Hizb ut Tahrir’s different faces
In my last comment is free article I fleetingly referred to New Civilisation magazine as a front for the radical group Hizb ut-Tahrir. The group has a habit of setting up fronts to try and gain legitimacy.
Late last year it was exposed how the group set up a front called ‘Stop Islamophobia’ in order to preach its message on campus. One supporter was caught on-record saying: “Stop Islamophobia is set up by us. But we don’t actually push it like that. The moment they link Hizb ut-Tahrir with Stop Islamophobia, they’ll bring the whole campaign down.” Doh!
This resurfaced recently when the Guardian’s (excellent) Middle East editor Brian Whitaker agreed to participate in a talk hosted by New Civilisation. Fortunately he realised in time and pulled out.
Today, Fabian Society’s Sunder Katwala responded to my article, explaining how NC ended up at the Fabians conference.
He ends with: “We are for pluralism and open, democratic debate but I wouldn’t want to have an organisational relationship with New Civilisation or Hizb, because I see them as an anti-democratic organisation.”
Which is fair enough and exactly my sentiments. I would also add they are not really non-violent and have published documents calling for the killing of Jews.
I’ve also been alerted to an article by former HuT member Shiraz Maher, who expands on HuT’s addiction to setting up front organisations:
The use of front organisations is nothing new to HT. Since the mid-1990s the party has been banned by the NUS for its extremist views although this has done little to prevent their activity on university campuses. Operating under a plethora of different aliases such as the Muslim Media Forum, Muslim Current Affairs Society and the 1924 Committee, its members continue to operate and recruit freely at scores of British universities.Although HT doesn’t want to create its Caliphate in Britain, the party’s role in the west is extremely important for the realisation of its aims abroad. Using the freedoms it enjoys here the party is able to project both its recruits and ideas back into the Muslim world where it hopes to achieve power through a coup.
…
While the party believes that its Caliphate must achieve global domination through Jihad and remains committed to the destruction of Israel, since 9/11 it has campaigned fiercely to package its vision of a Caliphate in seemingly harmless terms.Obscuring many of their more objectionable views and presenting aspects of their ideology as both mainstream and moderate through its front organisations, the party hopes to achieve a wider mandate for its ideas. In this respect they’ve already achieved some success making government plans to proscribe the group increasingly problematic.
Of course, in itself, there’s nothing wrong with robust debate, and HT, or its front organisations, shouldn’t be prevented from speaking just because they harbour distasteful views. But this is not simply a question of free speech. If it were, why would HT need to obscure its identity behind aliases?
So now you know our issue with them. And for future reference, if anyone comes across Dialogue with Islam, ignore them.
Shiraz’s article alleges that Dialogue with Islam is a HuT front. However, their director has cleared up the matter (see comments).
If you want to know more about HuT, read their draft constitution. Saved by us after HuT abruptly took it down.
| Post to del.icio.us |
Filed in: Muslim,Organisations
Hmmm, it looks like quite a few people, including Dominic Lawson, Malcolm Rifkind and others have already fallen for DwI.
Good post Sunny – as you say it would be extremely difficult to tell who HuT is or isn’t just by looking at a bunch of names. like i’ve mentioned before, back in the day when i was at uni i’d never heard of them. obviously when i’d heard them speak i thought it was pretty crap, and i was hugely suprised that anyone would even take them even vaguely seriously.
Interesting piece Sunny – I think your sugestion to ignore HT and all its offshoots/fronts is about right – but hard to put into practice if they do keep setting up so many fronts…
Like the SWP, HT can always attract dedicated articulate intelligent people on and around campus because like all the best propogandists, they include ‘true’ stuff in their material – trouble is like all the best cults, they also require initiates to believe in a really daft catch all solution to all the world’s problems (General Strike/Caliphate now) Once you swallow that piece of irrationality, they hook you in + banning/criticism etc has far less effect than say marriage or work on changing members’ opinions
Ps; a Lot of peol can understand someone like David Goodhart
Ps; I can understand someone like David Goodhart endorsing an HT front (if that is what DWI is) because it confrms a tendancy to a clash of civilisations mindset. But Dan Plesch – relatively sane military analyst etc – suggests that you can’t stop HT fronts ?
Is there somewhere where we can find out what the original HuT’s aims are and mentions of the caliphate etc.?
it’s worth staying on mailing lists e.g. like the one on dialogueonislam to keep up with what people are upto.
Good expose Sunny, although for wider context it should be clear by now that HT aren’t alone in using front organisations. The SWP and Eustonite (amongst others) types have been doing this for years.
The exercise of using front orgs in the political arena needs closer study to ascertain the damage they do (distracting people from meaningful action and creating disallusioned people due to their experiences with them) and the underlying problems with politics as is that gives rise to them.
Maybe it’s time we set up a few of our own (kidding!)?!:D
Leon makes a good point. What are all these other front organisations that call themselves think tanks:
Adam Smith Institute, Demos, Fabian Society, IPPR etc.?
And don’t forget those in the US. They are also lobby groups, generally.
Perhaps it is time we understood how politics really works.
I see think tanks and sane lobby groups as an important part of democracy, but it is imperative that they state where their funding originates. If that’s not clear then whatever they produce must be treated with some scepticism.
The most frightening one is PNAC for its scope and reach. Oh and they are part way in implementing their vision.
http://www.newamericancentury.org/
Refresh – Until you can show examples of their racism or claims that are totalitarian, I think comparing HuT to think tanks you mentioned above is, well, silly.
Everytime a group such as this is mentioned, you frantically start mentioning others and saying: “yeah and what about others such as…”.
Sure. Mention RSS fronts. Mention fronts for the VHP or Khalistani groups. Or for Christian evangelicals or right wing Jewish groups.
But mentioning groups that want to foster democracy and better citizenship? You’re clutching at straws.
Re HT and non-violence – if HT had a pamphlet calling for the killing of jews – than i’d agree that they aren’t a non-violent group.
But if they no longer have this pamphlet – then i don’t see what the problem is. A lot of political groups change their views and leadership overtime – why can’t that be the case with HT.
I know a few a HT people, and others who are attracted to the group. These tend to be well educated, middle class, second generation Muslim professionals. I really get the impression that one of the reasons why HT is so popular is that they do encourage rational debate and argument. If thats the case than i don’t see why in a liberal democracy – a group like this can’t exist.
Please note – that i definitely don’t support their worldview and their Caliphate ideal. But I am suprised that so many otherwise liberal people call for them to be banned etc.
Sahib no>11 : I think you’ve highlighted their appeal.
as I said in 3 a lot of their material can come across as true and artciulate/intelligent.
I don’t think banning is a solution – shunning and/or ridiculing is fine though.
wow
sunny great expose
i really appreciate that. not that i’ve ever read them but im sure they were coming this way.
i will use this post as a launching pad for mine and thabet’s upcoming series of analyses on salafi islam (i think we beat the traditionalist horse to death).
keep up the great work. i’ve found myself coming to your site more often.
Read bits of their consitution. Its the elimination of any ‘clergy’ and the location of the power solely in the State that is scarey. The mercy and beauty of much classical Islamic jurisprudence, if I’ve read my Khaled Abou El Fadl correctly, is that is viewed political power with a degree of suspicion. HT must have read the Tasfir author by Heinrich Himler.
Wasalaam
TMA
Sunny you mustn’t read beyond what I actually say.
The point is not in support of HuT – the point is about how politics works. I have questions about each and every one. As someone said above – we should know who supports/funds them so we know what their objective is.
BTW PNAC is one that should be questioned and viewed with great suspicion.
lol yakoub, that comment made me crack up.
parvez manzoor called hizb ut tahrir something like hegel’s bastards. ok fine, i made that term up, but he did say something about hegel and the hizb. ill dig it up for you.
salam,
Just for your Info.
I run an organisation called dialogue with Islam.
http://www.dialoguewithislam.org
This is a not a religious or political organisation. but a Neutral and independent platform. The aim is to faciilate dialogue between islam and the west.
I am a layman with respect to Islam and I certainly don’t belong to HT nor do I study with them or go to their lectures.
We have Islamic speakers on the platform for all sides of the Islamic spectrum .
Thanks
Shahinoor@dialoguewithislam.org
lol
i’m really confused now.
I wouldn’t say this is an expose as such, more just bring some information together for different sources.
I’m not in favour of banning Hizb ut Tahrir. I’m preparing a definitive article on them, explaining why. But in the same way I’m not in favour of banning the BNP either.
Sahib, I frequently compare HuT with the BNP to show how people have different attitudes to both despite their similarities. The BNP now say they’re not racist or anti-semitic. They couch their language in only being anti-Islam (which they say is not racist) and anti-immigrant.
Yet, would you be happy to accept they have changed for the better and should be engaged with?
Our job here on PP is to identify, hound and expose the bigots. That includes HuT. So I’m happy to keep mentioning their front organisations and explain why this is not an organisation that should be given legitimacy because of their views. They took their constitution down straight after a TV debate with me in which they said I should look at the constitution to see how it deals with non-Muslims.
Eteraz, cheers. Yakoub, bang on. and I agree with AsifB too.
yaar can i get on ur blogroll? i’m no more with progressive islam whom u still have up there.
are u going to reply to shahinoor?
While on the topic of (possible) front organisations, anyone know who the hell World Encounter Institute are?
And who funds them?
http://www.newenglishreview.org/custpage.cfm?frm=2387&sec_id=2387
sahinoor,
“This is a not a religious or political organisation. but a Neutral and independent platform. The aim is to faciilate dialogue between islam and the west.”
I am always confused by statements like these. How can there be dialogue between a religion and a geographical, cultural, religious, political, and sometimes historical location? Islam exist in the West, because Muslims exist in the West. What that mean that Islam would be having a dialogue with itself at some point?
Did you mean a dialogue between the West and the Muslim world which then again has overlaps in the West as well? Do you mean dialogue between the West and Muslim peoples in Muslim countries? That would make much more sense.
Fronting……
Muslims ourselves are often terrible adverts for Islam.
And HuT is one among lots of terrible representatives, perhaps they provide a representation which is relatively strong on coherent critique and but very weak when it comes to sensitivity and generosity.
It doesn’t matter how many fronts they create and even if they refine their manners – the hard edges of intolerance will show through quite quickly.
All politics includes having fronts – to avoid responsibility for past mistakes, to bring in new members by attaching to popular causes. I don’t think we can expect HuT and the BNP alone to act with integrity in the dirty world of politics. We have to take our own responsibility for recognising and persuading people away from supremacism, in their many guises.
Sunny – i can appreciate that you might not like the views of HT but i don’t buy the comparison with the BNP.
As you say, the BNP claim not to be racist and they have increasingly focused on Muslims (so as not be labelled racist). But reading through their manifesto and in particular the section on ‘Abolishing Mulitculturalism, Preserving Identity’ – it is quite clear where their racial/ethnic focus lies. Some of their proposals include repealing the Race Relations Act, repealing laws banning Race discrimination in the workplace, voluntary ‘resettlement’ to their land of origin of ethnic minorities etc.
I just don’t see the similarities with HT whose main aim is to re-establish the Khilaphate in the Muslim lands. I don’t see what is so abhorent or racist about that.
“‘Abolishing Mulitculturalism, Preserving Identity’ – it is quite clear where their racial/ethnic focus lies. Some of their proposals include repealing the Race Relations Act, repealing laws banning Race discrimination in the workplace, voluntary ‘resettlement’ to their land of origin of ethnic minorities etc.”
That does indeed sound harsh. But it’s still nothing on the restrictions on civil liberites I believe the new Caliphate would impose. The BNP are racist without a doubt, but it doesn’t make them less dangerous than Hizb ut Tahrir. If I remember correctly, BNP meetings have never drawn a crowd of more than a few hundred, whereas the Hizb have managed over eight thousand. This may well be due to the fact that the BNP cannot obtain large venues, but that tells you most of what you need to know about where a threat lies in itself.
Sunny, Just seen the interview on Newsnight between HuT and Muslim Sufi Council guys.
Can you do a bit of coaching – I liked the Sufi guy very much (actually I liked both), but he was a bit too eager. Better to hear what the other says and then marshall your thoughts and then respond. He will improve no doubt.
If what the HuT guy had to say was what its all about – then lets explore their thoughts a bit more.
As for the Sufi rep. he needs to widen his brief – mentioning housing etc. at a point when there is a major alert was pointless – and has the potential to sideline himself/themselves.
Having said that he was a welcome sight – nice to see diversity of opinion than al-this and al-that.
Whatever else happens – its a great shame the Sufi org. wasn’t around 10 years ago.
‘…re-establish the Khilaphate in the Muslim lands. I don’t see what is so abhorent or racist about that.’
Well, primarily I think it’s the designating large parts of the globe (frequently including Spain) as Muslim lands. They may well be lands with a muslim majority, but they include a great many of other religions or none, and probably even more for whom their personal faith is a strength in daily life, but not remotely a geo-political ambition. But they are spoken for, on the strength of a spurious authority. I think that’s where the abhorent part starts.
As for racist, I assume you know the basics of the rules that would apply.
If not, I’m sure some tedious troll will provide chapter and verse.
be smart, be liberated, join liberated youth. Liberated youth invites unlock thinking youth to join with the activities to change the world for better living.
Well, primarily I think it’s the designating large parts of the globe (frequently including Spain) as Muslim lands.
Not to mention Al-Hind (India)
Bert – I agree that in a sense HT are a lot more dangerous than BNP. The BNP are a largely fringe group while as HT do seem to have support from a sizeable minority of British Muslim professionals. But that in itself is a reflection that they are very different types of organisations and they gain support from very different areas. People should question why HT do get so much support.
To me – its a lazy assertion to say that HT are simply the Muslim right wing version of the BNP. Their goal is to bring back the Caliphate and while there are many issues relating to civil liberties (particularly the rights of women and non-Muslim minorities) – i don’t think its right to say that they have a racialist agenda.
Certainly you or I wouldn’t fancy living under their political system. But then again I wouldn’t fancy living in a Communist regime either. But its a political system – and its up to Muslim people to work out how they organise their own affairs. The fact that they would prefer to choose a Caliph rather than a Prime Minister is there business.
>> But its a political system – and its up to Muslim people to work out how they organise their own affairs.
Setting aside the question that it is much more an imperialistic,hegemonic political system rather than a nationalistic one, yes it is fair enough that various muslim peoples/nations work this one out.
>>The fact that they would prefer to choose a Caliph rather than a Prime Minister is there business.
It becomes other peoples’ business because this project will inevitably encroach upon other nations’ sovereignty as in the claim for Spain as Don notes above. My own country as well as Thailand and the entire Philippines are destined for violent overthrow and absorption by the SE Asian Jemaah Islamiya caliphate nutjobs. It is very dangerous politics that impacts negatively upon others and a bit much to expect perfect equanimity from those perceiving a direct threat to their existence. It may just be harmless rhetoric in your part of the world. It goes a bit further elsewhere.
Sahib – I lay a large part of the blame for the current BNP renaissance on groups like HT. I know you’re not talking geograhpically when you state that “they gain support from very different areas”, but that angle needs looking at. BNP have the most support in areas with large muslim populations, and this can be seen in their swing from racist in general to an islamophobic focus. What moved these people from Labour to the BNP? I think it was fear, and a lot of that will have been generated by HT and their ilk’s propaganda.
Sunny – I would like to believe you about their constitution but it seems to be on their website – you really rate yourself that they removed something because of you…how laughable!
I don’t think HuT really see you as a threat and they are unlikely to give you the time of day. Why don’t you debate with any of their heavyweights or attend their events to challenge them? I am sure they would relish the opportunity to debate with you.
http://www.hizb-ut-tahrir.info/english/constitution.htm
Radhika,
Will you marry me?
I have been waiting for so long to figure out how to jump start a conversation on Salafism.
I’m going to start with this Shiraz guy.
Give him a little bit of my Merlot.
Thanks.
Hi Andrew, or should I say a secret member of Pizza HuT. I’ve actually debated with “heavyweight” members of this organisation in the past. Please do a search on the site. Next.
‘Radhieka’ (can’t even spell an Indian name, imbecile) says: Firstly, we must point out that as a very junior member of Hizb ut-Tahrir, Mr Maher has limited experience and knowledge of our organisation.
So what? Hizb’s bakwaas can be read on their website and their stupidity pointed out that way. The rest is just ineffectual rubbish.
By the way, I didn’t see Shahinoor’s post earlier.
Shahinoor: Firstly, it’s very disappointing that if you’re organising a debate to facilitate dialogue between non-Muslims and Muslims, rather than inviting some intelligent and well-adjusted member of the Muslim community, you invite some anti-democracy lemming who wants to run back to the Middle East and live in a fantasy Khalifah. Is that the best respresentative you can think of?
Tell us something. Is your organisation not at all linked with HuT or have any association with them? If that is the case, I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and amend my post. However it is still disappointing you think inviting a Muslim equivalent of the BNP to represent Muslims. Hell, they’re even ignored in most politicised Muslim events I go to.
Refresh: Can you do a bit of coaching – I liked the Sufi guy very much (actually I liked both), but he was a bit too eager. Better to hear what the other says and then marshall your thoughts and then respond. He will improve no doubt.
…
Having said that he was a welcome sight – nice to see diversity of opinion than al-this and al-that.
Omg! This is exactly what I said to you a few weeks ago when this org launched! And at that time you said you weren’t happy with all these diff Muslim orgs! Finally, you’ve seen the light. Heh…
Sahib, on HuT, various points:
1) The major point about HuT is of course they want Khalifah. They say they don’t want violence, of course they do. But then why do they distribute racist and anti-semitic literature? Their people have been arrested and banned across Europe (and the Middle East of course) doing this. They took their document calling for the killing of Jews from their website. A rep was recently arrested in Scandinavia asking “brothers” to go and fight in Iraq against the infidels. Didn’t they want Musharraf assassinated in Pakistan too?
And I’ve linked to another article up there from Zia Sardar about their porpensity for violence.
2) You have problems with the BNP’s charter. Sure, but they’re also non-violent aren’t they. Does it state they want violence? In fact they’re even ditching voluntary repatriation because they say they’re not racist. I’m not defending the BNP here (just do a search for BNP on PP), but my point is both these groups of thugs are changing their language to gain legitimacy. You’re not afraid of HuT because you are familiar with them. In the same way many white people are less afraid of the BNP than HuT because they talk about issues (anti-immigration etc) in a language they can relate to. HuT do exactly the same with Muslims.
So my point – have the exact standards for both groups, and compare their actions side by side, and you’ll see they’re similar. Both want utopias – one racial, the other religious. Both are racist. Both have been toning down their language and setting up front-groups. Both say nice things but have a totalitarian ideology.
want more do you want?
sunny,
i’m sure you’re aware that Hizb may be but one secular tyrant toppling away from taking over a country in central asia.
Mightn’t that be a good thing actually, Eteraz? HuT wouldn’t be worse than some of the people in central Asia and actually trying to run a country would have an interesting effect on them. Same applies for the Somali “islamists”.
Dear Sunny,
Thanks for your question:
>>>>Shahinoor: Firstly, it’s very disappointing that if you’re organising a debate to facilitate dialogue between non-Muslims and Muslims, rather than inviting some intelligent and well-adjusted member of the Muslim community, you invite some anti-democracy lemming who wants to run back to the Middle East and live in a fantasy Khalifah. Is that the best respresentative you can think of? >>>>>>
When I invite New Civ guys or HT members to represent radical Islam I also invite ON THE SAME PANEL “intelligent and well-adjusted member of the Muslim community” eg Headmaster of Islamia School, Sheikha Hassan Ali, Sheikh Dawood Noibi.
Can someone please correct the misconception that DWI is a front of HT. I have put a disclaimer on my website http://www.dialoguewithislam.org
Thanks
Shahinoor
Eteraz – I doubt it. I’d say the Muslim Brotherhood has a better established organisational structure than HuT. The latter are not only universally reviled, they’re just a bunch of ideologues. Their constitution keeps shifting and changing. In the fifty or so years they’ve been around I don’t see much evidence of them being a step away from taking control. That is my reading however.
Shahinoor – Thanks for clearing that up. I’ve now amended the above text.
Sunny – I see the light and its bright. But my point was that pitching one org against another is not the way. I would prefer some sort of umbrella thing.
And you think an unbrella org like the MCB is capable of representing and illustrating a variety of opinions? Remember my piece about why I feel optimistic after 7/7? It was precisely because I felt diverse and confident Muslim voices were coming out after 7/7, rather than being represented by the MCB all the time.
Sunny, clearly not the MCB. But an umbrella will be needed.
Dear Sunny,
>>>Thanks for clearing that up. I’ve now amended the above text.>>>
Thanks for amending the text – I appreciate that.
Shahinoor
Regarding Shahinoor – I think the ammendment you’ve made isn’t good enough. Rushing to judgement is damaging. And it leaves groups at the mercy of potentially lazy bloggers to give clearance.
I would suggest you need to offer a full right of reply.
Refresh, how do you mean?
Sonny, forgot all about this thread. Is there a feature you can add which allows users to track the threads they are participating in. Maybe it appears in a sidebar?
What I meant was – you should invite Shahinoor to write a blog about what he’s trying to do.
Would you like a better sex life?
Learn the secrets few men ever discover.