 |
|
Khalid Mahmood
|
In the wake of the terrorist attacks in London on 7 July and last week’s attempted attacks, some politicians in the UK are calling on the government to ban the organisation Hizb ut-Tahrir (‘Party of Liberation’).
Hizb ut-Tahrir was founded in 1953 by Taqiuddin al-Nabhani, and has a stated aim of establishing a Caliphate or Kilafah state in Muslim countries and removing what it sees as imperialist, non-Muslim control in those states.
Criminal
It is considered a criminal organisation in a number of countries, including Russia and Germany. As Denmark considers a ban, there are increasing moves in the UK to outlaw the group. These calls are being led by Khalid Mahmood, a British Muslim MP for theLabour Party in the country’s second city, Birmingham. “ I think it’s about time this issue was tackled,” he said.
 |
 |
| Click to listen to the interview with Khalid Mahmood |
“I asked the prime minister […] on Wednesday at Prime Minister’s Question Time, about whether he should now look to proscribe these organisations which incite hatred.”
Scapegoat
However, Qasim Khawaja, a member of Hizb ut-Tahir Britain, says his group - which describes itself as “a global, non-violent Islamic political party” - is being used as a scapegoat. He says that politicians like Mr Mahmood are deliberately trying to quash Muslim debate:
“These individuals [are] deeply unpopular within the Muslim community. [They] have called for the banning of Hizb ut-Tahir because they would find it very politically expedient not to have the feelings and sentiments of the Muslim community here in the UK vocalised [by us]. I think the events of the last few weeks in the UK are being used to try and actually silence legitimate, political dissent.”
Constant methodology
He argues that his organisation, far from posing a threat to the public, is a peaceful body with an established history:
|
|
| Click to listen to the interview with Qasim Khawaja |
“Hizb ut-Tahir gives political expression to the feelings of Muslims in the UK. […] It is an organisation which spans a number of countries. Its thoughts and ideas are well-documented in [Taqiuddin al-Nabhani’s] books, which have been published since 1953; the work of the party has remained constant in its methodology since that time. Its methodology is non-violent, even under the most severe provocation.”
Although his organisation aims to establish a Muslim Caliphate, “an Islamic government which implements Sharia law within the state […] independent of all western governments, so it’s a true representation of the people whop live within that state, whether they be Muslim or non-Muslim.” According to Mr Khawaja, he nevertheless says Hizb ut-Tahir is an all-inclusive entity:
“We have engaged at community level with non-Muslim communities and with Muslims. We actually engage the wider community, to try and address some of the current misapprehensions and misunderstandings particularly in the current environment.”
“I think what they’ve got to do is [come] out in the open and say they an aren’t extreme organisation. If they’re prepared to defend themselves, I’m quite happy to see that.”
Khalid Mahmood |
Proscribed activity
And so, he believes, the calls for a ban are just an automatic response in the light of recent events. Khalid Mahmood says his campaign has gone on for much longer:
“It’s not a knee-jerk reaction. I’ve been calling for some sort of proscription on these people for about eight years now, having seen […] the way that they work.”
Initially, this work seems innocent enough, says Mr Mahmood, but something darker lurks beneath the surface:
|
Hizb ut-Tahir’s three-step plan of action towards the founding of a Caliphate:
1. Establish a community of Hizb ut-Tahrir members, who are willing to accept the organisation’s goals and methods as their own, and who are ready to fulfill these goals.
2. Increase Hizb ut-Tahrir’s influence and membership among Muslims as far as possible.
3. Overthrow the government, replacing it with one that implements Islam "generally and comprehensively", disseminating Islam to people throughout the world
|
“They start off [with] reasonable activities, trying to disseminate information about Islam. But what they then do […] starts to become more away from the mainstream of thought […] Certainly, they have encouraged people who’ve taken up issues of jihad and suicide bombings.”
Totally fed up
Despite Qasim Khawaja’s claim that his organisation has a broad Muslim appeal, Mr Mahmood says they are dealing with tiny numbers. Most Muslims would be happy to see an end to an organisation they think is spoiling their religion:
“It’s a very, very small minority in the Muslim community, and for them to portray this as a large number is, I think, totally misleading. A lot of Muslims […] are totally fed up with the way that these people have manipulated young people away from the teachings of the religion, as they see it.”
Tags:
ban terror,
Britain,
Hizb ut-Tahir,
Khalid Mahmood,
London,
Muslim,
Netherlands,
Qasim Khawaja,
UK
tareque,
15-04-2009
- Bangladesh
I have been so much glad visiting this site. May Allah help u all.
Marc Ruas,
whits_1979@hotmail.com,
08-08-2005
- UK
We live in a free and democratic society which allows political organisations such as the BNP and Combat 18, which clearly incite hatred towards ethnic and other groups. HUT up to this day never propogated this stance in any of its leaflets or information given to the UK public or elsewhere, even this can be seen on their websites which are clearly there to see. If Tony Blair wants to ban this group then democracy has gone out the window and he has lost all political discourse in the heart of Britain. This will put fuel on the fire even more with HUT, I dont see a problem with them myself, they have a cause, constitution and an objective that is not in the interests with UK. Why not have a Live Political Discussion with this Group on live tv with Members of Parliment Vs Members of HUT instead of banning them? I think this route of Tony Blair is inline with Karimov of Uzbekistan, who boils his political opponents alive.
Thank you
mohammad,
08-08-2005
- uk
independant quotes: hope this clear some misconceptions!!!!!!!!!
"Hizb ut-Tahrir is a completely non-violent organisation." [Craig Murray, the ex-British ambassador to Uzbekistan, Al-Jazeera, 17/5/05]
Ray Foss,
03-08-2005
- USA
Khalid Mahmood, UK MP, has the right idea -- nation-state "banning" of any organization who objectively violates and transgresses the social, moral and ethical principles held by citizens of conscience: unity, global stability and non-violence. There must be an objective and transparent process for any such intra-state "organizational banning" that does not impinge nor compromise citizen's human liberty and dignity (with opportunity to come out in the open with full disclosure of goals, methods and membership to denounce extremism, violence and murder) -- so that "banning process" itself shall be subject to checks and balances.
Organizations overthrowing government(s) is unacceptable if the nation-state meets UN standards for RESPONSIBILITY: (1) to protect its citizens on the basis of human dignity, obviating multilateral humanitarian intervention; (2) to deny WMD's; (3) to respect human beings; (4) to build against poverty, debt, failed institutions, currency debasement; and (5) for the future world betterment, health, environment and community localism. Seek right future possibilities - with conscience.
For example, it has been proposed to www.cohre.org for the draft "Charter on the Right to the City" document an additional obligation of conscience by cities is to offer citizen protection from acts of terror by specifically resisting malevolent acts of destruction by "terrorist murderers". Otherwise such "Charter" document shall be unacceptable to citizens of conscience. The cities should commit themselves to policies prohibiting support of acts of terror that kill, with commitments to resist terrorist murderers. "Terrorist murderers" here means identifiable individual(s), organization(s) of people and/or leader(s) who verifiably -- by confessed admission or validated news media investigation or United Nations documentation process or nation-state legal process -- have committed or supported acts of violence which kill(ed) or maim(ed) people with intent to terrorize.
