if she will.

One of my very closest mates is a muslim but he's very moderate, likes southpark, has gay friends, etc. There again he doesn't drink alcohol and he's very, very angry about the war in iraq, george bush and all the things that most people I know are angry about. He away on his travels at the moment and I'll ask him for his views when he's back in the UK. He's very well educated and informed on political issues, and I trust him to give me thoughtful, informed perspectives on many issues.

in the meantime I'd like to know more about the group

online flyer re protest here

http://www.hizb.org.uk/eventsnew/index.php?id=2671

there are no non muslim groups e.g. amnesty, supporting the march, which first made me wonder if this was a different type of march to that which I'm used to supporting

Also, if non muslims support the protest will it decrease the us / them divide?

I'll probably be too busy to go on it anyway but I'd like to hear some more opinions before making a descision

ta