Statement regarding the Centre for Social Cohesion’s report: ‘Hizb ut-Tahrir Ideology and Strategy’

Press Release

Tuesday, 03 November 2009

It is our opinion that this report is intended as a smear aimed at distracting our organisation from its work. However we would like to make the following points for the record: 1. The report is little more than a rehash of the same old and tired allegations that have been disproved on many previous occasions. It is a mix of untruths, material from extreme weblogs, neocon US think tanks and selective quotes from our material to support the anti-Islamic agenda of the Centre for Social Cohesion (CSC). 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.” 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 CSC is a subsidiary of Civitas which, in its report the ‘West Islam and Islamism’ advocated the assimilation of Muslims and ‘forced conversion’ to accept western values saying “It is not enough for the vast majority off decent, peaceful, law-abiding Muslims to renounce terror in principle, including September 11 and similar events…If they choose to live in Western liberal democratic societies, they must accept the values of liberal democracy—as Jews, Sikhs, Hindus and others have done for many years.” 3. Hizb ut-Tahrir works openly and has never hidden its work or objectives. 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. 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. This message is gaining clear support amongst Muslims and this directly contradicts the agenda of aggressive assimilationists like the CSC. 5. The neocon philosophy - for which there has been no stronger advocate in the UK than Douglas Murray (the director of the CSC) was that which argued to ‘convert’ the Muslim world to liberal democracy by military force. This strand of thinking in western societies has been extreme, divisive, and destructive, but is clearly alive and kicking in the CSC - and indeed on the front benches of the Conservative party. 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. 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. Such an untruth only serves to illustrate their ignorance of our group which has never and will never resort to violent actions as this is firmly against our Islamic beliefs and method of work. Indeed, the CSC report contradicts itself saying “HT is not a terrorist organisation”. 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. As for 7/7 and 9/11 we have made our position clear that these acts are forbidden in our Islamic opinion. In summary, this is not a sincere or objective attempt to analyse Hizb ut-Tahrir. Despite such smears and attacks we remain committed to our efforts to work to establish the Khilafah (Caliphate) in the Muslim world, and encourage the Muslim community in Britain to preserve our Islamic values. Hizb ut-Tahrir Britain 3rd November 2009 15 Dhul Qa’dah 1430 Add this Article to your Bookmark site Set as favorite Bookmark Email this Trackback(0)  TrackBack URI for this entry Comments (7) Subscribe to this comment's feed Abdul Rehman: ... A simple rebuttle to this report can be found on my blog: http://abdulrehman1924.wordpress.com/2009/11/05/the-csc-copy-and-pasting-again/ 1 report abuse vote down vote up November 05, 2009 - 01:09:55 Votes: +1 Abdul Rehman: ... Pandering to their neo-conservative paymasters is also on clear display. Without references, on pages 4 they state: “..a perceived Western ‘War on Islam” On page 7 they state: “..a perceived Western ‘War on Islam” on page 52 they state: “..perceived Western influences.” on Page 141 they state: “..perceived Western-led ‘War on Islam’” The use of the term “perceived” shows their desperate desire to manifest political correctness and legitimacy in neo-conservative circles that condemn Islamic shariah and justify the wars which have killed millions of innocent people around the world. This desperation clearly blinded their ability to make conclusive points, as statements are made about HT propagating the notion of a “perceived ‘War on Islam’” without actually stating *exactly* where HT say this. I can go on and on about the amateurish nature of this report but I guess it is expected. It is actually not very difficult to rebut every point using contextualisation, legitimately referenced reality and Islamic sources. But I will savour that for another day Inshallah. 2 report abuse vote down vote up November 05, 2009 - 00:23:49 Votes: +3 Abdul Rehman: ... A researcher is usually qualified to make interpretations about a particular subject, since it is assumed they are well read. But these neo-conservative researchers show their lack of depth and reading on page 18, when they state: “..HT’s economic policies are incoherent and it is unclear how the party intends to finance the wide-ranging responsibilities it sets itself towards its citizens.” Of course such policies will be “unclear” if one does not read about them. This is yet more evidence of lazy research, selective quoting and a desire to re-run second hand arguments to win brownie points. Apart from “The Economic System” there are countless articles and books written by members of HT, which talk about revenue generation, funding and investment within the Islamic state. To name but a few easily found sources missed by these neo-conservative - so-called - researchers: Abdul-Qadeem Zalloom’s “Funds in the Khilafah State”, talks about the rules governing the funds, their sources and types, from where they are collected, the time of their collection and the way they are collected and the sections in which they are kept. Adnan Khan has written a book about “Constructing an Industrialised Muslim world”. More recently HT has written “Towards a Tranquil Safe World under the Shade of the Economic System of Islam” where they clearly state Economic policy regarding funding and wealth generation using Islamic Juristic principles. 3 report abuse vote down vote up November 05, 2009 - 00:23:08 Votes: +2 Abdul Rehman: ... At the end of page 17, the neo-conservatives write: “In reality, HT’s state is a theocratic dictatorship. Article 35 of HT’s draft constitution stipulates: The Khalifah [Caliph] is the State. He possesses all of the authority of the State..” They selectively reference Article 35 of the Draft Constitution to backup their statement that “In reality, HT’s state is a theocratic dictatorship” In the Princeton dictionary, a dictatorship is defined as: “a form of government in which the ruler is an absolute dictator (not restricted by a constitution or laws or opposition etc.)” The same dictionary defines a theocracy as: “a political unit governed by a deity (or by officials thought to be divinely guided)” or “the belief in government by divine guidance.” Article 24 of HTs draft constitution states: “The Khaleefah is deputised by the Ummah with authority for the enactment of the divine law.” Article 26 states: “Every mature male and female Muslim, who is sane, has the right to participate in the election of the Khaleefah and in giving him the pledge (ba’iah). Non-Muslims have no right in this regard.” Article 28 states: “Nobody can become Khaleefah without being appointed by the Muslims. Nobody can hold the power of the Khilafah unless it is convened to him legitimately, as is the case with any contract in Islam.” Article 36 states: “The Khaleefah is restricted in what he adopts by the Ahkam Shar’iah. He is forbidden to adopt any rule that is not soundly deduced from the divine texts. He is restricted to the rules he has adopted and to the method for deduction that he has chosen. Accordingly, he is prevented from adopting a rule deduced by a method that contradicts the method he has adopted, and he must not enact any command that contradicts the rules he has adopted.” Article 101 states: “The members of the Majlis al-Ummah are those people who represent the Muslims in respect of expressing their views to the Khaleefah when consulted. Non-Muslims are allowed to be members of the Majlis al-Ummah so that they can voice their complaints in respect to unjust acts performed by the rulers or the misapplication of the Islamic laws.” Each article is backed by Islamic sources; including Article 26 which states that “non-Muslims have no right in this regard”. Please ask the “CSC research staff [who] are trained in Islamic affairs” to Islamic evidences which contradict any of these cannons. Clearly, “HTs state” is not a theocratic dictatorship as the Khaleef cannot assume power by claiming to be appointed by God, but can only attain power through an election by an elected majority. According to the cited cannons, he is clearly accountable to the people and is entirely restricted in what he adopts by the Ahkam Shari’ah. Therefore, by definition, “HTs state” is not a theocratic dictatorship. 4 report abuse vote down vote up November 05, 2009 - 00:22:24 Votes: +2 Abdul Rehman: ... In fact pages 14, 15, 16, 28, 33, 36, 45, 49, 50, 51, 53, 54, 61, 65, 66, 72, 83, 93, 123, 147 all quote from works by Suha Taji Farouqi as a secondary source without checking the root source. They even quote the well known reference inventor Maajid Nawaz on pages 19, 46, 53, 56,61,67,93,110,117. The TraditionalIslamism and abu-ibrahim blogs have ample referenced evidences of Maajid Nawaz’s false attributions and constructions. Shockingly, blinded by desperation, they mention and quote a VAT fraudster, convicted criminal and serial reference inventor, Rashad Ali, on pages 63,67,93, whose lies have also been exposed on the TraditionalIslamism blog many times. Clearly, this is very lazy research. In fact, borrowing from serial reference inventors and petty criminals, without actually checking and confirming the source, is amateurish research. Evidence of selective quoting is also on display. 5 report abuse vote down vote up November 05, 2009 - 00:21:48 Votes: +1 Abdul-Kareem: ... According to the CSC report: For a group or individual to be identified as HT, or an HT front group they would have to advocate all of the following: • Belief in a global political Muslim bloc – the “ummah”; • Advocacy of an “Islamic” state – the Caliphate; • Politicised understanding of Islam as a divinely inspired socio-economic political system; • Belief that this system is the only ideology that can solve ‘social problems’; • Advocacy of “shariah” as divine state law; • Rejection of democracy. These are fundamental Islamic concepts that all mainstream Muslims believe in. This shows that this report is not about Hizb ut-Tahrir but about Islam itself. One week after Bangladesh banned the Hizb the government rounded up 3000 Muslims in a so-called "anti-militancy" crackdown. The kuffar are using the Hizb as an excuse to ban fundamental Islamic concepts. If they ban the Hizb then they will also ban other groups that hold on to Islam in a strong manner. وَمَكَرُواْ وَمَكَرَ اللّهُ وَاللّهُ خَيْرُ الْمَاكِرِينَ "And they planned and Allah (also) planned, and Allah is the best of planners." 6 report abuse vote down vote up November 04, 2009 - 19:26:53 Votes: +2 H Khan: ... The World-stage is prepared and the time has come for the Muslims to arise and become leaders of humanity; upholding Truth and Justice whilst subduing tyranny and oppression. "Verily, those who disbelieve spend their wealth to hinder (men) from the path of Allah, and so will they continue to spend it; but in the end it will become an anguish for them. Then, they will be overcome. And those who disbelieve will be gathered to Hell." [TMQ: Surah al-Anfal 8:36] 7 report abuse vote down vote up November 03, 2009 - 21:58:06 Votes: +2 Write comment  Show/hide comment form Name Email Comment smaller | bigger I have read and agree to the Terms of Usage. Add Comment